Prioritisation framework for at-sea threats Sample Clauses

Prioritisation framework for at-sea threats. SBWG-4 Doc 28 describes a review of the prioritisation database conducted in 2010 during a South American workshop held in Buenos Aires. Argentina. Several new additions and revisions were proposed. This exercise led to the update of the at-sea prioritisation database in early 2011 as part of a secondment to the ACAP Secretariat funded by New Zealand. SBWG-4 Doc 29 reports on a simple exercise that explored the performance of the prioritisation framework in its current form relative to expert opinion. To set the scene for a discussion of this paper, the conceptual framework for identifying land-based and at-sea priorities for conservation action was described, and it was noted that an update on progress on the framework could be found in AC6 Doc 15 and SBWG-4 Doc 28. The preliminary results of the at-sea prioritisation framework was compared against expert opinion, using 20 random fishery-seabird interactions taken from the framework. The correlation between the results using the framework and expert opinion was quite poor and further work was necessary to understand why this may be the case. This should include further analysis to investigate the effect of combined weighting factors on the identification of priority fisheries and/or what was driving the opinions of the experts when making their assessments. The paper noted that it was possible for the results of the framework to match more closely expert opinion by using a computer-generated algorithm. However, it was still necessary to address some problems and test the algorithm further before it was ready for adoption by the Advisory Committee. It was anticipated that this could be achieved before the end of the year, in order to meet the Advisory Committee needs to report back to the Parties at MoP4. The Seabird Bycatch Working Group:
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Prioritisation framework for at-sea threats. 15.10.1 The SBWG considered the review of the prioritisation framework for at-sea threats, and noted that it is near completion, with some further work on scoring and weighting still required. The results from the framework will be grouped into broad priority categories, but an approach to do so has yet to be agreed. It was agreed that members of the SBWG will contribute to intersessional work, both to complete the framework and provide advice to the Advisory Committee on its adoption and appropriate use prior to MoP4.
Sample 1

Related to Prioritisation framework for at-sea threats

  • SCOPE OF SERVICES/CASE HANDLING A. Upon execution by Xxxxxx, Attorneys are retained to provide legal services for the purpose of seeking damages and other relief in the Litigation. Client agrees that Xxxxxx may choose to associate additional law firm(s) and/or lawyer(s) to represent Client in connection with the investigation and prosecution of the rights Client has as a purchaser of publically traded securities of Xxxxxx, and Client understands that such representation shall be on the same terms as those described in this agreement.

  • SCOPE OF THE CONTRACT 4.1 The Contractor shall perform the Services set out [in Schedule 1] [below2] in accordance with the Contract.

  • Start-Up and Synchronization Consistent with the mutually acceptable procedures of the Developer and Connecting Transmission Owner, the Developer is responsible for the proper synchronization of the Large Generating Facility to the New York State Transmission System in accordance with NYISO and Connecting Transmission Owner procedures and requirements.

  • Required Procurement Procedures for Obtaining Goods and Services The Grantee shall provide maximum open competition when procuring goods and services related to the grant-assisted project in accordance with Section 287.057, Florida Statutes.

  • Bona Fide Request/New Business Request Process for Further Unbundling 6.1 BellSouth shall, upon request of <<customer_name>>, provide to <<customer_name>> access to its network elements at any technically feasible point for the provision of <<customer_name>>'s telecommunications service where such access is necessary and failure to provide access would impair the ability of <<customer_name>> to provide services that it seeks to offer. Any request by <<customer_name>> for access to a network element, interconnection option, or for the provisioning of any service or product that is not already available shall be treated as a Bona Fide Request/New Business Request (BFR/NBR), and shall be submitted to BellSouth pursuant to the BFR/NBR process.

  • SCOPE OF THE WORK The Contractor shall furnish all the materials, perform all of the Work, and do all things required by the Contract Documents.

  • Attachment A, Scope of Services The scope of services is amended as follows:

  • PROPOSED MOBILITY PROGRAMME The proposed mobility programme includes the indicative start and end months of the agreed study programme that the student will carry out abroad. The Learning Agreement must include all the educational components to be carried out by the student at the receiving institution (in table A) and it must contain as well the group of educational components that will be replaced in his/her degree by the sending institution (in table B) upon successful completion of the study programme abroad. Additional rows can be added as needed to tables A and B. Additional columns can also be added, for example, to specify the study cycle-level of the educational component. The presentation of this document may also be adapted by the institutions according to their specific needs. However, in every case, the two tables A and B must be kept separated, i.e. they cannot be merged. The objective is to make clear that there needs to be no one to one correspondence between the courses followed abroad and the ones replaced at the sending institutions. The aim is rather that a group of learning outcomes achieved abroad replaces a group of learning outcomes at the sending institution, without having a one to one correspondence between particular modules or courses. A normal academic year of full-time study is normally made up of educational components totalling 60 ECTS* credits. It is recommended that for mobility periods shorter than a full academic year, the educational components selected should equate to a roughly proportionate number of credits. In case the student follows additional educational components beyond those required for his/her degree programme, these additional credits must also be listed in the study programme outlined in table A. When mobility windows are embedded in the curriculum, it will be enough to fill in table B with a single line as described below: Component code (if any) Component title (as indicated in the course catalogue) at the sending institution Semester [autumn / spring] [or term] Number of ECTS* credits Mobility window … Total: 30 Otherwise, the group of components will be included in Table B as follows: Component code (if any) Component title (as indicated in the course catalogue) at the sending institution Semester [autumn / spring] [or term] Number of ECTS* credits Course x … 10 Module y … 10 Laboratory work … 10 Total: 30 The sending institution must fully recognise the number of ECTS* credits contained in table A if there are no changes to the study programme abroad and the student successfully completes it. Any exception to this rule should be clearly stated in an annex of the Learning Agreement and agreed by all parties. Example of justification for non-recognition: the student has already accumulated the number of credits required for his/her degree and does not need some of the credits gained abroad. Since the recognition will be granted to a group of components and it does not need to be based on a one to one correspondence between single educational components, the sending institution must foresee which provisions will apply if the student does not successfully complete some of the educational components from his study programme abroad. A web link towards these provisions should be provided in the Learning Agreement. The student will commit to reach a certain level of language competence in the main language of instruction by the start of the study period. The level of the student will be assessed after his/her selection with the Erasmus+ online assessment tool when available (the results will be sent to the sending institution) or else by any other mean to be decided by the sending institution. A recommended level has been agreed between the sending and receiving institutions in the inter-institutional agreement. In case the student would not already have this level when he/she signs the Learning Agreement, he/she commits to reach it with the support to be provided by the sending or receiving institution (either with courses that can be funded by the organisational support grant or with the Erasmus+ online tutored courses). All parties must sign the document; however, it is not compulsory to circulate papers with original signatures, scanned copies of signatures or digital signatures may be accepted, depending on the national legislation. * In countries where the "ECTS" system it is not in place, in particular for institutions located in partner countries not participating in the Bologna process, "ECTS" needs to be replaced in all tables by the name of the equivalent system that is used and a weblink to an explanation to the system should be added. CHANGES TO THE ORIGINAL LEARNING AGREEMENT The section to be completed during the mobility is needed only if changes have to be introduced into the original Learning Agreement. In that case, the section to be completed before the mobility should be kept unchanged and changes should be described in this section. Changes to the mobility study programme should be exceptional, as the three parties have already agreed on a group of educational components that will be taken abroad, in the light of the course catalogue that the receiving institution has committed to publish well in advance of the mobility periods and to update regularly as ECHE holder. However, introducing changes might be unavoidable due to, for example, timetable conflicts. Other reasons for a change can be the request for an extension of the duration of the mobility programme abroad. Such a request can be made by the student at the latest one month before the foreseen end date. These changes to the mobility study programme should be agreed by all parties within four to seven weeks (after the start of each semester). Any party can request changes within the first two to five-week period after regular classes/educational components have started for a given semester. The exact deadline has to be decided by the institutions. The shorter the planned mobility period, the shorter should be the window for changes. All these changes have to be agreed by the three parties within a two-week period following the request. In case of changes due to an extension of the duration of the mobility period, changes should be made as timely as possible as well. Changes to the study programme abroad should be listed in table C and, once they are agreed by all parties, the sending institution commits to fully recognise the number of ECTS credits as presented in table C. Any exception to this rule should be documented in an annex of the Learning Agreement and agreed by all parties. Only if the changes described in table C affect the group of educational components in the student's degree (table B) that will be replaced at the sending institution upon successful completion of the study programme abroad, a revised version should be inserted and labelled as "Table D: Revised group of educational components in the student's degree that will be replaced at sending institution". Additional rows and columns can be added as needed to tables C and D. All parties must confirm that the proposed amendments to the Learning Agreement are approved. For this specific section, original or scanned signatures are not mandatory and an approval by email may be enough. The procedure has to be decided by the sending institution, depending on the national legislation.

  • Scope of Services The specific scope of work for each job shall be determined in advance and in writing between TIPS Member, Member’s design professionals and Vendor. It is permitted for the TIPS Member to provide a general scope description, but the awarded vendor should provide a written scope of work, and if applicable, according to the TIPS Member’s design Professional as part of the proposal. Once the scope of the job is agreed to, the TIPS Member will issue a PO and/or an Agreement or Contract with the Job Order Contract Proposal referenced or as an attachment along with bond and any other special provisions agreed by the TIPS Member. If special terms and conditions other than those covered within this solicitation and awarded Agreements are required, they will be attached to the PO and/or an Agreement or Contract and shall take precedence over those in this base TIPS Vendor Agreement.

  • Innovative Scheduling Schedules which are inconsistent with the Collective Agreement provisions may be developed in order to improve quality of working life, support continuity of resident care, ensure adequate staffing resources, and support cost-efficiency. The parties agree that such innovative schedules may be determined locally by the Home and the Union subject to the following principles:

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!