Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 1 BRAVO Drafting Guidelines Authors and approvals List

Confidential

Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 1

BRAVO Drafting Guidelines

Authors and approvals

List BRAVO authors and their affiliation

Tao Makvilai WCS Thailand Signature

Anak Pattanavibol WCS Thailand Signature

LOGOS LOGOS LOGOS LOGOS

Annalisa

Confidential


Campaign ToC:

In order to reduce the threat of poaching of large ungulates in the HKK Wildlife Sanctuary (which constitute the main tiger prey) the campaign will aim to stop supply and demand for wild meat in markets and restaurants and improve enforcement of wildlife trade regulations.

The campaign will therefore aim to achieve the following behavior changes: - Restaurant and stall owners to stop selling wild meat and publicly display a “wild meat free” notice/certificate - Consumers to give up consumption of wild meat - Rangers, police and court to start a partnership and collaborate to enforce wildlife trade regulations more effectively

(rangers and police need to collect better evidence for the court to be able to enforce the regulations and the court needs to get a better understanding of the work of the rangers on the ground)

In order to achieve this the campaign will carry out an extensive social marketing campaign to change the social norm so that trading and eating wild meat is no longer considered acceptable. The campaign will also create a “wild meat free” certification or branding system to be promoted amongst restaurant/stall owners and consumers of wild meat. The campaign aims to partner with the Environmental Health department to raise awareness about the health risk of eating wild meat. The campaign will further work to improve collaboration between rangers, police and the court through the facilitation of meetings and workshops.

The barrier removal for this strategy is to assess the viability and impact of supporting a team of 6 rangers on the ground with the mandate of checking restaurants within the district (exact geographic area/scope of the campaign to be defined). The team of rangers already exists and are employed by the government as part of the Wildlife Sanctuary and Natural World Heritage Site Office. At present their task are wide ranging and they are only able to dedicate about 10 days a month to inspection of restaurants and shops. The idea is that through additional funding the rangers could give more emphasis to wildlife crime and work more closely with the police and the court to effectively enforce current regulations on wild meat trade. This would increase the risk of being caught when selling and buying wild meat and therefore increase the cost of not changing behavior for traders and consumers (effectively reducing the barriers to behaviour change).

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

BRAVO: Barrier Removal Assessment and Viability Overview

Tiger and Tiger’s Prey Conservation Pride Campaign

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: A special team of ranger (partly working undercover) is set up to check

the restaurant and the local market in the 3 districts (exact geographic scope to

be determined). The team will work closely with the Police and Government Court

to ensure efficient enforcement and prosecution of the law. The team will also be

trained at taking meat samples for analysis and identification in the lab.

Who: The Wildlife Sanctuary and Natural World Heritage Site Office will partner

with WCS, police and court to ensure the ranger team has the adequate mandate,

tools and training to perform the task.

When: Please fill in

How: Please fill in

BRAVO Scores

Feasibility Score: 1-4

Impact Score: 1-4

Confidential


Criteria Explanation Score

Co

sts

Preliminary projected costs

Salary for staff (6 ranger * $150/mo * 12 mo = $10,800)

Perdium for staff (6 ranger * $50/mo * 12 mo = $3,600)

Transportation

- vehicles and gasoline ($300/mo * 12mo = $3,600)

Budget for working in the field ($300/mo * 12mo = $3,600)

Expense for lab to verify physical evidence

($40/case * estimate 100 case/year = $4,000)

Estimate total cost per year $ 25,600 / year

Predictability of cost burden

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

(Use 1-4 scale) Provide brief narrative outlining how rigorous costs estimates in (1) are. If possible give variance where costs may be ambiguous and/or unpredictable. If the team already exists it is not clear how this cost will be divided between the park management and WCS. Can you provide more information on this. Is it negotiable?

3

Average Score 4

Huai Kha Khaeng BRAVO Detail

Economics (1 of 3)

dhayden

They probably get some of benefits on top of the salary?

dhayden

We should note that this is the amount that needs to be committed every year.

Confidential



Reven

ues

Description of revenue streams

Fundraising total: $ 22,000 Sources: National park, wildlife and plant conservation Department (DNP) , Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)

Earned income total: $ Sources:

(Give $ figures in US dollars). The capital and recurrent costs listed in the previous slide may be sourced from grants or loans or perhaps from earned income (i.e. the sale of stoves). List existing and potential sources of funding including amount and source.

Percentage of total cost available

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

Salary for staff and transportation have been supported by DNP.

For perdium , expense for field work and expense for lab will be support by WCS

3

Likelihood of fundraising success

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

Funding from DNP is already committed but funding from WCS is on the process for consider.Can you specify how much has been allocated and how much is still unsure.

3

Fundraising timing

Funding form WCS should be finalized on August 2009

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 the project timeline 4

Sustainable Funding

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

Funding form WCS should be specific year to year3

Average Score 3.25


Economics (2 of 3)

dhayden

Other review sources:- Park fees?- Can you sell the certificates to restaurants - for example just $7.5 for a cool poster and seal to place on their window or cash register

dhayden

This should not be a 4, unless the money is already raised/committed

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

(Use 1-4 scale) If income substitution is a key barrier, and barrier removal involves providing an alternative form of income for community members, indicate whether or not the alternative income will exceed former source of income. Provide details on new income source and programs, infrastructure, and support that need to be in place to help secure alternative income source.

NA

New income source sustainability

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

(Use 1-4 scale) Describe details around the dependability of the alternative income and its sustainability in the long term. Provide details on the needed support, structures, organizations needed in order to increase probability of sustainable income from alternative income source.

NA

Average Score NA

Huai Kha Khaeng Drafting Guidelines

Economics (3 of 3)

dhayden

I am concerned that there is no benefits going to the poachers. It seems the incentives are really high for them and for the police to turn a blind eye to the trade

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

Lab for verify bush meat for the project is available, it is provide veterinary faculty , Kasetsart Univesity4

Technology assistance

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

4

Appropriate for circumstances

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

4

Average Score 4


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

The BR partner ,Department of National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation and WCS are very supportive of the project

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

The wildlife conservation division in Regional forest office 12 , the small government part under DNP, has promised to support to set up the ranger team for law enforcement inspection. However in the government there is always the possibility of personal changes in the future that could pose a problem.

4

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

Budget plan for DNP and WCS (in the part of this project) are arrange year to year so it’s difficult to predict their budget capacities in the future. (should this be a 2?)

3

3.67

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

In the working time, the project is necessary to cooperate with the Forest Guard office, Police and local government officer. There role has been effect in the law enforcement process. Environmental Health is also a likely partner to the project though not critical. 3

Average Score 3


Technical (2 of 2)

Annalisa

The question here is whether the ranger team and the regional forest office are able to bring about the desired behaviour change in the community

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

Leader in the community has influence within community and this issue to be relate with economic and business. This is not very clear, please explain.

2

Leadership willingness to endorse

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

Please provide some detail

2

Average Score


Cultural/Political (1 of 2)

Confidential



Cultural/Political (2 of 2)


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 current legislative and legal landscape is weightily resistant to the campaign.

Please provide some detail

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

Knowledge of the political circumstances as well as political capabilities should be insufficient to achieve the necessary legislative changes. 2

Average Score 3

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

Pride Campaign manager will conduct extensive qualitative survey next week to better assess cultural and political norms present on Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Snactuary. These findings will inform the plan’s execution, ensuring that all actions taken are appropriate in the sociopolitical context

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

Not applicable Please answer this sectionNA

Average Score 1-4

Annalisa

Please explain

Annalisa

The question here is whether the behaviour change you are trying to achieve is acceptable culturally, and whether you think that any cultural barriers can be overcome

dhayden

I think you need to address the gap on the "Political Environment" between the comment (very negative) and the score (very high)

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

Conservation impact is likely to be realized.

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

The conservation impact goal is unlikely to be sustained in the long-term if don’t have a continuation 2

Average Score 2.5

Serena BRAVO Detail

Impact and Metrics (1 of 2)

Annalisa

what is your evidence, rationale you are basing this on?If you were succesful at your campaign, what makes you think you will have an impact on reducing bushmeat trade?And what impact do you think this will have on the ungulate population?

Annalisa

what could you do to make it more sustainable?also, perhaps if you changed the social norm around eating bushmeat, would this have a long term impact?

Confidential



Tip

pin

g P

oin

ts

1st Tipping Point Please fill this in. A tipping point is a first result that would show you that your strategy and campaign is being successful. So for example a first tipping point could be: An agreement has been reached for the rangers to increase the number of days they patrol from 10 a month to 20 a month.

A second tipping point could be: the average number of samples sent to the lab per month has increased from 1 (?) a month to 5 a month.

And the perhaps: 99% of restaurants are displaying a wild meat free notice on their premise

Or: Collaboration between rangers, police and court has resulted in the prosecution of a wildlife crime offender.

2nd Tipping Point

Please fill in

3rd Tipping Point

Please fill in

Average Score

Metric

s

Measurable outcomes

This is how you will measure whether you are successfully changing attitudes, behavior and reducing the threat and having a conservation impact.

For example: - the % of consumers who agree that eating bush meat is not acceptable goes up- The % of restaurant owners who have a wild meat free notice on their premise goes up- The % of restaurant owners who say that they know of someone being prosecuted for a wildlife crime offence goes

up- The % of people who say they have heard of someone buying wild meat in a restaurant or shop in the last 3 months

goes down- The frequency of wild meat found in restaurants and shops by the rangers goes down (though it would probably

initially go up?)- The sighting frequency of large ungulates in the park goes up (please advise what metric would be best for this and

what kind of timescale you would expect to see a change)

Average Score


Impact and Metrics (2 of 2)

dhayden

I know the campaign is not officially about tigers - but you should aim for (1) a target population of the ungulates (2) the needed amount or protein levels per tiger

Confidential


Category Subcategory ScoreAverage

Category ScoreFeasib

ility

Economics

Costs

Revenues

Income Substitution

Technical

Technology

Capacity / Organizational Ability

Other Partners

Cultural / Political

Community Leadership

Political Environment

Cultural Norms

Feasibility ScoreImp

act

Impact and Metrics

Conservation Impact

Tipping Points

Metrics

Impact Score

Barrier Removal Assessment and Viability Overview (BRAVO)

Composite Score

Confidential



Risk Factors

Risk Factors Consequence Mitigation Strategies

Please fill this in!

dhayden

they should really fill this in

Confidential



Authors and approvals

Approved by:

Documents

Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 1 BRAVO Drafting Guidelines Authors and approvals List