At the end of a workday, I was scrolling through Snapchat with no intention of looking for a new economic story. It was the kind of quick browsing that usually comes after the day’s tasks are done—until I found myself pausing on a series of videos posted by Omar Al-Juraishi.

Al-Juraishi was speaking as he prepared for an episode with the Minister of Environment, Water and Agriculture, and paused to discuss the experience of the National Agricultural Development Company, Nadec. He talked about its projects across different regions of the Kingdom and its partnerships with international companies, before moving on to self-sufficiency and food security.

At first, it seems like a story about a large agricultural company.

But the more I looked at the details, the clearer it became that the more intriguing question wasn’t: What does Nadec do?

It was: What does its experience tell us about how food security is built in a modern economy?

Because food security, at its core, is about far more than the number of cows, the size of farms, or the volume of tomatoes produced. It is a complex network that begins with a seed and doesn’t end at the store shelf.

Four regions—not one farm

The first point Al-Juraishi raised was geographic reach.

Nadec operates four major agricultural projects in the Kingdom: Haradh, Wadi Al-Dawasir, Hail, and Al-Jouf. Their production varies by location. Haradh is associated with animal and food production as well as agriculture, while the projects in Hail and Wadi Al-Dawasir include the cultivation of wheat, potatoes, and onions. The Al-Jouf project stands out for its olive production, with more than five million trees. Nadec describes it as the world’s largest organic olive oil project located on a single site.

This map matters economically.

The company does not treat the Kingdom as one large, uniform farm. Agriculture is inherently tied to place: water, soil, heat, cold, transportation costs, and distance from consumer centers all factor into the equation.

This is where the idea of geographic diversification comes in.

We usually associate this idea with investment: don’t put all your assets in one place. But the same logic can apply to production. Distributing operations across different regions can reduce reliance on any one location while allowing crops to be matched to the areas best suited to them.

That said, geographic reach is not automatically beneficial. Every new site also means additional infrastructure, transportation, management, and operating costs.

So the real economic question is not: Can we grow this here?

It is: Is this the most efficient place to grow this product?

It’s a small difference in wording, but a big one economically.

From importing technology to building the capacity to use it

The second point in Al-Juraishi’s discussion was international partnerships.

In the meat sector, Nadec established a joint venture with British company Hilton Foods to process and package red meat, with Nadec holding a 51 percent stake. The partnership provides for the use of international best practices and technologies in processing and supply chains. In its 2025 annual report, the company said the project supports the transfer and localization of global technologies through local expertise.

In agriculture, the same idea takes a different form.

Dutch potato specialist HZPC became a technology partner in the National Seed Production Company, which is 51 percent owned by Nadec. The agreements include providing expertise in the production, grading, and storage of mini-tubers and seed potatoes, as well as conducting trials in the Kingdom to develop the production of specific potato varieties.

Then came a more recent move.

In August 2026, Nadec announced an agreement worth SAR 85 million to purchase the assets of a high-tech greenhouse project from Pure Harvest in Haradh.
The facility, spanning around six hectares, uses hydroponics and climate control to produce tomatoes year-round in a controlled environment.

This is where the meaning of “localization” changes.

A country does not necessarily need to invent every agricultural technology from scratch, nor shut its borders to foreign expertise.

In economic terms, the faster route may be to import knowledge, then build local capacity to operate and develop it.

The difference is fundamental.

Importing a box of potatoes solves today’s problem. Owning the knowledge, seeds, and technology needed to produce them changes the economy’s ability to meet tomorrow’s challenges.

131 percent: How can we be more than self-sufficient?

Then there is the figure that caught Al-Juraishi’s attention.

According to the latest food security statistics published by the General Authority for Statistics for 2024, the Kingdom’s self-sufficiency rate reached 149 percent for shrimp, 131 percent for dairy products, and 103 percent for table eggs.

By comparison, the rate was 72 percent for poultry meat, 62 percent for red meat, and 52 percent for fish.

The 131 percent figure is worth pausing over.

How can a country achieve a self-sufficiency rate above 100 percent?

The idea is simpler than it seems.

When domestic production approaches the level of domestic demand, the rate approaches 100 percent. When production exceeds it, the rate can rise above that level.

But the figure does not mean that the Kingdom is “131 percent food self-sufficient.”

That’s because we are talking about a specific product—dairy products—not the entire food system.

This is important because food security and self-sufficiency are sometimes used as if they mean the same thing. They don’t.

Why doesn’t food security mean producing everything?

Imagine a country deciding to produce everything its people eat within its borders, no matter the cost.

In theory, self-sufficiency rates might rise.

But what if some crops consume enormous amounts of water? Or require a great deal of energy? Or can be imported more efficiently, allowing domestic resources to be directed toward products in which the country has a stronger advantage?

This is where the difference between self-sufficiency and food security comes into view.

The first asks: How much of what we consume do we produce domestically?

The second asks a broader question: Can people access enough safe and stable food, even when markets or supply chains are disrupted?

That is why the General Authority for Statistics measures food security across four dimensions: availability, access, stability, and utilization.

Imports themselves can be part of a successful food security strategy if supply sources are diversified, reserves are sufficient, and supply chains are resilient.

Conversely, a country may produce a product entirely within its borders while relying on foreign feed, seeds, equipment, or other inputs to do so.

So the question is not simply: domestic or imported?

It is: Where are the vulnerabilities in the chain?

Electricity affects the price of food, too

Another detail in Nadec’s experience may seem far removed from food: energy.

The company operates a 30-megawatt solar plant in Haradh. According to its 2024 sustainability report, the plant supplied around 20 percent of the company’s total electricity consumption that year.

What does the sun have to do with milk or potatoes?

Almost everything.

Modern agriculture requires water pumping, cooling, storage, processing, transportation, and temperature control. Energy is not a side issue in these processes; it is part of the cost of food.

Renewable energy, then, is no longer just a separate environmental concern. When it powers an agricultural or food facility, it also becomes part of an effort to reduce dependence on a single energy source and improve production efficiency over the long term.

And that is how the picture begins to come together.

Food security is a chain, not a farm

What struck me about the videos Omar Al-Juraishi posted was not, in the end, Nadec’s size, the number of its projects, or even the impressive figures one can pull from its reports.

What is more compelling is that viewing the company from a wider perspective reveals the nature of the food economy itself.

A farm needs seeds. Seeds require knowledge and technology. Crops need water and energy. Production requires factories, processing, and refrigeration. Products need warehouses, transportation, and stores. Every link in this chain can be a source of strength—or a point of weakness that emerges in a crisis.

That is why perhaps the best practical definition of food security is not that a country produces everything it eats.

A more realistic goal is to build a system that can provide food efficiently, diversify its sources, protect its most sensitive links, and adapt when circumstances change.

That is what makes the experience of a company like Nadec worth examining from an economic perspective—not simply as the story of an agricultural company, nor as standalone proof that an entire system has succeeded, but as a window onto a broader transformation:

from thinking of a farm as a place where food is produced to thinking of food security as an entire value chain that must be resilient.

Disclaimer: (This material was prepared under the supervision of a Yamamah Insights editor, with the assistance of AI tools, for financial education purposes. It is not a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security, and reflects the views of its authors, not those of the platform.)