Docstoc

Overview of the PRM Component SLP

Document Sample
Overview of the PRM Component SLP Powered By Docstoc
					  SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS PROJECT-II




PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL

  Volume 2. Pastoral Risk Management




                SLPO
                              Table of Contents

 Contents                                                                        2
 Abbreviations and Acronyms                                                      3

      ONE: GENERAL OBJECTIVES

 1.   Purpose and description of the “Pastoral Risk Management” (PRM)
      component                                                   4
 2.   Process and linkages between components                     5
 3.   Term Definitions                                            6

      TWO: PROJECT MAIN DIRECTIONS AND ACTIVITIES

 1.   Risk forecasting and response planning                                8
         a. Livestock Early Warning System                                  8
         b. Risk mitigation and response planning                           9
 2.   Pasture-land management and use                                       11
         a. Development of soum pasture-land management plans               11
         b. Implementation of soum pasture-land management plans            13
 3.   Demonstrating good practice in pastoral livelihood improvement        19
         a. Improve information delivery to local communities               19
         b. Develop PRM demonstration areas                                 20
 4.   Strengthening the institutional framework for PRM                     24
         a. Support the development of policy, legislation, regulations and
             standards for pasture-land management                          24
         b. Integrate the findings from the Project implementation and the PRM
             demonstration areas into the institutional framework           25

      THREE: SUPPORT STRUCTURES                                                  27
      FOUR: PROCUREMENT                                                          28
      FIVE: FINANCIAL FLOWS                                                      28
      SIX: MONITORING AND EVALUATION                                             29

PRM Annex 1.      Flow diagram                                                    49
PRM Annex 2.      Allocation of PRM funds to aimags                               50
PRM Annex 3.      Justification for a Pastoral Risk Management approach           52
PRM Annex 4:      Process diagram – Pastureland management planning               59
PRM Annex 5:      Pastoral Risk Management – stakeholders and roles               60
PRM Annex 6.      Environmental assessment report form                            61
PRM Annex 7.      PRM proposal form for pastureland management plan activities    63
PRM Annex 8.      PRM proposal form for pastureland management plan activities after
                  tendering or contracting                                        66
PRM Annex 9.      PRM proposal form for starter grant                             68
PRM Annex 10.     PRM proposal form for grant of feed preparation and production 71
PRM Annex 11.     Disbursement completion form – Soum                             74
PRM Annex 12.     Disbursement completion form – Aimag                            75
PRM Annex 13.     Certificate of project completion – Soum                        76




                                                                                       2
                     Abbreviations and Acronyms

ASLPC      – Aimag Sustainable Livelihoods Project Council
CIC        – Community Initiative Component
CIWG       – Community Initiative Working Group
CRH        – Citizens’ Representative Khural
DCA        – Development Credit Agreement
EIA        – Environmental Impact Assessment
GIS        – Geographic Information System
GoM        – Government of Mongolia
IBLIP      – Index-based Livestock Insurance Project
ICR        – Implementation Completion Report
IHM        – Institute of Hydro-Meteorology
LEWS       – Livestock Early Warning System
MDF        – Micro-finance Development Fund
MIS        – Management information system
MoF        – Ministry of Finance
MoFA       – Ministry of Food and Agriculture
MoNE       – Ministry of Nature and Environment
M&E        – Monitoring and Evaluation
NCCPM      – National Coordinating Council on Pastoral and Management
NEMA       – National Emergency Management Administration
NGO        – Non-Governmental Organization
PIM        – Project Implementation Manual
PM         – Project Management
PM&E       – Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation
PRM        – Pastoral Risk Management
PRM FUND   – Pastoral Risk Management fund
PRM WG     – Pastoral Risk Management Working group
SA         – Social Assessment
SCSLP      – Steering Committee for the Sustainable Livelihoods Project-II
SLP        – Sustainable Livelihoods Project-II
SLPO       – Sustainable Livelihoods Project-II Office
SLPU       – Sustainable Livelihoods Project-II Unit
SME        – Small and Medium Enterprises
SSLPC      – Soum Sustainable Livelihoods Project-II Council
SGO        – Soum Governor’s Office
RIAH       – Research Institute of Animal Husbandry
UNDP       – United Nations Development Program




                                                                             3
            “PASTORAL RISK MANAGEMENT” COMPONENT
                   IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL


ONE. GENERAL OBJECTIVES

1.   Purpose and description of the “Pastoral Risk Management” (PRM)
component

The main objective of the PRM component of the Sustainable Livelihood Project
during Phase II (SLP-II) is to continue strengthening the capacity of rural families,
especially livestock herder households, to manage environmental, financial, social
and other forms of risk that can adversely affect their livelihoods. Herder households
cannot do this alone; they also require well-coordinated support from national and
local governments, business enterprises and civil society institutions to help develop
their capacity to prepare for and respond to current and future risk factors. The PRM
component during Phase II will build on functioning PRM mechanisms developed in
eight pilot aimags during Phase I and expand PRM throughout Mongolia to reduce
the vulnerability of rural families to risk.

  Component objective: To scale up and replicate effective strategies to prepare for and
                              respond to pastoral risk.

Four sub-components will be implemented under the SLP Pastoral Risk Management
component:

          1)   Risk forecasting, preparedness and response planning
          2)   Pasture-land tenure, management and use
          3)   Demonstrating good practice in pastoral livelihood improvement
          4)   Institutionalizing Pastoral Risk Management

The sub–component objectives are:
Sub component             Objective
1) Risk forecasting,      To develop and institutionalize a risk early warning
preparedness and          system that delivers accurate weather and forage
response planning         predictions throughout Mongolia, and to strengthen
                          local capacity to prepare and plan for actions to be
                          taken in response to these risk forecasts.
2) Pasture-land tenure,   To support and institutionalize the preparation,
management and use        financing and implementation of annual pasture-land
                          management plans at soum level.
3) Demonstrating good     To demonstrate good practice in pastoral livelihood
practice in pastoral      improvement in all additional demonstration areas
livelihood improvement    through the facilitation of:
                               Information sharing;
                               Market linkages;
                               Service delivery; and
                               Documenting and disseminating lessons learned.
4) Institutionalizing     To support the nationwide development of a multi-level
Pastoral Risk Management institutional framework for Pastoral Risk Management.

                                                                                           4
2.    Process and linkages between components

There are important connections between the sub-components and this has
implications for the type and sequencing of activities and financial support provided
by the project. The components engage vertically and horizontally with all levels of
the institutional framework, from national government bodies to herder households
and across line ministries and disciplines. The component embraces bottom up,
participatory pastoral risk management, while recognizing the need for informed
policies, regulations and standards from the top down. Only then will the institutional
framework be fully operational and effective.

The overall focus of the component is to help improve risk management by and for
pastoral communities. Several approaches are required to achieve this, from
developing early warning systems and strengthening government capacity to respond
to emergencies, to more sustainable management of pasture land based on
participatory, local level planning and more effective engagement of herders in
managing risk. Defining the responsibilities of stakeholders in pasture-land
management, from herders and local agriculture and land officers, to aimag
governors and ministers, is a critical element of a successful system.

Sub-component 1 will focus on building government’s capacity to anticipate, prepare
for and respond to risk. In this way services and information will be provided to
herders on which they can make decisions that reduce their risk.

Sub-component 2 focuses on the interface between local government and herders
in managing pasture land. The key activity here is the pasture-land management
planning process which is informed by local conditions, resource needs and herder
priorities. Annual soum pasture-land management plans provide the basis on which
holistic approaches to PRM can be adopted. The annually updated plans also ensure
that investment activities are based on environmentally sound and fully participatory
systems. In SLP II investment at soum level will shift from support for individual
components of PRM to soum level support for the implementation of agreed Pasture-
land Management Plans, thereby increasing local ownership and responsibility for
resource management decisions.

Sub-component 3 will establish pastureland demonstration areas in every aimag to
develop good practice in pastoral livelihood improvement. There will be a focus on
information sharing, income generating activities, feed production and distribution,
market linkages, and documenting and disseminating lessons learned.

Sub-component 4 focuses on building government capacity to provide the
framework within which an effective pastoral system can function. This requires
coordinated, inter-ministerial and inter-agency action to develop the legislation,
policies, regulations and standards on which effective and sustainable use of pastoral
resources depends.

Many of these activities will require joint action by formal or informal groups of
herders, including cooperatives, and involvement of government at different
administrative levels, especially at the soum and bagh levels. They also require
effective links and flows of information between levels of government. The Tov
demonstration area established in SLP1 provided useful lessons on the roles of
central and local government agencies and their interaction with the private sector

                                                                                     5
(the herder). These findings have contributed to the design of Phase 2 of the
Program and will continue to inform and guide project activities.

The sequencing of activities is critical to the effectiveness of the component. For
example, training and the introducing of tools and methodologies are a prerequisite
for good quality pasture-land management plans. Investment to improve pastoral
resources will only be made on the basis of an approved and regularly updated
pasture-land management plan. This ensures that well thought-out and technically
sound priorities are addressed and it mitigates the risk of environmental degradation
and conflict.    It is critical to the success of the PRM component that the links
between the sub-components and the sequencing of activities be acknowledged and
understood by those implementing it. This will be a focus of orientation training in
both the pilot and new aimags.

3.     Term Definitions

Herder Group (HG) - Group of herder households (a group is the herder households)
using an area of common pasture land in a Bagh administrative unit. Two types of
herder group: 1) informal; groups that form among herders who cooperate in
activities relating to livestock production activities; 2) formal; groups that that have a
legal basis (e.g. NGO, cooperative).

Pasture-land Management Unit (PMU) - A spatially defined area of pasture land and
associated resources customarily used in common by a herder group. The pasture-
land management unit is generally used by herder groups to produce livestock for
consumption or sale to support household livelihoods. PMUs, which are public
resources, provide the resource base of livestock production, which is a private
activity based on the use of publicly owned pasture land.

Pasture-land Use Agreement (PUA) - Rights, obligations and terms defined in a
pasture-land tenure and use agreement/ contract between the soum
council/governor’s office and the herder group. The PUA should contain legal
description, spatial location, location and distribution of pasture-land resources,
standards to be followed relating to use, especially livestock production, obligations
of government and herder group relative to pasture-land tenure and use, use fees,
length of time contract is valid, etc. In addition to defining relations between the
government and the herder group, the pasture-land management unit on which the
agreement is based, is the basic unit on which soum pasture-land management and
use is based and planned.

Bagh (sub-district) – A government administrative unit and land area nominally
administered by the Bagh governor. In reality, the Bagh governor is often a locally
elected herder whose primary function is liaison between the soum government and
herder group using Bagh pasture land. Spatial units of pasture land and associated
herder groups agglomerate to form the land area, available resources, and human
population of a Bagh. Similarly, Baghs agglomerate to form the land area, natural
resources, and human population of the Soum. For project purposes, the Bagh is the
key locus of pastoral risk management activities, incorporating and building on
constituent herder group initiatives.

Soum (district) – An administrative unit, land area, and town. It is usually the location
of government pasture-land administration, provider of government services and

                                                                                        6
programs to all soum residents, and the focal point of interaction between
government representatives and soum residents. For project purposes, the Soum
could be regarded as the location where: (i) the public sector intersects with the
private sector, (ii) government technical officials develop and update pasture-land
plans, and (iii) the main level at which the implementation of project PRM activities
will be incorporated.

Pastoral Risk - 1) environmental risk, especially weather/climate and animal/plant
disease related factors, which directly influence the productivity of animals and crops
and indirectly influence livelihood sustainability; and 2) financial risk, which influences
the balance between costs of production and income from sale of agricultural
products and directly influences livelihood.

Commercial Livestock Production – Livestock production operated from a business
perspective, i.e., orientation towards profitability, Example: Cashmere wool
production.

Subsistence Livestock Production – Livestock production operated from a self-
consumption perspective, i.e., orientation towards meeting livelihood needs from
personally owned livestock with sale or exchange of excess product.

Private Sector – Non-government, driven by individuals acting alone or in cooperation
without direct government support or direction.

Public Sector – Government directed, generally forms policy and regulates to benefit
the entire population.

In-kind – Implementation of Pastoral Risk Management activities often have labor
and equipment costs as well as material costs. Even though PRM activities will be
grant funded, the recipient of the grant will be required to contribute to the activity;
either through a cash contribution or through in-kind contribution (i.e., labor and/or
equipment).




                                                                                         7
TWO. PROJECT MAIN DIRECTIONS AND ACTIVITIES

Component objective: To scale up and replicate effective strategies to plan for and respond
to pastoral risk.

1. Risk forecasting and response planning
Objective: To develop and institutionalize a risk early warning system that delivers accurate
weather and forage predictions throughout Mongolia and to strengthen local capacity to plan
for and respond to these risk forecasts.

In Phase I, the intent of this activity was to build a Livestock Early Warning System by
strengthening and linking a number of separate on-going activities together and developing
through the project missing components of the system. Hence, Phase I activities included
improving weather recording and forecasting equipment, development of a recording system
for other indicators for weather related to livestock mortality risk, development of a system
defining different levels of weather related livestock mortality risk and the preparation of
contingency plans according to emergency status. The midterm review of SLP 1 indicated
that although much data was being collected and equipment was being procured and
distributed, actual development of a LEWS through the project was not happening; also other
projects involved in developing a LEWS had higher probability of success. After the Midterm
Review, the Gobi Forage project administered by Mercy Corps, which implements the project
for the Global Livestock – Collaborative Research Studies Project, made considerable
progress towards development of a Mongolian LEWS. The decision was made to contract
with Mercy Corps to implement the Gobi Forage LEWS in the Tov aimag demonstration area.
This was a successful collaboration with positive outcomes and hence LEWS will be
expanded into 8 additional aimags in SLP2.


1.1 Livestock Early Warning System

1.1.1   Develop a livestock early warning system in 8 additional aimags

1.1.1.1 Contract an agency/consultancy firm to develop LEWS in a further 8 aimags
        (Selenge, Dornod, Bayanulgii, Zavhan, Khovd, Sukhbaatar, Khenti, Uvs). Activities
        should commence in the PRM demonstration areas (Dornod, Bayanulgii, Selenge,
        Sukhbaatar) with activities taking place in the four remaining aimags thereafter.
        Activities will be carried out in 2 aimags per year.

1.1.1.2 Contract outputs will be negotiated with the contractor but should include:
     Bi-weekly forage condition images and report.
     Seasonal (4) reports on animal body condition potential during the next season.
     Monthly forage quality status reports.
     Monthly nutrient needs (feed and supplements) of aimag livestock during the season
        under normal and disaster conditions.


1.1.2   Facilitate the institutionalization of the LEWS

1.1.2.1 By the end of Year 1 the consultants (referred to in 1.1.1) will have identified one or
        more national research and/or professional bodies with the capacity between them to
        run and manage the technical components of LEWS, and disseminate LEWS outputs
        to aimag and soum levels. It is expected that the Institute of Hydro-Meteorology (IHM)
        and the Research Institute of Animal Husbandry (RIAH) will jointly host and
        implement the LEWS, with IHM taking primary responsibility for weather and forage
        forecasting and RIAH taking primary responsibility for analyzing the links between

                                                                                             8
       forage data and animal nutritional status. RIAH would assume responsibility for all the
       required laboratory equipment, while IHM would assume responsibility for the GIS
       aspects of the LEWS, consistent with their existing mandates and capabilities.

1.1.2.2 In Year 2, the consultants will build capacity in the chosen institution(s) to manage,
        update, interpret and disseminate the information generated by the LEWS. The
        consultants will provide the necessary training to the chosen institution(s) to ensure
        that they can operate, update, interpret and disseminate the LEWS. The consultants
        will organize exposure visits and external technical assistance as necessary.

1.1.2.3 From Year 2 onwards, the Project will provide financial support to the institution(s)
       chosen to manage and disseminate the LEWS information. This will include funding
       to buy office furniture, computers and other equipment. The operating costs of LEWS
       will be covered until the end of the Project (SLP II).

1.1.2.4 The Project will assist the chosen institutions to initiate a dialogue with government to
        secure long-term government funding for LEWS. The National Coordinating Council
        on Pastureland Management (Hereinafter to be called as “NCCPM”) can play an
        important role in raising the profile of the LEWS as an important tool for Pastoral Risk
        Management.


1.1.3 Support the dissemination of forecasts to aimag, soum, herders

The contractor in activity 1.1.1 will develop and test alternative dissemination techniques in
collaboration with the chosen national institution(s)

1.1.3.1 The contractor will assist the chosen national institution(s) to disseminate the LEWS
        outputs and to reach the maximum number of end users in the participating aimags.
        For example, the forage condition output could be integrated into regular weather
        reports. In addition, new ways of disseminating the LEWS will be tested and piloted
        by the contractor (e.g. monthly bulletins, daily radio, weekly TV, mobile phone alerts).

1.1.3.2 The contractor will organise technical assistance to the pilot Herder Alliance in
       Bayankhongor aimag to enable the Project to evaluate the success of the initiative in
       communicating LEWS outputs to herders and in providing them with effective disaster
       preparation and response strategies.

1.2    Risk mitigation and response planning

1.2.1 Strengthen national level response planning

Support the development of linkages between international, national, and bi-lateral
institutions and projects (UNDP, IBLI, Gobi Forage, etc.), NEMA and local government
disaster relief departments to share information on most effective ways to reduce disaster
related risk to livestock herders.

1.2.1.1 The Project will hire consultants to conduct national level workshops and seminars
       on the use of the Livestock Early Warning Systems in preparing for and responding
       effectively to pastoral risk. The workshops will also address links between national
       level response mechanisms and aimag and soum level response planning. One
       seminar / workshop will be held per year in the first 3 years of the project and 2
       workshops in the final year.


1.2.2 Rehabilitate aimag and inter-aimag grazing and feed reserves


                                                                                               9
The project will rehabilitate an additional 15 aimag and inter-aimag grazing and fodder
reserves (4 were completed in phase 1). The State Reserve, NEMA, and MoFA will provide
guidance to the Project on priority grazing and feed storage reserves needing rehabilitation
based on the national emergency response strategy. These institutions will undertake to
operate and manage these facilities and to develop effective distribution systems.

1.2.2.1 The selection of grazing reserves for rehabilitation should be done in consultation
       with the relevant aimags and MUST be coordinated with existing soum level pasture-
       land management plans.

1.2.2.2 Aimag council/governor’s office will tender for the selected works and submit
       contractor proposals to the Project office for no objection. The Project will release
       funds to the aimag council/governor’s office to carry out the work. 70% of the project
       funds will be released by the aimag on signing a contract with the contractor. The
       remaining 20% will be provided on completion and verification of the quality of the
       work.

1.2.2.3 The state reserve/aimags will provide 10% of the total cost of the works (in cash or
kind).

1.2.2.4 The Project Office, the aimag council/governor’s office and the State Reserve (in the
        case of inter-aimag grazing reserves) will monitor the activity.

1.2.3 Strengthening aimag and soum level disaster risk response plans

Support response planning for disaster mitigation and preparedness (dzud and drought) at
Aimag and Soum administrative levels through technical assistance and training. The
guidelines developed in SLP 1 will be the basis for risk mitigation and response planning.

1.2.3.1 The project will secure consultancy services to;
   i.   Provide training to soums in the new aimags to develop and regularly update disaster
        preparation and response plans.
  ii.   Build the capacity of soum officials to provide information and advice to herders on
        how to reduce risk and plan for emergencies.
 iii.   Build capacity at aimag level to respond to soum level demands for support during
        emergencies.




                                                                                          10
2. Pasture-land management and use
Objective:   To support and institutionalize the preparation, financing and
implementation of annual pasture-land management plans at soum level.

This activity was carried out successfully in the eight pilot aimags in Phase I and will be
scaled-up to the remaining 13 aimags in Phase II. The focus of the activity is developing the
capacity and tools to facilitate effective and sustainable pasture-land management plans at
soum level. Critical to the development of these plans is participation and input from herding
communities, including informal user groups and bagh khurals. Bagh governors play a critical
role in collecting local information to input into baseline maps and in collecting and
disseminating Bagh level priorities. Pasture-land management plans are the basic tool from
which decisions to mitigate risk are made, they allow the rational use of forage resources,
strategic planning of water resource management and are the basis for the allocation of
possession rights to herder groups.

In Phase II, the project will focus on institutionalizing pasture-land management planning. It
will continue to build capacity to carry out pasture-land planning (especially in the 13 new
aimags) and to update pasture-land management and risk plans on an annual basis. The
project will go on to support the implementation of these plans in soums with updated,
technically sound, participatory plans. A PRM Fund will be used to support implementation of
pasture-land plans and to strengthen decision-making and organizational capacity at local
level. The methodology for supporting pasture-land planning shall be based on the guidelines
developed under SLP I and approved/ published at national level (including in Kazakh
language for Bayan-Olgii aimag).


2.1 Development of soum pasture-land management plans

2.1.1     Develop capacity and introduce the tools to create, regularly update and
        implement pasture-land management plans in the 13 new aimags

2.1.1.1 The project will recruit consultants to provide training in pasture-land management
        planning in each soum of the 13 new aimags to improve the capacity of bagh, soum
        and aimag governors, herders and livestock specialists to use pasture-land
        management plans. Activities will be carried out in seven aimags in year 1 –
        Sukhbaatar, Selenge, Orkhon, Darkhan Uul, Govsoumber, Khentii and Dornogov -
        and six aimags in year 2 – Bulgan, Arkhangai, Khovsgol, Zavkhan, Gov’altai and
        Khovd.

2.1.1.2 The consultants will be responsible for ensuring that the target group receives training
        in identifying grazing capacity, livestock stocking rates, allocating user rights and the
        management of water resources and environmentally sensitive areas.

2.1.1.3 Specific training to be provided by the consultants includes;
         Train of soum and bagh officials in the principles of pasture-land risk management
           and in how to develop a calendar of annual pasture-land and risk management
           activities.
         Train and assist bagh governors to operate GPS and undertake annual field
           surveys of bagh pasture resources (wells, seasonal herder camp-sites, location
           and boundaries of specific resources such as common use hayfields, crop fields,
           salt licks)
         Train and assist bagh governors to organize regular bagh meetings
         Train the soum technical committee to develop and update annual soum pasture-
           land and risk management plans


                                                                                              11
2.1.1.4 Training activities will be delivered in collaboration with the relevant line
        ministries/agencies (Administration of Land Affairs, Geodesy and Cartography,
        Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Water Authority, Ministry of Environment and
        Nature). There will be a strong focus on training for trainers in the agencies listed
        above to ensure the sustainability of capacity development.

2.1.1.5 The plans will be developed in keeping with the following guidelines;
   i.   Pasture-land management plans will be developed in line with existing guidance on
        land management and agricultural development (e.g. land use management
        guidelines of Agency for Land Affairs, Geodesy and Cartography) and any new
        guidance approved by the NCCPM and the new government body responsible for
        pasture-land management.
  ii.   Plans will be fully consistent with the soum Land Use Management Plan.
 iii.   The base pasture-land unit to compile the management plan is the area of pasture
        land used in common, contracted or possessed by herder groups aggregated by
        bagh to include the total soum pasture-land area.
 iv.    Components of the plan include spatial distribution of natural resources (land,
        vegetation, water, etc.), seasonal pasture-land carrying capacity estimates, current
        and potential uses of the natural resources by current users.
  v.    Plans will incorporate pasture-land management responsibilities in the output
        contracts of the relevant local government officers.

2.1.1.6 The effective delivery of pasture-land management training will be monitored and
        evaluated by aimag and soum council/governor’s office and the aimag working group
        on PRM and SLPO.

2.1.1.7 Environment inspectors at soum and aimag level will be responsible for monitoring
        the environmental sustainability of the pasture-land management plans and for
        commissioning EIAs as necessary.

2.1.1.8 Special attention will be made to the Tsaatan communities in Khovsgol aimag to
        determine how best pasture-land management planning can address their specific
        needs. Additional resources will be available to identify their specific needs or
        changes needed to the project approach. Technical assistance will be made
        available to address any specific needs identified.

2.1.2    Build capacity at aimag level to monitor and institutionalize pasture-land
        management planning and provide support to soums.

2.1.2.1 The consultants recruited in 3.1.1 will provide training to aimag agriculture and land
        officers and environment inspectors and other members of the aimag PRM Working
        Group in pasture-land management planning. This will enable them to strengthen
        aimag level pasture-land management by using information presented in soum plans.

2.1.2.2 The consultants will provide training for the PRM working group to enable them to:
     Develop and update pasture-land management plans
     Evaluate and assess soum pasture-land management plans
     Advice and support soums in pasture-land management planning.

2.1.2.3 The consultants will also build the capacity of the aimag land office to create and
        update pasture-land maps by providing training to aimag land officers in GIS and
        interpretation of the information produced by LEWS.

2.1.2.4 The Project will procure the computer equipment (A0 plotter, computer and printer)
        necessary to receive LEWS data and to facilitate the land office to produce and
        update pasture-land maps.


                                                                                             12
2.1.2.5 These activities will be monitored by the Aimag council/governor’s office and SLPO.
        Performance will be measured against deliverables identified in the consultant’s
        contract.


2.2 Implementation of soum pasture-land management plans

2.2.1    Support the implementation of pasture-land management plans in soums that
        have well monitored and regularly updated good quality plans.

Soums will hold annual planning events to update their pasture-land management plans.
Participants in the annual planning event will include representatives of herder groups, Bagh
governors, soum agricultural and/or land officers and environment inspectors and the soum
governor.

The purpose of the annual planning event is to update the annual pasture-land management
plan (i.e. determining changes in current use, locating and deciding types of feasible
improvements) and assess the impacts of proposed changes and improvements arising from
local initiatives or from external national and aimag programs. Expiring pasture land use
contracts (if and when they exist) between herder groups and Soum government will be
renewed during the annual planning event.

During this event, the soum will receive and assess proposals made by baghs and decide
which of these will be included in the annual plan. Activities/projects for implementation must
be fully consistent with the soum pasture-land management plan and should be prioritized so
that submissions can be made to the aimag for financial support. Activities will need to
comply with calendar dates for submission and no objection by soum and/or aimag
council/governor’s office to facilitate funds transfer through project, the World Bank, and the
Ministry of Finance (see the diagram in annex 1).

Implementation of these plans will be funded by a PRM Fund. The aim of the fund is to
ensure that investment decisions are based on a process of participatory and locally driven
pasture-land management planning. Investment activities/ projects will only be financed if
they are fully consistent with the annual soum pasture-land management plan.

2.2.1.1 Aimags will be assigned a proportion of the total PRM Fund available annually on the
        basis of herder population in the aimag. Annex 2 shows how the funds are to be
        allocated on this basis. The average annual fund allocation per soum is 5 million MNT
        equivalents, with a range of 4 - 7,5 million MNT per soum. Aimag council/governor’s
        office, with technical advice from aimag-level agriculture/ environment officers, will
        allocate funds to soums within their jurisdiction according to the assessed quality of
        the pasture-land management plans prepared, allowing flexibility to finance higher-
        quality plans with innovative or high-priority sub-projects at a slightly higher level.

2.2.1.2 Aimag council/governor’s office will receive soum pasture-land management plans
        with fully costed activities at the end of each year (closing date - 20 December each
        year) and assess these based on the criteria outlined below. Each activity will be
        accompanied by a completed project identification form from the soum secretary (see
        diagram in annex 4 which illustrates the timing of annual planning activities and
        procurement and disbursement).

2.2.1.3 Aimag council/governor’s office will allocate funds to soums based on the results of
        their assessment of the pasture-land management plan and the activities proposed.
        Decisions on funding allocation will be put into the MIS by the aimag secretary.

2.2.1.4 In the case of activities costing 5 million MNT or less, the aimag council/governor’s
        office acting on PRM working group recommendations will issue its no-objection to all

                                                                                            13
       activities that meet the PRM criteria and the procurement of civil works, goods and
       services will be done at the soum level. If the activity costs more than 5 million MNT,
       the aimag council/governor’s office will endorse the sub-project and send a
       consolidated list of endorsed projects to SLPO according to the PRM project form, via
       the MIS, to SLPO for no objection and procurement will be carried out at aimag level.

2.2.1.5 Aimag council/governor’s office will provide the no objection required to release PRM
        funds. In the first year of SLP2, a no objection will be required from SLPO in the 8
        pilot aimags. In the 13 new aimags, no objection from SLPO will be required for the
        first 2 years of implementation. Thereafter, no objection will be given by the Project
        through the MIS. This process is presented diagrammatically in Annex 4.

2.2.1.6 In summary the process of financing the implementation of pasture-land management
        plans is as follows;

           (i)     PRM plans will be evaluated and updated at the late fall/winter bagh
                   meeting. Priority projects will be put forward by bagh citizens to the soum
                   technical committee for inclusion in the coming year’s pasture-land
                   management plan.
           (ii)    The PRM plan and its prioritized sub-projects will then be taken to the
                   soum council/governor’s office for approval. These meetings will be
                   attended by representatives of herder groups, bagh governors, soum
                   agriculture and/or land officers and environment inspectors and the soum
                   governor. Based on consideration of all bagh priorities, along with
                   consideration of the technical feasibility, fit with PRM objectives, and costs
                   given a pre-determined envelope for PRM activities in each soum, this
                   meeting will decide or approve which of the PRM activities (PRM sub-
                   projects) will be submitted to the aimag for financing by the PRM FUND.
                   Soum SLP Coordinator will send the completed project identification PRM
                   Form A-1 to aimag council/governor’s office for its no-objection.
           (iii)   After receipt of no objection on sub-project implementation from aimag
                   council/governor’s office, following Procurement guidelines (see SLP-II
                   PIM on Procurement Manual of Goods, Works and Financial
                   Management), the soum council/governor’s office will decide whether or
                   not procurement should be done at aimag level or can be done at soum
                   level. In general, procurement of simple pastureland infrastructures and
                   simple goods readily available from soum and aimag-level suppliers can
                   be undertaken by the soum, whereas procurement of pastureland
                   infrastructure requiring specialized technical skills or high technology or
                   imported equipment should be handled at aimag level. If procurement is
                   the responsibility of the soum level, the soum council/governor’s office
                   may request in writing, to the aimag council/governor’s office to carry out
                   procurement on its behalf.
           (iv)    If procurement is done at soum level, the soum council/governor’s office
                   will carry out procurement and contracting for goods and works in
                   accordance with Procurement manual for sub-project and will send the two
                   original contract copies to aimag council/governor’s office with newly
                   completed project proposal PRM form A-1* and verification of beneficiary
                   contribution of not less than 10% total expenditure paid up-front.
           (v)     Aimag council/governor’s office will review the contracts, PRM form A-1*
                   and verification of beneficiary contribution. The aimag council/governor’s
                   office, assisted by the aimag project accountant, will make a consolidated
                   payment request to SLPO for 100% of the Project contribution to the
                   approved sub-projects. The payment request will specify the requested
                   amount on a soum-by-soum and subproject-by-subproject basis. After that
                   aimag council/governor’s office will send a scanned copy of the verification
                   of beneficiary contribution, original contracts and payment request to

                                                                                              14
                    SLPO via email while entering changed details of sub-project into MIS on
                    PRM Form A-1*. Also aimag council/governor’s office will send the
                    payment request with original contracts and verification note of beneficiary
                    contribution to SLPO by mail.
           (vi)     If procurement is done aimag level, the aimag council/governor’s office will
                    carry out procurement and contracting for goods and works in accordance
                    with Procurement manual for sub-projects. The aimag council/governor’s
                    office, assisted by the aimag project accountant, will make a consolidated
                    payment request to SLPO for 100% of the Project contribution to the
                    approved sub-projects. The payment request will specify the requested
                    amount on a soum-by-soum and subproject-by-subproject basis and
                    verification note of beneficiary contribution, original contracts and payment
                    request to SLPO. The newly completed project proposal PRM Form A-1*
                    will be sent to SLPO through the MIS. Also aimag council/governor’s office
                    will send the payment request with original contracts and verification note
                    of beneficiary contribution to SLPO by mail.
           (vii)    After reviewing MIS PRM Form A-1*, scanned contracts, verification of
                    beneficiary contribution, SLPO will transfer the funds to Aimag level SLP
                    bank account based on payment request.
           (viii)   PRM plan sub-projects will be reviewed by aimags and be passed on to
                    SLPO via the MIS for endorsement (no objection). The aimag PRM
                    working groups will ensure technical quality and good design of the
                    proposed activity (based on the criteria in the PRM PIM). Once no-
                    objection is received, soums will go to tender and assemble fully cost
                    proposals for review by aimags. SLPO will check and submit aggregated
                    batch requests to MoF. MoF payments for sub-projects will be sent directly
                    to aimag accounts. Of these project funds, 70 percent will be passed on to
                    the soums. The remaining 20 percent or final balance will be provided to
                    the aimag account on receipt of a satisfactory Project Completion Report.

2.2.1.7 Not less than 10% of total expenditure for any activity will be the beneficiary
        contribution (government and local community), which may be either in cash or in
        kind (labor, materials etc.). The local contribution will be made available at the
        beginning of project implementation.

2.2.1.8 In year 1, the Project will make funds available to those soums among the total of 143
        soums in the 8 pilot aimags that have undergone training during Phase I and have
        developed good quality, comprehensive pasture-land management plans. The funds
        will then be made available in a phased fashion to the 13 new aimags as training in
        pasture-land management is completed, reaching all 21 aimags by the end of phase
        2. (year 2 – 15 aimags, years 3 & 4 – all 21 aimags).

2.2.1.9 In order to be eligible for support, pasture-land management plans will be of high
        quality. The Aimag PRM working group will look for the following determinants when
        assessing the quality of soum pasture-land management plans:

   1. Consistency with existing guidance on land management and agricultural
      development (land use management guidelines of Agency for Land Affairs, Geodesy
      and Cartography) and any guidance approved by the NCCPM and the pasture-land
      management division of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture.

   2. Pasture land used by herder/user groups will be aggregated by bagh to include the
      total soum pasture-land area as the base pasture-land unit to compile the
      management plan.




                                                                                              15
   3. A calendar of annual pasture-land risk management activities presenting detailed
      information on timing and responsibilities of involved soum and bagh officials for each
      of key pasture-land and risk management activities during the year.

   4. Clarification of pasture-land management responsibilities and evidence of their
      inclusion in the output contracts of the relevant local government officers.

   5. Detailed information on the spatial distribution of natural resources (land,
      forage/browse, water, etc.), seasonal pasture-land carrying capacity units, current
      and potential uses of the natural resources by current users.

   6. Maps showing spatial data and the location of any proposed investments/projects.

   7. Evidence that all herders/user groups have been consulted and have had an
      opportunity to influence the plan and benefit from its implementation (evidence of one
      bagh meeting for each season that discusses both planned and emergency issues
      and makes a decision on matters within the bagh authority and submits proposals to
      the soum pasture-land risk management plan on matters beyond the bagh authority)

   8. An overview of risk reducing strategies and response measures

   9. Information on any degraded pastures and strategies to protect and restore them.

   10. Evidence of any existing pasture land use and other contracts.

   11. Information on environmentally sensitive habitats and any special management
       measures required (e.g. protected areas or habitats for endangered species).

   12. Information on the environmental impact of the proposed activities (positive or
       negative). Evidence of environmental assessments and EIAs where appropriate,
       including details of measures taken to mitigate any negative impacts.

   13. Justification of the selection of priority activities (sub-projects) for which the PRM
       FUND will be used.

   14. Institutionalization of support for herder-led innovations.

   15. Include fully costed proposal for the priority actions (sub-projects) to implement the
       plan including an assessment of funds available from the local
       community/government.


2.2.1.10 The following selection criteria will be used to assess the eligibility of soum pasture-
         land management pans for financing under the PRM FUND.

       Selection criteria
       The following are the criteria to be applied when assessing pasture-land management
       plans and sub-projects for financing by the PRM FUND.
           1. Screen proposed sub-projects against the list of ineligible activities (2.2.1.11)
           2. Evidence that the proposed sub projects arise from the pasture-land
               management plan.
           3. Evidence of consultation and herders and other stakeholders’ participation in
               proposing sub-projects.
           4. The number of herder households benefiting from and/or contributing to the
               sub-projects (including number of poor or vulnerable herder households).
           5. Evidence that the sub projects are consistent with national policies, viable and
               realistically budgeted.

                                                                                              16
           6. Amount of proposed local contribution in cash or in kind, or other indication of
              local commitment.

2.2.1.11       In addition to the criteria listed above, the following negative and positive lists
       will be used by the aimag PRM working Group to determine eligibility for the PRM
       FUND.

       List of ineligible activities for financing by the PRM fund
        Non-pastoral activities
        Environmentally damaging activities (to be verified by soum and aimag
           environment inspectors)
        Private sector activities
        Restocking
        Activities which restrict pastoral mobility
        Activities which restrict access to resources (especially water or pasture)
        The purchase of firearms, ammunition and poison
        Activities related to the control of infectious diseases (these are covered by the
           state budget)
        The rehabilitation or digging of new engineered wells (these are covered by the
           state budget)
        Activities that don’t meet national standards or comply with national legislation.
        Activities which exclude poor, marginal or minority ethnic groups.

       List of eligible activities under the PRM fund
        Water resource management (shallow wells, water distribution systems, rainwater
           and runoff capture, watershed management, small dams etc.)
        Pasture-land protection and rehabilitation (including reseeding and rehabilitating
           abandoned cropland)
        Improving hay production for soum emergency reserve
        Technical assistance and studies (e.g. hydro-engineer, seed selection, advice on
           implementation of land law, livestock breed improvement)
        Public infrastructure related to herding such as vaccination parks, emergency
           shelters, storage facilities etc.
        Public awareness tools (e.g. developing and printing information on pasture
           possession rights)
        Environmental activities (land rehabilitation, soil and water conservation, tree
           planting etc.)
          Other activities not mentioned on the negative list.

2.2.1.12        Soum and aimag environmental inspectors are responsible for ensuring the
       environmental sustainability of the pasture-land management plans, for carrying out
       environmental screening and for commissioning EIAs where necessary (the
       environmental screening forms in annex 6 will be updated in line with phase 2
       activities and approaches). Environmental Inspectors will receive training in pasture-
       land management, screening and environmental assessment to ensure that PRM
       activities are environmentally sustainable.

2.2.1.13      Progress towards implementing the pasture-land management plan will be
       reviewed at the end of each year and allocations in subsequent years are dependant
       upon successful implementation.

2.2.1.14      The soum council/governor’s office and the soum PRM technical committee
       will monitor the implementation of activities. The aimag council/governor’s office will
       have primary responsibility for ensuring that soum pasture-land management plans
       are implemented in line with proposed activities, with technical oversight from the
       aimag Working Group on PRM. Aimag secretaries will include data on the

                                                                                               17
       implementation of activities in the MIS. SLPO will monitor progress through the MIS
       and though closer appraisal of a sample of the activities supported.

2.2.1.15       Soums which are not successful in having their plans approved will receive
       written comments from the aimag council/governor’s office on the reasons for
       rejection. They will also receive hands on support from the aimag PRM working group
       to strengthen capacity and improve the quality of future plans.




                                                                                       18
3. Demonstrating good practice in pastoral livelihood improvement
Objective: To demonstrate good practice in pastoral livelihood improvement through
the facilitation of
    Information sharing;
    Market linkages;
    Service delivery; and
    Documenting and disseminating lessons learned.

SLP 1 demonstrated the importance of strengthening the capacity of herders and formal and
informal herder groups to engage with pasture-land management activities. In addition,
support was provided to herder groups and cooperatives through subsidized loans to
strengthen livestock husbandry and income diversification activities (small hand wells, felt
making, vegetable growing, selling and expanding hay and fodder production, etc.). In
Phase II, the emphasis is on strengthening the capacity of livestock herders to engage in
pasture-land management activities and to benefit from opportunities to generate income and
strengthen market linkages.

A PRM demonstration area was established in two soums of Tov aimag in the second half of
Phase I to help define the institutional needs for sustainable pasture-land management in
Mongolia. The demonstration was very successful in identifying some of the critical elements
required to sustain effective pasture-land management at a local level and the links needed
to aimag and national levels. In Phase II, additional demonstration areas will be established
in each aimag. The objective is to continue the learning started in Tov aimag and to
demonstrate good practice in pastoral livelihood improvement. A particular focus of the
demonstration areas will be sharing information, diversifying incomes, developing market
linkages and delivering services to herders. The experiences and lessons learned will be
documented and disseminated to allow replication of good practice and increase awareness
of effective pastoral livelihood strategies.



3.1 Improve information delivery to local communities

3.1.1   Support the delivery of information to local herding communities.

Access to information is becoming increasingly important to herder groups as their
participation in the market economy grows and Mongolia becomes an increasingly complex
society. Many herders have acquired solar or wind energy generators, and thereby have
access to national, and in some cases, international television, radio, and film. Information
on marketing & credit, local governance, extension services and emergency response and
among others, are issues that could be addressed.

3.1.1.1 Consultants will be hired by the project to work with the Project public relations and
        communications officer to identify ways of transferring information on pastoral risk
        management to herders. The consultants will develop ‘packages’ to be delivered
        through the mainstream media.
3.1.1.2 The communications officer will work with national broadcasters to air the PRM
        packages on national TV and Radio. Other methods of disseminating information,
        such as internet and mobile phones will be tested on a pilot basis.
3.1.1.3 The project will promote regular contact between soum and bagh officials and herder
        households to share information and ensure participation in pasture-land
        management planning and local decision-making. The project will provide incentives
        for soum officers and bagh governors to visit herders on a more regular basis through
        the provision of fuel allowances.


                                                                                           19
3.2     Develop PRM demonstration areas

3.2.1 Establish a demonstration area in each aimag

The PRM demonstration areas will be established based on the model developed in Tov
aimag during Phase I. The demonstrations will be in soum of each aimags. The choice of
demonstration areas/aimags will be validated by the national PRM working group. Tov aimag
will be maintained as a demonstration area with a lower level of engagement than the new
aimags.

3.2.1.1 The aimag council/governor’s office will select the soum for demonstration activities
        based on selection criteria to be developed by the project in advance of commencing
        this activity. The PRM working group will assist the Project to develop these criteria.

3.2.1.2 Consultants, who should ideally be the same company that provide pasture-land
        management training (3.1), will be recruited by the Project to facilitate activities in the
        demonstration areas, starting with four aimags in year 1st and 2nd each and 6 aimags
        in year 3rd and 4th each.

3.2.1.3 The consultants will undertake the following tasks;
   i.   Identify the methods, tools, technologies and institutions needed to build capacity for
        pastoral management at soum, aimag and national level.
  ii.   Use the information on forage and animal condition produced by the Livestock Early
        Warning System to inform pastoral risk management activities.
 iii.   Build on activities being implemented by SLP and other national and donor projects
        initiatives (e.g. pasture management tools and capacities developed in Phase I,
        support to herder groups).
 iv.    Develop a soum and aimag program that can (a) mitigate the impacts of drought and
        dzud, (b) strengthen local and national pastoral risk planning, (c) improve the pasture-
        land management capacity of soum governments and herders, and (d) improve
        herder capacity to make annual operating and management plans for livestock
        production.
  v.    Identify training and technical needs appropriate to pasture-land and risk
        management (e.g. hands on training in pastoral mapping, pasture-land management,
        contingency planning, livestock early warning systems and risk management) and
        feed these into the work being carried out to develop training programmes in activity
        4.2.
 vi.    Building local capacity to monitor activities and to extract and document lessons
        learned.

3.2.1.4 The consultants will work with the NCCPM and the pasture-land management division
        of MoFA to integrate the findings from the demonstration areas into national level
        policies, regulations, legislation and procedures (see component 2). Examples of this
        under Phase I include: (i) including responsibilities for pasture-land and risk
        management functions in output contracts, and (ii) developing government approved
        national guidelines based on experience gained in Phase I for annual soum land
        management planning in collaboration with the Agency for Land Relations, Geodesy
        and Cartography.

3.2.2   Continue to support and develop the Tov demonstration area.

3.2.2.1 The consultants hired in activity 3.2.1 above, will provide support to the
        demonstration area in Tov, and to the new demonstration areas once established
        through periodic visits and technical advice (Specific tasks to be defined in output
        contract).



                                                                                                20
3.2.2.2 The consultants will also monitor the outcomes and document key findings from the
        demonstration areas and communicate these to SLPO, the NCCPM and the
        pastureland management division of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture.




                                                                                      21
3.2.3    Support the development of innovative, risk averting and income diversifying
        activities through the provision of starter grants

Assist rural communities to develop innovative, risk averting and income diversifying
business activities, through the provision of competitive starter grants to test alternative
strategies in averting risks and improving household livelihoods.

3.2.3.1 Proposals will be solicited from locally operating herders, herder groups, cooperatives
        and SMEs by bagh khurals. Soum and aimag council/governor’s office will select
        successful proposals based on the criteria below, with no objection from SLPO. After
        approval by soum council/governor’s office, soum SLP Coordinator will send fully
        completed project identification PRM Form A-2 with original business proposal of the
        expected beneficiaries and verification of beneficiary contribution of up to 30% of total
        starter grant to aimag council/governor’s office for its review. Aimag
        council/governor’s office and PRM WG will review the documents and send the highly
        prioritized proposals for the starter grant to SLPO for its no-objection.

3.2.3.2 Best quality proposals selected from the soums will be eligible for business starter
        grants.

3.2.3.3 The starter grants will require a beneficiary contribution of up to 30% (in cash or in
        kind). In general higher beneficiary contributions will be looked on favourably,
        however there is some flexibility to ensure the inclusion of poor herders.

3.2.3.4 Business support is essential to assist herders to develop their ideas into sound
        business proposals. The consultants recruited to facilitate activities in the
        demonstration areas will work with the aimag PRM working Group and the aimag
        council/governor’s office to identify existing service providers to provide business
        support to herders (e.g. existing business support services developed under the Gobi
        Initiative). Where there is no existing service provider the consultants will work with
        aimag officials to identify a suitable entity to be trained to provide his service (e.g. the
        aimag extension service). The sustainability of service provision should be
        considered key criteria in selecting this entity.

3.2.3.5 Terms and conditions
        Grants will be provided to Individual herders and existing formal and informal herder
        groups, cooperatives and SMEs operating in the soum.

         The grants can be used for
          Innovative business generating and income diversifying activities of herder groups
            and cooperatives
          Public-good activities that manage or reduce risk
          Public-good activities which support livestock production and marketing
          Only in special cases would grants be made available that benefit individual
           households as opposed to groups.

        Grants will not be provided if a commercial loan is available.

3.2.3.6 Selection criteria
    1. Compatibility with the soum pasture-land management plan
    2. Number and composition of beneficiary households (including poverty status)
    3. Size of beneficiary contribution
    4. Feasibility (based on a full business plan)
    5. Cost-effectiveness
    6. Evidence of consultation with neighboring herders (conflict mitigation)



                                                                                                 22
3.2.3.7 Starter grants will be provided on a once only basis to provide the capital to get the
        business up and running.

3.2.3.8 A maximum of USD 15,000 is allowed for each project. If aimags approve grants
        under $15,000, the remaining funds can be used for additional projects.

3.2.3.9 Monitoring will be carried out by the independent consultants and an MDF loan officer
        will provide financial analysis to ensure that successful projects are documented in a
        form that can be used to develop new loan products in collaboration with financial
        institutions.

3.2.4 Applied adaptive research on feed preparation, production, processing and
distribution.

Animal feed preparation and production is a critical factor in strengthening individual
herder’s, herder groups and soum’s ability to plan for and respond to external shocks. This
activity will provide funds for applied, adaptive, research into feed production, processing and
distributing. The aim is to promote field-testing and to identify possibilities for locally relevant
feed production, which can benefit local communities.

3.2.4.1 Proposals for applied piloting and demonstration of innovations will be developed by
        herders, herder groups, cooperatives and SMEs. Initial selection will be made by
        bagh khurals and soum SLP council/governor’s office and passed on to the aimag
        council/governor’s office and SLPO for no objection. The PRM working group at
        aimag level will play an important role in assessing the quality and feasibility of the
        proposals.

3.2.4.2 The grant will be provided for 1 year with up to 30% local contribution (in cash or in
        kind). In general higher beneficiary contributions will be looked on favourably,
        however there is some flexibility to ensure the inclusion of poor herders.

3.2.4.3 Selection criteria
        1) Locally driven and locally relevant
        2) Include any academic research support in proposal costing (e.g. links to seed
           multiplication agencies, agriculture research institutes)
        3) Size of beneficiary contribution in cash or in kind
        4) Directly relation to feed production, processing or distribution.
        5) Strive to be economically viable and replicable
        6) Results must be shared with bagh, soum and aimag council/governor’s office so
           that findings can be disseminated.

3.2.4.4 The maximum amount of each demonstration grant is USD 15,000. If aimags approve
        grants under $15,000, the remaining funds can be used for additional projects.

3.2.4.5 The soum and aimag agriculture officers, the soum and aimag council/governor’s
        office and the aimag PRM working group will be responsible for monitoring activities.
        Research institutes, NGOs, professional associations and other civil society
        institutions can also provide ongoing monitoring and support if they are included in
        the project. A MDF loan officer will provide financial analysis to ensure that successful
        projects are documented in a form that can be used to develop new loan products in
        collaboration with financial institutions.

3.2.5 Documenting lessons learned, information sharing and publicity.

In order to collect and disseminate the lessons learned from the demonstration areas and
influence policy, procedures, legislation and regulations for pasture-land management careful


                                                                                                 23
monitoring, information sharing and publicity will be required. The channels for sharing
information with stakeholders in the PRM institutional framework are illustrated in annex 5.

3.2.5.1 Soum and aimag council/governor’s office will be responsible for monitoring the
        activities under implementation in the demonstration areas.

3.2.5.2 The consultants recruited under 4.2.1 will organize inter-soum and inter- aimag
        exchanges. They will also organize herder group exchanges to visit innovative
        activities supported the starter grants.

3.2.5.3 The consultants, in collaboration with the Project, will facilitate visits by NCCPM to
        observe progress and the findings of the demonstration areas.

3.2.5.4 In tandem with the activities described in 3.1.1, the Project PR and Communication
        officer will ensure that the experience and findings of the demonstration areas are
        disseminated and publicized. (e.g. TV, radio, bulletins, posters, newspaper articles).

3.2.5.5 The project will a commission films to raise awareness of pastoral risk management
        issues and to share good practice. The first film to be produced will facilitate training
        and capacity development by using the experience of the demonstration area in Tov
        to demonstrate aspects of effective PRM. Additional short films will facilitate capacity
        development and general awareness-raising. The project will enter negotiations with
        national TV to ensure that any films produced are aired. DVDs of the films will be
        distributed to soums and aimags to share information and build capacity.

4. Strengthening the institutional framework for PRM
Objective: To support the nationwide development of a multi-level institutional
framework for Pastoral Risk Management.

Establishing a functioning institutional framework for PRM was an objective of the Phase I
PRM component. At mid-term of Phase I, it was observed that progress towards this
objective was faltering due to an emphasis on local level activities without national level
oversight. The establishment of the National Coordinating Council for Pasture-land
Management (NCCPM) greatly facilitated the establishment of an institutional framework,
and lessons learned in the demonstration area in Tov aimag were instrumental in informing
the process. However, challenges remain if the objective of having a functioning institutional
framework operating nationwide by the end of Phase II is to be realised. The activities in this
component aim to support and strengthen the recently established national level institutions
on which the institutional framework and sustainability of PRM activities depend. In addition,
findings from the PRM demonstration areas will be used to inform and further develop the
policies, structures, process, regulations and legislation needed for sustainable pastoral risk
management.


4.1 Support the development of policy, legislation, regulations and standards
        for pasture-land management

4.1.1     Support the National Coordinating Council on Pasture-land Management
        (NCCPM) to promote the development and implementation of policies, legislation,
        regulations and standards for PRM through the implementation of its work plan.

4.1.1.1 The Project will provide financial assistance to NCCPM to contribute towards the
        implementation of its work plan. The work plan must be approved by the Council
        Chairman (Minister of Food and Agriculture) and regularly updated and monitored by
        government. Work to develop standards and regulations for pasture-land

                                                                                              24
        management are considered urgent activities (e.g. to regulate the allocation of
        pasture-land user or possession rights to herder groups).

4.1.1.2 The NCCPM will ensure that the experience of the project and the findings of the
        regional demonstration areas are incorporated into relevant government laws and
        procedures (e.g. pasture-land possession contracts in land law, requirements for
        output contracts and training requirements for local officers implementing PRM). The
        diagram in Annex 5 illustrates the links between stakeholders in the institutional
        framework and channels for feeding information into national level institutions.

4.1.1.3 Implementation of the work plan will be monitored by the Chairman of the NCCPM
        and SLPO.


4.1.2   Provide operational and technical support to the pasture-land management
        division of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture to facilitate the implementation
        of national policies.

4.1.2.1.        The Project will hire consultants to provide technical assistance to determine
        the role and terms of reference of the pastureland management division of Ministry of
        Food and Agriculture, to identify staffing needs and to assist with studies and
        research. The consultants will also organize training and study visits as required.

4.1.2.2 Financial support will be provided for the purchase of office furniture, computers etc.
        to equip the new institution’s office. The Project office will procure these goods as
        determined through needs analysis carried out by the consultants.

4.1.2.3 Activities will be monitored by the NCCPM, SLPO and the national PRM working
group.

4.2     Integrate the findings from the Project implementation and the PRM
        demonstration areas into the institutional framework

4.2.1   Develop national training programmes on pastoral risk management based on
        the tools and training tested in the demonstration areas.

Training programmes and materials will be developed which cover all aspects of pastoral risk
management as tested in the demonstration areas (risk planning and response measures,
pasture-land management, estimating and controlling stocking densities, estimating carrying
capacity, developing pasture-land maps, assigning use contracts, participatory planning and
decision making, etc.).

4.2.1.1 Consultants will be recruited by the Project to develop training tools and build training
        capacity to sustain the PRM institutional framework.

4.2.1.2 Training program will be developed in collaboration with the relevant institutions (e.g.
        the extension service of the MoFA, the pasture-land management division of the
        Ministry, the Agency for Land Affairs, Geodesy and Cartography, the Agriculture
        University, the Ministry of Nature and the Environment, the Water Authority). The
        training programs will be designed to help theses institutions deliver regular training
        to staff that engage in pasture-land management. Particular attention will be paid to
        identifying existing training delivery channels and developing ways to strengthen
        these.

4.2.1.3 The consultants will;
      i.   Produce manuals and a range of materials (books, CD-ROM, short films on DVD,
           PowerPoint presentations, etc.) to accompany the training programs and to

                                                                                              25
            facilitate training (as done in Phase I to develop guidelines on soum land
            management plans for the Agency for Land Affairs, Geodesy and Cartography).
      ii.   Provide training for trainers in the use of the programs & accompanying materials.
     iii.   Build the capacity of the pastureland management division of the Ministry to
            mainstream the use of the programs nationwide.

4.2.1.4 The pastureland management division of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture and the
        PRM Working Group will approve the final training programs and ensure that they are
        adopted by the participating agencies. The overall success of the training program
        (i.e. level of adoption, impact on local capacity for PRM) will be monitored by SLPO
        and the NCCPM.




                                                                                           26
THREE: SUPPORT STRUCTURES

Implementation of the PRM component will be supported by advisers from government, the
private sector and non-governmental organizations. Working groups at national and aimag
level will advise on the work of the Project and oversee activities. At soum level a less formal
Technical committee will be primarily responsible for developing pasture-land management
plans and taking decisions related to PRM.

   1.      National PRM working group - The working group works closely with the project
           implementation team and oversees the activities supported under the component.
           The members also serve as representatives of their organizations and keep the
           project team up-to-date with changes in policies, legislation etc. In addition the
           working group members act as conduits, sharing information on the Project with
           their institutions. The membership of this group in SLP-II will include;
            1) Chairperson – Head of Strategic Policy and Planning Department, Ministry
                  of Food and Agriculture
            2) Representative of Livestock Husbandry Division, Ministry of Food and
                  Agriculture
            3) Representative of the Pastureland management division, Ministry of Food
                  and Agriculture
            4) Representative of the Ministry of Nature and Environment
            5) Representative of the Agency for Land Administration, Geodesy and
                   Cartography
            6) Representative of the Water Authority agency
            7) Representative of the Research Institute for Animal Husbandry
            8) Representative of the Ministry of Finance
            9) Representative of NGO
            10) Head of division, SLPO
            11) Secretary – PRM coordinator, SLPO

           The chair of the working group will be responsible for communicating issues
           relevant to the component to the Steering Committee.

   2.      Aimag PRM working group - This working group is comprised of the head of the
           aimag agriculture office, the head of the land office, the environment inspector
           and a financial officer. In SLP-II, the working group will be responsible for
           technically assessing pasture-land management plans and other proposals from
           the soums. They will provide detailed technical recommendations on proposed
           activities to the aimag council/governor’s office to inform their decision-making.
           The working group will monitor the progress of pasture-land management plans
           approved for implementation through field visits and contact with soum officials
           and herders. In addition, the working group will provide assistance and further
           training to soums that fail to develop pasture-land management plans or who
           have weak capacity.

   3.      Soum PRM technical committee – The technical committee is comprised of the
           soum agriculture officer, the land officer, the environment inspector, the soum
           governor and representative bagh governors. The committee is charged with
           ensuring the sustainable management of pasture-land management in the soum
           through effective planning. They are responsible for assessing inputs and
           proposals from baghs and for incorporating these into annually updated pasture-
           land plans that are submitted to the aimag for implementation. The technical
           committee is responsible for the day to day monitoring of the implementation of
           the plan.




                                                                                             27
FOUR: PROCUREMENT

Procurement

     Purchasing of goods, works and services under PRM component will be
     undertaken in accordance with “Procurement Manual of Goods, Works and
     Financial Management” of the “Sustainable Livelihoods” project.


FIVE: FINANCIAL FLOWS

5    Transfer of Project Funds


     5.1   A soum level project bank account will be opened at the approved
           commercial bank in the soum, to receive funding from the SLPO for
           implementation of the sub-projects. Once the account has been opened,
           a letter will be sent by the soum SLP coordinator to SLPO informing it of
           the account details (name of bank, account number, etc.).

     5.2   For the PRM funds, the soum-level SLP bank account will receive the
           cash portion of the 10% local contribution from beneficiaries and local
           government prior to transfer of funds.

     5.3   If procurement was done at the soum level, the initial allocation of 70% of
           the total estimated cost of the sub-projects will be transferred to the
           soum-level SLP account for payment to the contractor.

     5.4   If procurement was done at aimag level, the aimag SLP Accountant will
           pay the contractor the initial 70% of the project contribution according to
           the payment schedule specified in the contract.

     5.5   Once a sub-project has been satisfactorily completed, and the final
           Supervision/Disbursement Completion Form (see appendices) is
           submitted to SLPO, through aimag SLP coordinator, with technical sign-
           off by a licensed inspector, if the procurement was done at soum level,
           the soum SLP council/governor’s office will make the final payment of
           20% to the contractor. If the procurement was done at aimag level, the
           aimag SLP Accountant will make the final payment of 20% to the
           contractor.

     5.6   If the procurement was done at soum level, the soum SLP coordinator
           will keep the original copy of financial receipts for all sub-project
           expenditure. If the procurement was done at aimag level, the aimag SLP
           coordinator will give the original copy of financial receipts for all sub-
           project expenditure to the aimag SLP Accountant.

     5.7   The aimag SLP Accountant will visit all soums at least twice per year to
           inspect financial receipts for implemented sub-projects. He will submit
           semi-annual reports to the aimag SLP council, PRM working group and
           SLPO on the status of financial management and record-keeping on a
           soum-by-soum basis.



                                                                                   28
SIX: MONITORING AND EVALUATION


1. Basic principles

Monitoring in PRM follows the following principles:
       Decentralisation. In line with the overall approach to project management,
        monitoring of activities funded through the PRM Fund will be decentralised to aimag
        levels. This is supported by a well functioning MIS system which allows on-line data
        sharing by all SLP aimags.
       Effective management of information: Systematic reporting will be required for all
        activities implemented under the PRM component. Monitoring information will be
        obtained from reporting on activities and processed within the SLP MIS. This will
        enable SLPO to monitor how key targets are achieved through each activity. In
        addition, key performance indicators have been defined which allow tracking
        progress towards achieving the component’s objective. Information on those key
        performance indicators will be obtained from the MIS.
       Strengthening stakeholder participation: Stakeholder participation is a key
        element of the PRM components. This includes stakeholder participation in
        monitoring. Stakeholder roles and responsibilities in monitoring have been defined
        for each activity. Monitoring information will be shared among stakeholders at all
        levels.


2. Institutional roles and responsibilities in M&E monitoring PRM

SLPO will have a central role in monitoring overall progress on implementation. In addition,
specific activities will be monitored by the following institutions.

Institution                          Role in monitoring PRM            Role in disseminating M&E
                                     activities                        information

SLPO                                 Monitors contracted services      Disseminates regular updates
                                                                       and lessons-learned
                                     Monitors use of funding through
                                     MIS
                                     Monitors key performance
                                     indicators
                                     Commissions impact studies

National Coordinating Council        Monitors evolving institutional   Disseminates lessons from
on Pasture-land Management           framework and identifies          demonstration areas and other
(NCCPM)                              lessons learned activities        PRM activities
                                     funded by the project

National PRM working group           Oversees all of the PRM           Act as conduits, sharing
                                     component activities              information on the Project with
                                                                       their institutions

Aimag PRM working Group              Monitors the quality and          Disseminates lessons from
(includes head of the aimag          implementation of pasture-land    pasture-land management
agriculture office, the head of      management plans approved for     planning and other sub
the land office, the environment     implementation through field      components
inspector and a financial officer)   visits and contact with soum
                                     officials and herders

Soum PRM technical                   Monitors implementation of        Provides information on the
committee (includes soum             pasture-land management plans     impacts of pasture-land

                                                                                                     29
Institution                      Role in monitoring PRM                Role in disseminating M&E
                                 activities                            information
agriculture officer, the land    on a day to day base                  management planning to herder
officer, the environment                                               households
inspector, the soum governor
and representative bagh
governors)

Consultants                      Monitor progress indicators in
                                 relation to their specific services



3. Monitoring PRM activities

PRM is planning to implement a range of activities through involvement of various actors,
including national institutions, aimags, soums, herders and consultants. Different types of
activities will require different approaches to monitoring.

During the following months, PRM will establish an effective system for monitoring all major
activities that will be implemented under the component. A framework for monitoring
activities is included in Table 2.

In the following, the basic approach for monitoring different types of activities is described:

       Activities that will be implemented by consultants and monitored by SLPO

For activities that will be implemented by consultants and monitored by SLPO, detailed
Terms of References will be prepared for each assignment that include responsibilities and
deliverables for monitoring activities, targets and, where applicable, results.

The following activities will be implemented by consultants:
    -   Establish functioning Livestock Early Warning System
    -   Provide technical assistance to the pilot Herder Alliance in Bayankhongor

    -   Provide operational and technical support to the new government body responsible
        for pasture-land management to facilitate the implementation of national policies

    -   Develop capacity and introduce the tools to create, regularly update and implement
        pasture-land management plans in the 13 new aimags

    -   Build aimag capacities to monitor pasture-land management planning and provide
        advice and support soums.

    -   Strengthening aimag and soum level disaster risk response plans

    -   Develop regional PRM demonstration areas




                                                                                                   30
The SLPO PRM coordinator will monitor:
   - Implementation of activities by the consultant according to the agreed work plan.
   - Targets that have been included in the work plan; they can include deliverables, like
      workshops, reports etc, but also output-related targets, like number of persons trained
      etc.
   - Results that have been included in the indicators framework, but will be achieved
      through activities implemented by the consultant. Results that need to be monitored
      by the consultant as part of his assignments include those in relation to capacity
      building, e.g. skills or awareness that have been built through the training. As part of
      his report, the consultant should provide evidence that those results have been
      achieved.

      Activities that will be implemented by consultants and monitored by other
       institutions

PRM includes a few activities that will be implemented by consultants to support capacity
building among government institutions. In those cases, government institutions will assume
a role in monitoring the activities in order to strengthen learning on innovative practices.

Activities                                             Monitored by

   -   Applied adaptive research on feed               Soum and aimag agriculture officers;
       production, processing and distribution.        soum and aimag council/governor’s office;
                                                       PRM working group

   -   Develop national training programmes on Pastureland management division of the
       pastoral risk management based on the   MoFA and the PRM Working Group, with
       tools and training tested in the        oversight from SLPO and the NCCPM
       demonstration areas

For those activities, SLPO will work out a monitoring plan in close cooperation with the
institutions involved in preparation of the assignment. This will help to ensure that
expectations on outputs are clarified in advance and will be sufficiently addressed through
the consultant’s work. The monitoring plan should also clarify communication among all
institutions involved.

      Activities that will be implemented by other institutions and monitored by SLPO

Some activities will be implemented by government institutions in support of their capacity
building. SLPO will monitor work progress and key performance indicators for those
institutions.

Monitoring will be done through regular communication and reporting on work progress.
Reporting requirements will be specified in the funding agreements.

Activity                                             Implemented by

   -   Strengthen national level response            National Coordinating Council on Pasture-land
       planning                                      Management (NCCPM)

   -   Support the National Coordinating Council     NCCPM
       on Pasture-land Management (NCCPM)
       to develop policy, legislation, regulations
       and standards for PRM through the
       implementation of its work plan.

                                                                                                     31
    -    Lessons learned, information sharing and       Soum and aimag councils/governor’s office,
         publicity                                      SLPO, the Pastureland management division of
                                                        MoFA and the NCCPM

    -    Rehabilitate aimag and inter-aimag             NEMA / State Reserve
         grazing and feed reserves



        Monitoring pasture-land management plans funded under the PRM Fund

Implementation of pasture-land management activities under the PRM Fund will be
monitored by soum councils/governor’s office and the aimag PRM working group.

The process for monitoring these activities is described in detail in Table 2.


4. Monitoring key performance indicators for PRM component

SLPO PRM coordinator will monitor key performance indicators for the PRM component
together with the SLPO M&E officer.

A detailed list of indicators is included in Table 1. The following table provides a summary of
indicators that will be monitored:

Headline Indicators                              Source of information                  Frequency

Outreach and performance of LEWS                 Consultants reports                    Half yearly



Pastoral risk management is becoming effective   Consultants reports                    Half yearly



Functioning institutional framework              NCCPM reports and direct               Ongoing
                                                 communication with SLPO



Scaling up of pasture-land management plans      MIS                                    Half yearly

Capacities for effective pasture-land            Consultants reports                    Half yearly
management
                                                 (detailed indicators to be developed
                                                 by consultant)

Performance of aimag PRM working groups          MIS                                    Half yearly
                                                 SLPO field visits

Capacities of soum PRM technical committee       MIS                                    Half yearly
                                                 Field visits

Change of herders’ behaviour                     Field visits                           Regularly

Implementation of activities under Citizen’s     MIS                                    Half yearly
Funds

Performance of business starter funds            MIS                                    Half yearly




                                                                                                      32
SLPO  will work out reporting formats for each activity to specify sources of information over
the next months.


5. Reporting structure and forms

An overview of reporting forms is included in Table 3: Forms for use in PRM

Details of the reporting form will be described in the M&E guidelines.


6. External evaluations/studies

       Herders outreach study

The objective of the study will be to assess how national, aimag and soum governments
have adopted effective approaches for disseminating information on pasture risks to herders
under SLP-2.

The study will assess how herders’ access to information has changed and how the interface
between government-herders has changed through new communication and management
practices.

The following outcome indicators will be assessed through the study:

        Increasing evidence that aimags and soums and herders receive information from
    LEWS and take preventive measures against risks accordingly in sample areas evaluated
    in years 2 and 4.

        Increasing evidence that herders have improved access to information on pastoral
    risk management accordingly in sample areas evaluated in years 2 and 4.

The assessment will track changes between year 2 (baseline) and year 4 for the same
sample areas. The study will be undertaken by an external institution with a proven expertise
on communication outreach among herders.

In year 4, the study would include an evaluation of the Herders Alliance initiative in
communicating LEWS outputs to herders and in providing them with effective disaster
preparation and response strategies


       Institutional assessment

The objective of the study will be to assess functioning of the institutional framework and
effectiveness of pasture risk management at all level.

The study will assess to what extent the institutional capacities for pasture risk management
have improved together with institutional linkages.

The following outcome indicators will be assessed through the study:

        National institutions are effectively coordinating pasture risk management among
    national stakeholders and across all aimags covered by SLP-II by year 4.

       Aimag and soum governments have institutionalised pasture-land management


                                                                                           33
    planning by year 4.

       Evidence that pasture-land management planning leads to improved communication
    and coordination among stakeholders involved in pasture-land management in sample
    areas between year 2 and year 4.

The assessment will track changes between year 2 (baseline) and year 4 for the same
sample areas. The study will be undertaken by an external institution with a proven
background on institutional assessments and a specific expertise on pasture-land
management.




                                                                                   34
Table 1. Key performance indicators that will be monitored by SLPO

Main contents                            Indicators                                                                          How this indicators will be   When
                                                                                                                                        1
                                                                                                                             monitored

Indicators to monitor outreach and                 LEWS covers 16 aimags by end phase 2.                                    Consultants reports           Half yearly
performance of LEWS
                                                   Effectively delivers early warnings to aimags, soums and herders that
                                              are covered by the project by year 4.
                                                   Increased government capacity (national, aimag and soum) to
                                              respond to warnings and mitigate risk by year 4.
                                                   Local government and herders in 9 aimags initiate an effective
                                              response. (winter preparations, feed reserves.) by year 4.
                                                   Herders’ alliance has been proven as a viable approach by end of
                                              Phase 2.

Indicators to monitor that pastoral                  Functioning stores for emergency feed exist at aimag and inter aimag   Consultants reports           Half yearly
risk management is becoming                   level (also in soums)
effective
                                                   Adequate amounts of feed are stored in hay and fodder stores
                                                    Feed is made available to herders during emergencies (more than
                                              before project)

Indicators to monitor functioning                  NCCPM is implementing work according to agreed work plan                 NCCPM reports and direct
                                                                                                                                                      2
                                                                                                                                                           Ongoing
institutional framework                                                                                                      communication with SLPO
                                                   Evidence of improved cooperation between government ministries
                                              and agencies
                                                   Regular meetings of the NCCPM and its working groups
                                                  Creation of a government body responsible for pasture-land
                                              management
                                                   NCCPM has taken steps to influence policies and legislation related
                                              to PRM
                                                   Action taken at national levels is informed by lessons from

1
  SLPO will oversee the development of specific indicators and data collection methods where consultants’ are responsible for monitoring. Clear ToR must be developed for
each assignment, describing what exactly needs to be monitored.
2
  SLPO needs to specify reporting requirements in the funding agreements.

                                                                                                                                                                         35
Main contents                          Indicators                                                                       How this indicators will be   When
                                                                                                                                   1
                                                                                                                        monitored
                                           demonstration areas

Indicators to monitor scaling up of             90% of the soums within the 21 aimags covered by PRM have              MIS                           Half yearly
pasture-land management plans              developed pasture-land management plans by the end of phase 2 (per
                                           aimag).

                                        Year 1      Year 2       Year 3     Year 4

                                        60%         70%          80%        90%

                                                 70% of the soums within the 21 aimags covered by PRM update their
                                           plans on a regular basis (per aimag).

                                        Year 1      Year 2       Year 3     Year 4

                                        40%         50%          60%        70%


                                                50% of the soum within the 21 aimags covered by PRM have
                                           implemented activities under pasture-land management plans by the end of
                                           phase 2 (per aimag).

                                        Year 1      Year 2       Year 3     Year 4

                                        20%         30%          40%        50%


                                                 Baghs actively engaged in pasture-land risk management planning
                                           (per soum), measured by evidence of meetings in relation to pasture-land
                                           management at bagh levels.

                                        Year 1      Year 2       Year 3     Year 4

                                        50%         60%          70%        80%


                                                More than 80% of the activities implemented have been prioritised by
                                           herders (per soum)

Indicators to monitor capacities for              Soum PRM technical committees in all 21 aimags have acquired the     Consultants reports           Half yearly
effective pasture-land management          skills to develop and update pasture-land management plans by year 4.
                                                                                                                        (detailed indicators to be
                                                90% of the soum pasture-land management plans developed and            developed by consultant)


                                                                                                                                                                    36
Main contents                            Indicators                                                                             How this indicators will be   When
                                                                                                                                           1
                                                                                                                                monitored
                                              updated fulfil the quality criteria defined by the project (per year).
                                                   Aimag working group has acquired the skills to assess soum plans
                                              and provide advice and support by year 4.
                                                   Soum PRM technical committees in all 21 aimags have adopted
                                              approaches for effective communication with herders on pasture-land
                                              management by year 3.

Indicators to monitor performance of                At least 3 monitoring visits per year to soums by aimag PRM WG             MIS                           Half yearly
aimag PRM working groups
                                                   Effective screening and response of environmental and social                SLPO field visits
                                              safeguards
                                                    Effective management of tendering processes

Indicators to monitor capacities of               Regular monitoring of activities by soum technical committee,                MIS                           Half yearly
soum PRM technical committee                  measured through evidence of field visits
                                                                                                                                Field visits
                                                    Share of projects that have met “no objection” criteria” per soum
                                                    Share of annual funds used per soum

Indicators to monitor change of                      Evidence that herders are increasingly taking measures for mitigating     Field visits
herders’ behaviour                            risk (e.g. feed stored and used, forage banks), observed during field visits.
                                                   Evidence that herders are putting forward increasing numbers of
                                              proposals for the soum planning process
                                                  Herders’ participation in bagh meetings where pasture-land
                                              management plans are discussed is increasing
                                                  All herders in PRM soums understand how activities on pasture-land
                                              managements are coordinated through soum plans, if asked.
                                                    A majority of herder are satisfied with implemented activities, if asked
                                              (through community score card)

                                                                                                             3
Indicators to monitoring                  Key information derived from the process, described under 4.                          MIS                           Half yearly
implementation of activities under


3
 SLPO needs to amend data collection forms for reporting in MIS as part of the preparation phase for SLP-2; the MIS officer must be involved to ensure that information
collected can be processed within the MIS system.

                                                                                                                                                                            37
Main contents                          Indicators                                                                How this indicators will be   When
                                                                                                                            1
                                                                                                                 monitored
PRM Funds

Indicators to monitor performance of   (Indicators to monitor use and performance of business starter grants )   MIS                           Half yearly
business starter funds




                                                                                                                                                             38
Table 2: Framework for monitoring activities implemented in PRM

Activity                    Implemented by             Monitored by   Information that goes into      Additional information that will be      When
                                                                           4
                                                                      MIS                             needed
                                                       SLPO
Establish functioning       Consultant                                         Basic contract        Evidence of the dissemination of the     Half
Livestock Early Warning                                                   information (costs,         outputs produced by LEWS                 yearly
System                                                                    services, deliverables,
                                                                          timing)
                                                                              Progress indicators
                                                                          on capacity building
                                                                              Progress indicators
                                                                          on outreach
                                                       SLPO
Provide technical           Consultant                                         Basic contract                                                 Half
assistance to the pilot                                                   information (costs,                                                  yearly
Herder Alliance in                                                        services, deliverables,
Bayankhongor                                                              timing)
                                                                                Indicators on
                                                                          institutional performance
                                                       SLPO
                            Consultant                                -                               Study to evaluate the success of the     Year 4
                                                                                                      initiative in communicating LEWS
                                                                                                      outputs to herders and in providing
                                                                                                      them with effective disaster
                                                                                                      preparation and response strategies
                                                       SLPO
Strengthen national level   National Coordinating                     Activities implemented by       Assess the integration of issues in      Year 2
response planning           Council on Pasture-land                   NCCPM and funded by SLP-2       relation to risk mitigation and          and 4
                            Management (NCCPM)                                                        response planning into national
                                                                                                      council’s work plan (NCCPM),
                                                                                                      impact of improved grazing and feed
                                                                                                      reserves on ability of sate to respond
                                                                                                      to emergencies.

Rehabilitate aimag and      Regular progress reports   NCCPM          Activities that have been                                                Half




                                                                                                                                                      39
Activity                        Implemented by             Monitored by               Information that goes into          Additional information that will be   When
                                                                                           4
                                                                                      MIS                                 needed
inter-aimag grazing and         provided by SLPO, NEMA /                              funded                                                                    yearly
feed reserves                   State Reserve

Strengthening aimag and         Consultant                 SLPO                                Basic contract                                                  Half
soum level disaster risk                                                                  information (costs,                                                   yearly
response plans                                                                            services, deliverables,
                                                                                          timing)
                                                                                              Progress indicators
                                                                                          on capacity building
                                                                                                Progress indicators to
                                                                                          monitor implementation and
                                                                                          effectiveness of response
                                                                                          plans

Support the National            NCCPM                      Government                 Activities that have been           Evidence to show integration of       Yearly
Coordinating Council on                                                               funded                              findings from demonstration areas
Pasture-land Management                                    SLPO                                                           into relevant government laws and
(NCCPM) to develop policy,                                                            Studies/research that have          procedures
legislation, regulations and                                                          been carried out
standards for PRM through
the implementation of its
work plan.

Provide operational and         Consultant                 SLPO and the NCCPM                  Basic contract                                                  Half
technical support to the new                                                              information (costs,                                                   yearly
government body                                                                           services, deliverables,
responsible for pasture-land                                                              timing)
management to facilitate the
implementation of national                                                                     Progress indicators
policies                                                                                  on capacity building
                                                                                          (includes staff hired, job
                                                                                          descriptions etc.)




Develop national training       Consultant                 Pastureland management              Basic contract                                                  Half
programmes on pastoral                                     division of MoFA and the       information (costs,                                                   yearly
risk management based on                                   PRM Working Group, with        services, deliverables,
the tools and training tested                              oversight from SLPO and        timing)


                                                                                                                                                                     40
Activity                       Implemented by       Monitored by                 Information that goes into         Additional information that will be   When
                                                                                      4
                                                                                 MIS                                needed
in the demonstration areas                          the NCCPM                              Evidence that the
                                                                                     training tools have been
                                                                                     developed and are being
                                                                                     used. Evidence that
                                                                                     trainers have been trained



Develop capacity and           Consultant           SLPO                                  Basic contract                                                 Half
introduce the tools to                                                               information (costs,                                                  yearly
create, regularly update and                                                         services, deliverables,
implement pasture-land                                                               timing)
management plans in the 13
new aimags                                                                                 Progress indicators
                                                                                     on roll-out of training
                                                                                           Indicators to monitor
                                                                                     application of skills and
                                                                                     effectiveness of plans.

Build aimag capacities to      Consultant           SLPO                                  Basic contract                                                 Half
monitor pasture-land                                                                 information (costs,                                                  yearly
management planning and                                                              services, deliverables,
provide advice and support                                                           timing)
soums.
                                                                                           Progress indicators
                                                                                     on roll-out of training
                                                                                          Indicators to monitor
                                                                                     application of skills

Regularly update soum          Soum PRM technical   Soum and aimag               Indicators to show that for                                              Yearly
pasture-land management        committee            councils/governor’s office   each plan:
plans                                               and working groups
                                                                                         Quality criteria have
                                                    Environment inspectors           been fulfilled;
                                                                                           Activities proposed
                                                                                     for funding are consistent
                                                                                     with plan
                                                                                          Coordination among
                                                                                     relevant institutions and
                                                                                     stakeholders has taken


                                                                                                                                                               41
Activity                       Implemented by        Monitored by              Information that goes into      Additional information that will be     When
                                                                                    4
                                                                               MIS                             needed
                                                                                   place
                                                                                        Environmental
                                                                                   sustainability has been
                                                                                   assessed
                                                                                        Ethnic minority
                                                                                   safeguards have been
                                                                                   applied

Support the implementation     Soum PRM technical    Aimag working group       (Approach described in                                                  Ongoing
of pasture-land                committee                                       Chapter 4))
management plans in
soums that have well
monitored and regularly
updated good quality plans
(PRM Fund)

Support the delivery of        External consultant                              - Types of information         Herders outreach study to assess        Year 2
information to local herding                                                   delivered, e.g. TV programme,   changes in:                             and 4
communities                                                                    radio bulletin
                                                                                                                       Herders’ access to
                                                                                                                        information
                                                                                                                       Effectiveness of information
                                                                                                                   dissemination
                                                                                                                       Improved government-
                                                                                                                   herders interface

Develop regional PRM           Consultant            SLPO                              Basic information on                                           Half
demonstration areas                                                                consultant contract                                                 yearly

                                                                                          Training provided
                                                                                       Outputs and
                                                                                   outcomes

Applied adaptive research      Consultant            Soum and aimag                    Basic information on                                           Half
on feed production,                                  agriculture officers,         consultant contract                                                 yearly
processing and distribution.
                                                     soum and aimag councils           Research activities
                                                     / governor’s office           funded


                                                                                                                                                            42
Activity                        Implemented by                Monitored by              Information that goes into     Additional information that will be   When
                                                                                             4
                                                                                        MIS                            needed
                                                              PRM working group                 Outputs and
                                                                                            outcomes

Support the development of      PRM WG, SLPO, aimag,          Independent consultants            Selection of                                               Ongoing
innovative, risk averting and   soum SLPC                                                   beneficiaries
income diversifying                                           MDF loan officer
activities through the                                                                            Socio economic
provision of starter grants                                                                 profile of beneficiaries
                                                                                                 Activities funded
                                                                                                Performance of
                                                                                            business starter grants

Lessons learned,                Soum and aimag                SLPO                      Activities funded
information sharing and         councils/governor’s office,
publicity                       SLPO, the new government
                                body responsible for
                                pasture-land management
                                and the NCCPM




                                                                                                                                                                 43
Monitoring implementation of activities under PRM Fund

1. Roles and responsibilities

      Soum PRM technical committees are responsible for preparing pasture-land management
       plans and implementing activities under the PRM’ Fund. They will monitor project
       implementing through regular field visits and feedback from herders

      The aimag council/local government will have primary responsibility for ensuring that
       proposed activities are implemented in line with soum pasture-land management plans with
       technical oversight from the aimag Working Group on PRM. They should therefore be
       informed during all stages.

      Aimag working groups will monitor the quality and technical content of pasture-land
       management plans. They will supervise activities implemented under the PRM fund through
       regular field visits.

      Aimag SLP coordinators will include data on the implementation of activities in the MIS.

      SLPO will monitor progress through the MIS and though regular field visits.


2. Monitoring implementation of pasture-land management activities under the PRM’ Fund

Monitoring priorities expressed by herders: PRM
aims at supporting a variety of activities related to       Basic information required to support
                                                            herders/bagh proposals include:
pasture-land management and risk mitigation,                -    Date and place of the meeting; name of
proposed by herders. Documentation of the proposal               chairperson
stage at bagh level will help monitor how herders’          -    Number of meeting participants
priorities have been expressed and taken forward                 (men/women)
into PRM plans. Project ideas will be discussed             -    List of priority activities / issues that have
                                                                 been discussed
during regular bagh meetings and/or meetings of             -    Why the priority activities have been
herders’ groups. Key information on activities                   proposed.
proposed by the meeting will be compiled and sent to        -    How they decided on priorities?
the soum for inclusion in the soum pasture-land
management plan.




                                                                                                                  44
Pasture-land management plans: Soum PRM technical                        Pasture land management plans include the
                                                                         following information:
committees will prepare a comprehensive pasture-land
                                                                         -     detailed information on pastoral resources
management plan based on sound technical assessment of                         and measures in place to manage them–
pastoral resources and the priorities expressed by herders.                    grazing management, water resources,
                                                                               winter and spring shelters, stocking
                                                                               densities, fodder stores, grazing reserves
The plan will provide a framework for activities that can be                   etc.
funded through the PRM Fund. Plans prepared by the soum                  -     maps showing spatial data and the location
PRM technical working group will be sent to the soum SLP                       of any proposed investments/projects.
council/governor’s office for approval.                                  -     evidence that all herders have been
                                                                               consulted and have had an opportunity to
                                                                               influence the plan and benefit from its
Pasture-land management plans will include a chapter on how                    implementation.
plans will be monitored over a period of time.                           -     risk reducing strategies and response
                                                                               measures
                                                                         -     degraded pastures and strategies to protect
Plans will be updated on an annual base.                                       and restore them.
                                                                         -     Evidence of any existing pasture land use
Pasture-land management plans include a range of activities                    and other contracts.
that will be implemented over a period of time. This includes            -    information on environmentally sensitive
                                                                              habitats and any special management
activities which could be funded through the PRM Fund.                        measures required (e.g. protected areas or
                                                                              habitats for endangered species).
                                                                         The plans remain for use with the soum PRM
                                                                         technical committee.


Additional information on activities to be funded:
                                                                         Information on activities to be funded will be
Additional information will be required on activities that will be       entered into the MIS, includes:
funded by the PRM Fund. The information will be included in              -     Justification for selection of priority
the yearly plan.                                                               activities;
                                                                         -     Summary sheet from bagh meeting;
The aimag SLP coordinator will enter basic information on                -     Confirmation that a full pasture
                                                                               management plan has been
activities approved for funding into the MIS system after “no                  prepared/updated.
objection” has been given by the aimag SLP                               -     Full costing (including an assessment of
council/governor’s office.                                                     funds available from government / local
                                                                               community)
                                                                         -     Measures for mitigating environmental or
                                                                               social risks (if applicable).




                                                                     The following information will be required:
Monitoring implementation of activities: Soum level PRM              - Name, profession, age of the supervisor(s)
technical committee) will monitor the implementation of              - Time (period) of supervision; number of site
activities under the pastureland risk management plan.                    visits
                                                                     - Consistency with pasture land management
                                                                          plan
They will summarize key information on project
                                                                     -       Problems found during supervision
implementation in a final completion sheet (supervision sheet).
                                                                     -       Have those problems been addressed/solved
                                                                             by the project management?
                                                                     -       Overall rating of final project (Do you think the
                                                                             final output is satisfactory?)




                                                                                                                     45
Field visits by Aimag work group. Aimag working               Checklist for Aimag work group:
groups will monitor implementation of the soum                - Reasons for funding certain activities
pasture-land management plans and visit selected              -     Compliance with soum plan
activities at least 3 times a year.                           -     Quality of implementation
                                                              -     Expected environmental, social and
They will provide immediate feedback on critical issues             economic benefits
and problems to the soum PRM technical committee.             -     Source of local contribution, ease of
                                                                    mobilizing it
Action points will be agreed and noted by aimag and
                                                              -     Feedback from herders: Are herders
soum managers.                                                      satisfied with the activities that have been
                                                                    funded? Who is likely to benefit most?
                                                              -     Others: Any Complaints? Evidence of
                                                                    misuse of funding?




Evaluating final sub-projects (community score
card): The community score card will provide user
feedback on quality of sub-projects. After completion of
each sub-project, a community score card will be filled           Note: A process similar to Score Cards in
in through a meeting of users and service provides.               CIF-2 will be adopted. PRM needs to
                                                                  define standard indicators that should be
For a community scorecard a meeting of community                  assessed for different activities.
members (herder households) must be convened after
the activities prioritized in the pasture-land
management plan have been completed.

Meetings can take place in conjunction (at one of the 4
bagh meetings planned per year – preferably in the
fourth quarter/fall meeting) with annual planning             For each score card, outcomes are summarized
                                                              as follows:
meetings where the soum pasture-land management               -     Date
plan is updated and new proposals are discussed.              -     Number and background of participants
                                                              -     Scores for each indicator
Representatives of the Soum technical committee               -     Additional explanation where low scores
should participate in the meeting for immediate                     have been given
feedback.

The summary of the scorecard will be filled in by the
facilitators selected for this meeting. It will be attached
the project completion report, to be sent to the aimag.




                                                                                                                   46
Monitoring pasture-land management plans: Soum PRM
                                                                    Note: The process for monitoring pasture land
technical committees are responsible for monitoring pasture-        management plans in a participatory way needs to
land management plans.                                              be defined. It will be described in the M&E
                                                                    guidelines.

Monitoring will include interactive herder meetings to review
progress on implementation and perceived changes.

Pasture resource maps will provide a good base for
participatory monitoring. Based on the review of what has
been planned and documented in the maps, the following
questions will be discussed:
    -   Activities that have already been funded;
    -   Location of investments
    -   Who is in these areas and therefore likely to benefit
        from these investments
    -   What changes have happened as a result from these
        investments
    -   What activities are proposed for the next funding
        cycle
Through this process, communities would strengthen their
awareness and capacities for local resource management.
Feedback on implementation should be communicated in
conjunction with proposals for the next planning cycle.

Review of pasture-land management plans can be done in
conjunction with the Community Score Card.


Documentation for plan report (soum): After project             Information that will be included in the project
completion, the soum project coordinator will compile           completion report:
information on project implementation into a final report and
                                                                -      Expenses sheet and proof of expenditures
sent it to the aimag project coordinator.
                                                                -      Summary of Community Score Card




                                                                                                              47
Table 3: Forms for use in PRM 5



Forms            Contents

Forms 1-         Same as CIF-2, but adapted to PRM activities
6

Form 7           Form to monitor activities that will be implemented by other institutions:
                        Basic contract information (costs, services, deliverables, timing)
                        Progress: outputs/milestones
                        Key Performance indicators that will be monitored

Form 8           Form to record information on key performance indicators, which will be monitored by
                 consultants/institutions. This includes:
                        Progress indicators on capacity building (number of staff trained etc.)
                        Indicators on outreach to herders
                        Indicators on institutional performance
                        Indicators to monitor effectiveness of response plans
                        Indicators to quality of PRM plans

Form 9           Business starter grants
                        Socio economic profile of beneficiaries
                        Activities funded
                        Performance of business starter grants



PRM Annex 1.                 Flow diagram
PRM Annex 2.                 Allocation of funds to aimags
PRM Annex 3.                 Justification for a Pastoral Risk Management approach
PRM Annex 4.                 Process diagram – Pasture-land management planning and implementation
PRM Annex 5.                 Pastoral Risk Management – stakeholders and roles
PRM Annex 6.                 Environmental assessment report form
PRM Annex 7.                 PRM proposal form for pastureland management plan activities
PRM Annex 8.                 PRM proposal form for pastureland management plan activities after tendering
                             or contracting
PRM Annex 9.                 PRM proposal form for starter grant
PRM Annex 10.                PRM proposal form for grant of feed preparation and production
PRM Annex 11.                Disbursement completion form – Soum
PRM Annex 12.                Disbursement completion form – Aimag
PRM Annex 13.                Certificate of project completion - Soum




5
    Detailed contents of forms will be described in the M&E guidelines.

                                                                                                        48
 PRM Annex 1

 PRM Flow Chart – pasture-land management planning and implementation




            SLP account MoFE             Steering Committee approves
                                         annual ex-ante fund allocation
                                                between aimags



                                                                                 National PRM Working
                                        Recommendation for fund                          Group
                                        allocation between aimags

                                      Semi-annual Reports on PRM


                                                                                 PRM plan development
                                    SLPO monitors through MIS
                                                                                   an implementation
                                    and gives no objection in yr 1
                                                                                    database in MIS
                                      of implementation only.


                                            Aimag project coordinator enters sub-projects into MIS



              SLP account in             Aimag council gives no                 Aimag PRM Working             Soums where plans
             aimag governor’s            objection or sends back              Group approves proposed         are repeatedly
                  office                     PRM plans for                      PRM plans & advises           rejected receive
                                              improvement                     aimag council/gov’s office      additional support
                                                                                                              from aimag PRM
Based     on    approved                                                                                      working group
plans, funds released to
local fund by aimag
                                           Soum council/gov’s office reviews                   Soum PRM
                                         submissions from baghs and approves                   technical
       PRM FUND to                        Soum pasture-land management plan                    committee
       implement approved sub                                                                  develop plan
       projects                                                                                based on
                                                                                               submissions


                           Bagh submissions to pasture-land management
                                               plans


         Bagh 1       Bagh 2         Bagh 3        Bagh 4        Bagh 5         Bagh 6         Bagh 7



                  Herder groups, community based organizations, khot ails and households




                                                                                                                        49
      PRM Annex 2

      PRM Fund Allocation Mechanism

      Objective: to ensure that funds are allocated in such a way that aimags with higher herder populations
      receive a higher proportion of the total funds. The fund-allocation mechanism shall be as transparent
      as possible.

      These aimag funds are then allocated to soums on a competitive basis based on the content and
      quality of submitted pasture-land management plans (see PIM section 2.2.1.9 for criteria for
      determining quality).

           PRM Fund Allocation Mechanism

           Year 1 (SLP1 pilot aimags only)
           Total funds available:         $715,000

                                                       Average annual
                          Herder                       fund               Funds/     Total                     Fund
                          population    No. of         allocation/soum    herder     funds/      Population    allocation
No.        Aimag          ('000 hh)     soums          ($)                hh ($)     aimag ($)   class         ($)
       1   Bayan-Olgii         10,961            14               5,500        7.0      77,000   >15,000           $6,500
                                                                                                 10,000-
       2   Uvs                 10,057             19             5,500       10.4      104,500   15,000           $5,500
       3   Bayankhongor        11,336             20             5,500        9.7      110,000   5,000-9,999      $4,500
       4   Omnogov'             6,283             15             4,500       10.7       67,500   0-4,999          $3,500
       5   Dundgov'             7,877             15             4,500        8.6       67,500
       6   Ovorkhangai         17,088             19             6,500        7.2      123,500
       7   Tov                  7,980             27             4,500       15.2      121,500
       8   Dornod               4,350             14             3,500       11.3       49,000
                               75,932            143             5,038        9.5      720,500

           Year 2 (SLP1 pilot aimags + demonstration + other new aimags)
           Total funds available:       $1,065,000

                                                       Average annual
                          Herder                       fund               Funds/     Total
                          population    No. of         allocation/soum    herder     funds/
No.        Aimag          ('000 hh)     soums          ($)                hh ($)     aimag ($)
       1   Bayan-Olgii         10,961            14               5,500        7.0      77,000
       2   Uvs                 10,057            19               5,500       10.4     104,500
       3   Bayankhongor        11,336            20               5,500        9.7     110,000
       4   Omnogov'             6,283            15               4,500       10.7      67,500
       5   Dundgov'             7,877            15               4,500        8.6      67,500
       6   Ovorkhangai         17,088            19               6,500        7.2     123,500
       7   Tov                  7,980            27               4,500       15.2     121,500
       8   Dornod               4,350            14               3,500       11.3      49,000
       9   Selenge              3,169            17               3,500       18.8      59,500
      10   Sukhbaatar           7,310            13               4,500        8.0      58,500
      11   Dornogov'            3,858            14               3,500       12.7      49,000
      12   Khentii              7,072            17               4,500       10.8      76,500
      13   Gov'soumber            505             3               3,500       20.8      10,500
      14   Darkhan Uul          1,005             4               3,500       13.9      14,000

                                                                                                                50
      15   Orkhon                    858           2               3,500         8.2        7,000
                                  99,709         213               4,674        10.0      995,500
           Years 3 & 4 (all aimags)
           Total funds available/year:   $1,655,000

                                                        Average annual
                           Herder                       fund               Funds/      Total
                           population    No. of         allocation/soum    herder      funds/
No.        Aimag           (hh)          soums          ($)                hh ($)      aimag ($)
       1   Bayan-Olgii          10,961             14              5,500        7.0       77,000
       2   Uvs                  10,057             19              5,500      10.4       104,500
       3   Bayankhongor         11,336             20              5,500        9.7      110,000
       4   Omnogov'              6,283             15              4,500      10.7        67,500
       5   Dundgov'              7,877             15              4,500        8.6       67,500
       6   Ovorkhangai          17,088             19              6,500        7.2      123,500
       7   Tov                   7,980             27              4,500      15.2       121,500
       8   Dornod                4,350             14              3,500      11.3        49,000
       9   Selenge               3,169             17              3,500      18.8        59,500
      10   Sukhbaatar            7,310             13              4,500        8.0       58,500
      11   Dornogov'             3,858             14              3,500      12.7        49,000
      12   Khentii               7,072             17              4,500      10.8        76,500
      13   Gov'soumber             505              3              3,500      20.8        10,500
      14   Darkhan Uul           1,005              4              3,500      13.9        14,000
      15   Orkhon                  858              2              3,500        8.2        7,000
      16   Khovsgol             16,082             24              6,500        9.7      156,000
      17   Zavkhan              10,278             24              5,500      12.8       132,000
      18   Gov'Altai             8,129             18              4,500      10.0        81,000
      19   Khovd                 9,356             17              4,500        8.2       76,500
      20   Arkhangai            15,991             19              6,500        7.7      123,500
      21   Bulgan                6,361             16              4,500      11.3        72,000
                              165,906             331              4,944        9.9    1,636,500




                                                                                                    51
PRM Annex 3

Justification for a pastoral risk management (PRM) approach to improving herder’s livelihood.

1.       Purpose of PRM

The Mongolian agricultural sector has undergone considerable change during “transition”
from the socialist command economy to a market economy. Between 1990 and the present,
herders and farmers have had to adapt to top-down driven markets and the loss of inputs and
services provided by the state. Although not financially sustainable, state provided inputs and
services during the collective period were fundamental to overcoming agricultural production
constraints in the Mongolian production environment. These changes, and the incomplete
integration of herders and farmers into the privatized, market-driven economy, continue to
impact crop and livestock production and management of production related risk..

Livestock production remains primarily an extensively managed, foraged-based production
system that is dependent almost solely on natural pasture-land. Drought and severe winter
weather cause losses in overall livestock and crop productivity, significantly increase livestock
mortalities, and degrade soils forming the agricultural resource base. Crop production, which
is mostly rain-fed, is also subject to, and limited, by natural factors, especially inadequate
precipitation at critical times as well as difficulty in obtaining inputs and services needed for
optimal crop production. Production risk, both environmental and financial to which the
agricultural producer is subjected in the developing market economy and transitional
production system, is increased by lack of suitable response options available to producers.

Herder Groups are subject to two primary categories of production risk: 1) environmental risk,
especially weather/climate and animal disease related factors, directly influence productivity
of animals and crops and indirectly influences livelihood sustainability, and 2) financial risk,
which influences the balance between costs of production and income from sale of livestock
and livestock off-take products and directly influences livelihood sustainability. Financial risk is
related directly to costs of production, prices received for agricultural products, financial terms
and indirectly to environmental risk and access to resources and inputs needed for efficient
production. Both kinds of risk interact with livestock production at two different scales: a
national/regional scale that affects production by altering livestock access to or use of
pasture-land resources (i.e., drought and severe winter storms or dzud), and at a scale
directly affecting livelihood of the agriculture producer (i.e., livestock mortality or diminished
productivity). While the Mongolian livestock herder has had experience in resolving
environmental risk, prior experience with financial risk is limited to the transition period.

An effective risk management system must be responsive to producers needs. Currently,
neither the private nor public sector is responsive to those needs because:

        Risk management programs are not effectively institutionalized in either the public or
         private sectors. Even with prior warning of adverse weather events, livestock herders
         and farmers do not have access to alternatives that can mitigate environmental and
         financial risks inherent to agricultural production in the Mongolian environment.

        In the livestock sub-sector, lack of access to inputs, especially livestock feed inputs
         that include forage, hay, and manufactured feeds, is a fundamental limiting constraint

                                                                                                 52
       to sustainability and development of the livestock sub-sector and substantially
       increases herders exposure to both environmental and financial risk. The feed
       production sub-sector is not sufficiently developed to allow herder groups to produce or
       purchase supplies of animal feed.

      An important and related risk factor is the declining quality of livestock and lack of
       access to veterinary medicines and veterinary assistance, which will further retard
       adaptation of existing livestock herds to fill increasingly health-conscious consumer
       demand for “healthy” meat products that are increasingly perceived by new
       generations of consumers as being beef and lamb as opposed to mature livestock.

      Equally limiting to the livestock sub-sector is the lack of an adequate marketing system
       to link producers with consumers. As commercialization of the agriculture sector
       continues, a private sector production level organization that allows herders and
       farmers to respond adequately to avert environmental and financial risk and enable
       them to compete in the developing market economy is needed.


Risk management cuts across all components of agricultural production and should be
addressed within the overall context of agricultural production as it relates to livestock
production at producer, regional, and national levels, rather than as a specific component of
agricultural production. Government needs to address agricultural development from the
perspective of mitigating environmental and financial risk in agricultural production,
specifically to the primary and secondary producers in the agricultural production system, and
generally to Mongolian agricultural production within a national and international context.
Management of herder production risk requires the active participation of government (i.e.,
public sector) and non-government participants (i.e., the private sector). In Table 4, the
environmental and financial risks associated with livestock production in different Mongolian
agro-ecological zones, and suggestions to mitigate these risks, are presented.




                                                                                            53
Table 4. Regional Differences Affecting Mongolian Livestock Production.

Eco-Region          Environmental Factors      Livestock Production        Livestock        Livestock Production      Suggestions to mitigate risk to regional
                                               Risk Factors                Suitability      Strengths                 livestock production.
1. Hangai-             elevation between         winter cold and         Native yak,         forage production         Increase animal access to nutrients
Hovsgol.Region          2000 and 3000 m;           deep snow limit         native cattle,       on natural pasture         during winter and spring by growing hay
(Aimags of             mean annual                animal access to        sheep and            land during                and fodder crops on abandoned or
Arhangai,               temperature                forage and              reindeer             soummer and fall is        marginal cereal grain land.
Hovsgol, Bulgan         between -                  nutrients and           (Hovsgol             high,                     Reduce animal stocking rate by shifting
and Zavhan).                                       reduce efficient use    Plateau),           harvesting forage          marginal livestock producers to
Mountainous             low temperature in         of available            hybridization        with grazing               alternative forms of livelihood including
region of high          January of -               nutrients.              with English         animals during             producing hay, fodder, and supplements
elevation and           and high                  lack of access to       breeds of            soummer and fall is        for sale locally or to other nutrient
deep valleys with       temperature in July        water during cold       cattle               optimal,                   deficient regions.
some forest and                                    periods can be          suitable if         hay,fodder and            Change pastoral livestock production
arid steppe;           between 60 and             major factor limiting   winter and           grain production           system from yearlong forage
                        100 frost-free days;       animal production       spring               potentials are             dependence to greater dependency on
                        annual precipitation      over stocking of        supplemental         relatively high.           nutrient input during the winter and
                        between 200 and            livestock can           nutrients                                       spring seasons.
                        >400 mm;                   change species          provided.                                      Regulate animal numbers according to
                       average wind               composition and                                                         seasonal access to nutrients
                        speed between 2-4          induce soil,                                                           Limit goat and camel numbers in the
                        m/sec;                     vegetation, and                                                         livestock herd.
                       snow cover often >         water degradation                                                      Improve herd genetics to meet
                        15 mm in depth.                                                                                    developing market demand for quality
                                                                                                                           meat by crossing native cattle with
                                                                                                                           English breeds.
                                                                                                                          Improve livestock producer access to
                                                                                                                           animal production inputs and competitive
                                                                                                                           markets for offtake products..




                                                                                                                                                                       54
Eco-Region          Environmental Factors      Livestock Production        Livestock     Livestock Production        Suggestions to Improve Regional Livestock
                                               Risk Factors                Suitability   Strengths                   Production and Mitigate Risk
2. Selenge-Onon        elevation between         winter cold and         Native or        principle                  Increase animal access to nutrients
Region (Aimags of       1500 and 2000 m;           deep snow can limit     hybrid            agricultural                during winter and spring by growing hay
Tov, Selenge and       mean annual                animal access to        cattle and        cropping area for           and fodder crops on abandoned or
Bulgan). The            temperature                forage and              sheep.            Mongolia;                   marginal cereal grain land and improved
                                                                                                                                  1/
region is a basin                                  nutrients and                            rainfed & irrigated         hayland
with drainage to                                   reduce efficient use                      cultivation of cereal      Reduce animal stocking rate by shifting
the north.              coldest                    of available                              grains (wheat,              marginal livestock producers to
                        temperature in             nutrients.                                barley, rye, oats)          alternative forms of livelihood including
                        January (-                lack of access to                         and hay is possible         producing hay, fodder, and supplements
                        and warmest                water during cold                         and creates                 for sale locally or to other nutrient
                        temperature in July        periods can be a                          opportunities to            deficient regions.
                                                   major factor limiting                     produce livestock          Regulate animal numbers according to
                       between 70 and             animal production;                        feed grains and             seasonal access to nutrients
                        120 frost free days,      over-stocking of                          silage;                    Limit goat and camel numbers in the
                       annual precipitation       livestock can                             forage production          livestock herd,
                        between 250 and            change species                            on natural                 Change pastoral livestock production
                        400 mm;                    composition and                           rangelands during           model primarily dependent on forage
                       Snow cover                 induce soil,                              soummer and fall is         yearlong to “nutrient supply” model
                        averages 5 to 10           vegetation, and                           high,                       dependent on harvested feeds during
                        mm in depth;               water degradation                        harvesting forage           winter and spring and forage during
                       wind speed                                                           with grazing                soummer and fall.
                        averages between                                                     animals during             Primary region suited to development of
                        4 to 6 m/sec.                                                        soummer and fall is         an integrated, semi-extensive livestock
                                                                                             optimal for                 production system
                                                                                             rangeland use.




                                                                                                                                                                     55
Eco-Region              Environmental Factors        Livestock Production Risk    Livestock     Livestock Production          Suggestions to Improve Regional Livestock
                                                     Factors                      Suitability   Strengths                     Production and Mitigate Risk
3. Altai Region            elevation between 1500      winter cold and deep     cattle,          shrub dominated              Increase animal access to nutrients during
(Aimags of Uvs,             and 4000 m;                  snow limit animal        sheep,            rangeland are optimal         winter and spring by growing hay and fodder
Bayan-olgii, Hovd,         mean annual                  access to forage and     goats and         winter and spring             crops in oases, by rehabilitating abandoned
Zavhan and Gobi-            temperature between -        nutrients and reduce     horses in         season rangelands             irrigation developments as irrigated hayland
Altai). High mountain       2.5                          efficient use of         the north,        for adapted livestock;        (i.e., especially legumes such as alfalfa), and
and desert valley           low temperature of -         available nutrients.     sheep,           harvesting forage and         by importing animal feed from more efficient
region in western                                       forage and browse        goat, and         browse with adapted           feed producing regions.
Mongolia.                   high temperature of          production potential     camel in          grazing animals              Reduce animal stocking rate by shifting
                                                         on natural shrub         the south.        during all seasons is         marginal livestock producers to alternative
                           between 60 - 120 frost       rangelands is low;                         optimal,                      forms of livelihood, by rationalizing livestock
                            free days;                  lack of access to                         hay, fodder and grain         numbers and kind, and by obtaining higher
                           precipitation between        water during cold                          production potential is       annual livestock turnover.
                            400 and 500 mm.              periods can be major                       low except in a few          Regulate animal numbers according to
                           Snow depth ranges            factor limiting animal                     oasis and developed           seasonal access to nutrients
                            between 5 to >15 mm          production                                 irrigated areas.             Limit Cashmere goat, cattle, and horse
                           wind speed can occur        over-stocking of                                                         numbers as a proportion of herd.
                            between 2 and 6 m/sec.       livestock in northern                                                   Improve application of the pastoral, extensively
                                                         area can change                                                          managed livestock production model by
                                                         species composition                                                      developing and rehabilitating wells and by
                                                         and induce soil,                                                         facilitating distribution of livestock and
                                                         vegetation, and water                                                    livestock producers.
                                                         degradation
                                                        environmental
                                                         influences in southern
                                                         area, such as drought
                                                         and/or dzud in
                                                         combination
                                                         overstocking, can
                                                         change “steady state”
                                                         conditions very
                                                         quickly as well as
                                                         decimate large
                                                         herbivore populations




                                                                                                                                                                     56
Eco-Region             Environmental Factors        Livestock Production Risk     Livestock     Livestock Production          Suggestions to Improve Regional Livestock
                                                    Factors                       Suitability   Strengths                     Production and Mitigate Risk
4. Central and            elevation between 900       winter cold and deep      sheep,           Has potential as an          Increase animal access to nutrients during
Eastern Steppe             and 2000 m;                  snow can limit animal     goat,             area to produce hay           winter and spring by developing improved hay
Region. (Aimags of        mean annual                  access to forage and      horse,            and other livestock           and animal feed grains capacity on abandoned
Dornod, Hentii,            temperature between          nutrients and reduce      camel,            feeds (i.e., during the       hay and crop farms for sale locally or to other
                                                                                                                                                              1/
Sukhebaatar,               0.0                          efficient use of          and cattle        collective era, there         nutrient deficient regions.
Dorngobi and               low temperature in           available nutrients.      according         were 20 state hay            Improve livestock production potential of the
Dundgobi).Broad,           January of -                lack of access to         to sub-           farms in the region).         region by developing wells and livestock
essentially treeless       high temperature of          water during all          region           Considerable unused           shelters
grass steppe region                                     seasons except along                        rangeland exists in          Regulate animal numbers according to
(north part) and          between 110 and 140          major rivers is a                           the eastern and               seasonal access to nutrients
shrub steppe/desert        frost free days,             major factor limiting                       northern part of the         Limit goat and camel numbers in the livestock
(south part) in           precipitation between        animal production;                          region,                       herd.
central and eastern        150 and 250 mm.             equilibrium                                Has potential to             Change pastoral livestock production model
Mongolia.                 Snow depth ranges            ecosystem function                          become an export              primarily dependent on forage yearlong to
                           between 5 to 10 mm           whereby over                                region for livestock          “nutrient supply” model dependent on
                          wind speed can occur         stocking of livestock                       offtake because of            harvested feeds during winter and spring and
                           between 4 and 8 m/sec.       can change species                          close proximity to            forage during soummer and fall.
                                                        composition and                             railroads, water             Develop regional value-added facilities to
                                                        induce soil,                                transportation, and           improve export potential.
                                                        vegetation, and water                       large population
                                                        degradation                                 areas in China,
                                                       High winds during                           forage production on
                                                        spring and lack of                          natural rangelands
                                                        topographic animal                          during soummer and
                                                        shelter can limit                           fall is high,
                                                        livestock production                       harvesting forage with
                                                        efficiencies;                               grazing animals
                                                       Difficulty of access to                     during soummer and
                                                        major markets and                           fall is optimal for
                                                        low human population                        rangeland use.
                                                        is a major constraint
                                                        except in the western
                                                        portion of the region
                                                        and along the rail
                                                        corridor.




                                                                                                                                                                     57
Eco-Region           Environmental          Livestock Production Risk Factors       Livestock     Livestock Production        Suggestions to Improve Regional Livestock
                     Factors                                                        Suitability   Strengths                   Production and Mitigate Risk
5. Gobi Region          elevation             lack of snow water for grazing      native           shrub dominated            Increase animal access to nutrients during
(Aimags of Gob-          between 700            animals is a major factor limiting  sheep,            rangeland are optimal       winter and spring by importing supplemental
altai, Bayan-            and 1400 m;            livestock distribution and          goat, and         winter and spring           feeds.
hongor, Ovor-           mean annual            production in the Gobi Region.      camel             season rangelands          Improve livestock distribution and production
hangai, Dundgobi,        temperature           environmental influences such as                      for adapted livestock;      potential of the region by developing wells and
Omnogobi, Gobi-          between                drought and/or dzud in                               harvesting forage and       livestock shelters
Soumbaer, and            0.0                    combination with overstocking                         browse with adapted        Regulate animal numbers according to
Dorngobi). Semi-                                can change “steady state”                             grazing animals             seasonal access to nutrients
arid and arid            low January            conditions very quickly and as                        during all seasons is      Limit horse and cattle numbers in the livestock
southern section         temperature of         well as decimate large herbivore                      optimal,                    herd and maintain correct proportions of goat
of Mongolia              -                      populations.                                         region has highest          and sheep.
                         high                  Difficulty of access to major                         potential to support       Maintain and improve pastoral livestock
                         temperature of         markets and low human                                 Cashmere goat               production model primarily dependent on
                                                population is a major constraint                      production.                 forage/browse yearlong by improving animal
                        between 90 to          to sustainable livelihoods.                                                       distribution capabilities of the livestock herder
                         > 130 frost free      Over-rowsing of shrubs which                                                      (i.e., access to water, transportation and
                         days,                  dominate vegetation                                                               supplemental feed).
                        variable               communities can not be easily                                                    Develop regional value-added facilities to
                         precipitation of       mitigated.                                                                        improve export potential.
                         100 mm                hay,fodder and grain production                                                  Develop cross border marketing linkages.
                        wind speed             potential is low except in a few                                                 Encourage faster livestock turnover and initiate
                         between 2 and          oasis and developed irrigated                                                     annual “severe culling” at the end of the fall
                         8 m/sec                areas.                                                                            grazing season.
                         occurs.               Arid ecosystems are prone to                                                     Focus livestock production to take advantage
                                                both environmental and                                                            of local, national, and international markets
                                                anthropromorphic desertification                                                  developing along the rail and road corridor.
/
  Improved Hayland-Protect from animal grazing during growing season, where possible irrigate as needed, apply organic and inorganic fertilizer, use mechanical harvest
methods, improve storage facilities.




                                                                                                                                                                       58
PRM Annex 4: Process diagram – Pasture-land management planning and implementation (sub component 2)

                                                           January to March

                                                       Aimag approve plan and costed
                                                        activities by the 1st February
                                                       SLPO approves and transfers the
                                                        money.
                                                       Commence tendering
                                                        process/procurement by 1st March




                                                                                                               April to May
          October to December
                                                                                                     Aimag scanned contractor proposals sent to
       Evaluate implementation of current year’s                                                     SLPO for NOL
        plan                                                                                         Beginning of May the funds 100%
       Baghs propose activities to soum based on                                                     received by aimag
        input from herders                                                                           Funds allocated to contractor by aimag
       Soum technical committee updates and                                                          council/governor’s office (70%)
        prepares next year’s plan – submit to                                                        Activities under implementation.
        aimag by 20 Dec.                                                                             Monitoring by soum Technical Committee
                                                                                                      and aimag PRM working group


                                                          June to September

                                                       Evaluate and sign off the implemented
                                                        activities
                                                       Aimag disburses remaining funds
                                                        (20%) on proof of successful
                                                        completion
                                                       Initiate planning process for next year




                                                                                                                                             59
PRM Annex 5
Pastoral Risk Management – stakeholders and roles




                                                       NCCPM                       Monitoring / lesson learning




                                                                                                                  FRAMEWORK
                                                                                                                  DEVELOP PROCESSES TO STRENGHTEN THE INSTITUTIONAL
                                                                                                                                                                      R & d FINDINGS
                                                                                                                                                                      EXPERINEC IN PROMOTING INOVATIVE ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES
                                                                                                                                                                      EXPERIENCE IN PRM FROM DIFFERENT AEZs
                                                                                                                                                                      REGIONAL DEMONSTRATION AREAS
                                                         Experience in
                  Pastureland management                 PRM informs               SLPO
                  division of MoFA
                                                         NCCPM

                                                                          Disbursement

                                                    Aimag council –
                                                    reviews PLAN                  Aimag PRM
Mainstreams                                                                       working group
findings of
Demonstration
Areas, training and                             Soum council/gov’s
policies                                          office approves                 Soum PRM technical
                                                                                  committee develops plan
                                             Proposals
                                                           Priorities
                                                                        Pasture-land                Monitoring
                            Update                     Baghs            management plan
                            plan
                                           Meetings

                                                HERDERS – Target Group


                                                         Annual Pasture-land management planning process


                                                                                                                                                                                         60
                              Pastoral Risk Management - Project Implementation Manual

PRM ANNEX 6:               ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT FORM

                                                                                            PRM FORM №7

                                                                                                     st
This form is to be filled by aimag environmental officer and aimag SLP coordinator and sent to SLPO by 1 December each
year


                                                         Quantity              Description
Aimag
Reporting year
Completed by
Position
Date

No. of sub-projects financed by the CI this
year
No. of sub-projects financed by the CI
subject to General EIA this year
No. of sub-projects financed by the CI
subject to Detailed EIA this year

No. of sub-projects financed by the PRM
this year
No. of sub-projects financed by the PRM
subject to General EIA this year
No. of sub-projects financed by the PRM
subject to Detailed EIA this year

No. of sub-projects financed this year
No. of sub-projects subject to General EIA
No. of sub-projects subject to Detailed EIA

No. of sub-projects refused by General
EIA:
Because      Well location which harmful to
of           biodiversity
             Contradiction with
             soum/aimag pasture
             management plan
             Contradiction with land policy
             and utilization plans
             Negative environmental
             impact
Projects subject to General EIA:                         Environmental         Recommendation
                                                         problem
1.
                       Pastoral Risk Management - Project Implementation Manual

2.


