ICES – Results Sample Clauses

ICES – Results. Figure 10 and Figure 11 report the results in term of regional-country GDP losses. Among non-European countries, Japan and East Asia, with respectively 20% and 15% of GDP loss in 2070, are the more adversely affected. In the Mediterranean, Malta is the largest loser with a loss of roughly 15% of GDP in 2070. In the EU, also the Italian coastal regions, Ireland, the Baltic area are more adversely affected. In 2070, losses range from roughly 12% of regional GDP in Veneto to 7.5% in Ireland, Lithuania and Latvia. Southern Spanish and German coastal regions, but also Flanders and London, follow with losses at around 5% of GDP. A rapid inspection of Figure 13 also highlights the added value of the regional analysis. For instance, in 2050 Italy would highlight a country GDP loss of the 4%. This however hides a 6% regional loss in Veneto and a 2% regional loss in Sicily. In summary, in 2070 50 EU NUTS2 regions over the total 269 demonstrate a GDP loss larger than 5%. The exercise also confirms that: losses start to be relevant after 2050, even though in that year 3 EU NUTS areas highlight already a loss larger than 5%, the high ice-melting case produces losses considerably larger than the medium ice melting case; and finally that coastal protection has a very high benefit to cost ratio. Indeed, also accounting for the cost of adaptation, final GDP losses at the regional level are much smaller than in the no adaptation scenario. On average for the EU28, an incremental (BaU) adaptation following the increasing sea-level rise threat, produces costs that are 89% lower than in the no (i.e. constant) adaptation case in terms of GDP loss. This result is particularly important as it confirms also in a general equilibrium context what already found performing a direct cost assessment (Xxxxxx et al. 2018), and stresses the high return of coastal protection expenditure. The regional assessment also highlights spillover effects on land locked regions. Even though, as expected, regions on the coast, directly exposed to sea-level rise, tend to show higher economic impacts, regions that in the different countries are particularly interconnected economically, not only with coastal areas, but also with the overall economic trade flows, show losses of comparable magnitude. The cases of Piedmont and Lombardy in Italy, of the Ile de France in France, Madrid in Spain and of central Germany is emblematic. Figure 10: GDP losses by NUTS region in the EU No additional adaptation scenario...
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to ICES – Results

  • Evaluation Results A. Evaluation results shall be used:

  • Audit Results If an audit by a Party determines that an overpayment or an underpayment has occurred, a notice of such overpayment or underpayment shall be given to the other Party together with those records from the audit which support such determination.

  • Expected Results VA’s agreement with DoD to provide educational assistance is a statutory requirement of Chapter 1606, Title 10, U.S.C., Chapter 1607, Title 10, U.S.C., Chapter 30, Title 38, U.S.C. and Chapter 33, Title 38, U.S.C (Post-9/11 GI Xxxx). These laws require VA to make payments to eligible veterans, service members, guard, reservist, and family members under the transfer of entitlement provisions. The responsibility of determining basic eligibility for Chapter 1606 is placed on the DoD. The responsibility of determining basic eligibility for Chapter 30 and Chapter 33 is placed on VA, while the responsibility of providing initial eligibility data for Chapter 30 and Chapter 33 is placed on DoD. Thus, the two agencies must exchange data to ensure that VA makes payments only to those who are eligible for a program. Without an exchange of enrollment and eligibility data, VA would not be able to establish or verify applicant and recipient eligibility for the programs. Subject to the due process requirements, set forth in Article VII.B.1., 38 U.S.C. §3684A, VA may suspend, terminate, or make a final denial of any financial assistance on the basis of data produced by a computer matching program with DoD. To minimize administrative costs of implementation of the law and to maximize the service to the veteran or service member, a system of data exchanges and subsequent computer matching programs was developed. The purposes of the computer matching programs are to minimize the costs of administering the Xxxxxxxxxx GI Xxxx — Active Duty, the Xxxxxxxxxx GI Xxxx — Selected Reserve, Reserve Educational Assistance Program, and the Post-9/11 GI Xxxx program; facilitate accurate payment to eligible veterans or service members training under the Chapter of the Xxxxxxxxxx GI Xxxx — Active Duty, the Xxxxxxxxxx GI Xxxx — Selected Reserve, Reserve Educational Assistance Program, and the Post-9/11 GI Xxxx program; and to avoid payment to those who lose eligibility. The current automated systems, both at VA and DoD, have been developed over the last twenty-two years. The systems were specifically designed to utilize computer matching in transferring enrollment and eligibility data to facilitate accurate payments and avoid incorrect payments. The source agency, DMDC, stores eligibility data on its computer based system of record. The cost of providing this data to VA electronically are minimal when compared to the cost DMDC would incur if the data were forwarded to VA in a hard-copy manner. By comparing records electronically, VA avoids the personnel costs of inputting data manually as well as the storage costs of the DMDC documents. This results in a VA estimated annual savings of $26,724,091 to VA in mailing and data entry costs. DoD reported an estimated annual savings of $12,350,000. A cost-benefit analysis is at Attachment 1. In the 32 years since the inception of the Chapter 30 program, the cost savings of using computer matching to administer the benefit payments for these educational assistance programs have remained significant. The implementation of Chapter 33 has impacted the Chapter 30 program over the past 8 years (fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2017). Statistics show a decrease of 23 percent in the number of persons who ultimately use Chapter 30 from fiscal year 2015 to 2016. The number of persons who use Chapter 33 has consistently been above 700,000 in the past four years. VA foresees continued cost savings due to the number of persons eligible for the education programs.‌

  • Publication of Results The National Aeronautics and Space Act (51 U.S.C. § 20112) requires NASA to provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof. As such, NASA may publish unclassified and non-Proprietary Data resulting from work performed under this Agreement. The Parties will coordinate publication of results allowing a reasonable time to review and comment.

  • ADVERTISING RESULTS The prior written approval of the Commissioner is required in order for results of the Bid to be used by the Contractor as part of any commercial advertising. The Contractor shall also obtain the prior written approval of the Commissioner relative to the Bid or Contract for press or other media releases.

  • Test Results The employer, upon request from an employee or former employee, will provide the confidential written report issued pursuant to 4.9 of the Canadian Model in respect to that employee or former employee.

  • Justification and Anticipated Results The Privacy Act requires that each matching agreement specify the justification for the program and the anticipated results, including a specific estimate of any savings. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(o)(1)(B).

  • BID TABULATION AND RESULTS Bid tabulations shall be available thirty (30) days after opening on the Orange County website at: xxxx://xxxx.xxxx.xxx/orangebids/bidresults/results.asp or upon notice of intended action, whichever is sooner.

  • Mediation Results Any agreements resulting from mediation shall be memorialized in writing. The results of the mediation shall not be final or binding unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties. Mediators shall not be subject to any subpoena or liability, and their actions shall not be subject to discovery.

  • Dissemination of own Results 8.3.1.1 During the Project and for a period of 1 year after the end of the Project, the dissemination of own Results by one or several Parties including but not restricted to publications and presentations, shall be governed by the procedure of Article 29.1 of the Grant Agreement subject to the following provisions. Prior notice of any planned publication shall be given to the other Parties at least 45 calendar days before the publication. Any objection to the planned publication shall be made in accordance with the Grant Agreement in writing to the Coordinator and to the Party or Parties proposing the dissemination within 30 calendar days after receipt of the notice. If no objection is made within the time limit stated above, the publication is permitted.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.