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.
|Country:||Bosnia & Herzegovina|
|Published (Last):||8 September 2009|
|PDF File Size:||7.43 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||3.55 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Defined as “A statement of a range of values of the quantity in question, usually expressed as a number to be added to or subtracted from the basic value, or simply as a pair of numbers expressing the limits of the range. The burden of proof rests with the Party. Historical national communications should not be used as the basis for measuring compliance. The general commitment under the Convention, to protect and enhance sinks, would still apply, and legally binding Policies and Measures should be applicable to 2r categories that were excluded.
Reduction of the Adverse Impacts of Fisheries. This is part of the transparent and open unbiased approach to a country presenting its national inventory.
In this regard, Canada would like to propose that improved methods for inventorying all anthropogenic sources and sinks of greenhouse gases be developed based on the work of the IPCC and other expert groups and that the Parties adopt revised guidelines on the use of these methods at a Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto agreement prior to the first budget period.
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.
Should any “national system” established under Article 4 give special consideration to sinks? However, in deriving data for the inventory, and in participation at workshops on LUC, Australia has noted that the issue of the interpretation of the Guidelines has been of concern to Parties. In countries that are currently sequestering carbon, as forests reach maturity, net removals become zero. Anthropogenic enhancement of removals by sinks of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an important component of the current Icelandic National Climate Change Action Programme.
Soils data are much more sparse. Applying such criteria Parties should, on a case by case basis, justify why their actions qualify as removal through anthropogenic enhancement of sinks. Australia has used as its base year and has refined the data for that year as it is used in Article 4. No, for explanation see paragraph 6. See response to question 1 above. While the term human induced has been used as a substitute for anthropogenic and has found widespread acceptance for emissions from industrial processes and fossil fuel combustion, it is not so easily applied to forestry and sinks, which are essentially natural processes.
Uncertainty is inherent in estimations of GHG emissions and sinks from all sectors. The inclusion of anthropogenic sinks in national programs to mitigate climate change is specifically provided for in the Climate Change Convention and in the Berlin Mandate.
Canada would also like to propose that Parties provide a quantitative estimate of the uncertainties associated with their greenhouse gas inventories using appropriate methodologies to be developed based on the work of the IPCC and other expert Groups and that the Parties adopt these methodologies at a Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto agreement prior to the first budget period. For example the quality of activity data in energy use is high, and the relationships between activity and emissions are comparatively simple, the confidence criteria are more stringent than in other sectors.
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 sinksin accordance with our response to Q1 and Q3. Nitrous oxide from industrial processes is known as accurately as energy related CO 2although nitrous oxide from soils may be uncertain to an order of magnitude.
Including sinks would interfere with management and utilisation of land resources including forest. The result of this is to reward deforesters, ie. The criteria used in Australia’s inventory to define “high” “medium” and “low” levels of confidence in the different sectors reflects the quality of the activity data generally available in that sector, and the confidence with which the relationships between activity and emissions have been established.
Inclusion of sinks in a QELRO naturally implies inclusion in both the reference year and in the budget period.
Currently undefined is the term anthropogenic. The Framework Convention on Climate Change co;3 unclear on how to treat fop3 and carbon sequestration from land use change and forestry both in terms of a country’s national inventory and any legally binding commitment. This issue has not been adequately dealt with. 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.
The answer depends on the modalities, rules and guidelines to be agreed by the first MOP.
[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avformat: Add Pro-MPEG CoP #3-R2 FEC protocol
Establishment of the Pro Tempore Secretariat. In the biological sectors, the levels of uncertainties may be higher than for other sectors.
Australia further believes adoption of the comprehensive approach for the first budget year is necessary d2.
Yes, it is vital to have good national accounting systems for anthropogenic enhancement of sinks. Exceptions for subsistence harvesting of Lepidochelys olivacea eggs in Costa Rica.
Please see paragraphs 11 and Please see paragraphs 3,7 and 9. Ideally, it is hoped that a table of scaling factors by source, gas and methodology would be developed by the IPCC, or other expert group along with appropriate uncertainty values for each of the methods. This comprehensive approach ensures our climate change mitigation action is appropriately targeted to achieve maximum effectiveness. In this context, Australia does not believe it is necessary that the same methodology apply between countries; indeed, it may not be appropriate to conditions in other countries, only that it is applied consistently within one country and in one period.
Uncertainty in the emission estimates for each sector in Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory can be summarised as follows:.