We rebuilt everything - and now it's gone again"

Hassan and Salma show two different realities of agricultural loss in southern Lebanon. Hassan’s case reflects the situation of farmers from heavily affected border areas where land is no longer safely accessible and recovery cannot begin. Salma’s case reflects the situation of farmers who have returned, but whose ability to produce has been undermined by damaged water systems, soil concerns, reduced income and market disruption.

Hassan Saad is a 40-year-old farmer from Khiam. Before the 2024 conflict, his land was at the center of his family’s life. He worked with his daughters, provided agricultural services in the village, and sold vegetables, eggs, milk and yoghurt. Farming gave the family food, income, work and dignity.

The 2024 conflict destroyed this stability. His home was partially damaged, his fields were burned, his livestock died and his farming tools were damaged beyond repair. During this period, Hassan and his family were repeatedly displaced, moving between Bekaa, Bsharre and Kfar Rumman. Work became scarce, prices increased, and the savings he had built were gradually spent on rent, food, transport and other basic needs.

“I relied entirely on daily labor to survive. Over time, all the money I had saved was exhausted covering basic living expenses.” - Hassan

“I was so happy with the assistance and support. I had so much hope.” - Hassan

In 2026, this recovery was cut short. Barely weeks after planting again, the conflict escalated once more. His seedlings were around 20 days old when he and his family were forced to flee Khiam again. He had bought tomatoes, cucumbers, fava beans, peas and other crops for the season. This meant losing the money he had invested, the labor he had already put into the land, the harvest he was counting on to feed and support his family, and the short agricultural window he needed to restart production. 

“It is heartbreaking. I paid 130 dollars for these seedlings, and they are all gone.” - Hassan

Salma’s situation is different, but it also shows how return does not automatically mean recovery. Salma was identified through Action Against Hunger’s June 2026 farmer KII and needs assessment in Loubieh. At the time of the interview, she had not received direct support from Action Against Hunger. She farms around three dunums of land with her husband, growing vegetables and caring for fruit trees that help feed their household and provide their main source of income. Their five children, aged between 12 and 26, are still studying, and the land has long helped keep the family going.

Depending on the season, Salma grows fava beans, okra, lettuce, coriander, cucumbers, tomatoes and other vegetables. She also cares for lemon, clementine, pomegranate, walnut and olive trees. Some of the harvest was kept for the family, while some was sold directly to customers. A local buyer also used to come regularly, buy in bulk and distribute the produce to small markets in nearby villages. Before the conflict, the land produced, the trees gave fruit, and the family had food to eat and produce to sell.

For both households, displacement transformed land from a source of security into something uncertain or unreachable. Hassan’s 2026 displacement happened at the beginning of the escalation, suddenly and without warning. The family fled Khiam at around one in the morning, under strikes, with no time to prepare or gather belongings.

“We left in pajamas and slippers. Some of us were not even wearing shoes.” - Hassan

The family fled towards Kawkaba and waited until morning, taking the Hasbaya road rather than the road through Tyre. They stayed for two days in a garage belonging to people they knew. Those people then connected them to a landlord with a room for rent in Houch El Harimeh, in the Bekaa, where the family is now displaced.

Hassan’s land in Khiam remains inaccessible. He has not been able to return to see the damage himself because Israeli military forces maintain a presence in parts of the area, while ongoing shelling and structural demolition operations continue to prevent safe civilian access and direct verification. The only information he has comes from satellite images and photos taken from afar by someone he knows from Halta. From what he could see, his home, greenhouse and agricultural assets were destroyed.

“We do not have information about anything. The only thing we saw was the satellite picture of Khiam. Everything looks like it is gone.” - Hassan

For Salma, displacement also meant being separated from the land at the exact moment when she needed to prepare the soil, plant and maintain the crops for the new season in March. She remembers the last week of Ramadan, when danger was increasing, strikes were landing closer to the house and displacement warnings were spreading around them. The family eventually left for Wardaniyye. Her husband tried to stay behind at first to care for the crops, but it became too dangerous to go out and work.

When a ceasefire was announced on 16 April 2026, Salma and her family returned for around two weeks. She tried to save what she could and planted a little, but the situation deteriorated again, forcing them to leave once more. By the time she returned fully, the damage was visible across the farm: in the crops, the trees, the water system and the soil itself.

These experiences reflect a wider agricultural pattern documented by both CNRS-L analysis and ACF field data. CNRS-L analysis highlights that inaccessible areas can generate losses even when physical damage is not visible, because fields cannot be planted, irrigated, treated, harvested or inspected. ACF’s farmer KIIs show similar findings: farmers repeatedly reported land abandonment, interrupted planting and harvesting, damaged or absent irrigation systems, water shortages, lack of inputs, and the need for cash, tools, soil testing and irrigation support to restart production. In other words, agricultural loss is not only what is visibly destroyed; it is also what farmers are prevented from doing at the right time.

Hassan’s case shows how quickly conflict can erase recovery efforts. The greenhouse, solar system and irrigation network that had helped him restart after the 2024 conflict are now destroyed or inaccessible. His crops are gone, and so are the tools and systems he needed to work.

“There is nothing anymore. No house, no greenhouses, no irrigation system, nothing. We did everything again - the solar, the irrigation - and now everything is gone again.” - Hassan

The losses extended beyond crops and equipment. Hassan had one cow and seven sheep, including adults and young animals. When the family fled, they could not release or protect them.

“We left and could not even open for them.” - Hassan

The Ministry also reported that 2,122 hectares were exposed directly or indirectly to herbicide spraying along the southern border strip, affecting vegetation, agricultural land and natural woodlands. While these results should not be generalized to Salma’s land without direct testing, they underline why soil and environmental recovery must be part of agricultural response planning.

For Salma, soil testing is not a technical detail. It is the difference between risking another failed season and knowing how to help the land recover. Seedlings, fertilizers, manure, pesticides and water all cost money. With the land no longer producing as before, she cannot afford to invest in a new season without knowing whether anything will grow.

For both families, the loss of agriculture affected far more than income. It affected food, health, education, dignity and the ability to plan. This is consistent with broader farmer KIIs, where respondents described reduced income, crop losses, the sale of productive assets, high production costs, reduced market demand and the inability of some farmers to continue cultivating their land.

Hassan is now displaced in the Bekaa with his wife and four daughters, aged 8, 11, 16 and 20. During the 2024 conflict, his mother, who needs regular medication for diabetes and high blood pressure, had been staying with him; she is now in Amchit with his brother. In the current displacement, Hassan has also taken on responsibility for his elderly parents-in-law, aged 85 and 82, reflecting the wider family and community care responsibilities that often fall on displaced households.

Today, he takes whatever work he can find. He works “left and right”, including daily labor and desludging work in the town, earning around 500,000 Lebanese pounds, or approximately USD 5.59, for ten hours of work. This income is far from enough to cover the needs of his household, but he continues because there is no alternative.

The family has received some support, including one box from the municipality, mostly containing canned food. Hassan says some items were not in good condition or were not easy to eat. For medicine, the family sometimes relies on people in the community. His mother-in-law needs expensive vitamins for her eyes. His 16-year-old daughter has back pain and needs to travel to Chtaura for an MRI, but Hassan has not yet been able to cover the cost through any organization.

His children are also no longer attending school. Public schools are not open where they are, and Hassan cannot afford private school tuition. Before the conflict, one of his main priorities was keeping his daughters in school. He used to say that education was their most powerful weapon for the future. Now, even small requests from his children are difficult to meet.

“Sometimes my children want something, and I cannot afford it.” - Hassan

Salma’s household is also feeling the impact of reduced production. The conflict disrupted not only her crops, but also the wider system around her farming. Customers have become fewer. Transport is more expensive. Security concerns have led people to buy from the closest available source instead of travelling between villages. The buyer who used to collect her produce still comes, but Salma no longer has enough to sell him.

At home, this means less food from the land. Sometimes she trades produce with neighbors and acquaintances, a small exchange that helps families cope when cash is short. But it cannot replace what was lost.

Salma is also living with serious health challenges. She has only one kidney and is receiving treatment for kidney cancer. Under the pressure of displacement, reduced income and the needs of her family, she says her own health often comes last. She explained that she prefers to spend what money she has on her children’s needs and education before spending it on herself.

