Iraqis Reclaim Their Ancient Wetlands

The Marsh Arabs of Iraq have given up waiting for outsiders to restore their wetlands. Local people are taking matters into their own hands by breaching dykes and shutting down pumping stations in a bid to restore the marshes drained by Saddam Hussein's regime. But some experts worry that their actions could hamper the region's recovery.

Five months ago, New Scientist reported that an international team of wetland experts, backed by the US State Department, planned to gradually re-flood the wetlands (print edition, 26 April 2003). But reports from inside Iraq reveal this plan is increasingly irrelevant.

Even as Saddam's regime fell local people began to breach the dams with farm tools. New Scientist has learned that between 200 and 300 square kilometres of land has now been inundated as people start returning to their ancient way of life.

Return of the marshes At one time, the marshes covered between 15,000 and 20,000 square kilometres in what the UN Environment Programme described as a "biodiversity centre of global importance". Thought by Bible scholars to be the location of the Garden of Eden and the Flood, the marshes surrounding the confluence of the Euphrates and Tigris supported the Madan, or Marsh Arabs, for 5000 years.

But a combination of 32 dam projects upstream and the deliberate draining of the land by Saddam's regime reduced the marshes to five per cent of their previous extent. "The people want their land back," says Azzam Alwash, an Iraqi-American water engineer exiled to California.

Alwash and his wife Suzie, a geologist at El Camino College in Torrance, California, joined forces with a charity set up by Iraqi expatriates, the Iraq Foundation, to find ways to return the marshes to their former glory. They recruited engineers, ecologists, hydrologists and soil chemists, and in April published a report suggesting efforts should be concentrated first on the most intact Hawizah marsh, which borders Iran.

It also recommended a three-month monitoring period to test the soil for chemicals such as pesticides and heavy metals before letting in the water. The more damaged Central and Hammar marshes would take much longer to restore, the report predicted. But it is parts of these marshes that have already been re-flooded, says Alwash, who has returned to Iraq to help with the marshs' restoration.

"The science part of my brain says this is not right," says Suzie Alwash, "but my heart says, 'right on, go for it guys.'" Others agree that it is difficult to criticise the actions of the local people, whose livelihoods are at stake. "It was a spontaneous reaction to what they have suffered," says Hassan Janabi, the water engineer leading efforts by the Iraqi Ministry of Irrigation to restore the marshes.

One region recovering well is Hawr Al-Awdah in the north-west of the Central marsh. After the war, local people persuaded staff manning the pumping station that drained the marsh to shut it down. This has resulted in around 50 square kilometres being re-flooded. "The vegetation recovery was so beautiful and so fast I could not believe my eyes," Janabi says.

But other regions are not faring as well. Several dyke breaches have allowed water from the Euphrates to flood the Kurmet Bani Saeed basin, part of Hammar marsh. Alwash is concerned that because there is no outlet for the water, it is becoming increasingly saline. Already salt levels have risen to around 6 parts per thousand (ppt), more than 10 times the salt content of fresh water.

He believes this is hampering the recovery of vegetation such as the common reed (Phragmites australis) which can tolerate brackish water but does worse as salinity increases. The reed is the dominant plant in the ecosystem, providing shelter for fish and birds. The Marsh Arabs use it as a material for building, weaving and as fodder for water buffalo.

Another marsh called Al-Sanuf, north-east of Al-Amarah, is in even worse shape. With salt levels of 17 ppt, it is around half as saline as seawater. Virtually nothing grows here except a few small plants that are highly tolerant of saltwater.

Hassan Partow, head of the UN Environment Programme's efforts to restore the marshes, says an unplanned effort could impede long-term recovery. "If it is done in an uncoordinated way it may not lead to the most judicious use of water resources."

He also says that flooding areas contaminated with heavy metals such as lead and mercury may create problems for people drinking the water and for wildlife. What's more, many dykes were mined by Saddam's regime to discourage people from tampering with them.

Controlling the restoration effort from Baghdad will be impossible, so working with local people is crucial, Janabi says. "It is for us to catch up rather than lead the entire process." The charity Assisting Marsh Arabs and Refugees (AMAR) estimates that 85,000 people are living in the former marsh areas with little to support themselves. Another 200,000 fled to neighbouring Iran during Saddam's regime.

The news is not all bad. Janabi says that with their knowledge of managing the marshes, the locals have, by and large, chosen breach sites that would have been picked by a qualified water engineer.

And Peter Reiss of Development Alternatives Incorporated, a consultancy in Bethesda, Maryland, says the overall picture is encouraging. In June, he led a study funded by the international development agency USAID to collect data on the re-flooded areas, which will be published in a few weeks.

Reiss is keen that Iraqis be given the technical expertise to help themselves. "Iraq was shut off from scientific advances for 20 years," he says. To this end, USAID is funding the training of two Iraqi water engineers in California.

Partow says the next six months will be critical. The rivers will be at their highest in March following the rains and if used well, this water could flush out salty or contaminated marshes and flood new areas. But his team was recently pulled out of the country in the wake of the bomb attack on the UN's headquarters in Baghdad in August.

With lawlessness and instability blighting Iraq's recovery, the chances of a comprehensive and coordinated plan being implemented in time seem slim.

The scale of the task is huge, says Curtis Richardson at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, a member of Reiss' team. He says that upstream dams have reduced the water flow so much that just 15 to 20 per cent of the lost marshes can be restored.

Nevertheless, the international community has an obligation to ensure the marshes recover quickly , says Baroness Emma Nicholson, AMAR's chair. It failed to prevent the old regime from destroying a region which was a "thriving and productive agricultural and fishing centre".

Food production in the marshes will give another dimension to Iraq's economy, she says, complementing its income from oil. Their recovery will also send out a powerful political message, "that Iraq is really in business".

Nevertheless, the international community has an obligation to ensure the marshes recover quickly , says Baroness Emma Nicholson, AMAR's chair. It failed to prevent the old regime from destroying a region which was a "thriving and productive agricultural and fishing centre".

UN, useless as usual. So, does this mean we can expect a thank-you note from ELF/Greenpeace for deposing Saddam and opening the way for recovery of the marshes?

No?

Darn.

sh drained the swamps to destroy the people living in the area. Eliminated hiding places and hurt productivity of the land.

"The science part of my brain says this is not right," says Suzie Alwash, "but my heart says, 'right on, go for it guys.'"

Absolutely, go for it guys! Odds are it would've happened the way it's happening regardless in the marshlands, but if the Senate bickers with partisan BS for an extended time on the money that is an absolute necessity, as all of them well know, for the future of the Iraqis and the world, other projects will be delayed with no good reason - this is a critical time Senators, get off your partisan butts and make it happen.

6 posted on 10/01/2003 7:36:31 PM PDT by Fledermaus (Health insurance, a good economy and quality education are meaningless if you are DEAD!)

could have been prevented if George Bush Sr. had been as bold as his son.

That's true to a degree, but don't forget there was no 9/11 at that time, so the underlying objectives were not as concise as they are today. Still, in retrospect, we stopped after ejecting Saddam from Kuwait because that was the UN mandate - it's never smart to allow the UN to dictate your foreign policy and boldness may have been the more prudent move. However, Monday morning NFL quarterbacking creates nothing but paper millionaires.

if George Bush Sr. had been as bold as his son.

True.

A second guess, but true.

8 posted on 10/01/2003 7:43:57 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The everyday blessings of God are great--they just don't make "good copy.")

your comment reminds me about how the Dems kept criticizing GHWB for not taking SH out. GWB takes him out and all they do is bitch. Their self-serving posturing is a crock.

It was the destruction of the marshlands and the marsh Arabs that first drew my attention to Iraq. There was something about the destruction of a way of life that had existed for thousands of years that gripped my heart. There has to be a way to restore the marshlands to what they were before, and I'm sure we are going to find that way.

It would seem that the Iraqi marsh Arabs already got a head start on that. But helping the Iraqis properly return the marshlands to the way they were should be part of our winning hearts and minds strategy. Won't happen overnight, but it's definitely a humanitarian/environmental mission worth undertaking.

As the AMAR woman said, "Food production in the marshes will give another dimension to Iraq's economy, complementing its income from oil. Their recovery will also send out a powerful political message, "that Iraq is really in business".

The elder Bush was bolder, IMHO.

It was a monumental accomplishment simply to go to war to eject Iraq from Kuwait. People forget that.

Internationally W faced more opposition than his father; but I'd say domestically there was FAR more opposition to GW I than GW II.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.