1. BRAVO: Executive Summary What: there are threats to the low land tropical rain forest - the habitat of Bali Starling (Leucopsar rothchildii) - in Bali Barat National Park (TNBB) which is an intensive firewood collections by local people from 2 villages close to the park (Sumberkelampok village and Klatakan sub-village within Melaya village). The firewood are sold to bricks/rooftop industries, tofu industries and small restaurants located in other areas. Therefore, to reduce threats to the forest, the barrier removal strategy is the creation of integrated farms which integrates plants that produce fuelwood, fodder, food by using community’s lands that are neglected so far. The total area of integrated farm is planning to reach about 10 hectares. With the availability of firewood (gamal, lamtoro, turi, bentawas, dadap, sonokeling) in the planned integrated farms, it is expected that within 2-3 years the local community will collect firewood from their own farms, so that threats to TNBB will be reduced. Who: the target audience to adopt integrated farms are local people who live in Sumber kelampok village and Melaya village, who have been so far collecting firewood from the park and sold them to bricks/rooftop industries, tofu industries and small restaurants located in other areas. From 96 people of firewood collectors, there are 11 of them depending their lives from selling firewood and the rest (85 people) are for additional income. The source of seedling for firewood plants are from areas surrounded the villages, and supports from national park office and local Forestry office. To date the firewood are not directly sold to the consumers but through the intermediate collectors from Jembrana that periodically come to the villages – twice a week – to buy the firewood for 1200 rupiah per bundle of firewood When: the creation of demonstration plots of integrated farms will start in November 2009 considering that it is the time of rainy season to start so that there is a high level of survival of the plants. There will be 20 demonstration plots with the area of 0.5 hectares each located in 2 villages, Sumberkelampok village and Klatakan sub-village within Melaya village.. How: to apply the barrier removal strategy (farms for energy), it is expected that RARE will provide funding for creating demonstration plots, labors for land preparation and works, providing seedlings, trainings and mentoring. Other local sources such as from the park, is expected to assist in providing seedling, mentors and continual information on conservation. Local forestry office is expected to assist in providing seedlings, extension workers, information on different kinds of plant species that produce firewood. BRAVO Scores Feasibility Score: 2.7 Impact Score: 3.7

2. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 2 Criteria ExplanationScore Costs Preliminary projected costs Preparation costs : a) Transportation b) Snacks for meetings c) Preparing Tools for creating demonstration plots (total areas of 10 hectares) d) Labors for the land preparation of demonstration plots e) Communication f) Trainings Execution costs a) Transportation b) Providing seedling, compost, and natural mulsa c) Labors for planting d) Labors for maintenance e) Communication f) Monitoring g) Reporting Predictability of cost burden 1 = Costs are ambiguous and unpredictable; 4 = Costs are predictable and manageable costs are predicted based on the results from discussions concerning the creation of demonstration plots of farms for energy in 3 strata system, held with community groups during the time of exploring the realization plan of removal barrier strategy 4 Cost per behavior changed (ie per person in target audience cost per family (in target groups) required to change behavior of 100 families in 2 villages (Sumberkelampok and Melaya Village) is …………. $ Average Score 4 BRAVO Drafting Guidelines Economics (1 of 3)

3. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 3 BRAVO Drafting Guidelines Economics (2 of 3) CriteriaExplanationScore RevenuesDescription of revenue streams Fundraising total $ ______ Sources : Earned Income total $ ______ Sources : To date there is no precise sources to fund the creation of farm for energy with the total areas of 10 hectares Percentage of total cost available 1: 0-25% 2: 25-50% 3: 50-75% 4: 75-100% To date there is no definitive sources and commitments. Commitment from Bali Barat National Park to provide seedlings is still verbal and it requires further confirmation. “no cost available” (means there is no funding committed yet in a timeframe conducive to the speedy and practical implementation of the program). 1 Likelihood of fundraising success 1 = very low likelihood raising the necessary funds ; 4 = very low likelihood raising necessary funds almost certainty. “unknown” 0 Fundraising timingTiming of available fund is critical since the creation of demonstration plots is scheduled in November 2009 but so far there is no source of fund committed yet to fund the project. 0 Funding alignment1=funding timeline is not aligned with the project timeline; 4=funding timeline is well-aligned with project timeline “unknown” 0 Sustainable funding1=unsustainable funding sources; 4=very sustainable funding sources “unknown” 0 Profit/lossDifference between revenues and costs 0 Average Score1

4. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 4 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 The demonstration plots of farms for energy with 3 strata system (STS) economically is able to raise people’s income since it is using the neglected farms. Raising of people’s income in a short period can be earned from crops (corns, chili), from plants that produce firewood can be harvested in 3 years. 4 New income source sustainability 1 = New income source is unsustainable; 4 = Income source is highly sustainable The demonstration plots of farms for energy with 3 strata system (STS) with the total areas of 10 hectares will be managed by 10 community groups. Each group will manage 1 hectare (in 2 locations with 0.5 hectare each). The demonstration plots are very potential for people to earn alternative income from the harvesting of crops and firewood as well as fodder within one location. The whole activities are focused in managing the farms. It is expected that the local community who are the target audience will adopt the STS farms for energy 4 Average Score 4 BRAVO Drafting Guidelines Economics (3 of 3)

5. 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 Technology required to manage the STS farms for energy is available locally. Sources available including Bali Barat National Park and Local Forestry Office who own the technology to select plant species producing firewood and its planting technology as well as selecting crops. For STS, there is already examples from neighboring villages who have conducted STS. 4 Technology assistance 1 = Technology assistance is required, yet not available; 4 = Technology assistance is significant and available Technology assistance required in terms of trainings and study tour and they have already been integrated in its budgeting. 4 Appropriate for circumstances 1 = Available technology is not appropriate for circumstances; 4 = Acquirable technology is suited for circumstances Demonstration plots of farms for energy are potential to reduce firewood collection as a threat to the park since the firewood have already available in their own farms. Though firewood can be harvested within 3 years but during that time the local community can harvest crops and fodder that are planted simultaneously within the farms. 1-4 Average Score 1-4 BRAVO Drafting Guidelines Technical (1 of 2)

6. 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 There is no definitive Barrier Removal partner existed yet. But we are approaching several parties such as Bali Barat National Park and Local Forestry Office. The park probably will help since the threat (firewood collections) occurred within their areas, and the Local Forestry Office may help since the office has built collaboration with local community in terms of social forestry. The assistances that they contribute will be in terms of seedling provision and technical assistance (extension workers and guidance). 2 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 “unknown”. 1 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 (Bali Barat National Park and Local Forest Office) have not demonstrated sufficient budget planning skills and cost efficient execution of plans. Since both parties are so far only executed orders from their superiors, for example there was a social forestry program conducted during dry season. 1 Average Score 1.3 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 There is a district level Agricultural Office with their extension workers (PPL). PPL are suppose to visit villages to give technical guidance of farming to local community. Unfortunately, PPL at the moment spend their time mostly in the office instead of on the field. Therefore PPL should be approached and encouraged to go to the field. 2 Average Score 2 BRAVO Drafting Guidelines Technical (2 of 2)

7. 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 List of groups or critical individual that may be utilized to facilitate the adoption of BR strategy  Sekaha Tani Buleleng (STB)  Sekaha Tani jembrana (STJ)  Farmer group in Sumberkelampok village  Farmer group in Klatakan sub-village, Melaya village 2 Leadership willingness to endorse 1 = Unwilling to get on board with project; 4 = Firm commitment from leadership to help drive change efforts To date those groups are actively involved in various processes such as they always attend group meetings held by Seka Foundation, participate in stakeholder workshops and being involved in data collection about Bali Barat National Park. 4 Average Score 3 BRAVO Drafting Guidelines Cultural/Political (1 of 2)

