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

Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development Forestry Research Priorities 2007 -2012 Priority Setting Workshop Hanoi July 2007 Forestry Research and Development Priorities i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 1 2 Methodology............................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Workshop Objectives.......................................................................................... 2 2.2 Research Priority Framework ............................................................................. 3 2.3 Pre-Workshop Preparation.................................................................................. 4 2.3.1 Organisation and Planning.......................................................................... 4 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 ............................................................................................... 5 2.4.1 Workshop Venues and Format.................................................................... 5 2.4.2 Workshop Chairpersons and Group Facilitators......................................... 5 2.4.3 Workshop Process....................................................................................... 5 3 Workshop Results ....................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Return on Investment.......................................................................................... 6 3.2 Attractiveness...................................................................................................... 7 3.3 Feasibility............................................................................................................ 9 4 Priorities within ARDOs........................................................................................... 10 5 Investment Portfolio.................................................................................................. 12 6 The Next Steps.......................................................................................................... 13 Forestry 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 that responds to the Socio-economic Plan and which 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. Many of the research plans developed within MARD focus on production targets, either through increases in areas or production per area. The key question to ask is, “How will research contribute to achievement of these targets?” For some targets, the contribution of research may be very large, but for others, especially where investment in infrastructure is required, the contribution form research, while important, may be less important. Government support for forestry through the 5 million hectare program reinforces the need for research to contribute to the expansion of production from forestry activities through research into the most suitable species for the 9 forest ecosystems in Vietnam. This is most likely to be achieved through selection and breeding programs to improve the genetic potential of most suitable species, through development of appropriate forest and small scale woodlot production and management systems, pest and disease management practices and harvest and post-harvest practices that maximizes the value of wood products. In addition to this the environmental protection value of forests and the 1 MARD (2006)-The Five-Year Socio-Economic Development Plan 2006-2010, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, HANOI, March 2006 Forestry Research and Development Priorities 2 cultural/handicraft and social values of forest and non-timber forest products is an added dimension. To date much of the research activity has focused on small timber production systems with production destined for pulp and fibreboard processing. The challenges for research have also changed. While the emphasis on increasing production through increasing area is a major national goal, the challenge is for research to provide results that will enable investors in forest and forest products to maximise returns on their investment. The emphasis is likely to shift to greater diversification in production, a focus on higher value timber production, improved harvest and post harvest management, introduction of diversified and improved processing and manufacturing systems and understanding the intrinsic values of forests, conservation and enhancement of environmental protection. The opportunities for research to contribute to continued growth in the agriculture and forestry sector 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 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 Forestry Research Priority Workshop held in Hanoi on July 2nd 2007. 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 Forestry Sub-sector will prepare and publish its Medium-Term Crops Research Plan. 2 Methodology 2.1 Workshop 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 Forestry  To determine the relative priority of forest crops/products/themes 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. Forestry Research and Development Priorities 3 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. 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 forty-five stakeholders, representing researchers and research managers, extension workers, universities and the private sector research 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 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 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. Forestry Research and Development Priorities 4 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. 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 then 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 Forestry Research Institutions participated in a preliminary workshop designed to reach agreement on Forestry ARDOs. Seven 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 Seven ARDOS were: ARDO 1: Large Timber Production ARDO 2: Pulp and Small Log Products ARDO 3: Bamboo and Rattan ARDO 4: Non Timber Forest Products ARDO 5: Bio-diversity and Conservation ARDO 6: Environment and Services ARDO 7: Forest Policy 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. Forestry Research and Development Priorities 5 Data and Evaluation Sheets for each of the 7 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 One workshop was facilitated at the MARD Campus on July 2nd 2007. 2.4.2 Workshop Chairpersons and Group Facilitators Dr Pham Van Mach and WG member Mr Nguyen Hoang Nghia took dual responsibility for Chairing the Priority Setting Workshop. 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 groups during the priority setting workshop. The Workshop Facilitators were: 1. Vu Tan Phuong, FSIV 2. Dang Kim Khanh, FSIV 3. Hoang Lien Son, FSIV 4. Phi Hong Hai, Seed Centre, FSIV 5. Pham Duc Chien, FSIV 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 Forestry Research and Development Priorities 6 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 7. Forest Policy 6. Environment & Services 5. Bio-diversity & Conservation 4. Non-Timber Forest Products 3. Bamboo & Rattan 2. Pulp & Small log Products 1. Large Timber RET URN FROM INVEST MENT IN EACH AREA OF RESEARCH OPPORT UNIT Y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 Feasibility Attractive- ness Comment The main points arising from the workshop’s Return on Investment assessment are: Highest Return on Investment  Return on investment for Pulp and Small Log Products (ARDO 2) was assessed as highest by a large margin. This assessment no doubt reflects the size and financial contribution from the ARDO and the relatively short time from establishment to income generation. It also reflects the large infrastructure development in process. However although it is considered that there remains potential for research to contribute to higher returns on investment, it is also considered that there is more than adequate research capacity in this ARDO and perhaps some improvement in research capacity in other ARDOs (e.g. Forestry Research and Development Priorities 7 Environment and Conservation) may result in higher returns on investment in this ARDO in the longer term.  Return on Investment for Large Timber was next highest, but assessed as much less than Pulp and Small Log Products. Overcoming the difficulties of lack of income between establishment and harvesting, through technologies such as intercropping or integrating pulp and large timber production systems could increase the Likelihood of Uptake and therefore return on investment. Medium Return on Investment  ARDO 3 (Bamboo & Rattan) and ARDO 4 (Non-Timber Forest Products) were considered to have medium term on investment with Bamboo & Rattan being higher than Non-Timber Forest Products.  Potential Benefits for both these ARDOs were considered low, but the likelihood of uptake high as both have the potential for rapid income generation through adoption of new technologies and practices. Low Return on Investment  ARDOs 5, 6 and 7 were considered to have low return on investment. This analysis reflects the ability of these ARDOs to generate benefits in the short term. This perception is strong amongst researchers with a focus on production research and the workshop result is not surprising. However a broader cross-section of stakeholders including those with a focus on longer term benefits from research in Environment and Services, Bio-Diversity and Conservation and in Forest Policy may result in a greater emphasis for these ARDOs.  There appears to be a relatively low level of research capacity in these 3 ARDOs (particularly Environment and Services) and some emphasis on improving capacities in these ARDOs appears warranted. 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. Forestry Research and Development Priorities 8 26 Workshop Output - Attractiveness 7. Forest Policy 6. Environment & Services 5. Bio-diversity & Conservation 4. Non-Timber Forest Products 3. Bamboo & Rattan 2. Pulp & Small log Products 1. Large Timber POT ENT IAL IMPACT OF R&D FOR EACH ARDO 76 5 4 3 21 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 Likelihood of uptake Potential Benefits Comment High Attractiveness  ARDO 2 (Pulp and Small Log Products) was assessed as having the highest attractiveness. Its advantage over Large Timber is emphasised by the vast experience, over a large number of years by producers, resulting in a relatively high level of likelihood of uptake of new technology and management systems.  Potential Benefits for Large Timber was also high, but the likelihood of uptake considered much lower. Research has shown that total income and average income per year is generally higher for large timber but the longer production cycles and the difficulty in generating cash income in the early years of production and managing risk may be the man reason for a lower likelihood of uptake. Medium Attractiveness  ARDO 3 (Bamboo and Rattan), ARDO 7 (Forest Policy) and ARDO 4 (Non- Timber Forest Product) were all assessed as having medium attractiveness.  Forest Policy was assessed as having a relatively high Potential Benefit and a moderate level of Likelihood of Uptake.  By contrast Non-Timber Forest Products was considered to have a lower potential benefit but a relatively high likelihood of uptake. Forestry Research and Development Priorities 9 Low Attractiveness  Attractiveness for Environment and Services (ARDO 6) and Bio-Diversity & Conservation was assessed as low. While Potential Benefit for Environment & Services was seen as being high, the very low level of Likelihood of Uptake assessed reduces Attractiveness.  