On 13 September 2012, Otto Stich passed away. He was a member of the Swiss Federal Council for 12 years, following which – from 1997 to 2007 – he was President of the Foundation Council of the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL). His relationship with FiBL remained close to the end and he followed the work of the organization with keen interest. As President of the Foundation Council he was passionate in his commitment to represent the interests of FiBL in the Federal Administration and the Federal Council.
By Urs Niggli, Director of FiBL, speaking at the funeral of Otto Stich in Dornach on 21 September 2012
Thinking back over the twelve years during which Otto Stich was a member of the Federal Council, what immediately comes to mind is his struggle to balance the Federal budget. Like the European and American heads of state today with their daily budget deficit battles, Otto Stich was at that time a constant presence in the Swiss media. Today he is still thought of as Switzerland’s “Mr Thrifty”. He gave me my first lesson in budgeting when I was a petitioner – a role one falls into automatically when dealing with any finance minister – exactly 20 years ago. Saving money, he said, did not mean stopping all spending. It meant setting clear priorities. It meant investing in the future, and doing away with old habits where vested interests were no longer moving society forward. He spoke at length about agriculture and the great need for radical thinking concerning a strategy for greening the sector. I found his way of thinking surprising, especially coming from a dusty old financier. Otto Stich, however, was a passionate mountain climber and hill walker. He loved his bees. And every year in his garden he celebrated his cherry harvest. His closest associates in the Swiss Federal Department of Finance were rumoured to be rather alarmed at times by the way he cavorted about up trees on a ladder. But because he viewed events through the lens of the economist, he arrived at some astonishing insights. The flowers would disappear from the meadows as a result of Swiss subsidies policy, he warned, and their disappearance would also put the bee population at risk. Milk output would rise continuously, resulting in an increase in costs to the Confederation. Regular use of antibiotics was going to be the only way to keep the high-yielding dairy herds healthy, and this would lead to problems with resistance further down the line in human medicine.
When Otto Stich took up the Presidency of the FiBL Foundation Council in 1997, then, he did so with great conviction, and he supported the organization for many years. FiBL grew strongly during his Presidency. It developed an extensive scientific profile and collaborated with farming families to develop a viable strategy for greening the Swiss agricultural sector. This has now evolved into a sound example of a green sector, creating jobs through innovation. For organic producers, Otto Stich’s involvement brought recognition of their pioneering efforts throughout Swiss society. For once, the man on the street and the farmer had their sights set on a common goal.
Sometimes I felt sorry for the people at the Federal Department of Economic Affairs and the directors of the Federal Office of Agriculture. It was far from easy defending their budgets in the face of the Finance Minister’s tough questions. But he was right to ask those questions. Switzerland’s Agricultural Policy 2014 -2017, which is currently being debated, takes yet another important step towards ensuring that the agriculture budget of almost 14 billion Swiss francs is geared more clearly towards environmental quality, landscape conservation and animal welfare. As Otto Stich liked to put it, public money should serve the common good and the interests of society.
Federal Councillor Otto Stich will certainly go down in history as a rigorous and successful finance minister. But he was also a highly committed and progressive thinker on many issues, and developments since then have proved him right. He could occasionally be impatient, and there were occasions when he would interrupt: “If you had something to say, you would be saying it more concisely.” If something aroused his interest, however, he would stick with it tenaciously, even actively courting critique. This, he liked to say, was his duty as a citizen. And this is precisely why he was highly regarded by so many people and treated with the utmost respect.
Urs Niggli, September 2012