More than one-tenth of UK foreign aid spent on climate-related projects since 2010 has been channelled through consultancies, a new Carbon Brief investigation reveals.
To obtain these figures, Carbon Brief analysed more than 25,000 transactions listed on the government’s Development Tracker website from projects that contribute to the UK’s International Climate Finance (ICF).
While most UK climate funds are spent via large international bodies, such as the World Bank and UN agencies, a large proportion has been entrusted to the private sector.
At least £2.11bn has been handed to dozens of management consultancies, such as KPMG, PwC and Adam Smith International. They have provided guidance on everything from hydropower dam construction in Nepal to farm diversification in Ethiopia.
These consultancies are nearly all headquartered in the UK and other global-north countries. Experts tell Carbon Brief there is opposition among some developing countries to climate aid being funnelled first through foreign consultancies rather than disbursed directly via local actors.
This also comes at a time of wider scrutiny from politicians and academics of the outsized role relatively expensive private consultants play in public life.
Climate transactions
The UK has committed to providing “climate finance” to developing countries to help them deal with climate change. The government distributes this money primarily through ICF, which is part of the foreign-aid budget.
Most UK climate finance is spent via a combination of UN agencies, development banks, international NGOs, management consultancies, foreign governments and local charities.
These organisations are entrusted by government departments with carrying out projects, conducting research and dispersing funds in developing countries.
While much of the money will have gone directly to projects, all of these organisations take cuts along the way to pay staff and other expenses. The spending decisions they make affect how much of it ends up directly benefiting climate-vulnerable people and funding low-carbon infrastructure.
Data on all the financial transfers from the UK government to these entities can be found on the “transactions” section of every project page on the government’s Development Tracker website. This includes everything from accommodation costs for aid staff through to large contributions to UN funds.
In June 2023, Carbon Brief extracted transaction data from every ICF-tagged project on the government’s Development Tracker website.
(This includes every project that contains a component of climate-related funding, but many projects also cover other issues, such as education and healthcare. Therefore, figures are higher than Carbon Brief’s previous reporting on the climate-specific portions of these funds.)
In total, £19.12bn has been “disbursed” to or “placed at the disposal of” recipient agencies, governments and other entities between 2010 and 2023. In addition, a far smaller sum of £832.96m is classed as “expenditure”, which covers money spent on goods and services.
Of the funds disbursed, information is missing for £4.86bn worth of transactions, where “receiver organisation” is listed as “N/A” or similar.
Consultant spending
The government has channelled £2.52bn of its ICF-labelled funds – 13% of the total – through private companies. Most of this money, £2.11bn, was spent via organisations Carbon Brief has identified as consultancies.
This amounts to 11% of the total – or 15%, once anonymous transactions are excluded.
Broadly speaking, management consultancies are companies that provide advice on how to run other organisations more effectively. They range from small, specialist companies to the “big four” accounting firms, which are multinational companies and span a large range of activities.
The share of total spending placed at the disposal of these companies for climate-related projects, including the largest recipients, is shown in the chart below.
The UK government has both scaled up its spending on consultants and made it easier for public-sector bodies to hire them in recent years. At the same time, their role in public life has been under growing scrutiny. Academics, politicians and officials have criticised the “outsourcing” of responsibilities to expensive private contractors.
In 2020, UK Treasury minister Theodore Agnew warned that a growing reliance on consultants “infantilises the civil service”. A 2016 National Audit Office report found that hiring outside specialists cost the government twice as much as an equivalent staff member.
Responding to these concerns in her speech at the Labour party conference this week, shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves vowed to “slash” consultancy spending by half, if her party wins the next election.
The Conservative government has cut overall foreign-aid spending in recent years, citing the pressures of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The data extracted by Carbon Brief shows that, while consultancy spending within climate-related funds has also dropped year-on-year since 2019, the proportion of these funds going to consultancies has remained fairly constant. Indeed, an investigation by Climate Home News in 2018 identified a similar proportion being funnelled to these organisations.
54 consultancies
The table below shows the 54 consultancies that have been handed UK government funds to carry out climate-related projects since 2011.
Nearly all of these consultancies are headquartered in developed countries – 49 in total – and 33 of those are based in the UK. (Some consultancies have large regional branches in developing countries, but these have been combined together for this analysis.)
(Carbon Brief also identified an additional 76 consultancies listed under “expenditures” that have been paid far smaller sums, totalling just £8.04m, to carry out “technical and advisory work”.)
The biggest consultancy recipient since 2011 has been Adam Smith International (ASI), a “global advisory company”, which has been handed a total of £333.21m. An ASI spokesperson tells Carbon Brief the organisation “[does] not recognise” the figure derived from UK government reporting.
ASI’s biggest climate-related project, for which it received £100.14m between 2012 and 2017, was the Nigeria Infrastructure Advisory Facility (NIAF).
The consultancy led an international consortium that implemented this programme and provided advice to the Nigerian government. This included designing various climate-related projects such as rolling out solar mini-grids and clean cookstoves for rural areas.
According to ASI, “in the power sector, NIAF’s headline achievement has been its role in the privatisation process”. An ASI spokesperson tells Carbon Brief that, at the time the consultancy stopped managing the NIAF project in 2017, its “efforts to bolster the power supply” were saving Nigerian consumers more than £1bn per year.
The company has faced controversy in the past and was accused by MPs on the International Development Committee in 2017 of displaying a “serious lack of judgement”, following allegations that it had invented testimonials or pressured beneficiaries to provide positive feedback.
At the time, ASI issued a lengthy document responding to the allegations and stating it acted in “good faith”. It has continued to receive climate-related funds since, although its annual disbursements have dropped significantly since 2016.
The consultancy IMC Worldwide, which has now been renamed DT Global, has been another major recipient of UK climate-related funds, accruing £267.16m in total.
One of its larger projects is Accelerating Investment and Infrastructure in Nepal, for which it has received £12.88m to advise the Nepalese government. Specifically, for this project the consultancy’s focus has been overcoming “delivery bottlenecks” to making large-scale investments in projects such as hydropower dams.
Large portions of spending have also gone to “big four” firms KPMG and PwC. Across their UK-based operations and offices in developing countries, these companies have received £242.37m and £204.37m, respectively.
Across several regional offices, KPMG has received £242.37m in funds from the UK’s ICF budget. Its biggest project was the Building Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Extremes and Disasters project, which saw KPMG East Africa handed £117.40m between 2014 and 2019.
This project involved KPMG managing grants awarded to 15 projects, ranging from helping farmers in Ethiopia to diversify their activities to preparing vulnerable people in Senegalese cities to prepare for flooding. The consultancy also monitored project progress.
PwC has received £204.37m in funds, including £33.81m for a project titled Private Sector Development programme in the Democratic Republic of Congo between 2013 and 2022.
The consultancy implemented a component of the project called Essor, which focused on improving “the country’s business environment” and “equitable and affordable access to renewable energy”. This included developing a bidding process for solar mini-grids and attracting external investors to the DRC by identifying barriers to entry.
Local capacities
International climate finance is explicitly framed as a way for relatively wealthy, developed countries to support climate action in developing countries, given their greater responsibility for causing climate change and capacity for dealing with it.
Reliance on consultants from the global north to carry out climate-finance programmes overseas can, therefore, be contentious.
Clare Shakya, a climate finance expert at the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), tells Carbon Brief that while consultancies tend not to be transparent about the rates they charge, she estimates they are in the region of 20% of the grant value.
Given this, Saleemul Huq, director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development (ICCCAD) in Bangladesh, tells Carbon Brief, the large amount of ICF funding that likely remains in developed countries is “against the spirit of supporting the development of local capacities”. He adds:
“Funding actions at the local level to tackle climate change, particularly adaptation, works best when investing in local capacities and communities rather than international consultants. There is a long history of sending international consultants to developing countries to assist in tackling climate change, which has not resulted in any real benefits after the international consultants leave the country.”
Faten Aggad, a climate diplomacy expert and adjunct professor at the University of Cape Town, tells Carbon Brief:
“Many international consultancy companies have no boots on the ground [and] recruit ad-hoc consultants – many of whom do not understand the context in which they operate.”
Least developed countries (LDCs) and small-island states, in particular, have pushed for funding for more long-term climate action rather than the project-based activities consultancies often support, according to Shakya. She adds:
“The poorest and most climate-impacted countries are clear that business-as-usual in climate finance is not working for them. Short-term projects driven by external experts are failing to provide the support they need to transform to low-carbon development and greater climate resilience.”
