Describe the relationship between life expectancy and income inequality shown on the graph.

Suggest one possible reason for the relationship you have described in (a).

Using one example, explain how agricultural subsidies can affect food production.

Examine the relative importance of the human and physical factors that led to a recent named famine.

The relationship is inverse/negative [1], which means that as countries’ income inequality increases, life expectancy is lower ([1] for this or other appropriate description), with the final [1] reserved for some attempt at quantification or identification of any anomaly.

Award [1] for identifying a reason, and a further [2] for developing it, including [1] for a clear link to life expectancy.

For example: In countries with greater income inequality, a higher proportion of the population lives in relatively poor conditions [1], with poor/inadequate access to water, food or healthcare [1]. These people are therefore disproportionately vulnerable to sickness and disease, reducing their probable life expectancy [1].

It is equally acceptable to link differences in ethnicity to variations in life expectancy, provided they are supported by evidence.

The example could include the impacts on more than one country, eg subsidies in EU/USA have effects for other countries eg Jamaica. Subsidies may either stimulate food production or diminish it, depending on the example used.

Award [1] for naming a valid example, and up to [3] for its development.

For example, in Europe the Common Agricultural Policy [1] established guaranteed minimum prices [1] for certain farm products. This led to overproduction of some foods (eg butter and some vegetables) [1] and a fall in production in other countries [1].

Other possibilities include:

• in the USA [1], subsidies for growing corn for biofuel [1] reduced the amount of corn grown for human consumption [1], raising corn prices on the international market [1]
• dumping/sale of food from subsidized over-production in high-income countries [1] damages the agricultural sector in some low-income countries [1], and may develop the example [1].

Award a maximum of [2] if no example is given of either a crop/product or a location or no explicit link made to subsidies.

Famine is understood as a widespread decline in the availability of food in a region that leads to hunger and increased mortality rates.

Depending on the example examined, possible physical factors include:

• climate change/fluctuations
• soil exhaustion
• crop pests/diseases
• environmental hazard events such as drought, hurricane, major earthquake, etc.

Possible contributory human/economic factors include:

• civil war/refugee movements
• poverty
• inequality
• politics/corruption/governance.

The example should be recent (preferably no earlier than 1990s). The use of an earlier example is permissible but may not be awarded band F. If more than one famine event is cited, credit the best example given. Physical and human factors need not be examined in equal depth for the award of full marks.

Good answers may provide a structured examination that arrives at an evidenced conclusion (ie the answer arrives gives a substantiated view of which factor is most important. Another approach might be to show how different factors are interrelated/amplify one another. Another approach might be to examine how different factors operate at different scales (global climatic changes eg ENSO combine with local factors such as land management).

For band D, expect some description of some physical and human factors that cause famine (do not expect balance).

At band E, expect either more detailed explanation of a range of physical and human factors (do not expect balance), or a structured examination of the relative importance or interdependence of factors.

At band F expect both of these elements.

Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.

Candidates had few problems with describing the graph. Many gained full marks, although some omitted the fact that this is a negative/inverse relationship, or did not recognize an anomaly.

Generally well answered.

This was quite well answered. For those who were clear on the term “agricultural subsidies”, the question and answer was straightforward and scored full marks, with many using the example of the European Common Agricultural Policy. Weaker responses referred to the Green Revolution or to GM crops in a general way.

This question was generally well answered with effective use of detailed examples. Weaker candidates focused only on physical factors. Most examples were on Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia and the Horn of Africa. Some gave a very good explanation of what constitutes a famine. However there were two shortcomings: either, candidates did not focus on the relative importance of the human and physical factors; or, the description of the famine and the factors was very generic.

The Irish Potato Famine and Chinese Famine are not considered relevant and recent, and it is alarming that these examples are still being taught. Some candidates tried to use the aftermath of the Haiti (or even the Nepal) earthquake that, although marginally relevant, did not lend itself to the depth and detail required.