German Court Tosses Farmer's Case But Climate Groups Cheer 'Remarkable Precedent'

After a decade of legal proceedings, a German court on Wednesday dismissed a Peruvian farmer's case against energy giant RWE, but both he and green groups still hailed what they called a "landmark ruling" that launched a "new era of accountability" by "setting a powerful precedent."

The farmer, 44-year-old Saúl Luciano Lliuya, grows barley, corn, potatoes, and wheat outside Huaraz, Peru. In 2015, he sued RWE—one of Europe's biggest climate polluters—in Essen, Germany, where the company is headquartered. Although the German utility doesn't operate in Luciano Lliuya's country, he argued that its emissions contributed to the melting of Andean glaciers.

"He said that as a result, Lake Palcacocha—which is located above the city—now has four times as much water than in 2003 and that residents like him were at risk of flooding, especially if blocks of ice were to break off from Palcacocha glacier and fall into the lake, causing it to overflow," according to the BBC. The farmer sought around €17,000, or $19,000, from RWE toward a $3.5 million project to protect Huaraz.

As Reutersreported Wednesday:

Presiding judge Rolf Meyer, at the court in the western city of Hamm, said experts' estimate of the 30-year damage risk to the plaintiff's house of 1% was not enough to take the case further.

Had there been a larger adverse effect, a polluter could have been made to slash emissions or pay damages, Meyer said.

Meyer said the plaintiff's case was argued coherently and that it was "like a microcosm of the world's problems between people of the southern and the northern hemisphere, between the poor and the rich."

"Today the mountains have won," Luciano Lliuya said in a Wednesday statement. "Even if my case doesn't go any further, it has reached an important milestone, and that makes me proud. This ruling shows that the big polluters driving the climate can finally be held legally responsible for the harm they have caused."

"I am, of course, disappointed that the court reached a different conclusion from the glacier scientists who have studied this region for decades and believe my home is at risk," he continued. "We won't receive support from RWE to protect us from the flood risk. But this case was never just about me. It was about all the people who, like us in Huaraz, are already living with the consequences of a crisis we did not create. This ruling opens the door for others to demand justice."

The farmer's lawyer, Roda Verheyen, also framed the decision as a major step forward, saying that "today's ruling is a milestone and will give a tailwind to climate lawsuits against fossil fuel companies, and thus to the move away from fossil fuels worldwide. The plaintiff is grateful to the German courts for the seriousness with which his case was treated."

Other advocates and experts similarly weighed in. Ecojustice climate director Charlie Hatt declared that "this is a historic moment for climate litigation," while University of Oxford professor Thom Wetzer said that "this decadelong case has borne fruit," setting "a remarkable precedent that could enable future cases."

Jasper Tuelings, a strategic adviser with Climate Litigation Network, said that "this historic judgment lays the next building block in corporate climate accountability. Last year's Shell ruling showed us that big polluters have a legal obligation to reduce their future emissions in line with the Paris agreement—today's ruling affirms that these companies can be held accountable for their past emissions too."

RWE, meanwhile, said in a statement that "the decision of the Hamm Higher Regional Court means that the attempt, supported by German NGOs, to use Mr Luciano Lliuya's lawsuit to create a precedent for holding individual companies responsible for the effects of climate change worldwide under German law has failed."

"RWE has always considered such civil 'climate liability' to be inadmissible under German law," RWE added, warning of "unforeseeable consequences for Germany as an industrial location," and noting that "other German courts have dismissed similar climate lawsuits—for example against Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, and BMW."

Despite the company's comments, climate advocates appeared undeterred. Sebastien Duyck, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, said that "Saul's breakthrough opens up a well of opportunities for the more than 40 similar cases ongoing. It makes it more likely that those living at the sharp edge of climate change, such as Saul and his community, can succeed in holding heavy emitters to account for the damage they cause."

Friederike Otto, a senior lecturer at the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment, highlighted how science has evolved since Luciano Lliuya's case began a decade ago, which could impact ongoing and future legal proceedings.

"The science is absolutely clear... Human-induced climate change is already affecting weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe," Otto said, citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "This includes Saul's city of Huaraz and RWE contributed without any doubt to climate change."

"The precedent that this case has set underlines just how important scientific evidence is in the global fight against climate change," Otto added. "Since the case was filed 10 years ago, scientists have developed a large body of evidence showing how much companies and states can be held responsible for climate disasters. This is therefore a landmark moment for climate justice, ensuring that communities living in constant danger can hold carbon majors to account."