5nvGuh

REPORTIT N2014Living PlanetReport 2014Species and spaces,people and places

CONTENTSFOREWORD 4Introduction 8At a glance 12CHAPTER 1: THE STATE OF THE PLANET 16The Living Planet Index ® 16The Ecological Footprint 32The Water Footprint 44People, consumption and development 54CHAPTER 2: DEVELOPING THE PICTURE 64Panning out: the planetary picture 65Zooming in 74CHAPTER 3: WHY WE SHOULD CARE 86Ecosystem services and their value 88Food, water and energy 91Healthy communities 94CHAPTER 4: ONE PLANET SOLUTIONS 100Southern Chile: protection, production and people 102Mountain gorillas: communities and conservation 106Belize: valuing natural capital 110South Africa: plantations and wetlands 114Great Barrier Reef: land, rivers and sea 118Denmark: winds of change 122We love cities 126THE PATH AHEAD 132APPENDIX 136Living Planet Index ® FAQ 136Ecological Footprint FAQ 148Water Footprint FAQ 161Glossary and abbreviations 164REFERENCES 168

Editor-In-Chief: Richard McLellan.Lead Editors:Editorial Team: Monique Grooten, May Guerraoui, Paul Sunters.External reviewersDr Jennie Moore, Director, Sustainable Development and Environment Stewardship,BCIT School of Construction and the Environment, British Columbia Institute ofTechnology, British Columbia, Canada.Professor Topiltzin Contreras Macbeath, Head Of The Conservation BiologyResearch Group, Centro De Investigaciones Biológicas, Universidad Autónoma delEstado de Morelos; and Minister for Sustainable Development, Government of theState of Morelos, Mexico.ContributorsZoological Society of London: Louise McRae, Robin Freeman, Stefanie Deinet.Global Footprint Network:Water Footprint Network: Ashok Chapagain.WWF: Alison Harley (Tigers Alive), Joanne Shaw (Rhino programme), Cassandra Brooke(climate), Jon Hoekstra, (land use and ecosystem services); Rodney Taylor (forests); PaulChatterton (REDD+); Jessica Battle (marinefreshwater);Ricardo Bosshard, Rodrigo Catalán, María Elisa Arroyo, Marygrace Balinos, Jaime Molina,Irina Montenegro, Cristina Torres, Francisco Viddi, Trevor Walter (Chile case study); DavidGreer (mountain gorilla case study); Aimee Gonzales, Amy Rosenthal, Valerie Burgener,Gregory Verutes (Belize case studySouth Africa case study);Sean Hoobin, Julie Chaise, Joshua Bishop, Doug Yuille (Great Barrier Reef case study);Hanne Jersild (Denmark case studyJinlei Feng, Liangchun Deng, (citiesGIS maps).Additional key contributions received fromKate Arkema (Stanford University), Albert Bleeker (Energy Research Centre of theFélix Pharand-Deschênes (Globaïa), Jan Willem Erisman (IntegratedLouise GallagherInstitute), James Galloway (University of Virginia), Elaine Geyer-Allely (WWFInternational), David Harmon (George Wright Society), Eric Kissel (WG2 TSU, IPCC),Allison Leech (University of Virginia), Jonathan Loh (ZSL), Anna Behm Masozera(IGCP), Robert Meisner (European Space Agency), (University ofPauline Midgeley (WG1 TSU, IPCC), Kate RaworthJohan Rockström (StockholmResilience Centre), Arco Van StrienJoshua TewksburyKatherine TrebeckSpecial thanks for review and support toRosamunde Almond (Cambridge Institute for Sustainability and Environment), MikeBarrett (WWF-UK), Carlotta Bianchi (WWF International), Ellen Bogers (Rabobank),Gemma Cranston Brent Corcoran (MondiGroup), Melanie Dass (Mondi Group), Jean-Philippe Denruyter (WWF International),Chris EnthovenRicardo Fuentes-NievaPeterGardiner (Mondi Group), Johnson GathiaTimothyGeer (WWF International), Chris Hails (WWF International), Kerryn Haselau (MondiGroup), Leo Hickman (WWF-UK), David Hirsch (WWF International), GretchenLyons (WWF International), Shaun Martin (WWF-US), Elisabeth Mclellan (WWFInternational), Mie Oehlenschläger (WWF-Denmark), Gemma Parkes (WWFInternational), Niki Parker (WWF International), Janos Pasztor (WWF International),Richard Perkins (WWF-UK), Julie RobinsonAnabelaRodrigues (WWF-Mozambique), Johannah Sargent (WWF-UK), SophieSchlingemann (IPCC Secretariat), Sybil Seitzinger (International Geosphere-BiosphereProgramme, Sweden), Sturle Hauge Simonsen (Stockholm Resilience Centre), StephanSinger (WWF International), PJ Stephenson (WWF International), Thomas Ursem(Rabobank), Hanna Wetterstrand (Stockholm Resilience Centre), Mandy Woods(WWF-GCEI), Lucy Young (WWF-UK), Natascha Zwaal

Living PlanetReport 2014Species and spaces,people and places~

FOREWORDMessage from WWF International Director GeneralThis latest edition of the Living Planet Report is not for the faint-picture is that the Living Planet Index (LPI), which measures morethan 10,000 representative populations of mammals, birds, reptiles,another way, in less than two human generations, population sizesof vertebrate species have dropped by half. These are the livingforms that constitute the fabric of the ecosystems which sustainlife on Earth – and the barometer of what we are doing to our ownplanet, our only home. We ignore their decline at our peril.hand-in-hand. They are not only about preserving biodiversityof humanity – our well-being, economy, food security and socialstability – indeed, our very survival.© WWF-Canon / Matthew LeeBY TAKING MORE FROMOUR ECOSYSTEMS ANDNATURAL PROCESSESTHAN CAN BE REPLENISHED,WE ARE JEOPARDIZINGOUR FUTUREThis has to make us stop and think. What kind of future are weheading toward? And what kind of future do we want? Can weso inequitably?Living Planet Report. Whileit may be an economic metaphor, it encapsulates the idea thatour economic prosperity and our well-being are reliant upon theresources provided by a healthy planet. In a world where so manypeople live in poverty, it may appear as though protecting nature is apeople, it is a lifeline. And we are all in this together. We all needfood, fresh water and clean air – wherever in the world we live.We cannot protect nature without also recognizing the needs andaspirations of people, and the right to development. But equally,we cannot have development or meet the needs and aspirations ofpeople without protecting nature.WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 4

solution. And it is by acknowledging the problem and understandingimportantly, the determination to put things right.We need a few things to change. First, we need unity around acommon cause. Public, private and civil society sectors need toleadership for change. Sitting on the bench waiting for someone elsethinking globally; businesses and consumers need to stop behavingas if we live in a limitless world.the subtitle of this edition of the Living Planet Report – “speciesand spaces, people and places”. We really are all connected – andwe must work to ensure that the upcoming generation can seizethe opportunity that we have so far failed to grasp, to close thisdestructive chapter in our history, and build a future where peoplecan live and prosper in harmony with nature.Marco LambertiniDirector GeneralWWF InternationalIT IS BY ACKNOWLEDGING THE PROBLEMAND UNDERSTANDING THE DRIVERSOF DECLINE THAT WE CAN FINDTHE INSIGHTS AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY,THE DETERMINATION TO PUT THINGS RIGHTForeword page 5

WHAT’S ON THEHORIZON?~A park ranger looks out over the Semliki River in VirungaIn Virunga, the issues explored in the Living Planet Reportare coming to a head. Few places on Earth contain so manyspecies or such an extraordinary range of landscapes.services: supplying fresh water, controlling erosion, storingcarbon, and providing tens of thousands of people witha livelihood.But this World Heritage Site is under threat, as the fossil-fuelindustry goes to ever greater lengths to meet global energydemands. Earlier this year, hope was restored for Virungawhen, UK-based company Soco International PLC agreedto end its oil exploration activities in Virunga followingconcessions allocated across 85 per cent of the park put itslong-term future in doubt.DRC desperately needs development. But will it bedevelopment that plunders natural capital to fuelgifts, now and for generations to come? People must choosethe future of Virunga, as we must choose the future for theplanet as a whole.

© Brent Stirton / Reportage by Getty Images / WWF-Canon

INTRODUCTIONinternational agenda for more than a quarter of a century. Peopletalk earnestly of the environmental, social and economic dimensionsof development. Yet we continue to build up the economiccomponent, at considerable cost to the environmental one. We riskundermining social and economic gains by failing to appreciateour fundamental dependency on ecological systems. Social andeconomic sustainability are only possible with a healthy planet.ECOLOGICALDOMAINSOCIALDOMAINFigure 1: Ecosystemssustain societies thatcreate economiesECONOMICDOMAINEcosystems sustain societies that create economies. It does not workany other way round. But although human beings are a product ofthe natural world, we have become the dominant force that shapesecological and biophysical systems. In doing so, we are not onlythreatening our health, prosperity and well-being, but our veryfuture. This tenth edition of the Living Planet Report ® reveals theimplications for society. And it underlines the importance of thechoices we make and the steps we take to ensure this living planetcan continue to sustain us all, now and for generations to come.Chapter 1 presents three established indicators of the state of theplanet and our impact upon it: the Living Planet Index ® (LPI), theEcological Footprint and the water footprint.The LPI, which measures trends in thousands of vertebrate speciespopulations, shows a decline of 52 per cent between 1970 and 2010(Figure 2). In other words, vertebrate species populations acrossthe globe are, on average, about half the size they were 40 years ago.This is a much bigger decrease than has been reported previously,WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 8

Figure 2: Global LivingPlanet IndexThe global LPI shows adecline of 52 per cent between1970 and 2010. This suggeststhat, on average, vertebratespecies populations are abouthalf the size they were 40years ago. This is based ontrends in 10,380 populationsof 3,038 mammal, bird,species. The white line showsthe index values and theshaded areas represent thesurrounding the trend (WWF,ZSL, 2014).KeyIndex Value (1970 = 1)2101970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearGlobal Living PlanetIndexwhich aims to be more representative of global biodiversity(the methodology is explained further in Chapter 1 and in detail inAppendix).The Ecological Footprint (Figure 3) shows that 1.5 Earths wouldbe required to meet the demands humanity makes on nature eachyear. These demands include the renewable resources we consumeneed to absorb our carbon emissions. For more than 40 years,amount of biologically productive land and sea area that is availableto regenerate these resources. This continuing overshoot is makinghuman population, as well as to leave space for other species.Adding further complexity is that demand is not evenly distributed,with people in industrialized countries consuming resources andservices at a much faster rate.The water footprint helps us comprehend the massive volumes ofwater required to support our lifestyles – especially to grow food.As human population and consumption continue to grow, so toodo our demands for water – but the volume of freshwater available2.7 billion people – live in river basins that experience severe waterscarcity for at least one month each year.Chapter 2 introduces a range of complementary information andindicators for assessing and understanding the state of the naturalthe concept of planetary boundaries – the thresholds beyond whichIntroduction page 9

Number of Planet Earths21World biocapacityFigure 3: Humanity’sEcological Footprint1.5 Earths would berequired to meet thedemands humanitycurrently makes on nature.For more than 40 years,humanity’s demand hasexceeded the planet’sbiocapacity – the amountof biologically productiveland and sea area that isavailable to regeneratethese resources (GlobalFootprint Network, 2014).01961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearKeyEcological Footprintwe risk potentially catastrophic changes to life as we know it. Threeof these nine planetary boundaries appear to have already beencrossed: biodiversity is declining far faster than any natural rate;the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is alreadywhile converting nitrogen from the air into fertilizer has helpedunderappreciated, environmental threat. We also look at otherindicators that deepen our understanding of ecosystems andsee how this data can feed into practical tools and policy actions totackle issues such as deforestation and water risk.World biocapacityWhy should we care about what the science and research tellsus? Chapter 3 presents some possible answers to this question,economic development, and how we might respond.Better understanding of the services that ecosystems provideForests, for example, provide shelter, livelihoods, water, fuel andfood to 2 billion people directly, and help regulate the climate foreveryone on the planet. Marine ecosystems support more thanparticularly in developing countries. While it is impossible to put aprice-tag on nature, ascribing an economic value to ecosystems andthe services they provide is one way to convey what we stand to loseif we continue to squander our natural capital.WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 10

As the LPI declines and the Ecological Footprint increases, themillion live without a safe, clean water supply and 1.4 billion lackaccess to a reliable electricity supply. Securing resilient, healthycommunities where people can thrive will become an even greaterchallenge than it is today as population and consumption increase,and climate change and ecosystem degradation take their toll.understanding that the natural capital upon which our society andsustainable development.Figure 4: One PlanetPerspective(WWF, 2012).BETTER CHOICESFROM A ONE PLANETPERSPECTIVEREDIRECTFINANCIALFLOWSPRESERVENATURAL CAPITALPRODUCE BETTERCONSUMEMORE WISELYEQUITABLERESOURCEGOVERNANCEECOSYSTEMINTEGRITYBIODIVERSITYCONSERVATIONFOOD, WATER ANDENERGY SECURITYIntroduction page 11

AT A GLANCEChapter 1: The state of the planetBiodiversity is declining sharply• The global Living Planet Index (LPI) shows an overall declineof 52 per cent between 1970 and 2010. Due to changes inacross biomes, this percentage has decreased considerably incomparison with previous publications.• Falling by 76 per cent, populations of freshwater speciesdeclined more rapidly than marine (39 per cent) and terrestrial(39 per cent) populations.• The most dramatic regional LPI decrease occurred in South• In land-based protected areas, the LPI declined by 18 per cent,less than half the rate of decline of the overall terrestrial LPI.increasing• We need 1.5 Earths to meet the demands we currentlymake on nature. This means we are eating into our naturalgenerations.• The carbon Footprint accounts for over half of the totalEcological Footprint, and is the largest single component forapproximately half of the countries tracked.• Agriculture accounts for 92 per cent of the global waterare exacerbating challenges of water scarcity.• capita Footprint will multiply the pressure we place on ourecological resources.• The Ecological Footprint per capita of high-income countries• By importing resources, high-income countries in particular,income countries appear to show an increase (10 per cent) inbiodiversity, middle-income countries show declines (18 percent), and low-income countries show dramatic and markeddeclines (58 per cent).• Countries with a high level of human development tend to havehigher Ecological Footprints. The challenge is for countries toincrease their human development while keeping their Footprintdown to globally sustainable levels.WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 12

Chapter 2: Developing the pictureAdditional indicators and ways of thinking give newperspectives on the state of the planet.• that keep the Earth in a stable state where life can thrive.• Transgressing any of the nine boundaries could generate abruptor irreversible environmental changes. Three appear to have beencrossed already: biodiversity loss, climate change and nitrogen.• opportunity is fast closing.• pollution has severe impacts on aquatic ecosystems, air quality,biodiversity, climate and human health.• Local and thematic analysis helps identify the causes andpractical solutions.Chapter 3: Why we should care• Human well-being depends on natural resources such as water,pollination, nutrient cycling and erosion control.• Putting ecosystems at the centre of planning, and managingactivities that depend on natural resources, brings economic• us all.• population lives in cities, with urbanization growing fastest inthe developing world.Chapter 4: One planet solutions• Individuals, communities, businesses, cities and governmentsare making better choices to protect natural capital and reducetheir footprint, with environmental, social and economic• be easy. But it can be done.At a glance page 13

A LIVING PLANET~Only around 880 mountain gorillas remain in the wild –about 200 of them in Virunga National Park. Although theyremain critically endangered, they are the only type of greatape whose numbers are increasing, thanks to intensiveconservation efforts.Mountain gorillas are among the 218 mammal species foundin Virunga, along with 706 bird species, 109 reptile species,78 amphibian species and more than 2,000 species of plants.But drilling for oil could lead to habitat degradation and seethe park lose its protected status and World Heritage Sitelisting, leaving its wildlife increasingly vulnerable.Globally, habitat loss and degradation, hunting and climatechange are the main threats facing the world’s biodiversity.They have contributed to a decline of 52 per cent in theLiving Planet Index since 1970 – in other words, the numberwe share our planet has fallen by half.© naturepl.com / Andy Rouse / WWF-Canon

CHAPTER 1:THE STATE OF THE PLANETThe Living Planet IndexThe global LPI reveals a continual decline in vertebrate populationsover the last 40 years. This global trend shows no sign of slowingdown. For this tenth edition of the Living Planet Report, the LPIrepresentation of the global distribution of vertebrate species (Seeshows that the size of populations (the number of individualanimals) decreased by 52 per cent between 1970 and 2010(Figure 5). This is a steeper decline than reported in previous yearswhen the dominance of data from North America and Europe –The LPI is calculated using trends in 10,380 populations ofand mammals). These species groups have been comprehensivelyresearched and monitored by scientists and the general public formany years, meaning that a lot of data is available to assess the state2Index value (1970=1)101970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearFigure 5: Global LivingPlanet Index shows adecline of 52 per centbetween 1970 and 2010(WWF, ZSL, 2014).KeyGlobal Living PlanetIndexWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 16

Box 1: Explaining the use of LPI-D, the weighted LPIFigure 6: Illustrationof how the global LPIis calculated using theLPI-D methodThe bar charts showthe relative number ofspecies in each realmand by taxonomic groupwithin each realm basedon estimates taken fromthe IUCN Red List (IUCN,2013), Freshwater Speciesof the World (WWF/TNC, 2013) and the OceanBiogeographic InformationSystem (OBIS, 2012). Aweighted average methodthat places most weight onthe largest (most speciesrich)groups within a realmis used. Once the averagetrend for each realm hasbeen calculated, a weightedaverage to calculate eachsystem LPI is used, placingthe most weight on thelargest (most species-rich)realm within a system. Theglobal LPI is the average ofthe terrestrial, freshwaterand marine system LPIs(WWF, ZSL, 2014).Number of speciesTerrestrialLPIRealmTerrestrial andFreshwater realms1. Neotropical2. Indo-Pacific3. Afrotropical4. Palearctic5. NearcticGlobalLPINumber of speciesFreshwaterLPI54321RealmNumber of species54321RealmMarine realmTaxonomic groupsFishesBirdsMammalsReptiles andamphibiansMarineLPI1. Tropical /subtropical Indo-Pacific2. Atlantic tropical and sub-tropical3. Atlantic north temperate4. South temperate and Antarctic5. Pacific north temperate6. Arctic654321the Living Planet Reporttaxonomic groups and biogeographic realms to apply weightings to the LPI data. (SeeAppendix for more detail on these weightings).This is to account for the fact that the population trends for each taxonomic groupand biogeographic realm in the LPI database are not a perfect representation of the numberand distribution of vertebrate species that exist in the world. This means that, withouttaxonomic group in each biogeographic realm to apply a proportional amount of weightingto the data on those species in the LPI database, giving the most weight to the groups andrealms with the most species, and the least weight to those groups and realms with the fewest.Chapter 1: The State of the planet page 17

The global LPI can be subdivided to show trends intemperate and tropical regions separately, based on whether thebiogeographic realm in which the population is located ispredominantly temperate or tropical.The results indicate that vertebrates are declining in bothtemperate and tropical regions, but that the average decline isgreater in the tropics. The 6,569 populations of 1,606 species in thetemperate LPI declined by 36 per cent from 1970 to 2010 (Figure 9).The tropical LPI shows a 56 per cent reduction in 3,811 populationsof 1,638 species over the same period (Figure 10).Figure 9: The temperateLPI shows a decline of36 per cent between1970 and 2010This is based on trends inspecies (WWF, ZSL, 2014).KeyTemperate LivingPlanet IndexIndex value (1970=1)2101970 1980 1990 2000 2010Year2Figure 10: The tropicalLPI shows a decline of56 per cent between1970 and 2010This is based on trends inspecies (WWF, ZSL, 2014).KeyTropical LivingPlanet IndexIndex value (1970=1)101970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearChapter 1: The State of the planet page 19

Threats to speciesThe main threats to populations in the LPI are recorded based oninformation provided by each data source. Up to three main threatsare recorded, relating to the population rather than the species asa whole. Habitat loss and degradation, and exploitation throughfor example as bycatch) are the primary causes of decline (Figure 11).Climate change is the next most common primary threat inthe LPI. Climate change has already been linked to the populationdecline and possible extinction of a number of amphibian speciesin the Neotropics (La Marca et al., 2005; Ron et al., 2003) and inAustralia (Osborne et al., 1999; Mahoney, 1999). In the Arctic, theeffects of a rapidly warming climate have been suggested as likelycauses of decline in body condition and numbers in many polar bear(Ursus maritimus) and caribou (Rangifer tarandus) populations(Stirling et al., 1999; Vors and Boyce, 2009).13.4%7.1%5.1%4%2%37%Figure 11: Primarythreats to LPIpopulationsInformation on threats3,430 populations inthe LPI assigned toseven categories. Otherpopulations are eithernot threatened or lackthreat information(WWF, ZSL, 2014).KeyExploitationHabitat degradation/changeHabitat lossClimate changeInvasive species/genes31.4%PollutionWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 20

Terrestrial LPIThe terrestrial LPI contains population trends for 1,562 speciesof mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians from a wide range ofhabitats. The index shows that terrestrial populations have beendeclining since 1970 (Figure 12) – a trend that currently shows nosign of slowing down or being reversed. On average, in 2010 – theyear for which the most recent comprehensive dataset is available –terrestrial species had declined by 39 per cent. The loss of habitat tomake way for human land use – particularly for agriculture, urbandevelopment and energy production – continues to be a majorthreat to the terrestrial environment.When habitat loss and degradation is compounded by theadded pressure of wildlife hunting, the impact on species can bedevastating. Take, for example, the forest elephant (Loxodontaafricana cyclotis), a subspecies of the African elephant, which isdistributed throughout fragmented forested areas in West andrange (circa 1900) by 1984. Further recent analysis suggests that,across the forest elephant’s range, the population size declined bymore than 60 per cent between 2002 and 2011 – primarily due toincreasing rates of poaching for ivory (Maisels et al., 2013).Figure 12: Theterrestrial LPI showsa decline of 39 per centbetween 1970 and 2010This is based on trends inmammal, bird, reptile andamphibian species (WWF,ZSL, 2014).KeyTerrestrial LivingPlanet IndexIndex Value (1970 = 1)2101970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearChapter 1: The State of the planet page 21

Freshwater LPIThe freshwater index shows the greatest decline of any of the biomebasedindices. The LPI for freshwater species shows an averagedecline of 76 per cent in the size of the monitored populationsbetween 1970 and 2010 (Figure 13).The indication that freshwater species are faring muchworse than terrestrial species has been reinforced in other studies(Collen et al., 2014; Darwall et al., 2011; Cumberlidge et al., 2009).Further, freshwater protected areas have fallen far behind asterrestrial protected area models translate imperfectly to complex,interconnected freshwater ecosystems (Abell et al., 2007).The main threats to freshwater species are habitat loss andfragmentation, pollution and invasive species (Collen et al., 2014).Direct impacts on water levels or on freshwater system connectivityhave a major impact on freshwater habitats. For example, the1985, primarily as a result of water extraction for irrigation (Gosbelland Grear, 2005). This has resulted in population declines in manyas the curlew sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea).2Index Value (1970 = 1)101970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearFigure 13: Thefreshwater LPI showsa decline of 76 per centbetween 1970 and 2010This is based on trends in3,066 populations of 757mammal, bird, reptile,(WWF, ZSL, 2014).KeyFreshwater LivingPlanet IndexWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 22

Pacific northtemperateIndo-Pacifictropical& sub-tropicalAtlantic northtemperateAtlantictropical &sub-tropicalArcticIndo-Pacifictropical &sub-tropicalSouth temperate and AntarcticPacificnorthtemperateMarine LPIMarine populations are assigned to marine realms. The marine LPIshows a decline of 39 per cent between 1970 and 2010 (Figure 14). Thisis based on trends in 3,132 populations of 910 mammal, bird, reptileand stability throughout the time period. The period from 1970 throughsome stability, until another period of decline in recent years.Although the overall picture shows a declining trend, marinepopulation trends differ across the globe. Some increases have beenrecorded among populations in the temperate oceans, particularlypopulations recovering from long-term historical declines (Thurstanet al., 2010; Lotze et al., 2011).The sharpest declines in marine populations have beenobserved in the tropics and the Southern Ocean. Species in declinespecies showing declines are many shark species, which have sufferedIn the Southern Ocean, declines have been observed amongin this area, including both reported and illegal or unregulatedand petrels have also been under threat from the rising presenceis causing declines in population numbers and threatening somespecies, such as the iconic wandering albatross (Diomedea exulans)Figure 14: The marineLPI – shows a declineof 39 per cent between1970 and 2010This is based on trends in3,132 populations of 910mammal, bird, reptileZSL, 2014).KeyMarine LivingIndex Value (1970 = 1)2101970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearChapter 1: The State of the planet page 23

Biogeographic realmsAll terrestrial and freshwater species populations can be assigned tothe world. Species population trends in all biogeographic realms showIndex value (1970=1)2101970 1980 1990 2000 2010Yearsome populations increasing whileothers decreased.Index value (1970=1)NearcticFishes 83Amphibians 73Reptiles 48Birds 461Mammals 802101970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearThe Neotropical index shows a dramaticcent. This is the most dramatic regionaldecrease and highlights the intensepressure felt by tropical species.NeotropicalFishes 86Amphibians 61Reptiles Birds 310Mammals 66Figure 15: LPI by biogeographic realmsThe tables show the number of species for eachvertebrate group, with the colour denotingthe average overall trend for each group (red– decline; orange – stable; green – increase)(WWF, ZSL, 2014).WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 24

Index value (1970=1)2101970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearPalearcticFishes 56Amphibians 13Reptiles 19Birds 349Mammals 104AfrotropicalFishes 25Amphibians 2Reptiles 12Birds 104Mammals 121Indo-PacificFishes 28Amphibians 22Reptiles 28Birds 250Mammals 95Index value (1970=1)2101970 1980 1990 2000 2010Yeara pattern of declines and increases,of the time period. This change inis still a decline of 19 per centrecorded since 1970.Index value (1970=1)2101970 1980 1990 2000 2010Yearlarge and continuing declinesin species populations. It hasthe second highest rate ofdecline (67 per cent) afterthe Neotropics.Chapter 1: The State of the planet page 25

Protected areas and protecting speciesProtected areas are a way of conserving wild species and theirhabitats through better management of, access to, and use of, agiven area of land or sea. To get an insight into whether protectedareas are helping to conserve species, it is possible to focus ontrends in populations from the terrestrial LPI that occur inside aprotected area. The resulting index (Figure 16) is different from the1990s, after which there is a slight decline. Registering an overallreduction of 18 per cent since 1970, populations in protected areasare faring better than terrestrial populations as a whole, whichhave declined by 39 per cent. Protection may not be the only reasonfor this difference – other reasons that could contribute to thisimproved status include targeted conservation action, or the speciesfor which data is available being less susceptible to threats. The LPIof protected areas does not distinguish between pressures beingsuccessfully controlled through protected area legislation and thearea being situated away from such pressure hotspots. However,the relative trend is encouraging.Index Value (1970=1)2101970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearFigure 16: Theterrestrial LPI ofpopulations insideprotected areas showsa decline of 18 per centbetween 1970 and 2010This is based on trends inmammal, bird, reptile andamphibian species (WWF,ZSL, 2014).KeyTerrestrial LivingPlanet Index insideprotected areasProtected areas can offer refuge to threatened species thatwould otherwise be at greater risk of targeted exploitation. Forexample declines in tiger (Panthera tigris) populations, due tomost pronounced outside protected areas (Walston et al., 2010).and three wildlife corridors, rose by 63 per cent between 2009 and2013 (Figure 17). This conservation success has been attributed toprotection for wild tigers.WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 26

250Figure 17: The increasein number of tigers inNepal between 2008/9and 2013The error bars show theupper and lower limits ofeach population estimate(Government of Nepal,WWF-Nepal).Tiger population estimate2001501005002008/2009 2013Figure 18: Currentrange of black andwhite rhino (Emslie,2012a, 2012b) andindividual populationtrendsThe range is shown aswhole countries due to thesecurity issues of showingexact locations andincludes countries wherepopulations have beenreintroduced or introducedto new areas. The dots showthe approximate location ofmonitored populations anddenotes whether the overalltrend has been an increaseor decrease. Dots outsidethe range are in countrieswhere rhino are suspectedto have gone extinct.However, in some African protected areas, declines in largemammal species have been unabated (Craigie et al., 2010). Thisemphasizes the importance of maintaining the effectiveness ofprotected areas through strong management and law enforcement.This is vital for species that are targeted by poachers. For example,many rhino populations in Africa (Figure 18) have becomeregionally extinct or are in decline, despite largely occurring insideprotected areas.Species current rangeBlack and white rhinoBlack rhinoWhite rhinoMonitored populationsPopulation increasePopulation decreaseChapter 1: The State of the planet page 27

Africa has two species of rhino – black (Diceros bicornis) andwhite (Ceratotherium simum) – distributed across southern andeastern Africa, but the majority occur in just four countries: SouthThere are fewer than 5,000 black rhino and about 20,000 whiterhino left in the wild (Emslie, 2012a; 2012b). Both species haveexperienced a loss in their range, and efforts have been made toreintroduce rhino to areas where they previously occurred, whichhas resulted in some increasing trends. However, the black rhinois considered to be at a very high risk of extinction (CriticallyEndangered) due to its low numbers and current threats (Emslie,2012a). The white rhino is said to be “Near Threatened”, whichmeans that if threats persist and no action is taken, this species maysoon also be at risk (Emslie, 2012b).Index value (1980=1)2101980 1990 2000 2006YearFigure 19: Index ofpopulation trends forblack and white rhino(Diceros bicornis andCeratotherium simum)from 1980 to 2006The time series is shorterthan other LPIs due to dataavailability. This index isbased on 28 black and 10white rhino populationsfrom 20 countries(WWF, ZSL, 2014).KeyRhino LPIAccording to the available population data, both species declinedby an average of 63 per cent between 1980 and 2006 (Figure 19).many efforts to bolster populations – such as by reintroducingrhinos – the trend, although improved, has not been fully reversed.Illegal wildlife trade is by far the biggest threat currentlyfacing both black and white rhino populations due to demand fortheir horns. A single horn can be sold for a very high price, makingit an attractive prospect for poachers. The situation is exacerbatedby a number of factors, including growing demand for rhino hornin Asia, particularly Viet Nam; weak governance and poor lawenforcement in countries with wild rhinos; and the increase incorruption and emergence of crime syndicates attracted by theWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 28

In South Africa, where 80 per cent of all African rhinos arelocated, the rate of rhino poaching continues to accelerate. Thenumber of animals poached for their horns rose from 13 in 2007 toand improved protection, nearly 5 per cent of the country’s overallrhino population was killed by poachers in 2013 alone, furtherincreasing the pressure on existing populations.12001000Figure 20: Increasein the number ofrhino lost to poachingin South Africafrom 2007 to 2013(Government of SouthAfrica, WWF, 2014).Number of rhino poached80060040020002007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013YearClearly threats to species are not mitigated by the designationof a protected area alone. A recent study of 87 marine protectedhas been in place, size of area, and degree of isolation (Edgar et al.,years of protection, with a large area (at least 100km 2 ) and isolatedsharks. By contrast, protected areas with only one or two of theseWhile better design and management is needed to helpprotected areas to achieve their full potential, evidence suggests theyThe need for stronger protection will become increasinglyimportant as human consumption places ever greater pressure onnatural ecosystems. This is the subject of the next section.Chapter 1: The State of the planet page 29

HANDS ANDFOOTPRINTS~This worker in Nigeria is helping to clean up one of thecost US$1 billion, according to the UN. Soil and water havebeen contaminated, and people and wildlife have suffered.Similar spills in Virunga would be disastrous for the park’spriceless biodiversity and the many people who rely on itsnatural resources.But oil’s impacts on the planet go far beyond local pollution.Fossil fuels have powered modern economic growth,but they’re also one of the main reasons that humanity’sEcological Footprint is now larger than the planet cansustain. We simply don’t have enough productive land andsea available to continue to meet our demands for food,forest products and living space, and to absorb our carbondioxide emissions. As human populations and consumptiongrow, precious natural places like Virunga are coming underever greater pressure.

© National Geographic Stock / Ed Kashi /WWF-Canon

The Ecological FootprintFor more than 40 years, humanity’s demand on nature hasexceeded what our planet can replenish. Our Ecological Footprintecological goods and services we use – outstrips our biocapacity– the land actually available to provide these goods and services.Biocapacity acts as an ecological benchmark against which theEcological Footprint can be compared. Both biocapacity andEcological Footprint are expressed in a common unit called aglobal hectare (gha).Humanity currently needs the regenerative capacity of 1.5Earths to provide the ecological goods and services we use eachyear. This “overshoot” is possible because – for now – we can cutreplenish, or emit more carbon into the atmosphere than the forestsand oceans can absorb. The sum of all human demands no longerresource stocks and waste accumulating faster than it can beabsorbed or recycled, such as with the growing carbon concentrationin the atmosphere.the use of resources and energy, or improving ecosystem yields,example, enhancing agricultural biocapacity through fertilizers andlarger carbon Footprint.Ecological Footprint(Number of planet Earths)2101961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearFigure 21: GlobalEcological Footprint bycomponent (1961-2010)Currently, the largestsingle component of theEcological Footprint is thecent) (Global FootprintNetwork, 2014).KeyCarbonFishing groundsCroplandForest productsGrazing productsWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 32

IN 2010, GLOBALECOLOGICALFOOTPRINT WAS18.1 BILLION GHA, OR2.6 GHA PER CAPITA.EARTH’S TOTALBIOCAPACITY WAS12 BILLION GHA, OR1.7 GHA PER CAPITAGlobally, humanity’s Ecological Footprint decreased by 3 percent between 2008 and 2009, due mostly to a decline in demand forfossil fuels and hence a decreasing carbon Footprint. A small declinein demand for forest products was also apparent in 2008 and 2009.an upward trend.Carbon has been the dominant component of humanity’sEcological Footprint for more than half a century (Figure 21). Andfor most years, it has been on an upward trend. In 1961, carbon was36 per cent of our total Footprint, but by 2010 (the year for whichthe most complete dataset is available), it comprised 53 per cent.The primary cause has been the burning of fossil fuels – coal, oil andnatural gas.OUR DEMAND FOR RENEWABLE ECOLOGICAL RESOURCESAND THE GOODS AND SERVICES THEY PROVIDE IS NOWEQUIVALENT TO MORE THAN 1.5 EARTHSSINCE THE 1990S WE HAVE REACHED OVERSHOOT BY THENINTH MONTH EVERY YEAR. WE DEMAND MORE RENEWABLERESOURCES AND CO 2 SEQUESTRATION THAN THE PLANET CANPROVIDE IN AN ENTIRE YEARChapter 1: The State of the planet page 33

Regional and national Ecological FootprintsA regional assessment of humanity’s Ecological Footprint in 1961and 2010 (Figure 22) shows that the global supply of and demandlargely due to population growth.Ecological Footprint (gha per capita)8401961Global biocapacity available per person in 1961 (3.2 gha)0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Population (billions)Figure 22: Change inthe average EcologicalFootprint per capitaand in population foreach geographic regionin 1961 and 2010The area of each barrepresents the totalFootprint for each region(Global Footprint Network,2014).KeyNorth AmericaEUOther EuropeEcological Footprint (gha per capita)8402010Global biocapacity available per person in 2010 (1.7 gha)0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Latin AmericaMiddle East/Central AsiaAfricaPopulation (billions)In regions where population has grown at a faster rate than percapita consumption, population is the dominant force behind totalFootprint gains. In Africa, Footprint growth is almost entirelydriven by population gains: its population increased by 272 percent,but its per capita Footprint remained essentially unchanged. InNorth America, Latin America, the Middle East/Central Asia andare driving Footprint growth, but population increases are themain driver. In the EU, population growth and per capita growthexperienced a decline in total Footprint during this period, resultingpredominately from a decline in population.WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 34

Ranking countries by total and per capita EcologicalFigure 24: Share of totalEcological Footprintcountries with thehighest demand and therest of the world (GlobalFootprint Network, 2014).19.0%KeyBrazilRussia52.8%13.7%3.7% 3.7% 7.1%

12The size and composition of a nation’s per capita Ecologicalfossil fuels, are used in providing these goods and services.Not surprisingly, of the 25 countries with the largest per capitaall of these countries, carbon was the biggest Footprint component.A nation’s Footprint can exceed its own biocapacity – that is,faster than they regenerate, drawing on resources that haveaccumulated over time; by importing products, and thus using thebiocapacity of other nations; and/or by using the global commons,for instance by releasing carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuelburning into the atmosphere.Per capita Ecological Footprint (global hectares demanded per person)10864Figure 23: EcologicalFootprint per country,per capita, 2010This comparison includesall countries withpopulations greater than1 million for which completedata is available (GlobalFootprint Network, 2014).KeyFishing groundsForest productsGrazing productsCroplandCarbonWorld average biocapacity20KuwaitQatarUnited Arab EmiratesDenmarkBelgiumTrinidad and TobagoSingaporeUnited States of AmericaBahrainSwedenCanadaNetherlandsAustraliaIrelandFinlandUruguayAustriaSwitzerlandCzech RepublicEstoniaOmanMongoliaFranceSloveniaGermanyItalyPortugalUnited KingdomKazakhstanGreeceRepublic of KoreaMauritiusSaudi ArabiaIsraelCyprusLithuaniaPolandBelarusRussiaSpainParaguayJapanTurkmenistanLatviaSlovakiaLebanonLibyaCroatiaMexicoVenezuelaNew ZealandBulgariaBrazilMacedonia TFYRMalaysiaChileIranHungaryArgentinaBotswanaPapua New GuineaWorld AverageUkraineTurkeySouth AfricaGabonBosnia and HerzegovinaSerbiaBoliviaCosta RicaRomaniaMauritaniaNigerThailandPanamaChinaCountry

In 2010, the most recent year for which data is available, percapita Ecological Footprint exceeded global per capita biocapacity(1.7 gha) in 91 of the 152 countries (Figure 23). At a national levelthe carbon component represents more than half the EcologicalFootprint is the largest single component for approximately half ofall countries tracked.Contributions to the global ecological overshoot vary acrossnations. For example, if all people on the planet had the Footprintof the average resident of Qatar, we would need 4.8 planets. If welived the lifestyle of a typical resident of the USA, we would need 3.9would be 2, or 2.5 planets respectively, while a typical resident ofSouth Africa or Argentina would need 1.4 or 1.5 planets respectively.AT A NATIONAL LEVEL THE CARBONFOOTPRINT REPRESENTS MORE THANHALF THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT FORA QUARTER OF ALL COUNTRIES TRACKEDJamaicaEl SalvadorJordanMyanmarEcuadorTunisiaColombiaMaliEgyptAlbaniaChadGuatemalaGhanaUzbekistanAlgeriaSwazilandGuinea-BissauGambiaCubaGuineaHondurasSyriaViet NamMoldovaAzerbaijanArmeniaIraqPeruBurkina FasoMoroccoNicaraguaSudanDominican RepublicBeninKyrgyzstanIndonesiaZimbabweSenegalUgandaNigeriaLaosNorth KoreaSri LankaCameroonCentral African RepublicTanzaniaGeorgiaLiberiaSomaliaCambodiaEthiopiaMadagascarSierra LeonePhilippinesLesothoAngolaTogoCôte d'IvoireKenyaIndiaCongoBurundiYemenZambiaRwandaMozambiqueTajikistanNepalMalawiDemocratic Republic of CongoBangladeshPakistanAfghanistanHaitiEritreaOccupied Palestinian TerritoryTimor-Leste

BiocapacityIn 2010, Earth’s biocapacity was approximately 12 billion globalhectares (gha) – which amounts to about 1.7 gha for every person onthe planet. This biologically productive land must also support the10 million or more wild species with which we share the planet.Human demands on nature vary considerably from countryto country, and the biocapacity that provides for this demand isnation does not necessarily have a biocapacity “reserve”. Even innations with high biocapacity, local, national and internationaldemand can exceed availability.The number of nations whose Footprint exceeds theirbiocapacity has been steadily increasing with each passing year.populations and growth in per capita consumption. And for manynations, their biocapacity is subject to even greater pressure as moreand more biocapacity is used to meet export demands.THE NUMBER OF NATIONS WHOSEFOOTPRINT EXCEEDS THEIR BIOCAPACITYHAS BEEN STEADILY INCREASING WITHEACH PASSING YEAR. AS RESOURCESBECOME CONSTRAINED, COMPETITIONIS GROWING – WHICH COULD HAVEINCREASINGLY SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC,SOCIAL AND POLITICAL IMPLICATIONSWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 38

Almost 60 per cent of the world’s total biocapacity islocated in just 10 countries (Figure 26).For most countries with a high biocapacity per capita,the forest land component represents the largest proportion ofbecause they provide services not only to local users, butalso to others. As well as harbouring great biodiversity, theysequestering carbon, and in the water cycle – the subject of thenext section.Figure 26: Top 10national biocapacitiesin 2010Ten countries accounted formore than 60 per cent of theEarth’s total biocapacity insix BRIICS countries: Brazil,Russia, India, Indonesiaand China (Global FootprintNetwork, 2014).15.1%Key38.7%11.1%BrazilChinaUnited Statesof AmericaRussiaIndia9.6%CanadaIndonesiaAustraliaArgentinaDemocraticRepublic of Congo1.6%2.4% 2.5% 2.6% 4.0%4.9%7.4%Rest of worldWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 41

Figure 25: Total biocapacity(in global hectares) percountry in 2010(Global Footprint Network, 2014).Keyhectares (gha)< 10 million> 1,000 million

WATER FOOTPRINTS~Lake Edward, people depend on fresh water from the lake.Lake Edward, part of a wetland of international importance,was the focus for Soco’s oil exploration. A spill here couldbe devastating.Fresh water is a precious resource. More than a third ofthe world’s population lives in river basins that experiencesevere water shortages for at least one month each year(Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012). This number is likely togrow as human demands increase and climate change makesrainfall patterns more extreme and erratic.

© Brent Stirton / Reportage by Getty Images / WWF-Canon

The water footprintSome 97.5 per cent of our planet’s water is salt water. Almost all ofthe remaining fresh water is locked up in glaciers and ice caps, or inper cent of water is renewed each year by the hydrological cycle, andthis amount is unevenly distributed. This means that some countrieshave an abundance of freshwater sources and others clearly do not.The course of human development has been greatlyhuman settlements were established alongside freshwater bodies,and great civilizations developed and spread along their waterways.The 20th century saw huge advances in technology and humans’ability to harness nature for productive purposes. Societiesdeveloped infrastructure projects, for instance building largedams to support irrigation, hydropower, and industrial and urbandevelopment. This development had huge impacts on the growth ofnations and economies. However, much of this success has come atimpaired or dried up.Communicating the importance of water in modern societyhas been challenging because of our disconnection from naturalwater sources. For many, water simply comes from a tap. Yet morethan ever, the need to reconnect our societies and economies towater is urgent. Water is used in some form in almost all foodproduction and manufacturing processes. Products may be viewedis referred to as a “water footprint”.Water footprint is made up of three types of water use,known as blue, green and grey water footprints. The green waterfootprint is the volume of rainwater stored in soil that evaporatesthrough crop growth. The blue water footprint is the volume offreshwater taken from surface (lakes, rivers, reservoirs) and groundwithdrawn from. The largest share of global blue water footprintThere is no green water footprint of household and domestic wateruses, although they do show blue and grey water footprints. Thegrey water footprint is the volume of water polluted as a result ofproduction processes (industrial and agricultural) and from wasteacceptable levels.97%Some 97.5 percent ofour planet’s water issalt waterAlmost all of theremaining fresh water islocked up in glaciers andice caps, or in aquifersdeep under the surface>0.01%A fraction of 1 percentof water is renewedeach year by thehydrological cycleThe available fresh wateris unevenly distributedWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 44

The water footprint has both temporal and spatial elements,leads us to the local context: the impact of the same water footprintwill, of course, be very different in a region where fresh water iswith ample water resources at a national level may contain areas ofscarcity. The “when” aspect helps us to understand the variabilityin the availability and consumption of water resources through theyear in a given place. With climate change expected to make rainfallbecome even more important.The concept of the water footprint helps governments,businesses and individuals to better understand how we usewater in our lives and economies. It has exposed our often hiddendependence on this vital resource, and the vulnerability this implies.The water footprint provides an indicator of both direct and indirectuse of freshwater. The water footprint of production includes allthe water a country uses to produce goods and services, whetherthey are consumed locally or exported, expressed in cubic metresof water. The water footprint of production can help us understandand link supply chains and economic activities to areas of waterstress or pollution.Green water footprintThe volume of rainwater storedin soil that evaporates throughcrop growth.Blue water footprintThe volume of freshwater takenfrom surface (lakes, rivers,reservoirs) and ground waterreturned to the system it waswithdrawn from.Grey water footprintThe volume of water polluted asa result of production processes(industrial and agricultural)and from waste water fromhousehold water use. It is thedilute pollutants to the extentacceptable levels.Chapter 1: The State of the planet page 45

Water footprint of national productionEach country plans how it will use water to meet the needs of itspeople, economy and environment. In many ways, water shapeshow economies develop, and determines which sectors are viablethis, by accounting for all of the water used within a country forhousehold, industrial and agricultural purposes, regardless of wherethe products are actually consumed.Figure 27 shows the water footprint of production for thecountries with the 20 largest water footprints in the world. The barsindicate the absolute amount of water use, separated into greenand blue water footprints. The different coloured dots indicate therelative stress within these countries. These averages mask regionaland river basin dynamics. More detailed analysis of river basinstress is needed to better understand local dynamics, issues andremedies (see the hydrograph in Figure 30 for one example).National water footprint statistics are useful for identifyingwater hotspots on one level; the national water footprint ofproduction bars in Figure 27 give a useful picture of overallimpact. However, as mentioned above, national statistics can oftenhave an apparently healthy ratio of blue water footprint to bluewater availability, they include many river basins that suffer severewater scarcity for at least part of the year. River basin informationalways tells a more relevant story, which is why the delineation inFigure 29 is an important improvement on our understanding ofwater footprint metrics.NATIONAL WATER FOOTPRINT STATISTICS AREUSEFUL FOR IDENTIFYING WATER HOTSPOTS.HOWEVER, THEY CAN MASK BASIN-LEVELREALITIES. MANY RIVER BASINS OF THESETOP 20 COUNTRIES SUFFER SEVERE WATERSCARCITY FOR AT LEAST PART OF THE YEARWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 46

11109Figure 27: Waterfootprint of nationalproduction of top20 countries withindication of overallrisk of blue waterscarcity(Hoekstra andMekonnen, 2012).Green and blue water footprint (Mm3 X 100,000 / yr)87654KeyBlueGreen3Stress on blue waterresourcesrepresent total blue waterfootprint of productionexpressed as the ratio of bluewater footprint to blue wateravailability.210India •USA •China •Brazil •Russia •Indonesia •Nigeria •Argentina •Pakistan •Thailand •Canada •Australia •Mexico •Philippines •Ukraine •Turkey •Iran •Malaysia •Viet Nam •Myanmar •Ethiopia •Bangladesh •France •Spain •Kazakhstan •CountryChapter 1: The State of the planet page 47

seven times more green water than blue water is used in agriculturalproduction (6,884 billion m 3 compared to 945 billion m 3 ).Agricultural production accounts for 92 per cent of the global waterfootprint, with 78 per cent of world crop production relying onrainfall. Industrial production takes up 4.4 per cent, while 3.6 perthe global water footprint relates to production for export – 19 percent in the agricultural sector and 41 per cent for industry (Hoekstraand Mekonnen, 2012).vulnerable in some areas due to climate change affecting rainfallpatterns. There will also be areas where rainfall will increase,presenting opportunities for new regions. Irrigation has increasedincreased water scarcity downstream. Irrigation is sometimes poorlymonitored and managed, and groundwater may be pumped faster9191Water footprint of production Gm 3 x 1000 / year876543210Agriculturalproduction0.50IndustrialproductionIndustrialproductionDomesticwater supplyDomesticwater supplyWater footprint production categoryWater footprint of production Gm 3 x 1000 / year876543210Cropproduction0.50PasturePasture Water supplyin animal raisingWater supply inanimal raisingAgricultural production categoryFigure 28: Breakdownof the global bluegreen and grey waterfootprint of productionin billion m 3 /year,1996-2005A further breakdownshows that the agriculturesector has the largest waterfootprint, dominated by thegreen water component(Hoekstra andMekonnen, 2012).KeyGreen waterBlue waterGrey waterWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 48

esources can help increase food production, but best managementpractices and water stewardship principles need to be applied toavoid any negative impacts on people and nature in the long term.While water needs to be monitored and managed at a riverbasin or catchment level, the water footprint assessment helps toprovide an insight into global pressures and risks. It is not feasiblecountries. Trade can help to alleviate local water shortages – but itcan also exacerbate them.Globally, the number of people affected by absolute orseasonal water shortages is projected to increase steeply – owing toclimate change and increasing water demands (Schiermeier, 2013;Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012). In this context, understanding theBlue water scarcityStress on blue water resources is calculated on a monthly basiswith more than 200 river basins, home to some 2.67 billion people,already experiencing severe water scarcity for at least one monthevery year (Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012).In many cases, the blue water footprint leaves rivers incapablethat depend on these ecosystems” (Global Environmental FlowsNetwork, 2007 and Hoekstra et al., 2012). The freshwater LPIdecline of 76 per cent since 1970 – a steeper fall than for marine andterrestrial ecosystems.MORE THAN 200 RIVER BASINS, HOMETO SOME 2.67 BILLION PEOPLE, ALREADYEXPERIENCE SEVERE WATER SCARCITYFOR AT LEAST ONE MONTH EVERY YEARChapter 1: The State of the planet page 49

Figure 29: Blue water scarcity in 405river basins between 1996 and 2005The darkest blue shading indicates river basinswhere more than 20% of water available in thebasin is being used throughout the year. Someof these areas are in the most arid areas in theworld (such as inland Australia); however, otherareas (such as western USA) have many monthswater within these basins are being channelledinto agriculture (Hoekstra et al., 2012).Number of months in whichwater scarcity Months inwhich waterscarcity1210no dataThe countries with the largest water footprint of production– China, India and the USA – also suffer moderate to severe waterscarcity in different regions, at different times of the year. The USAis the largest exporter of cereal crops; however recent droughtsfood prices. If, as projected, extreme weather events exacerbatedimpact global food trade – especially for importing countries thatgrowing water demands and scarcity in China and India –to an increased dependence on imports, placing more pressure onglobal food trade. Considering that these two countries make upmore than a third of global population, these trends could haveEXTREME WEATHEREVENTS DUE TOCLIMATE CHANGECOULD SEVERELYIMPACT GLOBAL FOODTRADE — ESPECIALLYFOR IMPORTINGCOUNTRIES THAT RELYON WATER-INTENSIVECOMMODITIES FORBASIC NEEDSWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 50

Figure 30: Mekonghydrograph: Waterscarcity over the yearfor the Mekong basin(monthly averagefor the period 1996-2005) is divided into four zonesfootprint is plotted over theKeyNatural run-offMore than 40%30 - 40%Blue water footprintThe Mekong hydrographMillion m 3 per month9080706050403020100JanFebMarAprMayJunMonthFigure 30 shows the hydrograph of the Mekong River.JulAugSepOctNovDecChapter 1: The State of the planet page 51

LOCAL NEEDS, GLOBALPRESSURES~In the weekly market in Vitshumbi, people buy freshFew countries are richer in biocapacity and naturallowest Ecological Footprints on the planet, and the countryOil extraction in Virunga, to help fuel the unsustainableworsened since the discovery of oil. In the long term, theonly way for the Congolese people to meet their needs andimprove their prospects is through sustainable managementand wise use of the country’s natural capital.

© Brent Stirton / Reportage for Getty Images / WWF-Canon

People, consumption and developmentIt is impossible to fully understand the pressures being placedon the planet without considering the trends and implications ofa growing global population. Human population demographicsand dynamics have immense implications for virtually everyenvironmental issue. Equally important, are consumption and risingintensively resources are used, their quality and availability, andwho is able to access them.The world’s total population today is already in excess of7.2 billion, and growing at a faster rate than previously estimated.Revised estimates suggest that world population is likely to reach9.6 billion by 2050 – 0.3 billion larger than under earlier UNprojections (UNDESA, 2013a). Much of this growth is occurring inleast developed countries (UNDESA, 2013b).Population is unevenly distributed across the planet: 25 percent of the world’s 233 countries hold 90 per cent of the population(UNDESA, 2013b). Further, half of all future population growth isexpected to occur in just eight countries: Nigeria, India, Tanzania,the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Niger, Uganda, Ethiopiaand the USA (UNDESA, 2013b). Of these countries, Nigeria willexperience the most growth, and is expected to become the thirdmost populous country in the world by 2050 (behind China andEcological Footprints, the USA has one of the world’s highest.Population and natural resourcesJust as population is not evenly distributed around the world, norare natural resources or their use. This raises questions around theability of individual countries to maintain the quality of their naturalresources and meet the resource needs of their growing populationsin the context of global consumption patterns.Population and consumption trends will inevitably increasepressure on limited available natural resources, ecosystems,societies and economies – and lead to further disparity in resourceavailability with consequences that will be felt locally and globally.WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 54

Box 2: Water scarcity in river basins directly impactspeople, agriculture and industriesIndia, China and the USA – the three countries with the highest waterfootprint of production – also contain 8 of the top 10 most populousHigh levels of water scarcity – a dire situation for local populations– are likely to be compounded by climate change, further populationgrowth and the rising water footprint that tends to accompany growingpeople directly affected, but also for the rest of the world.Figure 31: Top 10basins by populationand months of waterscarcity, 1996-2005(Hoekstra and Mekonnen,2012).San AntonioUSA12915,156IndusIndia,Afghanistan,Pakistan12212,208,000TarimChina119,311,040Yongding HeChina1291,200,200BravoNuecesUSAUSA11129,249,380613,863Mexico12650,988Water RiskHIGH High (5) (5)South Africa11CauveryIndia12PennerIndia12873,58735,203,30010,924,200Basin informationlowLow (1)BasinCountryMonths per year basinfaces “moderate or worse”water scarcityPopulationChapter 1: The State of the planet page 55

The Ecological Footprint shows that in the last 50 years, theplanet’s total biocapacity has increased from 9.9 to 12 billion gha(Figure 32). However, during the same period, the global humanpopulation increased from 3.1 billion to 6.9 billion, and per capitaEcological Footprint increased from 2.5 to 2.6 gha (Figure 33).Index (change from 1961, 1961=100%)300%250%200%150%100%50%Ecological Footprint:1961 : 7.6 billion gha2010 : 18.1 billion ghaBiocapacity:1961 : 9.9 billion gha2010 : 12 billion ghaPopulation1961 : 3.09 billion2010 : 6.9 billionFigure 32: Trendsin total biocapacity,Ecological Footprintand world populationfrom 1961 to 2010(Global Footprint Network,2014).KeyBiocapacityEcological FootprintPopulation0%1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearTHE INCREASE IN THE EARTH’SPRODUCTIVITY HAS NOT BEENENOUGH TO COMPENSATE FORTHE DEMANDS OF THE GROWINGGLOBAL POPULATIONWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 56

irrigation that have boosted the average yields per hectare ofproductive area, especially for cropland, biocapacity per capita hasreduced from 3.2 to 1.7 gha. This increased exploitation of ecologicalFigure 33: Trends inEcological Footprintand biocapacity percapita between 1961and 2010(Global Footprint Network,2014).KeyBiocapacity reserveBiocapacity deficitEcological Footprintper personBiocapacity perpersonGlobal hectares per capita3.53.02.52.01.51.00.501961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearTHE DECLINE IN BIOCAPACITY PERCAPITA IS PRIMARILY DUE TO ANINCREASE IN GLOBAL POPULATION:MORE PEOPLE HAVE TO SHARE THEEARTH’S RESOURCESChapter 1: The State of the planet page 57

LPI, Ecological Footprint and incomeLiving Planet IndexComparing Living Planet Index trends in countries with differentaverage levels of income shows stark differences (Figure 34). Whileincome countries to allocate resources to biodiversity conservationand restoration domestically. More importantly, they may alsocountries (Lenzen et al., 2012).Furthermore, the LPI database only dates back to 1970. Ifthe baseline were extended to the beginning of the 20th century,income countries. In Europe, North America and Australia,populations of many species were heavily impacted and exploitedbefore 1970, and increases since then are most likely a result ofrecoveries from previously depleted levels.Index Value (1970 = 1)21Figure 34: LPI andWorld Bank countryincome groups (2013)(WWF, ZSL, 2014)NOTE: This graph usesunweighted LPI (LPI-U).For more details see LPIFAQ in appendix (page 140).KeyHigh incomeMiddle incomeLow incomeConfidence limits01970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 58

Ecological FootprintComparing the average per capita Ecological Footprints of groupscrises (in the 1970s) and recessions in the 1980s and 2000s shockedperiod of the early 2000s – dropped when the world’s economiesstarted to contract in 2007.Figure 35: EcologicalFootprint (gha) percapita in high-, middleandlow-incomecountries (World Bankbetween 1961 and 2010The green line representsworld average biocapacityper capita (GlobalFootprint Network, 2014;World Bank, 2013).KeyEcological Footprint (gha per capita)7654321High incomeMiddle incomeLow incomeWorld biocapacity01961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Yearbiocapacity of other nations or the global commons to meet theirconsumption demands. While importing biocapacity may becould change, or ecological constraints could disrupt supply chains.gha – the maximum per capita Footprint that could be replicatedworldwide without resulting in global overshoot. Even a Footprintof this size would mean that humanity claims the entire biocapacityof the planet, leaving no space for wild species.Chapter 1: The State of the planet page 59

The path to sustainable developmentFor a country’s development to be replicable worldwide, it musthave a per capita Ecological Footprint no larger than the per capitabiocapacity available on the planet, while maintaining a decentof these criteria (Figure 36).Low Human DevelopmentMediumHumanDevelopmentHigh HumanDevelopmentVery HighHumanDevelopmentMinimum global sustainabledevelopment quadrant00.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0UN Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI)The path of progression to achieve sustainable developmentstandards are, up to a point, linked to growing consumption ofecological services: the high human development in developedcountries has been achieved at the expense of a high Ecologicalable to show countries’ direction of progression (Figure 37). Whilehave improved their level of human development since 1980.China and the USA show the most striking movement.resource use, particularly in the last decade. The USA’s per capitaEcological Footprint trended upward between 1980 and 2000 until108642Ecological Footprint per capita (gha)Figure 36: Correlatingthe EcologicalFootprint with IHDI(latest data sets)The dots representingeach country arecoloured according totheir geographic regionand scaled relative totheir population (GlobalFootprint Network, 2014;UNDP, 2013).KeyAfricaMiddle East/Central AsiaSouth AmericaCentral America/CaribbeanNorth AmericaEUOther EuropeWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 60

Figure 37: TheEcological Footprintin relation to HDI.Time trends (1980-2010)are shown for a smallselection of countries.The dotted lines mark theHDI thresholds for low,medium, high and veryhigh human development(Global Footprint Network,2014; UNDP, 2013).NOTE: In this graph HDIis not inequality-adjusted.Low Human DevelopmentMediumHumanDevelopmentChinaHigh HumanDevelopmentBrazilTurkey0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8UN Human Development Index (HDI)Very HighHumanDevelopmentUSAGermanyMinimum global sustainabledevelopment quadrant10864201.0Ecological Footprint per capita (gha)crisis. Brazil, whose Footprint and HDI values are slightly higherthan China’s, has achieved a decent standard of living as measuredby the HDI (though its IHDI score is lower) while barely increasingits per capita Ecological Footprint over the last 50 years. Turkey’sup with Brazil in terms of absolute HDI value, while maintaining aslightly lower Ecological Footprint per capita.China, Brazil and Turkey are on track to reach the HDI levelfollowed by slow population growth and a downward trendingcarbon Footprint, which contributed to Germany’s total Footprintreduction over the next decade. Germany’s per capita Footprintis still more than twice the per capita biocapacity available for theplanet as a whole. However, it has continued to increase its HDIsince 2000 while maintaining a relatively constant Footprint.consumption by design while improving human development.national development strategy that addresses the reality of globalbiocapacity limits and the role biodiversity and ecosystems play insupporting human existence and enterprise. By recognizing nations’toward a future of secure natural resources that enables socialimprovement and prosperity globally.Chapter 1: The State of the planet page 61

SECRETS AND SERVICES~With its diverse landscapes and habitats, Virungacontains some of the richest biodiversity on the planet.As well as being a priceless part of our common heritage,it has huge educational and research value. Its hundredsof plant species contain secrets that could one day yield amedical breakthrough.The forests of the Congo Basin help generate rainfall, andcarbon Footprint making up more than half of humanity’sEcological Footprint, and CO2 levels in the atmospherealready at levels unprecedented in human history, protectingVirunga’s forests is more important than ever.design note:Check for gutter and repeatimage if necessary

© Brent Stirton / Reportage by Getty Images / WWF-Canon

CHAPTER 2:DEVELOPING THE PICTUREThe indicators presented in the previous chapter show somepopulations of the species that help to sustain life on Earth. TheEcological Footprint shows that we are using ecological servicesat a faster rate than the planet can replenish. The water footprintscarce freshwater resources.Other indicators, ways of thinking and areas of researchreinforce these messages – complementing, deepening andextending the concepts discussed in chapter 1. A growingnumber of metrics and methodologies help us to understandmore about the health of the planet, our impact upon it, and thepossible implications. We can change our perspective and adjustour focus, panning out to look at global issues, or zooming in onperspectives. The Stockholm Resilience Centre outlines nine“planetary boundaries” beyond which we are in danger ofcrashing Earth’s life-support systems. This leads into discussionof two areas where these boundaries appear to have already beencrossed – climate change and the nitrogen cycle – as well asthe implications for social equity. The section that follows givesexamples of models and measures that can be scaled down froma global to a local or regional context for analysing changes toterrestrial, marine and freshwater ecosystems.Indicators guide decisions: they do not just show us wherewe are, they also signal the direction in which we are going. Theyallow nations, businesses and institutions to measure progresstoward achieving their social, economic and environmental goalsThis planet is a complex place. No single metric can hopeto capture all of the elements and dynamics of nature’s complex,interconnected systems – nor how they relate to similarly complexand interconnected human activities. However, we can begin tocapture this complexity by looking at a range of indicators, andcorrelating and linking them – as with plotting the HDI againstthe Ecological Footprint, seen in the previous chapter.Tools and indicators like those presented in this report,TOOLS ANDINDICATORSHELP COMMUNICATETHE NEED FORACTION, AND GUIDETHE ACTION WE NEEDTO TAKEWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 64

ut cohesively. They help communicate the need for action, andguide the action we need to take.Panning out: the planetary pictureLife on our planet depends on a number of interconnectedenvironmental processes, operating on large temporal and spatialscales, known as Earth system services. Ocean currents bringnutrients from the deep to support productive marine ecosystems.Glaciers act as giant water-storage facilities, while glacial actioncreates fertile soils. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is dissolvedand stored in the oceans, helping to keep the climate stable.Nitrogen and phosphorous cycles provide essential nutrientsfor plants to grow, chemical reactions in the atmosphere formprotective ozone, and large polar ice sheets help regulate globalpredictable and stable environmental conditions of the last 10,000years – the geological period known as the Holocene. The favourablestate of the planet during the Holocene made it possible for settledhuman communities to evolve and eventually develop into thesystem science suggest that the world has entered a new period– the “Anthropocene” – in which human activities are the largestGiven the pace and scale of change, we can no longer exclude thepossibility of reaching critical tipping points that could abruptlyand irreversibly change living conditions on Earth.The planetary boundaries framework, developed by aninternational group of Earth systems scientists led by the StockholmBeyond these boundaries, we enter a danger zone where abruptestablishes a “safe operating space for humanity”, in which wehave the best chance of continuing to develop and thrive for manygenerations to come.and phosphorus cycles, ozone depletion, global fresh water use, landsystem change, atmospheric aerosol loading ,and chemical pollution All nine boundaries arebased on the evidence of feedbacks, interactions and biophysicalChapter 2: Developing the picture page 65

tipping points that can have dramatic impacts for humans. Sinceits publication in 2009, the planetary boundaries framework haspolicy agendas.Looking at large-scale processes from these outer limitsprovides a useful perspective on the ecosystem changes trackedin the LPI, as well as the pressures outlined in the EcologicalFootprint. It also reveals other areas that require urgent attention.While exact tipping-points are impossible to determine with anydegree of certainty, three planetary boundaries are assessed to havealready been crossed: biodiversity loss – backing up the declinesseen in the LPI – climate change, and changes to the nitrogen cycle,which are discussed in more detail below. Recent research suggeststhat we have also passed the sustainable level of phosphorus loadingin freshwater systems.The planetary boundaries concept suggests that thethroughout the Holocene now depends on our actions as planetarystewards. It reinforces the need for a new development paradigm,within the means of one planet. Just as Chapter 1 highlighted theneed to bring Ecological Footprints down to within Earth’smodels and lifestyle choices.THE PLANETARY BOUNDARIES CONCEPTSUGGESTS THAT THE EXISTENCE OF THE WORLDTHAT WE HAVE KNOWN AND PROFITED FROMTHROUGHOUT THE HOLOCENE NOW DEPENDS ONOUR ACTIONS AS PLANETARY STEWARDSWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 66

Figure 38: Planetaryboundaries(Stockholm ResilienceKeyProgress by 2009Safe limitsChemicalPollutionClimate ChangeOceanAcidificationAtmosphericAerosolLoadingStratosphericOzoneDepletionBiodiversityLossChange inLand UseGlobalFresh Water UseNitrogenCyclePhosphorusCycle(Biogeochemical flow boundary)THE PLANETARY BOUNDARIES FRAMEWORKHAS STIMULATED SCIENTIFIC AND WIDERDEBATE, ADVANCING SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENTSOF INDIVIDUAL BOUNDARIES AND INFLUENCINGBUSINESS AND POLICY AGENDASChapter 2: Developing the picture page 67

Box 3: Doughnut economicsHumanity is putting pressure on the planet to the extent that we are transgressing severalplanetary boundaries. However, the picture is more complex: while a small number ofpeople are using the most resources, too many are excluded from lives in which they candemonstrates that, just as beyond the environmental ceiling lies unacceptable environmentalstress, below what we might describe as a “social foundation” lies unacceptable humanThe space between the planetary boundaries and the social foundation is the safeand just space for humanity to thrive in – the doughnut. It is safe in that it avoids crossingenvironmental tipping points that could make Earth inhospitable for humanity. And it isjust in that it ensures that every person achieves certain standards of health, wealth, powerand participation.The doughnut illuminates the need for a new economic model that is bothsustainable and inclusive – one which does not breach global planetary boundaries andThis requires bold and transformational change in the purpose and nature of the world’seconomy. Rather than pursuing economic growth without regard for its quality ordistribution, the Oxfam Doughnut shows how humanity needs an economy that redistributespower, wealth and resources to the poorest and focuses growth where it is most needed.LOSSBIODIVERSITYOZONE DEPLETIONLAND USE CHANGEINCLUSIVEHEALTHGENDEREQUALITYFOODSOCIALEQUITYCLIMATE CHANGEENVIRONMENTAL CEILINGSOCIAL FOUNDATIONENERGYWATERJOBSINCOMETHE SAFE AND JUST SPACE FOR HUMANITYANDLOADINGSUSTAINABLEATMOSPHERIC AEROSOLEDUCATIONRESILIENCEVOICEECONOMICFRESHWATER USEDEVELOPMENTCHEMICAL POLLUTIONPHOSPHORUS CYCLESNITROGEN ANDOCEAN ACIDIFICATIONFigure 39: The OxfamDoughnut – A safeand just operatingspace for humanityunacceptable humanWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 68

(a)Figure 40: Atmosphericconcentration ofcarbon dioxide fromMauna LoaClimateOn 9 May 2013, the concentration of carbon dioxide in theatmosphere above Mauna Loa, Hawaii – the site of the oldestcontinuous CO 2 measurement station in the world – reached 400more than a million years. Climate science shows major risks ofunacceptable change at such concentrations.CO2 (ppm)400380360340320300EVERY PART OF THENATURAL WORLD ANDITS INTERDEPENDENTSOCIAL ANDECONOMIC SYSTEMSIS BEING OR WILLBE AFFECTED BYCLIMATE CHANGE1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearClimate change is already impacting the planet’s biodiversityand biocapacity, along with the well-being of humanity, particularlywith regard to food and water security. The IPCC report releasedin March 2014 detailed the impacts of changing climatic regimes,suggesting that almost every part of the natural world and itsinterdependent social and economic systems is being, or willEven if it were possible to hold atmospheric concentrationsof greenhouse gases constant at current levels, temperatures wouldstill continue to increase – by about 0.6°C over the course of the 21stwill occur on top of the 0.85°C global mean temperature increaseglobal temperature rises below 2°C – the stated goal of governmentsEven temperature increases well below this thresholdterrestrial, freshwater and marine species have shifted theirgeographic ranges and activities in response to climate change.However, it is likely that some species will be unable to move fastextinctions are already at or above the highest rates found inChapter 2: Developing the picture page 69

Increase in global mean temperature°C+5°+4°+3°+2°+1°+0°Risks tomany,limitedadaptationcapacityRisks tosomeSevereandwidespreadimpactsModerateriskIncreasedrisk formostregionsIncreasedrisk forsomeregionsIncreasedrisk in allmetricsMajorityof peopleadverselyaffected,positive ornegativeimpactsHighriskLow riskFutureRecent(1986 - 2005)–0.6°(1) Risks tounique andthreatenedsystems(2) Risksassociatedwithextremeweatherevents(3) Risksassociatedwith thedistributionof impacts(4) Risksassociatedwith globalaggregateimpacts(5) Risksassociatedwithlarge-scalesingulareventsPre-industrial(1850 - 1900)Level of riskWhiteWhite toyellowYellowYellow toredRedRed topurplePurpleNeutralModerateHighVery highthe fossil record. Past climate changes were slower than thoseIncreasing CO 2 in the atmosphere is also the primary cause ofin the last 65 million years, and probably in the last 300 millionalready underway has profound implications for the globalThis has implications for global food security. Even under optimisticassumptions on the ability of coral reefs to rapidly adapt to thermalstress, one- to two-thirds of all the word’s coral reefs are projectedClimate change will compound the impacts of other driversterm, secondary impacts through human adaptation are likely toFigure 41: Risk levelsassociated withclimate changeWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 70

Maximum speed at which species can move (km per decade)100806040200TreesHerbaceousplantsSplit-hoofedmammalsCarnivorousmammalsRodentsPrimatesPlant-feedinginsectsFreshwatermollusksAverage climate velocity2050 - 2090RCP8.5 flat areasRCP6.0 flat areasRCP4.5 flat areasRCP8.5 global averageRCP6.0 global averageRCP4.5 global averageRCP6.0 flat areas andglobal averageFigure 42: Species’ability to keep pacewith climate changeUpper boundMedianLower boundin the Arctic, for example, is already leading to increased humanand gas development. This poses a serious threat to Arctic speciesattempting to adapt to a fast-changing climate. Management actions– like identifying and protecting habitat that is likely to experienceleast change, such as where long-term sea ice is expected to remain– are needed to ensure that wildlife will have a home in the future.There are many plausible scenarios for how climate changeand societal development will play out. Decisions we make nowmust not narrow our options for adapting to future conditions.While deep cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions are urgently neededto reduce the rate and magnitude of climate change, we must alsotake immediate action to increase resilience to improve humanhealth, livelihoods, and social, environmental and economic wellbeingin the face of a rapidly changing climate. Both climate changemitigation and adaptation provide opportunities for transformationto the most ecologically and socially desirable of the potentialfutures that lie before us.Chapter 2: Developing the picture page 71

NitrogenNitrogen, as one of the key nutrients necessary in the production ofprocesses to form the reactive nitrogen (N r grow. Industrially produced fertilizers containing N r have been oneof the main drivers of dramatically improved agricultural yields overthe last 60 years, and are fundamental to global food security.But human activities now convert more nitrogen from theatmosphere into reactive forms than all of the planet’s natural r loads to theatmosphere and terrestrial and aquatic systems have increaseddrastically. The main causes are production of nitrogen fertilizers,from urban areas, and the burning of fossil fuels, which releases N rto the atmosphere.This has led to a cascade of environmental, human healthand climate impacts. Excessive nitrogen in water – from fertilizersucking oxygen out of the water and creating “dead zones”. In theair, nitrous oxide (N 2 more powerful than CO 2 . While contributing to ozone depletion inthe stratosphere, N r , as NOx and as particulate matter, increaseslow-level ozone, which aggravates respiratory diseases (Gallowaynitrogen in the soil can upset the balance of ecosystems and reduceAt the planetary scale, the additional amount of nitrogenglobal cycle of this important element. The planetary boundary forpassed by a distance: worldwide, human activities release 121Mt/year of N r into the biosphere, against a proposed boundary of 35Mt/year (R. Some have questioned this tipping60-100 Mt/year.nitrogen, determining a global limit is challenging. Indeed, someof N r ; the challenge lies in increasing the supply of N r in such a waythat it is harmless for the soil and the environment and allowsnutrients to remain in the system.Within this global picture, indicators are being developedto better understand the use and impacts of nitrogen at regional,N N rHUMAN ACTIVITIESNOW CONVERT MORENITROGEN FROM THEATMOSPHERE INTOREACTIVE FORMS THANALL OF THE PLANET’SNATURAL TERRESTRIALPROCESSES COMBINEDWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 72

Figure 43: Personalnitrogen footprint ofUSA, UK, Germanyand the Netherlandsis the virtual loss to theenvironmentKeyFood productionHousingTransportGoods & servicesFood consumptionnational and individual levels. The nitrogen footprint calculatesthe total N r released to the environment as a result of a person’sresource consumption, focusing on food, housing, transportation,calculators have been completed for the USA, Netherlands, UKChina and Austria. European footprints are smaller than those of theUSA, because of less meat consumption per capita, less energy useN footprint (kg N/cap/yr)4035302520151050USA Netherlands Germany UKFigure 44: NitrogenLoss Indicator:Average loss of reactivenitrogen per inhabitantin 2008National calculations,measures potential reactiveKeyEnergy useFood processingFood productionFood consumptionthe Convention on Biological Diversity, represents the potentialnitrogen pollution from all sources within a country or region asa result of the production and consumption of food and the use ofenergy. The N r The N r loss is region or country bound, whereas the N-footprintincludes all sources, including those outside the country in question.N footprint (kg N/cap/yr)9080706050403020100EuropeNorthAmericaSouthAmericaAsia Africa WorldChapter 2: Developing the picture page 73

Zooming inIf we focus only on global or national trends, we risk missing thelocal realities and thematic contexts – how trends play out invarious landscapes, catchment areas and ecosystems that do notnecessarily adhere to geopolitical boundaries, or the risks they raiseglobal challenges, but also to provide insights for devising practicalsolutions. Other assessments and indicators complement the LPI,on the pressures our demands place on terrestrial, marine andfreshwater systems, and the impacts of these pressures.LOCAL INDICATORSIDENTIFY LOCALCONTEXTS OFGLOBAL ISSUES ANDPROVIDE INSIGHTSFOR DEVELOPINGPRACTICAL SOLUTIONSBox 4: A national LPI-based assessmentComplementing the global LPI, the Dutch Central Bureau ofStatistics recently completed a study forits native species at a national level. Along with vertebratepopulations, the study also included data on invertebrate speciesvaried from the standard LPI methodology, to include distributiondata and non-standardized, opportunistic citizen science dataincrease since 1990, which is consistent with trends in other partsinvertebrate species from the global LPI could mask even greaterlosses in biodiversity. Local studies such as these can add depth toglobal metrics, while helping to set the context for local action.Distribution index (first year = 100)25020015010050019901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012Figure 45:Complementaryindicator: Distributionin the Netherlands 1990-2012 KeyButterfliesDragonfliesYearHigher plantsWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 74

21% - 100% 11% - 20% 9% - 10% 6% - 8% 3% - 5% 0% - 2% Not applicableof land area formallyprotected, byterrestrial ecoregionKey21% – 100%11% – 20%9% – 10%6% – 8%3% – 5%0% – 2%Not ApplicableTerrestrial: protected areas, forests andland-use changeHabitat loss and degradation is the main cause of biodiversity loss As discussed in Chapter 1, avoiding this lossand degradation through establishing and maintaining protectedareas can help to preserve biodiversity and natural capital. A keyelement of habitat protection is identifying the most important areas,and monitoring their physical status, spatially and temporally.The UNEP-WCMC World Database of Protected Areas isthe authoritative source for protected area coverage worldwide.The global protected area system has grown to include morethan 100,000 protected areas, covering more than 14 per centdisproportionate amount of protected areas are located in highelevation,high-latitude and low-productivity lands. Temperategrasslands, Mediterranean habitats and tropical dry forests arenetwork, leaving the unique biodiversity found in these areasMeanwhile, many currently protected habitats in biodiverseregions are at risk from protected area downgrading, downsizingKnowing where, how much and how quickly landscapes arechanging is critical for identifying the leading edges of loss of habitatand natural capital. Satellite imagery makes it possible to monitorspatial resolutions. Understanding the cause of these changes –Percent Land Area Formally Protected by Terrestrial Ecoregion (2014)Chapter 2: Developing the picture page 75

such as deforestation, expansion of agriculture or fragmentation byand consequences of our choices.database for assessing the Earth’s land and water resources. Datafor GLC-SHARE is a combination of best available high-resolutionsources from national, regional or sub-national land-coverzoning and assessments of yield productivity, bioenergy, land andwater resources, ecosystem services and biodiversity, and climateGlobal Dominant Land Cover (2014)dominant land coverclasses, 2014Artificial surfacesTree covered areaMangrovesCropland WWF and the International Shrub covered Institute areafor Applied Sparse Systems vegetationGrasslandHerbaceous vegetation Bare soilon forests. Overall the planet’s forests are declining in area and inquality. This has severe impacts on biodiversity – since the majorityof terrestrial species live in forests – and the already overstretchedcapacity for forests to absorb our carbon footprint, as well asprevention. In response, WWF has set a global goal of achievingThe WWF/IIASA Living Forests Model draws on historicaltrends and projected demands to show possible land-use changetrends point toward catastrophic and irreversible losses ofbiodiversity and runaway climate change. Even achieving ZNDDKeySnow and glaciersWater bodiesArtificial surfacesCroplandGrasslandTree-covered areaShrub-covered areaHerbaceous vegetationMangrovesSparse vegetationBare soilSnow and glaciersWater bodiesWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 76

y 2030, as opposed to 2020, would mean losing an extra 69 millionhectares of forest worldwide – an area the size of Texas – and 23Gtof additional CO 2 The model suggests that, with better governance and smarterland use, it would be possible to meet global demand for foodand forest products without any further loss of forests betweennow and 2030. After this time, though, if consumption continuesother important ecosystems, such as grasslands, and big rises infood prices. In addition, projected increases in demand for wood,particularly for bioenergy by 2050 would mean a 25 per centincrease in the area of natural forest managed for commercialharvesting, along with an extra 250 million hectares of newintensive agricultural practices, reducing land-intensive meatconsumption in high-income countries, improving energy andwood and paper.Figure 48: Forest areain 2000 and projectedforest area in 2050Forested area in 2000.1-2020-4040-6060-8080-100Projected forested area in 2050 under a “Do Nothing” scenario.Chapter 2: Developing the picture page 77

BOX 5: Sustaining Biocultural Diversity:the most important conservation takes placeon the ground, as part of a living culture(Loh and Harmon, 2014).Languages and species have evolved in remarkably similar ways,and striking parallels can be drawn between the two (Harmon,high biodiversity and of high linguistic diversity.The decline in global biodiversity is mirrored by a fall inhumanity’s linguistic diversity, according to recent research byJonathan Loh and David Harmon. Using the IUCN Red Listcriteria, it found that a minimum of 25 per cent of the world’slanguages are threatened, and 6 per cent have gone extinct sinceThe authors also used the LPI methodology to create anlinguistic diversity are threatened globally, they are declining atin linguistic diversity have occurred in the Americas. The ILDplummeted by more than 75 per cent between 1970 and 2009 inboth the Nearctic and Neotropical realms.Figure 49: Thediversity of languagescorrelates with areasof high plant diversityWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 78

species (10,000 km 2 5,000LanguageAs the world’s most widely spoken languages haveexpanded, small languages have dwindled away. Some linguistspredict that 90 per cent of the world’s languages will die out thisMost of the languages threatened with extinction areevolutionarily quite distinct from the few dominant worldwith the languages, the traditional knowledge of these indigenouscultures, accumulated over tens of thousands of years, is beingforgotten. This includes important knowledge related to the usesas well as a vast array of spiritual and religious beliefs.Exploring the parallels between nature and culture, andunderstanding the processes that underlie their evolution, ecologyand extinction, is a step toward ensuring that we can continue toinhabit a world of incredible diversity.Chapter 2: Developing the picture page 79

Marine: fishing and coastal developmentThe marine LPI, which looks at the 3,132 populations of 910since 1970. The biennial FAO State of the World’s Fisheries andhad declined from 90 per cent in 1974 to 71.2 per cent in 2011.into deeper waters and further from shore as near-shore stocksdecline. If this trend is not halted, there could be a decline in globalfurther exacerbating social and economic impacts.Ocean ecosystems present a complex challenge for comprehensiveunderstanding – as they are still well behind the terrestrial world interms of robust, long-term data. Inter-linkages in the ocean systemPercentage of stocks assessed100908070605040302010UnderfishedFully fishedOverfishedFigure 50: Globaltrends in the state ofKeyOverfished atbiologicallyunsustainable levels.Fully exploitedfish stocksUnderfished stocks01974197819821986199019941998200220062011YearWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 80

of species and changes the way the ecosystem functions.including pollution; coastal infrastructure development for housing,introduction of exotic species; and, not least, climate change andsecurity and livelihoods of coastal communities.Figure 51:Infrastructuredevelopment, intensiveagricultural expansion,urbanization andcoastal developmentare increasing pressureon marine ecosystems.The situation is most severeimpact class in this zone2002KeyVery high - highHigh - mediumMedium - lowLow2050Chapter 2: Developing the picture page 81

Freshwater: the Water Risk FilterMeeting the needs of all water users depends on good governanceat the river-basin level. A better understanding of water risks atthe river-basin level provides guidance for action that ultimatelyindividuals understand the volume of water involved in productionand consumption. But the volume of water alone doesn’t providea complete picture – context is crucial. Water risk is derived fromthe cumulative use of water in a river basin by all water users. Evensmall amount of water, if they are in a water-stressed catchmentwhere the rules and allocations are non-existent, they will beexposed to some level of risk. Complementary tools and measuresimpacts at the river basin level.basin-related risks such as the availability of water, aggregateddemand, water quality and ecosystem status, governance andregulation issues, and, particularly for businesses, potentialreputational risks.the reliance of the company on water use volumes, pollutionpotential of the processes, supply chain risks, foreseen changes inin local stakeholder engagement. In total, the risks are evaluatedagainst almost 100 indicators.Strategic imperative inon collective actionRisks related toFigure 52: WaterRisk Filter: plottingrisks helps companiesunderstand where totake actionwater managementStrategic imperative inon internal actionHighKeyHigh riskMedium riskLow or very limited riskIndicator plots of riskWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 82

Figure 53: Overallwater risk mapWater Risk RiskHIGH (5)Figure 53 summarizes the basin risk score (that is, riskinformed decisions about where to act. This free tool also includesa mitigation toolbox, which guides institutions toward strategicapproaches and tested responses.The Water Risk Filter provides an example of how, usingrobust data from a range of indicators, global problems like waterscarcity can be broken down to achieve better-informed, moremeaningful decisions, strategies, actions and outcomes.The urgent need to act upon the evidence and data we haveseen so far will be discussed further in the next chapter.low (1)Chapter 2: Developing the picture page 83

LEAPING INTO THEFUTURE~DRC has one of the youngest and fastest-growingpopulations in the world. But what sort of future is in storethe southern shores of Lake Edward?

© Brent Stirton / Reportage by Getty Images / WWF-Canon

CHAPTER 3:WHY WE SHOULD CAREsense of wonder and profound respect for nature that run deep inWe do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors;we borrow it from our children.Yet, as the last two chapters clearly illustrate, we are notas a result. The way we meet our needs today is compromising the food, water and energy they need is already a daunting prospect.adequate action. But when humanity responds to warning signs and

of our society, for us today and for our children into the future.“SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTIS DEVELOPMENT THAT MEETSTHE NEEDS OF THE PRESENTWITHOUT COMPROMISINGTHE ABILITY OF FUTUREGENERATIONS TO MEET THEIROWN NEEDS.” (WCED, 1987)

Ecosystem services and their valueMarine ecosystems power the economies of many coastalpollution, greenhouse gas emissions, waste and depleted resourcesother with little consideration for the ecosystems on which theyFigure 54:Ecosystem servicesCLIMATESTABILIZATIONLIVESTOCKEROSION CONTROLPOLLINATION

RECREATIONWOODWATER SUPPLYNUTRIENTCYCLINGBIOFUELSFOODFLOOD CONTROLGENETICRESOURCESPEST CONTROLCARBONSEQUESTRATIONand wetlands, as well as sectors such as agriculture and food, andorg

Box 6: Payments for ecosystem services andREDD+ in Acrewater users paying communities upstream to safeguard forestsrecord of protecting the rainforest while supporting local

Food, water and energyconsumption rises among the growing middle classes. Climate changeand the depletion of ecosystems and natural resources will furtherFOODWATER IS NEEDEDFOR FOODPRODUCTIONFOOD PRODUCTIONAFFECTS WATERAVAILABILITYWATERFigure 55: The interrelationshipsandinterdependenciesbetween the biosphereand food, water andenergy securityHow we produce food, usewater or generate energyimpacts on the biospherethat supports these needs.ENERGY CANBE PRODUCEDFROM FOOD CROPSFOOD PRODUCTIONUSES A LOT OFENERGYENERGYWATER IS NEEDEDFOR ENERGYPRODUCTIONENERGY ISUSED FOR STORING,CLEANING ANDTRANSPORTING WATERAs seen in Chapter 1, the world’s water footprint is already

Awareness is growing of the interdependency of food, waterused to pump water for irrigation from diminishing groundwaterwith food crops for limited land and water resources. Similar trade-Today, the world produces more than enough food to feedhigh-income countries.Ensuring all of thesedepends on healthy, resilient ecosystems.

The Mekong Riverconnects six countriesover a distance of4,800km, from China’sTibetan-Qinghai plateau,through Cambodia, Laos,Myanmar and Thailandto Viet Nam – where itsvast delta empties intothe South China Sea. Theriver contains more thanthree times as many perunit area as the Amazon– including four of theworld’s ten largestMekong basin is theworld’s most importanta quarter of the globalfreshwater catch and theprimary source ofprotein for 60 millionpeople (Orr et al., 2012).But the Mekongis under pressureFigure 56: Life along the Mekong from rapid economicdevelopment. Withelectricity demand expected to grow at a rate of 6-7 per cent annually in Cambodia,Laos, Thailand and Viet Nam up to 2025 (ICEM, 2010), hydropower is seen as animportant part of the future energy supply.cent by 2030, while mainstream dams could mean a further 60-70 per cent loss (Orr63 per cent more pasture lands and 17 per cent more water (Orr et al., 2012) – ina basin that already experiences severe water scarcity for three months of the year(Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012). Increased food prices associated with higher costsof nutrients and sediment to the Mekong Delta – one of the world’s most importantrice-growing regions – and reduce resilience to the impacts of climate change.Chapter 3: Why we should care page 93

Healthy communitiesthe impacts of climate change.Figure 57:Distribution ofthe world urbanpopulation by region(UNDESA, 2012).KeyAsiaEuropeFor the first time in history, themajority of the world’s populationlives in cities, with urbanizationgrowing fastest in thedeveloping worldAfricaLatin America &the CaribbeanNorthAmericaOceania4% 11% 20% 33% 52% 53% 38% 15% 9% 9% 13% 10% 15% 8% 6% 1% 1% 1%

is increasing.management within their water catchments.natural hazards and climate change risks.

natural hazards analysed, the greatest and most common hazardclimate change. But while the state of communities is partly shapedFigure 58: Distributionof cities by populationsize in 2011 and riskof natural hazards(UNDESA, 2012).Hazards exposed toNote: of occurrence and scale ofnatural hazards, cities in thetop three deciles are said to

City population1-5 million5-10 million10 million or morenatural resources such as water, forests, communal lands, protectedconcentrations of people, as well as skills, money, technology andlarge proportion of humanity.

RUM, OPTATURMOLORAE DEL INT QUEOmnimporia sam, ipsam solutam, quam ea voluptureexpedit facesto ex et apitatq uatur, coribero iumnam non rerae. Tem del es erum iliatis quia sequiquas voluptatem dollent arcimi, voluptatium harionseceaquatem sapis doluptasit, eos in nume duntemeveligeniam sedictibus et ea nusdant erumquidminimus ut asimet optatecate premqui aut abo.Sequis poriatem sequamusae plitia aciendebit qui asaliquo consecatur molestis entiae et alignatin parumim quatquodi unt, nestet facerrum ea excea delest,blabore, nulla nobis des nate ius.Harum ex est, conseque possim quo ent iliquo cus nuscipsuntursed quod mo et et lantio. Nobis simus, sum eiciuraperrum dit, consed que el et quos re, con porem quiadolor et aliae laccusam earibus danderum cone inulpa sus,nonsequo mo eos pernatia voluptatis as as ressitiam nobitdesign note:Check for gutter and repeatimage if necessary

© Brent Stirton / Reportage by Getty Images / WWF-CanonBRIGHT SPARKS~Generating energy doesn’t always have to be damaging tothe environment. This welder is at work on a communityhydropower project in Mutwanga, DRC, which relies onwater from Virunga National Park. The project, set up bythe Congolese Wildlife Authority, will provide electricityto 25,000 people. It will also power schools, a hospitaland an orphanage, as well as creating jobs and businessopportunities. At the same time, nearby residents havea greater incentive to look after the park’s forests andwetlands, which ensure the water supply. Unlike manymisplaced and poorly planned hydropower developmentsaround the world, this project will have minimal impactson ecosystems while generating sustainable energy.Around the world, projects like this one are showing thatdevelopment and conservation can go hand in hand, andthat protecting natural capital can lead to genuine social andeconomic progress.

CHAPTER 4:ONE PLANET SOLUTIONSAs we have seen in the preceding chapters, we urgently need to haltthe depletion of natural resources, restore damaged ecosystems,conserve biodiversity and maintain essential ecosystem services.At the same time, we need to provide equitable access to naturalresources and provide food, water and energy for a growing globalpopulation. The big question is: how are we going to do it?The Earth’s natural capital, on which our social andembedded in every economic forecast and development strategy,in business plans and investment decisions, in our livelihoods andlifestyle choices.The One Planet Perspective (Figure 59) outlines betterchoices for managing, using and sharing natural resources withinthe planet’s capacity. It requires that we:• Preserve natural capital: restore damaged ecosystems, halt the• Produce better: reduce inputs and waste, manage resourcessustainably, scale-up renewable energy production.• Consume more wisely: through low-footprint lifestyles, sustainableenergy use and healthier food consumption patterns.It also suggests two essential enabling conditions:• and social costs, support and reward conservation, sustainableresource management and innovation.• Equitable resource governance: share available resources,make fair and ecologically informed choices, measure successbeyond GDP.While the global indices and trends presented in earlier chaptersleave us in no doubt about the scale of the challenges that we face,there is room for hope. Numerous examples, from all around theworld, demonstrate the One Planet Perspective in practice – with. In thischapter, we discuss some of the solutions being developed, and presentseven case studies. More are available on the Living Planet Report2014 website (wwf.panda.org/lpr), and many other examples exist.WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 100

Figure 59: One PlanetPerspective(WWF, 2012).BETTER CHOICESREDIRECTFINANCIALFLOWSFROM A ONE PLANETPERSPECTIVEPRESERVENATURAL CAPITALPRODUCE BETTERCONSUMEMORE WISELYEQUITABLERESOURCEGOVERNANCEECOSYSTEMINTEGRITYBIODIVERSITYCONSERVATIONFOOD, WATER ANDENERGY SECURITYChapter 4: One Planet Solutions page 101

1Southern ChilePROTECTION, PRODUCTION AND PEOPLEA model for marine conservation integrates bluewhales, salmon production and social equity© WWF Chile / Jorge Oyarce“We are privileged to live in this environment, in absolute harmonybetween the marine ecosystems and our indigenous world view.Our ocean, land and air are sacred spaces and provide everythingfor our survival. They give us many things, like being able to gowhich shows others that caring for nature can generate income forthe family.”Sandra Antipani, indigenous leader from Chiloé Island,Southern ChileThe fjords and channels of Patagonia in southern Chile – knownas the Chiloense Marine Ecoregion – are a unique environment ofimmense conservation importance. The region is home to manyWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 102

species of marine mammals and birds, cold-water corals and highlyareas for the largest animal ever to have existed: the blue whale.Almost wiped out by whaling, its survival depends on such criticalareas being protected.The Chiloense Marine Ecoregion provides its humanpopulation with myriad services: food and income for localglobally important scale, sheltering the larvae of several commerciallyimportant species, and providing 30 per cent of the world’s salmon(FAO, 2014). But the overexploitation of these marine resources hasreached dangerous levels; important habitats have already been lost,and the ecosystem and its services are under stress.For more than a decade, WWF has worked with localcommunities and authorities on an integrated conservation strategyfor the marine ecoregion. The approach is based on sound science,rigorous landscape and seascape planning, and close engagement withmany stakeholders – including local and indigenous communities,One goal is to establish a network of marine protected areas– extending along the coast and beyond Chile’s waters into theBlue Whale Centre, Austral University of Chile and the MelimoyuFoundation, led to the Chilean government to create the Tic TocMarine Park – which includes crucial blue whale feeding andnursing grounds – and two other marine protected areas. Together,chance to recover, these protected areas should increase the marineecosystem’s resilience to climate change.Producers, buyers, scientists, environmental and social NGOsand others have worked together, in Chile and internationally,to develop the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) standardfor responsible salmon farming. The ASC standard – the resultof almost 10 years of dialogue – aims to minimize or eliminatenegative environmental and social impacts of salmon farming.use of chemicals and antibiotics, and how best to manage naturalpredators such as seals and seabirds.In 2013, companies representing 70 per cent of the world’sfarmed salmon production – including seven Chilean companies– pledged to certify all of their farms to the ASC standard by 2020.Chapter 4: One Planet Solutions page 103

QuellonFigure 60: Satellitetracking data helps tomap blue whale routeswithin the ChiloenseMarine Ecoregion(WWF-Chile, 2014).location mapPeruBoliviaMelinkaRaul MarinBalmacedaSouthAmericaRegion XChileArgentinaMelimoyuPacific OceanRegion XIKeyMelinkaQuellonTic-Toc BayMUMPA*10.429haTic-TocMarine Park87.500haPitipalena-AňihuéMUMPA23.735haMelimoyuRaul MarinBalmacedaWhale sightingsWhale RoutesSalmon farmsMarine ProtectedAreasProtected AreasMarine PriorityConservation Areas* Multiple use MarineProtected AreaFigure 61: Recentlydeclared marineprotected areasprotecting importanthabitats for blue whales(WWF- Chile, 2014).This presents a real opportunity, but much work needs to be done toLong-term conservation success depends on equitable andsustainable development for the region’s inhabitants, includingindigenous people. With the new marine protected areas expected togenerate increased ecotourism, WWF is working with communitiesto enable them to take advantage of emerging opportunities. Thisshould improve people’s livelihoods, and increase the incentive toprotect their natural and cultural heritage.WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 104

socially responsible way, both as employers and neighbours.the community where they operate – consider the perception ofthe people, their culture, the history and above all respect theecosystem, the plants and animals that live there,” says SandraAntipani, an indigenous leader from Chiloé island. “The ideaof conservation of marine ecosystems and blue whales is in ourindigenous consciousness.”Preserve natural capital: WWF and partners are working toestablish a network of marine protected areas covering at least 10per cent of Chile’s coastal waters.Produce better: Meeting the ASC standard will greatly reduce theimpact of salmon aquaculture on marine ecosystems. A pilot projectis assessing the impacts of ASC, based on 42 social, economic andenvironmental indicators.Consume more wisely: Demand from consumers and retailersfor more responsibly farmed salmon has helped encourage to support sustainable commodity production, includingworking with WWF and Chilean salmon producers to improvesustainability performance. This will enable the producers tobe more competitive and less vulnerable to environmental andsocial risks. This will also have a positive impact on the bankingrelationship and credit decisions.Equitable resource governance: Local and indigenouscommunities in the area have become important allies for marineconservation and better social and environmental practices in thesalmon industry.Chapter 4: One Planet Solutions page 105

2Mountain gorillasCOMMUNITIES AND CONSERVATIONMountain gorilla populations are increasing, and© Anna Behm Masozera, 2013Augustin Akantambira of Kabaga village near Bwindi Impenetrable National Park inUganda shows his gorilla carvings for sale to tourists“Before there was no connection between the park andthe money we are getting from tourism. They respect the gorillas.”Patience Dusabimana, community leader and guide,Volcanoes National Park, RwandaWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 106

With fewer than a thousand mountain gorillas left in the wild, theodds appear stacked against them. Just two populations remainin small islands of forest, surrounded by a rising tide of humanity.Some of the darkest episodes in recent history took place in thisregion – the Rwandan genocide and the wars that have devastatedthe Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The consequences canstill be felt, as tens of thousands of people attempt to rebuild theirlivelihoods, based largely on the natural resources around them.Yet mountain gorilla numbers have increased by almost 30per cent in recent years (IGCP, 2012) – the only species of great apewhose numbers are rising. A spiral toward extinction has beentransformed into a virtuous circle as people and gorillas thrive together.Mountain gorillas survive in two isolated populations, amongthe Virunga volcanoes on the borders of DRC, Rwanda and Uganda;and the Bwindi Impenetrable National Park in Uganda. Since 1991,mountain gorilla conservation has been led by the International GorillaConservation Programme (IGCP) – a coalition involving WWF andFauna and Flora International.The IGCP works with local people and government agenciesto manage a cross-border network of protected areas, and to developresponsible mountain gorilla tourism. This creates jobs as tourguides, porters or park rangers. Tourists come from all over theworld to see gorillas in their natural habitat, and the revenues helpfund gorilla conservation and community projects. Ultimately, localpeople gain more from preserving their natural resources than fromexploiting them in the short term.Gorilla tourism has transformed communities in the region– like Nkuringo, an isolated mountain town in Uganda. The townis home to the Clouds Mountain Gorilla Lodge, a communityownedboutique hotel that welcomes 1,200 guests a year. It directly30,000 others living in nearby villages.Restaurants, bars and other accommodation are opening up,while craft shops sell carved wooden gorillas, t-shirts and basketsmade by local artisans, many of whom are women. Income fromthe hotel and gorilla-tracking permits goes into a communityfoundation, which has funded a range of enterprises, includingvegetable growing and tea plantations. The foundation funds asponsorship scheme that pays for the poorest children to go toschool. It’s also meeting the costs of training nurses and building ahealth centre.In Rwanda, gorilla tourism is the engine powering a touristindustry worth US$200 million a year in foreign exchange earnings(Nielsen and Spenceley, 2010) – although tourist numbers are limitedto avoid negative impacts on the gorillas, local people and the localenvironment. Communities around the national parks share 5 perChapter 4: One Planet Solutions page 107

cent of the money generated by park permits – which has helped tobuild schools and hospitals, set up sustainable businesses, and fundenvironmental projects such as tree planting and erosion control.Furthermore, the IGCP’s “gorilla water” initiative hasbrought improved water and sanitation to many communities andhouseholds, by helping construct rainwater storage facilities. Withmost villages in the area lacking a safe water supply, women andchildren used to collect water from streams within the national parks.Not only was this an arduous and potentially dangerous chore, butthe presence of large numbers of people posed a threat to the gorillasand other wildlife. Now, many women and children have more timeto spend on education and improving their livelihoods, and fewerof building water tanks, and their shared ownership, has helpedto strengthen the sense of community – a particularly importantoutcome in an area with large numbers of displaced people, wherewith the parks and the gorillas.As Anna Behm Masozera, head of the IGCP, puts it: “Whendone mindfully and respectfully, conservation has the power andpotential to bring people together for a common cause, both acrosspark boundaries where park and people intersect, and acrossinternational borders as well.”Preserve natural capital: The value of Uganda’s gorillas as atourist attraction has been estimated at between US$7.8 million andUS$34.3 million (IGCP, 2014).A proportion of park revenues (whichvaries by country) is distributed to neighbouring communities,supporting community-led health, education, infrastructure andlivelihood projects.Equitable resource governance: the gorillas and understand their value, they have an added incentiveto look after the forest.Consume more wisely: communities and conservation through their spending.WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 108

With mountain gorillas as the star attraction, ecotourism in DRC’s Virunga National Park – followingthe successful models demonstrated in Rwanda and Uganda – could create thousands of jobs and bringin an estimated US$235 million per year.© naturepl.com / Bruce Davidson / WWF-Canon

3BelizeVALUING NATURAL CAPITALBelize’s new coastal development plan takes fullaccount of the huge value of natural ecosystems© naturepl.com / Roberto Rinaldi / WWF-Canonand attracts tourists from around the world.“The coastal zone of Belize is undeniably one of the country’sgreatest assets. It is treasured by the Belizean people for itseconomic and socio-cultural values, and wide range of ecosystemmanagement plan will help Belizeans to better understand theincredible value of our treasured coastal zone, and provide a soundscience-based blueprint for long-term, sustainable management ofour coastal and marine resources.”Chantelle Clark-Samuels, Director, Coastal ZoneManagement Authority and InstituteWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 110

The beauty and diversity of Belize’s coastal ecosystems are worldrenowned, drawing tourists from around the globe. More than 40per cent of the country’s population live and work along the coastand depend on these ecosystems for their livelihoods.Fishing is a way of life and a vital source of food for manyare worth an estimated US$14-16 million a year. Tourism associatedwith coastal ecosystems contributed an estimated US$150-196million to the national economy in 2007 (12-15 per cent of GDP).Reefs and mangroves protect coastal properties from erosion andstorm surges, saving an estimated US$231-347 million throughavoided damages each year. By comparison, Belize’s GDP in 2007was US$1.3 billion (Cooper et al., 2009).overlooked in coastal investment and policy decisions. Uncheckedand other climate-related changes loom larger.Fish populations will decrease if they lose the mangrovesthat provide critical nursery habitats. As reefs and mangrovesdecline, Belize’s low-lying cayes and coastal properties will becomeFigure 62: Ninecoastal planningregions of Belize(Natural CapitalProject, 2013).Northern BelizeKeyBelizeNorthern BelizeNorthern RegionAmbergris CayeCentral BelizeCentral BelizeCentral regionCaye CaukerLighthouse Reef AtollSouthern BelizeSouth northern regionSouth central regionSouthern region0 25 50kmSouthern BelizeChapter 4: One Planet Solutions page 111

20102025CurrentConservationPresents a vision oflong-term ecosystemhealth throughsustainable useand investment inconservationInformed ManagementBlends strongconservation goalswith current and futureneeds for coastaldevelopment andmarine usesDevelopmentPrioritizes immediatedevelopment needsover long-termsustainable use andnature© Healthy Reefs (healthyreefs.org)increasingly vulnerable to storms and erosion, and tourism willIn 2010, Belize’s Coastal Zone Management Authority andIntegrated Coastal Zone Management Plan in partnershipwith WWF and the Natural Capital Project (NatCap). The planreplaces ad hoc development decisions with informed, long-termmanagement. It provides science-based evidence to help resolvenatural habitats from human activities.marine ecosystem services provide for people, and the impactswith the public at national and local levels, and coastal advisorylocal and national government, and community development andenvironmental organizations – were formed in nine coastal regions.provided local knowledge and data, shared their goals and values,and regularly reviewed the plan as it took shape.scenarios, the team used NatCap’s tool InVEST (Integrated2014). InVEST is designed to help policymakers and stakeholdersincorporate the value of various ecosystem services into theirinstance, by looking at how the level of coastal development in aFigure 63: Three 2025scenario storylinesfrom the IntegratedCoastal ZoneManagement Planof Belize(Natural Capital Project,2013).WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 112

ConservationInformedManagementDevelopmentFigure 64: Threefuture zoning schemesdesigned and discussedwith stakeholdersin Belize(Natural CapitalProject, 2013).KeyCoastal developmentAquacultureDredgingConservationOil explorationFishingMarine transportMarine recreationand coral reefs, it is possible to compare the expected gains in touristthe increased vulnerability to storms. The tool also shows thepotential economic return on investment in protecting and restoringcritical ecosystems.By balancing conservation with current and futuredevelopment needs, the plan could boost revenue from lobstermangroves and seagrass by up to 25 per cent; and double the valueof these ecosystems for protecting the coast by 2025 (Cooper etal., 2009). In short, it will help the people of Belize to plot a wisercourse for managing the incredibly valuable resources that theirocean and coast provide.Preserve natural capital: Belize’s coastal and ocean ecosystemsprovide services worth up to US$559 million per year – equivalentto 43 per cent of GDP (Cooper et al., 2009).The Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement Plan encourages investment that recognizes the truevalue of ecosystem services.Equitable resource governance: The Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement Plan has been developed with local stakeholders, tobalance competing demands and allow informed decisions on theuse of natural resources.Chapter 4: One Planet Solutions page 113

4South AfricaPLANTATIONS AND WETLANDSSmart land-use planning has restored a vital wetland,and laid the foundation for successful partnerships© Brett Florens“Forestry is a big part of our livelihood and it is important we havea good relationship with SQF. The community graze their cattle inworkers and contractors.”Induna Alson Mpangela, smallholder, Mankwathini,KwaZulu NatalWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 114

Water is one of South Africa’s scarcest natural resources, and thecountry’s wetlands are hugely important for people and nature. Thewetlands purify and store water, control erosion, reduce the severityaquifers. They are vital for biodiversity, tourism, agriculture andgrazing, and as a source of food and plant materials for ruralcommunities. Some 6 million people without regular access to safedrinking water draw what they need directly from streams, rivers,lake and marshes.More than half of South Africa’s wetlands have beendevelopment. Two-thirds of wetland types are threatened, andalmost half are critically endangered (WWF-South Africa,2013).In the past, the commercial forestry sector has been part of theproblem, with plantations being established in wetland areas, andnon-native species consuming large amounts of water. However, thesector is also a vital part of the South African economy, contributing1.8 per cent of GDP and employing 110,000 people (Nyoka, 2003).To strike a better balance between production andconservation, pulp and packaging company Mondi has taken a leadin mapping, protecting and rehabilitating wetlands.Box 8: New Generation PlantationsSet up by WWF in 2007, the New Generation Plantation (NGP)platform brings together companies and government forestagencies from around the world to explore, share and promotebetter ways of planning and managing plantations. Around 250million hectares of new plantations could be needed between nowand 2050 to meet a projected tripling in wood consumption whileconserving natural forests (WWF, 2011b).NGP promotes plantations that:• Maintain ecosystem integrity;• Protect and enhance high conservation values;• processes;• Contribute to economic growth and employment.The Mondi Group participates in the NGP platform, whichadvocates new models of plantation forestry that contributeto the welfare of local communities and work in harmony withnatural ecosystems.www.newgenerationplantations.orgChapter 4: One Planet Solutions page 115

The impressive results can be seen in iSimangaliso WetlandPark, the country’s last remaining coastal wilderness and a populartourist destination. In 1999 iSimangaliso was designated a WorldHeritage Site for its rich biodiversity, unique ecosystems andnatural beauty. At its heart is Lake St. Lucia, a long, narrow estuaryseparated from the Indian Ocean by towering sand dunes. The lakeis rich in wildlife, and hundreds of hippos and crocodiles can beseen basking in the shallow waters.On the western shores of the lake are extensive commercialpine plantations. Mondi took these over in 2004, when South Africaprivatized its state forests. To manage them, it formed SiyaQhubekaForests (SQF), in partnership with local economic empowermentorganizations, communities and the government.But SQF had inherited a problem. Over the years,there had been bitter disputes involving the forestry industry,environmentalists and local people. Some poorly sited plantationswere having a negative impact on the lake and its wildlife bylevels too high, especially in the dry season.Mondi-SQF worked with the government, environmentalNGOs and the park authority to determine which areas were suitablefor commercial plantations, and which should be returned to theirnatural state. They mapped out a 120-km long “eco-boundary”dividing wetland areas and other important ecosystem componentsfrom the dry mineral soils best suited to plantations, where negativeimpacts would be minimal.potential conservation value were transferred to the iSimangalisoWetland Park. The plantation trees were removed, and the landrestored to wetlands and savannah. A further 14,200 hectares ofSQF’s land – including plantations as well as areas of natural forestThe project has restored trust and restored ecosystems.Today, both SQF and the park are thriving enterprises. Regularrehabilitated wetlands and grasslands already support a wide rangeof biodiversity.freshwater species, the project has extended the habitat of theand cheetahs in areas which, just a few years ago, were dense pineand corridors between the trees. The plantations also provide andevelopment and reducing the threat of poaching.WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 116

Involving local people in the plantation model has raised thelevels of skills, education and viable small businesses in the area.Mondi-SQF supports local forestry-related businesses, and awardsmost contracts to community-based enterprises. On neighbouringtribal areas, around 3,000 residents grow eucalyptus woodlots of acouple of hectares on land unsuitable for other crops, with Mondi-SQF paying a premium for the wood they supply.Nationally, Mondi’s wetland rehabilitation work has involvedthe loss of around 5 per cent of its productive forestry land, whilehowever, Mondi considers it a worthwhile investment to secureits social licence to operate – and long-term ecological, social andeconomic viability.Preserve natural capital: Rehabilitating wetlands around LakeSt. Lucia has restored ecosystem services and attracted tourismrevenue.Produce better: By keeping plantations away from wetland areas,forestry companies are reducing the impact of timber production onfreshwater resources.Consume more wisely: By choosing Forest Stewardship Councilresponsible forest management, including protecting and enhancingareas of high conservation value. In South Africa, the FSC standardnow includes conditions for keeping plantations out of wetlands and Rehabilitating wetlands bringsenvironmental, social and long-term economic value that faroutweighs the loss of plantation area and the short-term costs.Equitable resource governance: Communities areshareholders in SQF, and areas of land are being returned tocommunity ownership.Chapter 4: One Planet Solutions page 117

5Great Barrier ReefLAND, RIVERS AND SEAInvesting in water stewardship boosts agriculture,the world’s iconic environmental assets© Reef Catchmentswhat we can to reduce it. And that’s the idea of this, to getproactive and show what can be done. Hopefully that will lead tochange within the industry.”Gerry Deguara, sugarcane grower, QueenslandWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 118

marine areas around the world.This is particularly true for the Great Barrier Reef, one of theworld’s natural wonders and a World Heritage Site. Water runningthese pollutants out onto the Reef. The impact on corals and seagrass,and the species that rely on them for food and shelter, is immense.A recent study found that reef coral cover has halved since1985 (De’ath et al., 2012). More than 40 per cent of this loss wasthreats such as port expansion, the dumping of dredge spoil andclimate change – the World Heritage Committee is consideringadding the Great Barrier Reef to its “In Danger” list.WWF is working with farmers, governments and companies tocut pollution so coral can recover, and to enable the Great Barrier Reefto build resilience to the increasing impacts of climate change. Thework promotes more sustainable commodity production, and betterwater stewardship, water security and freshwater habitat protection.One key initiative is Project Catalyst, which brings togethersugarcane growers, The Coca-Cola Foundation, governmentagencies and WWF to test and implement new practices that reducepollution and improve farm productivity. Nearly 100 Queenslandfarmers are involved in the project.To get the cuts to pollution necessary for the Great BarrierReef’s survival, this good work needs to be scaled-up across all ofthe catchments that run into the Reef – encompassing millionsboost in private and public investment. Australian national and stategovernments have so far committed AUS$750 million (US$670million) over 10 years to support the health of the Reef. Some of thisfunding will help farmers invest in better practices and technologythat will increase productivity while reducing pollution, erosion andwater use.While much more needs to be done, the initial results areimproved management practices across more than 3 millionhectares. Early indications show that total pesticide pollution hasbeen cut by 15 per cent and fertilizer pollution by 13 per cent –although some participating farmers have achieved even greaterspending less on chemical inputs.production practices. WWF is working with large buyers of sugarand supply chain businesses to promote Bonsucro, an internationalChapter 4: One Planet Solutions page 119

standard for more sustainable sugar production, and to help farmersis also being carried out to develop similar standards and bettermanagement practices with the cattle industry, the other major userof land in the Great Barrier Reef catchment area. Consumers areencouraged to reduce their impact on the Reef by choosing productsThe economic case for much greater investment is clear.According to the Australian government, the Great Barrier ReefWorld Heritage Area adds AUS$5.68 billion (US$5.10 billion) ayear to the Australian economy and generates almost 69,000 fulltimeequivalent jobs (Deloitte Access Economics, 2013). Investingin its health not only preserves one of the world’s environmentalcommunities that rely on them.Similar pollution reduction models can be applied acrossprotecting the natural assets upon which they depend.BCoral cover (%)302520GBR (N=214)Figure 65: The 27-yeardecline of the coralcover on the GreatBarrier ReefTropical cyclones, coralpredation by crown ofand coral bleachingaccounted for 48, 42and 10 per cent of theestimated loss respectively(De’ath et al., 2012).15Key0COTS5 20252CyclonesBleachingNNumber of reefsPartitioned annualmortality (% cover)4681985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010YearWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 120

Figure 66: A projectionstudy (B) based onDe’ath et al., 2012(A), shows that ifthe declining trendcontinued, coral coverwould be half of 2012levels by 2022(AIMS, 2012).KeyTrend lineCoral cover (%)3025201510ABCoral cover (%)30252015GBR (N=Trend line5019851995 2005 2015 2025Year02Partitioned annualmortality (% cover)Preserve natural capital: The Great Barrier Reef is the 6world’s largest coral reef ecosystem and a World Heritage Site. It 8supporting tens of thousands of species, many of which are of globalProduce better: Sugarcane growers implementing better practiceshave reduced pesticide pollution by 15 per cent and fertilizerpollution by 13 per cent – keeping chemicals on farm where they are41985 1990 1995 20YeaConsume more wisely: Consumers can help protect theenvironment by supporting producers and production schemesthat are striving to reduce impacts on the environment, such as, forImproving farming practices on landprovides a huge return on investment, since the Reef is worthAUS$5.68 billion (US$5.10 billion) a year to the Australian economyand supports almost 69,000 jobs.INVESTING IN THE REEF’S HEALTH NOT ONLY PRESERVESONE OF THE WONDERS OF THE NATURAL WORLD BUT ALSOBOOSTS FISHING AND TOURISM INDUSTRIES AND THECOMMUNITIES THAT RELY ON THEMChapter 4: One Planet Solutions page 121

6DenmarkWINDS OF CHANGEDenmark has been producing electricity from windsince the 19th century, and continues to be a windpower world leader© Jørgen VestergaardDanish wind power pioneer Christian Riisager, photographed in 2003. Photo courtesyof The Danish Film Institute / Stills & Posters Archive.“On a windy day, my wife said: If you want to try to connect yourelectric meter started to run backwards, and no fuses blew. I neverdreamt of making a living out of my wind turbine interest. Butpeople started to pass by to look at my turbine in the garden, andthen I thought I may just as well take the chance.”Christian Riisager (1930-2008) (Excerpt of interview with theDanish Wind Industry Association, 2000).WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 122

An old Chinese proverb says: “When the winds of change blow, somepeople build walls, others build windmills.” The Danish wind energystory is an example of the latter. The country has a long tradition ofusing wind to produce renewable electricity, and continues to be aworld leader in harnessing and providing wind power.power provided an equivalent of 57.4 per cent of Denmark’s electricitythan half of a country’s electricity needs for a whole month.December 21 set another record, with wind turbines generating theequivalent of 102 per cent of Danish electricity consumption.The Danish wind power story started in 1891, when theCour, a meteorologist and school principal. La Cour made manyexperiments with production and storage of wind power and wascalled “the wizard from Askov making light and power out of rainand wind”. He also began to educate wind electricians.In 1956, one of his former students, Johannes Juul, built theso-called mother of modern wind turbine design – a 200kWthree-bladed turbine, which was subsequently connected to thenation’s power grid. Juul’s wind turbine was constructed as part ofa wind programme conducted by the association of Danish powerstations, but this was shut down in 1962.In the 1970s, inspired by the oil crisis and a strong Danishanti-nuclear movement, individual pioneers led a wind powerrevival. Christian Riisager, a carpenter, made his own wind turbineand connected it to the electricity grid in secret, by plugging itinto the wall outlet for his washing machine. Riisager began serialproduction of 22kW wind turbines, and several other Danishmanufacturers including Vestas and Bonus Energy (Siemens WindPower since 2004) did the same over the next few years.Thanks to these early trailblazers, Denmark became a worldleadingwind power manufacturer. In 2013 Danish companiessupplied 25 per cent of the world’s wind turbines. Danish expertiseplays a major role in wind energy technology in the world. The windindustry makes an important contribution to the Danish economy,employing some 27,500 people, with exports amounting to about50 billion Danish kroner (US$9.2 billion) in 2013 (Danish WindIndustry Association, 2014).Strong interaction between public research institutions,regulators, industry and citizens has enabled Denmark to becomenot only an early innovator but also a world champion in windenergy. Various economic incentives have encouraged investmentby private households, energy companies and other investors.Equally importantly, the national research centre Risoe (today partChapter 4: One Planet Solutions page 123

of Technical University Denmark) established safety and qualitystandards for wind turbines as early as 1979.Wind power development in Denmark has been led by civilto buy wind turbines or shares in cooperatives to invest in windpower in their communities. While most new investment today isfrom professional investors, cooperatives and local participationcontinue to play a role. Some 40,000 Danes are part-owners orindividual owners of turbines; since 2009, 20 per cent of thecapacity of each new onshore wind farm must be available forcitizens of the local community to buy. Opinion polls show thatabout 90 per cent of Danes are in favour of wind power.Continued support for wind power throughout changinggovernments has helped to stimulate demand, technologicalIn 2013, wind power provided an equivalent of a third of Danishelectricity consumption – and the Danish parliament has committedto meeting half of the country’s electricity needs with wind powerby 2020. The Danish government’s goal is to achieve 100 per centrenewable energy in the energy and transport sectors by 2050.In Denmark, it’s clear which way the winds of changeare blowing.Produce better: Wind power in Denmark displaces powerproduction from fossil fuels, reducing carbon emissions.Danish wind power development hasbeen characterized by long-term planning and political will to promotewind power investments through economic incentives for investors.Equitable resource governance: Some 40,000 Danes arepart-owners or individual owners of wind turbines. The Danishcommunity-ownership model has been replicated in other countries,including Germany.WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 124

Figure 67: As ofDecember 2013,there were 5,200wind turbines inDenmark with aninstalled windcapacity of 4,800MW,accounting for1,271MW(Danish Energy Agency,2014).Keycapacity, MWOnshore and offshore wind power capacity in MW50004500400035003000250020001500100050001990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002Year2003200420052006200720082009201020112012201335%30%25%20%15%10%5%0%Wind power share of domestic electricity (%)Wind power onshorecapacity, MWWind power’sshare of domesticelectricityCONTINUED SUPPORT FOR WIND POWER THROUGHOUTCHANGING GOVERNMENTS HAS HELPED TO STIMULATEDEMAND, TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION AND COSTREDUCTIONS. THE RESULTS TODAY ARE SIGNIFICANT.IN 2013, WIND POWER PROVIDED AN EQUIVALENT OF ATHIRD OF DANISH ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION. THE DANISHPARLIAMENT HAS COMMITTED TO MEETING HALF OF THECOUNTRY’S ELECTRICITY NEEDS WITH WIND POWER BY 2020Chapter 4: One Planet Solutions page 125

7CitiesWE LOVE CITIESA growing numbers of cities are demonstratingtheir willingness to lead in the transition to asustainable future.© Jonah M. Kessel / WWFEarth Hour City Challenge 2014 Winner: Cape Townand cities than in rural areas. And, as the world’s population grows,the proportion living in cities is set to increase further, especially inthe global South. This presents both a challenge and an opportunity.Increasing consumption, resource use and waste in cities isdriving the world’s growing Ecological Footprint. However, withgood planning and governance, cities can meet people’s needs muchthree decades, tremendous investment will take place in urban areas.WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 126

“CAPE TOWN’SPARTICIPATION INTHE EARTH HOURCITY CHALLENGEALLOWED US TO LEARNFROM OTHER CITIES,PUSHING US TO THINKMORE CREATIVELY.WITH THE HELP OFOUR RESIDENTS, THEBUSINESS COMMUNITYAND OTHER CIVICORGANISATIONS, OURCITY WILL CONTINUE TOFIND LOW FOOTPRINTSOLUTIONS THATIMPROVE QUALITYOF LIFE AND BUILD ATHRIVING, DYNAMICECONOMY AT THE SAMETIME.” COUNCILLORGARRETH BLOOR,CITY OF CAPE TOWNMAYORAL COMMITTEEMEMBERtoward creating healthy, sustainable cities. Smart choices made atall levels now could improve the quality of life for hundreds of millionsof people, and massively reduce the footprint of our lifestyles.While cities are responsible for more than 70 per cent of ourplanet’s energy-related carbon emissions (UN HABITAT, 2011), theyalso have the potential to become centres of renewable energyaccounts for 40 per cent of household energy, a scheme aims to helpThe 2014 Global Earth Hour Capital has also initiated projects suchlights with low-energy LEDs, and introducing smart meters.businesses to install rooftop solar power. Shanghai, WWF-China’sLow Carbon Pilot City, is launching a local incentive for residentsand businesses to install distributed solar power: on top of thenational incentive of 0.42 yuan per kWh the city will provide anBox 9: WWF’s urban initiativesConservation outcomes are closely linked to production andconsumption patterns, which are largely driven by the demandsof urban societies. WWF’s work for sustainable cities (wwf.panda.a future in which we all live well in harmony with nature andwithin the capacity of one planet – a “one planet future”.- WWF’s Earth Hour City Challenge aims to mobilizeaction and support from cities in a global transition towarda 100 per cent renewable and sustainable future, and tostimulate the development and dissemination of bestpractices for sustainable urban development.- We Love Cities is a social media platform on which citizensare invited to express support for the climate actions ofsuggestions for how their cities can become more sustainable.Within only two months in 2014, it collected more than300,000 expressions of support and suggestions.- Urban Solutions is a global inventory of learning cases,providing 100+ real examples of how cities are approachingthe need to minimize their Ecological Footprints and protectecosystem services and biodiversity.- Low Carbon Cities is exploring low carbon developmentmodels in China in order to learn from and replicatesuccessful experiences.Chapter 4: One Planet Solutions page 127

additional subsidy of 0.4 yuan (US$0.07) per kWh for householdinstallations and 0.25 yuan for business installations (ShanghaiDRC, 2014). Chicago is aiming to become a leader in residential andcommercial rooftop solar development, as part of its goal to reducecarbon emissions by 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020.The transport sector is responsible for more than 25 percent of world energy related carbon emissions (Baumert, 2005),of high population density lend themselves to sustainabletransport solutions.In Stockholm, more than three-quarters of citizens use publictransport, supported by initiatives such as a congestion tax, walkingschool buses, cycling education, and city planning for biking and“walkability”. Up to half of Copenhagen’s residents cycle to their placewith its own separate road area. Vancouver has reversed transporttrends by banning new highways and investing heavily in publictransport. One in three drivers in Seoul – 820,000 people – has joinedthe city’s No Driving Day programme, contributing to better air quality,who register to leave their cars at home for one day each week arerewarded with reduced tolls and parking charges and other incentives.Cities are also increasingly taking responsibility for watermanagement. Some are actively protecting forests, wetlandsand catchment areas vital to local water supply. Mexico City’sreforestation programme is planting 2 million trees per year tohelp secure its water supply, and protected natural areas now makeup almost 60 per cent of the federal district. Others are improvingwater security through collecting rainwater and recycling: waterscarceSingapore, for example, receives more than half of its watersupply from rainwater collection (20 per cent), recycled water (30per cent) and desalination (10 per cent).Globally, urban farming supplies nearly 15 per cent of allfood: many cities have introduced policies to support local foodproduction – which can help reduce transport and greenhouse-gasemissions; provide employment; improve the urban environment;and reduce pressure on natural ecosystems. In Shanghai, for example,municipal government policy has led the city to produce more than55 per cent of its vegetables and 90 per cent of its green-leafvegetables locally. Belo Horizonte in Brazil has radically increasedlocal and organic food production, improving poor residents’ accessto nutritious produce, reducing childhood malnutrition andincreasing income for local farmers (World Future Council, 2013).Urban farming is also an example of the increased “greening”green spaces, and restoring waterways and wetlands are bringing>25%TRANSPORT ACCOUNTSFOR MORE THAN 25PERCENT OF WORLDENERGY RELATEDCARBON EMISSIONS,AND TRAFFIC POLLUTIONIS A HUGE PROBLEMIN MANY CITIES.BUT AREAS OF HIGHPOPULATION DENSITYLEND THEMSELVESTO SUSTAINABLETRANSPORT SOLUTIONSWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 128

to create 10,000m 2 of new green roofs annually, to improve airquality, regulate humidity, reduce temperatures and provide newbiodiversity resources. In many places, urban habitats are becomingimportant havens for native plants, insects, birds and animals: 20Cities can also take a lead in protecting biodiversity and thenatural environment far beyond their own boundaries by addressingconsumption. Sendai in Japan has been a front-runner in developinggreen purchasing regulations: its municipal institutions make morethan 90 per cent of their purchases from a recommended list of greenproducts, and the city has helped set up a Green Procurement Networkinvolving around 3,000 public, private and voluntary sectororganizations, including all of the largest cities. Ghent in Belgiumpromotes a meat-free day each week to help reduce agriculture’s carbonemissions and environmental impact, and to encourage improvedhuman health and animal welfare – an idea that has been adoptedby cities such as Helsinki, Cape Town, San Francisco and Sao Paolo.All of these examples show that we have a choice. Urbanizationdoes not have to mean ever-increasing pollution, sprawl, high-impactlifestyles and overstretched services. Wise investment, planning andgovernance in cities today could secure healthy, sustainablecommunities and lifestyles for more than half of humanity.Preserve natural capital: Natural spaces in and around citiesprotection, biodiversity habitat and recreational values.Produce better: Nearly 15 per cent of the world’s food is suppliedby urban farming. Cities are also increasingly generating their ownrenewable energy.Consume more wisely: Cities are centres of consumption – butsmart urban development and better consumption choices can alsohelp people live more sustainable lives.US$350 trillion will be spent on urbaninfrastructure between 2005 and 2035 (WWF, 2010). This provides awindow of opportunity to turn cities from being threats to becomingsolutions for global footprint reduction and biodiversity protection.Equitable resource governance: Well-governed, forwardthinkingand well-designed cities are more sustainable along everydimension. Good governance rewards itself.For references and further details, see wwf.panda.org/urbansolutionsChapter 4: One Planet Solutions page 129

A BRIGHTER OUTLOOK?~Dark clouds gather over Virunga’s mountains – but the sky isbright beyond.With the Earth’s biodiversity and natural capital indangerous decline, precious places like Virunga need to bepreserved. And with humanity’s demands outstripping whatthe planet can sustain, we urgently need to move away fromoil-dependent, high Footprint lifestyles.As Soco’s decision to stop oil exploration in Virunga NationalPark shows, it’s not too late to make the right choices – inVirunga and beyond.

