Approaches

Direct Payment System [Switzerland]

Direktzahlungssystem

approaches_2602 - Switzerland

Completeness: 86%

1. Informação geral

1.2 Detalhes do contato das pessoas capacitadas e instituições envolvidas na avaliação e documentação da abordagem.

Pessoa(s)-chave

SLM specialist:
Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Preventing and Remediating degradation of soils in Europe through Land Care (EU-RECARE )
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
CDE Centre for Development and Environment (CDE Centre for Development and Environment) - Switzerland

1.3 Condições em relação ao uso da informação documentada através de WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

23/06/2015

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Sim

2. Descrição da abordagem de gestão sustentável da terra

2.1 Descrição curta da abordagem

Financial aid of the government to land users to compensate for loss of financial output of crops.

2.2 Descrição detalhada da abordagem

Descrição detalhada da abordagem:

Aims / objectives: The main aim is to maintain agriculture and its production of goods. Because of the small amount of financial output for a land user and its products in Switzerland, there are direct payments to the land user paid per area size. These payments are substantial for every land user but especially in mountain regions of Switzerland to compensate land users for their work for nature and environment. Another goal is to keep the nutrient security of Switzerland alive. This goal can only be reached by supplementary payments in order to produce agricultural goods competitively.

Methods: Direct payments mean financial sums paid to a land user per area size. They differ from position of the field. A land user must apply for the direct payments in autumn. During winter the land user must mark his fields and their use online. Payments are reached three times during the following year: in June, autumn and winter.

Stages of implementation: The beginning of direct payments is in the 1980s when there were payments for livestock owners. Before there were never direct financial payments to land users but the agricultural products were financed by the government itself and land users got a fixed price for their products. 1989 land users got direct payments for the first time under the programs IP Suisse and ÖLN. Today payments are calculated by area size.

Role of stakeholders: The direct payment system is mainly a political issue. Politicians make budgets for the total amount of direct payments each year. Moreover, they can make new rules and obligations for land users. The land user must always adopt himself and his technology and crop rotation to these changes. This can be very difficult. Land users are represented by their unions but there is no space for individual opinions or direct participation in the system.

2.3 Fotos da abordagem

2.5 País/região/locais onde a abordagem foi aplicada

Country:

Switzerland

Region/ State/ Province:

Bern

Further specification of location:

Frienisberg

Comments:

Total Switzerland

2.6 Datas de início e término da abordagem

Indique o ano de início:

1989

2.7 Tipo de abordagem

  • Baseado em projeto/programa

2.8 Principais metas/objetivos da abordagem

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Maintenance of a good financial situation for Swiss land users)

The system wants to support Swiss Agriculture on a financial basis. Because agricultural products are produced under swiss conditions regarding wages, soil prices etc. the products can not compete against other products from abroad. The direct payments close the gap between the theoretical value of a product and its end price in stores.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The system of direct payments gives wrong appeals to the land users. Because payments are made by area size land users want to expand their farm size even more. But there is also more work to do if a farm is bigger. The system also provokes cultivation of fields that are at risk for erosion or other consequences because it does not differ from fields that are at risk and fields that are not. It is only the size that matters.

2.9 Condição que propiciam ou inibem a implementação de tecnologia/tecnologias aplicada(s) segundo a abordagem

Disponibilidade/acesso a recursos e serviços financeiros
  • Inibitivo

Rentability of conservational agriculture and its technologies were often discussed because there may be losses at the beginning.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Because of financial payments losses of financial capital can be compensated.

3. Participação e papel das partes interessadas envolvidas

3.1 Partes interessadas envolvidas na abordagem e seus papéis

  • Usuários de terra/comunidades locais
  • Organização não governamental
  • Governo local
  • Governo nacional (planejadores, responsáveis pelas decisões)
Caso várias partes interessadas foram envolvidas, indique a agência líder:

government

3.2 Envolvimento do usuários de terra/comunidades locais nas diferentes fases da abordagem
Envolvimento do usuários de terra/comunidades locais Especifique quem estava envolvido e descreva as atividades
Iniciação/motivação Passivo
Planejamento Passivo
Implementação Apoio externo
Monitoramento/avaliação Participativo
Research Nenhum

3.3 Fluxograma (se disponível)

Descrição:

Organisation chart for direct payments

Autor:

BLW

3.4 Decisão sobre a seleção de tecnologia/tecnologias

Especifique quem decidiu sobre a seleção de tecnologia/tecnologias a serem implementadas:
  • Principalmente usuários da terra, apoiados por especialistas em gestão sustentável da terra
Explique:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists

4. Suporte técnico, reforço das capacidades e gestão do conhecimento

4.1 Reforço das capacidades/formação

Foi oferecida formação aos usuários da terra/outras partes interessadas?

Sim

Especifique quem foi capacitado:
  • Usuários de terra
Tipo de formação:
  • Em exercício
  • Áreas de demonstração
Assuntos abordados:

There was also an overthinking on the side of land users. Some of them did not change environmentally good technologies after there were less payments for this technology because they saw the advantages of their technology. However, without a financial support at the beginning they would not have implemented new technologies.

4.2 Serviço de consultoria

Os usuários de terra têm acesso a um serviço de consultoria?

Sim

Especifique se foi oferecido serviço de consultoria:
  • nas áreas dos usuários da terra
  • Em centros permanentes
Descreva/comentários:

Advisory service is very adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities

4.3 Fortalecimento da instituição (desenvolvimento organizacional)

As instituições foram fortalecidas ou estabelecidas através da abordagem?
  • Não

4.4 Monitoramento e avaliação

Monitoramento e avaliação são partes da abordagem?

Sim

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by government through observations; indicators: None

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by government through observations; indicators: None

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored by government through observations; indicators: None

area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored by government through observations; indicators: None

no. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored by government through measurements; indicators: None

management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by None through observations; indicators: None

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: None

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: None

4.5 Pesquisa

A pesquisa foi parte da abordagem?

Sim

Especifique os tópicos:
  • Economia/Marketing
Dê mais detalhes e indique quem realizou a pesquisa:

Research was carried out on station

5. Financiamento e apoio material externo

5.1 Orçamento anual para o componente de gestão sustentável da terra da abordagem

Caso o orçamento exato seja desconhecido, indique a faixa:
  • > 1.000.000
Comentários (p. ex. principais fontes de recursos/principais doadores):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (projects): 50.0%; national non-government (soil support program): 10.0%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc): 40.0%

5.2 Apoio financeiro/material concedido aos usuários da terra

Os usuários da terra receberam apoio financeiro/material para a implementação de tecnologia/tecnologias?

Sim

5.3 Subsídios para entradas específicas (incluindo mão-de-obra)

  • Agrícola
Especifique quais entradas foram subsidiadas Em que medida Especifique os subsídios
Sementes Totalmente financiado
  • other
Other (specify) Em que medida Especifique os subsídios
area size Totalmente financiado cultivation per ha

5.4 Crédito

Foi concedido crédito segundo a abordagem para atividades de gestão sustentável da terra?

Não

6. Análise de impactos e declarações finais

6.1 Impactos da abordagem

A abordagem auxiliou os usuários da terra a implementar e manter as tecnologias de gestão sustentável da terra?
  • Não
  • Sim, pouco
  • Sim, moderadamente
  • Sim, significativamente

There are payments for conservational agriculture and technologies. Therefore, SLM is applied there. However, there are also payments for conventional agriculture and technologies and the attractiveness to change a cultivation system is not very high.

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
  • Não
  • Sim, pouco
  • Sim, moderadamente
  • Sim, significativamente

about 97%

Did the Approach lead to improved livelihoods / human well-being?
  • Não
  • Sim, pouco
  • Sim, moderadamente
  • Sim, significativamente

6.2 Principal motivação dos usuários da terra para implementar a gestão sustentável da terra

  • Produção aumentada
  • Lucro (lucrabilidade) aumentado, melhora da relação custo-benefício
  • Carga de trabalho reduzida
  • Pagamentos/subsídios
  • Consciência ambiental

6.3 Atividades de sustentabilidade de abordagem

Os usuários da terra podem manter o que foi implementado através da abordagem (sem apoio externo)?
  • Não
Caso negativo ou incerto, especifique e comente:

The current agricultural system in Switzerland can not run without direct payments and financial support of the land users.

6.4 Pontos fortes/vantagens da abordagem

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The payments are a security of income for the land users. Therefore he continues his production of agricultural products. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: The payment must be enough high so that it is accurate for the labour and work of a land user on the fields. This must also be a point regarding future payments.)
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
It is a fair system: a land user only gets paid for his work on a field. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: A good life for a land user and his family is possible through the financial aid of the direct payment system. This must be maintained.)

6.5 Pontos fracos, desvantagens da tecnologia e formas de superá-los

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view How can they be overcome?
A fixed product price would be the solution to higher payments. The situation from the beginning of the system was much better. Product prices must be on a similar level. However, this is not possible.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
The system provides some dependence for the land user. He can not produce competitively without supplementary payments. Fair product prices and competitiveness would be the solution, but this is impossible to reach.
There are many differences during short time regarding the sum and conditions of direct payments. A land user has thereby no chance of adopting himself to the new conditions. Payments must be stable during a longer time. Only then a land user is able to change his cultivation system.
The system leads to wrong cultivation of fields because a land user wants as much area size as possible. This endangers soil and can lead to erosion. The system should be reduced to only not-endangered fields and provide payments for the non-cultivation of endangered fields.

7. Referências e links

7.1 Métodos/fontes de informação

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules