Báo cáo nghiên cứu nông nghiệp " Agriculture Sector Research Priorities " docx


AgricultureSectorResearchPriorities




ResearchPriorityWorkbook









Hanoi:December14:2010
1

Contents
1 Today’sTask 3
2 ResearchPrioritySetting 3
3 IssuesinPrioritySetting 3
3.1 Complexity 3
3.2 CuttingtheCake 5
3.3 GainingConsensus 5
3.4 ResourceAllocation 5
3.5 TheChallengeforAgricultureResearch 5
4 ResearchPrioritySettingMethodology 6
4.1 ChoosingtheMethodology 6
4.2 PrioritySettingFramework 8

5
 WorkshopAreasofResearchOpportunity 9
6 ASSESSINGPOTENTIALBENEFITS 11
EconomicBenefits 12
Size 12
Value 13
Exports&Imports 15
Export&ImportofCropProducts 15
ImportandExportofLivestockProducts 18
ImportandExportofFisheriesProducts 19
ImportandExportofForestryProducts 20
AgricultureInputs 20
Fertiliser 20
AnimalFeeds 21
Social&
EnvironmentalBenefits 22
EnvironmentalBenefits 23
7 ASSESSINGFACTORSFOR&AGAINSTACHIEVEMENTOFPOTENTIALBENEFITS 25
AdoptionRatesandProfitability 26
AgricultureDevelopmentStrategy 26
8 ASSESSINGRESEARCHPOTENTIAL. 38
Crops 39
Livestock 59
Forestry 68
Fisheries 81
9 ASSESSINGRESEARCHCAPACITY 89
Crops 90
2

Livestock 90

Forestry 93
Fisheries 95



3

1 Today’sTask
Objective:
To assist MARD to develop mechanisms for determining agriculture research priorities as a basis
for investment decisions for high priority opportunities for agriculture research programs and
projects across all areas of the agriculture sector.
To prepare a draft set of research priorities the agriculture sector using objective and subjective
data and information and results of previous priority setting workshops at the subsector level.
2 ResearchPrioritySetting
TheprimaryobjectivebehindResearch&Development(R&D
1
)priorityassessmentistodeterminethe
broadresearchprogrammesthatwillprovideVietnamwiththegreatestreturnoninvestmentinR&D
providedbygovernmentandothermajorstakeholders.
Priority se tting is the  central issue of research and extensi on  management.It is a complex task.It
mustbedone
inasystematicframeworkabletoallowtheresultstosupportopenan drobus tdecisi on‐
makingaboutresearchandextensionresourceallocationandmanagement.The highest priorityR&D
isthatwhichhasthehighesteconomic,socialandenvironmentalvaluetothenation .
Choices must be made about the
Areas Research Opportunity (AROs)to support, and which not to
support.If there are no established priorities, then the choi ces made will be unlikel y to produce
resultsofmaximum benefittoVietnam.Atworst,theresultswillbeirreleva ntandprovidenoreturn
forthepublicinvestmentinvolved.

Because priori tysetting
is considered verycomplex, it is oftenput inthe “too hard basket”. How to
decide the proportion of the available budget to  allocate to agricul tu re sub‐sectors (e.g. Crops,
Live stock,Fisheries,Forestry,Environment,Policyetc.)andthenwith ineachsubsectorwhatshouldbe
the budget allocation to all the different
 crops and p roducts?In many cases (including MARD)
decisionsaremadealongbudgetlines.Howmuchwasthebudgetforthepreviousyearandshouldit
bemodified?Usuallyadecisionismadetoeithe r increaseordecreasetheproportionofexpenditure
by very small amounts and little attention is
paid to the likely results or outcomes expected from
research expendi t ure.In general the end result is that  there is often duplication in research effort,
researchersfocus on whatisalreadyknown,thechallenge andinnovationexpectedfrom researchis
absentandthereturnoninvestmentforresearchispoor.
3 IssuesinPrioritySetting
3.1 Complexity
The main difficulty in priority setting for agriculture and rural development is that there are many,
manyresearchopportunitiestoconsider.Howcancomparisonsbetwee nthemanydifferentcropsor
products fr om research be made? One way of resolving this dilemma is to break research priority
setting down into manageable pieces,
 bydeveloping a research priorityframework and hierarchyof
priorities.Figure1providesanexampleofapriorityhierarchy.



