Switzerland’s agro-food policy is grounded in a constitutional mandate that assigns multiple objectives to agriculture. This framework is further supported by long-term national strategies addressing sustainability, climate, nutrition, and competitiveness, as well as a policy commitment to a holistic, value-chain-wide approach. This chapter presents the institutional and policy framework governing the Swiss food system. It examines the evolution of agricultural policy and of policies in relevant areas, including regional and rural development, agricultural land, food safety, social inclusion, risk management, international trade, and market regulation and competition. The chapter also evaluates and benchmarks government support to agriculture using the OECD methodology. Finally, it reviews demand-side policies aimed at promoting healthier and more sustainable dietary choices.
Policies for the Future of Farming and Food in Switzerland
Abstract
Switzerland’s agro‑food policy is anchored in a constitutional mandate that assigns multiple economic, environmental and social objectives to agriculture. This framework is reinforced by long‑term national strategies on sustainability, climate, nutrition, and competitiveness. The policy vision towards 2050 calls for agricultural policy to follow a holistic approach that encompasses all actors in the value chain.
The design of agricultural policy is mainly centralised, while implementation follows the principle of subsidiarity and is delegated to the cantons. Food systems policies are spread across several federal offices, which regularly exchange information and carry out joint projects. A wide range of stakeholders participate in policy discussions on agro-food policies.
Agricultural policy has evolved since the early 1990s in response to changing societal expectations and international commitments. Reforms reduced protection from global markets and modernised policy instruments, shifting support towards decoupled direct payments and integrating sustainability objectives through mandatory cross‑compliance and voluntary payments. Although overall support fell sharply over time, it remains high by international standards, with market price support still keeping producer prices well above global levels.
At the same time, public spending on general services has increased and is among the highest in the OECD, and support for agricultural knowledge, innovation, and advisory systems is particularly strong.
Federal agricultural expenditure has remained broadly stable since 2014. Over three-quarters of the budget is allocated to direct payments. The direct payment system is complex, aiming simultaneously to support food production, environmental outcomes, and the maintenance of rural landscapes. Additional programmes support production and marketing, especially in dairy.
Agricultural risk management includes financial relief instruments such as interest-free hardship loans and prevention tools such as an animal traceability system. A recent policy reform introduced subsidised insurance premiums for crop insurance against drought and frost.
Trade policy combines strong participation in international agreements with high protection for agro‑food products. A complex system of border measures helps sustain domestic producer prices and support agricultural income by limiting market access.
Switzerland maintains compulsory stockpiling of key foodstuffs and agricultural inputs to safeguard supply in case of severe disruptions. Stocks are managed in a decentralised manner by the private sector, improving efficiency. However, the system’s financing through import levies contributes to increase border protection.
Agro‑food markets operate within a regulatory framework broadly aligned with the OECD, but high border protection and market concentration affect competition. Consumer associations and farmers have made calls for increased transparency in prices and margins.
Food consumption patterns remain a source of health and environmental pressure despite relatively good overall performance in health indicators. Policy responses rely mainly on providing information, voluntary measures, and evidence‑building, which may need to be complemented by stronger interventions to achieve lasting change.
Food systems cover all the elements and activities related to producing and consuming food, as well as their effects, including economic, health, and environmental outcomes. They are expected to deliver on a formidable “triple challenge”: they need to ensure food security and nutrition for all; they are central to livelihoods of farmers and others along the agro-food chain; and they are called to do both, while reducing the impacts they exert on the environment, upon which they depend (OECD, 2021[1]).
Swiss food systems are shaped by many different policies. This chapter provides a detailed analysis of Swiss agricultural policies (Section 2.2), while covering a broader set of policy areas influencing food systems. Section 2.3. looks into selected topics related to regional and rural development policies, land use regulations, taxation, social inclusion measures, and food safety. Section 2.4 reviews agricultural risk management, while Section 2.5 analyses trade policies. Section 2.6 reviews Swiss agricultural support policies according to the OECD framework for evaluating government support to agriculture. Competition in the agri-food supply chain is assessed in Section 2.7. The chapter also analyses demand-side policies to encourage healthier and more sustainable food choices (Section 2.8).
2.1.1. Strategic vision and priorities for agriculture and food
The Federal Constitution sets out multiple objectives for the sector
Despite its small share in the economy, agriculture has a high societal value in Switzerland. The sector is expected to contribute towards numerous policy goals, and its “multifunctional” role is enshrined in the Federal Constitution.1 The objectives for the sector are to secure food for the population; preserve natural resources and maintain the cultural landscape; and contribute to the decentralised population settlement. A more recent constitutional reform reinforced the sector’s role for food security and included broader food systems objectives (Box 2.1). The Constitution grants the Confederation the responsibility and power to ensure that agriculture delivers on these objectives.
The Federal Constitution (SR 101) is the primary law of the Confederation, taking precedence over all other federal, cantonal and communal laws and ordinances. Unlike in other countries, the Swiss constitution is regularly amended through popular initiatives.
The role of agriculture is spelled out in Articles 104 (Agriculture) and 104a (Food Security). Article 104 in its current form was introduced in a context of broad change in Swiss agricultural policy partly driven by international agreements and adopted by the people and the cantons in 1996 (Bürgi Bonanomi, 2025[2]). It states that the Confederation shall ensure that agriculture contributes to securing the reliable foodstuff supply for the population; preserving natural resources and maintaining the cultural landscape; and to the decentralised population settlement. This is to be done by means of a sustainable and market-oriented production policy. The Confederation “shall organize measures in such a way that agriculture fulfils its multifunctional tasks”, and it has powers and responsibilities to:
a) Supplement farmers' income through direct payments, subject to ecological performance proof.
b) Provide economic incentives to production methods that are particularly close to nature, environmentally friendly, and animal friendly.
c) Regulate the declaration of origin, quality, production, and processing methods for food.
d) Protect the environment from damage caused by the excessive use of fertilisers, chemicals, and other auxiliary materials.
e) Promote agricultural research, extension services, training, and provide investment assistance.
f) Issue regulations to consolidate agricultural land ownership.
Article 104 further provides for the use of earmarked funds from the agricultural sector and general federal funds for this purpose.
The 2017 adoption of Article 104a followed a wide discussion around several popular initiatives on food. The article strengthens the food security role of agriculture and introduces broader elements, addressing food supply in general and not only the contribution of domestic agriculture (Bürgi Bonanomi, 2025[2]). To ensure the supply of food to the population, it directs the Confederation to create the conditions for:
a) Securing the foundations of agricultural production, particularly cultivated land.
b) Site-adapted and resource-efficient food production.
c) A market-oriented agricultural and food industry.
d) Cross-border trade relations that contribute to the sustainable development of the agricultural and food industry.
e) The resource-efficient use of food.
Article 104a thus reinforces the Confederation’s obligation to safeguard the basis for agricultural production, acknowledging the role of functioning markets and cross-border trade in securing food availability. Literal e) on the resource-efficient use of food also grants the Confederation the authority and responsibility to combat food waste (Bürgi Bonanomi, 2025[2]).
Other constitutional provisions addressing relevant food systems elements include articles 41 (Social Objectives), 74 (Protection of the Environment), 75 (Spatial Planning), 76 (Water), 102 (National Economic Supply), and 118 (Health Protection).
Switzerland has also outlined its national vision for sustainable agriculture and food systems through various strategies. They include the Food Chain Strategy (adopted in 2015 and updated in 2023), which seeks to ensure safety along the entire food chain and determine the responsibilities and functions of players at the federal and cantonal level; the Agriculture and Food Climate Strategy 2050 (adopted in 2023), which aims to reduce emissions and adapt the food system to climate change, and the Swiss Nutrition Strategy 2025-2032 (adopted in 2025), which outlines goals to promote healthy and sustainable diets. The Federal Council's Sustainable Development Strategy 2030 (SDS 2030), adopted in 2021, sets the overarching framework for implementing the 2030 Agenda and includes specific goals on healthy diets, food loss reduction, carbon footprint mitigation, and sustainable farming.
Another key document is the Federal Council’s Report on the Future Orientation of Agriculture Policy (the Future Orientation report), published in 2022. This report responds to a request from Parliament following the 2021 suspension of discussions on the development of agricultural policy from 2022 (AP22+). It forms the basis of the discussions for the Swiss agricultural policy beyond 2030 (AP30+) and proposes a long-term strategy for Swiss agriculture and food systems towards 2050. Based on this vision, agricultural policy shall follow a holistic approach, encompassing all actors in the value chain, and be coherent with the Swiss Nutrition Strategy. The report also promotes strengthening trade relations in favour of sustainable development, and an increasingly self-responsible commitment of the industries. It outlines four strategic lines that address the areas with the greatest need for action:
Ensuring a resilient food supply by preserving the production basis, anticipating the effects of climate change, and ensuring the stability of supply chains.
Encouraging food production that is respectful of the climate, environment, and animals, by strengthening climate protection and renewable energies, reducing nutrient losses and risks from plant protection products, promoting biodiversity, and improving animal welfare and health.
Strengthening sustainable value creation by improving competitiveness, anticipating demand changes, striving for a fair distribution of value added, and reducing the complexity of agricultural policy.
Promoting sustainable and healthy consumption, by making it easier to choose sustainable products, supporting healthy eating habits, and reducing food waste.
It is important to note that the Future Orientation report − published in June 2022 – was developed prior to the release of other key strategic frameworks, namely the Agriculture and Food Climate Strategy, the Nutrition Strategy and the updated Food Chain Strategy. This underscores the importance of ensuring coherence between existing policies and the evolving strategic orientations to support greater policy consistency across the food system.
2.1.2. Institutional framework for the governance of the food system
The federal government often interacts with cantonal authorities on agricultural and food policy matters
The central authority of the agricultural sector is the Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG), in charge of developing agricultural policy in collaboration with cantonal authorities and stakeholders, and of ensuring that the decisions of the people, parliament, and government are implemented. Its competences include managing direct payments to farmers, fostering rural development, promoting sustainable and resilient production systems, participating in relevant international organisations, and overseeing agricultural research and innovation through its affiliate centre for agricultural research Agroscope (see also Section 4.2 for an overview of actors in the innovation system). FOAG also manages data systems such as the Agricultural Policy Information System (AGIS/SIPA), the hub that aggregates direct payments and other agricultural data collected by the cantons. The agency in charge of official statistics, including for the agricultural sector, is the Federal Statistical Office (FSO).
General environmental policy is in the hands of the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), which is responsible for ensuring the sustainable use of natural resources, safeguarding the environment and human health from excessive pollution, ensuring the preservation of biodiversity and landscape quality, and for overseeing international environmental policy commitments. The FOEN is also in charge of policies related to food loss and waste (see also Section 3.5). It works together with the cantons, which are responsible for the enforcement of environmental protection.
The Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (FSVO) has competences in the areas of food safety and nutrition, animal health, and animal welfare. It is also responsible for the approval and review of plant protection products and for the development and implementation of the Swiss Nutrition Strategy. Responsibilities related to food safety are shared amongst several federal and cantonal agencies (see Section 2.3.5 below).
The Federal Office for Spatial Development (ARE), in charge of spatial development, mobility policy and sustainable development, also plays a role in rural development policies. ARE is responsible for legal supervision in spatial planning together with the cantons. The ARE and the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO), have been tasked with implementing the Action Plan for the Implementation of the Agglomeration Policy and the Policy for Rural and Mountain Areas 2024-31, which seeks to promote a coherent spatial development strategy.
Other federal institutions with competences relevant to the agriculture and food sectors include the Federal Consumer Affairs Bureau (FCAB), the Federal Consumer Commission (CFC), the Competition Commission (COMCO), and the Federal Office for National Economic Supply (FONES), in charge of ensuring the country's supply of essential goods. For products crossing borders, the Federal Office for Customs and Border Security (FOCBS) shares responsibilities in co-ordination with other relevant authorities. The Swiss Federal Audit Office (SFAO) oversees the federal finances, conducting independent audits of government spending, programmes and bodies, and of recipients of federal subsidies.
Federal offices regularly exchange information and carry out joint projects to address cross-sectoral issues, for example at the intersection of agriculture, tourism and regional development (see Section 2.3.1). The aforementioned agencies fall under the oversight of four different Federal Departments:
COMCO, FCAB, FOAG, FONES, and SECO under the Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education and Research (EAER).
ARE and FOEN under the Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications (DETEC).
FSVO and FSO under the Federal Department of Home Affairs (FDHA).
FOCBS and SFAO under the Federal Department of Finance (FDF).
Agricultural policy is relatively centralised, but cantons have their own laws and flexibility to implement additional measures
Agricultural policy is designed at the federal level and thus considered an area of low subsidiarity (Huber, El Benni and Finger, 2023[3]). Cantons are responsible for the implementation of federal policy and may implement supplementary regional measures. Most cantons have their own agricultural laws. In addition, they usually provide direct agricultural advisory services to farmers. For performing these tasks, the 26 cantons have agricultural offices. Their co-ordination is supported by the Conference of Cantonal Agriculture Departments (KOLAS/COSAC) which promotes the exchange of information and experiences amongst cantons and is the federal government's contact point for questions relating to the implementation of agricultural policy measures. KOLAS is the advisory body of the Conference of Cantonal Directors of Agriculture (LDK/CDCA), which brings together the heads of the agricultural departments of the Swiss cantons and of Liechtenstein.
Cantons’ implementation of federal policy includes disbursing federal funds, managing payment records and conducting controls. Cantons also collect agricultural data from payment recipients, which is transferred to the national data hub AGIS/SIPA and aggregated to produce national data for monitoring, research, and policy evaluation. Cantons may use their own data collection systems, provided they comply with federal guidelines and standards. As of 2026, they have co-ordinated their efforts through shared data systems: one for the French-speaking cantons, two for the German-speaking cantons, and one for the canton of Ticino.
Extra-parliamentary bodies advise the Federal Council on food systems policies
Extra-parliamentary commissions support the federal administration with specialised expertise, supplementing the administration in areas where it lacks specialist knowledge. They can either have decision-making powers or an advisory function. Several extra-parliamentary bodies provide advice on agriculture and food systems matters. The Consultative Committee for Agriculture advises both the Federal Council and the administration on strategic issues in agricultural and food policy and supports the implementation and further development of the Agriculture Act. While no longer active and set to be abolished after 2027, the Swiss National FAO Committee informed Switzerland’s positions and activities in relation to the FAO and other international processes (Federal Council, 2025[4]). In the context of the reform of agricultural policy beyond 2030, the AP30+ Accompanying Group functions as a sounding board, bringing together actors from across the food system and cantonal authorities to provide feedback on strategic orientations (FOAG, 2024[5]). The Federal Commission for Consumer Affairs submits recommendations and responds to consultations on matters relating to consumer policy. While not specific to agriculture, the Tripartite Conference offers a space to discuss agriculture and food systems issues across levels of government. It is a permanent platform for dialogue between the Confederation, cantons and municipalities on matters of federalism and intergovernmental co-operation.
Various institutional arrangements group food systems actors and serve as key counterparts for the public sector
In Switzerland, agri-food actors are organised in a wide range of associations. Farmers are represented nationally by the Swiss Farmers’ Union (SBV/USP), which brings together 25 cantonal professional organisations and several trade associations. It holds an important role in political debates around agriculture and represents farmers’ priorities and concerns. In 2024, around one-sixth of all members of Parliament were either farmers or represented their interests (Steiner, 2024[6]). Other associations include interprofessions (e.g. Interprofession du lait, Proviande, Swissgranum, Swisspatat), which bring together actors along the value chain and contribute to industry standards, market issues, interest representation and sales promotion. The Swiss Food Industries Federation (fial) unites sectoral associations of the food industry and represents their economic and policy interests. Several hybrid organisations exist and combine features of farmer-led organisations and agri-food businesses. Fenaco, a large agricultural co-operative, holds a significant position in upstream and downstream markets (see also Section 1.1.4). Label organisations (e.g. Bio Suisse and IP-Suisse) further illustrate the diversity of farmer-based organisations in the Swiss agri-food system. They are also hybrid, tend to operate through cantonal sections but display different membership structures.
Large companies and co-operatives also have an important voice in policy discussions. In the retail sector, Migros and Coop hold around 70% of the market (Federal Council, 2022[7]). Both are legally considered co-operatives, but they operate as business-oriented retailers. Switzerland is home to a significant number of multinational agrifood companies that are recognised as global leaders in their respective domains. Most notably, Nestlé, headquartered in Vevey, is the world’s largest food and beverage company, with operations spanning all levels of global value chains. At the upstream end of the chain, Syngenta AG, based in Basel, is a major global manufacturer of seeds and crop protection products, although most of its production takes place outside Switzerland (Gentile et al., 2019[8]).
Consumer-based organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) play an important role in representing the interests of consumers and civil society in Switzerland. Consumers’ associations operate at regional level, including the Fédération romande des consommateurs (FRC) in the French-speaking region, the Schweizerisches Konsumentenforum (kf) and Stiftung für Konsumentenschutz in the German-speaking region, and the Associazione consumatrici e consumatori della Svizzera italiana (ACSI) in the Italian-speaking region. These organisations investigate, advise and challenge political and economic decision-makers (FRC, 2025[9]). While consumer associations are frequently consulted, their voices tend to be less influential on a political level, due to asymmetries in resources, power and ability to lobby (Leresche, 2018[10]). Compared to neighbouring EU countries, Switzerland’s consumer protection system is less centralised and offers fewer collective legal remedies.2
NGOs help raise issues related to environmental sustainability, working conditions and animal welfare, act as platforms to convene various stakeholders, and support grassroots innovations. They include Agroecology Works!, Biovision, BirdLife, Greenpeace, Kleinbauernvereinigung, Pro Natura, Public Eye, Uniterre, Vision Landwirtschaft and WWF.
Swiss agricultural policy has evolved significantly over time, shaped by historical developments, citizens’ preferences and priorities – expressed through popular initiatives − and international commitments.
