Why farmers are beginning to take their government to court over climate change

Farmers suing their government for failing to act on climate change might sound surprising — we’re more used to seeing convoys of tractors in the streets with farmers protesting the imposition of climate and sustainability policies. But that’s just what’s happening in Switzerland — a country where average temperature increases have already hit 2.8 °C compared with preindustrial times.

In March last year, a group of farmers turned to the Swiss courts to force the government to do more to act on climate change before their farms become unviable.

Earth breaches 1.5 °C climate limit for the first time: what does it mean?

Nine farmers and five farmers’ associations, involved in producing crops, fruits and vegetables, viticulture, forestry and animal husbandry, submitted evidence that anthropogenic, climate-related drought and heat, increasing storms, hail and changes in the seasons have led to losses of 10–40% in annual turnover over the past three years (see go.nature.com/4h4bzk6). Adapting to climate change is adding to those losses.

This case is yet to be settled — having been initially rejected, the farmers are still awaiting the outcome of an appeal. But it marks a big shift in the position of farmers on environmental issues. In the past few years, many lawsuits have been filed — and won — in the United States and beyond to hold ‘methane majors’, which include dairy farms, pork producers and other agricultural corporations, responsible for their contribution to global warming¹.

By contrast, the Swiss case positions farmers as crucial advocates for protecting the climate. It also contributes to a wider trend in which individuals are increasingly taking governments to court for negligence over climate change.

Will lawsuits from farmers make a difference? They might. Here, we explain how.

Climate drivers

Farming is at the heart of climate change. The agri-food sector accounts for about one-third of global greenhouse-gas emissions^2,3. And limiting global warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, as set out by the 2015 Paris climate agreement, will be impossible without addressing this sector^4,5.

At the same time, agriculture is greatly affected by rising temperatures and extreme weather, including droughts, heatwaves, frosts and heavy rainfall, as well as changes in pests⁶. These effects differ widely from region to region, from crop to crop and from farm to farm, depending on local climate, terrain and soil types, access to water and the type of farming⁷.

Costs arise from lost yields, increased risks and the need to implement adaptation measures and climate-resilient farm practices, such as switching crops, improving soils and using more irrigation. In the long run, farmers worry that climate change could threaten the viability of some farms⁸.

Although Swiss farmers are drawing attention these issues, they are not alone — agriculturalists all over the world are being severely affected by rapidly changing climates.

Privileged position

So far, agriculture has also been exempted from the strictest regulations on climate and environmental protection, owing to its economic and cultural importance^9,10. For example, the Global Methane Pledge, launched in 2021 at the COP26 United Nations Climate Change Conference, focuses mainly on cutting emissions of this potent greenhouse gas from the oil, gas and waste sectors rather than from food systems. In 2023 at COP28, parties to the Paris climate agreement signed a non-binding pledge on sustainable agriculture, but only in relation to adapting current practices, not mitigating climate change.

Science could solve some of the world’s biggest problems. Why aren’t governments using it?

In the past few years, some nations have begun to take a closer look at agriculture’s role in climate policy. The European Green Deal and Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) are pushing towards sustainable food production and reducing greenhouse-gas emissions while strengthening the resilience of food systems¹¹. Similarly, Switzerland’s Climate Strategy for Agriculture and Food emphasizes self-sufficiency while cutting the nation’s food-related ecological footprint, through recommendations, food labels, dietary advice and research.

Still, farmers remain sceptical. Putting farmers in the spotlight of climate policy has reinforced the message that they are ‘polluters who have to pay’. And across Europe in 2024, many farmers engaged in organized protests in response¹². As well as dealing with rising production costs, competitive pressure from free trade agreements, high margins paid to retailers and poor working conditions, they are now shouldering the costs and regulatory burdens of climate policy, they say.

Yet, as farmers face increasing climate impacts themselves, some are beginning to question this ‘farmer versus environment’ narrative and are calling for more action to protect their livelihoods — while securing food production.

Growing pressure

The Swiss farmers who brought the lawsuit accuse their national government of failing to take effective measures to protect them from the most sweeping effects of climate change. Farmers argue that, because the government has disregarded its own climate-change laws for more than 20 years and is acting contrary to its own long-term climate strategy, it is unlikely that Switzerland will meet its future commitments. Many farms will be less profitable and face higher risks owing to climate change, threatening the continuation of business.

In legal terms, the farmers claim that, as well as violating their rights to life, private and family life and personal liberty, government inaction is threatening their economic freedom and property rights. After the Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications disagreed initially, the farmers lodged an appeal with the Swiss Federal Administrative Court; if that fails, too, the judgment will probably be appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.