1
Developmentincludestechnologydevelopmentandtransferusingtransfermechanismsincludingextension
4

HIERARCHY OF PRIORITIES & RESOURCE ALLOCATION
WHOLE OF

GOVERNMENT
AGRICULTURE &RURAL
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICESCONSTRUCTION
AGRICULTURE &
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
POLICY
RESEARCH &
DEVELOPMENT
QUARANTINE & BIO-
SECURITY
FINANCE &
ADMINISTRATION
FOREIGN RELATIONS
& TRADE
PIGS
HORTICULTURE
CROPS
STAPLE
CROPS
INDUSTRIAL
CROPS
LARGE
ANIMALS
POULTRY
FOOD
PROCESSING
VALUE
ADDING
LARGE

TIMBER
OTHER
SECTORS ???
FRESH
WATER
FISH
MOLLUSCS
MARINE
FINFISH
CRUSTACEANS
LIVESTOCK CROPS
NON-WOOD
FOREST
PRODUCTS
FISHERIES FORESTRY
SMALL
RUMINANTS
RICE
PULP &
SMALL
LOGS
BAMBOO
RATTAN
CONSERVATION
VACCINES
ANIMAL
REMEDIES
FEEDSTUFFS
COLD
WATER

FISH
POST
HARVEST &
PROCESSING
PRIORITY PROGRAMS
PRIORITY PROGRAMSPRIORITY PROGRAMS
PRIORITY PROGRAMS
5

TheCARDProgramhasworkedwithMARDtodemonstratethemethodol ogyatthesub‐sector(Crops,
Live stock,Fisheries,Forestry&Economic&Policy)levels.
3.2 CuttingtheCake
Whatproportionofthenationalscienceandtechnologybudgetshouldbeallocatedtoeachofthe
foursub‐sectors?Dependingonyourscientificinterestsandexpertiseanumberofscenariosmay
beputforward.ThesecouldbedepictedasinFigures1&2below.
 
3.3 GainingConsensus
“Whoisright? ”Whichoneoftheallocationsaboveiscorrect?Doanyofthemreflectthebestoptions
for thefuture?Consensusis a major issue asopinions varyof what is priority and what isnot, and
biasesand conflictsofinterestcanimpactontherobustnessand quality
ofprioritysetting.It isnot
possible to get absolute agreement on priori ties, but provided a broad cross ‐section of key
stakeholders are involved and contribute individually and collectively to priority setting a consensus
canbereached.In mostcasestheconsensusisseenbyallparticipantsasmakingsense
withgeneral
agreemen t on high and low priorities, but some differences in opinion for the middle range of
priorities.
3.4 ResourceAllocation
Having determined research priorities, it is assumed that high priority research will receive
preferentialfunding.Inmanycountriesthefundingdecisionsfollowthehierarchypriorities.Central

governmenthastheresponsibilitytodecidesontheallocationacrossbroadsectorsoftheeconomy
(i.e. Agriculture & Rural Development, Construction and Services). Within sectors
 the Ministry
responsible has the mandate to make decisions about the resourcing of sub‐sector and thematic
research areas. Within sub‐sectors Departments of Science & Technology have r esponsibility for
allocation of resources. The overallaim of asystematic process is toimprove the economic, social
andenvironmentalreturnon
governmentinvestmentinresearch.
3.5 TheChallengeforAgricultureResearch
OverthelastfewyearsthecontributionofagriculturetotheGDPhasdeclinedinrelativeterms.
Figure2: PercentageofGDPbySector(1994prices)
23.3
20.4
17.6
35.4
39.4
41.6
41.3
40.3 40.8
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

