Báo cáo Nghiên cứu khoa học Fisheries Research Priorities 2007-2012

Collaboration for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD) Program Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development Fisheries Research Priorities 2007-2012 Priority Setting Workshop Nga Trang March 2007 Fisheries 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................................................... 3 2.3.3 Areas of Research Opportunity................................................................... 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....................................................................................... 5 3 Workshop Results ....................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Return on Investment.......................................................................................... 5 3.1.1 Comment..................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Attractiveness...................................................................................................... 7 3.2.1 Comment..................................................................................................... 8 3.3 Feasibility............................................................................................................ 9 3.3.1 Comment................................................................................................... 10 4 Priorities within ARDOs........................................................................................... 11 5 Investment Portfolio ................................................................................................. 12 6 The Next Steps.......................................................................................................... 13 Attachments 1. Fisheries Sub-sector Priority Setting Workbook 2. Fisheries Sub-sector Priority Setting Data and Information Sheets Fisheries 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 Fisheries (MoFi now part of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, MARD) provides research services for the aquaculture, marine fisheries, and the fish processing industries. Fisheries production has increased more than three fold since the mid-1980s and export revenue has risen to more than US$2.5 billion. The fisheries sector has therefore become a major component of the national economy and is one of the main earners of foreign exchange for Vietnam. Research, particularly aquaculture research, has made a significant contribution to the fisheries sub-sectors’ growth. Much of that has been driven by rapid expansion of tiger shrimp production systems, with this industry providing more than US$1 billion of export revenue. The rapid growth of the fisheries sector, while it has provided producers with much improved income, is now facing some considerable challenges including issues relating to disease, quality, food safety and the environment. The industry also faces increased competition and falling prices for some of the larger export fisheries products. Vietnam’s accession to the WTO is likely to increase competition and at the same time require export products to meet much more stringent sanitary and phyto-sanitory restrictions. 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 species, value adding and development of better management systems incorporating sustainable and environmental friendly production systems, and cost effective management systems. The opportunities for research to contribute to continued expansion in the contribution of the fisheries sector to the national GDP have 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 fisheries 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) Program. This report details the methodology and results obtained from the Fisheries Research Priority Workshops held in Nga Trang on December 17th 2006. The research priorities determined at this workshop is the first step in identification of priority research Fisheries Research and Development Priorities 2 programs and the determination of a research investment portfolio. Once this task is complete MARD will prepare and publish its Medium-Term Fisheries Research Plan. 2 Methodology 2.1 Objectives  To demonstrate an appropriate priority setting methodology suitable for future use by MARD (MoFi).  To determine the priorities for investment in Areas of Research and Development Opportunity (ARDOs) for the Fisheries Sub-sector  To determine the relative priority of fish crops/products 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 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 ARDO Data and Information Sheets (Attachment 2). 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. Fisheries Research and Development Priorities 3 The workshop aim was to create ownership through developing a consensus between users and providers of research for the research priorities. Seventy 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 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 MoFi and 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. Within each of the ARDOs the fish crops/species 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). MoFi was represented on this working group 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 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). MoFi representatives were active members of the M&EN which 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 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 Fisheries Research Institutions participated in a preliminary workshop designed to reach agreement on Fisheries ARDOs. Nine ARDOs were defined. The format for each ARDO of the Data and Evaluation Sheets was outlined. Key staff from Research Institutions with a broad knowledge of the fisheries industry and specialist technical expertise were identified and appointed as Fisheries Research and Development Priorities 4 ARDO Leaders. The ARDO Leaders took responsibility for preparing draft Data and Evaluation Sheets. The Nine ARDOS were: ARDO 1: Marine Finfish ARDO 2: Cold Water Fish ARDO 3: Crustaceans ARDO 4: Mollusks ARDO 5: Fresh Water Fish ARDO 6: Post Harvest, Processing & Value Adding ARDO 7: Extraction of Bio-Active Compounds ARDO 8: Resource Management & Conservation ARDO 9: Mechanisation 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 (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 University of Fisheries, Nga Trang on December 17th 2006. 