Climate justice now: Budgeting for Karamoja and West Nile

___________________

OPINION

By Jonas Mbabazi Musinga

As Uganda sets ambitious goals for economic transformation under the 2025/26 national budget, the sub-regions of Karamoja and West Nile remain on the fringes of development, trapped in cycles of climate shocks, poverty, and marginalisation. Despite government commitments to build resilience, the gap between climate policy rhetoric and on-the-ground reality is widening.

Uganda cannot achieve inclusive growth without making climate justice a central pillar of its budget priorities, starting with the communities most affected by environmental breakdown.

When Finance Minister, Hon. Matia Kasaija, presented the 2025/26 budget on June 12, he laid out a sh72.3 trillion spending plan focused on “full monetisation of Uganda’s economy.” The budget targets increased commercial agriculture, industrialisation, and youth employment, and projects a 7% economic growth rate. The programme for Climate Change, Natural Resources, Environment and Water Management has been allocated 0.08% of the national Budget. While the budget includes provisions for environmental protection and disaster response, these measures fall short of responding to the unique and escalating climate vulnerabilities in Karamoja and West Nile.

In Karamoja, a semi-arid area, climate change has become a constant threat. Recurrent prolonged droughts, unpredictable rainfall, and declining rangeland have devastated agro-pastoral livelihoods.

By mid-2022, more than 518,000 people in the region were at crisis levels of food insecurity. The Uganda Bureau of Statistics reports that Karamoja has the highest multidimensional poverty rates in the country, with a majority of households lacking access to food, health services, clean water, and even basic clothing.  In West Nile, the environmental strain is compounded by its role as Uganda’s largest refugee-hosting region.

Hosting over 800,000 refugees, primarily from South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the region is under intense pressure. Forests are rapidly depleting due to overharvesting for fuel and shelter. Flash floods and prolonged dry spells are now common, eroding farmland and livelihoods. Tensions between host communities and refugees over access to dwindling resources are growing.

While the 2025/26 budget includes sh366 billion for environmental protection and climate change mitigation, most of these interventions are generic. Investments in tree planting, wetland restoration, and early warning systems are useful but insufficient when disconnected from the localised risks that define Karamoja and West Nile.

No specific allocations are detailed for these regions' unique climatic and socio-economic conditions. The sh200 billion for disaster preparedness and the sh169 billion contingency fund are similarly broad and unringfenced. This makes it difficult to guarantee that resources will reach the districts most in need. Meanwhile, the Uganda National Meteorological Authority was allocated sh12.4 billion, but local communities still lack the tools, infrastructure, and support needed to act on climate forecasts and early warning systems.

If Uganda’s budget is to be a tool for climate justice, it must move beyond national aggregates and vague environmental goals. It must intentionally direct resources to the most climate-vulnerable regions. The following are key ways the national budget can achieve this.

First, the government should prioritise climate-smart agricultural investment in Karamoja. This means allocating targeted funding through the Parish Development Model, Operation Wealth Creation and Agriculture Credit Facility to support drought-resistant seeds, sustainable water harvesting, livestock health services, and agro-pastoral extension support. These measures would help restore livelihoods and food security while building long-term resilience.

Second, planning and budgeting must recognise West Nile’s dual identity as an ecological hotspot and refugee-hosting region. The government should support community-led reforestation, energy alternatives like solar cooking, and land restoration programmes that promote cooperation between host communities and refugees. These actions can reduce environmental pressure while improving social cohesion.

Third, social protection should be scaled up for households living at the frontline of climate vulnerability. Cash-for-work programmes linked to ecosystem rehabilitation, food assistance during lean seasons, and public works to build small dams, irrigation schemes, and rural roads are crucial. These measures would provide immediate relief while building climate resilience assets.

Fourth, the budget’s commitment to women and youth empowerment should be made climate-responsive. This means integrating green jobs and entrepreneurship into youth funds and women’s enterprise programmes. Examples include supporting women-led agroforestry, youth-run renewable energy projects, and training in collaborative and sustainable natural resource use practices. Lastly, the government should establish clear mechanisms to track and monitor climate justice expenditures.

Introducing regional climate vulnerability indicators into the Programme-Based Budgeting framework would improve accountability. This would empower Parliament, civil society, and local governments to assess whether funds reach Karamoja, West Nile, and other high-risk areas.

Uganda’s economy cannot grow if large parts remain stuck in climate-induced poverty. Climate justice requires more than policy intent. It demands that resources follow need. The 2025/26 budget is a missed opportunity unless corrective measures are taken to ensure Karamoja and West Nile are not just afterthoughts in national development. The road to inclusive, resilient growth begins not with GDP figures but with recognising that justice (climatic, social, and economic) must be budgeted for. Uganda’s future depends on it.

The writer is a Research Fellow at the ACODE