Accessibility links

Case Study
Download
Coordinating national climate change action

Coordinating national climate change action

Effective national coordination of climate change action through a national Climate Change Commission, Climate Change Act, National Framework Strategy on Climate Change, and National Climate Change Action Plan.
Good Practice
  • Long term impact
  • Measurable and reliable data
  • Leadership and political commitment
  • Stakeholder participation
  • Integrated into existing processes
  • Professional and technical support
Themes
  • Agriculture
  • Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
  • Transport
  • Waste Management
Location

The Philippines, Asia

Year Published

2008 - 2013

Case Summary
Over the years, the Philippines has significantly overhauled its climate policy framework, from a number of stand-alone laws passed during 1997-2008, to the current comprehensive, nationally integrated climate policy architecture guided by the 2009 Climate Change Act (CCA).

The CCA calls for the systematic integration of climate change in various phases of policy formulation, development plans, poverty reduction strategies, and other development tools used by all government agencies and departments. It also led to the establishment of the Philippines Climate Change Commission (CCC) for coordinating policy integration. Subsequently, the National Climate Change Action Plan (NCCAP) strategically established the Philippines’ first long-term climate agenda from 2011–2028, divided into three six-year phases. The duration of these phases coincides with the terms of the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) and the Philippines’ electoral and planning cycles.

The Philippines is a good example of political leadership and long-term vision for comprehensive and integrated climate policy demonstrated through: (a) the fact that the origins of climate policy initiatives are rooted in the national democratic movement which led to change in the political structure of the country; (b) substantial budgetary support despite financial constraints; and (c) the proactive approach to consult and take help in both improving the policies as well as implementing them from international agencies.
Collaborators
  • Climate Change Commission (CCC)
  • People’s Survival Fund Board (PSFB)
  • Department of Budget and Management (DBM)
  • House of Representatives Ecological Committee
  • National Disaster Reduction and Management Council (NDRMC)
  • National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA)
  • National Council on Sustainable Development; Local Government Units (LGU)
Cooperation with
  • World Bank
  • United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
  • Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)
  • USAID
  • French Agency for Development (AFD)
  • Asian Development Bank (ADB)
  • Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI)
  • German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB)
  • Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)
  • European Commission (EC)
  • UK Department for International Development (DfID)
Finance
Between 2008 and 2012, climate appropriations increased in real terms from USD 2 billion to 6 billion. Currently, it accounts for 1.9 percent of the national budget. Accordingly, domestic resources have funded on average 82 % of climate expenditures during 2008–2011 (World Bank 2013) across departments primarily through the General Appropriations Act, Special Purpose Funds, and Special Accounts in General Funds. Most departments are funded from the GAA, except for the Department of Energy (DOE), where a third of funding is from special accounts. Other than the DPWH, about 94 % of the climate expenditures in departments are financed from local sources.

External funding has been catalytic, the bulk of which supports flood control protection and is managed by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), accounting for more than a third of the department’s total climate expenditures and 80 % of total development aid. Other departments mostly receive support through off-budget small-scale, innovative grants. The LGUs receive about 70 % (90 % in case of poorer LGUs) of their resources from the Internal Revenue Allotment, a direct transfer of resources from the national government accounts to LGUs depending upon their area and population instead of vulnerability.

However, the Local Government Code provides that the LDF can only be used to finance projects that are explicitly identified in the local development plans; climate programs, projects and activities often compete against the many other development priorities of LGUs. In addition, the Alternative Budget Initiative, an 8-year old CSO which specialized in lobbying the congress and senate for agriculture, health, environment and climate change programs and projects for inclusion in the annual government appropriations, has mobilised increasing national budgets (from USD 0.8 million in 2008 to 9.7 million in 2013) for education, agriculture, fisheries, health and climate change.

Results supported byUNDPWorld Resources InstituteTransparency partnership