BRAVO: Barrier Removal Assessment and Viability Overview

A tool for assessing the feasibility and impact potential of Rare project plans

BRAVO: Barrier Removal

Assessment and Viability Overview

Mongolia – Onon River Campaign

Establishing Community-Based NRM

Economics Technical

Cultural/Political Impact & Metrics

Assessment of costs, funding/revenue sources and potential income substitution factors related to the specific Barrier Removal Solution

Assessment of technology availability, training required, and the effectiveness of organizational partners involved with the Barrier Removal Solution

Assessment of Barrier Removal Solution drivers and barriers that arise from cultural norms and political landscape

Assessment of the overall impact of the Barrier Removal Solution and the viability of current metrics to measure that impact

BRAVO: Executive Summary

What: The Poverty Reduction through Community-Based Natural Resource

Management aims to promote sustainable natural resource management (NRM) and to

contribute to poverty reduction in rural Mongolia. These goals will be achieved through

policy strengthening and implementation in support of sustainable NRM in the Onon

River Basin by creating an enabling environment for community-driven poverty

reduction. This BRAVO focuses on developing and building capacity in Community

Based Organizations to effectively implement NRM strategies.

Who: Implementing Agency for this project is WWF Mongolia’s Asian Development

Bank team that has been built exclusively to run these initiatives. Full funding is

provided by the Asia Development Bank.

When: Project preparations have already begun and will continue over the course of

3.5 years. Many important trainings and materials will be developed in conjunction with

the Pride campaign and presents greater opportunities for sustainability.

How: Funding in the amount of $2,000,000 for all components and for the duration of

the project has already been approved and provided by Asian Development Bank.

BRAVO Scores

Feasibility Score: 3.5

Impact Score: 3.5

Confidential

Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 3

Criteria Explanation Score

Co

sts

Preliminary projected costs

Building local institutions for Integrated NRM and Poverty Reduction = $561,425• Establishment and strengthening of Community Based Organizations (CBO)• Establishment and support of Buffer Zone Councils (BZC) and Buffer Zone Funds (BZF)• Development and capacity enhancement of the Onon River Basin Council (ORBC)• Implementation of new policies on community based and integrated NRM in the project area.

Developing and strengthening Integrated NRM and Conservation in the Onon River Basin = $293,057• Basin-wide environmental management plan for the Onon Basin National Park (OBNP)• Buffer zone management plans for the soums surrounding the OBNP• Strategy for integrated management of Onon River Basin• Management plans for selected community-managed areas.

Predictability of cost burden

1 = Costs are ambiguous and unpredictable; 4 = Costs are predictable and manageable

Costs are predictable and already allocated to various components based on tasks needed to complete component and available funding.

4

Average Score 4

BRAVO Drafting Guidelines

Economics (1 of 3)

Confidential



Reven

ues

Description of revenue streams

Fundraising total: $ 2,000,000 Sources: Asia Development Bank

Earned income total: $ Sources:

Percentage of total cost available

1: 0 – 25% 2: 25 – 50% 3: 50 – 75% 4: 75 – 100%

Grant has already been approved and provided to WWF-Mongolia for their “Poverty Reduction through Community-Based Natural Resource Management” project.

4

Likelihood of fundraising success

1 = Very low likelihood of raising the necessary funds; 4 = Likelihood of raising necessary funds almost a certainty

Funds already exist for these components. 4

Fundraising timing

Provide estimated time (in years and months) needed to raise funds not currently available. If timing of available funds is critical to the success of your project then write narrative of any timing issues that might be important to consider.

Funding Alignment

1 = Funding timeline is not aligned with project timeline; 4 = Funding timeline is well-aligned with project timeline

Funding is well aligned with timeline – project is getting started now and funding is already in place for the full 4 years of the grant.

4

Sustainable Funding

1 = Unsustainable funding source; 4 = Very sustainable funding source

Very sustainable for the next 4 years. May need to re-apply or get funding for alternate sources after 4 year mark.3

Average Score 3.75


Economics (2 of 3)

Confidential



Inco

me S

ub

stitu

tion

(if ap

plicab

le)

New income source relative to old income

1 = Income source is reduced by 20% or more; 4 = Income source is increased by 20% or more

New income sources should increase amount of income received, especially among poorer households. Please reference separate BRAVO on Alternative Livelihoods for more details.

3

New income source sustainability

1 = New income source is unsustainable; 4 = Income source is highly sustainable

New income source depends on capacity building and infrastructure, and is therefore highly sustainable. Please reference separate BRAVO on Alternative Livelihoods for more details.

4

Average Score 3.5


Economics (3 of 3)

Confidential



Tech

no

log

y

Attainability &

Availability

1 = Technology and/or required assistance needed is unavailable; 4 = Technology is attainable and third-party assistance, if required, is available

Training and capacity building among CBOs is required for this solution, but it does not include specific technology.

n/a

Technology assistance

1 = Technology assistance is required, yet not available; 4 = Technology assistance is significant and available

Training and capacity building among CBOs is required for this solution, but it does not include specific technology.n/a

Appropriate for circumstances

1 = Available technology is not appropriate for circumstances; 4 = Acquirable technology is suited for circumstances

Training and capacity building among CBOs is required for this solution, but it does not include specific technology. n/a

Average Score n/a


Technical (1 of 2)

Confidential



Cap

acity

/

Org

anizatio

nal A

bility

Barrier Removal Partner support

1 = BR Partner does not exist or is not willing to support the project; 4 = There exists a willing Barrier Removal Partner

Barrier Removal partner is embedded within WWF Mongolia as the Dadal office (where Gaana works) is implementing this program directly. Pride has been brought in to assist with the community engagement and mobilization around these initiatives. Services of consultants may be required at times to assist WWF, but all consultants will be reviewed and approved by Ministry of Nature and Environment and subject to Asia Development Bank approval.

4

Barrier Removal Partner’s ability to drive change

1 = BR Partner lacks a track record of driving behavior; 4 = BR partner has a proven track record of driving behavior

WWF has already implemented, and continue to run, community-based NRM efforts in the Onon River Basin. They also are working to build the capacity of the Onon Balj National Park administration for monitoring, law enforcement, and park management. This support is not yet operational, but this project will work to systematize all the efforts into one collective initiative.

3

Budget planning and cost efficient execution

1 = BR Partner has not demonstrated sufficient budget planning skills and cost efficient execution of plans; 4 = BR Partner has proven proficiency in budget planning and cost efficient execution of past plans

WWF-Mongolia is proficient at work planning a budgeting and does an effective job of meeting all project requirements. This particular grant is already off to a slow start due to a delay in signatures by all parties, but is now off the ground.

3

Average Score 3.33

Oth

er Partn

ers

Other critical partners

1 = Other partners do not exist or will not be impactful 4 = Other partners are available and capable of assistance

Outside consultants may be required for workshops and trainings on Community Based Organizations and Buffer Zone Funds. Most elements of the project will be implemented directly by WWF-Mongolia.

3

Average Score 3


Technical (2 of 2)

Confidential



Co

mm

un

ity Lead

ership

Leaders and influencers in the community

1 = Dearth of strong leaders and influencers in the community; 4 = Visible leaders with clout to drive behavior

There are several layers of leaders involved in this program that can help drive behavior among the rest of the community. This exists at the local government levels (aimag and soum) who have already committed to helping WWF with conservation efforts. Underneath that layer will be the legislative bodies selected to lead each Community Based Organization – these individuals will be selected based on their experience with community organization. Leaders are widely recognized and accepted among these communities.

4

Leadership willingness to endorse

1 = Unwilling to get on board with project; 4 = Firm commitment from leadership to help drive change efforts

Each soum government has already signed an MoU with WWF to commit themselves to protect the Onon River Basin and the Taimen. This project will take those commitments to the community level and organize members around activities to preserve and protect their natural resources. The idea of “eco-soums” has already started to catch on at the government level and can be a great driver of change. 4

Average Score 4


Cultural/Political (1 of 2)

Confidential



Po

litical En

viro

nm

en

t

Current legislative and legal landscape

1 = Legislative and legal restrictions will hamper efforts; 4 = Legislative and legal framework will aid program

The signing of the MoU between soum governments and WWF will aid this program and provide rational for doing such work at the gound level.

4

Ability to drive legislative change

1 = Lack of knowledge regarding political environment and unclear timeframe for advocacy; 4 = Depth of political knowledge and ability to push for appropriate changes within a given timeframe

Depth of political knowledge absolutely exists among this group that has worked at the site for many years and in close conjunction with local governments and the Ministry of Nature and Environment. Appropriate changes within a given timeframe is trickier as there are often large beauricratic channels to travel and such things tend to take time in Mongolia.

