comprehensive environment and climate change assessment …june 2014 international fund for...

June

201

4

International Fund for Agricultural Development

Via Paolo di Dono, 44 - 00142 Rome, ItalyTel: +39 06 54591 - Fax: +39 06 5043463E-mail: [email protected]

ifad-un.blogspot.com

www.facebook.com/ifad

instagram.com/ifadnews

www.twitter.com/ifadnews

www.youtube.com/user/ifadTV

Comprehensive environment andclimate change assessment in Viet Nam

Viet Nam cover 7 June_Layout 1 08/06/14 23:40 Pagina 1

Comprehensiveenvironmentand climate changeassessmentin Viet Nam

© 2014 by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)

The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarilyrepresent those of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not implythe expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IFAD concerning the legal status of anycountry, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiersor boundaries. The designations ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ countries are intended for statisticalconvenience and do not necessarily express a judgement about the stage reached by a particularcountry or area in the development process.

This publication was funded (in part) by IFAD’s Adaptation for Smallholder AgricultureProgramme (ASAP), the single largest climate change initiative for smallholder farmers worldwide.

All rights reservedCover photo: ©IFAD/Susan Beccio

ISBN 978-92-9072-473-5Printed June 2014

Acknowledgements...............................................4

Acronyms................................................................5

Foreword.................................................................6

Executive Summary..............................................7

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

Predicted impacts of climate changein Viet Nam............................................................11

Climate-related risk..........................................12

Potential impacts of climate change...............13

Implications of climate change forthe rural sector.....................................................19

Poverty and the rural setor........................ .......19

Climate-related risk and poverty.....................19

Potential economic costs..................................21

Viet Nam’s climate change strategy -planned and actual.............................................23

National Target Programme toRespond to Climate Change............................23

Support Programme to Respondto Climate Change...........................................24

MARD Climate Change Action Plan...............24

National Strategy for NaturalDisaster Prevention..........................................26

National Target Programme on NewRural Development..........................................27

Payment for forest environmentalservices..............................................................27

Farm insurance.................................................28

ODA/development partner supportfor climate change in ARD...............................29

Current IFAD portfolio.....................................29

Communities and farmers...............................32

Proposed IFAD responses -opportunities and priorities ...............................34

Opportunities...................................................34

Comparative advantages andopportunities for innovation...........................36

General priorities..............................................37

IFAD’s targeting strategy...................................37

Potential priority investment areas..................38

Key conclusions and recommendations..........41

Conclusions.......................................................41

Recommendations for IFAD supportto the Government...........................................42

References............................................................47

3

Contents

This report was prepared by Jim Smyle, former World Bank Senior Natural ResourcesManagement Specialist, with the guidance of Roshan Cooke, IFADʼs Regional Climate andEnvironment Specialist. Ms. Atsuko Toda, IFADʼs Country Programme Manager for Viet Namfrom 2004-2012, provided overall supervision of this exercise.

An extensive process of consultation was undertaken over the course of 2011-2012for formulating this report and substantive inputs were provided by a range of stakeholdersincluding smallholder farmers, aquaculturists, academics, personnel from the Ministry ofAgriculture and Environment, and development cooperation partners. There were a great manypeople who contributed to this report and we are grateful for their valuable contributions.While we cannot list all who contributed, we would like to acknowledge the following peopleas their contributions were substantial to the elaboration of this report:

Đào Xuân Học, Vice Minister of MARD; Trieu Van Hung, Head of the MARD's Scientific andTechnology Department; Dinh Vu Thanh, MARDʼs Director of the Standing Office for ClimateChange; Le Hoang Anh, MARD's Scientific and Technology Department Focal Point for ClimateChange Adaptation; Dang Quang Minh, MARD, Disaster Management Centre; Le Cong Thanh,Director of KHTV and BĐKH, MONRE; Nguyen Hieu Trung, Vice director, DRAGON Institute,Can Tho University; Le Duc Ngoan, Vice Director, Hue University of Agriculture and Forestry;Le Van An, Vice Rector, Hue University of Agriculture and Forestry; Nguyen Ngoc Huy,Kyoto University, Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Management; Koos Neefjes,UNDPʼs Senior Advisor on Sustainable Development; Nguyen Van Kien, DFID; Lauren Sorkin,ADB, Country Specialist; Farid Selmi, GIZ, Climate Change Technical Advisor; Alex De Pinto,IFPRI, Research Fellow Environment and Production Technology Division; Matsuura Shohei,JICA; Kathryn Elliott, First Secretary, AusAid; Graham Adutt, Director, Challenge to Change;Climate Change Working Group, and the Vietnam Non-Governmental Organisations andClimate Change Network.

The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarilyrepresent those of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). The designationsemployed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expressionof any opinion whatsoever on the part of IFAD concerning the legal status of any country,territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers orboundaries. The designations ʻdevelopedʼ and ʻdevelopingʼ countries are intended for statisticalconvenience and do not necessarily express a judgement about the stage reached by aparticular country or area in the development process.

This publication or any part thereof may be reproduced without prior permission from IFAD,provided that the publication or extract reproduced is attributed to IFAD and the title of thispublication is stated in any publication and that a copy thereof is sent to IFAD.

4

Acknowledgements

Asian Development Bank

agriculture and rural development

community-based disaster risk management

country strategic opportunities programme

provincial department of agriculture and rural development

disaster risk management

greenhouse gas

General Statistics Office

International Cooperation Department (MARD)

International Food Policy Research Institute

Improving Market Participation of the Poor

International Support Group (MARD)

Japan International Cooperation Agency

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

Ministry of Finance

Ministry of Industry and Trade

Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

Ministry of Planning and Investment

National Target Programme-New Rural Development

National Target Programme to Respond to Climate Change

payment for environmental services

payment for forest environment services

Response to Climate Change

Action Plan to Respond to Climate Change in the Agriculture and RuralDevelopment Sector

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation

Socio-Economic Development Plan

Support Programme to Respond to Climate Change

Special Report on Emissions Scenarios

Vietnamese dong

5

COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE ASSESSMENT IN VIET NAM

Acronyms

6

Viet Nam has made impressive advances inpoverty reduction over the last two decades.However, the impacts of climate change areincreasingly threatening to undermine thosegains. In light of this challenge IFADundertook a comprehensive environmentand climate change assessment to informthe preparation of Viet Nam’s countrystrategic opportunities programme2012-2018 (COSOP). The assessment helpedorient IFAD’s proposed investments ofapproximately US$75 million to addressthe core environment and climate changechallenges facing rural poor people andsmallholder farmers. This publicationprovides a synthesis of that assessment,highlighting the disproportionate negativeimpacts of climate change on the rural poorand smallholder farmers.

In addition to informing the overallstrategic orientation of the COSOP, theassessment enabled the design of a projectthat addresses the specific climate changeimpacts in the Mekong Delta. The projectamounts to approximately US$49 million,which includes a US$12 million grant fromIFAD’s Adaptation for SmallholderAgriculture Programme. This newprogramme, launched by IFAD in 2012,aims to channel climate and environmentalfinance to smallholder farmers throughIFAD-supported projects and countryprogrammes. It funds projects that helpincrease adaptive capacity to contend withclimate change while increasing food security,reducing poverty, preserving biodiversityand lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

The programme enables IFAD to scale uptried-and-tested approaches such as droughtand flood risk management, mixedcrop-and-livestock systems, introductionof drought-tolerant and salt-tolerant cropvarieties, integrated water resourcesmanagement, land regeneration, agroforestryand improved post-harvest storage, toname a few.

The programme also introduces newstrategies, including analysis of climatevulnerability and capacity of ruralcommunities; climate modelling forlong-term planning, policy developmentand budgetary allocation; and empowermentof district, provincial and nationalinstitutions to better engage in ruraldevelopment and climate policy formulation.

The Viet Nam COSOP developmentexercise indicates that a comprehensiveanalysis and assessment of environmentand climate challenges enables betterprogramming of IFAD and country resources.In this regard, I believe the findings andrecommendations of this study will be ofinterest to a wide audience, including countryprogramme managers, developmentpractitioners and policymakers supportingnational priorities on climate change andsustainable development. It is anticipatedthat Viet Nam's 2012-2018 COSOP willprovide a vehicle for engendering anincremental shift towards adoption of a ruraldevelopment model that is environmentallysustainable, climate resilient, sociallyequitable and supportive of inclusive growththat is profitable to smallholders.

Foreword

This document summarizes the workingpaper Viet Nam − Climate Change AnalysisAnd Adaptation Responses, which was preparedfor IFAD’s country strategic opportunitiesprogramme (COSOP) 2012-2017. The workingpaper resulted from a series of workshops andfield visits undertaken in the months leadingup to the COSOP mission, in September 2011.During the mission itself, an IFAD climate andenvironment specialist and an internationalclimate change consultant were integratedinto the COSOP team under terms ofreference focused on making IFAD’s COSOPfor Viet Nam climate smart.

Viet Nam is likely to be one of the

countries most vulnerable to climate

change and is likely to be significantly

impacted by it. The Fourth Assessment ofthe Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange characterized Viet Nam as a “hotspotof key future climate impacts andvulnerabilities…”.

Irrespective of climate change impacts,

Viet Nam is a natural disaster ʻhotspotʼ.

With the majority of the population living inlow-lying river basins and coastal areas, it isestimated that more than 70 per cent of thepopulation is exposed to risks from multiplenatural hazards. Viet Nam ranks seventhglobally on economic risk and ninth on landarea and population exposed.

Projected climate change impacts on the

agriculture and rural development (ARD)

sector are reason for immediate concern.

Many rice cultivars are already close to theirheat threshold. Evapotranspiration rateswill rise, increasing crop water usage andthe damaging effects of drought.

By 2050, rice yields could decline by6 per cent to 42 per cent, and other crops by3 per cent to 47 per cent. The sea-level risepredicted by 2050 would increase areasaffected by flooding by 0.28 million hectaresand areas affected by saline intrusion by0.42 million hectares, and 0.59 millionhectares of rice production area could be lost.

The nexus of poverty and climate change

risk is of particular concern. Vulnerabilityto climate change is socially differentiated.Impacts of extreme weather events are relatedto poverty status, access to resources andsocial security systems. Groups that arealready the most socially vulnerable(women, ethnic minorities and disabledpeople) are disproportionally less able toadapt. They are exposed to greater risk in thattheir livelihoods are generally based onagriculture and natural resources and theylack sufficient assets to recover or shift toalternative livelihoods.

Principal adaptation strategies for

households will include: Changes insowing dates, switch to drought-tolerantcrops, adoption of salinity-tolerant ricevarieties, adoption of new crop varieties,switch to rice-fish rotations or mariculture,out-migration and wage labour. Inaquaculture, adaptation will be difficult forsmallholders and poor people due to highinvestment costs. In forestry, most adaptationmeasures will require direct facilitation bythe Government. For flood and coastalprotection, people will be largely relianton government interventions to buildand upgrade dykes and flood defenses.The other alternative is migration.

7


Executive Summary

The Governmentʼs climate change

frameworks offer good entry points for

the ARD sector. The vision to 2050 iscomprehensive, recognizing the needs ofvulnerable populations. Notably, itrecognizes that one size does not fit all andthat flexible, locally adapted responses areneeded. The 2011-2015 action plans, however,are unclear on how the vision will translateinto appropriate local schemes. The focus ison infrastructure to combat sea-level rise,with little attention to strengthening capacityfor local action and resilience. Poverty andfood security are treated in a limited fashion.

IFAD can exploit a number of strong

comparative advantages. Donor partnersare reducing support for ARD and povertyalleviation. By focusing on pro-poor adaptationand mitigation, IFAD would support criticalobjectives that otherwise may not receiveneeded attention from the Government.IFAD also brings highly relevant knowledge,experience and institutional relations developedthough its current portfolio. It has theinstitutional capital and recognition requiredto engage at all levels, from the field to thenational level, and to create opportunitiesto support, influence and strengthen theGovernment’s strategies and initiatives forclimate change adaptation and mitigation.

The major opportunities for achieving

effective and durable pro-poor responses

to climate change lie in synergistically

combining concerns for disaster risk

management and climate-related

risk/climate change threats into formal

plans through local planning processes.

This will take place through the Socio-EconomicDevelopment Plan (SEDP), which is theGovernment’s principal planning instrumentfor public financing in the ARD sector.

Thus, mainstreaming disaster risk and climatechange management into the SEDP createspotential to institutionalize pro-poor,climate-smart development approaches andreplicate them nationwide.

Knowledge management should be a

central thrust of IFADʼs support. IFADprojects, with their community presenceand local experience and knowledge,should be exploited as part of efforts todevelop systematic learning and knowledgedissemination processes for pro-poor,climate-smart agriculture and ruraldevelopment. There is a high and unmetdemand for this from national and localgovernments, NGOs and donor partners.

The focus should be on introducing

bottom-up ʻclimate proofingʼ approaches

and instruments. Both upward anddownward linkages are weak. Planninginstruments for climate-proofing ARDinvestments need to be put in place andlinked from provincial-level sectoral planningto district-level operational (and land use andzoning) planning to commune/village levelplanning. At local levels, natural disaster riskand vulnerability reduction should be anintegral part of the climate-proof planningprocess. Development of participatory landuse plans is essential as are links to districtland use planning so they can be utilized toorient institutional response and investment.

IFADʼs targeting strategy should remain

substantially the same. Sensitivity toclimate-related risk/climate change is a directfunction of social vulnerability. In Viet Nam,rural poor people are the most sensitive, andethnic minorities, women and children arethe most vulnerable.1 In addition, povertyreduction is one way, if not the best way,

8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) describes:Sensitivity as: “the degree to which a system is affected, either adversely or beneficially, by climate-related stimuli.The effect may be direct (e.g. a change in crop yield in response to a change in the mean, range or variability of temperature)or indirect (e.g. damages caused by an increase in the frequency of coastal flooding due to sea level rise).” Vulnerability as: “The degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change,including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate variationto which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity.” (IPCC, 2001, p. 995) (IPCC Def. 1).

to enhance household and communitycapacity for adaptation. To increase resilience,good ARD policies and programmes will begood adaptation policies and programmes.

The COSOP should give extra weight

and consideration to the regions where

sensitivity and exposure to climate-

related risk/climate change threats

are highest. In order of priority these are: • Mekong River Delta: This region has the

largest number of rural poor people andis likely to suffer the greatest impacts fromclimate change;

• Central Highlands: This region has veryhigh rates of poverty, a large ethnicminority population and the prevalenceof rainfed subsistence agriculture, makingrural poor people especially sensitive toclimate change risk and natural disasters.This zone also has high in-migration rates,which will increase with displacement ofpopulations from coastal areas and theMekong River Delta;

• Northern Mountains: This region has thehighest rates of poverty and the largestethnic minority populations, making itthe area most sensitive to the impactsof climate change and natural disasters;

• Central Coast, both northern andsouthern, especially areas of ethnicminorities and poor communitiesdependent on fishing or rainfedagriculture: In the semi-arid south, waterresources are scarce and drought is a severelimitation and risk factor. The structureof the economy is rapidly changing toindustry- and service-based, and thereare limited opportunities to enhanceagricultural livelihoods over the long term.

IFADʼs principal institutional partners for

implementation should include: Ministryof Agriculture and Rural Development, forpolicy, coordination and prioritization ofinvestment projects; Ministry of Planning andInvestment, for integration of climate changeconsiderations into the SEDP; Ministry ofNatural Resources and Environment, forcoordination of climate change response inthe ARD sector; Ministry of Labour, Invalidsand Social Affairs for integration of climatechange concerns into local SEDP processes;provincial governments (people’s committeesat all levels); provincial departments ofplanning and investment for SEDP processes;provincial departments of agriculture andrural development for climate changeadaptation in production systemsand for implementation of community-baseddisaster risk management; and JapanInternational Cooperation Agency andthe World Bank in the Mekong River Deltaand the World Bank in the Central Highlands.

9


This document summarizes the working paperViet Nam − Climate Change Analysis andAdaptation Responses, which was prepared toinform IFAD’s country strategic opportunitiesprogramme (COSOP) 2012-2017 forViet Nam. Preparation of the working paperbegan with a brainstorming workshop held on9 May 2011 in Hanoi. It brought together keynational research institutes working on climatechange and environmental issues; theGovernment’s Ministries of Agriculture andRural Development (MARD) and NaturalResources and Environment (MONRE); andbilateral and multilateral donors. The objectiveof the workshop was to acquire an overview ofthe current status of climate change as wellas insights and research into climate change;understand the actual and emerging climatechange policies, strategies and interventionsrelevant to the agriculture and ruraldevelopment (ARD) sector; and identifypotential gaps in understanding of specificclimate change issues. Subsequently, threeprovinces in representative agroecological zonesfrom IFAD’s current (and assumed future)project pipeline were selected for a moredetailed analysis of the on-the-ground impactsof current climate-related risk and potentialfuture climate change impacts. The three targetprovinces are Tra Vinh, Ha Tinh and Ha Giang.

