FW: BD Values PIF

[Grace Tena]

Dear Jean,

This is regarding the revised PIF that I submitted to our regional office last week.  JD said that our GEF-UNDP Global Team has recommended to submit this in GEF-6 and according to them, the GEF-5 BD strategy doesn’t have a specific component on biodiversity valuation (only PA financing), however, GEF-6t has a specific biodiversity finance component (responding to the Aichi targets).  Based on our discussion if we submit this for GEF-5, it will be rejected by GEFSec with a request to re-submit under GEF-6.  I know that this included in the NPFD but please note that the NPFD was formulated when GEF-6 strategies haven’t been identified yet.

 

Please see response below.  But should you need clarifications and further elaboration,  JD is in town until tomorrow and would be happy to discuss this with you.  Please let me know the best time to call you.

 

Thanks,

 

Grace A. Tena Energy and Environment United Nations Development Programme Philippines 30th Floor, Yuchengco Tower, RCBC Plaza 6819 Ayala Avenue, 1226 Makati City, Philippines grace...@undp.org Direct Line: (+632)901-0260 Mobile No: +63917-5415309 Fax No. (+632) 889-7177 http://www.undp.org.ph  Follow us:

 

From: Johan Robinson
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 11:58 AM
To: Grace Tena
Cc: Amelia Supetran; Imee Manal; Joseph D'Cruz
Subject: RE: BD Values PIF

 

Dear Grace,

 

In consultation with JD and Nik, it has been decided that the PIF does not meet the GEF 5 requirements and therefore we will not be submitting it. We shall be very interested in developing it further for submission under GEF 6. I apologise for this short notice, but as I have not been involved and know the history of the PIF’s development, this all I can assist at this stage. Please let me know if you need a more elaborate explanation , which I can do if I return from leave mid January next year.

 

Best regards

Johan

 

[Mary Jean Caleda]

Thanks Gara fo this feedback.

Can we validate this possible "rejection" with the GEFSec directly?

I have direct access to GEFSec myself but would like to request that the OFP validate this too, otherwise the entire NPDF exercise becomes just another exercise that is not in reality country-driven.

In fact, even the GEFSec and their advice (they shortlisted thie project?becomes equally suspect.

Cheers,

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 16, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Grace Tena <grace...@undp.org> wrote:

Dear Jean,

This is regarding the revised PIF that I submitted to our regional office last week.  JD said that our GEF-UNDP Global Team has recommended to submit this in GEF-6 and according to them, the GEF-5 BD strategy doesn’t have a specific component on biodiversity valuation (only PA financing), however, GEF-6t has a specific biodiversity finance component (responding to the Aichi targets).  Based on our discussion if we submit this for GEF-5, it will be rejected by GEFSec with a request to re-submit under GEF-6.  I know that this included in the NPFD but please note that the NPFD was formulated when GEF-6 strategies haven’t been identified yet.

 

Please see response below.  But should you need clarifications and further elaboration,  JD is in town until tomorrow and would be happy to discuss this with you.  Please let me know the best time to call you.

 

Thanks,

 

<image001.png>

Grace A. Tena Energy and Environment United Nations Development Programme Philippines 30th Floor, Yuchengco Tower, RCBC Plaza 6819 Ayala Avenue, 1226 Makati City, Philippines grace...@undp.org Direct Line: (+632)901-0260 Mobile No: +63917-5415309 Fax No. (+632) 889-7177

http://www.undp.org.ph  Follow us: <image002.png>  <image003.jpg>  <image004.png>   <image006.png>

<image007.gif>

[Mary Jean Caleda]

I think JD also read the CSW that came with the 3rd revision so he is aware of how the project was developed.

Please take note that the country has long identified this as a priority even before GEF6 started formal discussions in June 2013, that's why this was OFP-endorsed as early as Feb 2013.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 16, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Grace Tena <grace...@undp.org> wrote:

Dear Jean,

This is regarding the revised PIF that I submitted to our regional office last week.  JD said that our GEF-UNDP Global Team has recommended to submit this in GEF-6 and according to them, the GEF-5 BD strategy doesn’t have a specific component on biodiversity valuation (only PA financing), however, GEF-6t has a specific biodiversity finance component (responding to the Aichi targets).  Based on our discussion if we submit this for GEF-5, it will be rejected by GEFSec with a request to re-submit under GEF-6.  I know that this included in the NPFD but please note that the NPFD was formulated when GEF-6 strategies haven’t been identified yet.

 

Please see response below.  But should you need clarifications and further elaboration,  JD is in town until tomorrow and would be happy to discuss this with you.  Please let me know the best time to call you.

 

Thanks,

 

<image001.png>

Grace A. Tena Energy and Environment United Nations Development Programme Philippines 30th Floor, Yuchengco Tower, RCBC Plaza 6819 Ayala Avenue, 1226 Makati City, Philippines grace...@undp.org Direct Line: (+632)901-0260 Mobile No: +63917-5415309 Fax No. (+632) 889-7177

http://www.undp.org.ph  Follow us: <image002.png>  <image003.jpg>  <image004.png>   <image006.png>

<image007.gif>

 

From: Johan Robinson

Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 11:58 AM
To: Grace Tena
Cc: Amelia Supetran; Imee Manal; Joseph D'Cruz
Subject: RE: BD Values PIF

[Mary Jean Caleda]

In consultation with JD and Nik, it has been decided that the PIF does not meet the GEF 5 requirements and therefore we will not be submitting it.

--

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

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.

[Mary Jean A. Caleda]

Sorry this was mistakenly sent. I didi not talk to JD.

This is a direct quote from Johan Robinson's email to Grace Tena (see below).

Sent from my Ipad

On Dec 19, 2013, at 10:06 AM, Elma Eleria <elma_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear Ms. Jean,

Are you saying that you were able to meet with JD, hence the decision?

 

ELMA M. ELERIA

Project Evaluation Officer

Foreign-Assisted and Special Projects Office

Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Visayas Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City 1100

Philippines

Telefax: (632)926-8065/(632)926-8074

[Marian Delos Angeles]

My comments might come in too late, but if time is an important element,  you may want to consider focusing on Biodiversity Financing only (without having a biodiversity valuation component yet)  so that it qualifies under GEF 5.

Rina, your take in this?

--
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 Caleda]

Thank you for your thoughts on this. I still believe that this project qualifies under GEF5. Please  note:

1) The GEFSec itself has shortlisted this project under GEF5 and commented that "This proposal is in line with BD2 and could potentially have a great impact".

2) Based on advice from #1 and following the criteria for selection of priority projects for the GEF5 Biodiversity Focal Area, this project was endorsed for further development by the DENR-PAWB as National Focal Point Agency (FPA) for Biodiversity. The joint proposal team of Ateneo, REECS and Haribon spent time (over a year) and resources to develop the PIF because of this advice, went through the PIF process and made revisions based on advice from #4;

3) The PIF was endorsed by DENR-PAWB and by the Philippines GEF Operational Focal Point (based on the endorsement of PAWB and  inclusion in the GEF5 National Portfolio Formulation Document)  to UNDP for further review.

4)  UNDP-Manila  and its Advisers  spent time and resources (including engaging a Consultant to assist in developing the PIF),   required the proponents to conduct additional interviews, further revisions, etc.

I know that our national agencies would not have endorsed this PIF if it did not meet GEF5 requirements. The proponents would definitely have not undertaken this process if the PIF did not meet GEF5 requirements.

I think we should all be cognizant of the fact the  PIF is not just about biodiversity valuation but is also about mainstreaming--integrating into national and local accounting. Let's all look at the bigger picture here.

What complicates this is because GEF6 identified natural resources accounting as an eligible project under the Biodiversity Focal Area. And now the Philippines may have to wait for another 7++ months because it had the foresight to act on its priority needs and identified this project as a priority  in GEF5,  ahead of the formulators of the GEF6 Focal Area strategies.

I hope that our colleagues from the UNDP can spare some  time during the holidays to reflect on this and reconsider their decision.

Merry Christmas!