Home

关于 21 - 30 结果 47,506increment. 搜索用时 2.544 秒.  
按日期排序/按关联排序
RECOVERY OF COSTS FOR PRORATED PROJECT POSTS AND INCREMENTAL FIELD COSTS FOR SUPPLEMENTARY-FUNDED PROGRAMMES
Income, expenditures and recovery of incremental costs ........................................... 4 - 7 3 B. (...) Income, expenditures and recovery of incremental costs 4. A summary of income and expenditures, as well as the recovery and application of the 6 per cent charge for the incremental costs of supplementary-funded programmes, is provided in tables 1, 2 and 3 below. (...) The inclusion of a 3 per cent line item for "incremental field office administrative and programme support costs" in each supplementary-funded programme budget would provide adequate income to cover all incremental field office general costs in a transparent and equitable manner.
语言:英语
得分: 276 - daccess-ods.un.org/acce...n&DS=E/ICEF/1994/AB/L.2&Lang=E
数据资源: ods
REPORT OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL : EXAMINATION OF LONG-TERM TRENDS IN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF WORLD REGIONS : ALGERIA, BANGLADESH, BOLIVIA, CUBA, EGYPT, GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, GREECE, INDIA, IRAQ, MADAGASCAR, MALI, MONGOLIA, PERU, PHILIPPINES, POLAND, PORTUGAL, RWANDA, SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC, TOGO, UGANDA, USSR, UNITED REPUBLIC OF CAMEROON AND YUGOSLAVIA : DRAFT RESOLUTION
d.u d.Éveloppenent écononique des regrons d.u mond.e LrAssenrbl-ée général_e, _ Tena+t conpte d.e ce que lfannée 1975 est cell-e d.u trentiène anniversaire d.eIa fondation de ltorganisation des Nations Unies et d.e ce que, coûme iI est d.ità ]tArticle 55 d.e 1a Charte, les Nations Unies favoriseront l-e re1èvement desniveaux de vie' le plein emploi et cies cond.itions de progrès et de développement d.ans l-rordre économique et social pour tous les peuples, en vue ae créer ièsconditions d'e stabilité et de bien-être nécessaires pour assurer entre 1es nations d.es relations pacifiques et amical_es r lappelant ses résolutions 32Ot (S-VI) et 3202 (S-Vf) du t_er nai tg7l+,rel-atives à t-a Déctaration et au Progra.mme d.raction concernant l-rinstauraiion dfunnouvel ord.re économique international, et sa résolution 3362 (S-Vff) au l-6 d-écenbre 7975, relative au d.6veloppement et à ]-a eoopération économique inter-nationale, ainsi que sa résolution 3281 (XXIX) du 12 décercbre lg7\, retJtiveà la charte des droits et d.evoirs économiques d.es Etats, Con',?incr€ que 1a coexistence pacifique entre Ies Etats et l-a d.étente inter-nationale, ainsi que 1télinination d.e ltagression et d.e la d.ondnation étrangère,sont d.tir,portantes conditions d.e 1a coopération économique internationale "i qréItexpansion d-e cette coopération entre tous 1es paysr eu égara en particulier auxbesoins d-es pays en d.ével-oppement, eonstitue Ia base natérie1le drune paix durable et d-run rapprochenent entre toutes 1es nations o T5-22610 Alc.2/L.L\42 Français Page 2 Consid.éran!
语言:法语
得分: 271.19 - https://daccess-ods.un.org/acc...et?open&DS=A/C.2/L.1442&Lang=F
数据资源: ods
GE.12-23288 (F)
The volume of wood removed from the region’s forests has been below the net annual growth increment in nearly all countries of the region for several decades (except for a few cases of massive windblow, where of necessity harvests exceed increment for one year). In Europe, fellings are 62% of net annual increment, with significant regional variations, and in Russia only 20%. (...) Although harvest would remain below increment and growing stock would not decline, the study considers that this would lead to negative consequences for biodiversity.
语言:法语
得分: 270.19 - daccess-ods.un.org/acce...?open&DS=ECE/TIM/2012/2&Lang=F
数据资源: ods
RECOVERY OF COSTS FOR PRORATED PROJECT POSTS AND INCREMENTAL FIELD COSTS FOR SUPPLEMENTARY-FUNDED PROGRAMMES : CORRIGENDUM
UNITEDUNITED ENATIONSNATIONS Economic and Social Council Distr.LIMITED E/ICEF/1994/AB/L.2/Corr.1 31 August 1994 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH UNITED NATIONS CHILDREN’S FUND FOR ACTION Executive Board Third regular session 1994 3-5 October 1994 RECOVERY OF COSTS FOR PRORATED PROJECT POSTS AND INCREMENTAL FIELD COSTS FOR SUPPLEMENTARY-FUNDED PROGRAMMES Corrigendum Replace tables 3 and 4 by the attached tables. 94-34690 (E) 070994 /...
语言:英语
得分: 267.76 - daccess-ods.un.org/acce...ICEF/1994/AB/L.2/CORR.1&Lang=E
数据资源: ods
Treatment SCT+FISP: hh treated under both programs simultaneously (17%) Household expenditure - total Table 1: Impact on total expenditure per capita MWK real values All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Baseline mean Baseline mean Baseline mean SCT*d2014 10348.6** 40384.6 5093.7 32691.3 15220.8** 49843.4 [2.44] [0.96] [2.76] FISP*d2014 2041.0 44615.7 -3590.4 39623.2 7957.7 50181.2 [0.53] [-0.68] [1.53] Joint impact SCT&FISP 14290.3** 44988.4 14443.2* 35532.3 11709.5** 55976.1 [2.59] [1.97] [2.39] Incremental impact of FISP on SCT 3941.7 9349.5* -3511.3 [1.01] [1.80] [-0.75] Incremental impact of SCT on FISP 12249.3** 18033.6** 3751.8 [2.03] [2.50] [0.57] Complementarity 1900.7 12939.9* -11468.9 [0.34] [1.80] [-1.72] Household expenditure - Food Table 2: Impact on expenditure per capita by items - MWK real values All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Food per capita SCTP*d2014 6013.45 1377.53 10058.494** [1.63] [0.29] [2.2] FISP*d2014 1834.64 -2976.59 6723.04 [0.54] [-0.63] [1.45] Joint Impact SCTP&FISP 8117.414* 7650.87 6774.536* [1.83] [1.18] [1.67] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 2103.96 6273.344 -3283.958 [0.65] [1.38] [-0.72] Incremental impact of SCT on FISP 6282.779 10627.46* 51.4941 [1.38] [1.79] [0.01] Complementarity 269.3276 9249.934 -10007 [0.06] [1.43] [-1.62] Table 3: Impact on expenditure per capita by items -MWK real values All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Health per capita SCTP*d2014 515.10 441.73 545.76 [1.45] [1.21] [0.93] FISP*d2014 -391.02 -172.20 -857.66 [-0.62] [-0.37] [-0.63] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 1219.446** 1428.233** 624.29 [2.73] [2.38] [1.25] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 704.3511 986.5052 78.52 [1.56] [1.61] [0.12] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 1610.465** 1600.429** 1481.94 [2.04] [2.16] [1.09] Complementarity 1095.37 1158.701 936.18 [1.36] [1.48] [0.61] Education per capita SCTP*d2014 225.755*** -22.35 474.719*** [2.94] [-0.16] [3.78] FISP*d2014 -72.27 -241.111* 100.19 [-1.09] [-1.84] [0.94] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 360.351*** 263.51 401.553** [3.29] [1.39] [2.49] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 134.5952 285.8555 -73.1667 [1.11] [1.54] [-0.54] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 432.6177*** 504.6155** 301.3672* [3.84] [2.42] [1.85] Complementarity 206.8622 526.9664** -173.3522 [1.52] [2.21] [-1.02] Clothing and foot. Per capita SCTP*d2014 962.313*** 946.165*** 906.557*** [7.00] [4.98] [4.5] FISP*d2014 187.030*** 57.49 395.723*** [3.05] [0.57] [2.95] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 902.583*** 