10 years ago, Saúl Luciano Lliuya (45 years, Huáz, Peru), a Peruvian mountain guide and farmer, waits this day. Although he knows that all the route he has already is a “historical fact.” A decade ago, Lliuya decided to denounce the German energy RWE to make her responsible for him and the risks of more than 50,000 inhabitants in Huaraz, an Andean city located 3,000 meters above sea level in the central mountain range of Peru. : That an individual manages to sit on the bench to a large company, that the German justice alleues that the complaint is legally solid and that a phase of obtaining evidence is reached.
This Wednesday, the Hamm Regional Court, in the federated state of North-Westfalia, east of Germany, has concluded with the first hearing (which has been developed during Monday and this Wednesday) of the civil lawsuit filed by LLIUYA. The Peruvian, together with the German NGO Germanwatch and lawyer Roda Verheyen, a specialist in Environmental Law, expect a historical sentence that allows the big stations that accelerate climate change.
According to the complaint, RWE is responsible for 0.47% of world emissions of greenhouse gases since the beginning of industrialization – during the audience that figure was updated to 0.38%, based on the reports of the platform Carbon Majors– Therefore, the complainants conclude, they are responsible for the Lliuya family and their neighbors being affected by the thaws of the glaciers of the area and threatened by a possible avalanche due to the increase in the volume of the Palcacocha glacier lake (at 4,566 meters above sea level), which is about 20 kilometers above the city.
To contribute to safety measures against a flood. The total cost of the flood defense project is 3.5 million dollars (3.2 million euros), but this amount has been established in relation to the impact that the company has on the environment.
According to the National Center for Estimation, Prevention and Reduction of Disaster Risk of Peru, the volume of the lagoon increased more than four times from 2003 to 2009. And according to the National Water Authority, from 1972 to 2009 it increased 34 times.
The central question of the hearing has been “To what extent is the property of the plaintiff threatened for a possible wave of floods due to the detachments of rocks or avalanches that fall in the Palcacocha glacier lake?”, He explained in a telephone interview to El País Francesca Mascha Klein, lawyer and legal function of Germanwatch. If the court decides that there is a relevant legal risk, it would be passed to the next phase, where the question is: “To what extent did climate change contribute to this risk and, specifically, RWE’s CO₂ emissions?” Otherwise, if it is decided that Lliuya is not sufficiently affected, the demand is dismissed.
At the end of the hearing on Wednesday, the Court has advanced that it will issue a decision on Monday, April 14. Klein explained: “It can be a verdict that rejects the demand or a decision to enter the second probative question.” For its part, the legal representative of LLIUYA has declared that “it is an honor to have participated in this process because it feels a precedent worldwide, regardless of its result.”
On the outskirts of the court, Lliuya has shared his concern for his family and the future of Huaraz: “The climatic crisis is a reality that we face every day.” He added that “the two days of the trial were very long, but the great solidarity of the local population gives me strength.”
A RWE spokesman told Efe that this demand “tries to sit a precedent for which each and every one of the greenhouse gase emitters in Germany could be legally responsible for the effects of climate change worldwide, even if they have always complied with the applicable public law regulations”. He added that, with that argument, “all car conductors could also be considered responsible.”
On the other hand, he has assured that the company: “its responsibility is taken very seriously in the protection of the climate” and that its strategy “is in line with the climate objectives of Paris.” The group has no operations in Peru.
During the hearing on Monday, as Klein said, the court criticized the company for the statements about car drivers: “The court explicitly said that no, that this was not the case and that this argument only established fear; also that it is legally false.”
Lawyer Verheyen has indicated: “The court will have to decide if there is a sufficient legal risk for my client to consider RWE proportionally responsible for the risk of flooding by virtue of German civil law.” And he added: “We are talking about the most obvious case of the effects of climate change: the thaw of glaciers and permafrost. Protection measures in Huaraz are urgent to avoid damage to my client,” according to a Germanwatch press release.
During the two days of the hearing, the expert designated by the Court has shared its flood risk assessments and the parties have given their final statements. The NGO lawyer explained that if the lawsuit would win, it would be a first step to finance the protection measures of Huaraz, but “it would also be a historical victory for the communities of the world affected by climate change; it would change the perception and mean for companies with high emissions that their business model represents a financial and legal risk.”
A long process
For several years, Lliuya and his father. In the summer, they are dedicated to agriculture: they grow corn, potatoes and quinoa; while in the winter he works as a mountain guide. In all this time they have been direct witnesses of how the Palcacocha glacier lagoon has increased.
Given this, in 2014, father and son talked with a local advisor to Agriculture on the effects of climate change. They questioned why those who caused the risk were not responsible for protecting those affected. The agricultural counselor, then, contacted the NGO. Then, together with the lawyer “they decided to take legal action against the largest issuer in Europe, RWE,” he adds in a press release.
On November 24, 2015, Lliuya filed the lawsuit against RWE. According to this demand, it is the “unique in the world that demands responsibilities from a company for the risks arising from climate change that has managed to reach the testing phase.” In 2017, the Higher Regional Court ruled that a civil lawsuit to protect those affected by the climatic crisis against a large issuer as the RWE energy company was legally solid. That has been considered a “historical fact.”
In 2022, the court and experts traveled to Peru to take evidence. They inspected the glacier lake and the surrounding area. What is expected from the complainant is that after Wednesday’s session it is known if the risk of flooding is high enough and the demand goes to the next phase.
Avalanches bring hard memories to the Huaracinos. In 1941 there was a break in the natural dike of the Palcacocha lagoon that caused a huge flood. The avalanche dragged and buried part of the city and left 1,800 deaths. According to the National Institute of Research in Mountain Glaciers and Ecosystems in Peru, in the last 50 years, the country has lost more than 50% of the glacier area due to global warming.
Throughout the world, according to Germanwatch to this newspaper, complaints against companies are increasing in cases that refer to the responsibility for the effects of climate change. Currently, there are approximately 43 cases against companies in the world.