In September 2011 the IFAD COSOPPreparation Mission took place. The teamincluded a climate and environment specialist2

and an international climate changeconsultant, operating under terms of referencefocused on making the COSOP ‘climatesmart’. The specialists worked with the COSOPdesign team to integrate and mainstreamoperational and investment strategies foraddressing climate change concerns and risksinto the COSOP. Team members visited the

target provinces to help them learn how theprovinces were addressing climate changeissues in their development planning.Consultations were held with governmentand community representatives at district,commune, village and farm levels to discusstheir experiences and concerns regarding thefrequency of natural disasters and climaticextremes. Information was obtained on theirimmediate concerns as well as lessons learnedand capacity for adaptive responses to theshort- to medium-term threats posed byclimate change. Such inputs were critical toensuring that the proposed recommendationswere consistent with local realities and wouldreflect the strategic objectives of the COSOP.

On 28 September 2011, MARD held a climatechange policy discussion forum with IFADsupport. MARD presented for public discussionits Action Plan to Respond to Climate Change 2011-2015 with Vision to 2050. MONRE also attendedand presented its National Target Programme toRespond to Climate Change (NTP-RCC). Havingthe two ministries presenting and discussingwith each other their climate change policyframeworks in an open forum was a first. Themeeting was attended by representatives of keydepartments from both ministries, national andregional research institutes and universities, theClimate Change NGO Network and bilateraland multilateral donors. IFAD presented fordiscussion its preliminary analysis of climatechange impacts on the ARD sector and possiblepriorities for IFAD intervention. Feedback andguidance from the participants were utilizedto further refine the analysis and prioritizeelements for mainstreaming into the COSOP.A policy issues note was drafted, which ishelping to guide policy discussions on furtherstrengthening the pro-poor aspects ofadaptation to climate change in the ARD sector.

10

Introduction

2 Mr. Roshan Cooke, Regional Climate and Environment Specialist, Asia and Pacific Region, Environment and Climate Division.

Predictions suggest that Viet Nam will be oneof the countries most vulnerable to climatechange and likely to face significant impactsfrom it. Globally, it has been ranked as a‘natural disaster hotspot’, ranking 7th oneconomic risk, 9th on the percentage of landarea and population exposed, and 22nd onmortality from multiple hazards (Dilley et al.,2005). Of particular concern are its ‘megadeltas’ and concentrations of population inthe Mekong and Red River Deltas. The FourthAssessment of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change characterized Viet Nam asa “hotspot of key future climate impacts andvulnerabilities in Asia” (Cruz et al., 2007).Roughly 40 million or more Vietnamese livein and around the deltas and along the coast.More recently, a firm specializing in risk

intelligence services ranked Viet Nam as an“extreme risk” country, ranking it 13th of170 countries in terms of its vulnerability tothe impacts of climate change over the next30 years (Maplecroft, 2010).

Long-term predictions for the countrysuggest that impacts are likely to deriveprimarily from rising sea levels and changesin rainfall and temperatures. A 2007 WorldBank study (Dasgupta et al.) concluded that a1-meter rise in sea level would directly resultin a loss of more than 5 per cent of thecountry’s land area, more than 7 per centof its agricultural land and 28 per cent of itswetlands. This would in turn cause anestimated loss of more than 10 per cent ofGDP and would affect about 11 per centof the population and urban areas.

11


Predicted impacts of climate changein Viet Nam

FIGURE 1National index of climate change vulnerability

Source: Maplecroft, 2011

Extreme risk

High risk

Medium risk

Low risk

No data

LEGEND

Climate-related risk. The impacts of pastweather-related disasters suggest thelonger-term climate risk Viet Nam faces.Irrespective of climate change, people inViet Nam have long been subject to naturaldisasters. From 1953 to 2010, nearly25,000 people died in natural disasters andanother 77 million were affected. Totaldamages have been estimated at overUS$7 billion. Typhoons (tropical cyclones)have been the main hazard. More than80 typhoons hit Viet Nam between 1953 and2010 and were responsible for 75 per cent ofthe deaths related to natural disasters and60 per cent of the effects on people. Coastalareas, particularly in the north, have been themost affected. Floods have been the secondmost important natural disaster in terms ofloss of life, property and livelihoods.

Over the past five decades, an estimated5,000 people have been killed in floods(25 per cent of all those killed in naturaldisasters) and 25 million (33 per cent) havebeen affected (McElwee, 2010). Scenarios forfuture impacts of climate change suggest thatthese losses will greatly worsen over thecourse of the twenty-first century.

While it is important to note that extremeweather events are not themselves ‘climatechange’, analyses (ISPONRE, 2009 andMONRE, 2010) indicate shifts in climaticvariables over the last century (table 1).Of particular note are the findings of increasesin average annual temperatures; variability ofboth rainfall and temperature between yearsand within seasons; the typhoon seasontending to end later; and possibly, an increasedoccurrence of higher intensity storms.

12

PREDICTED IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN VIET NAM

TABLE 1Current, observed climate trends

Climate zone

Countrywide 1911-2000: Increase in intra-seasonal andinter-annual variability

1958-2007: Increaseof 0.5°-0.7°C inannual averages

• 1911-2000:No clear trends inannual averages

• 1958-2007:2% decrease inannual average

• 1993-2008: Meanrise of 3 mm/yr

• 1956-2007: Totalrise of about20 cm1

North West

North East

Red River Deltaand Quang Ninh2

North Central Coast

South Central Coast

South (SE &Mekong River Delta)

Central Highlands

Winter temperaturesincreased at fasterrates than thecountry average

Summertemperaturesincreased at slowerrates than thecountry average

1958-2007: Annualrainfall decreased innorthern zones.

1958-2007: Annualrainfall increased insouthern zones.

Cold fronts: There was a significant decreasein occurrence over last 20 years, butanomalous events occurred more frequently(e.g. damaging cold for 38 days inJanuary/February 2008)

Cold fronts do not impact North CentralCoast Zones

Typhoons: Some storm tracks showedabnormal movements southwards

Typhoon’s abnormal movements southwardsare not an issue to central highland zones

Typhoons: Typhoonsof higher intensityhave been occurringmore frequently andthe season has beenending later

Temperature Rainfall Sea level Extreme events

Climate zone Temperature Rainfall Extreme events

Source: ISPONRE, 2009; MONRE, 2010. 1 Red River Delta region.2 Coastal province in North East region.

Potential impacts of climate change.

Given that Viet Nam is inherently vulnerableto climate-related risk, climate change willpose a serious challenge to the country overthe long term. The potential magnitude ofthese changes was estimated for the country’sSecond National Communication to theUnited Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change (MONRE, 2010) based on amedium emissions scenario3 comprehendedwithin two major SRES emissions scenarios:A1 and B2.4 Predicted changes from the

present to 2050 do not vary significantlybetween the different scenarios (i.e. lowvs. medium vs. high emissions); later in thecentury (the 2070 and 2100 predictions)divergence between the scenarios has greaterpractical significance. For purposes of thecurrent strategy, the short- to medium-termscenarios have relevance for planning over thenext five years within a context of impactsexpected to occur by 2050. Figures 2a and 2band table 2 show the predicted changes in thisclimate change scenario.

13


3 An emission scenario describes the future releases into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, aerosols and other pollutantsand, along with information on land use and land cover provide inputs to climate models4 A1 storyline and scenario family describes a future world of very rapid economic growth, global population that peaks inmid-century and declines thereafter, and the rapid introduction of new and more efficient technologies; whereas B2 storylineand scenario family describes a world in which the emphasis is on local solutions to economic, social and environmentalsustainability. While the scenario is also oriented towards environmental protection and social equity, it focuses on local andregional levels. (Source: www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/emission_scenarios.php)

FIGURE 2aPredicted changes in temperature and rainfall – 2050

Source: IFPRI, 2011

0 to 0.5

0.5 to 1

1 to 1.5

1.5 to 2

Temperature Increase (C) Rainfall (mm)

-200 to - 100

-100 to - 50

-50 to 50

50 to 100

100 to 200

200 to 400

> 400

More important than the estimates of thepotential changes are the predictions regardingthe impacts resulting from those changes,as indicated in the following summary ofpredicted impacts from the Government’sSecond National Communication to theUnited Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change (MONRE, 2010) and othersources (see box 1):5

• Water resources. Annual flows of rivers inthe north and northern areas of the NorthCentral Coast are expected to increase.In contrast, annual flows of rivers in thesouthern area of North Central Coast to thenorthern area of South Central Coast areexpected to decrease. Flood peaks in most

rivers will increase while dry season low flowswill decline. Potential evapotranspiration willshow rapid increases in the South CentralCoast, with the greatest increases in theMekong Delta regions. After 2020,groundwater levels are expected to dropdrastically. Increases in the incidence ofsevere drought, especially during the dryseason, and in inter- and intra-seasonalrainfall patterns will create much greateruncertainty as to moisture availability,inter-annually for crop and livestockproduction and intra-annually for overallavailability of water resources. Increases inthe incidence of extreme rainfall eventswill exacerbate the impacts of flooding(inundation and flash floods) and willconcentrate rainfall within shorter timeperiods, leading to decreased soil moistureand groundwater recharge, particularly inuplands and sloping areas.

• Coastal zones. With rising sea levels, areasimpacted by flooding will expand. TheMekong River Delta, which would be mostaffected, could see as much as 90 per centof its total area subjected to flooding.Sea level rise will also lead to greater riskof saltwater intrusion in rivers andgroundwater, resulting in very serioussocial and economic costs anddisplacement of populations andeconomic infrastructure and activities.Climate change may also seriously impactcoastal ecosystems, biological reserves andforests, especially mangrove forests. By2100, almost 5,500 km2 of arable landsmay be lost, equivalent to about 9 per centof all arable lands. Around 168 km2 ofaquaculture area and 320 km2 of forest landwould be submerged. Loss of mangrovewould be almost complete, unlessaccommodations are made in coastal zoneplanning for mangrove forests to migrateand/or be established further inland.

• Agriculture. Total annual temperature isprojected to increase between 8 per centand 11 per cent by 2100. In most regions,

14


FIGURE 2bMekong Delta, 2050 − inundation with 0.3 m sealevel rise over current condition

Source: IFPRI, 2011

5 Other sources: Bingxin Yu et al., 2010; IFAD, 2011b; ISPONRE, 2009; Fortier, 2010; P. McElwee, 2010; MONRE, 2008 and2010; World Bank, 2008, 2010b and 2011c.

the number of days when temperaturesexceed 25°C will increase notably while thenumber of days when temperatures dropbelow 20°C will decrease significantly.Water demand for agriculture may increasetwofold or threefold compared withdemand in 2000. Tropical plants will tendto shift further north and towards higheraltitudes. Shifts in eco-agricultural zonescould cause loss of varieties of indigenousbreeds or species, although they may alsoextend the ranges of some crops.

Moisture stress in crops will beexacerbated and areas of crops requiringwet or moist conditions will decrease.Evapotranspiration rates will increase,increasing crop water usage and thedamaging effects of drought. Total outputfrom spring rice crops is expected todecline more than that of summer crops,and significant production losses areexpected in all of the major grain crops(table 4a). Winter maize productivity mayincrease in the Red River Delta but decreasein Central Coast and the Mekong RiverDelta. Yield changes will vary widely acrosscrops and agroecological zones underclimate change, and estimates of these will

also vary depending on assumptions aboutthe impact of increased atmospheric CO2

concentrations and rainfall.The predicted 33 cm rise in sea level by

2050 would increase the area inundated byflooding to a depth greater than 0.5 m byan estimated 276,000 ha, and the areaaffected by saline intrusion (thresholdvalue equals salinity of greater than 4 g/l)would increase by 420,000 ha. Anestimated 13 per cent of the nation’s riceproduction area − 590,000 ha − may be lostby 2050. Further yield impacts would resultfrom early crop maturation and/orincreased pest and disease pressures.The suitability of different post-harvestand crop storage practices may also beaffected, increasing post-harvest losses.

Overall, in the absence of adaptationmeasures, yields will likely be reduced forrice, maize, cassava, sugarcane, coffee andvegetables. Hydrological changes and sealevel rise will affect the availability of freshwater or even physically change theagricultural landscape. Climate changemay also threaten the growth andreproduction of livestock and increasethe incidence and spread of diseases.

15


TABLE 2Climate change scenarios by climate zone (baseline: 1980-1999)

Climate zone

Coastal Viet Nam – Sea level rise: 2020: 11-12 cm | 2050: 28-33 cm | 2100: 65-100 cm

North West

North East

• 2020: 0.5 °C

• 2050: 1.2-1.3 °C

• 2100: 1.7-3.3 °C

-----------------------

• 2020: 1.4-1.7%

• 2050: 3.6-3.8%

• 2100: 4.8-9.3%

• Cold fronts: Decrease in frequency, affecting NW more; increasein variability of occurrence; mid-winter peaks diminish

• Temperatures: Increase in hot spell occurrences in mid and lowerelevations; hot season at lower elevation longer and cold seasonshorter; increase in evaporation and decrease in relative humidity

• Rainfall: Strong increase in variability in dry season; increasedincidence of severe drought, especially in final months of dryseason; increase in incidence of extreme rainfall events(intensity, scale, duration and rainy periods); in NE mountains‘drizzly’ rainfall decreases between dry and wet seasons;increase in variability in onset/end of dry and rainy seasons;rainfall more concentrated in peak months

Change in temperature(°C) and rainfall (%)

Scenario

16


Climate zone

Red River Deltaand Quang Ninh(Coastal ProvinceNE Region)

• 2020: 0.5 °C

• 2050: 1.2-1.3 °C

• 2100: 1.6-3.1 °C-----------------------• 2020: 1.6%

• 2050: 3.9-4.1%

• 2100: 5.2-10.1%

• Tropical cyclones: Possible increase in frequency and intensity;increase in inter- and intra-annual variability; typhoon seasonstarts earlier/ends later

• Cold front: Decrease in frequency and intensity; increase ininter- and intra-annual variability

• Temperature: Increase in normal and maximums; increase in hotspell occurrence, intensity and duration; warmer and shortercold season; longer and more severe warm season; increasein evaporation

• Rainfall: Long-term increase in rainy season and increase invariability in dry season; increase in variability in rainfall andonset/end of dry and rainy seasons; increase in incidence ofextreme rainfall events − intensity, scale, duration and rainyperiods; increase in incidence of drought; decrease in ‘drizzly’rain with increase in end-winter/beginning-spring drought

• Sea level: Increase in rate of rise (5-6 mm/year)


Scenario

North CentralCoast

South CentralCoast

• 2020: 0.5-0.6 °C

• 2050: 1.4-1.5 °C

• 2100: 1.9-3.6 °C-----------------------• 2020: 1.5-1.8%

• 2050: 3.8-4.0%

• 2100: 5.0-9.7%

• 2020: 0.3 °C

• 2050: 0.9-1.0 °C

• 2100: 1.2-2.4 °C-----------------------• 2020: 0.7%

• 2050: 1.6-1.7%

• 2100: 2.2-4.1%

• Tropical cyclones: Possible increase in frequency and intensity;increase in inter- and intra-annual variability; typhoon seasonstarts earlier/ends later/becomes shorter

• Cold front: Decrease in incidence; season shorter; longer intervalsbetween fronts

• Temperature: Increase in normal; windy season (dry, hot westerlywinds) arrives earlier/ends later; increase in number and durationof hot spells; shorter cold season in North and southern boundaryof cold season moves to higher latitudes; hoarfrost in north(rare now), ceases occurrence; increase in evaporation

• Rainfall: Long-term significant increase in rainy season; increasein concentration of rainfall in current higher rainfall months; dryseason little change in South, but in North May and June may bepermanently dry and hot as in South; in North decrease in ‘drizzly’rain; increase in daily/monthly/annual maximums in CentralCoastal strip; increase in incidence and severity of drought


Central Highlands • 2020: 0.4 °C

• 2050: 0.8 °C

• 2100: 1.1-2.1 °C-----------------------• 2020: 0.3%

• 2050: 0.7%

• 2100: 1.0-1.8%

• Cold fronts: Decrease in incidence (already increasingly rare)

• Tropical cyclones: Possible penetration deeper inland

• Temperature: Increase in normal and maximum, especially inlower elevations and mid/lower reaches of major rivers; increasein hot spells in lower elevations, hollows and river valleys; increasein hot season duration in mid/lower elevations and decrease incold season in mid/high elevations; increase in evaporation,contributing to severe drought in early months of year

• Rainfall: Long-term increase in rainy season and strong increasein variability in duration of dry season; overall increase in variabilitywith increase in maximum daily/monthly/annual rainfalls; increasein incidence and severity of droughts in latter half of winter;increase in variability in onset/end of rainy and dry seasons

• Forestry. Impacts on forest ecosystems andflora will be diverse. By 2100, native forestcover comprised of closed evergreen forestsand closed tropical moist semi-deciduousforests, among others, will significantlydecrease. The latter forest type is likely to bethe most affected by climate change.Chukrasia tabularis (Burmese almondwood)and Pinus merkusii (Sumatran pine) forestsare projected to decrease by 70 per cent and58 per cent, respectively. In coastal zones,mangrove, indigo and Melaleuca forestsmay be severely threatened by sea level rise.Increasing temperature in combination withabundant solar radiation could acceleratephotosynthesis processes, facilitatingincreased carbon uptake. However, due toan increase in evapotranspiration, soilmoisture would be reduced, andconsequently the biomass growth index offorest trees could decline. Risk of forest firesin all regions will be greatly heightened,primarily during the dry-hot season.

Warmer conditions will facilitate thespread of forest pests, hampering thegrowth of forest ecosystems. A forestrygrowth model suggests that climate changewill increase the variability of plantationyields across the country without havinga major impact on the average yield,

potentially increasing management coststo ensure appropriate species/site matchingand silvicultural practices.

• Aquaculture. Climate change will adverselyimpact coral reefs and maritime andestuarine sea grass beds, and salinization incoastal zones will cause the loss or retreat ofmangrove forests. The accompanying loss ofhabitat will reduce stocks of fish, mollusksand crustaceans. The intrusion of saltwaterinto freshwater estuaries and coastal lagoonswill cause the replacement of freshwaterspecies by their brackish and saline watercounterparts. Impacts on the aquaculturesubsector could include damage and loss ofponds in exposed coastal areas due toincreased coastal erosion and rising sea level,loss of suitable land area for aquaculturecaused by coastal inundation and rising feedcosts if climate change adversely affects coastalmarine fisheries. Rising water temperaturesmay have adverse impacts on overall health offisheries (both wild and farmed) arising fromincreased incidence of diseases and parasiticinfections. Changes in the availability of freshwater for aquaculture would not only impactfisheries’ health but could lead to morecompetition/conflict between agriculture,aquaculture and other sectors over accessto high-quality water. The main impacts on

17


Climate zone

South (Southeastand MekongRiver Delta)

• 2020: 0.4 °C

• 2050: 1.0 °C

• 2100: 1.4-2.6 °C-----------------------• 2020: 0.3%

• 2050: 0.7-0.8%

• 2100: 1.0-1.9%

• Tropical cyclones: Possibly unchanged but increasingly trackingsouth during September-November period

• Temperature: Increase in normal and maximum; increase inincidence and severity of hot spells in early months of year; increasein evaporation with increase in dryness, especially in April and May

• Rainfall: Long-term increase in rainfall in rainy season; increasein variability in dry season; distribution across southern areaschanges significantly; increase in inter-annual and intra-seasonalvariability in rainy season; increase in rainfall intensity andmaximum daily/weekly/monthly amounts (to level equal/nearlyequal to South Central)



Scenario

Source: ISPONRE, 2009; MONRE, 2010

aquaculture would accrue from increasedflooding and salinity. Freshwater catfishfarming in particular could face an uncertainfuture as a result of rising prices for feedstuffsand the costs of maintaining water quality assalinization increases. Some fish species, suchas catfish, may grow more rapidly with highertemperatures but be more vulnerable todisease. Aquaculture is currently estimatedto employ some 2.8 million people inViet Nam and have an export value (2010)of about US$2.8 billion. Catfish farmingaccounts for more than 50 per cent of totalaquaculture revenues.

Also of interest is the 2011 United Nationsresponse to Viet Nam’s Second Submission tothe IPCC. The response states: “The B2 scenariowill lead to an average annual temperature rise inViet Nam by 2100 of about 2.3 °C…however,recent scientific data suggests that the world is stillon a high emissions pathway, and according to theA2 high emissions scenario, the average annualtemperature rise would be as much as 3.6 °C in thenorth-central coastal region.” The high emissionsscenario doubles the estimated temperatureincrease in the north, doubles or triples the numberof annual heat waves, increases the rainy seasonrainfall (with attendant increases in extreme rainfallevents, flooding and landsliding) and predicts thataverage rainfall would fall by 20 per cent duringdry months, especially in the southern regions.

Finally, a report by the United States GeologicalSurvey (Doyle et al., 2010) on sea level rise in theMekong Delta noted that subsidence has not beenaccounted for in the country’s scenarios. Thoughreliable data for Viet Nam are lacking, most similardeltas around the world are subsiding at a rategreater than current sea level rise. They suggestthat the rate of subsidence could be as great as9 mm/yr or 1.5 times the predicted rate of rise.

18


BOX 1

In the face of uncertainty it is often preferable toerr on the side of conservatism, particularly whenthe potential cost of being overly optimisticwould be high. For purposes of strategic planningfor climate change, in 2009 the Governmentof Viet Nam selected a mid-range, ‘mediumemissions’ scenario (group: A1B, B2) as the basisfor modelling potential climate change impactson the country. That scenario roughly entailsaverage global warming of 2.3 °C and sea levelrise of 75 cm before the end of this century.Is this scenario sufficiently conservative?

Modelling performed by other parties workingon climate change in Viet Nam (e.g. IFPRI,Can Tho University, World Bank, others)generally complement the MONRE scenariowith other IPCC scenarios. The purpose of doingso is to provide a more comprehensive view ofthe range of potential outcomes, given thegreat uncertainty in all models and scenarios.For example, given the uncertainty over climatechange impacts on rainfall in Viet Nam, bothIFPRI and World Bank have included the driestand wettest scenarios, in addition to MONRE’s,in an attempt to better estimate the potentialrange of outcomes and impacts.

• Transportation. Industrial facilities,equipment, power stations andtransmission lines in coastal zones willface submergence and increased risk offlooding. A 1-metre rise of sea level couldsubmerge 11,000 km of road infrastructure.

• Human health. Direct health impacts wouldoccur as a result of increased incidence ofheat waves and natural disasters. Indirectly,rising sea level and temperature affectingagricultural land may impact food securityand increase the risk of food shortages.Warmer conditions will facilitate the spreadof infectious diseases and epidemics.

How conservative are predictions of climate change impact in Viet Nam?

19


Poverty and the rural sector. In Viet Nampoverty may be characterized as predominatelya rural phenomenon. Over 90 per cent of thepoor and almost three quarters of thepopulation live in rural areas, makingagriculture and rural development critical toViet Nam’s overall development. In 2010,agriculture (including forestry and fisheries)accounted for an estimated 20.6 per cent ofGDP (CIA, 2011), 24.9 per cent of exports(World Bank, 2011a) and 62 per cent ofemployment (GSO, 2011). The majority of therural population makes its living by growingand selling crops, raising and selling livestockand fish, and harvesting forest products.Rice, livestock (including poultry) and fishaccounted for over 69 per cent of grossagricultural production value in the 2007-2009period, contributing an average of 32 per centin 2007, 22.1 per cent in 2008 and 14.9 per centin 2009 (FAOSTAT, 2011; GSO, 2011a).

Such agricultural employment is, however,correlated with poverty. Between 1993 and2008, a period in which poverty wassignificantly reduced overall, the percentageof poor households working in agriculturefell only modestly, from 51.3 per cent to47.3 per cent (Viet Nam Academy of SocialSciences, 2011). Lacking adequate educationand skills, poor households have tended toremain in purely agricultural jobs with lowincome, while better-off households work innon-farm sectors (VASS, 2011).

Poverty also has strong ethnic, geographic,age and gender dimensions. Poverty ratescountrywide are most severe in the Northernand the Central Highlands regions, where75 per cent of Viet Nam’s minoritypopulations live, most of them in rural areas(World Bank, 2009). In these regions, the

poverty rate among the dominant minoritywas estimated at 45.2 per cent, and for allother ethnic minorities at about 73 per cent(Baluch et al., 2010). Poverty among ethnicminority children is especially high. Usingmultidimensional criteria to assess poverty,6

the two regions with the highest rates ofpoverty among children were the Northwestand the Mekong River Delta. In the MekongRiver Delta, the rate of multidimensionalpoverty (52.8 per cent) was the highest in thecountry (GSO, 2009). The incidence of povertyis highest in the Northern and CentralHighlands regions, whereas in absolutenumbers the poor are concentrated in theRed River and Mekong Deltas (VASS, 2011).

From a gender perspective, a number ofchallenges remain in Viet Nam that leavewomen more vulnerable to the impacts ofpoverty. Ethnic minority women and girlslag behind ethnic minority men and Kinhand Chinese women in accessing healthand education services and economicopportunities. Also, women’s role in theagricultural sector − where they nowoutnumber men − is neither fully recognizednor supported through rural developmentpolicy and programmes. Finally, progressin increasing the number of women indecision-making has been slow andinconsistent (World Bank, 2006; GSO, 2011).

Climate-related risk and poverty.

Of particular concern is the nexus betweenclimate risk and poverty. In a World Bankstudy on the social dimension of adaptationto climate, village-level interviews found thatcommunity members considered factorsdirectly related to climate to be among themain causes of poverty. “Drought and hazard

Implications of climate change forthe rural sector

6 In addition to economic criteria, criteria related to child development needs: access to education, health, housing, cleanwater and sanitation, as well as to social protection including protection from exploitive child labour.

20

IMPLICATIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE FOR THE RURAL SECTOR

damage were brought up again and again as amain cause of poverty,” the authors reported(McElwee, 2010). In another case study(Lâm Thái Dương, 2009), a review of thenatural disaster history in a poor community inHa Giang found that in the 10 years between1998 and 2008 there had been 10 majorevents causing losses, from floods, landslides,cold spells and typhoon-associated storms.Vulnerability to climate change is also sociallydifferentiated. Impacts of extreme weatherevents are related not only to poverty statusbut also to access to resources and socialsecurity systems. Groups that are already themost socially vulnerable (women, ethnicminorities and disabled people) are likely

to be disproportionally less able to adapt toclimate change.

One impact of particular importance isincreased susceptibility to health problems,such as illnesses resulting from lack of safedrinking water, vector-borne infectious diseaseslinked to water and temperature, andnutritional impacts resulting from impactson agricultural output. Rural poor people ingeneral and socially vulnerable groups inparticular are also exposed to greater risk due totheir direct reliance on agriculture and naturalresources for their livelihoods, as well as theirgreater exposure to natural disasters and theirlack of assets and capital to recover or to shiftto alternative livelihoods (MONRE, 2010).

BOX 2

Rice, vulnerability and climate change

“The scholar precedes the peasant, but when therice runs out, it's the peasant who precedesthe scholar.”

– Vietnamese proverb

The cultural and economic importance of rice inViet Nam cannot be overstated. It is the cradle ofrice cultivation, and farming began in the countrythousands of years ago. Today, rice remains themost important food in terms of diet, production,cropping area and the agricultural economy.Viet Nam has a rice-based agricultural economy.

Rice is cultivated on 82 per cent of thearable land and provides 80 per cent of thecarbohydrate intake and 40 per cent of theprotein intake of the average Vietnamese person.About 52 per cent of the country’s rice isproduced in the Mekong River Delta and another18 per cent in the Red River Delta.

Worst-case climate change scenarios predictdeclines in rice yields (without adaptation)ranging from 12 per cent in the Mekong RiverDelta to 24 per cent in the Red River Delta.Paddy rice production may fall by 5.8 to9.1 million tons per year. The primary factorsinfluencing rice yields are increase in averagetemperatures, saline intrusion and seasonalreductions in runoff.

Rice is highly susceptible to heat stress.Higher night-time temperatures, in particular, havereduced rice yields by as much as 10 per cent forevery 1 °C increase in average temperature.For Viet Nam this is equivalent to 0.6 tons/ha per1 °C increase. Many of the rice cultivars in use in

Viet Nam are close to their heat thresholds, so a1 °C increase in temperature could lead to evengreater and more widespread losses unless moreheat-tolerant varieties are introduced. However,even that solution might not be sufficient.According to the International Rice ResearchInstitute (IRRI), temperatures above 35 °C for onehour while rice is flowering will sterilize rice pollen.

Other factors of concern are the extensiveinundation of cropland in the rainy season andincreased saline intrusion in the dry season as aconsequence of the combination of sea level riseand higher river flooding. For the Mekong RiverDelta, it is estimated that about 0.59 million ha(or 13 per cent) of rice area could be lost due toinundation and saline intrusion.

Autonomous adaptation by farmers is alreadytaking place. Surveys show that rice farminghouseholds are relying upon various copingstrategies, including:• Change of sowing date for winter-spring rice

in the Red River Delta• Switching to drought-tolerant crops in the

Central Coast region• Reinvigorating local varieties in the Red

River Delta• Introducing hybrid salinity-tolerant varieties

of rice in coastal provinces• Shifting the water inlets upstream to avoid

saline intrusion, and finding new water sources • Introducing a rice-fish rotation.

Sources: Laborte et al., 2012; MoNRE, 2010;Peng et al., 2004; Piper, 1994; World Bank, 2010b

21


7 IFAD, 2011a; Le Duc Ngoan, 2011; Le Ngoc Thach et al., 2010; MARD, 2010; P. McElwee, 2010.8 Calculated by author from data provided in MONRE, 2010.

Recent work by IFAD and others7 stronglysuggests that current climate-related risksare already having significant impacts onagricultural livelihoods among somevulnerable groups. Evidence of this wasfound, inter alia, in adaptive behavioursamong communities in response to what theyview as the rising incidence of naturaldisasters and increasing levels of uncertaintyand risk associated with growing variability,both inter-seasonal and inter-annual, intemperature and rainfall. Examplesencountered included a shift from annualcrops to livestock production due to droughtin the mountains of northern Viet Nam andthe Central Highlands, and high percentagesof farmers changing cropping patterns,calendars, varieties and cultural practices dueto drought and reduced water availability.

Potential economic costs. BecauseViet Nam’s industrial and service sectors aredynamic and show good prospects foreconomic growth, climate change impacts onthem are expected to be limited in the longrun. However, this will not be true for the ruraleconomy and those who continue to dependon farming and other rural occupations fortheir employment and incomes. Climatechange will hit poor households in general,because of the decline in agricultural incomesand increase in food prices relative to thegeneral cost of living. The poorest 20 per centof households, in terms of householdexpenditure per person, will experience largerreductions in real standards of living due toclimate change than those in the top20 per cent of households. The effects willalso be quite uneven across regions:households living in the Central Highlandsregion will be the hardest hit because of adecline in agricultural value-added of up to30 per cent (World Bank, 2010b).

World Bank (2010b) estimates of themacroeconomic effects of climate change onthe rural sector in 2050, without adaptation,represent a loss in overall GDP of 0.7 per centto 2.4 per cent. Loss of agriculturalvalue-added would be between 5.8 per centand 13.9 per cent. The macroeconomiceffects would not be evenly distributedgeographically or among the population.Regionally, northern Viet Nam was estimatedto lose 2.6 per cent to 6.6 per cent of GDP,whereas the south would experience growthof 0.8 per cent to 1.1 per cent. Among ruralhouseholds, consumption by the poorestquintile would decrease by 2.6 per cent to6.5 per cent, compared to an estimateddecrease of 0.4 per cent to 1.7 per cent amongthe richest quintile. For the period from2010-2050, the estimated costs for adaptationof agricultural cropping systems alone wouldbe over US$6.4 billion.

Additional insight into potential costs canbe found by looking at current economicimpacts of natural disasters and hazards. Themajority of the population lives in low-lyingriver basins and coastal areas, such that morethan 70 per cent of Vietnamese are estimatedto be exposed to risks from multiple naturalhazards. Between 1989 and 2004 propertylosses from natural disasters averagedUS$120 million per year. In the four-year periodfrom 2005 to 2008, annual average losses weresix times higher.8 In terms of human exposure,floods are responsible for almost 60 per cent ofimpacts on the population, followed by stormsand drought. In economic terms, storms areresponsible for about 55 per cent of losses,followed by flood and droughts (GFDRR, 2011).In the uplands − home to a large percentage ofthe ethnic minorities who are greatly relianton rainfed, hillslope agriculture − detailedinformation on natural disaster impacts is notreadily available. However, flash floods, droughtand landslides tend to be major concerns.

22

IMPLICATIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE FOR THE RURAL SECTOR

TABLE 3Estimated annual cost of climate change adaptation, 2010-2050(2005 prices, without discounting)

Sector

Agriculture

Aquaculture

Forestry

Flood and coastalprotection

$160.0

$130.0

Modest

$540.0

• Autonomous adaptation: change in sowing dates, switch todrought-tolerant crops, adoption of salinity-tolerant rice varieties,adoption of new crop varieties and switch to rice-fish rotations.

• Planned adaptations: (a) increase spending on research,development and extension to raise average yields by 13.5%,and (b) increase irrigated land ~688,000 ha (~50% for rice;remainder mostly maize and coffee).

Likely to be autonomous as it is capital intensive and growingrapidly: better feed conversion; improvements in marketing andupgrading of dykes (to reduce flooding and salinity); and more waterpumping by semi-intensive and intensive shrimp producers tomaintain water and salinity levels. Costs of adaptation are likelyto be borne by operators.

Key measures: (a) changes in land use planning to facilitate themigration of mangroves inland; (b) adoption of plantation speciesand silvicultural practices for drought resilience; (c) improved pestmanagement, including genetic selection and integrated pestmanagement; and (d) herbicides/biological control of exoticweeds. Financial costs likely to be modest, but institutional issuesmay not be.

Build and upgrade sea dykes and flood defenses to protect urbaninfrastructure and the most valuable agricultural land.

Cost, US$ (million) Adaptation responses

Source: World Bank, 2010b

For the ARD sector, the principal orientingframeworks for medium-term responses toclimate change are the National TargetProgramme to Respond to Climate Changeand the Action Plan Framework for Adaptationto Climate Change in the Agriculture andRural Development Sector Period 2008-2020.Both of these were approved and issued in2008, the former by the Office of the PrimeMinster and the latter by MARD. Subsequently,in 2011, MARD issued its Action Plan toRespond to Climate Change of the Agricultureand Rural Development in Period 2011-2015and Vision to 2050 (RCC-ARD). In addition,other programmes in the sector providerelevant and important instruments forclimate change adaptation and response.As such, they should ideally be aligned withthe National Target Programme and theAction Plan Framework.

National Target Programme to Respond

to Climate Change. The NTP-RCC is theumbrella programme and guiding frameworkfor the Government’s efforts in adaptationand mitigation of climate change risk.MONRE developed the programme andis responsible for its implementation.The current programme, covering the periodfrom 2009 to 2015, has the global objectivesof: (i) assessing potential impacts of climatechange; (ii) ensuring that each sectordevelops a climate change response actionplan; (iii) initiating efforts to move thecountry towards a low-carbon economy;and (iv) contributing to global efforts tomitigate greenhouse gases (GHGs).To achieve these objectives it establishes anambitious agenda of nine tasks groupedinto two operational areas:

• Development and implementation of

the nationʼs strategic and operational

responses to climate change risk:

(i) Assess the potential magnitude ofclimate change and its impacts on thecountry; (ii) identify the appropriateadaptation and mitigation measuresrequired; (iii) develop action plans foreach sector’s, ministry’s and locality’sclimate change response programme;(iv) mainstream climate change issuesinto socioeconomic, sectoral and localdevelopment strategies, plans andplanning processes; and (v) develop andimplement those projects required forexecution of the NTP-RCC.

• Creation and strengthening of the

institutional capacity required for

climate change response: (i) Develop ascience and technology programme onclimate change; (ii) raise awareness anddevelop the needed human resources;(iii) strengthen the capacities oforganizations and institutions; (iv) developappropriate policies on climate changeresponse; and (v) enhance internationalcooperation as a function of implementingthe NTP and sector action plans.

The total cost for implementation of theNTP-RCC from 2009 to 2015 is estimated at1,965 billion VND.9 This excludes fundingfor implementation of the various sectoral,ministerial and local action plans, the cost ofwhich remains to be determined. Domesticsources would account for half of totalfunding: central budget, 30 per cent; localbudget, 10 per cent; and other private sectorand capital contribution, 10 per cent.

23


Viet Nam’s climate change strategy -planned and actual

9 Approximately US$10 million at the time of approval (2008).

The other half of the resources are to comefrom external sources (official developmentassistance, foreign direct investment, etc.).To ensure the required resources, theGovernment has committed to its portionof the financing and to mobilizing theremaining amounts from domestic andinternational sources. This includes offeringtax incentives for private investment andcombining/integrating climate changeresponse into other programmes and projectsto leverage additional investments.

For the NTP-RCC about 72 per cent ofresources will go to environmental researchand governance, as well as training andeducation activities; 20 per cent to specificsectors, including agriculture, social affairsand industry; and 8 per cent for People’sCommittees at provincial and municipal levels.

Institutional arrangements forimplementation of the NTP have beendesigned to promote integration andmainstreaming into other sectoral plans,programmes and projects. The structures are:• A National Steering Committee

comprising the Prime Minister and theMinisters of MONRE, Ministry of Planningand Investment (MPI), Ministry of Finance(MOF), MARD and Ministry ofForeign Affairs;

• An Executive Board, established under theSteering Committee and tasked withensuring intersectoral coordination aspects,comprising the following Ministries:MONRE; MPI; MOF; MARD; ForeignAffairs; Industry and Trade (MOIT); Labour,Invalids and Social Affairs (MOLISA);Transport; Construction; Information andCommunication; Education and Training;Home Affairs; Health; Science andTechnology; Culture, Sport and Tourism;Defense; and Public Security;

• A Standing Office on Climate Change inMONRE that functions as the technicalsecretariat to the Executive Board.

A Standing Office on Climate Change has alsobeen created in MARD and similar offices orfunctions are established in other ministries.

Support Programme to Respond to

Climate Change. To coordinate the policydialogue within the Government and with theofficial development assistance (ODA)community a Support Programme to Respondto Climate Change (SP-RCC) has beenestablished and is managed within MONRE.It serves as a platform for harmonizing andcoordinating technical and financial assistancefor development of climate change-relatedpolicies for implementation of the NTP-RCC.Funded by donors including Canada, Franceand Japan and the World Bank (through atechnical assistance loan), it has been activesince 2009. Through the SP-RCC, MONREhas developed a policy matrix and relatedmonitoring indicators to guide developmentof the policy measures required forimplementation of the NTP-RCC. The matrixalso serves as an instrument for orientingand coordinating support from the donorcommunity in climate change policy. Itincludes around 55 separate policy outcomesand targets to be achieved in the 2009-2015period. The sectors and thematic areascovered are energy, transportation,construction, forestry, agriculture, wastemanagement, clean developmentmechanism, water, integrated coastalmanagement and disaster risk management.

MARD Climate Change Action Plan.

In April 2011 the Minister of MARD signedinto effect the RCC-ARD, which establishesMARD’s priorities for the period 2011-2015.The Action Plan’s overall objective is to improvethe climate change response capacity of theagriculture and rural development sector to(i) minimize climate change-related damage;(ii) reduce the agricultural sector’s greenhousegas (GHG) emissions; (iii) protect the lives ofpeople exposed to natural disasters related toclimate and sea level rise; and (iv) createopportunities for sustainable agriculture andrural development within the context ofclimate change. Priority thematic areas includeprotection of populations and agricultural landsin the coastal zones; stabilizing agriculture,forestry and salt production; ensuring food

24

VIET NAM’S CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY – PLANNED AND ACTUAL

security (especially rice production); the safetyand integrity of the dyke system and otherproductive infrastructure important foragricultural production; natural disasterprevention and control; and economic growththat reduces both poverty and GHG emissions.

To achieve the objectives of the ActionPlan, MARD has specified seven policy,strategy, capacity-building and awareness-raising tasks to be accomplished:1) Evaluation of climate change and sea level

rise impacts on agriculture, forestry, waterresources, aquaculture, salt productionand rural infrastructure; and developmentof mitigation and adaptation measure andsolutions, along with response actionplans for each region;

2) Development of specific programmes/projectsfor agriculture, livestock, forestry,aquaculture, water resources, ruraldevelopment and salt production based onspecific adaptation and mitigationrequirements by region, and creation of newopportunities for sector developmentresulting from climate change impacts;

3) Awareness raising, directed at ensuring thatsector staff and officials and ruralcommunities are fully informed regardingclimate change risks and potential impactsas well as the options for adaptation andmitigation of risks and impacts;

4) Training and development of humanresources of the sector, fields and localitiesto respond to climate change challengesand create development opportunities;

5) Integration of climate change and sea levelrise concerns into action plans, policies,strategies, planning and sector/field/localdevelopment plans;

6) Cooperation with other governments anddonors to mobilize resources, knowledgeand experience for implementation of theAction Plan;

7) Monitoring, inspection and evaluationof progress in achieving objectives andsuccessfully implementing the ActionPlan’s priority tasks.

In addition, MARD has specified a series ofpriority investment projects to be carried outin response to predicted climate changeimpacts and current climate-related risks(natural disasters). These projects consist of(i) hydraulic works to protect areas of highpopulation density, valuable agricultural landand aquaculture areas from salinity intrusionand flooding; (ii) rural development-relatedinfrastructure; (iii) agriculture, primarily GHGmitigation through improved rice irrigationpractices and biofuel crops and development;(iv) reduction of vulnerability to flooding,including relocation of households fromhigh-risk areas; (v) forestry, primarilyreforestation (mangroves and plantations)and fire control; and (vi) fisheries andaquaculture, including hydraulic infrastructurefor aquaculture production and protection.

MARD has estimated the total cost of theAction Plan over the period as 72,402 billionVND,10 of which 0.6 per cent is for the seven‘software’ tasks listed above. The remaining99.4 per cent of the funds will go to ‘hardware’investment projects, of which 69 per cent isfor hydraulic works; 8 per cent for ruraldevelopment-related infrastructure; 7 per centfor agriculture; 5.5 per cent each for forestryand fisheries/aquaculture; and 4 per cent toreduce communities’ vulnerability to flooding.Geographically, 86 per cent of financing is forcoastal and delta regions; 8 per cent isnationwide; 2.8 per cent is for the North andNorth Central regions; 1.4 per cent for theCentral Highlands; 1.1 per cent for agriculturalresearch infrastructure (location unspecified)and 0.7 per cent for the Northwest region.

The sources of financing and the expectedpercentages from each are not detailed in theAction Plan. The primary sources, however,should substantially be the same as those forthe NTP-RCC: central government and localbudgets; private sector and other capitalcontributions; and external sources(official development assistance, foreigndirect investment, etc.).

25


10 Approximately US$3.57 billion at time of approval (2011).

The institutional arrangements for theRCC-ARD comprise:• A Steering Committee, to provide oversight

and policy orientation and to ensure fullparticipation of all involved agencies;

• Standing Office of the Steering Committee,for coordination, annual work planningand budgeting, orientation ofimplementation, monitoring and reporting;

• Ministry of Science and Technologyand MONRE, which oversees theimplementation of the Action Plan,coordinate with relevant non-MARDagencies for budget and funding approvals,appraise proposals and verify completionof investment activities;

• International Cooperation Department(ICD) of MARD, which coordinatesMARD’s institutional relations with theinternational cooperation communityand is responsible for following up withthem to leverage inputs − investment,financial assistance, technical support,capacity-building etc. – for action planimplementation. It also coordinates withthe Standing Office of the SteeringCommittee to ensure attendance ofSteering Committee members in forums,workshops and negotiations andparticipation in bilateral and multilateralcooperation associated with actions underMARD’s administration;

• Departments of Planning and Finance,which coordinate planning and budgeting;

• MARD and the provincial department ofagricultural development (DARD) agencies,which are responsible for development,approval, organization and reporting ondetailed agency implementation plans,and for developing and submittingproposed annual work plans and budgetsto Ministry of Science and Technologyand MONRE (Climate Change SteeringCommittee Standing Office). They alsoreport as required on implementation ofannual work plans.

National Strategy for Natural Disaster

Prevention. Viet Nam’s National Strategy forNatural Disaster Prevention, Response andMitigation to 2020 was approved by theGovernment in 2007. Its main tasks are: • Integrating disaster risk management into

socio-economic development plans at thenational and local levels, with a focus ondisaster response;

• Ensuring sustainable disaster recovery,which integrates disaster risk management;

• Planning regional disaster risk managementstrategies for the five geographical regionsof the country;

• Combining structural and non-structuralmeasures in disaster risk management anddividing implementation responsibilitiesand timing for risk reduction among arange of ministries.

Traditionally Viet Nam has focused onpreparedness and response, with a strongemphasis on structural measures such as dykesand seawalls, and the strategy largely followsthe same approach, with one very importantdifference. The implementation plan for thestrategy (CCFSC, 2009) offers an opportunityto link community-level disaster riskmanagement/vulnerability reduction withclimate change response. Of particular interestfor IFAD would be actions having to do withcommunity-based disaster risk management(CBDRM). The CBDRM action plan11 covers:• Capacity-building for local government staff

at all levels on managing and implementingCBDRM activities, including trainingcourses on CBDRM policy, mechanisms andimplementation guidance for trainers,agencies and local staff; training of trainers;and capacity-building for local authorities;

• Capacity-building on CBDRM forcommunities, including formation ofcommunity-selected working groups;development of participatory hazard andvulnerability maps; development of annualplans on disaster prevention, response and

26


11 www.ccfsc.gov.vn/resources/users/6D696775656C/Annex%20II%20CBDRM%20action%20plan.pdf.

management, including climate changeconcerns; annual updating of hazard andvulnerability maps and communitymonitoring of implementation of activities;and small-scale works for disasterprevention, response and management.

MARD has estimated that it will needUS$18 billion to implement its portion of theStrategy, including about US$13 billion forstructural measures (i.e. building reservoirs,dams and dykes) and US$5 billion for non-structural measures. MARD is also responsiblefor developing and implementing training andcapacity building programmes, while People’sCommittees are responsible for local planningand hazard/vulnerability mapping.

National Target Programme on New Rural

Development 2010-2020. This programme,referred to as the NTP-NRD, implementsARD sector’s New Agricultural and RuralDevelopment Strategy, also known as ’TamNong’, which is of particular importance forIFAD. Issued in 2008, Tam Nong strategy callsfor structural changes that will widely affectpolicy, legal frameworks, planning, land use,investment and principal factors ofproduction in the sector and in rural areas.The new strategy is focused on speeding upindustrialization and modernization of therural sector, and MARD is the lead ministryfor implementation. Among others, thestrategy calls for: • Improved natural resource management

and climate change adaptation forlivelihood security, and building capacity atthe grass-roots level to promote sustainableuses of natural resources to enhance thelivelihoods of the farmers;

• Decentralization of decision-makingand resources covering economic andsocial issues;

• The transition of the State’s role inagriculture from service provider toregulator and facilitator, with publicresources only being used where the privatesector would not be expected to invest orprovide services;

• A continued transition to market-orientedagriculture and rural economic development;

• Economic growth and competitivenessthrough creation of non-farm and off-farmemployment opportunities throughaccelerated market-oriented reforms.

The NTP-NRD, approved in 2009, aimsto bring under one umbrella all ruralprogrammes and re-align them consistentwith the NTP-NRD’s objectives and desiredoutcomes. Operational details forimplementation of the NTP were spelled outin a 2010 Decision issued by the Office ofthe Prime Minister, which detailed theprogramme’s 11 components and theirinstitutional and implementationarrangements. While all are important forrural development, three of the componentsare particularly important relative toclimate-smart investment and in buildingresilience for adaptation to climate change:• General master plan for rural development,

which includes all planning processes forthe development of ‘new’ rural areas,i.e. planning of land use, basicinfrastructure, production of agriculturalcommodities, agro-industry, craft industry,provision of services, socio-economic andenvironmental infrastructure, newresidential areas and improvements toexisting residential areas in communes;

• Socio-economic infrastructuredevelopment, which consists ofconstruction of roads, power grids, clinics,schools, irrigation systems, etc.;

• Economic restructuring, developmentand income improvement, which includesrestructuring agricultural productiontowards production of commodities with‘high economic efficiency’. It also includesstrengthening extension activities andincreasing research outputs on advancedtechnologies for agroforestry andaquaculture production.

Payment for forest environmental services.

In December 2010 the Office of the PrimeMinister approved Government Decree 99,

27


which established the scheme forimplementation of the Policy on Payment forForest Environment Services (PFES). Thespecific criteria, content and measures forimplementing the policy have yet to beworked out, but it is expected that it will bepiloted by the end of 2013 and will bereviewed for subsequent full roll-out.

One objective of the policy is for PFES to“contribute to ensuring harmony and balanceof the living environment: to conservebiodiversity; to prevent and limit adverseimpacts of natural disasters (flood, drought,soil erosion, desertification, carbonsequestration and retention, air environmentpollution; greenhouse gas emissions; climatechange, etc.). ”It also recognizes that the Statewill have to move quickly to allocate forestlands and assign or provide contracts for forestuse on a “stable and permanent manner toorganizations, households and villagecommunities” in order for PFES to be of use.

The policy includes these stipulations:(i) river basin master plans will serve as thebasis for identifying forest areas, liable payersand potential payees of forest environmentservices payment in each basin; (ii) the generalcensus on forests, being carried out during2010-2015, will provide the basis forimplementation of the policy; (iii) hydrologicservices (such as water quality, seasonal flows)will be considered, and hydropower plants,water supply utilities, industrial water usersdrawing from natural sources and aquaculturefacilities will be subject to fees that will beused to finance monitoring of the quality offorest environment services; and (iv) othereligible services will include carbonsequestration; avoidance of deforestation;habitat services, particularly fishery spawninggrounds and food and seed sources; andindustrial production establishments usingwater directly from water sources.

Among the main target groups to receive PFESpayments are the 30 per cent of the populationliving in mountainous regions, a highpercentage of whom are ethnic minorities.

