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
responds to the Socio-economic Plan and which targets areas of emphasis including
infrastructure, income generation and poverty alleviation for rural communities and
development of agriculture exports. In this plan a number of expected outcomes are
described. The task of the research community is to respond to this Rural Development
Plan and to identify areas and opportunities for research to contribute to achievement of
the Government of Vietnam’s expected rural development outcomes.
15 trang |
Chia sẻ: ttlbattu | Lượt xem: 1797 | Lượt tải: 0
Bạn đang xem nội dung tài liệu Đề tài Priority setting workshop Hanoi, để tải tài liệu về máy bạn click vào nút DOWNLOAD ở trên
Ministry of Agriculture &
Rural Development
Forestry Research Priorities 2007 -2012
Priority Setting Workshop
Hanoi
July 2007
Forestry Research and Development Priorities i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 1
2 Methodology............................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Workshop Objectives.......................................................................................... 2
2.2 Research Priority Framework ............................................................................. 3
2.3 Pre-Workshop Preparation.................................................................................. 4
2.3.1 Organisation and Planning.......................................................................... 4
2.3.2 Training in Priority Setting Methodology................................................... 4
2.3.3 Areas of Research Opportunity................................................................... 4
2.3.4 Data & Evaluation Sheets and Workshop Instructions............................... 4
2.4 Workshop Format ............................................................................................... 5
2.4.1 Workshop Venues and Format.................................................................... 5
2.4.2 Workshop Chairpersons and Group Facilitators......................................... 5
2.4.3 Workshop Process....................................................................................... 5
3 Workshop Results ....................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Return on Investment.......................................................................................... 6
3.2 Attractiveness...................................................................................................... 7
3.3 Feasibility............................................................................................................ 9
4 Priorities within ARDOs........................................................................................... 10
5 Investment Portfolio.................................................................................................. 12
6 The Next Steps.......................................................................................................... 13
Forestry Research and Development Priorities 1
1 Introduction
The Government of Vietnam’s Socio-Economic Plan outlines the government’s
expectations for agriculture and rural development. The Ministry of Agriculture and
Rural Development (MARD) has a comprehensive Rural Development Plan1 that
responds to the Socio-economic Plan and which targets areas of emphasis including
infrastructure, income generation and poverty alleviation for rural communities and
development of agriculture exports. In this plan a number of expected outcomes are
described. The task of the research community is to respond to this Rural Development
Plan and to identify areas and opportunities for research to contribute to achievement of
the Government of Vietnam’s expected rural development outcomes.
MARD has recently conducted a review of its research program. An extract from that
review states:
“Science and technology do not exert significant impacts on the implementation of
socioeconomic development objectives. The management of science and technology has
improved, but only at a slow rate and subsidy is still very prevalent. The research quality
appears to be low and disconnected with production and business practices. Science and
technology market is slow in its establishment. Investment in science and technology is
scattered with low efficiency”.
MARD has responded to this review and has embarked on a research reform program
with an expectation that the efficiency and effectiveness of investment in agricultural
research will be improved. It has requested support from the AusAID funded
Collaboration for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD) to assist in development
of a policy and strategy for agricultural research in Vietnam.
Many of the research plans developed within MARD focus on production targets, either
through increases in areas or production per area. The key question to ask is, “How will
research contribute to achievement of these targets?” For some targets, the contribution
of research may be very large, but for others, especially where investment in
infrastructure is required, the contribution form research, while important, may be less
important.
Government support for forestry through the 5 million hectare program reinforces the
need for research to contribute to the expansion of production from forestry activities
through research into the most suitable species for the 9 forest ecosystems in Vietnam.
This is most likely to be achieved through selection and breeding programs to improve
the genetic potential of most suitable species, through development of appropriate forest
and small scale woodlot production and management systems, pest and disease
management practices and harvest and post-harvest practices that maximizes the value of
wood products. In addition to this the environmental protection value of forests and the
1 MARD (2006)-The Five-Year Socio-Economic Development Plan 2006-2010, Ministry of Agriculture
and Rural Development, HANOI, March 2006
Forestry Research and Development Priorities 2
cultural/handicraft and social values of forest and non-timber forest products is an added
dimension. To date much of the research activity has focused on small timber production
systems with production destined for pulp and fibreboard processing.
The challenges for research have also changed. While the emphasis on increasing
production through increasing area is a major national goal, the challenge is for research
to provide results that will enable investors in forest and forest products to maximise
returns on their investment. The emphasis is likely to shift to greater diversification in
production, a focus on higher value timber production, improved harvest and post harvest
management, introduction of diversified and improved processing and manufacturing
systems and understanding the intrinsic values of forests, conservation and enhancement
of environmental protection.
The opportunities for research to contribute to continued growth in the agriculture and
forestry sector have increased and the research issues have become more complex.
However there is limit to the research resources (human, financial and infrastructure) that
can be directed towards delivery of benefits from research. Because of the limit on
resources it is necessary for the agriculture research community to be selective in
investing those resources in priority research programs that are most likely to provide the
highest return on investment.
A key policy question is what research to invest in. The development of a research
priority framework and research investment portfolio is the first step of a research
strategy that will lead to improved relevance and impact of research. Research priority
setting is therefore an important step in the research resource allocation process.
Methodologies for priority setting have been adapted for use in Vietnam in conjunction
with the AusAID funded Collaboration for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD)
This report details the methodology and results obtained from the Forestry Research
Priority Workshop held in Hanoi on July 2nd 2007. The research priorities determined at
this workshop is the first step in identification of priority research programs and the
determination of a research investment portfolio. Once this task is complete the Forestry
Sub-sector will prepare and publish its Medium-Term Crops Research Plan.
2 Methodology
2.1 Workshop Objectives
To demonstrate an appropriate priority setting methodology suitable for future use
by MARD.
To determine the priorities for investment in Areas of Research and Development
Opportunity (ARDOs) for Forestry
To determine the relative priority of forest crops/products/themes within ARDOs
To outline the next steps in development of research strategies for high priority
research programs and the development of a Medium-Term Research Plan.
Forestry Research and Development Priorities 3
2.2 Research Priority Framework
Priority analysis is based on a criterion based analytical framework2, which has been
adapted to conditions in different developing countries.
The conceptual framework is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Research Priority Framework
The Methodology was detailed in a Workshop Workbook (Attachment 1) supported by
Data and Information Sheets (Attachment 2).
The workshop aim was to create ownership through developing a consensus between
users and providers of research for the research priorities. Some forty-five stakeholders,
representing researchers and research managers, extension workers, universities and the
private sector research participated in the workshop.
The workshop process required individual participants to score each Area of Research &
Development Opportunity (ARDO) for each of the 4 criteria (Potential Benefits, Ability
(or constraints) to Capture Benefits, Research Potential and Research Capacity) before
they attended the workshop. Working groups, facilitated by trained MARD staff,
discussed the reasons behind individual priority scores and each participant was invited to
rescore if they desired. Individual Scoring Sheets were collected and entered in an
EXCEL Spreadsheet. The results from the Hanoi and HCMC workshops were combined.
Within each of the ARDOs the crops that made up the ARDOs were also prioritised as a
first step towards the development of multi-disciplinary priority research programmes.
2 Foster, R.N., Linden, L.H., Whiteley, R.L., and Kantrow, A.M., Improving the Return on R & D, in
‘Measuring and Improving the Performance and Return on R & D’ IRI, New York (originally published in
Research Management January 1985.
Forestry Research and Development Priorities 4
2.3 Pre-Workshop Preparation
2.3.1 Organisation and Planning
MARD established a Research and Development Priority Setting Working Group (WG).
The WG’s task was to provide the authority and direction for establishment of
agricultural research priorities. A workshop outlining the priority setting process was
presented to the WG and individual WG members undertook to promote the process and
facilitate and chair priority setting workshops.
2.3.2 Training in Priority Setting Methodology
MARD established a Monitoring and Evaluation Network (M&EN). The M&EN
consisted of staff from the Department of Science and Technology (DST) and staff from
research institutes with responsibility for monitoring and evaluation. Two workshops
were completed with the M&EN and at the conclusion of these workshops 12 M&EN
members from MARD and the then Ministry of Fisheries (MoFi) had demonstrated their
understanding of the methodology. M&EN members facilitated priority setting planning
workshops and provided group facilitation services at national priority setting workshops.
2.3.3 Areas of Research Opportunity
A workshop of key research staff from Forestry Research Institutions participated in a
preliminary workshop designed to reach agreement on Forestry ARDOs.
Seven ARDOs were defined. The format for each ARDO Data and Evaluation Sheets
was outlined and key specialist staff of Research Institutions responsible for preparing
draft Data and Evaluation Sheets the ARDO Leaders responsible for preparation of
workshop resource material were identified.
The Seven ARDOS were:
ARDO 1: Large Timber Production
ARDO 2: Pulp and Small Log Products
ARDO 3: Bamboo and Rattan
ARDO 4: Non Timber Forest Products
ARDO 5: Bio-diversity and Conservation
ARDO 6: Environment and Services
ARDO 7: Forest Policy
2.3.4 Data & Evaluation Sheets and Workshop Instructions
Draft Data and Evaluation Sheets were prepared and the PMU critiqued and edited them
to ensure that critical information was supplied and all data and evaluation sheets had a
similar format and content.
Forestry Research and Development Priorities 5
Data and Evaluation Sheets for each of the 7 ARDOs were prepared as a separate
publication (Annex 1 and 2) and distributed to invitees prior to the workshop. The
methodology was outlined and each workshop participant was asked to read all workshop
material and make a preliminary score for each of the four evaluation criteria.
2.4 Workshop Format
2.4.1 Workshop Venues and Format
One workshop was facilitated at the MARD Campus on July 2nd 2007.
2.4.2 Workshop Chairpersons and Group Facilitators
Dr Pham Van Mach and WG member Mr Nguyen Hoang Nghia took dual responsibility
for Chairing the Priority Setting Workshop. Members of the M&EN and additional
research institute staff met with the CARD Technical coordinator prior to each workshop
to outline the process of facilitation of work groups during the priority setting workshop.
The Workshop Facilitators were:
1. Vu Tan Phuong, FSIV
2. Dang Kim Khanh, FSIV
3. Hoang Lien Son, FSIV
4. Phi Hong Hai, Seed Centre, FSIV
5. Pham Duc Chien, FSIV
2.4.3 Workshop Process
The workshop followed the following steps:
1. Workshop format and process outlined, including a brief description of the
methodology and an outline of the priority framework
2. Detailed description of the Potential Benefit evaluation criteria including the key
assessment issues
3. Preliminary scoring for Potential Benefits for each ARDO by each workshop
participant
4. Work table discussion on reasons for high and low scores for Potential Benefits
and reassessment of preliminary scores by each participant
5. Collection of individual scoring sheets and entry of individual scores for Potential
Benefit for each ARDO.
6. Repetition of steps 2 – 5 for each of the remaining evaluation criteria (Ability to
Capture, Research Potential and Research Capacity
7. Formation of specialist groups for each ARDO and prioritisation of crops/outputs
within each ARDO
8. Presentation of workshop results to participants
9. Outline of Next Critical Steps in the development of research priorities
Forestry Research and Development Priorities 6
3 Workshop Results
3.1 Return on Investment
Return on investment is the product of attractiveness and feasibility. The relative return
on investment in each area of research opportunity is summarised below.
28
Workshop Output – Return on
Investment
7. Forest Policy
6. Environment & Services
5. Bio-diversity &
Conservation
4. Non-Timber Forest
Products
3. Bamboo & Rattan
2. Pulp & Small log
Products
1. Large Timber
RET URN FROM INVEST MENT IN EACH AREA
OF RESEARCH OPPORT UNIT Y
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
20
40
60
0 20 40 60
Feasibility
Attractive-
ness
Comment
The main points arising from the workshop’s Return on Investment assessment are:
Highest Return on Investment
Return on investment for Pulp and Small Log Products (ARDO 2) was assessed
as highest by a large margin. This assessment no doubt reflects the size and
financial contribution from the ARDO and the relatively short time from
establishment to income generation. It also reflects the large infrastructure
development in process. However although it is considered that there remains
potential for research to contribute to higher returns on investment, it is also
considered that there is more than adequate research capacity in this ARDO and
perhaps some improvement in research capacity in other ARDOs (e.g.
