By Mulengera Reporters
Uganda’s Agricultural Credit Facility (ACF) has dramatically expanded financing for agriculture, but funding for one of the sectors most critical to protecting farmers’ earnings—post-harvest management—has stagnated and subsequently declined, according to a new evaluation by the National Planning Authority (NPA).
The Independent Evaluation of the Agricultural Credit Facility, released in May 2026, paints a worrying picture of an agricultural financing programme that reaches farmers in large numbers but has struggled to sustain investment in the infrastructure and businesses needed to preserve, process and add value to their produce.
The imbalance is stark.
On-farm activities account for 90% of ACF-supported projects, making them by far the largest category by number. Grain trade accounts for 6%, while agro-processing and post-harvest management each account for only 2%.
But the distribution changes dramatically when measured by the value of loans.
Grain trade receives 42% of total ACF disbursements, compared with 32% for on-farm production, 18% for agro-processing and only 8% for post-harvest management.
The NPA says the pattern points to a disconnect between ACF’s broad outreach and the kind of investment needed to drive deeper agricultural transformation.
Grain trading can require large amounts of working capital, but it generally creates less value addition than processing, storage and other downstream activities.
The result is that large amounts of financing are flowing into the movement of agricultural commodities, while relatively few projects are being financed to preserve those commodities or transform them into higher-value products.
Post-harvest investment loses momentum
The evaluation identifies post-harvest management as particularly vulnerable.
There were signs of progress between June 2021 and March 2022, when the number of funded post-harvest projects rose from 44 to 67.
During the same period, loan disbursements increased from UGX56 billion to UGX98 billion.
But that momentum did not last.
From June 2022 to December 2024, the number of funded projects stalled at 99, while the cumulative value of loans declined.
The evaluation further points to a complete halt in funding for post-harvest activities in the recent period, raising concerns about whether ACF is adequately addressing one of agriculture’s biggest vulnerabilities.
The implications go beyond farmers simply losing part of their harvest.
Without adequate storage, preservation and processing, increased production can result in spoilage, inefficient marketing and lower returns. It can also prevent farmers from taking advantage of periods when prices are more favourable.
The NPA warns that the limited financing of post-harvest activities, together with inadequate support for agro-processing, could constrain rural industrialisation, job creation and agriculture’s ability to generate inclusive and sustainable economic growth.
Big money, limited transformation?
The findings are significant because ACF was established in 2009 specifically to promote the commercialization and modernization of agriculture.
The government facility provides short-, medium- and long-term financing to projects involved in agricultural production, mechanization, modernization, agro-processing and grain trade on favourable terms compared with conventional loans.
Managed by the Bank of Uganda in partnership with Participating Financial Institutions, ACF has become a major channel for agricultural finance.
Over the past 15 years, PFIs have cumulatively lent about UGX485 billion, averaging approximately UGX32 billion annually, alongside UGX495.6 billion in government financing.
The scale of financing makes the distribution of those resources increasingly important.
The NPA evaluation suggests that ACF has succeeded in expanding access to agricultural credit, but its funding pattern may not be sufficiently aligned with the downstream investments required to turn agricultural production into lasting economic value.
With 90% of projects concentrated on farms but 42% of the money going to grain trade, the numbers reveal a programme heavily involved in production and commodity movement, but with relatively limited reach into the infrastructure and enterprises that preserve and transform agricultural output.
For Uganda’s agricultural transformation agenda, that could prove costly.
More production means little if farmers cannot adequately store, preserve, process and market what they produce.
The NPA findings therefore raise a fundamental challenge for ACF: financing the harvest is only half the job. The bigger question is whether the facility is financing what happens to that harvest afterwards.
BoU-Domiciled Agric Fund’s Post-Harvest Handling Allocation Dries Up as Farmers Risk Losing Value After the Farm Gate — NPA
By Mulengera Reporters
Uganda’s Agricultural Credit Facility (ACF) has dramatically expanded financing for agriculture, but funding for one of the sectors most critical to protecting farmers’ earnings—post-harvest management—has stagnated and subsequently declined, according to a new evaluation by the National Planning Authority (NPA).
The Independent Evaluation of the Agricultural Credit Facility, released in May 2026, paints a worrying picture of an agricultural financing programme that reaches farmers in large numbers but has struggled to sustain investment in the infrastructure and businesses needed to preserve, process and add value to their produce.
The imbalance is stark.
On-farm activities account for 90% of ACF-supported projects, making them by far the largest category by number. Grain trade accounts for 6%, while agro-processing and post-harvest management each account for only 2%.
But the distribution changes dramatically when measured by the value of loans.
Grain trade receives 42% of total ACF disbursements, compared with 32% for on-farm production, 18% for agro-processing and only 8% for post-harvest management.
The NPA says the pattern points to a disconnect between ACF’s broad outreach and the kind of investment needed to drive deeper agricultural transformation.
Grain trading can require large amounts of working capital, but it generally creates less value addition than processing, storage and other downstream activities.
The result is that large amounts of financing are flowing into the movement of agricultural commodities, while relatively few projects are being financed to preserve those commodities or transform them into higher-value products.
Post-harvest investment loses momentum
The evaluation identifies post-harvest management as particularly vulnerable.
There were signs of progress between June 2021 and March 2022, when the number of funded post-harvest projects rose from 44 to 67.
During the same period, loan disbursements increased from UGX56 billion to UGX98 billion.
But that momentum did not last.
From June 2022 to December 2024, the number of funded projects stalled at 99, while the cumulative value of loans declined.
The evaluation further points to a complete halt in funding for post-harvest activities in the recent period, raising concerns about whether ACF is adequately addressing one of agriculture’s biggest vulnerabilities.
The implications go beyond farmers simply losing part of their harvest.
Without adequate storage, preservation and processing, increased production can result in spoilage, inefficient marketing and lower returns. It can also prevent farmers from taking advantage of periods when prices are more favourable.
The NPA warns that the limited financing of post-harvest activities, together with inadequate support for agro-processing, could constrain rural industrialisation, job creation and agriculture’s ability to generate inclusive and sustainable economic growth.
Big money, limited transformation?
The findings are significant because ACF was established in 2009 specifically to promote the commercialization and modernization of agriculture.
The government facility provides short-, medium- and long-term financing to projects involved in agricultural production, mechanization, modernization, agro-processing and grain trade on favourable terms compared with conventional loans.
Managed by the Bank of Uganda in partnership with Participating Financial Institutions, ACF has become a major channel for agricultural finance.
Over the past 15 years, PFIs have cumulatively lent about UGX485 billion, averaging approximately UGX32 billion annually, alongside UGX495.6 billion in government financing.
The scale of financing makes the distribution of those resources increasingly important.
The NPA evaluation suggests that ACF has succeeded in expanding access to agricultural credit, but its funding pattern may not be sufficiently aligned with the downstream investments required to turn agricultural production into lasting economic value.
With 90% of projects concentrated on farms but 42% of the money going to grain trade, the numbers reveal a programme heavily involved in production and commodity movement, but with relatively limited reach into the infrastructure and enterprises that preserve and transform agricultural output.
For Uganda’s agricultural transformation agenda, that could prove costly.
More production means little if farmers cannot adequately store, preserve, process and market what they produce.
The NPA findings therefore raise a fundamental challenge for ACF: financing the harvest is only half the job. The bigger question is whether the facility is financing what happens to that harvest afterwards.
BoU-Domiciled Agric Fund’s Post-Harvest Handling Allocation Dries Up as Farmers Risk Losing Value After the Farm Gate — NPA
By Mulengera Reporters
Uganda’s Agricultural Credit Facility (ACF) has dramatically expanded financing for agriculture, but funding for one of the sectors most critical to protecting farmers’ earnings—post-harvest management—has stagnated and subsequently declined, according to a new evaluation by the National Planning Authority (NPA).
The Independent Evaluation of the Agricultural Credit Facility, released in May 2026, paints a worrying picture of an agricultural financing programme that reaches farmers in large numbers but has struggled to sustain investment in the infrastructure and businesses needed to preserve, process and add value to their produce.
The imbalance is stark.
On-farm activities account for 90% of ACF-supported projects, making them by far the largest category by number. Grain trade accounts for 6%, while agro-processing and post-harvest management each account for only 2%.
But the distribution changes dramatically when measured by the value of loans.
Grain trade receives 42% of total ACF disbursements, compared with 32% for on-farm production, 18% for agro-processing and only 8% for post-harvest management.
The NPA says the pattern points to a disconnect between ACF’s broad outreach and the kind of investment needed to drive deeper agricultural transformation.
Grain trading can require large amounts of working capital, but it generally creates less value addition than processing, storage and other downstream activities.
The result is that large amounts of financing are flowing into the movement of agricultural commodities, while relatively few projects are being financed to preserve those commodities or transform them into higher-value products.
Post-harvest investment loses momentum
The evaluation identifies post-harvest management as particularly vulnerable.
There were signs of progress between June 2021 and March 2022, when the number of funded post-harvest projects rose from 44 to 67.
During the same period, loan disbursements increased from UGX56 billion to UGX98 billion.
But that momentum did not last.
From June 2022 to December 2024, the number of funded projects stalled at 99, while the cumulative value of loans declined.
The evaluation further points to a complete halt in funding for post-harvest activities in the recent period, raising concerns about whether ACF is adequately addressing one of agriculture’s biggest vulnerabilities.
The implications go beyond farmers simply losing part of their harvest.
Without adequate storage, preservation and processing, increased production can result in spoilage, inefficient marketing and lower returns. It can also prevent farmers from taking advantage of periods when prices are more favourable.
The NPA warns that the limited financing of post-harvest activities, together with inadequate support for agro-processing, could constrain rural industrialisation, job creation and agriculture’s ability to generate inclusive and sustainable economic growth.
Big money, limited transformation?
The findings are significant because ACF was established in 2009 specifically to promote the commercialization and modernization of agriculture.
The government facility provides short-, medium- and long-term financing to projects involved in agricultural production, mechanization, modernization, agro-processing and grain trade on favourable terms compared with conventional loans.
Managed by the Bank of Uganda in partnership with Participating Financial Institutions, ACF has become a major channel for agricultural finance.
Over the past 15 years, PFIs have cumulatively lent about UGX485 billion, averaging approximately UGX32 billion annually, alongside UGX495.6 billion in government financing.
The scale of financing makes the distribution of those resources increasingly important.
The NPA evaluation suggests that ACF has succeeded in expanding access to agricultural credit, but its funding pattern may not be sufficiently aligned with the downstream investments required to turn agricultural production into lasting economic value.
With 90% of projects concentrated on farms but 42% of the money going to grain trade, the numbers reveal a programme heavily involved in production and commodity movement, but with relatively limited reach into the infrastructure and enterprises that preserve and transform agricultural output.
For Uganda’s agricultural transformation agenda, that could prove costly.
More production means little if farmers cannot adequately store, preserve, process and market what they produce.
The NPA findings therefore raise a fundamental challenge for ACF: financing the harvest is only half the job. The bigger question is whether the facility is financing what happens to that harvest afterwards. (For comments on this story, get back to us on 0705579994 [WhatsApp line], 0779411734 & 041 4674611 or email us at mulengeranews@gmail.com).
