The impacts of the climate crisis will continue to hit our nation — droughts, strong storms, sea level rise, among others. These are consequences of developed countries that still fail to reduce their pollution of our climate, causing more intense and destructive effects on countries like the Philippines. Some public officials and businesses that unethically go for profits are not helping, either.
Loss and damage (L&D), or climate impacts too much for existing capacities to handle, is increasing in relevance to the present and future of Filipinos with each calamity that hits. While it has been a staple of the nation’s positioning in the global climate negotiations, the time has come for national strategies focused on avoiding, reducing, or addressing them.
The Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) recently opened its first call for proposals at the ongoing climate negotiations (COP30) in Brazil. All developing countries such as the Philippines are eligible to apply for grants up to US$20 million (more than P1 billion) to implement projects responding to L&D. The proposal window is open for only six months, with the earliest approval of proposals at the ninth Board meeting that is also taking place in the Philippines next year.
As the host of the FRLD Board and a global champion of climate justice, the country is almost obligated to submit a proposal. But of course, it wants and needs to do so anyway after yet another November that saw the nation hit by consecutive strong storms in rapid succession.
This comes at a time when almost all official development assistance received by the country for implementing climate projects in 2024 is through loans. Ultimately, those loans will be repaid through the money of taxpayers and other costs that could be burdened on to the most vulnerable communities.
It also occurs during a period of time when the 2026 proposed national budget is still heavy on physical infrastructure and underfunds nature-based solutions. Despite the anomalies in flood control and potentially other physical infrastructure projects, the current administration seems to have no intent to change course on how it supports climate solutions, aside from plans and roadmaps.
All eyes will be on what the Philippines does next. The global community certainly will, given the country has played a leadership role in the international L&D agenda for decades. A lot of stakeholders in the nation would want to either have their needs addressed by the proposal or be part of its development. (COP30: UN Climate Change Conference agenda, latest news)
One bright side of a lot of eyes on the Philippines is that this proposal, if approved, is almost guaranteed to be free from corruption; of course, we must remain vigilant. But for Filipinos weary of being hit by typhoons, robbed by the corrupt, and failed by its leaders time and again, expectations will be high on this development.
That is a good question to answer.
After all, the FRLD’s current call for proposals, required to be inclusive or “bottom-up,” have a wide scope of eligible activities: from addressing non-economic L&D (i.e., loss of cultural heritage, mental health) to responding to slow onset events like sea level rise, from rehabilitation of disaster-hit areas to capacity-building to respond to extreme impacts.
To varying extents, every one of these approaches must be urgently done in the Philippine context, with trillions of pesos of costs and value at stake. Yet with only up to more than P1 billion to be accessed, assuming the proposal gets approved, some aspects will have to be prioritized.
With this context, a potential FRLD proposal for the Philippines can focus on enhancing the scope and capacities of its disaster risk reduction management (DRRM) system. This would be a strategic choice to maximize limited funds, given the already existing governance structures at the national and local levels, and its links to adaptation measures that could aid in reducing L&D.
The Philippine DRRM system remains too focused on extreme weather events like typhoons and droughts, and on accounting economic costs of climate-related disasters, such as property damage and agricultural losses. Expanding its coverage to include non-economic L&D and slow onset events would strengthen data management systems, build capacities at the local levels, and address emerging threats.
Another potential focus is on improving pre-disaster recovery planning and building capacities for their implementation. Addressing issues such as fragmented coordination among agencies, slow assessment of post-disaster needs, and lack of resources could be addressed with support under the FRLD.
That said, the FRLD should not be the be-all and end-all for addressing L&D in the Philippine context. Improving the budget of public funding for adaptation and DRRM solutions and strong mechanisms to stop and punish corruption would help reduce the risks faced by the most vulnerable communities and avoid experiencing both economic and non-economic consequences. The enactment of the climate accountability bill would also aid in these efforts.
It must also be highlighted that the Philippines is forced to deal with L&D, which takes away its capacity to pursue sustainable development, as individuals and as a nation. It is also unjust for polluters to continue not paying the most vulnerable countries like ours for causing these extreme climate impacts and inflicting harm on our people.
Yet we as a nation have no better choice than to confront this issue head-on. While we chase climate accountability as necessary, we must prepare for what is coming.
There is no climate justice without good governance. – Rappler.com
