UGANDA’S AGRICULTURAL TRADE UNDER AfCFTA: WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS

Agriculture remains central to the promise of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). It drives food security, employment, export growth, and industrialisation across the continent. Yet agricultural trade in Africa has become increasingly unpredictable. Export bans, certification requirements, border restrictions, and sudden regulatory shifts have disrupted supply chains and weakened confidence in regional markets. Moving from trade agreements on paper to trade in practice now requires greater policy coherence and stronger evidence.

Against this backdrop, the Agricultural Policy Research Centre (APRC) at Makerere University, with support from the Africa Network of Agricultural Policy Research Institutes (ANAPRI), convened a high level policy dialogue on Wednesday, 4 March 2026. The dialogue examined Uganda’s agricultural trade competitiveness and assessed how national trade measures align with commitments under AfCFTA, the East African Community (EAC), and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA). It provided a rapid analytical review of priority value chains and structural constraints, scrutinised recent trade policy interventions and their implications for export performance, investment incentives, and market predictability, and evaluated the coherence between domestic measures and regional obligations. The platform also created space for structured multi-stakeholder engagement to generate clear policy messages and forward-looking recommendations. The event brought together researchers, policymakers, private sector actors, and other key stakeholders.

The evidence presented was both reassuring and cautionary. Uganda occupies a strategic position in regional food systems as a surplus producer of maize, beans, dairy, livestock, oilseeds, coffee, and cocoa. It plays a stabilising role in neighbouring markets, supporting food availability and trade flows. Empirical analysis shows that Uganda’s liberalised export market structure, in place for more than three decades, is functioning efficiently. In coffee and cocoa, global price movements are transmitted quickly and almost fully to farmers. In Arabica coffee, farmers benefit strongly when global prices rise and are partly shielded when prices fall because of the specialty nature of the market. A vivid message from the data is that competitive markets are working, and reversing liberalisation through administered pricing or marketing boards would weaken price transmission and ultimately reduce farm incomes.

At the same time, the dialogue highlighted that the main constraint to competitiveness is no longer tariffs. While tariff barriers have declined under regional agreements, non-tariff barriers have emerged as the binding constraint. Complex sanitary and phytosanitary requirements, certification regimes, border levies, and inconsistent enforcement increase compliance costs and create uncertainty for traders and processors. Evidence further indicates that the formal implementation of AfCFTA has not yet produced measurable effects on export prices for key commodities such as coffee and cocoa. Agreements alone do not drive competitiveness; coherent domestic implementation does.

Climate variability and infrastructure gaps are also shaping trade outcomes. Rainfall shocks and disease outbreaks directly affect production volumes and quality compliance, making climate risk a trade policy issue rather than a purely environmental concern. High transport costs and weak post harvest systems further erode margins. In cocoa, transport costs from production zones to Kampala account for a significant share of the gap between global and farm gate prices. Without sustained investment in storage, drying, testing, and traceability systems, value addition will remain constrained.

A recurring concern throughout the dialogue was policy incoherence. Uganda has committed to regional tariff liberalisation, yet ad hoc export controls, restrictions on uncertified grain, and fragmented regulatory enforcement risk undermining these commitments. It was agreed that standards, food safety, and industrialisation objectives are legitimate. However, sudden or poorly coordinated trade measures create unpredictability that harms farmers, traders, and investors. Regional integration magnifies existing strengths, but it also exposes structural weaknesses.

The way forward is not necessarily policy reversal but policy alignment. Maintaining competitive market structures, dismantling non-tariff barriers, investing in quality and post harvest infrastructure, embedding climate resilience in trade strategy, and strengthening coordination across government agencies are essential steps.

Through evidence-based dialogue and cross-country engagement, ANAPRI, through her different centres, continues to bridge research and policymaking, ensuring that Africa’s agri trade agenda moves beyond commitments to deliver practical, predictable, and farmer centred outcomes.

APRC gratefully acknowledges the support of the Government of Uganda through the Research Innovation Fund (RIF), whose funding was instrumental in supporting both the research and its dissemination during the dialogue.