The Drought Of The Aral Sea

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

The purpose of this research is to reveal the consequences of the human-made disaster in the region around the Aral Sea, inform the society about possible future scenarios and to offer applicable solutions.

Murat Kasar

Magdalena Krsova

Antoni M. Bennassar

Natural Conditions Murat Kasar

In the middle of Asia or oftenly referred as "Eurasian Continent", most of the rivers behave different than their relatives in terms of their flowing direction. Rather than feeding external oceans they build a self-contained hydro circle within by draining inside the continent. Such basins as Tarim, Balkash and Sistan are periodically filled and dried up later by the rivers which sometimes result in permanent lakes, marshlands or deserts (Baker, 1990).

Figure . The Aral Sea Basin (Micklin, 2007)

According to Britannica, the largest basin in the field was formed at the end of Neogene Period, approximately 2.6 million years ago. Later, the depression was filled with water for a long time which is supplied from Syr Darya, presently the second major river in the region. Afterwards, at the end of the Pleistocene Epoch, almost 12 thousand years ago, the lake was feeded by the Amu Darya for the first time which is now the biggest river in the region (Ashirkebov & Zonn, 2003).

The Aral Basin includes entirely present-time Üzbekistan and Tacikistan, seperating Kazakhstan on the north from Afghanistan on the south, connecting China on the east and Türkmenistan in the west , allocating the mountain ranges from deserts creating extreme conditions all over it’s extent. The basin contains two major rivers Amu Darya and Syr Darya which are supplied by the neighbouring mountain ranges of Tacikistan, Krygyzstan and Afghanistan in respectively %43, %25 and %18 (Richardson, 2012). Just on the border of Kazakhstan and Üzbekistan, these two rivers were the major water supply for the so called "Aral Sea" which is actually not a sea at all. The lake was covering an enormous space with its robust feeders more than an eye could see before 1960s.

By the size which was covering more than 60.000 km2 with a volume of 1000 km3, the Aral Sea was the fourth biggest among the lakes Caspian Sea, Lake Superior(USA, Canada) and Lake Victoria(Uganda, Kenya, Tanzanya)(EC IFAS, 2011). The water level of the lake in normal conditions were approximately around 52 meters above the sea level. It used to extend 428kilometers in lenght and 234kilometers in width with a maximum water depth of 70meters. The salinity of the lake used to be around 10%. Over the Aral Sea, continental climatic conditions were dominant which includes highly varying temperatures resulting in hot summers, cold winters and rainy spring periods. Water level variances are mainly controlled by precipitation, evaporation and most importantly water supply by the rivers. Rate of precipitation is approximately 100milimeters(8,7km3)per year which can not even be compared to the lake’s annual rate of evaporation, 63,8km3 . The most crucial parameter is the amount of water supplied by the rivers which is also decreased over the decades. The evaporation was so intense that even 6 meters of decrease in the water level has been recorded.

According to Kosarev and Kostianoy (2009), when the Aral Sea used to have natural conditions, before 1960, general information on morphometry, hydrology, meteorological characteristics, water level and cycle and currents were provided by observations and publications. Although the Aral Sea is an inland feature without any connection to oceans which should be referred as a lake, can be considered as a sea in terms of its size and oceanographic conditions.

The Aral Sea Basin stands between the Turgai plateau in the north to the mountains Hindu Kush and Pamir-Altai in the south, bounded by Ustyurt plateau in the west and Central Tien Shan in the east.

Seperated by Kokaral Island, a smaller part of the Aral Sea of 6000 km2 was in the northeastern part and used to be called Small Aral Sea where the southern part from the Kokaral Island was called Large Aral Sea. Small Aral Sea had a maximum depth which was around 28meters with an average of 10-20meters. In the Large Aral Sea there was an underwater ridge which splits it into two basins with different characteristics of physico-geographical conditions. While the eastern part of the underwater ridge was an asymmetric depression with prevailing depths of 20-25kilometers, the western part was a 20kilometers long narrow belt of sea depths with over 30 meters. The most specific feature that the Aral Sea used to have in the southeastern part called ``AkpetkinskyArchipelago`` consisting of more than 500 islands, tens of Kultuks, where the depth does not exceed 8 meters, and bays.

Salinity distribution over the sea was depending on the seasonal conditions throughout the year, dominantly on the river water inflow and evaporation rates. In the mouth offshore areas of Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers, lower salinity levels were observable. Most of the freshwater was coming from Amu Darya to the southern part of the sea and spread with an anticycle circulation along the west coast of the sea. On the other hand, high salinity levels were observable in shallower regions closer to the eastern coast due to water transfer with the sea. Vertical measurements of a water column were not significant to show any variations. According to Kosarev and Kostianoy (2009), from spring to autumn changes of the salinity were not more than 0.2-0.3ppt in the open sea where the number increases to 0.5 in the southwestern part. When northern and central parts are considered, winter is the season when salinity growth is visible.

The oxygen content of the Aral Sea was quite high, even was considered to be oversaturated with the deeper layers consisting of %120-150. No values less than %80 were ever recorded. Increase of the oxygen concentration was usually observed just below the thermocline, in other words at a depth of 15meters from the water surface. Such kind of conditions favors benthic organism development with almost transparent water appearance. However, the conditions were not in favor of pelagic organisms due to small fraction of dissolved organic matter.

The water content of the Aral Sea is quite poor in terms of nutrients such as phosphorous, nitrogen and silica which prevents probable photosynthesis by organisms. Most of the Aral Sea shows the characteristic features of common oligotrophic water content. Lack of nutrients can be explained by both the input and cycle of the substances. Since mostly transparent small depth water ensures sufficient illumination for photosynthesis, development of higher plants on the floor of the sea is prevented due to lack of accumulation. Highly developed benthic organisms and overwater vegetation at the mouths of rivers were consuming most of the substances blocking the nutritive salt input to the sea. Furthermore, the Aral Sea was always been known to lack proper flora and fauna. This is mainly because of the isolated nature of the water body. The region neither bears different groups of animals nor vegetation.

Economic Impacts Murat Kasar

Economic impacts related to this human-made disaster can be understood easier with the interpretation of population in the area. Just after 1950s in 38 years, population has grown dramatically from 13.9 to 33.2 million people around the area of Aral Sea which is the number combined from 11.8 million in Uzbekistan, 1.2 million in Krygzstan, 3.1 million in Tacikistan, 2 million in Turkmenistan and 1.2 million in Kazakhstan (Thompson, 2008). Although the total population of the Aral Sea Basin is numbered 34 million in 1990, today the skyscraping growth of population no longer exist. In the last census, percentage or children and young people has determined as %42.5 of the total population owing to the former growth. As a consequence, currently there are less people in working age than before (Kasperson, 1995). After the disaster, water levels shifted down and intense pollution disturbed environmental equilibrium of the Aral Sea Basin. However, in the Figure 2 below, water consumption of fisherman, industrial work, power generation and public use increased. According to Kasperson, growth of irrigation and development of agriculture is clearly the result of environmental disturbance.

Figure 2. Use of the water resources of the Aral Sea Basin at the level of the mid (km3/year) (Jeanne X. Kasperson, Regions at Risk)

Fishery

Fishing in the Aral Sea was mainly focused in the mouths of the rivers Syr Darya and Amu Darya. According to Zonn (2009), available fish species in the sea were composed of common sharp, sabrefish, roach, bream, perch, pike pearch, catfish and bastard sturgeon. %90 of the fish was caught in the sea while the rest was caught on the rivers. The significant factor was the even run of the fish which made fishery less dependant on seasons. After the construction of Central Asian Railway in 1890s, which made it quite easy to sell fish products to inland, fishery in the region had significantly developed. After a decline in the fishery caused by the civil war in 1917, an intense development with the capitalist enterprises took place in 1930s with a new system of state fishing and collective fish farms. As Zonn (2009) mentioned in his article ``In the period of the quasistationary regime the Aral Sea played a significant role in USSR economics. At that time the Aral’s share in the total inland fish catches was 5–7%, in the catches of valuable fish species (sturgeons, bream, common carp, sea roach, pike perch, asp) 11–13%. The average annual fish catch was 30–40 thousand tons (in some years it provided up to 58 thousand tons of valuable freshwater food fish).``.

Musk Rat Farming

The region was introduced to musk rat farming for the first time in 1941 in the Amu Darya delta. 335 musk rats were resettled from the Balkhash into the red strip during 1943-1944. For acclimatization and propagation, the animals were brought from Canada and almost 1.000 specialists worked for the musk rat hunting. After a while, international fur market became quite dependant to Amu Darya delta which were supplying an amount of over a million pelts per year. High quality pelts were used to manufacture hats, coats, muffs and collars while the low quality pelts were used in felt manufacture. Also, musk glands were quite valuable for the industry of durable fragrances. However, the musk rat farms were not efficiently used in terms of their full capacity. Particularly, the spare carcasses were usually thrown back in the sea.

The hunting of the musk rats required small traps. Unfortunately, not only the mature ones are caught also younger ones were caught in the traps. To prevent this situation, not to kill pregnant females or younglings, new designs of traps were put in use to only trap the animal but not to kill. So that, if the quality of the fur was low or the trapped animal was a female or too young to be killed, they were released back to the nature.

With the critical decision of Soviet government back in 1956, expanding irrigation and cultivating cotton for export, the roots of long-term economic and social costs have been seeded. The first major canal, the Kara Kum Canal, which diverted important part of water from Amu Darya river was constructed in 1956. Thirtyone years after, in 1987, for the first time the Aral Sea split into two water bodies a small one in the North and a bigger one in the South as you can see in the Figure 3 on the right. Also, salinity of the river has increased polluting the area and poisoning biota. Later in 2008, the Aral Sea has shrinked about %90 in surface area(EJF, 2011).

Figure 3. The Aral Sea in 1989 and 2003

The situation had some serious economic impacts:

Entire population of commercial fisherman were wiped out by the mid 1980s. Over 60.000 people were vacated which were bringing 40.000 tonnes fish per year to the market.

Muskret farmin industry also wiped out which were producing skins and hats.

Due to several geological processes like erosion, water quality decrease, soil pollution(salinity increase), cotton yields had dramatically decreased in amount in the area. Cotton export value has decreased to its one-third, $1.4 billion annually.

Ecosystem damages over a region of 522,500 hectares of former Aral Sea includes flood protection, water supply and quality, biota and nursery, recreational hunting and fishing, raw material and fuel wood, which costs $100 million dollars annually over the period 1960-1990.

Additionally, $3.49 billion was spent to recover sanitary, medical services, building new jobs and to reform the economy.

In the appendix 1, gdp values of the surrounding provinces in years through 1995-2002 is given. According to Dukhovny & Stulina, even years after the human-made disaster the region still suffers.

The clothing industry was severaly damaged after the disaster since Ãœzbekistan is the 2nd largest in the export of cotton. Under normal conditions, to produce 1kilogram of cotton 11.000 liters of freshwater is used which was doubled after the pollution of the freshwater supplied from the Aral Sea.

After several geological surveys in the basin, geologists concluded that the region is rich in natural sources like oil, gas, iron ore, nonferrous metals, coal, copper, head, tin, fluorite, lithium, gold, silver, antinomy, mercury and tungsten (Delany,n.d.). It was the only good thing after the vanish of the Aral Sea. On the other hand, the development of oil and gas industry also reduced the interest of reviving the sea again.

Nowadays, the situation in Üzbekistan’s energy sector is complicated. In December of 2011, public had suffered from the shortage of gas and electricity which resulted in a cut off of enterprises in Tashkent by the government. On the other side, Üzbekistan is still increasing its gas export over the years. In 2010, the numbers revealed that Üzbekistan exported gas, 15.5 billion m3, to Russia more than Türkmenistan did, 1.5 billion m3. In addition, Üzbekistan has started to export gas to China since 1st April of 2012 through the pipeline from Türkmenistan.

In 2003, the World Bank financed the project to revive the northern part of the sea, leaving the southern part to its faith. First, a dam was built, the Kok-Aral Dam, to prevent Syr Darya river from flowing into the southern sea where evaporation rates were too high to be balanced. Instead, the river was diverted to the northern sea expecting to contribute to a water level rise of 13 feet in four years. Additionally, the extra water supply would decrease the salinity of the sea and contribute to revive commercial fishing. Total of $85 million dollars were spent on the project (Pala, 2003).

Environmental Impacts Magdalena Krsova

The Aral Sea dessification have very large impact on all components of the environment. It has caused desertification, salinization, water and soil pollution, and has impact on cryosphere, biodiversity, as well as on people. Human impact is described in next chapter. These consequences are influenced to each other and one can influences second one. The decrease of water level observed in the Aral Sea has caused large biological, physical and chemical consequences (Kostianoy, 2006).

Desertification

The term desertification could be characterized by "degradation of land and natural resources to the extent that it cannot be used". It was caused by water drainage from the rivers Amu Darya and Syr Darya. These rivers are the major source of the Aral Sea and they are its natural intake of water. Therefore, this drying off of the Aral Sea have resulted desertification. We can see the decline in the groundwater level in the river deltas causing salt accumulation in the soil. As a result of this situation the vegetation has started to die and decrease in the vegetation cover has caused wind erosion causing more dust storms in this area. The wind spreads dust to central Asia and to other countries. The dust from Aral Sea was found 500 km away from the Aral Sea (Micklin, 2007) and some study show that traces of pesticides from this region were found in the blood of penguins in the Antarctic. Aral dust has been found on Greenland's glaciers, in Norway's forests, and Byelorussia's fields. Almost 6 million hectares of agricultural land were destroyed as a result of salinization and desertification (Bosch, 2007).

Impact on cryosphere

The increase of dust on glacier surfaces and mineralization of precipitation on them lead to intensive melting of glaciers: Tien-Shan, Altay, Himalaya’s, and Pamir. This is a very dangerous process for Aral Sea area because glaciers are the only remaining fresh water storage of supply and are the main atmospheric moisture condensators (Meleshko, 2004).

Salinity

As water levels drop, salt concentrations increase. The average salinity was 10 g/l in the Aral Sea in 1960 and water volume was 1,080 km3 (Aladin et.al., 1993). In 2008, water volume had decreased by 90 %, and salinity had increased by more than 12 times (Gaybullaev et al., 2012). There is accumulation of fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals that the river has brought from the catchment as a result of agro-industry and mining industries. All these changes has influenced flora and fauna and many species have disappeared, freshwater flora and fauna are quickly replaced by saline-tolerant species (Aladin et al., 1993).

Water Quality

One of the biggest problem is water polution. The scientist have detected a high concentration of organic and inorganic substances such as phosphorus, nitrogen, pesticides, and phenols are discharged into the river. Most water sources in Karakalpakstan are polluted and most drinking water sources do not comply with water standards in Karakalpkastan (Reymov et al., 1992). The groundwater quality ranges from 0,4 grams to 4-6 grams per liter (g/l) and it is measured in total dissilved salts (TDS). This value is higher than international standard for water mineral content for human consumption which is of 1,5 g/l. People living in this area are under the high risk of chronic exposure due to the high level of minerals and various toxins in drinking water (Ataniyazova et al., 2001).

Biodiversity impact

In the past the Aral Sea and environment around was unique because of their rich biodiversity. The Aral Sea area was one of the most richest locality and contained half of the biological species of the former USSR. There lived 70 kinds of mammals and 319 kinds of birds in the river deltas before 1960. Now there stay only 32 kinds of mammals and 160 kinds of birds remain (IFAS,)

There remain only species that are able to adapt to the new conditions, these are especially halophytic species or more resistant species (Novikova 1996, 1997). There is a large extinction of endemic species, for example Aral salmon (Salmo trutta aralensis). There used to be 30 fish species in the Aral Sea, but only 5 fish kinds in the western basin in 1998, in 2002 only two species. Fishes completely extinct in the eastern basin. Therefore, fishing industry has disappeared (Zholdasova et al., 1999; Piskova, 2011).

Moreover habitats have been destroyed. Many hectares of river deltas (alluvial soils) became salt-marsh and swamp and medow-swamp soil became dry. As a result of it 5-7 herb kinds needed for fodder for sheep, horses, camels and goats were destroyed.

Social Impacts Magdalena Krsova

Drought of Aral Sea and other related negative environmental factors have negative social impact. There are lots of studies showing the influence of this environmental disaster on human’s health (f.e. Bennion et al., 2007; Herbst et al., 2008). Some studies refer to impact on psychosocial health and well-being (Crighton et al., 2003). We can see that many factors play role here: socioeconomic and ecological factors as well. For example water pollution, bad public health services, destroyed agriculture which resulted in reduced crop yield, the rise in unemployment and poverty and so one (Ataniyazova, 2003). The bad health situation goes hand in hand with ecological situation and the resulting worsening economical condition of this region.

Human physical health

The population around the Aral Sea suffer from poor health. There is a higher number of these diseases in comparison with the rest of the former USSR and present-day Russia (Ataniyazova et al., 2000). These diseases are directly caused by dust storms and air quality, low quality of drinking water, pesticides in the environment and food chain (WHO, 1995).

We can see increase of diseases - tuberculosis, hepatitis, respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases which are the most common and serious and kidney and liver diseases, allergies, heart diseases, rates of anemia and various cancer (Zaridze et al., 1992; DHS, 1996; Bennion et al., 2007; Herbst et al., 2008).

Some research show that a high rate of anemia was found in almost all age categories of women in Aral area (87% of teenagers, 91% of non-pregnant women, 99% of pregnant women). There is a very considerable difference in comparison with 1980s, only 17-20% of pregnant women had anemia and newborn babies are also anemic (87%) (Ataniyazova, 2001).

The next investigations point to high levels of organochlorine pesticides in the plasma of pregnant women and in their brest milk (Ataniyazova et al., 2001).  DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane), DDE (dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) and TCDD (tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin) levels six times higher than those found in Western Europe and among the highest levels in any country in the world. As well as Petreas et al. (1996) and Hooper et al. (1998) show that breast milk samples had high levels of toxic compounds including TCDD. Arsenic, mercury, bromine, and nickel are being significantly higher in children living near the Aral Sea area (Chiba et al. 2004; Erdinger et al. 2004). Jensen et al. (1997) found that children from this area have higher levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), DDE and lead levels in their bodies between hospitalized children.

Many studies have also examined levels of POPs and agricultural chemicals in the food chain. Muntean et al. (2003) tested samples of foodstuffs produced and consumed in Aral Sea area. There was found out the highest levels of contamination in foods with lipid content such as eggs, sheep, and cottonseed oil.

These contaminants are very dangerous expecially for mothers and their babies because of high exposure to persistent organic pollutants. There are health consequences which are related to the potential teratogenesis, endocrine disruption, or changes in reproduction and fetal development (MSF, 1999).

This exposure has very negative conclusion. There was observed high number of reproductive pathologies such as infertility, miscarriages, complications during pregnancy and in birth in last 20 years. There is a large occurence of infertility. One of this researches suggested that infertility rate was in 5000 surveyed couples 16 %. Male infertility increased from 30-40 % in the 1980s to 65 % in the late 1990s. The rate of birth abnormalities is also increasing. One in every 20 babies is born with abnormalities, it is 5 times higher than European countries. Maternal and infant morbidity and mortality are higher in Aral area than in other parts of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. This region has the highest child mortality rate (Ataniyazova et al., 2000). This results show that population has been chronically exposed to the chemicals for a long time.

This bad situation is also influenced by low quality of health infrastructure. The hospitals and health centers lack essential medicines and medical equipment and health professionals do not have the means to perform their jobs effectively (Small et al., 2001).

All of factors which we mentioned have influence on psychical health and mental condition of local people. Crighton et al. (2003) refer to impact of an environmental disaster on psychosocial health and well-being. Psychosocial impacts are defined as a ‘‘complex of disability, dysfunction, distress, manifested in a wide range of psychological, social and behavioral outcomes, as a consequence of actual or perceived environmental contamination’’

(Elliott et al., 1993).

Crighton et al. (2003) studied sample of 1118 people aged 18 years and older and give them questions about perceived general health, the somatic symptom checklist, questions about perceptions of the environmental disaster, social support, sociodemographic and socio-economic characteristics. The result showed that 41 % of all respondents reported being concerned about these environmental problems (dirty drinking water, crops will not grow, salty water, salty land,) and air quality (salty wind dusty wind), while 48 % of all respondent have somatic symptoms associated with emotional stress. 22 % of all respondents mentioned that environmental problems have affected their or their family’s health.

Moreover, we can see differences in emotional distress between men and women and between ethnic groups. Environmental problems are commonly perceived to be the cause of somatic symptoms and are significantly related to self-rated health status. We can see that 17 % of reported people would consider moving. The issue of migration is real problem in the Aral Sea area. Situation is unbearable and nobody believe it is going to improve. There is very low crop yield and food is not safe. There are very bad prospects for the resolution and drought could make the area uninhabitable. So many people have lost their trust and they suffer from the stress reaction that involve symptoms of fear, anxiety and anger, as well as the process of perceiving the threat, coping with it, and adapting to it (Baum et al., 1982).

Description of Society

This situation is very difficult for local people because they are poor they have many children, mother have to stay home and look after them. Uzbek families have generally many children and the average family has 5-7 people. Children up to 15 years of age comprise 42, 5 % of the population in the Aral region. Therefore, there are fewer people of working age here (Kasperson, 1995). It is very hard to resolve this situation so often have to stay in this affected area. Moreover lots of people is unemloyment especially because of lack of job opportunity. Many young people have started to use drugs for a variety of reasons, including widespread poverty and unemployment. There are estimates that the total number of addicts in Uzbekistan, may be over 150,000 (population is 27 million) (Rasulov, 2009).

Almost 60 % of Uzbek population lives in rural places and this situation have many disadvantages for them. Women in villages don’t have access to services such as childcare. This prevents women with many children from taking up paid work outside the home. Education services don’t cover the needs of many children from rural zones. In some regions only 18 % of children are enrolled (IHF-HR, 2000). Rural women are overburdened because they are responsible for lots of hard work (Paddock , 2000).

Uzbek society and mentality is very influenced by religion. The nation is 88% Sunni Muslim (Nationmaster, 2005) and this country is strongly patriarchal. There is a historic attitude of male superiority and women have a secondary role. Such attitudes are especially strong with respect to family life. A different treatment of women starts in the family because boys and girls are socialized in different ways.  Boys are typically allowed do many things and activities in comparison with girls. Girls are brought up to see themselves as less than the boy (Tokhtakhodjaeva, 1999).

All children have to attend the first 8 years of school, it is compulsory.  But in families with many children, eight years is usually the maximum.  Children’s often have to work in the field or at home; girls are involved particularly in household tasks. The majority of girls have no access to secondary or higher education or have to drop out of the educational system because of poverty or early marriage.   Especially in rural areas it is common for girls to marry as early as 16 (IHF-HR, 2000).

There is next disadvantage of rural Aral Sea area. We can see the reluctance to take action to slow down or stop desertification processes by the politics. They live in the capital city that is far from this affected area. Local politics have little political effect on decision makers at the national level. This inaction show increasing risks for the distant inhabitants of a threatened village (Glantz).

Hofstede‘s Dimensions

We can describe this society with respect to „Hofsede dimension". Unfortunatelly, „Hofstede dimenison website" do not provide information for Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. However, I found a recent countrywide survey by Dadabaev (2004). According to his survey, Uzbekistan could be characterized as:

• High on the power distance scale.

• Medium to high on the masculine scale.

• High on the collectivism scale.

• Medium to high on the uncertainty avoidance scale.

• High on the long-term orientation scale.

Explanation could be following. According to Dadabaev (2004), this country is a very multicultural and multilingual country. The main forms of societal self-identification is ethnicity, regionalism, and localism. Traditional institutions such as the mahalla (it is local neighborhood community) and family and ethnic traditions are very strong. They workship a centuries-old traditions and family was and is one of the most important priorities in modern society. These traditions and institutions have survived centuries of occupation and colonization under extreme authoritarian Soviet rule. Uzbekistan has been under the domination of Russion since 19th century and it became independent in 1991. Present government is not democratic and present president is considered as one of the worst current world dictators. Uzbekistan is called like "an authoritarian state with limited civil rights and there is widespread violation of all basic human rights, for example torture, arbitrary arrests, and various restrictions of freedoms: of religion, of speech and press, of free association and assembly" (IHF-HR, 2004; OMCT, 2005).

This all information that I mentioned could be reason of higher level of power distance scale as well as the uncertainty avoidance scale and long term orientation. There small percentage of human individualism as well and therefore the coundtry is collective. They often do nothing with situation of Aral Sea. There are difference between perception between women and men of Aral Sea disaster. Women are more likely to experience psychosocial impacts, their perceived their health to be either fair to poor, were not too or not at all satisfied with their health, and had experienced more stressful life events over the past year. They perceived that environmental problems might influence their or their family’s health, and had considered moving because of environmental problems. This is caused by a bad statut of women in society and their more difficult life than men have.

Evolution of Ecological Disaster Antoni M. Bennassar

Despite being one of the four largest lakes in the world, the Aral Sea has signed his death warrant in the early 60's. Her disappearance is considered one of the most famous environmental disasters of all time denounced by environmentalists and forgotten by the international community.

The Aral Sea disaster is a prime example of what can happen if we develop our acts so oblivious to the environment, and regardless of how they affect the natural resources and the health of human beings. For several decades, the region of the Aral Sea, located between present Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan in Central Asia, lived years of progress, economic growth and population growth thanks to its lake. Agriculture and navigability of the lake, one of the four with the largest in the world and allowed it.

But within thirty years (since the late 60's to early 2000) the volume has been reduced gradually in more than 80%, and that was before the vast steppes of the Soviet lake , regulating ecosystems and aquifers is currently a saline desert. Is virtually dead. For many experts is one of the biggest environmental disasters of all time, a deliberate mess and silenced by the local authorities and the international community.

For centuries, the Aral Sea, actually a lake endorheic, ie, a landlocked watershed, was a major oasis set amidst the harsh Russian steppe and dry. Its volume grew thanks to the rivers Amu Darya and Syr Darya, the flow of which ended there, having collected surface of 68,000 square kilometers. Its name translates as Sea islands, as there were more than 1,500 small islands over a hectare emerged from within the lake. At present, these islands have disappeared.

Human presence and exploitation of the sea began in the mid-nineteenth century, when the Russian soldiers came to the shores of the Aral Sea. They founded a city, Aralsk, which would be the main port and center of operations of the fleet distant sea worldwide. Years later, he founded another city, Muynak, intended to complete the first industrial activity.

Fishing, which had always been the main economic activity of the area, was falsified by the arrival of the Russians. The riverside villages grew and were armed fleets, in his best time came to capture a sixth of the entire Russian fishing. It is estimated that annually about 40,000 tons were caught fish and their deltas housed dozens of smaller lakes, swamps and an area of 550,000 acres of wetlands.

One of the main problems that led to the destruction of the Aral Sea was poor planning farm that was established in the area. Back in 1918, when the first Communist government came to power after the Bolshevik Revolution, it was considered that this sea, in the middle of nowhere and consumed water from the Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers, was a mistake nature.

Soon the authorities were concerned to study and analyze the wealth of plant and one lake water than an area endowed by their location was very poor and barren. Ignoring the needs of the natural area and under the banner of progress at any cost, the Soviet government allocated 30 million rubles at that time to channel the river and irrigate a vast area of ​​steppe to turn it on the largest cotton plantation in the world.

Since that time and up to 60‘s, they built more than 30.000 kilometers of ditches and canals, 45 dams and 80 reservoirs. But the infrastructure was so badly done that in some cases, let out three quarters of the water carrying. But the authorities did not see (or did not want to see it) is that this plan, in the medium term, not only condemned to the lake. Also its inhabitants, as coastal living from fishing, were slowly losing that way of life and were ruined and forever tied to cotton plantations, which became their only means subsistence possible.

The last step was the construction of the canal between 1954 and 1960, ordered by the government of Moscow, with 500 miles and take a third of the water from the Amu Darya and distributed in a large basin to irrigate vast cotton fields and rice which claimed that the Soviet Union was self-sufficient in both productions. Maybe in the short term results seem satisfactory, as it happened to cultivate an area around four million hectares in 1960 to seven million twenty years later. The local population also increased considerably from about 14 to about 25 million.

 

However, efforts to achieve were excessive. It was intended to increase the flow of irrigation at the expense of the tributaries Amu Darya and the Syr Darya contributed to the lake, and in the eighties the contribution of these to the Aral Sea was only 10% of that was in the 60's. To excessive water consumption in this region is dry to the increase in population, there is the low efficiency of irrigation due to poor drainage and the rudimentary and ineffective drainage systems. The contamination of water by the use of fertilizers and pesticides was the trigger for the Aral began to die.

At first the decline in the volume of the Aral Sea was slow, about the volume down about 20 centimeters per year. But then, from 1975, the rate of disappearance was much higher. In the eighties, the water level down a meter per year away from the coast line more and more. In 2004, the Aral was already only a quarter of what it had been 30 years earlier, in 2007, only 10%. North through a dam completed in 2005, has managed to save a piece that is recovering slowly, however, over 80% of the sea is lost forever.

If we make an assessment on objective data, today the Aral Sea occupies half of its original size. 95% of the nearby marshes and wetlands have become deserts and deltas over fifty lakes have dried up. The consequences of this death are bleak in every way. First, the lake served as cushion extreme weather in the area, so its huge decline has made it hard winters and summers. We should not forget the terrible drought that afflicted the last few years the countries of the region that made the days without a drop of water increased from 35 to 120 per year.

In addition, its drying has uncovered more than 30,000 square kilometers of sand salinitzades an old seabed that is exposed to the sun such huge storms and salt chemicals into the wind carries million tonnes at distances greater than 200 kilometers. The drying has also led to the disappearance of 28 of the thirty species of fish that inhabit these waters, due to the recession fishing ports are now some 60 kilometers of water. The fishing industry has disappeared. The rest of the animals also had more luck: 173 species of animals that had survived only 38.

Possible Solutions Antoni M. Bennassar

Since 1960 the desiccation goes very fast in the Aral Sea and it becomes in dry area, without water and a little bit of salt in the soil. Everybody could intuit what would happen but no one did anything to avoid it. They could not stop the abusive practices of removing water from the sea with the agriculture. The main problem is that the governments do not fulfill their promises to repair this situation.

To reconstruct this situation, they realized that if they put reeds in the water, the fishes could feed and, in this form, recreating the food chain. And in this form as well, bearing a lot of animals in or close to the Aral Sea. The project is not finished yet, but they are working very hard to repair this situation in the Aral Sea as soon as possible. They want a growth of the water level and they want to avoid the pesticides because it contaminates the soil and water.

Also they say that the causes of a lot of diseases like anemia are caused by the bad nutrition that contains each fish or each animal that is living in the Aral Sea.

They think that each government of the different countries of the Aral Sea has to think in his own benefit and in his people. This is a bad situation because they must think for all the countries and they would have a bigger benefit.

The disaster was silenced by the international community and no responsibility, as with similar cases as Chernobyl and action plans appear to be on the agendas of all but one made ​​to fix it. Before the fall of the USSR in the eighties and seen the devastating effects of the drying of the lake occurred in the health of the local population, the Soviet engineers if they thought it brought water from the Ob River basin in Siberia, to fill the Aral Sea, as if this were a bathtub that other engineers, social, could drain and fill at your leisure.

However, in 1986 the plan was abandoned. Many claim that the interests of the Soviet government were null since the area had been used for 50 years as a secret biological weapons laboratory. The documentation of the time also shows that the intentions of the Aral Sea in Soviet bureaucrats were clear from the outset was planned to transform the republics of Central Asia into a vast reserve of cotton production in the Soviet Union. To achieve this goal, diverted water from rivers and convert these into real dumps, so the effects were known in advance, like the disappearance of the Aral Sea.

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the international community pushed to new countries in the region to conduct joint actions aimed at solving the problem, and in 1993 the five countries of the coasts formed the International Fund for saving the sea Aral, promising a rescue effort. But the agreements are minimal and the sea continues to fall.

 Regarding hope this continues. From 2010 to 2012 was carried out pharaonic task of recovering the Aral Sea, as well as the construction of dams and improve irrigation systems, and even is considering the transfer of water some river in Siberia. The most optimistic hope that in 2014 the North shore reaches back to the city of Aralsk, but not safe. Among the alternatives that environmental groups advise to restore sustainability in the area are full and partial improvement of the quality of irrigation canals, installation of desalination plants, the imposition of fees for farmers using the rivers, the introduction of alternative species of cotton with less water requirement and chemical fertilizers, and the transfer of water from the glaciers of Siberia to replace the water lost in the Aral.

Further Ideas Regarding Public Health Policy

The combination of several factors makes the situation in the region is alarming. The constant sandstorms and salt have different consequences devastating. On the one hand, the salinity on the air is a risk health of residents of the area, consider the harmful effects that have on the respiratory system. The population, especially children, has a high incidence diseases lung, among other diseases. On the other hand, windstorms raise all kinds of products chemicals used in agriculture, as fertilizers and pesticides, which further decrease the quality of the air and these results in many cases, various forms of cancer and malformations attributed to alterations in DNA. These factors must be added other aggravating circumstances, such as lack freshwater (and problems health if this entails alone), food contamination with pesticides (to the extent they are not unfit for human consumption) and poverty.

What effect does this mean for humans? Apart from the economic side, the drying of the Aral Sea has catastrophic results on the health of inhabitants of the region affected by drought and the use of pesticides and fertilizers in the cultivation of cotton requires. It is also the salinity of the water, four times the limit set by the WHO. Cases of hepatitis, cervical cancer, respiratory diseases and eye and intestinal infections have increased sevenfold since 1960.

The region recorded the highest child mortality throughout the former USSR and bronchitis has increased by 3,000% in less than forty years. Women in the region closest to the lake suffering a pandemic of anemia and 97% had hemoglobin levels well below 110 grams per liter of blood set by WHO. The cause is due to the contamination of water, saturated with strontium, zinc and manganese. Very near the Uzbekistan liver cancer from 1981 to 1987 grew by 200%, the neck 25% and infant mortality rose by 20%.

CONCLUSION

If we do not cure, it is expected that the Aral Sea will disappear completely at 2020. People emigrate because this area is very difficult to live by the scarcity of resources and the high risk of disease.

We can now admit without any doubt that the Aral Sea crisis is the result of a large and brutal human impact, followed by the interaction between complex mechanisms present in nature. This crisis and the steps which led to it epitomize our lack of understanding of our environment, as well as the scale at which we are now able to impact on nature. The limits posed by intrinsic properties of some geographical places, like the arid plains in which cotton-growing is artificially sustained, have proven us empirically wrong about nature's capacity to provide not so much for our needs as our fantasies driven by economic and political reasoning. Forcing nature into adapting fast to a demand of unprecedented scale has brought us the consequences that we described which seemed to pose no threat at first yet turned out to be disastrous on the long run. Now that we better comprehend these consequences and the forces that have driven them, we hopefully will make more informed decisions in the future. The fragility of the balance present in nature combined with vast and abrupt changes due to human society triggered an immensely complex set of changes in the environment, some of which are irreversible. Thresholds have been crossed, and while that cannot be changed, it is still worth the effort of reversing some of the feedback loops. We must act in every instance when we can have a great impact on restoring the Aral Sea, the same way we have destroying it.

References

Pala, C. (2003, 5 August). $85 Million Project Begins for Revival of the Aral Sea. The

New York Times, Science.

Zonn, I. (2009). Socio-economic conditions of the aral sea region before 1960 In A. Kosarev & A. Kostianoy (Eds.), The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, The Aral Sea Environment. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Alles, D. L. (2011). The aral sea. Unpublished manuscript, Western Washington University, Washington, US, Retrieved from http://fire.biol.wwu.edu/trent/alles/AralSea.pdf

Delany, M. (n.d.). Aral sea. Retrieved from http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~martins/hydro/case_studies/aral_sea.html

Sharip, F. (2012, 2 2). Uzbekistan’s quest for aral sea oil may weaken kazakhstan’s position in the caspian. Retrieved from http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=38962

Thompson. (2008). The aral sea crisis. Retrieved from http://www.columbia.edu/~tmt2120/impacts to life in the region.htm

(n.d.). Ecosystem services case study: The social, environmental, and economic impacts of unsustainable cotton production in the aral sea. (2011). Landen Consulting, Retrieved from http://www.landenconsulting.com/downloads/LC-case study--social-and-economic impacts-of-unsustainable-cotton-production.pdf

Ashirkebov, U. A., & Zonn, I. S. (2003). Aral: the history of dying sea. Dushanbe, Tajikistan: IFAS Executive Committee.

Kosarev, A. N., & Kostianoy, A. G. (2010). The aral sea under natural conditions (till 1960). In A. Kosarev & A. Kostianoy (Eds.), The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, The Aral Sea Environment. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Richardson, D., & Richardson, S. (2005). The aral sea. Retrieved from http://www.karakalpak.com/stanaral.html

NASA. (2001, 5 5). The shrinking aral sea. Retrieved from http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=1396

Baker, R. (1990). Aral sea. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, London University, London,England)Retrieved from http://classwebs.spea.indiana.edu/bakerr/Aral Sea.htm

EC-IFAS. (2011, 10 10). Aral sea history. Retrieved from http://www.ec-ifas.org/aral_basin/aral_sea/93-aral-sea-history.html

Dukhovny, V. (Designer), & Stulina, G. (Designer) (n.d.).Water and climate change in the aral sea basin[Web]. Retrieved from https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http://www.unece.org/env/water/meetings/Water.and.Climate/first.meet/Presentations/Dukhocvny_Stulina2_eng.ppt&ei=SyhwUeDEIqym0wWU1oDIBw&usg=AFQjCNFE4Bd1nPyfMQ4WKrBGXMUkwJZGgQ&sig2=hF_ZZ0hZ7Z4hZ5EH9r8VCA&bvm=bv.45373924,d.d2k

Aladin, N.V.; Plotnikov, I.S.; Filippov, A.A. 1993. Alteration of the Aral Sea ecosystem by human impact. Hydrobiological Journal 29, 22-31.

Ataniyazova, O.A.; Eshanov, T.B.; Konstantinova, L.G.; Kurbanov, A.B. 2000. Ecological factors and mother and children’s health in the Aral Sea region. Material submitted for an international workshop. Nukus, 14-16 September 2000, "FAN", Tashkent, 136.

Ataniyazova, O.A.; Baumann, R.A.; Liem, A.K.D.; Mukhopadhyay, U.A.; Vogelaar, E.F.; Boersma ER. 2001. Levels of certain metals, organochlorine pesticides and dioxins in cord blood, maternal blood, human milk and some commonly used nutrients in the surroundings of the Aral Sea (Karakalpakstan, Republic of Uzbekistan). Acta Paediatr 90 (7), 801–808.

Ataniyazova, O.A. 2003. Health and Ecological Consequences of the Aral Sea Crisis.

http://www2.adb.org/Documents/Presentations/RC_Shared_Water/Ataniyazova.pdf

Used: 14/04/2013

Baum, A.; Singer, J. E.; Baum; C. S. (1982). Stress and the environment. In G. W. Evans (Ed.), Environmental stress (pp. 15–44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bennion, P.; Hubbard. R.; O’Hara, S.; Wiggs, G.; Wegerdt, J.; Lewis, S.; Small, I.; van der Meer, J.; Upshur, R. 2007. The impact of airborne dust on respiratory health in children living in the Aral Sea region. Int J Epidemiol 36(5), 1103–1110.

Bosch, K.; Erdinger, L.; Ingel, F.; Khussainova, S.; Utegenova, E.;  Bresgen, N.; Eckl, P.M. 2007. Evaluation of toxicological properties of ground and surface-water saples from the Aral Sea Basin. Science of the Total Environment 374, 43-50.

Chiba, M.; Sera, K.; Hashizume, M.; Shimoda, T.; Sasaki, S.; Kunii, O.; Inaba, Y. 2004 Element concentrations in hair of children living in environmentally degraded districts of the East Aral Sea region. J Radioanalytical Nucl Chem 259(1), 149–152.

Crighton, E.J.; Elliott, S.J.; Van der Meer, J.; Small, I.; Upshur, R. 2003. Impacts of an environmental disaster on psychosocial health and well-being in Karakalpakstan. Soc Sci Med 56(3), 551–567.

Dadabaev, T. 2004. Post-soviet realities of society in Uzbekistan. Central Asian Survey 23(2),141-146.

DHS (Demographic and Health Surveys) Macro International Inc., & The Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology [Uzbekistan]. 1997. Uzbekistan demographic and health survey, 1996. Maryland: Macro International Inc.

Elliott, S. J.;Taylor, M. S.; Walter, S.; Stieb, D.;Frank, J.; Eyles, J. 1993. Modeling psychosocial effects of exposure to solid waste facilities. Social Science & Medicine 37(6), 761–804.

Erdinger, L.; Eckl, P.; Ingel, F.; Khussainova, S.; Utegenova, E.; Mann, V.; Gabrio, T. 2004. The Aral Sea disaster—human biomonitoring of Hg, as, HCB, DDE, and PCBs in children living in Aralsk and Akchi, Kazakhstan. Int J Hyg Environ Health 207(6), 541–547.

Gaybullaev, B.; Chen, S. C. ;Kuo, Y. M., 2012. Large-scale desiccation of the Aral Sea due to over-exploitation after 1960, Journal of Mountain Science 9, 538−546.

Herbst, S.; Fayzievab, D.; Kistemann, T. 2008. Risk factor analysis of diarrhoeal diseases in the Aral Sea area (Khorezm, Uzbekistan). Int J Environ Health Res 18(5), 305–321.

Hooper, K.; Petreas, M.X.; Chuvakova, T.; Kazbekova, G.; Druz, N.; Semenova. 1998. Analysis of breast milk to assess exposure to chlorinated contaminants in Kazakstan: high levels of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in Agricultural Villages in Southern Kazakhstan. Environ Health Perspect 106(12), 797–806.

lantz, M.H. Part II: The Aral Sea.

http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu18ce/uu18ce04.htm

Used: 17/04/2013

International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, 2000. Women, Uzbekistan.

http://www.ihf-hr.org.

Used: 17/04/2013

International Helsinki Federation for Human Right. 2004. Human Rights in the OSCE Region: Europe, Central Asia and North America.

http://web.archive.org/web/20100129175624/http://www.ihfhr.org/documents/doc_summary.php?sec_id=3&d_id=3860

Used: 15/04/2013

Internation Fund for Saving Aral Sea. Flora and Fauna.

http://www.ec-ifas.org/Russianversion/Aral crises/flora founa.htm

Used. 15/04/2013

Jensen, S.; Mazhitova, Z.; Zetterstrom, R. 1997. Environmental pollution and child health in the Aral Sea region in Kazakhstan. Sci Total Environ 206(2–3), 187–193.

Kasperson, J.X; Kasperson, R.E.; Turner, B.L.1995. Region at Risk. United Nation University Press, 1995.

Kostianoy, A.G. 2006. Dead and Dying Seas. Encyclopedia of Water Science. Taylor and Francis.

Meleshko, V.P., 2004. Anthropogenic climate changes in northern Eurasia in the 21st century. Russian Meteorological Hydrological Journal 7, 5–26.

Micklin, P. 2007. The Aral Sea Disaster. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 35, 47-72.

MSF. Research for Better Environmental Health in the Aral Sea Area. Conference Proceedings. Tashkent, Uzbekistan:Medecins Sans Frontieres, 1999.

Muntean, N.; Jermini, M.; Small, I.; Falzon, D.; Furst, P.; Migliorati, G.; Scortichini, G; Forti, A.F.; Anklam, E.; von Holst, C.; Niyazmatov, B.; Bahkridinov, S.; Aertgeerts, R.; Bertollini, R.; Tirado, C.; Kolb, A. 2003 Assessment of dietary exposure to some persistent organic pollutants in the Republic of Karakalpakstan of Uzbekistan. Environ Health Perspect 111(10), 1306–1311.

NationMaster. 2005. Religion.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/uz-uzbekistan/rel-religion

Used: 16/04/2013

OMCT and Legal Aid Society, Denial of justice in Uzbekistan – an assessment of the human rights situation and national system of protection of fundamental rights, 2005.

http://www.omct.org/files/2005/07/2984/omctlas_uzb_report_04_05.pdf

Used: 16/04/2013

Paddock, R.C. 2000. Uzbekistan Villagers Still Waiting for the State to Save Them.

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jun/20/news/mn-42941

Used: 17/04/2013

Petreas, M.X., Hooper, K.; She, J.; Visita, P.; Winkler, J.; McKinney, M.; Mok, M.; Sy, F.; Garcha, J.; Chuvakova, T.; Paltusheva, T.;Sharmanov, T.; Semenova, G. 1996. Analysis of human breast milk to assess exposure to chlorinated contaminants in Kazakhstan. Organohalogen Compd 30, 20–23.

Piskova., A. 2011. Aralske jezero. Vesmir 90, 82.

Rasulov, B. 2009. Uzbekistan Downplays Drug Problem.

http://iwpr.net/report-news/uzbekistan-downplays-drug-problem

Used: 17/04/2013

Reymov, R. R.; Konstantinova, L.G. 1992. Ecological characteristics of Pryaralie and differentiation it as a ecological disaster zone. Vestnik Karakalpak. Otd. Academii Nauk Uzbek, N2, 7-10.

Small, I.; van der Merr, J.; Upshur, R.E.G.2001. Acting on an Environmental Health Disaster: The Case of the Aral Sea. Environmental Health Perspectives 109 (6), 547-549.

Tokhtakhodjaeva, M. 1999. Traditional Stereotypes and Women’s Problems in Post-Soviet Uzbekistan: A Survey of the Mass Media. Women Living Under Muslim Laws Dossier 22,37.

Zholdasova, I.M.; Pavlovskaya, L.P.; Urasbaev, A.N.; Adenbayev, E.; Lubimova, S.K.. 1999. Biological Bases of Fishery Development in the Waterbodies of the SouthernAral Region. See UNESCO 1998, 213–215

Zaridze, D. G; Basieva, T.; Kabulov, M.; Day, N. E.; Duffy, S. W. 1992. Oesophageal cancer in the Republic of Karakalpakstan. International Journal of Epidemiology, 21(4), 643–648.

Zartbittter, 2007

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsEqn476w0o&feature=related&hl=es&gl=ES

Debashir, 2007

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hu0Hr9eS_g&hl=es&gl=ES&feature=related

Pilar Bonet, 1990

http://www.grijalvo.com/Pilar_Bonet/La_sal.htm

Juan Manuel Grijalvo

http://www.grijalvo.com/K/mar_de_aral_catastrofe.htm

Isabel Coixet

http://www.wearewater.org/es/aral-el-mar-perdido_1900

El Pais

http://elpais.com/diario/2004/01/02/sociedad/1072998005_850215.html

Sele

http://www.elrincondesele.com/oxidados-barcos-varados-en-un-desierto-llamado-mar-de-aral-uzbekistan/

http://www.mararal.blogspot.nl/

http://recuerdosdepandora.com/naturaleza/el-mar-de-aral-como-el-cultivo-de-algodon-acabo-con-un-gran-lago/

http://www.edualter.org/material/aigua/aral.htm

DMITRI POLIKÀRPOV, 2009

http://jonkepa.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/el-mar-daral-quasi-ja-no-existeix-per-culpa-de-laccio-humana/

Jaume Mas, 2009

http://monverd.org/natura/2009/05/23/535/

Espores, 2013

http://www.espores.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=246:aral-el-mar-perdut&Itemid=4&lang=ca

Anna Boluda, 2009

http://www.sostenible.cat/sostenible/web/noticies/sos_noticies_web.php?cod_idioma=1&seccio=3&num_noticia=438800

Miquel Àngel, 2013

http://altresindrets.com/2013/04/07/el-mar-daral-una-aproximacio-a-un-gran-desastre-mediambiental/#more-350

Club de la Mar, Melilla.

http://www.clubdelamar.org/aral.htm

FAO, 1998.

http://www.fao.org/AG/esp/revista/9809/spot2.htm

FAO, 1997.

http://www.fao.org/NoticiaS/1997/970104-s.htm

Gerard Prieto, Gerard Puig, Roger Puig, 2012

http://www.slideshare.net/rogercycling/el-mar-daral