AO1 (5 marks)/AO2 (15 marks)

Marking instructions
Markers must apply the descriptors in line with the general marking guidance and the qualities outlined in the levels-based mark scheme below.
Responses that demonstrate only AO1 without any AO2 should be awarded marks as follows:

Level 1 AO1 performance: 1 mark
Level 2 AO1 performance: 2 marks
Level 3 AO1 performance: 3 marks.
Level 4 AO1 performance: 4–5 marks.

Indicative content guidance
The indicative content below is not prescriptive, and candidates are not required to include all of it. Other relevant material not suggested below must also be credited. Relevant points may include:

AO1

The potential for conflicts to occur between users within a country, and internationally over local and trans-boundary water sources
Integrated drainage basin management for large rivers (Nile or Colorado)
Water sharing treaties and frameworks (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), Water Convention, Helsinki, and the Water Framework Directive and Hydropower, Berlin).

AO2

Transboundary conflicts can be within a country such as the conflicts between the upper and lower basin users in the Colorado as well as between countries such as those on the Mekong between China and Vietnam.
A key reason why despite there being water sharing treaties and frameworks these have had little success in reducing the conflicts arising from trans-boundary water sources is that there are no international rules for solving disputes. Whilst upstream countries claim territorial sovereignty (it is our water and we will use it how we like), downstream countries claim territorial integrity (we should receive the same amount and quality as we always have had in the past).
This was the case for the Mekong River commission where the downstream users such as Cambodia and Thailand have signed the MRC and reduced conflicts particularly over Lake Tonle Sap. Burma and China have yet to sign the treaty and as they control the upstream river water and so the of the Lower Basin users are dependent on the goodwill of the upstream countries. Yet China and Burma have already constructed 4 dams on the river and so the MRC has not successfully reduced conflicts.
Another key reason why water sharing treaties and frameworks have had little success in reducing the conflicts arising from trans-boundary water sources is that there is often asymmetrical power relationship between the users. The International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) managed, through the 1944 United States-Mexico Treaty for Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande, to guarantee the annual flows of water to Mexico. Although this led to the building of a desalinisation plant that treated the water from the Wellton-Mohawk river before returning it to the Colorado River it has not resolved the issues of a lack of water but has made the water less saline. There is still, however, the ongoing issue of ground water extraction. The Aquifer on the Mexican side of the border is very low as US famers over extract the resource. Despite negotiations since 1973 the issue remains unresolved.
Water treaties can also only be successful where there is little geopolitical tension. Where water crosses from one country to another where relations are poor there the conflict over the use of the water becomes part of the wider geopolitical tensions and as a result the conflicts are less likely to be resolved.
Water treaties can also only be successful when authoritarian government makes decisions such as the South North Water transfer in China, where there is no room for conflict as Government overrules objections
Yet despite the lack of success of some water treaties and frameworks other frameworks have had more success. A key reason why some have succeeded is that they are based on the Helsinki Rules which suggested that water sharing between regions should consider natural factors, social and economic needs and downstream impacts amongst other factors. As a result, there have been a variety of treaties such as the Indus Water Treaty (1960) and the Ganges Treaty (1996).
Furthermore, other treaties have had success when they have been part of a wider political union such as the EU Water Framework Directive. This encouraged the development of River Basin Plan. The plan is a detailed account of how the objectives set for the river basin (ecological status, quantitative status, chemical status and protected area objectives) are to be reached within the timescale required. Crucially it insisted that all interested parties are fully involved in this discussion.
Other international institutions have developed the EUWFD such as the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Framework (UNECE). Signatories to this framework pledged to protect and ensure the quality, quantity and sustainable use of transboundary water resources by facilitating cooperation. A good example of how this can reduce water conflicts is the Drin Basin.
Another framework that has been developed concentrates specifically on those river basins that have dams and reservoirs. This is the Hydropower framework that was developed from a conference held in Berlin to improve technical approaches for good practice in hydropower use.
Accept agreements within a country, e.g., reservoirs in Lake District,Thirlmere and Haweswater which supply Manchester

Water Insecurity (Edexcel A Level Geography)

Topic Questions