<p>The Union Budget 2026-27 invokes resilience and sustainability largely through sectoral priorities such as agriculture, infrastructure, and urban growth, without distinctly articulating resilience and adaptation. What was notably missing was a dedicated focus and budget allocation for resilience building and adaptation, despite India having prepared a National Adaptation Plan. This omission seems starker given that the Economic Survey explicitly recognised rising temperatures, water stress, biodiversity loss, and land degradation as threats to productivity, food security, and infrastructure sustainability.</p>.<p>The Budget has outlaid Rs 12.2 lakh crore in public capital expenditure towards inland waterways, highways, freight corridors, and railways; urban infrastructure, including transport and power; industrial and logistical infrastructure encompassing MSME clusters, data centres, and industrial corridors; and health and education infrastructure. While these investments will shape India’s economy over the coming decades, they are at risk from a changing climate that is becoming a lived reality, including extreme heat and rainfall, as well as sea level rise. The Budget does not mandate climate proofing of these assets with a 30-50-year lifespan, risking investment and growth derailment.</p>.<p>Ecological initiatives, such as mountain trails, turtle trails, and bird corridors, are budgeted to add value to local economies and serve as tourism assets. But the need to conserve and promote ecosystems as protective infrastructure remains under-emphasised. This lack of focus on climate-buffering measures, such as watershed management, mangrove restoration, and blue-green infrastructure in cities, underscores a gap in the understanding and financing of climate resilience.</p>.Capt Poly and the ‘money bag’.<p>The strong focus on income enhancement is evident in the budgetary support for high-value crops and fisheries, as well as the introduction of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based agri-stack for advisory services. Bharat-VISTAAR, a flagship initiative announced in the Budget, is a multilingual AI tool aimed at enhancing productivity and income through value-chain integration. However, the uncertainty posed by climate variability and extreme events, which determines what can be grown, where, and when and undermines productivity, remains unaddressed. Also missing are investments for landscape-level adaptation, such as groundwater recharge or soil moisture conservation.</p>.<p>Cities have been positioned as engines of growth, with the introduction of the City Economic Regions (CER) strategy and an allocation of Rs 5,000 crore per CER over five years. Furthermore, the Rs-1,00,000 crore Urban Challenge Fund is intended to leverage public, private, and bond financing for urban green initiatives. A transition from a vehicle-centric to a people-centric focus in the Budget is evident from the references to subsidised public transport and pedestrian-friendly city planning. However, there are no binding requirements for heat action plans, climate-sensitive urban designs, and flood-resilient land zoning.</p>.<p>Major budgetary allocations made for critical minerals, carbon capture, utilisation, and storage, nuclear power, and battery storage strengthen energy security, but are clearly industry-led and mitigation-focused. What is lacking is a focus on making power grids resilient to rising cooling demands driven by the increasing magnitude and duration of heatwaves, cyclones, and floods. With climate impacts causing sharp spikes in power demand and increasing power supply disruptions during extreme events, the absence of targeted investments in energy system resilience leaves the energy transition vulnerable.</p>.<p>Climate resilience requires predictable, equitable, and pre-emptive fiscal transfers that enable states and cities to plan and invest ahead of climate shocks. While the Budget’s challenge-based financing might offer motivation, it inadvertently favours states that are challenge-ready with higher capacity and progressive governance. This risks excluding states that may be at high climate risk but have weak institutional mechanisms.</p>.<p><strong>Missed opportunities</strong></p>.<p>Aligning the Budget along the path chartered by the Economic Survey could have placed climate adaptation at the core of India’s development strategy. Mandating climate risk assessment for all large public capital expenditure would have helped ensure they remain fit for today and a warmer, wetter future. Also, a more nuanced approach to disaster finance, focusing on preparedness and resilient construction alongside relief, could have strengthened long-term climate readiness. Above all, internalising climate stresses and compounding risks acknowledged by the Economic Survey would have supported better outcomes for health and productivity. These critical gaps fail to align the country’s growth ambitions with the lived realities of a warming India.</p>.<p>That said, the Budget is to be seen as the starting point rather than the end point. As climate risks increasingly shape lives, livelihoods, and economic outcomes, future action will hinge on clear policy intent and sustained investment in climate-resilient development. Recalibration in the future offers an opportunity for the systemic integration of resilience and adaptation into India’s developmental pathway.</p>.<p><em><strong>The writer leads the Climate, Environment and Sustainability sector at the Centre for Study of Science, Technology and Policy, a research-based think tank</strong></em></p><p><em>(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.)</em></p>
<p>The Union Budget 2026-27 invokes resilience and sustainability largely through sectoral priorities such as agriculture, infrastructure, and urban growth, without distinctly articulating resilience and adaptation. What was notably missing was a dedicated focus and budget allocation for resilience building and adaptation, despite India having prepared a National Adaptation Plan. This omission seems starker given that the Economic Survey explicitly recognised rising temperatures, water stress, biodiversity loss, and land degradation as threats to productivity, food security, and infrastructure sustainability.</p>.<p>The Budget has outlaid Rs 12.2 lakh crore in public capital expenditure towards inland waterways, highways, freight corridors, and railways; urban infrastructure, including transport and power; industrial and logistical infrastructure encompassing MSME clusters, data centres, and industrial corridors; and health and education infrastructure. While these investments will shape India’s economy over the coming decades, they are at risk from a changing climate that is becoming a lived reality, including extreme heat and rainfall, as well as sea level rise. The Budget does not mandate climate proofing of these assets with a 30-50-year lifespan, risking investment and growth derailment.</p>.<p>Ecological initiatives, such as mountain trails, turtle trails, and bird corridors, are budgeted to add value to local economies and serve as tourism assets. But the need to conserve and promote ecosystems as protective infrastructure remains under-emphasised. This lack of focus on climate-buffering measures, such as watershed management, mangrove restoration, and blue-green infrastructure in cities, underscores a gap in the understanding and financing of climate resilience.</p>.Capt Poly and the ‘money bag’.<p>The strong focus on income enhancement is evident in the budgetary support for high-value crops and fisheries, as well as the introduction of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based agri-stack for advisory services. Bharat-VISTAAR, a flagship initiative announced in the Budget, is a multilingual AI tool aimed at enhancing productivity and income through value-chain integration. However, the uncertainty posed by climate variability and extreme events, which determines what can be grown, where, and when and undermines productivity, remains unaddressed. Also missing are investments for landscape-level adaptation, such as groundwater recharge or soil moisture conservation.</p>.<p>Cities have been positioned as engines of growth, with the introduction of the City Economic Regions (CER) strategy and an allocation of Rs 5,000 crore per CER over five years. Furthermore, the Rs-1,00,000 crore Urban Challenge Fund is intended to leverage public, private, and bond financing for urban green initiatives. A transition from a vehicle-centric to a people-centric focus in the Budget is evident from the references to subsidised public transport and pedestrian-friendly city planning. However, there are no binding requirements for heat action plans, climate-sensitive urban designs, and flood-resilient land zoning.</p>.<p>Major budgetary allocations made for critical minerals, carbon capture, utilisation, and storage, nuclear power, and battery storage strengthen energy security, but are clearly industry-led and mitigation-focused. What is lacking is a focus on making power grids resilient to rising cooling demands driven by the increasing magnitude and duration of heatwaves, cyclones, and floods. With climate impacts causing sharp spikes in power demand and increasing power supply disruptions during extreme events, the absence of targeted investments in energy system resilience leaves the energy transition vulnerable.</p>.<p>Climate resilience requires predictable, equitable, and pre-emptive fiscal transfers that enable states and cities to plan and invest ahead of climate shocks. While the Budget’s challenge-based financing might offer motivation, it inadvertently favours states that are challenge-ready with higher capacity and progressive governance. This risks excluding states that may be at high climate risk but have weak institutional mechanisms.</p>.<p><strong>Missed opportunities</strong></p>.<p>Aligning the Budget along the path chartered by the Economic Survey could have placed climate adaptation at the core of India’s development strategy. Mandating climate risk assessment for all large public capital expenditure would have helped ensure they remain fit for today and a warmer, wetter future. Also, a more nuanced approach to disaster finance, focusing on preparedness and resilient construction alongside relief, could have strengthened long-term climate readiness. Above all, internalising climate stresses and compounding risks acknowledged by the Economic Survey would have supported better outcomes for health and productivity. These critical gaps fail to align the country’s growth ambitions with the lived realities of a warming India.</p>.<p>That said, the Budget is to be seen as the starting point rather than the end point. As climate risks increasingly shape lives, livelihoods, and economic outcomes, future action will hinge on clear policy intent and sustained investment in climate-resilient development. Recalibration in the future offers an opportunity for the systemic integration of resilience and adaptation into India’s developmental pathway.</p>.<p><em><strong>The writer leads the Climate, Environment and Sustainability sector at the Centre for Study of Science, Technology and Policy, a research-based think tank</strong></em></p><p><em>(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.)</em></p>
