Subject: Re:
From: Bruce Lindsey <[email-masked]>
To: Amitabh Desai <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:16:44 -0500

I am ambivalent. If we believe the work CCI Forestry is doing is
worthwhile and someone is willing to fund it, I would be okay with letting
them continue.  I understand that that perhaps dilutes the focus of our
other climate work, thereby diluting our ability to be viewed as an
important "actor" in this area; but it does keep 8 to 10 current Clinton
Foundation staff employed.  If on the other hand we believe what Jim Baker
and his group are doing can be done better by other organizations out
there or that the work is not worth doing, then we should let CCI Forestry
die a natural death when our current funding expires.  John is in a better
position to comment on the "need" for the work they are doing.

Bruce  

On 2/23/12 12:00 PM, "Amitabh Desai" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Dear Bruce, following-up on our discussion a couple weeks ago, I had a
>good talk today with German environmental folks. I explained that we'd be
>delighted to cooperate and that we would welcome their advice and
>guidance on their priorities, but that forestry would not be at the top
>of our list. Sounds like they have indeed been asked by CCI for money for
>forestry and are inclined to respond favorably. It sounded like it would
>be co-funding (I am guessing that CCI would be asking the UK and
>Australians to be other co-funders).  But the Germans will put it on hold
>if we let them know we don't need it to proceed (they have other options
>to support). I'm happy to tell them clearly to punt on CCI's forestry
>request if you'd like. I mentioned cities and they said they need to
>spend their money in developing countries - so presumably we could go to
>them to ask for funding for cities work in developing countries, but not
>the cities in the US, Europe, etc. Thanks, Ami