What the UP-NCPAG Study Reveals
A recent policy note from the University of the Philippines National College of Public Administration and Governance (UP-NCPAG) highlights a troubling trend in the Philippines’ flood management finances. In the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA), more than P115 billion was allocated to so-called “shadow” flood control projects—funding for works outside the official Flood Management Program (FMP). This amount marks a substantial increase from P81.6 billion in 2022, suggesting that the majority of flood-related infrastructure spending may be occurring outside the celebrated, labeled program.
According to the UP-NCPAG, the 2025 shadow budget is nearly 50% larger than the FMP’s own allocation. The study emphasizes that most of this money is directed toward general structures—walls, revetments, dikes, riverbank protections, drainage systems, and coastal infrastructure—rather than the programs explicitly catalogued under flood management.
Why This Matters for Disaster Risk Reduction
Public discourse often spotlights standard flood control expenditures, but the UP-NCPAG argues that other DRRM-related investments deserve equal scrutiny. The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) channels funds into risks beyond floods, including earthquakes, landslides, fires, and storm surges, sometimes within other program areas and not clearly labeled as disaster expenditures. These investments are nonetheless critical to reducing multi-hazard vulnerability across the country.
The report also draws attention to the scale of road infrastructure outlays. In the 2025 GAA, road projects total a staggering P541.98 billion, a figure that dwarfs dedicated flood control budgets and carries implications for how resilience is prioritized in infrastructure planning.
A Real-World Snapshot: Provincial Debt and Losses
The UP-NCPAG cites concrete examples to illustrate the mismatch between spending and outcomes. Albay province invested P16.2 billion for flood mitigation across some 273 projects since 2018, yet suffered infrastructure damage of about P7.3 billion between 2017 and 2023—the country’s highest total in that period. Similarly, Oriental Mindoro allocated P11.3 billion across 138 flood-control projects but still recorded P4.1 billion in infrastructure damage (not accounting for agricultural losses or impacts on livelihoods).
These cases underscore a central concern of the study: despite large, visible investments, flood-related losses persist, prompting questions about project design, targeting, and governance in the use of public funds.
Calls for stronger governance and reform
In light of the findings, UP-NCPAG advocates several concrete steps. First, Congress and the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) should investigate officials and contractors implicated in potential misappropriation of flood-control funds, including projects outside the FMP that are labeled as flood-control structures or disaster-related infrastructures such as roads and evacuation centers.
The study also recommends mapping patterns across District Engineering Offices (DEOs) to identify systemic gaps where corruption can creep in. Such an approach could help reveal how DPWH projects operate at the local level and where oversight may be strengthened.
Beyond enforcement, UP-NCPAG urges systemic reforms. It calls for transferring DPWH’s DRR functions to a dedicated agency, arguing that a stand-alone body with clear risk governance would reduce vulnerabilities to corruption and improve risk sensitivity across projects.
To improve accountability, the authors recommend leveraging technology to tag projects from planning through procurement to delivery. Strengthened oversight agencies could use these tools to ensure proper budgeting, timely implementation, and traceable disbursements.
What This Means Going Forward
This report challenges both lawmakers and the public to rethink how flood risk is financed in the Philippines. If a large share of flood-control spending sits outside the official program, there is a risk of fragmentation, duplication, and unchecked gaps in resilience. Policymakers face the task of clarifying program boundaries, improving budget transparency, and ensuring that every peso earmarked for disaster risk reduction translates into safer communities.
As investigations proceed, the core question remains: how can the government balance urgent infrastructure needs with robust governance that minimizes waste and maximizes protective value for citizens facing flood risks?
