Swiss voters rejected two key proposals in twin referendums on Sunday: one aimed at strengthening biodiversity protections and another focused on pension system reforms, according to provisional results.
Despite Switzerland’s reputation for pristine landscapes, environmentalists have raised concerns over the country’s endangered ecosystems during the referendums. They pushed for broader biodiversity protections, but the proposal was defeated, with only 37% of voters in favor and a 45.2% turnout.
Supporters of the biodiversity initiative, including organizations like Pro Natura and BirdLife, warned of the country’s declining biodiversity. Switzerland has one of the highest rates of threatened species among European OECD countries, as highlighted in a 2020 European Environmental Agency report. Currently, only 13.4% of Swiss territory is dedicated to biodiversity conservation, far below the global goal of protecting 30% of land and oceans by 2030. The proposal sought to boost the biodiversity budget and expand protected areas, but critics, including the right-wing UDC, argued that it could jeopardize energy and food production. Environmentalists saw the result as a missed opportunity to safeguard Switzerland’s natural heritage.
In the second referendum, voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposed pension reform, with 67.1% voting against it. The reform aimed to address underfunding in Switzerland’s “three-pillar” pension system, which includes a basic state pension, compulsory occupational funds, and private voluntary contributions. The government argued that rising life expectancy and low financial returns had underfunded the second pillar, necessitating higher contributions from both employers and workers. However, unions strongly opposed the reform, calling it a “scam” that would increase contributions while shrinking pension benefits. The proposal was rejected across all cantons.
The pension reform proposal was meant to address the financial challenges facing Switzerland’s pension system, particularly the second pillar, which requires compulsory contributions from both employers and employees. With an aging population and longer life expectancy, the government argued that without reform, the system would be unable to maintain its long-term sustainability. The proposed changes involved raising the contribution rates for both workers and employers to ensure sufficient funding for future retirees.
However, the reform faced significant opposition, particularly from unions, which argued that it would unfairly burden workers without providing adequate benefits. The Swiss Trade Union Federation, which represents 20 unions, criticized the reform, describing it as a “scam” that would force people to pay more into the system while receiving reduced pension payouts in return. The unions successfully gathered enough support to bring the issue to a referendum.
Ultimately, the proposal was decisively rejected by voters, with nearly 70% voting against it. The widespread opposition was seen in every canton, reflecting broad public discontent with the government’s handling of pension reform.
Both referendums revealed significant divides in Swiss public opinion on environmental protection and social security. The rejection of the biodiversity proposal highlighted tensions between economic interests—particularly in sectors like agriculture, energy, and construction—and the need for stronger environmental safeguards. Similarly, the pension vote underscored concerns over the financial future of retirees and the fairness of increasing contributions without guaranteeing adequate benefits.
Despite these setbacks, the debates surrounding biodiversity protection and pension reform are likely to continue in Switzerland, as both issues are critical to the country’s long-term sustainability. Environmental organizations are expected to push for alternative measures to address biodiversity loss, while the government may need to revisit pension reform to find a solution that balances the interests of workers, employers, and retirees.
