Climate lawsuit of 4 fishermen of Pari Island accepted by Swiss court

JAKARTA - The Canton Court of Zug, Switzerland, accepted a climate lawsuit from four fishermen from Pari Island, Indonesia, against the multinational cement company Holcim which was announced on Monday, December 22.

"We are very grateful. This decision gives us the strength to continue the struggle. This is good news for us and our families," said Asmania, one of the plaintiffs from Pari Island, Thousand Islands, in a statement received in Jakarta, Antara, Tuesday, December 23.

The climate lawsuit of four residents of Pari Island, Indonesia, namely Asmania, Arif, Edi, and Bobby, was filed at the end of January 2023.

The fishermen demand compensation from Holcim for the impact of climate change they have experienced, funding support for flood protection, and a rapid reduction in Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions.

Pari Island, where the four fishermen live, has been hit by flash floods in recent years due to climate change. They say Holcim is one of the companies that has contributed significantly to the global climate crisis through large and continuous carbon emissions.

The decision to accept the application was announced on Monday (22/12) as a temporary success for the plaintiffs and an effort to enforce climate justice. The Zug Cantonal Court rejected all of Holcim's procedural objections and stated that the lawsuit could be accepted in full.

The court ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to legal protection because climate change directly affected their lives and livelihoods.

Boy Jerry Even Sembiring as the National Executive Director of WALHI said that in general the ruling confirmed and emphasized the role of the court in the impact of the climate crisis.

"The ruling is a global precedent for attracting and holding large corporations accountable for contributing to the climate crisis," he explained.

The Canton Court of Zug, Switzerland, rejected Holcim's argument that the issue of climate protection should be resolved through a political process, not through the courts.

According to the panel of judges, the court's ruling does not replace the government's climate policy, but complements it. The matter is not considered to be about Swiss climate policy in general, but about the specific demands of the people of Pari Island.

The court stated that the interests of the plaintiffs for Holcim to reduce its emissions were "urgent and relevant". Thus, the four plaintiffs were declared entitled to bring this case to court.

The court also rejected the argument that Pari Island would sink no matter what. The panel of judges emphasized that "every effort to reduce emissions remains important in the face of climate change."

The argument that Holcim's emission reductions could be offset by increased emissions from other companies was also not accepted. The court also confirmed that "Unfavorable behavior cannot be justified just because many other parties do the same thing."