The Treacherous Road to Sustainable Agriculture: Lessons from Israeli Farmers and the Need to Upscale the Debate

Abstract

The current global agrifood system is increasingly fragile and despite a plethora of scientific research, progress in national and global policies setting commendable goals towards more sustainable agriculture is still sluggish. This paper argues that if the efforts continue to concentrate on farmers and rest solely on “fixing” modes of production at the farm level, the chances of arriving at significant changes are meagre. By conjugating Lefebvre’s triad of spaces and geographic explorations on politics of scale with data harvested over three years of qualitative research in farms, this paper explores Israeli farmers’ conduct in the field as they face many challenges at various scales. The paper presents their vulnerability against forces on a multiscalar level which present numerous obstacles in operating their farms. Addressing these challenges to allow them to integrate more sustainable modes of operation would require upscaling the debate and the taking of responsibility from all stakeholders concerned, from the farm level to global players.

1. Introduction

Unsustainable food production and consumption patterns are a common thread running through many of the greatest challenges facing humanity today [1]. The existing global agrifood system is fragile [2,3,4]. This is, among other things, a direct outcome of modern, industrialized agriculture land-use practices that, since their early beginnings, have traded short-term increases in agricultural productivity and profit for long-term losses in ecosystem services [5]. This rather explains the pivotal and destructive role modern, industrialized agriculture plays in the current environmental crisis and its negative “contribution” on various fronts [6,7], among them increased gas emission [8], rapid deforestation [9], water pollution [10], water scarcity [11], and of course soil depletion and degradation [12].

In recent years the amount of data produced that affirms these problems in our agrifood system has accumulated in staggering quantities. This is also apparent in numerous literature reviews (some in this very journal) of more refined and specific topics which yield thousands of relevant studies e.g., Refs. [13,14,15,16]. And yet, against the exhaustive body of works and policies already implemented, the stubborn reality on the ground proves to be almost impervious to significant changes towards a more sustainable agriculture [17,18,19].

This conundrum is addressed in this paper, in which I ask the following: why is it that, despite ample approachable data and existing policies promoting more sustainable modes of production in the agrifood system, changes among farmers from across the globe are very slow to arrive? Particularly, the paper focuses on Israeli farmers who, due to the changing landscape of the Israel political economy, are receiving less subsidies and direct funding in comparison to farmers from other OECD countries (Interview with A., an official in the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture, 18 June 2023). My overarching argument is that, regardless of what is taking place in scales above and beyond the farm level, farmers find themselves on a very local and individual basis constrained and confronted by complex matrices of challenges, which ultimately renders them vulnerable to today’s market economy. This situation ultimately prevents most of them from integrating more sustainable modes in their fields.

Various methods were harnessed to bring to the fore the voices of Israeli farmers as they negotiate current challenges in the agrifood system. This enabled better understanding of their sense of place and the numerous factors that influence their conduct in the field and the challenges they face. This is executed, as explained below, by conjugating the Lefebvreian triad of social space and the politics of scale as explanatory mechanisms with farmers’ conducts. This theoretical construction explains both the horizontal (what is taking place at farm level) and vertical (multiscalar levels, i.e., local to global) forces that ultimately spatialize at the farm and constitute farmers’ approach to agriculture and conduct on the farm.

The purposes of this paper are threefold: First, to provide a theoretical background against which to explain the complex matrices farmers confront and negotiate in their respective fields. Second, to allow the voices of farmers and their daily and mundane struggles for survival to be heard. Third, to suggest that human geographers may take a more active role by engaging with stakeholders at all levels to promote policies and understandings that ultimately affect positive changes in our relations with our agrifood system. Put differently, and as recently suggested by Cirella et al., this means “to increase sustainability-based know-how and force a human–nature relations dialogue between the philosophical, economic, and urban arguments human beings toil with in modern society” [20] (p. 17).

The paper begins with a material and methods section that presents the theoretical background of “social space” and “scale politics”, provides a short analysis of the variegated vocabulary of contemporary agriculture(s) and the unique political economy of agriculture in Israel and ends with an explanation of the research design and methodology. This is followed by a results and discussion section which presents the findings and engages with an analysis of Israeli farmers’ perceptions and the challenges confronting them, arranged into themes. The conclusions section offers more general insights and relates to the role human geographers may take towards a more fruitful debate on promoting sustainable agriculture and connecting stakeholders at various scales.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Social Space and Lefebvre’s Triad of Spaces

Lefebvre’s conception of space was heavily explored as it offers a highly suggestive critical ontological framework for explaining spatial dynamics [21,22,23,24]. Nevertheless, his contribution to the understanding of space is largely overlooked in the context of agrifood systems. However, it does have tremendous potential and presents valuable opportunities for further explorations [25]. The model offers insights into the dynamic processes through which space is created, rationalized, embodied, and experienced. One significant contribution of Lefebvre’s spatial ontology is the notion that social life is not confined to space; rather, it constitutes space itself. Therefore, space is in a constant state of production, reproduction, and transformation through social relations and activities [26]. Consequently, when examining agriculture, it is essential to view it not as a system operating in a neutral environment, but as an active process that both produces and rationalizes space through specific modes of production and conceptualization.

Lefebvre proposes a model that sees place not only as the sum of the individual’s interpretation of their spatial experience but as a meeting point between the physical, mental, and social aspects of the produced space. Lefebvre’s model distinguishes between three interrelated fields: the space perceived physically through the senses of our bodies (spatial practice), the space of understanding and professional knowledge (representations of space), and the space which is directly experienced and lived through its associated images and symbols (lived space or spaces of representations) [27]. The first field is the space perceived by the individual in terms of its physical organization and use. It is the space where daily activities take place and is used for spatial experiences. In this way, physical spatial patterns are produced that correspond to the activities of production and consumption in a given society. The second field relates to the space of understanding and professional knowledge and is involved in the intellectualization of space. It is where researchers/professionals/policymakers express their insights through representations that reflect the knowledge generated in relation to space. This knowledge is not necessarily objective, and may well reflect the ideological and cultural/professional biases of the researcher. For example, completely contradictory scholarly perceptions can be suggested in the current context of the need to transition to a more environmentally friendly agriculture [28,29,30]. This also means to suggest that each part of the triad is certainly not homogenous, which rather complicates the matrices which are ultimately spatialized as social space. The third field consists of spaces of representation, which are the physical or virtual spaces where representations of space are produced, circulated, and consumed. These spaces of representation are crucial for the reproduction or transformation of social space and, as such, often become sites of struggle where different groups and ideologies compete over the meaning, and ultimately the uses, of space.

2.2. Scale and Scalar Politics: Towards an Understanding of Multiscalar Politics at Farm Level

Scale is a highly charged geographical concept. Following the emergence of a retheorized human geography, attention has increasingly been drawn to the relations between processes operating at different geographical scales (from the local to the global) and the ways they inform each other [31]. Taylor’s seminal work emphasized the social construction of scale [32]. He suggested that people’s experiences of everyday life were mediated through factors found on different scales [33]. Therefore, scalar arrangements are constantly being made and remade in response to different social actors pursuing specific political agendas [34]. They are rather flexible, as they are constantly in historical motion against socio-political and surely economic processes [35]. Put plainly, global, national, or local players can have an immense influence on where and on what scale the debate about environmentalism in agriculture and farmers’ role within it takes place.

A crucial development in scale theory was made by Smith, who introduced what is now a common currency, i.e., scalar politics, alternatively known as “politics of scale” [36]. This take on scale is a way to grasp the complex interplay of existing power structures and political struggles, in which scale is used not only as a mechanism of constraint and exclusion but also as a weapon of expansion and inclusion. Scales are interconnected, mutually influenced, and relational, from the farm level to the global. More importantly, it is imperative to acknowledge the different spatial politics and decision-making processes at every level [37]. Therefore, scale and scaling are not politically neutral. They are both the result and the outcome of struggles for power and control. Scale demarcates the site of social or political contest. Jumping scales, for example, allow the actors to dissolve spatial boundaries that are largely imposed from above and that contain, rather than facilitate, their production and reproduction of everyday life [38]. In the context explored in this article, scale dynamics are imperative to explain challenges, obstacles, and surely motivation to move towards a more sustainable mode in the fields at the farm level against threats, demands, and constraints. However, this paper also aims to demonstrate how problems at the farm level may impose significant challenges, as they already do on multiscalar levels. At the end of the day, steps towards a more sustainable agriculture within this complex matrix, constituted at different scales, are spatialized only at the farm level.

2.3. Contemporary Agriculture: A Very Short Guide for the Perplexed and the Political Economy of Israeli Farmers

2.3.1. The Importance of Family and Small-Scale Farms

The incredible diversity of agricultural practices worldwide is a testament to the vast array of societies, technologies, and cultural landscapes that exist on the world stage. From traditional techniques to technologically advanced modes of operation, agricultural systems to date encompass a wide spectrum. They represent distinct stages of agricultural transformation, contingent upon their technological advancements, market connectivity, and the evolving structures of national economies across the globe [39]. And yet, and even against the enormous changes that have radically transformed the face of modern agriculture, at the core of the world’s agricultural production still stands, as it has since the Neolithic revolution, the family-owned small-scale farm [40,41,42]. This is precisely the reason why the FAO 2014 resolution stressed the importance of family farming for “its significant role in eradicating hunger and poverty, providing food security and nutrition, improving livelihoods, managing natural resources, protecting the environment, and achieving sustainable development”. Family farms are perceived to be essential to sustaining these many functions, yet the very existence of family farms is reputedly under threat [43,44,45].

2.3.2. The Many Faces of Contemporary Agriculture

A rigorous and exhaustive discussion of all types of agriculture practiced today at the farm level far exceeds the scope of this paper and surely my survey here is extremely reductive. Therefore, in what follows I present a very concise outline of the emergence of different types of agriculture following the dramatic changes engendered by the growing reliance on fossil fuel energy and mechanization from the late 19th century to the present [46].

The integration of new machinery and later, industrialized cum chemical fertilizers, radically changed traditional agrarian practices from the late 19th century onwards, at first mostly in European countries. The most revolutionary change in agriculture occurred after World War II. From the mid-1940s to the late 1960s, agricultural support technologies were adapted for production, including inventions developed for use in the World Wars and the farm machinery that produced them. This led to advanced field mechanization, chemical substances for fertilization and pest control, as well as emergence of modified seeds [29]. These changes, supported and funded by governmental policies in Europe and the United States as part of the post-war recovery, were instrumental in the development of modern agriculture. Thus, the foundation of the “Green Revolution”, which fundamentally transformed the face of world agriculture, and indeed of the world, was laid [47,48]. The agriculture that developed because of this revolution (1940s–1970s) is usually labeled as intensive or industrial agriculture. Since it became the predominant agricultural practice worldwide, it is often referred to as conventional agriculture [49].

However, like any revolution, the roots of the counterrevolution were already embedded within it. As concisely suggested by Moss and Bitman, “land cultivation in the ‘developed’ world was carried out and managed as if there was no need to consider nature and the environment at all” [50]. Thus, against the rapid spread of conventional agriculture there arose alternative views and modes of agriculture aiming to reduce its hazardous impacts [51]. As early as the 1920s, the organic option was presented as an alternate system, initially in Europe [52]. Since then, a wide range of alternative modes of agriculture under various heading have appeared, such as agroecology, ecoagriculture, sustainable, alternative, agroforestry, biodynamic, permaculture, holistic management (Savory’s method), and lately, regenerative agriculture has become more and more prevalent in both scientific and farmers’ discourse [53,54,55]. Without getting into the variations and nuances among the different types, they all aim to propose a way out of the prevailing conventional agriculture and the environmental hazards following in its wake. That said, it is not a dichotomic situation and some of the methods on offer are both discursive and also operate using conventional methods [56].

This is surely but a rudimentary and far-from-exhaustive analysis. Nonetheless its main objectives are to demonstrate the problematics of the field that farmers have to confront, absorb, and ultimately respond to and to demonstrate the existing axis of alternatives for farmers, ranging from conventional agriculture with its extreme negative environmental impacts to different types of sustainable agriculture which usually involve more constraints and a higher initial economic investment from the farmer.

