Analysis and learnings from forests instead of rubble and forests instead of repression

The campaign surrounding the Rümlang forest occupation and the subsequent repression has now lasted around 3 years. In the end, there were many small to large successes that were achieved. We now want to look back and, in particular, share our learnings - learnings about anarchist organization, campaign strategies and solidarity and support in the face of unexpectedly large repression.

context

In April 2023, some activists under the name “Forest instead of Rubble” occupied the Rümlanger Forest near the Zurich city limits. The forest was to be cut down to expand the rubble dump next door. The rubble dump where our residential buildings end up, which fall victim to gentrification. The occupation was at the same time a place of lived autonomy and utopia.

After two weeks, the occupation was evacuated with a huge police presence. As a result, not only were criminal proceedings started against occupiers and supporters who were checked near the forest (criminal law), but the police wanted to charge them for the operational costs (administrative law) and the owners of the forest for their expenses (civil law).

As a result, the “Forest instead of Repression” campaign started with two central goals:

1. To support those affected by the huge repression of these 3 legal cases and the absurdly high costs associated with them.

2. Create a precedent that passing on police operational costs is not compatible with fundamental rights.

Criminal law: The allegations regarding the alleged violations of the Forest Act and damage to property ended with clear acquittals at the district court level. Only people who did not come down from the trees voluntarily were fined 100 francs each for “not following a police order”.

Civil law: The forest owners’ absurdly high bills remain unpaid. And legal proposals were lodged against the subsequent enforcement actions. After the acquittals in the criminal case, the forest owners did not pursue the civil claims.

Administrative law: The transfer of police costs was rejected by the administrative court due to a lack of legal basis. However, it has failed to judge whether passing on police costs is in itself contrary to fundamental rights.

In November 2025, the building appeal court also declared the expansion plan to be unlawful and thus blocked the landfill expansion. However, this judgment is currently being continued by the landfill operators. Nothing has changed in the ZuReich state's demolition and gentrification policy either. The fighting continues!

More detailed updates can be found here:

https://barrikade.info/article/5846"class="spip_url spip_out auto" rel="nofollow external">https://barrikade.info/article/5846
class='autobr' />
https://barrikade.info/article/5969"class="spip_url spip_out auto" rel="nofollow external">https://barrikade.info/article/5969
class='autobr' />
https://barrikade.info/article/6078"class="spip_url spip_out auto" rel="nofollow external">https://barrikade.info/article/6078
class='autobr' />
https://barrikade.info/article/7274"class="spip_url spip_out auto" rel="nofollow external">https://barrikade.info/article/7274
class='autobr' />
https://barrikade.info/article/7342"class="spip_url spip_out auto" rel="nofollow external">https://barrikade.info/article/7342

Forest instead of rubble - deforestation prevented, gentrification further suppresses

The core message of the Forest Instead of Rubble campaign was: “Gentrification in the city is both anti-social and destructive to nature”. The goal: build bridges. We wanted to engage people with the topics that are important to them and show connections to other problems. Show the ecos that these rare beetles and valuable ecosystems are not being destroyed out of simple ignorance, but that real estate speculation, the greed for profit in the real estate sector and the unscrupulousness of the cement and construction industries are pushing not only animals and plants but also people out of their habitats and both are part of the same problem. But also to show the city dwellers that their displacement is also connected to the destruction outside the city.

The variety of campaign narratives was intended to appeal to a diverse range of people, which was partly successful. Parts of the autonomous, revolutionary left as well as civil NGOs and private individuals were able to join in or at least show solidarity. On the other hand, it was difficult for some people to assess us because of this balancing act.

When it came to the Rümlanger Forest, we repeatedly approached other actors who were committed to preserving the forest. These were NGOs, a citizens' committee and local politicians. And we are convinced that the clearing of the forest could only be prevented because all these different groups actively opposed it in their own way.

But what exactly is our learning?

There was never any collaboration in the strict sense. Neither with the Citizens Committee, nor with the NGOs or the politicians. There was relatively little exchange, but there was solidarity. We all fought/organized against the deforestation and we respected or appreciated the means that other actors used for this (motions and requests from politicians, objections and court cases from NGOs, local anchoring and communication from the citizens' committee, occupation, networking with the urban left scene, connecting the forest with the larger context and communication at the national level). Criticism of other actors never came to the fore.

But our campaign wasn't just a success either. Yes, the forest will not be cleared for the time being, but this was only part of the campaign. The necessary change around the demolition and concrete regime is not happening for the time being. And that is also the part that was not supported by the civil actors. The conclusions here can be different:

width="8" height="11" class="puce" alt="-" /> Working with civil actors can only advance civil demands.

But it is probably more complex and very context dependent. But it is clear to us that loose collaboration with civic actors was valuable in this campaign.

Was the forest occupation a suitable form of action?

Our forest occupation came at a moment when many actors have already put the fight to rest. The deal was concluded in the cantonal council and they voted in favor of clearing. The expansion was reluctantly accepted in the local council and the opportunities for co-determination and objection came to an end. It was just a matter of completing the bureaucratic formalities. The occupation of the forest, on the other hand, was a creative and at the same time a radical form of action. Because it is a visible and tangible resistance to alienated politics, where capital interests almost always prevail. The Rümi was a meeting place where utopian dreams met everyday life. Because a place of resistance that also plays with new forms of community and organization can provide a lot of strength in a time of escalating crises. And it was a place where people could network and exchange ideas. At the same time, it was also a place where middle-class people who supported some of our demands could feel comfortable enough to come by and have a conversation.

Our peaceful image certainly contributed to these people entering Rümi, as well as to the public media being more open towards us and even portraying us positively.

And it also helped that we were portrayed very positively in the media. This clearly made the ruling class (municipal executive, landfill company, etc.) very nervous and put us in a position where we could make our narratives heard.

Ultimately, the form of action also brought with it a vulnerability to repression, which the state and capital interests exploited with all their might.

Forest instead of repression – a lot of work, a lot of solidarity, a lot of acquittals

An eviction was to be expected. There were also isolated allegations of “hindering an official act”. But the repression didn't stop there. With the bills for police deployment costs and from the forest owners, we were faced with surprisingly strong (financial) pressure. A decision had to be made quickly as to how we would deal with these three legal cases and a central question was: Can we create enough resources to support those affected in all three legal cases?

Fundraising

Many people who were not affected were willing to support those affected over the years in order to win the legal cases. It was therefore decided with those affected to take all 3 legal cases to court. So we needed a structure and money quickly. Working groups were formed for each of the three legal cases, for communication, for networking and for crowdfunding, as well as for consultation with those affected, and there were regular plenary sessions where the developments were compiled and discussed. Crowdfunding in particular was supported by many across all companies. Depending on abilities and interests, there were a variety of forms, such as solo parties, photo calendars and postcards, drawings, crepe stands at events and creative little crafts that were sold as merch. The energy that flowed into crowdfunding gave us all a certain level of financial security and peace of mind to be able to take care of the court cases. The size of the group and their prioritization of their capacities, as well as the diversity of interests and skills, was certainly a major advantage in being able to lead this campaign.

Networking

Our networking happened, on the one hand, in the left-wing autonomous scene. Because the passing on of police costs hits the scene hard. If the police create a precedent to pass on the costs of their operations, then all protesters will have a major new insecurity about repression. We also wanted to make this more clear within the scene. And of course to look for synergies. We also approached NGOs that work on the topic or would be affected by it and looked for synergies and resources. This was also very valuable, especially in terms of know-how and access to other circles.

At this point in time, the Alliance Against Repression was organizing itself against the SVP anti-chaotic initiative - and thus against passing on police costs (by the way, the same initiative is coming soon in Basel). Many synergies were also achieved there.

Here too, it was difficult to build bridges through our public framing. There were some people who found it difficult to assess us. There was sometimes a certain amount of skepticism, especially from scene circles, because some of our wording was very bourgeois. On the whole, however, it worked relatively well to work with various actors on the left spectrum and we benefited greatly from it.

What was rather lost, however, was networking with politicians. Even if this is fundamentally controversial within our group, certain impulses could perhaps have been given with a direct impact on the practice of passing on police costs or their legal basis. Even though we are aware that these were only small successes and could have been very limited regionally.

structure

Our division into working groups (AG) and the regular plenary sessions worked well for the most part. In particular, the fact that the individual legal cases (criminal law, civil law, administrative law) were each dealt with in separate working groups was very valuable. During a stressful phase there was an exchange call that took place even more often and only “delegates” from all working groups took part. The experience from this was ambivalent. Concerns about hierarchies and lack of transparency emerged where for others this was necessary in order to have enough exchange and remain able to act in this phase. These exchange calls were dropped again after the intense phase was over. This adaptability of our structure was certainly an advantage, also because the work usually came in waves, linked to developments in the court cases.

A weakness was that, especially in two working groups, a large part of the workload, knowledge and responsibility remained with one individual. At certain moments this was a noticeable burden for these people and a dependency for the collective. And the longer the people were in this position, the more difficult it became to share the knowledge among several people. Basically, the work and responsibility in the collective was spread across many shoulders, which was relevant in order to be able to run the campaign to this extent over 3 years.

What was valuable was that we were able to motivate and involve many people at the beginning of the campaign - including people who were newer to this niche scene. The longer the campaign went on, the more inaccessible we became. Without being communicated, this was not our focus, even if help was always needed in certain moments. Another difficulty was the fluctuating activity, as sometimes there was no news from the processes for months and so the work leveled off. Even for people who were already active, it was sometimes difficult to stay on track during these times.

What was definitely a weakness is that we didn't pay enough attention to the people who suddenly stopped showing up at meetings. We have failed to address the reasons and needs of these people. This dynamic was and is unfair between people and prevented us from having the collective opportunity to reflect on it and learn from it.

Our conclusion is inconclusive that to a large extent “unaffected” people were active. On the one hand, it is positive that this work is not left on the shoulders of those affected. On the other hand, the campaign was more strongly influenced by people who were not affected by the court cases, even if major decisions were always discussed with those affected and their needs were generally given greater weight.

campaign

It was clear to us that the campaign should be primarily about passing on police costs, because this is the most dangerous development that wants to set a precedent. We also knew that our case was a good fit. Because we were a peaceful forest occupation with a lot of sympathy. We used this potential to also reach people in the left-wing, middle-class environment. Because it must become a majority opinion that passing on police operational costs is massively undemocratic, no matter how “peaceful” a political event is.

With regard to the media, we tried to actively approach friendly journalists and provide them with information. We generally had positive experiences with this and ultimately achieved relatively good media presence.

What we managed to do was manage relatively well to adapt the campaign and its associated activities to our capacities. When there was more capacity, we did more and when there was less capacity, we did less. We always had a reserve of capacity in order to be able to accompany important developments at any time.

It was a shame, however, that the campaign around the forest, the rubble and gentrification on our part was lost. The fight we actually wanted to wage was lost because we gave higher priority to supporting those affected by repression and the campaign surrounding the precedent for passing on police costs. At least the environmental NGOs won the forest court case while we were busy with the other campaign.

Conclusion

Repression sucks! And unfortunately partly successful. But our solidarity is stronger. Collaboration and support across broad spectrums of the left have properly repelled the repressive state.

We are convinced that we were only able to achieve these many successes in our campaign because we addressed and supported institutions that were not only ideologically aligned with our line. And this without making any compromises in terms of content. We see cooperation for common goals across broader ideological spectrums and organizations as a central tool on the path to anarchism.

But we also see that there is still a lot to learn in organizing together and that we urgently need to learn from our mistakes together. And we therefore share our learnings in the hope that we can move forward together as a radical left.

We are happy to pass on our experiences in more detail and are happy to support the first precedent for passing on police costs after the implementation of the anti-chaotic initiative. You can still reach us onwaldstattrepression@systemli.org(possibly with a slightly longer response time).

-
https://barrikade.info/-Analyse-"rel="directory">Analysis

/
https://barrikade.info/+-Freiraume-Wohnungsnot-+"rel="tag">Gentrification - open spaces,
https://barrikade.info/+-Okologie-Antiindustrialisation-+"rel="tag">Ecology - anti-industrialization,
https://barrikade.info/+-first-position-+"rel="tag">first position

web address: https://barrikade.info/Analyse-und-Learnings-von-Wald-statt-Schutt-und-Wald-statt-Repression-7691Regions: Switzerlandfeed date: Monday, September 7, 2026 - 11:27