These results demonstrate the perception that attractiveness is likely to be improved where there is a direct income benefit from adoption. This may have implications on the future form of incentives to ensure that implementation of sound forest policies is enhanced. 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 7. Forest Policy 6. Environment & Services 5. Bio-diversity & Conservation 4. Non-Timber Forest Products 3. Bamboo & Rattan 2. Pulp & Small log Products 1. Large Timber FEASIBILIT Y OF R&D FOR EACH ARO 7 6 54 3 21 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 R&D Capacity R&D Potential Forestry Research and Development Priorities 10 Comments R&D Potential  Research potential for all ARDOs was considered as high, with only relatively small differences between them.  The research potential for Pulp & Small Log Products and for Large Timber was considered to be similar and higher than all other ARDOs. This is not surprising as the outputs of these two ARDOs provide tangible sources of income. A significant amount of research effort has in the past been focused in the ARDO of Pulp and Small Log Products, but the workshop assessment suggests that the research potential for Large Timber is at least as great in the future.  The potential for research to contribute for Bamboo and Rattan, Non-Timber Forest Products, Bio-diversity and Conservation, and Environmental Services was similar, but assessed as lower than for ARDOs 1 & 2. ARDOs 4, 5 and 6 may be linked as development of non-timber forest products will rely on sound environmental management to ensure that bio-diversity in natural forests, protection forests and special use forests is maintained. 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 Environment & Services and Forest Policy and to a lesser extent for non-timber forest products and bio-diversity & conservation.  Conversely the R&D capacity in pulp and small log products is relatively high. This is not surprising given that this ARDO has been the focus of considerable research effort over the last few decades.  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 pulp and small log products and the time may be right for capacity building in some of the other ARDOs (notably policy and environment). Provided funding is also transferred and the skills are used effectively this should lead eventually to an increased return in investment for other ARDOs. 4 Priorities within ARDOs The workshop participants ranked forestry outputs (crops/products/thematic areas) 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. Forestry Research and Development Priorities 11 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 2 Pulp & Small Log Products High priority:  Acacia  Eucalyptus  Pinus caribaeae Medium priority:  Endospermum chiense  Ormosia pinnata  Melaleuca sp  Casuariana equisetifolia Low priority:  Melia azedarach Linn.  Cunminghamia lanceolata  Manglieta glauca 1 Large Timber High priority:  Imported Trees: Acacia sp; Eucalyptus sp, Khaya senegalensis, Cedrela odorata  Native Trees: Liquidambar formosana, : Trema orientalis, Melia azedarach Linn, Duabanga grandiflora, Ailanthus triphysa, Endospermum chiense… Medium priority:  Other commercial value trees Moraceae sp; Hopea recopei; Michelia mediocris Dandy;Tarietia javanica; Parashorea chinensis Low priority:  Groups of precious and native trees. 3 Bamboo & Rattan Select and develop high value Bamboo and Rattan . Market research 4 Non-Timber Forest Products Select and develop high commercial value species for ecological areas.  Foodstuffs  Spices  Medicinal Plants  Essential Oils Post-Harvest technology. Market Research 7 Forest Policy Policy analysis & advice for revising the law of forestry investment and protection Impact analysis of benefits of incentives in natural and protected forests (Decree 178) Forest and forest land allocation policy Impact of use of natural forests as production forestry The environmental service using policy (such as hydroelectric power plant) Forestry Research and Development Priorities 12 6 Environment & Services Environment  Interaction between forest and environment.  Technical and economic criteria for protection forests (riverhead, coastal and environment)  Cropping pattern and practices of forestation for protective forest/restore biological health  Solutions for protecting forest, prevent natural calamity Environmental services:  Quantify the price of products and forest environmental services.  Manage and use environmental services: - Protect riverhead forest - Preserve bio-diversification - Ecological tourism 5 Biodiversity & Conservation High priority:  Basic survey on species. Medium priority:  Classify forests based on preservation function.  Survey on specific ecosystems.  GIS in preservation.  Research the effect/usefulness of species.  Educate on preservation environment. Low priority:  Methods of inter-country preservation  Mechanism of sharing preservation information 5 Investment Portfolio One of the objectives of priority setting is to enable assessment and adjustment (if necessary) of the available resource for forestry 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 Forestry ARDO research portfolio for the 2007 – 2012 timeframe could be as shown in Table 2. Forestry 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 Pulp & Small Log Products 38 Large Timber 22 Bamboo & Rattan 13 Non-Timber Forest Products 9 Forest Policy 5 Environment & Services 4 Biodiversity & Conservation 4 Unallocated 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 based on the workshop assessment of Return on Investment. The final budget allocation will be decided by MARD research governance and policy makers.