Guwahati: Despite its lush green landscape and over 76% forest cover, Meghalaya has fallen short in securing dedicated climate finance, according to a recent joint report by NITI Aayog and the National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER).
The state, although ranked high for its natural capital, has failed to leverage its ecological assets due to weak institutional capacity and inadequate infrastructure for climate adaptation.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
The 2024 NITI Aayog–NCAER assessment revealed that Meghalaya’s forest wealth has not translated into direct climate funding, primarily because of gaps in strategic planning, limited interdepartmental coordination, and poorly structured project proposals. These shortcomings have left the state behind others that have made greater strides in attracting climate-specific grants.
States like Kerala, Goa, Jharkhand, and Punjab, each with significantly lower forest cover, have secured substantial climate-linked funds from the 15th Finance Commission.
For instance, Kerala received Rs 500 crore for forest conservation, while Jharkhand and Arunachal Pradesh were allocated Rs 700 crore and Rs 355 crore, respectively, for renewable energy projects.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
Goa gained Rs 500 crore for clean energy and waste solutions, and Punjab obtained Rs 390 crore for tackling air pollution and stubble burning. In contrast, Meghalaya received no such grants, benefitting only from its increased share in central taxes due to its forest coverage.
This situation reflects a long-evolving policy shift in India’s fiscal approach to the environment. The 12th Finance Commission initiated forest-related funding by setting aside Rs 1,000 crore for forest maintenance.
The 13th Commission expanded this vision by recommending Rs 15,000 crore for environmental sectors like forest protection, water conservation, and renewable energy.
The 14th Finance Commission marked a significant change by introducing ecological criteria into tax distribution, assigning 7.5% weight to forest cover, a figure the 15th Finance Commission later raised to 10%.
Although this forest-based tax devolution benefited Meghalaya in general revenue terms, it did not compensate for the lack of targeted climate investment.
As a result, Meghalaya continues to miss out on critical funding opportunities despite its rich natural resources.
The report emphasized that unless Meghalaya strengthens its institutional readiness and improves the quality of its climate project proposals, it will continue to lag in translating its ecological wealth into climate resilience and financial support.