Option A: Freshwater Case Study

Mitigation: Jakarta

Background

• Capital of Indonesia, crossed by 13 rivers flowing into the Java Sea

• Flood types:

  • River flooding

  • Flash floods

  • Tidal backflow

• Tropical climate → high rainfall year-round

• El Niño / La Niña increase rainfall intensity

• 2013 floods caused ~7.5 trillion rupiah in economic losses

• 60% of Indonesia’s money circulation concentrated in Jakarta

---

Human factors increasing flood risk

• Rapid urbanisation and population growth

• Concrete surfaces reduce infiltration

• Waste blocks canals and rivers

• Groundwater over-abstraction for high-rise buildings

• Land subsidence of 15–25 cm per year

• Poor land-use planning and flood-risk awareness

---

Positive mitigation measures Hard engineering

• East & West Flood Canals divert peak river flows to Jakarta Bay

• Embankments and levees strengthened

• Dredging rivers to remove sediment and increase capacity

• Pumps used to remove floodwater

• Proposed Giant Sea Wall (Great Garuda) to protect against coastal flooding

---

Planning and preparedness

• Flood risk maps combining hazard, vulnerability, and capacity

• Flood scenario planning for emergency response

• Infrastructure vulnerability assessments

---

Community & technology-based measures

• Early warning systems

• Community flood preparedness programmes

• PetaJakarta: real-time flood mapping using social media (Twitter)

• Use of WhatsApp and Facebook for rapid flood warnings

• Social media allows upstream residents to warn downstream areas

---

Nature-based / soft approaches

• Investment in green infrastructure

• Restoring some permeable surfaces to increase infiltration

---

Negative impacts / limitations

• Land subsidence continues, reducing effectiveness of defences

• Dykes and dams displace communities

• High costs and maintenance

• Canals still clog with waste

• Unequal protection: informal settlements remain vulnerable

---

Exam-ready summary sentence

Jakarta relies heavily on hard engineering and technological solutions to reduce flood risk, but land subsidence, poor maintenance, and rapid urbanisation limit long-term effectiveness.

Three Gorges Dam – Flood Mitigation Case Study

Background

• Located on the Yangtze River, China

• Yangtze is one of the most polluted rivers in the world

• Shoreline heavily industrialised → chemical and waste pollution

• Frequent flooding historically (e.g. 1998 Yangtze floods)

• Dam symbolises national pride and technological power

• Built to support China’s:

  • Flood control

  • Energy demand

  • Economic development

---

ULTRA CONDENSED POINTS

• Yangtze River flood control

• Prevented 1998-style floods

• World’s largest hydroelectric dam

• Low-carbon energy

• Reduced coal use

• Sediment trapping

• Algal blooms and pollution

• Landslides and seismic risk

• 1.5 million displaced

• Strong national pride, high social cost

—> The Three Gorges Dam has successfully reduced flood risk and carbon emissions in China, but its environmental degradation and large-scale social displacement highlight the long-term costs of hard engineering flood mitigation.

National governments (Stakeholders - pressures on the nile)

Egypt – downstream stakeholder

Role

• Highly dependent on the Nile for ~90% of freshwater

• Prioritises water quantity and security

• Controls flow through the Aswan High Dam

Actions

• Stores water in Lake Nasser to manage drought

• Uses large-scale irrigation to support agriculture

• Strong diplomatic opposition to upstream dams (e.g. GERD)

Impacts

• Reduced sediment downstream → lower soil fertility

• Intensive irrigation contributes to salinisation and water pollution

• Political tension with upstream countries

Exam link

Egypt prioritises national water security, even at the cost of environmental degradation and regional cooperation.

Ethiopia – upstream stakeholder

Role

• Source of most Nile water via the Blue Nile

• Historically received little benefit from Nile flows

Actions

• Built the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) to:

  • Generate hydroelectric power

  • Support economic development

Impacts

• Improved energy access and economic growth

• Increased political tension with Egypt

• Concerns over reduced downstream water during droughts

Exam link

Ethiopia views the Nile as a development resource, highlighting how upstream stakeholders prioritise economic growth over downstream water security.

Sudan – midstream stakeholder

Role

• Both beneficiary and vulnerable stakeholder

Actions

• Supports GERD for:

  • Reduced flood risk

  • More stable river flow

• Expresses concerns over dam safety and coordination

Impacts

• Improved irrigation potential

• Reduced flooding

• Political balancing role between Egypt and Ethiopia

Farmers and agricultural producers (local stakeholders)

Example: Nile Delta farmers (Egypt)

Role

• Largest users of Nile water

• Depend on irrigation for crop production

Actions

• Use fertilisers and pesticides to increase yields

• Over-irrigate fields due to unreliable water supply

Impacts

• Water quality degradation:

  • Nutrient runoff → eutrophication

• Soil salinisation:

  • Reduced long-term fertility

• Increased pressure on already scarce water resources

Exam link

Farmers play a dual role as both essential food producers and contributors to water quality decline.

Local communities (social stakeholders)

Example: Rural communities in Egypt and Sudan

Role

• Depend on the Nile for:

  • Drinking water

  • Fishing

  • Small-scale farming

Impacts

• Suffer from:

  • Poor water quality

  • Health risks from polluted canals

• Limited influence over national water decisions

Exam link

Local communities are often the most affected by water scarcity and pollution, yet have the least political power.

International and regional organisations

African Union

Role

• Facilitates negotiations over Nile water use

Actions

• Mediates talks between Ethiopia, Sudan, and Egypt

• Encourages cooperative water management

Limitations

• Lacks enforcement power

• Agreements often non-binding

Environmental NGOs and scientists (National and professionalism stakeholders)

Role

• Raise awareness of:

  • Pollution

  • Salinisation

  • Ecosystem degradation

Actions

• Advocate for:

  • Sustainable irrigation

  • Reduced fertiliser use

  • Integrated river basin management

Limitations

• Limited influence over state-led mega-projects

• Often excluded from political negotiations

---

One-sentence synthesis (top-band)

Pressure on the Nile reflects competing stakeholder priorities, as governments pursue water security and development, farmers prioritise food production, and local communities bear the environmental and social costs of declining water quantity and quality.

Sudd Wetland - Conservation and sustainable management (high resilience option)

What this future looks like

• Protection of the wetland under international conservation frameworks

• Recognition of the Sudd as a natural flood-control and water-storage system

• Investment in:

  • Community-based conservation

  • Sustainable fishing and grazing

  • Ecotourism

Benefits

• Maintains biodiversity and habitats

• Preserves water quality by filtering pollutants

• Supports local communities and traditional livelihoods

• Enhances resilience to climate change

• Maintains steady flow of the White Nile, supporting downstream countries

Stakeholders supporting this future

• Local communities

• Environmental NGOs

• Conservation scientists

• Downstream Nile countries (benefit from flow regulation)

Sudd Wetland -Large-scale drainage and water diversion (high-risk option)

Example proposal: Jonglei Canal (revival possibility)

• Canal designed to drain water from the Sudd

• Intended to:

  • Increase Nile flow downstream

  • Reduce evaporation losses

  • Expand irrigation in Sudan and Egypt

Potential benefits

• Increased water availability downstream

• Agricultural expansion

• Economic development for Nile basin states

---

Environmental and social risks

• Loss of wetland ecosystem

• Reduced biodiversity

• Disruption of fish stocks and grazing land

• Increased conflict over land and water

• Loss of natural flood buffering

• Reduced resilience to drought and climate variability

Stakeholders pushing this future

• National governments seeking water security

• Agricultural and irrigation planners

---

Key tension (exam gold)

The future of the Sudd Wetlands depends on whether development priorities outweigh the long-term environmental and social value of wetland conservation.

chat

---

Sharing the Nile River – Transboundary Water Conflict & Cooperation

Key stakeholders and their roles Ethiopia (upstream stakeholder)

Interests

• Economic development

• Hydroelectric power generation

• Energy security

Actions

• Built the GERD on the Blue Nile

• Argues the dam does not permanently reduce water flow

• Supports gradual filling and sovereign control

Role in resolution

• Participates in negotiations

• Willing to share data, but resists binding limits on dam operation

---

Egypt (downstream stakeholder)

Interests

• Water security (≈90% of freshwater from Nile)

• Protection of agriculture and population

Actions

• Strong diplomatic opposition to GERD

• Calls for legally binding agreements on:

  • Reservoir filling

  • Drought management

Role in resolution

• Pushes for international mediation

• Frames the issue as an existential threat

---

Sudan (midstream stakeholder)

Interests

• Flood control

• Stable river flow

• Dam safety

Actions

• Initially supportive of GERD due to reduced flooding

• Expresses concerns about coordination and safety

Role in resolution

• Acts as a mediator between Ethiopia and Egypt

• Supports cooperative data-sharing

---

African Union

Role

• Facilitates negotiations between Nile Basin states

• Promotes “African-led solutions”

Limitations

• Agreements are non-binding

• No enforcement power

---

Nile Basin Initiative

Role

• Encourages cooperative management of the Nile

• Supports shared data and sustainable development

Limitation

• Lacks authority to resolve political disputes

---

Attempts at resolution

• Tripartite negotiations (Ethiopia–Sudan–Egypt)

• Data-sharing agreements (partial)

• Mediation by:

  • African Union

  • International observers

• Proposal of coordinated dam operation during droughts

Contemporary Dam Expansion in the Mekong River Basin

• Transboundary river flowing through China, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar

• China has built 11 large dams on the Upper Mekong (Lancang River)

• Laos pursuing “Battery of Southeast Asia” strategy

  • Key dam: Xayaburi Dam

• Dams built to generate hydroelectric power and export electricity

• Downstream impacts:

  • Reduced sediment → delta erosion in Vietnam

  • Disrupted fish migration → loss of fisheries

  • Increased salinisation in the Mekong Delta

• Stakeholder conflict:

  • China and Laos prioritise energy and development

  • Cambodia and Vietnam prioritise food security and livelihoods

• Mekong River Commission promotes cooperation but has no enforcement power

• Climate change increases uncertainty, intensifying conflict

---

One-sentence exam summary

Contemporary dam expansion in the Mekong Basin, led by China and Laos, has boosted hydropower generation but caused environmental degradation and transboundary conflict due to weak regional governance.

Murray–Darling Basin – Integrated Drainage Basin Management (IDBM) Plan

• Covers Australia’s largest river basin, supplying ~40% of national agriculture

• Problem: over-abstraction for irrigation → river drying, salinisation, algal blooms, ecosystem collapse

• Plan: Murray–Darling Basin Plan (2012; ongoing implementation)

• Core IDBM approach: manage the entire basin as one system, balancing environmental, economic, and social needs

---

Key IDBM measures

• Sustainable Diversion Limits (SDLs): legal caps on water extraction

• Environmental water allocations: water returned to rivers/wetlands

• Water trading: reallocates water to higher-value uses during drought

• Efficiency upgrades: drip irrigation, lined channels

• Basin-wide governance: coordination across states

---

Stakeholders

• Federal government: sets basin-wide limits and policy

• State governments: implement rules locally

• Farmers: major water users; affected by reduced allocations

• Environmental groups: advocate for ecosystem recovery

• Indigenous communities: cultural water rights and river health

---

Outcomes

• Partial recovery of wetlands and river flows

• Improved resilience to drought

• Ongoing conflict with irrigators over reduced water availability

---

Limitations

• Political resistance and uneven enforcement

• Climate change increasing drought frequency

• Trade-offs between food production and ecosystem protection

---

One-sentence exam summary

The Murray–Darling Basin Plan illustrates IDBM by coordinating water limits, environmental flows, and stakeholder governance across an entire basin, improving resilience but facing political and climatic challenges.