Swiss farmers hold greater sway than ever
Important political decisions lie ahead for Swiss agriculture, and the farmers hold many trump cards. Rarely has their position been as strong as it is today, according to an analysis by Swissinfo's politics correspondent.
Economics Minister Guy Parmelin is a winegrower. This year he also holds the rotating Swiss presidency, and he hopes to use his position “to promote better understanding of economic issues among the population”.
But the agricultural sector is hardly in need of this. In recent years Swiss voters have consistently rejected all initiatives calling for stricter regulations in farming.
In 2021 voters turned down two initiatives for fewer pesticides; in 2022 they nixed a proposal to scale back factory farming; and in 2024 they said no to greater protection for biodiversity.
Today, spurred by the unpredictable security situation in Europe, the goal of crisis-proof self-sufficiency has taken on renewed importance. This also helps bolster the position of the farmers.
Strong influence on key issues
Public support for agriculture is so strong at the moment that even the Greens do not want to stick their necks out. Green Party parliamentarians are not even backing the “food initiativeExternal link”, which calls for fewer pesticides and less meat production. The proposal’s chances of success are considered nil.
The farming sector also wields considerable clout within parliament. An internal parliamentary lobby, comprising 38 “farmer External linkparliamentarians”, represents the interests of the Swiss Farmers’ Union. A sixth of parliament thus represents a sector that generates less than 1% of GDP. No other branch of the economy is better represented in Bern.
In short, Swiss farmers have a strong hand in policymaking. And they are using it, for major issues are on the agenda. These include a new agricultural strategy, new tariffs and new international agreements.
We discussed these matters with two agricultural policymakers of different stripes: Kilian Baumann, farmer and parliamentarian for the left-wing Green Party, and Martin Haab, farmer and parliamentarian for the right-wing Swiss People’s Party.
Debate on a new agricultural policy
The Agricultural Policy 2030+ is the most burning issue for farmers today. It will define the overall strategic direction for the entire sector, and the debates are due to begin soon. In February, the government is to present an initial discussion paper to the public, outlining its vision for the future of agriculture.
But what exactly needs to be changed? The main objectives are already known: the new agricultural policy should ensure Switzerland’s food security and take heed of the environment. For farmers, however, two other goals are paramount: a viable economic outlook and less bureaucracy; in other words, more money and fewer controls. This is because the previous reform brought a flood of paperwork, accompanied by a host of bureaucratic controls.
“The state has turned farmers into mere implementers of orders,” Haab laments. “They must be given a chance to become entrepreneurs again. We need an agricultural policy that sets objectives, rather than prescribing measures.”
Baumann, meanwhile, sees some advantages in the current system. “The direct payments we receive are linked to performance, for example for animal welfare or high environmental standards.” Switzerland thus pursues a strategy oriented on quality and always produces a little better than other countries, he says.
“This has enabled us to justify to the population the billions invested,” Baumann says. Each year, the government transfers CHF2.8 billion ($3.7 billion) to farms in the form of direct payments.
Government funding a must
Both agricultural policymakers welcome the intention of the farmers’ association to generate more revenue in the Swiss market. They both see the further potential of shorter supply chains and greater regional sourcing.
They also agree that cutting back direct payments is not an option, even if entrepreneurship and the market are to be given greater weight in the future. Already today, over half the roughly 45,000 Swiss farms would have to close without these federal funds.
“Direct payments compensate us for meeting the minimum standards for our Swissness: animal welfare, farming standards, environmental protection,” Haab says.
He regrets, however, that the economic dimension of farming has been neglected. “We’ve been promoting biodiversity for 25 years now and have done a lot.” Now enough is enough, he says.
Pesticides for self-sufficiency
For Haab and the Swiss Farmers’ Union one thing is clear: too many environmental rules hamper productivity. This is particularly true when it comes to pesticides. To protect bees and waterways, Switzerland doesn’t allow effective plant protection products – or only in exceptional cases, with special permits. The production of sugar beet and rapeseed has suffered recently as a result.
