Tropical rainforests play a very significant role in supporting life on earth. It provides protection to soil stability and hydrology, water supply, climate, and the efficient cycle between soil and vegetation. Moreover, rainforests have a rich biodiversity, containing animals, herbs plants, which are of importance to genetic material, new crops and medicine. Also, from economics point of view, tropical rainforests perform a key role by producing industrial products such as rubber, tropical timber, and a wide range of oils, resins and waxes.
Considering the important role of tropical rainforests, it is deemed necessary to protect the rainforest from destruction. There are two types of forest destruction, namely forest degradation and deforestation Forest degradation refers to changes in forest quality and occurs when the species diversity and the biomass are significantly reduced through unsustainable forms of forest utilization. Another type of forest destruction, namely deforestation, occurs when a forest is cleared to give way to another use of the land.
Deforestation emerged as an international issue during the 1980s and it has been firmly established as global concerns from 1990 up to now. International attention for tropical rainforests has risen due to the concern that ongoing deforestation has global effects such as global warming and loss of biodiversity. Thus, it requires global action, which can be in the form of international cooperation, to solve the problem. Unfortunately, the process of finding solution for deforestation is hindered with arguments between environmental nationalism and the international community’s desire to protect the forests.
One of the basic problematic dimensions of forest conservation is the proprietary dimension, which leads to the competing claim over world’s forests. There are three competing claims exist, namely the acknowledgement of forests as global commons, national resources, and as local commons. The latter is claimed by local people, especially indigenous people, and mainly become the focus of international NGO, which asserts that forests belong to local people. The most problematic issue that raise debates between governments in developed and developing countries in international forum is the competing claims between forests as a global common and as a national resource. Many actors, who mainly come from the developed countries concerned about the global effects of forest destruction, incline towards asserting forest as a global common. On the contrary, the governments of the developing countries resist such claim and assert a counter claim stating that forests, under the state’s sovereignty, are a national resource to be used in line with national policy. Thus, the different point of view over the claim of forests hampers the international cooperation for forest conservation.
Before further discussing the different arguments on world’s forests claim in international arena, it is necessary to recognise what global commons and national property are. Global commons can be defined as the areas or resources that do not or cannot by their very nature fall under sovereign jurisdiction. The benefits from the exploitation of such resources should be shared by all states, which presumably distributed to the people, regardless of the state’s participation in resource extraction. The resources include in this definition are the oceans and deep seabed, Antarctica, space and the atmosphere, because those areas are beyond state sovereignty. Sovereignty can be defined as the legal doctrine that states have supreme authority to govern their internal affairs and manage their foreign relations with other states and IGOs. Thus, forests as a national resource means that it is the property of an individual state, on which state has the right to exclude others from the forest and from decisions affecting the future of the forest.
Starting from those definition, environmental nationalism, which is represented by developing countries, argues that forests should not be claimed as a global common because it certainly fall under the jurisdiction of sovereign state. Therefore, the management and utilisation of forests should be in line with national policy. The argument is also backed up with the widely accepted concept of state sovereignty over their natural resources in the 1970s. In fact, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held at Stockholm in 1972 combined this right with the responsibility of states to avoid transboundary environmental damage, which is reflected in Stockholm Principle 21.
The Stockholm Principle 21 is widely accepted so that it will be difficult for the claimants of forests as a global common to dispute national sovereignty over forests resources. Alternatively, members of the international community, mostly from developed countries, try to redefine the nature of sovereignty in two ways. Firstly, they redefine the traditional territorial definition of forests into functional definition. Forests perform global functions by providing biodiversity, carbon sinks, wildlife and beauty. All the benefits and losses occurred from such functions will affect all countries, not just those with forests. Hence, the international community has a stake in the conservation of the world’s forests. Secondly, the nature of state sovereignty over forests is challenged with the moral argument stating that it is important to preserve forest for the common good of humanity, considering its effects in global scale.
The case of contradicting arguments between forests as national resources and as global commons can be seen in the debates on Amazonian rainforest in Brazil. The international community believes that the Amazonian rainforest is a public good for its destruction can significantly diminish the quality of life through massive soil erosion, sedimentation, floods, hydrologic cycle problems, desertification and the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Amazonian deforestation also leads to loss of species of animals and plants peculiar to the rainforest as their habitats, as well as to the depletion of goods supply important to mankind. The international community claims that the Amazonian destruction has damaging effects on the welfare of human being, therefore, it becomes the international responsibility to conserve the natural resources of Amazonia.
Responding to the international community’s claim, Brazil invokes the principle of non-intervention, which is prohibiting one state from interfering in another state’s internal affairs and emphasises its sovereignty right over its natural resource to be determined in line with the national needs. Brazilian government argues that it needs to exploit the Amazonia to meet the basic needs of its increasing poor majority, satisfy the energy needs of its booming population, find export goods for the international market and expand its industrial sector. Nevertheless, Brazilian government points out its willingness to stop the destruction of the rainforest.
In supporting the argument to assert national sovereignty over the forest resources, developing countries point out the relationships between deforestation and the needs for development to erode poverty and national debt. Besides, developing countries alleges the assertion of forests as global commons proposed by developed countries are just their instruments to take control of the resources for their own interests. Tropical forest produce has been of vital importance to the development of Western industries. The future development of Western medicine is clearly heavily dependent on the tropical forests. The development of disease resistant, or more productive and adaptable strains, is dependent on the availability of fresh genetic material, where can only be found in tropical forests as the sole source of such material.
In 1992, the results of the UNCED negotiations regarding forests convention gave benefits to developing countries. The Forest Principles and Chapter 11 of Agenda 21 reaffirmed the rights of sovereign nations to utilise their forests in accordance with their national priorities and policy objectives. Nevertheless, developed countries do not give up their efforts to assert the global responsibility approach in order to form a legally binding regime on global forests, which is reflected on the emerging of several international initiatives on forest conservation, following the failure of the UNCED to produce a global forest convention.
By observing the explained arguments above, it is difficult to refuse the fact that forests are national resources that fall under national jurisdiction. Forest countries have the sovereign right to manage and utilise its forests in accordance with its national policy. Nevertheless, considering the functions of forests and the effects of deforestation that go beyond national jurisdiction, forests can also be seen as global commons. Thus, the actors involved in forest conservation should bear that idea in mind, so that the process of finding solution on deforestation is no longer focused on the proprietary dimension, but more on finding harmonious means that can give benefit developing countries in preserving its forests and in the same time, developed countries could also enjoy the functions of the forests.
