In high-tech agriculture, technology is not only a tool to raise yields and product quality. It is the key that opens doors to knowledge and markets for farmers. Yet for technology to create value in real-world production, an open and consistent policy corridor is essential, especially for new, higher-risk technologies.

Technology “lying still” in the laboratory

According to a report by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development - now the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment - many research outcomes in crop science show a clear pivot toward high-tech agriculture. In the first six months of 2023 alone, ministry units bred and recognized 25 new varieties across staples, food crops, fruit trees, and medicinal plants, while developing nine integrated intensive cultivation and GACP-WHO management protocols for commercial production.

A link often left open in the value chain - postharvest - has also received attention. Scientists have completed process technologies for key fruits like bananas, durian, and avocado. These processes extend harvest windows by at least 15 days, raise uniform ripening rates above 95 percent, and prolong storage up to 25 days, meeting ever stricter international transport and export demands.

However, not a few technologies remain stuck in the lab due to a lack of enabling policy. A case in point is F1 hybrid vegetable breeding. Vietnam has yet to master F1 hybrid vegetable seeds - the very foundation of high-tech agriculture because they determine yields, quality, and climate resilience. The country still imports 80 to 90 percent of seeds for crops such as cabbage, kohlrabi, carrot, onion, cucumber, and melon. It is estimated that Vietnam spends more than 200 million USD each year on seed purchases.

One reason institutes hesitate to embark on this research is the large investment and high risk, while incentive mechanisms and risk insurance for scientists are lacking. Over the past decade, only the Institute of Food Crops and Foodstuffs has partnered with Japan’s Vegetable Research Institute, sending staff for training and acquiring technologies for F1 hybrid vegetable breeding. The institute’s team successfully created an F1 cabbage hybrid but had to stop at pilot scale due to limited funding and the absence of long-term support mechanisms.

One reason institutes hesitate to embark on this research is the large investment and high risk, while incentive mechanisms and risk insurance for scientists are lacking.

Another institute team cooperated with Belgium - a global leader in potato varieties and cultivation technology - to complete a digitized, integrated potato production protocol. The system fuses data and digital models to control all inputs such as seed, fertilizer, sowing schedules, tillage, and irrigation, helping farmers make precise decisions at each stage. If widely applied, the technology could double potato yields to more than 30 tons per hectare, enabling deep processing and exports. Yet the protocol has not been transferred to farmers for lack of policy and funding.

Gene editing is considered a technology of the age and a key indicator of a nation’s scientific and technological capacity in biotechnology. It also promises a turning point for agriculture by producing varieties with strong stress tolerance, climate adaptability, shorter growth cycles, higher yields, and lower costs.

Since 2017, domestic research institutions have undertaken gene editing projects in rice, maize, and soybean. Many have produced cultivars that are ready for production, and many enterprises have requested technology transfer. But rollout remains impossible because Vietnam lacks a clear legal corridor for gene-edited organisms. Do Tien Phat, PhD, Institute of Biology - Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, said gene-edited lines such as high-oleic soybean, nutrient-rich tomato, and virus-resistant tobacco have been successfully developed and are ready for transfer to firms and farmers.

On June 12, the Prime Minister issued a list of strategic technologies and strategic tech products, recognizing gene editing as a strategic application direction in health care and agriculture. This shows the legal corridor is gradually taking shape. Policies now need to be specified swiftly, including a flexible, dedicated sandbox for gene editing.

From policy to people

Many experts argue that institutional, financial, and research management bottlenecks must be removed. Nguyen Ngoc Son, PhD, associate professor and member of the National Assembly’s Committee on Science, Technology, and Environment, said the agricultural innovation ecosystem remains fragmented and lacks regional-scale incubators for high-tech agri start-ups to pilot models before scaling. Domestic technology is still weak, with heavy reliance on foreign equipment, seeds, and software. Tight linkages are still missing among institutes, enterprises, and farmers to transfer knowledge and technology efficiently and sustainably.

According to Do Tien Phat, PhD, if the state continues to fund research and scientists continue to toil away but their products never reach practical application, the result is not only a waste of the budget but also of brainpower.

Therefore, the first step is to change the policy approach, shifting from “encouraging” to “enabling” with mechanisms that open pathways, share risk, and catalyze multi-stakeholder cooperation. When the state creates enabling conditions, citizens, businesses, and scientists can together build an innovative agricultural ecosystem.

Nguyen Trong Khanh, PhD, Director of the Institute of Food Crops and Foodstuffs, hopes Resolution 57-NQ/TW on breakthroughs in science and technology, innovation, and national digital transformation will be the lever that brings technology swiftly into production, with a regulatory mindset that accepts risk and pivots from ex-ante to ex-post management of research results.

He cited shortcomings in Decree 70/2018/ND-CP of May 15, 2018 on “planning the management and use of assets formed through the implementation of science and technology tasks using state funds.” To transfer a new crop variety, scientists must draft a pricing proposal, report to ministries, and commit that the product will reach a specific scale in the field after several years. Success, however, depends not only on scientists but also on enterprises, markets, and investment. Consequently, scientists are reluctant to take risks in transferring research outputs.

With Resolution 57-NQ/TW, many scientists believe that valuable scientific products will be proactively adopted by enterprises and markets, while the state should conduct ex-post assessment after 3 to 5 years to evaluate outcomes, encouraging scientists to transfer results with confidence.

Resolution 57-NQ/TW’s push to accelerate the application of research into production will not only unlock the value of science and technology. It is also an urgent solution to retain the scientific workforce in agriculture, which has been facing a “brain drain” due to headcount reductions and insufficient incentives in recent years.

According to Do Tien Phat, PhD, if the state continues to fund research and scientists continue to toil away but their products never reach practical application, the result is not only a waste of the budget but also of brainpower. Scientists’ efforts go unrecognized by society and fail to create motivation for continued dedication. If unresolved through breakthrough policies, this reality will keep eroding high-quality human resources in science and technology, especially in high-tech agriculture.

Nhan Dan