2.2.1. Evolution of the agricultural policy framework
Agriculture’s decades-long isolation from global markets has been gradually reversed over the past 30 years
Agriculture was first mentioned in the Federal Constitution in 1948: recognising the importance of ensuring food production in times of crisis, the sector was exempted from the freedom of trade and industry, granting it special treatment “to maintain a healthy farming community and efficient agriculture, and to consolidate rural land ownership” (Bürgi Bonanomi, 2025[2]). This provided the legal basis for the strong protection that characterised post-Second World War agricultural policy, which prioritised food security, high yields and secure income for farmers, and ensuring high prices for producers through border protection and purchase guarantees by parastatal enterprises (Huber, 2022[11]). This resulted in Swiss agriculture being largely isolated from world markets (OECD, 2025[12]). The high protection and regulation of agricultural sectors such as dairy, grains, and sugar generally enjoyed voters’ support (Huber, 2022[11]);
The early 1990s marked the beginning of significant changes in agricultural policy. On the one hand, domestic social and political pressure drove a substantial reorientation of agricultural policy, bringing multifunctionality to the forefront. This shift was motivated by growing awareness of the problems associated with agricultural overproduction and of food safety and environmental concerns, such as increased nitrate and pesticide residues in vegetables (Haller, 2011[13]). On the other hand, international commitments within the framework of World Trade Organization (WTO) and bilateral agreements with the EU triggered a partial and controlled opening of the Swiss market for agro-food products (Bürgi Bonanomi, 2025[2]). These developments led to a separation of price and income policy, reflected in the creation of direct payments less coupled to production, and formalised through the adoption by referendum of Article 104 in the Federal Constitution (Huber, 2022[11]). Subsequent policy adjustments have been implemented in so-called agricultural reform phases (AP), with each package designated by its year of introduction, beginning in 2002: AP02, AP07, AP11, and AP14-17.
Table 2.1 summarises the main stages and key reforms of agricultural policy. The direct payment system, comprising general payments and voluntary payments linked to the provision of ecological services, was introduced in 1993. Mandatory environmental cross-compliance, making direct payments conditional on good environmental practices and requiring a “proof of ecological performance” (PEP), was introduced in 1999 (see also Section 3.1.4). Other reforms implemented between 1993 and 2003 included lower import barriers and greater transparency in border measures, with the most important trade liberalisation measure being the gradual elimination of tariffs on cheese imports from the EU, agreed in 2002 and completed in 2007 (see also Section 2.5. on trade policies). This period also saw the abolition of state price guarantees and other market regulations, with some exceptions. The 1998 Sugar Act introduced a system of quotas and price guarantees for sugar produced from domestic sugar beets, along with processing subsidies (OECD, 2015[14]). While the 1999 milk market regulation abolished price and quantity guarantees − leading to the dissolution of parastatal enterprises active in the sector − the milk quota system introduced in 1977 remained in effect (Haller, 2014[15]).
Policy reforms between 2004 and 2013 included the 2009 abolition of the Sugar Act and of milk quotas, as well as the 2010 elimination of export subsidies for primary agricultural products. The system of direct payments remained largely unchanged, apart from the introduction in 2008 of area payments for sugar beet to compensate for lower prices due to the market reforms, and of a new ecological payment category.
In the framework of the AP 2014-17 (which largely remains in place today), the system of direct payments underwent a significant reform, aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the measures, and create links to specific agricultural practices (OECD, 2015[14]). The remaining export subsidies for processed products were phased out to comply with the WTO Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition (2015). To compensate producers, new non-export-linked payments for cereals and marketed milk were introduced in 2019.
Stages and trends of Swiss agricultural policy
Source: Adapted from OECD (2025[12]), Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2025: Making the Most of the Trade and Environment Nexus in Agriculture, https://doi.org/10.1787/a80ac398-en.
Recent developments reflect more citizen engagement with agriculture and food policies
While the development of agricultural policy between AP02 and AP14-17 was mostly driven by the administration and the executive, a shift occurred in later years: between 2016 and 2022, ten popular initiatives related to agriculture and food were launched. Several related to environmental and animal welfare issues, but other issues such as financial speculation on food and agriculture and fair trade were also covered (Huber and Finger, 2019[16]). This emergence of initiatives reflected divergent societal concerns: on the one hand, farmers’ organisations promoted efforts to strengthen protection for the sector; on the other hand, citizens advocated for reducing environmental impacts and enhancing animal welfare (Huber, El Benni and Finger, 2023[3]). Even if most of these initiatives were rejected by voters, the societal demands they expressed have been partially incorporated into legislation and are reflected in subsequent policy development, for example in the adoption in 2017 of constitutional article 104a and the process of parliamentary initiative 19.475 “Reducing the risk of pesticide use”, introduced in 2019 and which led to significant legal reforms in this area.
A process to reform agricultural policy (AP22+) was launched in February 2020, when the Federal Council submitted to Parliament a message on the future development of the policy and a draft federal decree on financial resources for agriculture for 2022-25. However, Parliament decided to suspend this process and requested the Federal Council to submit a report on the future direction of agricultural policy. The Future Orientation report was presented in June 2022 and serves as the basis for discussions on future policy. In the interim, some of the elements initially foreseen in the AP22+ have been introduced through legal reforms and ordinances, including improved social security for farmers’ partners and federal support for crop insurance (see Sections 2.3.4 and 2.4 below). In addition, new water quality measures were adopted in 2023. In March 2025, Parliament approved an agricultural payment framework of CHF 14.2 billion for 2026‑29, at a level similar to 2022-25 spending for direct payments and market support, and an increase of CHF 130 million in the budget for improving the production base. Broader reforms have been postponed until after 2030 (AP30+).
2.2.2. The current agricultural policy: Structure and expenditures
The federal government spends almost CHF 4 billion per year on agriculture and food
As a result of the suspension of the AP22+ discussions, the current agricultural policy structure remains largely unchanged from the AP2014-17 package. The overarching law for the sector is the Agriculture Act (SR 910.1 of 1998).
Between 2014 and 2023, the federal government allocated an average of CHF 3.7 billion annually to agriculture and food. This level of expenditure remained stable throughout the ten-year period and represents about 5% of total federal expenditure. Direct payments to farmers made up over three-quarters of expenditures. The remainder includes programmes to support the production and marketing of agricultural products (mainly directed at the dairy sector), as well as policies to improve the production base, such as support for structural improvements and on-farm investments (Figure 2.1).
Average annual federal agro-food spending by category, 2014-2023
Note: “Other” includes administration, enforcement and control expenditures, among others.
Source: FOAG (2025), Agricultural Report 2024, https://www.agrarbericht.ch/fr/politique/apercu/depenses-federales-pour-l-agriculture-et-l-alimentation
Efforts to target direct payments have produced a well-tailored yet complex system
The AP14-17 introduced a significant overhaul of the direct payment system, which had maintained a largely unchanged structure since its inception in 1993. Although the average annual spending remained roughly consistent with the 2008-13 period, the payment categories were significantly reorganised, even though the broad policy objectives remained unchanged (Table 2.2).
Evolution of direct payments and average annual expenditure in CHF, 1993-2023
1. While the integrated production payment was discontinued, the ecological requirements introduced in 1999 with the system of environmental cross-compliance were largely based on the requirements for integrated production.
2. The transitional payment amount shown corresponds to the average for 2014-23, but this category has steadily decreased over the period.
Source: Based on information from (OECD, 2015[14]) and (Huber, 2022[11]). Expenditure data from (Federal Statistical Office, 2025[17]) and (Federal Statistical Office, 2025[18]).
In the 2014 reform, general area payments were suppressed, and direct payments were allocated to seven categories: six aligned with specific objectives and agricultural practices, and a seventh comprising transitional payments to make the reform socially acceptable (OECD, 2015[14]). This structure, with one direct payment programme per agricultural policy goal, aligns with the Tinbergen rule, which states that the number of policy instruments should be at least equal to the number of policy targets, thereby helping to ensure that policy measures are well-targeted (Huber, El Benni and Finger, 2023[3]). However, this level of targeting has led to a highly complex payment system: Huber (2022[11]) identified 104 individual payments. Moreover, many have specific conditions and structures that further contribute to this complexity.
Description and average annual spending by payment category, 2019-23
Note: Measures and conditions based on the Direct Payments Ordinance (SR 910.13) as of 1 January 2025.
Source: FOAG (2024[19]), (2024[20]) for the payment structure and conditions; Federal Statistical Office (2025[17]) for the data.
The overall spending on direct payments has remained stable throughout 2019-23, with payments aimed at ensuring food supply making up the largest category (38% of total expenditures). Payments supporting sustainable production systems (19% of spending) and biodiversity (16%) are the only two payment categories that showed consistent annual growth over the full five-year period, with the former experiencing a particularly sharp increase between 2022 and 2023. In contrast, resource efficiency payments have seen a significant decline as most programmes have expired, while transitional payments have gradually decreased in accordance with their design. For 2026-29, the direct payment budget was set at the same level as for 2022-25.
To qualify for direct payments, farmers must be under 65, have an agricultural education, and provide proof of ecological performance
To be eligible for direct payments, farmers must be under the age of 65 and perform at least 50% of the farm work themselves. Since 2004, they must also have officially recognised agricultural education or training (LDK/CDCA, n.d.[21]). Individuals with a non-agricultural vocational education can become eligible if they complete a course offered by the cantons in co-operation with the relevant professional organisation or have at least three years of practical experience as a manager, co-manager, or employee on an agricultural holding. If a spouse or partner takes over the farm upon the original manager’s retirement, they are exempt from the education requirement, provided that they have worked on the farm for at least ten years prior. If the farm’s business form is a legal entity, the eligibility requirement states that the farm manager must own at least three-quarters of the business assets.
To prevent very small or hobby farms from receiving direct payments, there is a minimum farm size requirement of 0.2 standard labour units.3 There is also a livestock number threshold: farms that exceed the maximum number of animals set by the Regulation on Maximum Stock Levels in Meat and Egg Production (SR 916.344) are not eligible for direct payments.
Payments are only provided if the farm meets the environmental cross-compliance conditions through a Proof of Ecological Performance (PEP), with criteria related to animal welfare, balanced fertiliser use, biodiversity conservation, proper management of biotopes of national importance, crop rotation, soil protection, and targeted pesticide choice and application. A group of neighbouring farms can jointly comply with the PEP, provided that the co-operation agreement is approved by the canton.
The dairy sector takes the lion’s share of production and marketing support
Federal funds also support the production and marketing of agricultural products, with some of the payments linked to production. This category reached around CHF 500 million in 2014-23 (13% of federal agriculture and food expenditure) and includes support per unit of product or area and the financing of efforts to increase the consumption of Swiss products in domestic and export markets.4 The 2026-29 budget approved in March 2025 foresees stable expenditures in this area.
Seventy per cent of the funds in this category (CHF 337 million) was directed to the dairy sector. This includes payments for milk processed into cheese (CHF 0.1/kg) and milk produced without silage feed (CHF 0.03/kg). An additional payment was introduced in 2019 to compensate for the abolition of the “Chocolate Law”, which provided export subsidies. It grants producers a supplement of CHF 0.05/kg for cow milk marketed (as opposed to milk used for animal feed or for own consumption).
Production and sales support to crop production averaged CHF 75 million per year. The largest measure is support to individual crops, paid per hectare of sugar beets, oilseeds and legumes, as well as potato, corn, forage grass, and forage legume seeds. These payments – ranging between CHF 700 and CHF 2 500/ha depending on the crop − aim to contribute to an adequate supply of plant products to the population and are only paid if the crops are harvested at maturity. Another measure is the grain supplement, intended to compensate for the effects of the elimination of export subsidies, paid per hectare for growing grains for food and feed purposes (except maize). Also under this category are payments for fruit processing. These payments are provided to primary processors, and range between CHF 6 and CHF 241 (depending on the fruit) per 100 kg of fresh and whole berry, pome or stone fruits that are processed into food products not subject to alcohol tax or to a customs duty of over 10%.
Quality and sales promotion support averaged CHF 64 million per year. Federal funds co-finance marketing communication measures to improve the image and awareness of Swiss agricultural products. Producers’ organisations are required to bear at least 50% of the costs. The largest share of this budget (CHF 23 million) is for promoting Swiss cheeses in domestic and foreign markets, and CHF 7 million go to promoting milk and butter in the domestic market (FOAG, 2025[22]). Approximately CHF 5 million per year are granted to a sectoral organisation to implement measures to communicate the value of Swiss meat to consumers (Proviande, n.d.[23]). Support for marketing communication of Swiss wine was increased to CHF 9 million in 2023 following a parliamentary resolution.
Other smaller production and sales support measures include a payment of CHF 2 to sheep farmers, processors and other organisations per kilogram of domestic wool processed in the country, as well as price support for the production of eggs and egg products.
Switzerland supports tobacco growers and processors through administered prices. This subsidy (not under the Agriculture Act framework) has been in place since 1984, and in 2022 was of CHF 14 million. A fund constituted by a tax on cigarettes finances the difference between producer prices and the tobacco price set by the government for the manufacturers5 (World Trade Organization, 2023[24]). Tobacco production is an activity in decline: the sector organisation reports that 112 farms cultivated 366 ha of tobacco in 2024, down from 324 farms and about 700 ha in 2004 (Swisstabac, 2025[25]).
Federal funds also support infrastructure investments, farmers’ debt repayment, and the conservation of endangered breeds
A third category of support to agriculture consists of payments to improve the production base, which amounted to CHF 144 million on average per year in 2014-23, or 4% of total funding. This is the only component of the 2026-29 agricultural budget for which an overall increase was approved, of CHF 130 million or 23% with respect to 2022-25.
This category includes support for structural improvements and investment loans, as well as interest-free loans to repay existing debts. Some of these measures aim to maintain local value chains in rural and mountainous regions (Huber, 2022[11]). For example, the infrastructure contribution co-finances 50% of eligible infrastructure costs for public markets in mountain regions, up to CHF 50 000 per project. Also included in this category are contributions to support the activities of recognised breeding organisations, grants for the conservation of endangered native breeds, and federal financing of agricultural advisory services.
Cantons co-finance some federal programmes and may fund their own initiatives
Most agricultural support funding is provided by the federal government. Some programmes, such as the direct payments for landscape quality and biodiversity connectivity, are co-financed by cantons, which contribute 10% of the funding. Cantons may implement additional regional measures. However, data on these initiatives is limited: there is no central registry of cantonal projects, making it difficult to obtain a comprehensive overview of their programmes and funding. In general, cantons make effective use of the scope to shape agriculture within the federal policy framework, but the level of self-funding remains modest. In 2016, support provided by all cantons was estimated to total CHF 76 million (Binder and Mann, 2019[26]).
2.3.1. Regional and rural policies
Regional policy seeks to promote coherent development through the co-ordination of relevant policy areas
The New Regional Policy (NRP) is Switzerland’s framework for regional development, aimed at supporting mountain, rural, and border regions in addressing structural change. It provides financial support for projects, initiatives, and programmes that strengthen innovation, value creation and competitiveness in a sustainable manner, including by improving both hard and soft locational factors, thus contributing to the creation and preservation of jobs, supporting the decentralised use of territory and reducing regional disparities (OECD, 2024[27]). The NRP also supports European territorial co-operation through programmes such as Interreg, ESPON, URBACT and INTERACT. Cantons play a central role in the NRP’s design, funding and implementation by developing cantonal or supra-cantonal implementation programmes every four years, which define their regional development objectives and strategies. The NRP has facilitated over 5 000 projects since 2008. Since 2020, start-ups and SMEs have benefited from over 10 000 NRP-funded innovation coaching sessions. Between 2016 and 2023, the CHF 540 million allocated under the scheme leveraged investments amounting to CHF 2.9 billion (Regiosuisse, n.d.[28]).
Under this framework,6 a tax relief can be granted to industrial companies or production-related service providers to support the creation and reorientation of jobs in structurally weak regional centres. Federal tax relief is only granted if the canton also grants tax relief for the project. The number of beneficiaries is small: after 2020, fewer than five tax relief measures per year have been approved (State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO), 2026[29]). Some of the beneficiaries are companies in parts of the food chain, such as the production of agricultural equipment or food packaging (Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education and Research, 2023[30]).
The Agglomeration Policy (AggloPol) and the Policy for Rural and Mountain Areas (PERM) aim to promote regional diversity and coherent territorial development. The Action Plan for their implementation in 2024‑31 includes measures to understand and strengthen the contribution of sectoral policies (such as agricultural policy) to the objectives of territorial development policies. It also includes a co-ordination instrument, the Rural Development Process (Processus de développement de l’espace rural, PDER), to be managed and partly financed by the FOAG with co-financing from SECO. The PDER, based on voluntary participation, aims to bring together stakeholders and promote the development of a region across sectors and themes (Federal Office for Spatial Development, 2024[31]).
Agricultural policy mainly contributes to the objectives of the PERM through the provision of direct payments, which create an incentive to maintain agricultural activities in mountain areas. With the Regional Development Projects (projets de développement regional, PDR), FOAG provides a special funding instrument (part of the support for structural improvements) that encourages co-operation between agriculture, tourism, and catering as an opportunity to increase farmers' incomes. PDRs can be cross-sectoral (comprising several value chains and including regional co-operation with non-agricultural sectors) or focussed on a single regional value chain.
The Confederation’s Model Projects for Sustainable Spatial Development bring together actors at different levels to develop innovative solutions adapted to local contexts. This programme was first launched in 2002 and has evolved in subsequent editions. The current edition (2025-2030) is supported by nine federal offices (which provide funding for part of the project’s budget). For the first time, building sustainable regional food systems has been included as a thematic priority, under the main responsibility of FOAG and with the participation of ARE, FOEN, and SECO. Municipalities, regional organisations, cantons, NGOs, and private sector actors were invited to present projects that promote sustainable spatial development by combining the themes of healthy, balanced, and sustainable nutrition, the promotion of biodiversity, and climate protection. The inclusion of sustainable food systems as a priority provides a new avenue to develop and strengthen innovation capacity in this area (see also Box 4.1).
2.3.2. Policies related to agricultural land
Land transfers are regulated to promote and preserve the family farming model
The central pieces of land legislation are the Federal Act on Rural Land Rights (SR 211.412.11 of 1991) and the Federal Act on Agricultural Leases (SR 221.213.2 of 1985). The Federal Act on Rural Land Rights (BGBB) aims to promote peasant land ownership (in particular family farms), strengthen the position of self-employed farmers, and combat excessive prices for agricultural land. The Federal Act on Agricultural Leases regulates lease agreements, including the lease amount, which is subject to official control.
