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

Prev Next Index