Policies for the Future of Farming and Food in Switzerland

Assessment and recommendations

Assessment

An evolving and ambitious national vision on food systems is confronting inertia in policies from the past

There is a growing demand for a whole‑of‑government, co-ordinated approach to food systems

Switzerland’s increasing social awareness of the synergies and trade-offs among food security, nutrition, livelihoods, and environmental sustainability has led its Parliament to demand a “food systems approach” to policy making.1 This calls for a holistic view across multiple objectives and policy levers and makes co-ordination essential to avoid incoherent policies. While agricultural policies have traditionally focused on primary agricultural production, a food systems approach considers broader dimensions and opens the possibility of going beyond agricultural and environmental policies, for example to address environmental issues related to agriculture by using additional instruments such as promoting consumer behaviour change or voluntary firm standards (OECD, 2021[1]).

Since the previous OECD review of Switzerland’s agricultural policies in 2015, the concept of food systems has become an influential analytical framework globally (reflected, for example, in the 2021 United Nations’ Food System Summit). In Switzerland, the policy environment and objectives around food and agriculture have evolved considerably. Over ten popular initiatives2 related to agriculture and food have been launched since 2016, covering issues around environmental protection (such as pesticides and water quality), animal welfare, and food security, among others. These societal demands have been partially incorporated into legislation and policy development. In particular, the vision for Swiss agriculture and food systems towards 2050 ‒ which guides the design of agricultural policy for 2030 and beyond (AP30+) ‒ calls for a holistic approach encompassing all actors in the value chain, with new objectives on sustainable and healthy consumption, food loss and waste reduction, and cutting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from both production and consumption, while maintaining a net self-sufficiency ratio3 of at least 50%.

These policy developments recognise that addressing the inter-linked challenges of nutrition, livelihoods and environmental sustainability requires broad collaboration across sectors and food systems actors. The AP30+ process offers a timely and valuable opportunity for the Swiss Federal Government to further develop a food systems approach to policymaking. Over the longer term, moving towards a broader food systems policy framework and establishing stronger co-ordination mechanisms could improve policy coherence.

Food systems in Switzerland are shaped by cultural and geographic diversity, reflected in dietary habits and in the organisation of agriculture across regions. Family farming remains the dominant production model, with livestock and dairy standing out for their economic and cultural significance. The food and beverage industry is largely oriented toward the domestic market ‒ with notable exceptions such as cheese, chocolate, coffee, and soft drinks ‒ and market concentration is high in the midstream and downstream segments of the value chain. The recent rapid appreciation of the Swiss franc, together with higher tariffs faced by agro-food exports, further influence the system by weakening the competitiveness of key sectors, including tourism (often closely linked to agriculture and rural life). Swiss consumers enjoy high purchasing power and expect the high prices they pay to deliver social and environmental sustainability outcomes. At the same time, cross-border shopping ‒ driven by lower prices over the border and the strong franc ‒ is widespread, shaping purchasing patterns and affecting the functioning of domestic food markets. Citizens’ views on food production, consumption and the role of government are also shaped by the country’s long-standing tradition of direct democracy and its federal governance.

Switzerland has built a strong evidence base for the design of food systems policies, including through rigorous agri-environmental monitoring and an agricultural research community that regularly produces high-quality data, analysis, and evaluations. Ambitious strategies, policy targets, and advanced regulatory frameworks for food systems transformation are in place. Consensus-building is deeply embedded in the political culture: Swiss citizens generally agree on certain broad values and priorities around agriculture and food policies. Moreover, according to the OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions, Switzerland has the largest share of individuals with high trust in national and local governments across the OECD.

The multiplicity of objectives requires difficult compromises and adjustments to the policies of the past

Food systems are complex and multifaceted, and achieving better food systems policies is hindered by disagreements over facts, diverging interests, and differences over values.4 In Switzerland, for example, popular initiatives reflect interests and concerns that can sometimes be conflicting, such as calls to strengthen protection for the agricultural sector (which can create incentives to increase domestic production) versus demands to reduce environmental impacts from agriculture. The current agricultural policy does not yet fully reflect the food systems vision but is still influenced by path‑dependent decisions from the past, which can create inconsistencies.

A notable example concerns the role and future of the livestock and dairy sectors. Long-term strategies and expert assessments agree that Switzerland’s environmental objectives require dedicating more land to crops for human consumption and less to feed production, some reduction in cattle numbers, and reducing meat consumption. Trends in public health also point to the need for diets with more fruits and vegetables and fewer sugars and animal fats. While nutrition and climate policies have advanced in this direction, current agricultural policies remain inconsistent with this vision.

Another example concerns the goal of self-sufficiency. In Switzerland, supply security is assessed through the self-sufficiency ratio, a concept well established in public debate and broadly understood by the population. It measures the share of domestic food consumption that can be covered by domestic production (excluding the share of animal production that relies on imported feed). A popular initiative submitted in 2024 aims to increase this target to 70%, a proposal the Federal Council has rejected as unrealistic. A strong focus on self-sufficiency can, however, conflict with other policy objectives, such as reducing environmental pressures from agriculture, expanding biodiversity areas, and enhancing the efficiency and competitiveness of farmers so that they can respond more effectively to market signals. Moreover, this focus overlooks the essential contribution of international trade to food security: it helps access agricultural inputs not produced domestically, ensures the resilience of food supply in the face of domestic shocks, and facilitates diverse and balanced diets. This represents a paradox in a country deeply integrated into global value chains and benefitting from an extensive network of free trade agreements.

Current agricultural policy design may be reinforcing the status quo

Government support to agriculture is relatively high by international standards and contributes to policy incoherence

Despite its small share in the economy, agriculture has high societal value and is expected to contribute towards numerous objectives. Its role is defined in the Federal Constitution, which provides the basis for protection and regulation of the sector. The multiplicity of objectives for the sector has resulted in complex policy settings that seek to support farmers’ income (subject to environmental conditions) and incentivise certain farming practices, but that also shield farmers from foreign competition and keep domestic prices high.

To a certain extent, current agricultural policies still reflect the decades-long history of protection and regulation that kept Swiss agriculture long isolated from world markets. On the one hand, the original policy focus on ensuring food security and guaranteeing high prices and income for farmers has been broadened to reflect growing awareness of animal welfare and environmental pressures, and trade protection has been reduced in line with Switzerland’s international commitments and its wide network of trade agreements. On the other hand, the “layering” of new policies on top of existing policies has exacerbated questions of coherence; moreover, the involvement of numerous actors with diverse (and sometimes divergent) interests requires authorities to balance competing policy goals and reach politically acceptable outcomes, including by granting concessions to actors seeking to preserve the status quo.

A rich body of evaluations from the Federal Council and Swiss academia reveals the mixed performance of agricultural policy, with notable achievements alongside persistent challenges. Goals related to supply security (expressed as calorie production), participation in animal welfare programmes, and the renewal of the sector’s capital stock have been met. Economic indicators also show progress, with increases in farm incomes and higher labour productivity supported by structural changes and consistent reinvestment. Land-use regulations and investment support have helped to a certain extent preserve small-scale family farms and maintain employment, while direct payments have reduced income volatility. Environmental efforts have delivered some gains, including expanded ecological focus areas, improved nutrient management, and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

However, shortcomings remain. Income growth has been uneven across farm types and regions: many farmers (particularly in mountain and hill areas) rely heavily on direct payments, as their farms are not profitable without policy support, and they often supplement their income with off-farm work. Labour productivity gains have also fallen short of expectations. Environmental outcomes are particularly mixed: pesticide sales have decreased significantly over the past decade, but efforts to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus surpluses have had limited success beyond initial reductions following the introduction of cross-compliance; ammonia emission reductions have also lagged, and biodiversity quality remains insufficient. The loss of cultivated land continues to be a concern. Overall, objectives for production and income (including support) are largely met, but at the cost of low market orientation and competitiveness and persistent environmental and structural challenges.