The BGBB contains several provisions on farm inheritance. If a farm is transferred within the family, and the buyer/heir intends to continue farming, they are legally entitled to buy the farm at its capitalised earnings value (Ertragswert), which is significantly lower than the price that would be obtained through sale in real estate markets.7 In this case, the capital gains from the sale could be zero and thus not necessarily subject to income or capital gains tax (OECD, 2020[32]), even if other taxes may still apply. In the case of a sale outside of the family, the significantly higher market value is used (Zorn, 2025[33]), although sales at excessive prices (more than 5% over the five-year average for comparable agricultural businesses or land in the area, with some flexibility for cantons to adjust this threshold up to 15%) are not allowed. These instruments represent a relatively strong intervention of the legislature that is generally accepted due to difficulties for agriculture to compete with current land prices (Bürgi Bonanomi, 2025[2]).
2.3.3. Tax incentives
Farmers benefit from a fuel tax rebate and an exemption of the heavy vehicles tax
Even if agriculture is generally not treated differently from other economic sectors for income tax purposes, it benefits from some tax advantages (OECD, 2020[32]). For example, the valuation of agricultural land for purposes of the annual property tax (levied by cantons) is also based on the capitalised earnings value (Ertragswert). As agriculture can have a lower value creation compared to other activities, this could result in values that are lower than the actual market value. In addition, farm inputs, food and feedstuffs are subject to a VAT rate of 2.6% instead of the general rate of 8.1% (Federal Tax Administration, 2025[34]).
Agriculture benefits from a refund of the mineral oil tax, which is calculated based on the amount of fuel typically consumed under average conditions per unit area and crop type.8 There have been discussions about abolishing this tax advantage, particularly given Switzerland’s participation in international efforts to limit fossil fuel subsidies. However, in 2023 the Federal Council decided to maintain it, as it was found that the resulting reduction in CO2 emissions would be limited, due to the lack of alternative technologies in the affected sectors and considering the economic importance of the refund for these sectors. Farm vehicles are also exempt from the annual flat-rate heavy vehicles tax, which applies to vehicles weighing over 3.5 tonnes.
2.3.4. Policies related to inclusion
Starting in 2027, partners working in the farm must have personal insurance coverage
FOAG has been monitoring the situation of women in agriculture for over 20 years, publishing a study in 10-year intervals, most recently in 2022. These studies monitor the number of female farm managers and provide data on women’s role on the farm, income and social protection, farm ownership and future prospects in their view, among other aspects (see also Section 1.1.5). The 2022 study is part of the action plan under the Gender Equality Strategy 2030, the first national strategy in this area, adopted by the Federal Council in 2021. In addition, FOAG monitors the social situation of farming families since 2000. This monitoring is based on special analyses of national federal surveys, specific surveys or studies, and projects financed or supported by FOAG. Wherever possible, data on women are also collected, for example regarding working conditions or health.
Even if discussion of the AP22+ was suspended, specific elements of this package were approved by Parliament in 2023 and have been implemented by the Federal Council through ordinances. One reform concerns the social insurance of farmers’ spouses and partners.9 Starting in 2027, it will be a requirement for obtaining direct payments that partners working on the farm have personal insurance coverage for risk prevention (disability and death) and loss of earnings due to illness or accident. This requirement will apply to partners earning no own income, or with an income from remunerated work under CHF 22 680 in 2025, and who perform regular and substantial work on the farm. If the insurance is not in place as from 2027, sanctions will apply in the form of direct payment reductions that increase in cases of recurrence (SBLV/USPF, n.d.[35]). This reform was developed by a multi-stakeholder working group led by FOAG, which brought together farmers’ associations, insurance providers, advisory services, and government representatives to ensure broad input across sectors (Asai and Antón, 2024[36]).
Another amendment to the Agriculture Act, approved by Parliament in September 2025, seeks to provide greater security to spouses working on farms in the event of a divorce. Once this provision enters into force (expected in 2027), farm managers who are married or in a civil partnership will be required to undergo joint counselling on property rights and on the terms governing their partner’s involvement in the farm as a prerequisite for obtaining financial aid for structural improvements to individual farms.
Farmers younger than 35 can benefit from an interest-free start-up loan
Young farmers are supported by a start-up aid, in the form of an interest-free investment loan for the acquisition of holdings or land. This support, part of the structural improvements category under the general agricultural policy, is only granted if the beneficiary has not yet reached the age of 35. The loan amount is based on the size of the farm, starting at CHF 125 000 for a farm of one standard labour unit (Standardarbeitskraft - SAK), with a maximum repayment period of 14 years after the final disbursement.10
As discussed in Section 1.1.5, the age structure of farmers and projected demographic developments point to a growing number of Swiss farms ending their cycle in the coming years. At the same time, the rate of new entrants is shrinking despite a growing number of young people undertaking agriculture training. Young people interested in entering agriculture can face difficulties to find and acquire a farm if they are not taking it over from family. Transfers outside the family can be difficult; in particular, new entrants may face financial barriers to buy a farm at market value, which, depending on the region, can be several times the income value (Jungo, 2024[37]) (Der Schweizer Bauer, 2019[38]).
Sector organisations report a growing demand that exceeds the number of farms available. (Kleinbauern-Vereinigung, n.d.[39]). In an effort to attract newcomers and support generational renewal, the Small Farmers’ Association established a contact point in 2014 to connect farm managers without successors and individuals with agricultural training who are seeking to buy, lease, or otherwise take over a farm. Growing demand has led to the ongoing expansion of this service, with a trilingual website launched in 2018 and a digital platform introduced in 2024.11
Some research and advisory services support the farm transfer process
The age profile of farmers, the cessation of direct payments at the age of 65 and the related transfer of the farm at that age have encouraged initiatives that look at farm transfer from a multigenerational perspective. For example, the three-year research project Hofübergabe360, conducted by the Bern University of Applied Sciences for Agriculture, Forestry and Food Sciences (BFH-HAFL) with farming families, advisors and educators, developed tools to support timely and holistic succession planning, including an interactive card game, a dedicated website and guidance for farm advisors (Häberli and Contzen, 2021[40]). Advisory services by cantons and by producer associations also offer support for the transfer process.
Given the ageing farming population in Switzerland and the expected increase in farm transfers in the coming years, there is scope for giving greater consideration to the quality of life and emotional wellbeing of the retiring generation, and to develop initiatives specifically targeted to them. A literature review focussed on the retirement experience of Australian farmers identified four key facilitators of retirement: strong social networks, varied interests and activities, a gradual transition process, and early financial and succession planning (Fletcher, Stewart and Gunn, 2023[41]). These findings align at least partly with those of the Hofübergabe360 project and suggests potential areas of focus for future initiatives.
2.3.5. Food safety policies
Recent reforms in the area of food safety include increased co-operation and harmonisation with the EU framework
Another important objective of Swiss agricultural policy is ensuring food safety. Responsibilities in this area are shared between federal institutions and cantonal authorities. At the federal level, the Food Safety and Veterinary Office (FSVO) is responsible for developing the legal framework, conducting risk assessments, and co-ordinating cantons’ enforcement measures and information activities when there is a national interest. FOAG has responsibilities concerning official feed controls (implemented by Agroscope) and in the management of two joint agencies: the Federal Unit for the Food Chain (managed jointly with FSVO), which supervises the implementation of plant health, feed, animal health, animal welfare and food legislation at both federal and cantonal levels to ensure a uniform response; and the Federal Plant Protection Service (managed jointly with FOEN), responsible for preventing the introduction of plant pests and diseases. Cantonal authorities are responsible for the enforcement of legislation, including conducting plant and product inspections. In the case of goods that are imported, exported or in transit through Switzerland, the Federal Office for Customs and Border Security is in charge of controls.
Emphasis is also placed on the responsibility of manufacturers, importers, and distributors to exercise self-monitoring, inform consumers about their products, and notify cantonal authorities of any detected health risks. Consumers are also responsible for ensuring that food is correctly stored and prepared (FSVO, 2024[42]).
The main piece of legislation in this area is the Federal Act on Foodstuffs and Utility Articles (SR 817.0) and its ordinances. Food legislation recently underwent a comprehensive reform, with revisions to 25 ordinances coming into effect in early 2024. Some of the changes aimed to harmonise Swiss regulations with those of the European Union. The revisions included stricter residue limits for certain chemicals, a requirement to declare in writing the country of origin of bread and baked goods sold to consumers, and a legal framework regulating the donation of unused food, part of the efforts to reduce food loss and waste (FSVO, 2024[43]) (see also Section 3.5).
Given the importance of agro-food trade with the European Union, Switzerland works closely with EU authorities in food safety. The June 2025 signing of a joint agreement on agriculture and food safety was an important milestone in this respect. The agreement creates a common food safety area across the entire food chain, giving Switzerland access to the relevant EU committees and working groups, such as the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). It also allows for the direct incorporation of EU food safety legislation into the Swiss legal system and for the removal of non-tariff barriers within the area, while preserving the current Swiss agricultural policy and border protection regime (see Section 2.5).
There is a well-developed framework for disaster prevention and risk management
Switzerland’s first general strategy for managing natural disasters was published in 2003. The framework for disaster management has since evolved into an integrated risk management approach, incorporating insights and lessons learned from prior events. The current strategy for managing risks from natural hazards was last updated in 2018. The development of the strategy and of integrated risk management are overseen by the National Platform for Natural Hazards (PLANAT), an advisory commission to the Federal Government that has been operating since 1997. PLANAT is hosted by the FOEN, but it does not formally depend on it. Its 18 members are appointed by the Federal Council and include representatives from federal and cantonal authorities, research institutions, insurance companies and other economic sectors. PLANAT has published annual reports since 1999, which include risk assessments for relevant natural hazards, recommendations for future priorities, and proposed actions to ensure high societal awareness and adequate policies.
Communication with the public is a crucial part of the strategy. The Natural Hazards Portal is a dedicated website to inform people about the dangers of natural hazards. It provides information on current and past events, their danger levels, and recommended actions.
The management of climate risks is further developed in the Action Plan 2020-25 for adaptation to climate change. It is the second action plan developed under the Swiss Climate Adaptation strategy of 2012 (see also Section 3.3), which aims to minimise climate risks and protect the population, material assets and natural resources. The Action Plan is based on an analysis of climate scenarios (CH2018) and of climate-related risks and opportunities, which helped prioritise actions based on the existing adaptation gaps and urgency.
The federal government and the cantons also provide ad hoc emergency assistance in the event of natural hazards. Such measures are usually co-financed by federal and cantonal governments, unless a canton is exceptionally burdened by unforeseen events, in which case the federal government can provide extraordinary funding following Parliament approval. The Agriculture Act (Art. 78) also sets the framework for providing operational assistance to farmers facing financial hardship due to circumstances beyond their control. This support is usually offered in the form of interest-free loans, provided by the cantons and co-financed by the federal government.
Subsidies for crop insurance against drought and frost risks were recently introduced
Agricultural insurance in Switzerland is provided by private insurers, which offer policies tailored to farmers, including coverage against crop losses due to weather risks. The coverage of crop insurance has been expanded since multiple-peril insurance was introduced in the 1970s, with policies now covering 14 different weather risks (Palka and Hanger-Kopp, 2019[44]). Traditionally, the most used crop insurance instruments cover the risk of hail and other elementary risks such as flooding or storm damages (Finger and Lehmann, 2012[45]). Coverage of drought-related damage was introduced more recently and thus has a lower market penetration (Möhring et al., 2020[46]). Livestock farmers can also acquire insurance against animal disease risks. If a cull is ordered by the authorities due to highly contagious diseases, the federal government compensates affected farmers for the losses.12
Until recently, government support for insurance purchase was limited, with only minor subsidies provided at the cantonal level (Palka and Hanger-Kopp, 2019[44]). In June 2023, Parliament approved a reform to the Agriculture Act,13 establishing the legal basis for federal contributions to reduce premiums on private crop insurance policies covering drought and frost risks. This reform was initially included in the AP22+ package but later introduced as a standalone measure; is duration is limited to eight years.
The support programme started in 2025 and will continue through 2032. It targets farmers who are eligible for direct payments and who hold a crop insurance policy that protects crop yields against the risks of drought and frost. Policies must have a deductible of at least 15% of the insured amount. The federal contribution covers up to 30% of the premium, disbursed annually to authorised insurers that enter into a contract with FOAG. This reform aims to improve coverage for these two widespread risks – in light of more frequent weather-related crop fluctuations − and encourage the uptake of crop insurance, which remains voluntary. As of October 2025, two providers (Schweizer Hagel and Die Mobiliar) were listed as authorised by FOAG to offer the subsidised weather insurance.
Animal traceability is another key risk management tool
An additional tool for risk prevention in agriculture is the animal tracing database (ATD), established in 2000 and operated by the company Identitas AG on behalf of FOAG. Statistical data from the database is publicly accessible and free of charge. The ATD assigns identities to all livestock kept in Switzerland through the use of ear tags. The system registers all births, relocations and slaughters of cattle and equines, and has been gradually expanded to record other movements such as arrivals and slaughter of pigs, and the slaughter of sheep, goats, and poultry. The traceability ensured by this system enables veterinary and food safety authorities to take appropriate action to act in case of emergencies related to animal diseases. ATD data is also used for other purposes, including the allocation of meat import quotas and the payment of contributions towards the costs of disposing of animal byproducts.
Strengthening food systems resilience requires a holistic approach
The concept of food systems resilience goes beyond the management of purely agricultural risks to consider the broader set of food systems objectives and the multiple, interconnected risks they face. Deconinck et al. (2023[47]) identify five categories of food supply chain risks: extreme events (such as natural disasters), pests and animal diseases, food safety incidents, shocks originating in socio-economic systems (e.g. human pandemics or conflicts, logistics disruptions, or policies that affect distribution), and trade restrictions. More recently, the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (2025[48]) distinguishes between shocks (abrupt, short-term events) and stresses (longer-term conditions or processes) across two broad categories: (i) climate, weather and environmental factors, such as land degradation, extreme weather events, or diseases; and (ii) economic factors, including trade-related disruptions, market volatility, or market power imbalances, also recognising that the vulnerability of people, communities, and ecosystems differs according to their exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity. Managing this complexity requires a broad, systemic vision. OECD research has reviewed practices at the national and local levels and defined criteria for developing context-specific processes to build more resilient food systems (Box 2.2).
Resilient food systems are essential for anticipating and reducing shocks that threaten food security. In a globally interdependent context, developing strategies to mitigate risks is a key priority for governments. Recent global disruptions, such as the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine or the COVID-19 pandemic, have forced food systems to adapt rapidly to maintain food security.
Food systems are complex and pursue multiple objectives. As food typically moves through several stages and may cross borders, assessing resilience requires engaging all relevant sectors and stakeholders. The diversity of potential shocks and their economic and social spillovers make them difficult to anticipate, and “blind spots” often emerge only once a shock occurs.
OECD research on practical approaches to develop context-specific food systems resilience strategies emphasises the need for inclusive, recurring processes that involve governments. Such processes should also define objectives, assess risks and opportunities, and generate action plans with clearly assigned responsibilities. Examples of relevant initiatives at the national and local levels include:
In London, the city administration collaborated with the Environmental Change Institute to map the city’s food system, identify vulnerable groups and potential future interventions. Using the “3R” framework (Robustness, Recovery, and Reorientation) stakeholders across the supply chain prioritised equitable and actionable measures.
Japan conducts a Science and Technology Foresight Survey every five years to guide long-term science and innovation policy. The eleventh edition of the cross-sectoral exercise produced 50 visions structured around four shared values: humanity, inclusiveness, sustainability, and curiosity.
Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) provides evidence-based analysis to inform long-term policy and investment. In 2023, CSIRO published a national food system roadmap that identifies research and innovation priorities aimed at enhancing resilience, sustainability and well-being.
The European Union held a two-day “Food Alert” crisis simulation in Brussels, engaging more than 60 experts to “stress-test” EU food security. Participants worked through a scenario of cascading climate impacts on the global food supply to assess vulnerabilities and response capacities.
Source: (Deconinck et al., 2023[47]) and (OECD, 2025[49]).
Switzerland’s trade policy is shaped by its membership in the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) since its establishment in 1960,14 its 1966 accession to the GATT and subsequent membership of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Free Trade Agreement signed in 1972 with the European Economic Community (EEC) and later agreements with the EU (including specific agreements and protocols concerning agricultural trade), and a network of over 30 free trade agreements.
Despite the gradual reforms and trade liberalisation efforts undertaken over the last decades, border protection remains a key pillar of Swiss agricultural policy. Even if Switzerland removed all tariffs for industrial goods at the beginning of 2024,15 agriculture continues to benefit from strong protection through a complex system of trade instruments.
2.5.1. Structure and operation of agricultural trade policies
High tariffs apply on agro-food products, though one-third of subheadings are duty-free
As of 2024, 34% of Switzerland’s agricultural subheadings were subject to a most-favoured nation (MFN) tariff of zero16 (World Trade Organization, 2025[50]). Examples of MFN duty-free products include live geese or ducks, edible insects, garlic, certain mushrooms, almonds, Brazil nuts, cashew nuts, fresh lemons, unroasted coffee, tea, seeds from several grass and leguminous plants, cocoa beans, food industry residues for animal feeding, and some chemicals of agricultural origin. In 2023, 48% of agricultural imports entered the Swiss market duty-free, either due to MFN zero tariffs, EU preferential treatment, or customs facilitations for special uses (FOAG, 2025[51]).
All agro-food tariffs different from zero are expressed in non-ad valorem (NAV) form, usually CHF per unit of quantity.17 Switzerland is the OECD Member with the highest share of agro-food tariffs in NAV form: 66% of agricultural subheadings and 77% of imports in 2024 (Table 2.4).
Prevalence of agro-food tariffs expressed in NAV form, 2024*
Note: *Or most recent year available.
Source: World Trade Organization (2025[50]), WTO Stats [database]: Tariff indicators – Applied, https://stats.wto.org/.
The use of NAV tariffs can make the analysis more challenging, as they cannot be directly compared or aggregated and must first be converted into ad-valorem equivalents (AVEs), for which methodologies differ (González Marentis and Deuss, 2023[52]). The Swiss authorities have expressed that they consider the current regime of specific duties to be sufficiently transparent and efficient, and that they have no plans to move to an ad valorem regime (World Trade Organization, 2022[53]). Based on the estimated AVEs, average protection has declined over time but remains significant, in particular for animal and dairy products (Figure 2.2). The average MFN applied AVE rate for dairy products in 2024 was 111% and for live animals and meat it was 95%. While other product groups had lower average rates, most had instances of tariff peaks, with maximum AVEs above 100% present in all sectors except coffee and cotton, and maximum estimated rates exceeding 800% in dairy, meat, and fruits and vegetables (World Trade Organization, 2025[54]) .
