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

• 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;

• Natural resources like water/food/productive land/fossil fuel/ore deposits are distributed unequally around the globe, with some countries having an abundance while others face scarcity. This inequitable distribution can lead to conflict, as countries with limited resources may invade others to access their resources. For example, conflicts have arisen over ore deposits in Congo and Afghanistan. 1 mark

• Inequalities in resource distribution can also arise within societies due to factors such as overconsumption, population growth, lack of technology (agricultural/extraction/mining), or unsustainable development. Changes in surroundings, such as climatic change, international politics, economics, war, or embargoes, can further exacerbate these inequalities. 1 mark

  • For instance, the food price crisis in 2008 caused protests, riots, and political, economic, and social unrest in both less economically developed countries (LEDCs) and more economically developed countries (MEDCs). 1 mark
  • Additionally, water scarcity due to climate change in Syria is argued to be a major cause of the civil war in 2011. 1 mark

• Conflicts often arise when a resource is shared across national borders, such as water storages or oil deposits. For example, the sharing of the Nile's water resources between Ethiopia, Sudan, and Egypt has been a source of tension. 1 mark

• Inequalities in energy and fuel reserves are particularly significant for a country's economics and national security, leading to and promulgating many conflicts in regions like the Middle East. 1 mark

• Conflicts can also occur between constituencies within a country, such as social classes, ethnic groups, or resentments over government regulations, bans, taxation, or private ownership versus public ownership. For instance, conflicts may arise when the cost of clean water is prohibitive for lower social classes. 1 mark

Award 1 mark for any argument/valid example connecting unequal resource distribution to conflict. Allow a maximum of 4 marks for outlining inequality in resource distribution without clear reference to how it leads 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