3.


4.


5.


6.


7.


Is the SLP contributing to improved
pastoral management in your aimag?
             Yes, it is contributing to
             pastoral management
             No, it’s worsening pastoral
             degradation
             It has had no impact either
             way
             It’s too easy to say

Is the SLP negatively influence on the                           Description
biodiversity sensitive areas?
              Yes
              No


            It’s too easy to say


What are the key actions for better local environmental assessment ? .




Reported by ………………..                                    / aimag environmental officer/
                                                   Date ……/…./200.

                                                                                         62
                         Pastoral Risk Management - Project Implementation Manual


 PRM ANNEX 7: PRM PROPOSAL FORM FOR PASTURELAND MANAGEMENT
                       PLAN ACTIVITIES

                                                                                    PRM FORM A-1

1.   Name of aimag
2.   Name of soum
3.   Date of approval of
     pastureland management
     plan by soum
     council/governor’s office
4.   Bagh Citizens’ involvement
     in evaluating and updating
     the plans (All baghs
     initiated activities and
     contributed to the plan? If,
     not – Why?)



5.   List of prioritized and cost
     activities according to the                Name of activity/project             Estimated cost
     soum pastureland                                                                 (000’ MNT)
     management plans
                                      1

                                      2

                                      3

                                      4

                                      5

                                      6

                                      7

                                      8

                                      9

                                      10

6.   Project location (in which
     bagh territory)


7.   Project objective




                                                                                                      63
                        Pastoral Risk Management - Project Implementation Manual

8.    Project scope & activities &
      expected outputs




9.    Project implementation
      period
10.   Name and register number
      of project leader
11.   Project name

12.   Project code

13.   Project expenditure                Unit        Unit cost     Total units     Total cost (000’
      Description of expenditure                                                        MNT)
      - Materials
      -
      -
      -
      -
      -
      -
      . Labour costs
      Total

14.           Contribution             % of                       Amount [000’ MNT ]
                                       Total       Materials     Labour cost Cash          Total
                                       Cost
                                      (not less
                                     than 10%
                                       of total
                                       expen-
                                       diture)
      Beneficiary contribution

        - Contribution from local
         government
        - Contribution from local
         communities
15.   Financing required from
      project
16.   Owner of the facility for
      further operation
17.   Operating cost /per year/

18.   Sources of funding for
      operating cost /per year /
19.   Project initiators:    Total     Herder       Poor HHs       Vulnerable        Disabled
                                     households                       HHs

20.   Direct beneficiaries   Total     Herder       Poor HHs       Vulnerable        Disabled
      number                         households                       HHs


                                                                                                      64
                             Pastoral Risk Management - Project Implementation Manual

    21.   Indirect                 Total      Herder         Poor HHs     Vulnerable         Disabled
          beneficiaries                     households                       HHs
          excluding direct
          beneficiaries
    22.   Ethnic minorities                       Project initiators             Direct beneficiaries
          participation in the project      -kazakh                       -kazakh
          (only for Bayan-Olgii, Uvs,       -buriad                       -buriad
          Dornod aimag )                    -bayad                        -bayad
                                            -durved                       -durved
                                             -tsaatan                      -tsaatan
                                            -other                        -other
    23.   Cost per beneficiary herder
          household [tg/households
          benefiting]
    24.   Criteria                                                      Appraisal
                                              Yes          No             If not, Why? [give reason]
          Screen proposed sub-                Yes          No
          projects against the list of
          ineligible activities (2.2.1.11
          of PRM PIM)
          Evidence that the proposed          Yes          No
          sub projects arise from the
          pasture-land management
          plan.
          Evidence of consultation            Yes          No
          and herders and other
          stakeholders’ participation
          in proposing sub-projects.
          (Date of bagh meeting
          minutes, number of
          participants)
          Not less than 10%                   Yes          No
          contribution of the total
          expenditure ready
          Evidence that the sub               Yes          No
          projects are consistent with
          national policies, viable and
          realistically budgeted




Approved by Soum SLPC/GOVERNOR’S OFFICE

Head of Soum SLPC/Soum Governor …………………………………………/                                                       /

SLP coordinator of the Soum ………………………………………………….../                                                     /



Reviewed by Aimag SLPC/GOVERNOR’S OFFICE

Head of Aimag SLPC/Aimag Governor …………………………………………../                                                           /

SLP coordinator of the Aimag…………………………………………………...../                                                       /



                                                                                                        65
                         Pastoral Risk Management - Project Implementation Manual

PRM ANNEX 8: PRM PROPOSAL FORM FOR PASTURELAND MANAGEMENT PLAN
             ACTIVITIES AFTER TENDERING OR CONTRACTING

                                                                                          PRM FORM A-1*

 1.    Name of aimag
 2.    Name of soum
 3.    Project location (in which
       bagh territory)
 5.    Project objective

 6.    Project scope & activities &
       expected outputs




 7.    Name and register number
       of project leader
 8.    Project name

 9.    Project code

 10.   Project expenditure                 Unit         Unit cost      Total        Total cost (000’MNT)
       Description of expenditure                                      units
       - Materials
       -
       -
       -
       -
       -
       -
       . Labour costs
       Total
                                        % of Total                   Amount [000’ MNT ]
                                          Cost          Materials     Labour            Cash
                                                                       cost
 11.   Beneficiary contribution

         - Contribution from local
          government
         - Contribution from
          beneficiary communities
 12.   Financing required from
       project
 13.   Owner of the facility for
       further operation

 14.   Operating cost /per year/

 15.   Sources of funding for
       operating cost /per year /



                                                                                                           66
                         Pastoral Risk Management - Project Implementation Manual

    16.   Procurement of goods and             Methods                     Name of contractor
          works
          -                           -                            -

          -                           -                            -

          -                           -                            -

          -                           -                            -

          -                           -                            -

          -                           -                            -



Approved by Soum SLPC/GOVERNOR’S OFFICE

Head of Soum SLPC/Soum Governor …………………………………………./                                              /

SLP coordinator of the Soum ………………………………………………….../                                             /



Reviewed by Aimag SLPC/GOVERNOR’S OFFICE

Head of Aimag SLPC/Aimag Governor …………………………………………../                                               /

SLP coordinator of the Aimag…………………………………………………....../                                              /




                                                                                                67
                             Pastoral Risk Management - Project Implementation Manual

PRM ANNEX 9: PRM PROPOSAL FORM FOR STARTER GRANT

                                                                                        PRM FORM №2

   Objective of the starter grants is to support development of innovative, risk averting
   and income diversifying business activities and to test alternative strategies in
   averting risks and improving household livelihoods.

   1.    Name of aimag
   2.    Name of soum
   3.    Name of locally operating
         individual herders, herder
         groups, cooperatives and
         SMEs selected by soum
         councils/Governor’s office.
   6.    Project location (in which
         bagh territory)


   7.    Project objective




   8.    Project scope & activities &
         expected outputs (i.e.
         Please explain why are you
         looking for starter grant?)




   9.    Project implementation
         period
   10.   Name and register number
         of project leader

   11.   Project name

   12.   Project code




                                                                                                      68
                          Pastoral Risk Management - Project Implementation Manual

13.   Project expenditure                   Unit         Unit cost      Total units        Total cost
      Description of expenditure
      - Materials
      -
      -
      -
      -
      -
      -
      -
      -
      -Labour costs

      TOTAL
14.              Contribution              % of                       Amount [000’ MNT]
                                          Total        Materials      Labour     Cash                Total
                                          Cost                         cost
                                          (up to
                                         30% of
                                          total
                                         expen-
                                         diture)
      Beneficiary contribution

15.   Amount of grants required
      from project
19.   Project initiators:  Total          Herder         Poor HHs      Vulnerable         Disabled
                                        households                        HHs

20.   Direct beneficiaries      Total     Herder         Poor HHs      Vulnerable         Disabled
      number                            households                        HHs

21.   Indirect                 Total      Herder         Poor HHs      Vulnerable         Disabled
      beneficiaries                     households                        HHs
      excluding direct
      beneficiaries
22.   Ethnic minorities                       Project initiators              Direct beneficiaries
      participation in the project      -kazakh                        -kazakh
      (only for Bayan-Olgii, Uvs,       -buriad                        -buriad
      Dornod aimag )                    -bayad                         -bayad
                                        -durved                        -durved
                                         -tsaatan                       -tsaatan
                                        -other                         -other



24.   Criteria                                                       Appraisal
                                          Yes          No                  Details of category
      Compatibility with the soum         Yes          No
      pasture-land management
      plan




                                                                                                             69
                          Pastoral Risk Management - Project Implementation Manual

        Number and composition of        Yes         No
        beneficiary households
        (including poverty status)


        Size of beneficiary              Yes         No
        contribution


        Feasibility (based on a full     Yes         No
        business plan)


        Cost-effectiveness               Yes         No




Approved by Soum SLPC/GOVERNOR’S OFFICE

Head of Soum SLPC/Soum Governor …………………………………………./                                   /

SLP coordinator of the Soum ………………………………………………….../                                  /



Reviewed by Aimag SLPC/GOVERNOR’S OFFICE

Head of Aimag SLPC/Aimag Governor …………………………………………../                                    /

SLP coordinator of the Aimag…………………………………………………....../                                   /




                                                                                     70
                          Pastoral Risk Management - Project Implementation Manual


PRM ANNEX 10: PRM PROPOSAL FORM FOR GRANT OF FEED PREPARATION
                       AND PRODUCTION

                                                                                     PRM FORM №3

The aim is to promote field-testing and to identify possibilities for locally relevant
feed production, which can benefit local communities. This activity will provide funds
for applied, adaptive, research into feed production, processing and distributing.
1.    Name of aimag
2.    Name of soum
3.    Name of individual herders,
      herder groups,
      cooperatives and SMEs
      selected by soum
      councils/khurals.
6.    Project location (in which
      bagh territory)


7.    Project objective




8.    Project scope & activities &
      expected outputs (i.e.
      Please explain why are you
      looking for grant for feed
      preparation & production?)




9.    Project implementation
      period
10.   Name of project leader

11.   Project name
12.   Project code




                                                                                                   71
                          Pastoral Risk Management - Project Implementation Manual

13.   Project expenditure                   Unit         Unit cost      Total units         Total cost
      Description of expenditure
      - Materials
      -
      -
      -
      -
      -
      -
      . Labour costs

      TOTAL
14.              Contribution              % of                          Amount [Tg ]
                                          Total        Materials     Labour cost  Cash                Total
                                          Cost
                                          (up to
                                         30% of
                                          total
                                         expen-
                                         diture)
      Beneficiary contribution

15.   Amount of grants required
      from project
19.   Project initiators:  Total          Herder         Poor HHs       Vulnerable         Disabled
                                        households                         HHs

20.   Direct beneficiaries      Total     Herder         Poor HHs       Vulnerable         Disabled
      number                            households                         HHs

21.   Indirect                 Total      Herder         Poor HHs       Vulnerable         Disabled
      beneficiaries                     households                         HHs
      excluding direct
      beneficiaries
22.   Ethnic minorities                       Project initiators               Direct beneficiaries
      participation in the project      -kazakh                        -kazakh
      (only for Bayan-Olgii, Uvs,       -buriad                        -buriad
      Dornod aimag )                    -bayd (durved)                 -bayd (durved)
                                         tsaatan                        tsaatan
                                        -other                         -other
24.   Criteria                                                       Appraisal
                                          Yes          No                  Details of category
      Locally driven and locally          Yes          No
      relevant

      Include any academic                Yes          No
      research support in
      proposal costing (e.g. links
      to seed multiplication
      agencies, agriculture
      research institutes)
      Size of beneficiary                 Yes          No
      contribution in cash or in
      kind
      Directly relation to feed           Yes          No
      production, processing or
      distribution
                                                                                                              72
                         Pastoral Risk Management - Project Implementation Manual

        Strive to be economically       Yes         No
        viable and replicable

        Results must be shared          Yes         No
        with bag, soum and aimag
        council/governor’s office so
        that findings can be
        disseminated.

Approved by Soum SLPC/GOVERNOR’S OFFICE

Head of Soum SLPC/Soum Governor …………………………………………../                                     /
SLP coordinator of the Soum ………………………………………………….../                                 /

Reviewed by Aimag SLPC/GOVERNOR’S OFFICE

Head of Aimag SLPC/Aimag Governor …………………………………………../                                    /
SLP coordinator of the Aimag…………………………………………………....../                                  /




                                                                                    73
                             Pastoral Risk Management - Project Implementation Manual


               PRM ANNEX 11: DISBURSEMENT COMPLETION FORM - SOUM
                                                                                                  FORM №4
This form should be completed by soum SLP coordinator and submitted to aimag
SLPC/Governor’s office.

Aimag name
Soum name
Project component name
Sub-project name
Sub-project code

The expenditures disbursed by supporting financial documents
 ¹          Type of expenditures            Unit       Unit cost                 Total      Total cost
                                                                                quantity
I     Materials




II    Transportation cost




III   Labour cost




IY    Equipment hiring fee



Total expenditure disbursed by supporting documents
Total amount of sub-project financing
Counterpart from local budget                                Materials        Labour       Cash
                                                                              cost

Contribution from local organization(s)
Contribution from beneficiaries
Total amount of non disbursed fund
Remaining funds


SLP coordinator of the Soum ………………………………/                                                                /

Date: …..…………

                                                                                                         74
                                                Pastoral Risk Management - Project Implementation Manual



                                     PRM ANNEX 12 - DISBURSEMENT COMPLETION FORM - AIMAG
                                                                                                                                                 FORM №5

This form should be completed by aimag SLP coordinator and submitted to SLPO with Disbursement completion form-soum.

Aimag name: …………………………..                                  Project component name: ……………………….

Soum, bag        Sub- project name    Sub-        Type of project   Financing from         Soum                   Disbursed PRM        Non disbursed
                                      project                       SLPO                   SLPC/Governor’s        fund by              PRM fund
                                      code                                                 office received        disbursement
                                                                                           PRM fund               report from soum
                                                                                                                  SLPC/Governor’s
                                                                                                                  office
                                                                      amount       date      amount        date     amount      date    amount     date
PASTORAL RISK MANAGEMENT
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
                           TOTAL

        SLP coordinator of the Aimag…………………………………………………........./                                                                         /
                                  Pastoral Risk Management - Project Implementation Manual

PRM ANNEX 13: CERTIFICATE OF PROJECT COMPLETION – SOUM

                                                                                                                FORM №6



    Certificate of project completion of _________________________________________,
                                                                                  /indicate the project name/

          __________________________ in soum, _________________________ aimag.

Date ____/____/200..

It is to certify that in the framework of the Sustainable Livelihoods Project, a Project of ”
_______________________________________________________” was implemented
                               /project name/

 from _____ 200.. to _____ 200.. in _________________________________________,
    /day, month/   /day, month/              /name of project area/
                                                                    _____________________ bag,
_______________________________________ soum, __________________ aimag and
received by _______________________________________________________________.
                                                        /name of organization and herder group/

Therefore, it has been asked to transfer the remained money of project total finance _____ percent or
__________ tugrugs to the project account “Sustainable Livelihood” of the soum SLPC/Governor’s
office.
________________________, ___________________soum, _____________aimag will
/name of organization, herder group/coops, SMEs/

be responsible for further normal operation of project implementation.


The following individuals worked and controlled on the project implementation on behalf of local
citizens.

                             1. ________________/_________________________/
                                                /signature/                          /name/

                             2. ________________/_________________________/
                                                /signature/                          /name/

                             3. ________________/_________________________/
                                                /signature/                          /name/




The citizens certify that the project is (a) good quality________; (b) technically sound__________; (c)
in working order_________; (d) in use________; (e) has no negative environmental or social impact:
_______




The project full completion was agreed and certified by:


                                                                                                                     76
                          Pastoral Risk Management - Project Implementation Manual

Head of Public Citizen Meeting of ____________ soum, ______________ aimag
                                    ________________/________________/
                                        /signature/                /name/



Governor of ____________ soum or Chairman of soum SLPC, ___________ aimag
                                ________________/___________________/
                                         /signature/                 /name/



Director of __________________, a Project implementing organization
               /name of organization/


                              _________________/_________________/
                                          /signature/               /name/




                                                                                     77

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:5
posted:9/27/2012
language:Unknown
pages:77