Lessons on 'whole-of-society' climate action for Philippines at COP28

Many issues of global climate action were tackled at the 2023 UN climate negotiations (COP28). Yet from the perspective of many groups in Philippine civil society, the most important issue is not on adaptation, mitigation, finance, or loss and damage. It was on inclusivity.

The “whole-of-society” approach is vital to decision-making, as the government itself would emphasize in practically every climate or environmental forum or policy document. When it comes to climate action, there are usually two sectors that are most often emphasized. Governments have the political power to implement at the national and local levels, while businesses have the capital and resources to rapidly produce innovations and solutions.

Yet there is a third sector that must not be forgotten: we from civil society. We hold the other two sectors accountable for their words and actions. We directly assist communities in responding to their concerns and engaging with governments and businesses. We promote issues and solutions in a more grounded, dynamic way.

For decades, Philippine civil society organizations (CSOs) have been at the forefront of climate action, from the local to the global level. In fact, it has been said by delegates from other countries that these groups collectively provide one of the strongest non-government voices at this stage.

Is it a decline?

Yet it is disappointing to see a general decline in inclusive climate decision-making in the past five years. A stark contrast is especially evident when comparing the early 2010s to the second half of the previous administration; we have gone from CSOs being a major driving force in the country’s COP positions to being actively excluded and even encouraged to be subjected to acts of violence.

It is no secret that CSOs, and activism in general, are being viewed with a stigma in the Philippines, especially during the previous leadership. Some of these perspectives of a few officials that generalize the entire sector still persist.

A few officials would just assume these groups lack science-based capacities, are not active in project implementation at the local level, or would use high-level events and platforms just to promote their own advocacies and cause disruptions. We even heard how one high-ranking official back then issued an internal order that actively discourages engagement with civil society representatives in climate policymaking.

This is why relatively-speaking, the past two years have arguably been an improvement. To be fair, some of the government agencies and officials have maintained their openness to working with our sector, understanding the necessity for a diversity of perspectives, especially in addressing a threat as complex as the climate crisis.

Consultations with the sector on climate laws and policies are becoming more regular again. Dialogues between government and civil society and community representatives on climate and environment are becoming more frequent, certainly compared to the past few years.

But that is relatively-speaking; on an absolute scale, there are still clear issues from the side of the government that need to be addressed.

Lessons to be learned

The message is clear: one dialogue with someone from civil society does not count as genuine inclusive decision-making. Selecting one person who happens to be part of a sector does not mean the sector itself is truly representative. Only choosing to work with a few groups does not constitute a “whole-of-society” approach.

The government and CSOs will not always agree on how the policy direction on climate action in the Philippines should proceed. What we are asking for, as a good starting point, is consistency, transparency, and sustainability, especially when it comes to communications.

No matter how anyone puts it, the bottomline is that the issue regarding the inclusivity in the multi-million-peso Philippine Pavilion could have easily been avoided through consistent communications. Even if it was the first-ever such pavilion inside the negotiations area, such a lapse should still not happen.

On transparency, we refer to the consultations during the past few months for the updated Philippine Energy Plan and the NDC Implementation Plan, both being key mitigation-related policies, no actual draft for either plan was presented to stakeholders that are invited to be consulted in the first place. When we contrast that with how multiple drafts of the National Adaptation Plan were shown during the consultation process, it clearly indicates a lack of sufficient coherence among government agencies on procedural matters like this.

Sustainability and climate action are inherently connected, especially when it comes to the pursuit of national development. But the government’s focus on sustainability must be on procedural as much as it has been on the substantive. It should not be just the civil society that has to reach out to government agencies time and again.

The time has come to institutionalize the meaningful participation of CSOs in Philippine climate policymaking to prevent these incidents from happening again. There is no room for stereotyped views, mere assumptions, or shallow impressions when establishing proper coordination in addressing the climate crisis, or any other development issue.

We are not pointing out these lapses to promote dissention or purely for the sake of being contrarian. We do so as part of our mandate as civil society: to hold our government accountable for both words and actions. After all, these mistakes directly contradict the “whole-of-society” principle, and even several laws and policies.

If no one highlights them, these mistakes will keep happening. And in that case, we as a nation will suffer the consequences, in one way or another.

Being exclusive should be for two people in a romantic relationship, not as a principle in climate action.

John Leo Algo is the national coordinator of Aksyon Klima Pilipinas and the deputy executive director for programs and campaigns of Living Laudato Si’ Philippines. He is also a member of the Youth Advisory Group for Environmental and Climate Justice under the UNDP in Asia and the Pacific. He has been a climate and environment journalist since 2016.