2000 2004 2008
Trade and Services
Industry and Construction
Extended Agriculture

6

This assessment probably underestimates the contribution of the agriculture sector as the
proportion of the population in rural areas is >65% and much of this is of a subsistence nature,
contributinginaninformalwayandrepresentsahighproportionofthepoor.
Figure3: Urban:RuralPovertyRates
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1998 2002 2004 2006 2008
Urban
Rural

Note:PovertylinefromGSOandWB:1998:expenditure/per/month:149kVND;2002:expenditure/per/month:
160k VND; 2004: expenditure/per/month: 173k VND; 2006: expenditure/per/month: 213k VND; 2008:
expenditure/per/month:280kVND
Thechallengefor agricultureresearchis to ensurethatagriculture’scontributiontoGDPisat least

maintained, if  not impr oved, and that it contributes to social and environmental indicators. This
challengewillbeeasiertoachieveifahighproportionoftheresourcesavailableforresearchtarget
highpriorityareas.
4 ResearchPrioritySettingMethodology
4.1 ChoosingtheMethodology
2

There is a range of methodologies available for R & D priority setting.Selection of the most
appropriatemethodologyforVietnamisdrivenby:
1. The need to use a consultation  process that involves a large number and diverse range of
stakeholders;
2. The need to develop ownership of priorities amongst
 MARD and research institute staff,
farmers,exporters,processorsandmarketers.
3. The absence ofdetailedandreliablestatistical data onproduction, profitability,andmarkets
and the absence of analysis of the impact of research on national, regional and household
GDP;
4. TheneedtomovefromR&Dfocussed
onproductionandsubsistence/foodsecuritytoR&D
emphasising an empowering policy environment to generate improved agriculture
sustainability,profitability,q uality,ma rke tingandcommercialsystems;
5. The need to use an objective process that evaluates the likely economic, social and
environmentalbenefitstoVietnam;
6. Thecapacitytoundertakeappr opriateresearch.

An important principle is to implement the process and learn from experience, doing what make
senseratherthanworryingaboutacademicperfection.
Specificprinciplesaboutprioritysettinginclude:



2
CSIROAustraliahasappliedthebasicmodeldescribedhereatcorporateanddivisionlevelsandithasbee nusedinmorethan
60otherresearchorganisationsinAsi a,AustraliaandNew Zealand,USAandEurope.Theconceptualanal yticframeworkis 
basedontheonepublishedbythe IndustrialResear c hInstitute,New
York in1986,viz:RNFoster,LHL i nden ,RLWhiteleyand
AMKantrow,ImprovingthereturnonR&D ‐I,in 'MeasuringandImprovingthePerformanceandRe tu rnonR&D',IRI, New
York(originallypublis he dinResearchManageme nt,January1985).

7

• Consider areas that are easily related to the benefits from research (the purpose of the
research) not research disciplines – in this case defined as Areas of Research Opportunity
(ARO)
• These areas should be mutually ex clusive and collectively exhaustive, co nsistently based,
forwardlookingandmanageableinnumber
• Linked
toandconsistentwiththeresearchfinancingtheprocess
• Criteriaareindependent
• Thecriteriausedshouldconsider:
o The potential economic, environmental, social, institutional and scientific
benefitsfromsuccessfulresearch
o Thecontextwithinwhichresearchproductsandserviceswillbeused
o The state of development of
 required research tools and techniques and the
healthofappropriatedisciplines
o Theavailabilityofresearchskillsandinfrastructure
• Importantly, priorities are relative; the lower the priority of an area the greater the
selectivityinchoosingprojectswithinthem,asillustratedinFigure2. 
Themodelrecommendedforuse
inVie tnamisasi x‐stepprocess. 

