CDF: complex approval of plant protection products

Context

TL;DR

• On October 12, 2026, the CDF's audit was published
• Five federal offices examine plant protection products
• Structures and processes are too complex
• High backlogs and fees that are too low

Key facts

• When → 12 October 2026
• Where → Bern
• Subject → approval of plant protection products
• Lead → USAV
• Offices → UFAG, Agroscope, UFAM, SECO and USAV
• Alignment → Swiss procedure and European Union, end of 2025
• Review → efficiency and adequacy of fees
• Outcome → complex structures and processes, high backlogs, low fees

On 12 October 2026, in Bern, the Federal Audit Office (CDF) announced the findings of its review of the efficiency of the approval procedures for plant protection products. In Switzerland, the use of a plant protection product is subject to its approval.

The procedure involves five federal offices across three departments; it is led by the Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (USAV). The Federal Office for Agriculture (UFAG), Agroscope, the Federal Office for the Environment (UFAM), the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO), and the USAV participate in the assessment. The analysis examines the efficacy and risks of plant protection products.

The organisational review

The CDF reviewed the efficiency of the procedures and the adequacy of the fees in terms of covering the costs incurred. The conclusion set out in the press release identifies a need for action: structures and processes are too complex, work backlogs are consequently too high, and fees are too low.

The press release also specifies a precise point in time. At the end of 2025, the Swiss approval procedure had achieved an even greater degree of convergence with that of the European Union. This element accompanies, but does not replace, the requirement stated at the outset: approval remains necessary before use in Switzerland. The source does not present the alignment as an elimination of the national procedure.

The issue remains organisational and procedural: alongside the approval requirement, the source presents an assessment of the system's efficiency. The combination of complexity, backlogs and low fees defines the need for action identified by the CDF, while the examination of the products remains focused on efficacy and risks.

For anyone needing to navigate the process, there are therefore three points: the product must be approved before use; the assessment involves five offices under the direction of the USAV; the CDF identified problems involving complexity, backlogs and fees. To distinguish this review from other everyday expenses, costo della vita in Svizzera is also available.

Operational details

The CDF's snapshot can be read as a map of the points at which the procedure can become difficult to follow. The press release points to the need for action on structures, processes, backlogs and fees. For the reader, this distinction avoids two misunderstandings: approval remains the prerequisite for use in Switzerland; alignment with the European Union, on the other hand, describes the evolution of the Swiss procedure at the end of 2025.

Three effects not to confuse

The first effect concerns coordination. The distribution of responsibilities among five offices and three departments makes the procedure a shared process, not an assessment assigned to a single party. The CDF deems the structures and processes too complex. This finding describes how the organization operates; the source continues to identify approval as a necessary step.

The second concerns workload. Backlogs are described as too high and linked, in the press release, to the complexity of the structures and processes. For those who need to obtain approval, this indicates that the efficiency of the procedure is not an administrative detail: it is one of the central problems identified by the audit. The two critical issues are therefore presented together, as part of the same efficiency problem.

The third effect concerns fees. The audit relates them to coverage of the costs incurred and deems them too low. The press release thus presents an assessment of the overall adequacy of the fees in relation to the costs incurred.

The press release therefore presents alignment with the European Union and the CDF's audit as two pieces of information to be read together, but not as equivalent. The former concerns the evolution of the Swiss procedure; the latter identifies the critical issues in the organizational setup. For a separate in-depth look at personal accounts, calcolatore stipendio can be used.

Useful tools to protect your net income

To reduce FX leakage, compare CHF-EUR exchange options and banks for cross-border workers.

Key points

Anyone who needs to assess the use of a plant protection product in Switzerland can follow an essential sequence, based on the steps described in the press release. The aim is not to replace the procedure, but to avoid confusing the product, the technical assessment and the approval.

The operational sequence

1. Identify the use case. The first question is whether the product is to be used in Switzerland. If the answer is yes, the requirement indicated by the source is prior approval.

2. Verify the prerequisite before use. The product should not be considered usable in Switzerland before approval has taken place. This is the step from which the entire system described in the press release starts.

3. Read the assessment on the two indicated aspects. The examination concerns the efficacy and risks of plant protection products. Focusing on only one of the two aspects would yield an incomplete reading compared with the source.

4. Reconstruct the responsibilities. The procedure is led by USAV; the offices involved include UFAG, Agroscope, UFAM and SECO, in addition to USAV. This map helps explain why CDF refers to structures and processes.

5. Keep Switzerland and the European Union separate. At the end of 2025, the Swiss procedure became further aligned with that of the European Union. This fact should be read together with the requirement for approval in Switzerland, not instead of it.

From an economic standpoint, the review offers an equally concrete criterion. Fees should be considered in relation to coverage of the costs incurred: CDF considers them too low. This information makes it possible to understand the direction of the intervention, without replacing the official assessment with personal estimates. The same applies to backlogs: the source describes them as too high and links the problem to the complexity of the organization.

The procedure should therefore be approached starting with the approval requirement, the review of the two aspects examined, and the distinction between European alignment and Swiss approval. For those who want to put their financial framework in order, the final step is to use calcolatore stipendio.

Source: admin.ch