Day 073 - 13 Jan 95 - Page 44
1 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, I was going to be asking that question
2 next. (To the witness): If neither new plantation forests
3 nor established old growth forests are an acceptable source
4 of paper fibre, how much of the world's paper requirement
5 could be supplied by the alternative sources which you have
6 proposed, Mr. Hopkins?
7 A. I first would like to say that, in fact, the thing to
8 be looking at is not looking for new sources but is looking
9 for reduction of the need for paper.
10
11 Q. We understand that, Mr. Hopkins.
12 A. I do not think we do understand that. That is what
13 I want to say. You must first look not to expanding the
14 paper quantity, but reducing the paper quantity. This is
15 the way to deal with the problem. It is possible to do
16 because, in fact, Norway, for instance, uses 150 kilos of
17 paper per head per year. It is a very rich country,
18 Norway; while the United States uses 360 kilos per head per
19 person per year. So there is a great potential for
20 reduction. The answer is how much land would be needed for
21 other things. I am not an expert in that area.
22
23 Q. Have you any idea what proportion of the world's existing
24 paper demand, never mind any potential increase in demand,
25 might be satisfied by the alternative sources that you have
26 proposed, as matters presently stand?
27 A. It could well be a 100 per cent. I know that China is
28 going heavily into Kenaff and hemp production because China
29 is one of the most deforested countries in the world.
30 I think they intend to do their entire paper consumption
31 and export from China using alternative fibres, but, as
32 I say, it is not an area of my expertise.
33
34 Q. No. So you are not able to tell me, for example, what
35 quality of paper might be obtained from those sources or to
36 what uses that sort of paper might be put?
37 A. The quality of paper obtained from those sources would
38 be very much better because the actual plants have longer
39 fibres than those found in softwoods.
40
41 Q. So we could do away with the need for recycled material
42 entirely, I take it, could we?
43 A. I do not know the answer to that.
44
45 Q. Anyhow, so far as trees are concerned you, as a person
46 concerned about forests, would really only allow and only
47 perhaps in a limited way the use of established monoculture
48 plantations; is that right?
49 A. In the real world as opposed to an ideal world, I think
50 you have to look very differently at different countries.
51 When you have something like Canada where about 60 per cent
52 of old growth remains, even though some of it is
53 particularly precious, you have to look at it slightly
54 differently than, say, Finland where you have, maybe, 1.5
55 per cent. You cannot make a global judgment on such
56 varying things.
57
58 Q. Can I take up something you said there? I am not going to
59 argue about the figures; we have I think reliable figures
60 for Canada's forest cover. Some of the Canadian old
