Skip to content Accessibility statement
Research
HomeResearchA catalyst for changeLindsay Stringer

Breaking the deadlock on drought

Professor Lindsay Stringer MBE, Director of the York Environmental Sustainability Institute, tells us more about her new research on desertification, land degradation, and drought, featured in the journal Anthropocene Science.

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

It’s really timely to be talking about action on drought. Much of Europe, the Middle East, North America, South America and Africa are facing drought at the moment and with climate change, things look set to intensify even further.

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

Everyone agrees that drought is a major issue, but the disagreement is about how best to address it. There are lots of options, but the debate is really focused around their legal status.

One of the options on the table is a legally binding protocol and 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.

What examples of best practice in environmental policy change can policymakers be inspired by to break this deadlock?

We’re already seeing the three Rio Conventions - the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) - start to talk to each other more and to cooperate in terms of their actions.

Drought is a potential barrier for all the Conventions to reach their goals, and what we suggest in the paper builds on that collaborative momentum. Financing and resources are limited in the current political and economic climate, but rather than competing with one another, collaboration pays. 

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

At the 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 this paper, we argue that making drought a more central focus in the post-2030 strategy could be the most effective and efficient way to address drought. This means we're bringing another option to the table for countries to consider.

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.

Professor Lindsay Stringer MBE, in Break the Political Deadlock on Drought Through an Integrated Policy Approach, published by Anthropocene Science, 22 September 2025.

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?

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.

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

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 then 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 Conventions and development agendas (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.

An integrated approach is more cost effective and efficient when it comes to tackling drought.

Professor Lindsay Stringer MBE

What specific policy tools are essential to effectively manage and mitigate the rising global impact of drought?

There are lots of options to operationalise what is agreed at global level in specific country contexts. Early warning systems and drought preparedness are vital and can reduce the need for disaster management down the line. 

These tools play a very useful role in an integrated approach, but they 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, and technology could play an important role.

However, we need to be careful that policies don't just increase inequalities in terms of who wins and who loses out from drought, or create any new problems to address. 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.

How does drought potentially impact people here in the UK?

Most of us here in Yorkshire have been affected by a hosepipe ban over summer and autumn 2025, 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.

What's the key thing people should take away from this research?

An integrated approach is more cost effective and efficient when it comes to tackling drought. 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.

a bird's eye view of cracked and dry soil

Find out more

Research news straight to you

To find out about the University’s most impactive research as it happens, sign up for our newsletter. We’ll send news of our newest discoveries, insights and events straight to your email address.

• Follow this link to sign up