In summer, Saul Luciano Lliuya grows corn, potatoes and quinoa. In winter, he takes tourists up to the icy heights of the Peruvian Andes.  

Now the farmer from the mountain village of Huaraz is in the global spotlight. On the other side of the world, in the northwestern German city of Hamm, a trial between Lliuya and the German energy company RWE is taking place at the higher regional court. 

“I’m a bit excited, but also worried,” Lliuya told DW. It is the third time that he has traveled from Peru to Germany for the climate lawsuit.  

Nine years ago, with the help of non-governmental organizations, he sued the energy company, and made legal history.   

He claimed climate change was threatening his house with flooding from an overflowing glacial lake above the village. Lliuya accused RWE, a major greenhouse gas polluter, of significantly increasing this danger through its climate-damaging emissions. He argued that the company should take responsibility and bear some of the costs for the protection of his house and village.  

RWE rejects responsibility   

During the hearing in the coming days, it will be decided whether Lliyua’s house is really in danger of being flooded and if so, to what extent RWE can be held responsible.  

Lliuya’s first lawsuit against the company in a German court was rejected in 2015, but two years later the higher regional court granted an appeal.  

“I feel a great responsibility,” says Lliuya. For him, the case is about fighting climate change and the melting of glaciers and “holding those who have caused the damage to account.”

“If there were such a claim under German law, every car driver could also be held liable. We consider this to be legally inadmissible and the wrong approach from a socio-political point of view,” RWE said in a statement to DW.    

The multinational, which is headquartered in the German city of Essen, points out that it has always complied with national legal regulations. The company is not active in Peru.  

Flooding could affect thousands  

Lliuya’s house and the Andean community of Huaraz are in a valley below a glacial lake which is steadily rising due to melting ice.  An international study by scientists from Switzerland and the USA, found the lake’s water levels have increased 34-fold between 1990 and 2010 alone. 

According to the plaintiffs, higher temperatures and the melting of the permafrost also increase the risk of chunks of ice or rock falling from the rock face, which is 2,000-meters (6,560 feet) high, into the lake. They say flooding caused by this could have dramatic consequences for Lliuya’s home and around 50,000 people in the local community.  

In 1941, an avalanche caused a devastating flood in Huaraz that killed around 1,800 people.  

Only recently, an avalanche of debris filled the lake to the brim, says Lliuya.  

A 2021 study published in the British journal Nature concluded that the melting glacier near Huaraz cannot be explained without climate change. The glacier ice has been continuously receding for more than 36 years. 

How much responsibility should big polluters take?   

This case is basically about the polluter pays principle, says lawyer Roda Verheyen, who is representing Lliuya. “There is someone who does something — it may be permitted, it may be prohibited — but it leads to really unbelievably large and unacceptable consequences, in this case climate change.”  

According to a 2014 study by Greenpeace and the environmental law non-profit Climate Justice Program, RWE is responsible for a total of 0.47% of climate-damaging emissions since the beginning of industrialization.  

Lliuya is, therefore, calling for the company to contribute a corresponding share to the financing of protective measures. These include drainage systems that allow meltwater to run off the glacier lagoon and an enlargement of the dam. Verheyen says Lliuya is not interested in receiving money himself, but wants RWE to pay a share of the costs of the protective measures. 

Simulations from 2016 showed that a lower water level could significantly reduce the risk to the community, even in the event of significant rockfall or avalanches.  

Although RWE recognizes it is one of the largest CO2 emitters in Europe, it also says that it has always adhered to the legal limits for emissions. “In addition, since 2005, the plants have been subject to the European Emissions Trading Scheme, which was introduced at the time and under which we have to pay for every ton of CO2,” the company added in its statement.  

In 2023, the court had an expert opinion drawn up during an on-site inspection in Peru to check whether Lluiya’s house would be affected by heavy flooding. 

Why is a climate case from Peru taking place in Germany?  

For the lawsuit, the plaintiffs have made use of a neighborhood clause which can, for example, oblige highway operators to build noise protection because nearby residents are disturbed. 

“We have a source of danger here that could potentially kill thousands of people, and we have no hazard prevention and no risk prevention, and that’s what it’s all about and what it is all about in the Andes,” Verheyen told DW.  

In the RWE case, the court ruled in an earlier hearing that the transboundary effects of climate change lead to a kind of global neighborhood relationship, even if the damage occurs thousands of kilometers away from the polluter. 

RWE is just one of many polluters “but you have to start somewhere,” Verheyen said.  

“If the court upholds the claim, this will send a clear signal to other major emitters,” said Petra Minnerop, professor of international law at Durham University, adding that though it is being heard in Germany, the case could set a serious international precedent.  

The energy company RWE is of the opinion that it is not legally possible to attribute the effects of climate change to a single emitter. 

Growing international climate lawsuits    

Since the initial proceedings began in 2015, cross-border climate lawsuits have also been filed in other countries.  

In the Netherlands, the oil and gas company Shell was in court until recently.Non-governmental organizations claimed the right to “protection from climate change” but were ultimately unsuccessful in their demands that the company rapidly halve its emissions. 

In France, the fossil fuel giant TotalEnergies was sued in a case demanding it align business practices with the Paris Climate Agreement.  

According to Minnerop, negotiating questions of responsibility for climate risks exclusively at a national level is not enough in the long term.   

“Climate justice can only be achieved if we see it as a serious task within the framework of international law and pursue it with the priority that results from the scientific evidence,” she said.  

If he loses, Lluiya fears that he and his village will end up without protection from flooding. He says that although the Peruvian authorities have plans for a dyke, there is no knowing whether it will be built, and that money from RWE and international attention for the construction could be helpful.

If he wins, Lluiya says it will be a happy moment because it will signify “progress in the legal field,” but it will not “stop the glaciers from melting.”  

The court may decide as early as this week whether the proceedings will continue. 

This article was originally published in German.