In September, protesters in the Philippines began taking to the streets, accusing the government of misusing billions of dollars meant for flood-control efforts.
The country of islands in Southeast Asia is one of the most climate-vulnerable nations in the world and has undertaken almost 10,000 flood-control projects in the past few years.
In some ways, the protests echoed concerns raised by demonstrators and representatives from affected countries each year at United Nations climate summits: Climate funds meant to serve the public good must reach the people most affected by climate disasters.
Why We Wrote This
Countries around the globe are spending trillions of dollars to address climate issues. The money doesn’t always reach the places that need it most, meaning some people remain vulnerable to increasingly intense storms.
As world leaders gather for this year’s COP30 in Belém, Brazil, from Nov. 10 to 21, public anger in the Philippines raises larger questions about the global issue of who pays for climate response and resilience, who benefits, and how much money is being siphoned off through mismanagement or corruption.
What were the protests about?
Previous demonstrations at COP – the annual meeting of governments that are part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – have called on wealthy nations to compensate developing countries that bear the brunt of emissions they did not cause.
There is opposition to climate spending: Research led by Stanford University shows that the number of countries with at least one “counter climate change organization” — such as a think tank, research institute, or foundation — has more than doubled in the past 35 years. The report’s author says the economic interests of the energy and agricultural sectors are helping to shape the movement.
Yet countries globally have committed to spending trillions to mitigate the effects of climate change.
In the Philippines, tens of thousands of people demonstrated during the week of Sept. 21, triggered by the Department of Finance’s report that corruption related to flood relief projects resulted in the loss of up to 118.5 billion Philippine pesos ($2 billion) from 2023-25. Lawmakers and officials allegedly pocketed money in exchange for contracts, while hundreds of projects intended to protect the country from flooding were never built.
Jefferson Chua, a campaigner at Greenpeace Southeast Asia, says many in the Philippines suspected corruption even before the finance department report.
“Sometimes, it’s even a running joke here that when money goes to these kinds of public projects, we all know a significant portion of that goes to the pockets of these politicians,” Mr. Chua says.
He notes a saying in the Philippines: “The Filipino spirit is waterproof.” But there is evidence of more intense and frequent storms in Southeast Asia, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A tropical storm in late October killed seven people and forced more than 22,000 people to evacuate.
Most of the protests stopped soon after they started, when a typhoon – a weather event that causes significant flooding – hit the country Sept. 22. More protests were expected, The Philippine Star reported.
How much money is earmarked for addressing climate change?
It’s complicated, partly because it can be hard to figure out what counts as climate finance.
The UNFCCC’s definition runs almost 100 words, covering everything from cutting emissions to “enhancing resilience of human and ecological systems” and implementing the goals of the Paris Agreement to cut emissions by 43% worldwide by 2030.
About 55 countries and jurisdictions say they have or are developing climate finance tracking systems. But it can still be difficult to decipher what is climate funding and what is not.
For example, grants that help build and maintain public transportation may not explicitly be labeled as such even though they could help bring down greenhouse gas emissions from cars.
A recent UNFCCC report says global spending reached an annual average of $1.3 trillion in 2021-22, the most recent data available. That includes money going toward areas such as sustainable transport, clean energy systems, and buildings and infrastructure.
This figure includes the newly established Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage, headquartered in the Philippines. A COP resolution created it to help low-income countries most vulnerable to and impacted by climate change pay for damage caused by climate-related natural disasters. Twenty-seven countries have pledged $768 million. Payments to affected countries haven’t started.
How much of climate funding is misused?
Brice Böhmer, the climate and environment director at Transparency International, helped develop the Climate and Corruption Atlas. He says it can be hard to distinguish between mismanagement and corruption.
“Even if it’s actually corruption, it’s very hard to prove that,” Mr. Böhmer says. “Because it’s more about the intention behind the mismanagement.”
Instances of climate corruption go beyond the Philippines. In 2021, an energy company agreed to a $230 million penalty in a settlement with federal prosecutors, who charged the company in connection with a bribery scheme to advance legislation that included a $1 billion bailout for two power plants in Ohio, NPR reported. In Germany in 2023, the deputy minister of the environment was ousted after he named the best man at his wedding as chair of the national energy agency’s management board, according to Reuters.
Mr. Böhmer says a major barrier to documenting corruption is gaining access to information in countries where people who voice concerns fear retaliation by the government. He says it is important to have complaint mechanisms and protections for those who raise questions.
“For example, environmental defenders and whistleblowers who are bringing those cases to our knowledge are doing a job that is good for all of us,” he says. “And they are usually targeted and punished, whereas the ones that should be prosecuted are the ones doing the act of corruption.”
In the Philippines, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has established an independent commission to investigate the disappearance of funds. The country’s interior secretary estimated that around 200 people could be indicted by an anti-graft court for government officials.
