Day 286 - 24 Oct 96 - Page 31
1 -- well, I mean, they have said that they were supplied
2 from areas of ex-rainforest cleared as late as at least the
3 early '60s, and with the possibility it happened later
4 accepted by Edie Bensilum, or the fact that could have
5 happened accepted.
6
7 And if we look at the -- we say obviously rainforest means
8 all tropical forest and certainly by any definition all
9 moist forest and above -- but if we look on the Tozey map
10 at the specifically scientifically characterised rainforest
11 areas and we look at the deforestation map of Sader and
12 Joyce, which is the most detailed progressive deforestation
13 map, the specifically scientifically characterised
14 rainforests seem to have been destroyed between 1977 and
15 1983.
16
17 And so, although we do not accept McDonald's case on that,
18 we would say they have therefore been making an admission
19 that they were using land as it was being deforested at
20 least up to 1983. Although that would be even more
21 damaging to the plaintiffs' case, I think it is an
22 artificial construct to use the strict scientific
23 definition, which scientists disagree on anyway, as the
24 basis for this whole part of the case. And in fact
25 McDonald's themselves have defined wet or rainforest as
26 that area covered all over the San Isidro area which is
27 everything from moist forest upwards, in the San Isidro
28 area, what they call wet or rainforest, which has got a
29 single term in Costa Rica, Bosco Llubvioso.
30
31 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Well, it would be easier if this leaflet had
32 said Bosco Llubvioso, but it not, it says rainforest. So
33 I have to grapple with that.
34
35 MR. MORRIS: Yes, and the definition of rainforest in the
36 leaflet is lush green belt, and we would plead that you
37 take that at face value. What we are concerned with here
38 is the environmental damage being done to the lush green
39 belt around the -- within the tropics.
40
41 Just looking at obviously in terms of facts, Mr. Cesca, not
42 knowing that McDonald's supply plant was in Alujuela, as
43 far as we are concerned shows that he could not give
44 evidence to any degree of confidence about what was going
45 on in Costa Rica. That may not be any fault of his,
46 because he may have been misinformed, as he is basing most
47 of his information on what people have told him. But it
48 does throw doubt on somebody, either on him or on those
49 that are feeding him information. As he is not an expert,
50 that really leaves very little reliable evidence about
51 Costa Rica.
52
53 By the way, I have found the reference to the doubling of
54 the exports. The doubling of beef production in Costa Rica
55 was in Dr. Nations -- if I can find it -- it was in his
56 article. Oh, yes, it was actually read out on day 241,
57 page 54, lines 40 to 45. In Costa Rica where 71 percent of
58 all new farmland is planted in beef cattle pasture, beef
59 production doubled between 1959 and 1972, but per capita
60 beef consumption fell from 30 pounds to less than 19
