Báo cáo nghiên cứu khoa học " Crop Research Priorities 2007 -2012 Priority Setting Workshop Hanoi & Ho Chi Minh City " docx

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 Plan
1
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 26

th
2006 and Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC)
on November 24
th
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 framework
2
, 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 26
th

2006 and the second in
HCMC on November 24
th
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 OPPORTUNITY
1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
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
POTENTIAL IMPACT OF R&D FOR EACH ARDO
1
2
3
4
5
6
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
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.