Governments have failed to agree on a global mechanism for tackling drought at a United Nations conference in the Saudi capital of Riyadh, despite warnings from scientists of an environmental crisis unfolding beneath our feet.
Talks at the COP16 conference of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) took place behind closed doors, but sources told Climate Home that, while Africa pushed hard for a legally binding drought protocol, the United States and others were opposed.
The host nation, Saudi Arabia, gavelled the summit to a close in the early hours of Saturday morning after the stalemate dragged the talks into overtime. Further debate was postponed to COP17 in 2026, which will take place in Mongolia.
“Parties need more time to agree on the best way forward as to how to address the critical issue of drought,” the UNCCD’s executive secretary Ibrahim Thiaw said at the closing session.
The delay jarred after a warning from scientists that three-quarters of the Earth’s land has become permanently drier over the past 30 years due to human activities and climate change. If the trend continues, it could lead to food shortages, increasing wildfires, large-scale forced migration and other devastation, the UNCCD report said.
But, at talks which attracted more attention than any of the previous bi-annual ‘land COPs’, governments did agree to establish official groupings for Indigenous peoples and local communities and to extend the UNCCD’s remit beyond drylands to cover pastoralism and the rangelands that make up half the Earth’s land surface.
Drought ‘sticking point’
The UNCCD is one of the three “Rio Conventions” born out of the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 to address environmental and development issues globally. The other two are the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
On the opening day of COP16, just a few kilometres away from Saudi Arabia’s vast desert, an intergovernmental working group on drought put seven policy options on the table. They ranged from a legally binding protocol to a non-binding “global framework”. The draft protocol mentioned “provisions on resource mobilisation and financial mechanisms.”
The African Group’s president Khalid Cheriki told Climate Home before the negotiations began that the finance mobilised to deal with drought is “not sufficient” and that the group, which negotiates on behalf of African countries at the talks, “has been advocating for a legally binding protocol for drought for many years”.
The COP16 UNCCD talks took place in Riyadh in December 2024 (Photo: Anastasia Rodopoulou/IISD ENB)
Governments opposed to this position – including the United States, EU and Argentina – said they supported alternative solutions within the scope of existing frameworks, according to the Earth Negotiations Bulletin, a reporting service on UN environment and development negotiations.
A US government spokesman said that “a new international agreement to address the issue of drought is not the best approach. Droughts have local causes and as such do not require collective action. A one-size-fits-all global policy is not the most effective response.”
Jes Weigelt, managing director of think-tank TMG Research, who tracked the talks, said many countries outside Africa “see the preparatory process to develop such a protocol as being too resource-intensive and argue for using these resources to fight the impact of droughts.”
He told Climate Home that drought was a “sticking point” at the last COP in Côte d’Ivoire and questioned why the two years since were not used more effectively to find a compromise. “We are losing precious time,” he said.
Resilience fund
Nonetheless the summit did see some progress on finance. On its first day, the Riyadh Global Drought Resilience Partnership was launched, which aims to support 80 of the poorest nations in dealing with drought.
It attracted pledges of over $12 billion. Of this, $10 billion was offered by a coalition of Gulf-based development finance institutions called the Arab Coordination Group, as well as $1 billion each from the Islamic Development Bank and the OPEC Fund for International Development and a further $150 million from the Saudi Arabian government.
Saudi Arabia’s deputy minister for the environment, water and agriculture Osama Faqeeha said in a statement the partnership “will serve as a global facilitator for drought resilience, promoting the shift from reactive relief response to proactive preparedness.”
But this $12.15 billion is less than 0.5% of the $2.6 trillion that the UNCCD estimates is needed by 2030 to finance action against drought and land degradation.
Indigenous win
While it failed to reach agreement on a headline drought mechanism, the COP16 conference did approve 39 decisions, including to establish a “Caucus of Indigenous Peoples” and a “Caucus of Local Communities”.
Estrella Penunia, secretary-general of the Asian Farmers’ Association for Sustainable Rural Development, told Climate Home that these two groups would ensure peoples’ voices from those groups “can be always heard and considered in the UNCCD processes”.
The world is getting smaller for pastoralists facing multiple threats
In addition, governments agreed to extend the UNCCD’s remit beyond drylands to cover grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, savanna and tundra. These types of terrain are collectively known as rangelands and include everything that is not forest, lake, sea, rocks and ice.
Praveena Sridhar, chief technical officer of Save Soil, said this change was “very significant” as rangelands cover 70% of agricultural land and half of the Earth’s land surface.
Pastoralism, the herding of livestock, was also added to the UNCCD’s remit. Weigelt of TMG Research said pastoralists are “marginalised” and this decision is an “important step” to change the perception that they are “backward or incompatible with dominant ideas of development”.
While not attracting the numbers of the climate and nature COPs, the Riyadh talks included more participants and gained a higher profile than previous land COPs. The UNCCD’s chief scientist Barron Orr said land degradation had got less attention because of a lack of “iconic” images, while urbanisation means people interact with the soil less and many see it as “someone else’s problem”.
But land degradation affects everyone, and we can all help to stop it, Orr argued.“The clothes you’re wearing and I’m wearing, the coffee we drank this morning, probably contributed to land degradation somewhere else in the world,” he added.
Xiaoying You’s travel, accommodation and food was funded by Saudi Arabia’s COP16 Presidency
The post As earth dries out, countries fail to reach drought agreement appeared first on Climate Home News.
As Earth dries out, countries fail to reach drought agreement
The case shows that climate change is a fundamental human rights violation—and the victory of Bonaire, a Dutch territory, could open the door for similar lawsuits globally.
From our collaborating partner Living on Earth, public radio’s environmental news magazine, an interview by Paloma Beltran with Greenpeace Netherlands campaigner Eefje de Kroon.
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
Climate Change
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
SYDNEY, Saturday 28 February 2026 — Greenpeace International and Greenpeace organisations in the US announce they will seek a new trial and, if necessary, appeal the decision with the North Dakota Supreme Court following a North Dakota District Court judgment today awarding Energy Transfer (ET) USD $345 million.
ET’s SLAPP suit remains a blatant attempt to silence free speech, erase Indigenous leadership of the Standing Rock movement, and punish solidarity with peaceful resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace International will also continue to seek damages for ET’s bullying lawsuits under EU anti-SLAPP legislation in the Netherlands.
Mads Christensen, Greenpeace International Executive Director said: “Energy Transfer’s attempts to silence us are failing. Greenpeace International will continue to resist intimidation tactics. We will not be silenced. We will only get louder, joining our voices to those of our allies all around the world against the corporate polluters and billionaire oligarchs who prioritise profits over people and the planet.
“With hard-won freedoms under threat and the climate crisis accelerating, the stakes of this legal fight couldn’t be higher. Through appeals in the US and Greenpeace International’s groundbreaking anti-SLAPP case in the Netherlands, we are exploring every option to hold Energy Transfer accountable for multiple abusive lawsuits and show all power-hungry bullies that their attacks will only result in a stronger people-powered movement.”
The Court’s final judgment today rejects some of the jury verdict delivered in March 2025, but still awards hundreds of millions of dollars to ET without a sound basis in law. The Greenpeace defendants will continue to press their arguments that the US Constitution does not allow liability here, that ET did not present evidence to support its claims, that the Court admitted inflammatory and irrelevant evidence at trial and excluded other evidence supporting the defense, and that the jury pool in Mandan could not be impartial.[1][2]
ET’s back-to-back lawsuits against Greenpeace International and the US organisations Greenpeace USA (Greenpeace Inc.) and Greenpeace Fund are clear-cut examples of SLAPPs — lawsuits attempting to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, push them towards bankruptcy and ultimately silence dissent.[3] Greenpeace International, which is based in the Netherlands, is pursuing justice in Europe, with a suit against ET under Dutch law and the European Union’s new anti-SLAPP directive, a landmark test of the new legislation which could help set a powerful precedent against corporate bullying.[4]
Kate Smolski, Program Director at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “This is part of a worrying trend globally: fossil fuel corporations are increasingly using litigation to attack and silence ordinary people and groups using the law to challenge their polluting operations — and we’re not immune to these tactics here in Australia.
“Rulings like this have a chilling effect on democracy and public interest litigation — we must unite against these silencing tactics as bad for Australians and bad for our democracy. Our movement is stronger than any corporate bully, and grows even stronger when under attack.”
Energy Transfer’s SLAPPs are part of a wave of abusive lawsuits filed by Big Oil companies like Shell, Total, and ENI against Greenpeace entities in recent years.[3] A couple of these cases have been successfully stopped in their tracks. This includes Greenpeace France successfully defeating TotalEnergies’ SLAPP on 28 March 2024, and Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International forcing Shell to back down from its SLAPP on 10 December 2024.
-ENDS-
Images available in Greenpeace Media Library
Notes:
[1] The judgment entered by North Dakota District Court Judge Gion follows a jury verdict finding Greenpeace entities liable for more than US$660 million on March 19, 2025. Judge Gion subsequently threw out several items from the jury’s verdict, reducing the total damages to approximately US$345 million.
[2] Public statements from the independent Trial Monitoring Committee
[3] Energy Transfer’s first lawsuit was filed in federal court in 2017 under the RICO Act – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a US federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity. The case was dismissed in 2019, with the judge stating the evidence fell “far short” of what was needed to establish a RICO enterprise. The federal court did not decide on Energy Transfer’s claims based on state law, so Energy Transfer promptly filed a new case in a North Dakota state court with these and other state law claims.
[4] Greenpeace International sent a Notice of Liability to Energy Transfer on 23 July 2024, informing the pipeline giant of Greenpeace International’s intention to bring an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against the company in a Dutch Court. After Energy Transfer declined to accept liability on multiple occasions (September 2024, December 2024), Greenpeace International initiated the first test of the European Union’s anti-SLAPP Directive on 11 February 2025 by filing a lawsuit in Dutch court against Energy Transfer. The case was officially registered in the docket of the Court of Amsterdam on 2 July, 2025. Greenpeace International seeks to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of Energy Transfers’s back-to-back, abusive lawsuits demanding hundreds of millions of dollars from Greenpeace International and the Greenpeace organisations in the US. The next hearing in the Court of Amsterdam is scheduled for 16 April, 2026.
Media contact:
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
The Trump administration’s relentless rollback of public health and environmental protections has allowed widespread toxic exposures to flourish, warn experts who helped implement safeguards now under assault.
In a new report that outlines a dozen high-risk pollutants given new life thanks to weakened, delayed or rescinded regulations, the Environmental Protection Network, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group of hundreds of former Environmental Protection Agency staff, warns that the EPA under President Donald Trump has abandoned the agency’s core mission of protecting people and the environment from preventable toxic exposures.
Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump
The Positive Effects We’ve Had on Others Are Profound, Whether We Know It or Not
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits