Báo cáo Nghiên cứu khoa học Economic and Policy Research Priorities 2011-2015

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 5 Recommendations..................................................................................................... 11 5.1 Research Concepts ............................................................................................ 11 5.1.1 Commodity Research, Market Analysis & Forecast................................. 11 5.1.2 Rural Development ................................................................................... 12 6 The Next Steps.......................................................................................................... 12 Attachments 1. Economic & Policy Research Priority Setting Workbook 2. Economic & Policy Research Priority Setting Data and Information Sheets 3. PowerPoint Presentations Economic & Policy 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 %. Most international commentators credit policy changes (e.g. doi moi) as having the most significant impact enabling Vietnam to move from a net importer of food to a significant exporter and a key driver in the outstanding reduction in poverty, especially rural poverty. Research has also played a significant role in these gains, but the majority of research funded has been in technologies associated with production improvement. Over recent years there has been little funding for research into the impacts of agriculture policies or on the more empirical research associated with development of policy advice to government. The opportunities for agriculture economic and policy research to contribute to continually improve efficiency, effectiveness and agriculture contribution to the national GDP are increasing. There is general recognition that good economic analysis and good agriculture policies are likely to set the operational framework for optimizing economic, social and environmental benefits from research. However there is limit to the research 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 29th 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 framework1, which has been adapted to conditions in different developing countries. The conceptual framework is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 Research Priority Framework The Methodology was detailed in a Workshop Workbook (Attachment 1) supported by EPRO 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. Nearly sixty stakeholders, representing researchers and research managers, extension workers, universities and the private sector enterprise and researchers participated in the workshop. The workshop process required individual participants to score each Economic & Policy Research Opportunity (EPROs) 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 and IPSARD staff 1 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. Economic & Policy Research Priorities 3 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. 2.3 Pre-Workshop Preparation 2.3.1 Organisation and Planning MARD established a Research and Development Priority Setting Working Group (WG) to assist in the development of methodologies and processes that could be applied across all sub-sectors of the Primary Sector (Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries and Livestock). The sub-sectors for research were expanded to include Economic and Policy Research. 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. 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 EPRO 3 Research, Technology Development and Transfer Delivery Systems for Agriculture and Rural Development EPRO 4 Social Security for Rural People and Sustainable Poverty Reduction EPRO 5 Climate Change EPRO 6 Rural Development EPRO 7 Impact of International Economic Integration and Market Access to the Vietnam Agricultural Trade 2.3.4 Data & Evaluation Sheets and Workshop Instructions Data and Evaluation Sheets for each of the 7 EPROs were prepared as a separate publication (Attachments 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 One workshop was facilitated at the Bao Son Hotel, 50 Nguyen Chi Thanh, Hanoi on July 29th 2010. 2.4.2 Workshop Chairpersons and Group Facilitators Dr Trieu Van Hung (STED) and Dr Dam Kim Son (IPSARD) took dual responsibility for chairing the Priority Setting Workshop. Mr Keith Milligan (CARD Program) facilitated the workshop. IPSARD staff met with the CARD Technical Coordinator prior to the workshop to outline the process of facilitation of working groups during the priority setting workshop. Workgroup Facilitators were: 1. Ms Pham Ngoc Linh 2. Ms Tran Quynh Chi 3. Mr Nguyen Ba Minh 4. Mr Nguyen Nghia Lan 5. Ms. Mai Huong 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 28 Workshop Output – Return on Investment 1. COMMODITY RESEARCH, MARKET ANALYSIS & FORECAST 2. NATURAL RESOURCES & RURAL ENVIRONMENT 3. RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER 4. SOCIAL SECURITY &SUSTAINABLE POVERTY REDUCTION 5. CLIMATE CHANGE 6. RURAL DEVELOPMENT 7. INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC INTEGRATION AND MARKET ACCESS RET URN FROM INVEST MENT IN EACH AREA OF RESEARCH OPPORT UNIT Y 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 Feasibility 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 and Market Access (EPRO 7). The attractiveness ranking for EPRO 2, Natural Resources and Rural Environment was slightly higher than the other three, with a higher ranking in potential benefit partially offset but the view that adoption of economic & policy research in this EPRO is likely to be quite difficult.  Interestingly although MARD has a role in all of these EPROs, they all require integration with other Ministries such as MoNRE, MoST, MoLISA and Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Economic & Policy Research by MARD is a valuable input that will provide a rural perspective on the likely impacts of these broad areas. Low Return on Investment  EPRO 5 – Climate Change was ranked by most participants as having the lowest return on investment. However this result could be interpreted as the workshop participant’s view that economic and policy research in climate change is unlikely to provide the most significant contribution. The potential physical and financial impacts of climate change are well known and in terms of research the emphasis may need to be on mitigation, rather than on further analysis of impacts and/or development of new policies. Economic & Policy Research Priorities 7 3.2 Attractiveness Attractiveness is a realistic estimate of the relative 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). The Figure below summarises the scores provided by individual participants at the workshop. 26 Workshop Output - Attractiveness 1. COMMODITY RESEARCH, MARKET ANALYSIS & FORECAST 2. NATURAL RESOURCES AND RURAL ENVIRONMENT 3. RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER 4. SOCIAL SECURITY &SUSTAINABLE POVERTY REDUCTION 5. CLIMATE CHANGE 6. RURAL DEVELOPMENT 7. INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC INTEGRATION AND MARKET ACCESS AT T RACT 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 production was the most attractive area for research and analysis. Workshop participants assessed this EPRO as having the highest potential benefit and in their view once the outputs from the research were available (e.g. commodity forecasts for the most important export crops) would be relatively rapidly taken up by key stakeholders. This result is understandable as most developed countries spend considerable resources to try and forecast both prices and trends and areas of strength. Good information in this area is likely to increase the competitiveness of Vietnam export crops.  Natural Resources and Rural Environment was assessed as having a similar potential benefit to Commodity Research. However workshop participants thought Economic & Policy Research Priorities 8 that the uptake of economic and policy research in this EPRO was more difficult. This suggests that while awareness of the potential benefits from sustainable environmental management are appreciated the development issues such as impacts on food security and livelihoods and the payment of carbon credits for small household based agriculture production systems is likely to impact on the willingness or ability to implement change. Medium Attractiveness  The next group of EPROs includes Research Technology Development and Transfer, Social Security & Sustainable Poverty Reduction and Rural Development. All these EPROs are separate issues but are also linked with each other. Improved technology development and transfer and issues such as crop insurance for smallholder farmers is likely to affect poverty reduction and therefore the rate of rural development. Economic & policy research and the mechanisms for sustainable rural development are likely to impact on poverty.  Workshop participants expected that the benefits from research into good social security practices would be more difficult to implement than the benefits from good technology development and transfer. Vietnam has over many years focused resources on agriculture technology development and the workshop result suggests that the attractiveness for investment in market forecasting is likely to be higher 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 ANALYSIS & FORECAST 2. NATURAL RESOURCES AND RURAL ENVIRONMENT 3. RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER 4. SOCIAL SECURITY &SUSTAINABLE POVERTY REDUCTION 5. CLIMATE CHANGE 6. RURAL DEVELOPMENT 7. INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC INTEGRATION AND MARKET ACCESS FEASIBILIT Y OF RESEARCH FOR EACH EPRO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 R&D Capacity R&D Potential 3.3.1 Comment 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. Usually Ministries of Foreign Affairs (and Trade) have responsibility for the negotiation processes involved in this EPRO, but many countries have dedicated research capacities to assist these ministries analyse and provide advice on the likely impacts of international agreements (e.g. ABARE in Australia)  For EPROs below the diagonal line, the workshop output suggested that there is adequate capacity to enable delivery of expected research potential. For EPROs 1 & 6 the participants considered that Vietnam had adequate capacities (for example the commodity forecasts for coffee are already mainstreamed). In these cases the issue appears to be adequate resourcing to expand the commodity analysis and forecasting for a range of major export crops. 4 Interpretation of Results 12 Interpretation of Results Strong Emphasis A TT R A C TI VE N ES S FEASIBILITY Strong Emphasis Selective Emphasis Limited Support IN CR EA SE D SE LE CT IV IT Y This graph provides the basis for interpretation of results. The level of investment (%) of total funds for high priority EPROs should be high and for low priority EPROs there should be limited, but very specific support. In this priority setting workshop there was no suggestion that there should be no investment in Climate Change. Perhaps for IPSARD the investment could focus on how best to support rural communities to self-manage some of the impacts of climate change. Economic & Policy Research Priorities 11 5 Recommendations The participants clearly stated that the level of future investment should focus on the two most important EPROs:  EPRO 1: Commodity Research, Market Analysis and Forecast (highest investment)  EPRO 6: Rural Development As research resources become available the majority of additional resources should be directed towards these two EPROs. One strategy worth considering is to maintain current levels of investment in all other EPROs but as additional research funding becomes available (as in the 2011 indicative budget) almost all additional funds could be directed towards the two highest priority EPROs. 5.1 Research Concepts Broad Research Concepts for each EPRO were presented at the workshop. For high 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 order to achieve the stable development for the whole agriculture sector Commodity profile for priority with overall information about domestic and global market. Value chain analysis as reference for market analysis as to assess comparative advantage of each commodity. Demand/supply analysis: apply demand/supply analysis for strategy sectors as input for market analysis and forecast. Analysis of impact of globalization and integration, as well as competitive advantage of commodities. Forecasting Models to forecast demand/supply, price sensitivity relationships and competitive advantage of commodities. This is major content in the program. Policy Recommendations should focus on land, production, market supporting policies Economic & Policy Research Priorities 12 5.1.2 Rural Development Research Issues Objective Expected outputs 1. Rural Institution Development To understand the main drivers for successful development of rural institutions and their contribution to rural development Policy & strategy advice to improve the effectiveness and impact of rural institutions on rural development 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 development models Policy & strategy advice on critical success factors for community driven rural development including:  Socialisation  Effective use of community resources  Management & control 4. Agri-business Development To analyse the performance and identify the main barriers to agri- business (SME) development in rural areas and the key drivers for successful rural SMEs Policy and strategy advice to increase the number, range and success of rural-based SMEs including:  Foreign owned  Joint stock companies  Locally owned and managed  Services provided and access to services 5. Rural Investment To understand the reasons for low investment in rural development and the barriers to increased investment from local and foreign sources Policy and strategy advice to encourage local and FD investment in rural development including  Removal of disincentives  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