ABSTRACT
The dynamics of land investments in the Nile Basin have been characterized by a search for food security, investment and speculation, as well as regional political influence (see Chapter 2 in this volume). This chapter takes the global discourse of land investments (‘grabbing’) as a point of departure and focusspecific investments by state actors and non-state actors from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) in the Nile Basin. While much of the drivers of the investments arguably represent an effort to both increase water and food security for the investing countries, it certainly goes beyond such considerations (Swain and Jägerskog, 2016). Other considerations such as regional political economy relating to political and economic influence are also key considerations. The chapter will aim to outline key considerations of MENA investments in the Nile Basin and its political concerns. Of particular interest will be to try to understand the strategies and choices of the investors (private, semi-private or state) to become ‘virtual water hegemons’ (Sojamo et al., 2012). Sojamo and others created the concept of ‘virtual water hegemony’ by combining the virtual water concept and the hydro-hegemony framework (Allan, 1997; Zeitoun and Warner, 2006). The virtual water hegemony framework posits the uneven distribution of power in controlling the flow of virtual water globally. The chapter takes the global dynamics of land investments in relation to water as a backdrop for an improved understanding of the MENA investments in the Nile Basin and will also initiate a critical discussion of the various ‘types’ of water that are being used in the basin for production in the land investments. Arguably, distinguishing between various sources of water (blue, green, grey water; water within the basin or outside, etc.) is important as that will affect the outcomes of any investments (whether by MENA countries or by any other investors). In this chapter we argue that the increased land investments by MENA countries can be seen as a riskmitigating strategy that enables them to have more control over their own food security.