1. DefinebroadAreasofResea r chOpportunity(AROs)atthesub‐sectorlevel
2. PrioritiseAROsatthesub‐sectorlevel
3. Prioritisecrops/produc tswithinAROsatthesu b‐sectorlevel
4. From theresults of the sub ‐sector prioritisa tionestablishprioritiesat
thesectorlevel (thesemay 
combinesomeofthesub‐sectorlevelprioritiesintoalargergrouping.
5. UndertakeSectorlevelresearchprioritisation
6. Prepareworkshoprepo rtsandaNationalR&DInvestmentPortfolioandPolicyStat ement
Figure2:UseofPrioritiestoAssistinSelection ofResearchPrograms/Projects 
S
t
ro
n
g

E
m
p
h
a
s
i
s
ATTRACTIVENESS
FEASIBILITY
S
t
r
o
n

g

E
m
p
h
a
s
i
s
Selective Emphasis
Limit
e
d Support
I
NCREASED SELE
C
T
I
VI
TY

InthepasttheresearchanddevelopmentprogramisdrivenbyMARDstaffusinganallocativeprocess.
ItispossibleinthefutureMARDtofundresearchunderanopenandcontestableprocesswithoutbias.
The aim  is to improve the efficiency and effectivenessof investment into research and todevelop
 a
researchenvironmentthatencouragesahighdegree ofinnovation.UnderthisprocessMARDwould
clarifytheprioritiesforresearchinvestmentanddefinethebroadoutcomesexpectedthatinvestmen t.
Theresearchproviderswillsubmitresearchproposalsandbudgetsthatwillcontributetoachievement
of these outcomes.In a “perfect world”

those projects that offer the best valu e for money will be
supported.
8

4.2 PrioritySettingFramework
The model used to form Research priorities is relatively simple.It asks participants  to evaluate the
overall merit of Research investment in  each ARO, in terms of Attractiveness to Vietnam and  its
Feasibility in Vietnam.A scoring scheme is used to compare and rank the AROs. Scoring is an
effective
waytoallow a grouptotake all factorscriticaltothedecision intoaccount inalogicaland
openway.Therelative scoresforeachAROaredevelopedinstructuredgroupdiscussionsintermsof
fourindependentcriteria.Theseare:
1. PotentialBenefitsforVietnam
2. FactorsWorkingFor&
Agai nstAchievementof Potentials
3. PotentialContributionofR&DtoDevelopme nt
4. R&DCapacityWithi nVietnam
Thecriteriaaredefinedasfollows:
Potentialimpact
• PotentialBenefits
• maximumadditionalbenefitsforVietnam(economic,environmental,social)
fromsuccessfulresearch
• FactorsWorkingForandAgainstAchievementof
Potentials
• likelihoodoftheresultsofsuccessfulresearchbeingutilizedbyVietnam
Feasibility
• PotentialContributionofResearchtoDevelopment
• scope for growth in knowledge in the relevant scientific fields and
improvementsinresearchtoolsandtechniques
• Researchcapacity

• Vietnam’s ability to competitively assemble research teams to
 deliver
researchoutputstousers
Therelationshipbetweenthesefourcriteriaisshowninthea ssessmentframeworkbelow.

The relative rankings and positions of the AROs are important.They indicate the best “areas” for
research and/or extension investment.When the priority‐setting group represen ts researche rs ,
extension workers  an d academics, farmers, politicians an d  the agri cultural  indu stry and other
stakeholders,themethodologyensuresthatthe bestrecommendationspossibleatth e
timearemade.
Anexampleoftheoutcomeoftheprioritysettingprocess
Figure3. Plotof attractivenessversus feasibilityfor ahypothetical set of eight AROsshowingtheir
priorityratingonthebasisoftheirreturntoVietnam.
9

RETURN FROM R&D FOR EACH AREA OF RESEARCH OPPORTUNITY
Feasibility
Attractiveness
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 102030405060708090100

