Agriculture consumes significant water globally, accounting for 70 per cent of water withdrawals (FAO 2017). In India, its share of water withdrawals is even higher, at 76 per cent (Chaturvedi et al. 2020). Agricultural water management in India is complicated by water supply and demand, agricultural markets, and various governance considerations. From the supply-side perspective, groundwater has become farmers’ most sought-after irrigation source despite India making significant surface irrigation infrastructure investments over the decades. Currently, 40 percent of water used for irrigation comes from groundwater sources (Qin et al. 2024). Even among 23.14 million minor irrigation schemes in India, almost 95 per cent are schemes drawing groundwater (Ministry of Jal Shakti 2023), a climate-vulnerable resource (Pandian 2023). From a demand perspective, Indian agriculture has low water productivity driven by low water-use efficiency. A Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) study from 2020 finds that if agricultural practices such as micro-irrigation and mulching are implemented, and policy reforms like water auditing and volumetric pricing are adopted, almost 20 per cent of irrigation water can be saved in 2030 following a moderate water-saving strategy. It further argues that, by 2050, up to 47 per cent of irrigation water can be saved if a rigorous water-saving strategy is followed (Chaturvedi et al. 2020). From a market perspective, even though minimum support prices (MSPs) have been set for 22 crops (MoAFW 2024), in practice, only crops like wheat, rice, and sugarcane are assured procurement (Tiwari 2020), creating highly skewed incentive structures in favour of these water-intensive crops. Finally, agricultural water governance is plagued by resource nexus challenges, wherein the governance of water, food, and energy inevitably conflict. These issues necessitate a holistic and integrated governance approach (Orimoloye 2022).

In this context, integrated water resources management (IWRM) can be an effective framework for structuring agricultural water management. “Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources in order to maximise economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems and the environment.” (GWP 2011). IWRM aims to balance the three pillars of “social equity”, “economic efficiency”, and “environmental sustainability” (Ben-Daoud et al. 2021). The IWRM framework presents a holistic approach that aims to integrate resource issues (like land and soil; surface water and groundwater), various disciplines and stakeholders, policies, and bottom-up and top-down approaches (Biswas 2008).¹ It promotes coordinated processes that unite various stakeholders, use scientific data and tools for sound judgment, and emphasise democratic governance.

Although IWRM has guided water management for decades, its effectiveness as a comprehensive land and water-use management tool, particularly in the agricultural sector, is gradually receiving greater recognition (Roy, Oborne, and Venema 2009). One of the first and commonly cited examples of IWRM is from 1933, when the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was created to oversee multiple functions, including navigation, flood control, power production, erosion control, recreation, and public health (Meran, Siehlow, and von Hirschhausen 2020). The TVA initiative incorporated many aspects of what is now known as IWRM, emphasising comprehensive planning for natural resource use while balancing economic, social, and environmental goals. During the International Conference on Water and the Environment (ICWE) in Dublin, Ireland, the concept was formally included in the Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable Development, and it was subsequently adopted on 31 January 1992. The Dublin Statement highlighted the mismanagement and scarcity of global water resources, which posed further threats to sustainable development, environmental protection, human health and welfare, food security, industrial growth, and ecosystem stability. It introduced four guiding principles that now serve as the foundation of IWRM (SIWI 2020).

The four guiding principles that form the foundation of IWRM (SIWI 2020) are:

• Freshwater is a finite and vulnerable resource, essential to sustain life, development, and the environment.
• Water development and management should be based on a participatory approach, involving users, planners, and policy-makers at all levels.
• Women play a central role in the provision, management, and safeguarding of water.
• Water has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be recognized as an economic good.

Since IWRM provides comprehensive solutions for sustainable development, its application is especially relevant in resource-dependent sectors like agriculture, where water supply and quality, land management, and women’s participation are crucial (Roy, Oborne, and Venema 2009).

Traditionally, IWRM does not take into account the uncertainties posed by climate change present today. IWRM takes a ‘long-term approach’ based on ‘stationarity’. This assumes that natural systems are stable over time and past patterns in water availability and climate can predict future conditions (Ludwig, van Slobbe, and Cofino 2014). However, with climate change, this assumption no longer holds, and there are “large uncertainties in future projection” (Ludwig, van Slobbe, and Cofino 2014, 236). This lack of stability gives rise to new uncertainties in managing physical systems and different stakeholders’ behaviours. Recently, water management policies and practices has begun focusing on acknowledging and managing these uncertainties to improve decisionmaking (Ludwig, van Slobbe, and Cofino 2014).

Climate change adaptation (CCA), therefore, becomes a crucial framework to be integrated into water management, particularly agricultural water management. It refers to “adjusting practices, processes and capital in response to the actuality or threat of climate change, as well as responses in the decision environment, such as changes in social and institutional structures or altered technical options that can affect the potential or capacity for these actions to be realized” (Adger, et al. 2007).

The approval of Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development by the United Nations in 2015 established a comprehensive framework for global sustainable development efforts (Sam Kutesa et al. 2015). Within this framework, IWRM and CCA are recognised as crucial components contributing to SDGs. Specifically, IWRM aligns with SDG 6, which aims to ensure the availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all, while CCA aligns with SDG 13, which focuses on taking urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts. In the context of SDG 6, target 6.5 emphasises the implementation of IWRM at all levels by 2030, including through transboundary cooperation where appropriate (Giupponi and Gain 2017). Jonch-Clausen (2007) suggests that IWRM should be made a focal point in adaptation policies just as how clean energy is emphasised in mitigation efforts.

Several dimensions are critical to enable the effective implementation of IWRM. These dimensions are:

• Enabling environment, which encompasses relevant laws, policies, and strategies;
• Institutions and participation, which includes political, social, economic, and administrative institutions that support IWRM;
• Management instruments, which refers to tools and activities that assist decision-makers in making informed choices; and
• Financing, which pertains to the budgets and financial resources allocated to IWRM initiatives.

A significant component of the enabling environment is policy instruments, comprising national, state, and local-level laws and policies that constitute the “rules of the game” and are critical to driving change on the ground level (GWP and INBO 2009; World Water Council 2023).

Similarly, several dimensions drive the effective implementation of CCA. It requires the integration of adaptation into socioeconomic and environmental policies and actions and emphasises the engagement of political, social, economic, and administrative entities and stakeholders, including local communities, civil society, and public and private sectors, through a “countrydriven, gender-responsive, participatory, and transparent approach” (UNFCCC 2022).

Both CCA and IWRM aim to promote sustainable development and share key objectives like public participation, information sharing, and social equity (He 2013; GWP-C 2015). The integration of CCA and IWRM into agricultural water management could offer valuable opportunities for sharing insights and exchanging knowledge, especially regarding how these approaches can support one another.

While the SDGs and other similar global agendas have established priorities and provide direction, policy instruments, such as laws or plans, guide the implementation of various concepts like IWRM and CCA through well-defined text. Hence, a systematic assessment of current policies is necessary. This is the first step toward understanding the applicability and utility of IWRM and CCA in agricultural water management. In this report, we investigate broader sectoral policies, laws, and plans. However, we refer to them as ‘policies’ to align with international conventions and facilitate effective communication with global research, policy, and practice communities.

Based on the outlined goals of IWRM and CCA (mentioned in Table 1), this report systematically assesses subnational policies in India and key national cases in the global context to collate learnings on how IWRM and CCA can be integrated in water management in agriculture.

Our objectives are as follows:

• How do the selected national and subnational policy instruments integrate IWRM and CCA in agricultural water management?
• What key learnings can be drawn from these national and subnational policy instruments for incorporating IWRM and CCA into agricultural water management?

This section presents the key findings on best practices and learnings derived from analysing national policy instruments, and subnational policy instruments focusing on the states of Bihar and Odisha. The results are categorised into two main areas: first details the best practices and learnings identified within national-level policy instruments, examining their overarching design, implementation effectiveness, and impact scalability. Second offers a deeper, analysis of the subnational policy instruments in Bihar and Odisha, highlighting successful, context-specific approaches, and drawing transferable lessons regarding policy adaptation, local governance effectiveness, and stakeholder engagement within varied state contexts.

