aral sea case study

Main page content

Conflict over water in the aral sea.

Environmental degradation of the Aral Sea in Central Asia has caused a loss of livelihoods and led to resource competition over water amongst the states sharing the basin, especially Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The conflict over water has been non-violent and mostly diplomatic, and while several agreements have been made to jointly address the environmental problems of the Aral Sea, challenges remain in adopting an integrated regional approach to its protection.

• Turkmenistan

Conceptual Model

Conflict history, interstate dependencies and tensions.

An intricate web of resource interdependency exists between the five riparian states of the Aral Sea and its rivers. The two main rivers feeding the Aral Sea (Amu Darya and Syr Darya) flow through Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan downstream to Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan ( Wolf & Newton, 2014 ). The latter three countries rely heavily on the Aral Sea and its tributaries for large-scale Soviet-era irrigation projects to grow cotton. Meanwhile, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan lack natural gas and oil deposits, making them reliant on hydropower for energy production ( Dinar et al., 2007 ; Roll et al., 2005 ). The upstream countries thus have an incentive to release water during the cold winter months, when energy demand is greatest. The downstream countries, by contrast, mostly need water during the hot summer months for irrigation. A Soviet-era deal, however, ensured that upstream states released water in the summer in exchange for gas deliveries by downstream states.

This arrangement broke down following the collapse of the USSR, as states sought to secure resources unilaterally. Water releases from upstream dams shifted towards prioritising upstream energy needs rather than downstream summer irrigation needs, particularly as energy prices for upstream states rose ( Pohl et al., 2017 ). Although there have been some transboundary agreements towards comprehensive Aral Sea resource management (see Conflict Resolution), these agreements have been successful to varying degrees, and tensions have erupted between the Central Asian states.

In 1998, a water-energy exchange was agreed upon between Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan with the upper riparian state of Kyrgyzstan. However, conflict arose when these obligations were not met. For example, when Kazakhstan failed to meet the energy requirements of the agreement, Kyrgyzstan cut water flows from its reservoir as a result ( Dinar et al., 2007 ). In 1999, Uzbekistan deployed 130,000 troops on the Kyrgyz border to guard the reservoirs which were threatened by Taliban and Islamist militants in the area ( Dinar et al., 2007 ).

Water management and climate change impacts

Excessive water diversion from the rivers Amu Darya and Syr Darya has caused the Aral Sea to lose more than three quarters of its surface area between 1960 and 1990. At the same time, its surface area shrunk by more than half, while salinity tripled ( Calder & Lee, 1995 ; GRID-Arendal, 2009 ; Wolf & Newton, 2014 ). These have had significant impacts on livelihoods and human security. With the collapse of the fishing industry during the 1980s, tens of thousands lost their jobs. Along with a historically heavy use of pesticides, many have also suffered from poor health as a result of poisonous dust storms and contaminated water ( Roll et al., 2005 ; UNEP, 2014 ).

Furthermore, climate change has been flagged as a potential inflammatory contributor to water scarcity and tensions around the Aral Sea. Its impacts include glacial melting in the mountain ranges of Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan which feed the Aral Sea, ultimately increasing the occurrence of flooding and contributing to overall soil degradation and long-term water scarcity ( UNEP, 2014 ) . Such events could increase in frequency and intensity as glacial retreat and precipitation extremes are projected to rise over many parts of Central Asia ( IPCC, 2021 ).

Conflict resolution

Regional cooperation.

To save the Aral Sea and prevent environmental degradation from further affecting livelihoods and human security, regional cooperation between all stakeholder countries is essential. Indeed, the region was regarded as an example for transboundary water cooperation during a UN Security Council open debate on water, peace and security in 2016 ( Mirimanova et al., 2018 ).

Shortly after the collapse of the USSR, the five states around the Aral Sea and its rivers agreed to establish a regional committee to manage water allocation in the Amu Darya and Syr Darya river basins. This regional committee eventually became the Interstate Commission for Water Coordination (ICWC) in 1992, responsible for water allocation and dispute resolution mechanisms among the five countries ( Barghouti, 2006 ).

In 1993, all five countries signed the “ Agreement on Joint Actions for Addressing the Problems of the Aral Sea and its Coastal Area, Improving of the Environment and Ensuring the Social and Economic Development of the Aral Sea. ” This agreement saw the establishment of the Interstate Council for the Aral Sea (ICAS) in the same year, whose primary responsibility was to formulate policies regarding resource management in the Aral Sea. To manage funds contributed by member states to manage the Aral Sea, the International Fund for the Aral Sea (IFAS) was created in 1994. Owing to inter-institutional competition for dominance and a lack of trust, the ICAS was merged into the IFAS in 1998 in an attempt to centralise governance. However, the IFAS suffered a three-year hiatus because of disagreements amongst members about its credibility and management of multi-sectoral interests (Wolf & Newton, 2014).

Bilateral and trilateral agreements were also reached. For example, the Syr Darya Framework Agreement was signed between Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan in 1998 (and later with Tajikistan in 1999). The treaty offers compensation to Kyrgyzstan through energy-water exchanges for the hydropower it forfeits to provide downstream riparians with water. Amu Darya River Basin Agreements were also signed with Tajikistan and Uzbekistan with similar energy-water exchanges ( Dinar et al., 2007 ).

In addition to these regional agreements and their corresponding institutions, the riparian countries also sought international support to establish the Aral Sea Basin Program (ASBP) in 1994 ( Barghouti, 2006 ). The ASBP is a consortium that includes the EU, UNDP, UNEP, World Bank and other international agencies, and was responsible for the management of long-term solutions to the environmental emergency in the Aral Sea ( Dinar et al., 2007 ) . Now in its fourth phase, the ASBP has made some success in mobilising support, defining actions to stabilise the environment around the Aral Sea, and restoring parts of the basin, although gaps have been identified in terms of addressing local interests as well as the root causes of poor water management ( Barghouti, 2006 ; ECIFAS, n.d. ).

While progress has been made in promoting regional cooperation, states still pursue bilateral and unilateral decisions outside of the regional framework, prioritising their individual economic security over regional development. For example, states continue to announce plans to build their own dams and reservoirs without considering regional development and states have a poor track record of keeping their obligations under various bilateral and multilateral agreements. In other words, resource competition is still evident and environmental degradation continues to destabilise livelihoods and resource access.

Nevertheless, common interest in the survival of the Aral Sea is evident in the varying multilateral agreements and treaties signed amongst the Central Asian states. Resource dependency amongst stakeholders has also helped prevent all-out resource wars ( Dinar et al., 2007 ). Moreover, it should be noted that the costs of inaction in transboundary water management could go well beyond those directly linked to water management, affecting energy security, regional trade, and access to international finance ( Pohl et al., 2017 ). Challenges remain, however, in adopting an integrated regional approach to Aral Sea protection which overcomes overlapping jurisdictions and institutional responsibilities ( UNEP, 2014 ; Wolf & Newton, 2014).

Such challenges in developing a region-wide legal framework for the Aral Sea may thus call for alternative dispute resolution and prevention tools such as dialogue and mediation ( Mirimanova et al., 2018 ). In this regard, the UN, specifically through the UN Regional Centre for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia (UNRCCA) could play an important role in promoting preventive diplomacy and cooperation in the Aral Sea ( UNRCCA, 2019 ), through, for example, capacity building among stakeholders from the region’s water and energy sectors ( UNRCCA, 2021 ).

Resilience and Peace Building

Treaty/agreement.

In 1993, following the creation of the Interstate Commission of Water Coordination, the “Agreement on Joint Actions for Addressing the Problems of the Aral Sea and its Coastal Area, Improving of the Environment and Ensuring the Social and Economic Development of the Aral Sea” was signed by all five states around the Aral Sea. Agreements have also been made at the bilateral and trilateral levels.

Cooperation

The UN Regional Centre for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia (UNRCCA) could play an important role in promoting preventive diplomacy and cooperation in the Aral Sea, for example, through capacity building among stakeholders from the region’s water and energy sectors.

Challenges in developing a region-wide legal framework for the Aral Sea may call for alternative dispute resolution and prevention tools such as dialogue.

Mediation & arbitration

Challenges in developing a region-wide legal framework for the Aral Sea may call for alternative dispute resolution and prevention tools such as mediation.

Resources and Materials

• Barghouti, S. (2006). Case Study of the Aral Sea Water and Environmental Management Project: An independent evaluation of the World Bank's support of regional programs. IEG Working Paper. Washington, DC: World Bank.
• Calder, J. & Lee, J. (1995). ARALSEA: Aral Sea and Defense Issues. ICE Case Studies. No. 69.
• Dinar, A. et al. (2007). Case Study 4. The Aral Sea Basin. In: Bridges Over Water. World Scientific Series on Environmental and Energy Economics and Policy: Volume 3, 285-305.
• ECIFAS (n.d.). Aral Sea Basin Program-4 (ASBP-4). Executive Committee of the International Fund for saving the Aral Sea.
• GRID-Arendal (2009). The disappearance of the Aral Sea. Vital Water Graphics 2.
• IPCC (2021). Regional fact sheet - Asia. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report.
• Mirimanova, N. et al. (2018). Central Asia. Climate-related security risk assessment. Expert Working Group on Climate-related Security Risks.
• Pohl, B. et al. (2017). Rethinking Water in Central Asia – The costs of inaction and benefits of water cooperation. Bern: Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation.
• Roll, G. et al. (2005). Aral Sea. Experiences and Lessons Learned Brief. Lake Basin Management Initiative.
• UNEP (2014). The future of the Aral Sea lies in transboundary co-operation. Weather and Climate: Engaging Youth, WMO Bulletin 63(1).
• UNRCCA (2019). SRSG Natalia Gherman participates in the International Conference on the Aral Sea in Nukus, Uzbekistan. UNRCCA Press Release.
• UNRCCA (2021). UNRCCA organizes an online capacity building seminar and meeting of national experts on water and energy cooperation. UNRCCA Press Release.
• Wolf, A.T. & Newton, J.T. (2014). Case Study of Transboundary Dispute Resolution: Aral Sea.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

The Aral Sea is a lake located east of the Caspian Sea between Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan in central Asia. This area is part of the Turkestan desert, which is the fourth largest desert in the world; it is produced from a rain shadow effect by Afghanistan’s high mountains to the south. Due to the arid and seasonally hot climate, there is extensive evaporation and limited surface waters. Summer temperatures can reach 60 ο C (140 ο F)! The Aral Sea’s water supply is mainly from the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya, which carry snowmelt from mountainous areas. In the early 1960s, the then-Soviet Union diverted the Amu Darya and Syr Darya Rivers for irrigation of one of the driest parts of Asia to produce rice, melons, cereals, and especially cotton. The Soviets wanted cotton or white gold to become a major export. They were successful, and today Uzbekistan is one of the world’s largest exporters of cotton. Unfortunately, this action eliminated any river inflow to the Aral Sea and caused it to disappear almost completely.

In 1960, the Aral Sea was the fourth largest inland water body; only the Caspian Sea, Lake Superior, and Lake Victoria were larger. Since then, it has progressively shrunk due to rivers’ evaporation and lack of recharge. Before 1965, the Aral Sea received 2060 km 3  of fresh water per year from rivers, and by the early 1980s, it received none. By 2007, the Aral Sea shrank to about 10% of its original size, and its salinity increased from about 1% dissolved salt to about 10% dissolved salt, which is three times more saline than seawater. These changes caused an enormous environmental impact. A once thriving fishing industry is dead, as are the 24 species of fish that used to live there; the fish could not adapt to the more saline waters. The current shoreline is tens of kilometers from former fishing towns and commercial ports. Large fishing boats lie in the dried-up lakebed of dust and salt. A frustrating part of the river diversion project is that many irrigation canals were poorly built, allowing abundant water to leak or evaporate. An increasing number of dust storms blow salt, pesticides, and herbicides into nearby towns, causing various respiratory illnesses, including tuberculosis.

The wetlands of the two river deltas and their associated ecosystems have disappeared. The regional climate is drier and has greater temperature extremes due to the absence of moisture and moderating influence from the lake. In 2003, some lake restoration work began on the northern part of the Aral Sea, and it provided some relief by raising water levels and reducing salinity somewhat. The southern part of the Aral Sea has seen no relief and remains nearly completely dry. The destruction of the Aral Sea is one of the planet’s biggest environmental disasters caused entirely by humans. Lake Chad in Africa is another example of a massive lake nearly disappearing for the same reasons as the Aral Sea. The Aral Sea and Lake Chad are the most extreme examples of large lakes destroyed by unsustainable diversions of river water. Other lakes that have shrunk significantly due to human water diversions include the Dead Sea in the Middle East, Lake Manchar in Pakistan, and Owens Lake and Mono Lake in California.

Introduction to Environmental Sciences and Sustainability Copyright © 2023 by Emily P. Harris is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

This site uses cookies to optimize functionality and give you the best possible experience. If you continue to navigate this website beyond this page, cookies will be placed on your browser. To learn more about cookies, click here .

Advertisement

Review of Nature-based Solutions in Dryland Ecosystems: the Aral Sea Case Study

• Open access
• Published: 28 April 2023
• Volume 72 , pages 457–472, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Shahzoda Alikhanova 1 &
• Joseph William Bull 1  

3691 Accesses

5 Citations

6 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

NbS have gained substantial attention in the academic literature recently as a potential approach for simultaneously tackling environmental issues and addressing societal challenges. Drylands, which are among the world’s most vulnerable areas to the impacts of climate change and cover a little less than the half of the global terrestrial surface, were the focus of this study. We conducted a systematic literature review to explore the potential opportunities for the application of NbS in rural drylands across the globe. We go on to specifically consider the possibility of applying selected NbS approaches in the Aral Sea region of Uzbekistan, as a case study of a dryland ecosystem illustrating major environmental and social challenges. We highlight which NbS show the most promise in the Aral Sea region and conclude with a discussion of existing gaps in the literature on NbS in drylands, and opportunities for further research.

Similar content being viewed by others

Nature Based Solutions: Lessons Learned from Two Case Studies in El Salvador and Ecuador

The Global-DEP: A Research Programme to Promote Sustainability of Dryland Social-Ecological Systems

Dryland ecosystem services and human wellbeing in a changing environment and society.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Drylands cover over 45% of the global terrestrial area, and are home to nearly one-third of the global human population, 90% of which reside in developing countries (UNCCD, 2017 ), (IUCN, 2017 ), (Prăvălie, 2016 ). According to Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), drylands globally comprise the following categories: barren land (28%), grassland (25%), forests (18%), and cropland (14%); with the remainder classified as “other land” (which includes inland water bodies, other wooded land, apart from those classified as forests, built-up environment and unidentified land types) (FAO, 2019 ). Drylands are rich in biodiversity and contain rare and endemic species that are not present in other biomes (IUCN, 2017 ). Dry areas are reported to be among the most vulnerable to land degradation caused by climate change and anthropogenic activities (UNCCD, 2017 ), and, in case of the global temperature rise over targeted 1,5 °C, they will be more susceptible to increased surface warming than humid areas. This would in turn mean increased vulnerability to droughts, decreased water availability, reduced crop yields and increased disease transmission (e.g., malaria) (Huang, Yu, Dai, Wei, & Kang, 2017 ), (UNCCD, 2017 ). Reports also state that areas covered by drylands are expected to substantially expand by the end of the 21st century reaching almost 60% of the global land coverage (UNCCD, 2017 ), (Prăvălie, 2016 ), (Feng & Fu, 2013 ).

Nearly half of the Asian continent is covered by drylands, which contributes to an estimated 34% of the world’s drylands. Dryland areas have largely expanded in Asia since mid-twentieth century stretching towards north latitudes, triggering water stress and limiting ecosystem services (Prăvălie, 2016 ), (Yao, Fu, Liu, Wang, & Song, 2021 ). Central Asia, which contains extensive dryland ecosystems, is among the regions most heavily impacted by the global climate change, and the trends are projected to accelerate in the coming decades (Lioubimtseva & Henebry, 2009 ), (Yushanjiang, Zhang, & Leong Tan, 2021 ), (Schlüter, et al., 2013 ), (Yang, et al., 2019 ) putting even more pressure on precious natural resources and already fragile ecosystems. In the long term, populations of Central Asian countries are likely to suffer from the severe consequences of land degradation, desertification and food security issues imposed by climate change if no immediate actions for adaptation and mitigation are taken.

The desiccation and subsequent almost complete loss of the Aral Sea, once the world’s fourth largest inland water body (Lemly, Kingsford, & Thompson, 2000 ), having had far-reaching social, economic and ecological implications in all countries of Central Asia aggravated the situation even more. According to reports, Central Asia and Uzbekistan in particular, is among the areas most effected by dust and salt storms due to soil and wind erosion (Li, Ma, & Zhang, 2020 ) with an alarming number of people with respiratory diseases caused by these natural events (Li, Ma, & Zhang, 2020 ). Nature-based solutions, as a recently emerged approach for sustainably mitigating and adapting to environmental challenges, have gained considerable attention in the scientific literature recently. They have been seen as a sustainable tool for the provision of benefits both for the environment and for society, which synergizes conservation efforts. However, to date there has been no focused and systematic review of the application of NbS in drylands, despite their importance.

Here, we systematically review the application of nature-based solutions in rural drylands around the world with all four types of aridity indices defined by the United Nations: dry sub-humid, semi-arid, arid and hyper arid areas (see Fig. 1 for the world map of drylands). An additional, specific focus of this review is to gather evidence for the feasibility of implementation of NbS and their potential in the Aral Sea region of Uzbekistan, which is an exemplary dryland ecosystem.

World’s dryland areas (UNCCD, 2017 )

Nature-based solutions, and their relevance to dryland ecosystems

The term nature-based solutions (NbS) reportedly emerged in the late 2000s in connection with the CBD’s “ecosystem approach” method (Cohen-Shacham, et al., 2019 ), (Agol, Reid, Crick, & Wendo, 2021 ). Later, the IUCN and the European Commission reframed NbS with the IUCN’s definition being most cited (Cohen-Shacham, et al., 2019 ), and formally acknowledged recently by the UN during the fifth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly by adopting a Resolution on nature-based solutions for supporting sustainable development ( UNEP, 2022 ) .

The formal conceptualization defines NbS as “ actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems, that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits” (IUCN, 2016 ).

IUCN has set out a Global Standard for Nature-Based Solutions (IUCN, 2020 ), which defines eight criteria for addressing societal, economic, and environmental dimensions for NbS design and implementation (Fig. 2 ). The Standard stipulates that for an approach to be considered as NbS “ it is imperative for it to provide simultaneous benefits to biodiversity and human well-being ” (IUCN, 2020 ). To distinguish NbS from other conservation actions, IUCN specifies seven societal challenges, at least one of which needs to be addressed. NbS can often incorporate traditional knowledge, and should ideally involve a wide range of stakeholders - in particular, local communities. Hence, nature-based solutions can be more broadly categorized as managed interventions to restore the environment or ecosystems specifically, by eventually having a positive impact on the local communities.

Core criteria of NbS. Adapted from (IUCN, 2020 )

The relative cost-efficiency of NbS (Bonn, Allott, Evans, Joosten, & Stoneman, 2016 ), (Girardin, et al., 2021 ) has led to their increased popularity recently. NbS offer quite a range of benefits (Seddon, et al., 2020 ), (Girardin, et al., 2021 ), including biodiversity conservation, ecosystem restoration, climate change mitigation and adaptation. As drylands around the world are projected to become more vulnerable under increasing temperature changes, and Central Asia is expected to be a climate change hotspot in the coming years with increased average temperature and decreased precipitation (Li, Ma, & Zhang, 2020 ), there is an acute need to mitigate and to adapt to the consequences of climate change by applying sustainable and resilient solutions for which NbS qualify. And NbS is a sustainable approach with minimal negative impacts on the society or the environment (Dubey, Singh, Chaurasia, Pandey, & Singh, 2021 ). Also, NbS are considered amongst those tools with the greatest potential to reach the UN Sustainable Development Goals (Dubey, Singh, Chaurasia, Pandey, & Singh, 2021 ), (Gómez Martín, Giordano, Pagano, van der Keur, & Máñez Costa, 2020 ), which Uzbekistan has committed to achieving by 2030 (The State Committee of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Statistics, 2022 ).

The need for nature-based solutions in the Aral Sea region

The Aral Sea—formerly the fourth largest inland lake in the world, and the centre of a thriving fishing industry—has shrunk drastically since the early 1960s due to the misuse of river flow for irrigation, and is now represented by a highly saline southern Aral Sea in Uzbekistan and northern Aral Sea in Kazakhstan. The sandy desert in the very east of Uzbekistan, covering a territory of about 5,5 million hectares (Summary report on the LDN target setting programme in the Republic of Uzbekistan, 2019 ), the former Aral Sea left behind, is now widely referred to as the Aralkum desert (Fig. 3 ).

Aral Sea surface area change from 1964 through 2018. Photo credit: NASA Earth Observatory, Google Earth

The study area, the Uzbek part of the Aral Sea region, is characterised as a dryland by the UNCCD (UNCCD, 2017 ), and, specifically, a dry sub-humid area. Both the ecosystem and the human population of the region are under considerable pressure due to the consequences of the Aral Sea desiccation. Along with a newly formed desert ecosystem, the desiccation has brought about a number of environmental, social and economic challenges to the region, impacting millions of people residing in the Aral Sea basin (Lemly, Kingsford, & Thompson, 2000 ). The far-reaching negative consequences of the Aral catastrophe include, but are not limited to: increased number of lung, kidney and thyroid diseases, infant mortality and morbidity, decreased life expectancy, frequent dust storms, loss of aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity, diminished ecosystems (i.e., riparian forests, wetlands, grasslands) and their services, massive job losses due to the collapse of the fishing and tourism industries (Lemly, Kingsford, & Thompson, 2000 ), (Li, Ma, & Zhang, 2020 ), (Lioubimtseva & Henebry, 2009 ), (Schlüter, et al., 2013 ). The government of Uzbekistan has officially stated that it will now be impossible to restore the Aral Sea to its former (pre-1960) state, and has instead committed to mitigate the consequences of this ecological disaster on human wellbeing, environment and the local economy. Given the multitude of environmental challenges the Aral Sea region countries are facing, sustainable and cost-efficient approaches are needed to secure the well-being of the local population and environmental resilience.

Method: Literature Review

We conducted a systematic review on the topic of nature-based solutions in terrestrial dryland ecosystems around the world, with a specific focus on the Aral Sea region in Uzbekistan. ‘Wetlands’ were included as a search term to ensure we captured those that are nested into larger dryland landscapes, including the following inland water bodies: lakes, ponds, and ephemeral wetlands. Further, wetlands nested within larger dryland landscapes are reported to be among the ecosystems most effected by climate change (Parra, et al., 2021 ), (Williams, 1999 ), hence are in need of urgent conservation action.

The focal case study area—the Aral Sea—primarily transitioned from one of the largest inland water bodies in the world into a sandy desert over the course of several decades, still contains the small remnant ‘southern Aral Sea’, the existence of which remains under threat due to the absence of water inflow and high evaporation rates. Also, wetlands in drylands are considered crucial for regional biodiversity (Williams, 1999 ), and the vital importance of wetlands and ecosystem services they provide in dry areas such as the Aral Sea region cannot be neglected. This is both for biodiversity conservation, and also ecosystem services, due to the dependence of the local human population on water resources and interconnectedness of the state of terrestrial ecosystems (e.g., rangelands/grasslands, afforested areas) with the availability of local water bodies and water resources as such.

Review of NbS Approaches in Dryland Ecosystems

A multilingual thematic keyword search was conducted in January – March 2022 using Boolean operators with the following word combinations (TITLE-ABS-KEY) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”, “Russian”)): “nature-based solutions AND terrestrial”, “ecosystem-based and drylands”, “nature-based solutions AND dryland”, “nature-based solutions AND heathland”, “nature-based solutions AND desert”, “nature-based solutions AND rangeland”, “nature-based solutions AND grassland”, “nature-based solutions AND wetland”, “nature-based solutions AND protected area”. Information was sourced from two major scientific publication databases—Scopus, and Web of Science—to ensure the most comprehensive capture of articles possible. The results from both publication databases were downloaded in a BibTex format, sorted into eighteen subject-specific databases corresponding to keywords used in JabRef reference manager software, then merged to cross-check for duplicates, and further content analysis was carried out.

Results on blue and/or green urban infrastructure, coastal ecosystems, and on areas not considered as drylands by the UNCCCD ( 2017 ) were excluded. All sources of publications were considered in the review. Search results included English and Russian languages for both search engines, as a majority of the research performed historically in Central Asia has been reported in the Russian language; results returned in any other languages were excluded (due to linguistic limitations of the research team). Since there is no universal definition or translation of the term “nature-based solutions” in Russian, no separate keyword search was conducted in Russian language.

To complement the systematic review, a non-systematic review was conducted into widely adopted NbS definitions and criteria for the selected ecosystem types. The language used for the non-systematic literature review was English only (as the Russian language does not distinguish and define NbS specifically). The non-systematic review primarily focused on the grey literature (i.e., the IUCN handbooks and guidance, as well as the UN resolution papers).

The final set of publications was analysed thematically as they were grouped into dryland ecosystem types (i.e., rangelands/grasslands, heathland, desert, wetlands) according to the search keywords used. Publications that did not include “nature-based solutions” as a specific term, but included the term “ecosystem-based approaches” were still considered based on the content and relevance to the subject area and the geographic focus.

Review of NbS Approaches in the Aral Sea Region

An additional nested search was performed to expand the general results to the geographic case study region of focus, using the following combinations (TITLE-ABS-KEY) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”, “Russian”)): “nature-based AND solutions AND Central Asia”, “nature-based AND solutions AND Aral Sea”, “ecosystem-based AND Aral Sea”, “rangeland AND Aral Sea”, “grassland AND Aral Sea”, “wetland AND Aral Sea”. Additional keywords were used to include the most frequent interventions in the Aral Sea region mentioned in the literature: “afforestation AND Aral Sea”, “saxaul AND Aral Sea”, “artemia AND Aral Sea”. As in the case above, the search results covered both English and Russian languages.

The systematic search on NbS implementation in dryland ecosystems resulted in 2557 non-duplicative scientific publications, 2451 of which were filtered out as being irrelevant (see Appendix 1 for detailed information). A final set of 106 papers were retained and read in their entirety.

Content analysis suggests that the NbS approach has been poorly documented in dryland ecosystems. The largest number of studies on NbS application originated from China. There were a few publications that mentioned the Aral Sea basin and Central Asia in the literature without country-specific information or a case study.

The additional nested search on the focal case study area, the Aral Sea region of Uzbekistan, resulted in 151 non-duplicative records, with 40 being considered as relevant (Appendix 2).

Types and benefits of nature-based solutions identified—both for dryland ecosystems in general, and for the Aral Sea region specifically—were compiled into Table 1 based on the functions they perform in improving ecosystem service provision, and/or providing benefits for humans and increasing well-being. The final list was formed based on the recently formalized definition of nature-based solutions by the IUCN neglecting small-scale interventions, which in some cases the authors considered to represent NbS.

Nature-Based Solutions Relevant to Dryland Ecosystems

Our review of nature-based solutions in rural dryland ecosystems returned a limited number of case studies of actual NbS application; particularly those that described specific outcomes and lessons learned, demonstrated success and socio-economic benefits, and sustained results. Many cases reported on not the actual implementation and outcomes of NbS, but rather on the potential of adopting specific approaches (e.g., agroforestry/intercropping on marginal lands, application of halophytes to restore degraded soil on grazelands) as a tool to rehabilitate degraded land and wetlands. The most common cases of ecosystem-based approaches (Cohen-Shacham, et al., 2019 ), an alternative to NbS suggested widely in the literature reviewed, appeared to be afforestation, agroforestry and wetland restoration with the prevailing number of studies originating from China (Fig. 4 ).

Number of studies covering NbS application in global drylands with selected examples

Afforestation measures are discussed as a cost-effective nature-based solution for combatting desertification, adapting to and mitigating climate change impacts through increased carbon sequestration potential (Seddon, et al., 2020 ) and halting biodiversity loss, as well as improving livelihood opportunities of the local communities (Zhang, Sun, Huettmann, & Liu, 2022 ), (Di Sacco, et al., 2021 ), (Djoudi, Brockhaus, & Locatelli, 2013 ). However, authors (Zhang, Sun, Huettmann, & Liu, 2022 ) argue that afforestation activities can also fail both economically and environmentally as it was in the case of China and the planting of maladapted species, along with an absence of post-forestation monitoring to check on the survivability of trees. Failure among afforestation efforts was more frequent compared to reforestation due to the fact that trees did not naturally occur in areas where they were planted. Also, plantations of non-native monocultures were reported to be of low value for the revival of the local biodiversity (Zhang, Sun, Huettmann, & Liu, 2022 ), and demonstrated increased chances of susceptibility to diseases and pests (Seddon, et al., 2020 ). Due to the impact of afforestation on soil carbon both positively and negatively (Seddon, et al., 2020 ), selection of appropriate sites and species turn out to be a key to success, but most importantly, afforestation should be implemented with the application of native and/or endemic species to avoid introduction of invasive alien species.

Agroforestry is mostly proposed to rehabilitate marginal and salt-affected irrigated lands. Agroforestry can significantly contribute to enhancing food security in where there is water scarcity and climate change impact in drylands, diversifying income opportunities, restoring biodiversity, enhancing carbon sequestration and reducing pressure on natural forests where they occur (Di Sacco, et al., 2021 ), (Aleksandrova, Lamers, Martius, & Tischbein, 2014 ), (Lamers, Bobojonov, Khamzina, & Franz, 2008 ). However, it is notable that agroforestry in croplands has been erroneously proposed as an afforestation measure in some papers reviewed.

Rangeland restoration is largely discussed as a climate mitigation option due to the carbon storage potential of grasslands (Yao, Fu, Liu, Wang, & Song, 2021 ), as well as a means of improved livelihood opportunities for the local pastoralists in degraded areas and a measure to combat desertification and land degradation (Toderich, et al., 2013a ). Examples of grassland restoration activities given as NbS options, i.e., prohibition of grazing in some areas of China (Yao, Fu, Liu, Wang, & Song, 2021 ), were reported to have compromised herders’ income opportunities. Hence, these examples do not fully satisfy NbS definition framed by the IUCN, which stipulates provision of societal benefits as a result of NbS approaches.

Wetland restoration is a promising tool in many areas that could potentially compete with afforestation/reforestation in terms of carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation potential (Taillardat, Thompson, Garneau, Trottier, & Friess, 2020 ), (Seddon, et al., 2020 ), (Tanneberger, et al., 2021 ). Besides, wetlands perform multiple other ecosystem services such as disaster risk reduction (e.g., they can function as fire breaks), enhancement of food security, and biodiversity conservation (Belle, Collins, & Jordaan, 2018 ). Wetlands in some arid areas depend on the river runoff and inflow, which is used for agricultural purposes and by decreasing the areas under some water-intensive crops (e.g., cotton and rice) (Schlüter, et al., 2013 ), wetlands are likely to receive inflow to keep their state stable. Overall, the literature reviewed suggests an enormous potential of wetland restoration with multiple benefits summarized in Table 1 . However, (Taillardat, Thompson, Garneau, Trottier, & Friess, 2020 ) argue that conserving existing wetlands is more cost-efficient as opposed to their restoration in terms of contribution to climate change mitigation, large initial investments, and subsequent operation costs.

Rewilding as an option to restore local biodiversity can have promising outcomes in eliminating damages caused by introduced species. Sweeney et al. ( 2019 ) suggest that rewilding, due to its purported environmental and societal benefits, “shares similarities with nature-based solutions”. We consequently include it as a type of nature-based solution in this review. Rewilding should, however, be locally tailored not only within the context of a region or a continent, but also within the context of one single country (Sweeney, et al., 2019 ), as the number of factors influencing rewilding success may differ spatially.

Protected areas can perform numerous benefits by preserving ecosystems and the services flowing from them, provided they are managed effectively (Oberle, Mackinnon, & Sandwith, 2021 ), (Carroll & Ray, 2021 ), (MacKinnon, Dudley, & Sandwith, 2011 ). In some cases, it has been demonstrated that protected areas can, among other things, provide human health benefits and thus can offset healthcare costs (Oberle, Mackinnon, & Sandwith, 2021 ). Again, for this reason we include them as an NbS on this review. However, it is worth underlining that the effectiveness of protected/conserved areas cannot be equated to their existence only, management is a key to ensuring both environmental and societal benefits are gained to qualify to be considered as a NbS.

Summarizing lessons learned from the literature sources discussed above, we conclude that proper management and monitoring is required even for small scale activities to ensure their efficiency and acceptance by communities that have been benefiting from the use of natural resources and which they treat as a communal resource. Thorough socio-economic analysis has proved to be critical for most NbS activities before the start of any project to minimize community resistance to planned interventions (Mills, et al., 2020 ). Adaptive management, community awareness raising on functions of ecosystems and natural resources in general and their involvement in the planning and implementation processes are highly likely to increase the success of NbS interventions (Belle, Collins, & Jordaan, 2018 ). Success of EBA/NbS projects is quite difficult to evaluate, which is why it is essential to document every evidence (Mills, et al., 2020 ).

Nature-based Solutions Relevant to the Aral Sea region

Based on the focussed case study literature review we conducted, we now focus on discussing four of the above-mentioned major nature-based solutions, which are relevant to the Uzbek part of the Aral Sea region. These are afforestation, wetland restoration, rangeland restoration and protected areas establishment in Karakalpakstan, an autonomous region in the far-western part of Uzbekistan.

Afforestation using native tree species

The governments of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan have been undertaking large-scale afforestation activities on the dried-out Aral Seabed over the past several decades Footnote 1 to mitigate the impacts of frequent dust storms both on the population and the environment. There is a whole state program for the development of the Aral Sea region in Uzbekistan as a zone of ecological innovations and technologies supported by a special Resolution of the United Nations’ General Assembly (United Nations General Assembly, 2021 ), which stipulates an increase in the area of afforested lands in the former seabed. As large-scale afforestation of the former Aral seabed is planned to continue through 2030, as stipulated by the Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan Footnote 2 , there is at the very least a need for planning and monitoring, as well as selection of native species to ensure afforestation success.

Shrublands/afforested areas, to which the sandy seabed is planned to be converted to, are reported to maximize sand fixation and minimize erosion (Löw, et al., 2021 ), (Kim, et al., 2020 ). The most prominent native species in terms of the ability to grow in sandy, loamy and saline soils are reported to be Saxaul ( Haloxylon ), Salsola Richteri (Moq) Karel ex Litv and Calligonum caput-medusae Schrenk (Bakirov, Khamzaev, & Novitskiy, 2020 ), Krascheninnikovia eversmanniana and Artemisia ferganensis ( Shomurodov, et al., 2021 ) . Upon reaching certain heights and within a few years, these species are able to reduce wind erosion and subsequent dust storms drastically. Also, topsoil quality was reported to have improved in saxaul plantations, which bonds sand particles together with the help of debris (Bakirov, Khamzaev, & Novitskiy, 2020 ). In addition, plants used for afforestation in the northern Aralkum in Kazakhstan were documented to have improved soil quality by reducing the soil salinity level and enhancing soil enzyme activities, however, monitoring might be needed for at least two decades to detect trends (An, Chang, Han, Khamzina, & Son, 2020 ). However, within the dried-out Aral Seabed, there are different types of soils, some of which are not suitable for afforestation due to the high salt and sand contents (Bakirov, Khamzaev, & Novitskiy, 2020 ), (Shomurodov, et al., 2021 ). It has also been documented that sub-soil conditions are at times more important than topsoil for tree growth (Matsui, Watanabe, Kussainova, & Funakawa, 2019 ). Hence, a number of indicators, such as soil salinity and soil moisture, and terrain need to be considered while planning afforestation (Löw, et al., 2021 ), (Kim, et al., 2020 ).

Afforestation of irrigated cropland in combination with agroforestry in the Aral Sea basin is recommended by a number of authors (Djalilov, Khamzina, Hornidge, & Lamers, 2016 ), (Dubovyk, Menz, & Khamzina, 2016 ), (Khamzina, Lamers, Worbes, Botman, & Vlek, 2006 ), (Kumar, Khamzina, Knöfel, Lamers, & Tischbein, 2021 ) as a means to reduce soil salinity on degraded agricultural lands, which could be another solution to reduce salinity and improve soil quality of abandoned croplands.

There is scant evidence of research and development activities happening before or after afforestation in the Aralkum desert in the literature, beyond the publications cited above. Monitoring of afforested lands and soil quality monitoring could have substantially improved survival rates of saxaul and other shrubby plantations in the Aralkum. Large-scale afforestation as NbS in the dried-out Aral Sea basin presents opportunities for further research in lieu of absence of documented evidence on the environment, both positive (e.g., the extent of sand transfer reduction) and negative (e.g., impact on groundwater resources).

Wetland restoration

Wetlands, as a potentially cost-effective nature-based solution (Seifollahi-Aghmiuni, Nockrach, & Kalantari, 2019 ), provide a range of ecosystem services, including food security, climate adaptation and mitigation by acting as natural carbon sinks, and biodiversity conservation (Thorslund, et al., 2017 ), (Seifollahi-Aghmiuni, Nockrach, & Kalantari, 2019 ), (Taillardat, Thompson, Garneau, Trottier, & Friess, 2020 ). Being subjected to extensive degradation recently, wetlands in the Aral Sea basin, just like in most parts of the world, are being continuously lost (Thorslund, et al., 2017 ). Restoration of wetlands in the Aral Sea basin would not just have an economic value for the local population, but also environmental benefits (Girardin, et al., 2021 ), and would substantially contribute to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (Seifollahi-Aghmiuni, Nockrach, & Kalantari, 2019 ).

Uzbekistan currently has three wetlands included in the list of Wetlands of international importance (The Ramsar Convention Seceretariat. Annotated List of Wetlands of International Importance: Uzbekistan, 2022 ), however, there are none located in Karakalpakstan. Nonetheless, wetlands in the Aral Sea basin serve as an important habitat both for inland waterbirds and for the migratory species in Central Asia (Kasprzykowski, Goławski, Mitrus, & Stański, 2014 ). Besides performing ecological functions, local wetlands are vital sources of income for the population by supporting fishing, hunting, livestock husbandry through the provision of forage (Lemly, Kingsford, & Thompson, 2000 ), (Schlüter, et al., 2013 ).

Wetlands in the Aral Sea basin were reported to have been impacted by anthropogenic activities that led to the degradation of vegetation in the riparian zone (Jiang, Jiapaer, Bao, Guo, & Ndayisaba, 2017 ), (Kasprzykowski, Goławski, Mitrus, & Stański, 2014 ). Aggravating climate change (Ragab & Prudhomme, 2002 ) and unsustainable agricultural practices, as well as desiccation of the Aral Sea are reported to have had further negative consequences on the wetlands in the Amu Darya and Syr Darya river basins, and thus on the avifauna of the wetlands in the region (Kasprzykowski, Goławski, Mitrus, & Stański, 2014 ), (Lemly, Kingsford, & Thompson, 2000 ), (Schlüter, et al., 2013 ).

Wetlands in the Aral Sea basin are reported to be unstable in terms of their hydrological regimes and are highly dependent on the water inflow, which in turn defines their salinity levels and ability to support native biodiversity (Schlüter, et al., 2013 ). During dry years these wetlands tend to almost dry out (Schlüter, et al., 2013 ). As reported by Schlüter, et al. ( 2013 ), fluctuations in the water table of wetlands can kill roe that fish lay on the shores with the already shallow water table. This in turn defines fish abundance and eventually impacts local biodiversity and livelihoods.

The only species that currently survives in what is known as the southern Aral Sea in Uzbekistan is brine shrimp ( Artemia ). Artemia, which is used as forage for aquatic species, is currently being harvested and represents business opportunities for the local population (Aladin, et al., 2018 ), (Arashkevich, Sapozhnikov, Soloviov, Kudyshkin, & Zavialov, 2009 ). Survival and reproduction of Artemia are influenced by a number of factors, among which the most significant is the salinity and water temperature (Marden, et al., 2012 ), (Qi, et al., 2021 ), (Aladin, et al., 2018 ). The government of Uzbekistan has been issuing quotas for artemia harvesting in the Aral Sea (Marden, et al., 2012 ), but in 2022 the quota was substantially reduced, likely because the artemia populations are also decreasing (Anonymous, 2022 ).

Since brine shrimp in the wetlands of the Aral Sea basin attract birds to feed, including flamingo (Aladin, et al., 2018 ), (Qi, et al., 2021 ), and the fact that artemia cultivation and harvesting provides local livelihood opportunities, suggest that it could provide a basis for some form of nature-based solution. The issues with human-biodiversity interaction in wetlands, where artemia is grown and harvested, sustainability of yields, water availability and its quality yet need to be researched to comply with NbS criteria.

The Agency of the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea, established in 1998 specifically to implement projects of the Aral Sea Basin Programs (Agency of the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea, 2022a ), has been undertaking activities on restoring and creating wetlands in the southern Aral Sea region with the financial support of the government of Uzbekistan since 1995 (Agency of the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea, 2022b ). However, according to the list of activities implemented to restore wetlands, i.e., construction and reconstruction of dams, channels, and outlets, the efforts have been focused on engineering activities. Also, considering the ever-ongoing shortage of water resources and degradation of wetlands in the Aral Sea basin, there is a question of sustainability and cost-efficiency of the results achieved for almost three decades now. As reported by Li et al. (Li, Chen, Zhang, & Pan, 2019 ), there is an ongoing drastic shrinkage of water bodies in Karakalpakstan leading to the loss of invaluable ecosystem services they provide.

Rangeland restoration

The recent study by the UN (ILRI, 2021 ) reveals that rangelands occupy 54% of the global terrestrial surface and cover about 57% of the territory of Uzbekistan (Toderich, et al., 2013a ). Rangeland/grassland restoration can reduce net soil CO2 emissions, conserve biodiversity, soil and water resources (Abdalla, Mutema, Chivenge, Everson, & Chaplot, 2022 ), (Li, Chen, Zhang, & Pan, 2019 ), and thus have a climate mitigating factor. The health of grasslands all over Central Asia has been severely compromised by anthropogenic activities and climate change over the past several decades (Li, Chen, Zhang, & Pan, 2019 ). According to Li et al. (Li, Chen, Zhang, & Pan, 2019 ), the decline of ecosystem service value in Karakalpakstan (including those of grasslands) was the highest among all researched areas in Central Asia; a trend which seems likely to continue.

Desertification of rangelands in the study area has been ongoing due to the misuse of resources (mainly overgrazing), oil and gas exploration, climatic factors (reduced precipitation and droughts), overharvesting of fuel wood, unsustainable agricultural activities (Jiang, Jiapaer, Bao, Guo, & Ndayisaba, 2017 ), (Toderich, et al., 2013a ), (Shaumarov, et al., 2012 ). All these have led to increased levels of soil and water salinity, as well as to the reduction of the water table of desert pastures in the Aral Sea basin (Toderich, et al., 2013b ). Rangelands in the Aral Sea basin represent not just significant economic and environmental value to local stakeholders, but also cultural values (Shaumarov, et al., 2012 ). Hence, the degradation of rangelands in Central Asia represents a substantial threat to the communities who rely upon them, having been long engaged in pastoralism.

Toderich et al. (Toderich, et al., 2013a ) suggest that the best way to rehabilitate saline soils in desert rangelands is to plant salt-resistant wild halophytes, which represent a low-cost solution. Afforestation using native salt- and drought-tolerant species is another alternative to restore degraded desert landscapes, which has direct applicability to the dried-out Aral Seabed (Bakirov, Khamzaev, & Novitskiy, 2020 ), (Toderich, et al., 2013b ), (Shomurodov, et al., 2021 ). In the long term, rehabilitation of degraded rangelands in the Aral Sea basin has a potential to improve livelihood options of local pastoralists.

The review has not returned specific rangeland rehabilitation methods or success stories in the Aral Sea basin. The potential for rangelands to provide a basis for NbS—given that they are one of the major potential carbon sinks in dryland areas such as the Aral Sea basin—requires detailed further research.

Protected areas in Karakalpakstan

Protected areas (PA) that lead to biodiversity conservation and climate mitigation benefits could represent a cost-effective nature-based solution (Mackinnon, Mrema, Richardson, Cooper, & Gidda, 2021 ), (Roberts, O’Leary, & Hawkins, 2020 ). As the number of ecological issues associated with biodiversity loss, climate change, food security is expected to grow in the coming decades, protected areas are seen as an effective adaptation and mitigation tool (MacKinnon, Dudley, & Sandwith, 2011 ).

PAs can perform multiple functions and encompass several NbS approaches with respect to the ecosystem services they represent (see Table 1 for a list of services provided by PAs). As part of the Aichi Biodiversity Target 11, to which Uzbekistan has committed (CBD-UNDP, 2021 ), protected areas highly contribute to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals. To reach its commitments to increase the percentage of protected areas with respect to the total territory, the government of Uzbekistan almost tripled the area of PAs in Karakalpakstan in 2021–2022 alone. Currently, there are five protected areas in Karakalpakstan as listed below in the order of establishment:

Lower Amu Darya Biosphere Reserve Footnote 3 – total area: 687.18 km 2 , year of designation: 2011.

Saigachiy complex (landscape) nature reserve Footnote 4 – total area; 6283 km 2 , year of designation: 2016.

South Ustyurt National Park Footnote 5 – total area: 14471.43 km 2 , year of designation: 2020.

Sudochye-Akpetki state wildlife sanctuary Footnote 6 – total area: 2805.07 km 2 , year of designation: 2021.

Aralkum national park Footnote 7 – total area: 10000 km 2 , year of designation: 2022.

We were unable to locate any published management plans associated with the protected areas in Karakalpakstan, and as the effectiveness of a protected area very much depends on how it is managed (MacKinnon, Dudley, & Sandwith, 2011 ), (Roberts, O’Leary, & Hawkins, 2020 ), it is consequently unclear how these five existing protected areas will fulfil their tasks.

Discussion: Gaps and Opportunities

The application of nature-based solutions, such as the large-scale afforestation of the Aral Seabed, potentially creates alternative income sources for the local population. For instance, local residents in Muynak region of Karakalpakstan get hired by the State Forestry Committee to collect the seeds of saxaul plants on a seasonal basis. However, large-scale afforestation in deserts/arid areas without proper planning can lead to massive economic losses and to very low plant survival rates, as some cases around the world (Zhang, Sun, Huettmann, & Liu, 2022 ) demonstrate. The issue with low plant survival rates on the dried-out seabed in Uzbekistan is not uncommon: according to Shomurodov et al., ( 2021 ), survival rate of plant species in afforested areas is as low as 20%. As a result, the same areas of land are sown several times over a number of years to increase the vegetation cover. This may not be a promising investment in terms of time, human and financial resources unless timely post-afforestation monitoring and R&D on the quality of land is ensured. Lack of monitoring is another issue determining the success of afforestation in the Aral Sea region. The International Innovation Centre for the Aral Sea Basin, which among others is carrying out testing and planting trees in the Aral Seabed, confirmed they do not have enough human capacity and financial resources to undertake monitoring of afforested areas (Anonymous, 2022 ), although they had announced a country-wide fundraising campaign to plant trees and had received monetary donations both from individuals and organizations Footnote 8 , Footnote 9 .

The water consumption associated with afforestation is another issue that needs to be further evaluated (Tew, Vanguelova, & Sutherland, 2021 ), (Yao, Fu, Liu, Wang, & Song, 2021 ), (An, Chang, Han, Khamzina, & Son, 2020 ), as there is a high threat of depleting groundwater resources in dry areas through afforestation (Kumar, Khamzina, Knöfel, Lamers, & Tischbein, 2021 ), (Zhang, Sun, Huettmann, & Liu, 2022 ). Hence, water availability needs to be considered thoroughly when it comes to planning desert greening activities, as there is large-scale evidence of failed or low effective interventions aimed at greening the Aral Seabed. Considering that the main soil types in the exposed seabed are solonchaks (with high concentration of soluble salts) and takyrs (heavy-textured soils under arid conditions) Footnote 10 , that have low organic carbon content (An, Chang, Han, Khamzina, & Son, 2020 ), monitoring of afforested lands is critical to better examine the impact of tree plantations on soils (An, Chang, Han, Khamzina, & Son, 2020 ). Also, if afforestation is not based on a scientifically sound selection of plant species and is comprised of monocultures only, the efforts may end up being unsustainable in terms of vulnerability to various diseases and a limited carbon capture capacity of an individual plant (Seddon, et al., 2020 ), as well as limiting potential biodiversity benefits. So, policymakers and scientists must collaborate to ensure that only native plant and tree species are used for afforestation, if the intervention is to count as a NbS.

Wetland restoration in the Aral Sea basin has a number of benefits both for the people and the biodiversity, and yet requires critical evaluation in terms of costs (e.g., water diversion, financial investments, sustainability, self-sustainment and etc.) versus benefits (e.g., fisheries development, biodiversity restoration, income opportunities and etc.). According to Schlüter et al. (Schlüter, et al., 2013 ), some of the wetlands in the Aral Sea region are being maintained using drainage water. However, the long-term impact of drainage water, most importantly its quality, on the biodiversity of wetlands does not seem to have been thoroughly examined to tell whether the approach can be justified. Moreover, literature review explicitly revealed that wetland restoration in the Aral Sea basin has never been documented as a nature-based solution, nor has rangeland restoration been.

Protected areas, as a means of environmental restoration on a wider landscape scale by encompassing multiple ecosystem types, seem to have more of a quantity rather than a quality approach in Uzbekistan. Existing protected areas need to be explored for the opportunities to be connected through green corridors to ensure better habitat connectivity for migratory animal species.

Overall, in our view, the most common possible issues of NbS application in the Aral Sea basin requiring further in-depth research are the following:

Resilience of afforested areas to weather changes, temperature fluctuations, water availability and their long-term sustainability.

Sustainability and cost-effectiveness of wetlands restoration in the Aral Sea region of Uzbekistan.

Governance challenges in terms of cooperation among various agencies to effectively conduct research and development, and subsequent monitoring of interventions implemented.

Planning and management of protected areas, their integrity with the landscape, animal migratory routes and areas of anthropogenic activities.

Availability of actual data on the outcomes of implemented efforts, namely afforestation and wetland rehabilitation to minimize duplication of efforts and to provide a basis for scientific research.

To our knowledge, this is the first attempt to systematically review nature-based solutions in dryland ecosystems, and certainly the first with a specific geographic focus on the Aral Sea region of Uzbekistan as a case study.

Afforestation, as recently seen as a major viable solution to rehabilitate the ecosystems of the dried-out Aral Seabed, has a number of benefits and yet challenges that need to be balanced out before any decision is made on increasing investments in plantations. In fact, new ecosystems were created twice in the place of once fourth largest inland water body on the planet: a desert (Aralkum) was formed initially, which is now being replaced by afforested areas. So, the ecology of the region has been altered drastically in a very short period of time (several decades). It is clear that deeper research is needed in terms of the impact these ecosystem changes might have in the long term, as well as their self-sustaining capacities, and the timespan it takes to balance out the investments and the potential benefits. Considering that climate change in the Aral Sea region is increasingly acute, the newly afforested areas need to be monitored for survivability in the absence of management (for instance, impact of water shortage, possible illegal logging, temperature fluctuations and so on) in the coming decades.

Alongside multiple obvious benefits of NbS, the literature states also a number of challenges associated with their understanding, implementation, effectiveness, stakeholder participation (Nelson, Bledsoe, Ferreira, & Nibbelink, 2020 ), lack of standards for their evaluation (Kumar, et al., 2021 ), (Fernandes & Guiomar, 2018 ). However, it is crucial to mention that the success of NbS and the long-term effectiveness of their socio-economic benefits highly depend on the environmental awareness (Gómez Martín, Máñez Costa, Egerer, & Schneider, 2021 ), and thus perception and understanding of NbS and their potential benefits.

The term “nature-based solutions” is relatively new, hence more evidence-based documentation of success stories around the world is needed to validate both cost-efficiency and long-term applicability of these practices, especially in those regions with newly formed ecosystems like the Aralkum.

A new resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Uzbekistan was adopted (effective of 19 January 2022) to increase “forest plantations” on the Aral Seabed.

(Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Additional measures for the creation of forests in the regions and of the “green cover” in the Aral Sea region, 2020b )

(UNEP-WCMC, 2022a )

(UNEP-WCMC, 2022b )

(Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan on the establishment of South Ustyurt National Park (in Uzbek language), 2020a)

(UNEP-WCMC, 2023 )

(Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan on additional measures related to the organization of protected areas on forestlands, 2022 )

My Garden in the Aral Sea – International innovation Centre for Aral Sea basin under the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan ( iic-aralsea.org )

Home|#GreenAralSea

FAO classification of soil types (Schad, 2014 )

Abdalla K, Mutema M, Chivenge P, Everson C, Chaplot V (2022) Grassland rehabilitation significantly increases soil carbon stocks by reducing net soil CO2 emissions. Soil Use Manag. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12790

Agency of the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea. (2022a, April 15). First Aral sea basin program (ASBP-1). https://aral.uz/en/asbp1/

Agency of the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea. (2022b, April 17). Creation of small local water bodies in the delta of Amudarya. https://aral.uz/en/creation-of-small-local-water-bodies-in-the-delta-of-amudarya/

Agol D, Reid H, Crick F, Wendo, H (2021) Ecosystem-based adaptation in Lake Victoria Basin; synergies and trade-offs. R Soc Open Sci 8. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201847

Aladin NV, Chida T, Chuikov YS, Ermakhanov ZK, Kawabata Y, Kubota J, Zaitzev VF (2018) The history and future of the biological resources of the Caspian and the Aral Seas. J Oceanol Limnol 36:2061–2084. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00343-018-8189-z

Article   Google Scholar  

Aleksandrova M, Lamers JP, Martius C, Tischbein B (2014) Rural vulnerability to environmental change in the irrigated lowlands of Central Asia and options for policy-makers: A review. Environ Sci Policy 41:77–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.03.001

An J, Chang H, Han SH, Khamzina A, Son Y (2020) Changes in basic soil properties and enzyme activities along an afforestation series on the dry Aral Sea Bed, Kazakhstan. For Sci Technol 16:26–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/21580103.2019.1705401

Anonymous (2022) Personal communication. (S. Alikhanova, Interviewer)

Arashkevich EG, Sapozhnikov PV, Soloviov KA, Kudyshkin TV, Zavialov PO (2009) Artemia parthenogenetica (Branchiopoda: Anostraca) from the Large Aral Sea: Abundance, distribution, population structure and cyst production. J Mar Syst 76:359–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2008.03.015

Bakirov NJ, Khamzaev AK, Novitskiy, ZB (2020) FOREST PLANTATIONS ON THE DRAINED BOTTOM OF THE ARAL SEA. LESNOY ZHURNAL-FORESTRY JOURNAL , 51-59. https://doi.org/10.37482/0536-1036-2020-2-51-59

Bekele T, Haile Y (2021) Intensification of climate change mitigation and adaptation actions through wetland conservation: the case of Ethiopian freshwater wetlands. Geol Ecol Landscap. https://doi.org/10.1080/24749508.2021.1923271

Belle JA, Collins N, Jordaan A (2018) Managing wetlands for disaster risk reduction: A case study of the eastern Free State, South Africa. Jamba 10. https://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v10i1.400

Bonn A, Allott T, Evans M, Joosten H, Stoneman R (2016) Peatland restoration and ecosystem services: Nature-based solutions for societal goals. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139177788.021

Carroll C, Ray JC (2021) Maximizing the effectiveness of national commitments to protected area expansion for conserving biodiversity and ecosystem carbon under climate change. Glob Change Biol 27:3395–3414. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15645

CBD-UNDP (2021). https://www.cbd.int/pa/doc/dossiers/uzbekistan-abt11-country-dossier2021.pdf

Chausson A, Turner B, Seddon D, Chabaneix N, Girardin CA, Kapos V, Seddon N (2020) Mapping the effectiveness of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation. Glob Change Biol 26:6134–6155. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15310

Cohen-Shacham E, Andrade A, Dalton J, Dudley N, Jones M, Kumar C, Walters G (2019) Core principles for successfully implementing and upscaling Nature-based Solutions. Environ Sci Policy 98:20–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.04.014

Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Additional measures for the creation of forests in the regions and of the “green cover” in the Aral Sea region. (2020b) https://lex.uz/ru/docs/5123920

Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan on additional measures related to the organization of protected areas on forestlands. (2022) https://lex.uz/docs/5892355

Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan on the establishment of South Ustyurt National Park (in Uzbek language). (2020a) https://lex.uz/ru/docs/5091575

Di Sacco A, Hardwick KA, Blakesley D, Brancalion PH, Breman E, Cecilio Rebola L, Antonelli A (2021) Ten golden rules for reforestation to optimize carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery and livelihood benefits. Glob Change Biol 27:1328–1348. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15498

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Djalilov BM, Khamzina A, Hornidge A-K, Lamers JP (2016) Exploring constraints and incentives for the adoption of agroforestry practices on degraded cropland in Uzbekistan. J Environ Plan Manage 59:142–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2014.996283

Djoudi H, Brockhaus M, Locatelli B (2013) Once there was a lake: Vulnerability to environmental changes in northern Mali. Regional Environ Change 13:493–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-011-0262-5

Dubey PK, Singh A, Chaurasia R, Pandey KK, Singh S (2021) Fostering Nature-Based Solutions for Ecorestoration and Attain- ing United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. J Clean Product 298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126680

Dubovyk O, Menz G, Khamzina A (2016) Land Suitability Assessment for Afforestation with Elaeagnus Angustifolia L. in Degraded Agricultural Areas of the Lower Amudarya River Basin. Land Degrad Dev 27:1831–1839. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2329

FAO (2019) Trees, Forests and Land Use in Drylands: the First Global Assessment – Full report. FAO Forestry Paper No. 184. Rome

Feng S, Fu Q (2013) Expansion of global drylands under a warming climate. Atmos Chem Phys 13:10081–10094. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-10081-2013

Fernandes JP, Guiomar N (2018) Nature-based solutions: The need to increase the knowledge on their potentialities and limits. Land Degrad Dev 29:1925–1939. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2935

Girardin CA, Jenkins S, Seddon N, Allen M, Lewis SL, Wheeler CE, Malhi Y (2021) Nature-based solutions can help cool the planet - if we act now. Nature 593:191–194. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01241-2

Gómez Martín, E, Giordano, R, Pagano, A, van der Keur, P, & Máñez Costa, M (2020) Using a system thinking approach to assess the contribution of nature based solutions to sustainable development goals. Sci Total Environ 738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139693

Gómez Martín E, Máñez Costa M, Egerer S, Schneider UA (2021) Assessing the long-term effectiveness of Nature-Based Solutions under different climate change scenarios. Sci Total Environ 794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148515

Huang J, Yu H, Dai A, Wei Y, Kang L (2017) Drylands face potential threat under global warming target. Nat Clim Change 7:417–422. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3275

ILRI, I (2021) UNEP and ILC. 2021. Rangelands Atlas. ILRI, Nairobi Kenya, 4

IUCN (2016) IUCN Resolutions, Recommendations and other Decisions. The World Conservation Congress (p. 106). Gland: IUCN Publications Unit

IUCN (2017) Drylands and land degradation. Drylands and land degradation. https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/drylands_and_land_degradation_issues_brief_0.pdf

IUCN (2020) Guidance for using the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions: first editions. IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature. https://doi.org/10.2305/iucn.ch.2020.09.en

IUCN (2020) IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions: a user-friendly framework for the verification, design and scaling up of NbS: first edition. IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Geneva. https://doi.org/10.2305/iucn.ch.2020.08.en

Jiang L, Jiapaer G, Bao A, Guo H, Ndayisaba F (2017) Vegetation dynamics and responses to climate change and human activities in Central Asia. Sci Total Environ 599-600:967–980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.012

Kasprzykowski Z, Goławski A, Mitrus C, Stański T (2014) A comparison of the structure of 2 waterbird assemblages during postbreeding movements in the arid zone of Uzbekistan. Turkish J Zool 38:590–597. https://doi.org/10.3906/zoo-1311-40

Khamzina A, Lamers JP, Worbes M, Botman E, Vlek PL (2006) Assessing the potential of trees for afforestation of degraded landscapes in the Aral Sea Basin of Uzbekistan. Agrofor Syst 66:129–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-005-4677-1

Kim J, Song C, Lee S, Jo H-W, Park E, Yu H, Lee W-K (2020) Identifying potential vegetation establishment areas on the dried Aral Sea floor using satellite images. Land Degrad Dev 31:2749–2762. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3642

Kumar N, Khamzina A, Knöfel P, Lamers JP, Tischbein B (2021) Afforestation of degraded croplands as a water‐saving option in irrigated region of the aral sea basin. Water (Switzerland), 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13101433

Kumar P, Debele SE, Sahani J, Rawat N, Marti-Cardona B, Alfieri SM, Zieher T (2021) Nature-based solutions efficiency evaluation against natural hazards: Modelling methods, advantages and limitations. Sci Total Environ 784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147058

Lamers JP, Bobojonov I, Khamzina A, Franz JS (2008) Financial analysis of small-scale forests in the amu darya lowlands of rural uzbekistan. For Trees Livelihoods 18:373–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2008.9752644

Lemly AD, Kingsford RT, Thompson JR (2000) Irrigated agriculture and wildlife conservation: Conflict on a global scale. Environ Manag 25:485–512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002679910039

Li J, Chen H, Zhang C, Pan T (2019) Variations in ecosystem service value in response to land use/land cover changes in Central Asia from 1995-2035. PEERJ 7 . https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7665

Li J, Ma X, Zhang C (2020) Predicting the spatiotemporal variation in soil wind erosion across Central Asia in response to climate change in the 21st century. Sci Total Environ 709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136060

Lioubimtseva E, Henebry GM (2009) Climate and environmental change in arid Central Asia: Impacts, vulnerability, and adaptations. J Arid Environ 73:963–977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2009.04.022

Löw F, Dimov D, Kenjabaev S, Zaitov S, Stulina G, Dukhovny V (2021) Land cover change detection in the Aralkum with multi-source satellite datasets. GISci Remote Sens. https://doi.org/10.1080/15481603.2021.2009232

MacKinnon K, Dudley N, Sandwith T (2011) Natural solutions: protected areas helping people to cope with climate change. Oryx 45:461–462. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0030605311001608 .

Mackinnon K, Mrema EM, Richardson K, Cooper D, Gidda SB (2021) Editorial essay: Protected and conserved areas: Contributing to more ambitious conservation outcomes post ‐2020. Parks 27:7–12. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2021.PARKS-27-1KM.en

Marden B, Van Stappen G, Musaev A, Mirabdullayev I, Joldasova I, Sorgeloos P (2012) Assessment of the production potential of an emerging Artemia population in the Aral Sea, Uzbekistan. J Mar Syst 92:42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2011.10.004

Matsui K, Watanabe T, Kussainova M, Funakawa S (2019) Soil properties that determine the mortality and growth of Haloxylon aphyllum in the Aral region, Kazakhstan. Arid Land Res Manag 33:37–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/15324982.2018.1496187

Mills AJ, Tan D, Manji AK, Vijitpan T, Henriette E, Murugaiyan P, Lister J (2020) Ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change: Lessons learned from a pioneering project spanning Mauritania, Nepal, the Seychelles, and China. Plants People Planet 2:587–597. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10126

Nelson DR, Bledsoe BP, Ferreira S, Nibbelink NP (2020) Challenges to realizing the potential of nature-based solutions. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 45:49–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.09.001

Oberle B, Mackinnon K, Sandwith T (2021) Vital sites: Protected and conserved areas offer solutions for building back better. Parks 27:193–196. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2021.PARKS-27-SIBO.en

Parra G, Guerrero F, Armengol J, Brendonck L, Brucet S, Finlayson CM, Zohary T (2021) The future of temporary wetlands in drylands under global change. Inland Waters 11:445–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/20442041.2021.1936865

Plieninger T, Muñoz-Rojas J, Buck LE, Scherr SJ (2020) Agroforestry for sustainable landscape management. Sustain Sci 15:1255–1266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00836-4

Prăvălie R (2016) Drylands extent and environmental issues. A global approach. Earth-Sci Rev 161:259–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2016.08.003 .

Qi L, Yao Y, English DE, Ma R, Luft J, Hu C (2021) Remote sensing of brine shrimp cysts in salt lakes. Remote Sens Environ 266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2021.112695

Ragab R, Prudhomme C (2002) Climate change and water resources management in arid and semi-arid regions: Prospective and challenges for the 21st century. Biosyst Eng 81:3–34. https://doi.org/10.1006/bioe.2001.0013

Roberts CM, O’Leary BC, Hawkins JP (2020) Climate change mitigation and nature conservation both require higher protected area targets. Philosop Transac R SOC B-Biol Sci 375. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0121

Schachtsiek T, Lamers JP, Khamzina A (2014) Early Survival and Growth of Six Afforestation Species on Abandoned Cropping Sites in Irrigated Drylands of the Aral Sea Basin. Arid Land Res Manag 28:410–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/15324982.2013.855958

Schad P (2014) World reference base for soil resources 2014. https://www.fao.org/3/i3794en/I3794en.pdf

Schlüter M, Khasankhanova G, Talskikh V, Taryannikova R, Agaltseva N, Joldasova I, Abdullaev U (2013) Enhancing resilience to water flow uncertainty by integrating environmental flows into water management in the Amudarya River, Central Asia. Glob Planet Change 110:114–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2013.05.007

Seddon N, Chausson A, Berry P, Girardin CA, Smith A, Turner B (2020) Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philos Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci 375:20190120. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0120 .

Seifollahi-Aghmiuni S, Nockrach M, Kalantari Z (2019) The Potential of Wetlands in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda. Water 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11030609

Shaumarov M, Toderich KN, Shuyskaya EV, Ismail S, Radjabov TF, Kozan O (2012) Participatory management of desert angelands to improve food security and sustain the natural resource base in Uzbekistan. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5367-9_16

Shomurodov K, Rakhimova T, Adilov B, Beshko N, Karimov F, Polvonov F (2021) Current state of vegetation of the dried bottom of the Aral Sea., 629. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/629/1/012085

Summary report on the LDN target setting programme in the Republic of Uzbekistan. Tech. rep., Land Degradation Neutrality Target Setting Programme of the Secretariat and the Global Mechanism of the UNCCD. Retrieved from https://knowledge.unccd.int/sites/default/files/ldn_targets/2019-04/Uzbekistan LDN TSP Country Report_0.pdf

Sweeney OF, Turnbull J, Jones M, Letnic M, Newsome TM, Sharp A (2019) An Australian perspective on rewilding. Conserv Biol 33:812–820. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13280

Taillardat P, Thompson BS, Garneau M, Trottier K, Friess DA (2020) Climate change mitigation potential of wetlands and the cost-effectiveness of their restoration. Interface Focus 10. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2019.0129

Tanneberger F, Appulo L, Ewert S, Lakner S, Ó Brolcháin N, Peters J, Wichtmann W (2021) The Power of Nature-Based Solutions: How Peatlands Can Help Us to Achieve Key EU Sustainability Objectives. Adv Sustain Syst 5. https://doi.org/10.1002/adsu.202000146

Tew ER, Vanguelova EI, Sutherland WJ (2021) Alternative afforestation options on sandy heathland result in minimal long-term changes in mineral soil layers. For Ecol Manag 483:118906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118906

The Ramsar Convention Seceretariat. Annotated List of Wetlands of International Importance: Uzbekistan. (2022) The Ramsar Convention Seceretariat. Annotated List of Wetlands of International Importance: Uzbekistan. https://rsis.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/rsiswp_search/exports/Ramsar-Sites-annotated-summary-Uzbekistan.pdf?1647505458

The State Committee of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Statistics. (2022, April 20). Sustain Dev Goals. http://nsdg.stat.uz/en

Thorslund J, Jarsjo J, Jaramillo F, Jawitz JW, Manzoni S, Basu NB, Destouni G (2017) Wetlands as large-scale nature-based solutions: Status and challenges for research, engineering and management. Ecol Eng 108:489–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.07.012

Toderich KN, Shuyskaya EV, Rajabov TF, Ismail S, Shaumarov M, Yoshiko K, Li EV (2013a) Uzbekistan: Rehabilitation of desert rangelands affected by salinity, to improve food security, combat desertification and maintain the natural resource base. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6652-5_13

Toderich KN, Shuyskaya EV, Taha FK, Matsuo N, Ismail S, Aralova DB, Radjabov TF (2013b) Integrating agroforestry and pastures for soil salinity management in dryland ecosystems in Aral Sea basin. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5684-7_38

UNCCD (2017) Global land outlook. UNCCD, Bonn, Germany, First ed.

Google Scholar  

UNEP (2022) Draft resolution on nature-based solutions forsupporting sustainable development. Tech. rep., United Nations Environment Assembly of the United Nations Environment Programme.

UNEP-WCMC (2022a) Protected Area Profile for Lower Amudarya Biosphere Reserve from the World Database of Protected Areas. Available at: https://www.protectedplanet.net/555703544

UNEP-WCMC (2022b) Protected Area Profile for Saigachiy Complex (landscape) reserve from the World Database of Protected Areas. Available at: https://www.protectedplanet.net/555703562

UNEP-WCMC (2023) Protected Area Profile for “Sudochye-Akpetki” State Wildlife Sanctuary from the World Database on Protected Areas. Available at: https://www.protectedplanet.net/555703557

United Nations General Assembly (2021) Seventy-fifth session. Agenda item 19. Sustain Dev. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N21/115/89/pdf/N2111589.pdf?

Wang B, Yan H, Xue Z, Batunacun Liu G (2022) Nature-Based Solutions Benefit the Economic–Ecological Coordination of Pastoral Areas: An Outstanding Herdsman’s Experience in Xilin Gol, China. Land 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11010107

Williams WD (1999) Conservation of wetlands in drylands: A key global issue. Aquat Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst 9:517–522. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0755(199911/12)9:6<517::AID-AQC383>3.0.CO;2-C

Yang Y, Yuanyue P, Xiang Y, Zhijie T, Lingxiao S, Disse M, Ruide Y (2019) Climate change, water resources and sustainable development in the arid and semi-arid lands of Central Asia in the past 30 years. J Arid Land 11:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40333-018-0073-3 .

Yao Y, Fu B, Liu Y, Wang Y, Song S (2021) The contribution of ecosystem restoration to sustainable development goals in Asian drylands: A literature review. Land Degrad Dev 32:4472–4483. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.4065

Yushanjiang A, Zhang F, Leong Tan M (2021) Spatial-temporal characteristics of ecosystem health in Central Asia. Int J Appl Earth Observ Geoinform 105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2021.102635

Zhang L, Sun P, Huettmann F, Liu S (2022) Where should China practice forestry in a warming world? Glob Change Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16065

Download references

Acknowledgements

Current research is funded by Darwin Initiative’s Resurrection Island: enterprise, conservation and development around the Aral Sea project (project number 28-003).

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by SA. The draft of the manuscript was written by SA, and JWB, a co-author, commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Biology, University of Oxford, 11a Mansfield Road, OX1 3SZ, Oxford, UK

Shahzoda Alikhanova & Joseph William Bull

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shahzoda Alikhanova .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Appendix 1 Results of keyword search on NbS in dryland ecosystems

Appendix 2 results of keyword search on nbs in the aral sea region, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Alikhanova, S., Bull, J.W. Review of Nature-based Solutions in Dryland Ecosystems: the Aral Sea Case Study. Environmental Management 72 , 457–472 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-023-01822-z

Download citation

Received : 25 November 2022

Accepted : 09 April 2023

Published : 28 April 2023

Issue Date : September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-023-01822-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Nature-based solutions (NbS)
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Physical Resources: Water, Pollution, and Minerals

Case study: the aral sea – going, going, gone.

The Aral Sea is a lake located east of the Caspian Sea between Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan in central Asia (see Figure Map of Aral Sea Area ). This area is part of the Turkestan desert, which is the fourth largest desert in the world; it is produced from a rain shadow effect by Afghanistan’s high mountains to the south. Due to the arid and seasonally hot climate there is extensive evaporation and limited surface waters in general. Summer temperatures can reach 60° C (140° F)! The water supply to the Aral Sea is mainly from two rivers, the Amu Darya and Syr Darya, which carry snowmelt from mountainous areas. In the early 1960s the then-Soviet Union diverted the Amu Darya and Syr Darya Rivers for irrigation of one of the driest parts of Asia to produce rice, melons, cereals, and especially cotton. The Soviets wanted cotton or “white gold” to become a major export. They were successful and today Uzbekistan is one of the world’s largest exporters of cotton. Unfortunately this action essentially eliminated any river inflow to the Aral Sea and caused it to disappear almost completely.

Map of Aral Sea Area Map shows lake size in 1960 and political boundaries of 2011. Countries in yellow are at least partially in Aral Sea drainage basin. Source: Wikimedia Commons

In 1960 Aral Sea was the fourth largest inland water body; only the Caspian Sea, Lake Superior, and Lake Victoria were larger. Since then, it has progressively shrunk due to evaporation and lack of recharge by rivers (see Figure Shrinking Aral Sea Blue ). Before 1965 the Aral Sea received 20–60 km 3 of fresh water per year from rivers and by the early 1980s it received none. By 2007 the Aral Sea shrank to about 10% of its original size and its salinity increased from about 1% dissolved salt to about 10% dissolved salt, which is 3 times more saline than seawater. These changes caused an enormous environmental impact. A once thriving fishing industry is dead as are the 24 species of fish that used to live there; the fish could not adapt to the more saline waters. The current shoreline is tens of kilometers from former fishing towns and commercial ports. Large fishing boats lie in the dried up lakebed of dust and salt (see Figure An Abandoned Ship ). A frustrating part of the river diversion project is that many of the irrigation canals were poorly built, allowing abundant water to leak or evaporate. An increasing number of dust storms blow salt, pesticides, and herbicides into nearby towns causing a variety of respiratory illnesses including tuberculosis.

Shrinking Aral Sea Blue area gives size of Aral Sea in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2009 Source: NordNordWest at Wikimedia Commons

An Abandoned Ship This abandoned ship lies in a dried up lake bed that was the Aral Sea near Aral, Kazakhstan Source: Staecker at Wikimedia Commons

The wetlands of the two river deltas and their associated ecosystems have disappeared. The regional climate is drier and has greater temperature extremes due to the absence of moisture and moderating influence from the lake. In 2003 some lake restoration work began on the northern part of the Aral Sea and it provided some relief by raising water levels and reducing salinity somewhat. The southern part of the Aral Sea has seen no relief and remains nearly completely dry. The destruction of the Aral Sea is one of the planet’s biggest environmental disasters and it is caused entirely by humans. Lake Chad in Africa is another example of a massive lake that has nearly disappeared for the same reasons as the Aral Sea. Aral Sea and Lake Chad are the most extreme examples of large lakes destroyed by unsustainable diversions of river water. Other lakes that have shrunk significantly due to human diversions of water include the Dead Sea in the Middle East, Lake Manchar in Pakistan, and Owens Lake and Mono Lake, both in California.

• Sustainability: A Comprehensive Foundation. Authored by : Tom Theis and Jonathan Tomkin, Editors.. Provided by : OpenStax CNX. Located at : http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected] . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]

Privacy Policy

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

12.3: Case Study - The Aral Sea - Going, Going, Gone

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 81375

• Tara Jo Holmberg
• Northwestern Connecticut Community College

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

The Aral Sea is a lake located east of the Caspian Sea between Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan in central Asia. This area is part of the Turkestan desert, which is the fourth largest desert in the world; it is produced from a rain shadow effect by Afghanistan’s high mountains to the south. Due to the arid and seasonally hot climate there is extensive evaporation and limited surface waters in general. Summer temperatures can reach 60 ο C (140 ο F)! The water supply to the Aral Sea is mainly from two rivers, the Amu Darya and Syr Darya, which carry snow melt from mountainous areas.

In the early 1960s, the then-Soviet Union diverted the Amu Darya and Syr Darya Rivers for irrigation of one of the driest parts of Asia to produce rice, melons, cereals, and especially cotton. The Soviets wanted cotton or white gold to become a major export. They were successful, and, today Uzbekistan is one of the world’s largest exporters of cotton. Unfortunately, this action essentially eliminated any river inflow to the Aral Sea and caused it to disappear almost completely.

In 1960, Aral Sea was the fourth largest inland water body; only the Caspian Sea, Lake Superior, and Lake Victoria were larger. Since then, it has progressively shrunk due to evaporation and lack of recharge by rivers. Before 1965, the Aral Sea received 2060 km 3 of fresh water per year from rivers and by the early 1980s it received none. By 2007, the Aral Sea shrank to about 10% of its original size and its salinity increased from about 1% dissolved salt to about 10% dissolved salt, which is 3 times more saline than seawater. These changes caused an enormous environmental impact. A once thriving fishing industry is dead as are the 24 species of fish that used to live there; the fish could not adapt to the more saline waters. The current shoreline is tens of kilometers from former fishing towns and commercial ports. Large shing boats lie in the dried up lakebed of dust and salt. A frustrating part of the river diversion project is that many of the irrigation canals were poorly built, allowing abundant water to leak or evaporate. An increasing number of dust storms blow salt, pesticides, and herbicides into nearby towns causing a variety of respiratory illnesses including tuberculosis.

The wetlands of the two river deltas and their associated ecosystems have disappeared. The regional climate is drier and has greater temperature extremes due to the absence of moisture and moderating influence from the lake. In 2003, some lake restoration work began on the northern part of the Aral Sea and it provided some relief by raising water levels and reducing salinity somewhat. The southern part of the Aral Sea has seen no relief and remains nearly completely dry. The destruction of the Aral Sea is one of the planet’s biggest environmental disasters and it is caused entirely by humans. Lake Chad in Africa is another example of a massive lake that has nearly disappeared for the same reasons as the Aral Sea. Aral Sea and Lake Chad are the most extreme examples of large lakes destroyed by unsustainable diversions of river water. Other lakes that have shrunk significantly due to human diversions of water include the Dead Sea in the Middle East, Lake Manchar in Pakistan, and Owens Lake and Mono Lake, both in California.

Contributors and Attributions

• Essentials of Environmental Science by Kamala Doršner is licensed under CC BY 4.0. Modified from the original by Matthew R. Fisher.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

5.3: Case Study- The Aral Sea - Going, Going, Gone

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 12040

• Heriberto Cabezas
• Georgia College and State University via GALILEO Open Learning Materials

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

The Aral Sea is a lake located east of the Caspian Sea between Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan in central Asia (see Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\)). This area is part of the Turkestan desert, which is the fourth largest desert in the world; it is produced from a rain shadow effect by Afghanistan's high mountains to the south. Due to the arid and seasonally hot climate there is extensive evaporation and limited surface waters in general. Summer temperatures can reach 60° C (140° F)! The water supply to the Aral Sea is mainly from two rivers, the Amu Darya and Syr Darya, which carry snowmelt from mountainous areas. In the early 1960s the then-Soviet Union diverted the Amu Darya and Syr Darya Rivers for irrigation of one of the driest parts of Asia to produce rice, melons, cereals, and especially cotton. The Soviets wanted cotton or “white gold” to become a major export. They were successful and today Uzbekistan is one of the world's largest exporters of cotton. Unfortunately this action essentially eliminated any river inflow to the Aral Sea and caused it to disappear almost completely.

In 1960 Aral Sea was the fourth largest inland water body; only the Caspian Sea, Lake Superior, and Lake Victoria were larger. Since then, it has progressively shrunk due to evaporation and lack of recharge by rivers (see Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\)). Before 1965 the Aral Sea received 20–60 km 3 of fresh water per year from rivers and by the early 1980s it received none. By 2007 the Aral Sea shrank to about 10% of its original size and its salinity increased from about 1% dissolved salt to about 10% dissolved salt, which is 3 times more saline than seawater. These changes caused an enormous environmental impact. A once thriving fishing industry is dead as are the 24 species of fish that used to live there; the fish could not adapt to the more saline waters. The current shoreline is tens of kilometers from former fishing towns and commercial ports. Large fishing boats lie in the dried up lakebed of dust and salt (see Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\)). A frustrating part of the river diversion project is that many of the irrigation canals were poorly built, allowing abundant water to leak or evaporate. An increasing number of dust storms blow salt, pesticides, and herbicides into nearby towns causing a variety of respiratory illnesses including tuberculosis.

The wetlands of the two river deltas and their associated ecosystems have disappeared. The regional climate is drier and has greater temperature extremes due to the absence of moisture and moderating influence from the lake. In 2003 some lake restoration work began on the northern part of the Aral Sea and it provided some relief by raising water levels and reducing salinity somewhat. The southern part of the Aral Sea has seen no relief and remains nearly completely dry. The destruction of the Aral Sea is one of the planet’s biggest environmental disasters and it is caused entirely by humans. Lake Chad in Africa is another example of a massive lake that has nearly disappeared for the same reasons as the Aral Sea. Aral Sea and Lake Chad are the most extreme examples of large lakes destroyed by unsustainable diversions of river water. Other lakes that have shrunk significantly due to human diversions of water include the Dead Sea in the Middle East, Lake Manchar in Pakistan, and Owens Lake and Mono Lake, both in California.

Case Study: The Shrinking Aral Sea

The Aral Sea in central Asia is drying up. Though it was once the fourth largest freshwater lake in the world, it has shrunk dramatically since 1960. This time-lapse movie shows its location and makes it appear as if it is shrinking as quickly as a puddle after a summer rain. Individual frames show the lake in 1973, 1987, and 2000.

Where's the Water Going?

This image from the Space Shuttle shows a rich agricultural area along the Amu Darya River, just south of the Aral Sea. The thin river cuts through one of the world's most desolate desert regions, yet its 15 km-wide floodplain is covered with water-intensive crops like cotton and rice (click the image to see a larger view in a new window). To sustain these crops, irrigation projects remove water from the river and deliver it across the floodplain. Water from the river used to flow into the Aral Sea, but now it is all used up for agriculture before it reaches the lake.

Until quite recently, the Aral Sea was similar to North America's Great Lakes — it was a huge body of fresh water, filled by rivers that brought rain and snow melt to it from distant mountains. Since 1960 though, rivers that once flowed into the lake have been diverted to irrigate crops. With the decrease in the amount of water flowing into the lake, evaporation has became the dominant process. As fresh water evaporates from the lake and is not replenished, the amount of dissolved minerals (salts) in the water increases and the area of land covered by the water decreases.

The environmental changes in the lake and surrounding region have been dramatic and difficult. The change in water chemistry (increased salinity) wiped out huge populations of fish. The decline of the fish populations, in turn, wiped out the commercial fishing industry on the lake. Today, fishing boats sit in the desert many kilometers from the water's edge. The lakebed sediments (fine-grained sand and dirt) that are now exposed on the desert floor can be picked up by wind quite easily, contributing to large dust storms in the region. For further information, search for articles on the Aral Sea at NASA Earth Observatory World of Change or view the Earthshots article on the topic. You can obtain further information on the science behind these studies by consulting the lists of references that accompany these articles.

You may also want to view this 10-minute video from LiveEarthDotOrg available on YouTube.

In this chapter, you'll examine satellite images of the Aral Sea and make measurements to quantify how its size has changed. You'll download satellite images of the region then set a scale and measure the distance across the sea in 2001 and in 2010. On another set of images, you'll highlight areas that represent water and measure them to see how the area covered by the sea changed from 1973 to 2000.

« Previous Page       Next Page »

• Measuring Distance and Area in Satellite Images
• Teaching Notes
• Step-by-Step Instructions
• Tool and Data
• Going Further

• About this Site
• Accessibility

Citing and Terms of Use

Material on this page is offered under a Creative Commons license unless otherwise noted below.

Show terms of use for text on this page »

Show terms of use for media on this page »

• None found in this page
• Initial Publication Date: December 29, 2004
• Short URL: https://serc.carleton.edu/3127 What's This?

7.5 Case Study: The Aral Sea – Going, Going, Gone

The Aral Sea is a lake located east of the Caspian Sea between Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan in central Asia. This area is part of the Turkestan desert, which is the fourth largest desert in the world; it is produced from a rain shadow effect by Afghanistan’s high mountains to the south. Due to the arid and seasonally hot climate there is extensive evaporation and limited surface waters in general. Summer temperatures can reach 60 ο C (140 ο F)! The water supply to the Aral Sea is mainly from two rivers, the Amu Darya and Syr Darya, which carry snow melt from mountainous areas. In the early 1960s, the then-Soviet Union diverted the Amu Darya and Syr Darya Rivers for irrigation of one of the driest parts of Asia to produce rice, melons, cereals, and especially cotton. The Soviets wanted cotton or white gold to become a major export. They were successful, and, today Uzbekistan is one of the world’s largest exporters of cotton. Unfortunately, this action essentially eliminated any river inflow to the Aral Sea and caused it to disappear almost completely.

In 1960, Aral Sea was the fourth largest inland water body; only the Caspian Sea, Lake Superior, and Lake Victoria were larger. Since then, it has progressively shrunk due to evaporation and lack of recharge by rivers. Before 1965, the Aral Sea received 2060 km 3  of fresh water per year from rivers and by the early 1980s it received none. By 2007, the Aral Sea shrank to about 10% of its original size and its salinity increased from about 1% dissolved salt to about 10% dissolved salt, which is 3 times more saline than seawater. These changes caused an enormous environmental impact. A once thriving fishing industry is dead as are the 24 species of fish that used to live there; the fish could not adapt to the more saline waters. The current shoreline is tens of kilometers from former fishing towns and commercial ports. Large shing boats lie in the dried up lakebed of dust and salt. A frustrating part of the river diversion project is that many of the irrigation canals were poorly built, allowing abundant water to leak or evaporate. An increasing number of dust storms blow salt, pesticides, and herbicides into nearby towns causing a variety of respiratory illnesses including tuberculosis.

The wetlands of the two river deltas and their associated ecosystems have disappeared. The regional climate is drier and has greater temperature extremes due to the absence of moisture and moderating influence from the lake. In 2003, some lake restoration work began on the northern part of the Aral Sea and it provided some relief by raising water levels and reducing salinity somewhat. The southern part of the Aral Sea has seen no relief and remains nearly completely dry. The destruction of the Aral Sea is one of the planet’s biggest environmental disasters and it is caused entirely by humans. Lake Chad in Africa is another example of a massive lake that has nearly disappeared for the same reasons as the Aral Sea. Aral Sea and Lake Chad are the most extreme examples of large lakes destroyed by unsustainable diversions of river water. Other lakes that have shrunk significantly due to human diversions of water include the Dead Sea in the Middle East, Lake Manchar in Pakistan, and Owens Lake and Mono Lake, both in California.

Attribution

Essentials of Environmental Science  by Kamala Doršner is licensed under CC BY 4.0 . Modified from the original by Matthew R. Fisher.

Terrestrial Environment Copyright © 2021 by Alexandra Geddes is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book