This chapter assesses the Philippines’ policy framework for sustainable infrastructure planning, delivery and financing. It examines national development strategies as well as international commitments, including under the country’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), alongside sectoral frameworks in energy and transport infrastructure. The chapter analyses infrastructure investment needs, financing gaps and the role of public investment, public-private partnerships and sustainable finance mechanisms. It explores climate vulnerability, disaster risk, emissions trends and fossil fuel dependence, as well as challenges related to institutional fragmentation, local government capacity and project implementation. The chapter also reviews infrastructure appraisal methodologies, climate risk screening, strategic foresight, nature-based solutions and the integration of environmental, social and gender considerations in infrastructure decision-making.
Accelerating Sustainable Infrastructure Investments
Abstract
The Philippines has made substantial progress in expanding and modernising its infrastructure base, positioning infrastructure as a cornerstone of its development strategy. The Build Better More programme and the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2023–2028 have elevated public investment to 5-6% of GDP, underpinned by improved alignment with long-term frameworks such as AmBisyon Natin 2040 and the NDC Implementation Plan 2024. These efforts are helping to close long-standing connectivity gaps, reduce logistics costs and improve access to essential services. Taking stock of the Philippines’ high exposure to climate hazards, the government has also taken steps to ensure that this infrastructure expansion is climate-resilient, strengthening the integration of climate resilience into planning through initiatives such as the Climate Change Expenditure Tagging system, Green Public Procurement and new Climate-Resilient Infrastructure Guidelines.
The Philippines has important foundations on which to build a more resilient and future-ready infrastructure system. The government has demonstrated policy and institutional strengths, creating opportunities to strengthen long-term planning and the quality of investment projects. Building capacity for strategic foresight and scenario-based planning can help pre-empt potential disruptions and further align infrastructure development with decarbonisation and adaptation pathways. Incorporating forward-looking climate projections and stress-testing infrastructure plans against multiple climate scenarios will be particularly important given the uncertainty surrounding the intensity and frequency of future extreme events. The expanded use of integrated cost-benefit and impact assessment tools – such as IISD’s Sustainable Asset Valuation (SAVi), Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) – offers significant potential to capture social and environmental benefits often overlooked in traditional analysis, helping to identify less environmentally disruptive alternatives while improving value for money. Embedding climate risk screening early in project preparation and incorporating lifecycle resilience costs – including maintenance, retrofitting and potential disruption costs – would further strengthen these appraisal processes. Nature-based solutions (NbS) can offer a nature-positive alternative or complement to grey infrastructure, reducing long-term climate impacts and costs while also supporting livelihoods and enhancing biodiversity outcomes. Building on the expanded use of public-private partnerships, there is further scope to broaden private sector participation, reducing the burden on limited public resources. Clear resilience standards, risk-sharing mechanisms and improved climate-risk disclosure can help attract private investment in climate-resilient infrastructure. With stronger co-ordination between national and local governments, supported by standardised guidelines, the Philippines’ gains can be scaled more effectively across regions.
At the same time, substantial reforms remain necessary to ensure infrastructure development is sustainable and inclusive. Climate risks and natural hazards continue to expose transport, energy and water systems to recurrent disruption and economic losses. Clear resilience standards, risk-sharing mechanisms and improved climate-risk disclosure can help attract private investment in climate-resilient infrastructure. The absence of a national net-zero objective, the incomplete integration of climate and environmental risks into project appraisal and the absence of standardised resilience criteria mean that infrastructure investments may still lock in emissions and vulnerabilities for decades to come. In addition, limited availability and accessibility of high-resolution climate-risk data and hazard mapping can constrain evidence-based infrastructure planning and investment decisions. Institutional fragmentation and overlapping mandates across more than twenty agencies weaken coherent climate and infrastructure governance, while local governments often lack the technical and financial capacity, as well as clear guidance from the centre of government, to implement projects effectively. Instances of mismanagement of public funds, including high-profile ‘ghost projects’ (i.e., fraudulent infrastructure projects that only existed on paper to justify the diversion of public funds) and substandard flood management works, undermine public trust and strain limited resources. Strengthening the legislative framework to better incentivise and de-risk private investment remains essential. Finally, social development outcomes – particularly gender equality – require greater attention to support gender equality and women’s empowerment, notably through mandated gender impact assessments and a strengthened role for the Philippine Commission on Women. Although the Philippines has a relatively robust enabling framework for gender mainstreaming in infrastructure, including national gender guidelines and sector-specific tools, implementation remains uneven and evidence on outcomes is limited.
This chapter assesses the Philippines’ national policy framework for sustainable infrastructure planning, delivery and financing. It consolidates analytical work undertaken by the OECD and its partners under the SIPA programme, complemented by literature review and desk research. The chapter begins with an overview of the country’s key sustainable infrastructure challenges, followed by an assessment structured around SIPA’s three analytical pillars: (i) the national strategic and planning framework; (ii) sectoral conditions for sustainable infrastructure project development; and (iii) sustainable finance mobilisation. In order to address the remining challenges, the following priority actions are recommended to strengthen the resilience, inclusiveness and sustainability of the Philippines’ infrastructure systems.
Strengthen long-term climate signalling for infrastructure planning. Establish an economy-wide net-zero objective and develop a Long-Term Low-Emission Development Strategy to guide sectoral pathways, improve policy coherence and provide clearer investment signals.
Integrate climate adaptation and disaster-resilience considerations into long-term infrastructure and investment planning to ensure that assets and systems are designed to withstand future climate risks and avoid locking in vulnerability. Develop national guidelines and certification standards requiring climate-risk data to be collected and applied throughout planning, appraisal and monitoring cycles. Ensure these guidelines incorporate forward-looking climate projections and require stress testing of major infrastructure projects against multiple climate scenarios.
Strengthen inclusive infrastructure governance and accountability. Embed participation, sex-disaggregated data and clear oversight mechanisms across planning, delivery and monitoring to improve project quality, implementation effectiveness and equitable and inclusive outcomes.
Improve project appraisal methodologies to capture full infrastructure value. Expand the use of integrated cost-benefit tools that account for environmental and social externalities, such as Sustainable Asset Valuation, to strengthen value-for-money assessments and accountability. Ensure appraisal frameworks also account for avoided damage and long-term resilience benefits.
Strengthen institutional co-ordination and strategic foresight. Clarify mandates across infrastructure agencies, institutionalise foresight functions within central planning agencies, and build local government capacity for project preparation and implementation.
Mainstream nature-based solutions in infrastructure planning and delivery. Integrate ecosystem considerations into project design and siting, protect critical natural assets, and leverage existing funding mechanisms such as the People’s Survival Fund and Build Better More programme to support local adaptation initiatives. Where relevant, promote hybrid infrastructure approaches that combine engineered and nature-based solutions for coastal protection, flood management and watershed resilience.
Improve framework conditions for renewable energy infrastructure. Streamline permitting procedures, building on mechanisms such as the Energy Virtual One-Stop Shop, to accelerate renewable energy deployment and grid modernisation.
Deepen sustainable finance mobilisation for infrastructure investment. Building on the Sustainable Finance Roadmap, diversify funding sources, strengthen pipelines for climate-resilient projects, improve transparency and disclosure, and expand participation by domestic institutional investors.
Expand effective use of public–private partnerships in infrastructure delivery. Strengthen PPP frameworks and financing structures to mobilise private capital while safeguarding fiscal sustainability and improving project execution.
The Philippines remains one of the countries most exposed to climate risks globally, ranking 10th on the Climate Risk Index in 2025 (Adil et al., 2025[1]). Climate-related hazards already place pressure on transport, energy and urban systems (Climate Change Commission, 2021[2]; World Bank; ADB, 2021[3]), disrupting essential services and generating significant economic losses. Typhoon-related losses are estimated at around 1.2% of GDP annually, potentially rising to 3.7% of GDP by 2030 when slow-onset impacts such as sea-level rise and temperature increases are considered (World Bank Group, 2022[4]). Mean temperatures have already risen by 0.68°C since 1951 and sea-level increased by 0.15 metres between 1940 and 2017; projections suggest that these trends will only continue to intensify. As a result, extreme events are likely to become more frequent and disruptive: for example, heatwave risk could increase by 52-76% by 2050, and sea-level rise may expose about one million Filipinos to coastal flooding by 2100 (PAGASA, 2018[5]; OECD, 2024[6]; World Bank; ADB, 2021[3]). These trends suggest that climate risks will remain a significant planning consideration, even as the Philippines continues to sustain strong economic growth and urbanisation, which are increasing demand for reliable infrastructure and services.
Climate change is also expected to affect all sectors of the economy, with capital-intensive industries exposed to extreme weather events. Urban areas face growing pressures from stormwater management challenges, land subsidence and increasing exposure of critical infrastructure to flooding. Poorer households – often located in higher-risk areas and more dependent on climate-sensitive sectors – are likely to be disproportionately affected (OECD, 2024[6]). Informal settlements in flood-prone coastal and urban areas further amplify vulnerability, particularly where infrastructure services such as drainage, water supply and transport remain inadequate. At the same time, the Philippines’ dynamic economic expansion and infrastructure development agenda provide an opportunity to integrate resilience more systematically into planning and investment decisions, helping ensure that growth translates into durable and inclusive development outcomes.
Investment in sustainable, climate-resilient infrastructure is a central part of the solution. To deliver the energy, mobility and urban services required by a rapidly growing economy, while also supporting adaptation to a changing climate, the Philippines will need to expand its infrastructure systems, but also to ensure that they are resilient to climate shocks. This requires not only building new resilient infrastructure but also retrofitting and adapting the maintenance of existing infrastructure assets that may have been designed under outdated climate assumptions. Well-planned infrastructure can reduce long-term costs by avoiding damage and service disruptions, strengthen productivity and connectivity, and help the Philippines meet rising demand for reliable infrastructure services. The following section examines the scale of the infrastructure investment gap and how targeted investment strategies can support both economic growth and climate resilience.
6.1.1. The infrastructure gap in the Philippines
The sustainable infrastructure gap is one of the key challenges of the Philippines’ economic and social development. Transport connectivity remains uneven, driving some of the highest logistics costs among ASEAN countries and constraining trade, market integration and access to essential services. The Philippines’ archipelagic geography, with over 7 600 islands and a population dispersed across wide distances, contributes to higher costs, even beyond the transport sector. For instance, the national power grid is divided into three separate island groups – Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao – limiting the integration of renewables and leaving many smaller islands dependent on expensive and polluting diesel generation. In parallel, the country faces a “resilience gap”, where existing and planned infrastructure may not yet be designed to withstand future climate conditions.
While quantification of the Philippines’ infrastructure gap is challenging, available estimates suggest that business-as-usual development could be more costly. World Bank estimates suggest that enhancing the climate resilience of vulnerable greenfield infrastructure would require additional annual investment of around 0.6% of GDP. Compared with planned public infrastructure spending of 5-6% of GDP under the Philippine Development Plan, this represents roughly a one-tenth increase in annual outlays. By contrast, climate-related economic damages under a no-adaptation scenario could reach up to 7.6% of GDP by 2030 and 13.6% by 2040, indicating that the resilience premium is modest relative to projected avoided losses. These findings suggest that the additional costs of climate-proofing infrastructure are modest relative to the potentially large economic losses avoided through reduced damage, faster recovery and improved service continuity. Similarly, at 2021 prices and without discounting, the World Bank estimates cumulative capital costs of the accelerated decarbonisation scenario in the energy sector at USD 127 billion, compared with USD 57 billion under the current policy scenario, implying an additional financing requirement of USD 70 billion. Similarly, the investment required for the accelerated decarbonisation program in transport is estimated at USD 126.6 billion through 2050, which would necessitate doubling the annual budget for low-carbon transport development by 2030 (World Bank Group, 2022[4]). Meanwhile, based on the Global Infrastructure Outlook for the Philippines, the country is projected to invest USD 429 billion in infrastructure between 2016 and 2040, while the estimated investment need over the same period is USD 498 billion suggesting in an infrastructure investment gap of around USD 69 billion1 (Oxford Economics, 2017[7]).
Infrastructure sectors such as transport, energy and water are highlighted as particularly critical areas needing greater investment (UNDP, 2022[8]; ADB, 2024[9]). Public finances have been strained by the COVID-19 pandemic: the national government’s budget deficit grew sharply in 2021, reducing fiscal space for development spending (ADB, 2024[9]) To strengthen alignment between planning and financing, the government introduced the Program Convergence Budgeting Framework, which integrates SDG priorities into the national budget process (NEDA, 2023[10]). Republic Act 11467 – sometimes referred to as the Sin Tax Reform Law – also earmarks 20% of excise tax revenues for SDG-related programs, including health and education services, though tracking and monitoring systems for these funds require further development (NEDA, 2023[10]). Private sector participation in infrastructure investment remains crucial. The Sustainable Finance Roadmap identifies gaps such as limited ESG standards, co-ordination challenges and low awareness of financing resources (Department of Finance, 2021[11]). Adaptation investments, specifically, often face additional financing barriers because resilience benefits are diffuse, long-term and difficult to monetise. To help mobilise investment, the Philippine SDG Investor Map outlines 12 opportunity areas, including renewable energy and transport, designed to channel private capital toward national development priorities (UNDP, 2024[12]).
Sustained and accelerated investment will be essential to bridge persistent infrastructure gaps and support inclusive growth. Figure 6.1 shows that the Philippines’ nominal GDP has grown by over 1.5 billion USD over the past decade, including a post-Covid recovery, reflecting both real economic expansion and inflation. Though an imperfect indicator – as it also covers machinery, equipment and private sector construction – gross fixed capital formation can be used as a proxy for infrastructure spending. This steady climb suggests that the Philippines is aligning with international benchmarks that recommend 5-6% of GDP for emerging economies seeking to close infrastructure gaps (Oxford Economics, 2017[7]). However, while the Philippines has steadily increased its gross fixed capital formation – from 21% of nominal GDP in 2014 to 24% in 2025 – the pace remains moderate relative to regional benchmarks (World Bank, 2025[13]). For instance, Indonesia’s gross fixed capital formation was between 29 and 33% over the past decade and infrastructure-heavy countries, such as China were consistently around 40% over the same period (World Bank, 2025[13]). Closing the infrastructure gap will also require ensuring that additional investment is channelled into resilient, sustainable and efficiently delivered projects, given the Philippines’ vulnerability to climate and disaster risks (World Bank Group, 2025[14]).
Gross domestic product (GDP) in current billion USD (left axis) and gross fixed capital formation as a percentage of GDP (right axis), 2014-2024
Source: Author’s elaboration based on World Bank (2025[13])
6.1.2. Sustainable infrastructure investments offer an opportunity for the Philippines’ long-term competitiveness and development
Bridging the infrastructure gap is essential for climate resilience and inclusive development in the Philippines, as major deficits persist across energy, transport, urban and water sectors. The energy sector is constrained by high fossil fuel dependence (67% of primary energy supply in 2022), limited grid flexibility, and a 40% foreign ownership cap that restricts investment in renewables, particularly offshore wind (Philippine Statistics Authority, 2024[15]; World Bank Group, 2022[4]). Energy infrastructure is also highly exposed to typhoon damage and flooding, highlighting the need for grid hardening, improved redundancy and more decentralised energy systems to enhance resilience. In transport, infrastructure lags behind demand surges from rapid motorisation, with vehicle numbers projected to increase fivefold and GHG emissions to quadruple by 2050, requiring USD 126 billion in investment for mass transit, rail and electrification (World Bank Group, 2022[4]). Urban areas, home to over half of the national population, are highly exposed to flooding, storm surges, and sea level rise, and rapid urban expansion in hazard-prone areas is increasing the exposure of infrastructure assets and populations to climate risks. Yet, urban areas suffer from poor enforcement of land-use plans and building codes, in addition to low penetration of energy-efficient buildings and incomplete flood management systems, such as the Metro Manila Flood Management Master Plan. These infrastructure gaps raise energy and logistics costs, reduce competitiveness, and disproportionately affect poor and vulnerable communities (World Bank Group, 2022[4]). In the water sector, per capita storage capacity is only 68 m³ – far below regional peers like Viet Nam (473 m³), Malaysia (722 m³) and Thailand (1 145 m³) – while Metro Manila faces a daily supply gap of 915 million litres, and Central Luzon requires 4,868 million m³ of additional storage by 2050, demanding an investment of USD 1.8 billion (World Bank Group, 2022[4]). Projected changes in rainfall patterns and increasing drought risk may further strain water supply systems, highlighting the need for integrated water resource management and climate-resilient storage infrastructure.
Investment in sustainable transport infrastructure is critical to the Philippines’ trade connectivity and broader economic growth. Despite recent reforms, the Philippines continues to face high trade and logistics costs relative to ASEAN peers (Figure 6.2), with infrastructure gaps undermining export competitiveness and limiting integration into global value chains (ADB, 2025[16]). These inefficiencies contribute to domestic trade frictions, with provinces trading 51 times more within themselves than with other provinces due to poor connectivity (Go, 2020[17]). Targeted investments like the Roll-On/Roll-Off (Ro-Ro) system have shown that improved transport links can reduce trade costs and raise incomes, especially in agricultural regions (Francisco and & Helble, 2017[18]). Improving the climate resilience of ports, roads and logistics corridors will also be critical to ensure that connectivity improvements remain operational during extreme weather events. Model simulations indicate that if the government delivers infrastructure investment more efficiently, long‑run output could be around 11.7% higher after 15 years, highlighting how strongly improved infrastructure supports economic growth (Komatsuzaki, 2019[19]).
Improving infrastructure could reap direct economic benefits and strengthen competitiveness. From 2017 to 2021, the Philippines consistently recorded higher freight transport costs than most of its regional peers. Freight rates ranged from 0.158 USD/kg in 2017 to 0.133 USD/kg in 2021, significantly above those of countries like Indonesia (0.043 USD/kg) and Malaysia (0.084 USD/kg) in 2021. Even compared to the regional average for Southern and Eastern Asia, the Philippines’ rates remain elevated. This pattern suggests that the country faces systemic inefficiencies in its transport and logistics systems, which may be inflating the cost of moving goods. For an export-oriented economy, such elevated freight costs can undermine competitiveness, especially for small and medium enterprises and sectors integrated into global value chains. These elevated costs are influenced by, amongst other things, geographical complexity, ageing infrastructure, particularly in major ports such as Manila, Cebu and Davao, which struggle to meet growing demand and lack integration with other transport modes (World Bank Group, 2022[4]). This suggests a clear need for strategic improvements in transport infrastructure and logistics performance, to reduce costs and enhance trade efficiency.
Transport cost intensity in USD per ton-km, 2017-2021
Note: National time series weighted for exports of all commodities to all trading partners; regional time series is a weighted average of all regional economies in the data set.
Source: Author’s elaboration based on UNCTAD (2024[20])
The Philippines continues to grapple with systemic transport infrastructure deficits, particularly in urban mobility and mass transit. Despite rapid urbanisation, the country’s rail network remains underdeveloped, with only four operational lines totalling 76.9 kilometres (NEDA, 2023[21]). Public utility vehicle modernisation – of vehicles such as jeepneys, buses and taxis – has slowed due to high capital costs and limited access to financing, leaving many commuters reliant on aging, inefficient fleets. Congestion in Metro Manila and other urban centres is exacerbated by poor integration between road, rail and maritime systems, resulting in long travel times and elevated logistics costs. Without co-ordinated investment in mass transit and active transport infrastructure, urban mobility will remain constrained and carbon-intensive (NEDA, 2023[21]).
Infrastructure is also central to the Philippines’ poverty reduction agenda, serving both as a driver of inclusive growth and a tool to address regional disparities. Despite strong economic performance – averaging 6.3% GDP growth from 2021 to 2023 and 5.7% in 2024 – the country continues to face persistent poverty, with 15.5% of the population living below the national poverty line in 2023 (Philippine Statistic Authority, 2024[22]; Philippine News Agency, 2025[23]). Poverty remains more prevalent than in several ASEAN peers, including Thailand (6.3% of the population below the national poverty line) and Viet Nam (4.8%), underscoring the need for more targeted interventions (World Bank, 2024[24]). Investments in transport, energy and water systems are projected to generate over 300 000 better-paid jobs and boost GDP growth by 0.8% over three years, directly contributing to poverty alleviation (World Bank, 2025[25]) However, infrastructure gaps remain a key constraint, particularly in rural and underserved regions, where limited connectivity and service delivery continue to reinforce inequality and slow the pace of poverty reduction (Komatsuzaki, 2019[19]). Hence, improving resilient infrastructure access in these regions can reduce vulnerability to climate shocks and support more equitable development outcomes.
6.1.3. The need for infrastructure aligned with climate and broader sustainability risks and commitments
The economic benefits of climate resilient infrastructure far outweigh the economic costs of its development in the Philippines. Making new infrastructure resilient is estimated to cost around 0.6% of GDP per year (World Bank Group, 2022[4]). By protecting vulnerable assets – particularly from typhoon damage – this investment avoids a large share of climate‑related losses, cutting the mean GDP impact of climate change from 3.7% to 1.2% by 2030 and from 11.0% to 3.8% by 2050 (a reduction of roughly two‑thirds) (World Bank Group, 2022[4]). Even allowing for crowding‑out of other investment, the avoided damage outweighs the cost, as strengthening the capital stock directly reduces output losses across sectors and supports broader development outcomes (World Bank Group, 2022[4]). Ensuring the continuity of critical infrastructure services during extreme weather events will be central to strengthening national resilience.
While still not a major emitting economy, the Philippines’ greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from infrastructure have grown steadily over the past decade, driven primarily by the energy sector. Between 2010 and 2020, emissions from the energy sector – excluding transport, an end-use sector – nearly doubled, rising from 53 Mt CO2e to 100 Mt CO2e, making it the largest and fastest-growing contributor (Figure 6.3). Transport emissions increased from 24 Mt CO2e in 2010 to 31 Mt CO2e in 2015 but slightly declined to 29 Mt CO2e by 2020. Industrial processes and waste sectors showed modest but steady increases over the decade.
In million metric tonnes (Mt) of CO2e by sector; 2010, 2015 and 2020
While the Philippines' primary energy mix from 2014 to 2023 shows encouraging growth in renewable sources, fossil fuels – particularly coal – continue to dominate energy infrastructure (Figure 6.4). Coal consumption nearly doubled over the period, becoming the second-largest energy source after oil, which also saw steady growth (Philippine Statistics Authority, 2024[15]). By contrast, renewable sources expanded more modestly and from a low base: solar, wind and biofuels increased, while geothermal and biomass remained broadly stable and hydropower fluctuated. The continued reliance on burning coal with its high emissions of particulate matter (PM2.5), linked to higher incidence of pulmonary disease, underscores the urgency for policies that accelerate clean energy infrastructure deployment and mitigate pollution-related health risks.
The Philippines’ primary energy supply remains heavily dominated by fossil fuels, whose share has increased markedly over time. Fossil fuels accounted for around 53% of total primary energy supply in 2000, rising to about 67% in 2023, while the share of renewable sources fell from 47% to 33% over the same period (IEA, 2026[27]). This shift has been driven largely by rapid growth in coal use, which has increased nearly five‑fold since 2000, far outpacing the more modest rise in oil supply of around 24% (IEA, 2026[27]). By contrast, renewable energy expanded by only around 20% over the period, with growth concentrated in solar, wind and other renewables, while hydropower remained volatile and bioenergy increased gradually Agency (IEA, 2026[27]). The continued expansion of coal – both the fastest‑growing and one of the most polluting components of the energy mix – underscores the need to accelerate investment in clean energy systems and address the associated air‑quality and health impacts.
Total primary energy supply by source in kilotonnes of oil equivalent (ktoe), 2014-2023
Addressing energy infrastructure gaps offers substantial economic, social and environmental benefits for the Philippines. Continued progress in electrification has already expanded access, and further investments to reach the remaining 5% of the population – particularly in off-grid communities – would improve livelihoods, service delivery and regional inclusion (NEDA, 2023[21]). Reducing reliance on imported fossil fuels and strengthening competition in generation and distribution could help lower electricity prices, enhance energy security and improve industrial competitiveness. Upgrading transmission networks and alleviating grid congestion, especially in fast-growing regions, would strengthen supply reliability and enable greater integration of renewable energy, supporting both decarbonisation and air-quality objectives. Grid modernisation measures – including improved redundancy, climate-resilient transmission infrastructure and enhanced system flexibility – will also be critical to withstand typhoons, flooding and other climate-related hazards that regularly disrupt electricity supply. While technical and institutional constraints – such as grid capacity limitations and permitting processes – continue to slow the energy transition, accelerated investment in transmission and storage infrastructure, building on recent institutional reforms such as the Energy Virtual One-Stop Shop, would significantly enhance climate resilience and long-term economic performance (NEDA, 2023[21]; DEPDev, 2024[28]).
Aligning infrastructure investments with economic, social and environmental sustainability outcomes requires that the national strategic framework in place provides clear qualitative and quantitative objectives for sustainable infrastructure development. The national strategic planning framework includes (i) governance and strategic policy frameworks, i.e., the processes, systems, and practices through which infrastructure decisions are made, as well as strategic plans, policies and programmes driving infrastructure planning; (ii) long-term planning tools backed by robust modelling, scenario-building and foresight capabilities; (iii) specific tools, methods and capabilities for mainstreaming sustainability into infrastructure planning and project-level appraisals.
The Philippines has made notable progress in embedding climate resilience into infrastructure planning, with national strategies increasingly referencing adaptation, disaster risk reduction and nature-based solutions. Infrastructure spending is projected to remain at 5-6% of GDP annually through 2028, and tools such as Climate Change Expenditure Tagging and Green Public Procurement have been introduced to support implementation. These initiatives provide an important foundation for aligning infrastructure development with climate adaptation and broader sustainability objectives. However, resilience integration remains uneven across sectors and levels of government. Large infrastructure projects are not systematically screened for climate risks, and institutional fragmentation continues to limit co-ordination and capacity, particularly among local government units.
Standardise climate resilience integration across infrastructure planning and delivery. While climate resilience is referenced in many sectoral plans, its application remains uneven and fragmented. A unified framework – supported by standardised guidelines, certification mechanisms and integration into project appraisal, financing and monitoring – can help ensure resilience is systematically embedded across national and local infrastructure systems. Such a framework should incorporate forward-looking climate projections and require climate-risk screening at the early stages of project preparation.
Strengthen climate-resilient asset management for existing infrastructure. Many infrastructure assets currently in operation were designed using historical climate assumptions and may be increasingly exposed to climate hazards. Developing national guidance for climate-resilient maintenance, retrofitting and asset management would help extend infrastructure lifespans, reduce repair costs and improve service continuity during extreme weather events.
Expand strategic foresight in infrastructure policy and planning. The Philippines has begun applying scenario-building and stress-testing in national planning. Institutionalising foresight methodologies and establishing a central unit can help future-proof infrastructure strategies against emerging risks.
Improve evaluation methodologies to capture non-market impacts. Traditional cost-benefit analyses often overlook environmental and social externalities. Approaches like the Sustainable Asset Valuation (SAVi) methodology offer a more holistic way of assessing infrastructure value and should be adopted more widely.
Mainstream nature-based solutions (NbS) in infrastructure planning and investment. Ecosystem services are underutilised in current planning, despite their role in protecting infrastructure and communities. Revising project selection criteria, expanding protected areas, and embedding NbS into procurement and planning tools can enhance resilience and reduce costs.
Enhance monitoring and transparency in infrastructure governance. While environmental safeguards are established at the permitting stage, monitoring across the full infrastructure lifecycle remains uneven. Strengthening reporting on ESIA commitments and conducting ex post reviews of environmental and social performance would improve accountability and alignment with sustainability objectives.
6.2.1. National governance and strategic framework for sustainable infrastructure development
Strengthening institutional capacity and sound multi-level infrastructure governance
The current institutional system for infrastructure planning is reactive rather than proactive. While national systems are well-developed for managing extreme events like typhoons, less attention has been given to gradual climate impacts such as rising temperatures and sea levels. Climate mandates are spread across 22 agencies with limited implementation capacity, and co-ordination bodies lack enforcement authority. This fragmented framework weakens climate policy execution at both national and local levels, hindering comprehensive and sustained climate action. This focus on disaster response rather than long-term risk management limits the ability of infrastructure systems to anticipate and adapt to evolving climate conditions. Similarly, large infrastructure projects are not systematically screened for exposure to physical or transitional climate risks. Neither climate risks nor the projects’ impacts on climate change are considered in the appraisal and selection of large projects (World Bank Group, 2022[4]; ADB, 2024[29]). This creates the risk that new infrastructure investments may inadvertently lock in climate vulnerabilities or high emissions pathways for decades.
Capacity constraints further limit mainstreaming climate resilience in infrastructure. Local governments, which play a frontline role in delivering infrastructure, face significant resource and technical gaps. While most have prepared adaptation plans, many struggle to conduct climate risk assessments or design resilient projects, undermining their ability to access financing and integrate resilience into investment pipelines, particularly in risk assessment and project design (OECD, 2024[6]). At the national level, co-ordination is fragmented across agencies such as the Department of Economy, Planning and Development (formerly the National Economic and Development Authority, NEDA), the Department of Public Works and Highways, the Climate Change Commission and the Department of the Interior and Local Government, with sectoral plans varying widely in their treatment of resilience. This fragmentation results in uneven application: the water sector has made resilience a priority, whereas the ICT and transport sectors show little systematic integration.
The Infrastructure Governance Survey, conducted by the OECD in 2024–2025, gathered responses from Southeast Asian countries with support from SIPA, including the Philippines, on how governments plan, deliver and oversee infrastructure development. The analysis of responses from the Philippines identified strengths and gaps in governance arrangements, highlighted good practices and provided recommendations for policymakers for strengthening infrastructure systems that are transparent, sustainable and resilient (see Box 6.2).
The Philippines has established several important foundations for sustainable infrastructure governance. The country operates a five-year national infrastructure plan that integrates sustainability by mainstreaming climate resilience and nature-based solutions, and includes targets for research and development, resource efficiency and environmental performance supported by project-level benchmarks. Life-cycle costing is applied to assess affordability and fiscal sustainability, with Ministry of Finance approval required for large projects. Procurement frameworks incorporate environmental requirements in technical specifications, mechanisms to detect abnormal bids, and e-procurement systems that promote openness and SME participation. Environmental impact assessments are mandatory, and environmental and climate data on emissions, risk exposure and biodiversity are collected and disclosed.
Building on these strengths, further reforms could enhance predictability, value for money, sustainability and resilience:
Strengthen long-term planning and monitoring by extending the infrastructure plan to at least ten years to improve predictability and attract private investment, introducing systematic monitoring benchmarks, and integrating resilience more deeply across sectors. Longer-term planning horizons can also help ensure that infrastructure investments are aligned with forward-looking climate projections and long asset lifespans.
Enhance value-for-money and affordability assessments by complementing life-cycle cost analysis with independent expert review of large projects to safeguard fiscal discipline and reduce political risks. These assessments should also incorporate climate risk and resilience considerations, including potential avoided damage costs and long-term maintenance requirements based on projected climate conditions.
Align procurement more closely with sustainability objectives by systematically applying life-cycle costing and environmental criteria in bid evaluation frameworks, while maintaining strong risk-management practices across the project life cycle. For example, incorporating climate resilience standards into procurement processes could encourage contractors to adopt resilient design and construction practices.
Deepen openness, integrity and inclusiveness in decision making by extending stakeholder consultations to later project stages, strengthening safeguards against bid-rigging and collusion, and easing SME participation through proportionate bond requirements and subcontracting opportunities.
Strengthen evidence-based decision making by establishing standardised frameworks to monitor procurement outcomes and environmental performance, and by assessing environmental benefits at award and construction stages.
Advance climate-resilient and nature-positive infrastructure by introducing systematic climate-risk screenings, climate-impact assessments of emissions for infrastructure projects, expanding biodiversity considerations, and scaling up the use of nature-based solutions – including hybrid grey-green infrastructure approaches that combine engineered and ecosystem-based solutions – across sectors.
Source: (OECD/ADB, 2025[30])
An overview of the Philippines’ national strategic framework for sustainable infrastructure
The Philippines has made important strides in infrastructure planning. The Philippines has made important strides in strengthening infrastructure planning and strategic direction in recent years. The Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2023–2028 and related sectoral strategies place infrastructure investment at the centre of economic development and resilience objectives, while the Build Better More programme has significantly scaled up public infrastructure spending across transport, energy and urban sectors (ADB, 2024[29]). These frameworks provide an opportunity to embed climate resilience more systematically across infrastructure sectors, ensuring that investments support both economic growth and long-term climate adaptation. In the energy sector, the Philippine Energy Plan 2020–2040 sets out a clear pathway to expand renewable energy deployment and modernise the power system, providing a long-term framework to guide investment and policy alignment (World Bank Group, 2022[4]).
The Philippines has adopted sectoral strategies to guide infrastructure development in line with its long-term vision and climate commitments (Table 6.1). The National Transport Policy (2017–2018) provides an integrated framework for multimodal transport systems – covering roads, rail, ports and urban transit – while embedding resilience and environmental safeguards to improve connectivity and sustainability (Department of Transport, 2017[31]). The National Renewable Energy Program (2020–2040) sets targets to increase renewable energy’s share to 35% of the generation mix by 2030 and 50% by 2040, supported by grid modernisation and investment incentives (Department of Energy, 2020[32]). The Climate-Resilient Infrastructure Guidelines (2022) mainstream climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction into infrastructure planning, promoting green construction and nature-based solutions (DENR, 2022[33]). Together, these strategies aim to enhance resilience, reduce emissions and ensure inclusive, sustainable infrastructure growth across key sectors.
Note: Department of Economy, Planning and Development (DepDev), Department of Budget and Management (DBM), Department of Transportation (DOTr), Department of Energy (DOE), Climate Change Commission (CCC), National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC), Office of Civil Defense (OCD), Public–Private Partnership Center of the Philippines (PPP Center) and the Office of the President (OP) are the leading authorities referenced in the national strategies.
The Build-Better-More (BBM) programme, part of the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2023–2028, includes 194 Infrastructure Flagship Projects (IFPs) valued at approximately PHP 9 trillion (approximately USD 160 billion). These projects, presented in Box 6.3, span physical connectivity (e.g., roads, bridges), public transport (e.g., rail, bus rapid transit), airports, ports, water resources, flood control, digital infrastructure, energy, irrigation and social infrastructure (e.g., health and education) (Office of the President of the Philippines, 2024[34]). Given the scale and long lifespan of these projects, systematic climate-risk screening and resilience standards will be critical to ensure that these new infrastructure assets are adapted to current and future climate change and to maximise their long-term value.
The medium-term investment pipeline reflects large-scale resource allocation to infrastructure with measurable budget targets. According to the Public Investment Program (PIP) 2023-2028, which is the government’s rolling medium-term plan listing Priority Programs and Projects (PAPs) and encompasses the aforementioned IFPs. Out of 5 329 PAPs, 3 770 are infrastructure-related, with a total investment target of PHP 17.3 trillion dedicated to transport, water, energy, ICT and other public infrastructure. This accounts for over 80 % of the total PHP 20.2 trillion PIP budget. The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and the Department of Transportation (DoTr) dominate the investment share, with DPWH accounting for approximately 58.6 % and DoTr for about 15.8 % (Philstar, 2023[35]).
There is substantial infrastructure coverage in economy wide strategies but sustaining implementation at the scale envisioned requires significant capacity and resources (NEDA, 2023[21]). The PDP 2023-2028 devotes an entire chapter to “Expand and Upgrade Infrastructure,” committing to increase public infrastructure spending to 5-6 percent of GDP by 2028 (NEDA, 2023[21]). Strength lies in the coherence of this medium-term framework with the long-term AmBisyon Natin 2040 vision, which highlights connectivity and mobility (NEDA, 2016[36]) However, weaknesses remain: infrastructure expenditure in the Philippines averaged only about 3 percent of GDP in the years prior to recent reforms, well below regional peers, leaving a backlog of projects and exposing institutional capacity gaps in procurement and implementation (ADB, 2018[37]). While strategies are ambitious and well-aligned, success will ultimately depend on the government’s ability to translate these commitments into timely, well-executed projects.
The Philippines’ Build Better More (BBM) programme is the flagship infrastructure agenda under the Marcos Jr. administration. It encompasses 185 high-impact Infrastructure Flagship Projects (IFPs) – which are the highest impact projects included within the Public Investment Program 2023-2028 – with a combined estimated cost of PHP 9 trillion (USD 162 billion), aimed at accelerating inclusive growth and regional connectivity. Operationalised through the NEDA Board-approved IFP Dashboard and aligned with the Philippine Development Plan 2023-2028, the programme prioritises transport, water, energy and digital infrastructure.
Climate resilience is a core focus of several IFPs, particularly in flood-prone and agricultural regions. The Cavite Industrial Area Flood Risk Management Project (PHP 9.89 billion) includes diversion channels and river improvements to protect 7 000 homes across 556 hectares from flooding. The Flood Risk Improvement and Management Project for the Cagayan de Oro River (PHP 12.54 billion) combines structural works – including floodwalls/dikes, river channel improvement (dredging and widening), floodgates/sluiceways, and retarding basins – with non‑structural actions such as flood‑hazard mapping and strengthened warning/operational protocols, in order to reduce flood risk and impacts from typhoons and intense rainfall that trigger river overflow and urban inundation. Irrigation projects such as the Bayabas Small Reservoir (PHP 2.44 billion) and the Tumauini River Multipurpose Project (PHP 8.58 billion) enhance water security and agricultural resilience amid growing drought risk. These interventions collectively strengthen the Philippines’ adaptive capacity to climate change.
Energy-related IFPs focus on enhancing energy security and renewable capacity, particularly in Mindanao. The Agus-Pulangi Hydropower Complex Rehabilitation (PHP 10.19 billion) aims to restore 417.1 MW of renewable energy capacity across four hydroelectric plants, ensuring long-term energy supply and supporting business activity in the region. The Jalaur River Multipurpose Project – Stage II (PHP 19.70 billion) includes infrastructure ready for future integration of a hydroelectric power plant, contributing to both irrigation and energy resilience in Iloilo. These projects reflect a strategic push to modernise energy systems while leveraging natural resources for sustainable development.
Major transport IFPs focus on enhancing connectivity and logistical efficiency. Major rail investments include the North–South Commuter Railway (PHP 873.62 billion), Metro Manila Subway (PHP 488.48 billion) and MRT-7 (PHP 68.19 billion), designed to reduce travel time and congestion across Metro Manila and surrounding regions. Road megaprojects such as the Daang Maharlika Highway (PHP 251.19 billion) and the Nautical Highway Network (PHP 57.96 billion) span Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao, improving logistics and regional connectivity. Flagship bridges like the Bataan–Cavite Interlink Bridge (PHP 219.31 billion) and an Inter-Island Link Bridge (PHP 187.54 billion) are expected to significantly reduce travel times and enhance inter-island trade.
The Philippine government anticipates job creation in construction and downstream through improved connectivity, market access and better access to health and education. Of the 194 IFPs, 67 projects are actively being implemented, including major ones like the Metro Manila Subway Phase 1, Mindanao Rail Project Phase 1, LRT 1 Cavite Extension, New Manila International Airport, and the North–South Commuter Railway. These projects aim to relieve urban congestion, enhance regional integration and promote balanced development across islands. This aligns with the PDP’s goal to reduce poverty incidence to single-digit levels by 2028 and boost competitiveness by lowering the cost of doing business.
6.2.2. Long-term planning tools: modelling, scenario-building and foresight capabilities
Despite having advance sectoral plans entailing decarbonisation, the Philippines has not set an economy-wide net-zero goal. Establishing such a target could provide a clear long-term signal to investors and planners, helping align infrastructure pipelines across energy, transport and industry with a consistent decarbonisation trajectory. A net-zero objective can strengthen policy coherence between national plans and project-level decisions, reduce regulatory uncertainty for public–private partnerships, and support the use of life-cycle costing and resilience standards already embedded in Philippine infrastructure governance.
In addition to a net-zero goal, the Philippines could benefit from adopting a long-term low emissions development strategy (LT-LEDS) following the model laid out by regional peers such as Indonesia and Thailand. Long-term low-emissions development strategies (LT-LEDS) provide countries with a clear vision for achieving climate neutrality while supporting economic growth (Aguilar Jaber et al., 2020[39]). They offer improve certainty for investors and policymakers, foster policy coherence across sectors, and engage stakeholders in shaping the transition. By signalling long-term priorities, LT-LEDS stimulate innovation, green investment and job creation, while embedding accountability through legal and institutional frameworks (Aguilar Jaber et al., 2020[39]).
In addition to supporting decarbonisation planning, long-term modelling and scenario-building tools can play a critical role in strengthening infrastructure resilience to climate change. Given the Philippines’ significant exposure to typhoons, flooding, sea-level rise and extreme heat, among other climate risks, integrating forward-looking climate risk projections into infrastructure planning can help identify vulnerabilities and inform adaptive investment strategies. Scenario analysis can enable policymakers to stress-test infrastructure systems against a range of climate futures, assess the resilience of major infrastructure assets and prioritise investments that reduce long-term climate risks. Embedding these resilience considerations within strategic planning frameworks would help ensure that infrastructure investments remain robust under uncertain future climate conditions.
Strategic foresight
Strategic foresight is increasingly vital in a world marked by uncertainty and interconnected disruptions (OECD, 2025[40]). Strategic foresight is defined by the OECD as a structured and systematic approach to anticipating, exploring, and shaping the future. Rather than predicting a single outcome, the methodology enables governments to stress-test long-term strategies against a range of plausible futures, including those shaped by environmental, technological, economic and geopolitical shifts (OECD, 2025[40]). Under SIPA, the OECD worked with the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA, since renamed the Department of Economy, Planning and Development) to apply this methodology to support the preparation of the medium-term Philippine Development Plan (PDP) supporting mainstreaming of resilience into the PDP (Box 6.4).
The OECD Strategic Foresight Unit partnered with the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) to conduct a collaborative foresight process aimed at stress-testing the Philippines’ strategies for achieving net-zero emissions and informing the preparation of the Philippine Development Plan (PDP). The exercise engaged 90 senior officials from NEDA and 16 other agencies, including the Climate Change Commission, Department of Public Works and Highways, and Department of Transportation, ensuring coherence across infrastructure, climate, and economic planning.
The process unfolded through three workshops:
Disruption Workshop: Participants explored ten plausible global disruptions for 2030–2050, such as sea level rise, green tech failure, AI leap, and climate despair, using futures wheel and cross-impact analysis to map cascading effects.
Scenario Workshop: Officials developed narratives of challenging futures that could undermine core assumptions guiding Philippine policy, such as infrastructure resilience and ASEAN integration.
Strategy Workshop: Participants identified policy implications for key priorities – job creation, inclusive growth, connectivity, emissions reduction, and emergency adaptation – and formulated scenario-specific strategies and “no-regrets” actions.
The foresight process catalysed strong conversations on embedding resilience into the PDP and led to concrete recommendations to mainstream climate resilience as a key metric of success in project cycles, including through standards, incentives, and procurement guidelines. It also informed the development of guidelines and monitoring frameworks for resilience, laying the groundwork for indicators in infrastructure planning. Additional recommendations included adopting a comprehensive Green Economy Masterplan with sectoral KPIs and institutionalising strategic foresight as a core component of technical assistance to local governments. The process strengthened anticipatory governance capacity, breaking organisational silos and equipping policymakers with tools to prepare for uncertainty.
The effective use of strategic foresight methodology hinges on institutional capacity and expertise, which the Philippines has already begun developing. To further support effective implementation of strategic foresight, the Philippines could:
Establish a long-term institutional structure for strategic foresight, including by forming a central strategic foresight unit with a clear mandate and sufficient resources (Monteiro and Dal Borgo, 2023[41]).
Invest in capacity building and provide training and resources to senior management and policy makers (Monteiro and Dal Borgo, 2023[41]).
Interact regularly with experts to gather their feedback and conduct impact assessments to continuously improve strategic foresight processes and practices (Monteiro and Dal Borgo, 2023[41]).
6.2.3. Credible climate commitments
While the Philippines lacks a net-zero goal, its current NDC commits to reducing cumulative GHG emissions by 990 MtCO2e (75% below business-as-usual projections) between 2020 and 2030. Reaching this target is estimated to cost USD 72 billion (CCC; DENR, 2023[42]). This commitment provides a strong headline ambition, but credibility depends on three factors: the share of unconditional action, the clarity of implementation pathways and the robustness of monitoring and finance. Only 2.71% of the target is unconditional, while 72.29% depends on international support (CCC; DENR, 2023[42]; Qiu, Seah and Martinus, 2024[43]; World Bank Group, 2022[4]). This reliance on external finance creates uncertainty for infrastructure investors and weakens the signalling effect of climate commitments unless accompanied by credible domestic policy reforms and financing plans. Implementation is guided by the Nationally Determined Contribution Implementation Plan (NDCIP) 2020–2030 and the NDC Gender Action Plan (2024–2030), which outline sector-specific policies across energy, transport, agriculture, waste and industry, but clearer prioritisation of bankable projects and timelines would strengthen accountability.
The Philippines has institutionalised a national framework for climate transparency through the Philippine Greenhouse Gas Inventory Management and Reporting System (PGHGIMRS), established under Executive Order No. 174. This is a major strength, providing the data backbone for credible climate commitments and evidence-based infrastructure planning. The system enables regular compilation of GHG inventories across seven sectors and supports alignment with the Enhanced Transparency Framework of the Paris Agreement. However, credibility would be enhanced by linking inventory results more directly to infrastructure pipeline decisions, procurement criteria and fiscal planning, ensuring that emissions trends trigger policy adjustments (Climate Change Commission, 2025[44]).
At the sectoral level, the Philippines has developed more detailed mitigation strategies. For instance, the Philippine Energy Plan (PEP) 2023-2050 and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act (RA 11285) include renewable energy targets of 35% by 2030 and 50% by 2040, transport modernisation through the Public Utility Vehicle Modernization Program (PUVMP) and industrial decarbonisation measures. These sectoral plans demonstrate strong policy coverage, but credibility requires cross-sector co-ordination and alignment with long-term infrastructure strategies to avoid lock-in of high-emission assets. The NDCIP estimates USD 72 billion in required investment, yet clearer sequencing of reforms, regulatory signals and PPP pipelines would help translate targets into investable infrastructure projects Linking adaptation priorities to infrastructure investment planning could also help prioritise investments that reduce long-term climate risks and protect critical infrastructure systems.
At the sectoral level, the Philippine Energy Plan (PEP) 2023–2050 and the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Plan (NEECP) 2023–2050 set clearer investment signals (Climate Change Commission, 2025[44]). Respectively, these plans target renewables at 35% of generation by 2030 and 50–57% by 2040, scale up energy‑efficiency measures across end‑use sectors, and advance transport modernisation through programmes such as the PUVMP and the EV roadmap. These plans sit within the legal frameworks created by the Renewable Energy Act (RA 9513) and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act (RA 11285), but credibility now depends on cross‑sector co-ordination and alignment with long‑term infrastructure strategies to avoid high‑emission lock‑in. The NDC Implementation Plan (NDCIP) estimates USD 72 billion in required investment to 2030; clearer sequencing of reforms, regulatory signals, and PPP pipelines would help translate targets into bankable projects. Linking adaptation priorities to infrastructure planning would also prioritise investments that reduce long‑term climate risks and protect critical systems (Climate Change Commission, 2025[44])..
Climate adaptation planning is more advanced than economy-wide decarbonisation planning. Adaptation planning is anchored in the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) 2023–2050, supported by the National Climate Risk Management Framework and a “Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, and Learning” (MEAL) system. This provides a comprehensive framework for resilience, but credibility would be strengthened by embedding adaptation priorities into infrastructure appraisal, budgeting and procurement standards, ensuring that resilience targets translate into project-level decisions (Climate Change Commission, 2025[44]).
Climate finance is tracked through mechanisms such as Climate Change Expenditure Tagging and the People’s Survival Fund, alongside international support. In 2023, USD 1.96 billion was mobilised for climate-related programmes, with loans comprising 88.72% and grants 11.28%. These tracking tools are a strong institutional asset, but the scale and composition of finance highlight remaining gaps relative to the USD 72 billion investment need. Strengthening domestic revenue mobilisation, blending finance for infrastructure pipelines and linking climate finance tracking to measurable mitigation and resilience outcomes would improve credibility and investor confidence (Climate Change Commission, 2025[44]).
6.2.4. Policy-level and asset-level sustainability evaluation tools integrating environmental and social considerations
The Philippines employs a multi-layered impact assessment methodology for infrastructure projects. This is done primarily through the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process overseen by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). This includes environmental risk analysis and proposed risk reduction measures, with a mandatory Environmental Clearance Certificate required before construction (OECD, 2024[6]). However, climate resilience is not yet a core criterion in project appraisal and approval. Stakeholders have criticised the lack of standardised tools and frameworks for assessing climate-related risks, resulting in vague integration of adaptation measures (OECD, 2024[6]). This gap underscores the need for robust, standardised methodologies to systematically evaluate and enhance infrastructure resilience. Introducing systematic climate-risk screening and resilience standards within project appraisal processes could also help ensure that infrastructure investments are better prepared for future climate hazards.
Extended cost-benefit analyses utilising methodologies that account for non-market impacts provides policymakers and investors with more holistic evaluations of infrastructure projects. Cost-benefit analysis is a form of economic appraisal often used ex ante to estimate the monetary value of the costs and benefits of a policy package within a particular geography over a set period of time; the outcome of which can be expressed as a benefit-to-cost ratio (OECD, 2018[45]). Developments in valuation methodologies have enabled policymakers to estimate the value of environmental amenities and disamenities which otherwise could not be accurately integrated into cost-benefit analyses (OECD, 2018[45]). However, the extent to which social and environmental costs and benefits are included in public infrastructure project appraisal varies highlighting the need for more holistic cost-benefit analysis.
The Sustainable Asset Valuation (SAVi) methodology, developed by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), provides an integrated approach to infrastructure appraisal that captures environmental, social and indirect economic externalities into financial analysis. Unlike traditional cost-benefit analysis, which often excludes non-market impacts, SAVi quantifies risks such as pollution, climate-related disruptions and social dislocation, and models their effects on financial performance indicators like net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR). This enables policymakers and investors to assess the full value of sustainable infrastructure investments over their life cycle. To ensure investments deliver maximum societal benefits while minimising environmental impacts, policymakers must adopt frameworks that integrate these wider considerations into transport planning and financing strategies. Under SIPA, IISD carried out a pilot assessment of an infrastructure in the Philippines and, through a series of capacity building workshops, trained policy makers in its use (Box 6.5).
A proposed mass rapid transit (MRT) system – including four bus rapid transit routes and one light rail transit line – aims to enhance connectivity and economic activity across Pampanga. The project is expected to improve transportation access, reduce congestion, lower travel time, and cut both CO2 emissions and air pollution.
In collaboration with NEDA (since renamed the Department of Economy, Planning and Development), IISD conducted a sustainable asset valuation (SAVi) assessment to evaluate the regional socio-economic and environmental benefits of the MRT system. The assessment identifies socio-economic benefits regarding congestion, commuting times, CO2 emissions, job creation, as well as avoided costs such as reductions in traffic accidents, vehicle operating costs and fuel consumption. The assessment indicated that the MRT system will generate significant economic, social, and environmental benefits sometimes overlooked by traditional assessment methodologies.
Overall, the MRT system would generate substantial cumulative, discounted benefits between 2023 and 2053. Time savings represent a major impact, valued at PHP 86 962.87 million, followed by avoided vehicle operating costs amounting to PHP 47 365.35 million. The SAVi assessment also quantifies CO2 emissions savings at PHP 5.08 million. These figures reflect the broader socio-economic and environmental benefits of the MRT system, which are often overlooked in traditional infrastructure assessments.
The inclusion of a broader range of economic, social and environmental costs and benefits integrated into the SAVi methodology is reflected in an estimated sustainable benefit-to-cost ratio (S-BCR) of 1.72 for the MRT system, which is considerably higher than the BCR of 0.62 estimated using traditional methods for assessing public infrastructure projects. This demonstrates that valuation methodologies integrating a broader range of societal benefits can allow policymakers to more accurately assess the value for money of prospective public infrastructure projects.
The MRT assessment also highlights the importance of scenario modelling and stakeholder engagement in infrastructure planning. SAVi simulations incorporated multiple risk and benefit pathways, including changes in property values, retail revenues, and employment creation. The methodology supports decision-making by revealing how sustainable infrastructure can outperform conventional alternatives when externalities are internalised. A methodological note accompanying the Pampanga assessment outlines the assumptions, data sources, and modelling steps used in the analysis.
Source: (IISD, 2024[46])
6.2.5. Mainstreaming resilience in infrastructure development
Integrating climate resilience into planning and development is a strategic imperative for the Philippines, which faces both increasing infrastructure demand and mounting climate risks. Rapid population and economic growth are driving the need for expanded and modernised infrastructure. For countries like the Philippines, which face severe coastal and riverine flooding risks, NbS such as mangrove restoration can provide effective protection while supporting fisheries and livelihoods. Nature-based Solutions (NbS) are measures that protect, sustainably manage or restore ecosystems to maintain or enhance their services while addressing social, environmental and economic challenges (OECD, 2020[47]). They can reduce climate-related risks such as flooding and drought while delivering multiple other benefits, including enhanced carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, improved water quality and recreational value (OECD, 2020[47]). International examples increasingly show the potential of these measures. For example, protected wetlands in the United States prevented over USD 600 million in property damage during Hurricane Sandy, and without mangroves, 15 million more people would suffer flooding annually (OECD, 2020[47]). In some cases, NbS can even be more cost-effective than grey infrastructure – for instance, across 52 U.S. coastal defence projects, they were found to be 2-5 times more cost-effective for moderate hazards – while creating jobs and generating long-term societal benefits (OECD, 2020[47]). Under SIPA, WWF developed a geospatial mapping tool to identify ecosystem service hotspots and gauge the potential for nature-based solutions in the Philippines (Box 6.6).
Nature-based solutions offer a cost-effective approach to resilient infrastructure in the Philippines. Healthy ecosystems across multiple provinces provide water regulation, flood control, sediment retention and coastal protection, supporting the resilience of millions of people and key transport networks. These ecosystem services play a critical role in reducing the vulnerability of infrastructure systems and entire communities to floods, drought, heatwaves and coastal hazards. Restoration of degraded forests could further strengthen resilience. Yet infrastructure planning does not systematically account for these ecosystem services, and only a small share of high-priority conservation and restoration areas lies within the Protected Area network. At the same time, large infrastructure programmes under Build Better More create an opportunity to treat NbS as “natural infrastructure” and avoid locking in environmental degradation.
Key actions to mainstream NbS into infrastructure planning:
Embed NbS in project selection and appraisal. Require ecosystem and biodiversity criteria in Infrastructure Flagship Project guidelines, ensure spatial integration of NbS in project design, and strengthen co-ordination with DENR monitoring teams within Environmental Compliance Certificate processes.
Update planning tools and data systems. Integrate NbS priorities into GeoRisk, DENR climate risk diagnostics and DPWH mapping systems to inform strategic planning and reduce long-term infrastructure costs. Improving the availability of spatial data on ecosystem services, hazard exposure and climate projections can support evidence-based infrastructure planning and help identify locations where NbS can provide the greatest resilience benefits.
Align investment and procurement frameworks. Require NbS assessments in the Public Investment Program Online System and PPP procurement, including routing justification, impact assessment and restoration strategies.
Expand protection of NbS priority areas. Extend the National Integrated Protected Areas System and recognise OECMs, while co-ordinating with infrastructure agencies and indigenous communities to avoid high-value ecosystems in siting decisions. Integrating infrastructure planning with landscape-level conservation strategies can help protect critical ecosystem services while reducing future infrastructure risks.
Mobilise financing for NbS. Use existing infrastructure and climate funds, including Build Better More allocations and the People’s Survival Fund, to scale restoration and ecosystem protection alongside infrastructure investment. Blended finance mechanisms, resilience bonds and payment-for-ecosystem-services schemes could further support the long-term financing of NbS projects.
Source: (WWF, 2024[48])
At the same time, non-structural interventions, such as improved maintenance, monitoring, emergency planning and early warning systems, can also play a key role in strengthening the resilience of existing infrastructure assets that may not have been designed for current climate conditions. Beyond reducing infrastructure vulnerability, these measures can also extend asset lifespans, improve operational efficiency, lower repair costs, and enhance service reliability (OECD, 2024[6]). Under SIPA, the OECD provided targeted guidance on mainstreaming climate resilience into infrastructure planning by strengthening project appraisal frameworks, integrating climate-risk screening tools and linking national plans with project-level decision making. Key considerations stemming from this work are summarised in Table 6.2 and the resulting roadmap of recommendations is presented in Box 6.7.
In response to the various challenges faced by the Philippines, SIPA proposed a 5-pillar roadmap to mainstream climate resilient infrastructure in the Philippines (OECD, 2024[6]):
Pillar 1: Establishing common guidance through standardised guidelines and climate-resilient infrastructure labels can help NEDA and infrastructure practitioners by defining resilience measures and setting minimum requirements across sectors that can be updated based on international benchmarks.
Pillar 2: Capacity building is also essential, ensuring infrastructure practitioners have the necessary knowledge, skills, and tools to integrate climate risks into planning and project design, including the use of nature-based solutions. Training sessions would develop the skills and knowledge of practitioners to better understand what is required by decision-makers so that resilience can be mainstreamed in project design and operation.
Pillar 3: Climate resilience should be incorporated into infrastructure assessment processes to ensure it is a key criterion for project approval, prioritisation, and validation at both national and local levels. This could be used in the prioritisation and validation of infrastructure projects and would be a complement to the work of NEDA’s Infrastructure Committee.
Pillar 4: A dedicated agency or unit within the Department of Economy, Planning and Development (DepDev) could be created to certify projects that meet climate-resilient standards. This agency/unit could certify the infrastructure projects cleared by the Investment Coordination Committee.
Pillar 5: Aligning financing mechanisms with resilience objectives is crucial, leveraging private sector involvement, donor engagement, and partnerships such as PPPs and cost-sharing with local governments to ensure sustainable funding for climate-resilient infrastructure. Facilitating the integration of resilience in funding mechanisms, whether at the budgetary level or for mobilising private sector resources, is imperative to effectively advance climate resilience within infrastructure development efforts.
Source: (OECD, 2024[6])
Resilience is not consistently incorporated into project financing, appraisal or monitoring (OECD, 2024[6]). Only 60% of the surveyed national agencies report conducting climate risk assessments, and these often focus narrowly on floods while overlooking slow-onset climate impacts. Expanding risk assessments to include hazards such as sea-level rise, heat stress and changing precipitation patterns would thus help provide a more comprehensive understanding of infrastructure vulnerabilities. At the local level, fewer than a third of LGUs integrate risk assessments into development plans. Monitoring frameworks remain incomplete, and resilience rarely determines project approval. Financing mechanisms are similarly misaligned: adaptation spending is concentrated on post-disaster response, climate expenditure tagging is partial, and PPP procurement criteria seldom include resilience, with adaptation measures perceived as additional costs (OECD, 2024[6]).
6.2.6. Mainstreaming gender considerations into infrastructure planning and evaluation frameworks
Gender equality is not only a social objective but a prerequisite for sustainable, high-quality infrastructure. When infrastructure is designed without considering gendered patterns of use, it risks excluding half the population from its benefits. In the Philippines, women participate in the economy and public life at among the highest rates in Asia, yet persistent gaps in access, safety and representation continue to limit their full participation. Transport insecurity, uneven access to water and sanitation, and limited opportunities in technical and leadership roles constrain women’s contribution to infrastructure-led growth. Infrastructure that responds to these realities, through safe mobility, equitable access to services and inclusive employment, can simultaneously advance social inclusion, productivity and resilience.
The Philippines has built a strong legal and institutional foundation for gender equality, anchored in the Magna Carta of Women (Republic Act No. 9710). This mandates gender mainstreaming in all government programmes, including infrastructure, and allocates at least 5% of agency budgets for gender-responsive initiatives (DPWH, 2016[49]). National frameworks such as the Philippine Plan for Gender-Responsive Development (National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women, 1995[50]) and the Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Plan 2023–2028 (Philippine Commission on Women, 2022[51]) reinforce these commitments, while sectoral agencies have begun applying gender analysis in project planning and appraisal.
However, implementation has not kept pace. Gender focal points within infrastructure agencies often lack authority to influence project pipelines, and mainstreaming efforts are frequently treated as procedural compliance rather than strategic value-add. Core planning documents, including the Philippine Development Plan (2023–2028) and the National Climate Change Action Plan (2011–2028), still lack gender-specific targets, indicators and accountability mechanisms.2
Embedding gender responsiveness throughout the infrastructure lifecycle is essential for equitable outcomes. Gender impact assessments at the planning stage can identify differentiated risks and opportunities, while structured consultations with women’s organisations and local communities ensure that infrastructure responds to real-world needs. During implementation, agencies can establish safeguards to prevent gender-based violence on construction sites and within resettlement processes, while inclusive procurement policies can expand women’s participation in technical, managerial and operational roles. In monitoring and evaluation, gender-sensitive indicators should capture both direct and indirect effects, such as time savings for women, safer mobility, enhanced access to markets and services, and reduced unpaid care burdens.
Robust data and financing mechanisms could make gender equality measurable and actionable. At present, sex-disaggregated data remain patchy and often limited to beneficiary counts. Establishing a national repository for gender-disaggregated infrastructure data, jointly managed by PCW, DepDev and the Department of Public Work and Highways, would strengthen evidence-based decision-making and enable systematic tracking of outcomes. The mandated 5% gender budget allocation could be made more impactful by explicitly linking it to infrastructure programmes and creating incentives for projects that demonstrate measurable gender benefits. Capacity-building efforts for national and local authorities, project developers, and financial institutions are also essential to embed gender perspectives in planning, procurement, and evaluation. Partnerships with universities, civil-society organisations, and development partners can further scale technical know-how and exchange good practice.3
To close these gaps and strengthen gender integration across infrastructure policy and delivery, the Philippines could:4
Strengthen national accountability mechanisms. Empower the Philippine Commission on Women (PCW) to oversee and report on gender outcomes in infrastructure, supported by clear mandates, resources and co-ordination mechanisms with DepDev and the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) evaluations (Public-Private Partnership Center, 2023[52]; OECD, 2024[53]).
Mandate gender impact assessments (GIAs). Strengthen and extend GIA requirements, building on the harmonised gender and development guidelines, for all major infrastructure investment projects ensure that differentiated needs and risks are identified and addressed early in the planning process.
Embed measurable gender objectives and indicators. Integrate clear gender targets within national and sectoral plans, linking gender metrics with resilience, accessibility and sustainability performance.
Link financing and procurement to gender outcomes. Align budget-tagging systems, PPP frameworks and performance incentives with gender-responsive criteria to promote equitable access and participation.
Expand the systematic collection, use and public reporting of sex-disaggregated data at each stage of the infrastructure cycle, from consultation and appraisal to employment, beneficiary outcomes and ex post evaluation. Establish a national repository for gender and infrastructure data to guide evidence-based decision-making and improve transparency.
Build institutional and technical capacity. Provide systematic training to national and local agencies, project developers and financial institutions on gender-responsive planning, procurement and evaluation.
The Philippines has advanced sectoral reforms in energy, transport and water, supported by expanded public investment under the Public Investment Program and Build Better More. Infrastructure allocations now account for a substantial share of the medium-term investment pipeline. However, persistent grid bottlenecks, high logistics costs, climate vulnerabilities and remaining investment gaps continue to constrain sustainable infrastructure outcomes. To strengthen the effectiveness and long-term sustainability of sectoral investments:
Accelerate and consolidate permitting procedures for energy infrastructure, building on the Energy Virtual One-Stop Shop (EVOSS) to reduce approval timelines and enable faster renewable energy integration and grid modernisation.
Enable effective EVOSS implementation through proper staffing and capacity development, especially at the local government level.
Address grid fragmentation and limited flexibility across Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, prioritising transmission upgrades and interconnection investments to improve renewable integration and energy security.
Develop and implement a co-ordinated national port modernisation strategy, aligning capacity expansion with freight demand, intermodal connectivity and logistics corridor planning to reduce congestion and trade costs.
Expand the Roll-On/Roll-Off (Ro-Ro) ferry network and upgrade major ports through structured PPP frameworks, combined with digital customs and logistics platforms to reduce dwell times and improve operational efficiency.
Reduce freight emissions by progressively tightening heavy-duty vehicle standards, supporting fleet electrification and alternative fuels, and aligning fiscal incentives with low-carbon freight investment.
Scale investment in climate-resilient transport infrastructure, integrating climate-resilient design standards and adaptation planning into transport systems to mitigate projected economic losses from climate-related disruptions. Prioritising investments in critical transport corridors and incorporating forward-looking climate projections into infrastructure design can further strengthen long-term resilience.
Strengthen implementation capacity and budget execution to close the infrastructure investment gap, ensuring that increased allocations translate into timely and well-executed projects.
While a robust national institutional and strategic planning framework provides a critical foundation for advancing sustainable infrastructure, it is equally essential that sector-specific frameworks align with overarching sustainability objectives to ensure coherent and effective implementation across the economy. Sector-specific frameworks refer to the set of policies, regulations, and standards that significantly influence investor decision-making by establishing obligations and shaping the conditions under which viable business models for sectoral projects can emerge. This section delves into the Philippines’ framework conditions for investments in sustainable energy, transport and industrial sectors.
6.3.1. Framework conditions for sustainable energy infrastructure development
Coal continues to dominate the Philippines’ gross power generation, while renewable energy sources remain significantly underutilised, highlighting a growth area in the Philippines’ energy transition (Figure 6.5). Coal output more than doubled (+123%) between 2014 and 2023, while total fossil‑fuel generation rose by about 60%, lifting fossil sources to nearly nine‑tenths of total output in 2023 (IEA, 2026[27]). Over the same period, renewable generation increased by around 25%, but its share fell from 14% to 11% as fossil output grew faster; within renewables, hydropower rose modestly (+13%) with year‑to‑year volatility, bioenergy expanded rapidly from a small base (+962%), and waste‑to‑energy declined -58%) (IEA, 2026[27]). Oil‑based generation contracted sharply (-77%), while natural gas was broadly flat to lower (-11%) (IEA, 2026[27]). These trends confirm a continued reliance on coal alongside gradual gains in renewables, underscoring the need to accelerate clean‑energy deployment and system integration to reduce the carbon intensity of the power mix (IEA, 2026[27]).
Gross power generation by source in terajoules (TJ), 2000-2023
Source: (IEA, 2026[27]).
The Philippines has substantial renewable energy potential across multiple technologies. Untapped hydro resources are estimated at 13.1 GW, geothermal at 4.4 GW, and onshore wind at 76 GW (World Bank, 2023[54]; Department of Energy, 2023[55]). Offshore wind potential is particularly significant, with 178 GW of technical capacity identified (World Bank, 2023[54]). Solar radiation levels range from 4.5 to 5.5 kWh/m²/day, indicating strong potential for solar PV deployment (World Bank, 2023[54]; Department of Energy, 2023[55]). Under SIPA, the OECD developed the Clean Energy Finance and Investment Roadmap of the Philippines to support the Philippines in its efforts to develop this potential.
Offshore wind development and grid integration have been identified as ways to increase energy security by reducing import dependence and improving system reliability. Offshore wind offers a strategic opportunity to diversify the energy mix, with an estimated technical potential of 178 GW – enough to supply 23% of electricity by 2050 (World Bank, 2023[54]), but the roll-out of offshore wind projects has faced regulatory barriers. While 79 wind energy service contracts representing plans for up to 62 GW were awarded as of 2023, the involvement of over 20 agencies in permitting has contributed significantly to regulatory fragmentation and delays (OECD, 2024[56]).
The Philippines is now running regular renewable energy auctions, but offshore wind projects will only proceed on schedule if the supporting grid and port infrastructure is built in time (Department of Energy, 2025[57]). The Roadmap recommended establishing clear offshore wind targets, aligning energy and maritime plans, and identifying suitable development zones supported by better data on sites, ports and the environment (OECD, 2024[56]). This planning work matters because offshore wind developers can only build once they have certainty that grid connections and suitable ports will be ready when required. Since the Roadmap was published, the Department of Energy has introduced a multi‑year auction programme running until 2035, which provides developers with predictable timelines for when new capacity will be procured. However, upgrades to ports and transmission networks are progressing more slowly than the auction schedule, which risks delaying construction even if projects secure contracts.
Permitting is becoming more structured, but the dedicated “one‑stop shop” for offshore wind still needs to be fully operational and integrated into the Energy Virtual One‑Stop Shop (EVOSS). The Roadmap advised creating a single, clear process for offshore wind developers to obtain approvals, backed by updated service contract rules and adequate staffing and digital tools (OECD, 2024[56]). The government has since created the Offshore Wind Development and Investment Council, and EVOSS continues to co-ordinate permitting across agencies. To translate this into faster project delivery, offshore‑specific procedures in EVOSS, clear service standards, and sufficient staff capacity still need to be completed and put into daily practice.
Auctions are moving forward, including the first dedicated offshore wind round, but pricing methods and contract structures for offshore wind still need to be developed. The Roadmap recommended creating a separate offshore wind category in the auction system, developing transparent and evidence‑based methods for setting price caps, keeping tariffs indexed to inflation, and encouraging long‑term corporate offtake agreements (OECD, 2024[56]). Since the Roadmap, the fourth auction round awarded about 10.2 GW of renewable capacity in 2025, and the country launched its first offshore‑only auction (3.3 GW) later that year. The next step is to ensure that the pricing rules for offshore wind reflect its higher development and construction costs, so developers and lenders can judge project viability with greater confidence (Manilla Standard, 2025[58]).
Financing conditions for offshore wind will improve if early projects are de‑risked; fast‑track approvals help, but guarantees and support for local lenders may also be needed. The Roadmap highlighted that offshore wind projects require long‑term debt and that this is easier to obtain when early risks – such as construction delays or cost overruns – are shared with public or international institutions through blended finance or guarantees (OECD, 2024[56]). The Board of Investments’ Green Lane has accelerated approvals for major renewable energy projects, helping developers move more quickly through administrative steps. Still, to bring in a wider group of commercial lenders, early offshore wind projects may require additional risk‑sharing tools, so banks can lend with more certainty (Philippine News Agency, 2023[59]).
Improving procurement rules and grouping public‑sector energy‑efficiency projects together are likely to have the greatest impact on investment. The Roadmap recommended allowing public agencies to enter multi‑year contracts, procure combined goods‑and‑services packages, reinvest energy savings, and use a public aggregator to prepare standard contracts and measurement approaches (OECD, 2024[56]). Government has taken steps by allowing agencies to reuse energy savings for approved efficiency projects, and audits and private aggregators are expanding. However, procurement rules still limit multi‑year and bundled contracts, making it difficult to scale energy‑efficiency investments. Testing small pilot exemptions using model contracts would allow the government to evaluate what works before applying changes more widely.
6.3.2. Framework conditions for sustainable transport infrastructure development
The transport sector in the Philippines contributes significantly to environmental degradation and pollution (OECD, 2024[6]). Emissions from road, air and maritime transport accounts for 14.4% of national GHG emissions, while urban congestion exacerbates air pollution. In 2023, transport-related CO2 emissions reached 36.5 million metric tons, and under current policies, these emissions are projected to quadruple by 2050 (World Bank Group, 2022[4]). Poorly regulated freight and passenger systems also increase noise and water pollution, particularly in densely populated areas . These impacts undermine public health and contribute to climate change, highlighting the need for low-carbon, efficient transport systems (OECD, 2024[6]).
Road transport is the dominant source of CO2 emissions in the Philippine transport sector, accounting for nearly 90% of total emissions in 2020 (Figure 6.6). Emissions from road vehicles remained consistently high between 2010 and 2020, while other modes such as domestic aviation and water-borne navigation showed more volatility, with aviation emissions halving between 2015 and 2020. Railways and other transport modes contributed minimally.
Total greenhouse gas emissions by transport subsector in the Philippines in million metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent (MtCO2e) for the years 2010, 2015 and 2020
In turn, transport infrastructure in the Philippines is increasingly exposed to climate-related hazards (OECD, 2024[6]). Typhoons, flooding and sea-level rise regularly damage roads, ports, and bridges, disrupting mobility and supply chains. Annual losses from typhoons alone are estimated at 1.2% of GDP, rising to 4.6% in extreme years (World Bank Group, 2022[4]). These risks are expected to intensify, with projections indicating a temperature increase of up to 2°C and more frequent extreme weather events by the end of the century. The resilience of transport sector infrastructure is particularly critical in an archipelagic country like the Philippines, where disruptions to key transport corridors can rapidly cascade across supply chains and regional economies (OECD, 2024[6]).
Investing in sustainable transport infrastructure offers long-term economic benefits by enhancing connectivity and trade (World Bank Group, 2022[4]). Estimates suggest that adaptation measures – including resilient transport systems – could increase GDP by up to 2.5% compared to a no-adaptation scenario (World Bank Group, 2022[4]). Improved infrastructure reduces service disruptions, lowers maintenance costs, and enhances access to markets and services (OECD, 2024[60]). Moreover, integrating climate resilience into transport planning can attract private investment and reduce the fiscal burden of disaster recovery, supporting inclusive and sustainable growth (see sections 6.2.5. and 6.2.6. for more information on linkages between climate-resilient and gender-responsive planning, including in transport, and economic and social benefits).
Decarbonising freight transport in the Philippines
Under SIPA, implementing partners – the International Transport Forum – undertook a series of regional freight transport studies covering Southeast Asia as well as national study on the Philippines. The regional assessments identified policy and investment pathways to enhance connectivity, decarbonisation and resilience (ITF, 2025[61]). Meanwhile, the completed national study Decarbonising Pathways for Freight Transport in the Philippines pinpointed a range of policies that can advance more sustainable freight transport across the archipelago (ITF, 2023[62]).
The Philippines faces significant environmental hurdles in its freight transport sector, primarily due to its overwhelming reliance on road-based logistics (World Bank Group, 2022[4]). Over 90% of domestic goods are moved by road, which contributes heavily to greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution (World Bank Group, 2022[4]). The adoption of clean technologies such as electric and alternative fuel-powered freight vehicles remains limited, hindered by high upfront costs and insufficient infrastructure to support widespread deployment. As a result, the carbon intensity of freight transport in the Philippines is projected to remain above global benchmarks unless ambitious decarbonisation policies are implemented. Without intervention, freight emissions are expected to rise by 69% between 2025 and 2050 under the Business-as-Usual scenario.
Promoting the adoption of electric and LNG-powered freight vehicles in urban hubs such as Manila and Cebu – supported by subsidised loans and tax incentives – can significantly reduce emissions. Modelling under the “high ambition – connectivity and decarbonisation” (HA-CD) scenario shows these measures could cut urban freight emissions by up to 18% by 2040. To complement these efforts, fuel efficiency and emissions standards for heavy-duty trucks should be strengthened in line with the Philippines’ Clean Air Act. Introducing low-carbon tax incentives can accelerate the uptake of alternative fuel technologies in domestic shipping. Scenario results indicate that a combination of regulatory and financial measures could lower the freight sector’s emissions intensity by 12-15% relative to business-as-usual (ITF, 2025[61]).
The Philippines faces some of the highest logistics costs in the ASEAN region. In some remote areas, logistics costs can account for up to 27% of retail prices (World Bank Group, 2022[4]). These elevated costs are exacerbated by aging infrastructure, particularly in major ports such as Manila, Cebu, and Davao, which struggle to meet growing demand and lack integration with other transport modes (World Bank Group, 2022[4]). The rail freight sector is virtually non-existent, limiting cost-effective inland transport options and placing additional pressure on congested roadways. Urban congestion in Metro Manila further inflates operational costs and delays, undermining the competitiveness of domestic and international freight services.
Under the business-as-usual scenario, freight demand is expected to increase by over 70% by 2040, yet limited network coverage continues to cause delays and elevate logistics costs. For domestic freight, expanding the Roll-On/Roll-Off (Ro-Ro) ferry network – particularly between Mindanao, Visayas, and Luzon – is essential to accommodate projected growth in inter-island freight volumes. Public investment in vessel modernisation and terminal upgrades should be paired with blended finance mechanisms to attract private capital for port expansion. Upgrading major hubs such as Manila, Cebu and Davao through PPP-backed investments in automated customs systems and digital logistics platforms can reduce dwell times by up to 15% and improve throughput efficiency In Metro Manila, urban freight efficiency can be significantly improved by introducing dedicated truck lanes and congestion pricing, easing traffic bottlenecks and cutting last-mile delivery times. To support international freight, strengthening cross-border maritime trade with Malaysia and Viet Nam via the ASEAN Single Window (ASW) will further accelerate customs clearance and enhance regional shipping integration (ITF, 2025[61]).
Strengthening disaster preparedness and deploying climate resilience grants are critical to safeguarding freight infrastructure from climate risks. Ports and logistics networks in typhoon-exposed areas such as Tacloban and Manila require resilient infrastructure planning that incorporates storm-resistant design standards and accounts for sea-level rise. Digital resilience tools – including early warning systems, real-time monitoring, and predictive maintenance – can further enhance supply chain adaptability. These technologies help reduce vulnerabilities, improve recovery times, and protect critical freight corridors from climate-related disruptions (ITF, 2025[61]). Integrating climate risk assessments into freight infrastructure planning can further strengthen the resilience of supply chains to extreme weather events.
The Philippines has taken steps to expand financing for sustainable infrastructure through the Sustainable Finance Roadmap and greater use of green bonds and blended finance. Despite this progress, funding remains heavily loan-dependent, private participation is limited, and resilience and gender considerations are not yet fully embedded in investment decisions. The following recommendations outline actions to strengthen financial sustainability and align infrastructure investment with climate and development goals.
Operationalise and refine the Sustainable Finance Taxonomy. Building on the 2024 taxonomy, authorities should issue detailed sector-specific guidance, clarify supervisory expectations for classification and disclosure, and integrate taxonomy criteria into banks’ risk assessment and reporting frameworks. Targeted capacity-building for smaller financial institutions and MSMEs, including technical assistance and simplified guidance tools, will be essential to ensure consistent application and avoid disproportionate compliance burdens.
Strengthen financing for sustainable infrastructure. While the Philippines has developed multiple frameworks, including the Sustainable Finance Roadmap, the Sustainable Finance Guiding Principles and BSP Circular No. 1187, further progress will require clearer co-ordination across supervisory authorities, targeted capacity-building for financial institutions to assess climate and environmental risks, and closer alignment with international standards to support consistent implementation and the scaling up of green investment.
Promote responsible business practices in infrastructure. As private sector involvement grows, integrating RBC principles – such as due diligence, stakeholder engagement and environmental safeguards – into procurement, PPPs and investment promotion can help mitigate risks and support financing sustainable infrastructure.
6.4.1. Green taxonomies
Financing for sustainable infrastructure in the Philippines has shown emerging momentum in recent years, particularly through labelled debt instruments. In 2022, Philippine issuers raised USD 2.25 billion in green bonds, marking a significant increase in sustainable finance activity and signalling growing investor interest in climate-aligned investments (ADB, 2022[63]). Despite this progress, sustainable finance remains in the early stages of mainstreaming in the Philippines. According to the 2023 BSP Sustainability Report, the country advanced from the “Developing” to the “Advancing” stage under the Financing Sustainability pillar of the Sustainable Banking and Finance Network (SBFN) measurement framework, reflecting emerging institutional frameworks and market activity but still indicating that sustainable finance has not yet reached widespread integration or scale relative to broader infrastructure financing needs (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 2023[64]). These trends highlight both the growing role of sustainable finance in supporting infrastructure development and the importance of clear standards and frameworks to support further market expansion.
The development of a green taxonomy is a foundational step for channelling capital toward sustainable infrastructure and economic activities, as it provides a common language and clear criteria for what qualifies as environmentally sustainable investment (OECD, 2020[65]). By establishing a credible and transparent reference point, a taxonomy can help reduce the risk of greenwashing and improve the reliability of sustainability claims in the market (OECD, 2020[65]). Taxonomies also support financial institutions in integrating climate considerations into risk management and investment decisions. Recent OECD analysis further highlights that robust taxonomies support the scaling up of green bonds and climate-related investment funds by giving investors and issuers confidence in the environmental integrity of labelled financial products (OECD, 2024[66]).
The Philippines has taken an important first step in adopting a national green taxonomy. The Philippine Sustainable Finance Taxonomy Guidelines (SFTG), adopted by the Central Bank of the Philippines (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas) in February 2024, provide a principles-based framework for classifying economic activities as environmentally and socially sustainable, aiming to direct capital flows toward climate change mitigation and adaptation, enhance transparency, and minimise greenwashing (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 2024[67]). Extensively drawing on the ASEAN Taxonomy’s Foundation Framework and tailored to the Philippine context, the SFTG uses a “traffic light” system (Green, Amber, Red) to assess activities based on their contribution to environmental objectives, compliance with laws, avoidance of significant harm, and adherence to minimum social safeguards (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 2024[67]). It prioritises sectors such as energy, transport, waste, industry and agriculture, while also recognising enabling sectors and the importance of MSMEs. The guidelines require banks and financial institutions to apply the taxonomy in lending, investment, and product development, and include a simplified approach for MSMEs to ensure inclusivity. Banks were given until the end of 2024 to familiarise themselves with the SFTG, after which regulatory reporting began in 2025. The SFTG is designed to evolve over time, with future iterations expected to incorporate additional environmental and social objectives (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 2024[67]).
Civil society groups and advocacy coalitions encouraged broader integration of environmental and social criteria, as well as ongoing stakeholder engagement, to ensure the taxonomy remains inclusive and responsive to national priorities such as agrarian rights and a just energy transition (Fair Finance Philippines, 2023[68]) Additionally, some market participants and analysts have highlighted the importance of maintaining interoperability with global standards and providing clear guidance for transition activities, to support the credibility and effectiveness of the taxonomy as the sustainable finance landscape evolves (Institute for Energy Economics and Fincancial Analysis, 2023[69])The simplified assessment approach for MSMEs is designed to promote inclusivity and avoid unintended exclusion, though ongoing support and capacity building may be needed to ensure effective participation (Securities and Exchange Commission, 2024[70]).
6.4.2. Sustainable and green finance instruments
The Philippines’ sustainable bond market
The Philippines’ sustainable bond market grew by 5.3% quarter-on-quarter, reaching USD 14.3 billion at the end of June 2025 (ADB, 2025[71]). Despite this increase, it remained one of the smallest in emerging East Asia, accounting for just 2.0% of the region’s total sustainable bond market. Sustainability bonds continued to dominate, representing 87.2% of the country’s outstanding sustainable debt, while green bonds and sustainability-linked bonds comprised 11.1% and 1.7%, respectively (ADB, 2025[71]).
The share of sustainable bonds in the Philippines’ overall bond market remains modest but has increased steadily in recent years (Figure 6.7). Between early 2022 and mid-2025, total local and foreign currency bonds outstanding rose from about USD 270 billion to over USD 330 billion, while the stock of ESG bonds grew from roughly USD 7 billion to more than USD 14 billion. As a result, the proportion of ESG instruments nearly doubled, rising from around 2% to over 4% of total outstanding bonds. Although still small in absolute terms, this upward trend indicates gradual mainstreaming of sustainable finance within the Philippine bond market. Policy efforts to broaden the green and social bond pipeline, strengthen disclosure frameworks, and harmonise local standards with international taxonomies could help accelerate this transition and attract a wider investor base to Philippine ESG instruments.
