Civil society groups are concerned that a ‘meaningful’ consultation process has not yet taken place despite the delay in submission of the updated NDC to the United NationsCivil society groups are concerned that a ‘meaningful’ consultation process has not yet taken place despite the delay in submission of the updated NDC to the United Nations

Corruption a threat to Philippines’ higher climate ambition – groups

2025/12/04 11:45

MANILA, Philippines – As the Philippine government proposes higher climate targets, groups warn that corruption can threaten the country’s capacity to implement programs needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Philippines is proposing an unconditional target of between 10% to 20% — much higher than the 2.71% stated in the country’s current Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC).

The new target was presented to civil society groups on Wednesday, December 3, in a high-level plenary session. Even before the annual climate talks in Brazil took place, groups Rappler talked to had already complained about the lack of consultations on the new NDC.

“With a likely higher cost of implementation for the updated NDC to match the higher ambition, there is simply no room for any errors, especially those caused by corruption or inaction,” Aksyon Klima Pilipinas national coordinator John Leo Algo said in a statement Wednesday.

Countries like the Philippines that are party to the Paris Agreement are required to submit NDCs, or pledges on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Back in 2021, the Philippines pledged to reduce carbon emissions by 75% — 2.71% is unconditional and 72.29% is conditional. Parties are supposed to submit to the United Nations their revised targets early 2025.

Raising unconditional targets would mean mobilizing more national resources. Conditional targets, meanwhile, are reliant on the support that the Philippines will get from the international community.

“Any commitment like the NDC is only as good as its implementation,” said Algo.

Despite the Philippines’ delayed timeline in submission, think-tank Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development (CEED) said the government has not made use of the time to have a “meaningful” consultation process. CEED was one of the groups present at the consultation arranged by the Philippine government on Wednesday.

CEED is concerned that the 2025 NDC is slated for submission to the Office of the President by December without providing civil society the full draft as well as the analyses behind the new targets.

“Government agencies must be transparent and genuinely inclusive if we are to have an NDC that is truly backed by the people,” said CEED deputy executive director Avril de Torres.

AKP pointed out that the government agencies making the 2025 NDC cannot expect “meaningful feedback” if they are not given enough time to examine the new pledges.

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Climate Change Commission lead this process while the Department of Economy, Planning, and Development and the Department of Finance act as oversight agencies.

“In this regard, the government comes up short in ensuring an inclusive, bottom-up approach to this crucial part of finalizing the NDC,” Algo said.

So far, 122 parties have submitted their new NDCs to the United Nations. Parties are supposed to submit a revised NDC every five years, showing a progression in climate ambition. – Rappler.com

Market Opportunity
Notcoin Logo
Notcoin Price(NOT)
$0.0004934
$0.0004934$0.0004934
+2.53%
USD
Notcoin (NOT) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

What is the best way for a teenager to start investing?

What is the best way for a teenager to start investing?

This article helps parents and teenagers understand how to start investing as a teenager, with clear explanations of legal account options, basic tax issues, sensible
Share
Coinstats2026/01/31 05:14
United Kingdom CFTC GBP NC Net Positions climbed from previous £-22K to £-16.2K

United Kingdom CFTC GBP NC Net Positions climbed from previous £-22K to £-16.2K

The post United Kingdom CFTC GBP NC Net Positions climbed from previous £-22K to £-16.2K appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Information on these pages contains
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2026/01/31 05:36
ABC Also Pulled Jimmy Kimmel’s Predecessor After Controversial Comments

ABC Also Pulled Jimmy Kimmel’s Predecessor After Controversial Comments

The post ABC Also Pulled Jimmy Kimmel’s Predecessor After Controversial Comments appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Jimmy Kimmel (Photo by Media Access Awards Presented By Easterseals/Getty Images for Easterseals) Getty Images for Easterseals The shock decision by ABC to pull Jimmy Kimmel Live! “indefinitely” after the late-night host’s remarks about the killing of Charlie Kirk has created a rare moment in modern TV media: A major show abruptly taken off the air, with its network forced into crisis-management mode. Rare, that is, but not unprecedented. What might go unnoticed by many people reacting to the news about Kimmel and his potential cancellation is that this is not the first time ABC has made such a move. In fact, a version of the same thing happened to Kimmel’s predecessor program — Bill Maher’s Politically Incorrect, which once had Kimmel’s slot and which ABC cancelled in the wake of a firestorm around comments Maher made in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. (Notice, by the way, that I said cancelled “in the wake of” and not “because of.” More on that in a moment.) Here’s what happened: Less than a week after 9/11, Maher and a panel were talking about then-President George W. Bush’s use of the word “cowards” to describe the hijackers. “We have been the cowards,” Maher interjected, referencing the practice of “lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly.” But Maher then went even farther over the line: Actually staying in an airplane as it hits a building? “Not cowardly.” You can read more about the ensuing uproar in this ABC news story from 2001, which includes a statement that Maher issued through his publicist: “In no way was I intending to say, nor have I ever thought, that the men and women who defend our nation in uniform are anything but courageous and valiant, and I offer my apologies to…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 11:02