3

Average Score 3.5

Valu

es and

No

rms

Assessment of norms

1 = Plan is unconcerned with political and cultural norms 4 = Plan assesses and takes into account the values and norms governing the political and cultural environment

Project was formulated following extensive consultations with local stakeholders and key informants, and after participatory analysis with selected local groups and focus groups of the target beneficiaries in all soums. Participatory action research included social mapping and wealth ranking to identify poverty profiles and dimensions as well as group analysis on opportunities for poverty reduction through community-based NRM. Full report on findings available.

4

Ability to address normative obstacles

1 = Normative obstacles are too formidable to be overcome; 4 = Obstacles are manageable and a clear tack to address them is employed

Obstacles around policy implementation at the soum government level are clear and strategies to manage them mostly include open and constant dialogue with policy makers around legal frameworks for CMAs to operate. I mark this a 3 instead of a 4 since strategy to address may not be sufficient.

3

Average Score 3.5


Cultural/Political (2 of 2)

Confidential



Co

nservatio

n Im

pac

t

Likelihood of conservation impact

1 = Conservation impact is unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Conservation impact is very likely to be realized

The focus of this project is to have a great impact on livelihoods and natural resource management among local communities, and does not seek to measure conservation impact. There is a strong correlation between poverty reduction and conservation impact, but there currently isn’t a measure in place to link these activities. Performance indicators for this project are included in the grant proposal.

3

Impact

sustainability

1 = The conservation impact goal is unlikely to be sustained in the long-term; 4 = The impact goal should be viable in the long-term

Building capacity to manage resources at the local level is a strong strategy for sustainable behavior change and conservation impact. If the community is able to see the value they can get from their resources without exploiting it, then it has a lot of potential to be a long-term solution.

4

Average Score 3.5


Impact and Metrics (1 of 2)

Confidential



Tip

pin

g P

oin

ts

1st Tipping Point 1 = Tipping point unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Tipping point likely to be reached

By end of year 1, two CBOs in each soum will have developed operational norms and action plans, appointed a leader and BZC, and have had exposure to experiences in community organization in other regions in Mongolia.

By end of year 2, two CBOs in each soum will have established their own BZF (with guidelines for managing funds) and participatory monitoring and evaluation system.

By end of year 3, at least one CBO in each soum will have developed a management plan for their community managed areas.

4

2nd Tipping Point

4

3rd Tipping Point

4

Average Score 4

Metric

s

Measurable outcomes

1 = The program lacks clear metrics or are difficult to measure; 4 = The program has established clear, measureable metrics

Key performance indicators are included for the grant proposal for number of poor households decreased; number of operational CBOs established with action plans and monitoring in place; number of CBOs engaged in NRM activities; and, number of Buffer Zone Councils and Funds have been established. Methods and timing for gathering metrics on these indicators are also included.

3

Average Score 3


Impact and Metrics (2 of 2)

Confidential


Category Subcategory ScoreAverage

Category ScoreFeasib

ility

Economics

Costs 4

3.75 Revenues 3.75

Income Substitution 3.5

Technical

Technology n/a3.2

Capacity / Organizational Ability 3.33

Other Partners 3

Cultural / Political

Community Leadership 4

3.67 Political Environment 3.5

Cultural Norms 3.5

Feasibility Score 3.5Imp

act

Impact and Metrics

Conservation Impact 3.5

3.5 Tipping Points 4

Metrics 3

Impact Score 3.5

Barrier Removal Assessment and Viability Overview (BRAVO)

Composite Score

Enter average scores in the right hand column. Then take the feasibility score and enter it into Miradi and the Impact score and enter it into

Miradi. Where either score is below X for either feasibly or impact, consider the strategy to be inappropriate and assess the need to conduct

a second BRAVO that reviews a different strategy.

Confidential



Risk Factors

Risk Factors Consequence Mitigation Strategies

Listed in grant proposal appendix D-2.

List any risk factors, consequences and mitigation strategies that may need to be adopted.

Confidential



Authors and approvals

List BRAVO authors and their affiliation

Documents

BRAVO: Barrier Removal Assessment and Viability Overview