The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) has always accorded civil society organisations a unique role, far broader than that granted in its sister conventions on climate change or biodiversity. Yet, at COP16 and CRIC23, negotiations had to be suspended on several occasions to resolve an issue that might have seemed settled: the right of CSOs to be present in the discussion room. During the round table on the role of civil society in the UNCCD, held on 27 March during the Désertif’actions summit in Djerba, the speakers highlighted this growing vulnerability. But they also highlighted the victories achieved – such as that on land tenure security – and offered suggestions for moving forward: devising a strategy for influence at an early stage, collectively setting clear objectives, securing more accreditation to participate in the debates, working more closely with the agricultural sector… The field is wide open.
Because land is a shared resource, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) has, from the outset, given civil society organisations (CSOs) a special role. They are represented by a panel comprising five members, each from a major region of the world. This panel ensures continuity between sessions: it communicates decisions to regional organisations, gathers their feedback from the field, consolidates it and passes it on to the negotiators. “We applaud the UNCCD for this!” said Ellen Otaru Okedion, the panel’s representative for Africa, during a roundtable discussion on the role of civil society in the COP, held on 27 March at the Désertif’actions summit.
Civil society participation is ‘not quite a foregone conclusion’
“Unfortunately, the involvement of civil society organisations is not a given; we still have to fight for that right,” emphasised Philippine Dutailly, France’s negotiator for this convention. For the expert, these tensions reflect the “brutalisation of international relations”, marked by the proliferation of conflicts, the resurgence of national interests, but also the questioning of the role of science in multilateral negotiations. As they could not be included on the agenda, two issues that are nonetheless fundamental to the future of the convention could not be discussed at CRIC23: the intergovernmental working group on the future strategic framework of the convention post-2030, established in Riyadh specifically to plan for the future, and the role of science in the convention’s decision-making process, namely that of the SPI (Science-Policy Interface).
This body, made up of independent scientists, has a mandate to “translate science into language that is understandable and actionable for decision-makers”, explained Manon Albagnac, a project officer at CARI and a member of the body. It is a sort of “IPCC for desertification, without the IPCC’s aura”, she added. Yet whilst its workload is increasing, this body is seeing its resources stagnate. It nevertheless provides the scientific basis essential to prevent the convention from becoming a space “where everyone looks after their own interests”, as Manon Albagnac described it. Against this tense backdrop, Juliane Wiesenhüter, advisor to the German focal point and negotiator for the Western group, warned: “Don’t be frustrated if we take small steps. As long as we are in dialogue, we are talking, and that is important.”
A risk of fragmented discourse as the number of forums increases
Another risk stems from the gradual expansion of the issues covered by the Convention. It now addresses sandstorms, migration, gender, pastoralism, indigenous peoples and local communities. The establishment of new working groups or thematic caucuses creates a risk that the voices of civil society may become fragmented. “The value and strength of the CSO message lies in the fact that a diverse range of people from completely different cultures, languages and geographical contexts come together to say one and the same thing with a strong and powerful voice,” Philippine Dutailly pointed out.
But the difficulties must not overshadow the successes. As the speakers pointed out, it is thanks to the work of civil society that the convention has incorporated land rights into its agenda. The progress made by agroecology in the texts – with more than a dozen references in COP decisions secured in partnership with pioneering countries such as Senegal, Burkina Faso, Guinea and Tanzania, which have adopted national strategies – is also the result of its work, based on dialogue. “We are not coming to this COP with a confrontational mindset. We are here to co-create solutions with decision-makers,” summarised Manon Albangnac.
A strategic position to be prepared in advance of the discussions
How could civil society exert greater influence? Firstly, by seeking accreditation with the UNCCD. “If you are not accredited, you are not at the negotiating table,” Ellen Otaru Okedion pointed out. In the speakers’ view, organisations would also be well advised to carefully consider their strategic positioning within the COP itself, choosing where to intervene based on the messages they wish to convey and their target audiences. This requires a great deal of preparatory work. “Decisions are prepared long before they reach the negotiating room,” Juliane Wiesenhüter pointed out. Working with national focal points, producing publications and contributing to the scientific debate appear to be crucial.
For the negotiator, as for Wangu Mwangi of Ambition Loop in Kenya, this also involves creating synergies between conventions. “We need to link agendas and seek to make progress together on shared issues,” insisted Wangu Mwangi, who is both a farmer and a COP participant. The issue of agriculture also came up again in the debate. Paradoxically, the sector has taken time to find its place within a convention that is, after all, centred on land and soil. Today, farmers’ and pastoralists’ organisations are under-represented among accredited CSOs. For Manon Albagnac, “we will need to mobilise them further” and find common ground that can help to further mobilise politicians and decision-makers.
