3. Related Cases: Aral Sea

1. The Issue:
The destruction of the Aral Sea ecosystem has been sudden andsevere. Beginning in the 1960s, agricultural demands have deprivedthis large Central Asian salt lake of enough water to sustainitself, and it has shrunk rapidly. Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, andother Central Asian states use this water to grow cotton and otherexport crops, in the face of widespread environmental consequences,including fisheries loss, water and soil contamination, anddangerous levels of polluted airborne sediments. It is generallyagreed that the current situation is unsustainable, but the povertyand export dependency of the Central Asian states have preventedreal action, and the sea continues to shrink.2. Description It is no exaggeration to say that the case of the Aral Sea isone of the greatest environmental catastrophes ever recorded.Humans have made use of the waters of the Aral basin for thousandsof years, borrowing from its two major rivers: the Amu Darya, whichflows into the Aral Sea from the south; and the Syr Darya, whichreaches the sea at its north end. As the twentieth century began,irrigated agriculture in the basin was still being conducted at asustainable level. After the Russian Empire was replaced by the Soviet Union,this began to change. Traditional agricultural practices weredestroyed by collectivization, and Soviet planners sought productsthat could be exported for hard currency. They placed cotton highon their list, calling it `white gold,' and the Soviet Union becamea net exporter of cotton in 1937. Change accelerated in the1950s, as Central Asian irrigated agriculture was expanded andmechanized. The Kara Kum Canal opened in 1956, diverting largeamounts of water from the Amu Darya into the desert ofTurkmenistan, and millions of hectares of land came underirrigation after 1960. A crucial juncture had been reached, and after 1960 the levelof the Aral Sea began to drop, while diversion of water continuedto increase. While the sea had been receiving about fifty cubickilometers of water per year in 1965, by the early 1980s this hadfallen to zero. As the Aral shrank, its salinity increased, and by 1977 theformerly large fish catch had declined by over seventy-fivepercent. By the early 1980s, commercially useful fish had beeneliminated, shutting down an industry that had employed 60,000. The declining sea level lowered the water table in the region,destroying many oases near its shores. The devotion to irrigated agriculture had other direct effectsas well. Much ecologically sensitive land in the river deltas wasconverted to cropland, and pesticide use was heavy throughout theAral basin, resulting in heavy contaminant concentrations in thesea. Overirrigation caused salt buildup in many agriculturalareas. By the beginning of the 1990s, the surface area of the Aralhad shrunk by nearly half, and the volume was down by seventy-fivepercent. A host of secondary effects began to appear. Regional climate became more continental, shortening thegrowing season and causing some farmers to switch from cotton torice, which demanded even more diverted water. The exposed areaof former seabed was now over 28,000 square kilometers, from whichwinds picked up an estimated 43 million tons of sediments lacedwith salts and pesticides, with devastating health consequences forsurrounding regions. These contaminated Aral dust storms havebeen reported as far away as the Arctic and Pakistan.Respiratory illnesses were particularly common, and throat cancersburgeoned. Regional vegetation loss may have increased albedo,possible reducing precipitation. These developing problems had not gone unnoticed during theSoviet era. The solution devised was characteristic of Sovietplanners: the waters of Siberia's Ob River were to be divertedsouthward, so that they would flow to Central Asia rather than theArctic. Mikhail Gorbachev's glasnost put an end to this scheme, asthe Soviet populace became aware of ecological disasters, and beganto have the freedom to petition and protest. In 1988, the Soviet Central Committee decreed that cottongrowing was to be reduced, so that the Aral Sea could receive waterin gradually increasing amounts through 2005. There was somereduction in water diversion as a result. The dissolution of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991 endedany such central authority; the Aral crisis was now in the hands ofthe five Central Asian nations. They signed an agreement in 1992 pledging efforts toward Aralrehabilitation, but little action has been taken. Anothermeeting, in January 1994, resulted in offers to reduce waterconsumption, and promises of money for an Aral fund. For the present, the Aral continues to shrink, and may soon belifeless. Its future prospects are uncertain. The sea could bestabilized with improvements in the efficiency of irrigation, butwould remain incapable of supporting most fauna, and the currentproblems of pollution and lost habitat would go unaddressed. Substantial but feasible irrigation improvements, and somereduction in cropland, would allow partial restoration of the sea,though it would still be incapable of supporting its formerfisheries. Full restoration would require wholesale regional changes,such as a shift away from agriculture. Urbanization, combined withlarge revenues from oil and gas projects, might facilitate such ashift. Genetically engineered crops in need of less water mightalso provide a solution in the next few decades.