LOBBYING GROWS IN MOSCOW FOR SIBERIA-UZBEKISTAN WATER SCHEME
Rustam Temirov: 2/19/03

Water shortages would cripple Uzbekistan, which depends on irrigation and consumes up to 90 percent of all water used in Central Asia. But without efforts to either improve resource management or tap into new sources, shortages are inevitable. With Uzbekistan’s population growing rapidly and per-capita water reserves shrinking, Uzbek leaders are finding a once-forgotten project to divert Siberian rivers to Central Asia more appealing.

Ismail Jurabekov, counselor to Uzbekistan’s President Islam Karimov, told Uzbek and Russian experts in mid-2002 that diverting Siberian waters to Central Asia would be "a mutually beneficial project." The idea of diverting Siberian rivers was first proposed in the 1970s, when a project to build a 2,000-kilometer canal from Siberia was discussed. The canal was to "feed" the Amu-Darya and Syr-Darya Rivers into the dying Aral Sea, which the Soviet Union had been draining.

The project was suspended during the "perestroika" era. But today, some politicians in Russia believe the canal may provide a means by which Moscow can apply effective pressure on restive former Soviet republics. Many influential Russian politicians endorsed Jurabekov’s speech, touching off a heated debate in the Russian and Central Asian press. Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov wrote an open letter to Russia’s President Vladimir Putin lobbying for the project. Putin responded by ordering a special committee to look into the project’s feasibility.

Komsomolskaya Pravda, one of Russia’s largest newspapers, ran a piece on January 5, describing Luzhkov as the architect of the revived plan. The piece quoted a Luzhkov aide as promising that Russia would be able to sell its water "again and again," thereby creating jobs and enhancing its regional influence. According to hydrologist Oleg Vasiliyev, counselor to the Russian Academy of Sciences and a veteran of the Siberia notion, diversion of 5-7 percent of Siberian waters will not have any "global" effect. He also envisions a regional payoff, which he calls a "green bridge," via which Russia would exchange Siberian water for Central Asian fruit, vegetables and other food products.

Many scholars and environmentalists contend that a new diversion project would have disastrous effects on the ecological balance in Siberia and Central Asia. Academics worry that water will remain salinated when it reaches Uzbekistan, making it undesirable for irrigation; that leaks from the canal will swamp vast territories; and that species of fish and bacteria will mix in unhealthy ways. Many also worry that sending Siberian waters to Uzbekistan’s warmer terrain will disrupt the climate in both places.

One project opponent, Alexei Yablokov, President of the Center of Ecological Policy of the Russian Federation, says that none of these concerns should ever have to go through a vetting. According to him, Central Asians should first learn to save water. "Daily consumption of water in Tashkent is as high as 530 liters per capita," he said, "twice as much as in other national capitals…. Out of 55 cubic kilometers of water taken by Uzbekistan for irrigation purposes, barely a half reaches the country’s fields."

Until methods of growing cotton change or Uzbekistan’s economy finds another staple, though, water profligacy is likely to continue. Extensive cotton farming during the Soviet period claimed about 50 percent of the region’s irrecoverable water resources, and cotton remains the country’s main cash crop. It delivered about $1.5 billion in revenue to the state in 2002. Umid Abdullayev, a scientist who runs the UzMeliVodProyet (Uzbek Melioration and Water Project) Research Institute and supports the Siberian canal project, offers his simple arithmetic: "Each ton of cotton requires four or five tons of water," he says. "We only have two ways out: total austerity, or borrowing water."

Even Abdullayev concedes that the project would be prohibitively expensive. He estimates that diverting Siberian water into Central Asia would cost around $30 billion. Neither Russia nor Central Asian states can allocate such huge financial resources. Uzbekistan’s growing population has brought growing poverty. According to official statistics, average per capita personal income in Uzbekistan in 2002 was as low as $18.40 a month. With the Aral Sea shrinking, 300,000 people who lived near it have migrated to Russia, Kazakhstan and other countries since the early 1990s. Migration increases each year, but water resources are shrinking faster than the population’s need for them.

If Luzhkov and Jurabekov do not sway lawmakers to invest in a new diversion scheme, Central Asia may have to master water-saving technologies, like the "drip irrigation" long practiced by Israel. Between 1950 and 1975, using this technique, Israel managed to increase its fields’ fertility by 20 times without increasing its plowable land. However, Uzbekistani scientists and politicians claim that advanced research and equipment are too expensive for Uzbekistan. By persuading Russia to fund the costly and intuitive Siberian project, Uzbekistan hopes to satisfy its citizens’ immediate thirst.

Editor’s Note: Rustem Temirov is an independent journalist in Uzbekistan.

Email this article | Printer-Friendly Version
Posted February 19, 2003 © Eurasianet
http://www.eurasianet.org

	The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.