In the referendum in Switzerland, more than 60% of Swiss voters rejected three sweeping environmental and climate proposals. Two nearly identical referenda against chemical pesticides in agriculture were turned down, and a third proposal aimed at reducing air pollution also failed to gain a majority.
After months of heated campaigns, it became clear on Sunday that the answer was “no” to the proposals that could have made Switzerland a pioneer in organic farming. Switzerland could have been the first European country to ban the use of synthetic herbicides and fungicides.
The results show significant differences between urban areas and the countryside. In some large cities, more than half supported the three now rejected climate plans, while the Swiss government had issued a negative recommendation. The Swiss chemical industry also campaigned extensively against the proposals in recent weeks.
About forty percent of the electorate cast a distrustful vote. These Swiss believe that agricultural policy can only be helped with radical solutions. This not insignificant minority believes that ecological agricultural policy cannot be made under the current power of the farmers’ association.
Urs Schneider, deputy director of the Swiss Farmers’ Union, said the referendum result was a “huge relief” for farmers, who argued that banning pesticides would lead to smaller harvests and higher food prices.
The campaign was particularly characterized in the final weeks by emotional arguments between opposing philosophies, especially in rural areas. The campaigns also revealed a lack of understanding of how the Swiss agricultural sector operates.
Despite the rejection of the three climate plans, campaigners on Sunday tried to claim a moral victory by pointing out that the dangers of pesticides and their threat to health have finally become a topic of discussion, and are now here to stay.
Campaigners argued that agriculture bears “significant” responsibility for pesticide residues in Swiss groundwater and rivers, as well as for declining biodiversity. They also argued that government policies do not do enough to address the problems.
“It is a defeat for health and for nature,” said Adèle Thorens of the Greens. She stated that it is necessary to continue the dialogue between politics, farmers, and science in the future.
Without the now also rejected new CO2 law, it is impossible, according to the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment, to reduce emissions by 37.5 percent by 2030 as planned, but at most by 23 percent. This is also because some climate measures are now being completely dropped. It is unclear what will happen now regarding the limitation of chemical pesticides and air pollution.