Switzerland is progressively adopting a food systems approach to policymaking, recognising interlinkages across policy areas and seeking greater coherence across economic, environmental and social objectives. The vision towards 2050 expands policy goals to include sustainable and healthy consumption, food loss and waste reduction, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from both production and consumption. While this creates opportunities for synergies, it also introduces trade-offs and complexity. This chapter maps Switzerland’s policy objectives for the agro-food system and benchmarks performance against key indicators of agricultural productivity and environmental sustainability. It further examines areas relevant to addressing policy frictions and strengthening coherence, including co-ordination and information-sharing mechanisms, policy evaluation, and stakeholder engagement. The final section assesses overall food systems policy coherence and the extent to which current outcomes align with long-term goals.
Policies for the Future of Farming and Food in Switzerland
Abstract
Switzerland has been progressively developing a food systems approach to policymaking, recognising the interactions across policy domains and stepping up efforts to develop policies that are coherent across all three dimensions of the triple challenge.
The policy vision for agriculture towards 2050, developed in 2022, increased ambition and broadened the set of goals to include sustainable and healthy diets, food waste reduction and GHG emissions from food consumption. This breadth and multiplicity of objectives can create synergies, but also inevitably comes with some trade-offs.
In developing a new agricultural policy (AP30+) aligned with these ambitions, policymakers will need to navigate frictions arising from disagreements over facts, interests, and values. Understanding how agricultural policy has performed over time, how coherent it is with broader food systems policies, and what tools are available to navigate the complexity of food systems will be key.
At the same time, recent outcomes remain far from the 2050 objectives, and some aspects of current agricultural policy appear incoherent with broader food systems goals and policy interventions. This underscores the need for AP30+ to improve coherence and include more ambitious measures that reinforce ‒ or at least not undermine ‒ efforts made in other areas.
A rich set of evaluations assesses the performance of agricultural policy. The studies highlight uneven performance across economic, environmental and social goals, with progress in areas like production and ecological focus areas but shortfalls in productivity, nutrient management and biodiversity quality. Farm income objectives were met but at the expense of competitiveness and efficiency. Rising administrative burdens raise doubts about the cost‑effectiveness of the policy mix.
The modest productivity gains over the past decades have been insufficient to sustain output growth. Together with limited progress in decoupling emissions from production, this points to the need for innovation strongly directed to promoting sustainable productivity growth.
Switzerland does not have a dedicated food systems law or an integrated framework that addresses all dimensions of the triple challenge, and, as in most OECD countries, no single body or mechanism comprehensively co‑ordinates food systems issues.
There are robust regulatory management and stakeholder consultation systems in place. Strengthening how these tools are used can enhance coherence and increase policy relevance and learning. This could include encouraging a more systematic use of policy assessment reports in stakeholder consultations, also involving stakeholders in monitoring and ex-post evaluation, and carefully sequencing major cross‑sectoral strategies to ensure time consistency in reforms.
Alternative deliberative processes, such as citizens’ assemblies, have provided input into food systems policy developments. Such mechanisms offer a valuable complement to traditional stakeholder engagement, enabling deeper public dialogue on value tensions and priorities for the future of food systems and supporting the broad ownership of outcomes.
Switzerland is an active participant in discussions over food systems transformation at the international level, contributing through multilateral fora, trade policy and development co‑operation. This engagement can help align domestic efforts with global commitments.
As Switzerland develops its agricultural policy beyond 2030 (AP30+), it is important to assess how existing policies have performed over time and how this performance compares with that of peer countries. As the country adopts a food systems approach, it is necessary to underscore the interactions across different policy areas and to work towards ensuring that policy developments reinforce, or at least not undermine, broader food systems policies.
This chapter outlines the different objectives of agricultural policies and the sources of frictions faced by policymakers (Section 5.1), benchmarks Switzerland’s productivity and environmental sustainability performance (Section 5.2), examines the use of different tools and processes to enhance policy performance and coherence (Section 5.3), and discusses selected aspects of coherence across food‑systems‑related policies (Section 5.4).
5.1.1. Agriculture and food policy goals for 2030 and beyond
The vision towards 2050 considers the entire food system and includes an expanded set of goals and targets
Following the suspension of the discussions on the development of agricultural policy from 2022 (AP22+), the Federal Council was tasked with preparing a report on the future direction of agricultural policy. This report responds to two parliamentary postulates:1 Postulate 20.3931, which calls for an in-depth examination of measures to maintain self-sufficiency, broaden agricultural policy towards healthy diets and sustainable food systems, close nutrient cycles across the value chain, simplify and focus policy instruments, reduce administrative burdens, foster entrepreneurial freedom, and address competitive distortions between domestic and imported products; and Postulate 21.3015, further expanding the mandate by requesting additional analysis on direct sales promotion and short supply chains, as well as on measures to combat food waste.
The resulting Report on the Future Orientation of Agriculture Policy was published in June 2022. Through Motion 22.4251 of October 2022, Parliament mandated the Federal Council to implement the strategic direction outlined in the report, making it a key foundation for discussions on Swiss agricultural policy beyond 2030 (AP30+) and the long-term strategy for agriculture and food systems towards 2050. The report reflects the broadening of societal concerns around food and agriculture. In addition to the goals previously defined under the AP14-17, new objectives now explicitly address sustainable and healthy consumption, the reduction of food loss and waste, and the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from both production and consumption, with quantitative targets for 2050 (Table 5.1).
5.1.2. The challenge of balancing multiple goals
The diversity and multiplicity of objectives make some trade-offs unavoidable
The large number of policy goals defined for the agricultural sector inevitably results in some synergies and trade-offs. While Articles 104 and 104a of the Federal Constitution enumerate multiple policy goals (see Section 2.1.1), they do not specify how trade-offs should be resolved; instead, it is the legislature’s responsibility to balance the various mandates and objectives, resolve potential conflicts to achieve practical concordance, or seek solutions that best support the achievement of all objectives (Bürgi Bonanomi, 2025[2]).
The long-term vision for the agricultural sector adopts a food systems approach, bringing the attention to the interactions between policy areas and the synergies and trade-offs. The Future Orientation report of 2022 identifies several areas of possible synergies between goals. It also notes potential trade-offs, particularly in the short term:
Environmental versus economic goals. In the short term, ambitious environmental targets can increase costs for producers or reduce income. However, from a long-term perspective, preserving production bases by considering ecosystem capacity will have a positive impact on production.
Environmental goals versus a high contribution of domestic production to supply. Efforts to reduce nutrient losses, limit pesticide use, or expand biodiversity areas may constrain food production – and hence lower the self-sufficiency rate – if they are not accompanied by a shift in dietary patterns. Nevertheless, in the medium and long term, ecological goals actually support food security by preserving essential resources. A diet that adheres more closely to the recommendations could favour both environmental goals and a greater proportion of domestic production to supply.
Economic goals versus reducing the consumption of animal products. Livestock production (in particular pig and poultry farming) enables many farmers to increase their value added compared to exclusive crop farming, without expanding the cultivated area. A reduction in livestock production in favour of arable crops for direct human consumption could result in economic losses (Federal Council, 2022[1]).
5.1.3. Three sources of friction: facts, interests and values
Food systems policies in Switzerland are not immune to frictions arising from facts, interests and values
Food systems policymakers need to overcome disagreements over facts, diverging interests, and differences over values, which often complicate policy-design and political decision-making processes (OECD, 2021[3]). The most problematic policy controversies may involve frictions in all of them. Table 5.2 describes the nature of these frictions and provides examples from the Swiss context.
Examples from the Swiss context
Note: Examples draw on situations documented in the literature, reported by stakeholders at the OECD’s mission, or referred to in other sections of this report. Complex situations tend to involve more than one source of frictions. In the examples included in the categories Facts, Interests, and Values, a focus was given to the specific category, for illustrative purposes.
Source: Elaboration based on OECD (2021[3]), Making Better Policies for Food Systems, https://doi.org/10.1787/ddfba4de-en.