Switzerland’s average most-favoured nation applied tariffs by product groups, 2006, 2015 and 2024
Note: Agriculture is defined according to Annex I of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. The figure shows simple average rates. The calculation is based on an estimation of ad valorem equivalents (AVE) for specific tariffs. The Swiss authorities have expressed reservations about this AVE calculation methodology.
Source: WTO (2025), World Tariff Profiles 2025, https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/world_tariff_profiles25_e.htm, WTO (2016), World Tariff Profiles 2016, https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/world_tariff_profiles16_e.htm, and WTO (2006), World Tariff Profiles 2006, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tariffs_e/tariff_profiles_2006_e/tariff_profiles_2006_e.pdf.
Border protection is implemented through a complex system of tariffs and quotas
The border protection system is highly complex and heavily managed. Its instruments include seasonal tariffs and adjustable tariff rates for processed products, combined with tariff rate quotas (TRQs).18 Preferential access under trade agreements is mainly provided through bilateral TRQs (Gray et al., 2017[55]).
Seasonal tariffs apply to fresh fruit and vegetables and are used in combination with TRQs. Outside of the product’s domestic harvest season, no quantitative restriction is applied, and imports are allowed at the lower in-quota rate. During the harvest season, imports are managed: if domestic production is insufficient to meet demand, the TRQ is opened, with imports within the allowed quantity subject to the in-quota rate. Once the quota is filled, imports are only allowed at the out-of-quota rate, often significantly higher. If domestic production is sufficient to meet demand (the “full supply period”), no TRQs are opened, and imports of unlimited quantities are subject to a reduced out-of-quota rate. The differences between in-quota and out-of-quota rates can be stark, and out-of-season periods can be very short, sometimes lasting only a few weeks (Table 2.5).
Examples of seasonal tariffs for fresh produce
Note: Tariffs as of 1 September 2025.
Source: Federal Office for Customs and Border Security (2025), Swiss Customs Tariff (Tares), www.tares.ch.
Another group of products is subject to adjustable tariffs. Import tariffs for these products correspond to the difference between a target import price and the world market price, with tariff rates usually reviewed and adjusted monthly (Economiesuisse, 2024[56]). The Federal Council sets threshold prices, which comprise the target import prices and all applicable duties and charges. The Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education and Research (EAER) determines a target range within which tariffs may deviate from the threshold prices, and FOAG sets (and adjusts) the tariffs so that the import prices lie within this range.19 Adjustable tariffs apply to feedstuffs, oilseeds, feed mixtures, bread-quality cereals, and sugar, and aim in all cases to keep prices of imported goods aligned with the threshold prices (World Trade Organization, 2022[53]). In the case of bread cereals, the tariff is combined with a TRQ. In the case of sugar, FOAG reviews tariffs monthly to ensure that a minimum protection of CHF 7 per 100 kg (including the guarantee fund levy) is maintained.
A tariff escalation mechanism is also applied to certain processed products. The list of covered goods includes dairy products (such as yogurt and butter), edible fats and oils, confectionery, chocolate, pasta, bakery goods, preserved fruits and vegetables, sauces, coffee and tea preparations, and food additives. It combines a fixed component (industrial protection element) and a variable component (agricultural protection element), based on the price differences between Switzerland and the world market for selected raw materials such as wheat and other cereals, milk powder, butter, potatoes, eggs, and sugar. This system serves a dual purpose: preventing circumvention of border protection for agricultural raw materials through increased imports of processed agricultural products (agricultural protection element) and protecting the domestic food industry from foreign competition (industrial protection element) (Economiesuisse, 2024[56]). The industrial protection component is usually not levied on imports from the EU or other trade agreement partners.
Imports of some food and feedstuffs are subject to additional levies applied on top of the corresponding tariffs. These guarantee fund contributions finance the management of compulsory stocks of essential goods and raw materials, including sugar, rice, edible oils and fats, coffee, durum and soft wheat, and energy and protein sources for feed. As of September 2025, the contribution amounted to CHF 4 per 100 kg for most products, with lower levies (CHF 1-3/100 kg) for certain feed products (EADR / FOAG, 2025[57]). The levies on foodstuffs apply only to imports, unlike other goods subject to compulsory stocks, for which the guarantee funds are financed by charges on both imported and domestically produced goods (World Trade Organization, 2022[53]).
Switzerland has 26 TRQs in its WTO schedule of commitments,20 as well as numerous bilateral TRQs under trade agreements. Imports under TRQs require a General Import Permit (GIP) issued free of charge to importers by FOAG, or by the company Réservesuisse (manager of the food stocks, see Section 2.6 below) for products subject to compulsory stockpiling. In terms of TRQ administration, a distinction is made between collective quotas (e.g. preferential and global TRQs), managed by the Federal Office for Customs and Border Security (FOCBS),21 and individual allocations, managed by FOAG.
Four quota administration methods exist: auctioning (e.g. for most meats and sausages, poultry, dairy and potato products); distribution by market share (based on the importer’s past purchases and imports and applicable to fruit and vegetables); first come, first served upon FOAG approval (e.g. for yogurt and live animals); and first come, first served at the border (for quotas managed by FOCBS).22 The sector umbrella organisations (interprofessions) also play a role in requesting the opening of quotas from FOAG according to market needs. Quotas are often fully used or even overfilled, with imports beyond the quota amount authorised at the in-quota duty (Loi et al., 2016[58]). In 2024, Switzerland notified to the WTO that 20 out of its 26 TRQs had a fill rate of 95% or higher (in some cases beyond 100%) (World Trade Organization, 2025[59]).
Switzerland does not usually resort to trade defense mechanisms. Although it reserved the right to invoke the WTO Special Agricultural Safeguard on 378 subheadings, the measure has never been used. Switzerland also notified the WTO in 2009 that it does not have an authority for conducting anti-dumping investigations and does not intend to take anti-dumping actions (World Trade Organization, 2009[60]).
A broad network of trade agreements also serves as a platform to promote sustainable agriculture and food systems
In addition to the EFTA convention and the trade agreement with the EU, Switzerland has a network of 35 free trade agreements (FTAs) with 45 partners.23 Most have been negotiated together with EFTA members, but in some cases, Switzerland has concluded bilateral agreements by itself.24 As policies and sensitivities differ, the agricultural market access provisions of EFTA agreements are negotiated bilaterally by each EFTA member with the agreement partner.
The domestic sensitivity of agriculture means that Switzerland has little flexibility for making concessions on the sector in trade negotiations (Fiankor et al., 2025[61]). As a result, the high border protection has remained mostly unaffected by trade agreements (Imhof, 2021[62]). The only exception is the trade of cheese with the European Union, which has been fully liberalised since June 2007. In its bilateral market access negotiations, Switzerland distinguishes between basic and processed agricultural products, seeking to grant concessions in the form of tariff reductions for non-sensitive products and imports within existing WTO tariff quotas in exchange for concessions for Swiss agricultural products with high export potential (FOAG, 2021[63]). Switzerland also views its FTAs as vehicles to promote sustainable trade and development as part of a coherent foreign policy approach (Box 2.3).
Preferential treatment is also granted unilaterally to imports from developing countries under the Swiss Generalized System of Preferences (GSP); for agricultural products it usually means a duty reduction. However, all imports from least developed countries (LDCs) enter the Swiss market free of any duties or quotas (UNCTAD, 2025[64]).
Sustainable development is a key element of Switzerland’s approach to FTAs, and sustainable agro-food systems are gaining increased prominence in it. The approach aims to ensure that the agreements promote environmental protection and social standards and enable sustainable growth in both Switzerland and its partner countries. Efforts to ensure a coherent policy framework around sustainable food systems also extend to Swiss development co-operation.
FTAs signed by Switzerland include provisions on areas such as environmental protection, labour rights, and responsible business conduct. EFTA developed a model chapter on Trade and Sustainable Development that has been included in its FTAs since 2010. The chapter was revised between 2017 and 2020 to strengthen its provisions, including those related to compliance monitoring and dispute settlement. In particular, it includes an article on sustainable agriculture and food systems, which foresees the establishment of a bilateral dialogue on best practices and regular progress reporting. New provisions on sustainable supply chains also support the development and application of sustainability certification schemes to improve the traceability of products. The chapter also seeks to promote responsible business conduct.
Switzerland is among the countries that have pioneered the linking of environmental sustainability with legally binding trade provisions and market access concessions. An OECD inventory of 130 trade-related measures linked to the environmental sustainability of agriculture found that the EFTA-Indonesia agreement was the only one including legally binding language on the enforcement of agri-environmental laws and policies, and the first agreement linking environmentally sustainable production with trade preferences (Frezal and Deuss, 2025[65]). The bilateral schedule of concessions from Switzerland to Indonesia includes five TRQs for palm oil and its derivatives, with a tariff reduction of 20‑40%, provided that the products comply with specific sustainability and traceability requirements (SECO, 2024[66]).
Switzerland also signed the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability (ACCTS) in November 2024 with Costa Rica, New Zealand, and Iceland. This new type of agreement uses legally binding trade rules to address climate and environmental challenges. It foresees the liberalisation of a list of environmental goods and services − including some related to sustainable agriculture − disciplines on fossil fuel subsidies, and non-binding guidelines to strengthen the quality and comparability of voluntary ecolabels for goods and services.
The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) promotes international co-operation on innovation in agriculture and food systems. It places emphasis on small-scale farming systems, agroecology, nutrition, equality, and furthering private sector investment. It operates an Agriculture and Food Systems Network promoting knowledge exchange amongst development practitioners, with focus on agroecology, nutrition, advisory services, and rural youth.
Due to the importance of the Swiss food processing industry, which often sources raw materials from developing countries, development co-operation efforts and federal funds also support projects promoting sustainable supply chains in producer countries, including multi-stakeholder initiatives such as the Swiss Sustainable Coffee Platform (SSCP) and the Swiss Platform for Sustainable Cocoa (SWISSCO).
2.5.2. Existing evaluations of the agricultural border protection system
The border protection system has been found to increase consumer prices and reinforce the status quo in the domestic market
Border protection is another key component of Swiss agricultural policy. By limiting imports, the system maintains high domestic prices, which in turn promote production and support agricultural income. An estimated 40% of the production value of Swiss agriculture depends on border protection (Federal Council, 2022[67]). As a result, domestic producer prices remain on average about 50% higher than world prices, even though this differential has decreased over time (see Section 2.6).
In 2017, the OECD evaluated the contribution of border protection to agricultural policy objectives on food provision, natural resource conservation, landscape maintenance, decentralised population settlement, and animal welfare (Gray et al., 2017[55]). The analysis found that border protection was only relevant for one of these objectives – ensuring food supplies for the population – as it stimulates domestic production. However, even in the absence of protection, the domestic sector would still be able to produce at least 85% of the calories it produced. In contrast, border protection was found to be irrelevant to the other overarching objectives, which are more concerned with non-commodity outputs and externalities from agriculture. This is because such support is neither conditional on the delivery of non-commodity outputs, nor targeted towards the activity or practices most closely linked to these outputs, nor focused on regions with high value for producing them.
Despite some changes in trade policy over the past decades − such as the elimination of export subsidies and a decrease in the average AVE tariff − fundamental aspects of border protection remain mostly unchanged, including TRQ administration. Research on the operation and impacts of six major meat and vegetable quotas has pointed out inefficiencies in the system (Loi et al., 2016[58]). While the rationale of the policy intervention is to maintain high producer prices, the system was found to keep prices high at all levels of the supply chain, particularly at the wholesale and retail stages, with asymmetric price transmission reflecting imbalances in bargaining power. The rents generated by the quotas were mostly captured by downstream actors, particularly retailers, a finding linked to the imperfect competition structure in the domestic market (see also Sections 1.1.4 and 2.7). As a consequence, consumers were negatively affected by higher prices. A study focusing on animal feed pinpointed border protection on imported feed materials as a key factor behind higher prices of concentrate feed (which is mostly produced domestically but uses some imported raw materials) (Cerca et al., 2019[68]).
TRQ administration is structured in a way that encourages exchange and co-operation among sector players, who enter into self-regulated alliances and partnerships to co-ordinate aspects such as the timing of quota releases and the exchange of quota rights. Given the market structure of two dominant retailers with a high level of vertical integration, this could be reinforcing dominant positions and strengthening the pre-existing concentration of market power (Loi et al., 2016[58]). Subsequent analysis specific to fresh fruits and vegetables confirmed that the system contributes to maintaining the high market concentration status quo, while keeping new entrants out of the market (Hillen, 2019[69]).
A recent study examined the environmental impacts of border protection, particularly on biodiversity. It found that, by increasing domestic food production, border protection measures lead to more intensive use of grassland and arable land in Switzerland. A scenario with tariffs resulted in a higher species loss potential caused by land use and greater impact on ecosystems beyond the utilised land compared to a scenario without tariffs. However, when domestic and foreign production are considered together, the scenario without tariffs would lead to higher food imports. Given current Swiss consumption patterns and the countries of origin of imports, this could result in greater environmental impacts abroad, particularly from the production of animal-based foods. On balance, when considering both the domestic and foreign effects, the study found a positive effect of border protection on biodiversity, because imports come from countries with more sensitive ecosystems than those in Switzerland (Bystricky et al., 2024[70]).
Switzerland has made much progress in reducing administrative hurdles and facilitating industrial trade. However, the agro-food sector lags behind
In 2016, the Federal Council published a report examining trade barriers, particularly hurdles to parallel imports25 that could be removed or reformed to lower consumer prices, and recommending actions to facilitate trade and enhance market competition (Federal Council, 2016[71]). One of its recommendations was the unilateral elimination of tariffs on industrial goods, which was implemented in 2024. The report recognised the relevance of agro-food border protection in the debate around Switzerland as a “high-price island”, and the tension between the goals of protecting agriculture and lowering food prices. It made several recommendations to reduce barriers to agro-food trade, such as:
Expanding bilateral agro-food trade liberalisation with the European Union.
Autonomously reducing tariffs on products with limited relevance to Swiss agriculture: around 500 tariff lines covering exotic products and out-of-season domestic produce, which could be liberalised without affecting domestic producers, were mentioned.
Reducing tariff peaks and tariff escalation, particularly the industrial protection component.
Reducing non-tariff barriers to agro-food trade, for example by reviewing exceptions to the Cassis de Dijon principle (which allows products approved in EU countries to be sold in Switzerland). Such exceptions generally constitute technical barriers to trade.
Replacing the licensing procedure for selling food products with a less burdensome mandatory reporting requirement.
Simplifying declaration requirements for food products, which in some cases deviate from EU law and require different packaging for products destined for the Swiss market.
Progress in this area has remained limited. The signing in 2025 of a joint agreement on agriculture and food safety with the European Union (see also Section 2.3.5) represents a step toward reducing non-tariff barriers to mutual trade.26 The latest review of exceptions to the Cassis de Dijon principle (covering 2016‑23) shows that four measures specifically affecting agro-food products were repealed (SECO, 2023[72]). However, a broader reduction of trade measures such as tariff escalation has not taken place.
Switzerland has been part of the OECD Producer Support Estimate (PSE) Database – which measures government support to agriculture and compares its evolution across countries − since its inception in 1986. This section assesses how the policies and reforms described in the previous sections have influenced the level and composition of support, also considering evolution since the last comprehensive review of Swiss agricultural policies (OECD, 2015[14]). It also examines how Switzerland compares with other countries and the OECD average.
2.6.1. Producer Support Estimate (PSE)
Support to producers declined after the late 1980s, but it stabilised after 2007 and remains the highest in the OECD
The level of support to producers (as measured by the PSE) has declined due to the reforms implemented over recent decades but remains very high in international comparison. Expressed as a percentage of gross farm receipts (%PSE),27 producer support declined from an average of 76% in 1986‑88 to 49% in 2024. However, following a sharp decline between 2000 and 2007, the %PSE has remained relatively stable, fluctuating between 45% and 55% in more recent years. This demonstrates that the most recent agricultural reform phases have been oriented towards restructuring payment categories, making them more targeted and better aligned with specific policy goals, but without a significant reduction in overall government spending on agriculture or modifications to the border protection system. As a result, the impact of these reforms reflects on the composition of producer support rather than on its level. Expressed in nominal terms, Switzerland’s PSE was CHF 6.3 billion in 2022-24, down from CHF 10.7 billion in 1986‑88, but relatively close to its value in 2013-15 (CHF 6.2 billion).28
In 2022-24, Switzerland’s producer support was the highest in the OECD and was unchanged from 2013‑15 (Figure 2.3). This level of support was approximately 3.5 times higher than the OECD average (13%) and comparable to that of fellow EFTA members Norway and Iceland.
Evolution of the Producer Support Estimate as a percentage of gross farm receipts (%PSE), OECD Members
Note: 2013-15 is included as a reference, as 2015 was the publication year of the most recent OECD review of Swiss agricultural policy. Data for Israel, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Chile unavailable for 1986-88. Separate data for the UK is unavailable for historical periods.
Source: OECD (2025[12]), Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2025: Making the Most of the Trade and Environment Nexus in Agriculture, https://doi.org/10.1787/a80ac398-en.
The composition of support has changed significantly over time, in line with the successive AP reforms
Even if the overall level of support has remained stable, its composition has experienced marked changes over the last decades (Figure 2.4). The following are the main PSE components, in descending order based on their share of gross farm receipts in 2022-24. Reference is made to the most relevant programmes in each category, as described in Table 2.3 (direct payments) or other sections of this chapter:
Market Price Support (MPS) remains the largest PSE category, representing 21% of gross farm receipts (GFR) in 2022-24. MPS represents transfers to producers arising from policy measures that create a gap between domestic market prices and border prices of agricultural commodities, thus reflecting border protection. MPS has declined from 66% of GFR in 1986-88, reflecting the reduction of trade barriers that took place in the early 1990s.
Support based on current area, animal numbers, receipts or income (A/An/R/I), requiring production: this category represented 9% of GFR in 2022-24, an increase from 4% in 1986-88. It includes several types of direct payments, such as the payments for ensuring food supplies under difficult conditions and for open arable land and permanent crops, payments for farming on steep slopes, and payments for organic farming.
