There are laws that apply. And then there are those who apply less. For example, the protection of streams and rivers: if farmers use more fertilizer than the soil can absorb, harmful nitrate ends up in the water. But when it comes to water protection, the cantons are hesitant to implement federal law — and have been for 25 years.
The result of this refusal to work: high residues of pesticides and nitrate – considered a potential carcinogen – in the groundwater. This is not possible, the National Council concluded this week. The Confederation should set a deadline for the cantons to implement the measures prescribed by law.
The National Council as savior? Not quite. As early as next week, the SVP, FDP and Mitte are likely to agree to an initiative that aims to weaken the protection of the waters again. It concerns the indirect counter-proposal for the drinking water and pesticides initiatives.
Environmental targets are not achieved
The farmers’ organization countered both initiatives with a multimillion-dollar campaign – pointing out that the pesticide problem would be addressed anyway through the indirect counter-proposal. That was well received by voters. It has clearly rejected the two agricultural initiatives.
But it is precisely this indirect counter-proposal that is now again subject to political power struggles. Again, the issue is about over-fertilization, more precisely, about uncontrolled nitrogen losses. That is why part of the fertilizer is washed away by the rain and ends up in the groundwater as nitrate. According to the regulation, this excess nitrogen must be reduced by 20 percent. It is precisely this passage that the citizens want to delete again. The resistance comes from the Greens, SP and Green Liberals.
For GLP National Councilor Kathrin Bertschy (43), reducing fertilizer drift by 20 percent by 2030 is “the bare minimum.” She points out that a reduction of 30 percent would be necessary in order to achieve the environmental objectives in agriculture.
Reduction of manure losses unrealistic
“During the referendum campaign, the chairman of the Farmers Union, Ritter, said that if Switzerland voted against it, it would get the strictest pesticide law in Europe,” Bertschy recalled. It was “unfair” and “democratically problematic” for the peasant association, together with the bourgeoisie, to question these goals again.
The approached Markus Ritter (55), chairman of the Boerenbond, does not accept Bertschy’s representation. He refers to the previous history – a real squabble between the Bundesrat and parliament. The government originally introduced the target of 20 percent in February 2020. Under the influence of the farmers’ union, the House of Representatives removed the number from the template again in the autumn of 2020. When the Bundesrat published the consultation on the indirect counter-proposal in May 2021, it was included again. And now, according to the will of the farmers’ association, she has to go outside again.
According to the farm manager, a 20 percent reduction in manure losses is “simply unrealistic”. Ritter: “To achieve that, we would have to keep far fewer cows, chickens and pigs in Switzerland.” This is the only way to reduce the amount of fertilizer accordingly. But a reduction in the number of animals goes against the will of politicians and the population: “That would only lead to more meat imports.”
The question remains: is it possible to reduce excess nitrogen by 20 percent? “Theoretically” yes, says Agroscope, the Federal Center for Agricultural Research. However, some farmers should reduce their fertilizer losses by more than 20 percent, as not all farms can meet this target.
One thing is certain: the challenge for farmers is enormous. However, if you continue as you are used to, the damage to nature is enormous.