Lucerne (Switzerland) Parliamentary Inquiry: right to a healthy environment and legal personality of nature

Summary

On 26 June 2023, cantonal MP Rahel Estermann and four co-signatories submitted an official parliamentary inquiry to the Government Council of the Canton of Lucerne on the subjects of the right to a healthy environment and the legal personality of nature. The inquiry specifically asked whether the Canton of Lucerne would welcome the idea of granting legal personality to ecosystems or to nature itself, which sparked a debate on environmental protection in the cantonal parliament.

Reasoning
Rahel Estermann and the co-signatories noted that human actions alter the foundations of life to such an extent that ecosystems are changing in an unprecedented way – and to the detriment of numerous animal and plant species and humans. They emphasized that the relationship between humans, nature and the climate is one of the most pressing political and societal challenges of this century. In this sense, “we must consider further developing our most important instrument, which governs how people live and work together: the rule of law.”

They highlighted two approaches to solve the ecological crisis: recognizing a “right to a healthy environment” as a basic human right, and granting legal personality to landscapes and rivers – a legal instrument already implemented in New Zealand, Spain, India, and Ecuador. They contend that both strategies are vital for humanity, as short-term human interests in exploiting nature currently outweigh long-term efforts to preserve ecosystems.

Questions & Answers
The parliamentary inquiry posed four questions. The Government Council responded on 28 November 2023, as summarized below:

Question 1: Switzerland has strongly advocated internationally for the United Nations (UN) to recognize an independent human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment (FDFA Press Release of 28 July 2022). This human right was adopted by the UN General Assembly without any opposing votes in July 2022. Human rights are universal and must be respected at all levels of government. What developments has this new human right prompted in the Canton of Lucerne?

Answer: The resolutions of the UN General Assembly to member states and are not legally binding under international law. Since the implementation of such recommendations is the responsibility of the federal government, the resolution has no direct impact in the Canton of Lucerne. However, the rights and duties regarding the environment and sustainability are enshrined in the Federal Constitution and the Cantonal Constitution.

Question 2: Where does the Canton of Lucerne see challenges related to the «rights to a healthy environment» for all people? Which milestones have already been accomplished in implementing this right – and where is further work still required?

Answer: A human right to a healthy or clean environment does not exist at the federal or cantonal level. However, this does not mean that the citizens of Switzerland have no rights regarding the environment. They are provided with a variety of means and tools to actively engage in environmental protection. Organisations can lodge complaints [under Article 12 of the Federal Act on the Protection of Nature and Cultural Heritage (NCHA)] and citizens can count on numerous objection and appeal mechanisms. Moreover, Switzerland’s level of statutory environmental protection is relatively high by global standards. A human right to a clean environment would therefore probably not directly advance environmental and nature protection in Switzerland. It is undisputed that there is a significant need for action to address the global challenges in the areas of human rights and environmental protection mentioned in the enquiry. However, it is primarily the responsibility of the federal government to advocate for respective solutions at the international level.

Question 3: The Canton of Lucerne is home to several highly valuable, yet also degraded, ecosystems. This is especially true for forests, fields, lakes and rivers. Would the Canton of Lucerne welcome the idea of granting legal personality to these ecosystems or to nature itself?

Answer: The preservation of valuable ecosystems is undoubtedly of great importance. However, the Government Council would not support any efforts to grant nature its own legal personality. Valuable landscapes and landscape elements are generally already protected today through landscape protection regulations and, in some cases, through designated protection zones. Furthermore, with the available legal instruments for organisations and communes [under Art. 12 NCHA], Switzerland already has a form of legal representation for the environment and nature. In this regard, the Government Council also refers to the Federal Council’s statement on the Mazzone postulate of 14 February 2018 (17.4312) concerning the legal personality of glaciers, in which it reached the same conclusion.

Question 4: Which legal provisions would need to be amended in the Canton of Lucerne, if nature were granted the status of a legal subject?

Answer: First, the necessary conditions would first need to be established at the federal law level, since nature, as a general rule, does not possess legal personality under Swiss law. For example, landscapes such as glaciers are considered “ownerless objects” within the meaning of Article 664 of the Swiss Civil Code; they are not legal persons. If the federal legal foundations were established, at the cantonal level one could, for example, consider an amendment to the Cantonal Constitution, and based on that, potentially also to the Nature and Landscape Protection Act (NLG) and the Introductory Act to the Federal Environmental Protection Act (EGUSG).

Cantonal Council Discussion
On 30 January 2024, Rahel Estermann stated in the Cantonal Council that she was not fully satisfied with the Government Council’s response, as it supported environmental protection measures but saw no need for further action. She requested that the matter be discussed, noting that a healthy environment for all has not yet been achieved. Rahel Estermann expressed hope that the Reuss initiative might lead to a more proactive response from the Government Council in the future.

During the discussions, all parties agreed on the importance of environmental protection, but they were unable to reach a consensus on a common approach:

Sofia Galbraith (SP) noted that humans are part of nature and the environment. She emphasized that one approach worth exploring would be to grant legal personality to the environment and nature, enabling them to take legal action against humans and their destructive behavior.

Sandra Meyer-Huwyler (SVP) acknowledged that every person has the right to a healthy environment. However, she stressed that, according to the SVP, food production should remain in Switzerland as much as possible, so that the ecological footprint is not outsourced to other countries. She expressed concern that granting nature legal personality resembles the already established organisation complaint mechanism that in her view functions as a purely obstructive tactic.

Inge Lichtsteiner-Achermann (Mitte) stated that the federal government is the proper addressee for granting legal personality to nature or parts of nature, with the cantons able to act only thereafter. She emphasized that caring for the environment and protected areas requires mutual agreement and respect among people, and that raising awareness about a healthy environment remains important.

Rolf Born (FDP) highlighted that all citizens already bear responsibility for preserving the foundations of life, as stipulated in Section 3 of the Cantonal Constitution. He emphasized that actions must be ecologically, economically, and socially sustainable, stressing that additional legal provisions would primarily generate more bureaucracy without providing any added value. He noted that granting legal personality to nature or to the River Reuss would also require organization, structuring, and financing. For the FDP, innovation, progress, and optimal framework conditions are above all essential, while the self-responsibility of individuals and businesses, as well as their ability to innovate, remain crucial.

Sabine Heselhaus (Independent) noted that, based on what had already been said, the environment would be in a different state. She pointed out that, given the loss of biodiversity in Switzerland and the Canton of Lucerne, the objectives being advocated for by members of the Cantonal Council appear not to be fulfilled. She emphasized the need for an assessment of the situation and to determine on that basis whether nature requires legal personality or not.

Andy Wandeler (SVP) emphasized that the focus should be on protecting not just individual rivers or trees, but Switzerland as a whole, and on working to prevent it from becoming a “Switzerland of ten million.”

Fabian Peter (Government Council) concluded the discussion, noting that the inquiry had been correctly answered, particularly regarding legal aspects. He stated that even if nature had legal personality, laws remain decisive: Parliament creates the laws, they are applied in practice, and courts uphold the rule of law. Fabian Peter stated that it is the task of politicians to find solutions that can be implemented in favor of the environment. He emphasized that additional lawsuits or legal disputes are not needed, stressing that solutions capable of gaining majority support are required, including political ones.

Related Initiatives