Details of payments and payment levelsare still being worked out, but in the interim,a payment of 200,000 VND/ha/yr (orapproximately US$9.85) has been set for PFESfrom hydropower and water utilities (Pham,2009). Additional government programmesalso provide payments to households andindividuals for forest protection. Notionally,these can also be included as forms of PFES:(i) Project 661, 100,000 VND/ha/year basedon the area of forest contracted to thehouseholds by the Forest Management Boards;(ii) Programme 135, 100,000 VND/ha/year,based on the area of forest managed by theCommune People’s Committees and ForestManagement Boards; (iii) Programme 304,100,000 VND/ha/year and 15 kg ofrice/individual/month for forest protection; and(iv) Programme 30A, 200,000 VND/ha/yearand 15 kg of rice/individual/month for amaximum of 84 months.

Farm insurance. The Ministry of Finance hasbeen experimenting with a farm insuranceprogramme during the 2011-2013 period.12

It provides poor farming households with asubsidy of up to 100 per cent of the insurancepremium. Other farming households willreceive 60 per cent, and agriculturalproduction organizations will receive50 per cent. According to the draft document,the insurance covers three main categories:cultivated crops (rice), domestic animals(buffalo, cows, pigs and poultry) andaquaculture (tra and basa fish, black tigershrimp and white-leg shrimp).

Rice insurance will be offered in sevenprovinces, livestock insurance in nineprovinces and fish and shrimp hatchery

28


12 Previous experiences with farm insurance in Viet Nam have not been widely successful. The majority of the sector aresmallholders, and the high frequency of natural disasters and epidemic diseases makes insurance risky. Insurance companiesmust therefore require high premiums, which few farmers can afford. Farmers in their turn find it difficult to make thecost/benefit calculation that might convince them to spend scarce resources on insurance policies. Demand for agriculturalinsurance is reduced by Viet Nam Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development lending policies that provide for a liberalrescheduling of debt when natural disasters occur and repayment of loans is problematic. This policy acts as a form ofinsurance for the farmer (GlobalAgRisk, 2009).

insurance in five provinces. Only one of theprovinces where IFAD works (Ha Tinh) iscovered by the pilot for rice insurance, noneare in the pilot for livestock and two (Ben Treand Tra Vinh) are in the pilot for fishery andaquaculture. Minimum conditions forcoverage will be established (e.g. a farmermust own at least 10 dairy cows or 50 beefcattle) that may keep insurance out of thehands of the more vulnerable smallholders(Viet Nam Business, 2011).

ODA/development partner support for

climate change in ARD. Based on a reviewof a database compiled by the World Bank onclimate change investments in Viet Nam,around US$1.37 billion has been pledged toclimate change activities over the 25 yearsbetween 1992 and 2017. More than 55 per centof these resources have been in the form ofloans. Including Government of Viet Namfunds, 51 per cent of total resources committedhave been designated for climate changeadaptation, 46 per cent for mitigation and3 per cent for capacity-building, awareness-raising and institutional support. The top fivemajor financiers, accounting for almost80 per cent of all financing, are World Bank(43 per cent), European Union (12 per cent),Government of Viet Nam (12 per cent), AsianDevelopment Bank (ADB) (7 per cent) andJapan International Cooperation Agency(JICA) (5 per cent). Denmark and Australia arethe other main bilateral financiers. GEF andUNDP have also provided major funding.

The same database projects that IFAD willbe a major financier of climate changeadaptation under its next COSOP. Thedatabase’s assumption is that IFAD’s entireportfolio (including leveraged GEF/SCCF andGEF/SPA funds13) under the new COSOP willbe oriented to climate change concerns. Basedon this assumption, IFAD would become thesecond-largest financier of climate changeactions in Viet Nam, at 12 per cent, followingthe World Bank (38 per cent).

Table 4 provides an overview of recentfunding for climate change. Almost 100separate programmes, projects and activitieshave either just ended or are ongoing.These represent some 60 per cent of all theinvestments in climate change in the lastquarter century. At the point when IFAD’s newCOSOP comes on line in 2013, only 28 ofthese 98 activities will be ongoing.

Current IFAD portfolio. In IFAD’s priorCOSOP (2008-2012) climate change wasto be pursued as a cross-cutting theme.Specifically, the intention was to promote thedevelopment of climate change-resilientagricultural systems oriented towards reducingGHG emissions, reducing emissions fromdeforestation and forest degradation, andcommunity-based agroforestry for carbonsequestration in the uplands. Over the courseof the COSOP period, in partnership with theGlobal Mechanism of the United NationsConvention to Combat Desertification, therewas to be an ongoing process to formulateand implement mitigation and adaptationactions. Pilot projects, studies andcapacity-building activities were to providekey inputs to the national agenda andpolicies for climate change.

29


13 Global Environment Facility/Special Climate Change Fund and Global Environment Facility/Strategic Priority for Adaptation.

Several preliminary activities were identifiedduring the COSOP formulation formainstreaming adaptation to climate changeinterventions and mobilizing supplementaryfinancing through the pursuit of GHGmitigation measures. A central concept was toassist in developing payment for environmentalservices (PES) schemes that would translate intorewards for poor communities in upland areasthat acted as good stewards of their naturalresource base. Key assumptions underlyingthis strategy were: (i) IFAD needed to play acatalytic role in promoting the Government’sengagement in climate change issues; (ii) forest

land use rights certificates would be awardedto individuals in an equitable and timelyfashion, providing both an incentive andenabling conditions (legal, social, economic)for development of PES, especially carbonpayments; and (iii) international mechanismsfor carbon sequestration payments(e.g. reducing emissions from deforestationand forest degradation [REDD], CleanDevelopment Mechanism) would becomeoperational in a timely fashion, as would otheropportunities (national and international)for PES for biodiversity conservation andprovision of hydrologic services.

30


TABLE 4Recent climate change funding by ODA and the Government of Viet Nam –activities ending 2010-2017

Theme or sub-theme

Adaptation-generalAdaptation-Agriculture/forestry/fisheriesAdaptation-water/urbanAdaptation-social/economicAdaptation-natural disastersAdaptation-coastalAdaptation-Mekong DeltaCurrent situation/trend in climate changeNational Science and Technological ProgrammeCapacity strengthening-generalCapacity strengthening-agriculture/fisheriesCapacity strengthening-energyCapacity strengthening-industry/urbanCapacity strengthening-natural disastersCapacity strengthening-community levelAwareness raisingMainstreamingLow carbon growth planningMitigation-generalMitigation-agricultureREDDMitigation-energy/power sectorMitigation-energy/renewablesMitigation-energy/energy efficiencyMitigation-industryMitigation-urbanMitigation-transportFinancial mechanisms-general

58425243192122224124

1222

101123

98

143 878,7886 510,0001 941,790

185,000108 577,500

4 700,000182 900,000

----

5 970,000------

450,0006 289,450

--3 650,000

--405,000

5 348,60017 032,000

--240 800,00066 975,0002 600,0009 800,0009 800,0001 500,000

819 313,128

Number of projects/activities

US$

Source: Adapted from World Bank-provided database on climate change investments in Viet Nam

When the COSOP was being developedrelatively few activities directed at climatechange were taking place at the national level.The major ones were investments directed atnatural disaster management and mitigationin urban transport. As such, it was reasonablefor IFAD to propose playing a role in raisingattention on climate change concerns andpolicy needs. It was the end of 2008 when theNational Target Programme for Response toClimate Change was approved and MARDapproved its Response to Climate ChangeAction Plan framework. Between 2008 and2011, over 100 new activities directed atclimate change were initiated and almostUS$740 million was committed to thoseactivities. Thus the COSOP assumption onIFAD’s needed role became obsolete early inthe COSOP, and IFAD wisely directed itsefforts in national policy dialogue towardsother areas (e.g. the NTP-NRD).

The other two key assumptions alsoturned out to be somewhat optimistic.Issuance of forest land use right certificatestended to lag in most of the IFAD projectprovinces as well as nationwide. Progress wasmade − roughly 24 per cent of Viet Nam’sforest lands are managed by households −but it was uneven. Progress towards PES wasalso impeded by lack of readily availabletechnologies (proven both financially andtechnically) for incorporating those landsinto the diversified production systems ofmost smallholders. Finally, the internationalschemes have been very slow to develop,with REDD activities in Viet Nam primarilyconstituting preparation and feasibilityactivities, with few REDD project activitiestaking place on the ground. The CleanDevelopment Mechanism is also slowlydeveloping in Viet Nam.

Climate change concerns have beenaddressed to a greater or lesser extent in allof IFAD’s projects since 2008. For the twoprojects that were developed under theprior COSOP (2004-2008), this requiredretrofitting. The Improving MarketParticipation of the Poor in Ha Tinh andTra Vinh Provinces (IMPP) project, approved

in 2006, has perhaps done the mostinteresting and practical work on climate-proofing among projects in the portfolio.Table 5 summarizes the extent to whichclimate change was integrated into the designand the extent to which action was takenduring project implementation. For the twomost recently approved projects, initiatedin 2011, it is too early to assess theimplementation experience.

For the next COSOP period, the currentportfolio will provide valuable lessons andexperiences. In particular, IFAD’s experienceswith developing tools for local, participatoryplanning and promoting their integration intothe Socio-Economic Development Plan(SEDP) process are extremely useful. This istrue despite the fact that much of thatexperience concerns value-chain planningand local development. The policy andinstitutional challenges of integration andinstitutionalization are greater challenges;technical content is much morestraightforward to develop. Clearly theclimate-proofing tool for value chainsplanning and investment, developed withGIZ (German international cooperation)in the IMPP, is also a high-value asset that willbe further developed in the next period.

Regarding PES, it is difficult to predicthow much more effort may be merited tocapture international funds for GHGreduction. It would make sense to exploremore local options for PES under the nextCOSOP period, particularly given Decree 99of 2010 on the Policy for Payment for ForestEnvironmental Services, which stipulates thatcertain ecosystem services users (includinghydropower, water supply and touristcompanies) must pay ecosystem servicesproviders for valuable forest ecosystem services.Overall, it will make more sense to prioritizeclimate change adaptation interventions,particularly if doing so presents the opportunityto leverage additional benefits from mitigationfor rural poor people at a reasonably lowtransaction cost. IFAD supervision missionsshould remain alert to identifying suchopportunities over the coming years.

31


Communities and farmers. While there areno systematic studies of how rural poor peopleare coping with climate risk and climatechange, the growing body of case studies andreports presents a varied picture. The evidencegenerally shows that where the impacts are easily

recognized (e.g. changing onset of the rainyseason) and the adaptation response is relativelysimple and low cost and requires minimumcollective action (change planting date), privateadaptation is taking place and farmers arecoping. Where these factors do not hold,

32


TABLE 5IFAD projects under implementation during 2008-2012

Project/year approved

Economic Empowermentof Ethnic Minorities inPoor Communes ofDak Nong Province, 2010

Agriculture, Farmersand Rural Areas SupportProject in Gia Lai, NinhThuan and Tuyen QuangProvinces, 2010

Pro-Poor Partnerships forAgroforestry DevelopmentProject, 2008

Developing Business withthe Rural Poor Program,2007

Improving MarketParticipation of the Poor,Ha Tinh andTra Vinh Provinces, 2006

• Strategic partnership to developinnovative policies on climate changemitigation and market access with IFPRI

• Interventions to be conceived in climatechange context and contribution tomitigation and adaptation

• Indicators: None

• Subcomponent for development andinstitutionalization of market-orientedsocio-economic development planning(MOP-SEDP) and implementation tomainstream ‘climate proofing’ intoGovernment’s planning andbudgeting mechanism

• Indicators: Indirect – MOP-SEDPmainstreamed at provincial level

• Indirect: PES to provide productivesafety net for poor upland farmers

• Indicators: Indirect – areas undersustainable land management andsustainable forest management;increased income thru PES; sustainablelivelihoods thru non-timber forestproducts and ecotourism

None

• Indirect: NRM and sustainablelivelihoods intentions

• Indicators: None

Project in first year of implementation

Project in first year of implementation

• Partnership with WorldAgroforestry Center on developingPES for carbon (REDD, primarily)

• Piloting pro-poor RES/PESmechanisms

• Studies completed(landscape/livelihoods; carbonstock assessments for major landuses; opportunity costs for REDD+)

• Climate change vulnerabilityreview of project

• Incorporating: climate-proofinginfrastructure; climate changeinto SEDP improve climatechange-sensitive maize and cattlesystems; research on adaptation.

Substantial: integratingclimate-proofing planning tools inSEDP and value chains: vulnerabilityassessments, geo-spatial analysis;climate-proofing planning tooldeveloped and tested

Principal climate change-relevant content

CurrentAt design

the situation may be more difficult andhouseholds are not able to adequately cope.

Some case studies illustrate this reality: • Oxfam (2008): Case study of rural poor in

Ben Tre and Quang Tri provinces.Households are already experiencing theconsequences of climate change and inmany cases are ill-equipped to reduce oradapt to the consequences. In many villageswomen are hit the hardest by naturaldisasters. They often cannot swim, have fewoptions for alternative livelihoods whencrops are destroyed and have feweremployment opportunities away from thehome. In Ben Tre, the main problems weretyphoons, unpredictable weather and thethreat of saltwater intrusion from sea levelrise and other factors. In Quang Tri,unpredictable and concentrated rainfallwas causing more flooding than usual orflooding at unusual times of year. Prawnfarming, which had been very lucrative,was becoming too risky due to salineintrusion, unpredictable weather anddisease, etc. Farmers with fewer resourcescould not adapt and were left worse offdue to being in debt and losingemployment, etc. Positive examples werefound of farmers changing crop cycles orplanting different crops.

• McElwee (2010): Interviews in Ha Giangprovince and the Mekong Delta. • Ha Giang: In rocky, mountainous areas

households are growing different cropsto lessen damage from water stress.Nearly 30 per cent of the corn area wasconverted to grass plantation in 2009due to lack of water. The villagers plantelephant grass from Guatemala asfodder for buffaloes due to its resistanceto cold spells and suitability on slopinglands, where it also helps prevent soilerosion. New buffalo/cow markets haveemerged. Rice and corn are still majorcrops but short-term (3-4 month)varieties are replacing local (6-month)varieties. Chinese rice varieties arewidely used due to their resistance todrought. Corn varieties that fit the

shorter rainy season are imported fromThailand. Short-maturing varieties arepreferred to prevent tornado damageand because, if the crop is unsuccessful,there is still time to replant.

• Mekong Delta: Households coped withhotter days by buying fans and withcolder days by wearing more clothes.They also undertook disaster riskreduction measures like preparing housesbefore storms. In terms of medium-termmeasures, more than three quarters ofhouseholds have done nothing. Residentshad no ideas on how to adapt in the longterm; they said they needed moreknowledge. Before extreme events,collective action primarily took the formof preparedness activities. Residentsexchange information heard from earlywarning systems and on things to dosuch as reinforcing houses. Preparatoryactivities that entailed additional fundsor labour − such as maintaining rescueroads, building sandbag dykes anddredging drainage/canal systems − were lesscommon. After climate events, collectiveaction emphasized rescue and reliefactivities. Households collaborated to cleanup and distribute goods and assistanceto affected people and to reinforce andrepair damaged dwellings and publicinfrastructure. Collective action was notseen in the form of a long-term adaptationstrategy. Overall, collective communityaction emphasized labour rather thaninvestment. It appears that most collectiveaction involves easier actions that entaillittle sacrifice of time or money.

• IFPRI (2011). In the Red River Delta plantingdates in the winter-spring rice planting areahave been continuously shifting in responseto changing seasonality. In 1994 about28 per cent of rice was planted in earlyspring, 34 per cent in middle spring and38 per cent in late spring. By 1998, this hadchanged to 31 per cent early, 13 per centmiddle and 56 per cent late spring. In 2004,the pattern was 13 per cent early, 2 per centmiddle and 85 per cent late.

33


Opportunities. The NTP-RCC represents onlythe first step in a much longer process oftranslating a broad vision for the country intospecific priorities, strategies and action plans.It concentrates on research, planning,communication and inter-institutional andintersectoral coordination. Detailed responsesare left to line ministries to specify throughtheir own sectoral action plans. As such, theNTP-RCC is not itself a climate change strategy.

For implementation of the NTP-RCC sevenpriority areas were identified for the period2009-2015. Three of these are areas for whichIFAD has both the institutional mandate andcomparative advantages:

• Aid awareness enhancement and

human resources training

• Support Women’s Unions to promoteawareness on gender issues and the roleof women in climate change responseamong other social organizations,MARD/DARD and local governments.

• Support the Youth Union to conductawareness-raising programmes amongyoung people on climate change andincrease their involvement in responseplanning and actions; and promoteawareness of the role of young peopleamong other social organizations,MARD/DARD and local governments.

• Develop plans and programmes to raiseawareness of selected groups in the provincialadministration system, social organizations,the media and the community.

• Support the development anddissemination (through public mediachannels) of climate change informationrelevant to agriculture, rural developmentand disaster risk management.

• Support awareness-raising actions for thegeneral public through social organizations,MARD/DARD and local governments.

• Develop and implement action plans to

respond to climate change

• In coordination with MPI, work withprovincial planning and investmentdepartments to develop guidelines formainstreaming climate change issuesinto the SEDP development andimplementation processes at commune,district and provincial levels.

• Support provincial efforts (by departmentsof planning and investment, DARD,Division of Natural Resources andEnvironment) to develop climate changeresponse plans at commune, district andprovincial levels.

• Support the development of policies andmechanisms – where compatible with theobjectives of poverty reduction, climatechange adaptation and/or disaster riskmanagement – that encourage investmentin clean development mechanisms,emissions reduction and environmentalprotection, and implement pilot projects.

• In coordination with MOLISA, supportdevelopment of policy proposals andmeasures for poverty reduction amongpopulations and areas most vulnerableto climate change, and ensure theyaddress issues of migration, resettlement,gender and livelihoods, and implementpilot projects.

• Support efforts by provincial People’sCommittees to assess impacts of climatechange and sea level rise on theirprovinces and localities and developpro-poor action plans to respond toclimate change and sea level rise.

• Support MARD/DARD to develop andimplement action plans to respond toclimate change, particularly in terms ofmainstreaming climate change issuesinto pro-poor strategies, programmesand plans.

34

Proposed IFAD responses -opportunities and priorities

• In coordination with MOIT and MARD,at provincial level and specific toIFAD-supported value-chains, support thedevelopment and implementation ofmeasures to respond to climate change intrade activities, and implement pilot projects.

• Develop and implement science and

technology programmes on climate

change. Support MARD and DARD inadaptive research, policy and technologydevelopment, and pro-poor agriculture andrural development to mainstream climatechange issues into environmental protectionprogrammes, natural resources management,natural disaster prevention and marineresearch programmes that serve IFAD’s targetgroup of rural poor people, ethnicminorities, women and young people.

MARD’s RCC-ARD is also a reasonably goodframework for organizing IFAD’s strategy andinterventions. It is a serious effort to respondto the issues that climate change raises for thesector. The vision it provides to 2050is comprehensive and recognizes the wide andcomplex range of interventions needed tosupport adaptation and enhance the resilienceof vulnerable populations countrywide.It identifies the types of policy, institutional,investment and technical responses requiredto achieve the goal of “Ensuring that [allstakeholders] benefit equally from climatechange mitigation and adaptation activities”(MARD, 2011). It recognizes that one sizedoes not fit all and that flexibility and locallyadapted responses are important.

On the other hand, the 2011-2015 actionframework for the implementation of thelonger-term RCC-ARD strategy is unclear onhow the broader vision to 2050 will translateinto local schemes for adaptation. It lacksguiding principles, criteria or priorities forinvolving the diverse stakeholders that mustbe engaged – the private sector, communitiesand authorities, social organizations andNGOs, provincial governments, etc. – for itsexecution and to refine and develop its nextphases. The 2011-2015 action framework

concentrates on a limited set of ‘hard’investments in coastal areas to combat sealevel rise and, to a lesser degree, on GHGemission reduction (mitigation) investments.With over 90 per cent of the fundingearmarked for specific hard investments,there is little room for strengthening capacityfor local action or for the types of ‘soft’investments important to building capacityand resilience for the long term.

Largely absent are the important themes ofadaptation for non-irrigated and/or non-ricefarmers, as are investments in strengtheningextension and research to support farmeradaptation. Poverty reduction and foodsecurity receive limited attention. Some of theproposed GHG mitigation investmentsconstitute the only recognition of the need fora pro-poor climate change response. For foodsecurity, important adaptation investments areproposed for rice. Yet the issue of food securityamong rural poor people – particularly ethnicminorities and other vulnerable populations −is left out of the five-year action framework.

These weaknesses in the action frameworkprovide a number of relevant opportunities forIFAD. Broad support is needed to developpro-poor policies and approaches for climatechange adaptation and mitigation, integratethe concerns of vulnerable groups andestablish a bridge between field-level learningand national policy dialogue. These actions arejust beginning in the near-term Action Planand fit well with IFAD’s comparativeadvantages. In addition, they open thepotential to promote the retrofitting ofexisting ARD programmes by mainstreamingclimate-proofing tools into SEDP planningand implementation processes.

Together, these actions could provide acoherent approach to addressing climatechange when systematically applied across theIFAD portfolio of vulnerability assessment(physical, social, livelihoods); identificationof requirements to climate-proof livelihoodsand of opportunities for new, sustainablelivelihoods; climate-risk and climate-changeawareness, education and capacity-building toimprove local capacity and resilience;

35


community-based natural resourcesmanagement, integrating disaster vulnerabilityreduction through local land use planning andinvestments in vulnerable and protectionzones; development of knowledge networksamong farmers and researchers to identifysuccessful adaptive behaviours and extendthem to other groups and communities;support for public-private partnerships inthe context of climate-smart value chains;and knowledge management, to bring fieldlearning to policy discussions and donorcoordination forums.

Comparative advantages and

opportunities for innovation. IFAD cancapitalize on its comparative advantages inViet Nam to ensure that its portfolio andinvestments are climate smart and provide aneffective platform for engagement with theGovernment and development partners onpolicy, strategies and initiatives for climatechange adaptation and mitigation. Oneprincipal advantage derives from IFAD’smission to enable poor rural people toovercome poverty and its agriculture-orientedagenda of improving food security andnutrition, raising incomes and strengtheningresilience. At present the international partnersin Viet Nam are reducing support for ruraldevelopment and poverty alleviation, due tothe country’s success in reducing poverty andits recently achieved middle-income status andWorld Trade Organization membership.

Many donors, specially bilateral donors,are shifting their policies from a developmentcooperation relationship to a partnershiprelationship. Non-refundable aid is decreasing,and the focus is shifting to technical supportand trade/business promotion. In parallel is ashift in concessional financing in favour ofhard loans from both bilateral donors andmultilateral sources (e.g. Viet Nam is now anIDA blend country14) as a result of Viet Nam’smiddle-income and World Trade Organizationstatus. By focusing on pro-poor adaptation

and mitigation, IFAD could both compensatefor the loss of donor focus on agriculture andrural poverty and support critical ARDobjectives that do not receive sufficientattention in the context of current sectoralclimate change policy and strategy.

Another strong comparative advantage thatIFAD brings into the next COSOP period isthe knowledge, experience and institutionalrelations and capital developed through itscurrent portfolio. Much of what IFAD iscurrently supporting will remain relevant toand necessary for climate-smart investment inViet Nam: targeting of the most vulnerablepopulations among rural poor people(ethnic minorities, women, children andyouth); participatory local planning processesand integration into the SEDP; improvementsin access to and quality of rural services(extension, credit, input supply); market accessand pro-poor value chains; sustainable, naturalresource-based livelihoods; capacity-buildingat all levels to improve the management ofdevelopment processes and outcomes;strengthening of social capital through supportfor local groups and the mass organizationson which they depend; and strategic supportto local and provincial-level agencies andauthorities to adapt and implement centralgovernment rural development policies underthose programmes that have beendecentralized to them.

IFAD has also developed good workingrelationships with the authorities in theprovinces where it works. Those relationshipshave extended to the national level, where IFADis recognized as an important source of finance,innovation and learning among both the donorcommunity and the concerned ministries(principally MARD, MPI and MOF). IFAD hasthe institutional capital and recognitionrequired to engage at all levels and createopportunities to support, influence andstrengthen government strategies and initiativesfor climate change adaptation and mitigation.

36

PROPOSED IFAD RESPONSES – OPPORTUNITIES AND PRIORITIES

14 International Development Association (IDA) blend countries are those that are eligible to receive IDA resources based onper capita income, but that also have limited creditworthiness to borrow from the International Bank for Reconstructionand Development.

Finally, in the short and medium term, themajor opportunities for achieving effective anddurable pro-poor responses to climate changelie in synergistically combining concerns fordisaster risk management, climate-related riskand climate change threats into the SEDPprocess through local planning instrumentsand processes. Given that SEDP is theprincipal planning instrument for allocatingpublic financing for the ARD sector, linkingwith SEDP provides the opportunity toinstitutionalize pro-poor, climate-smartdevelopment approaches and see themreplicated across the entire country.

General priorities. IFAD should continueapproaches and activities that contribute toincreasing resilience and enhancingadaptation capacity by accelerating supportfor best practices in the areas of (i) povertyreduction/sustainable livelihoods; (ii) naturaland water resources management;(iii) sustainable agriculture; (iv) securinglong-term household access to land, forestand water resources; (v) improving access tocredit; (vi) improving access to andeffectiveness of services, especially agriculturalextension and village-level animal healthservices; (vii) promoting access and linkagesto markets and value chains; (viii) securingphysical access to markets (e.g. all-weatherand life-line roads); (ix) improving accessto education and vocational training;(x) building capacity and strengthening localinstitutions for decentralized managementof public ARD and poverty reductionprogrammes; and especially (xi), integratinglocal planning processes into the SEDP.

New priorities emerging from the needto ensure climate-smart investment and tocapitalize on existing policies, strategies,programmes and opportunities are: (i) supportlocal land use planning with CBDRM hazardmapping for vulnerability reduction, disasterrisk management and orientation of publicinvestments; (ii) mainstream tools for climateproofing local investments into the SEDPplanning processes; (iii) target investmentsto climate proofing, reducing vulnerability,

increasing resilience and capacity for adaptationand/or maintenance of environmental servicesimportant to water supply and natural resources-based livelihood, and to production systems;(iv) support adaptation-focused research that isrelevant to rural poor people; (v) supportdevelopment of knowledge managementcapacities and approaches required to learn fromexperience and feed this knowledge back intopolicy and planning processes; (vi) providesupport at the provincial level and in MARD fordeveloping policy-relevant information onpro-poor climate change adaptation andadaptation financing, integration through theSEDP process, development of local PESschemes and management/mitigation ofclimate change, including induced migration;and (vii) strengthen mechanisms forcoordination of the RCC-ARD throughprogrammatic frameworks, better stakeholderengagement strategy and knowledge sharing.

IFADʼs targeting strategy. In integratingclimate change concerns into its next COSOP,IFAD should substantially retain its currenttargeting strategy. First, sensitivity toclimate-related risk and climate change impactsis a direct function of social vulnerability.In Viet Nam, rural poor people are the mostsensitive and, among them, ethnic minorities,women and children are the most vulnerable.Second, poverty reduction is one way, if notthe best way, to enhance household andcommunity capacity for adaptation. To increaseresilience to climate change impacts, good ruraldevelopment and natural resource policies andprogrammes will be good adaptation policiesand programmes. Thus, the factors that driveIFAD’s prioritization for the 2013-2017 periodwill be substantially compatible with thosefactors that would otherwise drive priority-settingoriented to climate risk. However, in weighingits geographic priorities for investment under thenext COSOP, IFAD should give extra weightand consideration to the following regions asareas where rural poor people are particularlysensitive and exposed to climate risk,and thus merit additional consideration.In order of priority, those regions are:

37


• Mekong River Delta: Based on poverty headcount (i.e. not on poverty rate) the delta hasa very large population of rural poor peopleand is the region likely to suffer the greatestimpacts from climate change;

• Central Highlands: Because of its high ratesof poverty, large ethnic minority populationand the prevalence of rainfed subsistenceagriculture, the Central Highlands arehighly sensitive to climate change risk andnatural disasters. Here adaptation andpoverty reduction imperatives go hand inhand. In addition, the Central Highlandsis already a destination zone for manymigrants, but with future displacements ofpopulations from the coastal areas andMekong River Delta, undoubtedly theCentral Highlands will see greatly increasedin-migration in future decades;

• Northern Mountains: The northernmountains have the highest rates of povertyin the country and the largest ethnicminority populations. It is also probablythe area most sensitive to the impacts ofclimate-related risk and natural disasters,because of those factors. IFAD already has astrong presence in the Northeast, but as yetnone in the Northwest;

• Central Coast, both northern and southern:Poverty rates in the North Coast are similarto those in the Central Highlands(29 per cent), and there are areas in bothNorth and South with pockets of ethnicminorities as well as poor ruralcommunities dependent on fishing orrainfed agriculture. A high percentage of thepopulation in this region is exposed toclimate change and natural disaster risk.In the semi-arid south, scarce waterresources and drought are severe limitationsand risk factors. In many parts of theCentral Coast the structure of the economyis rapidly changing to industrial andservice-based. Over the long term there islimited opportunity for greatly enhancingagricultural livelihoods, given water andother natural resource constraints.

The appropriateness of this selection issupported by studies from the World Bank andADB. The World Bank study (McElwee, 2010)analysed exposure to climate change risk interms of absolute numbers of householdspotentially threatened as well as sensitivityto climate change risk due to poverty,climate-sensitive resource dependency,migration, education or health status, or statusas an ethnic minority, woman or child. Theresults showed that the greatest numbers ofhouseholds potentially threatened are in theNorth and South Central Coasts and MekongRiver Delta and that the greatest sensitivity(vulnerability) to potential threats occurs inthe Northwest, Central Highlands andMekong River Delta. The ADB studied naturaldisaster and damage severity (ADB, 2008),finding that the currently most vulnerableareas to climate risk are the Mekong RiverDelta, Central Highlands, Northern Mountains(especially the Northwest) and Central Coast(especially the North Coast).

Potential priority investment areas.

The main imperatives that climate changeconsiderations should add to the next COSOPare those related to the importance ofensuring that (i) sustainability concerns areintegrated into investment planning andimplementation; (ii) appropriate tools andinstruments are developed and applied toachieve that integration; and (iii) adequateincentives and follow-up are included ininvestment programmes to guarantee thatappropriate attention is given to execution.In terms of ensuring that the COSOPprogramme is climate smart and makessignificant contributions to the sector,consideration should be given to investments in:

• Knowledge management: Knowledgemanagement should be a central thrust ofIFAD’s support, especially for climatechange-related learning. IFAD projects,through their community presence,experience and knowledge, should beexploited to develop systematic learningand knowledge dissemination processes for

38


pro-poor, climate-smart agriculture andrural development. The goal should be toinform provincial-led implementationefforts and bring field-based learning intonational policy discussions. In terms ofprovincial-led implementation, it is crucialto support provincial governments inlearning, given the decentralization of fiscalresources and management responsibilitiesand these officials’ need to learn quicklyhow to improve practices, methodologies,efficiencies and outcomes. In terms ofbringing field-based learning to nationalpolicy discussions, there is unmet demandfor consultation on policy implementationand field-based learning in support ofhigh-level policy dialogue.

One option would be establishment ofa thematic ad hoc group in MARD forRCC-ARD knowledge management andlearning from the field. This mechanism wassuccessfully utilized in the past, through theInternational Support Group (ISG), tosupport MARD and international donors inODA coordination and policy dialogue.(One example was for implementation ofthe Comprehensive Poverty Reductionand Growth Strategy in Agriculture andRural Areas.) Ideally the coordinationmechanisms would also supportforums/workshops at provincial andnational levels to inform policy dialogueand deliberations. Such forums, whichwould have broad stakeholderrepresentation, would be held to reviewlessons and generate discussion on policiesand strategies for climate change response.

• A comprehensive pilot for a climate

change and sustainable livelihoods

project: In the Mekong Delta thecombination of sea level rise, salinityintrusion, increased incidence of extremestorms, growing deficits in freshwatersupply during the dry season andsusceptibility to long-term flooding willresult in significant upheaval in locallivelihoods over the next two to threedecades. There is also high likelihood of

economic displacement affecting a verylarge number of rural people as theircurrent livelihood activities are lost torising sea level and/or salinization andincreasingly scarce fresh water resources.

Assistance is needed to help peopleadapt to new agricultural and aquaculturesystems and shift to entirely new activities(e.g. mariculture) in response to theopportunities created by the newbiophysical conditions. They will alsoneed to prepare to migrate under morefavourable conditions (e.g. with aneducation) as conditions require.

JICA is supporting a master planningexercise in the Mekong River Delta andassisting the Government to develop acoherent approach for managing climatechange impacts there. An IFAD programmeon pro-poor adaptation to climate changecould capitalize on the plan and put intoplace planning and livelihood elements forthe rural sector, thus contributing to overallimplementation of the master plan. Theproject strategy would be to operate along atransect inland from the coastal zone to aiddevelopment of comprehensive adaptationand mitigation alternatives along thegradient of sea level rise and salinizationimpacts. The focus would be on ensuringclimate-smart livelihoods for sustainableeconomic development among ethnicminorities and rural poor households.This would be achieved through scaling upalternative land use systems, farmingpractices and climate-proof pro-poor valuechains; research and development ofadapted production systems(e.g. breeding and production of asalinity-tolerant strain of catfish);and policy, institutional and incentiveframeworks that support pro-pooradaptation measures.

As a learning process, the project wouldprovide valuable insights and assist indeveloping best practices concerning where,when and how to support poor ruralcommunities. In conjunction with aneffective knowledge management

39


programme, such a project would providea platform to identify, test, adapt,disseminate and replicate instruments,technologies and systems for pro-poorclimate change adaptation.

• Disaster risk management and

vulnerability reduction: Whether it isseen as climate change response or disasterrisk management is less important than thefact that climate (or weather) risks are notcurrently being appropriately factoredinto the Government’s ARD programmesdirected at IFAD’s target groups.Large and avoidable losses are occurring.Also quite weak are responses for reducingvulnerability to natural disasters,e.g. through application of simple land-useplanning tools at the community level andintegration of those into decision-makingcriteria for rural investment (SEDP process)and CBDRM approaches.

• Policy: It is not apparent that the nationaldialogue on climate change in the ARDsector has internalized rural developmentand poverty reduction objectives orconcepts. Increasingly, initiatives related toclimate change are claiming limited publicresources, and this trend will only continuein the coming decades. It will be importantfor IFAD to engage in this dialogue topromote climate-smart orientation ofadaptation and mitigation resourcestowards two groups: (i) those who are‘permanently vulnerable’, living wherepersistent, structural poverty makes naturalresource-based livelihoods non-viable andalternatives are needed or (ii) those forwhom ‘temporary’ poverty becomespersistent poverty due to recurrent lossesfrom drought, flash flooding and otherphenomena related to natural disastersand climate.

• Research and development: Support fordevelopment of pro-poor adaptationresponses would be well-justified in anumber of areas, as would policy-orientedresearch that would support thedevelopment of pro-poor approaches inclimate change response policy and strategy.Among the former would be R&D foradaptation and climate proofing ofproduction systems that are important forthe poor. These may fall into two categories:(i) adaptation of systems in which privatesector participation is unlikely, for example,adaptation in maize cropping systems andconservation of traditional maize germ orimproving resilience through diversifiedproduction systems and landscapes for theuplands; and (ii) adaptation for whichprivate-sector interests exist and thereforepublic-private partnership approaches arepreferable, with some cost-sharing to ensurethat smallholders and poor farmers benefitfrom the outcomes, for example, breedingof saline-tolerant catfish.

Examples of relevant policy-orientedresearch include identifying likelyadaptation pathways in high-poverty areasand analysing policy and operationalneeds for removal of barriers to adaptationby the rural poor; and evaluation ofcurrent policies and programmes andtheir effectiveness in assisting thosepopulations most vulnerable toclimate-related risk (natural disasters)to adapt and reduce vulnerability.

40


Conclusions. Viet Nam is clearly a countrythat will face disproportionate effects fromclimate change over the coming decades.The Government has thus taken a proactiveapproach, extending back as far as themid-1990s with the MONRE-IMHENvulnerability assessment of Viet Nam’s coastalzone by MONRE and the Institute ofMeteorology, Hydrology and Environment.In more recent years, Viet Nam has seen anenormous increase in the number of strategicand operational initiatives to confront climaterisk and climate change. Since 2008, withapproval of the NTP-RCC and the Action PlanFramework for Adaptation to Climate Changein the Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentSector, investment in climate change responsehas tripled relative to the investment of theprevious 15 years. From 2008 to the present,at least US$0.9 billion has been committedfor adaptation, mitigation, capacity-building,research and awareness-raising investments.While the NTP-RCC is not yet an operationalstrategy capable of guiding the directionand use of these resources, nonetheless amechanism has been established(the SP-RCC) and instruments developed(e.g. policy matrix) to orient both theinstitutional actors responsible for itsimplementation and their partners (ODA,NGO, private sector) who would contributeto and support its implementation.

The SP-RCC, which began operating in2009, appears to be reasonably successfulin this coordination role. MONRE, whichis charged with implementation of theNTP-RCC, is reportedly developing anoverarching strategy. In the meantime, theprincipal challenges would seem to lie morewith the various line ministries, which arecharged, under the NTP-RCC, withdeveloping their own strategies and actionplans for climate change response.

For the agricultural and rural developmentsector, MARD developed its nationalframework in 2009, and earlier in 2012approved the strategy/action plan for itsimplementation: the Action Programme inResponse to Climate Change of the Agricultureand Rural Development Sector during2011-2015 and Vision to 2050. As discussedpreviously, while the longer-term vision isreasonably comprehensive, the priorityinvestments in the five-year plan areunbalanced. Too little attention is given toagriculture and rural development concerns,and social goals are not addressed.The soft investments lack any indication thatpeople are a focus or that the research anddevelopment of subsector and regional plansand priorities will be oriented towards meetingthe challenges of developing more locallydriven approaches to adaptation and avoidingone-size-fits-all approaches.

Critical issues for implementation of theprogramme are lacking, such as integrationinto the SEDP process, support for andfacilitation of farmer-led adaptationprocesses, sustainable natural resourcesmanagement and other ‘soft’ adaptationmeasures of the type required to increaselocal institutional capacity and social capitalfor building resilience. In addition, theRCC-ARD does not set out to address themainstreaming of climate change responsesinto the ARD sector’s other programmes,especially the poverty reduction and ruraldevelopment programmes that fall under theNTP-NRD umbrella. It is clearly throughthose programmes that MARD and theprovinces face the greater challenges(and opportunities) in working through howto ensure that rural development investmentsare climate smart and support both thebuilding of adaptation capacity andadaptation processes themselves.

41


Key conclusionsand recommendations

The increasing decentralization of fiscalresources and management responsibilities tothe provinces means that they will encounterthe greatest challenges in the coming years.The provinces will bear much of the burden ofarticulating ARD sector strategies, action plansand programmes to ensure that, on the onehand, they support adaptation, and on theother, they obtain the inputs and orientationsrequired in order to climate-proof theirinvestments. In addition to policy supportand guidance from the national level, theprovinces will need help to better understandthe challenges, learn from provincialexperiences and adapt national policies andprogrammes to meet their operational needs.

Recommendations for IFAD support to

the Government. IFAD support will beneeded at the national and provincial levelsto help the country achieve the strategicobjectives. The types of support required maybe grouped into four areas, with the purposeof ensuring that climate change policies,strategies and programmes appropriatelyconsider the needs of rural poor people andthat government institutions have the tools fortheir implementation. The support areas arediscussed below.

Institutional support. At both national andprovincial levels assistance is required toimprove coordination of efforts aroundclimate change in the ARD sector. MARD’sefforts, being carried out through ICD, shouldbe strengthened. In particular, a large numberof stakeholders − national and provincialgovernment, donors, NGOs, massorganizations, academia and the private sector −must be consulted and organized to effectivelyparticipate in the policymaking and strategydevelopment processes and to providefeedback and recommendations on theeffectiveness of government programmes.IFAD could provide support directly to MARDand ICD through enhancing its capacity and

developing approaches to improveengagement and communication withstakeholders, which in turn will ensurebroader commitment by partners togovernment policies, strategies andprogrammes.15 This would provide theinstitutional framework for discussion andcoordination around climate change responsesin the ARD sector as well as the platform fordialogue on inclusion of pro-poor climatechange adaptation policies and investments.

Knowledge management support shouldbe provided at the provincial level throughIFAD’s current and future projects. A generalframework for capturing, synthesizing,validating and disseminating knowledge andbest practices should be designed inconsultation with the participating provinces.The framework would be implementedprovince by province, financed by eachprovince’s IFAD-supported projects. Topics ofinterest would include tools for planning ofclimate proof/climate smart investments(including CBDRM tools such as communityhazard mapping); mainstreaming climate-proofing tools into SEDP planning andimplementation processes; pro-poor climatechange response options, including climate-resilient value chains and sustainablelivelihoods; adaptation by communities andhouseholds, pathways for future adaptation,and obstacles to adaptation; emergingopportunities for complementing adaptationfinancing with mitigation financing; andlearning how to scale up from householdslands and production systems to land andnatural resources management at watershedand landscape scales.

Linkages between the provinces (forexchange of information and learning) couldbe accomplished through the projects directly,but also through support at the level of MARD(as discussed above) to link provincialfield-level learning and national policydialogue. Dissemination of knowledge withinthe province (to officials, employees, staff, mass

42

KEY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

15 The specific types of support required were defined through a consultancy, supported by IFAD, to evaluate MARD’s ISGprogramme and propose its work programme for 2011-2015 (Smyle and Binh, 2009).

organizations, communes, communities, etc.)would require support for awareness-raisingactivities and links to the capacity-buildingactivities supported by IFAD and other projectsand programmes. The objective of adissemination strategy would be to avoidcreating parallel pathways and feed specific,relevant information to target audiencesthrough existing institutional capacity-building pathways.

Support for research should be provided atthe national level. One important area wouldbe policy-relevant research to be carried out byMARD on social vulnerability to climatechange and pro-poor adaptation/mitigation ofclimate change impacts. The other area ofresearch would be in development, adaptationand validation of pro-poor climate changeadaptive technologies and systems and onemerging opportunities and livelihoodoptions created by changing climate. Fundscould be provided through the proposedMARD coordination mechanism for carryingout research in these areas as agreed andprioritized with its development partners.Additional funding for these types of researchwould be provided to the provinces throughtheir IFAD-financed projects. To the extent thatresearch is financed on technologies orsystems that would benefit private-sectorinvestors in addition to the rural poor,partnerships with private-sector interestsshould be sought.

Support for the development of strategiesfor climate change response should be directedto the provinces and through design andimplementation of IFAD-financed projects.In all cases, projects should support assessmentof overall vulnerability of the ARD sector toclimate change with an emphasis on socialvulnerability, and the subsequent developmentand/or updating of climate-related risk/climatechange action plans at provincial and districtlevels. At local levels, projects would doessentially the same thing, but with a focuson developing locally tailored strategies to

facilitate adaptation. Within each province’svulnerability assessment, support should beprovided to identify the principal,likely pathways for adaptation on anagroecoregional16 basis. Once these areidentified, a review of needs, opportunitiesand likely obstacles to adaptation should bemade in conjunction with an evaluation ofcurrent agriculture, forestry, livestock andaquaculture policies to identify any policyobstacles to adaptation. These results wouldthen be part of national discussions withMARD. Finally, to support the development ofstrategies and plans, it will be necessary towork closely with the institutions responsible(e.g. Departments of Planning and Investment,DARDs, etc.) to develop and/or validateplanning tools for climate proofing, such asthe IFAD/GIZ climate-proofing toolfor value chains used in Tra Vinh.

The extension system should be broadenedto include farmer-to-farmer transfer ofadaptation technology and promotion ofprivate enterprise service delivery. This is acritical area for continued institutional supportand policy dialogue given the constraints(e.g. government cost ceilings).

With Viet Nam’s membership in the WorldTrade Organization there is increasing need forproducers to adopt new agricultural practicesand meet new standards (e.g. good agriculturalpractices). This will be difficult for manyproducers, especially smallholders and poorfarmers. If IFAD should support suchproduction, it will take significant resourcesand efforts to introduce the new practices.Thus these farmers and production systemsshould be evaluated for climate risk up front,before investing in what might have a limitedfuture. Where it makes sense to invest inincreasing farmer capacity to meet goodagricultural practices and export standards,given the farmers’ significant investment,agricultural/climate risk insurance should beintroduced at the same time, as part of theproduction and financing package.

43


16 An agroecoregion is a homogenous geographical area where the production environment in terms of agro-climate,resource endowments and socio-economic conditions is homogenous, and the majority of the farmers have similar productionconstraints and opportunities.

Operational concerns. From an operationalperspective, the COSOP should avoidbecoming too prescriptive, as threats, practicesand opportunities will be determined by thecontext and content of future projects.However, there are important steps that shouldbe taken during design and implementation ofeach project. During the design phase, thereshould be an analysis of current climate risk,potential threats from climate change andsocial vulnerability to those risks. This analysisshould systematically capture local knowledgeon current trends and adaptation responsesbeing taken by communities and households.Subsequently, there should be preliminaryanalysis of likely adaptation pathways andoptions for vulnerable populations as well as aparticipatory analysis of the likely obstacles toadaptation. The objective is to incorporateappropriate design elements and riskmanagement strategies into the design.An environmental management matrix issometimes used to profile a project’s approachto avoiding or mitigating environmentalimpacts, and the same approach could betaken for projects in terms of managingclimate-related risk, natural disasters andclimate change threats.

This report contains much detail on theimportant aspects of project implementation,e.g. support to knowledge management,integration through the SEDP process,application of climate-proofing tools in localplanning. The policy, institutional andprocess-related interventions are arguably themost important at this time, given that it willtake many years to get these right and to seethem effectively applied for pro-poor andclimate-smart public and private investments.The scenarios for climate change imply thatthere is time to get this right. However, should10 years pass (which is a very short time interms of reorienting large bureaucracies andinstitutions) without significant advances indeveloping appropriate policies, institutionalframeworks and processes, the consequencesare likely to be quite negative.

Institutional partners. IFAD’s principalinstitutional partners for implementationwill be:• National government: (i) MARD, for policy,

coordination and prioritization ofinvestment project orientation and supportto MARD’s coordination and policydialogue functions through ICD and itsISG programme; (ii) MPI, for integrationof climate change considerations into theSEDP (IFAD should offer support to achievethis commitment, which is a part of theNTR-RCC); (iii) MONRE, for coordinationof IFAD’s overall support and contributionto climate change response in the ARDsector (this can be done most effectivelythrough the SP-RCC); and (iv) MOLISA, forintegration of climate change concerns intothe local SEDP planning process for makingnational poverty programmes climate smartin their investments and implementation.

• Provincial government: (i) the People’sCommittees at all levels, which are chargedwith policy implementation and approvalsof plans (SEDPs), and they should be astrong focus for awareness, capacity-buildingand local policy discussion (as recipients ofoutputs from knowledge managementactivities) and for raising lessons from thefield to central level for policy dialogue;(ii) provincial and district departments ofplanning, which are charged withimplementing the SEDP process; and(iii) DARD, for analysis, planning, researchand technology transfer for climate changeadaptation in production systems and forimplementation of CBDRM.

• Donors: The current pipeline of activitiescontains little in climate change adaptationand mitigation from 2013 onwards. Atpresent some of the principal opportunitiesappear to lie with JICA and the World Bank: • JICA is carrying out a master planning

exercise in the Mekong River Delta. AnIFAD pro-poor adaptation to climatechange programme could capitalize onthat plan and put into place planning andlivelihood elements for the rural sector.

44


• The World Bank is developing aUS$150 million Mekong River DeltaWater Management for RuralDevelopment initiative (2012-2017)under which IFAD might findopportunities to partner, particularlyaround support to the most vulnerablepopulations. It has also expressed interestin exploring opportunities to collaboratewith IFAD on translating seasonal andother weather forecasts (includingEl Niño/Southern Oscillation patterns)into practical advice for farmers (plantingdecisions, irrigation, pest and diseasemeasures) and early warning systems forfinancial institutions and input suppliers.This proposal is under development, andinitial applications would likely addresscoffee production in the centralhighlands. Other crops, locations andtypes of farmers could be targeted whileapproaches are refined. A CentralHighlands project is in the pipelinefor which World Bank Bank staff haveexpressed willingness to explorecollaboration, though at the time ofwriting no specifics were available.Finally, the World Bank is implementinga grant from the UK Department forInternational Development, ending in2014, to provide technical assistance forenhancing capacity in MONRE, MOIT,MARD, MPI and MOF to formulate andimplement climate change policies.Any support for MARD and policyresearch should be provided in closecollaboration with the World Bank toavoid overlap.

Strategic objectives. Three key objectivesmust be achieved for the COSOP to deliverclimate-smart outcomes (see table 6 for aresults framework covering them). First, it willbe critical to elevate the issues of pro-poorclimate change adaptation and mitigation tothe level of the ARD sector’s policy dialogue.Second, the Government’s principalinstruments for addressing the needs of ruralpoor and vulnerable populations are itsprogrammes for agriculture and ruraldevelopment, poverty reduction and disasterrisk management. While the RCC-ARD isimportant as well, it is only a partialinstrument. Its role should be to ensure thatthese other programmes internalize naturaldisaster and climate change risks; supportclimate-proofing of rural communities andlivelihoods; and make climate-smartinvestments. Thus there is a fundamental needto align these programmes and ensure thattheir investments jointly contribute toclimate-smart rural development and povertyreduction in the communities where theyoperate. Third, the local level is where thevarious government support programmes willrequire articulation through the SEDPplanning process. Therefore instrumentsand approaches to support local-levelclimate-smart investment planning andimplementation through the SEDP processare essential.