1047.960*** 659.761*** [6.34] [5.67] [3.56] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP -59.730 101.795 -246.796 [-0.42] [0.44] [-1.37] Incremental effect of SCTP on FISP 715.553*** 990.476*** 264.038 [4.70] [5.17] [1.07] Complementarity -246.760 44.310 -642.519 [-1.53] [0.17] [-2.84] Table 4: Impact on value of production MWK real values All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Baseline Mean Baseline Mean Baseline Mean SCTP*d2014 1215.2 9143.0 2338.9 10501.5 -170.6 7472.9 (0.85) [1.66] [-0.07] FISP*d2014 5001.2*** 9570.9 5874.0*** 11169.2 2682.0 7789.1 (3.64) [5.24] [1.03] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 7609.5*** 9830.9 7774.1*** 11101.5 7060.7*** 8354.4 (5.88) [5.63] [3.78] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 6394.2*** 5435.1*** 7231.3*** (6.93) [3.67] [4.06] Incremental impact of SCT on FISP 2607.6* 1900.0 4378.7* (1.70) [1.28] [1.9] Complementarity 1392.3 -438.9 4549.3 (0.86) [-0.26] [1.38] Table 5: Impact on livestock expenditures and sales Expenses Sales All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained SCTP*d2014 1172.647*** 1395.706*** 761.950*** -78.668 -44.992 -247.801 [5.95] [6.07] [2.83] [-0.54] [-0.18] [-1.23] FISP*d2014 232.985*** 493.282*** 32.287 57.964 231.508 62.384 [2.96] [3.66] [0.28] [0.37] [0.76] [0.27] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 1688.574*** 1478.082*** 1997.143*** 395.800* 383.684 335.607 [5.89] [3.92] [6.19] [1.98] [1.05] [1.06] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 515.926* 82.3756 1235.193*** 474.468** 428.676 583.408 [1.82] [0.2] [4.68] [2.03] [1.08] [1.57] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 1455.59*** 984.800** 1964.855*** 337.836* 152.176 273.224 [5.04] [2.52] [5.33] [1.7] [0.5] [0.8] Complementarity 282.941 -410.906 1202.906*** 416.505 197.167 521.024 [0.99] [-0.94] [3.83] [1.50] [0.43] [1.17] Table 6: Impact on livestock % of households which own: Quantity All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Chicken SCTP*d2014 0.196*** 0.150*** 0.236*** 0.931*** 0.698** 1.365*** [3.81] [2.77] [3.20] [3.03] [2.62] [3.04] FISP*d2014 0.103*** 0.134** 0.029 0.276* 0.408 -0.067 [2.80] [2.29] [0.77] [1.96] [1.34] [-0.31] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 0.244*** 0.230*** 0.263** 1.677*** 1.511*** 1.828*** [4.31] [4.54] [2.72] [3.90] [4.19] [3.03] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.047** 0.080* 0.027 0.746* 0.814** 0.463 [2.32] [1.81] [0.46] [1.90] [2.68] [0.98] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.141** 0.095 0.234** 1.400*** 1.104** 1.894** [2.56] [1.43] [2.13] [3.29] [2.39] [2.85] Complementarity -0.055 -0.054 -0.002 0.469 0.406 0.529 [-1.35] [-0.71] [-0.03] [1.20] [1.06] [1.08] Goats and sheeps SCTP*d2014 0.108*** 0.114*** 0.075* 0.145 0.263* 0.03 [3.99] [2.99] [1.91] [1.36] [1.84] [0.35] FISP*d2014 0.062* 0.099 0.025 0.145 0.294 0.021 [2.01] [1.53] [0.59] [1.30] [1.46] [0.19] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 0.238*** 0.185*** 0.300*** 0.694*** 0.758*** 0.452*** [5.79] [3.75] [5.93] [3.93] [2.99] [4.18] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.131*** 0.071 0.226*** 0.549** 0.495** 0.422*** [4.31] [1.44] [6.35] [2.96] [2.15] [4.87] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.176*** 0.086 0.276*** 0.549** 0.464* 0.431*** [3.70] [1.24] [4.48] [2.89] [1.73] [3.60] Complementarity 0.069* -0.028 0.201*** 0.404* 0.201 0 .401** [1.71] [-0.34] [3.44] [1.86] [0.68] [2.91 Pigeons, doves or ducks SCTP*d2014 0.007 0.006 0.001 0.136* 0.263** -0.083 [0.48] [0.37] [0.06] [1.71] [2.33] [-0.83] FISP*d2014 -0.005 -0.006 -0.006 0.065 0.143 -0.045 [-0.38] [-0.27] [-0.34] [1.21] [1.20] [-0.63] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 0.060** 0.064* 0.052* 0.280** 0.336** 0.238* [2.55] [1.84] [1.71] [2.74] [2.09] [1.80] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.053* 0.058* 0.051 0.144 0.072 0.320* [1.91] [1.7] [1.28] [1.15] [0.45] [1.67] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.064** 0.070* 0.057* 0.215** 0.192 0.283* [2.65] [1.9] [1.7] [2.12] [1.32] [1.81] Complementarity 0.057* 0.064 0.056 0.079 -0.071 0.365* [1.89] [1.5] [1.31] [0.58] [-0.38] [1.73] Conclusions • Positive synergies between SCTP and FISP in increasing expenditure, value of agricultural production, agricultural activities, livestock, and weakly, in improving food security • Heterogeneity analysis based on labor constraints: 1. positive synergies in increasing household expenditures are stronger for labor unconstrainted households 2. positive synergies in increasing the value of production, production activities and livestock are stronger for labor constrained households Conclusions • SCTP provides liquidity and certainty for poor households and small family farmers, allowing them to invest in agriculture, human capital development and better manage risk • FISP can promote growth in the productivity of small family farmers by addressing structural constraints that limit access to inputs, financial and advisory services and markets • Impact results obtained through simple programs’ overlap. (...) Table: Anova test for difference between groups of intervention: control, SCT, FISP, SCT+FISP (weights adjusted) C SCT FISP SCT&FISP F-test P-value>F single head of hh 0.748 0.730 0.751 0.740 0.18 0.9117 female head of hh 0.851 0.838 0.820 0.837 0.49 0.692 age of head of hh 54.495 54.161 55.087 54.719 0.15 0.927 num members in the hh 4.633 4.633 4.454 4.544 0.59 0.618 num members in the hh: 0-5 years old 0.783 0.769 0.728 0.771 0.27 0.846 num members in the hh: 6-12 years old 1.250 1.256 1.162 1.195 0.74 0.527 num members in the hh: 13-17 years old 0.905 0.905 0.873 0.891 0.11 0.956 num members in the hh: 18-64 years old 1.178 1.196 1.195 1.170 0.07 0.976 num members in the hh: ¿=65 years old 0.517 0.508 0.496 0.517 0.12 0.951 num orphans in the hh 1.099 1.084 1.019 1.035 0.23 0.874 yrs of education head of hh 1.272 1.296 1.245 1.385 0.28 0.840 hh severely labor constrained 0.456 0.449 0.473 0.463 0.17 0.914 hh consumption - total 164515 154514 163867 160597 0.56 0.639 hh consumption - food and beverages 127622 118177 124934 125508 0.75 0.523 Household owns or cultivates land 0.919 0.932 0.937 0.933 0.4 0.754 Total plot area operated within hh 1.210 1.238 1.220 1.247 0.13 0.944 HH has plot that is irrigated 0.045 0.045 0.051 0.066 0.76 0.515 HH applies chemical fertilizer 0.276 0.270 0.353 0.424 9.59 0.000 HH applies organic fertilizer 0.278 0.265 0.315 0.329 1.72 0.161 HH uses pesticides 0.015 0.030 0.040 0.030 1.5 0.212 HH uses improved or hybrid seed 0.283 0.271 0.328 0.348 2.51 0.057 HH planted maize 0.872 0.872 0.877 0.884 0.12 0.951 HH planted groundnut 0.094 0.091 0.089 0.136 2.23 0.083 HH planted pigeon pea 0.098 0.111 0.068 0.115 2.14 0.094 Value of production 9506 9143 9571 9831 0.35 0.786 HH owns hand hoe 0.813 0.814 0.837 0.855 1.18 0.317 HH owns axe 0.100 0.081 0.093 0.100 0.37 0.771 HH owns panga knife 0.192 0.226 0.242 0.217 1.02 0.383 HH owns sickle 0.126 0.128 0.107 0.085 1.6 0.187 HH owns chickens now 0.126 0.128 0.107 0.085 1.6 0.187 HH owns goat or a sheep now 0.064 0.054 0.051 0.083 1.38 0.246 Total HH Expenditure for livestock 87.79 97.95 43.83 80.277 0.86 0.462 Total HH livestock sales 275.48 321.27 119.46 293.949 1.63 0.180 obs 616 485 239 267 Table: Impact on food security All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Worry about lack of food SCTP*d2014 -0.091** -0.095** -0.084 [-2.17] [-2.12] [-1.57] FISP*d2014 -0.046 -0.070** 0.002 [-1.51] [-2.28] [0.04] Joint impact SCT&FISP -0.076 -0.109* -0.043 [-1.68] [-1.72] [-0.76] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.015 -0.014 0.04 [0.58] [-0.29] [0.72] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP -0.030 -0.039 -0.045 [-0.70] [-0.62] [-0.59] Complementarity 0.06 0.056 0.038 [1.56] [0.92] [0.44] Number of meals per day SCTP*d2014 0.226*** 0.174** 0.278*** [3.51] [2.36] [3.03] FISP*d2014 0.054 -0.016 0.131 [0.92] [-0.13] [1.57] Joint impact SCT&FISP 0.244*** 0.226** 0.237*** [3.25] [2.17] [2.88] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.018 0.05 -0.04 [0.3] [0.64] [-0.42] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.190** 0.241** 0.11 [2.79] [2.04] [0.87] Complementarity -0.036 0.07 -0.17 [-0.42] [0.46] [-1.34 Caloric intake in the past 7 days SCTP*d2014 187.382** 119.382 280.131** [2.13] [1.24] [2.24] FISP*d2014 -12.874 -57.596 63.059 [-0.29] [-0.70] [0.74] Joint impact SCT&FISP 188.926 175.909 267.392** [1.40] [1.03] [2.14] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 1.54 56.53 -75.80 [0.01] [0.4] [-0.51] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 201.80 233.50 -12.74 [1.43] [1.26] [-0.11] Complementarity 14.42 114.12 -75.80 [0.12] [0.71] [1.54] Table: Impact on food security (cont’d) All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Caloric intake from purchased food SCTP*d2014 181.329** 90.501 345.121*** [2.23] [0.93] [4.32] FISP*d2014 54.114 0.919 128.241 [0.82] [0.01] [1.47] Joint impact SCT&FISP 211.552** 163.367 294.328*** [2.09] [1.49] [2.79] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 30.22 72.87 -50.79 [0.42] [1] [-0.55] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 157.44 162.45 166.087 [1.58] [1.39] [1.58] Complementarity -23.89 71.95 -179.03 [0.24] [0.65] [-1.44] Caloric intake from produced food SCTP*d2014 -41.163 -18.085 -77.454 [-0.71] [-0.29] [-1.33] FISP*d2014 -6.951 -6.514 -21.837 [-0.38] [-0.26] [-1.03] Joint impact SCT&FISP -29.016 4.027 -63.326 [-0.52] [0.08] [-0.90] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 12.147 22.112 14.128 [0.78] [0.90] [0.48] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP -22.066 10.541 -41.489 [-0.41] [0.21] [-0.63] Complementarity 19.098 28.626 35.965 [0.84] [0.84] [1] Caloric intake from gifts SCTP*d2014 -4.915 -2.845 -7.85 [-1.29] [-0.81] [-1.68] FISP*d2014 3.677* 1.431 6.655*** [1.78] [0.50] [3.04] Joint impact SCT&FISP -1.503 -1.061 -1.84 [-0.37] [-0.26] [-0.39] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 3.412* 1.784 6.010*** [1.73] [0.58] [2.96] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP -5.180 -2.492 -8.495 [-1.18] [-0.50] [-1.91] Complementarity -0.265 0.353 -0.645 [-0.1] [0.09] [-0.23] Table: Impact on crop production % of households engaged in: Quantity produced All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Maize production SCTP*d2014 -0.001 -0.004 -0.008 18.767 19.641 12.244 [-0.03] [-0.19] [-0.15] [1.22] [1.29] [0.52] FISP*d2014 0.067** 0.014 0.112** 65.581*** 61.179*** 61.037*** [2.48] [0.72] [2.52] [6.42] [5.97] [4.49] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 0.033 0.003 0.081 81.418*** 76.181*** 82.667*** [0.98] [0.10] [1.64] [4.32] [3.70] [4.28] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.034 0.007 0.089 62.651*** 56.540*** 70.423*** [1.52] [0.28] [2.99] [5.40] [3.29] [4.08] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP -0.034 -0.011 -0.031 15.837 15.002 21.629 [-0.94] [-0.39] [-0.56] [0.78] [0.70] [0.97] Complementarity -0.033 -0.007 -0.023 -2.93 -4.639 9.386 [-0.94] [-0.22] [-0.4] [-0.19] [-0.25] [0.43] Grandnut production SCTP*d2014 0.090* 0.089 0.088 7.954** 8.654 7.076* [1.86] [1.44] [1.54] [2.23] [1.68] [2.01] FISP*d2014 0.082*** 0.096** 0.082** 7.861** 6.145 9.508** [4.04] [2.42] [2.37] [2.33] [1.25] [2.16] Joint impact SCT&FISP 0.105** 0.105* 0.100* 9.038** 9.372** 8.112** [2.14] [1.74] [1.99] [2.38] [2.19] [2.21] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.015 0.017 0.012 1.084 0.718 1.035 [0.34] [0.31] [0.19] [0.47] [0.27] [0.24] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.022 0.009 0.018 1.177 3.227 -1.397 [0.45] [0.14] [0.3] [0.25] [0.60] [-0.25] Complementarity -0.067 -0.079 -0.069 -6.777 -5.428 -8.472 [-1.43] [-1.2] [-0.95] [-1.63] [-0.98] [-1.39] Pigeon pea production SCTP*d2014 0.016 0.102** -0.109 1.506 2.648 -0.09 [0.30] [2.05] [-1.57] [0.85] [1.25] [-0.06] FISP*d2014 0.094** 0.095** 0.071 3.706*** 3.916** 3.039** [2.23] [2.33] [1.18] [2.85] [2.43] [2.31] Joint impact SCT&FISP 0.001 0.027 -0.035 1.929 1.405 2.28 [0.01] [0.49] [-0.64] [1.30] [0.82] [1.13] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP -0.015 -0.074** 0.074 0.424 -1.243 2.37 [-0.86] [-2.49] [2.16] [0.41] [-0.76] [1.40] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP -0.094 -0.067 -0.105 -1.776 -2.511 -0.759 [-1.56] [-1.04] [-1.58] [-0.97] [-1.15] [-0.34] Complementarity -0.110** -0.169*** 0.004 -3.282** -5.159** -0.669 [-2.48] [-3.18] [0.05] [-2.14] [-2.40] [-0.32] Nkhwani production SCTP*d2014 -0.086* -0.122* -0.069 -0.954 -2.396 0.366 [-1.89] [-1.95] [-1.52] [-0.66] [-1.28] [0.25] FISP*d2014 0.001 -0.043 0.06 1.849 0.339 3.651*** [0.03] [-0.86] [1.06] [1.45] [0.19] [2.81] Joint impact SCTP&FISP -0.07 -0.104 -0.057 -0.3 -2.457 1.856 [-1.28] [-1.39] [-1.36] [-0.19] [-1.26] [1.19] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.015 0.018 0.012 0.653 -0.061 1.489 [0.57] [0.42] [0.38] [0.90] [-0.09] [1.14] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP -0.072 -0.061 -0.117* -2.149 -2.796 -1.795 [-1.28] [-0.86] [-1.77] [-1.44] [-1.53] [-0.96] Complementarity 0.014 0.061 -0.048 -1.195 -0.399 -2.162 [0.26] [0.95] [0.69] [-0.79] [-0.22] [-1.16] Table: Impact on agricultural input % of households which use: Quantity used All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Chemical fertilizers SCTP*d2014 0.058 -0.004 0.096 2.378 1.171 2.305 [0.85] [-0.04] [1.01] [0.99] [0.34] [0.65] FISP*d2014 0.472*** 0.354*** 0.562*** 21.638*** 15.819*** 26.205*** [7.95] [3.55] [13.88] [7.80] [3.57] [7.93] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 0.338*** 0.284*** 0.435*** 21.952*** 21.792*** 22.380*** [5.03] [3.78] [4.17] [7.46] [6.20] [4.96] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.279*** 0.288** 0.339** 19.574*** 20.621*** 20.075*** [4.04] [2.97] [2.82] [5.49] [4.08] [3.8] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP -0.134** -0.07 -0.127 0.314 5.972 -3.825 [-2.12] [-0.89] [-1.26] [0.10] [1.51] [-0.9] Complementarity -0.192** -0.066 -0.223* -2.063 4.802 -6.13 [-2.09] [-0.49] [-1.75] [ -0.47] [0.77] [-1] Organic ferlizers Value SCTP*d2014 0.046 -0.009 0.122 213.131* 207.302 208.637* [0.64] [-0.09] [1.50] [1.92] [1.38] [1.79] FISP*d2014 -0.082 -0.072 -0.083 -201.953** -178.551* -221.040*** [-1.35] [-0.85] [-1.46] [-2.65] [-1.81] [-2.81] Joint impact SCTP&FISP -0.069 -0.158 0.077 114.853 91.057 162.463 [-0.75] [-1.32] [0.94] [0.93] [0.56] [1.39] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP -0.115 -0.149 -0.045 -98.278 -116.246 -46.175 [-1.81] [-1.36] [-0.70] [-1.04] [0.65] [-0.63] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.013 -0.086 0.160* 316.806*** 269.607** 383.503*** [0.16] [-0.81] [1.86] [2.94] [1.96] [3.38] Complementarity -0.033 -0.077 0.038 103.675 62.305 174.866* [-0.36] [-0.53] [0.46] [0.86] [0.31] [1.77] Pesticides SCTP*d2014 -0.004 -0.02 0.012 [-0.25] [-0.74] [0.95] FISP*d2014 -0.01 -0.023 0.001 [-0.74] [-1.16] [0.06] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 0.031 -0.004 0.062** [1.60] [-0.15] [2.68] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.035** 0.015 0.051* [2.39] [0.54] [1.94] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.041** 0.019 0.062** [2.46] [0.77] [2.33] Complementarity 0.045** 0.039 0.05 [2.36] [1.21] [1.61] Improved or hybrid seeds SCTP*d2014 0.05 -0.021 0.118* [1.04] [-0.36] [1.67] FISP*d2014 0.125*** 0.121* 0.136* [3.32] [1.96] [1.98] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 0.115 0.087 0.171* [1.49] [1.01] [1.93] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.065 0.108 0.053 [0.83] [1.13] [ 0.76] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP -0.01 -0.034 0.035 [-0.11] [-0.31] [0.37] Complementarity -0.06 -0.013 -0.083 [-0.67] [-0.11] [-0.82]
语言:英语
得分: 267.36 - https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/...ntations/pacdev2017daidone.pdf
数据资源: un
Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Objective of the paper To study the interplay between the Farm Input Subsidy Program (FISP) and the Social Cash Transfer Program (SCTP) in Malawi Impacts on ultra-poor households under three different treatment regimes: 1 exclusive participation in FISP (α) 2 exclusive participation in SCTP (β) 3 simultaneous participation in both (γ) Is there any complementarity between the two programs, i.e. γ > α + β Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Why Malawi Previous involvement in SCTP evaluation On-going debate in the region on the effectiveness of input subsidies and cash transfers This paper is part of a research work intended to inform FISP review and how it can be coordinated with other agricultural and social protection programs Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix The Farm Input Subsidy Program Initiated in 2005-2006 Initially aimed to reach approximately 50% of farmers to receive fertilizers for maize production Substantial changes in several aspects (objectives, scale, quantity of subsidized fertilizer supplies, voucher distribution system, voucher redemption system) In theory FISP targets small family farmers who are resource-poor but own a piece of land Broad criteria and variations in the use of the targeting guidelines Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix The Social Cash Transfer Program Unconditional cash transfers Targeted to ultra-poor and labour constrained households The size of the transfer to each household depends on the number of household members and their characteristics A pilot of the program was initiated in 2006 in one district As of April 2015, it reached over 100,000 households in 18 out of 28 districts Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Econometric method Two complications: 1 3 treatment regimes instead of one 2 only inclusion into SCTP is randomized Doubly robust method implemented by Uysal (2015) It combines regression modeling (based on a DiD approach) and Generalized Propensity Score (GPS) weighting by Imbens (2000) applied to multiple treatments’ interventions Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Econometric method In practice, we estimate a weighted least squares regression with the following minimization problem: min µ̃t,α̃t 1 N N ∑ i=1 ( K ∑ t=0 Dit(Ti) r̂(t, Xi) )( Yi − K ∑ t=0 µ̃tDit(Ti)− K ∑ t=0 Dit(Ti)(Xi − X̄)′α̃t )2 (1) where r̂(t, Xi) is the GPS estimated via a multinomial logit regression using baseline data Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Regression analysis The regression equivalent of DiD with covariates and weighting based on GPS is: Yi,d = ζ + αD2014i + β1SCTPi,d + β2(D2014i ∗ SCTPi,d)+ γ1FISPi,d + γ2(D2014i ∗ FISPi,d) + γ3SCTPi,d&FISPi,d+ δ(D2014i ∗ SCTPi,d&FISPi,d) + ∑ βXi + µi,d (2) Yi,d represents the main outcome variable Xi vector of household/community characteristics measured at baseline (i.e. not affected by the treatment) Parameters of interest: β2, γ2 and δ δ− β2 − γ2: complementarity between SCTP and FISP. δ− β2: incremental impact of FISP on SCTP. δ− γ2: incremental impact of SCTP on FISP Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Evaluation design and data Data collected from a seventeen-month impact evaluation of a sample eligible to receive SCTP in two districts (Salima and Mangochi) These data also provide information about inclusion into FISP RCT with delayed entry control group: 1 Random selection of Traditional Authorities 2 Random assignment of village clusters into SCTP Sample of 1,607 househods interviewed at both baseline (July/August 2013) and follow-up (November 2014) Four groups: 1 Control hh: neither received SCTP not FISP (38%) 2 Treatment SCTP: hh treated exclusively under SCTP (30%) 3 Treatment FISP: hh treated exclusively under FISP (15%) 4 Treatment SCT+FISP: hh treated under both programs simultaneously (17%) Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Household expenditure - total Table 1: Impact on total expenditure per adult equivalent MWK real values (1 USD=329.5 MWK) All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Baseline mean Baseline mean Baseline mean SCT*d2014 9480.7** 46207.2 7092.7 38001.4 13290.7** 56296.2 [2.19] [1.37] [2.08] FISP*d2014 -1592.2 50496.0 -7879.5 45677.7 6388.6 55867.3 [-0.48] [-1.62] [1.08] Joint impact SCT&FISP 10696.8** 51667.8 12625.7* 40800.7 10656.9** 64295.1 [2.04] [1.79] [2.05] Incremental impact of FISP on SCT 1216.1 5533.0 -2633.7 [0.32] [1.33] [-0.44] Incremental impact of SCT on FISP 12288.9** 20505.3** 4268.4 [2.24] [3.35] [0.57] Complementarity 2808.3 13412.6* -9022.3 [0.55] [2.26] [-1.09] R2 0.1671 0.1292 0.2666 Observations 3214 1806 1408 Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Household expenditure - Food Table 2: Impact on expenditure per adult equivalent by items All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Food SCTP*d2014 5020.7 2803.4 7984.1* [1.34] [0.61] [1.74] FISP*d2014 -794.6 -6198.5 5565.4 [-0.25] [-1.38] [1.08] Joint Impact SCTP&FISP 5538.9* 6616.2 5666.6 [1.40] [1.11] [1.26] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 518.3 3812.7 -2317.5 [0.18] [1.14] [-0.41] Incremental impact of SCT on FISP 6308.6 12814.7** 101.3 [1.57] [2.62] [0.02] Complementarity 1287.9 10011.2* -7882.8 [0.3] [1.86] [-1.06] R2 0.1742 0.104 0.2522 Observations 3124 1806 1408 Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Table 3: Impact on expenditure per adult equivalent by items All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Health SCTP*d2014 574.702 497.461 632.908 [1.51] [1.42] [0.92] FISP*d2014 -554.987 -417.04 -762.646 [-0.86] [-0.80] [-0.50] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 980.121** 1018.868 808.837 405.419 521.406 175.930 Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP [0.81] [0.82] [0.21] 1535.108* 1435.907** 1571.48 Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 1535.108* 1435.907** 1571.48 [1.94] [2.04] [1.02] Complementarity 960.406 938.446 938.58 [1.16] [1.2] [0.53] Education SCTP*d2014 210.792*** -38.447 456.396*** [2.98] [-0.28] [3.41] FISP*d2014 -117.666* -328.706** 117.8 [-1.84] [-2.53] [0.94] Joint impact SCT&FISP 281.521*** 142.917 426.356** [2.84] [1.19] [2.30] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 70.729 181.363 -30.039 [0.63] [1.18] [-0.54] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 399.187*** 471.622*** 308.556* [4.1] [3.5] [1.68] Complementarity 188.395 510.069** -147.839 [1.51] [2.5] [-0.81] R2 0.143 0.154 0.175 Clothing and footwear SCTP*d2014 1031.314*** 1033.338*** 1007.661*** [6.76] [5.05] [4.08] FISP*d2014 167.566** 26.962 410.703** [2.38] [0.25] [2.22] Joint impact SCT&FISP 980.496*** 1061.451*** 880.214*** [5.95] [5.42] [3.72] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP -50.818 28.113 -127.447 [-0.34] [0.13] [-0.58] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 812.929*** 1034.49*** 469.5115 [4.46] [5.08] [1.56] Complementarity -218.385 1.151 -538.1498 [-1.25] [0] [-1.85] Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Table 4: Impact on value of production MWK real values (1 USD= 329.5 MWK) All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Baseline Mean Baseline Mean Baseline Mean SCTP*d2014 1359.978 9143.033 2421.597* 10501.45 67.177 7472.863 [0.97] [1.75] [0.03] FISP*d2014 5079.694*** 9570.896 5954.431*** 11169.23 2806.269 7789.116 [3.74] [5.54] [1.08] Joint impact SCT&FISP 7702.45*** 9830.867 7798.565*** 11101.51 7196.608*** 8354.416 [6.29] [5.87] [4.00] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 6342.471*** 5376.968*** 7129.431*** [6.93] [ 3.68] [3.97] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 2622.755* 1844.134 4390.339** [1.81] [1.30] [1.99] Complementarity 1262.777 -577.463 4323.162 [0.78] [-0.35] [1.31] R2 0.275 0.313 0.284 Observations 3,214 1,806 1,408 Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Table 5: Impact on livestock expenditures and sales Expenses Sales All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained SCTP*d2014 1172.647*** 1395.706*** 761.950*** -78.668 -44.992 -247.801 [5.95] [6.07] [2.83] [-0.54] [-0.18] [-1.23] FISP*d2014 232.985*** 493.282*** 32.287 57.964 231.508 62.384 [2.96] [3.66] [0.28] [0.37] [0.76] [0.27] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 1688.574*** 1478.082*** 1997.143*** 395.800* 383.684 335.607 [5.89] [3.92] [6.19] [1.98] [1.05] [1.06] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 515.926* 82.3756 1235.193*** 474.468** 428.676 583.408 [1.82] [0.2] [4.68] [2.03] [1.08] [1.57] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 1455.59*** 984.800** 1964.855*** 337.836* 152.176 273.224 [5.04] [2.52] [5.33] [1.7] [0.5] [0.8] Complementarity 282.941 -410.906 1202.906*** 416.505 197.167 521.024 [0.99] [-0.94] [3.83] [1.50] [0.43] [1.17] R2 0.1879 0.1887 0.2714 0.0528 0.0677 0.1323 Observations 3214 1806 1408 3214 1806 1408 Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Table 6: Impact on livestock % of households which own: Quantity All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Chicken SCTP*d2014 0.196*** 0.150*** 0.236*** 0.931*** 0.698** 1.365*** [3.81] [2.77] [3.20] [3.03] [2.62] [3.04] FISP*d2014 0.103*** 0.134** 0.029 0.276* 0.408 -0.067 [2.80] [2.29] [0.77] [1.96] [1.34] [-0.31] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 0.244*** 0.230*** 0.263** 1.677*** 1.511*** 1.828*** [4.31] [4.54] [2.72] [3.90] [4.19] [3.03] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.047** 0.080* 0.027 0.746* 0.814** 0.463 [2.32] [1.81] [0.46] [1.90] [2.68] [0.98] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.141** 0.095 0.234** 1.400*** 1.104** 1.894** [2.56] [1.43] [2.13] [3.29] [2.39] [2.85] Complementarity -0.055 -0.054 -0.002 0.469 0.406 0.529 [-1.35] [-0.71] [-0.03] [1.20] [1.06] [1.08] Goats and sheeps SCTP*d2014 0.108*** 0.114*** 0.075* 0.145 0.263* 0.03 [3.99] [2.99] [1.91] [1.36] [1.84] [0.35] FISP*d2014 0.062* 0.099 0.025 0.145 0.294 0.021 [2.01] [1.53] [0.59] [1.30] [1.46] [0.19] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 0.238*** 0.185*** 0.300*** 0.694*** 0.758*** 0.452*** [5.79] [3.75] [5.93] [3.93] [2.99] [4.18] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.131*** 0.071 0.226*** 0.549** 0.495** 0.422*** [4.31] [1.44] [6.35] [2.96] [2.15] [4.87] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.176*** 0.086 0.276*** 0.549** 0.464* 0.431*** [3.70] [1.24] [4.48] [2.89] [1.73] [3.60] Complementarity 0.069* -0.028 0.201*** 0.404* 0.201 0 .401** [1.71] [-0.34] [3.44] [1.86] [0.68] [2.91 Pigeons, doves or ducks SCTP*d2014 0.007 0.006 0.001 0.136* 0.263** -0.083 [0.48] [0.37] [0.06] [1.71] [2.33] [-0.83] FISP*d2014 -0.005 -0.006 -0.006 0.065 0.143 -0.045 [-0.38] [-0.27] [-0.34] [1.21] [1.20] [-0.63] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 0.060** 0.064* 0.052* 0.280** 0.336** 0.238* [2.55] [1.84] [1.71] [2.74] [2.09] [1.80] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.053* 0.058* 0.051 0.144 0.072 0.320* [1.91] [1.7] [1.28] [1.15] [0.45] [1.67] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.064** 0.070* 0.057* 0.215** 0.192 0.283* [2.65] [1.9] [1.7] [2.12] [1.32] [1.81] Complementarity 0.057* 0.064 0.056 0.079 -0.071 0.365* [1.89] [1.5] [1.31] [0.58] [-0.38] [1.73] Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Conclusions These findings challenge important notions underling the approach to poverty reduction in Malawi The achievement of the objective of FISP and SCTP among poor households is best done by combining these programs such that a household participates in both programs simultaneously Positive synergies between SCTP and FISP in increasing expenditure, value of agricultural production, agricultural activities, livestock, and weakly, in improving food security Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Conclusions SCTP provides liquidity and certainty for poor households and small family farmers, allowing them to invest in agriculture, human capital development and better manage risk FISP can promote growth in the productivity of small family farmers by addressing structural constraints that limit access to inputs and markets Impact results obtained through simple programs’ overlap. (...) PtoP publications: http://www.fao.org/economic/ptop/publications/reports/en/ From Evidence to Action: the Story of Cash Transfers and Impact Evaluation in Sub-Saharan Africa: link http://www.fao.org/economic/ptop/publications/reports/en/ http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5157e.pdf Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Thank you noemi.pace@fao.org Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Table: Anova test for difference between groups of intervention: control, SCT, FISP, SCT+FISP (weights adjusted) C SCT FISP SCT&FISP F-test P-value>F single head of hh 0.748 0.730 0.751 0.740 0.18 0.9117 female head of hh 0.851 0.838 0.820 0.837 0.49 0.692 age of head of hh 54.495 54.161 55.087 54.719 0.15 0.927 num members in the hh 4.633 4.633 4.454 4.544 0.59 0.618 num members in the hh: 0-5 years old 0.783 0.769 0.728 0.771 0.27 0.846 num members in the hh: 6-12 years old 1.250 1.256 1.162 1.195 0.74 0.527 num members in the hh: 13-17 years old 0.905 0.905 0.873 0.891 0.11 0.956 num members in the hh: 18-64 years old 1.178 1.196 1.195 1.170 0.07 0.976 num members in the hh: ¿=65 years old 0.517 0.508 0.496 0.517 0.12 0.951 num orphans in the hh 1.099 1.084 1.019 1.035 0.23 0.874 yrs of education head of hh 1.272 1.296 1.245 1.385 0.28 0.840 hh severely labor constrained 0.456 0.449 0.473 0.463 0.17 0.914 hh consumption - total 164515 154514 163867 160597 0.56 0.639 hh consumption - food and beverages 127622 118177 124934 125508 0.75 0.523 Household owns or cultivates land 0.919 0.932 0.937 0.933 0.4 0.754 Total plot area operated within hh 1.210 1.238 1.220 1.247 0.13 0.944 HH has plot that is irrigated 0.045 0.045 0.051 0.066 0.76 0.515 HH applies chemical fertilizer 0.276 0.270 0.353 0.424 9.59 0.000 HH applies organic fertilizer 0.278 0.265 0.315 0.329 1.72 0.161 HH uses pesticides 0.015 0.030 0.040 0.030 1.5 0.212 HH uses improved or hybrid seed 0.283 0.271 0.328 0.348 2.51 0.057 HH planted maize 0.872 0.872 0.877 0.884 0.12 0.951 HH planted groundnut 0.094 0.091 0.089 0.136 2.23 0.083 HH planted pigeon pea 0.098 0.111 0.068 0.115 2.14 0.094 Value of production 9506 9143 9571 9831 0.35 0.786 HH owns hand hoe 0.813 0.814 0.837 0.855 1.18 0.317 HH owns axe 0.100 0.081 0.093 0.100 0.37 0.771 HH owns panga knife 0.192 0.226 0.242 0.217 1.02 0.383 HH owns sickle 0.126 0.128 0.107 0.085 1.6 0.187 HH owns chickens now 0.126 0.128 0.107 0.085 1.6 0.187 HH owns goat or a sheep now 0.064 0.054 0.051 0.083 1.38 0.246 Total HH Expenditure for livestock 87.79 97.95 43.83 80.277 0.86 0.462 Total HH livestock sales 275.48 321.27 119.46 293.949 1.63 0.180 obs 616 485 239 267 Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Table: Impact on food security All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Worry about lack of food SCTP*d2014 -0.091** -0.095** -0.084 [-2.17] [-2.12] [-1.57] FISP*d2014 -0.046 -0.070** 0.002 [-1.51] [-2.28] [0.04] Joint impact SCT&FISP -0.076 -0.109* -0.043 [-1.68] [-1.72] [-0.76] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.015 -0.014 0.04 [0.58] [-0.29] [0.72] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP -0.030 -0.039 -0.045 [-0.70] [-0.62] [-0.59] Complementarity 0.06 0.056 0.038 [1.56] [0.92] [0.44] Number of meals per day SCTP*d2014 0.226*** 0.174** 0.278*** [3.51] [2.36] [3.03] FISP*d2014 0.054 -0.016 0.131 [0.92] [-0.13] [1.57] Joint impact SCT&FISP 0.244*** 0.226** 0.237*** [3.25] [2.17] [2.88] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.018 0.05 -0.04 [0.3] [0.64] [-0.42] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.190** 0.241** 0.11 [2.79] [2.04] [0.87] Complementarity -0.036 0.07 -0.17 [-0.42] [0.46] [-1.34 Caloric intake in the past 7 days SCTP*d2014 187.382** 119.382 280.131** [2.13] [1.24] [2.24] FISP*d2014 -12.874 -57.596 63.059 [-0.29] [-0.70] [0.74] Joint impact SCT&FISP 188.926 175.909 267.392** [1.40] [1.03] [2.14] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 1.54 56.53 -75.80 [0.01] [0.4] [-0.51] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 201.80 233.50 -12.74 [1.43] [1.26] [-0.11] Complementarity 14.42 114.12 -75.80 [0.12] [0.71] [1.54] Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Table: Impact on food security (cont’d) All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Caloric intake from purchased food SCTP*d2014 181.329** 90.501 345.121*** [2.23] [0.93] [4.32] FISP*d2014 54.114 0.919 128.241 [0.82] [0.01] [1.47] Joint impact SCT&FISP 211.552** 163.367 294.328*** [2.09] [1.49] [2.79] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 30.22 72.87 -50.79 [0.42] [1] [-0.55] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 157.44 162.45 166.087 [1.58] [1.39] [1.58] Complementarity -23.89 71.95 -179.03 [0.24] [0.65] [-1.44] Caloric intake from produced food SCTP*d2014 -41.163 -18.085 -77.454 [-0.71] [-0.29] [-1.33] FISP*d2014 -6.951 -6.514 -21.837 [-0.38] [-0.26] [-1.03] Joint impact SCT&FISP -29.016 4.027 -63.326 [-0.52] [0.08] [-0.90] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 12.147 22.112 14.128 [0.78] [0.90] [0.48] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP -22.066 10.541 -41.489 [-0.41] [0.21] [-0.63] Complementarity 19.098 28.626 35.965 [0.84] [0.84] [1] Caloric intake from gifts SCTP*d2014 -4.915 -2.845 -7.85 [-1.29] [-0.81] [-1.68] FISP*d2014 3.677* 1.431 6.655*** [1.78] [0.50] [3.04] Joint impact SCT&FISP -1.503 -1.061 -1.84 [-0.37] [-0.26] [-0.39] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 3.412* 1.784 6.010*** [1.73] [0.58] [2.96] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP -5.180 -2.492 -8.495 [-1.18] [-0.50] [-1.91] Complementarity -0.265 0.353 -0.645 [-0.1] [0.09] [-0.23] Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Table: Index of agricultural assets All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained SCTP*d2014 0.029*** 0.043*** 0.007 [3.58] [4.07] [0.58] FISP*d2014 0.023*** 0.036*** 0.003 [2.85] [3.00] [0.27] Joint impact SCT&FISP 0.042*** 0.050*** 0.026** [5.18] [4.09] [2.17] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.014* 0.007 0.019* [1.79] [0.68] [1.73] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.020** 0.014 0.029** [2.21] [1.08] [1.97] Complementarity -0.009 -0.029* 0.022 [-0.80] [-1.79] [1.18] R2 0.1881 0.1708 0.2480 Observations 3214 1806 1408 Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Table: Impact on crop production Land size for each crop: % of households engaged in: Quantity produced All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Maize production SCTP*d2014 0.039 0.037 0.029 -0.001 -0.004 -0.008 18.767 19.641 12.244 [0.50] [0.49] [0.26] [-0.03] [-0.19] [-0.15] [1.22] [1.29] [0.52] FISP*d2014 0.08 -0.03 0.177* 0.067** 0.014 0.112** 65.581*** 61.179*** 61.037*** [1.06] [-0.33] [1.78] [2.48] [0.72] [2.52] [6.42] [5.97] [4.49] Joint impact SCT&FISP 0.189*** 0.206** 0.161* 0.033 0.003 0.081 81.418*** 76.181*** 82.667*** [2.79] [2.34] [1.65] [0.98] [0.10] [1.64] [4.32] [3.70] [4.28] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.15*** 0.17** 0.13* 0.034 0.007 0.089 62.651*** 56.540*** 70.423*** [4.25] [2.62] [1.94] [1.52] [0.28] [2.99] [5.40] [3.29] [4.08] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.109 0.24** -0.016 -0.034 -0.011 -0.031 15.837 15.002 21.629 [1.5] [2.27] [-0.16] [-0.94] [-0.39] [-0.56] [0.78] [0.70] [0.97] Complementarity 0.069 0.20* -0.045 -0.033 -0.007 -0.023 -2.93 -4.639 9.386 [0.82] [1.77] [-0.36] [-0.94] [-0.22] [-0.4] [-0.19] [-0.25] [0.43] Grandnut production SCTP*d2014 0.061* 0.075 0.05 0.090* 0.089 0.088 7.954** 8.654 7.076* [1.84] [1.68] [1.33] [1.86] [1.44] [1.54] [2.23] [1.68] [2.01] FISP*d2014 0.068*** 0.077** 0.064* 0.082*** 0.096** 0.082** 7.861** 6.145 9.508** [3.36] [2.65] [1.94] [4.04] [2.42] [2.37] [2.33] [1.25] [2.16] Joint impact SCT&FISP 0.074** 0.115** 0.015 0.105** 0.105* 0.100* 9.038** 9.372** 8.112** [2.07] [2.59] [0.38] [2.14] [1.74] [1.99] [2.38] [2.19] [2.21] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.013 0.040 -0.035 0.015 0.017 0.012 1.084 0.718 1.035 [0.44] [1.2] [-0.84] [0.34] [0.31] [0.19] [0.47] [0.27] [0.24] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.006 0.038 -0.050 0.022 0.009 0.018 1.177 3.227 -1.397 [0.15] [0.81] [-0.94] [0.45] [0.14] [0.3] [0.25] [0.60] [-0.25] Complementarity -0.055 -0.037 -0.01* -0.067 -0.079 -0.069 -6.777 -5.428 -8.472 [-1.5] [-0.82] [-1.82] [-1.43] [-1.2] [-0.95] [-1.63] [-0.98] [-1.39] Pigeon pea production SCTP*d2014 0.003 0.048 -0.079 0.016 0.102** -0.109 1.506 2.648 -0.09 [0.07] [1.02] [-1.57] [0.30] [2.05] [-1.57] [0.85] [1.25] [-0.06] FISP*d2014 0.071* 0.092** 0.029 0.094** 0.095** 0.071 3.706*** 3.916** 3.039** [1.92] [2.23] [0.53] [2.23] [2.33] [1.18] [2.85] [2.43] [2.31] Joint impact SCT&FISP -0.004 0.01 -0.032 0.001 0.027 -0.035 1.929 1.405 2.28 [-0.10] [0.13] [-0.69] [0.01] [0.49] [-0.64] [1.30] [0.82] [1.13] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP -0.007 -0.039 0.047 -0.015 -0.074** 0.074 0.424 -1.243 2.37 [-0.34] [-0.76] [1.3] [-0.86] [-2.49] [2.16] [0.41] [-0.76] [1.40] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP -0.075 -0.082 -0.060 -0.094 -0.067 -0.105 -1.776 -2.511 -0.759 [-1.33] [-0.94] [-1.02] [-1.56] [-1.04] [-1.58] [-0.97] [-1.15] [-0.34] Complementarity -0.078* -0.13* 0.019 -0.110** -0.169*** 0.004 -3.282** -5.159** -0.669 [-1.74] [-1.75] [0.28] [-2.48] [-3.18] [0.05] [-2.14] [-2.40] [-0.32] Nkhwani production SCTP*d2014 -0.034 -0.059 -0.019 -0.086* -0.122* -0.069 -0.954 -2.396 0.366 [-1.07] [-1.19] [-0.54] [-1.89] [-1.95] [-1.52] [-0.66] [-1.28] [0.25] FISP*d2014 0.012 -0.032 0.061 0.001 -0.043 0.06 1.849 0.339 3.651*** [0.33] [-0.62] [1.63] [0.03] [-0.86] [1.06] [1.45] [0.19] [2.81] Joint impact SCT&FISP -0.009 -0.055 0.035 -0.07 -0.104 -0.057 -0.3 -2.457 1.856 [-0.22] [-1.03] [0.87] [-1.28] [-1.39] [-1.36] [-0.19] [-1.26] [1.19] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.026 0.004 0.054 0.015 0.018 0.012 0.653 -0.061 1.489 [1.16] [0.18] [1.34] [0.57] [0.42] [0.38] [0.90] [-0.09] [1.14] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP -0.021 -0.024 -0.026 -0.072 -0.061 -0.117* -2.149 -2.796 -1.795 [-0.48] [-0.47] [-0.51] [-1.28] [-0.86] [-1.77] [-1.44] [-1.53] [-0.96] Complementarity 0.01 0.036 -0.007 0.014 0.061 -0.048 -1.195 -0.399 -2.162 [0.3] [0.67] [-0.13] [0.26] [0.95] [0.69] [-0.79] [-0.22] [-1.16] Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Table: Impact on cultivated land All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained SCTP*d2014 0.077 0.205 -0.074 [0.61] [1.39] [-0.42] FISP*d2014 0.236* 0.248 0.174 [1.77] [1.40] [1.29] Joint impact SCT&FISP 0.293* 0.273 0.298* [1.70] [1.29] [1.85] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.216 0.07 0.372** [1.09] [0.31] [2.5] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.057 0.03 0.124 [0.31] [0.12] [0.8] Complementarity -0.020 -0.18 0.198 [-0.08] [-0.65] [0.96] R2 0.1025 0.1070 0.1799 Observations 3214 1806 1408 Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Table: Impact on agricultural input % of households which use: Quantity used All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Chemical fertilizers SCTP*d2014 0.058 -0.004 0.096 2.378 1.171 2.305 [0.85] [-0.04] [1.01] [0.99] [0.34] [0.65] FISP*d2014 0.472*** 0.354*** 0.562*** 21.638*** 15.819*** 26.205*** [7.95] [3.55] [13.88] [7.80] [3.57] [7.93] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 0.338*** 0.284*** 0.435*** 21.952*** 21.792*** 22.380*** [5.03] [3.78] [4.17] [7.46] [6.20] [4.96] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.279*** 0.288** 0.339** 19.574*** 20.621*** 20.075*** [4.04] [2.97] [2.82] [5.49] [4.08] [3.8] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP -0.134** -0.07 -0.127 0.314 5.972 -3.825 [-2.12] [-0.89] [-1.26] [0.10] [1.51] [-0.9] Complementarity -0.192** -0.066 -0.223* -2.063 4.802 -6.13 [-2.09] [-0.49] [-1.75] [ -0.47] [0.77] [-1] Organic ferlizers Value SCTP*d2014 0.046 -0.009 0.122 213.131* 207.302 208.637* [0.64] [-0.09] [1.50] [1.92] [1.38] [1.79] FISP*d2014 -0.082 -0.072 -0.083 -201.953** -178.551* -221.040*** [-1.35] [-0.85] [-1.46] [-2.65] [-1.81] [-2.81] Joint impact SCTP&FISP -0.069 -0.158 0.077 114.853 91.057 162.463 [-0.75] [-1.32] [0.94] [0.93] [0.56] [1.39] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP -0.115 -0.149 -0.045 -98.278 -116.246 -46.175 [-1.81] [-1.36] [-0.70] [-1.04] [0.65] [-0.63] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.013 -0.086 0.160* 316.806*** 269.607** 383.503*** [0.16] [-0.81] [1.86] [2.94] [1.96] [3.38] Complementarity -0.033 -0.077 0.038 103.675 62.305 174.866* [-0.36] [-0.53] [0.46] [0.86] [0.31] [1.77] Pesticides SCTP*d2014 -0.004 -0.02 0.012 [-0.25] [-0.74] [0.95] FISP*d2014 -0.01 -0.023 0.001 [-0.74] [-1.16] [0.06] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 0.031 -0.004 0.062** [1.60] [-0.15] [2.68] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.035** 0.015 0.051* [2.39] [0.54] [1.94] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.041** 0.019 0.062** [2.46] [0.77] [2.33] Complementarity 0.045** 0.039 0.05 [2.36] [1.21] [1.61]
语言:英语
得分: 265.68 - https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/...entations/ABCA_Malawi_Pace.pdf
数据资源: un
If above all verified, register visitor on visited VLR, over-the-air (OTA) activation, billing file, network, in visiting location register (VLR), and customer care DB. activate; update customer care and billing databases (DBs). 2.2.3 Incremental cost modelling A further principle, as we are focused on the differences in costs due to roaming over domestic tariffs, is to understand the incremental cost for each part of the business process due to the fact that it is employed for roaming. There are various forms that such incremental costs can take. Incremental cost due to roaming (for equipment for instance) is either an extension of capacity, or of functionality, or spend on specialized quite new equipment by function. (...) However, this is a moving target as more extensions of features become absorbed into the standard processes and support platforms over the long term. Various types of increments in costs are shown in Table 3 for the MNO operations related to roaming with their long term trends: Table 3 – Types of cost increment in MNO assets for roaming Categories of possible cost increments (opex and Long-term cost trend capex) for roaming over domestic costs Increased capacity for international roaming for May become considered part of customary business growth – existing assets. i.e. normal business expansion cost.
语言:英语
得分: 264.23 - https://www.itu.int/wftp3/Publ...s/files/basic-html/page20.html
数据资源: un
At the current rate of progress – that is at the 1 .13 percent average annual increment between 1998 and 2006 - gender balance will be reached in 2027 at the D-1 level. (...) In the Secretariat for all professional and higher category staff with appointments of one year or more2 : As of 31 December 2007 women represent 37.3 per cent overall, an increase of 0.02 percentage points since 31 December 2006; • At the D-2 and P-5 levels there have been decreases of 2.7 and 1.2 per cent in the representation of women, bringing the percent to 22.9 and 30.1 at the these levels respectively. • At the P-5 level, at the current rate of progress (0.17 percent average annual increment between 1998 and 2007) gender balance will be reached in 2120. (...) Thank you. 4 ANNEX 1 Status of Women in the UN System at a Glance (as of 31 December 2006) Representation of women (percentage) P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 UG 1998 2006 1998 2006 1998 2006 1998 2006 1998 2006 1998 2006 1998 2006 53 57 40 43 29 35 20 29 17 26 16 23 14 21 4 (tot. increment) 3 (tot. increment) 6 (tot. increment) 9 (tot. increment) 9 (tot. increment) 7 (tot. increment) 7 (tot. increment) 0.5 (average annual increment) 0.375 ((average annual increment) 0.75 (average annual increment) 1.13 (average annual increment) 1.13 (average annual increment) 0.88 (average annual increment) 0.88 (average annual increment) Source: Table 11C - Secretariat of the United Nations System Chief Executive Board for Coordination *UG – (Ungraded) – ASG and above Jm 26Feb 2008 Year at which gender parity will be reached at current average annual increment P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 UG At current average annual increment achieved 2025 2026 2025 2027 2037 2039 Required average annual increase to achieve gender balance of 50% in all professional categories by 2010 and in all D and higher categories by 2015 (percentage terms) P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 UG achieved 1.75 3.75 5.25 3 3 3 5 ANNEX 2 Status of Women in the Secretariat at a Glance (as of 30 June 2007) Representation of women (percentage) P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 ASG USG 1998 2007 1998 2007 1998 2007 1998 2007 1998 2007 1998 2007 1998 2007 1998 2007 Total % 45.4 49.7 39.4 41.2 32.3 34.5 29.3 30.8 23.7 28.5 18.8 24.0 13.0 20.8 11.1 15.4 Total change % 4.3 1.8 2.2 1.5 4.8 5.2 7.8 4.3 Average annual increment % .48 .20 .24 .17 .53 .58 .87 .48 Year at which gender parity will be reached at current average annual increment P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 ASG USG At current average annual increment 2008 2052 2072 2120 2048 2052 2041 2080 By meeting 1% annual increase target in the HRAPs 2008 2018 2023 2027 2029 2033 2036 2042 Required average annual increase to achieve 50% gender balance in all professional categories by 2010 and in all D and higher categories by 2015 (percentage) P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 ASG USG .10 2.93 5.17 6.40 2.69 3.25 3.65 4.33 Source: Office of Human Resources data
语言:英语
得分: 264.1 - https://www.un.org/womenwatch/...20Oral%20report%205march08.pdf
数据资源: un
KIEV ASSESSMENT. DRAFT CHAPTER ON FORESTRY / SUBMITTED BY THE EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (EEA)
L’écart entre l’AAN et les coupes annuelles est peut-être aussi en train de se creuser pour des raisons qui tiennent à la rentabilité économique de l’exploitation forestière et à l’utilisation à grande échelle de la totalité de l’AAN. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 W estern Europe Central and Eastern Europe NIS mill. m3 Annual fellings of net annual increment Net annual increment in forest available for wood supply Europe centrale et orientale NEI Europe occidentale Coupes annuelles Accroissement annuel net des forêts disponibles pour l’approvisionnement en bois CEP/AC.10/2002/29 page 9 Figure 5.
语言:法语
得分: 263.92 - daccess-ods.un.org/acce...en&DS=CEP/AC.10/2002/29&Lang=F
数据资源: ods
Ban Ki-moon urges ‘incremental’ progress in deadlocked disarmament arena | | 1UN News Skip to main content Welcome to the United Nations Language العربية 中文 English Français Русский Español Português Kiswahili Other Hindi हिंदी Global UN News Global perspective Human stories Search Search Advanced Search Main navigation Home Africa Americas Asia Pacific Middle East Europe UN Art and Gifts History Corner Topics Peace and Security Economic Development Humanitarian Aid Climate and Environment Human Rights UN Affairs Women Law and Crime Prevention Health Culture and Education SDGs Migrants and Refugees In depth Interviews Features Photo Stories News in Brief The Lid is On UN Gender Focus UN and Africa UN Podcasts Secretary-General Spokesperson All Statements Selected Speeches Press Encounters Official Travels Media UN Video UN Photo Meeting Coverage Media Accreditation Webtv Audio and Subscription Audio Hub Subscribe Ban Ki-moon urges ‘incremental’ progress in deadlocked disarmament arena Facebook Twitter Print Email Ban Ki-moon urges ‘incremental’ progress in deadlocked disarmament arena 7 April 2008 Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today urged United Nations Member States to reverse the setbacks of recent years in controlling the threats posed by weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons – by reaching consensus on even small steps forward. (...) To break the deadlocks, he asked delegations to be flexible and not to insist on achieving all of their objectives: “I believe that incremental progress in this institution can have positive spillover effects across the UN’s disarmament machinery,” he said.
语言:英语
得分: 261.81 - https://news.un.org/en/story/2008/04/254992
数据资源: un