Awash with boats at anchor in sea of sand
Aral Sea – the worst ecological catastrophe of 20th century
‘AND the waters shall fail from the sea, and the rivers shall be wasted and dried up” reads Isaiah 19:5, which reflects the fallibility of our precious water sources. The water crisis in the Western Cape with dam levels plummeting drastically has yet again accentuated the importance of water. One of the worst ecological catastrophes of the 20th century is the desiccation of the Aral Sea in central Asia.
A Russian journalist living in the former Soviet republic of Turkmenistan in 1974 wrote that “to desert people every blade of grass is a dream, and every tree a miracle. Trees mean water and water means life… I have seen people sharing their last bucket of water with their plants”.
However, she did not expect that one of the main sources of water in the arid desert necessary for plant growth would come into peril.
The once bountiful Aral Sea with its thriving fisheries, and until 1960 considered the fourth-largest lake in the world, is almost completely dried up.
From an outsider’s perspective, the scene of desolation over the barren sea floor is disturbing. Only rusting fishing vessels eroding in the sand remain. The Port of Aralsk, a hub for fishermen where sea water splashed, is today situated 25km from the nearest remaining water. One of the grimmest places is that of Muynak, where a principal cannery was located, which has become known as a graveyard littered with ships.
It is a sorry sight, and although restoration attempts are being implemented to revive the sea, it would take decades to recover.
The historian, Stephen Liddell, has rightfully emphasised that “we don’t need to rely on complex computer models of climate change, but can see what happens when a region of our planet, in effect, dies… the fate of the Aral Sea makes for a useful warning of what can happen when people take too many liberties with the environment”. 2
After World War II, the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin ordered that the arid region of central Asia was to be transformed into a lush cotton-producing area. Cotton was regarded as more important than fish. In addition, policy-makers in Moscow were influenced by the Russian climatologist, Aleksandr Voeikov who called the Aral Sea a “useless evaporator” and a “mistake of nature”. 3
Thus, the Soviets embarked on a grandiose agricultural experiment to irrigate cotton plantations. With tremendous cost and the digging of canals, the waters from the Syr Darya and Amu Darya rivers feeding the Aral Sea were diverted. Initially, it led to a soaring paradise of cotton production, but left the Aral Sea denied of an inflow of fresh water. 4
With water drifting on dry sand in the blazing heat, its water levels began to drop due to evaporation. Consequently, the sea became more salty, and diminished catches forced the fishermen to venture further across the depleting sea. Their pleas fell on deaf ears. By 1977, the fisheries had collapsed.
To keep cotton production steady, large quantities of fertilizers and pesticides were applied, using increasing amounts of water. Although the Soviets planned to initialise a programme to stabilise the water loss it was too late, and by 1991 the Soviet Union broke up.
With no co-ordinated central planning and lack of funds, each of the separate countries of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan carved out parts of the Aral Sea for their own use, worsening the crisis. Topographical maps had shown the marked shrinkage of the sea’s shoreline since the 1960s, and a sharp decline during the 2000s. Inevitably, the sea divided up into sections, a small northern and large southern sea of which the latter tragically dried up entirely after 2005. 5
The geopolitical consequences of the Aral Sea disaster are profound. As there are conflicting interests and no consensus or uniformed decision in place to relieve the crisis, Uzbekistan argued that without the sea it would be better to tap into the potential oil and gas resources underneath the exposed seabed. While the Uzbeks regard cotton as its principal industry, the Kazakhs make the most effort to save the Aral by damming up water in the Kokaral dam.
Author Richard Stone predicted in 1999 that “without water, it would mean a massive cash infusion to assuage the disastrous social consequences and avert a scramble – or even a war – over the water among the fledgling democracies of central Asia”.6
With dust storms blowing toxic air around, health deteriorated. With high unemployment and poor health services, the almost 60 million people living on the perimeter of the Aral are faced with severe health problems of which serious respiratory, kidney and liver problems and cancer are the most common.
Presumably the most significant consequence is that of the changing climate. Without the moderating influence of the sea, summers have become much hotter while winters have become colder. 7
Rainfall has decreased and the provision of potable fresh water is almost unattainable in parts of the arid desert.
Life for the local population has become a struggle for survival.
Yet there is a spark of hope since the small fishing village of Tastubek in the North Aral Sea has seen a revival after the construction of the Kokaral dam with several fish species reappearing. 8
However, as fortunes seem to change for the better, the salvaging of the Aral Sea region remains a tremendous challenge.
When the Uzbek activist Yusup Kamalov, accompanied by Mark Synnott from the National Geographic Association, visited the Aral Sea, he gave a prediction of the future.
Sweeping his hand and pointing to the scrub-covered desert, Kamalov’s final prediction was, “This is what the end of the world looks like… if we ever have Armageddon; the people of Karakalpakstan (one of the poorest regions in Uzbekistan) are the only ones who will survive, because we are already living it”. 9