Introduction
The Aral Sea is located in Central Asia and was the fourth largest saline lake in the world containing 10grams of salt per liter before its water supply was interrupted (Rama, 2002). In 1960, the Soviet government undertook a diversion project for the rivers that fed the sea. This was an attempt to irrigate the desert region surrounding the sea to support agricultural activities. This led to the transformation of the desert into cotton farms among other forms of farms. Diversion of the Syr Darya and the Amu Darya rivers led to environmental, social, and economic effects felt by the people living in the region today. The economy of the region has suffered due to the collapse of businesses in the fishing, transportation, and agricultural sectors. People in the region face serious health risks due to the lack of water and the salt concentration of available water as well as presence of carcinogenic pesticides used for cotton growing. Environmental effects include climatic changes, drought, and low water level among others. Temporal and spatial scales reveal friction dominated shallow sea with increasing salinity of the water that varies in terms of place and time. The main stakeholders in this crisis are the inhabitants of the region as well as the government responsible for the emergent ecological disaster.
The Wicked Problem
The ecological crisis in the Aral Sea is a wicked problem that has caused some irreparable damage to the ecosystem of the area. This does not only pose risks to the current generation but threatens the future generation of people living in the area. It has caused dramatic effects including adverse climatic changes, desertification of irrigated land, deterioration of surface and underground water quality, reduced water availability for domestic use, effect of fishing and transportation industry, as well as serious health risks for people living in the region (Rama, 2002). A public health hazard arose from the contamination of the highly salty water with chemicals used in farming. Degradation of soil emerged from the blowing of salty dust onto the fields from the lakebed. This meant the soil was no longer suitable for cultivation purposes, which was one of the reasons for the diversion project.
The diversion project was a bad call since it deprived the Aral Sea of its main source of water supply, which was diverted into canals. This water soaked into the desert land and therefore went into waste rather than productive purposes. The diversion meant that the water evaporation rate in the sea exceeded the water inflow from the two rivers causing a major imbalance (Glazovsky, 1995). The diversion project was aimed at improving agriculture through irrigation, and particularly cotton growing. The government failed to realize the consequences of its actions since cotton consumes a lot of water, which is not readily available in the desert. The fashion industry relying on the cotton failed to flourish due to the lack of enough input. Cotton used to make one shirt consumes approximately 2700 liters hence the cost-benefit analysis of this decision renders it uneconomical. This means that the diversion project was not only a failure but was all for nothing. The implication of the diversion was irreversible effects that will haunt the region forever.
Despite the hopelessness of the situation, some efforts have been made to salvage the situation and prevent further damage. In an attempt to improve the devastating situation, the government of Uzbekistan, which is the most fertile area in the region, has taken some drastic measures. They have replaced the cotton plantations with less water-consuming crops to conserve water used for agriculture (Sergei, 1985). They have also reviewed the use of fertilizers to maintain the ecosystem. Previously, there was an attempt to save the degraded soil through flashing croplands with large volumes of water, which only led to climatic distortion by making winters colder and summers hotter. In addition, Kazakhstan constructed a dam between the southern and northern regions to save the northern region while abandoning the southern region considered beyond saving. This promises some relief for the northern region with slight improvement being reported.
Conclusion
The Aral Sea sustainability problem is an international disaster and a clear indication that the society needs to make the sustainability project a priority. This is an important problem since it shows the risk that humanity faces if it fails to take care of the environment. It is a matter of taking care of the current generation and ensuring the survival of future generations. The Aral Sea crisis is a demonstration of how society’s actions affect the environment and how the environment reacts to these alterations. It is a reminder that the undesirable environmental effects we feel today are a result of human lifestyles and the environment’s reaction to society’s actions. It is therefore a summation of both direct and indirect human actions. Assessment of risk posed by our lifestyle is therefore crucial in environmental conservation. Questions still linger as to the role of governments in ensuring sustainability and whether the international community has the power to stop individual governments from making decisions that are devastating to the environment. It would be of interest to learn more about people’s culture and its influence on decision-making regarding the environment.
References
Glazovsky, N. (1995). The Salt Balance of the Aral Sea. Geo Journal, 35(1), 35-41.
Rama, S. K. (2002). Aral Sea: Environmental Tragedy in Central Asia. Economic and Political Weekly, 37(37), 3797-3802.
Sergei, T. (1985). The State and Destiny of the Aral Sea. Ambio, 14(3), 181-182.
