Báo cáo nghiên cứu khoa học " Economic & Policy Research Priorities 2011-2015 " docx

Ministry of Agriculture &
Rural Development

Economic & Policy Research
Priorities 2011-2015

Priority Setting Workshop
Hanoi

August 2010

Collaboration for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD) Program


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
2.4.2

Workshop Chairpersons and Group Facilitators......................................... 4

2.4.3
3

Workshop Venues and Format.................................................................... 4
Workshop Process....................................................................................... 4

Workshop Results ....................................................................................................... 5
3.1

Return on Investment.......................................................................................... 5

3.1.1
3.2

Attractiveness...................................................................................................... 7

3.2.1
3.3

Comment..................................................................................................... 6
Comment..................................................................................................... 7

Feasibility............................................................................................................ 8

3.3.1

Comment..................................................................................................... 9

4

Interpretation of Results............................................................................................ 10

5

Recommendations..................................................................................................... 11
5.1

Research Concepts ............................................................................................ 11

5.1.1
5.1.2
6

Commodity Research, Market Analysis & Forecast................................. 11
Rural Development ................................................................................... 12

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

i


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 longerterm 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

1


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

2


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
EPRO 2

Commodity Research, Market Analysis, Forecast & Policy Analysis
Natural Resources & Rural Environment Management
Economic & Policy Research Priorities

3


EPRO 3
EPRO 4
EPRO 5
EPRO 6
EPRO 7

Research, Technology Development and Transfer Delivery Systems for
Agriculture and Rural Development
Social Security for Rural People and Sustainable Poverty Reduction
Climate Change
Rural Development
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

4

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

Workshop Output – Return on
Investment
R ET U R N FR OM IN VEST MEN T IN EACH AR EA
OF R ESEAR CH OPPOR T U N IT Y

1.
2.
3.

40

4.

30
Attractiveness

5.
6.
7.

1

COMMODITY RESEARCH, MARKET
ANALYSIS & FORECAST
NATURAL RESOURCES & RURAL
ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER
SOCIAL SECURITY &SUSTAINABLE
POVERTY REDUCTION
CLIMATE CHANGE
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC
INTEGRATION AND MARKET ACCESS

20
2

7
43

6

10
5

0
0

10

20

30

40

Feasibility

28

Economic & Policy Research Priorities

5


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

6


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.

Workshop Output - Attractiveness
AT T R ACT IVENESS OF R ESEARCH FOR EACH

EPR O

1.
2.
3.

7.0

4.

6.0

5.
6.
7.

5.0
Potential
4.0
Benefits
3.0

1

2
4

COMMODITY RESEARCH, MARKET
ANALYSIS & FORECAST
NATURAL RESOURCES AND RURAL

ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER
SOCIAL SECURITY &SUSTAINABLE
POVERTY REDUCTION
CLIMATE CHANGE
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC
INTEGRATION AND MARKET ACCESS

6
3
7

5

2.0
1.0
1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Likelihood of uptake

26

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

7


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

8


potential against research and development capacity. The Figure below summarises the
workshop results.

Workshop Output - Feasibility
FEASIBILIT Y OF RESEAR CH FOR EACH EPR O
1.
2.

6.0

3.
4.

5.0

1

R&D
Potential

5.
6.
7.

7

4.0

5

2

6

COMMODITY RESEARCH, MARKET
ANALYSIS & FORECAST
NATURAL RESOURCES AND RURAL

ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER
SOCIAL SECURITY &SUSTAINABLE
POVERTY REDUCTION
CLIMATE CHANGE
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC
INTEGRATION AND MARKET
ACCESS

3
4

3.0
2.0
1.0
1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

R&D Capacity

27

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

9


(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
Interpretation of Results
St
ng
Y

IT

as

LE

C

ph

TI

V

Em
i te

IN

m

C

Li

R

EA

SE

D

is

SE

ph

e

is
as
ph
Em sis
a

tiv

Em

c
le
d

ATTRACTIVENESS

ng

ro

ro

St

Se
Su
pp
or
t

12

FEASIBILITY

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

10


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
Commodity
Databases

(Rice, Coffee,
Rubber, Pork, Tiger
Prawn, Catfish

Objectives
To build a full commodity
database for 6 priority
commodities, including
incorporation and use of
international databases.

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

Expected Outputs
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.
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

11


5.1.2 Rural Development
Research Issues
1. Rural Institution
Development

Objective

To understand the main
drivers for successful
development of rural
institutions and their
contribution to rural
development

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
To determine the lessons
learned from community
development initiatives
and identify the critical
success factors behind
successful community
development models
To analyse the
performance and identify
the main barriers to agribusiness (SME)
development in rural
areas and the key drivers

for successful rural SMEs
To understand the reasons
for low investment in
rural development and the
barriers
to
increased
investment from local and
foreign sources

3. Community
Development

4. Agri-business
Development

5. Rural Investment

Expected outputs
Policy & strategy advice to improve the effectiveness and
impact of rural institutions on rural development
including:
 Decentralistion
 Socialization
 Autonomy
 Private Sector investment
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
Policy & strategy advice on critical success factors for
community driven rural development including:
 Socialisation
 Effective use of community resources
 Management & control

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
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

12


Economic & Policy Research Priorities

13