2.3.3. The Political Economy of Israeli Agriculture

Since the establishment of Israel in 1948 agriculture has played a significant role in the development and self-sufficiency of the state. Agriculture in Israel was closely intertwined with Zionism, the Jewish national movement [57]. Jewish pioneers played a crucial role in physically asserting the Zionist aspiration for a national territory and enjoyed tremendous social prestige and were supported accordingly with state subsidies, protectionism, and other kinds of aid [58]. The Israeli government has played a crucial role in supporting and advancing the agricultural sector. This support was manifested through various means, including the provision of subsidies, grants, and favorable loan conditions to farmers [59]. However, with the liberalization of the Israeli economy since the late 1970s, there has been a fundamental shift in the dominant political ideology. Consequently, farmers began to encounter growing economic hardships as the political supporting structures that were once central to their operations lost their hegemonic status and access to national budgets [60]. This policy shift and declining government intervention have presented grave challenges for farmers, requiring them to adapt to new economic realities and seek alternative means of support and sustainability.

The rise of the conservative right to political power in Israel shifted governmental attention and budgets to the needs of other sectors and populations [61]. This is particularly true regarding the growing colonization project in the Occupied Territories, in which the government encourages Israeli farmers to settle by means of substantial subsidies. During the late 1990s, governmental support for agriculture dropped to half its previous level [62]. As a response to these changes, many farmers have gradually diversified their livelihood by introducing new land uses in their farms. This liberalization process has also opened the technologically sophisticated, productive Israeli agricultural sector to global markets for its goods. A notable example is the Arava region, which relies almost exclusively on export of fresh produce to global markets [63]. This reorganization of the Israeli agriculture market also drove mostly small-scale farmers to sell or to find additional occupations to sustain their families. Thus, while some large agricultural corporations expand, small farmers struggle to survive [64,65]. In my ethnographies in the fields and interviews with farmers, most of them referred to their growing difficulties as they fight an uphill battle not only against market forces, rising prices of machines, fertilizers, water, and energy but also against dwindling public support and, at times, what they perceive as hostile governmental policies.

2.4. Research Design

2.4.1. Research Method and Data Collection

This study was based on a mixed methodology of diverse complimentary qualitative methods that together facilitated an understanding of farmers’ spatial practice, that is, the way they understand and consequently manage their farm.

The first method employed was a survey of social media (mostly Facebook pages and groups) operated by farmers. This was executed mostly through 2020, during which an exhaustive literature survey of the different types of agriculture, critiques of current policies, and farmers’ conduct in the field complemented this initial stage of data harvesting.

The second method involved ethnographic work in the form of participant observation and open-ended semi-structured interviews, which were conducted at farms over a 3-year period (2021 through 2023). Open-ended interviews serve as the optimal way to comprehend farmers’ worldview, understanding of the situation, and surely their grounded knowledge. The interviews were not scripted and allowed farmers’ voices and worldviews to emerge. However, the following key points and themes were followed and presented as questions during the interviews (

Table 1. Aggregated data on interviewees and farms.

Age	Gender	Type of Farming	Location of Farms	Type of Typical Crops at Farms (Not Following Location)
Age range: 28–72	7 females	27 conventional	Golan Heights 12	Mixed farms 4
Average age 55	28 males	8 sustainable/regenerative	Upper Galilee 7	Olives/avocado/mango 15
			Lower Galilee 8	Citrus 4
			Jezreel Valley 5	Deciduous (apples, almonds, pears, etc.) 8
			Sharon Plain 3	Cattle ranch 4

):

• Personal data.
• Knowledge and sources of knowledge concerning farming/agriculture.
• Daily routine and conduct in the field.
• Interaction with scales beyond the farm level (state agencies, global markets, regulations, etc.).
• Approach to sustainability.
• Challenges, obstacles, and future goals in operating the farm.

This was complemented by interviews with officials, mostly at the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Environment Protection, and with researchers working on issues concerning Israeli agriculture at large. The third method involved was attending conferences, webinars, and Zoom meetings designated for farmers and mostly organized by farmers or NGOs promoting sustainable methods in agriculture. Below is a short explanation of each method:

• Literature Survey of social media: Like other sectors, farmers also engage with social media, within which the groups and pages followed were occupied with sharing information about crops, comparing prices, and at times bringing to the fore problems they were facing, such as the current increase in agricultural terrorism throughout Israel. In the local Israeli context, this term relates to agricultural crime (theft, sabotage, and extortion payments), which farmers consider fundamental threats to their economic and social survival. This was highly beneficial at the early stage of the project, as it enabled me to contact farmers directly and introduce myself and the project and later get access to the farmer and his/her field.
• Ethnographic fieldwork: This study is based in part on intensive ethnographic fieldwork conducted in farms and fields between 2021 and 2023. Over a three-year period, I contacted farmers and got permission to work in their fields. The work, carried out at 35 farms, lasted from a few hours to an entire day. In addition to working in the field, the fieldwork also consisted of participant observation and open-ended semi-structured interviews with farm owners. The three modes of data collection are further explained below:

Participant observation and ethnography: Data collection involved full researcher involvement in activities conducted at the farms explored. To document these observations, a field diary was conducted which was complemented by visual documentation of various activities and encounters at the farms. Additionally, informal talks with the farmer while at work were regularly carried out.

