taz.de
UNCCD Riyadh Conference Ends Without Drought Treaty Agreement
The UNCCD's 16th conference in Riyadh, attended by almost 20,000 participants, including 3,500 from civil society, ended without an agreement on a supplementary treaty for managing transboundary droughts, despite significant funding pledges of \$12.5 billion and the recognition of needing \$355 billion annually to restore degraded land.
- What are the different approaches proposed to address desertification and drought, and what are their respective strengths and weaknesses?
- The conference highlighted the growing urgency of addressing desertification and drought, exacerbated by climate change. Two-fifths of global soil is already degraded, with an area the size of Egypt lost annually. While significant funding was pledged, the \$355 billion annual investment needed to restore degraded land by 2030 remains significantly unmet.
- What were the key outcomes of the UNCCD's 16th Conference in Riyadh, and what are the immediate implications for international drought management?
- The UNCCD's 16th Conference in Riyadh concluded without an agreement on a supplementary treaty to manage transboundary droughts. African nations favored a binding protocol, while developed nations preferred a non-binding framework agreement. Despite this lack of consensus, Saudi Arabia and Arab organizations pledged \$12.5 billion to combat desertification.
- What are the long-term implications of the funding gap for achieving the UNCCD's goals, and how might this affect future international collaborations on desertification and drought management?
- The failure to reach a binding agreement underscores the challenges of international cooperation on environmental issues. The significant financial commitments, while positive, fall far short of what's needed to achieve the UNCCD's goal of net-zero land degradation by 2030, indicating a substantial funding gap and potentially delaying progress in drought mitigation and land restoration. The next conference in 2026 will need to address this critical funding shortage.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the outcome of the conference negatively, emphasizing the lack of agreement on a supplementary treaty. While acknowledging progress made according to the UNCCD secretariat, the emphasis on the failure to reach consensus overshadows the positive aspects mentioned, such as the financial commitments made and the groundwork laid for a future global drought management regime. The headline (if there was one) likely would further reinforce this negative framing. The use of phrases like "without being able to agree" and the early placement of this information create a sense of failure and disappointment.
Language Bias
The article maintains a relatively neutral tone, avoiding overtly loaded language. However, words like "failure" and "lack of agreement" carry a negative connotation, framing the outcome more negatively. While these descriptions are factually accurate, a more balanced approach could use phrases like, "countries were unable to reach a consensus" or "negotiations concluded without a finalized agreement." The use of "Wasserkonkurse" (water bankruptcy) is a dramatic and emotionally loaded term that could be altered to something like "severe water scarcity" for greater neutrality.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the failure to reach an agreement on a supplementary treaty, but provides limited detail on the specific proposals and counter-proposals made by different nations. The reasons behind the disagreements and the specific points of contention are not fully explored. While the article mentions that African countries hoped for a binding protocol, it doesn't delve into the positions of other nations or blocs. The article also lacks information on the financial contributions promised by different countries besides Saudi Arabia and OPEC. This omission might limit the reader's understanding of the diverse viewpoints and complexities involved in the negotiations. The article mentions the cost to restore degraded land but does not discuss the potential sources of this funding beyond mentioning the existing funding levels.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by focusing primarily on the failure to agree on a legally binding protocol versus a non-binding framework agreement. It simplifies the complexity of the negotiations by implying that these are the only two viable options and overlooks the potential for other compromise solutions or alternative approaches. This framing overlooks the possibility of a multifaceted agreement with various elements of both binding and non-binding commitments.
Gender Bias
The article uses gender-neutral language (e.g., "Teilnehmer:innen") which is positive. However, a deeper analysis of the named sources and their gender is needed to determine any potential imbalances in gender representation in the expert opinions presented. Without this additional information, it's difficult to conclusively assess gender bias.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the UNCCD conference focused on combating desertification and land degradation. While a legally binding agreement wasn't reached, significant progress was made in laying the groundwork for future global drought management. The conference also emphasized the economic benefits of investing in land restoration, aligning with efforts to improve land health and productivity. The pledge of $12.5 billion towards drought management further demonstrates a positive commitment to SDG 15.