Climate change and food security in sustainable finance: a South African perspective

1 Introduction

Climate change is emerging as a primary challenge to sustainable development since it is disrupting the environmental conditions that support agriculture, food systems, and rural livelihoods globally (Rosenzweig et al., 2020; Zurek et al., 2022a; Zenda, 2024; Zenda and Rudolph, 2024). Long-term changes in temperature, rainfall, and extreme weather events are contributing to the decline of agricultural productivity and escalating the exposure of food systems to risks (Rosenzweig et al., 2020; Zenda et al., 2024). Agriculture is very susceptible to climate variations because crop growth, livestock yield, soil moisture, water supply, and pest changes are all reliant on climatic conditions (Malhi et al., 2021). Consequently, climate change not only poses a risk to agricultural output but also to the resilience of food systems that serve as the foundation of global food security (Zurek et al., 2022b; Magwegwe et al., 2024).

Climate-related agricultural impacts are now visible in all parts of the world. Droughts, floods, heat waves, varying rainfall patterns, water scarcity and land degradation reduce crop yields by not only shortening the growing period but also increasing evapotranspiration rates and intensifying pest and disease pressures (Malhi et al., 2021; Gomez-Zavaglia et al., 2020). Heat stress, declining forage quality and water shortages affects livestock production, while fisheries are also threatened by warming waters and the subsequent changes occurring in ecosystems (Gomez-Zavaglia et al., 2020). Europe has experienced increasing losses in cereal production due to recurrent droughts and heatwaves (Brás et al., 2021). North America is facing increasing risks related to heat stress and water scarcity, whereas changing monsoon patterns, floods and droughts are threatening crop production in Asia (Zurek et al., 2022a; Malhi et al., 2021). Similarly, drought and rainfall variability continue to cause reductions in agricultural productivity across Latin America (Durán-Sandoval et al., 2023). These trends show that climate change has become a major global food system challenge that requires coordinated responses beyond farm production.

The impacts of climate change affect all facets of food security. Food security is a condition where people have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food for an active and healthy life (Zurek et al., 2022b). Climate change diminishes food availability by diminishing agricultural outputs and disrupting food supply chains (Gomez-Zavaglia et al., 2020). It hampers food access by driving up food prices and lowering agricultural incomes (Zurek et al., 2022a). Climate-driven worsening of water quality, food safety, and dietary diversity jeopardize food utilization and nutritional outcomes (Fanzo and Miachon, 2023). Meanwhile, frequently occurring climatic shocks cause food-system instability as they disrupt production, markets and livelihoods (Zurek et al., 2022a). These impacts affect smallholders and low-income households severely because they have less productive assets and lower capacity to adapt (Lipper et al., 2021).

Therefore, enhancing the resilience of food systems must involve continuous adaptive efforts. Sustainable finance channels financial resources toward environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive development (Lipper et al., 2021). Climate finance, green finance and related tools enable investments in climate-smart agriculture, irrigation, resilient infrastructure, agricultural insurance, climate information services and sustainable value chains (Rosenzweig et al., 2020; Lipper et al., 2021). International mechanisms including green bonds, blended finance and multilateral climate funds further extend access to adaptation finance through investment risk mitigation strategies (Lipper et al., 2021). Therefore, sustainable finance is not only about a source of funds; it plays a critical role as a strategic enabler of climate resilient food systems since it decides whether adaptation measures can be implemented on a large scale (Zurek et al., 2022a).

These difficulties are especially severe in Africa, where agriculture is still mainly rainfed and largely dependent on rainfall and climate-sensitive natural resources (Chabwera et al., 2025). More frequent droughts, floods, rainfall changes and water shortage continue to negatively affect agricultural production, rural livelihoods and food security (Onyeaka et al., 2024). Although climate finance is increasingly seen as important for adaptation, many African countries still face limitations such as lack of credit, weak financial markets, poor institutional capacity and a shortage of adaptation finance (Kelly, 2024; Maina and Parádi-Dolgos, 2024; Lwesya, 2025). Similar problems exist in South Africa, where agricultural and household food security is at risk due to droughts, rising temperatures and water shortage (Odimegwu, 2022; Zuma-Netshiukhwi et al., 2023; Zenda, 2025).

South African research has played a major role in uncovering the effects of climate change on agriculture, climate-smart agriculture, adaptation measures and household food security (Ogundeji, 2022; Kori et al., 2023; Mudzielwana, 2025). In contrast, sustainable finance has been accorded much less attention in an integrated manner. Financial mechanisms are usually seen as obstacles to adaptation rather than as coordinated instruments that link climate resilience with food security outcomes (Habanabakize and Dickason-Koekemoer, 2024). As a result, the available data on climate change, food security and sustainable finance are scattered and do not provide a clear picture of how financial measures can support climate-resilient food systems in South Africa.

Several recent syntheses have examined parts of this landscape, including reviews of climate change impacts on smallholder livelihoods (Zenda, 2024), agroecological adaptation strategies (Zenda and Rudolph, 2024), climate adaptation and food and nutrition security among small-scale farmers (Kori et al., 2023), sustainable agricultural interventions (Katiyatiya and Ncanywa, 2026a,b), and climate change effects on food supply chains (Naicker et al., 2025b). These reviews, however, concentrate on the climate–agriculture–food security nexus and treat finance, at most, as a contextual barrier to adaptation. To the best of the author's knowledge, no previous systematic review has positioned sustainable finance as an explicit analytical category and traced how specific financing mechanisms, public investment, agricultural credit, climate and green finance, insurance, extension-linked support and digital finance mediate the relationship between climate hazards, adaptation and food-security outcomes in South Africa. The present review therefore advances beyond earlier syntheses in three ways: it integrates the finance dimension systematically into the climate–food security evidence base; it maps the barriers and enablers that condition whether finance translates into adaptation and food security; and it derives an integrated, evidence-based conceptual framework that extends the Climate-Resilient Food Systems Framework by specifying finance-mediated pathways and context-specific moderating conditions (Sections 2 and 4.6). This constitutes the new scientific understanding that the review offers.

Against this backdrop, this study systematically reviews the South African literature on integrating climate change, food security, and sustainable finance. Specifically, the study aims to (i) summarize existing evidence on the linkages between climate change, food security and sustainable finance; (ii) review the sustainable finance instruments used to support climate adaptation and climate-resilient food systems; (iii) determine the main barriers and facilitating factors affecting the integration of climate change, food security and sustainable finance; and (iv) develop a conceptual framework, rooted in evidence, to guide future research, policy and investment toward climate-resilient food systems in South Africa.

2 Theoretical framework

This research draws on the Climate-Resilient Food Systems Framework (Figure 1). The framework results from a wider move away from narrow agricultural production models toward an integrated food-system, which is based on the recognition that climate change impacts production, processing, storage, distribution, access, consumption, and nutrition outcomes (Dhar, 2025). The conceptual basis of the framework is resilience theory, which accounts for how systems absorb shocks, adapt to new circumstances, and change when existing arrangements become unsustainable (Walker et al., 2004). Besides, it is also based on climate-smart agriculture and sustainable-finance literature as food-system resilience relies not only on adaptive practices but also on availability of capital, incentives, and risk-sharing mechanisms (Chao, 2024; Tandukar et al., 2025).

The Climate-Resilient Food Systems Framework describes how food systems continue to deliver food security in the face of climate stress through adaptation, resilience-building, institutional support, and finance (Chao, 2024). It views food systems as social-ecological systems subject to climate shocks, feedbacks, and adaptation pathways (Walker et al., 2004). Therefore, this framework is particularly suited for the exploration of climate change and food security as it links climatic hazards with agricultural production, food availability, food access, food utilization, and food-system stability (Mutale et al., 2025). Moreover, it aids sustainable development since resilient food systems are capable of reducing hunger, safeguarding livelihoods, enhancing resource efficiency and increasing adaptive capacity under climate uncertainty (Dhar, 2025).

The framework has five key elements. First, it comprises climate change drivers, such as drought, floods, heatwaves, rainfall variability, water scarcity, and temperature extremes (Mutale et al., 2025). Second is the food system, encompassing production, processing, storage, distribution, marketing, consumption, and waste management (Dhar, 2025). Third comes sustainable finance that includes climate finance, green finance, adaptation finance, blended finance, agricultural credit, insurance, subsidies, and public investment (Afaq and Okitasari, 2025). Fourth is adaptation and resilience-building such as climate-smart agriculture, irrigation, drought-resistant crops, crop diversification, conservation agriculture, agroforestry, and digital agriculture (Regmi and Paudel, 2024). Fifth is food security outcomes, comprising productivity, food availability, food access, utilization, stability, household welfare, and livelihood resilience (Chao, 2024; Mutale et al., 2025).

The framework was applied in this study as the analytical lens for article selection, data extraction, synthesis, and interpretation. It helped the identification of studies that feature links among climate-change drivers, food-system vulnerability, sustainable finance, adaptation, and food-security outcomes. It also facilitated the extraction of main variables such as climate hazard, affected food-system component, food-security dimension, financing mechanism, adaptation strategy, barriers and enablers, and reported outcomes.

During synthesis, the framework was a guide in organizing findings into climate risks, food system impacts, finance-enabled adaptation, implementation barriers, and resilience outcomes. It also served to determine whether sustainable finance was seen as a direct adaptation enabler, an institutional condition, a barrier, or a missing element in South African climate–food-security research.

3 Methodology

This section describes the methods that were followed to carry out the systematic review. It reveals the study design, search strategy, eligibility criteria, study selection process, data extraction, quality assessment and synthesis approach.

3.1 Study design

This study used a systematic literature review as the method to gather evidence on the linkage of climate change, food security and sustainable finance in South Africa. A systematic review is a method that offers a clear and replicable way of finding, assessing and combining the existing evidence by following a set of predetermined steps, thus limiting selection bias and enhancing the robustness of the methodology (Snyder, 2019; Page et al., 2021). The research was done in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) statement (Page et al., 2021).

