To what extent are large engineering projects, such as dams and water transfers,

successful ways of meeting the demand for water?

AO1:
 Demand for water is rising, especially in developing and emerging countries – but much
less so in the developed world.
 Demand is driven by industrial use in emerging countries, and rising domestic / household
use as people transition to the middle-class.
 Large dams are a common solution, often being multi-use schemes i.e. water supply, HEP
and flood control.
 In some cases water transfers move water from areas of surplus to areas of deficit; large
engineering schemes are multi-billion-dollar schemes implemented nationally in a top down
way.
 Water demand can be met in other ways, such as small scale schemes or improved
management i.e. conservation, recycling or even desalination.
AO2:
 Benefits of large engineering projects include their scale; they have the ability to
transform water supply for large areas by capturing a water source and making it available to
millions of people – such as China’s S-N water transfer or India’s numerous dams.
 On the other hand such schemes are very high cost, usually running to billions of dollars;
they could increase debt levels and may lead to high water prices in order to recoup the
capital costs.
 Very large schemes may not be environmentally sustainable because they encourage
overuse of a finite water supply, are subject to the vagaries of climate change and have wider
environmental and social impacts.
 While effective at coping with demand today, they may not be as effective long-term if
water supply reduces and / or demand continues to rise; in addition many large schemes
have political risks if dams are built on transboundary rivers such as China’s dam building on
the Mekong and Ethiopia’s dam building on the Blue Nile.
 Some might argue small scale schemes are better i.e. low cost, local, intermediate
technology solutions such as pumps and pumpkin tanks – however, these are unlikely to
meet the needs of industrialising, urban emerging economies in terms of demand.
 There are other alternatives such as desalination but these are also high cost and not
applicable everywhere i.e. a coastline is required; in addition they formalise supply and this
can increase water costs for consumers.
 Widespread water conservation, as in Singapore, might provide an alternative model by
reusing grey water and making water use reflect the actual cost of supply; these types of
more holistic water management do work but also require high capital investment so may
not be applicable everywhere.
To what extent are human factors more important than physical factors in
determining the quality and quantity of water available to people?
AO1:
• Water quantity refers to the amount of water available to people, and determines
metrics such as water stress / water scarcity; availability is also influenced by water
cost (economic scarcity)
• Water quality depends on factors such as pollution: water can be available but not
safe to use.
• Physical factors are largely climatic: rainfall levels, seasonal river flows plus
groundwater stores.
• Human factors are about water management and supply systems, and managing
demand to ensure sustainable water supplies.
• Storage and other management methods can increase available supply.
AO2:
• The physical factor of climate is important, as globally areas of water shortage
correlate with areas of low rainfall e.g. North Africa and the Middle East; low rainfall
restricts PMT supply which has to be managed seasonally. Areas of high precipitation
(Canada, Scandinavia) have abundant water supplies.
• The physical factor of geology largely determines the existence of groundwater
supplies which are relied in extensively in some parts of the world; seasonally high
temperatures can reduce water availability by evaporation and very low
temperatures by freezing available water.
• Climate change / GW could be argued as either a physical factor (natural processes
working more powerfully) or human (pollution as the root cause), reducing water
availability in areas that rely in seasonal rains e.g. SSA and parts of S Asia.
• However, even in areas of high rainfall close to the equator water availability can be
low especially for low income, urban people: lack of water supply systems and
expensive water vendors create economic water scarcity despite abundant supplies
from natural sources (they are just not accessible)
• Water availability can be severely reduced if quality is poor e.g. the polluted
Ganges in India, river and groundwater pollution in China, saltwater incursion in
coastal aquifers: poor water quality is almost always the result of human factors i.e.
poor water management.
• Human factors are responsible for providing large quantities of high-quality water
through complex supply systems: reservoirs construction, distribution systems – and
examples such as Singapore and the UAE show that desalination and water
conservation can provide good water supplies to people even when the physical
geography of an area is very unfavourable.
To what extent are water conservation and desalination the best ways to guarantee
future water supply as demand continues to increase?
AO1:
 Desalination uses seawater to make freshwater, and is common in many
countries in the Middle East as well as others; it is energy intensive and economically
costly.
 Water conservation includes a wide‐range of strategies to make water go further.
 Grey water recycling, drip irrigation and water harvesting are examples – these
can use high or low tech approaches.
 Water demand is set to increase, perhaps by 40‐50% globally by 2050 with some
areas, e.g. India and parts of Africa set to experience even faster increases in
demand.
AO2:
 Many countries in the Middle East, and increasingly elsewhere, already rely on
desalinisation for much or the majority of their water supply so in some ways it is
already a ‘solution’ – the question is how widespread could it be (land‐locked
countries?) given the cost and need for an energy source; it also has some
environmental issues not least carbon emissions from fossil fuel as the energy
source.
 In many parts of the world declining river flows (linked to over‐abstraction), falling
water tables and water pollution (rivers, groundwater salinisation) mean there is
some urgency in terms of a need for alternate supply, or making better / more
sustainable use of existing resources – options are often very limited.
 Water conservation has high potential in many cases; Singapore is an example of
where public education, water pricing and technology has been used to reduce
over‐all water use; water pricing is used in many places but risks making water too
expensive for those that need it most.
 In Singapore and other places, rainwater harvesting is used to capture and then
use rainwater that would otherwise be lost to the hydrological cycle – this can be
done in hi‐tech ways or low‐tech ones such as Pumpkin Tanks, so might be argued to
have widespread application at a range of levels of development.
 Some will argue that water supply needs to be increased using other methods,
because the increases in demand are so large; this is why mega‐dams and water
transfers are being used in many parts of the world to increase storage capacity and
move water from areas of surplus to areas of deficit; these schemes are costly and
therefore not able to be used everywhere, they also have many social and
environmental drawbacks.
NB Answers that only cover desalination OR water conservation will be
self‐penalising.
To what extent are physical factors rather than human factors always the main cause of
water insecurity?
AO1:
• Water security exists when clean / useable water supply meets demand, and water is
affordable to all.
• Physical factors include drought, leading to physical water scarcity and falling surface and
ground water supplies; long term climate change can be classed as a physical factor.
• Water insecurity can also result from human factors such as poverty: economic water
scarcity exists when people cannot afford available water.
• The balance between supply and demand can change if demand rises so that renewable
water supplies are utilised faster than they are recharged; this is often linked to economic
development and / or unsustainable use of water supplies.
AO2:
• Water insecurity can be caused by physical factors, especially long-term drought such as
the Millennium Drought in Australia, drought in the 2010s in California and examples in the
Sahel: lower precipitation reduces supply, so surface reservoirs and groundwater is used up
but not recharged and water insecurity is the result.
• There is a widespread belief that recent water shortages linked to drought have been made
worse by long-term trends of rising temperatures (higher evaporation) and reduced rainfall
(falling precipitation); in some places failed monsoons and unreliable seasonal rains (ITCZ
movement) have been linked with global warming.
• El Nino / La Nina can be a cause of drought; this cyclical shift in Pacific Ocean currents and
air circulation can cause drought; it is natural but may be made worse by climate change.
• However, many water insecure people live in areas of abundant rainfall, but especially in
urban areas cannot afford sufficient water and buy water at very high cost from street
vendors: this is economic water scarcity.
• In the Punjab in India, water insecurity is a result of increased demand: human factors
such as population growth and unsustainable use of groundwater for farming has depleted
aquifers because annual withdrawals exceed annual recharge; the factor here is poor water
management. Many Chinese rivers are so polluted that the water is not useable, despite
there being adequate physical supply.
• Water supply can be carefully managed, e.g. in Singapore, where demand and supply are in
balance and pricing systems ensure even low-income groups can access water affordably.
• It could be argued that water insecurity purely as a result of physical factors is quite rare,
and usually temporary, because most people who are water insecure are so because existing
supplies have been depleted by poor management or they simply cannot afford available
water.

Evaluate the relative importance of physical and human factors in influencing levels
of biodiversity.
Evaluate the relative importance of local and global threats to the biodiversity of a
named terrestrial biome.
AO1:
 Local threats affect a small area, whereas global threats are much more widespread and
likely to be more permanent and possibly harder to manage.
 Local threats include degradation and destruction caused by farming and other activities.
 Many types of pollution are local in scale, such as eutrophication, industrial water
pollution and pointsource air pollution.
 Many ecosystems are affected by alien species / invasive species which are local in scale.
 Global threats include global warming which risks widespread change to terrestrial
biomes including shifts in climate belts and impacts on migration.
 Trends in global population and resource demands risks exploitation of many biomes.
AO2:
 Local threats might be relatively minor in some cases often because they can be managed
locally; for instance alien species are serious but in some cases can be managed e.g. by
eradication (but not always e.g. Australia’s cane toad)
 Management can also reduce other local threats be creating sustainable reserves /
biosphere reserves to manage illegal hunting and deforestation; on the other hand these can
be severe because of their scale e.g. coltan mining in the DRC, conversion of forests for
biofuels in Indonesia.
 Global threats might be argued as very serious, especially global warming. Projected
changes in temperature could lead to shifts in climate belts, threatening whole biomes as
species are forced to migrate or fail to adapt to new conditions; widespread drought in some
tropical forests such as the Amazon risking forest fires and long term degradation.
 Climate belts shifts could see savanna grasslands shrinking in area and widespread
changes to seasonal migrations disrupting food webs.
 Biome exploitation is very widespread, linked to rising demand for resources and growing
populations such that conversion to farmland and exploitation of resources might be seen as
a global threat rather than a local one: this exploitation might contribute to the ‘sixth mass
extinction’ and loss of numerous plant and animal species.
 In some cases, even very serious threats could be seen as being successfully managed
e.g. trade in endangered species being reduced by CITES or even, long-term, action to reduce
the threat from global warming via mechanisms such as the COP21 emissions agreement in
2015.
 Overall, a judgment should be made on which threats, local or global, are the most
significant for the chosen terrestrial biome. NB Much will depend on the choice of biome, in
terms of specific detail especially on local threats.

Evaluate the success of global approaches to managing biodiversity and the

conservation of ecosystems.
AO1:
• Global approaches include schemes such as CITES, Biodiversity Action Plans, global
models e.g. UNESCO biosphere reserves, REDD and others.
• These are usually promoted by IGOs such as the UN, but implemented or
monitored nationally.
• Climate change treaties are relevant, but indirectly, as their main aim is not
conservation.
• There are a wide range of national and local strategies such as NPs, sustainable
reserves - although these often operate in the context of global approaches.
AO2:
• CITES is well-known and seeks to conserve over 30,000 species by banning illegal
international trade; it has had some success especially in terms of ivory, and raising
awareness – but requires national funding and policing, which may not be present: it
only protects species already under threat and does not protect ecosystems.
• BAPs and Biosphere Reserves provide countries with a model / template for
conservation but depend on national funding and action, ore the work of NGOs – so
success will depend largely on economic and political will.
• Schemes such as REDD – where developed Governments / TNCs pay for protection
of forests in developing / emerging countries have had some success but limited
scale so far – and are more about carbon emission than conservation per se.
• In developing/ emerging countries conservation efforts can be undermined by
corruption, illegal hunting and deforestation and prioritising economic development
over conservation: this can happen in the developed world e.g. Canada’s tar sands.
• It could be argued that national approaches e.g. UK / USA NPs or game reserves in
Kenya are more successful as they are tailored to local needs; sustainable reserves
work local people to provide alternative livelihoods to ecosystem destruction and
this approach may work best – often it is tied to education.
• International agreements and strategies are hard to fund, monitor and police so in
many cases are not much more than a set of principles which have to be
implemented nationally and locally.
• Global NGOs such as WWF and Greenpeace could be argued to play a positive role,
especially in terms of raising awareness of issues and fund raising – although these
PMT organisations rarely manage biodiversity directly so their impact may be small
overall.

Evaluate the extent to which local approaches to managing ecosystems are more
successful than global approaches
AO1:
• Managing ecosystems involves conservation strategies that seek to conserve species, areas
and biodiversity.
• Global approaches include CITES, and UN Biodiversity Action Plans (adopted nationally)
plus UNESCO biosphere reserves.
• Local strategies include national parks, sustainable forest reserves as well as zoos, and
possibly ecosystem restoration.
• Success might be measured in terms of halting decline, or even reversing decline; success
may depend on the players involved.
AO2
• Local approaches might be seen as more responsive to local needs e.g. sustainable reserves
that provide alternative incomes, education and community projects as well as protecting
vulnerable ecosystems – although these often work with a global model such as UNESCO
biosphere reserves.
• National Parks can protect ecosystems: these vary from effectively wilderness areas to
places with a high tourism presence (so might not be very effective); some local areas are
too small to protect some species, and many suffer from issues such as poaching or
over-hunting.
• Some local approaches suffer from under-funding, or are funded by NGOs which can be
unreliable and variable; ecosystem restoration is a costly local approach not widely used but
with some notable successes e.g. the Florida everglades.
• Global approaches, such as BAPs, effectively provide a framework for national
governments to implement: this means implementation depends on political willpower and
funding; issues such as local corruption can undermine efforts even if on paper a BAP
appears to have strong aims.
• Local Wildlife Trusts, especially those in urban areas such as London, Sheffield and in SE
Asia; Singapore – Sungei Buloh Wetland reserve, Hong Kong - Mai Po reserve and their
success.
• CITES is a global treaty that bans trade in endangered species, and around 38,000 have
been protected; notable successes (ivory) have occurred but CITES is criticised for not
protecting ecosystems, only species.
• It could be argued that both local and global approaches suffer from the impact of context
threats e.g. global climate change, which can undermine efforts at both scales.
• As many threats are local then local management might be seen as stronger, as local
understanding is essential to successful management.
• Accept actions to tackle global warming but only if tied to biomes and ecosystems.
Assess the value of ecosystem services at both local and global scales.