Day 287 - 25 Oct 96 - Page 11
1 So, basically, we would say he had been misled by those he
2 was relying on, which is part of our general case, that not
3 only is it common sense that people tell those who are
4 above them in the hierarchy what they want to know to keep
5 them happy, and that would apply to a whole range of
6 issues, but in this particular area of the case that there
7 is a lot of evasion and deception and ambiguity and other
8 matters which would render suppliers, and evidence based on
9 suppliers, unreliable.
10
11 That is on the top half of page 35 on day 224. He did
12 recognise, on page 38, that the Guatemalan industry has
13 been growing; top of page 38. At the bottom of page 38, he
14 accepts that the regions identified by Mr. Roblez in his
15 Civil Evidence Act notice statement that were deforested,
16 he accepts that they were deforested in the '40s and '50s,
17 although he does not accept they were called rainforests.
18 But, I mean, he would not know, not being an expert, not
19 being there, and he should rely on the admissions that were
20 made in any event.
21
22 Again, this is page 38 and 39, this is a general point, as
23 I am here to deal with it now. He says on page 39, top
24 half of page 39, that they could not have a policy on the
25 cutting down of tropical forests except what they define as
26 rainforests. That is line 26.
27
28 Then he was asked about this band of rainforest, the very
29 band that we have got on this map in front of us, in the
30 southern area, on the Cotter map. At the bottom of page
31 39, you asked him, "There is a sort of new moon shaped
32 black mark." Answer, "Like a pen swipe." Ms. Steel was
33 questioning him, he said, "OK, and the question is whether
34 I accept that marking?" Ms. Steel, "Yes". Answer, "Yes,
35 it looks reasonable to me. Jim is a class A researcher so
36 I have no reason to question it." This is Jim Nations who
37 was relying on that map in his article that he has put in
38 as evidence. So Mr. Cesca is accepting the expert evidence
39 -- well, proffered by Dr. Nations -- which includes that
40 Cotter map. And then there was a discussion of how you
41 ought to get a copy of the original, whatever, which we
42 did, and we backed it up with a Civil Evidence Act notice
43 statement from the person who drew up that map for Dr.
44 Nations.
45
46 Then on page 41 you asked Mr. Cesca, "It boils down to
47 this, unless you have some positive evidence to the
48 contrary you would not be minded to challenge something
49 which comes from Dr. Nations. There we are." Then I said,
50 "We will record that as a yes." And I said, "He nodded."
51 It did not actually appear on the transcript, but he did
52 nod and you said, "It is what he said." So effectively,
53 McDonald's main witness on this area indicated, not an
54 expert himself, unless he has any positive evidence to the
55 contrary he is accepting the evidence and expertise of Dr.
56 Nations, which applies to the whole issue, this whole
57 issue.
58
59 The last point I have to make on Guatemala. When I say the
60 whole issue, I mean the whole issue of tropical forest