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

InFigure1,twoAROs(#1and#8)scorethehighestforbothattractivenessandfeasibility.Theyarelocatedin
thetop right hand corner ofthe graph.They warrant strong research and extension emphasis, and are the
highest priority groupof AROs.Thoselocatedmore towards the
centre ofthegraph (# 3, # 5,# 6 and # 7)
warrantselectiveresearchandextensionemphasisandcanbeclassedasmoderatepriority.Thetwowithlow
scoresforbothattractivenessandfeasibility(#2and#4)justifyonlylimitedsupportandhavealowpriority.
AROs
 # 3 and # 5 have similar attractiveness scores, but ARO # 5 scores higher on feasibility.In this
hypotheticalexamplethelowerfeasibilityscoreforARO#3occursbecausetheskillsavailabletocarryoutthe
researchandorextensionareconsideredtobeinadequate.Whenthenecessary
skillsareacquired,thetwo
AROs would otherwise be equal claimants for research resources.Attractiveness is determined by factors
otherthanresearchandextension,suchasmarkets,profits,employment,socialandculturalbenefits,sowhile
AROs#5and#7havesimilarfeasibilityscores,#5ismoreattractive,andcouldbeallocatedmoreresources
forresearchandextension.
5 WorkshopAreasofResearchOpportunity
FordemonstrationpurposesfourAROsareselected.Theyare:
1 Crops (or Cultivation) including:Rice, Upland Crops, Legumes, Industrial Crops, Fruit, 
Vegetables,Flowers&Ornamentals,AnimalFeedsandNewCrops
2 Livestock including: Large Animals, Small Ruminant Animals, Pig Production, Poultry,
ProductiveInsects,VeterinaryVaccines&AnimalRemedies,andAnimalFeed

Processing
&Conservation
3 Forestry including: Large Timber Production, Pulp and Small Log Products, Bamboo and
Rattan, Non Timber Forest Products, Bio‐diversity an d Conservation, Environment
andServices,andForestPolicy
4 Fisheries including: Marine Finfish, Cold Water Fish, Crustaceans, Molluscs, Fresh Water
Fish, Post‐Harvest, Processing & Value Adding,
Extraction of Bio‐Active Compounds,
ResourceManagement&Conservation,andMechanisation
10


PRE‐WORKSHOPASSESSMENTOFAROs
[PurposeistoundertakeapreliminaryassessmentoftherelativepriorityofAROsagainst
PotentialImpactandFeasibilitycriteriatoenhancethelevelofdiscussionduringtheworkshop]
Steps
1) ReadalltheInformationandDataincludedinthisworkbookforallAROs
• Carefullyre adalltheInformationandDataforeachofthepriorityevaluationcriteriato
obtainanoverviewofallfourAROs
• Makebriefnotesinthemarginsofthethingsfromyourownviewsandexperienceyou
thinkareimportantfortheon‐goingResearchprogramforeachARO.
2) PrepareindividualpreliminaryAROScores
i) Instructionsforpreliminaryscoring
Participants should score each ARO before coming to the workshop and make note of their
reasoningtosupporttheirargumentsindiscussion.Spaceisprovidedin the workbookagainst
eachARO.
• Step 1‐For each criteria inturn, read the information and analysis for each of the
AROs,startingwithPotentialBenefits
• Step2–Now,inyourviewselectthehighestAROsandthenthelowest
• Step 3 –Now, score theHIGHEST ARO7, and the LOWEST ARO1. Finally, scorethe

MEDIUM ARO’s using scores 3 and  5.The aimof theevaluation is to examine the
relative differences between AROs, so a wide spread of scores is desirable.A low
scoredoes
notmeanthatanareaisunimportant–itjustmeansthatinyourviewitis
lessimportantthantheothers.
• Step4–repeattheprocessforthenextthreecriteria
• Step 5 – Having recorded your scores and reasoning  in the Workbook for the four
criteria,transferyourscorestotheconsolidatedscoresheetandbringitwithyouto
theworkshop.Allscoreswillbetabulatedandmadeavailableattheworkshop.
The purpose behind this procedure is to achieve
 as much discrimination between the AROs as
possible.Weare interestedinexploringtherelativedifferencesbetweenAROs.Itisimportant to
rememberthatprioritiesareRELATIVE.Alowscoredoesnotmeanthatanareaisunimportantper
se.However, when resources are limited, decisions need to be made
 about where to focus the
efforttoachievethegreatestimpactforVietnam.

