Abdul Khalique from village Deed Sharif of district Dadu, Sindh, is one of the farmers whose farms were devastated by the flood in 2022. He owns 60 acres of land and the flood damaged the land so much that it was rendered infertile for the next two years. The memory of the experience of flood is etched on his mind. 

“There was 25-30 feet of water in the fields of my village and 2-3 feet of water was inundating our homes. I lost all my livestock and crops, many people lost their homes too,” he says while remembering the flood.

Flood is among the natural disasters whose frequency has increased in Pakistan due to climate change but the county’s contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions is miniscule as it contributes less than one percent. The Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA), led by Pakistan's Ministry of Planning, Development and Special Initiatives, puts the total economic losses from the 2022 floods at approximately Rs4.3 trillion. About 70pc of these losses occurred in Sindh. 

Gul Hassan, another farmer from Dadu, tells Lok Sujag about the long-term impact of the flood, saying, “The fertility of our land is still below pre-flood levels”. 

Gul Hassan and Abdul Khalique are among 43 farmers from Sindh who have decided to take their fight to the companies that, they say, are responsible for their devastation. They are demanding damages from two German companies for their role in worsening climate change. 

The farmers in this case are from the districts of Dadu, Jacobabad and Larkana. According to the plaintiffs’ website, they are small farmers who depend on the produce for survival and “struggle to maintain their independence from large landowners and agricultural corporations”. They are being supported locally by the National Trade Union Federation (NTUF) and the HANDS Welfare Foundation.

Making multinationals responsible for floods

With help from two German human rights organisations, the European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) and Medico International, the farmers sent legal notices to RWE and Heidelberg Materials on October 28, demanding 1 million euros in compensation for the damages they have suffered. The defendants have four weeks to respond to this notice or pay the damages demanded by the plaintiffs. 

These notices have been sent to these companies because they among Europe’s largest carbon emitters. The RWE is one of the continent’s largest electricity producers and has historically relied heavily on coal, making it one of Europe’s biggest contributors to carbon emissions. The Heidelberg Materials is among the world’s leading cement manufacturers — and the cement sector remains a major carbon-intensive industry on the planet.

“The RWE and Heidelberg are a part of the 100 major companies that account for almost 70% of historical industrial emissions, responsible for 0.68% and 0.12% of historical emissions, respectively,” explains Annabelle Brüggemann, a senior legal advisor at ECCHR, while speaking to Lok Sujag. 

“This does not seem like much, but it is more than the carbon emissions of many states. Historical emissions by these companies have an effect on the whole world and they contribute to extreme weather events like the floods in Pakistan, making them more frequent and more intense,” she adds.
The RWE, in particular, also has a history of taking antagonistic stances towards demands from climate activists. 

“In 2023, the RWE sued climate activists who were blocking the Lützerath coal mine for 2.07 million euros,” says Minhajul Arifeen, a German-Pakistani volunteer at the Medico International. 

He adds; “This shows us how seriously they take climate change. They only care about profits with no regard for how many people die in the Global South as a result of their actions”    

In Annabelle’s view, these companies are part of the 100 major corporations responsible for nearly 70% of historical industrial emissions. 

Two firms—more emissions than entire country

In other words, the emissions of just these two companies exceed the emissions of entire countries like Pakistan (0.5%) of historical carbon emissions by 2023, which bear the brunt of climate change impact despite having contributed comparatively little to global emissions.

Annabelle explains further, “Historical emissions by these companies contribute to global heating and increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, like the floods in Pakistan”.

This lawsuit challenges a common assumption that climate change is a diffuse and untraceable problem for which no one is directly responsible. The Sindhi farmers argue that the science of climate attribution now makes responsibility traceable and therefore legally actionable. 

According to Annabelle, it is possible, factually and legally, to establish a causal link between emissions and their effects. “There is aggregated science or attribution science that looks at what effect climate change has on extreme weather events like the 2022 floods. It uses modelling and concrete data from weather stations to show how and to what extent global warming increased intensity and likelihood of the event happening. A lot of scientists are looking into the 2022 floods and they all agree that there is a clear climate signal there.”

Annabelle lays out the plan, saying that her organisation has commissioned an expert opinion from scientists looking at this event and is collecting local data to show how climate change has had an effect on this event. “We will present this in court if we move to the next stage,” she declares.

Lok Sujag reached out to the RWE and Heidelberg Materials for comments. The RWE did not respond while Heidelberg shared the following statement: “We confirm that we have received a letter on Tuesday (28 October) from a law firm requesting compensation for alleged climate-related damage. We are currently reviewing this letter”.

A precedent for climate accountability

At the first glance, the idea of farmers from rural Sindh challenging two industrial giants in European courts may seem far-fetched. However, the ECCHR and Medico International argue that this case is a part of a growing body of cases in which communities on the frontlines of climate change are holding major polluters accountable. Similar cases have been filed by several communities, like the survivors of the Typhoon Odette in the Philippines against Shell in the UK, the residents of Indonesia’s Pari Island against Swiss cement giant Hocim in Switzerland, and by a Belgian farmer against TotalEnergies. All of these cases demand compensation from major emitters for impending or incurred damages. 

According to Karin Zennig, a climate justice organiser working on this case with Medico International, this turn towards grassroots groups taking direct legal action to hold corporations accountable, instead of relying on states to do it, is a result of recent sociopolitical developments. “In the last few years, such governments have come into power in the Global North as have ended the policies of socioeconomic and ecological transformation.” 

She argues, “There is no political force anymore that is willing to enact a green transition process, which makes it even more necessary to push on more climate justice issues from the ground”.

In Germany, in particular, this case relies on the legal precedent set by the Saúl Luciano Lliuya v. RWE case. In 2015, Lliuya, a farmer from Peru, sued the RWE, arguing that the company’s emissions helped accelerate the melting of glaciers above his hometown of Huaraz, causing the nearby Lake Palcacocha to swell and putting the city at risk of a catastrophic flood. 

“Although this farmer (Lliuya) lost, it was only because the court found that it was not concretely proven how high the risk was that his house would be flooded. But the court in this case set an important precedent that carbon majors like RWE can be held responsible for damages under German tort law for these kinds of emissions,” says Annabelle Brüggemann. 

She adds, “The court also found that, at least since 1965, RWE and other carbon majors have known, positively, about the devastating effects of their emissions on climate change, and the resulting damages due to extreme weather events. They (the court) established responsibility because these companies knew and did not act upon it.” 

The case is not just about monetary compensation 

For the farmers of Sindh, a win in this case won’t be simply about financial compensation. “We have lost so much that no amount can compensate us for what we have lost,” says Abdul Khalique. 

While one million euros, roughly Rs320m, might be of some help to these farmers to recover from the flood damages but the case is not just about the compensation. It challenges the idea that major corporations can continue emitting carbon and earning profits, while working people in the Global South bear the consequences. 

This case has the potential to set an immensely important legal precedent. If the court rules that companies like the RWE and Heidelberg Materials can be held liable for climate impacts across borders, it could open the door for countless other communities to seek justice for climate change-related damages. 

Karin Zennig explains the significance, “If there is a verdict [in favour of the farmers], it would mean that the externalized costs of production, which have mainly been put on the shoulders of those in the Global South, will have to be integrated in the calculation of the corporations. This makes destructive models of the economy immediately unprofitable. It would mean that there would be a necessity for a completely different form of production, which is not based on the exploitation of resources, human bodies and territory”.

NTUF General Secretary Nasir Mansoor, whose union is involved in aiding the farmers in this case, says, “Usually everyone becomes active around COP every year, but so far the legal route of demanding climate accountability has not been explored. This case will open the doors of justice.” 

The RWE and Heidelberg have almost two weeks to respond to the legal notice. They can agree to negotiations, offer compensation or refuse, in which case the claim will move to the court in Germany. If that happens, the process is expected to be long, complex, and expensive, involving expert testimony, climate models and multiple rounds of appeals. Cases of this nature often take years. Moreover, the RWE and Heidelberg are big companies with an enormous amount of resources and the best lawyers available at their disposal. Those involved in the effort know this and say they are prepared for it.

Karin confirms their resolve, “Only because the enemy is big does not mean we should stay silent — it proves the necessity of confronting them with their responsibilities. The bigger they are, the more responsible they are.”

What happens next will determine not only the fate of these 43 farmers but the strength of the emerging global effort to make climate accountability real.