Agriculture claims under scrutiny:
documentation in the field.

Public concern about delayed or denied agricultural insurance claims has put growing pressure on how field losses are evidenced and explained — and rightly so. Agriculture is one of the classes where the gap between what a policyholder experienced and what the assessor documents can widen fastest, especially when the site visit is not immediate.

The political pressure behind the complaints

In July 2026, Agriculture Minister Frank Tumwebaze publicly called on the Insurance Regulatory Authority of Uganda (IRA) to intervene, saying farmers were increasingly frustrated with how claims were handled. In direct language, the Minister described the situation as threatening confidence in insurance altogether: "We, the farmers, have a serious quarrel with the actors you regulate."

His concern was not theoretical. The government has promoted agricultural insurance through the Uganda Agricultural Insurance Scheme (UAIS) and made cover a prerequisite for certain lending arrangements, including through the Agricultural Credit Facility (ACF). Farmers who take ACF loans to acquire high-value livestock, for example, have in some cases been left without compensation when insured animals die. The Minister also drew on earlier experience from his ICT portfolio, noting that broadcasters insured against natural disasters had raised identical complaints.

The core issue is not unique to agriculture. But agriculture makes the problem more visible: government subsidises the premiums, encourages participation, and then faces political accountability when claims go unpaid.

Why agricultural losses are inherently difficult

Agricultural losses differ from commercial property or motor claims in several ways that make assessment more demanding:

• The damage evolves. Crop disease, pest infestation or flood damage develops over time. A site visited three weeks after the event may not show the same evidence as one visited within days.
• The site changes with weather. Wind, rain and sun rapidly alter what an assessor can observe. Physical traces of the insured peril can be washed away or overgrown.
• Records are often informal. Many smallholder and mid-scale farmers maintain limited written records. Planting dates, input application and stocking numbers may rest on the farmer's recall rather than on paper.
• Multiple causes may overlap. A single crop may be affected simultaneously by drought, pest pressure, nutrient deficiency and ordinary husbandry issues — not all of which are insured.

These characteristics do not make agricultural claims un-assessable. They make early, disciplined assessment essential.

What field documentation should look like

The quality of an agricultural loss assessment depends heavily on a few practical disciplines:

Early attendance. Where possible, the assessor should reach the site while the damage is still visible and before remedial action (replanting, culling, clearing) alters the evidence. This is the single largest determinant of report quality in agricultural claims.

Georeferenced photography. Every photograph should carry location coordinates and a date stamp. GPS-tagged images allow the underwriter, the reinsurer and, if necessary, the tribunal to verify where and when the evidence was gathered without relying solely on the assessor's narrative.

Separation of causes. The assessor's task is to distinguish between damage caused by the insured peril and losses arising from other factors — drought versus poor seedling selection, flood inundation versus pre-existing soil erosion, disease versus inadequate chemical application. This separation must be clear, fair and supported by observable evidence on the ground.

Engagement with qualified agronomists or veterinarians. In livestock mortality claims, post-mortem findings or veterinary opinions may be critical. In crop claims, agronomic observation — soil condition, growth stage, pattern of damage across a field — provides the context that a simple photograph cannot.

Plain-language explanation of the outcome. Where a claim is declined or partially settled, the reasoning must be explainable to the farmer in ordinary terms. Most disputes in agriculture arise not from the decision itself but from a failure to communicate the basis for it.

"Most disputes in this class come from unexplained decisions, not from the decision itself."