Swiss export promotion remains stuck in the fossil fuel era

Switzerland’s export credit agency supports up to ten new fossil fuel but hardly any clean energy projects

Avoiding climate breakdown requires a shift away from fossil fuels and a rapid expansion of clean power generation. A new report finds that the Swiss Export Risk Insurance SERV, the country’s official export credit agency, fails on both accounts.

Under the Clean Energy Transition Partnership (CETP), which was signed four years ago at the climate COP in Glasgow, Switzerland and 39 other actors committed to end international public finance for fossil fuels by the end of 2022 and prioritize finance for clean energy instead. A new report published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development, Oil Change International and Friends of the Earth U.S. concludes that governments have largely followed through on their agreement.

The report finds that in 2024, overseas fossil fuel financing from the signatories of the CETP decreased by up to USD 16.3 billion (or 78%), compared with the annual average of the 2019–2021 period. At the same time, the CETP signatories committed USD 2.8 billion more in financing for clean energy projects than in the previous period. (Precise figures for international fossil fuel finance are lacking because Canada’s export credit agency doesn’t distinguish between projects financed abroad and at home.)

While 10 out of 17 high-income signatories have fully aligned their energy finance policies with the CETP pledge, a few governments are undermining their progress. Switzerland stands out in that it is violating its commitment under the Glasgow partnership on multiple accounts:

SERV continues to support new gas power projects, and just last week disclosed its intention to support the 372 MW Songon gas power plant in Côte d’Ivoire. Songon will emit more than 1,100,000 tons of CO2 every year, and according to a methodology used by the Swiss government, will cause annual climate costs of CHF 478 million (or USD 602 million).

The International Renewable Energy Agency found in July 2025 that 91% of new wind and solar projects are now cheaper than the cheapest fossil fuel alternative. This will be even more true by 2028, when construction of the Songon project is expected to be completed, and in a country well suited for solar power (combined with battery storage) such as Côte d’Ivoire. Yet the Environmental Impact Assessment for the Songon project does not analyze potential alternatives.

Assuming SERV confirms its support, Songon is not the first project which violates Switzerland’s pledge under the CETP. As we reported on this blog last year, the agency supported six new gas power plants in 2023 and 2024, after the Glasgow partnership entered into effect. In addition, SERV gave in-principle approval (but at this point, no final go-ahead) to four new gas projects, including Songon and a new gas power plant in Senegal. Switzerland, along with Italy, the United States and Germany, is one of the four countries which have approved massive new fossil fuel financing since the CETP entered into force.

Switzerland is not only failing the CETP test in regard to specific projects. It is also the only CETP signatory which has explicitly weakened its fossil fuel policy. In March 2023, SERV pledged to end all its fossil fuel finance, with exemptions only for projects in line with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal. In July 2024, Oil Change International revealed that the agency had quietly watered down its policy by allowing SERV to fund any gas project it considers is in the “economic, foreign, trade and development policy interests of Switzerland”.

Finally, SERV hasn’t increased its support for clean energy projects during the CETP period. It supported clean energy exports of a very modest USD 4 million per year during the 2019-21 period and none at all in 2024. (The agency did support exports of CHF 99 million for a wind power project in Kosovo in May 2025 – a small fraction of the gas projects it is supporting.) Even though a stated objective of its climate strategy is to “maximise sustainable exports”, SERV doesn’t currently offer any specific incentives for the export of clean energy equipment.

Climate hypocrisy is not just a problem of SERV, but of the Swiss government at large. The State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO), which oversees the strategies of the Swiss export insurer, states in its Approach to Climate Change: “Addressing the climate crisis requires a comprehensive reorientation of public and private financial flows, away from fossil fuels, towards green and sustainable sectors.” This is very well said – except that SECO only seems to direct its advice at other governments, not at Switzerland’s own export promotion.

Image: A SERV-supported gas power plant in Vietnam