Vote analysis: ecological initiatives often fail due to resistance by Swiss farmers

The biodiversity initiative was opposed by a broad alliance – the main right-wing and centre-right parties, as well as farming and business groups – which considered it “too extreme and ineffective”. Keystone / Valentin Flauraud

On Sunday, 63% of Swiss voters rejected an initiative to better protect biodiversity in Switzerland. A proposal to reform the country’s occupational pension scheme was also turned down by 67.1% of voters. Urs Bieri, a political scientist at the gfs.bern research institute, outlines the main lessons of the two votes.

SWI swissinfo.ch: What does the clear rejection of the biodiversity initiative say about the power of the Swiss Farmers’ Union?

Urs Bieri: The Farmers’ Union ran an effective campaign. This was decisive in winning over conservative right-wing landscape protectionists and heritage conservationists. In the end, the “no” vote was accordingly quite clear.

SWI swissinfo.ch: The threat to biodiversity in Switzerland is recognised by all sides. But at the ballot box the proposal received very little support. What was its main weakness?

U.B.: Two elements are always decisive for initiatives. On the one hand, there needs to be a problem that is recognised by a majority of people, which was the case today.

Urs Bieri is a political scientist at the gfs.bern research institute. gfs.bern

But you also need a solution with majority support, which the initiative did not offer. That is why there was a discussion about the weak points and the negative consequences for agriculture. This critical view of the initiative prevailed.

SWI swissinfo.ch: After the pesticide ban initiative and the drinking water initiative in 2021, the biodiversity initiative is a third similar proposal. But it was rejected more clearly than the others. Do you see a trend?

U.B.: Yes. Things have been quiet in this area for several years. The last major ecological initiative to pass was the second homes initiative [in 2012]. All subsequent proposals were rejected.

Often they failed due to opposition from farmers. At the time, the second homes initiative had the backing of right-wing conservative circles. This was lacking for similar issues.   

SWI swissinfo.ch: A food security initiative will follow soon, aimed at strengthening sustainable production in Switzerland. What are the main lessons to be learned from earlier electoral defeats?

U.B.: Ecological initiatives must not be restricted to the left-green camp and must make an impact in the political centre or even to the right. If this initiative succeeds in doing so, it has a chance. Otherwise it will fail due to the discrepancy between the urban “yes” and the rural “no” votes.

SWI swissinfo.ch: How would you describe Sunday’s two votes overall: intense or rather average?

U.B.: The campaign was relatively intense. Once again, we had intensive and very conflictual debates. But the votes themselves were average. There was no protest vote movement like, for example, for the vote on the 13th monthly pension payment issue.

SWI swissinfo.ch: A government-backed reform of the occupational pension scheme was also roundly rejected on Sunday. Was this due to its basic premise? Could parliament have prevented this?

U.B.: Parliament had attempted to reach a compromise, but this did not gain sufficient backing. Ultimately, however, it lacked a problem that was capable of winning a majority.

During the referendum campaign, criticism, mistrust, and uncertainty towards the authorities grew because the federal government had to admit an error in the calculations of its forecast for the expenditure for the old age and survivors’ insurance (OASI) [state pension system]. Suddenly it was unclear whether we had a pension funding problem at all.

SWI swissinfo.ch: How much did this OASI miscalculation cost them at the ballot box?

U.B.: Our first survey was conducted before this error was made known; another immediately afterwards. The figures differ greatly, by around 10%. We attribute a significant part of this to this miscalculation.

SWI swissinfo.ch: It seemed like a relatively straightforward exercise for the trade unions to defeat the pension reform. Was the proposal weak or were the opponents’ arguments just very good?

U.B.: The unions managed to take on board the discussions which have been going on for over a year since the run-up to the 2023 elections. There has been much talk in Switzerland about the cost of living and the loss of purchasing power. We have discussed the fact that it is difficult to pay health insurance premiums or food in Switzerland.

These issues are still ongoing and culminated in the vote on the 13th pension payment initiative in March. The unions have pursued this issue to today. The “no” vote to the occupational pension reform is therefore also the result of a very good campaign by left-wing unions. It was also able to generate opposition from right-wing conservative groups.

SWI swissinfo.ch: Which government proposal does this vote remind you of?

U.B.: We voted on the conversion rate for the so-called second pillar of the Swiss pension system [a fixed percentage used to calculate the level of annual pension payments based on the amount of retirement assets saved] in 2010 and it was rejected by a similarly high proportion of voters. Whenever there are plans to weaken social security schemes, most people need obvious compensatory measures. This was not the case back then, and the corresponding measures are not convincing today either.

Edited by Samuel Jaberg; adapted from German by DeepL/sb