Báo cáo nghiên cứu khoa học " Economic & Policy Research Priorities 2011-2015 " docx

Ministry of Agriculture &Rural Development Economic & Policy Research Priorities 2011-2015 Priority Setting Workshop Hanoi August 2010...  To determine the longer-term priorities for in

Ministry of Agriculture &

Rural Development

Economic & Policy Research

Priorities 2011-2015

Priority Setting Workshop

Hanoi

August 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction 1

2 Methodology 2

2.1 Objectives 2

2.2 Research Priority Framework 2

2.3 Pre-Workshop Preparation 3

2.3.1 Organisation and Planning 3

2.3.2 Training in Priority Setting Methodology 3

2.3.3 Economic and Policy Research Opportunity Areas 3

2.3.4 Data & Evaluation Sheets and Workshop Instructions 4

2.4 Workshop Format 4

2.4.1 Workshop Venues and Format 4

2.4.2 Workshop Chairpersons and Group Facilitators 4

2.4.3 Workshop Process 4

3 Workshop Results 5

3.1 Return on Investment 5

3.1.1 Comment 6

3.2 Attractiveness 7

3.2.1 Comment 7

3.3 Feasibility 8

3.3.1 Comment 9

4 Interpretation of Results 10

5 Recommendations 11

5.1 Research Concepts 11

5.1.1 Commodity Research, Market Analysis & Forecast 11

5.1.2 Rural Development 12

6 The Next Steps 12

Attachments

1 Economic & Policy Research Priority Setting Workbook

2 Economic & Policy Research Priority Setting Data and Information Sheets

3 PowerPoint Presentations

1 Introduction

The Government of Vietnam’s (GoV) Socio-Economic Plan outlines the government’s expectations for agriculture and rural development The Agriculture Sector GDP in 2009 was 220 trillion VND, approximately 18% of total GDP Agriculture's share of GDP has steadily declined GoV and while the GDP increased by 5.3% during 2009, the agriculture GDP increased by only 1.8% Never-the-less government expects GDP growth in the agriculture sector to increase annually by 3 – 5 %

Most international commentators credit policy changes (e.g doi moi) as having the most

significant impact enabling Vietnam to move from a net importer of food to a significant exporter and a key driver in the outstanding reduction in poverty, especially rural poverty Research has also played a significant role in these gains, but the majority of research funded has been in technologies associated with production improvement Over recent years there has been little funding for research into the impacts of agriculture policies or on the more empirical research associated with development of policy advice

to government

The opportunities for agriculture economic and policy research to contribute to continually improve efficiency, effectiveness and agriculture contribution to the national GDP are increasing There is general recognition that good economic analysis and good agriculture policies are likely to set the operational framework for optimizing economic, social and environmental benefits from research However there is limit to the research resources (human, financial and infrastructure) that can be directed towards research design, implementation and outreach Because of the limit on resources it is necessary for IPSARD to be selective in investing those resources in priority research programs that are most likely to provide the highest return on investment A key question is what research to invest in The development of a research priority framework and research investment portfolio is the first step of a research strategy that will lead to improved relevance and impact of research Research priority setting is therefore an important step

in the research resource allocation process Methodologies for priority setting have been adapted for use in Vietnam in conjunction with the AusAID funded Collaboration for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD) Program

This report details the methodology and results obtained from the Economic and Policy Research Priority Workshop held in Hanoi on July 29th 2010 The research priorities determined at this workshop and the research project concepts presented is the first step

in identification of longer term priority research programs Implementation of the longer-term research priorities will require significant investment over more than one year it is proposed that IPSARD uses the results of this priority setting to promote GoV and/or external funding support for further development and implementation of the research concepts outlines in the workshop workbooks

2 Methodology

2.1 Objectives

 To demonstrate an appropriate priority setting methodology suitable for future use

by MARD

 To determine the longer-term priorities for investment in Economic and Policy Research Opportunities (EPROs)

2.2 Research Priority Framework

Priority analysis is based on a criterion based analytical framework1, which has been adapted to conditions in different developing countries The conceptual framework is shown in Figure 1

Figure 1 Research Priority Framework

The Methodology was detailed in a Workshop Workbook (Attachment 1) supported by EPRO Data and Information Sheets (Attachment 2)

The workshop aim was to create ownership through developing a consensus between users and providers of research for the research priorities Nearly sixty stakeholders, representing researchers and research managers, extension workers, universities and the private sector enterprise and researchers participated in the workshop

The workshop process required individual participants to score each Economic & Policy Research Opportunity (EPROs) for each of the 4 criteria (Potential Benefits, Ability (or constraints) to Capture Benefits, Research Potential and Research Capacity) before they attended the workshop Working groups, facilitated by trained and IPSARD staff

1Foster, R.N., Linden, L.H., Whiteley, R.L., and Kantrow, A.M., Improving the Return on R & D, in

‘Measuring and Improving the Performance and Return on R & D’ IRI, New York (originally published in

Research Management January 1985.

discussed the reasons behind individual priority scores and each participant was invited to rescore if they desired Individual Scoring Sheets were collected and entered in an EXCEL Spreadsheet

2.3 Pre-Workshop Preparation

2.3.1 Organisation and Planning

MARD established a Research and Development Priority Setting Working Group (WG)

to assist in the development of methodologies and processes that could be applied across all sub-sectors of the Primary Sector (Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries and Livestock) The sub-sectors for research were expanded to include Economic and Policy Research The WG’s task was to provide the authority and direction for establishment of agricultural research priorities A workshop outlining the priority setting process was presented to the WG and individual WG members undertook to promote the process and facilitate and chair priority setting workshops

2.3.2 Training in Priority Setting Methodology

MARD established a Monitoring and Evaluation Network (M&EN) The M&EN consisted of staff from the Science, Technology and Environment Department (STED) and staff from research institutes with responsibility for monitoring and evaluation Two workshops were completed with the M&EN and at the conclusion of these workshops 12 M&EN members had demonstrated their understanding of the methodology M&EN members facilitated priority setting planning workshops and provided group facilitation services at national priority setting workshops In the Economic & Policy Research Opportunities, additional staff from IPSARD were trained to gain an understanding of the methodology and their contribution as leaders of workshop working groups

2.3.3 Economic and Policy Research Opportunity Areas

Three workshops of key research staff from the Institute of Policy & Strategy for Agriculture and Rural Development (IPSARD) were facilitated by CARD These workshops were designed to develop the context for analysis of EPROs Initially 17 EPROs were defined, but once analysis started it was obvious that there was a major degree of duplication and in some cases a lack of clarity about the nature and scope of the EPROs A decision was made to focus on larger, longer-term more strategic EPROs and the 17 EPROs were either consolidated or rejected as being less important

Seven EPROs were defined The format for each EPRO of the Data and Evaluation Sheets was outlined Key staff from IPSARD were nominated as lead authors for preparation of draft Data and Evaluation Sheets CARD provided extensive comments

on the draft Data & Evaluation Sheets and through several rounds of feedback, editing, collection of additional data and analysis the final EPRO Data & Evaluation Sheets were

at the standard required for the priority setting workshop

The Seven EPROs are:

EPRO 1 Commodity Research, Market Analysis, Forecast & Policy Analysis

EPRO 2 Natural Resources & Rural Environment Management

EPRO 3 Research, Technology Development and Transfer Delivery Systems for

Agriculture and Rural Development

EPRO 4 Social Security for Rural People and Sustainable Poverty Reduction

EPRO 7 Impact of International Economic Integration and Market Access to the

Vietnam Agricultural Trade

2.3.4 Data & Evaluation Sheets and Workshop Instructions

Data and Evaluation Sheets for each of the 7 EPROs were prepared as a separate publication (Attachments 1 and 2) and distributed to invitees prior to the workshop The methodology was outlined and each workshop participant was asked to read all workshop material and make a preliminary score for each of the four evaluation criteria

2.4 Workshop Format

2.4.1 Workshop Venues and Format

One workshop was facilitated at the Bao Son Hotel, 50 Nguyen Chi Thanh, Hanoi on July 29th2010

2.4.2 Workshop Chairpersons and Group Facilitators

Dr Trieu Van Hung (STED) and Dr Dam Kim Son (IPSARD) took dual responsibility for chairing the Priority Setting Workshop Mr Keith Milligan (CARD Program) facilitated the workshop

IPSARD staff met with the CARD Technical Coordinator prior to the workshop to outline the process of facilitation of working groups during the priority setting workshop Workgroup Facilitators were:

1 Ms Pham Ngoc Linh

2 Ms Tran Quynh Chi

3 Mr Nguyen Ba Minh

4 Mr Nguyen Nghia Lan

5 Ms Mai Huong

2.4.3 Workshop Process

The workshop followed the following steps:

1 Workshop format and process outlined, including a brief description of the

methodology and an outline of the priority framework

2 Presentation by each key author for each of the EPROs Presenters were:

Ms Pham Ngoc Linh

Ms Tran Quynh Chi

Mr Nguyen Ba Minh

Mr Nguyen Nghia Lan

Mr Kim Van Chinh

Mr Hoang Vu Quang

Mr Nguyen Van Du

3 Detailed description of the Potential Benefit evaluation criteria including the key assessment issues

4 Preliminary scoring for Potential Benefits for each EPRO by each workshop participant

5 Working group discussion on reasons for high and low scores for Potential

Benefits and reassessment of preliminary scores by each participant

6 Collection of individual scoring sheets and entry of individual scores for Potential Benefit for each EPRO

7 Repetition of steps 2 – 5 for each of the remaining evaluation criteria (Ability to Capture, Research Potential and Research Capacity

8 Presentation of workshop results to participants

9 Presentation on Proposed Research Topics for 2011

10 Outline of Next Critical Steps in the development of research priorities

3 Workshop Results

3.1 Return on Investment

Return on investment is the product of attractiveness and feasibility The relative return

on investment in each area of research opportunity is summarised below

28

Workshop Output – Return on

Investment

1 COMMODITY RESEARCH, MARKET ANALYSIS & FORECAST

2 NATURAL RESOURCES & RURAL ENVIRONMENT

3 RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER

4 SOCIAL SECURITY &SUSTAINABLE POVERTY REDUCTION

5 CLIMATE CHANGE

6 RURAL DEVELOPMENT

7 INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC INTEGRATION AND MARKET ACCESS

R ET U R N FR OM IN VEST MEN T IN EACH AR EA

OF R ESEAR CH OPPOR T U N IT Y

5

4 3 2

1

0 10 20 30 40

Feasibility

Attractive-ness

3.1.1 Comment

The main points arising from the workshop’s Return on Investment assessment are:

Highest Return on Investment

 EPRO 1 (Commodity Research, Market Analysis, Forecast & Policy Analysis) was assessed as having the highest return for investment in research The high return on investment is not un-expected because one of the main issues identified was the lack of good prediction of market needs The history of production driven agriculture has many examples of lack of success, some of which may have been avoided if sound market analysis had gone hand in hand with promotion of agricultural technologies EPRO 1 ranked highest Both in attractiveness and feasibility and indicates that this is an area where a significant increase in resources available to undertake the analysis and forecasting and to provide to both the GoV and the private sector is likely to improve the overall impact of agriculture economic and policy research

 Rural Development (EPRO 6) was also regarded as having a relatively high return

on investment even though the attractiveness was similar to EPROs 2, 3, 4, &7 EPRO 6 is in an area where MARD has primary responsibility, even though many National Target Programs (targeting poverty) managed by other Ministries and Agencies have targeted the poverty aspects of rural development through support for rural infrastructure and to a lesser extent agriculture production inputs The MARD initiative of Tam Nong is likely to increase the attractiveness of economic and policy research into rural development and therefore may increase the return

on investment

Medium Return on Investment

 This group of EPROs includes Natural Resources & Rural Environment (EPRO 2), Research, Technology Development & Transfer (EPRO 3) Social Security & Sustainable Poverty Reduction (EPRO 4) and International Economic Integration and Market Access (EPRO 7) The attractiveness ranking for EPRO 2, Natural Resources and Rural Environment was slightly higher than the other three, with a higher ranking in potential benefit partially offset but the view that adoption of economic & policy research in this EPRO is likely to be quite difficult

 Interestingly although MARD has a role in all of these EPROs, they all require integration with other Ministries such as MoNRE, MoST, MoLISA and Ministry

of Foreign Affairs Economic & Policy Research by MARD is a valuable input that will provide a rural perspective on the likely impacts of these broad areas

