NOTE: This article is part of our International Publicity Campaign. Please click here for details and discussion.


THE CENTRAL ASIAN WATER CRISIS
By Najim Dost

Executive Summary

Water, being the most scarce, non-substitutable and vital resource for human survival, has always brought on intra and inter-national conflicts among its users; the conflict being specially bound to occur when international water basins are shared through national boundaries.. Looking at the water management practices in Central Asia and comparing it to that in other parts of the world, specifically, the Rhine river in Europe, I will exhibit that the region has been badly hit by the multi-faceted after-effects of water shortage in the area. The effects are most severe in the regions economy, health and overall living condition of its inhabitants.

Introduction

“Arabs say, ‘Almai ne’ema wa naqma’ – meaning water is a blessing and a curse, depending on how it is managed or mismanaged, shared or divided, used judiciously or carelessly.”

Daniel Hillel, The author of Rivers of Eden


SECTION I – THE WATERS IN CENTRAL ASIA AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

The Aral Sea

The Aral Sea Basin is one of the oldest regions of irrigated agriculture where the favorable climatic conditions and natural fertility of the soil favor the development of agriculture. Until the 1950s, irrigation water demands were relatively low with the major water supplying rivers, i.e. Amu-Darya and Syr-Darya regularly discharging into the Aral Sea. Since the 1960s, however, when the states of Central Asia (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan) and Kazakhstan initiated a large-scale opening up of new lands through irrigation, the equilibrium between the water demand of man for the water and that required for a healthy functioning of aquatic systems, has become destroyed. It took only about 30 years to develop into a major ecological crisis of the Aral Sea Basin. During the 1980s several years passed in which little or no water reached the Aral Sea from the river. Inflows from the Syr Darya River have drastically diminished in recent decades. As a result, the volume of the Aral Sea dropped by about 80 percent between 1960 and 2000. A relevant map can be found at:

http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/meriv.htm
Attempts at Cooperation

The Ministers of Water Supply from the five riparian states sharing the Aral Basin signed an agreement in October 1991 that was designed to resolve water conflicts. The agreement recognized the unity of the Aral Basin and the right of each riparian state to use the common water resources under the principle of equality. A working group was set up to oversee the enforcement of the agreement. Its functions included developing a single program of utilization and creating a mechanism of water consumption in the interests of the national economies, and protection of water resources. Several measures to improve the area around the Aral Sea and to replenish it were also envisaged in the multilateral agreement.

Following the 1991 agreement, an Interstate Coordinating Commission for Water Supply (ICCWS) and two river basin authorities (BVOs) – the Syr Darya BVO located in Tashkent and the Amu Darya BVO located in Urgench – were established to apportion water from the two rivers among the five independent states in an equitable manner. However, to date, accomplishments of these regional and basin-specific bodies have been very limited. Nonetheless, as we will see attempts to develop and implement multilateral mechanisms and institutions for resolving trans-boundary water issues in a cooperative manner have continued in the Aral Basin.

In March 1993, all five of the Aral Sea watershed states (including Kazakhstan) signed a multinational agreement to improve the situation in the Aral Sea Basin. A fund was established to pay for needed restoration efforts, requiring each country to contribute one per cent of its annual GNP. In January 1994 another meeting, this one held in Nukus, reaffirmed their commitment to resolving the crisis.

In April 1996, the three republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan announced an agreement to improve cross-border delivery of water and energy. The accord they signed calls on Kyrgyzstan to guarantee supplies of hydroelectricity and a sufficient flow of water through the Syr Darya to the downstream cotton fields of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, in return for unspecified amounts of gas from Uzbekistan and coal from Kazakhstan. The three republics have also invited the neighboring governments to join in and help resolve a host of other water and energy disputes.

Similarly, in 1992, Israel had expressed an interest in collaborating with Uzbekistan in improving the use of the water resources and agricultural productivity in Uzbekistan. The Israeli Oceanographic Institute was prepared to offer technological assistance in ocean and river fish farming.

In the same year, the United States and Kyrgyzstan also reached an agreement to construct a hydroelectric dam on the southern Naryn River. It is estimated that Kyrgyzstan, which produces 13 billion kilowatt hours of electricity annually, of which 3 billion KWH goes to Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, has the potential to supply up to 140 billion KWH per year.

Other international organizations such as the World Bank, the EU, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have also been involved in trying to promote a policy of regional cooperation through the creation of international institutions for the management of the Aral Sea Basin. In addition, numerous other nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have been working on health and environmental issues related to the Aral Basin.
Water Management in Uzbekistan

The Nukus declaration of the Central Asian Republics regarding the problems of sustainable development in the Aral Sea basin asserted that sustainable development is the main subject of human activity in the basin (September 21 1995, " East Truth"). This declaration, as mentioned earlier, was signed by the heads of states of the Republics and it points the way for:

Despite all above, few practical solutions have emerged so far. Due to the region's immense political and economic problems taking precedence, the rescue plans have simply not materialized. The region as a whole has never had a unified and practical water management strategy, no water pricing policy, no supporting environmental legislation, and no clear ecological objectives. Most of the watershed states have instead been busy trying to squeeze as much water out of the Amu Darya and Syr Darya Rivers as possible, the result of which is obvious – further deterioration of the issue.


Page 1 of 2 | Next Page »

View Comments (0)