Mark scheme for A2 Unit 3 synoptic mock – Arctic on the Edge
No.
Question
a)
Outline the factors that account for the distinctive nature of biodiversity in
the Arctic. (12 marks)
Indicative content
There are a number of (mostly physical) factors that affect biodiversity in the region - better
candidates will illustrate the idea of its ‘distinctive’ nature, probably using Fig.3. Answers are
likely to draw on the following points:







Physical:
Physical geography is split between a marine and terrestrial landscape (p2 and Fig.1)
Climate is extreme (latitude/light/temperature), which affects primary productivity
flora/fauna etc. (p2+3)
Three terrestrial biomes: boreal forest, tundra, polar desert (ref. p2-3 and Figs.2+3)
Marine biome (dependent on sea ice, ref.Fig.4)
Better candidates might focus on tundra/polar desert/marine as most ‘distinctive’
Human:
Low population density a bonus - lack of impact on area, untouched etc. (p2, View 1)
Lack of economic activity – ditto, better candidates will maybe link extreme climate to
difficulties of living and working here (Fig.7)
Synoptic linkages:
Unit 1 World at Risk
Unit 1 Going Global
Unit 3 Water Conflict
Unit 3 Energy Security
Level
Level 1
Mark
1-4
Level 2
5-8
Level 3
9-12
Parallel examples/extra research:
Flora and fauna (Polar bears indigenous etc.)
Galapagos / Amazon / Antarctica
ANWR / Arctic oil issues
Descriptor
Structure is poor or absent. A few ideas relating to physical
and human factors but narrow and lacking development.
Explanations are over simplified and lack clarity. May
concentrate on one factor only. Geographical terminology
is rarely used with accuracy. There are frequent grammar,
punctuation and spelling errors.
Structure is satisfactory. Some use of the resources and
some range of ideas linked to some physical and human
factors that affect biodiversity. May not be balanced.
Explanations are clear, but there are areas of less clarity.
Geographical terminology is used with some accuracy.
There are some grammar, punctuation and spelling errors.
Structure is good. Good range of physical and human
factors that are linked to the ‘distinctive’ biodiversity of
the region. Some reference to wider links and own
knowledge. Explanations are always clear. Strong synoptic
links. Geographical terminology is used with accuracy.
Grammar, punctuation and spelling errors are rare.
Mark scheme for A2 Unit 3 synoptic mock – Arctic on the Edge
No.
Question
b)
Assess the relative importance of the threats facing biodiversity in the Arctic.
(14 marks)
Indicative content
This requires students to explore a range of threats and how significant each one is in terms of its
impact on biodiversity – better candidates will consider the ability to solve or mitigate their impact.
Answers could be organised by physical/human threat or perhaps by using Fig.5 as follows:
Climate change
Lots of impacts in Fig.8 and p5, View 2 and links to biomes/ecosystems in p2+3.
- Arguably the biggest threat (all arrows up on Fig.5) and a chronic/context hazard.
- Also affects all biomes, rather than selected areas.
Over-exploitation
Fishing (p3, Fig.6 and View 3) and tourism (p4).
- Marine ecosystem has had worst impact of all over last century (Fig.5) but could suggest
it is more easily remedied.
Pollution
Shipping and mineral/oil exploitation (p4 and View 4). Also linked to tourism and cruise ships (p4).
- Also arguably the worst, all arrows up and greater impacts over last century (Fig.5)
- Could argue it is more containable, specific locations etc..
Candidates may also consider the impacts of IGOs such as the Arctic Council (p5) and the work of
NGOs (Greenpeace p6) and TNCs in the region that could solve the problem or mitigate the impacts.
Synoptic linkages:
Unit 1 Word at Risk
Unit 1 Going Global
Unit 3 Dev. Gap / Unit 4 Culture
Unit 3 Energy Security / Tech Fix
Level
Level 1
Mark
1-4
Level 2
5-8
Level 3
9-11
Level 4
12-14
Parallel examples/extra research:
Climate change, mitigation, Cop10 etc..
Role of TNCs e.g. Shell
Development/impact of mining/tourism
Oil issues, spills (Exxon, Gulf etc..)
Descriptor
Structure is poor or absent. Some use of the resources and some
range of ideas linked to threats. Points made are lacking
development. Explanations are over-simplified and lack clarity.
Geographical terminology is rarely used with accuracy. There
are frequent grammar, punctuation and spelling errors.
Structure is satisfactory. A range of ideas relating to threats.
Explanations are clear, but there are areas of less clarity and
insufficient evidence from resources cited. Geographical
terminology is used with some accuracy. There are some
grammar, punctuation and spelling errors.
Structure is good. Good range of threats discussed. Some
consideration of significance of threat. Some reference to wider
links. Explanations are always clear. Geographical terminology
is used with accuracy. Grammar, punctuation and spelling
errors are rare.
Carefully structured. Detailed use of resources and a good
range of threats covered in depth; detailed assessment that
leads towards a judgement of contrasting level of threats.
Explanations are always clear. Geographical terminology is used
with accuracy.
Mark scheme for A2 Unit 3 synoptic mock – Arctic on the Edge
No.
Question
c)
Study the actions in Figure 9. Evaluate the role of these actions in securing a
sustainable future for the Arctic. (14 marks)
Indicative content
Candidates are likely to define sustainability (social needs met, economic needs met and
environmental safeguarding) and some may use that as a structure. Others may evaluate the
positive and negative aspects of the three strategies in overcoming the threats to the Arctic.
Better candidates might discuss the approaches as being on a spectrum from token conservation
(‘business as usual’) to total protection (‘Arctic Sanctuary’) and the pros and cons or
sustainability of these.
Business as usual:
+ allows for economic development, spread of wealth
+ helps global energy security and food supply
+ indigenous groups benefit from the process of globalisation but..
- big impacts on indigenous cultures
- national players/strategies, environment becomes fragmented (trans-boundary biomes)
Arctic Framework: (many shared points from other two, could argue most balanced in terms of
social, economic and environmental considerations and range of IGOs, national and local players)
Arctic Global Sanctuary:
+ Puts environment first, so best on that front (but this isn't Antarctica, people live here)
+ Least disruptive to lives/culture of indigenous people (if that’s what they want)
+ value of Arctic services preserved (View 5), although could argue a lost cause in face of GW
- Would only cover the area beyond the EEZs, so not exactly all-encompassing.
- View 4 also suggests that it might not be workable (geopolitics).
- Holds back the economic development of the region (and global energy security etc..)
Level
Level 1
Mark
1-4
Level 2
5-8
Level 3
9-11
Level 4
12-14
Descriptor
Structure is poor or absent. A few ideas relating to the
actions but narrow and lacking development. Explanations
are over simplified and lack clarity. Geographical
terminology is rarely used with accuracy. Frequent
grammar, punctuation and spelling errors.
Structure is satisfactory. Some use of the resources and a
range of ideas linked to a sustainable future for the region.
Explanations are clear, but there are areas of less clarity.
Geographical terminology is used with some accuracy.
There are some grammar, punctuation and spelling errors.
Structure is good. Good range of positive and negative
points on at least two of the strategies. Maybe unbalanced,
some details and begins to evaluate. Some reference to
wider links. Explanations are always clear. Geographical
terminology is used with accuracy. Grammar, punctuation
and spelling errors are rare.
Carefully structured. Detailed use of resources and all
actions covered in depth, with reference to role of range
of players at top end. Detailed evaluation that leads
towards judgements. Strong synoptic links. Explanations
are always clear. Geographical terminology is used with
accuracy.