Researchers from the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) explained how shifting crop production to new suitable areas can enhance food security and economic returns amid rising climate risks in South Africa.
As temperatures rise and rainfall patterns become less predictable, some traditional agricultural zones in South Africa may become unsuitable for growing current crops. New research suggests that a careful transition to new suitable areas could bring economic, employment, and food benefits, although the optimal solution will depend on the specific crop.
Agricultural lands, such as maize fields, wheat farms, or citrus orchards, cannot simply move due to climate change. Nevertheless, in the coming decades, South African agriculture may need to reconsider not only cultivation methods but also where crops are grown.
Rising temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, water stress, and increased extreme weather events are already increasing uncertainty for farmers. A region that has supported a particular crop for decades may not provide the same growing conditions in 2055 or 2080.
This raises a complex but increasingly pressing question: is it economically viable to gradually shift some agricultural production to areas expected to remain or become more suitable under changing climate conditions?
ARC researchers studied this issue for six important South African agricultural products: maize, wheat, sorghum, citrus, avocado, and macadamia. The study combined climate and crop suitability modeling with cost-benefit analysis.
Simply put, scientists compared the long-term value that could be created by relocating some production against the costs of establishing and operating farms in new locations. The results contain both encouragement and caution. Shifting production can be a justifiable strategy for climate change adaptation, but its feasibility depends on the climatic requirements, water needs, production cycle, infrastructural needs, and market prospects of each crop.
Relocating production does not imply an immediate abandonment of established South African agricultural areas. It means planning a gradual transition as climate suitability changes. The study modeled a hypothetical scenario where 10% of the current production area for each crop moves to new suitable agro-ecological zones. This percentage is a modeling assumption to test the potential economics of adaptation, not a recommendation to relocate 10% of national production.
The analysis considered future climate conditions centered on 2030, 2055, and 2080, within moderate and high emission scenarios, assessing the costs and benefits of adaptation over 30 years. Depending on the crop and climate scenario, the modeling identified potential opportunities in cooler and higher altitude areas, including parts of the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, and Free State. These areas represent modeled possibilities, not farm-level recommendations.
These broad zones should not be viewed as farm-level planting recommendations. Before making any investment decision, local water availability, soil quality, infrastructure, market access, and land use conditions must be examined. It is also necessary to consider whether the receiving areas possess the necessary infrastructure, water resources, services, and institutional capacity to support additional agricultural production. A shift in production may increase demand for irrigation water, roads, electricity, warehousing, processing facilities, and agricultural services. Therefore, planning must consider not only where crops can grow but also whether the surrounding agricultural system can support production at the required scale.
Researchers used a metric called the Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR). A ratio above 1 means that the anticipated benefits exceed the costs. For example, a ratio of 1.50 means that for every rand invested, approximately 1.50 is expected in broader economic and social benefits. The study considered not only farmer income but also broader advantages such as food security, employment, and export earnings. According to the study's central estimates, maize and citrus showed some of the strongest return indicators, with a benefit-cost ratio of around 1.50. Sorghum also showed good results, with a ratio of approximately 1.41.
These findings are important because crops play very different roles in the economy. Maize is central to South Africa's food security, livestock feed, and agricultural processing. Citrus is a major source of export revenue and supports numerous jobs in rural communities. Thus, protecting these sectors from future climate risks will benefit far beyond the farm.
However, high-value crops are not automatically the safest investments for adaptation. Avocado and macadamia orchards require significant initial establishment costs and take several years to reach full productivity. This creates a long period between initial investment and expected return. Furthermore, it exposes producers to risks from future changes in water availability, temperatures, resource costs, export prices, and market access. The conclusion is clear: a crop may have high market value but carry significant long-term adaptation risk.
Sorghum represents a much smaller industry than maize or wheat, but its ability to tolerate heat, drought, and unreliable rainfall gives it strategic value in a changing climate. In the study, sorghum remained relatively resilient under harsh climatic conditions, even when prospects for several other crops worsened. However, this does not mean farmers can plant sorghum anywhere and expect easy profits. This crop still faces challenges, including limited markets, low consumer demand, and pressure on farm-level profitability. Climate resilience alone will not create a successful industry. Sorghum requires functioning value chains, meaning investment in seed systems, processing, product development, procurement capabilities, and consumer awareness. Higher demand for sorghum-based foods, beverages, and feed could help translate its climate advantages into real income for farmers. This may be particularly important for small and emerging farmers in water-scarce areas. A more diversified cropping system can reduce dependence on a small number of climate-sensitive commodities.
Modeling shows that economic prospects generally become more complex as climate change intensifies toward the middle and end of the century. Under a high-emission scenario, projected yields drop sharply for several crops. Maize, citrus, avocado, and macadamia are particularly sensitive to the combination of heat and water stress, while perennial orchards face the added risk that conditions may change significantly during the trees' productive lifespan. This is why adaptation decisions cannot be based solely on current growing conditions. An orchard planted today may continue to yield harvests decades later. Infrastructure, such as irrigation systems, packing sheds, roads, and warehouses, also represents a long-term commitment. If these investments are made without considering future climate suitability, producers and governments could push themselves into increasingly risky situations. Conversely, shifting production requires roads, irrigation, electricity, warehousing, processing capacity, expanded services, and market linkages in new areas. Farmers may also require financing during the establishment years when costs are high and income is limited. Therefore, adaptation requires coordinated planning. Individual farmers cannot bear the burden of a national transition.
South Africa needs a practical, regularly updated crop suitability monitoring system that incorporates new information on climate, soil, water, and production. Such a system could help farmers, financiers, and government determine where risks are increasing and where new opportunities may arise. It could also guide land-use planning, infrastructure investment, agricultural financing, insurance, and extension support. The information must be detailed enough to support local decisions yet accessible enough to be useful outside research institutions. For farmers, the question is not just whether the climate is changing; it is how quickly local conditions are changing, what this means for a specific crop, and which adaptation options are financially realistic. For policymakers, the task is to avoid one-size-fits-all solutions. Maize, sorghum, and macadamia have different production cycles, water needs, markets, or investment risks. Support measures must reflect these differences.
South African agriculture has historically adapted to challenging conditions. Farmers have changed varieties, planting times, irrigation methods, production systems, and markets in response to drought, prices, and new technologies. Climate change adds another layer of pressure, but it also strengthens the argument for better information and earlier planning. The study shows that shifting some production to more suitable areas can bring significant economic and social benefits. This can safeguard food supplies, support rural jobs, and help vital export industries remain competitive. However, successful adaptation will depend on choosing the right crop, in the right place, at the right time, and understanding the full cost before planting the first seed or tree. South Africa does not need to move its agricultural sector overnight. It needs to begin preparing for a crop map that may look very different by the middle of this century. The future of South African agriculture will depend not only on how farmers produce, but increasingly on where they produce, and whether those locations remain economically, ecologically, and socially viable as the climate changes.
