Swiss Review 5/2018

Swiss Review / September 2018 / No.5 21 debate via the campaign “Let’s establish a newnational park”. The de- cisive factor was the realisation that Switzerland lags behind in big nature conservation areas compared with other countries. That is demonstrated by a look at neighbouring countries to the north and south: Germany has 24 national parks, Italy 16. Switzerland has just a single national park in the Engadin, which is actually a nature re- serve.When it was established in 1914, Switzerlandwas a pioneer. The Parc Naziunal Svizzer, as the site is called in Romansh, is the oldest national park in the Alps and central Europe. But it remains an iso- lated case in Swiss history. Following the Pro Natura initiative, the Swiss Parliament created the legal basis for a new national park through the revision of the Federal Act on the Protection of Nature and Cultural Heritage and the Ordinance on Parks of National Importance. The idea was to link nature protection and regional economic development through a newgeneration of national parks. Yet it seemed that the reservations of the population of the valleys about the national park regulations were just too great. Above all, the prohibitions in the core zones, the hunting and fishing prohibitions, and the prohibition on leaving marked trails met with bitter resistance. After initial enthusiasm, many projects were shelved. Or the promoters switched to the idea of setting up regional parks, for which less strict rules apply. And in fact, according to the Federal Office for the Environment, in the past 20 years in Switzerland 15 regional nature parks and one nature dis- covery park have come into being that have been recognised by the federal authorities. The Jorat (VD) nature discovery park is in the pro- ject phase. In the top tier of nature reserves – the national parks – both pro- jects that hadmade it to a vote failed. Prior to the No in the Locarnese this summer, the Parc Adula National Park Project in the border area between the cantons of Grisons and Ticino was stopped by residents at the ballot box. In a popular vote on 27 November 2016, eight of the 17 municipalities rejected the proposal. And no project will succeed in Switzerland unless it is democratically legitimised by support from the regions. A park cannot be imposed from above. No further projects Although the planning for both national park projects was exem- plary – as was the interaction between the local, cantonal and fed- eral authorities – the distrust and trepidation of the population pre- vailed. There is great disappointment now in nature and environmental circles that following the vote in the Locarnese there is virtually no prospect of a second national park. “At the moment there are no projects for a national park in Switzerland,” says Grisons Social Democratic Party (SP) National Councillor Silva Semadeni, who presided over Pro Natura for a long period. Raimund Rodewald, director of the Swiss Foundation for Land- scapeConservation, has not givenupyet, though. He proposes that the authorities and also opponents of the national park sit down together to seekout newpossibilities. “Aftermore than tenyears of planningwe cannot simply say, ‘that is that’.”When roadprojects fail, there is always a search for new solutions, he says. Rodewald has written to Federal Councillor Doris Leuthard, who is politically responsible, as well as to the authorities of Ticino. Christian Stauffer, director of the Swiss Parks Network, is disap- pointed about the failure of the two projects at the ballot box. In the short term, no new national park will be established. In the long term, however, he believes it is necessary. “Even in Switzerland the big natural spaces are under pressure,” says Stauffer. Among the pop- ulation there is a belief that as far as nature and landscape protec- tion go, everything is actually OK. The need for such protected ar- eas is not recognised. It is important now to initiate a national debate, he says. Resistance to restrictions During the drafting of the nature and cultural heritage protection law and the parks ordinance, the Swiss Alpine Club (SAC) repeatedly pointed out that from a nature conservation point of view the rigid restrictions were not necessary and could lead to strong local resist- ance. “Our concerns that the lawwas too strict have turned out to be justified,” says PhilippeWäger, head of the SAC environment and spa- tial planning department. The SAC central association supported the project in the Locarnese, despite misgivings. Is there any chance at all of a new, second national park? The Fed- eral Office for the Environment points out that parks are created on the basis of regional initiatives. In principle the possibility of a na- tional park remains, “if the local populationwould support a newpro- ject.” In Switzerland, though, there are only a fewregionswhichwould fulfil the requirements for a national park, it says. For a further revi- sion of the law, it is clear that the initiative has to come from the gov- ernment or from parliament. GERHARD LOB IS A JOURNALIST IN LOCARNO (TI) Placards with Yes and No slogans: the Locarnese Park referendum was typically Swiss. Photo: LOB