INDICATOR CODE: NBC - 1
SIMPLIFIED NAME OF INDICATOR: Accessions of PGFRA germplasm at crop genebank including field genebank
TYPE OF INDICATOR: Output
INDICATOR DESCRIPTION: A variety of crop from a location is considered as one accession. The accession indicate the diversity of PGFRA that is conserved at genebank and in some of the field genebanks (community). A broad genetic base PGFRA is essential for adaptation and resilience to effects of climate change. The conservation of PGFRA at genebank and field genebanks will help protect the loss of genetic resources due to natural calamities and disasters.
RATIONALE FOR INDICATOR:
A broad genetic base PGFRA is essential for adaptation and resilience to effects of climate change. The conservation of PGFRA at genebank and field genebanks will help protect the loss of genetic resources due to natural calamities and disasters.
INDICATOR HISTORICAL TRENDS AND FUTURE PROJECTIONS:
|
Historical performance achievement (before start of 11 FYP
|
Projections for indicators (targets) under 11 FYP
|
Fiscal Year
|
2011
|
2012
|
2013-14
|
2014-15
|
2015-16
|
2016-17
|
2017-18
|
Targets related to 11 FYP
|
1200
|
1358
|
1520
|
1750
|
1980
|
2210
|
2500
|
ANALYSIS OF INDICATOR BEHAVIOUR:
OTHER RELATED INDICATORS:
INSTITUTION RESPONSIBLE FOR INDICATOR OVERSIGHT:
National Biodiversity Centre
KEY PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR INDICATOR MANAGEMENT:
EU-GCCAP Focal Point:
Ms. Sangay Dema, Dy. Chief Biodiversity Officer, National Biodiversity Centre, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Thimphu, Bhutan
Phone: 17710881
E-mail: sdema06@gmail.com
METHODOLOGY FOR INDICATOR MANAGEMENT:
Stage in Data Management
|
Description
|
Data type selection (what is data to be collected and its level of aggregation)
|
Hard copy minutes of decisions made at meetings together with list of all partners attending and any documents reviewed at meetings (electronic copies of the same).
|
Data sources (what is the collection instrument)
|
Minutes template for Donor Coordination Group meetings
|
Data collection (who is responsible for collecting)
|
Minutes are collected by the Secretary to the Donor Coordination Group
|
Data processing (who carries out data entry and data processing and how)
|
Draft minutes are forwarded to the partners of the Donor Coordination Group for verification and are finalised after any substantive comments from partners have been verified at PPD.
|
Data presentation (how)
|
Minutes are presented in a format/template that highlights decisions taken by the Donor Coordination Group.
|
Data reporting (by whom to whom)
|
Final verified minutes are: (i) provided to the Chairman of the Donor Coordination Group for any actions needed immediately after verification by partners (within one-two weeks of the meeting); and (ii) reported at the next Donor Coordination Meeting for approval.
|
Inputs required for data management (when and by whom)
|
2-5 days per year are needed by the responsible Planning Officer at PPD to prepare an agenda for the annual meetings, to contact partners, to organise the venue, and to prepare and distribute draft minutes of meetings to partners and to finalise final agreed minutes.
|
Cost of verification
|
No cost. The list of partners and current sets of minutes of annual meetings are checked by the Chief for Policy and Planning at MOAF to assess if the necessary quality standards for RNR projects and programmes coordination are being met.
|
Data quality and projection risk assessment (who and how)
|
Quality of minutes taken is to be assessed by Chief of Policy and Planning Division before final distribution to partners.
If there are any risks that the schedules for meetings will not meet their targets as set within the PAF (and this may affect the eligibility of the General Conditions for RNRSP budget releases), then the Chief of Policy and Planning Division should take appropriate action to reduce or eliminate the risk.
|
ANY SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
INDICATOR CODE: NBC - 2
SIMPLIFIED NAME OF INDICATOR: Availability of in-vitro and cryobank facilities for plant genetic resources
TYPE OF INDICATOR: Output
INDICATOR DESCRIPTION: In-vitro and cryobanking is a long term conservation facilities. Further, it is suitable for conservation of Recalcitrant plants genetic resources at the crop genebank which is currently not undertaken in the plant genebank.
