Switzerland - Stage 3
Area of divergence
The GROUP DISCUSSIONS gathered more than 110 representatives, who affirmed their will to contribute to the transformation of our food systems, without denying nor shifting responsibilities to other stakeholders. Although participants tended to agree on the issues at stake, several challenges and trade-offs were identified: (1) POLICY FRAMEWORKS: There was considerable discussion concerning the role and impact of politics, including at federal level. Although measures from government in form of regulations and prohibitions could be effective in transforming our food systems, participants also p
... Read moreointed out that this would strongly interfere with the market. It was also argued that only individual responsibility could ultimately generate sustainable patterns of action. While some participants emphasised that even small, local projects can make waves and are promising due to their bottom-up character, others objected that no fundamental change is possible without adequate political framework conditions. Similarly, awareness raising was declared as important, but in general, it has a limited impact compared to more structural measures such as subsidy policies and imports regulations. The groups concluded that a healthy mix of all factors is necessary: bottom-up and top-down processes; large distributors and the state; initiatives at local, regional and national level; regulation and personal responsibility. (2) PRICING: The discussions identified the pricing policies as a sticking point in the sustainable transformation of our food systems. On the one hand, some participants were convinced that the Swiss population generally spends little on food, and that producers and other stakeholders need to be compensated adequately in order to switch to more sustainable practices. Some considered pricing mechanisms and the distribution of the value added and margins to be a black box. On the other hand, it was noted that no one wants to buy unsustainably, but that pricing is still crucial for certain segments of the population when it comes to purchasing decisions. With this in mind, there was a divergence on how true cost accounting could positively contribute to sustainable behaviour. (3) STANDARDS AND LABELLING: There was some disagreement on the effectiveness of standards and labelling. In particular, some participants argued that it is difficult to properly evaluate and measure the compliance with these standards (e.g. on greenhouse gas emissions). In addition, standards and labels might limit access to markets for smallholders and even allow greenwashing. (4) CONSUMERS’ LEVERAGE: There was a divergence on the question of what elements and/or activities of the value chains has the bigger leverage effect in making our food systems more sustainable. Whereas some participants found that direct marketing and a relationship between consumers and producers are crucial, others stated that the “large” market is still the driving force in our food systems and can in turn be less influenced by consumers. Also, advertisement, understanding of sustainability, political frameworks, time and income are key. Thus, transparency is important and relevant but does not guarantee action. (5) HEALTHY AND SUSTAINABLE DIETS: Whereas many participants emphasised the need for information and awareness raising about healthy nutrition, others countered that there is no recognised definition of what sustainable (including healthy) diets are. Participants also expressed the necessity to revise the Swiss Food Pyramid in order to include the three dimensions of sustainability (economic, social and environmental) in it. Read less
Action Track(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Keywords: Data & Evidence, Environment and Climate, Finance, Governance, Human rights, Innovation, Policy, Trade-offs, Women & Youth Empowerment