IIT Bombay team develops AI-based tool to predict drought risk for four weeks

The UN Convention on Biodiversity COP17 concluded in Yerevan, Armenia, causing disappointment among many delegates as the urgency of the issue was not adequately reflected in the adopted decisions. Although the meeting was intended to be a moment to correct the course in combating the causes of species extinction, genetic diversity, and ecosystem loss, observers noted that the multilateral system still lacks the ability to solve problems, only to voice opinions about them.

Four years ago, governments agreed on ambitious goals for 2030 under the Global Biodiversity Framework. However, according to the Global Assessment presented earlier this year, none of these goals are moving in a fully positive direction. At COP17, governments adopted the 'Yerevan Pathway' to address this gap, but experts agreed that it largely relies on previously agreed text and does not provide clear practical guidelines.

Alfred DeGhemmes, Director of International Policy at Wildlife Conservation Society, stated that 'obstructionist policies of climate discussions' have emerged in biodiversity negotiations. Observers also reported that Russia repeatedly tried to weaken wording concerning indigenous peoples' rights, the open sea, and harmful subsidies, while Saudi Arabia and India resisted mentions of subsidy reform.

Negotiators excluded earlier formulations calling for the transformation of economic and financial systems and the reform of harmful practices. Instead, the text merely calls for 'enhanced action to address the root causes of biodiversity loss.' Developed countries and those 'able to do so' are 'strongly encouraged' to increase support for developing countries, but the document specifies no concrete amounts.

It is estimated that there is a deficit of $700 billion between what is needed to solve the biodiversity crisis and what has actually been raised. COP17 President Hambardzum Matevosyan noted at a press conference that while what was achieved is not sufficient, it exceeds expectations.

Yerevan was smaller and quieter than the previous COP16 summit in Cali, Colombia. About 9,300 people registered compared to over 23,000 in Cali, and protests were limited and held indoors. Nevertheless, the negotiations themselves were tense. In Cali, the meeting could not officially conclude after going into overtime; delegates started leaving, and a quorum was lost, requiring the meeting to resume in Rome several months later. In Yerevan, the process proceeded more smoothly, concluding early Saturday morning instead of the planned Friday evening, following a final plenary session that lasted almost 12 hours.

Countries spent two exhausting weeks of negotiations, facing sharp differences of opinion on how to close the gaps in biodiversity conservation efforts. Panama's Environment Minister Juan Carlos Navarro stated at a press conference that those who support forests cannot bear the burden, while high-emitting and consuming countries evade responsibility. Ireland's Minister for Nature, Christopher O'Sullivan, emphasized that some countries, still classified as developing, 'obviously must play their part' in nature protection financing.

Under the Global Biodiversity Framework, developed countries committed to allocating at least $20 billion annually from public funds by 2025, rising to $30 billion by 2030. The Global Assessment showed that this goal was likely not met. OECD data indicates that in 2024, funding reached approximately $19 billion, but averaged around $16 billion per year between 2023 and 2025.

The JUSCANZ coalition of developed countries proposed 'expanding the contribution base' to include developing economies such as China and India in the list of countries funding nature protection. Ultimately, states wishing to join the donor list were invited to express interest, while others could make voluntary contributions without being included in this list.

Debates over insufficient funding hide another problem: where existing funds are going. Governments spend about $1.8 trillion annually on subsidies that harm nature, such as those promoting deforestation. Goal 18 of the Global Biodiversity Framework calls for reducing harmful incentives by at least $500 billion annually by 2030. Progress in this area has been particularly limited. Earlier Global Assessment reports called for more decisive action, but the final text of the Yerevan Pathway only 'encourages' countries to 'accelerate' the implementation of this goal based on their 'national circumstances.'

The coalition, co-chaired by Colombia and Finland, known as Friends of Target 18, was also created to help countries find solutions. Greenpeace expert on biodiversity policy Anne Lambrechts noted that 'the prevalence of the topic [harmful subsidies] in negotiations is a positive sign,' adding that industries profiting from nature destruction should also participate.

A similar logic underlies the Cali Fund, established at COP16, which aims to make companies pay for genetic data, but after two years, it remains almost empty. According to the fund's terms, companies are asked to voluntarily contribute 1% of their profits or 0.1% of their revenue to raise $1 billion annually for nature conservation. Half of these funds are designated for indigenous peoples and local communities. However, by the end of COP in Yerevan, only about $10,500 was promised.

Countries were supposed to finalize details such as which specific companies—small, medium, or large—should contribute to the fund and how the funds would be distributed. However, decisions were postponed until the following year due to the inability of countries to reach an agreement. June Rubis, a scientist and member of the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Biodiversity, stated that 'indigenous peoples and local communities cannot wait while companies use nature's genetic information for free.'

Nevertheless, they achieved some progress in their specific area. Countries agreed on the functioning of a permanent body for indigenous peoples and local communities, established at COP16. This body can make recommendations at COP, but final decisions remain with governments. Inara Vati Sateré-Mave, deputy coordinator of COIAB, an indigenous organization in Brazil, stated at COP: 'Yes, we are present here, but a colonial state sits at the negotiating table. We do not have the conditions for this.'

Countries also adopted a document on biodiversity and climate change, which calls on governments to consider new voluntary guidelines for expanding nature-oriented solutions. However, following objections, references to last year's advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on climate change and the assessment of IPBES, the UN's scientific advisory body on biodiversity, were removed from the text. A representative of the European Union at the closing of the plenary session expressed 'deep concern' over attempts at 'undermining science' and the reduction of IPBES's contribution, calling it one of the 'best compasses.'

Negotiations on marine biodiversity were also contentious. Russia opposed mentions of the agreement on marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction, known as the High Seas Treaty, which entered into force in January and has been ratified by over 100 countries. The final Yerevan text on marine biodiversity merely noted the treaty's entry into force rather than welcoming it, although countries agreed to create an informal consultative group on the convention's work in the open sea. Brianna Fruan, a climate and ocean activist from Samoa, stated that this development is extremely disappointing: 'The world is losing time while political leaders argue over words and punctuation.'

The next opportunity to address these gaps will be at COP18 in Quito, Ecuador, in 2028, two years before the 2030 deadline. An official representative of the Ecuadorian Ministry of Environment told the plenary session that the country would work 'transparently and constructively.' For Astrid Schomaker, head of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, the current test is what governments will change upon returning home. She stated that 'we cannot protect nature while continuing to finance its destruction. Resources must flow to the countries and communities that need them. And biodiversity must become part of everyday economic decisions.'

The air in the capital has once again become toxic ahead of the Diwali festival. On Tuesday, the Air Quality Index (AQI) in Delhi was recorded at 350, which is the worst air quality in the city in the last 287 days. Previously, on January 20, the AQI was 378.

The situation deteriorated to the point where air was classified as being in the 'Severe' category at 10 out of 57 monitoring stations. Furthermore, 35 stations showed extremely poor air quality, and another 12 stations showed poor quality.

The highest pollution was recorded in Jahangirpuri, where the AQI reached 462, which falls under the Severe category. The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) defines the categories as follows: 0 to 50 — Good, 51 to 100 — Satisfactory, 101 to 200 — Moderate, 201 to 300 — Poor, 301 to 400 — Very Poor, and 401 to 500 — Severe.

Forecast for the coming days

According to the Delhi Air Quality Early Warning System, the air may remain in the Very Poor category from November 4 to 6. The forecast for the next six days also indicates that the pollution level will fluctuate between Very Poor and Severe.

After registering an AQI of 324 on Monday, Phase II of the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP-2) was implemented in Delhi. This season, for the first time, the air in Delhi reached a Very Poor level.

Sources of Pollution

Burning stubble and vehicle emissions contribute significantly to the air pollution in Delhi. According to the Decision Support System (DSS), the contribution of stubble burning was 15.3%, and transport emissions were 15.8%.

In addition, factories in Delhi and surrounding areas contributed 3%, domestic sources contributed 3.9%, and construction activities contributed 2.2%. Waste burning accounted for 1.4% of the pollution, power generation for 1.2%, and road dust for 1.2%. Other sources contributed 1%.

In the surrounding NCR areas, the contributions were: Ghaziabad — 8.8%, Gurugram — 4.1%, Sonipat — 2.6%, Rohtak — 2.5%, and Mewat — 2%.

Stubble Burning in Six States

On November 2, satellite data recorded 219 instances of stubble burning across six states. The highest number of cases (98) was noted in Punjab. Rajasthan recorded 67 cases, Madhya Pradesh recorded 48, Uttar Pradesh recorded 4, and Haryana recorded 2 cases. No stubble burning cases were registered in Delhi or Uttarakhand.

Between September 15 and November 2, a total of 3535 field burn incidents were recorded in these states. The largest numbers included 1612 in Punjab, 738 in Rajasthan, 614 in Madhya Pradesh, 349 in Uttar Pradesh, 176 in Uttarakhand, 44 in Haryana, and 2 in Delhi.

The stubble burning season runs from September 15 to November 30. In Delhi, the first stubble burning cases this season were registered on September 19, and the second case on October 24. PM2.5 proved to be the most effective pollutant in Delhi's air. These very fine particles are 2.5 micrometers or smaller. They can penetrate deep into the lungs along with inhaled air and enter the bloodstream, posing a serious threat to health.

Air pollution in Delhi has begun to affect cricket. The first ODI match of the series between India and Sri Lanka, scheduled for December 13, will no longer take place in the capital city. The Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA) has approached the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) requesting that this match be held outside of Delhi.

According to sources, DDCA sent an official letter to BCCI expressing its inability to host the match on the scheduled date. Several factors were cited as reasons, but the primary issue is the level of pollution in Delhi. Furthermore, renovation work is ongoing at the Arun Jaitley Stadium.

A DDCA source told Cricbuzz that while the renovations are important, the priority is holding the match elsewhere due to the AQI reading in Delhi. DDCA believes that the air quality in the capital in December could pose problems for the players. Last year, the average Air Quality Index (AQI) in Delhi in December was 351, and on Monday (November 2), the pollution level remained similar, so DDCA does not wish to take any risks.

The experience of the 2017 match also caused concern for DDCA. During a Test match between India and Sri Lanka in Delhi in December 2017, Sri Lankan players were observed vomiting due to pollution. DDCA representatives do not want a repeat of this situation and also asked BCCI to postpone this match to another date next year.

The first match of the three-match ODI series between India and Sri Lanka was supposed to take place in Delhi on December 13. The second match was scheduled for December 16 in Bangalore, and the third for December 19 in Ahmedabad. If the match is cancelled in Delhi, BCCI may be forced to change the schedule of the entire series.

Interestingly, BCCI had previously denied rumors about the postponement of the match from Delhi. The council's secretary, Devadjit Saikia, clearly stated on October 12 that reports of the India-Sri Lanka match being moved to Ahmedabad were untrue. He emphasized that BCCI had not made such a decision, and bilateral matches are conducted within established policy. Nevertheless, DDCA itself has now demanded that the match be held elsewhere, narrowing the options for BCCI beyond moving it from Delhi. An official announcement regarding a new venue has not yet been made.