CARD Project 030/06 VIE: Developing a strategy for enhancing the
competitiveness of rural small and medium enterprises in the agro-food
chain: the case of animal feed

Policy Brief May 2010

Use of Industrial and Mixed Feed by Livestock Producers in
Vietnam

For Information of the Minister of
Agriculture, and relevant Departments of
the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development and Provincial
Departments of Agriculture and Rural
Development.

Purpose
• To report on research findings
relating to the use of livestock feeds
by pig and chicken producers in
Vietnam, and
• To suggest implications from the
research relating to the current and
future use of industrial and mixed
feeds by livestock producers.

Background
A survey in six provinces of 300 pig and
chicken livestock producers of mixed

efficient feed use important in livestock
production. In this Policy Brief results
from the research related to feed use and
feed use efficiency in livestock
production are discussed.

Use of feed by livestock producers
Industrial feed is more often used by
large producers, and more commonly in
early production stages
In general, it was found that industrial
feed was used more by larger producer
groups, and in the early production stage
rather than later stages. These
differences by scale were also true for 2
the amount of industrial feed used: that
is, larger producers used more industrial
feed (i.e quantity fed per head).
Industrial feed produced by foreign
companies was generally more favored
than that produced by domestic
companies, with more than 90% of the
surveyed households choosing both
complete and concentrate feed with a
foreign company brand. The main reason
given by producers for this choice was
that foreign brand feeds were of better

complete feed was generally highest in
the lactating period at 65%. For porker
production, more households used 1
A chicken batch normally has 3 feeding
production stages. For broilers, stage 1 lasts on
average for about 29 days, stage 2 is the next 48
days and stage 3 is the last 40 days. For layers,
the respective length of the 3 stages is 94 days,
172 days and 250 days.
complete feed in the piglet stage (85%)
than in the later stages
2
. Similar to
chicken production, many more large
scale producers fed their pigs using
complete feed compared to small scale
producers, and this was generally true
for all different stages of porker and sow
production.
Use of mixed raw feed only diets is no
longer prevalent; instead more complete
only and diets using mixed industrial
and raw feeds are used
Except for a few households that fed
only mixed feed to their chickens (9%
for broiler and 18% for layer), a large
percentage of both pig and chicken

2
A porker batch consists of two main feeding
stages: stage 1 (piglet production) lasts for 60
days and stage 2 (grower plus finisher stage) is
98 days. 3
feed, and also significantly lower in
households using foreign brand complete
feed than those using domestic brands in
the case of chicken (2.94 versus 4.18).
FCRs for pig production using complete
feed were significantly lower for small
scale producers (2.08) compared to large
scale producers (2.92). The FCR was
also significantly lower for complete
feed diets (2.65) compared to mixed feed
(4.06), but FCR for pig producers using
foreign brand complete feed, however,
was not significantly different from
those using domestic brands.
FCRs may be used as a standard measure
of feed use efficiency. However if a
more productive feed costs more per kg,
it may be worthwhile for farmers to use
the cheaper feed with the higher FCR if
the net cost per kg of liveweight gain is
lower. The results of this research show
some interesting differences between

tested but there was no significant
difference in the means. Thus, while
FCR was lower for the foreign brand
feeds, the higher price of this feed
balanced out the economic benefits
compared to the domestic feed, such that
the cost per kg of liveweight gain was no
worse than for foreign feed. The mean
values were 22,900 VND for foreign
feed and 25,300 VND for domestic feed
but the differences were not statistically
significant.
For pig production: In this case there
are significant differences in cost per day
between complete only and mixed feed
overall (19,230 VND versus 14,370
VND), and for all three production
scales (Table 2). Similarly, it was also
found that the feed cost per kg of
liveweight gain was significantly higher
for households using complete feed only
compared to those using mixed feed
overall (23,580 VND versus 20,150
VND), and those located in the north.
These results for pig production support
mixed feed use (often using local
residual feeds) as households can reduce
their feed cost by about 3,400 VND per
kg liveweight gain overall. As before,
possible differences in sale prices

to supply small producers directly,
and domestic feed brands were
shown in these results to be as cost-
effective for liveweight gain as
foreign brands. Higher FCRs were
offset by the lower price of domestic
brand feeds. The feasibility of
establishing a cluster of animal
livestock production and livestock
feed producers in rural areas by
linking smallholder farmers and
SMEs could be investigated.

