Day 056 - 28 Nov 94 - Page 42


     
     1        A.  More likely 80 years.
     2
     3   Q.   So, without going into details of your calculations, if you
     4        calculate -- I cannot remember what the figure you gave was
     5         -- .96 square miles of forest, clear cut, it would take a
     6        forest -- that is per year, is it, sorry, yes -- it would
     7        take a forest that was 90 times that to be able to do that
     8        and replant effectively each year, yes?
     9        A.  I think we have to look at the example for what it
    10        contains.  The example contains an area of thinning
    11        whereby, in fact, we have done nothing but improve the
    12        forest for its future.  In other words, we have given it
    13        advantages for the future in growth terms, we have opened
    14        it up in other ecological terms.  And the area which we
    15        have taken out in terms of thinning which, when
    16        regenerated, will take 80 years to become fully matured.
    17        But do not forget that in that 80 years it will be giving a
    18        yield in terms of thinnings.  So that, in other words, even
    19        though you take out a certain number of hectares by
    20        clearfelling, you are then going to regenerate and you will
    21        have a contribution to future packaging material in the
    22        three thinnings before the final felling.  So, it is not 80
    23        years before anything happens.
    24
    25   Q.   So would you calculate 0.96 square miles of
    26        forest clearfelling, which is what you put in your -----
    27        A.  Yes.
    28
    29   Q.   Is that an actual area that would be clearfelled or is that
    30         -- when you say "clearfelling" that would be all the
    31        considerations, whether it is thinned or clearfelled, are
    32        lumped together?
    33        A.  No.  Again, I probably have not helped in making it
    34        easy in the way this is expressed, because I took the view
    35        that what was the concern that was being expressed was that
    36        forest was being destroyed; in other words, that 800 square
    37        miles of forest was required, destroyed, literally ceased
    38        to be forest, to provide McDonald's with its requirements.
    39        I looked at this and said, well, that means in their terms
    40        that 800 square miles is clearfelled.  So, the figure that
    41        I have shown here which is .96 square miles is only the
    42        clearfelled area.
    43
    44   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  In addition, I mean, if we look,
    45        approximately half as much is also being thinned -- I am
    46        looking at page 5 of your statement -- because 8.4 is
    47        approximately half of 17.8?
    48        A.  Correct.
    49
    50   MR. MORRIS:  So, which line are we on? 
    51 
    52   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  On page 5 near the top. 
    53        A.  Near the top under "Forest Production".
    54
    55   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.
    56        A.  In very simple terms, I have calculated this 17.8
    57        hectares of clearfelled as being the equivalent of .96
    58        square kilometres.  Now, if one were to then say:  "But,
    59        ah, you have taken timber out of 8.4 hectares by thinning
    60        and, therefore, you should include it in that", then will

Prev Next Index