Strengthening innovation policy and governance

measures focused on specific commodities could be implemented simultaneously with more comprehensive efforts to reform agricultural training and education and demand-driven public-private r&D.

The sections that follow outline complementary spheres of AIS investment in five areas that will be critical to spurring innovation and transforming developing East Asian countries’ agri-food systems.

Fostering transformative innovations in the region’s agri-food sectors will require countries to strengthen their innovation policies. government STI policies have traditionally focused on productivity and given cursory attention to wider agri-food system demands and challenges. A policy shift toward sustainability and a smaller environmental footprint has taken hold in the region. However, countries’ visions and strategies are not fully aligned with investments, particularly with respect to agricultural r&D and innovation. Several countries in the region, including China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam, have adopted new policy frameworks with a greater orientation toward sustainability, food safety, and the knowledge-based economy. Such strategies can support the transition to more sustainable and resilient agriculture, which responds to growing consumer demand for safer, more nutritious food and facilitates ongoing dietary diversification away from cereals consumption. A few relatively more food-insecure countries in the region still focus largely on productivity increases, albeit with an emphasis on more limited environmental footprints.

Fostering transformative innovations will also require strengthening the governance of AIS. governance arrangements for AIS vary across developing East Asia. All countries have a dedicated organization (for example, the line ministry for the agriculture sector, or a specialized agency under it) with oversight responsibility for AIS-related matters. However, the level of integration between the AIS and the broader national innovation system (nIS) varies across the region. Evidence reviewed for this report suggests that the institutions that focus primarily on research, and not on innovation more broadly, are often less effective in influencing wider AIS and nIS STI policies than those with an AIS-wide mandate. Coordination across agricultural subsectors (for example, through brokers and platforms) is still limited, apart from commodity boards.

Countries that have moved toward nationally mandated, but independently governed, AIS organizations (such as Japan and the republic of Korea) are better able to coordinate their agricultural innovation policies, and those policies are more integrated with the broader nIS, which helps ensure that a more coherent set of STI policies, strategies, and activities is defined and funded. Effective processes are generally informed by stakeholder consultations and underpinned by sufficiently resourced program monitoring and evaluation (M&E) efforts. The study suggests that assessment of innovation policies and instruments as part of the governance and decision-making process is still largely missing in all countries reviewed. The review indicates that implementation and institutional ownership of AIS in the region can be strengthened through (1) stronger coordination of agricultural AIS and r&D at the national level, and (2) greater coordination at subnational and subsectoral levels, using