Hello,

I am trying to catch up with the email trail; my assumption is these items are how part of the $90,000 might be used that is not needed for the proposal development; this is fine by me. The downside again is that activities could be com pleted in a short time-frame if going through govt channels.

Re other email in theory a new endorsement letter for less tha n $90,000 should not take more than a week if Jope is in –country; just last time he was away on a couple of trips including Rio + 20.

Mark and I recently met and will be talking to a couple of oth er commercial firms that do anti-microbial and perhaps other testing but it m ay take some time to develop these relationships.

Other points are fine.

Bill

From: jcavelier@theg ef.org [mailto:jcavelier@thegef.org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 2:45 AM
To: Hay, Mark; William Aalbersberg
Subject: Re: Status of ABS-Fiji

Dear Mark and Bill:

Of the outputs in the latest draft of the PIF, there are three that could be funded (at least in part) using PPG funds.

1.1 Administrative systems / Procedures for ABS agreement negotiatio ns between the government and relevant institutions strengthened 3D inc luding clear roles and responsibilities and business standards for screening and approval processes.
1.2. Electronic database on biodiversity, natural products, AB S agreements, and projects installed in relevant national institutions , including data handling system among national and international institutions for harmonized sharing of information on samples co llected and scientific results
1.3. Awareness programme for national stakeholders on Nagoya P rotocol obligations.

Since these are all outputs related to the Government's $100K, I am sure they will be happy to hear they can jump-start the project by carrying s ome of the activities leading to the preparation and implementation of the project.

Let me know what you think.

Saludos,

Jaime

~~Jai me Cavelier~~ | Senior Biodiversity Special ist, Natural Resources
T +1(202) 473-4886 F +1(202) 522-3240 | jcavelier@thegef.org
Mail stop: P 4-400 | 1818 H Street NW - Washington DC 20433 USA
______________________________________________________________________

Global Environment Facility
Follow us on Facebook | Twitter | YouTube

Jaime Cavelier---09/11/2012 09:23:29 AM---Dear Mark: Thanks for your quick respons e.

From: Jaime Cavelier/Person/World Bank
To: "Hay, Mark" <mark.hay@biology.gatech.edu>
Cc: "William Aalbersberg" <william.aalbersberg@usp.ac.fj>
Date: 09/11/2012 09:23 AM
Subject: Re: Status of ABS-Fiji

Dear Mark:

Thanks for your quick response.
It looks like the only issue is the LoE. I will check the draft project and s ee if there are activities we can move up to the PPG in case you opt for usin g the existing LoE.
Will revert promptly.

Saludos,

Jaime

From: "Hay, Mark" [mark.hay@biology.gatech.edu]
Sent: 09/11/2012 09:04 AM AST
To: Jaime Cavelier
Cc: William Aalbersberg <william.aalbersberg@usp.ac.fj>
Subject: Re: Status of ABS-Fiji

jaime,

on point #1 - i defer to bill. he is "on the ground" in fiji and can better assess the costs, benefits, timing delays, etc. i'll sup port his decision.

on point #2 - if bill is OK with this, I am. it seems a reasonable and documented approach.

on point #3 (Actually labeled as a second point #2) -

testing - i think we can get a letter from BMS

commercial development - yes BMS should be listed and the relationship made c lear. they do testing in cancer, but not other areas. they have r ights of first refusal on developments, but if we don't like the terms, we ca n shop elsewhere. their primary interest is cancer. other developments seem of less interest to them.

point #4 (numbered as #3) - agreed.

mark

From: jcavelier@thegef.org
To: "William Aalbersberg" <william.aalbersberg@usp.ac.fj> , "Mark Hay" <mark.hay@biology.gatech.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 8:12:29 AM
Subject: Re: Status of ABS-Fiji

Dear Bill and Mark:

I hope you are doing fine.

What do you think about the issues I put forward? I sincerely believe this PI F is ripe and could be submitted shortly. It is a matter to resolve these iss ues, particularly the LoE.

Please let me know if there is anything I can do from this end to help expedi te the process.

Saludos,

Jaime

From: Sameer Karki [sameer.karki@undp.org]
Sent: 09/08/2012 09:12 AM ZE7
To: Jaime Cavelier; William Aalbersberg <william.aalbersberg@usp .ac.fj>; "Hay, Mark" <mark.hay@biology.gatech.edu>
Cc: "santiago.carrizosa@undp.org" <santiago.carrizosa@ undp.org>
Subject: RE: Status of ABS-Fiji

Dear Jaime,
Than k you very much for your comments and suggestions on some of the outstanding issues. Bill, I look forward to hearing from you on these.
&nbs p;
Rega rds,
Same er
&nbs p;

Sameer Karki (Mr.)
Regional Technical Advisor (Biodiversity and Sustainable Land Managem ent)
UNDP – Global Environment Facility
United Nations Development Programme, Asia-Pacific Regional Centre
4th Floor, UN Service Building
Rajdamnern Nok Avenue, Bangkok, Thailand
Tel.: +66 (2) 304 9100 Ext. 2729
Fax: +66 (2) 208 2700
URL: http://asia-pacific.undp.org
www.undp.org Follow us:

P Ple ase consider the environment before printing this e-mail

&nbs p;
From: jcavelier@thegef.org [mailto:jcavelier@thegef.org]
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 10:23 PM
To: Sameer Karki; William Aalbersberg; Hay, Mark
Cc: santiago.carrizosa@undp.org
Subject: Status of ABS-Fiji
Importance: High

Dear Sameer, Bill & Mark:

I hope you are all doing well.