Forestry Research and Development Priorities 7
Environment and Conservation) may result in higher returns on investment in this
ARDO in the longer term.
Return on Investment for Large Timber was next highest, but assessed as much
less than Pulp and Small Log Products. Overcoming the difficulties of lack of
income between establishment and harvesting, through technologies such as
intercropping or integrating pulp and large timber production systems could
increase the Likelihood of Uptake and therefore return on investment.
Medium Return on Investment
ARDO 3 (Bamboo & Rattan) and ARDO 4 (Non-Timber Forest Products) were
considered to have medium term on investment with Bamboo & Rattan being
higher than Non-Timber Forest Products.
Potential Benefits for both these ARDOs were considered low, but the likelihood
of uptake high as both have the potential for rapid income generation through
adoption of new technologies and practices.
Low Return on Investment
ARDOs 5, 6 and 7 were considered to have low return on investment. This
analysis reflects the ability of these ARDOs to generate benefits in the short term.
This perception is strong amongst researchers with a focus on production research
and the workshop result is not surprising. However a broader cross-section of
stakeholders including those with a focus on longer term benefits from research in
Environment and Services, Bio-Diversity and Conservation and in Forest Policy
may result in a greater emphasis for these ARDOs.
There appears to be a relatively low level of research capacity in these 3 ARDOs
(particularly Environment and Services) and some emphasis on improving
capacities in these ARDOs appears warranted.
3.2 Attractiveness
Attractiveness is a realistic estimate of the benefits likely to be achieved. It is assessed
by plotting ARDO Potential Benefits to Vietnam against the Ability to Capture those
benefits (Likelihood of Uptake). Figure 2 summarises the scores provided by individual
participants at the workshop.
Forestry Research and Development Priorities 8
26
Workshop Output - Attractiveness
7. Forest Policy
6. Environment & Services
5. Bio-diversity &
Conservation
4. Non-Timber Forest
Products
3. Bamboo & Rattan
2. Pulp & Small log
Products
1. Large Timber
POT ENT IAL IMPACT OF R&D FOR EACH ARDO
76
5
4 3
21
0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5
Likelihood of uptake
Potential
Benefits
Comment
High Attractiveness
ARDO 2 (Pulp and Small Log Products) was assessed as having the highest
attractiveness. Its advantage over Large Timber is emphasised by the vast
experience, over a large number of years by producers, resulting in a relatively high
level of likelihood of uptake of new technology and management systems.
Potential Benefits for Large Timber was also high, but the likelihood of uptake
considered much lower. Research has shown that total income and average income
per year is generally higher for large timber but the longer production cycles and
the difficulty in generating cash income in the early years of production and
managing risk may be the man reason for a lower likelihood of uptake.
Medium Attractiveness
ARDO 3 (Bamboo and Rattan), ARDO 7 (Forest Policy) and ARDO 4 (Non-
Timber Forest Product) were all assessed as having medium attractiveness.
Forest Policy was assessed as having a relatively high Potential Benefit and a
moderate level of Likelihood of Uptake.
By contrast Non-Timber Forest Products was considered to have a lower potential
benefit but a relatively high likelihood of uptake.
Forestry Research and Development Priorities 9
Low Attractiveness
Attractiveness for Environment and Services (ARDO 6) and Bio-Diversity &
Conservation was assessed as low. While Potential Benefit for Environment &
Services was seen as being high, the very low level of Likelihood of Uptake
assessed reduces Attractiveness.
These results demonstrate the perception that attractiveness is likely to be improved
where there is a direct income benefit from adoption. This may have implications
on the future form of incentives to