I show how a policy can improve biodiversity as an example in Switzerland.

1. POLICY TO SUPPORT
BIODIVERSITY IN SWITZERLAND
• Student: Pietro Fanciulli
• Subject: Agrifood economics and policy
• Professor: Samuele Trestini
• Agripolis, Legnaro (PD)

2. AGRICULTURE AND
BIODIVERSITY ARE LINKED
TOGETHER
BIODIVERSITY PROVIDES:
-SOURCES FOR PLANT AND ANIMAL
BREEDING SELECTION
-POLLINATION
-BIOLOGICAL PEST CONTROL
-SOIL STRUCTURE AND FERTILITY
-NUTRIENT CYCLING
-MICROCLIMATE AND WATER RESERVOIR
-TOURISM ATTRACTION
INTENSIVE AGRICULTURE IN
SWITZERLAND IS CAUSING:
-LOSS OF WILDLIFE HABITAT
-NUTRIENT RUNOFF
SEDIMENTATION OF WATERWAYS
-GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION
-PESTICIDES POISONING NON TARGET
SPECIES

4. Bufo calamita Thymallus thymallus
Emys orbicularis
Lanius senator
Engadine Whitlow Grass
Lutra lutra

6. LEVEL OF SUPPORT TO FARMERS IN
SWITZERLAND
Switzerland has a political
system with elements of direct
democracy that allow small
groups to be better represented
too.
Since the early 1990s,
Switzerland has shifted from
market price support to direct
payments that are independent
of production volume, aiming
instead to compensate farmers
for the provision of public and
ecological services. However,
levels of support to agricultural
remain high compared to other
OECD countries

7. Since 1999’s direct payments were already
made conditional on “proof of ecological
performance” (PEP) which had previously been
voluntary.
• Balanced nutrient use: maximum
10% surplus of nitrogen and
phosphorus .
• Strict crop rotation
• Soil protection
• Minimum share (at least 7%) of
farm’s utilized agricultural area must
be allocated as ecological
compensation areas (ECAs)
• Animal welfare
• Selected and targeted application
of pesticides
Nevertheless:
-PEP requirements were not sufficient to
protect uncommon or endangered species.
-Others ecological targets were not achieved
-There was a need to link different ecological
areas to make a Network
-There were still some contradictions like
direct payment for numbers of cattle leading
to intensive land use and environmental issues

9. The Federal Council requested the
Federal Office of Agriculture (FOAG) to
undertake a detailed review of the
direct payments system.
AP 2014-17 REFORMS
Before it was approved there
were made 4 modelling
scenarious:
1)Reference scenario (Business as
usual)
2)AP 2014-17
3)Production Scenario
4)Ecology scenario

10. FOCUSING POINTS
• Elimination of the general per hectare payment
• Animal-based per-head payments for ruminants
were also to be abandoned (30% of the total
budget used), causing a lot of criticism and contrast
with lobbies and Farmers’ Union
• However, a system of transition payments was
included to make the reform socially and politically
acceptable.
• The final total budgetary support agreed for the
four-year period was CHF 160 million more than
the CHF 13.83 billion setout in the proposal
NEW DIRECT PAYMENT FOR:
• Cultural landscape: for the maintenance of different cultural
landscapes, an incentive to prevent the overgrowing or forestation in
the Alps.
• Food supply: As part of the direct payments for sustaining food
supply, there is an additional contribution for open agricultural
cropland and permanent crops.
• Biodiversity: Contributions for maintaining and promoting species
and habitat diversity based on quality levels.
• Production system: in harmony with nature, this includes organic
farming, extensive crop production (grains and rapeseed), animal-
friendly housing.
• Resource efficiency: Payments are made to promote resource
efficient techniques, such as pollution control procedures for slurry
application, careful soil cultivation and precise procedures in
pesticide application
These measures incentivate more alpine farmers who work more
extensively than lowland farmers as a result livestock numbers
would fall, total calories produced would rise by around 3%
because of higher dairy yields and a shift toward arable farming and
thus lower feed imports.

13. Agricultural ecosystems have suffered
severe losses of small but ecologically
important structures such as hedges
and dry-stone walls. This decline is
also exacerbated by high levels of
fertilizers and pesticide use, species-
poor seeding practices and the use of
mechanized management methods
The new reform wants to prevent
this degradation by supporting
traditional practises in one hand in
the other to promote technology
improvements to use more
efficiently the inputs.

14. IMPACT OF 2014-17 REFORM SO FAR
While it is too early to measure
the impact of the AP 2014-17 on
biodiversity, progress towards
ecological goals is positive and
participation in voluntary
programmes funded by the
biodiversity direct payments has
exceeded expectation
• The target to reach 65 000 ha
of ECAs in the plain region
had been achieved
• The target to have over 50%
of ECAs participating in a
regional networking project
had been reached
• The share of ECAs meeting
“Quality II” criteria has
steadily increased
• Organic farms increased in
number

15. MONITORING
• A monitoring programme (ALL EMA) has been
made to measures the environment and
biodiversity results.
• Especially a specific study of the current state
and evolution of species in habitats in Ecological
Compensation Areas.
• Agroscope is another program that has
developed the foundation of a methodology for
assessing the sustainability of Swiss farms. From
summer 2016, a set of indicators will be tested
on around ten farms.

16. CONCLUSION
• The 2014-17 agricultural policy has increased total budget for agricultural subsidies but with a couple
payment for more sustainable practices
• Alpine farmers are the ones that have received more benefits from it
• Intensive livestock farmers and feed importers are the one who will get less support but in transition with
time
• Traditional landscape will be preserved promoting also tourism activities
• Food security is also promoted
• Deforestation for new farmland and landscape in Alpin areas will be partially promoted to compensate the
abandonment of lands
• There will be more Ecological Compensation Areas to be created by farms (especially in the lowland) to
promote biodiversity and those areas will be connected as much as possible to create a bigger network
• Swiss agricultural subsidies remain relatively high compared to other OECD countries, the system will need
to continue to evolve with better targeted direct payments.
• Long time effects for biodiversity are slow and still need time to be happening.

17. BIBLIOGRAPHY
-https://www.oecd.org/environment/resources/Policy-Paper-Reforming-agricultural-subsidies-to-support-
biodiversity-in-Switzerland.pdf
-https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/9789264269545-8-
en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/9789264269545-8-en
-Aviron, S., H. Nitsch and P. Jeanneret (2009), “Ecological cross compliance promotes farmland biodiversity
in Switzerland”, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(5): 247-252. FOAG (2015), “Biodiversity for
food and agriculture in Switzerland”, Abridged version and main findings of Switzerland’s Country Report
on the State of Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture, Federal Office for Agriculture, Bern.
-FOAG (2012), “AP 14-17 Botschaft” [AP 14-17 Message], Federal Office for Agriculture, Bern,
www.blw.admin.ch/blw/de/home/ politik/agrarpolitik/ap-14-17/ap-14-17---botschaft.html.
.-FOAG (2009), “Weiterentwicklung DZ” [Further Direct Payments System], Federal Office for Agriculture,
Bern, www.blw.admin. ch/blw/de/home/politik/agrarpolitik/fruehere-reformetappen/weiterentwicklung-
direktzahlungssystem.html