Food Security, Animal Welfare or Climate Protection: Goals for the Future of Livestock Farming

Livestock farming is at the centre of current debates on the future of Swiss agriculture. An analysis involving representatives from Swiss interest groups shows that despite diverging positions on individual objectives, the green, liberal and conservative groups are more in agreement on the preferred direction of development.

Around 80 per cent of Swiss agricultural land is used for fodder production. Yet around 60 per cent of concentrated feed still has to be imported. This heavy reliance on livestock farming has two major consequences: First, livestock farming accounts for around 90 per cent of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions in Switzerland. Second, the high demand for feed reduces Switzerland’s current potential to produce food, thereby lowering its level of self-sufficiency. Both factors affect key targets of the Climate Strategy for Agriculture and Food 2050. Unless Swiss livestock farming is adapted, these targets cannot be achieved in future.

A comparison of four possible futures

The study compared the ‘business as usual’ reference scenario with three exploratory scenarios for 2050, which would achieve the two objectives of the climate strategy: a self-sufficiency rate of at least 50 per cent and a 30 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions: ‘Efficiency’ focuses on intensive poultry production; ‘Sufficiency’ reduces the consumption of meat and dairy and partially replaces animal proteins with plant-based ones; ‘Consistency’ limits livestock farming to grassland, by-products and food waste, and reserves arable land for human food. To evaluate the scenarios, 14 policy objectives for livestock farming were identified in the areas of environmental impact, protection of the natural environment, food security and socio-economic performance. As no single scenario achieves the best results across all 14 objectives, there are conflicting objectives that require careful weighing up.

What interest groups prioritise

Twenty interest groups from the sectors of agriculture, environmental and animal welfare, the agri-food industry, the market and consumer protection took part in the study. Based on the classification by Metz et al. (2021), the organisations were divided into a green, a conservative and a liberal cluster. In a survey, representatives of the organisations ranked the four scenarios and prioritised the 14 objectives for the future of livestock farming. Overall, the highest-rated objectives were the preservation of agricultural land, low greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity and the quality of life of farmers. However, differences emerged between the clusters: whilst organisations in the conservative cluster prioritised food availability (self-sufficiency) most highly, organisations in the green cluster gave this objective a very low priority. The opposite picture emerged regarding animal welfare, which was rated highest by the green cluster and lowest by the conservative cluster.

A common denominator despite differing values

Despite these differences, the ‘Sufficiency’ and ‘Consistency’ scenarios fulfil the prioritised objectives of all three clusters significantly better than ‘Business as usual’ and ‘Efficiency’. In the green cluster, this aligns with the ranking of the scenarios. In the conservative cluster, however, the ranking differs: respondents favoured ‘Business as usual’ and ‘Efficiency’, placing ‘Sufficiency’ in third or fourth place. Yet ‘Business as usual’ performs worst in meeting their most important objective, self-sufficiency. The ‘Consistency’ scenario not only performs well in terms of achieving objectives for all clusters but also ranks first or second in the assessment of the three clusters. It thus describes a future that enjoys broad support despite differing objectives.