Do only farmers benefit from it?: Why the ‘money and fertilizer alliance’ is crumbling

Economiesuisse director Monika Rühl must submit an analysis to the board in the coming days as to whether the alliance is still in the interest of the economy. The Handelszeitung learned this from two independent sources. The pact has been in place since 2020.

The spokesman for the economic umbrella organization Silvan Lipp simply says that a balance has been achieved after the elections. Association chairman Christoph Mäder does not comment on this. He has repeatedly defended the alliance and demanded that its similarities, not differences, be emphasized. However, the management committee is questioning the pact, which the left calls the ‘money and meadow alliance’.

One person expressing concerns is company director Simon Michel. “Personally, I think that this alliance has done little for the business associations,” he says as a national councilor of the FDP.

He is a member of the board of directors of Economiesuisse and heads the successful Swiss group Ypsomed with a turnover of half a billion francs. Michel explains what the problem is: “The farmers have an extreme self-interest in protecting their interests. These are often contrary to economic interests.”

The EU file is about money

Michel links it to four important topics: the EU negotiations, the free trade agreement with the EU, the Mercosur agreement and public finances. About the conflict in the EU file, he says: “The farmer representatives follow the SVP. They are influenced by the farmer Marcel Dettling, the designated SVP president, who categorically rejects the EU negotiations.”

Dettling mobilizes the farming community against the EU treaties with the argument of money. If Switzerland were to move closer to the EU, there would be less subsidy money left for farmers, because Swiss payments to the EU would increase.

Michel says the money argument is bogus. It is estimated that this amounts to 200 million francs in additional expenditure for the EU, but agricultural subsidies amount to 3.6 billion francs annually. “An increase of this small magnitude does not endanger the agricultural budget in any way,” says Michel. He considers the farmers’ association’s defense strategy “extremely dangerous, including for agriculture.”

If EU negotiations fail, farmers’ opposition to Economiesuisse is likely to increase. Because then from an economic perspective the only alternative is a modernization of the 1972 free trade agreement with the EU. The farmers’ association categorically rules out such an approach because the EU would demand an opening to the Swiss agricultural market: ‘Border protection for agricultural products would fall across the board. ,” says Michel.

Farmers against the export economy

Because of this emphasis on protecting agricultural borders, the farmers’ association repeatedly opposes the export industry, which is vital to Switzerland. Example: The free trade agreement with the US – the export industry wants it, the farmers don’t. Another example: the free trade agreement with South America (Mercosur) – farmers want to prevent this if the import quotas for meat are too high. Michel says: “This agreement would be important for the export sector. A negative attitude towards Mercosur would certainly not be in the interest of the economy.”

After all, people often get confused when it comes to government financing. “Farmers continue to demand increases in the agricultural budget despite the lack of federal funds and therefore accept that taxes will only increase,” says Michel. This is not in the interest of the economy. A good example: in the winter, the farmers’ representatives in parliament voted for a billion-dollar subsidy for the SBB in order to get the votes from the left in return, so that their subsidy budget would not be cut.

Against the reform of the pension fund

The list of conflict issues is long. Two last important examples: The association rejects the reform of the pension fund. The economy wants them. Switzerland will vote on it in the autumn. The proposal for the expansion of the highway reaches the people. The trade association absolutely wants to win the vote. But the farmers’ association has not yet taken a position; they are waiting for data from the federal government on the extent of agricultural land loss.

The political influence of the peasantry is in no way related to its economic importance. Agriculture accounts for only 0.6 percent of economic production; the 150,000 farmers make up 2.8 percent of the country’s labor force.

The export industry, on the other hand, accounts for two-thirds of Swiss economic output. Switzerland’s prosperity depends on it. And yet the farmers’ association has great influence on Economiesuisse, the employers’ association and the trade association. Chairman of the trade association Fabio Regazzi explained in the Handelszeitung in January why he supported the alliance: “We must pursue real politics and do not want to attack each other.”

Yes, there are disadvantages, but there are also many advantages. “The pact allows us to win popular votes, and it helped us win the last national elections.” He does not want to attack the alliance partner. “The farmers are positively perceived by the population and SMEs. Attacking them is pointless.”

The farmers’ association supports this

The father of the alliance is director of the farmers’ association Martin Rufer. He and president Markus Ritter launched it in 2020 with Regazzi, Mäder and the ex-chairman of the employers’ association Valentin Vogt. “This was a response to the fact that the collaboration was not working well before,” says Rufer.

The economy lost several votes in a row between 2010 and 2020, including the scam initiative. The left-green coalition increasingly imposed environmental restrictions on farmers under the heading of environmental protection. “It was important to put a stop to these developments in collaboration with the business associations,” said the company director.

Rufer defends the pact: “From the farmers’ perspective, it still makes sense.” In parliament, farmers and business representatives often support important issues. “These are a few important trades per session,” Rufer says. During this session it was the customs laws where some important issues were passed.

The fact that the AHV vote was lost was due to the interest of farmers: “Because the AHV is the only pension provision for many farmers,” says Rufer.

At the next votes on June 9, the farmers’ association will mobilize in the same way as the economy: against the SP’s initiative to reduce premiums and in favor of the expansion of renewable energy sources. In the EU file, they – unlike the SVP – spoke out in favor of entering into negotiations. The association is not following in the wake of the Blocher party, Rufer emphasizes.

What is especially wrong is that the farmers’ association is generally against all free trade agreements. The agreement with Indonesia and China was supported. Rufer says they have “the same interests on many issues” and “create many good majorities in the interests of the economy and agriculture.”

It remains to be seen whether the Economiesuisse board also sees it this way. The committee members are eagerly awaiting the analysis of director Monika Rühl. Your spokesperson makes this clear: “The collaboration will continue. It is based on the knowledge that we have a common denominator on many topics.”