ICMP planning budgeting report EN

CLIMATE RESPONSIVE
PLANNING AND BUDGETING
IN THE MEKONG DELTA
Monitoring Climate Targets through Budget Classification


Abbrevations
BMZ

German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development

CA

Commitment Appropriations

CC

Climate Change

CCD

Climate Change Delivery

CC&GG

Climate Change & Green Growth

CCVI

Climate Change Vulnerability Index

CPEIR

Climate Public Expenditure and Investment Review

COP

Conference of Parties

DAC

OECD Development Assistance Committee

DARD

Provincial Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

DFAT

Australian Department for Foreign Affairs and Trade

DoC

Provincial Department of Construction

DoH

Provincial Department of Health

DoLISA

Provincial Department of Labor, Invalids and Soc. Affairs

DoNRE

Provincial Department of Natural Resources and Environment

DoST

Provincial Department of Science and Technology

DoT

Provincial Department of Transportation

DPI

Provincial Department of Planning and Investment

EC

European Commission

EU

European Union

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

GEAP

Gender Equality Action Planning

GHG

Green House Gas

GIZ

German International Cooperation

GoV

Government of Vietnam

MARD

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

MoC

Ministry of Construction

MoF

Ministry of Finance

2

MoNRE

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

MoIT

Ministry of Industry and Trade

MoT

Ministry of Transportation

MRV

Measuring, Reporting, Verification

MPI

Ministry of Planning and Investment

NCCS

National Climate Change Strategy (Vietam)

NDC

(Intended) Nationally Determined Contributions

NTP

National Target Programme

ICMP

Integrated Coastal Management Programme

ODA

Overseas Development Assistance

OECD

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

PEFA

Public Expenditure Framework Assessment

PG

Policy and Governance

PM

Prime Minister

PPC

Provincial People’s Committee

SEDP

Socio-Economic Development Plan

SP-RCC

Sector Programme to Respond to Climate Change

ST

Science Technology

UNDP

United Nations Development Programme

UNFCCC

United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change

USD

US Dollar

VGGS

Vietnam Green Growth Strategy

VND

Vietnamese Dong

Y1, 2, 3

Year 1, 2, 3

3


Contents
Abbrevations.........................................................................................................

2

1. Executive Summary..........................................................................................

6

2. From Paris to the Mekong Delta – Climate Strategy Implementation and
Reporting………………………………....................................................................

8

2.1 The Paris Agreement and Enhanced Transparency……………………..

9

2.2 Vietnam’s Response to Climate Change…………………………………...

10

3. Methods to classify climate responsive investments……………………………

13

3.1 OECD-DAC Climate Markers………………………………………………...

15

3.2 The CPEIR Typology in Vietnam……………………………………………

16

3.3 Which Budget? Plan vs. Disclosure and Investment vs. Recurrent…….

24

3.4 Approaches to Classification and Cooperation in the Mekong
Delta…………………………………………………………………………………

25

4. Ex-Post Classification of Investment Budget Plans in the Mekong
Delta……………………………………………………………………………………...

27

4.1 Results from 4 Mekong Delta Provinces……………………………………

28

4.2 Ca Mau province………………………………………………………………

32

4.3 Bac Lieu province……………………………………………………………..

37

4.4 Kien Giang province…………………………………………………………..

40

4.5 Soc Trang province……………………………………………………………

44

4.6 Summary of Findings and Conclusions Concerning the Mekong Delta
Provinces……………………………………………………………………………

47

5. Iterative Steps and Recommendations for Future Planning…………………….

49

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………...

54

4


List of tables
Table 1: Task to implement the Paris Agreement (NDC, 2016)

10

Table 2: Connection between Vietnam’s already existing climate change approaches and NDC tasks

11

Table 3: CPEIR and CC&GG classification and weighting criteria

18

Table 4: Merging weighting criteria with investment typology

19

Table 5: Mekong Delta Climate Change Budget Classification 2013-2015

29

Table 6: Ca Mau’s climate change responsive investments 2015 according to source

33

Table 7: Ca Mau’s TOP line item climate responsive investments 2015

34

Table 8: Bac Lieu’s climate change responsive investment 2015 according to source

37

Table 9: Bac Lieu’s TOP line item climate responsive investments 2015

38

Table 10: Kien Giang’s climate change responsive investments 2015 according to source

41

Table 11: Kien Giang’s TOP line item climate change responsive investments 2015

42

Table 12: Soc Trang’s 2015 investments according to source

44

Table 13: Soc Trang’s TOP line item investments for climate change response in 2015

46

5

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

6


Vietnam is among the countries worldwide to be
most affected by climate change. The
Government of Vietnam has therefore started to
focus on appropriate strategy formulation to
focus on both adaptation and mitigation. As a
signatory to the 2015 Paris Agreement,
Vietnam’s Nationally Determined Contributions
(NDC) will be moved further in the limelight of
attention. Pressure to therefore identify
approaches to ensure a visibility and connection
between policy and implementation on the one
hand and to monitor the associated flow of
funding on the other, will grow. This survey
tries to shed more light on the question, how a
higher visibility of climate responsive funding
can be reached and potentially connected to
strategies. As the country is characterized by its
high degree of decentralization, the center piece
of the survey is the assessment of climate
change investments at provincial level. The
survey has been part of the cooperation
between the Government of Vietnam (GoV), the
German Ministry for Economic Development
and Cooperation (BMZ) and the Australian
Department for Foreign Affairs and Trade