Open-ended interviews: To better understand the farmers’ worldview and logic while operating the farm, I conducted interviews with the farmers, usually at the end of the day when work was done. A total of 35 farmers were interviewed. In this project, the focus was mostly on the way farmers perceive their work, indeed at times their ideology; and to learn more about their professional knowledge and what their sources of information are, such as other farmers, professional guides from the ministry, going online, and more. In accordance with the paper’s main objective, close attention was paid to the ways they formulate the challenges and obstacles they face as they operate their farm and what prevents them from going sustainable should they consider it. This was important for understanding the gaps between ideologies, convictions, and the practical principles that dictate operations in the field. This was conducive to understand better farmers’ sense of place and responses to the scholarly and official discourses (policy, regulations, and professional knowledge) on agriculture.

2.4.2. Data Analysis

After summarizing all the data collected using the different methods, the main themes emerging from the field were aggregated inductively. To further refine these themes, I conflated my conclusions and interpretations with some of the farmers (usually a phone conversation but at times going back to the field) but, more importantly, also with officials and researchers from different disciplines who are intimate with Israeli agriculture. The interviews gave me answers to the questions that dealt with perceptions, attitudes, feelings, and thoughts, and enabled me to explore ontological aspects of farming—those that can be best understood through experience and actual presence in the social world of agriculture.

3. Results and Discussion

Increasing the resilience of agricultural landscapes requires fundamental changes to the dominant production model [66]. The accepted wisdom is that this can be achieved should farmers integrate sustainable forms of agriculture. Indeed, many explorations engaged with farmers’ knowledge and the imperative of adopting sustainable methods as crucial to such transformations, e.g., [14,67,68,69]. And yet, if we are to accept that scale is relational, concentrating on what Agnew defined as “the local trap” of scale is only muddying the already murky waters [70]. Focusing solely on the farm level without accepting that scale is simultaneously fixed and fluid is disadvantageous to our current endeavors. This approach tends to downplay (or ignore) multiscalar politics and how many factors come into play and influence the outcome at the farm level, that is, what type of agriculture is being operated. Following Brenner, I contend that one must examine a range of scales at once (rather than focusing on a single scale alone) and the changing interrelationships among the various scales [71]. Farmers do not operate exclusively on the local scale; they do exist in a complex world. Cultural, economic, social, political, and surely environmental conditions influence what is spatialized at the farm level. Furthermore, it needs to be acknowledged that scale politics and scales are always relational; therefore, an analysis of a single scale alone is bound to miss out on the relationships among scales [72,73,74].

3.1. Lessons from the Field: How Farmers Know What They Know (or Do Not) and Why They Do What They Do (or Do Not)

I arrived at A.’s olive grove to set up a time during which I would be able to work with him and his family during the upcoming annual olive harvest. He operates in the same traditional ways farmers have used for centuries, which means that he does not irrigate the trees but relies on the rainy season to sustain them. He is not familiar with recent discussions on the importance of minimum tilling and leaving dead and live organic matter on the ground to lessen evaporation from the field, suppress weeds, and improve soil health [75]. As A. is already in his 60s and tending to the olive grove is not his main occupation, I was not overly surprised that he was not abreast with recent developments, that is, his sense of place which commands the way he conducts his orchard. I was rather intrigued to see a similar disregard of developments in the field with N., who is in his 30s and manages a mixed farm of cattle and field crops of mainly wheat and barley. He was unaware of recent Ministry of Agriculture initiatives to advance no-tilling farming, which is an agricultural technique for growing crops or pasture without disturbing the soil through tillage. I asked him about his professional knowledge and how he stays updated, and his answer made it perfectly clear that he does not: “I work with my father who has been working in this plot for the last 20 years. I follow his instructions and I cannot recall going on-line or consulting any of the field guides [a service of the Ministry of Agriculture—author]. I do have a financial consultant who helps me with planning ahead” (interview with author, 11 February 2023).

These two examples do not necessarily represent most of the farmers surveyed. However, they highlight the fact that knowledge in and of itself is not the sole factor leading the farmer’s conduct in the field. I will give but one example. While working for L. in his apple orchard I asked him about dead organic cover as the orchard was by and large void of any. To my surprise, he was fully aware of the advantages involved in leaving the organic cover and yet he explained: “I tried it for one year and everything was fine until the workers had to go in and pick the apples. As they start working early in morning, the dew on the vegetation below and between the trees was heavy and turned out to be a problem, as they got wet and kept complaining about it” (interview with author, 18 December 2022). Surely, in this far from exhaustive discussion I am only able to share snippets from the field. However, it brings to the fore the mundane hardships and technical issues that prevent even farmers who take the trouble to be updated from integrating more environmental modes in their field. It is at times the mundane and literally earthy problems at the farm level that ultimately dictate farmers’ conduct in the fields. This is Lefebvre’s lived space in essence and the ways it is spatialized in the fields. This leads me to an issue that emerged in each of my visits and discussions with farmers: the need to conform to an economically sustainable plan.

3.2. The Political Economy at Farm Level

One of the recurrent themes in all my encounters with farmers was the need to be economically viable and, at the end of the day, to be able to “provide for the family”. At the risk of stating the obvious or sounding too naïve, farms and farmers must conform to basic laws of sound fiscal management. E. was a highly sophisticated organic grower who operated a cutting-edge farm intended to export organic products to the American market. However, in 2010, after investing all his savings at the time (circa NIS 500,000), he shut down his operation as the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture failed to provide him with the proper documentation without which he could not get approval to export his goods in the USA. In what follows I deliver his take (almost verbatim) on the political economy, and indeed political ecology, at the farm level:

The persistent calls to encourage “sustainable agriculture” are purely academic and disconnected from the simple albeit crucial fact that agriculture is first and foremost an economic business; on a practical level, farmers could adjust and adopt new methods and practices in the field if at the end of the day they would be able to be profitable. The crucial failing point in sustainable agriculture is that it is simply unprofitable for most farmers; for sustainable agriculture to be profitable, the farmer must acquire the agricultural input at a price that is at least equal to the one received from the conventional chemical alternative. In reaching this goal [more sustainable agriculture] will require not only declarations but also direct financial support and subsidies to the farmers for losses caused by the move to sustainable agriculture (interview with author, 7 July 2022).

His was the most articulate response, which is why it was cited here. It sums up rather clearly the prevailing understanding and conduct among most farmers encountered during this project. And yet, some interlocutors are transforming their farms and embracing new ideas and more sustainable practices (which, in a sense, is a return to preindustrialized agriculture) in the field.

3.3. The Illusive Component in Going Sustainable: Sustainability as Ideology and Suspension of Economical Constraints

As part of the project, farmers (8 in total) who adopted modes of practice that fall under the definition of regenerative agriculture were also interviewed. In general, regenerative agriculture is an alternative means of producing food and operating in farms that aim to have lower environmental and social impacts [76]. This paradigmatic shift from conventional agriculture to a different conceptualization of farming is also discursive. B. is an avocado grower who in recent years has come to the realization that he simply cannot continue with the conventional practice he inherited from the previous manager of the avocado plantation: “I grew up on this land and I live it, and I have realized that many things I do are done automatically, such as the use of preemergence herbicide, … the orchard is part of an ecological tapestry and in order to treat it properly one should disengage from short term economic calculations and think for the long term” (interview with author, 2 January 2023). These insights are exercised daily in his sustainable management of the orchard. The soil, he claims, is not just a matrix for growing avocados but should be treated as a living organism: “We need to nurture it in so it can later feed us. It is a relationship and therefore it is inconceivable to keep on taking forever because it will not last”. To that end, he conducts very close monitoring of the amounts of fertilizers used and opts for compost instead of chemical fertilizers. He has eliminated the use of pesticides almost completely. He utilizes cover crops to enrich the soil nutrients and avoids the use of herbicides, which also ensures better absorption of rain and less erosion of the soil during the rainy season. It is part of a transformation in his worldview, as he claims: “It is not an easy process to implement but it is imperative to the existence of a natural ecosystem that exists within the orchard, even if it is a managed commercial one” (interview with author, 2 January 2023). This different attitude and emerging understanding are what I define as the illusive component. Initially, the change in farmers’ conduct in the field had nothing to do with integrating professional knowledge, but first and foremost it was a cognitive change, which was later followed by learning new methods.

Indeed, as I was weeding in the baking sun of the Israeli summer in Y.’s wheat field, where he used unmodified seeds (fieldnotes, 1 June 2023), or moving fences with S., a rancher who has adopted Allan Savory’s holistic management for cattle (17 March 2023), I could understand the reluctance of many farmers to integrate these methods in the field. It is simply much harder work; it is time consuming and, even more critical at the farm level, it is much more expensive, certainly in the first years of transition from conventional to regenerative cum sustainable agriculture.

This illusive factor is in essence a bold move on the part of the farmer to suspend, if not ignore altogether (certainly in the initial parts of the project), market constraints. In assessing the usefulness of sustainable agriculture as a working concept and framework, Hansen made the distinction between sustainability as an ideology and sustainability as a set of practical practices [77]. The move to a more sustainable mode of production among these farmers was first and foremost an ideological one, which was later transformed into their daily conduct in managing their farms.

That said, while discussing this trend with conventional farmers most of them responded with a mixed bag of skepticism and amusement and doubted the economic sustainability of these methods. As one of them said to me: “I am not sure these sustainable farmers are that sustainable” (interview with author, 6 March 2023). Indeed, in the current climate of Israeli agriculture and against the general lack of support from state agencies, most of the “alternative” farmers I encountered were either backed by a larger corporation they belong to (kibbutzim) or managed to brand themselves and built a strong customers’ network that is willing to pay substantially more than market price for their quality products. Theoretically, the integration of sustainable farming should be seen as moving closer to the conceptualized space which involves the intellectualization of space (representations of space in Lefebvre’s triad) through the temporary suspension of multiscalar politics and nested scalar hierarchies above the farm level [37]. These complexities will furnish the last section, as I discuss the horizontal and vertical matrices farmers are engaged with.

3.4. The Local Is Multiscalar Every Step of the Way

T. operates a medium-sized beef cattle farm which he took over from his father. The farm operates as an extensive grazing-based system which means the cows graze freely most of the year within his 10,000 dunums lot, which he leases annually from the state. The basic principle to keep afloat financially, he tells me, is to ensure that each cow delivers one calf a year (interview with author, 12 April 2021). For this to happen he needs to intervene and supply the cows with dry and expensive food when grazing is not enough to revitalize the cows after calving. He also adds poultry manure to their diet as it contains a high ratio of proteins: “If I let the cow recover at a natural pace, it will deliver a calf every two-three year and this is simply not an option for me financially” (interview with author, 12 April 2021).

His main challenges at the farm level are making sure the cows are properly fed and can find water when needed. Additionally, there are many more variables to confront: “In order to have enough biomass for the cows to graze, we need a strong rainy season otherwise I have to bring more food which is very costly. In recent years we have experienced very hot summers, and heat waves greatly affect the cows’ health. Here in this region, we also have wolf packs and if one of those land in your ranch, chances are that you lose many calves, as the cows deliver them in the open and there are times, I arrive too late to save them. By the way, I am not allowed to hunt them as they are protected animals” (fieldnotes 11 May 2023).

In addition to the many variables that constantly need to be met at the farm level (horizontal challenges), T. confronts challenges and demands on multiple scales (vertical challenges). The Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Public Health frequently issues new regulations and standards to prevent outbreaks of (new) diseases. Now, no less than 12 kinds of shots are required and surely the costs are paid by the farmers. Other agencies, such as the Ministry of Environmental Protection, restrict his conduct and ensure he operates within strict regulations, for example, to avoid contamination of aquifers or preventing him from hunting possible predators that at times create havoc and devour the young calves. On the national scale he is confronted with fluctuations in the beef prices as dictated by the big merchants and changing customers’ habits. In Israel, local beef farms supply circa 8% of the total meat consumed so international import is the most significant player and surely a challenge to local ranchers. Against these horizontal and vertical challenges, T. runs a business that is marginally profitable.

