As the world approaches the 31st United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP31) in November 2026, the global climate agenda has entered a decisive phase: implementation, not commitment, will define progress. The focus has shifted to mobilizing and delivering climate finance at an unprecedented scale, with global targets aiming to expand funding to meet climate goals in developing countries.
For countries like Uganda, this moment represents both an opportunity and a risk. Climate justice ensures that those least responsible for climate change receive support to adapt and recover primarily by accessing international finance. Uganda’s ability to scale renewable energy, strengthen climate-resilient agriculture, restore forests, and protect vulnerable communities is directly tied to external funding mechanisms. These include multilateral climate funds, donor governments, philanthropic organizations, and private investment.
At this critical juncture, Uganda’s Protection of Sovereignty Law introduces a regulatory framework that risks undermining these essential financial flows. While the law is positioned as a tool for safeguarding national independence and controlling foreign influence, its operational consequences are far-reaching. By tightening rules around foreign funding and imposing strict regulatory requirements on organizations receiving such funding, the law introduces uncertainty, delays, and barriers into the very systems that deliver climate finance.
Climate finance is fundamentally transnational. Under the Paris Agreement, developed countries are obligated to support developing countries with financial resources for mitigation and adaptation efforts, recognizing the unequal burden of climate impacts. This global system depends on cooperation, predictability, and open channels for investment and partnership. Any disruption to these channels directly weakens the effectiveness of climate action.
The Sovereignty Law requires organizations considered “agents of foreigners” to register, disclose funding sources, and operate under expanded government oversight. It also introduces thresholds beyond which foreign funding requires approval from authorities, creating potential bottlenecks. While these measures are intended to enhance accountability and control, they simultaneously create an environment of regulatory risk for international partners and investors. Climate finance actors who depend on stable and predictable environments are likely to perceive such an environment as restrictive.
Evidence already suggests that the law may hinder climate finance mobilization by creating bureaucratic hurdles and signaling uncertainty to international partners. Climate projects rely on timely funding and efficient implementation. Administrative delays, complex approval processes, and the risk of operational suspension increase the cost and difficulty of delivering climate programs. This slows down the very activities that are essential to protecting communities from climate impacts.
The implications for climate justice are particularly significant. Civil society organizations play a central role in translating global finance into local action. They work directly with communities, implement adaptation projects, advocate for vulnerable populations, and ensure accountability in resource use. By categorizing many of these organizations as “agents of foreigners,” the law risks constraining their ability to operate effectively. Reduced access to funding, increased compliance requirements, and potential reputational risks limit their capacity to deliver programs that are critical to climate resilience.
At a broader level, the law creates a strong disincentive for international investment. Climate finance is highly competitive, with countries across the Global South seeking to attract limited resources. Investors and donors prioritize environments that are predictable, transparent, and supportive of partnership. When regulatory frameworks introduce uncertainty, funding is often redirected. Global evidence shows that restrictive funding laws can lead donors to scale back or shift investments away from countries perceived as high-risk.
This dynamic is particularly concerning leading up to COP31. The conference will place strong emphasis on implementation, requiring countries to demonstrate clear pathways for mobilizing and utilizing climate finance. It will also be a platform where international partnerships are strengthened, and financial commitments are translated into tangible projects. A restrictive regulatory environment risks positioning Uganda as a less attractive partner at precisely the moment when global capital is being mobilized at scale.
There is also a clear contradiction between the law and Uganda’s broader development ambitions. National strategies emphasize green growth, climate resilience, and increased investment in sustainable sectors. Achieving these goals requires an enabling environment that encourages both domestic and international financing. However, by restricting foreign funding and limiting collaboration with international partners, the law undermines the very foundation of these objectives.
Climate policy itself depends on collaboration. The development and implementation of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which outline a country’s climate commitments under the Paris Agreement, often involve technical and financial support from international partners. The law’s broad interpretation of foreign influence risks constraining these collaborative processes, limiting both access to expertise and the resources needed for implementation.
In effect, the Sovereignty Law introduces a fundamental tension between control and progress. While it aims to protect national decision-making, it inadvertently restricts the partnerships and funding streams that are essential for climate action. In an interconnected world, especially in the context of climate change, isolation does not strengthen sovereignty; it weakens resilience.
A more strategic and forward-looking approach would recognize that sovereignty in the context of climate change is not about limiting collaboration but managing it effectively. Enabling policies that attract investment, support civil society, and foster international partnerships to strengthen national capacity to respond to climate challenges. By contrast, restrictive frameworks risk leaving countries underfunded, underprepared, and increasingly vulnerable.
As COP31 approaches, Uganda faces a critical choice. It can position itself as an open, reliable partner ready to absorb and deploy climate finance at scale, or it can adopt regulatory measures that signal uncertainty and deter investment. The stakes are not abstract. They are measured in the ability of communities to adapt to droughts, withstand floods, secure livelihoods, and build a sustainable future.
The message is clear and urgent: without access to international climate finance, climate justice cannot be achieved. The Sovereignty Law, in its current form, risks disrupting that access and undermining Uganda’s ability to meet both its national development goals and its international climate commitments. A recalibration is necessary, one that protects national interests while ensuring that the doors to climate finance, partnership, and progress remain open.
The writer is Lydia Biira, Finance & Admin Manager, Centre for Citizens Conserving Environment & Management (CECIC).
