Edexcel Geography A2 Unit 4: Life on the Margins- 9th June 2017

Hi all, I'm an international student from the UAE undertaking this exam in a few weeks, I just want to clarify what system design and capacity building means? also high capacity building and low capacity building. I've done my research, I'm just a bit confused as to what i should put my report as and how to structure it. THANKS

There are plenty of other ways of structuring.

I have never seen Capacity building, Short term relief or System redesign in any examiner reports before. I introduced it to this forum because it was in one of the revision textbooks.

If you don't understand it/have the book, it may be better to structure in another way: maybe different strategies based upon location, scale, nature of issue or importance.

I posted a few pages back what was meant by the different strategies.

Here is the first part of the analysis section of my mock exam to the question:
'Local strategies are the most important priority for improving food security. Discuss'

3.1 Local capacity building is a less important priority than an international approach:

It is first important to suggest that the worst food insecurity is experienced in dryland environments where 1bn face availability issues. Hence a large scale approach to improve availability is the most important and should be prioritised. Therefore local dryland solutions are unlikely to provide widespread improvements to food security. Zai farming in Yatenga Province, Burkina Faso has successfully improved yields by up to 500% according to an IFPRI survey in 2013. This is because it works to capture runoff and improve productivity of unfertile land. Similarly intercropping in Luando Ara, Kenya used desmodium plant to help reduce invasive species such as '"stem borer moth by 2/3rds" - ICIPE Leaflet: Push-pull farming, 2013. However, most critically these strategies should not be prioritiesed at a local scale alone. They often result in inequalities. For instance The IFPRI suggested concerns that 'Project AgroForester in Burkina Faso [Zai Farming] 'did not reach the poorest farmers'. Therefore, although a local capacity building approach has the potential to benefit local villages (400 in Yatenga Provide - ICIPE), it does not have the scale or capacity to benefit on a large scale.

Hence, it can be suggested that a more important approach to improve availability for the 1 billion who suffer availability issues; is an internationally coordinated approach such as the 'Second Green Revolution in Africa' or AGRA. AGRA works on a local scale, with international coordination and funding to improve availability (Four Pillars Model in Introduction). For example, in Malawi, research by AGRA has produced over 500 HYVs (agra.org, 2017). Moreover, sustainable farming practices such as 'microdosing' of manure are encouraged. Consequently, Malawi has benefitted on a local scale e.g Bowe Farmers Association yields have increased from 800kg/ha to 2000kg/ha.This is further confirmed by the way that Malawi's GHI has decreased from 57 in 1992 to 26.9 in 2016, according to IFPRI's GHI report in 2016. This demonstrates that an international coordination of local strategies has the ability to improve availability of food; just as the first Green Revolution did in the Punjab in the 1960s.Therefore, international coordination means that strategies such as AGRA should be prioritised.
Nevertheless, AGRA is not the only solution, given that the issue of food insecurity is complex. Oxford Journals in 2008 suggested how capacity building requires significant NGO work at a local scale. It criticised AGRA for not being able to achieve this quickly. Therefore it is implied that AGRA meeting its target to 'reduce food insecurity by half for 30m farmers by 2030 is unlikely. Hence, there is still an importance of local strategies.

Subconclusion
It is seen from a comparison of local and international capacity building strategies, that international approaches are more important due to their scale, and so strategies such as AGRA should be prioritised. Nevertheless, importance also depends on the nature and scale of the issue being addressed. AS 1bn farmers face availability issues; capacity building has some importance at local scales also. Albeit, less priority than an internationally coordinated approach.

What improvements do you think need to be done and did you have any prompts/notes with you? Also, do you mind showing more of your analysis? It is quite a good revision tool looking at very well thought out answers.

It was written under exam conditions, so no notes.
Yeah, it's difficult to get an understanding of the report without seeing the whole response. Takes me a long time to type out though .
Have you done a practice yet?

How/where are you all bringing in Malthus and Boserup or other theories?

I'm not. I find that those theories are not too relevant to this enquiry question.
They apply better to the causes and characteristics of food insecurity.

How would you use them?

"The Green/Gene Revolution is a technocentric international-scale strategy. Boserup's model of technological innovation increasing food supply shows this:

[labelled diagram showing the rise in food supply on the model as the Green/Gene Revolution]"

Okay. I suppose it could be useful.

But in my opinion, it still doesn't really relate to scale or add to answering the question - I don't see how it helps establish the relative importance of international or local strategies.

How would you bring Malthus into it? - I just think it seems like trying to introduce a model which isn't really appropriate. Although I don't see how it would loose marks.

Surely all conventional management strategies would support the Boserupian view?
(Unless you are discussing population control of course...)

I'm not going to bring Malthus into it. I still think it's worth including Boserup because it ticks a box that you've included a model and applied it to the strategies at some point.

How are you dealing with methodology? Are you using a dedicated section with a table and so on or are you referring to bias etc throughout the report? I found something by Cameron Dunn advising against a table or dedicated section but I thought that way would be clearer.

How are you dealing with methodology? Are you using a dedicated section with a table and so on or are you referring to bias etc throughout the report? I found something by Cameron Dunn advising against a table or dedicated section but I thought that way would be clearer.

I've seen people use tables aswell as no tables (examiner reports + A* papers). It seems to be a personal preference. The link you have posted doesn't work for me so I am unable to comment on what Cameron Dunn has said. Personally, I'll be using a table with a short summary beforehand.