READING PASSGE 2
You should
spend about 20 minutes on Questions 14 – 28 which are based on Reading
Passage 2 on the following pages.
Questions
14 – 18
Reading
Passage 2 has six sections A – F.
Choose the
most suitable headings for sections A – D and F from the list of headings
below.
Write the
appropriate numbers i-ix in boxes 14 – 18 on your answer sheet.
|
List of
Headings i The
probable effects of the new international trade agreement ii The
environmental impact of modern farming iii Farming
and soil erosion iv The
effects of government policy in rich countries v Governments
and management of the environment vi The
effects of government policy in poor countries vii Farming
and food output viii The
effects of government policy on food output ix The
new prospects for world trade |
14 Section A
15 Section B
16 Section C
17 Section D
Example
Answer
Paragraph E vi
18 Section F
Section A
The role of governments in environmental management is
difficult but inescapable. Sometimes, the state tries to manage the resources
it owns, and does so badly. Often, however, governments act in an even more
harmful way. They actually subsidize the exploitation and consumption of
natural resources. A whole range of policies, from farm price support to
protection for coal-mining, do environmental damage and (often) make no
economic sense. Scrapping them offers a two-fold bonus: a cleaner environment
and a more efficient economy. Growth and environmentalism can actually go hand
in hand, if politicians have the courage to confront the vested interest that
subsidies create.
Section B
No activity affects more of the earth’s surface than
farming. It shapes a third of the planet’s land area, not counting Antarctica,
and the proportion is rising. World food output per head has risen by 4 per
cent between the 1970s and 1980s mainly as a result of increases in yields from
land already in cultivation, but also because more land has been brought under
the plough. Higher yields have been achieved by increased irrigation, better
crop breeding, and a doubling in the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers
in the 1970s and 1980s.
Section C
All these activities may have damaging environmental
impacts. For example, land clearing for agriculture is the largest single cause
of deforestation; chemical fertilizers and pesticides may contaminate water
supplies; more intensive farming and the abandonment of fallow periods tend to
exacerbate soil erosion; and the spread of mono-Culture and use of high-yielding
varieties of crops have been accompanied by the disappearance of old varieties
of food plants which might have provided some insurance against pests or diseases
in future. Soil erosion threatens the productivity of land. In both rich and poor
countries. The United States, where the most careful measurements have been
done, discovered in 1982 that about one-fifth of its farmland as losing topsoil
at a rate likely to diminish the soil’s productivity. The country subsequently
embarked upon a program to convert 11 per cent of its cropped land to meadow or
forest. Topsoil in India and China is vanishing much faster than in America.
Section D
Government policies have frequently compounded the
environmental damage that farming can cause. In the rich countries, subsidies
for growing crops and price supports for farm output drive up the price of
land. The annual value of these subsidies is immense: about $250 billion, or
more than all World Bank lending in the 1980s.To increase the output of crops per
acre, a farmer’s easiest option is to use more of the most readily available
inputs: fertilizers and pesticides. Fertilizer use doubled in Denmark in the
period 1960 – 1985 and increased in The Netherlands by 150 per cent. The
quantity of pesticides applied has risen too; by 69 per cent. In 1975-1984 in
Denmark, for example, with a rise of 115 per cent in the frequency of
application in the three years from 1981.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s some efforts were
made to reduce farm subsidies. The most dramatic example was that of New
Zealand, which scrapped most farm support in 1984. A study of the environmental
effects, conducted in 1993, found that the end of fertilizer subsidies had been
followed by a fall in fertilizer use (a fall compounded by the decline in world
commodity prices, which cut farm incomes). The removal of subsidies also
stopped land-clearing and over-stocking, which in the past had been the
principal causes of erosion. Farms began to diversify. The one kind of subsidy
whose removal appeared to have been bad for the environment was the subsidy to
manage soil erosion.
In less enlightened countries, and in the European
Union, the trend has been to reduce rather than eliminate subsidies, and to
introduce new payments to encourage farmers to treat their land. In
environmentally friendlier ways, or to leave it follow. It may sound strange
but such payments need to be higher than the existing incentives for farmers to
grow food crops. Farmers, however, dislike being paid to do nothing. In several
countries they have become interested in the possibility of using fuel produced
from crop residues either as a replacement for petrol (as ethanol) or as fuel
for power stations (as biomass). Such fuels produce far less carbon dioxide
than coal or oil, and absorb carbon dioxide as they grow. They are therefore
less likely to contribute to the greenhouse effect. But they die rarely
competitive with fossil fuels unless subsidized – and growing them does no less
environmental harm than other crops.
