READING
PASSAGE 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
The
environmental impact of modern farming
Farming
and soil erosion
The
effects of government policy in rich countries
Governments
and management of the environment
The
effects of government policy in poor countries
Farming
and food output
The
effects of government policy on food output
The
new prospects for world trade
|
ii
|
iii
|
iv
|
v
|
vi
|
vii
|
viii
|
ix
|
14
|
Section
A
|
15
|
Section
B
|
16
|
Section
C
|
17
|
Section
D
|
18
|
Section
F
|
Example
Section E
|
Answer
vi
|
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 subsidise 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.
|
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 fertilisers in the 1970s and
1980s.
|
C
|
All these activities may have
damaging environmental impacts. For example, land clearing for agriculture
is the largest single cause of deforestation; chemical fertilisers 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.
|
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: fertilisers and
pesticides. Fertiliser 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 fertiliser subsidies had been followed by a fall in fertiliser 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 subsidised - and growing them does no less
environmental harm than other crops.
|
E
|
In poor countries, governments
aggravate other sorts of damage. Subsidies for pesticides and artificial
fertilisers 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 fertilisers, their use worldwide increased
by 40 per cent per unit of farmed land between the mid-1970s and late
1980s, mostly in the developing countries. Overuse of fertilisers may cause
farmers to stop rotating crops or leaving their land fallow. That, In turn,
may make soil erosion worse.
|
F
|
A
result of the Uruguay Round of world trade negotiations Is likely to be a
reduction of 36 percent 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 will be 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 p the environments to which
they are naturally suited. And more farmers in poor countries wilt 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
136.
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
Disappearance
of old plant varieties
Increased
use of chemical inputs
Increased
irrigation
Insurance
against pests and diseases
Soil
erosion
Clearing
land for cultivation
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
E
|
F
|
G
|
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 fertiliser than Dutch farmers.
|
B
|
used
twice as much fertiliser as they had in 1960.
|
C
|
applied
fertiliser much more frequently than in 1960.
|
D
|
more
than doubled the amount f 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 fertiliser
|
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 recognise 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
28
|
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
|
Farm
subsidies
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment
thank you for visiting my blog and for your nice comments