A new sustainability initiative of the Swiss People’s Party

While population growth lies at the root of many environmental problems, concerned citizens often feel disempowered from addressing it. A popular initiative in Switzerland may provide a blueprint for activists in other developed countries.

by Roland Schmutz

After Swiss voters narrowly rejected joining the European Economic Area in 1992, the European Union and Switzerland began negotiations on seven sectoral agreements (Bilateral 1 Treaties). These sectoral agreements on the free movement of persons, technical barriers to trade, public procurement, agriculture, land transport, air transport and research were concluded in 1999 and came into force on June 1, 2002.

By accepting the Bilateral 1 Treaties with the EU, Switzerland also said yes to the free movement of people with the EU states. Since then, it has been de facto impossible to control or even limit immigration to Switzerland. The Swiss population is growing by 60,000 – 110,000 people every year, which corresponds to an average annual growth rate of 0.93%. The country has grown by 1.5 million people (19.7%) since the “Bilateral 1” trade agreements with the EU came into force in 2002.

No other EU country has anywhere near as high a population growth due to immigration as Switzerland.

Switzerland has grown by 21% between years 2000-2020, as compared to its neighbours, such as France with 10.3% growth, Austria with 8.8% growth, Italy with 3.2% growth, and Germany with 1.3% growth. The population of Switzerland grows 16 times faster than the population in Germany

Switzerland is a strong magnet for jobseekers from the EU. The free movement of people allows entry without major bureaucratic hurdles. Every new job created spurs the creation of further new jobs. This spiral keeps turning and leads to a constant demand for more skilled workers.

From 2003 to 2020, 4 times as many positions were opened, Switzerland grew by 1.3 million residents, with around 173000 more cross-border commuters (a doubling). At the same time, there are 4 times more job vacancies, despite the strong population growth

With rapid population growth, it is becoming apparent that Switzerland’s infrastructure is reaching its limits. Traffic jams on highways are a daily occurrence, often even on Sundays. Hours of annual traffic congestions have more than quadrupled over the last 20 years.

From 2000 to 2019 there is 4 times more traffic congestions and is the main reason for traffic jams. 90% of these are due to road overload.

Trains are so overcrowded at rush hour that commuters frequently have to stand. Rental prices for flats are rising, with decent offers attracting hundreds of interested parties. Very few people will soon be able to afford to buy living space, and if they do, it will be densely built living space. Building a single-family home will soon be seen as absurd. Local recreation areas are disappearing as they are displaced by settlement areas. Cultivated land is also being lost to residential and commercial developments.

From 2009 to 2018 settlement area increased by 2 times the area of lake Zurich. Settlement area is growing (7.7 football fields per day) while agricultural area is shrinking (12.7 football fields per day)

These trends, driven by rapid population growth, show no signs of slowing down, although Switzerland already has a low per capita share of arable land compared to the rest of Europe.

Switzerland has less arable land per capita than their neighbours: 4.7 as compared to Italy's 11.1, Germany's 14.1, Austria's 15, and France's 27.

And now we are realizing that our quality of life is suffering from this high population growth. We notice that welfare is giving way to the supposed increase in prosperity. We see how we are losing our home.

In order to counteract this development, the Swiss People’s Party (SVP Switzerland) launched its “Sustainability Initiative – No 10 Million Switzerland” on July 4, 2023. The SVP is a proudly nationalist, politically conservative, economically liberal and Eurosceptic political party founded in 1971. With 28% of the vote, it is the strongest party in Switzerland and represents the largest faction in the Federal Assembly.

The No 10 Million initiative requires the following:

  • Switzerland’s permanent resident population (including all Swiss nationals with a main residence in Switzerland as well as foreign nationals with a residence permit for at least twelve months) may not exceed ten million by 2050. Otherwise, the Swiss Federal Council must terminate the international agreements driving population growth, namely the free movement of people with the EU.
  • As soon as the permanent resident population exceeds 9.5 million, the Federal Council must take measures, particularly in the areas of ​​asylum and family reunification.
  • The federal government and the cantons must ensure sustainable population development to protect our environment and secure sufficient infrastructure, health care, educational institutions, electricity supplies and social services.

At the beginning of February 2024, the SVP announced that it would submit the initiative in April 2024. While the collection period for popular initiatives is 18 months, the SVP collected the 100,000 signatures required in half that time. This shows that there is a will for change among the population.

The 2024 bill is not the first time the Swiss people have expressed a wish to restrain population growth. In 2012, the SVP launched the Federal People’s Initiative against Mass Immigration (MEI)  which sought to reintroduce immigration quotas, such as had existed before the Bilateral 1 treaty. This referendum came before the people in 2014 and was accepted by them. The initiative allowed three years for treaties to be renegotiated with the EU.

However, the EU made clear that none of Switzerland’s treaties with the EU would be reinstated if the free movement treaty was cancelled. Switzerland’s access to the European Single Market would not be allowed, effectively threatening a trade embargo on land-locked Switzerland. Other research and regulatory collaborations would also be closed off. European media painted Switzerland as an aggressor, as if its borders were to be closed entirely. Under this intense bullying, the MEI was never implemented. Switzerland’s direct democracy was trampled on.

2021 has shown again that the EU is prepared to turn its threats into actions. When the Federal Council broke off the most recent negotiations with the EU regarding the framework agreement for the bilateral treaties, the EU immediately excluded Switzerland from the Horizon Europe and Erasmus research projects. Consequently, there are of course reasonable doubts that the sustainability initiative, if adopted, will ever be implemented. One thing in its favour is that it requires no immediate action: the triggers for action are in the future. Perhaps the mood in the EU regarding immigration is also changing. However, we will only find out if the bill is passed.

Roland Schmutz is President of ECOPOP, a Swiss voluntary association established in 1971 dedicated to the preservation of non-renewable resources and the reduction of overpopulation.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Published

15 responses to “A new sustainability initiative of the Swiss People’s Party”

  1. Marc P. Gillet Avatar

    Well, things are in fact more complex. In the past, Switzerland was a very poor mountain country, and attracted only banished people like Voltaire or Richard Wagner. A lot of Swiss people did emigrate, for instance to Brazil in the late 1800, where they hoped to find a better living. Even in the sixties, Switzerland was a cheap place to go skiing for middle class French or German families. Now they have enriched thanks to international trade and finance, like Luxemburg and Netherlands, at the expense of other European countries, and thanks to the oil money and the security of their banks. There are necessarily some drawbacks to this enrichment.

    1. gaiabaracetti Avatar

      Yes. As a sustainability and population activist, it’s hard to feel sympathy here. Swiss salaries are insanely high even compared to wealthy neighbouring countries. As beautiful as Switzerland is, people move there because they want to make a lot of money and it is allowed. From what I know, contemporary Swiss culture is pretty greedy, too. A lot of the money Switzerland makes through finance is not only shady (maybe less so today than before), but it amounts profiting off other people’s misery, as most finance today does. Not to mention that “we’re neutral but we sell weapons” charade.
      Now you want the trade deals but no people coming in; a coin with only one side. This article is painting the EU as a bully, which in a lot of ways it is, but at the same time, why would they give Switzerland something with nothing in return.

  2. PHILIP CAFARO Avatar

    Marc and Gaia,

    In somewhat different ways, you both suggest that the Swiss should accept rapid population growth because of some other sins. I disagree. If true, essentially the same argument would hold for all developed countries. “You’ve done well, gotten rich, so … just take in tons of immigrants.”

    I don’t buy. I’d rather say, “now that country X is rich, time to start focusing on other things besides increasing the size of the economy.” That includes a sustainable population, no?

    1. gaiabaracetti Avatar

      Philip, I can’t speak for Marc, but that’s not what I meant. I’ll rephrase.
      The key here is how unique Switzerland is and how dependent its wealth is from the rest of the world, given that it’s just a landlocked small Alpine country with limited resources.
      The article says that this party wants Switzerland to limit migration, but the price of that would be the EU cancelling its access to the European Single Market. They even go as far as calling this possibility a “trade embargo”. So what they’re saying is that they want to limit their population, which of course I would support, but are unwilling to pay the price. And the price, for a country as fabulously wealthy as Switzerland is today, shouldn’t be prohibitive.
      So I interpret this as: the goal of keeping our population at sustainable levels is less important than our goal to be rich. We want to keep bringing in resources, but not people.
      If the objective is sustainability, it cannot be achieved at the current levels of wealth of Switzerland. A small mountainous country, no matter how industrious its population, simply cannot support such levels of consumption without taking resources from elsewhere. We are talking about a country that is among the top ten wealthiest in the world, per capita, while having a higher population density than even Italy. Something doesn’t add up here. Reduce your population, sure, but stop hoarding wealth from abroad, too. If other countries wish to retaliate for your refusal to accept their migrants, it’s totally within their rights to do so. If you are unwilling to share, and as I’ve said I do believe that population *should* be limited, there’s no reason why others should keep sharing their natural resources with you!
      I hope it’s clear what I mean!

    2. RandomReader Avatar

      Philip Cafaro stole my words. I was appalled by the “stupidity” of the comments above (sorry for the word “stupidity” that may sound offensive, it’s not my intention to be offensive, just accurate).
      Limiting population in Switzerland is a necessity. I agree that is not sufficient: other countermeasures are required to become sustainable. But this does not make the no-10-million initiative any less valid or necessary.
      Sustainability can be achieved in different ways. You can choose to be few and rich or many and poor or any combination in between. Somebody seems to argue that only one combination is moral: many and poor.
      Sorry not, why? If you like poverty, free to choose poverty but don’t pretend to impose your moral principles on others. Swiss have the right to be a small non-overpopulated and wealthy country. You don’t feel sympathy? They will survive.

      1. gaiabaracetti Avatar

        Yes, you are offensive. You are calling our comments stupid but you are not paying attention to everything the article says and what we actually commented on.
        If I may, I think that you and Philip missed what I think was the point of this article and hence of my reply: “Under this intense bullying, the MEI was never implemented.”
        What this means in practice is that the party in question is not prepared to make a reasonable trade off: no migrants freely coming in, no special trade deals with the EU. Switzerland’s wealth isn’t down to its own rich resources, low population and/or good management: it’s money and resources siphoned off from other places, through many mechanisms one of which is favourable trade deals. They are not willing to give this up, so they will not get the population reduction they supposedly want. They are choosing money over sustainability. Simple as that.

        We’re always talking principles here, maybe a little too much. We all agree about overpopulation being an issue and the necessity of doing something about it, otherwise we wouldn’t be here. But then what? How do we actually DO IT? If we don’t call out the hypocrisy of wanting population and migration to magically reduce themselves, without us making hard choices and taking risks to have such as a result in real life… we’ll just be sitting here talking to each other about what we wish could magically happen.

  3. Stable Genius Avatar

    Looks as if there’s an outside chance the Swiss could actually get a choice. That could never happen in Canada or Australia. It would be Too Racist.

    1. gaiabaracetti Avatar

      Switzerland has a proud tradition of having referendums about anything it wants. Their choices sometimes leave me dismayed but it’s good that they have the option to choose.

  4. PHILIP CAFARO Avatar

    Reducing excessive environmental impacts comes down to IPAT: environmental impact as a function of population, per capita wealth or consumption, and the technologies deployed. I am happy to see efforts on any of these fronts, want to see efforts on all of them.

    In the case of Marc and Gaia’s comments, I think it comes to them saying “you are being hypocritical if you address P and not A.” I disagree. As RandomReader says, perhaps they want to be well-off and limit their population. Most people would probably take that choice over being poor but more populous.

    In any case, we are where we are. The Swiss, the Italians, the Americans, are all fairly wealthy. I think real sustainability will have to involve us giving up some of what that wealth can buy us, in the way of travel, food from around the world, etc. I also think it must involve reducing our numbers. The more we do one, the less (in theory) we need to do the other. But in practice, getting us to do either seems difficult!

    1. gaiabaracetti Avatar

      Philip, it’s not about just wealth and hypocrisy, that’s the point. They don’t really want to limit their population because they know they have only one way to do so, and that entails giving up trade deals with the EU and more generally, probably, change their economic and diplomatic standing vis-a-vis the rest of the world. That’s what I’m saying: wealth and population are not, in this case and in many others, two independent variables in an equation, that you can tinker with and adjust separately one from the other. They are connected.
      A lot of choices that we should be making are made harder by international entanglements that bring benefits to some and costs to others. Stopping migration to Europe is almost impossible because neighbouring countries don’t cooperate, or retaliate, or the courts stop deportations, and it turns out human rights law is incompatible with some things that would be necessary to stop desperate migrants. So what do we do? Do we give up hard-won, fundamental rights (that we might need ourselves in the future) for the sake of this one goal?
      Brexit, the farmers’ protests… other example of the real life policy difficulties and hard choices connected to a theoretically desirable objective.
      I think we’re missing an opportunity to discuss the specific issues brought up by this article, and just sticking to generic statements of intention that get us nowhere.
      I’ll stop now!

  5. Stephen McKevitt Avatar

    Thank you for this article.
    Two points: First, the past 75 years have changed everything in our human civilization, more than just about anything in our modern history. We must remain aware of this valuable history of ours, but not use it in a simplistic manner — of trying to manage our current problems to suit our wishes. We need to look at these problems and face them honestly. This means considering fresh and untainted ideas. In our present-day world migrations are a growing sign of trouble, a sign of a destabilizing chaos to come.

    Second: We must not let the right-wing demagoges use the issue — the problem — of immigration to gain power. Progressive people need to see and then discuss the present-day problem of the present-day migrations. We must lower our human population.

  6. Sibylle Frey Avatar

    Just because Western countries are affluent doesn’t negate the importance of safeguarding their biocapacity and biodiversity.

    What we witness in Europe with its high population densities, is that natural landscapes are being destroyed due to the encroachment of human settlements and infrastructure. The EU’s relatively low birthrates are compensated by importing (cheap) labor to sustain economic growth. This pattern echoes across most Western nations.

    Switzerland is a microcosm of what’s happening in other wealthy countries like the EU where high population and consumption levels outstrip their supply of biocapacity, thus running ecological deficits.

    The UK, for example, has to import nearly half of its food to meet the demands of its population. This has ignited controversial debates around rewilding. A researcher recently argued that the UK should refrain from rewilding due to its status as one of the most biodiversity-depleted countries and questioned the worth of preserving or reversing this trend. This is because when agricultural land is taken out for rewilding, it replaces wilderness areas in the exporting country with a higher biodiversity value. While technically correct, this argument also overlooks the demand side of the equation. In fact, this oversight is dangerous. Biocapacity and biodiversity protection is in the self-interest of every population, nation, and globally.

    As long as there is trade, every country depends on the intact natural capital of others – save for a few exceptions like Russia, one of the few remaining Northern countries with a biological surplus that, thanks to its relatively low population and consumption levels, can shut itself off and do what it likes.

    Ideological notions that certain countries’ natural capital is more worthy of protection than others are counterproductive. If current trends continue, many regions will very likely confront situations akin to Switzerland, with some already experiencing such challenges. We need to have level-headed discussions not just about overall population numbers but also their densities, including ecologically balanced immigration levels. Otherwise, all efforts to meet the EU’s environmental challenges and foster ecologically sustainable societies will remain futile.

    1. gaiabaracetti Avatar

      Out of all things we should rewild, I think agricultural land should come last, for now at least. Where I farm, most of the land around my pasture is used by rich residents to run their dogs, put swimming pools on, practice motocross, or not even anything specific, just to have large manicured green spaces to look at… it used to be all agricultural land, but since everyone wants a very large house with its own garden, and a wide street to get there and ample parking, it’s all gone now. Air, sound and light pollution followed urban sprawl. All these people have big lawns that they mow with polluting vehicles, then burn the residue; they water them with potable water even during droughts and pay someone to cut branches off the trees and burn those too. This land feeds zero people.
      Why don’t we rewild THAT land? Why does it always have to be the poorer sectors of society that pay for whatever good cause we decide on, while the rich live in wasteful mansions that could feed two families with their gardens alone?
      Drives me nuts.

      1. Johan Löfqvist Avatar

        Having travelled recently in Switzerland and Central Europe it is clear that the area seems overpopulated. I recommend EU to follow Switzerland and reduce immigration from outside EU.

  7. Pam Avatar

    Hi everyone,

    I’m from Southern California and I’m pointing the finger at myself and my own country as I write this.

    Given the traffic congestion, high density living, arable land being covered by asphalt and cement, the high ecological footprint and cost of housing, I’d say the limit of 10 million people is way too many to create a high quality of life for the Swiss, and the many people that are most likely living in very poor conditions to support their way of life.

    Perhaps the Swiss could gain some compassion for the impact their way of living has on others and choose to help invigorate the work opportunities in other countries so that they are not so attractive to others; homelands are more desirable.

    I never thought I’d say it, and, the world would be better off if all the countries that are attractive for immigration and are already overpopulated (which all attractive countries are), would have tighter immigration policies to encourage people to stay in their home country and develop it. And these immigration policies will be more supported and effective if these rich, developed countries would give back to the countries that helped make them rich in the first place. This support could be investments in education, family planning, leap-frogged technology (skipping the dirty, energy excessive energy growth that the developed countries went through), etc. This development in the home countries could include development in culture, family, quality of life. This could also be an opportunity for the developed countries to mature past their egotistical selves, into people that are self-reflective, perhaps learning that acquiring does not bring happiness and power-over is not nearly as invigorating for the average person as power-with others..

    Off the soap box,

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Explore the content and topics covered by TOP, search here

Blog categories

Gallery of infographics – Learn more about overpopulation and environment

Discover more from The Overpopulation Project

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading