Global surface temperatures have surged by 1.1°C in the past decade due to rapidly rising greenhouse gas emissions from anthropogenic activities (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2023). This poses a grave threat to both natural and anthropogenic ecosystems (IPCC 2023). Climate change triggers severe weather events like heat waves, heavy rains, droughts, and cyclones, severely impacting the agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and energy sectors (IPCC 2023). Climate change reduces crop yields, affects animal and fish health, and disrupts aquaculture. By 2050, key crops (like coarse grains, oil seeds, wheat and rice), which account for approximately 70 per cent of the global cropped area, may see a 17 per cent decline in yields, while tropical fish catches could drop by 30 per cent (Food and Agriculture Organization 2015).

Simultaneously, the FAO predicts a tripled food demand by the 2080s, outpacing crop yield growth, necessitating an average annual net investment of USD 83 billion in developing country agriculture (Food and Agriculture Organization 2009). This exacerbates socioeconomic vulnerabilities, leading to higher mortality, income loss, and gender disparities. The impact spans from individual producers and households, where incomes diminish as production costs soar, to the global agri-food system, where food supply chains are disrupted through price spikes and distortion of trade behaviours. This highlights the urgent need to address climate challenges in agriculture and allied sectors.

India’s agriculture and impacts of climate change

India is an important producer of various crops like rice, wheat, sugarcane, groundnuts, fruits, vegetables and cotton (Food and Agriculture Organization, n.d.). It faces significant climate change impacts, especially in agriculture. Over the past decade, India has experienced an average temperature increase of 0.7 degrees Celsius annually (Ministry of Earth Sciences 2020) . India has also seen 0.23 per cent reduction in rainfall, and an average annual increase in water scarcity has also been observed annually in the past decade (Chauhan et al. 2022). A district-level analysis indicated erratic rainfall patterns, with 30 per cent of India’s districts witnessing a high number of deficient rainfall years and 38 per cent witnessing a high number of excessive rainfall years, as well as extreme weather events (Prabhu et al. 2024).

India is the fifth most vulnerable country in the world, according to the climate risk index (Eckstein et al. 2019). Based on an analysis by CEEW, 27 out of 36 states and Union territories are highly prone to hydro-met disasters like floods and droughts, and their compound impact (Mohanty and Wadhawan 2021). Climate change has already reduced rainfed rice and wheat yields by 9 per cent, with projections indicating further declines (Chauhan et al. 2022). With a quarter of the world’s undernourished population and 70 per cent of rural Indians reliant on climate-dependent agriculture, food and nutrition security are critical concerns (World Food Programme 2023) (FAO, n.d.). As per the estimates mentioned in the Government of India’s economic survey of 2017–18, without farmer adaptation and policy changes, farm incomes are expected to decrease by around 12 per cent in the coming years, with unirrigated areas experiencing the most severe losses, amounting to 18 per cent of annual revenue (PIB 2018). A study in Beed, Maharashtra, where agriculture is fully rainfed, found that 16 per cent of the local population migrated during the dry season, with seasonal migration (ranging from 4 per cent to 90 per cent) being a common coping mechanism for landless and marginal landholding households to prevent income loss due to long dry spells and extreme weather conditions (Jaleel and Chattopadhay 2019). Socially, distress migration is a growing issue with an average labour outflow of nine million migrants between states from 2011 to 2016 (Bellampalli and Yadava 2023).

The current challenges facing food systems are intertwined in terms of:

• Their impact on climate change and vice versa
• Food and nutritional security
• Safeguarding producers’ livelihoods.

In response, the FAO introduced the concept of Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) in 2010 (FAO n.d).

Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA): Global definitions and critique

The FAO’s definition of CSA aims to address three main objectives:

• Sustainably increase food security by increasing agricultural productivity and income
• Build resilience and adapt to climate change
• Reduce and/or remove greenhouse gas emissions, where possible.

Similarly, the World Bank defines CSA as “an integrated approach to managing landscapes— cropland, livestock, forests and fisheries—that address the interlinked challenges of food security and climate change” (World Bank 2024; FAO n.d).

However, while extrapolating this definition to the Global South, we encounter some challenges.

Lack of relevance

Both the FAO and the World Bank definitions fall short of adequately defining the priorities for the Global South. Reflections from the literature on the critique of CSA’s definition include:

• Absence of clearer success criteria: The definitions lack a clear demarcation of success factors which translate how these outcomes may translate into practice.
• Defining the term ‘resilience’: The definitions mention resilience only in passing and do not make an attempt to identify how and whom the resilience targets and benefits through CSA.
• The three pillars of CSA, according to FAO’s definition, may have trade-offs in the context of the Global South. Prioritisation among these isn’t clear and may pose a challenge in these conditions.
• The definitions avoid reflection on consumption patterns or distribution, focusing only on production in the agricultural value chain.

Further, through discussions with twelve food systems experts from India and other parts of south Asia, we found the following reasons that necessitate the need to contextualise CSA outcomes in the Indian context.

• Vulnerability underscores the need to prioritise adaptation: Agri-food systems within developing countries like India face heightened vulnerability due to increased climate change exposure and limited adaptive capacity, making them more susceptible to harm. Thus, an adaptation-focused approach is crucial to build resilience within these systems. Moreover, long-term adaptation efforts inherently lead to mitigation benefits, emphasising the interconnected nature of these strategies. As such, mitigation should be seen as a supplementary benefit derived from prioritising adaptation.
• Lack of emphasis on small-holder and women producers as an interest group: 82 per cent of Indian producers have small or marginal holdings, and are more vulnerable to climate change (FAO, 2013a). Additionally, women in food systems also tend to be more vulnerable to climate change (Lecoutere et al. 2023). Thus, there is a need to particularly focus on them to make CSA more equitable.
• Insufficient focus on nutrition security: The existing definitions emphasise food security over nutrition security, which requires the existence of a diverse diet (National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development 2022). Here, there is a need to intentionally integrate nutritious food for all.

Defining CRA for the Global South

Incorporating these nuances, our definition of CRA emphasises social inclusivity, gender responsiveness, and sustainable practices. For the remainder of this report, we consider the following definition of CRA.

This definition carries forward from the global discourse on CSA, and contextualises it to the outcomes of: a) social inclusion, b) gender responsiveness, c) nutrition security, and d) resilience across the food system and not just food production, which are imperative to the contemporary Global South.

In the case of the Global South, CRA is defined as ‘a socially inclusive and genderresponsive approach to practise and govern agriculture and allied sectors in a changing climate to enhance nutritional security and ensure environmentally and financially sustainable livelihoods’.

The World Bank’s definition is used to contextualise CRA in India using the four sectors/ landscapes of cropping, livestock, forests, and fisheries. The outcomes to be achieved are drawn from the FAO definition, with nuances of climate resilience and nutrition security added in. Thus, the four outcomes of CRA considered in this report are:

• Climate resilience of agriculture and allied sectors
• Sustainable natural resources
• Improved lives and livelihoods
• Sustainable and nutritious food for all

CRA’s policy landscape

CRA is actualised on the ground by the Government of India through various policies and programmes that have been designed to cater to different climatic challenges of agriculture over the years. Beginning with the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) which provides an overarching policy framework for climate action, the Government of India has enacted various policies which advance CRA on the ground. These include the National Mission on Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA) under the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare; the National Innovations in Climate Resilient Agriculture (NICRA) project through the Indian Council on Agricultural Research (ICAR), and the Gramin Krishi Mausam Seva (GKMS) through the Indian Meteorology Department (IMD). These involve sub-components and schemes like the Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayi Yojana (PMKSY), the Rainfed Area Development (RAD) programme, Soil Health Mission (SHM), etc. (Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare 2023).

However, agriculture is a state subject as per the Constitution of India and states adopt their own policies to advance CRA and implement the central policies listed above. This contextualises states’ efforts to their own climatic challenges. We study Bihar and Odisha, two of the most vulnerable states as per CEEW’s Climate Vulnerability Index (Mohanty and Wadhawan 2021) to understand the current adoption and challenges to scale up CRA.

In order to advance CRA on the ground, the state’s institutional architecture must possess certain ‘capacities’ to plan and execute these practices at the local level and scale them up. Institutional capacity is defined as the state’s ability to achieve the targets it sets for itself (Hanson and Sigman 2021). The state meets these targets and goals through various instruments like policies, programmes, schemes, etc.

Such institutional capacity needs to be assessed and mapped across various levels of administration and policymaking in order to ensure a systemic embeddedness of the interventions across the ecosystem.

We conducted an analysis of institutional capacities at the state and local levels of governance. These capacities were defined using the Capacity Assessment Framework (CAF) developed by CEEW’s Re-calibrating Institutions for Climate Action report (Abraham et al 2024).

This framework involves eight capacity indicators, including capacities to set mandates, technical and functional capacities, and enabling environment, as given in Annexure I. In addition to this, we have also identified research and development as a key capacity in the CRA context. This emerged from the need for institutions to develop research on CRA practices and innovative technologies and machinery for building resilience.

Using this framework, we conducted qualitative questionnaire-based surveys, in-depth interviews, and focus group discussions (Mack et al. 2005) (Refer to Annexure IV for survey questionnaires). We used both online and offline modes of data collection. Figure 3 was the research approach for both Bihar and Odisha.

We also looked at interventions from the perspective of four levels:

• Field level–where farm-gate interventions are needed;
• Local human resource level–where skills, expertise, and local training are required in the human resource at the ground level;
• Research level–where there is a need for additional data, granular analysis, or specific technology and models to feed into research and development of agricultural intervention regarding CRA practices and design;
• Policy level–where there is a need for regulation, advocacy, resource mobilisation, and planning to create institutional structures for targeted CRA adoption.

An analysis of institutional capacity using this CAF and recommendations for actions needed across these four levels have been curated using a qualitative research approach across these two states.

However, due to the qualitative design and exploratory nature of this study, there are some limitations to its findings:

• The sample size of participants consulted in the process of the research was low.
• It will be difficult to establish causality between the mentioned institutional gaps and challenges faced by the farmers.
• Sample selection bias—even though the study selected the most climatically vulnerable districts with existing CRA adoption in order to understand the associated capacities and challenges, the selection of individual farmers and stakeholders was guided by the agricultural departments based on the feasibility of logistics and availability of stakeholders in the study.
• There was limited feasibility and impact assessment of all recommendations in the states.
• We could not hold consultations with all relevant line departments and local officials in both states under study.
• The lack of data on policy documents and the opacity of certain databases created a challenge to secondary assessment and research.
• Linguistic and cultural barriers to accessing local pidgins and creoles, gendered norms among households, and the absence of female members, for the most part, within the team that visited the field.

The results of data collection and analysis are discussed in the following chapters.

Odisha is vulnerable to climate change due to its 480-km coastline, which is exposed to cyclones and coastal erosion, and its monsoon-dependent agricultural system (Dasgupta et al. 2020). Therefore, we begin by looking at the state’s agricultural sector and its vulnerabilities to climate change in detail.

Agriculture sector in Odisha

Odisha’s economy is predominantly agrarian, with a significant portion of its rural workforce engaged in agriculture and allied sectors. These sectors contributed 22.5 per cent to the Gross State Value Added (GSVA) for the fiscal year 2022–23, as the Odisha finance department reported in 2023. The state’s agriculture primarily relies on rainfed cultivation, encompassing 74 per cent of its cultivable land (Odisha Finance Department 2023). The cultivation area is notably higher in the coastal districts, including Balasore, Bhadrak, Cuttack, Ganjam, Jajpur, Jagatsinghpur, Kendrapara, Khurda, Nayagarh, and Puri. These regions are pivotal in Odisha’s agricultural framework.

Major crops and fisheries

Odisha is renowned for its production of rice, pulses, oil seeds, jute, coconut, and turmeric, contributing significantly to India’s agricultural output. The state is particularly noted for providing one-tenth of India’s total rice production. In addition to crop production, fishery is a crucial economic activity. Leveraging its vast freshwater and brackish water resources, as well as its lengthy coastline, Odisha stands as a key maritime state with substantial potential in fisheries development (Odisha Finance Department 2023).