These two crops are particularly important for the country’s self-sufficiency, which is measured in terms of the calories produced. Sugar beet and rapeseed are the crops that yield the most energy per square metre of cultivated land.
“There are problems with these two calorie-intensive crops,” Haab confirms. Switzerland’s self-sufficiency rate has thus fallen from 60% to 40% in the space of 15 years. He fails to mention that population growth is also a contributing factor.
Baumann, meanwhile, points out that Swiss agriculture produces more milk, pork and wine than the domestic market can absorb. Overproduction is already an issue in some areas, because of misguided political incentives, he says. “This leads to low producer prices, environmental problems and high costs for the population,” he adds. “To call for more intensive production now would be absurd.”
Tariffs and free trade
Switzerland works tooth and nail to defend its expensive domestic production from cheaper imports. “Our tariff system is even more important for Swiss agriculture than direct payments,” Haab says.
However, the federal government has now negotiated a tariff agreement with the United States. This includes quotas for chicken and beef. A free trade agreement has also been concluded with Mercosur, a South American trade bloc, covering meat and wine imports.
What impact will these agreements have on Swiss agriculture? “As long as we can control the import regime through the meat sector organisation Proviande, the negotiated free quotas will not pose a threat to Swiss agriculture,” Haab says.
The farmers’ hidden bulwark
Haab points to a second, hidden tariff barrier that Swiss agriculture has erected, behind the national customs barriers. Through agriculture-related industry organisations, the sector has long seen to it that orders can only be placed abroad if domestic production is no longer able to meet demand. The prices are then often set in such a way that, at the checkout, consumers pay the usual high Swiss prices for cheaper imported goods.
The prognosis is therefore that, in future, only goods that do not compete with domestic farmers and that are in demand on the market will enter Switzerland – and at Swiss prices.
Baumann remains sceptical. “Tariff-free allowances indirectly put pressure on domestic production,” he says, pointing to promotional prices offered by major retailers for premium South American cuts of meat, prompting consumers to expect unrealistic prices. “If necessary, we could import the desired goods from neighbouring countries instead. That would be closer and easier to control.”
Harmonising with the EU
Swiss agriculture is closely tied to European agriculture. This is the case not just for seeds and varieties, but also, and ever more urgently, for approved pesticides. Parliament is currently discussingExternal link whether Switzerland should allow plant protection products if they have already been approved in a EU country, such as the Netherlands or Belgium.
The House of Representatives is in favour, on the grounds that this could help Switzerland shorten its own very costly approval procedures. But opponents of the measure warn that it would also open the door to outdated and highly environmentally harmful pesticides. The matter still has to go to the Senate.
“We should look to the EU not only for pesticides but also for new breeding technologies, because crop cultivation transcends national borders,” Haab says. He mentions the possibility of editing genes using genetic scissors, which is still a taboo in Switzerland.
Baumann, who advocates for sustainable agriculture, also places high hopes on the EU. “The countries around us are making progress in reducing pesticide use. If Swiss agriculture wants to remain credible, we shouldn’t fall behind EU standards,” he says.
The negotiated food agreement with the EU, part of the Bilateral Agreements III, is also pending. Like all new agreements with the EU, this one is unacceptable to People’s Party parliamentarian Haab. “The respective standards may not differ fundamentally today,” he says. “But in the future, Switzerland will no longer have a say because of the dynamic adoption of EU law.”
Baumann is convinced that cooperation with neighbouring countries is essential, not least because Switzerland, with its current meat-heavy eating habits, is reliant on food and feed imports from European countries. “My goal is that we remain credible in the future when we say that we produce more sustainably than other countries.”
Edited by Samuel Jaberg. Adapted from German by Julia Bassam/ts
More
Are EU inspectors headed for Swiss farms?
In compliance with the JTI standards
More: SWI swissinfo.ch certified by the Journalism Trust Initiative
You can find an overview of ongoing debates with our journalists here . Please join us!
If you want to start a conversation about a topic raised in this article or want to report factual errors, email us at english@swissinfo.ch.