How Transformative is Lebanon’s National Pathway for Food System Transformation?

Abstract

Global calls for food system transformation (FST) have intensified as current food systems outcomes are manifesting in compounding ecological, socio-economic, and health crises. In the aftermath of the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit, which defined FST as a central global policy goal essential for the realization of the SDG 2030 Agenda, countries submitted national food system transformation pathway documents setting their respective national strategic vision that will guide their national policymaking. Submitted in 2023, Lebanon’s national food system transformation pathway comes at critical juncture given the country’s economic collapse, ecological degradation, and institutional fragmentation. This paper critically evaluates the transformative potential of “Action Track II: Boost Nature-Based Solutions of Production” of the pathway using qualitative textual analysis. The analysis focuses on the policy frame underlying the identified priorities and solutions, what system characteristics they target, the chains of leverage activated and whether they address processes of change identified in sustainability transitions literature. In particular, the policy frame is analyzed based on the two sustainability conceptualizations underpinning existing sustainable agriculture narratives, identified by Thomson (2007). Priorities are assessed against Abson’s four reals of leverage adapted from Meadow’s leverage points framework, Gliessman’s agroecological transition levels, and the transformative outcomes framework from Transformative Innovation Policy Consortium (TIPC). Findings reveal a dominant focus on efficiency-oriented technical fixes, particularly in water and resource management, consistent with a “resource sufficiency” conceptualization of sustainability and sustainable intensification narratives. In contrast, approaches rooted in the “functional integrity” paradigm—emphasizing regenerative capacity, systemic governance, and agroecology—are marginal or absent. As such, Track 2 risks reinforcing existing productionist paradigms rather than enabling structural transformation. The paper recommends embedding stronger normative commitments to holistic sustainability, nurturing transformative outcomes, and harnessing the potential of systems thinking and toolkits to enhance the pathway’s capacity to catalyze food system transformation.