The Aral Sea: A Study of Environmental Degradation and Restoration Efforts

The Aral Sea, once the fourth largest lake in the world, has experienced one of the most significant environmental disasters of our time. Over the last several decades, the lake has shrunk dramatically, leading to severe ecological and economic consequences.

This article explores the environmental impact, restoration efforts, and the overall history of the Aral Sea, aiming to provide a comprehensive understanding of this crisis.

Introduction

The Aral Sea has undergone profound changes since the 1960s due to human activities, particularly water diversion for irrigation projects .

This catastrophic event has turned a once-thriving ecosystem into a barren desert. Today, the Aral Sea stands as a stark reminder of the environmental consequences of mismanaged water resources.

“The Aral Sea is not just an environmental disaster; it is a humanitarian tragedy.” — Dr. Michael M. Glantz

History of the Aral Sea

Aral Lake from 1964 to 2023  (Video Credit : npr)

The Aral Sea, located between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, was historically fed by two major rivers: the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya. Before the 1960s, it was a vast water body covering approximately 68,000 square kilometers. However, the Soviet Union’s decision to divert water from these rivers for cotton cultivation drastically reduced the inflow into the sea.

The desire of the former Soviet Union for self-sufficiency in cotton led to massive expansion of cotton production in Central Asia, mostly in Uzbekistan, and to the use of irrigated water from rivers that normally fed the Aral Sea. Could the environmental disaster have been avoided if the former Soviet Union had relied more on imported cotton and not diverted these rivers?

Can we conclude that if the cost of the irrigated water had been properly considered, Uzbekistan did not have a comparative advantage in cotton production, and the Soviet Union should have imported the cotton? Or are other explanations more important in explaining the environmental disaster?

We will consider these questions in this case study, but will begin with an elaboration of the environmental problems.

Environmental Impact of Cotton Production Methods in Uzbekistan

Soil Degradation and Fertilizer Misuse

There is massive environmental damage associated with the method of cotton production in Uzbekistan. First, the obsession with growing cotton impeded the use of crop rotation—the basis for soil conservation.

Balanced land use would have developed fodder crops and animal husbandry, which produce organic fertilizers necessary for soil fertility. Instead, large-scale and unbalanced application of mineral fertilizers and pesticides undermined the natural biological processes and degraded soil quality. More than 30% of phosphorus-potash and more than 50% of nitrogen fertilizers cannot be absorbed by plants and form a runoff that pollutes the soil, rivers, and underground water.

Salinization and Water Management Issues

Second, because of low attention to land productivity, irrigated lands in Uzbekistan have shown a tendency to degrade. In the last two decades of the 20th century, saline land increased significantly to 52% of the total irrigated land area; of this saline land, 40% was rated as severe or moderately severe.

Third, reduced flows of water from rivers and increased discharges of highly saline and polluted drainage water from irrigated areas (as well as from industry and communal sectors) have worsened the quality of water. In the 1960s, the mineralization of water did not exceed 1.0 gram per liter. By 2000, it was 2-3 grams per liter in downstream river flows. However, use of water for irrigation with salinity of more than 1.0 gram per liter leads to a decline in crop yield.

Decline of the Aral Sea

Fourth and foremost, the most dramatic ecological problem has been the desiccation of the Aral Sea. Extensive development of irrigation for cotton led to 90% of the decline in the runoff of water to the Aral Sea, and only about 10% of the runoff decline was associated with climatic variations. In addition to the facts mentioned above, since 1965 the sea level has decreased from 52.5 to 37 meters.

It has lost 57% of surface area, and more than 4 million hectares of sea bottom and river deltas have been exposed. The delta wetland areas, once covered by thick vegetation, are now covered by salt and sand. In addition, we have observed degradation of soil quality, changes in flora and fauna, a decline in the fishing industry, and a decrease in the efficiency of irrigated agriculture. Human health has also been adversely affected as both the supply and quality of drinking water have worsened. The natural climate around the Aral Sea has also changed, with dust storms sweeping across the areas surrounding the Aral Sea.

History of Cotton Production in Uzbekistan

Climate and Early Development

The main requirement for cotton production is warm to hot temperatures with low humidity and long hours of sunshine. Cotton needs about 180 very warm days to mature from its emergence from the ground to harvesting. Areas with such characteristics inevitably have a dry climate with hot temperatures and low rainfall in the planting season.

