Protecting nature or protecting yourself from nature? The priorities in environmental policy are astonishing.
Alpine flowers bloom in the Calfeisental.
The initiators of the biodiversity initiative are not only concerned with bees and flowers, but with much more. In fact, everything. It is about “our livelihood,” they say. Who could possibly object to that? And you shouldn’t save money when your own existence is at stake.
The proposal, which will be voted on on September 22nd, requires the federal government and the cantons, among other things, to make areas available beyond the existing protected areas. These will be inventoried and then remain as they are. The federal constitution should state that “the core content of the protected values” is to be preserved “unimpaired”. This means that construction work on these areas will hardly be possible.
Red-green monoculture
In addition to the construction freeze in certain landscapes, but also around corresponding townscapes, the initiators want more money above all. The Federal Council estimates the additional expenditure at 400 million francs per year if the initiative is accepted. According to its own figures, the federal government already spends 600 million francs per year on biodiversity – through various channels. For example, through commitment credits in the environmental sector, which provide around 2 billion francs for the years 2025 to 2028. The Council of States has already approved this. The relevant committee of the National Council also gave the green light last week.
In addition to the bees and flowers, the additional tax revenue that the initiators hope to receive will primarily benefit biologists, civil servants and probably also the red-green monoculture in the NGO sector. In order to implement the initiative, action plans and research bases must be drawn up, wrote the Federal Council in its message on the initiative. This requires “advice, education and information”.
Because the federal government would not be able to produce all the brochures and advice centers on its own, mandates for environmental organizations would probably spring up like mushrooms. What is certain today is that the additional administrative workload would have to be controlled – with even more bureaucracy. Existing monitoring programs would have to be expanded into an “integral system” in order to be able to monitor biodiversity, according to the Federal Council’s message.
The debate about the indirect counter-proposal showed how clever the left is when it comes to acquiring tax money. In order for this to “develop”, the Federal Council proposed contributing an additional 96 million francs annually and increasing the aforementioned loans accordingly. The government and the National Council wanted to use this to appease the initiators. The Council of States, however, recognized this and also rejected the counter-proposal for reasons of savings.
However, there are still substantial sums available for biodiversity. Even without the additional 96 million from the counter-proposal, the said credit provides 384 million francs for the nature and landscape budget item, including for the “improvement and preservation” of biotopes and for the promotion of UNESCO sites.
Another item in the loan concerns the revitalization of water bodies. 146 million francs are planned “to stop the loss of biodiversity in and around water”. The Left wanted to increase this amount by 40 million, but this failed in the Council of States. It is not acceptable to increase this item in view of the tight federal finances. Especially since cuts have to be made in other areas, said the majority. Cuts to existential biodiversity?
This only refers to the area of gravitational natural hazards. This concerns measures against everything that comes down from the slopes and mountains and can be fatal. As with everything in the environmental sector, only cross-sectional cuts were made. But the political reality seems a little strange, especially after the stormy summer weeks.
Less money for personal protection
While this autumn there will be a vote on whether hundreds of millions of francs should be spent extra “for the future of our nature and landscape”, the renovation of protective structures against avalanches, rockfalls and landslides is actually being cut. A lot of money for endangered animal and plant species, less money for the protection of people, settlements and transport infrastructure.
The ratio of the various expenditure items in the environmental sector is also astonishing. If you add up the expenditure for the two items – nature and landscape and water revitalization – you get 530 million francs for the four years. The area of gravitational natural hazards (just 153 million francs) and the area of flood protection (still 481 million francs) together make up 634 million francs. The protection of nature and protection from nature are therefore in a similar accounting weight class.
Another similarly large item is the forest sector (CHF 451 million). With its multifunctionality, the forest combines both biodiversity and protection from natural hazards. The Council of States has decided to increase this item by CHF 100 million in order to finance additional measures to adapt the forest to climate change. The National Council Committee has spoken out against this.
Whatever the electorate’s attitude towards biodiversity, it is already being generously supported compared to measures against natural hazards.
