Health
We Are Pushing Nature to the Edge—But Solutions Are Within Reach: Global Conversations on Sustainable Health
By Davidson Ndyabahika and Johanna Blomgren
We’ve all done it—tossed leftovers, ignored wilted greens, or shrugged at a half-eaten meal. Food waste is a quiet guilt we all share, a reflex in a world of abundance and scarcity. But what if this small act connects to a larger global issue? On February 26, 2025, experts from Uganda, Sweden, and beyond gathered in a virtual seminar, asking, “How can we nourish ourselves without harming the planet?” Hosted by the Centre of Excellence for Sustainable Health (CESH), the discussion revealed a harsh truth—our food habits are draining the Earth.
The discussion on sustainable food systems marked the beginning of the annual four-part global conversation on sustainable health, organized through a collaboration between Sweden’s Karolinska Institutet and Uganda’s Makerere University under the auspices of CESH.
In Kampala, the paradox is stark. Every day, 750 tons of food waste fill the city’s landfills, enough to feed thousands. Rotten mangoes spill from crates in Nakasero Market, and half-eaten Rolex wraps pile behind street stalls. Uganda’s Food Rights Alliance shows 37.8% of this waste comes from plates and markets. Across East Africa, organic waste, like spoiled vegetables and discarded tubers, makes up 79% of urban trash—a grim reflection of broken systems. Beyond this is a city stuck with piles and piles of organic trash, which has previously been fatal with a slide in one of Kampala’s major landfills. Meanwhile, 26% of Uganda’s children remain stunted.
At the heart of this week’s global conversation was the WWF’s Living Planet Report 2024, a sobering revelation of a 73% decline in global wildlife populations since 1970. Freshwater ecosystems have hemorrhaged 85% of biodiversity, Latin America’s species richness has plummeted by 95%, and Africa—home to smallholder farmers who feed millions—has lost 76%. “Nature is disappearing at an alarming rate,” warned Harold Turinawe, WWF Uganda’s Forest Markets Transformation Manager, his voice weighted with urgency.
“We are pushing Earth’s systems to irreversible tipping points, and despite the increase in food production and land use and the destruction of habitats, the world is still hungry; we have over 735 million people going to bed hungry every other night. The contradiction is striking,” Turinawe added.
The report highlights the Amazon’s lush canopies that are felled for cattle ranches. The interplay of man’s unsustainable utilization of Mother Nature, leading to the food paradox, feast, famine, and ecological ruin, underscores the urgency of addressing global goals in a coordinated manner.
The report’s indictment of industrial food systems is clear: agriculture claims 40% of habitable land, 70% of freshwater, and drives 25% of greenhouse emissions. Yet, 735 million people still starve nightly. “Our obsession with monocultures and processed foods isn’t just destroying habitats—it’s failing humanity,” said Dr. Rawlance Ndejjo, the seminar’s moderator and a public health lecturer at Makerere University.
Florence Tushemerirwe, a Ugandan public health nutrition expert based at Makerere University’s School of Public Health, pointed out the irony: 26% of children are stunted, while obesity rises among adults in Uganda. “We grow nutrient-rich crops but export them, leaving people dependent on cheap, processed imports. In fact, many people do not appreciate their nutrient value,” she said. Uganda’s iodine-depleted soils now rely on fortified foods—a temporary fix for a growing crisis.
All through the seminar, the message was clear: we are wasting abundance while ecosystems crumble and people go hungry. “Our salt is iodized because our soils no longer provide it. Biodiversity loss isn’t abstract—it’s stealing nutrients from our plates. But if we don’t maintain our nature’s health, or our environmental health, or our natural resources health, it means that whatever food we grow, we actually do not carry the nutrients we need to maintain a diverse diet,” said Tushemerirwe.
The panel dissected global food trade’s role. WWF’s Turinawe lamented, “90% of deforestation is for agriculture. In Uganda, the once-vibrant wetland ecosystems of Lwera at the shores of Lake Victoria now face severe degradation due to large-scale rice growers; in the Amazon, its cattle ranches.”
Dr. Rachel Marie Mazac of Stockholm Resilience Centre stressed Europe’s complicity: “Sweden’s ‘virtual biodiversity loss’—importing deforestation via beef and soy—shows how our diets export destruction.”
“From a Swedish perspective, we are highly dependent on imports, particularly raw materials, which contribute significantly to biodiversity loss in other regions. It’s difficult to pinpoint the exact impact, especially with biodiversity, but there’s a concept of “virtual impact,” says Dr. Mazac.
Food consumed in Sweden, though produced elsewhere, contributes to biodiversity loss in those areas. The issue links to trade, food production, and distribution. It’s not just about production or waste but also equitable distribution.
Dr. Ndejjo added starkly, “You could be eating a burger from a cow grazed on razed Amazon forest. Guilt isn’t enough—we need systemic change.”
Amid the grim statistics, the panelists outlined a roadmap for redemption: nature-positive agriculture, subsidy policy reform, improved localized diets, global accountability, and honest discussions on the GMO dilemma.
Turinawe emphasized the need for agroecology in extension services—integrating trees, crops, and livestock to rebuild soil health and biodiversity. He stressed while critiquing Uganda’s Parish Development Extension Model for prioritizing enterprises for profit over sustainability. “We are saying get one million to a farmer. What are they producing? They are engaging in commodities that are predetermined. Nobody’s talking about Mother Nature. Who takes care of the soil? Who takes care of the water needs? Who takes care of the diversification we are talking about? But diversification in the diet begins with diversification on the farm. So my first issue is strengthening the agricultural extension services,” says Turinawe.
Adding that things like soil health management, land tenure system farmer-to-farmer network for peer learning, and fair farmer subsidies should be key to planning and agricultural extension.
“In Uganda, where I come from, and currently in Kampala, if you head north towards Zirobwe in Luweero District, you’ll find people we call Bibanja owners—essentially squatters who don’t own the land they occupy. These individuals cannot engage in sustainable agriculture as we’re discussing; their focus is survival. What we need are programs that give farmers secure land rights, which can motivate them to invest in soil health and environmental conservation—investments that take time. Improving soil is not a short-term effort; it requires long-term actions like planting trees, integrating practices, and using farmyard manure. None of this is realistic for someone who fears being displaced tomorrow. We need to approach this challenge collectively.”
Subsidies must reward sustainable practices, not industrial giants.
“Why not tax breaks for farmers using organic manure?” Turinawe challenged. “I would love to hear that a farmer that is engaged in sustainable cocoa production and coffee production gets a tax holiday rather than having a blanket of investors getting a holiday. Put subsidies and investment incentives in the right direction. We shall spur production, and of course, this will also bring in corporate partnerships, and we can make our supply chains safer, better, more green, and more sustainable,” Turinawe added.
Dr. Mazac noted that “nature-positive production can feed the world by optimizing crops, livestock, and wild fisheries, and supporting aquaculture that works with wetlands, not against them.” For Mazac, policy is key: She is also an advocate of subsidies and taxes that benefit farmers. Those that ensure incentives that improve soil health and maintain water quality as well as tackle climate change in order to make sustainability profitable.
“We must rethink trade to avoid widening the gap between food-producing areas and markets and instead support local farmers. Subsidies and taxes should empower these communities to nourish their populations before focusing on exports. While exports generate income, they also have significant impacts. A possible solution is changing production systems, but we must also shift dietary and consumption habits, making this a collective effort, not just an individual responsibility.”
Tushemerirwe is hungry for reviving indigenous crops and regulating predatory marketing. “Awareness is power. We must teach communities to value their traditional foods over processed substitutes.”
“There is good food grown in rural areas and available in markets, but people don’t recognize its value due to lack of guidance. We need food-based data guidelines to raise awareness. The Uganda Ministry of Health has a draft for this, along with draft policies to regulate unhealthy food marketing, especially to children. Junk food is advertised everywhere: hospitals, schools, and even street billboards, with fast food chains clustered together. We must regulate this and educate people on the nutritional benefits of eating what they grow over imported alternatives,” she stated.
Dr. Ndejjo believes these draft guidelines to regulate unhealthy food marketing should be finalized into policies and urges policymakers and implementers to prioritize the urgent need for these documents.
The conversation also weighed in on the genetic engineering in agriculture for increased crop yields, popular for GMOs, a dilemma that panelists called for their democratization rather than demonizing them. While Dr. Mazac cautioned against corporate-controlled seeds, Turinawe acknowledged their potential: “If democratized, drought-resistant crops could save farms in a warming world.”
Dr. Mazac noted that while in Europe and the European Union, they are not allowed to grow or sell foods that have been genetically modified, the essence of them should not be overlooked, since they are a technology that seeks to solve the future food crisis.
“GMOs aren’t inherently evil. Drought-resistant crops could save farms—but corporate patents trap farmers,” she said.
Turinawe added, “Our approach to GMO’s is a measure one bordering more on ethics and responsible use of GMOs; we see GMOs as a tool to promote resilience, especially since everything has changed—the food we once relied on can no longer grow in the same way. If GMOs help improve crop resilience, that’s a valuable tool. However, there are concerns that companies like Monsanto could use the GMO technology as a tool of exclusion, e.g., the fear of monopolizing future seed markets. This is where caution is needed.”
A Call for Radical Collaboration
The seminar’s resounding theme was unity: multi-sectoral collaboration is non-negotiable. From street food vendors to policymakers in the boardrooms, every actor must align. “Food systems aren’t siloed,” Dr. Mazac asserted. “They’re woven into climate, economy, and culture.”
“I think we need to sit and agree and engage quite regularly and find solutions for us to be able to produce food but sustainably,” concluded Tushemerirwe.
The Path Ahead
CESH’s global conversations on sustainable health are a microcosm of a global awakening, especially in tracking progress to meet our goals for 2030 and beyond: This seminar on food systems emphasizes the interconnectedness of food security and biodiversity. With the next UN Climate Summit (COP29) on the horizon, the panel’s message is clear—transformative change is possible, but only through courage, equity, and an unyielding reverence for nature.
To find more about this global conversation on sustainable health and more, visit CESH.health
Davidson Ndyabahika and Johanna Blomgren are the co-organisers of the global conversation on sustainable health
Makerere’s School of Public Health (MakSPH) is expanding faster than it can house itself. It now hosts more than 1,000 students, runs programmes across multiple countries, and anchors a large share of the University’s research output. Yet parts of its operation still spill into rented space, costing over $113,000 a year, because the infrastructure has not kept pace with its growth.
That constraint sits uneasily with the School’s economic weight. Health research accounts for more than half of Makerere University’s academic output, making it one of the University’s most productive engines. As Vice Chancellor Barnabas Nawangwe put it, “An educated population is a healthy population, and an educated and healthy population is a prosperous population.”
Beyond the university, health is not just a social outcome but a driver of economic performance. Healthier populations are more productive, more resilient, and less costly to sustain. Investments in public health, whether in prevention, systems, or infrastructure, raise an economy’s productive capacity, not just improve outcomes.
Institutions that generate public health knowledge and train professionals are not peripheral to growth; they are part of its foundation.
It is this logic that is shaping how Makerere’s School of Public Health is positioning itself. At its centre is a new, unfinished complex on the University’s main campus, intended to anchor the School’s next phase as a regional hub for research, training, and policy support. But like much of the system it supports, it is being built gradually, in a “build-as-you-go” approach constrained as much by funding realities as by design.
Construction of Phase II of the MakSPH complex is now at an advanced stage, with progress recorded across all sections of the site. As of March 2026, Phase 2B is nearing completion at 98%, while Phase 2A stands at 89%, and Phase 2C at 69%, each tracking close to or slightly ahead of planned targets. Current works are concentrated on interior finishes—including tiling, terrazzo installation, and external rendering—as well as preparations for lift installation, signaling a transition from structural works to final detailing. The project team is working toward a practical completion date of August 31, 2026, with timelines calibrated to align with broader resource flows and implementation considerations.
Six years ago, in February 2020, construction began on what will be the new home of the School of Public Health. The building, a permanent, purpose-built public health facility on Makerere’s main campus, will accommodate a growing student body, provide space for doctoral and postdoctoral fellows, and strengthen the University’s ability to respond to Africa’s most pressing public health challenges.
Professor David Serwadda, Professor Emeritus at Makerere University and Chair of the MakSPH Infrastructure Fundraising Committee, said the construction journey reflects the School’s “ambition, intent, and courage”—a bold step despite limited resources. He was speaking at a public lecture on health financing held at Makerere University on April 9, 2026.
But the ambition behind the project is not modest. “We are not building for today—we are building for the future,” said Professor David Serwadda, reflecting on a decision that shaped the entire construction effort. “We need to build for the next 100 years.”
That long view helps explain both the scale of the project and the risks taken to start it. When construction began, the School did not have the full funding. “We started with about a third of the required budget,” Serwadda said.
The approach was not without setbacks. A major grant from USAID, worth over a million dollars, was later withdrawn, midway through the construction, due to the closure of USAID. “We received what is called a ‘Dear John letter,’” he recalled. “At that moment, we felt the situation was a major blow, almost terminal for the project.”
But the project did not stop. It adjusted. “We said, let us continue, piecemeal,’” he said. “Finish the auditorium first, use it, and keep building the rest.”
“We have come a long way as the School of Public Health,” said Professor Rhoda Wanyenze, the Dean. “We are proud of that history, but we also recognize that it comes with responsibility.”
She argued that responsibility is no longer confined to Uganda. With ongoing collaborative work in more than 25 African countries currently, the Dean says this is “a responsibility to provide leadership in public health not only in Uganda but across the continent.”
The scale of that growth has been visible from what was once a small training unit in the Faculty of Medicine in the 1950s, which has expanded into 12 academic programmes and more than 1,000 students.
“When I came back for my public health training, we were about 40 students,” she said. “Now, we have more than 1,000.” “Public health is growing and evolving,” Wanyenze said. “And we are doing our best to develop the skills needed for this changing landscape.”
That includes new areas such as health informatics and data science, driven by the digitisation of health systems and the growing role of data in decision-making and AI. The School is already coordinating regional platforms on digital health, linking multiple countries in shared learning and practice.
But this growth has outpaced the physical systems needed to sustain it. For the University leadership, the implications extend beyond infrastructure.
“One of the most effective ways to invest in health in Uganda is to invest properly in Makerere University,” said Vice Chancellor Barnabas Nawangwe. “We must recognize Makerere as a research-led university with a special national role—not fund it like any other institution or department. Makerere is one of the government’s greatest assets. Invest in her, and the returns will exceed expectations.”
Professor Nawangwe hailed Dr. Ramathan Ggoobi, the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, who delivered a keynote on investing in health for Uganda’s future in view of Vision 2040. “I wish to thank Dr. Ramathan Ggoobi and his team for their personal intervention in allocating resources in next year’s budget to complete the new School of Public Health building. That support is deeply appreciated,” he said.
Uganda’s progress in health outcomes is evident, but uneven. Life expectancy has risen significantly from about 50 years in 2000 to roughly 68.8 years in 2024, according to the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, Ramathan Ggoobi. Yet the gains sit alongside persistent financial strain on households. About 4% of Ugandans still spend more than a quarter of their consumption on healthcare, pushing many into poverty as a result of illness.
For Ggoobi, this points to a structural gap that recurrent government spending alone cannot close. “We must mobilise long-term domestic capital without adding fiscal risk,” he argued, pointing to the need for more sustainable financing mechanisms. Central to this is the gradual design and rollout of a national health insurance scheme. Evidence from countries such as Rwanda, Kenya, and Ghana suggests that well-structured contributory models can expand coverage while reducing catastrophic out-of-pocket spending.
“My Ministry and the School of Public Health must be partners. … Evidence framed in fiscal terms drives policy,” said Ggoobi, stressing the need for locally grounded solutions. “What works in Ghana might not work here. We need a model that fits Uganda.”
Uganda’s current macroeconomic conditions, relatively low inflation, currency stability, and expanding private credit may provide a window to move in that direction.
Uganda’s health system is entering a new phase—one where the biggest challenge is no longer building it, but sustaining it. External funding is tightening. Domestic resources are under pressure. Demand for care is rising faster than both.
In this new reality, health is no longer just a social priority but a financing problem and a test of economic strategy.
For years, the system expanded on government investment, backed by strong external support. Infrastructure grew. Services followed. But that model is now under strain. Expectations are rising. Citizens want better care, closer to where they live, and without the financial shock that so often comes with illness.
Uganda is already investing in health. The real question is whether that investment is sustainable and whether it is delivering value.
It was against this backdrop that policymakers, academics, and practitioners gathered at Makerere University on April 9 for a public lecture and high-level dialogue on health financing. At the centre of the discussion was a keynote by Dr. Ramathan Ggoobi, the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury under the theme “Investing in Health for Uganda’s Future: Delivering Vision 2040 through Smart and Sustainable Health Financing.”
The event was organised by Makerere University School of Public Health (MakSPH) in collaboration with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Finance, Planning, and Economic Development.
Dr. Ggoobi does not think about health the way most people in government do. He is not persuaded by the language of welfare. When he speaks about health, he reaches for the language of growth, productivity, and national wealth. In his view, the sector is not a cost centre. It is an economic engine.
“Health is not merely a social sector issue. It is an economic transformation issue, a productivity issue, and a national competitiveness issue,” he said, arguing that no country has achieved sustained growth without investing in human capital. Globally, human capital accounts for nearly 70% of national wealth. The World Health Organization (2021) estimates that every dollar invested in health can return four to nine dollars in productivity gains.
“Investment in health is not charity. It is growth finance. So, my first message is to treat health spending as an investment, not as consumption. Every shilling must buy measurable economic and social returns,” he emphases.
His views reveal a shift in how Uganda’s Treasury thinks about health financing. Spending must justify itself. Investments must deliver returns. And inefficiency is no longer just a technical issue but a fiscal problem.
Ggoobi’s worldview is shaped by the idea that Uganda’s long-term growth ambitions under Vision 2040, which is 13 years away, to achieve what he describes as a tenfold expansion to a $500 billion economy, will be decided not just by infrastructure or industry but by the quality of its human capital.
Globally, he notes, human capital accounts for the bulk of national wealth. Health, therefore, is not peripheral to development. It is central to it.
If health is an investment, then it must generate returns. If it does not, then something in the system is not working. “Every shilling must buy measurable economic and social returns,” he said.
This is where the optimism gives way to unease. Countries that have achieved and sustained middle-income status did so through deliberate, sustained, evidence-driven investments in human capital.
Uganda is working within tight fiscal limits. The national budget for 2025/26 stands at Shs 72.38 trillion, with about Shs 5.87 trillion going to health.
Government spending on health has increased over time, rising from about Shs 2.8 trillion a few years ago to Shs 4.4 trillion today. But even with this growth, spending per person is still low, around $50 a year, less than half of what is often needed to provide basic health services.
Not all the money is used efficiently. Global estimates suggest that weak systems, poor coordination, and procurement challenges can cause up to a third of health spending to be lost.
According to Dr. Ggoobi, Uganda has made notable progress in strengthening its health system, driven by sustained public investment. Life expectancy has risen from about 50 years in 2000 to approximately 68.8 years in 2024, an increase of over 18 years. Access to services has also improved significantly, with about 91 percent of Ugandans now living within five kilometres of a health facility, while income poverty has declined from 24.5 percent in 2010 to 16 percent.
On the service delivery side, the government has introduced the malaria vaccine for children under five and rolled out electronic medical records across national and regional referral hospitals. Strategic investments have also been made, including 16 high-capacity oxygen plants, three regional blood banks, CT scan equipment in 14 of 16 regional referral hospitals, and 20 digital X-ray machines in general hospitals, with remaining gaps expected to be closed in the next budget. Together, he noted, these efforts demonstrate that sustained investment in health is yielding tangible results.
Beneath that progress, Dr. Ggoobi sees a health financing structure that is fundamentally unstable, noting that external partners still finance as much as 40–45 percent of health expenditure. Government contributes about 22 percent, household’s 31 percent, and insurance remains marginal at less than five percent. This balance, Ggoobi argues, is dangerous. It leaves the system exposed to shocks from outside while pushing risk onto those least able to bear it.
But the issue that troubles him most is government inefficiency. His priorities are to increase and protect domestic health financing, mobilise long-term capital, and improve efficiency.
“We are wasteful even with the little we have. Procurement is a major problem—many fights in government are not about mandate but about procurement. That is why we are moving all entities onto an electronic procurement system to improve transparency, reduce leakage, and ensure accountability,” said Dr. Ggoobi.
The government has enrolled 38 entities on the electronic procurement system. Full adoption is expected by mid-2026.
If you have good audits and we implement their recommendations, then we can expect positive outcomes. Number two is e-government, reducing human contact where it is not necessary. Unless you’re a doctor, you have to examine someone. Why do you have to sit in a hotel to discuss procurement? Humans must get out of discussing procurement. That’s why we are building the eGP and reviewing the procurement law. We are going back to the cabinet; we are going to remove human beings who are not necessary in the chain of procurement,” said Ggoobi.
Across the discussion, one issue drew near-unanimous agreement that prevention remains underfunded.
The Ministry of Health’s position, delivered through John Kauta, the Commissioner in charge of Health Information, Statistics, Monitoring, and Evaluation, is unequivocal that “the cheapest disease to treat is the one we prevent.”
Yet Uganda still spends more on treating illness than preventing it. Freddie Ssengooba, a Professor of Health Economics and Health Systems Management, MakSPH, highlighted malaria as a case study, both costly and preventable, while others pointed to rising non-communicable diseases driven by lifestyle factors.
This imbalance has fiscal consequences. Preventable diseases generate recurrent costs, crowding out other investments and reinforcing the cycle of inefficiency.
Mak Chancellor Hon. Dr. Crispus Kiyonga pushed the debate toward geography and access, citing that while Uganda’s health system was originally designed to follow administrative structures, the ambition to reach every village was never fully realised.
“We must plan based on what we can sustainably afford. We cannot import another country’s system. But where shall we save the majority of our people? It is in the villages. That is where children miss school due to illness. Where young girls drop out due to a lack of basic support, like pads. So, we must choose: given limited resources, what system gives the greatest impact? When the Minister of Health asks for a CT scan—something people travel to Nairobi for—that is important. But in the village, a child needs an antimalarial. The choice is between a CT scan and basic treatment. These are tough decisions,” says Dr. Kiyonga.
While the country is “highly indebted” and resources are limited, the level of care that Uganda can realistically provide to its citizens should borrow from China’s early pragmatic reforms of universal access first and quality later, according to the Chancellor.
“You cannot deliver health from a distance,” he said, arguing for a renewed focus on community-level access.
The Chancellor also strongly supported a shift from tertiary care to primary care. From Mulago National Referral and reducing its congestion to the village by investing in lower health facilities.
He urged the government ministries of Finance and Health to strongly collaborate with academic institutions to improve their work. “This dialogue should not be a one-off. It must be continuous. Makerere must engage the government with well-costed, risk-weighted proposals. We should build structured collaboration between universities and government so that research informs policy, and we reduce reliance on expensive foreign consultants. There is valuable research here,” said Dr. Kiyonga.
Taken together, the dialogue revealed a country’s health system in transition, from scarcity to expansion but not yet to performance.
As Ms. Jane Kyarisiima Mwesiga, Deputy Head of Public Service (Service Delivery), Office of the Prime Minister, framed it, the next phase must move “from expansion to performance, from inputs to outcomes, from financing to public value.”
But the path forward remains contested. Should Uganda prioritise insurance or direct public provision? Prevention or specialised care? Infrastructure or functionality?
The answers lie not in choosing but in sequencing, something Uganda has historically struggled to do.
Dr. Ian Clarke, a Physician, philanthropist, entrepreneur, and Chairman of Clarke Group Companies, speaking while representing the Private Sector during the dialogue, spoke emotionally on national health insurance, whose discussion has been ongoing for close to 20 years, but with minimal progress.
“We have had studies and proposals, but many were rightly rejected because they were not practical. You cannot design a National Health Insurance scheme that looks like private insurance. There is simply not enough money in Uganda—or anywhere—to sustain that. We still think in silos: public sector and private sector. Then we ask, how do we support the private sector? There are many ways—but as has been emphasized, we must focus on prevention and equity, especially in rural areas.”
For Ssengooba, while insurance is important and long-term, its implementation needs to be phased. He called for more investments in the health sector as the first line of insurance for citizens. He also called on the government to partner with institutions such as the National Social Security Fund (NSSF), which already have systems, capacity, and reach in place to support health investments. “If we leverage institutions like NSSF—for collection, for pooling resources—we can make progress. During COVID, they demonstrated that they can support national priorities. So, we should think about how to leverage what already exists,” he says.
Stephen Omojong of the National Social Security Fund highlighted an untapped opportunity. The Fund currently manages about Shs 30 trillion in assets, with millions of contributors.
This pool, he argued, could support health financing either through insurance-linked products or long-term investment vehicles. His example of a voluntary savings scheme now has 68,000 participants and Shs. 114 billion mobilised in a year, suggesting that behavioural barriers may be less rigid than often assumed.
Makerere University Vice Chancellor, Professor Barnabas Nawangwe, framed the dialogue as more than an academic exercise, describing it as a call to action. He urged the government to tap into the University’s research capacity to inform strategic investments, noting that “health research constitutes more than 50% of all research at Makerere University,” with institutions like the School of Public Health and the Infectious Diseases Institute playing a central role.
He referred to their national impact—from supporting over 20% of Uganda’s HIV patients to operating in more than 90 districts—and emphasised that Makerere brings in over one trillion shillings annually in research income. “When you fund Makerere University,” he said, “you should understand that we are not a net consumer—we are a net producer for the country.”
Taken together, the dialogue revealed a system in transition from expansion to performance, from spending to results. Uganda is no longer short of ideas, nor entirely short of resources. The real test is execution.
Whether the country can turn health spending into measurable outcomes will determine not just the future of its health system but the credibility of its economic ambitions.
-
Law3 days agoPre-Entry Examination for Admission to the Bachelor of Laws for 2026/2027 AY
-
Health3 days agoCourse Announcement: Certificate in Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (CWASH) – 2026
-
General7 days agoCall for Participants: 2026 Hainan International Youth Cultural Exchange Program
-
General1 week agoNew Classroom Block brings Relief to Bwera Primary School
-
Research1 week ago“Start with Ethics”: Makerere Webinar Rallies Researchers to Prioritize Ethical Approval from Day One