3.2 Search strategy and information sources

The search for the relevant literature was thorough and included four main academic databases: Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct, and Google Scholar. The search resulted in 173 records, with 42 from Scopus, 31 from Web of Science, 39 from Science Direct, and 61 from Google Scholar. Additional full texts were obtained from publisher platforms including Springer Link, Wiley Online Library, MDPI, and Taylor and Francis Online. The search strategy combined keywords and Boolean operators covering the three core concepts of the review (climate change, food security and sustainable finance), and the complete search strings applied in each database are reported here to ensure reproducibility. The core Boolean string was: (“climate change” OR “climate variability” OR “climate risk”) AND (“food security” OR “food system^*” OR “agriculture”) AND (“sustainable finance” OR “climate finance” OR “green finance” OR “agricultural finance” OR “agricultural credit” OR “adaptation finance” OR “insurance” OR “investment”) AND (“South Africa”). In Scopus this string was applied to the TITLE-ABS-KEY field; in Web of Science it was applied to the Topic field (TS=); in ScienceDirect it was applied to the Title-Abstract-Keywords field, with the string shortened to comply with the database's limit on Boolean connectors; and in Google Scholar a simplified string “climate change” AND “food security” AND (“climate finance” OR “green finance” OR “sustainable finance”) AND “South Africa” was used, with the first 100 records screened after sorting by relevance. Supplementary search combinations run in all databases were: (“climate change” AND “food security” AND “South Africa”), (“climate-smart agriculture” AND “food security”), (“climate finance” OR “green finance” OR “sustainable finance”) AND (“South Africa”), (“food systems” AND “climate adaptation”), and (“agricultural finance” AND “climate resilience” AND “South Africa”). Searches were limited to publication year (2016–2026), peer-reviewed status, open-access availability and English language.

3.3 Eligibility and study selection

Articles were only included in the review if they: focused on South Africa; were published in the period 2016–2026; were peer-reviewed and open access; and studied climate change, food security, sustainable finance, or related adaptation strategies. Non-peer reviewed publications, studies carried out outside South Africa, duplicates, and articles that were not related to the review objectives were excluded. The restriction to open-access publications was adopted to ensure that every full text could be retrieved, verified and appraised in its entirety, and to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of the review, since readers can freely access all included studies. It is acknowledged, however, that this criterion may introduce selection bias by excluding relevant subscription-based studies; the implications of this restriction are discussed in the limitations (Section 5.1). After duplicate removal (31 records), 142 articles were screened by title and abstract which led to the exclusion of 79 studies. The remaining 63 full text articles were checked against the criteria of eligibility and 26 articles were excluded after which 37 studies were included in the final qualitative synthesis. The full process of selection is shown in the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 2) (Page et al., 2021).

3.4 Data extraction and quality assessment

A well-structured extraction framework was prepared for collecting data consistently from all the studies that were included (Booth et al., 2021). The data extracted included study characteristics, climatic hazards, aspects of food-security, climate finance mechanisms, adaptation measures, barriers and facilitating factors; emerging trends, and gaps in knowledge. Quantitative data (e.g., sample sizes, percentages, and model estimates) and qualitative data (themes, interpretations, and policy recommendations) were extracted and organized into tables. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT 2018) was used for assessing methodological quality since it is a good fit for qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies (Hong et al., 2020). For the 37 studies, the mean appraisal score was 4.16 out of 5, indicating good overall methodological quality. Most of the studies met four or five of the appraisal criteria; the main limitations related to sampling procedures and reporting transparency.

3.5 Data synthesis

Data synthesis was done through narrative and thematic methods since the nature of the included studies was very different in terms of methods, which made statistical meta-analysis unsuitable. The findings were grouped into themes that relate to climate-change drivers, food-security impacts, sustainable finance mechanisms, barriers, enabling factors, emerging trends and knowledge gaps. Climate-Resilient Food Systems Framework served as the grounding for the synthesis and showed a constant analytical perspective for understanding the interconnections of climate change, sustainable finance and food-security outcomes.

3.6 Assessment of the risk of bias in the included studies

As this review was conducted by a single author, study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal could not be undertaken independently by two reviewers, and no third reviewer was involved. Instead, the author performed the screening and appraisal in two separate rounds and compared the outcomes of the two rounds to check the consistency of decisions and ratings; discrepancies between rounds were re-examined against the eligibility criteria and the appraisal guidance before a final decision was made. The absence of independent duplicate assessment is acknowledged as a limitation of the review, as it may increase the risk of selection and assessment bias, and it is reported transparently here in accordance with PRISMA 2020 (Page et al., 2021).

All 37 included studies underwent a systematic quality appraisal using the design-specific criteria of a single harmonized instrument, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT, version 2018), consistent with Section 3.4. Quantitative studies were evaluated for internal validity, sampling adequacy, measurement reliability, and potential sources of bias. Qualitative studies were assessed based on credibility, dependability, transferability, and confirmability, whereas mixed-methods studies were appraised for the methodological quality and integration of their qualitative and quantitative components. The MMAT was selected because it provides tailored appraisal criteria for qualitative, quantitative descriptive, quantitative non-randomized and mixed-methods designs within a single tool (Hong et al., 2020); using one harmonized instrument avoided the inconsistencies that can arise when different appraisal checklists are combined across study designs.

Each study was assigned an overall quality rating (high, moderate, or low), and potential biases, including selection bias, reporting bias, and other methodological limitations, were documented. Quality appraisal findings informed the interpretation and synthesis of the evidence rather than serving as exclusion criteria. Consequently, greater interpretive weight was assigned to findings from studies demonstrating stronger methodological quality: thematic conclusions were anchored primarily in studies rated high, findings supported only by lower-rated studies were reported with explicit caution in the synthesis, and no major theme presented in Section 4 rests solely on evidence from studies rated low. This approach strengthened the transparency, rigor, and reproducibility of the review and ensured alignment with established best practices for systematic reviews under the PRISMA 2020 framework.

4 Findings

This section presents the findings of the systematic review. Data were analyzed through the lens of the Climate-Resilient Food Systems Framework in order to assess the characteristics of the included studies, the interactions between climate change, food security and sustainable finance, the barriers and enablers shaping their integration, as well as the integrated conceptual framework resulting from the review.

4.1 Overview of included studies

The characteristics of the 37 articles that were part of this review are summarized in Table 1 and shown in Figures 3–5. In general, the studies focused on understanding the links between climate change, food security, sustainable finance, and climate adaptation in South Africa.

Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies (n = 37).

– indicates that no finance mechanism was explicitly examined in the study.

The trend of publication (Figure 3) points to a growing research interest over the period of review. Two studies emerged in 2017, one each in 2019 and 2020, four each in 2021 and 2022 respectively, and two in 2023. The output of research has increased significantly since then, with seven studies appearing in 2024 and eight papers each in 2025 and 2026. In total, articles published between 2024 and 2026 made up 62.2% (23/37) of the literature pool, illustrating an increasing scholarly focus on climate resilience, food security and sustainable finance in South Africa.

Quantitative studies made up 49% of the included literature, with qualitative studies at 38% and mixed-methods studies at 13%, as depicted in Figure 4. This pattern suggests that most of the reviewed studies are quantitative approaches, which are used to explore climate change and food security. While qualitative and mixed-methods studies add to the evidence by giving insights into policy, governance and context.

The geographic spread (Figure 5) reveals that 18 studies took a country-wide view and hence national-level research represents the main source of evidence. Provincially, KwaZulu-Natal (n = 7) was the most researched province while North West (n = 3) was second in line. However, Eastern Cape (n = 2) and Western Cape (n = 2) also gave some evidence. Substantive pieces were carried out in Limpopo and Mpumalanga, while several studies were carried out in multiple provinces like Eastern Cape-KwaZulu-Natal-Limpopo, Limpopo-Mpumalanga-North West, and Free State-KwaZulu-Natal-Limpopo-North West. This pattern shows that while national studies are the most abundant in the literature, provincial studies are still mainly being done in climate-vulnerable agricultural areas.

Generally, the examined studies mainly concentrated on the effects of climate change on agriculture and food security, adaptation to climate, climate-smart agriculture, sustainable finance, challenges of institutions and food-system resilience. Nevertheless, only few studies clearly put sustainable finance in connection with climate adaptation and food-security results, which confirms the necessity of a more complete integration of these interrelated research fields.

4.2 Current state of knowledge on climate change and food security in South Africa

This section presents a synthesis of the current understanding of the interplay between climate change, food security, and sustainable finance within South Africa, based on the Climate-Resilient Food Systems Framework. It explores how climate change factors render food systems vulnerable and the consequent effects on food security.

4.2.1 Key climate change elements impacting food security

Drought stands out as the leading climate change factor challenging South African food systems. Agricultural productivity declines, water shortages, livelihood disruptions, and increased vulnerability have been consistently linked to droughts in numerous studies (Masipa, 2017; Leonard, 2022; Maziya et al., 2024; Naicker et al., 2025a). This consensus extends to comprehensive regional analyses, where drought, variable rainfall, and extreme weather events are highlighted as significant risks to agricultural livelihoods and food security (Mugambiwa and Tirivangasi, 2017; Zenda, 2024; Chabwera et al., 2025). Within the conceptual framework, drought acts as an external climatic perturbation impacting production, water resources, and income (Walker et al., 2004). This diminishes crop yields and undermines food access, livelihood security, and adaptive capability.

Water-related stress contributes significantly to the transmission pathway. Leonard's (2022) research in Somkhele demonstrated that water shortages led to a decline in household food production and livelihoods. In the same vein, Adom et al. (2022) and Enwereji (2021) discovered that climate change is a major threat to both water and food security, especially in areas where local authorities and institutions have limited capacity to respond. As a result, the relationship between climate and food security is not just agricultural, but also institutional and infrastructural.

Rainfall variability was another dominant driver. In Mpumalanga, inconsistencies in rainfall correlated with diminished household food consumption, reduced dietary variety, and elevated hunger (Rusere et al., 2023). Likewise, Mukwada et al. (2021) utilized remote sensing to reveal that drought and rainfall variability negatively affect vegetation in subsistence farming zones within the Luvuvhu River Catchment. Nocezo et al. (2024) showed that access to climate information services affects agricultural decisions and food security in the Eastern Cape, reinforcing the idea that rainfall unpredictability shapes both production and household outcomes.

Production uncertainty was further exacerbated by rising temperatures and heat stress. In Mthonjaneni Municipality, 51.1% of farmers believed that temperatures were rising, 51.1% said that rainfall was decreasing and 95.2% confessed that weather conditions impacted their farming activities (Ndlovu and Zenda, 2024). Moreover, Ndlovu et al. (2026) identified water and heat stress as the main challenges for agri-food systems, whereas Ningi et al. (2025) found that long-term climate variability wreaks havoc on animal, field-crop and horticultural systems differently. Floods received less focus than droughts, but Mjoli and Manasoe (2026), as well as Zembe et al. (2024), highlighted that flood also have a negative impact on crops, livestock, infrastructure and food supplies. Hence, the data aligns with the interpretations of the framework that disparities in food security are the outcome of cumulative pressures across climate, water, production, infrastructure and livelihood systems (Chao, 2024; Tandukar et al., 2025).

4.2.2 Consequences for food security

Climate change exerts influence across all food-security dimensions, with availability and access drawing the most focus. Diminished crop and livestock productivity, disruptions in food supply chains, and declining household incomes stand out as primary pathways linking climate hazards to food insecurity (Masipa, 2017; Ogundeji, 2022; Adom et al., 2022; Naicker et al., 2025a,b). Positive links between climate adaptation and maize farmers' food security have been documented (Samuel and Sylvia, 2019), while in KwaZulu-Natal, adaptation reduced household food insecurity (Maziya et al., 2024). These outcomes resonate with the framework's portrayal of adaptation as the crucial mediator between climate challenges and food-security results (Walker et al., 2004).

Climate-smart agriculture was the most potent empirical avenue through which adaptation was linked with food security. Omotayo et al. (2025) showed that adopting climate-smart agricultural practices raised the Household Dietary Diversity Scores by 30% and at the same time reduced Household Food Insecurity Access Scores by 35%. Likewise, Omotoso and Omotayo (2024) reported that the adoption of these practices led to better dietary diversity and less food-insecurity access. Similarly, Mnukwa et al. (2026) indicated that the use of climate-smart agricultural practices led to better welfare of the households and a decrease in poverty among smallholder maize farmers. These studies show that adaptation leads to better food security when farmers are provided with knowledge, inputs, institutions and finance.

Livestock and natural-resource systems were also impacted. Ndlovu and Zenda (2024) pointed to the reduction in grazing resources and herbaceous vegetation, illustrating that climate change effects go beyond crops to animal-based livelihoods and nutrition. Evidence on utilization and stability were less developed, but Rusere et al. (2023) connected rainfall variability with dietary quality and repeated hunger. Taken together, the research indicates a definite chain of events: climate hazards damage production and natural resources; this leads to a fall in income and food availability; and the consequence is a decrease in dietary diversity, deterioration in welfare and livelihood instability.

4.3 Mechanisms for sustainable finance in climate-resilient food systems

The Climate-Resilient Food Systems Framework puts finance as a key enabler that makes it possible for adaptation to change from mere plans to actual implementation. The reviewed studies confirm this, but also indicate that sustainable finance is still underdeveloped. Finance is largely seen as public support, agricultural credit, climate finance, green finance, or digital innovation, rather than as a coordinated resilience system.

4.3.1 Public finance and institutional support

Public finance was a clearly visible primary mechanism. It manifested through extension services, infrastructure investment, agricultural programmes, climate information and institutional assistance. Odimegwu (2022) asserted that government investment is indispensable since irrigation, water infrastructure and agricultural research are beyond the financial means of the majority of smallholder farmers. Maziya et al. (2024) and Naicker et al. (2025a) demonstrated that government assistance and extension services led to a rise in adaptation among smallholder farmers. Ojo et al. (2021) also revealed that institutional support and credit enhanced adaptive capacity.

This confirms the institutional layer of the framework: finance becomes truly impactful when it is coupled with advisory systems, infrastructure and the capacity of local implementation. Makamane et al. (2025), Ncoyini-Manciya and Manciya (2026), and Katiyatiya and Ncanywa (2026a) substantiate this argument by demonstrating that extension workers and agricultural advisors contribute significantly to the transformation of climate data into concrete adaptation measures. Yet, their effectiveness is contingent upon training, access to reliable information, and continual interaction with farmers.

Governance quality is also central. Mazenda (2021) revealed that government effectiveness, regulatory quality and control of corruption had greater positive impacts on food security than political stability or rule of law. This confirms the framework's point that financing alone is not able to build resilience Dhar, (2025). It is through efficient and capable institutions that resources can be converted into improved food-system outcomes.

4.3.2 Agricultural credit and private investment

Agricultural credit was the main source of private financing. Credit allows farmers to invest in irrigation, better inputs, technologies and adaptation strategies. Ojo et al. (2021) reported that getting credit helped the farmers to use climate adaptation strategies, and Maziya et al. (2024) noted that the households that had financial support were more willing to make changes. Leonard (2022) reported that shortage of financial capital was one of the main reasons behind food insecurity in the rural areas of KwaZulu-Natal.

Still, access to credit is not equally available. Ogundeji (2022) and Naicker et al. (2025a) demonstrated that smallholder farmers are still experiencing difficulties in obtaining enough funding, have weak institutional support and are running out of resources. This means that private finance can improve resilience only when it is cheap, inclusive and tightly linked to the needs of adaptation. Theoretically, credit is not just a simple economic input; it symbolically represents the link between climate exposure and adaptive response (Chao, 2024; Tandukar et al., 2025).

4.3.3 Climate finance, green finance and innovative investment

Evidence on dedicated climate finance is more restricted but revealed significant emerging trends. Ngwenya and Simatele (2020) recognized green bonds as one of the increasing instruments of climate finance in South Africa, aiding renewable energy, water efficiency, low-carbon infrastructure and climate-resilient agriculture. However, the authors found that weak institutional capacity, limited technical expertise and poor project preparation hinder access to broader climate finance opportunities.

Recently, research has broadened the conversation to innovative finance. Sithole (2025) demonstrated that climate change leads to macroeconomic risks through higher inflation, thereby implying that climate-responsive financial instruments should be implemented as a way of safeguarding food systems. Jokonya and Moravčík (2026) suggested a machine-learning climate-finance framework using environmental pollution credits as a way of creating alternative revenue streams for smallholder farmers. Besides, they pointed out that food systems contribute approximately 20% of South Africa's greenhouse gas emissions, whereas smallholder agriculture only receives 1.7% of global climate finance. This situation represents a big mismatch between vulnerability and finance allocation.

In the context of Climate-Resilient Food Systems Framework, these results indicate that South Africa is just starting to shift away from traditional agricultural support to integrated sustainable finance. Yet, the data are still very scattered. Public finance, credit, green bonds and digital finance are normally analyzed individually, instead of connected tools within a single food-system resilience strategy.

4.4 Barriers and enablers influencing the integration of climate change, food security and sustainable finance

The combination of climate change, food security, and sustainable finance is contingent on a link between finance and governance, knowledge, infrastructure, technology, and vulnerable households. The framework is handy in this context as it reveals that resilience is generated through the interplay of different systems.

4.4.1 Barriers to integration

Financial exclusion was a barrier that featured most often. Smallholder farmers often lacked access to affordable credit, collateral, insurance, and investment support (Ogundeji, 2022; Leonard, 2022; Naicker et al., 2025a). This in turn limited their ability to adopt climate-resilient practices. Leonard (2022), Maziya et al. (2024) and Ojo et al. (2021) demonstrated that financial access determines adaptation choices. Hence, finance is a gatekeeper that mediates between climate exposure and adaptive action.

Institutional weakness constituted the second challenge. Mazenda (2021) demonstrated that governance quality influenced food-security results. Zembe et al. (2024) found that climate adaptation, disaster risk reduction, and food-security programs are usually uncoordinated. Ngwenya and Simatele (2020) associated climate finance with institutional and technical capacity. Hence, this shows why there may be finance opportunities, but they do not actually reach vulnerable farmers.

Limitations in knowledge, technology and infrastructure also restricted integration. Naicker et al. (2025a), Nocezo et al. (2024), Makamane et al. (2025) and Ncoyini-Manciya and Manciya (2026) demonstrated that adaptation is influenced by climate information, extension support and farmer engagement. However, where water systems, infrastructure and finance are lacking, just raising awareness was not helpful (Ndlovu and Zenda, 2024). Jokonya and Moravčík (2026) found that smallholder farmers are still excluded from emerging digital climate-finance systems.

Socio-economic vulnerabilities contributed to making these obstacles worse. Enwereji (2021), Leonard (2022) and Zenda (2024) identified poverty, unemployment, weak local capacity and livelihood insecurity as factors leading to lower resilience. This implies that poor families are faced with climate risk and financial exclusion at the same time.

4.4.2 Enablers of integration

The major enablers were public finance, extension support, climate information, farmer organizations and institutional coordination. Odimegwu (2022) revealed that government funding is a must as climate change may lead to a significant decrease in agricultural production. Maziya et al. (2024), Naicker et al. (2025a), Makamane et al. (2025)) and Ncoyini-Manciya and Manciya (2026) found that extension services and farmer–advisor interaction enhance adaptation.

Climate-smart agriculture was the clearest practical pathway for finance and institutions to be translated into enhanced food security. Findings of Omotoso and Omotayo (2024), Omotayo et al. (2025), Mnukwa et al. (2026), Kori et al. (2023), Mudzielwana (2025), and Katiyatiya and Ncanywa (2026b) showed that climate-smart and sustainable agricultural interventions contribute to an improvement in resilience, productivity, dietary diversity, and welfare. Besides, technology played a pivotal role in fostering the nexus of climate adaptation, disaster risk reduction, and food security measures (Zembe et al., 2024).

Green finance and digital climate finance are still emerging as enablers. According to Ngwenya and Simatele (2020) as well as (Jokonya and Moravčík (2026), financial innovation can help connect environmental sustainability with farmer resilience. Nevertheless, their effect will continue to be constrained unless they are tied to governance, extension, infrastructure, and smallholder access.

4.5 Emerging trends and knowledge gaps

The literature that was examined indicates that the focus has been changing slowly from climate-change impacts documentation to creating solutions that enhance resilience. Initially, climate change was considered primarily a threat to food security and sustainable agriculture by some authors (Masipa, 2017; Mugambiwa and Tirivangasi, 2017). Yet, recent works put a greater focus on climate-smart agriculture, climate services, extension systems, sustainable agricultural interventions and finance-enabled adaptation (Kori et al., 2023; Nocezo et al., 2024; Mudzielwana, 2025; Katiyatiya and Ncanywa, 2026a, b; Olabanji and Chitakira, 2026).

Quantitative research has also become predominant, providing more solid evidence about adaptation and food-security results (Samuel and Sylvia, 2019; Ogundeji, 2022; Omotoso and Omotayo, 2024; Omotayo et al., 2025; Ningi et al., 2025). Broader systematic reviews have led to better understanding of how climate change affects food systems through production, water resources, supply chains, livelihoods, nutrition and institutions (Chabwera et al., 2025; Naicker et al., 2025a,b; Zenda, 2024).

Despite these advances, important gaps exist. Most research still treats climate change, food security and finance as separate topics. Food access and availability account for the major part of the evidence, while food utilization, stability and long-term resilience aspects are hardly considered. More specifically, studies about climate finance, green finance, blended finance, agricultural insurance and digital finance, although very relevant in the policy sphere, are still lacking (Ngwenya and Simatele, 2020; Jokonya and Moravčík, 2026; Sithole, 2025). Altogether, the findings show that the literature is not yet cohesive. The current review fills that void by combining climate drivers, food-system vulnerability, adaptation options, sustainable finance mechanisms and food-security outcomes all in one evidence-based framework.

4.6 Integrated conceptual framework

The synthesis of the 37 selected studies led to the creation of a coherent evidence-based conceptual framework that aims to direct upcoming research, policy, and investment for climate-resilient food systems in South Africa. Based on the Climate-Resilient Food Systems Framework, the framework depicts climate change as a driver of food insecurity through multiple interrelated pathways. At the same time, sustainable finance is illustrated as the major mechanism through which adaptation and resilience are facilitated.

The framework was derived from the reviewed evidence through a structured, three-step abductive process rather than being imposed a priori. First, the five components of the Climate-Resilient Food Systems Framework (climate drivers, the food system, sustainable finance, adaptation and resilience-building, and food-security outcomes) were used as a deductive coding template during data extraction. Second, the findings of the 37 included studies were coded against this template, and any recurring finding that could not be accommodated within the original components was recorded as an emergent category. Third, the emergent categories were integrated with the deductive template, and the resulting structure was checked back against the extraction tables to confirm that every pathway depicted in the framework is supported by at least two included studies. Four components emerged inductively from the South African evidence rather than from the parent framework: financial exclusion as a structural filter that determines which households can convert available finance into adaptive action (Leonard, 2022; Ogundeji, 2022; Naicker et al., 2025a); governance quality and institutional coordination as preconditions for finance to translate into food-security gains (Mazenda, 2021; Zembe et al., 2024); extension services and climate information as the operational interface between financing mechanisms and on-farm practice (Nocezo et al., 2024; Makamane et al., 2025; Ncoyini-Manciya and Manciya, 2026); and digital and innovative finance as an emerging but exclusion-prone channel (Jokonya and Moravčík, 2026).

The framework starts with various climate-change factors such as drought, irregular rainfall, increasing temperatures, floods, water shortages, and land degradation, which were identified by several studies as the main climatic threats to South African agriculture (Leonard, 2022; Ndlovu and Zenda, 2024; Naicker et al., 2025a). These challenges harm food systems by lowering crop and livestock yields, causing damage to natural resources, disrupting supply chains, and undermining household incomes (Ogundeji, 2022; Bahta et al., 2025). Right at the core of the framework is sustainable finance, which includes public investment, agricultural credit, climate finance, green finance, insurance, and financial support linked to agricultural extension. The review shows that these financial instruments allow farmers and institutions to back climate adaptation initiatives. However, access continues to be a problem, especially for smallholder farmers (Ngwenya and Simatele, 2020; Ojo et al., 2021; Maziya et al., 2024).

Finance enables adaptation and resilience-building through climate-smart agriculture, irrigation, drought-tolerant crops, crop diversification, conservation agriculture, climate information services and strengthened farmer organizations (Omotoso and Omotayo, 2024; Omotayo et al., 2025). Food availability, access, utilization and stability, are the four dimensions of food security which are reinforced by these interventions, ultimately leading to increased household resilience and livelihoods (Samuel and Sylvia, 2019; Maziya et al., 2024). Figure 6 illustrates a progression from climate drivers to food-system vulnerability, sustainable finance, adaptation and food-security outcomes. Governance, institutions and investment that contribute to learning, policy response and adaptive capacity are depicted as cross-cutting enablers and feedback loops.

The resulting framework therefore differs from the Climate-Resilient Food Systems Framework on which it builds in four substantive respects. First, whereas the parent framework treats sustainable finance as one of five parallel components (Chao, 2024; Dhar, 2025), the proposed framework repositions finance as the central mediating mechanism that determines whether climate-affected food systems are, or fail to be, converted into resilient ones. Second, it disaggregates finance into the six concrete mechanisms observed in the South African evidence—public investment, agricultural credit, climate and green finance, insurance, extension-linked support and digital finance—rather than treating finance as a single undifferentiated category. Third, it makes the barriers identified in this review (financial exclusion, weak institutional capacity, poor coordination, insufficient climate information, inadequate infrastructure and socio-economic vulnerability) explicit moderating conditions that determine whether finance reaches vulnerable households, a dimension that the parent framework does not specify. Fourth, it embeds context-specific feedback loops through which food-security outcomes inform learning, policy response and subsequent investment within the South African institutional setting. The new scientific understanding offered by the framework thus lies in specifying testable, finance-mediated pathways between climate hazards and food-security outcomes, which future empirical work can operationalise and validate.

5 Discussion

This review synthesized South African evidence on how climate change, food security, and sustainable finance are linked. It looked at the sustainable finance mechanisms that help the development of climate-resilient food systems, identified major barriers and facilitators, and created an integrated and evidence-based conceptual framework. The findings indicate that the South African literature has shown considerable evidence on the effects of climate change on food security, but there is a relatively small amount of evidence about the integration of sustainable finance within climate-resilient food systems (Ogundeji, 2022; Habanabakize and Dickason-Koekemoer, 2024; Mudzielwana, 2025).

The review corroborates the finding that drought, rainfall variability, higher temperatures, and water scarcity are still the main causes of food-system vulnerability in South Africa, especially in rainfed agricultural systems. This aligns well with international evidence illustrating that climate change is a major cause of disruptions in agricultural production, food systems and rural livelihood (Rosenzweig et al., 2020; Malhi et al., 2021; Zurek et al., 2022a). It is in line with the Climate-Resilient Food Systems Framework which argues that climate hazards affect the different food system components, whereas resilience is defined by the ability of systems to absorb, adapt to and transform under climate stresses (Walker et al., 2004; Chao, 2024; Dhar, 2025).

The study also shows that climate adaptation significantly helps in enhancing food-security outcomes, especially in areas where climate-smart agriculture is backed with appropriate financial and institutional support (Ojo et al., 2021; Omotayo et al., 2025; Omotoso and Omotayo, 2024). This supports the Climate-Resilient Food Systems Framework, which presents sustainable finance as the enabling tool that connects adaptation efforts with resilient food systems and an overall better welfare of households (Chao, 2024; Tandukar et al., 2025). However, public finance, agricultural credit, green finance and climate finance largely operate as independent interventions, limiting their collective impact on food-system resilience (Ngwenya and Simatele, 2020; Habanabakize and Dickason-Koekemoer, 2024).

At the same time, the evidence base is not uniform, and several tensions deserve critical attention rather than simple summary. First, although most studies report that adaptation improves food security (Samuel and Sylvia, 2019; Maziya et al., 2024; Omotayo et al., 2025), the strength of this relationship varies markedly across contexts, and Ndlovu and Zenda (2024) show that high levels of climate-risk awareness did not translate into improved outcomes where water systems, infrastructure and finance were absent. This suggests that the adaptation–food-security relationship is conditional rather than universal, and that single-instrument interventions are unlikely to succeed where complementary systems are missing. Second, the evidence on institutions points in different directions: Mazenda (2021) locates the binding constraint at the level of national governance quality, whereas municipal-level studies (Enwereji, 2021; Adom et al., 2022) emphasize weak local implementation capacity, leaving unresolved the question of the institutional level at which financing and coordination reforms would be most effective. Third, because the quantitative evidence base is dominated by cross-sectional surveys (Ojo et al., 2021; Maziya et al., 2024; Naicker et al., 2025a), the direction of causality between financial access and adaptation remains uncertain: access to credit may enable adaptation, but better-resourced and more adaptive farmers may also be more likely to obtain credit, so the positive associations reported in the literature cannot yet be read as causal effects.

These tensions define an agenda of unresolved research questions. It is not yet known whether integrated financing packages outperform single instruments in improving food-security outcomes; which financing mechanisms actually reach women, youth and resource-poor households rather than better-endowed farmers; how the long-term, rather than cross-sectional, effects of finance-enabled adaptation unfold; and how emerging digital and market-based instruments, such as the environmental pollution credits proposed by Jokonya and Moravčík (2026), can be governed so that they narrow rather than deepen financial exclusion. Future empirical studies should therefore prioritize longitudinal, panel and quasi-experimental designs that can test the finance-mediated pathways specified in the framework proposed in Section 4.6, compare the cost-effectiveness of alternative financing mechanisms across provinces and farming systems, and evaluate the distributional consequences of climate-finance allocation for smallholder households.

5.1 Limitation of the review

The search was restricted to English-language, open-access, peer-reviewed publications. While this ensured that every included study could be retrieved, verified and appraised in full, it may have excluded relevant evidence published in subscription-based journals, in other languages, or in gray literature such as government, municipal and development-agency reports.

Ongoing financial exclusion, along with institutional weaknesses and governance limitations also limits the effective alignment of climate change, food security, and sustainable finance (Mazenda, 2021; Leonard, 2022; Naicker et al., 2025a). Although current research is progressively acknowledging the role of innovative financing instruments (Jokonya and Moravčík, 2026; Ngwenya and Simatele, 2020), there is very little empirical evidence which measures the long-term efficacy of these instruments. These literature gaps are the basis for the integrated conceptual model offered in this study, which clearly outlines the relationship between climate threats, food-system vulnerability, sustainable finance, adaptation, and food security outcomes. Therefore, policymakers should focus on enhancing integrated financing frameworks that blend public investments, private finance, climate finance, and institutional coordination to back climate-resilient food systems. Future research should empirically confirm the proposed conceptual framework and assess the performance of integrated sustainable finance instruments in different agricultural systems and provinces in South Africa.

6 Conclusion

This systematic review shows that climate change is a major and increasing threat to food security in South Africa, especially through drought, rainfall variability, heat stress, floods, water scarcity and natural-resource degradation. These hazards are shown to reduce crop and livestock production, disrupt livelihoods, reduce access to food and raise household vulnerability. While South African research has improved the knowledge about climate impacts, adaptation and climate-smart agriculture, the integration of sustainable finance into food-security discussion and policy is still very limited. The study finds that finance is not only a factor of support but also a major requirement for resilience. When public investment, agricultural credit, green finance, climate finance, insurance, extension-linked funding and digital finance are accessible, affordable and institutionally coordinated, they may improve adaptation. Still, financial exclusion, poor governance, lack of technical skills and disjointed policy systems continue to prevent many smallholder farmers from gaining full benefit from these mechanisms.

The study adds value by proposing an integrated conceptual map grounded in evidence that connects climate factors, food-system vulnerability, sustainable finance, adaptation and food security outcomes. This framework offers a realistic platform for further research, policy and investment planning. Enhancing climate-resilient food systems in South Africa will certainly necessitate the transformation of single adaptation projects into comprehensive financing systems that link farmers, institutions, markets and policy actors. Future investigations should work on the empirical validation of the presented conceptual model across different provinces and determine which sustainable finance mechanisms are most successful in the production of long-term food-security resilience.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Phoebe Koundouri, Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece

Reviewed by: Yann Emmanuel Miassi, Laval University, Canada