Agroecology in Practice: Corinne Zurbruegg on Farming for Biodiversity
Dr Corinne Zurbruegg from AGRIDEA, a member of the FarmBioNet consortium, has spent more than a decade advancing agroecology and strengthening biodiversity across Swiss agriculture. As the leader of the Swiss National Network within FarmBioNet, she bridges research, policy, and on-farm practice. In this interview, she shares insights on what is working well, the challenges that remain, and the biggest opportunities for biodiversity-friendly farming.
1. Could you tell us a bit about your professional background and how your path led you to work in the area of biodiversity and agroecology?
I studied zoology at the University of Bern. At the time, I was interested in birds and insects, which led me to write my master’s thesis in the Department of Agricultural Ecology. I researched the species diversity and abundance of bugs in various types of ecological compensation areas.
After completing my doctoral thesis, also in the Department of Agricultural Ecology, on the influence of transgenic BT corn on the soil ecosystem, a position promoting biodiversity in agriculture was advertised at AGRIDEA. That was in 2009, and I have been working in this field ever since. Initially, it was certainly challenging because, as a biologist, I had no agricultural background and had to acquire this knowledge over the years.
2. You have been working in this area for many years. From your experience, what are the most effective ways to make biodiversity a real part of daily farming practice?
In Switzerland, contributions for biodiversity promotion were introduced as early as the 1990s. Without a certain proportion of land designated as biodiversity promotion areas, there are no direct payments. Agricultural policy frameworks and financial incentives for the creation and maintenance of biodiversity promotion areas are certainly important, but they are not enough on their own. Much more can be achieved through consultation, good practical examples, and respectful interaction between the various interest groups.
3. As the leader of the Swiss National Network within FarmBioNet, how would you describe your main areas of focus?
When we talk about biodiversity-friendly measures in Switzerland, we mainly think of the 16 types of biodiversity promotion areas for which farmers receive payments. In EU countries, the issue is approached much more broadly. Measures that are classified as resource conservation in our system are also considered biodiversity-friendly measures. The fact that measures such as reduced tillage, humus formation, undersowing, etc., can also have a positive effect on biodiversity is hardly discussed. In the network, we want to try to think outside the box and also discuss new, innovative approaches that result in synergies or possibly also conflicts of interest with regard to biodiversity promotion, such as agroforestry, strip farming, regenerative agriculture, cover crops, etc.
4. How does your expertise in agroecology contribute to practical work with farmers and advisors?
I don’t believe that ecological expertise is necessarily the most important skill for practical work with farmers and advisors. Of course, it is valuable if I can show farmers what measures they can take to promote a particular species on their farm. But soft skills, such as mutual appreciation and understanding for the other person, are much more important. I am a specialist in ecology, and the farmer knows his farm best. Only through dialogue can we find solutions that suit him and that can then be implemented on the farm.
5. What are the biggest challenges to protecting biodiversity in Swiss agriculture today - and what strategies or policies do you find most promising to overcome them?
In general, Swiss agriculture is currently facing major challenges. Many farms are under considerable economic pressure. Low producer prices are offset by rising production costs. Many farmers are under pressure to secure yields and income. Biodiversity promotion areas are often perceived as a loss of production, and the direct economic benefits of biodiversity, such as pollination or pest control, are rarely directly noticeable.
Although a relatively large amount of land has already been designated as biodiversity promotion areas, the ecological quality of these areas is often insufficient, and they are not sufficiently interconnected. In addition, there are deficit regions in the Swiss Plateau, especially in arable farming areas, i.e. where biodiversity promotion competes directly with food production. The Swiss direct payment system has grown significantly over the years in the area of biodiversity promotion, becoming complicated, confusing, and bureaucratic. This weakens the motivation and initiative of farmers, as meaningful measures often cannot be integrated into the direct payment system.
I consider the following to be sensible measures: a greater focus of direct payments on the quality and impact of biodiversity promotion areas, more flexibility for farmers with proven high biodiversity success, increased whole-farm advice on biodiversity promotion measures, and research and practical trials that show that biodiversity promotion and stable yields are not mutually exclusive.
6. You have been involved in previous European initiatives. What lessons or best practices from these collaborations could be useful for other countries trying to support farmland biodiversity?
Prior to this European project, I was only involved in an EIP-AGRI focus group that dealt with promoting biodiversity-enhancing structures. However, I have visited innovative farms and projects abroad and attended various international conferences on biodiversity promotion. This has given rise to new project ideas, which we are actively implementing. For me, exchanging ideas with people who work in the same field and often face similar challenges is extremely enriching, as it allows me to think outside the box and provides new inspiration.
7. FarmBioNet aims to bring together traditional knowledge and research-based practices to support biodiversity on farms. What role do you see for National Networks like the one you lead in achieving this? Are people motivated to get involved?
Networks that bring together different stakeholder groups are always a good platform for developing solutions collaboratively. I would say that half of the network participants are very committed because they have a keen interest in the topic. The participating farmers are already implementing many biodiversity-friendly measures and therefore have little potential for further improvement. This is perhaps the disadvantage of such networks. You tend to reach only those people who are already very committed, and not those you actually want to reach. At least, that is the case in the Swiss network. How to reach the others remains the big question.
8. Looking ahead, what key actions or mindset changes do you believe are most needed to protect and restore farmland biodiversity over the next decade?
I think many farmers are not yet aware that promoting biodiversity is not just a government-imposed obligation, but rather a form of operational insurance for soil fertility, water, pollination, and thus a basis for long-term yield security. Strengthening the topic of biodiversity in agricultural education, training, and advice plays a key role in this. It is also important to further improve the quality and spatial connectivity of existing biodiversity promotion areas and to reduce the use of pesticides and nitrogen inputs. Results-based direct payments could be one way of achieving this. Finally, biodiversity services should also be visible and remunerated outside farms, for example, through labels, fair prices, and clear communication of the added value.