Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457): Topic: Water, food and agriculture — Revision Notes

For full explanations and worked paragraphs, read the study guide for this topic first.

These notes cover the topic “Water, food and agriculture” from the Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457) syllabus for examination in 2025, 2026 and 2027, Version 2 (published April 2025). The topic is on the topic list in section 3, which the syllabus says is for all components: Component 1 Written Exam, Component 2 Individual Report and Component 3 Team Project. The skills come from section 2 (assessment objectives) and section 4 (details of the assessment).

Topic knowledge is not assessed. The syllabus says “Knowledge of content is not assessed in this syllabus.” These notes show how to use this topic to practise the assessed skills. Do not learn crop statistics for their own sake.

Links: Global Perspectives hub · 0457 checklist · practice questions for this topic

The skills, in the syllabus’s own words

Assessment objective	What it covers	Weighting in the qualification
AO1 Research, analysis and evaluation	Research issues, causes, consequences and courses of action; analyse and evaluate evidence, reasoning and sources; build a line of reasoning	68%
AO2 Reflection	Consider perspectives objectively and with empathy; justify your own perspective; reflect on how research, perspectives and teamwork shaped your learning	15%
AO3 Communication and collaboration	Present arguments and evidence clearly with structure; cite and reference; contribute to the Team Project	17%

Component 1 is 100% AO1. Component 2 is 67% AO1, 8% AO2 and 25% AO3. Component 3 is 36% AO1, 36% AO2 and 28% AO3. Command words printed in the syllabus: analyse, describe, evaluate, explain, identify, suggest.

Key terms

Term	Definition	Water, food and farming use
Issue	“An important subject or problem for discussion” (syllabus)	Who should get water in a drought
Perspective	“A viewpoint on an issue based on evidence and reasoning” (syllabus)	A smallholder’s view on paying for well water
Research	“The systematic study of a global issue to find evidence and develop understanding” (syllabus)	Measuring canteen waste before and after a campaign
Evidence	Information that helps develop understanding or prove something true or false (syllabus)	Well-level readings, harvest weights
Argument	Statements with reasons and evidence supporting a claim (syllabus)	“Water pricing works because…”
Fact	Can be checked as true or false	The date a dam opened
Opinion	Personal view; cannot be proved	“Local food is always better”
Claim	Put forward as true; needs support	“This seed survives any drought”
Prediction	About the future; cannot yet be checked	“Bread prices will double next year”
Value	Belief about what matters	“Water is a human right, not a product”
Generalisation	Broad statement from limited cases	“City people waste all their food”
Bias	One-sided presentation	A dairy advert that lists only health benefits
Vested interest	Gain or loss from the outcome	A seed company reporting its own trial
Food security	All people, at all times, having access to enough safe, nutritious food (1996 World Food Summit)	Measures whether families can get and afford food
Physical vs economic water scarcity	Water is not there vs water is there but cannot be reached or afforded	A desert farm vs a village with no pipes
Virtual water	Water used to produce a good (idea developed by Tony Allan)	Importing wheat “imports” the water used to grow it
Food sovereignty	Communities deciding how their own food is produced (promoted by La Via Campesina)	A perspective that challenges free trade in food

Real examples at a glance

You will not be marked for knowing these. Use them as context for research and to test your reasoning.

Example	What it is	What it shows	One evaluation point
Human right to water and sanitation (UN General Assembly, 2010)	Formal recognition of a right	A global value-based perspective	A right on paper does not build pipes; it depends on national action
Sustainable Development Goals 2 and 6 (2015)	Zero hunger; clean water and sanitation	Global targets for action	Goals are not binding, so progress varies by country
FAO: agriculture about 70% of freshwater withdrawals	Estimate from the UN food agency	Why farming is central to water issues	Withdrawals are not the same as water used up; some returns to rivers
UNEP Food Waste Index Report 2024	About a fifth of food available to consumers wasted in 2022; households the largest share	Scale of waste; a global estimate	Many countries measure waste differently, so some figures are estimates
France’s food waste law (2016)	Large supermarkets must not destroy edible unsold food and must offer it to charities	A national course of action	Relies on charities being able to collect and store food
Black Sea Grain Initiative (July 2022 to July 2023)	UN and Turkey brokered safe passage for Ukrainian grain ships	How conflict links global supply to local prices	Ended when Russia withdrew, so it depended on all sides staying in
India’s rice export ban (July 2023)	Ban on exports of non-basmati white rice	National vs global perspectives on food prices	Protected domestic buyers; raised costs for importers
Cape Town “Day Zero” (2018)	50 litres per person per day limit from February 2018; Day Zero avoided	Household and city responses to drought	Shows demand cuts work, but rain also returned, so not all the credit goes to the limits

Must-know distinctions

• Fact vs claim. “The well is 30 metres deep” can be checked. “Wells are drying because of export farms” is a claim about a cause and needs evidence.
• Opinion vs perspective. An opinion can stand alone. A perspective rests on evidence and reasoning, such as a farmer’s account of costs and yields.
• Value vs evidence. “Water belongs to everyone” is a value. It shapes an argument but proves nothing about what is happening.
• Vested interest vs bias. A vested interest is a reason a source might be biased. Bias shows in the content: missing evidence, one-sided wording.
• Correlation vs cause. If wells and export farms both increased, that alone does not prove one caused the other.
• Physical vs economic scarcity. The best action differs: a new pipe solves one; it cannot solve the other.
• Global, national, local. Component 2 needs local and/or national and global perspectives. Component 3 starts from a local issue.
• Several courses of action vs one. In Component 2, consider several, then propose a single course of action and explain how it could be implemented and its impact.

Mini essay plan

Typical extended task: evaluate which of three courses of action would best reduce food waste in a city (in the Written Exam, the actions and evidence come from the source insert).

1. Set the criteria. Amount of waste cut, cost, fairness, and whether it lasts. Say which matters most and why.
2. Action 1, e.g. a law making supermarkets donate unsold food. Source evidence on how much shops throw away. Limitation: shops may not be where most waste happens; charities may lack storage.
3. Action 2, e.g. a household waste-awareness campaign. May reach the largest source of waste. Limitation: awareness does not always change behaviour; hard to measure.
4. Action 3, e.g. charging households by the weight of food waste collected. Gives a direct money reason. Limitation: may hit poorer, larger families hardest; risk of illegal dumping.
5. Compare directly. Which action does best on each criterion? Use figures from the sources.
6. Judgement. Choose one, or a justified combination. Say why it beats the others and what must be true for it to work.

Each paragraph: point from the source → apply it → analyse the effect → evaluate with a limitation.

Coursework ideas at a glance

Individual Report (Component 2). The issue must divide opinion, and your title is a global research question.

Possible question	Perspectives to research
Should farmers pay for the water they use in the same way as households?	Local smallholders; a national water ministry; international water and food agencies
Should countries ban food exports when prices rise at home?	Local traders and shoppers; an exporting government; importing countries
Should genetically modified crops be used more widely to improve food security?	Local farmers; national regulators; international scientists and campaign groups

Team Project (Component 3). Start from a local issue the team can act on and measure.

Local issue	Possible action	How to measure success
Plate waste in the canteen	“Clean plate” campaign with weekly weigh-in	Kilograms per lunch, before and after, on matched days
Leaking taps and cisterns	Water audit and repair requests to the school	Number of leaks found vs fixed; meter readings if available
Students unsure where food comes from	Short assembly and a school vegetable bed	Simple quiz before and after; harvest weight

For the rules, see the Individual Report revision notes and the Team Project revision notes.

Quick self-test

1. What does the 0457 syllabus say about knowledge of content?
2. Give the syllabus definition of an issue.
3. “Every farmer floods his fields.” Which term best describes this statement?
4. What is the difference between physical and economic water scarcity?
5. Why does a seed company’s trial report need extra checking?
6. Give one global, one national and one local issue within this topic.
7. What does “virtual water” mean?
8. Why is “Food waste” a poor Individual Report title?
9. What must the Component 2 report do after considering several courses of action?
10. How long must the Explanation of Research and Planning be?
11. Give one limitation of the UNEP Food Waste Index figures.

Answers

1. Knowledge of content is not assessed. The topics are a context for building skills.
2. An important subject or problem for discussion.
3. A generalisation. It makes a broad statement from limited cases.
4. Physical scarcity: the water is not there. Economic scarcity: the water exists but people cannot reach or afford it.
5. The company has a vested interest, because it gains if the seed looks good.
6. For example: global, the right to safe water; national, whether to ban food exports; local, waste in a school canteen.
7. The water used to produce a good, such as the water used to grow imported wheat.
8. It is a topic, not a question. It does not name an issue that divides opinion.
9. Propose a single course of action, explaining how it could be implemented and what its impact would be.
10. 300 to 400 words.
11. Countries measure food waste in different ways, or not at all, so some figures are estimates.

Where marks are usually lost

• Bringing in outside facts about droughts or famines in Component 1 instead of using the sources.
• Naming a term (“this is a value”) without quoting the words and explaining why.
• Rejecting a farmer’s or company’s view only because of who said it, without testing the evidence.
• Treating two trends that rise together, such as wells and export farms, as proof of cause.
• Accepting trial results without asking how many farms, who chose them and what else changed.
• Describing courses of action one by one with no comparison or final judgement.
• Ignoring fairness: who pays, and whether smallholders lose more than large farms.
• In the Individual Report, giving only “for” and “against” with no named groups or reasons.
• In the Team Project, planning an action with no before-and-after measure.

Official syllabus

Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457) syllabus for examination in 2025, 2026 and 2027, Version 2 (published April 2025). Topic list in section 3; assessment objectives and weightings in section 2; components and command words in section 4.