# The impact of agricultural policies on agrobiodiversity management in a pre-Rif farming system in Morocco: what implications for resilience?

Océane Cobelli, Irene Teixidor-Toneu, Salama El Fatehi, Younès Hmimsa, Christian Leclerc, Vanesse Labeyrie

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## ► To cite this version:

Océane Cobelli, Irene Teixidor-Toneu, Salama El Fatehi, Younès Hmimsa, Christian Leclerc, et al. The impact of agricultural policies on agrobiodiversity management in a pre-Rif farming system in Morocco: what implications for resilience?. Agriculture and Human Values, 2025, 42 (3), pp.1285-1305. 10.1007/s10460-025-10724-1. hal-05046006

HAL Id: hal-05046006

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05046006v1

Submitted on 24 Apr 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# The impact of agricultural policies on agrobiodiversity management in a pre-Rif farming system in Morocco: what implications for resilience?

Océane Cobelli<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />☐, Irene Teixidor-Toneu<fnref n="3" />, Salama El Fatehi<fnref n="4" />, Younes Hmimsa<fnref n="4" />, Christian Leclerc<fnref n="5" />,<fnref n="6" />, Vanesse Labeyrie<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />

Accepted: 19 February 2025

© The Author(s) 2025

## Abstract

Agrobiodiversity is widely recognized as essential for smallholder agriculture, particularly for enhancing resilience to disruptions which are increasingly frequent and intense. However, whether agricultural policies support or hinder agrobiodiversity in these systems remains debated. A deeper understanding of how policies intersect with other change drivers and local practices is crucial to improving decision-making. Using a case study from northwest Morocco, this research explores the complex interplay between public policies and other factors affecting local agrobiodiversity management. This study is based on the analysis of semi-structured interviews conducted with 48 farmers documenting the changes in their farm and agrobiodiversity management system, and comparing it with that of their parents, as well as the perceived drivers of these changes. The results of this analysis were cross-checked with literature on agricultural policies. Our results show that major changes in agrobiodiversity management systems occurred at three levels: (i) seeds and varieties of annual crops; (ii) farming activities (i.e., crop species and livestock); and (iii) associated agricultural practices from plot to landscape. Public policies were found to be important drivers of these changes but interacted with other drivers such as climate change, rural exodus and other societal and economic shifts. Nevertheless, our research also highlights the persistence of local practices and motivations that sustain agrobiodiversity despite strong pressures, particularly through culinary practices, crop rotation, and agroforestry. This study underscores the complex, context-specific interactions that shape local agrobiodiversity management systems. It discusses the implications of changes in agrobiodiversity management systems on the resilience of farm livelihoods, and emphasizes the need to recognize local distinctiveness in adapting these systems to global change.

**Keywords** Morocco · Resilience · Livelihood · Agrobiodiversity management · Public policies · Agricultural systems

## Introduction

Climate change forces farmers to adapt their production systems to extreme climatic events that were until recently unimaginable (Cottrell et al. 2019). Today, agricultural systems can no longer be evaluated solely based on short-term productive and economic outcomes; they must also be resilient to increasingly intense and frequent shocks that jeopardize food production stability from local to global scales (Cottrell et al. 2019).

To enhance agricultural system resilience – i.e., the capacity to overcome perturbations either through adaptation, by absorbing shocks, or through transformation, by fundamentally reorganizing themselves (Folke et al. 2010; Urruty et al. 2016; Walker et al. 2006) – the scientific literature abounds with studies promoting agrobiodiversity (e.g.,

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<footnote>Océane Cobelli
oceane.cobelli@cirad.fr</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ CIRAD, UMR SENS, Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² UMR SENS, CIRAD, IRD, University Paul Valery Montpellier 3, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ UMR IMBE, IRD, Marseille, France</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ TEDAEEP team, Abdelmalek Essaadi University (Polydisciplinary Faculty, Larache), Tetouan, Morocco</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ CIRAD, UMR AGAP institut, Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ UMR AGAP institut, University of Montpellier, CIRAD, INRAE, Institut Agro, Montpellier, France</footnote>
Bravo-Peña and Yoder 2024). Agrobiodiversity covers the diversity of living organisms, whether domesticated or not, associated with agricultural practices at different biological levels (from genes to communities) and spatial scales (from fields to landscapes). Numerous studies highlight the benefits of high agrobiodiversity from both social and ecological perspectives, including enhancing wild biodiversity and regulation of epidemics (Kremen and Miles 2012), more efficient use of resources, and more stable production and income over time (Renard and Tilman 2021).

Most of the past public agricultural policies implemented around the world, however, have been in contradiction with these scientific evidence and contributed to an overall uniformization of agricultural systems worldwide, in conjunction with other societal and economic drivers (Chaudhary et al. 2004; Doumbia et al. 2014; Khoury et al. 2014; Pham et al. 2002; Porcuna-Ferrer et al. 2024; van de Wouw et al. 2010). This decrease in agrobiodiversity, notably through the specialization of farms and the introduction of modified high-yielding varieties and breeds, endangers local food security, national food sovereignty, and farmers' ability to adapt (Thomas et al. 2012; Thrupp 2000). These impacts are especially overwhelming for smallholder farmers, who represent a significant proportion of Global South producers and play a key role in the food security in these regions (Ricciardi et al. 2018; Scoones and Thompson 2011). However, in some contexts, agricultural modernization has not decreased, but enriched agrobiodiversity at local scales through the introduction of new varieties or agricultural activities without replacing pre-existing ones (Brush 1992; Cobelli et al. 2022; Monroy-Sais et al. 2024; Zimmerer 2013). Whether agricultural policies deplete agrobiodiversity or, conversely, help enhance it is debated depending on their interactions with local agrobiodiversity management systems (i.e. all agrobiodiversity-related practices within the farming system). Advancing this debate requires empirical observations and field data to accurately assess the impact of public agricultural policies on agrobiodiversity management and their effects on the resilience of agricultural systems.

This paper describes how public agricultural policies, in interaction with other drivers, have impacted agrobiodiversity in northern Morocco, where agrobiodiversity-based agriculture was historically predominant (Akesbi 2005), through documenting the changes reported by farmers concerning their practices. The Rif area (Larache province), where our study takes place, is especially illustrative of this interplay between agricultural modernization policies and agrobiodiversity management. The area harbors a particularly rich agrobiodiversity (Hmimsa and Ater 2008) and has been modified by different national agricultural modernization programs, the latter being the *Plan Maroc Vert*,

implemented to modernize and liberalize the agricultural sector. This paper examines how agricultural modernization policies—through the promotion of improved varieties, fertilizers, pesticides, and mechanization—affect agrobiodiversity management at three different levels: (i) seeds and varieties of annual crops; (ii) farming activities (i.e., crop species and livestock); and (iii) associated agricultural practices from plot to landscape.

It then discusses how the documented impacts on agrobiodiversity management are expected to affect smallholder livelihood resilience, defined as “the capacity of all people across generations to sustain and improve their livelihood opportunities and well-being despite environmental, economic, social, and political disturbances” (Tanner et al. 2015). Indeed, the linkages between agrobiodiversity and farms’ resilience have been highlighted by various studies, with a focus on smallholder agriculture (Bravo-Peña and Yoder 2024). Changes in agrobiodiversity are linked to changes in the financial, human, social, physical, and natural capitals of farms, that condition households’ capacity to overcome perturbations (Carney 1998; Chambers and Conway 1992). Based on the systemic assessment of changes in agrobiodiversity management conducted in this study, we thus discuss the impacts on the different capitals, and the potential consequences for farms’ resilience.

# Materials and methods

## Study site

The study site is located in the province of Larache, in the south-west of the Tangier-Tétouan-Al Hoceïma region (north-west Morocco), specifically in the *caïdat* of Bni Garfett and the communes of Bni Garfett and Zaaroura, in the western pre-Rif area (Fig. 1). These communes lie between the plains, where irrigated commercial farming is becoming increasingly important, and the Rif mountains, where non-irrigated subsistence farming (*bour* in Moroccan Arabic) predominates.

The study was conducted in three villages in the rural municipalities of Bni Garfett and Zaaroura, whose demographic characteristics are presented in Table 1A. Located on either side of a small mountain (named *Jbel Bni Garfett*) with a maximum altitude of 550 m, the geographic location of the three villages entails varying cultivation conditions, differing access to fields and varying ease of soil work depending on the topography, as well as unequal market access based on distance to travel and road conditions (Table 1B).

The study area is inhabited by *Jbala* (meaning “mountain people”) people, an Arabic-speaking ethnic group living in
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Sources: base maps from GeoBoundaries and OSM - Production: Océane Cobelli

<caption>**Fig. 1** Administrative map of the study area and photographs of the landscapes on each side of the mountain</caption>

<table><caption>**Table 1** A. Municipal demographic data from the 2014 general population and housing census, partially updated with currently available data from the 2024 census (in parentheses); B. Villages' characteristics based on their geographic location</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>A. Municipalities</th><th>Number of villages</th><th>Total of households</th><th>Total of inhabitants</th><th>Total working population over 15 years of age</th><th>Percentage of working population employed in agricultural sector</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Bni Garfett</td><td></td><td>24</td><td>2738 (2713)</td><td>12,994 (11,311)</td><td>3296</td><td>74.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Zaaroura</td><td></td><td>19 (20)</td><td>2131 (2226)</td><td>10,137 (8615)</td><td>2700</td><td>89.3%</td></tr><tr><td>B. Villages</td><td>Number of inhabitants</td><td>Geographical position in relation to the mountain</td><td>Access to the plains</td><td>Field access road conditions</td><td>Distance to the main market by the road</td><td>Road access from the village</td><td>Road conditions</td></tr><tr><td>Village X</td><td>1256 (1047)</td><td>South-west</td><td>Favorable</td><td>Easy</td><td>6 km</td><td>Moderate, but vehicle possible</td><td>Good, paved</td></tr><tr><td>Village Y</td><td>659 (472)</td><td>North-east</td><td>Limited</td><td>Difficult</td><td>8 km</td><td>Difficult, vehicle impossible</td><td>Bad, unpaved</td></tr><tr><td>Village Z</td><td>629 (703)</td><td>East</td><td>Impossible (dam impounded in 2018)</td><td>Moderate</td><td>9 km</td><td>Easily accessible by vehicle</td><td>Good, unpaved</td></tr></tbody></table>

most of the western Rif. The *Jbala* country stretches from the strait of Gibraltar to the Taza corridor, forming an arc along the western Rif (Vignet-Zunz 1995). *Jbala* people have an agro-sylvo-pastoral production system. Farms are often small (less than 5 ha) or very small (less than 0.5 ha), and rely largely on human or animal power for cultivation

although mechanization is now widespread in the plains for plowing and cereal harvesting (Chentoufi et al. 2014). Farms combine a diversity of activities covering livestock rearing and the cultivation of a range of crop species, for both self-consumption and local sale (Hmimsa and Ater 2008).
The agro-sylvo-pastoral systems of the Rif present a remarkable diversity of annual species and some rare crops are sometimes still cultivated in certain areas (e.g., *Triticum monococcum*, *Vicia ervilia*). However, varietal diversity for these species is low, and each crop is represented by just one or two varieties (Hmimsa and Ater 2008). These agro-sylvo-pastoral systems also present a high diversity of fruit trees (e.g., olives, figs, almonds, vines, plums, pears, walnuts, wild cherries). Fruit trees have a very high varietal richness, especially fig trees, which are a characteristic feature of Rif agro-ecosystems (Ater and Hmimsa 2013).

Another typical fruit tree of these systems, the olive tree (*Olea europaea*), is traditionally grafted onto oleasters in orchards surrounding villages (Fig. 2). Orchards were created through slash-and-burn clearing, preserving a few wild olive trees (oleasters) according to the desired density (Aumeeruddy-Thomas et al. 2016). These cleared scrubland areas gradually transformed into permanent agroforests. Indeed, in addition to grafting oleasters with the dominant clone in Morocco (*Picholine marocaine*; Khadari et al. 2008), farmers grow cereals and pulses in rotation and graze their livestock after harvest. Other fruit trees, such as carob and fig trees, are also grown in these traditional oleaster-olive agroecosystems.

**Brief history of Moroccan agricultural policies**

After independence in 1956, the Moroccan State began to invest more in agriculture (Lazarev 2012). Nevertheless, Moroccan mountain regions, as the Rif, have often been neglected by national agricultural policies, which favor

massive investment in flatland irrigated areas. To correct this imbalance, so-called “integrated” projects were launched from 1974 onwards in various non-irrigated areas (Akesbi 2005). These projects are said to be “integrated” because, in addition to economic and technical considerations (investment on the farm, mechanization, use of fertilizers and selected seeds, phytosanitary treatments, credit, etc.), they also focused on building roads, schools and dispensaries, electrifying the countryside, developing souks, etc. (Akesbi 2005). From 1974 onwards, the State reorganized and subsided the production and distribution of selected seeds; with around 35% of the cost of cereal seed covered by the government (Bishaw et al. 2019). The parastatal Société nationale de commercialisation des semences (SONACOS; National seed commercialization company) was created in 1975 to produce and market seeds of Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) varieties. Simultaneously, from 1974 to 1985, the State also subsidized fertilizers and subsidies for agricultural machinery were introduced in 1982 (Khrouz 1992). In 1985, Morocco undertook economic and agricultural reforms as part of its liberalization and economic restructuring programs, based on the recommendations of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), engaging in a shift in agricultural strategies towards export-oriented production (Khrouz 1992).

In 2008, the Moroccan government launched the *Plan Maroc Vert* (PMV). The plan is based on two pillars: the first focuses on “high productivity and high added value” agriculture, much of which is export-oriented, while the second aims to provide support for small-scale farming.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** Organization of the Jbala agricultural landscape (adapted from Fay 1979)</figcaption></figure>
The originality of this new agricultural plan lies in the fact that it is divided into sectors (e.g., red fruit, red meat, dairy, poultry, beekeeping), but above all into regions, so as to be as close as possible to local specificities. Nevertheless, the PMV retains a technical and productivist vision (Akesbi 2012). For the Tangier-Tetouan-Al Hoceima region, according to the dedicated website, the PMV has opted to finance projects to plant 80,000 hectares of fruit trees, extend 25,500 hectares of irrigated land and develop 30,227 hectares of localized irrigation (https://www.agriculture.gov.ma/fr/dat_a-agri/plan-maroc-vert). The PMV allowed for an increase in olive production of 112%, with a processing capacity of 600%, an increase in almond production of 150%, fig trees of 170%, seasonal vegetables of more than 8%, red fruit of 55% and milk of 47%. No projects have been developed to grow cereals and pulses, despite the fact that these are the main annual crops grown in the Rif and elsewhere in Morocco (Hmimsa and Ater 2008).

## Data collection and analyses

Semi-structured interviews, informal discussions, and non-participant observation were conducted by the first author

<table><caption>**Table 2** Structure of the interview guide (see supplementary material for more details).</caption><thead><tr><th>General themes</th><th>Specific questions</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Interviewee information</td><td>Full name, Age, Village of birth<br>Estimated date at which the respondent became the farm head.<br>Land status.</td></tr><tr><td>Annuals crops</td><td>Crop species and varieties sown in early winter (bakriya) and late spring (mazouziya) over the last year on the farm.<br>Crop species and varieties cultivated by the respondent's parents.<br>Crop species and varieties cultivated by the respondent when he started farming on his own.<br>Time and reason for changes in crop species and varieties.</td></tr><tr><td>Olive trees</td><td>Ownership of olive trees planted or grafted in fields or garden<br>Date of plantation or tree inheritance<br>Agroforestry practices</td></tr><tr><td>Garden and other fruit trees</td><td>Ownership of other fruit trees and vegetables<br>Vegetable or fruit species grown by parents</td></tr><tr><td>Livestock</td><td>Ownership of animal species and breeds raised by the respondent, by the respondent's parents and by the respondent when he started farming on his own<br>Forage species and pasture practices<br>Time and reason for changes in livestock practices</td></tr><tr><td>Other activities</td><td>Other activities practiced by the respondent, the respondent's parents and by the respondent when he started farming on his own<br>Time and reason for changes in other activities</td></tr><tr><td>General change</td><td>Other changes related to agriculture</td></tr></tbody></table>

from February to May 2023. She stayed in all three villages, accompanied by an interpreter from a non- Jbala village closer to the town of Larache. A total of 48 semi-structured interviews were conducted in Moroccan Arabic (7 in Village X, 18 in Village Y, 23 in Village Z). Villagers had been informed prior to our arrival of the project aims, and Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) was obtained before each interview. Respondents were men aged between 33 and 80, with an average age of 56. They were sometimes accompanied by their wives, but they were mostly interviewed alone. We tried to interview women, but they usually told us that it was their husbands who were in charge of farms and that they did not know how to answer our questions. Although no formal interviews were conducted with women, informal discussions took place on several occasions.

The study participants were selected through the convenience sampling method because we faced substantial difficulties to recruit participants and were limited by the small number of people giving FPIC for participating to our study. To achieve a diversity of representative situations, we conducted interviews with people met through various channels: at the café, outside mosques, through Moqadems (representatives of authority at the district or village level), as well as through the host families of the first author and the interpreter (friends, neighbors, family), in addition to door-to-door visits. The representativeness of the sample interviewed was assessed retrospectively via other large-scale surveys conducted in the same area at the same time, which aimed to investigate the entire agricultural population of the villages. Based on these surveys' data, the sample of farmers included in our study can be considered representative, as it represents the different crops and agricultural activities found in the larger survey, despite a slight over-representation of landowners (~20%). Data from the High Commission for Planning (HCP) of the Kingdom of Morocco (http://bds-tanger.hcp.ma/fr/indicators/provincial/28) were also used to compare the diversity of annual species cultivated at the study sites with those cultivated at the provincial scale between 2004 and 2021.

As presented in Table 2, interviews were structured around six main sections, according to the different agricultural activities practiced in the area: i) annual crops and varieties, ii) olive trees, iii) gardens and other fruit trees, iv) livestock, v) other activities, vi) general changes. Starting from current practices, the objective was to synchronically compare agricultural activities and crop diversity between farms as they are today, farms at the time when the respondents became farm heads (i.e. started farming for themselves), and their parents' farms. To situate the various changes over time, we relied on significant major changes, such as the construction of the school, the development of electricity, or the major drought of 1995, as well as on
events related to the interviewees' lives, such as the birth of their children, whose ages were generally well-known. The different levels of agrobiodiversity were reviewed across various activities, with a focus on annual crops and olive trees regarding varieties (translated as 'type' during the interviews and which includes 'catalog varieties' and 'farmers' varieties'), and on general changes concerning the landscape and collective practices. For each change identified between these different time periods, we sought to understand the underlying causes of the changes in agricultural practices.

Based on exhaustive notes taken in French during interviews, a thematic analysis was carried out following the axes drawn by the different sections of the interview guide. Within these different axes, representing the different farming activities, sub-themes were identified and classified by agrobiodiversity levels. These sub-themes represent the different practices, or changes in practices, associated with each activity and agrobiodiversity levels. The interview sections corresponding to these sub-themes were extracted and grouped together to cross-check the narratives of the various informants. During the desk research phase, the changes in practices assessed by the interviews were connected to national agricultural policies. If the respondents had not associated the changes mentioned during the interviews with agricultural development programs, the link with public policies was made on the basis of the existing literature and the temporalities mentioned by the interviewees. For other factors of change, attribution was based on the drivers mentioned by the respondents to explain the changes (e.g., a mentioned "decrease in rainfall" was classified as environmental driver; "increase in prices" was classified as socio-economic driver). Cross-referencing the different interviews enabled us to ascertain the underlying causes of the various changes. This dual thematic analysis has enabled to highlight the interactions between the various drivers of change in each agricultural activity, their cascading effects, and the systemic nature of the transformations on the agricultural system as a whole.

## Results

A complex interplay of environmental, socio-economic, and political factors influences the dynamics of agrobiodiversity management at different levels and, in doing so, farm capitals (Fig. 3). The main changes are a partial replacement of cereal and pulse varieties, a significant decrease in the cultivated area and diversity of annual crops, the development of olive tree planting and agroforestry practices, changes in livestock practices (grazing) and crop management (mainly mechanization and synthetic inputs). Results are presented

below according to the level of agrobiodiversity where changes occur: (i) seeds and varieties of annual crops; (ii) farming activities (i.e., crop species and livestock); (iii) associated agricultural practices from plot to landscape.

## Seeds and varieties of annual crops

Farmers distinguish two main types of crop varieties: local (*heldi*) and foreign varieties (*romi*). *Beldi* varieties are described as more resistant to hazards because they are better adapted to local conditions, less productive but requiring less inputs and with a better taste; *romi* varieties give higher yields but require more inputs to achieve this (i.e. fertilizers and pesticides). We differentiate *romi* varieties into two types: improved varieties that have been selected by research and distributed via certified distribution centers; and ‘external’ varieties that have been introduced by the market, without knowing the selection processes they may or may not have undergone.

## Introduction of improved varieties through the State

The main crops in the study area are wheat (both durum and soft) and barley, respectively cultivated by 92% and 77% of the respondents. The state-subsidized introduction of improved soft wheat (*Triticum aestivum*), durum wheat (*Triticum durum*), and barley (*Hordeum vulgare*) seeds 25 years ago almost wiped out local varieties, mostly of durum wheat. According to respondents, this change of durum wheat variety took place very quickly. Indeed, the improved varieties of wheat (both durum and soft, the latter not being cultivated before its introduction by the State) were rapidly adopted for their grain yields. "In 1998, everyone was growing the hmimar [local variety meaning 'red'] variety, then we gradually switched to the zerban [meaning 'rushed'], as it has a short cycle] variety, reaching 100% zerban in 2000. I tried growing 20 kg of the zerban variety in 1998, while continuing to grow the hmimar variety, then I switched entirely to zerban because it gives better yields" (I8, 45 years old, Village Y).

The interviews also highlight that, in addition to producing greater quantities of grain, improved wheat varieties have enabled farmers to cope with decreased rainfall and rising temperatures, thanks to their short cycles. However, the improved varieties are not very resistant to rain and cold, unlike local varieties. Given climate instability, these varieties do not produce good harvests in cold years. "People are also growing zerban [in addition to the productivity aspect] because there's less rain now than before. Rain has a significant impact on wheat, and if it rains too much, there is little to no production. Before, it rained a lot, so people grew the
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3** Conceptual diagram of the main drivers of changes in agrobiodiversity management system and their impacts on farm capitals</figcaption></figure>

beldi *variety*, but since there's less rain now, people grow zerban" (I4, 60 years old, Village Y).

Nevertheless, a few farmers (~10%), still grow an old local variety (*hmimar*) intended mainly for livestock feed as it produces much more straw than modern varieties. One farmer told us that he was starting to grow this variety again to cope with the rising cost of agricultural inputs, as this variety requires fewer inputs than the improved varieties. Most respondents mentioned that improved wheat varieties need fertilizers to yield a substantial production and consider this a problem due to their dramatic price increase. According to the farmers interviewed, there is only one local variety of wheat still grown, the other landraces having completely disappeared from the area: "*Before, there were several beldi varieties: zériaai khel and swini; but they no longer exist today. Only the hmimar variety remains, and it is now grown only by those who practice livestock farming*" (I3, 73 years old, Village X).

The improved barley variety disseminated by the government was tested by farmers but was not widely adopted.

According to farmers, this variety is unsuited to local growing conditions because of its soil requirements (flat, wet soils) to produce sufficient yields. "*Local barley is more resistant on sloped lands than romi barley, which does not yield any production on hot lands. The people here have not adopted romi barley because it can only be cultivated on flat, black soils. They tested it on the slopes, but it produced nothing as the land is too hot*" (I2, 52 years old, Village Y). It is mainly bought by livestock farmers who feed their livestock directly with subsidized barley seed. However, the adoption of this variety depends on the villages and their topography. It is grown more in Village X, which has better access to the plains, than in the other two villages. In fact, two farmers from Village X told us they grow this variety, while none of the farmers interviewed in Village Y or Village Z cultivate it.
## Dissemination of external varieties through the market (souk)

For other crops, particularly pulses (chickpeas (*Cicer arietinum*), lentils (*Lens culinaris*), faba beans (*Vicia faba*), green peas (*Pisum sativum*)), the introduction of external varieties did not take place through the State, but via the local weekly markets (*souk*). According to farmers, these *romi* varieties also give better yields, which has played a major role in their adoption. Nevertheless, there appears to be more coexistence of *beldi* and *romi* varieties for these species.

According to the interviewees, the lower adoption of these external varieties depends on both socioeconomic and environmental factors. The seeds of these external varieties are more expensive to purchase, and according to them, require better conditions to achieve the expected yield, whereas the local variety produces even in bad years. "*For chickpeas, the garbansa [external] variety doesn't always produce in certain years, so I also grow the beldi variety to ensure I get at least a small crop*" (I18, 36 years old, Village Y). The adoption of these external varieties seems to also depend on the household socioeconomic status: "*As for chickpeas, I haven't changed varieties and I always grow the small-seeded beldi variety because the seeds of the garbansa variety are very expensive compared to the beldi variety*" (I15, 48 years old, Village Y) versus "*I changed my chickpea variety for the garbansa variety because it sells for more*" (I6, 57 years old, Village Y).

As with it is the case for wheat, the different varieties of legumes have distinct uses, and some are maintained for their specific role. Livestock farming appears to be a driving force in this dynamic, as illustrated by the maintenance of the chickpea landrace: "*I grow the large-seeded type [external] because chickpeas of this type are of good quality, they cook quickly, and are sold at a higher price at the souk. But I also sometimes grow the small-seeded variety, in which case the production is mainly for livestock*" (I8, 45 years

old, Village Y). Gastronomy also plays a major role in this dynamic. For example, in the case of faba beans in particular, the local and external varieties have different food uses. Depending on whether they are eaten fresh or dried, whole or crushed, the varieties – and the areas in which they are grown – will differ: "*We grow the romi faba bean variety in the garden because it makes big beans and we fetch them as we go along to eat them fresh whole. The beldi variety has small seeds and is grown in the fields because we eat it once dry and crush it to make baïssara [typical jbala dish]*" (I2, 58 years old, Village X).

## Agricultural activities

All interviewees practice cereal farming, with most also producing pulses and olives and raising livestock. However, notable differences exist between the three villages, particularly regarding pulses (Fig. 4). Indeed, unlike Village X (76%) and Village Z (57%), all farmers interviewed in Village Y, which is the most isolated, cultivate pulses.

### Annuals crops (cereals and pulses)

The farmers interviewed were primarily growing wheat and barley, with half of them cultivating chickpeas, about a quarter growing oat (*Avena sativa*), faba beans and lentils, about 15% growing green peas and alfalfa (*Medicago sativa*), and only 6% cultivating sorghum (*Sorghum bicolor*). Only one respondent reported growing white beans (*Phaseolus vulgaris*). Substantial differences exist between the studied villages, especially regarding pulses and forage crops (oat and alfalfa) (Fig. 5A). If we compare these results with agricultural data at the province scale, the area selected for this study appears to cultivate a higher diversity of legumes than the province as a whole (Fig. 5B).

Nevertheless, the interviews highlight a decrease in the diversity of cultivated species in the area. Indeed, when

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4** Overview of the respondents' activities in percent (in grey: missing data)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5** (A) Overview of the respondents' crops grown in percent; (B) Average cultivated area for the main annual species grown in the Larache province between 2004 and 2021 (source: HCP)</figcaption></figure>

comparing the species cultivated by the parents with those cultivated today, the respondents noticed a decline in the number of cultivated species. While the parents of the interviewed farmers used to cultivate an average of 7 (±2) species with a minimum of 4 species and a maximum of 11, the farmers now cultivate only an average of 3 (±2) species with six farmers cultivating a single species (wheat or barley) and four farmers cultivating a maximum of 8 species. Some species have disappeared: vetches (Vicia ervilia and Vicia sativa), fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum), vetchlings (Lathyrus spp.) and einkorn (Triticum monococcum). Farmers also report a decrease in cultivated areas for sorghum, lentils, faba beans, green peas, and, to a lesser extent, chickpeas. As we have seen previously, only one new species has appeared in the area (soft wheat), which farmers rather consider as a variety.

According to the respondents, the decrease in the number and the surface of cultivated species is strongly linked to the availability of labor, significantly decreased by a strong rural

exodus. Crops whose harvest cannot be mechanized require manual labor and are the most affected. This is particularly true for households with limited financial resources, as they cannot afford to pay for hired labor. "I stopped growing pulses because there is no one to help me harvest them, and labor is expensive" (I11, 54 years old, Village Z). Additionally, farming is no longer attractive to the younger generations: "There's less farming today because labor is expensive and young people refuse to work in the fields; they'd rather go and work in town than farm" (I2, 71 years old, Village Z). Nevertheless, some of the farmers we met had left the villages and returned years later because of a strong attachment to their native area and the quality of life it offers: "Mountain food makes children strong because it's better and more natural. It's better to live here in the mountains than in the city, the air and food are healthier here and the landscapes are more beautiful, I'll stay here until I die" (I7, 60 years old, Village Y).
Another major factor emerging from interviews concerns the decrease and irregularity of rainfall, as well as a shortening of the rainy season, which have been observed in the area for the past 20 to 30 years. Four of the interviewees stated that 1995 was a turning point regarding rainfall. A severe drought hit the area, with one farmer explaining that he “*lost all* [his] sheep in 1995 *because of the drought*” (I7, 80 years old, Village X). Rainfall decrease particularly affects late-season crops that need to be sown in spring, most impacted by the shortening of the rainy season: “*Since 1995, there has been less rain in March/April, and it is the rain during this period that guarantees the mazouziya species* [late spring crops]” (I3, 73 years old, Village X). Three of the farmers interviewed explained that they plowed their fields to grow late-season crops but ultimately did not sow due to a lack of rain: “*I plowed this year to grow chickpeas, but I didn’t sow because there wasn’t any rain. The same thing happened last year; I had sown sorghum and chickpeas, but they didn’t produce because there wasn’t enough rain*” (I6, 41 years old, Village X).

The presence of broomrape (*Orobanchaceae* spp.) also has an impact on pulse cultivation. This parasitic plant grows on the roots of pulses, absorbing water and nutrients, thereby weakening or even killing the host plants, and thus affecting yield. “*I’ve stopped growing lentils and faba beans because there’s no one to help me, and also because of broomrape. It kills lentils and broad beans and there’s no effective medicine. It also attacks green peas. [...] It does not germinate in adouqa and rmel soils, but settles in twaerys soils, which are the best soils for agriculture*” (I8, 45 years old, Village Y).

Finally, the last factor explaining this decrease in the diversity of cultivated species is the drastic increase in agricultural input prices. All the farmers mentioned difficulties related to inflation over the past two years. Combined with climate uncertainty, this discourages farmers from continuing to cultivate. One of them stated: “*It makes me very sad because I work very hard, I plow the land, I pay a lot for fertilizers and seeds, I do everything, but there is no production*” (I5, 67 years old, Village X).

## Shift to cash crops: the case of olive growing

Through the development of the PMV between 2008 and 2018, the Kingdom of Morocco subsidized planting olive trees in the study area, particularly on plots with a ferrich or abyat (meaning ‘white’) soil type, which corresponds mainly to sloping land. Farmers described several waves of planting this high-value crop with different levels of State investment. “*For olive trees planted four years ago, the State paid for the plants, irrigation and plowing for two years, but the olive trees are not yet productive.* For those

planted before, the State only supplied the plants and did not pay for plowing and irrigation” (I3, 55 years old, Village Z). Two interviewees told us that the State had already begun subsidizing olive planting in the 1990s.

Farming woody perennials was already practiced in the study area before State intervention. However, olive trees were exclusively grafted onto wild olive trees (oleasters) in gardens around the houses, orchards near the village, and sporadically in cultivated fields, but they were never planted. “*Before the State planted them, there were no olive trees in the fields, only a few wild oleasters, but not many because people cut down the trees to give the leaves to the animals*” (I4, 49 years old, Village X). As part of the PMV, two varieties were introduced, often within the same planting wave. “*There are two types of olive trees planted by the State: one that produces small olives and the other that produces large olives. [...] In the first field, there are small and large olives mixed in the plot and in the same line, it was planted like that*” (I11, 54 years old, Village Z). Nevertheless, the farmers interviewed rarely know which varieties they possess. According to the respondents, the *romi* varieties of planted olive trees are less resistant than the *beldi* varieties, which are grafted onto oleaster trees.

