Adaptation monitoring and evaluation systems need to shift from tracking activities to measuring outcomes, ensuring data integrity, clear accountability, and effective decision-making.
On September 30, in Hanoi, the Department of Climate Change (DCC) held a consultation workshop on the draft Prime Minister’s decision issuing the updated National Monitoring and Evaluation System for Climate Change Adaptation.
Moving from activity reporting to outcome-based assessment
In her opening remarks, Mai Kim Lien, Deputy Director of the DCC, stressed that enhancing resilience and the effectiveness of climate change adaptation is an urgent requirement for sustainable development. Viet Nam has issued the National Adaptation Plan for 2021-2030, with a vision to 2050, and established the national Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system for climate change adaptation under Decision No. 148/QD-TTg dated January 28, 2022.
Deputy Director Mai Kim Lien said the M&E system must be updated in a coordinated manner. Photo: Nguyen Thuy.After nearly 5 years of implementation, the M&E system has provided a foundation for monitoring and consolidating climate adaptation activities. An online reporting system and technical guidance manual have helped shift from fragmented manual reporting to more centralized and systematic data management.
However, Mai Kim Lien said the focus should now go beyond counting completed tasks and activities to assessing their actual impact: whether risks and vulnerability have decreased and resilience has improved.
She therefore stressed that updating the M&E system must cover indicators, calculation methods, data sources, information responsibilities and online reporting. Each indicator should clearly define what is measured, have a verifiable data source and identify the responsible agency.
Development partners also supported this approach. Monique Rafton, Second Secretary, Development Section, Australian Embassy, said that as adaptation resources increase, effectiveness cannot be measured simply by investment levels or the number of activities implemented. What matters is determining the tangible changes generated by those investments.
Monique Rafton said Australia is supporting Viet Nam in reviewing and strengthening the M&E system through the Aus4Adaptation Program. Photo: Nguyen Thuy.According to Monique Rafton, an effective M&E system must go beyond reporting requirements and provide evidence for decision-making, strategic planning and investment choices. Ultimately, it should show whether communities, infrastructure, livelihoods and ecosystems are actually becoming more resilient to climate change.
She said Australia is supporting Viet Nam in reviewing and strengthening the M&E system through the Aus4Adaptation Program. Combining international experience with domestic practice will help ensure the updated system meets technical requirements while remaining feasible for ministries, sectors and localities to implement.
Clear data sources and responsibilities
Providing further insight into the M&E system, a representative of the DCC said it is currently implemented under Article 90 of the 2020 Law on Environmental Protection, the National Adaptation Plan and Decision No. 148/QD-TTg, serving to monitor and evaluate adaptation activities and support state management.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Environment leads and coordinates the system, develops the database and online reporting software. Ministries and sectors implement it within their respective areas, while provincial-level People’s Committees organize implementation and consolidate reports.
The current framework comprises 72 indicators across six groups, covering climate change governance; resilience and adaptive capacity across sectors; disaster risk reduction and climate-related damage reduction; adaptation resources; science, technology and international cooperation; and training, communication and public awareness.
The authorities have also issued a technical manual for implementing the National Monitoring and Evaluation System for Climate Change Adaptation, organized training and operated the online reporting system.
According to the DCC, key challenges include data quality, consistency and interoperability. Some indicators remain difficult to collect, with unclear data sources and verification responsibilities, while available data series are not yet long enough to assess trends over time.
The current priority is to identify what data are available, where they are held and which agencies are responsible for verification. Data should be sourced directly from statistical systems, administrative records and sectoral databases rather than requiring local authorities to compile the same information again.
The online reporting system also needs further improvement to align with the current administrative structure and enhance connectivity and data sharing with sectoral databases.
Indicators must be relevant, measurable and avoid duplicate data collection
Prof. Dr. Tran Thuc, Chairman of the Viet Nam Meteorological and Hydrological Society, said the updated M&E system should review each indicator, retain those that remain relevant and revise or remove unnecessary ones. More importantly, each indicator must clearly define what it measures, how it is measured, where the data come from and which agency is responsible for providing them.
Prof. Tran Thuc said the M&E review must closely align with adaptation goals and management needs. Photo: Nguyen Thuy.According to Tran Thuc, the M&E review should focus on adaptation goals and management needs, with indicators that are useful, measurable and verifiable. Existing data from statistical systems, administrative records and sectoral databases should be prioritized, with clear responsibility assigned to data-generating agencies to reduce duplicate reporting.
Dr. Tran Thi Thanh Nga, Head of the Climate Change Adaptation Division under the DCC, said the draft was developed through an intersectoral process. The drafting agency received feedback from 15/18 ministries and ministerial-level agencies and 33/34 provinces and centrally governed cities.
Based on the feedback, each indicator was reviewed for necessity, measurability, data sources and implementation responsibilities. Relevant indicators were retained, unclear ones revised, overlapping indicators removed or consolidated, and new indicators added to meet emerging management needs.
The initial review resulted in 71 indicators and 55 reporting forms. The number of indicators requiring reports from localities was reduced from 58 to 49, following the principle of measuring what matters, using measurable indicators and avoiding duplicate data collection.