Denmark to make ‘generous’ pledge for climate damage fund, minister says

Denmark is preparing to make a significant pledge toward a new climate disaster fund, breaking ranks with other developed countries. 

The Danish government became the first United Nations member to earmark funding for victims of climate disasters last year, even before countries at the COP27 climate summit agreed to establish a dedicated fund. 

“We were the first country to pledge money last year before there was a decision. And we will also be ready to do that again now,” Denmark’s Global Climate Policy Minister Dan Jørgensen told POLITICO and a group of European newspapers on Wednesday when asked if his country would contribute to the new fund. 

“There will be a generous pledge from Denmark, of course,” he said, adding that details could not yet be made public. 

Last week, negotiators reached a fragile agreement on what that new fund should look like — but no country has promised any money until now. Jørgensen is the first government official to say a financial contribution is in the works. 

In September last year, Denmark set aside €3.3 million for a “strategic” reserve to support any efforts to address loss and damage — as funding to cope with the impacts of climate change is known in U.N. jargon — resulting from COP27. 

The minister’s office declined to comment when asked whether the new funding would be in addition to last year's pledge. 

Jørgensen said that financial support for loss and damage would help establish “trust” between developed and developing countries at the COP28 climate summit, which kicks off in Dubai on November 30. 

Asked if he wanted the United States — which has long opposed loss and damage funding — to make a funding pledge, he said: “I would definitely hope that as many countries as possible would do this.” 

He added: “I have some understanding toward the countries where there are difficult parliamentary procedures every time you have to adopt things like this … But I would then hope that the countries that for their own domestic political reason cannot [make a pledge] in time, that they would then at least put forward moral support and an intention to pledge.”