Trawl Bycatch Mitigation Sample Clauses

Trawl Bycatch Mitigation. At the first meeting of the SBWG in Valdivia, Chile (June 2007), mitigation of seabird bycatch in trawl fisheries was identified as a key focus of the second meeting of the Working Group. This lead to the drafting of SBWG-2 Doc 5 (AC4 Document 55) which addresses AC3 Work Programme Item 4.8 in reviewing methods used to reduce seabird bycatch in trawl fisheries. It summarises developments in the field of trawl mitigation prior to 2004 which have been described in detail in Bull2 (2007), and provides an update of recent work including methods that have been trialed or proposed during the period of 2004-2008. The body of work investigating and documenting methods to mitigate seabird bycatch in trawl fisheries is significantly less advanced than for longline fisheries. Consequently, new developments in this field in recent years are few. Seabird interactions with trawl vessels fall into two broad categories: those focused on the trawl warps (the thick cables that link the net to the vessel), and those focused around trawl nets. For reducing seabird strikes on trawl warps, the use of bird-scaring lines has been proven to be the most effective mitigation device in the trawl fisheries in which comparative studies have been undertaken. However, the retention or strategic management of fish waste (offal and discards) is recommended as the most effective primary measure for bycatch reduction, and as such should be viewed as the best long- term solution to reducing seabird bycatch in trawl fisheries. Coincident with effective fish waste management, operational measures such as cleaning the net prior to shooting and reducing the time the net is on the surface at shooting and hauling should be viewed as best practice measures and incorporated into routine fishing activities. While a number of methods have been trialed to reduce the incidence of warp strikes, there continues to be the need for more work on effective measures for reducing seabird interactions with the trawl net. The Working Group agreed to produce a table intersessionally that was analogous to that produced at SBWG-1 for pelagic longline gear (AC3 Doc 14 Rev 4, Appendix 4, Table 2), including descriptions of measures, current knowledge (described in SBWG Doc 5), implementation guidance and research needs. The WG discussed research needs in trawl fisheries and priorities in detail (SBWG- 2 Doc 32). Seabird mortality in trawl fisheries fits into two broad categories: (1) birds colliding with trawl warps, n...
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Trawl Bycatch Mitigation. 15.3.1 The SBWG reviewed mitigation measures available for both demersal and pelagic trawl gear, based on three papers presented to the meeting, published literature and expert opinion. The results of this review are attached as ANNEX 15.
Trawl Bycatch Mitigation 

Related to Trawl Bycatch Mitigation

  • Rights Protection Mechanisms and Abuse Mitigation ­‐ Registry Operator commits to implementing and performing the following protections for the TLD:

  • Required Coverages For Generation Resources Of 20 Megawatts Or Less Each Constructing Entity shall maintain the types of insurance as described in section 11.1 paragraphs (a) through (e) above in an amount sufficient to insure against all reasonably foreseeable direct liabilities given the size and nature of the generating equipment being interconnected, the interconnection itself, and the characteristics of the system to which the interconnection is made. Additional insurance may be required by the Interconnection Customer, as a function of owning and operating a Generating Facility. All insurance shall be procured from insurance companies rated “A-,” VII or better by AM Best and authorized to do business in a state or states in which the Interconnection Facilities are located. Failure to maintain required insurance shall be a Breach of the Interconnection Construction Service Agreement.

  • Aggravating and Mitigating Factors The penalties in this matter were determined in consideration of all relevant circumstances, including statutory factors as described in CARB’s Enforcement Policy. CARB considered whether the violator came into compliance quickly and cooperated with the investigation; the extent of harm to public health, safety and welfare; nature and persistence of the violation, including the magnitude of the excess emissions; compliance history; preventative efforts taken; innovative nature and the magnitude of the effort required to comply, and the accuracy, reproducibility, and repeatability of the available test methods; efforts to attain, or provide for, compliance prior to violation; action taken to mitigate the violation; financial burden to the violator; and voluntary disclosure. The penalties are set at levels sufficient to deter violations, to remove any economic benefit or unfair advantage from noncompliance, to obtain swift compliance, and the potential costs, risks, and uncertainty associated with litigation. Penalties in future cases might be smaller or larger depending on the unique circumstances of the case.

  • RECOGNITION OUTCOMES The receiving institution commits to provide the sending institution and the student with a Transcript of Records within a period stipulated in the inter-institutional agreement and normally not longer than five weeks after publication/proclamation of the student’s results at the receiving institution. The Transcript of Records from the receiving institution will contain at least the minimum information requested in this Learning Agreement template. Table E (or the representation that the institution makes of it) will include all the educational components agreed in table A and, if there were changes to the study programme abroad, in table C. In addition, grade distribution information should be included in the Transcript of Records or attached to it (a web link where this information can be found is enough). The actual start and end dates of the study period will be included according to the following definitions: The start date of the study period is the first day the student has been present at the receiving institution, for example, for the first course, for a welcoming event organised by the host institution or for language and intercultural courses. The end date of the study period is the last day the student has been present at the receiving institution and not his actual date of departure. This is, for example, the end of exams period, courses or mandatory sitting period. Following the receipt of the Transcript of Records from the receiving institution, the sending institution commits to provide to the student a Transcript of Records, without further requirements from the student, and normally within five weeks. The sending institution's Transcript of Records must include at least the information listed in table F (the recognition outcomes) and attach the receiving institution's Transcript of Record. In case of mobility windows, table F may be completed as follows: Component code (if any) Title of recognised component (as indicated in the course catalogue) at the sending institution Number of ECTS credits Sending institution grade, if applicable Mobility window Total: 30 ….. Where applicable, the sending institution will translate the grades received by the student abroad, taking into account the grade distribution information from the receiving institution (see the methodology described in the ECTS Users' Guide). In addition, all the educational components will appear as well in the student's Diploma Supplement. The exact titles from the receiving institution will also be included in the Transcript of Records that is attached to the Diploma Supplement. Steps to fill in the Learning Agreement for Studies P Additional educational components above the number of ECTS credits required in his/her curriculum are listed in the LA and if the sending institution will not recognise them as counting towards their degree, this has to be agreed by all parties concerned and annexed to the LA

  • Innovative/Flexible Scheduling Where the Hospital and the Union agree, arrangements regarding Innovative Scheduling/Flexible Scheduling may be entered into between the parties on a local level. The model agreement with respect to such scheduling arrangements is set out below: MODEL AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO INNOVATIVE SCHEDULING/FLEXIBLE SCHEDULING MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT Between: The Hospital - And: The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (and its Local ) This Model Agreement shall be part of the Collective Agreement between the parties herein, and shall apply to the employees described in Article 1 of the Model Agreement.

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