Polycentric governance and agroecological practices in the MENA region: insights from Lebanon, Morocco and Tunisia

ABSTRACT

The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) is the most water-scarce region in the world. Recent research suggests that agroecology could be a basis for sustainable agriculture. We assess the spread of agroecology in the region and explore the prospect of self-organization among farming communities as an indicator for self-determination of the farming system. The focus is on Lebanon, Morocco and Tunisia. We present empirical data and propose an analytical framework for capturing the conditions for self-organizing arrangements in a transition to agroecology.

KEYWORDS:

• Polycentric governance
• self-organization
• agroecology
• agroecological practices
• Middle East and North Africa (MENA)

Introduction

The scarce water resources of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) face prodigious pressure from a burgeoning population and its increasing demands, mismanagement, land degradation and climate change. Following liberalization of their economies, several countries in the region have become heavily dependent on food imports (Zurayk, 2012). Food insecurity is exacerbated by stagnating farm productivity, greater meat consumption, competition for land from biofuels and urban development (Woertz, 2018), as well as both constricted access to land and its abandonment (Zurayk, 2014), and conflict that destroys life, livelihoods and infrastructure (Bush, 2016).

Various authors have promoted agroecology as a way out of the vicious circle of food insecurity, degradation, deprivation and vulnerability (Ayeb & Bush, 2019; Bush & Martiniello, 2017) by providing better protection of the soil; cutting the use of fuel, fertilizers, pesticides and irrigation water; and also addressing broader issues of rural poverty (Bocchi & Maggi, 2014; Hathaway, 2016; Mashapa et al., 2013). However, to implement sustainable agroecosystems we need to modify the socio-economic determinants governing what is produced, and for whom it is produced (Altieri et al., 2017). This raises the issue of food sovereignty, as opposed to food security. Food sovereignty runs counter to the neoliberal paradigm embedded in national and global governance of agrifood systems since the 1980s and that has taken over domestic policies in the MENA region (Ayeb & Bush, 2019). It requires not only ecological principles but also self-determination of farming communities so that farming communities have room to manoeuvre; it rejects international trade specialization in favour of a higher degree of self-sufficiency, self-determination and diversity of agroecological systems; it renounces agribusiness (commercialization, corporatization and chemicalization of agriculture) in favour of agriculture practised by family farms (Ayeb & Bush, 2019). Menser (2018) observes that food sovereignty is not simply about being a reaction against neoliberalism; for Mesner it is about democratizing the food system, aiming to restructure the state and remake the global economy.

Bearing in mind that food security is a necessity, water scarcity is a fact and there remain a host of practical management issues (Clapp, 2014; Woertz, 2013, 2020), this paper reviews the spread of agroecology in the MENA region. We consider agroecology and particularly associated agronomic practices of soil management to meet the challenges of water scarcity in the MENA region while maintaining and even improving levels of food security in the region. Moreover, the paper explores the possibility of rural self-organization of farmers, farming communities and local consumers to establish agroecological food systems, focusing on Lebanon, Morocco and Tunisia. We argue that such self-organization among farmers, farming communities and consumers, but also further actors is necessary for establishing an agroecological food system and for agroecology to thrive. Such a system requires cultural, political and social capital; and it involves reconnecting people to nature, restructuring and redesigning institutions, and rethinking knowledge-creation and its use (Abson et al., 2017; De Molina et al., 2019). And it must be economically just and viable. Self-organization among the various actors might lead to production and commercialization outside of the mainstream, but the result might equally well be resistance or indifference. Therefore, self-organization is a necessary but not sufficient condition for transition to an agroecological food system.

Agroecology sees local communities, in particular small farmers, in the driver’s seat. Therefore, we set out principled conditions for self-organization among farming communities in the food system inspired by normative conditions underlying polycentric governance which were developed by E. Ostrom (2015) and V. Ostrom (2015) and further interpreted by Thiel (2017) and Thiel et al. (2019). We discuss the extent to which these conditions are observable in the MENA countries, and assess the regional prospects of food and farming systems that are organized from the bottom up and take account of the local social–ecological conditions by subscribing to the principles of agroecology. By exploring the spread of agroecology and the presence of normative conditions of polycentric governance, this paper makes an original empirical and conceptual contribution to the literature on agroecological transitions. The guiding research questions are: To what degree has agroecology emerged in the MENA region? To what extent are the principled conditions of polycentric governance observable in different countries in the MENA region? Are they useful for capturing and analysing the degree and character of self-organization in transitions to agroecological food systems in the MENA region?

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. The next section presents the methodology. The third section introduces the concept of agroecology, its key features and principles, and the interrelation with food sovereignty. The fourth section introduces conditions of polycentric governance and derives central categories for the analysis of self-organization in agroecological transitions. We then present the empirical data on agroecology in the MENA region (in the fifth section) and discuss the prevalence of polycentric governance conditions and the potential implications for self-organization (in the sixth section). The general review covers Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, Morocco and Tunisia to identify what is going on in the region with regards to agroecology, and the study of polycentric governance conditions puts particular emphasis on Lebanon, Morocco and Tunisia. In concluding, the paper synthesizes the findings, while also harvesting questions for further research that emerge from this exploratory study in view of the role of self-organization in agroecological transitions.

Methods and techniques

Our data were collected in the period 2019–20 by a review of the literature and 20 online surveys drawing on agroecology experts in Lebanon, Morocco and Tunisia. The review of the academic literature has facilitated the identification of the key experts on the topic. Given the travel limitations due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the data collection was conducted online through online surveys. These experts are affiliated with the leading academic institutions in the three countries, coming from the relevant faculties working on agroecological issues. The fieldwork has followed the ethical guidelines of the home institutions of the co-authors of this paper, and – in line with the ethical clearance – the identity of the experts was anonymized for the purpose of this research. Informed consent was received by all experts before the data collection process.

Our subsequent focus on Lebanon, Morocco and Tunisia was guided by the general literature revealing the uptake of agroecology and polycentric governance (as a measure for possibility of self-organization) in these countries. It is important to note that the exploratory research approach comes with certain limitations. We might expect devolution of polycentric governance conditions are conducive to the uptake of agroecology, but we do not know if they lead to it, or what other factors are key to the spread of agroecology. Instead, our focus is the analytic framework, the exploration of the presence of polycentric governance conditions, and reflection on their role for promoting agroecological practices. Future research would aim to further determine whether these conditions matter when describing self-organization in the context of self-determination, and the degree to which these constitute necessary or sufficient conditions in transition.

Moreover, while we are interested in the role of self-organization from the viewpoint of collective action theory, we do acknowledge that other factors, such as local knowledge systems, power, political economy and political processes, are central for a holistic understanding of how, why and which agroecological systems emerge, exist or disappear. Likewise, we do not want to argue that solely in polycentric contexts can agroecology and agroecological food systems develop. Nevertheless, we argue that in those settings that have polycentric features this theory might deliver useful insights into the role of condition factors. We recognize that self-organization may be necessary among farmers, intermediary actors and the rest of the value chain for the agroecological transition to happen.

Finally, regarding conceptual boundaries, we realize that in view of agroecology’s contribution to establishing sustainable food systems, a diversity of competing agroecological visions has emerged (Rivera-Ferre, 2018). These range from reformist approaches that conform with the status quo to radical forms of agroecology that aim at transforming the system (Holt-Giménez & Altieri, 2013; Levidow et al., 2014). In our assessment, we focus on how farmlands are managed and whether agroecological practices are applied. This means that we recognize the political understanding of agroecology (Anderson et al., 2019) and its transformative predisposition, but we do not undertake an analysis of whether the practices mentioned in the collected data are de facto reformist or transformative. This is owed to the fact that this study is a first appraisal of what the situation is – both regarding the spread of agroecological practices and prevalence of polycentric principles.

Agroecology

As a science, practice and/or movement, agroecology is perceived as an alternative to industrialized, highly simplified, high-input farming systems that depend on hybrid seeds, synthetic chemical fertilizers and pesticides, irrigation and mechanization – which have tripled crop yields but also raised health issues, indebted farmers, and accelerated land degradation and the emergence of resistant weeds, pests and diseases (Altieri et al., 2017; Patel, 2013). According to Altieri et al. (2017), agroecology is the most prominent way towards biodiverse, productive and resilient agroecosystems, and ultimately towards sustainable food systems.

Agroecology incorporates ecological principles and ecosystem thinking aimed at conserving, protecting and reinforcing natural ecosystems, as well as sustaining and diversifying the countryside. Agroecological practices have been part of many traditional farming systems without being labelled as such, but the modern science of agroecology emerged together with ecology, itself, nearly a century ago (Wezel et al., 2009). The concept of self-sustaining nutrient cycles and, equally important, soil organic matter as the energy source for soil microorganisms and soil architecture that enables efficient water cycling, makes these systems applicable for poor farmers; focus on diversification of farming practices and systems improves agroecosystems and farmers’ resilience.

The core system features – autonomy, self-organization, resource conservation and diversification – build in resilience against extreme weather events or price shocks of external inputs (e.g., chemicals, energy). An agroecological approach also makes demands on technological development, knowledge exchange and nature–society relations that allow water, energy and nutrient cycles to be self-sustaining; and the need for local knowledge puts farmers in the driving seat.

Proponents promote solidarity, economic justice and self-determination as preconditions for agroecological transition (Rosset et al., 2011); others have compiled a set of guiding questions for evaluating whether low-input technologies and methodologies are in line with the social and economic principles of the movement as well as being environmentally sound. The corresponding concept of food sovereignty has been promoted at the agricultural policy level. The term was first used by the La Via Campesina movement in the 1990s, directed against commodification and privatization of nature, corporate concentration, and globalization of the food system – all perceived to be undermining rural livelihoods. In their stead, food sovereignty as a concept, principle and policy paradigm aims to empower local farmer communities and consumers, allowing them to decide what to grow and eat in line with their traditional preferences and ecological circumstances. In 2015, La Via Campesina adopted agroecology as a practice to operationalize food sovereignty. At the same time, food sovereignty has become a point of reference for social movements to evaluate and/or prescribe policy preconditions for agroecology. For that reason, and because our initial review of agroecology transitions in the MENA regions indicated them to be important agroecological knowledge hubs, our empirical assessment of agroecological transitions in the MENA region also considers the role of food sovereignty initiatives (see the fifth section). However, it is essential to note the conceptual limits and unresolved challenges of food sovereignty as a concept and movement, as discussed by Clapp (2014), Van der Ploeg (2014) and Jansen (2015).

It is important to single out agroecology from other forms of sustainable agriculture, particularly organic farming. They all take an agroecological approach inasmuch as they aim to drastically reduce, preferably to eliminate, the chemical pesticides and inorganic fertilizers that are key elements of conventional systems, but they differ regarding practices, institutional landscapes and socio-economic outlook. A certain percentage of organic farming has become big business with a strong export orientation that prioritizes profits rather than managing ecosystem services provided by farmland, or putting solidarity, economic justice and self-determination at its heart. In practice, these different forms of sustainable agriculture might compete with each other over land, resources and policy support as our preliminary and ongoing research indicates (e.g., Tunisia).

Polycentric governance and agroecology: the analytical framework

Agroecology embraces small-scale, ecosystem-adapted, culturally embedded approaches. As noted by Altieri (1989), it builds upon traditional farming knowledge; emphasizes agricultural diversification directed at serving the basic needs of a family, community and region; and aims at decreasing farmers’ dependency on the state or industry. It looks to certain kinds of farmer: the non-industrialized kind. Transition to such a food system involves strong participation of local communities and, to be viable, it also requires the trust and support of consumers. Since agroecology is adopted despite rather than because of agricultural policy, agroecological transitions within the food system are premised on self-organization.

Theories of polycentric governance embrace how farmers and other agents of the food system address the problems of collective action. Empirical research suggests that polycentric institutional landscapes enable farmers and local communities to approach the diversity of context-specific social–ecological problems in the way they consider most suitable (Hagedorn, 2015; Thiel & Moser-Priewich, 2019). The normative theory of polycentric governance proposes a set of conditions that are assumed to facilitate the emergence of self-organization. We suggest using these criteria as a heuristic to assess the likelihood of agroecological practices and food systems to emerge. Indeed, de Molina et al. (2019) consider (normative) polycentric governance, that is, coordinated and effective self-organization and co-management (Ansell & Gash, 2008) as promising societal and institutional context for agroecology to thrive. The communitarian underpinnings of polycentric governance resonate well with the values of solidarity and self-determination that also underpin political agroecology (Table 1).

Table 1. Comparing central premises of agroecology vis-à-vis polycentric governance.

Political agroecology	Polycentric governance
Central role of local communities, traditional knowledge, agricultural diversification to address basic needs of family, community, region and ecologies	Organization of social affairs (i.e., collective goods provisioning) oriented towards self-organization of producers, providers and consumers, including public, private and civil society actors

Therefore, the prevalence of normative principles of polycentric governance should accommodate self-organization of farmers and food systems and, specifically, enable participants in the food systems to exchange their knowledge of local ecosystems, technologies, practices, social concerns and economic approaches – and put them into practice. Our question is whether institutional and individual conditions conducive to self-organization among different types of actors exist in the countries under analysis (Table 2) and, thus, the likelihood of agroecology taking hold.

Table 2. Categories of self-organization derived from theories of polycentric governance.

Sets of categories	Points of interest derived from theories of polycentric governance		Relevance to polycentric governance
I. Preference formation in relation to farming practices	a.	Are agroecological practices present among, at least, subgroups of farmers and, ideally, also food system actors?	There needs to be a basic level of knowledge among farmers and food system actors to form preferences for agroecological practices that diverge from mainstream farming practices
	b.	Do farmers hold a variety of values and preferences about farm practices?	Polycentric governance, where farmers and food system actors go after their business in distinctive, potentially self-organized ways and requires heterogeneity of preferences
	c.	Are data about the performance of the farming sector and its environmental implications readily available for farmers and consumers?	Formation of distinctive preferences on farming systems requires transparent, readily available information on different modes of farming and their implications; ideally this is complemented by actors accountable to their actions
II. Contestation and self-organization in relation to farming practices	a.	Are property/tenure rights stable in the farming sector and do they allow agents to adopt decision about their explanation with some degree of autonomy?	Incentives to engage increase when they internalize the benefits of such engagement, which presumes stable property rights and secure tenure. This extends to situations where assets are affected by the way collective goods are managed. Secure property and tenure rights also grant a greater level of autonomy in decision-making
	b.	Do local actors and local government have some independence/autonomy from the central state, and do sectoral administrations have the independence to self-organize?	Autonomy/independence of actors in the food system as well as administrations promotes self-organization at different levels. By providing for checks and balances and windows of opportunity to share different kinds of information, this is an important mode of contesting the way collective goods are produced
	c.	Are farmers and actors in the farming and food sector entrepreneurial in relation to private benefits or public goods?	For self-organizing and contesting existing modes of provisioning and production, actors need a certain attitudinal disposition towards public entrepreneurship. Obviously, this depends on the context and room to manoeuvre
	d.	Can farmers and food system actors freely organize their way of farming and food commercialization	The right to self-organize provisioning and production activities is key to polycentric governance, to enable freedom to contest existing orders, for example, through self-organization
	e.	Do farmers have the means and abilities and knowledge (also of agroecological practices) to organize themselves and farming practices?	Effective contestation through self-organization requires knowledge and abilities of how to self-organize
	f.	Does the government or public administration allow and promote cooperative behaviour by farmers and food system actors and alternative farming techniques?	Do the government/state and public administration, as well as the private sector, facilitate the association and self-organizing behaviour of farmers and, so, foster contestation through self-organization, for example, among farmers catering to agroecology? Does the government and private sector enforce ground rules in relation to modes of contestation and specifically support marginalized interests?
	g.	Can farmers, consumers and food system actors easily speak up about their preferences and potential misgivings regarding farming and its relation to the environment?	Contestation of the way collective goods are produced and provided depends in part on the ability and right to voice concerns about current ways in which alternative collectives and higher levels of jurisdiction go about collective goods provision and production

We distinguish between two sets of factors conditioning polycentric self-organization. First, factors that play a role in preference formation about agroecological practices. Conditions that allow for independent preference formation are central in this process of self-organization about what kinds of food systems are desirable. Given the heterogeneity in preferences of producers, consumers and other stakeholders, it would be important to empower them to self-organize agroecological food systems. Polycentric governance, ideally, allows them to self-organize a diverse, adaptive landscape of institutional arrangements that matches the diversity of their social–ecological problems and context. In the absence of such conditions, food and production systems run the risk of remaining/becoming more top-down, centrally steered – sidelining context specificity and heterogeneity of preferences among agents in the food system. Given, also, that polycentric governance demands some autonomy of actors, self-organization may be undermined by overly dominant private actors in the food system, such as powerful retailers and agri-food business.

First, we categorize the interlinked factors of (1) knowledge about alternative ways of doing farming and organizing agricultural production and the food system as well as (2) existence of participants that hold heterogeneous preferences about how farming and the food system are run. Further, access to relevant information in form of (3) transparency about performance of farming and food system practices and the implications and accountability of actors decisively shape preference formation of actors (Table 2).

Second, we study a set of factors that shape the possibilities and set the incentives to operationalize corresponding practices individually or collectively, and/or to engage politically to create environments favourable to adoption of agroecology. This second set of factors refers to contesting the existing way in which private and collective goods in the food system are provided and produced. Ostrom and others capture these modes of contestation through actors’ rights and capacities to depart from the way things are currently run, to voice their concerns, and/or to self-organize the provision and production of collective goods and services (such as promotion of an agroecological food system) and implement diverse ways to provide such goods and services (Thiel & Moser-Priewich, 2019).

In our framework, we categorize incentives and disposition to contesting and changing farming and food system practices (1) through actors holding stable property and/or tenure rights; (2) the extent to which individual and collective public, private and civil society actors ideally are independent in the way they employ assets and get involved into the food system while remaining accountable for the way they use these assets; (3) attitudes of private and public entrepreneurship; (4) rights to associate and establish new collectives in the food system and develop corresponding rules that structure it; (5) participants’ knowledge about familiarity with self-organization; (6) ideally, rights, incentives and capabilities of self-organization are proactively protected and promoted by the government or other higher level actors; and (7) systematic implementation of checks and balances, as well as rights and capabilities to voice concern in the political and public realm – in fact, democratic elections are part of this requirement.

Table 2 connects the foundations of polycentric governance to the questions that we put to our key experts and according to which we evaluated the literature. We questioned the extent to which the conditions underlying normative polycentric governance can be observed in the countries concerned. We cannot infer causal relations between the presence of these conditions and the spread of agroecological practices but we expect that they may increase their likelihood in polycentric contexts.

Empirical assessment of agroecology practices in the MENA region

Empirical evidence from our literature review and survey data indicates diverse initiatives and competing dynamics with regard to agroecological practice and movements in the MENA region. It also suggests that self-organization makes a difference to the spreading of ideas and practices outside the conventional. On the one hand, there is a small but growing number of interest groups and well-off consumers in the urban areas, as well as farmers, actively promoting both food sovereignty and agroecology. In some instances, local non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and associations, in particular those of the food sovereignty movement, provide agroecological training, seeds and fertilizer for farmers. In Egypt, even constitutional changes were brought about through a referendum, demanding food sovereignty and agroecological practices. On the other hand, such constitutional changes, agroecological practices and smallholders are not backed up by legal reforms, public policy and rural development support schemes. Indeed, agroecological practices and initiatives tend to be framed by governments as backward-looking and/or are perceived to compete with public plans rolling out export-oriented large-scale organic farming and related expectations of foreign exchange, rural incomes and safeguarding the environment.

As it stands, agroecological transitions in the region exist in a bubble, largely a function of urban (elite) demand, food sovereignty movements and civil society groups. There has been no fundamental revision of the green revolution paradigm or capitalist development of the agricultural sector through export-oriented, industrial farming. Vulnerability to food insecurity at a time of multiple crises (environment, energy, food, conflict) seems to sustain the productionist paradigm of national agricultural strategies.

In Egypt, in 2014, civil society lobbying for constitutional change challenging mainstream ways of food production and consumption resulted in the approval of article 79 of the Constitution. The right to food sovereignty is part of its food security strategy that includes protecting agricultural biological diversity and types of local plants in order to preserve the rights of generations (Saqr & Mattheisen, 2018). But this initiative failed to maintain momentum: the constitutional article has not been implemented with bylaws, while existing laws which contradict the principles of the article have not been annulled. Constitutional change needs to be complemented by changes in agricultural policy and development vision which, in Egypt, is still dominated by conventional agricultural intensification (El Nour, 2019). Saadi notes that the state would have a pivotal role to play in facilitating the spread of agroecology and food sovereignty, including adopting clear development orientation and decentralization policies in order to enable and allow solidarity between producers’ associations and local governmental institutions, as well as facilitating a constructive environment for different groups to interact (Saadi, 2019). Nevertheless, over the past decade, several organizations have been established to promote agroecology (including the Egyptian Initiative for Collective Rights, the Better Life Association, Habi Centre for Environmental Rights, Social Justice Platform, the Working Groups on the Right to Food and Food Sovereignty, and Nawaya Association) operating through training courses for farmers, focusing on traditional and local crops, organic fertilizers and irrigation methods (El Nour, 2019).

Likewise, in Jordan, there have been several examples of self-organization by both farmers and consumers demanding alternative food systems. In 2012, the Arab Group for the Protection of Nature (APN), based in Amman, cofounded the Arab Network for Food Sovereignty (ANFS), which brings together 30 NGOs, unions and associations from 13 Arab countries to promote food sovereignty. APN has been vocal in international conferences, national and local events and has been working with small farmers in the Jordan Valley, supporting them by planting fruit trees, providing technical training in sustainable agricultural practices and resisting sales of family farms to agribusiness (Hussein, 2019). Other examples from Jordan are Yanboot, a small family-run company that practices agroecology in its organic farming operations, supplying wealthy consumers in Amman; and some examples of permaculture, for instance, in Jawfa in South Shoune near the Dead Sea.

In Lebanon, some of the soaring demand for food and water is attributable to the influx of refugees from Syria since 2011. The national agriculture strategy for 2020–25 does not particularly support agroecology; it does mention organic agriculture but without providing policy instruments for its operationalization (Ministry of Agriculture, 2020). Water scarcity might have prompted policies to address food and water insecurity and improve the resilience of the food sector but there seems to be no concern about resource scarcity or degradation at the political level – which is quite contrary to the concerns of researchers, academics and farmers. The government could promote local initiatives ‘through a reform of the cooperative law and the development and implementation of a legal framework for traditional food production standards and denomination’ (Hamade, 2019, p. 269) but it has not. The agricultural sector remains neglected and with poor infrastructure, while the country continues to depend on food imports There is growing attention from local communities and food producers to new ways of production and marketing, not necessarily through agroecology although NGOs such as Arcenciel provide training to improve the technical skills of local farmers on agroecological practices (Martiniello, 2019). There are farmers’ markets for organic produce, such as the Souk El Tayeb which grew from 10 producers in 2004 to over 100 today (Souk El Tayeb, 2022). Like the previous country cases, these advancements are also due to the increasing demand for traditional and locally produced food from the urban elites.

In Morocco, agriculture employs 40% of the workforce and is supported by the government through financial incentives and subsidies. However, this support is focused on agribusiness (Ameur et al., 2020). It is outlined in the 2008 Green Morocco Plan which promotes commercial, industrial and export-oriented farming rather than small farmers adopting traditional and agroecological practices (Razai, 2020; Rerhrhaye, 2019). However, the Réseau des Initiatives Agroecologiques au Maroc (RIAM) – the network of agroecological initiatives in Morocco – aims to support agroecological initiatives and practices by informing, linking and connecting to meet, advocate, share, capitalize and pool agroecology in Morocco (IFOAM, 2022), and it has been organizing local, national, and regional initiatives and forums on sustainable agriculture and agroecology. The Morocco National Agricultural Research Institute has also undertaken research for the advancement of agroecology in Morocco (Sartas et al., 2021).

In Palestine, agroecological practices and food sovereignty are a way of resisting the Israeli occupation (Barakat, 2018; Martiniello, 2019). The occupation pushes towards a heterogeneity of production systems. Farmers and civil society are trying to alleviate the issue of land degradation ‘by using a mechanism of land reclamation to retain soil fertility and produce higher yields’, for instance, by paying particular attention to the selection of plants and seeds to promote and use (Martiniello, 2019, p. 154). In 2003, the Union of Agricultural Work Committees established the Local Seeds Bank project – the Palestine Heirloom Seed Library – to guarantee ‘the protection of municipal plant variety seeds, particularly since they are more adapted to the nature of the region and can tolerate drought conditions’ (Salameh, 2019, p. 331), as farmers started to deploy further genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Also, a national chapter of La Via Campesina movement was established and, in 2018, the Palestinian Agroecological Forum was founded:

to provide a platform for all those who believe in rethinking our current food systems and want to reconnect to the land. We aspire for a just food system that ensures the dignity and independence of our farmers, preserves our natural resources, and provides clean and nutritious food to people. (Isma’il & Dajani, 2021, p. 1)

The context of this initiative is the growing transformation of Palestinian agriculture into a large-scale, chemical-based agriculture, and the increasing dependency on Israel for the import and export of materials and products. Agroecology is therefore a way to seek liberation from such dependency (Isma’il & Dajani, 2021).

In Tunisia, awareness raising through the ‘food sovereignty days’ by the Tunisian Observatory of Food Sovereignty and Environment (OSAE) is an example of trying to reach out the broader population. This organization brings together small farmers, practitioners and activists with the goal of bringing to the public attention issues linked with the importance of agroecological practices, food sovereignty, the negative aspects of GMOs and seed sovereignty (Martiniello, 2019). Tunisian food sovereignty supporters, such as the Working Groups on the Right to Food and Food Sovereignty, the North African Network for Food Sovereignty, and the Struggle of the Land from Tunisia, have been contesting the EU–Tunisia free trade agreement (ALECA), and hegemonic neoliberal reforms and agreements seen as undermining the principles of agroecology and food sovereignty (Riachi, 2019). Our survey suggests that economic incentives have led to a decline in traditional farms applying agroecological practices. At the same time, some certified organic farmers have started to integrate agroecological practices into their farming systems; and the agroecological movement in the country, albeit small, has loudly objected its neglect by policy compared with organic farming (Riachi, 2019).

Prospects of self-organization in Lebanon, Morocco and Tunisia

Since self-organization seems central in bringing about agroecology in the region in the absence of policy support and the prevalence of productionist development paradigms, this section assesses the presence of polycentric governance conditions in the three MENA countries. The survey data confirms the empirical evidence from our desk review. It shows that in Lebanon, Morocco and Tunisia agroecological practices are sporadically present, mainly amongst subgroups of smallholders that do not produce for commercial reasons.

When it comes to preference formation in relation to farming practices, information on the poor performance of the farming sector and its environmental implications is not readily available for farmers in the three countries. This is due to lack of information, or due to illiteracy, as mentioned for the case of Morocco. Consequently, this trigger for preference formation towards more environmentally friendly agroecological farming practices is missing. However, while agroecology is not generally practised, organic agriculture is often supported with commercial drivers and policy incentives. Most farmers have very limited knowledge of agroecological practices and/or do not trust them (as reported from Morocco). This means another precondition for uptake of agroecological practices is missing. In Tunisia and Lebanon, the main barrier seems to be the lack of public information on agroecological practices, rather than trust and general capacity. Traditionally, many farms applied agroecological practices though not necessarily by name.

In the context of economic incentives and state support for export-oriented organic production, agroecologically run farms are in decline. In Morocco, preferences for agroecological practices are unlikely to emerge given their rejection by farmers and lack of knowledge about the environmental problems of conventional farming. In Tunisia, limited information on agroecological practices of traditional farming systems together with the official push for commercial organic farming impede transition towards agroecology – albeit the agroecological movement has turned more vocal in public debates recently, distinguishing itself from organic farming. Similarly, in Lebanon, farmers have little information on agroecological practices, and from a commercial perspective, organic farming is seen as more profitable.

In relation to conditions facilitating contestation and self-organization, survey respondents emphasized that in the three countries’ property rights are overall stable – yet, in the case of Morocco and Tunisia, not always clearly enforced. This is an important aspect for the emergence of contestation of the status quo and self-organization around agroecology, as we presume that secure access and use of land is necessary for actors to benefit from any commitment. Regarding independence of the central state, Lebanon is the most decentralized of the three countries. In Tunisia, efforts to decentralize are ongoing, if not stagnating. Independent self-organization of sectoral and lower level administrations is considered conducive for contesting the way collective goods are produced and provided by higher jurisdictional scales and alternative sectoral administrations, facilitating initiatives and self-organization.

When it comes to the polycentric governance conditions that would facilitate the contestation of the existing way of farming, it appears that in all three countries farmers have the right to freely organize their way of farming but, for effective contestation, farmers would require knowledge, abilities on how to self-organize and corresponding attitudes. Whereas in Lebanon and in Tunisia there is dissemination and awareness of knowledge of agroecological practices, in Morocco survey respondents suggest that farmers fear to take the risks of entering agroecology because it is an unknown to them, and they fear not to be able to appropriately commercialize it.

Another institutional and governance condition is the extent to which the state and the public administration promote cooperation between farmers and alternative farming techniques. Especially in Morocco and Tunisia, cooperative behaviour is supported by the state. However, we found that state involvement in promoting collective action might be badly viewed by the farming community and therefore hardly taken up. For example, in Tunisia this is the case for historical reasons, namely because of previous rounds of collectivization of land and related experiences of expropriation. In Morocco – the most centralized of the three countries – the government only promotes organic farming and particular value chains as the future of farming; excluding agroecology, which is seen as distinct from organic agriculture (Green Morocco Plan). Likewise in Tunisia, the government supports organic agriculture instead of agroecology. While it is not as active as the Moroccan government, it is interesting to note that previously Tunisia’s government was much more involved in promoting it, serving as a model for Morocco’s government.

Finally, in all three countries farmers have the right and the ability to voice concerns about current ways in which collectives and higher levels of jurisdiction go about collective goods provision and production and its implications.

We may say that ordinary rights of self-organization are present in all countries considered. These could be made use of by farmers and groups promoting agroecology. However, we do not observe any general preference among farmers to implement agroecological practices because there is little or no information about the environmental problems of conventional farming; and because there is hardly any information from public sources about and capacity-building on agroecological practices. Moreover, policy support for sustainable agriculture tends to favour large-scale organic farming for export markets. Agroecology and traditional forms of non-industrialized and low-capitalized farming are viewed as backward – the cause, rather than solution, of rural poverty and hunger, not only by policymakers but also, in Morocco, by the farmers themselves. At the same time, we recognize that the empirical picture in these different countries is likely more diverse.

Conclusions

This paper has been exploratory in outlook – it observed and surveyed the spread and presence of agroecology in selected case study countries and explored to what extent conditions of polycentric governance are present which are said to favour the spread of agroecological communities and practices. The picture that emerges is one of competing dynamics and institutional ambiguity.

Agroecology, as a movement, is not strong in the MENA region. However, there are different instances of experiences of agroecological practices, frequently initiated by small local farmers. These experiences are often not referred to as ‘agroecology’, as they are simply applying traditional types of agricultural practices, which align closely with agroecological principles.

Most of the polycentric governance categories are present to some extent, but specific information on the performance of the farming sector and its environmental implications, or about alternative farming models, is not readily available or accessible for farmers and consumers (due to lack of information in Tunisia and Lebanon, or illiteracy in Morocco). In Tunisia it was particularly observed that for historical reasons, state-induced collective action among farmers has difficulties to spread. Moreover, economic incentives including public policy and subsidies are not in place. Besides, among Moroccan farmers, distrust of agroecological practices seems strong, and capacity-building for farmers and awareness of agroecology among consumers low – which makes preference formation towards agroecology unlikely. We therefore argue that conditions for preference formation are considerably compromised.

In contrast, prospects for self-organization and contestation are promising. Property rights are, overall, stable (albeit there seem to be enforcement issues and extra-legal regimes at work that would need to be studied further). Farmers are free to express their criticism publicly on how the farming system works, and they are also free to self-organize. However, there is no explicit policy support for agroecology: Instead, particularly in Tunisia and Morocco, state support is directed towards organic agriculture. Agroecology depends on awareness raising and capacity-building organized by civil society and agroecological network structures. In Morocco, rather than organic and agroecological farming coexisting (albeit to very different degrees and on distinct scales), agroecology is seen (negatively) to compete with the officially supported organic sector by the state.

Another challenge is the often-low degree of decentralization in the respective countries. Particularly Morocco and Tunisia are not meaningfully decentralized. Without some degree of independence from the central state, contestation at lower levels of governance and through administrative experimentation with different (agroecological) ways of farming are unlikely. Agroecological practices are promoted largely by self-organized interactions of farmers, well-off consumers and transnational food sovereignty initiatives.

Finally, concerning the question whether these polycentric governance conditions are useful for capturing and analysing the degree and character of self-organization in agroecological transitions in the MENA region, we argue that they are. But the political and social unit of a small farm can function also outside of decentralized governance. Further research focusing on the role of political economy would complement this analysis on the role of governance and would help in explaining the persistent survival of small farmers in political environments that are not polycentric.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.