Israeli bombs not only kill civilians and drive them into exodus. They also destroy arable land. Since 1948, Lebanon has a tumultuous history with its neighbor, Israel., that’s the least we can say. The two countries have faced numerous clashes, from the 1978 South Lebanon conflict to the 2006 Lebanon War and, more recently, escalated tensions and conflict spillover from Israel’s ongoing regional conflicts. Each of these conflicts has deeply affected Lebanon’s economic landscape, especially its agricultural sector, which is integral to Lebanon’s rural communities and overall food security. Understanding the economic consequences of these conflicts on Lebanon’s agriculture provides insights into the challenges and vulnerabilities Lebanon faces in maintaining economic stability and growth.
Agriculture accounts for a significant portion of Lebanon’s GDP and is an important source of employment, especially in rural areas. This sector has been a lifeline for thousands of Lebanese families, not only for food production but also as a major contributor to Lebanon’s export economy. However, recurring conflicts with Israel, as well as other geopolitical challenges, have led to substantial disruptions in agricultural productivity, infrastructure, and economic sustainability.
Impact of Israel’s war on Lebanon’s Agricultural Infrastructure
One of the most immediate impacts of the conflict on Lebanon’s agricultural sector is the widespread damage to farmland, irrigation systems, and critical supply chains. Many of Lebanon’s arable lands lie near the border with Israel, making them particularly vulnerable to cross-border shelling, airstrikes, and the presence of unexploded ordnance. Farmlands have been destroyed or abandoned as farmers and rural communities are forced to evacuate or cease operations temporarily, leading to a severe disruption in local food production.
A report from ESCWA, one of five regional commissions which work under the jurisdiction of the United Nations Economic and Social Council, states that “Between 7 October 2023 and 12 September 2024, approximately 1,879 hectares of prime farmland were damaged. The destruction has led to 1,200 hectares of agricultural land being abandoned, more than 1,700 units of livestock and 390,000 units of poultry being lost, and more than 47,000 olive trees being destroyed. Additionally, 93 greenhouses and about 600 m² of feed warehouses have been destroyed. This catastrophic damage threatens to cripple the country’s agricultural sector. By 11 September 2024, the bombardment had led to the destruction of approximately 1,200 hectares of both dense and low-density oak forests.”
Ongoing Israeli airstrikes on villages in the South and Bekaa regions have forced numerous farmers to leave behind their land and livestock. With no access to their fields, many farmers face deepening poverty, making it even harder for them to afford food and essential supplies. This drop in local agricultural output will reduce the availability of vital products in the market, leaving more people at risk of food insecurity and malnutrition.
Increasing imports might offer some relief, but the added demand for foreign currency would hinder Lebanon’s economic recovery, intensifying its reliance on external markets and further depreciating the Lebanese Pound (LBP). The conflict raises the need for foreign currency, driving up import costs and limiting access to essential goods. Attacks on border crossings, like the recent one at Masnaa, disrupt supply chains, worsening the situation. As Matthew Hollingworth, director of the UN’s World Food Programme, said, “Goods that would normally come overland through that crossing—the cheapest, most effective way to bring commodities into that country—will also not be able to be received here.” Furthermore, agricultural exports are expected to decline, worsening Lebanon’s economic crisis.
A study conducted by researchers at the American University of Beirut on the environmental impact of warfare in southern Lebanon highlights the severe damage to fertile topsoil caused by Israeli shelling. The research found that Israeli artillery had dispersed toxic elements, including mercury, into the soil, posing risks to the nervous, digestive, and immune systems. Laboratory analyses also detected lead, barium, and antimony, each with harmful effects: lead can impair brain and nervous system function, potentially leading to seizures, coma, or death; barium causes gastrointestinal distress and paralysis; and antimony poses risks to the skin, eyes, heart, and lungs.
Most concerning were the high levels of white phosphorus in some soil samples, reaching concentrations of 97,000 mg per kg, far above the safe limit of 800 mg. According to the World Health Organization, white phosphorus exposure can cause cardiovascular collapse, liver and kidney damage, loss of consciousness, and coma, and may even lead to death due to organ failure or myocardial damage.
A UNDP study on the affected areas covered the initial three months of cross-border conflict through the end of 2023, with a forthcoming report expected to provide updated insights on the extent of environmental damage.
Irrigation systems, vital for sustaining Lebanon’s crop production, have also been damaged or neglected due to the conflict. Access to water resources, already strained in Lebanon, becomes even more limited as infrastructure is destroyed or repurposed for emergency and defense purposes. Moreover, roadblocks, security checkpoints, and damaged roads hinder the transportation of agricultural products from farms to markets. This logistical disruption not only increases operational costs but also leads to food spoilage, reducing the overall yield and profitability of agricultural activities.
