Choose Report Type
Publication Date
Report Upload
Download
(333.18 KB)
vertical
Water & Land Resources
PDF Text
Composite Water
Management Index 2.0
A National Tool for Water Management
23
rd
August 2019 1.FirsteditionofCWMIReportbroughtIndia’swaterchallenges
intospotlighttoencourageeffectivewatermanagementamong
statesthroughtheprincipleofcompetitiveandcooperativefederalism
ItgeneratedstronginterestfromkeystakeholdersinIndia’swaterecosystem,
andinitiateddiscussionsaroundhowcanstatesbettermanagetheirwater
resources
2.NITIAayogispublishingthe2
nd
editionoftheReporttokeep
themomentumonmanagementofwater
The2
nd
editionincludes:
Analysesofstates’performanceontheIndexacrossFY15-16,FY16-17,and
FY17-18
WaterbroughttocentrestagewiththeformationofJalShaktiMinistryand
withthelaunchofJalShaktiAbhiyan
NITI Aayog launched the Composite Water Index Report (CWMI) in July
2018, and is launching the 2
nd
edition this year
2 The Index comprises of 9 themes, and covers 25 states and 2 UTs
3
SectorsWeights
1Source augmentation and restoration of waterbodies 5
2Source augmentation (Groundwater)15
3Major and medium irrigation—Supply side management 15
4Watershed development—Supply side management 10
5
Participatory irrigation practices—Demand side
management
10
6
Sustainable on-farm water use practices—Demand side
management
10
7Rural drinking Water10
8Urban water supply & sanitation10
9Policy and governance15
Total100
CWMI themes and weightsClassification of states to account for
different hydrological conditions and
geographical area
Theninethemesarefurthersub-dividedinto28indicatorswhich
accountforequalweightageswithinrespectivethemes
Groundwateraugmentation,majorandmediumirrigation,and
policy&governanceremainthemeswithhighestweightages—
giventhegrowinggroundwatercrisis,India’slowirrigation
utilization,andtheimportanceofeffectivepolicyframeworks
Non-Himalayan states
North-Eastern & Himalayan states
Union Territories
No data available
Jammu & Kashmir
West Bengal
Manipur
Mizoram Overall analysis: Promisingly, 80% states have improved their Index
scores in the last three years
Key findings
~80%ofthestates(19outof24)haveshownimprovementintheirwatermanagement
scoresoverthelast3years,withaveragechangeinscoresbeing+5.2points
Haryana’sscoreimprovedby~26.21points(largestimprovement),duetohigherscores
onfourthemes—restorationofwaterbodies,watersheddevelopment,on-farmwater
use,andpolicyandgovernance
Amongstthe9themes,stateshavedisplayedmaximumimprovementonthePolicy
andGovernance,withthethememedianscorerisingby~30%overthelastthreeyears
Datadisciplineisalsoimproving,andincidentsofstatesnotreportingdatahave
reducedby~70%comparedtolastyear
*
Improveddatareportingpracticeshavealsocontributedtoimprovementinstates’
Indexscores,Haryanabeingtheprimeexample
Highperformingstateshaveretainedtoppositions
*
DoesnotincludedatareportingstatisticsforArunachalPradesh,DelhiandPuducherry’ssincetheyhavebeen
assessedontheindicatorforthefirsttimeinFY17-18
4 Indicator analysis: Improvement in Source Augmentation and
Restoration of Water Bodies across states
Best-performing state
Highest Improvement
6.31 percentage points (13%)
FY 16-17 score: 47.93%
FY 17-18 score: 54.24%
Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, Tamil Nadu
Score achieved: 100%
Uttarakhand
1-year change in score: 89 percentage points
Indicator 1: Restoration of irrigation potential from identified water bodies
Measures the area irrigated by restored water bodies as a proportion of the total area that can be
irrigated by restoring all identified water bodies, including rivers, ponds, tanks, etc.
5
1-year change in indicator average score Indicator analysis: Increased attention to source augmentation (Groundwater)
Best-performing state
Highest Improvement
1.13 percentage points (3%)
FY 16-17 score: 37.39%
FY 17-18 score: 38.52%
Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Tamil
Nadu, Himachal Pradesh
Score achieved: 100%
Madhya Pradesh
1-year change in score: 46 percentage
points
Indicator 3: Measures the percentage of over-exploited units that have been mapped for
recharging
Indicator 4: Measures over-exploited units covered with recharge infrastructure
Indicator 3
3.66 percentage points (27%)
FY 16-17 score: 13.53%
FY 17-18 score: 17.19%
Andhra Pradesh
Score achieved: 99%
Tamil Nadu
1-year change in score: 50 percentage
points
Indicator4
6
1-year change in indicator average score Indicator analysis: Mapping major and medium irrigation infrastructure
Best-performing state
Highest Improvement
11.03 percentage points (23%)
FY 16-17 score: 48.43%
FY 17-18 score: 59.46%
Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh,
Jharkhand, Punjab, Telangana, Goa,
Tripura, Assam
Score achieved: 100%
Bihar
1-year change in score: 70 percentage
points
Indicator 7: Measures the % of (MMI) assets that have been assessed and identified for
the IPC-IPU gap in a state
Indicator 9: Measures the % of the suitable length of canals and distribution networks
that the states have lined
Indicator 7Indicator 9
9.73 percentage points (23%)
FY 16-17 score: 42.11%
FY 17-18 score: 51.84%
Uttar Pradesh
Score achieved: 95%
Uttar Pradesh
1-year change in score: 95 percentage
points
7
1-year change in indicator average score Indicator analysis: Increase in access to urban water and sanitation
1-year change in indicator average score
Best-performing state
Highest Improvement
10.99 percentage points (17%)
FY 16-17 score: 63.67%
FY 17-18 score: 74.66%
Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Goa,
Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand
Score achieved: 100%
Chhattisgarh
1-year change in score: 14 percentage points
Indicator 22: Urban Population supplied with drinking water
Measures urban drinking water access as the percentage of urban population being
supplied with drinking water
8 Indicator analysis: Higher investments in urban water and sanitation
projects
1-year change in indicator average score
Best-performing state
Highest Improvement
4.05 percentage points (10%)
FY 16-17 score: 38.76%
17-18 score: 42.81%
Haryana, Himachal Pradesh
Score achieved: 100%
Rajasthan
1-year change in score: 35 percentage points
Indicator 23: Capacity installed to treat urban wastewater
Measures the ability of states to treat urban wastewater by examining the percentage of
total urban wastewater that can be treated with the currently installed capacity
9 Indicator analysis: Improved utilization of waste water treatment capacity
1-year change in indicator average score
Best-performing state
Highest Improvement
1.83 percentage points (5%)
FY 16-17 score: 33.18%
FY 17-18 score: 35.01%
Haryana
Score achieved: 100%
Telangana
1-year change in score: 16 percentage points
Indicator 24: Percentage of wastewater treated
Measures the actual proportion of urban wastewater treated by the states
10 Indicator analysis: States implementing water pricing policies and
governance mechanisms
1-year change in indicator average score
Best-performing state
Highest Improvement
8.47 percentage points (23%)
FY 16-17 score: 37.21%
FY 17-18 score: 45.68%
Goa, Puducherry
Score achieved: 100%
Haryana
1-year change in score: 70 percentage points
Indicator 27: Percentage of urban households charged for water
Percentage of households being provided water supply and charged for water in the
urban areas
11 Despite the improvement, most states need to show substantial improvements
in water management practices
75
74
71
60
59
58
58
56
52
50
47
45
45
39
39
38
34
Haryana
Maharashtra
Odisha
Gujarat
Tamil Nadu
Madhya Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh
Goa
Karnataka
Punjab
Telangana
Jharkhand
Rajasthan
Kerala
Chhattisgarh
Uttar Pradesh
Bihar
39
20
Puducherry
Delhi
67
49
47
44
42
30
26
22
Himachal Pradesh
Uttarakhand
Sikkim
Tripura
Assam
Meghalaya
Nagaland
Arunachal Pradesh
Non
-
Himalayan
states
North
-
Eastern
&
Himalayan
states
UTs
State categorization based on CWMI scores
CWMI scores (FY 17-18)
High-performing
>65 points
Medium-performing
50-65 points
Low-performing
<50points
12 13
Ranking of the Non-Himalayan States over the years 14
Ranking of the Himalayan States over the years
14 Despite the improvement, most states need to show substantial improvements
in water management practices
Key findings
16outofthe27statesstillscorelessthan50pointsontheIndex(outof100),and
fallinthelow-performingcategory.
➢Thesestatescollectivelyaccountfor~48%ofthepopulation,~40%of
agriculturalproduce,and~35%ofeconomicoutputofIndia
Jharkhand,UttarPradesh,Odisha,Bihar,Nagaland,andMeghalayastillscore
lessthan40points,andtheaverageimprovementinlow-performingcategoryover
thelastthreeyearsstandsat3.1points,lowerthan5.2-pointaverageimprovement
observedacrossstates
UttarPradesh,Rajasthan,Kerala,andDelhi,4ofthetop10contributorstoIndia’s
economicoutput,havescoresrangingfrom20pointsto47points
Noneofthetop10agriculturalproducersinIndia,exceptGujaratandMadhya
Pradesh,scoremorethan60pointsontheCWMI
➢ThisisconcerninggiventhatassessmentonalmosthalfoftheIndexscoresis
directlylinkedtowatermanagementinagriculture
15
15
Thank You
16
Management Index 2.0
A National Tool for Water Management
23
rd
August 2019 1.FirsteditionofCWMIReportbroughtIndia’swaterchallenges
intospotlighttoencourageeffectivewatermanagementamong
statesthroughtheprincipleofcompetitiveandcooperativefederalism
ItgeneratedstronginterestfromkeystakeholdersinIndia’swaterecosystem,
andinitiateddiscussionsaroundhowcanstatesbettermanagetheirwater
resources
2.NITIAayogispublishingthe2
nd
editionoftheReporttokeep
themomentumonmanagementofwater
The2
nd
editionincludes:
Analysesofstates’performanceontheIndexacrossFY15-16,FY16-17,and
FY17-18
WaterbroughttocentrestagewiththeformationofJalShaktiMinistryand
withthelaunchofJalShaktiAbhiyan
NITI Aayog launched the Composite Water Index Report (CWMI) in July
2018, and is launching the 2
nd
edition this year
2 The Index comprises of 9 themes, and covers 25 states and 2 UTs
3
SectorsWeights
1Source augmentation and restoration of waterbodies 5
2Source augmentation (Groundwater)15
3Major and medium irrigation—Supply side management 15
4Watershed development—Supply side management 10
5
Participatory irrigation practices—Demand side
management
10
6
Sustainable on-farm water use practices—Demand side
management
10
7Rural drinking Water10
8Urban water supply & sanitation10
9Policy and governance15
Total100
CWMI themes and weightsClassification of states to account for
different hydrological conditions and
geographical area
Theninethemesarefurthersub-dividedinto28indicatorswhich
accountforequalweightageswithinrespectivethemes
Groundwateraugmentation,majorandmediumirrigation,and
policy&governanceremainthemeswithhighestweightages—
giventhegrowinggroundwatercrisis,India’slowirrigation
utilization,andtheimportanceofeffectivepolicyframeworks
Non-Himalayan states
North-Eastern & Himalayan states
Union Territories
No data available
Jammu & Kashmir
West Bengal
Manipur
Mizoram Overall analysis: Promisingly, 80% states have improved their Index
scores in the last three years
Key findings
~80%ofthestates(19outof24)haveshownimprovementintheirwatermanagement
scoresoverthelast3years,withaveragechangeinscoresbeing+5.2points
Haryana’sscoreimprovedby~26.21points(largestimprovement),duetohigherscores
onfourthemes—restorationofwaterbodies,watersheddevelopment,on-farmwater
use,andpolicyandgovernance
Amongstthe9themes,stateshavedisplayedmaximumimprovementonthePolicy
andGovernance,withthethememedianscorerisingby~30%overthelastthreeyears
Datadisciplineisalsoimproving,andincidentsofstatesnotreportingdatahave
reducedby~70%comparedtolastyear
*
Improveddatareportingpracticeshavealsocontributedtoimprovementinstates’
Indexscores,Haryanabeingtheprimeexample
Highperformingstateshaveretainedtoppositions
*
DoesnotincludedatareportingstatisticsforArunachalPradesh,DelhiandPuducherry’ssincetheyhavebeen
assessedontheindicatorforthefirsttimeinFY17-18
4 Indicator analysis: Improvement in Source Augmentation and
Restoration of Water Bodies across states
Best-performing state
Highest Improvement
6.31 percentage points (13%)
FY 16-17 score: 47.93%
FY 17-18 score: 54.24%
Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, Tamil Nadu
Score achieved: 100%
Uttarakhand
1-year change in score: 89 percentage points
Indicator 1: Restoration of irrigation potential from identified water bodies
Measures the area irrigated by restored water bodies as a proportion of the total area that can be
irrigated by restoring all identified water bodies, including rivers, ponds, tanks, etc.
5
1-year change in indicator average score Indicator analysis: Increased attention to source augmentation (Groundwater)
Best-performing state
Highest Improvement
1.13 percentage points (3%)
FY 16-17 score: 37.39%
FY 17-18 score: 38.52%
Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Tamil
Nadu, Himachal Pradesh
Score achieved: 100%
Madhya Pradesh
1-year change in score: 46 percentage
points
Indicator 3: Measures the percentage of over-exploited units that have been mapped for
recharging
Indicator 4: Measures over-exploited units covered with recharge infrastructure
Indicator 3
3.66 percentage points (27%)
FY 16-17 score: 13.53%
FY 17-18 score: 17.19%
Andhra Pradesh
Score achieved: 99%
Tamil Nadu
1-year change in score: 50 percentage
points
Indicator4
6
1-year change in indicator average score Indicator analysis: Mapping major and medium irrigation infrastructure
Best-performing state
Highest Improvement
11.03 percentage points (23%)
FY 16-17 score: 48.43%
FY 17-18 score: 59.46%
Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh,
Jharkhand, Punjab, Telangana, Goa,
Tripura, Assam
Score achieved: 100%
Bihar
1-year change in score: 70 percentage
points
Indicator 7: Measures the % of (MMI) assets that have been assessed and identified for
the IPC-IPU gap in a state
Indicator 9: Measures the % of the suitable length of canals and distribution networks
that the states have lined
Indicator 7Indicator 9
9.73 percentage points (23%)
FY 16-17 score: 42.11%
FY 17-18 score: 51.84%
Uttar Pradesh
Score achieved: 95%
Uttar Pradesh
1-year change in score: 95 percentage
points
7
1-year change in indicator average score Indicator analysis: Increase in access to urban water and sanitation
1-year change in indicator average score
Best-performing state
Highest Improvement
10.99 percentage points (17%)
FY 16-17 score: 63.67%
FY 17-18 score: 74.66%
Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Goa,
Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand
Score achieved: 100%
Chhattisgarh
1-year change in score: 14 percentage points
Indicator 22: Urban Population supplied with drinking water
Measures urban drinking water access as the percentage of urban population being
supplied with drinking water
8 Indicator analysis: Higher investments in urban water and sanitation
projects
1-year change in indicator average score
Best-performing state
Highest Improvement
4.05 percentage points (10%)
FY 16-17 score: 38.76%
17-18 score: 42.81%
Haryana, Himachal Pradesh
Score achieved: 100%
Rajasthan
1-year change in score: 35 percentage points
Indicator 23: Capacity installed to treat urban wastewater
Measures the ability of states to treat urban wastewater by examining the percentage of
total urban wastewater that can be treated with the currently installed capacity
9 Indicator analysis: Improved utilization of waste water treatment capacity
1-year change in indicator average score
Best-performing state
Highest Improvement
1.83 percentage points (5%)
FY 16-17 score: 33.18%
FY 17-18 score: 35.01%
Haryana
Score achieved: 100%
Telangana
1-year change in score: 16 percentage points
Indicator 24: Percentage of wastewater treated
Measures the actual proportion of urban wastewater treated by the states
10 Indicator analysis: States implementing water pricing policies and
governance mechanisms
1-year change in indicator average score
Best-performing state
Highest Improvement
8.47 percentage points (23%)
FY 16-17 score: 37.21%
FY 17-18 score: 45.68%
Goa, Puducherry
Score achieved: 100%
Haryana
1-year change in score: 70 percentage points
Indicator 27: Percentage of urban households charged for water
Percentage of households being provided water supply and charged for water in the
urban areas
11 Despite the improvement, most states need to show substantial improvements
in water management practices
75
74
71
60
59
58
58
56
52
50
47
45
45
39
39
38
34
Haryana
Maharashtra
Odisha
Gujarat
Tamil Nadu
Madhya Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh
Goa
Karnataka
Punjab
Telangana
Jharkhand
Rajasthan
Kerala
Chhattisgarh
Uttar Pradesh
Bihar
39
20
Puducherry
Delhi
67
49
47
44
42
30
26
22
Himachal Pradesh
Uttarakhand
Sikkim
Tripura
Assam
Meghalaya
Nagaland
Arunachal Pradesh
Non
-
Himalayan
states
North
-
Eastern
&
Himalayan
states
UTs
State categorization based on CWMI scores
CWMI scores (FY 17-18)
High-performing
>65 points
Medium-performing
50-65 points
Low-performing
<50points
12 13
Ranking of the Non-Himalayan States over the years 14
Ranking of the Himalayan States over the years
14 Despite the improvement, most states need to show substantial improvements
in water management practices
Key findings
16outofthe27statesstillscorelessthan50pointsontheIndex(outof100),and
fallinthelow-performingcategory.
➢Thesestatescollectivelyaccountfor~48%ofthepopulation,~40%of
agriculturalproduce,and~35%ofeconomicoutputofIndia
Jharkhand,UttarPradesh,Odisha,Bihar,Nagaland,andMeghalayastillscore
lessthan40points,andtheaverageimprovementinlow-performingcategoryover
thelastthreeyearsstandsat3.1points,lowerthan5.2-pointaverageimprovement
observedacrossstates
UttarPradesh,Rajasthan,Kerala,andDelhi,4ofthetop10contributorstoIndia’s
economicoutput,havescoresrangingfrom20pointsto47points
Noneofthetop10agriculturalproducersinIndia,exceptGujaratandMadhya
Pradesh,scoremorethan60pointsontheCWMI
➢ThisisconcerninggiventhatassessmentonalmosthalfoftheIndexscoresis
directlylinkedtowatermanagementinagriculture
15
15
Thank You
16