Day 056 - 28 Nov 94 - Page 46


     
     1   Q.   Yes, I am not saying you do not replace it; I am saying you
     2        have a forest which maintains its size over hundreds of
     3        years, if necessary, yes, but you need a forest of that
     4        size, 112 square miles, to extract the 1.42 square miles in
     5        a year, and at the end of 80 years you would still have the
     6        forest there and you would still be extracting the 1.42
     7        square miles.
     8
     9   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You are saying you would not need that much
    10        to still have the forest there.  Would you explain why?
    11        A.  The only reason why is if you took a forest which was
    12        as large as you said and extracted both the product from
    13        the clearfelled area and the thinnings, you have a
    14        progression, it goes on over that whole of period of time
    15        in which trees are growing.  So, you have, in fact,
    16        maturing trees of the areas that are thinned and you have
    17        replacement trees in the area that is cleared.  So, in that
    18        cycle you get, in fact more growth -- after all, we are
    19        talking about a growth factor of five metre cube per
    20        hectare per annum, and that is going contributed all the
    21        time.  What I am suggesting is that you -- in any case what
    22        we are talking about is trying to suggest the entire forest
    23        product needed by McDonald's comes from one big forest, it
    24        does not; it comes from a multitude of many forests.
    25
    26   MR. MORRIS:  Yes, what I am saying is that is the kind of
    27        pattern that has been established in terms of the evidence
    28        that has been given and, to some extent, we are stuck with
    29        it.  So, are you saying that it is possible -- if I say
    30        that you need a forest of 112 square miles in order to
    31        extract the 1.42 square miles needed in a year, are you
    32        saying that, in fact, it could be somewhat smaller?
    33        A.  Yes.
    34
    35   Q.   Because of ---
    36        A.  Yes.
    37
    38   Q.   -- so it could be ---
    39        A.  I would not -----
    40
    41   Q.   -- 80 square miles, for example?
    42        A.  It would be very nice to have 112 squares miles, it
    43        would be a very good way of ensuring that you had a
    44        multi-purpose forest and it would be a very good way of
    45        ensuring that you could show under any measurement you
    46        would like to use that that forest was sustainable.
    47
    48   Q.   So, that would give you a bit healthy leeway in terms of
    49        managing the forest sustainably?
    50        A.  Of course. 
    51 
    52   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It looks inevitable you are going have to be 
    53        asked to come back on a subsequent day, Mr. Mallinson.  Can
    54        you tell me this:  Would it be possible for you to sit down
    55        in the meantime -- I appreciate you say it is not the way
    56        it works -- to work out what sort of area of forest of the
    57        kind you find in the south of Scotland or Finland, or you
    58        think Mr. Kouchoukos must have been contemplating in the
    59        United States -- I appreciate there are differences but,
    60        broadly, in the same category -- which would provide enough

Prev Next Index