The all-pervasive global dialogue surrounding climate change has spurred nations to develop their national action plans to mitigate the impact. Two crucial realities need to be recognised within this discourse.
First, countries in the Global South encounter disproportionately greater challenges from climate change. Second, India has emerged as a torch-bearer in global climate justice debates, leading the way in formulating national action plans. However, on the domestic front, our quasi-federal climate policy structure harbours internal contradictions, where states shoulder the responsibility of implementing most targets amid constraints posed by limited resources and shrinking space in environmental policymaking.
India’s environmental stewardship can be traced from its legislations and judicial journey of embracing environmental constitutionalism. This encompasses both the rights and duties of the state and individuals. Initially, the Constitution did not explicitly address environmental governance.
However, the 42nd constitutional amendment in 1976 altered the jurisdiction over forests and wildlife, transferring them to the Concurrent List. The 73rd amendment assigned panchayats the responsibility for environmental protection and conservation. Subsequent legislations have further solidified this framework. However, a consistent trend across these developments has been a shift towards centralisation in legislative jurisdiction over environmental laws, while mandating greater decentralisation to states in implementation.
Climate change issues manifest more prominently at regional level compared to their aggregate impact nationally. While the legislative frameworks rightfully allocate greater responsibilities to the lower tiers of government, the challenge has been their relative marginalisation in resource access and decision-making processes. Most state functions and powers concerning natural resources require central approval, relegating states to mere implementation roles. These functions include developing forest management plans, diverting forest land, and utilising compensatory afforestation funds through the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority.
Recent changes in regulations of the mining sector have reignited the debate on resource federalism. This trend is highlighted by the diminished autonomy of state governments in making decisions related to mining leases while vesting increased authority to the Centre over the utilisation of funds of the District Mineral Funds. The 2020 draft notification of the Environmental Impact Assessment authorised the Centre to appoint members of the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), relegating the state governments to a mere recommending role. Consequently, as of February 2024, SEIAA appointments have been stuck for over three months due to the Centre’s rejection of state-recommended names. Some State Action Plans for Climate Change (SAPCCs), developed in alignment with national strategies, are formulated without adequate local community engagement, resulting in a lack of institutionalisation, defined targets, and sufficient financial investment.
This brings us to the principal bone of contention that persists in the realm of fiscal federalism in India. The Centre’s fiscal prowess reinforces its structural dominance with states tasked with implementation, while a major chunk of the tax revenue is collected by the Centre. The erosion of state tax autonomy subsequent to the GST reforms has coincided with, rather than being offset by, a rise in the proportion of non-shareable revenue (surcharges and cesses) accruing to the Centre.
India’s National Environment Policy, 2006, talks of the principle of decentralisation, which advocates “…ceding or transfer of power from a Central authority to state or local authorities, in order to empower public authorities having jurisdiction at the spatial level at which particular environmental issues are salient, to address these issues”. To enhance environmental governance, there is a pressing need for greater involvement of states in crafting comprehensive climate policies given the bottom-up nature of the crisis.
As an immediate measure, all state governments must reform their SAPCCs and policies along with formulating dedicated climate budgets akin to the initiative taken by the Odisha government. A greater involvement of the local government, and hence the local communities like farmers and tribals, shall promote more relevant and efficient environmental policymaking tailored to each state’s unique needs.
Lastly, it is imperative to bolster fiscal federalism for environmental federalism to yield positive and sustainable outcomes. While the 15th Finance Commission’s recommendation to allocate a fixed percentage of the divisible central tax pool for ecology and forests is a step in the right direction, it is insufficient. Intergovernmental transfers that recognise environmental improvements can incentivise states and local bodies further.
Arguments advanced by developing nations advocate for common but differentiated responsibilities and mobilising the means of implementation, that is, finance and technology. These principles should also guide national-level efforts to ensure climate equity and justice for states positioned differently. A nuanced delegation of powers and resources to state governments would enhance India’s effectiveness in combating climate change.
Amar Patnaik
Advocate, former CAG bureaucrat and member of Rajya Sabha from Odisha
(Views are personal)