© Brent Stirton / Reportage by Getty Images / WWF-Canon

THE PATH AHEADMuch of this edition of the Living Planet Report makes for troublingreading. Yet the same indicators that show where we have gonewrong can help to point us onto a better path.There is nothing inevitable about the continuing declinein the LPI, or ongoing ecological overshoot. They are the sum ofmillions of decisions, often made with little or no considerationof the importance of our natural world. Poor governance at local,national and international levels. Policies with a myopic focus oneconomic growth and narrow interests. Business models that focusand transporting goods and people. Desperate strategies for earninga livelihood. Excessive consumption that makes few happier orhealthier. This all adds up to immense costs to the planet, andits inhabitants.In each case, there is a better choice. Changing our courseAt the Rio+20 conference in 2012, the world’s governmentsenvironmentally sustainable future for our planet and for presentand future generations” (UN, 2012). This is “Our Common Vision”,the place we need to aim for. Its coordinates are mapped outin the preceding pages. It can be seen in the global sustainabledevelopment quadrant outlined in Chapter 1 (Figure 36) – thecurrently unoccupied territory where everyone is able to enjoya high level of human development with an Ecological Footprintthat is within global biocapacity. This is essentially the same spaceenvisioned in the Oxfam Doughnut – the “safe, just operatingspace” that stays within planetary boundaries while ensuring thateveryone achieves an acceptable level of health, well-being andopportunity (Figure 39).WWF’s One Planet Perspective (Figure 59) gives an idea ofhow we might reach it, through a series of practical decisions. Weneed to divert investment away from the causes of environmentalproblems and toward the solutions; make fair, far-sighted andecologically informed choices about how we manage the resourceswe share; preserve our remaining natural capital, protecting andrestoring important ecosystems and habitats; produce better andconsume more wisely.For all the dispiriting data, signs of progress can be seen.toward the global sustainable development quadrant – emergingCHANGING OURCOURSE AND FINDINGALTERNATIVE PATHWAYSWILL NOT BE EASY.BUT IT CAN BE DONEWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 132

economies that have raised standards of living for their populationswith much lower resource intensity than industrialized countries,Footprints without compromising their citizens’ well-being.In 2015, world leaders will agree two potentially criticalglobal agreements. The post-2015 development framework – whichwill include Sustainable Development Goals to be achieved by allcountries by 2030 – is an opportunity to unite countries around acommon agenda to promote sustainable economic development,reduce inequalities, and protect and enhance the natural resourceswould guide policy and investment at a scale that would make a realparties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change haveset an objective of reaching a new global agreement in Paris in 2015.After years of gridlocked climate talks, this is a critical opportunityto reach a deal that applies to all countries and lays the basis forkeeping climate change within safe limits, adapting to its impacts,and providing the means of support to do so.There is much in this report to inform these world leadersand their nations as they make decisions on the future of the world’speople and places, species and spaces, over the next two years andbeyond. There are hard facts to be acknowledged about the stateof the planet, and yet much room for optimism. The case studiespresented in Chapter 4 are just a handful of the myriad examplesof how individuals, communities, businesses and governmentsplanet. They demonstrate that sustainable development that allowsall people to live a good life on a healthy planet, in harmony withnature, is possible. They give us hope for a better future.WE KNOW WHERE WE WANT TO BEWE KNOW HOW TO GET THERENOW WE NEED TO GET MOVINGChapter 4: One Planet Solutions page 133

APPENDIX:TECHNICAL NOTESAND DATA TABLES

© Brent Stirton / Reportage by Getty Images / WWF-Canon

APPENDIXLiving Planet Index FAQ1. What is the Living Planet Index? Living Planet IndexThe Living Planet Index 2. How many species and populations are there in the LPI?3. What “cuts” of the LPI are included in the Living PlanetReport 2014?A. Tropical and temperate regionsB. Systems – freshwater, marine and terrestrial

C. Biogeographic realms (terrestrial and freshwater) –Afrotropical, Neotropical, Palearctic, Nearctic andD. Populations in terrestrial protected areasE. Income groups – high, middle and lowTrends in the LPI4. What are the main trends shown by the LPI?

5. Between 1970 and 2010 temperate realms (Nearcticand Palearctic) show less of a decline than tropical realmsexplain this?Table 1: Trends in theLiving Planet indicesbetween 1970 and2010, with 95 per centIncome categories arebased on the World Bank(2010). Positive numbermeans increase, negativemeans decline(WWF, ZSL, 2014).

6. Why is the total number of species in the marine,freshwater and terrestrial LPIs more than that of theglobal index?• • • • 7. Are extinct species included in the LPI?Lipotes vexillifer8. What role has climate change played in the overalldecline of species, particularly in recent trends?

Calculating the LPI9. Where do the data used in the LPI come from?10. Technical details of the calculationsLiving Planet Report ConservationBiologyLiving Planet Report

Table 2: The proportionof species by group andand freshwater speciesThe values also representthe weighting applied to thedata for each species groupwhen calculating the realmand system LPIs(WWF, ZSL, 2014).a. Terrestrial and freshwater weightings applied to data: b. Marine weightings applied to data:

Table 3: The proportionfreshwater species andThe values also representthe weighting applied to thedata for each realm whencalculating the system LPIs(WWF, ZSL, 2014). :

12. How has the Living Planet Index changed since 2012?Living Planet Report

13. Increases in the size of the LPI datasetLiving Planet Report• • • • Developing the LPI method14. Why was the LPI method revised?

1200010000Number of populations800060004000Living PlanetReport 20061,313 SpeciesLiving PlanetReport 20081,686 SpeciesLiving PlanetReport 20102,544 SpeciesLiving PlanetReport 20122,688 SpeciesLiving PlanetReport 20143,038 Species20000Mar 06Sep 06Apr 07Oct 07May 08Nov 08Jun 09Dec 09Jul 10Feb 11Aug 11Mar 12Sep 12Apr 13Oct 13May 14YearFigure 68: Thein the LPI databasein each Living PlanetReport since 2006(WWF, ZSL, 2014).Living Planet Report15. What implication does this have on the previousresults?

Table 4: LPI results:2012 and LPR 2014

Ecological Footprint FAQ1. How is the Ecological Footprint calculated?2. What does a global hectare represent?

constant global hectares3. What is included in the Ecological Footprint? What isexcluded?4. How does Footprint accounting aggregate distinctenvironmental problems?

5. How is international trade taken into account?6. How does the Ecological Footprint account for the use offossil fuels?

7. How does the Ecological Footprint account for carbonemissions absorbed by the oceans versus uptake byforests?

8. Does the Ecological Footprint take into account otherspecies?9. Does the Footprint measure sustainability?10. Does the Ecological Footprint say what is a “fair”or “equitable” use of resources?

11. How relevant is the Ecological Footprint if the supplyof renewable resources can be increased and advancesin technology can slow the depletion of non-renewableresources?12. How does the Ecological Footprint support publicpolicy development?13. What NFA calculation improvements have been madebetween LPR 2012 and LPR 2014?

For Ecological Footprint detailed method paper, copies ofsample calculation sheets, data sources and results, please visit:www.footprintnetwork.org

Table 5: Ecological Footprint and biocapacity data tables2010 Footprint composition(as percentage of total Footprint)2010 biocapacity composition(as percentage of totalbiocapacity)

2010 Footprint composition(as percentage of total Footprint)2010 biocapacity composition(as percentage of totalbiocapacity)

2010 Footprint composition(as percentage of total Footprint)2010 biocapacity composition(as percentage of totalbiocapacity)

2010 Footprint composition(as percentage of total Footprint)2010 biocapacity composition(as percentage of totalbiocapacity)

2010 Footprint composition(as percentage of total Footprint)2010 biocapacity composition(as percentage of totalbiocapacity)

2010 Footprint composition(as percentage of total Footprint)2010 biocapacity composition(as percentage of totalbiocapacity) Unless otherwise noted, all data is from Global Footprint Network, National FootprintAccounts 2014 edition. For more information consult www.footprintnetwork.org/atlas

The water footprint FAQused methods of calculating water use?2. Water is a renewable resource, it remains in the cycle,so what’s the problem?

3. Is there agreement on how to measure a water footprint?4. Why distinguish between a green, blue and grey waterfootprint?

5. Isn’t it too simplistic to add all cubic metres of water usedinto one aggregate indicator?6. How does water footprint relate to the EcologicalFootprint?For more information consult www.waterfootprintnetwork.org

GLOSSARY OF TERMSAdaptationBiocapacityand reserveBlue water footprintBuilt-up landCroplandEcological FootprintEcological overshoot

Ecoregions ExternalityFishing groundsForest productFootprint Global hectare (gha)Green waterfootprintGrey water footprintGrazing landconstant globalhectares

Human DevelopmentIndex (HDI)Inequalityadjusted HumanDevelopment Index(IHDI)MegacityNatural capital PresumptiverequirementRepresentativeConcentrationPathways (RCP)ResilienceWater footprint ofnational production Water scarcity

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONSADB ASC BRIICS CBD CBS CCAMLR CDIAC CFC CO2 CISL FAO FLORON GDP gha Gm 3 GRID HDI ICEM IGCP IHDI IPCC IUCN LPI Living Planet Index ®LPI-D LPI-U MEA NGO N r OBIS OECD PES ppm RCP REDD SEI SOFIA SRC SSC TEEB TNC UNDESA UNDP UNEP FI UNFCCC UNFPA UNICEF WCED WFC WFN WHO WRG ZNDD ZSL

REFERENCESBiological ConservationMoving from Risk to Resilience – Sustainable Urban Development in theHuman impact on coastal zones.Arctic Resilience Interim Report 2013Oxford Review of Economic PolicyNova Acta LeopoldinaEcology LettersNavigating the Numbers: GreenhouseGas Data and International Climate Policy.Diomedea exulans. Conservation Biology 18Economy-Wide NitrogenBalances and Indicators: Concept and Methodology.Ecological ApplicationsEcological IndicatorsTurning adversity into opportunity: A business plan forthe Baltic Sea Global Environmental Change. Living marine resources and their sustainabledevelopment: some environmental and institutional perspectives.Global CO 2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, andGas Flaring: 1751-2008.Belize Integrated Coastal Zone ManagementPlan.Conservation Biology

. Conservation BiologyGlobal Ecology andBiogeography 23Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeHistory. Commission for Conservation of AntarcticMarine Living ResourcesUrban Nature: How to Foster Biodiversity in World’s Cities. YaleEnvironment 360. Belize’s Coastal Capital: The EconomicContribution of Belize’s Coral Reefs and MangrovesGlobal Environmental Change. Biological Conservation 143Biological ConservationVindformationThe diversity of life in African freshwaters: underwater, under threat. . ScienceCurrent Opinion in Environmental SustainabilityProceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS)

Economic contribution of the Great Barrier ReefRunning pure: the importance of forest protectedareas to drinking water. NatureDiceros bicornisCeratotherium simumNitrogen Economy of the 21st Century. Sourceseparation and decentralisation for wastewater management. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Global food losses and food waste – Extent, causes and preventionState of the World’s Forests 2012State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2012Road to Rio: Improving energy use key challenge for world’s foodsystemsStatistical Yearbook 2013 - World Food and Agriculture. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture – Opportunities andChallengesClimate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation,and Vulnerability. Working Group II Contribution to the IPCC 5th AssessmentReport Environmental HealthPerspectivesState of the World 2013: Is sustainability still possible?

Nature Climate ChangeBiological ConservationBioScienceScienceBrisbane DeclarationNational Footprint Accounts, 2012 EditionNational Footprint Accounts, 2014 EditionIndispensable Ocean – Aligning Ocean Health andHuman Well-being.OceansStatus andmakes us human. Language Documentation& ConservationProceedingsof the National Academy of SciencesPLOS ONE EarthscanThe Atlas of Global Conservation:Strategic Environmental Assessment of Hydropower on the MekongMainstream – Final Report.Population of mountain gorillas in Bwindi determined by census. internationalGorilla Conservation ProgrammeClimate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.

The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA)Red List of Threatened SpeciesNatureScience for Environment &Sustainable SocietyBiotropicaGlobal Land Cover (GLC-SHARE) Beta-Release 1.0 DatabaseEnvironmental DevelopmentNatureBiocultural Diversity: threatened species, endangeredlanguagesTrends in Ecology & EvolutionLitoria aureaDeclines andDisappearances of Australian Frogs.PLOS ONE The Wealthof Nature: Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity, and Human Well-BeingEcosystems and Human Well-being: SynthesisOverview of the hydrology of the Mekong basinThe South Africa–Viet Nam Rhino Horn Trade Nexus:A deadly combination of institutional lapses, corrupt wildlife industryprofessionals and Asian crime syndicates.Linguistic Diversity. Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World’sLanguages

The success of tourism in Rwanda – Gorillas andmore.State of Forest and Tree Genetic Resources in Dry Zone Southern AfricaDevelopment Community CountriesData from the Ocean Biogeographic Information System. IntergovernmentalOceanographic Commission of UNESCOOECD environmental outlook to 2030Climate Change 2014:Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects.Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeGlobalEnvironmental ChangeDeclines and Disappearances ofAustralian FrogsClimate Change 2014: Impacts,Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution ofWorking Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate ChangeScienceRiver Res. ApplicNatureAtelopus ignescensJournal of HerpetologyCommon Wealth: Economics for a crowded planetNatureValuing the Ocean

GlobalBiogeochemical CyclesChineseInVEST User’s GuideWorld Language Mapping systemAmbioArcticClimate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of WorkingGroup I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChangeThe nine planetary boundariesArborvitaeNatureNature CommunicationsThe Future We WantWorld Urbanisation Prospects – The 2011 RevisionPopulation Facts No. 2013Population Division: World Population Prospects 2012 RevisionHuman Development Indicators and Thematic TablesUniversal ownership: why environmental externalities matter toinstitutional investors.State of the World’s Population 2007: Unleashing the Potential ofUrban GrowthGlobal report on human settlementJournal of Applied Ecology

GlobalChange BiologyPLOS Biology 8Bonn2011 Conference PressbackgrounderOur Common FutureJoint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation(JMP)Journal ofEcologyWorld Development Indicators 2013Sharing the experience of the food security system of BeloHorizonteCharting Our Water Future: Economic Frameworks to Inform Decision-Making.The Water Risk Filter Environmental service incentives system in the state of Acre,REDD+. An Introduction to South Africa’s Water Source AreasWildFinder: Online database of species distributions, ver. Jan-06The Energy ReportWWF Living Forests ReportLiving Planet Report 2012. Biodiversity, biocapacity and better choices.PADDDtracker: Tracking Protected Area Downgrading, Downsizing,and DegazettementThe Economic Value of Virunga National ParkFreshwater Ecoregions of the WorldGSA Today

WWF WORLDWIDE NETWORKWWF AssociatesPublication detailsLiving Planet Report 2014:species and spaces, people and places.

Zoological Society of LondonMonitoring scheme; the Global Population Dynamics Database from the Centre for Population Biology, ImperialGiraldo, the Environmental Volunteer Programme in Natural Areas of Murcia Region, Spain; Mike Gill from theBerkhuysen, WWF-Netherlands and all data contributors to the LPI for global estuarine systems. A full list ofdata contributors can be found at www.livingplanetindex.org.We would like to acknowledge the following individuals for their help adding data to the LPI database overMacGregor, Amy Munro-Faure, Charlotte Outhwaite, Fiona Pamplin, Victoria Price, Louise Raggett, ElizabethGlobal Footprint NetworkEcuador, Spain, and the Philippines.Much of the research for this report would not have been possible without the generous support of: AvinaStiftung, Foundation for Global Community, Funding Exchange, MAVA - Fondation pour la Protection de laAgency – Abu Dhabi; Barr Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Deutsche Gesellschaft für InternationaleZusammenarbeit, V. Kann Rasmussen, Keidanren Nature Conservation Fund, Dr. Med Arthur und EstellaHirzel-Callegari Stiftung; Daniela Schlettwein-Gsell; Oliver and Bea Wackernagel; Marie-Christine Wackernagel-We would also like to acknowledge the Global Footprint Network’s 76 partner organizations; and the GlobalFootprint Network National Accounts Committee for their guidance, contributions, and commitment to robustNational Footprint Accounts.Water Footprint Networkof immense value to our work at Water Footprint Network.We would also like to acknowledge the Water Footprint Network’s 180+ partner organizations for their activeNetwork for their peer review of the global standards and tools for Water Footprint Assessment.WWF InternationalWWF International would like to thank WWF-Netherlands and WWF-Switzerland for funding the Living PlanetReport 2014.And for their invaluable support, we would like to thank: Carlos Drews (Director, Species, WWF International),Gustavsson (former WWF International), Louise Lumholt (WWF-Denmark), and Phil Dickie, Pierre Bouvier,

LIVING PLANET REPORT 2014PLACESFrom forests to rivers to reefs,natural ecosystems are thefoundation of building healthy,resilient communities.PEOPLEOur needs, our well-beingand our prosperity dependon nature.Why we are hereTo stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment andto build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.panda.org/lpr© 1986 Panda symbol WWF – World Wide Fund For Nature (Formerly World Wildlife Fund)® “WWF” is a WWF Registered Trademark. WWF, Avenue du Mont-Blanc, 1196 Gland,Switzerland – Tel. +41 22 364 9111; Fax. +41 22 364 0332. For contact details and furtherinformation, visit our international website at panda.orgSPECIESPopulations of vertebratespecies have fallen by halfsince 1970, according to theLiving Planet Index.SPACES100%RECYCLEDWith humanity currentlydemanding 1.5 planets’worth of resources, pressureon ecosystems is increasing.© NASALIVING PLANET REPORT 2014 INT WWF.ORG