European Policy Analysis Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2016 | Page 22

Two Levels, Two Strategies

tradable carbon permits. The idea was to
link the Swiss carbon certificate market to
the European scheme of tradable permits.
Furthermore, Swiss sectors exempted
from the tax should have compensated
their exemption by their activity on this
market.

At the same time, the Swiss Petrol
Union launched the “climate penny”
project to avoid the introduction of a tax
on motor fuels. Under this, each liter of
fuel would be “taxed”1 with one penny,
and the income generated thereby was
used to finance national and international
projects to reduce CO2 emissions. As the
voluntary agreements were no longer
a sufficient solution, the actors had to
decide between supporting the tax and
the climate penny. Finally, in March 2004
the Swiss government decided in favor
of an intermediate solution including
a tax on combustibles and the penny
on motor fuels. This policy output can
be categorized as “modest” mitigation
policy: Switzerland was only able to fulfill
Kyoto targets taking forest sinks and
international emissions’ reductions into
account2.

Within the UN framework
convention
on
climate
change,
Switzerland participated in the creation of
the Environmental Integrity Group (EIG)
with Mexico, South Korea, Monaco, and
Lichtenstein. Switzerland and the EIG
are not members of one of the major
alliances or blocks that emerged during
the UNFCCC negotiations, such as
the blocks representing the European

Union or the G77. Therefore, it is argued
that “Switzerland has no choice but to
defend its interests with innovative ideas”
(Arquit-Niederberger and Schwager 2004,
107). In relation to mitigation issues, the
position of Switzerland was quite close
to that of the EU. The country supported
the 2 degrees goal and aimed at reducing
its emissions by 20% by 2020 (level
1990), and by 30% if other industrialized
countries engaged in equivalent objectives
and if newly industrialized nations also
undertook a legally binding commitment.
The objectives of Switzerland were
more innovative in the field of climate
adaptation. In 2009, at the Copenhagen
Conference, the mandate of the Swiss
government included the proposition of
a global CO2 levy to finance adaptation.
The specificity of the Swiss position was
not only to promote adaptation funding,
but also to finance instruments and
mechanisms for the management of loss
and damages related to climate change.
Switzerland thus aimed at bringing in its
expertise from the insurance and banking
sector by defending an innovative and
original position on adaptation finance.

As a result, Switzerland’s position
in national climate policy design differs
considerably from its position on the
international level. First, whereas the
role of market-based instruments is
highly contested on the national level,
Switzerland’s delegation tried to promote
the introduction of incentive measures
and finance mechanisms in international
climate negotiations. Second, while

1

The climate penny is not an incentive tax, but a promotional measure to subsidize national and
international emissions’ reduction projects.
2
“Kräftiges Wirtscahftswachstumstellt Kyoto Ziel in Frage,” Media Communication published 19.11.2010,
Swiss Federal Office for the Environment; www. bafu.admin.ch, consulted July 2012
22