Uganda's forests are disappearing at a pace that increasingly alarms conservationists, scientists and policymakers.
Behind every hectare lost lies a web of governance failures, weak law enforcement, corruption, poverty, climate change, inadequate financing and communities struggling to survive.
Recent policy briefs by the Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment (ACODE) paint one of the clearest pictures yet of the challenges facing Uganda's forests, particularly in the vulnerable landscapes of West Nile and Karamoja.
The research, conducted under ACODE's Strengthening Civic Engagement, Voice, Service Delivery and Climate Justice for Improved Accountability in Uganda project, found that although Uganda has developed robust forest policies over the years, implementation remains weak.
In West Nile, where more than 1.5 million refugees have settled, forests such as Zoka and Agoro-Agu continue to face mounting pressure from commercial charcoal production, illegal logging, tobacco curing, agricultural expansion and growing demand for firewood and construction materials.
ACODE estimates that Zoka Forest lost nearly 40 percent of its forest cover between 2001 and 2015, while annual deforestation rates in parts of West Nile stand at 3.2 percent, significantly higher than Uganda's national average of 2.1 percent.
Karamoja presents a different but equally troubling picture. Prolonged droughts, wildfires, overgrazing, agricultural expansion, charcoal burning and competition over scarce natural resources continue to degrade landscapes such as Timu and Murungole Central Forest Reserves, where some areas have lost nearly 25 percent of forest cover over the past decade.
Yet beyond the statistics, ACODE argues that Uganda's biggest environmental crisis is not simply disappearing forests—it is failing governance systems.
In this edition of Green Exclusives, environmental journalist Joshua Kagoro sat down with ACODE Deputy Executive Director Onesmus Mugyenyi to discuss the research findings, explain why conservation is failing many local communities, and outline what must change if Uganda is to protect its forests while improving livelihoods.
Excerpts;-
For someone who has not read ACODE's policy briefs, what exactly did your research find in West Nile and Karamoja?
At its core, our research examined two interconnected issues—natural resource governance and climate justice. The findings confirm what many reports have already suggested: Uganda continues to lose forests at an alarming rate. However, what stood out most during our field engagements was not simply the degradation itself but the disconnect between communities and conservation.
One of our strongest findings was that inclusive conservation remains largely absent. Communities living closest to forests are not meaningfully involved in protecting them. Many people no longer see forests as resources that directly sustain their livelihoods, reducing their willingness to conserve them.
Over the years, Uganda has developed policies, laws and awareness campaigns on climate change and forest conservation. Yet despite these interventions, citizen participation remains remarkably low.
Another major finding concerns benefit-sharing. Many communities believe they bear the burden of protecting forests without receiving equitable benefits in return.
Forests undoubtedly provide indirect benefits such as rainfall regulation, carbon storage and climate regulation that everyone enjoys. However, communities living adjacent to these forests expect tangible benefits that improve their daily lives.
Unfortunately, those benefits remain limited, creating frustration and weakening conservation efforts.
What surprised you most during the research?
The biggest surprise was discovering just how limited community ownership of conservation has become. You would expect that after decades of environmental awareness campaigns, communities would feel deeply connected to forest protection.
Instead, we found that many citizens still feel excluded from decision-making. Conservation cannot succeed if local people remain spectators. They must become genuine partners. That gap between policy intentions and community participation was perhaps our most striking finding.
Your report frequently refers to climate justice. What does climate justice actually mean to an ordinary farmer, pastoralist or community member?
Climate justice is fundamentally about fairness. It evolved from the broader concept of environmental justice. The communities suffering the worst impacts of climate change are often those that contributed the least to causing it.
Large industries and developed economies have historically produced the greatest greenhouse gas emissions. Yet it is rural farmers, pastoralists, women, refugees and poor communities that bear the greatest burden through prolonged droughts, crop failures, floods and food insecurity.
Climate justice asks a critical question: When governments allocate climate finance, adaptation resources or resilience programmes, are they prioritising the people who are most vulnerable?
Too often, they are not.
Climate justice therefore means ensuring that those who contribute least to climate change receive the greatest support in adapting to its impacts.
Why should an ordinary Ugandan living hundreds of kilometres away care about forests in West Nile or Karamoja?
Because forests do not serve only the communities that live beside them. Their ecological services extend far beyond district boundaries. Forests absorb carbon dioxide, regulate rainfall, stabilise temperatures and protect biodiversity.
When forests disappear in Karamoja or West Nile, the effects are eventually felt across Uganda.
Drought does not recognise district boundaries. Climate change does not stop at regional borders.
Every Ugandan therefore has a stake in protecting these forests because they are part of a national ecological system that supports agriculture, water security, public health and economic development.
Your report repeatedly points to governance failures. Who exactly is failing Uganda's forests—government, local leaders, communities or everyone?
Governance is much broader than government alone. Good governance involves transparency, accountability, citizen participation, effective institutions and proper enforcement of laws.
From that perspective, multiple actors share responsibility. Government has the responsibility to develop laws, enforce regulations, allocate budgets and create public awareness.
However, enforcement remains weak. Local governments often lack adequate funding and technical capacity.
Citizens also have responsibilities. They should demand accountability and participate in protecting natural resources. However, many communities lack access to information that would enable them to effectively hold leaders accountable.
Civil society organisations also play an important role in raising awareness, but many operate through short-term projects. When project funding ends, many interventions disappear. Government remains the only institution capable of sustaining nationwide conservation programmes over the long term.
You mention governance failures, but isn't corruption really the elephant in the room?
Absolutely. Sometimes we hide corruption behind the broader word "governance." But corruption is one of Uganda's biggest obstacles to effective environmental protection.
When law enforcement officers fail to enforce environmental laws because of corruption, forests suffer. When institutions responsible for prosecution fail to secure justice, illegal activities continue.
When political leaders interfere with enforcement or fail to support implementation, the entire governance system weakens. Environmental governance depends on institutions working together.
The Executive develops policies. Parliament enacts laws. The Judiciary administers justice. Enforcement agencies implement the law. If any one of those institutions fails because of corruption, the entire system becomes ineffective.
That is why corruption remains one of the greatest threats to Uganda's forests.
Communities told your researchers they receive very few benefits from conservation. Has conservation become a bad business deal for local people?
Modern conservation depends on community participation. But participation requires incentives. Communities must see that protecting forests improves their livelihoods. Unfortunately, many benefit-sharing arrangements remain inadequate.
Unlike wildlife conservation, where neighbouring communities receive a share of tourism revenue, forestry offers very limited direct financial incentives. That imbalance discourages participation.
Yet opportunities exist. For example, emerging carbon markets now generate revenue from forest conservation. Communities protecting these forests should receive a fair share of those benefits.
Other opportunities include sustainable harvesting of non-timber forest products, beekeeping, agroforestry and ecotourism. When communities benefit fairly, they become active custodians rather than reluctant observers.
Some communities say illegal charcoal burning and logging pay far more than legal conservation initiatives. Doesn't that suggest conservation is economically unrealistic?
Illegal activities provide quick money because they require very little investment. Someone enters a forest, cuts trees, burns charcoal or harvests timber and earns immediate income. Conservation works differently.
Activities such as beekeeping, tree planting and agroforestry require investment, patience and proper management before returns are realised. Illegal exploitation may appear more profitable in the short term, but it destroys the very resource on which communities depend.
It is neither sustainable nor lawful. The challenge is ensuring that legal livelihood alternatives become attractive enough to compete with destructive activities.
If you were to summarise ACODE's findings in one message, what would it be?
Mugyenyi: Uganda does not lack environmental policies. We have many. Our greatest challenge is ensuring that governance systems actually work.
If communities are empowered, corruption is tackled, laws are enforced consistently and benefit-sharing becomes fair, Uganda can still reverse forest loss.
But without those reforms, we risk losing forests that are essential not only for biodiversity but also for climate resilience, food security and the country's long-term development.