Vietnam has abundant human resources in agriculture, but has notutilised them properly, Nguyen Van Bo, director of the Vietnam Academyof Agricultural Sciences, told Nong thon Ngay nay (Countryside Today)newspaper.
* Vietnam is one of the world's topexporters of agricultural products, but why do we still have to dependon the imports of high-quality crop varieties?
Vietnam is now the 15th-largest exporter of agro-products in theworld. However, till now we don't have farm produces with high economicvalue. For example, we are a major rice exporter, but our rice is notknown by any special brand name. The only name for our rice knownoutside Vietnam is called "Vietnamese white rice". When talkingabout rice from Thailand , people immediately think of "Jasmine rice"or "Khaodakmali"; or in the case of India and Pakistan , they talkabout Basmati rice and others.
If we look back atthe development of our rice species, I can say that in the past we paidmost attention to high-yield varieties which could be transplanted inall seasons, just like the "khang dan rice", Q5 or IR50404 and a fewothers.
In addition, in the past we didn't pay muchattention to rice-processing or investment. And traders didn't payattention to rice production either. What they did was to buy rice grainfrom farmers, which they then processed and sold in the market.
In the past five years, as a result of the efforts our staff, theVietnam Academy of Agricultural Sciences has developed quite a largenumber of varieties, but only 260 plant species have been recognised. Ofthese, 25 are of rice, 10 of maize, 10 of bean and 11 of coffee.
The figure 260 new plant species is quite big. Yet, these species havenot been able to meet the production demand in terms of number, qualityand productivity.
What we are facing now is the shortage of seed supply and plant degradation.
Another problem that I should mention is the lack of attention to thedevelopment of key plant groups in each region. As a result, while wehave a wide varieties of species, very few are high-quality andpesticide-resistant.
*Do you think that we have a very strong contingent of agriculture researchers?
We have almost 11,000 scientists and researchers nationwide. But welack talented people or "leading" scientists. I have to concede thatmany of our current professors and associate professors are already inan advancing age, while the young and capable scientists are not many.The present salary structure is also low and this drives many young,talented scientists out of public offices. They moved to work at privateenterprises or to set up their own business.
It ishigh time for Vietnam to adopt favourable policies and grant specialtreatment to talented people. This is the only way we can retain goodpeople to work for us.
*Some people complain thatscientific studies on agriculture are not valued in our country. This isthe main reason why scientists cannot live on their salary. Do youagree?
In fact, the state budget allocated toscientific researches in the past few years has increased at an averageof 10-12 percent per annum. Of course, the sum is too small to comparewith other countries. But for us, it is a big encouragement from thegovernment.
In my opinion, it is not an issue of how much money we have.
What matters is how the money is used. Why do I say so? Because wehave not made the best of the meagre sum we have. In other words, peopleare the decisive factor in ensuring that money is used in the bestpossible manner. In this case, these people are the scientists.
It has been a practice in our country for quite a long time to focustoo much on money management. This is wrong. Instead, we should focus onthe management of the scientists, because they are the ones who decidehow the money is spent. For example, we can build a million-dollarlaboratory in three months, but it would take the users between 10-15years to learn how to use the equipment in that lab.
That's the reason I say it is imperative to have some leadingscientists in some special fields. We should pay more attention toquality than to quantity at present. We all agree that our humanresources, at present, are abundant, including people with doctorate ormasters degrees. But how to tap their talent remains an open question.
*If we want to attract many talented people to work in our primary industry, agriculture, how should we invest?
The most important thing, I would say, is the budget. But the moneyshould not be spread out. I think 70 percent of the budget should beinvested in main tasks and scientists and researchers who are engaged inthese tasks.
The remaining 30 percent should beused in other activities. However, in the plan we have to set prioritiesfor each period. For example, for rice variety development, we shouldfocus on those that will produce rice that is of high-quality andadaptable to climatic change.
Last but not theleast, the procedure of selecting research topics is also important. Ithink that we must change it. The research topics should come frompractical demand, not from the scientists themselves. In other words, ademand for the application of the research topic already exists when theresearch is undertaken./
* Vietnam is one of the world's topexporters of agricultural products, but why do we still have to dependon the imports of high-quality crop varieties?
Vietnam is now the 15th-largest exporter of agro-products in theworld. However, till now we don't have farm produces with high economicvalue. For example, we are a major rice exporter, but our rice is notknown by any special brand name. The only name for our rice knownoutside Vietnam is called "Vietnamese white rice". When talkingabout rice from Thailand , people immediately think of "Jasmine rice"or "Khaodakmali"; or in the case of India and Pakistan , they talkabout Basmati rice and others.
If we look back atthe development of our rice species, I can say that in the past we paidmost attention to high-yield varieties which could be transplanted inall seasons, just like the "khang dan rice", Q5 or IR50404 and a fewothers.
In addition, in the past we didn't pay muchattention to rice-processing or investment. And traders didn't payattention to rice production either. What they did was to buy rice grainfrom farmers, which they then processed and sold in the market.
In the past five years, as a result of the efforts our staff, theVietnam Academy of Agricultural Sciences has developed quite a largenumber of varieties, but only 260 plant species have been recognised. Ofthese, 25 are of rice, 10 of maize, 10 of bean and 11 of coffee.
The figure 260 new plant species is quite big. Yet, these species havenot been able to meet the production demand in terms of number, qualityand productivity.
What we are facing now is the shortage of seed supply and plant degradation.
Another problem that I should mention is the lack of attention to thedevelopment of key plant groups in each region. As a result, while wehave a wide varieties of species, very few are high-quality andpesticide-resistant.
*Do you think that we have a very strong contingent of agriculture researchers?
We have almost 11,000 scientists and researchers nationwide. But welack talented people or "leading" scientists. I have to concede thatmany of our current professors and associate professors are already inan advancing age, while the young and capable scientists are not many.The present salary structure is also low and this drives many young,talented scientists out of public offices. They moved to work at privateenterprises or to set up their own business.
It ishigh time for Vietnam to adopt favourable policies and grant specialtreatment to talented people. This is the only way we can retain goodpeople to work for us.
*Some people complain thatscientific studies on agriculture are not valued in our country. This isthe main reason why scientists cannot live on their salary. Do youagree?
In fact, the state budget allocated toscientific researches in the past few years has increased at an averageof 10-12 percent per annum. Of course, the sum is too small to comparewith other countries. But for us, it is a big encouragement from thegovernment.
In my opinion, it is not an issue of how much money we have.
What matters is how the money is used. Why do I say so? Because wehave not made the best of the meagre sum we have. In other words, peopleare the decisive factor in ensuring that money is used in the bestpossible manner. In this case, these people are the scientists.
It has been a practice in our country for quite a long time to focustoo much on money management. This is wrong. Instead, we should focus onthe management of the scientists, because they are the ones who decidehow the money is spent. For example, we can build a million-dollarlaboratory in three months, but it would take the users between 10-15years to learn how to use the equipment in that lab.
That's the reason I say it is imperative to have some leadingscientists in some special fields. We should pay more attention toquality than to quantity at present. We all agree that our humanresources, at present, are abundant, including people with doctorate ormasters degrees. But how to tap their talent remains an open question.
*If we want to attract many talented people to work in our primary industry, agriculture, how should we invest?
The most important thing, I would say, is the budget. But the moneyshould not be spread out. I think 70 percent of the budget should beinvested in main tasks and scientists and researchers who are engaged inthese tasks.
The remaining 30 percent should beused in other activities. However, in the plan we have to set prioritiesfor each period. For example, for rice variety development, we shouldfocus on those that will produce rice that is of high-quality andadaptable to climatic change.
Last but not theleast, the procedure of selecting research topics is also important. Ithink that we must change it. The research topics should come frompractical demand, not from the scientists themselves. In other words, ademand for the application of the research topic already exists when theresearch is undertaken./