Parts of Central Asia, particularly Uzbekistan, had the correct combination of climate, soil, and labor availability, and in the 19th century, given the amount of land devoted to cotton production, water was also available. When Russia gained control over Central Asia in the 19th century, Russian businessmen started growing cotton there using mainly American cotton seeds. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, one-third of total irrigated lands were devoted to cotton production, with the rest devoted to grain, fruits, and vegetables.

Soviet Expansion of Cotton Production

The government of the former Soviet Union pushed the self-sufficiency objective in cotton production much further than Tsarist Russia had done. Moreover, foreign exchange earnings from cotton were a desired objective. Cotton was declared “white gold.” Because of Uzbekistan’s arid climate, low rainfall, and high evaporation, irrigation is an indispensable factor for cotton planting.

A key decision of the Soviet planners was to massively expand the land devoted to irrigated cotton production in Uzbekistan. Irrigated lands in Uzbekistan increased from 1.2 million hectares in 1913 to 2.3 million hectares in 1950 and to 4.2 million hectares in 1990. Large public investments in irrigated lands facilitated this expansion.

The Specialization in Cotton Cultivation

After 1960, the land devoted to cotton production in Uzbekistan constituted about 61% of arable land. This level of specialization was found nowhere else in the world. From 1930 to 1990, Uzbekistan produced more than two-thirds of all cotton produced in the former Soviet Union.

Uzbekistan was the world’s fifth-largest cotton producer out of 90 cotton-growing countries and the second-largest exporter of cotton fiber after the U.S.

Water Resource Mismanagement

The expansion of irrigated lands has led to the massive withdrawal of more than 90% of water resources from two major Central Asian river basins – Amu-Darya and Syr-Darya – for irrigation of cotton and other crops. From 1913 to 1960, on average, 120 billion cubic meters of water were available every year from these rivers, about 64 billion cubic meters were used for irrigation purposes, and the remaining 56 billion cubic meters flowed into the Aral Sea.

However, by the mid-1980s, the river inflow to the Aral Sea was reduced to just 2-5 billion cubic meters per year, which is much less than the evaporation from the Aral Sea of about 40 billion cubic meters per year.

Could the Environmental Disaster Have Been Avoided?

The Role of Irrigated Water Cost Evaluation

One interpretation of the facts above is that Soviet planners failed to properly take into account the cost of irrigated water. An accurate evaluation of the cost of the water would have resulted in the conclusion that Uzbekistan was not an efficient place to produce cotton. Comparative advantage would have dictated a greater reliance on imports.

Market-Based Reforms

There are, however, other interpretations. Fundamental market-based reforms would have allowed greater cotton production on less land, thereby diverting less water. It may have been possible to import water, which could have helped alleviate some of the pressure on local water resources.

Productivity Increases on Less Land

From 1925 to 1928, the Soviet government conducted a land reform that distributed all irrigated lands to peasant family farms on the basis of a long-term and inheritable land lease. This led to the doubling of cotton yield in Uzbekistan in just two years. However, in the 1930s, Stalin forcefully transferred family lands to collective agricultural enterprises (kolkhoz and sovkhoz).

A family could no longer be the agent (unit) that held economic rights to land for farming. Lands that had been used for family farms were organized into collectives with a large number of workers. A command and control system was implemented in which the government determined input and output volumes. Low farm gate prices, well below international levels, were offered. Poor incentives to farmers led to low efficiency in cotton production.

Serious market reforms that would create incentives for farmers on existing land would have permitted an increase in cotton production without the expansion of land and greater use of water. It is possible, but difficult to conclude with certainty, that productivity increases would have saved enough water to avoid the environmental disaster. The Soviet communist party, however, wanted to avoid these kinds of fundamental market-based reforms.

Consideration of Imported Water

Soviet planners predicted that the planned massive expansion of irrigated land in Uzbekistan would cause the Aral Sea desiccation. To prevent that, in the 1960s Soviet scholars prepared feasibility studies on a project to divert about 27 billion cubic meters of water from the Siberian river Ob (6% of its total runoff) through a canal of 2,550 kilometers.

Estimates of the construction costs vary widely, but one recent estimate of the construction costs of a canal to prevent desiccation of the Aral Sea (without irrigation systems for agriculture) is US$12-15 billion in 2003. Despite several promises by the Soviet government, the project was never implemented, and all work on the project stopped in 1986 amid nationalistic and environmental objections from Russia. Since 2000, however, discussions between Russia and Uzbekistan regarding this project have been revived.

Key Historical Events

Here’s a recreated table for Key Historical Events related to cotton production and the environmental changes in the Aral Sea:

Aral Sea Environmental Degradation

Causes of Degradation

The environmental degradation of the Aral Sea can be attributed to several factors:

• Water Diversion: The primary cause is the diversion of the Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers for agricultural purposes, particularly cotton farming.
• Climate Change: Rising temperatures and shifting precipitation patterns have exacerbated the situation, leading to increased evaporation.
• Pollution: Agricultural runoff containing pesticides and fertilizers has polluted the remaining water bodies, affecting local ecosystems.

Environmental Consequences

The consequences of this degradation are severe:

1. Increased Salinity: The salinity of the remaining water has increased dramatically, making it uninhabitable for many fish species.
2. Loss of Biodiversity: Numerous species of fish, birds, and other wildlife have faced extinction.
3. Dust Storms: Exposed seabed has led to frequent dust storms, affecting air quality and public health in surrounding communities.

“The ecological collapse of the Aral Sea has brought about significant public health issues for the local population.” — Environmental Research Journal

Aral Sea Ecological Impact

The ecological impact of the Aral Sea disaster extends beyond the immediate area. The region was once rich in biodiversity, supporting various fish species, migratory birds, and unique ecosystems. The drying up of the sea has led to:

• Fishery Collapse: Commercial fishing, once a crucial part of the local economy, has collapsed. The disappearance of fish species has impacted food security.
• Decline in Bird Populations: Migratory birds that relied on the sea for breeding and feeding have seen significant population declines.
• Habitat Loss: The loss of wetlands and other habitats has disrupted the local ecological balance.

Table: Changes in Fish Species

The Aral Sea Disaster

The Aral Sea disaster is characterized by the drastic reduction in water levels, leading to a series of environmental crises. By 2020, the Aral Sea had lost over 90% of its original volume, and the remaining body of water is now fragmented into smaller lakes.

The Impact on Local Communities

The local populations have faced numerous challenges:

• Economic Decline: The collapse of the fishing industry and tourism has led to increased poverty.
• Health Issues: High salinity and pollution levels have caused health problems, including respiratory diseases and waterborne illnesses.
• Migration: Many residents have been forced to leave their homes in search of better living conditions.

“The social and economic fabric of the communities around the Aral Sea has been irreparably damaged.” — National Geographic

Aral Sea Restoration Efforts

In response to the Aral Sea crisis, various restoration efforts have been initiated over the years:

1. International Cooperation: Countries surrounding the Aral Sea, particularly Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, have begun collaborative projects to manage water resources better.
2. Construction of Dikes: Dikes have been constructed to separate parts of the sea, allowing for better water retention in the remaining lakes.
3. Reforestation Initiatives: Projects aimed at restoring vegetation and reducing soil erosion have been launched.

Case Study: The Kokaral Dam

One of the most significant restoration projects is the Kokaral Dam, built in 2005 to help restore the northern part of the Aral Sea. This project has led to:

• A rise in water levels in the northern Aral Sea by approximately 4.5 meters.
• A recovery of fish populations, providing new economic opportunities for local communities.

Aral Sea Water Management

Effective water management is crucial for the restoration and sustainability of the Aral Sea. Key strategies include:

• Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM): This approach promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land, and related resources.
• Sustainable Agriculture: Implementing efficient irrigation practices and crop rotation to reduce water usage in agriculture.
• Monitoring and Assessment: Continuous monitoring of water quality and quantity is essential for effective management.

Table: Water Management Strategies

Conclusion

The story of the Aral Sea is a poignant reminder of the delicate balance between human activities and environmental sustainability. The drastic changes to the sea’s ecosystem serve as a cautionary tale about the consequences of overexploitation and mismanagement of natural resources.

Efforts to restore the Aral Sea are ongoing, highlighting the importance of international cooperation and sustainable practices. While significant challenges remain, there is hope that with continued efforts, the Aral Sea can begin to heal, benefiting both the environment and local communities.