Photo by Aris Sanjaya/CIFOR-ICRAF, www.cifor-icraf.org/event/cifor-icraf-at-unccd-cop16/
Oops, it’s happened again: after the CBD, an important negotiation process has now also failed in the UNCCD, known in Germany as the Desertification Convention – a multilateral agreement to combat the consequences of drought. In his welcome address to the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP 16) in Riyadh on 2 December, Secretary-General Ibrahim Thiaw had urged the delegations ‘to adopt a bold decision that can help turn the tide on the most pervasive and the most disruptive environmental disaster: drought’. Two weeks later, it was clear that the signatory states were unable to reach an agreement and a decision has been postponed until at least 2026, where the next COP meeting will take place in Mongolia.
At the centre of the negotiations was not so much the question of whether there should be a comprehensive agreement – this was shared in principle by all parties – but whether it should be voluntary or binding under international law. The African states in particular had long been in favour of a binding protocol. The alternative was a voluntary framework agreement modelled on the Kunming-Montreal Framework Convention on Biodiversity. Although the interim result was described as ‘significant progress in laying the groundwork for a future global drought regime’, no compromise between the two camps became apparent, meaning that a repeat of the current situation threatens in 2026. Furthermore, the other, less ambitious but certainly useful options, such as appeals for more funding from UNCCD-related institutions, were lost in the struggle for a comprehensive solution.
One could be reassured by the fact that the conference did make progress in other areas. For example, decisions were taken to better involve indigenous peoples and local communities, to strengthen and consolidate the UNCCD’s scientific monitoring body, and to mobilise the commitment of the private sector. The host Saudi Arabia was also able to mobilise considerable funds for the implementation of the UNCCD. However, the decisive factor for the interpretation of the results will be how the African states and other countries in solidarity with them position themselves on the outcome. And disappointment could still prevail, which could have a considerable impact on the UNCCD and international environmental policy as a whole. To understand this risk, it is important to look at the history and significance of the UNCCD for developing countries.
The UNCCD was founded in 1994 as the last of the three major environmental conventions after the Earth Summit in Rio. It was an issue close to the hearts of the African states. However, its core concerns – combating desertification and related phenomena such as vegetation loss, soil degradation and droughts – have long been seen as local problems with no major impact on the global community, while climate change and biodiversity loss have always been considered global concerns. This explains why the UNCCD was not very successful for a long time; it was unable to set an international agenda and there was no pull effect for its concerns and the financing of its implementation.
This changed with the adoption of the global sustainability agenda in 2015, where sub-goal was formulated under Goal 15 (life on land), which had a major impact on the UNCCD: Goal 15.3.1, combating global land degradation. The UNCCD was given responsibility for this point and not the FAO, which is ‘only’ responsible for agricultural land. From an environmental policy perspective, agriculture is considered to be too focused on use and too little on protection. At the same time, international awareness of the soil problem, the few decimetres of the earth’s solid surface that provide 95% of human food, has increased. Soils everywhere are highly vulnerable to mismanagement and climate change, yet healthy and carbon-rich soils are crucial for biodiversity and combating climate change.
This adoption of the soil issue by the UNCCD had several consequences: the extension of the mandate beyond arid regions and countries and the focus of the convention on soil. Drought, the second pillar, was neglected: to date, there is only one staff member fully dedicated to this issue.
The African countries saw and still see the expansion of the UNCCD’s mandate in a positive light, as this has given ‘their’ convention greater significance and, although they are less at the centre of attention, the increase in attention overall more than compensates for this. However, the lack of prioritisation for drought has become increasingly obvious. It is by far the most important natural disaster, both in economic terms and in terms of the number of deaths. However, the most drastic effects were mostly seen in the global South, while in the rich North, massive investment in water infrastructure, agricultural trade and social security systems, the low economic importance of the agricultural sector and generally high incomes tended to minimise the impact of drought. At the same time, developing countries saw that strong agreements were concluded on climate and biodiversity issues, which led to political pressure and the mobilisation of considerable financial resources at international and national level.
The global expansion, intensification and prolongation of droughts in recent years has increased awareness of the issue everywhere. While ‘only’ 1.4 billion or 20% of all people were directly affected by droughts in the period 2000-2019, it is estimated that this figure will rise to around 75% by 2050. Drought-related damage such as the death of trees and forests, fires, energy crises, shipping bottlenecks and health problems are also becoming increasingly frequent and drastic. This makes the (temporary?) failure of the drought negotiations all the more painful, especially for countries that are unable to cope with these challenges.
What can we do now? Negotiations will be resumed at COP 17. If the parties do not approach each other and overcome their ‘red lines’ with regard to the binding nature of the solution, they will fail again. The UNCCD could suffer serious damage to its credibility as the forum for the countries of the global South. If the drought issue were to migrate to the climate negotiations, it would be negotiated there primarily under the headings of ‘adaptation to climate change’ and ‘loss and damage’. This would not do justice to the complexity of the causes of drought, and the importance of the soil issue would probably also be weakened, both by the weakening of the UNCCD itself and within the framework of the UNFCCC, where adaptation in general and land management in particular have traditionally received little attention.
It is therefore worth preparing for this future and finding compromises and transitional solutions between ‘binding’ and ‘non-binding’ and discussing these intensively with the central parties. And this should start as soon as possible so that the ‘failure narrative’ does not become entrenched.
