Effectiveness of bailouts in the EU

Governments in the EU frequently bail out firms in distress by granting state aid. I use data from 86 cases during the years 1995-2003 to examine two issues: the effectiveness of bailouts in preventing bankruptcy and the determinants of bailout policy. The results are threefold. First, the estimated discrete-time hazard rate increases during the first four years after the subsidy and drops after that, suggesting that some bailouts only delayed exit instead of preventing it. The number of failing bailouts could be reduced if European control was tougher. Second, governments’ bailout decisions favored state-owned firms, even though state-owned firms did not outperform private ones in the survival chances. Third, subsidy choice is an endogenous variable in the analysis of the hazard rate. Treating it as exogenous underestimates its impact on the bankruptcy probability. Several policy implications of the results are discussed in the paper

Towards the development of a UK Peatland Code: Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) Pilot Research Project

This Final Report describes research into the rationale and basis for the development of a UK Peatland Code. The development of the Code was supported by the latest relevant research evidence, via an international expert workshop, and by feedback from the Code’s Steering Group and 17 individuals/organisations from across the UK. The Code was launched in September 2013, at the start of an 18-month pilot phase of operation, in which the Code will be further developed, and is available online: http://www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/peatland-code. There is growing interest in the creation of new markets to facilitate private investment in the provision of ecosystem services, and this was a key emphasis of Defra’s 2011 Natural Environment White Paper. The White Paper led to the formation of an Ecosystem Markets Taskforce to identify business opportunities in the natural environment that recommended the development of a UK Peatland Code in its report in March 2013. Subsequently in May 2013, Defra published an action plan for developing the potential for payments for ecosystem services in which it committed to work in partnership with the IUCN and others to support the testing, development and launch later in 2013 of a pilot UK Peatland Code. UK peatlands are a relevant place to explore the potential to pay for ecosystem services, given the range and importance of ecosystem services that they supply, and that fact that many of these service are not widely or fully paid for via agricultural support payments or by markets. This has led to the degradation of many peatlands through inappropriate burning, overWgrazing and drainage, leading to reductions in carbon storage, water quality and biodiversity. Investing in conserving and restoring peatlands is therefore a key tool to help deliver the UK’s climate change obligations, whilst helping meet other national and international obligations on biodiversity and water quality. Although there is growing interest from the private sector in paying for some of these ecosystem services, and there have been a small number of bilateral agreements to pay for peatland restoration via the Corporate Social Responsibility market, there is a need to develop guidance, frameworks and monitoring to provide sponsors with the confidence necessary to restore peatlands on any significant scale. This Payment for Ecosystem Service (PES) pilot research project therefore conducted the research necessary to develop and launch a UK pilot Peatland Code, designed to support markets that could pay for the restoration and reWwetting of degraded peatlands across the UK. The research project and subsequent Code drew significantly on Defra’s PES Best Practice Guide, first identifying a saleable ecosystem service and prospective buyers and sellers, based on previous work and new market research conducted as part of this project (Phase 1 in the PES Guide). The Code establishes the principles for a peatland PES scheme, and resolves a number of technical issues, to make it possible for buyers and sellers to work together for peatland restoration (Phase 2 in the PES Guide). The Code also provides guidance on contracts and monitoring (Phases 3 and 4 of the PES Guide), and takes a bundled approach to PES (a ‘premium carbon’ scheme that provides a range of coWbenefits), whilst not ruling out the possibility of layered schemes (e.g. using the Code to elicit payments for climate mitigation benefits on top of existing schemes that pay for water quality benefits) (Phase 5 of the PES Guide). The research offers a number of insights into the creation of markets for ecosystem services linked to peatland restoration. It also offers insights of more general relevance to the creation and implementation of new markets for ecosystem services, which may be of relevance to other habitats and ecosystems in the UK, and to the development of new PES schemes internationally

Preservation and recovery of mangrove ecosystem carbon stocks in abandoned shrimp ponds

Mangrove forests capture and store exceptionally large amounts of carbon and are increasingly recognised as an important ecosystem for carbon sequestration. Yet land-use change in the tropics threatens this ecosystem and its critical ‘blue carbon’ (carbon stored in marine and coastal habitats) stores. The expansion of shrimp aquaculture is among the major causes of mangrove loss globally. Here, we assess the impact of mangrove to shrimp pond conversion on ecosystem carbon stocks, and carbon losses and gains over time after ponds are abandoned. Our assessment is based on an intensive field inventory of carbon stocks at a coastal setting in Thailand. We show that although up to 70% of ecosystem carbon is lost when mangroves are converted to shrimp ponds, some abandoned ponds contain deep mangrove soils (>2.5 m) and large carbon reservoirs exceeding 865 t carbon per hectare. We also found a positive recovery trajectory for carbon stocks in the upper soil layer (0-15 cm) of a chronosequence of abandoned ponds, associated with natural mangrove regeneration. Our data suggest that mangrove carbon pools can rebuild in abandoned ponds over time in areas exposed to tidal flushing

Efficacy of dose-escalated chemoradiation on complete tumour response in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (RECTAL-BOOST); a phase 2 randomised controlled trial

Purpose Pathological complete tumour response following chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is associated with favourable prognosis and allows organ-sparing treatment strategies. We aimed to investigate the effect of an external radiation boost to the tumour prior to chemoradiation on pathological or sustained clinical complete tumour response in LARC. Methods and materials This multicentre, non-blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial followed the trials within cohorts-design, which is a pragmatic trial design allowing cohort participants to be randomized for an experimental intervention. Patients in the intervention group are offered the intervention (and can accept or refuse this), whereas patients in the control group are not notified about the randomisation. Participants of a colorectal cancer cohort referred for chemoradiation of LARC to either of two radiotherapy centres were eligible. Patients were randomised to no boost or an external radiation boost (5 x 3 Gy) without concurrent chemotherapy directly followed by standard pelvic chemoradiation (25 x 2 Gy with concurrent capecitabine). The primary outcome was pathological complete response (pCR, i.e. ypT0N0) in patients with planned surgery at 12 weeks or, as surrogate for pCR, a 2-year sustained clinical complete response for patients treated with an organ preservation strategy. Analyses were intention to treat. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCTXXXXXX. Results Between Sept 2014 and July 2018, 128 patients were randomised. Fifty-one of the 64 (79.7%) patients in the intervention group accepted and received a boost. Compared with the control group, fewer patients in the intervention group had a cT4-stage and a low rectal tumour (31.3% versus 17.2% and 56.3% versus 45.3% respectively), and more patients had a cN2-stage (59.4% versus 70.3% respectively). Rate of pathological or sustained clinical complete tumour response was similar between the groups: 23 of 64 (35.9%, 95%CI 24.3-48.9) in the intervention group versus 24 of 64 (37.5%, 95%CI 25.7-50.5) in the control group (OR=0.94 95%CI 0.46-1.92). Near-complete or complete tumour regression was more common in the intervention group: 34 of 49 (69.4%) versus 24 of 53 (45.3%) in the control group (OR=2.74, 95%CI 1.21-6.18). Grade >3 acute toxicity was comparable: 6 of 64 (9.4%) in the intervention group versus 5 of 64 (7.8%) in the control group (OR=1.22 95%CI 0.35-4.22). Conclusion Dose escalation with an external radiotherapy boost to the tumour prior to neoadjuvant chemoradiation did not increase the pathological or sustained clinical complete tumour response rate in LARC

Protocol for the development of a CONSORT extension for RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data.

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often complex and expensive to perform. Less than one third achieve planned recruitment targets, follow-up can be labor-intensive, and many have limited real-world generalizability. Designs for RCTs conducted using cohorts and routinely collected health data, including registries, electronic health records, and administrative databases, have been proposed to address these challenges and are being rapidly adopted. These designs, however, are relatively recent innovations, and published RCT reports often do not describe important aspects of their methodology in a standardized way. Our objective is to extend the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement with a consensus-driven reporting guideline for RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data. Methods: The development of this CONSORT extension will consist of five phases. Phase 1 (completed) consisted of the project launch, including fundraising, the establishment of a research team, and development of a conceptual framework. In phase 2, a systematic review will be performed to identify publications (1) that describe methods or reporting considerations for RCTs conducted using cohorts and routinely collected health data or (2) that are protocols or report results from such RCTs. An initial "long list" of possible modifications to CONSORT checklist items and possible new items for the reporting guideline will be generated based on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) and The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statements. Additional possible modifications and new items will be identified based on the results of the systematic review. Phase 3 will consist of a three-round Delphi exercise with methods and content experts to evaluate the "long list" and generate a "short list" of key items. In phase 4, these items will serve as the basis for an in-person consensus meeting to finalize a core set of items to be included in the reporting guideline and checklist. Phase 5 will involve drafting the checklist and elaboration-explanation documents, and dissemination and implementation of the guideline. Discussion: Development of this CONSORT extension will contribute to more transparent reporting of RCTs conducted using cohorts and routinely collected health data

Denial of long-term issues with agriculture on tropical peatlands will have devastating consequences

Lette

New concept development model: Explorative study of its usability in intelligence augmentation

Contains fulltext : 84275.pdf (preprint version ) (Open Access)CSEDU 2010 - 2nd International Conference on Computer Supported Educatio