Báo cáo Nghiên cứu khoa học Crop Research Priorities 2007 -2012 Priority Setting Workshop Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City

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 The Government of Vietnam’s Socio-Economic Plan outlines the government’s expectations for agriculture and rural development. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) has a comprehensive Rural Development Plan1 which responds to the Socio-economic Plan and targets areas of emphasis including infrastructure, income generation and poverty alleviation for rural communities and development of agriculture exports. In this plan a number of expected outcomes are described. The task of the research community is to respond to this Rural Development Plan and to identify areas and opportunities for research to contribute to achievement of the Government of Vietnam’s expected rural development outcomes. MARD has recently conducted a review of its research program. An extract from that review states: “Science and technology do not exert significant impacts on the implementation of socioeconomic development objectives. The management of science and technology has improved, but only at a slow rate and subsidy is still very prevalent. The research quality appears to be low and disconnected with production and business practices. Science and technology market is slow in its establishment. Investment in science and technology is scattered with low efficiency”. MARD has responded to this review and has embarked on a research reform program with an expectation that the efficiency and effectiveness of investment in agricultural research will be improved. It has requested support from the AusAID funded Collaboration for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD) to assist in development of a policy and strategy for agricultural research in Vietnam. Not-withstanding the criticism above, research has made a significant contribution to the crops’ sub-sector growth. Increase areas and yield of rice brought about by adoption of new varieties and improved management has seen Vietnam move from food insecurity to national food security to export of over 5.2m tonnes returning over US$1.5m in 2005. Rice producers once they have attained family food security have tended to reduce the total area of rice largely through a reduction in the number of crops per year and have 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 26th 2006 and Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC) on November 24th 2006. The research priorities determined at this workshop is the first step in identification of priority research programs and the determination of a research investment portfolio. Once this task is complete The Crops Sub-sector will prepare and publish its Medium-Term Crops Research Plan. 2 Methodology 2.1 Objectives  To demonstrate an appropriate priority setting methodology suitable for future use by MARD.  To determine the priorities for investment in Areas of Research and Development Opportunity (ARDOs) for Crops  To determine the relative priority of crops within ARDOs  To outline the next steps in development of research strategies for high priority research programs and the development of a Medium-Term Research Plan. 2.2 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 1. 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. Crops Research and Development Priorities 3 Figure 1 Research Priority Framework The Methodology was detailed in a Workshop Workbook (Attachment 1) supported by 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. 2.3.3 Areas of Research Opportunity A workshop of key research staff from Crop Research Institutions participated in a preliminary workshop designed to reach agreement on Crop ARDOs. Nine ARDOs were defined. The format for each ARDO Data and Evaluation Sheets was outlined and key specialist staff of Research Institutions responsible for preparing draft Data and Evaluation Sheets the ARDO Leaders responsible for preparation of workshop resource material were identified. The Nine ARDOS were: ARDO 1: RICE ARDO 2: UPLAND CROPS ARDO 3: LEGUMES ARDO 4: INDUSTRIAL CROPS ARDO 5: FRUIT ARDO 6: VEGETABLES ARDO 7: FLOWERS ARDO 8: CROPS FOR ANIMAL FEED ARDO 9: CROPS FOR NEW USES 2.3.4 Data & Evaluation Sheets and Workshop Instructions Draft Data and Evaluation Sheets were prepared and the PMU critiqued and edited them to ensure that critical information was supplied and all data and evaluation sheets had a similar format and content. Data and Evaluation Sheets for each of the 9 ARDOs were prepared as a separate publication (Annex 1 and 2) and distributed to invitees prior to the workshop. The methodology was outlined and each workshop participant was asked to read all workshop material and make a preliminary score for each of the four evaluation criteria. 2.4 Workshop Format 2.4.1 Workshop Venues and Format Because of the size of the crops sub-sector and the different environmental conditions, two workshops were held. The first was in Hanoi on October 26th 2006 and the second in HCMC on November 24th 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 Capture, Research Potential and Research Capacity 7. Formation of specialist groups for each ARDO and prioritisation of crops/outputs within each ARDO 8. Presentation of workshop results to participants 9. Outline of Next Critical Steps in the development of research priorities 3 Workshop Results The results from both workshops have been combined. The results from each workshop were similar with the only significant difference being a greater emphasis on industrial crops in the south compared with the north. A summary of results of each workshop is provided in Annex 3. 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. Crops Research and Development Priorities 6 28 Workshop Output – Return on Investment 9. New Crops 8. Animal Feeds 7. Flowers & Ornamentals 6. Vegetables 5. Fruit 4. Industrial crops 3. Legumes 2. Upland Crops 1. Rice RET URN FROM R&D FOR EACH AREA OF RESEARCH OPPORT UNIT Y 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 90 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  For industrial crops is seems that additional research resources (skills) will also significantly enhance the return on investment and there may be opportunities for a shift of traditional rice research skills into the Industrial Crops ARDO. Medium Return on Investment  The group of ARDOs with moderate return on investment includes Fruit and Vegetables, Upland Crops and Legumes. This probably reflects the size of the domestic markets and opportunities for export and/or import substitution. Crops Research and Development Priorities 7  The Fruit and Vegetable ARDOs have lower return on investment and this is probably due to the high sanitary and phytosanitary requirements for high priced markets and the cost of introduction of on-farm good agriculture practices reducing the adoption by smallholders.  