Climate change adaptation attributes across scales and inter-institutional networks: insights from national and state level water management institutions in India

Although climate change is a global phenomenon, it is increasingly realised that adaptation needs to be addressed at multiple levels (Amundsen et al. 2010; Di Gregorio et al. 2019) by multiple sectors and actors (Vedeld et al. 2015). Institutions operating at the national level (Azhoni et al. 2017a) generally plan adaptation strategies [e.g. National Adaptation Programs of Actions: (Hardee and Mutunga 2010)] which are expected to be implemented by institutions operating at more local levels (Argyriou et al. 2012; Azhoni et al. 2017b) due to the contextual nature of adaptation (Azhoni et al. 2017b). However, the involvement of varied stakeholders in the design and implementation of adaptation measures shape its outcome (Juhola and Westerhoff 2011) due to the benefits of integrating learning experiences from local and pilot implementation projects into national adaptation policies. Therefore, institutions operating at different levels have both distinct and complementary roles in formulating and implementing adaptation strategies (Adger et al. 2005; Nalau et al. 2015) that requires interaction (Azhoni et al. 2018). Here, we define an institution as a recognised body entrusted with a particular purpose such as education, research, services delivery, administration, or policy making, and mandated by the government consisting of teams of people, rather than as ‘rules and regulations’ (North 1991).

Public and non-governmental institutions – including research and academic institutions – play a crucial role in enabling adaptation at multiple scales (Kirchhoff et al. 2015; Pahl-Wostl 2009) through knowledge production and exchange (Hill et al. 2020), policy making and execution (Wang et al. 2013). The characteristics of an adapting institution include the ability to recognise and evaluate the climate threats (Pahl-Wostl 2019) and accordingly make plans to either avert or take advantage of the changed/changing scenario (Jude et al. 2017) with the available resources or to acquire additional resources (Dellmuth et al. 2020). These characteristics require the availability of five key attributes.

Firstly, awareness and accessibility to information to identify risk and vulnerability. Accessibility to information is not just an internal characteristic of an institution if the information is being held by another institution or agency (Cvitanovic et al. 2015) so that, in a hierarchically structured system of governance, operating at the federal, state or local-level institutions will have differing accessibility to information and knowledge (Azhoni et al. 2017b) depending on their role, power or mandate. Secondly, the availability and accessibility to resources (human, technological and financial, in addition to information and knowledge) along with the motivation for adaptation (Månsson 2018) is necessary for successful implementation of adaptation (Engle and Lemos 2010). The availability of financial resources, for example, from climate adaptation funds, could stimulate adaptation through mainstreaming into other developmental activities (Thaker and Leiserowitz 2014). However, the ability of (regional or local) institutions to acquire the necessary resources for implementation from other national-level institutions in a hierarchically structured administrative system will also depend on their ability to articulate their vulnerabilities, need and adaptation objectives (Porter et al. 2015). Thirdly, the adoption of high-level adaptation objectives is expected to be championed by effective and visionary (often political) leadership (Pasquini et al. 2014) that also drives institutions through a learning process (Termeer et al. 2016) that mainstreams and iterates the adaptation actions along with other developmental activities (Thompson and Harris 2021). Such champions of adaptation, not only at the national level but within the institutions operating at sub-national or local level (Pasquini et al. 2014), can articulate the need for the required resources that will shape the adaptive capacity of the institution. For example, Van der Voorn and Quist (2018) demonstrates how visionary leaders and their strategic visions can drive historical transitions by providing direction, inspiring stakeholders, and fostering collaboration. Vision champions are essential in creating and nurturing niches where innovative practices and policies can be developed and tested. These niches serve as experimental spaces that support broader institutional networks and enable the scaling up of successful adaptation strategies. Fourthly, once adaptation strategies and objectives have been framed, guidance for practitioners, particularly for institutions operating at the local level, have to be put in place and communicated to support effective implementation (Aguiar et al. 2020). Finally, management processes (Zollo et al. 2013) that include effective monitoring and review mechanisms (Ford and Berrang-Ford 2013) of the identified adaptation goals and strategy and for gaining learning experiences are required.

Given the inter-sectoral nature of adaptation (Al-Zu’bi 2016), the success of cross-scale inter-institutional coordination—across vertical (national-state-local), horizontal (inter-sectoral or inter-departmental), and diagonal (cross-scale and inter-sectoral)—is crucial for addressing climate impacts (Karhinen et al. 2021; Mukheibir et al. 2013; Street and Jude 2019). Earlier, Gupta (2007) identified the complexities of multi-level governance and the necessity for cohesive strategies and collaboration among institutions at various scales and Huitema et al. (2019) and Petrovics et al (2022) observed that polycentric governance systems enhance climate adaptation through flexibility, innovation, and responsiveness.

Several studies (e.g., Azhoni et al. 2017b, a; Azhoni and Goyal 2018; Sen et al. 2019) have, therefore, examined horizontal inter-institutional networks, but vertical or diagonal networks remain under-evaluated (Dazé et al. 2016). This gap results in limited empirical knowledge about how institutions' adaptive capacities at one scale influence another (Dazé et al. 2016). Consequently, factors causing adaptation bottlenecks and how local learning experiences can inform higher-level planning (Hill et al. 2020; Amundsen et al. 2010; Dannevig and Aall 2015; Vedeld et al. 2015) are poorly understood, despite existing studies on cross-scale dynamics (Pahl-Wostl 2009; Wyborn 2015).

In the light of the need for understanding the multi-institutional involvement at multiple scales (Duvat et al. 2021; Phuong et al. 2018), the objective of this research is to analyse the variations in climate change adaptation attributes at state and national levels and to investigate the factors and mechanisms that facilitate the transfer of these attributes through inter-institutional networks operating across scales. By examining institutions at the national level (ION) and within Himachal Pradesh (IOS), this study aims to enhance understanding of the multi-scale involvement and the role of inter-institutional networks in water management adaptation to climate change. This knowledge has wider applicability in informing water management adaptation to climate change, given the multi-scale nature of water governance and inter-sectoral competition (Bisaro et al. 2010; Pittock 2011; Wilby and Wood 2012).

The findings are presented in two sub-sections analysing, firstly, whether the institutions operating at the two different scales exhibit the attributes of adaptation and secondly, the horizontal, vertical, and diagonal relationships within the institutional networks. To anonymize personal identities while maintaining traceability, responses are coded with two letters and two digits to represent the type of institution and a serial number (e.g., UM for Union Ministries, CG for Central Agencies, SG for State Departments, NG for NGOs, RI for Research Institutions, AI for Academic Institutions, and IP for Irrigation/Public Health zonal branches), as shown in Fig. 1 and Table 1 above.

From the results elaborated in Section 3, three insights can be drawn in relation to climate change adaptation for water management at multiple scales. Firstly, institutions operating at different administrative scales with different spheres of mandate or involvement can contribute to enhancing the adaptive capacity of institutions operating at another scale. Secondly, removing or overcoming the bottlenecks of inter-institutional networks is essential for adaptation across scales. Thirdly, institutions collaborating with institutions/agencies at different scales can help bridge the gap between institutions operating at those scales and the role played by such institutions need to be recognised.

This study illustrates that institutions operating at the national level have the potential to create adaptation enabling opportunities for institutions operating at the lower scales that are implementing national strategies or developing and operating water infrastructure. It also demonstrates that the low regret adaptive measures being adopted by local level institutions can provide important insights for planning adaptation strategies by institutions operating at the national level and beyond. While national adaptation strategies and goals can inspire adaptation at lower scales, Social Network Analysis of the cross-scale inter-institutional networks identifies bottlenecks between various institutions operating at different scales. The associated inter-institutional fragmentation reduces the passage and accessibility of data and information and the sharing of knowledge and learning experiences can limit the adaptation enabling factors and the identification of adaptation opportunities. Our ability to understand adaptation by water institutions depend on factors beyond the commonly used adaptive capacity indicators such as national wealth, technology, human and natural resources, among others. Aggregated national indicators cannot be assumed to indicate increased adaptive capacity at local levels. It requires the understanding of institutional structures and the vertical, horizontal and diagonal social networks between officials in different government institutions and factors that affect perception of climate change risks, opportunities and the implementation strategies. Bureaucratic processes of recruiting key officials, although seemingly having nothing to do with climate change adaptation, are shown to indirectly influence adaptive capacity of the country through an improved network of coordination among key officials. The study demonstrates that such factors outside of a particular institution, including the role played by bridging institutions and institutions at another scale of governance, strongly influence an institution’s ability to address climate change impacts on water management. Studies on the nature and role of vertical and diagonal networks in other socio-political and environmental-economic contexts, particularly where the institutions are loosely connected administratively, will provide further insights on creating conducive adaptation enabling institutional designs for addressing the increasing concerns of climate change impacts on water governance.