The pie chart shows how farmland is degraded globally.According to the chart, overgrazing was the leading cause of land degradation worldwide, accounting for 35%.This is followed by deforestation, at 30%.Another important reason why land becomes le productive is over-cultivation, which is responsible for 28% of the total degraded land.The remainder (7%) is caused by other reasons.
The table compares the percentage of land degraded and the various reasons for degradation in three regions, namely North America, Europe and Oceania, during the 1990s.Of the three regions, Europe was the most seriously affected, with 23% of its agricultural land being degraded.This figure was higher than the percentages for North America and Oceania combined.In Europe, land clearance accounted for 9.8% of total degradation, whereas this only affected 0.2% of land in North America and 1.7% in Oceania.Europe also suffered from over-cultivation and overgrazing, at 7.7% and 5.5%, respectively.In contrast, Oceania has 13% of degraded land, and this was mainly caused by over-grazing (11.3%).The least affected region was North America, where only 5% of land was degraded, mainly due to over-cultivation (3.3%) and overgrazing (1.5%).
In summary, overgrazing is the most serious threat to farmland worldwide and Europe was the biggest victim of land degradation in the 1990s.
The pie charts show expenditure on running costs by a British school in 1981, 1991 and 2001.
In all three years, the greatest expenditure was on teachers’ salaries, which rose from 40% in 1981 to 45% twenty years later.The period had also seen a significant increase in spending on furniture and equipment, from 15% to 23%, despite a fall in 1991.Insurance, which only accounted for 2% in 1981, rose fourfold to reach 8% by 2001.
On the other hand, other workers’ pay fell from 28% to 15% of total spending in the same time frame.Although there was an increase in expenditure on resources such as books, which grew from 15% to 20% between 1981 and 1991, this figure dropped steeply to 9% by 2001.
Overall, during the period shown, there were increases in spending for staff salaries, equipment and insurance, but mostly at the expense of resources and other workers’ salaries.