Day 056 - 28 Nov 94 - Page 34


     
     1        because they will be cleared, the trees that blown down
     2        will be cleared, will they not?  A managed forest ---
     3        A.  Yes.
     4
     5   Q.   -- is ecologically less diverse than a natural forest in
     6        any event, broadly speaking?
     7        A.  A managed forest will have a different biodiversity
     8        than an unmanaged forest which is an old growth forest, the
     9        answer must be "yes".
    10
    11   Q.   So, such diversity as there is in plantation forests, it
    12        will be a different biodiversity, whether it is more or
    13        less is another question, but it will be a different
    14        biodiversity than a natural forest, a different species of
    15        plants?
    16        A.  Yes.
    17
    18   Q.   Different fungi, different insects?
    19        A.  Of course, and the effect, equally, when the wind blows
    20        down the natural forest or the fire rages through it or the
    21        pests of one kind or another become dominant, it will
    22        change the ecology of the natural forest as well.
    23
    24   Q.   If we just look at your page 3, Canada point (iv), it
    25        says:  "From 1986/1989 only 1.2 per cent of Canada's ...
    26        productive timberland was harvested".  If that pattern
    27        continued for a reasonable lifetime, say, 100 years, yes,
    28        I calculate that that would be 40 per cent of productive
    29        timberland harvested in what you might call a generation.
    30        Would you not say that was a large amount harvested; 40 per
    31        cent of Canada's productive timberland in a generation?
    32        A.  That is assuming that nothing is regenerating and
    33        nothing has been planted and that the existing trees are
    34        not growing.
    35
    36   Q.   But even if they are replaced, it is still a large
    37        percentage, is it not?
    38        A.  I think more of interest is the fact that the forest
    39        stock, according to the statement that I have made here, is
    40        a net increase of 554 million metre cubed, so that the
    41        volume of timber is increasing, not decreasing.
    42
    43   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Are you going to go through the whole of this
    44        statement, challenging facts and figures which are in it?
    45        Let me explain why I have asked that.
    46
    47   MR. MORRIS:  I have questions here.
    48
    49   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Probably the first question I will have to
    50        ask myself in this area is how much McDonald's are shown to 
    51        be responsible for.  The leaflet says, or the leaflet might 
    52        be interpreted as saying, 800 square miles of forest every 
    53        year.  The calculation which Mr. Kouchoukos did suggests
    54        less than 10 square miles in the USA.  The calculation
    55        which Mr. Mallinson does in his statement suggests less
    56        than a square mile for McDonald's UK requirements.  When
    57        I have some idea of what the true figures are, no doubt,
    58        within some latitude (because I do not suppose anyone can
    59        be anything like exact) I will have to ask myself the
    60        extent to which felling those kinds of areas damages the

Prev Next Index