Global responses involve international agreements, multilateral organisations, and transnational programmes. They complement but operate differently from local and national responses, typically requiring coordination among sovereign nations.
The root cause of accelerated glacier and ice sheet loss is anthropogenic climate change. Global responses therefore focus on mitigation (reducing emissions) and adaptation (adjusting to unavoidable change).
What it is: A legally binding international treaty under the UNFCCC, adopted by 196 parties. Entered into force November 2016.
Key commitments:
- Limit global mean temperature rise to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, with efforts to limit to 1.5°C
- Countries submit Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) — voluntary emissions reduction pledges
- Developed nations commit \$100 billion/year in climate finance to developing nations by 2020
- Five-year review cycles with expectation of increasing ambition
Relevance to glacier loss: IPCC AR6 (2021) projects that at 1.5°C warming, ~70% of mountain glacier volume outside the ice sheets will be lost; at 2°C, ~83%. The Paris target therefore directly determines the scale of glacier loss.
Effectiveness:
- Positive: First universal climate agreement; every major emitter is a signatory; NDCs have improved over successive rounds
- Limitations: Current NDCs put the world on track for ~2.5–2.8°C warming; enforcement mechanism is reputational, not legal; US withdrawal (2017–2021) demonstrated vulnerability to political change
- 2023 Global Stocktake found collective ambition remains insufficient
The IPCC synthesises scientific evidence on climate change and its impacts, providing the evidence base for global policy. Key reports (Assessment Reports, Special Reports) directly inform international negotiations. Effectiveness: very high for knowledge generation; limited direct implementation power.
Eight Arctic nations (Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, USA) plus observer nations and Indigenous peoples’ organisations. Coordinates monitoring (AMAP — Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme) and facilitates cooperation on Arctic environmental protection. Effectiveness: limited by geopolitical tensions (Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine suspended most activities) and lack of binding authority.
What it is: A UN framework under the UNFCCC allowing developing countries to be compensated for keeping forests standing, measured against a reference level.
How it works:
1. A country establishes a Forest Reference Emission Level (baseline deforestation rate)
2. It implements policies to reduce deforestation
3. Verified emissions reductions are reported to the UNFCCC
4. Financial transfers flow from developed nations or carbon markets to compensate
Key programmes:
- Norway–Brazil Amazon Fund (~\$1.2 billion committed since 2008) — results-based payments for verified deforestation reduction; instrumental in funding PPCDAM
- Norway–Indonesia partnership (~\$1 billion) — supported the forest moratorium
- Green Climate Fund REDD+ mechanism
Effectiveness:
- Strengths: Aligns conservation incentives with economic development; Brazil’s experience shows results-based payments can work at scale
- Limitations: “Additionality” is difficult to verify (would deforestation have been reduced anyway?); leakage risk (forests cleared elsewhere); benefit-sharing with local communities often inadequate; political instability disrupts national programmes
The CBD (1992) and its Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (2022) include commitments to protect 30% of land and sea by 2030 (“30x30”). This requires maintaining and restoring forest ecosystems. Effectiveness: aspirational; depends on national implementation.
KEY TAKEAWAY: The Paris Agreement and REDD+ are the two primary global responses. Paris targets emission reductions to address glacier melt at source; REDD+ directly compensates developing nations to reduce deforestation.
EXAM TIP: When evaluating global responses, address: the mechanism (how does it work?), evidence of impact (what has changed?), and limitations (why might it fall short?). Use specific data where possible (e.g., “Norway’s \$1 billion Amazon Fund coincided with a 70% reduction in deforestation 2004–2012”).
VCAA FOCUS: You must evaluate one global response for each process. The Paris Agreement (for glacier melt) and REDD+/Amazon Fund (for deforestation) are the strongest choices, but any valid global response can be used.
