Responses to land cover change operate at multiple scales. Local responses are smaller in scope but often the first line of action; national responses involve government policy, legislation and funding. This key knowledge requires one response for each process (melting ice and deforestation).
Community adaptation in glacier-dependent regions
In Peru’s Cusco region, Andean communities dependent on glacier meltwater for irrigation and drinking water have developed local water management adaptations:
- Construction of qochas (traditional storage ponds) to capture meltwater before seasonal loss
- Community-based water rotation systems to distribute diminishing supplies
- Switching crops to drought-tolerant species (quinoa replacing water-intensive maize)
Glacieret conservation: Swiss Alps
Communities in Saas-Fee and Val d’Hérens (Switzerland) have used geotextile blankets to cover portions of shrinking glaciers during summer, reflecting solar radiation and slowing ablation. While effective locally (reducing summer melt by ~50–70% on covered sections), this is financially prohibitive at large scales.
Infrastructure adaptation: Greenland
Coastal communities such as Ilulissat face permafrost thaw damaging foundations. Local responses include raised structures, insulated foundations, and planned relocation of at-risk buildings.
National adaptation strategies
- Iceland: National Plan for Climate Mitigation and Adaptation — includes glacier monitoring, tourism management around Vatnajökull, and research investment
- Peru: Plan de Adaptación al Cambio Climático includes water infrastructure investment responding to Andean glacier retreat
- Greenland/Denmark: National adaptation planning for Arctic coastal communities; investment in ice monitoring
Mitigation policies (targeting the root cause)
- National renewable energy transitions (e.g., Iceland — 99% renewable electricity from geothermal/hydro) reduce emissions driving glacier melt
- Carbon pricing and emissions trading schemes (Australia’s historical experience, EU ETS)
Community forest management
In Brazil’s Amazon, extractivist reserves (Reservas Extrativistas) give forest-dwelling communities legal rights to manage and benefit from the forest without clearing it. Xapuri extractivist reserve in Acre state (championed by Chico Mendes) demonstrated that rubber tapping and nut harvesting provide sustainable livelihoods without deforestation.
Payments for ecosystem services at local level
In Costa Rica, the PES (Pagos por Servicios Ambientales) programme pays landowners per hectare to maintain or restore forest cover. Local farmers receive government payments funded by a fuel tax — deforestation fell from 4% per year in the 1970s to net reforestation by 2000s.
Community fire brigades and monitoring
Indigenous communities in the Brazilian Amazon (e.g., Kayapó people) conduct forest patrols and use smartphones/GPS to document illegal clearing, providing evidence to enforcement agencies.
Brazil’s PPCDAM (Action Plan for Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Amazon)
Launched 2004; most successful national deforestation response in history:
- Increased enforcement: IBAMA fine and seizure operations
- Legal: Forest Code requiring landowners to maintain 80% forest cover on Amazonian properties
- Economic: blacklisting of municipalities with high deforestation (Soy Moratorium, Beef Moratorium)
- Monitoring: DETER real-time detection feeding enforcement
- Result: Amazon deforestation reduced ~70% from 2004–2012 peak
Indonesia’s forest moratorium
2011 moratorium on new concessions in primary forests and peatlands; extended multiple times. Effectiveness limited by exclusions (existing concessions) and enforcement gaps.
Legal frameworks
- Brazil: Forest Code, Indigenous Land Demarcation, Public Forests Management Law
- DRC: Forest Code (2002) — but weak enforcement in conflict-affected areas
KEY TAKEAWAY: Local responses focus on community adaptation, alternative livelihoods and direct protection. National responses combine legislation, enforcement, economic instruments and monitoring. Brazil’s PPCDAM is the benchmark for large-scale deforestation reduction.
EXAM TIP: When evaluating responses, use criteria such as: scale of impact, cost, enforceability, equity (who benefits/loses), and sustainability. A response can be effective in one dimension and limited in another.
APPLICATION: For a 6-mark response, structure as: identify the response → describe its operation → explain its impacts → evaluate its effectiveness using specific evidence. Always name specific countries, policies and outcomes.
