Skip to content
Menu
REDD-Monitor
  • Start here
  • About REDD-Monitor
  • REDD: An introduction
  • Contact
REDD-Monitor
Switzerland's offsetting deal with Peru

Switzerland’s offsetting deal with Peru excludes REDD. It will still not reduce emissions

Posted on 7 May 20217 May 2021

By Chris Lang

In October 2020, Peru and Switzerland signed a carbon offsetting deal. Peru’s then-Environment minister, Kirla Echegaray, and Swiss Ambassador to Peru, Markus-Alexander Antonietti, signed the deal, under which Peru reduces its emissions and Switzerland counts the reductions against its national targets.

The deal took two years of negotiations. At the signing, Echegaray said,

This agreement constitutes an example — at the international level — of how to fulfil the carbon market-based approaches proposed in the Paris Agreement and, thus, facilitate their implementation in favour of sustainable development.

The 2015 Paris Agreement doesn’t actually mention carbon markets or carbon offsets. Instead of offsets, Article 6 of the Paris Agreement refers euphemistically to “internationally transferred mitigation outcomes” (ITMOs).

Governments have not yet completed negotiations at the UNFCCC on the rules of a new carbon trading mechanism under Article 6. Agreeing the “Article 6 rulebook” is one of the items on the agenda of the postponed COP26, due to take place in November 2021 in Glasgow.

Nevertheless, Peru and Switzerland put out a “Joint Statement on bilateral Cooperation under the Article 6 of the Paris Agreement”. The Joint Statement explains that this is “the first treaty of this nature under the Paris Climate Agreement”.

Switzerland’s CO2 law

In September 2020, after three years of debate, Switzerland passed a complete revision of the country’s CO2 law. The new rules include a tax on flying, rules on energy-efficient cars, taxes on diesel and petrol, and emission limits for buildings.

The CO2 law allows for 25% of the country’s emissions reductions targets to be achieved through offsets generated outside Switzerland.

On 12 January 2021, campaigners against the CO2 law handed in 110,000 signatures against the law. Under Swiss law, if more than 50,000 signatures are collected within 100 days of a law being passed in parliament, then a referendum will be held. On 13 June 2021, Swiss citizens will vote either for or against the CO2 law.

The campaigners against the law include economic, transport, and energy interests. They are supported by the right-wing Swiss People’s Party – the largest political party in the country. Greenpeace and WWF have come out in favour of the law.

The KliK foundation

Under the CO2 law, importers of motor fuels to Switzerland have to offset up to 90% of the emissions from burning these fossil fuels. A fee is added to the price of motor fuel at petrol stations in Switzerland which goes towards buying offsets.

In 2012, the Swiss Petroleum Association (since renamed as Avenergy Suisse) set up the Foundation for Climate Protection and Carbon Offset (Stiftung Klimaschutz und CO2 Kompensation – KliK).

Under the CO2 law, the KliK Foundation has the mandate to buy 35 million carbon offsets in the period 2021 to 2030. (Switzerland’s Nationally Determined Contribution allows a maximum of 54 million offsets.)

Switzerland will fund an energy-efficient cooking stoves project in Peru called “Tuki Wasi”. The project claims that the reduced deforestation from more efficient cooking stoves will generate 100,000 carbon offsets by 2030.

The KliK Foundation has issued several calls for proposals for the procurement of ITMOs. In each case, REDD and LULUCF (land use and land-use change and forestry) are specifically excluded. The first call for proposals, dated 1 April 2019, explains why:

In principle there are no restrictions as to countries and technologies. However, activities involving biological carbon sequestration such as REDD+ or LULUCF are not admitted in this call for proposals since their eligibility has not yet been sufficiently clarified in the light of the ongoing national parliamentarian consultation and of international negotiations.

A Question and Answer attached to a call for proposals from the KliK Foundation, dated 1 November 2019, gives a slightly different reason for excluding REDD:

ELIGIBILITY

1. Do you recommend submitting REDD+ activities, despite them being excluded from the eligible activities?

Indeed, this CfP exludes REDD+ and LULUCF. Hence, an eventual submission of a REDD+ activity in response to this call would be disqualified and not considered.

As soon as there is clarity if and how forest projects can be treated under Art. 6 the KliK foundation will consider launching specific CfPs for REDD/LULUCF activities.

Offsetting does not reduce emissions

Even if this offsetting deal results in reduced emissions in Peru (and that’s a very big “if”), it will not result in reduced emissions globally. Every carbon offset generated in Peru will result in one ton of greenhouse gas emissions continuing to take place in Switzerland.

Offsetting does not reduce emissions.

The offsetting deal between the two countries will help Switzerland to meet its emissions targets, but it will make it more difficult for Peru to do so. The offsetting deal also creates a perverse incentive. The lower that Peru sets its emission reduction targets, the more carbon offsets will be available for sale. Meanwhile, the rich in Switzerland can continue to drive their big polluting cars.

 


This post is part of a series of posts on REDD-Monitor looking at REDD and environmental injustice in the Andes Amazon.
 

1 thought on “Switzerland’s offsetting deal with Peru excludes REDD. It will still not reduce emissions”

  1. Benedikt von Butler says:
    9 September 2023 at 8:24 pm

    Offsetting DOES reduce emissions if it is not used to emit more or delay climate action, but to “offset” current emissions that are not yet able to be reduced.
    Example: Company A has 1m tons of GHG emissions. They sign up to SBTi and aim to reduce 5% per year to reduce 50% in 10 years.
    If they they commit to “offset” their as yet unabated emissions, ie 95% in year 1, 90% in year 2 etc., then they will thus finance reductions undertaken by a 3rd party that would otherwise not have happened.

    Clearly, offsetting in this case reduces emissions compared to a scenario where the company does not provide any 3rd party finance. In year 1 these offsets have a 19x higher climate benefit than the 5% in-house reduction.

    Do you really prefer they would not do that?

    Let’s therefore please a bit more specific in criticising companies that allocate part of their profits to results-based finance activities, and differentiate between companies who use offsets as excuse, and other who show leadership.

    Generic statements such as “offsets don’t reduce emissions” are not doing decarbonization efforts any favour.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

SUBSCRIBE!

Recent themes
30x30
Natural Climate Solutions
WWF's conservation scandals
Aviation and offsetting
Conservation Watch

Recent Comments

  • Ben on Response from Kurt Kaiser, Director of Compass Carbon: “Your article was of great concern to us”. And some questions for Kaiser from REDD-Monitor
  • James Mewa Kamaya on Papua New Guinea’s Forest Authority cancels Mayur Resources’ Kamula Doso REDD project
  • Benedikt von Butler on Switzerland’s offsetting deal with Peru excludes REDD. It will still not reduce emissions
  • Chris Ibe on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow
  • Xindia on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow

Recent Posts

  • REDD-Monitor is moving to Substack
  • REDD Project in Brazil Nut concessions in Madre de Dios, Peru finally started paying communities a decade after the project started. “I’m still lacking money,” says one community member
  • REDD-Monitor’s top ten posts in 2022
  • The harsh reality of 30×30: The EU is keen to allow extractivism in the 30×30 target – but not Indigenous Peoples’ territories
  • Human rights abuses against Indigenous Peoples and the proposed “30×30” target

Recent Comments

  • Ben on Response from Kurt Kaiser, Director of Compass Carbon: “Your article was of great concern to us”. And some questions for Kaiser from REDD-Monitor
  • James Mewa Kamaya on Papua New Guinea’s Forest Authority cancels Mayur Resources’ Kamula Doso REDD project
  • Benedikt von Butler on Switzerland’s offsetting deal with Peru excludes REDD. It will still not reduce emissions
  • Chris Ibe on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow
  • Xindia on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow

Issues and Organisations

30x30 AB 32 Andes Amazon Boiler rooms California Can REDD save ... ? Carbon accounting Carbon Credits Carbon Offsets CDM Conservation-Watch Conservation International COP21 Paris Cryptocurrency Deforestation EcoPlanet Bamboo Evictions FCPF Financing REDD Fossil fuels FSC Green Climate Fund Greenpeace Guest post Human rights ICAO Illegal logging Indigenous Peoples Natural Climate Solutions NGO statements Plantations R-M interview REDD and rights REDD in the news Risk RSPO-Watch Safeguards Sengwer The Nature Conservancy UN-REDD UNFCCC Verra World Bank WRM WWF

Countries

Australia Bolivia Brazil Cambodia Cameroon Canada China Colombia Congo Basin region Costa Rica DR Congo Ecuador El Salvador European Union France Gabon Germany Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Kenya Luxembourg Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Netherlands Nicaragua Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Republic of Congo Sierra Leone Spain Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA West Papua
©2025 REDD-Monitor | Powered by SuperbThemes!