Referring to the graph, describe the global pattern of land available for farming.

Using examples, explain how trade barriers and/or trade agreements can affect the production of food.

Contrast the geographic impacts of two named diseases.

Award [1 mark] for each valid descriptive statement. Possibilities include:

• sub-Saharan Africa has the most available farmland
• in sub-Saharan Africa more than 50% of land is more than six hours from the market
• in Latin America only 25% of land is more than six hours from market
• East/Southeast Asia has the least
• almost all the available land is in low-income regions
• the region with the most available land within 6 hours of markets is Latin America and Caribbean
• the region with the least land within six hours of markets is East/Southeast Asia, etc.

If there is no quantification, maximum [3 marks].

Very simple listing should be limited to [2 marks].

Examples may be given of trade barriers/agreements (EU), of food (bananas), or both. (There should be at least two examples of trade agreements/barriers, or of food such as bananas.)

Award [1 mark] for each example of a barrier/agreement/country eg, EU/CAP and [1 mark] for each basic explanation of how production is affected by a rule eg, import tariffs. Award [1 mark] for further development or exemplification eg, difficulties created for Kenyan farmers seeking access to EU markets.

Other barriers/agreement that could be explained include:

• choice of crops
• amounts grown (quotas)
• preferential trade access
• agreement to use GM crops
• health hazards/bans
• set aside
• fair trade.

If no actual examples of barriers/agreements given, no more than [4 marks] should be awarded.

Two exemplified ideas, well-explained, can gain [6 marks].

The command term “contrast” requires candidates to give an account of the differences between the two diseases (not their similarities).

The focus should be on the impacts of the diseases, rather than their causes. Impacts could be related to contrasting levels of economic development (LEDC versus MEDC).

The impacts will depend on the two diseases chosen. Some imbalance in the coverage of the two diseases is acceptable, even when awarding full marks. Geographic impacts may be subdivided into demographic, economic, social, political, etc, or by scale into local, national, regional, international. Either approach is acceptable for full marks, though it is likely that stronger responses will combine these approaches in some way.

The term “impacts” is understood to include measures taken with respect to the prevention, treatment, cure (if applicable) and management of the diseases, as well as mortality rates, lost working hours, health care costs, etc.

Responses at band D are likely to be a descriptive account of the impacts of any two diseases (do not expect balance).

At band E expect either a range of impacts of two named diseases examined/discussed or some explicit contrast(s) made using concepts such as scale, timescale, severity, etc.

At band F expect both.

Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.

The interpretation of the graph posed few problems, with some good attempts at quantification.

There were some very good answers to this question, but also many generalized responses with little or no reference to actual trade agreements, and sometimes not referring to food production.

This was a popular question and produced some good answers. However, often responses were very descriptive of the causes of disease, rather than its geographic impacts. Nor were they able to make explicit contrasts. Many candidates answered the question by writing “all I know about how/why the disease occurs/spreads” with no indication of demographic, social or economic impacts. Some were able to include some discussion of prevention and treatment. Candidates had problems with the command term contrast, and while stronger candidates attempted this many ignored the command term.