Collaboration for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD) Program
Ministry of Agriculture &
Rural Development
Economic & Policy Research
Priorities 2011-2015
Priority Setting Workshop
Hanoi
August 2010
Economic & Policy Research 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 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

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 29
th
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.
Economic & Policy Research Priorities 2
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 framework
1

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
Economic & Policy Research Priorities 4

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
Economic & Policy Research Priorities 5
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

Attractive-
ness
Economic & Policy Research Priorities 6
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

4. SOCIAL SECURITY &SUSTAINABLE
POVERTY REDUCTION
5. CLIMATE CHANGE
6. RURAL DEVELOPMENT
7. INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC
INTEGRATION AND MARKET ACCESS
AT TRACT IVENESS OF RESEARCH FOR EACH
EPRO
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

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
Economic & Policy Research Priorities 9
potential against research and development capacity. The Figure below summarises the
workshop results.
27
Workshop Output - Feasibility
1. COMMODITY RESEARCH, MARKET

The main points arising from the workshop’s Feasibility assessment include:
R&D Potential
 Research in the International Economic Integration & Market Access (EPRO 7),
Commodity Research Market Analysis and Forecast (EPRO 1) and Rural
Development (EPRO 6) was considered by the workshop participants as the areas
where research was most likely to have the greatest contribution. EPROs 1 & 7 are
different, but complementary or to a degree interdependent. Clearly the
participants view was that improved market intelligence and market access will
have significant economic benefits. Although there has been significant investment
in rural development, perhaps one interpretation that could be placed on the high
potential for research in this EPRO is that the impact of past interventions needs to
be analysed and policies and investment in rural development in the future may
need to be broader, including the development of rural institutions and services.
 The potential for research to contribute in the other four EPROs (2, 3, 4 & 5) were
similarly ranked and were lower than EPROs 1, 6 & 7). To some extent this is
understandable. For example in Research, Technology Development & Transfer
Economic & Policy Research Priorities 10
(EPRO 3), there appears to be little further to be gained from research – the issue is
implementation of service delivery mechanisms that enhance the impact of current
investments in research and extension.
R&D Capacity
 There is a view that research capacity could be strengthened in all EPROs.
However the resource available to improve capacity in all EPROs is limited. The
main issue is what are the priorities for research capacity development?
 Capacity development should also be aligned with research priorities and for
EPROs that lie above the diagonal line, feasibility (research outputs) could be
improved by an increase in skills and resources.
 It seems clear from the workshop output above that if research capacity in EPRO 7
(International Economic Integration & Market Access) could be significantly
improved then the feasibility of research in this EPRO would be much improved.

ro
n
g
E
m
p
h
a
s
i
s
S
el
e
ctiv
e
Em
p
has
i
s
Limited Support
I
NC
RE
AS
ED SE
L
EC
TI

priority EPROs the main focus of the research concepts were:
5.1.1 Commodity Research, Market Analysis & Forecast
Research Issues Objectives Expected Outputs
Commodity
Databases
(Rice, Coffee,
Rubber, Pork, Tiger
Prawn, Catfish
To build a full commodity
database for 6 priority
commodities, including
incorporation and use of
international databases.
Database and commodity profile (domestic &
international) for key commodities.
Separate primary collecting data collection system for
MARD, including: (i) Domestic production for each
commodity (ii) Price for each commodity include: (i)
retail price, (ii) export price, (iii) global market price in
time series (iv) Consumption data for each commodity
(world and domestic) (v) export volume; (vi) Information
about global value chain for each commodity, (vii)
national policies & strategies.
Market Analysis and
Forecasting for
Selected
commodities
To provide policy
recommendations for each
strategic commodity in

including:
 Decentralistion
 Socialization
 Autonomy
 Private Sector investment
2. Rural
Infrastructure
Development
To determine the impact
to date of investment in
rural infrastructure and
recommend future
investments likely to have
significant impact on rural
development
Policy and strategy advice on return on investments in
rural infrastructure including:
 Rural roads including feeder roads
 Supply & value chains (warehouse, cold chain etc)
 Agro-processing
 Markets
 Irrigation
3. Community
Development
To determine the lessons
learned from community
development initiatives
and identify the critical
success factors behind
successful community

 Incentives
 Increased local and FD investment
6 The Next Steps
The suggested next steps are:
1. Revise the Research Concepts for the two high priority EPROs.
2. Prepare a long-term (3-5 year) Research Project Proposal for each high priority
EPRO including an indicative budget.
3. Prepare promotional material suitable for attracting the interest of funding
agencies.
4. Present the research case, including the process of prioritisation, to potential GoV
and external funding agencies to secure funds for implementation.
Economic & Policy Research Priorities 13