Report of the Working Group Sample Clauses

The "Report of the Working Group" clause defines the requirement for a designated working group to formally document and present its findings, recommendations, or progress to a specified authority or body. Typically, this clause outlines the format, timing, and content expectations for such reports, and may specify who is responsible for compiling and submitting the report. Its core practical function is to ensure accountability and transparency by providing a structured mechanism for communicating the working group's activities and outcomes to stakeholders or decision-makers.
Report of the Working Group. 10.1.1 The report of the Taxonomy Working Group (TWG, AC7 Doc 13 Rev 1) was presented by the Vice-chair (who is also a member of the Working Group). He apologised for the late posting of the Report. 10.1.2 TWG had one task since the last meeting of the AC, to review the taxonomic status of the eastern and western populations of the Black-footed Albatross. 10.1.3 TWG applied the taxonomic guidelines of ACAP and following a review of the published, taxonomy-related data for this species, TWG concluded that the available information does not warrant an amendment to the species currently listed under Annex 1 of the ACAP Agreement.
View Source
Report of the Working Group. 11.1.1 The Convenor of the Seabird Bycatch Working Group (SBWG), ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, introduced the report of the Seventh Meeting of the Seabird Bycatch Working Group (SBWG7). This report (AC9 Doc 10 Rev 1) outlined intersessional progress against the Work Programme of the SBWG, as well as discussions and advice resulting from the SBWG meeting held from 2 - 4 May 2016, in La Serena, Chile. 11.1.2 The Advisory Committee supported the following recommendations of the SBWG and took note of them when developing the AC Work Programme:
View Source
Report of the Working Group. 9.1.1 The Convenors of the Population and Conservation Status Working Group (hereafter PCSWG or WG), ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ and Dr ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ introduced the report of the 1st Meeting of the PCSWG. This report outlined inter-sessional progress against the Work Programme of the PCSWG, agreed at the ACAP Advisory Committee meeting in 2011 (AC6) and adopted at MoP4 in 2012. The report also reflected discussions and advice resulting from the WG meeting (PCSWG1) held on 29-30 April 2013 in La ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, France. 9.1.2 The meeting was attended by representatives from Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, South Africa, United Kingdom, United States and BirdLife International, as well as experts and observers from government agencies and non-government organisations. The full report of the Working Group (AC7 Doc 12 Rev 1) provided a comprehensive record of the inter- sessional progress, a 2013 assessment of the global status and trends of ACAP species (Table 1), the deliberations of the WG and the recommendations that the PCSWG presented to the AC. IUCN Status 20131 Common name Number of sites (ACAP)2 Single Country Endemic Annual breeding pairs (ACAP)3 Trend Confidence Population Trend 1991-20114 CR Amsterdam Albatross 1 France 30 High ↑ CR Balearic Shearwater 5 Spain 3,193 Medium ↓ ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Albatross 1 UK 1,699 High ↓ CR Waved Albatross 1 Ecuador 9,615 Low ↓ EN Atlantic Yellow-nosed Albatross 6 UK 33,650 Low ↔ EN Black-browed Albatross 65 672,411 High ↑ EN Indian Yellow-nosed Albatross 6 39,320 Medium ↓ EN Northern Royal Albatross 5 NZ 5,832 - ? EN Sooty Albatross 15 13,674 Very Low ↓ VU Antipodean Albatross 6 NZ 8,274 Medium ↓ VU Black-footed Albatross 13 68,962 High ↑ VU Black Petrel 2 NZ 881 Medium ↓ ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Albatross 2 NZ 22,093 - ? VU Chatham Albatross 1 NZ 5,245 Medium ↔ VU Grey-headed Albatross 29 94,580 Medium ↓ ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇'▇ Albatross 12 NZ 42.219 Very Low ↔ VU Short-tailed Albatross 2 472 High ↑ VU Southern royal Albatross 4 NZ 7,873 Medium ↔ VU Spectacled Petrel 1 UK 14,400 High ↑ VU Wandering Albatross 28 8,246 High ↓ VU Westland Petrel 1 NZ 4,000 Low ↔ ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇-chinned ▇▇▇▇▇▇ 73 1,057,930 Very Low ↓ NT ▇▇▇▇▇▇'▇ Albatross 10 NZ 29,948 Low ↑ NT Grey Petrel 17 79,588 Very Low ↓ NT Laysan Albatross 17 650,561 High ↔ NT Light-mantled Albatross 71 13, 955? Low ↔ NT Shy Albatross 3 Australia 12,535 Medium ↑ NT White-capped Albatross 5 NZ 74,870 - ? LC Northern Giant Petrel 50 10,856 Medium ↑ LC Southern Giant Petrel 119 47,160 Medium ↑ 1 IUCN...
