In recent weeks, there has been debate about the possibility of the government using a decree to impose greater obligations on private banks to invest in agricultural projects.

The proposal has divided economists, financial associations, and industry analysts. The key question is not only whether it is a good or bad measure, but also what implications it would have for financial stability, credit, and risk management in Colombia.

What are these types of measures seeking to achieve?

The main objective is to strengthen the agricultural sector, improve access to rural credit, and boost the productive economy.

Historically, agriculture has faced:

• Low access to formal credit
• High levels of informality
• Difficulties in obtaining guarantees
• Higher perceived risk

From the government’s perspective, encouraging—or requiring—greater participation by the financial system in this sector could boost regional development, financial inclusion, and productive growth

What do the experts say?

Opinions are divided into two main camps:

🔹 Favorable stance

Some economists believe that:

• Targeted credit can close historical gaps.
• The agricultural sector has underfunded productive potential.
• Greater investment in the countryside can boost employment and exports.

In addition, Colombia has already used development credit schemes in the past, especially through public entities such as Finagro.

🔹 Critical stance

Other analysts warn of significant risks:

• Forcing private banks to comply could affect the efficient allocation of capital.
• If risk is not managed correctly, the non-performing loan portfolio could increase.
• Credit decisions should be based on technical analysis, not regulatory pressure.

The financial system operates under principles of risk assessment, solvency, and sustainability. If that balance is altered, it could generate side effects such as:

• An increase in interest rates.
• Credit restrictions in other sectors.
• An impact on financial stability.

Is it good or bad for the country?

There is no black-and-white answer.

The impact will depend on:

• How the regulation is structured.
• Whether there are state guarantees or risk mitigation mechanisms.
• The quality of credit assessment.
• Technical support for the agricultural sector.

Agricultural credit can be a great opportunity, but it requires adequate tools for analysis, traceability, and management.

The real challenge: risk management and technology

Beyond the political debate, the technical focus is on another point:

How can we ensure that agricultural credit is sustainable?

This is where key factors come into play, such as:

• Scoring adapted to rural realities.
• Integration with credit bureaus.
• Document digitization.
• Traceability in origination.
• Efficient portfolio management.

Financial inclusion cannot depend solely on decrees. It needs structure, data, and technology.

What does this mean for cooperatives and financial institutions?

Cooperatives and institutions in the sector must prepare to:

• Adjust assessment models.
• Strengthen their portfolio management.
• Digitize processes to reduce operational risk.
• Have greater real-time visibility of their sector exposure.

A changing regulatory environment requires technological maturity and adaptability.

Forcing private banks to invest in agricultural projects can generate inclusion and development, but it also poses technical and financial challenges.

The real difference will not be in the regulation, but in the ability of institutions to manage risk with intelligence, data, and structured processes.

In the financial sector, sustainability does not depend solely on intention. It depends on execution.

📩 Contact us and schedule a demo:
👉 www.shareppyinternacional.com
📱 Text us on WhatsApp: +57 324 296 5208
📧 comunicaciones@shareppyinternacional.com