The Government of Malawi, through delegates from the Department of Disaster Management Affairs, has on several occasions advised smallholder farmers who live in flood prone areas to relocate to upland areas that are safe from floods. Smallholder farmers have refused to do so and continue to live in the flood prone areas despite experiencing on-going flooding. Smallholder farmers living in flood prone areas in Malawi insist that flash floods bring fertile soils from upland areas that enhance crop production in the flood prone areas. These fertile soils allow smallholder farmers to grow a variety of crops, fruits and vegetables throughout the year, some of which they sell. Within this context, my research critically explores how smallholder farmers perceive their vulnerability to floods and seeks to understand the factors and processes that motivate them to live in the flood prone areas. It also examines the realities and dynamics of local adaptation in the flood prone areas in Malawi through opportunities, challenges, barriers and limitations. The research uses 57 in-depth interviews, a household survey involving 227 households, participant observations and 12 focus group discussions with smallholder farmers. Findings show that firstly, smallholder farmers are not ready to abandon their land and relocate upland because floods are part of their lives and livelihood strategies. Secondly, that power dynamics at household and community levels based on gender roles and culture need to be understood and accounted for in local adaptation strategies in order to effectively enhance local adaptive capacity. Thirdly, that social networks and interdependence between the smallholder farmers living in flood prone areas and those living in upland areas play a significant role in the adoption of local adaptation strategies and adaptation to floods and droughts through temporary migration. This thesis reveals that the perception and extent of vulnerability to floods is dynamic and differentiated based on several factors. The thesis also reveals that local adaption is a complex process such that in some cases, the realities of power dynamics at both the household and community level affects local adaptive capacity to floods. Transformational adaptation that incorporates specific and contextual adaptation strategies is therefore recommended as one of the best approaches towards achieving successful adaptation to climate variability and resilience.

Nous connaissons depuis plus d’un siècle des bouleversements climatiques, socio-économiques et sociétaux de plus en plus fréquents et intenses. L’adaptation à ce contexte incertain, pour envisager l’avenir de façon durable, est un défi particulièrement important. L’agriculture est au cœur de ce défi et de la réflexion sur les modes d’adaptation. Les anthropologues ont récemment identifié deux types de changements de l’agriculteur: le changement mineur (en accord avec le comportement normatif de référence), et le changement majeur (changement profond, remise en cause des normes majoritaires permettant l’adoption de comportements innovants). Ces deux types de changement sont très proches de l’adaptation incrémentale et de l’adaptation transformationnelle qui sont définis tant pour des individus que pour des institutions locales, nationales ou internationales … Nous proposons un modèle individu-centré de l’adaptation des agriculteurs qui intègre dynamiquement changements mineurs et majeurs, en nous focalisant sur la dimension psycho-sociale de ces changements. Nous appliquons notre modèle à la question, de la conversion à l’agriculture biologique des éleveurs laitiers français. Cette transition a en effet été généralement caractérisée comme un changement majeur, ou une adaptation transformationnelle, et s’avère donc pertinente pour tester notre modèle. Le modèle d’agriculteur est en général dans un régime stable durant lequel seuls des changements mineurs sont opérés. Ces changements sont menés en imitant des comportements adoptés par les agriculteurs les plus crédibles. La crédibilité d’un agriculteur pour un autre est d’autant plus forte que son volume produit est supérieur à celui de cet agriculteur. Ces changements se traduisent concrètement par des modifications des volumes produits qui correspondent à des choix de pratiques plus ou moins intensifs.Le modèle peut passer d’un régime stable à un autre en transitant par un changement majeur impliquant de changer la hiérarchie des importances, accordées aux dimensions « productiviste » et « environnementale », qui pondèrent son évaluation des résultats de son mode de production (par exemple : conventionnel ou biologique). Le calcul de son évaluation utilise la théorie de l’action raisonnée. Il permet à l’agriculteur de déterminer sa satisfaction, à partir de ses résultats précédents, et de ses résultats comparés à ceux de ses pairs crédibles, en tenant compte de l’importance accordées à chaque dimension d’évaluation. Lorsqu’un agriculteur est insatisfait de son mode de production courant, il évalue sa satisfaction potentielle pour un autre mode de production, et adopte ce dernier si son gain de satisfaction est supérieur à un seuil. Il change alors la hiérarchie des importances accordées à ses dimensions d’évaluation pour être en accord avec le mode adopté. Un agriculteur biologique accordera ainsi par exemple une importance plus forte à la dimension environnementale qu’à la dimension productiviste. Ce changement implique alors une réévaluation tant de la crédibilité de ses pairs que de leurs pratiques. (...) / For more than a century, climatic, socio-economic and societal changes are more and more frequent and intense. Adapting to this uncertain context to envisage a sustainable future is a particularly important challenge. Agriculture is at the heart of this challenge and the reflection on the modes of adaptation. Anthropologists have recently identified two types of farmer changes: minor change (consistent with normative behavior), and major change (deep change, challenge the majority norms allowing adoption of innovative behaviors). These two types of change are very close to the incremental adaptation and the transformational adaptation that are defined for individuals as well as for local, national or international institutions.We propose an individual-based model to study farmers’ adaptations that dynamically integrates minor and major changes. We focus on the social-psychological dimension of these changes. Our model is applied to the question of French dairy farmers’ conversions to organic farming. This transition has been characterized as a major change, or a transformational adaptation, and is therefore relevant to test our model.A farmer stays generally in a stable regime doing only minor changes. These changes are carried out by imitating the practices of the most credible farmers. The credibility of one farmer given to another is larger if his (her) produced volume is greater than that of this farmer. These changes are shown by concrete changes of produced volumes, which correspond to more or less intensive choices of practice.In the model, a farmer passes from one stable regime to another through a major change involving a change of his (her) hierarchy of importance over the "productivist" and "environmental" evaluative dimensions. The importance weights his (her) evaluation of the results according to the mode of production (for example: conventional or organic). The computation of the evaluation is based on the theory of reasoned action. This evaluation shows a farmer’s satisfaction that is based on his (her) previous results and his (her) results compared to those of his (her) credible peers, taking into account the importance given to each dimension of evaluation. When a farmer is dissatisfied with his (her) current mode of production, he (she) evaluates his (her) potential satisfaction with another mode of production, and adopts the latter if his (her) satisfaction gain is above a threshold. He (she) then changes the importance hierarchy given to the evaluation dimensions to be in agreement with the adopted mode. For example, an organic farmer will given more importance to the environmental dimension than to the productivist dimension. This change implies a reassessment of both the credibility given to his (her) peers and their practices. (...)