The Aral Sea disaster and the disaster of international assistance.

• Author: Small, Ian
• Position: Pressing Issues

Mirroring the graveyard of ships littering the bed of the ever-shrinking Aral Sea, a similar graveyard of international assistance projects mars the landscape--projects that failed, were discontinued or never even begun.

**********

Before the events of 11 September 2001 and the war in Afghanistan brought Central Asia to geopolitical prominence, the region carried the unfortunate distinction as home to arguably the world's worst environmental disaster. (1) With its exceptionally high salt content, the Aral Sea is an official biological dead zone. Its shores are shrinking, and its water is unfit for aquatic life. The climate in the region has also been affected, as summers are hotter and drier. Consequently, the amount of dust has increased, possibly triggering respiratory illness among the area's five million inhabitants. Years of excessive agricultural chemical usage also draw concerns about human health. Not surprisingly, this ecological disaster continues to place a strain on the region's capacity to flourish. For those living in the affected zone, the issue of the Aral Sea is nothing less than one of survival. (2)

The disaster can be traced back to Cold War politics. In the 1950s, the world's main cotton producers were China and the United States. With more than three million of its soldiers in need of uniforms, however, the Soviets wanted to gain access to some of the wealth from cotton production. For them, self-sufficiency in cotton was a strategic, military necessity. Central Asia, with its warm climate and large, exploitable population, was the ideal location to grow what the Soviets called "white gold." Indeed, the only input that needed to be developed was a massive irrigation scheme.

The great rivers of Central Asia, the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya, proved to be excellent sources for filling the expanding network of irrigation canals, and in turn, the fields of cotton. In 1960, 4.5 million hectares of land in Central Asia were under irrigation for the project. By 1992, the figure had grown to 18.5 acres, and new lands continue to be brought on board to this day. This land, however, is fed largely by unlined and uncovered systems, rendering them both inefficient and ineffective. In 1980 irrigation accounted for 84 percent of all water withdrawals from the Amu Darya and Syr Darya. Of that, 62 percent was lost to evaporation and seepage into the water table, allowing only 38 percent of the water to return to the rivers. (3)

By the mid-1980s, this mismanagement of vital water resources to create a cotton monoculture, combined with rice cultivation in areas that should never have been used for rice growing and the profligate use of agricultural chemicals, came back to haunt the people of the Aral Sea area. (4) Indeed, the continuation of these agricultural practices by the region's current governments has affected every aspect of Central Asian society: its poor economic performance, the poor health of its people and the destruction of its culture. The overall quality of the environment can all be in part traced to decades of poor agricultural practices. (5)

It is said that for every action, there is a reaction. In the case of the desiccation of the Aral Sea, the reaction is multifaceted. Prior to 1980 the Aral Sea was the world's fourth largest in-land body of water. As a terminal lake, its only sources of water were the two rivers that the Soviet Union diverted for irrigation. Once slightly brackish, without a significant inflow of water, the sea now has a salt content of 75 grams of salt per liter, roughly two times greater than the world's oceans. As a result, it was pronounced biologically dead by the World Bank in 1997 and now ranks as the world's 10th largest in-land body of water, falling so fast map-makers cannot keep up. Communities that once relied on its abundant fish stocks for local consumption and trade now find themselves more than 100 kilometers from the shoreline. An entire generation has not even seen the very sea that was once the center of their parents' livelihoods. Their capacity to deal with this loss is limited, requiring international assistance to meet even their most basic needs. (6)

The regional climate has also been affected, with summers becoming hotter and drier and winters colder. The winds from Siberia, once cushioned by the sea, are now free to blow across the former seabed, picking up huge quantities of dust. Furthermore, the region has the largest occurrence of tuberculosis among the former Soviet states. (7)

Inefficient agricultural practices have also caused problems further upstream. The groundwater table has risen in some parts to almost two meters from the surface, projecting untold amounts of salts into the immediate environment. More than 85 percent of all agricultural lands are considered saline, not only decreasing the quality of cotton and thus economic revenues, but also increasing the required amounts of irrigated water to flush the fields in preparation for the spring planting season. As the fields are flooded each spring, the salts are temporarily pushed down into the water table, only to reappear or be flushed further downstream and be recycled yet again. The water table, a source of drinking water for many, has a total dissolved salt content of six grams per liter. Food quality and ultimately safety are also affected by the remnants of agricultural chemicals still found within the environment. (8)

LOSING SIGHT OF THE SEA: A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

To confront the desiccation of the Aral Sea and reverse years of environmental damage, the Soviets devised several plans, often ridiculous, if not reckless. One plan would have involved draining the mighty rivers of Siberia by constructing thousands of kilometers of canals to fill the Aral Sea, thus replacing one environmental disaster with another. (9)

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the international community--led primarily by the World Bank--arrived in the Aral Sea area. With their arrival came high hopes that plans for immediate and long-term action would finally solve the Aral Sea problem. However, these hopes were quickly spoiled. Projects became more focused on basin-wide strategies that tended to lose sight of the people most directly affected by the disaster.

As early as September 1992, representatives of the newly independent Central Asian republics were already frustrated by the lack of results from the international community. A 1993 World Bank report notes: "The Republics ... appeared disappointed that although, according to their count, 131 foreign missions and delegations of international experts have visited the Aral Sea, have discussed the problems and solutions, and have written reports and published articles, their efforts have not led to concrete actions so far." (10) In fact, many would argue that little has changed since the efforts of over a decade ago. Mirroring the graveyard of ships littering the bed of the ever-shrinking Aral Sea, a similar graveyard of international assistance projects mars the landscape--projects that failed, were discontinued or never even begun. The role of regional governments in contributing to this dysfunctional landscape has been well documented, but rarely have the shortcomings of the international community been called to account.

THE INITIAL RESPONSE: COMPREHENSIVE PLANS

An initial 1991 United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) study, "Diagnostic Study for the Development of an Action Plan for the Aral Sea," provided the first widely circulated assessment of the scope and severity of the Aral Sea disaster. In September 1992, upon the request of the newly independent states, a preparatory World Bank mission was established. This mission laid out four ambitious objectives:

1. Stabilization of the Aral Sea levels in a sustainable range;

2. Rehabilitation and development of the Aral Sea disaster zone;

3. Strategic planning and comprehensive management of the water resources of the Amu and Syr Rivers and

4. Building of institutions for planning and implementing the above programs. (11)

Taking the lead role in working to achieve these objectives, the World Bank showed considerable courage. The Aral Sea project was, as the World Bank itself noted, one of the largest and most ambitious projects it had ever undertaken. The Bank called for unwavering commitment, noting that "once the Bank undertakes this task, it has to continue. The risks of giving up in the middle of the tasks are high because the structure of the Republics' cooperation may collapse and no external organization may be willing to replace the Bank." (12)

To achieve its aims, the 1992 Mission called for the creation of a three-phase programming approach. The first phase was to be an Emergency Aral Sea Environment Assistance Plan (ESEAP). The plan was clear, and timelines were strict. The activities were to be identified, prepared, approved and completed within a period of two to three years. It sought to have a significant impact by quickly restoring the declining productivity of human and other resources in the disaster zone.

The tone of the proposal was urgent. It called for substantial grant funding. Many of its recommendations were focused on concrete, short-term action. In the proposal's own words, the ESEAP "should serve as an...