In this short description, a single farm was analyzed while avoiding the “local trap” and bringing a multiscalar analysis into the discussion. This analysis only touches upon some of the challenges at various scales, spatialized at the farm level. It goes well beyond lack of knowledge or indifference to environmental issues that prevent farmers from becoming sustainable. In the current climate, as plainly narrated by T., for most of them it is purely and simply about survival. For significant changes to occur, this situation needs to be acknowledged before any solution may be offered. This will be addressed in the concluding part.

4. Conclusions and Further Reflections

This paper set out to explore Israeli farmers’ attitudes and perceptions towards integrating more sustainable modes of agriculture in their farms. It involved a qualitative methodology destined to highlight the challenges, barriers, and “lived space” conceptualization as they are spatialized at the farm level and the ways this informs the management of farms. This is part of the ongoing and lingering debates among scholars and policy makers, which revolves around a key question that was formulated previously in numerous ways: why is it that, despite ample approachable data and existing policies promoting more sustainable modes of productions in the agrifood system, changes among farmers throughout the globe are very slow to arrive (e.g., Refs. [13,78,79])? The contribution of this paper to this crucial debate is to be found in both theoretical and empirical contexts. The paper offers a theoretical model which explains the complex matrices within which farmers operate while engaging with both horizontal variables (daily conduct at farm level) and vertical factors (multiscalar analysis and scale politics).

The model furnishes my argument that if the debate continues to focus on the farm level and on farmers’ conduct in isolation from scalar analysis, changes will be slow to arrive. Empirically, the paper offers a qualitative methodology which enables farmers’ voices to be heard which is deemed essential to acknowledge in both scholarly and public debate, and surely for future directions in research and public policies. In adhering to this methodology, I follow Altieri who, while examining farmers’ responses to policies forced on them, arrived at the following conclusion: “understanding farmers’ existing technology and farming systems is the fundamental step in the design of appropriate development strategies” [28]. Put differently, approaching farmers requires not only technological knowledge but also and probably much more importantly cultural sensitivity and insight into what they perceive as a threat or problem.

Not surprisingly, the project revealed that the fundamental challenge farmers face is mostly the need to comply with today’s market economy system. This basic tenet of their work informs their conduct and decision making, at times regardless of their own personal conviction and knowledge. The paper highlights their vulnerability against forces on a multiscalar level which presents numerous challenges in operating their farms. Further, by accepting that scale is relational and in avoiding “the local trap” of scale, the paper suggests that addressing these challenges is essential to enable farmers to integrate more sustainable modes of operation. This would require upscaling the debate and all stakeholders concerned, from the farm level to global players, taking responsibility. Indeed, farming, like any other social–spatialized process cannot be thought of as inherently attached or operating primarily at the farm level.

In addition to the model, it is imperative to stress the need to work closely with farmers and engage in a dialogue with them, instead of explorations of farmers and enforcing regulations and ambitious targets that could never be met without their full cooperation. The specific practices implemented to achieve sustainability are ultimately determined by individual producers. The global need for sustainable agriculture is executed locally as much as the local farm is influenced and effected by the global. If farmers are left more or less on their own to carry out the much-needed integration of sustainable modes of production, while the other links in the agrifood system are conforming to capitalistic logic, it will be rather difficult to affect these much-needed changes [80]. Such relations are typical for the model of economic development implemented since the industrial revolution, where economic growth is reached at the cost of the natural environment [81]. It is apparent that without disconnecting or, as the case may be, allowing temporary suspension from “the capitalist vortex, the maelstrom passing over the earth and sucking up everything in its path” [82], changes at the farm level will remain a utopian and unachievable goal in most cases. Put plainly, for farmers to entertain the move to sustainable cum regenerative agriculture, significant changes are needed in scalar settings far and beyond the individual farm.

As a final conclusion, without a comprehensive consideration of scale the prevailing position among scholars, both intellectually and politically, is likely to continue suggesting that local-scale arrangements, although imperfect, are inherently more liberating and environmentally aware. To avoid this local trap, this paper offers a theoretical resolution that surpasses the local mindset, rather than relying solely on farmers as agents of change against the current economic and political climate. In short, policies need to address the long-term economic viability of farming in all its shapes and forms, simply because farmers do not operate in a neutral environment.