Support based on historical (non-current) A/An/R/I, production required: these payments increased to 7% in 2022-24 from 0.2% in 1986-88. The most important programmes currently under this category were implemented following the AP14-17 reform, including the basic contribution for ensuring food supplies and the payments for summer and Alpine pasturing.
Support based on non-commodity criteria: these payments are granted against criteria different from production, for example environmental outcomes. Payments in this category first show in the Swiss PSE in 1993 and have increasingly gained importance, particularly after the AP14-17 reform. They represented 6% of GFR in 2022-24, the highest amongst 54 OECD and emerging economies. Examples include the biodiversity, open pasture, and landscape quality contributions.
Support based on commodity output: this category represented 3% in 2022-24, up from 0.3% in 1986-88. It comprises payments to the dairy sector under production and marketing support (payments for milk processed into cheese, milk produced without silage feed, and for marketed cow’s milk).
Support based on input use: this support, based on variable input use and fixed capital formation, has a relatively small and declining share, of 0.9% in 2022-24 (down from 4% in 1986-88). It includes subsidised loans and investment aids, and the fuel tax rebate discussed in Section 2.3.3.
Support based on historical (non-current) A/An/R/I, production not required: after 2014, this category includes only the transitional payments and has gradually decreased, reaching 0.4% in 2022-24. It previously included the general area payment granted between 1999 and 2013 and abolished in the AP14-17 reform, hence its relatively large share during that period.
Other (miscellaneous) support: this category includes cantonal and communal budget expenditures and has remained between 1% and 2% since 1986.
Level and composition of Switzerland’s PSE, by support categories, 1986-2024
Note: A/An/R/I: Area planted/Animal numbers/Receipts/Income.
Source: OECD (2025[12]), Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2025: Making the Most of the Trade and Environment Nexus in Agriculture, https://doi.org/10.1787/a80ac398-en.
Switzerland remains a heavy user of potentially distortive support measures
A key aspect of analysis is the degree to which policies influence production and trade. Within the PSE framework, payments tied to output (including market price support) and those linked to the unconstrained use of variable inputs are considered most closely connected to producers' decision-making and thus viewed as potentially the most distortive to production and trade. The share of these categories in the PSE declined from 91% in 1986-88 to 53% in 2013-15. With the AP14-17 reform, Switzerland increased the use of less distorting forms of support, not directly connected to the price or production quantity of a specific commodity (even if sometimes production is a condition for eligibility). However, the share of the potentially most distorting support categories remained at 53% of the PSE in 2022-24, and their monetary value remained mostly unchanged, reflecting the continuation of the AP2014-17 package in the subsequent years.
Nonetheless, the data indicates a move away from traditional area or animal-based payments towards support even less connected to production. This is particularly reflected in the growing share of payments based on non-commodity criteria, which was the highest amongst all countries included in the OECD Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2025 report (OECD, 2025[12]).
Most commodity-specific support is in the form of MPS
Support to specific agricultural commodities is measured using the share of single commodity transfers as a percentage of the specific commodity’s gross farm receipts (%SCT). Most commodity-specific support is provided through MPS; that is, border protection measures that create a differential between domestic and international prices. The exceptions are dairy, which receives payments based on output, and sugar, which benefits from direct budgetary support (specific area payments). Particularly large price gaps lead to substantial %SCT (above 50%) for poultry and eggs (Figure 2.5). Earlier reductions in commodity-specific transfers had been achieved through a move away from MPS and commodity-specific payments to more general payments in the late 1980s and early 1990s (OECD, 2015[14]).
Evolution of commodity-specific transfers (SCT), 2013-15 and 2022-24
Source: OECD (2025[12]), Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2025: Making the Most of the Trade and Environment Nexus in Agriculture, https://doi.org/10.1787/a80ac398-en.
Swiss producers receive prices approximately 50% higher than international prices
On average, prices received by Swiss producers were 47% above international prices in 2022‑24. This gap is measured by the Producer Nominal Protection Coefficient (PNPC), the ratio between the average price received by producers (including support payments) and the border reference price; a coefficient of 1 suggests that producer prices are in line with international prices. Even if the PNPC decreased significantly when compared with 1986-88 (when it stood at 4.4), it continues to be one of the highest in the OECD. Moreover, there has been almost no change against 2013-15 (Figure 2.6).
Evolution of the Producer Nominal Protection Coefficient, OECD Members
Note: Data for Israel, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Chile unavailable for 1986-88. Separate data for the UK is unavailable for historical periods.
Source: OECD (2025[12]), Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2025: Making the Most of the Trade and Environment Nexus in Agriculture, https://doi.org/10.1787/a80ac398-en.
2.6.2. General Services Support Estimate (GSSE)
General services support is the second highest in the OECD
Beyond support to individual producers provided either as budgetary transfers or market price support, governments spend to create enabling conditions for agriculture through the development of services, institutions, and infrastructure. This is measured by the General Services Support Estimate (GSSE). In nominal terms, Switzerland’s GSSE averaged CHF 825 million during 2022-24, exceeding the amounts recorded in 1986-88 (CHF 677 million) and 2013-15 (CHF 730 million).
Expressed as a percentage of the value of agricultural production, Switzerland’s average GSSE for 2022‑24 was 9%, the second highest in the OECD, surpassed only by Japan. Moreover, it has increased with respect to 1986-88 and 2013-15, when it stood at 5% and 8% respectively. Switzerland was one of only four OECD members that provided GSSE support exceeding 5% of the value of production in 2022‑24 (Figure 2.7); this type of spending remains generally low − averaging 4% – among OECD Members, despite the potential of general services investments to help the sector become more productive, sustainable and resilient.
General Services Support Estimate (GSSE), percentage of agricultural production (%GSSE), OECD Members
Note: Data for Israel, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Chile unavailable for 1986-88. Separate data for the UK is unavailable for historical periods.
Source: OECD (2025[12]), Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2025: Making the Most of the Trade and Environment Nexus in Agriculture, https://doi.org/10.1787/a80ac398-en.
Switzerland is at the forefront of agricultural knowledge and innovation support
Expenditures on the agricultural knowledge and innovation system (AKIS) represent the largest category, accounting for 28% of total GSSE expenditures in 2022-24 (Figure 2.8). In particular, the public budget for agricultural research recovered after having reached its lowest levels between 1999 and 2005 (with an annual average of CHF 71 million), increasing steadily over time to CHF 195 million in 2022‑24. Knowledge transfer expenditures, primarily supporting universities and specialised schools, also saw a notable increase. Public AKIS spending in 2022-24 amounted to 4% of the agricultural production value, the highest in the OECD and significantly above the OECD average (1%). See also Chapter 4 for an overview of the Swiss innovation system and of public spending on research and development.
The second-largest GSSE category are miscellaneous expenditures, which comprise cantonal and communal expenditures, among them for agricultural advisory services. This category represented 26% of total GSSE in 2022-24.
Level and composition of Switzerland’s GSSE, as a percentage of agricultural production, 1986-2024
Source: OECD (2025[12]), Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2025: Making the Most of the Trade and Environment Nexus in Agriculture, https://doi.org/10.1787/a80ac398-en.
Compulsory stocks of essential foodstuffs for emergency preparedness are managed by private operators that get compensation from the federal government
Another component of Switzerland’s GSSE is the cost of public stockholding. Budgetary expenditures in this category amounted to CHF 55 million in 2022-24, or 7% of general services spending. This amount corresponds to the compensation paid by the federal government to the private operators of the mandatory stockpiles (Réservesuisse, 2025[73]) (Réservesuisse, 2025[74]).
Compulsory stockpiling of essential goods and raw materials, including foodstuffs and nitrogen fertilisers,29 is considered a key strategic measure given Switzerland’s dependency on imports (FONES, n.d.[75]). The legal basis is the Federal Act on National Economic Supply (SR 531), which outlines the country’s response to ensure the supply of essential goods and services in the event of severe shortages.
The Federal Office for National Economic Supply (FONES) oversees the stockpiling system, but the stocks are managed by private companies under agreements with FONES. The goods remain the property of these companies and can be released in times of severe shortages by order of the federal government, through the Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education and Research (EAER). Most releases of compulsory stocks since 2015 have concerned pharmaceuticals (OECD, 2024[76]), although the federal government approved the release of 20% of the emergency fertiliser stocks (equivalent to around 3 400 MT) in December 2021 (Swiss Confederation News Service, 2021[77]).
In the case of foodstuffs, the co-operative Réservesuisse oversees the stocks. The covered products are sugar, rice, edible oils and fats, coffee, durum and soft wheat, and energy and protein sources for animal feed. The mandated stock quantities are intended to cover three to four months of demand (two to three months for animal feed) (Réservesuisse, n.d.[78]). Réservesuisse also issues general import permits to importers and monitors the stockpiled goods. Storage costs and associated risks (such as price volatility) are covered by a guarantee fund financed by an import levy (see Section 2.5). The co-operative’s members include retailers, importers, and wholesalers − including large players such as Migros, Coop and Nestlé – all of which have concluded a compulsory stockholding agreement with the federal government. The stocks are maintained in a rotating manner, with constant turnover in which stocks are used for consumption or processing and new goods are added (Pelosi, 2020[79]).
The list of stockpiled items and their required quantities is regularly reviewed by FONES, together with cantonal governments and companies. It has evolved over time, with reduced compulsory stock quantities reflecting the greater integration of the global economy and more robust commodity markets (OECD, 2024[76]). In light of growing global uncertainty, the Federal Council held consultations in the first half of 2023 on amendments to food and feedstuff stockpiling. These included assuming a 12-month import stop as the baseline scenario, increasing stock quantities of grains and edible oils, and eliminating the compulsory stockpiling of coffee. As the proposals were met with resistance from stakeholders, a more detailed review was commissioned. It will examine questions such as the need for additional instruments to monitor national and international supply chains of critical goods and services, or whether additional goods should be stockpiled (Federal Office for National Economic Supply, 2023[80]).
2.6.3. Consumer Support Estimate (CSE)
Swiss consumers are implicitly taxed to support agricultural producers
The third component of the OECD framework for analysing support to agriculture is the Consumer Support Estimate (CSE), which measures gross transfers from or to consumers resulting from policy measures that support agriculture. The CSE considers support to both final consumers and first-stage processors of agricultural commodities. It can include either explicit transfers (e.g. domestic food aid or budgetary support to first-stage processors) or implicit transfers (e.g. through higher consumer prices). Switzerland’s CSE is negative, indicating a net transfer from consumers to producers. The %CSE (consumer support relative to gross consumption expenditures) declined from -75% in 1986-88 to -31% in 2022-24 but remains the second highest in the OECD, reflecting the high level of market price support to producers (OECD, 2025[12]).
The Swiss CSE primarily consists of implicit transfers from consumers to producers. The current amount of direct budgetary support to consumers is negligible (CHF 4 million in 2022-24), as most programmes supporting first-stage processors have been abolished.
2.6.4. Total Support Estimate (TSE)
Total support has declined as a share of GDP
Total support to agriculture (Total Support Estimate, TSE) brings together transfers under the PSE, GSSE spending, and budgetary payments to consumers.30 In nominal terms, the Swiss TSE has declined by over 40%, from CHF 12 billion in 1986-88 to CHF 7 billion in 2022-24; however, it has remained stable since 2013-15. The percentage TSE (%TSE), expressed as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was less than 1% in 2022-24, significantly lower than in 1986-88 (4%) but stable compared to 2013-15.
Producer support per farm in Switzerland is substantial. If the average annual value of the producer support estimate (PSE) is divided by the average number of farm holdings (47 713 in 2022-24), it results in support amounting to CHF 133 271 per farm and year. Considering the Federal Statistical Office’s estimate of 4 million private households in Switzerland as of end-2024, total support to the sector (TSE) directly or indirectly costs each Swiss household around CHF 1 760 per year, or CHF 147 per month. This represents around 2% of the average disposable income of Swiss households (estimated by the FSO at CHF 7 186 per month in 2023).
Product market regulation in Switzerland is as competition-friendly as the OECD average
According to the OECD Product Market Regulation Indicators (PMR),31 product market regulation in Switzerland is as competition-friendly as in most OECD countries (Figure 2.9). While this is an economy-wide indicator, it highlights where the Swiss regulatory framework stands vis-à-vis OECD countries in several areas which can affect businesses, including those along the food supply chain. Regulatory restrictions to trade and investment are low. However, the administrative and regulatory burden imposed on businesses (2.51) is above the OECD average (1.74).32 Unlike in many OECD countries, in Switzerland lobbyists are not required to register in a dedicated public registry, and policymakers do not have to disclose their agendas, or the identity of the interest groups consulted. The new PMR sector indicator on digital markets (e.g. online marketplaces) suggests that Switzerland has taken limited steps to assess and address the competition challenges raised by the development of these markets (OECD, 2024[81]).
Benchmarking of Switzerland’s performance in the economy-wide PMR Indicator
Note: The PMR values range between (0) and (6) from the most to the least competition friendly regulatory regime. Lower scores indicate a better performance.
Source: OECD PMR database for 2023-24.
The Swiss agricultural market has followed a trend of deregulation
Swiss food and agricultural markets have deregulated but are influenced by high border protection. Guaranteed prices and production controls have been phased out over recent decades. In 2009, milk quotas and the Sugar Act were abolished. The inter-branch organisation for milk, l’Interprofession du Lait (IP Lait), introduced standard milk delivery contracts for its members. These set different prices and volumes for milk delivery (contingents A, B and C). By 2013, these contracts became compulsory for all milk producers – including non-members of IP Lait – effectively replacing the former quota system with a privately managed production control mechanism. The Federal Council extended this scheme in 2021, and it remains in place today (OECD, 2024[82]). FOAG regularly collects and publishes data on prices, production, and trade in key commodities, as mandated by the Agricultural Act. The Agricultural Act also allows producer organisations or industry branches to publish non-binding guideline prices, provided they have been agreed in advance by buyers and suppliers. Markets are also influenced by the compulsory stockpiling of essential goods and raw materials, which includes selected foodstuffs. Border protection is high and domestic producer prices remain on average 50% higher than world prices (see Section 2.6).
Food prices in Switzerland are high and concerns about market concentration and price transparency common
Food prices in Switzerland are the highest in Europe. According to Eurostat’s comparative price levels, Switzerland recorded the highest food prices among 36 countries in 2023 (Figure 2.10). On average, food prices in Switzerland are 60% higher than the Euro area average, with considerable variation across product categories. A study commissioned by SECO compared the price and cost structure of three key products in Switzerland compared to neighbouring countries (bread in Germany, yogurt in France and cured ham in Italy). Swiss prices were 20% higher in Switzerland for yogurt and ham and 100% higher for bread. Several factors explain these price differences, including higher costs for input goods, higher wages and higher profit margins at some stages of the supply chain (Logatcheva et al., 2019[83]). Poultry prices in Switzerland are also comparatively high relative to beef (OECD/FAO, 2025[84]).33
Note: EA20 corresponds to the 20 countries which comprise the Euro area.
Source: Eurostat (2025[85]), Comparative price levels for food, beverages and tobacco, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Comparative_price_levels_for_food,_beverages_and_tobacco#Data_sources.
Market concentration is high and causes concern among food systems actors. In Switzerland, agricultural and food markets are characterised by high market concentration and asymmetries both upstream and downstream the value chain (Federal Council, 2022[7]). Swiss farmers often complain about being caught in the middle, with suppliers and buyers exploiting their power at farmers’ expense (Steiner, 2024[6]). Upstream, Fenaco controls about half of trade of Swiss potatoes and cereals, 65% of oilseeds, one-third of fruit and vegetables and a quarter of pork. In the retail sector, Migros and Coop hold around 70% of the market (Agrarinfo, 2024[86]). They further own a number of subsidiaries that focus on intermediary stages and the processing of food, such as Micarna or Frey for Migros, and Bell for Coop. There is a lack of reliable, accessible and up-to-date data on market concentration across the different stages of the food chain. Over the past twenty years, the Competition Commission has examined more than 50 proposed mergers in the agricultural sector and in upstream or downstream markets. These mergers were all approved without exception.34 Previous OECD work finds no evidence that stronger actors systematically abuse their position, noting that competition issues are best analysed using in-depth studies of specific value chains (Deconinck, 2021[87]). In June 2025, a group of Swiss fruit and vegetable producers filed a complaint with the Swiss Competition Commission against Coop, alleging that a rebate scheme introduced by the retailer in April constitutes an abuse of its dominant position (Le News, 2025[88]).
Consumer associations and farmers are increasingly calling for more transparency around food prices and profit margins in Switzerland. In 2022, the Fédération romande des consommateurs (FRC) published investigations into margins of dairy products and vegetables. On dairy, they showed that gross retail margins could reach 50% of the final price and up to 66% in the case of Tomme Vaudoise (FRC, 2022[89]). The vegetable study indicated that producer prices were stagnating while shelf prices rose, with larger spreads on some organic products (FRC, 2022[90]). A 2023 inquiry by Switzerland’s price watchdog found that high margins in organic food were widespread and often exceeding what is justified by higher production costs. It also highlighted that margins were higher than in more competitive markets like the Netherlands (Competition Commission, 2023[91]). The food industry considers these concerns to be overstated. They highlight that some data is already published, and that consumer organisations tend to highlight extreme examples rather than reflecting the overall market situation. For instance, one type of bread may increase faster than inflation, but across the full category average increases are smaller. From this perspective, demands for more detailed transparency risk misleading the public and putting disproportionate focus on single products rather than system-wide trends. A 2019 study commissioned by SECO analysed the prices and margins of three key food products found and found that farmers’ margins were higher in Switzerland than in France (for yogurt), Germany (for bread) and Italy (for cured ham) (Logatcheva et al., 2019[83]).
Data on profit margins is scarce across OECD countries. A notable exception is France, where an official observatory monitors prices and margins along the food supply chain (Box 2.4). In Switzerland, FOAG maintains a portal with data on several agricultural and food markets. A parliamentary initiative (22.477) seeks to expand market monitoring and establish a similar observatory to improve transparency in pricing, margins, and costs in the food chain. The initiative was approved in September 2025. Furthermore, the Committee for Economic Affairs and Taxation of the National Council mandated the federal administration to submit by June 2026 a proposal for the concrete implementation of the core elements of initiative 22.477 under AP30+. Improving market transparency (including on the distribution of value added) is one of the fields of action within the long-term vision of the agricultural sector, and measures are expected under AP30+ (Federal Council, 2022[7]).
