Writer: Anne Bernel Antazo
Editor: Alexa Samantha R. Hernandez
Disclaimer: This commentary was written by a UPRI intern as part of the Institute’s National Disaster Resilience Month activities. The views, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the University of the Philippines Resilience Institute or the University of the Philippines.
“A truly resilient nation is built not only through concrete but also through knowledge, preparedness, evidence-based policymaking, and institutions that ensure disaster risk reduction is guided by science rather than politics.”
The implementation of climate-related public investments in the Philippines has come under increased public and institutional scrutiny due to concerns about transparency and accountability in infrastructure projects. According to data from the National Integrated Climate Change Database and Information Exchange System (NICCDIES), the government allocated approximately PHP 1.089 trillion to climate-tagged projects. Of this amount, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) managed around PHP 800 billion across 24,764 of the country’s 26,874 climate-tagged projects, representing about 90% of all climate-tagged projects by number (Greenpeace Philippines, 2025).
Recent investigations by the Senate, the Commission on Audit (COA), and other government oversight bodies have identified alleged irregularities in several flood control projects. These include projects reported as completed but which could not be verified on site, as well as infrastructure that was allegedly unfinished, substandard, or had deteriorated shortly after construction despite having been fully funded and documented as completed (Associated Press, 2025; Esguerra, 2025).
These findings have prompted government agencies to strengthen oversight mechanisms, including reviews of project implementation, lifestyle checks on public officials, and broader efforts to improve accountability in the management of public infrastructure. Beyond questions of governance, these concerns underscore the importance of ensuring that climate adaptation investments achieve their intended outcomes.
Flood control projects are designed to improve drainage systems, reinforce riverbanks, reduce flood risks, and better protect communities from climate-related hazards. However, when these measures are defective, incomplete, or not implemented as reported, communities may continue to face flood risks that could have been reduced through properly implemented projects.
These governance challenges serve as an important reminder that resilience is built not only through physical infrastructure, but also through accountable institutions, informed communities, and effective public service.
Yet the issue extends beyond governance concerns alone. It also raises an important question…
How can we strengthen accountability and ensure that climate resilience investments achieve their intended impact?
Strengthening accountability requires more than stricter oversight. It also depends on ensuring that climate resilience investments are guided by evidence, informed by science, supported by communities, and implemented through transparent and effective institutions. This begins with strengthening the systems that govern how resilience investments are planned, implemented, monitored, and evaluated.
Transparent procurement processes, evidence-based policymaking, independent monitoring and evaluation, meaningful public participation, and sustained investment in scientific research and disaster risk reduction can help ensure that public resources deliver lasting benefits. Achieving these goals requires collaboration among government agencies, local governments, academic and research institutions, civil society organizations, the private sector, and communities, each contributing distinct but complementary roles in building a more resilient Philippines.
The Role of Science, Education, and Public Participation in Building a Resilient Philippines
While flood control projects remain an important component of disaster risk reduction, infrastructure alone is insufficient to build long-term resilience. Increasingly frequent and intense climate-related hazards require approaches that combine well-designed infrastructure with sound governance, scientific research, environmental stewardship, and active community participation.
Studies have shown that conventional flood mitigation measures are becoming increasingly insufficient to address the growing impacts of climate change, let alone substandard flood control infrastructure. In contrast, nature-based solutions have the potential to provide more effective, sustainable, and cost-efficient approaches to reducing flood risks while delivering additional environmental and social benefits (Vojinovic et al., 2021). However, successfully implementing these solutions extends beyond scientific and technical expertise. It is an inter- and transdisciplinary endeavor that also requires understanding local social and economic contexts, empowering communities through education, and encouraging meaningful public participation in planning and decision-making (Hartmann, 2019). This highlights the important role of academic and research institutions in generating scientific knowledge, strengthening public understanding of resilience, and supporting communities and decision-makers with evidence that can be translated into practical action.
Embedding these research findings into policymaking is also essential to ensure that resilience strategies, infrastructure investments, and climate adaptation measures are not only technically sound but also socially inclusive, locally appropriate, and sustainable. However, even the most scientifically sound policies and resilience strategies can fall short if they are poorly implemented, inadequately maintained, or weakened by a lack of transparency and accountability. This brings us back to the point that building resilience requires not only scientific and technical expertise but also strong governance and institutional accountability.
WHAT RESILIENCE TRULY REQUIRES…
The principles of accountability, scientific integrity, and shared responsibility are reflected in the country’s annual observance of the 38th National Disaster Resilience Month (NDRM) this July 2026. Established through Executive Order No. 29, NDRM shifted the national conversation from responding to disasters toward building resilience before disasters occur. This year’s theme, “Naghahanda at Kumikilos Tungo sa Panatag na Bagong Pilipinas,” reminds us that resilience is achieved through proactive preparation and collective action (Executive Order No. 29, s. 2017; Office of Civil Defense, 2026).
In light of the recent concerns surrounding flood control governance, this message becomes even more relevant. The issue highlights the importance of ensuring that public investments are implemented with integrity, transparency, and accountability to achieve their intended purpose of protecting communities from disaster risks. While resilient infrastructure remains indispensable, lasting resilience also depends on sound governance, scientific knowledge, public participation, and informed decision-making. Through its research, education, hazard assessment, and capacity-building initiatives, the University of the Philippines Resilience Institute (UPRI) contributes to these national efforts by providing evidence, tools, and expertise that support disaster risk reduction and climate resilience (Philippine Information Agency, 2026).
Ultimately, what resilience truly requires is not only the construction of stronger infrastructure, but also the collective commitment to responsible governance, informed communities, and evidence-based action. Together, these foundations help build a safer and more resilient Filipino nation.
Read more about UPRI’s initiatives at https://resilience.up.edu.ph/.
***
References:
Associated Press. (2025, September 8). Explosive testimony identifies legislators, officials in Philippine flood-control corruption inquiry. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/61deba5e59f9bc5fac1800a660591c35
Esguerra, D. J. (2025, August 27). PBBM orders lifestyle check on gov’t officials amid flood works probe. Philippine News Agency. https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1257388
Executive Order No. 29, s. 2017. (2017, June 28). Renaming the National Disaster Consciousness Month as National Disaster Resilience Month and shifting its focus from disaster awareness building to disaster resilience. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/5/77134
Greenpeace Philippines. (2025, September 8). Flood control corruption an obscene plunder of much-needed climate funds. Greenpeace Philippines. https://www.greenpeace.org/philippines/press/68522/flood-control-corruption-an-obscene-plunder-of-much-needed-climate-funds/
Hartmann, T., Slavíková, L., & McCarthy, S. (2019). Nature-based solutions in Flood Risk Management. Nature-Based Flood Risk Management on Private Land, 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23842-1_1
Office of Civil Defense. (2026, July 1). OCD calls for sustained collective action this National Disaster Resilience Month. Philippine Information Agency. https://pia.gov.ph/press-release/ocd-calls-for-sustained-collective-action-this-national-disaster-resilience-month/
Philippine Information Agency. (2026, July 2). OCD, NDRRMC, private sector launch Panatag Pilipinas campaign during NDRM kickoff. https://pia.gov.ph/news/ocd-ndrrmc-private-sector-launch-panatag-pilipinas-campaign-during-ndrm-kickoff/
University of the Philippines. (2016). UP Gazette, Vol. 46 No. 6: Decisions of the 1319th Board of Regents Meeting (July 28, 2016). https://osu.up.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/1319final.pdf
Vojinovic, Z., Alves, A., Gómez, J. P., Weesakul, S., Keerakamolchai, W., Meesuk, V., & Sanchez, A. (2021). Effectiveness of small- and large-scale nature-based solutions for flood mitigation: The case of Ayutthaya, Thailand. Science of The Total Environment, 789, 147725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147725