Switzerland told it isn't doing enough to comply with climate ruling
ADVERTISEMENT
Switzerland hasn't shown that it's meeting the requirements of a landmark climate change decision from Europe's highest human rights court, the Council of Europe announced on Friday.
Last April the European Court of Human Rights sided with a group of older Swiss women against their government.
It ruled that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change and that Switzerland 'had failed to comply with its duties' to combat climate change and meet emissions targets.
Six months after the decision, Switzerland asked for the case to be shut, arguing it was fully in compliance with the obligations set by the Strasbourg-based court.
The intergovernmental body that supervises the court's judgments, the Committee of Ministers, recognised that Switzerland had made some progress but hadn't demonstrated it was meeting all of the requirements. Environmentalists hail the decision as a victory
'The Swiss Federal Council is not getting away with its arguments at the Committee of Ministers. Switzerland must improve its climate policy to remedy the violation of our human rights,' Rosmarie Wydler-Wälti, co-president of Senior Women for Climate Protection (KlimaSeniorinnen) and one of the plaintiffs in the case, said in a statement.
The group, which counts around 2,000 members across Switzerland with an average age of 73, argued that older women's rights are especially infringed on because they are most affected by the extreme heat that will become more frequent due to global warming. What happens next in the KlimaSeniorinnen case?
Following a three-day meeting this week, Bern was asked to provide more information on a number of topics including 'concrete measures being taken to alleviate the most severe or imminent consequences of climate change in Switzerland, including any particular needs for protection, especially for persons in vulnerable situation.'
This includes helping people adapt to heatwaves, for example, and involving citizens in the development of climate protection measures.
The Committee of Ministers, composed of the foreign affairs ministers from the body's 46 member states, will meet again in September 2025.
By then, the Swiss Federal Council must also declare the foundations of its climate strategy - including quantifying emissions within a national CO2 budget framework.
The decision ignited debate in Switzerland and the government claims the court has overstepped its mandate.
Corina Heri, an expert in climate change litigation at Tilburg Law School, said the decision to ask for more information was typical of the compliance process at the ECHR.
'Nothing is final yet,' she told The Associated Press. Climate litigation is on the rise
Environmental groups, frustrated by what they see as the failure of elected officials to combat climate change, have increasingly turned to courts to advance their cause. ADVERTISEMENT
Late last year, the International Court of Justice took up the largest case in its history, hearing the plight of several small island nations helpless in combating the devastating impact of climate change that they feel endangers their very survival.
The world has already warmed 1.3 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times because of the burning of fossil fuels.
Between 1990 and 2020, sea levels rose by a global average of 10 centimetres and parts of the South Pacific have seen significantly more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
2 days ago
- Euronews
Hunger surge strikes Middle East and Africa, UN survey shows
The ongoing burden of rising global crises has exacerbated hunger in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, UN agencies warn. According to the UN's State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2025 report, also known as the SOFI report, trade tensions, conflicts and climate change are the primary causes of global food inflation. The report, which gathers data from five international organisations — FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO — was drafted by IFAD, a Rome-based UN agency that provides grants and low-interest loans to fund projects in developing countries. "The situation is quite alarming, especially in Africa and in the Middle East," Álvaro Lario, president of IFAD, told Euronews. "It's a mixture between the conflicts, some of the disruption or shocks caused by economic or trade tensions and also the climate shocks. These are the three main drivers," Lario explained. Since the trade tensions of 2018, during the first Trump administration, elevated tariffs have mainly remained in place, contributing to ongoing trade tensions and influencing global agricultural trade dynamics. The figures of the survey show that the proportion of the population facing hunger in Africa surpassed 20% in 2024, affecting 307 million people, while in the Middle East an estimated 12.7% of the population, or more than 39 million people, faced hunger in 2024. Small farming activities under threat Increasingly dire living conditions for small farmers and rural populations in developing countries are catalysts for economic migration flows. "It's clear, when people do not have the ability of really having a livelihood where they are, then they are forced to migrate," Lario said. The link between migration, the ability to feed oneself, and the ability to also continue producing food is clear, he added. According to UN criteria, small-scale farmers are those who exploit less than 2 hectares of land. They produce one-third of the world's food and up to 70% of the food in Africa. The economic existence and sustainability of small-scale farmers are quintessential to food supply and food security in developing countries. Yet, according to international standards, they all live under the poverty threshold. They represent 80% of the world's poorest population. According to the IFAD assessment, international aid to agriculture doesn't meet the needs of small-scale farmers: in fact, they receive less than 1% of climate finance, which amounts to slightly more than €4 billion per year, when they would need more than €70 billion. Long-term investment in agriculture and small-scale farmers in developing countries is crucial for addressing global hunger. "Africa imports approximately €70, 80 billion of food every year. Clearly, they could be self-sufficient and they could create a lot of those jobs in Africa," said Lario. Each year, approximately 10 million young Africans enter the job market. "There could be many jobs created in terms of not only production, but distribution, storage, marketing, exporting," Lario stated. Rising conflicts disrupt the food chain According to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), more than 35 million people are living in a state of emergency (IPC Phase 4), and almost 2 million have reached IPC Phase 5, which is categorised as "catastrophe". Places where the population is facing extreme degrees of food insecurity are the Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip, along with South Sudan, Sudan, Yemen and Haiti. The survey indicates that 100% of the population in the Gaza Strip faces high levels of acute food insecurity, affecting a total of 1,106,900 people, nearly twice the 576,000 recorded in 2023, the highest numbers ever estimated globally in IPC history. "The situation is quite alarming, especially in Africa and especially in the Middle East. I would say those are the two areas where we're saying the numbers continue to increase," concluded Lario.
Euronews
2 days ago
- Euronews
EU-US trade deal leaves future of pharma tariffs uncertain
The current status of tariffs on pharmaceuticals between the EU and the US remains uncertain, despite the announcement on Sunday of a new transatlantic trade agreement. The situation is particularly sensitive given the mutual dependency in the sector: the US imports large volumes of critical pharmaceuticals from the EU, while EU-based pharmaceutical companies—especially in Ireland and Denmark—rely heavily on access to the American market. Although the new trade agreement will officially enter into force on 1 August, pharmaceuticals will not be subject to a 15% tariff which will be slapped on most goods imported from the European Union to the United States. This does not mean that there won't be tariffs at all on pharmaceuticals, as the US is still conducting an investigation into imported pharmaceuticals to assess whether they threaten US national security. For this reason, pharmaceuticals were technically excluded from yesterday's formal agreement, several EU sources confirm, as the US could not commit to any decision on tariff changes, which will only come after the conclusion of that process. However, if tariffs are introduced following the investigation, the EU expects the US—under President Trump—to honour the informal understanding reached during negotiations. This includes a cap of 15% on tariffs, which the EU considers "all-inclusive", meaning it should apply even to products still under investigation, such as pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. 'I believe that this commitment will be honoured and respected in this case as well,' said EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič during a press briefing following the deal. So, what happens after 1 August? In the short term, nothing will change. Despite earlier reports suggesting the US would impose a 15% tariff on pharmaceuticals too in line with most EU goods, that is not expected to happen immediately. 'There will be no tariffs on pharmaceuticals this Friday,' clarified a senior EU official who participated in the negotiations with President Trump in Scotland. Most pharmaceutical products traded between the EU and the US currently benefit from a 0% tariff rate under the Most-Favoured Nation (MFN) framework. This is consistent with prior US-EU trade arrangements and World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments. As a result, EU pharmaceutical exports have faced no tariff barriers when entering the US market—a condition that remained unchanged even after Trump's so-called "Liberation Day", when he announced imposing blanket tariffs on goods. Uncertain outcome of the US investigation But tariffs on pharmaceuticals are expected to come at one point. The key uncertainty revolves around the ongoing Section 232 investigation being conducted by the Trump administration. This probe, authorised under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, is intended to assess whether imports of pharmaceuticals (and other products as well such as semiconductors) threaten US national security. The investigation's conclusions could lead to unilateral actions by the US, including higher tariffs or import restrictions, independent of the broader trade deal struck yesterday. '[During the talks] President Trump wanted to make clear that they still have full freedom to conclude the 232 investigations and to choose any policy measures as a result,' said another EU negotiator. While EU officials cannot predict the outcome of the US investigation, they believe it is nearing completion. 'These are two investigations—pharmaceuticals and semiconductors—that are pretty close to conclusion,' an official noted. If the US does impose tariffs following the investigation, the EU expects these to be capped at 15% for both sectors, in line with the political understanding reached during the trade talks. EU's bet on pharma tariffs The EU's strategy is clear: even though Trump could not legally commit yesterday to tariffs on pharmaceuticals while the investigation is ongoing, the EU insisted on a 15% ceiling across all sectors, with no exclusions for pharmaceuticals. A senior EU official added that this understanding is backed by a broader political commitment, including planned investments by pharmaceutical companies in the US and pressure from the industry on both sides of the Atlantic to collaborate more closely. 'There is a clear understanding that investments, supply chain integration, and joint R&D efforts should all fall under the special 15% regime,' the official explained. Still, the EU acknowledges that this is not yet a legally binding commitment. 'Is this a legal commitment? No, not at this stage. That would have to come through an executive order once the US concludes its investigation,' the source continued. For now, both pharmaceutical and semiconductor products remain at zero-duty 0rates. No changes will occur on 1 August, but that could change once the US finalises its Section 232 investigation.
Euronews
2 days ago
- Euronews
On defence, France and Germany are inching closer but remain far apart
Germany is becoming more French - and vice versa - when it comes to defence but big differences in the state of their public finances and strategic thinking mean the so-called Franco-German engine is unlikely to be able to power a big shift in the way the EU as a whole does defence. "From a longer historical point of view, the degree of convergence (between the two countries) is arguably higher than it has been for, I would say, decades," Jacob F. Kirkegaard, a senior fellow at the Brussels-based Bruegel think tank, told Euronews. Both capitals see Russia as their biggest long-term threat, and both have pledged to pour hundreds of billions of euros into their military and defence industrial base. In Berlin, this has been dubbed a "Zeitenwende" (or historical turning point) while Paris said its latest military programmation law is "the ultimate strategic move". This convergence was driven by Russia's ongoing full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which brought back conventional war to European soil, Donald Trump's return to the White House, which has put in doubt continued long-term US commitment to Europe's security, and a change of leadership in Germany. The new chancellor, Friedrich Merz, "basically took what I can only describe as a Gaullist stance", Kirkegaard said, by saying that "Europe needs to prepare for a future without a US security guarantee". 'France is converging with Germany' Yet one example of how this rapprochement in defence remains a laborious process came last week when France's Emmanuel Macron and Merz sought to diffuse tensions over a joint €100 billion project to develop a sixth-generation fighter jet. At the core of the dispute is the demand by France to secure 80% of the workshare for the new Future Combat Air System (FCAS), negating previous agreements that it would be split equally between the two countries and Spain, which is also part of the project. The French demand, however, "should not be as surprising as it seems", Rafael Loss, a policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), told Euronews, given that one of the major differences between France and Germany is how differently they view their military and the purpose they serve. The armed forces in France are part of the national foreign policy - as recent deployments in the Sahel attest - with the country's overseas territories and its possession of the nuclear weapon adding to its global perspective. "That's why the French military is much more comfortable with acting unilaterally or outside of EU, NATO contexts (than Germany's), and this then extends to the kinds of capabilities that the French armed forces prefer acquiring," Loss said. "Everything that relates to the French nuclear deterrent has to work when France is alone. And that means that FCAS, which is supposed to replace the Rafale fighter bombers going forward in carrying French nuclear weapons, French military and political leadership will not accept a situation where they're dependent to produce this capability because the nuclear deterrent depends on that capability." "French industry will need to be able to produce this aircraft by themselves if push comes to shove. They're willing to cooperate when strategic orientations align, but ultimately they have to produce everything independently of others. And again, that's something that many in Germany and across Europe haven't quite realised," he added. Still, Loss continued, "France is converging with Germany" with the "realisation that for the sake of European security, it needs to show that it invests in its partnerships and relationships with Europeans, especially those on the eastern flank". 'A big wasted opportunity' But the other major hurdle for the two to advance a common defence agenda at the EU level is the stark difference in their respective fiscal space. Germany's debt-to-Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ratio stood at 62.3% in the first quarter of the year. France's was at 114.1%, well above what the bloc's rules mandate (60%). This structural divergence means that as European countries aim to significantly ramp up their defence spending and military capabilities to deter a possible Russian attack towards the turn of the decade, Germany can afford to invest heavily in defence, while France cannot. For instance, Germany has asked to make use of a proposal by Brussels to loosen fiscal rules for defence spending, something France, which is targeted by an excessive deficit procedure, cannot do. France, which has consistently invested in defence over the last few decades, has less ground to cover, so to speak, but the sums advanced by the German government (including a €500 billion fund to boost the military and the country's infrastructure) should mean it catches up quickly. But their public finances also "fundamentally place them on different sides of negotiating tables" at the EU level, Kirkegaard said. The European Commission has put forward a plan to rearm Europe that it hopes will prompt member states to invest up to €800 billion before 2030. But most of that money is expected to come from member states' coffers, which in the case of France, are quite depleted. Given the scale of the task ahead, the Commission has been asked to come up with "innovative" financing options for defence. Macron has called for one of those options to be joint EU borrowing, something Germany has flat-out rejected. For Kirkegaard, this means that the crisis ushered in by Russia's war on Ukraine, is "a big wasted opportunity" for the bloc. "This crisis, the war in Ukraine, will not lead to materially more EU institutional or fiscal integration. It will lead to an expansion of the EU with Ukraine and maybe other countries but that's a different type of change to the EU and that's also very different than the last many big crises we've had," he said.
