Identify four strategies that can be used in the sustainable management of wild fisheries.

Evaluate the sustainability of two water management strategies to improve access to freshwater resources in a society.

To what extent can the different environmental value systems improve the sustainability of food production?

1. use of quotas / international regulations against overfishing/by-catch/fishing endangered species;
2. designation of marine protected areas (exclusion zones) / restriction of fishing zones;
3. restrictions/bans on types and size of fishing gear (including mesh size / bottom trawling / drift nets/ cyanide/dynamite fishing);
4. restrictions on time/season/size/age allowed to fish;
5. monitoring illegal fishing through technology/permits/licenses;
6. research and support of calculation of maximum sustainable yield;
7. labelling schemes to provide consumers with information on sustainability of fish;
8. campaigns to reduce consumption of wild caught fish / promotion of aquaculture;

Examples of strategies [2 max]:

1. reservoirs; dams; rainwater harvesting; water diversion projects; international sale of water resources; desalination; artificial glaciers; cloud seeding; water conservation/grey water reuse; restoration of wetlands; prevention of water pollution; pumping of aquifers;
   
   Evaluation may include factors such as…
2. impact of cost on economic sustainability of population;
3. demand placed on human / physical resources;
4. climate impact – carbon negative/neutral/positive;
5. impact on ecosystem resilience;
6. impact on biodiversity;
7. interference with natural cycles;
8. limiting geographical/climatic factors;

The following examples of water management strategies and their evaluation show how credit can be given for any appropriate strategy.

Example 1: Rainwater harvesting;
Positive:
does not impact natural water cycle / replenishment rate / impossible to reduce natural income;
free natural capital;
useful for watering plants/irrigation / washing / fire protection / (thus) reduces consumption of groundwater/other freshwater resources;

Negative:
availability restricted temporally and spatially (unequal distribution of rain / unpredictable supply);
usually not safe for drinking;
can’t satisfy needs of irrigation of commercial agriculture;

Example 2: Desalinization;
Positive:
sustainable if energy required produced by photovoltaic cells;
sea water is more available than freshwater;
provides accessible/safe drinking/irrigation water;
salt may be used for producing useful chemical products (sodium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid);
reduces pressure on freshwater reserves that need protection;

Negative:
requires huge amounts of energy / increase GCC if fossil fuel used;
not available in landlocked countries;
building of facilities result in environmental damage/pollution;
disposing of salt (brine) poses environmental hazards/pollutes ocean / salt is contaminated so can’t be eaten;
high cost to build and operate that may be economically unsustainable;

Notes: Award [1 mark] for each appropriately identified strategy for improving access to freshwater up to [2 max].
Do not accept simplistic statements not clearly linked to sustainability, e.g. cheap / efficient / doesn’t need elaborate equipment/scientific expertise.
Accept statements such as “its cost is too great to be economically sustainable / its cost may divert economic resources away from habitat/species protection / resource requirement maybe unsustainable for LEDCs”.
Award [5 max] if only positive OR only negative evaluation OR only one strategy evaluated.
Award [1 max] for each clear negative or positive evaluation of each factor.

Refer to paper 2 markbands, available under “your tests”  tab > supplemental materials.

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 environmental value systems; ecocentric/anthropocentric/technocentric; sustainability; sustainable development; environmental indicators; ecological footprint; natural capital & income; aquatic and terrestrial food production; soil; biodiversity; eutrophication;
• breadth in addressing and linking inclusion of both aquatic and terrestrial systems; variety of systems in different climates; variety of factors affecting sustainability (sub-topic 5.2);
• examples of food production systems in terrestrial systems and aquatic systems;
• balanced analysis includes ecocentric, anthropocentric and technocentric solutions and a mix of terrestrial and aquatic systems; and evaluation of their relative impact on sustainability;
• a conclusion that is consistent with, and supported by, analysis and examples given e.g. an ecocentric approach to food production may be the most sustainable with minimal input of pesticides, fertilizers and small-scale production but the addition of some low technological solutions such as monitoring of climate and drip irrigation with an anthropocentric addition of setting limits to the use of pesticides and fertilizers and incentives to reduce climate change will be the most successful approach;

Note: IB considers anthropocentrism as “humans sustainably managing global system” (through regulations/policies/incentives etc.) rather than the common dictionary definition that it means simply “humans are the central/most significant entities in the world” leading to an understanding of the EVS as cornucopian (which it isn’t necessarily). Responses addressing anthropocentrism should be evaluated in this light.

Most candidates were able to identify several strategies for sustainable management of wild fisheries, although a few mistakenly addressed aquacultural systems.

Majority of candidates were able to describe two water management strategies but often failed to evaluate their sustainability in any detail.

Characterisation of value systems tended to be simplistic/inaccurate particularly in the distinctive features of anthropocentrism. However, a good range of food production strategies was offered.