Switzerland - Stage 1
Area of divergence
The GROUP DISCUSSIONS of the workshop gathered more than 130 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) DIFFERENT VISIONS FOR AGRICULTURE, sometimes conflicting, were expressed by the participants (an agriculture oriented towards producing food for people VS towards profits and remuneration, an agriculture based on human labour VS on technologies, the polit
... Read moreical power of major agribusinesses VS of the civil society, or the fulfilment of the right to food VS profitable production). Participants recommended an alignment on the 2030 AGENDA. Finally, given that a substantial part of our food is IMPORTED, they agreed that we can have a say on our domestic production, but wondered how we can influence foreign production methods. (2) A greater COHERENCE between policies and a HOLISTIC FOOD SYSTEMS APPROACH are sought, with clear targets and long-term objectives. Direct payments to producers could be re-thought, to provide more sustainable incentives. Better FRAMEWORK CONDITIONS are needed at all levels (federal, cantonal, communal) in order to enable transformation. (3) In the same line, the participants discussed the sustainability of ANIMAL PRODUCTION in Switzerland, considering arguments such as the importance of grasslands in the country, the suitability of our mountainous and hilly topography for animal rather than plan production, the impact of livestock on the environment and of meat consumption on health, the necessity of a locally adapted and site-appropriated agriculture, and the cultural meaning of dairy products and meat. Several groups observed that, by advertising and subsidising foods such as MEAT and SUGAR, the State could be viewed as supporting unhealthy diets. (4) The complex RELATION BETWEEN ACTORS, in particular PRODUCERS, CONSUMERS AND RETAILERS was noted. The power within our food systems should be better shared and the value added better distributed – the participants pointed out the effect on prices induced by intermediaries and retailers – but COLLABORATION should also be sought. Changes must be supported by the population at large. (5) In particular, CONSUMERS should be involved. However, in terms of DIETS, some participants were under the impression that HEALTH and SUSTAINABILITY were often set against each other, while this should not be the case. The labelling and packaging of products can influence – positively or negatively – the choice of the consumers, but is not sufficient to (re-)orientate our consumption patterns. On the contrary, some participants believed that the consumers were often overwhelmed by the wide choice on supplied products, and that retailers were in a stronger position to bring about change than consumers. It seemed to participants that INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY was not sufficient. How much are citizens concerned with these issues? Without any economic incentives, are we ready to modify our consumption patterns and habits? Finally, the (UN)AFFORDABILITY of healthy and sustainable food was identified as a challenge in transforming our dietary patterns. (6) For FARMERS, the transition to more sustainable practices is difficult, and they should be accompanied in this process, which might take place gradually. As one example, the participants argued that the measures for promoting and rewarding BIODIVERSITY services often could not achieve their goals, as farmers need to be better informed in this regard. (7) Generally, food was considered TOO CHEAP in Switzerland. Measures aiming at setting the TRUE COST OF FOOD, such as a CARBON TAX, should be introduced. However, the participants warned that it should be accompanied by a compensation mechanism for low-income citizens. In addition, some participants pointed out that this tax will not have the expected effect on citizens who can pay for it. They also debated if such measures should apply only to Swiss products, or as well to importations, and how the UN could play a role. Overall, the actors along the value chains should have a fair remuneration. (8) In several groups, DATA were considered insufficient, or uneasily available, and TRANSPARENCY lacking. As a consequence, participants stressed the need for more informed and evidence-based decisions and actions. (9) A limiting factor for FOOD RESCUE are the buyers and the complex logistics. If SURPLUSES are sold through alternative channels, this can result in a reduced demand on the "usual" market. Finally, even though the PROCESSING of surpluses is currently not profitable, it can contribute to raise awareness. Read less
Action Track(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Keywords: Data & Evidence, Environment and Climate, Finance, Governance, Human rights, Innovation, Policy, Trade-offs