Total bonds outstanding and green, social, sustainability, sustainability-linked, transition and transition-linked bonds (both in billion USD, left axis); percentage of total outstanding bonds that are green (right axis)
Note: Absolute amount of local currency (LCY) and foreign currency (FCY) bonds outstanding (converted to USD) and consolidated absolute outstanding amount of green, social, sustainability, sustainability-linked, transition and transition-linked bonds (also LCY and FCY). The right axis shows the percentage of outstanding LCY+FCY bonds that are ESG.
Source: (ADB, 2025[72])
Outstanding sustainable bonds in the Philippines have grown markedly since 2022, driven by sustainability bonds, which account for the bulk of the market. Figure 6.8 shows the continued dominance of sustainability bonds in the first half of 2025 and stable LCY shares, but full-year figures may be significantly higher. Meanwhile, green bonds peaked in 2023 but have since moderated. Social bonds remain relatively low and sustainability-linked bonds are marginal despite recent growth. The share of local currency bonds has declined from 40% in 2022 to around 30% in recent years, suggesting increased foreign currency exposure. These trends highlight the need to deepen the local currency sustainable bond market to mitigate foreign exchange risks and to diversify instruments beyond sustainability bonds to support broader social and environmental objectives (IMF, 2020[73]).
Outstanding LCY and FCY sustainable bonds (in million USD) by bond type (left axis) and percentage of sustainable and green bonds outstanding in foreign currency (right axis).
Source: (ADB, 2025[72])
The Philippines’ strategic framework for sustainable finance
The Philippine Central Bank acknowledges the strong economic rationale to transition to sustainable financial frameworks. Climate change poses both physical and financial risks to the stability of individual financial institutions and the broader financial system underlining the need for prudent macroeconomic policy. For insurers, increasing climate-related physical risks could increase the frequency and severity of claims, potentially making some assets uninsurable (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 2024[74]). For banks, properties used as loan collateral may lose value, and borrowers – especially in sectors like agriculture – could face higher default risks (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 2024[74]). This highlights the importance of mobilising green finance to mitigate and adapt to climate risks.
Sustainable finance has gained institutional traction in the Philippines through a series of published frameworks and guidelines (Table 6.3). The Philippine Sustainable Finance Roadmap (2021) established a national strategy for integrating climate and sustainability into financial systems (Department of Finance, 2021[11]) This was complemented by the Sustainable Finance Guiding Principles, which outline criteria for identifying sustainable economic activities (Department of Finance, 2021[75]). In 2024, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) issued Circular No. 1187, adopting the Sustainable Finance Taxonomy Guidelines to classify sustainable activities and guide financial institutions in lending and investment decisions (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 2024[67]). Further clarification was provided through Memorandum No. M-2025-025, detailing implementation procedures.
Note: Department of Finance (DOF), Climate Change Commission (CCC), Inter-Agency Technical Working Group for Sustainable Finance (ITSF), Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Department for Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
The Philippines is implementing a Sustainable Finance Roadmap to integrate sustainability across its financial and economic systems. The roadmap prioritises embedding climate and environmental considerations into macroeconomic policy, strengthening climate-related financial risk management, and improving transparency through sustainability disclosures. Institutional co-ordination is being enhanced through the Inter-Agency Technical Working Group for Sustainable Finance (ITSF), which is exploring the creation of a Center of Excellence to support knowledge sharing and capacity building (Department of Finance, 2021[11]). Regulatory measures such as the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Environmental and Social Risk Management System and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sustainability reporting guidelines reinforce alignment with international frameworks, including the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) and the Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) (Department of Finance, 2021[11]).
The roadmap also focuses on expanding the availability and accessibility of sustainable financial products to meet the country’s climate and development goals. Key actions include promoting green, social, and sustainability bonds, developing a principles-based taxonomy aligned with ASEAN and EU standards, and improving data systems such as the National Integrated Climate Change Database and Information Exchange System (NICCDIES) and Climate Change Expenditure Tagging (CCET) to better track financial flows (Department of Finance, 2021[11]). The government aims to build a strong pipeline of sustainable investments through a national project database and targeted financial instruments—such as partial credit guarantees, revolving funds, and energy savings insurance – to mobilise capital for low-carbon energy and energy efficiency projects. These initiatives are designed to align investment with the Philippine Development Plan (PDP), Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), and the National Climate Change Action Plan (NCCAP), supporting a transition to an inclusive, resilient, and low-carbon economy (Department of Finance, 2021[11]).
The Philippines is laying the groundwork for a national carbon market through the proposed Low Carbon Economy Investment Act (House Bill No. 11375) (House of Senate, 2025[76]). The Bill aims to institutionalise carbon pricing as a tool for climate mitigation. The bill establishes a carbon emission pricing framework that includes emissions allowances, offsetting mechanisms, and penalties for excess emissions. The Climate Change Commission (CCC) is mandated to allocate annual emissions caps to covered enterprises and set carbon prices based on both mitigation and resilience cost components. Enterprises exceeding their caps must contribute to a decarbonisation fund, which can be used for internal reductions, certified offsets, or investments in low-carbon technologies. The bill also enables participation in international carbon markets under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement and mandates a robust monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) system to ensure compliance and transparency.
Policy priorities for sustainable finance in the Philippines
Given the Philippines’ limited fiscal space, the financial sector has a critical role to play in mobilising private capital for climate mitigation and adaptation, while also managing its own exposure to climate-related risks (Khalil et al., 2024[77]). A deeper and more diverse financial market is central to financing climate-resilient growth. Expanding access to instruments such as green, social and sustainability bonds can channel long-term investment into renewable energy, infrastructure, and adaptation projects (ADB, 2024[9]).Developing clear standards for these instruments, alongside measures to improve liquidity and investor confidence, will help mobilise private finance for sustainable objectives. Diversifying funding sources in this way would also reduce reliance on traditional borrowing and strengthen the financial system’s ability to support inclusive and climate-aligned development (World Bank, 2024[78]).
Building strong institutional systems and effective public financial management (PFM) is essential to ensure that climate resources are allocated and used efficiently. Sustainable finance in the Philippines is still at an early stage of development, with limited mechanisms for implementing and monitoring climate expenditure (ADB, 2024[9]). Strengthening budget planning, procurement, and expenditure tracking will enhance transparency and credibility in climate spending. Improved co-ordination between central and local institutions, supported by climate-budget tagging and regular monitoring, would allow public funds to be better aligned with resilience and low-emission priorities while safeguarding fiscal discipline (World Bank, 2024[78]).
Local governments are key implementers of climate adaptation but often lack the financial capacity to act. Strengthening subnational access to finance – through improved fiscal management systems, technical support, and predictable funding flows – could enable provinces and cities to invest in climate-resilient infrastructure and services (ADB, 2024[9]; World Bank, 2024[78]). Establishing frameworks for green municipal bonds, performance-based climate funds, or pooled financing facilities can help local authorities access capita.
6.4.3. Responsible business conduct framework
Infrastructure development in energy, industry and transport is associated with increased risks related to human rights, labour rights, environmental impacts and business integrity. As governments involve the private sector across the entire infrastructure lifecycle – from planning and financing to delivery, operation, maintenance and decommissioning – Responsible Business Conduct (RBC) plays an increasingly prominent role in the infrastructure sector. With private actors playing a growing role in financing and delivering sustainable infrastructure, attention is shifting to the broader social and environmental impacts of business activities. RBC provides a set of principles to help both public and private stakeholders steer infrastructure development in a more sustainable and responsible manner.
RBC helps improve the sustainability performance of infrastructure investments. By applying RBC principles and standards – particularly risk-based due diligence – companies and investors are better able to identify, prevent and address potential adverse impacts of their infrastructure activities on people, planet and society. Infrastructure projects and their related supply chains can have impacts related to human and labour rights, the environment and climate change, as well as anti-corruption. In this context, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on RBC, together with the Due Diligence Guidance, provide key international standards (OECD, 2018[79]).
Creating the right policy and regulatory environment is essential for governments to promote and enable RBC. The OECD Recommendation on the Role of Government in Promoting RBC underlines that governments should not only develop and implement laws and policies that encourage RBC but also exemplify RBC in their economic and commercial activities. In the infrastructure context, this involves establishing legal frameworks covering human rights, labour rights, environment and anti-corruption as well as implementing state policies on investment promotion and facilitation, public procurement, finance and the governance of state-owned enterprises, as well as efforts to promote meaningful stakeholder engagement and access to remedy (OECD, 2022[80]). Such an enabling environment, in turn, helps countries “keep and attract high quality and responsible investors”.
Under SIPA, the OECD led a review of RBC policies for sustainable infrastructure development in the Philippines. As the private sector’s role in infrastructure investment and development increases to meet the Philippines infrastructure demands, responsible business conduct becomes increasingly important. Despite infrastructure investments historically being the domain of the public sector, private sector investment will be required to fill the global infrastructure investment gap of around USD 2.5-3 trillion annually (World Bank, 2022[81]). Growing private sector involvement draws into sharper focus the broader social and environmental impact of business activities. In this context, RBC principles offer a framework to guide both public and private sector actors in supporting sustainable infrastructure initiatives (OECD, 2024[53]).
To institutionalise RBC, the Philippines should adopt a National Action Plan on RBC or integrate RBC into its Business and Human Rights framework (OECD, 2024[53]). While sectoral laws exist, there is no overarching strategy, and RBC is often interpreted as philanthropy rather than a regulatory standard. Embedding RBC indicators—such as ESIA completion, FPIC adherence, and grievance mechanisms—into the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) Result Matrix would enable systematic monitoring and incentivise compliance.
Human rights protections must be strengthened, particularly for Indigenous communities and human rights defenders (OECD, 2024[53]). Projects such as Kaliwa Dam and GENED-1 have raised concerns over displacement and contested FPIC procedures. FPIC is recognised in domestic law, but oversight is inconsistent. The Commission on Human Rights should be resourced to monitor compliance and provide remedies, while project-level FPIC processes must be documented and aligned with customary practices.
Labour rights enforcement must be scaled up to address informality and poor compliance in infrastructure sectors (OECD, 2024[53]). Despite a strong legal framework and ratification of key ILO conventions, infrastructure-related sectors show lower compliance with labour standards and occupational safety. There are an estimated 30,000–45,000 unlicensed contractors compared to 15,533 licensed ones. Public procurement and PPP contracts should require contractor licensing and OHS compliance, while training programmes should support transitions to green jobs.
Environmental safeguards must evolve from procedural checks to proactive risk management (OECD, 2024[53]). The Philippines is highly vulnerable to climate change, and infrastructure projects have caused oil spills, deforestation, and pollution. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) system and Environmental Clearance Certificates (ECCs) should integrate climate adaptation and nature-based solutions throughout project lifecycles. Integrating climate risk assessments into environmental safeguards would help ensure that infrastructure projects are resilient to future climate hazards.
Corruption remains a major risk in infrastructure delivery. Despite legal frameworks and initiatives such as the Integrity Initiative and online blacklisting, procurement vulnerabilities persist (OECD, 2024[53]). Anti-corruption clauses should be embedded in procurement and PPP contracts, and transparency mechanisms should be scaled up. Recent high-profile scandals involving infrastructure projects, notably flood control projects (Box 6.10), indicate that current accountability mechanisms are insufficient to prevent improper use of funds.
Investigations into recent flood-control programmes in the Philippines illustrate how weak oversight and contractor concentration can divert large public resources away from effective infrastructure. Reports cited in the UP CIDS policy brief describe irregularities affecting projects worth over PHP 545 billion (about USD 9.5 billion) since 2022, with a significant share of contracts reportedly awarded to a small number of firms and some projects found to be non-existent or poorly executed. Estimates suggest that corruption in flood-control spending may have cost PHP 42-118 billion (USD 0.7-2 billion) per year, highlighting the fiscal scale of losses in a country highly exposed to climate-related flooding.
The case underscores how corruption and mismanagement can weaken climate resilience while absorbing scarce public funds. Strengthening procurement transparency, independent audits, competitive bidding, and project-level monitoring – alongside publishing contract data and linking budgets to verified completion – are essential to protect public resources and ensure infrastructure investments deliver real resilience and development outcomes.
Sustainable finance and investment promotion offer powerful levers to embed RBC. The Philippines has made progress through BSP Circular No. 1085 and SEC sustainability reporting, aligned with global standards. RBC expectations should be integrated into green bonds, guarantees, and fiscal incentives. Investment promotion frameworks should condition incentives on demonstrable RBC compliance, including ESIA completion and stakeholder engagement (OECD, 2024[53]).
Public procurement, PPPs, and SOEs must lead by example. The Government Procurement Reform Act includes RBC-relevant clauses, but bidding documents lack references to climate resilience and broader RBC risks. The PPP Code mandates environmental and social safeguards, but gaps remain in standardised procedures and LGU capacity. SOEs, which committed USD 7.5 billion to infrastructure in 2021, should expand governance frameworks to include risk-based due diligence and stakeholder engagement reporting (OECD, 2024[53]).
Stakeholder engagement and access to remedy must be institutionalised. While FPIC and public consultation are legally required, implementation is inconsistent. NEDA should issue national guidance on meaningful engagement and require operational grievance mechanisms in all infrastructure contracts. The Commission on Human Rights and the UN Joint Programme on Human Rights provide a foundation for expanding access to remedy (OECD, 2024[53]). Clearer procedures and representation expectations for women’s participation in planning, consultation and advisory bodies should also be included, rather than relying on general commitments for stakeholder engagement alone.
References
[72] ADB (2025), Asian Bonds Online, https://asianbondsonline.adb.org/data-portal/?indicator=LCY_Bond_Market_USD&economies=PH&years=2022\u005e2023\u005e2024\u005e2025.
[16] ADB (2025), From Potential to Progress: Future-Proofing Philippine Growth, https://www.adb.org/news/features/potential-progress-future-proofing-philippine-growth.
[71] ADB (2025), Philippines Market Summary, https://asianbondsonline.adb.org/philippines/market-summary/.
[9] ADB (2024), Asian Development Bank (2024). Philippines: Country Partnership Strategy (2024–2029)., https://www.adb.org/documents/philippines-country-partnership-strategy-2024-2029.
[29] ADB (2024), Proposed Policy-Based Loan for Subprogram 2, https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/project-documents/55268/55268-003-rrp-en.pdf.
[63] ADB (2022), Survey on green bonds and sustainable finance in ASEAN, https://www.adb.org/publications/survey-green-bonds-sustainable-finance-asean.
[37] ADB (2018), Philippines: Country Partnership Strategy (2018-2023), https://www.adb.org/documents/philippines-country-partnership-strategy-2018-2023.
[1] Adil, L. et al. (2025), Climate risk index 2025, https://www.germanwatch.org/en/cri.
[39] Aguilar Jaber, A. et al. (2020), “Long-term low emissions development strategies: Cross-country experience”, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 160, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c1d8005-en.
[74] Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (2024), Annual Report, https://www.bsp.gov.ph/Media_And_Research/Annual%20Report/AnnRep_2024.pdf.
[67] Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (2024), Philippine Sustainable Finance Taxonomy Guidelines (SFTG), https://www.bsp.gov.ph/Regulations/Issuances/2024/1187.pdf.
[64] Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (2023), Sustainability Report, https://www.bsp.gov.ph/Media_And_Research/Publications/2023_BSP_Sustainability_Report.pdf.
[42] CCC; DENR (2023), Implementation Plan for the Republic of the Philippines Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) 2020-2030, Climate Change Commission; Department for Environmental and Natural Resources, https://niccdies.climate.gov.ph/files/documents/The%20Philippines-%20NDC%20Implementation%20Plan%20-%20072024.pdf.
[82] Center for Investigative and Development Studies, University of the Philippines (2025), Flood-Control Fiasco: A Policy Reckoning for Accountability in the Philippines’ Climate Risk Governance, https://cids.up.edu.ph/flood-control-fiasco-a-policy-reckoning-for-accountability-in-the-philippines/.
[44] Climate Change Commission (2025), Philippines’ First Biennial Transparency Report (BTR1) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) under the Paris Agreement, https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/%5BFinal%5D%20Philippine%20Biennial%20Transparency%20Report.pdf.
[2] Climate Change Commission (2021), Republic of the Philippines Nationally Determined Contribution, https://unfccc.int/NDCREG.
[33] DENR (2022), Climate-Resilient Infrastructure Guidelines, https://www.denr.gov.ph.
[57] Department of Energy (2025), Philippines Accelerates Renewable Energy Deployment Through the Fourth Green Energy Auction, https://doe.gov.ph/articles/2969807--philippines-accelerates-renewable-energy-deployment-through-the-fourth-green-energy-auction?title=Philippines%20Accelerates%20Renewable%20Energy%20Deployment%20Through%20the%20Fourth%20%20Green%20Energy%20Auction.
[55] Department of Energy (2023), Philippine Energy Plan 2023-2050, https://doe.gov.ph/articles/group/plans-2?category=Energy%20Policy%20and%20Planning&display_type=Card.
[32] Department of Energy (2020), National Renewable Energy Program 2020–2040, https://www.doe.gov.ph.
[75] Department of Finance (2021), Sustainable Finance Guiding Principles, https://www.bsp.gov.ph/Media_And_Research/Media%20Releases/2021_10/Sustainable%20Finance%20Guiding%20Principles.pdf.
[11] Department of Finance (2021), Sustainable Finance Roadmap, https://dof.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/ALCEP-Roadmap.pdf.
[31] Department of Transport (2017), National Transport Policy, https://dot.gov.ph.
[28] DEPDev (2024), Philippine Development Report 2024. Philippine Development Plan Portal., https://pdp.depdev.gov.ph/pdr-2024/.
[49] DPWH (2016), Department Order No. 130, https://www.dpwh.gov.ph/dpwh/sites/default/files/issuances/DO_130_s2016.pdf.
[68] Fair Finance Philippines (2023), Comments on BSP’s Proposed Sustainable Finance Taxonomy, https://philippines.fairfinanceasia.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2024/01/FFPH-Comments-on-BSPs-proposed-Philippi-SFTG.pdf.
[18] Francisco, K. and M. & Helble (2017), The Impact of Improved Transport Connectivity on Income, Education, and Health: The Case of the Roll-On/Roll-Off System in the Philippines., https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/381911/adbi-wp792.pdf.
[17] Go, E. (2020), Over Land and Over Sea: Domestic Trade Frictions in the Philippines., https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/570081/ewp-611-domestic-trade-frictions-philippines.pdf.
[38] Government of the Philippines (2023), Build Better More: A Glimpse into the Philippines’ Infrastructure Program, https://www.bsp.gov.ph/Pages/Build%20Better%20More-June%202023.pdf.
[76] House of Senate (2025), House Bill Number 11375: LOW CARBON ECONOMY INVESTMENT ACT, https://web.senate.gov.ph/lis/bill_res.aspx?congress=19&q=HBN-11375.
[27] IEA (2026), Philippines, https://www.iea.org/countries/philippines/energy-mix.
[46] IISD (2024), A Sustainable Asset Valuation of the Mass Rapid Transit System in Pampanga, Philippines, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/programmes/sustainable-programme-in-asia-sipa/savi-mass-rapid-transit-pampanga-philippines-summary.pdf.
[73] IMF (2020), Philippines: Selected Issues, https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/002/2020/037/article-A005-en.xml.
[69] Institute for Energy Economics and Fincancial Analysis (2023), Philippines Sustainable Finance Taxonomy Guidelines: Consultation Document, https://ieefa.org/sites/default/files/2023-10/IEEFA_COMMENTS%20-%20Philippine%20Sustainable%20Finance%20Taxonomy%20Guidelines.pdf.
[61] ITF (2025), Enhancing the connectivity, sustainability and resilience of freight transport in Southeast Asia, https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/freight-transport-connectivity-sustainability-resilience-southeast-asia.pdf.
[62] ITF (2023), Decarbonising pathways for freight transport in the Philippines, https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/itf-sipa-phl-deliverable-final.pdf.
[77] Khalil, U. et al. (2024), Greening the financial sector in the Philippines: From knowledge to policy action, https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/allaboutfinance/greening-the-financial-sector-in-the-philippines--from-knowledge.
[19] Komatsuzaki, T. (2019), Improving Public Infrastructure in the Philippines, https://www.adb.org/news/features/potential-progress-future-proofing-philippine-growth.
[58] Manilla Standard (2025), Philippines launches auction for 3.3-GW fixed-bottom offshore wind projects, https://manilastandard.net/business/314601698/philippines-launches-auction-for-3-3-gw-fixed-bottom-offshore-wind-projects.html.
[41] Monteiro, B. and R. Dal Borgo (2023), “Supporting decision making with strategic foresight: An emerging framework for proactive and prospective governments.”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 63, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1d78c791-en.
[50] National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women (1995), Philippine Plan for Gender-Responsive Development, 1995-2025, National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women, https://library.pcw.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/PCW-Philippine-Plan-for-Gender-Responsive-Development-1995-2025-1998.pdf.
[21] NEDA (2023), Philippine Development Plan., https://pdp.depdev.gov.ph/pdr-2024/.
[10] NEDA (2023), SDG Implementation Report 2023., https://sdg.neda.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/2023-SDG-Implementation-Report_NEDA.pdf.
[36] NEDA (2016), AmBisyon Natin 2040, https://2040.neda.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/A-Long-Term-Vision-for-the-Philippines.pdf.
[40] OECD (2025), Strategic Foresight Toolkit for Resilient Public Policy: A Comprehensive Foresight Methodology to Support Sustainable and Future-Ready Public Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bcdd9304-en.
[6] OECD (2024), “Adapting infrastructure to changing climatic conditions: The case of the Philippines”, OECD Environment Policy Papers, No. 46, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a4c3f35a-en.
[66] OECD (2024), “Aligning finance with climate goals”, OECD Net Zero+ Policy Papers, No. 4, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/aa7c23b2-en.
[56] OECD (2024), Clean Energy Finance and Investment Roadmap of the Philippines, Green Finance and Investment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7a13719d-en.
[60] OECD (2024), Infrastructure for a Climate-Resilient Future, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a74a45b0-en.
[53] OECD (2024), “Responsible business conduct for sustainable infrastructure in the Philippines”, OECD Business and Finance Policy Papers, No. 66, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2d648d86-en.
[80] OECD (2022), Recommendation of the Council on the Role of Government in Promoting Responsible Business Conduct, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0486.
[65] OECD (2020), Developing Sustainable Finance Definitions and Taxonomies, Green Finance and Investment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/134a2dbe-en.
[47] OECD (2020), “Nature-based solutions for adapting to water-related climate risks”, OECD Environment Policy Papers, No. 21, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2257873d-en.
[45] OECD (2018), Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Further Developments and Policy Use, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264085169-en.
[79] OECD (2018), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/15f5f4b3-en.
[30] OECD/ADB (2025), Government at a Glance: Southeast Asia 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bc89cb32-en.
[34] Office of the President of the Philippines (2024), NEDA Board approves 23 new projects under the Build-Better-More Program, revisions to 45-km Davao City Bypass Construction Project, https://pco.gov.ph/news_releases/neda-board-approves-23-new-projects-under-the-build-better-more-program-revisions-to-45-km-davao-city-bypass-construction-project/.
[7] Oxford Economics (2017), Global Infrastructure Outlook, https://outlook.gihub.org/countries/Philippines.
[5] PAGASA (2018), Observed ad projected climate change in the Philippines, https://icsc.ngo/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/PAGASA_Observed_Climate_Trends_Projected_Climate_Change_PH_2018.pdf.
[51] Philippine Commission on Women (2022), Updated Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Plan, 2019-2025, Philippine Commission on Women.
[23] Philippine News Agency (2025), Q4, full-year 2024 economic growth revised upward, https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1247381.
[59] Philippine News Agency (2023), P82-B offshore wind project gets green lane endorsement, https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1215797.
[22] Philippine Statistic Authority (2024), 2023 Full Year Official Poverty Statistics., https://rssocar.psa.gov.ph/poverty/node/1684058489.
[26] Philippine Statistics Authority (2025), Emissions of greenhouse gas (Philippines), https://openstat.psa.gov.ph/PXWeb/pxweb/en/DB/DB__3A/0143A5EGHG1.px/table/tableViewLayout1/?rxid=bdf9d8da-96f1-4100-ae09-18cb3eaeb313.
[15] Philippine Statistics Authority (2024), Philippine Statistical Yearbook 2023, https://psa.gov.ph/system/files/psy/2023-Philippine-Statistical-Yearbook.pdf.
[35] Philstar (2023), Government rolls out P20.2 trillion public investment plan, https://www.philstar.com/business/2023/05/05/2263815/government-rolls-out-p202-trillion-public-investment-plan.
[52] Public-Private Partnership Center (2023), Republic Act No. 11966: Public-Private Partnership Code of the Philippines and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, Public-Private Partnership Center, https://ppp.gov.ph/republic-act-no-11966/#:~:text=11966%2C%20or%20the%20Public%2DPrivate,both%20national%20and%20local%20levels.
[43] Qiu, J., S. Seah and M. Martinus (2024), “Examining climate ambition enhancement in ASEAN countries’ nationally determined contributions”, EnvironmentAL Development, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211464523001458.
[70] Securities and Exchange Commission (2024), Guidelines on the Philippine Sustainable Finance Taxonomy, https://www.grantthornton.com.ph/contentassets/781de580678744d68cc13d5449539d05/sec-mc-no.-5-2024---guidelines-on-the-philippine-sustainable-finance-taxonomy.pdf.
[20] UNCTAD (2024), Trade-and-Transport Dataset, annual, 2016 onward, https://unctadstat.unctad.org/datacentre/dataviewer/US.TransportCosts.
[12] UNDP (2024), Philippine SDG Investor Map., https://www.undp.org/philippines/publications/philippine-sdg-investor-map.
[8] UNDP (2022), Philippines Development Finance Assessment Report., https://www.undp.org/philippines/publications/2022-development-finance-assessment-report.
[25] World Bank (2025), Second Sustainable Recovery Development Policy Loan, https://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2025/04/15/policies-for-prosperity-supporting-jobs-growth-and-climate-resilience-in-philippines.
[13] World Bank (2025), World Bank Development Indicators, https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators#.
[24] World Bank (2024), Macro Poverty Outlook for East Asia and the Pacific, https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/macro-poverty-outlook/mpo_eap.
[78] World Bank (2024), Philippines Economic Update 2024, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstreams/f0a9bb15-ad63-4960-a54f-f322265de74c/download.
[54] World Bank (2023), Philippines Economic Update: Securing a Clean Energy Future, https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/c4aa826d0cda3d9b21db1adc4f8e1787-0070062023/original/World-Bank-Philippines-Economic-Update-June-2023.pdf.
[81] World Bank (2022), Private Participation in Infrastructure, https://ppi.worldbank.org/content/dam/PPI/documents/PPI_2022_Annual_Report.pdf.
[14] World Bank Group (2025), Infrastructure Overview, https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/infrastructure/overview.
[4] World Bank Group (2022), Country Climate and Development Report: Philippines, https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/philippines/publication/philippines-country-climate-and-development-report.
[3] World Bank; ADB (2021), Climate Risk Country Profile: Philippines, World Bank Group; Asian Development Bank, https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/722241/climate-risk-country-profile-philippines.pdf.
[48] WWF (2024), Mainstreaming Nature-Based Solutions in Infrastructure Planning in the Philippines, https://wwfph.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/sustainable-infrastructure-in-asia-policy-brief-wwf-philippines.pdf.
← 1. This figure is estimated based on the economic and demographic trends of the Philippines to identify future infrastructure needs which are compared against current trends in infrastructure spending. It accounts for sustainable development commitments around access to electricity, water and sanitation but does not account for integrating climate resilience and greening.
← 2. Policy note prepared by international consultant Macel Aguilar, 2025.
← 3. Policy note prepared by international consultant Macel Aguilar, 2025.
← 4. Policy note prepared by international consultant Macel Aguilar, 2025.