Swiss citizens directly influence policies, including on agriculture and food systems, and hold diverse views on food and agriculture. Direct democracy allows citizens to decide on policy matters through popular initiatives and referendums (see also Section 1.3). In recent years, there has been a growing number of initiatives related to agriculture and food, sometimes reflecting opposing societal concerns (Huber, El Benni and Finger, 2023[4]). While Swiss citizens generally agree on broad values and priorities around agriculture and food policies, the prioritisation of objectives often differs amongst language and cultural groups, and there are even stronger differences in the prioritisation of goals by farmers when compared to non-farmers (Box 5.1). Understanding the values behind food production and consumption and the perspectives of citizens is essential for policymakers.
The Univox survey, carried out by the research institute GFS Zürich, regularly assesses Swiss public opinion on different topics. The Agriculture module, conducted regularly since 1996 and co-ordinated by FOAG since 2009, surveys a representative sample of eligible voters from the German- and French-speaking regions.
In 2022, respondents across Switzerland identified animal-friendly husbandry, food security in times of crisis, and domestic food production as the top priorities for Swiss agriculture. Preserving the rural way of life was ranked as the least important. Notably, French-speaking respondents placed significantly greater emphasis on local food supply than German speakers.
While respondents generally viewed farmers positively, nearly 80% of them strongly agreed with the statement that Swiss farms should become more competitive and produce more cheaply. Over 60% agreed that Swiss agriculture must receive financial support from the government; yet 46% supported the statement that agricultural policy causes excessive costs (up from 30% in 2018). On trade, there was moderate support for opening borders to ensure long-term food security and for using trade agreements to promote global sustainability. More French speakers than German speakers agreed that “imported food must comply with Swiss production conditions” (FOAG, 2023[5]).
A separate study by El Benni et al. (2024[6]), based on an online survey of over 1 500 participants from the three main language groups, examined the preferences for different and sometimes conflicting agricultural policy goals. Responses indicated that all goals were perceived as important, which the researchers interpret as evidence of broad acceptance by Swiss citizens of the principle of multifunctional agriculture. Animal welfare was the most important policy goal overall, followed by ensuring an adequate income for farmers. Reducing food prices ranked lowest, possibly reflecting the low share of income spent on food by Swiss consumers. The study found varying prioritisation of specific goals by language group, possibly reflecting cultural differences, which remained even after controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and personal attitudes.
More recently, El Benni et al. (2025[7]) compared the preferences of farmers and non-farmers across the same set of policy goals, based on survey responses from over 800 Swiss farmers and a similar number of non-farmers. This study found that farmers prioritise domestic food production and farmer income significantly more than non-farmers but grant less importance to agri-environmental goals. Non-farmers consider animal welfare as the most important goal. Reducing consumer food prices was the least important goal for both groups, but with stark differences in its prioritisation: only 16% of farmers indicated that this goal is important or very important, against 67% of non-farmers.
Sustainable productivity growth is key to achieving better food systems outcomes. This entails achieving high Total Factor Productivity (TFP) growth while ensuring that efficiency gains are directed towards creating a production system that promotes environmental sustainability. This section benchmarks environmentally sustainable productivity performance, analysing the trajectory of the Swiss agricultural sector in terms of productivity growth and key environmental outcomes, particularly GHG emissions. The overall assessment of Switzerland’s policies is presented in the Assessment and Recommendations chapter.
5.2.1. Agricultural productivity growth
TFP developments point to efficiency gains in the sector; however, these improvements have not been sufficient to drive robust output growth
Agricultural total factor productivity (TFP) growth reflects the ability of the sector to use inputs and land more efficiently, thereby achieving a higher output per unit of input or per hectare of land. TFP improvements reflect the sector’s capacity to produce more with fewer inputs, which is essential for preserving natural resources and ensuring sustainable growth in the sector. Since 1990, agricultural output in Switzerland has remained relatively stable, with only modest fluctuations around the baseline index. The use of inputs, on the other hand, shows a clear downward trend, particularly before 2006. Given the relatively stable output, this points to productivity gains in the sector, illustrated by a moderate but positive TFP growth trajectory (Figure 5.1).
Evolution of agricultural output, input use and TFP, 1990-2022
Note: The TFP index estimated by USDA for Switzerland in 2022 was adjusted by the OECD to account for an unusually large decrease in fertiliser levels recorded in 2022, which may be partly explained by reduced fertiliser purchases and the release of emergency stocks authorised in December 2021 to avoid shortages. TFP growth is calculated as a residual, equal to growth in output minus growth in inputs.
Source: Calculations based on USDA (2025), International Agricultural Productivity (database), https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/international-agricultural-productivity.
Figure 5.2 shows the decomposition of agricultural output growth over the three most recent decades. In 1991-2000, declines in the use of variable inputs were only partially offset by positive but small TFP growth (0.1%) and an increase in agricultural labour, which recovered in the second half of the decade from a strong decline in 1990‑96, reaching its peak in 1999. As a result, output declined by an average of 0.7% per year.
Decomposition of Switzerland’s agricultural output growth by decade
Note: The TFP index estimated by USDA for Switzerland in 2022 was adjusted by the OECD to account for an unusually large decrease in fertiliser levels recorded in 2022, which may be partly explained by reduced fertiliser purchases and the release of emergency stocks authorised in December 2021 to avoid shortages. TFP growth is calculated as a residual, equal to growth in output minus growth in inputs.
Source: Calculations based on USDA (2025), International Agricultural Productivity (database), https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/international-agricultural-productivity
The decade 2001-10 featured positive but moderate output growth (on average 0.6% per year). An increase in the use of variable inputs was the main driver, along with positive but still small TFP growth (0.19%). Together, they offset a decrease in capital investment, driving output growth. Between 2011 and 2022 there were declines in all inputs (particularly labour) and a slight reduction in agricultural land, in line with the structural adjustment of the sector outlined in Chapter 1. However, the positive (and higher) TFP growth of 0.4% was not sufficient to offset these declines, resulting in an average output decrease of 0.5%, even though the average masks slight positive variations in specific years.
Switzerland’s TFP performance is below the OECD average
Despite the more favourable TFP performance in 2011-22 compared to the previous decade, TFP growth in Switzerland remains low relative to peers and the OECD average (Figure 5.3). The average annual TFP growth rate of 0.4% was nearly half the OECD average (0.75%) and well below the European Union average of 1.1%.
Agricultural TFP growth in Switzerland and selected countries
Source: Calculations based on USDA (2025), International Agricultural Productivity (database), https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/international-agricultural-productivity
5.2.2. Sustainable productivity growth
Agricultural GHG emissions declined in 1990-2022; however, this mostly occurred in the context of lower output
To address the “triple challenge”, countries need to find ways to decouple2 GHG emissions growth from output growth. This can be achieved in two ways: i) by increasing the productivity (TFP) of the entire set of inputs, thereby producing more with fewer inputs; or ii) by reducing the GHG intensity of inputs; that is, the amount of agricultural GHG emissions per unit of inputs used (the “emission factor”) (Henderson and Lankoski, 2023[8]).
As shown in Chapter 3, total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture in Switzerland have declined since 1990, even though their share in national emissions has increased. An analysis of the evolution of agricultural output and GHG emissions since 1990 reveals that Switzerland has not achieved absolute decoupling of GHG emissions from production: the decade with positive average output growth (2001-10) also saw a slight increase in GHG emissions from production.
In the most recent decade, the decline in output and input use led to an average annual reduction of 0.5% in GHG emissions (Figure 5.4). However, the amount of agricultural GHG emissions per unit of inputs used (the “emission factor”) increased at an annual rate of 0.35%.
Decomposition of changes in agricultural GHG emissions in Switzerland, 1991-2022
Note: Growth in output (orange) and in emissions per unit of inputs (the “emission factor”, light green) contribute positively to the growth in GHG emissions (the diamond marker). Productivity (TFP) improvements (dark green) reduce emissions; thus, they are shown as negative values.
Source: Calculations based on USDA (2025), International Agricultural Productivity (database), https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/international-agricultural-productivity; and OECD (2025) Agri-environmental indicators (database), https://www.oecd.org/en/data/dashboards/measuring-the-environmental-performance-of-agriculture.html.
The emissions intensity3 of Swiss agriculture has decreased over the past three decades, as GHG emissions from agriculture grew at a slower rate than the sector’s output in 2001-10 − or declined at a faster rate than output in 1991-2000 and 2011-22. Nonetheless, Switzerland performed worse than the EU and OECD averages in terms of reductions in emission intensity (Figure 5.5).
Evolution of changes in agricultural GHG emission intensity in Switzerland, the European Union and OECD, 1991‑2022
Note: Emission intensity measures the amount of greenhouse gases emitted per unit of output. Lower numbers show greater improvement.
Source: Calculations based on USDA (2025), International Agricultural Productivity (database), https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/international-agricultural-productivity; and OECD (2025) Agri-environmental indicators (database), https://www.oecd.org/en/data/dashboards/measuring-the-environmental-performance-of-agriculture.html.
Achieving better policies requires building a shared understanding of the facts, balancing diverging interests and resolving differences over values (OECD, 2021[3]). However, policymakers can expect to encounter frictions in these areas. To overcome these challenges and increase policy coherence, Swiss policymakers can use tools such as co-ordination and information sharing mechanisms, impact or performance assessments, and stakeholder engagement.
5.3.1. Co-ordination and advisory bodies
Multiple bodies exist to co-ordinate food systems policies across the federal government, but co-ordination challenges remain
Co-ordination within and among ministries can advance a food systems approach by bringing together different policymaking communities. Strong inter-institutional mechanisms should integrate relevant actors and engage them in strategy development. Such mechanisms facilitate the identification of potential synergies and trade-offs and offer the opportunity to discuss the best way to address them (UN Food Systems Coordination Hub, 2021[9]).
Switzerland does not have a dedicated food systems law or an integrated policy framework that simultaneously addresses the three dimensions of the “triple challenge”. In addition, as in most OECD countries, there is no single co-ordination body or mechanism that comprehensively covers food systems-related issues. Strategies are adopted by the Federal Council or the responsible federal office, with associated action plans developed for most strategies. Implementation relies on regular office budgets rather than a single dedicated, fully costed budget for the implementation of the national food systems pathway.
Different advisory and co-ordination bodies support the alignment of food systems policies (see also Section 2.1.2). The Consultative Committee for Agriculture brings together representatives from federal departments, cantons and key stakeholder organisations to discuss and provide advice to the Federal Government on agricultural policy. The AP30+ Accompanying Group, composed of representatives from federal and cantonal authorities as well as stakeholders from across the agro-food value chain, advises and provides guidance to the FOAG in the development of AP30+. Other food systems-relevant bodies include the Federal Commission for Nutrition, which issues recommendations to the Federal Council on nutrition policy, the Federal Commission for the Protection of Nature and Cultural Heritage, which advises the Federal Council on biodiversity and landscape, and the Interdepartmental Committee on the Climate and the One Health Steering Committee, composed of representatives from four federal offices (FSVO, FOEN, FOPH, FOAG) and other specialists to co-ordinate and manage this interdisciplinary and multisectoral co-operation. The 2030 Agenda Steering Committee is the strategic steering and co-ordination body for the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals at the federal level.
Still, co-ordination remains challenging. Stakeholders and administrative units from one policy domain are not always involved early or systematically in processes led by another. This can limit the early identification of synergies and trade-offs and reduce space for constructive dialogue. These challenges are more evident when policies are developed at different levels (e.g. a federal legislation and a department strategy). For instance, during the preparation of the 2024–2027 Nutrition Strategy, the publication of the revised nutrition pyramid received criticism from farmers, who felt under-represented in the process. Similarly, some offices from departments outside the lead department (FSVO) reported that their involvement came late or remained limited in scope.
5.3.2. Performance and impact evaluations
The use of impact assessment is well-established in Switzerland’s regulatory framework
Switzerland performs well when it comes to the use of regulatory impact assessments (Figure 5.6). All regulations must undergo a preliminary regulatory impact assessment (RIA). The greater the expected economic impact of a proposal, the more comprehensive the RIA should be (OECD, 2025[10]). By bringing together the best available scientific and technical information, RIAs can be useful to inform food systems policy decisions. These tools are increasingly used in OECD countries as a routine “screening” of proposed new laws and regulations (OECD, 2021[3]).
Regulatory impact assessment for developing primary laws, 2021-24
Note: * Most primary laws are initiated by the executive in the majority of OECD Members, except for Austria, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, France, Korea, Lithuania, Mexico and Portugal, where a higher share of primary laws is initiated by the legislature.
The more regulatory practices as advocated in the 2012 OECD Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Governance and Policy a country has implemented, the higher its iREG score. The indicator only covers practices in the executive. This figure therefore excludes Türkiye and the United States, where all primary laws are initiated by the legislature.
Source: OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (iREG) Survey 2021 and 2024.
Evaluations from previous interventions are a key input to food systems policy developments in Switzerland. As mandated by the Agricultural Act and a four-year plan, FOAG regularly evaluates its main policy instruments, with numerous policy evaluations available. The 2024-27 Nutrition Strategy (see Section 2.8) built on and incorporated the recommendations of the previous strategy, including to increase the synergies with environmental policies (FDHA, 2025[11]). The 2022-30 Food Loss and Waste (FLW) Action Plan includes an interim evaluation in 2025 to guide interventions during its second phase and a final evaluation in 2030-31 to guide policy developments after 2030 (see Section 3.5). Pilot projects are also used to test new policies. For example, the landscape quality payment scheme was tested through pilot projects prior to its full implementation.
In 2023, the FSVO published an evaluation of the 2017-24 Swiss Nutrition Strategy, as a key input for the development of the 2025-35 strategy. This evaluation added to a 2021 report of the Federal Council on strengthening youth and healthy eating through enhanced co-ordination and communication.
The evaluation concluded that the implementation of the strategy was adequate and coherent. However, it found that allocated resources were insufficient, stronger measures were missing and the links with sustainability were weak. Key recommendations focused on: (a) leveraging synergies with environmental and climate policies, (b) allocating more financial resources to the implementation of the strategy, and (c) developing specific communications for the different target groups.
Based on the recommendations of this evaluation, the 2025-32 Nutrition Strategy was published in mid-2025 with an action plan expected for 2026.
Numerous policy evaluations assess the effectiveness of the policy measures implemented under the AP14-17 and subsequently extended
As described in Chapter 2, the role given to agriculture by articles 104 and 104a of the Federal Constitution results in a broad set of goals for agricultural policy. The Federal Council monitors progress towards goals and has published reports that analyse the extent to which they have been met and identify the needs for further action, for example in the context of discussions on the AP package beyond 2022 and on future policy after 2030 (Federal Council, 2020[14]) (Federal Council, 2022[1]).
There is also a substantial body of literature evaluating the performance of various elements of Swiss agricultural policy. A recent review by Huber, El Benni and Finger (2023[4]) identified 33 relevant policy evaluations published between 2002 and 2023. The OECD last published a comprehensive review of Swiss agricultural policy in 2015 (OECD, 2015[15]); a subsequent study specifically examined the performance of the border protection system, as detailed in Section 2.5.2 (Gray et al., 2017[16]). Section 3.1.5 presents an overview of studies evaluating the performance of specific agri-environmental payments.
The Federal Council’s report “Message on the development of agricultural policy from 2022 onwards” tracked progress on 13 policy goals across six broad areas: economic, social, supply security, environment, cultural landscape, and animal welfare (Table 5.3). These goals were set in 2012 for the development of the AP14-17 and were further pursued in 2018-21 (Federal Council, 2020[14]).
The evaluation revealed a mixed overall performance. Some goals were on track, such as those related to supply security (calorie production), participation in animal welfare programmes, and the renewal of the sector’s capital stock. However, in many areas, the picture was more nuanced. For example, sectoral income increased, but with considerable disparities in distribution across farm types, regions, and activities. The average annual increase in labour productivity was also lower than expected.
Performance was also mixed regarding natural resources and the environment, where deficiencies were noted despite the achievement of some quantitative targets. For example, even though the goal of expanding ecological focus areas had been met, the desired level of biodiversity in agricultural land had not been achieved. Similarly, the nitrogen efficiency target was on track, but the reduction of nitrogen losses fell short; moreover, important gaps remained in the reduction of ammonia emissions and the improvement of phosphorus efficiency.
The evaluation also noted the need for significant efforts to reduce the loss of cultivated land and highlighted a major deficit in the international competitiveness of Swiss agriculture, which remains heavily supported and less market-oriented compared to the European Union.
Evaluation of the achievement of Swiss policy goals in the AP14-17 and AP18-21
Source: Adapted from (Federal Council, 2020[14]).
In their review of policy evaluation studies, Huber, El Benni and Finger (2023[4]) also find mixed outcomes. Regarding economic performance, they note increases in labour productivity, supported by structural changes and consistent re-investment in farm infrastructure. They also highlight the rise in farm incomes, linked to border protection, larger farm sizes, and direct payments − which, despite being targeted at promoting public goods, provide significant income transfers to farmers. On the other hand, the system creates significant economic inefficiencies: border protection raises consumer prices and limits choice, tariff rate quotas increase prices throughout the value chain, and the regulatory environment hinders optimal resource allocation. Overall, the authors find that production and income goals are met, but at the cost of low competitiveness and high inefficiencies.
On the environmental side, measures such as voluntary agri-environmental programmes and mandatory cross-compliance were found to have had positive impacts, such as more biodiversity areas, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and improved nutrient management. However, results are nuanced. The ecological quality of biodiversity areas remains insufficient to halt biodiversity decline. Beyond an initial reduction driven by the introduction of cross-compliance, efforts to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus surpluses have had limited success. Landscape maintenance payments helped stabilise the number of animals sent to summering pastures, but the evaluation of land abandonment targets is hindered by a lack of regular monitoring. An increased awareness of pesticide risks has prompted more policy focus towards this area; however, data limitations make it difficult to measure progress.
Regarding social sustainability, land-use regulations and policy instruments for investment support were found to be effective in enhancing farm economic viability and encouraging re-investment. These measures may have helped preserve small-scale family farms and prevent the dualistic development of farm structures observed in other countries, but many farms have remained unprofitable (see the income analysis in Section 1.1.3). While direct payments helped reduce farm income volatility, off-farm income remains essential for many households. Direct payments also contributed to increase family employment in farms; however, this additional work is often carried out by non-salaried female household members.
Dümmler and Roten (2018[17]) estimated the overall economic costs of Swiss agricultural policy at CHF 20 billion per year. This estimate includes direct costs from official budgetary expenditures by the federal and cantonal governments, and reduced revenues (e.g. from interest-free loans or tax refunds), which together amount to approximately CHF 5 billion. However, the largest share (CHF 15 billion) corresponds to indirect costs, including the cost of border protection (measured by the OECD’s market price support estimate), missed opportunities for Swiss exporters due to lack of free trade agreements, additional costs of importing food, and costs from environmental damage, among others. A recent quantification of the Swiss agro-food system’s “hidden costs” generated an estimate of CHF 32 billion as of 2020 (see also Section 2.8.1). This estimate includes direct and indirect costs, including productivity losses linked to unhealthy diets, as well as environmental costs such as biodiversity loss, GHG and nitrogen emissions. It also accounts for costs associated with imported goods. However, it does not account for economic costs related to policy measures such as subsidies, even though the study acknowledges that some of them may count as “hidden costs” (De Luca and Müller, 2025[18]).
Policy implementation is also linked to administrative burdens for farmers and the administration
The Federal Council’s policy evaluations also address the complexity of Swiss agricultural policy, and the administrative burden and costs associated with its implementation. As discussed in Chapter 2, the direct payment system is highly targeted, but also very complex, as is the operation of the border protection system. This complexity generates costs for both the administration and farmers. According to a FOAG estimation, the additional administrative tasks associated with the implementation of the AP2014‑17 had a cost of CHF 9 million for the federal administration, cantonal administrations and agricultural holdings (Federal Council, 2022[1]). In addition, Agroscope surveys indicate that the documentation requirements and the administrative burden for farm managers increased with the introduction of the AP14-17. For example, farmers responding to a 2019 survey indicated that their record-keeping obligations were particularly burdensome, as they are easily forgotten and difficult to integrate into their daily work routine (Federal Council, 2022[1]).
Some policy reforms took place after the 2015 OECD review of agricultural policies, but some of its recommendations were not fully implemented
The OECD Review of Agricultural Policies: Switzerland 2015 examined agricultural policies, focusing on support and border protection. It also looked at the environmental performance of agriculture and the determinants of competitiveness of the food industry (OECD, 2015[15]). This section briefly reviews relevant actions Switzerland has undertaken since 2015. It is important to note that the 2015 review used a different methodology than the one currently applied: the modern approach, based on the OECD Productivity, Sustainability and Resilience (PSR) framework, examines a broader set of topics and policy tools. Moreover, the global and local context have evolved significantly since 2015.
The 2015 review recommended reducing trade barriers, export subsidies, and direct payments, improving the regional differentiation of policies, strengthening mandatory agri-environmental regulations, and increasing incentives to produce high quality products at competitive prices (Table 5.4).
Recommendations of the 2015 OECD review
Source: OECD (2015[15]), OECD Review of Agricultural Policies: Switzerland 2015, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264168039-en.
In the area of trade policy and border protection, and in accordance with its international commitments at the World Trade Organization (WTO), Switzerland eliminated the remaining export subsidies on processed agricultural products as of January 2019. The number of free trade agreements concluded, which provide agro-food products with improved access to the Swiss market, also expanded with the conclusion (bilaterally or as part of EFTA) of 12 new agreements with partners across regions.4 As shown in Section 2.5.1, average tariffs on agricultural products declined between 2015 and 2024. However, these declines are estimated based on ad valorem equivalents of specific tariffs, which are influenced by price and exchange rate variations that complicate their comparison. In general, market price support remains Switzerland’s largest PSE category, representing 21% of gross farm receipts (GFR) in 2022-24, nearly unchanged from its average of 22% in 2013-15.
The share of potentially most distorting payment categories declined significantly until 2014, and the direct payment system underwent a major restructuring with the AP14-17. Switzerland increased the use of less distortionary forms of support, not directly linked to the price or production quantity of a specific commodity. In particular, Switzerland is at the forefront in the share of payments based on non-commodity criteria (such as environmental outputs), ranking highest amongst all countries covered by the OECD monitoring in 2022-24.
While much progress was made before 2015 to reform agricultural support and reduce potentially distortionary transfers, the system has remained largely unchanged since then. Moreover, the overall level of direct payments has not changed (recommendation 2), and direct government support continues to be crucial for farmers’ income. The level of Switzerland’s PSE was practically the same in 2022-24 as in 2013‑15, so the level of implicit transfers from taxpayers and consumers to producers has remained stable.
The recommendation of introducing a two-track system differentiating between (targeted) support and more freedom for competitive producers to respond to market signals was only partially implemented. On the one hand, direct payments are highly targeted, aligned with specific policy goals and often differentiated by production zone or product – even if this has had the downside of increasing complexity. On the other hand, less progress was made in allowing competitive producers more freedom to optimise their production and respond to market signals. Nevertheless, Switzerland has increased its support for enabling conditions for agriculture. For example, agricultural production base support, including funding for structural improvements and investments, was the only component of the 2026-29 agricultural budget that saw an increase from 2022-25. Moreover, Switzerland also invests significantly in general services that benefit the sector, with the second-highest share of GSSE expenditures in the OECD and the highest level of public spending to support the agricultural knowledge and innovation system (AKIS).
5.3.3. Stakeholder engagement
Alternative deliberative processes have emerged to complement Switzerland’s broad stakeholder engagement
Stakeholder engagement is well established in Switzerland’s regulatory framework. Stakeholders are systematically informed of upcoming consultations and may comment on all draft primary laws and major subordinate regulations through public online consultations lasting at least 12 weeks. Early-stage consultations are conducted for most regulations to discuss problem definition and policy options, but are not open to the general public (OECD, 2025[10]). Participation of stakeholders in post-policy evaluation or monitoring is less systematic and there is space for more structured involvement during these stages to ensure that the right questions are being asked (GAIN, 2026[19]).
Multiple consultations are foreseen in the context of the AP30+ policy process. The AP30+ Accompanying Group regularly meets to provide feedback on strategic orientations. The Accompanying Group has held six workshops between Q4 2023 and Q1 2026 (FOAG, n.d.[20]). Exchanges with cantons, private sector and ad hoc meetings with the Swiss Farmers’ Union also take place, as needed. A draft AP30+ proposal will be presented for consultation in Q3 2026 (FOAG, 2025[21]).
As part of the Swiss Federal Council’s 2030 Sustainable Development Strategy, and in the context of the “Food Future of Switzerland”, the Swiss government convened a citizens’ assembly to discuss “What should a food policy for Switzerland look like by 2030 that makes healthy, sustainable, animal-friendly and fairly produced food available to all?”.
The assembly gathered 100 participants, representative of Swiss society in terms of gender, age and urban-rural distribution, and met 11 times from June to November 2022. The work of the assembly concluded with 126 recommendations, which were presented on the occasion of the Swiss Food System Summit 2023. The Summit served to connect the work of the assembly with the work being done in parallel by a group of scientists who were working on the same problem.
Inputs from both the assembly and the scientific group will feed into the preparation of the Agricultural Policy 2030+ (AP30+).
Alternative deliberative processes have been used in recent years to feed into food systems policy processes. In the run-up of the AP30+ process, Switzerland convened a citizens’ assembly to ensure broad citizen engagement (Box 5.3). Similar exercises have also taken place at the cantonal and city levels (Table 5.5). While direct democracy instruments such as popular initiatives already enable Swiss citizens to actively participate in policy development, they remain limited to binary choices and therefore do not support deeper deliberation on complex issues. Alternative deliberative processes provide opportunities for in-depth discussions where differences in values around food and agriculture can be addressed. They may be useful in the Swiss context, where the future of agriculture is highly political and citizens hold diverse views towards food systems.
Using alternative deliberative processes with a focus on farmers could provide useful insights for policymakers. Farmers’ views on agricultural policy priorities are heterogeneous (see Section 5.1.1), and their behaviour with respect to environmental sustainability can be affected by social and personal norms (see Section 3.1.4). Stakeholder consultations are frequently used but are not always accessible to all stakeholders; they allow specific actors to voice their views but do not necessarily provide opportunities for participants to engage with one another, deliberate collectively, or work toward shared agreements. At the same time, the positions expressed by organised stakeholder groups (such as farmers’ associations) may not always capture the diverse realities and preferences of individual farmers, consumers, or citizens. Deliberative approaches could generate insights into farmers’ perceptions and motivations and into how individual decision making interacts with collective dynamics. Incorporating these perspectives into policy processes could enable more context-sensitive interventions.
A food systems approach means that policies should be coherent across the three dimensions of the triple challenge. Policy coherence occurs when various policies are aligned so that the efforts in one policy area reinforce – or at least do not undermine – efforts in another area (OECD, 2021[3]) (Parsons and Hawkes, 2019[28]).
The concept of food systems is an influential analytical framework among Swiss policymakers. Recent policy developments, notably the 2025-32 Swiss Nutrition Strategy and the Agriculture and Climate Strategy recognise the interactions between policy domains and the need for coherent action across the three dimensions. The AP30+ is expected to improve coherence with the objectives developed in these strategies (nutrition and environmental protection), following the food systems approach embedded into the long-term vision of the agricultural sector. This section explores food systems policy coherence by considering recent assessments and the views of stakeholders, Switzerland’s international efforts towards global food systems transformation and the broader long-term goals of agricultural policy.
5.4.1. Assessing food systems policy coherence
A recent policy coherence self-assessment highlights strengths and weaknesses of Swiss food systems policies
FOAG recently undertook a self-assessment of the coherence of Swiss food systems policies using the two modules of GAIN’s Policy Coherence Tool.5 Module 1 examines whether institutional structures and mechanisms are in place to support policy coherence, while Module 2 assesses the extent to which policies across different domains interact with selected food system goals. The exercise suggests that Switzerland’s policy framework is generally conducive to coherence across most domains (GAIN, 2026[19]). Recent policy developments, including the Climate and Agriculture Strategy, the 2024 Agricultural Policy package and the FLW Action Plan, are identified as important contributors to this result. Findings from this self-assessment should be interpreted with caution, as the tool is not context-specific and has primarily been applied in developing country settings; it focuses on the presence or absence of policies rather than their scale, budgetary weight or relative importance. Nevertheless, it can be a useful input to guide future policy developments.
Adaptation of GAIN’s Diagnosing Policy Coherence for Food Systems, Module 2
Note: Adapted from GAIN’s Policy Coherence Tool (external to the OECD), which is applied as a self-assessment. Results should be interpreted in light of the methodological limitations described in the report. Columns refer to policy areas while rows correspond to policy goals. Dark green corresponds to “Highly coherent”; light green to “Somewhat coherent”; yellow to “Neither coherent nor incoherent”; orange to “Somewhat incoherent”; red to “Highly incoherent”; and grey to “Not assessed”.
Source: GAIN (2026[19]), Diagnosing Policy Coherence for Food Systems: Results from Switzerland, https://www.gainhealth.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/switzerland-country-brief-v2.pdf.
Module 1 indicates that Switzerland has the overarching framework documents and political commitment to guide food systems transformation. It suggests that coherence could be further strengthened by greater stakeholder involvement in monitoring and reporting, as well as a more comprehensive investment plan. Results from Module 2 (Table 5.6) indicate that most policy areas are assessed as coherent with the selected food system objectives. The highest level of coherence is observed for FLW reduction, for which all policy domains are considered either highly or somewhat coherent. By contrast, coherence is lowest with respect to discouraging the consumption of unhealthy food. While health and environmental policies tend to support this objective, certain agricultural and industrial policies are less aligned. In particular, product-specific support measures, such as those for sugar beet and dairy production, are identified as potentially weakening alignment with lower-emissions diets and healthier consumption patterns (GAIN, 2026[19]).
Switzerland has set clear emission-reduction targets for the whole agro-food chain
Switzerland’s commitments to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions cover the whole agro-food value chain. While many OECD countries lack agriculture-specific reduction targets (OECD, 2023[29]), Switzerland’s second nationally determined contribution (NDC) sets clear targets for both agricultural emissions and the food sector’s emissions (per capita GHG footprint of food) (Table 5.7). These goals are part of the Agriculture and Food Climate Strategy 2050, which is an integral part of the NDC.
Indicative targets per sector
Note: GHG footprint of food corresponds to the consumption-based emissions over the whole life cycle of food. The baseline for comparing reductions is 1990 for agriculture and 2020 for per capita GHG emissions footprint of food.
Source: Swiss Confederation (2025[30]), 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.
A recent assessment suggests that food systems are well integrated into Switzerland’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC).6 The NDC demonstrates action at all stages of the food value chain, mentions the promotion of healthy and sustainable diets, and the policy process included a wide range of stakeholders (Foreman et al., 2025[31]). The assessment called for more attention to be given to three trends: increases of dairy production, consolidation of small farmers into larger ones, and increases in the poultry population (see also Section 1.1.2).
Some elements of agricultural policy appear the least aligned with broader food systems policies
While Switzerland’s policy vision and commitments cover sustainable and healthy consumption, the reduction of FLW, and the reduction of GHG emissions from production and consumption, there are elements of the current agricultural policy that appear at odds with these objectives. Table 5.8 highlights the most notable examples, as highlighted by stakeholders or identified through desk research. Chapter 2 provides a more detailed description of the different support (Section 2.2) and border protection (Section 2.5) measures applied to agriculture.
5.4.2. International engagement
Switzerland has committed to promoting the transition towards sustainable food systems both domestically and abroad. Various strategic documents, notably the 2050 vision of the agricultural sector, the Agriculture and Food Climate Strategy 2050 and the UNFSS Food Systems Pathway, evidence the commitment to support global food systems transformation. Key tools to this end include multilateral engagement, trade, and development co-operation.
The network of FTAs is seen as a vehicle to promote sustainable trade and development
Sustainable development is a key element of Switzerland’s approach to free trade agreements (FTAs), and sustainable agro-food systems are gaining increased prominence in it (see Section 2.5). This approach aims to ensure that the trade agreements that Switzerland signs promote environmental protection and social standards and enable sustainable growth not only domestically but also in the partner countries. FTAs signed by Switzerland include provisions on areas such as environmental protection, labour rights, and responsible business conduct.
Switzerland has been active in the context of the UN Food Systems Summit
Switzerland participated in the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) and has remained active in this international forum. Engagement by OECD countries has been high in relation to the different official and unofficial initiatives in the context of the UNFSS. Switzerland is among the OECD countries that has both presented a national pathway and participated in at least one UNFSS coalition (Figure 5.7). Switzerland has also enabled the implementation of the 3FS (Food Systems Financial Flows) tool developed by the World Bank and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) to analyse domestic and international financing of food systems in countries and their alignment with priority public policies. Switzerland actively supports the UNFSS follow-up process through its role as co-lead of the One Planet Network's Sustainable Food Systems Programme (Swiss Confederation, 2025[35]).
Note: *Besides OECD Members and accession candidate countries, the list also includes the European Union.
Source: UN Food Systems Coordination Hub (n.d.[36]), www.unfoodsystemshub.org.
Switzerland presented an initial UNFSS National Pathway in 2021 and updated it in 2025. The National Pathway provides an updated and comprehensive overview of the country’s food systems policy landscape, and the 2025 update includes a more systemic approach compared to the 2021 document, building on recent policy developments (Box 5.4). It is part of the vision of a more systemic and cross-sectoral AP30+ and considers the full value chain from production to consumption.
Switzerland’s second National Pathway for Food Systems Transformation is anchored in the Sustainable Development Strategy 2030 (SDS 2030). It brings together six federal framework documents: the SDS 2030, the Agriculture and Food Climate Strategy 2050, the Swiss Nutrition Strategy 2025‑2032, the Action Plan against Food Waste, the International Cooperation Strategy 2025‑2028, and the Federal Council’s Future Orientation report.
Compared to the initial 2021 Pathway – which comprised four measures – the updated 2025 Pathway consolidates a broader set of actions embedded in these strategic documents. It presents objectives and measures up to 2030 and 2050, with responsibilities assigned to competent federal offices.
The Pathway reflects an orientation towards a more systemic and cross-sectoral approach to agricultural and food policy beyond 2030 and represents an effort to align key strategies and action plans in the different domains relevant to food systems.
Cantons and communes, business, civil society and academia were consulted at different stages of the revision process and are involved in implementation, as needed.
Source: (Swiss Confederation, 2025[35]).
International development co-operation is another channel through which Switzerland supports the transformation of global food systems
The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) plays a significant role in promoting international co-operation on sustainable agriculture and food systems. The International Cooperation Strategy 2025‑2028 combines short-term humanitarian food and nutrition assistance with longer-term support to strengthen the resilience of smallholder farming, address structural drivers of malnutrition, and promote sustainable, inclusive and climate-resilient food systems (Swiss Confederation, 2025[35]). This engagement spans bilateral and multilateral partnerships, research and advisory services, capacity building, policy dialogue and support to private sector development. In 2020-23, the SDC made financial contributions targeting agriculture and food systems for over CHF 350 million per year (SDC, 2024[37]).7
Switzerland integrates the One Health8 approach across its domestic and international policies, recognising the interlinkages between animal, human, plant, and environmental health. At the federal level, FOAG, FSVO, FOPH and FOEN co-ordinate the implementation of this approach, focusing on food safety, antimicrobial resistance, zoonotic disease surveillance and ecosystem protection (Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office, 2025[38]). Internationally, Switzerland promotes a One Health approach through research co-operation, development assistance and participation in multilateral frameworks, contributing to global resilience and sustainable food systems that protect both human health and the environment.
5.4.3. The Swiss food system towards 2030 and beyond
Meeting the 2050 goals will require further action and alignment of current policies with the increased ambition
As highlighted in the previous section, several elements of the current agricultural policy seem in contradiction with the increased ambition of the food systems vision. It is worth highlighting that the policies currently in place mainly reflect the previous AP 14-17 package, even though some elements initially foreseen in the suspended AP22+ have been adopted. This has led to agriculture and food policies that do not yet fully reflect the vision of the Future Orientation report. Moreover, more recent food systems strategies such as the Agriculture and Food Climate Strategy and the Nutrition Strategy were adopted after publication of the Future Orientation report and will need to be more fully integrated into the development of future policies for the Swiss food system.
An assessment of the extent to which the current situation deviates from the 2050 targets found gaps in several areas (Table 5.9), particularly value creation and labour productivity, GHG emissions from production, and nutrient losses. A high deviation from the desired status was also found in all consumption-related aspects: healthy diets, GHG emissions, and food loss and waste. Consequently, these domains were identified as having a high need for action. Two further areas – the contribution of production to ensure food supply and the maintenance of the production base – were flagged as requiring significant action, despite being closer to their respective targets (Federal Council, 2022[1]).
Analysis of the need for action in key areas of the future vision
Source: Federal Council (2022[1]), https://www.newsd.admin.ch/newsd/message/attachments/72188.pdf.
The Federal Council will prepare an interim assessment of the progress in achieving these targets as of 2025. The interim report will help evaluate the need for action and adjust the level of ambition of the future policy. Concrete proposals for the AP30+ will be developed in 2026 for submission to Parliament in 2027.
Administrative simplification is another key element of the future agricultural policy
The Future Orientation report acknowledges that both the number and the complexity of agricultural policy instruments have increased over time and recognises the need to simplify the instruments and their associated processes and procedures. This aspect was also highlighted by the Conference of Cantonal Directors of Agriculture, which calls for administrative simplification and the promotion of more personal responsibility and initiative for all actors in the value chain in the AP 2030+ (LDK/CDCA, 2025[39]).
In the report, the Federal Council identifies several potential actions to simplify different elements of agricultural policy. The options discussed include:
consolidating differentiated direct payment programmes into programmes applicable to the whole farm (similar to organic conversion) or to specific activities of the farm
introducing individual strict requirements in the Proof of Ecological Performance cross-compliance certificate or incentive taxes instead of a multitude of voluntary individual measures
a stronger focus on results-based payments, or even the replacement of certain permanent direct payments with one-off payments for structural improvements
promoting greater commitment and more self-responsibility from sectors to achieve environmental goals such as climate targets
simplifying the border protection instruments and their enforcement
removing certain market support measures that are not geared towards overarching agricultural policy objectives or that provide relatively small funding. These measures could be implemented under the sector’s own responsibility.
For this, it is planned to develop a methodological framework to review and simplify agricultural policy instruments. In addition, the programme of work of Agroscope for 2022-25 contemplates modelling and scientific analyses of the trade-offs and synergies between various measures (Federal Council, 2022[1]).
Switzerland’s long‑term food system vision has expanded towards a comprehensive approach and a broadened agenda that covers environmental impacts from consumption, food loss and waste, and healthy diets alongside traditional goals such as supply security, climate and environmental impacts from production, and rural livelihoods. At the same time, this broader vision inevitably introduces tensions and trade-offs that policymakers must manage with care. Addressing the “triple challenge” of food systems involves navigating frictions rooted in divergent interpretations of facts, competing interests, and differences in values. These dynamics are especially visible in Switzerland, where direct democracy gives citizens a strong voice in shaping policy and different groups prioritise goals differently despite shared broad values. The challenge is to bring these diverse voices together into consistent policy.
Sustainable productivity growth is essential for advancing food systems outcomes. Benchmarking of Switzerland’s performance shows steady but modest productivity gains. Efficiency improvements have not been sufficient to sustain output growth, and total factor productivity growth remains below that of many OECD peers. While agricultural GHG emissions have declined since 1990, recent reductions are largely linked to lower production, indicating that Switzerland has not decoupled GHG emissions from output. Moreover, the emission intensity of agricultural production has improved more slowly than in the EU or OECD average. These trends underline the need to strengthen innovation and accelerate sustainable productivity growth.
Regulatory management tools such as co-ordination and information-sharing mechanisms, regulatory impact assessment, and stakeholder engagement support the development of more coherent food systems policies. Switzerland has well‑established co‑ordination and advisory mechanisms that provide a solid base, but gaps persist in ensuring early and systematic involvement across departments and levels of government. Regulatory impact assessments and policy evaluations, both widely used in Switzerland, also play a vital role in informing decisions and improving policy design.
Specifically for agricultural policy, numerous official and academic performance evaluations of the AP14‑17 and its subsequent extension reveal mixed performance across economic, environmental, and social objectives. Several goals were met or on track; notably, those related to production, capital renewal, participation in animal welfare programmes, and the expansion of ecological focus areas. However, others fell short, including labour productivity, nutrient efficiency, ammonia emissions, and the ecological quality of biodiversity areas. Overall agricultural income rose, but with persistent disparities. Across the literature, a common conclusion is that income and production objectives were achieved at the expense of competitiveness, policy‑driven inefficiencies, and high economic costs, while administrative complexity increased for both farmers and public authorities.
Switzerland has a longstanding tradition of broad stakeholder engagement. Regulatory processes are systematically informed by public consultations and early-stage dialogues. The AP30+ process, for example, has involved consultation rounds and regular exchanges with a wide range of actors. A citizens’ assembly held in 2022 also contributed to ongoing food systems policy discussions. Further strengthening and refining the use of these tools could enhance coherence and mutual learning. Traditional stakeholder engagement could be complemented by insights from deliberative processes, which can bring in perspectives from actors not fully represented by organised stakeholder groups and support more nuanced policy design as well as stronger ownership of outcomes.
Since 2015, Switzerland has taken steps aligned with earlier OECD recommendations. Reforms included eliminating export subsidies, expanding its network of free trade agreements, and shifting support toward less‑distortive payments. However, several core aspects of the recommended reform agenda were only partially addressed: border protection and overall support levels have changed little, and competitive producers still face limited flexibility to respond to market signals. At the same time, Switzerland continues to invest heavily in enabling conditions, such as structural improvements, general services, and agricultural innovation.
The shift towards a food systems approach has strengthened recognition of interactions across policy domains and drawn greater attention to coherence among agricultural, environmental, climate and nutrition policies. Progress is visible in areas such as food loss and waste reduction and the integration of food systems considerations into climate policy. Yet notable incoherences persist: measures that support the production of sugar and of animal products, make fruits and vegetables more expensive to consumers, or provide tax advantages for fossil fuels can work against ambitions to promote healthier diets, reduce environmental impacts, or lower consumption‑based emissions. These tensions show that parts of the agricultural policy framework continue to create incentives misaligned with broader food system goals.
Internationally, Switzerland contributes actively to global food systems transformation through trade policy, multilateral engagement, and development co‑operation. Its updated UNFSS National Pathway, the emphasis on sustainability within free trade agreements, and the work of the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation illustrate efforts to align domestic and international commitments.
Looking to 2030 and beyond, the expanded ambition of the Future Orientation of Agricultural Policy stands in contrast with persistent gaps with current performance, pointing to a significant need for action. The AP30+ presents an opportunity to better align agricultural support with nutrition and environmental objectives, simplify policy instruments, and integrate the latest strategic frameworks into a coherent long‑term approach, all of which will be central to ensure that Switzerland’s food system evolves coherently toward its 2050 ambitions.
References
[24] Bürgerrat (2025), Swiss citizens’ assembly wants sugar tax, https://www.buergerrat.de/en/news/swiss-citizens-assembly-wants-sugar-tax/.
[2] Bürgi Bonanomi, E. (2025), “Kommentierung von Art. 104 und Art. 104a der Schweizer Bundesverfassung („Agrarverfassung“)”, in Waldmann, B., E. Belser and A. Epiney (eds.), Bundesverfassung, Helbing Lichtenhahn Verlag.
[23] Citizens’ Democracy (n.d.), Citizens’ assemblies - In Switzerland, https://citizens-democracy.ch/examples/ (accessed on 19 March 2024).
[18] De Luca, K. and A. Müller (2025), Hidden costs of the Swiss Agrifood System - Case study for the State of Food and Agriculture Report of the FAO - SOFA 2024, FiBL, https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/55465/1/deLuca-mueller-2025-TCA_SwissCaseStudy_SOFA2024_BackgroundPaper_Final_5_3_2025.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2025).
[25] Demoscan (2021), Uster’s Citizen’s Panel (automatic translation), https://demoscan.ch/buergerpanel-uster/ (accessed on 3 March 2026).
[17] Dümmler, P. and N. Roten (2018), Eine Agrarpolitik mit Zukunft – Eine Zehn-PunkteStrategie für Konsumenten, Steuerzahler und landwirtschaftliche Unternehmer, https://cdn.avenir-suisse.ch/production/uploads/2018/09/2018_avenir_debatte_agrarpolitik_mit_zukunft.pdf (accessed on 27 October 2025).
[7] El Benni, N. et al. (2025), “Aligning agricultural policy: discrepancies between public and farmer priorities”, Agricultural and Food Economics, Vol. 13/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-025-00402-5.
[6] El Benni, N. et al. (2024), “Citizens’ perceptions of agricultural policy goals—evidence from Switzerland”, Food Policy, Vol. 125, p. 102643, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2024.102643.
[11] FDHA (2025), Swiss Nutrition Strategy 2025-2032, https://www.blv.admin.ch/blv/en/home/das-blv/strategien/schweizer-ernaehrungsstrategie.html (accessed on 1 September 2025).
[13] Federal Council (2023), Jugend und gesunde Ernährung durch verstärkte Koordination und Kommunikation stärken - Bericht des Bundesrats in Erfüllung des Postulats 21.3005 der Kommission für Wissenschaft, Bildung und Kultur des Nationalrats (WBK-NR) vom 21. Januar 2021, https://www.blv.admin.ch/dam/blv/de/dokumente/das-blv/strategien/postulatsbericht-jugend-und-ernaehrung.pdf.download.pdf/Postulatsbericht_Jugend%20und%20Ern%C3%A4hrung_21.3005_DE.pdf.
[1] 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).
[14] Federal Council (2020), Botschaft zur Weiterentwicklung der Agrarpolitik ab 2022 (AP22+), https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/fga/2020/881/de.
[38] Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (2025), One Health, https://www.blv.admin.ch/blv/en/home/das-blv/auftrag/one-health.html (accessed on 4 March 2026).
[21] FOAG (2025), Agricultural Policy 2030+, https://www.blw.admin.ch/en/agricultural-policy-2030 (accessed on 2 March 2026).
[5] FOAG (2023), Agrarbericht 2022 - Schweizer Land- und Ernährungswirtschaft aus Sicht der Gesellschaft, https://2022.agrarbericht.ch/de/mensch/gesellschaft/https-agrarbericht-2022-cmsbox-com-de-mensch-gesellschaft-schweizer-land-und-ernaehrungswirtschaft-aus-sicht-der-gesellschaft (accessed on 23 September 2025).
