Unit 12 - Essays - Degraded Environments UPDATED

Question 1

For one degraded environment, evaluate the extent to which attempts to improve the environment overcame the causes of its degradation.

Answer 1

Paragraph 1: Main Cause of Degradation (Historical Context)
Explain in detail the Soviet policy of diverting water from the Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers beginning in the 1960s.
Purpose: Intensive cotton farming (“white gold”).
Provide clear statistics:
Water loss: up to 40% lost due to poor canal design and evaporation.
Consequences: Aral Sea surface area shrank by approximately 60%, volume by 70% by 1989.
Spatial factor: Emphasize how decisions were made at a national scale (Soviet Union) without considering the regional or downstream impacts.
Temporal factor: Highlight that degradation continued for decades unchecked.
Clearly state the economic focus (short-term agriculture gains) at the expense of the environment.

Paragraph 2: Local-Scale Success (Kok-Aral Dam Project)
Clearly describe the Kok-Aral Dam built by Kazakhstan in 2005 with World Bank funding ($85 million).
Provide detailed evidence of success:
Raised water levels by approximately 4 meters in the Northern Aral Sea.
Increased sea surface area by 18% within three years.
Fisheries revival: fish catch rose significantly from 600 tons (1996) to approximately 6,000 tons (2007).
Spatial scale: Success was limited to the northern section of the Aral Sea.
Temporal factor: Demonstrate how quickly some ecosystems improved after the dam’s construction.
Evaluate: At a local scale, this attempt successfully overcame degradation, but it did not address the root causes of the broader degradation.

Paragraph 3: Continued Degradation in the Southern Aral Sea (Wider Spatial Scale)
Explain clearly that the southern portion of the Aral Sea continued to degrade significantly, with no similar large-scale infrastructure projects like the Kok-Aral Dam.
Provide detailed evidence of continued negative impacts:
Approximately 50,000 km² of the seabed exposed, creating extensive salt and chemical-laden desert areas.
Health impacts: dust storms affecting over 5 million people, causing respiratory illnesses, cancer, and skin diseases.
Spatial factor: Clearly contrast the northern (improved) and southern (ongoing degradation) areas.
Evaluate: Demonstrates clearly that without broad-scale action, local successes are insufficient.

Paragraph 4: Attempted Improvements to Irrigation Practices (Addressing Root Causes)
Outline clearly the irrigation improvement initiatives in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, such as drip irrigation and crop rotation methods.
Provide statistical evidence:
Potential water savings: 20-40% water reduction per farm.
Reality: less than 15% adoption rate among farmers.
Clearly explain barriers:
Economic obstacles (high initial costs for farmers).
Lack of government subsidies and incentives.
Temporal factor: Emphasize insufficient time for full adoption and impact.
Evaluate: Although attempts exist to tackle the root cause (inefficient irrigation), they have not yet overcome these economic and social barriers, therefore limiting their effectiveness.

Paragraph 5: Political and Regional Cooperation (International Scale)
Clearly discuss regional cooperation through the Interstate Commission for Water Coordination (ICWC), set up in the 1990s.
Provide evidence of challenges in political cooperation:
Persistent conflicts between upstream (Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan) and downstream countries (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan).
Different priorities (energy production vs. agricultural water use).
Ongoing conflicts prevent effective implementation of water-sharing agreements.
Temporal factor: Decades of diplomatic efforts, yet little tangible improvement in regional cooperation.
Evaluate: Political disagreements and tensions still remain a fundamental reason why attempts at broad-scale environmental recovery are unsuccessful.

Conclusion
Summarize clearly that attempts to improve the Aral Sea environment have been partially successful at a local scale (e.g., Kok-Aral Dam).
State clearly that the broader-scale causes (irrigation inefficiency, socio-economic barriers, political disagreements) have not been adequately addressed.
Make a clear final judgement: despite localized improvements, overall environmental restoration remains limited.

Question 2

‘Economic factors are the most important constraint on improving the quality of degraded environments.’

Answer 2

1. Economic Factors as a Key Constraint
   Main Argument: Economic limitations prevent effective restoration and environmental recovery projects.

Aral Sea (Central Asia)
Cause of degradation: Soviet irrigation projects (1960s) diverted the Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers to support cotton farming, leading to the Aral Sea losing 90% of its volume by 2007.
Financial constraint: Uzbekistan could not afford large-scale restoration, while Kazakhstan, with a $85 million World Bank loan, restored the northern part (Kok-Aral Dam).
Lesson learned: Money is a major factor—countries with funding recover, while those without remain degraded.
Delhi (India)
Cause of degradation: Rapid urbanization, industrial pollution, and poor infrastructure.
Economic constraint: The Smart Cities Mission ($14 billion) aimed at improving urban conditions, but lack of funds slowed implementation.
Example: Pollution control requires expensive solutions (e.g., electric buses, improved sewage systems), which are unaffordable for many.
Burkina Faso (West Africa)
Cause of degradation: Desertification due to climate change, deforestation, and poor land management.
Economic constraint: 90% of the population depends on subsistence farming, meaning they lack money for irrigation, drought-resistant crops, and soil restoration.
Example: The Great Green Wall Project (tree-planting to stop desert spread) struggles due to lack of funding for maintenance and expansion.
Mini Judgement: Economic factors are critical because they determine whether solutions (like afforestation, pollution control, and water management) can be implemented.

2. Political and Institutional Barriers
   Main Argument: Poor governance, corruption, and weak policies prevent environmental recovery, even when money is available.

Aral Sea
Uzbekistan’s failure: Despite recognizing the disaster, Uzbekistan prioritized cotton exports over environmental recovery.
Corruption and mismanagement: Even with potential foreign aid, poor governance prevented large-scale restoration.
Delhi
Weak regulations: The Indian government has money for urban renewal but fails to enforce pollution laws, allowing industries and traffic emissions to continue unchecked.
Example: Despite schemes for cleaner fuels and public transport, businesses continue using cheap but polluting energy sources.
Burkina Faso
Lack of policy enforcement: The government does not regulate land use effectively, allowing overgrazing and deforestation to continue.
International efforts weakened: The Great Green Wall Project struggles due to poor coordination between African governments.
Mini Judgement: Money alone does not fix degraded environments—strong governance is needed to implement and enforce solutions.

3. Social and Cultural Constraints
   Main Argument: Even if money and policies exist, local populations may resist change due to tradition, employment concerns, or lack of awareness.

Aral Sea
Fishing communities reluctant to relocate, even when the ecosystem collapsed.
Cultural attachment: Many people refused to move to urban centers for work, making economic recovery harder.
Delhi
Urban poor rely on polluting industries (brick kilns, waste burning)—banning them would harm their livelihoods.
Population pressure: Delhi’s population grew from 9.4 million (1991) to 32 million (2023), worsening housing and pollution problems.
Burkina Faso
Traditional farming techniques (slash-and-burn, overgrazing) continue, even when harmful.
Resistance to new methods: Some farmers distrust modern techniques, even when government or NGOs provide them for free.
Mini Judgement: Social resistance and economic hardship go hand in hand—without changing people’s mindsets, even well-funded programs fail.

4. Environmental and Physical Constraints
   Main Argument: Some environments are so damaged that even with funding, recovery is extremely difficult due to climate, geography, or long-term degradation.

Aral Sea
Extreme salinity (over 100g/L): Even if water returns, fish and plants cannot survive in the southern basin.
Long-term damage: The exposed seabed releases toxic dust, worsening regional health problems.
Delhi
Geographical challenge: Delhi is in a basin, trapping pollution, especially in winter (temperature inversion effect).
Weather conditions worsen air quality, making improvement difficult even if economic solutions exist.
Burkina Faso
Climate change intensifies desertification:
Temperatures have risen 1.2°C over the past century.
Unpredictable rainfall makes long-term land restoration difficult.
Mini Judgement: Nature sets limits—some places can never fully recover, no matter how much money is spent.

5. Spatial and Temporal Variations in Constraints
   Main Argument: The importance of economic factors varies by location and over time.

Spatial Variation (Different Places, Different Problems)
Aral Sea: Kazakhstan had financial support → partial recovery; Uzbekistan lacked funding → further degradation.
Delhi: The national government has money, but individual citizens and businesses struggle to afford cleaner alternatives.
Burkina Faso: Local farmers lack financial power, but international organizations like the UN offer support.
Temporal Variation (Changing Importance Over Time)
Aral Sea: The worst degradation was between 1960–1990, but since the 2000s, funding has improved some areas.
Delhi: Urban degradation has worsened with rapid industrialization in the last 30 years.
Burkina Faso: Short-term economic problems matter now, but long-term climate change may become the biggest issue.
Mini Judgement: Economic constraints are not always the biggest factor—they interact with time and place.

Conclusion
Restating the argument: Economic factors are a major constraint, but they are not the only or always the most important barrier.
Other significant constraints: Political failures, social resistance, and environmental limitations can prevent improvement even when funding is available.
Final judgement: In many cases, economic constraints matter the most, but without good governance, public cooperation, and favorable environmental conditions, money alone cannot fix degraded environments. A combination of financial investment, strong policies, and social change is needed for success.

Question 3

‘Overcoming issues created by the attempts to improve a degraded
environment is important for successful management.’
With reference to one or more examples, how far do you agree?

Answer 3

1. The Aral Sea: Hydrological and Socioeconomic Challenges
   Key Point: Restoring water levels in the North Aral Sea helped one region but worsened problems for another, showing the need for cross-border cooperation.

Explanation and Evidence:
Context: The Aral Sea shrank by 90% due to Soviet irrigation projects diverting its rivers. By 2007, the lake had almost disappeared, creating severe climate changes, biodiversity loss, and economic collapse.
Attempted solution: Kazakhstan built the Kok-Aral Dam (2005) to restore the North Aral Sea. Within 10 years, water levels rose by 30%, and fish species returned.
Problems created:
Uzbekistan suffered because the dam blocked water from the South Aral Sea, worsening desertification.
Fishermen could not fully recover as water was still contaminated from decades of pesticide use.
Disputes between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan over water rights made cooperation difficult.
Analysis: Overcoming these secondary issues (international cooperation, water pollution control) is necessary for long-term environmental and economic success.

2. Urban Pollution and Overcrowding in Delhi
   Key Point: Solutions to improve air quality and urban conditions created new challenges, proving that long-term environmental management needs social and economic planning.

Explanation and Evidence:
Context: Delhi’s rapid urbanization led to severe air pollution, ranking it among the world’s most polluted cities.
Attempted solution:
In 2001, public transport switched to compressed natural gas (CNG), initially reducing pollution.
Slums were cleared to reduce overcrowding.
Problems created:
CNG demand increased, causing fuel shortages and price hikes.
Air pollution returned due to rising private vehicle numbers. By 2020, PM2.5 levels were 98.6 µg/m³, 10 times above WHO limits.
Slum clearances displaced thousands, worsening homelessness and unemployment.
Analysis: The failure to address fuel supply, transport policies, and social consequences shows why overcoming emerging problems is key to successful long-term urban management.

3. Desertification in Burkina Faso: Challenges in Scaling Up Solutions
   Key Point: Local land restoration methods were successful, but large-scale management failed due to financial and governance issues.

Explanation and Evidence:
Context: Burkina Faso suffers from desertification due to climate change, deforestation, and overgrazing.
Attempted solution:
Farmers used the Zai technique (digging pits to trap water and nutrients), restoring over 200,000 hectares of land.
Large-scale projects like the Great Green Wall were introduced to stop desertification.
Problems created:
Lack of funding: International donors financed projects, but when funding stopped, restoration efforts collapsed.
Limited scalability: Farmers struggled to expand the Zai technique due to labor and resource shortages.
Land disputes arose over restored areas, creating tensions between communities.
Analysis: Overcoming financial, policy, and social challenges is necessary for sustained success in desertification control.

4. Variation in Scale, Time, and Location of Challenges
   Key Point: Environmental management challenges differ across spatial (local, national, international) and temporal (short-term vs. long-term) scales.

Explanation and Evidence:
Spatial variation:
Aral Sea – The regional restoration (North Aral) led to international disputes (Kazakhstan vs. Uzbekistan).
Delhi – Citywide pollution control failed because individual pollution sources increased.
Burkina Faso – Local land restoration was successful, but national-scale projects failed due to governance issues.
Temporal variation:
Short-term success vs. long-term failure:
Aral Sea: Immediate water restoration vs. long-term pollution and economic problems.
Delhi: Initial air quality improvement vs. later pollution rebound due to urban growth.
Burkina Faso: Farmers restored land but struggled to sustain progress over decades.
Analysis: Environmental management must address problems at different levels and be sustainable over time to succeed.

5. The Role of Governance and Policy in Overcoming Challenges
   Key Point: Government policies and funding decisions are critical in solving issues that arise from environmental management efforts.

Explanation and Evidence:
Aral Sea:
Kazakhstan’s investment in the Kok-Aral Dam improved conditions in the north.
Uzbekistan lacked funding and cooperation, worsening problems in the south.
Delhi:
Policies like vehicle bans and fuel taxes were introduced but failed due to weak enforcement.
Political instability made long-term planning difficult.
Burkina Faso:
The Great Green Wall relied on foreign funding, leading to failures when money ran out.
Better domestic policies could ensure long-term success.
Analysis: Governments must provide consistent policies, funding, and enforcement to overcome secondary environmental challenges.

Conclusion
Restoring degraded environments is not enough—managing the problems that arise from these efforts is crucial for long-term success.
The Aral Sea case shows the importance of water management and international cooperation.
Delhi’s example highlights the need for sustainable urban policies.
Burkina Faso’s case proves that financial and policy support is necessary.
Judgement: Overcoming these issues is the key factor in ensuring lasting environmental recovery and effective management.

Question 4

‘Population pressure is the main cause of environmental degradation.’ With reference to one or more rural or urban environments, how far do you agree?

Answer 4

1. The Aral Sea Disaster: Population Growth and Water Mismanagement
   Point:
   The Aral Sea shrank by over 90% due to overuse of water for cotton farming.

Evidence:
The Soviet government diverted the Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers in the 1960s for irrigation.
Between 1960 and 2000, the Aral Sea’s volume declined by 75%.
Fishing industry collapsed (over 40,000 people lost jobs).
Toxic dust storms from the exposed seabed increased respiratory diseases and cancer rates in the region.
Explanation:
Although population growth increased water demand, poor government policies and economic priorities (cotton exports) were the main causes.
Comparison: Other regions with growing populations have successfully managed water resources (e.g., Israel’s water recycling programs).
Judgment: Population pressure was a factor, but government policies and economic decisions played a much larger role.

2. Urban Degradation in Delhi: Overpopulation and Poor Waste Management
   Point:
   Delhi, one of the world’s most densely populated cities, struggles with severe pollution and waste management issues.

Evidence:
Air pollution:
PM2.5 levels regularly exceed 300 µg/m³, far above the WHO safe limit (25 µg/m³).
Main sources: vehicle emissions, construction dust, industrial activity.
Waste management:
The city produces 11,000 tonnes of waste per day, overwhelming landfills.
The Yamuna River is heavily polluted due to untreated sewage and industrial discharge.
Overcrowding:
High population density worsens sanitation problems, especially in slums.
Explanation:
While rapid population growth has worsened pollution, poor urban planning and weak environmental policies are more responsible.
Comparison: Cities like Tokyo and Singapore, with similar population densities, have effective pollution control through strict regulations and public transport investment.
Judgment: Population pressure is a key factor, but government failures and lack of infrastructure investment are the real causes of degradation.

3. Desertification in Burkina Faso: Population Growth and Unsustainable Farming
   Point:
   Burkina Faso’s population has grown rapidly, leading to land overuse and deforestation, worsening desertification.

Evidence:
Population growth:
From 4.7 million (1960) to 22 million (2024) → higher demand for land and food.
Desertification impacts:
34% of land is degraded.
Overgrazing and deforestation lead to soil erosion and loss of fertility.
Climate change:
Rainfall in the Sahel region declined by 20% from 1970 to 2010.
Rising temperatures make farming more difficult, accelerating desertification.
Explanation:
While population growth has increased pressure on land, climate change and poor land management are bigger problems.
Comparison: Some areas in Burkina Faso have slowed desertification using sustainable farming techniques (e.g., the Great Green Wall project).
Judgment: Population growth is a contributing factor, but climate change and poor agricultural practices are the main causes.

4. Spatial and Temporal Differences in Environmental Degradation
   Point:
   The impact of population pressure varies between urban vs rural areas and across different time periods.

Evidence:
Rural:
Burkina Faso’s desertification is worsened by climate change and land mismanagement, not just population growth.
Urban:
Delhi’s pollution crisis is due to government inaction and poor infrastructure, not just overpopulation.
Temporal variation:
In the 1960s, Aral Sea degradation was human-induced, but today, climate change makes recovery harder.
Some environmental problems can be reversed (e.g., afforestation in Burkina Faso).
Explanation:
Spatial: Different environments experience degradation in different ways.
Temporal: Over time, human interventions can either worsen or improve environmental damage.
Judgment: Population pressure is not a universal cause of degradation—it interacts with other factors.

5. Alternative Causes: Governance, Economic Policies, and Climate Change
   Point:
   Other factors often play a bigger role in environmental degradation than population pressure.

Evidence:
Poor governance:
Weak environmental laws in Delhi allow industries to pollute freely.
Economic priorities:
The Aral Sea crisis was caused by a focus on cotton exports, not just growing water demand.
Climate change:
Rising temperatures in Burkina Faso have accelerated land degradation.
Successful management in high-density areas:
Singapore has a high population density but remains environmentally sustainable due to strong policies.
Explanation:
Good governance and sustainable development can reduce environmental degradation even in densely populated areas.
Comparison: Some less-populated areas experience severe environmental degradation due to poor land use (e.g., deforestation in the Amazon).
Judgment: Environmental degradation is a complex issue—population growth is just one of many factors.

Conclusion
Restate argument: Population pressure contributes to environmental degradation but is not the main cause.
Summarize case studies:
Aral Sea: Government decisions and economic policies were the real cause.
Delhi: Poor planning and weak environmental laws worsened pollution.
Burkina Faso: Climate change and unsustainable farming played a bigger role.
Final judgment: Addressing environmental degradation requires more than just population control—governance, sustainable policies, and climate resilience are more important solutions.

Question 5

“Evaluate the effectiveness of attempts to protect one or more environments at risk of being degraded.”

Answer 5

1. The Aral Sea: Limited Success, Spatial Variation in Effectiveness
   Key Points
   What was the problem?
   The Aral Sea was once the 4th largest lake in the world, but irrigation projects diverted 90% of its water by the early 2000s.
   The loss of water led to desertification, toxic dust storms, and destruction of fisheries.
   What was attempted?
   The Kok-Aral Dam (2005), funded by $86 million from the World Bank, helped restore the North Aral Sea.
   Water levels rose by 30%, fish stocks returned, and 13,000 people benefited.
   What were the problems?
   The South Aral Sea (Uzbekistan) remains mostly dry because irrigation policies continue.
   International cooperation is weak, preventing large-scale restoration.
   Evaluation: Effective or not?
   Locally successful in Kazakhstan, but ineffective at a wider scale.
   Shows spatial variation – one part recovered, the other did not.
   Long-term success uncertain – dependent on continued management.
2. Urban Degradation in Delhi: Some Successes, Many Failures
   Key Points
   What is the problem?
   Severe air, water, and waste pollution due to overpopulation, traffic, and industrial waste.
   Air pollution causes 1.67 million deaths per year in India.
   The Yamuna River is one of the most polluted rivers in the world.
   What was attempted?
   Odd-Even Traffic Rule (2016-2019):
   Reduced air pollution by 13-15% during peak hours, but only worked when enforced.
   Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) (2017-present):
   Reduced PM2.5 pollution by 25% over five years, but pollution remains high due to crop burning in nearby states.
   Yamuna Action Plan (1993-present, $500 million invested):
   Failed to significantly improve water quality due to poor waste management and industrial pollution.
   Evaluation: Effective or not?
   Short-term success, long-term failure – pollution control measures show temporary improvements, but pollution quickly returns.
   Economic trade-offs – industries and businesses resist strong enforcement.
   Political complexity – Delhi alone cannot control pollution from neighboring states.
3. Desertification in Burkina Faso: Local Success but Large-Scale Failure
   Key Points
   What is the problem?
   470,000 hectares of land are lost to desertification each year.
   Causes: climate change, overgrazing, deforestation, and poor land management.
   What was attempted?
   Zai pits and stone bunds (traditional farming techniques):
   Increased crop yields by 50% between 1990 and 2010.
   Helped restore soil fertility and prevent further land degradation.
   The Great Green Wall project (Pan-African initiative):
   Aimed to plant 8,000 km of trees to block the spread of the Sahara.
   By 2020, only 4% of the project was completed due to lack of funding and political instability.
   Evaluation: Effective or not?
   Local solutions (Zai pits) are very effective, but large-scale projects struggle.
   Shows scale variation – local projects work, but national/international ones fail.
   Long-term success depends on continued funding and governance.
4. Economic and Political Challenges Affecting Environmental Protection
   Key Points
   Funding and economic trade-offs
   The Aral Sea recovered in the north because of international funding, but Uzbekistan kept using water for farming, showing economic priorities.
   In Delhi, industries resist strong regulations because they fear economic loss.
   In Burkina Faso, local farming efforts are cost-effective, but big projects like the Great Green Wall lack funding.
   Political challenges
   The Aral Sea crisis involves multiple countries, but cooperation is weak.
   In Delhi, air pollution comes from both Delhi and neighboring states, making solutions hard to enforce.
   Burkina Faso’s government lacks resources to expand successful local projects into national policies.
   Evaluation: Effective or not?
   Economic factors limit long-term effectiveness.
   Political cooperation is essential but often missing.
5. Short-Term vs. Long-Term Effectiveness
   Key Points
   Short-term success
   North Aral Sea recovered quickly after the Kok-Aral Dam.
   Delhi’s pollution laws work temporarily, but pollution returns when enforcement stops.
   Long-term failures
   The South Aral Sea is beyond recovery.
   The Great Green Wall has made very little progress in 20 years.
   Evaluation: Effective or not?
   Short-term solutions are easier to implement but do not last.
   Long-term success requires constant funding, adaptation, and political will.

Conclusion
Effectiveness varies by location, scale, and time.
The Aral Sea partially recovered in the north but failed in the south.
Delhi’s pollution control had some success, but long-term enforcement is weak.
Burkina Faso’s local efforts work well, but national-scale projects struggle.
For better results, governments need stronger policies, better funding, and regional cooperation.