Uganda, like many African countries, has committed itself to a range of regional and international frameworks designed to strengthen investment in key sectors such as agriculture, health, and education.
These commitments include the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), the Maputo Declaration, the Abuja Declaration, and the Dakar Framework for Action, each of which sets specific spending targets intended to promote sustainable development and improve service delivery.
Despite repeatedly endorsing these commitments, Uganda’s actual budget allocations have consistently fallen short of the agreed benchmarks.
This gap between policy commitments and budgetary priorities raises important questions about the government’s ability and willingness to translate development pledges into tangible financial investments.
Across Africa, the gap between policy commitments and implementation remains persistent. Under the Maputo Declaration, governments committed to allocating at least 10 percent of public expenditure to agriculture; the Abuja Declaration set a target of 15 percent for health; and the Dakar Framework for Action called for a minimum of 20 percent investment in education. Yet many countries have struggled to meet or sustain these spending thresholds, even decades after adopting them.
The recent World Health Organisation (WHO) and the 2024 4th Biennial Review Report by African Union assessments show that the core concerns identified a decade ago largely persist. Most African countries remain below the Abuja target of allocating 15 percent of government expenditure to health, and the African Union’s 2024 Biennial Review concluded that the continent is not on track to meet the Malabo Declaration’s 2025 agricultural financing and productivity goals.
Uganda’s persistent failure to meet international spending commitments is rooted in a fiscal reality that leaves policymakers with little room to maneuver.
A large share of the national budget is pre-committed to debt servicing and externally financed projects before sector allocations are made, leaving limited fiscal space for the government to fund agreed priorities in health, education, and agriculture.
Much of this spending is also non-discretionary, tied to fixed obligations and project-specific financing arrangements that cannot be redirected to other sectors, meaning the government has little flexibility over how the money is spent, even when funding gaps emerge.
In the 2026/27 financial year, the government plans to finance approximately Shs12 trillion through domestic borrowing, equivalent to about 14 percent of the Shs84.3 trillion national budget.
Unlike domestic revenue, external funds are tied to predetermined projects and expenditure categories, limiting the government’s flexibility to redirect resources in response to emerging priorities or changing budgetary needs.
‘Government cannot reallocate it to health, education, or agriculture because it is tied to predetermined projects,’ explains Hilda Tumuhe, programme officer for Debt and Aid at SEATINI-Uganda.
The result, she says, is a growing mismatch between national priorities and available flexible funding. Once debt servicing and project-tied financing are deducted, the government is left with about Shs47 trillion in discretionary resources.
‘This is the money available for the government to flexibly allocate across programmes. But when you compare it to the competing priorities and expenditure demands, the fiscal space becomes very tight,’ she notes.
That pressure is now being amplified by the government’s ambitious tenfold growth strategy, which prioritises productive sectors and key enablers meant to drive economic transformation. At the same time, Uganda must still meet its debt obligations-something that is consuming an increasingly large share of the budget. In FY2026/27 alone, debt servicing is projected at Shs38.4 trillion out of Shs84.39 trillion.
‘We have a shrinking fiscal space in Uganda,’ Tumuhe says.
At the heart of the strain is a domestic revenue base that has not grown fast enough to match rising expenditure needs. While the government continues to set higher tax targets, experts warn that taxation must move in step with economic performance.
Uganda Revenue Authority is expected to collect Shs45.96 trillion in the next financial year 2026/27, up from Shs37.5 trillion this year.
‘You cannot tax an economy that is not doing well. Growth and revenue mobilisation have to move hand in hand,’ she says.
But Uganda’s tax structure adds another layer of complexity. A large share of revenue comes from indirect taxes-such as fuel levies and consumer goods taxes-which cut across all income groups. These taxes are often met with public resistance, especially when citizens feel service delivery does not reflect what they pay.
Beyond this, questions persist over tax exemptions and incentives granted to investors, with critics arguing that some may be costing the country more than they deliver in return. Tumuhe says closing these leakages and rationalising tax expenditures could unlock significant resources without increasing the burden on ordinary citizens.
Attention is also turning to emerging revenue streams, particularly oil. Government expects about Shs1.4 trillion from the Petroleum Fund in FY2026/27-modest in comparison to overall spending needs, but potentially significant if directed strategically. Yet experts caution that revenue growth alone will not fix Uganda’s fiscal challenges.
According to Tumuhe, the real test lies in how efficiently public resources are used. Persistent delays in project implementation, procurement bottlenecks, weak oversight, and corruption continue to drain value from public spending especially in debt-financed projects.
‘Improving public investment management could create additional fiscal space without necessarily increasing revenue collection,’ she argues.
Education
Government has allocated Shs6.66 trillion to the education sector, prioritising the strengthening of STEM and vocational education, improving teacher welfare, and expanding access to Universal Primary Education (UPE) amaong others.
To enhance service delivery, government rolled out the National Costed Service Delivery Standards, a framework aimed at improving budgeting, accountability, and monitoring.
However, stakeholders argue that implementation remains weak, with many schools still receiving funding below the levels required to effectively deliver quality education. Reports suggest government often falls short of minimum service delivery standards. Under the framework, the capitation grant is set at Shs23,000 per pupil and Shs123,000 for learners with special needs.
‘There is growing public frustration over government priorities, particularly in social service delivery,’ says Jenice Ishimimaana, head of advocacy and communications at Uganda Debt Network.
She argues that despite government’s characterisation of the budget as a people’s budget, many Ugandans expected greater investment in essential services such as education and health.
She further notes that although funding for UPE has been increased over the years, many schools are yet to receive the promised allocations, while the current funding levels remain insufficient to effectively deliver free and quality education.
Health
The health sector has been allocated Shs5.23 trillion, targeting maternal and child health, nutrition, immunisation, prevention of non-communicable diseases, and provision of essential medicines.
Despite the funding, the sector receives only about 6.2 percent of the national budget, well below the 15 percent Abuja Declaration target, leaving households burdened with out-of-pocket healthcare costs and the system dependent on donor support.
Agriculture
The government has allocated Shs2.26 trillion to the Agro-Industrialisation programme to support agricultural research, innovation, extension services, irrigation, agro-processing, value addition, and market access.
While the funding reflects government’s commitment to agricultural transformation, analysts question whether it is sufficient given the country’s fiscal constraints.
Economist Fred Muhumuza argues that many international spending targets were set decades ago under different economic conditions.
‘Many of these commitments were made over 20 years ago. A lot has changed, and even countries that made such pledges are struggling to meet them because the realities on the ground have changed,’ he says.
According to Aloysious Kitengo, programme coordinator at SEATINI, many of the gaps begin at the negotiation stage, where weak representation undermines the ability to effectively domesticate international commitments.
‘This all starts from negotiations. Most of our negotiators are not present in these discussions, which is why it is hard to domesticate these commitments,’ he says.
He adds that even where budget allocations appear aligned to agreed thresholds, questions remain over whether they translate into real sector outcomes.
‘When you say you’re supposed to allocate 10 percent according to the Maputo Protocol, they will tell you, ‘We have money here, we have money this side.’ When we calculate, it looks like the percentage is met on paper, but the question is: are they delivering on the objectives of the sector? Are they responding to the real needs that would actually help achieve that target?’
Elsewhere
Christina Namubiru, a Research Associate at the Civil Society Budget Advocacy Group, says while some countries are gradually improving, most are still falling short of their commitments.
‘Countries like Rwanda allocate about six percent or so, but for us we have never even gone beyond five percent. So that puts us at a disadvantage. Every time we go for those meetings and commit that we shall allocate 15 percent to health or 10 percent to agriculture, back home when we plan, it doesn’t come out as expected,’ she says.
She adds that while international commitments remain important, stronger domestic prioritisation is urgently needed.