Budget 2026-27: ‘Tourism can go from threat to tool for empowerment’

The Budget 2026-27 speaks of a Rs. 20,000 crore scheme to scale up carbon capture, storage and utilisation across five high-emitting industrial sectors. Is that an adequate step to mitigate climate change? Would you have hoped for more targeted intervention?

The Rs. 20,000 crore allocation for Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS) over five years targets power, steel, cement, refineries, and chemicals sectors, India’s major emission sources. The Budget’s recognition of CCUS reflects an awareness of the challenges India faces in decarbonising heavy industry.

But this represents a technological fix rather than a systemic transition. Going forward, it will be important to ensure that CCUS is deployed as a complement to, rather than a substitute for, emissions reduction.

Other initiatives I’d have hoped for were stronger air pollution mitigation (notably absent from the finance minister’s speech despite severe air quality issues) and more robust climate adaptation funding given that climate-related economic losses are estimated at over 3% of GDP annually, with more than 80% of India’s population exposed to escalating climate risks.

On the whole, the environment ministry received a larger sum than it did last year at Rs. 3759.46 crore, with a substantial chunk allocated to ‘charismatic’ large mammals: Project Tiger and Project Elephant. Do you see that as predictable?

This allocation pattern is indeed predictable, as funding for Project Tiger and Project Elephant stayed steady at Rs. 290 crore, continuing India’s traditional focus on flagship species. The emphasis on tigers and elephants reflects both cultural significance and tourism value, but it can overshadow less “charismatic” biodiversity and critical ecosystem needs. There is an opportunity to broaden the conservation frame.

Ecosystems such as grasslands, wetlands, coasts and marine systems are central to climate resilience and rural livelihoods, yet remain relatively underrepresented in budgetary allocations. The budget showed limited expansion for broader wildlife habitat initiatives, especially outside the formal protected area network, and no major scheme to combat air pollution was announced, despite this being a public health crisis affecting millions.

The Budget said that the ministry was responsible for conserving and “promoting “sustainable development” in the islands of Andaman and Nicobar and Lakshadweep. What does this mean for the islands, especially the contentious development project proposed for Nicobar?

The emphasis on sustainable development in island territories is welcome, given their ecological sensitivity and exposure to climate risks. However it will need to translate into development pathways are cautious in scale, decentralised in design, and closely aligned with local ecological limits.

As the contentious Great Nicobar project continues to raise alarm bells, clarity on how large development proposals will incorporate environmental safeguards, disaster risk considerations, and indigenous rights will be crucial.

The tourism sector, meanwhile, got an allocation of Rs. 2,438 crore, with plans to invest in trekking and tourism trails in natural areas. Is this prudent? Do you envisage a involvement of local people?

Positioning tourism as a driver of economic growth, particularly in natural and cultural landscapes is prudent only if it errs on the side of caution. While this can generate employment and boost local economies, it also places additional pressure on ecosystems and local communities.

Empowering communities to design and manage their own tourism models can create richer, more authentic visitor experiences while ensuring that local people receive a full share of the economic benefits.