Christoph Bals, Policy Director, Germanwatch; bals@germanwatch.org
   

The Case of Huaraz.+0,
12.+0,$('''Higher Regional Court Hamm /OLG Hamm:

Large emitters can be held legally responsible for climate change impacts-/
()' &%#"*!
Christoph Bals, Germanwatch/Stiftung Zukunftsfähigkeit

Introduction to Germanwatch
BPVLT>@DC6"•Non-governmental development and environmental organisation founded in 1991
1991$6 NGO•

Around 40 team members in Bonn and Berlin
KT2JRQT140CVMNTGV, •

We actively promote North-South equity and the preservation of livelihoods. According
to the motto: ‚Observing. Analysing. Acting.‘ –#UU! <ODEV5(629-66/855 -0*:•

Financed by donations, membership fees, Stiftung Zukunftsfähigkeit and project funds
 &'7((%(H=TFWStiftung Zukunftsfähigkeit X(.66IS
B?AEH=TF435+9;0*:)What does Saúl Luciano Lluiya want the court to rule?
ebstsf`ltrqp!J'S$ZQLTX{•2014: Saúl Luciano Lluiya has asked RWE to bear costs of protection measures for his houseagainst a Glacial Outburst Flood (GLOF) from the glacial lake Palcacocha in the Peruvian
Cordillera Blanca.
2014z ebstsf`ltrqp !JRWEwkaiW4BWy.xVNCnsu
WCordillera BlancaVE^mscdho)W#&)W%V[^("I\4_^QZ
W0V7U<+_9$D•

The application is the following: To determine that the respondent is liable - proportionate
to its level of impairment of 0,47% - to cover the expenses for appropriate safety
precautions as undertaken by the claimant or third parties to protect the claimant’s
property from a glacial lake outburst flood from Lake Palcacocha insofar the claimant isafflicted with such costs.
W;*_^QZC
9$z6 VXCmscdho)W#&)%("I\J<+_:O^A]VHFRC
YQX/3V[^=U0_OQZW
6@ 0<W0.47v_6 J:O^2JE^LT_-8O^D•

Saúl would not get any money for damages, but simply have the assurance that RWE willbear it‘s share of these costs once the protection measures are carried out.
ebs!XVO^>?_ K ^LTXUFJC6@ 0_5G Wdgj
W,_RWEJ:O^LT_1MPQD

The Case of Huaraz
For the first time, a company responsible for climate change faces legal charges in Europe.
The Peruvian farmer and mountain guide Saúl Luciano Lliuya is filing a lawsuit against theGerman utility RWE. The reason: The energy company’s immense emissions threaten hisfamily, his property as well as a large part of his hometown Huaraz.

Saúl Luciano LLiuya

Saúl Luciano Lliuya and his attorney Dr. Roda
Verheyen in front of the Regional Court in Essen,Germany.

vs. RWE

RWE is the largest CO2 emitter in Europe andresponsible for 0,47% of global CO2 emissions basedon the so-called Carbon Major’s report. RWE is thesecond largest utility in Germany.

{ir+ \?]Jf(O,4\@0h<UdgW uz\NQf aX]~]A*YJenjwYbJfpkqiy)OHwjv]G6RWEh:MWIV].1^H8[E]D-7CO2h" Tfmxo6^H]%Z>/Nc`#C]{ir]B hF\RdSXKfZKLb]YJfIpkqiy )pkqiy) Z=|jl
wjvHmus]$9!\Xt}

 RWERWE^ uzYb']CO2" (YJeHCarbon Major]&\cg_HV]" E^2]CO2" E]0.47%\;TfIRWE^wjv
G6]Y235\P[(I   – 

Legal Responsibility of Large Emittersfor Damage or Risks in Foreign Countries Exists
ada"h|vs`Yl:(!

6a+1B•Hamm, 13.11.2017: The court opened the oral hearing and went through thewhole wealth of legal issues of the claim reading a 30 page “Votum” –preparatory opinion. It set out in great detail why Saúl’s claim is founded inGerman law and rejected every single defense raised by RWE. RWE hadclaimed that the law does not cover climate change since it is too “complex”
and since everyone emits greenhouse gases.
201711&13#y{7bH.oENZJ`FYl+1_?
-`FYl30z~u`Qic9%Votum)`bItq})abxpw+aA]MkIRWE`ilYe\aoCUZ./R=5`;WmZJ
RWEbI* bK8GYTlLI>gR, 'rvo! X\Nl^NOV^o./`I+aA4]b_NI^0@oP\NZJ•This means that generally, responsibility of a large emitter for damage orrisks in foreign countries exists as long as science can prove partial causation.
VaV^bY_n[I3RD 1]MmAa'Fo<$]SlIa`"fZb|vsogZjYV^`X\:(! 6`bBRMlV^o2Yga]MlJ

What did the OLG Hamm say?
JP/ $Ua)

The court has jurisdiction for the case and German law is applicablex ~uP/P74zm>t^Cyb) Climate change and the processes leading to impacts locally as well as the distance between emissions
and impacts do not rule out the application of general nuisance or tort law, here § 1004 BGB.
9 (iq]Gm1 (itXx/ c Ygtn}mZ-NAM DH|>NA>l 1004 BGBT&{c) The 1987 judgement of the Federal Civil High Court (Bundesgerichtshof) on acid rain is not a precedentagainst finding responsibility for climate change impacts.
1987#m\_8kIP/Bundesgerichtshoft z|a,hO!d{<m9 (i"{Vp od) While RWE’s emissions are not responsible for the whole flood risk due to glacial retreat, it is enough thatthese emissions are partially responsible for the actual, present risk. There is no basis in the law to argue
that partial causation does not exist in this case.
RWEs @ 61 t;=*[X{?:VtnRqotm
RWEs 1 tfB{e"z`FVtnx3snm>)rox rv`F6d EUtoe) The share of emissions by RWE are not per se insignificant for the purposes of § 1004 BGB
RWE 1 b ml 1004 BGB .5WF2p of) There are no formal or other impairments for the case to carry on'%Fmno  pjnmx P KLw og) There is a need to formally take evidence, see below.
%S0t+Q

RWE rejected settlement on the basis of the votum
RWE?$G•

The court asked RWE and the plaintiff Saúl Luciano whether, on this basis,
they would be prepared to settle.
"?RWE< 2* >MJSTSNIP :>$<3F/G
=5•

Saúl Luciano and his lawyers offered to negotiate a settlement to speed
up the procedure – he wants to solve the problem of the Laguna
Palcacocha, not battle about experts and scientific detail.
MJSTSNIP:'?"> 0GAF5A$&G!-1:GU?QSKLOR> )@> GH9.E*
(T ;#<7,8%4F7BE?;/65V•

RWE rejected any settlement discussions.
RWE?+DCF$&G 25

RWE Filed Remonstrance (Statement of Objections)which was rejected by the Court
RWEe%AuHEvXmi: #e,•The court‘s rejection (01.02.2018) of RWE’s remonstrance was even clearer than its of30.11.2017. The Court underlined that:
RWEd%AcXm: #cjm20182*1(d, eJ201711*30(didc)!bid\][K: #S>V[2ed`Qlw•

In the case of multiple ‘disturbers’, each participant must eliminate its own contribution.
<'dLIoCUX6MSNmJYnZnS8kdo&GXm =SNm

•The elimination of the disturbance by a third party is possible, also by a party other than thestate of Peru.
56Qjfrstd6_iJYdIo&GXmU`e7•

Whether or not RWE is capable of eliminating the disturbance is not relevant.
RWESIo&G_TmRaPReI`bkbO•It is conceivable that the plaintiff takes measures on his property appropriate to protect thatproperty from flood damage and be compensated for it.
S8DdB4o0.d9RklJYd;om[hc$-o@WmU`e"_Tm•It is not relevant whether or not RWE‘s emissions were/are illegal.
RWEd1 +pq&SF g[e3cQO^/Re?2_ebO

Next Step of the Court Case: Evidentiary Phase"N. N#8\*1#8• The court did not decide on evidence, but on the legal plausibility [legal“Schlüssigkeit”] of the case.
. O1MH<I%VCL<?9&'L2 ?;T>V
ET• The case can be won if now the scientific evidence is presented to thesatisfaction of the court. This is so because all of the facts of the casehave been disputed by RWE and thus impartial evidence is needed.
)'L1?. J M(CUUP9BNO0J@T,
?;T: JN;SQTORWEMRGI43CUTBK>
S9 L1?/!:• The court generally accepted climate models as tools for giving legal
evidence, if the relevant expert thinks this adequate.
-'M97ET6?5 J;TK+=F9. O&'L1V(EW[ZKDI$YXZVAUI<T:

Questions Relevant for Evidenciary Phase
29&BS@\Z=D••

Saúl Luciano Lliuya expects a decision for the 30th November on how evidence
should be taken.
b_momc^holkj'UE9IRTXGS\[ZHQFG11"30T]#MOFZ
This means that parties will be asked to provide names of experts that could
be assigned to the areas of facts:
]:!PJZ?T ]NZLQ]+WY[Z 5– is there a risk to Saúl’s house from a GLOF? (geological/hydrogeologicalexpert)b_mTI*,/SXZ6] KZ AUtq=s)
=T?SXZ7r– what is the share of emissions attributable to RWE? (data/statistics/work
further with the Carbon Majors Report / Heede report)
RWEINZ.$`dT Utqfpes38sCarbon
MajorsnipgS>CNZ;%sHeedeni―gr– can responsibility for the flood risk be determined? (climatescientist/glaciologist)-)TldaVT<U0PJZHtq(14s*,4r

Hamm Wrote Already Now Legal History
XY- K "LO#J/@SC• The 5th civil chamber of the Higher District Court Hamm
(Germany) gave a clear statement that large emitters likeRWE are generally legally liable for supporting people inpoorer countries affected by climate change.

XY)- ZWUV[K(5 #L5RWEKP:I. $LAF! JPR4T >R2A97KCDTBR#&3;8RH'I TAC6• Already today is the court‘s argument is - as a precedence case - ofgreat significance for many people who suffer from climatechange impacts.
BGJ%5?K- GK10L5 ,HAF5!
J+AM=K7JHEF<I*TNCQAF9RK4

Why Germanwatch supports
Saúl Luciano Lliuya‘s demand for climate justiceTOhwt~cdlkW,(;a.ZPfc||gbp{yx*a!N`VI••••

to support the claimant and citizens of Huaraz in reducing the risk of a disastrousflood
75T2-V{iea3N`PZU
SrbziV+a!N`
to hold polluters like RWE accountable and incite them to shift to less damaging
business models
RWEV]GT/%<VAa MD]_/%VTFqhoivm|YVgrnaNto bring about national and international political solutions fort protecting those
who are most vulnerable to climate change (e.g. in the loss and damage context), UMR#[=TEa`)SMRDH]XB5T"15?0a[P^N S>}ijuhYV:
to support human rights based climate change approaches - to empower poor andvulnerable people to face the risks of the global climate crisis as right holder.
, bs}kUQJ&a!N`4V, 'U6CMRF`@MF\9VFD&a$N`LSa8MD QK`

More information on the case can be found at:  https://germanwatch.org/en/huaraz
:Roxana Baldrich / Germanwatch
baldrich@germanwatch.org; bals@germanwatch.org