Cost Efficiency and Effectiveness. The project promotes cooperation and complementarity with public sector projects that are being implemented or are under negotiation, thus creating integration. Also, the project will promote public policies that allow the private sector to adopt procurement policies for deforestation-free and environmentally responsible products, thus creating access to markets and price differentiation. The project design and budget builds on more than six years of preparation for REDD+ and sustainable forest management. This provided official and validated information and a comprehensive set of studies that facilitated the quantification of the measures and actions in this proposal. These studies include, among others, the assessment of the drivers and agents of deforestation; the forest reference level from deforestation; studies on multiple environmental and social benefits; opportunity costs of land-use change; and the costing of REDD+ implementation. These have allowed Ecuador to design a REDD+ AP with concrete and costed measures and actions that are ready for implementation. UNDP, as the GCF accredited agency, will ensure transparency and the proper use of the allocated resources, according to the approved document, by using multi-annual and annual planning tools defined under the project governance structure. In addition, Ecuador has the legal and institutional framework to ensure accountability and transparency in the management of funds, based on results, subject to planning and complementarity with the mobilized co-financing for this initiative, generating savings, optimizing resources and creating synergies for a sustainable forest management. With the US$41.17 million investment from the GCF, US$41.83 million will be leveraged from a range of institutions, including the National Government. This corresponds to a 1:1 ratio in resource leverage. While note directly leveraged by GCF funding, complementary financing sources under joint programming are being mobilized from the KFW-REM, FIP and the Ministry of Foreign Trade currently stand at US$74.76 million. The estimated cost per tCO2eq, defined as total investment cost / expected lifetime emission reductions is US$ 5.53 / tCO2eq when considering the GCF contribution and the associated co-finance. However, this estimate must be taken with a grain of salt as attribution of reduced emissions from deforestation to a single policy or measure is flawed in the context of REDD+ for multiple reasons. Studies undertaken...
Cost Efficiency and Effectiveness. 2 This project will not be screened against the Social and Environmental Screening template as outputs comprised solely of report preparation, coordination of event/training/workshop/meeting /conference, or development of communication materials. The project’s budget is informed by previous experience in working closely with CRDB/CDC. There are also well-established relationships and synergies with other development partners and dialogue processes, e.g. the TWGs. The project budget is therefore felt to represent a realistic assessment of costs and will offer value for money based on benefiting from and utilising the capacities, processes, systems and mechanisms that have already been established by RGC and CDC in the past using the support of UNDP and its co-financing partners. For example, the 2015 budget for support to CDC and its outreach functions comes to less than USD 700,000. This is about half the sum provided to CDC by predecessor projects in the period 2006-2010 that is made possible by ability to use the systems and structures that previous support helped to build. The strategy set out in the document is based on the Theory of Change that includes drawing from good practice established during the predecessor phase of UNDP (and co-funders) support to CRDB/CDC. These practices include: (i) the application of the national implementation modality that delegates much of the project’s planning, implementation and financial management to CRDB/CDC; (ii) use of the RGC DCPS progress review in 2016 to gather lessons; and (iii) the use of the TWG mechanism and related consultation/discussion processes as well as the ODA/NGO Databases. This approach is cost effective while making maximum use of country systems and established processes to promote sustainable capacity. New activities, such as the proposed Integrated Resource Mapping, will provide the basis for identifying any new RGC management processes that can add further efficiencies to the public financial management and partnership management process. Similarly, the capacity assessment work will build on previous capacity work to ensure that existing systems are further developed and applied so that efficient and effective use of resources is assured into the future. Finally, collaboration with the UNDP policy project will provide synergies – in the form of effectiveness and efficiency – by building relationships between all of the partners involved in both of these UNDP- supported initiatives to promo...
Cost Efficiency and Effectiveness. The Contractor shall operate in a cost effective and efficient manner while maintaining high quality standard in delivery of services. The Contractor shall be accountable to the MMALR residents and to the Arlington County Board. EXHIBIT B: Reportable Incidents Peer to Peer Restraint Money Management Physical Attack Pharmacological Theft Sexual Assault Mechanical Error Verbal Threats Physical Other Victim Seclusion Perpetrator Other Medication Serious Injury Other Incidents Wrong Person (ERROR) Death Potentially Violent Situation Wrong Medicine (ERROR) Seizure Behavioral Incident Wrong Dosage (ERROR) Fall Minor Injury Wrong Time (ERROR) Suicide Attempt Client to Staff Altercation (with no/minor injury) Wrong Route (ERROR) Assault Infectious Exposure Medication administered, but not recorded (ERROR) Burn Wound of unknown origin Medication Reported Missing (ERROR) Illness Fall w/no injury Missed Medication (non-delivery by pharmacy) (ERROR) Auto Accident Behavioral Incident w/minor injury Missed medication due to staff error (ERROR) Other Self-Injurious Behavior Other Medication Issues (ERROR) and Medication Refusals Property Destruction Client Reported Missing Automobile Accident with no/minor injury Program Closure Privacy Violation Other incident deemed to be reportable EXHIBIT C: Reporting Requirements Report or Deliverable Due Date or Frequency County Staff Incident Reports 1 business day Project Officer or designee Discharge Letter 14 days before discharge Project Officer Monthly Narrative and Data Report 10th of month Project Officer Monthly Invoice 17th of month Administrative Officer Quarterly Financial Updates 17th of month Administrative Officer Annual Audit Annually prior to November 1 Administrative Officer Policies and Procedures Upon Request Project Officer or designee Other reports deemed as necessary Upon Request Project Officer or designee Citizen/Community Complains Next business day Project Officer of designee Personal Property Log July 1, annually Project Officer or designee EXHIBIT D: Monthly Client Invoice Detail Format SEE ATTACHED “EXHIBIT D”. Project Officer will provide an electronic version for the Contractor’s convenience.
Cost Efficiency and Effectiveness. Value for Money (VfM) is about maximizing the impact of every money spent to improve people’s lives. The project adopts the 3-E framework (Please refer Figure 2)42–economy, efficiency, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. In this regard, the project will undertake the following measures to maximize VfM:
