Lebanon's agriculture sector counts more than $1 billion in war losses, An-Nahar reports

Lebanon's agriculture sector has accumulated more than $1 billion in losses from Israeli strikes on the country during 2024 and 2025, with about 56,000 hectares of land damaged, the Beirut daily An-Nahar reported. The paper quoted Hani as saying that authorities are strengthening oversight of the sector in order to restore the confidence of foreign markets in Lebanese produce.

The damage in numbers

An-Nahar puts the bill for the sector above the $1 billion mark on a cumulative basis, covering both years of the conflict rather than a single season. The damaged area is given as roughly 56,000 hectares, a share the report puts at 22.5%.

• Cumulative losses since 2024 and 2025: more than $1 billion.
• Agricultural land affected: about 56,000 hectares.
• Share of the area concerned: 22.5%, according to An-Nahar.

No breakdown by crop, region or type of damage accompanies the figures, which are presented as an aggregate covering the two-year period. The distinction matters for anyone modelling recovery: a cumulative loss number bundles destroyed assets, lost harvests and foregone income into a single headline, and those three recover on very different timelines.

Lost capacity, not a lost season

The 56,000-hectare figure is the more consequential of the two numbers for supply. Land taken out of production by strikes and fires does not return with the next sowing. Irrigation infrastructure, greenhouses, storage and processing capacity, machinery and access roads have to be repaired or replaced before the area can be farmed at previous intensity, and orchards and other perennial plantings need several years from replanting to full bearing.

For buyers, the practical consequence is volume risk rather than a single price event. A sector working from a smaller productive base has less to place on export markets and less buffer against a poor season. That usually shows up first in contract sizes and in the reliability of delivery schedules, not in headline quotations.

Oversight as the tool for restoring export confidence

The response described to An-Nahar centres on control rather than compensation. Tighter oversight in an agricultural export context normally means inspection at the point of production and packing, phytosanitary certification, residue testing and traceability documentation - the paperwork and laboratory work that importing authorities check at the border.

That focus is logical for a producer country trying to protect market access after a period of disruption. Wartime conditions loosen supervision: staff are displaced, laboratories and inspection posts operate irregularly, and consignments move outside normal channels. Once importing markets lose confidence in a country's certification, the cost falls on exporters who were never implicated, through additional testing at destination, slower clearance or the suspension of specific product lines. Rebuilding the control system is inexpensive relative to a $1 billion loss, and it is the part of the problem a government can address without waiting for reconstruction financing.

What the figures do not settle

The report does not indicate how the $1 billion was calculated, whether it includes indirect losses such as abandoned land or lost market share, or what share of the damage has been compensated. It also does not identify which export destinations have restricted Lebanese agricultural goods, or what the sector's output and shipments were before the strikes. Those gaps limit what can be concluded about the pace of recovery. What the figures do establish is the order of magnitude - a ten-figure loss and more than a fifth of the relevant area affected - against which any restoration programme will be measured.