Award 1 mark for two valid examples (one of each kind):

• Charismatic/flagship species examples: Panda, Tiger
• Keystone species examples: Northern Spotted Owl, Sea Stars, Fig Trees, Sea Otters, Jaguar

Award 3 max for valid points of distinction:

• Charismatic/flagship species are used to publicize/advertise conservation campaigns, stimulate public action, and raise economic support.

• They are selected because they appeal to humans or have ideological, cultural, or religious significance.

• Their value is primarily subjective/relative to a society rather than ecological.

• Keystone species have a disproportionately large effect on their environment, may determine the structure of an ecosystem, and have many other species dependent on them.

• Keystone species may be publicly unpopular, considered a threat to locals, or considered pests, and may be killed for fur or as trophies.

• They are identified through ecological, scientific, and objective study of their relationships with the entire ecosystem.

While it is acceptable to award a mark for stating a discriminatory feature of just one kind of species (without referring to contrasting feature of the other), do not credit directly converse statements twice e.g. "flagship are X ...keystone are not X" would gain only 1 mark if X was valid.

Rachel Carson – Author of Silent Spring (1962)

• Silent Spring documented/highlighted the problems caused by the widespread use of synthetic pesticides
• Focus was placed on the activities of chemical companies
• Explained impact of use of insecticides/pesticides on birds of prey
• Led to widespread awareness amongst (American) public of environmental issues/bioaccumulation/biomagnification
• Was a focal point for the social/environmental movements of the 1960s
• Inspired many other environmentalists
• Led to ban on DDT for agricultural uses
• Inspired the formation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 4 marks

Alternatively:

• Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster of 2011
• A natural disaster/earthquake/tsunami led to the biggest nuclear disaster since Chernobyl at Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant
• Estimates vary about the number of people affected by the disaster/no direct deaths initially/over 600 deaths by workers/thousands with increased risk of cancers
• As the disaster was able to happen in a "developed" country like Japan, many societies came to the conclusion that nuclear power could not be "safe"
• This has led to increased public pressure to phase out nuclear power generation
• Germany sped up plans to close nuclear reactors/over 90 % of Italy voted against government plans to expand nuclear power/Switzerland also decided to phase out nuclear power 3 marks

Award [1 max] for correctly identifying/naming two historical influences. Award credit for valid statements that describe the personality/event; explain how it has influenced the movement; and explain exactly what gave rise to the influence. If more than two events/personalities are addressed credit only the highest-scoring two. Award [4 max] for each explanation of how historical influences shaped the development of environmentalism up to max of 7 marks.

Answers may include:

• understanding concepts and terminology of environmental value systems, tropical biomes, biodiversity, conservation, habitat v species approach, reserves, ecotourism, flagship species, sustainable development/exploitation, goods/services.
• breadth in addressing and linking environmental value systems with each other and ecocentric values with biorights, wilderness reserves, restrained resource use, etc and anthropocentric values with laws/regulations/quotas, public consultation/agreements, sustainable exploitation, ecotourism etc and technocentric values with economic development, habitat restoration, economic value of natural goods and services, gene banks etc
• examples of tropical biomes e.g. tropical forests, grasslands, savannas, lakes & rivers, coral reefs etc and environmental value systems eg ecocentrism, anthropocentrism, technocentrism, etc and habitat/species protection strategies eg reserves, managed sustainable harvesting, ecotourism, fishing quotas, _etc_and value systems in specific tropical societies eg rights of nature enshrined in constitutions of Ecuador/Bolivia, human rights to a healthy environment in laws of Costa Rica/Brazil, etc
• balanced analysis of the ways in which different value systems are likely to impact/influence the protection of tropical biomes, acknowledging relevant counter-arguments/alternative viewpoints.
• *a conclusion that is consistent with, and supported by, analysis and examples given

Marks	Level descriptor
0	The response does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below and is not relevant to the question.
1–3	The response contains:• minimal evidence of knowledge and understanding of ESS issues or concepts • fragmented knowledge statements poorly linked to the context of the question • some appropriate use of ESS terminology • no examples where required, or examples with insufficient explanation/relevance • superficial analysis that amounts to no more than a list of facts/ideas • judgments/conclusions that are vague or not supported by evidence/argument.
4–6	The response contains: • some evidence of sound knowledge and understanding of ESS issues and concepts • knowledge statements effectively linked to the context of the question • largely appropriate use of ESS terminology • some use of relevant examples where required, but with limited explanation • clear analysis that shows a degree of balance • some clear judgments/conclusions, supported by limited evidence/arguments.
7–9	The response contains: • substantial evidence of sound knowledge and understanding of ESS issues and concepts • a wide breadth of knowledge statements effectively linked with each other, and to the context of the question • consistently appropriate and precise use of ESS terminology • effective use of pertinent, well-explained examples, where required, showing some originality • thorough, well-balanced, insightful analysis • explicit judgments/conclusions that are well-supported by evidence/arguments and that include some critical reflection.