Wednesday, 12th May 2010
Central Asia’s problems require regional solutions
(The following speech was delivered to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Environment Committee meeting, held in Vienna on 12 May 2010)
As President Nazarbayev said in his opening speech to the OSCE in Vienna in January, the environment and ecology are fields 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.
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.
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, in some, poverty has increased as development stalled. Economic factors were partly the cause of the recent violent uprising in Kyrgyzstan and, of course, there was the devastating civil war in Tajikistan which lasted from 1992 to 1997.
So, even although violent conflict has not engulfed the whole region as once predicted, inter-state relations haven’t always been harmonious and any future outbreak of conflict could embroil not only the Central Asian republics, but also Russia, China, Iran, Afghanistan and Azerbaijan. This is why it is so important that the international community must help the region develop in order to prevent tensions from deepening any further.
It was against this background that I undertook an extensive tour of Central Asia in late March and early April this year, visiting Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan. I will spend a further week in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan in June and hope also to visit Tajikistan later in the year to complete my report on the environment and ecology of the region.
Let me explore the key issues that I encountered one by one?
The Polygon
In the remote area of Semipalatinsk in East Kazakhstan, near the borders of China and Siberia, Stalin created the ‘Polygon’ - a vast, top-secret, nuclear weapons testing zone, using the one and a half million citizens who lived there as human guinea pigs. From 1949 until 1990 the Polygon was the scene for 603 nuclear explosions, many of them above ground and in the atmosphere. The legacy of these 603 nuclear explosions is horrifying.
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 and unfortunately its impact may not be contained simply within Kazakhstan.
In 1974 , the United States and Soviet Union signed the Threshold Test Ban Treaty limiting the yield of underground nuclear tests to 150 kilotons. Two years later, in 1976, the two countries signed the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty. However, ratification of both Treaties was delayed due to a lack of effective verification procedures. A comprehensive moratorium was only finally agreed at a summit meeting between Reagan and Gorbachev in 1990. In the intervening years, the Soviets had cynically continued to test atomic weapons, claiming that they were carrying out peaceful underground explosions in the Polygon to construct a lake, in order to supply fish to the local population.
Thus the Atomic Lake was born . This massive radioactive reservoir was blasted out of the low-lying mountain range, which crosses the steppe in the region of Semipalatinsk. The Soviets even tried to introduce fish to the highly radioactive waters, encouraging local Kazakh villagers to catch and eat their deadly harvest. Now there is growing evidence that cracks and fissures in the geological strata of the Polygon have allowed plutonium, strontium and americium into the River Irtysh, which flows from China, through the Polygon and on through Siberia to the Kara Sea and eventually into the Arctic Ocean. The Soviet nuclear legacy may yet become a world catastrophe.
I have visited the Polygon many times and indeed have written a book about my experiences there. I was privileged to be able to accompany UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon when he visited Kurchatov and Ground Zero on 6th April this year. Ban Ki Moon chose the occasion of his visit to call for global nuclear disarmament. He also praised the example of President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan, who shut down the nuclear test site on 29th August 1991 and cleared the newly-independent country of nuclear weapons. Mr Ban said he would recommend to the UN that August 29th should become Nuclear Non-Proliferation Day world-wide. With rogue states such as Iran and North Korea trying to develop their own nuclear weapons, that message is as important today as ever.
The Aral Sea
In ancient times the Aral Sea was a rich oasis on the Silk Road, where thousands of farmers, merchants, hunters and craftsmen came to trade and buy fish from scores of local fishermen who plied their trade 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. All of that has gone.
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. It is now around 40 metres. Stalin decided that this region was ideal for providing all of the cotton requirements of the USSR. He ordered a network of canals and irrigation systems to be built to provide water for these thirsty crops, heedless of the environmental catastrophe his plans would cause. Now tracts of seabed lie exposed to the withering sun.
Crumbling f ishing boats lie on their sides in the desert sand. It is as if a plug has been pulled out and the water has simply drained away. Swirling toxic dust storms carry the residues of salt from the exposed seabed and DDT sprayed on the cotton crops in Soviet times, causing erosion and pollution over an area of 3 million hectares, devastating the health of the local population.
However, it is not so much the Aral Sea as the Aral Sea Basin, the home to 50 million people, that is the source of potential conflict and problems. In the EU, water use has increased while the population has decreased. In Central Asia the opposite has happened.
Population growth has risen by 1.5% in the Syr Darya Basin alone in the past decade. So, unless we tackle this problem, a social and environmental catastrophe will occur leading to disaster and mass migration, at which point it will become an EU problem as well. It was suggested to me that maybe the international community needs to create a new status of refugee – ENVIRONMENTAL REFUGEE!
There are increasing pressures on the Aral Sea from upstream users of the Syr Darya and Amu Darya rivers. But there is also a looming threat that few have so far acknowledged and that is related to the future water needs of Afghanistan.
Afghanistan
Afghanistan is 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.
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. 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
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 some experts have told me that post-war Afghanistan could double the amount of water it currently uses. Any cropping that takes place in the northern part of Afghanistan will 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.
Vozrozhdenie or ‘Resurrection’ Island
Another key issue affecting the Aral Sea Basin is Vozrozhdenie or ‘Resurrection’ Island. Prior to being virtually drained by unrelenting desiccation, over 1100 individual islands dotted the surface of the Sea. 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 programme. 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. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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
Large-scale mining and milling of uranium ore produces a valuable source of income for the countries of Central Asia. However, it also produces significant amounts of highly radioactive waste which has to be submerged underwater in large reservoirs. To avoid radioactive particles from causing groundwater contamination, these reservoirs, mostly constructed in Soviet times, are lined with thick plastic. Needless to say, many of the dumps have been neglected over the years.
There is now a staggering 812 million tonnes of radioactive waste in the tailings dumps of active and closed uranium mines in Central Asia. Their condition has deteriorated significantly and they pose a serious ecological threat on a regional scale.
For example, in 2002, following 6 weeks of torrential rain, a landslide blocked part of the Mayluu-Suu River, whose waters then threatened to inundate a huge uranium tailings dump located nearby. Had the river broken its banks, tens of thousands of tonnes of highly radioactive material would have been washed downstream, causing widespread pollution and devastation?
This is an accident waiting to happen and uranium mining is still going on. In Kyrgyzstan I was told that the World Bank is now helping in the Mayluu-Suu case with the rehabilitation of uranium dumps at a cost of $7 million there alone. But the Minister for Emergency Situations told me that Kyrgyzstan needs $28 million for the total rehabilitation of all its uranium dumps which have had no maintenance since the mines closed way back in 1973. And Kyrgyzstan is only one of the Central Asian republics affected by this major problem. Last June the UN held a high-level event in Geneva on uranium tailings at which the 5 Central Asian republics were united in their approach, although, of course, Turkmenistan has no uranium dumps.
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 and oil exploration, 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, the River Irtysh basin, Lake Issyk-Kul, Lake Sarez and the $2 billion project to construct the 1,900-MW Karambata 1 hydroelectric project in Kyrgyzstan. 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’ or ‘Turkmen’ 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. In particular we need to work closely with the World Bank. Some people have said to me that the World Bank is not impartial. I reject this assertion entirely. We must defend the World Bank. Results of assessments by the World Bank must be honoured by every side and supported by the OSCE.
In addition, let me make special mention of the International Fund for the Aral Sea (IFAS) which is doing excellent work. There have been enormous efforts during the Kazakh OSCE presidency to breathe new life into what had become a moribund organisation. Professor Ibatullin must be congratulated for injecting new dynamism into IFAS.
The one message that came across loud and clear to me throughout my recent series of meetings with Ministers and experts in Central Asia is the need and desire for a regional solution to all of these environmental and ecological problems, particularly the problems surrounding water management. There is no use trying to impose solutions from outside. There are good reasons for optimism in this respect. For example Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan are already cooperating closely on water issues such as the successful Chu-Talas Commission.
But a word of caution! The entire region is suffering from consultant fatigue. They don’t want more consultants’ reports telling them what to do. They don’t need more paper. They want action. For example, I was appalled to hear that an estimated $44 million has already been spent on consultants’ reports on how to resolve the problem of uranium tailings. If even a quarter of this money had been spent on maintaining the uranium dumps, there wouldn’t be a problem!
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.
There are several things that can be done 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 help pay for some of these new ideas.
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.