2.4.2 Workshop Chairpersons and Group Facilitators Dr Vu Van Trieu (ICD- MoFi) and Pham Van Tho (DST-MoFi) took dual responsibility for Chairing the Priority Setting Workshop. Members of the M&EN and additional Fisheries 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. Workgroup Facilitators were:  Ho Manh Tuan (Nha Trang University)  Nguyen Quoc Nghi (DST- Mofi)  Hoang Tung (Nha Trang University)  Nguyen Thi Kim Anh (Nha Trang University)  Doan Thanh Loan (RIA1)  Nguyen Dinh Luan (RIA1)  Mai Van Ha (RIA1) Fisheries Research and Development Priorities 5 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 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 Fisheries Research and Development Priorities 6 28 Workshop Output – Return on Investment 9. Mechanisation 8. Resource Management & Conservation 7. Extraction of Bio-Active Compounds 6. Post-Harvest Processing and Value Adding 5. Fresh water Fish 4. Mollusks 3. Crustaceans 2. Cold Water fish 1. Marine Finfish RET URN FROM INVEST MENT IN EACH AREA OF RESEARCH OPPORT UNIT Y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 Feasibility Attractive- ness 3.1.1 Comment The main points arising from the workshop’s Return on Investment assessment are: Highest Return on Investment  The highest return on investment in research is for Crustaceans. This reflects a large industry resulting in a high potential impact from this ARDO and the assessment that research has a relatively high contribution towards achieving the potential impact. The assessment of research capacity in this ARDO suggests that it is relatively good, but for crustaceans there may be a need to review the mix of research skills and shift from an emphasis on production to further develop research skills in productivity, better management practices, disease control and management and improvement in quality and food safety. These changes might lead to improved feasibility leading to an even higher return on investment. Medium Return on Investment  This group of ARDOs includes Freshwater Fish, Marine Finfish, Post-harvest Processing and Value Adding, and Resource Management and Conservation.  The assessment suggests that slightly higher returns will accrue from investment in Freshwater Fish and Marine Finfish than for the other two ARDOs in this group. This is possibly due to a higher ability for uptake of interventions that will improve potential benefit. There appears to be a research capacity issue for Fisheries Research and Development Priorities 7 Marine Finfish. Additional skills and funding in this ARDO is likely to improve return on investment.  The role of the private sector in Post-harvest Processing and Value Adding appears to be important as it is likely that most of the improvement in feasibility (and therefore return on investment) will arise through private sector investment and importation of modern equipment and processes. Low Return on Investment  While there is a relatively high potential benefit from improved Resource Management and Conservation, the return on investment is lowered because of the difficulty in applying good resource management practices in the Vietnam environment.  Return on investment in Cold Water Fish, Mechanisation and Bioactive Compounds is limited by a combination of factors including the size of the ARDO, the potential for domestic or export market development, a difficult technology adoption environment and limits in the contribution of research to industry development. 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. Fisheries Research and Development Priorities 8 26 Workshop Output - Attractiveness 9. Mechanisation 8. Resource Management & Conservation 7. Extraction of Bio-Active Compounds 6. Post-Harvest Processing and Value Adding 5. Fresh water Fish 4. Mollusks 3. Crustaceans 2. Cold Water fish 1. Marine Finfish POT ENT IAL IMPACT OF R&D FOR EACH ARDO 1 2 3 4 56 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 3.2.1 Comment The main points arising from the workshop’s Attractiveness assessment are: High Attractiveness  The ARDOs of Crustaceans, Marine Finfish and Freshwater Fish were seen to provide the highest potential benefit.  The high score for crustaceans probably reflects the size of the industry that generates almost 50% of the value of the fisheries sector. A relatively small gain in value through application of improved technology is likely to provide a relatively large benefit in terms of total value to the industry. The ability to adopt improved technology is also rated high and this reflects the experience of producers in the shrimp industry and existence of suitable infrastructure for production.  In contrast the high score for Marine Finfish probably reflects high value of species such as grouper, the development of larger scale production systems and the prospects for rapid expansion of the industry resulting in increased employment opportunities. Marine Finfish is seen as a potential alternative production system for shrimp farmers who have problems with disease management. The ability to adopt is lower than for crustaceans. One reason for this is that Marine Finfish is a relatively new production system and the cost of establishment may limit the ability of smallholders to adopt. However the interest in larger scale production systems Fisheries Research and Development Priorities 9 financed by the private sector may result in a higher adoption rate of new technology by the private sector.  The size of the freshwater fish industry indicates that significant benefits will accrue from improvements in production and especially in value adding. As many aquaculture enterprises rely on the natural resource for seed, sound resource management and conservation practice is essential. However the difficulty in implementation of resource management and conservation is recognised by a low likelihood of uptake for freshwater fish. Medium Attractiveness  The next group of ARDOs includes Mollusks, Post-harvest Processing and Resource Management and Conservation.  There is increasing emphasis on Mollusks as the domestic market is likely grow significantly and there are good opportunities for development of international markets. In addition there is significant potential for using mollusks as a companion crop to improve environmental conditions and provide feed for marine fish, shrimps etc. Given the aquaculture experience in Vietnam the likelihood of uptake is relatively high  Generally the fisheries processing industry is inefficient, the use of modern processing technology is relatively low and improvement in the diversity and value of processed products is likely to provide significant increases in export income. The potential benefit from improvements in processing that add value was rated relatively highly. Uptake is constrained by the ability of the processing industry to finance importation of improved processing equipment and processes.  Resource Management and Conservation has medium attractiveness, but lower than Mollusks and Post-harvest Processing. Potential benefit was relatively high, but the difficulty of implementation of improved resource management and conservation practices was recognised. Low Attractiveness  The low attractiveness ARDOs includes Bioactive Compounds, Mechanisation and Cold Water Fish. All these ARDOs were considered to have relatively low potential benefit and relatively low uptake.  There is a good supply of raw material for bioactive compounds and an opportunity for import substitution, but this will require substantial investment in extraction facilities and processes, with quality being an issue for export markets.  The low attractiveness for Cold Water Fish reflects the small areas that meet the requirements for production. However the domestic price is high.  Mechanisation to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of capture fishing, and the immediate post-harvest handling will require investment by the large number of relatively small fishing vessels. Adoption is likely to improve as the size of vessel catch improves, but this will require significant capital resources. 3.3 Feasibility Relative feasibility a realistic estimate of the likely contribution research would make to achieve the potential impact. It is determined by plotting research and development Fisheries Research and Development Priorities 10 potential against research and development capacity. The Figure below summarises the workshop results. 27 Workshop Output - Feasibility 9. Mechanisation 8. Resource Management & Conservation 7. Extraction of Bio-Active Compounds 6. Post-Harvest Processing and Value Adding 5. Fresh water Fish 4. Mollusks 3. Crustaceans 2. Cold Water fish 1. Marine Finfish FEASIBILIT Y OF R&D FOR EACH ARO 9 8 7 6 54 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 3.3.1 Comment The main points arising from the workshop’s Feasibility assessment include: R&D Potential  Research in the Marine Finfish ARDO is considered to have a relatively high contribution towards achievement of potential impact. The high value of marine finfish and opportunities for value adding suggests that that further research effort is likely to provide greater benefits than for other ARDOs.  Research in a group of ARDOs (Fresh Water Fish, Crustaceans, Mollusks, Resource Management and Conservation, Post-Harvest Processing and Value Adding and Extraction of Bioactive Compounds) has similar, but a lower, contribution towards achievement of potential impact than Marine Finfish.  The workshop assessed that the R&D potential for Mechanisation and for Cold Water Fish was relatively low. One reason for this could be that for Mechanisation, much of the gain in technology may come from importation of modern and efficient equipment. For Cold Water Fish it is also likely that the Fisheries Research and Development Priorities 11 private sector will develop specialised and relatively large scale production systems, using foreign investment and models developed in other countries. R&D Capacity  There is a view that research capacity could be strengthened in all ARDOs. However the resource available to improve capacity in all ARDOs 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 ARDOs that lie above the diagonal line, feasibility (research outputs) could be improved by an increase in skills and resources. This is particularly evident for Marine Finfish and Bioactive Compounds.  For ARDOs below the diagonal line, the workshop output suggested that there is adequate capacity to enable delivery of expected research potential.  In the preparation of capacity development plans, these results suggest that there may be a potential to transfer some of the existing capacity in Crustacean and Fresh water Fish and through retraining if necessary direct some of those resources to the ARDO Marine Finfish.  Skill/capacity transfer is more difficult for Bioactive Compounds and any increase in capacity in this area would most likely come from new staff. 4 Priorities within ARDOs The workshop participants ranked fisheries outputs (species/products etc) within each ARDO. For MoFi this ranking is the first step in identifying priority programs. More work to develop research strategies for high priority programs is required before the Fisheries Medium-Term Research Plans. Table 1 lists priority programs within priority ARDOs. Table 1: Priority Programs within Priority ARDOs (First Draft) Priority ARDOs (In Order of Ranking on Return on Investment) Priority Programs (Ranking within ARDOs) ARDO Number 3 Crustaceans Tiger shrimp Lobsters Mud crabs Giant river prawns 5 Freshwater Fish Catfish Tilapia 1 Marine Finfish Grouper Snapper Cobia Barramundi Milk fish Rabbit fish Sea Bream Fisheries Research and Development Priorities 12 4 Mollusks Oyster Cockle Clam Abalone Sweet snail Scallop 6 Post-harvest Processing & Value Adding Immediate Post-harvest storage and reduce losses Safe and effective preservation technology Processed product diversification, value adding Use of waste material from processing industries 8 Resource Management & Conservation Fisheries resource survey and analysis Protection and Recovery of marine ecosystems Fisheries resource management policy Efficient fishing gear with low bi-catch Sea biology biodiversity 7 Extraction of Bioactive Compounds Chitosan extraction and use of active compounds Sea weed extraction and uses Extraction of active compounds from fisheries waste Extraction and use of toxin for medicinal use 2 Cold Water Fish Trout Sturgeon (Ukraine & China) White Fish Indigenous cold water fish 9 Mechanisation Fishing tools and capture technology 5 Investment Portfolio One of the objectives of priority setting is to enable assessment and adjustment (if necessary) of the available resource for fisheries 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 (MoFi), 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 Fisheries ARDO research portfolio for the 2007 – 2012 timeframe could be as shown in Table 2. Fisheries 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 (%) 2 Crustaceans 23 Freshwater Fish 21 Marine Finfish 18 Mollusks 12 Post-harvest Processing & Value Adding 9 Resource Management & Conservation 8 Extraction of Bioactive Compounds 2 Cold Water Fish 1 Mechanisation 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. 2 Indicative budget percentages based on the workshop assessment of Return on Investment. The final budget target is to be decided by MARD research policy makers.