View Source
Report of the Working Group. 11.1.1 The Convenor and Vice-convenor of the Seabird Bycatch Working Group (hereafter SBWG), Mr ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, introduced the report of the 5th Meeting of the SBWG. This report outlined inter-sessional progress against the Work Programme of the SBWG, agreed at the ACAP Advisory Committee meeting in 2011 (AC6) and adopted at MoP4 in 2012. The report also reflected discussions and advice resulting from the SBWG meeting held on 1-3 May 2013 in La ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, France. 11.1.2 The meeting was attended by Working Group members from most of the Parties to the Agreement, as well as experts and observers from government agencies and non-government organisations. The full report of the Working Group (AC7 Doc 14 Rev 1) provides a comprehensive record of the inter- sessional progress, the deliberations of the WG and the recommendations that the SBWG presented to the AC. 11.1.3 The Advisory Committee accepted the following recommendations of the Seabird Bycatch Working Group and: 1. Adopted the definition of Best Practice outlined in SBWG report Item 1 (points i to vi) for use when developing advice on mitigation measures to reduce seabird bycatch. 2. With respect to pelagic longline bycatch mitigation: i. supported the current advice that a combination of weighted branch lines, bird scaring lines and night setting represent best practice mitigation for seabird bycatch in pelagic longline fisheries; ii. afforded priority to line weighting when considering mitigation for seabird bycatch on the basis that line weighting is integral to fishing gear and has the advantage of being more consistently implemented, subject to weighting regime characteristics being adequately specified, safety issues being adequately addressed; and that issues relating to application to artisanal fisheries are taken into account; iii. noted the review of mitigation technology available for pelagic longline gear (AC7 Doc 14 Rev 1, Annex 2); and iv. endorsed the revised best practice advice for mitigation in pelagic longline fisheries (AC7 Doc 14 Rev 1, Annex 3) and encouraged Parties to use this information to guide the development of policy and practice within the fisheries under their jurisdiction. 3. With respect to demersal longline bycatch mitigation: i. noted that research results presented at the meeting reinforce current ACAP best practice advice; ii. noted that information on the Chilean, or trotline, system presented at the meeting was used to update both the ACAP revie...
View Source
Report of the Working Group. 9.1.1 Dr ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Co-convenor of the Population and Conservation Status Working Group (PaCSWG), introduced the report of the Third Meeting of the PaCSWG (AC9 Doc 09 Rev 1). This report outlined inter-sessional progress against the Work Programme of the PaCSWG and also reflected discussions and advice resulting from the WG meeting (PaCSWG3) held on 5 - 6 May 2016 in La Serena, Chile. 9.1.2 The Advisory Committee supported the following recommendations of the PaCSWG and took note of them when developing the AC Work Programme:
View Source
Report of the Working Group. 10.1.1 The AC Chair, who is a member of the Taxonomy Working Group (TWG), advised the meeting that no report had been submitted by the TWG. He noted however, the contribution of the TWG to a manuscript submitted to the journal Biological Conservation in October 2015, which reviews the taxonomy, breeding and foraging distributions, population status and trends, threats and priorities for ACAP species. The Chair of the TWG also provided advice to Australia on the taxonomy of the Pink-footed Shearwater, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ creatopus syn. Puffinus creatopus.
View Source

Related to Report of the Working Group

  • Report of the panel 1. Unless the Parties otherwise agree, the Panel shall base its report on the relevant provisions of this Agreement, the submissions and arguments of the disputing Parties, and on any information received by it pursuant to Article 181 (Model 2. Unless the Parties otherwise agree, the Panel shall present the report to the disputing Parties, within 120 days, or 90 days in the event of urgent matters, after the last Panelist is selected. 3. Only in exceptional cases, if the Panel considers it cannot release its report within 120 days or 90 days in the event of urgent matters, it shall inform the Parties in writing of the justifying reasons for the delay together with an estimate of the period within which it will release its report. Any delay shall not exceed a further period of 30 days unless the Parties otherwise agree. 4. The report shall contain: (a) the finding along with its factual and legal basis; (b) the determination as to whether a Party has not conformed with its obligations under this Agreement or any other determination requested in the terms of reference; and (c) its recommendations for the implementation of the decision pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 180 (Role of the Panel). 5. The Panelists may furnish separate opinions on matters not unanimously agreed. 6. No Panel may disclose which Panelists are associated with majority or minority opinions. 7. Unless the Parties agree otherwise, the report shall be available to the public within 30 days thereafter, subject to the protection of confidential information.

  • Working Group 1. The Parties hereby establish a Working Group on Temporary Entry for Business Persons, which shall meet at least once every 3 years or on request of the Free Trade Commission to consider any matter arising under this Chapter. 2. The Working Group's functions shall include: (a) to review the implementation and operation of this Chapter; (b) to consider the development of measures to further facilitate temporary entry of business persons on a reciprocal basis; (c) the identification of measures that affect the temporary entry of business persons under this Chapter; and (d) the observance of the issues established under Article 121 (Cooperation).

  • Collaboration activities 4.1 The Collaboration Suppliers will perform the Collaboration Activities and all other obligations of this Agreement in accordance with the Detailed Collaboration Plan. 4.2 The Collaboration Suppliers will provide all additional cooperation and assistance as is reasonably required by the Buyer to ensure the continuous delivery of the services under the Call-Off Contract. 4.3 The Collaboration Suppliers will ensure that their respective subcontractors provide all cooperation and assistance as set out in the Detailed Collaboration Plan.

  • INDEPENDENT SINGLE OR PROGRAM-SPECIFIC AUDIT If Grantee, within ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’s fiscal year, expends a total amount of at least $750,000 in federal funds awarded, Grantee shall have a single audit or program-specific audit in accordance with 2 CFR 200. The $750,000 federal threshold amount includes federal funds passed through by way of state agency awards. If Grantee, within ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’s fiscal year, expends a total amount of at least $750,000 in state funds awarded, Grantee must have a single audit or program-specific audit in accordance with TxGMS, State of Texas Single Audit Circular. The audit must be conducted by an independent certified public accountant and in accordance with 2 CFR 200 Government Auditing Standards, and TxGMS. For-profit Grantees whose expenditures meet or exceed the federal or state expenditure thresholds stated above shall follow the guidelines in 2 CFR 200 or TxGMS, as applicable, for their program-specific audits. Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) Single Audit Services will notify Grantee to complete the Single Audit Determination Form. If Grantee fails to complete the Single Audit Determination Form within 30 calendar days after notification by HHSC Single Audit Services to do so, then Grantee shall be subject to the DFPS sanctions and remedies for non-compliance with this Contract. Each Grantee that is required to obtain a single audit must competitively re-procure single audit services once every six years. Grantee shall procure audit services in compliance with this section and state procurement procedures as well as with the provisions of TxGMS.

  • Cost of the Work The sum of all allowable costs necessarily incurred and paid by Contractor in the proper performance of the Work.