Scientists have reported that climate change this year is worsening dry conditions in Europe because intense heat leads to the evaporation of water reserves. This analysis was published on Thursday after low water levels disrupted shipping, agriculture, and industry in countries such as Romania and Greece.
Many European countries are facing drought this summer. France fears that its corn harvest could be the smallest in the last 50 years. In Romania, restrictions were imposed on farmers' access to water for irrigation, and the Netherlands announced a water shortage last week. Furthermore, seven Greek islands declared a state of emergency due to drought to conserve water resources.
According to an analysis by the World Weather Attribution group of scientists, climate change was not the primary cause of the lack of precipitation in April-June this year. Instead, climate change contributed to the occurrence of extreme heat, which accelerates the evaporation of moisture from the soil.
WWA noted that from January to June, conditions conducive to evaporation were 80 times more likely in Western Europe and 40 times more likely in Eastern Europe compared to the pre-industrial period before large-scale human fossil fuel burning.
Sara Kyu, a climatologist from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, stated: 'Extreme heat is becoming the main factor causing drought on our continent.' She added that there is faster evaporation of water reserves from soils and rivers than would occur in a world without climate change, turning manageable dry periods into severe droughts.
Scientists concluded that climate change is transforming the nature of drought occurrences in Europe: the role of insufficient precipitation is decreasing, while warmer air, which hinders the retention of rain in the ground, plays a more significant role. The WWA analysis showed that due to climate change, agricultural droughts in Western Europe have become five times more likely, and in Eastern Europe, eleven times more likely.
The Ministry of Agriculture has made an important policy decision aimed at stimulating organic farming and improving soil conditions in the country. A draft notification was issued banning the use of the most toxic herbicide, 'Paraquat dichloride,' across the entire country, which increased pressure on the agrochemical lobby.
Following this step, the focus of the agricultural sector and environmentalists has shifted to a potential ban on another major herbicide—'Glyphosate.' Simultaneously, there is a growing demand for greater policy transparency and the elimination of the influence of chemical corporations within government institutions and research centers.
After long waits, public protests, and the death of thousands of people, the Ministry's draft decree for 2026 effectively allowed a complete ban on the production, import, sale, and use of Paraquat. Agriculture Minister Shivaj Singh Chauhan sent a strong signal in an informal conversation with farmers: 'There is no excuse for putting any chemicals into the fields that are dangerous to human life and the environment. The health of the people comes first.'
His statement emphasized that the government will not back down from any pressure to implement the vision of 'chemically pure' agriculture put forward by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Similar to Paraquat, the necessity of banning Glyphosate is currently being actively discussed. The main concerns relate to the fact that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) classified Glyphosate as a substance that causes cancer in humans (Group 2A). Numerous lawsuits against this chemical are being filed worldwide.
In more than 30 countries around the world, including Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Vietnam, and Austria, Glyphosate is either completely banned or its use is strictly regulated. A natural question arises as to why such a chemical, recognized as harmful to health and the environment globally, continues to be sold in India.
The use of Glyphosate damages the country's reputation. In recent years, hundreds of batches of agricultural products exported from India to the European Union and other countries (such as basmati rice, tea, and spices) have been rejected due to the detection of Glyphosate residues. This has been a blow to both the international image and the agrarian economy of the country.
Agrochemical companies have largely neutralized the government's attempts to tighten control over Glyphosate. Previously, the government issued a directive limiting the uncontrolled use of this substance, establishing a rule that spraying must only be carried out by authorized pesticide operators (PCOs), not by the farmers themselves. The goal of this measure was to protect farmers and the population from direct contact with the poisonous substance.
However, dissatisfied agrochemical associations appealed to the High Court of Delhi. The companies argued that the necessary PCO infrastructure is absent in rural areas of India, making the proper procedure 'impractical' and leading to a sharp increase in costs for farmers. Thanks to strong lobbying and technical arguments, the High Court of Delhi stayed the notification. As a result, this important reformative step remained buried in legal disputes, and the illegal sale and spraying of this poison continued in the fields.
While the Prime Minister and the Agriculture Minister speak of the country's move towards chemically pure agriculture, the reality on the ground looks different. With every attempt by the government to introduce a ban on a deadly pesticide or herbicide, a powerful internal syndicate of the agrochemical lobby strives to weaken or postpone the decision.
According to sources, some agronomists are involved in this network. Prominent scientists from state agricultural universities and research institutes depend on funding from these companies. When the issue of banning any chemical arises, these scientists prepare 'sponsored research reports' claiming that 'this chemical is absolutely safe, and without it, the country's agricultural production will stop.'
These reports are used as a weapon to keep ban files suspended for years. Chemicals declared dangerous to humans in other countries are presented by Indian scientists as safe. They create technical complexities in political decisions, giving companies a delay. As soon as there is movement on a ban file, scientists inform company owners of every change. Using this confidential information, companies manage to sell off old stocks or launch a legal siege, achieving a 'stay' from the courts just before a final decision is made.
The biggest beneficiaries of this collusion are officials after retirement: high-ranking scientists and policy developers who retire from regulatory and research institutions are often hired by large agrochemical companies as consultants or board members under very favorable terms. Such examples are easily observed in the industry.
Actions taken against Paraquat serve as proof that even corporate lobbying and institutional obstacles cannot overcome the government's determination. According to sources in the Ministry of Agriculture, once the 30-day validity period of the Paraquat draft notification expires, control over Glyphosate will also be strengthened. It is clear that agrochemical companies will no longer be able to profit from the health of ordinary people.
During a video conference held between Moscow and Tashkent, work began on Uzbekistan's National Strategy for Rational Water Use and Environmental Protection until 2050. The event took place at the Sputnik Uzbekistan multimedia press center under the title 'Uzbekistan's Water Strategy until 2050: Science, Technology, and International Cooperation.'
Representatives from both countries participated in the discussion. Participants from Uzbekistan included Khurshid Rahmatullaev, Deputy Chairman of the Board of JSC 'Uzsuvtaminot'; Botirjon Abdullaev, Professor and Head of the Department of Ecology and Water Resource Management at the Tashkent Institute of Irrigation and Agricultural Mechanical Engineering of the National Research University; and Urinboy Mamurov, Chief Specialist of the National Committee on Ecology and Climate Change of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Moscow was represented by Vladimir Quint, Academician and Head of the Department of Economic and Financial Strategy at Lomonosov Moscow State University.
The main subject of discussion was the formation of Uzbekistan's National Strategy for Rational Water Use and Nature Protection until 2050. Vladimir Quint noted that the work on this document is being carried out with the participation of Russian specialists who have been cooperating with Uzbekistan for many years. Previously, a team from Moscow State University participated in creating the drinking water supply strategy, which became the basis for establishing JSC 'Uzsuvtaminot', and also developed the industrial water use strategy for the Navoi Mining and Metallurgical Combine. This accumulated experience is now being applied in the creation of the new strategic document.
Quint emphasized that the central idea of the new strategy remains unchanged: human needs must be prioritized in all decisions. Therefore, the document combines issues of environmental protection and rational water resource management. A concept has already been prepared, containing 9 strategic directions and 43 priorities based on Uzbekistan's competitive advantages.
The expert also highlighted staff training as a key element. Textbooks from Moscow State University, 'Economic and Financial Strategy,' and the two-volume edition 'Concept of Strategizing' have been translated and published in Uzbek, allowing for the start of training specialists in strategizing at universities in Uzbekistan. The academic believes that a culture of rational water use should be formed from early childhood, and to achieve this, it is important to involve not only schools and universities but also local mahallas. Quint added that when children understand the need to save water, they begin to control its use at home, gradually integrating this habit into the culture of the entire family.
There is also consideration of an initiative to create an ecological and economic council in Uzbekistan, which will regularly assess the implementation of the water strategy and propose necessary adjustments. The practical implementation of the strategy is already accompanied by the introduction of new technologies. Khurshid Rahmatullaev, Deputy Chairman of the Board of JSC 'Uzsuvtaminot', reported that specialists are studying world experience, including Russian practices, when selecting technical solutions. According to Rahmatullaev, gallery water purification units are one of the most promising approaches for Uzbekistan's conditions, as they naturally purify water, require fewer chemical reagents, and are cheaper to build and operate.
In parallel, Uzbekistan continues to modernize its drinking water quality control laboratories. Currently, 85 such laboratories operate in the country, and it is planned to make testing results publicly available online. Thanks to this initiative, residents will be able to check the origin of local water and compliance with established quality standards on the internet, which, according to Rahmatullaev, will increase the transparency of the water supply system and public trust.
A delegation from Uzbekistan participated in the annual meeting of the Coordination Group on Nuclear Heritage Sites with Uranium (CGULS), which was held in the city of Aktau. Representatives from Central Asian countries, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the European Union, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and other international organizations gathered at the event.
The main topics of discussion included the results of rehabilitating nuclear heritage sites with uranium, establishing a long-term management system after the completion of restoration work, ensuring site safety, and developing regional cooperation.
Representatives of the Waste Management Agency and Circular Economy Development shared information about Uzbekistan's efforts to restore nuclear heritage sites with uranium and establish a permanent management system after implementing restoration measures. Special attention was paid to the results of work at the 'Yangiyabad' and 'Chorkesar-2' sites. Participants were presented with measures aimed at maintaining the safe condition of the sites, conducting radiation and environmental monitoring, preserving engineering and protective structures, systematic data storage, and training specialized personnel.
It was noted that Uzbekistan is gradually transitioning from a temporary, project-based approach to a permanent state model for managing nuclear heritage sites with uranium. This model involves strengthening the coordinating role of a specialized agency, appointing a dedicated operator, and maintaining independent oversight functions by regulatory bodies.
Participants also learned from the experiences of Germany, the United States, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan in post-rehabilitation management, monitoring, technical maintenance of sites, institutional development, and long-term information storage. Furthermore, progress made within the joint project of the European Union and UNDP was reviewed. These efforts are aimed at supporting local communities, developing social infrastructure, increasing population potential, and stimulating entrepreneurial activity.
According to the organizers, the outcomes of this meeting will contribute to further strengthening the long-term safety of nuclear heritage sites with uranium, protecting the environment and public health, as well as developing regional interaction among Central Asian countries.