Reforms have focused on the composition of support, not its level

Reflecting its perceived high societal value and multiple objectives, agriculture receives ample government support. In 2022-24, producer support in Switzerland represented 49% of gross farm receipts, the highest in the OECD and significantly above the OECD average of 13%. While this share has declined from 76% in 1986-88, it has remained stable over the past decade. This reflects the fact that the last major agricultural reform phase (AP14-17) and subsequent changes focused on restructuring and targeting payments to specific policy goals, rather than on reducing overall support.

The AP14‑17 overhaul shifted the composition of support, in particular linking direct payments to specific farming practices. Data shows a shift from traditional area or animal-based payments towards support less coupled to production. This reflects on a higher share of payments based on non-commodity criteria, such as environmental outcomes: at 6% of gross farm receipts, Switzerland has the highest share of non-commodity payments among the 54 OECD and emerging economies monitored in 2025.

Despite this change, Switzerland continues to rely heavily on measures that can potentially distort production and trade. Even if targeted liberalisation has taken place in some sectors, and protection has been reduced to some extent on bilateral trade under Switzerland’s wide network of free trade agreements, border protection, as reflected in the Market Price Support estimate, remains high by international comparison. On average, prices received by Swiss producers were 47% higher than international prices in 2022‑24, the third-highest gap in the OECD after Iceland and Korea.

At the same time, expenditures to create enabling conditions for agriculture, measured by the General Services Support Estimate (GSSE), have increased both in nominal terms and as a share of agricultural production. With GSSE expenditure at 9% of production value in 2022‑24, Switzerland ranks second in the OECD and is one of only four OECD Members above 5%. This is positive, as general services investments can help the sector become more productive, sustainable, and resilient. Furthermore, spending on the agricultural knowledge and innovation system (AKIS) represents the largest share of Switzerland’s GSSE expenditures. In 2022-24, this category amounted to 4% of production value, the highest in the OECD and considerably above the OECD average of 1%.

Overall, Switzerland’s total support to agriculture (TSE) declined by over 40% since 1986-88 but has remained stable since 2013-15. At CHF 7 billion per year over 2022-24, it directly or indirectly costs each Swiss household around CHF 1 760 per year, or around 2% of the average household disposable income (estimated for 2023 at CHF 7 186 per month, or CHF 86 232 per year).

Some aspects of agricultural policy are at odds with ambitious new food systems objectives

The vision guiding agricultural policy for 2030 and beyond (AP30+) covers sustainable and healthy consumption, the reduction of food loss and waste, and the reduction of GHG emissions from production and consumption, with objectives and quantitative targets for 2050. AP30+ also aims to promote competitiveness, value creation, and innovation. Administrative simplification is another key element, to be achieved partly by encouraging greater personal responsibility and initiative among all actors in the value chain. However, certain aspects of the current agricultural policy appear at odds with these objectives. Notable examples include:

• Sugar production and processing receive substantial government support through measures such as area-based payments, adjustable tariffs to ensure minimum protection, and tariff escalation on processed products, despite nutritional guidelines signalling sugar consumption as a problem for healthy diets.

• Dairy production receives significant government support, including the largest share of production and marketing subsidies and three types of output-based payments. However, recommendations aimed at improving nutritional outcomes and reducing the environmental impact of diets indicate a need to shift more available land toward crops for direct human consumption. This would, in turn, require decreasing the area devoted to forage crops and reducing the number of pigs, broiler chickens, suckler cows, and fattening cattle (Federal Council, 2022[2]).

• Federal funds support the marketing of meat, even if the consumption of animal-based products accounts for the largest share of the Swiss ecological footprint from food consumption and the authorities recognise that an ideal diet from the health and ecological perspectives should significantly lower current levels of meat consumption.

• Fresh fruits and vegetables are protected by a complex system of seasonal tariffs and tariff rate quotas, with very high rates during the harvest season and imports at lower rates allowed only during short windows of time. These measures distort market signals and seem incoherent with the broader objective of promoting sustainable and healthy diets. Swiss consumers face prices of fruits and vegetables (and of other foods) that are significantly higher than in neighbouring countries, and fruit and vegetable consumption in Switzerland is already considered low against dietary recommendations.

• A subsidy for tobacco production remains in place in the form of an administered price. In 2022, the subsidy amounted to CHF 14 million, almost equal to the CHF 13 million spent annually on tobacco prevention measures (Federal Office of Public Health, n.d.[3]). The annual economic cost of tobacco consumption in Switzerland (including treatment costs and lost earnings) is estimated at around CHF 3.9 billion (Federal Office of Public Health, n.d.[4]). Similarly, support for the marketing of Swiss wine was increased in 2023 to CHF 9 million, while federal and cantonal funds are invested in campaigns to prevent the risks and costs associated with problematic alcohol consumption.

• Fuel for agriculture benefits from a refund of the mineral oil tax. The potential abolition of this tax advantage and its lack of coherence with Switzerland’s international efforts to limit fossil fuel subsidies have been the subject of domestic discussion in the past, but in 2023 it was decided to maintain the tax refund.

More generally, the current agricultural support system is creating a paradox for farmers. On the one hand, there is a high dependence on government payments for farm income. On the other hand, farmers express frustration over administrative complexity and regulatory barriers. This dynamic may be discouraging self-responsibility and entrepreneurial initiative within the sector. OECD work has pointed out that policies that inflate the cost of imported inputs and shield domestic producers from external competition hinder business development, innovation, and competitiveness of the agro-food sector (OECD, 2015[5]).

Private management of the strategic foodstuff reserve enhances efficiency, but the associated import levy adds to border protection and consumer prices

Switzerland maintains stocks of final goods and raw materials that are considered essential. For foodstuffs, the objective is to cover three to four months of domestic demand in the event of severe shortages. Stockpiling is considered a key strategic policy given Switzerland’s import dependency. The food products covered are sugar, rice, edible oils and fats, coffee, durum and soft wheat, as well as energy and protein sources for animal feed. Nitrogen fertilisers are also among the stockpiled goods.

Stocks are owned and managed by private companies, which invest in the necessary storage infrastructure. They are maintained in a rotating manner and regularly integrated into value chains to prevent their expiration or spoilage. The system’s decentralised management also enhances its efficiency (OECD, 2024[6]). Private participants are compensated by the federal government for the costs of maintaining the stocks, but there are no additional fiscal costs (e.g. no use of public storage facilities).

Certain aspects of the system raise questions. The system is financed through an import levy applied on top of tariffs, adding to the policies that result in higher consumer prices. The World Trade Organization has noted that adding the guarantee fund levy could result in tariffs exceeding WTO bound levels for some products (World Trade Organization, 2022[7]). Domestically, the system has been the subject of discussion amid growing global uncertainty. Private sector stakeholders have opposed recent proposals for increasing stock quantities of several goods and reject as an unrealistic “worst case scenario” a proposal to use a 12‑month full import stop assumption for planning (Réservesuisse, 2023[8]).

The OECD has highlighted the costs of stockpiling and the associated risk of “moral hazard”, which can reduce the private sector’s incentives to manage risks effectively (OECD, 2024[6]). While stockpiles remain a core element of Switzerland’s crisis preparedness strategy, the ongoing review of the system should avoid relying on extreme scenarios and assess options for increasing reliance on global markets and reducing reserves, particularly for products like sugar, which may conflict with nutrition objectives.

Opening the sector to more new entrants and women and empowering all actors in the value chain are persistent challenges

The continuity of agriculture requires more efforts to attract new entrants beyond family inheritance and to ensure smooth farm transfers

Family farms are the backbone of Swiss agriculture. Policies seek to preserve this model, considered central to the country’s tradition and cultural identity. Most farms are owned by natural persons; legal entities are rare, as are holdings which concentrate at the extremes of the size distribution (very large or very small).

While family members still make up almost three-quarters of agricultural workers, the share of non-family employees ‒ including foreign nationals ‒ is increasing. The employment of non-family and foreign workers is higher in organic farming, a sector that expanded up to 2024 against overall farming trends. Because the family model remains prevalent, the situation of hired workers (including migrants) has received relatively little attention and may merit more in-depth analysis, particularly given the increasing reliance on hired labour.

Swiss farm managers are ageing. While this concern is not unique to agriculture – nor to Switzerland ‒ farm workers have the highest average age of all Swiss economic sectors. The direct payment system is designed to incentivise farm handover when the manager reaches the statutory pension age of 65. Studies foresee a wave of farm transfers over the next years, as a relatively large number of farm managers approaches retirement age (Zorn, 2025[9]). Regulations on rural land have the explicit objective of preserving family farming. As a result, economic incentives exist for transferring farms within the family; for example, family members may buy the farm at a value below its real estate market value.

In Switzerland, research has examined the quality of life and wellbeing of retiring farmers, and various tools and advisory services support families in planning farm succession. Given the ageing farming population and the expected rise in farm transfers, scope remains to develop interventions specifically aimed at supporting the older generation through this transition. In addition to expanding advisory services that holistically support the process of farm transfer, key areas could include strengthening social networks and encouraging engagement in activities beyond farming. For example, “Farmer’s Yards,” first established in Ireland and later replicated in the US state of Pennsylvania, provide community spaces for older farmers to meet in peer groups, helping them maintain social connections (Conway et al., 2024[10]).

On the other end of the spectrum, evidence points to a decline in the number and share of young farmers over the last two decades, and to a decreasing rate of new entrants. This stands in contrast to a long-term positive trend in the number of apprenticeships in agriculture, which indicates that the sector remains interesting for young people. Sector organisations also report a growing demand for farms by newcomers not related to current farmers, and private solutions have emerged to connect them with farmers without successors.

Buying a farm at market value ‒ which often can be significantly higher than the income value at which family members may acquire it ‒ poses a significant barrier for new entrants. Moreover, start-up aid for the acquisition of holdings or land is provided only up to the age of 35, even though research shows that the average age of farmers in general is increasing and that new entrants – especially women – tend to be relatively older. The acceptance in August 2025 of a parliamentary motion calling to increase the minimum age for this aid is a welcome step in this regard.

There seems to be a misalignment between the objectives of preserving family farms and ensuring the sector’s continuity. The increased number of farm exits foreseen over the coming years creates a challenge for the continuation of agriculture and calls for better aligning incentives in this area and for examining potential bottlenecks for new entrants. Attracting more young farmers and new entrants could help boost the sustainable transformation of the sector, as younger farmers have higher participation in environmental programmes and may be more ready to innovate.

There is significant room to increase women’s participation in farm management

Women account for over a third of the agricultural workforce and 60% of agricultural and veterinary researchers in higher education. Women in farming households contribute in numerous ways, not only through their work on the farm but often through off-farm employment. Yet they remain significantly underrepresented as farm managers: only 7% of Swiss farm managers are female,5 far below the shares in the EU-27 (32%), Austria (35%) or Norway (17%), even though the number and percentage of female-run farms have increased over the last two decades. While the national average masks regional variations, the share remains relatively low even in cantons with the highest female representation (15%). A combination of structural, cultural, and financial barriers appears to contribute to this underrepresentation of women in leadership roles.

A recent policy reform aims to improve social insurance coverage for farmers’ spouses and partners. Starting in 2027, partners working on the farm will be required to have personal insurance coverage for certain risks for the farm to qualify for direct payments. This measure is expected to strengthen social protection for women working on farms and ensure they are prepared in the event of unexpected hardship. An amendment recently approved by Parliament ‒ also expected to enter into force in 2027 ‒ seeks to provide greater security to spouses working on farms in the event of a divorce.

Improving gender equality also requires better evidence collection (Giner, Hobeika and Fischetti, 2022[11]). Switzerland has made progress in building its evidence base: the Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG) regularly monitors the number of female farm managers and collects data on women’s roles on farms, income and social protection, farm ownership, and women’s future prospects.

There is scope to encourage the evolution of cultural attitudes toward traditional roles. The planned revision of the vocational education course “Farmer's Wife/Farm Household Manager” to update its name and place greater emphasis on technical content is a welcome development for driving change. Beyond this, Switzerland could explore policies to incentivise female participation and promote more inclusive practices. For example, some EU countries provide additional funding to female farmers in specific support measures of their Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Strategic Plans: in Spain, female farm owners or co-owners benefit from a 15% bonus on the young farmer income support, and certain women-led rural development projects are prioritised. Croatia recently introduced a 15% increase to certain rural development measures if the farm has been led by a woman for at least three years prior to the support request. In Ireland, the Women Farmers’ Capital Investment Scheme provides increased grant aid rates for investment projects.

More information on prices and margins in the value chain could improve transparency and help reduce divergences amongst food system actors

One characteristic of the Swiss agro-food value chain is its dual structure. On the one hand, there is a highly competitive, export-oriented segment of food processing, with several multinational companies recognised as global leaders, such as Nestlé. International trade patterns reflect this specialisation, with coffee and chocolate exports illustrating Switzerland’s competitive advantage in high value-added products that rely on imported inputs. On the other hand, some industries, such as meat and dairy processing (except cheese), rely more heavily on domestic inputs, serve primarily the domestic market, are less competitive, and face relatively high costs.

Market concentration is high upstream and downstream in the chain, and market leaders are politically influential. Transparency and fairness of food prices and profit margins are a source of disagreement amongst food systems actors. Farmers complain about their limited bargaining power vis-à-vis their midstream and downstream counterparts (Reuters, 2024[12]; SRF News, 2024[13]). Consumer associations report unjustified and excessive price margins by food retailers and call for greater transparency around food prices and profit margins. Conversely, the food industry and retailers argue that markets function well and that complaints often highlight extreme examples rather than the overall situation. As in most OECD countries, data on profit margins is scarce in Switzerland. The lack of clear, easily accessible information on prices and margins appears to reinforce these divergent views.

Border protection also contributes to food prices that do not fully reflect market dynamics. Price distortions affect relative prices between food products. For example, fruits and vegetables can sometimes cost more in-season than off-season. Cross-border food shopping is common in Switzerland. This practice can have significant economic, environmental and social implications, but its effects remain underexplored. It could also compromise the accuracy of national statistics and understanding of Swiss diets. Better insights into the effects of price distortions on different food systems objectives could support more effective policy design.

Over a quarter of Swiss farmers sell directly to consumers, which enables them to take greater control over profit margins by reducing dependence on intermediaries. Direct marketing can strengthen farmers’ position in the value chain, diversify their income and foster local development. A steady growth trend has been observed in recent years, with the share of farmers engaging in direct marketing doubling between 2010 and 2020, even if it still represents only a small fraction of farmers’ income.

A food systems approach requires enhanced emphasis on environmental and nutrition goals and changing demand behaviour

Stronger demand-side policies could help counter recent trends in dietary risks and environmental outcomes

Switzerland’s population is generally healthier and more active than the OECD average. However, unhealthy diets remain a major risk factor and place a heavy burden on the public health system and the economy. The diets of Swiss adults are typically too high in salt, sugar, meat, and saturated fats, while consumption of fruits, vegetables, and nuts remains insufficient. OECD health indicators show that Switzerland has the highest per capita health expenditure in Europe, and the Federal Council estimates that 80% of health costs are due to non-communicable diseases (NCD). In addition to health concerns, food consumption is also a major source of environmental pressures in Switzerland.

Effective policy decisions require a robust evidence base. The national nutritional survey menuCH remains the most complete source of information on dietary habits in Switzerland. Its findings have been analysed in over 50 academic papers and reveal, among other insights, notable differences in food consumption across the country’s three main linguistic regions. However, the survey was conducted more than a decade ago, making the data relatively outdated.

More recent insights on the eating habits of children and adolescents come from the menuCH-Kids survey, published in 2025 and based on data collected in 2023‑24. Results suggest that most children have an adequate energy intake, and that risk factors associated with chronic diseases are generally lower than in other countries. Nevertheless, around 13% of children and adolescents are overweight or obese, fruit and vegetable consumption is low, meat consumption is high, and snacks and sugary drinks are often on the menu for adolescents. Further analysis based on the raw data is expected in the coming years.

Swiss consumers are generally well-educated and environmentally conscious, showing openness to demand-side policies and a preference for food products that reflect better environmental and social outcomes. However, as in other OECD countries, there is a gap between consumers’ stated intentions and their actual purchasing behaviour. The pervasiveness of cross-border food shopping provides evidence that prices do play a role in consumer decisions.

Various demand-side policies are already in place to encourage healthier and more sustainable food choices. At the federal level, nutrition policies have been updated with the 2024 release of the new Swiss food pyramid and the “balanced plate” developed to communicate these guidelines to consumers, as well as the Swiss Nutrition Strategy 2025‑2032. Cantons and cities are also dynamic players in this domain. Still, information on the effectiveness and coherence of these policies is lacking. Additionally, there is room to further leverage behavioural insights by exploring other demand-side measures. This report presents relevant examples from OECD countries that may serve as refence for future policy development in Switzerland.

There is a solid foundation for effective agri-environmental policies, but it remains at odds with agricultural support policies that can create opposing production incentives

Switzerland has a robust policy framework for environmentally sustainable agriculture. The combination of environmental regulations, cross-compliance requirements, and financial incentives for voluntary agri-environmental measures provides a solid foundation for effective agri-environmental policy. In addition, Switzerland has piloted modern policy designs, such as agglomeration bonus payments (also known as connectivity payments or network projects) and result-based payments, which could further enhance both the environmental effectiveness and the budgetary efficiency of voluntary payments.

In terms of environmental performance, Switzerland has made some progress in areas such as the expansion of biodiversity conservation areas, soil erosion, and pesticide sales. Although nitrogen and phosphorus inputs and surpluses are declining, they remain significantly higher than the EU and OECD averages. Due to highly intensive production and surplus of nitrogen linked to manure input, nitrate concentrations exceed legal limits at nearly half of monitoring stations, particularly in regions dominated by arable crops. Moreover, 43% of agricultural land is classified as being at high risk of soil erosion.

Switzerland’s direct payment system requires all farmers to meet strict environmental standards. This has led to some positive outcomes, such as reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus surpluses and runoff, and greater richness among certain common species. Voluntary agri‑environmental payments have also helped support species and habitat conservation in targeted regions, encourage organic and low‑input farming, and maintain traditional practices in less productive areas. Nonetheless, additional efforts are needed to achieve environmental objectives related to climate mitigation, reductions in air emissions (such as ammonia), improving the overall state of biodiversity, and meeting nutrient surplus targets.

As stated above, the current agricultural support system continues to provide strong production incentives for sectors with high environmental impacts, such as meat and dairy. In some cases, such as dairy, domestic support measures compensated producers for reforms that increased international market openness. Despite reductions over time, market price support (MPS) and output-based payments remain significant, creating environmental pressures such as nutrient surpluses and greenhouse gas emissions. These payments exert environmental pressure across all production margins ‒ intensive, extensive, and entry-exit ‒ and represent a policy failure that exacerbates environmental market failures.

Classical policy recommendations suggest addressing policy failures before tackling environmental market failures; essentially, turning off the heater before switching on the air conditioning. In this context, it is important to consider how much of the budget for voluntary agri-environmental measures is effectively offsetting the potential environmental impact caused by production-coupled policies like MPS and output-based payments.

It is encouraging that modern payment mechanisms have been tested within Switzerland’s agri‑environmental policy package. Biodiversity payments have expanded conservation areas, yet qualitative targets are still often missed. Combining action‑based and result‑based schemes has improved the average environmental effectiveness of payment systems. However, large variations in the cost of providing environmental services suggest that better spatial targeting and more tailored payments could enhance both environmental outcomes and cost‑effectiveness. Landscape Quality Payments (LQPs) have effectively maintained and improved landscape features, but they also generate windfall gains when farmers are compensated for practices they would have undertaken anyway.

Further action will be needed to deliver on the ambitious food loss and waste reduction goals

Efforts to reduce food loss and waste (FLW) have advanced rapidly over the past decade. Switzerland has built a strong evidence base, set clear reduction targets for both FLW flows and their environmental impacts, and actively engaged the private sector. Its goals are among the most ambitious in the OECD: by 2030, halve per capita FLW across the entire food supply chain compared to 2017 levels; and by 2050, a 75% reduction against 2020 levels.

The FLW Action Plan, adopted in 2022, is being implemented in two phases. The first phase (2022-25) included 14 measures, covering education, awareness-raising, and voluntary measures for private actors, supported by a cross-industry agreement between the government and the private sector to reduce avoidable FLW. A second phase (2026-2030) calls for the introduction of stricter measures if progress during the first phase is deemed insufficient. An interim assessment published in October 2025 indicates that, even if progress was made, the reduction during Phase 1 is not in line with the targets. The Federal Council is set to decide in 2026 which specific measures to introduce in Phase 2 (FOEN, 2025[14]).

To maintain credibility and meet the targets, Switzerland will need additional action, including potentially stricter measures. Switzerland could strengthen its position as a global leader on FLW reduction by imposing stricter requirements on large agri-food companies, investing in closing measurement gaps and supporting innovative solutions across the supply chain. Increasing awareness-raising actions and other demand-side policies should be explored, as households account for over one third of the environmental impacts associated with FLW.

A recent report suggests that companies across the supply chain underestimate their potential to reduce FLW due to limited know-how, established routines, and fear of the risks associated with innovation. Knowledge-sharing, adoption of best practices, and co-operation platforms can help overcome these barriers and foster innovation.

Innovation needs to be embedded in participatory governance to steer it towards food systems priorities, co-ordinate efforts, and develop context‑appropriate transformative solutions

Even a strong innovation system like Switzerland’s has opportunities to improve and streamline

The Swiss innovation system offers strong potential to be a vehicle for food system transformation, thanks to its scientific base, high-quality research outputs, advanced digital infrastructure, and dynamic private sector. However, even with these strong foundations, some structural and co-ordination challenges remain.

Innovation in Switzerland is largely viewed through a technological lens. While this focus is aligned with the country’s research and development strengths, it may be overlooking social, organisational and institutional forms of innovation that could also play a role. In addition, without a clear orientation towards sustainable technologies and long-term social and environmental objectives, the potential of innovation may not fully contribute to broader societal goals. Differences in productivity and innovation performances across rural regions show that a one-size-fits-all approach falls short. A more integrated policy framework, recognising diverse forms of innovation beyond technology, setting strategic priorities, and aligning incentives could help bridge these gaps and reduce inefficiencies and duplication across national, regional, and local initiatives.

Digital technologies can significantly boost sustainability and productivity and help reduce administrative workloads, yet adoption in Swiss agriculture ‒ and rural areas more broadly ‒ is uneven. Digital divides persist between urban and rural areas, affecting not only farmers but also rural SMEs, local communities, and decentralised service providers with unequal access to skills, information, and resources. Barriers include high costs, lack of digital skills, questions around data ownership, and fragmented governance frameworks. The DigiAgriFoodCH programme is a step in the right direction. Additional actions could help enhance the role of digitalisation as a driver of innovation and better decision-making. This includes efforts to improve coherence, clarify rules, and in general strengthen farmers’ trust and willingness to share or use data. A comprehensive framework for agricultural data governance, addressing questions of ownership, access, interoperability, and use, could help build trust.

At the same time, digitalisation strategies should carefully consider potential unintended effects, including the risk of locking in existing systems and reducing future flexibility, particularly when large public data platforms make subsequent structural change more difficult. Greater attention could also be paid to identifying the types of data that are genuinely needed to enable system improvement and innovation, rather than focusing primarily on expanding data collection. Combined with efforts to strengthen digital skills and advisory support, this could enable farmers to fully benefit from digital tools.

The development and scaling of transformative innovations remain hindered by co-ordination and incentive gaps. These include misalignment between innovation and broader food-system goals − when there is no clear orientation towards societal goals − and uneven capacities across urban and rural regions. Switzerland could map existing public initiatives to identify duplications and gaps and establish mechanisms to improve co-ordination across all government levels. For example, promoting shared learning platforms for AKIS actors across regions could reduce fragmentation and strengthen synergies.

Greater farmer engagement in innovation processes could ensure innovations respond more effectively to their needs and have greater impact. The experience of participatory approaches that directly involve farmers ‒ such as the Agroscope Experimental Stations or the Model Projects for Sustainable Spatial Development ‒ offers a useful model. Sustained support for advisory services and collaborative partnerships could strengthen AKIS linkages, enhance knowledge flows and increase the adoption of farmer-centred innovations.

Transformative innovation often involves changes in behaviours, organisations or governance processes. Current innovation assessments focus on economic and technological outputs. Integrating broader societal value into the decision-making of public and private funding bodies could be achieved through tools such as corporate responsibility frameworks and true-cost accounting. When combined with mixed finance (from different sources, e.g. public and private), these approaches could steer investment toward innovations with high public value, especially those with positive environmental or social impacts.

Agri-food start-ups face high costs and regulatory barriers that can motivate them to relocate abroad when scaling up. Creating more spaces for experimentation could help innovators test and adapt their solutions. To support these processes, cantonal authorities could designate areas where landscape or infrastructure changes can be authorised more rapidly for experimental purposes.

Potential federal budget cuts to education, research, and innovation funding are under discussion, possibly impacting for example the budget of the Swiss National Science Foundation. While no decision has been made, research institutions have expressed concerns, as the cuts could affect key innovation instruments. In a context of fragmented support mechanisms, these reductions could weaken innovation capacity for food systems transformation. There might be a need to explore alternative funding mechanisms to tackle food systems challenges, particularly in light of possible budgetary constraints.

Strengthening participatory processes and inter-institutional co-ordination would further reinforce Switzerland’s robust foundation for food systems governance

Stakeholder consultation and citizen participation are common, though some imbalances persist

Deliberative processes6 provide opportunities for in-depth discussions where differences in values around food and agriculture can be addressed. While direct democracy instruments such as popular initiatives already enable Swiss citizens to actively participate in policy development, they remain limited to binary choices and therefore do not support in‑depth deliberation on complex issues. Conversations about the sector’s future allow actors with diverse perspectives to engage in less structured dialogue, moving away from current tensions and constraints. The Citizens’ Assembly convened in the run-up to AP30+ is a relevant example.

As Switzerland embraces a food systems approach, there is growing recognition that this requires cross-sector collaboration. The country has a strong tradition of consensus-building and stakeholder consultation, supported by numerous mechanisms that ensure engagement of different actors throughout policy processes. For example, extra-parliamentary commissions of experts from different institutions advise the federal government on agriculture and food matters, including for the development of the AP30+. The Tripartite Conference offers a permanent space for dialogue between the Confederation, cantons, and municipalities on federalism and intergovernmental co-operation.

In the Swiss context, policies or solutions “cooked in a small kitchen” (i.e. developed with input from only a small group) rarely succeed: broad consensus is essential, even if it slows decision-making. Yet, despite this, in some cases actors still feel excluded from key decisions. For instance, during an OECD mission, farmer representatives expressed concerns that producers did not have enough opportunities to provide their views for the development of the new nutritional pyramid.

Despite this, farmers collectively remain influential political actors. Unlike many OECD countries, Switzerland does not require lobbyists to register in a dedicated public registry, nor do policymakers have to disclose their agendas or the identity of consulted interest groups. A regulatory framework with clear definitions for lobbying could help ensure that such activity supports rather than hinders effective policymaking. Additional disclosure requirements, such as a lobbying register would increase transparency, enable public awareness and encourage a more balanced representation of all actors in the supply chain (OECD, 2024[15]).

In contrast, consumer representatives are less involved in agriculture and food systems policy development compared to farmers and industry representatives. Switzerland’s institutional framework for consumer protection also remains fragmented, with responsibilities divided among federal offices, cantons, and associations. Compared to neighbouring EU countries, Switzerland’s system is less centralised and offers fewer collective legal remedies. Direct consumer assistance programmes are limited, and legal instruments such as class action lawsuits have been rejected by both parliament and the Federal Council. Better consideration of consumer needs and preferences could improve the acceptability of new policy interventions.

There is potential to enhance co-ordination across government levels and scale up successful regional solutions

Inter-departmental co-ordination and information-sharing are essential to identify potential synergies and trade-offs in food systems policies and proposals. These mechanisms also help address disagreements over facts, conflicting interests, and differences in values.

Like most OECD countries, Switzerland lacks a formal inter-institutional co-ordination body that comprehensively covers food systems policies. Responsibilities are distributed across federal offices, which operate under the responsibility of different federal departments and federal councillors, with distinct management cultures and working styles.

There is scope to create synergies across government levels, for example by scaling up successful cantonal projects to the national level. This should be done carefully, striking the right balance to avoid adding administrative complexity or undermining cantonal autonomy.

Legal limitations prevent local (subnational) entities from receiving federal funding, and greater flexibility in this regard could help promote innovative solutions. Some pathways exist in projects that already apply nationwide. For example, the Model Projects for Sustainable Spatial Development, implemented over several cycles since 2002, illustrate collaboration among different offices and offer an innovative approach to overcoming regulatory constraints on multi-source federal funding. Even if this initiative has a relatively small budget, lessons learned and good practices from the experience of collaboration under these projects could inform future actions and initiatives.

Policy recommendations

Gradual policy changes for effective food system transformation

Switzerland’s consensus-driven political culture and agriculture’s multiple constitutional functions add complexity and time to food systems policymaking. Under these conditions, undertaking a rapid transformative reform would be challenging. A gradual, targeted policy shift with clear, shared long-term goals may be more appropriate in this context. Policymakers could start by focussing on a limited set of objectives and assessing existing policies against them to guide coherent action.

Initial efforts could focus on improving transparency, phasing out or redirecting support measures most misaligned with broader food systems goals, fostering sustainable productivity growth, supporting actors willing to change or diversify their activities, and encouraging healthier food choices that also reflect citizens’ environmental and social concerns. Innovative policy approaches could also be explored to address unmet agri-environmental targets.

A gradual approach also requires fostering innovative partnerships that engage all levels of government and diverse private-sector actors to jointly achieve food systems objectives. Instruments and approaches to drive change could include leveraging private sector partnerships, for example by promoting broad voluntary agreements beyond topic-specific initiatives like the cross-industry agreement on food loss and waste (FLW), which could help accelerate progress across multiple food systems objectives simultaneously. Initiatives by cantons and cities ‒ often better placed to take bold and innovative action ‒ could be leveraged more systematically by the federal government to accelerate progress. Strengthening governance via an inter-departmental body could provide high-level guidance across federal departments and improve policy coherence, while dedicated funding for food systems transformation could mobilise innovation across the value chain.

The current policy setting may be unbalanced in favour of farmer organisations and the food industry ‒ both powerful actors in the political economy ‒ while consumers’ interests carry comparatively less weight. Education and awareness-raising around the impacts of food systems, and deliberative processes for stakeholders to have in-depth discussions around diverging values could help build legitimacy for future reforms. Building a deeper understanding of farmers’ perspectives, constraints, motivations and levers for change will also make ambitious reforms politically feasible. These actions could lay the groundwork for bolder policy action in the medium term and for the eventual development of a broader food systems policy serving as government-wide overarching framework.

This report’s assessment helped identify 36 specific recommendations, categorised into nine areas: 1) aligning agricultural policies with stated food systems objectives; 2) promoting a more inclusive and future-ready farming sector; 3) promoting transparency in agro-food markets; 4) demand-side policies for healthy and sustainable diets; 5) addressing unmet environmental targets; 6) delivering on the food loss and waste goals; 7) making the innovation system work better for food system objectives; 8) strengthening inclusive processes for food systems decision making; and 9) enhancing stakeholder participation. Each recommendation lists specific actions; those which could be prioritised for consideration in the AP30+ discussion are labelled [Short-term].

I. Innovative policies to reconcile ambitious food systems objectives

1. Strengthen the alignment of agricultural policies with stated food systems objectives

• Assess the environmental and health implications of current border protection measures to inform a trade liberalisation path. Based on this assessment, identify at a minimum a set of “low hanging fruit” reforms, based for example on the recommendations of the 2016 “parallel imports” report (Federal Council, 2016[16]). These reforms would support the broader objective of fostering a more competitive agro‑food sector and enhancing the freedom of private actors, recognising that some stakeholders may face short-term costs that could be mitigated though transitional support or safety nets. Potential actions in this area include:

  • Reduce the very high out-of-quota duties on fruits and vegetables [Short-term].

  • Extend the elimination of the tariff escalation industrial component to all trading partners, not only those with FTAs (which already account for most of Switzerland’s trade) [Short-term].

  • Lower border protection and eliminate tariff peaks for goods that are not produced domestically.

  • In line with the ongoing modernisation efforts of the Swiss Customs Law to simplify and digitise processes, explore options to make the agro-food trade regime simpler and more predictable. For example, reforms to TRQ administration to improve access for new entrants.

• Reform support measures that stand in the way of achieving health, nutrition, and sustainability objectives. This includes support to sugar production, price support for tobacco, and the fuel tax rebate for agriculture [Short-term].

• Encourage a shift towards the cultivation of crops for direct human consumption. Promote a rebalancing of agricultural support measures that currently favour animal-based production, with a view to reducing distortions and allowing market incentives to operate more effectively. This can help encourage a voluntary shift towards more profitable and environmentally sustainable activities, such as fruits, vegetables and pulses, where appropriate. Studies show that shifting land away from feed toward food production could reduce negative environmental impacts without compromising supply security goals. Increasing the availability and affordability of nutrient‑dense plant foods could also create synergies with demand changes toward healthier diets and improved nutrition outcomes [Short-term].

• Promote regionally tailored policies to support the transition toward more sustainable and competitive production. Reconsider implementing earlier OECD recommendations on reforming the agricultural support system, including the use of a regionally differentiated policy menu in which access to specific measures reflects the geographic location (OECD, 2015[5]; Gray et al., 2017[17]). Advance AP30+ objectives by reducing reliance on government support among the most profitable farms and sectors, while recognising the role of mountain farms in maintaining landscapes and delivering non‑market public goods and their more fragile economic situation. In this context, prioritise reforms on support to valley farms to enhance their competitiveness and self-responsibility, while ensuring that temporary and well‑targeted measures are available to mitigate adjustment costs for farmers negatively affected by reforms.

• Maintain a conservative and proportionate approach to food stockpiling. While the fiscal cost of the current system is relatively low, it makes imports more expensive and imposes additional costs on private operators, which are ultimately passed on to consumers. Avoid allowing unlikely “total crisis” scenarios to drive decisions on stock levels. Consider reducing the stock volumes and the list of goods classified as “essential” (e.g. sugar, oils, coffee), ensuring that any adjustments are evidence‑based, consider the opportunities of trade, and are consistent with actual risk profiles [Short-term].

2. Promote a more inclusive and future-ready farming sector

• Take measures to improve the representation of women in farming. Building on recent reforms that strengthen the social protection of partners working in farms, consider additional policy interventions that incentivise women taking leadership roles on the farm. EU Member States that have incorporated incentives to female farm managers into their agricultural support programmes under the Common Agricultural Policy provide useful examples to draw from [Short-term].

• Address bottlenecks faced by young farmers and new entrants. Consider raising the age threshold for start-up support to allow more newcomers to join the sector and account for their higher average age [Short-term]. Facilitate farm transfers outside existing farming families: this may require identifying administrative or regulatory hurdles and, based on this mapping, exploring selected adjustments ‒ potentially combined with conditions to preserve the objective of promoting family farming ‒ to help attract new families without prior agricultural experience.

• Facilitate the transition between generations in the farm transfer process. Consider initiatives that address the challenges associated with farmer retirement and promote a smooth and effective transition and transfer of land. Efforts could focus on enhancing advisory services, encouraging dialogue and the exchange of experiences and good practices among cantonal service providers, facilitating peer networks and social activities for older farmers, and promoting earlier and more holistic succession planning.

3. Promote more transparency in agro-food markets

• Expand and strengthen the observatory on food prices and margins and explore other options to increase transparency in prices and margins across the value chain. Ensure active stakeholder participation in the process [Short-term].

• Conduct research on the extent, drivers and consequences of cross-border food shopping to inform potential policy responses.

4. Explore more ambitious demand-side policies for healthy and sustainable diets

• Strengthen the evidence base for demand-side interventions. Continue funding research to understand Swiss diets, consumer behaviour and the health, environmental and social impacts of dietary habits. Allocate resources and prioritise a new round of the national nutritional survey (menuCH) [Short-term].

• Eliminate public support for the marketing of meat products in line with the objective of promoting healthier and more environmentally sustainable diets [Short-term].

• Adopt stronger demand-side measures to encourage healthier and less environmentally impactful food choices. Consider the wide range of policy tools used in OECD countries as guidance to introduce more stringent measures if policy goals are not met. Use evidence from behavioural insights to design and implement stricter demand-side measures to encourage a healthier food environment, particularly for children. For example, such measures could involve restricting unhealthy food and beverage offerings in schools and public canteens.

• Promote regionally targeted public health interventions in the field of nutrition. Given the evidence of different dietary habits across the linguistic regions, approaches tailored to each region’s specificity could help better address specific issues. These could draw on or adapt good practices from successful cantonal or local initiatives that have already demonstrated impact.

5. Consider piloting new policy instruments to address environmental issues where existing policy targets have not been met

• To further reduce nitrogen surpluses, complement stricter environmental cross-compliance requirements ‒ such as those ensuring a balanced use of nitrogen inputs ‒ with innovative economic policy instruments [Short-term].

  • One option could be a government budget-neutral tax-subsidy scheme, where farmers pay a fertiliser tax when purchasing chemical nitrogen fertilisers and receive an abatement subsidy for reducing nitrogen surpluses.

  • Another approach could be to design and implement performance-based agri-environmental payments aimed at reducing nitrogen surpluses. Payments could be tied to achieving specific performance thresholds (e.g. an N-balance below 40 kg/ha) or to continuous improvements (e.g. a payment rate per kilogram of reduced N-balance).

• To improve the budgetary cost-effectiveness of voluntary agri-environmental payments, consider using agri-environmental auctions. Such bidding mechanisms could be used for many environmental issues ‒ for example to reduce soil erosion and associated nutrient runoff, particularly particulate phosphorus runoff ‒ to incentivise farmers to adopt stronger soil protection or improvement measures. Examples include gypsum soil amendments, which can reduce erosion and cut phosphorus losses by up to 50% from treated field parcels. For such conservation auctions, an environmental benefit index could be developed to improve spatial targeting and maximise the cost-effectiveness of payments.

• Support sufficiently large, high-quality, and well-distributed habitats to maintain and enhance high-quality biodiversity. To achieve this goal, both agglomeration bonus payments (i.e. additional payments aiming to improve habitat connectivity) and result-based payments could be considered.

6. Deliver on the ambitious food loss and waste reduction goals

• Strengthen the evidence base for FLW policy interventions. Prioritise improving the measurement of FLW at the primary production level, for example by introducing a FLW monitoring system for primary agriculture. Commission research to better understand how FLW reduction measures in one sector influence others [Short-term].

• Encourage FLW reduction across the supply chain by leveraging the role of large companies while empowering SMEs to further reductions. Increase coverage of the cross-industry agreement in wholesale and food services sectors. Increase awareness among all actors of the economic and reputational benefits of reducing FLW. Support SMEs that voluntarily want to measure and reduce their FLW flows. Allocate more resources to the Swiss Network for Resource Efficiency (Reffnet.ch). Use economic incentives to make the sustainable valorisation of food loss and waste competitive, for example by supporting the processing and commercial use of surplus or unsold food products [Short-term].

• Support FLW reductions at the household level. Explore increasing awareness-raising actions and other demand-side policies, as households account for over one third of the environmental impacts associated with FLW [Short-term].

• Consider stricter measures in Phase 2 of the FLW Action Plan. Conduct a cost-benefit analysis to determine which strict measures could be established to enhance FLW reduction, in line with the FLW reduction plan. Require large agro-food companies to report their FLW flows [Short‑term].

7. Make the innovation system work better for food system objectives

• Develop a coherent, farmer-centred, national framework for the governance of agricultural data, while strengthening digital skills and advisory support to farmers. The data governance framework should clarify aspects around data ownership, access, interoperability and use. Strengthening advisory services, digital extension capacities, and digital skills would enable farmers assess the relevance of digital innovations and confidently adopt and integrate them into farm management [Short-term].

• Strengthen the involvement of farmers in innovation design and testing. Expand participatory approaches that involve farmers directly in the design, testing and implementation of innovations, building on successful examples [Short-term].

• Maintain stable public funding for innovation and advisory services to safeguard capacity in areas critical for environmental, social and health outcomes. This will help strengthen the AKIS, notably advisory services, research institutions, and collaborative innovation models, sustaining experimentation, knowledge exchange and farmer engagement [Short-term].

• Develop a national policy framework to strategically direct innovations towards addressing key food systems challenges. This could help overcome incentive, co-ordination and policy-related challenges by aligning actors and providing coherent institutional support, recognising that innovation encompasses technological, social, organisational and institutional forms. To support its implementation, conduct a system-wide mapping of existing initiatives to identify overlaps, gaps and inefficiencies. Introduce mechanisms for better co-ordination across federal, cantonal and municipal levels, promoting shared learning platforms to facilitate knowledge exchange across regions.

• Direct innovation towards societal goals following the national food systems innovation strategy. Innovation efforts should be guided by clear long-term environmental, social and productivity objectives, ensuring that public support and private incentives reward solutions that reconcile competitiveness with climate mitigation, biodiversity protection, health and resource efficiency. Align funding criteria, regulatory frameworks and performance indicators with these goals to steer innovation trajectories and avoid lock-in to unsustainable pathways.

• Explore innovative funding models. Non-traditional funding mechanisms could include blended finance, public-private partnerships, or the food system transformation fund (see below). Co-financing mechanisms can help align actors along common objectives and de-risk and scale disruptive innovations. These mechanisms could involve non-traditional funding actors such as insurance companies or philanthropic organisations, alongside traditional funders.

• Use societal impact metrics in funding decisions to incentivise high-impact innovations. Public and private funding bodies should increasingly assess the societal contribution of innovations through corporate responsibility frameworks or true cost accounting, which could serve as additional indicators for funding decisions and loan terms.

• Support spaces for experimentation and testing of food systems innovations. Federal and cantonal authorities could further support the implementation of living labs in universities and universities of applied sciences, as well as in experimental farms and public canteens, to allow for experimentation and testing of innovations before their scaling- up.

II. Stronger food systems processes

8. Strengthen inclusive processes for coherent food systems decision making

• Consider food systems-wide voluntary agreements with the private sector. They should build on the success of topic-specific initiatives that helped co-ordinate efforts from different actors, but could cover multiple food systems objectives simultaneously. The experience of the FLW agreement could provide a useful example [Short-term].