[20] FOAG (n.d.), Slides “PA30+ : future politique en faveur d’une agriculture et d’un secteur agroalimentaire durables”, https://www.blw.admin.ch/dam/fr/sd-web/ST9Tj2hmOs9i/PA30%2B%20future%20politique%20en%20faveur%20d’une%20agriculture%20et%20d’un%20secteur%20agroalimentaire%20durables%20(transparents).pdf (accessed on 2 March 2026).
[31] Foreman, A. et al. (2025), Food Systems NDC Scorecard: Switzerland Assessment, Food Systems NDC Scorecard, https://cdn.foodsystemsndcscorecard.org/media/sites/641/2025/09/NDC_Scorecard_Switzerland_Assessment_Sept19.pdf (accessed on 27 February 2026).
[19] GAIN (2026), Diagnosing Policy Coherence for Food Systems: Results from Switzerland, Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), https://www.gainhealth.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/switzerland-country-brief-v2.pdf (accessed on 2 March 2026).
[16] Gray, E. et al. (2017), “Evaluation of the relevance of border protection for agriculture in Switzerland”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 109, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6e3dc493-en.
[12] Hammer, S. et al. (2023), Evaluation der Schweizer Ernährungsstrategie 2017‒2024, Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office, https://www.aramis.admin.ch/Texte/?ProjectID=55296.
[8] Henderson, B. and J. Lankoski (2023), “Integrated approaches for agricultural sustainability and productivity assessments”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 204, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/60cfa586-en.
[4] Huber, R., N. El Benni and R. Finger (2023), “Lessons learned and policy implications from 20 years of Swiss agricultural policy reforms: A review of policy evaluations”, Bio-based and Applied Economics, Vol. 13/2, pp. 121-146, https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-14214.
[32] Keller, B. et al. (2024), “Swiss agriculture can become more sustainable and self-sufficient by shifting from forage to grain legume production”, Communications Earth & Environment, Vol. 5/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01139-z.
[39] LDK/CDCA (2025), Die LDK fordert bei der AP 2030+ weniger Bürokratie (press release), https://www.ldk-cdca.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Dateien_LDK/Dateien_Medienmitteilungen/MM_LDK_Arbeitstagung_27.06.2025.pdf.
[33] Müller, A. et al. (2025), “Wege zu einer markanten Erhöhung des Selbst versorgungsgrades bei weniger Umweltbelastung”, Agrarforschung Schweiz, Vol. 16, pp. 212-224, https://doi.org/10.34776/afs16-212.
[26] Municipalité d’Yverdon-les-Bains (n.d.), Plan climat, https://www.yverdon-les-bains.ch/durabilite-energies-economie/plan-climat (accessed on 3 March 2026).
[10] OECD (2025), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/56b60e39-en.
[34] OECD (2024), OECD Economic Surveys: Switzerland 2024, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/070d119b-en.
[29] OECD (2023), Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2023: Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b14de474-en.
[3] OECD (2021), Making Better Policies for Food Systems, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ddfba4de-en.
[15] OECD (2015), OECD Review of Agricultural Policies: Switzerland 2015, OECD Review of Agricultural Policies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264168039-en.
[28] Parsons, K. and C. Hawkes (2019), “Brief 5: policy coherence in food systems”, in Rethinking Food Policy: A Fresh Approach to Policy and Practice, https://symposium.bayes.citystgeorges.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/504621/7643_Brief-5_Policy_coherence_in_food_systems_2021_SP_AW.pdf.
[27] Scharrer, B. and L. Kubioka (2025), Livre blanc sur les politiques alimentaires urbaines : stratégies, champs d’action et exemples de bonnes pratiques de neuf villes suisses, Centre for Development and Environment (CDE) & Bern Open Publishing (BOP), https://boris-portal.unibe.ch/entities/publication/dca88450-06ad-4209-804a-ec481c814175/full (accessed on 26 June 2025).
[37] SDC (2024), A Food Systems Approach at SDC Financial Figures & Highlights 2020-2023, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, https://www.sdc-foodsystems.ch/dam/en/sd-web/DmMQdOg95m3j/AFS-Portfolio-Analysis-SDC-2024-EN.pdf.
[22] Sustainable Development Solutions Network (2023), Swiss Food System Summit Indicates Paradigm Shift, https://www.unsdsn.org/swiss-food-system-summit-indicates-paradigm-shift (accessed on 19 March 2024).
[30] 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).
[35] Swiss Confederation (2025), Switzerland’s National Pathway for Food Systems Transformation in Support of the 2030 Agenda, https://www.unfoodsystemshub.org/docs/unfoodsystemslibraries/national-pathways/norway/2025-07-14-national-pathway-switzerland-en.pdf?sfvrsn=22008004_5 (accessed on 1 October 2025).
[40] Swiss Parliament (n.d.), Postulat, https://www.parlament.ch/de/%C3%BCber-das-parlament/parlamentsportraet/beratungsgegenstaende-und-parlamentarische-verfahren/parlamentarische-initiativen-standesinitiativen-vorstoesse/postulat (accessed on 23 September 2025).
[9] UN Food Systems Coordination Hub (2021), Policy Brief - Governance of Food Systems Transformation, https://www.unfoodsystemshub.org/docs/unfoodsystemslibraries/fss-community/chapter-2/policybrief_governanceunfss.pdf?sfvrsn=edae3afc_1 (accessed on 1 March 2024).
[36] UN Food Systems Coordination Hub (n.d.), UN Food Systems Coordination Hub Website, http://www.unfoodsystemshub.org (accessed on 18 February 2026).
[41] World Health Organization (2026), One Health, https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/one-health.
← 1. A postulate instructs the Federal Council to examine and report on whether a draft bill should be submitted, or a measure taken. It may be submitted by a member of parliament, a parliamentary group or a majority of a committee (Swiss Parliament, n.d.[40]).
← 2. Decoupling occurs when the growth rate of an environmental pressure is less than that of its economic driving force over a given period. Absolute decoupling is said to occur when the environmentally relevant variable is stable or decreasing while the economic driving force is growing. Decoupling is said to be relative when the growth rate of the environmentally relevant variable is positive, but less than the growth rate of the economic variable.
← 3. “Emission intensity” measures the amount of greenhouse gases emitted (E) per unit of output (Y). It is calculated as the ratio between total GHG emissions generated in agriculture and the value of total agricultural output: EI = E / Y. The growth rate in emission intensity is, therefore, the difference between the growth rates of total emissions and of production. Whenever total GHG emissions grow at a slower rate than output, the emission intensity of output decreases, i.e. its growth rate is negative.
← 4. The following agreements entered into force at or after 1 January 2015: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Georgia, United Kingdom, Moldova, Philippines, Ecuador, Thailand, Indonesia, and India. The following agreements have been signed and are in the ratification process: Kosovo, Malaysia, and MERCOSUR.
← 5. The Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) is a foundation launched at the United Nations in 2002 to tackle the human suffering caused by malnutrition. The toolkit to diagnose food systems policy coherence and the country reports are available at https://www.gainhealth.org/policy-coherence-toolkit.
← 6. The scorecard assesses food system integration in a country’s NDC across four areas: (1) Scope of Food Systems Coverage, (2) Context-Specific Action, (3) Promotion of Synergies and Avoidance of Maladaptation, and (4) Equity and Inclusiveness in NDC Development. The assessment is part of the Food Systems NDC Scorecard, a tool developed by several non-profit organisations. Switzerland obtained a score of 11 out of 12 possible points (Foreman et al., 2025[31]).
← 7. Of this amount, 14% corresponded to multilateral contributions (mainly core contributions to CGIAR, IFAD, UNCCD, etc.) and the rest to bilateral contributions.
← 8. One Health is an approach to optimise the health of humans, animals and ecosystems by integrating these fields, rather than keeping them separate (World Health Organization, 2026[41]).