How the 5 marks are awarded: 1 mark for a developed benefit of one option, 1 for a developed limitation of that same option, 1 for a developed benefit of the other option, 1 for a developed limitation of that option, and 1 for a recommendation that follows from the points made. A point is developed when it says what follows for the forest, its wildlife or the people, not only what the option is.
Maximum 2 marks if only one option is discussed, however well — the question names both.
Option 1, national park — benefits, any from: it protects the whole habitat at once, so every species in it is conserved together, including the tree species that grow nowhere else; it protects the forest cat, whose numbers have already fallen from about 400 to about 240; it keeps the forest as a carbon sink and store and keeps its part in the water cycle, so flooding and soil erosion downstream are reduced; it can earn money from ecotourism and education, and can be used for research.
Option 1 — limitations, any from: it earns nothing from timber, so the boundary, the staff and the patrols all have to be paid for from elsewhere; a park boundary is hard to enforce when a mine road already runs through the forest; it takes away land and timber that families and the mining company are using now, so it may be resisted or simply ignored; the clearing along the road has already fragmented the forest, and a line on a map does not put that back.
Option 2, sustainable forestry — benefits, any from: timber income continues, so the strategy pays for its own monitoring and is more likely to be accepted and kept to; replanting keeps tree cover, so soil erosion, silting and carbon release are limited; local people keep their work, which reduces the reason to clear new plots; it is what sustainable management of forests means — balancing the needs of the environment, wildlife and people while conserving the forest for future generations.
Option 2 — limitations, any from: someone has to check that the agreed number of trees is not exceeded, and monitoring costs money and can be evaded; even selective logging needs tracks, which fragment the habitat and open the forest to others; replanted forest usually holds fewer species than the forest it replaces, so biodiversity and genetic diversity still fall; the rare tree species may be exactly the ones worth cutting; the yield is lower than clearing the land outright, so the pressure to break the licence remains.
Recommendation: either option can earn the fifth mark. For example: sustainable forestry, because it pays for itself and a poor government cannot fund patrols indefinitely; or the national park, because the tree species found nowhere else cannot be replanted once they are gone, so the risk of getting the logging quota wrong is not worth taking. A third answer — park the areas holding the unique species and license forestry in the rest — is creditworthy if it is argued from the points made. The mark is for a conclusion that follows from the answer, not for choosing correctly; there is no correct choice here.