Day 286 - 24 Oct 96 - Page 33


     
     1        blame him for that; he was probably not asked about that,
     2        to comment about the Nicoya Peninsula, which we now know is
     3        the region that supplied McDonald's.  His characterisation
     4        of the San Isidro region in terms of forest types does not
     5        correspond to the highly detailed scientific map which has
     6        been accepted by our experts in court on the natural
     7        vegetation zones for that area.  It does not really give
     8        definitions of his terms.  He does say that forest in that
     9        area was cleared for cattle ranching, although the wetter
    10        forests he says were cleared primarily for grain and rice
    11        farming.  He then goes on to talk about, basically, that
    12        there is a drift to reclaim much of the area that is now
    13        under cattle production to return it to other crops, which
    14        we would say that reason is because they are more
    15        appropriate and not so damaging.
    16
    17        I just think that it is not a particularly helpful
    18        statement in its lack of detail and lack of specifics
    19        regarding McDonald's supply sources.  We called our expert
    20        witness, Dr. Carriere, who is a senior research associate
    21        for the Centre for Latin American Research and
    22        Documentation in Amsterdam since 1974.  That is, 20 years -
    23        over 20 years.  His main research area is politics and
    24        ecological degradation in Latin America, so that is very
    25        appropriate to what we are concerned with here in looking
    26        at the relation between the beef industry and ecology.
    27        Obviously, I will not go into his evidence in any kind of
    28        detail because I think a lot of it just speaks for itself.
    29
    30   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You have asked me to look at that again.
    31
    32   MR. MORRIS:   Yes.  One interesting thing about his evidence is
    33        he talks about the process of deforestation and the time it
    34        takes before deforestation becomes cattle ranching -- so
    35        can become cattle ranching -- and I think also he referred
    36        to in his evidence the dispossession of people from their
    37        land as cattle ranchers expand their area of influence and
    38        control.  His view was that, if Edie Bensilum was right and
    39        they had a ten year policy up to 1988 where land could have
    40        been cleared as late as the late '70s for McDonald's use up
    41        to around the late '80s, that could have constituted a
    42        clear incentive to small farmers to clear forest land in
    43        the expectation that it would, at a later stage, be
    44        purchased by agents assembling land for established
    45        ranches.
    46
    47        That is point 4 of his statement of December 11th 1993.  He
    48        explained in his supplementary statement -- I have not got
    49        it in front of me -- about the continuing threat that
    50        established ranches hold for deforestation.  I have not 
    51        actually got that in front of me.  (Pause) The evidence 
    52        given by Mr. Woolf, although how he knows I am not sure, of 
    53        the size of ranches supplying McDonald's was that they were
    54        between 300 to 2,000 acres and he has worked, I think he is
    55        still working, as a supplier to McDonald's, working for one
    56        of their suppliers.  So, presumably, he would know that
    57        kind of information.  Although how far back that goes I
    58        don't know.  But that would certainly contrast with what
    59        Mr. Cesca was trying to put over about small, cuddly family
    60        farms.

Prev Next Index