rare project plans viability and potential impacts assessment tool bravo: barrier removal assessment...

Rare project plans viability and potential impacts assessment tool

BRAVO: Barrier Removal Assessment and Viability Overview

Sungai Lamandau Wildlife Reserve/RARE Pride Campaign

Economics Technical Cultural/Politics Impacts & Metrics

Assessment on funding sources/revenues and potential incomes substituting factors with regards to specific barrier removal solution .

Assessment on technology availability, trainings required, and efficiency of partnering organizations involved in barrier removal solution.

Assessment on supporting factors and obstacles to barrier removal solution which may arise from cultural norms and political situation.

Assessment on comprehensive impacts of barrier removal solution and viability of available metrics to measure the impacts.

BRAVO: Executive Summary (1 of 2)

What: The main barrier faced by Sungai Lamandau Wildlife Reserve (Suaka

Margasatwa Sungai Lamandau/SMS) are practices of slash and burn forest clearing for

shifting cultivation and the expansion of oil-palm plantation. The practices are destructive

to the forest, generate higher risk for forest fires and reduce the area of SMSL. To

remove the barrier, a strategy to introduce practices of sedentary cultivation with agro-

forestry (kebun campuran) system is conducted. Yayorin (Indonesian Orangutan

Foundation) has previously applied such a strategy in 3 villages in Belantikan, Lamandau

District, Central Kalimantan. As the result, Belantikan people have reduced their activities

to clear the forest and, consequently, shifting cultivation practices are decreasing.

Practices of sedentary cultivation with agro-forestry system have proven to keep the

farmers occupied.

Who: Farmers in Tempayung Village (45 head of families) and Babual Baboti (130

head of families) are targeted for the introduction to practices of sedentary cultivation with

agro-forestry system. Lamandau Ecosystem Conservation Partnership (Kemitraan

Pelestarian Ekosistem Lamandau/KPEL) will help facilitating the meeting with the

farmers, providing trainer or experts in the area and helping with transportation. In

addition, Agricultural Agency, Agricultural Information Dissemination Agency, Forestry

and Estate Crops Agencies of Kotawaringin Barat District and Sukamara District are

ready to help with technical matters.

BRAVO Scores:

Feasibility Score: 1-4

Impact Score: 1-4

When: With support from partnering agencies, the project to introduce practices of sedentary cultivation with agro-forestry system will start in July 2009. At the same time monitoring activities will be conducted. By the end of Pride activities, 125 head of families in the targeted villages of Tempayung and Babual Baboti are expected to adopt practices of sedentary cultivation with agro-forestry system.

How: Rare has committed to fund the making of demonstration plot models, labor cost, seedlings, and practical assistantship, a total of USD…... KPEL will provide financial support for the monitoring, assistantship and transportation. In addition, Agricultural Agency and Forestry Agency will help with recommendations and technical supports, including trainer and books on agriculture and sedentary cultivation with agro-forestry system. The products will be delivered upon request and be sent from Central Kalimantan or Java.

BRAVO: Executive Summary (2 of 2)

Confidential

Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 4

BRAVO Lamandau Details

Economics (1 of 3)

Criteria Explanation Score

Co

sts

Preliminary projected costs

Location preparation phase– Transport to/from during preparation

phase– Building material (materials and tools)– Area preparation labors (2 ha)– Logistics

Implementation and monitoring phase– Transport to/from location during

implementation phase– Logistics– Implementation equipments– Hut for location maintenance and

seedlings planting– Seedlings, fertilizer and pesticides– Maintenance labors– Plants

Project supervision (reporting) Communication

Total projected cost: Rp. 497. 093.000-

Predictability of cost burden

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

Cost projection is based on information from sources who have been practicing similar activities. 4

Average Score4

Cost for creating 2 hectares of agro-forestry demonstration plot model aimed at raising awareness of 175 farmer families in two villages near SMSL is

Rp.497,093,000,-; or Rp.2,840,000 per families

Confidential



Reven

ues

Description of revenue streams

Fundraising total : Rp. 497,093,000,- Sources : European Commission

Earned income total: $ Sources:

Percentage of total cost available

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

Eighty three percent of the funding required to realize the agro-forestry project comes from Lamandau Ecosystem Conservation Partnership (Kemitraan Pelestarian Ekosistem Lamandau/KPEL). KPEL is supported by European Commission that works on strengthening the community around SMSL.

4

Likelihood of fundraising success

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

Funding is secured.

4

Fundraising timing

Funding to create an agro-forestry demonstration plot model in one of the targeted village will come in alignment with activities in the demonstration plot and KPEL agricultural facilitation.

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 project timeline; resources will be acquired as soon as possible. The project will run for several years.

4

Sustainable Funding

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

Successful preliminary result will guarantee sustainable funding sources. 4

Average Score 4

Profit /Loss

Difference between Revenues and Costs

Not Relevant


Economics (2 of 2)

Confidential



Economics (3 of 3)


Inco

me su

bs

titutio

n

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

A solution to remove the barrier, agro-forestry system will provide a new income for the community. The practice will be introduced through a demonstration plot model in the community. It is a sedentary agricultural system with mixed land management characteristics and diverse vegetations (combining horticulture plants, food and fruit crops, timber trees or rubber tree) in an area. The community in the targeted villages have long been combining diverse vegetations in an area in their shifting cultivation with slash and burn practices. By introducing the intensive and sustainable agro-forestry system in a sedentary cultivation area, the community is expected to leave their shifting cultivation with slash and burn practices. Sedentary agro-forestry system has been known to generate better harvest (up to 50 percent higher) and, with alternative agricultural technology, the practice is less costly.

New income source sustainability

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

The introduction to agro-forestry system will begin with the creation of a demonstration plot that accommodate an intensive agricultural activities. The demonstration plot is aimed to educate the targeted community. It is expected that, knowing the importance of land management and maintenance, the community will start similar activity in their own area.

Average Score 4

4

4

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

The agricultural technology to be introduced to the targeted community is available and attainable. At district level, technology such as rubber and jelutung (Dyera spp) cultivation technologies, is available. The equipments for the technology of sedentary cultivation with agro-forestry have been marketed at the local level and access to its development are easy as some people in the community are already exposed to and are adopting them.

4

Technology assistance

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

Training , even in the small scale, is given in each facilitation session. For example: technology to make a natural pesticide and home industry technologies to make talas chips. Yes, it has been incorporated in the budget.

3

Appropriate for circumstances

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

Sedentary cultivation with agro-forestry system is ideally conducted in the targeted campaign area as to minimize threats from shifting cultivation, cultivation area expansion that ignore boundaries to the protected area, and oil-palm plantation expansion. Sedentary cultivation with agro-forestry system is a culture. An introduction to land characteristics, land management technology, plants care and cultivation, and practice will make it applicable to the targeted community .

4

Average Score 3,66


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

Three barrier removal partners that will support the activity are Forestry Agency of Kotawaringin Barat District; Agricultura Information Dissemination Agency of Kotawaringin Barat District; and Mr. Tarwan, a succesful rubber farmer in Kotawaringin Barat .The three partners, although have not been included in the contract, have so far been involved in some of Indonesian Orangutan Foundation (Yayorin)’s activities. Barrier removal partners are parts of BRAVO process.

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

We have involved Mr. Tarman as a resource person and trainer in the development of rubber cultivation technology. He is since then known as a supervising partner in trainings on agro-forestry development , especially rubber cultivation development . As a barrier removal partner, he owns a superior seedling certificate from the Crop Estate Agency.

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

Barrier removal partner in rubber cultivation area has proficiency in budget planning and cost efficient execution of past plans.

4

Average Score 4

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

Other partner who may support the funding of the project is European Commission through Lamandau Ecosystem Conservation Partnership (KPEL). In term of knowledge and facilitation, support comes from Agricultural Information Dissemination Agency in sub-district level. 4

Average Score 4


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

Tempayung Village:

1. Mr. Eson (head of village)

2. Mr. Yandi (head of Tani Rimbun Betuah farmers group)

3. Mr. Mahrus (head of Tani Karya Bersama farmers group)

4. Mr. Unat (village staff)

5. Mr. Isar (agro-forestry farmer)

6. Mr. Gati (agro-forestry farmer)

Babual-Baboti Village:

1. Mr. Injan (head of village)

2. Mr. Imoy (member of Tani Babual farmer group)

3. Mr. Dinar (village representative board)

4. Mr. Hiru (village representative board)

5. Mr. Hepi (agro-forestry farmer)

3

Leadership willingness to endorse

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

Head of Tempayung Village and head of Babual Baboti Village fully support the barrier removal project. They are willing to provide an area to create a horticulture agriculture demonstration plot. 4

Average Score 3.5


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

(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.

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

(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.

0

Average Score 0

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

Most of the area has not any written village norms. The non written norms, however, exist and followed by local Dayak people. Only one village that has started to create a written regulations to accommodate norms and culture as well as regulating people’s attitude towards the village. Persuasive approach is needed to make the community adopt such regulations.

3

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

Local Dayak people are generally still practicing shifting cultivation and slash and burn activities. They consider that there is still a vast area to be cultivated and that shifting cultivation and slash and burn activities cost them less as they do not need to buy fertilizer. It is not easy to persuade them to practice sedentary agro-forestry cultivation.

4

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 expected conservation impact of the program is the community will no longer open a new cultivation area, and willingly practice sedentary agro-forestry cultivation activities. Sedentary cultivation practices do not use fire to clear the land. The activities are aimed to reduce burning practices and risks of forest fire. The program is expected to reduce the numbers of people practicing slash and burn .

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

This barrier removal project is the hope of most of the community living in the surrounding area of SMSL. It will therefore be maintained and developed from time to time. The goal is the community will no longer clear a new area in the forest and practice sedentary cultivation.

4

Average Score 3.5


Impact and Metrics (1 of 2)

Confidential



Tip

pin

g P

oin

ts

1st Tipping Point 1. Those in the targeted community who have earned their living from logging activities are recently finding it hard to find more logs to cut. Their incomes from logging activities are not significant. An alternative income source is to create sedentary agro-forestry plots.

2. An example of commodities that may be planted in the agro-forestry plot is chili. For one harvest season, 1 hectare of agro-forestry plot that include chili plants requires production and care costs of Rp. 5, 207,400. One hectare plot may accommodate up to 1,700 chili plants with each plant producing 1 to 1.5kg of chili in one harvest season. Harvesting 1kg per chili plant will result in total1,700kg of chili. Assuming that 10 percent of the chili plants in the plot are not bearing chili because of pest , farmer will still harvest 1,530kg of chili. Each kg of chili in Pangkalan Bun, Central Kalimantan, will sell between Rp. 15,000 to 30,000. Assuming that chili price per kg is Rp.15,000, chili harvest in 1 hectare of agro-forestry plot will sell 1,530 x Rp.15,000 = Rp. 22,950,000. Such an income is more than what a farmer may get by practicing shifting cultivation with slash and burn practices . Shifting cultivation plot production never reached 80-90 percent.

3. Local people inhabiting areas near SMSL have long been planting different vegetations in in one shifting cultivation plot . With unclear boundaries of SMSL, concerns are growing that slash and burn practices will soon enter the protected SMSL area. The introduction to sedentary cultivation with agro-forestry system is expected to keep the people occupied in sedentary plots and stop the shifting cultivation practices that otherwise will soon enter the SMSL.

3

2nd Tipping Point

3

3rd Tipping Point

4

Average Score 3.33

Metric

s

Measurable outcomes

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

All the conservation outcomes will be arranged and measured. A monitoring plan with proxy indicators has been formulated. 4

Average Score 4


Impact and Metrics (2 of 2)

Confidential


Category Subcategory ScoreAverage

Category ScoreFeasib

ility

Economics

Costs 4

4 Revenues 4

Income Substitution 4

Technical

Technology 3.663.89

Capacity / Organizational Ability 4

Other Partners 4

Cultural / Political

Community Leadership 3.5

2.33 Political Environment 0

Cultural Norms 3.5

Feasibility Score 3.4Imp

act

Impact and Metrics

Conservation Impact 3.5

3.6 Tipping Points 3.33

Metrics 4

Impact Score 3.6

Barrier Removal Assessment and Viability Overview (BRAVO)

Composite Score

Confidential



Risk Factors

Risk Factors Consequence Mitigation Strategies

Natural Resources Conservation Agency (BKSDA) of Central Kalimantan Province will not facilitate the meeting to discuss the delineation of SMLS with the surrounding villages.

Agencies or institutions related to land status are not responsive to issues related to land boundaries between the villages and SMSL.

People in the community practice sedentary cultivation with agro-forestry system, but at the same time also conduct slash and burn practices.

Pressures for land expansions will continue, as well as land claiming.

Conflicts related to land clearing in the surrounding areas of SMSL or within SMSL will happen.

Land fires or forest fires.

To formulate an agreement in a meeting with leaders and groups in the community that will be affected by the delineation plan of SMSL.

To conduct a stakeholders meeting discussing delineation plan . To check land boundaries between SMSL and the surrounding villages. With leaders or trusted village people with knowledge in village history and its boundaries.

To introduce agricultural intensive techniques without slash and burn practices, and techniques to water fire transects until saturated (fire break/sekat bakar) and to put off wildfires.

Confidential



Authors and approvals

List of BRAVO authors and their affiliation

Togu Simorangkir Director of Yayorin

Eddy Santoso Manager of MELU-Yayorin (Campaign Manager)

Iman Sapari Manager BCP-Yayorin

Sunarto CO Team BCP Yayorin

Suwardi Agricultural Facilitator of Yayorin Conservation Village

Edi Sumanto Agricultural Facilitator, Education Team KPEL-MELU Yayorin Team Staff

Eko Joko P. CO Education Team KPEL-MELU Yayorin Team Staff

Yandi Head of Farmer Group:Tani Rimbun Betuah Desa Tempayung

Arsad Member of Farmer Group: Tani Serumpun Desa Tanjung Putri

Eko Suparwoto Agricultural Facilitator BCP Yayorin Team

rare project plans viability and potential impacts assessment tool bravo: barrier removal assessment...

Documents

cultivation practices

agroforestry system

forestry agency

barrier removal assessment

practices of slash

main barrier

lamandau district

agricultural agency