A tool for assessing the feasibility and impact potential of Rare project plans BRAVO: Barrier Removal Assessment and Viability Overview Chuuk Lagoon Campaign Establishment of Locally-Managed Marine Area Economics Technical Cultural/PoliticalImpact & Metrics

BRAVO Scores BRAVO: Executive Summary What: To reduce dynamite fishing within the Chuuk Lagoon by officially establishing at least five LMMA sites at Wichukuno, Uman, Parem, UFO, and Epinup. Chuuk Conservation Society is working community leaders and resource owners who are interested in setting up LMMA at their sites. Several management options will be applied from the Locally Managed Marine Areas guide which is also available online on Who: Chuuk Conservation Society agreed to establish a network of LMMA, partners with local communities, offer technical expertise, technical supports, and consultant for small grants program working with Community Based Organizations to get their funds for their conservation projects. When: The community leaders along with the resource owners are working on their management plan with the help and guidance from the department of agriculture, department of marine resources, Environmental Protection Agency, and Chuuk Conservation Society. The upcoming Pride campaign which will be implemented within a year will work with the agencies, and communities in educational awareness on LMMAs management actions in relations to enforcing law of dynamite fishing and protection Napoleon Wrasse and Groupers. How: The Global Environmental Facility Small Grants Programs/ New Zealand Aid Pacific Environmental Fund Partnership funded Wichukuno, Uman, Parem, and UFO. Micronesia Conservation Trust and Seacology funded Epinup marine site. Feasibility Score: Impact Score:

Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 3 Criteria ExplanationScore Costs Preliminary projected costs Five Community Based Organizations will align their management action plan to the LMMA management conservation strategies. This will apply in the creation of LMMAs. Estimated total cost $ 88,000. Predictability of cost burden 1 = Costs are ambiguous and unpredictable 4 = Costs are predictable and manageable Projects funds are aligned specifically within the budget break down that comes along with the grant proposal applications. 4 Average Score 4 Serena BRAVO Detail Economics (1 of 2)

Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 4 CriteriaExplanation Score Revenues Description of revenue patched reefs Proposed funding for Epinup LMMA $ 38, Source: Proposed funding for Ununo, Fongen, Onongoch (UFO) LMMA $25,000 Proposed funding for Parem LMMA $25,000 Proposed funding for Wichukuno LMMA $25,000 Proposed funding for Uman LMMA $25,000 Percentage of total cost available 1: 0 – 25% 2: 25 – 50% 3: 50 – 75% 4: 75 – 100% Funding has already be approved by SGP/PEF, MCT, and Seacology through project fund and management fund. 4 Likelihood of fundraising success 1 = Very low likelihood of raising the necessary funds; 4 = Likelihood of raising necessary funds almost a certainty Two of the five have been approved, one has submitted its full proposal, and two others are still working on their management plan. 4 Fundraising timing 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 and will be available for the duration of the project and beyond. 4 Sustainable Funding 1 = Unsustainable funding source; 4 = Very sustainable funding source 4 Average Score 4 Serena BRAVO Detail Economics (2 of 2)

Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 5 Criteria Explanation Score Technology Attainability & Availability 1 = Technology and/or required assistance needed is unavailable; 4 = Technology is attainable and third-party assistance, if required, is available CBOs are working on their management plans, aligning their activities to those applied in LMMA. 4 Technology assistance 1 = Technology assistance is required, yet not available; 4 = Technology assistance is significant and available Funding is available to provide equipments, and other conservation project related expenditures. 4 Appropriate for circumstances 1 = Available technology is not appropriate for circumstances; 4 = Acquirable technology is suited for circumstances Average Score 4 Serena BRAVO Detail Technical (1 of 2)

Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 6 Criteria Explanation Score Capacity / Organizational Ability 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 Local community are willing to set up their sites as LMMA. 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 0 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 BR Partners will help with grant proposals and follow ups on project budget. 4 Average Score 4 Other Partners Other critical partners 1 = Other partners do not exist or will not be impactful 4 = Other partners are available and capable of assistance Average Score 0 Serena BRAVO Detail Technical (2 of 2)

Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 7 Criteria ExplanationScore Community Leadership Leaders and influencers in the community 1 = Dearth of strong leaders and influencers in the community; 4 = Visible leaders with clout to drive behavior Community leaders, mayors, resource owners, and religious leaders are the main influencers in Chuuk. They’ve shown interest by calling people to meetings setting certain goals and getting their proposals sent and following up in offices. 4 Leadership willingness to endorse 1 = Unwilling to get on board with project; 4 = Firm commitment from leadership to help drive change efforts As this particular project involves more conservation officers, a problem regularly mentioned by local leaders, they will be in full support. During stakeholder meetings this is one of the main issues they sought to see addressed to increase the efficiency of enforcement. 4 Average Score 4 Serena BRAVO Detail Cultural/Political (1 of 2)

Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 8 Criteria Explanation Score Political Environment Current legislative and legal landscape 1 = Legislative and legal restrictions will hamper efforts; 4 = Legislative and legal framework will aid program 0 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 0 Average Score 0 Values and Norms 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 Survey will be conducted to get more information in regards to cultural norms and municipal ordinances. 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 0 Average Score 4 Serena BRAVO Detail Cultural/Political (2 of 2)

Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 9 Criteria Explanation Score Conservation Impact Likelihood of conservation impact 1 = Conservation impact is unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Conservation impact is very likely to be realized If CBOs work together with CCS and other government agency partners LMMA will be established and they will fully support the banning of dynamite fishing at their sites. If this happens in a successful manner other communities will be motivated to establish more LMMAs at their sites. 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 If the establishment of LMMA becomes a success there is a hope that more LMMA will be established. 3 Average Score 3 Serena BRAVO Detail Impact and Metrics (1 of 2)

Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 10 Criteria Explanation Score Tipping Points 1 st Tipping Point 1 = Tipping point unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Tipping point likely to be reached First tipping point should consider hiring a person that will mainly deal with LMMAs. 2 2 nd Tipping Point 1 = Tipping point unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Tipping point likely to be reached The second tipping point will depend on CBOs participation in the establishment of LMMA. 2 3 rd Tipping Point 1 = Tipping point unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Tipping point likely to be reached The third tipping point will based on more LMMAs being established from motivated communities. 2 Average Score 3 Metrics Measurable outcomes 1 = The program lacks clear metrics or are difficult to measure; 4 = The program has established clear, measureable metrics Conservation impact on LMMA will be from reports and site visits at LMMA sites. 3 Average Score 3 Serena BRAVO Detail Impact and Metrics (2 of 2)

Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 11 CategorySubcategoryScore Average Category Score Feasibility Economics Costs 4 4 Revenues 4 Income Substitution Technical Technology 4 4 Capacity / Organizational Ability 4 Other Partners 0 Cultural / Political Community Leadership 4 4 Political Environment 0 Cultural Norms 4 Feasibility Score 4 Impact Impact and Metrics Conservation Impact 3 3 Tipping Points 3 Metrics 3 Impact Score 3 Barrier Removal Assessment and Viability Overview (BRAVO) Composite Score

Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 12 Serena BRAVO Detail Risk Factors Risk FactorsConsequenceMitigation Strategies Working with CBOs is a great idea, but communication might be a problem. The re is not an LMMA expert working with this people. All of the information I get are “what I’ve been told.” Communication is the problem. Radio broadcast, cell phones, are not reliable. There is no LMMA expert to work with these CBOs who are being introduced to conservation as a new thing. Working with CBOs on at least a monthly basis to see how things are going, and to set up plans for their next steps. LMMA establishment might take time. According to observation of the progress of management plan meetings. Issues between resource owners always come up when things are being worked on. Money catches people’s attention and they always wanted to do interfere with progress in order to have a part. Communities might not work together. Notify CBOs and other government agency partners about the campaign and that their effort for setting up LMMAs and its impact are part of what the campaign will measure. Campaign manager is not aware if the legislators knew about LMMAs yet. Creating LMMA bills might take time after involving the legislators to LMMA meetings. Legislators involvement with NGOs might be a problem. This is about State legislators, but there is a possibility that Municipal ordinance will agree with creating LMMA laws for the communities sake. Involve the municipal mayors to get involve with the work that their community is involve in as a way to keep peace at a municipal level.

Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 13 Serena BRAVO Detail Authors and approvals Dalina NeroChuuk Conservation Society, Campaign Manager Wisney NakayamaChuuk Conservation Society, Executive Director