The UNCCD COP17 held in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, from 17th to 28th August 2026, marked a significant milestone in international drought governance. While the Conference did not reach a consensus on a substantive new international drought instrument, the outcomes established a clear and sustained path for future engagement.

Key Outcomes and “Common Ground” on Drought:

  • Sustained Agenda Item: Parties agreed that drought will be a stand-alone agenda item at COP18 and every ordinary session of the Conference of the Parties thereafter, ensuring the issue remains a permanent fixture within the UNCCD process.
  • Continued Negotiations: The final decision (ICCD/COP(17)/L.15) mandates continued negotiations at COP18, focusing on adopting a decision on proactive drought risk management at all levels.
  • Proactive Shift: The “common ground” is the move from reactive crisis management toward a proactive framework that prioritizes:
    • Early Warning & Anticipatory Action: Linking drought monitoring and prediction directly to decision support and early action.
    • Investment-Oriented Engagement: Shifting from project-by-project funding to structured investment pipelines, utilizing mechanisms like the newly launched Drought Resilience Investment Facility (DRIF) and other global partnerships.
    • Integrated Landscape Approach: Aligning drought resilience with land restoration, rangeland management, water security, and sustainable pastoral livelihoods.

What can African Nations do to achieve a protocol?

The UNCCD COP17 in Ulaanbaatar deferred the decision on a binding drought protocol to COP18. While the negotiations were challenging, African nations secured a major strategic win: drought has been established as a stand-alone agenda item at COP18 and every ordinary session of the Conference of the Parties thereafter.

To move from the current deadlock toward an eventual protocol, African nations can adopt a multi-pronged diplomatic and technical strategy based on the outcomes of COP17 and the existing national implementation frameworks:

1. Leverage the “Stand-Alone” Agenda Status

The institutionalization of drought as a permanent agenda item is a critical diplomatic lever.

  • Action: African nations should use every upcoming COP session to force substantive debate on the mechanisms of drought governance, rather than debating the existence of the problem. By keeping the agenda item open, you ensure that the pressure for a protocol remains on the table rather than being dismissed as a resolved issue.

2. Shift the Narrative from “Local Burden” to “Global Systemic Risk”

Opposition to the protocol (led by parties like the UK and Australia) often frames drought as a “domestic matter”.

  • Action: African nations need to further decouple drought from purely local management arguments by emphasizing the nexus between drought, land degradation, migration, and global security. You can use the data from the 2022–2026 droughts to prove that drought is a transboundary and global systemic risk that impacts international supply chains, food security, and regional stability, which cannot be managed solely through domestic policy.

3. Build a “Coalition of the Vulnerable”

The Africa Group was the primary driver for the protocol at COP17.

  • Action: To overcome the divide, expand the coalition beyond Africa. Actively seek alignment with Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs) who share similar vulnerabilities but may have different geopolitical levers. Positioning the protocol as a necessary safeguard for all vulnerable dryland ecosystems—not just an “African request”—broadens the political base required to shift the consensus.

4. Demonstrate Feasibility through “Best Practice” Models

A major argument against a binding protocol is the lack of a “one-size-fits-all” solution.

  • Action: Use national success stories—such as Kenya’s NDMA, the EDE framework, and proactive early warning/anticipatory action systems—as evidence that proactive management is technically feasible and cost-effective. By codifying these “best practices” into regional and national frameworks, African nations can demonstrate that they are already doing the work, making the leap to a binding international instrument feels like a logical next step rather than a risky new obligation.

5. Utilize Intersessional Pathways

Negotiations do not stop when the COP ends.

  • Action: Actively participate in the intersessional consultations mandated by the COP17 drought decision. Use this time to work with the UNCCD Secretariat and the Global Mechanism to shape the draft technical guidance. If the technical components of “proactive drought management” are well-defined during the intersessional period, the transition to a binding legal protocol at COP18 becomes a matter of codifying existing consensus rather than negotiating from scratch.

6. Frame Finance as an Investment, Not Aid

The protocol is often resisted due to fears of open-ended financial liabilities.

  • Action: Frame the protocol’s financial requirements around “investment pipelines” (like the Drought Resilience Investment Facility) rather than “compensation for damages”. Focusing on the ROI of restoration (which can be $7–$30 for every $1 invested) makes the protocol more palatable to skeptical developed nations who are currently wary of “support payments”.