Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Contents -- Foreword -- Introduction -- Executive Summary -- Problem and research objectives -- The characteristics and promise of PPPs -- Applicability and examples -- Framework conditions -- Recommendations -- 1. Public-Private Partnerships for Climate Finance -- 1.1 Climate finance -- 1.2 Public-private partnerships -- 1.2.1 Formal definition and broader applicability -- 1.2.2 Fields of application -- 2. Framework conditions -- 2.1 Drivers -- 2.1.1 "Value-for-money" -- 2.1.2 Efficiency in implementation and service delivery -- 2.1.3 Financial leverage -- 2.2 Enabling Environment -- 2.3 Risks and barriers -- 2.4 Success factors -- 2.5 Paris and beyond: Prospects for the future? -- 3. Case studies and stakeholder dialogue -- 3.1 Case studies -- 3.1.1 Green for Growth Fund (GGF) -- 3.1.2 Community Development Carbon Fund (CDCF) -- 3.1.3 GET FiT Program in Uganda -- 3.1.4 The Stormwater Management Road and Tunnel -- 3.1.5 The Maroccan Ouarzazate Project -- 3.2 Insights from stakeholders -- 4. Discussion and key learnings -- 4.1 Lessons Learned -- 4.1.1 Stable regulatory environments are needed to attract substantial private investments -- 4.1.2 Provision of tailored technical assistance, capacity-building and awareness-raising can accelerate and ease private sector engagement -- 4.1.3 Involvement of civil society or community groups enhances the efficacy of PPPs on the ground -- Enabling risk allocation to the most suitable party is critical -- Strong political commitment and analysis of PPP models and market viability is required -- Effectively tackling climate related externalities is needed to ensure the allocation of funds to low carbon projects -- 4.2 Recommendations to negotiators -- 4.2.1 Recommendations -- 5. Works Cited -- Sammenfatning -- Problem- og undersøgelsesmålsætning -- OPP karakteristika og potentiale.

Abstract: Background: The European Union (EU) aims to optimize patient protection and efficiency of health-care research by harmonizing procedures across Member States. Nonetheless, further improvements are required to increase multicenter research efficiency. We investigated IRB procedures in a large prospective European multicenter study on traumatic brain injury (TBI), aiming to inform and stimulate initiatives to improve efficiency. Methods: We reviewed relevant documents regarding IRB submission and IRB approval from European neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI). Documents included detailed information on IRB procedures and the duration from IRB submission until approval(s). They were translated and analyzed to determine the level of harmonization of IRB procedures within Europe. Results: From 18 countries, 66 centers provided the requested documents. The primary IRB review was conducted centrally (N = 11, 61%) or locally (N = 7, 39%) and primary IRB approval was obtained after one (N = 8, 44%), two (N = 6, 33%) or three (N = 4, 23%) review rounds with a median duration of respectively 50 and 98 days until primary IRB approval. Additional IRB approval was required in 55% of countries and could increase duration to 535 days. Total duration from submission until required IRB approval was obtained was 114 days (IQR 75–224) and appeared to be shorter after submission to local IRBs compared to central IRBs (50 vs. 138 days, p = 0.0074). Conclusion: We found variation in IRB procedures between and within European countries. There were differences in submission and approval requirements, number of review rounds and total duration. Research collaborations could benefit from the implementation of more uniform legislation and regulation while acknowledging local cultural habits and moral values between countries.