11
Case study learnings
Mr LATIF explained the selection process for case study countries. He firstly explained the
selelection of the U.S. and Ireland, with the U.S. containing a rich ecosystem that includes
extensive support of the government, and with Ireland undertaking innovative steps towards food
security. Niger, Oman and Indonesia were selected to provide a range of experiences and maturity
levels in food systems, as well as geographic diversity across the OIC.
Mr LATIF then went on to go through a side-by-side comparison of each of the case studies based
on each attribute of the food syste, spanning assessing the current situtaion, monitoring,
adaptaion and mitigation, resilience and cooperation.
When discussing assessing the food systems, Mr LATIF highlighted the comparisons of the case
study countries, showing the differening roles of government instututions in supporting each
pillar of the food sytem, from availability, to access and safety. He showed that there was no
standardized approach in each country, contrasting both the U.S and Indonesia. While the U.S. had
a substantially scaled central body, the USDA, supported by the FDA, Indonesia had up to nine
individual bodies, each with a distinct role, including a government owned agriculture and trading
company. Mr LATIF also showed the substantial difference between government spend on food
systems as a share of GDP, ranging from 0.3% to 4%, and suggested that while each country is
different, a government commitment of at least 0.5% is recommended based on the overall
experiences of countries.
Discussing monitoring systems, Mr LATIF contrasted the various countries, and showed that OIC
countries faced gaps relative to the U.S. and Ireland. Both the U.S. and Ireland undertook robust
constant monitoring of the food systems, spanning annual surveys of households to track
challenges with affordability and nutrition, constant monitoring of agricultural systems and
tracking of food at retail and industrial locations to monitor active safety challenges. Niger’s work
with UN FAO to implement an early warning system was highlighted as a system that could be
utilized by the OIC member countries.
After transitioning to ADAPTATION and MITIGATION, Mr LATIF discussed several topics of
comparison. He firstly mentioned social safety nets, highlighting the U.S. experience with over 10
programs, with a particular focus on women and children, with the largest program, the
supplemental nutrition assitance program (“SNAP”) spending $68 billion in 2018, with similar
programs in place in Ireland. He compared and constrasted this with variants of social support
across the OIC countries sampled, with varying degrees of reliance on multilateral bodies. Mr
LATIF then discussed the important role of providing essential support to farmers, to underpin
their livelihoods, with a notable lack of insurance and farmer support programs across OIC
countries sampled.
While discussing resilience, Mr LATIF noted the extensive Research and Development
Expenditure undertaken by the U.S. and Ireland. In the U.S., in particular, Mr LATIF went into
depth on the $10 billion spend by both the government and the private sector in supporting
research, and the extensive government support of education in food and agriculture, discussing
how the land grant system supported public universities financially in return for educational
programs in agriculture. Mr LATIF concluded that Research and Human Capital were critical to
supporting food systems in the long run. Against such examples, Mr LATIF examined the progress
of the OIC countries samples, with particular highlights of progress in Oman, where $34 million
was spend on agricultural research in 2012, following the establishment of the Research Council.
There has also been close collaboraation between the government and Sultan Qaboos University
in Oman which has served to strengthen the food system in the long run. Indonesia also saw