Low Return on Investment

 EPRO 5 – Climate Change was ranked by most participants as having the lowest return on investment However this result could be interpreted as the workshop participant’s view that economic and policy research in climate change is unlikely

to provide the most significant contribution The potential physical and financial impacts of climate change are well known and in terms of research the emphasis may need to be on mitigation, rather than on further analysis of impacts and/or development of new policies

3.2 Attractiveness

Attractiveness is a realistic estimate of the relative benefits likely to be achieved It is assessed by plotting ARDO Potential Benefits to Vietnam against the Ability to Capture those benefits (Likelihood of Uptake) The Figure below summarises the scores provided

by individual participants at the workshop

26

Workshop Output - Attractiveness

1 COMMODITY RESEARCH, MARKET ANALYSIS & FORECAST

2 NATURAL RESOURCES AND RURAL ENVIRONMENT

3 RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER

4 SOCIAL SECURITY &SUSTAINABLE POVERTY REDUCTION

5 CLIMATE CHANGE

6 RURAL DEVELOPMENT

7 INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC INTEGRATION AND MARKET ACCESS

AT T R ACT IVE N ES S OF R ESE AR CH FOR EACH

EPR O

1 2

3 4

5

6 7

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

Likelihood of uptake

Potential

Benefits

3.2.1 Comment

The main points arising from the workshop’s Attractiveness assessment are:

High Attractiveness

 EPRO 1: Commodity Research, Market Analysis, Forecast & Policy Analysis production was the most attractive area for research and analysis Workshop participants assessed this EPRO as having the highest potential benefit and in their view once the outputs from the research were available (e.g commodity forecasts for the most important export crops) would be relatively rapidly taken up by key stakeholders This result is understandable as most developed countries spend considerable resources to try and forecast both prices and trends and areas of strength Good information in this area is likely to increase the competitiveness of Vietnam export crops

 Natural Resources and Rural Environment was assessed as having a similar potential benefit to Commodity Research However workshop participants thought

that the uptake of economic and policy research in this EPRO was more difficult This suggests that while awareness of the potential benefits from sustainable environmental management are appreciated the development issues such as impacts

on food security and livelihoods and the payment of carbon credits for small household based agriculture production systems is likely to impact on the willingness or ability to implement change

Medium Attractiveness

 The next group of EPROs includes Research Technology Development and Transfer, Social Security & Sustainable Poverty Reduction and Rural Development All these EPROs are separate issues but are also linked with each other Improved technology development and transfer and issues such as crop insurance for smallholder farmers is likely to affect poverty reduction and therefore the rate of rural development Economic & policy research and the mechanisms for sustainable rural development are likely to impact on poverty

 Workshop participants expected that the benefits from research into good social security practices would be more difficult to implement than the benefits from good technology development and transfer Vietnam has over many years focused resources on agriculture technology development and the workshop result suggests that the attractiveness for investment in market forecasting is likely to be higher than for technology development and transfer This result may reflect a generally held perception that the benefits from agriculture technologies have not met expectations and although large resources have been invested in improving technical knowledge and skills, the operational environment for implementation of high impact research and technology transfer remains weak

 The potential benefit from improved international and economic integration and market access was rated by participants as relatively low This together with a high ranking for likelihood of adoption is difficult to explain On the one hand development of free trade areas and reduction in tariff barriers for agriculture products is likely to provide significant benefit, but on the other hand negotiation and eventual implementation of such policies is often subject to a very long negotiation process In addition emergence of non-tariff barriers such as SPS tends

to inhibit adoption as smallholder structure of agriculture and the costs of compliance of standards such as GAP are seen as disincentives for change

Low Attractiveness

 Research into the Climate Change EPRO was seen almost universally by workshop participants as having low attractiveness This perhaps is surprising as climate change is a hot topic in Vietnam and both the GoV and its international partners have committed large financial and technical resources to address climate change issues The role of agriculture economic and policy research into climate change was seen by participants as being low compared with all other EPROs

3.3 Feasibility

Relative feasibility is a realistic estimate of the likely contribution research would make

to achieve the potential impact It is determined by plotting research and development