Switzerland has a comprehensive agri-environmental policy framework that combines regulatory and voluntary instruments with mandatory environmental performance requirements for farmers. This system is underpinned by a strong constitutional and legislative foundation and implemented in a decentralised manner. This chapter outlines Switzerland’s policies to manage natural resources and to enhance the environmental sustainability of agriculture. It examines the institutional and regulatory frameworks for environmental governance and reviews trends in key agri-environmental indicators, including biodiversity, soil health, and nutrient balances, as well as greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions. The chapter also examines strategies for climate change mitigation and adaptation, alongside efforts to improve energy efficiency in the agro-food sector. Finally, it assesses the goals, strategies, implementation, and performance of policies aimed at reducing food loss and waste (FLW).
Policies for the Future of Farming and Food in Switzerland
Abstract
Switzerland has a comprehensive agri‑environmental policy framework combining a mix of regulatory and voluntary instruments with mandatory cross‑compliance requirements for direct payments, underpinned by a strong constitutional mandate and decentralised implementation.
The mandatory Proof of Ecological Performance (PEP) provides a robust environmental baseline, while voluntary payments have expanded incentives for biodiversity, landscape quality, resource efficiency and sustainable production. However, environmental outcomes remain mixed.
Biodiversity trends show both improvements and persistent pressures, with many biodiversity promotion areas lacking the ecological quality or connectivity needed to reverse declines in sensitive or threatened species. Soil health outcomes are equally uneven, with good uptake of soil‑improving practices but exceedances of erosion thresholds in some regions and insufficient data on several soil pollutants.
Nutrient surpluses, nitrate pollution and ammonia emissions remain key environmental challenges, and pesticide use remains comparatively high, driving recent measures to reduce pesticide-related risks, though data gaps limit monitoring and evaluation.
Agricultural GHG emissions have declined only modestly since 2000, but recent strategies strengthen mitigation and adaptation efforts across the entire food system, including production, consumption, and waste reduction.
Energy use in primary agriculture is shifting, with farms increasing renewable energy production. Still, indirect energy use linked to feed imports continues to drive agriculture’s energy footprint, and the food industry remains a major energy consumer.
Switzerland has taken an ambitious and evidence‑based approach to food loss and waste (FLW) reduction. However, early assessments show that reductions have fallen short of expectations, implying a need for stronger measures in the next policy phase.
To fully capture the environmental impacts of its food system and close the remaining performance gaps, Switzerland will need to systematically monitor emissions and resource pressures embedded across the food system. Data gaps on areas such as soils, pesticides, erosion impacts, and FLW may limit the precision of policy design and evaluation.
This chapter describes key institutional and policy frameworks for the governance of environmental sustainability performance of food systems in Switzerland. After describing the key policies for environmental and natural resources protection and management in food systems, the chapter focuses on key areas, such as biodiversity, water quality, GHG emissions, adaptation to climate change and soil health and quality. The chapter also addresses Switzerland’s targets and policies for the prevention and management of food loss and waste.
3.1.1. General institutional and regulatory frameworks for environmental governance
Environmental policy is implemented in a decentralised manner
Switzerland’s federal structure shapes its environmental governance through a system based on the principles of subsidiarity and co-operation. The Confederation sets the overarching legal framework, while cantons and municipalities are responsible for implementation and enforcement. Under the principle of subsidiarity, federal authorities intervene only when they can act more effectively than lower levels of government. Co‑operation ensures close co-ordination among federal, cantonal, and municipal authorities, as well as with stakeholders. This decentralised approach grants cantons and municipalities significant autonomy, resulting in variation in how environmental policies are applied across regions. Each of the 26 cantons has its own constitution, laws, parliament, government, and courts, all of which must align with the Federal Constitution (see also Section 1.3).
The Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications (DETEC) prepares and partly implements policy decisions in environmental protection, energy, transport, land use planning and communication via, respectively, the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), the Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE), the Federal Office of Transport, the Federal Roads Office, the Federal Office of Civil Aviation, the Federal Office for Spatial Development (ARE) and the Federal Office of Communications (OECD, 2017[1]).
The Federal Constitution (Articles 73 to 80) sets out the main principles of sustainable development, environmental protection, spatial planning, water protection, forest protection, nature conservation, hunting and fishing, and animal welfare. Each principle is developed in the 1983 Environmental Protection Act (EPA), supplemented by other federal acts and ordinances.
The 2011 Act on Reduction of CO2 Emissions, the heart of Swiss climate policy with its 2012 ordinance, sets an emission reduction target for 2020 and includes instruments to achieve the target in buildings, transport and industry.
The main air quality legislation is the 1985 Ordinance on Air Pollution Control (OAPC), which defines limit values for atmospheric pollutants and the design of preventive measures.
The 1991 Water Protection Act (WPA) and a 1998 ordinance lay down the main rules for water quality preservation, outlining protection measures and governing residual flows and sewage treatment.
Soil quality is regulated by a 1998 ordinance on damage to soil (the OSol Ordinance). Land use planning is covered by the 1979 Spatial Planning Act (SPA) and a 2000 ordinance.
The 1966 Act on the Protection of Nature and Cultural Heritage (NCHA) and associated 1991 ordinance aim to protect fauna, flora and both natural and historical landscapes.
The Forest Act and 1992 ordinance provide, among other matters, for the prohibition of clearing and of motor vehicle traffic in forests.
The 1986 Act on Hunting and Protection of Wild Mammals and Birds and 1988 ordinance aim at sustainable exploitation of game resources and protection of wildlife.
The 1991 Fishing Act aims to protect fish stocks and their natural environment (OECD, 2017[1]).
Many of these laws have been amended several times.
3.1.2. Key environmental objectives and regulations for agriculture
Agri-environmental objectives are rooted in the Federal Constitution and delivered through numerous laws, ordinances, and strategic frameworks
The Swiss agricultural policy framework incorporates various environmental objectives, which are designed to promote sustainable practices that protect natural resources, biodiversity, and the landscape, while ensuring food security.
As introduced in Section 2.1, the Federal Constitution includes provisions related to agriculture, emphasising the importance of environmental sustainability. Specifically, Article 104 outlines several goals for agricultural policy, which include:
Promoting environmentally friendly production methods. Encouraging practices that minimise the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides and promoting organic and integrated production systems.
Encouraging production that conserves natural resources and safeguards the environment. Protecting soil, water, and air quality through sustainable farming practices. This includes measures to reduce soil erosion, improve water management, and reduce pollution from agricultural activities.
Ensuring food production that is adapted to local conditions, and which uses natural resources efficiently.
Supporting the maintenance of the rural landscape and promoting biodiversity. Preserving and enhancing biodiversity through the maintenance of diverse crops and livestock varieties and protecting habitats for flora and fauna. Ensuring that agricultural activities contribute positively to the Swiss landscape, supporting tourism and the cultural heritage associated with agriculture.
Establishing the foundations for a secure supply of food for the country.
These constitutional objectives are supported by specific legislation, such as the Federal Act on Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Act, the Waters Protection Act and the corresponding ordinances, which further defines the rules and measures to achieve these goals.
In 2008, the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) and the Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG) jointly developed and published more specific and measurable environmental objectives for agriculture, titled Objectifs environnementaux pour l’agriculture (FOAG and FOEN, 2016[2]). These objectives encompass key thematic areas including biodiversity, landscape and water space, climate and air, as well as water and soil. In total, 13 partially quantified objective areas were defined, some of which include sub-objectives, resulting in a total of 23 distinct objectives. Among the quantitative policy targets are the following:
A reduction of agricultural emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide by at least one‑third by 2050, compared to 1990 levels.
For water quality, a maximum nitrate concentration of 25 mg per litre in water used or intended for drinking water supply, where the catchment area is predominantly used for agricultural purposes.
Additional environmental targets are embedded in the Federal Act on Agriculture (Agriculture Act of 1998) and its associated ordinances. These include, for example, a requirement to reduce the risks associated with the use of plant protection products – such as risks to surface waters, near-natural habitats, and groundwater – by 50% by 2027, relative to the average levels recorded between 2012 and 2015. Furthermore, there are quantitative targets to reduce nutrient losses: nitrogen losses by 15% and phosphorus losses by 20% by 2030, compared to the average levels from 2014 to 2016.
Other laws, ordinances and strategies that address sustainable agricultural practices, animal welfare, protection of natural resources, and ensure the long-term viability of agricultural landscapes are: (i) Ordinance on Ecological Compensation that encourages farmers to create and maintain ecological compensation areas on their lands, such as hedges, flower strips, and wetlands, which contribute to biodiversity; (ii) Federal Act on the Reduction of Risks Associated with the Use of Plant Protection Products that focuses on minimising risks to health and the environment from pesticides, encouraging integrated pest management and organic practices; (iii) Agriculture and Food Climate Strategy 2050 and Climate Protection and Innovation Act (KIG) include commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, supporting practices that contribute to carbon sequestration and efficient energy use; (iv) Food Loss and Waste (FLW) Action Plan contains a set of voluntary measures to reduce FLW and its environmental effect, improve measurement and co-ordinate actors (see Section 3.5); and (v) Animal Welfare Legislation that mandates proper treatment of livestock, which indirectly supports environmental goals by promoting traditional, less intensive farming systems that are largely aligned with ecological principles.
3.1.3. Agri-environmental measures as part of Swiss agricultural policies
The AP14-17 reform strengthened the integration of agri-environmental objectives into agricultural policy
With the latest major agricultural policy reform (AP14–2017), Switzerland comprehensively revised its direct payment system to align more closely with agri-environmental objectives (AEOs) (see also Section 2.2.2). The revised system introduced more targeted agri-environmental measures in the following areas:
Landscape Cultivation: Support for maintaining open rural landscapes.
Biodiversity Promotion Areas (BPAs): Enhanced support for species and habitat diversity, with two quality levels and regional networking projects. Mountain regions (zones III and IV) must preserve existing quality areas, while lowland areas are expected to expand them.
Landscape Quality: Regionally adapted measures to preserve and enhance the diversity of cultivated landscapes.
Sustainable Production Systems: Incentives for environmentally friendly and animal-welfare-oriented farming practices.
Resource Efficiency: Support for increasing droplet size with the use of low-drift nozzles for pesticide application and soil-conserving techniques like direct seeding.
A legal basis was also established for the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources.
3.1.4. Mandatory environmental cross-compliance (proof of ecological performance)
Direct payments have been tied to environmental performance for nearly three decades
The direct payment system requires all farmers to meet strict environmental standards, including those related to balanced use of nutrients, biodiversity (through ordinance of ecological compensation), soil and crop management, and pesticide limits, to qualify for direct payments. Mandatory environmental cross-compliance, making direct payments conditional on good environmental practices and requiring a “proof of ecological performance” (PEP), was introduced in 1999, with the current set of cross-compliance requirements introduced with the AP14-17 reform. The PEP requirements are outlined in Section 2 of the Direct Payments Ordinance (SR 910.13).
Many of the PEP requirements are based on legal framework and standards, but in most cases they go beyond those required by law. The only exception is animal welfare, where the focus is solely on legal requirements. On the other hand, linking the law with proof of ecological performance ensures effective enforcement of legislation. To ensure environmental additionality, cross-compliance requirements should in general exceed the baseline defined by environmental regulations.
Ideally, in this environmental additionality framework:
The environmental reference level sets the minimum environmental performance expected from farmers without financial compensation, typically through regulation.
Environmental cross-compliance links eligibility for agricultural support payments to meeting stricter environmental standards than those required by law.
Voluntary agri-environmental schemes go even further, incentivising farmers to provide environmental goods and services beyond both regulatory and cross-compliance levels.
Table 3.1 presents the main environmental and animal welfare cross-compliance requirements.
Note: This table does not include the full set of cross-compliance requirements (articles 11–25a), but rather this selection reflects environmentally significant requirements.
Source: Section 2, articles 11–25a of the Direct Payments Ordinance (SR 910.13).
The PEP concerns aspects that each individual farm must comply with. The cantons are responsible for enforcing the environmental legislation on which the environmental objectives for agriculture are based. The PEP supports the enforcement of environmental law in some areas, for example by limiting a farm's nutrient emissions through nutrient balancing. Violation of the agricultural provisions of the Water Protection Act, Environmental Protection Act or Animal Welfare Act can lead to a reduction or cancellation of direct payments.
Nitsch et al. (2009[3]) evaluated the effectiveness of cross-compliance measures in promoting biodiversity on grassland and arable land in Switzerland. The results showed clear benefits for common species – such as plants, butterflies, ground beetles, and spiders – in terms of species richness and community composition. However, populations of threatened species did not show measurable improvement. Study findings suggest that, if biodiversity-related standards are strengthened, cross-compliance could enhance common farmland biodiversity. In addition, the Swiss experience demonstrates that well-designed cross-compliance standards can support biodiversity at the field and farm levels, but conserving threatened species requires targeted landscape-scale conservation programmes.
The ALL-EMA “Agricultural Species and Habitats” Monitoring Programme systematically records species and habitat diversity in Swiss agricultural landscapes. The state of species and habitat diversity and impact of agricultural and environmental policy measures have been documented for two survey periods: 2015‑2019 (Meier et al., 2021[4]) and 2020‑2024 (Meier et al., 2025[5]). The assessments were conducted across all species and habitats, as well as for the specific species and habitats connected with Agriculture-Related Environmental Objectives (AEOs) and Red List species. The agricultural landscape was analysed as a whole, and according to different habitat categories (i.e. arable land, grassland, woodland) and different categories of ecological focus areas (EFA); non-EFA, Q1 EFA and Q2 EFA. Q1 and Q2 EFAs were generally effective in supporting biodiversity, with higher indicator values observed within these areas. However, similar positive trends were absent outside EFAs. To achieve broader biodiversity gains, Meier et al. (2025[5]) recommend that EFA effectiveness is reformed to better address management practices across the entire agricultural landscape. Building on research that highlights social and personal norms as strong predictors of farmers' efforts to conserve biodiversity, Ritzel et al. (2025[6]) suggest that the provision of information about the quantity and quality of EFAs implemented by other farmers and information about the extent to which society approves the implementation of EFAs could activate higher social norms within the group of farmers with low conservation efforts for biodiversity.
Herzog et al. (2008[7]) evaluated the effectiveness of the PEP in reducing nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) pollution from agriculture. They found that the N surplus of Swiss agriculture decreased by 18% between 1990‑1992 and 2005, falling short of the 33% reduction target. Nitrate levels in groundwater declined by 3-4 mg/L rather than the intended 5 mg/L. The P surplus was more than halved, exceeding the 50% reduction target. P pollution of surface waters decreased by 10-30% instead of the 50% goal. PEP measures such as reduced fertiliser use, increased cover cropping, and improved manure management contributed to these reductions, even though some of the quantitative goals were not fully met.
3.1.5. Agri-environmental payments
Various voluntary payments encourage biodiversity conservation, landscape maintenance, and environmentally friendly practices, but their effectiveness has been uneven
To receive agri-environmental payments, farms must meet the eligibility requirements for direct payments. Namely, the farm must be managed by eligible individuals or entities who perform at least 50% of the farm work themselves, fulfil the PEP cross-compliance requirements, and meet other requirements related to the farm size and the manager’s education (see Section 2.2.2).
The main types and requirements of agri-environmental payments are described below:
Cultural Landscape Payments: Support the maintenance of traditional agricultural landscapes, especially in challenging terrains. Land must be actively managed to prevent forest encroachment. Slope payments require minimum area thresholds and specific incline percentages. Alpine pasture payments (Sömmerungsbeiträge) are only available in Alpine summering areas (Sömmerungsgebiete – see also Section 1.1.1).
Subcategories:
Maintenance/Open Landscape
Slope and Steep Slope
Slope Payments for Vineyards
Alpine Pasture Payments.
Biodiversity Payments: Promote species and habitat diversity through designated biodiversity promotion areas (BPA). Minimum management periods (eight years for most areas). No use of fertilisers or plant protection products (with limited exceptions). Specific management requirements apply, such as mowing dates and vegetation cover requirements.
Subcategories:
Quality Payments: Level I (which sets minimum management requirements) and Level II (for surfaces thar meet Level I requirements and additionally demonstrate the presence of specific plant species or biodiversity-promoting structures).
Connectivity/Networking Payments (for areas established and managed according to the specifications of a regional connectivity project approved by the canton). The connectivity payments can be combined with the quality payments.
Landscape Quality Payments: Encourage regionally adapted measures to preserve and enhance the diversity of cultivated landscapes. Payments are project-based and co-financed by the Confederation and cantons. Participation in cantonal projects with approved regional objectives. Measures must be contractually agreed and aligned with landscape goals. Applications must be submitted to FOAG with supporting documentation.
Production System Payments: Support environmentally friendly and animal-welfare-oriented farming practices. Organic farming must comply with the Organic Farming Ordinance. Pesticide-free cultivation must exclude specific chemical substances. Soil fertility and functional biodiversity measures require specific crop management practices and documentation.
Subcategories:
Organic Farming
Cultivation with reduced use of plant protection products
Functional Biodiversity (e.g. beneficial-organism strips)
Soil Fertility Improvement
Efficient Nitrogen Use
Grassland-Based Milk and Meat Production
Animal Welfare and Longer Cow Lifespan.
Resource Efficiency Payments: Promote sustainable use of inputs and technologies. Measures must be proven effective, economically viable, and continued post-funding. Example: nitrogen-reduced feeding in pigs must meet protein intake thresholds.
Note: See Table 2.3 in Chapter 2 for an overview of all direct payment categories, payment rates and average annual spending by category.
A series of studies have assessed the environmental effectiveness, economic efficiency, and implementation challenges of various biodiversity and environmental payment programmes in agriculture. Key findings from these studies include:
Payments for biodiversity conservation have successfully expanded conservation areas. Combining action- and results-based schemes improved average environmental effectiveness (Wuepper and Huber, 2022[8]).
Biodiversity promotion areas generally support higher species and habitat diversity than control areas. While quantitative targets (e.g. hectares enrolled) are met, qualitative targets (e.g. species richness) are often missed, particularly in lowland regions (Meier et al., 2021[4]).
Collaborative agglomeration bonus payment mechanisms and projects help integrate biodiversity into land-use planning by connecting conservation sites, enhancing ecological outcomes (Huber et al., 2021[9]).
Although farmer participation was high, the agglomeration bonus did not significantly improve the quality of biodiversity promotion areas. Complex administration was a key barrier (Jenny, Studer and Bosshard, 2018[10]).
There is substantial variation in the cost of providing environmental services. Improved targeting and tailoring of ecological direct payments could enhance the efficiency of the system (Huber et al., 2017[11]).
Single policy instruments (e.g. meat or fertiliser taxes) are insufficient to achieve nitrogen reduction targets. A coherent mix of policy tools is necessary (Schmidt et al., 2017[12]).
Landscape quality payments (LQPs) are effective in maintaining and enhancing landscape features. However, they often result in windfall gains, as farmers are compensated for practices, they would have undertaken in any case (Steiger et al., 2016[13]).
In addition to the voluntary agri‑environmental payments discussed above, other types of market‑based instruments – or combinations of instruments – could also be considered in Swiss agri‑environmental policy. For example, in the context of nitrogen and phosphorus surpluses and the associated water quality impacts, it would be possible to implement a system that combines a chemical fertiliser tax with an abatement subsidy for reducing nutrient surpluses.
In such a system, a farmer would pay an ad valorem tax on all nitrogen fertiliser purchased. After harvest, the farmer would receive a tax refund based on the amount of nitrogen removed in the harvested crop. Farmers who apply more nitrogen in fertiliser than is removed in the crop yield would pay a net tax; farmers who apply less will receive a net payment or subsidy. For technical description and discussion of this type of instrument-mix, see (Huang and LeBlanc, 1994[14]).
3.2.1. Agri-environmental context
Nutrient inputs and pesticide sales have decreased, while on-farm energy use increased
Figure 3.1 presents a comparative analysis of key agri-environmental indicators for Switzerland (CHE) and the EU27, expressed as average annual percentage changes over 2012-2021. The indicators cover land use, production, input use, and environmental pressures. Cropland area is decreasing in both regions, with the EU27 experiencing a slightly larger reduction. Pasture area is decreasing in Switzerland but increasing in the EU27, and the overall agricultural land area is decreasing in Switzerland but increasing in the EU27. Agricultural production is increasing in both, with a much stronger growth in the EU27. Direct energy use is rising significantly, especially in the EU27. Nitrogen input use is declining in both regions with the EU27 showing a more pronounced decline. Trend is similar for phosphorus input per ha, with stronger reductions in the EU27. Switzerland shows a dramatic reduction in pesticide sales per hectare compared to the EU27.
Note: *Agricultural water abstraction data not available for Switzerland.
Source: Calculations based on OECD Agri-environmental indicators, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/dashboards/measuring-the-environmental-performance-of-agriculture.html, consulted in April 2025.
3.2.2. Biodiversity and ecosystems
There are clear agri-environmental goals related to biodiversity, but progress toward achieving them has been mixed
Switzerland has several agri-environmental objectives related to biodiversity and agro-ecosystems, more developed in (FOAG and FOEN, 2016[2]) than in the constitutional provisions:
Agriculture should contribute to the conservation and promotion of native species – prioritising those found on or dependent on agricultural land (Annex 1; (FOAG and FOEN, 2016[2])) – and their natural habitats (Annex 2). Target species populations are expected to be maintained and enhanced, while characteristic species are supported through the provision of sufficiently large, high-quality, and well-distributed habitats.
Agriculture should help conserve and sustainably use native crop varieties and Swiss livestock breeds. It also should support the genetic diversity of wild relatives of cultivated plants, native wild species used in food and agriculture, and other native species – prioritising those found on agricultural land.
Agricultural production should conserve and promote the ecosystem services provided by biodiversity.
According to FOAG and FOEN (2016[2]), there has been varying success in achieving these objectives. As regards the first objective it has been assessed that:
The required share of land for promoting species and habitat diversity exists nationwide, but significant regional deficits remain – particularly in buffer zones around protected areas.
Many biodiversity promotion areas (BPAs) lack the necessary ecological quality or are poorly located.
Deficiencies also persist in ecological connectivity and stakeholder communication.
As a result, populations of target and characteristic species have continued to decline, and habitats have become increasingly homogenous. Hence targeted measures – such as BPA contributions, ecological connectivity, buffer zone delineation, and the Biodiversity Action Plan – are essential to reverse the trends.
As regards the second objective, FOAG and FOEN evaluated that:
The target for conserving indigenous livestock breeds and agriculturally relevant plant varieties has been achieved.
However, targets remain unmet for many wild native species, crop wild relatives (CWR), and other wild species.
Existing measures support the continued preservation of genetic diversity in cultivated plants and livestock.
For many wild species, the necessary conditions to maintain genetic diversity are still lacking.
For the third objective, the evaluation concluded that intensive agricultural practices in part of Switzerland continue to negatively affect ecosystems – such as through nitrogen deposition in forests and moorlands – compromising their ecological quality and limiting ecosystem services. As a result, the related agri-environmental objective has not been met. But current agri-environmental measures are helping mitigate these impacts.
The share of protected terrestrial areas was only 12.2% in 2024 (Figure 3.2), which is below the EU average of 38%, as well as clearly below the Kunming-Montreal target of 30% by 2030.1
Source: Based on OECD (2025), Protected Areas Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/dashboards/measuring-the-environmental-performance-of-agriculture.html, consulted in April 2025.
There have been positive developments regarding the farmland bird index since 2009 in Switzerland (see Figure 3.3). Findings from The State of Birds in Switzerland Report 2024 highlight that biodiversity is influenced both directly and indirectly by landscape-scale factors. For example, warmer temperatures directly support a greater number of breeding bird species, while indirectly contributing to intensified land use – resulting in increased fertiliser and pesticide application. The study confirms that high-intensity agricultural areas host fewer species of plants, butterflies, and birds.
Source: OECD Agri-environmental indicators (2025), https://www.oecd.org/en/data/dashboards/measuring-the-environmental-performance-of-agriculture.html, consulted in October 2025. Please note that The Swiss Bird Index summarises the population trends of breeding birds in Switzerland. The SBI consists of a general index (SBI Regular Breeding Birds) and several sub-indices based on selected species groups. It is based on the population trends of individual species. SBI Regular Breeding Birds shows a trend very similar to that of the OECD farmland bird index.
The ALL-EMA Monitoring Programme systematically tracks species and habitat diversity across Swiss agricultural landscapes. Findings from the 2015–2019 and 2020–2024 survey periods (Meier et al., 2021[4]) and (Meier et al., 2025[5]) show that overall biodiversity has remained stable over the past decade. Although the historical decline has slowed, recovery remains limited – particularly in intensively farmed lowland areas, where diversity continues to lag upland regions.
Species diversity has shown minimal change. Notable trends include a 20% increase in local AEO plant species richness in valley areas, an 8% decline in breeding bird species richness in uplands, and an 18% national decline in Red List breeding birds (−82% in uplands), indicating continued losses among already endangered farmland birds (based on a different bird index methodology that the OECD Farmland Bird Index shown in Figure 3.3).2 Local plant community heterogeneity also declined slightly (−2%), suggesting increasing species homogenisation, which may reduce biodiversity over time.
Habitat diversity increased by 4% between the first and second surveys. Habitat-typical species diversity rose by 6% nationwide, with a 27% increase in lowland areas. However, the share of valuable AEO habitats in agricultural landscapes remained stable at 11%, below the 16% target set by the Agriculture-Related Environmental Objectives. Q1 and Q2 EFAs were generally effective in supporting biodiversity, with higher indicator values observed within these areas. However, similar positive trends were absent outside EFAs. To achieve broader biodiversity gains, EFA effectiveness must be reformed to better address management practices across the entire agricultural landscape.
Moreover, agri-environmental measures, such as organic farming and biodiversity promotion areas (BPAs), were shown to positively impact species diversity (Meier et al., 2025[5]). Specifically, biodiversity was higher in areas with a greater proportion of low-intensity meadows and a diversity of BPAs within 1-km² plots. Previous research has demonstrated that BPAs provide essential habitat functions – such as foraging, nesting, and shelter – that are often lacking in intensively farmed landscapes.
Meier et al. (2021[4]) and (2025[5]) also found a direct positive correlation between organic farming and biodiversity at the landscape level. To effectively conserve biodiversity in agricultural areas, measures must be tailored to local conditions. In intensively managed arable regions, BPAs can play a particularly significant role in enhancing species richness.
3.2.3. Soil health and erosion
Recently introduced direct payments support practices to improve soil fertility and have had good uptake by farmers
Primary agri-environmental objectives related to soil health are to: (i) prevent damage to soil fertility and health from agricultural pollutants and (ii) keep pollutant inputs below the soil’s export and pollutant degradation capacity. As regards these objectives there is some evidence that pollutants threaten soil fertility and human health at certain sites. But there are data gaps, especially for pollutants not covered by the OSol Ordinance, that hinder comprehensive assessment. There is no observed evidence of systematic accumulation for most OSol-regulated pollutants. However, localised accumulation of copper and zinc occurs.
In addition to avoiding soil compaction, there are primary agri-environmental objectives related to soil erosion:
To prevent exceeding of soil erosion guideline values and runoff-induced erosion on arable land.
To prevent erosion-related damage to soil fertility on agricultural land.
To prevent runoff-induced damage to water bodies and near-natural habitats.
Surveys indicate that the first objective has not been met in all regions. For the second objective, the regional surveys show incomplete achievement and there is no national-level assessment available (FOAG and FOEN, 2016[2]). For the third objective, no reference values or monitoring data exist so far, but the topic is in development by the national soil monitoring programme.
Under Swiss environmental policy (the OSol ordinance) the Soil Pollution Ordinance (SoilPO) sets tolerable soil erosion limits at 2 or 4 tonnes per hectare per year, depending on soil depth (<70 cm or >70). To support enforcement of the environmental regulation, an erosion risk map (ERM2) with a 2×2 metre resolution has been developed (Prasuhn et al., 2013[15]), covering Switzerland’s agricultural land. The updated erosion risk map for Switzerland (ERK2) from 2019 (Bircher, Liniker and Prasuhn, 2019[16]) continues to be based on the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE), an empirical model that estimates long-term average soil erosion in tonnes per hectare per year (t ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹).
Prasuhn et al. (2013[15]) developed the soil erosion risk map of the agricultural area of Switzerland (Table 3.3). The area shown in the valley and hill zone comprises 606 680 ha. Thirty-eight per cent of the area shown is permanent grassland, however, and only 62% is arable land or vineyards; this is a crucial factor when interpreting the results. Fifty-six per cent of the area was classified as low potential erosion risk, 12% as moderate potential erosion risk, and 32% as high potential erosion risk. Many of the areas classified as high potential erosion risk are located at the transition from valley to mountain zones. Many of those areas are probably used as permanent grassland, which makes their current erosion risk almost negligible. The calculated area includes 255 899 ha in mountain zones 1 and 2 in addition to the area of the valley and hill zone. Mountain zones 1 and 2 are mainly permanent grassland, and only 39 125 ha (14%) is arable land or vineyards (Prasuhn et al., 2013[15]).
Source: Prasuhn et al. (2013[15]), A high-resolution soil erosion risk map of Switzerland as strategic policy, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.11.006.
A new map (Bircher, Liniker and Prasuhn, 2019[16]) separates between grassland and cropland. Seventy‑nine per cent of cropland shows low risk (below 2 tonnes per hectare per year), 10% moderate risk (between 2 and 4 tonnes per hectare per year), and 11% high risk (above 4 tonnes per hectare per year).
Switzerland’s direct payment system indirectly supports soil erosion prevention through requirements such as minimum crop rotation and optimal soil cover. Financial incentives are also provided for conservation tillage practices. Since 2017, enforcement has been strengthened: farmers experiencing recurrent erosion must develop site-specific action plans and implement appropriate mitigation measures. Failure to do so results in the reduction or withdrawal of direct payments. However, this is planned to be removed from the direct payment ordinance by 2026.
As part of the implementation of the parliamentary initiative 19.475 “Reducing the risk of pesticide use”, in 2023 new agri-environmental payment schemes were introduced for improvement of soil fertility (adequate soil coverage and soil-friendly cultivation), allocating CHF 84 million annually to support practices that promote soil cover and reduced soil tillage. Participation in the payment scheme for soil cover reached 74% of cropland and 56% of vineyard area. Participation in the payment scheme for reduced soil tillage covered 23% of cropland. These figures reflect a substantial uptake of sustainable soil management practices under the new incentive framework.
The Swiss Soil Strategy was adopted in May 2020. It has six main goals:
No net loss of soil functions after 2050.
Include soil health in land-use planning.
Protect soil from deterioration caused by physical, chemical and biological pressures.
Improve degraded soils.
Increase awareness of soil health.
Strengthen international engagement.
The Strategy streamlines environmental health, as healthy soil also improves food security, water quality, and mitigates climate change impacts, positively affecting public health and society. The latest update took place in June 2024, in which the Federal Council informed about the finalisation of the report about the economic, social and environmental consequences of the Soil Strategy and proposed four key measures to achieve the Strategy’s goals:
Nationwide soil data collection: Preparation started in 2023, and mapping starting in 2029 to be completed by 2050.
Testing methods to consider soil functions in spatial planning.
Raising awareness among the construction, planning, and agricultural sectors.
Reviewing soil-related regulations with stakeholders for potential adjustments by 2027.
3.2.4. Fertiliser input and nutrient balances
Synthetic fertiliser input has declined, while manure input has remained stable. As a result, nutrient surpluses per hectare continue to exceed the OECD average
Synthetic nitrogen fertiliser input per hectare of cropland decreased from 123 kg/ha in 2000 to 110 kg/ha in 2021 (Figure 3.4). During the same period, manure nitrogen input per hectare of agricultural land (including summer pastures) remained quite stable, at about 84 kg/ha. Both synthetic and manure nitrogen input intensities in Switzerland are clearly higher than those of the EU27 averages.
Phosphorus fertiliser input per hectare of cropland decreased from 11 kg/ha in 2000 to 9 kg/ha in 2021 and is close to the EU27 average (Figure 3.5). During the same period, manure phosphorus input per hectare of agricultural land remained stable (about 13.5 kg/ha) and is clearly above the EU27 average of 8 kg/ha.
Note: *EU27 extended series (benchmark) is based on 15 EU Member states with data available for the full period: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Germany, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain. These represent around 67% of the nitrogen input, and 65% of the applied synthetic phosphorus.
Source: Based on: OECD Agri-environmental indicators (2025) https://www.oecd.org/en/data/dashboards/measuring-the-environmental-performance-of-agriculture.html, Nutrient Balances; Eurostat (2025), Gross nutrient balance [AEI_PR_GNB] and Consumption of inorganic fertilisers [AEI_FM_USEFERT]. Consulted in April 2025
Note: *EU27 extended series (benchmark) is based on 15 EU Member states with data available for the full period: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Germany, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain. These represent around 67% of the nitrogen input, and 65% of the applied synthetic phosphorus in the EU. The OECD benchmark is based on 23 OECD countries. In addition to the EU, the following OECD countries are also accounted: Australia, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Iceland, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Switzerland, Türkiye and the United States.
Source: Based on: OECD Agri-environmental indicators (2025) https://www.oecd.org/en/data/dashboards/measuring-the-environmental-performance-of-agriculture.html, Nutrient Balances; Eurostat (2025), Gross nutrient balance [AEI_PR_GNB] and Consumption of inorganic fertilisers [AEI_FM_USEFERT]. Consulted in April 2025.
The nitrogen balance per ha decreased slightly in Switzerland from 2010 to 2021 but remains two-thirds higher than the EU27 average and more than twice the OECD average (Figure 3.6). The phosphorus balance decreased from 11 kg/ha in 1990 to 4 kg/ha in 2021 (Figure 3.7). During the same period, the OECD median decreased from 12 kg/ha to 3 kg/ha.
Note: The EU benchmark is calculated based on 15 EU Member states with data available for the full period: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Germany, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain. These represent around 67% of the nitrogen input, and 65% of the applied synthetic phosphorus in the EU. The OECD benchmark is based on 23 OECD countries. In addition to the EU, the following OECD countries are also accounted: Australia, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Iceland, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Switzerland, Türkiye and the United States.
Source: OECD (2025), Agri-environmental indicators, Nutrient Balances, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/dashboards/measuring-the-environmental-performance-of-agriculture.html; Eurostat (2025), Gross nutrient balance [AEI_PR_GNB]. Consulted in April 2025.
Source: OECD (2025), Agri-environmental indicators, Nutrient Balances, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/dashboards/measuring-the-environmental-performance-of-agriculture.html; Eurostat (2025), Gross nutrient balance [AEI_PR_GNB]. Consulted in April 2025.
In Switzerland, a national farm-gate nutrient budget, based on the OSPAR framework from 1995, is used to assess the effectiveness of nutrient surplus reduction (Spiess and Liebisch, 2020[17]). According to the OSPAR calculation method, the agricultural nitrogen surplus declined from over 120 kg/ha in 1980 to approximately 80 kg/ha in 2023. Phosphorus surplus has decreased more significantly – from over 26 kg/ha in 1980 to around 5 kg/ha by 2005 – and has remained stable since then (Harder and Liebisch, 2025[18]). Current national targets aim for a 15% reduction in nitrogen (N) surplus and a 20% reduction in phosphorus (P) surplus by 2030, relative to the 2014-2016 baseline (Federal Office for Agriculture, 2024[19]).
The Water Protection Ordinance sets the limit at 25 milligrams nitrates per litre. In 2022, in regions dominated by field crops, this value was exceeded in 47% of the monitoring stations of the National Groundwater Monitoring NAQUA. In grassland areas, nitrate content requirements were not met at 16% of the monitoring stations (Federal Office for Agriculture, 2024[20]).
The environmental objective for agriculture, which aims to reduce agricultural nitrogen inputs into water bodies by 50% compared to 1985 levels, was not achieved in 2020. Agricultural nitrogen inputs decreased from 49 000 tonnes in 1985 to 36 500 tonnes in 2010 (26% reduction) and to 32 500 tonnes in 2020 (34% reduction) so that there remains a target gap of 8 000 tonnes.
In 2020, model estimates and point source data indicate that approximately 70 000 tonnes of total nitrogen (N) inputs entered Swiss water bodies. Diffuse sources contributed over 47 500 tonnes (68%), with agricultural activities accounting for 32 500 tonnes (46%), and 28 000 tonnes (40%) originating specifically from agricultural land, including natural background loads. Leaching was the dominant pathway (70% of diffuse inputs), with arable land as the main source (33%), followed by grassland (24%) and forest (19%) (Hutchings, Spiess and Prasuhn, 2023[21]).
Compared to 2010, diffuse N inputs in 2020 decreased by 4 000 tonnes (8%). Reduction was mainly driven by reduced arable land, lower seepage (climate-related), and decreased nitrogen deposition due to air pollution controls (Hutchings, Spiess and Prasuhn, 2023[21]).
Total phosphorus inputs in 2020 were approximately 4 000 tonnes, with 84% (3 400 tonnes) from diffuse sources. Agriculture contributed 530 tonnes (13%), and 26% of total P inputs originated from agricultural land. Natural erosion was the primary driver of diffuse P inputs (73%), with rock, debris, and glaciers accounting for 42% (Hutchings, Spiess and Prasuhn, 2023[21]).
Dissolved phosphorus inputs totalled 1 400 tonnes, with 53% (740 tonnes) from diffuse sources. Agriculture contributed 380 tonnes (27%), and 36% of all inputs came from agricultural land. Runoff was the main pathway (>50%), with grassland (45%) and arable land (20%) as key sources (Hutchings, Spiess and Prasuhn, 2023[21]).
Between 2010 and 2020, diffuse total P inputs declined by 100 tonnes (3%), with particulate P increasing by 2% and dissolved P decreasing by 18%. The largest absolute reduction was from arable land (−86 tonnes), mainly due to improved erosion control and reduced arable area. Dissolved P from arable land and forest decreased by 49 tonnes and 41 tonnes, respectively (Hutchings, Spiess and Prasuhn, 2023[21]).
Although OSPAR targets for phosphorus were met by 1995, surplus inputs continue to affect water quality. In lakes primarily affected by agricultural phosphorus surpluses (through both dissolved and particulate phosphorus runoff), oxygen levels must remain above 4 mg/L to support aquatic life. While many large lakes meet this standard, several, such as the Lakes Zug, Murten, Baldegg, Sempach, Hallwil, and Biel, do not. In some lake catchments, phosphorus reserves in soils are not adequately considered in fertilisation practices, hindering the achievement of agri-environmental objectives. Improved enforcement of water protection laws by cantonal authorities is essential to further reduce phosphorus surpluses and runoff. Over 60% of large Swiss lakes fail to meet oxygen standards or require artificial aeration (Federal Office for the Environment, 2024[22]).
3.2.5. Ammonia emissions
Switzerland is not meeting its ammonia emissions reduction target
Over the past two decades, ammonia (NH₃) emissions from Swiss agriculture have remained largely unchanged, as factors driving increases and decreases have offset each other. NH₃ is primarily emitted from livestock manure and contributes to air pollution, ecosystem degradation (eutrophication and acidification), biodiversity loss, and human health risks. It also represents a loss of nitrogen fertiliser for farmers (Kuppert et al., 2022[23]).
In 2020, livestock production accounted for 93% of agricultural NH₃ emissions, with cattle responsible for 77%. The main emission sources were manure spreading (44%) and housing/exercise yards (36%). Although emissions declined by 23% between 1990 and 2020 – mainly due to reduced livestock numbers and improved nutrient management – the decline plateaued after 2004. Emissions from pastures increased by 85%, while those from housing rose by 19%. In contrast, emissions from manure storage and spreading decreased by 17% and 41%, respectively, due to improved technologies (Kuppert et al., 2022[23]). Figure 3.8 shows that Switzerland has not achieved its target of ammonia emissions compared to 2005 levels.
Note: *The OECD average here excludes Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Japan, and New Zealand due to data gaps. The red level marked in 2021 corresponds to the level targeted for 2030. According to the Swiss Umweltziele Landwirtschaft, the goal is to reduce ammonia emissions by 40% compared to 2005 levels.
Source: OECD (2025), Agri-environmental indicators, Ammonia Emissions, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/dashboards/measuring-the-environmental-performance-of-agriculture.html. Consulted in April 2025.
3.2.6. Plant pests and diseases control
Pesticide use is relatively high in international comparison; recent legal amendments introduced measures to reduce pesticide-related risks
Pesticide use (active ingredients per ha of cropland) in Switzerland is higher than in Austria, Norway, the United Kingdom, the EU27 and the OECD averages (see Figure 3.9). Pesticide sales decreased over the past decade in Switzerland slightly faster than in the EU27, while in Austria sales increased. Sales in Switzerland were at 5.4 kg of active substance per hectare in 2013-2015 and 4.5 kg per ha in 2019-21.
Note: The OECD aggregate excludes Chile and New Zealand due to the unavailability of data series.
Source: Calculations based on OECD Agri-environmental indicators (2025) https://www.oecd.org/en/data/dashboards/measuring-the-environmental-performance-of-agriculture.html, Pesticides uses [DSD_ENV@DF_AGPEST]. Consulted in April 2025.
Switzerland has committed to reducing pesticide-related risks by 50% by 2027 (compared to 2012‑2015 levels), as outlined in the 2021 amendment to the Agriculture Act (Art. 6b paragraph 2), part of the reforms mandated by the Federal Act on the reduction of risks from the use of pesticides (parliamentary initiative 19.475). To achieve this, three key measures were introduced in 2023:
A voluntary national direct payment programme for pesticide-free or pesticide-reduced cropping systems on arable land.
Restrictions on harmful pesticides under cross-compliance standards.
Obligation to apply measures of risk reduction enlarged to any pesticide application (RS 910.13, Annex 1, 6.1a). Before this amendment, implementation of risk reduction measures was mandatory only when application occurred close to residential areas and protected environmental bodies (surface waters and semi-natural habitats).
To assess the achievement of the objectives set out in the law in 2021, indicators have been developed and determined by the Federal Council to calculate the evolution of risk. Those indicators (Korkaric et al., 2022[24]) are calculated based on three parameters: the volume of active substances sold yearly; the toxicological risk of the active substance, and the degree to which risk reduction measures have been implemented. As a result, scores of potential risks for three different ecological compartments (surface waters, underground waters and semi-natural habitats) can be calculated.
Dueri and Mack (2024[25]) is the first national-scale study to assess the effectiveness of these three new key measures. A bio-economic modelling approach was developed to forecast pesticide use and risk across 3 077 farms in the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) and upscale results nationally. The model evaluates pesticide-related risks to groundwater, surface water, and semi-natural habitats, helping determine whether Switzerland is on track to meet its 2027 targets. Simulations for pesticide risk from 2019 to 2022 reflected the observed pesticide risk monitored by the Swiss government. In surface waters and semi-natural habitats, achieving the target depends on reducing pyrethroids, a class of insecticides with high-risk potential. Further, results highlight significant uncertainty in projecting the risk potential for surface waters and semi-natural habitats due to uncertainty about the amounts of pyrethroid used for different crops. The results underline the need for comprehensive datasets on pesticide use by category of substances in Switzerland.
3.3.1. Climate change mitigation
Recent climate strategies set targets and policy measures along the food value chain
In 2023, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the agriculture sector in Switzerland totalled 6 001 kt CO₂‑equivalent, representing 14.7% of national emissions. The main sources were enteric fermentation (60%), agricultural soils (24%), manure management (16%), liming and urea application (with 0.5% and 0.2%, respectively) (FOEN, 2025[26]). Trends from 1990 to 2023 in Swiss agricultural GHG emissions show that methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions declined from 1990 to 2004. CH₄ rose slightly until 2008, then declined again. N₂O remained stable from 2004 to 2017 before decreasing. These trends reflect changes in cattle numbers and mineral fertiliser use, influenced by the introduction of the Proof of Ecological Performance (PEP) in the early 1990s, market dynamics, the suspension of the milk quota system in 2009, and broader agricultural policy reforms (FOEN, 2025[26]).
Figure 3.10 illustrates the relative change in agricultural GHG emissions in Switzerland compared to the EU27 and the OECD over 1990-2021. Agricultural GHG emissions in Switzerland in 2021 were about 13% lower than in 1990 but remain relatively stable since 2000. OECD GHG emissions have increased about 2% while they have decreased in the EU27 (22%).
Source: OECD Stat (2022).
Switzerland has committed to achieving climate neutrality by 2050 and has strengthened its targets for agricultural emissions. The Long-Term Strategy (LTS), submitted to the UNFCCC in January 2021, sets a goal of 40% emission reduction in agriculture by 2050 compared to 1990, which represents an increase from the previous 33% target under the 2011 Climate Strategy for Agriculture. The LTS also includes a minimum domestic food production target of 50% by 2050.
In 2023 the Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG), the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) and the Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (FSVO) published the Agriculture and Food Climate Strategy 2050. The strategy aims to make Switzerland’s food system more resilient to climate change while significantly reducing its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It integrates targets and measures related to food consumption into Switzerland’s long‑term climate objectives, thus providing a framework for sustainable transformation across the entire food value chain, guiding both policy and implementation.
The strategy outlines three overarching goals:
Climate- and site-adapted agricultural production that meets at least 50% of national food demand.
A healthy, balanced diet that reduces the per capita food footprint by two-thirds compared to 2020.
A 40% reduction in GHG emissions from domestic agricultural production compared to 1990 levels.
To support these goals, eight thematic objectives are defined along the food chain, covering consumption, food waste, trade, production systems, nutrient cycles, water, soil, and energy.
The second part of the strategy includes 42 measures to be implemented by 2030, targeting both emission reductions and climate adaptation. These measures involve all stakeholders – from primary production to processing, trade, and consumption.
To date, no legally binding emission reduction target has been set for agriculture. As of 2025 the new Climate Protection and Innovation Act (KIG) is in place that defines national targets from 2030 to 2050. Agriculture is listed under other sectors. Emissions until 2030 are regulated under the “old” CO2 Act. The 40% reduction target (as proposed in the LTS and 2023 Climate Strategy on Food and Agriculture) has, however, often been referenced by the federal government. Furthermore, under Article 4 paragraph 2 of the KIG, the Federal Council may set reference values for other sectors (including agriculture).
A new legislative proposal is expected from the Federal Council, aligning with Switzerland’s international commitment to a 50% national emission reduction by 2030, with 75% of reductions achieved domestically.
The 2011 Climate Strategy for Agriculture identified key areas where targeted actions could contribute to greenhouse gas mitigation. These key areas are organised as sub goals in new Agriculture and Food Climate Strategy 2050 and include:
Livestock production: breeding, herd management, feed composition, and housing systems
Crop production: crop and variety selection, as well as cultivation practices
Fertiliser management: application rates, storage, and spreading techniques
Energy use: energy efficiency in buildings and machinery, and the adoption of renewable energy sources.
The AP22+ reform was intended to develop concrete measures within these domains. However, it was suspended in 2021 following concerns raised by Parliament (see Section 2.2.1). Despite this, specific legislative reforms have been enacted after 2021, including measures aimed at reducing nutrient losses into ecosystems, which are expected to contribute to the reduction of fertiliser-related emissions.
Current and new measures that target climate mitigation in agriculture are:
Enhanced control of nutrient losses from fertilisers: The Water Quality Plan adopted in 2022 sets a binding target to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus losses from fertilisers by at least 20% by 2030. Furthermore, from 2024, the 10% tolerance margin for measuring manure application will be removed. This change requires that fertiliser inputs remain strictly within 100% of the land’s nutrient requirements to comply with environmental cross-compliance conditions for direct payments.
Strengthened support for sustainable production systems (from 2023): Key measures include (1) improving soil fertility to enhance soil carbon stocks; (2) increasing nitrogen use efficiency, with a greater reliance on organic fertilisers; and (3) extending the productive lifespan of dairy cows, thereby reducing emissions per unit of output.
Mandatory low-emission spreading of liquid manure (from 2024): The use of low-emission techniques for spreading liquid farmyard manure will become compulsory. Additionally, the regulation of manure storage and spreading will be incorporated into cross-compliance requirements.
Carbon taxation on fossil fuels used in agriculture: In line with the 2011 CO2 Act, a carbon tax applies to fossil fuels used for heating greenhouses and livestock buildings. The tax rate stood at CHF 120 per tonne of CO2 in 2022, though its future level remains uncertain following the rejection of the revised CO2 Act by Swiss voters in 2021. Transport fuels and agricultural fuels are exempt.
Offsetting obligations for fossil fuel suppliers: Producers and importers of fossil fuels are required to offset a portion of transport-related CO2 emissions through domestic mitigation projects. Agricultural initiatives – such as investments in anaerobic digestion or improved fertilisation practices – are eligible to contribute to these offsets.
Support for research, innovation, and knowledge transfer: Dedicated initiatives promote research and development, dissemination of best practices, and innovation in climate-smart agriculture. These include funding for information platforms, climate protection initiatives by agricultural associations, and the development of sustainability certification schemes.
Long-Term Strategy (LTS) mitigation potential: The LTS identifies opportunities to reduce agricultural emissions – including those from energy use and soil carbon – by nearly 3 MtCO₂eq by 2050. This includes 1.6 MtCO₂eq from shifts in consumption and production patterns, and 1.4 MtCO₂eq from targeted measures in livestock, energy, fertiliser management, and soil carbon. However, the LTS acknowledges trade-offs within the Swiss agricultural model and does not specify the implications for food production or livestock development. On the demand side, it highlights the importance of dietary changes and food waste reduction to ease pressure on future food systems.
In 2021, agriculture contributed 13% (5.9 MtCO2eq) to GHG emissions in Switzerland. The most important sources of agricultural emissions are enteric fermentation (62%), agricultural soils (21%) and manure management (16%) (Figure 3.11).
Note: Agricultural GHG emissions by gas and source. Unit measure: Million tonnes of CO2 equivalent. Fuel combustion for agriculture/forestry/fishing comes from UNFCCC. The sources considered are Stationary, Off-road vehicles and other Machinery, and Fishing. For circular graphs, the number in the centre of the circles represent the total emissions from the corresponding gas coming from agriculture and fuel combustion for the case of carbon dioxide (CO2), while the small number represents total GHG emissions (without LULUCF).
Source: OECD Stat (2022); UNFCC (2022).
3.3.2. Climate change adaptation
Public research and funding support climate adaptation strategies
Switzerland’s national climate change adaptation strategy was established in March 2012 through a framework document issued by the Federal Council. This document outlines sector-specific approaches to adaptation across the economy. In agriculture, initial priority areas were identified in the 2011 Climate Strategy for Agriculture, with a revised strategy published as part of the 2023 Agriculture and Food Climate Strategy 2050 to reinforce these elements and better integrate them with climate mitigation objectives.
Two successive national action plans within the context of the adaption strategy have defined concrete adaptation measures across sectors:
The first plan (2014–2019) included 63 measures, both sectoral and cross-sectoral.
The second plan (2020–2025) expanded the scope to 75 measures, of which 46 were carried over from the previous plan.
These plans provide guidance for implementation at federal, cantonal, and communal levels, and establish channels for international co-operation to support climate adaptation. While some measures are directly targeted at agriculture, others have indirect relevance through related domains such as water management, biodiversity, public health, and animal welfare.
Adaptation measures for agriculture are structured around three strategic axes:3
Adaptation of products, production systems, and practices
Strengthening knowledge and understanding of adaptation options
Reducing weather-related risks to production and market stability.
Initial actions under these axes include:
Optimising the use of plant varieties and animal breeds suited to changing conditions, including improved pest management
Enhancing the sustainable use of land and water resources
Developing data and tools to support site-specific operational decisions
Expanding monitoring and early-warning systems
Assessing opportunities to support private-sector risk management initiatives.
Complementary measures in water, soil, biodiversity, and human health play a critical role in supporting agricultural adaptation to climate change. In the domain of water management, key actions include improving the assessment of water requirements, revising water protection plans and planning tools, and enhancing drought prediction systems.
The current action plan also includes soil protection measures that contribute to carbon sequestration objectives. These are supported by a comprehensive mapping of soil conditions across Switzerland, which informs targeted interventions.
In the area of biodiversity, adaptation efforts include the restoration of peatlands and the creation of shaded areas, including on agricultural land, to mitigate heat stress and preserve habitat quality. Measures addressing human health focus on protecting agricultural workers from increased exposure to extreme heat, ultraviolet radiation, and other climate-related hazards.
For animal health, planned actions include monitoring and mitigating heat stress in livestock, as well as advancing research on emerging pests and diseases linked to changing climatic conditions. There is also a link between longevity and animal health and emissions (animals that are healthy and live longer generate less emissions from the food system).
The Pilot Programme for Adaptation to Climate Change exemplifies federal support for the implementation of these measures. During its first phase (2013‑2017), the programme funded 31 projects across Switzerland, covering water management, natural disaster prevention, ecosystem and land-use management, urban development, and research. The second phase (2018‑2020) supported 50 projects, including studies on dairy herd stress, groundwater management and irrigation reservoirs, and agricultural development planning.
Additional federal programmes also contribute indirectly to agricultural adaptation:
The Agri-food Quality and Sustainability Programme aims to enhance the value-added and environmental and socioeconomic sustainability of agricultural production. It provides funding for up to 50% of the costs of selected innovative projects.
The Sustainable Resource Management Programme, implemented under Article 77a of the Agriculture Act, covers up to 80% of investment costs for projects that optimise the use of key resources such as water, fertilisers, plant protection products, animal feed and pharmaceuticals, and energy.
Public research institutions also play a vital role in advancing adaptation strategies. Agroscope’s 2022‑2025 research programme includes initiatives to develop climate-resilient plant and animal production systems. This encompasses:
Research on resource-efficient and site-adapted cultivation methods for field and specialty crops
Genomic and phenotypic approaches to crop breeding
Studies on sustainable management and production practices.
The climate adaptation plans further support knowledge development, including the creation of regional climate scenarios for Switzerland, new hydrological data and water policy models, hail forecasting research, and broader risk assessments at national and regional levels.
