Fwd: revised pif for final comments

[Mary Jean A. Caleda]

Dear All,

Here's the revised PIF prepared by George for final comments. If we do not hear from you by Friday this week, we will assume that the revised PIF is acceptable to you.

Thanks and Cheers,

Sent from my Ipad

Begin forwarded message:

From: George Banez <george...@gmail.com>
Date: June 25, 2013, 9:25:33 PM GMT+08:00
To: "Mary Jean A. Caleda" <mj.c...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: revised pif

HI Jean,

After several attempts, I decided to rewrite the log frame.  Here it is in a narrative format. Please pass around.

Thanks,

George

On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Mary Jean A. Caleda <mj.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

hi george,
any news?
thanks




Sent from my Ipad

[Rina Maria Rosales]

hi george,

maybe just clarify the headings a bit:

Integration of Biodiversity Values into Local and National Planning (or Income Reporting)...

Create Incentives for Conserving Biodiversity...

or something like that.

cheers,

rina

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UNDP-GEF Proposal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to undp-gef-propo...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to undp-gef...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/undp-gef-proposal.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

<Valuation Summary rewrite.docx>

[Grace Tena]

Hi George and Jean,

I am not sure if I have received the revised PIF.  What I received was the results framework matrix.  Please clarify. Will send you my comments on it next week.

 

Thanks,

Grace

---

From: undp-gef...@googlegroups.com [undp-gef...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Mary Jean A. Caleda [mj.c...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 3:33 PM
To: undp-gef...@googlegroups.com; George Banez; Ateneo Mendoza; Third Espero
Cc: Grace Tena
Subject: Fwd: revised pif for final comments

[Teresita R. Perez]

Dear Jean,

Thank you very much Jean and George. I just have  minor corrections. Pls. find as attachment.

warm regards to all

[Mary Jean A. Caleda]

Thanks Tess

Sent from my Ipad

<Valuation Summary rewrite.doc>

[Third Espero]

Hello, Ms. Jean!

If the target sites include cities, I suggest that the proposal consider the inclusion of the LCP in the following: 

1. Outcome 1 (especially since the LCP is the mechanism through which cities develop policies that help advance their common interests)

2. Output 2.1 ( the LCP is in the process of developing its Knowledge Management and Exchange System, which will serve as the "one stop shop" for cities in regards to capacity development and access to other key information on urban development)

3. Output 4.1 (same reason as above)

4. Output 4.2 (same reason as above)

As the knowledge broker for cities, the LCP needs to be as capable as the academic centers in the conduct of biodiversity valuation. It has to communicate biodiversity in a manner that is understood by mayors and other local officials. Without this, the initiative will be a hard sell to cities because it will be seen as another academic exercise that is best left to the "experts". Because the overall development of the LGUs rests greatly on the local chief executive, there is no other recourse but to enable them to become effective advocates of sustainable biodiversity management. 

As discussed in Item 1,the LCP is the key institution that promotes the interests of cities through policy papers and other related initiatives. The League has direct access to congress and national agencies. If the goal is to sustain the initiative through national and local policies, the LCP has to do its share by formulating supporting policies and lobbying for national support. For this to happen, the LCP has to be greatly involved in the project. 

For your consideration.

Thanks.  

 

Third

 

Fernando Gerard O. Espero III
Unit Head, Special Projects 

League of Cities of the Philippines
Unit J & K, 7th Floor, CyberOne Bldg.,
#11 Eastwood Ave., Bagumbayan,Quezon City 1110
Tel. No. [+63]470-6813/470-6843/470-6837
Fax No. 470 - 7210

---

From: Teresita R. Perez <tpe...@ateneo.edu>
To: undp-gef...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 8:14
Subject: Re: revised pif for final comments

[Rina Maria Rosales]

i totally agree with this. both LMP and LCP should be recipients of capacity building activities, as well as partners for the policy work and sustainability initiatives.

rina

<Valuation Summary rewrite.doc>

[Aurma Manlangit]

If you are including the LCP and LMP, I suggest that the ULAP be part of this, too. It is the overall policy-making and coordinative body for all LGUs. But this has to be spelled out in terms of institutional coordination of capacity building and policy work and implementation.

aurma

Aurma M. Manlangit
Director, Executive Education Program
Ateneo School of Government

"In all things, may Jesus be the strength of your heart, the center of your life, the guide of your future, the joy of your soul"

[Mary Jean Caleda]

Thanks Third for these very valuable input.

 

Cheers,

-------------------------------------------------

Mary Jean A. Caleda, PhD, EnP
Ateneo School of Government
Ateneo de Manila University
Katipunan Avenue, Loyola Heights
Quezon City, 1108 Philippines

Tel. No.  :  +632 426 6001 local 4624
Fax No.  :  +632 426 5997
Mobile    :  +63 918 930 2638
E-mail    :   mj.c...@gmail.com

URL       :   www.asg.ateneo.edu, www.ateneo.edu

Transforming communities, building the nation.

[Marian Delos Angeles]

Dear all, 

What Mr.Esperi asks for,  that the LCP would be able to conducu biodiversity valuation is only 10 % feasible with ths valuation  of provisioning services by economists in their group. Do cities and the LCP have well trained, empirical economists?

Valuation of  regulating,  support and cultural services is a multidisciplinary effort among biodiversity, watershed, climate change, natural hazards, anthropology and ecological knowledge, statistics specialists, with at least M S degree and empirical experience. 

[Marge Lavides]

Hi All,

While I understand the concern of Third in behalf of LCP, I also concur with what Maam Ann's concern about the multidisciplinary, technical and experiential nature of valuation. Maybe what we can do is have some levels of capacity building and involvement for valuation, as in for the first level: appreciation; next level: execution (basics of valuation); third level: execution (expert level). We may not necessarily have to put it in the PIF but at the implementation stage, capacity building component implementers should find a way to do this. But certainly, at different levels and sectors, we should agree on what competency of valuation should we target for this project.

thanks, Marge

[Rina Maria Rosales]

dear all,

there might be some levelling off required here. 

the original proposal team has discussed this issue of capacity building lengthily, and there was an explicit agreement that we will not expect LGUs to conduct valuation themselves after the project. the objective then was for the project to demonstrate appreciation of the values and valuation per se, and to train LGUs on how to use the values for decision making. 

i don't think this objective and frame of thinking has changed, nor has it been altered through the various revisions of the PIF document. 

maybe we just need to revisit it and remind ourselves, given that not everyone in the current group was there since the beginning, and may not have been given the complete background of the proposal. 

cheers,

rina

[Third Espero]

Dear everyone:

I'd like to clarify my comments. As indicated in the latest draft, one of the project outcomes is "Local Government Units (LGUs), and the Philippine national government (Executive and Legislative) are aware, understand and appreciate the value of the goods and services provided by ecosystems and ultimately the role of conserving biodiversity in maintaining the integrity of these ecosystems (demonstrated in the six project landscape/seascape sites) that provide these goods and services". For this to objective to be achieved,I don't think that LGUs and NGAs need to be able to conduct the actual valuation, do they? Rather, they just need to understand the process so they would not feel "lost", which will probably result to lack of support to the initiative. The same applies to LCP. 

The group may also need to know that cities (especially those within the 1st - 3rd income class) have a wide pool of experts; many of which have advanced degrees in public administration, environment, and urban planning.We tap these people whenever we develop projects or position papers, to make sure that our initiatives will be grounded on realities and will not appear to be a mere technical or academic exercise. From its end, the LCP also has technical people that are very familiar on environmental planning. 

Yes, valuation requires a special set of skills. It is therefore a challenge for this group to make sure that everything will be translated in a manner that is understood by the decision makers. Otherwise, we may have a very good product that no NGA or LGU is "smart enough" to adopt.

Regards. 

Third 

 

Fernando Gerard O. Espero III
Unit Head, Special Projects 

League of Cities of the Philippines
Unit J & K, 7th Floor, CyberOne Bldg.,
#11 Eastwood Ave., Bagumbayan,Quezon City 1110
Tel. No. [+63]470-6813/470-6843/470-6837
Fax No. 470 - 7210

---

From: Marian Delos Angeles <msdan...@gmail.com>
To: undp-gef...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 30 June 2013, 7:41

[Rina Maria Rosales]

Dear Third,

thank you very much for clarifying your comments. i think we are all in agreement here, after all. :)

we will certainly be tapping the existing experts working with the LCP and the LMP. the partnership we are building for the project will hopefully make this process smoother. 

the challenge you have posed is definitely what the project wants to achieve. thanks for raising it.

cheers,

rina

[Mary Jean A. Caleda]

Dear All,

Thank you all for your comments.

George, when can we have the final version in the format Grace Tena is expecting? Please feedback to this loop.

Let's just be reminded that the enemy of the good is the perfect. Other details we will include in project preparation. Nasa PIF pa lang tayo and we need this sent back to UNDP then to GEF before we can move on to next step. Malapit na matapos ang GEF5 (November!).

Maraming salamat po.

Sent from my Ipad

[Aurma Manlangit]

HI George,

Thanks for the hard work you have been doing. Appreciate this, but may I ask if you can provide a copy of the entire write-up. I think I have lost track of the entire picture. I assume that you were tasked to write it up and it would really be good for all of us to see the revised outcomes vis-a-vis the entire proposal.

Thanks so much.

aurma

[George Banez]

I have been following the comments. If we are all comfortable with the framework (including what we can training LGUs on - meaning only in the use of biodiversity values , perhaps only in the provisioning services valuation) I will continue incorporating the log frame in the PIF template. Please give me until this week to work on it.

George

[Mary Jean Caleda]

Hi George,

 

I suggest that we do not limit training LGUs only on the use of biodiversity values (they also have to understand, etc.), and only on provisioning services. Let's capture the broader spectrum esp for this PIF and we can look at the more practical approach and focus in the PPG na.

 

Thanks

 

 

 

[Haribon COO]

Hi George,

Anabelle updated me on her conversation with you regarding the establishment of the national baseline on biodiversity.  Please reflect this in the PIF.

Thanks,

Beechie

Office of the OIC
2/F Santos & Sons Bldg., 973 Aurora Blvd.,
Cubao, Quezon City, 1109 Philippines
Tel. (63 2) 911 6088/89 or 434 4642
Fax  (63 2) 434 4696
www.haribon.org.ph

DISCLAIMER: This Message may contain confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited. If you received this message in error please notify the sender, delete this message immediately, and maintain the confidentiality of what you may have read. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Haribon Foundation.

SAVE PAPER – Think Before You Print

[Mary Jean A. Caleda]

hi George,

In Sustainability, I think we should include capacity building of LGUs to mainstream biodiversity values into local development planning (poverty reduction strategies, wealth creation)  and Local development investment planning of the 5 sites muna. 

Also, we need to be clear on the use of our terms- you keep using interchangeably biodiversity/ecosystem values. I suggest that we refer to the Aichi target and use  the appropriate language there, or footnote a definition.

But as Aurma suggested, we need to look at the entire PIF first so we can see how cohesive it is now.

Tama ba you said we can get the revised PIF Friday?  Pasensiya na for the kulit but we really need to fasttrack this esp as the GEF5 cycle is about to end. I was told by Annabel that JD will be here in July.

Thanks and Cheers,

Sent from my Ipad

On Jun 25, 2013, at 9:25 PM, George Banez <george...@gmail.com> wrote:

HI Jean,

After several attempts, I decided to rewrite the log frame.  Here it is in a narrative format. Please pass around.

Thanks,

George

On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Mary Jean A. Caleda <mj.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

hi george,
any news?
thanks




Sent from my Ipad

<Valuation Summary rewrite.docx>

[Marian Delos Angeles]

Hi George,

 

 

Capacity building in  valuing the  cost biodiversity conservation and eco-tourism investments  (business planning), administrative costs ( such as parks management), and transactions costs,  such as consultations to arrive at agreements with communities,  monitoring, and enforcement  are very  important for LGUs.  This is where  they could be trained - it is simpler business economics;  costing  the supply side of valuation, LGUs should certainly be trained in.  

 

REECS has been doing training on business planning in its current WB/GEF Sustainable Financing Project for PAWM  focused on only 14 or so sites  and should be scaled up.

 

As for valuing the benefits of ecosystems that are biodiverse,  or the demand side of valuation, only the provisioning services are manageable for LGUs to value  if they are interested in such.  I think that their training should focus on the meaning of these values and how they can use them.

 

Looking forward to receiving the revised PIF on Friday.

--

[Aurma Manlangit]

thanks for this.  Will appropriately give my feedback when I see the entire proposal. There has been so many inputs already and I think you will agree with me that we need to see the total picture.

Salamat and cheers,

aurma

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UNDP-GEF Proposal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to undp-gef-propo...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to undp-gef...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/undp-gef-proposal.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Mary Jean A. Caleda]

Thanks Ma'am Anne for providing the specifics for the  Cap B.

George, I will reiterate my suggestion that at this point of the proposal, we refrain  from using language that limits us.  Puede na siguro building LGU capacity .. such as ........ or ecosystems services such as provisioning.

Sa PPG na ibang details.

Rina, what are these 14 PA sites?

Thanks

Sent from my Ipad