Against cuts in direct agricultural payments: farmers and citizens do not want to save under any circumstances

class=”sc-cffd1e67-0 iQNQmc”>

Finance Minister Karin Keller-Sutter (60) is constantly looking for new savings opportunities. Because so far there is still a risk of a deficit of about 2.5 billion francs in the 2025 budget. Agriculture would also have to give up.

Due to the tense financial situation, the Federal Council wants to spend a total of 2.5 percent – ​​​​or 347 million francs – less on agriculture between 2026 and 2029. But the planned cuts are causing difficulties for all parties.

The federal resolution on the financial resources for agriculture in the years 2026 to 2029 calls into question a payment framework of 13.67 billion francs.

Farmers want more money for organic measures

The Federal Council wants to provide more support for the adaptation of agricultural production to climate change. He would also like to use more money for structural improvements in agriculture, but also for the breeding of disease-resistant varieties and sustainable crop protection.

The Federal Council wants to make the necessary resources available through cuts and realignments of the payment framework for both direct payments and production and sales.

The Swiss Farmers’ Association (SBV) rejects both the reduction of the agricultural budget and the reallocation of funds from the budget for direct payments. Structural improvements in agriculture should be achieved by increasing resources, not by redistributing them.

Even ordinary people do not want to save money on farmers

Introducing stricter requirements in the field of nutrients, biodiversity promotion or crop protection leads to lower yields, higher costs and higher risks in production. In addition, there is general inflation. Even a stable credit line for agriculture – compared to the payment framework for 2022 to 2025 – would be equivalent to a reduction, the SBV said in its response.

Federal agricultural expenditure has been constant for twenty years at 3.6 billion francs. The total of 2.8 billion direct payments is linked to clear services. Farmers’ incomes are still far below the reference income level.

The SVP also addresses this point: in its response, the party demands wages that guarantee the long-term survival of farmers. In the context of complex crises, producing agriculture as a whole needs to be strengthened. The SVP therefore rejects the proposal and advocates maintaining the payment framework from 2022 to 2025.

The FDP also asks this in its response to the consultation. It is a matter of common sense that one cannot increase standards and cut back on resources. However, the Liberals also demand – in the interest of cost neutrality – that the planned increase in structural improvement measures, as provided for in the proposal, be compensated within the existing agricultural budget.

Compensate production as sustainably and fairly as possible

For the Green Liberals, the draft does not sufficiently address subsidies that damage biodiversity. It is incomprehensible that sales promotions for meat are not being reduced. Under no circumstances should the structural measures lead to more intensive production and should benefit crop production to a greater extent. There was no statement from the Center Party by the time the meeting ended.

The SP and the Greens also reject austerity measures for direct payments to farmers. The SP announced that farmers’ efforts to make production as sustainable as possible must be fairly compensated and that planning certainty is needed. The SP also sees an equal need to adjust or avoid individual payments, especially for subsidies that they believe are harmful to biodiversity. This included in particular payments to promote the sale of animal products.

More money would strengthen outdated structures

The Environmental Alliance, an alliance of Greenpeace, Pro Natura, VCS and WWF, supports the principle that agriculture should participate in the federal government’s austerity efforts. The Environmental Alliance rejects increasing funding for structural improvements. This contradicts policy coherence and prevents a shift towards resource-efficient agriculture.

The SP and the Greens also share the same opinion. Increasing funding for structural improvements in agriculture would strengthen outdated structures. It remains to be investigated whether this subsidy is harmful to biodiversity.

If funding were increased, more companies should be able to benefit – and requirements should be adjusted to ensure consistency with agricultural and food policy objectives, the SP demands.

The Greens also call for sales promotion to be redesigned and focused on location-adapted production and healthy food. Contributions to crop insurance should be linked to climate change adaptation.

The Swiss umbrella organization Economiesuisse supports the Federal Council’s proposal: given the financial policy situation, it is pragmatic. Positively, this payment framework will allow sectoral net business income to be kept constant despite moderate cuts in the federal budget – and will maintain sector productivity according to federal government calculations. (SDA)

Source:Blick