REPORT
IN T

2018

Living Planet
Report2018: Aiming higher

Institute of Zoology (Zoological Society of London)
Founded in 1826, the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) is aninternational scientific, conservation and educational organization. Its
mission is to achieve and promote the worldwide conservation of animals
and their habitats. ZSL runs ZSL London Zoo and ZSL Whipsnade Zoo;
carries out scientific research in the Institute of Zoology; and is actively
involved in field conservation worldwide. ZSL manages the Living PlanetIndex® in a collaborative partnership with WWF.
WWF
WWF is one of the world’s largest and most experienced independent
conservation organizations, with over 5 million supporters and a global
network active in more than 100 countries. WWF’s mission is to stop
the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build afuture in which humans live in harmony with nature, by conserving theworld’s biological diversity, ensuring that the use of renewable natural
resources is sustainable, and promoting the reduction of pollution andwasteful consumption.

CitationWWF. 2018. Living Planet Report - 2018: Aiming Higher.
Grooten, M. and Almond, R.E.A.(Eds). WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

Design and infographics by: peer&dedigitalesupermarkt
Cover photograph: © Global Warming Images / WWFChildren dive into the sea at sunset, Funafuti, Tuvalu

ISBN 978-2-940529-90-2
Living Planet Report®
and Living Planet Index®
are registered trademarksof WWF International.

CONTENTS
Foreword by Marco Lambertini

4

Executive summary

6

Setting the scene

10

Chapter 1: Why biodiversity matters

12

Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world26

Chapter 3: Biodiversity in a changing world88

Chapter 4: Aiming higher, what future do we want?

108

The path ahead

124

References130

Editors-in-Chief:
Monique Grooten and Rosamunde Almond (WWF-NL)
Editorial and Production Team: Lead Editor: Tanya Petersen Teams: Michael
Alexander (WWF International), Stefanie Deinet (Zoological Society of London),
Savriël Dilingh, Robin Freeman (Zoological Society of London), Barney Jeffries,
Evan Jeffries, Natasja Oerlemans (WWF-NL), Isabelle Oostendorp (WWF International),
Mark Wright (WWF-UK), Lucy Young (WWF-UK) and Holly Strand
Steering Group:
Winnie De’Ath (WWF International), Mike Barrett, (WWF-UK), Monique Grooten(WWF-NL), Margaret Kinnaird (WWF Kenya) Lin Li (WWF International), Deon Nel
and Rebecca Shaw (WWF-US)
Authors:
Mike Barrett (WWF-UK), Alan Belward (European Commission Joint Research Centre),
Sarah Bladen (Global Fishing Watch), Tom Breeze (University of Reading), Neil Burgess(UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre - UNEP-WCMC), Stuart Butchart(BirdLife International), Harriet Clewlow (British Antarctic Survey and the Universityof Exeter), Sarah Cornell (Stockholm Resilience Centre), Andrew Cottam (European
Commission Joint Research Centre), Simon Croft (Stockholm Environment Institute),
Guiseppe de Carlo (WWF International), Luca de Felice (European Commission Joint
Research Centre), Adriana De Palma (Natural History Museum, London), Stefanie Deinet(Zoological Society of London), Rod Downie (WWF-UK), Carel Drijver (WWF-NL),
Bernadette Fischler (WWF-UK), Robin Freeman (Zoological Society of London), Owen
Gaffney (Stockholm Resilience Centre), Alessandro Galli (Global Footprint Network), Paul
Gamblin (WWF International), Michael Garratt (University of Reading), Noel Gorelick(Google Earth Engine), Jonathan Green (Stockholm Environment Institute), Monique
Grooten (WWF-NL), Laurel Hanscom (Global Footprint Network), Samantha Hill (UNEnvironment World Conservation Monitoring Centre - UNEP-WCMC), Craig HiltonTaylor (IUCN), Arwyn Jones (European Commission Joint Research Centre), Tony Juniper(WWF-UK), Huma Khan (WWF International), David Kroodsma (Global Fishing Watch),David Leclère (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis), Ghislaine Llewellyn(WWF-Australia), Georgina Mace (University College London), Louise McRae (ZoologicalSociety of London), Karen Mo (WWF-US), Jeff Opperman (WWF International), Alberto
Orgiazzi (European Commission Joint Research Centre), Stuart Orr (WWF International),
Pablo Pacheco (WWF International), Deng Palomares and Daniel Pauly (Sea Around Us,
Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia), Jean-Francois
Pekel (European Commission Joint Research Centre), Linwood Pendleton (WWF-US),
Andy Purvis (Natural History Museum, London), Norman Radcliffe (British Antarctic
Survey), Toby Roxburgh (WWF-UK), Bob Scholes (University of the Wittswatersrand, South
Africa and IPBES Chair), Deepa Senapathi (University of Reading), John Tanzer (WWFInternational), Michele Thieme (WWF-US), Dave Tickner (WWF-UK), Pablo Tittonell(Natural Resources and Environment Program of INTA, Argentina), Phil Trathan (British
Antarctic Survey), Piero Visconti (University College London and Zoological Societyof London), Mathis Wackernagel (Global Footprint Network) Chris West (Stockholm
Environment Institute) and Natascha Zwaal (WWF-NL)
Special thanks:
Catharine Blanchard (WWF-US), Marieke Harteveld (WWF-NL), Cornelia Ludwig(Stockholm Resilience Centre), Valentina Marconi (ZSL), Alistair Monument (WWFInternational), Rucha Naware (WWF International), Michael Obersteiner (International
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis), Holly Pringle (ZSL), Kirsten Schuijt (WWF-NL),
Nora Sticzay (WWF-NL) and Isabel Thomas (ZSL). We would also like to thank everyone
who kindly added data to the Living Planet Database (www.livingplanetindex.org)

