The historical ills in the relationship between capital and the environment have now manifested in areas commonly referred to as the "environmental crisis." This includes global warming, the destruction of the ozone layer, the devastation of tropical forests, mass mortality of fish, species extinction, loss of biodiversity, poison seeping into the atmosphere and food, desertification, shrinking water supplies, lack of clean water, and radioactive pollution.
Therefore, concerning the environmental conditions that have the most direct impact on human society, it is necessary to plan economic development in a way that makes budgeting more relevant by considering factors like water resources and their expansion, the availability of clean water, the distribution and conservation of resources, waste management, and the environmental impact related to specific sites chosen for population centers and industrial projects.
Budgets do not merely present figures and plans; they also reflect a deeper conception of development—what development is and how a country seeks to achieve economic growth. Budget allocations reveal what is valued, whose interests are protected, and who bears the ecological cost of development. At a time when the climate crisis, environmental degradation, and social inequalities are intensifying, it is essential to analyze the budget from an ecological perspective.
For a rapidly developing country like India, balancing environmental protection and economic development has become a paramount need. While emphasizing development programs, infrastructure, job creation, and economic growth is necessary, environmental sustainability and the conservation of natural resources are equally important.
Madhya Pradesh is geographically the central state of India, with an economy based on agriculture, forests, and mineral resources. Events like droughts, erratic monsoons, floods, heat waves, and forest fires are direct indicators of climate change in the state. Therefore, the budget for 2026–27 should have been not just an economic document but also a policy paper for climate risk management. The Madhya Pradesh government has presented a budget of ₹4,38,317 crore for 2026–27. Only ₹31 crore has been allocated for environmental protection, which is about 20% less than last year's ₹39 crore.
The budget emphasizes measures like solar energy, green energy investments, and incentives for electric vehicles. However, expenditure on drought management, rainwater harvesting, watershed development, water-conservation-based agriculture, and climate-resilient crops appears comparatively low, even though more than 60% of the state's population depends on agriculture. There are no clear provisions in the budget tailored to specific climate risks, such as droughts in Bundelkhand, floods in the Narmada Valley, and forest degradation in tribal areas.
While the budget includes provisions for afforestation, utilizing CAMPA funds, and wildlife conservation, it does not place the expected emphasis on community forest management and Gram Sabha-based conservation. The priority given to mining and infrastructure projects will increase pressure on forests. The balance between the development-centric model and ecological conservation is not clearly visible. The announcement of programs to rejuvenate rivers like the Narmada, Tapti, and Betwa is a positive initiative.
However, spending on large dams and canal projects is higher compared to small water conservation models like ponds, check dams, and traditional water structures. This reliance on centralized infrastructure, rather than decentralized water management, could reduce climate resilience.
There is a lack of special budgetary protection for tribal and rural communities, who are most affected by climate change. The budget includes expenditure on smart cities and urban infrastructure, but separate allocations for urban green spaces, drainage improvements, and heat action plans are not clearly defined. This is concerning given the continuous increase in extreme weather events related to climate change in the state. Due to rising temperatures, wheat production in the state could decline by 6% to 23% by 2050. A 33% drop in wheat production was recorded in 2024 compared to 2023, the highest in India. The budget lacks an effective and concrete action plan to address this.
On the other hand, the Union Budget 2026–27 allocated approximately ₹3,759.46 crore to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, which is about 8% higher than the previous year. However, according to experts, this is still insufficient considering India's vast environmental risks and needs.
The central budget heavily focuses on fossil fuels, mining, and traditional infrastructure, while not giving adequate importance to environmental protection and ecological costs. The budget's steps towards reducing economic dependence on high-carbon industries are insufficient, and heavy investment in traditional energy sources continues.
A large portion of the budget is focused on "big infrastructure," meaning heavy spending on highways, cities, ports, and other major structural projects. The government claims this will create jobs and accelerate the economy. But what is often overlooked, or deliberately not mentioned, is the serious environmental impact of these projects. The central government's Economic Survey stated that forest clearances are an obstacle to development projects, whereas in practice, approvals are often granted swiftly by the government.
Overall, the budget promoted infrastructure as if its ecological and social impacts were insignificant. When forests are seen as obstacles, when the focus is on luxury trains instead of promoting public transport, and when coastlines are handed over to private companies, we are not just constructing; we are putting the environment and communities at risk.
The Economic Survey acknowledged that only 37% of the urban population has access to public transport, but the budget shows no concrete steps to improve this. Cities are being envisioned as a future filled with cars and airports. The National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur, stated in its study that the productivity of 30% of the country's land has been lost.
Therefore, investment is needed to encourage farmers towards natural farming. However, the agriculture budget remains focused on fertilizer subsidies. Healthy land is the foundation of prosperous economies, with more than half of the global GDP dependent on nature.
Yet, we are destroying this natural capital at an alarming rate, leading to biodiversity loss, increased drought risk, and community displacement. Desertification, land degradation, and drought are among the most serious environmental challenges of our time. The budget does not present a concrete strategy to tackle the climate crisis.
The government should ensure a clear budget line, a dedicated financial strategy, and departmental coordination so that climate action plans can be implemented effectively and vulnerable communities can be protected.
---
*Bargi Dam Displaced and Affected Union
Comments