evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice

India's Ecological Fiscal Transfers — Forest-Cover Weighted Tax Devolution to States

India · New Delhi · See the India profile

Since FY2015-16, India's Finance Commission redirects 7.5-10% of central tax revenue to states by forest cover, moving ~$6.9-$12bn/year (2015-19) and ~$11.1bn in 2020-21 — the world's first large-scale, forest-based fiscal transfer between government tiers.

India's Ecological Fiscal Transfers — Forest-Cover Weighted Tax Devolution to States

Details

Promoter
Finance Commission of India / Ministry of Finance, Government of India
Period
2015-present
Keywords
ecological fiscal transfer, forest cover incentive, tax revenue devolution, subnational finance

Description

In February 2014, India's 14th Finance Commission added forest cover to the formula that determines how the central government's shared tax revenue is divided among the country's states, weighting 7.5% of the divisible pool by each state's area of "very dense" and "moderately dense" forest (using 2013 forest-cover data) for fiscal years 2015-16 through 2019-20. Because the transfer is unconditional and recurring, it functions as a standing, formula-based payment that rewards states — especially heavily forested, revenue-poor states such as those in India's Northeast — for the opportunity cost of not converting forest land to more fiscally lucrative uses.

Economists Jonah Busch and Priya Shyamsundar (writing with Anit Mukherjee, Conservation Letters, 2018) estimate the scheme moved roughly $6.9-$12 billion per year between 2015 and 2019, equivalent to $174-$303 per hectare of forest annually — a larger sum than global REDD+ climate finance over the same period. The 15th Finance Commission raised the forest-cover weight further, to 10%, for 2021-26, and the World Resources Institute reports that India's central government transferred an estimated ₹85,526 crore (about $11.1 billion) to states on the basis of forest cover in 2020-21 alone.

The mechanism has a documented limitation, however: because it rewards forest area rather than forest quality, condition, or biodiversity, and because the money is unearmarked (states can spend it on anything, not just conservation), a peer-reviewed follow-up study (IOPscience Environmental Research Communications, 2020) finds mixed evidence that the transfers actually increased state forestry budgets, and researchers cited by Mongabay India (2023) have urged the 16th Finance Commission to add forest-quality and climate variables so the fiscal signal more closely tracks real ecological outcomes rather than raw canopy area.

Read the full analysis: https://india.mongabay.com/2023/10/more-climate-change-variables-should-be-used-in-16th-finance-commission-formula-on-tax-distribution-say-experts/

Implementation

Implementation detail (cost, timeline, staffing, conditions for success) is not yet available for this practice.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful