Collaboration for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD) Program

Ministry of Agriculture &
Rural Development

Agriculture Sector Research
Priorities and Investment Framework
2011-2015
Priority Setting Workshop
Hanoi December 2010

1. Agriculture Sector Research Priority Setting Workbook
2. PowerPoint Presentations

Agriculture Sector Research Priorities
1
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 intensity
1
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.

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.
Agriculture Sector Research Priorities
3
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 14
th
2010.
2 Methodology
2.1 Research Priority Framework
Priority analysis is based on a criterion based analytical framework
2
, 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

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.
Agriculture Sector Research Priorities
5
Table 1. Working Papers for Priority Setting Workshop
Topic Institute Key Author
Economic/Production and Market Statistics/ IPSARD Phan Van Dan
Crops VAAS Nguyen Van Bo
Livestock STED Nguyen Viet Hai
Forestry STED Trieu Van Hung

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
Agriculture Sector Research Priorities
6
8. Presentation of workshop results to participants
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
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
suggests that return on investment is likely to be lowest.

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 sub-
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,
Agriculture Sector Research Priorities
9
inability to sustainably exploit forests due to lack of infrastructure or even security may be
reasons for a slightly lower research potential.
• The complexity of management of plant and animal pests and diseases and the
development of more commercial production systems may be some of the reasons behind a
higher research potential, whereas commercial production systems in aquaculture might be
less complicated and workshop participants may think that many of the main research
opportunities may be well on the way to being resolved.
R&D Capacity
• It seems clear from the workshop results that most participants considered that research

S
t
r
o
n
g

E
mp
h
a
s
i
s
Se
l
e
ct
i
v
e Em
pha
si
s
L
im
i
t
e
d Suppor

in the quality of the results and therefore the use of the results in the research funding allocation
process.
Agriculture Sector Research Priorities
10
In this workshop, because of time limitations, private sector representation was not as great as it
should be. The majority of the participants were research providers. Some users of research,
including provincial representatives and extensionists participated, but the private sector was not
well represented. However there was balanced representation across the four sub-sectors.
The four subsectors compared in this workshop account for almost 75% of the total 2006-2011
research budget allocation. Because not all sub-sectors were compared it is difficult to provide a
total investment portfolio for all agricultural research funded by MARD.
5 Investment Portfolio
5.1 Cross Sub-Sectors
Even though there are some limitations of the results, it is useful to demonstrate how results such
as these can be used in the research funding allocation process. The example below looks at the
proportion of investment in each sub-sector from the 2006-2011 budget allocations provided by
STED and compared that with an interpretation of the workshop results. It looks at allocation
between sub-sectors and within sub-sectors using the results of sub-sector workshops held from
2008 – 2010.
The workshop did not address all of the budget areas depicted in Figure 1 because not all sub-
sectors/areas had been through a similar prioritisation process. So for comparative purposes just
the current budget for the four subsectors (Crops, Livestock, Forestry and Fisheries) has been
used. Current allocations show that almost half the total investment in the four subsectors is for
Crops and Plant Protection. Forestry is has approximately 23% with the lowest percentage of
investment in the Fisheries sub-sector (Figure 6).
Agriculture Sector Research Priorities
11

Figure 6: Current Investment Portfolio 2006-2011


example of how this could be achieved.
6 The Next Steps
The workshop results are used as an example of how research priority setting methodology can
be used to develop an agricultural research investment framework that is most likely to provide
an improvement in the effectiveness and impact of investment in research. Agriculture research
in Vietnam is often perceived as having a relatively low return on investment and while
agriculture research intensity is well below developing country norms improvement in
effectiveness of research is a step in the right direction.
The suggestions above are just that – suggestions. The results have some limitations and as such
need to be viewed with some caution. However the methodology and approach is useful for
MARD and these results could be used as a basis for further consultation with key stakeholders.
There will no doubt be some disagreement in the results and conclusions, especially from those
sub-sectors where a reduction in the proportion of funding is suggested. In this agriculture sector
workshop each of the sub-sectors was well represented and all participant’s views were included
in the ranking results. If this process is to be used in the future the next steps suggested include:
1. Circulate workshop results to all key stakeholders, including balance representation of
research providers and users, key policy makers in MARD MoST and MoF.
2. Seek comment and constructive suggestions on the relevance and confidence in the
workshop results and suggested investment portfolio.
3. Modify the investment portfolio based on consistent comment and suggestions.
4. Obtain appropriate approvals of the investment portfolio as an input into agriculture
research’s contribution to the MARD and GoV SEDP.
Agriculture Sector Research Priorities
13
5. Repeat the research prioritisation process in year 4 of the current SEDP in readiness for
the next 5-year SEDP.

Agriculture Sector Research Priorities
14
Figure 8: Potential 2011-2015 Research Investment Targets

13%
Non‐Timber
ForestProducts
9%
ForestPolicy
5%
Environment
&Services
4%
Biodiversity&
Conservation
4%
Unallocated
5%
Forestry
Crustaceans
23%
FreshwaterFish
21%
MarineFinfish
18%
Mollusks
12%
Post‐harvest
Processing&Value
Adding
9%
Resource
Management&
Conservation

1%
Non‐Allocated
5%
Crops&PlantProtection
Agriculture Sector Research Priorities
1