The Aral Sea: A Tragic Lesson in Sustainable Development

Ash

Ash

TNPer
The attached essay is something I wrote after researching the Aral Sea, and the reasons for its demise.
 
The Aral Sea: A Tragic Lesson in
Sustainable Development
​

November 20, 2008​

In 1960, the Aral Sea was the fourth-largest freshwater lake in the world. Today, the Aral Sea is in danger of disappearing from the face of the planet. How could this happen in such a short amount of time?

The story of the Aral Sea is a lesson in sustainable development. Other bodies of water across the world, most notably the Salton Sea in California and Lake Chad in Africa, are moving in the same tragic direction. For the past half-century the Aral Sea has been shocked by profound ecological changes: desertification, the destruction of fish and the fishing industry, climatic changes, and contamination from pesticides, chemicals, and biological weapons. Yet there are signs of hope that the damage done by humans is not irreversible. In order to understand why the Aral Sea was desiccated by human development, it is necessary to provide background into the economic decisions made by Soviet economic planners in the year 1960.

At the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union sought to become self-sufficient in economic production. In order to move forward with the overarching goal of autarky, in 1960 "...planners in Moscow inaugurated the Aral Sea Project, the ambitious economic programme to convert vital wasteland into the cotton belt of the Soviet Union." Cotton production is very water-intensive, and therefore required the diversion of huge amounts of water from the two rivers that flow into the Aral Sea, the Amu Dar'ya and the Syr Dar'ya.

In order to divert the rivers, irrigation channels were dug and used to turn the arable land of Central Asia into a productive agricultural region. The project itself was a smashing economic success, increasing Soviet cotton production from 2.24 million metric tons in 1940 to 9.1 million metric tons in 1980. Unfortunately, Soviet economic planners turned a blind eye to the environmental consequences of such actions. The hastily constructed irrigation channels were not lined with concrete, leading to the seepage of water into the sand bed, and drainage of the cotton fields was so inefficient that only 10 percent of the water used actually went to the crop while the rest was allowed to seep into the soil or evaporate.

This had predictable consequences for the water levels in the Aral Sea, which began to decline rapidly. In order to combat this, Soviet planners came up with grand projects for diverting the waters and rivers of Siberia to the Aral Sea but they never made it out of the planning stages. The failure to recognize the long-term severity of the situation would have a tragic outcome.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s the water level continued to decrease, causing widespread disruptions in the once-booming Aral fishing industry. As the salinity of the water increased, freshwater fish began disappearing due to the "...loss of shallow spawning and breeding areas"; the Aral salmon has now become extinct as a result. Where once a thriving fishing industry brought in 40,000 metric tons of fish, by the mid-1980s the industry was all but wiped out.

The widespread repercussions did not end there. In addition to a devastated Aral fishing industry, the physical deterioration of the sea and surrounding areas also resulted. Declining sea levels have split the Aral Sea into northern and southern parts: the "Small" Aral Sea and "Large" Aral Sea, respectively. Furthermore, "[t]he climate also changed up to 100 kilometers beyond the original shoreline: today summers are hotter, winters are colder, humidity is lower (so rainfall is less), the growing season is shorter and drought is more common." These climate changes have produced obvious negative effects for local agriculture, thus undermining the original intent for diverting the rivers.

The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, and plans to re-fill the Aral Sea and reverse the worrying trends were quickly abandoned. Where once a single country surrounded the Aral Sea, the countries of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan now share an almost equal portion of shoreline. In addition the Aral Sea drainage basin now "...covers 1.8 million square kilometers within seven nations: Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Iran" and Kyrgyzstan. Each one of these countries has different economic priorities; many of them are poor, compounding the difficulties in making the costly investments needed to prevent water seepage. It is estimated that modernizing the entire irrigation system now in place could cost at least $16 billion, money that these states either do not have or are unwilling to spend. Indeed, economic conditions in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are such that they intend to continue growing cotton to sell on the world market despite the obvious ecological consequences.

To further compound the problems of the region, Soviet-era biological weapons testing on the island of Vozrozhdeniya introduced toxic substances to the environment; "anthrax, tularemia, brucellosis, plague, typhus, smallpox, and botulinum toxin were tried on horses, monkeys, sheep, donkeys and laboratory animals." Vozrozhdeniya was once a remote island in the Aral Sea; however in 2001 it was connected with a land bridge to the south due to receding waters. There is widespread fear from health experts that some of these organisms may have survived and will make their way into the general populace.

The dry lake bed also causes further ecological damage due to salt and pesticides blown by the wind. During the Soviet era, heavy use of pesticides for the cotton crop exacerbated the contamination of drinking water as the closed basin has no drainage outlet. Today cases of anemia are on the rise, as is kidney disease and infant mortality rates.

However, there is a proverbial diamond in the rough. In the early 1990s Kazakhstan constructed an earthen dam to prevent water from flowing into the Large Aral Sea, where it evaporated. Though the dam was destroyed in 1999, "[t]he effort demonstrated that water level could be raised and salinity lowered...prompting Kazakhstan and the World Bank to fund an $85-million solution." In 2005, Kazakhstan finished construction of a concrete dam that has raised the water level by two meters, significantly reduced salinity in the Small Aral Sea, and somewhat restored its ecology. In 2007 fishers caught 2,000 metric tons of fish, a far cry from the 40,000 in 1960 but a definite improvement over the 200 metric tons caught in 2004. The Small Aral Sea has thus been effectively saved by decisive action and is now on the road to becoming viable once more. While salinity in the Small Aral Sea has now stabilized at about 10 grams per liter (g/l), in the Large Aral Sea it has skyrocketed to more than 100 g/l, nearly three times that of most oceans, leading many experts to portray its future as bleak.

The Aral Sea is a classic case of unsustainable development. Ecological disasters have undercut economic development, the original reason for diverting the Syr Dar'ya and Amu Dar'ya rivers. The outlook for the Large Aral Sea remains bleak in the years ahead as evaporation and seepage take their toll. Yet the partial restoration of the Small Aral Sea leaves hope for the future and provides a glimpse as to how similar bodies of water such as the Salton Sea in California can be saved. The blueprint for the restoration of the Large Aral Sea has already been provided: with the political will and an infusion of cash from the international community, Uzbekistan and its neighbors could take the steps needed to improve and update the irrigation system in the Aral Sea basin. This will not solve the problem but it would be an important first step in any solution. Switching crops from cotton to winter wheat would also drastically reduce the water needed for irrigation, though it fetches a lower price on the world market and so would present an economic burden to Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. The problem of Soviet-era biological weapons remains, and cannot conceivably be remedied without raising the water level of the Large Aral Sea; biohazard cleanup could also be an option, but it is not clear whether that has been seriously considered. The outlook for the Small Aral Sea is better, and scientists and experts are surprised that viability is within reach so soon. The actions taken by Kazakhstan in the restoration of the Small Aral Sea point the way forward as nations seek to deal with the often conflicting notions of environmental protection and economic development. Though complete recovery is a long way off, there are encouraging signs that the Aral Sea can be saved and its ecological balance restored. The lasting lesson of this tragedy should be that sustainable development is the only logical way forward in the twenty-first century.

Works Cited​

Micklin, Philip, "The Aral Sea Disaster," The Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 1, no. 35 (2007): 47-72. SEIR, EBSCOhost (accessed November 15, 2008).

Micklin, Philip, "Reclaiming the Aral Sea," Scientific American 298, no. 4 (April 01, 2008): 71-64. GeoRef, EBSCOhost (accessed November 15, 2008).

Kumar, Rama Sampath, "Aral Sea: Environmental Tragedy in Central Asia," Economic and Political Weekly 37, no. 37 (September 14-20, 2002): 3797-3802. JSTOR, EBSCOhost (accessed November 15, 2008).
 
Here's the landsat imagery of the Aral Sea drying up:

076815-landsat-satellite-images.jpg




There must be thousands of ships that were left high and dry or were uncovered when the sea went dry. I'm talking ocean-liner size freight ships and a couple of WWII German subs, and two or three Soviet subs. :blink:

003299cb315.jpg
 
Thanks for the pics, Romanoffia. As you can see, the Large Aral Sea to the south is drying up rapidly. The Small Aral Sea to the north has stopped its decline. I also like how the camels are just chilling by the boats. :)
 
It's an interesting situation. I figure that with the proper corrective measures and human non-interference a recovery could be had in 50 years or so.

Places like Chernobyl, however, will take about 500 years...or more...like 10,000.
 
One of the more expensive (and far-fetched) ideas bandied about in the Soviet Union in the 1980s was to divert the rivers in Siberia to the Aral Sea. Almost all of this could have been headed off had they simply lined the canals they dug with concrete so as to prevent water seepage. I mean, it seems like a no-brainer.
 
Some people just make you wonder... just read this, Ash, it's great. Thanks for sharing.
 
Ash:
One of the more expensive (and far-fetched) ideas bandied about in the Soviet Union in the 1980s was to divert the rivers in Siberia to the Aral Sea. Almost all of this could have been headed off had they simply lined the canals they dug with concrete so as to prevent water seepage. I mean, it seems like a no-brainer.
Click to expand...
Indeed. But an expensive no-brainer. Funny how correcting man-made problems can be more costly than the projects that created the problem.
 
Intersting, thx.

I've heard that salt déposits have become a trouble for fertile fields in the neighboring countries. Do you know something about?
 
Mr. Freeze:
I've heard that salt deposits have become a trouble for fertile fields in the neighboring countries. Do you know something about?
Click to expand...
Yes, winds have blown the salt deposits from the dry lake bed across the fertile agricultural areas. It's tragic, really, because these countries are so poor that they are stuck in this predicament. They can't afford to make the investments necessary to stop the desiccation, and yet they also can't afford to have their crop fields destroyed by the salt. They're between a rock and a hard place, which is why financial intervention by the international community is needed.
 
Luxah:
Two years later. We need an update on this. I always found it a fascinating topic.
Click to expand...
If there is still interest in this particular topic, or on sustainability more generally, I am willing to further explore it.
Alta Italia:
Is this situation getting better or worse, or is there negligible change?
Click to expand...
Since I first posted this essay, the situation has only worsened. This is an excellent article from earlier this year that clearly shows the desiccation of the world's lakes and seas.

NASA also has a fantastic site with pictures of the Aral Sea as it has receded over the decades. There are also links to other subjects as well, for those interested in water changes. Link here
 
The problem with the Aral Sea is that during the Soviet Era, they diverted most of the water for agricultural irrigation projects. And ironically, they killed off the whole Aral Sea, so to speak, and destroyed a more important fishing industry.

Now, they have the problem that people are massively dependent upon the agriculture sustained by the diverted water, and ironically, restoring the water levels in the Aral Sea would do nothing to bring the Aral Sea back since the natural ecology of the Aral Sea, which took 5 million years to create, is gone. It cannot be restored by practical means. Natural restoration would take centuries and it would not resemble what was there before. It's a sad state of affairs.

Unfortunately, this cannot be attributed to a thoughtless programme created by the Soviet regime - they knew what they were doing and they knew what the results would logically end up as.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top