What happened
Talks on a global drought framework at the 17th Conference of Parties to the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD COP17), held in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, have deadlocked after more than a week of intensive negotiation. A small coalition of countries led by the United States has declared it will not accept any international text on drought—whether legally binding or not. The central dispute mirrors impasses at COP16 in Riyadh (December 2024): whether the world's response to worsening drought should be legally binding.
The disagreement hinges on a deeper question: should drought be treated as a local, bilateral or regional issue (as the US argues) or as a cross-border challenge requiring multilateral coordination (as the Africa Group contends)?
Three text options are currently under discussion. The first, carried forward from COP16, proposes a new international instrument and an intergovernmental open-ended working group; the second focuses on national action and encourages countries without drought plans to adopt them; the third aims to strengthen implementation of existing provisions and identify gaps. Chile has offered a bridge proposal: a voluntary, case-study-focused Pilot Implementation Mechanism that would strengthen use of existing tools and identify implementation shortcomings without creating new mechanisms or funding requirements. The US has left the door cautiously open; the Africa Group remains unconvinced, arguing the work replicates past UNCCD reports and risks moving negotiations backward.
Why it matters
A binding global drought framework would commit countries to a coordinated international approach to drought for the first time. It could create formal reporting processes for preparedness and response and help unlock more predictable financing. However, the US position reflects reluctance to accept multilateral obligations on the issue.
The Africa Group and other delegations argue that fragmented, uncoordinated initiatives cannot close the implementation gap. They point out that despite billions of dollars in pledged finance, the lack of a governance framework leaves funding practically inaccessible. The continent, which faces accelerating drought intensity and geographic spread, requires what delegations call a multiplier effect through coordinated international action.
The dispute also reflects broader tensions within the UNCCD itself: whether the convention can function as a truly multilateral institution when a major economy rejects collective decision-making on a crisis affecting one in four people globally.
Background
At COP16 in December 2024, countries could not agree whether to pursue a binding drought protocol or a non-binding framework, and the decision was deferred to COP17. That summit did yield concrete results: the Riyadh Global Drought Partnership mobilised over USD 12 billion in commitments. At COP17, Brazil, the European Union and other delegations have signalled willingness to reach a substantive decision rather than defer again to COP18. One delegate cautioned against haste, noting that sometimes no agreement is better than a bad one.
What's next
Negotiations are ongoing at COP17. Andrea Meza Murillo, Deputy Executive Secretary of the UNCCD, has expressed confidence that an agreement will be reached, noting that the position of a small minority does not reflect the will of most parties, which recognise drought as a global challenge requiring global solutions. Many delegations are under domestic pressure to return home with a tangible result after experiencing severe impacts from this year's El Niño.
