Photo used for indicative purpose only. Source: Internet
Shimla, Nov 3,
A group of 103 retired civil servants has urged the 16th Finance Commission, headed by Dr. Arvind Panagariya, to recognise the vital ecological contribution of Himalayan states and compensate them accordingly. Writing under the banner of the Constitutional Conduct Group (CCG), the former officers have called for a substantial “Green Fund” or “Green Bonus” to support states like Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Jammu & Kashmir and Sikkim, which they described as “India’s climate shield.”
In a detailed representation sent to the Finance Commission on November 3, the CCG said that the survival of the Himalayan ecosystem has become a national imperative. They cautioned that the region is “slowly going to pieces” under the strain of flash floods, cloudbursts, land subsidence and collapsing infrastructure — disasters that have claimed hundreds of lives and caused economic devastation in recent years.
According to the letter, between 2022 and 2025, Himachal Pradesh alone lost nearly 1,200 lives and suffered damage worth Rs 18,000 crore. In Uttarakhand, more than 18,000 incidents classified as natural disasters were recorded between 2012 and 2022, resulting in over 3,500 deaths. The letter points out that these recurrent calamities are not merely natural events but are aggravated by unregulated development and the pressures of climate change.
The signatories, which include several former chief secretaries, ambassadors and secretaries to the Government of India, argue that the Himalayan states are being penalised for their geography. With limited industrial or agricultural potential, and with development costs far higher due to terrain and climate, they rely heavily on exploiting their natural resources — forests and rivers — for revenue. “This reckless squandering of their natural assets must be stopped in the national interest,” the letter warns.
The CCG emphasises that the forests, glaciers and rivers of the Himalayas sustain nearly 400 million people across northern India, feeding the Ganga basin and moderating the monsoon cycle. These states, it argues, are “not just local custodians but providers of national ecological services” — services that deserve compensation in the formula used by the Finance Commission to devolve central funds.
Citing a 2025 report by the Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal, the group highlights that the total forest wealth of Himachal Pradesh alone is valued at Rs 9.95 lakh crore, with an annual Total Economic Value (TEV) of Rs 3.2 lakh crore. This includes Rs 1.65 lakh crore from carbon sequestration, Rs 68,941 crore from ecosystem services, Rs 32,901 crore from biodiversity, and Rs 15,132 crore for water provisioning. Yet, the letter notes, “these contributions benefit the whole nation, not just these states, and are neither acknowledged nor factored into fiscal transfers.”
The officers have proposed that the Finance Commission enhance the weightage for Forests and Ecological Services from 10% to at least 20% in its formula for tax devolution. They suggest that the additional weightage can be balanced by reducing population and income-distance parameters. “Allocating a higher weightage to population than to demographic performance is contradictory logic,” the letter says.
The group has also asked that the Commission revise its definition of forest area to include land above the tree line — glaciers, snowfields, and alpine pastures — as these areas play a critical ecological role as water reservoirs and wildlife habitats. Excluding them, it argues, unfairly disadvantages mountain states.
Supporting a proposal already made by the Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister in June 2025, the CCG has urged the Commission to create a Rs 50,000 crore Green Fund to incentivise the Himalayan states for conserving forests, rivers and biodiversity. However, it recommends that such funds be released only upon measurable progress in environmental parameters, regulation of tourism and construction, and control of illegal mining.
Resonating with the concerns raised in the letter, the former Deputy Mayor of Shimla informed that during a recent meeting of the NITI Aayog held at Shillong, he had also advocated for a differentiated approach towards Himalayan states. He proposed the creation of a separate planning and policy group for the Himalayan region, arguing that these states deserve “special treatment and focused planning” due to their fragile ecosystems and climate vulnerabilities. He stressed that national policies often follow a uniform developmental framework, but the Himalayan belt requires “a distinct strategy that balances ecological preservation with livelihood and economic needs.” His statement echoed the CCG’s position that Himalayan states should be treated as a distinct ecological and developmental category within India’s federal planning system.
The letter also recalls the Supreme Court’s recent observations that at the current rate of degradation, “Himachal Pradesh could vanish from the map of India.” The CCG said that the Finance Commission must ensure that such a scenario never materialises by aligning fiscal policy with ecological sustainability.
“Protecting the Himalayas is not the responsibility of the mountain states alone,” the letter concludes. “It is a shared national responsibility. If the Himalayas lose their forests, rivers and glaciers, it will not be long before North India goes the way of the Indus Valley civilisation.”
About the Author
