Vote The most important facts about the biodiversity initiative
This Sunday, the people and cantons will vote on the Biodiversity Initiative. An overview.
No time? blue News summarizes for you
- The biodiversity initiative calls on the federal government and cantons to do more to protect biodiversity and the landscape.
- Supporters emphasize the importance of biodiversity for agriculture, health and the economy.
- Opponents warn that the initiative could severely restrict food production and other economic sectors.
Switzerland is voting on the biodiversity initiative today. The initiative, supported by environmental and landscape conservation organizations, calls on the federal government and cantons to do more for biodiversity. The most important points in brief:
The initial situation
Biodiversity in Switzerland has declined since 1900. Science and administration, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and also the European Environment Agency consider the current Swiss means for preserving biodiversity to be partially successful, as the Confederation writes. But they are not enough. According to the Confederation, it currently spends around CHF 600 million per year on biodiversity. Most of this money goes to farmers who promote biodiversity. The Confederation is currently working on a second Biodiversity Action Plan.
The Federal Council would have liked to see an indirect counter-proposal to the biodiversity initiative. Among other things, this would have made 17 percent of land available for animals and plants instead of the current 13.4 percent. Cities and municipalities would have had to do more to protect biodiversity. However, the counter-proposal failed in parliament. The Federal Council and Parliament recommended that the initiative itself be rejected.
What the initiative wants
The initiative "For the future of our nature and landscape (biodiversity initiative)" was submitted at the beginning of September 2020 by the supporting association "Yes to more nature, landscape and building culture". The supporting association would have been prepared to withdraw its petition if Parliament had adopted the Federal Council's indirect counter-proposal.
The initiative aims to oblige the federal government and cantons to better protect biodiversity, the landscape and architectural heritage. It calls for more land and more public funding for the preservation of biodiversity. It does not specify figures. Protected areas of national importance should be defined by the federal government and cantonal protected areas by the cantons. The initiative also calls for nature, diverse landscapes and beautiful sites to be protected outside protected areas.
What the supporters say
"Protect what we need": The Yes committee argues that biodiversity is the basis of life and is important for the economy and people's health. Agriculture, for example, is dependent on pollinating insects and fertile soil thanks to living creatures in the soil. And many tourists come to Switzerland because of the beautiful landscapes and villages. Protection and benefit could go hand in hand.
The initiative committee argues that Switzerland is currently doing too little for its nature and landscapes and that there is an urgent need for action. It does not want to set numerical targets. After all, the preservation of biodiversity does not depend on a specific area, but on the quality of care and protection.
The popular initiative is backed by seven supporting organizations, over sixty partner organizations, 24 cantonal committees and over 150 local groups. The SP and the Greens recommend a Yes vote.
What the opponents say
According to the No committee, the biodiversity initiative would severely restrict food production. The No Committee argues that 30 percent of the land area would become practically untouchable. Although this figure is not mentioned in the initiative, it is clearly the target figure of the initiators.
The opposing committee also points out that, in addition to agriculture, electricity production using renewable energies would also be restricted, as would the forestry and timber industry and the use of mountain areas for tourism. The opposing committee consists of representatives from agriculture, the energy and construction industries, the forestry and timber industries, business associations and representatives from the SVP, FDP and the Center Party.
The Federal Council finds the initiative too rigid. In the words of Environment Minister Albert Rösti, the text lacks a balance between biodiversity and the protection of the townscape on the one hand and the interests of the national economy on the other.
SDA
