.0
Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3
Capacity Findings ............................................................................................................................................................... 6
Competency Findings........................................................................................................................................................ 8
Summary of Recommendations.................................................................................................................................... 16
Annex A: Indicators of Strong Capacity per Capacity Area.................................................................................. 20
Annex B: CDRA Document Review Checklist ........................................................................................................ 24
Annex C: LCCAP Document Review Checklist ...................................................................................................... 29
Executive Summary
This document presents the key capacity and competency findings for Iloilo City, coming out of the
Climate Change Capacity and Competency Assessment Framework (3CAF), a series of assessments
conducted by the Climate Resilient Cities (CRC) team from March 2022 to August 2022.
The capacity and competency findings are as follows:
GOVERNANCE (Basic Capacity)
o
o
o
Climate Change is understood by the city primarily from the Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) lens,
as evident in the city’s CLUP. As such, the city has a strong governance structure for DRR but a
non-existent governance structure for climate action.
The city’s DRR organizational structure has worked well as evident in its ability to leverage the
experiences and expertise of multiple stakeholders like the private sector, academe, and CSOs to
formulate and implement the city’s plans such as LDRRMP and CLUP The city can leverage this
to create a similar organizational structure (e.g., Climate Core Team (CCT)) that will govern and
strengthen the city’s climate action.
There is a strong personal commitment of the executive leadership to environmental protection
that can catalyze action. However, this needs to be translated from individual commitment to
institutional capacity.
INFORMATION, DATA, AND ANALYSIS (Moderate Capacity)
o
o
The city has access to quality data from national government agencies (e.g., DOST-PAGASA,
PHIVOLCS) and its partners (e.g. Manila Observatory, UP Visayas), but admits difficulty in
obtaining localized barangay- and household-level data. The city’s CDRA was recently updated,
however, important aspects in the computation of risk assessment such as the city's level of
sensitivity and adaptive capacity were not included due to limited localized data. The CDRA is
also not readily available through an online databank and is yet to be mainstreamed in the updating
of other city plans such as CDP, LDRRMP, and LCCAP.
The capacity to generate data is good, as evidenced by the piloting of the Registry of Barangay
Inhabitants and Migrants and the development of localized hazard maps. However, there is a
strong reliance on external stakeholders and specialists for other data generation needs (e.g.,
ownership of AWS) and data analysis, as evidenced by the extensive support provided to the city
by external partners during the CDRA process.
STRATEGIC PLANNING (Basic Capacity)
o
o
Climate change planning, as evidenced by the city’s LCCAP created in 2013, is poor since it is not
data-driven nor consultative. The city also does not have an Integrated Coastal Resources
Management Plan that will govern the city’s coastal areas which are critical ecosystems impacted
by climate change. Integration of nature-based solutions remain nascent in plans of the city.
In recent years, however, the city has established a strong track record in participatory and
inclusive governance that can be modified, expanded, and applied to climate change planning and
action. This is evident in the participative planning processes for CLUP and LDRRMP. Multistakeholder participation post-planning need to be strengthened, however.
RESOURCES (Moderate Capacity)
o
o
The city’s internal capacity to finance its climate action is limited given competing priorities but
the city has the strong relationships and capacity to leverage resources from national government
agencies and the private sector to complement its internal resources. The city is also deemed
creditworthy and has not tapped into climate funding channels.
The city does not have enough qualified staff to lead and implement its climate action and in terms
of technical resources, the city has made significant investments but remains limited to support its
climate action.
IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING, AND EVALUATION
(Basic Capacity)
o
o
o
There is limited understanding of climate change across offices, as climate change is often
understood only with the DRR lens. As such, the integration of climate change in city projects
remains an afterthought. The lack of an updated and data-driven LCCAP also affects the
implementation of climate strategies.
The city has strong current capacities on accessing high-quality climate data, on eliciting strong
people’s participation in public governance, and leveraging the private sector. These can be used
to strengthen the city’s implementation of their climate action.
The city’s M&E is focused on output monitoring. And while the city practices adaptive management
to a certain extent (e.g., regular project and departmental meetings), it is not backed by a strong
M&E system.
COMMUNICATION
(Basic Capacity)
o
o
AND
KNOWLEDGE
MANAGEMENT
The city does not directly communicate climate change. Most of its communication and advocacy
campaigns are focused on DRR through its KABALAKA program which has been institutionalized
via a city ordinance since 2016. But the wealth of experience in KABALAKA can definitely lend
insight into the city’s communication strategy for climate action.
The city has no formal system to document, store, and retrieve best practices and lessons learned
from program implementation. This impacts the knowledge management and sharing within the
city that could have aided decision-making and operation planning.
Given these findings, the CRC consortium recommends the following to Iloilo City:

Improve data generation and use capacity by installing and maintaining related equipment (e.g.,
Automated Weather Station, GIS workstation) and building capacity of staff in the analysis and use of
climate data, particularly for emergency operations and city planning and programming

Strengthen the climate governance structure of Iloilo City by constituting its Climate Core
Team that will include broader sectoral membership and clearly defined responsibilities, and by
creating a unit responsible for mobilizing external sources of climate financing

Enhance the CDRA and update the LCCAP as per national standards with high-quality data,
best practices in nature-based solutions, information, education, and communications, and monitoring
and evaluation

Strengthen environmental protection efforts by reviewing and updating related policies of the
city including Environment Code (2004) and building capacity on development of Integrated Coastal
Resources Management Plan.
Introduction
This document outlines the key capacity and competency findings coming out of the Climate Change
Capacity and Competency Assessment Framework (3CAF) conducted by the Climate Resilient Cities
(CRC) consortium led by Catholic Relief Services, in collaboration with its partners namely Conservation
International, Philippine Disaster Risk Foundation, Rocky Mountain Institute, and the University of the
Philippines Resilience Institute. The CRC project is implemented in partnership with the United States
Agency for International Development and runs from October 2021 to October 2026.
The 3CAF is the consortium’s diagnostic tool to identify evidence-based and tailor-fit programs of action
for its partner cities. It assesses six (6) capacity areas, namely [1] governance, [2] information, data, and
analysis, [3] strategic planning, [4] resources, [5] implementation, monitoring, and evaluation (M&E), and [6]
communication and knowledge management.
The 3CAF was implemented in four (4) phases from March 2022 to August 2022.
The findings of the 3CAF, coupled with additional inputs from the local nature-based solutions roadshows,
create the basis for a series of support that will be provided to the local government unit of Iloilo City
from September 2022 to October 2026. The recommendations set forth in this report will be reviewed
jointly between the consortium and the LGU on an annual basis to monitor progress and determine any
significant changes in scope.
CRC Team and Iloilo City LGU Representatives during the Focus Group Discussion
Visit at the agricultural nursery
CRC team conducted key informant interviews
Capacity Findings
The section below outlines the capacity
findings of the consortium for Iloilo City
against the six capacity areas, namely [1]
governance, [2] information, data, and analysis,
[3] strategic planning, [4] resources, [5]
implementation, M&E, and [6] communication
and knowledge management. The city is scored
based on the rubric below, which is anchored
on the indicators of strong capacity per area,
as listed in Annex A.




Rating of 1 = Low Capacity
Rating of 2 = Basic Capacity
Rating of 3 = Moderate Capacity
Rating of 4 = Strong Capacity
Overall, the institutional capacity of the City of Iloilo for climate change action is between basic to
moderate.
Governance
2.0
The capacity for governance on climate change is deemed basic. The city’s mandate for climate
action is rooted both at the national level policies and at the local level strategic direction, as spelled out
in the City’s Vision in its Comprehensive Land Use Plan1. The first goal2 under this vision emphasizes the
intersection of climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR), which suggests an
understanding of climate change from a DRR perspective and not as two distinct yet interrelated
phenomena. In practice, this is evident in how the city organized itself to develop and implement local
plans. On one hand, the city has a well-established City Disaster Risk Reduction Management Council (as
established by Ordinance No. 2014-062 and eventually reconstituted with Executive Order No. 143) which
has working groups or committees working on the four (4) DRR’s thematic areas. The strong
organizational structure for DRR resulted in the quality update and constant monitoring of the city’s
LDRRMP 2020-2022. The structure also supported the recent update of the city’s CDRA (April 2021)
and CLUP 2021-2029, which was supported by international partners, academe, the private sector, and
other local partners.
On the other hand, the organizational structure for climate change is weak. While the LCCAP
identifies a Climate Change Adaptation Technical Working Group that, in principle, oversees the
formulation and implementation of the LCCAP, this does not formally exist. In fact, the creation of the
city’s current LCCAP in 2013 was not a result of multistakeholder consultation and deliberations. The
city admits that the LCCAP was then created only in compliance with the national mandate for cities to
have an LCCAP. Given these, the city can leverage its strong DRR governance and experiences in
multistakeholder engagement to create a similar organizational structure (e.g., Climate Core Team (CCT))
1
Iloilo City Vision as per their CLUP 2021-2029: By 2029, Iloilo shall be a model of a livable, well-governed city of empowered and
innovative Ilonggos that safeguard the environment and preserve the culture while sustaining a robust and resilient economy.
2
Goal 1: Sustainable economic development enabled by innovative and CCA-DRR-oriented investments and income opportunities.
that will govern and strengthen the city’s climate action. The CCT should have broad membership and
clear responsibilities for the reformulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the LCCAP,
including its integration into other plans. The CCT can be patterned after the CDRRMC to ensure strong
and broad public participation and accountability in its climate mandate, which the city currently does not
have. There is also an opportunity to establish an inter-governmental action on climate action, as Iloilo is
a key player in the Metro Iloilo – Guimaras Economic Development Council. This is critical since climate
change recognizes no administrative or political boundaries.
There is a strong personal commitment of the executive leadership to environmental
protection, which helps push activities along. This is especially evident in the rehabilitation and
conservation of the Iloilo River and the formation of Iloilo-Batiano River Management Council. The
executive’s personal commitment could also be a catalyst for the inclusion of climate change in the city’s
new executive-legislative agenda. However, it is also a reflection of the city’s weakness on governance
since the personal commitment was at the individual commitment level and not at the institutional capacity
level. It was noted that the Mayor was sometimes using his own funds for environmental projects, which
also suggests that there is lack of commitment of the city to funds its own environmental projects.
Information, Data, and Analysis
3.0
The capacity for climate change information, data, and analysis is deemed moderate. The
city has access to quality hazard and climate data, as evident in its CDRA report dated April 2021. It was
also formulated through multi-stakeholder participation (National Resilience Council, UP Visayas, Ateneo
de Manila University – Manila Observatory, among others) and has proposed recommendations for
development planning. It utilized climate and hazard data from national government agencies such as the
Department of Science and Technology (DOST) Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical, and Astronomical
Services Administration (PAGASA) and the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology
(PHILVOLCS) in preparing maps for the five exposure units: population, natural resource-based
production areas, urban use areas, critical point facilities, and lifeline utilities. However, there are no
exposure database tables indicating required variables for risk analysis such as the level of sensitivity and
adaptive capacity, acknowledging limitations in barangay- and household-level data, as the city has not
implemented its community-based monitoring system (CBMS). The generated CDRA report also does
not have impact chain diagrams, nor does it use climate-adjusted city-scaled hazard maps. Additionally, the
CDRA is not readily available through an online databank. In fact, the city lacks robust management of
information system. The CDRA results are yet to be mainstreamed in the other plans of the city such as
CDP, LCCAP, and LDRRMP. The current version of the LCCAP, developed in 2013, was admittedly not
data-driven.
The city’s capacity to monitor, generate, and use data is good but has some areas for
improvement. For instance, despite not having a CBMS, the city, through the City Population Office,
has piloted the Registry of Barangay Inhabitants and Migrants (RBIM), which is a local census tool. One of
the main aspects of the tool is the consideration of migrant populations (e.g., informal settlers, students
coming from nearby municipalities and provinces, etc.) in sectoral development planning. The City
Population Office, however, does not have technical staff (e.g., statisticians) who can process and analyze
the data. The city foresees the usability of RBIM to support the update of social vulnerability assessments
in the CDRA. The city also managed to create localized hazard maps based on extensive consultation at
the grassroots level, resulting to maps reflective of current realities of the communities. In terms of
infrastructure for data generation, the city is involved in various partnerships (e.g., with NRC, JICA, Shell,
and SM) for the installation and operation of its early warning systems in strategic city locations. Moreover,
the AWSs in the city are owned and operated by external entities. There is also reliance on external
stakeholders and specialists (e.g., USAID SURGE, UP Visayas, Manila Observatory, among others) for the
data analysis and use, as in the case of CDRA preparation.
Situational Analysis and Planning
2.0
The capacity for climate change planning and situational analysis is deemed basic. Climate
change planning is not ideal as the LCCAP of the city was created in 2013 only out of compliance with the
national government directives. The development of the plan was also not consultative as other plans later
developed by the city. As a result, the LCCAP has not been reviewed nor used as a guide for its climate
action. The city also does not have an Integrated Coastal Resources Management Plan that would govern
the abundant coastal resources of the city, which is also a critical ecosystem affected by climate change.
The coastal resources management plan can also integrate biodiversity concerns since the new biodiversity
zone identified in the CLUP falls under coastal resources. The Iloilo-Batiano River Development Council
is inactive that would have controlled in the mushrooming of illegal settlers along the river. Despite these
gaps, the city has a number of environment-related initiatives backed by the political leadership. However,
integration of climate change and nature-based solutions in these initiatives remains tangential as these are
often tagged for their other benefits (e.g., aesthetics as in the case of projects by City Beautification Office).
Currently, there are plans to update and revisit the city’s LCCAP, CDP, ELA, and other environmental
policies (e.g., Fisheries Code) which are good entry points for full integration of climate change and NBS
into the city plans (especially for sectors that are not previously prioritized such as agriculture). The
relative success of the USWAG (JPT) Communal Gardens, with support from barangays, can inform
additional NBS projects to be scaled up in the soon-to-be-updated plans.
While the city has a strong track record in participatory and inclusive governance, it has not
been applied to climate change planning and action. The active participation of the academe (UP
Visayas, Central Philippine University, University of San Agustin, John B. Lacson Maritime University),
NGOs/CSOs (ICODE, Green Forum, Signpost, PCCI, UN Habitat, USAID, GIZ), and other private sector
are evident in the various planning process and technical working groups of the city. However, aside from
CLUP’s public hearings, there is no defined mechanism for the LGU to share its plans and assessments
with the private sector and the general public. For instance, the Iloilo City Hotel and Restaurant
Association noted in the climate finance workshop that it was their first time to see the city’s CDRA
which suggests that stakeholders may have been consulted but not necessarily informed postconsultations. Additionally, there is a perceived limited involvement of farmers and fisherfolks in the local
planning process. This is evidenced by the fact that they are often not intentionally sought before and after
disasters for planning and programming. Though multi-sector engagement for project planning and
implementation is important, the competing priorities and interests of stakeholders can lengthen dialogues
and delay city planning and program implementation, especially for time-sensitive activities.
Resources
3.0
The resource (financial, human, technical) capacity of the city is deemed moderate. The
city’s budget for climate action is not sufficient, as key projects remain not properly
resourced. For instance, the city has no significant budget to implement programs in the very climatesensitive sector of agriculture, since the sector is not a priority. Additionally, the same budget limitations
prevent the city to scale up previously piloted projects, as in the case of a JICA-supported EWS project
in five barangays. Despite budget limitations, the city has a strong relationship and capacity to leverage
resources from national government agencies and the private sector. The city managed to tap funds from
the DBM’s Local Government Support Fund to finance a rainwater harvesting project and the greening of
La Plaza Libertad; DA’s regional budget to finance hydroponics, greenhouse, and drip irrigation projects;
and DPWH’s funding to construct evacuation centers. Similarly, the city managed to secure in-kind support
from multiple private sector partners such as SM, Megaworld, Globe, among others. The city’s strong
fiscal discipline, as evidenced by its low debt service coverage ratio, also makes the city credit-worthy to
financial institutions such as Landbank and Development Bank of the Philippines. The city should capitalize
and maximize on these capacities to expand and finance its climate ambition. The city, however, has no
experience tapping into climate funding channels and is hesitant to tap the PSF given the rigorous and
impracticable processes and requirements. As such, there is no organized business development team
within the city to go after these funding opportunities.
On the human resources front, the city does not have enough qualified staff to lead and
implement its climate action. The city has expressed a lack of personnel that can cover the functions
of M&E officers, data analysts, proposal and technical writers, environmental planners, and DRR officers
(32 regular positions are yet to be filled). While the city has several GIS officers (CDRRMO and CPDO),
the city still expressed the need to upskill them and expand GIS skillset of the offices like the CENRO.
For DRR however, the city can mobilize sectoral volunteer groups (women and youth groups) to respond
to disasters. The city also has not conducted climate-related training or capacity-building programs, as
most programs have been for DRR, which is again a reflection of how climate change was understood
with a DRR lens in the city. And even for the existing training, several offices have expressed that they are
having a difficult time sending people given that the personnel are spread too thin.
In the technical front, the city has made significant investments, but capacity remains
limited. The city has an existing albeit limited infrastructure that can support its climate action. For
instance, the city has multiple training venues where climate-related capacity-building activities can be
implemented. The city also has 24 operational AWSs, but these are not yet based on Internet-of-Things
technology, which would have allowed seamless and timely data sharing among sensors and gateways. The
city also has recently built I-CARE (Iloilo City Action and Response) centers, which are decentralized rapid
emergency response units spread throughout the city. The city also has existing EWS in 5 barangays which
were supported by JICA, but these are not yet scaled up to the remaining 175 barangays. The city also
has not maximized its existing partnerships. For example, the city has an agreement with SM that will allow
the city to install EWS in their malls, but to date, none has been installed. Additionally, the city has
expressed lack of computer equipment (including a GIS workstation) and management of information
systems to support the work of city staff.
Implementation and Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)
2.0
The capacity for implementation and M&E of the city is deemed basic. The city has several
projects that are related to climate change – solar streetlights, green-gray infrastructure like the Iloilo
River Esplanade, tree growing and mangrove reforestation, rainwater harvesting facilities, and Uswag
nursery. These projects cater to multiple stakeholders, primarily due to the strong capacity of the LGU
to elicit people’s participation (women, youth, private sector, and persons with disability) in the public
governance of the city. The integration of climate change in these projects is an afterthought,
however. For instance, tree-planting activities are not packaged as climate solutions. This can partly be
attributed to [1] understanding of climate change from the DRR lens and [2] lack of a robust LCCAP
rooted in a strong evidence base of climate data. In addition, knowledge of climate change impacts is low,
as evident in the lack of impact chain analysis in CDRA.
The city can take advantage of its current capacities to strengthen climate action. With an
updated CDRA, the city can prepare a more climate-responsive and practical LCCAP. The new LCCAP
should reflect the current climate realities while also leveraging the already strong capacity of the city for
people’s participation in public governance. The update of the LCCAP presents a good opportunity for
the city to refine its list of PPAs further, ensuring these address the underlying climate risks and address
the needs and priorities of multiple stakeholders (particularly farmers and fisherfolks who were not
previously consulted). Additionally, the city’s capacity to leverage the private sector is also a good
opportunity to scale the city’s climate action. Private sector participation can be expanded beyond the
traditional notion that they are only sources of resources (e.g., Corporate Social Responsibility), but also
partners in development (e.g., part of the value chain, project implementers, and climate data users).
The city’s M&E practice is limited to output monitoring. The city does not have M&E officers.
M&E functions are often integrated in the functions of the technical staff implementing the project, and as
such, they only collect performance monitoring data of their projects (e.g., number of people (sexdisaggregated), amount spent, agricultural output). The city also has a dedicated local Project Monitoring
Committee for infrastructure projects, suggesting a premium on tangible outputs rather than intangible
ones (which are often the case in some climate strategies). The city also has a rather healthy practice of
adaptive management, albeit not backed by a robust M&E system. For instance, each Monday, the city has
department head meetings with the city leadership where they tackle emerging issues and challenges which
include PPAs. Additionally, the city’s LDRRMP has a good M&E framework for monitoring of PPAs under
the plan while the LCCAP has no M&E framework, reinforcing the notion that the governance emphasis
is on DRR. However, the LDRRMP can be a model for succeeding revisions of other plans, including the
LCCAP.
Communication and Knowledge Management
2.0
The city’s capacity to communicate and manage the knowledge around climate change is
deemed basic. The communication of the city remains fragmented and decentralized as each of the city
offices has their own social media accounts and some offices also use other traditional media like print
and radio to communicate their activities. However, they do not necessarily communicate about
climate change nor climate-related activities, a reflection of climate change as an
afterthought in the city’s programming. The city’s communications are also not underpinned by a
documented communications plan; and even the local plans like LCCAP and LDRRMP does not have a
communications section that outlines how the city intends to communicate the contents and progress of
these plans to stakeholders including the general public. Although, it is interesting to note that some plans
of the city are available in the city’s website.
However, the city has a strong communications campaign when it comes to DRR. Formalized
via Ordinance No. 2019-702, the KABALAKA program headed by the city CDRRMO is the official DRRCCA advocacy campaign of the city. The KABALAKA program engages different offices to provide
activities to different sectors of the community (e.g., women, children, LGBTQ, elders). Some specific
KABALAKA programs are camps, field trips, film competitions, fun runs, and an art gallery, to name a few.
However, most of these activities are aimed at DRR and not necessarily CCA, which is again, a reflection
of how climate change is understood with a DRR lens. But this wealth of experience from KABALAKA,
which speaks of the city’s capacity to run an advocacy campaign, can be replicated for climate change
specific communications.
Given the lack of practice of evaluation under M&E, the city has no formal system to document,
store, and retrieve best practices and lessons learned from program implementation. The
city has a lot of experience in implementing projects but falls short in documenting these for knowledge
sharing and use in decision-making and planning among LGU offices and with a broader audience. For
instance, the KABALAKA programs have not undergone evaluation to determine which program is the
most effective in generating awareness and effective behavior change related to DRR. The successes have
mostly been anecdotal.
Competency Findings3
Based on the consultations made with the LGU, below are the proposed capacity-building modules to be
implemented in Iloilo City in the next three (3) years:
1. Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Management (DRR Officers). The city is currently
building its I-CARE centers as its new Operations Center. Once operations are fully transferred and
new regular positions are filled, it can benefit from training in EOC Management. This will include
training on DRR operations (particularly integration of Internet-of-Things network into the EOC),
training on the operation and maintenance of gateways and AWS to be installed by the project, and
simulation exercises of existing city-level EWS.
2. Climate data modeling, forecasting, analysis, and interpretation (Climate Core Team,
GIS Officers, DRR Officers). The city has been reliant on external technical support in the analysis
and use of data to inform its plans, as such, its capacity to analyze climate data remains limited. This
training will complement the climate-adjusted hazard maps to be developed by the project and
leverage data from AWS to be installed, to better analyze climate data and develop data-driven plans
and strategies.
3. GIS and Hazard Mapping (GIS Officers). The city already has several GIS officers (CDRRMO
and CPDO) but still expressed the need to expand and strengthen GIS capacity. This training will
complement the provision of GIS workstations. CENRO expressed the need for GIS officers and GIS
workstations to do mapping of NBS and spatial analysis of landscapes and important resources.
4. Climate Disaster Risk Assessment (Climate Core Team). The city acknowledges certain gaps
in its recently completed CDRA. This training-workshop will build on the findings in the CDRA
Document Review (see Annex B), the GIS training, and the probabilistic hazard maps developed by
the project, to support the city in creating an updated CDRA, following HLURB guidelines. The city
will then be supported to mainstream the CDRA across local plans, specifically the LCCAP.
5. Local Climate Change Action Plan (Climate Core Team). The city’s current LCCAP was
developed under less-than-ideal conditions, but the city already intends to update it. The consortium
will conduct training-workshops for the development of an updated LCCAP, following the national
government guidelines and taking advantage of the richness of climate data. The training-workshop
will also build on the findings in the LCCAP Document Review (Annex C) which highlights gaps in
certain sections of the plan (e.g., Resources, M&E, Communications).
6. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E Officers or Project Officers). The city has limited capacity
in terms of M&E as they focus mostly on output monitoring. M&E practice is also nascent in climate
change programming and is mostly an afterthought and from the few who perform the tasks, there is
basic level of knowledge and skills on its principles: result-based M&E, and feedback-response
mechanisms, among others. This training-workshop will help the LGU develop M&E sections of local
plans and project proposals.
7. External Climate Finance and Proposal Development (Technical, Budget and Project
Development Officers). While the city has tapped funding from NGAs, it has no dedicated team
nor the skills and experience to map, pursue, and capture externally available climate finance, partly
because of its reluctance to access PSF. This training will support the city in understanding the climate
3
The online competency survey was shared with the LGU but no responses was received.
finance architecture, implementing climate change expenditure tagging, and developing donor-ready
project proposals for submission to available funding opportunities.
8. Integrated Resource Management Planning (Technical and Development Officer, and
Management Specialist). The city has no Integrated Coastal Resource Management Plan, one of
the necessary resource management plans to support the CCA actions of a coastal city like Iloilo. This
training will help initiate its development of the Integrated Coastal Resources Management Plan.
9. Enforcement of Environmental Policies (Environmental Enforcers).
10. CCA/M with focus on nature-based solutions (NBS) (Climate Core Team). As evident in
interviews, familiarity with NBS as a concept is limited despite traces of NBS in the current plans and
programs of the city. This training is designed to increase knowledge of NBS as alternative strategies
to combat climate change so it can be streamlined in local plans and programs across offices. It will
also foster a community of practice between and among the city’s stakeholders.
11. Climate Smart Farm Business School (CSFBS) (Agricultural Officers). The Agricultural
Training Institute (ATI) concept of Climate Smart Farm Business School has not been rolled out in
Iloilo City and no city staff has attended CSFBS Training of Trainors, although the city, through CAO,
has experience in testing out climate-smart agricultural practices such as hydroponics and drip
irrigation. The experience remains limited given the less priority of the city in the agriculture sector.
If prioritized in Iloilo, the CSFBS training can strengthen the farmers’ awareness and understanding of
climate change impacts and equip them with strategies to adapt and/or reduce their vulnerability (e.g.,
climate-smart soil and water conservation and improved land-use management practices).
12. Science and Risk Communications (Information Officers). This training will leverage the city’s
experience in DRR advocacy and help create a Climate Change Communications Plan and develop
more effective IEC materials designed to mobilize the public and strengthen the city’s climate change
action.
Summary of Recommendations
The table below summarized key recommendations for the city and the extent of support required from the LGU in rolling out the
recommendations as well as the extent of support CRC can provide considering the scope of the project.
Recommendation
LGU Support
Constitute the Climate Core Team
by February 2023.
The CCT should have [1] membership from relevant
LGU offices, civil society, academia, and the private
sector; [2] more specific TOR for CCT members; and
[3] functions to cover implementation and reporting of
the LCCAP.



The city can also consider expanding the membership
of the CRC TWG as an interim CCT of the city, with
CRC acting as co-secretariat. Upon project close-out,
the city can consider transitioning the CRC TWG into
a formal CCT of the city via a city ordinance.

Improve the data generation
capacity of the city by July 2023 by
installing, operating, and maintaining
automated weather stations (AWS) throughout the city
and ensuring integration of all the city’s sensors into a
common Internet-of-Things network.

Improve the data processing
capacity of the city by December
2024. The capacity can be built in two ways:
Equipment – Invest in high-quality equipment
including computer stations with GIS capability by
March 2023






Lead the policy process in constituting the CCT
including consulting internal and external
stakeholders.
Lead the function of the CCT and delegate a team
that will serve as the CCT’s secretariat
Provide resources for the proper functioning of
the CCT and the execution of its roles
CRC Support



Identify potential sites for AWS installation,
preferably near sustainable landscapes, and install
additional AWS, as resources allow.
Operate and maintain the AWS of the city.
Ensure sufficient staff complement (e.g., plantilla
positions like DRR Officers) who will be trained.
Provide logistical support in the conduct of training
(e.g., training venue)
Use data generated from AWS to inform planning
processes of the LGU
Dedicate a space within the LGU where the GIS
station will be located and identify personnel (GIS
Officer) who will be responsible for operating and
maintaining the GIS station during its operational
lifetime
Ensure sufficient staff complement (e.g., plantilla
positions like GIS Officers) who will be trained.






Provide suggestions and/or feedback on the policy
document constituting the CCT particularly on the
membership, terms of reference, and other
functions based on the recommendations and
tools in the Enhanced LGU Guidebook on the
Formulation of the LCCAP Book 3 (LGA-DILG,
2017)
Act as co-secretariat of the CCT during the life of
the project.
Support in identifying potential sites for AWS
installation, preferably near sustainable landscapes
Provide and install at least one (1) unit of AWS in
the city
Provide advice on technical specifications for
additional AWS to be procured by the city
Develop an IoT network under the NOAH
website, where the AWS data of the city can be
accessed and used to support their disaster
operations.
Conduct training on EOC Management including
operation and maintenance of AWS.
Provide a desktop computer station with GIS
capability to the LGU
Conduct training-workshops on GIS and hazard
mapping, and data modeling, forecasting, analysis,
and interpretation
Recommendation

Human Resource – Recruit and retain talent
especially those with GIS and data analytics skills
throughout life of the project
Update CDRA report by December
2023 by following the model of computation
for hazard and disaster risk as per HLURB
guidelines, integrating the downscaled climate-adjusted
hazard maps, and using high-quality climate data
generated by AWS and from PAGASA, and using
climate change vulnerability assessment and
probabilistic risk assessment, which shall serve as a
reference to the vulnerability and risk profile of the
city. The city can also reconstitute the CLUP/CDRA
TWG to ensure inclusive and comprehensive CDRA
that will be mainstreamed in all relevant local plans.
LGU Support








Improve and update the LCCAP by
December 2024. This will be done through
capacity-building activities in line with the DILG
Enhanced Guidebook on the Formulation of LCCAP
(2017) and utilizing the data from the improved CDRA.



Build capacity for external climate
resource mobilization by
December 2023 by creating an external
resource mobilization strategy and constituting a
dedicated business development team for the LGU that
will map, pursue, and capture external climate funding
opportunities, including those from the private sector



Provide logistical support in the conduct of training
(e.g., training venue)
Use the data generated and process to inform
planning processes of the LGU
Establish/Reconstitute the CLUP/CDRA TWG (or
add CDRA functions to the CCT)
Lead and resource the enhancing of the CDRA
including providing logistical support such as
venues for training and workshops
Provide data and facilitate coordination with
personnel knowledgeable on required CDRA data
Ensure the participation of relevant personnel and
stakeholders in the project workshops
Lead and resource the updating and review of
LCCAPs including providing logistical support such
as venues for training and workshops
Lead the policy process internally to get buy-in
from LGU offices and Sangguniang Panlungsod on
the updated LCCAP
Ensure sufficient staff complement (e.g., plantilla
positions like climate change specialists, M&E
officers) who will be trained and work on the
LCCAP.
Provide data and facilitate coordination with
personnel knowledgeable on required LCCAP data
Ensure the participation of relevant personnel and
stakeholders in the project workshops
Lead the development of an external resource
mobilization strategy for climate change
Establish a business development team or Climate
Finance TWG (may be an additional function
within CCT) whose core function is to map,
pursue, and capture climate finance opportunities
Lead identification and development of donorready climate change-related project proposals
CRC Support

Provide constant accompaniment on data
processing by providing advice and commenting on
plans/reports

Provide suggestions and/or feedback on the policy
document constituting the CLUP/CDRA TWG
particularly on the membership, terms of
reference, and other functions
Conduct training-workshops on CDRA, M&E,
NCS, Climate Change Communications, and
Climate Finance
Provide downscaled probabilistic hazard maps for
the city that will serve as inputs for the CDRA
process
Provide constant accompaniment throughout the
CDRA update and mainstreaming process by
providing advice and commenting on the plan









Conduct training-workshops on LCCAP, M&E,
NBS, Climate Change Communications, and
Climate Finance
Provide constant accompaniment throughout the
LCCAP update process by providing advice and
commenting on drafts of the plan
Support the annual review of LCCAP progress as
part of the stronger M&E for LCCAP
Support the development of an external resource
mobilization strategy for climate change through
donor mapping and providing advice on innovative
financing mechanisms
Conduct training-workshops on accessing climate
finance and proposal development
Support the LGU in identifying climate change
projects (preferably with NCS components) from
Recommendation
LGU Support



Strengthen environmental
protection efforts by March 2025 by
reviewing and updating the city’s E-Code and
developing an Integrated Coastal Resource
Management Plan or other resources management
plans for the city.



from the LCCAP including the collecting of data to
inform project approach, packaging proposals, and
Manage relationships with donors including the
private sector
Update and expand its list of accredited
CSOs/NGOs particularly relevant for climate
action
Provide logistical support in the conduct of training
and proposal development workshops (e.g.,
training venue)
Lead the review and update of the E-Code
Lead and resource the development of resources
management plan, particularly the Integrated
Coastal Resource Management Plan including
providing logistical support such as venues for
training and workshops
Ensure sufficient staff complement (e.g., plantilla
positions like Foresters) who will be trained.
CRC Support




the LCCAP and develop them into project
proposals as per donor guidelines (e.g., Peoples’
Survival Fund)
Provide up to PhP 1.5 million in grant to pilot NBS
solutions that can be scaled up with external
climate financing
Support the review of the E-Code by providing
advice on policy evaluation and participating in
related workshops/write shops
Conduct training-workshops on NCS, integrated
resources management, and environmental law
enforcement
Provide constant accompaniment throughout the
resource management planning process by
providing advice and commenting on drafts of the
plan
Conforme
By signing below,



You acknowledge the findings laid out by the Climate Resilience Cities consortium
You agree on the recommendations put forward by the Climate Resilience Cities consortium and
acknowledge the level of support that the consortium will provide in rolling out these
recommendations within the LGU over the next four (4) years until October 2026
You commit to provide the identified LGU support to operationalize the said recommendations
Signature
Name
Date
Signature
Name
Date
Signature
Name
Date
Signature
Name
Date
Signature
Name
Date
Signature
Name
Date
Signature
Name
Date
Signature
Name
Date
Signature
Name
Date
Signature
Name
Date
Signature
Name
Date
Signature
Name
Date
Committed by:
Witness:
Signature
CHIEF OF PARTY
Date
Signature
CITY COORDINATOR
Date
Annex A: Indicators of Strong Capacity per Capacity Area
Capacity Area
Factors
Indicators of Strong Capacity

Mandate or mission to address
climate change



Commitment of leadership or
organizational ownership to
address climate change


Governance


Public sector accountability






Information, Data,
and Analysis
Access to quality information,
data, and analysis



The city has formally received a mandate or articulated a mission to address climate change that is
clear and furthers the city’s overall mission.
The climate change mandate or mission are well known and accepted by relevant stakeholders
(internal and external)
The mandate or mission is consistently considered in setting priorities and guiding actions.
Climate change is explicitly incorporated in the organizational structure. There is a documented
organizational structure that enables leadership and execution of the climate change mandate, mission,
or policy.
The city has an organization/office that is mandated to perform climate-change-related activities. Roles
and responsibilities of leadership, departments or functions, and lines of authority for defining the
organization’s climate change policies are defined and effective.
Coordination when defining the organization’s climate change goals and objectives across
departments or key functions is strong.
Policy frameworks, mandates, plans, financing are readily accessible to the public.
Climate data is available and accessible to the public to enable citizens to make climate-related
decisions.
There is a monitoring system to track deliverables and outcomes of these frameworks, plans, and
sourcing of public financing for projects that are implemented by government agencies and other civil
society partners.
The local climate change planning mechanism requires the participation of a broad sector of civil
society, including women, indigenous peoples, other marginalized sectors, and the private sector.
There is sufficient access to climate information, data, and analysis. It is available electronically.
The climate information, data and analysis are considered “state of the art” and at a sufficient spatial
and temporal scale to support decision-making.
Data is archived and accessible to all.
Geospatial analytic platform that considers open-data policy (including comprehensive sectoral
exposure data, vulnerability analysis, and risk information) is in place using state-of-the-art technology.
The LGU has vulnerability and risk assessment compliant with national government agencies and
international standards.
Robust and reliable early warning systems are in place, interconnected, and utilized in making sound
decisions during hazard events.
Science-based climate risk management options are readily available for inclusion to climate financing
proposals
Capacity Area
Factors
Indicators of Strong Capacity


Capacity to monitor, generate,
and use


Processes, procedures, tools in
place to integrate climate
change and nature-based
solutions into planning
Situational analysis
and planning
Relevant stakeholders (internal
and external) involved with
integrating climate change and
nature-based solutions into
planning process
Current plans and strategies
integrate climate change and
nature-based solutions
Resources
Budget for addressing climate
change issues

















Climate information, data and analysis is effectively monitored, generated, or used for decision-making.
Sufficient numbers of staff have a strong understanding of the appropriate use of climate information,
data, and analysis; high-quality systems and procedures are in place; sufficient resources (budget, staff)
are available.
LGU has the adequate competency and resources to gather, process, generate, and use climate data
for mainstreaming to local/sectoral development plans and climate financing proposals.MIS is in place
with structured process on generating, processing, using, and monitoring climate information.
Climate change is extensively incorporated (e.g., in problem analysis, objectives, metrics) and Local
Climate Change Action Plan (LCCAP) is rooted in the national climate change Action Plan (NCCAP)
Reflects the organization’s vision, mission, and values related to climate change
Problem analysis, objectives, approaches, and approaches are based on sound analysis of climate
change risks and opportunities
Identifies adequate resources to implement climate change objectives
Includes realistic resource requirements to implement climate change objectives
Integrates win-win climate change adaptation and mitigation objectives into broader organizational
objectives
Reflects stakeholders’ climate change priorities (including women, indigenous peoples, marginalized
groups, private sector, and other civil society organizations)
Appropriately incorporates gender and cultural considerations related to climate change
Includes clear and specific climate change priorities, measurable objectives, and targets
Plan is regularly reviewed based on information, learning, and appropriate climate information, data,
and analysis
Consistently used for management decisions or operational planning for climate change
Private-public partnerships for climate change resilience projects are based on the relevant LGU or
NGA plans.
Nature-based solutions are considered as effective strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
There are currently adequate financial resources to achieve climate change priorities and objectives
Future year budgets can achieve climate change priorities and objectives
Funding sources for climate change are stable and reliable.
LGU has the capacity to mobilize climate financing based on the climate adaptation and mitigation
budget deficit (via. external financing).
The LGU has the capacity to leverage private sector expertise, technology, and resources to
complement public resources for climate action.
Capacity Area
Factors
Indicators of Strong Capacity

Human resources – adequate
numbers of trained staff
assigned to address climate
issues




Infrastructure (hardware,
software, etc.)


Planned climate change actions
implemented
Implementation
Climate change services/goods
provided








Targeted
stakeholders/constituents
benefitting
M&E
Climate change actions
monitored, feedback from
stakeholders solicited, open
reporting on results of
implementation





All key climate change-related positions have been established and filled with candidates with
appropriate skills
The staffing plan is well aligned to climate change goals and objectives.
The city has dedicated personnel trained on proposal development and aware of the various
opportunities in climate finance (national and international opportunities).
The city has staffed for environmental law enforcers, especially for local conservation areas and
protected areas.
Infrastructure (e.g., hardware, software) needs for achieving climate change priorities and objectives
have been adequately assessed and planned
Current infrastructure (e.g., hardware, software) can fully support climate change priorities and
objectives
Planned infrastructure (e.g., hardware, software) can fully support climate change priorities and
objectives
Effectively address climate change risks (as identified in the strategic plan)
Are well informed by adequate and appropriate climate information, data, and analysis
Are consistently based on best practices for climate change adaptation and/or mitigation
Effectively address climate change objectives and priorities
Effectively address stakeholders’ climate change priorities (including women, indigenous peoples,
marginalized groups, private sector, and other civil society organizations)
Effectively address gender barriers and issues related to climate change
Effectively address cultural barriers and issues as related to climate change adaptation or mitigation
goals
Are achieving climate change adaptation or mitigation results that are significant, sustainable and/or
systemic.
Are addressing sectoral climate change program implementation (natural resources, agriculture, urban)
in line with sectoral GHG emission management.
Consistently sets meaningful climate change performance indicators that align to goals and objectives
and realistic targets
Strong expertise in collection and analysis of climate change baseline and performance monitoring data
Climate change performance monitoring data are complete and reliable, and timely
Consistently identifies differences between actual climate change results achieved and targets and
related remediation measures and lessons learned
Capacity Area
Factors
Indicators of Strong Capacity

Performance of services and
programs is evaluated
System in place disseminating
information on and improving
strategies, implementation,
services, and programs








Communications
and Knowledge
Management
System in place to disseminate
and use knowledge


Consistently collects and reports climate change-related performance monitoring data in a transparent
manner to relevant stakeholders
Gender and culture considerations are well incorporated into climate change performance monitoring
Has strong expertise in climate change program evaluation
Conducts the appropriate number of climate change program evaluations
Climate change program evaluations conducted are of high quality; evaluation findings and
recommendations are appropriate
Climate change program evaluations conducted consistently incorporate relevant stakeholders and
results are consistently openly disseminated
Climate change program evaluation findings and recommendations appropriately incorporated into
existing and new strategies and programming
Effectively identifies best practices and lessons learned in climate change strategy and programming
Sufficient systems for documenting, storing, and disseminating (internal and external) climate change
program knowledge, especially for citizen outreach
Best practices and lessons learned in climate change strategy and programming are effectively analyzed,
shared, and applied through a regular process
Frequently and routinely participate in climate change related knowledge sharing networks
Annex B: CDRA Document Review Checklist
This checklist is a guide in reviewing the quality of the city’s Climate Disaster Risk Assessment.
Section A. Overall Review of CDRA
No
A1
Checklist Question
Is the CDRA mainstreamed in the
LCCAP?
Rating
4
A2
Is the CDRA mainstreamed in the
CLUP?
4
A3
Is the CDRA mainstreamed in the
CDP?
4
A4
Is the CDRA mainstreamed in the
Forest Land Use Plan strategies and
resources?
N/A
A5
Is the CDRA mainstreamed in other
local development plans including
strategies and resources?
4
Rating Guide
Comments
1 = Not linked at all. Not The Situational Analyses (Chapter 4) of the LCCAP references section of
even mentioned in the
the CDRA. However, given the temporal difference between the two
document.
documents, the current CDRA (2021) is not mainstreamed in the LCCAP
2 = The other plan is
mentioned but the
linkages are not clear
2014-2028.
The CLUP considered the results and recommendations from the CDRA.
Both are created around the same time, and both were supported by mostly
of the same set of external stakeholders.
4 = Partially linked. Only The CDP explicitly stated that it considered the results and
recommendations from the city's Climate Change Vulnerability Adaptation
some strategies are
linked across plans.
Assessment and Mainstreaming of the DRR and CCA into the CDP.
However, given the temporal difference between the two documents, the
5 = Fully linked. Plans are current CDRA (2021) is not yet mainstreamed in the CDP 2020-2025.
consistent with each
other.
The city currently has no Forest Land Use Plan (FLUP).
CDRA is explicitly cited in the LDRRMP. However, given the temporal
difference between the two documents, the current CDRA (2021) is not yet
mainstreamed in the LDRRMP 2020-2022.
1 = no official WG
A6
Is there an institution or a working
group (WG) that leads the
development, implementation, and
evaluation of the CDRA? Are CSOs,
academia, and private sector part of
the working group?
2 = with a WG but it is
not institutionalized
4
3 = with an
institutionalized WG but
membership is limited to
LGU
Executive Order 78 created a TWG for the update of CLUP and CDRA.
Based on the acknowledgement section of the CLUP, it appears that the
process of developing the CDRA (and CLUP) was multi-sectoral. For CDRA
specifically, academe (Ateneo de Manual University, UP Visayas), CSOs
(National Resilience Council), and think tanks (International Development
Research Centre) were acknowledged for their support in the development
of the CDRA maps and report. It remains unclear if they are part of the
TWG or were just involved in the consultations.
No
Checklist Question
Rating
Rating Guide
Comments
4 = with an
institutionalized WG with
limited representation
from other sectors
(CSO, academia, private
sector)
5 = with an
institutionalized WG with
extensive representation
from other sectors
(CSO, academia, private
sector)
Section B. Data, Information, and Analysis
No
Checklist Question
Rating
Rating Guide
Comments
B1
Does the CDRA have climate
change information such as
projected changes in temperature,
rainfall, and sea level?
5
B2
Does the CDRA have an inventory
of natural hazards and past disasters
and damages?
5
B3
The inventory should also indicate
hazards’ characteristics and disaster
timeline.
5
B4
Does the CDRA have a compilation
of hazard maps and a hazard
inventory matrix?
5
B5
Does the CDRA have a summary of
potential climate change impacts in
the city?
5
Yes. Section 3.4 shows the Major Decision Areas and Risk Management
Options for each of identified climate hazards.
B6
Does the CDRA have clear and
logical impact chain diagrams?
5
Impact chain analysis was conducted but the diagrams are not presented.
The CDRA has clearly presented tables of climate information and
projection.
1 = No
There is an existing inventory of past disasters (Table 3) and hazard maps
(Table 4). The inventory provides qualitative descriptions and dates.
3 = Not completely
5 = Yes
Hazard maps (Table 4) and barangay-level hazards (Table 5) are tabulated.
No
Checklist Question
Rating
B7
Does the CDRA have an exposure
database for applicable exposure
units?
5
B8
Does the CDRA identify the
sources of their data? Is/are the
source(s) reliable?
5
B9
Does the data in CDRA reflect
time-appropriate data (temporal
validity)?
5
Is the level of assessment at the
barangay or is it specific to the
B10
household/product classification/land
use/facility level?
Rating Guide
Comments
Exposure databases for each hazard are present in Section 3.3 of the
CDRA.
References/ sources of data are available and reliable.
3
The CDRA acknowledges the limitation of its exposure database which is at
the city level. This is because of limitations on household-level data.
B11
Does the exposure database have
corresponding exposure unit maps?
5
Exposure unit maps are available in the CDRA.
B12
Does the CDRA conduct sensitivity
and adaptive capacity analysis?
5
Yes, these analyses are available by exposure units: 1) Population, (2) Urban
Use Area, (3) Natural Resource Production Area, (4) Critical Point
Facilities, and (5) Lifeline Utilities.
B13
Does the CDRA consider the
impacts of climate change?
5
Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments were conducted.
Does the CDRA have vulnerability
B14 maps (city-level or barangay-level
maps)?
5
Vulnerability assessment is based on social vulnerability index these were
presented with accompanying maps.
Does the risk assessment consider
the likelihood of occurrence of
B15
multiple scenarios (probabilistic risk
assessment)?
3
Yes, likelihood of occurrences is mentioned throughout the document. But
data is not properly expressed or emphasized.
5
Risk maps are available in the document.
B16
Does the CDRA have risk maps
(city-level or barangay-level maps)?
Section C. Cross-cutting themes: Gender, Social Inclusion, Private Sector Engagement
No
Checklist Question
Rating
C1
If there is a CDRA WG, does it
have representation for women and
other disadvantaged groups? Is the
Gender and Development (GAD)
unit of the LGU involved in the
CDRA?
C2
Does the CDRA have a
contextualized analysis of how
climate risks affect/exacerbate
gender and social vulnerabilities?
C3
Does the CDRA have gender and
social inclusion components? That is,
is it clear from the CDRA how
women and marginalized groups will
be affected by climate risks?
C4
Is there evidence that women, urban
poor, fisherfolk, and other
vulnerable sectors were consulted
and actively participated in the
development of the CDRA?
1
C5
Is there evidence that private sector
players were consulted and actively
participated in the development of
the CDRA?
3
Rating Guide
1
1 = GAD or women
groups are not included
3 = Only GAD is
included
5 = GAD and women
groups are included
3
1 = no gender analysis
3 = there is mention of
gender but lacks in-depth
analysis
5 = extensive analysis of
gendered climate impacts
3
1 = no gender analysis
3 = there is mention of
gender but lacks in-depth
analysis
5 = extensive analysis of
gendered climate impacts
Comments
Despite the multi-stakeholder approach, it remains not clear whether
women groups or the GAD Unit of the LGU was part of the CDRA
process.
There is no in-depth discussion on the gendered impacts of climate change
and disaster risks (there was not even mention of women nor gender in the
document). It mentioned however that the vulnerability assessments are
based on social vulnerability index methodology.
There is no in-depth discussion on the gendered impacts of climate change
and disaster risks.
1 = no evidence
3 = there is mention of
the groups in the plan
but not enough to
support the claim that
they were consulted, nor
they participated in the
development of CDRA
5 = The CDRA has
explicitly mentioned that
these groups were
consulted, and they
participated in the
development of the
CDRA
There is no explicit evidence to show that women and other vulnerable
sectors were consulted and were active participants in the CDRA process.
There is little evidence to demonstrate private sector engagement during
the CDRA process (only the involvement of National Resilience Council, as
private sector driven).
Section D. Communication and Knowledge Management
No
D1
D2
D3
Checklist Question
Is the CDRA (or its components)
publicly available (i.e., online)?
Are hazard maps publicly available
(I.e., in the city website or social
media pages)?
Are there existing IEC materials in
the LGU's social media related to
CDRA?
Rating
Rating Guide
Comments
5
1= not at all. Cannot be
searched online.
CDRA is readily available online
.
Some of the maps are available online (LIDAR), but not on the LGU’s
website. LGU website does not seem to include updates related to climate
change.
3
3
3 = Yes. It is available
online but not on the
LGU website. Difficult
to search.
5 = Yes, it is easily
available and searchable.
The city has typhoon-related IEC materials in their social media but does
not have IECs for other climate hazards.
Annex C: LCCAP Document Review Checklist
This checklist is a guide in reviewing the quality of Local Climate Change Action Plans of Local Government Units.
Section A. Overall Review of LCCAP
No
Checklist Question
Rating
Rating Guide
Comments
A1
Is the LCCAP linked to the NCCAP
5
A2
Is the LCCAP linked to a broader
mandate of the city?
5
1 = Not linked at all. Not
even mentioned in the
document.
The LCCAP of the city is rooted in its legal mandate, stemming from
RA9729.
5
2 = The other plan is
mentioned but the linkages
are not clear
The CDP has a City Development Framework and one of which is the
LCCAP. The WHEELS for Development Roadmap demonstrates its
anchorage on regional, national plans, and UN SDGs, including sustainability
considerations. The CDP explicitly notes that the CDP shall ensure the
resilience and adaptability of the city to climate change and disaster risks.
The LCCAP explicitly mentions NCCAP as its anchor. In addition, the PPAs
are tagged to the various NCCAP priority areas to show how these
contribute to the broader development agenda of the LCCAP.
A3
Is the LCCAP linked to the CDP?
A4
Is the LCCAP linked to the Forest
Land Use Plan?
N/A
4 = Partially linked. Only
some strategies are linked
across plans.
A5
Is the LCCAP linked to the CLUP
strategies and resources?
4
5 = Fully linked. Plans are
consistent with each other.
A6
Is the LCCAP linked to other local
development plans?
4
No FLUP was reviewed for the city.
The LCCAP cites the use of data from older version of the CLUP (20112020). The review and update of the LCCAP should take note and consider
the CDRA 2021-2029.
LCCAP cites situational data from DRRMO. The LCCAP shows an
interlinking approach towards DRR and CCA.
1 = no official WG
A7
Is there an institution or a working
group that leads the development,
implementation, and evaluation of
the LCCAP? Are CSOs, academia,
and the private sector part of the
working group?
2 = with a WG but it is not
institutionalized
4
3 = with an institutionalized
WG but membership is
limited to LGU
4 = with an institutionalized
WG with limited
representation from other
The report mentions of a Climate Change Adaptation TWG and CDRRMC
as two groups who will work on assessing LCCAP PPAs for relevant and
determining conflicts, compatibility, and complementarities. The CCA TWG
will also be involved in monitoring and evaluation of the plan.
No
Checklist Question
Rating
Rating Guide
Comments
sectors (CSO, academia,
private sector)
5 = with an institutionalized
WG with extensive
representation from other
sectors (CSO, academia,
private sector)
Section B. Data, Information, and Analysis
No
Checklist Question
Rating
Rating Guide
Comments
The LCCAP includes exposure analysis, sensitivity analysis, adaptive capacity
analysis, and vulnerability assessments. The updating of the LCCAP should
reflect the current CDRA (2021) of the city.
B1
Is the LCCAP rooted in the CDRA
of the city?
4
1 = Not linked at all. Not
even mentioned in the
document.
2 = The other plan is
mentioned but the linkages
are not clear
4 = Partially linked. Only
some strategies are linked
across plans.
5 = Fully linked. Plans are
consistent with each other.
B2
Does the LCCAP reference hazard
maps correctly?
3
1 = No, not at all.
3 = Partly
5 = Yes
The hazard maps are referenced correctly but are incomplete.
B3
Are there enough data? Is the data
appropriate (i.e., most recent) for
the timeline of the LCCAP?
3
1 = No data.
3 = There is poor quality
data (i.e., outdated,
unreliable sources).
5 = There is high-quality
data
There are data on past climate hazards which were identified and tabulated,
including historical trends and observed changes. The LCCAP could benefit
more from the extensive analysis of the data to support LCCAP
recommendations.
B4
Are the choices of LCCAP
strategies rooted in previously
identified data (especially identified
climate risks)?
3
1 = There is no link
between climate risks and
strategies
3 = There is a link between
climate risks and some
strategies
5 = There is a link between
climate risks and all
strategies
The recommended strategies are based on identified climate impacts and
corresponding risks but are not explicitly or directly linked.
B5
Are the choices of LCCAP
strategies based on existing best
3
1 = no natural climate
solutions in their strategy
Some projects or activities identified are based on nature-based solutions.
However, the LCCAP can provide more information about these projects
No
Checklist Question
Rating
practices, especially including natural
climate solutions (NCS)? Are
LCCAP strategies presented by
sector and by geography?
Rating Guide
3 = some NCS strategies
are based on existing best
practices but can be
improved
5 = all NCS strategies are
based on existing best
practices
Comments
to make an assessment to what extent these mirror best practices. The
projects are presented per climate hazard and not by sector nor geography.
1 = not actionable at all,
only broad concepts
B6
Are the choices of LCCAP
strategies readily actionable (i.e.,
well-defined already in terms of
scope, size, and scale)
3
3 = Partially actionable
strategies which include at
least two pieces of
information on any of the
following: type of
technology, location, size,
budget, implementing
agency
Strategies and PPAs are identified but may not be readily actionable since
location, scale, and project cost, are not explicitly stated.
5 = Very actionable
strategies which include all
key information to develop
a project proposal
B7
Are the implementing agencies of
each LCCAP strategy identified?
5
1 = No
3 = Some
5 = All
Responsible agencies for the strategies and PPAs are identified.
Section C. Cross-cutting theme: Gender and Social Inclusion
No
Checklist Question
If there is an LCCAP WG, does it
have representation for women and
other disadvantaged groups? Is the
C1
Gender and Development (GAD)
unit of the LGU involved in the
LCCAP?
Does the LCCAP have a
contextualized analysis of how
C2 climate risks affects and/or
exacerbates gender and social
vulnerabilities?
Rating
Rating Guide
Comments
1
1 = GAD or women groups
are not included
3 = Only GAD is included
5 = GAD and women
groups are included
The composition of the CCATWG is not shown in the LCCAP. It cannot
be surmised to what extent GAD or women groups are represented in the
TWG. The score may change once a copy of the CCATWG composition is
available.
3
1 = no gender analysis
3 = there is mention of
gender but lacks in-depth
analysis
5 = extensive analysis of
gendered climate impacts
The LCCAP repeatedly mentions the importance of gender-responsive
actions and gendered climate change knowledge management but lacks indepth analysis.
No
Checklist Question
Do the LCCAP strategies have
gender and social inclusion
components? That is, is it clear from
C3
the LCCAP how women and
marginalized groups will benefit from
the strategies?
Is there evidence that women, urban
poor, fisherfolk, and other
vulnerable sectors were consulted
C4
and actively participated in the
development of the LCCAP and/or
its specific strategies?
Does the LCCAP include plans to
capacitate other organizations (e.g.,
C5
CSOs, academe) in climate change
planning and implementation?
Rating
Rating Guide
Comments
3
1 = no gender analysis
3 = there is mention of
gender but lacks integration
in strategies. Not clear on
how women and
marginalized groups will
benefit.
5 = extensive integration of
gender in strategies. Clear
benefits for women and
marginalized groups
The LCCAP mentions that it is anchored on the NFSCC which includes
adaptation measures based on equity and that special attention must be
given to ensure the equitable protection of women and other vulnerable
groups. However, it does not show how these specific groups will benefit
from these measures.
3
1 = no evidence
3 = there is mention of the
groups in the plan but not
enough to support the claim
that they were consulted
nor participated in the
development
5 = The plan has explicitly
mentioned that these
groups were consulted and
participated in the
development of the plan
The plan mentions a series of consultation workshops but did not identify
which stakeholders were consulted. The plan mentions the Urban Poor
Affairs Office, which may suggest they were included in the consultations.
But there was no mention of farmer, fisherfolk, youth, and women groups.
3
1 = no plans for capacity
building
3 = plans for capacity
building are limited to LGU
5 = with plans for capacity
building of LGU, CSOs and
academia
The Iloilo City LGU has plans for capacity building (see Chapter 8, Plan
Implementation) but has no specific program. The plan also does not
mention of integrating the academe and other relevant units outside the
LGU. However, the LCCAP does mention funding coming from external
sources such as the academe and the private sector.
Section D. Financing the Plan and Private Sector Engagement
No
D1
Checklist Question
Does the LCCAP have a budget? Is
the budget reasonable?
Does the LCCAP include plans on
D2 how to finance its strategies?
Rating
1
3
Rating Guide
1 = no section on financing
3 = there is budget
estimates but no plan on
how to finance the plan
5 = clear section on budget
and how to finance the plan
Comments
There are no budget estimates for each PPA.
The city outlined potential sources of funds for the LCCAP including
external sources of financing (Innovative Financing such as settlement of climate
debts, Disaster Management Assistance Fund, Public Finance Mechanisms and
payments for environmental services). However, given that there are no
budget estimates, it is not clear how the resources will be mobilized (e.g.
No
Checklist Question
Rating
Rating Guide
Comments
50% will come from internal sources, 50% will come from external sources,
etc.)
1 = no section on human
resources
Does the LCCAP have plans on how
D3 to mobilize human resources to
3
implement the plan?
3 = there is section on how
the LGU intends to staff its
bureaucracy to implement
LCCAP but does more
broad strokes
Under Chapter 8, Plan Implementation, the plan noted that there will be a
review of staff composition and responsibility centers (vis-à-vis the
requirements to effectively implement and enforce the LCCAP).
5 = there is a clear plan to
recruit and retain talent to
implement LCCAP
Does the LCCAPs have explicit
plans to engage the private sector?
D4 Are private sector players identified
in the plan?
5
1 = no evidence from the
plan
3 = there is mention of the
groups in the plan but not
enough to support the claim
that they were consulted
nor participated in the
development
5 = The plan has explicitly
mentioned that these
groups were consulted and
participated in the
development of the plan
Private sector is integrated in the LCCAP. They are part of the
consultation-workshops and of implementation (e.g., Landscaping/ greening
or parking lots, Promotion of Urban Greening, Green Architecture, Green
Development to private sector real estate developers). They are also
identified as potential source of funding.
Section E. Monitoring and Evaluation
No
Checklist Question
E1
Does the LCCAP have an M&E
Framework?
E2
Does the LCCAP have indicators,
including sex-disaggregated
indicators, for output and outcome
Rating
3
1
Rating Guide
1 = no M&E framework
3 = with M&E framework
but not well defined nor
linked to broader
frameworks of the city
5 = clear M&E framework
and alignment with broader
frameworks of the city
1 = no identified indicators
3 = with indicators but not
comprehensive nor does
not show whether the plan
will be a success or not
Comments
There is no one M&E Framework for the LCCAP. PPAs are disaggregated
by climate hazards and are tagged to the strategic priorities of the
NCCAP. However, there are no indicators and targets that concretely
show how LCCAP strategies are linked to the NCCAP and other
development plans.
There are no identified indicators in the LCCAP. It mentions, however, of
the creation of the Monitoring, Review, and Evaluation (MRE) team whose
responsibility includes establishing indicators and benchmarks. The MRE
team is composed of CPDO, City ENRO, CDRRMO, private sector, civil
No
Checklist Question
Rating
levels? Does it have key measures
of success?
E3
Are the indicators valid (precise
definitions + methodology) and
have a clear link to the framework
and/or contribution to climate
resilience?
E4
Does the LCCAP have a plan to
monitor its progress over its
intended time frame?
E5
Does the LCCAP have targets? (Or
expected benefits in terms of
people supported, hectares
protected, or GHG emissions
abated, etc.)
1
E6
Does the LCCAP have a plan to
evaluate if it is a success after its
intended time frame?
3
E7
Does the LCCAP have a plan to
solicit and respond to feedback
(FCRM – feedback, complaints,
response mechanism)?
1
1
3
Rating Guide
Comments
5 = extensive indicators to
show success of the plan
society, and barangay representatives.
1 = indicators are not
defined
3 = indicators are defined
but the link to the
framework is not that clear
5 = indicators are welldefined and the link to the
framework is clear
1 = no mention of any
monitoring plan
3 = there is a monitoring
plan but not
comprehensive to cover
performance monitoring,
context monitoring, and
feedback monitoring
5 = There is an extensive
monitoring plan
1 = no mention of targets
3 = there are targets but
not sure how it was
derived (i.e., assumptions)
5 = there are targets and
assumptions behind the
targets
1 = no mention of any
evaluation plan
3 = there is only an
evaluation towards the end
5 = there is a frequent
evaluation of the plan (e.g.,
annual or midterm)
1 = no mention of a
feedback and response
mechanism
3 = there is a mention of
an FCRM but not clear
how it will be
operationalized
5 = there is a clear FCRM
for the plan
There is a need to check if the LGU has constituted the MRE Team yet
and to what extent they have developed the M&E Framework for the
LCCAP.
The LCCAP mentions of annual monitoring through TWG meetings and
establishment of MRE Teams for LCCAP M&E. Annual monitoring (p. 64)
provides information that sets directions in setting priorities and budgets
every year. They will monitor quality of life indicators and land use
changes. The actual monitoring plan is yet to be developed, as per the plan.
The LCCAP identifies possible strategies but seems like the LGU has not
committed to these strategies since there is another process before these
PPAs get feed into the Annual Investment Planning of the LGU and that is
the Assessment and Prioritization of PPAs (join exercise by CCA TWG
and CDRRMC).
The evaluation of LCCAP is planned every 3 years. Evaluation will focus on
efficiency, effectiveness, and impacts. On Page 68, the plan lists out
evaluation guidelines when re-planning the LCCAP.
There is no mention of an FCRM in the plan.
Section F. Communication and Knowledge Management
No
Checklist Question
Rating
F1
Is the LCCAP publicly available (i.e.,
online)?
F2
Does the LCCAP have an
information, education, and
communications (IEC) component?
3
F3
Does the LCCAP include plans to
report on its progress?
3
F4
Is there publicly available
information on the progress of
LCCAP with respect to the plans
set out in the said document?
1
1
Rating Guide
1= not at all. Cannot be
searched online.
3 = Yes. It is available
online but not on the LGU
website.
5 = Yes, it is available on
the LGU website.
1 = not at all.
3 = There are plans for IEC
but not clear on
implementation (budget,
who is involved, etc.)
5 = Concrete plans for IEC
1 = No plans to report on
progress
3 = The plan mentioned
reporting but is not clear
on the timeline
5 = With a clear reporting
plan and timeline
1= not at all. Cannot be
searched online.
3 = Yes. It is available
online but not on the LGU
website.
5 = Yes, it is available on
the LGU website
Comments
It is not included in the list of plans posted on the official website of the
City Government of Iloilo. Other websites mentioned the LCCAP of Iloilo
but no copy of it can be accessed.
The plan has identified multiple IEC strategies: IEC for the reduced use of
fossil fuels for cooking, transport, etc.; IEC for community-initiated
mangrove reforestation; IEC for rainwater harvesting with the private
sector, among others. But there are no specific plans yet for these like
budgets, medium, and timeline.
Plans to report are presented in pages 64 and 66, but the timeline is still
vague. Additionally, it seems like the reporting is internal to the LGU and
less on external stakeholders (e.g., citizens)
There is no information online on the progress of the LCCAP for Iloilo.