Half the government’s budget and income from bonds – about VND98.5 trillion (US$4.9 billion) – is expected to be invested in the agriculture sector this year to ensure food security.
Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development Cao Duc Phat said it was necessary to boost agriculture to guarantee food for a growing population amid the effects of climate change, which were already having an impact.
Phat said investment in science and technology to increase productivity was among top priorities, along with investment in agriculture infrastructure, irrigation, science and technology, and human resources.
The government would also continue the implementations of the “New Countryside” pilot scheme to respond to climate change and sea level rising.
Apart from the budget and bond investment, there also was an annual VND7-8 trillion ($350-400 million) from the Central Budget Reserve for agricultural and rural development and provision for natural calamities.
Pham Van Du, deputy head of the ministry’s Cultivation Department, said rice productivity hovered around 5-6 tonne per hectare over the past few years while the rice cultivation area had shrunk to 4.1 million hectares.
He said that in the recent years Viet Nam had begun implementing programmes to develop high-yield, disease-resistant rice varieties along with promoting agricultural services and processing and trading agricultural products.
Du said the Mekong Delta, for example, was considered the nation’s rice basin, accounting for 30 per cent of the national agricultural production value, but the adoption rate of mechanisation was still low. This resulted in low productivity and quality.
“The huge potential of the delta is obviously not fully tapped,” he said.
Professor Phan Hieu Hien, of HCM City University of Agriculture and Forestry, said Viet Nam should consider using laser land levelling techniques and rice dryers.
Hien said if laser land levelling was used on the paddy fields the volume of irrigation water used would be reduced by 50 per cent and labour by 70 per cent. It would also increase the area of effective utilisation of land resources by 5-7 per cent and productivity would increase by 0.5 tonne per hectare.
He said rice dryers would help grains meet standard moisture content, minimise losses and reduce the percentage of cracked grain.
It was estimated that each year Viet Nam suffered a loss of $180 million through grain damage because moisture content did not meet standards.
Hien said the investment for those technologies would cost Viet Nam $400 million but it would see a return to profit after two years.
“This may appear such a large investment initially but its efficiency is apparent and sustainable in the long run,” he said.
Le Van Banh, director of the Cuu Long Delta Rice Research Institute, said harvesting by hand was widely seen as causing heavy losses. If combined harvesters had been used, 300,000 tonnes per year of rice would have been saved.
The delta alone needed 13,000-15,000 combined harvesters instead of the present 3,000.
Banh said it was not easy to buy combined harvesters. He referred to the paradox that machines made-in-Viet Nam were not available in great quantities yet farmers who received preferential loans were required to buy locally made machines.
“There is a need for investment to help combined harvester manufacturers expand their production,” he said.
Another indirect shortcoming in the existing policies was infrastructure development. To date, rice for export is mainly grown in the delta and transported by land and waterways, accounting for 60-70 per cent of regional freight. However, the investment only went to southern ports and several key regional and provincial roads at the expense of the whole land and waterway system in the rural areas which was the lifeline for purchasing rice, Banh said.
He said this resulted in rice exporters benefiting from investment in major ports and highways while dealers and farmers suffered from increasing transport costs due to a substandard transport system at the grassroots level.
He also pointed out the paradox where local farmers were being urged to grow high-quality rice while enterprises only exported rice of average and low quality.
