1

Plan Vivo Project Idea Note (PIN)

Project Title: ‘Values and Valuation: New Approaches to Conservation in Mongolia’

University of Leicester (UK) and Mongolian Society for Range Management (Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia), January 2014

2

Contents

1. Project objectives and activities ............................................................................................. 3

2. Target groups/ communities ................................................................................................... 4

3. Proposed project area ............................................................................................................. 5

Physical environment: ....................................................................................................................... 5

Socio-economic environment .......................................................................................................... 9

Baseline data available ................................................................................................................... 10

4. Ownership of carbon rights and land tenure ...................................................................... 10

5. Applicant organisations and proposed governance structure ......................................... 10

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 10

Project coordinator status and objectives .................................................................................... 11

Personnel to be involved (MSRM and all key partners) ............................................................ 11

6. Community-led design plan submitted ................................................................................ 12

7. Additionality analysis provided ............................................................................................. 13

8. Compliance with regulations and notification of relevant bodies .................................... 13

9. Sources of start-up funding identified ................................................................................. 14

3

1. Project objectives and activities The wider Darwin Initiative project, of which Plan Vivo associated activities form part, is designed to achieve the following purpose: ‘to generate policy and practice relevant knowledge of ecosystem services in Mongolia and pastoral contributions therein and to test the efficacy of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes in order to enhance biodiversity and livelihoods’. Key objectives are:

i) At case study sites in diverse ecological regions (e.g. forest-steppe; steppe;

desert-steppe) and with local herders to undertake valuation and mapping of key ES, including participatory non-economic valuations and evaluation of contributions to biodiversity conservation and well-being. This will include development and trialling of methodology for non-economic valuation, especially of cultural services, facilitating recognition of customary knowledge, values and practice.

ii) At selected case study sites and with selected herders’ groups to implement

pilot Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes, based on 1) carbon sequestration through conservation and sustainable rangeland management, including participatory development and independent validation of scheme, issuance and marketing of certified carbon credits (for voluntary carbon market) and 2) alternative mechanisms as appropriate e.g. through IWC artificial nest project.

iii) Within the duration of the project, to assess impacts of the above on local

biodiversity and livelihoods (including evaluation of contributions to specific CDM obligations and, where relevant, CMS/ CITES) through use of established and participatory social and ecological indicators and surveys.

It is part ii) 1) above that relates specifically to Plan Vivo activities. For this objective the project will work with herders’ groups at four locations (specified below) to generate Plan Vivo certificates through activities associated with sustainable rangeland management, enhanced livelihoods/ well-being and biodiversity conservation.

Specifically, following discussion with Bioclimate and in accordance with the new Plan Vivo standard, a tri-partite certificate is proposed, incorporating carbon sequestration (soil carbon), contributions to well-being (e.g. through poverty alleviation/ cultural ecosystem services) and biodiversity conservation.

Precise activities proposed are site/location specific, but based around the following:

4

Table 1: Proposed Activities Activity type Details Main contributions to

Tripartite certificate Improved rangeland management

e.g. • Restoration/ improvement of traditional

seasonal mobility between pastures (‘rotational use’)

• Reduced livestock stocking densities • Pasture fencing • Pasture reseeding

1) CARBON C sequestration (soils)

Additional contributions to BIODIVERSITY through reduced grazing pressure and rangeland degradation.

Nature conservation

e.g. • Group activities for conservation/

protection of named key fauna (wild sheep, deer, wolf, etc., dependent on key species identified in territory)

• Group activities for conservation/protection of named key flora (e.g. medicinal plants, dependent on key species identified in territory).

• Group activities for stopping illegal mining

2) BIODIVERSITY May also contribute to

3) LIVELIHOODS/ WELL BEING (e.g. cultural, aesthetic, environmental ES)

Disaster/ risk preparedness

e.g. • Cooperation for haymaking • Cooperation for fodder preparation • Cooperation for repairing wells/

enhancing water supply

3) LIVELIHOODS/ WELL BEING

Productivity/ income support

e.g. • Enhanced production of value-added

milk and wool products • Vegetable production, sale and

storage

3) LIVELIHOODS/ WELL BEING

NB: not all activities will take place at each of the four sites.

2. Target groups/ communities Herders’ groups have been established across the country since 2000, under the auspices of diverse donor projects, including World Bank Sustainable Livelihoods project; UNDP Sustainable Grassland Management project. These are typically small-scale organisations at local levels and subsidiary to the lowest formal manifestations of devolved governance e.g. bag (sub-district) and soum (district) administration. The Mongolian Society for Range Management (MSRM; the key in-country project partner) heseg groups are amongst the most well-established and sustainable herder groups, having been active at sites across the country since 2007. They typically comprise up to 50 households, based on geographical proximity/ shared pasture use, with voluntary membership. These are inclusive institutions, encompassing low-income and female-headed households. Some key, summary socio-economic data are presented in Table 2 (below). In typical heseg/ herder group activities, support in labour-intensive tasks such as haymaking and shearing, for poor and female-headed households is a priority. Heseg work closely with local NGOs (see Section 5). These NGOs are legally recognised and registered entities at the local (soum) level. They were set

5

up by MSRM from 2007 to act as lowest level of devolved organisation recognised under national law and thus to represent and support heseg in the following ways: 1) training 2) management of accounts 3) pasture management activities and 4) links to soum and bag administration. For Bogd soum, 1-3) are addressed in-house and the herder group liaises directly with the local administration under 4). Heseg/ herder groups are recognised by soum administration in the proposed study areas, including through contracts for pasture use and management (see Section 4). For each study soum, one heseg/ herder group has been selected by the project team on the basis of the following criteria: desire of all members to be involved in Plan Vivo; well-established and active heseg/ herder group; good leadership; clear inclusion of poor households; good organisational structure e.g. leader and herder advisor (senior herder experienced in traditional herding activity); established revolving fund providing low cost loans to group members. Table 2: Key Target Group Socio-Economic & Demographic Data Location & Target Group Household

nos (by herder group/ heseg)

Population nos (by herder group/heseg) [male/female%]

% poor households* (by herder group/ heseg)

Female-headed households (by herder group/ heseg)

Aimag (region)

Soum (district)

Herder group/ heseg

Arkhangai Ikh Tamir Hongor Ovoo

97 356 [49%m/ 51%f]

75% 7

Tov Undur-shireet

Ikh Am 48 157 [57%m/ 43%f]

36% 5

Dundgov Ulziit Dert 23 89 [45%m/ 55%f]

44% 2

Bayan-khongor

Bogd Dulaan Khairkhan

9 53 [tbc]

30% 1

*poor households as determined by local administration, based on livestock nos.

3. Proposed project area

Physical environment: Herders’ groups are based at four locations across the country in diverse ecological contexts (Figure 1):

i) Arkhangai aimag, Ikh Tamir soum (forest steppe). Annual rainfall 300-400mm, elevation up to 1700m asl, undulating topography. Hongor Ovoo heseg area 36,756ha.

ii) Tov aimag, Undurshireet soum (steppe). Annual rainfall 200-250mm, elevation up to 1700m asl, flat to undulating topography. Ikh Am heseg area 12,560ha.

iii) Dundgov aimag, Ulziit soum (desert steppe). Annual rainfall 150mm, elevation up to 1500m asl, flat topography. Dert heseg 63,953.2 ha area.

6

iv) Bayanhongor aimag, Bogd soum (steppe/ desert steppe). Annual rainfall average 120-160mm, undulating topography, including mountainous areas. Dulaan Khairkhan herder group (area to be confirmed).

All sites share the following commonalities: • Predominance of extensive grassland areas, providing the main livelihood sources

for herding communities • Evidence of degradation of grasslands, as shown by changing species composition,

desertification etc. These trends are widely attributed to overgrazing though increased livestock numbers and growing sedentarisation, in conjunction with climate change/ variability.

• For iii) only, localised mining (including informal artisanal mining practices) are also contributing to degradation.

• Increasing climate variability, especially in rainfall patterns; increasing incidence of harsh winters

Figure 1 Location of Plan Vivo sites, Mongolia

Existing land use practices and the boundaries of the first 3 sites are shown in Figures 2-4 below (to be finalised for iv). Officially designated conservation areas overlap with these project areas only in the case of i), where Khangai range PA overlaps with <5% of Hongor Ovoo territory.

7

Figure 2 Hongor Ovoo heseg, pasture use plan and boundaries

8

Figure 3 Ikh Am Heseg pasture boundaries

9

Figure 4 Dert Heseg pasture use plan and boundaries

Socio-economic environment For all study sites, local cultural groups are predominantly Khalkh Mongol (the main National group), with 95-100 % of heseg members relying primarily on livestock herding. Poverty levels and inequality are high at all sites, both for the heseg themselves and in the wider district (soum). Inequality and poverty have been exacerbated by livestock loss in recent ‘dzud’ (natural disasters), with poorest households often reduced to having herds of <50 animals.

10

Opportunities for livelihood diversification vary: some heseg households benefit from tourism activities, for example through hiring of horses and/ or supply of provisions to local tourist camps. In site iii) informal (‘ninja’) mining provides a livelihood supplement for a small number of households. For most, however, subsistence use of and marketing of livestock products remains their primary strategy. Distance to good markets varies; for ii) the capital, Ulaanbaatar is only 200km away. For other more distant sites herders typically sell in local (soum) centres and/ or through ‘middlemen’ for poor prices. Key problems facing herders centre on the interlinked issues of environmental degradation and poor livelihoods.

Formal governance structures comprise bags (smallest administrative unit) and the larger soum (district) divisions. Within these, NGOs are legally recognised entities, with herders’ groups/heseg recognised by bag and soum administrations.

Baseline data available Extensive baseline socio-economic and pasture use data exists for study areas. Baseline data on soil carbon stocks exists for some areas of Mongolia and is currently being collated as part of the development of the Plan Vivo technical specification, in conjunction with biomass sampling and analysis as part of the Darwin project.

4. Ownership of carbon rights and land tenure In project heseg/ herder group areas, these groups have concluded contracts with the local soum and bag administration, based on the existing (2002) Land Law (sample contract attached). Pastureland cannot be held in private ownership in Mongolia under current legislation. These types of agreement reflect possession and use contracts for key seasonal pastures by herders’ groups and are the strongest level of rights available in Mongolia, reflecting state recognition of herders’ customary rights and usage of wider pasture, supported by private ownership of winter and spring shelters. A draft Pastureland Law has been under debate for many years. The new government who came to power in summer 2012 are still debating a package of land laws/ a separate pastureland law which will include provision for possession/use rights. Expert opinion and drafts under debate indicate that the type of herder group contract attached will be strengthened and supported further under any legislative changes. Soum administration in study sites are supportive of these types of contracts and the rights of herders to resources in designated areas, including carbon or other benefits accrued under Plan Vivo. Other legislation relating specifically to carbon ownership does not currently exist in Mongolia. However, MSRM have discussed and agreed the specific recognition and inclusion of carbon rights within these contracts in the future, as part of local administrations’ support for the implementation of Plan Vivo projects. Heseg land areas are indicated in Section 3.

5. Applicant organisations and proposed governance structure

Introduction The Plan Vivo activities will be initiated through the Darwin Initiative funded ‘Values and Valuation: new approaches to conservation in Mongolia’ project (2012-2015). This project is being administered by the University of Leicester (UOL, UK), PI Dr Caroline Upton, with the lead Mongolian partner “Mongolian Society for Range Management” (MSRM). The preparation of this PIN has been undertaken collaboratively by these two organisations. The project coordinator/applicant organisation for Plan Vivo is MSRM, as the main host country partner and a long-established NGO, with close links to herders’ groups/ heseg. UOL is

11

responsible for overall leadership of the wider Darwin project. MSRM will be responsible for administrative, technical and social aspects of the Plan Vivo process, with the support of UOL e.g. in finalising administrative procedures, design of training and monitoring activities under the Plan Vivo standards. MSRM, as the PV project coordinator will continue to fulfil this role after the completion of the Darwin Initiative funded work.

Project coordinator status and objectives MSRM, established in 2007, is an independent, non-profit and recognised non-governmental organization, which works to:

• conduct pasture monitoring, organize training on pasture improvement and rational use for providing sustainable pasture ecosystems;

• create and support herders’ pasture-based self-governance systems (heseg, cooperatives and partnerships);

• certify pasture use rights and create a supportive legislative environment;

Evidence for its capacity to develop and implement Plan Vivo projects in Mongolia is given from its recent track record e.g.:

• Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) entrusted MSRM with the implementation of the “Pasture Ecosystem Management Project” (2009-2012), which aimed to enable herder communities to protect pasture ecosystems to underpin sustainable livelihoods.

• Asian Development Bank selected MSRM as project partner on “Strengthening Carbon Financing for Regional Grassland Management in Northeast Asia” 2011-2012.

MSRM has 11 staff members with professional backgrounds in: grassland research and technology, community development, project cycle management etc. They have 134 local trainers, including local NGOs established by MSRM specifically to support heseg, who can organize training on pasture-use development, herders’ cooperative establishment etc. Their local and regional network is unsurpassed in Mongolia.

Personnel to be involved (MSRM and all key partners) MSRM central key staff:

• D.Dorligsuren (economist) - executive director of MSRM, has 30 years of experience in organizing training, business administration, development and strengthening of community-based organisations.

• D.Dulmaa – experienced in project development, implementation and community liaison.

Local MSRM network/ NGO leaders:

• Arkhangai aimag, Ikh Tamir soum: Dashzeveg, leader of Arvijin saijrakh (“to grow”) NGO

• Tov aimag, Undurshireet soum: Oyun, leader of Tumen Mal (“10,000 animals”) NGO • Dundgov aimag, Ulziit soum: Jargalsaikhan, leader of Uushiin uguuj (“Gift of

mountain”) NGO • Bayankhongor aimag, Bogd soum: (group works directly with local soum

administration).

12

Heseg/ herder groups and leaders:

• Ikh Tamir soum: ‘Khongor ovoo’ heseg, leader Nerguibaatar • Undurshireet soum: Ikh Am heseg, leader Dogsom • Ulziit soum: Dert heseg, leader Aldarkhuu • Bogd soum: Dulaan Khairkhan herder group, leader Amarsanaa

MSRM central staff will lead delivery of technical, administrative and social aspects of responsibilities under Plan Vivo. They will work closely with NGO leaders, who will in turn work with heseg in facilitating agreement and management of heseg specific roles and activities. The local NGOs already fulfil this intermediary role with respect to supporting existing heseg activities and links to MSRM, so these activities and procedures are very well-established and have been shown to work well over a number of years. This is why we propose to retain this established structure in the Plan Vivo project. The heseg are used to working in this way and have done so successfully for many years to facilitate community-led planning.

Internal governance of heseg/ herder groups is regulated by the internal, group-developed rules and regulations already in place and functioning successfully. According to these regulations, governing bodies (of 5 members) and heads of heseg/groups are elected through meetings of all members on a biannual basis, with a requirement for inclusion of female representatives on governing bodies. In addition, internal auditing committees of 3 members are elected, to report back to the wider group and to ensure transparency and inclusive decision-making. Local NGOs do not take part in or influence these internal election procedures.

External support/ Other key personnel:

• UOL: Dr Caroline Upton (PI) will have input into Plan Vivo development, technical specifications and liaison with Plan Vivo/ Bioclimate, in conjunction with MSRM.

• CES: Professor Undarmaa Jamsran will lead in the development of the technical specification for evaluation of soil carbon.

6. Community-led design plan submitted Through MSRM, consultations and participatory planning meetings, focusing specifically on Plan Vivo have been held with herder heseg at sites i)-iii) on a number of occasions in 2012, (e.g. 22-24 July 2012 – site ii); 1-3 August 2012- site i); 8-10 August 2012 – site iii); 29-30 August 2012 – site i); 1-4 September 2012 – sites ii and iii). Further community-led planning meetings were facilitated by MSRM in 2013 at all four sites. From initial meetings and following detailed explanation of the Plan Vivo process, heseg/ herder groups expressed their desire to be involved in Plan Vivo and produced a list of proposed activities. These meetings involved poor and female-headed heseg member households. Therefore, full explanation of the Plan Vivo process was followed by in-depth discussion amongst members and preliminary identification of preferred activities. Heseg have been encouraged to meet multiple times without MSRM (facilitated by local NGOs) to further discuss and debate the Plan Vivo process, how this could be administered through existing governance structures and concerns/ barriers. Follow-up meetings with MSRM in 2013 have been opportunities for

13

feedback and debate on these issues, and revisions of emergent ideas, as deemed necessary by heseg, thus ensuring full attention to principles of FPIC. These ongoing participatory planning processes are the basis of the information in Table 1.

In addition, training workshops have been provided by MSRM focusing on i) specific training needs identified by herders for proposed activities e.g. conservation of medicinal plants, rotational pasture use and ii) further details of Plan Vivo management e.g. scheduling of activities, reporting, disbursement of funds. As highlighted above, structures for these kinds of issues are already well established and functioning effectively. All the above is designed to lead into production of the final Plan Vivo for each group/ heseg.

7. Additionality analysis provided The project is not the product of a legislative decree or commercial land-use initiative likely to be viable in its own right. The proposed activities build on the expertise of the project team and the established heseg/ herder groups in study areas. However, these go beyond current activities to provide additional benefits in terms of carbon sequestration, linked to more effective rangeland use and management, and associated livelihood and conservation benefits. The project offers herders new forms of training in conservation activities and explicit recognition of their contributions to conservation in its widest sense. At present desired activities are precluded or compromised by both a lack of training/ technical expertise and financial support for more rational rangeland use. Incentives at present tend to drive herders towards ever increasing livestock numbers, with adverse effects on local environments and little benefit for livelihoods. Through training and recognition of linkages between livelihood and conservation activities, the project will seek to overcome some of these barriers. Using an ecosystem services framework (ES) the project will recognise cultural services and values, as well as provisioning services, thus supporting a more holistic approach to land use and conservation.

8. Compliance with regulations and notification of relevant bodies The wider Darwin project, encompassing the Plan Vivo component, has the written support of the Director General of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ministry of Environment and Green Development (formerly Ministry of Nature, Environment and Tourism), Mongolia, Mr D. Enkhbat (see attached). A follow up meeting was held with Mr D.

Heseg meeting, Undurshireet soum, January 2013

14

Enkhbat during the most recent visit by the project PI in February 2013, at which continuing support was expressed and ways in which the project could best inform policy initiatives explored. Key Ministry officials were invited to the project start up meeting in Ulaanbaatar in May 2012 e.g. Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry of Mongolia; Land Management Division, Agency of Land Affairs. Continued consultation and liaison with Ministry/ government officials is a key part of project commitments. The relevant national climate change focal point has been notified of the project. Specifically, a meeting was held with Dr D. Dagvadorj, Special Envoy on Climate Change and leader of climate change policy in Mongolia to discuss current issues, policies and strategies in Mongolia and to provide information on the project. A letter of support from Dr Dagvadorj is attached.

The project intends to comply fully with national legislation and guidance, as indicated by the consultations outlined above and commitment to continued engagement with state officials and policy makers throughout the project. Further links have already been established with key donor programmes such as UN-REDD in Mongolia (through UNDP) and with planning for NAMA (through ADB ‘Strengthening Carbon Finance for Regional Grassland Management in Northeast Asia’).

9. Sources of start-up funding identified The Darwin Initiative funded project: ‘Values and Valuation: New Approaches to Conservation in Mongolia’, (2012-2015) has already provided start-up funding for working with heseg/herder groups to identify Plan Vivo activities, address training needs, etc., plus development of the PIN, PDD and technical specification. Darwin funding will enable support, monitoring, reporting and validation of Plan Vivo activities until the end of the project in 2015. Purchasers of Plan Vivo certificates are being sought at present to ensure sustainable funding beyond 2015.

15