The revised CO₂ Ordinance entered into force in early 2025, establishing the legal framework for the Adapt+ climate change adaptation funding programme. Administered by the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), Adapt+ provides federal financial support for the implementation of climate adaptation measures across various sectors.
Eligible projects under the Adapt+ programme include:
Development of action plans to protect public health during heatwaves
Sustainable water resource management in areas vulnerable to climate-related risks
Ecological design and connectivity of watercourses, promoting biodiversity and resilience
Climate-adapted landscaping of green and open spaces to mitigate urban heat island effects
Use of building materials adapted to changing climatic conditions
Planning and implementation of sponge city concepts, enhancing urban water retention and flood resilience
Strategic shading using trees and shrubs suited to local climate and site conditions.
Reflecting their respective roles in the economy, agriculture contributes little to overall energy demand, while the food and beverage sector is one of the largest industrial users
To advance energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Swiss Government has launched the Energy Strategy 2050, which prioritises the expansion of renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and biomass. The accompanying legal provisions entered into force in January 2025, establishing a framework for financial support to farmers transitioning to low-carbon technologies.
In 2022, the Federal Administration published the Energy Perspective 2050+ (EP2050+), a comprehensive scenario developed through scientific studies, model-based analyses, and expert consultations. EP2050+ explores pathways to achieving a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions energy system by 2050, while maintaining energy security and system reliability.
In 2023, Swiss voters approved the Climate Protection and Innovation Act (KIG) with 59% support. The Act sets a legally binding target of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, with intermediate milestones for 2035, 2040, and 2045. Key provisions of the KIG include:
Sector-specific indicative targets, such as an 82% reduction in building-related emissions by 2040
A framework to align financial flows with climate objectives, ensuring that investments support a climate-resilient future
Support for companies to develop emissions reduction roadmaps, which qualify them for federal financial assistance
Promotion of innovation and new technologies, including targeted subsidy programmes
A leadership role for the Confederation and cantons, which are expected to implement measures and standards consistent with the Act’s goals.
The KIG represents a significant step forward in Switzerland’s climate policy, combining ambitious targets with concrete instruments to drive transformation across sectors.
On 29 September 2023, the Swiss Parliament adopted the Federal Act on a Secure Electricity Supply with Renewable Energies, commonly referred to as the “Umbrella Decree.” This comprehensive legislative package introduces amendments to several key laws, including the Energy Act, Electricity Supply Act, Spatial Planning Act, and Forest Act.
The Act addresses four strategic priorities:
Enhancing electricity supply security, with a particular focus on winter reliability
Accelerating the deployment of renewable energy sources and aligning the electricity system with Switzerland’s net-zero climate target, thereby contributing to long-term climate objectives
Improving energy efficiency across all sectors
Integrating decentralised energy systems and promoting technological innovation
Decentralised energy sources and fostering innovation.
Between 2000 and 2022, Switzerland’s total final energy demand declined by 11%, from 18.8 million to 16.8 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe), averaging a 0.5% annual reduction. The transport sector remained the largest energy consumer (32%), followed by the residential (30%), industrial (20%), and service (18%) sectors. Agriculture consistently accounted for less than 1% of final energy demand. On the other hand, the food and beverage sector is the second-largest industrial energy consumer in Switzerland, accounting for 14% (22 PJ) of the industry’s total final energy use and 14% (0.6 Mt) of its CO₂ emissions. Between 2004 and 2017, energy consumption in the food and beverage industry grew faster than production, indicating a decline in energy efficiency (EE) (Bhadbhade and Patel, 2020[27]).
Bhadbhade and Patel (2020[27]) evaluate technical and economic potentials to meet the implicit EE improvement target of 26% by 2050 (based on constant production levels). The process-related technical EE potential is estimated at 25%, while currently available technologies could reduce energy use by 18%. Cost-effective EE improvements range from 14-16%, with CO₂ reduction potential estimated at 18‑21%. However, low energy prices may hinder the adoption of cross-cutting technologies. A combined analysis of emerging and commercially available technologies is essential to overcome techno-economic barriers and achieve the sector’s efficiency targets.
The direct energy consumption of the agricultural sector reached around 14 000 terajoules (TJ) in 2021. This represents an increase of 4% with respect to the previous year, even if a longer-term trend shows relative stability since 1990. Diesel makes up the largest energy source, accounting for one-third of the agricultural sector’s energy use, while gasoline use has declined. The overall consumption of fossil fuels (including heating oil) has decreased since 1990, while the consumption of gas rose significantly, and in 2021 accounted for 19% of total energy use. Another relevant trend is an increase in the use of renewable energy produced on farms, which more than tripled since 1990, and in 2021 covered 12% of agricultural energy demand, reflecting a gradual transition in the agricultural energy mix (Federal Office for Agriculture, 2023[28]).
Beyond direct consumption, indirect energy use by the agricultural sector is three times higher than direct use and has increased significantly. In 2021, it was estimated at 41 000 TJ, an increase from around 36 500 TJ in 1990. Imported feed accounted for the largest share (34%) of agriculture’s indirect energy consumption, up from 9% in 1990, while the relative importance of other sources of indirect energy use remained stable or declined. Overall, the FOAG has estimated that producing 1 joule of energy from food for human consumption required an average of 2.6 joules of input energy (Federal Office for Agriculture, 2023[28]).
3.5.1. Context
Switzerland has made important efforts to integrate FLW reduction in its environmental policy
Switzerland’s approach to food loss and waste (FLW) is characterised by the development of a robust evidence base, the establishment of reduction targets for both FLW flows and their associated environmental impacts, and the close involvement of the private sector in implementing a two-stage action plan to reduce FLW by 2030 (FLW Action Plan).
Key elements of Switzerland’s approach to FLW reduction are summarised in Table 3.4. According to the definition used in the country, FLW corresponds to all food produced for human consumption, which is not used for human consumption. A distinction is made between avoidable and unavoidable FLW. Targets refer to the portion of FLW that is considered edible, and culturally and technically avoidable (Federal Council, 2022[29]).
Note: *The terms food loss and food waste are considered as synonyms by Swiss policies.
Source: (Federal Council, 2022[29]), (OECD, 2025[30]).
Switzerland’s interest in reducing FLW has developed quickly in the past decade. While action precedes 2015, the adoption of the SDGs constituted the country’s first reduction commitment. Studies funded by the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) to calculate FLW began in 2014 and resulted in the current 2017 baseline. The Chevalley postulate4 in 2018 was a turning point and resulted in the Federal Council developing the 2022-2030 FLW Action Plan (Federal Council, 2022[29]). Table 3.5 outlines key milestones in Switzerland’s policy developments on FLW.
3.5.2. Knowledge: Switzerland’s efforts to develop a robust evidence base
Food and beverage processing accounts for the highest share of FLW, followed by households
Switzerland’s efforts to measure FLW along the food supply chain started with a series of academic studies conducted between 2014 and 2019 and commissioned by FOEN. Notably, the 2017 data published by Beretta and Hellweg (2019[31]) are considered the most comprehensive measurement of FLW flows in Switzerland and constitutes the baseline for the country’s FLW reduction targets.
In 2017, Switzerland produced 330 kg of FLW per capita (Beretta and Hellweg, 2019[31]). Food and beverage processing accounted for 35% of the total amount, followed by households (28%), primary production (20%), wholesale and retail trade (10%) and food services (8%) (Figure 3.12, panel a). Relative to the EU, households contribute a smaller share, while processing and primary production account for a larger proportion (Figure 3.12, panel b). However, drawing conclusions is hard as discrepancies in the denomination of FLW hinder the comparability of national targets and harmonisation of measurement at a global scale (OECD, 2025[30]). For example, food ultimately used as feed is considered waste in Switzerland but not in the EU. This explains why food processing (where a large share of FLW is used as feed) accounts for 35% of FLW flows, significantly above the EU average (19%).
Measurement and monitoring efforts have enabled updates to FLW data in certain sectors, but gaps remain. A recent report by ZHAW – FOEN’s scientific partner – indicates that overall FLW declined by 5%5 between 2017 and 2024 based on measurable reductions in some segments of the supply chain (Figure 3.12, panel a). Estimates suggests households reduced their FLW by 13% between 2017 and 2022, while measurements under the cross-industry agreement indicate that 20% and 12% reductions were achieved by the retail and food services sectors, respectively, between 2017 and 2024. While progress has been made in measuring FLW in the wholesale and processing sectors, methodological changes (in the case of processing) and limited market coverage (for wholesale) do not allow to an assessment of the evolution of FLW flows. Progress for primary agriculture could not be assessed due to a lack of data (Beretta et al., 2025[32]).
Notes: Panel a: 2024 results using the most recent data available by sector: 2017 for Primary food production and Food manufacturing; a combination of 2017 and 2024 for Retail and other food distribution; 2024 for Restaurants and food services; and 2022 for Households. Panel b: Distribution of FLW for Switzerland was calculated using data from panel a. In Switzerland, FLW corresponds to all food produced for human consumption, which is not used for human consumption, and which is considered edible, and culturally and technically avoidable.
Source: (Beretta et al., 2025[32]), (Federal Council, 2022[29]) based on (Beretta and Hellweg, 2019[31]), and Eurostat (2026): Food waste and food waste prevention by NACE Rev. 2 activity [ENV_WASFW], consulted March 2026.
FLW in Switzerland was estimated to account for one-fourth of the total environmental impacts of the agri-food supply chain (Beretta and Hellweg, 2019[31]). These impacts were measured using a composite eco-points score based on life-cycle assessment (LCA) methods. Differences between FLW flows and their associated environmental impacts can occur for a variety of reasons. Food products wasted at later stages tend to embody higher impacts, as they include those which occurred upstream in the supply chain. LCA estimates also account for environmental impact reduction (e.g. using FLW for feed, composting or biogas production). Compared to their contribution to FLW volumes (26%), environmental impacts of FLW are higher for households (35%), while the relative weight of the environmental impacts of FLW from processing, wholesale and agriculture sectors is lower than their share in the FLW volume (see Table 3.6).
Note: % in green (red) correspond to stages where the relative environmental impact was lower (higher) than the share in total FLW flows. Data corresponds to 2017 for Primary food production and Food manufacturing; a combination of 2017 and 2024 for Retail and other food distribution; 2024 for Restaurants and food services; and 2022 for Households.
Source: (Beretta et al., 2025[32]) and (Federal Council, 2022[29]) based on (Beretta and Hellweg, 2019[31]).
Agroscope is part of the WasteWise consortium, which brings together nine European institutions with the aim of closing data gaps and strengthening evidence on the environmental impacts of FLW, in order to enable the development of realistic reduction pathways (WasteWise, n.d.[33]). As in most OECD countries, the broader implications of FLW (e.g. on income or food security) remain largely unexplored (OECD, 2025[30]).
One-fourth of Switzerland’s municipal waste is treated through composting or anaerobic digestion. Nutrient recycling is the preferred option when preventing FLW, redistributing it, or using it as feed is not possible (OECD, 2025[30]). The recycling of nutrients is usually done through composting or anaerobic digestion (European Environment Agency, 2020[34]). In Switzerland, the levels of composting and digestion show a steady increase and their relative share in municipal waste management is higher than the average in EU countries (Figure 3.13).
Evolution of composting and anaerobic digestion volumes and their share in total municipal waste
Source: Eurostat (2025), Food waste and food waste prevention by NACE Rev. 2 activity [ENV_WASMUN(1.0)], consulted in June 2025.
Improving FLW data is a priority under the FLW Action Plan, with strong private-sector involvement through a Cross-industry Agreement (Box 3.1). Under this agreement, specific guidance has been issued for food processing, wholesale/retail, and food services to standardise what is measured and how. The Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) may commission additional surveys to complement the data provided by the private sector. While gaps and assumptions from the 2017 baseline should improve, the baseline methodology will be largely maintained, as ZHAW – the scientific partner – includes the baseline’s lead researchers. While annual data reporting is currently in place, it is unclear whether it will be made publicly available, besides the specific years in which evaluation reports are expected (2025 and 2030-31).
3.5.3. Ambition: Switzerland's goes beyond SDG 12.3 and has a long-term aspirational goal
Ambitious FLW reduction goals are expected to contribute to reduce food system-related GHG emissions
Switzerland aims to reduce per capita FLW by 50% across the entire food supply chain and reduce as much as possible its environmental impact by 2030 compared to 2017 (Federal Council, 2022[29]), exceeding the ambition of SDG 12.3. Halving FLW by 2030 is expected to reduce food-related GHG emissions by 10-15%.6
Looking ahead to 2050, Switzerland has a target to reduce per capita FLW by 75% (FOAG, FOEN and FSVO, 2023[35]) (Federal Council, 2022[36]). This is the most ambitious goal among OECD countries. The baseline year is 2020, in line with the baseline for most of the other goals set for 2050 in the Federal Council’s Report on the Future Orientation of Agricultural Policy (Federal Council, 2022[36]). Before setting the goal, no cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted.7
While FLW is not expressly mentioned in the main text of Switzerland’s nationally determined contribution (NDC), it is indirectly addressed through targets to reduce the per capita greenhouse gas emissions footprint of food by 2030 (25%), 2035 (35%) and 2050 (67%), compared to 2020 levels (Swiss Confederation, 2025[37]) (FOAG, FOEN and FSVO, 2023[35]).
3.5.4. Commitment and policy implementation: Switzerland’s FLW Action Plan
Actions for FLW reduction closely involve private sector stakeholders
In 2022 the Federal Council adopted the FLW Action Plan with 2030 as delivery target. The FLW Action Plan has three main objectives: to meet the 2030 FLW reduction target, co-define sector-specific targets with stakeholders, and minimise the environmental impacts of FLW (Federal Council, 2022[29]). When prioritising the different measures, the FLW Action Plan considered their potential environmental impact − an approach highlighted as a best practice in Europe (EEA, 2025[38]).
The FOEN leads the implementation of the FLW Action Plan. It co-ordinates stakeholders to ensure a unified methodological framework for national monitoring and warrants regular assessments. FOEN is also called to conduct supplementary surveys where needed and oversees publication of aggregated results. FOEN chairs the FLW steering group, which co-ordinates public actors across different levels of government, and participates in the sectoral working groups within the Cross-industry agreement. United Against Waste, a cross-sector initiative of the Swiss food industry, is key in promoting FLW reduction across the supply chain and often facilitates discussions between the private sector and FOEN.
Two phases are contemplated under the FLW Action Plan. During the first phase of the FLW Action Plan (2022-25), 14 measures are proposed (Table 3.7). These interventions relate to education and awareness raising (2), are directed at public entities (5), or propose voluntary measures for actors across the food supply chain (7). In the latter category, a cross-industry agreement stands as a cornerstone of the FLW Action Plan (Box 3.1). Such agreements play a key role in FLW reduction strategies in other OECD countries (OECD, 2025[30]).
In 2022, 28 private entities (individual companies or associations) from across the agri-food supply chain signed a voluntary agreement with the Swiss government, aiming to reduce avoidable FLW, in line with the FLW Action Plan.
Signatory companies committed to set sector-specific targets, take measures to reduce FLW and report to FOEN annually their FLW flows, reduction measures and their estimated impact. Signatory associations committed to taking educational and awareness-raising measures, encourage their members to join the Cross-industry Agreement and to report regularly to FOEN.
FOEN commitments include co-ordinating the different working groups in charge of developing the data collection methods; reporting processes and reduction targets; conducting studies to measure FLW at the household level; and taking awareness-raising measures. A scientific partner (ZHAW) supports method development, data evaluation, and quality assurance.
Following the agreement, sector-specific guidance has already been issued for food processing, retail, and food services sector. These guidelines include standardised indicators, measurement periods, required data fields, and submission formats.
A pilot reporting of data took place in 2024 (2023 data) and the first official reporting in 2025 (2024 data).
3.5.5. Policy effectiveness: an interim assessment of the FLW Action Plan was conducted in 2025, and a final assessment is expected in 2030
A recent interim assessment highlights significant progress, but deems it insufficient to meet policy goals
Two assessments of the FLW Action Plan will inform future policy development. Phase 2 (2026-2030) of the FLW Action Plan is expected to continue the voluntary measures implemented during Phase 1 and include additional (and possibly stricter) measures based on the results of an interim assessment. The interim report was published in late 2025 and will serve as the base for a report by FOEN in 2026 to inform the decisions of the Federal Council on Phase 2. It includes updated data on FLW flows, their associated environmental impact, detailed explanations of data collection methods and the progress made under the cross-industry agreement, and an evaluation of the measures of the FLW Action Plan. A final assessment of the FLW Action Plan is expected in 2031 and will define policy action beyond 2030.
The interim report highlights significant progress during Phase 1 of the FLW Action Plan. The 2022-24 period was marked by rich discussions among stakeholders and by the development and testing of shared monitoring methodologies. These collaborative efforts have enabled the systematic tracking of progress among participants in the cross-industry agreement. Reductions reported by companies participating in the cross-industry agreement are encouraging, although not always representative of the overall situation, given the different market coverage across supply chain stages.
However, measurable progress appears insufficient to meet the national objectives. Updated measurements show that Switzerland has reduced its FLW flows by around 5%, based on measurable reductions from households (13%), retail (20%) and food services (12%).8 This is well below the expected 25% reduction. Table 3.8 includes key recommendations made in the interim report to enhance FLW reductions and achieve the goals of the FLW Action Plan. A 2024 report by the Federal Council also discussed potential measures to encourage food donations by retailers, such as banning the destruction of edible food by retailers, if the results from the 2025 interim report were unsatisfactory (Federal Council, 2024[43]).
Key recommendations from ZHAW’s interim report on FLW in Switzerland.
Source: Beretta et al. (2025[32]), Monitoring of food losses in Switzerland: Interim report 2025 (automatic translation), http://www.bafu.admin.ch/foodwaste
Political economy conditions may be more favourable for implementing stricter demand-side policies related to FLW than in other parts of food systems. For example, Swiss citizens appear supportive of stricter food waste regulations – even if it results in price increases – provided that stringent targets are set and transparency is ensured (Fesenfeld, Rudolph and Bernauer, 2022[44]). Results from the 2022 round of the OECD Survey on Environmental Policies and Individual Behaviour Change (EPIC) suggest that prioritising environmental impacts in waste-related choices is a prevalent attitude among Swiss households (see Figure 3.14).
Distribution of attitudinal profiles across countries
Note: Using latent class analysis, households were categorised into four main attitudinal profiles: Environmental prioritisers value environmental protection over economic growth and environmentally neutral households exhibit relative indifference between economic and environmental issues. The other two profiles, technological optimists and economic prioritisers, both place greater weight on economic security than the previous two classes, with technological optimists attaching a greater importance to environmental problems. The association of attitudes with waste-related behaviours points to the relevance of information that impact environmental awareness as a means to foster sustainable household choices.
Source: Brown (2024[45]), Household waste practices: New empirical evidence and policy implications for sustainable behaviour, https://doi.org/10.1787/9e5e512c-en.
Switzerland’s environmental governance combines a strong constitutional and legislative foundation with highly decentralised implementation: the Confederation defines the overarching framework, while cantons and municipalities are responsible for enforcement. In agriculture, specific sustainability objectives – including biodiversity conservation, reduced nutrient losses, sustainable production methods, and climate mitigation – are supported by detailed legislation and quantitative targets operationalised through a mix of regulation, mandatory cross‑compliance requirements, and voluntary agri‑environmental payments.
Cross-compliance is implemented through the long‑standing proof of ecological performance (PEP) required for direct payments. Beyond this baseline, the AP14–17 reform expanded voluntary payments for biodiversity, landscape quality, resource efficiency, and sustainable production systems, thus reinforcing the linkage between agricultural policy and environmental objectives. However, evaluations of these instruments show mixed outcomes; for example, while payments for biodiversity conservation have successfully expanded conservation areas, their ecological quality often remains below target. Switzerland may need to consider complementary instruments to address persistent gaps, for example regarding nitrogen and phosphorus surpluses and their impact on water quality.
The agri‑environmental context reflects both positive trends and persistent pressures. Some biodiversity indicators, such as the farmland bird index and habitat diversity, have improved, and ecological focus areas, organic farming, and low‑intensity meadows support local species richness. Yet, many biodiversity promotion areas lack ecological quality or connectivity, and declines persist among certain species, especially in intensively farmed regions. Soil health also presents a mixed picture: although erosion risk on cropland is generally low and uptake of payment schemes for soil-improving practices has been high, some regions still exceed erosion values, and data gaps hinder a comprehensive assessment.
Despite reductions in nutrient inputs from synthetic fertilisers, nutrient surpluses (particularly nitrogen) remain high by international comparison, with nitrate limits exceeded in a significant share of groundwater monitoring stations. National targets for reducing nutrient inputs into water bodies have not yet been achieved. Ammonia emissions, largely driven by livestock systems, have plateaued well above reduction goals. Pesticide sales per hectare remain high by international comparison, prompting the adoption of new measures to halve pesticide-related risks by 2027, though early evaluations highlight uncertainties related to high‑risk substances and data gaps.
The climate policy framework for agriculture combines long‑term mitigation ambitions with a broad set of adaptation measures across the food system. Agricultural GHG emissions have declined modestly since 1990 and now represent around 15% of national emissions. The 2021 Long‑Term Strategy raised the ambition of the sector-specific mitigation target, while the Agriculture and Food Climate Strategy 2050 integrated production- and consumption-based targets, providing a comprehensive framework for transformation along the entire food chain. Adaptation efforts are wide-ranging, supported by national action plans, sector‑specific measures, public research, and federal funding.
Although agriculture accounts for less than 1% of total final energy demand and its direct energy use has remained relatively stable, the food and beverage industry is one of Switzerland’s largest industrial energy consumers, with use growing faster than output. At the farm level, direct energy use is gradually shifting away from fossil fuels and toward renewables. However, indirect energy consumption, especially linked to imported feed, continues to play a significant role in agriculture’s overall energy footprint.
Switzerland has also made significant efforts to integrate food loss and waste (FLW) reduction into environmental policy. It has built a comprehensive framework to guide actions across the supply chain, combining ambitious national targets, robust evidence, and active private-sector engagement, supported by a voluntary cross industry agreement. The interim evaluation of the Action Plan revealed that reductions remain below expectations, highlighting the scale of the challenge and the potential need for stronger measures in the second phase.
Across the domains reviewed, Switzerland has developed an extensive and sophisticated policy framework, but performance gaps remain. Meeting long‑term goals will require further reductions in nutrient surpluses, improvements in water quality, progress on ammonia and GHG emissions, and more effective biodiversity conservation, particularly in intensively farmed areas. Addressing these challenges will also require closing the existing data gaps. To meet the broader policy focus, Switzerland will also need to broaden its monitoring to include the climate and environmental impacts embedded in food consumption enabling a fuller understanding of the food system’s footprint and supporting more integrated policymaking.
References
[32] Beretta, C. et al. (2025), Monitoring of food losses in Switzerland: Interim report 2025 (automatic translation), ZHAW Wädenswil, http://www.bafu.admin.ch/foodwaste (accessed on 10 March 2026).
[31] Beretta, C. and S. Hellweg (2019), Food losses in Switzerland: Environmental impact and reduction potential (automatic translation)), ETH Zurich and Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), Zurich, https://www.infothek-biomasse.ch/index.php?option=com_abook&view=book&id=1421:lebensmittelverluste-in-der-schweiz-umweltbelastung-und-vermeidungspotenzial&catid=5:alle&Itemid=155&lang=de (accessed on 6 May 2025).
[27] Bhadbhade, N. and M. Patel (2020), “Analysis of energy efficiency improvement and carbon dioxide abatement”, Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Vol. 161/104967, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104967.
[16] Bircher, P., H. Liniker and V. Prasuhn (2019), Aktualisierung und Optimierung der Erosionsrisikokarte (ERK2) - Die neue ERK2 (2019) für das Ackerland der Schweiz.
[45] Brown, Z. (2024), “Household waste practices: New empirical evidence and policy implications for sustainable behaviour”, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 249, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9e5e512c-en.
[25] Dueri, S. and G. Mack (2024), “Modeling the implications of policy reforms on pesticide risk”, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 928172436, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172436.
[38] EEA (2025), Waste management country profile: Switzerland, European Environment Agency, https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/waste-and-recycling/municipal-and-packaging-waste-management-country-profiles-2025/ch-municipal-waste-factsheet.pdf (accessed on 5 May 2025).
[34] European Environment Agency (2020), Bio-waste in Europe – turning challenges into opportunities.
[43] Federal Council (2024), “Pertes alimentaires : champs d’action Dons de denrées alimentaires et Commerce de détail”, https://www.newsd.admin.ch/newsd/message/attachments/90243.pdf (accessed on 8 May 2025).
[29] Federal Council (2022), Action plan against food waste: Report of the Federal Council in fulfillment of postulate 18.3829 Chevalley of September 25, 2018 (automatic translation), Swiss Federal Council, https://www.bafu.admin.ch/dam/bafu/de/dokumente/abfall/externe-studien-berichte/aktionsplan_gegen_die_lebensmittelverschwendung.pdf.download.pdf/Aktionsplan%20gegen%20die%20Lebensmittelverschwendung.pdf (accessed on 30 April 2025).
[36] 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).
[20] Federal Office for Agriculture (2024), Rapport Agricole - Nitrate, https://2024.agrarbericht.ch/fr/environnement/eau/nitrate.
[19] Federal Office for Agriculture (2024), Rôle des éléments fertilisants dans l’agriculture et dans l’environnement: Trajectoire de réduction des éléments fertilisants, https://www.blw.admin.ch/fr/elements-fertilisants (accessed on 12 February 2026).
[28] Federal Office for Agriculture (2023), Rapport Agricole 2023 - Consommation énergétique de l’agriculture, https://2023.agrarbericht.ch/fr/environnement/energie/consommation-energetique-de-lagriculture.
[22] Federal Office for the Environment (2024), Qualité de l’eau des lacs, https://www.bafu.admin.ch/fr/qualite-de-leau-des-lacs.
[39] Federal Office for the Environment (2022), Cross-sector agreement to reduce food waste (automatic translation), https://www.bafu.admin.ch/foodwaste-agreement (accessed on 5 May 2025).
[44] Fesenfeld, L., L. Rudolph and T. Bernauer (2022), “Policy framing, design and feedback can increase public support for costly food waste regulation”, Nature Food, Vol. 3/3, pp. 227-235, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00460-8.
[2] FOAG and FOEN (2016), Objectifs environnementaux pour l’agriculture.
[35] FOAG, FOEN and FSVO (2023), Climate Strategy for Agriculture and Food 2050 (automatic translation), https://www.blw.admin.ch/fr/strategie-climat-agriculture-et-alimentation-2050#Objectifs-de-la-Strat%C3%A9gie-Climat-(Partie-1) (accessed on 5 May 2025).
[26] FOEN (2025), Switzerland’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990–2023 - National Inventory Document.
[18] Harder, R. and F. Liebisch (2025), “Exploring the strategic potential for Switzerland to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus surplus in agriculture”, Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Vol. 218/108239, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108239.
[7] Herzog, F. et al. (2008), “Environmental cross-compliance mitigates nitrogen and phosphorus pollution from Swiss agriculture”, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 11/7, pp. 655-668, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2008.06.003.
[14] Huang, W. and M. LeBlanc (1994), “Market-based incentives for addressing non-point water quality problems: a residual nitrogen tax approach”, Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 16, pp. 427-440.
[9] Huber et al. (2021), “Conservation costs drive enrolment in agglomeration bonus scheme”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 186/107064, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107064.
[11] Huber, R. et al. (2017), “Direktzahlungen sorgfältig aufeinander abstimmen”, Agrarforschung Schweiz,, Vol. 8/1, pp. 26-29, https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000234152.
[21] Hutchings, C., E. Spiess and V. Prasuhn (2023), Abschätzung diffuser Stickstoff- und Phosphoreinträge in die Gewässer der Schweiz, Stand 2020.
[10] Jenny, M., J. Studer and A. Bosshard (2018), Evaluation Vernetzungsprojekte.
[24] Korkaric et al. (2022), Indicateurs de risque nationaux basés sur les volumes de vente des produits phytosanitaires, https://doi.org/10.34776/afs13-1f.
[23] Kuppert et al. (2022), Ammonia Emissions from Agriculture in Switzerland for 1990 to 2020, https://www.agrarforschungschweiz.ch/en/2022/11/ammonia-emissions-from-agriculture-in-switzerland-for-1990-to-2020/.
[4] Meier et al. (2021), Zustand der Biodiversität in der Schweizer Agrarlandschaft, https://doi.org/10.34776/as111g.
[5] Meier, E. et al. (2025), Veränderung der Biodiversität in der Schweizer Agrarlandschaft - Von der ALL-EMA-Ersterhebung (2015–2019) zur Zweiterhebung (2020–2024), https://doi.org/10.34776/as209.
[3] Nitsch, H. et al. (2009), “Ecological cross compliance promotes farmland biodiversity in Switzerland.”, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 7, pp. 247-252, https://doi.org/10.1890/070197.
[30] OECD (2025), “Beyond food loss and waste reduction targets: Translating reduction ambitions into policy outcomes”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 214, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/59cf6c95-en.
[1] OECD (2017), OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Switzerland 2017, OECD Environmental Performance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264279674-en.
[15] Prasuhn et al. (2013), “A high-resolution soil erosion risk map of Switzerland as strategic policy”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 32, pp. 281– 291, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.11.006.
[6] Ritzel, C. et al. (2025), “The role of social and personal norms in biodiversity conservation: A segmentation of Swiss farmers”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 377, p. 124605, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.124605.
[12] Schmidt et al. (2017), “Direct and indirect economic incentives to mitigate nitrogen surpluses: a sensitivity analysis”, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Vol. 20/4, https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.3477.
[17] Spiess, E. and F. Liebisch (2020), Nährstoffbilanz der schweizerischen Landwirtschaft für die Jahre 1975 bis 2018, https://doi.org/10.34776/AS100G.
[13] Steiger et al. (2016), Evaluation Landschaftsqualitätsbeiträge - Schlussbericht z.H. Bundesamt für Landwirtschaft.
[37] Swiss Confederation (2025), “Switzerland’s second nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement 2031–2035”, https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/en/home/topics/climate/info-specialists/climate--international-affairs/the-paris-agreement.html (accessed on 9 May 2025).
[42] United Against Waste (2024), Méthode de quantification, rapports, mesures de réduction les plus efficaces et objectifs sectoriels dans le domaine de la restauration, Federal Office for the Environment.
[41] United Against Waste and C. Beretta (2024), Quantification, rapports, mesures les plus efficaces et objectifs sectoriels dans le domaine de la transformation (automatic translation), Federal Office for the Environment.
[40] United Against Waste and C. Beretta (2024), Quantification, rapports, mesures les plus efficaces et objectifs sectoriels dans le domaine du commerce de gros et de détail (automatic translation), Federal Office for the Environment.
[33] WasteWise (n.d.), Background, https://wastewise-project.eu/project/background/ (accessed on 9 May 2025).
[8] Wuepper, D. and R. Huber (2022), “Comparing effectiveness and return on investment of action-based and results-based agri-environmental payments in Switzerland”, American Journal of Agricultural Economic, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12284.
← 1. The Target 3 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) (30 by 30) refers to protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs). What Switzerland counts in this regard is documented in the Biodiversity Action Plan, Annex: List of Areas for Biodiversity. Biodiversity promotion areas (BPAs) are therefore provisionally included. It can be that OECMs are not included in the Swiss figures.
← 2. This difference is explained by differences in index calculation methods, as well as in the species covered in each index or monitoring method. It is good to note that the so-called “The Swiss Bird Index” (SBI), which summarises the population trends of breeding birds in Switzerland, has a trend that is very similar to that of the OECD Farmland Bird Index.
← 3. The relevant adaptation measures are similar in both the 2011 and the 2023 strategies, although the wording has changed slightly.
← 4. Postulates are parliamentary instruments whereby an instruction is given to the Federal Council to examine and report whether new legislation or measures are in needed. A postulate is accepted if it is adopted by one of the two chambers of Parliament.
← 5. A range of 1% (conservative) to 9% (optimistic) reduction was considered.
← 6. By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses.
← 7. The Climate Strategy for Agriculture and Food 2050 refers to a 75% reduction by 2050 compared to “today’s levels” (FOAG, FOEN and FSVO, 2023[35]). FLW data for 2020 (see Box 3.1) is neither available nor expected. Data exists for 2017 and is expected for 2023 and 2024.
← 8. No updated official data was provided for primary agriculture (lack of data), wholesale (insufficient market share) and processing (changes in methodology).