LET’S take all the other issues surrounding the proposed 2025 national budget aside for a moment and look into the fact that the intended climate budget for this year is at P1.02 trillion. This is more than twice as much as what was suggested in the General Appropriations Act (GAA) last year.
On one hand, this is a sign that the current administration is prioritizing climate action in its agenda. It is a response to the country being battered by droughts and storms, the likes of which have never been seen before. It is also an indicator of how the government sees this year as critical for updating its plans and policies, including on setting new commitments to reducing climate pollution and enabling just transition.
On the other hand, is it really a good sign?
More of the same?
In the proposed 2025 GAA, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) will have 78 percent of the climate budget, by far the biggest share among all agencies. Its funding of nearly P800 billion would be more than double its budget from the previous year.
The department will be involved in implementing the three actions with the highest individual funding allocations: flood control and drainage systems (P306 billion); building new climate-resilient roads, ports, and airports (P246 billion); and retrofitting existing roads, bridges, and other infrastructure to become more climate-proof (P174 billion).
The agency with the next biggest share is the Department of Transportation (DOTr), with 12 percent of the proposed climate budget. Most of this is directed to ongoing projects for improving mass transport, such as the North-South Commuter Railway Project, Metro Manila Subway Project, Cebu Bus Rapid Transit Project, and Davao Public Transport Modernization Project.
All of these projects would help address urban traffic, which contributes to climate pollution. They are all funded through loans from international partners such as the Asian Development Bank and Japan International Coordination Agency.
The Department of Agriculture (DA) saw the third-biggest rise in its funding, behind DPWH and DOTr. Most of its P54-billion allocation, however, remains on concreting and construction of farm-to-market roads as in previous years.
The high allocations to DPWH, DOTr, and DA should indicate a prioritization of flood control, traffic management through improving mass transport, and food security this year. However, how these issues have been addressed in recent years have not been as effective as the higher department allocations would imply.
Worsening cases of flooding across the nation and allegations of corruption led to the Senate's increased scrutiny of proposed projects during recent GAA deliberations. Until said transport projects are finished, millions of Filipinos will be forced to waste hours every day stuck in traffic. Connecting farms to markets, while obviously significant, is only a part of the many problems that plague the agricultural sector, one of the poorest in the Philippines.
Meanwhile, the Department of Education and Department of the Interior and Local Government saw the biggest decreases in their climate budgets from 2024 by 88 percent and 37 percent, respectively. This calls into question how longstanding issues, such as integration of climate change into school curriculum and empowering locally-led solutions, can be sustained or improved on.
Is it aligned?
Last year, programs focusing on water sufficiency received more than 81 percent of the climate budget. This is largely due to the government's preparations in response to the impending threat of El Niño.
However, a closer look indicates that other aspects of governance that could have further reduced the impacts of El Niño-induced droughts last year, such as strengthening regulations and improving water supply and demand management, did not receive as much funding as it should have. Most of this instead went to flood control projects, as previously mentioned.
Programs aligned with water sufficiency would only receive 31 percent of the 2025 climate budget. The biggest share would go to actions under sustainable energy at 38 percent; however, much of this funding will be directed to building new climate-resilient roads, ports, and airports instead of renewable energy (RE) and energy efficiency projects.
Adaptation remains the Philippines' anchor strategy against the climate crisis, which explains why 87 percent of its proposed budget is dedicated for adaptation. Its current financing strategy for mitigation, including RE development, relies on generating investments from the private sector and developed countries, who are mostly responsible for the climate crisis.
This strategy of “conditional” mitigation has been a staple strategy of our country as part of our calls for climate justice at the global negotiations.
However, the numbers from the proposed GAA itself clearly indicates that the Philippines is capable of being more “unconditional,” or implementing more effective adaptation and mitigation solutions through public finance. The doubling of the climate budget from last year signals this capacity.
What it comes down to is the details. First, the allocations need to be directed towards priority programs, especially those included in the country's global pledges for climate action. For example, its commitment on climate change mitigation known as the NDC, which is supposed to be updated this year, composed less than 10 percent of the 2023 climate budget.
Second, its climate policies and plans need to be coherent with one another. It is difficult for top officials to claim a "whole-of-government" approach against the climate crisis when the distribution among the agencies is this lopsided. The highest allocation for DPWH and lowered prioritization on education are not just seen within the climate budget, but also in the entire GAA.
Third, climate governance is only as strong as good governance itself. No matter how much money is available, it is ultimately meaningless if not used properly. We have become too familiar with the costs of the inconsistency, incompetence, and indifference of national and local government units to the needs of the people they are mandated to serve.
But first, we need to see what even happens with the currently-proposed GAA and if it is truly aligned with the Constitution and the needs of the Filipino nation.
*****
John Leo is the National Coordinator of Aksyon Klima Pilipinas and the Deputy Executive Director for Programs and Campaigns of Living Laudato Si' Philippines. He has been a climate and environment journalist since 2016.