The race for what's left

With the world’s population reaching 7.3 billion people this year, there is no doubt that new pressures are being put on nation’s natural resources. One of these major pressures is land space and the water resources associated with them. As a result “land-grabs” have been a new phase of foreign direct investment, especially within African farmland (Allan, 2013). Even though most countries have the space to be potentially food self-sufficient, they do not necessarily have enough water to do so. Therefore, areas such as Sub-Saharan Africa, are leasing land at reduced prices to countries such as China, India and Saudi Arabia (Ananthaswamy, 2011). This dash for resources may appear to be a suitable solution, however could lead to potential conflicts between nations.

Over a period of 5 years, Saudi Arabia leased 376,000 hectares of land in Sudan in order to grow food to be exported back to their homeland. This is a relatively cheap solution as it costs less than developed irrigation systems. However I find myself asking, why don’t these countries just import the food they need? Suweis et.al (2011) suggests that due to the complexity of trade markets, the driving forces of an increasing population and increased economic development, is forcing these water-poor countries to increase their security. In a changing world, leasing land at a fixed price is not subject to the market forces of food supply and therefore ensuring those at the top, stay there.

With the rich getting richer and solutions to potential water conflict being resolved short-term, are there any adverse long-term effects that may result? D’Odorico et.al (2010) suggests that these land-grabs within the virtual water network may result in societies becoming less resilient to severe droughts. This exploitation of otherwise unused supplies could dry-up resulting in catastrophic consequences in the future. With Climate Change increasing the likelihood of severe droughts occurring, tensions will rise as the fight for land may see these big players at the top looking for alternative solutions to the problem sooner than they originally thought.

Source: Chris Madden