How Much Does it Cost to Reduce Greenhouse Gases in Agriculture?

The Climate Strategy for Agriculture and Food requires cost-efficient greenhouse gas mitigation measures. An Agroscope study shows which technical measures are effective and how much costs are influenced by the different implementation strategies.  

To achieve the Net Zero emissions target, Switzerland aims to lower greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural production by 40% compared to 1990 by the year 2050. Since emissions have barely declined in recent years, further emission reduction and carbon storage measures that maximise cost-efficiency are required. This study focuses on measures that would lead only to minor changes in the structure of the farms and of the Swiss agricultural sector.

Four consistently cost-efficient measures

Researchers analysed twelve mainly technical measures on the production side with two to three different implementation variants each. Four of these measures consistently proved cost-efficient:

1. Rewetting agriculturally used peatland soils
2. Feed additives for reducing methane emissions from ruminants
3. Increasing the productive lifespan of dairy cows
4. Nitrogen-optimised feeding of pigs.

Together, the cost-efficient measures achieved a reduction potential of 11−18% compared to 1990 (minus 797−1379 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents).

Costs vary significantly depending on assumptions

The total costs of all the examined measures ranged between CHF 87–1124 million per year, depending on the implementation assumptions. The range was particularly wide in agroforestry systems and biogas facilities (e.g. due to different-sized systems). The study clearly shows that cost data can only be meaningfully interpreted in the context of underlying assumptions. For this reason, it is important that these assumptions are always communicated transparently.

Total costs calculated from an agricultural perspective

For each scenario, the total costs of the measures were calculated, irrespective of who bears the costs (e.g. the agricultural sector, canton or federal government). This allows a comparison of the total costs, regardless of whether or not a measure currently receives state support.  

Benefits for planning and agricultural policy

The comparison of different cost scenarios forms a valuable basis for implementing measures and designing their respective funding instruments with a view to maximum efficiency. Hence, the added value of this study does not lie primarily in the precise determination of reduction costs, but rather in an enhanced understanding of the economic principles and framework conditions in relation to the potential greenhouse gas reductions.

Structural measures possibly more cost-efficient

Previous studies have suggested that structural measures such as a reduction of livestock numbers would be more cost-efficient from an economic perspective. A further investigation of structural measures at the level of the food system would therefore be a vital precondition to better understanding the social costs of agricultural climate-change mitigation. However, since such measures impact numerous stakeholders and processes, quantifying the total costs is a difficult process requiring complex models.

Comparison with long-term costs of climate change

As part of an overall economic assessment, the costs of greenhouse-gas mitigation measures should always be compared with the long-term costs of greenhouse gas emissions, and hence with the long-term costs of climate change. According to an earlier study conducted for the Swiss agriculture and food system, these could end up being 3 to 35 times as high as the estimated costs for the technical measures in this study (De Luca & Müller 2025).