Press Release
Mannat Ghumman
As part of the IMPRI 5th Annual Series of Thematic Deliberations and Analysis of Union Budget 2024-25, the IMPRI Center for Environment, Climate Change, and Sustainable Development (CECCSD), IMPRI Impact and Policy Research Institute, New Delhi, hosted a session on “The Environment and Union Budget 2024-25.” This session provided a thought-provoking discussion at the intersection of two critical pillars shaping our nation’s future.
Mr. Ashish Kothari, Founder-Member of Kalpavriksh and Visiting Senior Fellow at IMPRI, critiqued the recent budget’s environmental aspects, noting its superficial treatment of key issues like biodiversity, wildlife, and pollution. He pointed out that environmental terms were rarely mentioned, often linked to specific provisions rather than broader concerns. Kothari acknowledged some positives, such as support for one crore farmers to switch to natural farming and subsidies for solar rooftops. However, he criticized the potential negative ecological and social impacts of large-scale solar projects and questioned the effectiveness of these schemes.
He also expressed concerns about the push for nuclear energy and the Blue Revolution’s focus on marine exports without addressing resource overexploitation. Additionally, he highlighted a significant reduction in funding for the Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and criticized the imbalance in funding allocations between infrastructure and environmental initiatives, calling for more focus on adaptation measures.
Mr. Debadityo Sinha, Lead for Climate and Ecosystems at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, New Delhi, expressed his appreciation for the organization of the discussion and highlighted several key points regarding the recent budget. Sinha noted that this year’s budget represents a significant departure from previous ones. He emphasized the importance of understanding the allocation of funds to different sectors and how these allocations reflect the government’s priorities. While the budget includes significant financial commitments, it lacks a clear focus on conservation despite mentioning green initiatives.
He specifically pointed out that there has been an increase in financial allocations for certain secretariats and institutes related to conservation. However, he criticized the budget for its minimal emphasis on biodiversity conservation, noting that only a small fraction of funds—3.5 crore—was allocated to this area. This is a stark contrast to the larger sums allocated for development projects aimed at boosting GDP. Sinha also raised concerns about the lack of strategic impact assessments for budget allocations, suggesting that there should be mechanisms to ensure that the concerns of various stakeholders are considered before finalizing the budget. He called for a more strategic approach to budgeting that includes thorough assessments of environmental and social impacts.
Prof. Krishna Raj, Visiting Professor at IMPRI and Professor at ISEC, critiqued the 2024-25 Union Budget for its gap between climate policy and finance. He noted the budget’s primary focus on developmental goals, including transforming India into a $40 trillion economy by 2047, but criticized the insufficient integration of climate considerations. Prof. Raj highlighted that while the budget prioritizes development across sectors, environmental and climate-related allocations are inadequate. He pointed out that over 60% of the budget went to transportation, leaving environmental sectors underfunded.
He praised recent government acknowledgment of economic and environmental realities but criticized limited progress on income inequality and ecological impacts. He suggested introducing measures like a green belt tax for wealthier segments and noted the modest increase in the Ministry of Environment and Forests’ budget, which is largely for revenue rather than capital expenditures. Programs like the National Mission for Green India and National Mission for Afforestation were deemed insufficient for substantial environmental goals, such as increasing forest cover.
Mr. Soumya Dutta, Co-Convener of South Asian People’s Action on Climate Crisis (SAPACC), discussed the budget’s treatment of energy and climate change issues. He highlighted that India’s budget allocation for climate action remains minimal, consistently around 0.06% to 0.07% of the total budget. Despite this, there are significant discussions globally about energy transition and its importance.
Mr. Dutta noted that the budget has increased the allocation for the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, which is a positive step. However, he expressed concern that this increase is insufficient given the government’s goal to achieve 500 gigawatts of renewable energy by 2030. He pointed out that the time frame to meet this target is short, and the current budgetary support may not be adequate.
He also critiqued the government’s approach to coal, noting that while the allocation for the Ministry of Coal is minimal, private coal mining is being promoted. This could lead to increased coal production, despite the government’s broader climate goals. Additionally, Mr. Dutta raised concerns about the expansion of the aviation sector, which contributes significantly to carbon emissions.
A key issue he highlighted was the lack of focus on adaptation measures in the budget. He stressed that while renewable energy and climate mitigation are essential, adaptation to climate impacts, such as extreme heat and sea level rise, is equally critical. Mr. Dutta criticized the budget for not addressing adaptation needs, such as providing cooling systems for vulnerable populations and supporting disaster response measures. He argued that a more substantial investment in adaptation is necessary to protect the most affected communities.
Ms. Gopalika Arora, Associate Fellow at the Centre for Economy and Growth, Observer Research Foundation (ORF), began her remarks by acknowledging the importance of the discussion and highlighted some key aspects of the budget. She expressed concern that despite the ambitious announcements regarding agricultural research, the actual funding and implementation fell short of expectations.
The budget seemed to overlook crucial areas related to the agrarian and rural economy, particularly in managing natural resources and supporting communities in adapting to climate change. Arora pointed out the need for improved post-harvest infrastructure and financial support for crop insurance. She noted a significant decrease in funding for crop insurance, which could leave farmers more vulnerable to risks. However, there were some positive developments, such as renewed emphasis on the sugar industry, which could help achieve the country’s ethanol blending targets.
Additionally, the government’s plan to engage experts for creating a roadmap for Indian agriculture was seen as a step towards better policy-making and transparency. Turning to the energy sector, Arora noted that the budget maintained a strong focus on energy security, with particular attention to energy storage and nuclear energy. While the push towards developing small nuclear reactors and partnering with the private sector was acknowledged, she cautioned about the viability of these projects, given similar past initiatives. On a more positive note, the budget’s emphasis on electric vehicles (EVs) and the reduction of customs duties on lithium and other critical minerals were seen as steps forward in supporting the EV supply chain.
Prof. Shyamala Mani, Senior Advisor at WASH and Waste Management, CEH, PHFI; former Professor at NIUA; and Visiting Professor at IMPRI, critiqued the New India Economic Policy’s approach to water supply, waste treatment, and solid waste management. She highlighted the government’s plan to promote these projects across 100 cities through bank account initiatives but criticized the lack of increased budget for the Swachh Bharat Mission. Prof. Mani pointed out that waste management projects in urban and rural areas suffer from funding gaps and poor implementation, despite last year’s 8,000 crore budget allocation.
The government’s goals for universal water tap connections and sewage coverage by March 2029, along with reusing 40% of treated wastewater, lack a clear action plan, especially for infrastructure. She also noted a significant omission of climate resilience in policy discussions, with municipalities facing inadequate drainage and health issues like dengue and leptospirosis due to poor sanitation. The reduced urban sanitation budget is deemed insufficient to address these pressing issues.
Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Senior Editor at NDTV India and Visiting Senior Fellow at IMPRI, discussed the government’s focus on climate issues and budget allocations. He acknowledged valid concerns but highlighted an 8.51% increase in the environment ministry’s budget to 30,007.9 crores for 2024, with notable rises in funding for the National Tiger Conservation Authority and pollution control.
Mr. Shekhar stressed the importance of climate-resilient agriculture and solar energy, noting concessions for solar cell manufacturing in the Finance Minister’s speech, though some exemptions were not extended to boost domestic manufacturing. He pointed out the PM Surya Mukt Bijli Yojana, benefiting over 1.28 crore people, and 11,500 crores allocated for flood mitigation and irrigation. He also mentioned increased customs duties on PVC flex to address non-biodegradable materials, a forthcoming policy document on energy transition, and a taxonomy for climate finance. The effectiveness of these measures will depend on future policy announcements and their implementation.
Ms. Bhavreen Kandhari, Founder of Warrior Moms, addressed several critical issues regarding environmental and public health concerns. She noted the importance of addressing air quality and the fact that previous budgets have not fully utilized their allocated resources for these issues. Kandhari emphasized that beyond mere allocation, the commitment to improving air quality and addressing environmental concerns must be genuine and reflected in actions across different states. She highlighted the connection between environmental issues and public health, particularly the welfare and security of children. The lack of a comprehensive flood mitigation scheme in many states is causing severe suffering for families, suggesting that more inclusive and widespread measures are needed.
Ms. Kandhari criticized the lack of progress in reducing single-use plastics, despite high-profile commitments and regulations. She pointed out that the existing bans are not effectively enforced, and single-use plastics continue to be widely available. Concluding her remarks, Kandhari referenced Prime Minister Modi’s commitment from COP26 to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. She underscored the significant financial investment required to meet this target and stressed the importance of implementing robust forest conservation policies to support this goal.
In conclusion, the panel discussion on “The Environment and Union Budget 2024-25” highlighted critical gaps in the budget’s approach to environmental and climate issues. While some positive steps, such as increased allocations for renewable energy and specific environmental initiatives, were noted, the overall focus remained skewed towards developmental goals at the expense of comprehensive environmental action. Panelists called for a more integrated and strategic approach that balances developmental ambitions with urgent climate and ecological needs, emphasizing that effective implementation and genuine commitment are crucial for achieving long-term sustainability and resilience.
IMPRI’s 5th Annual Series of Thematic Deliberations and Analysis of Union Budget 2024-25
IMPRI’s 5th Annual Series of Thematic Deliberations and Analysis of Union Budget 2024-25
Watch the event at IMPRI #Web Policy Talk
Acknowledgement- This article was written by Mannat Ghumman, Research Intern IMPRI
