Day 242 - 29 Apr 96 - Page 25

     
     1   Q.   Can you look on the map at page 11 -- I am sorry about this
     2         -- and at the same time the maps or diagrams on page 29?
     3        A.  Is this the map on page 11?
     4
     5   Q.   That is the map, that is what you might call, well, it
     6        calls itself the ecological map?
     7        A.  Yes, I have both.
     8
     9   Q.   Yes, that is what I would like you to look at.  If you
    10        look, first of all, please, at the square in the bottom
    11        left-hand corner of the map on page 29, the deforestation
    12        map  ---
    13        A.  Yes.
    14
    15   Q.   -- which purports to be an historical account of
    16        deforestation and, you tell us, is likely to be reliable,
    17        yes ---
    18        A.  Yes, that is correct.
    19
    20   Q.   -- do you see the one which is entitled 1961 ---
         A.  I do.
    22
    23   Q.   -- then if you can compare it, please, with the ecological
    24        map of Costa Rica, which is said to have been made by
    25        Mr. Tosi -- I take it he is an American, is he
    26        not, Mr. Tosi ---
    27        A.  Mr. Tosi is of American origin and a long resident of
    28        Costa Rica.
    29
    30   Q.   Yes -- perhaps originally of Italian origin actually, who
    31        knows -- which is dated 1969, do you see?
    32        A.  Yes.
    33
    34   Q.   You cannot at first glance reconcile those two, can you?
    35        A.  Well, the 1969 map -- and, of course, I do not have the
    36        notes on it ---
    37
    38   Q.   No.
    39        A.  -- may refer to data gathered some years before.
    40
    Q.   What I am suggesting is that one explanation might be --
    42        tell me whether you agree -- that what the 1969 map does is
    43        to tell us what characteristically was or would be the
    44        natural vegetation of those areas.  Would you agree that it
    45        does not represent what the land is actually covered by as
    46        at 1969?
    47        A.  It certainly would not refer to what the land was
    48        actually covered by in 1969.  It could refer to what the
    49        land was actually covered by four or five years before,
    50        that is. 
    51 
    52   Q.   Not if the 1961 map is right, do you see? 
    53        A.  Yes, there is -- there are some differences and that
    54        may reflect differences in criteria of classification.
    55
    56   Q.   Of course I understand you to say (and I accept) that when
    57        one looks at those blank white spaces in the 1961 map, it
    58        is not saying it is a desert ---
    59        A.  No.
    60