Best practices and learnings in national-level policy instruments

This section provides a comprehensive summary of our analytical findings regarding selected national-level policy instruments. Our assessment specifically evaluates the extent to which these instruments demonstrate an integrated approach, integrate climate change considerations, uphold principles of environmental sustainability, optimize for economic efficiency, and promote social equity.

At what water governance scale do these seven countries operate?

Water governance varies by region and context, but understanding its scale is crucial. Table 5 provides an overview of how different countries manage their water resources, listing key governmental agencies and their scale of operation. Studying these governance structures can shed light on various approaches to handling water issues and promoting sustainable, integrated water management techniques for adaptive agriculture worldwide.

Table 5. Most of the high-performing IWRM countries use river basins as their unit for water management

Source: Authors’ compilation 

Further, we assessed how well national water policy instruments align with IWRM and CCA goals. The aim is to gain a deeper understanding of how diverse policy instruments follow IWRM and CCA principles on a global level. Figure 1 illustrates whether the policies are goal-blind (red), goalaware (light orange), goal-driven (green), or goal-responsive (blue).

Figure 1. All policies are geared towards achieving environmental sustainability as a goal

The following are our major findings from the analysis:

• Australia’s National Water Initiative, 2004, and the Netherlands’ Delta Programme, 2024, could be regarded as examples of model policies that prioritise holistic or integrated management of water resources. Both this policies feature policy designs that are responsive to various IWRM and CCA elements.
• Most policies prioritise an integrated approach. These policies prioritize many key components of integrated management, even if they are not explicitly labeled as IWRM.
• Climate change is an important priority in several national policies. While the China Water Law 2002 does not acknowledge climate change in its policy, it does note environmental and water-related disasters.
• Environmental sustainability emerges as a prevalent and crucial goal across the national water policies analysed. Countries have recognised the need to balance economic development with environmental conservation, thereby emphasising the need to manage natural resources effectively.
• All national water policies prioritise economic efficiency as a critical goal. They hinge on the understanding the water is a critical imperative for economic development.
• Social equity remains a significant goal across the national water policies analysed. Policies assessed indicate the need to address fairness and inclusivity in water resource management frameworks, especially in areas with pronounced socio-economic differences.

In this section, we look at each objective to identify best practices and learnings within the selected policy instruments. We also assess the number of policies classified as goal-aware, goaldriven, and goal-responsive (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Multidimensional lens is essential to examine the policy instruments to IWRM and CCA principles

Integrated approach 

• An integrated approach to water management is fundamental to the primary goals and action plans of the selected policies, as seen in Australia’s National Groundwater Strategic Framework, 2016–2026, and National Water Initiative, 2004, as well as in the selected policies of China, France, and the Netherlands. France mandates the use of a “management plan established at the scale of a coherent hydrological unit” for operations and maintenance of rivers, canal and any water body. Australia’s Water Act, 2007, outline action points to actively incorporate integrated methods for management of “environmental waters”. The Delta Programme of Netherlands recommends Integrated River Management that integrates science with policy, encourages multi-stakeholder involvement and recognised multi-sectoral demand management.
  
  Best practice
  • Australia’s National Water Initiative, 2004, recognises the need to create consolidated water accounts to support water entitlement systems. This includes creating systems to integrate the accounting of groundwater and surface water and consolidating groundwater aquifers and streamflow data. This data is integrated into national water budgets, highlighting bottom-up solid data consolidation. States and territories take the lead in identifying locations where aquifers and surface water are closely connected.

Climate change considerations

• Most national water management policies take climate change into consideration. The Netherlands’ Delta Programme, 2024, considers all three subgoals–adaptation, emission reduction, and risk–as part of its core objective. Australia’s National Groundwater Strategic Framework, 2016–2026, and National Water Initiative, 2004, particularly take a risk assessment-based approach towards understanding climate change. Both Saudi Arabia and France recognise risk as a climate consideration and have developed strategies driven towards addressing it.
  
  Best practice
   
  • The Netherlands’ Delta Programme, 2024, introduced the Spatial Adaptation programme, which aims to make the Netherlands water-resilient and climate-proof. The programme primarily emphasised soil and water resilience. It recommends conducting stress tests, holding risk dialogues, creating implementation agendas, exploiting synergistic opportunities, encouraging and facilitating access to knowledge, and having a robust response mechanism for emergencies.

Environmental sustainability

• Given the nature of the selected policies, water is a central theme for all of them. However, only China, France, and Spain’s plans highlight water as an environmental resource in relation to the larger ecology, emphasising sustainable resource management. Most of the national policies, such as those of China, Spain, the Netherlands, and France, draw strong connections between water and soil, particularly in relation to land use, thereby laying out plans for soil conservation and efficient irrigation. Besides brief acknowledgements in Australia’s Water Act, 2007, and France’s Water Law, 2006, Spain’s Water Law, 2001, is the only national policy delineating core action plans for water and forestry.
  
  Best practice
   
  • Spain’s Water Law, 2001, emphasises the relation between water and forestry. Spain has several plans and strategies for the integration of hydrological and forest restoration works. These linkages affect water planning in terms of water use, soil and irrigation, and other agricultural uses (Rodríguez and Suárez 2017).

Economic efficiency

• The economic implications of water for national development and the economic value of water are primary considerations in most of the selected policies–the national policies of the Netherlands, France, China, Saudi Arabia, and Australia’s Water Act, 2007, and National Water Initiative, 2004–and a primary consideration of Spain’s Water Law, 2001. When it comes to economic efficiency, most of these policies view water as an economic good.
  
  Best practice
   
  • France’s 2006 Water Law emphasises the “user-pays” and “polluter-pays” principles mandated by the EU Water Framework Directive. The law achieves this by reinforcing a system which levy fees on water abstraction and pollution. Furthermore, it recommends water use to economic rationality, as seen in provisions that require compensation to be paid to hydraulic concession holders only if new regulations disrupt the economic balance of their contract

Social equity

• Recognising water as a community resource that must be accessible to all, the national policies of the Netherlands, France, and China, as well as Australia’s two policies, were found to be highly responsive to the goal of creating a participatory governance structure, while Spain’s Water Law, 2001, also outlines actionable strategies for the same.
  
  Best practice
   
  • In China’s Water Law, 2002, ownership of small water bodies is assigned to collectives, be it ponds managed and owned by rural collective economic organisations or reservoirs by agricultural collective economic organisations

Best practices and learnings from subnational policy instruments: Bihar and Odisha

We analysed how various policy instruments in Odisha and Bihar align with the goals of IWRM and CCA. Figure 3 illustrates whether the policies are goal-blind (red), goal-aware (light orange), goal-driven (green), or goal-responsive (blue).

Figure 3. All the selected policies were geared towards achieving environmental sustainability as a goal

The following are our major findings from the analysis.

• Odisha’s Samrudhi Agriculture Policy, 2020, stands out as a model policy as it actively addresses all goals. The state’s water policy is focused on fewer goals, leading to a discrepancy in how different departments within the state government prioritise these goals.
• Integrated approaches, as defined in Table 1, are a prominent theme in most policies. Many of these policies concentrate on either integrating the management of farming systems or establishing more robust participatory structures.
• Both states’ water policies overlook climate change concerns. They fail to adequately address adaptation strategies. Transforming these policies is crucial, as effective water management is especially vital in areas prone to extreme weather, which stands to significantly impact agriculture and related activities.
• All the selected policies prioritise environmental sustainability. However, to ensure sustainability, it is essential to analyse if the various resources are being managed as a nexus or in isolation.
• Economic efficiency is a priority across all policies. Income, productivity and tariff structuring are common aspects discussed in the policies.
• Social equity is sufficiently highlighted across all policies. Focus on gender and other marginalised groups are a common theme. Participatory management of resources is also referred to in some policies.

We delved further into each objective to explore best practices and learnings from subnational policy instruments related to agriculture, water, and climate change. Additionally, we analysed the proportion of policies categorised as goal-aware, goal-driven, and goal-responsive, as illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4. All policies are goal-responsive towards the sub-element ‘water’

Integrated focus 

• Most of the policies and plans analysed advocate for an integrated approach to resource management. Bihar’s Water Policy, 2010, advocates for an integrated approach that shifts away from engineering-centric solutions to embrace local community-led water management. The state’s SAPCC emphasises inclusive, sustainable, and climate-resilient growth and development. It promotes integrated watershed management and holistic water policies to effectively address climate change challenges. The state’s Agriculture Roadmap, 2023, proposes a detailed soil and water conservation plan, showcasing a commitment to an integrated approach. The Odisha SAPCC, 2021–2030, however, stresses the need for livelihood-centric integrated watershed development in rainfed regions. It introduces initiatives like the Odisha Integrated Irrigation Project for Climate Resilient Agriculture (OIIPCRA) and integrated farming systems (IFS).
• There is a limited focus on IWRM in Bihar and Odisha policies and plans. Bihar’s Water Policy, 2010, emphasises training across various fields within the water sector, including IWRM. The Odisha SAPCC, 2021– 2030, emphasises the need for IWRM approaches but also recognises the lack of institutional expertise to undertake the same as an adaptation option. It further aims to mitigate rising water demand and scarcity by adopting IWRM as the primary approach to water resource management. The plan also encourages studying the impact of climate change by developing a water database through IWRM studies. This involves consolidating all water-related activities under a single multidisciplinary organisation, the river basin organisation (RBO), in collaboration with the Department of Water Resources.

Climate change considerations

• Adaptation is a significant focus in the SAPCCs as well as in Odisha’s Agriculture Policy, 2020, and Bihar’s Agriculture Roadmap, 2023. Bihar’s SAPCC enshrines adaptation as the “predominant philosophy” and a component of the climate response strategy (Government of Bihar 2015, 21). The Bihar Agriculture Roadmap promotes climate-resilient agricultural practices that could improve yield and soil health and reduce the environmental footprint of agriculture. The Bihar Water Policy, 2010, highlights how resilience to droughts in the most vulnerable areas should be tackled using community-based initiatives. Odisha’s SAPCC recognises IWRM and CCA as useful strategies while recognising the need for improved institutional capacity and coordination. The plan recognises implementation of critical climate change related water sector activities like expanding the hydrometry network, increasing water-use efficiency, undertaking water audits, benchmarking, monitoring, and better pricing mechanisms. It stresses the importance of investing in the adaptation of sectors vulnerable to climate change, like water and agriculture. Odisha’s Samrudhi Agriculture Policy, 2020, emphasises the conservation of water resources and their efficient use in the face of climate change
• Mitigation as and when it is a co-benefit to adaptation is acknowledged in Bihar’s Agriculture Roadmap and Odisha’s SAPCC. Bihar’s Agriculture Roadmap highlights the potential for emission reduction through zero-tillage practices. The Odisha SAPCC highlights interventions such as hydropower, improved water-use efficiency, and system of rice intensification (SRI)4 that help build adaptation capacity, and have mitigation as co-benefit.
• Climate risks for water resources are well-recognised in some policies and plans. Bihar’s SAPCC recognises the risks posed by climate change and emphasises the need to implement suitable measures to address the effects on its water resources. It also recommends reviewing sectoral strategies through the lens of vulnerability and risk. In Odisha, the Water Policy, 2007, talks about drought risk, while the SAPCC specifically details plans for disaster risk management.

Environmental sustainability

• There is a strong focus on water in all the policies, including Bihar’s Agriculture Roadmap, 2023, Odisha’s Samrudhi Agriculture Policy, 2020 and the SAPCCs. Bihar’s Agriculture Roadmap highlights the positive impact of climate-resilient agricultural practices on water resources. Further, it emphasises the importance of watershed development and water conservation for agricultural water management. The SAPCCs of both states also significantly focus on water resources. Odisha’s Samrudhi Agriculture Policy, 2020, focuses on the need to improve water use efficiency.
• Linkages between soil and water are acknowledged across all policies and plans, with a few delving into a plan of action for soil conservation. Bihar’s water policy identifies links between water and land. At the same time, the Agriculture Roadmap emphasises soil and water conservation through community participation, including promotion of creation of district-level soil fertility maps with panchayats and villages as units. Bihar’s SAPCC recommends implementing agroforestry, integrated watershed management and water harvesting through check dams, and renovation of existing ponds to minimise soil and water loss. Odisha’s Water Policy, 2007, emphasises collecting soil quality data and implementing soil conservation measures to prevent reservoir sedimentation as part of catchment treatment measures. The state’s Samrudhi Agriculture Policy highlights the importance of participatory watershed management for soil conservation. The Odisha SAPCC acknowledges the role of water management in maintaining soil moisture and emphasises soil health management through the promotion of organic farming and conservation agriculture
• The importance of forests in water management is recognised only in the Odisha SAPCC, 2021–2030. The plan suggests tree planting and integration of forest management for improved watershed and water resource management. The plan recommends sustainable and scientific management of forests and optimisation of forest resources management.
• Energy, its use, and its nexus with food and water are highlighted in a few policies and plans. Bihar’s Agriculture Roadmap highlights the positive impact of climate-resilient agricultural practices on energy usage. The state’s SAPCC highlights cross-sectoral wateruse competition between other sectors and energy and promotes improving energy pricing and water pump efficiency. Odisha’s Samrudhi Agriculture Policy recommends the use of solar-powered irrigation.

Economic efficiency

• Income and livelihood generation is a consistent theme across most policies. Bihar’s Agriculture Roadmap highlights the income generation potential of interventions like zero tillage, while the SAPCC recommends incorporating poverty, equity, and livelihood concerns for all sectors. It also recognises the income generation potential of allied activities like horticulture and fisheries. Neither of the state’s water policies mentions income and livelihood generation. Odisha’s Samrudhi Agriculture Policy focuses significantly on livelihoods and income by emphasising the need to consistently increase funding for agriculture. Similarly, the Odisha SAPCC highlights existing schemes critical for income and livelihood generation.
• Agricultural productivity is a common focus in the states’ agriculture policies and SAPCCs, but it finds no mention in the water policies. Water productivity is not mentioned in any of the policies and plans. However, Bihar’s Agriculture Roadmap highlights the importance of soil and water conservation for agricultural productivity. The state’s SAPCC recommends ensuring adequate water input supply and resource renovation and enhancement to enhance agricultural productivity. The Odisha SAPCC mentions agricultural, forest, and livestock productivity. The Samrudhi Agriculture Policy recommends reforming the wasteful methods of irrigation and techniques of production to improve agricultural productivity.
• Water tariffs, pricing, and cost recovery are prominently highlighted in the water policies, while the agriculture policies do not mention the same. Bihar’s Water Policy highlights the high service cost, low-cost recovery, and subsequently low expenditure on operation and maintenance (O&M) for water services. The policy considers differential pricing (for agricultural, industrial, commercial, and municipal water use), volumetric pricing, and affordability. Water metering is another critical pricing element highlighted in the policy. Odisha’s Water Policy also proposes basing pricing on principles of financial sustainability. It recommends the full recovery of O&M costs, differential pricing, and pricing based on the polluter pays principle. Both the SAPCCs mention pricing–Bihar in the context of water tariffs under the National Water Mission and Odisha in the context of pricing being a critical aspect of increasing water-use efficiency.

Social equity

• The gendered impact of policies and climate change, and women’s participation in agriculture, are some critical elements discussed across most policies. Bihar’s Agriculture Roadmap emphasises the role of women farmers in inclusive development. Bihar’s Water Policy, in turn, acknowledges the impact of water risks on women. Their representation in Village Water and Sanitation Committees (a sub-committee of the Gram Panchayat that manages village water supply and sanitation programs) is also encouraged. The Bihar SAPCC details a gender-mainstreaming process involving the use of gender-responsive language, empirical analyses of implementation plans, gender-focused monitoring and evaluation, audits, and capacity building. Similarly, the Odisha SAPCC outlines a gender policy framework and gender mainstreaming checklist, acknowledging that the effective participation of women in adaptation planning is critical. Its Samrudhi Agriculture Policy emphasises the collection of gendered data during monitoring. Odisha’s Water Policy does not mention gender.
• Other vulnerable and marginalised groups are acknowledged in some of the policies and plans, but detailed plans for their inclusion in water resource management are lacking. Bihar’s Agriculture Roadmap recommends zero-tillage practices, which could provide better net returns for small and marginal farmers. The Bihar SAPCC recognises the disproportionate impact of climate change on the poor, women, children, and the elderly and encourages integrating their concerns through equitable planning. Bihar’s Water Policy addresses the concerns of vulnerable and marginalised groups by recommending equitable planning at a micro, watershed level. Odisha’s Samrudhi Agriculture Policy recommends that special attention be paid to rain-fed farmers by creating separate avenues to address their concerns. The Odisha SAPCC simply acknowledges the impact of climate change on small and marginal farmers and SC/ST farmers.
• Participatory water management and capacity building are the focus of most policies and plans. Bihar’s Agriculture Roadmap highlights community participation in irrigation management. The Bihar SAPCC focuses on capacity building for women and men to implement participatory schemes at the village level. The plan also recommends partnerships and collaborations with panchayati raj Institutions and gram panchayats to develop participatory and gender-just adaptation plans. The plan also encourages participatory research by partnering with civil society and the use of participatory quantitative and qualitative methods. Bihar’s Water Policy proposes a paradigm shift from engineering-based solutions to community-based participatory solutions through community empowerment to enable bottom-up decision-making with top-down technical support. Odisha’s Water Policy also recommends a participatory approach to water management, including participatory irrigation management (PIM). The policy highlights the Orissa Pani Panchayat Act, 2002 (now the Odisha Pani Panchayat (Amendment) Act, 2014) (Government of Odisha 2015), which provides a legal framework for farmers to participate in irrigation management and irrigation management transfer (IMT). The policy also encourages the participation of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in generating awareness regarding water conservation and PIM. Odisha’s Samrudhi Agriculture Policy also encourages participatory water security management.

The following section presents a series of targeted, actionable recommendations across three critical domains: policy and governance, technological and infrastructure investment, and farmlevel and community practices. These recommendations are designed to foster the principles of IWRM and CCA, promoting water-use efficiency, and secure equitable water access for the agricultural sector in the face of a rapidly changing climate. Successful adaptation requires not just incremental adjustments, but a strategic, coordinated transition supported by enabling policy frameworks and significant investment in both modern and nature-based solutions.

• To effectively bridge the identified gaps, state-level policy tools must be revisited to ensure relevance and goal responsiveness: Bihar and Odisha’s water policies require updates to reflect the current and projected risks posed by climate change. Their SAPCCs should be periodically reviewed and revised as per NAPCC guidelines. The periodicity of revisions can be every 2-5 years (CEEW and IWMI 2024). These updates should focus on creating policies that can shift and adapt to changing climate, development trajectory, and societal needs. For instance, integrating the latest science on water mediated disasters like drought, floods and extreme weather events, and respective strategies for climate-smart water management. Ecosystem-based adaptation strategies with recognition of the role of natural systems in water regulation and disaster risk reduction is crucial for a water secure future. To further strengthen sustainable water, efficient irrigation needs to be promoted, groundwater recharge needs to be enabled, and conservation practices need further penetration.
  
  Regular evaluation and monitoring mechanisms should be designed to measure how well existing policies are working so that adjustments can be made where needed, keeping the broader objectives in mind. This is where robust monitoring, evaluation and learning frameworks with tracking continual improvements are needed with timely adjustments and course corrections. The evaluation process needs to be made publicly available with stakeholder engagement in the review process.
   
• Adopt IWRM principles or other integrated approach for holistic governance and coherent policies: This is crucial not just for water policies but also for agricultural and climate change policies. An integrated approach enabled through strengthening crosssectoral representation in decision-making by inviting perspectives from key stakeholders from relevant departments and extending community participation with inclusion of the most vulnerable and affected section. Integration across different areas can help balance various water uses, manage demand effectively, and align policies with environmental and social sustainability, in addition to economic sustainability.
• Emphasise adaptation strategies for managing climate-related water risks that also provide mitigation benefits as co-benefits: Policies should integrate emission reduction and carbon sequestration into agricultural water management to showcase the climate advantages of adaptation efforts, particularly methane reduction associated with agriculture and allied sectors. Highlighting these development co-benefits can help policymakers secure support for adaptation initiatives while also advancing broader climate mitigation goals in order to transition to climate resilient pathways.
• Integrate water productivity interventions into water and agriculture policies, emphasising their advantages: Acknowledging the close link between water resources and agriculture will enable policymakers to create pragmatic solutions. This can be enabled through water footprint assessment through the agriculture products and processes, interstate virtual water flows to identify hotspots of unsustainability. Holistic strategies that strengthen both systems while sharpening their ability to bounce back to equilibrium from an unsustainable stage.
• Promote water tariffs and flexible pricing systems to encourage efficient use and incentivise conservation: This could involve creating flexible pricing schemes tailored to the needs of different users, as seen in the case of certain states of India like Maharashtra and Haryana established through the water resources regulatory authorities. This was also seen in various policies in our analysis. In doing so, water can be regulated in a systematic, timebound, and well-informed manner to meet conservation targets and generate stable revenue to build and maintain water systems for the present and future.
• Include a gender perspective in water management policies by acknowledging how climate change affects men and women differently and ensure women have a role in agriculture and water resource management: This would mean introducing genderresponsive strategies that address gender disparities and promote equality. Gendermainstreaming frameworks in Bihar and Odisha’s SAPCCs can serve as useful examples of best practices on this front. This needs capacity building to understand the broad gender spectrum, and legal, socio-cultural aspects of gender mainstreaming. Inclusion of gender perspective also necessitates creating sex -disaggregated database for effective assessment over time and space.
• Set up committees that bring together policy makers involved in agriculture, climate policy, and water management at both the national and subnational levels in India: Such committees can build on the ‘Core Group of Secretaries’ to integrate key priorities and associated expertise, thereby ensuring that policies and strategies are holistic and account for the interdependencies between systems while preventing inefficiencies. They would be crucial for helping in alignment of goals, avoiding trade-offs in policies, and enabling co-financing, technical knowledge to achieve multiple objectives.

To effectively bridge the identified gaps in water governance, the analysis of how well national and subnational policies are aligned with IWRM and CCA goals highlights opportunities for transitioning towards a comprehensive and adaptive approach. A key insight is that policy goals are prioritised differently depending on their scale, mandates, and specific contexts. To substantiate, Indian state-level policies often focus on community-driven adaptation within the agricultural systems, while national policies globally tend to emphasise mitigation and broader environmental sustainability.

Policy action towards bridging the gaps would require attention in the entire policy process covering updation of the existing national and state water policies to reflect current and projected climate risks, and also ensuring their periodic review and revision. Policies must adopt an integrated approach, fostering cross-sectoral collaboration and broad stakeholder participation, including vulnerable communities. Emphasising adaptation strategies that yield mitigation co-benefits, integrating water productivity interventions, and implementing flexible water tariffs are vital steps towards sustainable water management. Furthermore, embedding a gender perspective and establishing inter-ministerial committees at both national and subnational levels will ensure holistic policy formulation, resource alignment, and conflict avoidance. Ultimately, robust monitoring, evaluation, and learning frameworks, with public transparency and community engagement, are essential to ensure continuous improvement and the long-term resilience of India’s water resources in a changing climate.

To enable this, future research must broaden its scope to continuously integrate the evolving scientific understanding of water resources and climate change, alongside tracking the dynamic policy landscape for time-sensitive assessments. Furthermore, policy research would greatly benefit from exploring best practices and case studies from other relevant geographies to inform adaptive water resources management for a changing climate and growing farms.