The Philippines has proposed US$11 billion (P692.7 billion) in climate-tagged spending for 2027, a potential 6.8 per cent increase from US$10.53 billion (P648.7 billion) in 2026. However, the figure remains far below the US$18.7 billion (P1.15 trillion) recorded in 2025, when climate expenditure tagging was heavily linked to flood control projects later embroiled in corruption allegations.
To continue reading, subscribe to Eco‑Business.
Access all our exclusive content and archive — with a 7-day free trial. Then just US$5/month. Cancel anytime.
- Exclusive access to training across business and policy topics
- Direct access to industry leaders at Eco-Business events
- A seat among the decision makers shaping the region's sustainable development
The planned spending comes after weeks of heavy monsoon rains and flooding across parts of the Philippines, including Metro Manila and surrounding provinces, renewing scrutiny of whether public expenditure labelled as climate action is translating into meaningful protection for vulnerable communities.
The 2025 figure has drawn criticism because much of it was tied to flood control infrastructure now implicated in a corruption scandal involving alleged kickbacks, ghost or substandard projects, and misuse of public funds. A government review ordered in the same year has led to investigations, criminal cases and arrests, raising questions over whether climate-tagged spending is delivering real flood protection.
Against that backdrop, the newly proposed allocation accounts for 9.62 per cent of the US$116.9 billion (P7.2 trillion) National Expenditure Program, the government’s spending blueprint for the coming fiscal year, which has been submitted to Congress on 10 August.
The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) is expected to account for about 83 per cent of the climate budget, up from 71 per cent in 2026, largely because it implements much of the government’s infrastructure programme.
Details of Climate Change Expenditure Tagging (CCET) data for 2027, which identifies the projects and programmes classified as climate-related, have yet to be released.
The allocation follows a sharp contraction in climate-tagged spending in 2026, when the budget fell nearly 15 per cent from its 2025 peak. Environmental groups criticised the spending mix at the time, noting that 76.7 per cent of climate-tagged funds went to DPWH, while about 1 per cent went to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. They cautioned that the infrastructure-heavy approach risked sidelining environmental protection and concentrating funds in projects vulnerable to corruption.
The Philippines has proposed US$11 billion (P692.7 billion) in climate-tagged spending for 2027, potentially up 6.8 per cent from 2026 but well below the US$18.7 billion (P1.15 trillion) tagged in 2025. Under the National Climate Change Action Plan, DPWH flood control, drainage and water-management projects are classified under the “water sufficiency” pillar, which is slated to receive the third-largest share of the 2027 climate budget, after sustainable energy and climate-smart industries. Image: Aksyon Klima
Climate advocates warned that the headline amount could overstate genuine climate spending. John Leo Algo, national coordinator of nonprofit Aksyon Klima Pilipinas, said the current tagging system can classify an entire infrastructure project as climate-aligned even when only part of its cost results from measures that improve climate resilience or reduce emissions.
“The question is how much of those tagged allocations are really climate-related,” Algo said in a webinar on 12 August, pointing to the need for clearer accounting of measures such as low carbon materials and projected climate risks.
He said weak data, limited technical capacity across agencies and inadequate integration of climate considerations could undermine the country’s ability to build credible, needs-based projects and attract climate finance.
Algo said the National Climate Change Action Plan classifies many DPWH flood-control, drainage and water-management projects under its “water sufficiency” pillar. With US$1.73 billion (P107 billion) earmarked for flood control in 2027, the category is set to rise from less than 5 per cent this year to about 17 per cent of climate-tagged spending – ranking third behind sustainable energy and climate-smart industries.
He cautioned that these labels require closer scrutiny. “Sustainable energy” includes renewable energy but is not limited to it, particularly in the Philippines’ heavily privatised power sector. Likewise, the 13.7 per cent allocation for climate-smart industries does not necessarily equate to conventional industrialisation spending.
“There are certain nuances that must be understood when looking at these numbers,” Algo said.
DPWH infrastructure accounted for 71 per cent of climate-tagged spending in 2026 and is set to make up 83 per cent of the proposed 2027 allocation. But not all project costs may be genuinely climate-related, meaning that counting their full value could inflate the climate budget. Image: Aksyon Klima
Budget cuts raise climate-agency, farm-resilience concerns
Greenpeace campaigner Jefferson Chua said in the same webinar that the proposed 2027 budget raises fresh concerns about whether agencies central to climate planning, agricultural resilience and early-warning systems have adequate resources.
The budget of the Climate Change Commission, the country’s lead policymaking body tasked with coordinating, monitoring and evaluating climate-related programmes and action plans, is set to fall from US$5.1 million (P316 million) to US$2.98 million (P183.48 million), he said. While staffing levels are maintained, funding for its maintenance and other operating expenses and locally funded projects would decline by 47 per cent and 78 per cent, respectively.
Chua said the reasons for the reductions remain unclear and may partly reflect one-off expenditure in 2026, but warned that the cut raises questions about whether the commission has enough capacity to coordinate and monitor climate action.
He also flagged lower funding for the Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation and PAGASA operational programmes, which could affect climate-resilient agriculture and weather forecasting and early-warning services. By contrast, Chua cited increased calamity funds and allocations for evacuation facilities and post-disaster infrastructure as positive developments.
However, he stressed that the assessment is preliminary. The National Expenditure Program does not provide a complete picture of climate spending until the government releases CCET data, which identifies the projects and programmes classified as climate-related.
“Until the CCET is published, we have no certainty,” Chua said, noting that some spending under agency monitoring and evaluation programmes may yet contain climate-tagged components. He added that DPWH has earmarked US$1.74 billion (P107.4 billion) for flood control projects and a further US$307.94 million (P19 billion) in official development assistance-backed projects, but said the final climate relevance of these allocations will need to be assessed once detailed tagging data are available.
