Contents
Does agricultural policy not go far enough when it comes to protecting the environment, or does it already prescribe too much for farmers? The new orientation of agriculture caused heated discussions in the “Arena” about sustainability, biodiversity and the food on the plate.
Lowering path, drag hose obligation, cheese allowance or Hörner-Franken: These terms from the agricultural jargon shaped the debate on Thursday about the future of agriculture – the agricultural policy 22 plus. After the Council of States approved the bill in December, the National Council also voted unequivocally in favor of the amendments to the Agriculture Act.
The aim of the Federal Council is to strengthen food security through sustainability with the new agricultural policy. In addition to agricultural production, the focus should also be on trade and consumption. In vain did the SP, the Greens and the GLP demand more climate targets in the agricultural law.
Demeter farmer Martin Ott thinks the “Arena” is a missed opportunity. Agricultural policy does not promote environmental protection as it could: “It is a continuation of what we already have.” That’s not bad though. But there is an ecological problem: “We have a massive nitrogen surplus in Switzerland. This is where we urgently need to start if we want sustainable agriculture.”
The president of the farmers’ association, Markus Ritter, spoke of a paradigm shift. Sustainable agriculture extends from the field to the plate: “Consumers decide every day at the shop counter about the future of Swiss agriculture.” Ritter warned against over-regulation of production by politicians. The farms are under a lot of pressure: “Measures that have been decided by the Bern office are not always feasible for farmers and lead to more bureaucracy.” It takes a certain amount of creative freedom.
The farmers’ association is maneuvering the farmers into a victim role, countered Ott, who is also known as the “cow whisperer” from his book “Understanding cows”. Instead, they should be bold when it comes to ecology: “The separation of production and biodiversity is a big mistake.” Good production also promotes biodiversity and protects the environment.
Politicians are demanding more and more and consumers are not willing to accept the quality.
Vegetable producer Simon Lässer drew a different reality. “Our products should be inexpensive and flawless, at the same time politicians want us to produce more and more ecologically and sustainably.” For farms, the balancing act between politics and consumer wishes is getting bigger and bigger.
“I certify that the farmers are committed to our environment and our livelihoods,” said GLP National Councilor Tiana Moser. But agricultural policy does not do justice to the most pressing ecological issues. “We use tax money to fuel meat consumption and subsidize animal-intensive agriculture.” These false incentive mechanisms led to an excess of nutrients and ultimately to the extinction of species, acidification of the soil and pollution of drinking water.
Farmers are already doing a great deal to protect the environment.
SVP National Councilor Mike Egger contradicted this: “Farmers are already doing a great deal for environmental protection.” For example, the average proportion of biodiversity areas is far above the legal requirement. Greenhouse gas emissions and power consumption could also have been massively reduced in recent years. “At the same time, productivity has increased, despite population growth and farm deaths.”
What the guests in the “Arena” agreed on was the urgency of the topic of food waste. The Swiss throw away more than 330 kilograms of food per year and per capita. According to the federal government, this food waste should be reduced by three quarters by 2030.