Policy Brief: 'Should Turkmenistan Use the Caspian Sea to Quench Its Thirst?'

Jahan Taganova, whom I taught in a hydrology class at Oregon State University several years ago (along with Jaclyn Best), sent me this information and policy brief.

She presented, along with her colleague Nathan Hutson, a lecture (AWRA webinar) on this topic earlier today. It was an

Here is their PowerPoint:

PPT: Download AWRA Turkmenistan-updated-2022-final 

Now, the policy brief:

Should Turkmenistan Use the Caspian Sea to Quench Its Thirst?
A Feasibility Assessment of Building a Desalination Plant on the Caspian Shore?

Authors: Jahan Taganova, Zaida Aurora Cholico Santoyo, Rachana Mattur,
Jaclyn Best, Anna Shabanova, and Christopher A. Ellison (Contributing Eitor)  

Here is the PDF:

Download Policy-brief-updated-2022-final-2

Executive Summary

Turkmenistan’s water supplies are decreasing, making the desalination of the Caspian Sea an attractive option to meet the country’s current water needs. While desalination is an attractive option to address water scarcity and increase freshwater supply, it is not without its disadvantages: its high energy requirements will increase carbon emissions, its byproduct brine creates waste management problems, and over-extraction of Caspian waters threatens the Caspian Sea’s unique ecosystems and even the Sea’s survival. These potential consequences should serve as a warning not to consider addressing water supply only as a short-term solution at the expense of long-term implications and the needs of future generations. With freshwater reservoirs drying up and river runoff shrinking due to the nation’s heretofore inadaptability to climate change, should Turkmenistan consider desalination to increase its water supply? This policy brief analyzes the pros and cons of Turkmenistan’s potential¹ desalination plant and proposes eight alternatives to address water scarcity sustainably and equitably. 

Cutting to the Conclusions

In Turkmenistan, as in other parts of the world, high human population growth, improved living standards, and a rapidly changing climate threaten the resiliency required in order to sustainably manage water resources. With the exponential growth of desalination as a method for augmenting existing freshwater resources, it is understandable that Turkmenistan would consider desalination on the Caspian Sea shore. Despite this potential, however, there are a number of socio-ecological and political considerations and trade-offs that come with desalination, namely the negative environmental and ecological consequences having to do with brine wastewater, the high energy demand that would likely be met by burning more fossil fuels, and the potential shifts in transboundary hydro-politics among neighboring Central Asian countries. 

On the surface of it, desalinating water from the Caspian Sea would increase water security for Turkmenistan, specifically for residents of the capital city, Ashgabat. This would further help towards achieving the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal #6, which calls for ensuring the availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. Turkmen farmers and other water-intensive industries could also be spared the impacts of current and future water shortages associated with water-intensive crops, aging water infrastructure, and dwindling upstream freshwater resources due to climate change and the overuse of existing water resources. In the hydro-diplomatic sphere, desalinating water in a transboundary setting has also been hypothesized to ease the strain on other freshwater resources, which in the Central Asian context could result in increased cooperation between Amu Darya Basin states. 

The current proposal to construct desalination plants on the Caspian Sea to supply Ashgabat would require freshwater to be transported to the capital city, 570 kilometers from the Turkmenbashi Gulf. In order to do so, a substantial amount of infrastructure investment will be required, which could translate into a higher cost for freshwater and could become a drain on the already shrinking public budget. In light of Turkmenistan’s worst economic crisis in 30 years, which has led to hyperinflation and widespread food shortages, ordinary residents of Ashgabat may not be able to afford higher water bills. Increased water prices could exacerbate the unequal distribution of water resources, becoming an impediment to the fundamental human right to water. 

Further, as has been outlined in this brief, large-scale desalination of the Caspian Sea would result in high emissions of greenhouse gasses in order to provide reliable energy for the proposed plants. Renewable and alternative energy operations do exist, such as wind, solar, and nuclear, but are not currently as commonplace. Desalination also has widespread environmental consequences, such as those from brine disposal, which can severely alter coastal and marine ecosystems and contaminate the surrounding seawater. 

We argue that before Turkmenistan spends time, labor, and energy investing in desalination, it should first address the shortcomings of its existing water resources and the governance and management thereof. The recommendations in this brief advocate for moving the focus of Turkmen policymakers beyond desalination and for identifying alternative, holistic water governance mechanisms for macro (that is, relating to the broader Amu Darya River Basin) and micro (that is, local actions) coherence; alternative directions such as nature-based solutions and the water-energy-food nexus, which could mitigate adverse consequences of desalination; and the more efficient and sustainable use of existing freshwater resources. Within Turkmenistan, there has been a lack of coordination in terms of governance over the water sector with overlapping sectors, such as irrigation, agriculture, and energy. While desalination might lead to greater water security within Turkmenistan, we strongly urge for an intersectoral, holistic nexus approach that will address these considerations. 

Water supply issues in Turkmenistan can be addressed with existing water resources by rethinking how these are managed. Here, we have suggested an integrated water resources management approach, which can be applied using best management practices and simple water-saving techniques. Other supply-side recommendations include crop rotations, improving existing water infrastructure, stormwater harvesting, reusing wastewater, and implementing innovative yet inexpensive nature-based solutions. These recommendations can be implemented at multiple scales, adopt indigenous practices of water management, and reduce reliance on a centrally-organized, top-down governance structure. On the socio-political front, we additionally suggest that an increased focus on interstate cooperation between Central Asian states should be made a high priority and can be used to build regional and basin-wide resilience to current and future droughts and other water-related impacts of climate change. We also implore Turkmenistan and its neighboring countries to adopt an intersectoral approach to water governance and management, namely the water-energy-food nexus, to increase interconnectivity and create mutual gains through trading between and within these sectors. Finally, changing public perceptions of water resources can help with collaborations with nongovernmental organizations and lead the way toward sustainable water stewardship. 

If desalination is rashly implemented on the basis of its short-term solutions without sufficient awareness of the context in which it is to be implemented, there is a risk of causing a major ecocide: the widespread or long-term destruction of ecosystems, with irreparable harm to nature. Putting the right policy response in place means going beyond just short-term solutions to cope with the crisis at hand. Therefore, a comprehensive analysis of all options, including conservation and efficiency, should be conducted by water planners, water agencies, and policymakers in order to pursue less expensive, less environmentally damaging alternatives first. Rather than pursuing policy analysis and pathways based on a world that is known now, planners and policymakers should use estimates of future, not present, climate and Caspian Sea ecological conditions while remaining adaptable to future uncertain conditions. Ultimately, the benefits of supplying fresh, desalinated water to Ashgabat come at both high ecological and economic costs, and in the long run, desalination could become a maladaptive strategy to cope with the effects of climate change on water resources.

Here are two other posts about the Golden Age Lake:

Science Magazine and the U.S. Army's Foreign Military Studies Office.

Enjoy!

"He eats with wolves and bleats with the sheep." - Turkmen proverb on hypocrisy

Comments

[Aquadoc]

Thanks, Elaine.

Jahan and Nathan alluded to this during their talk.

Michael

From:

[EJ Hanford]

A good rational approach, acknowledging the problems and the need for a reasoned adaptive strategy.
The following are related food for thought:

https://financialtribune.com/articles/environment/116916/caspian-sea-water-level-decreasing

https://intpolicydigest.org/can-the-caspian-sea-and-ural-river-be-saved/