The Environment And Union Budget 2025-26

Press Release
Mallika Bhojak

The IMPRI Center for Environment, Climate Change, and Sustainable Development conducted a thought-provoking discussion on The Environment and Union Budget 2025-26. The session brought together experts to critically analyze the budget’s approach towards environmental sustainability, climate action, and resource allocation.

Key Highlights of the Session

The discussion was led by Prof. Krishna Raj, who set the stage for an urgent assessment on whether the budget aligns with India’s environmental priorities. He emphasized that it is essential for a well-structured and forward-looking environmental budget to effectively tackle key concerns in climate resilience, pollution control, and sustainable energy transitions. Prof. Raj pointed out a gap in terms of policy continuation and resource allotment, indicating whether the available budgetary provision would be strong enough to make long-term sustainable environmental development viable. He opined that economic growth should always be integrated into ecological preservation rather than at its cost.

Insights from Expert Panelists

Prof. Shyamala Mani spoke of the failure of integrating environmental initiatives in the budget. She noted that e-waste recycling is ignored when, in fact, it has the potential to offer raw materials for industries and jobs. She further lamented that no transition strategy has been formulated for urban waste workers and that there was no coordination between the programs of urban sustainability and climate resilience measures.

Prof. Krishna Raj criticized the budget saying it was skewed too much on mitigation rather than adaptation. He observed that climate disasters are increasingly rising, and more money should be allocated to adaptation. He emphasized the discrepancy between budget allocations and actual spending, stressing that ineffective policy implementation leads to resource underutilization and prevents real progress in environmental conservation.

Mr. Soumya Dutta critiqued that the budget provided for the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change has been woefully inadequate. In fact, it has reduced as a real term rather than an increase in inflationary terms. He raised a question over the air pollution aspect, climate disasters, and even the issue of coastal communities as sea levels continue to rise. He insisted that there needs to be more money invested in adaptation programs and the mapping of vulnerabilities across India.

Mr. Debadityo Sinha discussed the policy changes of the last few years that are favoring economic growth over environmental protection. He stated that the environmental laws have been amended for the ease of business rather than conservation. He also pointed out that the funds for forest conservation and the National Coastal Mission were not being utilized fully, which would worsen environmental degradation in vulnerable regions.

Ms. Prarthana Borah brought in an industry perspective, stating that the budget is largely driven by the industrial decarbonization agenda rather than holistic environmental sustainability. She noted that while industries are pushing for renewable energy adoption, the slow expansion of clean energy infrastructure is limiting progress. She also highlighted the importance of balancing economic growth with environmental responsibility and the need for stronger regulatory measures.

Mr. Himanshu Shekhar emphasized that there is no financial support for climate adaptation in agriculture. He said that the farmers are facing unpredictable weather patterns without any considerable budgetary provision for resilience building. He further expressed his apprehension over no investment in pollution control and rejuvenation of rivers, while water pollution and urban air quality have been facing an increasing crisis.

Concluding Remarks

The discussion underscored the need for a paradigm shift in India’s environmental policy and budgetary priorities. Some investment has been made in green initiatives, but the overall allocation is still insufficient to address the increasing environmental and climate crises. The panelists collectively emphasized that fragmented policies and insufficient funding continue to hinder meaningful progress. There is an imperative need for a more integrated and strategic approach that bridges policy gaps, ensures equitable resource allocation, and prioritizes long-term sustainability over short-term economic gains.

A just transition for vulnerable communities, stronger enforcement of environmental regulations, and proactive climate adaptation strategies must be central to future budgets. The government must move beyond such rhetorical commitments and take concrete, actionable steps toward climate resilience, reducing pollution, and natural protection. Sustained dialogue among policymakers, industry leaders, and civil society must become the norm in order to ensure that concerns about the environment are not marginalized but central to national economic planning. Experts felt that such a structured framework would ensure policy continuity and better resource allocation in the direction of climate resilience, pollution control, and just transition for concerned communities.