42 Agricultural Harm to the Environment
priority was maintaining important positive side effects of upland livestock farm-
ing – in particular open meadows for skiing pistes in winter, but also maintenance
of rural mountain communities that are at the root of Swiss culture. Policy now
differentiates between three different levels of public support. Tier one provides
support for specific biotypes, such as extensive grassland and meadows, high-stem
fruit trees and hedges. Tier two supports integrated production with reduced
inputs, meeting higher ecological standards than conventional farming, and Tier
three provides the most support for organic farming. As the directors of the federal
agricultural and environmental offices, Hans Berger and Philippe Roch, have said,
‘in ecological terms, Swiss agriculture is on the road to sustainability. There are
encouraging signs that the agricultural reform has already began to have positive
effects on nature and the environment.’
Farmers must meet several minimum conditions to receive payments for inte-
grated production, the so-called ‘ecological standard’ of performance. They must
provide evidence that nutrient use matches crop demands, with livestock farmers
having to sell surplus manures or reduce livestock numbers. Soils must be pro-
tected from erosion, and erosive crops, such as maize, can only be cultivated if
alternated in rotation with meadows and green manures. At least 7 per cent of the
farm must be allocated for species diversity protection through so-called ecological
compensation areas, such as unfertilized meadows, hedgerows and orchards.
Finally, pesticide use is restricted. A vital element of the policy process is that
responsibility to set, administer and monitor is devolved to cantons, farmers’
unions and farm advisors, local bodies and non-government organizations. By the
end of the 1990s, 85 per cent of farmland complied with the basic ecological
standard, which allows farmers to receive public subsidies. Some 5000 farms are
now organic, and all farmers are soon expected to meet the ‘ecological standard’.
Pesticide applications have fallen by a third in a decade, phosphate use is down by
60 per cent and nitrogen use by half. The land under semi-natural habitats has
expanded during the decade, from 1 to 6 per cent in the plains, and from 7 to 23
per cent in the mountains.
There is much to learn from these experiences of Switzerland and Cuba, as
these remain the only two countries at the turn of the century who had put sus-
tainable agriculture at the centre of their national policy. It is also true that Swit-
zerland is wealthy and can afford these new payments to farmers for extra services,
and that Cuba had no choice – it could not afford to do anything else. It is difficult
to draw wide conclusions from these two cases. However, as American farmer and
poet Wendell Berry has put it about his own country, ‘I cannot see why a healthful,
dependable, ecologically sound farm- and farmer-conserving agricultural economy
is not a primary goal of this country.’ Is there the political will in all the remaining
200 or so countries? The options are available, and the net benefits would be sub-
stantial. To date, the words have been easy, but the practice much more difficult.