Loredana, international cooperation has been under discussion throughout the country for months. Budget cuts for NGOs such as Biovision have been decided. How do you view the debate?
I would say it’s a mixed bag. I think that there have been some quite out-of-touch debates in the Swiss parliament recently. And these naturally influence public perception and the discussion among the general public.
Why “out of touch”?
Because, in the – partly justified – critical discussion, things are often compared that have absolutely nothing to do with one another. I’m not questioning where or how additional funds should be allocated now; rather, I’m criticising that financial resources from entirely different sources, serving distinct purposes, are being compared or even played off against each other.
About Loredana Sorg
Loredana Sorg is Co-Head of International Partnerships at Biovision and a member of the Executive Board
Can you explain this further?
On one side, there is collaboration with institutions across various countries, an essential area of international cooperation. This is specifically about improving people’s quality of life – socially, economically, and ecologically. To achieve this, Switzerland works directly with other countries or institutions abroad. The key word here is “cooperation.” It’s not about imposing our own programme from Switzerland in a top-down manner. Alongside these activities, there is also humanitarian aid, for instance, for Ukraine. This aid is, of course, absolutely essential and indeed a duty for us. However, I don’t believe that one supersedes the other, so it makes little sense to suggest that we should therefore abandon long-term projects and partnerships with civil society institutions worldwide.
Why is international cooperation so important in your view?
Without international cooperation, each country focuses solely on itself, often developing solutions in isolation and missing out on the benefits of global exchange. Yet, in a globalized and complex world, the well-being of individual countries increasingly depends on international connections. Linking knowledge, resources, and experience between East and West, North and South, is essential: constructive cooperation lays the foundation for all regions to access sustainable solutions and tackle challenges together.
Can you explain this in concrete terms using the example of Biovision?
At Biovision, our goal is to support people and organisations in our partner countries, primarily in East Africa, in implementing their commitment to a more sustainable food system, i.e. enough healthy food for all in a healthy environment, in the best possible way. One part of this is financial support, particularly in the initial phases of a project or in the transition phase from a research-focused project to an action-oriented agriculture project. Our support also includes the sharing of thematic and technical expertise related to agroecology, project management and impact measurement. Based on their needs, we connect our partner organisations with international specialised institutions or with larger donors.
Loredana Sorg, Co-Head of International Partnerships
Critics of international cooperation like to argue that we should not interfere in foreign affairs. The “market” would take care of that.
We cannot in all fairness expect to benefit from a networked world without at the same time taking on a certain degree of responsibility. International cooperation does not mean interfering in foreign affairs, but rather helping to ensure that everyone can share in the opportunities offered by globalisation. If we only take without giving, we increase imbalances instead of contributing to a fair exchange. What’s more, innovative projects in Switzerland also need external funding. If a cheese co-operative in a Swiss mountain valley wants to implement a regional agroecology project for ecologically sustainable and economically successful regional development, there are various government and civil society funders. Such sources of funding are simply rare in our partner countries – financial support, especially for project ideas that do not benefit the large, often foreign agricultural corporations, but actually benefit the population, i.e. society as a whole, is often not locally available, but comes from like-minded international organisations such as Biovision.
Can you explain what role the SDC, i.e. the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, plays in this context?
The SDC continues to play a central role, even though it has been under fire for years and has to fight for its budget. For one, it creates spaces in which Swiss NGOs can share ideas and learn from each other, it builds networks, sets standards and scrutinises critically. The SDC is also a reliable and important funding partner. It provides NGOs such as Biovision with core contributions that we can use flexibly within the framework of our international programme, where we believe they will have the greatest impact. In addition, the SDC is of course also a political player, it shapes the image of development cooperation in Switzerland and also has an influence on how the population views work such as ours.
Budget cuts in this area have been announced since the beginning of the year. What is the current status?
The fact is that we can expect less financial support from the SDC as of 2025. The exact amount is expected at the end of the year, but the rough extent is more or less clear. The expected level of cuts poses challenges for many NGOs – including Biovision.
Although the SDC is not the only donor for Biovision.
That is true. In addition to public funding, we also work closely with foundations that want to support us. And then there is the most important basis for us over many years: thousands of patrons who are convinced of our work and therefore make donations. What makes the current situation in development cooperation even more problematic is that the number of these donations has also been decreasing in recent years.
What explains this?
The reasons for this are manifold and there are various speculations. The economically and politically uncertain times, the multiple crises and inflation certainly all play a role. I also believe that this is linked to the public perception of international cooperation. And the sometimes very defamatory debates in parliament. The reputation of organisations working in this sector naturally suffers as a result. Although people continue to show just as much commitment and work just as conscientiously and creatively on solutions to really make a difference in this world. But the relatively negative reporting of recent months and years has influenced people. And you can feel that.
So are the critical voices out of place?
Criticism is always valid and important. It helps to highlight inefficiencies, injustices, or unclear processes, and it leads to debate and improvements. However, if the criticism and its political consequences interfere with organisations’ ability to act to such an extent that they make their work impossible or at least extremely difficult, then one has to question whether double standards are being applied here.
Loredana Sorg, Co-Head of International Partnerships
What do you mean by that?
I have the feeling that there is a strict zero-tolerance policy in development cooperation. Mistakes are absolutely not tolerated – unlike in the private sector or the state, for example. And of course, things happen in NGOs that can shatter trust in the sector. But it is simply illusory to demand that 100% of projects work perfectly; there are a few projects that do not work out as intended. That is the reality. But you also learn from such events, you get better and better. And yes, perhaps organisations such as Biovision have also failed in some cases in recent years to demonstrate even more clearly how international cooperation works, how conscientiously we monitor and what impact the projects have. The fact is that, especially compared to certain other sectors, the institutions of international cooperation operate a very effective impact monitoring system and are constantly accountable for the use of their funds. This culture of open allows us to learn from successes and failures and to avoid repeating mistakes.
What specific impact will the reduced revenue that is expected have on Biovision’s work?
At Biovision, we are in a situation where we now have to think very carefully about how to proceed in the coming years. It will be difficult to generate the same level of funding, so we not only have to constantly adjust our budgets for individual projects, but also our strategic prioritisation. A challenging process.
How does this process work?
We are intensively discussing the situation with our partners around the world. We are looking at how we can carry out each project with less budget. Many will go into the next few years in a slimmed-down form, others will be postponed for the time being. And yes, we will have to cancel some projects. Our top priority in these considerations is and remains: We want to prevent the actual target groups of our projects – farmers, herders, consumers – from being left out in the cold, for example because we cancel a project too early or start something now that we cannot guarantee will be financially viable by the time the project goal is reached.
Sounds like a challenging task.
Absolutely. These rather abrupt cuts in our budget planning do not present us with easy tasks. Especially because long-term and reliable planning is so important in our sector.
What do you mean by that?
We normally plan in project phases of three to four years. This means that we draw up a budget and align our strategy accordingly. This strategy is then also coordinated with our local project partners. However, if the planned funds are suddenly no longer available from one year to the next, our partners also have to react: They have to make savings, downsize projects or – in extreme cases – lay off employees.
So why not plan year-to-year? Wouldn’t that make things easier?
That’s simply not realistic in our work. We primarily work with natural processes, which inherently take longer. A tree takes years to bear fruit, soil can’t be regenerated in just a few months, and farming techniques don’t change overnight. These are processes that unfold over years. Ending a well-thought-out, newly established project after two years due to lack of funding would be a serious setback for those on this journey with us – farmers’ groups, pastoralist families, consumers. Stable budgets and SDC funding are essential for our planning security because we need time to establish these long-term processes in a targeted and sustainable way.
The Biovision Strategy 2024-2028 explained simply in the video.
There is often criticism that such processes create dependencies. What do you say to that?
A criticism that I vehemently disagree with, at least in our case. Long-standing projects are often pigeonholed as “dependency” too quickly. In order for our partner organisations and their projects to develop in a healthy and sustainable way and ultimately function independently, they need stability at the beginning and someone they can rely on – also financially – for a while. Especially in the space that we work in. Switching to agroecological processes, adapting farming systems, researching and improving them and generating new sources of income all take years. At the same time, we aim from the outset to give the people and organisations that work with us the tools they need to continue working without us once the foundations have been laid. This includes the independent dissemination of knowledge, access to diversified funding mechanisms and a broad network of helpful contacts.
Are there any developments that give you hope?
I said at the beginning that I’m a little ambivalent about the debate. What is certainly positive is that many more people are engaging with the topic than in previous years. Yes, negative criticism prevails at the moment, but that can change – if people discuss it conscientiously and understand how important this work is. To put it optimistically: the current debate, excluding the financial cuts, could perhaps even be good for development cooperation in the long run. There is certainly a need for reform in some areas and if we work together on international cooperation that is even better suited to today’s world, then it can once again take this important place in our society.
What do you mean by the need for reform?
There are specific adjustments we could make to achieve even greater impact. However, simply saying, “Some things aren’t working perfectly, so let’s cut all funding and be done with it,” is not a viable solution for me. International cooperation remains one of the most essential areas of work. If we can rethink aspects of this work under the pressure and scrutiny of many Swiss citizens, then I am hopeful. For example, according to a 2023 survey by the ETH Zurich’s Center for Development and Cooperation (NADEL), 58% of the Swiss population supports increasing spending on development cooperation. We need to be open about failures in our work and experiment with new models. And I hope that we at Biovision will continue to take on a pioneering role, as we have done many times in the past.
