by Jonas Brian Almendrala 

Editor’s Note: Jonas currently serves as the Manager for Urban Development at the Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities, supporting partner cities in their climate-readiness projects under the Urban-Act Project.

Our usual conversations and discussions on climate finance usually deal with questions on knowing how much money is available, where it can come from, how quickly it can be mobilized, and most importantly, how can we access it? 

These are important questions.  But for many Local Government Units (LGUs) in the Philippines, the issue is not only the availability and access of climate funds, but also whether or not cities have the right conditions in place to ensure that they can utilize the support well. Before climate finance can flow to a city, it is important to ask if the city has the necessary capacity in terms of local policies, plans, institutional mechanisms and technical capacities to absorb such support, implement, and monitor the intended climate action.

Of course, climate finance should not reward only the most prepared and capable cities. If that were the case, support would only keep flowing to LGUs that already have strong technical capacities and systems, while cities with weaker technical capacities and greater needs are left behind.  

This is where the Enabling Framework Conditions (EFC) assessment comes in: At a time when climate risks are becoming more visible at the local level, the assessment helps shift the conversation of local climate finance beyond just opening funding windows.  Rather, it begins by looking at the conditions that determine whether local climate action is able to move forward. More importantly, a key step in climate finance is identifying what support local governments need—whether in data, planning, coordination, project preparation, or institutional capacity—so they can become more ready over time.  In this sense, we want to treat readiness not as a gatekeeping condition, but as part of the preparations needed to make climate finance more inclusive and accessible.

Under Urban-Act in the Philippines, the EFC assessment was conducted last year at the national level and in three partner cities—Antipolo City, Rizal; Bacolod City, Negros Occidental; and Tagbilaran City, Bohol—as part of efforts to strengthen local access to climate finance. It examined four key areas: climate policy, budget and finance, climate data, and vertical and horizontal coordination, which, together, gives a picture of what enables local climate action, and what constrains it.  

The assessment comes at an important time: The Philippines already has a broad set of climate policies and plans, including the Climate Change Act, the Nationally Determined Contributions, the National Adaptation Plan, National Climate Change Action Plan, and the Philippine Development Plan. These frameworks emphasize that climate action can no longer separate from development planning, and recognize the important role of local governments in the implementation of climate action.

Still, such policies at the national level do not automatically translate into implementation at the local level; this is one of the findings in the EFC process. Many local governments do already have plans, priorities, and even political support for climate action, but there are still challenges in turning such priorities into finance-ready actions. In some cases, climate action can already be reflected in local plans, but not yet backed by the data needed to support investment decisions. In others, local governments may already be tagging climate expenditures, but still face difficulties in verifying their entries.  Coordination also remains a challenge, particularly on the need for more dialogues between the national and local level, for a more holistic approach and shared actions in addressing climate risks and investment opportunities.  

Again, these gaps should not be seen as reasons to deny cities access to climate finance; rather, they should be understood as signals of where support is most needed. This is what makes the EFC assessment more than a diagnostic exercise: it shifts the discussion towards asking practical questions on what needs to be strengthened so that climate finance can work better at the local level. What capacities are missing? What processes or policies need to be aligned? What steps  are needed to help cities turn climate priorities into implementable and finance-ready actions?

The EFC assessment process is only the starting point, designed to be part of a wider array of interventions to help cities move from readiness assessment to project preparation development, and accessing climate finance windows available.

Many cities are not starting from zero on accessing climate finance windows, but for those who are, the EFC assessment process provides a solid introduction to climate finance.  Still, many will need targeted support to strengthen the foundations of local climate action. And in a country where cities differ widely in geography, exposures, and capacities, local context matters. 

In the end, strengthening access to climate finance should not depend only on which cities are already best prepared, but also on whether climate finance systems are designed to help these cities build readiness over time.  If our goal is towards more inclusive and effective climate action, then investing in enabling conditions must be part of our overall strategy.