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):||28 November 2009|
|PDF File Size:||14.97 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||10.72 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
In the biological sectors, the levels of uncertainties may be higher than for other sectors.
It would, in fact, undermine positive action to protect and enhance sinks. All quantifiable anthropogenic sinks should be included, subject to the decisions of MOP1.
See response to Q8 a.
The Framework Convention on Climate Change is unclear on how to treat emissions and carbon sequestration from land use change and forestry both in terms of a country’s national inventory and any legally binding commitment. 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.
[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avformat: Add Pro-MPEG CoP #3-R2 FEC protocol
In accordance with the procedure for miscellaneous documents, these submissions are attached and are reproduced in the language in which they were received and without formal editing. The burden of proof rests with the Party. Australia views sinks as an integral part of Article 5. Canada, along with many other Parties, strongly believe that future changes in the Guidelines are necessary. This is a larger uncertainty than usually occurs on an emissions trend.
Audio Over IP
These revised methodologies and guidelines would establish an approach in which all Parties could be assured that those anthropogenic sources and sinks for which a measure of certainty is less precise are, in fact, in compliance 4.
Key programs that have a direct impact on human action include the National Vegetation Initiative, a program which includes extensive replanting of Australia’s native vegetation cover, and the Vision, which aims to treble the plantation estate by 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.
The best available methods should always be used. 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. 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.
Australia believes all categories agreed to be anthropogenic should be included. It takes time for revised IPCC guidelines to be implemented and their use is not mandatory for a few years after their adoption. Conservation of Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta caretta. 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.
Such enhancement of removals by sinks is anthropogenic. If in practice MOP1 decided to omit some sinks from early budget periods eg because of data availability or incompleteness of the IPCC methodologyinclusivity would still need to be sufficient to avoid the perverse incentive of planting trees on soil types which then become sources. These scaling factors would then be applied against country emission estimates in much the same way GWPs are used now.
This would require the development of institutional mechanisms for data gathering on sinks if these are missing at present. None, please see paragraph 3. Currently undefined is the term anthropogenic. The review process has to be comprehensive, however, to ensure consistency and comparability. The base year for measuring emissions needs to be the same for both sources and sinks. 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.
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 under T2 3. It is vital that a protocol to the Convention provides strong co3 for enhancement of carbon dioxide removal by sinks in the future.
The larger uncertainty is because the adjustment would depend on the absolute uptake by sinks over the budget period, not emissions in the budget period relative to the base year. Australia sees the principles surrounding the inclusion of sinks as a separate issue to accounting mechanisms pertaining to sinks used in meeting QELROs. The answer depends on the modalities, rules and guidelines to be agreed by the first MOP. Should any “national system” established under Article 4 give special consideration to sinks?
This comprehensive approach ensures our climate change mitigation action is appropriately targeted to achieve maximum effectiveness. For reasons of flexibility, lack of a clear point at which to make a distinction between certainty and uncertainty, and the inherent uncertainties even within the most certain categories, this position is not endorsed by Canada.
Working Group on Financial Aspects. The sinks themselves are generally natural growing forest, accumulation of organic matter carbon in soils. However, in deriving data for the inventory, and in participation at workshops ocp3 LUC, Australia has noted that the issue of the interpretation of the Guidelines has been of concern to Parties.
As such, a more precise definition for anthropogenic sinks is needed and the following is proposed: Soils data are much more sparse. 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.
What criteria governed your answer to question number 1?
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. There is no need to limit application of new IPCC methods to a second budget period or d2 target.