Food security amidst water scarcity: Insights on sustainable food production from Saudi Arabia

S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N

2 (2015) 67–78

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Production and Consumption journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/spc

Food security amidst water scarcity: Insights on sustainable food production from Saudi Arabia Arani Kajenthira Grindle a,b,∗ , Afreen Siddiqi a,c , Laura Diaz Anadon a a Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, 79 John F. Kennedy Street,

Mailbox 53, Cambridge, MA 02138, United States b FSG, Inc., 500 Boylston Street, Suite 600, Boston, MA 02116, United States c Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Ave, Building E40-381, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States

A B S T R A C T

Water, energy, and food security are of critical concern as rising population growth and rapid urbanization place greater pressure on our natural resources. The trade of ‘virtual water’ through agricultural products and its appropriation through foreign direct investment (FDI) in food production have emerged as potential strategies for water-scarce countries seeking food security. In Saudi Arabia, where domestic agricultural enterprise remains a state priority despite extreme water scarcity, a shift to overseas food production to meet domestic demand could have significant implications for water and energy use as well as local labor markets. This study evaluates the growing internationalization of food production in water-scarce countries using the case of Saudi Arabia as a microcosm to illustrate the tradeoffs in resource consumption associated with crop selection and farming practices. This analysis indicates that the implications of different types of large-scale agribusiness must be more explicitly accounted for in government policy given the non-renewable nature of groundwater and energy. This work also quantifies the increase in the import of virtual water through conventional trade, which has significant potential to minimize groundwater pumping for food production in arid environments. A brief, complementary assessment of the growing role of FDI shows that further analysis is needed to ascertain the long-term resource impacts of direct investment in overseas enterprise and to minimize potentially negative impacts on water access and rural livelihoods in target nations. Active engagement of local communities and/or more holistic investment in infrastructure or improving agricultural productivity could also help avoid the potential for conflict and contribute towards long-term sustainability. Keywords: Water footprint; Water–energy–food nexus; Sustainable agriculture; Saudi Arabia; Land grabs c 2015 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. ⃝

1.

Introduction

Soaring crop prices and rapid population growth have precipitated increasing fears of a global food crisis (Brown, 2011). In recent years, fluctuations in cereal crop prices have exacerbated such concerns, particularly in countries highly

dependent on food imports to meet consumer demand. With the agricultural sector responsible for over 85% of global water withdrawals (FAO, 2009), the concept of virtual water has emerged to describe the water required for production of goods and services (Allan, 2003). Trade of virtual water in agricultural products has previously been touted as a means of

∗ Corresponding author at: FSG, Inc., 500 Boylston Street, Suite 600, Boston, MA 02116, United States. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Kajenthira Grindle), [email protected] (A. Siddiqi), [email protected] (L.D. Anadon). Received 27 February 2015; Received in revised form 26 May 2015; Accepted 13 June 2015; Published online 7 July 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2015.06.002 c 2015 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 2352-5509/⃝

68

S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N

redistributing inequitable water resources and diminishing

2 (2015) 67–78

2.

Background

2.1.

Water footprints and virtual water trade

the prospect of water conflict (Ansink, 2010). However, a more recent and potentially worrisome trend – driven partly by the 2008 food crisis and resulting export restrictions from major grain producers (Bossio et al., 2012) – is the rise of foreign direct investment (FDI) in food production. Often cited as ‘farmland grabs’ in the media, over 15 million hectares of farmland, primarily in developing countries, have been subject to transactions or negotiations involving foreign donors since 2006 (Von Braun and MeinzenDick, 2009). While the social, resource, and economic implications of trade in agricultural products have been actively investigated (Ansink, 2010), the impact of FDI in food production remains largely unknown. Even in countries with significant ‘untapped’ water resources, such investments can result in a large proportion of a nation’s water resources being controlled by foreign entities (Bossio et al., 2012). Livelihood impacts on local populations have also in some cases exacerbated rather than alleviated the potential for conflict (Davison, 2015). This work aims to explore the economic and resource impacts of FDI and virtual water trade as alternatives to domestic agricultural enterprise to meet consumer demand. In particular, this paper is focused on Saudi Arabia, which has the highest proportion of agricultural water use as a percentage of total water withdrawals in the Arabian Gulf (FAO, 2011a) and is at a critical transition point in its agricultural policy (FAO, 2009). The nation’s Ninth Development Plan (2010–2014) aimed to restructure the agricultural sector by encouraging both FDI and local production, consolidating regional and international cooperation while aiming to preserve natural resources and the environment (The Ninth Development Plan (2010–2014), 2010). This goal of preserving natural resources is however particularly challenging for Saudi Arabia, as the agricultural sector is almost entirely dependent on non-renewable groundwater that requires a significant amount of energy to pump in addition to the requisite agricultural energy inputs for mechanization, irrigation, and fertilization. These inextricable links between agricultural water and energy consumption, coupled with the influence of geopolitical events (i.e., the 2008 global food crisis and 2011 Arab Spring) effectively illustrates the far-reaching livelihood and resource impacts of food production for arid states. In conducting this study, we first discuss the water and energy implications of agriculture before providing specific background on the history and challenges of food production in arid environments, particularly Saudi Arabia, in Section 2. In Section 3, we conduct an evaluation of Saudi Arabia’s domestic food production enterprise, including increased energy intensity. In Section 4 we analyze and discuss the available data regarding the import of virtual water through food trade and the direct investment in overseas food production of Saudi Arabia. In Section 5, based on this analysis, we discuss the potential trade-offs between water and energy consumption and social and economic impacts in the quest for food security and recommend means of restructuring agricultural policy that could increase the longterm sustainability of food production, not just in Saudi Arabia but across the globe.

The concept of virtual water was first introduced in the early 1990s (Allan, 1995). The notion of a water ‘footprint’ builds on this concept and has been used to describe the total volume of water used to produce a product over the full supply chain (Hoekstra and Hung, 2002); also increasing overall awareness of the volume of water transported through global commodity trade. Water consumption volumes through ground/surface water irrigation, rainfall, and pollution assimilation are incorporated into water footprint analysis as blue, green, and gray water footprints, respectively (Hoekstra et al., 2009). Also considered in determining a product’s water footprint are the geography and season of production; the metric of water measurement (e.g., at the point of water withdrawal or at the field level); the production method and its associated water efficiency; and the means of accounting for water inputs into intermediate products (Hoekstra, 2003). The spatiotemporal implications of water footprints are particularly relevant to arid environments that prohibit agricultural production without irrigation; consequently, more recent work on the policy implications of such analysis (Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012) points out that water footprint reduction targets should be formulated on the basis of relative water scarcity, because the local environmental impact of water use is generally larger when scarcity is higher (Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012). Virtual water “trade” implies that the net import of water embodied in agricultural commodities by a water-scarce nation can help relieve pressure on local resources (Hoekstra, 2003). Dalin et al. (2012) substantiate this idea by illustrating that the number of trade connections and volume of water associated with global food trade doubled between 1986 and 2007 and suggesting that this form of international food trade has led to enhanced savings in global water resources and a growing efficiency in global water use over time (Dalin et al., 2012). This type of analysis has also been conducted in China (Zhang and Diaz Anadon, 2014). Boelens and Vos (2012) however argue that mainstream discourse around agricultural trade, even in water-abundant areas, tends to sideline the experiences, understanding, and ambitions of more marginalized water user groups (Boelens and Vos, 2012). Certainly, international food trade can have negative impacts on poor agricultural producers as they cannot compete with imported, subsidized food (Boelens and Vos, 2012). Despite the assumption that “virtual water flows from water-rich to water-poor areas” (Boelens and Vos, 2012), there are also multiple examples in large-scale agribusiness where commodity export has deprived local communities of water and income (Boelens and Vos, 2012; Progressio, 2010). Partly due to the challenge in setting a price on “lost access to water for local communities, ecosystems, and future generations” (Boelens and Vos, 2012), there is also growing evidence that transnational companies do not, in practice, pay compensation costs to the communities whose water resources they acquire or pollute (Bakker, 2009; Progressio, 2010; van der Ploeg, 2010).

2.2.

Energy inputs into agriculture

As with water consumption, the significance of the energy consumption of the agricultural sector is closely related to the level and intensity of food production. Unlike total

S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N

water consumption, however, energy consumption tends to increase with a transition from traditional to more modern and energy-oriented agricultural production methods (Vlek et al., 2004). This is true not just in emerging economies but also in the United States, where the relative proportion of food-related energy use (including agriculture as well as all aspects of transporting, preparing, and disposing of food) within the national energy budget increased from 14.4% to 15.7% between 2002 and 2007 (Canning et al., 2010). Agricultural energy consumption at the farm level can be divided into direct and indirect energy use, with direct energy use referring primarily to the fuel or electricity utilized to power farm activities, and indirect energy use referring to the fertilizers, chemicals, and other agricultural inputs produced offsite (Table S.1, Supplementary Information (see Appendix A)) (Schnepf, 2004). Soil cultivation and harvesting are together estimated to be responsible for ∼60% of direct energy inputs (Vitlox and Michot, 2000), but it is the energy required for groundwater pumping and irrigation that are particularly significant in arid environments where food production is dependent on fossil groundwater resources. The specific energy requirement per hectare of irrigated land varies based on water depth, the type of irrigation system, and the water requirements of individual crops (Vlek et al., 2004), but recent estimates suggest that the electricity required to supply groundwater is on average 30% higher than for surface water globally (Mo et al., 2011). In addition, the quantity of fuel required to pump an acre-inch of water at a given pressure increases significantly at higher water depths, with the fuel requirement at a depth of 400 ft. more than twice that required at 100 ft. (Martin et al., 2011). Therefore, although water-saving irrigation equipment (such as those utilized for deficit, drip and micro-irrigation) can be more energy intensive than traditional flood irrigation methods, in arid environments, the energy saving associated with the reduced pumping and distribution of groundwater by far exceeds the increase in energy use associated with such water-saving technologies.

2.3. Agriculture in arid environments: the case of Saudi Arabia 2.3.1.

History of domestic cultivation

Sedentary agriculture and pastoral nomadism dominated local food production in Saudi Arabia until in the late 1970s, when the establishment of an activist modern state provided incentives for larger numbers of Saudi citizens to enter wagebased employment. Although the introduction of progressive agricultural technologies such as mechanical pumping led to modest levels of commercial production at this time (Metz, 1992), average holding sizes and cultivation patterns remained virtually unchanged and over 50% of agricultural products were still imported (El Khatib, 1980). Keen to reduce dependence on food imports, the Saudi government undertook a multi-faceted program to modernize and commercialize agriculture in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Metz, 1992). This enterprise was purportedly achieve greater food security through self-sufficiency and the improvement of rural incomes; however, it has also been argued that the offer of free agricultural water and large land plots at this time provided a means of cementing political loyalties at a time when the Saudi political bureaucracy was crystallizing (Alterman and Dziuban, 2010; Jones, 2010). By reclaiming hundreds of acres of oasis land that had been lost

2 (2015) 67–78

69

to farming (due to improper drainage and inefficient surface irrigation systems) and attracting foreign firms experienced in large-scale modern agriculture to help establish productive farms (Lawton, 1978), the amount of cultivated land in Saudi Arabia increased from less than 400,000 hectares in 1971 to an estimated 1.7 million hectares by 2006 (FAO, 2009). The percentage of Saudi citizens employed in the agricultural workforce however decreased by over 70% since the 1970s, potentially due to the fact that the expansion of the Saudi economy has to date relied largely on expatriate labor (Elhadj, 2006). In 2008, only 13.3% (829,100) of the 6.22 million total registered workers employed in the private sector were Saudis; Saudi citizens also made up less than 2% of the over 500,000 workers employed in agriculture in 2008 (The Ninth Development Plan (2010–2014), 2010).

2.3.2.

State subsidies and side-effects

In the 35-year time frame between 1971 and 2006, Saudi agricultural policies and subsidies have significantly influenced crop choices and consequent water, energy, and environmental impacts. ‘Subsidies’ in this case refers to both direct subsidies for agricultural production and indirect subsidies for other production inputs. Some examples of direct subsidies are: prices paid to local farmers per ton of produced crop over and above international market prices, and subsidies for the purchase of general farm machinery and engines and pumps for groundwater extraction. Indirect subsidies could include electricity and subsidized fuel for the operation of pumps, machinery, and transport equipment. The impact of such subsidies on agricultural production have been comprehensively discussed by Elhadj (2004), whose work suggests that the state emphasis on wheat production in the early 1980s shifted the proportion of wheat in total cereals production from 50% in 1980 to 63.7% in 1981 and 85.3% in 1982, while the institution of subsidies for barley production in 1992 led to a 340% increase in production by 1993 (Elhadj, 2004). Saudi Arabia has been working to reduce wheat production since it achieved peak production in 1982 and the nation’s reductions in agricultural subsidies have had equally dramatic effects: decreases in wheat subsidies from a peak of SR6 billion ($1.6 billion USD) in 1991 to just SR2.536 billion in 1995 lead to a 70% decrease in wheat production, from 4.124 million tons in 1992 to just 1.2 million tons by 1996 (Elhadj, 2004; FAO, 2011b). In addition to the effect of subsidies on crop preferences, direct and indirect subsidies associated with crop irrigation (e.g., financial support for well drilling) have had significant impacts on groundwater use (Abderrahman, 2001b). Approximately 97% of irrigated areas were equipped for groundwater irrigation in 2000 (FAO, 2009), with an associated pumping energy consumption of 0.4–0.8 kWh per m3 (Abderrahman, 2001a). The Saudi government has encouraged the installation of modern and efficient irrigation systems: drip irrigation was first introduced into the commercial greenhouse sector in the 1980s and subsequently expanded to orchard fruit and date palm trees, although center pivot (i.e. sprinkler) irrigation has to a certain extent remained the preferred option for field-scale vegetable production as it is more costeffective (Al-Ghobari, 2007). Both of these technologies have been combined with agricultural extension services to aid in irrigation scheduling to minimize excessive water use (Abderrahman, 2001b), yet there is limited available information about the market penetration of drip irrigation in Saudi Arabia.

70

S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N

2 (2015) 67–78

Table 1 – Production of top 10 agricultural products in Saudi Arabia, 2007 and 2011. Product Wheat Milk, whole fresh cow Dates Meat indigenous, chicken Tomatoes Potatoes Vegetables, fresh nes Watermelons Fruit, fresh nes Cucumbers and gherkins

Total production (tons) 2007 2011 2,558,000 1,095,052 982,546 558,113 447,572 463,000 448,223 393,234 285,899 259,997

Exports (tons) 2007 2011

1,184,484 1,700,000 1,008,105 576,270 520,034 404,679 600,000 365,903 412,410 228,762

19 12,280 48,762 17,951 6,095 48,853 82,745 31,249 16,109 2,643

2,773 20,412 77,795 10,972 15,355 110,266 146,314 53,028 15,933 7,162

Imports (tons) 2007 2011 1,986 55,857 1,568 438,810 207,714 55,857 5,861 5,170 12,374 986

2,066,573 65,986 47,026 737,263 190,375 65,986 6,537 3,654 69,524 506

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Statistics Division (FAO, 2011b).

Table 2 – Self-sufficiency in agricultural products in Saudi Arabia, 2008. Product

Self-sufficiencya 2008

Wheat Vegetables Fruits Red meat Fresh dairy products Chicken meat [Hen] Eggs Fish

90.2% 91.2% 62.4% 37.9% 102.6% 50.8% 104.5% 48.1%

NB: No clarification is given in the cited report of the significance of >100% self-sufficiency. a Self-sufficiency estimates are reported by the Saudi Ministry of Agriculture in Saudi Arabia’s 9th Development Plan (The Ninth Development Plan (2010–2014), 2010).

In considering agricultural water use moving forward, it is important to recognize that crop water consumption can also be influenced by the volatility of energy prices. De Fraiture et al. (2007) suggest that the higher costs of fertilizers and other oil-based inputs when oil prices are high could result in farmers choosing to expand irrigated areas rather than improving yields (De Fraiture et al., 2007). This strategy that would significantly increase the total energy requirements for food production due to increased energy costs associated with groundwater pumping. Such intensive groundwater pumping can also cause land subsidence and saltwater intrusion (Al-Ibrahim, 1991) when groundwater extraction rates exceed rates of recharge. As groundwater levels in Saudi Arabia are dropping at an average rate of 1.8 m annually in several areas (Elhadj, 2004), minimizing groundwater pumping is critical not only to preserve groundwater resources, but also to help ensure their quality.

2.3.3.

Evolution in agricultural policy

The Saudi state continues to emphasize domestic food production in its statements and some policies; however, agricultural revenues as a proportion of the national GDP have been falling since the late 1990s, partly due to the increase in profits from the petroleum industry. Growing awareness of the need to increase water productivity has also led the Saudi government to decrease support for water-intensive crops such as wheat and alfalfa (for livestock production) and instead emphasize organic farming (which has lower water and energy requirements due to limited use of fertilizers and pesticides) and vegetables for human consumption (Lippman, 2010). Saudi Arabia’s ongoing and increasing efforts to reduce

Fig. 1 – Virtual water used for Saudi Arabia’s domestic food production in 2009, based on green and blue water footprints (FAO, 2011b; Hoekstra et al., 2009). NB: Water footprint data was unavailable for ‘fruit’, therefore the water footprint for ‘grapes’ was used to estimate the volume of embedded water for fruit production. wheat production are illustrated by the >50% reduction in wheat production between 2007 and 2011 and thousandfold increase in wheat imports over the same time period (Table 1) (FAO, 2011b). Although recent data is not available, these changes in commodity and exports combined with population growth would suggest a decrease in Saudi Arabia’s agricultural self-sufficiency, most recently reported in 2008 (Table 2) (The Ninth Development Plan (2010–2014), 2010).

3.

Analyzing domestic food production

Having discussed the resource impacts of agricultural production with an emphasis on arid environments, we now analyze some of the implications of Saudi Arabia’s domestic food production policies and activities before evaluating the potential roles of virtual water trade and direct foreign investment as components of a more sustainable agricultural strategy.

3.1.

A water footprint perspective

First, to fully comprehend the overall volume of water utilized through Saudi Arabia’s emphasis on domestic cultivation in the quest for food security, we have illustrated the total embedded water content (encompassing the green and blue water footprints) for Saudi Arabia’s top 10 agricultural outputs in 2009 (Fig. 1), as outlined in Table 1.

S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N

Fig. 2 – Total water use productivity, based on average crop yields between 2005–2009 (FAO, 2011b; Hoekstra et al., 2009). The columns and lines express water productivity in kg output and producer price ($) (FAO, 2011b) per cubic meter of water use. A selection of Saudi Arabia’s more significant domestic crops and livestock in 2009, along with their associated green and blue water footprints, can be found in the Supplementary Information (Table S.2, see Appendix A). These water footprints, encompassing surface and/or groundwater use in irrigation as well as rainfall, were used as the basis for calculating the approximate water productivity of each crop or agricultural product, graphically illustrated in Fig. 2. Based on this analysis, potatoes and cucumbers generate the greatest output, in kilograms, per cubic meter of water use, while all livestock (i.e., cattle, sheep, chicken and goat meat) have much higher water requirements per kilogram of total output. The total water footprints required for agricultural production in Saudi Arabia are not in all cases much higher than in other nations. For example, Fig. 3 illustrates the total water productivity for cucumber, potato, tomato, and wheat production in six nations and illustrates that the water productivity for cucumber production in Kingdom is highly competitive. This counterintuitive result is partly due to the fact that crop yields tend to be higher in irrigated than rain-fed agriculture. The key difference between producing foods in Saudi Arabia versus other parts of the world, however, is the extent of water scarcity in Saudi Arabia relative to the other nations in question (Table inset, Fig. 3). Although the overall yield of cucumbers per hectare may be higher in Saudi Arabia than all of the other nations being considered, it is questionable whether it is sustainable to grow cucumbers in Saudi Arabia rather than other countries given the extremely limited freshwater resources and the significant energy required for groundwater pumping and irrigation (Section 3.2).

3.2.

A comparative energy input analysis

Similar to the clearly delineated “water footprint” propagated by Hoekstra et al. (2009), Mobtaker et al. (2010) and Shahan et al. (2008), among others, present an excellent overview of the specific energy inputs and outputs in agricultural production (Mobtaker et al., 2010; Shahan et al., 2008). As data from Saudi Arabia was not available, energy equivalents for human labor, machinery, and diesel fuel consumption from Iran and Turkey were used. Energy equivalents for groundwater and fertilizer presented are based on the depth of the groundwater table and rates of

2 (2015) 67–78

71

Fig. 3 – Embedded water, expressed in kg output per cubic meter of water use, for cucumbers, potatoes, tomatoes, and wheat grown (from left to right) in Australia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, based on average crop yields between 2005–2009 (FAO, 2011c). fertilizer use in Saudi Arabia (Table S.3, Supplementary Information (see Appendix A)). This data was used to estimate the comparative energy productivity of some of the key agricultural crops produced in Saudi Arabia as well as the inextricable coupling and tradeoffs between water and energy use in food production in arid states. Although the energy consumed in groundwater pumping presently comprises <10% of the total energy inputs for production, a transition to desalinated water or brackish water would significantly increase the percentage of energy associated with water inputs due to the treatment required (Table 3) and is depicted graphically in the Supplementary Information (Figs. S.1, S.2, see Appendix A). As the outlook for the energy intensity of food production in Saudi Arabia is poised to increase, it is questionable whether water desalination for agriculture would be the most efficient use of oil or gas resources, which (unlike water) can be easily traded abroad.

4. Reallocating resources: food trade versus direct investment 4.1.

Virtual water trade

In Section 3.1, we illustrated the water embedded in some of Saudi Arabia’s most water-intensive commodity outputs, including wheat (Fig. 1). Now, in order to comprehend the considerable volume of water that traverses the globe through agricultural trade, we have illustrated the virtual water transported annually by the top ten wheat exporters and importers globally (Fig. 4). The total water exported by these wheat producers (FAO, 2011b; Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2011) is nearly ten times the total annual agricultural water consumption in Saudi Arabia (9). Also, although Saudi Arabia is not one of the top ten global wheat importers at present, they are becoming a more significant player as the nation moves to phase out domestic wheat production by 2016 (England, 2008; FAO, 2014). In addition, for the case of Saudi Arabia, the virtual water traded through food imports and exports between 2005 and 2009 is shown in Figs. 5 and 6. Note that in all three figures (Figs. 4–6), the virtual water content illustrated encompasses only the green and blue water footprints of the agricultural

72

S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N

2 (2015) 67–78

Table 3 – Estimated energy footprints of key crops in MJ/ton.

a (FAO, 2011b). b (Abderrahman, 2001a); calculated based on groundwater energy requirements in Saudi Arabia of 0.4–0.8 kW h/m3 . c (Abderrahman, 2001a); calculated based on desalination energy requirements in Saudi Arabia of 19.5–38 kW h/m3 , assuming the use of

multi-stage flash and multi-effect distillation desalination plants. d (Heidari and Omid, 2011); energy inputs for cucumber and tomato production estimated based on data from Iran. e (Ozkan et al., 2007); energy inputs for grape production estimated based on data from Turkey. f (Mohammadi et al., 2008); energy inputs for grape production estimated based on data from Iran. g (Shahan et al., 2008); energy inputs for wheat production estimated based on data from Iran. h (FAO, 2006) fertilizer application rates for Saudi Arabia are used. ∗ Note: Electricity requirements are modified from Iran and Turkey as grapes, wheat and potatoes are mostly cultivated in open fields in Saudi Arabia (with negligible electricity use), while cucumbers and tomatoes are cultivated in greenhouses.

Fig. 4 – Virtual water trade flows in wheat imports and exports, 2009 (FAO, 2011b). products in question (FAO, 2011b; Mekonnen and Hoekstra,

Saudi Arabia’s virtual water imports, although wheat imports

2010, 2011); the gray water footprint (i.e., the amount of water

have made an increasingly significant contribution since

required to assimilate the pollution generated by the agricul-

2008. Changes in Saudi Arabia’s exports of water-intensive

tural production) has not been included in this analysis.

agricultural products also suggest that more sustainable

As illustrated in Fig. 5, the import of chicken meat

agricultural policies are on the horizon; virtual water exports

appears to be responsible for by far the largest proportion of

for the key crops illustrated in Fig. 6 decreased by more

S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N

2 (2015) 67–78

73

Fig. 5 – Virtual water imports of commodities between 2005 and 2009 based on global average water footprints for animals and animal products and crops and derived crop products, respectively (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2010, 2011) and Saudi import data (FAO, 2011b).

Fig. 6 – Virtual water exports between 2005 and 2009 based on Saudi water footprints for animals and animal products and crops and derived crop products (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2010, 2011), and export data (FAO, 2011b). than two-thirds between 2005 and 2009. However, the scale of the potential water savings gleaned by phasing out the export of water-intensive crops remains much smaller than the potential from increasing water imports; such imports will also become more relevant in future as population growth and changes in dietary preferences (Brown, 2011) necessitate the import of more poultry, meat and dairy products to meet the needs of the Saudi population.

4.2.

Direct foreign investment

Direct investment in overseas food production represents an attractive, if risky, alternative to more traditional food trade (Allan et al., 2012). Recognizing their natural resource limitations, many countries have attempted to overcome the volatility of agricultural markets through the direct purchase or long-term lease of prime agricultural land in both developed and developing economies (Sojamo et al., 2012). Africa has been particularly attractive for such investments as significant tracts of land are under-utilized despite having adequate water resources and rapidly growing domestic food markets (Allan et al., 2012), but such investments are truly global in nature, with areas of Latin America, Asia, and Eastern Europe also subject to such interest. Largescale investments initiated after 2006 have been reported by the non-governmental organization GRAIN (GRAIN, 2012) and depicted graphically by Circle of Blue (Mangla, 2012). Interestingly, several emerging economies actively courting foreign investment to develop their own agricultural sectors are making similar investments themselves in developing nations (GRAIN, 2012). To illustrate the far-reaching impacts of such agreements made over the past decade, Fig. 7 highlights those nations that are known to have made and/or

been subject to foreign investment in agriculture as of January 2012 (GRAIN, 2012). Like other nations, Saudi Arabia has invested heavily in overseas food production. As of April 2009, the Saudi Company for Agricultural Investment and Animal Production (SCAIAP) had a budget of ∼$800 million to invest in foreign agricultural projects. These projects have largely focused on cereal crops; one example is the ambitious 7 × 7 project, now known as AgroGlobe, undertaken by the Foras International Investment Group (with the support of the Islamic Development Bank and other Saudi investment groups), which aims to develop and plant 700,000 hectares of farmland in Africa to produce 7 million tonnes of rice within 7 years (Woodhouse, 2012). This project and other known Saudi investments are outlined in Table 4. Although agricultural investments are sometimes combined with funding allocated to other mutually beneficial infrastructure, including housing (Ibrahim, 2010), this has not prevented local conflict over the reallocation of agricultural land and resources from taking place. Most notable were the altercations in the Gambela region of Ethiopia, where the forced relocation of 20,000 households due to a Saudi Star development project resulted in deadly attacks and reprisals on workers and military personnel (Ojulu, 2012). To evaluate the impact of such foreign investment purely from a resource perspective, the per capita renewable water resources, and relative water footprints of each crop are also illustrated for some target countries (i.e., countries that are the recipients of foreign direct investments, Table 4). Although wheat, barley, sheep and goat meat production are in almost all cases less water-intensive when produced abroad than in Saudi Arabia, it is also evident that water footprints for agricultural production are in some cases much higher in the countries targeted for investment (e.g., Ethiopia,

Agribusiness

Finance

Al-Khorayef Group

Almarai

Al Rajhi

Jenat

Kingdom agricultural development holding Derba group

Saudi star

Forasb

Al Rajhi

Foras

Argentina

Argentina

Egypt

Egypt

Egypt

Ethiopia

Ethiopia

Mali

Mauritania

Nigeria

Government

Finance

Forasb

Prince Budr Bin Sultan

Forasb

Manafea

Philippines

Senegal

S. Sudan

Sudan

Zambia

Government

Philippines

Fruit

5,000

126,000

105,000

5,000

200,000

78,500

d Includes investments in housing and infrastructure as well as agriculture. e Exact investment is unknown; area has been granted as a 25-year land lease.

a Refers to the type of organization involved in the investment process. b Part of the 7 × 7 project, aimed at developing and planting 700,000 hectares to produce 7 million tonnes of rice within 7 years. c 20,000 hectares in Mali of the estimated 100,000 will be planted with rice at an estimated cost of $200 million.

Agribusiness

Cereals

Agriculture

Rice, poultry

Banana, maize, pineapple, rice Rice

202,400

Unknown

Cropsd Fruit, vegetables, wheat

Unknown

5,000

300,000

140,000

25,000

1,000

42,000

12,306

200,000

Area (ha)

Aquaculture

Rice

Livestock, maize, tiff, oilseeds, rice, sugar cane Rice

Unknown

Barley, wheat, livestock

Poultry

Maize, soybean

Crops

Commodity

$125 million

Ongoing

Ongoing

Complete $200 million

Ongoing Unknowne

Proposed

Complete

Ongoing

Complete

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Complete

Complete

Complete

Complete

Complete

Status

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

$300M

$1B

>$200Mc

$2.5B

$4.1B

Unknown

Unknown

$164.5M

$83M

$400M

Total investment (USD)

(African Farming and Food Processing, 2012)

(Al-Eqtisadia, 2010)

(Kabukuru, 2011)

(Karam, 2009)

(Instituto Latinoamericano de Servicios Legales Alternativos. ILSA, 2011) (Saudi Gazette, 2012)

(Bakr, 2009)

(Ibrahim, 2010)

(Arab News, 2011)

(Karam, 2009)

(African Farming and Food Processing, 2012)

(Davison, 2012)

(Wahba, 2011)

(Sheline, 2010)

(The Poultry Site, 2008)

(Schreck, 2011)

(Vidal, 2011)

Reference

S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N

Finance

Agribusiness

Saudi Arabian Government

Far Eastern Agricultural Investment Company Dar Al-Maskukat trading

Pakistan

Finance

Agribusiness, finance

Finance

Agribusiness

Agribusiness

Agribusiness, finance

Agribusiness

Agribusiness

Organization

Target country

Org. typea

Table 4 – Saudi Arabia’s known large-scale foreign investments in agriculture made between 2006–2012 (48).

74 2 (2015) 67–78

S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N

2 (2015) 67–78

75

Fig. 7 – Countries known to have been involved in the purchase and/or long-term lease of agricultural lands abroad, based on information available on the GRAIN website as of January 2012 (GRAIN, 2012). Sudan) than they are in Saudi Arabia. This raises serious questions for the overall sustainability of such investments, not just in terms of total water consumption but also in terms of relative energy intensity. The social and economic context in each nation must also be considered in order to effectively estimate local impacts.

5.

Discussion

5.1.

Domestic crop choices and resource consumption

Our analysis suggests that from a water use perspective, investment in horticultural crops (i.e., quad cucumbers, okra, grapes) largely provides the highest economic rates of return per unit of water use (Fig. 2). Potatoes, despite being a field crop, also provide a high economic rate of return due to high yield. Fig. 3 illustrates that water productivity for cucumber production in Saudi Arabia is in fact highly competitive with other nations, although it remains questionable whether the extent of water scarcity in Saudi Arabia should preclude domestic agriculture entirely. Energy consumption due to agricultural enterprise was analyzed primarily in association with agricultural water consumption. At present, it appears that approximately 13%–32% of the total energy inputs for field and greenhouse crops are associated with the pumping and distribution of groundwater. A transition to desalinated water however, due to its much higher energy intensity, could have disastrous impacts on the overall energy productivity of domestic enterprise and result in up to 90% of energy consumption being due to the production and distribution of agricultural water.

5.2.

Virtual water trade through agricultural markets

Analysis of Saudi Arabia’s imports and exports between 2005 and 2009 suggests promising changes in Saudi Arabia’s agricultural policy, with increasing import of cereal crops and continued import of water and energy-intensive animal products to satisfy the domestic market (Figs. 5 and 6). However,

as the total volume of virtual water imports remained fairly consistent between 2005 and 2009, we argue that there is still significant potential for increasing the import of virtual water through food trade to minimize groundwater pumping for domestic agriculture and livestock production: the quantities of water used in the production of chicken and cattle meat alone suggest that the increased import of such products could significantly impact consumptive water use.

5.3. Global food production: trade versus direct foreign investment When considering the emerging trend of direct investment in overseas food production as an alternative to food trade, Fig. 7 clearly illustrates that the direct purchase or longterm leases of agricultural land in foreign countries is now a significant phenomenon with major implications for global food production. Although the majority of agricultural investments focus on Africa, Latin America, Central Asia and Eastern Europe are also emerging as potential target markets, and the majority of the OECD countries are already engaged in such agreements. Given such an unprecedented rise in such investments, research on the potential local resource, social, and economic impacts is critical. In the case of Saudi Arabia, the majority of foreign direct investments (Table 5) are being directed towards the overseas production of cereal and fodder crops, although investments in other water-intensive operations such as poultry (The Poultry Site, 2008) and aquaculture (Arab News, 2011) have been rising. Evaluating the water footprints of wheat, tomatoes, potatoes and cucumbers in some target countries for agricultural investment shows that the total water input requirements per hectare of land (Table 5) may actually be higher in these countries than Saudi Arabia; however, the relative water requirements for cattle meat, milk, and eggs are in all cases far lower in all target countries than in Saudi Arabia, resulting in lower overall global water consumption for the same overall production. Although it is beyond the scope of this article to conduct a water productivity analysis (as depicted in Fig. 2)

76

S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N

2 (2015) 67–78

Table 5 – Water footprint comparisons for international food production.

a (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2011). b (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2010). c Data taken from FAO Aquastat (FAO, 2011c). ∗ NB: Blue numbers indicate countries where the water footprint for crop production is higher than in Saudi Arabia.

for each of the key agricultural crops and target countries, in ensuring the overall sustainability of global agriculture from both an economic and water use perspective, it would be useful to intensify the agricultural production of individual crops in those nations able to maximize water productivity. Foreign direct investment in agriculture has the potential to significantly reduce local resource use in Saudi Arabia. However, as mentioned previously, there have been a number of violent uprisings associated with Saudi Arabia’s foreign agricultural investments: for example the 2012 violence against both Ethiopian employees and Pakistani subcontractors of the agricultural investor Saudi Star, allegedly due to the lack of inclusion of local people in “decisionmaking around the long term leasing of agricultural land in Ethiopia to foreign investors and regime cronies for next to nothing” (Makunike, 2012). Although such conflict does not completely undermine the fact that foreign agricultural investment can foster broader economic growth by increasing infrastructure and local access to markets in developing countries, it is clear that the interests of local stakeholders must be considered to ensure the long-term sustainability of such arrangements. In order to help prevent such conflicts in future, Saudi Arabia could consider increasing investment in improving agricultural productivity in target economies, for example by constructing irrigation and water harvesting systems, supplying agricultural machinery and farm implements, and by conducting local research and development, as China has done, in addition to earlier investments in railways, roads, and major infrastructure across Africa (Thurow, 2012).

economies (Brown, 2011) have resulted in escalating concerns about global food security. The analysis of food production in Saudi Arabia as a microcosm of food production in arid climates offers a number of insights for increasing the global sustainability of agricultural production.

5.4.

Recent work in both Saudi Arabia and Brazil suggest that the promotion of deficit irrigation strategies could increase water productivity with minimal impact on crop yield (Fereres and Soriano, 2007). Rather than supporting the excessive

Increasing the sustainability of global food production

The volatility of energy and commodity prices in recent years, combined with changing dietary preferences in emerging

Consider both water and energy in agricultural production The continued depletion of groundwater resources could necessitate a partial shift to the use of desalinated water to maintain the agricultural agendas of arid nations. In addition, many of the least water-intensive crops require a higher energy investment due to irrigation technologies, fertilizers and/or pesticide use. Consequently, the different opportunity costs of both water and energy should be considered in agricultural policy.

Adjust agricultural water tariffs In many countries, the only costs associated with groundwater consumption in agriculture are the energy costs associated with groundwater pumping and distribution. Although these costs are much lower in countries where groundwater levels are close to the surface, increasing the installation and enforcement of water metering systems on public and private wells could help reduce water and energy use by discouraging excessive irrigation.

5.4.1. Provide financial support for the installation of water and energy-saving water technologies

S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N

use of water in agriculture through fuel subsidies, increasing government financial support for the installation of energyefficient irrigation techniques (through tax credits and loans/loan guarantees) could encourage water and energy conservation through more efficient resource use.

Holistically evaluate the potential positive and negative impacts of foreign direct investment Further quantitative and qualitative analyses are needed to ascertain the long-term resource impacts of foreign direct investment in agriculture on a global scale. Although the import of virtual water through agricultural investment to water-scarce nations has significant potential to reduce domestic water use, such investments must be carefully assessed to minimize potentially negative impacts on water access and livelihoods in target nations. More active engagement of local communities could help avoid the potential for violent conflict associated with the forced relocation of local inhabitants from prime agricultural land and/or the loss of local employment and livelihood opportunities. In addition, more significant investment in local infrastructure and agricultural productivity could have mutual benefits in reducing transportation and storage costs and the resulting quality and quantity of agricultural output.

6.

Conclusions

As water, energy, and food security concerns are rising, the trade of ‘virtual water’ through agricultural commodities and direct investment in overseas food production has great potential for increasing the sustainability of global food production by utilizing water, energy and labor inputs more efficiently. Through this work, we illustrate that there are significant local and global tradeoffs in resource inputs in agricultural production that must be considered in developing more sustainable agricultural policies, particularly for arid nations such as Saudi Arabia. Virtual water imports through traditional food trade and foreign direct investment represent a way to redistribute water and energy resources globally. However, the direct purchase and long-term lease of prime agricultural land in emerging and developing economies include the potential for increasing conflict associated with foreign direct investments evidenced by recent uprisings in Ethiopia (Makunike, 2012). Such investments cannot therefore be considered a panacea for water-scarce regions of the globe and should be carefully analyzed to minimize potentially negative social, economic, and resource impacts and allow for long-term sustainability.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge the generous support of the Dubai Initiative at the Harvard Kennedy School, Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies, and BP p.l.c. Discussions with Prof. Peter Rogers of Harvard University and Prof. Tony Allan of SOAS, University of London were also helpful in the early stages of this work.

Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary material related to this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2015.06.002.

2 (2015) 67–78

77

References Abderrahman, W.A., 2001. Energy and water in arid developing countries: Saudi Arabia, a case-study. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 17, 247–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07900620120031306. Abderrahman, W.A., 2001. Water demand management in Saudi Arabia. In: Faruqui, N.I., Biswas, A.K., Bino, M.J. (Eds.), Water Resources Management in Islam. United Nations University Press, New York, pp. 68–78. African Farming and Food Processing, 2012. Saudi Arabia investing heavily in African farmland for food production. African Farming Food Process. Al-Eqtisadia 2010 Saudi Arabia launches 750 million riyal agricultural project in Sudan. Sudan Vis. Al-Ghobari, H.M., 2007. Field evaluation of drip irrigation systems in Saudi. Arabia. Water Resour. Manag. IV I 583–592. http://dx.doi.org/10.2495/WRM070541. Al-Ibrahim, A.A., 1991. Excessive use of groundwater resources in Saudi Arabia: Impacts and policy options. Ambio 34–37. Allan, J.A., 2003. Useful concept or misleading metaphor? virtual water?: A Definition. Water Int. 28, 4–11. Allan, J.A., 1995. Overall Perspective on Countries and Regions. In: Rogers, P., Lyton, P. (Eds.), Water in the Arab World: Perspectives and Prognoses. Harvard University, Division Applied Sciences. Allan, J.A., Keulertz, M., Sojamo, S., Warner, J. (Eds.), 2012. Handbook of Land and Water Grabs in Africa: Foreign direct investment and food and water security. Routledge. Alterman, J.B., Dziuban, M., 2010. Clear Gold. Ansink, E., 2010. Refuting two claims about virtual water trade. Ecol. Econ. 69, 2027–2032. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.06.001. Arab News, 2011. ICD, Saudi National Prawn Company tie up for $1bn aquaculture opportunities. Arab News. Bakker, K., 2009. Water security: canada’s challenge. Policy Options 16–20. Bakr, A., 2009. Interview - Saudi in talks to lease Pakistan farmland - official. Reuters. Boelens, R., Vos, J., 2012. The danger of naturalizing water policy concepts: Water productivity and efficiency discourses from field irrigation to virtual water trade. Agric. Water Manag. 108, 16–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2011.06.013. Bossio, D., Erkossa, T., Dile, Y., McCartney, M., Killiches, F., Hoff, H., 2012. Water Implications of Foreign Direct Investment in Ethiopia’s Agricultural Sector 5, 223–242. Brown, L., 2011. The New Geopolitics of Food. Foreign Policy. Canning, P., Charles, A., Huang, S., Polenske, K.R., Waters, A., 2010. Energy Use in the U. S. Food System 1–39. Dalin, C., Konar, M., Hanasaki, N., Rinaldo, a., Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., 2012. Evolution of the global virtual water trade network. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 5989–5994. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1203176109. Davison, W., 2015. Local Ethiopians miss out as big agriculture firms struggle in Gambella. Guard. Glob. Davison, W., 2012. Saudi Billionaire to Invest $3.4 Billion in Ethiopia in 5 Years. Bloom. Bus. De Fraiture, C., Wichelns, D., Kemp-benedict, E., Gordon, L.J., Hanjra, M.a, Hoogeveen, J., Huber-lee, A., Karlberg, L., 2007. Looking ahead to 2050: Scenarios of alternative investment approaches. In: Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management. pp. 91–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781849773799. Elhadj, E., 2006. Experiments in Achieving Water and Food Self- Sufficiency in the Middle East?: The Consequences of Contrasting Endowments, Ideologies, and Investment Policies in Saudi Arabia and Syria. Elhadj, E., 2004. Camels Don’t Fly, Deserts Don’t Bloom: An Assessment of Saudi Arabia’s Experiment in Desert Agriculture. London. El Khatib, A.B., 1980. Seven green spikes. Riyadh. England, A., 2008. Saudis to phase out wheat production by 2016. Financ. Times.

78

S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N

FAO, 2009. Irrigation in the Middle East region in figures AQUASTAT Survey - 2008. FAO Water Reports 34. FAO, 2011a. Municipal and industrial water withdrawal modelling for the years 2000 and 2005 using statistical methods 1–15. FAO, 2011b. FAOSTAT [WWW Document]. FAOSTAT. URL http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/area/194/E. FAO, 2011c. Aquastat [WWW Document]. Aquastat. URL http:// www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/query/index.html? lang=en (accessed 9.29.11). FAO, 2006. Fertilizer use by crop. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO, 2014. GIEWS Country Brief- Saudi Arabia. Glob. Inf. Early Warn. Syst. Food Agric. Fereres, E., Soriano, M.A., 2007. Deficit irrigation for reducing agricultural water use. J. Exp. Bot. 58, 147–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erl165. GRAIN, 2012. GRAIN releases data set with over 400 global land grabs [WWW Document]. URL http://www.grain.org/article/entries/4479-grain-releases-dataset-with-over-400-global-land-grabs (accessed 7.1.12). Heidari, M.D., Omid, M., 2011. Energy use patterns and econometric models of major greenhouse vegetable productions in Iran. Energy 36, 220–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.10.048. Hoekstra, A.Y., Hung, P.Q., 2002. Virtual Water Trade: A Quantification of Virtual Water Flows Between Nations in Relation to International Crop Trade. Delft. Hoekstra, 2003 ‘Virtual water trade: Proceedings of the International Expert Meeting on Virtual Water Trade’. Value Water Res. Rep. Ser. No. Hoekstra, A.Y., Chapagain, A.K., Aldaya, M.M., Mekonnen, M.M., 2009. Water Footprint Manual: State of the Art 2009. Hoekstra, A.Y., Mekonnen, M.M., 2012. The water footprint of humanity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 3232–3237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1109936109. Ibrahim, L., 2010. Nigeria: Saudi Group to Invest $300 Million in Katsina. Dly. Trust. Instituto Latinoamericano de Servicios Legales Alternativos. ILSA, 2011. Transnational Land Deals in Mindanao: Situating Ambivalent Farmer Responses in Local Politics. Int. Conf. Glob. L. Grabbing. Jones, T.C., 2010. Desert Kingdom: How Oil and Water Forged Modern Saudi Arabia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Kabukuru, W., 2011. The Southern Sudan Pie. Nor. Aid. Karam, S., 2009. Saudi-based partners launch Africa rice farming plan. Reuters. Lawton, J., 1978. Farming in the Sand [WWW Document]. Saudi Aramco World. URL https://www.saudiaramcoworld. com/issue/197803/farming.in.the.sand.htm (accessed 4.12.15). Lippman, T.W., 2010. Saudi Arabia’s quest for food security. Middle East Policy 17, 90–98. Makunike, C., 2012. Has Saudi Star learned right lessons from deady anti-“land grab” attacks on its Ethiopian farm? African Agric. Mangla, V., 2012. Global Map of Land Grabs by Country and By Sector [WWW Document]. Circ. Blue. URL http://www.circleofblue.org/LAND.html. Martin, D.L., Dorn, T.W., Melvin, S.R., Corr, A.J., Kranz, W.L., 2011. Evaluating Energy Use for Pumping Irrigation Water. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Central Plains Irrigation Conference. pp. 104–116. Mekonnen, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2011. The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 15, 1577–1600. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess15-1577-2011. Mekonnen, M.M., Hoekstra, a Y., 2010. The green, blue and grey water footprint of farm animals and animal products. Volume 1?: Main Report. Main 1, 50. Metz, H.C. (Ed.), 1992. Saudi Arabia: A Country Study. U.S. Library of Congress, Washington.

2 (2015) 67–78

Mobtaker, H.G., Keyhani, A., Mohammadi, A., Rafiee, S., Akram, A., 2010. Sensitivity analysis of energy inputs for barley production in Hamedan Province of Iran. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 137, 367–372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2010.03.011. Mohammadi, A., Tabatabaeefar, A., Shahin, S., Rafiee, S., Keyhani, A., 2008. Energy use and economical analysis of potato production in Iran a case study: Ardabil province. Energy Convers. Manag. 49, 3566–3570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2008.07.003. Mo, W., Zhang, Q., Mihelcic, J.R., Hokanson, D.R., 2011. Embodied energy comparison of surface water and groundwater supply options. Water Res. 45, 5577–5586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.08.016. Ojulu, 2012. Ethiopia: Land grabs fuel violence in Gambella [WWW Document]. Minor. Voices Newsroom. URL http://minorityvoices.org/news.php/en/1100/ethiopia-landgrabs-fuel-violence-in-gambella. Ozkan, B., Fert, C., Karadeniz, C.F., 2007. Energy and cost analysis for greenhouse and open-field grape production. Energy 1500–1504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2006.09.010. Progressio, 2010. Drop by drop: Understanding the impacts of the UK’s water footprint through a case study of Peruvian asparagus. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.289.5478.357d. Saudi Gazette, 2012. Saudi firm eyes vast hectares of Manila rice field. Saudi Gaz. Schnepf, R., 2004. CRS Report for Congress: Energy Use in Agriculture 1–44. Schreck, A., 2011. Saudi dairy Giant Spends $83M on Argentina farms. Assoc. Press. Shahan, S., Jafari, A., Mobli, H., Rafiee, S., Karimi, M., 2008. Effect of farm size on energy ratio for wheat production?: A case study from ardabil province of iran. Energy 3, 604–608. Sheline, A., 2010. Banks eye increasing value of land. Dly. News Egypt. Sojamo, S., Keulertz, M., Warner, J., Allan, J.A., 2012. Virtual water hegemony: the role of agribusiness in global water governance. Water Int. 37, 169–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2012.662734. The Ninth Development Plan (2010–2014), 2010. Riyadh. The Poultry Site, 2008. Saudi Arabia’s Al Rajhi to Invest in Egypt’s Industry [WWW Document]. Poult. Site. URL http://www.thepoultrysite.com/poultrynews/16735/saudiarabias-al-rajhi-to-invest-in-egypts-industry/. Thurow, R., 2012. The Last Hunger Season: A Year in an African Farm Community on the Brink of Change, First. ed. PublicAffairs, New York. Van der Ploeg, J.D., 2010. The food crisis, industrialized farming and the imperial regime. J. Agrar. Chang. 10, 98–106. Vidal, J., 2011. The transformation of the Chaco is an ecological and human tragedy. Guard. Vitlox, O., Michot, B., 2000. Energy consumption in agricultural mechanization. In: Weidema, B.P., Meeusen, M.J. (Eds.), Agricultural Data for Life Cycle Assessments. Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI). The Hague, pp. 64–83. Vlek, P.L.G., Rodriguez-Kuhl, G., Sommer, R., 2004. Energy use and CO2 production in tropical agriculture and means and strategies for reduction or mitigation. Trop. Agric. 213–233. Von Braun, J., Meinzen-Dick, R., 2009. “Land grabbing” by foreign investors in developing countries?: Risks and opportunities. Int. Food Policy Res. Institute. Policy Br. 13, 2009. Wahba, A.L., 2011. Egypt, Kingdom Holding sign deal on disputed Toshka land. Dly. Star. Woodhouse, P., 2012. Foreign agricultural land acquisition and the visibility of water resource impacts in Sub-Saharan Africa. Water Altern. 5, 208–222. Zhang, C., Diaz Anadon, L., 2014. A multi-regional input–output analysis of domestic virtual water trade and provincial water footprint in China. Ecol. Econ. 100, 159–172.