RATIONALE FOR INDICATOR:
INDICATOR HISTORICAL TRENDS AND FUTURE PROJECTIONS:
|
Historical performance achievement (before start of 11 FYP
|
Projections for indicators (targets) under 11 FYP
|
Fiscal Year
|
2011
|
2012
|
2013-14
|
2014-15
|
2015-16
|
2016-17
|
2017-18
|
Targets related to 11 FYP
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
|
1
|
ANALYSIS OF INDICATOR BEHAVIOUR:
OTHER RELATED INDICATORS:
Number of nucleus herds of native poultry breeds (This is related as this indicator contributes to the achievement of the same output: Increased on-farm conservation and sustainable utilization of agro-biodiversity)
INSTITUTION RESPONSIBLE FOR INDICATOR OVERSIGHT:
National Biodiversity Centre
KEY PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR INDICATOR MANAGEMENT:
EU-GCCAP Focal Point:
Ms. Sangay Dema, Dy. Chief Biodiversity Officer, National Biodiversity Centre, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Thimphu, Bhutan
Phone: 17710881
E-mail: sdema06@gmail.com
METHODOLOGY FOR INDICATOR MANAGEMENT:
Stage in Data Management
|
Description
|
Data type selection (what is data to be collected and its level of aggregation)
|
Hard copy minutes of decisions made at meetings together with list of all partners attending and any documents reviewed at meetings (electronic copies of the same).
|
Data sources (what is the collection instrument)
|
Minutes template for Donor Coordination Group meetings
|
Data collection (who is responsible for collecting)
|
Minutes are collected by the Secretary to the Donor Coordination Group
|
Data processing (who carries out data entry and data processing and how)
|
Draft minutes are forwarded to the partners of the Donor Coordination Group for verification and are finalised after any substantive comments from partners have been verified at PPD.
|
Data presentation (how)
|
Minutes are presented in a format/template that highlights decisions taken by the Donor Coordination Group.
|
Data reporting (by whom to whom)
|
Final verified minutes are: (i) provided to the Chairman of the Donor Coordination Group for any actions needed immediately after verification by partners (within one-two weeks of the meeting); and (ii) reported at the next Donor Coordination Meeting for approval.
|
Inputs required for data management (when and by whom)
|
2-5 days per year are needed by the responsible Planning Officer at PPD to prepare an agenda for the annual meetings, to contact partners, to organise the venue, and to prepare and distribute draft minutes of meetings to partners and to finalise final agreed minutes.
|
Cost of verification
|
No cost. The list of partners and current sets of minutes of annual meetings are checked by the Chief for Policy and Planning at MOAF to assess if the necessary quality standards for RNR projects and programmes coordination are being met.
|
Data quality and projection risk assessment (who and how)
|
Quality of minutes taken is to be assessed by Chief of Policy and Planning Division before final distribution to partners.
If there are any risks that the schedules for meetings will not meet their targets as set within the PAF (and this may affect the eligibility of the General Conditions for RNRSP budget releases), then the Chief of Policy and Planning Division should take appropriate action to reduce or eliminate the risk.
|
ANY SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
INDICATOR CODE: NBC - 3
SIMPLIFIED NAME OF INDICATOR: Increase in no. of nucleus farm established with community linkages for conservation and sustainable use of local animal breeds
TYPE OF INDICATOR: Output
INDICATOR DESCRIPTION: Nucleus farm maintaining an optimum number of animals and linked with community with a genetic resources management plan to promote the conservation and sustainable use of prioritized local pig or poultry breeds.
RATIONALE FOR INDICATOR:
This indicator is one of the mitigation plan to adapt to the effects of climate change particularly to the theme 3; Forest and biodiversity. The establishment of nucleus farm (ex-situ invivo) for prioritized breeds as an indicator offers good aspects opportunities for gainful utilization, evolution and adaptation to a changing climate thereby ensuring a the survival of breeds to maintain a broad genetic base as security to emerging diseases and adaptability.
INDICATOR HISTORICAL TRENDS AND FUTURE PROJECTIONS:
|
Historical performance achievement (before start of 11 FYP
|
Projections for indicators (targets) under 11 FYP
|
Fiscal Year
|
2011
|
2012
|
2013-14
|
2014-15
|
2015-16
|
2016-17
|
2017-18
|
Targets related to 11 FYP
|
3
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
ANALYSIS OF INDICATOR BEHAVIOUR:
Three nucleus farms were established in 10 FYP with funding support from ILCCP project but require strengthening in terms of farm size and management plans.
OTHER RELATED INDICATORS:
Number of nucleus farm for prioritized traditional livestock breeds (This is related as this indicator contributes to the achievement of the same output: Increased on-farm conservation and sustainable utilization of agro-biodiversity)
INSTITUTION RESPONSIBLE FOR INDICATOR OVERSIGHT:
National Biodiversity Centre
KEY PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR INDICATOR MANAGEMENT:
EU-GCCAP Focal Point:
Ms. Sangay Dema, Dy. Chief Biodiversity Officer, National Biodiversity Centre, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Thimphu, Bhutan
Phone: 17710881
E-mail: sdema06@gmail.com
METHODOLOGY FOR INDICATOR MANAGEMENT:
Stage in Data Management
|
Description
|
Data type selection (what is data to be collected and its level of aggregation)
|
Hard copy minutes of decisions made at meetings together with list of all partners attending and any documents reviewed at meetings (electronic copies of the same).
|
Data sources (what is the collection instrument)
|
Minutes template for Donor Coordination Group meetings
|
Data collection (who is responsible for collecting)
|
Minutes are collected by the Secretary to the Donor Coordination Group
|
Data processing (who carries out data entry and data processing and how)
|
Draft minutes are forwarded to the partners of the Donor Coordination Group for verification and are finalised after any substantive comments from partners have been verified at PPD.
|
Data presentation (how)
|
Minutes are presented in a format/template that highlights decisions taken by the Donor Coordination Group.
|
Data reporting (by whom to whom)
|
Final verified minutes are: (i) provided to the Chairman of the Donor Coordination Group for any actions needed immediately after verification by partners (within one-two weeks of the meeting); and (ii) reported at the next Donor Coordination Meeting for approval.
|
Inputs required for data management (when and by whom)
|
2-5 days per year are needed by the responsible Planning Officer at PPD to prepare an agenda for the annual meetings, to contact partners, to organise the venue, and to prepare and distribute draft minutes of meetings to partners and to finalise final agreed minutes.
|
Cost of verification
|
No cost. The list of partners and current sets of minutes of annual meetings are checked by the Chief for Policy and Planning at MOAF to assess if the necessary quality standards for RNR projects and programmes coordination are being met.
|
Data quality and projection risk assessment (who and how)
|
Quality of minutes taken is to be assessed by Chief of Policy and Planning Division before final distribution to partners.
If there are any risks that the schedules for meetings will not meet their targets as set within the PAF (and this may affect the eligibility of the General Conditions for RNRSP budget releases), then the Chief of Policy and Planning Division should take appropriate action to reduce or eliminate the risk.
|
ANY SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
INDICATOR CODE: CCA-VT-6
SIMPLIFIED NAME OF INDICATOR: Community Agro-Biodiversity Sites for Indigenous Crop Varieties and Animal Breeds
TYPE OF INDICATOR: Output
INDICATOR DESCRIPTION:
Number of sites with community driven initiatives for conservation and utilisation of indigenous crop varieties and animal breeds is increasing in Bhutan
RATIONALE FOR INDICATOR:
This indicator shows the number of community level initiatives undertaken to promote conservation and sustainable use of local animal breeds, specifically local pigs and poultry, in the country, as well as local crop varieties. In addition to conservation and sustainable use, the promotion of local animal breeds as community initiative is also seen as an opportunity to enhance the resilience of local communities to changing climatic conditions as local breeds have shown their adaptability to the harsh environment and changing climatic conditions of Bhutan over a long period.
