As I mentioned in the previous column, last July 25, 2013, the Climate Change Commission, Department of Budget and Management and the World Bank presented to the public a Climate Public Expenditure and Institutional Review, or CPEIR, which according to the proponents “identified process reforms that could deliver desired climate results more effectively and enhance the quality of the decision-making process.”

Having taken place beginning February 2012 to March 2013, the review “sought to identify innovations in policy, institutions, and financing of climate action, along with achievements, limitations, and disconnects in the current approaches to addressing climate issues and policy. …The analysis, based on the rich set of data gathered by the [review] team, [provided] a valuable basis for the Philippines to develop a baseline for financing climate change.”

The starting point of course of any institutional review is the Climate Change Act, enacted in 2009, which established the Climate Change Commission, and tasked it with the coordination of climate change-related actions and policies.  As part of its mandate, the CCC produced the National Framework Strategy on Climate Change in 2010, and the National Climate Change Action Plan, or NCCAP, in 2011.

According to the review, one of the main points to consider is that the Philippine government’s development plans are only partially aligned with the NCCAP.  Since the priorities under the NCCAP are “…thematic in nature, often cutting across the sector-based focus of the development plans,” it tends to “[hamper] coordination and convergence of climate activities across Departments and between administrative levels, and renders monitoring of climate activities difficult.”

The report goes on to say that the NCCAP is only partially aligned to the Philippine Development Plan (PDP), with some immediate NCCAP outcomes being excluded from the latter, and others lacking detailed explanations on supporting activities.  The NCCAP is also only partially aligned with Key Result Area-5 programs, activities and projects (KRA-5 PAPs), partly “due to a different classification system of climate PAPs used for KRA-5 and the NCCAP.”  This results in the attribution of climate-related PAPs to other KRA’s, such as poverty, reduction or growth, which then leads to the NCCAP’s lack of traction among members of the Cabinet Cluster on Climate Change, or CCCC.

With regard to the CCC itself, its broad scope and many responsibilities have hampered its ability to streamline and operationalize the NCCAP and realize certain tasks.   As stated in the review, “the CCC is solely responsible for a number of key functions, such as leading climate policy making and coordinating, monitoring and evaluation climate programs and action plans. Because of its wide array of responsibilities, the CCC has not been able to divert enough resources to advocate effectively for immediate action on climate change.”

Another consideration, according to the World Bank report, is that “the CCC is jointly responsible for several tasks with other agencies, yet its effectiveness is limited by a lack of clear or formalized roles and relationships. In particular, clarifying the relationship with the NEDA and DBM is essential to ensure effective coordination and integration of the climate change, poverty reduction and development agendas. Similarly, while the CCC provides secretarial services to the CCCC, it remains without much decision-making powers, which have slowed the integration of the NCCAP at the highest level of government.”

In addition, the review notes that CCC has “limited local presence, and lacks the capacity to engage with all LGU’s,” that “[no] clear organization model exists to execute and deliver climate results across the various Departmental structures and needs,” and that “coordination on disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation is difficult due to overlapping responsibilities and action plans.”

Other points that the review states merit serious consideration in the strengthening of the climate policy regime include (1) a lack of institutional capacity, knowledge generation and management, and monitoring and evaluation, (2) the increase in government financing of climate action, with a few large-scale PAPs taking priority, (3) funding issues in relation to action-oriented LGUs, as sources of funding tend to be fragmented and limited, (4) the fact that while climate appropriations are focused on adaptation, funding for mitigation is rising faster, and (5) the complexity of tools for planning and prioritization.

Given this analysis of country’s climate policy structure, the review also presented a set of recommendations aimed at “[consolidating] the strategic direction of the NCCAP and [setting] the stage for scaling up climate action over the remaining two phases of the NCCAP.” The recommendations, taken together with the Strategic Action Plan laid out by the World Bank, are based on the national government’s reform agenda but approached through a three-pillar framework.  These pillars consist of (a) strengthening the planning, execution and financing framework for climate change, (b) enhancing accountability through monitoring, evaluation and review of climate change policies and activities, and (c) building capacity and managing change.

In my next column, I will be going into more detail on these pillars, and the ideal goals that this administration is recommended to set for the rest of its term.

EAGLE EYES is Dean Tony La Viña's column in Manila Standard Today. Follow him on Facebook: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and Twitter: @tonylavs.