6 marks – do large water transfer schemes bring more benefits than problems?
'Large-scale water transfer schemes bring more benefits than problems.'
Using an example, to what extent do you agree with this statement? [6 marks]
- AO1: show knowledge of a named scheme and its features
- AO2: show understanding of how and why the scheme causes benefits and problems
- AO3: weigh benefits against problems and reach a supported judgement
- A named large-scale scheme with specific features (dams, tunnels, rivers, places served)
- Benefits and problems explained for both the donor and the receiving areas
- Social, economic and environmental impacts
- A judgement that considers who gains, who loses, and sustainability
| Level | Marks | What it looks like |
|---|---|---|
| Level 3 (Detailed) | 5–6 | Detailed, accurate knowledge of a named scheme. Benefits and problems are explained in developed chains of reasoning and weighed against each other to reach a clear, justified judgement on 'to what extent'. |
| Level 2 (Clear) | 3–4 | Clear knowledge of a scheme with some specific detail. Benefits and problems are explained, but one side may be thin and the judgement only partly supported. |
| Level 1 (Basic) | 1–2 | Basic or generic knowledge, possibly without a named scheme. Benefits or problems are listed rather than explained, with little or no judgement. |
- Lesotho Highlands Water Project: Lesotho (surplus) → Gauteng, South Africa (deficit); treaty 1986
- Benefits: reliable water for Gauteng; royalties and HEP for Lesotho
- Problems: displacement and lost farmland; reduced river flows; corruption
- Judgement: largely agree – but gains go mainly to the receiving area
Show the top-band model answer
The Lesotho Highlands Water Project, agreed in a treaty between Lesotho and South Africa in 19862, transfers water from the mountains of Lesotho, which have a water surplus1, through dams such as Katse and Mohale and tunnels into the Vaal river system, to supply Gauteng, the area around Johannesburg and Pretoria, which has a large water deficit.
The scheme has brought major benefits. Gauteng, South Africa's economic heartland, now has a more reliable water supply for homes, factories and mines, which supports jobs and economic growth3. Lesotho, one of the poorest countries in Africa, receives royalty payments4 for the water, which form an important part of government income, and the 'Muela hydroelectric power station reduces its need to import electricity.
However, there have been serious problems. Thousands of people lost homes or farmland when valleys were flooded, and many said their compensation was inadequate. Reduced river flows below the dams have harmed river ecosystems5 and the people who rely on them, and the project's chief executive was convicted of taking bribes from construction companies.
Overall, I agree to a large extent, because the scheme supplies water to millions of people and gives Lesotho much-needed income. However, the problems fell mainly on rural communities in Lesotho6, while the main gains went to South African cities, so the benefits only outweigh the problems if those who lose out are properly compensated.
- Describing the scheme without discussing impacts
- Only covering the receiving area
- Confusing large-scale transfer schemes with small-scale sustainable schemes
- Writing a 9-mark essay – in this 6-mark question, two or three developed points each way plus a judgement is enough
- Concluding without weighing benefits against problems