THE ARAL SEA EXAMPLE OF A HUMAN-INDUCED ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER Nikolay Aladin Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg, Russia. Email:
[email protected] Igor Plotnikov Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg, Russia. Email:
[email protected] Phillip Micklin Department of Geography, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI 49008, USA Email:
[email protected] Alexis Conides Hellenic Centre for Marine Research. Institute for Marine Biological Resources, 46.7 km Athens-Sounion Avenue, 190 13 Anavyssos Attikis, Greece. Email:
[email protected] Dimitris Klaoudatos Hellenic Centre for Marine Research. Institute for Marine Biological Resources, 46.7 km Athens-Sounion Avenue, 190 13 Anavyssos Attikis, Greece. Email:
[email protected] Kostas Kapiris Hellenic Centre for Marine Research. Institute for Marine Biological Resources, 46.7 km Athens-Sounion Avenue, 190 13 Anavyssos Attikis, Greece. Email:
[email protected] Costas Papaconstantinou Hellenic Centre for Marine Research. Institute for Marine Biological Resources, 46.7 km Athens-Sounion Avenue, 190 13 Anavyssos Attikis, Greece. Email:
[email protected]
Abstract: The Aral Sea was once the fourth lake in size of the world. Since then, following extensive human intervention for agriculture development has shrank significantly causing the collapse of the fishing and tourism industry and creating an arid desert with hot and dry summers and cold winters. Signs of rehabilitation have been shown in the Small Aral (north basin) only after extensive infrastructure works to conserve freshwater inflow through the Syr Dar'ya river. This paper presents briefly the situation in Aral Sea and attempts to describe the implications of human interventions and their ramifications.
Introduction In the first half of the 20th century, the Aral Sea was a single closed terminal water body supplied with freshwater by two rivers: Syr Darya and Amu Darya. Its water area was mostly brackish and there were native
brackish water ecosystems formed around the lake. Since 1960, due to the use of the freshwater resources for agriculture production, water level in the Aral Sea started to gradually decrease and the salinity of the water to increase. Depending on the bottom topography the Aral Sea began to split into several water bodies. In 1989, when water level fell by 13 m, the Aral Sea was divided into 2 polyhaline terminal lakes with marine ecosystems: the Large Aral to the south and the Small Aral to the north. In the fauna of the new 2 lakes only resistant euryhaline species of the native fauna remained due to the high water salinity as well as introduced salinity-tolerant exotic species. Examples of these species are the flounder, the stickleback, the Baltic herring, the silverside, the Bubyr goby, the sand goby and the round goby (Aladin 2009). In spring 1990, level of the Small Aral increased and a water flow to the Large Aral appeared. In August 1992, a dike was built in Berg’s Strait to stop water flow towards the Large Aral. As a result salinity in the Small Aral started to decrease and this was eventually favorable for the local fauna and the rehabilitation of the fisheries industry as well as the coastal ecosystems and wetlands and now the Small Aral Sea can be considered as a regulated brackish-water reservoir. New fish species can now be found in the Small Aral Sea such as the bream, the carp, the roach, the pike perch, the grass carp and the flounder most of which are high value commodities. The present paper provides an insight to the reasons behind this environmental disaster and presents guidelines for the identification of the major problems which led to this and the elaboration of future management plans for the protection and rehabilitation of this important ecosystem.
Geography of the area The Aral Sea is located at the border area between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan approximately at 45°N 60°E (Fig. 1). Its name can be roughly translated as "Sea of Islands" because once it was dotted with more than 1500 small islands. Formerly it was one of the four largest inland lakes of the world occupying almost 69000 km² and a volume of 1100 km³ (Aladin et al. 2006). Today it has been depleted and occupies almost 10% of its original size while it has been separated in 2 main lake basins: the Small Aral Sea in the north and the Large Aral Sea in the south. Small Aral is located at the north of the Aral Sea complex and exhibits a length of approximately 100 km in length and 20 km width on average with area 3400 km² and surface level +42 m above sea level. The Large Aral is composed of 2 basins (east and west) interconnected with a canal (length approximately 22 km) and TscheBas Bay. The west basin has area 3700 km² and surface level +26.5 m above sea level, the east basin has area 850 km² and surface level +26.5 m above sea level and Tsche-Bas Bay has an area 363 km² and surface level +28 m above sea level (Micklin 2009). The lake complex is supplied with water through 2 rivers: the Amu Dar'ya river with its extensive delta and canal system to the south (Large Aral) and the Syr Dar'ya river to the north (Small Aral Prior to the 1960s the average inflow of Amu Dar'ya was 40 km³/year and the average inflow of Syr Dar'ya was 15 km³/year. Now the riverine flow is strongly reduced: average flow of Syr Dar'ya is only some cubic kilometers per year while flow of Amu Dar'ya practically does not reach Large Aral. This resulted to the dramatic decrease of the water level in the Aral Sea (Fig. 2). In 2005, the government of Kazakhstan built a dam (Kok-Aral dam, 13 km long) between the Small and the Large Aral in order to separate the 2 basins and prevent the outflow from the Small Aral to the Large Aral as well as preserve the waters from Syr Dar'ya river from flowing to the Large Aral (Aladin et al, 1995). The catchment area of the lake covers approximately 1.600.000 km² which is almost 90 times the area of the lake basins. The Small Aral Sea is located at a level about 15 m above the level of the Large Aral Sea.
SM
ALL
ARA
L
basi n
SYR DAR’YA RIVER
LARGE ARAL
east
west basi n
TSCHE-BAS BAY
AMU DAR’YA RIVER
Figure 1. Geography of the Aral Sea Lake and basin
Figure 2. Water level time-series in Small and Large Aral Sea (1950-2010; Micklin 2009)
History of the problem When imports of cotton from USA ceased during the American Civil War (1860) Russia turned to the newly
conquered regions of central Asia to develop cotton production. Vast irrigation systems were built around the Amu Dar'ya and Syr Dar'ya rivers to exploit the freshwater supply for cotton cultivation. Since 1937 Soviet Union became self-sufficient to cotton and continued to expand the cultivated lands building long canals such as the KaraKum canal (1360 km in length) and others. In 1990, an area of 7.900.000 ha was cultivated for cotton. The main problem was that the canals and the vast water distribution system were poorly built resulting to the loss of vast amounts of water through evaporation and seepage. Eventhough the water consumption was doubled, the resulting increase of cotton production was estimated around 20%. After 1980, only an approximate 10% of the Amu Dar'ya waters reached the Aral Sea complex and which were salinised and heavily polluted with agricultural chemicals. This resulted to the increase of the salinity of the waters in the Large Aral Sea from 10-15‰ to more than 100‰ making the once brackish lake to a hyper-saline lake with devastating results to wildlife, biodiversity and socio-economic status and welfare of the local inhabitants (Aladin 2009). In some places, due to the water loss of the lake, the shoreline receded for almost 100 km leaving a desert of salinised and heavily polluted land. Table 1. Ecological indicators in Aral Sea complex (adapted from Micklin & Aladin, 2008) PARAMETER VALUE (1960) VALUE (TODAY*) Area 69,000 km² 17,000 km² Volume 1,100 km³ 105 km³ Large Aral Sea - 90-160‰ Salinity 9-10‰ Small Aral Sea – 8-14‰(**) Fish species 32 Small Aral Sea - 16 Marsh area 100,000 ha 15,000 (1990's) Large Aral Sea – 0 mt Fish production 40,000 mt Small Aral Sea - ~700 mt Jobs 60,000 lost since 1960 15 billion tones if Aral Sea is dried completely Salts exposed 54 000 km² of salinised seabed already exposed (*) unless differently specified (**) following several interventions to protect water loss
Figure 3. Fisheries production trends since early 20th century (Aladin 2009)
Environmental and socio-economic hazards The current state of the lake creates several important problems (Newbold 2007; Zhmiming et al. 2006). Summarizing, these are: loss of biodiversity because of salination and loss of water. From 32 fish species in 1960, only 16 remained and only in the areas of the river deltas where the salinity was within acceptable limits. loss of essential habitats of species. The marsh and deltaic areas were reduced to almost 10% of the initial area in 1960. loss of agriculture land because of sand and salts in the soil. Sand storms transfer polluted soil dust even in distances of 500 km around the lake destroying agriculture land. economic devastation to the major economic activities of the region. Tourism and fishing were once thriving industries in the area because of the lake (Fig. 3, 4). Since waters receded many resorts were separated from the sea by even 100 km of desert. Fishing industry completely collapsed leaving behind only shipwrecks abandoned very high disease indicators for the local human populations such as child mortality rate of 75/1000 newborns, maternity deaths 120/10000 women, respiratory problems, cancers associated with the respiratory system, digestive system disorders, liver and kidney ailments and anemia, lowered expected life span to 61 years (Small et al. 2001; Kiessling 1998; Precoda 1991; Wiggs 2003). The sand storms distribute sand particles heavily polluted with agriculture chemicals in great distances from the lake poisoning the breathable air and the freshwater resources for human consumption (Micklin & Aladin, 2008).
