District-specific prioritisation of Climate-Smart Agriculture interventions in Odisha, India

Introduction

Agriculture in Odisha faces high vulnerability to climate variability due to recurrent droughts, floods, cyclones, and progressive soil and water degradation. During 2023-24, nearly 4.23 million hectares (≈49.5%) of Odisha's total cropped area remained rainfed across Kharif and Rabi seasons, highlighting the state's continued dependence on monsoon rainfall, making farm production systems particularly sensitive to rainfall variability and extreme weather events (Government of Odisha, 2024). Coastal districts experience frequent flooding and salinity intrusion (Hazra et al., 2022) [7] , while western districts face longlasting water scarcity, declining groundwater levels, and seasonal crop failures (Swain & Swain, 2011) [11] . These challenges have resulted in yield instability, declining resource-use efficiency, and increased livelihood vulnerability among small and marginal farmers. Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) has been widely recognised as an integrated approach to simultaneously enhance agricultural productivity, strengthen adaptation to climate change, and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (FAO, 2013; Nayak et al., 2020) [8] . However, effective operationalisation of CSA requires context-specific prioritisation that accounts for agro-ecological diversity, resource constraints, and farmer adoption potential. To address the gap, the Centre for Study of Science, Technology and Policy, in collaboration with the Department of Agriculture and Farmers' Empowerment (DA&FE), Government of Odisha, undertook a state-wide CSA scoping assessment. The assessment integrated resource-use profiling, district-level GHG emissions, and climate risk exposure, leading to the identification of nine priority districts, i.e. Bolangir, Nabarangpur, Nuapada, Kendrapara, Puri, Bhadrak, Angul, Jajpur, and Bargarh, where climate vulnerability and production constraints converge. These districts represent contrasting agro-climatic zones and farming systems, yet collectively account for a large share of Odisha's climate-exposed agricultural area. To translate analytical insights into actionable strategies, extensive fieldbased stakeholder consultations were undertaken across all nine districts. The objective was to validate scoping study findings, document ground-level practices and constraints, and identify locally relevant CSA interventions through www.extensionjournal.com participatory engagement with farmers, Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) scientists, line department officials, Farmer Producer Organisations (FPOs), and women Self-Help Groups (SHGs). This field-based approach bridges the gap between data-driven assessment and implementation planning by aligning scientific evidence with farmer experiences. By integrating expert knowledge with stakeholder validation, the study generates district-specific, farmer-endorsed CSA portfolios, providing a robust foundation for strengthening climate resilience and guiding district-level CSA action planning in Odisha.

Materials and Methods

The study conducted during 2025 adopted a participatory and evidence-based methodology to identify and validate Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) interventions across nine climatically vulnerable districts of Odisha. The approach was based on the CSA prioritisation framework proposed by Nayak et al. (2020) [8] and subsequently adapted by CSTEP to suit district-level implementation planning. The methodology integrated analytical rigour with stakeholder engagement to ensure that the prioritised interventions were scientifically robust, context-specific, and feasible to adopt.

Study design and stakeholder engagement

The CSA prioritisation process was implemented in three sequential phases: (i) expert-led prioritisation, (ii) farmerlevel validation, and (iii) synthesis of district-specific CSA portfolios. Out of nine districts, initial orientation and pilot learning were conducted during a comprehensive field visit to Puri district, following which a two-member CSTEP team carried out field visits across the remaining eight districts. Field investigations were conducted across nine districts of Odisha in three phases representing different agroecological regions (Fig. 1). The expert-led prioritisation phase involved consultations with district-level representatives from the DA&FE, i.e., Directorates of Agriculture and Food Production, Horticulture and Soil Conservation & Watershed Development, as well as scientists and staff from the Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs). These groups, collectively referred to as "Experts," representatives of Farmer Producer Organisations (FPOs), Self-Help Groups (SHGs), and individual farmers. All focus group discussions (FGDs) were facilitated by trained CSTEP personnel, supported by local civil society partners. efficiency or carbon sequestration. Experts then assigned relative weights to the CSA pillars and indicators such that the total weight equalled 100 (Table 1). Fifteen CSA intervention groups encompassing eighty-three individual practices were then scored for each indicator using a standardised scale ranging from -10 (100% negative impact) to +10 (100% positive impact) (Table 2). Weighted composite scores were calculated to identify the top five CSA intervention groups for each district. Within these groups, individual interventions were further ranked based on scalability and contextual relevance.

Farmer-level validation and synthesis

Farmer-level validation was conducted through FGDs involving farmers, FPO members, and SHG participants representing diverse agro-ecological and socio-economic contexts. Discussions focused on current farming practices, climate-related challenges, adoption barriers, and the perceived feasibility of expert-prioritised CSA interventions. In the final phase, insights from expert scoring and farmer validation were synthesised to develop district-specific CSA prioritisation matrices. This integration ensured that the final set of interventions was demand-driven, operationally feasible, and aligned with both policy priorities and local farming realities.

Results and field-level insights

Field investigations across nine districts revealed strong convergence in production constraints consistent with projected climate impacts on eastern Indian agriculture (Birthal et al., 2014) [3] , climate risks and institutional gaps, alongside region-specific CSA interventions shaped by agro-ecological conditions.

Coastal districts (Kendrapara, Bhadrak, Puri)

Agriculture in the coastal districts is predominantly paddybased, with over 60-70% of cultivated area under Kharif rice, and is highly exposed to flooding, cyclones, waterlogging, and salinity intrusion. Field interactions indicated that approximately 40-55% of agricultural land remains fallow during the Rabi season due to poor drainage, saline groundwater, and limited access to freshwater irrigation. Farmers reported progressive soil salinisation, declining soil fertility, and reduced crop choice, particularly in low-lying and estuarine landscapes. Adoption of climate-resilient practices, such as submergence and saline-tolerant rice varieties (e.g., Swarna Sub-1), integrated rice-fish systems, and bio-saline farming, was observed in limited pockets (around 20-30% of villages), often facilitated by NGOs. However, scaling remains constrained by weak extension outreach, limited understanding of Soil Health Card recommendations, and inadequate post-harvest infrastructure. Farmers consistently emphasised the need for improved drainage, salinity management measures, cold storage facilities, and market linkages, along with better access to crop insurance and timely compensation following cyclonic events.

Western districts (Bolangir, Nuapada, Nabarangpur, Bargarh)

Western districts are characterised by predominantly rainfed agriculture, recurrent droughts, groundwater depletion, and widespread seasonal migration. Paddy, maize, pulses, and millets dominate cropping systems; however, 70-80% of farmers reported the absence of reliable Rabi irrigation, resulting in low cropping intensity beyond the Kharif season, a common constraint in rainfed production systems (Rockstrom et al., 2010) [9] . Borewell failure rates were high, with farmers indicating that only about 10-20% of borewells remained functional in several blocks, while farm ponds and water-harvesting structures were either absent or non-functional. Seasonal migration was reported by more than 50% of smallholder households, particularly in Nuapada and Bolangir, reflecting livelihood stress during the non-cropping period. Farmers consistently reported soil degradation, micronutrient deficiencies (notably zinc and calcium), and declining organic matter, exacerbated by reduced livestock populations. CSA practices such as Direct Seeded Rice (DSR), residue retention, intercropping, millets, and integrated farming systems were viewed positively reflecting their documented role in improving soil health, nutrient availability, and yield stability (Shukla et al., 2020; Behera et al., 2020) [10,2] , reflecting their documented role in improving resilience and income stability, yet adoption remained uneven due to limited technical support and access to quality inputs. Strengthening water-harvesting infrastructure, soil testing services, agroforestry systems, and FPO-led value chains was identified as critical for reducing production risk and seasonal migration in these drought-prone districts.

Central districts (Angul, Jajpur)

Central districts exhibited relatively diversified farming systems combining paddy, vegetables, pulses, oilseeds, and horticulture. Nevertheless, these districts face dual climate stress, with flooding in low-lying areas and drought or water scarcity in uplands. Field discussions suggested that around 50-60% of farmers continue to depend primarily on Kharif cultivation, while post-harvest losses affecting approximately 25-35% of horticultural produce were reported due to limited cold storage and weak aggregation mechanisms. At the same time, 20-30% of farmers reported www.extensionjournal.com partial adoption of CSA practices, including DSR, crop diversification, and integrated farming systems. In Angul, human-wildlife conflict involving elephants, wild boars, and monkeys was reported by over 30-40% of farmers in forest-adjacent blocks, discouraging crop intensification and long-term investment. In both Angul and Jajpur, soil fertility decline associated with prolonged chemical fertiliser use and inadequate organic inputs emerged as a major concern, consistent with patterns reported for intensively cultivated Indian soils (Bhattacharyya et al., 2015) [1] . Farmers expressed strong demand for micro-irrigation systems, integrated nutrient management, improved market infrastructure, and extension-led demonstrations, alongside policy support for wildlife management and crop insurance coverage. Across districts, a majority of farmers (≈60-75%) expressed a strong willingness to adopt Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) practices when supported by timely access to quality inputs, hands-on training, and reliable market opportunities. Adoption, however, remained constrained by persistent gaps in last-mile extension delivery and uneven access to advisory services, challenges widely documented in India's agricultural extension systems (Glendenning et al., 2010) [5] , along with limited availability of soil and water diagnostic services, inadequate irrigation infrastructure, and weak postharvest systems. These constraints were most pronounced in rainfed western districts and saline-affected coastal zones, where institutional outreach and infrastructure deficits were more acute. Women's participation was evident across districts through Self-Help Groups (SHGs), particularly in allied, livestockbased and value-added activities; nevertheless, less than one-third of women participants reported regular access to formal training, financial services, or decision-making platforms. Overall, the field evidence underscores that district-specific CSA portfolios, grounded in farmer validation and aligned with local agro-climatic risks, are essential for improving productivity, resilience, and sustainability of agriculture in Odisha. District-wise climate risks, key constraints, and prioritised CSA intervention themes are summarised in

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementThe authors acknowledge the Department of Agriculture and Farmers' Empowerment (DA&FE), Government of Odisha. We thank farmers, FPOs, SHGs, KVK scientists, and district officials for their participation

References

1. Bhattacharyya R, Ghosh BN, Mishra PK, Mandal B, Rao CS, Sarkar DJ. Soil degradation in India: Challenges and potential solutions. Sustainability. 2015;7(4):3528-3570. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7043528
2. Behera UK, Suresh K, Jha G, Lakaria BL, Sharma AR, www.extensionjournal.com Rao AS. Integrated farming system for enhancing productivity, profitability, and livelihood security of smallholders. Indian J Agronomy. 2020;65(1):1-12.
3. Birthal PS, Khan MT, Negi DS, Agarwal S. Impact of climate change on yields of major food crops in India: Implications for food security. Agric Econ Res Rev. 2014;27(2):145-155. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-0279.2014.00019.6
4. FAO. Climate-smart agriculture sourcebook. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. 2013. Available from: https://www.fao.org/3/i3325e/i3325e.pdf
5. Glendenning CJ, Babu SC, Asenso-Okyere K. Review of agricultural extension in India: Are farmers' information needs being met? IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 01048. International Food Policy Research Institute. 2010. Available from: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/154873
6. Government of Odisha. Odisha agriculture statistics 2023-24. Department of Agriculture and Farmers' Empowerment, Government of Odisha. 2024. Available from: https://agri.odisha.gov.in
7. Hazra S, Ghosh A, Ghosh S, Pal I, Ghosh T. Assessing coastal vulnerability and governance in Mahanadi Delta, Odisha, India. Prog Disaster Sci. 2022;14:100223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2022.100223
8. Nayak AK, Sahoo BK, Swain DK, Tripathi R, Mohanty S, Kumar U. Climate-smart agricultural technologies for sustainable production and resource conservation in India. ICAR-National Rice Research Institute. 2020. https://icar-nrri.in/wpcontent/uploads/2023/05/ClimateSmart-Agricultural-Tech.pdf
9. Rockstrom J, Karlberg L, Wani SP, Barron J, Hatibu N, Oweis T. Managing water in rainfed agriculture-The need for a paradigm shift. Agric Water Manag. 2010;97(4):543-550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.09.009
10. Swain M, Swain M. Vulnerability to agricultural drought in western Orissa: A case study of representative blocks. Agric Econ Res Rev. 2011;24(Jan-Jun):47-56.