Real exam, Dec 21, CDI
BAND 9 SAMPLE ANSWER
The table compares large-scale and small-scale fishing industries across various metrics, including employment, catch volumes, capital costs, fuel consumption, efficiency, and environmental impacts.
Firstly, in terms of employment, small-scale fishing provides jobs to over 12 million people, significantly surpassing the 500,000 employed in large-scale fishing. Despite this, large-scale fishing has a much higher capital cost per job, ranging from $90,000 to $300,000, compared to only $250 to $2,500 in small-scale fishing. Furthermore, small-scale fishing provides significantly more jobs per $1 million invested, with 500–4,000 compared to 5–30 in large-scale operations.
Regarding the annual catch for human consumption, small-scale fishing is slightly less productive, catching 24 million tonnes compared to the 29 million tonnes caught by large-scale operations. However, large-scale fishing also catches an additional 22 million tonnes for industrial purposes, while small-scale fishing contributes almost none in this category.
Fuel consumption shows a stark contrast, with large-scale fishing using 14–19 million tonnes annually, whereas small-scale operations consume only 1–2.5 million tonnes. Despite their higher fuel use, large-scale operations are less efficient, catching only 2–5 tonnes of fish per tonne of fuel consumed, compared to 10–20 tonnes in small-scale fishing.
Environmental impact is another key difference. Large-scale fishing destroys 6–16 million tonnes of fish annually as by-catch in shrimp fisheries, while small-scale operations report no such by-catch destruction.
In conclusion, while large-scale fishing is more productive overall, small-scale fishing is more fuel-efficient, environmentally friendly, and provides greater employment opportunities at a lower cost per job.
@ulugbekumidjonov
BAND 9 SAMPLE ANSWER
The table compares large-scale and small-scale fishing industries across various metrics, including employment, catch volumes, capital costs, fuel consumption, efficiency, and environmental impacts.
Firstly, in terms of employment, small-scale fishing provides jobs to over 12 million people, significantly surpassing the 500,000 employed in large-scale fishing. Despite this, large-scale fishing has a much higher capital cost per job, ranging from $90,000 to $300,000, compared to only $250 to $2,500 in small-scale fishing. Furthermore, small-scale fishing provides significantly more jobs per $1 million invested, with 500–4,000 compared to 5–30 in large-scale operations.
Regarding the annual catch for human consumption, small-scale fishing is slightly less productive, catching 24 million tonnes compared to the 29 million tonnes caught by large-scale operations. However, large-scale fishing also catches an additional 22 million tonnes for industrial purposes, while small-scale fishing contributes almost none in this category.
Fuel consumption shows a stark contrast, with large-scale fishing using 14–19 million tonnes annually, whereas small-scale operations consume only 1–2.5 million tonnes. Despite their higher fuel use, large-scale operations are less efficient, catching only 2–5 tonnes of fish per tonne of fuel consumed, compared to 10–20 tonnes in small-scale fishing.
Environmental impact is another key difference. Large-scale fishing destroys 6–16 million tonnes of fish annually as by-catch in shrimp fisheries, while small-scale operations report no such by-catch destruction.
In conclusion, while large-scale fishing is more productive overall, small-scale fishing is more fuel-efficient, environmentally friendly, and provides greater employment opportunities at a lower cost per job.
@ulugbekumidjonov