We propose and evaluate an extension to the Application-Layer FEC (AL-FEC) codes introduced by the Pro-MPEG Forum in its Code of Practice 3 r2 (Pro-MPEG . Layer FEC (AL-FEC) codes introduced by the Pro-MPEG. Forum in its Code of Practice 3 r2 (Pro-MPEG COP3 codes), consisting in allowing the use of a number. [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avformat: Add Pro-MPEG CoP #3-R2 FEC protocol. Vlad Tarca vtarca at Thu Jun 2 CEST.
|Published (Last):||8 June 2015|
|PDF File Size:||18.87 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||20.85 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Please see paragraphs 11 and Currently undefined is the term anthropogenic.
ip cop3 r2 pdf – download now – tepedojunc’s soup
While there are different interpretations of this statement’s meaning, it is clear that sinks are to be included under the Convention. Australia believes in a comprehensive approach, covering all greenhouse gases, all emissions, sources and sinks see Q1 and Q3coo3, therefore, all activities relating to sink enhancement, in line with IPCC Guidelines, should be credited, provided they are reported, with measurement, in a country’s national communication and are subject to the review mechanism see Q Why or why not?
All quantifiable anthropogenic sinks should be included, subject to the decisions of MOP1. These systematic uncertainties do not necessarily imply similar levels of uncertainties in measuring changes over time, as with standardised e2 comparable methodologies such errors tend to cancel out. Parties included in Annex I shall, individually or jointly, ensure that their aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by sources of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A do not exceed their commitments, expressed in terms of emissions budgets, inscribed in Attachment 1.
Extension of the Secretariat Pro Tempore. Applying such criteria Parties should, on a case by case basis, justify why their actions qualify as removal through anthropogenic enhancement of sinks. Canada is currently in the process of examining a statistically valid method to ensure that a comprehensive and equitable methodology is developed so that all sources are treated appropriately and reflect their inherent uncertainties.
maniac cop 3 dvd | eBay
Suggestions have been made that to do otherwise would grandfather the rates of deforestation and would, therefore, be in conflict with Article 4.
MOP1 will be in a better position to judge adequacy, based on information from the in depth reviews of Second National Communications.
Rules of Procedure for COPs. Establishment of the Pro Tempore Secretariat. Man can enhance the carbon dioxide uptake of these sinks through direct actions, however. Australia cop33 believes adoption of the comprehensive approach for the first budget year is necessary because.
Subject to relevant modalities, rules and guidelines, to be decided by the first MOP, Parties that apply the methodologies referred to under Article 4 may count their enhancement of removals by sinks against their aggregate anthropogenic CO 2 equivalent emissions by sources. This is a larger uncertainty than usually occurs on an emissions trend. Anthropogenic sinks are processes which remove greenhouse gases cop the atmosphere and are influenced positively or negatively by human activity.
The fundamental criteria cip3 the fact that the biosphere has significant impact on the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. These commitments are unsustainable.
Technical issues to be addressed r22 the status of additional carbon sequestration due to C and N fertilization from anthropogenic emissions. Including sinks would interfere with management and utilisation of land resources including forest. A legally binding target would be defined with reference to gross anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuels and industrial processes for all gases and all sources, excluding carbon dioxide emissions from biomass.
Each country should be able to develop methodologies suitable to itself in accordance with the IPCC guidelines. At the same time all Parties must recognise that the enhancement of sinks can only be supplementary to other policies and measures for addressing the climate change issue.
If we were to eliminate some sources from an inventory, or a QELRO, solely because of the uncertainty in the emission estimates, we might also be eliminating an area in which large and measurable gains could be made in reducing emissions, or in enhancing the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The IPCC Guidelines for national inventories recognise varying levels of uncertainty, and seek to improve the quality of inventory data and the surrounding uncertainty of the estimates through checks for completeness and accuracy of inventories.
The inclusion of anthropogenic sinks in national programs to mitigate climate f2 is specifically provided for in the Climate Change Convention and in the Berlin Mandate.
Defined as “A statement of a range of values of the quantity in question, usually expressed as a number ccop3 be added to or subtracted from the basic value, or simply as a pair co;3 numbers expressing the limits of the range. Definition as per paragraph 3. Increased emissions from land use change would be subtracted from the estimated uptake from projects aimed and enhancing sinks. None, please see paragraph 3. The answer depends on the modalities, rules and guidelines to be agreed by the first MOP.
The exclusion of sinks from a QELRO removes much of the incentive to undertake these types of activities. Conservation of Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta caretta. Countries will be required to justify their results as reported in their national communication to the Review Team from the FCCC, and while countries should report on all sink activity, only those sinks reported on in the national communication should be claimed against a QELROs.
ip cop3 r2 pdf – download now
Australia believes that all national sinks relevant to a country’s emissions profile should be included. Australia believes that while there are uncertainties associated with the definition and measurement of sinks, there are adequate methods available if rigorously applied to enable sinks to be included in a QELRO.
Additional criteria is the fact that sinks provide added flexibility to Parties to select actions 2r the lowest cost and highest environmental benefit. Any approach that fosters the enhancement of sinks, and reduces the incentives to de-forest should be endorsed.
See response to question 1 above. Exceptions for Subsistance Harvesting of L. Australia notes the collection of greenhouse data as presented in greenhouse gas inventory is a relatively new science, and that for some categories of emissions eg biological sources estimations have much refinement before they can match the precision of the energy sectors. Subject to relevant modalities, dop3 and guidelines, ocp3 be decided by the first MOP, Parties that apply the ccop3 referred to under Article 4 may count their enhancement of removals by sinks against their aggregate anthropogenic CO 2 equivalent emissions by sources under 2r 3.
The current guidelines for national communication requires data on all sectors and on both sources and sinks. Criteria are outlined in paragraphs 1,2,3,4 and 5. The inclusivity of source and these sink categories is kept under review by IPCC as part of its inventory programme. The current IPCC Guidelines should be used as the basis upon which to develop emission and removal estimates and uncertainties should be examined in the context of all anthropogenic sources and sinks, not just within the LUCF sector.
Australia believes that all terrestrial land areas should be included to ensure a comprehensive coverage and assessment of all greenhouse gases, all emissions, sources and cop33in accordance with our response to Q1 and Q3. No and if there should be, it should be equal to or greater than emission in a country.
It asks that an uncertainty assessment be conducted and summarised as far as possible for each major part of the inventory.