Press Release
Anu. G.M
The IMPRI Center for Environment, Climate Change and Sustainable Development (CECCSD), IMPRI Impact and Policy Research Institute, New Delhi, organised a panel discussion on “The Environment and Union Budget 2026-27” under its 7th Annual Series of Thematic Deliberations and Analysis of the Union Budget 2026-27, as part of IMPRI. The discussion critically examined the environmental priorities, fiscal allocations, and policy directions reflected in the Union Budget 2026-27.
The session was chaired and moderated by Mr. Ashish Kothari, Founder-Member, Kalpavriksh, Pune. Mr. Ashish Kothari opened the discussion by outlining a three-fold framework to analyse the Union Budget from an environmental perspective: direct allocations to environmental ministries, indirect allocations with potential environmental benefits, and allocations to sectors that are ecologically destructive, such as mining and large infrastructure.
He noted the near absence of environmental language in the Finance Minister’s Budget Speech, highlighting that critical terms such as biodiversity, pollution, wildlife, and toxics were either missing or mentioned only in the context of tourism. Mr. Kothari questioned claims of “environmentally sustainable” transport systems, particularly national waterways and high-speed rail corridors, arguing that such projects often involve dredging, land conversion, and ecosystem damage. He also emphasised the lack of focus on climate adaptation, despite millions of people already facing severe climate impacts such as heat stress, floods, and droughts.
Environment–Economy Disconnect
Prof Krishna Raj, Visiting Professor, IMPRI; Professor, Centre for Economic Studies and Policy, Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC), Bangalore, India, described the Union Budget 2026-27 as reflecting a business-as-usual approach to environmental concerns. While the Economic Survey 2025-26 acknowledged environmental degradation and urban challenges in theory, the budget failed to translate these insights into meaningful fiscal action.
He highlighted the disconnect between urban environmental realities and fiscal priorities, especially in Tier-1 cities suffering from congestion, pollution, and heat stress. Despite evidence on the economic costs of traffic congestion and productivity loss, the budget offered no targeted fiscal support for major metropolitan areas.
Prof. Krishna Raj also critiqued the emphasis on CCUS, arguing that it primarily supports corporate interests rather than delivering long-term climate mitigation. He raised concerns over inadequate allocations for pollution control bodies, neglect of waste management, environmentally risky rare-earth mining in forest-rich regions, and the decision to open nuclear energy to private participation, citing safety and governance concerns.
Air Pollution and Missed Opportunities
Ms. Prarthana Borah, Fellow, Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW), focused on air quality management, expressing disappointment at the absence of explicit references to air pollution and clean air strategies in the budget. She noted a broader policy shift from using the term “environment” to phrases such as “sustainability” and “greening the economy,” which often dilutes attention to persistent environmental health challenges.
She identified the MSME sector as a missed opportunity where budgetary support for growth could have been aligned with clean energy transitions and emission reductions. Ms. Borah emphasised that without embedding air quality objectives into broader industrial and economic policies, environmental outcomes would remain limited.
Climate Language vs Climate Action
Mr Soumya Dutta, Co-Convener of South Asian People’s Action on Climate Crisis (SAPACC) in New Delhi, offered a strong critique of the budget’s climate narrative, arguing that many provisions framed as climate-friendly in fact reinforce fossil fuel dependence. He highlighted the sharp rise in allocations linked to coal and questioned the effectiveness of CCUS, stating that it effectively prolongs the life of polluting industries rather than enabling a genuine low-carbon transition.
While acknowledging increased allocations for renewable energy, he cautioned that current implementation models could lead to new environmental, social, and livelihood conflicts, particularly for local communities. He argued that environmental terminology was being appropriated to legitimize extractive and carbon-intensive development pathways, rather than advancing climate justice.
Weak Legal and Institutional Frameworks
Mr Debadityo Sinha, Lead, Climate and Ecosystems, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, New Delhi, focused on the legal and institutional dimensions of environmental governance. He observed that while the budget increasingly relies on technology-driven and market-based solutions, it fails to address regulatory weaknesses, enforcement gaps, and institutional capacity constraints.
He stressed that environmental challenges cannot be resolved through fiscal allocations alone unless supported by strong legal frameworks, monitoring mechanisms, and accountability structures. The absence of meaningful discussion on regulation and compliance, he argued, reflects a systematic dilution of environmental governance, even as development pressures intensify.
Sanitation, Water Pollution, and Public Health
Ms. Shyamala Mani, Sr.Advisor, WASH and Waste Management, Centre for Chronic Disease Control (CCDC) ,Professor (Retd.) and Advisor, National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA), MPD 2041, SBM(U) & Climate Centre for Cities, Former Programme Director Waste and Resources Management, CEE drew attention to the neglect of sanitation and water pollution in the Union Budget 2026-27. She highlighted that despite the existence of programmes such as Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) 2.0, fund utilisation remains low, with barely one-third of allocations being effectively spent.
She emphasised that poor implementation and weak monitoring have resulted in persistent sanitation failures, with serious public health consequences, particularly for children. Ms. Mani argued that the continued sidelining of sanitation and water pollution reflects a deeper disconnect between environmental policy, health outcomes, and social equity.
Media, Accountability, and Environmental Narratives
Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Senior Editor (Political & Current Affairs), NDTV India & Visiting Senior Fellow, IMPRI, highlighted the role of media, public discourse, and political accountability in shaping environmental priorities within fiscal policymaking. He observed that despite the scale of India’s environmental crises, ranging from air pollution to climate-induced disasters, these issues often fail to receive sustained attention in mainstream political and budgetary debates.
He pointed out that disaster mitigation strategies, especially climate resilience of coastal vulnerable communities, were largely missing in the budget. He also emphasized the need to address the effects of climate change on agriculture and food production, which ultimately affects food security.
Conclusion
The discussion underscored that while the Union Budget 2026-27 signals intent towards sustainability and green growth, environmental concerns remain peripheral within India’s fiscal planning. Panelists collectively called for stronger integration of ecological priorities into economic policy, greater emphasis on climate adaptation and pollution control, and more accountable governance of environmentally sensitive sectors.
IMPRI’s 7th Annual Series of Thematic Deliberations and Analysis of Union Budget 2026-27
IMPRI 7th Annual Series of Thematic Deliberations and Analysis of Union Budget 2026-27
The Environment and Union Budget 2026-27
Acknowledgement: This article is written by Anu.G.M, a Research Intern at IMPRI. She is a civil services aspirant and a post graduate student of Gender and Development Studies.
