Last week, I participated in a Training of Trainers programme on the fundamentals of climate change covering adaptation, mitigation, climate finance and institutional capacities. The room brought together academic institutions, practitioners, and experts working across WASH and urban systems.
Unlike conventional trainings where content is presented and absorbed, this one tested the modules through participant questions and on ground experiences, creating room for genuine dialogue before wider roll out.
During one such exchange, I found myself in discussion with the NIUA leadership around a seemingly straightforward topic - lake rejuvenation and its place in climate discourse.
The question was deceptively simple:
When a town rejuvenates a lake - restores bunds, expands network, fences the periphery, creates green buffers - is that adaptation? Or mitigation? Or both?
And more importantly how do practitioners translate such classifications into something actionable on ground?
Think of the junior engineers closest to the ground, often managing multiple towns while moving between urgent operational demands with planning expectations.
For them, clarity matters in their day-to-day reality, there isn’t much room for conceptual ambiguity. They are not debating theory- they need something concrete, something grounded, something that is communicable upward to their reporting systems and downward in implementation.
So when a lake is rejuvenated, it becomes natural to say:
“We rejuvenated the lake therefore the town has adapted.”
And honestly, that instinct makes sense. Infrastructure actions are visible and measurable. They provide something tangible to communicate.
But the conversation stayed with me. It raised a deeper question:
Is adaptation really that straightforward?
Or are we oversimplifying a systemic concept to fit project narratives?
And is there a systemic demand for simplified, actionable narratives within administrative decision-making environments?
Learnings from Practice: What Climate Adaptation Means in Chintamani
Drawing from the development of a WASH Climate Action Plan for Chintamani, adaptation along with a lot of other climate elements, revealed itself differently but for this piece we stick to adaptation .
Climate Adaptation starts with access
If a town cannot ensure water access to its people during a drought, then that town is not adapted regardless of how many lakes are restored or projects implemented.
It is fundamentally about securing reliable and equitable access to basic services before it is about infrastructure, assets and technology.
Lake restoration, pipeline expansion or technological upgrades are important interventions, however, it is only one part of an adaptation package. No single interventions constitute adaptation in isolation.
Adaptation is a systemic capability : The ability to maintain service delivery under climatic stress.
In operational terms, drought adaptation asks:
- Can the town still supply water to its people?
- Can it do so equitably?
- Can it do so without stressing its groundwater?
- Can it do so without pushing people into private tanker dependence?
That is adaptation in practice.
What does climate adaptation actually mean for a drought-prone small town?
Small towns often depend heavily on groundwater, making them vulnerable during drought. Building adaptive capacity therefore requires layered interventions.
For small towns, drought adaptation means redesigning how water is sourced, managed, and shared so that when rainfall fails, governance does not fail with it.
So, in drought conditions, climate adaptation means moving away from single-source dependence (usually groundwater) towards building diversified sources and secure water system.
Adaptation as a Layered System
1. Surface water strengthening as first line of defence (Resource augmentation and storage resilience)
Strengthening surface water through rejuvenating lakes and water bodies, increasing their storage capacity, protecting them from sewage through wastewater treatment. In this sense lake rejuvenation contributes to adaptation not as an isolated project but to reduce groundwater dependence and to create a stable surface water base.
2. Groundwater as a strategic reserve, not a default source
It means using groundwater wisely and strategically meaning reviving nonfunctional/defunct bore wells, monitor withdrawals and distribution, reducing distribution losses, etc.
Here, adaptation lies in governance and management capacity so that groundwater acts as a reserve, not the first option.
3. Emergency reserves for extreme drought
Climate variability demands contingency planning to prevent system collapse. That is why towns must create contingency measures such as:
- Emergency reservoirs
- Distribution systems that prioritise vulnerable wards
- Look at the Urban - rural convergence and shared resources
This is adaptation because:
- it prevents system failure,
- Maintains equity in access
- it avoids panic tanker economies
These layers ensure continuity, fairness and stability when conventional sources fail.
Climate Adaptation is not one project rather a system of access.
Returning to the Training Room Question:
Lake rejuvenation can contribute to adaptation, It can also contribute to mitigation through ecosystem restoration and microclimate benefits but by itself it does not mean a town has adapted.
To say a town has adapted is to say-
- it has reduced groundwater dependence
- it has diversified water sources
- it has emergency reserves
- it can distribute water fairly to the vulnerable population
- it can survive variable rainfall
Together, these enhance the adaptive capacity of the town and the ability of the system to absorb climatic shocks while sustaining access.
The training reaffirmed something important:
Conceptual clarifications need wider circulation which bridges theory and implementation realities. Unless we change how we frame climate work, we may end up equating visible interventions with resilience. A restored lake may be visible progress and such interventions matter, but true resilience lies in systems that protect access, equity, and continuity. Bridging this distinction between projects and systems is critical as climate planning moves from concept to practice.