Using examples, distinguish between transboundary pollution and transnational waste movement.

“Due to global interactions, there is no longer a global periphery.” Discuss this statement.

Transboundary pollution (TBP) is pollution that crosses a national border accidently or inadvertently due to physical processes (atmosphere, currents, etc). Recent examples of transboundary pollution (TBP) include forest fires in Indonesia causing smog in Singapore; Chinese pollution reaching Japan; and radiation from Fukushima reaching the shores of the USA. Also credit acid rain (if clearly shown to be transboundary) and credit Chernobyl (1986). [The Gulf of Mexico oil spill was not a TBP event because only the USA was affected. Candidates using this example only may still attain band D according to other criteria, but ought not be awarded band E.]

Transnational waste movement (TWM) includes landfill in China originating in USA; European e-waste arriving in Accra (Ghana); ship-breaking in Bangladesh; Trafigura’s chemical waste from Europe arriving in Ivory Coast. This is a purposeful/intended global interaction/trade transaction. It is acceptable to view discarded household goods (eg clothes for charity) as a form of waste. Waste can also be a very valuable resource when recycled, so TWM can be seen as a positive interaction. Good answers are likely to provide detailed exemplification. They are also likely to make a better effort to distinguish (beyond simply employing comparative language such as “whereas”): eg TBP may involve the dispersal of point source pollution into multiple territories whereas TWM is a movement from one territory to another; TBP has negative impacts/costs money but TWM can also be positive/makes money; TBP is accidental but TWM is deliberate, etc).

For band C, expect some description of a TBP event and a TWM (do not expect balance).

At band D, expect either a detailed explanation of a TBP event and a TWM (do not expect balance) or a good attempt to distinguish between them.

By band E, expect both aspects to be addressed.

Credit all content in line with the markbands. Credit unexpected approaches wherever relevant.

The global periphery may be defined as regions outside/beyond the core. Historically, some states were identified as being peripheral due to their spatial distance/isolation or lack of integration into economic and political systems. In 2015, this idea of peripheral states is only a very basic/antiquated starting point. A contemporary account might acknowledge also the existence of semi-peripheral states (middle-income countries) or the presence of important global hubs/cores such as Lagos in states that some people might still view as being part of a global periphery.

Another approach might be to discuss the extent to which various global flows and interactions (from international aid to social networks) have networked/connected the majority of the world’s states and a large proportion of their peoples. To give a counterargument, examples might be cited of isolated states and regions, from which we can infer the existence of a “global periphery”.

Possible themes include:

• economic globalization of low-income countries through trade, aid, loans [Guide 3] that may originate in EU/USA “core” countries but also emerging economies/BRICs/NICs [Guide 1 and 3]
• cultural interactions between countries in the core and periphery [Guide 5]
• isolated states eg North Korea, China (culturally); non-globalized tribal groups [Guide 6 and 7]
• the “shrinking world” effect that brings connectivity to previously peripheral places [Guide 3]
• branded commodities and global media that help to connect places through the growth of a common “core” culture (possibly modified by glocalization) which more and more places share [Guide 5].

Good answers may discuss differing degrees of “peripheral” states (perhaps including semiperiphery, non-globalized periphery). Another approach might be to discuss the multi-scale existence of core and periphery patterns (recognizing the global importance of world cities in Asia, Africa and Latin America). Another approach might be to discuss what is meant by “global interactions” in the context of this question (referring to a variety of trade flows, aid flows, migration flows, information flows, etc).

For band D, expect a structured discussion of how global interactions have contributed to the disappearance/persistence/modification of a “global periphery” of places/people. This should include either a synthesis of several well evidenced themes taken from the subject guide, or nuanced and evidenced conclusion/evaluation of the statement.

At band E, expect both of these elements.

Most candidates understood clearly the difference between transboundary pollution and transnational waste movement. Relevant examples were used, although the detail and accuracy was variable. Very few used Fukushima as a case study, preferring to use the 30-year-old Chernobyl example instead. This is a pity and clearly goes against the ethos of the course which is stated on page 13 of the geography guide. The best answers understood the significance of the command term “distinguish” and were awarded full marks accordingly.

A handful of excellent answers showed deep understanding of how global interactions have modified the previously binary world system (the “north/south” or “core/periphery” of the immediate post-war period). They wrote about the evolution of a far more complex world, beginning with the rise of the Asian Tigers in the 1950s. Other strong answers dealt with the statement on a flow-by-flow basis and understood that a country like China could be regarded as being part of an economic core but had chosen to remain peripheral to social networks such as Facebook. Weaker answers tended to focus mainly on isolated tribes and the Sahel as non-globalized places. Done well, however, band D was still achievable through the use of this narrow approach.