(DFAT), embedded in the Integrated Coastal
Management Programme (ICMP), implemented
by the German International Cooperation (GIZ)
with focus on the Mekong Delta. This most
southern Vietnamese region is featured by its
high vulnerability regarding the effects of
climate change, characterized by extreme
weather events, coastal erosion, saltwater
intrusion, floods and droughts. With a
population of 17 million, it is Vietnam’s most
important agricultural region, producing rice
not only for the country itself, but large parts of
Asia.

coastal provinces spend amounts between
approximately US$ 20-30 million per year for
climate responsive investments. Based on the
use of the CPEIR typology, the bulk share of
climate responsive classified investments
reaches high degrees of relevance in which up to
100% of the overall amounts of single
investments are accounted for adaptation. The
investments
predominantly
reflect
the
province’s vulnerability to sea level rise, floods,
erosion and saline intrusion. Response
investments are hence mostly planned for
dykes, dyke protection or the prevention of

saltwater intrusion. In this regard, it is
remarkable that in all provinces, mostly funds
from either national allocations or ODA and
state bonds are being used. Hence, it is a
hypothesis, that equally high real climate change
expenses in the 4 provinces are also rooted in
similar response strategies and actions at
national level.
Results are so far based on investment plans
only and apply a retrospective view. To ensure a
strengthened orientation towards the fulfilment
of the Paris Agreement, the introduction of a
newly
aligned
process
to
incorporate
classification methods during the annual
planning process on the basis of cross-sectorial
cooperation at provincial level will be a key
necessity.

The
Integrated
Coastal
Management
Programme (ICMP) is a development
programme funded by the governments of
Australia, Germany and Viet Nam. Its
objective is to support the Vietnamese

authorities in preparing the coastal area of
the Mekong Delta for a changing environment
and to lay the foundations for sustainable
growth. The programme works in six
interlinked working areas: agriculture,
aquaculture, coastal protection, forest,
planning and budgeting, and water
management.

Based on the OECD-DAC Rio marker, a UNDP
driven Climate Public Expenditure and
Investment Review (CPEIR) method to classify
climate responsive investments has been
applied. The results of the 3 year cooperation in
this field have shown that the 4 examined

7


2. FROM PARIS TO THE MEKONG DELTA –
CLIMATE STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION
AND REPORTING

8


impacts and adaptation. Regarding climate
finance, mainly developed countries are
accountable to classify their contributions while
developing countries are required to provide

information on needed capacity building as well
as needed and received financial support
(UNFCCC, 2015:17). As a signatory country,
Vietnam’s ambitious goals as formulated in its
NDC will be also subject of the reporting process
and the enhanced transparency framework for
action and support. Hence, the internationally
agreed timeline and its milestones until 2028 will
require Vietnam to align with this global regime,
not only in terms of goal formulation, but also
concerning new approaches towards strategy
formulation and implementation of action as well
as evaluation.

2.1 The Paris Agreement and
Enhanced Transparency
Since fall 2015 the majority of nations have
subscribed to a new global regime of climate
governance, based on the COP 21’s Paris
Agreement. Based on the U.N. Framework
Convention for Climate Change,
“[…] the Paris Agreement’s central aim is to
strengthen the global response to the threat of
climate change by keeping a global temperature
rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above
pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit
the temperature increase even further to 1.5
degrees Celsius. Additionally, the agreement aims
to strengthen the ability of countries to deal with
the impacts of climate change. To reach these

ambitious goals, appropriate financial flows, a new
technology framework and an enhanced capacity
building framework will be put in place, thus
supporting action by developing countries and the
most vulnerable countries, in line with their own
national objectives. The Agreement also provides
for enhanced transparency of action and support
through a more robust transparency framework
(UNFCCC, 2016).”

In 2018, a UNFCCC global facilitative dialogue is
supposed to take stock of the collective efforts
made so far. Parallel, common modalities
regarding procedures and guidelines on
Measuring, Reporting and Verification (MRV)
must be elaborated until 2018 and adopted by
2020. Until 2028 stock-taking, including financial
tracking and the formulation of new pledges will
continue. As part of this roadmap, a capacity
building initiative highlights i) to strengthen
national institutions for more transparency,
related to activities in line with national
priorities, ii) provide tools and training to meet
provisions in article 13 of the Paris Agreement, as
well as iii) to assist in the improvement of
transparency over time (UNFCCC, 2015:12).

After the ratification of 126 countries, the Paris
Agreement came into effect in December 2016. In
contrast to the Kyoto Protocol, the agreement is

not binding by international law and highlights
its voluntarily basis through the formulation of
Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC).
Article 3 of the Agreement states that NDCs have
to be ambitious and countries have to report to
UNFCCC every 5 years, including a principal
progression of formulated targets for every new
reporting time period. In contrast to the
Agreement itself, the reporting process however,
is mandated in the so-called legally binding
“enhanced transparency framework for action and
support”, outlined in article 13 of the Agreement.
Besides an emissions inventory and the tracking
of progress, the framework also governs to
provide information related to climate change

In summary, as a signatory of the Paris
Agreement, Vietnam will face the need to align
its MRV modalities. So far, related to climate
finance, only article 13 of the Paris Agreement
imposes the duty to report on received funding
for climate change response. Nevertheless, the
requirement to also report on emission
reduction and adaptation efforts foreshadow the
necessity for better tagging and tracking of
domestic climate finance as the fulfilment of

9

ambitious goals mainly rely on public funding.
Taking the Agreement’s timeline until 2028 into
account, the need to principal progression and
the formulation of more ambitious goals over
time also implies that public spending to combat
climate change has to be increased.

2.2 Vietnam’s Response
Climate Change

Protection are in line with the overarching
national strategies (NCCS or VGGS) and offer
further national funding opportunities for
implementation. In most cases, especially with
regards to adaptation and more recently related
to mitigation, the above mentioned Action Plan
to Respond to Climate Change and the VGGS
have also been disseminated to the provincial
level. The 63 provinces in Vietnam function as
the second administrative tier with far reaching
responsibilities and execute about 70% of the
country’s total public budget (MPI, 2015:36). A
translation and applicability of national policies
at local level has thus gained high priority.

to

For the period from 1996 until 2015, Vietnam
was ranked as the 8th most affected country in
the world related to climate change with an

average 0.62% GDP loss and with second
highest number (206) of extreme weather
events worldwide (Germanwatch, 2017:6).
Similarly, according to the Climate Change
Vulnerability Index, Vietnam is currently
considered one of 30 “extreme risk countries” in
the world (CCVI, 2016). The debate about
climate change,
its
consequences
and
vulnerabilities for Vietnam has also influenced
the country’s policy formulation hence multiple
strategies, policies and actions plans addressing
the challenges of climate change have been
prepared by the Government of Vietnam in
recent years. The most prominent ones are the
National Climate Change Strategy (NCCS), the
Action Plan to Respond to Climate Change and
Sea Level Rise, both from 2011, and the
National/ Vietnam Green Growth Strategy
(VGGS) from 2012. Further laws on natural
Disaster
Prevention
or
Environmental

This stock of vastly existing approaches on all
levels in Vietnam has also paved the way to
advance Vietnam’s aspiration for a successful

contribution to the COP 21 in Paris. And indeed,
in line with the 2015 Paris Agreement, Vietnam
formulated the Intended Nationally Determined
Contributions (INDC). After the agreement’s
ratification in 2016, the INDC dropped the first
letter and are now the Nationally Determined
Contributions (NDCs). Probably the most
important outlook for Vietnam’s actions for the
future, the NDC and its annex, the “Plan for
Implementation of the Paris Agreement” (2016)
contains an annex with a list of compulsory,
priority and encouraged tasks to be
implemented until 2020 and 2030. The task
matrix has a total number of 68 tasks, split into
five main areas, as listed in table 1 below.

Table 1: Task to implement the Paris Agreement (NDC, 2016)
Tasks to implement the Paris Agreement
1. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emission
2. Adaptation to climate change
3. Preparation of resources
4. Establishment of transparency system (MRV)
5. Development and revision of policies and institutions

10 tasks until 2020; 6 tasks until 2030 (#1-16)
9 tasks until 2020; 13 tasks until 2030 (#17-38)
13 tasks (#39-51)
8 tasks (#52-59)
9 tasks (#60-68)

(Author’s own table. Adapted from Vietnam’s NDC annex “Plan for the Implementation of the Paris Agreement”)

10


The first 16 tasks mainly focus on road mapping
and the development of modalities to ensure the
formulation of future stages towards GHG
emission reductions, first until 2020, but also in a
medium-term perspective until 2030 and beyond.
Although connections to the VGGS seem obvious,

the first area does not highlight any direct
connections yet. The other four NDC task areas
however, show clear linkages to 8 different
Vietnamese strategies, action plans, laws and
Prime Minister decisions as listed in the table 2
below.

Table 2: Connection between Vietnam’s already existing climate change approaches
and NDC tasks
VIETNAMESE STRATEGY

NDC TASKS

National Climate Change
Strategy (NCCS)

#26 meteorological data modernization;
#27 guidelines for public infrastructure;

#28 SEDP climate change planning
#29 prevention of natural disasters (floods, etc.)
#38 complete coastal dykes, control of salinity intrusion
#40 climate change curricula development
#65 integrate cc into policies and plans of ministries and
provinces

Action Plan to Respond to
Climate Change

#30 integrated water management
#31 sustainable forest development/ coastal forest
#32 sustainable maintenance of agriculture
#33 develop livelihoods suitable for cc conditions
#34 enhance insurance for climate risk
#35 ecosystems based adaptation
#36 …integrated coastal management
#37 resilient infrastructure, water supply, prevent flooding
#66 revision of admin functions

