Environmental Management - IELTS Reading Answers & Explanations
From Cambridge IELTS 03 Academic Reading Test 2 · Part 2 · Questions 14–28
Reading Passage
You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 14-28 which are based on Reading Passage 2 on the following pages.
READING PASSAGE 2
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 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 subsi-dies 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 fertilisers 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 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 subse-uently 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: 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 eroslon,
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.
Section 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 resis-tant 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 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 fertilisers 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 wiB 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 coun-tries 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
Questions 14–18 Matching Headings
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.
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
Questions 19–22 Table Completion
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
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
| Agricultural practice | Environmental damage that may result |
|---|---|
| 19 | Deforestation |
| 20 | Degraded water supply |
| More intensive farming | 21 |
| Expansion of monoculture | 22 |
Questions 23–27 Multiple Choice (One Answer)
Choose the appropriate letters A-D.
Questions 28–28 Multiple Choice (One Answer)
From the list below choose the most suitable title for Reading Passage 2.
Answers & Explanations Summary
| # | Answer | Evidence | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q14 | v | The role of governments in environmental management is difficult but inescapable | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage begins by stating that governments have a job to do in looking after the environment, and they cannot avoid this responsibility even if it is hard. Answer Explanation: The answer 'v' means that the best title for Section A is 'Governments and management of the environment'. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is choice v because Section A focuses on how governments are involved in taking care of nature and resources. It explains that while governments have a job to manage these things (environmental management), they often make mistakes or create rules (policies) that actually hurt the environment. The text mentions that if politicians change these bad rules, they can help the environment become cleaner while helping the economy. Keywords like 'governments', 'state', and 'environmental management' indicate that this section is about the government's role in nature. |
| Q15 | vii | 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 | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that the amount of food grown for every person in the world went up by 4% during the 1970s and 1980s. This happened because farmers got more food out of the land they were already using and also began farming on new land. Answer Explanation: The answer 'vii' refers to the topic of 'Farming and food output,' which describes how much food is grown and produced by farmers. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is 'vii' because Section B describes how farming covers a large part of the Earth and focuses on the increase in global food production. It uses specific terms like 'food output' and 'yields' to explain how farmers are producing more food than before by using new techniques and more land. |
| Q16 | ii | 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 | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that modern farming methods can have bad effects on nature. For instance, it says farming is a big reason for forests being cut down, water getting dirty from chemicals, and soil being washed away. Answer Explanation: The answer is heading 'ii' which describes how modern ways of farming can hurt nature. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is 'ii' because Section C lists many different ways that farming today causes problems for the environment. It mentions things like cutting down forests, putting chemicals in the water, losing healthy soil, and the disappearance of older types of plants. These are all specific examples of 'environmental impacts' caused by agriculture. |
| Q17 | iv | In the rich countries, subsidies for growing crops and price supports for farm output drive up the price of land | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that in wealthy nations, government programs like subsidies affect the value of land and how farming is managed. Answer Explanation: The answer 'iv' means that the main topic of Section D is how the rules and money provided by the governments of wealthy nations affect farming and the environment. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is correct because Section D specifically focuses on 'rich countries' (wealthy nations) and the 'subsidies' (financial support from the government) they provide. It explains how these government policies in places like Denmark, The Netherlands, New Zealand, and the European Union have led to environmental issues by encouraging the use of more chemicals like pesticides and fertilisers. It also discusses the impact of changing or removing these policies. |
| Q18 | i | 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 | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage states that a specific global trade deal (the Uruguay Round) will probably cause a major decrease in the money that wealthy countries give to their farmers. This serves as an example of an 'effect' of the 'international trade agreement' mentioned in the heading. Answer Explanation: The answer 'i' means that Section F explains the things that are expected to happen because of a new global agreement regarding buying and selling goods (trade). Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is 'i' because Section F discusses the 'Uruguay Round of world trade negotiations,' which is a specific international trade agreement. The section lists various outcomes or 'effects' that are 'likely' to happen because of this agreement, such as a drop in farm subsidies (government money for farmers), changes in where food is grown globally, and different impacts on the environment. The word 'result' in the passage is a synonym for 'effects,' and 'likely' matches the word 'probable' in the heading. |
| Q19 | G | land clearing for agriculture is the largest single cause of deforestation | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that clearing land for farming is the main reason why forests are destroyed. Answer Explanation: The answer G stands for "Clearing land for cultivation." It identifies the activity that leads to the environmental problem of cutting down too many trees. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is chosen because the passage mentions that clearing land for farming is the biggest reason for deforestation. In the text, "agriculture" is another word for farming or "cultivation," and "land clearing" means removing things like trees to use the land. The passage links these two ideas directly in Section C. |
| Q20 | C | chemical fertilisers and pesticides may contaminate water supplies | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that chemicals used for feeding crops and killing bugs can make water sources dirty or polluted. Answer Explanation: The answer is 'Increased use of chemical inputs,' which means using more chemicals like fertilizers (food for plants) and pesticides (poison for bugs) on farms. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is linked to environmental damage because Section C of the passage explains that using chemical fertilizers and pesticides on farms can lead to the contamination of water. 'Degraded water supply' means that the water becomes dirty or polluted, making it less useful or safe. Therefore, using these chemical inputs is the agricultural practice that causes this specific environmental problem. |
| Q21 | F | more intensive farming and the abandonment of fallow periods tend to exacerbate soil erosion | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that when farmers use land very actively and do not give the soil a rest, it leads to the problem of soil disappearing or wearing away. Answer Explanation: The answer 'F' refers to 'Soil erosion', which describes the process where the productive top layer of dirt is worn away or lost over time. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is found in Section C, which lists several farming habits and the specific environmental problems they cause. The text links 'more intensive farming'—which is when land is used very heavily or continuously—to the problem of 'soil erosion'. The word 'exacerbate' used in the text means to make a bad situation even worse, showing that this type of farming is a direct cause of the land losing its quality dirt. |
| Q22 | B | 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 | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that growing just one kind of plant and using new, high-growth seeds causes older kinds of food plants to vanish, even though those old plants could have helped stop bugs or sickness in the future. Answer Explanation: The answer means that some types of food plants that were grown in the past are now being lost or are no longer available. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is B because the passage explains that when many people start growing only one type of crop (which is called monoculture), it leads to the loss of different, older types of plants. These old plants are important because they could help protect against future diseases and pests, but they are gone because of these new farming methods. The text explicitly links the spread of monoculture with the disappearance of these old food plant varieties. |
| Q23 | C | 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 | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that in 1982, measurements in the U.S. showed that one-fifth (20%) of all farming land was losing its good top soil. This problem was so bad that it was expected to make the land less productive (less able to grow plants) in the future. Answer Explanation: The answer means that research showed that 20% of the land used for farming in the U.S. was suffering from serious harm because of soil erosion. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is Choice C because the passage provides specific details from a 1982 study in the United States. It states that "one-fifth" (which is an equivalent fraction for 20 percent) of the land used for farming was losing its top layer of soil (topsoil). The text notes that this was happening at a speed that would "diminish the soil's productivity," which means the land would become less useful for growing food. This loss of topsoil and future loss of productivity represent "significant damage" to that specific portion of the land. Choice A is incorrect because the 20% refers to the amount of land affected, not the amount of productivity lost. Choice B is incorrect because soil loss in India and China was actually much worse than in the U.S. Choice D mentions a solution that the government tried later, but it wasn't the main finding of the 1982 measurements themselves. |
| Q24 | B | Fertiliser use doubled in Denmark in the period 1960-1985 | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that from the year 1960 to 1985, the amount of fertiliser used by farmers in Denmark became twice as large as it was before. Answer Explanation: The answer B means that in the year 1985, Danish farmers were using two times the amount of fertiliser compared to what they used in 1960. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer B is found by looking at the specific data for Denmark in Section D. The passage states that the use of fertiliser 'doubled' (which means increased by two times) between 1960 and 1985. Choice A is incorrect because the passage mentions an increase for the Netherlands but doesn't compare the total amounts between the two countries. Choice C mentions frequency of application, but the passage links that specific data to pesticides, not fertiliser. Choice D is incorrect because the 115 per cent rise in frequency (more than double) happened for pesticides between 1981 and 1984, not for the total amount of fertiliser. |
| Q25 | D | Farms began to diversify | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that after the government stopped providing financial aid, farms in New Zealand started to grow different types of plants or use their land for many different purposes. Answer Explanation: The answer, farm diversification, means that farmers in New Zealand started to grow a wider variety of crops or engage in different types of farming activities instead of just focusing on one thing. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is extracted from Section D, which discusses the changes in New Zealand after the government stopped providing financial support (subsidies) to farmers in 1984. While the removal of these subsidies led to a decrease in the use of fertilizers, a drop in farm incomes, and the stopping of over-stocking, the passage explicitly states that farms "began to diversify." In English, if something "begins" to happen, it means the frequency or presence of that activity increased from its previous state. |
| Q26 | C | The most dramatic example was that of New Zealand, which scrapped most farm support in 1984 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 |
Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage states that New Zealand stopped its farm payments. It then explains that 'less enlightened' countries choose to only lower the amount of money they give to farmers instead of getting rid of the payments completely. Answer Explanation: The answer means that these countries do not see that completely stopping the extra money given to farmers is a good and smart plan for the future. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is C because the passage compares New Zealand to other countries. New Zealand 'scrapped' (which means to stop or get rid of) its farm subsidies, and this led to better results for the environment. The writer calls other countries 'less enlightened'—meaning less wise or less informed—because they only 'reduce' (make smaller) the subsidies instead of 'eliminating' (completely ending) them. This shows that these countries do not fully understand the major benefits that come from ending this financial support entirely. |
| Q27 | A | And more farmers in poor coun-tries wilt have the money and the incentive to manage their land in ways that are sustainable in the long run | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that because of the trade agreement, farmers in poorer countries will have more money and a good reason to take care of their land in ways that keep it productive for a long time. Answer Explanation: The answer means that the trade agreement will help farmers use farming methods that keep the land healthy for many years to come. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is A because Section F of the passage discusses the positive results of the Uruguay Round trade negotiations. While some people are worried, the author explains that these changes will lead to "desirable environmental effects." The most direct evidence is that farmers in developing nations will finally have the "money" and the "incentive" to use "sustainable" methods—methods that do not wear out the earth—over a "long run," which is a synonym for the long term. |
| Q28 | A | The role of governments in environmental management is difficult but inescapable | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage starts by saying that the job of governments in taking care of the environment is hard, but it is something they must do. This sentence introduces the main topic that the rest of the text explores. Answer Explanation: The answer means that the best title for the whole reading is 'Environmental management' because it describes the main focus of the text. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is A because the entire passage focuses on how governments try (or often fail) to look after the natural world through their policies. While the text talks a lot about farming and money given to farmers (subsidies), these are used as examples of how humans 'manage' or control the environment. The text covers many different problems like chemicals, cutting down forests, and soil damage, all of which fall under the big umbrella of 'environmental management.' It connects government actions to the health of the planet. |