1. A tool for assessing the feasibility and impact potential of Rare project plans BRAVO: Barrier Removal Assessment and Viability Overview Include Site/Project Name Here Economics Technical Cultural/PoliticalImpact & Metrics Customize cover page, you will find that an image, such as an aerial picture of your site will make your presentation more attractive. 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

2. BRAVO: Executive Summary What: Summarize in less than 100 words, what is the objective of the Barrier Removal Strategy and what evidence exists that this strategy have been used successfully before elsewhere to mitigate the same or similar threat. Be specific as to the product/strategy being used and any critical audiences (i.e. customers) that the product needs to reach. Who: Summarize in less than 50 words, who will be involved in the project, what their roles will be and what is the level of commitment i.e. interest show, funds pledged, funds allocated, or TBD (to be determined). Please be specific. When: Summarize in less than 75 words, when the Barrier Removal program will take place and what if any pre-requisites or conditionality's exist. Be specific as to the timeline. How: Summarize in less than 75 words, how much the Barrier Removal strategy (technology, technical assistance, financing etc) is likely to cost and where the funds are likely to come from. Is funding secure, pledged or as yet to be sourced or secured. If sustained funding is required where will this come from. Please be specific. BRAVO Scores Feasibility Score: 1-4 Impact Score: 1-4

3. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 3 Criteria ExplanationScore Costs Preliminary projected costs As far as practical, all costs (capital and recurrent) should be listed. Include technology i.e. stoves, traps etc; technical assistance; distribution channels, marketing (other than Pride campaign costs), micro-finance, compliance and enforcement etc. Give costs in local currency and US$. Where possible give detailed line item costs, as well as summary 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. 1-4 Average Score 1-4 BRAVO Drafting Guidelines Economics (1 of 3)

4. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 4 CriteriaExplanation Score Revenues Description of revenue streams Fundraising total: $ Sources: 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% (Use 1-4 scale) In narrative list source and where firm commitments exist. Provide evidence of same in the form of pledge letters etc. “Cost available” means that money is available or has been committed in a timeframe conducive to the speedy and practical implementation of the program. If unknown, write unknown. 1-4 Likelihood of fundraising success 1 = Very low likelihood of raising the necessary funds; 4 = Likelihood of raising necessary funds almost a certainty (Use 1-4 scale) If a funding gap exists between what is needed and what is on hand rank likelihood of success and list in the narrative all potential sources and levels of engagement with each donor. If unknown, write unknown. 1-4 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 (Use 1-4 scale) If unknown, write unknown. 1-4 Sustainable Funding 1 = Unsustainable funding source; 4 = Very sustainable funding source (Use 1-4 scale) If sustainable funding is required, for example continued monitoring of fishermen compliance or to provide new snap traps over the long term, provide evidence in the narrative section as to sources of funding and levels of sustainability over time. If unknown write unknown. 1-4 Average Score 1-4 BRAVO Drafting Guidelines Economics (2 of 3)

5. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 5 CriteriaExplanation Score IncomeSubstitution (ifapplicable) 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. 1-4 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. 1-4 Average Score 1-4 BRAVO Drafting Guidelines Economics (3 of 3)

6. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 6 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 (Use 1-4 scale) If specific technology is required (for example bait stations, stoves nets) then how easy is it to attain (even if funds are in place) and is it available locally? Are there distribution channels in place or that could easily be developed? Be specific! If unknown, write unknown. 1-4 Technology assistance 1 = Technology assistance is required, yet not available; 4 = Technology assistance is significant and available (Use 1-4 scale) If the technology requires some aspect of training in usage then is this assistance available in a timely fashion? Have you incorporated it in to the budget? If unknown, write unknown. 1-4 Appropriate for circumstances 1 = Available technology is not appropriate for circumstances; 4 = Acquirable technology is suited for circumstances (Use 1-4 scale) Is the technology appropriate? Recommending a solar oven when people cook at night or when sunlight is unreliable may be cost effective and have a potential impact but it is probably not appropriate and may not be used. If unknown, write unknown. 1-4 Average Score 1-4 BRAVO Drafting Guidelines Technical (1 of 2)

7. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 7 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 (Use 1-4 scale) Does the Barrier Removal partner exist? Have they been contracted, can they implement the program with the funds available in a timely fashion? If they are unavailable do potential BR partners exist that have yet to be approached? What pre-requisites for engagement are needed and are these in place? Has the proposed barrier Removal Partner been part of the BRAVO process? If unknown, write unknown. 1-4 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 (Use 1-4 scale) Does the Barrier Removal partner or partners have a proven track record of success? In the narrative, please be specific and site prior examples of where they have engaged the specific strategy recommended under similar conditions. How was success measured (metrics and methods) and what was the sustainability of impact? If unknown write, unknown. 1-4 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 (Use 1-4 scale) In the narrative provide evidence (and, where practical, references) showing evidence of a BR partners track record in project management including execution against time and budget constraints. 1-4 Average Score 1-4 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 (Use 1-4 scale) In the narrative list all other partners that may be required. List roles and responsibilities, levels of engagement, and conditions involved. For example if the success of the project is reliant on a 3 rd partner even if this partner has a “minor” role to play, then list mitigation factors if engagement is not possible. Summarize timing of partner availability. Does availability align across partners? If unknown, write unknown. 1-4 Average Score 1-4 BRAVO Drafting Guidelines Technical (2 of 2)

8. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 8 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 (Use 1-4 scale) In the narrative list any critical groups or individuals who might be brought to bear to facilitate the adoption of the barrier Removal strategy. (These will likely have been identified during the Pride Planning Process) The list can be refined in the quantitative survey that follows the BRAVO. If unknown, write unknown. 1-4 Leadership willingness to endorse 1 = Unwilling to get on board with project; 4 = Firm commitment from leadership to help drive change efforts (Use 1-4 scale) Where such leaders exist, what evidence (if any) currently exists to show that they may be willing to endorse BR adoption? If reticence is known to exist, why is this? If unknown, write unknown. 1-4 Average Score 1-4 BRAVO Drafting Guidelines Cultural/Political (1 of 2)

9. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 9 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 (Use 1-4 scale) If changes in legal frameworks or regulations are required to permit or facilitate Barrier Removal adoption, list these. Name Ministries or legislators that have oversight over these legislative instruments. If none, write none. If unknown, write unknown. 1-4 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 (Use 1-4 scale) If changes in legal frameworks or regulations are required, provide details of likelihood that changes can be made in a timeframe compatible with BR roll out, as well as methods for promoting change, costs involved and risks if changes do not occur. 1-4 Average Score 1-4 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 (Use 1-4 scale) Describe what strategies, if any, have been deployed to glean information about the area’s political and cultural norms. Provide details about any systematic research that has been conducted to understand the normative context. 1-4 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 (Use 1-4 scale) In the narrative list social or cultural norms or political obstacles that need to be overcome and rank how likely these are to inhibit BR rollout or adoption. For example, if a society traditionally cooks their main meal at night and likes the taste of food cooked on fire wood and relies on firewood smoke to rid their huts of mosquitoes then persuading villagers to adopt solar ovens may be formidable. If unknown, write unknown. 1-4 Average Score 1-4 BRAVO Drafting Guidelines Cultural/Political (2 of 2)

10. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 10 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 (Use 1-4 scale) In the narrative state the desired conservation impact (be specific). How likely is it that this result will be achieved in the context of the project? How will this impact be measured (metrics and measures)? If unknown, write unknown. What evidence that the level of impact envisaged by the project is large enough to make a real difference to the species/environment/threat in question? 1-4 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 (Use 1-4 scale) In the narrative illustrate what evidence exists that the project’s impact can be sustained over time and its impact be maintained or leveraged. 1-4 Average Score 1-4 BRAVO Drafting Guidelines Impact and Metrics (1 of 2)

11. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 11 Criteria Explanation Score Tipping Points 1 st Tipping Point 1 = Tipping point unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Tipping point likely to be reached (Use 1-4 scale) In the narrative, list the tipping points. If more than one list each step in the process that leads to a concrete, measurable Conservation Result. This section should clearly and concisely articulate each step in the process that leads from the adoption of a Barrier Removal strategy to the Conservation Result, including metrics to be used, evidence that the tipping point will result in meaningful achievements regarding sustained conservation of biodiversity. For example if a forest can sustainably produce 100 tons of fuel wood without any damage to it, but currently 200 tons are being removed. How many fuel efficient stoves need to be put into usage to reduce fuel wood usage by 100 tons. What does this mean in terms of numbers of families adopting etc, etc. If unknown, write unknown. 1-4 2 nd Tipping Point 1-4 3 rd Tipping Point 1-4 Average Score 1-4 Metrics Measurable outcomes 1 = The program lacks clear metrics or are difficult to measure; 4 = The program has established clear, measureable metrics (Use 1-4 scale) In the narrative describe how the Conservation Result will be measured, who will measure it, when it will be measured and any pre-requisites that will be required. Be specific. If unknown, write unknown. 1-4 Average Score 1-4 BRAVO Drafting Guidelines Impact and Metrics (2 of 2)

12. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 12 CategorySubcategoryScore Average Category Score Feasibility Economics Costs 1-4 Revenues 1-4 Income Substitution 1-4 Technical Technology 1-4 Capacity / Organizational Ability 1-4 Other Partners 1-4 Cultural / Political Community Leadership 1-4 Political Environment 1-4 Cultural Norms 1-4 Feasibility Score 1-4 Impact Impact and Metrics Conservation Impact 1-4 Tipping Points 1-4 Metrics 1-4 Impact Score 1-4 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.

13. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 13 BRAVO Drafting Guidelines Risk Factors Risk FactorsConsequenceMitigation Strategies List any risk factors, consequences and mitigation strategies that may need to be adopted.

14. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 14 BRAVO Drafting Guidelines Authors and approvals List BRAVO authors and their affiliation