FAQ

We are in a climate emergency. The IPCC has defined the 2020-2030 decade as “critical” for taking the necessary measures to stay below the 1.5°C limit. This threshold marks a firm commitment made by the States at the time of the Paris Agreement. 

But this commitment is struggling to be met: despite repeated warnings from scientists, global temperatures and greenhouse gas emissions continue to break records. The gap between needs and prospects for reducing emissions continues to widen. Not least because governments and multinationals are hiding behind a degree of legal uncertainty surrounding these issues.

Governments and multinationals are responsible for this inaction. To combat climate change and compensate for the inaction of governments and the private sector, citizens and NGOs are increasingly turning to the courts. That is also our ambition with this court case.

The action brought by Hugues against TotalEnergies is a civil liability action. It is based on articles 1382 and 1383 of the former Belgian Civil Code, which oblige natural or legal persons, including companies, who have committed a fault to repair the damage to which they have contributed. 

The legal action will therefore have to establish three elements: 

1. TotalEnergies’ fault; 
2. The damage suffered by the farmer; 
3. The causal link between the fault and the damage.

1. TotalEnergies’ fault 

TotalEnergies’ fault consists in the violation of a general standard and duty of care. TotalEnergies is one of the 20 largest fossil fuel companies (also known as carbon majors), which are responsible for more than a third of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Yet

TotalEnergies has known since the 1970s that its activities are contributing to dangerous climate change that is damaging the lives, health and property of others.

Instead of taking action, the company preferred to conceal this information and spread doubt around the origin of climate change in order to slow the transition to other energy sources that emit less greenhouse gas. Even today, its vigilance plans are incompatible with a green transition, and particularly with the Paris Agreement and the climate science produced by the IPCC.

2. The farmer’s damage

In recent years, Hugues Falys has been increasingly affected by extreme weather events, such as extreme rainfall, droughts and heatwaves. The record-breaking hot summers of 2018, 2020 and 2022 have impacted on the yields of his meadows and crops.

This has had a major impact on his organic farming model based on self-sufficiency in fodder, as Hugues was unable to rely on his meadows being sufficiently productive to feed his cows. He was forced to source his feed elsewhere.

This has led to additional costs and represents a risk to the economic viability of his farm, which is based on a self-sufficient grass-fed system. What is more, there is no doubt that Hugues and the farming world more broadly will suffer further losses from climate change in the years to come. 

3. The causal link 

It must be shown that TotalEnergies’ fault was indeed the cause of the damage suffered by the farmer. In law, this means proving that the damage would not have occurred as it did without the fault in question. The reasoning is as follows: we know that the fossil fuel industry is the biggest source of greenhouse gases and makes a major contribution to climate change.

The Heede Report gives precise figures for the greenhouse gas contribution of 90 companies active in this sector, including TotalEnergies. Furthermore, the IPCC reports show that climate change is having an impact on the recurrence and intensity of extreme weather events, such as floods, storms, droughts and heat waves. These are all events that have hit Hughes’ farm.

This action is unprecedented: it is the first time that a citizen has taken a multinational to court in Belgium over a climate dispute. Worldwide, more and more citizens are turning to courts to fight climate change. In 2022, according to the UN, there were more than 2,000 climate court cases.

Some of them have been successful, proving that it is possible to obtain justice! Here are a few examples:

• Klimaatzaak: On 30 November 2023, the Court of Appeal ordered the Belgian federal government and the Brussels and Flemish regions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030. 
• Shell case: In 2021, a Dutch court ordered the multinational Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45% by 2030 compared with 2019 levels. 
• Urgenda case: In this case, which came to a close in 2019, the judge ordered the Netherlands to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2020.

In all three cases, the same argument and legal principle was invoked before the courts: anyone who causes damage through their own fault must make good for that damage. We are basing our case on that premise.

These legal precedents underline that a failure to take account of the urgency of climate change is gross negligence, and that governments and companies are guilty of it. This negligence must be rectified before a judge.

The legal action was filed at the Commercial Court of Tournai on 13 March 2024. What happens next has not yet been determined. The timeline will become clearer as time goes by and the hearings take place. One thing is certain: we can expect the proceedings to be long and costly.

So we need your support: stand with Hugues by making a donation. It will go a long way towards covering the costs of the case. It is thanks to you that we may be able to obtain justice.

The donations raised will largely cover legal costs and, in particular, the fees of the firm Progress Lawyers Network, which is working on this case at a reduced rate. We also have to cover communication and campaign costs. It is difficult at the moment to estimate how much this action will cost us, but we will be communicating transparently about how your donations will be used. Thank you for your support!

It is true: livestock farming contributes to climate change. According to the UN, on a global scale, the livestock industry emits 14.5% of greenhouse gases. Behind these figures, there are huge disparities and very different realities: industrial livestock farming undeniably has a greater impact on the climate than small-scale farming like that practised by Hugues. 

At his farm in Bois-de-Lessines, he uses no chemical fertilisers or pesticides. His herd of around 100 cows feeds on the grass from his meadows and the legumes grown there. For example, Hugues does not import soy from South America, and his farm respects ecosystems. As we know, animal feed accounts for half of all emissions. 

Over 7 years ago, Hugues converted the livestock part of his family’s conventional farm to organic farming, and he has been practising soil conservation farming for 25 years. This organic certification imposes strict practices in terms of respect for biodiversity and animal welfare. The majority of his products are sold via short distribution channels.

Its environmental impact is clearly not comparable to that of intensive livestock farming. It is even less comparable to the emissions of fossil fuel companies such as TotalEnergies. He is a pioneer of the agricultural transition, which he has been reflecting on and experimenting with for many years. 

We expect TotalEnergies to commit to an energy transition that respects the climate objectives of the Paris Agreement.

Hugues is not the only farmer to suffer from climate change. In Belgium, as elsewhere in the world, many farmers are having to cope with increasingly extreme weather conditions and adapt to them. Through this action, we also want to defend our right to food and our food sovereignty. 

The evidence is mounting: climate change is putting increasing pressure on food production and access to food. While some regions may benefit from a climate that is more favourable to certain crops as a result of global warming, no region will be spared the increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather disasters, such as floods, droughts and mega-fires that destroy crops and reduce yields.

The disruption of the seasons, at too rapid a pace, makes it difficult to adapt varieties to new climatic conditions and encourages the rapid spread of certain parasites and pests. Water management (either through long periods of drought or excessive rainfall) is also becoming a major challenge for agricultural production in many regions.

A special IPCC report has also highlighted the impact of climate change on land degradation and desertification. This will render much land infertile in the coming decades. And rising sea levels will swallow up agricultural land near coasts and major rivers.

In addition to financial compensation, Hugues and the civil society organisations are also asking the court to prevent future damage. These injunctions include a reduction in TotalEnergies’ oil and gas production. 

To determine this reduction, we have chosen the objective of limiting global warming to 1.5°C rather than 2°C. This target is recognised internationally. That half degree makes all the difference, as the IPCC has tirelessly repeated in its latest reports: “Every tenth of a degree counts”!

Between 2°C and 1.5°C of warming, extreme weather events linked to global warming will become even more frequent and intense. Does all this sound vague to you? The tool myclimatefuture.info, shows how many more extreme weather events we will have to cope with, depending on our age and the efforts we will make to counter climate change. It was developed by an international team of researchers led by the Free University of Brussels (VUB). 

The lawsuit is being brought before a commercial court because this court is competent to judge disputes between companies, for any amount. In this case, Hugues is considered to be a company because he is self-employed. 

The case will therefore be heard by the Tournai court, as his farm is located in Bois-de-Lessines, an area covered by the Tournai division.

Every citizen is directly concerned by this legal action, because we are all potential victims of climate change. 

A number of extreme weather events in Belgium in recent years have reminded us that this is not just a passing crisis, but that climate change is already affecting the country today. The images of the floods that hit Belgium in July 2021 are still fresh in everyone’s mind. They claimed 39 lives and affected more than 100,000 people. The heatwave in the summer of 2022 resulted in an excess mortality rate of more than 5.5%, the highest for 20 years in the country. Therefore, climate change is already a real threat to the Belgian population’s right to life. 

This action also highlights the impact of climate change on our food sovereignty, i.e. our ability to produce quality food locally. Hugues’ case is far from isolated, and shows the challenges facing farmers in the face of an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.  

Hugues Falys, a farmer and agricultural engineer at UCLouvain, is a pioneer of the agro-ecological transition. On his farm in Bois-de-Lessines, he is careful to protect biodiversity, save resources and conserve the soil as much as possible. His cows are fed exclusively on grass from the meadows and legumes he grows. But climate change, for which TotalEnergies is responsible, is making the transition more difficult. 

For Hugues, this legal action represents the hope of gaining recognition for the damage caused by the fossil fuel industry’s greenhouse gas emissions. It is also the hope of forcing multinationals like TotalEnergies to participate in a fairer transition. If Hugues wins this legal action, he will pay the compensation to the Farm for Good cooperative, which supports farmers in the transition of their farms. This choice is entirely up to Hugues, and Farm for Good has no involvement in this legal case.

.

At the international level, several bodies (including the UN Human Rights Council) have recognised the serious impact that climate change can have on human rights. 

The effects of climate change have a series of direct and/or indirect consequences on the effective exercise of our rights, in particular the right to life, the right to water, to sanitation, to food, to health, to housing, to self-determination, to cultural life and to development. 

“The negative effects of climate change will have a greater impact on those individuals and communities who are already in disadvantaged situations due to, inter alia, geography, poverty, gender, age, disability, cultural or ethnic origin, and who have historically contributed the least to greenhouse gas emissions.”

Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

Furthermore, in July 2022, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution declaring that a healthy environment is a human right:

“Climate change and environmental degradation are among the most pressing threats to the future of humankind.” The UN General Assembly also called on states to step up their efforts to ensure that their populations have access to a “clean, healthy and sustainable environment”.

United Nations General Assembly 2022