The PMV only allowed landowners to obtain olive trees from the State, which, according to respondents, has reinforced existing land tensions, particularly in Village Z, where the construction of a dam has drastically decreased cultivated areas. Moreover, planting olive trees on sloping land conflicts with livestock farming, as it makes this land unavailable for grazing. This has a major impact on small-scale livestock farmers without land, who have less and less access to land on which to graze their livestock. “*Free grazing on other people’s fields used to be done because there were no olive trees in the fields, but today it’s forbidden because of olive cultivation*” (I15, 48 years old, Village Y). In addition, the destruction of olive trees by livestock has led to tensions between olive trees owners and livestock farmers, and several cases have been brought to court, particularly in Village X.

Olive tree plantation did not meet the same success on either side of the mountain (Fig. 6). The villages located on the south-west of the mountain, with the largest access to the plains, like Village X, have fewer olive trees than the villages to the north-east (like Village Y and Village Z). Olive trees have been planted everywhere, but the monitoring and protection of olive groves have varied considerably from one village to another. In particular, the villages to the southwest of the mountain (including Village X) paid little attention to the olive trees, which were eaten by livestock. Nevertheless, the planting of olive trees and their subsequent destruction by livestock led to a new awareness on the part of the villagers. Seeing that the olive trees provided
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6** Illustration of the location of olive fields according to villages - A: Village X; B: Village Y; C: Market village, same side than Village X
(credits: Océane Cobelli, april 2023)</figcaption></figure>
production and additional income, or at least provided olives and oil, whose prices have skyrocketed in recent years, for self-consumption, they ended up protecting the olive trees from livestock, and some even replanted olive trees themselves. “At first, people were not interested, so they didn’t protect the trees, and they were eaten by animals. But the trees that did take root are doing well, and they bring positive benefits to people, so now people are motivated to plant olive trees because they see what they have to gain” (I6, 41 years old, Village X).

## Complex interactions with livestock

There is no clear consensus about changes in livestock farming. For some, livestock farming is on the rise: “People abandoned agriculture in favor of raising livestock because there were many problems caused by animals destroying crops” (I2, 58 years old, Village X). For others, it is declining: “People used to raise livestock a lot, but today there’s less livestock because of the olive trees” (I3, 73 years old, Village X). Despite these divergent views, interviewees unanimously agreed on the interconnection between agriculture and livestock farming, and on the fact that it is impossible to practice livestock farming without agriculture, since part of the crop production feeds the livestock.

A comparative analysis of the farming activities of respondents and their parents reveals a slight decline in livestock farming practices. Specifically, 65% of the farmers interviewed currently engage in livestock farming, in contrast to 81% of their parents. One farmer stated that: “People continue to raise livestock, but they have decreased the size of their herds” (I3, 73 years old, Village X). Another respondent highlights a shift in herd composition, noting: “There used to be lots of beldi goats and beldi sheep and cows. Today, there are fewer goats, and the sheep and cows are either romi or crossbred. [...] The decline in goat farming dates back to the 90s, when olive trees were subsidized by the State because goats caused a lot of damage to the trees. The switch from beldi to romi for cows and sheep took place about 15 years ago, as cow romi breeds are more expensive and produce more meat, and milk.” (I6, 57 years old, Village Y).

Significant transformations over time also concern grazing practices. First, the lack of labor appears as an extremely limiting factor for livestock farming. Indeed, one person cannot manage all the farming tasks alone, without family help or hired labor: “I used to raise livestock, I had 30 sheep and 4 cows, but I stopped 30 years ago because nobody wanted to be a herdsman to take the animals away, and my children left the village” (I3, 73 years old, Village X). Second, limited access to grazing land severely constrains livestock farming, particularly due to olive growing, as seen

before. Third, the State’s requisition of forest land for logging has also played a role in the restriction of grazing areas. As one interviewee stated, “Grazing in the forest has been prohibited for 60–70 years since the State purchased it and plants trees for future harvesting. New trees were planted two years ago” (I7, 80 years old, Village X). The cessation of collective grazing practices has also restricted access to land. “Before, we used to graze our animals on everyone’s fields and took turns watching over them. Now, it’s individual, and you have to own or rent land to be able to graze livestock” (I3, 73 years old, Village X). The constraints on land access are further exacerbated by the appropriation of communal lands by certain individuals, thereby diminishing the availability of free grazing spaces. “There used to be more livestock farming than there is today, because there was more open grazing land than there is today. We had community land and forests. [...] There’s no longer any community land here, because people have gradually appropriated it and built houses on it” (I7, 80 years old, Village X).

Finally, the mechanization of cereal harvesting has impacted post-harvest grazing practices by leaving significantly fewer crop residues in the fields after harvesting. One interviewee observed, “When harvesting was done by hand, there was a lot of crop residue left in the fields for the animals to graze on, but now that harvesting is done with a harvester, only the soil remains after the machine has passed through” (I18, 76 years old, Village Z). In response to these changes, seven of the farmers interviewed have ceased to graze their animals and now cultivate small amounts of barley, oats, or alfalfa directly in the gardens surrounding their homes.

## Associated agricultural practices from plot to landscape

### Changes in land use

Mechanization, combined with the local topography, has led to a change in the way crops are spatially distributed in the landscape. Sloping land, difficult to access with farm machinery, has gradually been abandoned. “Plowing and harvesting are easier on plains than on slopes because you can get machinery through it. On land that’s too slopy, it’s impossible to plow with a tractor. If you don’t have people to help you farm, you can’t cultivate this land” (I13, 38 years old, Village Z). Mechanization has uneven impacts, as the rental price of machinery depends on the slope and accessibility of the fields, creating inequalities both within and between villages. “In Village Y harvesters cost twice as much here as in other, more easily accessible villages, and the machines that are willing to come here are not of good
quality, losing part of the harvest on the way from the fields to the house” (I10, 33 years old, Village Y).

Four older respondents also mentioned that mechanization impacted collective crop rotation, which was common in the past. Crop rotation was decided collectively at village level every year. “In the past, everything was cultivated, both flat and sloped lands, and there was one area for bakriya crops [early winter crops such as wheat and barley] and another area for mazouziya crops [late spring crops like pulses or sorghum]. We kept the animals in a separate area so they couldn’t eat the crops. Then we would switch it the following year. But it’s been about 20 years since this practice stopped.” (I7, 80 years old, Village X). This communal crop rotation helped reduce predation pressure on crops. On one hand, it prevented livestock from eating late-season crops when grazing on early crop residues: “Now, if you grow late-season crops on your plot and your field neighbor grows early cereals, when he brings his animals to graze the crop residues on his field, the animals will damage your plot” (I7, 80 years old, Village X). On the other hand, this collective rotation spread the predation pressure across larger areas, reducing the risk that a single farmer would lose his entire crop, especially with sorghum, which is highly attractive to birds: “Today, if you grow sorghum, the birds will eat it all because you’ll be one of the few with a sorghum plot. Before, when everyone grew the same thing in the same area, sorghum was cultivated on larger areas and the birds spread out and ate here and there, so there was less loss” (I16, 56 years old, Village Y).

In addition, the decreased in rainfall has contributed to the abandonment of sloping land. Today, nothing grows on the slopes except olive trees, which was not the case before. “In the past, slopes were the most productive because there was a lot of rain, so there was too much water in the flat lands, which we kept for growing sorghum when there was less rain [late cultivation]. Today, flat lands are the most productive because it no longer rains enough; slopes have become too hot for cultivation” (I6, 57 years old, Village Y). Nevertheless, this diversity of growing conditions could help address interannual variability in rainfall. One of the farmers said: “I don’t cultivate the slopes because I don’t have labor to help me, and it’s difficult for machines, but we should cultivate both the hot and cold lands because you never know if there will be a lot of rain or not. If there is a lot of rain, it’s the hot lands that will produce, and you risk losing everything in the flat lands; if there isn’t much rain, it’s the cold lands that will produce” (I5, 67 years old, Village X).

Before the implementation of the PMV, uncultivated slopes were used for animal grazing, either by allowing spontaneous flora to grow, or by sowing oats or alfalfa (either for the owner's own livestock, or by leasing the land

to another herder). This is particularly the case at Village X, where access to flat, mechanizable land is facilitated by the topography of the landscape. The topography of Village Y allows for less flexibility between plains and slopes, and some farmers continue carrying agricultural work out by hand. Lastly, in Village Z, the area under cereal and pulse crops has been drastically decreased by the construction of the dam and mechanization is all the more difficult.

Thus, the development of olive cultivation through the PMV has enabled to leveraging underutilized lands for growing cereals and legumes. Moreover, 27% of the respondents grow crops under planted olive trees (wheat, barley, chickpeas, faba beans, lentils), as is the case in grafted oleaster-olive orchards. Growing crops under olive trees depends largely on the age of the trees and the planting distance between them. If the trees are young enough or far enough apart, shade from the trees is not a problem. “You can grow wheat, barley, and chickpeas while the olive trees are still small, and you can grow lentils and faba beans under the olive trees until they reach an average size after it is too shady to cultivate” (I2, 71 years old, Village Z). The distance between the trees also affects the ability to plow with a tractor. Many farmers say that plowing under the trees makes them more productive and reduces fire risks. “The essential thing for olive trees is plowing to remove the plant cover and avoid fire and not attract animals [avoid animals coming to graze]” (I12, 53 years old, Village Y). “Olive trees need to be plowed every year, so I take advantage of the plowed land to plant other crops” (I4, 47 years old, Village Z). Species harvested by hand are preferred (chickpeas, for example), as it can be difficult to harvest mechanically. “I prefer to grow lentils or chickpeas under the olive trees because the harvest is manual in any case, and the plants are cool since they are low, whereas wheat generates heat for the trees” (I7, 80 years old, Village X).

## Changes in fertilization and pest management practices

The introduction and subsidy of improved varieties of wheat and barley has been accompanied by the introduction of synthetic fertilizers, which were also subsidized. The remarkable increase in yields following the use of synthetic fertilizers convinced farmers to use them to boost their production and income. Today, all farmers mention fertilizers as essential to produce and compensate for declining soil fertility. Nevertheless, the price of fertilizers is currently a major concern for farmers, given the high inflation. As one farmer explained, “The problem here is the price of fertilizer and the fact that the land is less fertile, so we have to use more fertilizer, which costs us more” (I2, 52 years old, Village Y). The adoption of fertilizers completely replaced the spreading of manure in the fields and reduced the need
to graze livestock on the plots (fallow and post-harvest grazing).

Combined with mechanized plowing, fertilizers have contributed to decreasing crop rotation. "People used to do rotations by dividing the plots in two: one part cultivated with chickpeas or lentils and the other with wheat for a year and then legumes the following year. Now, with fertilizer, people don't do rotation anymore, so the fertility of the soil decreases" (I2, 52 years old, Village Y). Two farmers are replacing rotation with double plowing when they do not grow pulses. "I rotate wheat with chickpeas or faba beans, but sometimes I plant wheat after wheat; in that case, I do two deep plowings to compensate" (I7, 80 years old, Village X). Nevertheless, rotation is still practiced and remains a cornerstone of the farming system for maintaining soil fertility, which is one of the reasons for maintaining the cultivation of legumes. "You can't grow wheat on wheat. I alternate wheat and chickpeas, beans or lentils" (I16, 56 years old, Village Y).

As for the use of pesticides, farmers are aware of the impact of these products on biodiversity. In particular, they note a link between the spreading of pesticides and the disappearance of bees in the area. As a result, beekeeping is disappearing and only one farmer interviewed practices beekeeping. Three farmers reported their suspicions about the impact of pesticides on wildlife, particularly rabbits. "I used to keep bees in trunk hives, but all the bees died. Everyone in Village Y has lost their bees. For the last seven years, the bees have been dying little by little because of the medicines [pesticides] used on wheat and fruit trees. [...] People don't know what they're made of and they're using them, even though it's dangerous for animals, not just bees but rabbits too, they're dying because of it" (I10, 33 years old, Village Y).

## Discussion

This study describes the substantial changes in the agrobiodiversity management system investigated at different levels: (i) seeds and varieties of annual crops; (ii) farming activities (i.e., crop species and livestock); (iii) associated agricultural practices from plot to landscape. We found that, within a generation, local varieties have been partially replaced by the introduction of new ones, mainly for wheat, the most widely cultivated crop; the diversity of cultivated species has significantly diminished; agricultural activities have changed, with a decrease in goat farming, smaller herd sizes, and an increase in olive cultivation; and agricultural practices have also been transformed through mechanization, use of synthetic inputs and involvement in economic capitalist logics. As found by previous studies, we show

that these changes in agrobiodiversity management are influenced by multiple, interconnected and place-dependent drivers, including rural exodus, socioeconomic shifts, climate change and public policies (Doncieux et al. 2022; Khoury et al. 2022; Labeyrie et al. 2021; Porcuna-Ferrer et al. 2023a). In the following sections, we discuss how these intersecting drivers involved in agrobiodiversity management dynamics may affect farmers’ livelihood resilience, through their impacts on the (i) natural, (ii) economic and (iii) human and social capitals of the farms (Carney 1998; Chambers and Conway 1992).

## Consequences on natural capital

Changes observed in agrobiodiversity management can impact both positively and negatively different aspects of natural capital (cultivated diversity itself, biodiversity in the agricultural landscapes, and soils).

First, our results indicate that public policies did not lead to the entire replacement of landraces by improved varieties, contrary to what has been observed through literature reviews with a relatively broad geographic coverage at the global level (Khoury et al. 2022; van de Wouw et al. 2010) and at local scales as observed by Chaudhary et al. (2004) in Nepal. Our results rather converge with other studies in Moroccan mountains (Bernis-Fonteneau et al. 2023) and in other contexts (Brush 1992; Cobelli et al. 2022; Monroy-Sais et al. 2024) in that both improved varieties and landraces coexist for most crop species. Diversity of uses, notably for food and fodder, and cultural values are important factors for the maintenance of this diversity in the study area as elsewhere (Howard 2014; Jiggins 1986; Labouisse and Caillon 2001). Numerous studies highlight the benefits of varietal diversity for livelihoods and farm resilience (FAO 2014; Pascual et al., 2011; Vernooy 2022). Moreover, the intra-varietal diversity of local varieties appears to be a source of adaptation to the diversity of growing conditions and environmental stresses (El Fatehi et al. 2016; Fatehi et al. 2021). However, intra-varietal diversity is usually lower in improved than in local varieties, which is expected to decrease their ability to cope with different environmental pressures (Joshi et al. 2018).

Second, we observe a decrease in the diversity of farms' activities (i.e., the increased specialization of farms) and crop species, in line with studies done in similar contexts (Klasen et al. 2016; Zimmerer 2010). Specialization decreases the capacity of farms to overcome perturbations and adapt to changes. Indeed, numerous studies argue that diversity of activities and crops leads to higher resilience for households by contributing to self-consumption while opening market opportunities (Bellon et al. 2020) and higher yields and incomes (Jacobi et al. 2015). Agricultural
diversification also provides insurance against inter-annual variations in rainfall (Renard and Tilman 2021), expected to increase in frequency and intensity in this region (Climat-Suds; Thrasher et al. 2022). However, many interviewees do not identify as farmers when they cultivate few species and areas or only possess a small number of animals, which could skew the results, particularly the representation of livestock farmers reported during the initial interviews.

Third, the changes in agricultural practices, particularly mechanization, also decrease farmers’ ability to leverage the diversity of growing conditions on their farms, as farmers now focus on flatlands. This has been further exacerbated by climate change-induced droughts. However, our results show notable differences between the villages. In particular, the most isolated village, which has the most variable topography, displays a higher level of cultivated diversity. Previous studies show that cultivating crops across diverse growing conditions is a common mitigation strategy in smallholder farming (Kramer and Hackman 2023). Combined with the decline in crop diversity, the homogenization of growing conditions increases risks to farm resilience, particularly in relation to interannual rainfall variability (Bazile and Soumare 2004; Comptour et al. 2018; Kramer and Hackman 2023).

A noticeable exception to this decrease in diversity of activities and growing conditions is the development of olive trees through the *Plan Maroc Vert*. As Zimmerer (2013) has shown in Bolivia with peach trees, tree-based intensification allows farms to diversify without replacing the existing agricultural system. Indeed, farmers have taken advantage of olive tree plantation to diversify their activities and some have developed agroforestry practices, when planting density is not too high. Indeed, as highlighted by Aumeeruddy-Thomas et al. (2016), plantations are often too dense to allow farmers develop agroforestry practices. Rehabilitating agricultural land through agroforestry is one of the solutions put forward by scientists to fight the negative effects of agricultural decline on the livelihoods of rural households (Subedi et al. 2022). Moreover, recent studies focusing olive tree associations have shown higher land productivity with this type of agroforestry even in dry conditions (Temani et al. 2021). Nevertheless, our results show that the development of olive cultivation negatively impacts livestock activities by reducing grazing lands.

The changes reported are expected to impact not only cultivated diversity but also more broadly the diversity of living organisms in the agricultural landscapes and soils. Indeed, mechanization and the chemical fertilizers required for the increasingly widespread use of improved varieties reduce both the quantity and quality of habitats for many plant and animal species, while also directly reducing their populations. This leads to decreased biodiversity across

trophic levels and spatial scales (Emmerson et al. 2016). This impacts farm resilience indirectly, since the associated agricultural biodiversity is instrumental for the functioning of farming systems (Jackson et al. 2007). Soil’s physical and chemical properties are also impacted negatively by synthetic inputs (Bengtsson et al. 2005; Ladha et al. 2016) and deep mechanized plowing (Poeplau et al. 2011; Reicosky et al. 2005). Nevertheless, Moroccan policies continue to promote these practices, which have implications for both ecosystem and human health, as demonstrated by Goldberg (2022) in the High Atlas through the apple cultivation encouraged by the *Plan Maroc Vert*. Soil fertility is also affected by the decoupling of crop and livestock farming (Martin et al. 2016) and by the decrease in pulses cultivation and rotation practices (Massawe et al. 2016). As a compounding effect, farmers use more fertilizer to counteract declining fertility, creating a vicious cycle, in a region where soil erosion is already high (Fay 1993).

## Consequences on economic capital

The changes documented in our study are expected to have contrasted impacts on farms’ financial and physical capitals. Confirming observations by Bernal Hoyo et al. (2022), our results show that farmers initially modified their practices thanks to attractive public subsidies that enabled them to increase their yields and financial capital in a short term, but this has increased their economic dependence on inputs and depletes their financial capital in the long term. Improved varieties require substantial amounts of fertilizer to achieve the expected yields, but fertilizer and seed prices are no longer regulated following the liberalization of the agricultural sector (Khouz 1992). As a result, mechanization, improved seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides represent significant costs for farmers and, in our study, some respondents also reported having abandoned crop cultivation due to rising input costs. Consequently, farmers are increasingly vulnerable to global economic events (de Roest et al. 2018; Knickel et al. 2017). The Russian-Ukraine war is a particularly illustrative example of exacerbated global fertilizer shortage and the rise in food prices (Alexander et al. 2023; Liu et al. 2022). Although Morocco is a phosphate-producing country, it heavily relies on wheat imports, and the increased demand for fertilizer exports has inexorably driven up prices (Mengoub et al. 2022). Furthermore, although not all improved varieties experience a decline in productivity over time – this outcome depends on the variety’s traits, its adaptation to local environmental conditions, and farmers’ breeding practices (Deu et al. 2014; Zhang et al. 2022) – farmers report needing to purchase new seed regularly. Thus, the cost-benefit assessment of the use of improved varieties should be re-evaluated.
Moreover, crop and activity diversity decrease may reduce income stability in the face of the different perturbations, since the financial capital of small family farms in developing countries largely relies on this diversity of agricultural activities (Makate et al. 2016; Vernooy 2022). Nevertheless, rural exodus brought new economic resources for farms, contributing to livelihood diversification through non-agricultural activities and the abandonment of agriculture, as it was observed in Moroccan High Atlas (Woodmansee et al. 2024) and elsewhere (Nkurunziza et al. 2023). Moreover, this decrease in crop and activity diversity may be somehow compensated by the expansion of olive groves and agroforestry, especially in the current context where the price of olives and oil is particularly high (Monge 2024). Numerous studies emphasize that farmers follow economic opportunities for shifting their crops (Feintrenie et al. 2010; Labeyrie et al. 2021), but risks associated with the sensitivity of high-value commercial crops to frequent fluctuations of the prices on the global market should be considered.

## Consequences on human and social capital

Last, changes in agrobiodiversity management also impact human and social capitals. Indeed, the decrease in crops and agricultural activities entails a decrease in labor needed and is a consequence of a lack of labor availability. Increased mechanization and pesticide use reinforce this trend. These changes in agricultural practices strengthen ongoing rural exodus by limiting local job opportunities, further decreasing the capacity for plant diversity. Similar trends were reported in Morocco (Davis 2006) and in other parts of the world (FAO 2017; Lee 1966; Lewis 1954; Mendras 1967). Rural exodus was found to have a negative impact on crop diversity, as the tasks associated with numerous activities and crops were highly labor-intensive. Young people involvement in farming dramatically decreased since 1960's, due to the attractiveness of wage labor around Tangier and Larache urban centers (Lazaar 1987; Le Tellier 2006). However, some of them appear to be coming back to Bni Garfett, according to respondents, because of a strong attachment to their native area and the quality of life it offers.

At the community level, a centralized and cash-based seed distribution system led by public policies probably contributed to the disruption of local seed exchange networks, together with social changes related to collective action and connectivity loss. Respondents frequently mentioned a decline in cohesion and solidarity among villagers, with individualized strategies replacing collective practices, such as communal rotation, which ended with agricultural modernization. Societal changes, involving especially economic capitalist logics and associated individualization and privatization, thus appear to have a negative impact on

agrobiodiversity. For instance, this form of collective organization, now abandoned, was crucial for the cultivation of some crops (e.g., sorghum). Mutual aid and exchange foster social bonds and knowledge sharing, which are key for resilience (Porcuna-Ferrer et al. 2023b; Teixidor-Toneu et al. 2023). Individualization may hinder the resilience of farms and agricultural systems (Adger 2003). Moreover, the replacement of landraces and the diminution of farming activities contribute to the loss of knowledge associated with these practices, threatening the adaptive capacity of farming systems (Duru et al. 2015). Indeed, local knowledge, shaped by the relationship between humans and their environment over generations, is key for the sustainable management of natural resources and ecosystems. This in-depth understanding of the environment makes it possible to perceive and adapt to change, thereby strengthening resilience (Bailey et al. 2019; Berkes et al. 2000; Caviedes et al. 2024).

Our findings also indicate that changes in agrobiodiversity management lead to an increase in social inequalities among households. As observed elsewhere, financially costly changes in agrobiodiversity management (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides, improved seeds, mechanization) can only be adopted by the wealthiest farmers (Kramer and Hackman 2023; Nkurunziza et al. 2023). The decline in soil fertility associated with agricultural intensification disproportionately affects poorer households that lack the resources for additional fertilizers (Barrett and Bevis 2015; Gray 2005). Labor shortages, exacerbated by rural exodus, further disadvantage these farmers since only wealthier individuals can afford to hire wage labor (Dixon et al. 2001). In our study area, differences in the proportion of flat and sloped land lead to household- and village-level inequalities. As community economic heterogeneity increases (Kramer and Hackman 2023), these disparities are further entrenched by inequalities in land ownership (Deininger and Olinto 2000). As highlighted by Nkurunziza et al. (2023), climate change exacerbates these land inequalities. In our case, it favors low-lying areas that retain water.

The *Plan Maroc Vert* has also intensified land inequalities as subsidized olive tree planting has only benefited landowners, to the detriment of those without land. Other studies have shown that agricultural policies can further reinforce land inequalities (Dawson et al. 2016). Additionally, as demonstrated by another study on the expansion of perennial monocultures in the Mediterranean basin (Zimmerer et al. 2024), olive tree planting has created conflicts within agricultural systems between olive producers and livestock farmers, especially in the village with greater access to the plains, leading to conflicts over slopes use. These inequalities and tensions can lead to feelings of injustice and a loss of social cohesion (Kabanoff 1991).
## Conclusion and perspectives

Our study underlines that the impacts of public policies and other drivers of change in agricultural management systems are complex. Impacts depend on many internal and external factors that interact with each other, such as local practices, attitudes and behaviors, but also social and cultural shifts, climatic changes and price fluctuations. Our study also highlights that these impacts are highly context-dependent and underscores the need to recognize local distinctiveness in adapting farming systems to global change. While these observations are key to understanding public policy impacts, expanding our analysis to further sites within the region would offer valuable insights. This would allow us to assess the extent to which the dynamics documented in our study site are representative of those observed in other areas of north-eastern Morocco and to identify shared patterns on a larger scale. Linking such studies based on farmers' observations with the analysis of agricultural data would also be needed to cross-check and quantify the trends described by farmers, but access to such data over a long time period is restricted which made such an analysis impossible in our study.

**Supplementary Information** The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-025-10724-1.

**Funding** Open access funding provided by CIRAD.

This study is part of the ARISER project, led by Vanesse Labeyrie, which has received funding from the European Union's Horizon Europe research and innovation program under Grant Agreement No 101041069.

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

## References

Adger, W. N. 2003. Social aspects of adaptive capacity. In *Climate Change, Adaptive Capacity and Development*. pp. 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1142/9781860945816_0003

Akesbi, N. 2005. Évolution et perspectives de l'agriculture marocaine. In *50 ans de Développement Humain au Maroc & Perspectives 2025*. pp. 85–198.

Akesbi, N. 2012. Une Nouvelle stratégie pour l'agriculture Marocaine. Le «Plan Maroc Vert». *New Medit* 12–23.

Alexander, P., A. Arneth, R. Henry, J. Maire, S. Rabin, and M. Rounsevell. 2023. High energy and fertiliser prices are more damaging than food export curtailment from Ukraine and Russia for food prices, health and the environment. *Nature Food* 4:84–95. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00659-9

Ater, M., and Y. Hmimsa. 2013. Agrodiversité des agroécosystèmes Traditionnels du pays Jbala (Rif, Maroc) et produits de terroirs. In *Indications Géographiques, dynamiques socio-économiques et patrimoine bio-culturel en Turquie et dans les pays méditerranéens*. 236. Montpellier: CIHEAM (Centre International de Hautes Etudes Agronomiques Méditerranéennes).

Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., A. Bailly, S. Alleaume, and Y. Hmimsa. 2016. Sub-Chap. 3.3.1. Grafted oleaster-olive Agrosylvopastoral systems in Northern Morocco. In *The mediterranean region under climate change: A scientific update, synthèses*, ed. J.-P. Moatti, and S. Thiébault. 523–532. Marseille: IRD Éditions. http://doi.org/10.4000/books.irdeditions.23883

Bailey, K., R. McCleery, and G. Barnes. 2019. The role of capital in drought adaptation among rural communities in Eswatini. *Ecology and Society* 24. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10981-240308

Barrett, C. B., and L. E. M. Bevis. 2015. The self-reinforcing feedback between low soil fertility and chronic poverty. *Nature Geosci* 8:907–912. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2591

Bazile, D., and M. Soumare. 2004. Gestion spatiale de la diversité variétale en réponse à la diversité écosystémique: le cas du Sorgho [Sorghum bicolor (L) Moench] au Mali. *Cahiers Agricultures* 13(1):480–487.

Bellon, M. R., B. H. Kotu, C. Azzarri, and F. Caracciolo. 2020. To diversify or not to diversify, that is the question. Pursuing agricultural development for smallholder farmers in marginal areas of Ghana. *World Development* 125:104682. https://doi.org/10.16/j.worlddev.2019.104682

Bengtsson, J., J. Ahnström, and A.-C. Weibull. 2005. The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: A meta-analysis. *Journal of Applied Ecology* 42:261–269. https://doi.org/10.111/j.1365-2664.2005.01005.x

Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. *Ecological Applications* 10:1251–1262. https://doi.org/10.2307/2641280

Bernal Hoyo, D., O. F. Giraldo, P. M. Rosset, O. López Corona, J. Perez Cassarino, and S. Nautiyal. 2022. Building an agroecological model to understand the effects of agrochemical subsidies on farmer decisions. *Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems* 46:712–735. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2022.2039837

Bernis-Fonteneau, A., M. Aakairi, O. Saadani-Hassani, G. Castangia, R. Ait Babahmad, P. Colangelo, U. D'Ambrosio, and D. I. Jarvis. 2023. Farmers' variety naming and crop varietal diversity of two cereal and three legume species in the Moroccan high atlas, using DATAR. *Sustainability* 15:10411. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310411

Bishaw, Z., Yigezu, Y.A., Niane, A.A., Telleria Juarez, R.A., Najjar, D., 2019. *Political economy of the wheat sector in Morocco: Seed systems, varietal adoption, and impacts*. 300. Beirut, Lebanon: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas.

Bravo-Peña, F., and L. Yoder. 2024. Agrobiodiversity and smallholder resilience: A scoping review. *Journal of Environmental Management* 351:119882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119882

Brush, S. B. 1992. Ethnoecology, biodiversity, and modernization in Andean potato agriculture. *Journal of Ethnobiology* 12:161–185.

Carney, D. 1998. The white paper's treatment of agriculture, natural resources and rural livelihoods. *Journal of International Development* 10:269–276.
Caviedes, J., J. T. Ibarra, L. Calvet-Mir, S. Álvarez-Fernández, and A. B. Junqueira. 2024. Indigenous and local knowledge on social-ecological changes is positively associated with livelihood resilience in a globally important agricultural heritage system. *Agricultural Systems* 216:103885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2024.103885

Chambers, R., and G. Conway. 1992. *Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century*. 296. IDS Discussion Paper.

Chaudhary, P., D. Gauchan, R. Rana, B. Sthapit, and D. Jarvis. 2004. Potential loss of rice landraces from a Terai community in Nepal: A case study from Kachorwa, Bara. Plant genetic resources newsletter (Rome, Italy: 1979).

Chentoufi, L., A. Sahri, M. Arbaoui, L. Belqadi, A. Birouk, P. Roumet, and M.-H. Muller. 2014. Anchoring durum wheat diversity in the reality of traditional agricultural systems: Varieties, seed management, and farmers' perception in two Moroccan regions. *J Ethnobiology Ethnomedicine* 10:58. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-10-58

Cobelli, O., N. F. Faye, S. Beaurepaire, C. Raimond, and V. Labeyrie. 2022. Modes de gestion de la diversité cultivée par les paysans dans le bassin arachidier au Sénégal: la coexistence comme nouvelle normalité? *Droit et cultures* 84. https://doi.org/10.4000/droitcultures.8432

Comptour, M., S. Caillon, L. Rodrigues, and D. McKey. 2018. Wetland Raised-Field Agriculture and Its Contribution to Sustainability: Ethnoecology of a Present-Day African System and Questions about Pre-Columbian Systems in the American Tropics. *Sustainability* 10:3120. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093120

Cottrell, R. S., K. L. Nash, B. S. Halpern, T. A. Remenyi, S. P. Corney, A. Fleming, E. A. Fulton, S. Hornborg, A. John, R. A. Watson, and J. L. Blanchard. 2019. Food production shocks across land and sea. *Nat Sustain* 2:130–137. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0210-1

Davis, D. K. 2006. Neoliberalism, environmentalism, and agricultural restructuring in Morocco. *Geographical J* 172:88–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2006.00204.x

Dawson, N., A. Martin, and T. Sikor. 2016. Green revolution in Sub-Saharan Africa: Implications of imposed innovation for the well-being of rural smallholders. *World Development* 78:204–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.008

de Roest, K., P. Ferrari, and K. Knickel. 2018. Specialisation and economies of scale or diversification and economies of scope? Assessing different agricultural development pathways. *Journal of Rural Studies* 59:222–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.04.013

Deininger, K., and P. Olinto. 2000. Asset distribution, inequality, and growth (Policy Research Working Paper Series No. 2375). The World Bank.

Deu, M., E. Weltzien, C. Calatayud, Y. Traoré, D. Bazile, E. Gozé, G. Trouche, K. Brocke, and vom. 2014. How an improved sorghum variety evolves in a traditional seed system in Mali: Effects of farmers' practices on the maintenance of phenotype and genetic composition. *Field Crops Research* 167:131–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2014.06.021

Dixon, J., A. Gulliver, and D. Gibbon. 2001. *Farming systems and poverty: Improving farmers' livelihoods in a changing world*. Rome: FAO.

Doncieux, A., Y. Olivier, S. Prudham, S. Caillon, and D. Renard. 2022. Agrobiodiversity dynamics in a French wine-growing region. *OENO One* 56:17. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2022.56.4.5557

Doumbia, S., L. Koko, and S. A. Aman. 2014. L'Introduction et La diffusion de La variété D'igname C18 En région centre de Côte D'Ivoire. *Journal of Applied Biosciences* 80:7121–7130. https://doi.org/10.4314/jab.v80i1.2

Duru, M., O. Therond, G. Martin, R. Martin-Clouaire, M.-A. Magne, E. Justes, E.-P. Journet, J.-N. Aubertot, S. Savary, J.-E. Bergez, and J. P. Sarthou. 2015. How to implement biodiversity-based agriculture to enhance ecosystem services: A review. *Agronomy for Sustainable Development* 35:1259–1281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0306-1

El Fatehi, S., G. Béna, A. Filali-Maltouf, and M. Ater. 2016. Genetic diversity of Moroccan bitter Vetch Vicia ervilia (L.) willd. Land-races revealed by morphological and SSR markers. *Australian Journal of Crop Science*.

El Fatehi, S., Y. Hmimsa, and M. Ater. 2021. Assessment of agromorphological diversity of chickling-vetch (Lathyrus cicera L.) land-races in the traditional agroecosystems of Morocco. *Australian Journal of Crop Science* 1289–1297. https://doi.org/10.21475/a.jcs.21.15.10.p3220

Emmerson, M., M. B. Morales, J. J. Oñate, P. Batáry, F. Berendse, J. Liira, T. Avik, I. Guerrero, R. Bommarco, S. Eggers, T. Pärt, T. Tscharntke, W. Weisser, L. Clement, and J. Bengtsson. 2016. Chapter Two - How agricultural intensification affects biodiversity and ecosystem services. In *Advances in ecological research, Large-Scale ecology: Model systems to global perspectives*, ed. A. J. Dumbrell, R. L. Kordas, and G. Woodward. 43–97. Academic. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2016.08.005

FAO. 2017. La Situation mondiale de l'alimentation et de l'agriculture 2017.

FAO. 2014. The State of Food and Agriculture 2014.

Fay, G. 1979. L'évolution D'une Paysannerie Montagnarde: Les Jbalas Sud-Rifains. *Méditerranée* 35:81–91. https://doi.org/10.3406/me dit.1979.1901

Fay, G. 1993. Comment lutter efficacement Contre l'érosion Dans les Montagnes rifaines et telliennes (Ways of fighting efficiently against erosion in the mountains of Rif and tell. *Bulletin De l'Association De Géographes Français* 70:399–407. https://doi.org/10.3406/bagf.1993.1708

Feintrenie, L., S. Schwarze, and P. Levang. 2010. Are local people conservationists? Analysis of transition dynamics from agroforests to monoculture plantations in Indonesia. *Ecology and Society* 15.

Folke, C., S. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, and J. Rockström. 2010. Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. *Ecology and Society* 15. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03610-150420

Goldberg, Z. A. 2022. Development through commodification: Exploring Apple commodity production as pesticide promotion in the high atlas. *Agriculture and Human Values* 39:663–682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-021-10280-4

Gray, L. C. 2005. What kind of intensification? Agricultural practice, soil fertility and socioeconomic differentiation in rural Burkina Faso. *The Geographical Journal* 171:70–82. https://doi.org/10.111/j.1475-4959.2005.00150.x

Hmimsa, Y., and M. Ater. 2008. Agrodiversity in the traditional agro-systems of the Rif mountains (North of Morocco). *Biodiversity* 9:78–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2008.9712890

Howard, P. 2014. Chapitre 7. Ethnobotanique et cuisine: L'importance de La sphère domestique pour L'agrobiodiversité. In *Genre et savoirs: Pratiques et innovations rurales Au Sud, À Travers champs*, ed. H. Guétat-Bernard, and M. Saussey. 213–232. Marseille: IRD Éditions. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.irdeditions.9156

Jackson, L. E., U. Pascual, and T. Hodgkin. 2007. Utilizing and conserving agrobiodiversity in agricultural landscapes. *Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment* 121:196–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.12.017

Jacobi, J., M. Schneider, M. Pillco Mariscal, S. Huber, S. Weidmann, P. Bottazzi, and S. Rist. 2015. Farm resilience in organic and nonorganic cocoa farming systems in Alto Beni, Bolivia. *Agroecology*
and Sustainable Food Systems 39:798–823. https://doi.org/10.10
80/21683565.2015.1039158

Jiggs, J. 1986. Women and seasonality: Coping with crisis and
calamity. *IDS Bulletin* 17:9–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5
436.1986.mp17003003.x

Joshi, B. K., S. B. Gurung, P. Mahat, B. Bhandari, and D. Gauchan.
2018. Intra-varietal diversity in landrace and modern variety of
rice and buckwheat. *The Journal of Agriculture and Environment*
19:8. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/97576

Kabanoff, B. 1991. Equity, equality, power, and conflict. *AMR* 16:416–441. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4278961

Khadari, B., J. Charafi, A. Moukhli, and M. Ater. 2008. Substantial genetic diversity in cultivated Moroccan Olive despite A single major cultivar: A Paradoxical situation evidenced by the use of SSR loci. *Tree Genetics and Genomes* 4:213–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-007-0102-4

Khoury, C. K., A. D. Bjorkman, H. Dempewolf, J. Ramirez-Villegas, L. Guarino, A. Jarvis, L. H. Rieseberg, and P. C. Struik. 2014. Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the implications for food security. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* 111, 4001–4006. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1313490111

Khoury, C. K., S. Brush, D. E. Costich, H. A. Curry, S. de Haan, J. M. M. Engels, L. Guarino, S. Hoban, K. L. Mercer, A. J. Miller, G. P. Nabhan, H. R. Perales, C. Richards, C. Riggins, and I. Thor mann. 2022. Crop genetic erosion: Understanding and responding to loss of crop diversity. *New Phytologist* 233:84–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.17733

Khrouz, D. 1992. La politique agricole du Maroc indépendant, in: Santucci, J.-C. (Ed.), Le Maroc actuel: Une modernisation au miroir de la tradition? Connaissance du monde arabe. Institut de recherches et d'études sur les mondes arabes et musulmans, Aix-en-Provence, pp. 119–150. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.iremam.2422

Klasen, S., K. M. Meyer, C. Dislich, M. Euler, H. Faust, M. Gatto, E. Hettig, D. N. Melati, I. N. S. Jaya, F. Otten, C. Pérez-Cruzado, S. Steinebach, S. Tarigan, and K. Wiegand. 2016. Economic and ecological trade-offs of agricultural specialization at different Spatial scales. *Ecological Economics* 122:111–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.01.001

Knickel, K., A. Ashkenazy, T. C. Chebach, and N. Parrot. 2017. Agricultural modernization and sustainable agriculture: Contradictions and complementarities. *International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability* 15:575–592. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2017.1373464

Kramer, K. L., and J. V. Hackman. 2023. Small-scale farmer responses to the double exposure of climate change and market integration. *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences* 378:20220396. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2022.0396

Kremen, C., and A. Miles. 2012. Ecosystem services in biologically diversified versus conventional farming systems: Benefits, externalities, and Trade-Offs. *Ecology and Society* 17.

Labeyrie, V., D. Renard, Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, P. Benyei, S. Cail-
lon, L. Calvet-Mir, M. Carrière, S. Demongeot, M. Descamps, E.
Braga Junqueira, A. Li, X. Locqueville, J. Mattalia, G. Miñarro,
S. Morel, A. Porcuna-Ferrer, A. Schlingmann, and A. Reyes-Gar-
cía. 2021. V., The role of crop diversity in climate change adapta-
tion: insights from local observations to inform decision making
in agriculture. *Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability*
51, 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.01.006

Labouisse, J.-P., and S. Caillon. 2001. Une approche de la conservation in situ par l'étude d'un système semencier informel: cas du cocotier au Vanuatu (Pacifique Sud). OCL 8, 534–539. https://doi.org/10.1051/ocl.2001.0534

Ladha, J. K., A. Tirol-Padre, C. K. Reddy, K. G. Cassman, S. Verma, D. S. Powlson, C. van Kessel, de B. Richter, D. Chakraborty, and

D. Pathak, H. 2016. Global nitrogen budgets in cereals: A 50-year assessment for maize, rice, and wheat production systems. *Scientific Reports* 6:19355. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep19355

Lazaar, M. 1987. Conséquences de l'émigration Dans les Montagnes du Rif central (Maroc). https://doi.org/10.3406/remi.1987.1129

Lazarev, G. 2012. Les politiques agraires au Maroc, 1956–2006, un témoignage engagé. *Economie critique*

Le Tellier, J. 2006. Les recompositions territoriales dans le Maroc du Nord. Dynamiques urbaines dans la péninsule tingitane et gouvernance des services de base à Tanger et à Tétouan (Maroc). L'inclusiondes quartiers pauvres à travers l'accès aux transports et à l'eau potable. Géographie. Université de Provence - Aix-Marseille I, 2006. Français. ffNNT: ff. ftftel-00947479f

Lee, E. S. 1966. A theory of migration. *Demography* 3:47–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/2060063

Lewis, W. A. 1954. Economic development with unlimited supplies of labour. *The Manchester School* 22:139–191. https://doi.org/10.111/j.1467-9957.1954.tb00021.x

Liu, J., A. Balmford, and K. S. Bawa. 2022. Fuel, food and fertilizer shortage will hit biodiversity and climate. *Nature* 604:425. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01061-y

Makate, C., R. Wang, M. Makate, and N. Mango. 2016. Crop diversification and livelihoods of smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe: Adaptive management for environmental change. *SpringerPlus* 5:1135. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2802-4

Martin, G., M. Moraine, J. Ryschawy, M.-A. Magne, M. Asai, J.-P. Sarthou, M. Duru, and O. Therond. 2016. Crop–livestock integration beyond the farm level: A review. *Agronomy for Sustainable Development* 36:53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0390-x

Massawe, P. I., K. M. Mtei, L. K. Munishi, and P. A. Ndkidemi. 2016. Existing practices for soil fertility management through cereals-legume intercropping systems. *World Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences* 3(2):080–091.

Mendras, H. 1967. La fin des paysans.

Mengoub, F. E., U. Dadush, Ait Ali, and A. Tsakok, I. 2022. *The Russia-Ukraine war and food security in Morocco (Policy brief no. 34/22)*. Rabat: Policy Center for the New South.

Monge, M. 2024. Trends and persistence in global Olive oil prices after COVID-19. *Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management* 23:481–488. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41272-024-00481-x

Monroy-Sais, A. S., D. Tobin, M. R. Bellon, M. Astier, A. Cibrián-Jaramillo, N. Gálvez-Reyes, A. Mastretta-Yanes, J. Ruiz-Arocho, A. Wegier, and Y. H. Chen. 2024. Smallholder farmers’ diverse values in maize landrace conservation: A case study from China, Mexico. *Journal of Rural Studies* 110:103347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103347

Nkurunziza, A., D. Intwarinkase Mutaganzwa, W. M. Ndayitwayeko, J. Nkengurutse, B. A. Kaplin, I. Teixidor Toneu, N. Zafra-Calvo, and A. Cuni-Sanchez. 2023. Local observations of climate change and adaptation responses: A case study in the mountain region of Burundi-Rwanda. *Land* 12:329. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020329

Pascual, U., U. Narloch, S. Nordhagen, and A. G. Drucker. eds. 2011. The economics of agrobiodiversity conservation for food security under climate change. *Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales*. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.117623

Pham, J. L., S. R. Morin, L. S. Sebastian, G. A. Abrigo, M. A. Calibo, S. M. Quilloy, L. Hipolito, and M. T. Jackson. 2002. Rice, farmers and gene banks: a case study in the Cagayan Valley, Philippines. Managing plant genetic diversity. Proceedings of an international conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 12–16 June 2000, CABI Books 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851995229.0149

Poeplau, C., A. Don, L. Vesterdal, J. Leifeld, B. Van Wesemael, J. Schumacher, and A. Gensior. 2011. Temporal dynamics of soil organic carbon after land-use change in the temperate zone – carbon response functions as a model approach. *Global Change*
Biology 17:2415–2427. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02408.x

Porcuna-Ferrer, A., L. Calvet-Mir, T. Guillerminet, S. Alvarez-Fernandez, V. Labeyrie, E. Porcuna-Ferrer, and V. Reyes-García. 2023a. So many things have changed: Situated Understandings of climate change impacts among the Bassari, south-eastern Senegal. *Environmental Science & Policy* 148:103552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103552

Porcuna-Ferrer, A., V. Labeyrie, S. Alvarez-Fernandez, L. Calvet-Mir, N. F. Faye, S. Ouadah, and V. Reyes-García. 2023b. Crop biological traits shape seed networks: Implications for social-ecological resilience in South Eastern Senegal. *Agricultural Systems* 211:103750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2023.103750

Porcuna-Ferrer, A., L. Calvet-Mir, N. F. Faye, B. Klappoth, V. Reyes-García, and V. Labeyrie. 2024. Drought-tolerant Indigenous crop decline in the face of climate change: A political agroecology account from south-eastern Senegal. *Journal of Rural Studies* 105:103163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2023.103163

Reicosky, D. C., M. J. Lindstrom, T. E. Schumacher, D. E. Lobb, and D. D. Malo. 2005. Tillage-induced CO2 loss across an eroded landscape. *Soil and Tillage Research Soil Erosion and Carbon Dynamics* 81:183–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2004.09.007

Renard, D., and D. Tilman. 2021. Cultivate biodiversity to harvest food security and sustainability. *Current Biology* 31:R1154–R1158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.06.082

Ricciardi, V., N. Ramankutty, Z. Mehrabi, L. Jarvis, and B. Choolingo. 2018. How much of the world's food do smallholders produce? *Global Food Security* 17:64–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2018.05.002

Scoones, I., and J. Thompson. 2011. The politics of seed in Africa's green revolution: Alternative narratives and competing pathways. *IDS Bulletin* 42:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2011.00232.x

Subedi, Y. R., P. Kristiansen, and O. Cacho. 2022. Drivers and consequences of agricultural land abandonment and its reutilisation pathways: A systematic review. *Environmental Development* 42:100681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2021.100681

Tanner, T., D. Lewis, D. Wrathall, R. Bronen, N. Cradock-Henry, S. Huq, C. Lawless, R. Nawrotzki, V. Prasad, M. A. Rahman, R. Alaniz, K. King, K. McNamara, M. Nadiruzzaman, S. Henly-Shepard, and F. Thomalla. 2015. Livelihood resilience in the face of climate change. *Nature Clim Change* 5:23–26. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2431

Teixidor-Toneu, I., O. Westengen, T. Ulian, A. McMillion, M. Lorimer, O. Grace, S. Caillon, P. Shrestha, and A. Kool. 2023. Co-conserving Indigenous and local knowledge systems with seeds. *Trends in Plant Science* 28:1370–1378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2023.06.020

Temani, F., A. Bouaziz, K. Daoui, J. Wery, and K. Barkaoui. 2021. Olive agroforestry can improve land productivity even under low water availability in the South mediterranean. *Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment* 307:107234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.107234

Thomas, M., E. Demeulenaere, J. C. Dawson, A. R. Khan, N. Galic, S. Jouanne-Pin, C. Remoue, C. Bonneuil, and I. Goldringer. 2012. On-farm dynamic management of genetic diversity: The impact of seed diffusions and seed saving practices on a population-variety of bread wheat. *Evolutionary Applications* 5:779–795. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2012.00257.x

Thrasher, B., W. Wang, A. Michaelis, F. Melton, T. Lee, and R. Nemani. 2022. NASA global daily downscaled projections, CMIP6. *Sci Data* 9:262. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01393-4

Thrupp, L. A. 2000. Linking agricultural biodiversity and food security: The valuable role of agrobiodiversity for sustainable

agriculture. *International Affairs* 76:265–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.00133

Urruty, N., D. Tailliez-Lefebvre, and C. Huyghe. 2016. Stability, robustness, vulnerability and resilience of agricultural systems. A review. *Agronomy for Sustainable Development* 36:15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0347-5

van de Wouw, M., C. Kik, T. van Hintum, R. van Treuren, and B. Visser. 2010. Genetic erosion in crops: Concept, research results and challenges. *Plant Genetic Resources* 8:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479262109990062

Vernooy, R. 2022. Does crop diversification lead to climate-related resilience? Improving the theory through insights on practice. *Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems* 46:877–901. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2022.2076184

Vignet-Zunz, J. 2014. Les Jbala du Rif: des lettrés en montagne. *La Croisée des chemins*. Casablanca.

Walker, B. H., J. M. Anderies, A. P. Kinzig, and P. Ryan. 2006. Exploring Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems Through Comparative Studies and Theory Development: Introduction to the Special Issue. *Ecology and Society* 11.

Woodmansee, A., M. Aakairi, B. Gerard, O. S. Hassani, A. Ouarghidi, A. Power, D. Rossiter, and A. McDonald. 2024. Environmental change and rural livelihoods in the high atlas mountains of Morocco. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4720192/v1

Zhang, Q., K. Wang, Y. Han, Z. Liu, F. Yang, S. Wang, X. Zhao, and C. Zhao. 2022. A crop variety yield prediction system based on variety yield data compensation. *Computers and Electronics in Agriculture* 203:107460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2022.107460

Zimmerer, K. S. 2010. Biological diversity in agriculture and global change. *Annual Review of Environment and Resources* 35:137–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-040309-113840

Zimmerer, K. S. 2013. The compatibility of agricultural intensification in a global hotspot of smallholder agrobiodiversity (Bolivia). *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* 110, 2769–2774. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1216294110

Zimmerer, K. S., Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, S. Caillon, Y. Jiménez-Olivencia, L. Porcel-Rodríguez, and C. S. Duvall. 2024. Agrobiodiversity threats amid expanding woody monocultures and hopes nourished through farmer and food movements in the Mediterranean. *Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene* 12, 00093. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2023.00093

**Publisher's note** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Océane Cobelli is a PhD student at UMR SENS (Cirad). Her research lies at the intersection of ecological sciences and social sciences through an ethnoecological approach. She investigates farmers’ representations, knowledge, and practices related to agricultural diversity. By doing so, her work explores the multiple factors shaping and influencing agrobiodiversity in a rapidly changing world. Her PhD research specifically focuses on the role of food systems in shaping the dynamics of crop diversity within a family-based agropastoral system in the western Rif region of northern Morocco.

Irene Teixidor-Toneu has a position as Associate Professor on ethnobiology and sustainability sciences at the French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD) and the Mediterranean Institute for terrestrial and marine Biodiversity and Ecology (IMBE). Her inter- and trans-disciplinary research focuses on the spatial and temporal dynamics of Indigenous and Local knowledge systems. Currently, she focuses on the drivers and impacts of Indigenous and Local knowledge-based environmental stewardship practices.
**Salama El Fatehi** is a researcher-professor at the Polydisciplinary Faculty in Larache (Abdelmalek Essaadi University). Her research focuses on the study of the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and related wild plants using morphological, agronomical, and molecular traits, and the use of agrodiversity for yield stability, reducing vulnerability and resilience to abiotic stress (hydric, thermal, saline) in agroecosystems. El Fatehi S., Hmimsa Y., Ater M.; 2021. Assessment of agromorphological diversity of chickling-vetch (Lathyrus cicera L.) landraces in the traditional agroecosystems of Morocco. AJCS 15(10):1289-1297 (2021). doi: 10.21475/ajcs.21.15.10.p3220.

**Younes Hmimsa** is researcher-professor at the Polydisciplinary Faculty in Larache (Abdelmalek Essaadi University). His research focuses on the analysis of bio-cultural interaction (Man-Plant-Ecosystem) and the impacts of climate change, the characterization of the diversity of cultivated genetic resources via agro-morphological and ecophysiological parameters. Hmimsa, Y.; Ramet, A.; Dubuisson, C.; El Fatehi, S.; Hossaert-McKey, M.; Kahi, H.; Munch, J.; Proffit, M.; Salpeteur, M.; Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., 2024. Pollination of the Mediterranean Fig Tree, Ficus Carica L.: Caprification Practices and Social Networks of Exchange of Caprifigs among Jbala Farmers in Northern Morocco. Human Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-024-00493-6

**Christian Leclerc** is a social anthropologist working at the interface between the social and biological sciences. His work aims to show how social and historical factors, with a particular focus on farmers’ linguistic identity, have shaped crop genetic and farmer’s variety diversity over time and space. He is head of the team on crop diversity dynamics, societies and environments at UMR AGAP, CIRAD. Diop, B. M., Guèye, M. C., Leclerc, C., Deu, M., Zekraoui, L., Calatayud, C., Rivallan, R., et al. (2023). Ethnolinguistic and genetic diversity of fonio (digitaria exilis ) in Senegal. Plants, People, Planet. DOI: 10.1002/ppp3.10428.

**Vanesse Labeyrie** is conducting interdisciplinary research at UMR SENS, CIRAD on the interactions between rural societies and crop diversity in the Global South. Her research aims at understanding how farmers use crop diversity to adapt to Global Changes, and how their practices and collective organization enhance or limit their access to this resource. She especially investigates how farmers’ social networks characteristics affect crop diversity dynamics. Labeyrie, V., Renard, D., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Benyei, P., Caillon, S., Calvet-Mir, L.,... and Reyes-García, V. (2021). The role of crop diversity in climate change adaptation: Insights from local observations to inform decision making in agriculture. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 51, 15-23.