'Tropical rainforests should be managed at the global scale rather than the national or local scale.' Discuss (8 marks + 4 SPaG)

Question (8 marks + 4 SPaG = 12): 'Tropical rainforests should be managed at the global scale rather than the national or local scale.' Discuss the extent to which you agree with this statement.

Mark scheme (8 marks): Level 4 (7–8): comprehensive evaluation with detailed evidence at multiple scales, reasoned judgement. Level 3 (5–6): clear evaluation, some detail. Level 2 (3–4): some assessment, limited detail. Level 1 (1–2): description rather than evaluation. +4 SPaG for accurate spelling/punctuation/grammar and specialist terminology.

Indicative content:

For global management:

• Rainforests are a global common good — climate regulation benefits everyone.
• Only global finance can match the scale: Norway–Brazil/Indonesia REDD+ deals (>US$1bn each); Glasgow Leaders' Declaration on Forests (2021) signed by 145 nations covering 90% of forest cover.
• Carbon markets and the Paris Agreement Article 5 channel HIC funding to LIC/NEE forest nations.

Against global / for national:

• Sovereignty: Brazil's Forest Code (revised 2012) and IBAMA enforcement are the actual lever — Lula restored enforcement and Amazon deforestation fell c.50% in 2023, while Bolsonaro-era weakening doubled it (2019–22).
• Risk of 'green colonialism' if HIC priorities override LIC development needs.

For local management:

• Indigenous-managed lands show deforestation rates 2–3× lower than surrounding areas (RAISG, 2021).
• Community forestry (Oaxaca ejidos, Mexico) demonstrates durable local stewardship.
• UNDRIP (2007) and FPIC give legal/ethical grounding.

Judgement: most effective approach is multi-scalar governance — global finance + national legal frameworks + secure local/indigenous tenure. Reject the binary in the statement; agree partially that global scale is necessary but argue it is not sufficient.