Examine why the management of coral reefs and mangrove swamps can become a source of conflict.

Evaluate the success of actions to reduce overfishing.

Refer to Paper 1 markbands (available under the "Your tests" tab > supplemental materials).

Coral and mangrove ecosystems are under increasing pressure, partly from the adverse effects of climate change but also from human activities. Different stakeholders may have conflicting perspectives regarding the use and value of coral reefs and mangroves. These demands must be carefully managed to ensure a sustainable future.

Possible applied themes (AO2) demonstrating knowledge and understanding (AO1):

• Conflicting pressures include tourism, fishing, transport, energy exploration and settlement.
• Environmental impacts include mangrove and reef destruction, pollution, damage to fragile ecosystems and loss of fisheries. Social and economic impacts include decline of tourism and the fishing industry, and pollution of coastal margins. Coastal margins may also become more vulnerable to erosion by wave action associated with tropical storms.
• Management strategies may be small scale, such as the establishment of protected marine areas, conservation areas, fisheries management, ecotourism, land use zoning, and research and education. They may also be large scale, involving international agreements.
• Tensions and conflicts may arise between different stakeholders, eg environmentalists, local people, fishermen, tourists and tour operators.

Good answers may be well-structured (AO4) and may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3) that examines a variety of conflicting pressures on coral reefs and mangroves by different stakeholders, in varying places and at different scales. These conflicts are likely to increase, resulting in irreversible damage to ecosystems, unless management strategies for a sustainable future can be formulated.

For 5–6 marks, expect some weakly evidenced outlining of management/conflicting pressures on mangrove and/or coral reefs.

For 7–8 marks, expect a structured account which includes:

• either evidenced explanation of conflicting pressures on both ecosystems(balance not required) and relevant management strategies
• or a discursive conclusion (or ongoing evaluation) grounded in geographical concepts and/or perspectives regarding the success of management strategies.

A response that omits one of the two ecosystems may score up to 7 marks if the evaluation is done well.

For 9–10 marks, expect both of these traits.

Refer to Paper 1 markbands (available under the "Your tests" tab > supplemental materials).

Overfishing has resulted in a dramatic depletion of fish stocks, extinction of prized species, reduced catches, decline of fishing industry, and unemployment. Various policies have been put forward to reduce overfishing and introduce possible alternatives. These include management of fishing areas, establishment of conservation areas, the introduction of quotas, and fish farming (aquaculture).

Possible applied themes (AO2) demonstrating knowledge and understanding (AO1):

• Causes and consequences of overfishing.
• Conflicts over fishing rights and competing perspectives over ownership of a resource that forms part of the “global commons”.
• Need for international agreements.
• Management of fishing areas, eg quotas, limits on fleet and net sizes, effective monitoring.
• Establishment of protected marine areas and conservation areas; research.
• Development of sustainable fish farming (aquaculture).
• Actions by individuals (eg, eating less fish / choosing eco-friendly options).

Good answers may be well-structured (AO4) and may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3) that examines the statement in a way that considers the varying perspectives on the costs/benefits and effectiveness of management strategies, and considers the different scales of dispute or conflict between different nations or places.

For 5–6 marks, some weakly evidenced outlining of two actions to reduce overfishing.

For 7–8 marks, expect a structured account which includes:

• either an evidenced examination of two or more actions to reduce overfishing
• or a discursive conclusion (or ongoing evaluation) grounded in geographical concepts and/or perspectives regarding the viability of suggested strategies for sustainable fishing.

For 9–10 marks, expect both of these traits.