Fewer, Better Animals · Center for Policy Research COP17 project detailsFinancial Model
FINANCIAL MODEL

The investment case, stress-tested

A $1.8M pilot across three soums — one in each of Mongolia's key ecological zones — built entirely from CPR's own implemented pilot data and bottom-up herder transition costs, and pressure-tested against dzud, drought, and market risk before we put a number on the page.

$1.8M
Total ask — 3 soums, 30% participation, 4 years
28.8%
De-risked EIRR (Mongolia data-derived climate/market factor)

Four components, one soum-level system

Arkhangai, Bayankhongor, and Uvurkhangai — one soum each, covering forest-steppe, steppe, and Gobi. 20% herder participation, scaled to a costed pathway toward full adoption.

$990.4K
Pasture Use Agreements + Single-Point Collection
$359.1K
Lamb Fattening — 51 packages, 3 staggered cohorts, incl. herder training costs
$102.9K
Disease-Free Zone certification
$257.1K
Monitoring & verification, all 3 soums
$100.0K
MRV upgrade — birth-to-death animal registration + herder app (proposed)

Cost and benefit, year by year

Costs reflect fixed setup (training, Single-Point facilities), participation-linked spend, bottom-up herder transition & quality-compliance costs (built from real NSO livestock cost data), and a proposed MRV upgrade. Benefits combine pasture-productivity income (PUA + Single-Point) and lamb meat-sale revenue (Lamb Fattening) — two distinct income sources, not double-counted. Year 4 holds Year 3's benefit and cost flat, reflecting local stakeholders continuing the model at their own cost after project funding ends in Year 3.

Year Cost Benefit Net
Year 0 $128.0K $0 -$128.0K
Year 1 $597.7K $500.2K -$97.5K
Year 2 $568.3K $892.9K $324.6K
Year 3 $515.5K $856.4K $340.9K
Total Project (Years 0–3, the funding ask) $1,809.5K $2,249.5K $440.0K
Year 4 (local continuation, not project-funded) $515.5K $856.4K $340.9K
Grand Total (Years 0–4, full IRR/NPV cash flow) $2,324.9K $3,105.9K $781.0K

Source: GreenLab Financial Model, "Project" sheet — built from CPR pilot data (KfW Buffer Zone, UNDP/GEF ENSURE, UNDP/GCF ADAPT, ADB Cooperative-Based Sustainable Agriculture, EBRD Cashmere) and bottom-up transition costs from NSO livestock production cost data, including herder training costs for Lamb Fattening.


What happens to the return under real risk

The undiscounted 4-year IRR is 83.7% — but that assumes every dollar of pilot-validated benefit lands on schedule, with no allowance for dzud, drought, price shocks, or the real transition costs herders bear when destocking and meeting quality standards. We tested that assumption directly rather than leave it unstated.

Benefit retained Scenario IRR
100% No discount — pilot-validated, undiscounted, bottom-up transition costs included 83.7%
90% Modest haircut 51.2%
83.2% Mongolia data-derived (25-yr dzud + price history, 3 pilot aimags) — recommended pitch figure 28.8%

Costs — including bottom-up herder transition and quality-compliance costs, built from real NSO livestock cost data and herder training costs for Lamb Fattening — held constant across all scenarios; this stresses realized benefit, not spend. The 83.2% factor is derived from 25 years (2000–2024) of Mongolia dzud-loss and livestock-price data specific to the 3 pilot aimags — see the full financial model workbook's "Risk Calibration" sheet for the complete dataset and derivation.

Why 28.8%, not 83.7%: a project whose return only survives if nothing goes wrong isn't a credible pitch in a country where dzud and drought are recurring, material risks. We lead with the de-risked figure — grounded in 25 years of actual Mongolia climate and price data, not a borrowed assumption — because it's the number we're prepared to defend under scrutiny. The undiscounted case is real upside, not the baseline claim.

Why implementation and stabilization risk aren't applied on top: implementation risk (discounting the chance an unproven program underdelivers) doesn't apply — our EIRR comes from CPR's already-implemented pilots, not projections. Stabilization risk (discounting benefit lapse after project support ends) is already built directly into the model's structure — Year 4 is explicitly modelled as local stakeholders continuing at their own cost, not project funding — so a separate discontinuation discount would double-count an effect the cash flow already represents.


Built from the project's own bottom-up model, not asserted

The 28.8% de-risked EIRR is not an isolated projection — it's built up from two verified growth drivers in the same financial model, not a separate claim layered on top.

+97.2%
Productivity growth (income per sheep-unit) — the core driver, from the financial model's bottom-up household calculation
+45.0%
Household income growth (19M→27.9M MNT, net of transition costs) — the practical outcome for a participating family

No further capital required after Year 3

Once established, herder income gains persist for the 15+ year term of the Pasture Use Agreement — a durable return, not a one-time bump. Year 4 is already modelled with local stakeholders continuing at their own cost, not project funding.

15+ yrs

Benefits continue at Year 3/4 levels for the life of the Pasture Use Agreement, in line with the 20-year appraisal horizon standard for rural natural-resource-management investments (World Bank, ADB, GCF) — without further project funding.


Want the full model?

Every assumption, formula, and sensitivity scenario — live in Excel, not just summarized here. Available on request, so we can walk you through the methodology directly.