Why the world still lacks a common system for preventing drought disasters

Countries at the UN desertification talks again left the proposed global drought framework unresolved, including options for a binding protocol, a voluntary instrument or another mechanism.[4] The framework was intended to shift drought policy from emergency response toward national planning, coordinated implementation and resilience finance.[4] Governments did agree to make drought a permanent standalone agenda item beginning at COP18 in Sharm El-Sheikh.[4] Why it matters: Up to 40 per cent of the world’s land is degraded, and drought is emerging in places not considered highly vulnerable a decade ago.[5] Yet the UNCCD estimates an annual gap of $278 billion between needed investment in land restoration and drought resilience and the amount currently invested.[4] Key insights: A small group of countries led by the United States opposed both binding and voluntary instruments, citing concerns that included sovereignty, budgets and bureaucracy.[4] | A binding protocol could require governments to incorporate drought plans into national law and include financing obligations for developed countries.[4] | One in four people was affected by drought during 2022-23 as droughts increased in frequency, duration and severity.[4] | Giving drought its own recurring agenda item guarantees dedicated negotiating time instead of grouping it with migration, desertification, and sand and dust storms.[4] Cheatsheet facts: What changed: The framework remained blocked, but drought gained a permanent standalone place on the agenda at COP18 and subsequent ordinary sessions.[4] | Why now: Drought risks are intensifying as climate change and degraded land reduce landscapes’ ability to retain water and sustain food and livelihoods.[5] | Watch next: At COP18 in Sharm El-Sheikh, watch whether governments resolve the bracketed choices between binding, voluntary or alternative coordination mechanisms.[4]