“We have to realize that a true ecological approach always becomes a social approach; it must integrate questions of justice in debates on the environment, so as to hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor.” (Laudato Si’, 49)

The “whole-of-society” approach has been repeatedly mentioned as a necessary staple of climate action, whether in a global context or in the Philippines. As the climate crisis affects everyone differently, it is only right that all voices have the opportunity to be involved in the decision-making processes that determine how to address this problem.

Yet in practice, this is not always observed. Too often, we see the voices of communities ignored or dismissed by policymakers who publicly claim they are making decisions for the benefit of these very people.

Preferential Treatment

For example, during the development of the country’s National Adaptation Plan, one of the identified key sectors was ecosystems and biodiversity. While the draft featured outcomes focused on environmental and economic aspects, there was no proposed outcome for the social dimension.

The mutually beneficial relationship between local communities and nearby ecosystems has been well-documented, so it was a surprise to civil society groups that this aspect was left out of the initial draft. This became one of our main lobbying points, and a social outcome was eventually included in the final document.

While this was a success, it is just one of several recent examples showing how unaware or dismissive some government and business leaders are of the community perspective on ecological issues.

Another indicator of this imbalance is how quickly the Philippine government forms partnerships with the private sector, while civil society and community representatives struggle to get a meeting with key agencies or officials.

It is understandable that the Philippines needs to attract investors to secure the financing necessary to fully implement its adaptation and mitigation solutions. While the country should receive support from developed nations as part of global climate negotiations, geopolitical divides and bureaucratic inefficiencies have hindered the provision of sufficient aid.

Yet the climate crisis worsens, and with it, the growing costs of implementing solutions. For example, the Philippines needs more than PHP4 trillion to implement its main mitigation plan within this decade—a sum nearly equivalent to 72% of the 2024 national budget, which must also address other issues beyond reducing pollution.

While securing funding from the private sector to strengthen climate action is justified, the disparity between how agencies engage with businesses and communities is not.

Perhaps the most striking example of this is the government’s vocal support for mining, partly based on the need to extract minerals for renewable energy technologies. In contrast to its willingness to make a joint declaration of policy reforms with the mining industry, many communities defending their homes against environmental destruction remain at high risk of threats, while they do not economically benefit from mining activities.

The Impact of Inequality

Inequality is often associated with economic terms or social standing. Yet political inequality can be just as detrimental to the present and future well-being of a nation.

Until this issue is adequately resolved—until decision-makers truly listen to the cries of the poor as much as they do to the promises of the rich—the country’s path to addressing the impacts of the climate crisis and achieving sustainable development will remain blocked.

Justice Is Safety

Sadly, inequality in the Philippines is neither new nor unique. It is a global problem that hinders development goals, as proven by a recent study.

The report shows that reducing inequality is key to ensuring a basic standard of living for everyone. It provides evidence that upholding justice is essential for the safety of both people and the planet, enabling communities to live free from poverty and harm.

While climate discourse often takes on a “doomsday” tone, this study offers a more hopeful perspective: achieving a sustainable future is still possible, but the window is shrinking due to resource overconsumption and inequality. It also reaffirms Pope Francis’ statement in Laudato Si’ that “the gravest effects of all attacks on the environment are suffered by the poorest.”

While addressing overconsumption is tied to economic inequality, the report also emphasizes the need to eliminate political inequality. This requires improved governance, inclusive decision-making, changing policymakers’ attitudes, and challenging powerful private sector interests.

The current leadership wants to promote an image of the Philippines as a nation capable of addressing the climate crisis, distancing itself from the usual narrative of being among the most vulnerable. However, the country remains one of the most vulnerable, recently being named the riskiest nation in the world.

If the government truly wants to change the narrative of vulnerability, it must do more than change the script. It must fulfill its mandate by empowering local communities throughout the decision-making process, from planning to monitoring.

Being evidence-based is not limited to what peer-reviewed journals or reports from international financial institutions say. Lived experiences on the ground tell a more accurate story than mere numbers or figures.

We cannot solve a problem we do not understand. For our current leaders, undervaluing or avoiding conversations with communities will only perpetuate the issue. It starts with being open to listen.

John Leo Algo is the National Coordinator of Aksyon Klima Pilipinas and the Deputy Executive Director for Programs and Campaigns of Living Laudato Si’ Philippines. He is also a member of the Youth Advisory Group for Environmental and Climate Justice under the UNDP in Asia and the Pacific. He has been a climate and environment journalist since 2016.