1. 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 MakvilaiWCS ThailandSignature Anak PattanavibolWCS ThailandSignature LOGOS

2. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 2  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).

3. 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 EconomicsTechnical Cultural/PoliticalImpact & 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

4. 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

5. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 5 Criteria ExplanationScore Costs 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)

6. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 6 CriteriaExplanation Score Revenues 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 year 3 Average Score 3.25 Huai Kha Khaeng BRAVO Detail Economics (2 of 3)

7. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 7 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. 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)

8. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 8 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 Lab for verify bush meat for the project is available, it is provide veterinary faculty, Kasetsart Univesity 4 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 Huai Kha Khaeng BRAVO Detail Technical (1 of 2)

9. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 9 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 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 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 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 Huai Kha Khaeng BRAVO Detail Technical (2 of 2)

10. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 10 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 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 Huai Kha Khaeng BRAVO Detail Cultural/Political (1 of 2)

11. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 11 Huai Kha Khaeng BRAVO Detail Cultural/Political (2 of 2) CriteriaExplanationScore Political Environment 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 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 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 section NA Average Score 1-4

12. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 12 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 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)

13. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 13 Criteria Explanation Score Tipping Points 1 st 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. 2 nd Tipping Point Please fill in 3 rd Tipping Point Please fill in Average Score Metrics 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 Huai Kha Khaeng BRAVO Detail Impact and Metrics (2 of 2)

14. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 14 CategorySubcategoryScore Average Category Score Feasibility Economics Costs Revenues Income Substitution Technical Technology Capacity / Organizational Ability Other Partners Cultural / Political Community Leadership Political Environment Cultural Norms Feasibility Score Impact Impact and Metrics Conservation Impact Tipping Points Metrics Impact Score Barrier Removal Assessment and Viability Overview (BRAVO) Composite Score

15. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 15 Huai Kha Khaeng BRAVO Detail Risk Factors Risk FactorsConsequenceMitigation Strategies Please fill this in!

16. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 16 Huai Kha Khaeng BRAVO Detail Authors and approvals Approved by: