Unit 12 - Essays - One Degraded Environment Flashcards
(4 cards)
With reference to one degraded environment, assess the success of attempts to improve the environment.
Paragraph 1 – Partial success in North Aral Sea (Kazakhstan)
Kok-Aral Dam built in 2005 with World Bank support.
Water levels rose, salinity dropped, fish (e.g. carp, pike) returned.
Fishing industry and local economy revived in Aralsk.
Paragraph 2 – Environmental improvement in North
Fewer dust storms due to wetter microclimate.
Some biodiversity recovering (birds, aquatic life).
Safer air quality near restored shoreline.
Paragraph 3 – Failure in the South Aral Sea (Uzbekistan)
Cotton farming continues; Amu Darya overextracted.
Sea almost completely dried; biodiversity lost.
Local communities (e.g. Muynak) still suffer dust storms and unemployment.
Paragraph 4 – Limited irrigation reform and regional cooperation
Uzbekistan slow to modernise irrigation.
No effective regional water-sharing treaty among Central Asian states.
High evaporation loss from unlined canals persists.
Paragraph 5 – Recent efforts show some promise
Afforestation of Aralkum Desert (e.g. planting saxaul trees) to reduce dust.
Cotton reform policies and crop diversification in early stages.
Conclusion – Judgement:
Efforts in the North Aral Sea have been moderately successful, but the overall environmental restoration remains limited, especially in the South, due to continued economic dependence on cotton and lack of regional cooperation.
‘Problems faced in attempts to improve degraded environments are caused by a lack of capital.’ With reference to one or more examples, how far do you agree?
Paragraph 1 – Agree: Aral Sea restoration hindered by funding limits
South Aral Sea received less donor support than the North.
Large-scale irrigation reform unaffordable for rural Uzbek farmers.
Afforestation and modern canal lining underfunded.
Paragraph 2 – Agree: Burkina Faso’s rural restoration limited by poverty
Farmers cannot afford fertiliser, irrigation, or tech.
NGO-supported areas (e.g. Yatenga) show success, but funding gaps exist.
Long-term aid is inconsistent.
Paragraph 3 – Disagree: Governance and cooperation failures more significant (Aral Sea)
Water mismanagement and regional tension caused crisis.
Even with some funding, no coordinated agreement exists among riparian states.
Paragraph 4 – Disagree: Behavioural and institutional issues in urban settings (Delhi)
Air and water pollution worsened by poor enforcement, not just lack of money.
Infrastructure exists, but bureaucratic inefficiency blocks progress.
Paragraph 5 – Mixed: Capital is a key constraint but not the only one
Capital enables action, but without political will or cooperation, money is wasted.
Donor fatigue, misallocation, and corruption also matter.
Conclusion – Judgement:
Lack of capital is a major constraint, especially in LICs and in large-scale schemes like the Aral Sea, but other constraints (e.g. governance, policy, conflict) are often just as significant, if not more so.
‘Unless we practise sustainable management in our generation, future generation will have to pay the price of environmental degradation.’
With reference to one or more examples, to what extent do you agree?
Paragraph 1 – Agree: Aral Sea shows clear long-term consequences
1960s river diversion caused collapse by 1980s.
2000s generation now faces toxic dust, job loss, and ecosystem collapse.
Children suffer high rates of respiratory illness in Karakalpakstan.
Paragraph 2 – Agree: Burkina Faso’s land degradation affects food security
Overgrazing and poor farming practices reduce soil fertility.
Younger generations face desertification and rural poverty.
Risk of environmental refugees increasing.
Paragraph 3 – Disagree: Some positive trends suggest learning and adaptation
North Aral Sea recovery shows that sustainable restoration is possible.
Burkina Faso’s Zaï pits and stone bunds show local action can halt decline.
Paragraph 4 – Disagree: Urban improvements are ongoing (Delhi)
Waste management reforms and green planning in South Delhi may reduce future urban heat and pollution.
Sustainable cities are possible with better planning and enforcement.
Paragraph 5 – Mixed: Future outcomes depend on today’s choices
Environmental degradation is often slow and cumulative.
Delay or inaction today shifts costs (health, food, water) to the future.
Conclusion – Judgement:
Strongly agree: Failure to act sustainably now guarantees environmental and human costs later, as the Aral Sea tragedy shows clearly. Some progress is possible, but requires urgency and long-term vision.
For one degraded environment, evaluate the extent to which attempts to improve the environment overcame the causes of its degradation.
Paragraph 1 – Cause: River diversion for cotton → Solution: Partial river redirection (Kok-Aral Dam)
North Aral Sea trapped Syr Darya inflow → restored fish stocks and water level.
South Aral Sea: No reversal of Amu Darya diversion → degradation continues.
Paragraph 2 – Cause: Inefficient irrigation → Solution: Canal lining (Kazakhstan)
Some success near Syr Darya.
In Uzbekistan, most canals remain unlined → water still wasted.
Paragraph 3 – Cause: Overdependence on cotton → Solution: Slow diversification
Uzbekistan has started reform but cotton still dominant.
Economic and political barriers prevent full crop switch.
Paragraph 4 – Cause: Toxic dust storms → Solution: Aralkum afforestation
Saxaul tree planting reduces dust in parts of the dried seabed.
Limited in scale compared to 60,000 km² of desert.
Paragraph 5 – Cause: Regional tension → Solution: Still lacking
No effective multi-country water agreement.
Each country acts independently, undermining basin-wide efforts.
Conclusion – Judgement:
Only some of the original causes of degradation have been addressed (e.g. Syr Darya use, afforestation). Core drivers like poor irrigation, cotton dependency, and geopolitical conflict remain, meaning partial, local success but limited large-scale reversal.
