Opinion piece

Water is at the intersection of global agriculture and climate change goals, serving as a resource to address the urgency of adaptation and the promise of mitigation. However, these goals – adaptation to ensure food security, changed practices to support mitigation, and reduced water use in agriculture – are often at odds. The tensions between measures aimed at multiple goals at the same time raise a critical question: Can we simultaneously adapt to and mitigate climate change to achieve global goals in both food and water security? We explore this question through examples of agricultural water management from the SIWI Seminar Series on ‘Water for Food in a Changing Climate’ during Stockholm World Water Week 2025.

Agriculture currently uses 70% of available freshwater resources, whilst 3.2 billion people in agricultural areas face severe water shortages or scarcity [1]. Water is vital to food producers adapting to a changing climate. Farmers, especially in the Global South, are disproportionately and negatively affected by climate change resulting in crop losses [2]. Climate change has already reduced productivity growth by 20–40% in Africa and Asia since 1960 [3]. For this reason, governments often prioritize adaptation measures in agricultural and food security policies, including water management and irrigation. Irrigation enables farmers to prevent crop losses from water stress and allows production into dry and secondary shoulder seasons. Globally, farmers are adapting to changing rainfall and temperatures by investing in irrigation systems, often faster than reforms to water and climate policies, finance, and regulations. However, this can deepen pressure on water available in already broken hydrological cycles [4].

At the same time, agricultural production contributes one third of global Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions (e.g., carbon dioxide – CO₂, methane - CH₄ and nitrous oxide – N₂O) [5,6]. Agriculture and food systems, particularly through water management, have high potential to reduce GHG emissions [7]. Land use changes into agriculture, for example, forested areas, also contribute to GHG emissions and changes to weather and hydrological cycles. Climate adaptation at field and local level to address food and nutritional security is often directly at odds with global and national goals on GHG emissions. Food and agriculture industries are under multiple pressures at multiple scales: adapt to climate change to maintain or increase production at farm scale, contribute to food and energy security at national scale, and mitigate emissions and climate impacts at both national and global scales.

Reducing GHG emissions in natural (e.g., peat bogs) versus human-made wetlands (e.g., rice) through water table management requires different strategies. For example, rice is a substantial user of available freshwater and producer of agricultural GHG emissions [8]. Most rice is cultivated under flood irrigation, which can negatively affect soils and GHG production. Hence, the rice industry and national policies often promote alternate wetting and drying (AWD) practices, in which ponding water tables of about 10 cm are no longer maintained, and soils undergo drying cycles as water tables drop. The changes from anaerobic to aerobic conditions enhance water productivity by up to 37% [9] and CH₄ by 14–80%; however, 15–20% of this is offset by increases in N₂O [10]. In short, shifting rice production to AWD enables mixed contributions to multiple goals: improved rice production for food security, water gains in the watershed, and varied GHG emissions reductions. However, adoption at scale by farmers remains constrained to locations with specific incentive structures [11].

Peat bogs present a different picture for achieving multiple goals at varying scales. Peatlands have high carbon stocks that release CO2 when drained for farming. Rewetting by raising water tables will effectively reduce CO₂ by 65 t CO₂ ha ⁻ ¹yr and increase CH₄ by ~450 kg ha ⁻ ¹yr ⁻ ¹ [12]. Peat bog restoration practices require changes to agricultural systems suitable to “wetter” conditions [13]. In other words, peat bog management to meet national and regional mitigation targets will use more water and potentially undermine national economic and food security goals. Rice and peat examples demonstrate that modifying agricultural practices through water table management cannot easily achieve co-benefits for water, climate, people and ecosystems across different scales. Instead, careful evaluation and management of trade-offs are necessary to ensure positive outcomes toward the highest priority objectives.

Solar photovoltaic pumps for irrigation present a promising strategy to address or ‘balance’ both adaptation and mitigation targets. In Asia, solar pumps could reduce energy-related irrigation emissions, which amount to 216 million mt CO₂/yr^-1 [14]. Solar pump irrigation can contribute to climate mitigation goals, benefit farmers through reduced fuel costs, and increase food production. However, solar irrigation may introduce risks of agricultural climate maladaptation in areas with high water insecurity, such as West India [14]. Aligning multiple climate and food security goals can introduce temporal contradictions between short- and long-term gains, in addition to the spatial contradictions.

The same technology presents more potential for progress toward mitigation and adaptation goals in areas with sufficient water supply, such as parts of Africa. Walmawa et al. [15] estimated the investment and water resource viability of solar-based irrigation in Africa at 33 million ha, particularly for crops that contribute to nutritional security. Some governments in Africa (e.g., Kenya, Ethiopia) use climate change mitigation finance for climate adaptation through solar irrigation, which mitigates emissions through potential fuel pump displacement and higher productivity on existing agricultural lands. However, solar irrigation expansion in Africa has been constrained by concerns for water over-pumping. In such cases, policymakers face challenges in balancing national priorities for short-term adaptation and food and water security at the local level, and long-term water sustainability.

Examples highlight the trade-offs that arise when policies and practices simultaneously aim to meet climate and water goals at different scales. Innovations in agricultural water management are emerging in the “co-benefit space” – technologies and strategies that contribute to both adaptation and mitigation goals. However, effectiveness and impact differ significantly depending on where and how they are implemented.

Additionally, uneven distribution of global climate finance hinders widespread investment in and use of promising strategies. Most investments target mitigation. Only 5% of climate related finance went to adaptation in 2021–2022 [16]. Finance is a major driver in agricultural systems; emphasis on mitigation reinforces a siloed approach to climate-related action and poses risks to food, nutrition, and water security. National and global policymakers frequently expect agricultural producers to adjust practices to align with climate commitments with little support.

So how do we answer our own question? National and global leaders can, but do not currently, design policies or finance that align the short- and long-term priorities and goals of both adaptation and mitigation between scales. Across sectoral and geographic divides, decision influencers - such as scientists or the media - and decision-takers - such as government and global bodies - need to better understand how agricultural water management practices affect progress and trade-offs toward adaptation and mitigation over time and across locations. Robust data and evidence systems would enable policy, regulatory, and finance institutions at all levels to weigh priorities and target finance toward policies and programs that more closely align with local, short-term agricultural adaptation for food security, rather than primarily long-term national and global mitigation and water security goals. Coordination must also consider differences in time scale. Agricultural water investments will not always deliver co-benefits for people and planet – regardless of scale - simultaneously.

Acknowledgments

This opinion piece is based on presentations and discussions that took place within the Stockholm International Water Institute Seminar Series “Water for food in a changing climate: Pathways to adaptation and mitigation” co-convened by the International Water Management Institute, the Clarity (Climate adaptation and resilience in tropical drylands) Project, and the Daugherty Water for Food Global Institute at the University of Nebraska, during the 2025 World Water Week on 24–28 August 2025 in Stockholm, Sweden.