Objective 1. To undertake conservation measures so as to improve or maintain the conservation status of waterbird species and their populations (AP Headings: A, B, C)
1.1 Full legal protection is provided to all Column A species;
1.2 A comprehensive and coherent flyway network of protected and managed sites and other adequately managed sites, of international and national importance for waterbirds is established and maintained, while taking into account the existing networks and climate change;
1.3 Environmental Impact Assessment & Strategic Environmental Assessments are used to reduce the impact of new developments on waterbird species and populations;
Objective 1. CONTRACTOR shall provide effective substance use disorder assessment, treatment, and counseling to adults with identified alcohol and/or drug problems as measured by Retention and Completion Rates.Rates. CONTRACTOR shall maintain a fifty percent (50%) YTD
Objective 1. To provide community services that support increased access, uptake and adherence to HIV services (Home-based Care, PLHA support groups and MMM 'Friends Help Friend' Groups).
Objective 1. 2 OBJECTIVE 1.3 OBJECTIVE 1.4 OBJECTIVE 1.5
Objective 1. SMART CAMPUS Pilots
Objective 1. To determine branching ratios and emission probabilities for 90Y and 166Ho in order to enable improved QI accuracy and dose estimation for these radionuclides, and to exploit new technologies in order to develop a suitable transfer instrument optimised for accuracy of measurements of the activity of MRT agents in clinics and radiopharmaceutical companies.
Objective 1. To undertake conservation measures so as to improve or maintain conservation status of waterbird species and their populations
Objective 1. What is your objective/goal? In other words, what would you specifically like to know or be able to do by the end of your internship? What will you do to accomplish this goal? (provide 2 specific actions)
Objective 1. 2-1.4: Comparison of qualitative and semi-quantitative exposure tools
Objective 1. Position this project as a bold, unique, and rigorous experiment of outcomes contracting that seeks to improve results in the poverty alleviation space. Key reinforcing messages will include:
a. Outline intended benefits compared to traditional funding:
i. The project responds to the challenge that donors face in consistently achieving results in what they fund. We observe that traditional, pay-for-activities funding does not provide sufficient guarantee for results and does not provide sufficient flexibility and incentives for service providers to drive cost- effectiveness. This DIB provides incentives and flexibility for cost-effectiveness and provides 100% guarantee that donor money will be linked to meaningful improvements in poverty alleviation outcomes. See more information on Results-Based Financing (RBF) and our aim to utilize RBF to drive more outcomes in Appendix 1.
b. Experimental nature of the DIB:
i. We will highlight the various hypotheses we are testing (see Appendix 4) and highlight the strong learning element of the project through the process evaluation. We will structure outreach around demonstrated (rather than hypothesized) lessons, benefits, results, and experiences.
ii. We will not be dogmatic, will not portray this project as the silver bullet, and will continue to encourage thoughtful application of such approaches while also highlighting its limitations and pre- requisites.
iii. This entails using a humble tone and not overselling or exaggerating the merits of the project.
c. Boldness and uniqueness of this DIB compared to traditional Results-Based Financing:
i. Although Results-Based Financing has a significant track-record, most RBF has focused on paying for outputs. This project moves the boundaries of RBF to test how to pay for ambitious outcomes in poverty alleviation. This is the first time DFID and USAID will pay 100% based on outcomes.
ii. Donors have also never entirely paid on such an ambitious outcome: the improvement in income of the ultra-poor in volatile environments. As this outcome is measured one year after the intervention, the program also ensures donors pay for sustained improvements in livelihoods over time.
iii. This experiment covers a relatively long period of time of four years.
iv. This experiment also carries significant scale, with $4.2 million of outcomes funds reaching at least 12,660 households, approximately equivalent to 77,226 individuals.
v. For the first time, a service provider (rather than an ...