In 2010, France established an Observatory of Food Prices and Margins (OFPM). It is managed by FranceAgriMer under the joint supervision of the ministries responsible for food and consumer affairs. The Observatory collects data directly from companies, manufacturers, and distributors, as well as from official statistical services. Its mandate is to improve transparency on how prices and margins are formed along the food supply chain, covering agriculture, processing, distribution, and products from fishing and aquaculture.
The OFPM produces annual reports to Parliament and can provide additional information to other authorities upon request. Its analyses cover both aggregate indicators and detailed breakdowns by value chain (for example, pork, beef, or dairy). Indicators include gross margins (the difference between input and output values at each stage of the chain) and net profit margins (after costs). Data is also compared with that of other European countries. While results are not directly transferable to other contexts, the Observatory offers unique insights into how value is distributed along French food chains and serves as a reference for international debates on transparency.
Cross-border food shopping is a common practice in Switzerland
Many households live close to international borders, which can facilitate shopping in neighbouring countries. The country’s five largest cities are all closer than 50 km away from an international border.35 According to (Rudolph et al., 2022[94]), in 2023, more than half of consumers in German-speaking Switzerland engaged in cross-border grocery shopping at least once in the past year. Similar patterns occur in other OECD countries with high food prices. In Norway, cross-border shopping with Sweden ‒ driven by high domestic prices and market regulations ‒ accounts for around 4% of food retail sales and has led to the establishment of large supermarkets near the border (OECD, 2021[95]).
Cross-border food shopping can have important implications, but measuring it is challenging. For consumers, buying groceries in neighbouring countries offers a wider range of food products at lower prices. For the Swiss economy, it implies less tax collection and lower retail sales, which in turn can affect employment and economic activity upstream. According to the Swiss Retail Federation (2023[96]), cross-border shopping across all product categories amounts to more than CHF 8.5 billion in spending abroad each year. Food purchases benefit from VAT and duty exemptions, but the tax-free threshold was lowered from CHF 300 to CHF 150 in January 2025 (FOCBS, 2024[97]), and additional quantity limits apply to certain products (e.g. 1 kg per person for meat). Measuring the extent and implications of cross-border shopping is challenging. Rapid changes in relative prices or international mobility can provide useful insights on this phenomenon. For example, during the appreciation of the CHF in 2015, cross-border shopping increased (Burstein, Lein and Vogel, 2024[98]). Evidence from grocery transactions data during the COVID-19-induced lockdown indicates that cross-border shopping leads to an annual loss of CHF 1.5 billion domestic grocery sales, equivalent to 3.8% of the total market (Kluser, 2025[99]). It also suggests that larger households, those with lower income, and those closer to borders are more likely to engage in cross-border shopping.
2.8.1. The rationale behind public interventions to influence food consumption
Estimates suggest food’s “hidden costs” represent 4.5% of the Swiss GDP
Some studies have attempted to quantify the “hidden costs” generated by food systems. This concept refers to negative impacts that are not reflected in the market price of a product or a service; in the context of food systems, this can encompass environmental (e.g. from GHG emissions or water use), health (e.g. from productivity losses due to unhealthy diets), or social costs (e.g. from undernourishment) (FAO, 2023[100]). These hidden costs attempt to consider the unaccounted consequences of production and consumption choices, often borne by society, third parties, or future generations; globally, they have been estimated at about 10% of world GDP (FAO, 2024[101]).36 In the case of Switzerland, a recent estimation put the costs at approximately CHF 32 billion in 2020, or around 4.5% of its GDP (De Luca and Müller, 2025[102]). These figures can be useful for policy discussion but rest on strong assumptions and limited data, and some of the estimated impacts may reflect policy choices rather than purely unpriced externalities.
Unhealthy diets remain a major risk factor in Switzerland
Unhealthy diets have wide ranging impacts in Switzerland. Per capita health expenditure in Switzerland is the highest in Europe and the second highest among OECD countries (OECD, 2023[103]). Around 80% of these costs relate to non-communicable diseases (NCD) (Federal Council, 2022[7]). Other impacts are seen in in the form of productivity loss, direct treatment cost, and immaterial costs linked to the amount of time lived being unhealthy (De Luca and Müller, 2025[102]).
The rates of overweight and obesity have increased in the past two decades but remain below the OECD average (Figure 2.11). Overweight and obesity are major risk factors for various non-communicable diseases including cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and certain cancers (OECD/European Union, 2022[104]). Between 1992 and 2022, the proportion of overweight people increased from 30% to 43% while the rate of obesity rose from 5% to 12%. Since 2012, the obesity rate has increased at a slower pace, while the proportion of overweight population has remained stable (FSO, 2022[105]). The share of obese people is twice as high among men with a low level of educational attainment compared with those with a high level of educational attainment (22% compared with 10%); the difference is even greater among women (21% compared with 8%).
Note: Population classified as overweight or obese is defined as follows: Overweight: BMI between 25 and <30; Obese: BMI ≥30.
Source: Enquête suisse sur la santé 2022, consulted June 2025; OECD (2025), Body weight Indicators, https://data-explorer.oecd.org/, consulted October 2025.
The Swiss population's diet is not balanced. Calorie intake is too high, while consumption of fruit, vegetables, dairy products and starchy foods is too low, and consumption of sweet and savoury products, alcohol, animal fats and meat is too high (Federal Council, 2022[7]). Adherence to national Swiss food-based dietary guidelines (FBDG) is generally low (Chatelan et al., 2017[106]). In 2022, only 16% of the adult Swiss population consumed at least five daily portions of fruit and vegetables (Figure 2.12). This is significantly lower than in 2017 (21%) and 2012 (19%) (FSO, 2022[105]). Despite a slight decrease between two national surveys, salt intake remains above the international recommendation of 5 g/day in Swiss adults, while potassium intake is well below the recommended intake of at least 3.50 g/day (Chelbi et al., 2024[107]). Dietary habits differ significantly across Swiss regions (see Section 1.2.3).
Consumption of fruits and vegetables, share of total population over 15 years old
Source: Federal Statistical Office (2023) - Enquête suisse sur la santé.
Low consumption of fruits and vegetables and frequent intake of snacks and sugary drinks are key dietary challenges among Swiss children. Results of the Swiss national nutrition survey of children and adolescents (menuCH Kids) were recently published and constitute a comprehensive dataset on the nutrition and lifestyle of children in Switzerland. According to the survey, Swiss children have diets that provide adequate energy intake and risk factors for chronic diseases are relatively low compared with other countries. However, diets are characterised by low fruit and vegetable consumption, relatively high intakes of protein and meat, and frequent consumption of snacks and sugar-sweetened beverages. About 13% of Swiss children are overweight or obese (Vincentini J., 2025[108]).
Food consumption is a major source of environmental pressures
In Switzerland, food consumption accounts for 28% of the national ecological footprint, ahead of housing (24%) and mobility (12%) (Federal Council, 2018[109]). The largest share (44%) of these impacts come from animal-based products followed by beverages (mostly wine, beer and coffee). Swiss food systems are major source of environmental pressures including high nutrient balances, water pollution, GHG emissions and biodiversity loss (see Chapter 3). After unhealthy diets, the largest hidden cost of food systems was biodiversity loss (CHF 7.5 billion), followed by GHG emissions (CHF 3.1 billion) and nitrogen emissions (CHF 2.9 billion) (De Luca and Müller, 2025[102]).
Switzerland has made efforts to facilitate and improve the measurement of the environmental footprint of food products. The environmental footprint of food systems is complex, depending on a wide range of context-specific factors such as land-use, water, chemicals and energy, seasonality and production location (OECD, 2025[110]). To facilitate measurement and avoid fragmented approaches, Agroscope has developed the SALCA (Swiss Agricultural Life Cycle Assessment) methodology to quantify environmental impacts of the agricultural and food sector. A SALCA database is also available and provides hundreds of environmental inventories on Swiss agriculture (Agroscope, 2025[111]). Agroscope updates the database regularly and collaborates closely with other renowned database producers (e.g. Ecoinvent). To enable farmers to measure their environmental impacts, at least eight farm-level calculation tools37 exist in Switzerland. Life cycle assessments have been used to estimate environmental impacts as part of food systems policy processes (see Section 3.5 for the example of food loss and waste policies).
2.8.2. Policies to encourage diets with better health and environmental outcomes
Food choices influence food systems outcomes. There are substantial differences in the environmental impacts of different food products, as well as significant variation among producers of the same product (Poore and Nemecek, 2018[112]) (OECD, 2025[110]). Research links excessive consumption of sugar, salt, oils, and fats to higher prevalence of overweight and obesity, and to specific forms of cancer and other NCD (OECD, 2021[1]). Demand-side policies can directly impact environmental and health outcomes of food choices by influencing demand for specific food categories or demand from specific types of suppliers. They can also have an indirect effect, encouraging food systems’ stakeholders to adopt practices with better environmental outcomes.
Switzerland is implementing various demand-side policies to encourage healthier and more sustainable food choices
Shifting dietary patterns is challenging, as consumer choices reflect cultural and personal preferences (OECD, 2025[110]). There is no one way to shift food consumption patterns: a combination of policy options may need to be considered. Previous OECD work suggests a five-track policy approach to encourage healthier and more environmentally sustainable food choices (Box 2.5).
The OECD undertook a review of demand-side policies for healthier food choices in 2019. It looked at the variety of policy instruments used in OECD countries to counter unhealthy food consumption habits and proposed a four-track policy approach to encourage healthier food choices. This framework of analysis for demand-side food systems policies has also been applied to policies that encourage food choices aimed at positive environmental outcomes. Recent work on international food loss and waste (FLW) policy environment proposed adding a fifth track:
First track: demand-side public interventions (e.g. education programmes or providing dietary information)
Second track: voluntary collaborations with the food industry at the supply-demand interface (e.g. food reformulation, simplified food labelling initiatives)
Third track: firmer regulations when public-private incentives are misaligned (e.g. rules on advertising aimed at children, ban on the use of certain ingredients)
Fourth track: fiscal measures to make the price of certain food products more closely reflect their social cost (e.g. excise or sales taxes)
Fifth track: Public investment in enabling factors, which can improve the evidence-base, facilitate innovation and foster knowledge sharing (e.g. funding of academic or expert studies to understand consumers’ behaviour or identify and categorise consumer profiles).
Encouraging healthier and more sustainable food choices is increasingly a policy priority in Switzerland. The Federal Council’s Report on the Future Orientation of Agriculture Policy contains the long-term vision for the sector and has “encouraging healthy and sustainable food consumption” as one of its four strategic pillars. The Agriculture and Food Climate Strategy 2050 is a cross-sectoral strategy to guide the federal administration in tackling climate change. One of its three overarching goals is for the Swiss population to eat a healthy and balanced diet that is environmentally friendly and resource efficient. One of the foreseen measures under this strategy was to “improve sustainability in the nutrition strategy”. In April 2025, the Swiss Nutrition Strategy 2025-2032 was published, building on the evaluation of the previous strategy (2017-24). Its main goal is to promote a balanced, nutritious and sustainable diet. The strategy has six objectives: (1) promoting a balanced, nutritious diet across all age groups; (2) improving public understanding of nutrition and sustainability; (3) prioritising plant-based diets; (4) engaging the entire food industry in transforming eating habits, (5) creating food environments that support healthy, sustainable choices; and (6) reducing food loss and waste. To operationalise these goals, an action plan is expected by end of 2025. The Health Policy Strategy 2020–2030 and the 2022-30 Food Loss and Waste Action Plan also seek to influence consumer behaviour and include demand-side policy measures (for FLW, see Section 3.5).
Non-exhaustive list of measures to encourage healthier or more sustainable food choices
Note: *Measures which have not yet been implemented.
Switzerland could explore more demand-side policies to influence consumers towards healthier and more environmentally sustainable diets. As in most OECD countries, demand-side policy measures in Switzerland have focused on soft and voluntary measures (tracks 1, 2 and 5). In the case of FLW prevention, stronger measures are foreseen if results by 2025 are deemed insufficient to meet the 2030 goals (see Section 3.5). Table 2.7 briefly describes examples of relevant demand-side policy actions that have been implemented in OECD countries.
Demand-side policy initiatives are also being used at the local and regional level. Cantons and cities are dynamic actors in the field of food systems policies. Cities and cantons can influence the food offer in the collective catering services they manage, including in schools, childcare facilities, hospitals and retirement homes. Box 2.6 and Box 2.7 show relevant initiatives at the canton and city levels of food systems policies and demand-side measures related to tracks 3-5. Health promotion is largely a responsibility of cantons (FNSNF, 2020[124]).
Selected demand-side policy actions in OECD countries.
Note: Orange (green) denotes actions to encourage dietary shifts associated with improved health (environmental) outcomes.
A popular initiative led to Zurich’s sustainable nutrition strategy
In 2017, Zurich amended its municipal code to include a mandate to promote environmentally friendly food, following a counterproposal to a popular initiative “for sustainable and equitable food.” Based on this legal foundation, the city adopted a Sustainable Nutrition Strategy in 2019. The strategy sets ambitious targets, including to achieve a 40% reduction in per capita food-related GHG emissions by 2040 (compared to 1990). Progress reports in 2021 and 2023 demonstrated significant advances, leading to an updated strategy, published in 2024.
To achieve its goals, Zurich leverages both on public food procurement and collaboration with the private sector
Since 2025, municipal catering services – including schools, hospitals and elderly care centres – must comply with binding sustainability standards for food purchasing, covering minimum shares of certified products, greater inclusion of plant-based meals, and systematic monitoring of food waste. In parallel, the city collaborates with restaurants through the “Climat à la carte” charter, launched in 2023 and already signed by more than 90 establishments, to promote climate-friendly, healthy and appealing food options. These measures are complemented by advisory services, training and financial support for restaurants.
Source: (Scharrer and Kubioka, 2024[125]).
The canton of Geneva has included the “right to food” in its Constitution…
Following the surge in the number of people in need of food aid during COVID-19, the canton of Geneva voted to enshrine the “right to food” in its Constitution. This guarantees everyone adequate food and protection against hunger. Subsequently, an initiative was launched to create a common food fund, based on democratic and redistributive principles, to support local and sustainable food.
…and pilot programmes are in place to incentivise food purchases in selected grocery shops
While the cantonal law is being drafted, two motions at municipal level (in Geneva and Meyrin) highlighted the need to conduct experiments. At the initiative from several civil society organisations, a pilot project for the creation of a common food fund (Calim), with up to 400 participants, will run from October 2025 to December 2026, with support of public authorities and private partners. The project is inspired by food democracy initiatives in France and Belgium. On a monthly basis, members receive CHF 150 they can spend in affiliated grocery stores. Member contributions vary according to their financial situation. The grocery stores are approved by the citizen’s committee based on four criteria: (1) relationship with consumers, (2) relationship with producers, (3) environmental and health quality, and (4) economic, governance and ethical model.
Effective demand-side policy interventions require good knowledge of consumer habits and purchasing behaviour
A better understanding of consumer behaviour with regard to the environmental impact of their food choices could help unlock the potential impact of demand-side policy interventions (OECD, 2025[126]; Hassett et al., 2025[127]; OECD, 2025[128]; OECD, 2024[122]). Notably, there remains a major gap between consumers’ stated intentions and their actual purchasing behaviour when it comes to the environmental characteristics associated with food products (Deconinck and Hobeika, 2023[129]).
The education, environmental concern and purchasing power of Swiss consumers are high. Switzerland offers high living standards, and its population is well-educated, active and healthier than in most OECD countries (OECD, 2023[130]). One-fourth of the Swiss population follows a flexitarian diet. Swiss consumers are more environmentally concerned and buy more products which they perceive as more environmentally sustainable (e.g. organic) (see Section 1.2.3). Still, consumer food choices are influenced by multiple factors, and the environment is rarely a top priority. Results from the 2022 round of the OECD Survey on Environmental Policies and Individual Behaviour Change (EPIC)38 show that food choices are driven by affordability, taste, freshness and nutritional value – often more so than by environmental considerations (Hassett et al., 2025[127]).
Swiss consumers are generally supportive of demand-side interventions to encourage more sustainable food choices. While the trend is similar in all countries covered in the EPIC survey, Swiss consumers tend to be among the top supporters of the different measures (Figure 2.13). Stricter measures (particularly taxes) receive little support from consumers, while softer measures are generally well accepted. This is consistent with the recommendations made by the citizens assembly convened in the context of the 2022 Swiss Food Systems Summit (see Section 5.3).
Source: OECD (2022), Environmental Policies and Individual Behaviour Change Survey.
Switzerland’s agro-food policies are shaped by a constitutional mandate that defines agriculture’s role in multiple areas. These orientations are complemented by national strategies and long‑term frameworks on sustainability, climate, nutrition, and competitiveness. Policies are implemented within a federal system based on subsidiarity. Agricultural policy design is largely centralised at the federal level, with implementation delegated to the cantons. Broader food systems policy areas are managed by multiple federal offices. Policymaking typically involves consultation with advisory bodies and a wide range of private and civil society actors.
Agricultural policy has changed substantially over time, reflecting evolving societal preferences and international commitments. Reforms starting in the early 1990s progressively reduced isolation from global markets. Key changes included decoupling price and income support, introducing direct payments less linked to production, and integrating environmental requirements through cross-compliance. Production quotas, price guarantees and export subsidies were gradually reduced or abolished. The latest major reform package (AP14-17) redesigned direct payments to better target specific practices. A subsequent reform process (AP22+) was suspended, delaying more comprehensive reforms. Since then, policy development has proceeded mainly through targeted adjustments on areas such as social security, crop insurance, and water quality.
The current agricultural policy framework reflects these cumulative adjustments. Federal agricultural expenditure has remained broadly stable at around CHF 3.7 billion per year. Direct payments account for over three-quarters of this budget. They form a complex system addressing food supply, environmental and biodiversity objectives, and the maintenance of rural landscapes. Additional programmes support production and marketing, particularly in the dairy sector. A third category finances structural improvements and investments and was the only area with increased funding for 2026-29.
Switzerland’s approach to risk management includes long‑standing disaster prevention and newer tools to manage climate and systemic risks. In agriculture, there are interest‑free hardship loans co-financed by the cantons and the federal government, compensation for government-mandated culls of animals due to highly contagious diseases, and a comprehensive animal traceability system. Federal support for crop insurance against drought and frost was introduced recently. At the same time, discussions on food systems resilience highlight the need for more holistic, cross‑sectoral approaches that consider interconnected risks along the supply chain.
