Parliament says no to withdrawn landscape initiative
Published: Tuesday, Dec 5th 2023, 11:21
Updated At: Tuesday, Dec 5th 2023, 11:21
Retour au fil d'actualité
Parliament says no to the conditionally withdrawn landscape initiative. An indirect counter-proposal to the popular initiative was already adopted by the councils in the fall with the second part of the partial revision of the Spatial Planning Act. A referendum is not yet in sight.
The Council of States decided to say no to the initiative as early as 2022. The National Council followed suit on Tuesday with 122 votes in favor, 59 against and one abstention in the event that the initiative is still put to the ballot box. The initiative was no longer necessary for the SVP, Center Party, FDP and GLP, and was also too extreme for some opponents.
"Real milestone"
The revised Spatial Planning Act is a "real milestone". It takes up the concerns of the initiative and yet leaves certain freedoms, said Mike Egger (SVP/SG) for the majority of the committee. Members of the SVP in particular argued against the initiative in the Council.
Thomas de Courten (SVP/BL), for example, said that initial situations and settlement structures were not the same throughout the country and that spatial planning was a matter for the cantons. Roman Hug (SVP/GR) spoke of a "centralization initiative", Andreas Gafner (EDU/BE) of "stubborn prevention of conversion".
The population is annoyed by the extremism of certain circles, Benjamin Roduit (center/VS) also noted. He himself was annoyed by the debate on the initiative, although no referendum on the Spatial Planning Act was in the offing. Thomas Rechsteiner (center/AI) called the initiative "unnecessary, unclear, anti-federalist".
Susanne Vincenz-Stauffacher (FDP/SG) said that the request prevented development opportunities for the economy and was no longer necessary. Nicolò Paganini (Center/SG) also thought it was worth gaining experience with the new legal provisions.
Initiative committee relies on the law
The initiators themselves are relying on the revised Spatial Planning Act and have therefore conditionally withdrawn their request. It could be taken out of the drawer if the law does not come into force. The SP and the Greens called for a Yes to the initiative in the event that it does come to the ballot box.
The time factor was also important. The new provisions in the Spatial Planning Act could be implemented much faster than would be possible with a constitutional article and its implementation in law, wrote the committee on the withdrawal.
A red-green minority wanted a yes to the initiative. Christophe Clivaz (Greens/VS) lamented the uncertainties surrounding the new Spatial Planning Act. There are many exceptions to the stabilization of sealed surfaces, for example for agriculture, tourism and energy production facilities.
Martina Munz (SP/SH) criticized the special zones outside of building areas, which the law allows under strict conditions, as "black boxes". The Federal Council's implementing provisions would decide whether these zones would become "another loophole for further construction activities outside the building area".
"Farmland in farmers' hands"
Bastien Girod (Greens/ZH) added that the compromise achieved with the revision of the law still had to prove itself. Michael Töngi (Greens/LU), a member of the initiative committee, said that the initiative aimed to change an ongoing discussion and had had an impact. According to Beat Flach (GLP/AG) - who is also a member of the initiative committee - the initiative was a response to the long-delayed revision of spatial planning law.
The second stage of the partial revision of the Spatial Planning Act had occupied the councils for years. Parliament decided to make this bill an indirect counter-proposal to the initiative. The core element of the revision of the law is a stabilization target for building outside of building zones.
New demolition premium
The cantons must specify in their structure plans how they intend to keep the number of buildings and the extent of sealing stable outside the building zone. They must report regularly to the federal government and make adjustments if necessary.
The councils want to use incentives to ensure that buildings that are no longer in use disappear from the landscape. The cantons are now to pay demolition premiums for such buildings under certain conditions.
©Keystone/SDA
French 
English 
German 
Spanish 
Arabic