Some developing countries have also emphasised the need for climate finance that directly flows to local communities. The LDC group, which represents 47 nations at UN climate talks, has called for 70% of climate finance to support “local-level action” by 2030. LDC chair Madeleine Diouf Sarr tells Carbon Brief:
“It’s really important that climate finance that is available is spent wisely and used effectively. Climate finance must respond to and address the real needs and priorities of the countries it sets out to support, as identified by those countries.”
An ASI spokesperson tells Carbon Brief that the consultancy “ardently ensures optimal value for money in [its] projects”, with “competitively and responsibly structured” fees and “transparency in [its] financial dealings, including profitability and expenditure”.
They also state the organisation “places a paramount emphasis on both leveraging and strengthening local capacities in all our projects”, with the “majority” of ASI funds being used to engage national consultants and partner with local groups.
To illustrate this, they note that the NIAF programme in Nigeria increased its team composition from 60% to 80% Nigerian nationals during ASI’s tenure, and saw some consultants take up senior roles in the Nigerian government.
Both KPMG and PwC declined to comment on Carbon Brief’s findings or the criticism of consultancies running climate-finance projects. They also declined to share information on how much money they retain as fees for their services on these projects. DT Global did not respond to a request from Carbon Brief for comment.
The UK government declined to comment on its use of consultancies to administer climate-finance projects.
Other climate fund recipients
Carbon Brief’s analysis shows that most climate-related, foreign-aid spending is channelled into multilateral institutions, such as UN bodies and development banks. In total, they received £6.49bn – one-third of the total spending.
By far the largest recipient of UK disbursements is the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development – a branch of the World Bank that lends money to developing countries. It has received £1.40bn in total.
This is followed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), Unicef and the UN World Food Programme, which received £1.01bn, £904.24m and £750.05m, respectively.
Joe Thwaites, a senior advocate for international climate finance at the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC), tells Carbon Brief that the UK is generally “better” than other wealthy countries at distributing money via multilateral institutions.
He says this is often a more popular option with developing countries – as evidenced by the long push for a new “loss and damage” fund – because they can often have more input into how money is spent. Thwaites adds:
“When it’s a multilateral fund it’s easier to have a say…whereas, if you’re in a bilateral relationship, there’s a big power inequity there.”
Far less money is sent directly to governments and public-sector organisations – just £2.49bn in total. This is less than the money channelled via the private sector.
Roughly one-quarter of this public-sector money has gone to governments and agencies in developed countries. This could mean paying for anything from the UK Met Office helping with typhoon forecasting in the Philippines to the German development agency GIZ assisting with a water management project in South Africa.
This leaves just £1.86bn – or 13% of the UK’s climate-related spending since 2011 – that goes directly to governments in developing countries.
A small selection of developing-country governments have received large sums of money directly from ICF funds. For example, Ethiopia’s ministry of finance and economic development has received £509.52m and the government of the Pakistani province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has received £431.24m.
A large variety of NGOs have also received big disbursements from the UK government to carry out climate-related projects in developing countries.
While around £327.87m has gone to national NGOs located in target countries, far more – £1.87bn – has gone to large international NGOs, such as Population Service International (£116.84m), Norwegian Refugee Council (£97.47m) and Save the Children UK (£91.68m).
By far the largest NGO recipient has been BRAC, a Bangladesh-based international NGO, that has been given £448.07m, largely as part of a partnership to provide basic service to the poorest people in Bangladesh – including “increased access to climate resilient services”.
Methodology
In June 2023, Carbon Brief extracted data from the “transactions” tabs on every ICF Development Tracker page to understand which organisations were being given money by the UK government to carry out these projects. Data was extracted by Tom Prater using Import.io and Octoparse.
This analysis is based primarily on “disbursements” data – defined by the government as “the amount placed at the disposal of a recipient country or agency”. As well as projects that are 100% International Climate Finance (ICF), this data also covers projects that cover a mix of ICF and other types of development aid, such as education and healthcare.
The Development Tracker website includes data on “organisation type” for each transaction. However, this data was not included for around £4.54bn worth of transactions. Carbon Brief manually filled in missing entries where possible, using the same categories employed by the UK government and referring to the organisation profile pages on the global development news platform Devex as a guide.
Devex was also used by Carbon Brief to identify the country in which institutions were headquartered and whether they could be described as “consultancies”. For some smaller consultancies or ones that have been closed down, Carbon Brief identified them as consultancies using the UK government’s Companies House website.
Some transactions could not be assigned an organisation type or any other details. Examples include those listed as “corrections” or “journal transactions”, which indicate cases where accounting corrections have been made. In some cases, the name of the organisation is “withheld”.
This analysis covers transaction data listed for ICF projects overseen by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) and the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). However, the majority of transactions listed under BEIS and Defra did not provide information about which organisations were involved.
The post Revealed: Tenth of UK’s climate-aid spending goes via private consultancies appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Revealed: Tenth of UK’s climate-aid spending goes via private consultancies
The EPA released its latest enforcement and compliance report and touted the agency’s crackdown on environmental crimes under the Trump administration, yet 75 percent of the criminal cases closed last fiscal year originated before the president took office.
For over a decade, Hino Motors Ltd. imported and sold more than 105,000 vehicles and engines with misleading or fabricated emissions data, until testing by the Environmental Protection Agency revealed the emissions-fraud scheme.
Trump’s EPA Claims Strong Enforcement. But the Data Tells a Different Story.
The “cost” of cutting UK emissions to net-zero is less than the cost of a single fossil-fuel price shock, according to a new report from the Climate Change Committee (CCC).
Moreover, a net-zero economy would be almost completely protected from fossil-fuel price spikes in the future, says the government’s climate advisory body.
The report is being published amid surging oil and gas prices after the US and Israel attacked Iran, which has triggered chaos on international energy markets.
It builds on the CCC’s earlier advice on the seventh “carbon budget”, which found that it would cost the UK less than 0.2% of GDP per year to reach its net-zero target.
In the new report, the CCC sets out for the first time a full cost-benefit analysis of the UK’s net-zero target, including the cost of clean-energy investments, lower fossil-fuel bills, the health benefits of cleaner air and the avoided climate damages from cutting emissions.
It finds that the country’s legally binding target to reach “net-zero emissions” by 2050 will bring benefits worth an average of £110bn per year to the UK from 2025-2050, with a total “net present value” of £1,580bn.
The CCC states that its new report responds to requests from parliamentarians and government officials seeking to better understand its cost assumptions, amid the ongoing cost-of-living crisis in the UK.
The report also pushes back on “misinformation” about the cost of net-zero, with CCC chair Nigel Topping saying in a statement that it is “important that decision-makers and commentators are using accurate information to inform debates”.
Co-benefits outweigh costs
The CCC’s new report is the first to compare the overall cost of decarbonising with the wider benefits of avoiding dangerous climate change, as well as other “co-benefits”, such as cleaner air and healthier diets.
It sets the CCC’s previous estimate of the net cost of net-zero – some £4bn per year on average out to 2050 – against the value of avoided damages and other co-benefits.
These “co-benefits” are estimated to provide £2bn to £8bn per year in net benefit by the middle of the century, according to the report.
The CCC notes that this approach allowed it to “fully appraise the value of the net-zero transition”.
It concludes that the net benefits of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 are an average of £110bn per year from 2025 to 2050.
These benefits to the UK amount to more than £1.5tn in total and start to outweigh costs as soon as 2029, says the CCC, as shown in the figure below.
In addition, the CCC says that every pound spent on net-zero will bring benefits worth 2.2-4.1 times as much.
This updated analysis includes the value of benefits from improved air quality being 20% higher in 2050 than previously suggested by the CCC.
However, the “most significant” benefit of the transition is the avoidance of climate damages, with an estimated value of £40-130bn in 2050. The report states:
“Climate change is here, now. Until the world reaches net-zero CO2 [carbon dioxide] emissions, with deep reductions in other greenhouse gases, global temperatures will continue to rise. That will inevitably lead to increasingly extreme weather, including in the UK.”
The CCC’s conclusion is in line with findings from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) in 2025, which suggested that the economic damages of unmitigated climate change would be far more severe than the cost of reaching net-zero.
The CCC notes that its approach to the cost-benefit analysis of the net-zero target is in line with the Treasury’s “green book”, which is used to guide the valuation of policy choices across UK government.
It says that one of the key drivers of overall economic benefit is a more efficient energy system, with losses halved compared with today’s economy.
It says that the UK currently loses £60bn a year through energy waste. For example, it says nearly half of the energy in gas is lost during combustion to generate electricity.
In a net-zero energy system, such energy waste would be halved to £30bn per year, says the CCC, thanks to electrified solutions, such as electric vehicles (EVs) and heat pumps.
For example, it notes that EVs are around four times more efficient than a typical petrol car and so require roughly a quarter of the energy to travel a given distance.
Collectively, these efficiencies are expected to halve energy losses, saving the equivalent of around £1,000 per household, according to the CCC.
Net-zero protects against price spikes
The CCC tests its seventh carbon budget analysis against a range of “sensitivities” that reflect the uncertainties in modelling methodologies and assumptions for key technologies. This includes testing the impact of a fossil-fuel price spike between now and 2050.
In the original analysis, the committee had assumed that the cost of fossil fuels would remain largely flat after 2030.
However, the report notes that, in reality, fossil-fuel prices are “highly volatile”. It adds:
“Fossil-fuel prices are…driven by international commodity markets that can fluctuate sharply in response to geopolitical events, supply constraints, and global demand shifts. A system that relies heavily on fossil fuels is, therefore, exposed to significant price shocks and heightened risk to energy security.”
It draws on previous OBR modelling of the impact of a gas price spike. This suggested that future price spikes would cost the UK government between 2-3% of GDP in each year the spike occurs, assuming similar levels of support to households and businesses as was provided in 2022-23.
The CCC adapts this approach to test a gas-price spike during the seventh carbon budget period, which runs from 2038 to 2042.
It finds that, if a similar energy crisis occurred in 2040 and no further action had been taken to cut UK emissions, then average household energy bills would increase by 59%. In contrast, bills would only rise by 4%, if the UK was on the path to net-zero by 2050.
The committee says that when considering the impact on households, businesses and the government, a single fossil-fuel price shock of this nature would cost the country more than the total estimated cost of reaching.
The finding is particularly relevant in the context of rising oil and gas prices following conflict in the Middle East, which has prompted some politicians and commentators to call for the UK to slow down its efforts to cut emissions.
In his statement, Topping said that it was “more important than ever for the UK to move away from being reliant on volatile foreign fossil fuels, to clean, domestic, less wasteful energy”.
Angharad Hopkinson, political campaigner for Greenpeace UK, welcomed this finding, saying in a statement:
“Each time this happens it gets harder and harder to swallow the cost. The best thing the UK can do for the climate is also the best thing for the cost of living crisis – get off the uncontrollable oil and gas rollercoaster that drags us into wars we didn’t want but still have to pay for. Inaction on climate is unaffordable.”
Benefits remain even if key technologies are more expensive
In addition to testing the impact of more volatile fossil-fuel prices, the CCC also tests the implications if key low-carbon technologies are cheaper – or more expensive – than thought.
It concludes that the upfront investments in net-zero yield significant overall benefits under all of the “sensitivities” it tested. As such, it offers a rebuttal to the common narrative that net-zero will cost the UK trillions of pounds.
The net cost of net-zero comes out at between 0% and 0.5% of GDP between 2025 and 2050, says the CCC, under the various sensitivities it tested.
“This sensitivity analysis shows that an electrified energy system is both a more efficient and a more secure energy system,” adds the CCC.
Finally, the report takes into account the costs of the alternative to net-zero. It looks at what would need to be spent in an economy where net-zero was not pursued any further.
The CCC says that the gross system cost of the balanced pathway falls below the baseline cost from 2041, which is consistent with its previous seventh carbon budget advice.
As shown in the chart below, costs fall under a net-zero pathway between 2025 to 2050, whereas they rise in the baseline of no further action.
Moreover, the total costs of the alternatives are broadly similar, with the relatively small difference shown by the solid line.
The decline in energy system costs shown in the figure above is broadly driven by more efficient low-carbon technologies, says the CCC, helping costs to fall from 12% of GDP today to 7% by the middle of the century.
The CCC’s new analysis comes ahead of the UK parliament voting on and legislating for the seventh carbon budget, which it must do before 30 June 2026.
The post CCC: Net-zero will protect UK from fossil-fuel price shocks appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Climate change and urban development are exacerbating floods in the region, experts say.
After months of intense drought conditions, Kenya was inundated by rain late last week, triggering severe flooding that killed more than 40 people. In the country’s capital city, Nairobi, a month’s worth of rain fell in 24 hours.
Following Months of Drought, Floods in Kenya Kill More Than 40 People
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits