OCR A-Level Geography Geographical debates (03), June 2025: Question 17

33 marks · Hard difficulty · Extended Response

Assess the extent to which contrasting levels of economic development determine the success of strategies to improve food security.

Practise this question

Question

Question text

Assess the extent to which contrasting levels of economic development determine the success of

strategies to improve food security. [33]

Mark scheme

Show the mark scheme

Question Answer Mark Guidance

Assess the extent to which contrasting levels of economic 33 Indicative content AO1 – 9 marks

development determine the success of strategies to AO1 x9

improve food security. AO2 x24 Demonstrating knowledge and understanding of contrasting

levels of economic development and strategies to improve

AO1 food security could potentially include:

Level 4 (7–9 marks) • Food security is the consumption of adequate and good

Demonstrates comprehensive knowledge and understanding quality foods that make up a healthy diet.

of contrasting levels of economic development and strategies • Contrasting places at different levels of economic

to improve food security. development e.g. Cuba and UK

• Strategies used to improve food security e.g.

Level 3 (5–6 marks) irrigation, agrotechnology

Demonstrates thorough knowledge and understanding of • Large scale through to small scale relevant.

contrasting levels of economic development and strategies to

improve food security. AO2 – 24 marks

Application of knowledge and understanding to analyse and

Level 2 (3–4 marks) evaluate the extent to which contrasting levels of economic

Demonstrates reasonable knowledge and understanding of development determine the success of strategies to improve food

contrasting levels of economic development and strategies to security could potentially include:

improve food security. • Expect variety of ‘success’ measures e.g., sustainability

from contrasting places/scales. Cuba and the UK are

Level 1 (1–2 marks)

provided as examples but not exclusive.

Demonstrates basic knowledge and understanding of

• Cuba

contrasting levels of economic development and strategies to

• 50% Havana demand met by organic urban agriculture

improve food security.

supporting permaculture.

0 marks • large state-run farms given way to small-scale co-ops,

No response or no response worthy of credit. with much land available for this to grow, change in law

allowing private ownership.

AO2 • farmers adopting drought-resistance crops e.g. yams

Level 4 (19–24 marks) resistant to wind and rain in growing hurricane season –

Demonstrates comprehensive application of knowledge and BUT global warming = more frequent and severe

understanding to provide a clear, developed and convincing hurricanes

analysis that is fully accurate of how contrasting levels of • UK

economic development determine the success of strategies to • Since WW2 significant government resourcing into food

improve food security. production.

• Membership of EU also gave access to resources e.g.

Demonstrates comprehensive application of knowledge and CAP.

understanding to provide a detailed and substantiatedMark Scheme June 2025

• Government(s) ensure supplies of basic foodstuffs in the

evaluation that offers secure judgements leading to rational

conclusions that are evidence based as to the extent to which • country.Trade in foods supported and encouraged.

contrasting levels of economic development determine the 44 • local grass roots projects to encourage local sourcing of

success of strategies to improve food security. food e.g. farmers markets, BUT small scale and not

changing habits of nation.

Relevant concepts are authoritatively discussed.

Level 3 (13–18 marks)

Demonstrates thorough application of knowledge and

understanding to provide a clear and developed analysis that

shows accuracy of how contrasting levels of economic

development determine the success of strategies to improve

food security.

Demonstrates thorough application of knowledge and

understanding to provide a detailed evaluation that offers

generally secure judgements, with some link between rational

conclusions as to the extent to which contrasting levels of

economic development determine the success of strategies to

improve food security.

Relevant concepts are discussed but this may lack some

authority.

Level 2 (7–12 marks)

Demonstrates reasonable application of knowledge and

understanding to provide a sound analysis that shows some

accuracy of how contrasting levels of economic development

determine the success of strategies to improve food security.

Demonstrates reasonable application of knowledge and

understanding to provide a sound evaluation that offers

generalised judgements and conclusions, with limited use of

evidence as to the extent to which contrasting levels of

economic development determine the success of strategies to

improve food security.

Concepts are discussed but their use lacks precision.

Level 1 (1–6 marks) Mark Scheme June 2025

Demonstrates basic application of knowledge and

understanding to provide a simple analysis that shows limited

accuracy of how contrasting levels of economic development 45

determine the success of strategies to improve food security.

Demonstrates basic application of knowledge and

understanding to provide an un-supported evaluation that offers

simple conclusions as to the extent to which contrasting levels

of economic development determine the success of strategies

to improve food security.

Concepts are not discussed or are so inaccurately.

0 marks

No response or no response worthy of credit.

Quality of extended response Level 4

There is a well-developed line of reasoning which is clear and

logically structured. The information presented is relevant and

substantiated.

Level 3

There is a line of reasoning presented with some structure. The

information presented is in the most-part relevant and

supported by some evidence.

Level 2

The information has some relevance and is presented with

limited structure. The information is supported by limited

evidence.

Level 1

The information is basic and communicated in an unstructured

way. The information is supported by limited evidence and the

relationship to the evidence may not be clear.

How to answer it

Economic Development vs. Food Security Strategies

📌 What this question tests

This 33-mark synoptic essay examines your ability to critically evaluate how a country's level of economic development (AC vs EDC/LIDC) governs the success of food security strategies. You are tested on:

AO1 (9 marks): Accurate knowledge of food security pillars (availability, access, utilisation, stability), contrasting development contexts, and specific strategies (e.g. high-tech agribusiness, subsidies, organic urban agriculture, genetically modified crops, smallholder co-operatives).
AO2 (24 marks): High-level synthesis, critique, and sustained evaluation. Assessing whether capital/technology dictates success or if political governance, institutional stability, environmental conditions, and climate change are equally or more influential.

Question 17* [33 Marks total: AO1 = 9, AO2 = 24]

Assess the extent to which contrasting levels of economic development determine the success of strategies to improve food security.

Extended synoptic evaluative essay (Levels of Response)

💡 Key Knowledge (AO1)

Food Security Definition (FAO): When all people at all times have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food.
Advanced Country (AC) Context (e.g. UK):
- Strategies: Capital-intensive agribusiness, Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsidies / post-Brexit ELMS, high-tech hydroponics/precision farming, global supply chain import networks.
- Successes: Massive calorie surplus, consistent physical availability, resilience against local weather failures.
EDC / Transition Context (e.g. Cuba):
- Strategies: State transition after Soviet collapse (Special Period), organopónicos (urban organic permaculture), land redistribution to co-operatives, low-input biological pest control.
- Successes: Over 50% of Havana's fresh produce met locally; self-reliance shielded from international sanctions.
LIDC / Smallholder Context (e.g. Sub-Saharan Africa):
- Strategies: Drought-resistant seeds (e.g. cassava, yams, hybrid sorghum), micro-irrigation (treadle pumps), NGO-funded local grain stores.

📐 Evaluative Framework (AO2)

Define what "success" means across four distinct criteria rather than just total crop yield:

Criteria	High Economic Dev. (AC)	Low/Middle Dev. (EDC/LIDC)
Scale & Yield	High yields via capital, chemicals, and mechanisation.	Moderate yields; restricted by lack of inputs and infrastructure.
Equity & Access	Calorie excess, but food bank reliance reveals economic inequality.	State rations / community co-ops improve direct physical access.
Environmental Stability	Eutrophication, soil degradation, high carbon footprint.	Low-carbon, agro-ecological, but vulnerable to extreme climate events.
Resilience	High financial buffers; vulnerable to global geopolitical supply shocks.	Fragile infrastructure; high exposure to hurricanes/droughts.

✅ Model Essay Structure (Targeting Level 4: 28–33 Marks)

Introduction: Define food security (4 FAO pillars). Introduce the thesis: While economic development provides financial and technological capability, it does not guarantee holistic food security; political frameworks, distribution equity, and environmental vulnerability are equally decisive.
Theme 1: Economic wealth enables capital-intensive supply (AC focus). Analyse UK/EU agribusiness, CAP funding, precision agrotechnology. Evaluate: Solves availability, but harms ecological sustainability and ignores unequal socio-economic access (e.g. UK food bank growth).
Theme 2: Low-capital, community-driven success (EDC focus). Analyse Cuba's response to economic embargoes. Shift from state monoculture to organopónicos. Evaluate: Proves low-income nations can achieve high dietary security without capital, driven by political restructuring and social organisation.
Theme 3: Where economic development is superseded by other determinants.
- Governance & Geopolitics: Conflict or corruption impedes food distribution regardless of funding.
- Climate Change: Hurricane intensity in the Caribbean and desertification in the Sahel destroy both high-tech and low-tech strategies.
Conclusion: Direct, definitive answer. Economic development determines the typology of strategies available (high-tech vs appropriate tech), but governance and environmental resilience determine their ultimate success.

🧠 Top Examiner Tips

Deconstruct "Success": Never treat success as a single variable. Break it down into FAO dimensions: Availability vs. Access vs. Long-term Sustainability.
Avoid "Case Study Dumping": Do not write separate paragraphs titled "Cuba" and "UK". Structure thematically (e.g., Technological Strategies, Political Governance, Environmental Limitations) and weave contrasts within every paragraph.
Maintain a Thread of Assessment: Use frequent evaluative phrases: "This indicates that capital alone is insufficient...", "Consequently, economic factors are secondary to political will in this context..."
Explicit Level-4 Descriptors: The mark scheme demands "substantiated conclusions" and "authoritative discussion of relevant concepts".

❌ Common Pitfalls

Linear Assumption: Assuming rich countries are 100% food secure and poor countries are hopeless failures. This ignores UK food poverty and Cuba's world-leading agro-ecology.
Ignoring Access: Focus solely on agricultural production/yields while failing to discuss whether impoverished populations can afford the food.
Overlooking Physical Constraints: Forgetting that extreme climate events (hurricanes, droughts) destroy crops regardless of the financial assets invested.
Unbalanced AO1/AO2: Spending 4 pages describing farming methods (AO1) and only 1 brief paragraph evaluating their success (AO2 is worth 24 out of 33 marks!).

📊 Level 4 Mark Scheme Thresholds

AO1: 7–9 marks
Comprehensive, accurate, and detailed knowledge of food security concepts, strategies across scales, and contrasting economic profiles.

AO2: 19–24 marks
Clear, developed, and convincing analysis. Fully evaluates contrasting levels of development. Sustained, rational conclusion reached through logical reasoning.

Total: 33 marks (Synoptic Extended Response)

Topics

Topic 3.4 Future of Food · 1.a. The concept of food security is complex and patterns of food security varies spatially. · 5.b. There is a spectrum of strategies that exist to ensure and improve food security.

Question and mark scheme from the OCR A-Level Geography examination, Geographical debates (03), June 2025. QuestionVault is an independent revision resource; questions remain the copyright of the awarding body.