Collaboration for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD) Program
Ministry of Agriculture &
Rural Development
Crop Research Priorities 2007 -2012
Priority Setting Workshop
Hanoi & Ho Chi Minh City
December 2006
Crops Research and Development Priorities i
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 4
2.3.3 Areas of Research Opportunity 4
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 5
2.4.3 Workshop Process 5
3 Workshop Results 5
3.1 Return on Investment 5
3.2 Attractiveness 7
3.3 Feasibility 9
4 Priorities within ARDOs 10
5 Investment Portfolio 12
6 The Next Steps 13
Crops Research and Development Priorities 1
1 Introduction

diversified their cropping systems in an effort to improve income. New technologies and
the challenges of pests and diseases together with quality and food safety issues, both for
domestic and export crops have resulted in the need for research to address a broader
range of research interventions dealing with much more complex problems.
The crop industry, particularly fruit and vegetables faces increased competition and ever
increasing quality standards and Vietnam’s accession to the WTO is likely to increase the
pressure on export products to meet much more stringent sanitary and phyto-sanitary
restrictions.
1
MARD (2006)-The Five-Year Socio-Economic Development Plan 2006-2010, Ministry of Agriculture
and Rural Development, HANOI, March 2006
Crops Research and Development Priorities 2
The challenges for research have also changed. The emphasis on production through
increasing areas and numbers of producers is coming to an end. The emphasis is likely to
shift to greater diversification in production, a focus on higher value crops, value adding
and development of good agriculture practices. The opportunities for research to
contribute to continued growth in the agriculture sector has increased and the research
issues have become more complex. However there is limit to the research resources
(human, financial and infrastructure) that can be directed towards delivery of benefits
from research. Because of the limit on resources it is necessary for the agriculture
research community to be selective in investing those resources in priority research
programs that are most likely to provide the highest return on investment.
A key policy 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)
This report details the methodology and results obtained from the Crops Research
Priority Workshops held in Hanoi on October 26

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. Some 92 stakeholders,
representing researchers and research managers, extension workers, universities and the
private sector research participated in the two workshops.
The workshop process required individual participants to score each Area of Research &
Development Opportunity (ARDO) 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 MARD staff,
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. The results from the Hanoi and HCMC workshops were combined.
Within each of the ARDOs the crops that made up the ARDOs were also prioritised as a
first step towards the development of multi-disciplinary priority research programmes.
2.3 Pre-Workshop Preparation
2.3.1 Organisation and Planning
MARD established a Research and Development Priority Setting Working Group (WG).
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.
Crops Research and Development Priorities 4
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 Department of Science and Technology (DST) 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 from MARD and the Ministry of Fisheries (MoFi) 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.

2006 and the second in
HCMC on November 24
th
2006.
Crops Research and Development Priorities 5
2.4.2 Workshop Chairpersons and Group Facilitators
Dr Nguyen Van Bo and WG member Dr Ngo Doan Dam took dual responsibility for
chairing the two Priority Setting Workshops. Members of the M&EN and additional
research institute staff met with the CARD Technical coordinator prior to each workshop
to outline the process of facilitation of work tables during the priority setting workshop.
The Workshop Facilitators were:
Hanoi Workshop HCMC Workshop
1. Nguyen Van Bo: VAAS 1. Nguyen Minh Chau: SOFRI
2. Ngo Doan Dam: VAAS 2. Ngo Doan Dam: VAAS
3. Truong Chi Hieu: Hue University 3. Pham Tung Lam: DST
4. Cap Thi Phuong Anh: Hue University 4. Nguyen Duy Duc: SIAEP
5. Pham Thi Thanh Hoa: ACIAR Project 5. Ngo Quang Vinh: IAS
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. Detailed description of the Potential Benefit evaluation criteria including the key
assessment issues
3. Preliminary scoring for Potential Benefits for each ARDO by each workshop
participant
4. Work table discussion on reasons for high and low scores for Potential Benefits
and reassessment of preliminary scores by each participant
5. Collection of individual scoring sheets and entry of individual scores for Potential
Benefit for each ARDO.
6. Repetition of steps 2 – 5 for each of the remaining evaluation criteria (Ability to

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
20
40
60
80
0 20 40 60 80
Feasibility
Attractive-
ness
Comment
The main points arising from the workshop’s Return on Investment assessment are:
Highest Return on Investment
 Rice and Industrial Crops have the highest return on investment. The size and
importance of rice and industrial crops is reflected in the attractiveness for further
investment in these ARDOs given that a small percentage increase in
productivity/value adding is likely to have large benefits to Vietnam.
 However while the attractiveness for further investment is high, it is not matched
by the feasibility of achieving that return. (If it was matched the dot points 1 and
4 in the screen above would be close to the diagonal line). This is particularly
true for rice and suggests that the current approach to rice research is mature
(Figure 1) and that new and innovative technologies will need to be developed in
the future if the return on further investment in rice research is to be substantial

7. Flowers &
Ornamentals
6. Vegetables
5. Fruit
4. Industrial crops
3. Legumes
2. Upland Crops
1. Rice
POTENTIAL IMPACT OF R&D FOR EACH ARDO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0
Likelihood of uptake
Potential
Benefits
Crops Research and Development Priorities 8
Comment
High Attractiveness

relatively low.
Low Attractiveness
 This group includes Flowers, Animal Feeds and New Crops.
 Flower and ornamental domestic markets have expanded considerably and likely to
continue to expand. However prospects for export markets will be more difficult to
capture.
 Animal Feeds rate higher than the other two and it is surprising that the potential
benefit was not rated even higher, given the emphasis on livestock production in
the Socio-Economic Plan. The difficulties in conservation and transfer of feed
surpluses the dry period is probably one of the main reasons for the low uptake
assessment.
Crops Research and Development Priorities 9
3.3 Feasibility
Relative feasibility a realistic estimate of the likely contribution research would make to
achieve the potential benefit. It is determined by plotting research & development
potential against research & development capacity. Figure 3 summarises the workshop
results.
27
Workshop Output - Feasibility
9. New Crops
8. Animal Feeds
7. Flowers &
Ornamentals
6. Vegetables
5. Fruit
4. Industrial crops
3. Legumes
2. Upland Crops
1. Rice
FEASIBILIT Y OF R&D FOR EACH ARO

feasibility can still be made through further research.
Crops Research and Development Priorities 10
R&D Capacity
 For ARDOs that fall above the diagonal line it is suggested that an increase in
research capacity would improve feasibility, leading to an increased return on
investment. This appears to be particularly true for ARDOs of Vegetables, Fruit,
Flowers and Ornamentals and Animal Feeds.
 For ARDOs that fall below the diagonal line there may be opportunities to transfer
research resources (funds, skills etc) to ARDOs above the diagonal line. This
seems particularly true for rice and many of the research skills may be transferable
to other crops within other ARDOs. Provided funding is also transferred and the
skills are used effectively this should lead eventually to an increased return n
investment for other ARDOs.
21
Figure 1
The Research “S” Curve
Embryonic
Emerging
Mature
Potential
Gain
Time to Achieve Gains
4 Priorities within ARDOs
The workshop participants ranked crop outputs (crops/products etc) within each ARDO.
For MARD this ranking is the first step in identifying priority programs. More work to
develop research strategies for high priority programs is required before the Crops
Medium-Term Research Plans. Table 1 lists priority programs within priority ARDOs.
Table 1: Priority Programs within Priority ARDOs (First Draft)
Crops Research and Development Priorities 11
Priority ARDOs (In Order of Ranking on Return

Durian
Rambutan
Grapes
Papaya
Plums
2
Upland Crops Maize
Cassava
Sweet Potato
Potato
Taro
Edible Canna
Yams
6
Vegetables Cucumber
Watermelon
Tomato
Pumpkin
Chili
Cabbage
Bitter Melon (colocynth)
French Bean
Corn (baby, sweet)
Carrot
Onion
Mushroom
Spices
Bamboo Shoot
Amaranth
Leafy Greens

efficiency of research resource allocation. The revision of research resource use based on
program priorities should be undertaken at regular intervals (every 3-5 years). Priorities
for capacity development and the provision of specialist facilities and equipment should
also be linked to priority programs.
One way of developing and investment portfolio is to make broad allocations of funding
(for all research resources) based on priority ARDOs. These allocation decisions are the
responsibility of research policy decision makers within MARD, but as an example the
latest ARDO priority rank could be used to develop indicative future budget allocations.
These could be compared with current budget allocation, and may be used to indicate
shifts in budget allocations over time (3-5 years).
Assuming that it is sensible to set aside 5% of the available budget as being non-allocated
(to be used for specific research perhaps as directed by the Minister, or for support of
new and innovative ideas that are not included in priority programs) an example of an
indicative Crops ARDO research portfolio for the 2007 – 2012 timeframe could be as
shown in Table 2.
Crops Research and Development Priorities 13
Table 2: Current and Future Fisheries ARDO Research Portfolio and Indicative
Shifts in Budget Allocation.
ARDO (Priority Rank) Future
Indicative
Budget (%)
3
Rice 28
Industrial Crops 22
Fruit 14
Upland Crops 10
Vegetables 9
Legumes 7
Flowers & Ornamentals 3
Animal Feeds 1