Further reading
Center for Agricultural Policy, 2010. Small-
Medium Enterprises in the Livestock Feed
Sector in Vietnam: Vol 1. Livestock feed
production. Report for CARD Project
030/06 VIE, Section 6.3.
Center for Agricultural Policy, 2010. Small-
Medium Enterprises in the Livestock Feed
Sector in Vietnam: Vol II. Feed use by pig
and chicken livestock producers. Report for
CARD Project 030/06 VIE, Chapter 5.
5
Table 1 Feed cost per day and per kg liveweight gain for broiler production: by
region, scale and by diet (Source: CARD producer survey 2009)

Medium 0.64 0.50 24.69 26.13 nsd
Large 0.72 0.82 20.90 . * 1%
a. Cost per day between feed types at the aggregate level is significant at 10%
b. Complete only feed cost per day is significantly higher in the north, nsd for mixed feed; cost per kg
liveweight gain significantly higher in south for mixed feed but nsd for complete only
c. Cost per day nsd between scale for either feed types, cost per kg gain nsd by scale for complete only feed,
mean cost per kg for mixed feed significantly higher for large farms
* Only two producers in large group use mixed feed so the result is not shown here.
# ANOVA is Analysis of Variance, nsd is No Significant Difference.

Table 2 Feed cost per day and per kg porker liveweight gain, by region, scale and
diet type (Source: CARD producer survey 2009)Feed cost per day
(thousand VND)
Feed cost per kg meat gain
(thousand VND)

Complete
only
Mixed -
Complete
Anova
(cost/day vs
feed type)
Complete
only
Mixed -
Complete

Agriculture, and relevant Departments of
the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development and provincial
Departments of Agriculture and Rural
Development, Vietnam Association of
Small and Medium Enterprises.

Purpose
• To inform you of major constraints
facing small-medium enterprises
(SMEs) operating in the livestock
feed sector in Vietnam, and
• To suggest policy initiatives needed
to address these constraints.

Background
Large enterprises dominate the market in
the livestock feed manufacturing sector,
but there are many small-medium size
firms also operating in the sector. There
is pressure on these smaller domestic
companies to remain competitive,
however there has been little research on
the competitiveness of the small and
medium mills, compared to the larger
ones, and constraints facing their
operations. In this Policy Brief we report
on a number of constraints facing SMEs
in the sector. Recent research has found
that credit assistance currently provided

mills have some disadvantages in
accessing loans from formal credit
sources. Fewer small mills were able to
access enough funds compared to 2
medium and large mills. Nearly 70% of
feed mills surveyed in the CARD project
had a loan but only 56% of them could
obtain as many funds as they wanted.
Less small firms were able to acquire
loans with sufficient funds compared
with medium and large enterprises (40%,
64% and 67% respectively). Compared
to large firms, SMEs tend to have loans
from commercial banks (over 60%)
rather than VBARD where they can
obtain lower interest rates. This means
that they have to pay higher costs for
loans which increases their costs of
production.
In the survey, having no collateral was
selected by all large mills and two thirds
of small enterprises as the most
important reason for not having enough
funds. Half of the mills in the medium-
size group mentioned high interest rates
as the most important reason for not
being able to access sufficient funds, and

means they must make material input
purchases at more frequent intervals.
This makes them particularly vulnerable
to changing input prices. Under unstable
raw material market conditions, larger
storage capacity and ability to store for a
longer period helps to ensure that mills
can effectively plan and budget ahead.
Access to adequate land for business
purposes
Both small and large mills were more
likely to report that they faced
difficulties accessing adequate land to
operate their business. Access to land for
business purposes was the second most
common issue (after access to credit)
nominated by SMEs as needing support
from Government (over 20% of mills).
Restrictions on the movement of goods
Forty two percent of firms overall
reported being adversely affected by
restrictions on the movement of goods,
although more large firms (61%) than
SMEs reported these restrictions. Tolls,
inter-district and inter-provincial
roadblocks and “police conduct” were
reasons given for restrictions on the
movement of goods. Of these, “police
conduct” was nominated as the most
important restriction on movement of

provided to SMEs. Access to credit
was nominated by over 50% of mills
as needing Government support.
Further research is needed to identify
the specific operational areas in
which SMEs need credit support, and
how best to provide credit support.
The focus of the support should be in
areas where SMEs need support to be
competitive with larger firms (e.g.
raw material purchases, improving
quality control facilities)
2. Improve standards of quality control
of small domestic mills. There is
currently a large difference between
quality control procedures operating
in domestic and foreign mills. To
compete in the sector in the long
term, quality control standards of
domestic SMEs must improve. More
detailed recommendations to
improve quality control are given in
the Policy Brief “Quality Control in
the Livestock Feed Sector in
Vietnam”.
3. Build better market linkages between
SMEs and raw material suppliers.
This strategy, along with improved
management of the supply chain,
could increase the quality and

Association (VAFA). The VAFA
could play a strong and useful role
for SMEs in the sector. The
Association is already used by SMEs
for feed ration recipes, and advice on
various aspects of production, and
this role could be expanded to
include assistance in providing
information on domestic and world
markets, raw material procurement
(for example, importing of raw
materials) and improving quality
control procedures. Both SMEs and
large feedmills should play a role in
debating and developing a future role
for the VAFA. Policy advocacy for
the feed sector in general and SMEs
in particular should be considered.
Membership of the VAFA could be
required for all registered feedmills,
and the Association should be 4
strengthened with Government and
private sector support.

References and further reading
Center for Agricultural Policy, 2010. Small-
Medium Enterprises in the Livestock Feed

Small and Medium Enterprises, and
managers of small-medium enterprises
operating in the livestock feed sector.
Purpose
• To report on research findings
relating to the competitiveness of
small-medium enterprises (SMEs)
operating in the livestock feed sector
in Vietnam, and
• To suggest implications from the
results relating to the sustainable
development of SMEs in the sector.
Background
Large enterprises dominate the market in
the livestock feed manufacturing sector,
but there are many small-medium size
firms also operating in the sector. There
is pressure on these smaller domestic
companies to remain competitive, and
perceptions that they are not competitive,
but there has been little research on the
competitiveness of the small and
medium mills, compared to the larger
ones. In this Policy Brief findings of a
study on the competitiveness of SMEs in
the sector are reported and discussed.
Data come from a survey of 62 feed mill
enterprises conducted in 2008 by the
Center for Agricultural Policy. In the
analyses, the mills have been categorized

Production characteristics and costs of
production
In this study, statistical evidence was
found to show that cost of production
was inversely related to scale of
production, with small enterprises
having significantly higher costs of
production per kg of output than medium
enterprises, which had higher costs of
production than large enterprises. During
2007, the mean costs of production per
kg of output were 8420 VND, 6340
VND and 5380 VND for small, medium
and large firms respectively. This alone
is not necessarily an indicator of greater
efficiency of larger enterprises. For
example, small-medium enterprises were
found to produce a higher share of
concentrate as percentage of total
production than large enterprises. On
average, small mills made 37% of their
revenue from concentrate production,
compared to 18% for medium mills and
only 11% for large mills. Over 80% of
revenue for medium and large mills was
made from sale of complete feed.
Concentrate production has higher raw
material input costs per kg of output, so
cost of production per kg of total output
would necessarily be higher for those

medium and large firms, whilst the mean
profit of the large firms is not
statistically different from the medium
size firms.
These results indicate that small mills
(i.e. those producing less than 10,000
tonnes per annum) are likely to be
struggling to remain competitive. The
data indicate that they face significantly
higher costs, and sell pig complete feed
at significantly lower prices, resulting on
average in a significantly lower profit.
Anecdotally, this is supported by reports
of small mills ceasing business, and
observations when conducting the survey
of many previously listed small mills no
longer in business.
Strategies used by SMEs to compete
for market share against larger firms
Provision of credit to purchasers
SMEs rely more than large firms on
provision of credit to clients purchasing
their products. Credit, or delayed
payment options for their products, was
not the usual method of payment made
to large firms, whereas both these
options were usual methods of payment
made to SMEs. Almost all sales of
complete feed, and 75% of concentrate
feed sales to wholesalers by large

higher percentage of domestically
sourced raw materials for production.
Location in rural areas may assist SMEs
to source these domestic supplies of raw
material inputs, including raw materials
used less often, such as broken rice,
groundnut, and cottonseed meal.
Supply chain differences
The research showed that the
supply/distribution chains operating for
SMEs and large firms in the livestock
feed sector are quite different, indicating
that they are sourcing materials from and
targeting distribution to different market
segments. Unlike large mills, SMEs
source some inputs and distribute
products directly from/to small
households. Large mills are more
dependent on imports (e.g. maize) to
meet their raw material requirements,
whereas SMEs are more likely to be able
to source sufficient raw materials in the
domestic market.
SMEs are more likely to diversify their
business into trading activities, and in
addition they sell to a wider range of
customer types including other
companies, agents and households.
Small mills in particular will sell direct
to farm households, and medium mills

sustainable development of SMEs in the
sector.
1. There is a need for small mills to
increase production size
The results support the idea that
medium-size mills (i.e. those producing
between 10,000 and 60,000 tonnes per
annum) are remaining competitive; with
costs, product mix and prices similar to
large mills. They have a sales strategy 4
that targets a different customer base to
large mills (i.e. retail agents rather than
wholesale agents). Small-sized mills
(producing less than 10,000 tonnes per
annum) appear to be under pressure to
survive, and many will need to increase
their scale of operation to remain in
business.
2. Consider advantages to be gained
from a cooperative structure
SMEs should investigate possible
advantages associated with a cooperative
structure, which might enable them to
act more like a larger enterprise and
achieve scale efficiencies in costs of
production. A cooperative structure
could also offer advantages associated

4. The domestic supply of raw material
inputs is important for SMEs
SMEs are more likely to source input
materials from local sources, indicating
that the domestic material market is very
important for SMEs. Better management
of the supply chain could increase the
quality and decrease costs of domestic
raw materials, which would benefit
SMEs operating in the livestock feed
sector. Further study of input material
supply chain management of medium
scale feed mills could provide
experiences and lessons learnt for
sustainable development of raw material
supply for SMEs producing animal feed.
5. Improve quality control of feed
products produced by SMEs
Better quality of products produced by
SMEs is essential if they are to be
competitive in the sector. Policy
initiatives needed to improve quality
control of feed outputs are addressed in a
separate Policy Brief: “Quality Control
in the Livestock Feed Sector in
Vietnam.”
6. Address constraints facing SMEs
A number of constraints were found to
be affecting SMEs in the livestock feed
sector. These include access to credit,

Agriculture and relevant staff of the
Departments of Livestock Production
and Animal Health, Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Development and
provincial Departments, relevant staff of
the National Institutes of Animal
Husbandry and Veterinary Research,
Vietnam Animal Feed Association.
Purpose
• To inform you of current issues
facing the quality control of livestock
feed products manufactured in
Vietnam, and
• To suggest policy initiatives to
improve the quality control of
livestock feed products.
Background
Quality control is considered as one of
the most serious weaknesses of the
Vietnamese livestock feed industry.
Despite regulations (see below) there is a
perception of low quality of livestock
feed manufactured in Vietnam,
particularly from domestic companies,
and overall poor quality control
standards (specifically in relation to
contaminants and the use of additives)
by firms in the sector.
Responsibility for quality control in the
production of livestock feed includes

Issues
Enforcement of good feed quality control
standards and confidence in the quality of
livestock feed manufactured in Vietnam
is essential for the sustainable 2
development of the livestock production
sector. Results from a survey of 62 animal
feed producers conducted by the Center
for Agricultural Policy in 2008 show that
concerns about the quality of animal feed
manufactured in Vietnam are well
founded.
1. Few firms in Vietnam apply advanced
international standards for quality control.
Of those surveyed only 7% of
foreign/joint-venture firms and no
domestic firms had HACCP certification.
Fifty percent of foreign/joint-venture
firms had ISO certification compared to
23% of domestic firms.
2. Better quality control processes for
both input materials and output products
were evident in foreign/joint-venture
firms compared to domestic ones. A
higher percentage of foreign firms had
their own quality control laboratories
doing various tests of raw materials and

provincial Departments of Agriculture
and Rural Development to implement all
tasks/activities, as well as the supervisory
responsibility to ensure hygiene and
safety in production and use of animal
feed in their own provincial area. This is
in contrast to Thailand where feed quality
is tightly controlled by the Department for
Livestock Development. In Thailand, this
Department has responsibility for testing
all animal feed produced by mills on a
regular basis, free-of-charge to the mills.
The Department also runs free training
courses in GMP (Good Management
Practices) and HACCP systems.
5. There is insufficient laboratory
capacity in Vietnam to test regularly for
the 15 nutrition parameters required for
registration of livestock feed products in
Vietnam. The Thai Department of
Livestock Development (Bureau of
Livestock Standards and Certification)
only specify a minimum of four
parameters for each type of livestock
feed: protein, moisture, fat and fibre
percentages. These are the minimum
requirements for registration of a
commercial formulated feed, and all
products must be registered with the Thai
Department of Livestock Development

• Is enforcement of quality control
regulation carried out in an effective
and appropriate way?
• Are there adequate incentives for
firms and government officers to
implement quality control
regulations?
It would appear from the data obtained in
the survey that that all the issues raised in
these questions constrain domestic mills
from taking effective quality control
measures to some extent. To overcome
this, pro-active policies are needed to
assist domestic feed mills to improve
their standards of quality control. If
satisfactory long term food safety
standards are to be reached, the
Government of Vietnam needs to address
quality control issues associated with the
production of livestock feed. A number
of options could be considered:
1. Invest in improving the capacity for
adequate quality control testing:
• Domestic firms could be assisted (for
example, through subsidized loans) to
improve their own laboratory
capacity to test raw materials and
products.
• The Government of Vietnam could
invest in improving laboratory

product tests and frequency of testing
should be specified at a level that is
able to be carried out.
• Corruption associated with non-
reporting of failure to meet quality
control standards needs to be
addressed.
• It is possible that there would be
value in investigating quality control
systems for livestock feed currently
operating in Thailand.
• A policy to implement random tests
of feed products in the market to
check labeling accuracy could also be
developed. It would need to include
procedures for enforcement of strict
sanctions if labeling was inaccurate.
4
3. Actively promote the adoption of
international quality control standards.
Training in Good Management Practices
and HACCP could be offered to
small/domestic firms, accompanied by a
schedule for adoption of which ever
standard is more appropriate for specific
firms. The assistance of large foreign
firms in the sector and the VAFA could

of firms operating in the livestock
feed sector, and this should be
accompanied by a schedule for
adoption by firms of appropriate
standards. A deadline for meeting at
least GMP accreditation for mills
over a certain production capacity
should be considered. Subsidisation
of training by the Government should
be considered.

