Notes

Land rights and access can have significant impacts on farmer and firm adoption of innovations. Secure land market rights and access support sustainable agricultural productivity growth by enhancing landholders’ incentives to make long-term investments (World Bank 2012). Moreover, secure land market rights facilitate the use of land as collateral for loans, which can be important for funding productivity- and sustainability-enhancing innovations. Many developing East Asian countries (for example, China, the Philippines, Vietnam) have carried out consecutive land reforms that enable the use of land as collateral and enable land consolidation, rental, and sale. However, in many countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines) land rights still impede investment (table 6.4). For example, in Malaysia strengthening land market rights and access may enhance the capacity of Malaysia’s farmers and firms to increase agricultural productivity (OECD 2017b). In Indonesia, complex and insecure land rights have impeded firms’ interest in investing in agriculture (FAO, n.d.).

 1. For instance, Malaysia places significant emphasis on agriculture and innovation as drivers of productivity, sustainability, inclusivity, and growth (national Agri-Food Policy 2.0) and emphasizes the role of new agricultural technology (information and communication technology, precision agriculture).  2. China’s net FDI to agriculture (targeting Africa and Latin America) increased from $190 million in 2006 to $3.29 billion in 2016, an average annual increase of 33 percent (Jiang,

Chen, and Wang 2018). net FDI has resulted in, for example, land acquisitions and imports of grains by state-owned enterprises (Zambon et al. 2019).  3. China, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Lao PDR, and

Myanmar.  4. Examples of such plans include China’s 13th Five-Year Plan (2016–2020), which called for an innovation-driven development strategy; Malaysia’s Agrofood Policy 2.0, 10th Malaysia

Plan (2011–15), and Economic Transformation Programme; Thailand’s Agriculture 4.0, 12th national Economic and Social Development Plan (2017–2021), and national Science

Technology and Innovation Policy and Plan; Indonesia’s Smart Farming 4.0 and Master

Plan for the Acceleration and Expansion of Economic Development; Vietnam’s Master plan on high-tech agricultural parks and zones through 2020, with a vision toward 2030 and The national Assembly Plan; the Philippines’ Smarter Agriculture and The national

Science and Technology Plan (2002–20).  5. Across 21 European union and OECD countries, the share of farmers with no formal training in agriculture was 73.8 percent in 2005 and 55 percent in 2010, with basic training was 14 percent in 2005 and 34.5 percent in 2010, and with full training was 12.2 percent in 2005 and 10.4 percent in 2010 , based on data from EuROSTAT’s Farm Structure Survey (https:// ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Farm_structure_survey _–_survey_coverage)  6. Korea has tried to improve both the attractiveness of agriculture among youth and farmer education levels. The share of agricultural high school graduates who become selfemployed farmers is about 1 percent. At the tertiary level of education, approximately 30,000 students are enrolled in agricultural colleges and universities; of these, the rate of becoming a self-managed farmer is about 7 percent (OECD 2018b).  7. The focus of investment varies widely from economy to economy.  8. For example, the netherlands has moved from potatoes to seed potatoes and from protected horticulture production to a strong global position in the high-tech industry of greenhouse construction (Dons and Bino 2008).  9. China spent about 2.1 percent of GDP on overall R&D in 2015, which is close to the Eu15 (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, united Kingdom) average, and slightly lower than the OECD average of 2.4 percent. The gap with the OECD average has been narrowing compared with the early 2000s (OECD 2016).

10. The Indonesian Agency for Agricultural R&D oversees nine major research centers on crop and livestock R&D and is linked with the Indonesian Research Institute for Estate Crops.

The Forest R&D Agency oversees most of the country’s forestry R&D. The higher education sector plays a fairly important role as well. 11. Private sector engagement is also minimal; for instance, in Myanmar, only one company carries out R&D other than some outsourced R&D (outside Myanmar) (Stads and Kam 2007). Cambodia has limited R&D in industrial crops (OECD 2017b). 12. For example, China restricts R&D into GM crops; a majority of public R&D is directed to experimental development. 13. The market failure argument was originally formulated to bolster public support for basic research, but an economic study finds that large gaps in the social and private rates of return apply to a wide range of industries, including agriculture (Pardey, Alston, and Ruttan 2010 ). 14. Private sector activity is diverse; for example, in value chains not all activity is related to innovation. This review focuses primarily on innovation. 15. For instance, weak enforcement of IPR; restrictions on private sector plant breeding and GM crops development; heavy allocation (three-quarters of public sector focus) toward experimental development that is typically considered to be a private sector niche (OECD 2016). 16. Private R&D is focused on hybrid seed, genetics of rubber trees, cultural practices, postharvest, livestock industry (feed, breed), and crop protection. 17. Consortia are research-innovation alliances that typically involve competitive and matching funding and diverse stakeholders, and address the entire innovation process (from identification to adoption). Chile and India, for instance, have significant experience in consortia. Other instruments for co-innovation are discussed in the section titled “Building private sector capacity for market-based innovation in the agri-food system.” 18. The Philippines views its partnership with the International Rice Research Institute as an investment to help address national and global agriculture. The Philippines’ partnerships with the CGIAR centers have grown and expanded from joint research undertakings to institutional development. The benefits include institution building, technology development and varietal improvement, training and technology sharing, and research capability building (OECD 2017b). 19. Mobile network operators, for example, can invest by providing large text packages at a lower price, collecting premiums, distributing payments, or participating in extending networks to rural areas. 20. For instance, Indonesia aspires to encourage 1 million farmers and fishermen to use Go Online by 2020 and grow 1,000 tech start-ups by 2020. Thailand pursues, for example, Smart Farmer e-learning to improve farmers’ and extension agents’ capacity (unCTAD 2018). 21. Based on data from the Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services World Wide Extension

Study data set (https://www.g-fras.org/en/world-wide-extension-study.html). 22. Such measures may raise awareness of networking opportunities and help search for partners, organize financing and operating networks, provide an interface for scientific and innovation networks through PPPs, and create international links and build global networks (OECD 2013). 23. In the Philippines, enrollment in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries programs has declined (Cruz et al. 2013). In Thailand, universities’ agriculture departments struggle to recruit students and lecturers (box F.7 in appendix F) (unCTAD 2018). In Cambodia (2009–10), students enrolled in agriculture and in animal science and veterinary medicine accounted for 2.3 percent and 0.5 percent (of all students enrolled), respectively (James, Gill, and Bates 2013). 24. CoEs are a policy measure used by many governments to promote a robust R&D and innovation environment by encouraging institutional profiling and generating a critical mass of researchers. CoEs are often located in HEIs (Hellstrom, n.d.). 25. China, Malaysia, and Thailand have all explored different forms of CoEs agricultural science (and technology) parks in China (CDB 2015; OECD 2018a), biotechnology CoEs (among others) in Malaysia (OECD 2016), and several science parks or CoEs in Thailand (unCTAD 2018). 26. note that data limitations on the enabling environment may limit the findings in this section. 27. Myanmar’s legislation may not be compliant with the minimum provisions of the TRIPS

Agreement (OECD 2017b).