Community Conservancies in Uganda: Conservation in 2026

Quick answer: Community conservancies in Uganda are locally led conservation structures that help communities manage wildlife habitat, improve governance and develop livelihood opportunities alongside protected areas. In 2026, the clearest documented expansion is in the Kidepo–Turkana landscape, where Morungole and Naperotom Community Conservancies are working with the Northern Rangelands Trust (NRT), the Uganda Conservation Foundation (UCF), Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) and international partners to strengthen ecological connectivity and coexistence .

Uganda’s wider conservation picture includes genuine species recoveries, but these gains depend on long-term protection, functioning community institutions and reliable funding. The Uganda Wildlife Authority’s 2026 State of Wildlife Resources Report recorded Southern White Rhinoceros increasing from 43 to 61 and chimpanzee estimates rising from 5,072 to 6,075, while mountain gorilla numbers remained stable at 459 .

Last reviewed August 2026. Conservation data changes — see the cited sources for the latest figures.

What is a community conservancy?

A community conservancy is a locally governed area or organisation through which residents participate in decisions about land, natural resources, wildlife and conservation-related benefits. In practice, the model can include community wildlife associations, local conservation committees, ranger support, habitat monitoring, conflict-management measures and sustainable livelihood projects. The exact legal and institutional arrangements vary by country and landscape; Uganda’s current examples are developing through partnerships between community organisations, government authorities and conservation NGOs .

The model matters because many communities living beside parks and forests experience both the value and the cost of wildlife. Animals can support tourism and ecosystem health, but they can also damage crops or compete for water and other resources. RTI reports that communities near Ugandan protected areas have a direct stake in conservation because wildlife may emerge from parks and eat crops, while illegal logging and poaching can remove productive resources from forests .

Community conservancies should therefore not be described as a simple substitute for national parks. They are better understood as a landscape approach: extending conservation relationships beyond park boundaries, improving local decision-making and helping connect protected areas with surrounding habitats. This is particularly relevant in northern Uganda, where the Kidepo–Turkana landscape crosses the Uganda–Kenya border .

Why community conservation matters in Uganda

Uganda contains several nationally important wildlife and forest landscapes, including Bwindi Impenetrable Forest, Kidepo Valley National Park, Murchison Falls National Park, Queen Elizabeth National Park, Kibale National Park and Mgahinga Gorilla National Park. The country’s 2026 wildlife report emphasises that conservation includes plants, habitats, ecological services, tourism, climate resilience, water security and community livelihoods—not only individual animals .

This broader view is important for communities living around a Uganda wildlife safari destination. Habitat conversion, invasive species, agricultural expansion and climate-related change are placing pressure on threatened indigenous cycads and crop wild relatives, including coffee, finger millet, pearl millet, sorghum and eggplant varieties . Community conservation can help local institutions identify and protect important habitat, although it cannot succeed without secure land rights, accountable governance and technical support.

Uganda’s great-ape conservation profile also demonstrates why community relationships are essential. Mountain gorilla numbers were reported as stable at 459 in the 2026 national wildlife report, and chimpanzee estimates increased from 5,072 to 6,075 across major forest ecosystems . Around gorilla and chimpanzee habitats, conservation is linked to tourism, forest protection, agriculture, water access and local employment. These connections do not eliminate threats, but they make conservation more relevant to the people who live closest to the forests.

Key threats facing communities and wildlife

Poaching and illegal resource use

Poaching remains a conservation concern across Uganda’s protected-area system, and community conservancies are part of the response because local knowledge and local legitimacy can improve detection and prevention. The research supplied for this article does not provide a current nationwide poaching total, so it would be misleading to attach a single national figure to the problem. Instead, the documented response in the Kidepo landscape includes ranger infrastructure, coordinated operations, digital communications and EarthRanger-based monitoring .

Uganda’s rhino recovery illustrates both the potential and the fragility of active protection. Southern White Rhinoceros numbers increased from 43 to 61 under sustained breeding and protection management, according to UWA’s 2026 report . This result should not be confused with proof that poaching has been solved: the research describes a managed recovery programme, not the removal of wildlife-crime risks across Uganda.

Habitat loss and land conversion

UWA identifies land conversion, invasive species, agricultural expansion and climate-related changes as pressures on threatened plant resources and their habitats . At the community level, these pressures can create difficult trade-offs between conservation and food production. Local organisations need planning skills, finance, monitoring systems and rights to participate meaningfully in decisions about land and natural resources .

Human–wildlife conflict

Crop damage and competition over resources can undermine support for protected areas. UWA’s strategic plan identifies human–wildlife conflict management as a core community-conservation function and records earlier work on problem-animal sites, community wildlife committees, compensation-related assessments, electric fencing and other barriers . The plan reported 12,377 cases from within and outside protected areas in the period covered by that document, with 10,700 cases—86.5%—responded to . This is a historical planning figure rather than a 2026 national total, and it should not be presented as a measure of current conflict.

Climate and funding pressure

Climate-related changes can affect water, crops, fire regimes and wildlife movement, while conservation institutions may struggle to maintain staff, equipment and infrastructure. In the Kidepo Valley Conservation Area, Global Conservation reports that its support helped UCF secure up to USD 5 million from the European Nature 2000 funding mechanism and establish community conservancies on both sides of the national park with NRT guidance . Funding of this kind can strengthen systems, but projects still need transparent governance and durable local financing after grants end.

What is being done in the Kidepo–Turkana landscape?

Local organisations and conservancy development

Morungole and Naperotom Community Conservancies are identified by NRT as member conservancies in Uganda. During an EU-funded initiative supporting new and existing community conservancies, adjacent parks and forests, project partners met community leaders to discuss governance, leadership, ecological connectivity and sustainable livelihoods . The initiative covers the Kidepo–Turkana landscape in both Uganda and Kenya, making cross-border coordination central to its design.

RTI describes the KKAKKA Community Wildlife Association, near Kidepo Valley National Park, as becoming stronger and more transparent in managing its human and financial resources with project support. Through strategic planning, KKAKKA decided to develop into an umbrella organisation for community conservancies across six districts in northeastern Uganda . This is an institutional development milestone, not evidence that every conservancy in the region now has the same capacity.

RTI’s USAID Biodiversity for Resilience activity works across five protected-area landscapes in Uganda and supports community-based organisations to develop, own and lead local biodiversity work . RTI reports partnerships with more than 30 Ugandan NGOs, community-based organisations and companies, alongside engagement with UWA, national forestry authorities and local governments . Quarterly “pause-and-reflect” meetings are used to review needs and plan and monitor activities collaboratively .

Rangers, technology and infrastructure

Protection in a community-conservation landscape requires practical systems. NRT reports that the Joint Operations Command Centre uses EarthRanger software to monitor wildlife and coordinate responses, with Michael Keigwin, CEO of the Uganda Conservation Foundation, describing technology as central to modern conservation operations . UCF also reported support for a 12-person ranger post at Opotipot in Kidepo Valley National Park and, in July 2026, work on a digital radio communication system for the park .

These investments can improve communication and operational coordination, but technology is not a replacement for community trust, trained personnel, fair governance or effective law enforcement. A digital system is useful only when information leads to appropriate action and when communities are treated as partners rather than merely sources of intelligence.

Landscape-level and international support

Global Conservation reports that, during 2023–2024, it supported UCF in restoring protected areas and species management in the Kidepo Valley Conservation Area. It also reports funding for a country-wide digital strategy and EarthRanger deployment in five endangered national parks, including Kidepo Valley, Murchison Falls and Queen Elizabeth . The EU-funded NaturAfrica programme is supporting the Kidepo–Turkana project, according to UCF .

Maliasili, supported by the Trafigura Foundation, is working to strengthen local conservation organisations in Uganda and four other African countries. Its stated challenge is that community institutions may lack resources, skills and legal rights to manage land and natural resources effectively . Its wider programme figures cover 16 countries and should not be interpreted as Uganda-specific results .

Community conservancies, tourism and livelihoods

Tourism can contribute to conservation when money, employment and decision-making benefits reach communities transparently. Uganda’s wildlife authority describes wildlife as connected to tourism, climate resilience, water security and community livelihoods . In gorilla landscapes, community development initiatives are associated with education, healthcare, sustainable agriculture, alternative income and tourism-related work, although the research supplied here does not quantify the share of tourism revenue reaching individual households .

Travellers visiting Bwindi Impenetrable Forest or planning a wider wildlife safari should ask operators how they support local guides, accommodation providers, community projects and conservation organisations. A visit is not automatically conservation-positive: its benefits depend on local employment, responsible behaviour, fair business practices and the destination’s management systems.

SafariFind travellers can book conservation-supporting safaris through the marketplace, while checking each itinerary for clear information about community partnerships and the services purchased locally. Around Kidepo, visitors should also recognise that community conservancy work is still developing and that not every local initiative is a tourism product.

Results and setbacks: what the evidence shows

Area	Documented progress	What remains unresolved
Species recovery	Southern White Rhinos increased from 43 to 61; chimpanzee estimates increased from 5,072 to 6,075; mountain gorillas remained at 459 .	These are national report figures for species under active conservation management; they do not remove habitat, conflict or wildlife-crime risks .
Kidepo–Turkana	Morungole and Naperotom are participating in a cross-border community-conservancy initiative focused on governance, connectivity and livelihoods .	The landscape requires continuing coordination between communities, parks, governments and partners .
Local governance	KKAKKA has strengthened resource management and is planning an umbrella role across six northeastern districts .	RTI notes that many community-based organisations need stronger leadership and organisational capacity .
Protection systems	EarthRanger, a Joint Operations Command Centre, ranger infrastructure and digital radio support are being developed around Kidepo .	Equipment and grants must be matched by trained staff, accountable operations and sustainable financing.

The fairest conclusion is mixed but encouraging. Uganda has measurable recovery in several managed species and is building a more locally connected conservation model. At the same time, the available evidence does not demonstrate that community conservancies have solved human–wildlife conflict, illegal resource use, habitat conversion or long-term funding problems. Stronger local institutions are a necessary part of the solution, not a guarantee of success.

How travellers can help responsibly

• Choose locally connected operators: Ask whether guides, drivers, camps and community services are locally owned or employ people from nearby communities.
• Follow park and forest rules: Do not approach wildlife, leave marked routes, remove natural materials or encourage guides to break regulations.
• Respect community authority: Seek permission before photographing people, homes, ceremonies or conservation facilities.
• Support transparent projects: Prefer organisations and operators that explain what contributions fund and who manages them.
• Reduce pressure on habitats: Use water and energy carefully, avoid single-use plastics where practical and follow guidance on waste disposal.
• Report concerns safely: Raise suspected wildlife crime or unethical tourism practices through the relevant park authority or established conservation organisation rather than confronting people directly.

Community conservancies in Uganda are most credible when they combine local leadership with measurable conservation outcomes, fair benefits and respect for rights. For travellers, the responsible choice is not simply to seek a “community” label, but to ask how the partnership works in practice.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are community conservancies in Uganda?

They are locally led conservation structures that help communities participate in decisions about wildlife, habitat, natural resources and related livelihoods. Uganda’s documented examples are developing through partnerships involving community organisations, UWA, NGOs and local governments .

Where are Uganda’s community conservancies located?

The clearest documented examples in the research are Morungole and Naperotom in the Kidepo–Turkana landscape of northeastern Uganda, alongside the KKAKKA Community Wildlife Association near Kidepo Valley National Park .

How do community conservancies help wildlife?

They can strengthen local governance, support habitat management, improve coordination, contribute local knowledge and connect conservation with sustainable livelihoods. The Kidepo–Turkana initiative specifically focuses on governance, ecological connectivity and livelihoods .

Do community conservancies replace national parks?

No. They complement protected areas by extending conservation partnerships into surrounding landscapes. The Kidepo model links community conservancies with Kidepo Valley National Park and adjacent parks and forests .

What threats do Uganda’s community conservancies face?

The main documented pressures include habitat conversion, agricultural expansion, invasive species, climate-related change, human–wildlife conflict, illegal resource use and the need for stronger local organisational capacity .

How does tourism support conservation in Uganda?

Tourism can create local jobs, support businesses and generate funding connected with wildlife and habitat protection, but the research supplied here does not quantify tourism revenue reaching individual households. Travellers should ask operators for transparent information about local benefits .

What technology is being used in Kidepo conservation?

The Uganda Conservation Foundation and partners are supporting EarthRanger-based monitoring, a Joint Operations Command Centre and digital radio communications, alongside ranger infrastructure at Kidepo Valley National Park .

Are Uganda’s wildlife populations recovering?

Several populations show positive results under active management. UWA reported Southern White Rhinos increasing from 43 to 61, chimpanzee estimates increasing from 5,072 to 6,075 and mountain gorillas remaining stable at 459 .

How can travellers support community conservation in Uganda?

Use responsible operators, support locally employed guides and businesses, respect community permissions and park rules, and look for transparent explanations of conservation and community benefits.

Is community conservation in Uganda successful?

The evidence shows important progress but not a complete solution. Uganda has species recoveries and stronger local and cross-border conservation initiatives, while conflict, habitat pressure, organisational capacity and long-term financing remain challenges .