The empirical research has generated several findings that extend existing understandings of climate vulnerability and adaptation. The main results are:
1. Climate change can deepen existing inequalities. Processes of loss and accumulation can occur within the same community faced with the same climate uncertainty: while some households experience declining production, rising debt and loss of assets, others are better positioned to absorb shocks and maintain or strengthen their economic position.
2. Climatic uncertainty can deepen cycles of debt. Climatic disruption creates additional and often urgent needs for borrowing, often from informal sources, as farmers need to finance repeated sowing and irrigation, pay for additional inputs and compensate for unexpected crop loss. Existing debt, in turn, leaves households with fewer resources to finance subsequent cultivation and cope with future climatic shocks, creating a cycle in which climatic uncertainty and indebtedness reinforce each other.
3. Adaptation strategies are differentiated within farming communities. Adaptation practices vary substantially within the same rural community, particularly according to landholding size and access to non-farm earnings. Exposure to the same climatic conditions can therefore produce markedly different responses and outcomes.
4. Climatic uncertainty has consequences beyond agricultural production. The qualitative research shows how climatic uncertainty extends from the farm into household and community life, affecting psychological wellbeing, marriage and household formation, migration and community cohesion.
5. Climate change is contributing to a gendered redistribution of agricultural responsibility. The study identifies how male out-migration and climatic uncertainty can transfer greater responsibility for cultivation to women, without a corresponding redistribution of decision-making authority and access to resources.
6. Community-based adaptation faces important constraints. Shared exposure to climatic risks does not necessarily generate collective adaptation. The study shows a strong preference for individual responses, even where problems such as water management require collective action. Differences in landholding and economic position can constrain such action, particularly where climate pressures intensify disputes over access to shared resources. Climatic uncertainty can therefore increase the need for collective responses while simultaneously intensifying pressures that make such action more difficult.
7. Remaining in farming does not necessarily mean successful adaptation. Despite growing climatic uncertainty, many farmers prefer to remain in agriculture because opportunities outside farming remain limited. Continued cultivation may therefore reflect a lack of viable alternatives rather than successful adaptation to climate change. This raises a broader question: under what conditions can small-scale farming continue and be sustained in the face of climate change.
The next stage will combine the empirical findings with larger-scale data to assess whether the patterns identified in Maharashtra are also evident at a larger scale.