Climate groups flag budget tagging, allocation concerns

KUALA LUMPUR, 13 AUGUST 2026 —

Environmental groups have raised concerns over the government’s climate spending, saying the proposed 2027 budget remains heavily focused on infrastructure while funding for climate preparedness, social protection and environmental protection remains inadequate. During an online briefing on Wednesday, Aksyon Klima Pilipinas said the proposed climate budget under the 2027 National Expenditure Program (NEP) amounts to ₱692.7 billion, or about 9.62% of the proposed ₱7.2-trillion national budget.

The group said this represents only a 0.07-percentage-point increase in the climate budget’s share from the previous year, despite the country’s growing exposure to extreme weather events, sea-level rise and other climate impacts. Aksyon Klima Pilipinas national coordinator John Leo Algo said the figure may also be overstated because of how government agencies classify projects under the Climate Change Expenditure Tagging (CCET) system.

Under the system, national agencies identify programs and projects that they consider aligned with climate adaptation or mitigation objectives. Mr. Algo said projects such as roads and other infrastructure could have their entire costs tagged as climate-related, even though much of the spending would have been necessary regardless of climate considerations.

“ What we are asking is how much of the tagged allocation is genuinely climate-related, because that is what should be reflected in the climate budget,” he said. The group said the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) continues to account for the largest share of climate-related spending. For the 2026 General Appropriations Act, DPWH accounted for about ₱461.5 billion, or 71% of the ₱648.7-billion climate budget, according to the groups.

Under the initial assessment of the 2027 NEP, DPWH accounts for about 83% of the climate budget, although the detailed climate-tagging data have yet to be released. Mr. Algo said the large share is partly due to the way infrastructure projects are classified under the National Climate Change Action Plan. For instance, transportation infrastructure is classified under sustainable energy, while road and bridge retrofitting may be classified under climate-smart industries.

The groups said this raises questions about whether the reported climate budget accurately reflects spending that is specifically intended to address climate change. Center for Environmental Concerns Philippines (CEC) executive director Mattie Balagat said the ₱648.7-billion 2026 climate budget should not remain a figure on paper but should translate into tangible benefits for communities.

“ The main goal of a climate budget should be to protect the environment and communities and uphold their rights to food, clean water, livelihood, housing, a healthy environment, education, culture, and other basic needs,” she said. Ms. Balagat also criticized the continued concentration of climate spending on gray infrastructure, particularly after the controversy surrounding flood control projects.

She said the climate budget could be “overinflated and greenwashed” when infrastructure projects are broadly classified as climate adaptation without determining how much of their costs are actually attributable to climate action. The groups also flagged the uneven distribution of climate-related funds, saying most infrastructure allocations remain concentrated in Luzon despite varying levels of climate vulnerability among provinces.

Mr. Algo said water sufficiency, which includes flood control and other water infrastructure, accounted for 69.1% of average climate expenditures from 2020 to 2024. Its share fell to 4.9% in the 2026 budget following the reduction in flood control allocations. For the proposed 2027 budget, however, water sufficiency rises to 17%, partly because ₱107 billion has been reported for flood control projects. Nature-based solutions remain significantly smaller in comparison.

Mr. Algo said funding for ecosystems and environmental stability-related projects, including protected area management and marine ecosystem protection, would fall from ₱8.2 billion in the 2026 GAA to ₱2.8 billion under the proposed 2027 budget. “ This is a red flag,” he said, adding that the scale of funding remains heavily tilted toward gray infrastructure. Greenpeace Philippines Climate Campaigner Jefferson Chua likewise said the government’s spending pattern remains largely reactive rather than preventive.

He cited World Bank estimates that climate impacts could result in annual losses equivalent to as much as 1.2% of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP). Using the projected 2027 nominal GDP of ₱33.18 trillion, Mr. Chua said this would translate to around ₱398.2 billion in potential annual losses.

The same World Bank report, he said, estimates that spending 0.7% of GDP could avert up to two-thirds of those losses, equivalent to around ₱232.3 billion annually. Mr. Chua said the size of the government’s reported climate budget suggests that resources are available for climate action, but the concern is whether these funds are being properly allocated and tagged.

“ If the amount of money is that large, there is actually money that can be moved around and used for climate action. It’s not just allocated well,” he said. He also raised concerns over cuts to agencies and programs that support climate preparedness. The Climate Change Commission’s budget is set to fall from ₱360 million to ₱183.48 million under the 2027 NEP, according to Greenpeace’s initial assessment.

Its Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses and locally funded projects are also expected to decline by 47% and 78%, respectively. The Philippine Crop Insurance Corp. is likewise facing a reduction in funding from ₱6.5 billion to ₱4.5 billion. Mr. Chua said this could affect programs such as parametric insurance designed to protect farmers and fisherfolk from extreme weather events.

The Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration’s (PAGASA) operational funding for forecasting and early warning programs is also expected to fall from ₱2.05 billion to ₱1.06 billion, he said. On the other hand, the national calamity fund is set to increase to ₱45.67 billion from ₱39 billion. This does not include Quick Response Funds, with the Department of Education receiving the largest allocation at ₱3 billion.

Mr. Chua said the figures remain preliminary because the detailed climate expenditure tagging for the 2027 NEP has yet to be released. “ We have not yet scrutinized specific projects and programs,” he said. “Until the climate tagging data are published, however, we have no certainty about that.” He said the government also needs to strengthen its capacity to identify and evaluate climate-related projects,… (AI-assisted rewrite, based on the original source)