Reflections on COP16 on desertification in Riyadh

Q: Why are you at the COP in Riyadh? What are your impressions?

I’m here at COP on desertification (UNCCD) in Riyadh because the topics of desertification, land degradation, and drought are closely related to food systems and agriculture - areas central to Netherlands Food Partnership’s (NFP) mission: healthy, sustainable and equitable food systems worldwide. More specifically: I joined a number of panels and had lots of conversations with partners or potential partners. My impression is that the discussions here are less polarised than what you typically see at the more generally known climate COP (UNCCC). There’s a different dynamic because the issues of land degradation and desertification are more local by their nature. The issues are more influenced by local circumstances and less caused by global effects. This leads to more discussion on effects of behaviour by consumers, farmers, companies and governments. 

-----

Q: Why is it important for the Netherlands Food Partnership to join the work contributing to soil health and preventing desertification?

It’s important because these issues directly impact food security, agricultural sustainability and the health of ecosystems and people. Land degradation is both a cause and a result of human and organisational behavior, which means it’s deeply embedded in the systems we aim to influence. For NFP, addressing these challenges is essential if we want to make progress on our broader goals around sustainable food systems. Additionally, engaging with this network provides opportunities to connect stakeholders and advance our work in multiple areas. A great example is the topic of dealing with salinity in food systems. This is hinging largely on mechanisms of soil health and desertification.

Q: What attention is there for food systems, and what opportunities do you see to connect this with desertification and land degradation?

There’s a lot more attention on food systems than I initially expected, which is a positive development. Especially regenerative agriculture is a topic which is high on the agenda; it is advocated for by all parts of the diamond. What is needed now is to take this a step further. We need to ‘translate’ this concept starting from the goals we want to achieve. These could be for example: improving soil organic matter to sequester carbon or improve drought resilience of farmer’s businesses by improving the water holding capacity of the soil. Many discussions have revolved around human and organisational behaviors - understanding how these contribute to land degradation and what changes are necessary to mitigate it.

One major opportunity is to identify incentives for sustainable practices. Discussions in Riyadh are about how to influence behaviors at all levels - farmers, businesses, and governments - and translate that into effective policies. For instance, we need to think about what kind of support or incentives can encourage sustainable land management. Finance as a driver in food systems was never far away in the discussions: both as a cause for degradation as well as a solution that supports Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) - or even soil regeneration. With funding coming in from multiple sides: banks, investments funds, international financing institutes, impact investing and more, there are ample opportunities

At NFP, we’re looking at this from a food system lens and a network perspective. If we want to contribute meaningfully to soil health and food system resilience against drought, we must be part of the conversations following UNCCD and link with relevant stakeholders.

-----

Q: You mentioned changes in behavior and less polarisation. Can you elaborate?

Yes, one of the most striking aspects of this COP is the emphasis on behavior - both as a cause and a solution to land degradation. The discussions feel less polarised because the issues are so localised. Land, unlike emissions, cannot be relocated or traded. This shifts the conversation away from the focus on who should pay for all these developments, which has been a dominant part of climate negotiations.

This creates a more constructive environment where sensitive topics can be addressed more openly. There’s a collective effort to determine what needs to change - both in terms of behaviors and systems - and how to achieve that. The focus is on practical measures, like policy instruments and incentives, rather than abstract commitments.

For NFP, this is an important takeaway. Addressing soil health and resilience requires behavioral changes not just at the individual level but also in how organisations and governments approach land use and agriculture. Being part of these less polarised and more substantive discussions opens up opportunities for working in partnership.