Councils postpone target for biodiversity promotion areas in arable farming
Published: Monday, Dec 4th 2023, 19:41
Volver a Live Feed
Parliament is postponing an environmental target for agriculture by one year. Against its will, the Federal Council can only introduce the 3.5 percent requirement in the ecological performance certificate in 2025 instead of 2024 as planned. This concerns arable farming.
On Monday, the National Council adopted a motion by Councillor of States Esther Friedli (SVP/SG) by 119 votes to 68 with four abstentions, against the wishes of the SP, Greens and GLP. It calls on the Federal Council to postpone the requirement of 3.5% biodiversity promotion area in arable farming from January 1, 2024 to January 1, 2025 and to examine further measures at the same time.
The majority of the National Council's Committee for Economic Affairs and Taxation (WAK-N) supported the motion and argued that there were still too many uncertainties. Among other things, effective, existing measures could not be taken into account with the Federal Council's current guidelines.
Marcel Dettling (SVP/SZ) said that the question arose as to what exactly could be counted as biodiversity promotion. Bio Suisse also wanted to have this question clarified before the introduction. Bio Suisse therefore supports the postponement.
Katrhin Bertschy (GLP/BE) objected on behalf of the minority that Parliament was gambling away its credibility with the renewed postponement. It was about promises made to the electorate and the most important biodiversity measure of the last legislative period.
The Federal Council must now act against its will. It had decided on the 3.5% biodiversity promotion areas in arable farming in an ordinance in connection with the proposal to reduce the risks posed by pesticides. Due to the war in Ukraine, it had already postponed the introduction from the beginning of 2023 to the beginning of 2024.
Parliament had confirmed the introduction of this measure for more biodiversity with earlier decisions, the Federal Council also argued in vain against the motion. It also spoke of a breach of good faith: companies that had already acted would be penalized with the postponement.
©Keystone/SDA
Spanish 
English 
German 
French 
Arabic