Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« The last chance saloons | Main | Buying research »

Just what is DFiD spending money on?

On a whim, I downloaded the monthly expenditure details from the Department for International Development for August 2015, the most recent figures available.

Of interest are payments to:

  • ClientEarth £246,171 Aid programme
  • Climate Policy Initiative £32,500 Project delivery
  • WWF £371,860 Aid programme, Asia, Caribbean and Overseas Territories
  • World Resources Institute £867,847 Aid programme grants,Policy division
  • Solar Aid £239,875
  • Environmental Investigation Agency £69,416 Aid programme grants, policy division

I don't know about you but you could get the impression that a great deal of what DFiD reports as overseas aid spending is actually bungs to environmentalists.


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (63)

golf charlie:

"Nowhere do they consider the possibility that darkest Africa would be more enlightened by lights that work when it is dark outside. Research suggests that when it is dark outside, it is more likely to be dark inside. Moles at DFiD say this has never been noticed."

Aye, there's that to it, though really it is understandable because the DFiD cuties don't do all that boring techie stuff and thinking.

Do you recall that Spanish solar scam? Where said firm - I forget the specifics but JD did a piece on it as I remember, a company claiming on the taxpayer for 24hr - feed in subsidies, solar power generating lecky at night - wow that's some trick ;).

Oct 30, 2015 at 2:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

Show us your CBAs (cost-benefit analyses) Mrs !
- Knowing DfID is spending money on dodgy projects on one thing, but surely they do
#1 CBAs
and #2 Project evaluation
to test that they are spending the taxpayers funds wisely.
Yes, It seems that "DFID has applied VfM criteria to the selection process for at least one of its key funding streams for NGOs, the Programme Partnership Arrangement (PPA)" from page 22 of an interesting Australian report on Gov Aid Value For Money VfM
Secondly : "the UK Government has established an Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) that is separate from DFID and reports directly to the parliamentary International Development Select Committee"
I can google DfiD and cost-benefit analyses, but maybe someone has more experience.

I note our "new friend" Steve is a biogas enthusiast to the extent he brought it up 3 times in his posts, but on a brief glance I see this

"If the economic costs of the GHG emissions of the diesel generators are not taken into account, the diesel generators would usually be the preferred supply option."
"Biomass-fuelled gasifiers are not clean technologies in terms of GHG emissions. In fact, their emissions are high and tar is produced in addition." pdf

What about WWF ? In Oct 2012 report about WWF working with DfID it was told "It is therefore recommended that WWF-UK develop or access skills in cost-benefit techniques."
WTF only 3 years ago they weren't upto scratch on CBAs !

: Interesting 2010 report on WWFGreen Risk and Red Ink: WWF’s Threat to Free Enterprise

In their annual PPA Report 2012 pdf they say this

"iii. Do you track any specific value for money measures in any of your programmes (e.g. unit costs, cost effectiveness measures etc.)? If so, review performance on these measures.
Our programmes do not systematically track VFM measures as our Network
Financial Standards do not require this. However, this year progress was made in a
few programmes"

Sometimes they do CBAs eg August 2015 A new WWF cost-benefit analysis of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification but that's a CBA to businesses not a CBA of WWF's own spending.

Oct 30, 2015 at 6:42 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Those monthly numbers Bish quotes pale in comparison
"The International Climate Fund is a five-year (2011-2016), £3.87 billion fund managed jointly by the Department for International Development, Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs" ..not that I am suggesting it all goes in bungs to ebvironmentalists

Oct 30, 2015 at 6:56 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

I see Solar Aid won charity awards
R4 You and Youras last week had an item about charity awards ceremonie sbeing 300quid a ticket dos
and that some charity money was going on sending their staff to them.

Oct 30, 2015 at 7:35 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Sadly this is a very clear example of how government is wasted. Much of this money will be spent by these bodies producing papers or commissioning research all of which basically push for government money to be spent in areas of interest to these ngos. If the dfid budget was actually better spent and which provided better value, it would be spent directly on infrastructure projects in developing countries, or refugee centres in North Africa or Turkey to save lives of people trying to sail across the med. instead the dfid budget is used to pay the mortgages of ngo employees who produce pointless reports.

Oct 30, 2015 at 7:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterAbc

I wasn't claming any about GHG emissions, simply saying it helped the people, I met, while on holiday.

Good to see DfID reports that can be believed!

DfID is just an extension of our colonial past, dressed in different clothes..barely different.

Oct 30, 2015 at 9:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterSteve

P.s Sorry Stewgreen. You're right I'm a newbie. I'll get my coat, I'll see myself out. Didn't realise it was an old boys club. Ta da!

Oct 30, 2015 at 9:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterSteve

Steve, there is nothing wrong with being a newbie, but some people are not quite so gullible as the Green Blob assume.

If DFID could provide a list of their success stories, that survive without subsidy, they would. They can't, so they don't.

As a yachtie I am familiar with the abilities of wind for propulsion, and solar, wind, towed generators, etc for producing electricity. I also have an understanding of using a watermaker to produce drinkable water from supplies contaminated with bacteria, salt etc. If these were repackaged as units that were portable in backpacks, for deployment to disaster areas, DFID would have a commercially viable product with the opportunity of commercial spinoffs.

Oct 30, 2015 at 12:29 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Dung is a biofuel isn't it?

Oct 30, 2015 at 11:32 PM | Unregistered Commenterkellydown

Steve - blogs like this & others similar tend to attract a group of people interested in the blog owners range of interest'
it may seem like a old boys club to you but at least it gives you a place to voice your opinions :-)

you said "Did is just an extension of our colonial past"

and agree with this, we are no longer the power/economy we once were, time to look after the home country first.

ps. can't help but think most polls know the only job/money source next, is in the UN/EU so they pay the piper.

Oct 30, 2015 at 11:56 PM | Unregistered Commenterdougieh

@Steve its a free forum here I don't think I said anything at all intimidating. You did plenty of challenging of other people and they dealt with it..So i don't see why you want to go off in a huff.

Yes I did say \\I note our "new friend" Steve is a biogas enthusiast// so that does reference you being a newbie.
then quoted a report that said diesel was preferred as it seemed cheaper if you don't put a cost on GHG emissions.
"If the economic costs of the GHG emissions of the diesel generators are not taken into account, the diesel generators would usually be the preferred supply option."

and you reply with "I wasn't claming any about GHG emissions, simply saying it helped the people, I met, while on holiday."

Neither did I say you did. I was just making the point that although it seemed to work for those farmers you saw the report thought it's not a pancea and seems to say similar farmers would be better off inbesting in diesel rather than biogas tech

Oct 31, 2015 at 6:53 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

WWF major source of income is the forest stewardship scam. P

Oct 31, 2015 at 7:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterGerard

So 'Alan the Brit', you don't have a problem with the Gates and Soros' of the world , funding and influencing as they please with their cheque books!

Nov 2, 2015 at 1:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>