Trade policy combines extensive participation in international agreements with high protection for agro-food products. Agricultural trade is governed by a complex system of tariffs, tariff rate quotas and border measures that sustain domestic prices and farm incomes. Switzerland uses its network of trade agreements to promote sustainable agro-food systems, but agricultural market access concessions remain limited. Evaluations suggest that agricultural border protection contributes to higher consumer prices and established market structures, while offering limited support for policy objectives beyond maintaining domestic production. Progress in reducing non‑tariff barriers has been uneven, with agro‑food trade lagging behind industrial goods.
Support to agriculture has declined markedly compared with the late 1980s. However, over the past decade it stabilised at a level that remains very high by international standards. Even if the overall level of support is largely unchanged, reforms have altered its composition, expanding the use of direct payments less connected to production, and linked to other criteria such as environmental outcomes. Nevertheless, potentially trade and production-distorting measures such as market price support continue to be the largest component of producer support, contributing to producer prices well above international levels and to the second-highest level of implicit net transfers from consumers to producers in the OECD. At the same time, spending on general services that create enabling conditions for agriculture has increased and is among the highest in the OECD. In particular, support to agricultural knowledge and innovation is the highest in the OECD and more than twice the OECD average.
Switzerland maintains compulsory stockpiling of essential foodstuffs and agricultural inputs to safeguard supply in the event of severe disruptions. The system is overseen by the federal government but managed by private companies. Stock management is financed by import levies that add to high border protection. The list and quantities of the stockpiled goods are regularly reviewed. Rising global uncertainty renewed debate on stock levels and calculation assumptions, leading to a detailed review of the system.
Agro‑food markets operate within a regulatory environment broadly aligned with the OECD average, though administrative burdens on business could be reduced and transparency on interactions between public officials and interest groups strengthened. The functioning of agro-food markets is shaped by high border protection, market concentration and compulsory stockholding, contributing to domestic prices well above international levels. High concentration along the value chain, combined with limited price and margin transparency, has fuelled concerns among farmers and consumers. High food prices encourage widespread cross‑border shopping, although its extent and implications are difficult to measure.
Food consumption remains a source of public health and environmental pressures. Despite relatively strong performance on several indicators, dietary imbalances persist, generating significant health, social and environmental costs. Switzerland has responded by strengthening its strategic framework and implementing demand-side measures, largely centred on information, voluntary industry collaboration, and investments to improve the evidence base. Achieving lasting changes in consumption patterns may nonetheless require complementing these approaches with firmer measures where appropriate.
References
[86] Agrarinfo (2024), Fenaco-LANDI, le pouvoir «de la terre à la table», https://www.agrarinfo.ch/societe/economie/pouvoir/fenaco-landi-le-pouvoir-de-la-terre-a-la-table/ (accessed on 22 August 2025).
[111] Agroscope (2025), Environmental inventories for Swiss agriculture, https://www.agroscope.admin.ch/agroscope/fr/home/themes/environnement-ressources/analyse-de-cycle-de-vie/bases-donnees-logiciels-analyse/inventaires-environnementaux-agriculture-suisse.html (accessed on 1 October 2025).
[133] Amann, A. and S. Wetzel (2025), Consumer Protection Laws and Regulations Switzerland 2025-2026, ICLG - Consumer Protection Laws and Regulations, https://iclg.com/practice-areas/consumer-protection-laws-and-regulations/switzerland/ (accessed on 10 March 2026).
[36] Asai, M. and J. Antón (2024), “Social issues in agriculture in rural areas”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 212, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/fec15b38-en.
[114] Baragwanath, T. (2021), “Digital opportunities for demand-side policies to improve consumer health and the sustainability of food systems”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 148, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bec87135-en.
[26] Binder, S. and S. Mann (2019), Wie fördern die Kantone ihre Landwirtschaft?, Agroscope, https://www.agrarforschungschweiz.ch/en/2019/09/how-do-the-cantons-support-their-agricultural-sector/ (accessed on 22 August 2025).
[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.
[98] Burstein, A., S. Lein and J. Vogel (2024), “Cross-border shopping: Evidence and welfare implications for Switzerland”, Journal of International Economics, Vol. 152, p. 104015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2024.104015.
[70] Bystricky, M. et al. (2024), Evaluation agrarpolitischer Massnahmen bezüglich Biodiversitätswirkung: Versorgungssicherheitsbeiträge und Grenzschutz., https://ira.agroscope.ch/de-CH/publication/56506 (accessed on 4 September 2025).
[68] Cerca, M. et al. (2019), Concentrate animal feed as an input good in Swiss agricultural production – The effects of border protection and other support measures, SECO, https://www.seco.admin.ch/seco/en/home/Publikationen_Dienstleistungen/Publikationen_und_Formulare/Strukturwandel_Wachstum/Branchenanalysen/concentrate-animal-feed-as-an-input-good-in-swiss-agricultural-p.html (accessed on 20 October 2025).
[106] Chatelan, A. et al. (2017), “Major Differences in Diet across Three Linguistic Regions of Switzerland: Results from the First National Nutrition Survey menuCH”, Nutrients, Vol. 9/11, p. 1163, https://doi.org/10.3390/nu9111163.
[107] Chelbi, S. et al. (2024), “Swiss Salt Study 2, second survey on salt consumption in Switzerland: Main results”, Food Risk Assess Europe, Vol. 2/2, https://doi.org/10.2903/fr.efsa.2024.FR-0031.
[91] Competition Commission (2023), Droit et politique de la concurrence, https://www.preisueberwacher.admin.ch/pue/fr/home/documentation/publications/rapports-annuels.html (accessed on 23 September 2025).
[102] 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).
[87] Deconinck, K. (2021), “Concentration and market power in the food chain”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 151, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3151e4ca-en.
[47] Deconinck, K. et al. (2023), “Towards resilient food systems: Implications of supply chain disruptions and policy responses”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 205, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f7998e46-en.
[129] Deconinck, K. and M. Hobeika (2023), “Understanding the impact of consumer-oriented assurance schemes: A review of voluntary standards and labels for the environmental sustainability of agri-food products”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 200, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/af917674-en.
[38] Der Schweizer Bauer (2019), Ausserfamiliäre Hofnachfolge?, https://www.schweizerbauer.ch/ausserfamiliaere-hofnachfolge (accessed on 26 October 2025).
[57] EADR / FOAG (2025), Grenzbelastung für Futtermittel, Ölsaaten und Getreide, https://backend.blw.admin.ch/fileservice/sdweb-docs-prod-blwch-files/files/2025/08/25/6b5613b4-6198-4e3c-9f49-acc74fe822fc.pdf (accessed on 29 August 2025).
[56] Economiesuisse (2024), Agrarpolitik einfach erklärt, https://www.economiesuisse.ch/de/dossier-politik/agrarpolitik-einfach-erklaert-2024#lead (accessed on 1 September 2025).
[85] Eurostat (2025), Comparative price levels for food, beverages and tobacco, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Comparative_price_levels_for_food,_beverages_and_tobacco#Data_sources (accessed on 6 October 2025).
[101] FAO (2024), The State of Food and Agriculture 2024, FAO, https://doi.org/10.4060/cd2616en.
[100] FAO (2023), The State of Food and Agriculture 2023, FAO, https://doi.org/10.4060/cc7724en.
[119] FDI (2025), Denrées d’origine animale: nouvelles obligations de déclaration pour plus de transparence, https://www.edi.admin.ch/fr/newnsb/kBa7CcbvEMu-Nr-0oXvh4 (accessed on 1 October 2025).
[4] Federal Council (2025), Commissions consultatives, https://www.admin.ch/ch/f/cf/ko/gremiumart_3.html (accessed on 15 September 2025).
[67] Federal Council (2022), Orientation future de la politique agricole, https://www.blw.admin.ch/blw/fr/home/politik/agrarpolitik/postulat.html.
[7] 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).
[109] Federal Council (2018), “Environnement Suisse 2018 - Rapport du Conseil fédéral”, http://www.bafu.admin.ch/re2018 (accessed on 1 October 2025).
[71] Federal Council (2016), Behinderung von Parallelimporten: Bericht vom 22. Juni 2016 in Erfüllung des Postulats 14.3014 “Erleichterung der Zollabfertigung und Förderung von Parallelimporten dank Anerkennung weiterer Dokumente zur Erbringung des Ursprungsnachweises”, https://www.newsd.admin.ch/newsd/message/attachments/44557.pdf.
[30] Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education and Research (2023), Festlegung der Anwendungsgebiete für Steuererleichterungen im Rahmen der Regionalpolitik, https://www.newsd.admin.ch/newsd/message/attachments/75171.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2025).
[80] Federal Office for National Economic Supply (2023), Bundesrat lässt Ausrichtung der Pflichtlagerhaltung breit abgestützt abklären, https://www.bwl.admin.ch/de/nsb?id=99448 (accessed on 19 October 2025).
[31] Federal Office for Spatial Development (2024), Politique des agglomérations et politique pour les espaces ruraux et les régions de montagne, https://www.are.admin.ch/are/fr/home/media-et-publications/publications/villes-et-agglomerations/agglopol-p-lrb.html (accessed on 26 August 2025).
[17] Federal Statistical Office (2025), Bundesausgaben für Direktzahlungen - 1999-2023 | Tabelle, https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/kataloge-datenbanken.assetdetail.34987405.html (accessed on 21 August 2025).
[18] Federal Statistical Office (2025), Direktzahlungen - Milliarden Franken - 1985-2024 | Diagramm, https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/land-forstwirtschaft/landwirtschaft.assetdetail.35955343.html (accessed on 21 August 2025).
[34] Federal Tax Administration (2025), Aktuelle Schweizer Mehrwertsteuersätze, https://www.estv.admin.ch/estv/de/home/mehrwertsteuer/mwst-steuersaetze.html (accessed on 26 August 2025).
[61] Fiankor, D. et al. (2025), “The Effect of Swiss Free Trade Agreements on Agricultural Trade”, Kyklos, https://doi.org/10.1111/kykl.12472.
[45] Finger, R. and N. Lehmann (2012), “The influence of direct payments on farmers’ hail insurance decisions”, Agricultural Economics, Vol. 43/3, pp. 343-354, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2012.00587.x.
[41] Fletcher, C., L. Stewart and K. Gunn (2023), “Stressors, Barriers and Facilitators Faced by Australian Farmers When Transitioning to Retirement: A Scoping Review”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 20/3, p. 2588, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032588.
[124] FNSNF (2020), Healthy Diets from a Sustainable Food Production System, Swiss National Science Foundation - Healthy and Sustainable Food Production, National Research Programme NRP 69, https://www.snf.ch/media/en/ZUWQhNp0k2aQUmsK/NRP69_Synthesis_brochure_EN_web.pdf (accessed on 2 October 2025).
[22] FOAG (2025), Agrarbericht 2025 - Absatzförderung, https://www.agrarbericht.ch/de/politik/produktion-und-absatz/absatzfoerderung.
[51] FOAG (2025), Statistics and analyses, https://www.blw.admin.ch/en/statistics-and-analyses (accessed on 2 September 2025).
[20] FOAG (2024), Direktzahlungen an Sömmerungs- und Gemeinschaftsweidebetriebe - Überblick 2025, https://backend.blw.admin.ch/fileservice/sdweb-docs-prod-blwch-files/files/2024/11/05/840aae15-8b7c-4192-885f-49e15d1640d3.pdf.
[19] FOAG (2024), Direktzahlungen, In-situ-Beitrag, Einzelkulturbeiträge und Getreidezulage an Ganzjahresbetriebe - Überblick 2025, https://backend.blw.admin.ch/fileservice/sdweb-docs-prod-blwch-files/files/2024/11/05/756fb9e2-8cdd-4428-8c90-f12b45f068ab.pdf.
[5] FOAG (2024), 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%E2%80%99une%20agriculture%20et%20d%E2%80%99un%20secteur%20agroalimentaire%20durables%20(transparents).pdf (accessed on 15 September 2025).
[63] FOAG (2021), Agrarbericht 2020 - Freihandelsabkommen, https://2020.agrarbericht.ch/de/international/freihandelsabkommen/freihandelsabkommen.
[97] FOCBS (2024), From 1 January 2025, the tax-free limit in tourist traffic will be lowered to CHF 150 per person, https://www.bazg.admin.ch/en/value-added-tax-vat-chf-150-tax-free-limit (accessed on 19 September 2025).
[75] FONES (n.d.), Strategic stockpiling, https://www.bwl.admin.ch/en/strategic-stockpiling (accessed on 27 October 2025).
[93] FranceAgriMer (2023), Rapport au Parlement 2023 - Missions et moyens de l’Observatoire de la formation desprix et des marges, https://observatoire-prixmarges.franceagrimer.fr/sites/default/files/PDF/19_2023_missions_et_moyens.pdf (accessed on 23 September 2025).
[92] FranceAgrimer (n.d.), Observatoire de la formation des prix et des marges des produits alimentaires, https://observatoire-prixmarges.franceagrimer.fr/ (accessed on 23 September 2025).
[9] FRC (2025), L’association | Fédération romande des consommateurs, https://www.frc.ch/association (accessed on 14 September 2025).
[89] FRC (2022), Décryptage des marges: la rentabilité avant tout - Un dossier réalisé par Jean Busché et Sandra Imsand, https://www.frc.ch/decryptage-des-marges-la-rentabilite-avant-tout.
[90] FRC (2022), Omerta dans le maraîchage: les raisons de la colère - Une enquête de Jean Busché et Sandra Imsand, https://enquetes.frc.ch/marges-legumes (accessed on 23 September 2025).
[65] Frezal, C. and A. Deuss (2025), “Trade-related measures linked to the environmental sustainability of agriculture: A stocktake and typology”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 216, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ebfdca09-en.
[105] FSO (2022), Enquête suisse sur la santé 2022 - Vue d’ensemble, Federal Statistical Office, https://www.bfs.admin.ch/asset/fr/28625353 (accessed on 1 October 2025).
[117] FSVO (2025), Entreprises et marques engagées en faveur du Nutri-Score en Suisse Etat au 30.06.2025.
[43] FSVO (2024), Neue Regeln im Lebensmittelrecht ab 1. Februar 2024 - Faktenblatt zu den wichtigsten Neuerungen, https://www.blv.admin.ch/dam/blv/de/dokumente/lebensmittel-und-ernaehrung/rechts-und-vollzugsgrundlagen/vernehmlassungen-anhoerungen/Stretto4/faktenblatt-stretto4.pdf.download.pdf/Faktenblatt_Stretto%204_01.02.2024_DE_DEF.pdf (accessed on 27 August 2025).
[42] FSVO (2024), Verantwortung für sichere Lebensmittel und Gebrauchsgegenstände, https://www.blv.admin.ch/blv/de/home/lebensmittel-und-ernaehrung/lebensmittelsicherheit/verantwortlichkeiten.html (accessed on 27 August 2025).
[8] Gentile, E. et al. (2019), Fertilizers and pesticides: Price differences between Switzerland and neighbouring countries, Report mandated by the Swiss State Secretariat of Economic Affairs, https://www.seco.admin.ch/seco/en/home/Publikationen_Dienstleistungen/Publikationen_und_Formulare/Strukturwandel_Wachstum/Branchenanalysen/fertilizers-and-pesticides-price-differences-between-switzerland.html (accessed on 14 September 2025).
[113] Giner, C. and J. Brooks (2019), “Policies for encouraging healthier food choices”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 137, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/11a42b51-en.
[121] Giner, C. and O. Placzek (2022), “Food insecurity and food assistance programmes across OECD countries: Overcoming evidence gaps”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 183, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/42b4a7fa-en.
[52] González Marentis, A. and A. Deuss (2023), “Decoding agricultural tariffs: A practical guide on databases with preferential tariffs in agriculture”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 191, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/143e195b-en.
[55] 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.
[40] Häberli, I. and S. Contzen (2021), Die Hofnachfolge ganzheitlich und frühzeitig angehen, Bern Universty of Applied Sciences, https://doi.org/10.34776/afs12-57.
[15] Haller, T. (2014), Ausstieg aus dem Milchquotensystem (Kontingentierung) in der Schweiz, Berner Fachochschule - HAFL, https://www.europeanmilkboard.org/fileadmin/Dokumente/Press_Release/EMB-allgemein/2014/Studie_Schweiz_Ausstieg_Milchquoten_DE.pdf.
[13] Haller, T. (2011), Bedeutung der Landwirtschaft in einer zunehmend urbanen Gesellschaft, ETH Zurich, https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/entities/publication/1960da52-2650-47f1-93f0-1c972a9ac5e5 (accessed on 19 August 2025).
[127] Hassett, K. et al. (2025), “Household food choices: New empirical evidence and policy implications for sustainable behaviour”, OECD Environment Working Papers, Vol. 255, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2025/01/household-food-choices_25171ee8/97c4041a-en.pdf (accessed on 4 June 2025).
[123] Hernández, P. (2024), “Case study Portugal”, in Towards food policies that support healthy and sustainable consumption. Case studies from 11 European countries highlighting good practices for demand-side policies, Agora Agriculture.
[69] Hillen, J. (2019), “Market Integration and Market Efficiency under Seasonal Tariff Rate Quotas”, Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 70/3, pp. 859-873, https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12355.
[48] HLPE (2025), Building resilient food systems, FAO, https://sfcs.fao.org/media-cnt/docs/devhlpelibraries/report-20/hlpe20_resilience_report.pdf.
[11] Huber, R. (2022), Einführung in die Schweizer Agrarpolitik, vdf Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH Zürich, https://doi.org/10.3218/4059-3.
[3] 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.
[16] Huber, R. and R. Finger (2019), “Popular initiatives increasingly stimulate agricultural policy in Switzerland”, EuroChoices, Vol. 18/2, pp. 38-39, https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692x.12209.
[62] Imhof, P. (2021), “Switzerland’s system of free trade agreements: Assessing the impact on imported goods”, Aussenwirtschaft, https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/290113/1/AW-71-01-02-Imhof.pdf (accessed on 29 August 2025).
[37] Jungo, B. (2024), Hofübergaben sind nichts für Romantikerinnen und Romantiker, OBST+WEIN 15/2024, https://www.agriexpert.ch/fileadmin/agriexpertch/04_Services/Fachartikel/Unternehmensplanung/Hofuebergabe/Obst_Weinbau_Hofuebergabe_ist_nichts_fuer_Roamtiker_30.10.2024.pdf (accessed on 26 October 2025).
[39] Kleinbauern-Vereinigung (n.d.), Ausserfamiliäre Hofübergabe, https://www.kleinbauern.ch/project/hofuebergabe/ (accessed on 26 October 2025).
[99] Kluser, F. (2025), “Cross-border shopping: evidence from household transaction records”, Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 161/1, p. 9, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41937-025-00141-w.
[21] LDK/CDCA (n.d.), Weiterbildung Direktzahlungskurs, https://www.ldk-cdca.ch/themen/bildung/beratung/forschung/weiterbildung-direktzahlungskurs (accessed on 1 September 2025).
[88] Le News (2025), Swiss farmers hit back at supermarket price squeezing, https://lenews.ch/2025/06/13/swiss-farmers-hit-back-at-supermarket-price-squeezing/ (accessed on 2 October 2025).
[10] Leresche, J. (2018), “Consumers: Considered and consulted more, but not yet influential”, Swiss National Science Foundation, National Research Programme NRP 69 Healthy Nutrition and Sustainable Food Prodution.
[83] Logatcheva, K. et al. (2019), Factors driving up prices along the food value chain in Switzerland – Case studies on bread, yoghurt, and cured ham, Study on behalf of the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs SECO, Bern, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359650474_Factors_driving_up_prices_along_the_food_value_chain_in_Switzerland_-_Case_studies_on_bread_yoghurt_and_cured_ham (accessed on 23 September 2025).
[58] Loi, A. et al. (2016), Policy evaluation of tariff rate quotas - Report mandated by the Swiss federal Office of Agriculture, https://www.newsd.admin.ch/newsd/NSBExterneStudien/761/attachment/it/3209.pdf.
[46] Möhring, N. et al. (2020), “Crop insurance and pesticide use in European agriculture”, Agricultural Systems, Vol. 184, p. 102902, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102902.
[12] OECD (2025), Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2025: Making the Most of the Trade and Environment Nexus in Agriculture, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a80ac398-en.
[115] 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.
[128] OECD (2025), Enabling trust in food labels for improved environmental outcomes: Insights from OECD analysis, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/007a2bdb-en.
[110] OECD (2025), Measuring Carbon Footprints of Agri-Food Products: Eight Building Blocks, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8eb75706-en.
[49] OECD (2025), “Practical approaches to develop resilience strategies for food systems”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 217, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/caa2b274-en.
[126] OECD (2025), “Unlocking the potential of demand-side climate mitigation strategies”, OECD Net Zero+ Policy Papers, No. 9, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/78b3a9d0-en.
[82] OECD (2024), Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2024: Innovation for Sustainable Productivity Growth, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/74da57ed-en.
[122] OECD (2024), “Demand-side policy measures for environmental sustainability”, OECD Environment Policy Papers, No. 42, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/53e9c791-en.
[76] OECD (2024), OECD Economic Surveys: Switzerland 2024, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/070d119b-en.
[81] OECD (2024), OECD Product Market Regulation (PMR) indicators: How does Switzerland compare?, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/product-market-regulation/Switzerland_PMR%20country%20note.pdf (accessed on 17 September 2025).
[27] OECD (2024), OECD Regional Outlook 2023: Switzerland Country Note, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-regional-outlook-2023-country-notes_be47635c-en/switzerland_5653dc4d-en.html.
[132] OECD (2024), Product Market Regulation Indicators - Key takeaways from the 2023-24 update of the OECD Product Market Regulation indicators, https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/product-market-regulation.html#PMR-sector-indicators (accessed on 17 September 2025).
[103] OECD (2023), Health at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7a7afb35-en.
[130] OECD (2023), OECD Health at a Glance 2023 Country Note - Switzerland, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/health-at-a-glance-2023_4b49102f-en/switzerland_858c8be8-en.html (accessed on 3 September 2025).
[1] OECD (2021), Making Better Policies for Food Systems, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ddfba4de-en.
[95] OECD (2021), Policies for the Future of Farming and Food in Norway, OECD Agriculture and Food Policy Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/20b14991-en.
[32] OECD (2020), Taxation in Agriculture, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/073bdf99-en.
[14] OECD (2015), OECD Review of Agricultural Policies: Switzerland 2015, OECD Review of Agricultural Policies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264168039-en.
[131] OECD (2008), Multifunctionality in Agriculture: Evaluating the degree of jointness, policy implications, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264033627-en.
[104] OECD/European Union (2022), Health at a Glance: Europe 2022: State of Health in the EU Cycle, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/507433b0-en.
[84] OECD/FAO (2025), OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2025-2034, OECD Publishing, Paris/FAO, Rome, https://doi.org/10.1787/601276cd-en.
[44] Palka, M. and S. Hanger-Kopp (2019), “Agricultural crop insurance in Switzerland, focusing on drought”, http://www.iiasa.ac.at (accessed on 19 October 2025).
[79] Pelosi, D. (2020), Pflichtlager des Bundes - Werden jetzt die Notvorräte aufgestockt? - News - SRF, https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/pflichtlager-des-bundes-werden-jetzt-die-notvorraete-aufgestockt (accessed on 27 October 2025).
[112] Poore, J. and T. Nemecek (2018), “Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers”, Science, Vol. 360/6392, pp. 987-992, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216.
[23] Proviande (n.d.), Absatzförderung des Bundes für Schweizer Fleisch, https://www.proviande.ch/de/absatzfoerderung-des-bundes-fuer-schweizer-fleisch (accessed on 11 December 2025).
[28] Regiosuisse (n.d.), Die Neue Regionalpolitik wirkt, https://regiosuisse.ch/die-neue-regionalpolitik-wirkt (accessed on 9 April 2026).
[73] Réservesuisse (2025), Geschäftsbericht 2024, https://www.reservesuisse.ch/annual-reports/?lang=en (accessed on 27 October 2025).
[74] Réservesuisse (2025), Tarife und Kostenelemente, https://www.reservesuisse.ch/tarife-und-kostenelemente/ (accessed on 27 October 2025).
[78] Réservesuisse (n.d.), Compulsory stocks - réservesuisse genossenschaft, https://www.reservesuisse.ch/compulsory-stocks/?lang=en (accessed on 27 August 2025).
[94] Rudolph, T. et al. (2022), Einkaufstourismusstudie 2022/2023 (automatic translation), https://shop.irm.unisg.ch/products/einkaufstourismusstudie-2022-2023 (accessed on 19 September 2025).
[35] SBLV/USPF (n.d.), Soziale Absicherung von Ehepartner:innen und eingetragenen Partner:innen - Landfrauen SBLV, https://www.landfrauen.ch/engagiert/soziale-absicherung-von-ehepartnerinnen-und-eingetragenen-partnerinnen/ (accessed on 27 August 2025).
[125] Scharrer, B. and L. Kubioka (2024), La politique alimentaire de la ville de Zurich. Stratégies, activités, mesures et conditions cadres. La politique alimentaire des villes suisses #9., Centre for Development and Environment (CDE), Bern, Switzerland, https://www.cde.unibe.ch/unibe/portal/fak_naturwis/g_dept_kzen/b_cde/content/e65013/e542846/e1172443/e1550724/pane1550726/e1550744/La_politique_alimentaire_de_la_ville_de_Zurich_ger.pdf (accessed on 29 September 2025).
[66] SECO (2024), Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) between the EFTA States and Indonesia, entry into force: 01.11.2021, https://www.seco.admin.ch/seco/en/home/Aussenwirtschaftspolitik_Wirtschaftliche_Zusammenarbeit/Wirtschaftsbeziehungen/Freihandelsabkommen/partner_fha/partner_weltweit/indonesien.html (accessed on 3 September 2025).
[72] SECO (2023), Überprüfung der Ausnahmen vom Cassis de-Dijon-Prinzip. Ergebnis der Überprüfung gemäss Artikel 3 Buchstabe b VIPaV, https://www.seco.admin.ch/seco/de/home/Aussenwirtschaftspolitik_Wirtschaftliche_Zusammenarbeit/Wirtschaftsbeziehungen/Technische_Handelshemmnisse/Cassis-de-Dijon-Prinzip/Ausnahmen_Cassis-de-Dijon-Prinzip.html (accessed on 27 October 2025).
[29] State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) (2026), Steuererleichterungen - Jahresstatistik 2025, https://www.seco.admin.ch/dam/seco/de/dokumente/Standortfoerderung/KMU-Politik/Steuererleichterungen_im_Rahmen_Regionalpolitik/Weitere%20Informationen/jahresstatistik_2025.pdf.download.pdf/Steuererleichterungen%20-%20Jahresstatistik%202025.pdf (accessed on 9 April 2026).
[6] Steiner, J. (2024), Powerful farming lobby, powerless farmers, pp. 7-7, https://www.swisscommunity.org/fileadmin/revue/Ausgaben/2024/04/SRV_2404_EN.pdf (accessed on 22 September 2025).
[116] 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).
[77] Swiss Confederation News Service (2021), Mit Pflichtlagerfreigabe soll Versorgungsengpass beim Dünger aufgefangen werden, https://www.news.admin.ch/de/nsb?id=86581 (accessed on 19 October 2025).
[96] Swiss Retail Federation (2023), Puissante reprise du tourisme d’achat, https://www.swiss-retail.ch/fr/news-fr/puissante-reprise-du-tourisme-dachat/ (accessed on 19 September 2025).
[118] Swissinfo (2025), Swiss authorities and firms agree to cut sugar in cereals, yoghurts and drinks, https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/global-health/swiss-authorities-and-firms-agree-to-cut-sugar-in-cereals-yoghurts-and-drinks/89876160 (accessed on 1 October 2025).
[25] Swisstabac (2025), Jahresbericht 2024-2025, https://swisstabac.ch/wp-content/uploads/RAPPORT-MORAL-2024-25_D.pdf.
[64] UNCTAD (2025), Preferential market access for goods | LDC Portal - International Support Measures for Least Developed Countries, https://www.un.org/ldcportal/content/preferential-market-access-goods-2 (accessed on 2 September 2025).
[108] Vincentini J., B. (2025), Swiss national nutrition survey in children and adolescents – report, FSVO, https://www.blv.admin.ch/blv/fr/home/lebensmittel-und-ernaehrung/ernaehrung/menuch-kids.html (accessed on 10 March 2026).
[120] World Cancer Research Fund International (n.d.), Nutrition policy database, https://policydatabase.wcrf.org/nourishing-moving-search (accessed on 21 February 2024).
[59] World Trade Organization (2025), Committee on Agriculture - Notification - Switzerland - Tariff quotas - Table MA:2 - Calendar year 2024, https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=Q:/G/AG/NCHE136.pdf&Open=True.
[54] World Trade Organization (2025), Tariff Profiles 2025: Switzerland, https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/daily_update_e/tariff_profiles/CH_E.pdf.
[50] World Trade Organization (2025), WTO Stats [database]: Tariff indicators - Applied, World Trade Organization, https://stats.wto.org/ (accessed on February 2025).
[24] World Trade Organization (2023), Subsidies - New and full notification pursuant to article XVI:1 of the GATT 1994 and article 25 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures - Switzerland, https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/G/SCM/N401CHE.pdf&Open=True.
[53] World Trade Organization (2022), Trade Policy Review - Report by the Secretariat: Switzerland and Liechtenstein (WT/TPR/S/425), https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/s425_e.pdf.
[60] World Trade Organization (2009), Notification under Articles16.4 and 16.5 of the Agreement - Switzerland (G/ADP/N/193/CHE), https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=Q:/G/ADP/N193CHE.pdf&Open=True.
[33] Zorn, A. (2025), “The structure of ageing in Swiss agriculture”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 115, p. 103574, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2025.103574.
← 1. The term “multifunctionality” refers to the nexus between the primary function of agriculture (to supply commodity outputs such as food, fibre and other raw materials) and other non-commodity outputs that are jointly produced with commodity outputs and that exhibit the characteristics of public goods or externalities (OECD, 2008[131]).
← 2. Amann and Wetzel (2025[133]) consider that the consumer protection framework in Switzerland is relatively limited compared to neighbouring EU countries. Consumer protection provisions are scattered in different bills and regulations. Direct consumer assistance programmes are limited, and collective redress instruments, such as class action lawsuits are not available.
← 3. The Standard Labour Force (SAK) measure is calculated by using specific factors to make different agricultural activities comparable and addable.
← 4. Relevant ordinances for these measures include the Regulation on individual crop subsidies in crop production and the cereals allowance (SR 910.17), the Regulation on measures for the utilisation of fruit (SR 916.131.11), the Regulation on allowances and data collection in the milk sector (SR 916.350.2), the Regulation on the utilisation of domestic sheep wool (SR 916.361), and the Regulation on the egg market (SR 916.371).
← 5. Federal law on tobacco taxation (SR 641.31) and Ordinance fixing producer prices and prices to manufacturers for local tobacco (SR 916.116.4).
← 6. Federal Act on Regional Policy (SR 901.0) and its ordinances.
← 7. The capitalised value corresponds to the capital that can be earned with the income from an agricultural business or land, under typical management, at the average interest rate for first mortgages. The income and interest rate are determined based on the average of several years (Article 10 of the BGBB).
← 8. Ordinance of the Federal Department of Finance on tax relief for mineral oil tax (SR 641.612).
← 9. Reform to Article 70a of the Agriculture Act (SR 910.1).
← 10. Regulation on Structural Improvements in Agriculture (SR 913.1).
← 11. See: remisedeferme.ch; cessionefattoria.ch; hofuebergabe.ch. Beyond a sale or lease, other modes for taking over the farm are also considered, such as an employment relationship or joint management with the former owners.
← 12. Animal Diseases Act SR 916.40.
← 13. New Article 86b of SR 910.1 and Ordinance SR 918.1 (Regulation on contributions to reduce crop insurance premiums).
← 14. The other EFTA members are Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway. Switzerland also has a customs union agreement with Liechtenstein, under which it acts on behalf of Liechtenstein in trade policy matters.
← 15. The elimination of industrial tariffs from 1 January 2024 concerns Chapters 25‑97 of the Harmonised System, except for certain products under Chapters 35 and 38 classified as agricultural.
← 16. Most-favoured nation (MFN) tariffs are the tariffs WTO Members normally charge on imports from other Members, unless they are subject to preferential (lower) rates under regional trade agreements or other preferential schemes. The publicly accessible Tares (www.tares.ch) provides information on Switzerland’s tariffs and other import requirements.
← 17. Non-ad valorem (NAV) tariffs are those in which the duty rate is expressed in a form different that a percentage of the product’s value. They can include specific, compound, mixed or technical tariffs.
← 18. Relevant provisions include articles 17 to 24 of the Agriculture Act, the Regulation on the import of agricultural products (SR 916.01), and the Regulation on industrial protection elements and variable components for imports of agricultural products (SR 632.111.722).
← 19. Article 20 of the Agriculture Act.
← 20. There were originally 28 TRQs, but three wine quotas were merged into one in 2018 through a schedule rectification.
← 21. The status and fill rate of these TRQs can be consulted under: https://quota.bazg.admin.ch/.
← 22. For an overview of the applicable allocation methods and whether a GIP is required see: https://www.blw.admin.ch/dam/en/sd-web/5FZ-kI0YQa2O/%C3%9Cbersicht%20Produktegruppen_22.08.2025_e.pdf
← 23. As of end-September 2025, four additional agreements (with Kosovo*, Thailand, Malaysia and MERCOSUR) had been signed but were not yet in force. (*This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244/99 and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo’s declaration of independence.).
← 24. This is the case for the agreements with the Faroe Islands (in force since 1995), Japan (2009), the People’s Republic of China (2014) and the United Kingdom (2021).
← 25. In this context, “parallel imports” refer to imports of goods outside of the usual distribution channels or structures of the manufacturers. More generally, the concept can be understood as the import of an original product purchased at a lower price in another country.
← 26. This agreement has been signed but not yet ratified.
← 27. Gross farm receipts comprise the value of commodity production plus budgetary transfers from policies.
← 28. The PSE estimates the annual monetary value of gross transfers from consumers and taxpayers to agricultural producers, measured at the farm-gate level, arising from policy measures that support agriculture, regardless of their nature, objectives or impacts on farm production or income.
← 29. Other products subject to compulsory stocks are fuels, natural gas, and therapeutic products.
← 30. The TSE is adjusted for double counting given that the transfers associated with market price support policies appear in both the PSE and CSE calculation.
← 31. The OECD Product Market Regulation (PMR) indicators assess the alignment of a country’s regulatory framework with international best practices. The economy-wide indicator measures the distortions to competition that can be induced by the regulatory barriers to entry and expansion faced by firms across the economy, as well as by the involvement of the state in the economy. Sector-specific indicators measure these distortions in particular sectors (OECD, 2024[132]).
← 32. The PMR indicators range from 0 to 6. A lower value represents a more competition friendly regulatory regime.
← 33. OECD‑FAO Outlook data indicate a beef‑to‑poultry price ratio of about 1.4 in Switzerland, below levels observed in peer countries, such as the EU‑14 (around 2.0), Canada (1.9) or Great Britain (2.4). A higher ratio suggests that beef is relatively more expensive than poultry within each specific market. However, such cross‑product ratios should be interpreted with caution. In particular, beef and poultry in Switzerland stem from fundamentally different production systems and Swiss poultry production is subject to high animal‑welfare and housing requirements, with nearly all output produced under the voluntary animal‑friendly housing scheme, which results in higher production costs.
← 34. The Competition Commission approved three proposed mergers subject to conditions.
← 35. Basel and Geneva are less than 5 km away from the closest frontier, Zürich around 26 km and Bern and Lausanne between 40 km and 50 km.
← 36. These quantifications have limitations such as data gaps, difficulties to assign value to intangible benefits from food (such as its cultural or societal value), or a lack of common metrics or indicators.
← 37. COMET-Global, KlimaStar Milch, KLIR, MAUS, PalmGHG, SAGE, SALCA, World-Climate Farm Tool.
← 38. The 2022 EPIC Survey covers nine OECD countries and takes stock of a range of household choices with respect to food consumption, including households’ diet composition (consumption of red meat, white meat, seafood, dairy and eggs) and the characteristics of the food products they purchase (locally grown, in-season, minimum packaging, organic, fair-trade certified).