Section E
In poor countries, governments aggravate other sorts
of damage. Subsidies for pesticides and artificial fertilizers encourage
farmers to use greater quantities than are needed to get the highest economic
crop yield. A study by the International Rice Research Institute Of pesticide
use by farmers in South East Asia found that, with pest-resistant varieties of
rice, even moderate applications of pesticide frequently cost farmers more than
they saved. Such waste puts farmers on a chemical treadmill: bugs and weeds
become resistant to poisons, so next year’s poisons must be more lethal. One
cost is to human health, every year some 10,000 people die from pesticide
poisoning, almost all of them in the developing countries, and another 400,000
become seriously ill. As for artificial fertilizers, their use world-wide
increased by 40 per cent per unit of farmed land between the mid-1970s and late
1980s, mostly in the developing countries. Overuse of fertilizers may cause
farmers to stop rotating crops or leaving their land fallow. That, in turn, may
make soil erosion worse.
Section F
A result of the Uruguay Round of world trade negotiations is likely to be a
reduction of 36 per cent in the average levels of farm subsidies paid by the
rich countries in 1986 – 1990. Some of the world’s food production will move
from Western Europe to regions where subsidies are lower or non-existent, such
as the former communist countries and parts of the developing world. Some
environmentalists worry about this outcome. It wipes undoubtedly mean more
pressure to convert natural habitat into farmland. But it will also have many
desirable environmental effects. The intensity of farming in the rich world
should decline, and the use of chemical inputs will diminish. Crops are more
likely to be grown up the environments to which they are naturally suited. And
more farmers in poor countries will have the money and the incentive to manage
their land in ways that are sustainable in the long run. That is important. To
feed an increasingly hungry world, farmers need every incentive to use their
soil and water effectively and efficiently.
Questions
19 – 22
Complete the
table below using the information in sections B and C of Reading
Passage 2.
Choose your
answers A-G from the box below the table and write them in boxes 19-22
on your answer sheet.
|
Agricultural
practice |
Environmental
damage that may result |
|
• 19 |
•
Deforestation |
|
• 20 |
• Degraded
water supply |
|
• More
intensive farming |
• 21 |
|
•
Expansion of monoculture |
• 22 |
|
A Abandonment of fallow period B Disappearance of old plant varieties C Increased use of chemical inputs D Increased irrigation E Insurance against pests and diseases F Soil erosion G Clearing land for cultivation |
Questions 23 – 27
Choose the
appropriate letters A – D and write them in boxes 23 – 27 on your answer
sheet.
23 Research completed in 1982 found that
in the United States soil erosion
A reduced
the productivity of farmland by 20 per cent.
B was
almost as severe as in India and China.
C was
causing significant damage to 20 per cent of farmland.
D could
be reduced by converting cultivated land to meadow or forest.
24 By the mid-1980s, farmers in Denmark
A used
50 per cent less fertilizer than Dutch farmers.
B used
twice as much fertilizer as they had in 1960.
C applied
fertilizer much more frequently than in 1960.
D more
than doubled the amount of pesticide they used in just 3 years.
25 Which one of the following increased
in New Zealand after 1984?
A farm
incomes
B use
of fertilizer
C over-stocking
D farm
diversification
26 The writer refers to some rich
countries as being ‘less enlightened’ than New Zealand because
A they
disapprove of paying farmers for not cultivating the land.
B their
new fuel crops are as harmful as the ones they have replaced.
C their
policies do not recognize the long-term benefit of ending subsidies.
D they
have not encouraged their farmers to follow environmentally friendly practices.
27 The writer believes that the Uruguay
Round agreements on trade will
A encourage
more sustainable farming practices in the long term.
B do
more harm than good to the international environment.
C increase
pressure to cultivate land in the rich countries.
D be
more beneficial to rich than to poor countries.
Question
28
From the
list below choose the most suitable title for Reading Passage 2.
Write the
appropriate letter A – E in box 28 on your answer sheet.
A Environmental
management
B Increasing
the world’s food supply
C Soil
erosion
D Fertilizers
and pesticides - the way forward
E Farm
subsidies