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

Chia sẻ: Nguyen Nhi | Ngày: | Loại File: PDF | Số trang:97

Thêm vào BST

Báo xấu

69
lượt xem 4
download

Download Vui lòng tải xuống để xem tài liệu đầy đủ

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.

Chủ đề:

Bình luận(0) Đăng nhập để gửi bình luận!

Lưu

Nội dung Text: Báo cáo nghiên cứu nông nghiệp " Agriculture Sector Research Priorities "

Agriculture Sector Research Priorities Research Priority Workbook Hanoi: December 14: 2010
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 1
Livestock............................................................................................................................................90 Forestry .............................................................................................................................................93 Fisheries ............................................................................................................................................95 2
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 1 The primary objective behind Research & Development (R&D ) 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 setting is the central issue of research and extension management. It is a complex task. It must be done in a systematic framework able to allow the results to support open and robust decision‐ 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 choices made will be unlikely to produce results of maximum benefit to Vietnam. At worst, the results will be irrelevant and provide no return for the public investment involved. Because priority 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 agriculture sub‐sectors (e.g. Crops, Livestock, Fisheries, Forestry, Environment, Policy etc.) and then within each subsector what should be the budget allocation to all the different crops and products? 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 either 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 expenditure. 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 between the many different crops or products from 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 3
HIERARCHY OF PRIORITIES & RESOURCE ALLOCATION WHOLE OF AGRICULTURE &RURAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH & QUARANTINE & BIO- FINANCE & FOREIGN RELATIONS AGRICULTURE & POLICY DEVELOPMENT SECURITY ADMINISTRATION & TRADE RURAL DEVELOPMENT OTHER LIVESTOCK CROPS FISHERIES FORESTRY SECTORS ??? FOOD PULP & NON-WOOD LARGE BAMBOO INDUSTRIAL STAPLE HORTICULTURE PROCESSING SMALL FOREST CONSERVATION RICE TIMBER RATTAN CROPS CROPS CROPS VALUE LOGS PRODUCTS ADDING PRIORITY PROGRAMS PRIORITY PROGRAMS VACCINES LARGE SMALL PIGS POULTRY ANIMAL FEEDSTUFFS ANIMALS RUMINANTS REMEDIES FRESH COLD POST 4 MARINE CRUSTACEANS MOLLUSCS WATER WATER HARVEST & PRIORITY PROGRAMS FINFISH FISH FISH PROCESSING PRIORITY PROGRAMS
The CARD Program has worked with MARD to demonstrate the methodology at the sub‐sector (Crops, Livestock, 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 priorities, 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 agreement 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 responsibility 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) 100% 90% 80% 40.3 40.8 41.3 70% 60% Trade and Services 50% Industry and Cons truction Extended Agriculture 35.4 39.4 40% 41.6 30% 20% 23.3 20.4 10% 17.6 0% 2000 2004 2008 5
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 50 45 Urban 40 Rural 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1998 2002 2004 2006 2008 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 improved, 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 Methodology2 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, quality, marketing 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 appropriate 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 been used in more than 60 other research organisations in Asia, Australia and New Zealand, USA and Europe. The conceptual analytic framework is based on the one published by the Industrial Research Institute, New York in 1986, viz: R N Foster, L H Linden, R L Whiteley and A M Kantrow, Improving the return on R&D‐I, in 'Measuring and Improving the Performance and Return on R&D', IRI, New York (originally published in Research Management, January 1985). 6
• 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 exclusive and collectively exhaustive, consistently 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 Vietnam is a six‐step process. 1. Define broad Areas of Research Opportunity (AROs) at the sub‐sector level 2. Prioritise AROs at the sub‐sector level 3. Prioritise crops/products within AROs at the sub‐sector level 4. From the results of the sub‐sector prioritisation 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 reports and a National R&D Investment Portfolio and Policy Statement Figure 2: Use of Priorities to Assist in Selection of Research Programs/Projects St St ro ro ng Se ng le E m sis Em ct ATTRACTIVENESS Y iv ph IT ph e IV E a as T m C ph is E L as SE is D SE A E R L C im IN ite d Su pp or t F E A S IB IL IT Y 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 investment. 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 value for money will be supported. 7
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 & Against Achievement of Potentials 3. Potential Contribution of R & D to Development 4. R &D Capacity Within 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 assessment 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 represents researchers, extension workers and academics, farmers, politicians and the agricultural industry and other stakeholders, the methodology ensures that the best recommendations possible at the 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. 8
RETURN FROM R&D FOR EACH AREA OF RESEARCH OPPORTUNITY 100 90 8 1 80 70 3 60 5 Attractiveness 50 40 6 7 30 4 20 10 2 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Feasibility 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 and 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 9
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 read 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. 10
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 11
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) 12
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) 13
Gross Output for the Livestock Sector (Billion VND 1994 prices) 25000 Big animals Poultry 20000 Non‐meat product 15000 10000 5000 0 14
Exports& Imports Export by Sector (Million USD) Export & Import of Crop Products Export of Crops/Cultivation Products (Mil USD 15
16
Tea Export 160 200 Volume (000 tons) 140 180 Value (mil.$) Volume (000 tons) 120 160 value (mil.$) 100 140 80 120 60 100 40 80 20 60 0 40 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Prel. 2009 Import of Crops/Cultivation Products (000 USD) 600000 500000 rice 400000 coffee Fruit & Vegetables 300000 tea Pesticide pepper 200000 pesticide 100000 fruit&vegetables rice 0 17
Import and Export of Livestock Products Import and Export of Livestock Products (Meat and Edible Offal $US 000) 200000 Import 180000 Export 160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Import of milk/milk products (mil.USD) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1995 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 2009 18
Import and Export of Fisheries Products Export of Fish products (mill $) Import value of fish products ($ US) 35000000 30000000 25000000 20000000 15000000 10000000 50000000 0 2007 2008 2009 19