To what extent could development away from traditional lifestyles lead to greater sustainability in Madagascar?

This question requires “Resource Booklet - May 2018 SL paper 1”, available under the "your tests" tab > supplemental materials.

Argument for development away from traditional lifestyles [4 max]:
reduction in tavy agriculture would reduce deforestation/carbon dioxide emissions/soil erosion/soil degradation / tavy is unsustainable because it results in loss of trees/carbon dioxide emissions/soil erosion/soil degradation / increase in alternative practices e.g. agroforestry could increase sustainability by reducing soil degradation/reducing soil erosion/increasing carbon sink;
increase in tourism services could increase investment in conservation / establishing more national parks (to increase tourism) would limit deforestation/protect wildlife;
increase in service industry could reduce dependency on agriculture e.g. tavy;
increase education opportunities lead to better environmental awareness;
increased use of family planning/smaller family sizes could reduce population growth and potentially in the long term lower Madagascar’s ecological footprint;
migration from rural areas will reduce impact in these areas;
traditional beliefs that aye-aye are evil/bring bad luck/pests and should be killed could negatively impact their population/increase their risk of extinction;
alternative energy sources such as solar/wind power could be more sustainable than the traditional use of charcoal / use of renewable energy does not deplete resources (e.g. wood/fossil fuels)/produces lower emissions of carbon dioxide/greenhouse gases.

Against [4 max]:
use of alternative farming methods such as intensive farming could lead to soil degradation/loss of nutrients from soil/increase in runoff containing pesticides/nutrients damaging habitats;
migration to/growth of urban/tourist centres could increase deforestation to build more housing;
development of tourist resort/urbanisation could increase loss of mangrove forest/increase edge effect;
migration to/growth of urban/tourist centres could increase water stress in those areas;
migration to/growth of urban/tourist centres could increase discharges of sewage effluent that have a negative impact in those areas / sewage waste from tourism could damage reef systems/cause eutrophication within aquatic systems;
urbanization/growth of tourist centres could reduce biocapacity/amount of productiveland;
increase in tourism/urbanisation could lead to more roads that damage/fragment habitats;
tourism could increase damage to coral reefs through boat anchors/trampling;
country does not have systems in place to manage higher levels of solid domestic waste production from tourism / increased littering/waste disposal from tourism could damage habitats/species;
ecological footprint has stayed relatively stable (since 1961);
change in lifestyle is likely to increase consumerism/ecological footprint;
it would take time for land/forest that has been degraded (e.g. through tavy) to become suitable for agroforestry;
food production may become less localized/more intensive;
fewer farmers could lead to dependency on importation of food.

Award [5 max] for arguments for and against.

Conclusion [1 mark] e.g.:
change to agroforestry is likely to increase sustainability but it is not so clear that ecotourism will.

A valid conclusion should be credited if it is explicit, balanced (addresses both sides of the argument) and supported by evidence.
Accept other reasonable responses that link changes in lifestyle to sustainability.

Responses varied widely from 0 to 6 marks. Many responses only focused on changes in agriculture practice from tavy to agroforestry and did not develop other potential changes eg move to tourism or increase in urbanisation. Some answers only focused on economic sustainability and did not consider environmental sustainability. Many accounts also lacked a counter argument to a change in lifestyle or a balanced conclusion.