I had the opportunity to talk with Santiago about the PIF of project fo r the NPIF dated August 28th. We had this conversation while reviewing the st atus of potential projects for the NPIF.

The PIF is very good. Congratulations to all of you. My sense is that the PIF could be submitted very soon, assuming you can resolve a few outstand ing issues. Below are the issues that we discussed with Santiago with suggest ed solutions. 
1) Letter of Endorsement (LoE). From what I can see, the main road block is the LoE from the GEF Operational Focal Point. Al though you already have a LoE dated July 20th, the amount for the PPG may be too high ($90,000). There are two options here:

First: To submit the PIF + PPG with the current letter of endorsement. Th at means $910K for the project and $90K for the PPG. The $90K would need to b e applied to the preparation of the project rather than actual implementation of activities foreseen for the project once it gets underway You may want to discuss this matter amon g yourselves and come back to me with the list of activities for the $90K. We can discuss this matter to try to find a comfortable zone for the GEF, UNDP, USP and the Government of Fiji.

Second. To get a new LoE with new figures for PIF and PPG. How difficult and how time consuming would this be? The PIF is nearly ready and I would hate to delay its formal review because of difficulties getting the new LoE. Thought s?

2) Name of Policy (PIF p.4). In the concept note tha t was put together back in February (copy attached), I found the following tw o pieces of text: "

ABS AGREMENTS (p.2: There is a legally binding agreement in place among the c ollaborating universities (GIT, SIO, USP), the Fiji Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forests, Department of Fisheries, and the industrial partner ( BMS).
LEGAL FRAMEWORK (p.3.). Fiji has a draft ABS policy that was developed in 199 7 which meets CBD requirements but, with government changes, this has not bee n formally enacted. It has recently been agreed that this will be the b asis of the formal ABS legislation.

I wonder if we can resolved this matter by simply changing the language in th e PIF and present the case using some of the text above. I suggest to a nchor this matter with the letter send from the Government of Fiji to the GEF in support of this initiative (attached copy). All in all, the idea is to clearly state where the project stands on legal matters and the relationships between the project and the Gov ernment. Since Fiji ratified the Nagoya Protocol, you should expect the Gover nment paying closer attention to the project specially on Component 3.

2) Bristol Myers Squibb (p.11) It is only mentioned once in Table B5. with the following role: This private sector company will also contribute to Component 1 through ad vanced anti-cancer testing, possible commercial development (underline is mine).

Testing: If BMS is going to do testing, they could (shoul d) be listed as co-financiers. Could you get a letter of co-financing to be i ncluded with the project to be submitted within 12 months? The contribution could appear as in-kind or cash and should refle ct the estimated cost of the analysis. Considering that the engagement of the Private Sector, this is important . 
Commercial development: If BMS is part of the "consort ium", reference to these commercial developments should be made in Component 2 of the Results Framework (not necessarily referring to including BMS). Once more, because BMS is the Private Sector partner we n eed to ensure clarity and visibility of its participation. It happened with E isai and Dow in the Panama project. 
3) Sources of Co-financing (Table C p.3) Make sure that you differentiate the contribution from the Fiji Government (First Line ) from the contribution of the US Government (line where co-financier is Fogarty). Change that manually as I understand the tem plate only give you the choice of "National Government".
Well, this is all for the moment. I hope you can address these issue s promptly so we can see a formal submission of the PIF to the GEF Secretaria t. We should definitely have the submission by the GEF Council Meeting in November.
Please let me know if there is anything I can do from this end to as sist you in the process.
Saludos,
Jaime

(See attached file: Fiji ABS PIF_28 August.doc)(See attached file: Fiji NPIF Concept Note (2-24-12).docx)(See attached file: GEF letter j cavelier.jpg)

 

Jaime Cavelier | Senior Biodiversity Specialist, Natural Resources
T +1(202) 473-4886 F +1(202) 522-3240 | jcavelier @thegef.org
Mail stop: P 4-400 | 1818 H Street NW - Washington DC 20433 USA
______________________________________________________________________

Global Environment Facility
Follow us on Facebook | Twi tter | YouTube

--
Mark Hay
Teasley Professor of Environmental Biology
School of Biology
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA 30332-0230 USA
voice 404-894-8429
FAX 404-385-4440
<mark.hay@biology.gatech.edu>
http://www.biolog y.gatech.edu/faculty/mark-hay/