Further reading
Center for Agricultural Policy, 2010. Small-
Medium Enterprises in the Livestock Feed
Sector in Vietnam: Vol 1. Livestock feed
production. Report for CARD Project 030/06
VIE. Section 6.6.
Center for Agricultural Policy, 2008.
Thailand Study Tour Report. Report for
CARD Project 030/06 VIE. Section 2.3.
INSTITUTE OF POLICY AND STRATEGY FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
CENTER FOR AGRICULTURAL POLICY Hanoi, June 2010

2
1. Introduction
Various documents and external foreign agencies have expressed concern about
policy formulation in Vietnam, especially the “top-down” approach and lack of input
from the private sector into policy (e.g. Vu, 2003; Weaver, undated). IPSARD/CAP
exists within the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) and plays
a major role as a “policy think-tank” for the Ministry. As such, IPSARD/CAP plays a
role in policy review, and hence the formulation of revised and/or new policy. This
discussion paper briefly reviews livestock policy in Vietnam, and comments on
IPSARD/CAP’s role in policy review and input to further policy in the livestock
sector. It also explores IPSARD/CAP’s approach to encouraging private sector
participation in livestock policy. IPSARD/CAP have also been involved in a review
of policy input in the livestock sector associated with ACIAR Project LPS/2005/063
“Improving the Competitiveness of Pig Producers in an Adjusting Vietnam Market”,
and this discussion paper does not intend to duplicate this work, but rather add some
complementary insights into the role of IPSARD/CAP in policy formulation and
review in the livestock sector.
2. Existing policy regulating the livestock sector
2.1 Livestock policies (2000-2010)
A number of decrees and decisions of the Government of Vietnam (GoV) relate to
policy for the livestock production and livestock feed sectors. These are divided
below under policies concerning development strategies, input control and quality
control.

2.1.1 Policy concerning development strategies
Decree 15-CP (19 March 1996): On the Management of Animal Feeds.

Decision 1504/QĐ-BNN-KHCN (15 May 2008): On Vietnamese Good Animal
Husbandry Practices (VIET GAHP) for poultry production.
This decision provides similar guidelines for poultry production.
Decision 10/2008/QĐ-TTg (16 January 2008): On livestock development strategy
toward 2020.
According to this decision, from 2008 to 2020, the livestock sector will concentrate on
developing the livestock sector into a goods industry, to gradually meet the demands
for domestic consumption and export; reorganizing the livestock sector towards
production associated with the market, ensuring veterinary hygiene, environmental
protection and improving social security conditions to enhance productivity, quality,
efficiency and food safety; developing livestock products that have advantages and
competitiveness such as pig, poultry, cattle and local specialties; encouraging
organizations and individuals to invest in developing livestock raising activities in the
direction of industrial farms.
2.1.2 Policy concerning input control
The animal feed industry in Vietnam mainly heavily on the import of raw materials
for the production of industrial feed. In order to control those inputs, MARD has
issued seven decisions related to “List of animal feed and feed material inputs
permitted to be imported in Vietnam”, including:
- Decision 35/2000/QĐ-BNN-KNKL (05 April 2000)
- Decision 55/2001/QĐ-BNN/KNKL (11 May 2001)
- Decision 80/2002/QĐ-BNN (06 September 2002)
- Decision 41/2004/QĐ-BNN (30 August 2004)
- Decision 01/2006/QĐ-BNN (06 Jannuary 2006)
- Decision 65/2007/QĐ-BNN (03 July 2007)
- Decision 88/2008/QĐ-BNN (22 August 2008)
These decisions provide specific names as well as technical requirements (levels for
humidity, protein, toxin, etc.) for each type of animal feed and raw material input
imported into Vietnam for each year.
Decision No. 83/2008/QĐ-BTC dated on October 3, 2008 deals with levels of import

The decision prohibits the import, production and use of materials and animal feed
contaminated with melamine. The acceptable level of melamine is less than 2.5mg/kg
(≤ 2,5ppm). In addition, the decision also provides steps to identify melamine in
materials and animal feed.
2.2 Departments responsible for enforcing and overseeing livestock policies
A number of Government departments are responsible for various aspects of GoV
livestock policy. Various departments have responsibility in different areas of
livestock policy as detailed below:

Policy Formulation
Only Departments which are directly managed by MARD are involved in policy
formulation. Livestock policy formulation is the responsibility of the:
• Department of Livestock Production,
• Department of Animal Health,
• Department of Cooperatives and Rural Development, and
• National Agro-Forestry-Fishery Quality Assurance Department

Adoption of Policy
Facilitating the adoption of policy is the responsibility of the:
• Department of Livestock Production,
• Department of Animal Health,
• Planning Department,
• Finance Department,
• Ministry of Finance,

5
• Ministry of Planning and Investment,
• National Institute of Animal Husbandry (NIAH), and
• National Institute of Veterinary Research.


advice, on matters with a strategic, inter-locality and inter-government focus.
Advising on short-term and more technical matters is not regarded as part of
IPSARD’s role. Currently MARD seems to have more focus on technical issues
which belong to specific Departments (e.g. livestock/crop) than strategic issues.

A senior IPSARD staff outlined official procedures that frame the context of
IPSARD’s role in policy advice. On agriculture and rural issues, MARD will issue
official documents to specify objectives, requirements and working content and send
these to an “in-charge” office for classification. Accordingly, IPSARD takes relevant
work from this source. However, IPSARD can choose not to have input in
circumstances when it believes it does not have the capability (i.e. resources or
information) to undertake the required work. 6
CAP/IPSARD mainly provides policy advice in response to questions from MARD
while it very occasionally gives advice on matters which they think are important.
Therefore, only around 2% of policy advice is initiated by IPSARD, out of total
advice to MARD. However, if only advice on strategic issues is taken into account,
the advice initiated by IPSARD increased to about 40%. Occasionally, if IPSARD
considers there are important matters which need reporting to higher agencies for
timely policy responses, IPSARD leaders will report to a higher level. However, this
happens rarely.

Other IPSARD staff talked about the ways, within a working context, in which they
engage in and provide policy advice.
• IPSARD/CAP are involved in some research, with various projects funded by
MARD, the World Bank, ACIAR, FAO (PPLPI – Pro-poor Livestock Policy
Initiative), AusAID’s CARD program and the Ford Foundation. This research
provides information that often has policy implications.

Another staff member commented that while this reason was true, it is only one
reason. Other reasons relate to the way policy formulation is done: i.e using a “top-
down” or “at desk” approach without the participation of the private sector.

Other staff in the organisation mentioned some ways in which IPSARD/CAP did seek
opinions in the private sector to inform their policy advice. Businessmen are

7
sometimes invited to take part in both formal and informal conversations about policy
issues. This is especially so if larger businesses are likely to be affected by policy.
Private sector participants, from both national and provincial levels, are also invited to
workshops where research results and policy issues are discussed. For example, at the
stakeholder workshop held in HCMC in January 2010 for this project, private sector
participants expressed many strong views related to policy for the animal feed sector.
Some of these ideas were incorporated into final reports.

An example of private sector input into livestock policy was mentioned as occurring
during the Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative (PPLPI) (see Vu 2003 for a discussion
of policy issues associated with the Initiative). A further example occurred during an
IFPRI study on policy options for the livestock sector (IFPRI, 2000). Private sector
participants were involved in workshops and discussions. One aspect that came out
was the influence of the large foreign-owned livestock feed company CP through the
banks. Farmers with contracts with CP have better access to credit, as CP is seen as
providing loan security.

Another example of an attempt to get private sector input into policy is provided
through the Four-Market–Actor (Chính sách 4 nhà) linkage policy (the four market
actors being the state – farmers – scientists – enterprises) through Decision 80
(Decision No. 80/2002/QĐ-BNN, 06 September 2002). This decision promotes
contract farming during production, processing and consumption. However, the