IB ESS SL 4.3 Aquatic Food Production Systems Questions
Practise IB ESS SL 4.3 by evaluating aquatic food production, applying sustainable-yield evidence and comparing management strategies.
- Syllabus
- First assessment 2026
- Course
- ESS SL
- Level
- SL
Practise IB ESS SL 4.3 by evaluating aquatic food production, applying sustainable-yield evidence and comparing management strategies.
Figure:Integrated aquaculture system
the integrated-aquaculture diagram shown above represents a system of aquaculture with four groups of harvestable species.
Identify one producer in the system illustrated in the integrated-aquaculture diagram shown above.
algae/seaweed/sea grass;
Outline one reason why aquaculture production has increased globally.
increased food demand from increasing population/affluence;
health benefits / change of diet preferences;
depletion of marine fisheries / considered more sustainable;
limited arable land for food production;
more economically efficient/profitable;
requires less resources/expertise (boats, fishermen, etc) than wild fisheries;
technology/technological methods have improved;
Award [1 max].
Describe two negative environmental impacts that may arise from integrated aquaculture.
escaped fish impact wild stocks through genetic degradation/disease/competition; high density populations lead to more disease; farmed species may consume/displace food species for local populations; loss/degradation of habitat due to clearance for aquaculture / nets/cages may trap/endanger local species; introduction of non-native species; pollution due to use of medication/growth hormones/pesticides;
NB do not credit high nutrients/eutrophication/low diversity/high BOD or any other impacts that integrated aquaculture actually limits or reduces (as indicated in responses to 3d below).
Award [1] for each correct answer identified, up to [2 max].
Explain why this system may cause fewer environmental impacts than systems that farm only fish.
polyculture helps maintain biodiversity/complexity/resilience in the environment; (polyculture) allows for species to recycle wastes of other species; lobsters/mussels will reduce particles of organic waste/faecal matter/excess feed; (reduction of particles will) reduce BOD/decomposition and oxygen consumption; filtration by the mussels will improve water clarity/photosynthesis; cropping/harvesting algae will prevent build-up of nutrients/eutrophication; algae will absorb excess CO2 reducing acidification of water; algae will release oxygen limiting anaerobic conditions; food is provided naturally from within system/feeds made up from wild populations are not required;
Award [1] for each correct answer identified, up to [4 max].
Figure 2: Fact file on the Coral Triangle
• The Coral Triangle is an area of approximately 6 million square kilometres in South-east Asia.
• It is the most biodiverse marine ecosystem in the world.
• Its habitats include coral reefs, seagrass beds and mangroves.
• The Coral Triangle provides a range of ecosystem goods and services, and supports the livelihoods of over 120 million people.
• It provides an important spawning area to the largest tuna fishery in the world.
• In 2014, capture fisheries within the Coral Triangle were valued at US$9.9 billion representing over 10 % of the world market.
• Income in the area is also generated through a growing recreation and tourist industry.
Outline one advantage for local populations within the Coral Triangle in harvesting their food from:
the marine system
it does not occupy land (needed for population / housing / wilderness area) / less deforestation;
fewer resources/inputs required / it is cheap/free (if harvested themselves);
there is natural income available (if harvested sustainably)/annual yield from natural capital;
it satisfies cultural preferences;
diverse range of species/food available (within Coral Triangle);
high in nutrients/protein/essential minerals such as iodine;
weather events (droughts/floods/hurricanes) are less likely to destroy food sources;
Marking guidance:
Accept other reasonable responses.
Do not accept "more carbon stored / improves water quality".
Do not accept only "provides source of fish/shellfish/profit / rarity of fish / high value of fish / is a healthier food supply / biodiverse ecosystem / easy accessible / no transport cost / is replenishable / increase in diversity of species".
Figure Global seafood harvests for 2019 and projected harvest for 2050
Identify the category with the lowest global harvest weight from aquaculture in Figure 1.
Marine fish;
Using Figure 1, calculate the projected increase in the harvest of freshwater fish between 2019 and 2050.
105 million − 58 million = 47 million tonnes (accept 44–50 million tonnes).
Note to examiners: Do not accept % value. Units (T) are not required for credit in this question.
Outline one reason for the increase referred to in (b)(i).
a. Rising world population causes increased demand for food;
b. Greater demand for high protein foods;
c. Improved technology and techniques for catching/aquaculture of freshwater fish;
d. Greater desire/interest in some countries for locally caught/harvested foods;
e. Depleted stocks of wild fisheries;
Describe two possible reasons for the difference in the global aquaculture harvest between marine fish and molluscs in Figure 1.
a. Molluscs are easier to farm than marine fish / marine fish are more easily captured in the wild;
b. some molluscs are small and less mobile, and so require less area to culture;
c. Molluscs and their resources/conditions are easier to control than marine fish;
d. Different species of molluscs can be raised in both freshwater and marine aquaculture environments;
e. Some molluscs reach maturity for harvesting faster than marine fish / high turnover rate leads to larger harvest;
f. Market price (per unit weight) is higher for molluscs making aquaculture a profitable choice;
Note to examiners: Award credit for converse of MPs b-f (as in MPa).
Evaluate the use of aquaculture in meeting the projected harvest of global seafood, as shown in Figure 1.
Pros [3max]:
a. Seafood demand is expected to rise significantly by 2050 , so it can provide new/more sources of food;
b. Aquaculture harvest would reduce stress on wild fisheries/farming land;
c. Provides economic opportunities for coastal nations, particularly developing nations;
d. Waste and nutrients can be cycled, making it more sustainable / usually reduces food miles;
e. More than one species can be harvested in Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA);
f. Many forms of seafood have a high protein value;
g. Aquaculture, usually, is more efficient (economically, ecologically) than capture;
Cons [3max]:
a. May lead to loss of habitat in certain ecosystems;
b. Greater localized aquatic pollution (antibiotics, medicines, nutrient pollution, etc.);
c. Spread of diseases and escaped species (some involving genetically modified organisms);
d. Ethical concerns towards mass fish farming or genetically modified organisms (GMOs);
e. It is not economically viable to farm large marine species like tuna with aquaculture;
f. May raise local water conflicts;
g. Difficult to certify for sustainability/social responsibility;
h. Current frameworks suit better, in most case, large-scale industrial aquaculture (rather than small-scale farmers);
i. Current share of marine fish coming from aquaculture suggests it is unpopular;
j. Aquaculture has high set-up/maintenance costs / requires a lot of resources i.e. fish feed/antibiotics;
Note to examiners: Credit any valid advantage or disadvantage. Do not credit simplistic arguments, like more costly, more sustainable, more efficient, etc.
Credit other valid responses
Figure:Integrated aquaculture system
the integrated-aquaculture diagram shown above represents a system of aquaculture with four groups of harvestable species.
Identify one producer in the system illustrated in the integrated-aquaculture diagram shown above.
algae/seaweed/sea grass;
Figure:Simplified map of the Lake Shergar area
Figure 3: A simplified diagram of the Lake Shergar area.
The lake provides a water supply for the local population.
With reference to the cattle in the area, explain how the maximum sustainable yield could be calculated.
it is the maximum rate that it can be exploited without depleting the stock; for example calculating the annual gain in biomass (of the cattle/stock) /annual growth of the cattle minus death; sustainable yield = (total biomass/energy at time t + 1) - (total biomass/energy at time t );
Outline four impacts of climate change on wild fisheries.
a. Increased temperature (especially in Tropical/low-latitude waters) would reduce fish stocks/increase fish mortality / marine species unable to adapt to increased temperatures will be reduced/go extinct;
b. Increased temperatures in high latitude waters might increase fish stocks;
c. Increased temperatures will cause changes in fish migration routes/patterns/ some areas may benefit from immigration of more fish species / most will see steep declines;
d. Increased temperatures reduce survival of juvenile fish/alters mating behavior/reduces reproductive output, thus reducing fish population;
e. Increased temperature will bleach corals/degrade marine habitats/webs;
f. Loss of oxygen in warmer waters is lethal (especially to non-mobile bottom dwellers/in close, shallow water bodies), destroying food webs on which fisheries depend;
Note to examiners: Credit any valid statement of equivalent significance and validity;
accept reference to freshwater systems.
Figure Global trends in the world's marine capture fishery stocks, 1974-2019
Outline two reasons for the change in overfished stock between 1974 and 2019, as shown in Figure 3.
Increased marine capture/overfishing because:
a. Increased population increasing the demand for food;
b. Increased demand in fish by consumers (because it fashionable/healthy);
c. Increased use of fish for animal feed/aquaculture;
d. Increased of subsidies/economic incentives to promote more fishing;
e. More intensive/unsustainable fishing technologies / e.g. long-lines/trawling/gill nets/satellite imaging;
f. reduced MSY due to lower reproductive potential/dwindling fisheries (positive feedback of past fishing pressure);
No credit unless points imply an increase in marine (over)fishing
Evaluate a management strategy for capture fisheries that could be used to reduce the levels of unsustainable fishing from 2019 as shown in Figure 3.
Example Strategy:
a. Use quotas/fish at/below maximum sustainable yield;
Strengths [2 max]:
b. Setting quotas below maximum sustainable yield reduces the amount of fish caught;
c. Allows fisheries re-stocking/gives time for fish to breed;
d. Forces regular data collection allowing informed management decisions;
Weaknesses [2 max]:
e. Difficult/expensive to monitor or enforce quotas/types of fishing gear/no fishing zones;
f. Difficult to estimate MSY / If MSY is overestimated the stock will be overfished;
g. MSY ignores system complexity/role of the organism;
Conclusion example:
Although marine protected areas can be difficult to monitor, if done successfully it promotes biodiversity and increases fish stocks.
Example Strategy:
h. Restrict types and sizes of fishing gear/mesh sizes;
Strengths [2 max]:
i. Allows fisheries re-stocking/gives time for fish to breed;
j. Having larger mesh sizes allows young fish to escape;
k. Decreases bycatch/capture of non-target species;
l. No trawling decreases habitat destruction;
Weaknesses [2 max]:
m. Difficult to enforce and monitor on the sea;
n. Larger mesh size may still allow bycatch of larger species;
o. Might decrease income for fishermen;
Conclusion example:
Gear restrictions are an important tool in protecting small fish and fragile habitats, however, they are incapable of controlling the quantity of fishing effort or the total catch.
Valid strategy that could increase sustainability [1 max]
One mark per outlined strength [2 max]
One mark per outlined weakness [2 max]
Valid balanced conclusion [1 max]
Credit the evaluation of any one valid strategy; if more than one is given, award the highest marked.
Award one mark for a balanced conclusion.
Figure A:Area without fishing exclusion
Figure B:Marine area with preserved/no-take area
Figure A:Community planting of mangroves in 2004
Figure B:Same site in 2011 with established mangroves
Figure:Drop in demand for shark fins in Hong Kong and mainland China
| Mangrove | Seagrass | Coral reef |
|---|---|---|
| Provides nursery and habitat for fish and shellfish | Provides nursery and habitat for variety of species | Provides nursery and habitat which supports high biodiversity |
| Intercepts freshwater flow, traps sediments and absorbs nutrients | Traps sediments and absorbs nutrients from the water | Filters particulate matter from the water, increasing water clarity |
| Absorbs carbon dioxide and emits oxygen | Absorbs carbon dioxide and emits oxygen | |
| Provides a source of fish and shellfish | Provides a source of fish and shellfish | Provides a source of fish and shellfish |
| Reduces coastal erosion | Provides coastal protection by buffering incoming waves and currents | |
| Provides a source of wood | Provides a tourist and recreation attraction |
Figure:Ecosystem goods and services in coastal marine habitats
| Ecosystem category | Ecosystem | Soil organic carbon (metric ton carbon per hectare) | Living biomass (metric ton carbon per hectare) | Total (metric ton carbon per hectare) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terrestrial forest ecosystems | Boreal forest | 150 | 94 | 244 |
| Terrestrial forest ecosystems | Tropical forest | 83 | 167 | 250 |
| Coastal marine ecosystems | Mangroves | 1030 | 464 | 1494 |
| Coastal marine ecosystems | Tidal marsh | 920 | 31 | 951 |
| Coastal marine ecosystems | Seagrass meadows | 608 | 10 | 618 |
Figure:Carbon storage in different ecosystems
• The Coral Triangle is an area of approximately 6 million square kilometres in South-east Asia.
• It is the most biodiverse marine ecosystem in the world.
• Its habitats include coral reefs, seagrass beds and mangroves.
• The Coral Triangle provides a range of ecosystem goods and services, and supports the livelihoods of over 120 million people.
• It provides an important spawning area to the largest tuna fishery in the world.
• In 2014, capture fisheries within the Coral Triangle were valued at US$9.9 billion representing over 10 % of the world market.
• Income in the area is also generated through a growing recreation and tourist industry.
• Coral reefs and mangroves in the Coral Triangle have declined by over 40 % since the 1970s.
• Over 85 % of coral reefs are under threat from population growth and human activity.
• Mangroves have commonly been removed to make way for agriculture, aquaculture or urban development.
• Increase in unsustainable fishing practices, because of the demand for marine resources, has led to the decline of many species, such as bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) and yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares).
• Destructive fishing methods that impact marine habitats have been used throughout the region, such as use of dynamite and cyanide.
• Demand for wildlife goods such as turtle products and shark fins (used to make shark-fin soup) has caused a reduction in population numbers of some species.
• Land-based pollution from agriculture, logging, mining and urban development has damaged habitats within the Coral Triangle.
Large-scale tourism development also threatens the Coral Triangle through:
• pollution produced by tourists, such as sewage effluent, plastic waste materials
• coral trampling by snorkelers and divers
• physical damage caused by boat anchors ripping up corals and seagrass
• stress to marine wildlife caused by tourists following them too closely
• collection of wildlife souvenirs, such as corals, shellfish or turtle shells.
Climate change is a major threat to the Coral Triangle. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) estimates that at current rates of global temperature increase, most coral reefs could be destroyed by 2050.
• The Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries and Food Security (CTI-CFF) is an agreement between all six nations in the area with the objectives of:
• ensuring food security and a sustainable livelihood of residents of the Coral Triangle
• protecting the unique ecosystem and marine species within the Coral Triangle.
• Conservation projects in the Coral Triangle involve collaboration between national governments, regional organisations, non-governmental organisations, private companies and local communities.
• Popular approaches to encourage sustainable use of the sea and its resources include creation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and networks of Locally Managed Marine Areas (LMMAs).
• MPAs are usually managed by national and local government whereas LMMAs are more likely to be managed by the local community.
• These designated areas are often classified according to their use or the restrictions placed on them, such as “no-take zones” where no fishing is allowed or “tourism zones” that can be used for recreation but where other activities such as fishing are banned.
• Some zones allow restricted activity, such as use by local fishermen using only traditional fishing methods or during certain times of the year.
• Research has shown that over time in a well-managed MPA there is an increase in fish size, fish numbers and overall biodiversity.
• There are currently over 1000 MPAs within the Coral Triangle.
• The Coral Triangle Initiative aims to designate 20 % of each of the main habitats within the Coral Triangle as MPAs by 2020.
With reference to data throughout the resource booklet, to what extent would the establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) benefit marine ecosystems and human societies within the Coral Triangle?
Merits – [4 max]:
MPAs are supported by legislation and associated enforcement powers;
MPA could provide nursery/breeding ground for species/sanctuary for some species/ protect species from human activities / MPAs stop reduction in fish stocks through fishing activities / by restricting tourism to certain areas MPAs can reduce damage caused by tourism to reef ecosystems;
...this could allow recovery of threatened species/range of species/ biodiversity;
MPA would lead to increase in population of species that could provide food;
MPA would lead to increase in population of species that could provide an income avenue for local people/sustainable livelihood;
species from MPA could move/migrate and allow for increase in biodiversity in surrounding areas;
increase in regional biodiversity could lead to increase in ecotourism that provides an alternative income for local communities;
improvements in marine ecosystems/increase in mangroves/seagrasses can enhance carbon dioxide sequestered from the atmosphere / improvements in mangroves/seagrasses can increase carbon storage, contributing to the mitigation of climate change;
within MPAs the increase in mangroves/seagrasses/coral filters the water and removes pollutants in the marine environment;
MPAs help to meet our moral/ethical obligation to conserve/protect species / MPAs help to meet our duty to conserve our environment for future generations;
improvements in coastal ecosystems can help to protect coastal communities from extreme storm events/coastal flooding;
increase in mangroves/seagrasses population can improve water quality for other primary producers/coral reefs;
MPA creates jobs for local people and an alternative income;
MPAs allow some restricted fishing to meet the needs of local people;
Limitations - [4 max]:
establishing MPAs could cause areas surrounding them to be over-exploited / many areas still adversely affected by fishing/human activities;
difficult to stop people fishing/using areas that have been traditionally used;
difficult to stop illegal fishing by non-local vessels;
without effective policing/enforcement is unlikely to work;
some species population may have fallen below recovery levels;
MPAs can in the short-term lead to loss of income/resources / may be difficult to find alternative income/food source in the short term for local people;
in the short-term local communities may require support to consider other ways to earn money/obtain food / loss/reduction in shark fin trade results in loss of income for fishers;
local community needs to be educated on value of MPAs;
local community needs to be educated/trained on how to sustainably fish stocks outside the MPAs;
as MPAs are managed by government (not local community) there may be a lot of bureaucracy involved and management of MPA may be inefficient / may take time to reach a consensus before action can be implemented / corruption may be an issue leading to inefficient management of MPA;
difficult to manage/balance interests of so many stakeholders (ie six countries, local governments, NGOs etc.);
predicted loss of coral by 2050 is a result of global warming, which will not be stopped by protecting local areas;
with increase in tourism there may be increased pollution caused by waste/plastics resulting in decrease in biodiversity;
with population growth in the area and associated increase in food demand the restriction in fishing within MPAs will cause human hardship;
Marking guidance:
Award [5 max] for merits and limitations.
Conclusion/opinion [1 max]
For example: over the long term MPAs can be effective at improving biodiversity/state of the ecosystem and sustainable resources for local people although in the short term they can pose many difficulties/hardships for local communities (without appropriate support);
A valid conclusion should be credited if it is explicit, balanced (addresses both sides of the argument) and supported by evidence. Do not credit the conclusion if only one side of the argument has been considered within the overall response.
Accept other reasonable responses supported by information in the resource booklet.
Figure 3: Global trends in the world's marine capture fishery stocks, 1974-2019
Evaluate the potential value of aquaculture as a strategy to avoid the levels of unsustainable fishing as seen in 2019 in Figure 3.
Strengths [2 max]:
a. Aquaculture can relieve the pressure of capture fisheries to meet demand / which would allow wild stock recovery;
b. Aquaculture provides more stability/control in supply as compared to natural/environmental fluctuations affecting wild populations;
c. Aquaculture can provide employment opportunities that are safer/require less time at sea than capture fisheries;
d. Integrated aquaculture can reduce pollutants/increase diversity of food types;
e. may foster economical development in LEDCs;
f. aquaculture may contribute to more sustainable model of food production/agri-business (both globally and locally);
g. Reduces loss through bycatch;
Weakness [2 max]:
h. Aquaculture can result in escaped fish becoming invasive/spread disease;
i. Aquaculture can result in nutrient/antibiotic/pesticide pollution;
j. Aquaculture can cause eutrophication through fish/food waste;
k. Aquaculture can reduce diversity of fish population;
l. Aquaculture may require habitat destruction/deforestation/loss of mangroves;
Conclusion example:
Aquaculture certainly improves the efficiency of food production but without careful management can cause considerable environmental degradation.
Note to examiners: Award one mark for a balanced conclusion appraisal.