German court to rule on Peruvian farmer's climate fight

Saul Luciano Lliuya argues that electricity producer RWE must pay towards the cost of protecting his hometown, Huaraz, from a swollen glacier lake that is at risk of overflowing from melting snow and ice.

RWE has never operated in Peru, but the 44-year-old farmer has argued that, as one of the world's top emitters of carbon dioxide, the German firm is partly responsible for the flood risk faced by his town, nestled in the mountains in central Peru.

RWE has argued that it has complied with emissions regulations and that individual emitters should not be held legally responsible for the general effects of climate change.

The civil case brought by the farmer against the energy giant is being heard by a court in the western German city of Hamm, which in March held hearings over whether Lliuya's property was at substantial risk of damage.

On Wednesday, the court will rule on this issue. If it rules that the property is at risk, the lawsuit will then proceed to the issue of whether RWE can be held liable.

If the court rules on Wednesday that Lliuya's property is not at risk, the lawsuit is unlikely to proceed further.

Lliuya's lawyer Roda Verheyen said that she expected the court to confirm the principle that a company can be held responsible for the effects of its planet-heating emissions.

"In my view, we cannot lose," she said in a briefing before the verdict.

She said she was hoping that the court's ruling would set a precedent that "under German law a case like this is possible", even if this particular case could not move forward.

Such a ruling would be a "massive step forward", added Noah Walker-Crawford, a researcher advising Lliuya's legal team.

"This would send a very important message to courts around the world."

- 10-year legal fight -

Lliuya first filed a lawsuit in 2015 at a court in the western city of Essen, where RWE has its headquarters, demanding 17,000 euros ($18,400) towards flood defences for his community.

The Essen court dismissed the case, but in 2017 the higher district court in nearby Hamm allowed an appeal.

Lliuya bases his claim on a study that concluded that RWE, which today uses a variety of power sources including wind, coal and gas, has been responsible for 0.38 percent of all global carbon emissions since the start of the industrial era.

Court-appointed expert Rolf Katzenbach told the tribunal in March that there was about a one percent chance of the lake flooding Lliuya's property at some point in the next 30 years, having earlier put it at three percent.

Lukas Arenson, an expert called for Lliuya, said Katzenbach's estimates relied too much on historical trends and did not adequately factor in the effects of future climate change.

Lliuya's legal team later unsuccessfully applied for Katzenbach's evidence to be struck off on the grounds that he had business dealings with an RWE subsidiary, RWE Nuclear, while appointed to the Lliuya case.

A spokesman for RWE said the company believed that effects of climate change could not be legally attributed to individual emitters: "Otherwise, anyone could sue anyone for climate change."

"The company has complied with all legal regulations relating to CO2 emissions at all times in the course of its business activities," the spokesman added.