Aral Sea
Experience and Lessons Learned Brief
Gulnara Roll*, Peipsi Center for Transboundary Cooperation, Tartu, Estonia, gulnara.roll@ctc.ee
Natalia Alexeeva, Center for Transboundary Cooperation, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
Nikolay Aladin, Russian Academy of Science, Institute of Zoology, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
Igor Plotnikov, Russian Academy of Science, Institute of Zoology, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
Vadim Sokolov, Scientifi c Information Center of the Interstate Coordination Water Commission (SIC ICWC), Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Tulegen Sarsembekov, Project SPECA, Almaty, Kazakhstan
Philip Micklin, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
* Corresponding author
This report gives an overview of major environmental and and agendas of multiple players and stakeholders in the
socio-economic challenges that the Aral Sea region is region, this background report cannot offer a complete picture
facing, threats to the sustainable management of the lake of the situation in the region and it cannot formulate global
basin, major measures supported by the governments and recommendations for future actions to be taken. Instead, the
international donor organizations aimed to address these focus of the report is on the overall lessons learned and the
critical environmental problems, and lessons learned from the
priority direction for work to promote the regional cooperation
environmental cooperation to date. Given the great territory of
and long term environmental improvements in the Aral Sea
the Aral Sea Basin (Figure 1), and the large number and scale
Basin.
of interconnected political, economic, environmental issues
Figure 1. The Aral Sea Basin.

---

1.
General Description of the Basin
They also supported irrigated agriculture, animal husbandry,
hunting and trapping, fi shing, and harvesting of reeds, which
Seven countries share the ethnically-diverse Aral Sea Basin:
served as fodder for livestock as well as building materials.
Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The
Prior to 1960, the annual volume of infl ows from the Syr Darya
basin encompasses a total area of 1,549,000 km2. Up to 25.1%
and Amu Darya was 56 km3; while following the increase
of the entire fl ow in the Aral Sea Basin is formed in the Kyrgyz
in diversions for greatly expanded irrigated agriculture, the
Republic, 43.4% in Tajikistan, 9.6% in Uzbekistan, 2.1% in annual average infl ows in the decades that followed were 43
Kazakhstan, 1.2% in Turkmenistan, and 18.6% in Afghanistan
km3 (1961­1970), 17 km3 (1971­1980), and 4 km3 (1981­1990)
and the Islamic Republic of Iran (SPECA Project 2002). There
(Letolle and Mainguet 1993). This precipitous decline in infl ows
is a very small part of the basin located on the territory of
has led to the rapid desiccation and salinization of lake with
the Islamic Republic of Iran. Only Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan
the total water area dropping to 17,000 km2 by 2003 and with a
are riparian states on the Aral Sea, with each possessing an
loss of volume of approximately 90%. This dramatic desiccation
approximately equal length of shoreline.
has led to a suite of environmental, social, economic, health,
and cultural impacts (described below).
The Aral Sea is situated in the center of the Central Asian great
deserts (Kara-Kum, Kyzyl-Kum, and Betpakdala) and the area
It is interesting to note that the current desiccation is not
as a whole experiences high rates of evaporation. The Aral
historically unique; in the 15th and 16th centuries (and
Sea's size and water balance are fundamentally determined by
perhaps at other times, too), the lake had recessed, possibly
river infl ow and evaporation from its surface.
due to similar human-induced causes (Boroffka et al. 2005).
Additionally, since the beginning of the 20th century many
Amu Darya is the largest river in the region. The river's main
exotic fi shes and invertebrates were artifi cially introduced
catchment area is in Tajikistan, from where it fl ows along into the Aral Sea, but the present desiccation has led to their
the border between Afghanistan and Uzbekistan, crosses demise (Aladin et al. 2005).
Turkmenistan, fl ows back into Uzbekistan and fi nally in the
territory of Uzbekistan where the river fl ows into the Aral Sea.
2.
Water Use in the Aral Sea Basin
In terms of silt content, the Amu Darya clearly ranks fi rst in
Central Asia and one of the highest in the world. The Syr Darya
Water usage, primarily for drinking and irrigation, started more
ranks second in terms of water fl ow, even though it is actually
than 6,000 years ago. In the 20th century, and especially since
the longest river in Central Asia. Its sources are in the Central
1960, the intensity of water use increased under the pressures
Tian Shan Mountains. The river is at its fullest in spring and
of rapid population growth, industrial development, and most
summer, starting in April and reaching its peak in June. Its main
of all, irrigation. Based on information in SIC ICWC (2002),
catchment area is in the Kyrgyz Republic, from where the river
water withdrawals for irrigation almost doubled from 1960
crosses Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and fl ows into the Aral Sea
to 2000, with irrigation accounting for around 90% of the
in Kazakhstan.
region's total water withdrawal. The area of land in the basin
under irrigation is presented in Table 1, along with other basic
In 1960, the Aral Sea was the world's 4th largest inland water
indicators of water and land use.
body with a surface area of more than 67,000 km2. At that
time, the lake was brackish, with a salinity averaging near Different water-related economic priorities of the four countries
10 g/L (less than a third of salinity of the ocean) and was
in the Syr Darya Basin (Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic,
inhabited by mostly freshwater species. The sea supported a
Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan) have led to confl icts of interest over
major fi shery and functioned as a key regional transportation
water release schedules from the Toktogul Reservoir located
route. The extensive deltas of the two major infl owing rivers,
in the Kyrgyz Republic on the Naryn River. Kazakhstan and
Syr Darya and Amu Darya, sustained diverse fl ora and fauna.
Uzbekistan have been insisting on giving priority to irrigation,
Table 1. Basic Indicators of Water and Land Use in the Aral Sea Basin.a
Indicator
Unit
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Population
million
14.1
20.0
26.8
33.6
41.5
Area under irrigation
million ha
4.51
5.15
6.92
7.60
7.99
Irrigated area per capita
ha/person
0.32
0.27
0.26
0.23
0.19
Total draw-off
km3/yr
60.61
94.56
120.69
116.27
105.0
Draw-off for irrigation
km3/yr
56.15
86.84
106.79
106.40
94.66
Unit draw-off per ha under irrigation
m3/ha
12,450
16,860
15,430
14,000
11,850
Unit draw-off per capita
m3/person
4,270
4,730
4,500
3,460
2,530
Source: Scientifi c Information Center, Interstate Coordination Water Commission (2002).
Note:
a) Excludes part of basin that lies in Afghanistan and Iran.
2 Aral
Sea

---

while the Kyrgyz Republic and partly Tajikistan prefer using
It should be noted that the interests regarding use of water
water for electric power generation. As a result, since 1993, the
resources in some countries such as the Kyrgyz Republic,
Toktogul cascade of reservoirs has been applying schedules
Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan is not limited to the Area Sea
that make for a sharp increase in summer storage and water
Basin. For example, of the total amount of irrigated land within
drawdown in winter to suit the needs of the Kyrgyz hydropower
Kazakhstan, only 35% is within the Aral Sea Basin. For the
industry.
Kyrgyz Republic, the fi gure does not exceed 40%. Additionally,
different countries in the Central Asia region have very
Since 1994 the water regime in the Syr Darya Basin has been
different populations, economic interests and activities, and
the main theme in government talks. To meet Kyrgyz demands
exercise different approaches to water management--from a
for increased supplies of heat-producing energy and the fi rmly market-oriented approach in Kazakhstan to a full state
needs of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan in the summer season,
property of water resources in Turkmenistan.
a decision was made in 1998 to defi ne mutual obligations of
these countries in fuel and energy exchange. This approach,
3.
Ecological, Economic, and Health
however, does not account for all the environmental problems
Consequences of Aral Sea Desiccation
in the watershed because releases from the Syr Darya will
be falling below minimum discharge levels that have been The four basic problems in water and environmental
recorded in the last one hundred years of observation. On the
management of the basin were discussed by the World Bank/
other hand, the irrigation and water supply concerns of the
Global Environmental Facility Aral Sea Basin Program Project
downstream countries will only be met if the three upstream
Document (World Bank 1998): environmental degradation,
states fully comply with the terms of signed agreements on
with the increase in land and water salinization; the gradual
fuel and power supply and the purchases of excess electricity.
drying up of the Aral Sea, with huge adverse socio-economic
The slightest non-compliance will undermine sustainable and environmental effects; water management in the basin,
water supply. Actual implementation has revealed that with its built-in potential threat to peace in the region; and
confl icting power and irrigation needs of the four states have
instruments for interstate cooperation, with the commitment
hindered the fulfi llment of agreed water allocation terms and
of sovereign states the biggest challenge. Despite the fact that
necessitate further talks.
this list of regional issues was produced in 1998, the same
issues of concern remain very relevant today.
In the Amu Darya Basin, up until 1992, the allocation of the
Amu Darya waters among four countries--the Kyrgyz Republic,
3.1
Environmental Degradation with an Increase in
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan--was based on the
Land and Water Salinization
water development master plan for the Amu Darya Basin.
The allocation plan was approved by Resolution 566 of the
Salt loads to drainage water from irrigated lands in one
Science and Technological Council of the former Soviet Union's
country are fully or partially returned to the rivers and passed
Water Management Ministry in 1987. The resolution fi xed the
to downstream countries. Salinization has occurred because
following allocation of surface waters (% of projected fl ow in
of salt mobilization in subsoils triggered by irrigation and
the main stem of the Amu Darya): the Kyrgyz Republic 0.6%;
drainage practices, salt pick-up in upper watersheds, and
Tajikistan 15.4%; Turkmenistan 35.8%; and Uzbekistan 48.2%.
inadequate disposal of drainage water. Increasing salinization
The quota principle has survived until now, with Turkmenistan
of the land and rivers threatens entire economies and millions
and Uzbekistan getting equal shares of the so-called "adjusted
of people throughout the basin and results in the following
run-off " measured at the Kerky hydrographic section, including
problems:
diversion to the Karakum Canal (the world's longest canal
at 1,400 km in length). This provision was reiterated in the
·
Erosion and sedimentation that in turn threatens the
bilateral agreement signed by the heads of these two states in
basin water regulation infrastructure. As a result of
Cherdzjev (Turkmenabad) in 1996.
the increasing soil erosion in upper watersheds due to
deforestation and overgrazing of mountain pastures,
An important issue in discussing the water use in the Aral Sea
changes in performance of the basin water regulation
Basin is inadequate effi ciency for uses in all economic sectors,
infrastructure take place that affects the water allocation
especially irrigation farming. Statistics indicate that the
and distribution in the basin;
principal water losses occur in the on-farm delivery networks
and directly in the fi eld. According to WUFMAS (SIC ICWC/IWMI
·
Soil contamination. On all irrigated land in Central Asia,
2002), water losses in these two cases may account for 37%
pesticides and fertilizers were used to an amount that
of the total supply to farm contours. On average, about 21%
by far exceeded the norms of the former Soviet Union
of irrigation supply is wasted directly in the fi eld. Since most
(UNESCO 2000);
losses occur in the fi eld and in deliveries among farms, water
user associations, along with charges, may be an effective way
·
Diminishing wetlands and biodiversity. Desiccation of
of streamlining the use and conservation of water.
the deltas has signifi cantly diminished the area of lakes,
wetlands, and their associated reed communities; and,

Experience and Lessons Learned Brief
3

---

·
Environmental problems in mountain areas where water
from the Syr Darya, atmospheric precipitation and ground
fl ow originates, including preservation of glaciers and
waters. As for the Large Aral Sea, its water balance is negative,
glacial feeding of rivers; sustainability of mountain and evaporation from its huge surface is still higher than the
forests; erosion of mountain slopes, especially as small inputs of the Amu Darya, atmospheric precipitation
conditioned by the development of irrigation in alpine
and ground waters (Aladin et al. 1995). These differences in
valleys.
the hydrological regimes of the two new lakes have led to
stabilization of the level of the Northern Aral Sea and the
3.2
The Gradual Drying Up of the Aral Sea and Its
continued desiccation and salinization of the Large Aral Sea.
Adverse Socio-economic and Environmental
(Table 2; also see Section 5.3)
Effects
The mainly human-induced desiccation of the Aral Sea has
As a consequence of the drastically reduced water infl ow
had severe negative impacts. Striking ecological, social
from rivers, the Aral Sea separated into two water bodies, and economic problems have arisen in the near-Aral region,
the Northern Aral Sea (also referred to as the Small Aral Sea)
including the following:
and a Large Aral Sea (also referred to as the Big Aral Sea) in
the south in 1989 (see Figure 1). The Syr Darya fl ows into the
·
Desertifi cation. Greatly reduced river fl ows through
Northern Aral Sea, and the Amu Darya into the Large Aral Sea.
the deltas and the virtual elimination of spring fl oods
Between 1960 and January 2005, the level of the Northern Aral
in them (caused by upstream abstractions and
Sea fell by 13 m and the Large Aral Sea by 23 m (Table 2). A
construction of upstream storage reservoirs), as well as
channel (river) has intermittently connected the two lakes, with
declining ground water levels (caused by the falling level
the fl ow from the Northern Aral Sea to the Large Aral Sea. The
of the Aral Sea), have led to spreading and intensifying
area of both seas taken together diminished by 75% and the
desertifi cation;
volume by 90%. Salinity in the Northern Aral Sea is estimated
to have decreased from around 30 g/L around the time of the
·
Dust and salt winds. One of the results of the sea drying
splitting of the Northern and Large Aral Seas to 12 g/L in 2005,
and the desertifi cation is that strong winds blow sand,
whereas salinity in the western part of the Large Aral Sea has
salt and dust from the dried bottom of the Aral Sea,
increased by more than 7-fold (Table 2).
now largely a barren, salt-covered desert with an area
near 50,000 km2, onto adjacent lands. Estimates of the
The two lakes have evolved in different ways. The Northern
total defl ated material, which were made in the late
Aral Sea receives run-off of the Syr Darya and began to overfi ll
1980s, ranged from 13 million to as high as 231 million
due to positive water balance. The surface area of this lake is
metric tons/year (Glazovskiy 1990). The salt and dust
small, and evaporation from its surface is less than infl ows
also have ill effects on wild and domestic animals by
Table 2. Hydrological and Salinity Characteristics of the Aral Sea, 1960-2011.
Level
Area
% 1960
Volume
% 1960
% 1960
Year
Avg. Salinity (g/L)
(m asl)
(km2)
Area
(km3)
Volume
Salinity
1960 (Whole Aral Sea)a
53.4
67,499
100
1,089
100
10
100
Large Aral Sea
53.4
61,381
100
1,007
100
10
100
Northern Aral Sea
53.4
6,118
100
82
100
10
100
2005 (Whole Aral Sea)b
17,382
26
108
10
East Sea 80?
800
Large Aral Sea
30.0
14,325
23
81
8
West Sea 70-75
700-750
Northern Aral Sead
40.5
3,057
50
21
26
12
120
2011 (Whole Aral Sea)
12,014
18
92
8
Large Aral Seac
28.3
8,550
14
62
6
>100
>1,000
Northern Aral Sead
42.5
3,580
59
28
32
10
100
Sources: 1960 data provided to Philip Micklin by Glavgidromet (The Main Administration for Hydrometeorology) of Uzbekistan; 2005 and
2011 level, area and volume fi gures from annualized, Excel-based, linked water balance models for the Northern Aral Sea and the
Large Aral Sea developed by Philip Micklin using Soviet and post-Soviet data on net evaporation from the Aral Sea, especially those
from Shivareva, S., Ye Ponenkova,. and B. Smerdov (1998), "Modelirovaniye urovnya Aral'skogo morya," [Modeling the level of the
Aral Sea], pp. 5-10 in Problemy basseyna Aral'skogo Morya, issledovaniya, proyekty, predlozheniya [Problems of the Aral Sea Basin,
research, projects, proposals] (Tashkent, "Chinor" ENK), infl ow to the sea, corrected for losses below the gauging stations, estimates
of net groundwater infl ow, sea bathymetry, NASA Modis satellite imagery of the Aral, and sea level data provided by Jean-Francois
Cretaux of the French Space Agency (CNE) in Toulouse, France. Salinity fi gures for 2005 based on data from the GIS Research Center
in Nukus, Karakalpakstan and from salinity measurements taken by Philip Micklin during an expedition to the Aral Sea in August and
September 2005.
Notes:
a) annual average; b) on January 1; c) the sea will have divided into a western and eastern part; d) after implementation of north Aral
project in 2005.
4 Aral
Sea

---

directly harming them and by reducing their food supply
3.3
Water Management in the Aral Sea Basin with Its
(Palvaniyazov 1989);
Built-in Potential for Confl icts
·
Changes in the regional climate. Owing to the lake's Degradation of lands due to the soil salinization and
shrinkage, climate has changed in a band up to 100 contamination results in the loss of lands that can be used
km wide along the former shoreline in Kazakhstan and
for agriculture. The introduction of cotton monoculture has
Uzbekistan (Micklin 1991; Glazovskiy 1990). Maritime violated traditional sustainable crop rotation practices that
conditions have been replaced by more continental and
used mainly alfalfa and manure, and has exhausted the
desertic regimes; and,
nutrients of the soil. With yield outputs dropping in the 1970s,
the cotton was planted even on private plots where peasants
·
Health problems of the population. The population grow their own vegetables and fruits. Traditional agriculture
living in the "ecological disaster zone" suffers acute was destroyed. Losses in the commercial fi sheries, transport
health problems (Micklin 1992; Medicins sans Frontieres
routes in the lake, and in agriculture resulted in poverty in the
2000). In an interview made by Manchester Guardian
region.
Weekly in November 2003 (Brown 2003) an aid worker
who was one of the last to visit the southern Aral region
There are seven countries in the Aral Sea Basin of different
said: "The people are in a terrible state, drinking out
sizes, different political orders, and different political and
of muddy ditches, which is all that remains of a once
economic interests, including confl icting interests on natural
mighty river. We had a plan to relocate the people but
resource use. Tensions exist between the different countries
Uzbekistan refused to agree and threw us out. No one
because there are confl icting interests between the states
has any idea what happened to the people we were
in use of scarce water resources, undeveloped institutions
trying to help."
for resolving differences in opinions between the states, and
drastic economic and ecological problems in the region. In
Local health experts also consider airborne salt and dust as a
particular, tensions between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan (the
factor contributing to high levels of respiratory illnesses and
two riparian countries) have increased (Brown 2003).
impairments, eye problems, and possibly even throat and
esophageal cancer in the near-Aral region (Abdirov et al. 1993;
The legal basis for the interstate cooperation between the
Tursunov 1989). More recent fi eld work by a British-led group
Central Asian states is still in the development process.
indicates that salt and dust blowing from the dried bottom
There is still no interstate agreement for the Aral Sea Basin
(and likely from irrigated farmland in regions adjacent to the
that addresses the responsibilities and cost sharing of
Aral Sea) is laced with the heavy use of toxic chemicals (e.g.,
operations, maintenance, rehabilitation and modernization
pesticides and defoliants for cotton) in irrigated agriculture,
of infrastructure. Nor is there an interstate agreement for
mainly during the Soviet era.
the Aral Sea Basin that would address issues of regulation
of information exchange. This creates some diffi culties in
However, the most serious health issues are directly related
coordination of water governance and planning. Draft of such
to "Third World" medical, health, nutrition and hygienic agreement was prepared under WARMAP project in 1999 (SIC
conditions and practices. Bacterial contamination of drinking
ICWC/IWMI 2002), but countries have still not approved it for
water is pervasive and has led to very high rates of typhoid,
operational use.
paratyphoid, viral hepatitis, and dysentery. Tuberculosis is
prevalent as is anemia, particularly in pregnant woman. Liver
Interstate cooperation is still emerging; the process of
and kidney ailments are widespread; the latter is probably institutionalization of the Aral Sea interstate cooperation is
closely related to the excessively high salt content of much of
still at its beginning. In the context of the underdeveloped
the drinking water. Medical care is very poor, diets lack variety,
formal system of resolving confl icts of interests, interstate
and adequate sewage systems are rare. Health conditions disputes over water allocation between the riparian
in the Karakalpak Republic in Uzbekistan, with the possible
countries occur every year regarding seasonal water delivery
exception of places in the formerly civil war-torn Tajikistan,
scheduling since the states feel that the existing agreement
are likely the worst in the Aral Sea Basin. Surveys conducted
on annual water allocation (an agreement based on central
in the mid- to late-1980s showed the average infant mortality
policy considerations of the former Soviet Union) is not
rate at more than 70/1000 live births whereas several districts
consistent with principles of equitable rights and sustainable
adjacent to the former seashore ranged from 80 to over 100/
development. The reasons for the disputes are that the water
1000 live births (Micklin 1992). These rates are three to four
releases for hydropower during winter by the upper riparian
times the national level in the former Soviet Union and 7-10
states reduce the amount of water available to downstream
times that of the United States. Although efforts have been
users for irrigation in summer. Additionally, water allocated to
made in the post-Soviet period to improve health conditions
one country is only partially returned to a transboundary river
here, it is doubtful these rates have declined in any substantial
or the Aral Sea. Even when there are agreements between the
way.
countries on the water distribution, for a number of reasons,
they are either improperly implemented or not implemented in
the required time. Implementation of the signed agreements

Experience and Lessons Learned Brief
5

---

remains to be a challenge along with the development of the
percent of the total irrigated area dropped from 45% to 25%
legal and institutional base for the interstate cooperation in
while the area of winter wheat rose to 28%. This probably
the Aral Sea Basin.
was a major factor in the drop in irrigation withdrawals from
109 to 92 km3 (16% decline) at the same time the irrigated
4.
Available Management Options to Address
area increased 10%. However, there are limits to such a
the Consequences of Environmental
program as the two primary irrigating nations (Uzbekistan and
Degradation
Turkmenistan) are intent on keeping cotton as a major crop
since it plays a key role in earning foreign currency. Reductions
To address the major environmental challenge of the Aral in the irrigated area are unlikely in the short- to mid-term
Sea desiccation, the only realistic means for substantially future. All the former Soviet republics, except Kazakhstan,
increasing infl ow to the Aral is reducing the consumptive intend to expand irrigation, mainly to meet food needs for a
use of water for irrigation in the lake's drainage basin. This
growing population (UNESCO 2000).
water intensive activity, conducted on around 7.9 million
hectares and the basis of agriculture here, accounts for 92%
There are also engineering measures that have been proposed
of withdrawals and an even larger share of consumptive use
and are already in the implementation stage with the support
(Ruziev and Prichodko 2002). The largest irrigated area in the
of the World Bank aimed to revive the Northern Aral Sea
basin is found in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan; these two through constructing a dam thereby raising its water level (see
nations, respectively, account for 54% and 22% of all irrigation
discussion below).
withdrawals (Micklin 2000). It is irrigation that has depleted
the fl ow of the Amu Darya and Syr Darya and led to the great
It is possible to bring water to the Aral Sea from outside
reduction in discharge of these rivers to the Aral as well as the
Central Asia. During the latter part of the Soviet period,
consequent desiccation of the water body with all its attendant
water managers in Moscow and in Central Asia proposed
negative ramifi cations.
diversion of massive fl ow, up to 60 km3, from Siberian rivers
to the region as the panacea for perceived water shortage
Irrigation in the Aral Sea Basin is ineffi cient. Substantial problems. Although real and serious potential ecological
improvements to it, technical, economic, and institutional, threats (of regional, not global magnitude as claimed by some
could save considerable amounts of water. Attempts are opponents) were given as the chief reason for canceling the
underway to implement improvement measures but the project, economic considerations were the fundamental factors
substantial and comprehensive program needed would be in this decision. This grandiose scheme was taken up again in
extremely costly and faces concerted opposition from forces
2003 under the leadership of the Moscow mayor Mr. Luzhkov.
within governments and from segments of the public. Taking
It is extremely unlikely that implementation of this project will
costs as an example: complete renovation of irrigation systems
take place. Costs would be enormous, at least US$30 billion
on 6 million hectares could likely save 12 km3 a year but by the latest estimates, and even if the Russian Federation
would cost at least US$16 billion (Micklin 2002). To reach the
was willing to help fi nance the project, it is doubtful suffi cient
maximum potential savings of 28 km3 (based on technically,
funds could be accumulated for construction (Temirov 2003)
economically, and institutionally reforming irrigation on the or that there could be a shared agreement on the project from
"Israeli" model) would cost multiples more. These fi gures are
all the relevant authorities of the Central Asian states and
far beyond the willingness and ability of the basin states, in
international funding organizations.
combination with international donors, to pay. Furthermore,
the technical condition of irrigation systems in the basin, far
The studies in the region showed that the ground water
from improving, is steadily deteriorating owing to inadequate
contribution to both the Large and Northern Aral Seas is much
funding for, and lack of management responsibility over, greater than previously considered. This factor should be
operation and maintenance activities.
taken more seriously into account in the process of developing
recommendations for sustainable management of water
Overall, signifi cant improvements in irrigation effi ciency in resources in this region.
the Aral Sea drainage basin could save considerable water
resources that, if delivered to the Aral Sea, would measurably
Roadmaps to the improvement of the situation in the Aral
improve its water balance; however, this would require a Sea Basin were developed by the respective governments in
massive and very expensive reconstruction of irrigation cooperation with different agencies and projects (for example,
systems as well as radical social and economic changes in the
the Global Environmental Facility/World Bank regional water
way the water resources are managed in the region; this is very
strategy, UNESCO's Water Related Vision for the Aral Sea
unlikely for many years to come.
Basin, EU TACIS Aral Sea Programme, the UN ECE and ESCAP
Special Programme for the Economies of Central Asia (SPECA)
Switching to less water intensive crops (e.g., from cotton Strategy for use of water resources; and others).
and rice to grains, soybeans, fruits, and vegetables) and
reduction of the irrigated area are other means of signifi cantly
The general recommendations developed by different
reducing water usage in irrigation. The former strategy is being
organizations with regard to addressing the regional and
employed. Between 1990 and 1998, the area of cotton as a
6 Aral
Sea

---

national issues of water use and protection in the Aral Sea
water cooperation in the Aral Sea Basin as involvement of
Basin can be summed up as follows:
the stakeholders is not something which is encouraged by
the Central Asian governments. Also, regional cooperation in
·
Improvement of the interstate cooperation on integrated
the strict sense (i.e. involving all the fi ve countries of Central
water resources management;
Asia) has in the past proven diffi cult to realize at the political
level. The larger states, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, have vied
·
Orientation to water saving and increasing of water and
for the position of regional leader to the exclusion of pursuing
land productivity;
political cooperation with their more immediate neighbors. In
contrast, the poor and resource-deprived economies of the
·
Introduction of the basin principle for water Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan have recognized that they are
governance;
very much dependent on regional integration for their future
growth prospects (European Commission 2002).
·
Development of water allocation principles, including
economic instruments;
Historically, during the Soviet era, the water management
was centralized on the federal level and each republic of the
·
Development of national water use policies taking into
former Soviet Union in the Aral Sea Basin received its share
account agreed national and regional interests;
of water in accordance with quotas approved by the former
Soviet Union's State Planning Committee. Annual plans
·
Construction and improvement of water delivery essentially determined reserves for the main long-period
infrastructure;
storage reservoirs (Toktogul, Andizhan, Charvak, Nurek) and
were approved on the federal level.
·
Creation of a joint system for monitoring the status and
quality of water resources;
When the republics in the region gained their independence
as new nations, it became necessary to set up a mechanism
·
Creation of a joint information system and information
for regional cooperation in the organization of water resource
exchange;
management. On 12 October 1991, Water Ministers of the new
independent states jointly declared they would continue using
·
Strengthening of capacity building activities, including
the existing Soviet principles of water allocation (UNESCO
training programs;
2000). An interstate agreement was signed on 18 February
1992 to refl ect this commitment and also laid a foundation for
·
Establishment of agreed environmental requirements the regional cooperation by establishing a technical Interstate
relating to the protection of aquatic ecosystems; and,
Commission for Water Coordination (ICWC), responsible for
determining and approving annual water allocations for each
·
Establishment of mechanisms for coordination and state and approving schedules for the operation of reservoirs.
further development of foreign aid.
On 26 March 1993, the fi ve states of Central Asia signed a new
An important resource in addressing environmental challenges
agreement that affi rmed the commitment of these states to
in the region is more effective coordination of efforts of cooperate in the management of the basin's water resources.
governments, stakeholders and donors supporting water The agreement established regional institutions charged with
projects in the Aral Sea Basin.
comprehensive water management, including: the Interstate
Council on the Aral Sea Problems (ICAS), a high level body
5.
Regional Cooperation in the Aral Sea Basin
charged with recommending actions to the fi ve governments
as a Factor Contributing to Solution of
in the name of the basin as a whole; the Executive Committee
Regional Environmental Issues
of ICAS (EC-ICAS), a secretariat for ICAS; and the International
Fund for the Aral Sea (IFAS), a high level body charged with
5.1 Intergovernmental
Cooperation
fi nancing the activities of ICAS.
Development of the mechanisms and procedures for The ICWC was placed under ICAS by a later decision; but
interstate cooperation in the Aral Sea Basin is one of the main
because ICWC decisions had legal force and ICAS's did not,
challenges of today. The procedures for regional cooperation
the precise relationship between them remained unresolved.
should be developed using the Integrated Water Resources
Another agreement of 19 July 1994 resulted in establishment
Management principles. This includes involvement, along with
of an Interstate Commission for Socio-Economic Development
the governments of the concerned states, of all stakeholders,
and Scientifi c, Technical and Ecological Cooperation, the name
such as businesses, farmers, scientists, environmentalists in
of which was later changed to Sustainable Development
the process of the discussion of the issues, developing policies
Commission (SDC); this body also operated under ICAS.
and making decisions on the use of natural resources in this
Following a Heads of State meeting in February 1997, ICAS and
region. However, until now, there has been little involvement
IFAS were merged into a newly structured IFAS--International
of stakeholders in the political process of the transboundary
Fund for Saving the Aral Sea. As a result, the political level of

Experience and Lessons Learned Brief
7

---

decision making related to water and environmental sectors in
the two countries to address shared environmental challenges
the region belongs only to the Board of IFAS, which consists
in the Aral Sea Basin.
of the deputy prime ministers of the fi ve states Kazakhstan,
the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
There is still a long way towards achieving genuine
This is the highest political level of decision making before
interstate cooperation in the Aral Sea Basin. This will require
approval by the heads of state (if appropriate). The most development of awareness and understanding at the state
important issues can be decided only at the meetings of the
level of the differences between the nature and character of the
Heads of State followed by their recommendations/approval
cooperation between the states both during and after Soviet
for IFAS. The IFAS Executive Committee was established as a
times. This will also require elaboration of a comprehensive
permanent body that included two representatives from each
and multilevel legal and institutional framework for
state and implements the IFAS Board decisions through the
interstate cooperation, starting from the international level
IFAS National Branches.
of management to the local in cooperating countries. This will
also require development of the political process in support
In 1994, the Heads of State adopted the Aral Sea Basin of cooperation based on a shared vision of the Aral Sea
Program which was designed to be administered by the new
Basin development where high-level representatives of the
regional institutions. Establishment of the program was aimed
cooperating countries would be willing to put the common
to prepare a general strategy for water distribution, rational
regional cooperation interests above the national interests.
water use, and protection of water resources in the Aral Sea
At present, the Central Asian Cooperation Organization is the
Basin. Following the establishment of the Program, the Heads
only political forum for regional cooperation on an exclusively
of State met at least once a year during the next six years to
Central Asian level (without participation of Turkmenistan)
further develop, approve and express support to the program.
(European Commission 2002). Development of an agenda
In 1999, the Heads of State adopted the Ashgabat Declaration
for the political cooperation on water management issues
where they stressed their support for joint actions to address
in the Aral Sea Basin and involvement into the discussion
shared environmental problems in the basin and promote of the highest political representatives as well as diverse
better quality of life for people living in the Aral Sea Basin.
stakeholders are necessary.
At the summit of the Heads of State in 2002 in Dushanbe,
"Main Directions" of a program of specifi c measures aimed
5.2 Stakeholder
Cooperation
to improve socio-economic and ecological situation in the
region for the period until 2010 were adopted. At both high
Involvement of stakeholders in the regional water cooperation
level meetings it was stressed that the measures that are being
is very important. However, very few larger organizations of
taken are not enough and there should be more international
economic interests and NGOs are active on the regional level
efforts to improve the environmental and social situation in
today; most are involved in water management on the local
the Aral Sea area. The adopted joint statement of the 5-6 July
and national levels only. One example is the NGO Aral Tenizi
2003 meeting of Heads of State stressed the importance of the
which is located in Kazakhstan (see www.aralsea.net).
regional and international (with international organizations
and donors) cooperation in the water, energy and transport
Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, most environmental
sectors (in Kazakhstanskaya Pravda, 5 July 2003).
NGOs in the region were funded through Western NGOs such
as ISAR (Initiative for Social Action and Renewal in Eurasia);
During the past decade there has been progress in the however, the Central Asian governments have over time become
development of the interstate regional cooperation in the less receptive to international democracy building efforts (see
Aral Sea Basin as multiple agreements and conventions were
http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol5/v5n06aral_body.html) and
signed and institutions established. However, with regard to
therefore the international funding has shifted away from
the organization of the cooperation, it is important to stress
civil society enhancement to the promotion of economic
that the institutional arrangements in the Aral Sea Basin reform. As a result, Central Asian NGOs rarely focus on political
are a mix of the institutions for the interstate cooperation activity and policy reform but rather on education, economic
and of procedures and rules that are still used since the development, health, and awareness building. Among the
time of the existence of the Soviet Union, and therefore, larger organizations involved in international water projects
the regional cooperation cannot be yet considered as truly
in the Aral Sea area is the Regional Environmental Center
intergovernmental. One example is that the 1991 agreement
for Central Asia that is supported by various international
establishing ICWC embodies a degree of interstate cooperation.
funding agencies. The Center implements NGO development,
However, fi rst, the decree establishing the Commission did environmental management and education projects.
not provide a basis on which the states could address water
issues in a comprehensive and integrated manner, and second,
To develop multi-stakeholder cooperation in region, the
the implementation bodies of the Commission are in fact Central Asian Global Water Partnership (GWP) was created that
managed within one country only, Uzbekistan, and therefore
is developing a network in the region for sharing information
recommendations produced by these bodies were not quite
and knowledge and for involving stakeholders in the water
trusted by states other than Uzbekistan. This created tensions
cooperation. The GWP network includes NGOs, representatives
with Kazakhstan and has impeded the cooperation between
of the economic sectors, researchers and other stakeholders.
8 Aral
Sea

---

Among major regional networks of stakeholders dealing with
back into rivers, (d) strengthening the existing interstate water
community development, including environmental protection
sharing agreements, (e) improving public awareness of critical
issues, is Zhalgas-Counterpart, a network of NGOs registered in
water problems, (f ) enhancing dam and reservoir management
different states of Central Asia. Local grassroots organizations
and safety, (g) monitoring of water quality and quantity at
in the Central Asia region are weak.
transboundary river crossings, and (h) implementing a program
to restore wetlands in the lower Amu Darya delta, particularly
Today there is signifi cant attention in the region from the Lake Sudoche, which is a Ramsar (wetland of international
donors to the water user associations, which are to play an
importance) site.
important role in the management of the Aral Sea Basin.
However, they are becoming more active on sub-regional and
According to the GEF assessment (see Project Supervision
national scales; on the regional scale their input to the water
Report details at http://www.gefonline.org/projectList.cfm),
management is still low.
the project implementation status was rated unsatisfactory
primarily due to: delays in start-up and other issues related
The role of researchers in developing a common vision of the
to the centerpiece sub-component A1 for national and
sustainable development of the basin is important. Research
regional salt and water management studies; and problems
projects in the Aral Sea Basin were supported by the North
in component B for public awareness. The Implementation
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the International Review by the World Bank of the World Bank/GEF Aral Sea
Association for the promotion of co-operation with scientists
Basin Program (February 2003) confi rmed that the technical
from the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union
and technological project's components within the ongoing
(INTAS). However, there is a need for support of more policy-
projects were eventually implemented without major problems.
oriented research, which would help scientists in the region to
Implementation of the proposed and ongoing technical and
get more active in the actual management of transboundary
infrastructure projects or projects' infrastructure components
waters.
did not present any big challenge since funding for the
investments as well as international and local know-how and
5.3
Experiences of International Projects and
expertise is available in the region. However, the same review
Activities
concluded that the "soft" components aimed at facilitating the
interstate dialogue and developing interstate agreements as
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and following
well as public participation and capacity building were not
expression of the political commitment by the Central Asian
completed successfully nor on time.
states for the cooperation in the Aral Sea Basin, international
aid donors played a major role in promoting cooperation in
In 2003, the World Bank started a project that supported
the management of the transboundary water resources in the
efforts to revive the Northern Aral Sea. The project funding
Aral Sea Basin. The World Bank was the fi rst major agency to
is US$85 million. Work on the project, a 12 km dike started
become involved. In the early 1990s, the Bank formulated an
in July 2003, was expected to be completed in 2004. With the
Aral Sea Basin Assistance Program (ASBP) to be carried out
help of this project, Syr Darya water will be prevented from
over 15 to 20 years at around US$250 million, later upped
fl owing into the Large Aral Sea, where it has been losing a
to US$470 million. The main goals of the program were (a)
battle with evaporation. Instead it will remain in the Northern
rehabilitation and development of the Aral Sea disaster zone,
Aral Sea, which engineers expect in four years or so to rise 2.5
(b) strategic planning and comprehensive management of m and recover about 600 km2 of exposed former seabed. Then
the water resources of the Amu Darya and Syr Darya, and (c)
a sluice will be opened, and the excess water will be allowed
building institutions for planning and implementing the above
to fl ow south again into the Large Aral Sea. The World Bank
programs. The World Bank encouraged the basin states to project includes rebuilding waterworks along the Syr Darya to
create ICAS and IFAS and has worked with and through these
increase the fl ow of the waterway substantially.
organizations to realize the ASBP. The overall international
donor contribution to the above-mentioned program during
As a result of the two components, the salt content of the
1993-2000 was about US$45 million (SIC ICWC/IWMI 2002).
Northern Aral Sea should drop, to somewhere between 4 ppt
to 17 ppt (according to Micklin it is now 20 ppt). Many of the 24
Another World Bank effort, supported through the Global fi sh species that once supplied a 50,000-ton-a-year fi shery are
Environment Facility (GEF), is the Water and Environmental expected to return (Pala 2003). Although the resulting size of
Management Project (World Bank 1998). It was implemented
~3,300 km2 is small relative to the pre-1960 Aral Sea, it would
during 1998-2003 at a cost of US$21.5 million. In line with
still be the 15th largest salt lake and 50th largest lake by area
a new emphasis on regional responsibility for the ASBP, the
in the world. A previously built dike (1992-1999) raised the lake
Executive Committee of IFAS managed the program, with the
by 3 m but was breached by large fl oods (Aladin et al. 1995).
World Bank playing a cooperative/advisory role. Key tasks
were (a) improvement of the management of water and soil
In 1960, the fi sh fauna of the Aral Sea consisted of a couple
salinity related to irrigation practices, (b) development of dozen native and introduced fi shes while the invertebrate
low-cost, local, on-farm water conservation measures, (c) community included more than 200 species. When parted
reduction of the amount of irrigation drainage water fl owing
into the Northern and Large Aral Seas, only 7 species of fi sh,

Experience and Lessons Learned Brief
9

---

10 common zooplankton species, and 11 common benthic promotion of regional partnerships and donor coordination.
species were present. Increased salinity of the Large Aral Geographical focus of the Swiss assistance is concentrated
Sea has resulted in complete elimination of the fi shes and
on three priority countries--the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan
of eleven invertebrate zooplankton species (Plotnikov et al.
and Uzbekistan--with limited inputs to Turkmenistan and
1991). Re-colonization of a less saline restored Northern Aral
Kazakhstan in connection with regional programs.
Sea with fauna from the Syr Darya delta is likely and fl ounder
and sturgeon fi sheries are listed as economic benefi ts in an
However, as it is expressed in the World Bank "Water and
appraisal of the project (World Bank 2001).
Environmental Management Project" Implementation
Completion Report (World Bank 2004), one of the lessons
To the Kazakhs near the Northern Aral Sea, the benefi ts
learned in working in the Aral Sea Basin is that "multi-donor
will be considerable. Revival of the Northern Aral Sea most
projects are extremely diffi cult to implement". Different
importantly will help to reduce poverty by bringing back the
donors with different political agendas and interests should
commercial fi sheries into the region. It should also increase
coordinate their efforts in the region and the riparian states in
rainfall in the area which should result in better quality of
a more effective manner. Also, meetings of donors should be
ground waters and is likely to reduce dust storms that cause
taking place on regular basis in the Aral Sea Basin. Perhaps,
respiratory diseases among the population in the region.
the global organizations such as the World Bank or various
UN agencies should take a lead role in organizing coordinated
A number of other international donors, directly or indirectly,
efforts of different donors on a regular basis.
have been contributing to Aral Sea region improvement. The
United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
6.
Lessons Learned and Recommendations
funded the Environmental Policy and Technology (EPT) project
in 1993-1998 and initiated a new, major effort in 2001 known
The continuing drying of the Aral Sea has brought multiple
as the Natural Resource Management Project (NRMP). This is
social, environmental and ecological disastrous consequences
a 5-year effort focusing on providing assistance to Kazakhstan,
to the region and potential solutions to these problems
the Kyrgyz Republic, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and, to a lesser
demand great attention, political will, and human and fi nancial
extent Tajikistan, to improve management of water, energy,
resources. Although many projects have been implemented or
and land.
are being implemented in the Aral Sea Basin, there is still a
long way towards achieving the situation where quality of life
Governments of the Netherlands, Japan, Finland, and Sweden,
of the population, including quality of the environment and
have committed funds to support construction of the water
of the social and economic conditions in the region, will be
management infrastructure and necessary studies. The satisfactory. Among the lessons learned from the cooperation
European Union (TACIS) initiated a major aid program for the
in the Aral Sea Basin are the following.
Aral Sea Basin states in 1995 known as the Water Resources
Management and Agricultural Production in the Central Asian
·
Political commitment from the governments of Central
Republics Project (WARMAP) (Aquater 1997).
Asian countries to the regional cooperation in the Aral
Sea Basin is a foundation and a necessary condition
The United Nations Educational, Scientifi c and Cultural
of the successful implementation in the region of
Organization (UNESCO) funded a research and monitoring
environmental protection measures. The authors agree
program for the near Aral region from 1992-1996 focusing
with the conclusion of the World Bank that development
on ecological research and monitoring in the Syr Darya
of the "strong client commitment, including client
and Amu Darya deltas (UNESCO 1998). The United Nations
leadership in project preparation and implementation,
Childrens' Fund (UNICEF) launched the Aral Sea Project for
even at high costs; enhanced interest of States through
Environmental and Regional Assistance (ASPERA) in 1995.
equal treatment and systematic consensus building"
It provides assistance to the disaster zone around the lake
(World Bank 1998) should be the main focus of attention
and focuses on health, nutrition, health education, water and
of funding agencies and international organizations. In
environmental sanitation, and support to NGOs. The United
similar settings as the one existing in the Aral Sea Basin,
Nations Development Program (UNDP) assistance in the region
where the history of interstate cooperation is very short,
had two primary foci: strengthening regional organizations
institutions and the legal basis for the cooperation are
that have been established to deal with the Aral Crisis (earlier
still under development, and the actors lack experience
ICAS and IFAS, now the reconstituted IFAS) and promoting
of an interstate cooperation, key international players
sustainable development to improve conditions for the several
should use their status and resources to promote the
million people in the parts of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and
political commitment of the states and the development
Turkmenistan which are closest to the Aral Sea.
of trust and consensus over the ways to address shared
regional water management challenges. It is not only
A Swiss Government aid program for improving the water sector
money that those international institutions should
in Central Asian region emphasizes support for institutional
provide but they should also get involved in the role of a
development, capacity building and human resources
mediator and a facilitator of the cooperation.
development linked with infrastructure investments, the
10 Aral
Sea

---

·
To promote the political commitment from the states
also stakeholders on different levels of governance in
to the regional cooperation, national ownership of the
management of waters should be developed tailored to
regional initiatives should be ensured by supporting a
the needs of different stakeholders in the region.
larger share of projects and activities on the national
level. Support to nationally-implemented projects is ·
Starting regional cooperation initiatives in the
important as different countries have different legal and
geographical areas with little experience of an
institutional frameworks and there are considerable gaps
interstate cooperation requires a discussion of possible
between the countries' levels of social and economic
institutional models of the future interstate regional
development. Activities implemented on the national
cooperation to be developed. In the Aral Sea Basin
level in different countries are to be complimented by a
many regional cooperation organizations operate with
regional umbrella water management program focused
rules and procedures that are a mix of the approaches
on water management priorities important for whole
from the old Soviet centralized system and are partly
transboundary basin. This kind of a transboundary
based on the principles of the cooperation between the
umbrella program should mostly contain communication
independent states. Therefore, measures promoting
and coordination, as well as public outreach activities.
development of real interstate cooperation should be
Regular communication should be organized between
supported. If the states do not cooperate on the fully
teams developing transboundary water management
independent international grounds, they will not be
strategies and national water management projects.
motivated to put their resources to promote regional
cooperation. The legal and institutional framework to
·
In most of the projects in the past, the water
be developed in the Aral Sea Basin should help the
management challenges have been addressed in a
countries to bring together and negotiate diverse state
narrow sectoral way. The water management issues
and regional interests.
should be connected to other economic and political
issues; the water cooperation should be an important
Institutional models of the interstate cooperation in basins of
part of the discussions of economic development other regional seas that have proven to be successful could be
and integration processes in the region; and these proposed for study as a possible basis for the development of
discussions should involve both governments and the interstate cooperation in the Aral Sea Basin. For instance,
stakeholders. This approach is likely to contribute to
the intergovernmental cooperation model developed around
a higher political commitment from the states involved
the Baltic Sea (SIWI 2000) could be used as a model for Aral
in regional cooperation. Also there should be more Sea cooperation. The 25 years of experience of the cooperation
discussions and activities on the basin level bringing
around the Baltic Sea where a multilevel governance system
together water quality and quantity.
bringing together environmental and economic priorities can
be very valuable for the Central Asian states and could help
·
Experiences of implementation of international them in solving their shared water management challenges in
projects in the Aral Sea region showed that technical
the Aral Sea Basin. The existing platform of the EU Global Water
and technological projects were usually implemented Initiative aimed at disseminating knowledge of organization of
successfully while the "soft" components of the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive by states
projects aimed at developing institutional frameworks
of the European Union could be effectively used to transfer the
for regional cooperation and public awareness were knowledge from Europe and the Baltic Sea region to the Aral
often unsuccessful. The reason for that is a suffi cient
Sea Basin.
know-how and knowledge for implementation of the
technical projects; low awareness and a lack of relevant
7. Acknowledgements
experiences in organizing "soft" water management
activities refl ecting Integrated Water Resource The authors acknowledge the contribution of Dr. Victor
Management principles to water management. As Dukhovny of SIC ICWC, Tashkent, Uzbekistan to the preparation
experience of transboundary water management projects
of this report, as well as the insightful comments on an earlier
in Europe has shown, for example, in implementation
draft by Robert Jellison and others at the International Society
of the Danube River and Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe GEF-
for Salt Lake Research.
funded transboundary water projects, at least 60% of
the funding has to go to the "soft" measures aimed 8. References
to develop regular communication and information
exchange between the riparian governments to raise Abdirov, C.A. et al. 1993. "Stress reaktsiya zdorovykh detey
their awareness about the need of the transboundary
Nukusa na vozdeystviya otritsatel'nykh ekologicheskikh
cooperation. It is also important that allocation of faktorov v Priaral'ye" (Stress reaction of healthy children of
resources for the "soft components" is done in a Nukus from the effects of ecological factors in Priaral'ye).
focused way. Comprehensive communication strategies
Vestnik Karakalpakskogo otdeliniya Akademii Nauk Respubliki
and tools for communication and information exchange
Uzbekistana 2: 15-20. (In Russian).
to ensure involvement of not only the governments but

Experience and Lessons Learned Brief
11

---

Aladin, N.V., I.S. Plotnikov and W.T.W. Potts. 1995. "The Aral
Pala, Christopher. 2003. "The Aral Sea Gets a New Lease on
Sea desiccation and possible ways of rehabilitating and Life." International Herald Tribune, 7 August 2003, p. 9.
conserving its Northern part." Int. J. Environmetrics 6: 17-29.
Palvaniyazov, M. 1989. "Vlyaniye pyl'nykh bur' na
Aladin, N.V., P. Micklin, J.-F. Cretaux, D. Keyser, M. Schlueter,
mestoobitaniya nekotorykh mlekopitayushchikh primorskoy
N. Boroffka, I. Plotnikov, D.Piriulin, A. Smurov, L. Zhakova, and
zony Aral'skogo moray." (The infl uence of dust storms on the
V. Gontar. 2005. "Past, Present and Future of the Aral Sea."
habitats of certain mammals of the coastal zone of the Aral
Paper presented at International Aral Sea Basin Water and Sea) Problemy osvoyeniya pustyn, No. 1: 55-59. (In Russian).
Food Security Conference (ABWF 2005), 1-4 September 2005,
Almaty, Kazakhstan.
Plotnikov, I.S., N.V. Aladin and A.A. Philippov. 1991. "The Past
and Present of the Aral Sea Fauna." Zoologichesky Zhurna
Aquater. 1997. Water Resources Management and Agricultural
70(4): 5-15. (In Russian).
Production in the Central Asian Republics: Aral Sea. DG IA
NIS/TACIS Services.
Ruziev, M.T. and V.G. Prichodko. 2002. "Estimation of prospects
of sustainable development of the states of the Aral Sea Basin
Boroffka, N.G.O., H. Obernhansli, G.A. Achatov, N.V. Aladin,
with the help of modeling calculations." Melioration and a
K.M. Baipakov, A. Erzhanova, A. Hornig, S. Krivonogov, D.A.
water economy 1: 54-56. (In Russian).
Lobas, T.V. Savel'eva and B. Wunnemann. 2005. "Human
Settlement on the Northern Shores of Lake Aral and Water
SIC ICWC/IWMI (Scientifi c Information Center of the Interstate
Level Changes." Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Coordination Water Commission/International Water
Global Change 10: 71-85.
Management Institute). 2002. "Ways of Water Conservation."
Result of WUFMAS Sub-project of WARMAP-2 Project (TACIS)
Brown, P. 2003. "Dam Condemns Aral Sea to Oblivion." and Sub-component A-2 of GEF Project on the Aral Sea basin
Manchester Guardian Weekly, 26 November 2003.
water resources and environment management. SIC ICWC/
IWMI: Tashkent.
European Commission. 2002. Strategy Paper 2002-2006
and Indicative Programme 2002-2004 for Central Asia. The SIWI (Swedish International Water Institute). 2000. "Water
European Commission: Brussels, Belgium.
Security--Opportunity for Development and Cooperation in
the Aral Sea Area." SIWI/RSAS/UNIFEM Seminar, 12 August
Glazovskiy, N.F. 1990. Aral'skiy krizis: prichiny vozniknoveniya
2000. SIWI: Stockholm, Sweden.
i put' vykhoda (The Aral crisis: causative factors and means of
solution). Nauka: Moscow. (In Russian).
SPECA Project. 2002. Diagnostic report on water resources in
Central Asia. SPECA Project, pp. 73.
Letolle, R. and M. Mainguet. 1993. L'Aral. Paris, France:
Springer-Verlag.
Temirov, R. 2003. "Lobbying Grows in Moscow for Siberia-
Uzbekistan Water Scheme." Eurasianet, 19 February 2003.
Medecins sans Frontieres. 2000. MSF in Uzbekistan and (Available at www.eurasianet.org/departments/environment).
Turkmenistan: Activity Report 1999-2000.
Tursunov, A.A. 1989. "Aral'skoye more i ekologicheskaya
McKinney, D. 1995. Sustainable Water Management in the Aral
obstanovka v Sredney Azii i Kazakhstane." (The Aral Sea
Sea Basin.
and the ecological situation in Central Asia and Kazakhstan)
Gidrotekhnicheskoya stroitel'stvo 6: 15-22. (In Russian).
Micklin, P. 1991. "The Water Management Crisis in Soviet
Central Asia." The Carl Beck Papers in Russian and East UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientifi c and Cultural
European Studies, No. 905. The Center for Russian and East
Organization). 1998. "Ecological Research and Monitoring of
European Studies: Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
the Aral Sea Deltas." Final Scientifi c Reports of the Aral Sea
Project 1992-1996. UNESCO: Paris.
Micklin, P. 1992. "The Aral Crisis: Introduction to the Special
Issue." Post-Soviet Geography 23(5): 269-283.
UNESCO. 2000. Water related vision for the Aral Sea Basin.
UNESCO: Paris.
Micklin, P. 2000. Managing Water in Central Asia. Central Asian
and Caucasian Prospects, The Royal Institute of International
World Bank. 1998. Aral Sea Basin Program: Water and
Affairs: London.
Environmental Management Project Document. May 1998.
World Bank: Washington, D.C.
Micklin, P. 2002. "Water in the Aral Sea Basin of Central Asia:
Cause of Confl ict or Cooperation?" Eurasian Geography and
World Bank. 2001. Project appraisal document on a proposed
Economics 43(7): 505-528.
loan in the amount of US$64.5 million to the Republic of
Kazakhstan for the Syr Darya Control and Northern Aral Sea
12 Aral
Sea

---

Phase-I Project. Rep. No. 22190-KZ. 11 May 2001. World Bank:
Washington, D.C.
World Bank. 2004. Implementation completion report on
a grant to the Executive Committee of the International
Fund for Saving the Aral Sea for a Water and Environmental
Management Project. 25 February 2004. World Bank:
Washington, D.C.
Disclaimer
The fi ndings, interpretations and conclusions expressed
in this report are the views of the authors and do not
necessarily represent the views of The World Bank and its
Board of Directors, or the countries they represent, nor do
they necessarily represent the view of the organizations,
agencies or governments to which any of the authors are
associated. Also, the colors, boundaries, denominations, and
classifi cations in this report do not imply, on the part of The
World Bank and its Board of Directors, or the countries they
represent, and the organizations, agencies or governments to
which any of the authors are associated, any judgment on the
legal or other status of any territory, or any endorsement or
acceptance of any boundary.

Experience and Lessons Learned Brief
13

---

---