Upland Crops and Legumes are relatively small ARDOs and this and competition for suitable land may be the cause of their return on investment. On the positive side import substitution and further development of export crops and processing may result in a higher return on investment. Low Return on Investment  The relatively low return on investment for Animal Feeds, Flowers and Ornamentals and New Crops is expected, although the emerging importance of flowers and ornamentals and feed for animals is recognised in the workshop results. 3.2 Attractiveness Attractiveness is a realistic estimate of the benefits likely to be achieved. It is assessed by plotting ARDO Potential Benefits to Vietnam against the Ability to Capture those benefits (Likelihood of Uptake). Figure 2 summarises the scores provided by individual participants at the workshop. 26 Workshop Output - Attractiveness 9. New Crops 8. Animal Feeds 7. Flowers & Ornamentals 6. Vegetables 5. Fruit 4. Industrial crops 3. Legumes 2. Upland Crops 1. Rice POT ENT IAL IMPACT OF R&D FOR EACH ARDO 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 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  Rice and Industrial Crops rate highest on attractiveness. This reflects the size of each industry and the experience of producers in both crops.  For rice a small gain at the smallholder level results in a large benefit to the nation.  It is interesting that the likelihood of uptake for rice is high. This assessment is probably based on past experience with farmers using new varieties and adopting technology such as IPM. However as diversification from rice production continues and the incremental gains at the smallholder level decrease, it is likely that uptake will diminish, reducing the return on investment.  Industrial crops were rated higher in the workshop in HCMC than in Hanoi. The score for potential benefits was similar to that of rice and probably reflects expected growth in export markets and generation of employment opportunities through development of processing industries. Medium Attractiveness  Fruit, Vegetables, Upland Crops and Legumes fall into the medium attractiveness group.  Upland Crops is attractive because Vietnam is not self-sufficient in these crops and there is potential for substantially improved yields. There is also an option for processing. While there is competition for land, larger scale production systems are likely to improve yields, profitability and the adoption of improved technologies.  Fruit is seen to have relatively high potential benefits through further development of export markets, diversification of varieties and expansion of export markets. For producers many fruit production systems are more profitable than rice. However the exacting sanitary and phytosanitary requirements for export to high price markets and issues related to packaging and shelf life add costs to producers and uptake of benefits may be reduced.  Vegetables and Legumes are rated lower in potential benefit and likelihood of uptake than Fruit and Upland Crops. Production of safe vegetables has been successful in improving domestic market price and legumes are valued as nitrogen fixing plants in crop rotations. Prospects for export of vegetables are likely to be 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 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 R&D Capacity R&D Potential Comments R&D Potential  The research potential for Rice is considered relatively low. This is probably because of the relatively large effort over a long period of time. The current research approach for rice is seen as being mature (Figure 1). This suggests that the research strategy for significant gains in rice will need to be addressed with a focus on introduction of new research skills and technologies.  Research potential for Flowers and Ornamentals, Legumes, Animal Feeds and Upland Crops is considered similar to rice.  The research potential for crops such as those in the ARDOs of Vegetables, Fruit and Industrial Crops is relatively high. This probably reflects the maturity and past effort of research in these ARDOs. The assessment is that significant gains in 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 on Investment) Priority Programs (Ranking within ARDOs) ARDO Number 1 Rice Very Early Maturity Varieties Hybrid Rice Aromatic Rice Drought Tolerant Varieties Saline Tolerant Varieties Pest & Disease Tolerant Varieties 4 Industrial Crops Coffee Rubber Cashew Tea Pepper Sugar Cane Cocoa Cotton Coconut 5 Fruit Citrus Banana Pineapple Dragon Fruit Mango Lychee Longon Mangosteen 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 Crops Research and Development Priorities 12 3 Legumes Peanut Soybean Green pea Green bean 7 Flowers & Ornamentals Rose Orchids Chrysanthemum Gerbera Carnation Pot Plants Anthurium Rhododendron 8 Animal Feeds Pasture Grasses Pasture Legumes Greenfeed Maize Agriculture Bi-products 1 New Crops Jatropha Sorgum bicolor Cactus Jojoba Moringa Artemisia 5 Investment Portfolio One of the objectives of priority setting is to enable assessment and adjustment (if necessary) of the available resource for crop research. The aim is to improve the 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 New Crops 1 Non-Allocated 5 Total 100 6 The Next Steps The identification of Priority Programs within Priority ARDOs should result in more programs within high priority ARDOs receiving budget support compared with for high priority programs within low priority ARDOs. The next steps are: 1. Establish small specialist working groups within each of the agreed priority programs 2. Define the Program Objective (the Outcome desired) for each priority program. 3. Ensure that the Program Objective leads to establishment of a multi-disciplinary approach to achievement of the desired Outcome through identification and prioritisation research strategies (disciplines, research themes). 4. Implement an open and contestable research contracting process that encourages innovation, collaboration within and between research service providers. 3 Indicative budget percentages are based on the workshop assessment of Return on Investment. The final indicative budget will be decided by MARD research governance and policy makers.