Large-scale infrastructure investments—such as roads, dams, and pipelines—can threaten biodiversity and frequently fail to provide promised development benefits. The CCG seeks to change how the World Bank and other donors select such projects for financing through an approach that encourages a more rigorous and cooperative analysis of alternatives. The goal is to promote investments that deliver development more effectively with less biological disturbance. Governments are essential to conservation – whether through informed leadership, enlightened policies, or public funding. Yet they often face significant challenges in reconciling conservation with national development goals, financial constraints, and political realities. The United States has a significant impact on global conservation efforts. It is the largest provider of international conservation funding; it heavily influences global policies and institutions; and it possesses unparalleled technical capacity and expertise. The US government can provide crucial funding for conservation projects in poorer countries.
Global warming is an environmental issue that can only be managed on an international level. Of particular concern to conservationists is the annual destruction of an estimated 14.2 million hectares of tropical forests. The Earth's forests play a role in the natural process to store carbon, while also providing habitat protection for endangered plant and animal species. The combination of forest destruction and increased carbon dioxide emissions accelerate the effects of climate change and biodiversity loss. Some of the Earth's regions richest in biodiversity are already being affected. These areas, called , have both high concentrations of unique plants and animals and are under high degrees of threat. Birds and amphibians in Costa Rica, mosquitoes in Tanzania and Indonesia and butterflies in California are all moving to higher elevations. In equatorial mountains, the frost line is moving up, opening the way for frost-intolerant plants to climb to new elevations. The cooperation of the world’s major economic powers is essential if it is to be managed successfully. The US government in particular plays a major role in the conservation of these fragile wilderness areas; their futures depending largely upon the effects of global warming. A global temperature rise of 1 degree Celsius may cause a latitudinal shift in climate and vegetation zones of up to 100km. At present, National Parks and other forms of protection delimit safe areas for species, but if global climates change, plants and animals finding themselves in unsuitable new climates will be trapped, unable to migrate to new areas.
With an estimated US$ 3 trillion in annual revenues, tourism has emerged as one of the world's largest industries, contributing significantly to economies. However, tourism in key biodiversity areas can be both an opportunity for conservation and a threat to biodiversity. Carefully planned and implemented tourism can be a sustainable economic alternative as well as a successful conservation strategy. Ecotourism can provide income to local people and, by its reliance on healthy ecosystems, offer a powerful incentive to conserve and protect biodiversity.
Although ecotourism in Antarctica is not currently posing a major threat to the environment, as the number of visitors continues to rise, tour operators will have to come up with new ways of dealing with problems such as waste management. The effects of resource exploitation on both the wildlife and landscape will have to be continually monitored and the number of visitors will have to be strictly controlled. In an attempt to try and preserve the Antarctic for future generations, the Antarctica Treaty was devised. In 1959, forty three countries signed the Antarctica Treaty. The Treaty set out the legal framework for the management of the continent. Seven countries including Britain and Australia have made territorial claims. The Treaty recognises the claims and preserves the positions of the seven nations. Therefore, in practise, this means that every decision or agreement which is put forward is extremely carefully negotiated so that it does not prejudice either group’s legal position. However, before any conservation measures can be implemented, all 28 signatories must agree to them. The problem is that it has proved extremely difficult to get such an agreement. In Antarctica, international cooperation has had limited success.
The European Arctic is sparsely populated. The total population of the area is 4.2 million, of which the majority is found in the Russian Federation. The indigenous populations in the European Arctic descend from ethnic groups that migrated from central Asia prior to and during the early Middle Ages. Descendants of the so-called Finnish branch are found in the northern parts of Scandinavia and in the Arkangelsk oblast in the Russian Federation, while descendants of the Samojed branch inhabit the areas further north-east in Arkangelsk oblast. The main economic activities of the region are: ocean fisheries, forest industry, agriculture, hunting, mining, metallurgic industry, petroleum exploration, military activity and tourism. These activities have a relatively large impact on the Arctic environment. Physical disturbances due to activities such as the development of infrastructure, construction of production facilities, and non-sustainable harvest of forest, contribute to the deterioration of the last terrestrial wilderness in the European Arctic. Over-fishing, off-shore petroleum exploitation and production, dumping of radioactive waste from civic and military activities, may cause depletion and massive contamination of one of the most important fish stocks of the world. Pollution sources outside the Arctic are a threat to the European Arctic environment. Persistent organic pollutants (POP) are transported northward by air, sea and possibly river water, and accumulate to hazardous levels in the food chain. Long-range transported sulphur dioxide (SO2) may cause Arctic haze. Heavy metal emissions from industry in the region cause serious contamination locally and regionally. Improperly stored and handled radioactive materials are a major threat to the region, but so far contamination levels are very low and European reprocessing plants are the main source of radioactive pollution in the European Arctic. Prevention of pollution and protection of arctic wildlife and habitats are keystones to preserving Arctic wilderness as a valuable heirloom for future generations. However, a wide range of policy instruments will need to be utilised if both conservation and sustainable development in the Arctic are to be possible. Currently, the gravest threats to the Arctic environment are of transboundary origin. International co-operation is vital for substantiating Arctic environmental values and for safeguarding the sustainable development of these last pristine wilderness areas in Europe. The European nations should recognise the unique values of the European Arctic environment, it's ecosystems, biodiversity, wilderness areas and cultural heritage, and see it as their common responsibility to protect these values for the benefit of today's and future generations. Concerted action by European and other nations is needed to counteract current environmental problems, restore affected areas and resources, and ensure an environmentally sustainable future development. It should be recognised that in order to achieve this “a different and higher level of environmental management is needed in the European Arctic than in most other parts of Europe.” Action is needed at all geopolitical levels. International co-operation can direct political focus and resources to the region, and facilitate coordinated responses to transboundary issues and problems. Such CO-operation should primarily be based on existing conventions, agreements, programs and other co-operative efforts, such as the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy Rovaniemi process (AMAP, CAFF, PAME, EPPR, TFSI), the Barents Region Environmental Task Force, the Nordic Council of Ministers' work on the Arctic Environment, the bilateral environmental co-operation in the area as well as the European Environment Agency and EU programmes. Still, the main responsibility for actions lies with the individual nations. Most economic activity, management, development, and enforcement of regulations within the European Arctic is based on national law. As most important activities in the European Arctic are locally based action, information and education at this level are essential.
If current management techniques are not sustainable then we must consider strategies which are. The sustainable management of wilderness regions depends on cooperation at all levels, not just international. To ensure the survival of wilderness regions it may be that a more flexible approach is required; existing management strategies, combined with ever-increasing pressures from economic interests, may be insufficient. The key to success could be to establish an interlinked, global network of protected areas allowing species to migrate. Perhaps the future will call for “pathways” of new, additional protected land between each of the established areas. Alternatively, we could surrender protection of some wilderness areas, or decide that resource exploitation has simply gone too far.