Law on Natural Disaster
Prevention

#19 risk and vulnerability assessment

MRV for mitigation of GHG
emissions

#52- 57 establish MRV for relevant sectors until 2018

National Target Programme to
Respond to Climate Change
(NTP-RCC)
Sector Programme to Respond to
Climate Change (SP-RCC)
PM Decision 593 on regional
steering

#21 implementation of the NTP to Respond to Climate Change
2020 (US$ 0.71 billion)
#64 up-date policy matrix for the SP-RCC until 2020
#67 enhance coordination in handling regional response to
climate change

(Author’s own table. Adapted from Vietnam’s NDC annex “Plan for the Implementation of the Paris
Agreement”)

11


29 out of a total of 68 NDC tasks are linked with
already existing legal approaches at both
national, ministerial level and also provincial
level in Vietnam. The connectivity between the
Paris Agreement and Vietnam’s NDC does not
only highlight the country’s commitment for a
global contribution, it also emphasizes the
relevance of already existing national
approaches for climate change response. Even
provincial Action Plans to Respond to Climate

Change and Provincial Green Growth Action
Plans as well as all related NTP funds disbursed
at provincial level appear in relation to the
global agreement. The connectivity also lays the
groundwork for the need to monitor and
evaluate the implementation and last but not
least also track associated funding at all levels
and from different sources. Thus, NDC task #60
“Develop budget reports for responding to
climate change, green growth to serve periodical
evaluation of global efforts 2018, 2023, 2028”
needs to be highlighted. Although there is not
yet any decision or policy formulated, MPI in
conjunction with MoF will lead the
implementation of the task. This survey, with
the objective to track and classify climate
responsive investment at provincial level, is
therefore to be seen as a first contribution to the
establishment of a transparency system.
The following chapter will further stress the
methods and practices towards budget tracking
and classification of climate changes expenses.

12


3. METHODS TO CLASSIFY
RESPONSIVE INVESTMENTS

13

CLIMATE


Since the Rio Convention in the 1990s,
government strategies worldwide have been
developed to consider climate change and assign
public expenditures accordingly, whether for aid
to developing countries, to create incentives or
laws to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or
later to reduce climate related domestic
vulnerabilities of e.g. public infrastructure.
Although the environmental ministries have
taken over a lead function domestically but also
during international climate negotiations, and
especially in elaborating strategic medium and
long term approaches, the lion share of public
expenditures is mostly within the responsibility
of other sectors and government agencies. In
fact, climate change is usually a cross-cutting
issue and touches the private as much as the
public spheres. Regarding climate change,
environmental ministries are of course the main
regulators and responsible for the creation of
new legislation, which certainly affects e.g.
private households and small and large
businesses. Greenhouse gas reductions by
private emitters can also be put in a direct line
to environmental policies and laws. Thus one
question is how difficult it is to install an MRV

system, which also tracks fund flows for
response implementation? As mitigation and
adaptation reflect the public domains of energy,
traffic
and
transportation,
construction,
agriculture, forestry and coastal protection, a
multitude of government agencies, usually at
national and sub-national level are involved and
therefore responsible for expenditures. And
there is not one single budget line, just to cover
climate change mitigation and adaptation. In
addition, many countries with stronger
subnational government levels also possess the
fiscal autonomy to decide upon the use of public
resources. As already mentioned in chapter 2, it
is estimated that up to 70% of all government
expenditures relevant for climate change in
Vietnam, are spent at provincial level.

The effectiveness of international conventions
or agreements such as the 2015 Paris
Agreement depend basically on national
contributions, which are rolled out in a number
of strategies and action plans such as the NDC
but also National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) or
actions for Green Growth and mitigation. Thus,
expenditure tracking becomes not only a
national necessity to monitor domestic efforts

but a global requirement to prove that public
spending fulfills the agreed international goals.
As a cross-cutting issue with the above outlined
multitude of different national agencies and
ministries involved, this is however a difficult
task. And it needs to be mentioned that there
has not yet been an internationally agreed
methodology to assess the exact share of
expenditures which contribute to climate
change mitigation and adaptation. A number of
different types and methods to classify climate
expenditures have been introduced in different
countries and regions. Intended to be in line
with UNFCCC objectives, OECD-DAC, EU, World
Bank and UNDP driven methods will be
summarized in the following sub-chapters.

14


available environment and development finance
statistics. Main objectives have been i) the
consistency to use the Rio Marker, ii)
strengthened cooperation between OECD with
Development Banks, including data availability,
iii) the development of coherent options for the
quantification of climate markers, and iv)
strengthening trust to use the OECD method as a
global reference for international MRV and
climate reporting (OECD, 2014).

3.1 OECD-DAC Climate Markers
Since 1998, the OECD Development Assistance
Committee (DAC) has monitored aid which
targeted the objectives of the 1992 Rio
Conventions. The objectives are therefore also
known as the “Rio Marker”. In 2009, OECD DAC
approved a new tagging or marker system which
tracks governmental aid to developing countries
in support of both climate change adaptation and
mitigation. Ever since, the overall idea has been
to indicate the relation between donors’ aid
expenditures in relation to their own climate
policy objectives. Since 2014, the OECD Joint
ENVIRONET/WP-STAT Task Team has worked to
improve the Rio Markers in accordance with

The OECD scoring system for climate markers in
diagram 1 below explains the application. The
marker system is separated into three main
categories or values: “principal objective (2)”,
“significant objective (1)” and “no target to the
policy objective (0)”.

Diagram 1: The OECD scoring system for climate markers
Q1. What objectives are stated in the project/ programme document?

Q2. Do any of the stated objectives match “Criteria for eligibility” of climate markers

Yes

No

Q3. Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?

No
2 Principal

Yes
1 Significant

0 Not targeted
(OECD, 2011:5)

15


While “principal (2)” is scored when UNFCCC
objectives are fully promoted and also
documented, the latter “significant (1)” is reached
if the investment or activity had other primary
goals, but was also formulated to meet climate
change concerns. Each investment must therefore
be assessed concerning its main objective first
and whether the given objectives match the
marker eligibility criteria. Only with positive
answers, the “principal” or “significant” value can
be
applied.
Aid

activities
for
flood
prevention/control do not necessarily qualify for
the adaptation marker. However, activities which
enhance flood prevention/control in such a way
that it contributes specifically to climate change
adaptation can be marked. Examples include:
-

-

however, that classification efforts in both cases
(OECD and EU Commission) target investment
budgets only. OECD-DAC reflects ODA payments,
mostly in financial and technical programmes
while the EU Commission tracks all investment
funds under the European Structural and
Investment
Fund
(ESIF).
Nevertheless,
throughout the OECD and EU commission use, the
method has been widely spread. Although figures
are not allowing exact quantifications, they give
indications of whether policy objectives are being
followed. Before the survey will examine the
question related to investment and recurrent
budget classification in more detail in subchapter 3.3, sub-chapter 3.2 will shed more light
on the methodological debate in Vietnam and the

use of the CPEIR methodology and typology.

“Restoring the function of floodplains in
combination with
sound land-use
planning of watersheds and wetlands
thereby reducing the exposure to floods
and improving water availability in areas
affected by water scarcity and /or
variable rainfall patterns.
Flood control measures in areas which are
becoming increasingly flood sensitive (e.g.
closing of estuaries, building of dikes and
protections) – wit due consideration for
the
potential environmental
impacts of such measures (OECD,
2011:11).”

3.2 The CPEIR Typology in
Vietnam
The Climate Public Expenditure and Investment
Review (CPEIR) is a reporting approach mainly
initiated through UNDP and respective Finance or
Planning Ministries in Asian countries. Between
2013 and 2016, a growing number of Asian and
Pacific countries have officially published the
reports, which analysed mainly the central
government
institutional

set-up,
its
appropriateness in relation to climate policies
and the results of pilot classifications concerning
climate resilient and mitigation spending. The
Vietnamese CPEIR was approved in 2015 and
covers an analysis of selected sector ministries
such as MoNRE, MoIT, MARD, MoC and MoT as
well as three pilot provinces.

As mentioned before, it is also here again
important to mention that there is no
internationally
agreed
methodology
yet.
Therefore, assessing the share of expenditures
contributing to climate change mitigation and
adaptation remains subjective and has no
intention for being exact.

In comparison to other country CPEIRs, Vietnam
also specified a methodological approach to i)
review investments as well as to compile reports,
and ii) to tag and track expenditures, using
different coefficients to weight expenses and to
also categorize along a typology which helps to
better distinguish climate change expenses in line

Besides

OECD-DAC
also
the
European
Commission has adapted the method for
assessing
programmed
climate
change
expenditures with the aim to devote at least 20%
of the EU budget to climate change, a sum of more
than € 200 billion. It has to be underscored

16


with policies and priorities as it will be shown in
chapter 4.

columns highlight the former original CPEIR
method, clustered into 5 categories of “complete
relevance (100%)”, “high relevance (75-99%)”,
“medium relevance (50-74%)”, “low relevance
(25-49%)”, and “marginal relevance (1-24)”. The
white columns in between are part of the
adjusted new method called “Climate Change and
Green Growth (CC&GG)”. The differentiation is
less specific with only two main groups. Similar
to the CPEIR, also here Group I classifies
expenses with 100%. Below the 100% level,

Group II rates everything below 100% and
further distinguishes between high (H), medium
(M) and low (L) relevance. H makes up a
coefficient range between 51-99%, M of 50% and
L and range below 50%.

Similar to the explained OECD scoring system
above, the CPEIR also follows a 3-step system, in
which objectives and outcomes within the
investment portfolios are reviewed, depended on
the relevance, different percentage values for a
weighting apply. In late 2016, the CPEIR method
in terms of weighting and criteria definition has
been adjusted for two reasons. On the one hand,
the use of weighting coefficients was supposed to
be simplified, on the other a much stronger
emphasis on adaptation and Green Growth was
seized to clearly align with Vietnam’s most
prominent climate change strategies. Table 3
below lists and compares both weighting
categories and associated criteria. The dark

17


Table 3: CPEIR and CC&GG classification and weighting criteria
CPEIR/
CC&GG

CATEGORY

CPEIR

Complete
relevance

CLIMATE
CHANGE
RELATED
EXPENDITURE

CRITERIA

100%

Projects which either (i) explicitly state a predominant climate change objective, or (ii) are
fully dedicated to exclusively delivering climate change related benefits, or (iii) sit within a
governmental programme dedicated to climate change (e.g. NTP-RCC) Projects may satisfy
one or more criteria to qualify.

CC&GG

Group I

100%

Projects which either (i) state predominant CC or GHG reducing objectives, or (ii) deliver
concrete results/ benefits which contribute directly to benefits in A or M to CC, or (iii) sit
within a governmental programme dedicated exclusively to climate change, green growth
or sustainable development goals (e.g. NTP-RCC/ GG). Projects may satisfy one or more

criteria to qualify.

CPEIR

High
relevance

75-99%

Projects which have (i) one or more of the primary objectives to improve climate resilience
or mitigation, or (ii) deliver significant and specific results/ outcomes that improve climate
resilience or contribute to mitigation. Projects may satisfy one or both criteria to qualify.

CC&GG

Group II

Les 100%

Projects which relate to CC – GG at certain levels (H, M L); the relevance level based on the
objectives and contents of the components in project files to identify.

CC&GG

Group II.1

H: 51-99%

Projects which set (i) at least one goal to enhance the climate resilience or reduce GHG
emission, or (ii) deliver significant and specific results to promote climate resilience or

mitigation effects. Projects may satisfy one or more criteria to qualify.

50-74%

Projects which either (i) have secondary objectives related to building climate resilience or
contributing to mitigation, or (ii) some results/ outcomes of the project are related to
building climate resilience or contributing to mitigation, or (iii) mixed programmes with a
range of activities that are not easily separated but include at least some that promote
climate resilience or mitigation. Projects may satisfy one or more to qualify.

M: 50%

Projects which either have (i) secondary objectives related to building climate resilience or
have mitigation effects, or (ii) mixed programmes with a range of activities which are not
easy to separate but include at least some activities to promote the climate resilience or
mitigation effects. Projects may satisfy one or more criteria to qualify.

CPEIR

CC&GG

Medium
relevance

Group II.2

CC&GG

Group II.3

L: Under 50%

Projects which have (i) primary or secondary objective or results/ outcomes which are
irrelevant to promoting the ability to adapt or to mitigation CC but include activities which
can deliver indirect benefits in the field of A or M, or (ii) activities that are indirectly or
theoretically relevant to climate resilience, even benefits from response to CC are not
stated explicitly in objectives or results of projects.

CPEIR

Low
relevance

25-49%

Projects that include activities that display attributes where indirect adaptation and
mitigation benefits may arise but climate change benefits are not explicitly listed in project
objectives or the stated results/ outcomes.

CPEIR

Marginal
relevance

1-24%

Projects that include activities that have indirect and theoretical links to climate resilience,
although climate change benefits are not explicitly listed in projects objectives or stated
results/ outcomes.

(adapted from the CPEIR methodological guidebook, 2015 and the newly adjusted weighting method
2016)
What completes the methodological approach is
the linking of the investments not only with
classification criteria (in percentage) but also with
a typology. Table 4 below displays the CPEIR
developed typology, divided into three parts PG
(Policy and Governance), ST (Science and
Technology) and CCD (Climate Change Delivery).

All three typologies on the left hand side of the
table are further divided into a number of subtypologies with giving examples. The two columns
on the right hand side are the associated
weightings or coefficients based on the former
CPEIR classification and on the far right hand side
with the newly adjusted CC&GG coefficients.

18


Table 4: Merging weighting criteria with investment typology
Typology

Sub-typology

Provincial
investments

PG
1.1

Develop
climate
change
adaptation guidelines
and tech. regulations

e.g. Provincial Action
Plan to Respond to
CC

Policy & Governance
(PG)
PG
1:
National
Framework
for
adaptation and risk
reduction

PG 1.2 Develop/
adjust policy for CC
response

PG 2: Comprehensive
national mitigation
policy framework

PG 3: Action Plan
Impact Assessment

PG 1.3 Manage and
monitor
implementation

e.g.
budget
classification

PG 2.1 Establish
policy,
tax
and
incentive structure
for clean energy, low
GHG emissions

e.g. based on PGreen Growth Action
Plan

PG
2.2
Develop
sectoral plans and
coordinate
among
departments

e.g. Climate sensitive
Provincial

Gender
and Equality Action
Plan

PG 2.3 Manage and
monitor
implementation
of
mitigation policies

Monitoring of PGreen Growth Action
Plans

PG 3.1 Action and
Sector Plans
PG
3.2
Climate
Change
Impact
assessments
PG
3.3
Change
building

PG
4:
Legal
framework

to
implement CC policy

Climate
capacity

e.g. capacity building
workshops

PG 4.1 Mitigation
instruments

e.g. development of
the Provincial Green
Growth Action Plan

PG 4.2 Adaptation
instruments

e.g. adjustment of
the Action Plan to
Respond to CC

19

CPEIR coefficient

CC&GG coefficient

PG 4.3 Mitigation and
adaptation
instruments
PG 5: International
cooperation,
strengthening of CC
investment
effectiveness

PG 5.1 Strengthen
cooperation

PG 5.2 Effective
management
and
coordination
of
foreign and domestic
investments

e.g.
through
investment budget
classification

ST 1.1 Information
and
database
development

e.g. disaster
mapping

Scientific, Technical
and Societal Capacity
(ST)

ST 1: Develop S&T as
a foundation for
policies

risk

ST 1.2 Early warning
system
ST 1.3 Biologic &
genetic
resource
strengthening
ST 1.4 CC surveys
ST 1.5 Technology for
energy efficiency

ST
2:
Improve
awareness of CC

ST 2.1 CC awareness
in education

e.g.
curriculum
development

ST 2.2 post school
education
ST
3:
Develop
community capacity
for responding to CC

ST 3.1 Livelihood
building
for
communities

20


ST
3.2
Capacity
across
whole
community in climate
change response

CC Capacity building

programmes

1-24%; 25-49%

Less than 50%

CCD 1.1 Coastal
protection
and
coastal dykes

Dyke construction

75-99%

Less than 100%

Dyke rehabilitation

100%

100%

Wave
gabions

100%

100%

Mangrove
rehabilitation

100%

100%

Sluice gates

75-99% (87%)

51-99%

Coastal resources

50% (unclear)

50%

Anti-drought
and
saline
intrusion
programmes/
irrigation, sluice gates
and alternative rice
production

100%

100%

CCD 1.3 Irrigation

Irrigation systems

50-74% (67%)

51-99%

CCD 1.4 River dyke
embankment

River
construction

dyke

75-99% (87%)

51-99%

Canal/
embankment

river

75-99% (87%)

51-99%

Urban embankments

75-99% (87%)

51-99%

River dredging

25-49% (37%)

Less than 50%

Fresh water reservoir

100%

Less than 100%

Fresh/ clean water
supply

100%

Less than 100%

Climate
Change
Delivery (CCD)

CCD
1:
resources

Natural

CCD
1.2
Intrusion

Saline

CCD
1.5
Water
quality and supply

breaker/

21


CCD
1.6
development
food security

Rural
and

CCD
1.7
Forest
development

Rural development
and food security
programmes

unclear (10%)

Less than 50%

Fire protection

25-49% (37%)

Less than 50%

(Protection) Forest
rehabilitation

100%

Less than 100%

Nursery

75-99%

51-99%

50-74% (50%)

51-99%

Forest
equipment

CCD 2:
Society

ranger

CCD 1.8 Fisheries and
aquaculture

Aquaculture
irrigation

50-74% (67%)

51-99%

CCD 1.9 Biodiversity&
conservation

e.g. Plant varieties
projects

50-74% (50%)

51-99%

CCD 2.1 Public Health

Health
support
projects
(CC
connection)

1-24% (12%)

Less than 50%

CCD 2.2 Education
and Social Protection

Education
projects
(CC connection)

1-24%

Less than 50%

CCD 2.3 City area
resilience

Schools,
admin.
buildings, cemeteries
(e.g. CC proofing)

1-24%

Less than 50%

Construction
levelling
proofing)

site
(CC

25-49% (unclear)

Less than 50%

Resettlements
relevance)

(CC

(unclear)

51-99%

Resilient

CCD 2.4 Transport

CCD
2.5
Waste
management
and
treatment

75-99%

Climate
proof
housing support

25-49%

Less than 50%

Climate proof roads,
streets

1-24%; 25-49%

Less than 50%

Roads and drainage

25-49%

Less than 50%

Waste
treatment

25-49% (unclear)

Less than 50%

22

water


Solid
treatment

CCD 3: Enterprise and
production

waste

CCD 2.6 Disaster
specific infrastructure

e.g. Storm shelter

CCD
Strengthening

disaster
reduction

Disaster
reduction
programmes

2.7
risk

CCD
3.1
generation

Energy

CCD
3.2
efficiency

Energy

CCD
Infrastructure
construction

1-24%

Less than 50%

100%

Less than 100%

75-99%

51-99%

unclear

Less than 50%

risk

3.3
and

CCD 3.4 Industry and
trade
CCD 3.5 Tourism

Tourism investment
projects (CC relevant)

(adapted from CPEIR Vietnam, 2015)

In this table, however, only coefficients have
been inserted wherever appropriate examples
could be found in the pilot cases in the Mekong
Delta provinces. From the table it already

becomes obvious that the main typology to be
connected with provincial climate investments
is CCD. On top of that, it is now also possible to
directly link the typology with Vietnam’s NDC.
As table 2 (chapter 2) has shown, 24 of 68 NDC
tasks are directly linked with national strategies,
laws or NTPs.

interpretation and in some cases require precise
assessments.
The OECD-DAC method is mainly based on a
decision whether an investment is mainly, partly
or not relevant for climate change. The CPEIR/
CC&GG on the other hand has for Vietnam
developed a typology of 3 main categories and
associated sub-categories. Such a typology helps
to identify investment areas assigned to
ministries and public sectors. Of course the
CPEIR/ CC&GG typology suggests a coefficient
percentage or percentage range, indicating the
investment’s relevance for climate change. The
sub-typology “Climate Change Delivery (CCD
1.1)” on “Coastal Protection and Sea Dykes” is
e.g. rated with a 100% coefficient. It has to be
noted that many OECD or EU countries would
rather rate the up-grading or heightening (e.g.
30 cm according to sea level rise) costs to be
accounted for 100% relevant.

Both methodological systems clearly indicate

gaps. While the OECD-DAC classification method
has the advantage to appear as rather simple
and easy to apply, the CPEIR and adjusted
CC&GG method claim to be more accurate.
Although the use of coefficients differs, the
criteria of whether expenses are related to
climate change intervention fields are similar.
And yet, both criteria leave room for

23


According to the CPEIR/ CC&GG this distinction
does not exist, as long as

countries, Vietnamese budgets are separated into
both budget plans and budget disclosures, as well
as recurrent and capital or investment budgets.
The former are the results of the annual budget
planning process at national but also at local
level, namely province, district and commune.
These budget plans are usually approved within
the political process at the end or at the
beginning of the fiscal year, followed by its
execution between January and December of the
current fiscal year. The annual statement of
accounts is done by the Treasury Departments at
national and provincial level. The final product of
these account statements are the budget
disclosures which are, in most cases in Vietnam,

only available 2 years after the end of the actual
fiscal year period. A timely evaluation of the
execution of the planned budget and whether e.g.
provincial climate strategies were implemented
is thus difficult (PEFA, 2013).

“Projects which either (i) state predominant CC or
GHG reducing objectives, or (ii) deliver concrete
results/ benefits which contribute directly to
benefits in A or M to CC, or (iii) sit within a
governmental program dedicated exclusively to
climate change, green growth or sustainable
development goals (e.g. NTP-RCC/ GG) (MPI,
2015:55).”
In fact, most dykes in the Mekong Delta cannot
be compared with those to be found in the
Netherlands or Germany. Many coastal transects
either never had dykes or were not designed to
withstand for a longer duration and especially
not regarding the effects of climate change. In
addition to the vast inland waterways, irrigation
and population growth over the last century, all
coastal protection in the Mekong Delta can be
seen as “works of Penelope”, projects without
end (Biggs, 2012: 82). The entire CCD 1.1 thus
justifies a 100% coefficient as the majority of
interventions and investments are based on a
total continuous make over.

The other important separation of budgets in

Vietnam goes along capital or investment and
recurrent budgets. The former is within the
responsibility of the Ministry of Planning and
Investment (MPI) and its provincial Departments
of Planning and Investment (DPI). Whereas in
most countries worldwide only the Ministry of
Finance (MoF) is in charge of the entire budget, in
Vietnam the MoF and its provincial Departments
of Finance (DoF) subscribe to the responsibility
for the recurrent budget, including all wages and
salaries as well as operations and running costs.
The average share of the investment budget is
currently at an average of 18% nation-wide, with
less wealthy provinces to even undercut 18%
(MPI, 2015:18).

Another conclusion is that a less distinct
differentiation of coefficients offers greater risks
to blur or even manipulate and green wash
results. On the other hand, broader range
coefficients probably allow less special expertise
which makes the entire approach more
applicable (especially at local or provincial
level) and therefore also much faster, e.g. during
an annual budgeting process and not by
hindsight only.

3.3 Which Budget? Plan vs.
Disclosure and Investment vs.
Recurrent

Although it is the aim to analyze the provincial
investment budget plans in an ex-post manner, it
should be a long-term goal to also provide
appropriate recommendations which help to
better refine the actual budget planning process
in terms of its aimed climate responsive actions.
To accomplish that additional goal as also

Budgets should and can function as an indicator
of whether intended policies and strategies are
being followed and implemented. As in most

24


described in the CPEIR, data analysis of budget
disclosures seems to be a necessary requirement.
As recurrent budgets account for an average of
80% of the overall expenditures, it seems to go
without saying that recurrent budgets can make
up a great difference in assessing the overall
climate expenditures.

mainly steered by MPI. Hence, this survey
concentrates on the investment budget only,
captures an ex-post consideration of previous
budget plans and will forecast recommendations
to adjust the planning process for an ex-ante
climate change investment planning. It will be a

future challenge to create recurrent classification
techniques and to encourage more MoF
involvement on the other hand.

However the typologies introduced in chapter 3.2
are more difficult to align with e.g. salaries and
other recurrent costs. The debate on climate
finance (with the exception of taxation) has been

3.4 Approaches to Classification and Cooperation in the Mekong
Delta
methods were introduced in the Mekong Delta
provinces of Ca Mau, Bac Lieu, Kien Giang, Soc
Trang and An Giang (as shown on the map
below).

Chapter 3 has so far introduced the different
classification
methods,
either
used
internationally or in Vietnam. This sub-chapter
3.4 briefly introduces how the above explained

Map 1: Five Mekong Delta provinces

(Source: GIZ, 2014)

25