Outline the reasons why natural capital has a dynamic nature.

Explain how the inequitable distribution of natural resources can lead to conflict.

The management of a resource can impact the production of solid domestic waste.

To what extent have the three levels of the pollution management model been successfully applied to the management of solid domestic waste?

the value and status of natural capital may vary regionally;
eg cork may be highly valued in areas where grapes for wine are grown;
the value may also vary over time;
eg cork has been used for millennia as bottle stoppers for wine and other products but in the last 20 years its value has decreased as other resources have been used to seal wine bottles;
the value may vary due to other reasons, eg social/political;
eg uranium’s value decreased quickly after the Fukushima nuclear disaster when public pressure led to several countries declaring they would phase out nuclear power;
the value may vary due to environmental/technological reasons;
eg lithium’s value has increased as it is used to make batteries for electric cars and personal devices;

Award [1] for each correct reason and/or example, up to [4 max]. N.B. Credit may be allowed for alternative egs of equivalent validity, detail and relevance.

natural resources like water/food/productive land/fossil fuel/ore deposits are distributed unequally around the globe/some countries have a lot, some others have few;
eg sub-Saharan African countries face water shortages/Middle East countries have a huge surplus of oil;
which may lead one country to invade another for its resources eg ore deposits in Congo/Afghanistan;
inequitabilities may also arise from changes within societies due to over consumption/population growth/lack of technology (agricultural/extraction/mining)/unsustainable development;
…or from changes in their surroundings eg climatic change/international politics/economics/war/embargoes;
eg food price crisis in 2008 causing protests/riots/political/economic/social unrest (in both LEDCs & MEDCs);
eg water scarcity due to climate change in Syria is argued to be a major cause of civil war in 2011;
Inequitability often leads to conflict when a resource is shared across national borders (usually water storages or oil deposits);
eg sharing the Nile’s water resources between Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt;
inequitability in energy/fuel reserves is particularly significant to economics/national security;
eg leading to, and promulgating many conflicts in the Middle East;
conflicts can also occur between constituencies within a country eg social classes/ethnic groups/resentments over government regulations/bans/taxation/private ownerships v public;
eg when cost of clean water is prohibitive for lower social classes;

Award 1 mark for any argument/valid eg connecting unequal resource distribution to conflict;
Allow 4 max for outlining inequality in resource distribution without clear reference on how it is leading to conflict.

The following guide for using the markbands suggests certain features that may be offered in responses. The five headings coincide with the criteria given in each of the markbands (although “ESS terminology” has been conflated with“Understanding concepts”). This guide simply provides some possible inclusions and should not be seen as requisite or comprehensive. It outlines the kind of elements to look for when deciding on the appropriate markband and the specific mark within that band.

Answers may include:

• understanding concepts and terminology of pollution management model and its “three levels” ie A. altering human activity/reducing production, B. regulating/limiting release, C. clean-up/restoration, economic incentives/disincentives, legislation, emission standards, pollutant extraction, habitat restoration, solid domestic waste, e-waste, hazardous waste, reduce/reuse/recycle, landfills, incineration, composting, biodegradable/non-biodegradable, zero-waste, waste to energy, etc
• breadth in addressing and linking different levels with each other and with relevant management strategies to each ie A. educational campaigns/legislation for reduced packaging/non-biodegradable products, product longevity, etc and B. promotion of reuse/recycling, composting, landfills, incineration, waste to energy schemes, etc and C. landfill reclamation, litter collection, bioremediation, detoxification of hazardous waste, restocking, etc
• examples of specific schemes eg A. tax on plastic bags/waste collection (eg Germany/Rwanda), San Francisco zero waste by 2020, rewards for low-waste manufacturing, B. government waste to energy schemes, sponsored recycling schemes, C. mining landfills to remove hazardous waste (e.g. Switzerland), clean-up schemes for Pacific Garbage Patch, etc
• balanced analysis of the success or otherwise i.e. relative strengths & weaknesses of a range of strategies from all three levels of the pollution management model acknowledging relevant counterarguments/alternative viewpoints.
• a conclusion that is consistent with, and supported by, analysis and examples given eg “Logically, it must be most effective to manage waste at the first level which prevents problems arising but, due to the inevitable inertia in changing people’s perceptions, values and activities, more is currently being successfully achieved through the next two levels.” NB This is only an example of a possible conclusion. Candidates’ conclusions do not have to agree.

Please refer to paper 2 markbands, available under the "your tests" tab > supplemental materials

Where candidates correctly associated the term “dynamic” with the status or economic value of a resource/natural capital, they generally scored well on exemplifying this in their response.

Although most candidates could recognise the principle being addressed, they generally failed to gain full credit by limiting their response to a single context in which conflict over resources arise, rather than exploring a fuller breadth of contexts to more fully explain the phenomenon.

While a good proportion of candidates had some notion of the 3-level pollution management model, some struggled to apply this to the management of solid domestic waste. And, many of those that were able to do this failed to go on to evaluate its success with any rigour. Such a lack of analytical skill commonly kept the response out of the 7-9 band and even limited scores within the 4-6 band.