8. 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 Ministry of Forestry Decree no. P.49/Menhut-II/2008 concerning Community’s Forest indirectly will support STS farms for energy. 2 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 There is lack of knowledge regarding political environment as well as unclear timeframe for advocacy 1 Average Score 1.5 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 Strategy implemented to collect information on political and on cultural norms gradually at project site is by conducting site visits and depth interviews to traditional leaders and village government personnel. Those norms include traditional rules (awig-awig), banjar system, religious norms (Moslem and Hindu). 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 There is no normative obstacles. 4 Average Score 4 BRAVO Drafting Guidelines Cultural/Political (2 of 2)

9. 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 Conservation impact is very likely to be realized through farms for energy. People’s activities will be focused in their farms. firewood will be taken from their own farms so that threat to the park from firewood collection can be reduced. If this situation occurs sustainably, the forest of Bali starling habitat will be secured. However the process could only be happened within 3 years. For the first and second years, firewood collection from forest might still occurred since the farms have not provided the required firewood yet. 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 The impact goal should be viable in the long-term since the need for firewood can be fulfilled from their own farms, so that the local community will feel the direct impact of farms for energy. Besides, the farms also provide crops and fodders for the people. 4 Average Score 4 BRAVO Drafting Guidelines Impact and Metrics (1 of 2)

10. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 10 Criteria Explanation Score Tipping Points 1 st sustainable raise of income 1. STS farms for energy automatically will increase people’s income since they will also have additional harvesting from crops (corns, chili, beans). So far these products can only be gained from the rental land. By managing their own farms as farms for energy, the people are not only harvesting firewood but also fodders and crops. 2. Households’ needs for firewood can be fulfilled from the fast growing species of fodders that will be big enough within 1.5 – 2 years since regularly people will do pruning to take plant’s leaves for fodders. 3. Plants produced firewood can be harvested within 3 years and can be sold to market. 4 2 nd fulfillment of household needs of firewood 2 3 rd firewood for sale 3 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 Program has clear, measureable metrics. The measurement is the number of firewood collectors (decrease), firewood collection intensity in the forest (decrease), volume of firewood taken from the forest (reduce) 4 Average Score 4 BRAVO Drafting Guidelines Impact and Metrics (2 of 2)

11. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 11 CategorySubcategoryScore Average Category Score Feasibility Economics Costs 4 3 Revenues 1 Income Substitution 4 Technical Technology 4 2.4 Capacity / Organizational Ability 1.3 Other Partners 2 Cultural / Political Community Leadership 3 2.8 Political Environment 1.5 Cultural Norms 4 Feasibility Score 2.7 Impact Impact and Metrics Conservation Impact 1-4 3.7 Tipping Points 1-4 Metrics 1-4 Impact Score 3.7 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.

12. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 12 BRAVO Drafting Guidelines Risk Factors Risk FactorsConsequenceMitigation Strategies Land ownership/farm (sumberkelampok village) is still under negotiation with the local government of Buleleng district. There is no funding sources to implement the project. Incompatibility between plant species with soil condition (type of soil and level of fertility) The land is owned by the local government of Buleleng District, people are “thrown out” The creation of farms for energy postpones. Slow growth of the plants, or even die The process of land ownership is facing towards positive direction since the local government of Buleleng District will give land ownership to the local community, and the office starts to conduct land measurement for each household. Mitigation strategy implemented is by intensifying lobbying to accelerate the government’s release of the land to be owned by the locals. Trying to find funding from various parties. The land choose for demonstration plots are the ones with unsalted ground water. Selection of plant species based on plants grown at surrounding areas. List any risk factors, consequences and mitigation strategies that may need to be adopted.

13. Confidential Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 13 BRAVO Drafting Guidelines Authors and approvals List BRAVO authors and their affiliation Sihabudin RahmanExecutive Director of Seka Foundation Istiyarto IsmuCampaign Manager MashariyantoAgricultural Facilitator Gede Sri PuspataProgram staff in Buleleng region I Komang WarkenProgram staff in Jembrana region NurhadiAgricultural Facilitator