The Swiss population has rejected two important bills on biodiversity conservation and pension system adjustments in a referendum. As a result, stricter environmental laws in agriculture and horticulture will not be implemented, and pension entitlements will not be saved for future generations but will be paid out now.
The aim was to introduce stricter environmental regulations that would benefit nature and biodiversity. This includes strict regulations for agriculture, housing and industry. Political parties such as the Greens and left-wing groups supported this initiative. Supporters argue that the country's rich biodiversity is increasingly under pressure from urbanisation, intensive agriculture and infrastructure projects
On the other side were the Swiss farmers' unions and right-wing parties such as the Swiss People's Party (SVP), who strongly opposed the proposal. They also warned of possible job losses in the agricultural sector.
In the end, the fear of economic consequences outweighed the need for additional environmental protection. The biodiversity initiative was rejected by a significant number of votes (more than 65%). In several cantons, there was an overwhelming 'no' vote, especially in rural areas where the agricultural sector plays a major role.
The Swiss were also able to vote on proposed reforms to the Swiss pension system. The Swiss population is ageing rapidly, and without reforms the current pension system would come under great pressure
The Swiss government and several economic experts warned that without these reforms the pension system would become unaffordable in the near future. They advocate measures such as an increase in the retirement age and a revision of pension benefits. The Liberal Party and the Christian Democrats, among others, supported the proposal.
Opponents, including trade unions and left-wing parties, pointed out that raising the retirement age would hit lower income groups hardest, who often do physically demanding work and have shorter working lives. As with the biodiversity initiative, the population voted against the pension reforms by a significant majority (63%). In urban areas, there was more support for the proposal, but it did not achieve significant results at the national level.