Annual Financial Performance, Farming Sample Clauses

Annual Financial Performance, Farming. The calculation of annual revenue and expenditures for mussel farming in Table 3 is based on data extracted from the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) of the European Union1. Average farm data for the years from 2014 to 2016 for Denmark longline mussel culture, and from 2014 to 2015 for bottom culture in the Netherlands are reported in the first two columns of Table 3, standardised to a production output of 1.000 tonnes. The reason for excluding the year 2016 from the Dutch farm data is due to the exceptional poor performance of the industry in that year, primarily attributed to poor mussel quality. Inclusion of the Dutch financial performance for 2016 would cause significant negative distortion to the data, and as such was omitted from the analysis. Annual revenue for longline culture in the Netherlands is calculated by applying the prices from Table 1 in the Scenario Design to the estimated production volume, net of tare. In this case study, no additional revenue from subsidies or work for third parties are assumed. Cost of mussel farming is broken down by operating cost (OPEX) and capital cost (CAPEX). OPEX includes expenditures directly attributable to the day to day farming of mussels on the Space@Sea platform while CAPEX relates to the depreciation, or wear and tear, of machinery and equipment as well as the cost of financing capital (i.e. interest payments). The calculation of these costs is based on the selection of the most appropriate per tonne cost from the Danish longline and Dutch bottom culture data, or a combination of both. For example, the category ‘wages and salary’ uses the annual salary per worker from the Netherlands but the productivity (i.e. tonnes per worker) from the Danish data. This is because while the annual salary is likely to reflect the country of operation, labour productivity is expected to be influenced by the method of farming. For energy use, while it is also likely for the method of farming to be of considerable influence, Dutch cost per tonne is applied owing to the fact that the Space@Sea platform is offshore and would therefore incur additional fuel use compared to the average Danish longline farm. The energy cost per tonne of mussels production is only applied to the seed and juvenile mussels as the energy or transport cost for consumption mussels will be borne by the processing plant. The remaining OPEX items are taken at the average cost per tonne of the Danish longline and Dutch ...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Annual Financial Performance, Farming. The seabream farming model is based on data from a combination of data sources and methods. These include data from the AquaVlan model8, as well as STECF data for seabream cage system farming in Spain and trout RAS farming in Finland11. The latter was selected because it was the closest proxy for RAS farming that STECF reported financial information for. That is, there was no information for other RAS farming systems (e.g. seabream, salmon, other marine aquatic animals), and nor did any other country report data for trout RAS farming besides Finland. Therefore, Finnish trout RAS farming was selected to provide some insight into the costs of RAS operations. Where possible, the cost structure of RAS farming in Finland was adapted to Spanish economic conditions. For example, while labour productivity (tonnes per employee) is derived from the Finnish data, annual salary per employee is assumed to reflect the Spanish seabream cage farming case. The reason is twofold: 1) the economic conditions for the Space@Sea case study is more likely to resemble seabream cage farming in Spain, and 2) the Finnish data for RAS farming reports considerable losses (more than 50% of revenue), primarily attributable to high labour cost and other operational costs. This seems unrealistic for farms to continue operation. The AquaVlan model, on the other hand, is a bioeconomic model from an Interreg project about aquaculture in Flanders and the Netherlands developed by LEI (now named Wageningen Economic Research) in collaboration with XXXXXX (now named Wageningen Marine Research)8. The model was built from a set of aquaculture models applied in previous projects and utilises cost components collected from literature review and expert consultations12. The final Space@Sea model is the average of RAS farming based on STECF data, adapting the Finnish trout RAS cost structure to economic conditions of Spanish seabream cage farming, and the AquaVlan model for RAS farming. The only exception is capital investment, which is purely based on the AquaVlan model because it contains detailed information breakdown of capital investment (see Table 9). For STECF data, average earnings and cost for seabream cage farming in Spain over the 3 years from 2014 to 2016, inclusive, are used to establish the economic conditions applicable to Space@Sea. As data for trout RAS farming in Finland is only available for 2015 and 2016, the average cost structure of those years is considered in the model. More speci...
Sample 1

Related to Annual Financial Performance, Farming

  • Financial Performance Covenants Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 7.01, in the event that the U.S. Borrower fails to comply with the requirements of any Financial Performance Covenant, until the expiration of the 10th day subsequent to the date the certificate calculating such Financial Performance Covenant is required to be delivered pursuant to Section 5.04(c), Holdings shall have the right to issue Permitted Cure Securities for cash or otherwise receive cash contributions to the capital of Holdings, and, in each case, to contribute any such cash to the capital of Intermediate Holdings (which shall contribute all such cash to the capital of the U.S. Borrower) (collectively, the "Cure Right"), and upon the receipt by U.S. Borrower of such cash (the "Cure Amount") pursuant to the exercise by Holdings of such Cure Right such Financial Performance Covenant shall be recalculated giving effect to the following pro forma adjustments: (i) EBITDA shall be increased, solely for the purpose of measuring the Financial Performance Covenants and not for any other purpose under this Agreement, by an amount equal to the Cure Amount; and (ii) If, after giving effect to the foregoing recalculations, the U.S. Borrower shall then be in compliance with the requirements of all Financial Performance Covenants, the U.S. Borrower shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of the Financial Performance Covenants as of the relevant date of determination with the same effect as though there had been no failure to comply therewith at such date, and the applicable breach or default of the Financial Performance Covenants that had occurred shall be deemed cured for this purposes of the Agreement.

  • Annual Performance Evaluation On either a fiscal year or calendar year basis, (consistently applied from year to year), the Bank shall conduct an annual evaluation of Executive’s performance. The annual performance evaluation proceedings shall be included in the minutes of the Board meeting that next follows such annual performance review.

  • Ongoing Performance Measures The Department intends to use performance-reporting tools in order to measure the performance of Contractor(s). These tools will include the Contractor Performance Survey (Exhibit H), to be completed by Customers on a quarterly basis. Such measures will allow the Department to better track Vendor performance through the term of the Contract(s) and ensure that Contractor(s) consistently provide quality services to the State and its Customers. The Department reserves the right to modify the Contractor Performance Survey document and introduce additional performance-reporting tools as they are developed, including online tools (e.g. tools within MFMP or on the Department's website).

  • Annual Performance Bonus During the Employment Term, the Executive shall be entitled to participate in the STIP, with such opportunities as may be determined by the Chief Executive Officer in his sole discretion (“Target Bonuses”), and as may be increased (but not decreased, except for across-the-board reductions generally applicable to the Company’s senior executives) from time to time, and the Executive shall be entitled to receive full payment of any award under the STIP, determined pursuant to the STIP (a “Bonus Award”).

  • Annual Performance Review The Employee’s performance of his duties under this Agreement shall be reviewed by the Board of Directors or a committee of the Board of Directors at least annually and finalized within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the annual audited financial statements. The Board of Directors or a committee of the Board of Directors shall additionally review the base salary, bonus and benefits provided to the Employee under this Agreement and may, in their discretion, adjust the same, as outlined in Addendum B of this Agreement, provided, however, that Employee’s annual base salary shall not be less than the base salary set forth in Section 4(A) hereof.

  • Performance Measure Grantee will adhere to the performance measures requirements documented in

  • Performance Metrics The “Performance Metrics” for the Performance Period are: (i) the JD Power Residential National Large Segment Survey for investor-owned utilities; (ii) the System Average Interruption Frequency Index (Major Events Excluded) (“XXXXX”); (iii) Arizona Public Service Company’s customer to employee improvement ratio; (iv) the OSHA rate (All Incident Injury Rate); (v) nuclear capacity factor; and (vi) coal capacity factor. (1) With respect to the Performance Metric described in clause (i) of this Subsection 6(a), the JD Power Residential National Large Segment Survey will provide data on an annual basis reflecting the Company’s percentile ranking, relative to other participating companies. (2) With respect to the Performance Metric described in clause (ii) of this Subsection 6(a), the Edison Electric Institute (“EEI”) will provide data on an annual basis regarding the XXXXX result of the participating companies; the Company will calculate its XXXXX result for the year in question and determine its percentile ranking based on the information provided by EEI. (3) With respect to the Performance Metric described in clause (iii) of this Subsection 6(a), SNL, an independent third party data system, will provide data on an annual basis regarding the customer and employee counts; the Company will use its customer and employee counts for the year in question and determine its percentile ranking based on the information provided by SNL. Only those companies whose customers and employees were included in the data provided by SNL in each of the years of the Performance Period will be considered. (4) With respect to the Performance Metric described in clause (iv) of this Subsection 6(a), EEI will provide data on an annual basis regarding the OSHA rate of the participating companies; the Company will calculate its OSHA rate for the year in question and determine its percentile ranking based on the information provided by EEI. (5) With respect to the Performance Metric described in clause (v) of this Subsection 6(a), SNL will provide data on an annual basis regarding the nuclear capacity factors of the participating nuclear plants; the Company will calculate its nuclear capacity factor for the year in question and determine its percentile ranking based on the information provided by SNL. Only those plants that were included in the data provided by SNL in each of the years of the Performance Period will be considered. (6) With respect to the Performance Metric described in clause (vi) of this Subsection 6(a), SNL will provide data on an annual basis regarding the coal capacity factors of the participating coal plants; the Company will calculate its coal capacity factor for the year in question and determine its percentile ranking based on the information provided by SNL. Only those plants that were included in the data provided by SNL in each of the years of the Performance Period will be considered. (7) The Company’s percentile ranking during the Performance Period for each Performance Metric will be the average of the Company’s percentile ranking for each Performance Metric during each of the three years of the Performance Period (each, an “Average Performance Metric”); provided, however, that if the third year of a Performance Metric is not calculable by December 15 of the following year, the Performance Metric shall consist of the three most recent years for which such Performance Metric is calculable. The Company’s “Average Performance,” for purposes of determining any Base Grant adjustments pursuant to Subsection 5(b) above will be the average of the Average Performance Metrics. If only quartile, rather than percentile, rankings are available for a particular Performance Metric, the Average Performance Metric for any such Performance Metric shall be expressed as a percentile. For example, if the Performance Metric was in the top quartile for two Performance Periods and in the lowest quartile in the other Performance Period, the average of these quartiles would be 3 (the average of 4, 4, and 1) and the Average Performance Metric would be the 75th percentile (3 /4). The calculations in this Subsection 6(a)(7) will be verified by the Company’s internal auditors. (8) If either EEI or SNL discontinues providing the data specified above, the Committee shall select a data source that, in the Committee’s judgment, will provide data most comparable to the data provided by EEI or SNL, as the case may be. If the JD Power Residential National Large Segment Survey for investor-owned utilities (or a successor JD Power survey) is not available during each of the years of the Performance Period, the Performance Metric associated with the JD Power Residential Survey (Subsection 6(a)(1)) will be disregarded and not included in the Company’s Average Performance for purposes of determining any Base Grant adjustments pursuant to Subsection 5(b).

  • Performance Measurement The Uniform Guidance requires completion of OMB-approved standard information collection forms (the PPR). The form focuses on outcomes, as related to the Federal Award Performance Goals that awarding Federal agencies are required to detail in the Awards.

  • Performance Factors (a) Each party will notify the other party of the existence of a Performance Factor, as soon as reasonably possible after the party becomes aware of the Performance Factor. The Notice will: describe the Performance Factor and its actual or anticipated impact; include a description of any action the party is undertaking, or plans to undertake, to remedy or mitigate the Performance Factor; indicate whether the party is requesting a meeting to discuss the Performance Factor; and address any other issue or matter the party wishes to raise with the other party. (b) The recipient party will provide a written acknowledgment of receipt of the Notice within 7 Days of the date on which the Notice was received (“Date of the Notice”). (c) Where a meeting has been requested under paragraph 7.2(a)(3), the parties agree to meet and discuss the Performance Factors within 14 Days of the Date of the Notice, in accordance with the provisions of section 7.3.

  • Historical Performance Information To the extent agreed upon by the parties, the Sub-Advisor will provide the Trust with historical performance information on similarly managed investment companies or for other accounts to be included in the Prospectus or for any other uses permitted by applicable law.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!