Building bridges across the Aral Sea region - an interdisciplinary approach UNIVERSITEIT VAN AMSTERDAM

Building bridges across the Aral Sea region An interdisciplinary research Assignment III – Final Report Nikki van Alst (6118550) – Earth Science Ellen van den Berg (6127762) – Human Geography Lorain Drennan (6167616) – Ecology Expert Supervisor: Prem Bindraban Tutor: Lucas Rutting 31/05/2012

Word count: 6.593

In this report we aim to answer the following question. “How can the current system be transformed to a sustainable system in terms of water resource usage, which sustains ecological services that support regional livelihoods?” In order to do so we worked with an interdisciplinary framework which gave us insight into a complex integrated system. This resulted in the conclusion that the system can only partially become sustainable once more. This division of the Northern and Southern Aral Sea is due to multiple processes and insights which can be explored in the rest of this paper.

1

Building bridges across the Aral Sea region - an interdisciplinary approach

Contents Building bridges across the Aral Sea region ........................................................................................ 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 3 The Aral Sea problem .......................................................................................................................... 3 Research questions ............................................................................................................................. 4 Interdisciplinary perspective ............................................................................................................... 4 Background – Problems in the Aral Sea Region ...................................................................................... 6 Environmental problems ..................................................................................................................... 6 Social problems ................................................................................................................................... 7 Theoretical framework ............................................................................................................................ 8 Social-ecological system ...................................................................................................................... 8 Resilience and alternative stable states .............................................................................................. 8 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 10 Result 1: Resilience and the Aral Sea as SES...................................................................................... 10 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 10 System shifts in the past................................................................................................................ 10 Positive feedbacks ......................................................................................................................... 11 Single system attempts that act as barriers for adaption and transformation ............................. 12 Result 2: Changing the current undesirable state of the Aral Sea SES to a desirable state that incorporates sustainable water usage .............................................................................................. 13 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 13 Diversity as driver for resilience .................................................................................................... 13 Current Preservation Measures: Northern Aral Sea .................................................................... 13 Social-economic opportunity for Southern Aral Sea ..................................................................... 14 Water quantity and quality ........................................................................................................... 14 Cooperation between countries in which the Aral Sea Basin is situated ...................................... 15 Uncertainty of Climate Change ..................................................................................................... 16 Conclusion, discussion & recommendations......................................................................................... 18 References ............................................................................................................................................. 20 Appendix I – Flowchart for Creating Common Ground ......................................................................... 24 Appendix II – Reflections ....................................................................................................................... 25 Nikki van Alst ..................................................................................................................................... 25 Ellen van den Berg ............................................................................................................................. 25 Lorain Drennan .................................................................................................................................. 26

2

Building bridges across the Aral Sea region - an interdisciplinary approach

Introduction With a growing world population and increasing consumption levels, exploitation of natural resources and scarcity increase. Fresh water is one of these resources and its scarcity will be investigated in this paper. All life on Earth is dependent on water and therefore it is important to use this resource efficient. Its scarcity influences all plants and animals, including humans. As a case study the water scarcity in the Aral Sea region will be analysed. The underlying factors of this exploitation and options to reduce this will be investigated using the resilience framework. A more detailed description of the case and the research follows.

The Aral Sea problem As can be seen in Figure 1, the Aral Sea, which used to be the fourth largest lake in the world, is located in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. The surrounding area (the Aral Sea Basin) is however also required, as the problems which arose around the 1960s originate here.

Figure 1. The Aral Sea Basin of Central Asia (Micklin & Aladin, 2008)

The lake was created 10,000 to 20,000 years ago when the Amu Dar’ya river changed its course, and slowly filled the lowlands of Sarakamysj. In the last 50 years the rivers (Syr Dar’ya and Amu Dar’ya) that feed the lake have been increasingly exploited for irrigation and drinking water, as a result of the uprising cotton cultivation, causing the lake to shrink (Micklin, 2002). As a result, the freshwater lake has been divided into a salt dessert and a saltwater lake, with decreased water levels and decreased surface area of the Aral Sea (Micklin, 2002). Furthermore, the agricultural industry pollutes the lake with pesticides, leaving the area heavily polluted. Many local inhabitants have a lack of fresh water supply, and struggle with health problems, including increased infant mortality, and unemployment (Micklin, 2006). In addition, many people have lost their source of income, and GDP of the countries in the delta has declined making it economically important to restore the lake (Saiko, 1998). Also, due to migration to the South of the delta, problems in these areas arise as well. 3

Building bridges across the Aral Sea region - an interdisciplinary approach These issues call for a solution to make the Aral Sea region a vital area again, this is the aim of this research.

Research questions In this research we strive to answer the question: “How can the current system of the Aral Sea region be transformed to a sustainable system in terms of water use, which sustains ecological services that support regional livelihoods?“. However, as stated in several articles (i.e. Falkenmark et al, 2008; Micklin & Aladin, 2008; Micklin, 2010), restoring the system to its pre-1960 state is highly unrealistic. The system has diverged too far away from its previous state to revert back to it. However, as a hypothesis we state that it is possible to transform the Aral Sea to an alternative sustainable system. In order to answer the main question we need to have a clear understanding about the background of the region. To do this we created an exploratory question: “What are the underlying factors influencing the change of the system?”. Furthermore two sub-questions were formulated:  What is the resilience of the Aral Sea region?  How can the current undesirable state of the Aral Sea SES be transformed into a desirable one?

Interdisciplinary perspective The research will be carried out from an interdisciplinary perspective, as the problems in the Aral Sea region are very complex: there are several causes of the environmental problems, different possible solutions and many actors involved. Firstly, the environmental problems in the Aral Sea region have deep implications for the ecology in the Aral Sea. Biodiversity has declined and information from the field of Ecology is required to reverse this. As all problems relate to water use and pollution, the hydrological cycle - and thus insights from Earth Sciences - is of importance as it describes the path of water and all it carries. Lastly, the environmental problems are anthropological induced and have serious implications for the local inhabitants. The Aral Sea is also situated in a border area, which requires cooperation between different countries. These social phenomena occur in a certain spatial domain and therefore insights from the field of Human Geography is required. Since the environment and human exploitation of it are so deeply intertwined, no single discipline is able to address the problem completely, but the combination of disciplines offers better insight into the issue. In order to give this insight Repko’s interdisciplinary framework is applied (2008). Whilst analysing the system, interactions between different disciplines became apparent (see Appendix I). Although there was not necessarily conflict between the involved disciplines, we did discover the lack of common ground and clear overlap. In order to create common ground, theories applicable to all disciplines were redefined (integrative technique from Repko, 2008) into one theory, which resulted in the Resilience theory used within the SES framework. Having created common ground, the research progressed to integrate insights and problems, and adequately describing consequences of events from one discipline to another. For a better overview we have visualized this in a flowchart (see Appendix I).

4

Building bridges across the Aral Sea region - an interdisciplinary approach In this paper, first the current problems in the region will be elaborated on, followed by a detailed description of the resilience theory. The results will then be discussed and lastly the conclusions and recommendations are presented.

5

Building bridges across the Aral Sea region - an interdisciplinary approach

Background – Problems in the Aral Sea Region In this chapter we focus on the underlying factors and processes which have influenced the water quality and quantity and drove the system to change from an environmental and social perspective.

Environmental problems The Aral Sea used to be a brackish lake with an average salinity of 10g/L that was inhabited by freshwater fish species. The deltas of the Syr Dar’ya and Amu Dar’ya sustained a diverse flora and fauna and supported irrigated agriculture, animal husbandry, hunting, fishing, and reed harvesting (Micklin, 2010). However, the reduced inflow to the Aral Sea caused the desertification of wetlands and aquatic ecosystems of deltas (Schlüter & Herrfahrdt-Pähle, 2011). The agricultural use of the water from the supplying rivers is the main cause of decreased water levels of the Aral Sea, totalling 77% (Micklin, 2010). As a result of insufficient water inflow into the basin, the Aral Sea split into two smaller lakes during the 1980’s (Figure 2). Salt has collected on the land and can form salt pans where barely anything can grow (Micklin, 2010). Halophytes (salt-tolerant plants) and xerophytes (drought- tolerant plants) have replaced native vegetation such as Tuqay complexes (Micklin, 2010). These complexes were vegetation communities of trees, bushes and tall grasses that grew along the water, and were a habitat for a high diversity of animals. Bird species have reduced from 319 to 160 and mammals from 70 to 32 (Micklin & Aladin, 2008). Primary production of phytoplankton and phytobenthos greatly decreased due to reduced nutrient availability, altered light availability and increased salinity, which changed chemical balances (Aladin et al, 1999). This decrease and the change in aquatic conditions contributed to an imbalance in the food web also causing a reduction in zooplankton and zoobenthos (Aladin et al, 1999). These factors plus the loss of shallow spawning and feeding areas resulted in the disappearance of freshwater Figure 2. Shrinking and Separation of the fish species from 32 to 6 species (Micklin, 2010). The salinity of the Aral Aral Sea – View of the Northern part of the Sea increased, so the Black Sea flounder (Platichthys flesus lulscus), a Aral Sea (from top to bottom: 1973, 1987 marine/estuarine fish species, was introduced (and flourished) to provide and 2000). a protein source for the locals (Micklin, 2010). However, in 2003 the Large (USGS, Landsat Multispectral Scanner) Sea reached salinity of 70g/L and the Black Sea flounder disappeared as it became too saline (Micklin, 2010). Water quality is also decreased by the use of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and cotton defoliants which contaminate surface and ground-waters through runoff (Falkenmark et al, 2008).

6

Building bridges across the Aral Sea region - an interdisciplinary approach Beside this, wind transports salt and contaminants from exposed sea-beds to ecological important areas and causes retarded growth in vegetation (Micklin & Aladin, 2008). The territory of salt and dust spread has increased from over 100,000 km in 19676 to over 400,000 in 2000 (IFAS, 2012) due to increased desertification. 2

Social problems The local population is also affected by the environmental problems. The most apparent social problem, caused by the diminishing Aral Sea, is the loss of fishery as livelihood and as a result fishing villages were abandoned (McLeman, 2011). Before the 1960s there were at least 60,000 jobs in fishery. Due to the decline in water level and increase in salinity, the fish harvest declined by 75% in 1977. By the 1980s the commercial fishing industry was non-existent (Bucknell University, 2012). Another problem is the salt and dust plumes resulting from the increasing exposed toxic land of the shrinking Aral Sea (see Figure 3). Firstly, this causes reduced yields, which has major impacts for the people depending on them. Secondly, animal health is also affected as illness from the plume itself and indirect, by food intake, causes a decline of productivity in animal husbandry (Micklin, 2006). In addition, hunting and trapping Figure 3. Dust Winds in the Aral Sea Region May 9, 2007 (MODIS Satellite have become more difficult. Thirdly, materials such as reed, were also Image) affected. In total 40 to 150 million ton of materials were removed from the Amu Dar’ya delta at the southern end of the Aral Sea, which is an economically and ecologically important region in the area (Micklin, 2006). The area of reeds in the delta, which were used as fodder for the animals and as building material, has declined dramatically between 1965 and the 1980s (Micklin, 2006). These three consequences have an influence on the livelihood of the population. However, there are also direct effects on the people, partly due to the fact that drinking water is contaminated. Infant mortality is 72 of 1,000, or even 80-100 of 1,000 near the sea-shore, while this was 45 of 1,000 before the 1960s. This is significantly more than in other countries, namely seven to ten times that of the United States and three to four times the national level in the former USSR (Micklin, 2006). Other health issues are throat and oesophageal cancer, respiratory illnesses and impairments and eye problems (Micklin, 2006). The cotton industry, as main source of the problems, is still a major source of income. At present, cotton production has doubled compared to the 1960s. Due to this increase more water is needed compared to 1960, which is not aided by the fact that the climate has become continental and desertic (Micklin, 2006). The irrigation area was 7.9 million hectares in 2005, 2.9 hectares more compared to 1965 (Micklin, 2006). Increasingly more irrigation systems are built into the deserts, which lead to more evaporation (Micklin, 2006). Social problems for the future is population increase, causing more pressure on the environment. Total population in the region increased from 7 to 8 million people from the beginning of the 20th century to over 50 million at the end of that century. The population in the zone of ecological crisis was over a half million people in 1976. This increased to over 3 million in 1996 and 3.5 to 7 million in 2000 (IFAS, 2012). 7

Building bridges across the Aral Sea region - an interdisciplinary approach

Theoretical framework Social-ecological system The regional system in the Aral Sea Basin can be defined as a social-ecological system (SES), an ecological system which is interlinked with a social system (Schlüter & Herrfahrdt-Pähle, 2011). It is a complex adaptive system (CAS), which means that the interconnected components have the possibility of adapting to changing circumstances and learning from previous experiences. Heterogeneity is an important characteristic of complex adaptive systems and provides variability. Components in the system are organized hierarchically into structures by nonlinear interaction meaning that small changes in key components can have large effects on the entire system (Levin, 2000). These structural arrangements determine, and are reinforced by, flows among the parts (Levin, 2000). One of its key characteristics is resilience, which is the capacity of a system to absorb perturbations before the state of the system changes (Adger, 2000). Or more extensively: “the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks” (Walker et al., 2004).

Resilience and alternative stable states The resilience perspective emerged in the 1960s from the field of ecology by C.S. Holling (Folke, 2006). It developed from studies in the field of population dynamics, like predators and prey and their functional responses in relation to ecological stability theory. Holling tried to explain unlinearity in ecosystem behaviour, which is the basis of the resilience theory. The persistence of natural systems whilst undergoing changes was described by this concept. Realising that a system can have multiple stable states changed the focus of the theory. Unpredictability was inevitable for ecological systems (Folke, 2006). The resilience concept later dispersed to other fields of science. It also became the foundation for the work with active adaptive ecosystem management and it is recognized that ecosystem resilience needs to be understood to reach the goal of sustainable development. We are dealing with social-ecological resilience, which assumes the existence of multiple stable states. In Figure 4 different stability landscapes can be observed. The balls represent the system, in this case the Aral Sea Basin. A system can reside in different states, which are all the places in the valleys of the grey surface. The hills depict tipping (or bifurcation) points, which need to be crossed in order to make a change of state. Many authors state that there are precipitating events in a system that reduce resilience (Scheffer et al., 2011). This means that the landscape will become more like the furthest part of Figure 4 (along the blue line on the yellow surface), where it is easier to reach the tipping point. External stochastic events of a sufficient magnitude or duration can cause an ecosystem to reach a threshold and shift into an alternative state (Scheffer et al., 2011). In the case of the Aral Sea, human activities have caused these shifts in the past. Figure 4. Equilibrium curve and stability landscapes (Scheffer et al., 2011)

8

Building bridges across the Aral Sea region - an interdisciplinary approach

If the environmental conditions before the collapse (before F2) should be restored, the system needs to go back further than the switch point F1. These forward and backward switches, which happens at different critical conditions, is called hysteresis (Scheffer et al. 2011). The equilibrium for the trajectory of going from state A to state B is thus different than going from state B to state A. Some state shifts may be irreversible. When a system is susceptible to harm it is vulnerable (Adger, 2006). Vulnerability is created by the absence of capacity to adapt. Adaptive capacity is the precondition that is necessary to enable adaptation (Nelson, Adger, & Brown, 2007). When the capacity to adapt is higher, the resilience of the system is higher. Since disturbances are difficult to control, efforts to reduce the risk of unwanted state shifts should address the gradual changes that reduce resilience (Scheffer, Carpenter, Foley, Folke, & Walker, 2011).

9

Building bridges across the Aral Sea region - an interdisciplinary approach

Results Result 1: Resilience and the Aral Sea as SES Introduction The ecological and social systems of the Aral Sea basin are strongly linked by their water needs and the institutions that manage and use water resources. So to achieve sustainable resource use that maintains or enhances resilience of the SES these strong links must be taken into account (Schlüter & Herrfahrdt-Pähle, 2011). It is difficult to clarify feedbacks of SES as some cause vulnerability, others increase resilience and their interactions on different scales influence how the adaptivity of the system reacts to these feedbacks (Folke, 2006). This is also the case in the Aral Sea SES, but resilience provides an important insight into the complex interdependencies to determine barriers and drivers for enhancing adaptability (Schlüter & Herrfahrdt-Pähle, 2011) and thereby how best to shift the Aral Sea SES from its current undesirable state to a desirable state with sustainable water use. In Table 1 the characteristics of the Aral Sea SES are shown. The system can be in a freshwater or saline state. Water withdrawals and the use of pesticides a shift is caused to the second state (state II). Increasing the water supply of the supplying rivers can allow the system to shift back to a freshwater system (state I). System shifts, barriers and diversity affect the resilience of the system. Positive feedbacks greatly influence hysteresis. Table 1. Characteristic of ecosystem state shifts and their causes (Adapted from Scheffer et al., 2001)

Ecosystem

State I

State II

Lake

Clear with submerged vegetation

Turbid

Brackish Local species

Introduced species

Saline

Events inducing shift from I to II

Events inducing shift from II to I

Decreasing water supply to the lake

Increasing water supply to the lake

Pesticide use

Suggested main causes of hysteresis

Factors affecting resilience

Positive feedback (in vegetation growth, trophic levels, dependencies)

System shifts Barriers Diversity

System shifts in the past Amongst other factors soil salinization constitute a regime shift in the agricultural sector, but this is disguised by mitigation methods such as leaching. There are no reliable data on agricultural productivity due to lack of transparency (Schlüter & Herrfahrdt-Pähle, 2011). More reliable indicators of reduced resilience of the Aral Sea SES include three major shocks in recent years: 1) The collapse of its fishery in 1982, 2) the break-up of the Soviet Union and independence of river basin countries in 1991 and 3) the severe drought in 2000/2001. The collapse of the Aral Sea fisheries in 1982 caused a regime shift of the SES to a less desirable state that caused environmental and socio-political crises in the delta region (Schlüter & Herrfahrdt-Pähle,

10

Building bridges across the Aral Sea region - an interdisciplinary approach 2011). With the loss of the Aral Sea native fish species the fishing industry collapsed, bringing unemployment and social unrest to the area. The break-up of the Soviet Union was a sudden and external shock to the area. The countries had to react to a new political situation. Uzbekistan attempted to make a transition towards a new liberal economy (Schlüter & Herrfahrdt-Pähle, 2011). Therefore, price controls were reduced, a liberalization of foreign trade took place and exchange restriction were lifted (Pofret, 2000 from Schlüter & Herrfahrdt-Pähle, 2011). The SES therefore shifted into a different state. However, the economy was put under pressure following a currency crisis in 1996, which reduced the resilience of the liberal economy. The government tried to make a shift back to a state-controlled economy and this is the system that persists today. The drought of 2000/2001 is the best indicator to date of reduced resilience as effects are well measured and include food shortages. For example, there was a reduction in grain production by 54% in Karakalpakstan (FAO, 2000). Furthermore, there were huge economic losses, such as a reduction in cotton production by 30-40% in Karakalpakstan (FAO, 2000), as well as a further loss of ecosystem services in the delta, for example, clean drinking water (Schlüter & Herrfahrdt-Pähle, 2011). The environmental degradation had a significant effect on the health and living conditions of the local population, making them vulnerable and thus makes the social system vulnerable as well (Schlüter & Herrfahrdt-Pähle, 2011). As a consequence the Aral Sea SES is affected as a whole. Positive feedbacks As stated by Falkenmark et al. (2008): “It has been increasingly recognized that agricultural management has caused some ecosystems to pass ecological thresholds (tipping points), leading to a regime change in the ecosystem and loss of ecosystem services.” These thresholds are needed to determine human impact on ecosystems. Desertification processes are associated with biostable ecosystems (either vegetated or not). These systems have limited resilience because when they are disturbed a shift across a threshold occurs to move the system to the alternative stable state making it difficult to revert back to its initial state as shown in Fig 5 part (b) (D’Oderico et al, 2012). Desertification is in most cases irreversible as a large shift is needed to push the system back to a state of higher resilience (Fig 5 part b). Multiple alternative stable states are induced by positive feedbacks, for example an initial loss of vegetation cover triggers processes that increase further vegetation loss (D’Oderico et al, 2012) such as decreased water coverage and availability (Fig 5 part c). This is also the case with the desertification in the Aral Sea region where decreased water availability causes increased exposed land due to dying of vegetation which in turn causes an increase in wind erosion. Early warning signs such as

Figure 5. Ecosystem stability and resilience (D'Oderico et al., 2012)

11

Building bridges across the Aral Sea region - an interdisciplinary approach increasing desertification can be used as indicators of resilience loss and the shift of a system to another state i.e. from a vegetated soil ecosystem to a desert-like ecosystem (D’Oderico et al, 2012). Due to the low standards of water management, that attempt to maintain productivity of the agriculture sector, resilience has been lost. This is because loss in productivity is mitigated by increased water usage, and so more water is needed and thus also wasted. About 40% of the total amount of water diverted for irrigated agriculture disappears into the surface drainage system and is not used for plant growth (World Bank 2003 as cited in Schlüter & Herrfahrdt-Pähle, 2011). This also triggers a positive feedback loop of environmental degradation, stimulating an increase in irrigated land and technical interventions to maintain production levels. This results in high resilience for the agricultural sector on the short-term, but degradation of the SES in the long-run (Schlüter & Herrfahrdt-Pähle, 2011). Single system attempts that act as barriers for adaption and transformation Resilience is not always a desirable factor of a system due to the fact that it can be very difficult to transform a resilient system from its current state into a more desirable one (Scheffer et al., 2001; Gunderson and Holling, 2002; Walker et al., 2004 as cited in Folke, 2006). For example, the current dependency on cotton production makes cotton an important social, economic and political control (Weinthal 2001 and ICG 2005 as cited in Schlüter & Herrfahrdt-Pähle, 2011). This control prevents implementations of different water practices due to the high resilience of the social system. This is caused by strong feedbacks and path dependence and it is keeping the Aral Sea SES in its current undesirable state (Schlüter & Herrfahrdt-Pähle, 2011). Changes in agricultural practices and the likes allowed the social system to adapt and increase in resilience, but it did not address the growing deterioration of land and water resources and loss of valuable ecosystem services such as fish and protection from dust storms provided by the semi-natural ecosystems in the river basin (Schlüter & Herrfahrdt-Pähle, 2011). In addition this resilient social-state also decreases further potential for transformation of the larger scale-SES (political, economic and institutional settings) that is needed to enable the smaller scales (regional and local water management) to adapt and change to benefit sustainable water usage (Schlüter & Herrfahrdt-Pähle, 2011). The Aral Sea Wetland Restoration Project has been partially successful in ecosystem rehabilitation by creating artificial wetlands and ponds in the delta and the dried seabed (Micklin, 2007). A complementary method is the re-vegetation of bare soil as this stabilizes the soil (Micklin, 2010). Benefits of the rehabilitation are the increase of biodiversity, improvement in fisheries, greater foraging production, waste water treatment by aquatic vegetation and a reduction in windtransferred salt and dust (Micklin, 2010). However, the Wetland restoration did not increase the resilience of the Aral Sea SES because it focused solely on technical measures to improve the ecological conditions and neglected the development of institutions that regulate water supply and facilitate the sustainable use of the wetlands (Schlüter & Herrfahrdt-Pähle, 2011). Resilience is not only about stability but also about adaptive capacity that allows for continuous development (Folke, 2006). However, by trying to enhance adaptability of subsystems (like agricultural system) by those who gain from their functioning this has only led to a short-term increase in resilience, but a loss of resilience of the overall SES (Walker et al. 2006 as cited in Schlüter

12

Building bridges across the Aral Sea region - an interdisciplinary approach & Herrfahrdt-Pähle, 2011). So the increased resilience of one system can act as a barrier to SES resilience (Schlüter & Herrfahrdt-Pähle, 2011).

Result 2: Changing the current undesirable state of the Aral Sea SES to a desirable state that incorporates sustainable water usage Introduction As it is now clear that the increased resilience of one system can act as a barrier to SES resilience, to solve the unsustainable water usage in the Aral Sea basin, with both ecological and social aspects in mind, there is a need for the transformation of the Aral Sea SES as a whole. By incorporating the needs of the ecological system into water management, the productivity, the sustainability, and the resilience of the Aral Sea SES can be greatly enhanced. As such it can be pushed into a state with sustainable water usage (Schlüter & Herrfahrdt-Pähle, 2011) whilst increasing ecosystem services and biodiversity of the region. Diversity as driver for resilience Variability and flexibility are needed to maintain ecosystem resilience but the exact level of variability is still an area of research (Falkenmark et al, 2008). Diversity and heterogeneity are key elements of complex adaptive systems such as the Aral Sea and the research organisation “Resilience Alliance” appoints diversity as the key element of resilience, so this is worth considering (Resilience Alliance, 2002). Diversity can act as an insurance mechanism by increasing system resilience (Chapin et al, 2000; Falkenmark et al, 2008). Current Preservation Measures: Northern Aral Sea With time the fate of the Aral Sea as a whole seemed to worsen. A decision was made to forsaken the Southern parts of the Aral Sea, as this part had desiccated so extremely that an operation to save it would be far too costly and would not guarantee success. Thus, a plan was devised to increase the viability of the Northern Aral Sea, which in 2005 resulted in the construction of a dam, Kok-Aral. The dam prevents water from crossing from the Northern part to the Southern part of the Aral Sea, where it would be lost by evaporation. Since this construction the fishery in the Northern Aral Sea has returned; estimated at 3,500 tons in 2005, it is now estimated at 18,000 tons (Alles, 2011; Pala, 2011). This increase is greatly due to the decreasing salinity, approximately 12g/L in 2010 which is closer to the 8g/L of 1960 as compared to the >42g/L of 2003 (see figure 6), which facilitates the return of native species such as the sazan (Cyprinus carpio) (Micklin, 2010). Primary production has also increased (Aladin et al, 1999). Furthermore the Northern Aral Sea’s water level has increased by Figure 6. Decrease of salinity in the Northern Aral Sea as a result of the building of 2 meters, its surface area expanded by the dike (Aladin et al., 2009) 900 km², and its salinity has decreased 13

Building bridges across the Aral Sea region - an interdisciplinary approach from 12.3 in 2005 to 8 g/L in 2011. Expected, but as of yet unconfirmed, results include the improvement of ground water, which had become too saline for consumption causing increased health problems for the local population (Alles, 2011). Salinity is a good indicator for water quality and as the concept of hysteresis tells us, we need pass the bifurcation point of the system, in order to retain the system in a freshwater state like that of before the 1960s. This is done by lowering the salinity even further by increasing water inflow. As the recovery of the Northern Aral Sea is in progress and the wealth of Kazakhstan has been increasing, the nation wants to take the recovery a step further. Two possible projects have been discussed; one is to raise the dam further in order to increase the water level another 6 meters which would increase the surface area another 5,000 km² (Pala, 2011), and the alternative is to dig a canal to the port of Aralsk, which has dried up as a result of the desiccation of the Aral Sea. Where the first measure is better for the ecology of the Aral Sea, the alternative reaches more locals, so careful consideration is needed to take all influences on the Aral Sea SES into account. However, at present the inflow of water into the Aral Sea is not enough to sustain either plan (Pala, 2011) and thus we should look for other possibilities. Social-economic opportunity for Southern Aral Sea The western part of the Southern Aral Sea would also benefit in a reduction of salinity as first salttolerant fish would return, and when the salinity is reduced to 200g/L but could provide a habitat for brine shrimp which can also be harvested (Micklin, 2010). Here again diversity of uses is likely to increase resilience of the SES. In addition, opportunities also exist for generating renewable energy. Micklin and his team measured the wind speed in the area and stated that many places around the sea have strong winds suitable for the production of wind energy (Micklin, 2006). However, there are still no wind installations in the republic of Uzbekistan (Renewable Development Initiative, 2010). An experiment has shown a high effectiveness of a combined solar radiation and wind energy generator (Abdullaev et al., 2000). Implementing solar and wind energy can be beneficial to the national economy as well as creating jobs for the local population. Diversity in livelihoods can increase the resilience of the system, since the impacts of the collapse of one source of income (such as fishery) will be reduced. Water quantity and quality In order to cut down the quantities of water usage a change in agricultural practices must occur. One of the possibilities is diversification, as reduction of agricultural area is not an option due to the need to generate food for the growing population (Micklin, 2006). Functional redundancy can be provided by biodiverse ecosystems (Resilience Alliance, 2002). This diversification can take on many forms. An example is to switch from cotton to wheat production as wheat is a less water intensive crop. The agricultural area used for wheat has risen 28%, while cotton reduced from 45 to 25% from 1990 to 1998 (Micklin, 2006). As a result, there was a reduction in water withdrawals for agricultural purposes from 109 to 92 km³ (a 16% decrease), even though the overall agricultural area increased by 10%. Not only does this have a favourable outcome for available water quantities, but also for the national dependency on imported products. Furthermore, this national production of food crop also 14

Building bridges across the Aral Sea region - an interdisciplinary approach contributes directly to GDP and the food security of the nation. As a by-product of the crop change, more water will be available for the basin, and thus also for local users downstream. In the case of water quality there is a need for better water management up stream and along the rivers. While providing management, there is also an opportunity to combine this with increasing income and standard living conditions for the poorer regions. With water management we can focus on several themes such as mitigating pollution and use efficiency. An example of better water management can be found in Karakalpakstan, where a project called Drainage, Irrigation and Wetlands Improvement Phase-I is running. They developed a system for the drainage of polluted water, while at the same time educating the locals and promoting sustainable irrigated agriculture. Preliminary results show that between 2008 and 2009 river salinity has dropped 0.8 g/L due to these measures (The World Bank, 2011). It would be wise to actively manage more regions within the drainage basin to further decrease pollution and increase social welfare. Cooperation between countries in which the Aral Sea Basin is situated Above, the options for sustainable water use are presented. However, these need to be implemented as well. The Aral Sea Basin comprises of seven countries in Central Asia, which makes cooperation necessary. Therefore, the question of how the countries, that are dependent on the Aral Sea region, can cooperate in creating a sustainable future for the region, will be addressed. In 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed, which makes cooperation in water management between Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan highly necessary. These countries should recognize the interdependence and the transcendental nature of the social-ecological system. Micklin (2002) states that the countries have a long history of unified resource management. In addition, they have continued to cooperate, which enables cooperation in the future as well. In the 1990s five treaties were signed to improve cooperation between the countries. The Kyzyl-Orda Agreement in 1993 established five institutions: the Interstate Commission for Water Coordination (ICWC), the Interstate Council on the Aral Sea Basin (ICAS), the Executive Committee of ICAS (ICECAS), the International Fund for the Aral Sea (IFAS) and the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC). In the following year Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgystan signed a treaty to pledge 1% of their budget for recovery of the Aral Sea. After this, the Nukus Declaration (1995) and Alma-Ata Treaty (1998), which focused on the protection of the health of the people, and Ashgabat Declaration (1999) were signed. However, there is still need for more institutions that regulate water supply in a sustainable way (Schlüter & Herrfahrdt-Pähle, 2011). These could be water pricing and water markets. A strong barrier for change is the structural weaknesses of the formal legalization, in which the executive is provided with authoritarian powers (Schlüter & Herrfahrdt-Pähle, 2011). Therefore, more transparency and stakeholder involvement is needed. Herrfahrdt-Pähle named some factors that need to be addressed for the measures to be effective, including: abandoning the state order system, introducing water services fees, securing land rights, creating land markets and implementing the environmental flows to the deltaic wetlands. These methods will increase the incentives for farmers to invest in irrigation infrastructure and effective water use. This cooperation is highly needed to shift the current Aral Sea SES from a high resilient social-system dominated state to a SES state with sustainable water use. 15

Building bridges across the Aral Sea region - an interdisciplinary approach Uncertainty of Climate Change A problem for the future is that of climate change as its consequences on the Aral Sea region are hard to predict. But when the future is unpredictable, such as one with the effect of climate change, it is argued that managing for resilience enhances the likelihood of sustaining desirable pathways for development in changing environments (Walker et al., 2004; Adger et al., 2005 as cited in Folke, 2006). With our gained knowledge of resilience and the Aral Sea as SES we will look at two scenarios that could result from a general warming of 0.5 to 3.5 ºC as compared to the period 1961-1990, which is possible in different regions of the Aral Sea Basin by the year 2030 (Micklin, 2006). The increase in temperature can lead to two possible scenarios: 1) a further decrease of water supply to the Aral Sea region, or 2) an increase in water supply to the Aral Sea region. As can be seen in Table 2 the current state of the Aral Sea is described by State 1. For scenario 1 the system shifts to one that is less desirable than the current state due to climate change. The decrease in water availability causes increased desertification due to its positive feedback mechanism and can be used as an early warning sign for decreased resilience. This desertification lowers the overall resilience of the system by loss of vegetation and increase in toxic dust storms, which increase health problems for the public as well as affect plant and animal livelihoods. With the addition of increased evaporation rates more land and water resources are needed to maintain productivity and this positive feedback will cause further biodiversity loss, water loss, migration and increased desertification. In this scenario 1 it seems SES resilience is not a viable option for the Aral Sea Region. Instead it might be possible to focus on a system with economic opportunities such as the earlier mentioned renewable energy (solar and wind), however with increasing desertification health issues will increase and cause the vulnerability in social-health resilience, with emigration as only solution. So what would be left is a desert with toxic winds and renewable energy systems (and brine shrimp aquaculture). On the other hand we have scenario 2 where the current system shifts to one that is more desirable due to increased inflow, enhanced precipitation and melting of glaciers, though this is not substantial nor sustainable (Micklin, 2006). The increase in water availability causes decreased desertification and with enough water the system can be forced over an ecological threshold back into a vegetated state with high resilience. With the return of water and vegetation, the dust storms will decrease and public health will increase. The increase in water availability means focus can shift from cotton production and diversify as the area will no longer be dependent on cotton alone as ecosystems and their services increase. These changes will result in a reduction of migration out of the area, and maybe even migration into the area as it becomes self-sufficient. However, with our knowledge of the Aral Sea SES and its resilience, as well as our knowledge of climate change, it seems unlikely that state 2 of scenario 2 will be possible for long, due to the predicted increase in temperature and, in the long term, eventual decrease in water supply. This brings us to a shift in scenario 2 from state 2 back to state 1 and then to state 2 of scenario 1 (see Table 2). So to conclude, we assume that SES resilience is not possible in combination with the effects of climate change, and that single-system resilience (such as a system focused on renewable energy) might be the only productive option for the area in the long term.

16

Building bridges across the Aral Sea region - an interdisciplinary approach Table 2. Characteristic of expected SES state shifts due to Climate Change (Adapted from Scheffer et al., 2001)

Social Ecological System

State I

State II

Events inducing shift from II to I

Events inducing shift from II to I

Saline water Extinction of species Increased desertification

Aral Sea Region Scenario 1

Increased toxic winds Brackish water Lake (North)

Increased public health problems

Fishery (North)

Increased unemployment

Saline water lake (South) Brine Shrimp aquaculture (South)

Aral Sea Region Scenario 2

Result: Less water availability and a further decrease in diversity of SES

Decreased temperatures Decreased evaporation Increasing water availability

Increased migration

Brackish/fresh water

Toxic winds

Biodiverse ecosystems

Cotton Production

Decreased desertification

Desertification

Climate changes leads to increased temperatures, which disturbs water balance and leads to increased evaporation

Decreased toxic winds Decreased public health problems Decreased unemployment

Climate change leads to increased temperatures, which disturbs water balance. It results in an increased in melting glaciers. Result: More water availability and an increase in diversity of SES

Decreased temperatures Decreased melting Decreased water availability

Decreased migration

17

Building bridges across the Aral Sea region - an interdisciplinary approach

Conclusion, discussion & recommendations In this paper the water scarcity of the Aral Sea region was addressed. The aim was to look how the system could be transformed from an unsustainable system to a sustainable system in terms of water resource usage, which sustains ecological services that support regional livelihoods. After looking into the background of the problems, some options for transforming the region were discussed within a resilience framework. The social-ecological system of the Aral Sea was in a freshwater state that supported a healthy fishery but due to water exploitation a shift occurred to a different state i.e. saline state without a healthy fishery. The current system is resilient due to the strong dependency on cotton production, however it is not in a desirable state, since it sustains environmental and social problems. The following methods resulting in a desirable transformation were obtained: The Northern Aral Sea has potential to transform into a sustainable system that can contribute to the livelihood of the local population and supports a biodiverse ecosystem. This has been partly achieved through the construction of the Kok-Dam, which prevents water from escaping the Northern basin and evaporating in the Southern Aral Sea. Diversification of agricultural crops and water management projects, focusing on the treatment of affluent polluted irrigation water, also led to a decreased salinity level and increased water levels. Although these options are successful in changing the SES to a more desirable state it is still on a small scale, and thus leaves room for improvement. The decreased salinity has allowed the Northern Aral Sea to return to an ecosystem suitable for local fish species and thereby also the fishing industry, which in turn has greatly benefited the local communities, such as reduced health issues related directly to water quality. Wetland reestablishment became possible around the Northern Aral Sea, which resulted in increased biodiversity in this area. It also creates prospect for a sustainable system with high resilience. In addition, the system becomes increasingly favourable to live in again, reducing migration from the region. Unfortunately, the Southern Aral Sea has not fared as well as the Northern. It has degraded even further over the last decade and will most likely keep doing so. We have gained no insights which have a viable solution for the Southern part of the Aral Sea in terms of a biodiverse ecological state. However, it still has some potential from a socio-economic viewpoint. The high salinity of the Southern Aral Sea can sustain brine shrimp, which can provide an income to the local population but this may be a short term opportunity as the Sea continues to desiccate even further. However, a non-ecological stable state may be possible, for example by converting the soils into a ground for the generation of wind- and solar energy. The soil will hereby increase in stability, as well as being beneficial to the national economy and creating jobs for the local population. However, the desirability of such a system can be questioned as it disregards the needs of biodiversity and resilience in ecology. When looking at the entire region a transformation of the complete system should take place. There is a need for institutions and formal legalization regulation water supply, for example by introducing water pricing and markets. The countries affected by changes in the system have a long history of cooperation and this should, and is expected, to continue. However, more transparency and stakeholder involved is required to increase incentives for farmers to invest in irrigation infrastructure and effective water use. 18

Building bridges across the Aral Sea region - an interdisciplinary approach Lastly, there are several challenges for the future. To begin with, there is uncertainty about the impacts of climate change on the region. However, the scenarios illustrated in this paper showed that both negative and positive effects will bring the system to an undesirable state in the long term, when no measures are taken to prevent this. Secondly, population growth will exaggerate the problems and this may lead to conflicts concerning water use. Future research is needed and should investigate more scenarios with different effect levels of climate change, population and so on, in an attempt to be proactive for future situations. Besides this, more research on reducing the impact of the dust storms is also required as this will remain a problem for the health of plants and animals in the long term. To conclude, it is important that impacts on the whole region are taken into account when trying to change the state of the system, since problems will shift from one system or area to another and thus are not solved.

19

Building bridges across the Aral Sea region - an interdisciplinary approach

References Abdullaev, D., Chub, V., Isaev, R., & Tolkacheva, G. (2000). Wind and Solar Energy as a Source of Reducing Environmental Pollution. ICEHM2000, 134 - 138. Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16, 268–281. Aladin, N., Plotnikov, I., Micklin, P., & Ballatore, T. (2009). Aral Sea: Water level, salinity and longterm changes in biological communities of an edangered ecosystem-past, present and future. Natural Resources and Environmental Issues, 15(1). Aladin, N., Potts, W., Plotnikov, I., Filippov, A., & Orlova, M. (1999). Recent Changes in the Hydrobiology of the Aral Sea. Chemistry and Ecology, 15, 235-272. Alles, D. (2011, April 11). The Aral Sea. Retrieved April 2012, from http://fire.biol.wwu.edu/trent/alles/AralSea.pdf Boomer, I., Aladin, N., Plotnikov, I., & Whatley, R. (2000). The Palaeolimnology of the Aral Sea: a review. Quaternary Science Reviews, 19, 1259 - 1278. Bortnik, V., Kuksa, V., & Tsytsarin, A. (1992). Present status and possible future of the Aral Sea? Geography and Economics, 33(5), 315 - 323. Bucknell University. (2012, April 26). Aral Sea Catastrophe Timeline. Retrieved from Central Eurasian Environmental and Aral Studies (CEEAS) Research Group: http://www.students.bucknell.edu/projects/enst319-03/amanda%20wooden/Timeline.shtml Cai, X., McKinney, D., & Rosegrant, M. (2003). Systainability Analysis for Irrigation Water Management in the Aral Sea Region. Agricultural Systems, 76, 1043 - 1066. Chapagain, A., Hoekstra, A., Savenije, H., & Gautam, R. (2005). The water footprint of cotton consumption. Delt: UNESCO-IHE. Cohen, D. (2007). Earth's Natural Wealth: an audit. New Scientist, 2605, 34 - 41. D'Odorico, P., Bhattachan, A., Davis, K., Ravi, S., & Runyan, C. (2012). Global Desertification: Drivers and Feedbacks. Advances in Water Resources. Falkenmark, M., Finlayson, C., & Gordon, L. (2008). Agriculture, Water and Ecosystems: Avoiding the Costs of Going Too Far. International Water Management Institute, 3, 233 - 277. Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16, 253-267. Ginzburg, A., Kostianoy, A., & Sheremet, N. (2003). Thermal regime of the Aral Sea in the modern period (1982-2000) as revealed by satellite data. Journal of Marine Systems, 43, 19 - 30. Glantz, M., Rubinstein, A., & Zonn, I. (1993). Tragedy in the Aral Sea basin. Global Environmental Change, 174 - 198.

20

Building bridges across the Aral Sea region - an interdisciplinary approach Gunderson, L. H. (2000). Ecological resilience - in theory and application. Annual Review of Ecological ans Systematics, 31, 425–439. Hobbs, R., & Harris, J. (2001). Restoration Ecology: Repairing the Earth's Ecosystems in the New Millenium. Restoration Ecology, 9(2), 239 - 246. Holling, C. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1 - 23. International Fund for the Aral Sea. (2012, May). State of Environment of the Aral Sea Basin. Retrieved from International Fund for the Aral Sea: enrin.grida.no/htmls/aralso/aralsea/index.htm Jerneck, A., & Olsson, L. (2008). Adaptation and the poor: development, resilience and transition. Climate Policy, 8 (2), 170-182. Kelly, P. M., & Adger, W. N. (2000). Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to climate change and facilitating adaptation. Climatic Change, 47 (4), 325-352. Kindler, J. (1998). Linking Ecological and Development Objectives: Trade-offs and Imperatives. Ecologival Applications, 8(3), 591 - 600. Kobori, I., & Glantz, M. (1998). Central Eurasia water crisis: Caspian, Aral, and Dead Seas. Japan: United Nations University Press. Levin, S. (2000). Fragile Dominion: Complexity and the Commons. United States of America: Basic Books. McLeman, R. (2011). Settlement abondonment in the context of global environmental change. Global Environmental Change - Human and Policy Dimensions, 21, S108 - S120. Micklin, P. (1998). International and regional responses to the Aral crisis: an overview of efforts and accomplishments? Post-Soviet Geography and Economics, 39(7), 339 - 416. Micklin, P. (2002). Water in the Aral Sea Basin of Central Asia: Cause of Conflic or Coorperation? Eurasian Geography and Economics, 43(7), 505 - 528. Micklin, P. (2006). The Aral Sea Crisis and Its Future: An Assessment in 2006. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 47(5), 546 - 567. Micklin, P. (2007). The Aral Sea Disaster. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 35, 47 - 72. Micklin, P. (2010). The past, present, and future Aral Sea? Euroasian Geography and economics, 43 (7), 505-528. Mysiak, J., Henrikson, H., Sullivan, C., Bromley, J., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2010). The Adaptive Water Resource Management Handbook. Nottingham, United Kingdom: Earthscan. Nelson, D. R., Adger, W. N., & Brown, K. (2007). Adaptation to environmental change: contributions of a resilience framework. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 32, 395-419.

21

Building bridges across the Aral Sea region - an interdisciplinary approach Oren, A., Plotnikov, I., Sokolov, S., & Aladin, N. (2010). The Aral Sea and the Dead Sea: Disparate lakes with similar histories. Lakes & Reservoirs: Research and Management, 15, 223 - 236. Pala, C. (2011). In Northern Aral Sea, Rebound Comes With a Big Catch. Science, 334, 303. Renewable Energy Initiative. (2010). Uzbekistan. Retrieved May 28, 2012, from Renewable Energy Initiative: http://www.ebrdrenewables.com/sites/renew/countries/Uzbekistan/default.aspx Repko, A. (2008). Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory. Los Angeles, United States of America: Sage. Resilience Alliance. (2002, October 29). Adaptive Cycle. Retrieved from Resilience Alliance: http://www.resalliance.org/index.php/adaptive_cycle Roget, E., Zavialov, P., Khan, V., & Muñiz, M. (2009). Geodynamical processes in the channel connecting the two lobes of the Large Aral Sea. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 6, 5279 - 5301. Roll, G., Alexeeva, N., Aladin, N., Plotnikov, I., Sokolov, V., Sarsembekov, T., et al. (2003). Aral Sea. LakeNet, SMC and the International Lake Environment Committee, Lake Basin Management Initiative. Vermont: Lake Basin Management Initiative Regional Workshop for Europe, Central Asia and the Americas. Saeijs, H., & van Berkel, M. (1995). Global water crisis: the major issue of the 21st century, a growing and explosive problem. European water pollution control: official publication of the European Water Pollution Control Association (EWPCA), 5(4), 26 - 40. Saiko, T. S. (1998). Geographical and socio-economic dimensions of the Aral Sea crisis and their impact on the potential for communit action. Journal of Arid Environments, 39, 225-238. Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S., Foley, J., Folke, C., & Walker, B. (2001). Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature, 413, 591 - 596. Schlüter, M., & Herrfahrdt-Pähle, E. (2011). Exploring Resilience and Transformability of a River Basin in the Face of Socioeconomic and Ecological Crisis: an Example from the Amudarya River Basin, Central Asia. Ecology and Society, 16 (1): 32, 1-19. Schrad, M. (2006). Threat level green: conceding ecology for security in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Global Environmental Change - Human and Policy Dimensions, 16(4), 400 - 422. The World Bank. (2011, April). Implementation Status and Results Report. Retrieved from The Worldbank: www.worldbank.org Uitto, J., & Duda, A. (2002). Management of transboundary water resources: lessons from international cooperation for conflict prevention. Geographical Journal, 168, 365 - 378. UNESCO. (2000). Water Related Vision for the Aral Sea Basin: for the year 2015. UNESCO.

22

Building bridges across the Aral Sea region - an interdisciplinary approach Wouters, H., & Bol, W. (2007). Material Scarcity: An M2i Study. Delft: Stichting Material Innovation Institute (M2i). Zimmerer, K. S. (1994). Human geography and the "new ecology": the prospect and promise of integration. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 84 (1), 108-125.

23

Building bridges across the Aral Sea region - an interdisciplinary approach

Appendix I – Flowchart for Creating Common Ground

24

Building bridges across the Aral Sea region - an interdisciplinary approach

Appendix II – Reflections Nikki van Alst Working with Ellen van den Berg and Lorain Drennan has been a pleasant experience. Even though we have encountered many hurdles – concussions, overlapping deadlines, family trouble and near break-downs – we have managed to keep our heads above water and get the job done. On that note it has been a good experience to work with different disciplinary minds. Although this is not necessarily new to us, it is good to be reminded how to work in this kind of interdisciplinary team and also to be able to step back and stay within your own discipline. For me this has been especially hard in the beginning, as Earth Science and Ecology have a large common ground and I felt responsible to also take on some of Lorain’s duty in the time that she could in no way participate as a result of her injury. In the commotion at the beginning of this project I think we slipped a little, we were unsure of how to approach it and I think also due to earlier mentioned hurdles we had not thought as far ahead as we normally would. Thus our plans were somewhat vague and our understanding on the project has only blossomed later on in our time schedule. I am of opinion though that it seems to have worked out, also because we had good communication and everyone boar their responsibilities very well. In case of confusion there could also be immediate deliberation over all sorts of media (in person as well as over online media such as Skype), and I have appreciated this very much. Especially since we had such differing schedules and deadlines regarding other study related activities. In conclusion I have nothing but praise for my colleagues whilst working alongside them, and am very proud that after everything that happened we have been able to finish what we started.

Ellen van den Berg During this project I worked together with Nikki van Alst and Lorain Drennan. I think the collaboration in general went smooth, and we were able to complement each other. It was very interesting to work with people from different disciplines, since it makes you look with a different perspective to the situation. While writing the report, we had some personal circumstances which made working on the project harder. Especially, in these times I experienced the value of working together. We supported each other and were able to keep up with the work. I believe that our communication worked really well. We kept each other up to date by email, Facebook, Skype phone calls and meetings. Although, we all have very different schedules, we tried to make sure that we all were up to date with the project and come to joint results. However, it made planning meeting harder. I think more meetings would have been beneficial for the end product. A shorter, but more intense time schedule could have been helpful in this. A weaker point of our collaboration was perhaps that the division of roles was not always clear. It might have been better to start with a clearer task division. However, it worked out quite well in the end. The roles were eventually ascribed naturally and we just worked it out for each step of the process.

25

Building bridges across the Aral Sea region - an interdisciplinary approach Looking back at the process, I noticed that I’ve learned a lot. For example, I think our subject was I bit too broad and should have been better demarcated. This might also have been beneficial for the teamwork, since now there were so many aspect that were elaborated upon. The interdisciplinary project learns you well how problems from the real world should be investigated.

Lorain Drennan For this interdisciplinary project I had the pleasure to work with Nikki van Alst and Ellen van den Berg. Overall, I am delighted in the cooperation of everyone for the whole duration of the project. Unfortunately, I was absent for a few weeks due to health issues and I was worried that I would not be able to catch up again, but luckily the girls kept me up to date on everything. I was also concerned that the balance of time put into the project would be unequal but in the end this also worked out as at times one of us had relatively less obligations, before a deadline, than the others. This also contributed to the fact that roles were not always as clear as you would hope. For the first two assignments this also did not really cause many problems, but for the third assignment a clearer roledivision would have been desirable. However, the interdisciplinary aspect of this project also made this more difficult than is possible in a multidisciplinary or single-disciplinary project. Effort and cooperation were certainly present at all times and this is the only reason we could get where we are today, as the hectic and highly diverse schedules of everyone (mainly dominated by our individual Bachelor Projects) meant that time was valuable. Through good communication we were able to hold meetings, both in person and via Skype, as well as keep contact via email and text messaging. The Interdisciplinary Project is a great idea to end FPS as we can put into use what we have learned, learn from each other and experience first-hand the importance of team-work. What is evident is that running this project alongside an individual Bachelor Project is an efficient use of time, but also a cause of much unneeded worry and stress. I think doing the project in the first semester would be a better idea, but I am of course grateful that the chance does exist to do it in the second semester also.

26