September 11, 2026 · The Philippines has experienced what feels like an endless barrage of rainfall in these past few weeks, enhanced by the southwest monsoon and the occasional tropical cyclone within its borders.
The reality it brings is something Filipinos are becoming too used to—which the President infamously immortalized last year as not constituting an emergency, but just something to be expected. Regardless of the intent behind the statement, this harkens back to the brand of resilience to crises that is associated with our culture, which must never be further enabled if we are to address the impacts of the climate crisis.
Fixing this problem won’t be easy by any stretch of the imagination, but it does not have to be complicated, either. It starts by looking at our nature.
Overlooking nature-based solutions
Nature-based solutionsGlobal EssentialsNature-based solutions (NbS)Actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems to address societal challenges (e.g., using wetlands for flood control).Read more in the Glossary → (NbS) remain underfunded in the Philippines, especially when compared to gray infrastructure. Many of these solutions—from mangroveLocal Climate & EcologyMangrovesCoastal wetland ecosystems capable of sequestering massive amounts of blue carbon while buffering coastlines against storm surges.Read more in the Glossary → greenbelts and wetlandsLocal Climate & EcologyWetlands & Ramsar sitesMarshes, swamps, and floodplains that filter water, buffer floods, and hold carbon. Ramsar sites are wetlands of international importance—the Philippines has 10.Read more in the Glossary → to reforestationLocal Climate & EcologyReforestationThe active replanting and ecological restoration of degraded forest lands. In carbon project development, its financial viability depends on long-term survival rates, native species selection, and the prevention of leakage, moving beyond superficial tree-planting metrics to verifiable ecosystem restoration.Read more in the Glossary →—are covered under the third thematic area of the National Climate Change Action Plan (NCCAP) on ecosystem and environmental stability, which indicates the scale of how NbS is publicly-funded.
In 2026, programs, activities, and projects under this NCCAP Thematic Area only have 0.12% of the national budget under the General Appropriations Act (GAA), at ₱8.2 billion. This is 28 times lower than the climate-tagged budget for new gray infrastructure, including roads and bridges.
This is also much lower than the benchmark of 0.64% of the ASEAN domestic public spending, as of 2023—a figure that is likely higher in 2026, given the imperative of biodiversityGlobal EssentialsBiodiversityThe variety of life at genetic, species, and ecosystem levels. Biodiversity loss is a material financial risk and a prerequisite for nature-positive investment frameworks.Read more in the Glossary → and ecosystems conservation.
With this reference, nature-based solutions in the Philippines are underfunded by at least ₱35 billion.
While the government is still finalizing a standalone national NbS policy and framework that would enable a more formal estimation of available resources, the scale of its public funding in the Philippines is undeniably much lower than what is needed.
Meanwhile, the national government’s infrastructure spending under the 2027 National Expenditures Program (NEP) would increase by ₱178 billion compared to the 2026 GAA. Yet there is no such notable increase in NbS across the proposed budget, with the increase of allocation for forest development, rehabilitation, maintenance, and protection program’s by ₱1.6 billion already one of the highest.
This constant undervaluing of nature-based solutions across many government-led approaches makes not only every flooding episode more tragic; it also makes every news of a government-backed road, bridge, or airport project at the expense of the natural environment in a climate-vulnerable country like the Philippines sting harder.
This is not to say that the Philippines does not need any more road, bridges, and other infrastructure considered as traditional. This is to say that the current Philippine government is not properly evaluating when and where nature-based solutions can complement, improve on, be genuinely prioritized over gray infrastructure.
It is true that some of this gap can be addressed through private capital, an underlying factor for recent DENRPH Laws & FrameworksDepartment of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)The Philippine executive department managing forests, protected areas, mining permits, and pollution control. It is the primary regulatory counterparty for environmental compliance, natural capital valuation, and the issuance of permits governing resource extraction and land-use changes.Read more in the Glossary → policies such as the Sustainable Forest Land Management Agreement. But domestic public finance is necessary to fund non-economic ecosystems and resilience benefits, reduce the risk of private investments, and ensure a needs-based approach for promoting nature-based solutions nationwide.
Master plans
No matter how strong the NbS-related policies are, they would not be effective without proper public investments—and vice-versa.
A strong policy coherence across the Philippine policy framework—not just within DENR—is needed to enable its implementation. Two other key agencies in this endeavor include the Department of Economy, Planning, and Development (DEPDev) and the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).
Under Republic Act No. 12145, DEPDev is mandated to formulate the Comprehensive Infrastructure Development Master Plan (CIDMP), which contains the country’s infrastructure master plan for the next 25 years. DEPDev and other agencies must ensure nature-based solutions are integrated in its development, as they are identified under Chapter 12 of the Philippine Development Plan as part of the approach for embedding resilient and innovative solutions in infrastructure design.
Of course, this also boils down to ensuring that the CIDMP is actually followed, in a nation whose previous master plans—from Manila Bay’s to that for flood management—have not been followed, which has brought the country to this point.
Aside from DENR, no other agency plays a more critical role in ensuring NbS integration in infrastructure planning and implementation than the DPWH—the agency at the center of the infamous corruption in mismanaged flood control projects.
Under the Climate Change Expenditure Tagging (CCET) system, over 70% of the Philippines’ climate-tagged national budget has been given to DPWH in the past five years. Under the 2027 NEP, it would have an even higher share at 83%, making its role in NbS propagation more crucial.
DPWH has integrated NbS-related elements in some of its approaches. Under its department order issued in 2022, all flood-control project contractors are mandated to carry out tree-planting activities. Its 2023 Disaster and Incident Management Operations Manual mentions NbS – but only when describing the section on the National Disaster Risk Reduction Management Fund.
However, from the OECD assessment to the 2026 GAA itself to what Filipinos experience, it is evident that the agency has yet to fully integrate nature-based solutions into its engineering standards. The agency’s failure to integrate green factors also extends to not fully accounting for climate-related factors in most of its gray infrastructure projects, such as projected temperature and rainfall changes.
Based on nature
Filipinos have more than earned the right to be skeptical and to scrutinize the national budget, especially the proposed flood control projects of more than ₱103 billion. Every lapse in transparency—from the deliberations in Congress to the actions by national government agencies—warrants public demand for appropriate government responses, when it comes to nature-based solutions.
There is no question that legislators must support the executive departments in ensuring more funding under the 2027 national budget and beyond, for the protection, conservation, and sustainable use of forests, wetlands, and other ecosystems while addressing climate and societal problems.
This becomes even more important now that the 2026 Nationally Determined Contribution—its pledge for climate action as part of the Paris Agreement—fully integrates the forestry and other land use sector as part of its intended solutions. The so-called NDC also aims to mainstream nature-based solutions within the context of the country’s climate agenda.
If this current administration truly intends to change how it deals with the likes of the climate crisis, then how it handles the national budget allocations reflects whether it truly prioritizes this part of the national agenda. That would include nature-based solutions, something that is not just an environmental buzzword or should only be valued through the economic lens under natural capital accounting.
Sometimes, it does not take building more or building better more to solve our problems. The way human civilization has advanced over time by learning from nature.
For the entire Philippine government—the legislative and executive branches alike—the solution is right in front of them, if only they are capable and willing to invest in it.
