Recherche PDF

∂Hn 1 is endowed with the Patterson-Sullivan density This is the (essentially unique since Γ has nite Bowen∂Hn 1 sat- Margulis-Sullivan measure) family of nite Borel measures on isfying 1.

The framework presented in this paper also provides a sound theoretical foundation for all known performance measures based on partial moments of distribution.

We first describe the general concepts underlying bias, precision and accuracy, and then describe a number of commonly used unscaled and scaled performance measures of bias, precision and accuracy (e.g.

"Performance Measures Internal Audit Research", IIA Research Foundation, Austin Chapter Research Committee, 2008-2009 Research Project, February 2009, https://global.theiia.org/iiarf/Public Documents/Performance Measures for Intern al Audit Functions - A Research Project - Austin.pdf 6.

The necessary degrees of relaxation are quantified here via natural distance and information-theoretic measures.

135805 Preferred Metrics Used to Calculate Online Marketing ROI According to Brand Marketers in North America, Dec 2011 % of respondents The exact same metrics as offline and nothing else 6% Primarily metrics specific to the online medium 15% An equal mixture of offline and online metrics 24% Digital’s legacy of direct-response metrics has caused many to fall back on measures that drove the first wave of online advertising— clickthrough rate and pageview.

3.UniversalPerformance Cutting edge l Investment management Generalising universal performance measures Performance and risk measurement are fundamental quantitative activities in finance, and new ways of measuring them are always of interest.

M8000 M9000 M8000A M9000A English.

PAC CAP post 2013 6april11 CoR European forestry and fire risk Myriam DRIESSEN DG AGRI H4 Bioenergy, biomass, forestry and climate change Projet Européen PYROSUDOE 06/04/2011 Current forestry measures supported in the CAP Allocation of funds for forestry measures Preliminary implementation data Implementation Expenditures EAFRD 2007-2009 expenditure Measures with relevance to forestry Public EAFRD Private Total (x1000 000 €) (x1000 000 €) (x1000 000 €) (x1000 000 €) 221 First afforestation of agricultural land 3659,4 2410,7 576,0 4235,3 487,9 20,2% 32,4 22,7 14,4 46,8 0,0 0,0% 223 First afforestation of non-agricultural land 596,2 360,8 181,8 778,0 21,6 6,0% 224 Natura 2000 payments 158,6 110,6 0,0 158,6 3,7 3,3% 225 Forest-environment payments 438,8 265,3 6,4 445,2 10,9 4,1% 226 Restoring forestry potential and introducing prevention ...

7 MEASURES TO IMPROVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY ...................................................

TachymetreFrequencemetre Feature: • Power supply:

lovedogpliage Book Folding Pattern Designed by jess'créa Name:

35 Discriminatory measures Art. ... absolute prohibition Non-discriminatory measures Art.

20130321 final report np abs be BIOGOV Unit   Centre for Philosophy of Law   Université catholique de Louvain          Study for the implementation in Belgium of the Nagoya Protocol on   Access and Benefit‐sharing to the Convention on Biological Diversity  (Terms of reference No. DG5/AMSZ/11008)          Final report      Brendan Coolsaet – Tom Dedeurwaerdere – John Pitseys – Fulya Batur                    Study commissioned by    Federal Public Service for Health, Food Chain Safety and the Environment, Directorate‐General for the  Environment, Service for multilateral and strategic matters (SPSCAE)  Bruxelles Environnement/Leefmilieu Brussel (IBGE‐BIM)  Vlaamse overheid, Departement Leefmilieu, Natuur en Energie (LNE)  Service public de Wallonie, Direction générale opérationnelle Agriculture, Ressources naturelles et  Environnement (DGARNE)        DISCLAIMER   Recommended citation   Coolsaet  Brendan,  Dedeurwaerdere  Tom,  Pitseys  John,  and  Batur  Fulya  (2013),  Study  for  the  implementation in Belgium of the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit‐sharing to the Convention  on Biological Diversity. Final report, 21st of March 2013.    Contributors   Comments  and  contributions  of  the  members  of  the  scientific  advisory  group  to  this  study  are  gratefully  acknowledged:    Prof.  Charles‐Hubert  Born,  Prof.  Geertrui  Van  Overwalle,  Prof.  Delphine  Missone and Prof. An Cliquet. The authors would also like to acknowledge the useful inputs of Prof.  Isabelle Durant, Koen van den Bossche, Arianna Broggiato, Arul Scaria, Anne Liesse, Heike Rämer and  Caroline van Schendel, as well as the availability of the members of the Steering Committee and of all  the stakeholders interviewed for the purpose of this study.     Contact  Tom Dedeurwaerdere  Centre for the Philosophy of Law (CPDR)  Place Montesquieu, 2 ‐ SSH/JURI/PJTD ‐ L2.07.01  B‐1348 Louvain‐la‐Neuve, Belgium  tom.dedeurwaerdere@uclouvain.be  http://perso.uclouvain.be/tom.dedeurwaerdere    2      TABLE OF CONTENT  Table of content ...................................................................................................................................... 3  List of tables ............................................................................................................................................ 6  List of figures ........................................................................................................................................... 7  List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................................ 8  Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 10  Résumé analytique ................................................................................................................................ 21  Samenvatting ......................................................................................................................................... 33  1  2  3  Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 45  1.1  Background to ABS and the Nagoya Protocol ....................................................................... 45  1.2  Structure of the report .......................................................................................................... 48  1.3  Scope of the study ................................................................................................................. 49  The Distribution of ABS‐related Competences in Belgium............................................................ 51  2.1  The political distribution of ABS‐related competences ......................................................... 52  2.2  The administrative distribution of ABS‐related competences .............................................. 56  2.3  The inter‐ and intra‐level coordination of the exercise of ABS‐related competences .......... 59  Legal state of the art regarding ABS in Belgium ............................................................................ 60  3.1  Access and use of genetic resources under national jurisdiction in Belgium ....................... 60  3.2  Legal consequences for access to genetic material .............................................................. 71  3.3  The status of traditional knowledge associated to genetic resources under national  legislation in Belgium ........................................................................................................................ 82  4  Existing ABS‐related policy measures and other initiatives in Belgium ........................................ 85  4.1  Measures resulting from coordination between the three regions and the federal level ... 85  4.2  Federal measures .................................................................................................................. 86  4.3  Regional measures ................................................................................................................ 87  4.4  Research institutions’ and private initiatives and policies on ABS ........................................ 88  4.5  Existing ABS‐related EU instruments and other initiatives ................................................... 88  5  Conformity of the existing national legislation and measures with the obligations of the Nagoya  Protocol ................................................................................................................................................. 91  5.1  Conformity of existing instruments in Belgium that already address obligations of the  Protocol ............................................................................................................................................. 91  5.2  Obligations of the Nagoya Protocol currently not addressed by legal or non‐legal  instruments in Belgium ..................................................................................................................... 94  3    6  Review of existing measures and instruments on ABS in OTHER countries ................................. 95  6.1  Access .................................................................................................................................... 96  6.2  Benefit‐sharing ...................................................................................................................... 99  6.3  Conservation activities and biodiversity research ............................................................... 102  6.4  Competent National Authority ............................................................................................ 104  6.5  Compliance .......................................................................................................................... 106  7  Recommendations for legal, institutional and administrative measures in Belgium ................. 109  7.1  Recommendations for actions to be taken in case of minimal implementation of the core  obligations ....................................................................................................................................... 110  7.2  8  Recommendations for actions to be taken in case of additional implementation ............. 118  Defining the policy options and preliminary analysis of their expected impacts ....................... 124  8.1  Description and discussion of the general “0” option ......................................................... 126  8.2  Defining the policy options for the core measures and their expected impacts ................ 127  8.3  Target Groups and Stakeholders for Which Potential Impact is Assessed .......................... 143  Implementation of the options within the existing legal situation in Belgium ........................... 146  9  9.1  Operationalizing PIC ............................................................................................................ 146  9.2  Specification of MAT ........................................................................................................... 152  9.3  Establishing one or more Competent National Authorities ................................................ 154  9.4  Setting up compliance measures ........................................................................................ 156  9.5  Designating one or more checkpoints ................................................................................. 159  9.6  Sharing information through the clearing‐house ................................................................ 161  10  Impact analysis ........................................................................................................................ 163  10.1  Methodology of the impact analysis ................................................................................... 163  10.2  Operationalizing PIC ............................................................................................................ 174  10.3  Specification of MAT ........................................................................................................... 185  10.4  Establishing one or more Competent National Authorities ................................................ 195  10.5  Setting up compliance measures ........................................................................................ 201  10.6  Designating one or more checkpoints ................................................................................. 208  10.7  Sharing information through the Clearing‐House ............................................................... 216  11  Recommendations on instruments and measures resulting from the impact assessment .... 223  12  Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 228  Annex 1 – Overview of Articles of the Nagoya Protocol that contain legal obligations for a  Party/Parties ........................................................................................................................................ 232  Annex 2 – List of General ABS Indicators (both for Qualitative and Quantitative Data) and  Questionnaire Related to Quantitative Data ...................................................................................... 238  4    Annex 3 – Correspondence table between the criteria and the QUANTITATIVE indicators ............... 241  Annex 4 – Questionnaire related to qualitative data .......................................................................... 242  Annex 5 – List of interviewees ............................................................................................................. 243  Bibliography ......................................................................................................................................... 244    5    

SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS ORDER ON AN APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES Counsel for Applicant:

The validation of severity scoring instruments, as well as other outcome measures, is an essential process for assessing their measurement properties in order to guarantee that they measure exactly what they intend to measure [5].