For Salma, farming is not only about production. It is routine, dignity and relief. It is how she supports her children, feeds her household and stays connected to the place she was forced to leave. Working in the field also helps calm her. It gives her relief and a sense of purpose when everything else feels unstable.

Hassan and Salma’s experiences show that recovery depends on the type of damage a household faces. Hassan cannot recover while his land in Khiam remains inaccessible. His house, greenhouse, irrigation system, livestock and agricultural assets appear destroyed, but he cannot safely return to verify the losses or begin rebuilding. For him, agricultural recovery starts with safe access.

Salma has returned to her land, but recovery remains uncertain because the conditions that made farming possible have been damaged. She needs to understand whether her soil can still produce, restore water storage and irrigation, repair the solar-powered pump, cover the cost of inputs, and reconnect with buyers. Without this support, return risks becoming a situation where the household is physically back on the land but unable to recover its livelihood.

The wider needs assessment confirms that these are common recovery barriers. Farmers repeatedly identified cash support, agricultural tools, seeds and seedlings, fertilizers, pesticides, soil testing, water storage, irrigation rehabilitation and market support as priorities. In Kfar-Hatta, farmers described water scarcity, high input and labor costs, and market monopolization by traders as major constraints. One respondent reported that around 25 farmers had abandoned agriculture because they could no longer continue under the combined pressure of water shortages, input costs and labor costs. In Qrayeh, farmers pointed to the need for clean water, storage, tools, inputs and financial assistance to manage rising costs and preserve agricultural production.

These findings show why agricultural recovery cannot be reduced to one form of assistance. Seeds alone cannot solve land inaccessibility. Tools alone cannot restore damaged irrigation. Agroecological or climate-smart practices cannot be implemented where land is unsafe, inaccessible or under active threat. Where farming remains possible, practices such as soil protection, composting, water-efficient irrigation, crop diversification and household-level production can strengthen resilience. But they must be supported by protection, safe access, infrastructure rehabilitation, market support and flexible funding.

• Seeds, seedlings, fertilizers, tools, crop protection inputs and practical technical support adapted to the agricultural calendar. 
• Livestock recovery support, including feed, veterinary care and restocking where appropriate.
• Cash and livelihood support to reduce debt, prevent further asset depletion and help households meet basic needs while restarting production.
• Market and transport support so farmers can sell their produce again and reduce dependence on buyers who control prices.
• Continued food, WASH, health and education support for displaced farming families whose agricultural income has collapsed.

Hassan and Salma are two cases among many. Their experiences show how conflict destroys agricultural livelihoods in layers. First, families are forced to leave. Then land becomes unsafe or unreachable. Crops, tools, animals, water systems and greenhouses are lost or damaged. Income disappears, food production declines, debts grow, and the cost of recovery becomes too high for households to carry alone.

For farmers in southern Lebanon, reduced shelling does not automatically mean recovery. The impact remains in inaccessible land, damaged irrigation systems, lost livestock, weakened soil, disrupted markets, interrupted education and the daily pressure of providing for a family without the livelihood that once sustained it.

Immediate action is needed to protect farming households from further loss of productive capacity. This includes ensuring safe humanitarian and civilian access, supporting farmers to safely return to and assess their land where conditions allow, rehabilitating water and irrigation infrastructure, addressing soil and environmental risks, and restoring the productive assets that allow families to farm again.

Sustained and flexible funding is also essential. Without it, families like Hassan’s and Salma’s will continue to absorb the cost of conflict alone, while Lebanon risks losing local production capacity, agricultural knowledge and the possibility of dignified rural recovery. This loss of local production also contributes to food insecurity, as households have less food from their own land, markets become more dependent on external supply, and rural families lose the income they need to access food. Supporting farmers now is not only about restoring income; it is about protecting food production, preserving livelihoods and keeping open the possibility of return with dignity.

Note: This article is based on Action Against Hunger field interviews and farmer key informant interviews conducted in South Lebanon in 2026, alongside agricultural damage, land-access and environmental analysis from CNRS-L and official communications from the Ministry of Environment.