The graph shows the relative strength of El Niño and La Niña events from 1950 to 2024.
Using information on the graph describe changes in the duration of La Niña events from 1980 to 2024.
Explain one economic benefit and one environmental benefit of mangrove swamps.
For example:
Mangrove swamps provide a habitat for many fish species/breeding ground for fish
Mangroves provide protection against damage caused by tropical cyclones
Using information on the graphdescribe the changes in the strength of El Niño events from 1980 to 2003.
Evaluate the relationships between oceanic sovereignty rights of nations and exclusive economic zones (EEZs).
- Exclusive economic zones (EEZs) are areas in which a coastal nation has sovereignty rights over all of the economic resources of the sea, seabed and subsoil, extending up to 200 nautical miles from the coast.
- Coastal states are allowed / free to exploit, develop, manage and conserve all resources (fish or oil, gas or gravel, nodules or sulphur) to be found in the waters, on the ocean floor and in the subsoil.
- Most of the world’s oil reserves under the sea occur in some country’s EEZ, as do most of the world’s fishing areas.
- Examples of conflicts over sovereignty rights and access to resources in oceans include the South China Sea, the Arctic Ocean, the Falkland Islands, Indonesian fishing grounds, and oil fields off Papua New Guinea.
- More powerful, richer countries often exploit the resources in the EEZs of poorer countries, ignoring their sovereign rights.
| Marks | Overall Description |
|---|---|
| 0 | The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
| 1-2 | • Response is too brief, lists unconnected information, not focused on question and lacks structure • Very brief or descriptive, listing unconnected comments or irrelevant information • Very general knowledge with large gaps or errors • Examples/case studies absent or only listed • No evidence of analysis • Terminology missing, undefined, irrelevant or incorrect • No evaluation or conclusion expected • Information not grouped logically • Maps/graphs/diagrams absent, irrelevant or unclear |
| 3-4 | • Response is too general, lacks detail, not focused on question and largely unstructured • Very general response • Outlines relevant and irrelevant examples, statistics, facts • Links to question merely listed • Analysis not relevant • Basic terminology used with errors or inconsistently • Irrelevant conclusion • No critical evaluation of evidence • Information not logically grouped • Maps/graphs lack detail or incorrectly interpreted |
| 5-6 | • Response partially addresses question, with narrow argument, unsubstantiated conclusion, and limited evaluation • Describes relevant supporting evidence • Outlines appropriate links to question • Partially addresses question or repeats one point • Relevant terminology used with minor errors • General conclusions, misaligned with evidence • Other perspectives/strengths/weaknesses listed • Some logical grouping but inconsistent • Maps/graphs don't follow conventions |
| 7-8 | • Response addresses whole question, evaluated analysis and relevant but unbalanced conclusion • Describes correct relevant evidence covering all main points • Describes appropriate links • Clear but one-sided analysis • Complex terminology correct but inconsistent • Relevant but unbalanced conclusion • Other perspectives described • Consistent logical grouping • Maps/graphs support analysis |
| 9-10 | • Response is in-depth and question-specific; justified analysis and conclusion through well-developed evaluation • Explains integrated examples, statistics, details • Explains appropriate links • Balanced analysis discussing complexity • Complex terminology used correctly throughout • Balanced conclusion aligned with evidence • Systematic evaluation of perspectives • Discusses strengths/weaknesses • Logically structured • Maps/graphs properly annotated and support argument |