45


46


TABLE 6Proposed elements for consideration in the COSOP results management framework

Strategic objective

National level

Pro-poor policies foragriculture and ruraldevelopment sector’sresponse to climatechange

Provincial level

Institutional andimplementationarrangements forNTP-NRD, ARD-RCC,provincial DRM actionplans and other relevantrural poverty reductionprogrammes aligned

Operational level

SEDP planning andinvestment climate smart

• Transparent targeting criteria onsocial vulnerability andsensitivity to climate-related risk

• RCC action plans with pro-poorstrategy

• ARD DRM and poverty reductionprogrammes with RCC strategy

• SEDP process functions tointegrate poverty reduction,DRM and climate-proofingconcerns into ARD public-sectorinvestment programmes

• Pro-poor targeting criteria forRCC applied to ARDpublic-sector investments

• ARD public-sector investmentsclimate-proofed

• Locally tailored strategies forRCC and climate changeadaptation developed and underimplementation at district/commune levels (IFAD districts)

• Community-baseddisaster/climate-related riskmitigation models tested(IFAD provinces)

• Number of rural poorhouseholds reporting lossesfrom natural disasters/weather-related phenomena declining

• Provincial knowledge managementactivities (IFAD provinces) and nationalstakeholder coordination mechanism(MARD) informing ARD sector high-levelpolicy dialogue

• Provincial assessments (IFAD provinces)of ARD sector vulnerability to climatechange by social vulnerability andsensitivity to impacts criteria

• Provincial departments of planning andinvestment (IFAD provinces) with guidelinesfor integration of RCC and CBDRM intoSEDP planning

• Capacity building programme(IFAD provinces) for local government staffand communities on implementation ofCBDRM/RCC-ARD and integration intoSEDP developed and being implemented.

• Incentive system for district/communeintegration of CBDRM/RCC/NTP-NRD intoSEDP (IFAD supervision, project indicators,project-based incentives, e.g. additionalfunding for success)

• Climate-proofing tools fordistrict/commune SEDP planningdeveloped and tested (IFAD provinces)

• Principal adaptation pathways identifiedfor agroecological regions, barriers toadaptation analysed and institutionalresponse strategies defined(DARD in IFAD provinces)

• Number of districts and communes(IFAD districts) applying climate-smartlivelihood planning tools

• Number of districts and communes(IFAD districts) with operationalCBDRM/climate change schemes (steeringcommittees trained; community hazardand vulnerability maps developed/updated;annual community plans on DRM/climatechange adaptation developed; communitymonitoring implementation)

• Proxy indicators for increased climatechange resilience (losses from naturaldisasters/weather-related phenomena)developed, integrated in M&E system,and baseline established (IFAD projects)

Outcomes for achievement ofstrategic objectives

Milestones showing progress towards strategic objectives

ADB. 2008. Natural disasters and damagecaused by disaster in Viet Nam. Watersector review project ADB TA-4903-VIE.Asian Development Bank.

Baulch, B., Hoa Thi Minh, Nguyen Phuong,Thu Thi Phuong, Hung Thai Pham. 2010.Ethnic minority poverty in Viet Nam.Working paper no. 169, Chronic PovertyResearch Centre.

Baulch, B. and Vu Hoang Dat. 2010.Poverty dynamics in Viet Nam, 2002-2006.Consultant Report. Financed by World Bank.

Bingxin, Yu, Tingju Zhu, B. Clemens andNguyen Manh Hai. 2010. Impacts ofclimate change on agriculture and policyoptions for adaptation: The case ofViet Nam. IFPRI Discussion PaperNo. 01015. Development Strategy andGovernance Division, EnvironmentProduction and Technology Division.Washington, D.C.: International FoodPolicy Research Institute.

CARE. 2009. Mainstreaming climate changeadaptation: A practitioner’s handbook.CARE International, Viet Nam.

CCFSC. 2009. Implementation plan ofthe national strategy for natural disasterprevention, response and mitigation to2020. Hanoi: Government of Viet Nam,Central Committee for Flood andStorm Control.

CIA. 2011. World fact book. United StatesCentral Intelligence Agency.www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/vm.html(as of 23 August 2011).

CRED. 2010. Viet Nam in top ten countriesaffected by natural calamities. Centre forResearch on the Epidemiology of Disasters.www.cred.be/press/Viet Nam-top-ten-countries-affected-natural-calamities.

Cruz, R.V., H. Harasawa, M. Lal, S. Wu,Y. Anokhin, B. Punsalmaa, Y. Honda,M. Jafari, C. Li and N. Huu Ninh. 2007.Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptationand vulnerability. Contribution of WorkingGroup II to the Fourth Assessment Reportof the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange, eds. M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani,J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E.Hanson, Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Dasgupta, S., B. Laplante, C. Meisner,D. Wheeler and J. Yan. 2007. The impact ofsea level rise on developing countries:A comparative analysis. World Bank PolicyResearch Working Paper 4136, Washington,D.C.: World Bank.

Dilley, M., R.S. Chen, U. Deichmann, A.L.Lerner-Lam, M. Arnold, J. Agwe, P. Buys,O. Kjekstad, B. Lyon and G. Yetman. 2005.Natural disaster hotspots: A global riskanalysis. Disaster risk management series,no. 5. International Bank forReconstruction and Development/WorldBank and Columbia University.

Doyle, T.W., R.H. Day and T.C. Michot. 2010.Development of sea level rise scenarios forclimate change assessments of the MekongDelta, Viet Nam. U.S. Geological SurveyOpen-File Report 2010–1165.

FAO. 2010. “Climate-smart” agriculture:Policies, practices and financing for foodsecurity, adaptation and mitigation.Rome: Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations.

FAOSTAT. 2011. Value of agriculturalproduction. Viet Nam|Agriculturewww.faostat.orghttp://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway/go/to/download/Q/QV/E(as of August 2011).

47


References

Fortier, F. 2010. Taking a climate chance:A procedural critique of Viet Nam’s climatechange strategy. Asia Pacific Viewpoint,vol. 51, no. 3, December 2010. ISSN 1360-7456, pp.229-247.

General Statistics Office. 2009. Result of thesurvey on household living standards2008. Hanoi: General Statistics Office ofViet Nam, Statistical Publishing House.

General Statistics Office. 2011a. Grossdomestic product by ownership and bykind of economic activity. Hanoi:General Statistics Office of Viet Nam.www.gso.gov.vn/default_en.aspx?tabid=468&idmid=3&ItemID=9906(as of August 2011).

General Statistics Office. 2011b. Report on the2010 Viet Nam labour force survey. Hanoi:General Statistics Office of Viet Nam.

GFDRR. 2011. Disaster risk managementprograms for priority countries: Viet Nam.Global Facility for Disaster Reduction andRecovery. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

GlobalAgRisk. 2009. Designing agriculturalindex insurance in developing countries:A GlobalAgRisk market developmentmodel handbook for policy and decisionmakers. Lexington, KY, USA: GlobalAgRisk.

Hawkins, S. et al. 2010. Roots in the water:Legal frameworks for mangrove PES inViet Nam. Katoomba Group’s legalinitiative country study series. Washington,D.C.: Forest Trends.

Hoang, Ba Thinh. 2009. Rural employmentand life: Challenges to gender roles inViet Nam's agriculture at present. ResearchCentre for Gender, Family andEnvironment in Development, Viet Nam.Paper presented at the FAO-IFAD-International Labour Organizationworkshop on gaps, trends and currentresearch in gender dimensions ofagricultural and rural employment:differentiated pathways out of poverty.Rome, 31 March-2 April 2009.

IAE. 2011. Agricultural mitigation potentials inViet Nam – Final report. JapanInternational Cooperation Agency andInstitute for Agricultural Environment.

IFAD. 2010. IFAD climate change strategy.Document EB 2010/99/R.2.Rome: International Fund forAgricultural Development.

IFAD. 2011. Country Strategic OpportunitiesProgramme of Viet Nam (2013-2017):Background information of three targetedprovinces. Rome: International Fund forAgricultural Development.

IFPRI, 2010. Climate change in Viet Nam:Impacts on agriculture and water resources.A presentation by the International FoodPolicy Research Institute. Washington, D.C.

IFPRI, 2011. Viet Nam statistics and climatechange impacts. A presentation by theInternational Food Policy ResearchInstitute. 5 May 2011. Washington, D.C.

IRRI. 2010. Rice in Viet Nam. Manila:International Rice Research Institute.www.irri.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view= item&id=8762:rice-in-Viet Nam&lang=en.

ISPONRE. 2009. Viet Nam assessment reporton climate change. Institute of Strategyand Policy on Natural Resources andEnvironment, Viet Nam.

Laborte, A., A. Nelson, K. Jagadish, J. Aunario,A. Sparks, C. Ye and E. Redoña. 2012.Rice feels the heat. Manila: InternationalRice Research Institute. 20 July 2012.www.irri.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view= item&id=12246:rice-feels-the-heat&lang=en.

Lâm Thái D ng. 2009. Climate change:Ha Giang, Viet Nam adapting to climatechange. Presentation by Finland Embassy-financed project ‘Community based flashfloods and landslides management,adapting to climate change’.

Le Duc Ngoan. 2011. Climate change impacton agriculture in Ha Tinh province:Key research findings. Centre for ClimateChange Studies in Central Viet Nam.

48

REFERENCES

Le Ngoc Thach, Le Canh Dung, NguyenVan Be, Nguyen Hieu Trung, Le Anh Tuanand Anja Weber. 2010. Climate changeimpacts in Tra Vinh Province: Vulnerabilityassessment and perceptions of the localpopulation/stakeholders. DRAGONInstitute, Can Tho University, Viet Namand German Technical CooperationGmbH. February 2010.

Maplecroft. 2010. Big economies of the future– Bangladesh, India, Philippines, Viet Namand Pakistan – most at risk from climatechange. Climate Change VulnerabilityIndex. 21 October 2010.http://maplecroft.com/about/news/ccvi.html.

Maplecroft. 2011. Climate change vulnerabilitymap 2011. Climate Change VulnerabilityIndex. http://maplecroft.com/about/news/ccvi.html.

MARD, 2010. Report on adaptation of cropproduction to climate change in Viet Nam.Hanoi: Ministry of Agriculture andRural Development, Department ofCrop Production.

MARD, 2011. Action plan to respond toclimate change of the agriculture and ruraldevelopment in period 2011-2015 andvision to 2050. Hanoi: Ministry ofAgriculture and Rural Development.

McElwee, P. 2010. The social dimensions ofadaptation to climate change in Viet Nam.Economics of adaptation to climatechange. Discussion paper no. 12. Withcontributions from Center for NaturalResources and Environmental Studies;Viet Nam National University, Hanoi(Nghiem Phuong Tuyen, Le Thi Van Hue,Vu Thi Dieu Huong); Dragon Institute, CanTho University (Nguyen Van Be, Le QuangTri, Nguyen Hieu Trung, Le Anh Tuan,Le Canh Dung); Challenge to Change,UK (Le Quang Duat, Dang Thu Phuong,Nguyen Tri Dung, Graham Adutt).International Bank For Reconstructionand Development/World Bank.

MOLISA. 2011. Viet Nam employmenttrends 2010. European Union/MOLISA/International Labour Organization LabourMarket Project. Published by the NationalCentre for Labour Market Forecast andInformation. Bureau of Employment,MOLISA and International LabourOrganization.

MONRE. 2008. National target program torespond to climate change −Implementing the Government’sResolution No. 60/2007/NQ-CP dated3rd December 2007. Hanoi: Ministry ofNatural Resources and Environment.

MONRE. 2010. Viet Nam's second nationalcommunication to the United NationsFramework Convention on ClimateChange. Hanoi: Ministry of NaturalResources and Environment.

Nguyen, Van Viet, 2011. Making IFAD’sCountry Strategic OpportunitiesProgramme for Viet Nam climate smart:Brainstorming workshop report.International Fund for AgriculturalDevelopment. 9 May 2011. Hanoi:International Fund for AgriculturalDevelopment.

Nguyen, Van Viet, Nguyen Van Liem, Ngo TienGiang. 1998. Climate change and strategiesto be adapted in agriculture for sustainabledevelopment in Viet Nam.Agrometeorological Research Centreof Viet Nam.

OECD. 2009. Adaptation to climate changeand development cooperation: Policypaper. Paris: Organisation for EconomicCo-operation and Development.

OCHA. 2006. Köppen-Geiger climate classification in Asia-Pacific (as of April2006). United Nations Office for theCoordination of Humanitarian Affairs.http//:ochaonline.un.org/roaptemp/MapCentre/RegionalMaps/tabid/3808/Default.aspx.

Oxfam. 2008. Viet Nam climate change,adaptation and poor people – A reportfor Oxfam.

49


Peng, S., J. Huang, J.E. Sheehy, R. Laza, R.M.Visperas, X. Zhong, G.S. Centeno, G. Khushand K.G. Cassman. 2004. Rice yieldsdecline with higher night temperaturefrom global warming. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences of theUnited States of America. 6 July 2004,vol. 101, no. 27, 9971-9975.

Pham, Van An. 2009. Implementation ofpolicy on pilot payment for forestenvironment services in Lam DongProvince, Viet Nam. www.gms-eoc.org/Event/docs/PES/PilotPES_LamDong-PhamVanAn.pdf.

Piper, J. 1994. Rice in South-East Asia:Cultures and landscapes. Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.

Smyle, J. and Tran Nam Binh. 2009. ISG 2006-2010 Review and development of ISG 2011–2015: A concept note. Hanoi: ISG/MARD.

SPRCC, 2011. Policy matrix and monitoring sheet as of January 21, 2011 - Englishversion. SPRCC: The unofficial SP-RCCwebsite. http://tarokat.net/sprcc/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=53&Itemid=57

Tatrallyay, N. and M. Stradelmann. 2011.Country case study Viet Nam: Removingbarriers for climate change mitigation.Zurich: Department of Political Science,University of Zurich.

United Nations. 2011. Climate change factsheet: The effects of climate change inViet Nam and the UN’s responses.

UNDP. 2011. Adaptation to climate change -Adaptation definitions and levels.United Nations Development Programme.www.undp.org/climatechange/adapt/definitions.html#15.

VASS. 2011. Poverty reduction in Viet Nam:Achievements and challenges. Hanoi:Viet Nam Academy of Social Sciences.

Viet Nam Business News. 2011. PM introducescrop insurance program.http://vietnamnews.vn/economy/business-beat/203810/pm-introduces-crop-insurance-programme.html

World Bank. 2006. Viet Nam country genderassessment. World Bank, ADB, UnitedKingdom Department for InternationalDevelopment, Canadian InternationalDevelopment Agency.

World Bank. 2008c. World development report2008: Agriculture for development.Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

World Bank. 2009. Country social analysis:Ethnicity and development in Viet Nam.Summary report. Social Development Unit,Sustainable Development Department,East Asia and Pacific Region, World Bank.

World Bank. 2010a. Viet Nam developmentreport 2011: Natural resourcesmanagement. Joint development partnerreport to the Viet Nam Consultative GroupMeeting, Hanoi, 7-8 December 2010.Agence Francaise de Développement, ADB,Australian Agency for InternationalDevelopment, Canadian InternationalDevelopment Agency, United KingdomDepartment for InternationalDevelopment, Embassy of Denmark,European Commission, Finland, GermanDevelopment Cooperation, Irish Aid, JICA,New Zealand Aid Programme, Norway,The Netherlands, United States Agency forInternational Development/Viet Nam,World Bank.

World Bank. 2010b. Viet Nam – Economics ofadaptation to climate change. Washington,D.C.: World Bank Group.

World Bank. 2010c. Adaptation guidance notes– Key words and definitions.http://climatechange.worldbank.org/climatechange/content/adaptation-guidance-notes-key-words-and-definitions.

World Bank. 2011a. Taking stock: An updateon Viet Nam’s recent economicdevelopments. Prepared by the World Bankfor the Annual Consultative Group Meetingfor Viet Nam, Ha Tinh, 8-9 June 2011.

World Bank. 2011b. Viet Nam: Country data.http://data.worldbank.org/country/vietnam.

World Bank. 2011c. Climate-resilientdevelopment in Viet Nam: Strategicdirections for the World Bank. SustainableDevelopment Department, Viet Namcountry office, World Bank.

50

REFERENCES

CONTACTS:

Henning PedersenCountry programme managerRoom 103, B3 Van Phuc Diplomatic Compound 298 Kim MaHanoi, Viet NamWork: +84 [email protected]

Roshan CookeRegional Climate and Environment Specialist (APR)(p): +39.06.5459.2156(r): C617(e): [email protected]

Gernot LagandaClimate Change Adaptation Specialist (ASAP)(p): +39.06.5459.2142(r): B215(e): [email protected]

June

201

4

International Fund for Agricultural Development

Via Paolo di Dono, 44 - 00142 Rome, ItalyTel: +39 06 54591 - Fax: +39 06 5043463E-mail: [email protected]

ifad-un.blogspot.com

www.facebook.com/ifad

instagram.com/ifadnews

www.twitter.com/ifadnews

www.youtube.com/user/ifadTV

Comprehensive environment andclimate change assessment in Viet Nam

Viet Nam cover 7 June_Layout 1 08/06/14 23:40 Pagina 1

comprehensive environment and climate change assessment …june 2014 international fund for...

Documents