MANILA (December 11) — Millions in climate adaptation funding are flowing to provinces—but the Climate Change Commission (CCC) says gaps in governance still put communities at risk.
Vice governors, CCC officials stress, sit at the “critical intersection” where strategy meets action, yet capacity and coordination challenges persist.
At the 103rd Year-End National Assembly of the League of Vice Governors of the Philippines (LVGP) on Dec. 4–6, CCC Vice Chairperson Robert E.A. Borje urged vice governors to turn plans into tangible protections for lives, livelihoods, and infrastructure.
“Their role is where evidence meets action,” Borje said. “But plans alone don’t shield communities—execution does.”
PSF funding surges—but implementation lags
The People’s Survival Fund (PSF) has grown rapidly: project approvals and grants have pushed utilization from 30% to nearly full commitment, with the 2025 budget expanding the portfolio to roughly ₱1.4 billion across 15 projects and nine grants.
Still, Borje acknowledged bottlenecks: complex application processes, uneven local capacity, and slow monitoring threaten to delay real-world impact.
Vice governors: key to bridging plan and action
As provincial board chairs, vice governors influence budgets and policies. Borje urged them to anchor Local Climate Change Action Plans (LCCAPs) in the National Adaptation Plan (NAP), ensuring evidence-based, measurable, and locally responsive projects.
Yet experts caution that without political will and cross-department coordination, many adaptation initiatives risk becoming symbolic exercises rather than life-saving interventions.
The stakes are high
The PSF and NAP are central to the Marcos administration’s climate agenda. Effective execution is not just technical—it’s political. Communities in flood- and landslide-prone provinces need more than plans; they need action.
Borje called for a “whole-of-government, whole-of-society” approach, emphasizing youth engagement, inter-agency collaboration, and rigorous oversight as essential to turning funding into tangible resilience.
“Funds, plans, and frameworks are important,” he said, “but our true measure is whether communities are safer and livelihoods are protected.”