Figure 4. Images of the area showing significant bank erosion (Large Aral, east basin) and the remnants of urban centres and thriving industries (fishing and shipping): (A) abandoned military base at city of Aralsk (north region of Aral Sea), (B) abandoned harbor at city of Aralsk, (C) view of Large Aral coast and dried up bottom – former island of Barsakelmes, (D) abandoned fishing vessel Source: N. Aladin & I. S. Plotnikov from field studies on site
Socio-economic "bottlenecks" and pathways Based on the literature, a possible scheme of interactions between "forces" and "responses" of the Aral Sea complex can be the following (Fig. 5). It is evident that there are both positive and negative results from the current situation in the Aral Sea region. The increase of agriculture production has created wealth and jobs in the area which is especially crucial after the dissolution of Soviet Union into individual countries which lacked resources and national financial structure. On the other hand, the main reason for the problems created in the process of the exploitation of the Aral Sea complex is the fact that the newly organized countries lacked the necessary funds for the sustainable development of the agriculture sector providing for the conservation of freshwater resources. This created several negative "responses" from the socio-economic system of the Aral Sea and which all resulted to losses of jobs and income and the mismanagement of funds. Increase of exports for currency
Increase Jobs
Increase of cotton production
Policies and status of surrounding countries
Increase of water demanding agriculture
Decrease of water amount reaching Aral Sea complex
Increase of use of dangerous chemicals for human health
Lack of funds
Loss of jobs
Increase of food production for local populations
Inefficient public works (dams, canals etc.)
Water front withdrawal
Collapse of shipping, tourism and fishing industries
Reduction of income
Loss of biodiversity; Loss of essential habitats of species
Contamination of cultivable land Human diseases (cancer, disorders etc.)
Collapsing of works, inefficient structures
Mismanaged funds, increased spending of money, loss of funds
Production of weaponised biological agents
Figure 5. Scheme of "forces"/"responses" interactions for the Aral Sea lake complex
A view to a better future The fate of both Small and Large Aral Lakes was similar until 2005 when the Kazakhstan government acquired funds to create and/or redesign water conservation robust infrastructures like the Kok-Aral dam and several channels (Fig. 6). This resulted to the increase of the water level of the Small Aral Lake to 42 m and an area of 3300 km² instead of 40 m and 2550 km² in 2003. Salinity of the water was reduced to 8-14‰ which allowed more than 15 species of fish to reappear in Small Aral including perch, pike, carps, roach and wels (high market value species) and the production of fish increased to 2000 tn in 2007 from almost 200 tn in 2004 providing jobs to around 100 fishermen lake (Micklin & Aladin, 2008). Efforts to further support biodiversity from the Kazakhstan government resulted in the organization of a nature protected area at the tip of Barsakelmes peninsula (former Barsakelmes island; Shabanova & Dzhusupov, 2006).
Future Plans and possible solutions According to the various reports (Aladin et al. 2006) and considering the availability of funds and resources in the region, there are limitations to the extent of reasonable conservation actions which can be undertaken. However, it seems clear that such actions need to be extended both for the local inhabitants and the environment at the same time to achieve a certain level of sustainability required for the benefit of both. Such actions could include: 1.
Actions which will result to the decrease of salinity at around 10‰ in order to provide with a suitable environment for aquatic species which may support the regeneration of the fishing industry. The results from the water conservation practices in Small Aral Lake are very promising in terms of increased fisheries production and increase in biodiversity (more than 15 species of fish). The plans proposed now are to built a second dam in the north part of the Small Aral Sea and create 2 interconnected basins
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. 8.
from which the north will exhibit salinity of 0-3 ‰ and the south part (ending at the existing Kok-Aral dam) to exhibit salinity of 8-13 ‰ (Aladin 2009; Aladin et al. 2009). Reduction of the wastage of water. This is actually a group of actions which need to target the reduction of water losses through the inefficient infrastructure (seepage, evaporation, blocked waterways, collapsed channels and dams etc.) and the transition of agriculture practices towards less water-demanding crop cultivation. Micklin & Aladin (2008) have proposed winter wheat instead of cotton which may result to the decrease of water demand by 50%. Improvement of freshwater quality for drinking is an imperative objective of management. Several persistent diseases in the area can be related to contaminated freshwater resources used for household activities and agriculture. Investments in economic activities which are compatible with the current state of the basins. Such activities are the cultivation of Artemia and for aquaculture as well as Spirulina for aquaculture and pharmaceutical industry. Also investments in inland water intensive aquaculture of high market value species like eel or shrimps in recirculating water systems could easily isolate the need for natural resources and at the same time produce primary consumption products worldwide. The high desert temperatures can also support the aquaculture of such species that require high water temperature (shrimps, eels etc.). Finally, other suitable investments in primary productions may include hydroponics. For all these types of production schemes there exists significant experience especially from the Kibbutz-type cultivation farms in Israeli deserts. The above will eventually provide food security to the local populations Conservation actions for the Amy Dar'ya and Syr Dar'ya river deltas. The aim of these actions is to increase the available essential fish habitats and marshlands which are nursery and feeding grounds for such species. This is especially important for the carp species which require aquatic vegetation for their reproduction. Such measures will certainly enhance the fisheries populations and provide food and jobs to more people (Aladin et al. 2009) Actions for the control of the use of agricultural chemicals and especially chemicals which are banned because of causing health problems to humans like DDT, and DDT-like substances. The aim is to promote the use of environmental friendly chemicals and rationalize their use to improve health and welfare of local populations (UNESCO 2000). Actions need to be taken towards a wide cooperation between countries and agencies sharing jurisdiction over the Aral Sea and its tributaries and basin. Training and awareness actions are required to increase the participation of locals in all the proposed reforms.
Figure 6. (A) spillway of Kok-Aral dam, (B) spillway of Aklak control structure on Syr Dar'a river
Threats to success The threats to the success of the proposed management plans are more than one, even though the main is not to consider the current situation within the bordering countries (economy, political status, resources). Other threats are: 1. Human factors: it seems that administrators – since they are more interested in cash flows and investments – prefer to abandon efforts to save Aral Sea or part so it. On the other hand, local people are very much interested to secure jobs and income and therefore they are keen to disregard the state environment.
2. The projected trends in population shows an increase of 37.4% until 2025 for the Aral Sea basin area which will put pressure to the production sector for food and commodities. This in return may hinder the value of management plans for area again as food security will be a priority. 3. Poverty creates mismanagement. The economic status of the countries surrounding Aral Sea and the basin (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan) show high poverty rates. 4. The availability of funds since most rehabilitation actions for the Aral Sea requires extensive building or re-building of infrastructures. In addition, evethough it is recognized that there exist good laboratories and scientists in the area, there is lack of cooperation between them and with the rest of the world hindering scientific excellence in studying the region. Also the poor cooperation between the countries and agencies around the Aral Sea and its basin hinders the application of holistic management plans for which all parties should be in full agreement and committed. 5. Natural factors also play an important role in the failure of management plans such as the global climatic changes and the global warming. 6. Careful planning is required. Plans need to be detailed, reasonable, logical-down to earth and with cost/benefit efficiency.
References Aladin, N.V., (2009). The Aral Sea: already dead, dying or alive? Aral: Past, present and future – Two centuries of the Aral Sea investigations, 2009, Scientific Centre of Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg: Russia Aladin, N.V., Micklin, P., & Plotnikov, I., (2008). Biodiversity of the Aral Sea and its importance to the possible ways of rehabilitating and conserving its remnant water bodies, Environmental Problems of Central Asia and their Economic, Social and Security Impacts. 1994, 73-98 Aladin, N.V., Plotnikov I.S., & Potts W.T.W., (1995). The Aral Sea desiccation and possible ways of rehabilitating and conserving its northern part. Int. J. Environmetrics, 6, 17-29. Aladin, N.V., Plotnikov, I.S., Smurov, A.O., & Gontar, V.I. (2004). The role of introduced animal species in the ecosystem of the Aral Sea. Biological invasions in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. MoscowSt.Petersburg. 275–296 (in Russian). Aladin, N.V., Micklin, P., Keyser, D., Plotnikov, I., & Cretaux, J.-F., (2006). Managing Aral Lake and their basin for sustainable use, World Water Week in Stockholm, 2006, Stockholm, Sweden Aladin, N.V., Plotnikov, I.S., Micklin, P., & Ballatore, T., 2009. The Aral Sea: water level, salinity and longterm changes in biological communities of an endangered ecosystem – past, present and future. Saline lakes around the world: unique systems with unique values, 2009. University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, 177-183 Kiessling, K. L. (1998). Conference on the Aral Sea: Women, Children, Health and Environment. Ambio, 27(7), 562. Micklin, P., (2009). The future of the Aral Sea: The glass half full or half empty? Aral: Past, present and future – Two centuries of the Aral Sea investigations, 2009, Scientific Centre of Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg: Russia Micklin, P., & Aladin, N., (2008). Reclaiming the Aral Sea. Scientific American, Ecology, April 2008, 64-70 Newbold, K.B., (2007). Six Billion Plus: World Population in the Twenty-First Century. Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham Precoda, N., (1991). Requiem for the Aral Sea. Ambio, 20(3/4), 113 Shabanova L. & Dzhusupov A, (2006). Saving of Biodiversity of terrestrial ecosystems of Kazakhstan Part of the Aral Sea, 2009. Aral: Past, present and future – Two centuries of the Aral Sea investigations, 2009, Scientifi Centre of Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg: Russia, 57-58 Small, I., van der Meer, J., & Upshur, R.E.G., (2001). Acting on an Environmental Health Disaster: The Case of the Aral Sea. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109(6), 547-548 UNESCO, (2000). Water related vision for the Aral Sea basin for the year 2025. Paris France: UNESCO Publications Wiggs, G.F.S., O'Hara, S. L., Wegerdt, J., Van Der Meer, J., Small, I., & Hubbard, R., (2003). The Dynamics and Characteristics of Aeolian Dust in Dryland Central Asia: Possible Impacts on Human Exposure and Respiratory Health in the Aral Sea Basin. The Geographical Journal, 169(2), 143. Zhakova, L., (2009). Water flora composition and distribution of macrophyres in the Aral Sea: comparison for the present and the past. Aral: Past, present and future – Two centuries of the Aral Sea investigations, 2009, Scientific Centre of Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg: Russia Zhiming, B. , Norio, I., Yoshiaki, K., Ariyoshi, K., Kunio, M., Tomokazu, O. & Otsuka K., (2006). Inner Asia: Balancing the Environment with Socioeconomic Development. The State of the Environment in Asia 2005/2006. 167
ANNEX I. Biodiversity of Aral Sea (adapted from Aladin et al. 2004; 2008; Zhakova 2009) Taxon
Status 1990-2000
Mode of introduction
Impact
Osmoregulation classification
1929-1932
-
A
0
D3
1927-1934
-
A
0
D3
Ural river
1958
-
A
Unknown
1978-1980
R
-
A
0
D3
Baltic Sea
1954-1959
R
Unknown
A
+
D3
1954-1956
-
A
0
E
1954-1956
-
A
+
E
Origin
Year
Status
PISCES Alosa caspia Acispencer stellatus Acispencer nudiventris derjavini Acispencer guldenstadti Clupea harengus membras Liza aurata Liza saliens Ctenopharygodon idella Hypophthalmichth ys molitrix Aristichthys nobilis Platichthys flesus Mylopharygodon piceus Sygnathus abaster caspius Atherina boyeri caspia Knipowitschia caucasicus Neogobius fluviatillis Neogobius melanostomus Neogobius syrman Proterochinus marmoratus Neogobius kessleri Ophicephalus (Channa) argus BRANCHIOPODA Artemia salina (*) OSTRACODA Eucypris inflata (*) MYSIDACEA Paramysis baeri Paramysis lacustris Paramysis intermedia Paramysis ullsyi Limnomysis benedeni DECAPODA Palaemon elegans Palaemon adspersus Rithropanopeus harisii tridentata COPEPODA Calanipeda
Caspian Sea Caspian Sea
Caspian Sea Caspian Sea
D3
China
1960-1961
C
-
A
+
C1
China
1960-1961
C
-
A
+
C1
China
1960-1961
R
-
A
+
C1
Sea of Azov
1979-1987
C
C
A
+
E
China
1960-1961
C
-
A+
0
C1
1954-1956
R
-
A+
-
E
1954-1956
N
R
A+
-
E
1954-1956
N
Unknown
A+
-
D3
1954-1956
N
Unknown
A+
-
D3
1954-1956
N
-
A+
-
D3
1954-1956
R
-
A+
-
D3
1954-1956
R
Unknown
A+
-
D3
1954-1956
R
-
A+
-
D3
Native
1990-2000
N
N
N
+
D4
Native
1990-2000
N
N
N
+
D4
Don river
1958-1960
Unknown
-
A
0
C2
Don river
1958-1960
N
deltas
A
+
C2
Don river
1958-1960
N
-
A
+
C2
Don river
1958-1960
R
-
AC
+
C2
Unknown
1958-1960
R
-
AC
+
C2
1954-1966
N
N
A+
Unknown
B1
1954-1966
Unknown
-
A+
Unknown
B1
1965, 1966
N
N
A+
+
B2
1965,
N
N
A
+
B1
Caspian Sea Caspian Sea Caspian Sea Caspian Sea Caspian Sea Caspian Sea Caspian Sea Caspian Sea
Caspian Sea Caspian Sea Sea of Azov Sea of
aquaedulcic Heterocope caspia Acartia clause POLYCHAETA Hediste diversicolor BIVALVIA Abra ovata Monodacna colorata Mytillus galloprovincialis Mya arenaria FLORA Ruppia maritime Zanichella pedunculata Myriophyllum spicatum Najas marina Potamogeton pectinatus Scirpus kazachstanicus Phragmites australis Chara polyacantha Chara tomentosa Zostera noltii Lamprothamnium papulosus Ruppia cirrhosa
Azov
1966-1970
Unknown
1971
-
-
A
0
Unknown
Unknown
1985-1986
-
-
A
0
B1
Sea of Azov
1960-1961
N
N
A
+
A3
Sea of Azov
1960, 1961, 1963
N
N
A
+
A3
Unknown
1964, 1965
-
-
A
0
1954-1986
-
-
A
0
1984-1986
-
-
A
0
-
-
N N
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Native Native Native
-
-
-
-
Native
-
-
Sea of Azov Sea of Azov Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native
N N N N N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N
0 0
N
0
0
A3 A3 A3
D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 A3 A2
Legend: Status: R, rare; N, abundant;, C, commercial species Mode of introduction: A, acclimatization; AC, accidental introduction; A+, planned introduction; N, native species naturally occurring Impact to ecosystem: -, negative; +, positive, 0, no effect Osmoregulation classification: A2, marine, A3, euryhaline marine; B1, widely euryhaline marine; B2, brackish water of marine origin; C1, freshwater; C2, brackish water; D1, Caspian brackish; D3, euryhaline with freshwater origin; D4, widely euryhaline with freshwater origin; E, euryhaline marine with freshwater origin (Aladin et al. 2008) (*), appear only in Large Aral Sea
