As climate change accelerates and water resources in Central Asia continue to shrink, the construction of the massive Qosh Tepa Canal in northern Afghanistan is raising alarm among neighboring states. Designed to irrigate more than 500,000 hectares of arid land by diverting 20-30 percent of the Amu Darya’s flow — a lifeline for millions in the region — the project carries profound ecological, economic, and political implications.
The project is a particular hope for the people of northern Afghanistan, where, according to eyewitnesses, there is very high drug addiction among young women who work long hours carpet weaving. Some reportedly give opium to their babies to keep them sedated so they can work. There are few other options for families to generate revenue.
For Afghan farmers, long battered by drought, poverty, and subsistence labor, the canal is a symbol of hope. Yet for Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan, it risks exacerbating an already critical water deficit driven both by natural factors and rising temperatures.
Today, experts warn that losing a significant share of the Amu Darya’s flow could undermine agriculture, energy, and ecosystems in Central Asia — while the absence of international water governance leaves the region exposed to additional challenges.
Ecological and Climate Fallout
Climate and water expert Bulat Yesekin called the canal a “historic mistake.” He argued that the ecological costs will be severe: accelerated desertification, land degradation, and worsening climate instability. The Amu Darya already no longer reaches the Aral Sea, a stark reminder of past mismanagement.
“Biological processes that maintain the region’s balance are already disrupted,” Yesekin warned. “Further reduction of Amu Darya flow will worsen the climate, endanger floodplain forests and meadows, and deepen the ecological crisis.”
Yesekin drew global parallels: the U.S. and Europe are dismantling dams to restore rivers, while Central Asia continues to expand irrigated land. He called instead for “restoration of natural processes” and regional cooperation with Afghanistan through a “water-food-energy” exchange mechanism.
Hydrological Risks
Hydrologist Denis Sorokin estimated that the canal could divert between 8 and 20 percent of the Amu Darya’s annual flow, depending on climatic conditions and efficiency losses. In dry years, downstream states could lose up to half their irrigation quotas.
“The greatest economic losses for irrigated agriculture will occur in dry years,” Sorokin explained. “Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan face reduced crop yields, soil salinization, and renewed ecological crisis in the delta and the Aral Sea.”
Sorokin stressed that Afghanistan has alternatives: restoring traditional karez systems, adopting drip irrigation, and engaging in transboundary cooperation backed by international support. Without Kabul’s inclusion in regional frameworks, he warned, the risks of crisis are unavoidable.
Ecological Fragility
Ecologist Pavel Volkov underscored the fragility of the Amu Darya ecosystem: “The construction of the Qosh Tepa Canal will seriously affect all local ecosystems along the river. Species of flora and fauna will vanish, biodiversity will shrink, and desertification will intensify. New small deserts will emerge, soil erosion will accelerate, and dust storms will grow more frequent.”
Volkov emphasized that nature’s interconnections mean cascading effects. In a region already highly vulnerable to climate change, any additional disruption could trigger far-reaching consequences.
Economic Vulnerabilities
Economist Abdulla Abdukadyrov pointed out that the issue is not absolute water scarcity but irrational use. He argued that optimizing existing agricultural practices is far more efficient than expanding irrigated areas at the expense of shared water resources.
“It must be the target orientation of the entire economy, especially agriculture,” he insisted. “If we do not do this voluntarily, nature will do it for us — with a major catastrophe for the region.”
Abdukadyrov warned of food deficits, worsening poverty, and the potential for destabilization by external actors exploiting crises.
Farmers on the Frontline
The risks Abdukadyrov described are already visible in Uzbekistan’s fields. Chronic water shortages plague Bukhara, Kashkadarya, Khorezm, and Syrdarya provinces. Farmers report that irrigation water arrives only once every 5-10 days, while drip irrigation often proves too costly or ineffective.
An anonymous survey of 18 farmers across 12 provinces conducted by the author revealed that most had experienced water disruptions in recent years, and many said they cannot afford modern irrigation technologies. A majority stressed that without subsidies for inputs and water, agriculture will stagnate; all agreed that without adequate water supplies, crops will fail.
In one of the districts in Bukhara, officials allegedly redirect water to rice fields near canals, leaving cotton to dry. In Kashkadarya, one farmer lamented: “There is water in the Karshi canal, but the pump operator says there is no quota. Four to five hundred hectares of cotton are without water.”
A new water code, coming into force in late 2025, will classify water as a “national asset” and impose strict contracts, quotas, and penalties. While officials claim it will ensure transparency, farmers fear new financial and bureaucratic burdens.
Conflicts between farmers over scarce water resources are growing. In Khorezm, those who invested in drip irrigation and solar panels report better harvests — but such cases are rare and typically self-financed.
Many communities now rely on public complaints, even Telegram campaigns, to secure basic irrigation.
Climate on the Brink
Climate scientist Darkhon Yarashev emphasized that the Amu Darya basin is already destabilized by climate change. With regional warming of 1.4-1.6 degrees Celsius since the 1950s, snowfall in the highlands has declined, glacier melt has accelerated, and water surpluses now arrive earlier in the year — leaving shortages during peak agricultural demand.
“The canal is located in a hot and arid zone,” Yarashev warned. “High evaporation and low efficiency make it climatically illogical.”
He stressed that without climate modeling, Qosh Tepa could trigger “desertification processes similar to the Aral Sea tragedy.”
Adding to this, climate and decarbonization expert Alexey Kim argued that every such project must integrate mandatory climate scenario modeling into its environmental impact assessments: “Central Asia is warming faster than the global average. Ignoring climate projections in Qosh Tepa’s planning risks locking the region into irreversible instability.”
Geopolitics of Water
For political scientist Elyor Usmanov, the canal is as much about sovereignty as it is about irrigation. Following the Taliban’s ban on opium, Qosh Tepa offers both jobs and legitimacy: “It demonstrates the government’s capacity to create, not just to fight.”
Afghanistan could earn up to $500 million annually from agricultural exports, but the regional fallout may be severe. Downstream states are unprotected by binding water-sharing agreements — Afghanistan was never part of the 1992 Almaty Accord, which sought to regulate the shared water resources in Central Asia following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
“The canal could be a source of tension or of integration,” Usmanov noted. “It might push states toward cooperation, or, if unmanaged, deepen ecological and geopolitical crises.”
Uzbekistan has chosen pragmatism: seeking technical improvements, preparing its agriculture for water-saving reforms, and pressing for a new legal framework. But without international mediation, the canal risks becoming another flashpoint in Central Asia’s fragile hydro-politics.
Conclusion
The Qosh Tepa Canal embodies the paradox of Central Asia’s water politics. For Afghanistan, it is a symbol of sovereignty and hope. For its neighbors, it is a looming ecological and economic crisis.
Experts warn of cascading risks — from biodiversity collapse and desertification to food insecurity, poverty, and political instability.
The choice is stark: fragmented withdrawals that deepen the crisis, or coordinated action that secures both livelihoods and ecosystems. Without urgent cooperation, the canal may become not a lifeline, but a trigger for the next great water conflict.