Monday, 5th April 2010
Central Asia - an environmental cauldron
The OSCE has emerged in the new world order as the world's largest security organisation, positioned uniquely in the contemporary global security environment.
But President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan, the country currently holding the rotating Chairmanship of the OSCE, is correct when he says that the OSCE has lost some of its sparkle in recent years. President Nazarbayev regards Kazakhstan’s year in office as an opportunity to restore that sparkle and re-kindle the dynamism of which the OSCE is capable.
Unquestionably, President Nazarbayev is the person ideally suited to this task. He is a builder. In under two decades he has built Kazakhstan into the most dynamic and buoyant nation in Central Asia. He has built a new, exciting capital city in Astana. And he has built an international reputation for his country as a multi-national and multi-religious state committed to inter-cultural and inter-ethnic harmony.
In this light, I fully agree that the Chairmanship of the OSCE by Kazakhstan offers an exceptional opportunity to tackle the global problems of economic recession, the fight against extremism and terrorism, the on-going conflict in Afghanistan and the issues of freedom, democracy and human rights.
As the first Central Asian state to hold the OSCE Chairmanship, Kazakhstan is strategically placed and opens the window to engagement in new developments in Central Asia. In particular, Kazakhstan’s decision, despite the global economic meltdown, to allocate $50 million to educating Afghan students in leading Kazakh colleges and universities, is a classic example of President Nazarbayev’s core belief, that the pen is mightier than the sword and that military intervention alone cannot resolve the long term conflict in Afghanistan.
As President Nazarbayev said in his opening speech to the OSCE in Vienna in January, the environment and ecology is a field where the impact of mismanaged natural resources may quickly spill over and exacerbate inter and even intra-state tensions. Nowhere is this more evident than Central Asia. From land degradation to water management infrastructure, the ecological problems involving Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan are manifold.
We have seen the dramatic degradation of the Aral and Caspian Seas. That is why water use, trans-border supply questions and their impact on agriculture, industry and human consumption, are key issues which I will study in my role as Personal Representative on Ecology and the Environment to the Chairman in Office of the OSCE. I will also look at soil contamination and waste from uranium mining and the catastrophic legacy of the Soviet nuclear tests in the Polygon around Semipalatinsk in East Kazakhstan. These are all issues that I wish to talk about in my lecture today.
Environmental degradation, unsustainable use of natural resources and mismanagement in the processing and disposal of wastes have a substantial impact on health, welfare, stability and security and can upset ecological systems. These factors, together with problems of access to resources and the negative external effects of pollution, can cause tensions between countries. Ecological disasters resulting from natural causes, economic activities or terrorist acts may also pose a serious threat to stability and security.
As the world’s largest regional security organisation, whose 56 participating states cover the geographical area from Vancouver to Vladivostok, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has an obligation to address the factors that cause tension and work towards alleviating the effects of environmental degradation. The concerns of OSCE participating states over the environment have increased in recent years, taking into account the growing impact of environmental factors on prosperity, stability and security of states and the health of their populations.
Kazakhstan has learnt some hard and unenviable lessons in environmental catastrophes which perhaps help to explain its keen interest in these issues. Over a period of 40 years, Stalin exploded more than 600 nuclear bombs in a vast weapons testing site in the Polygon in East Kazakhstan, leaving an appalling legacy of radioactive pollution and illness. In addition, the virtual emptying of the Aral Sea due to disastrous irrigation projects during the Soviet era, has created an environmental problem of global significance
It is as a result of this experience that Kazakhstan, as the current Chair of the OSCE, has established the post of Personal Representative of the Chairman-in-Office for Ecology and Environmental issues, a post to which I have been appointed. My key function will be to explore ways in which some of these acute environmental problems can be tackled. I will search for new and environmentally sound technology, examining ways to combat the unsustainable use of natural resources, while preventing ecological risks and their irreversible effects on the environment and health. All of these functions carry a price tag, so an essential part of my role will be to identify potential donors who may be able to assist in the implementation of some of the contrived strategies.
Additionally, my role will include monitoring the implementation of international legal acts in Central Asia, developing cooperative links between the OSCE and relevant interstate bodies and assisting the Chairman-in-Office in the preparation of the 18th OSCE Economic and Environmental Forum, which will focus on environmental degradation and resource scarcity in Central Asia and the implications of these factors on regional stability.
Environmental degradation and Regional Stability in Central Asia
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, democratisation in many parts of Central Asia has not been a smooth process, especially in economic terms. Four of the five republics, with the exception of Kazakhstan, have had difficulties in developing their economies and consequently, poverty has increased as development stalled. The post-Cold War tendency to link security with development and the dislocations of the transition period have thus contributed to the growing number of internal threats to stability in recent years.
With the exception of the civil war in Tajikistan, violent conflict has not engulfed the region as once predicted, but inter-state relations are not entirely harmonious. Separatist movements, non-democratic oligarchies, geopolitical manoeuvring, global flows of goods and capital, oil politics and religious tension have all threatened to cause conflict and embroil not only the Central Asian republics, but also Russia, China, Iran, Afghanistan and Azerbaijan. This bubbling cauldron of regional divergence underscores the geopolitical importance of Central Asia and highlights the fact that the international community must help the region develop in order to prevent tensions from deepening any further.
Although it is nearly impossible to summarise succinctly all the environmental issues that threaten stability in the region, some of the most pertinent issues are the radiation legacy of the 'Polygon', the Aral Sea ‘eco-catastrophe’, industrial and agricultural pollution, mining hazards, greenhouse gases, poor water management policies, desertification/land degradation and biodiversity loss. Resource scarcity threatens stability because many of the resources transcend political boundaries and degradation in one area often has serious consequences for neighbouring areas.
The view of the OSCE is that ‘a high level of environmental pressure does not necessarily lead to violent conflicts, but environmental degradation is one strand within a complex web of causality in which a series of socio-economic problems- such as population pressure, poverty, forced migration, refugee movements, political instability and ethno-political tensions- are intertwined’. Therefore, rather than being causes of conflict, environmental degradation and resource scarcity are more appropriately described as catalytic as they contribute to accelerating existing political and social crises and heightened ethnic tensions.
Intentions as Representative
It is my intention to address the existing environmental problems in Central Asia in order to promote regional stability and facilitate development to enhance the standard of living for the people of the region. Whilst it is imperative to address existing environmental problems that threaten regional stability, it is recognised that timely environmental hazard identification is equally important in order to prevent further degradation and improve the quality of life for the people of Central Asia. Accordingly, throughout the year of the Kazakh Presidency it is necessary to adopt a future-oriented approach to the environment and identify the potential issues that will affect regional stability in Central Asia.
The future water requirement of Afghanistan is an ideal example of a potentially destabilising environmental issue and highlights the need for the international community to assist in ensuring stability in Central Asia. Afghanistan is irrefutably linked with the Central Asian Republics through trans-boundary water resources and almost 40% of its territory and 33% of its population reside within the Aral Sea Basin (Khamzayeva 2009).
In terms of regional stability, the problem posed by Afghanistan relates to its use of water carried by the Amu Darya River, which is shared with Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and eventually flows into the southern section, or ‘Large’ Aral Sea. Although no comprehensive analysis has been published yet, it is often highlighted that when, or if, the security situation stabilises in Afghanistan, much of the country’s development will focus on irrigated agriculture which will in turn, mean increased use of the water resources available from the already over-exploited Amu Darya
Development practitioners working in Afghanistan have advocated an expansion of the pomegranate industry as a means of boosting the economy and promoting development-centred stability within Afghan borders. Afghan Agriculture Minister Mohammad Asif Rahini correctly noted that the crop is a potential ‘path to prosperity’ for his country partly because the anti-oxidant packed fruit is the latest addition to the ‘Hollywood Health Craze’ and is now seen as beneficial for anything from heart disease to prostate cancer or has even been suggested as a natural alternative to Viagra.
Although expanding the pomegranate industry may promote intra-state stability and development in Afghanistan, the increased use of water from the Amu Darya River may have serious consequences for inter-state relations with Central Asian neighbours. Increased agricultural production will obviously require water for irrigation and pomegranates are a water-intensive crop. Any growing that takes place in the northern part of Afghanistan will likely draw water from the Amu Darya and such a situation will invariably create tension and enhance the risk of conflict with the Amu Darya’s downstream users, who already encounter water availability problems. Consequently, the international community and development agencies must resist the temptation to assume that Afghanistan’s development needs automatically outweigh those of the Central Asian states.
The Polygon
I vividly remember my first visit to Ground Zero and the eerie desolation of the site. I remember that we drove out of Kurchatov, past the last former Soviet army checkpoint, where the tarmac suddenly ends and the journey to Ground Zero continues off-road, across the parched and endless steppe. Despite the searing heat, we had to keep the windows of our minibus tightly shut to avoid inhaling plutonium particles in the swirling clouds of dust. After some hours driving, we saw a spiral of dust approaching us fast across the steppe. It was a local villager riding an old motorcycle, hurrying to escape arrest for pilfering copper wire and metal from Ground Zero.
Of course there are no resources available to police the test site and despite the fact that spending more than ten minutes at the epicentre is lethally dangerous, many villagers camp on the site for days, digging up the hundreds of kilometres of copper wire used to detonate the bombs. They know they will die in a few years from radiation poisoning. But they say they will die anyway from starvation. At least, they argue, this way they will earn enough to feed their families, by selling the copper.
At 5 kilometres from Ground Zero we came across the first series of reinforced concrete towers, known as ‘Geese’, still bearing the remains of nuclear blast monitoring equipment. Nearer Ground Zero, the towers are little more than mangled heaps of steel and concrete. Rocks and stones have been turned to glass. The eerie stillness of the place belies its former hideous purpose. Here sheep, pigs, cattle and dogs were tethered to stakes to await the scorching nuclear blasts. A whole small uninhabited town was erected nearby with two shops, a metro station a factory and road and railway bridges. Scarecrows dressed as soldiers were dotted around. Military machinery, artillery pieces, tanks, aeroplanes, transport vehicles and armoured cars were placed at different distances around the epicentre to study the impact of the bombs. Now the tangled detritus is all that remains. Only the shrill bleeping of our Geiger counter broke the silence.
It was here in the Polygon, between 1949 and 1990, that the Soviets exploded more than 600 atomic weapons, subjecting the local 1.5 million farmers and villagers to the equivalent of 20,000 Hiroshima bombs. Cynically, the military scientists would wait until the wind was blowing in the direction of the remote Kazakh villages before detonating their nuclear devices. KGB doctors would then closely study the effects of nuclear radiation on their own population, used as human guinea pigs. The legacy of these horrific experiments is everywhere to see. Seepage from the underground tests has polluted watercourses and streams. Farmland has been heavily irradiated. Radioactive contamination has entered the food chain.
One of Kazakhstan’s leading academicians – Professor Saim Balmukhanov – told me that the people are suffering from a ‘genetic multiplier effect.’ When a man and a woman who have both been affected by radiation have a child, the genetic malformation in the baby is multiplied. Professor Balmukhanov says that sometimes the damage may skip two generations, but then it will return with a vengeance. Many ill and severely deformed babies were born in the past 20 years. He expects the next wave to appear around 2020 and anticipates that it may take at least until 2080 before the genetic impact begins to wear out, although no-one knows for sure.
What we do know is that many people in the Polygon are ill. Cancers run at five times the national average. Birth defects are three times the national average. Babies and farm animals are born with terrible deformities. Children are mentally retarded and Downs Syndrome is common. Virtually all children suffer from anaemia. Many of the young men are impotent. Many young women are afraid to become pregnant in case they give birth to defective babies. Psychological disorders are rife. Suicides are widespread. Average life expectancy is only 52 years. This is a man-made environmental problem of global significance which, I regret, may take many decades to resolve.
The Aral Sea
The other major ecological catastrophe, as I mentioned already, is the Aral Sea. Mismanagement of irrigation projects by the Soviets and continued over-exploitation of the rivers that feed it has caused the level of this inland sea to drop by a staggering 13 metres, decreasing its size by 50%. In turn, the severe desiccation of the Sea has contributed to climate change in the area, with swirling salt and toxic dust storms causing devastating erosion and spreading desertification over an area of 3 million hectares.
The Aral Sea was once the fourth largest inland body of water on earth, with a surface area of 66,000 square km. In 1960, the mean water level was 53.4 metres. Its subsequent destruction constitutes one of the biggest man-made environmental disasters in history and has not only laid waste to vast areas of once productive farmland, but has devastated the health of the local population. Around the southern edge of the Aral Sea is the Karakalpak Republic, an autonomous republic that lies within the borders of Uzbekistan. The 1.5 million population of Karakalpakstan have borne the brunt of the ecological and environmental disaster affecting the Aral Sea.
The Aral Sea is bordered by Kazakhstan to the north and Uzbekistan to the south. The Aral Sea basin includes Uzbekistan, Tajikstan and parts of Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan and Turkmenistan but even stretches as far as Afghanistan and Iran. The sea is sandwiched between two deserts, the Karakum and the Kyzylkum. Like other parts of Kazakhstan, the region suffers a wide swing of temperatures, ranging from + 40°C in summer to -20°C in winter, with very little annual rainfall. The main volume of water feeding into the sea is from high glaciers which supply the Syr Darya and the Amu Darya Rivers which enter the sea from the north and south respectively. In dry years, the Syr Darya no longer reaches the sea at all, but peters out in the steppe.
In ancient times the Aral Sea was a rich oasis and a well established meeting point on the Silk Road, where thousands of farmers, merchants, hunters and craftsmen came to trade and buy fish from scores of local fishermen who exploited more than 20 different species of fish in the vast river deltas, teeming lagoons and shallow straits. There was also a bustling shipping trade that connected the northern port of Aralsk to the river ports of the biggest river, the Amu Darya, some as far distant as Tajikistan.
Vozrozhdenie or ‘Resurrection’ Island
Prior to being virtually drained by unrelenting desiccation, over 1100 individual islands dotted the surface of the Sea. The word ‘Aral’ literally means ‘island’ in the Turkic language. In the early 1950’s, Soviet military scientists selected a small island, known as Vozrozhdenie or ‘Resurrection’ Island as the primary testing ground for its secret biological weapons program. Between 1954 and 1992, scientists experimented with a range of genetically modified and weaponised pathogens such as anthrax, plague, typhus and smallpox as well as other disease-causing organisms (Micklin 2007). Towards the end of the Soviet era in 1988, hundreds of tons of anthrax were transported from other Soviet test sites such as Stepnogorsk and dumped on Vozrozhdenie. The anthrax strains were hastily buried in drums or simply in sandpits where bleach had been added (Swedish Defence Research Agency 2000, Whish-Wilson 2002).
Unique environmental, social, health and security concerns have been created by this weapons-testing programme on Vozrozhdenie and these concerns are heightened by the continuing desiccation of the Aral Sea (Sievers 2002). Since the Sea began to recede in the 1960s, the island has grown from around 180km2 to 1800km2 and the southern part of Vozrozhdenie actually became connected to the mainland in 2001 (Micklin 2007). Although Uzbek authorities and officials from the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency have been involved in expeditions to decontaminate and neutralise the threats, fears persist that strains of virulent diseases may still be viable at the former test site, as the southern part of Vozrozhdenie was used for the dissemination of patterns of biological weapons agent aerosols and methods to detect them. (Swedish Defence Research Agency 2000). The chief concern is that some weaponised organisms survived and could escape to the mainland via infected rodents, looters or terrorists that might gain access to them.
Uranium Tailings in Central Asia
For my fourth and final illustration of ecological disasters, let me turn to the question of uranium mining. Large-scale mining and milling of uranium ore produces a valuable source of income for countries in Central Asia. However, it also produces significant amounts of radioactive waste. Two types of waste are produced; one comprises solid radioactive waste from low-grade unusable ores stored in dumps and the other consists of solid, liquid and gaseous radioactive and chemical wastes from hydometallurgical plants producing uranium oxide. The latter is generally stored in large reservoirs called tailings impoundments (Sevcik 2003).
The final product of the mining process, uranium oxide of ‘yellow cake’ is only slightly radioactive because approximately 70% of the radioactivity is left behind in the tailings. Tailings are problematic if they are kept dry as they will then emit radon gas into the air and radioactive particles can then be picked up and transported by winds. To prevent such contamination, tailings are normally submerged underwater (Sevcik 2003).
Whilst underwater storage may minimise atmospheric transport, it will increase the likelihood of groundwater contamination. To offset the risk, the tailings dumps are lined with thick, plastic liners. However, many of these plastic-lined reservoirs or tailings impoundments have been neglected over the years, are badly fenced and cattle and other farm livestock can periodically be seen grazing inside their perimeters.
There are more than 812 million tonnes of radioactive production and processing waste in the tailings and mountain dumps of active and closed uranium mines on the territory of Central Asia. These tailings are often remnants of the former USSR military-industrial complex and their condition has deteriorated significantly. Now they pose a serious ecological threat of regional scale (UNDP).
The threats caused by the accumulation of large amounts of radioactive waste include contamination of water resources and the growing risk of radioactive waste storage sites being destroyed by natural disasters and natural and man-made catastrophes. The most dangerous radioactive waste disposal sites in Central Asia are concentrated in the so-called “Ferghana radioactive belt,” which is home to over ten million people in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan (UNDP). ‘Hot spots’, which are sites of serious concern include Mayluu-Suu, Min-Kush and Kaji-Say in Kyrgyzstan, Charkesar in Uzbekistan and Taboshar and Degmay in Tajikistan (UNDP).
Kazakhstan has about 20% of world uranium resources with 529 separate radioactive waste storage and dump sites. Kyrgyzstan has 29 uranium tailings sites containing more than 41 million cubic metres of radioactive waste. One of the largest extraction sites is the Mayluu-Suu plant and in the surrounding area, the number of people with cancer is almost four times higher than the average in the rest of Kyrgyzstan. Also, the number of children born with inborn, or inherited metabolic diseases, is 2.8 times higher (UNDP).
Currently there is no regional unified system which allows monitoring of trans-boundary environmental contamination, exchange of information and coordination of activities to solve the problem of uranium tailings on the regional level (UNDP). However, there is a degree of awareness about the issue and in Geneva in June 2009, a High-Level International Forum took place enled “Uranium Tailings: Local Problems, Regional Consequences, Global Solution.” It was organised by the government of the Kyrgyz Republic and supported by the countries of the Central Asian region and UNDP country offices in Central Asia. The forum marked a key step forward in confronting the huge environmental problems associated with the uranium tailings legacy.
Conclusion
I realise that I have only discussed a small portion of the vast catalogue of environmental problems that currently affect the five independent Republics of Central Asia. However, I am certainly aware of the array of other pertinent issues such as atmospheric, land and water pollution caused by the improper disposal of industrial wastes, the disastrous consequences of climate change, deforestation, desertification and glacier degradation. Additionally, I understand the ecological and environmental problems which are concentrated in specific areas such as the Ferghana Valley, the Ili-Balkhash Basin, Lake Issyk-Kul, Lake Sarez and the Basin of the River Irtysh. Disputes over water management infrastructure and river regulation mechanisms such as the Toktogul and Nurek reservoirs, the Rogun and Sangtuda hydro electric power complexes and the Golden Century Lake in Turkmenistan, are equally important to address and these issues must not be overshadowed by the more renowned cases of the Aral Sea and the Polygon.
What can be done?
Initiatives to address the security aspects of environmental challenges in Central Asia are relatively recent but various organisations such as the World Bank, UNECE, CAREC, UNDP and the ADB have implemented environmental projects or supported them with financial assistance. These projects are often effective but have been obstructed by the fact that they are not initiated or implemented by Central Asian leaders. Whilst international support is crucial, local ownership of environmental protection programmes is equally vital, as grassroots actors’ posses a greater knowledge and first-hand experience of the local conditions and are usually the first to be aware of changing circumstances. As this is the year of the Kazakh Presidency of the OSCE, we have been presented with a unique opportunity to promote such ownership and it is an opportunity that we must seize with enthusiasm.
The international assistance in the Aral Sea Basin is often indicative of environmental management throughout Central Asia. There is a common saying that ‘if every specialist brought with them a bucket of water, the Aral Sea would be filled again’. I have made similar comments about the Polygon in the past, complaining that you could almost cover East Kazakhstan from end to end with consultants’ reports on how to clean up the former Soviet nuclear test site. In both cases there have been numerous internationally-sponsored efforts to address the problems, but the benefits of these expeditions are questionable. So many scientific evaluations have been conducted that the population is now assessment fatigued, still distressed and yet little further ahead.
The fact that previous environmental aid has often been more symbolic than substantial is sad, but the donor community must now refocus its attention and adopt future-oriented approaches that will effectively promote rehabilitation, restoration and recovery in the Aral Sea Basin, the Polygon and the numerous other areas devastated by environmental degradation. The current situation is intolerable and cooperation between global, regional, national and local actors must be fostered in order to address the environmental disasters and alleviate the suffering of the Central Asian population. Only by working together will we be able effectively to address the acute environmental problems that plague the region and we must push for:
1) Increased transboundary cooperation,
2) A sharper focus and commitment,
3) Additional fieldwork and research about environmental challenges,
4) An increased commitment of human and financial resources and
5) An enhanced institutional framework and coordination of efforts at various levels.
Environmental rehabilitation will not occur overnight and therefore it is vital that we seek long-term feasible solutions and combine approaches with changes in technology, the development of new industries and an inflow of financial aid aimed at solving the economic and environmental problems of the region. Outlining the possible schemes for all the problem-areas is far beyond the scope of this presentation, but environmental recovery is only achievable with genuine cooperation between local, national, regional and international actors.
There are ways to address the range of ecological and environmental problems that continue to damage the region and threaten regional stability. For example, in the Aral Sea Basin, improving outdated irrigation systems will reduce water losses, as will updating water application methods, water allocation and water conservation mechanisms. Additionally, diversifying agriculture to include less water-intensive crops will help to alleviate the merciless erosion caused by cotton monoculture. It is equally apparent that all of these approaches carry a substantial price tag, so I am currently contacting potential donors who may be able to provide financial assistance for some of the contrived strategies.
Against this background, there is no doubt that 2010 is a crucial year for Central Asia. However, by acknowledging the interdependent nature of the ecological and environmental problems and cooperating to tackle them, the states of the region have the opportunity not only to halt the devastating effects of environmental degradation but to work towards rehabilitating their fragile ecosystems and further improve the standard of living for their populations.