11


6 ASSESSINGPOTENTIALBENEFITS
[PurposeistoprovideanassessmentoftherelativePotentialBenefitsfromeachoftheAROs]
Potential Benefits reflectmaximum additional benefits for Vietnam (economic, environmental, and
social)fromsuccessfulresearch
Potentialbenefitsincrease
– Thelargerthesize
– Thefastertheeconomicgrowth(productionandvalue)
– Opportunitiesfor
increasedexportsand/orimportsubstitution
– Thegreaterthereductionincosts

– Thehighertheresearchintensity
– Thegreaterthepositiveenvironmentalandsocialimpact
Procedure:
Tablegroups
• Discuss potential benefits arising from each ARO using preliminary scoring to initiate
discussion
• Discussreasonsforhighand
lowscoringandobtaineachgroupmember’sviews
• Eachparticipanttore‐scoreeachAROifnecessary
• Scorescollected

NOTES
12


EconomicBenefits
Considerthefollowinganalysisofthefoursectors.
Size
Contribution to Agricultural Output (Percentage at current prices)

GrossOutputbySector(1994prices)

13


Value
GrossOutputforCultivation/CropsSector(BillionVND1994prices)

GrossOutputforFisheriesSector(BillionVND1994prices)


GrossOutputforForestrySector(BillionVND,1994prices)
14


GrossOutputfortheLivestockSector(BillionVND1994prices)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Biganimals
Poultry
Non‐meatproduct

15


Exports&Imports
ExportbySector(MillionUSD)

Export&ImportofCropProducts
ExportofCrops/CultivationProducts(MilUSD





16




17

Tea Export
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Prel.
2009
Volume (000 tons)
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
value (mil.$)
Volume (000 tons)
Value (mil.$)


ImportofCrops/CultivationProducts(000USD)
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
rice
coffee
tea
pe pper
pesticide
fruit&vegetables
ri ce
Pes ticide
Fruit&Vegetab les

18


ImportandExportofLivestockProducts
ImportandExportofLivestockProducts(MeatandEdibleOffal$US000)
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000

120000
140000
160000
180000
200000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Imp ort
Export

Importofmilk/milkproducts(mil.USD)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1995 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 2009


19


ImportandExportofFisheriesProducts
ExportofFishproducts(mill$)

Importvalueoffishproducts($US)
0
50000000
10000000

15000000
20000000
25000000
30000000
35000000
2007 2008 2009

20


ImportandExportofForestryProducts
ImportandExportofForestryProducts(Wood,WoodArticles,Charcoal(US$‘000s)
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
1800000
2000000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Import
Export

AgricultureInputs
Fertiliser
FertilizerimportvalueofVietnam(000USD)

0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

21


Fertilizerdomesticproduction(000tons)
1500
1700
1900
2100
2300
2500
2700
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

AnimalFeeds
ValueofInputsforAnimalFeedandFeedProcessing
0
200,000
400,000
600,000

800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
thousand USD
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
(estimate)
Year

Domesticproductionofthemaininputsforfeedproductionandestimateddemandforfeedinput
(1000tonnes)

Materialtype 2005 2006
1.Brokenrice,paddyandbran
3
 6084 6090
2.Maize 3401 3437
3.Cassavaandpotato 2421 2785
4.Soybeanandsoybeancake 114 127
5.Fishmeal 35 112
6.Mineralandpremix 68 138
Totaldomesticoutputforfeed
production 12123 12975
Feedinputdemand 13630 15864
EstimatedDeficit ‐1507‐2889

