Do First-Hand Experiences of Disasters Increase Our Sense of Solidarity?

From what field of research did you come to RIFS?

Kim Vender: Political science. In recent years, my research has focused on international relations and foreign policy analysis. It was through my PhD that I came to explore the politics of climate change and climate governance. Using China as a case study, I examined the concept of climate leadership. On the one hand China is considered a developing country, yet on the other hand, it has, in some respects, taken on a leadership role in climate matters. My question was what the expectations of such a climate leadership role are and how a country can put this role into practice. This then led me to investigate the concept of co-leadership, which occurs when two or more countries wish to – or are expected to – take on a leading role. That is why I analysed EU-China relations in greater detail, also with a focus on climate finance, my current topic.

What research topic are you focusing on during your year at RIFS?

K. V.: Climate finance is precisely the topic I’d like to research here at RIFS. The UN Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage caused by climate change was established only recently, and I would like to shed light on the public’s opinion regarding loss and damage funding.  

And the recently established UN Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage is the current focus?

K. V.: Exactly. This global fund has been quite controversial in the UN climate negotiations. Many developing countries see funding for addressing loss and damage as reparations - something  we might relate to post-war reparations - which industrialised nations must pay. Industrialised countries, however, prefer to view these payments as based on solidarity with developing countries because this has different legal implications. At the same time, there is a debate as to whether the two viewpoints could be linked. This would open the door to all countries that wish to contribute to the fund to do so. In this sense it would not be limited to industrialised nations. That would be feasible on the basis of solidarity. Others, however, argue that, no, developing countries have a right to this funding, and it should be defined as such rather than as a voluntarily donation simply because the richer countries are feeling ‘generous’. Solidarity as a concept is therefore central to the discussions around this fund. But what exactly does this concept mean to people in the donor countries? Historically speaking, solidarity is more intuitively associated with, for example, the Solidarność movement in Poland – the workers’ movement for liberal democratic rights – or the #MeToo movement, but also to the Climate Justice movement. 

So, what does it mean?

In a historical view, solidarity is based on collective responsibility: one belongs to a group that stands in solidarity with one another. Here is where I stumbled (mentally) because in the climate negotiations there is an asymmetry in solidarity linked to loss and damage funding: some give, others receive. And this is even though in both types of countries – developing and industrialised – people are affected by climate change related damage. Of course, the impacts of climate change are felt much more acutely in developing countries. So, what about the people in Germany who have been affected by the floods in 2024? Do they feel more solidarity with the people in Bangladesh, for example, who may have survived a flood but have nevertheless lost everything? Or do they say: “Hmm, we’d rather see the money Germany is supposed to pay into this fund here at home. So that we can rebuild everything here. Why should we send the money elsewhere?” I want to find out which attitude prevails.

How exactly do you intend to find out what people think?

K. V.: I intend to conduct a survey and participatory focus groups, but of course the findings will represent only parts of society. Still, what makes my research project unique is the comparison of attitudes between people who suffered losses and damages during the extreme flood in southern Germany and those who were not affected. The big question is: how differently do people that were affected respond from those who were not affected? Do these personal experiences make a difference to how people view international solidarity and rich countries’ contributions to the global fund? 

And what will the focus groups be about?

In the focus groups, it will be really interesting for me to see how the participants react when I confront them with the realities in other countries. About halfway through, I’d like to introduce a shift in perspective by showing examples from other countries and illustrating how disasters unfolded there. In these countries there may be no Federal Agency for Technical Relief or the Red Cross on the spot straight away when people lose their homes, their fields, their farmland and their livestock. When disasters strike there, their entire livelihood is gone. Instead of rebuilding they may have to move elsewhere. How do people that experienced flooding themselves react when they hear that and compare it to their situation?

What could this research project lead to in the best-case scenario? 

K. V.: If people are interested in finding out more or would like to actively advocate for Germany to contribute more to this fund, then the next step would be to show them how they can organise themselves and bring this request to the attention of politicians. There is already the Loss and Damage Collaboration, which is global. There is also the Loss and Damage Youth Coalition, which has representatives in Germany too, and there are other NGOs and civil society in general. Ultimately, I would also like to organise a roundtable or a workshop open to participants and politicians to facilitate direct dialogue.

What does RIFS offer that other institutions cannot? 

K. V.: For me, it was the freedom to conduct the research I care about. What’s more, the research groups are a great fit and complement my topic perfectly – not least because of the link to the GFZ. Here the natural sciences and social sciences come together. From anthropology and attribution science to atmospheric science, sociology, political science, physics and philosophy, every possible aspect of climate change is covered here. There are so many disciplines coming together; you’re really well-positioned here and not as siloed as you would be at a university. Equally appealing to me is the opportunity to access technical data on the floods or the weather conditions leading to them. All this background knowledge, the fact that there are experts right here on site that I can easily approach, and some of whom even have local contacts in my focus regions – that’s just great.