Impact conversation: why an integrated policy approach could break the deadlock on drought

Posted on Thursday 16 October 2025

So, what can be done to help make the UK’s development trajectory more drought proof? And how can drought be best addressed as a cross-cutting issue globally? What is the right roadmap towards long-term integrated governance and action?

University of York researcher Professor Lindsay Stringer recently published important new research in the journal Anthropocene Science exploring desertification, land degradation and drought, highlighting the importance of an integrated policy approach.

In this special Q&A Professor Stringer explains why an approach to tackling drought should be at the very forefront of geopolitical discussions as it has far-reaching implications around the world.

Q) Why is this research so important today? Is this drought research particularly timely? 

Professor Stringer: “It’s really timely to be talking about action on drought. As just a few examples, much of Europe, North America, South America and Africa are facing drought at the moment and with climate change, things look set to intensify even further."

Q) What are the main sticking points in the global political arena when it comes to action on drought?

Professor Stringer: “I think everyone agrees that drought is a major issue, but the disagreement is more around how best to address it. There are various options so the debate is really around their legal status. One option on the table is a legally binding protocol; another is a non-legally binding framework. They offer different levels of commitments and a different set of costs and benefits, so this is what the deadlock is really over.”

Q) In order for policymakers to break this deadlock on drought, should they look to other examples of best practice? Any other environmental policy change that you think should inspire them?

Professor Stringer: “We’re already seeing the Rio Conventions (the main environmental agreements on climate change (UNFCCC), biodiversity (CBD) and desertification (UNCCD)) start to talk to each other a bit more and to cooperate in terms of their actions. What we suggest in the paper builds on that collaborative momentum, recognising that given the current political and economic climate, financing and resources are limited, and that rather than competing with one another, collaboration pays.”

Q) What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of an integrated policy approach to desertification, land degradation, and drought compared to a separate drought protocol?

Professor Stringer: “At the last UNCCD COP in Saudi Arabia in December 2024, African countries were pushing for a protocol, arguing that it would raise the profile of drought within the global political community, hold governments accountable, unlock new finance and confirm political commitment to action. The US, EU and some Latin American countries instead wanted a framework, arguing that a protocol would take years to negotiate and involve significant costs, whereas a framework would cost less to establish and be directly operational, as well as more flexible in terms of recognising the local causes and impacts of droughts.

"Both options however, neglected to join the dots with other parts of the UNCCD and the fact that it is required to develop a new strategy for implementation from 2030 onwards. In the paper, we argue this new strategy could be the most effective and efficient way to address drought, so we bring another option to the table for countries to consider.”

Q) What does it mean for an integrated policy approach to be considered ‘internally coherent’? And what are the key elements required to achieve this coherence within the UNCCD framework?

Professor Stringer: “In the case of the UNCCD, its full legal title is the “United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in those countries experiencing serious drought and/or desertification particularly in Africa”. If it only addresses one of those elements in its title and its mandate, then it isn’t really being coherent with itself. The Convention text sets out what needs to be done, and that’s what all the UNCCD Parties have signed up to. One part of the text (Article 4) encourages Parties to “adopt an integrated approach for addressing the physical,  biological and socio-economic aspects of the processes of desertification and drought” so one could argue that desertification and drought need to be tackled together given the convention text already calls for an integrated approach."

Q) How can an integrated drought policy approach under the UNCCD effectively facilitate alignment with the goals and successors of the Paris Agreement on climate change and the Global Biodiversity Framework?

Professor Stringer: “On the policy side, each of the Rio Conventions has their own mandate, so an integrated drought policy would need to identify the areas of common ground and develop a shared timeline to deliver on those goals and targets that can benefit the different agreements. There should be joint actions as part of the policy, that also map onto targets and goals in the other agreements. Many of the existing agreements that are cross-cut by drought (including the Global Biodiversity Framework and Sustainable Development Goals) end in 2030, so it’s important that coherence also carries through to what comes next”.

Q) And what specific policy tools or instruments are essential for an integrated policy approach to effectively manage and mitigate the rising global impact of drought?

Professor Stringer: “There are lots of options here to operationalise what is agreed at global level in specific country contexts. Early warning systems and drought preparedness are vital and can avoid the need for disaster management down the line and can play a useful role in an integrated approach.

"However, these need to be supported with financing and resources, knowledge sharing, awareness raising and capacity building. Integrated water resource management approaches are also important as these operate across sectors. Technology could play an important role. However, we need to be careful that it doesn’t just increase inequalities in terms of who wins and who loses out from drought, or create any new problems that then need addressing. In many drylands, local and Indigenous people have been managing drought for centuries, so there’s a lot to learn from those with experience as well."

Q) How does drought potentially impact people here in the UK, specifically?

Professor Stringer: “Absolutely! I think most of us here in Yorkshire are currently under a hosepipe ban and climate change means that we are going to see increasing weather extremes, including droughts. The animals and plants in our rivers and canals need enough water to survive too, so it’s not just a case of the human demand for water for domestic and industrial use and use in agriculture. There’s a lot of investment at the moment in building and infrastructure in the region, including in newer industries such as AI and data storage. These have a huge water and energy demand so there’s work to be done to make sure that the UK’s overall development trajectory is drought proof. Water needs to be a consideration in all sectors of government decision making.”

Q) What do people need to take away from this research?

Professor Stringer: “An integrated approach is more cost effective and efficient-  it can reduce the risks of decisions taken in one sector or under one agreement undermining the efforts of other sectors or agreements. It also better reflects the systems type approach that water follows in nature.”