Using examples of resources from a tropical rainforest, distinguish between goods and services.

Explain how the concepts of natural capital and natural income are useful models in managing the sustainable exploitation of a resource.

Environmental value systems such as ecocentrism and technocentrism may determine the approaches taken to resource management.

Discuss which of these value systems you consider most appropriate in its approach to the management of fossil fuel resources. Support your conclusion with valid reasons or evidence.

Distinction [2 max]:
“Goods” are marketable commodities/storages/materials/energy exploited by humans;
whereas “Services” are natural processes that provide a benefit to the human environment;

Do not credit purely economic understanding of services (i.e. human labour/financial input)

Examples – Award [2 max] for an example from each column:

Alternative examples of equivalent validity, significance and relevance to those
given, should be credited.

[4 max]

natural capital is the sum of a natural resource in a given environment;
natural income is the growth/increase/interest on that capital over time;
for resource exploitation to be sustainable, it must not reduce the potential for future exploitation;
… hence natural income is a measure of (maximum) sustainable yield;
provided rate of harvest is below/equal to natural income/only natural income is harvested, the capital remains;
… which will have potential to provide the same income in the future;
if harvest is greater than natural income, natural capital is reduced;
...and reduction in capital will reduce potential for future harvesting/income;

Credit may be awarded for each of these marking points if they are conveyed through use of an example eg. sustainable fishing.

[6 max]

Award [3 max] for general points of distinction between two value systems:

Ecocentrism gives intrinsic value to natural resources/systems;
it argues that any exploitation must be sustainable/respect the biorights of species and landscapes;
centralised/state management/large scale technology should be avoided in the use/extraction of resources;

Technocentrism claims all resources can be justifiably exploited/controlled for human benefit;
it argues technology will provide solutions to all environmental problems / replace depleted resources;
resource exploitation should be limited only by scientific/technological development/economic needs/benefits;

Ecocentrism would appropriately argue to reduce or stop fossil fuel use because:
fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource and so cannot be exploited sustainably;
their exploitation often leads to significant habitat destruction eg oil spills/mining;
…this environmental impact has aesthetic/moral/spiritual implications addressed by ecocentrism;
their use contributes to global warming – so further disturbance to natural systems/species;
their exploitation and use involves large scale technology;
their use tends to be managed by central state authorities rather than local communities;
investing in fossil fuels hinders development/use of renewable alternatives;
dependence on fossil fuels can lead to international conflicts;

Technocentrism would appropriately argue to maintain or increase fossil fuel use because:
fossil fuels are still abundantly available;
the technology is already well-developed (and developing) for their extraction;
much of modern technology is geared toward/dependent on their use;
they can provide significant economic benefits to countries owning the resources;
technology is being developed for coping with environmental disturbances/oil spills etc;
oil extraction is one of the largest capital projects providing mass employment globally;
use of fossil fuels is essential in interim while renewable technology is being developed;
fossil fuels have been very effective in promoting economic development;
fossil fuels (esp natural gas) are very cost-effective sources of energy;

Award [1 max] for an explicit and valid conclusion.

Note to examiners: An isolated statement e.g. “the ecocentric approach is best” or an unjustified opinion e.g. “I’m an ecocentric, so I think this is best” should not be considered as a valid conclusion. The conclusion must be supported/justified by points raised that must have at least addressed both sides of argument. A valid conclusion may, however, be stated within the body of the response rather than at the end, and may suggest some combination/compromise of the two value systems:

eg In the short term a technocentric value system has some merit, but in the longer term ecocentric values are most appropriate in managing the use of fossil fuels; [1 max]

Alternative points of equivalent validity, significance and relevance to those given, should be credited.

Wording of question does allow for other value systems than those addressed above, and these can be credited along similar lines.

Award [5 max] for responses that do not explicitly link to the named value systems. Wording of question does allow for other value systems than those addressed above, and these can be credited along similar lines.

Otherwise, award [7 max] for marking points above, and [1 max] for a clear conclusion.

[8 max]

Expression of ideas: [2 max]

Generally good, though a good number struggled with the concept and example of services.

Generally poor. Many candidates had a poor grasp of these concepts of natural capital and income, seeing them in purely monetary terms. While there is an obvious parallel with economic concepts, in this subject, the concepts relate to the resources themselves and their ability to regenerate physical “income”, not financial profit.

Generally OK. Most candidates had some grasp of the key characteristics of specific value systems, though this was often a little vague. Candidates often struggled to apply these systems explicitly to the management of fossil fuels. Discussions often lacked valid conclusions derived from balanced argument.