3
Brokenrice is3%equivalenttorice;paddy for feed productionisequalto3%ofitsproductionandbranis

equalto11%.Theshareforfeedproductionofmaizeis90%;cassavaandpotato80%andsoybean33%.
22

Source:StrategyforLivestockDevelopmentto2020,DepartmentofLivestockProduction(2007)
QuantityofimportedfeedinputstoVietnamin2006(‘000t)
Feedinput 2006 2007 2008
Maize 564.5 612.8 467.8
Extractedricebran 190.2 488.0 199.9
Wheatbran,flour 490.6 333.6 639.5
Vegetableoil,fishoil 26.4 54.2‐
Soybeancake 1591.8 1686.3 2161.8
Soybean 17.6 17.7 293.3
Maizegluten 35.0 54.0 23.5
Animalnutrition 10.7 18.7 166.4
Lactose‐25.9 10.1
Fishmeal 54.8 41.2 153.8
Animalby‐products 84.2‐ ‐
Premixvitamin 8.3 37.5 0.7
Aminoacid(Lyz,Met,Thre) 21.9 19.3 51.9
Mineral,additive 74.7 98.8 16.1
Total 3170.7 3488 4184.8
Sources: Strategy for Livestock Development to 2020, Department of Livestock Production (2007,
2009)
Social&EnvironmentalBenefits
Employment
Theagriculturesectoristhelargestintermsoflabourforce.
Sector
2009
(persons.)
%

Agricultureandforestry 23022 48.5
Fishing 1766.5 3.7
Miningandquarrying 477.4 1.0
Manufacturing 6851.2 14.4
Electricity,gasandwatersupply 262.6 0.6
Construction 2692.8 5.7
Wholesaleandretailtrade;repairofmotorvehicles,motorcyclesandpersonaland
householdgoods
5275.7 11.1
Hotelsandrestaurants 816.4 1.7
Transport;storageandcommunications 1198.4 2.5
Financialintermediation
 219.6 0.5
Scientificactivitiesandtechnology 27.3 0.1
Realestate,rendingandbusinessactivities 257.8 0.5
Publicadministrationanddefence;compulsorysocialsecurity 1818 3.8
Educationandtraining 1375 2.9
Healthandsocialwork 391.5 0.8
Recreational,culturalandsportingactivities 133.7 0.3
ActivitiesofPartyandofmembershiporganisations
198.1 0.4
Community,socialandpersonalserviceactivitiesandprivatehouseholdwithemployed
persons
959.6 2.0
Total 47443.6 100
Whataretheoff‐farmemploymentopportunitiesforeachofthefoursubsectors?
Thinkaboutemploymentintermsof:
• Thehouseholdlevel–useofhouseholdlabour
• Thelabourmarket–useofnon‐householdlabourforfarmactivities
23

• Theserviceproviders–provisionofinputs,advice,traders,marketers
• Thevalueaddingsector–manufacturing,processing,packaging,exporting,quality
assurance
• Thetransportsector–freight,shippingetc.
Ofthefoursub‐sectors,whatwillthegreatestopportunitiesforfutureemploymentbe?
EnvironmentalBenefits
Thinkaboutthepositive andnegativeenvironmentalimpactsofeachofthebroadsubsectors?For
somesub‐sectors(e.g.catfishanduseofagriculturechemicals,pesticidesetc)theenvironmental
andfoodsafetyissuesarewellknown.Forotherssuchasforestryforcatchmentmanagementanda
potentialcarbonsinkanddevelopment
ofmangroveareasforcoastalprotectiontheenvironmental
benefitsareintrinsicanddifficulttoestimate.
24


POTENTIALBENEFITS‐PRELIMINARYASSESSMENTANDSCORING
PleasecompleteyourpreliminaryevaluationbeforecomingtotheWorkshop
ARO SCORE
(1,3,5,7)
Reasonssupportingyourscore
1:CROPS 
2:LIVEST OCK 
3:FORESTRY 
4:FISHERIES 
