Uganda needs money for climate management

Besides scientists at the National Crop Resources Research Institute (NaCRRI) developing seed technologies that are drought and flood resistant, where is the tangible proof that Uganda is dealing with the creeping climate crisis?

All government ministries have climate change desks and we have the National Climate Change Act, 2021, although the guidelines to implement it are not there. We have the National Adaptation Plan for the Agricultural Sector and one in preparation for oil extraction. Unfortunately, there are challenges in coordination. We do not have the all-round national adaptation plan, so each sector is identifying its own adaptation plant. We also lack a climate change database, where people can make inquiries about how climate change is affecting us and how we are responding to the different crises. 

You are talking about NaCRRI, but their research is still minimal and they have challenges distributing the seeds countrywide because there are no funds. And some of their research lacks gender attributes. For example, some improved maize seed varieties can withstand droughts but they do not taste like the maize we know. The seeds are tight on the cob, which makes it difficult for someone to eat roasted or boiled maize. So, Uganda’s climate response is tied to finances. You cannot tell us to emit zero (greenhouse gasses), have mitigation measures and avail a zero budget.

 Who is supposed to avail that budget?
We are fronting for compensation for the loss and damage caused by climate change from the developed world. We are facing a climate crisis because of their destruction of the ozone layer. As Uganda, our level of emissions is too low, too insignificant. Actually, the compensation we are asking for is just basic, not even secondary human rights. We are asking for (technologies to grow) food. Our people need to be able to produce food. When our people are able to grow food and eat it, we shall be in position to implement other mitigation actions. Otherwise, without solving the basic needs, we cannot fight climate change.

How much money is Uganda demanding for?
We are developing a five-year disaster risk management plan with a budget of $234b (Shs886 trillion). If the donors give us that money, we will be able to detect early warning signals, prepare plans, carry out monitoring activities, build the staff capacity, and build the capacity of farmers. That is when we shall not suffer the consequences of the climate crisis as we are suffering now. We shall have irrigation equipment and our people will not die of hunger. 

But, as we wait for the donors, how much is Uganda willing to tag to climate mitigation and adaptation from its own budget?
(Laughs). The challenge is that we are poor. We are even resorting to borrowing. Eighty percent of Uganda’s actions on climate change management are funded externally, and not from domestic revenue. So, we are committed to mitigating climate change but our commitment is not backed by any budget. However, Uganda has a master card it can play. We can sustain many climate change mitigation actions, such as growing trees, without spending a lot. The trees can offset carbon emission, which helps the planet. Those people (Western world) cannot do this (grow trees).

But when African countries launched the African Carbon Markets Initiative (ACMI) on Tuesday, Uganda was nowhere to be seen. Wouldn’t our participation in ACMI be a guaranteed way to generate income from climate change?
We are supposed to join. Uganda has departments that are supposed to follow-up with the carbon markets. There are people who plant trees with the intention that at a later date, they will cut them and sell the logs. We are saying that revenue could be calculated and the developed world pays the tree growers not to cut their trees. In this way, everyone gains. The trees offset carbon emission and the tree grower can meet his or her financial needs. There was a programme like this in the National Forestry Authority but there were questions. For instance, which trees offset carbon the most, how much will be paid per acre, and how do people join such programmes? These questions need answers because the sophistication of accessing funds from these programmes is proving to be difficult. 
But we are witnessing forests being cut down to grow sugarcane and the extinction of the shea nut tree in northern Uganda.

Where is the logic in some programmes encouraging people to grow trees, while others are cutting down forests?
It is unfair that we are prioritising investments that consider that in order to develop infrastructure, they must cut down trees and vegetation. We are also being lied to that alien species such as pine, eucalyptus and sugarcane can replace indigenous forest cover. It is a complete lie. The level at which the indigenous forests keep biodiversity safe is far higher than what alien species can do. Besides, people have been growing sugarcane for years, but the cost of sugar on the market has never gone down. Will cutting forest to grow sugarcane bring the costs down? I don’t think so. This government is keeping these resources (forests, wetlands, swamps) on behalf of the country, so it is not right for the government to render these resources to some investor without consulting us.  

Is Uganda making any commitments at COP27?
Yes. When we ratified the UNFCCC Convention, we were supposed to establish initiatives in line with the targets. Much as our carbon emissions are low, we have reduced them further. Of course, we must relate with our neighbours and other countries to tap into the carbon markets. But, we need money. When we mobilise for funds, where will they go? To the Treasury? The donors are not sure whether the money they put in our Treasury for climate change will actually go to climate change management. That is a big challenge. We tasked ourselves and came up with a Tree Fund, which is currently empty. We have always reminded the ministry of Finance about these funds but there is no response. This demotivates people who would have carried out fundraising activities for Uganda’s climate change management that will reduce the effects of climate change.

How can we invest in early warning systems to mitigate climate change?
We do not have a disaster risk management Act. We just have plans. We are just firefighting natural disasters. How can we call drought a disaster in Uganda yet has been occurring since we were born? Interestingly, every time drought occurs, it catches us by surprise. If we invest in early warning systems, when disasters come, we will be able to continue with our food production. We need to decentralise early warning systems to the districts, sub-counties and parishes. But, currently, our structures are lame. We are pretending that weather forecasts reach the parishes but there are no funds to cater for that, and because of poor technology, the forecasts are 70 percent accurate. 

Let’s talk about the elephant in the room, the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP)…
I am an environmentalist, but I believe that we should extract our oil. Some time back, Uganda presented its case to the world, saying that we want to extract our oil and we expect certain amounts of revenue from it annually. We requested the developed world to pay us so that we leave the oil underground. However, no country showed interest in that option. The oil will be extracted but we are only bothered about how we are going to go about it because the safeguards, guidelines and policies for extraction, the grievance and compensations mechanisms have not been concretised.
I know that it will take more than a year to set up these guidelines and safeguards. I am worried that if we do not bring our oil to the market very fast, we will lose revenue. Already, it is clear that we are going to earn less from oil because the market for fossil fuels is reducing. 

Where are we going to sell our oil? Even the ministry of Energy is advertising motorcycles and vehicles that don’t use fuel but clean energy. How can we market our oil and at the same time call for the use of clean energy? People will weigh the options and go for the cheaper one. In other words when (National Unity Platform president, Robert) Kyagulanyi says, ‘Tajjagasima,’ you people do not know where he is coming from. He has information that we might not start extraction until 2030, and by then, the oil will be worthless.  

A final call to government and citizens to take the climate crisis seriously
We must wake up. It has been well researched that if you don’t spend $1 in early actions, in disaster management, you will spend $15 in response – in that firefighting you see (Prime Minister Robinah) Nabbanja doing.

Views on EACOP...  

I am an environm-entalist, but I believe that we should extract our oil. Some time back, Uganda presented its case to the world, saying that we want to extract our oil and we expect certain amounts of revenue from it annually.

We requested the developed world to pay us so that we leave the oil underg-round. However, no country showed interest in that option. The oil will be extracted but we are only bothered about how we are going to go about it because the safeguards, guidelines and policies for extraction.