fyi
Netatua
From: Gabor Vereczi [mailto:gabor.vereczi@undp.org]
Sent: Friday, 13 April 2012 4:05 p.m.
To: Netatua Pelesikoti; LAL Padma Narsey; Padma.Lal@csiro.au; Kevin Petrini
Cc: Taito Nakalevu; Peniamina Leavai; Armstrong Alexis; Marta Moneo
Subject: RE: PACC Mainstreaming Guide
Thanks Neta for the further ideas.
The reason I have suggested to analyse those policy tools is because the PACC mainstreaming work already deals with them. E.g. in FSM the whole PACC mainstreaming exercise centres on road building regulations and EIA processes, Samoa is working on community bi-laws for coastal management – so it would be useful to analyse the experience and synthesize lessons learnt from these country case study on regulatory instruments.
Do we have a thorough stock take of:
· Where countries are in their mainstreaming outputs?
· What documents are available (e.g. discussion papers, policy reviews, meeting reports, studies, revised policy documents)
· Who are the technical experts involved in the country processes (national and international experts)
If not, suggest to update the output status table prepared last year for the AusAID submission (attached) and prepare a list of documents available in each country
Manuia le weekend
Gabor
| Gabor Vereczi Technical Advisor for the Pacific Region Climate Resilient Development United Nations Development Programme Private Mail Bag, Matautu-Uta, Apia, Samoa Fax: +685 23555 Skype: gabor.vereczi http://asia-pacific.undp.org Follow us: |
Please consider the environment before printing this email. | |
From: Netatua Pelesikoti [mailto:netatuap@sprep.org]
Sent: Friday, 13 April 2012 1:40 p.m.
To: LAL Padma Narsey; Padma.Lal@csiro.au; Kevin Petrini
Cc: Taito Nakalevu; Peniamina Leavai; Armstrong Alexis; Marta Moneo; Gabor Vereczi
Subject: RE: PACC Mainstreaming Guide
Hi all,
Please refer to my comments below – shaded in blue (both on Gabor’s and Kevin’s emails). I hope it is for clarification and if it doesn’t serve that purpose lets discuss.
Malo,
Netatua
From: Gabor Vereczi [mailto:gabor.vereczi@undp.org]
Sent: Thursday, 12 April 2012 3:10 p.m.
To: LAL Padma Narsey; Netatua Pelesikoti; Padma.Lal@csiro.au
Cc: Kevin Petrini; Taito Nakalevu; Peniamina Leavai; Armstrong Alexis; Marta Moneo
Subject: RE: PACC Mainstreaming Guide
Thanks Neta for forwarding Kevin’s emails and looping up everybody. I just forwarding here attached the draft outline where Kevin also made some comments complementing yours.
Just 2 quick points:
· In the country case studies and synthesis guide would be important to flesh out on policy instruments and tools being used (e.g. regulatory instruments, such as EAI, land-use regulations or infrastructure building codes; financial instruments, such as water pricing; awareness raising and capacity building processes, amongst others) that serve to implement the plans and policies, and how these are modified with CC considerations. This is especially relevant for the sectoral level mainstreaming where these tools become specific.
I hope you have read the tor – these tools is a layer below i.e (1) a guide is developed (2) tools and processes are developed to apply the guide. This is what you are talking about here. I need to hear from Padma is this could be included. I deliberately left this out because there is a PPCR regional project (WB and ADB) where SPREP will lead on developing those tools. My feeling is to leave this out of the guideline to mainstream (this work).
· For the peer review process and core group, as Kevin wrote: involve regional sectoral experts (e.g. SCP and SOPAC water, crop and coastal divisions). Kevin, being based in Suva can help identifying and coordinating with them.
2 things here: (1) peer review process (2) core group. I referred in my earlier email to Padma and alluded to calling this core group her ‘first port of call.
The peer review process should be open and bigger than this list here. I will invite sectoral experts as suggested to the core group.
Thanks
Gabor
| Gabor Vereczi Technical Advisor for the Pacific Region Climate Resilient Development United Nations Development Programme Private Mail Bag, Matautu-Uta, Apia, Samoa Fax: +685 23555 Skype: gabor.vereczi http://asia-pacific.undp.org Follow us: |
Please consider the environment before printing this email. | |
From: LAL Padma Narsey [mailto:Padma.LAL@iucn.org]
Sent: Thursday, 12 April 2012 11:50 a.m.
To: netatuap@sprep.org; Padma.Lal@csiro.au
Cc: Kevin Petrini; Taito Nakalevu; Peniamina Leavai; Armstrong Alexis; Marta Moneo; Gabor Vereczi
Subject: RE: PACC Mainstreaming Guide
Dear Neta
I will have a look at this this morning and get back to you.
Please note my changes address (I am no longer with IUCN) and thus please use the following email address in all future correspondences (Padma.lal@csiro.au)
Cheers
Padma
Dr Padma Narsey Lal
Visiting Scientist (CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences Division)
CSIRO (Black Mountain)
Canberra, Australia
Ph 61 2 6246 4196 (w)
Ph +61 468518281 (m)
Email: padma.lal@csiro.au
From: Netatua Pelesikoti [mailto:netatuap@sprep.org]
Sent: Thursday, 12 April 2012 8:41 AM
To: LAL Padma Narsey
Cc: Kevin Petrini; Taito Nakalevu; Peniamina Leavai; Armstrong Alexis; Marta Moneo; Gabor Vereczi
Subject: RE: PACC Mainstreaming Guide
Hi Padma,
Please refer to comments below and also to introduce you to Kevin. Note to include myself, Taito, Gabor, Kevin and Peni in all your communications to us re: your consultancy agreement. We will be your first port of call for our vies and input before your circulate broadly.
There was also an agreement to expand this “first port of call” and I will do it when I have time. This is to include the Paula/Marita/Aaron CBA group.
Cheers,
Netatua
From: Kevin Petrini [mailto:kevin.petrini@undp.org]
Sent: Monday, 9 April 2012 11:33 a.m.
To: Netatua Pelesikoti; Taito Nakalevu; Peniamina Leavai; Armstrong Alexis; Gabor Vereczi; Marta Moneo
Subject: PACC Mainstreaming Guide
Importance: High
Dear Colleagues:
Thank you for the constructive meeting and I look forward to working together on the PACC mainstreaming guide. I have made notes surrounding the five points that I raised in the meeting. Please add any points that I may have missed or mis-interpreted. As we did not formally agree on next steps, I have proposed a way forward below for your consideration.
Timeline
The issue of a tight timeline was raised. It was indicated that with the history of the mainstreaming guide, it would be important to move things along and keep the pressure on the consultant to get the work finished. It was further elaborated that the guide should capture the country-level reality and be grounded in this experience. Further, there was discussion about this document evolving and that it could be seen as a Volume I and potentially a subsequent Volume II as more information is gathered over the lifetime of the project. It was further discussed that there will be a workshop toward the end of May with resource persons, SPREP and UNDP staff, PACC managers and others for a few days to work through the details of the guide and give the consultant feedback for completion by the end of June. At this regional workshop, the case studies would be presented and experiences shared. This would only happen once all countries had a case study prepared. It was also noted that it would be important to keep the pressure on the consultant and that a “core group” should “shape the thinking” of the consultant.
For clarification – the case studies prepared will be part of the guide and will be prepared before the workshop.
Participatory process
It was raised that it would be a important to make the development of this guide as participatory as possible. It was suggested to facilitate e-discussions as a lead-up to the workshop as a means of building momentum toward the workshop and the work to be undertaken and, importantly, get the discussion going and giving the consultant an opportunity to interact with the PACC community. There was general agreement on this and that SPREP would look at moving this forward with support from UNDP. It was further suggested to use the PSE as a means to have a wider discussion on mainstreaming, along the line of the recent “additionalilty” query. It was further suggested to have a PACC group e-discussion maybe set up under “teamworks” (NCs can be on teamworks) or other modality and further expand the discussion to the 900 member PSE for further feedback to the guide.
Questions/queries from Padma - if the core group could not provide adequate responses SPREP will post these on the PSE and the PACC grop e-discussions. Padma is familiar with the PACC project and country activities after being involved in last year’s MTR and using some of the PACC activities for some other regional work. The concern of her not in the loop of things is unnecessary. In the TOR it is the function of PACC RMU to keep her informed and provide her with her info needs including case studies materials.
Case Study Template
It was suggested to have a case study template, so that the mainstreaming guide would be built from a series of case studies, so that it would be informed from the ground-up. The template would guide the development of country specific case studies on mainstreaming. It can be used and trued to assure that the process is applicable. This template would be the backbone of the process and could pick up off Padma’s outline. Further, it was important to not artificially separate the entry point levels (community, sectoral and national) and that a case study might show how these levels all interact. It was pointed out that there are two main points for this guide. 1) for people new to (CC) mainstreaming and 2) a guide which provides experiences. Again the Volume I and II approach could be applied to build the case studies over time.
What I was referring to: (1) a guide doesn’t have to be based on Pacific examples otherwise why would we need a guide if we know how to do mainstreaming? (2) if there are case studies to strengthen a particular step – then let’s use it. The para above is skewed for the guide to be based on case studies only – it is not the intention.
Peer-Review
It will be important to have a peer-review process for this guide, which includes mainstreaming as well as sectoral experts. This can replicate the successful formula for the PACC Cost Benefit Analysis and economic analysis work. Given the regional scope and sectoral focus there would be need to involve regional sectoral experts (e.g. SCP and SOPAC water, crop and coastal divisions) and experts already involved in PACC policy mainstreaming support, e.g. the expert supported Nauru). Their role can be to review and comment on: list of reference documents for the guide (international, regional, sectoral, national docs), guiding principles and guide outline, template for case study and associated questionnaire and info gathering process, draft case studies, draft overall guide.
Refer to my earlier comment
Stocktaking
Systematic stocktaking of where countries are at (many of them advanced in the process or already completed), what documents are available and what further tech support they need to complete (the main purpose of the guide to support countries in their PACC mainstreaming deliverables). As a key basis of the guide formulation, this stocktaking can include: Status update, Available documents (e.g. policy analysis, discussion paper, workshop and meeting reports and presentations, draft policy and plan, Current tech support provided from different sources (core team officers, national and international consultants, SPREP tech staff, CROP agencies, Further tech support needs (focus, scope and form), Next step and timeline to achieve the mainstreaming output. It was further indicated that undergoing this exercise at the time of the workshop (late May) would be too late.
This is the function of the consultant and the PACC RPU. Core group could provide additional material. I believe that guide should target those with very little experience. Those countries with experience may not use or need the guide or they could go straight to the step where they need most help and support. We should not waste time in determining what level each country is at. The guide should be useful to the lowest up to the highest.
Actions
Although we did not formally agree on next steps, I would propose the following:
1. Indicate the “core group” members whose role is to shape the thinking of the consultant. (trying to get to this)
2. Core Group members meet to discuss the mainstreaming guide
Core group will interact with the consultant through email. A meeting will be discussed later.
Considerations for the Core group
There were numerous issues that came up during the discussions and warrant further discussion. I am starting with the following list of things to discuss to which we can draw on for discussion points for the core group. Please indicate what other points need to be considered.
1. Further clarification on the Volume I and II concept (i.e. Overall process is iterative and a living community of practice, the guide is an evolving document (phases, updates, electronic versions)
2. Further discussion around the e-discussions. Determine if we use PSE and/or another modality to engage both the PACC group exclusively and the wider PSE Community of Practice for
3. Further discussion about the “peer-review” process. Consider a core group and then a wider “expert group”, that could look at it from a sectoral point of view.
4. Consider directing the consultant to take an initial stock-take of PACC mainstreaming work.
5. The case study template “building-block” approach.
Some points I have already addressed – others are too early to discuss. Let hear others views after reading my comments.
Best,
|
Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this e-mail or any document
This communication, together with any attachment, may contain confidential information and/or copyright material and is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you received it by error and you are asked to please delete it and promptly notify us. Any review, copying, use, disclosure or distribution of any part of this communication, unless duly authorized by or on behalf of IUCN, is strictly forbidden.