Biodiversity in Switzerland: GPK-S sharply rebukes the Federal Council

The figures speak for themselves.

According to the Swiss Academy of Sciences (SCNAT), 35 per cent of all species in the country are considered endangered or already extinct. A further 12 per cent are potentially endangered. The state of habitats is particularly alarming: nearly half of all habitats are classed as endangered, and another 13 per cent as potentially endangered.

The oversight body identifies habitat loss and fragmentation as the main causes. Added to this are excessive fertilisation, pesticide pollution and ongoing climate change. These factors act together and place native wildlife under increasing pressure.

Protected areas are growing, but not enough

At least the number of protected areas of national importance has increased. Yet this growth is not sufficient to meet national and international targets. In 2023, only 13.4 per cent of the country's surface area had been designated as biodiversity protection zones. That is well below what Switzerland has committed to internationally.

There has been progress in places, for example in forests. But Switzerland is far from a turnaround. Anyone working for the long-term protection of habitats will find in-depth background information in the Environment and Nature Conservation dossier.

The lynx as a symbol of the crisis

How fragile the situation is can be seen in the lynx. The predator is once again living in Switzerland, but remains rare. Habitat loss and conflicts with human use continue to cause it problems. The fire salamander, once widespread, is now considered endangered too. Roads cut through its migration routes, and its habitat is shrinking.

It is precisely in dealing with predators that the close interweaving of nature conservation and exploitation interests becomes apparent. Where populations are regulated or habitats curtailed, species that are already rare come under additional pressure. More on this in the Wild animals.

Who is blocking? A look at the hobby hunting lobby

The GPK report describes the problem but does not name all those responsible. Because as soon as common sense seeks to do something for the protection of nature and biodiversity, resistance reliably forms from the ranks of the hobby hunters. This is no coincidence, but a pattern.

The examples are documented and go back a long way. The Ticino hunting association FCTI fought against the creation of a second national park in 2018, just as it had previously opposed the Parc Adula around the Rheinwaldhorn. The Locarnese National Park likewise failed due to the resistance of those circles whose hunting grounds were threatened by protected areas. The same lobby fought against the Biodiversity Initiative and in 2021 even opposed placing the endangered ptarmigan under protection.

The pattern continues in parliament. Hobby hunters in the federal chambers have in the past voted by a majority against environmental bills, tabled motions for wolf-free zones and fought against the ban on lead-based ammunition. Those who put protected predators such as lynx, wolf and fox under pressure weaken the very natural balance that keeps habitats stable. This is not about nature conservation, but about preserving a bloody hobby. Background information on this is gathered in the dossier Campaigns and Hunting.

The GPK-S calls for an overall concept by 2050

The oversight committee acknowledges that the Federal Council's room for manoeuvre is limited. The legal framework and the available resources set boundaries. Nevertheless, the GPK-S demands that the Federal Council examine additional measures and, where appropriate, legislative adjustments.

By means of a postulate, the committee wishes to request an overall concept for the protection of biodiversity for the years 2030 to 2050. The Council of States has yet to decide on the motion. The oversight body finds it hard to understand that the Federal Council has so far not presented any vision for biodiversity protection beyond 2030. It is equally surprised that communication on the subject has not been improved.

Parliament, too, is not pulling its weight everywhere

The criticism is not directed solely at the government. Parliament also bears responsibility. It has indeed approved the reduction of pesticide risks and the merging of biodiversity and landscape contributions. Other proposals from the Federal Council, however, were rejected.

Then there is the issue of subsidies. The measures taken so far are not sufficient. The Federal Council should therefore demonstrate what impact state aid has on habitat diversity and examine how the negative consequences of agricultural subsidies can be reduced.

Back in 2024, the Biodiversity Initiative failed at the ballot box. Neither parliament nor the voting public was willing to support the cause. The Federal Council wanted to implement parts of it through legislative amendments, but was unable to gain a majority in parliament.

What the findings mean for nature

The report by the GPK-S is more than an administrative memo. It makes clear that Switzerland is falling short of its own targets and that pressure on species and habitats remains unabated. As long as habitats are fragmented, rare predators are harassed and effective protection measures are delayed, the loss will continue.

Anyone who takes the protection of wild animals and their habitats seriously cannot avoid a fundamental debate: which interventions in nature are actually necessary, and which stand in the way of genuine conservation of biodiversity? In-depth contributions on this topic can be found in the dossier Animal rights and on the legal framework under hunting act.