The state government aims to double inland fish production and substantially increase exports from INR 4,526 crore to INR 20,000 crore (Arya 2023). The total provisional fish production in 2018–19 was recorded at 7.59 lakh MTs (DAFE Odisha 2020).

Climate change and agriculture

Odisha’s vulnerability to extreme climate events has been increasingly evident, with significant impacts on its landscape, communities, and agricultural practices. Moreover, climate change and rising sea levels exacerbate these problems by facilitating saltwater intrusion into coastal aquifers, jeopardising agriculture and potable water sources, and heightening agricultural susceptibility to droughts (Hornbeck and Keskin 2014; Zhang et al. 2015).

The Climate Vulnerability Index report by CEEW highlights that an alarming 73 per cent of the state’s districts are exposed to extreme floods and associated events (Mohanty and Wadhawan 2021). Since 1970, there has been a noticeable two-fold increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, including floods and cyclones. Additionally, the state has experienced a similar surge in the occurrence and severity of drought events over the past decade, further exacerbating the challenges faced by its residents and the agricultural sector.

Research conducted by the ICAR-Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA) offers a detailed analysis of the state’s exposure, vulnerability, and overall risk to future hazards, considering various agro-economic and climatic indicators (CRIDA 2019). The findings reveal that a significant majority of Odisha’s districts, 19 out of 30, fall into the ‘high’ to ‘very high’ categories in terms of climate change risk intensity. Moreover, 28 out of 30 districts are categorised as facing ‘moderate’ to ‘highly unfavourable’ risk levels for future hazards (CRIDA 2019). Among these, 17 districts are particularly threatened by potential increases in minimum temperatures, while two districts are at an increased risk of becoming more drought-prone.

Different topographies have a different climatic vulnerability

Odisha’s upland and lowland districts face varied climatic extremes. Cyclones frequently hit coastal areas, and floods and waterlogging are common for coastal agriculture (Singh et al. 2023). Due to groundwater overexploitation, the coastal areas also face increasing salinisation of soils and saltwater intrusion (Anirudh K. Singh 2020). On the other hand, the upland areas face drought conditions and unpredictable precipitation patterns (Anirudh K. Singh 2020). These insights underline the critical need for Odisha to adopt comprehensive and adaptive strategies to mitigate the effects of these climatic extremes. This necessitates strengthening infrastructure, enhancing community resilience, and integrating sustainable agricultural practices. By addressing these challenges head-on, Odisha can work towards safeguarding its environment, economy, and the well-being of its people against the backdrop of an increasingly volatile climate. CRA has emerged as one of the pathways to address these challenges.

CRA: A way forward for Odisha’s agri-food systems

In Odisha, as in other states, CRA has emerged as a solution to the challenge of extreme climatic risk to the sector (Ghosh 2019; Bahinipati and Venkatachalam 2015; Sharma, Reddy and Sahu 2014). Keeping the challenges observed in the agriculture sector in mind, the state began efforts to promote CRA outcomes through various programmes and policies, beginning with the State Action Plan on Climate Change (SAPCC) of 2007 (Department of Forest Environment and Climate Change 2021).

The SAPCC was updated in 2021. The action plan focused on agriculture, fisheries, and animal husbandry. Odisha has highlighted an action plan for each of these sectors to build resilience (Department of Forest Environment and Climate Change 2021). The state focuses on creating awareness for farmers on climate change adaptation, establishing seed banks, scientific animal health management, fish farming, etc.

Odisha’s efforts at making its agriculture ‘climate-resilient’ manifested as multiple policies that tackled some of the CRA outcomes. We evaluated the current CRA-relevant policy ecosystem across the state’s departments.

CRA policy ecosystem in Odisha

The state also launched multiple policies to achieve various CRA outcomes. These policies came from various departments and are analysed with a focus on their prioritisation of various CRA outcomes. We have performed an analysis of 18 such policies, which can be referred to in Annexure XII.

In the following section, we unpack the policy landscape in Odisha to understand the ownership of relevant departments, and how successfully they target CRA outcomes. Our analysis identified the following trends defining the institutional design of its CRA-related policies.

Nodal departments for CRA-related policies

As established in the previous section, the nodal department is responsible for fund allocation and task distribution at the local level (refer to the Annexure XII).

In Odisha’s case, the analysed nodal departments and CRA outcomes show that most of the CRA-related policies are housed with the Department of Agriculture or Water Resource Department. However, the presence of other departments, such as nodal departments, for the implementation of CRA-related policies shows that inter-departmental collaboration at various levels would be important for the advancement of CRA.

Alignment with CRA outcomes

A brief analysis of the objectives and aims in the policy documents for these 18 CRA-related policies in Odisha shows the following analysis of targeted outcomes.

This means that needs for collaboration and coordination may arise depending on the targeted areas of the schemes and the requirement for interaction with external stakeholders and population groups, which a policy may not recognise. Unlike in Bihar, Odisha’s policy landscape shows that sustainable natural resources and climate resilience are the most targeted outcomes. However, sustainable and nutritious food outcomes are found to be less important in the analysed policies.

CRA: Thematic priorities in Odisha

In consultation with experts at the state and local level, we observed that Odisha prioritises seven thematic areas of intervention for pursuing the advancement of CRA through its various policies and programmes. These thematic areas also find relevant prioritisation within the SAPCC (Department of Forest Environment and Climate Change 2021). A disclaimer must be made here that this report only compiles the prioritisation of practices for CRA advancement as per the states' policies. They are:

• CRA-oriented rice cultivation: The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) can help to reduce methane emissions by use of an alternate wetting and drying method, which can reduce water use and can lead to higher outputs. This has been successfully incorporated into Odisha’s production, and is set to continue between 2021 and 2030. Direct-seeded rice has also been taken up in many districts with similar aims in mind.
• Millet cultivation: This is done in order to achieve a comprehensive revival of millets in farms and plates to promote climate-resilient farming and contribute to addressing micronutrient deficiency by improving the livelihoods of vulnerable farmers in rainfed areas (Directorate of Agriculture and Food Production 2022).
• Crop diversification: This entails diversification of crops from field crops to high-value fruit and vegetable crops to enhance farming and livelihood.
• Water conservation practices: The development of water-efficient micro-irrigation methods, individual and community farm ponds, and an Integrated Farming System (IFS) have been taken up for improving water use efficiency in the state and reducing the risk of climate-induced crop failure, particularly in rabi crops.
• Fisheries: This promotes early and short-duration fish production in a scientific manner to avoid loss of fish seedlings, provide nutritional security, and reduce resource utilisation in fishery production in the state.
• Horticulture practices: This thematic area will help in crop diversification and provide nutrition. Also, fruit crops, when planted in degraded areas, would help in carbon sequestration.
• Soil conservation practices: These focus on the maintenance of permanent soil cover, minimum soil disturbance, and diversification of plant species. This will help to improve crop yields while improving the long-term environmental and financial sustainability of farming with increased mechanisation.

The seven practices that were prioritised positively impacted ‘Outcome 1’ of CRA: Climate Resilience of Agriculture and Allied Sectors (Behera 2019; Senapati and Goyari 2020). As the seven priority thematic areas were identified in Odisha’s SAPCC (Department of Forest Environment and Climate Change 2021), their positive impact on ‘Outcome 1’ of CRA does not warrant further investigation. We elucidate how these practices impact the other three CRA outcomes using a further literature review. These are tabulated in the Annexure XI.

Given the cross-departmental nature of these priority areas and the requirement of collaboration at the local level to implement them, institutional capacity emerges as a key enabler. In the following sections, we analyse Odisha’s institutional capacity for advancing CRA and make recommendations for strengthening these capacities.

Institutional capacity analysis for advancing CRA in Odisha

The methodology used to perform the institutional capacity assessment in Odisha was the same as referred to in Figure 3 (section 1). However, the contexts of the institutional arrangements in the state affected the mode of consultations at the state level and the selection criteria for fields. The data collection and analysis results are discussed in the following sections.

State-level institutional capacity analysis

We conducted one-on-one consultations with state-level officials at Project Nodal Officer-level and above from directorates and state research organisations. We then went into the field and interviewed district and local level officials along with farmers via FGDs.

We conducted 19 in-depth interviews involving six departments of the state government, five universities and research institutions, and three non-state stakeholders. The details of individual consultations can be found in Annexure II.

Our consultations at the state level led to the identification of the Climate Resilience Cell (CRC) within the Department of Agriculture and Farmer Empowerment (DAFE) as the key institution in building collaborative capacities for CRA. We conduct a deep dive into this institution’s current capacities and key outcomes from strengthening these capacities in the long term in section 3.6.2.

Local-level institutional capacity analysis

For the selection of fields for visit, we created a CRA-critical score for the districts using the following criteria (districts which were not covered by either OMM or OIIPCRA were not considered for the field visit):

• District-based vulnerability index, as per CRIDA’s report on the vulnerability of agriculture to climate change in India (CRIDA 2019).
• Coverage of farmers under Odisha Millets Mission (normalised)
• Coverage area under OIIPCRA (normalised)

The top five districts based on the CRA-critical score (an average of coverage of the OMM, OIIPCRA and the district’s own vulnerability to climate change—see calculation in Annexure X) are given below

Table 6 Keonjhar, Bolangir, and Ganjam were selected from the top five CRA-critical districts based on their mixed topography and expert consultations

Source: Authors’ analysis in Annexure X

The selection of Ganjam, Bolangir, and Keonjhar was based on further expert consultations to prioritise coverage of diverse topographies and climatic vulnerabilities, and assess institutional capacity in these conditions. Though other parameters may be added to further nuance a score for the CRA-criticality of a district, Odisha’s own available databases and prioritisation of OMM and OIIPCRA made them imperative for field selection to the state’s context. The details of the districts’ topography and vulnerability are given below.

Table 7 Ganjam, Bolangir, and Keonjhar represent coastal, midland, and upland topographies, facing multiple climatic risks such as cyclones and droughts

Source: Authors’ compilation

An analysis of capacity gaps identified during these consultations at the state and local level led to the emergence of over fifty recommendations for action across four levels for the seven thematic areas of CRA in Odisha. This detailed analysis is presented in Annexure XIII. To be more outcome-oriented in the advancement of CRA in the state, we identified twelve major opportunity areas for the CRC, where capacity strengthening may lead to positive outcomes for other capacity challenges as well.

Recommendations to advance CRA in Odisha

This section discusses the results obtained from the assessment of qualitative data collected across the state and local levels in Odisha. We look at the anchoring institutional structure in Odisha for CRA, the Climate Resilient Cell (CRC), and its origin and functions. We then look at the emerging gaps in the CAF indicator areas in the state based on our qualitative research and provide recommendations for strengthening the institutional structure along with the expected outcomes from the short, medium, and long-term actions.

Driving convergence through Climate Resilient Cell (CRC)

Odisha became one of the first states to get approval for its SAPCC for 2021–30 (Odisha Finance Department 2023). Under this plan, the state has established a Climate Change Cell in the Department of Forest and Environment to coordinate efforts among eleven identified departments working on and sensitive to climate change-related issues. The Department of Agriculture is one department that participates in the planned activities

As part of the DAFE’s efforts to establish an institutional delivery mechanism to promote best practices on climate change, a Climate Resilience Cell (CRC) team was established within the Department of Agriculture in January 2023. The initial brief of the CRC team was to analyse the state’s SAPCC to provide insights on activities to be taken up by the DAFE as part of the plan.

However, its mandate as an institutional mechanism establishing coordination has been expanded to include:

• Looking at all government programmes through a climate lens, with a focus on enhancing resilience.
• Climate-related awareness generation for department officials, farmers, and village agriculture workers (VAWs).
• Capacity building of agricultural engineers and scientists at local levels.
• Engaging with NGOs and industrial partners for knowledge exchange.
• Demonstration of technology and climatic assessment; for example, the CRC is studying the micro-climate of Bhubaneswar to suggest feasibility for urban agriculture.
• Collaboration with the India Meteorological Department (IMD) to create an early warning system for agricultural activities.

The creation of the CRC within Odisha’s DAFE is a critical institutional development, underscoring the state’s commitment to advancing CRA. The CRC serves as a central nexus for catalysing and coordinating Odisha’s climate resilience initiatives by extending its role to encompass capacity building, technological demonstrations, and multi-sectoral collaborations. This strategic institutional arrangement enhances the department’s ability to implement CRA practices effectively, ensuring a unified and robust approach to tackling climate change challenges, thereby significantly boosting the department’s capacity for sustainable agricultural development.

Roadmap for strengthening CRC

Through the state and field-level consultations, we have made recommendations for the state to advance the scale-up of CRA in Odisha, through actions that the CRC can take in partnership with other stakeholders. Table 8 looks at how opportunities emerging from the state and local-level data collection could be channelled towards outcomes in Odisha’s advancement of CRA. We have also prioritised the recommended actions into short (1–3 years), medium (3–5 years), and long-term (5–10 years) on the basis of feasibility.

Table 8 How short-, medium-, and long-term actions can shape outcomes across 12 broad opportunity areas

The establishment of the CRC provides a unique opportunity to coordinate these efforts and leverage the state’s institutional capacity for the benefit of its agricultural sector and the wider community. In collaboration with state and non-state actors, the CRC is positioned as a key institution to streamline CRA initiatives and address the identified capacity gaps. It is imperative for the CRC to work closely with all stakeholders, including government departments, research institutions, farmer organisations, and the private sector, to ensure the effective implementation of the recommended actions.

This report has identified over 20 actionable recommendations for Bihar and 40 for Odisha, spanning local and state levels, to strengthen institutional capacity for climateresilient agriculture (CRA). These recommendations address the entire spectrum of CRA implementation, from policy design to field-level execution, with a focus on improving knowledge management and human resource availability. By addressing these gaps, states can build a more robust framework to support farmers in adapting to the challenges posed by climate change, ensuring sustainable agricultural practices and improved livelihoods.

The experiences of Bihar and Odisha offer valuable insights into the varying stages of CRA adoption across states. While Bihar is still in the pilot phase with limited coverage, Odisha has made significant strides by institutionalising climate resilience as a core priority, supported by dedicated resources, specialists, and inter-departmental coordination.

This spectrum of adoption highlights the potential trajectory for other states to follow, providing a roadmap for advancing CRA in a coordinated, context-sensitive, and agile manner. The lessons from these states underscore the importance of tailored strategies that align with local realities while fostering collaboration across stakeholders.

India’s agriculture sector is at a critical juncture, with climate change posing unprecedented challenges that demand transformative solutions. This study underscores the urgency of adopting CRA as a national priority and presents five broad-scale recommendations to design efficient CRA policies and accelerate adoption across the country. By leveraging the learnings from Bihar and Odisha, policymakers and practitioners can work towards a more resilient agricultural system that not only mitigates the impacts of climate change but also aligns with India’s broader developmental goals. The path forward requires sustained commitment, innovation, and collaboration to ensure that CRA becomes a cornerstone of India’s agricultural future.

Shift from targeting ‘CRA-adopting farmers’ to ‘CRA-adopting families’

CRA programmes must evolve to prioritise household-level resilience by targeting families, not just individual farmers. Field evidence shows that farming households engaged in diversified livelihoods, including allied activities like livestock rearing, exhibit greater risk appetite for CRA adoption. However, climate-induced challenges in allied sectors have eroded this resilience. Programmes like Bihar’s CRA, which focus narrowly on landowners, overlook practitioners of allied activities—often managed by women. Integrating credit, insurance, and training for allied activities alongside crop-centric interventions can stabilise incomes and incentivise CRA adoption. Gender-sensitive policies are critical: empowering women through targeted support for allied sectors can enhance household resilience and foster inclusive CRA transitions.

Strengthen linkages between CBBOs and FPOs for local skill-building

Securing sustained price discovery for farmers during yield stagnation remains a critical challenge. Farmer Producer Organisations (FPOs) are pivotal in bridging market gaps but struggle due to financial and technical skill deficits in their leadership. Prioritising CRAfocused FPOs for partnerships with Cluster-Based Business Organisations (CBBOs) under state programmes can address these gaps. The private sector’s role is equally vital: leveraging their expertise in agribusiness training and market linkages can enhance FPO capacities. States must institutionalise these partnerships to ensure farmers receive timely price support, reducing financial risks during the transition to CRA practices.

Develop a holistic outcome based framework for MEL of CRA programmes

CRA programmes promise to deliver on multiple outcomes across Livelihood, Environment and Health and nutrition. Therfore, it is imperative to develop a holistic multidimensional outcome framework to measure the success of any CRA programme. This will ensure that the interventions implemented under any programm advance the outcomes at a field, community and landscape level.

Develop thematic human resources at the block level

A severe bottleneck in CRA adoption is the lack of skilled human resources at local levels which impedes capacity building and knowledge transfer. Field visits revealed acute shortages in agribusiness, climate data analysis, and machinery maintenance. To address this, block-level deployment of thematic experts is essential:

• Climate data analysts can generate granular field-level insights for context-specific advisories.
• Business development professionals can guide FPOs on market access and collaboration.
• MRO specialists are critical for maintaining precision machinery, reducing reliance on costly imports.

Strengthening extension services through partnerships with NGOs and private players can fast-track capacity-building. Tailored training programmes, aligned with regional challenges, will ensure a robust human resource base to advance CRA.

Formalise non-state consortiums to address state capacity gaps

Government systems face constraints in scaling technical training, data dissemination, and machinery support. Non-state consortiums—comprising NGOs, CSOs, and private actors—can bridge these gaps through formalised structures and platforms. For instance:

• Technical training consortiums can skill extension officials and MRO staff, addressing gaps in machinery maintenance.
• Climatic data consortiums involving academic institutions can improve local-level emission and weather data accuracy.
• Agro-decision support consortiums can develop digital platforms for last-mile dissemination of advisories, countering overburdened government systems. Formalising these partnerships within state CRA frameworks will enable faster innovation and knowledge-sharing. An example of this can be Digital Green’s efforts to partner with philanthropic organisations to set up ‘video-based agricultural extension services’ in states (Digital Green 2020).

Systematically document and disseminate Indigenous Traditional Knowledge (ITK)

Indigenous practices like ‘Paira’ cropping and crop residue-based mushroom cultivation offer proven, low-cost climate resilience. However, the Green Revolution’s rice-wheat-fallow regime has marginalised ITK. States must collaborate with CSOs, tribal departments, and institutions like ICAR to update and formalise ITK documentation (last attempted in 2002). Regionspecific repositories can preserve this knowledge while integrating it with modern techniques through participatory research. Making ITK a formal component of CRA institutional structures will enhance adaptability and farmer trust in resilience practices.

Scale bottom-up CRA innovations through state schemes

Farmer-led innovations, such as using crop residue for mushroom cultivation, demonstrate grassroots potential for emission reduction and resilience. States like Odisha can leverage schemes like the Mukhyamantri Abhinav Krishi Yantrapati Samman Yojana to scale such practices. Incentivising farmer participation in innovation contests, providing grants for local solutions, and integrating these into formal CRA programmes will foster a bottomup approach. This aligns with national priorities while ensuring context-specific, scalable solutions.

Scaling CRA nationally demands robust institutional frameworks, skilled human resources, diversified livelihood support, and innovative partnerships. These recommendations, rooted in field insights and stakeholder consultations, offer a roadmap for aligning CRA with India’s broader developmental priorities. By addressing these gaps strategically, India can ensure sustainable agriculture that supports livelihoods, conserves resources and withstands climate challenges.