India is spending more than ₹11 trillion a year by way of public capital expenditure, putting infrastructure at the centre of its growth strategy. Yet, some of what protects those investments is not counted as infrastructure at all—mangroves, wetlands and urban forests.
This is a costly blind spot. Mangroves can weaken storm surges before they reach a port. Wetlands can hold excess rainwater before it floods. Urban forests can lower heat and absorb stormwater. They cannot replace drains, seawalls or other engineered assets, but they can reduce the pressure on them, lower damage and make them resilient.
The economic case for this is becoming harder to ignore. More than two-thirds of India’s city dwellers could face surface-flooding risk, potentially causing losses of $5 billion a year by 2030 and $30 billion by 2070, according to the World Bank. It recommends combining better drainage and land-use planning with natural systems that absorb excess rainwater. That nature is valuable for its beauty or ecological harmony is well accepted.
What’s relevant in this context is that nature performs functions for which governments and companies would otherwise have to pay. A wetland that holds floodwater protects roads, buildings and businesses. A mangrove belt that reduces the force of a cyclone protects coastal assets. Trees that cool a built-up area can reduce heat exposure for workers.
Indian policies recognize some of these functions. The government has brought 26,396 hectares of degraded mangrove areas under restoration since 2023-24 through the Mangrove Initiative for Shoreline Habitats and Tangible Incomes (Mishti) and other funding streams. The Nagar Van Yojana has sanctioned 620 urban forest projects with an outlay of ₹654 crore. But these programmes remain largely separate from the way India plans infrastructure.
A wetland is considered a conservation asset, but a road is an economic asset. A mangrove is an environmental concern, but a port is critical infrastructure. These distinctions makes little economic sense when the wetland protects the road and the mangrove protects a port.
India should, therefore, start asking a different question before it builds. It should ask what natural systems are already reducing the risk to this investment?
The answer ought to influence project design and budgets. This shift is beginning in business as well. Tata Steel has set a goal of becoming a leader in nature-based solutions in India by 2030 and has been integrating biodiversity management into its operations.
Adani Ports has developed mangrove and other natural ‘bio-shields’ along Gujarat’s coast to protect soil and groundwater from seawater and saline winds. Its 2024-25 report describes these projects as part of its coastal restoration work.
These are still limited examples. But they point to a larger change. Indian companies are beginning to see ecosystems as something that can protect them as much as something they must protect for its own sake.
That matters because the risks are increasingly operational. A factory needs reliable water. A port needs protection from coastal hazards. A city needs cooling and drainage. A power plant needs stable access to land and water. When those natural systems deteriorate, the cost eventually appears somewhere else—in damaged assets, disrupted operations, higher maintenance costs or greater insurance exposure.
The financing challenge is now being recognized too. A new guidebook examines how public agencies, private investors, corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds and other capital sources can finance nature-based projects. The problem is that the benefits rarely accrue to whoever pays for the project.
A city that restores a wetland may protect homes, roads, factories and utilities far beyond the wetland itself. That makes these investments difficult to finance through conventional commercial models. The government, therefore, has an important role.
First, infrastructure appraisal should account for the protective value of existing ecosystems. A project that destroys a wetland or mangrove should not be assessed only on the cost of replacing the land. It should account for the protection the ecosystem was providing.
Second, governments should identify wetlands, mangroves and urban forests that protect economically important assets and give them dedicated maintenance budgets.
Third, companies with significant exposure to climate and nature risks should treat ecosystem restoration as part of risk management when there is a clear business case, rather than leaving it to CSR departments.
Concrete cannot be replaced with trees. A city cannot drain a flooded neighbourhood with a forest alone, nor can a port depend on mangroves for every form of coastal protection.
The smarter approach is to combine natural and engineered infrastructure and use each where it works best. The World Bank finds that such combinations can reduce costs, extend the life of conventional infrastructure and improve resilience.
India already owns much of this infrastructure. The country has simply not learnt to value it properly. A mangrove protecting a port, a wetland protecting a city and an urban forest cooling an industrial district are performing important economic functions. Unfortunately, some of India’s most useful infrastructure is still being treated as scenery. This is a policy blind spot that needs to be addressed.
The author is an independent expert based in New Delhi, Kolkata and Odisha. Twitter: @scurve Instagram: @soumya.scurve.