• In addition, no approved climate budget was identfiied to support Executive Order 174, which mandates the development and monitoring of GHG emissions from various sectors. It remains unclear in FY16 how this will be achieved and who will be responsible for establishing baselines. • To address these gaps in subsequent budget cycles, these NGAs could consider identifying whether improvements to their CCET, and/or strengthening their support for the respective NCCAP areas they lead are required, both through increased expenditures as well as institutional capacity. In addition, lim ited allocations to lead NGAs were observed for som e NCCAP outcom e and output areas. Although the level of expenditures alone may not be indicative of government actions and achievements, there are few programs, of any size, identified in the climate budget supporting these areas. These gaps are nearly identical to those described in FY2015. • • The Water Sufficiency NCCAP priority is only supported by 5% of DENR’s climate budget (up from 3% in 2015), despite its lead role in several output areas, including through its support for the NWRB. This accounts for less than 1% of total WS expenditures. Additionally, despite DPWH’s lead role for the installation of Rainwater Collection Systems in public schools and state facilities, less than 1% of its climate budget was approved for this program. For the Human Security strategic priority, although climate expenditures increased by 49% from the FY 2015 GAA (PHP 0.58 billion to PHP 0.87 billion), less than half a percent of total climate expenditures were allocated to achieve its outcomes and outputs, similar to FY 2015. • Furthermore, allocations for Knowledge and Capacity Development were just 1% of total climate expenditures in FY16, representing a 46% decrease; and although allocations for Climate-Smart Industries and Services increased by 10%, they still remained at just 2% of the FY16 total climate expenditures. • When preparing future climate budgets, the Government should facilitate discussions on these areas with limited resources to determine whether the level of expenditures reflect their prioritization relative to other areas. Further engagem ent is necessary to strengthen clim ate action planning and budgeting. Improving climate budgeting by ensuring quality assurance and review, engaging NGAs on internal policy dialogue, and improving transparency through reporting will lead to strengthened climate budgeting embedded in the GoP planning and budgeting system. Additionally, as the climate budgeting process is new, it remains a work in progress and will continue to be strengthened by building on the lessons learned from the first two years of implementation. In doing so, the Philippines will continue to improve its national response for climate change adaptation and mitigation.   6