|
Historical Performance Achievement
(Before start-up of RNR-CCAP)
|
Projections for indicator (targets)
With RNR-CCAP support
|
Projections for indicator (targets) under remainder of 11th FYP but currently outside RNR-CCAP funding
|
Calendar Year +
|
2008
|
2009
|
2010
|
2011
|
2012
|
2013
|
2014
|
2015
|
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
RNR-CCAP Year
|
|
|
|
|
T
|
T+1
|
T+2
|
T+3
|
T+4
|
|
|
Targets related to 11th FYP++
|
|
|
|
|
25
|
25
|
27*
|
30**
|
32
|
35
|
35
|
Actual achieved
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ CY is the year for which performance data are collected for budget release eligibility in July of the following year; in the case of process indicators under RNR-CCAP performance may be delayed as late as June
++ Targets are cumulative and relate to total stall-feeding households achieved in Bhutan (Including those in the four target RNR-CCAP Dzongkhags)
T is baseline year
T+1 is first year with a budget release in July
* Performance achievement used to trigger release of 25% of Variable Tranche for FY 2015-16
** Performance achievement used to trigger release of 20% of Variable Tranche for FY 2016-17
ANALYSIS OF INDICATOR BEHAVIOUR:
UNDP has supported the establishment of 25 community sites for conservation and sustainable utilisation of local crop varieties and animal breeds. It is the intension of the NBC to complete a further 10 by the end of the 11th FYP; out of these the RNR-CCAP will co-fund 5 sites by supporting the costs for the animal breed selection and conservation.
OTHER RELATED INDICATORS:
Number of nucleus flocks of native poultry breeds for the purpose of conservation and sustainable utilization of agro-biodiversity.
INSTITUTION RESPONSIBLE FOR INDICATOR OVERSIGHT:
National Biodiversity Centre, Ministry of Agriculture and Forests, Thimphu, Bhutan
KEY PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR INDICATOR MANAGEMENT:
EU-GCCA/RNR-CCAP Focal Point:
Ms SangayDema, Dy. Chief Biodiversity Officer, National Biodiversity Centre, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Thimphu, Bhutan
Phone: 17710881
E-mail: sdema06@gmail.com
METHODOLOGY FOR INDICATOR MANAGEMENT:
Stage in Data Management
|
Description
|
Data type selection (what is data to be collected and its level of aggregation)
|
Primary data needed for this indicator are numbers of sites where farmers have adopted the conservation and sustainable utilisation of native breeds of livestock and local crop varieties
|
Data sources (what is the collection instrument)
|
Administrative records at the National Biodiversity Centre.
|
Data collection (who is responsible for collecting)
|
Dy. Chief Biodiversity Officer at NBC who manages this programme activity.
|
Data processing (who carries out data entry and data processing and how)
|
Data entry is made into Excel spreadsheets.
|
Data presentation (how)
|
Text and tables in progress reports. Photo monitoring reports
|
Data reporting (by whom to whom)
|
Data on this indicator are reported in the Annual Biodiversity Report.
The data are to be reported in the MOAF Annual Progress Report for the relevant financial year (FY).
|
Inputs required for data management (when and by whom)
|
Since the data are already being collected by the NBC as part of their regular programme, no major extra inputs are required for data management of this indicator.
|
Cost of verification
|
Verification and validation of the data quality are carried out by Biodiversity Officers at NBC. No extra costs are envisaged since these tasks are part of their regular duties. Ad hoc field checks may be requested from time to time if there appear to be problems with the quality of data from some geographical locations.
|
Data quality and risk assessment (who and how)
|
Due to the small number of sites involved, the risks to receiving poor information are minimal, and field checking is easily carried out.
|
ANY SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Share with your friends: |
