Báo cáo nghiên cứu nông nghiệp " Agriculture Sector Research Priorities and Investment Framework 2011-2015 " pptx

Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development Agriculture Sector Research Priorities and Investment Framework 2011-2015 Priority Setting Workshop Hanoi December 2010... The MARD Inves

Ministry of Agriculture &

Rural Development

Agriculture Sector Research Priorities and Investment Framework

2011-2015

Priority Setting Workshop

Hanoi

December 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1  Introduction 1 

2  Methodology 3 

2.1  Research Priority Framework 3 

2.2  Pre-Workshop Preparation 4 

2.2.1  Organisation and Planning 4 

2.2.2  Training in Priority Setting Methodology 4 

2.2.3  Agriculture Research Opportunity Areas & Resource Material 4 

2.2.4  Data & Evaluation Sheets and Workshop Instructions 5 

2.3  Workshop Format 5 

2.3.1  Workshop Venues and Format 5 

2.3.2  Workshop Chairpersons and Group Facilitators 5 

2.3.3  Workshop Process 5 

3  Workshop Results 6 

3.1  Return on Investment 6 

3.1.1  Comment 6 

3.2  Attractiveness 7 

3.2.1  Comment 7 

3.3  Feasibility 8 

3.3.1  Comment 8 

4  Interpretation of Results 9 

4.1  Limitations of Results 9 

5  Investment Portfolio 10 

5.1  Cross Sub-Sectors 10 

5.2  Across and Within Sub-Sectors 12 

6  The Next Steps 12 

Attachments

1 Agriculture Sector Research Priority Setting Workbook

2 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 %

Research intensity1 in Vietnam is less than 0.2% which is lower that most developing countries

of 0.5% and much lower than developed country average of 1.5% GoV has targeted a 12% increase of central government funding levels from 2006 – 2011 and to date total funding increases in agricultural research funding have exceeded that level MARD research funding provides approximately 65% of all forms of local funding in Vietnam Provincial budget provide the bulk of the remaining 35%, but as GoV policies of decentralistion are further implemented it

is expected that both the total funding (Central & Provincial) will significantly increase and the proportion of total funds sourced from Provincial budgets will also increase

In spite of these increases, in real terms the budget has effectively kept pace with inflation Currently the use of Cost Norms for determining research project budgets is a major constraint Although these norms perhaps enable support for a greater number of research projects they have restrict the scope, size and impact of research Planned reforms in research funding are likely to see research costs becoming more market related and the cost of salaries included in the budgets

of research proposals Both these factors mean that even if funding continues to grow at 12% per year, research intensity will not change much and funds for agricultural research will remain very scarce and still well below that of other developing countries

At the moment research funding decisions follow a traditional approach with incremental funds based on funding from the previous year Changes in the proportion of budget allocated to different subsectors change by only small amounts (1 - 3%) over one or more years In the past most research was focused on the crop sector (mainly rice) for obvious food security reasons However as the agriculture sector is now expected to become more competitive (both for local and export markets) research fund allocation based on historical allocations may not result in effective use of limited resources (funds, human resources, facilities) for research

This situation makes it imperative that MARD reviews its allocation of research budget based on

a research priority framework and through a consultative approach with key stakeholders

The MARD Investment framework for the period 2006 – 2011 is shown in Figure 1.32% of total funding is for the Crops-Plant Protection sector but most Agriculture and Post-Harvest Technology research is also focused on the crop sector meaning in reality 36% of funding support is for this sector It is perhaps surprising that investment in the fisheries and livestock sub-sectors is less than for forestry and that investment in economic and environmental research

is as low as it is One of the objectives of the Agriculture Sector Priority Setting Workshop is to determine if the current resource allocation is correct, or if modification is justified based on an objective, criterion based assessment of priorities

Figure 1

1

Research intensity = public sector expenditure on agricultural research as proportion of agricultural GDP

The CARD program received approval from the Program Coordinating Committee and support from AusAID contract amendments to assist STED to develop methodologies for research priority setting as a guide to revising its agriculture research investment framework From 2006 –

2009 CARD assisted in facilitating workshops to determine priorities in the Crops, Livestock, Forestry, Fisheries and Economic and Policy sub-sectors

Using the established methodologies a final workshop was facilitated to prioritize the agriculture sector This workshop had the following objectives:

To assist MARD to develop mechanisms for determining agriculture research priorities as a basis for investment decisions for high priority opportunities for agriculture research programs and projects across all areas of the agriculture sector

To prepare a draft set of research priorities the agriculture sector using objective and subjective data and information and results of previous priority setting workshops at the subsector level

This report details the methodology and results obtained from the Agriculture Sector (Crops, Livestock, Forestry & Fisheries Sub-sectors) at the ASEAN Resort, Huyen Thac That, Hanoi on December 14th2010

2 Methodology

2.1 Research Priority Framework

Priority analysis is based on a criterion based analytical framework2, which has been adapted to conditions in different developing countries The conceptual framework is shown in Figure 2

Figure 2 Research Priority Framework

The Methodology was detailed in a Workshop Workbook (Attachment 1) which also included inputs from key authors on the contribution of each of the four subsectors to the economic, social and environmental well-being in Vietnam

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 of the four subsectors 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 facilitators 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

Foster, 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

2.2 Pre-Workshop Preparation

2.2.1 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

2.2.2 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

2.2.3 Agriculture Research Opportunity Areas& Resource Material

An agreement with STED resulted in four Areas of Research Opportunity (AROs) being evaluated These were:

ARO 1: Crops (or Cultivation) including: Rice, Upland Crops, Legumes,

Industrial Crops, Fruit, Vegetables, Flowers & Ornamentals, Animal Feeds and New Crops

ARO 2: Livestock including: Large Animals, Small Ruminant Animals, Pig

Production, Poultry, Productive Insects, Veterinary Vaccines & Animal

Remedies, and Animal Feed Processing & Conservation

ARO 3: Forestry including: Large Timber Production, Pulp and Small Log Products,

Bamboo and Rattan, Non Timber Forest Products, Bio-diversity and Conservation, Environment and Services, and Forest Policy

ARO 4: Fisheries including: Marine Finfish, Cold Water Fish, Crustaceans,

Molluscs, Fresh Water Fish, Post-Harvest, Processing & Value Adding, Extraction of Bio-Active Compounds, Resource Management &

Conservation, and Mechanisation

Terms of Reference were prepared for development of resource material for the workshop and incorporation into workbooks Contracts based on these Terms of Reference and for presentation

of working papers at the workshop were signed for the following inputs

Table 1 Working Papers for Priority Setting Workshop

Economic/Production and Market Statistics/ IPSARD Phan Van Dan

2.2.4 Data & Evaluation Sheets and Workshop Instructions

Research Priority Setting Methodology and sub-sector discussion papers were edited and

incorporated into a Workbook which was distributed to workshop participants prior to the

workshop Each workshop participant was asked to read all workshop material and make a

preliminary score for each of the four evaluation criteria

2.3 Workshop Format

2.3.1 Workshop Venues and Format

One workshop was facilitated at the ASEAN Resort, Huyen Thac That, Hanoi on December

14th2010

2.3.2 Workshop Chairpersons and Group Facilitators

Dr Nguyen Van Bo (VASS), as a result of unforeseen unavailability of Dr Hung (STED)

undertook the responsibility for chairing the Priority Setting Workshop Mr Keith Milligan

(CARD Program) facilitated the workshop

Workshop Working Group facilitators were:

1 Vu Chi Cuong: Animal Husbandry Research Institute

2 Pham Duc Chien, Forestry Research Institute

3 Ngo Doan Dam, Food Crops Research Institute

4 Nguyen Kim Chien, DSTE

5 Do Xuan Lan, DSTE

2.3.3 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 of the working papers outlined in Table 1

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

assessment issues

4 Preliminary scoring for Potential Benefits for each ARO 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 ARO

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

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

Figure 3: Return on Investment in Agricultural Research

1 = Crops: 2 = Livestock 3 = Forestry 4 = Fisheries

3.1.1 Comment

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

• ARO 1 (Crops) has the highest return on investment The Crops sub-sector has both the highest attractiveness and highest feasibility This means that investment in the Crops sub-sector should be higher than for each of the other 3 sub-sectors

• The Fisheries sub-sector is highly attractive, but feasibility is lower Some of this lower feasibility is a function of a lower capacity and improving fisheries research capacity is likely to provide greater gains than capacity improvement in each of the other three sub-sectors

• The Livestock sub-sector is less attractive than Crops or Fisheries and has moderate feasibility The return on additional investment in livestock is likely to be lower that the Crops and Fisheries sub-sectors

• The Forestry sub-sector scores the lowest on both attractiveness and feasibility and this

3.2 Attractiveness

Attractiveness is a realistic estimate of the relative benefits likely to be achieved It is assessed

by plotting ARD 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

Figure 4: Attractiveness

1 = Crops: 2 = Livestock 3 = Forestry 4 = Fisheries

3.2.1 Comment

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

• AROs 1 & 4 (Crops and Fisheries) were assessed as having high potential benefits This is not surprising as both sub-sectors have a significant contribution to agriculture GDP and to export earnings

• ARO 3 – Forestry was considered to have the lowest potential benefit This probably reflects the contribution that forestry makes to agriculture GDP However it is possible that the social and environmental contribution that Forestry makes to rural community well-being was discounted by workshop participants

• Forestry was also scored lowly on the likelihood of uptake This is understandable in that trees take a long time to provide financial benefits and the drivers for change are not as strong

• Interestingly livestock was considered to have lower uptake than fisheries and crops From discussion during the workshop one possible reason for this is that small scale household-based livestock production (especially pigs and beef cattle) is seen as high risk, with major

disease risks Scaling up to semi- or commercial production involves significant investment in infrastructure (housing, waste treatment and disposal etc.) and also probably requires increasing proportions of feed to be sourced from outside the household Investment costs, risks and time to generate income also act as an inhibitor to change

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 potential against research and development capacity The Figure below summarises the workshop results

Figure 5: Feasibility

1 = Crops: 2 = Livestock 3 = Forestry 4 = Fisheries

3.3.1 Comment

The main points arising from the workshop’s Feasibility assessment include:

R&D Potential

• The workshop assessment was that the research potential of the Crops and Livestock sectors was similar and higher than the research potential of the fisheries and forestry sub-sectors

• The difference in research potential between all four sub-sectors is not great Differences

in research potential can relate to the complexity of research problems or opportunities and may also relate to a view that on-going development of the sub-sector is constrained by issues other than those where research may have a contribution For example in the forestry sub-sector issues related to land use, or remoteness of forest lands from markets,