• Establish an inter-departmental body to provide high-level guidance on food systems policies. The body could serve as a forum to discuss strategies and policy initiatives from different domains relevant to food systems (such as nutrition, climate, land use or food waste) to foster policy coherence and bridge policy silos. By discussing cross-cutting issues early on, it could help prepare policy options and facilitate discussion and decision-making at the Federal Council level. The body could build on and complement existing inter-departmental co-ordination and consultative processes and have an advisory body with a wide range of stakeholders to serve as a platform for discussion.

• Create a more comprehensive investment plan or budget to ensure funding for all aspects of the Swiss Food Systems Pathway to finance initiatives and mobilise innovation across the value chain. This could involve establishing a dedicated fund for food systems transformation, in line with the recommendation of the Scientific Panel on the Future of Nutrition in Switzerland (Fesenfeld et al., 2023[18]).

• Make multi-level governance work for food systems transformation. Explore ways to align or co-ordinate actions by cities and cantons so that they work for the common vision and reinforce each other. For example, explore information systems to share information of policy initiatives applied at different levels, which could also help create awareness of potential duplications and inefficiencies. Consider scaling up successful cantonal projects to the national level.

9. Enhance stakeholder participation while promoting transparency on lobbying

• Support deliberative processes and foresight activities around food and agriculture. This would help navigate the frictions around facts, interests and values that shape policymaking, and help build legitimacy and ownership for future reforms. Explore the use of these tools to generate insights into farmers’ perceptions and motivations and how individual decision making interacts with collective dynamics. Encourage the use of policy assessment reports in stakeholder consultations and involve stakeholders in monitoring and ex-post assessment of policies to strengthen their ownership of the outcomes.

• Ensure that consumers are consistently represented in food systems policymaking and that their voices are considered at all stages of the process. Expand legal avenues for consumer protection, including collective redress.

• Increase transparency on lobbying activities and conflict of interest management, as recommended by the OECD Principles for Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying. Create a public registry for the disclosing of lobbying activities and lobbyists.

References

[10] Conway, S. et al. (2024), “Creating an Age-Friendly Environment in Farming – The Farmer’s Yards Approach”, Journal of Agromedicine, Vol. 29/4, pp. 717-724, https://doi.org/10.1080/1059924x.2024.2383730.

[2] Federal Council (2022), Orientation future de la politique agricole: Rapport du Conseil fédéral en réponse aux postulats 0.3931 de la CER-E et 21.3015 de la CER-N, https://www.newsd.admin.ch/newsd/message/attachments/72188.pdf (accessed on 6 March 2025).

[16] Federal Council (2016), Behinderung von Parallelimporten: Bericht vom 22. Juni 2016 in Erfüllung des Postulats 14.3014 “Erleichterung der Zollabfertigung und Förderung von Parallelimporten dank Anerkennung weiterer Dokumente zur Erbringung des Ursprungsnachweises”, https://www.newsd.admin.ch/newsd/message/attachments/44557.pdf.

[3] Federal Office of Public Health (n.d.), Tabakpräventionsfonds TPF | prevention.ch, https://www.prevention.ch/organisation/tabakpr%C3%A4ventionsfonds-tpf (accessed on 7 December 2025).

[4] Federal Office of Public Health (n.d.), Zahlen & Fakten: Tabak, https://www.bag.admin.ch/de/zahlen-fakten-tabak (accessed on 7 December 2025).

[18] Fesenfeld, L. et al. (2023), Wege in die Ernährungszukunft derSchweiz - Leitfaden zu den grössten Hebeln und politischen Pfaden für einnachhaltiges Ernährungssystem, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7543576.

[14] FOEN (2025), Aktionsplan gegen Lebensmittelverluste: Bundesrat Albert Rösti trifft Akteure der Lebensmittelindustrie, https://www.uvek.admin.ch/de/newnsb/2cgDBxZVE7GVyuIu-gy1B (accessed on 13 December 2025).

[11] Giner, C., M. Hobeika and C. Fischetti (2022), “Gender and food systems: Overcoming evidence gaps”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 184, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/355ba4ee-en.

[17] Gray, E. et al. (2017), “Evaluation of the relevance of border protection for agriculture in Switzerland”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 109, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6e3dc493-en.

[15] OECD (2024), Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2024, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/968587cd-en.

[6] OECD (2024), OECD Economic Surveys: Switzerland 2024, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/070d119b-en.

[19] OECD (2021), “Eight ways to institutionalise deliberative democracy”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 12, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4fcf1da5-en.

[1] OECD (2021), Making Better Policies for Food Systems, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ddfba4de-en.

[5] OECD (2015), OECD Review of Agricultural Policies: Switzerland 2015, OECD Review of Agricultural Policies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264168039-en.

[8] Réservesuisse (2023), Begleitschreiben zur Stellungnahme betreffend Vernehmlassung Änderung der Verordnung des WBF über die Pflichtlagerhaltung von Nahrungs- und Futtermitteln (SR 531.215.111), https://www.reservesuisse.ch/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/2023-06-07_Begleitschreiben_Stellungnahme-Vernehmlassung_dt.pdf.

[12] Reuters (2024), Swiss farmers protest against low produce prices, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/swiss-farmers-protest-against-low-produce-prices-2024-02-03/ (accessed on 11 December 2025).

[13] SRF News (2024), Demos in Genf und Baselbiet - Die Bauernproteste haben die Schweiz erreicht, https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/demos-in-genf-und-baselbiet-die-bauernproteste-haben-die-schweiz-erreicht (accessed on 11 December 2025).

[7] World Trade Organization (2022), Trade Policy Review - Report by the Secretariat: Switzerland and Liechtenstein (WT/TPR/S/425), https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/s425_e.pdf.

[9] Zorn, A. (2025), “The structure of ageing in Swiss agriculture”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 115, p. 103574, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2025.103574.

Notes

← 1.  The term “food systems” refers to all the elements and activities related to producing and consuming food, as well as their effects, including economic, health, and environmental outcomes. For the purposes of this report, “agricultural sector” refers to primary production (crops and livestock production, and forestry), “agro-food sector” includes the agricultural sector in addition to food storage, aggregation, post-harvest handling, and processing of food and non-food products, and the “agro-food value chain” refers to a connected series of activities encompassing the primary production of food from crops, livestock, and forestry; and the value-adding activities of storage, transportation, processing; wholesale and retail distribution.

← 2.  Popular initiatives are one of the instruments of Switzerland’s direct democracy. They allow citizens to propose amendments to the Federal Constitution, which are decided by popular vote.

← 3.  This self-sufficiency ratio (SSR) is calculated as the usable energy contained in foodstuffs from domestic production, divided by domestic consumption. A distinction is made between gross and net SSR: the gross SSR considers the total domestic animal production, while the net SSR deducts the proportion produced with imported feed.

← 4.  The “triad” of facts, interests, and values refers to the main sources of frictions that can occur during policy design and decision-making. While such frictions can be encountered to some degree in the design of any public policy, there is reason to believe they are particularly important in debates around food systems, where current policies are often not aligned to address the “triple challenge” of simultaneously providing food security and nutrition to a growing global population, providing livelihoods to those along the food supply chain, and contributing to environmental sustainability (OECD, 2021[1]). See Section 5.1 for a more detailed discussion and examples of these frictions in Switzerland.

← 5.  This figure refers to the percentage of women that are the sole managers of the farm and does not take into account those that co-own or co-manage a farm.

← 6.  A representative deliberative process can be defined as a process in which a broadly representative body of people weighs evidence, deliberates to find common ground, and develops detailed recommendations on policy issues for public authorities (OECD, 2021[19]).