The lack of security and stability discourages investment in agricultural infrastructure, and Lebanon has limited funds to repair damaged infrastructure. Consequently, farmers in border regions are forced to operate with minimal resources, outdated equipment, and limited access to modern agricultural technology. This persistent underinvestment significantly reduces the competitiveness of Lebanese agriculture in both domestic and international markets.
Economic Losses in Agricultural Production and Employment
The conflict has led to steep economic losses for Lebanon’s agriculture sector, affecting exports, domestic production, and employment. Agriculture represents around 4.5% of Lebanon’s GDP and supports roughly 25% of the workforce in rural areas. The displacement of rural communities and labor shortages due to conflict diminish agricultural productivity, resulting in a contraction of Lebanon’s agricultural GDP. For many farmers, the loss of a season’s crop equates to a total loss of income, making them dependent on aid and significantly lowering their standard of living.
Agricultural exports, which traditionally include crops like olives, citrus fruits, and vegetables, have suffered from reduced production and damaged supply routes. Key export markets, particularly in neighboring Arab countries, have tightened regulations on produce from conflict zones, further shrinking Lebanon’s share in regional trade. This loss of export revenue contributes to Lebanon’s trade deficit and undermines the stability of its national currency.
The economic losses extend to the agribusiness and food processing sectors, which rely heavily on a steady supply of local produce. As local production declines, food processors are forced to import raw materials, increasing production costs and diminishing profit margins. Employment in agriculture-related industries declines as businesses cut costs or, in some cases, close down due to untenable financial conditions.
Background to “sharing” water resources
The Yarmouk River is currently being divided in an intense and competitive manner, which still may not provide Israel with the additional water it claims to require. Consequently, Lebanon’s Litani River stands as a primary potential water source for Israel in the future. Israel’s involvement in southern Lebanon since 1976 and its military occupation of the region since June 1982 have given new momentum to its longstanding interest in the Litani.
Israel has downplayed any current intentions toward the Litani, not raising the issue during recent discussions for a withdrawal agreement. Yuval Neeman, Israel’s minister of Science and Technology and a leader in the annexationist Tehiya Party, recently echoed former Defense Minister Sharon’s statement that the Litani was merely “a trickle” where it is closest to Israel. “In the future, if Lebanon chooses to sell us some of that small water supply, we might be interested,” Neeman commented. “Right now, it’s not worth mentioning.”
However, Israel’s on-the-ground actions suggest more interest than Neeman’s words imply. Hydraulic experts understand that diverting water near the Israeli border would only yield a small portion of the Litani’s total annual flow. Effective diversion would require tapping the river further upstream, around the Lake Qaraaoun dam, where the “trickle” averages 700 million cubic meters annually. In 1954, American engineer John Cotton developed a basic engineering plan for Israel to divert the Litani via a 100-kilometer network of aqueducts, channels, and tunnels, which would cut through the Litani gorge into Israel, extending as far north as Marjayoun.
This plan would necessitate control over the southern Bekaa Valley and most of southern Lebanon below the Zahrani River. Kamal Khoury, chairman of Lebanon’s Litani River Authority, stated that one of Israel’s first actions upon reaching Qaraaoun in June 1982 was to seize all hydrographic data on the dam and river, taking a complete set back to Israel. Neeman explained, “These were considered legitimate military intelligence assets.” He also confirmed that seismic assessments have been conducted to evaluate the feasibility of John Cotton’s proposed diversion tunnel. According to David Karmeli, an engineer at Israel’s Technion involved in many of Israel’s water projects, any efforts to divert water from Lebanon into Israel would fall under military control and remain classified as a military secret.
Long-term Impact of the war on Lebanon’s Water Resources
Environmental damage to Lebanon’s agricultural lands is one of the most alarming consequences of the conflict. Airstrikes, military encampments, and the movement of military vehicles contribute to soil degradation and deforestation, destabilizing ecosystems. Furthermore, pollution from munitions and the potential presence of unexploded ordnance contaminates soil and water sources, rendering many lands unsuitable for agriculture.
Water sources, already stressed by overuse and pollution, become even more vulnerable due to the destruction of natural reserves and infrastructure. Agricultural lands situated near combat zones are at risk of chemical contamination, which may lead to long-term health risks for consumers and impact soil fertility. This environmental degradation threatens Lebanon’s agricultural productivity and sustainability for future generations, placing additional strain on an already fragile ecosystem.
The full extent of the damage remains uncertain. Hashem Haidar, head of the Southern Lebanon Council, informed Al Majalla that approximately 10 million square meters of agricultural land have been affected by the conflict.
Impact on Food Security and Rural Communities
The conflict’s disruption of Lebanon’s agriculture sector poses serious challenges to national food security. Lebanon relies heavily on food imports, and a weakened agricultural sector increases dependency on external sources, making the country more vulnerable to global food price fluctuations. The sharp rise in food prices during periods of conflict further exacerbates food insecurity, especially for low-income households and rural communities.
Rural communities, where the majority of Lebanon’s agricultural labor force resides, bear the brunt of these disruptions. Agriculture is a primary source of income for many rural families, and without it, communities experience a sharp increase in poverty and unemployment. Displacement due to conflict further marginalizes these populations, who lose not only their homes but also their livelihoods. This migration to urban centers in search of employment exacerbates urban poverty and strains social services, contributing to wider socioeconomic disparities.
Broader Economic Impacts of the Conflict
Lebanon’s agricultural sector is closely tied to its GDP and trade balance, so any downturn has ripple effects on the broader economy. Losses in agriculture reduce GDP, exacerbating the country’s economic vulnerabilities, especially when combined with Lebanon’s high public debt and inflation rates. The agricultural sector’s downturn reduces its contribution to GDP, which could otherwise help stabilize the economy and offset Lebanon’s trade deficit.
The reduced productivity in agriculture also affects food processing and regional trade. Many food processing businesses in Lebanon rely on local agricultural inputs, so disruptions in the supply chain force these businesses to import raw materials, increasing costs and making products less competitive in the regional market. Neighboring countries that would otherwise import Lebanese produce may turn to other suppliers, weakening Lebanon’s position in the regional economy.
According to Matthew Hollingworth, director of the World Food Programme (WFP) in Lebanon, 23 percent of Lebanese were already experiencing acute food insecurity before Israel escalated its bombing and launched ground operations in September, leading to widespread displacement.
“With 1.3 million people impacted, displaced, and dispossessed since this escalation began on September 23, many have lost their homes, jobs, and livelihoods. They are now in shelters or staying with host communities, creating an urgent situation,” he noted. In response, the WFP, other humanitarian organizations, and even private Lebanese businesses have been working to provide food assistance for those who have been uprooted or lost their homes.
Hollingworth emphasized that the conflict’s effects will extend far beyond immediate humanitarian needs, impacting farms and livelihoods for the foreseeable future. “When you consider the peri-urban and rural areas in the south, these regions were highly productive,” he explained while adding, “Many people displaced from these areas due to the conflict will miss their harvests and production cycles, which will have lasting repercussions on the country’s future”.
International Aid and Governmental Mitigation Efforts
Several international organizations, including the United Nations, the World Bank, and NGOs, have stepped in to support Lebanon’s agricultural sector. Programs aimed at agricultural recovery include funds to repair damaged infrastructure, initiatives to improve water management systems, and the provision of seeds, fertilizers, and other essential farming inputs. The World Bank, for instance, has provided grants to Lebanese farmers for the replanting of high-value crops, which could help restore agricultural exports in the long run.
NGOs are also working to deliver immediate support to rural communities by providing food assistance, promoting sustainable farming practices, and establishing programs to enhance food security. For example, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has conducted training for Lebanese farmers on sustainable practices to help mitigate the environmental impact of war-damaged land.
The Lebanese government has implemented some policies to bolster agricultural production, though its capacity is limited by budget constraints. These measures include subsidies on essential farming inputs, tax exemptions for agricultural businesses, and the establishment of partnerships with international agencies to attract foreign aid. However, political instability and limited resources have hindered the government’s ability to enact comprehensive reforms, leaving Lebanon largely reliant on international assistance for agricultural recovery.
The Road Ahead
The ongoing Israel-Lebanon conflict has taken a significant toll on Lebanon’s agricultural sector, creating far-reaching economic and social consequences. From the destruction of Lebanon’s farmland and water infrastructures to the economic losses in agricultural exports and employment, Beirut’s agricultural sector’s resilience is being continuously tested. Environmental degradation poses serious long-term risks to its agricultural productivity, impacting food security and rural livelihoods. To move forward, Lebanon must prioritize rebuilding its agricultural infrastructure, enhance environmental protections, and adopt sustainable farming practices. Strengthening partnerships with international organizations, securing long-term funding, and implementing robust agricultural policies are essential steps to ensure Lebanon’s agricultural sector can recover and contribute to a more stable economy. To undertake these reforms, it must first free choose to free itself of corruption and bring about a stable, non-volatile government. Beirut must choose to invest in restoring its agricultural resilience, and work toward providing basic food security while economically supporting its rural communities; a stable progressive-minded government is needed to reduce the country’s vulnerability to future conflicts. Welcome to Utopia.