Living Planet
Report2018: Aiming higher

A NEW GLOBAL DEAL FOR NATURE
AND PEOPLE URGENTLY NEEDEDOn one hand, we have known for many, many years that we are
driving the planet to the very brink. This is not a doom and gloom
story; it is reality. The astonishing decline in wildlife populations
shown by the latest Living Planet Index – a 60% fall in just over
40 years – is a grim reminder and perhaps the ultimate indicatorof the pressure we exert on the planet.
On the other hand, science has never been clearer about theconsequences of our impact. There has never been more awareness– nor such rapidly increasing investment in finding solutions.
Today, we have the knowledge and means to redefine ourrelationship with the planet. There is no excuse for inaction. We canno longer ignore the warning signs; doing so would be at our own
peril. What we need now is the will to act – and act quickly.
The nature conservation agenda is not only about securing thefuture of tigers, pandas, whales and all the amazing diversity of life
we love and cherish on Earth. It’s bigger than that. Our day-to-day
life, health and livelihoods depend on a healthy planet. There cannot
be a healthy, happy and prosperous future for people on a planetwith a destabilized climate, depleted oceans and rivers, degraded
land and empty forests, all stripped of biodiversity, the web of lifethat sustains us all.
In the next years, we need to urgently transition to a net carbonneutral society and halt and reverse nature loss – through green
finance and shifting to clean energy and environmentally friendly
food production. In addition, we must preserve and restore enoughland and ocean in a natural state to sustain all life.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 4© WWF

Few people have had the chance to find themselves on the cusp of
a truly historic transformation. I passionately believe that this iswhere we stand today. Our planet is at a crossroads and we havethe opportunity to decide the path ahead.

But we have two main problems. First, and perhaps the greatest,is the cultural challenge. For too long we have taken nature for
granted, and this needs to stop. The second is economic. We canno longer ignore the impact of current unsustainable production
models and wasteful lifestyles. These must be accounted for andaddressed.
This is today’s – and our generation’s – greatest challenge andopportunity: for the first time, we can fully grasp how protecting
nature is also about protecting people. The environmental andhuman development agendas are rapidly converging.
Few people have the chance to be a part of truly historictransformations. This is ours. We have before us a rapidly closing
window for action and an unparalleled opportunity as we head into
the year 2020. This is when the world will review its progress on
sustainable development by means of the Sustainable Development
Goals, the Paris Agreement and the Convention on Biological
Diversity. And this is when the world should embrace a new global
deal for nature and people, as we did for climate in Paris, and truly
demonstrate the path we are choosing for people and the planet.
Today, we still have a choice. We can be the founders of a global
movement that changed our relationship with the planet, that saw
us secure a future for all life on Earth, including our own. Or we canbe the generation that had its chance and failed to act; that let Earthslip away. The choice is ours. Together we can make it happen for
nature and for people.

Marco Lambertini,

Director General
WWF International

Foreword page 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Everything that has built modern human society
is provided by nature and, increasingly, researchdemonstrates the natural world’s incalculable importanceto our health, wealth, food and security.
All economic activity ultimately depends on services provided bynature, estimated to be worth around US$125 trillion a year. As we
better understand our reliance on natural systems it’s clear thatnature is not just a ‘nice to have’. Business and the finance industry
are starting to question how global environmental risks will affectthe macroeconomic performance of countries, sectors and financial
markets, and policy-makers wonder how we will meet climate
and sustainable development targets with declining nature andbiodiversity.

AS WE BETTERUNDERSTAND OURRELIANCE ON NATURALSYSTEMS IT’S CLEAR
THAT NATURE IS NOTJUST A ‘NICE TO HAVE’Exploding human consumption is the driving force behind theunprecedented planetary change we are witnessing, throughthe increased demand for energy, land and water. Consumption
indicators – such as the Ecological Footprint – provide a picture ofoverall resource use. The products we consume, the supply chains
behind them, the materials they use and how these are extracted
and manufactured have myriad impacts on the world around us.

CONSUMPTION IS THE
DRIVING FORCE BEHIND
THE UNPRECEDENTED
PLANETARY CHANGE
WE ARE WITNESSING,
THROUGH THE
INCREASED DEMAND
FOR ENERGY, LAND AND
WATERWhile climate change is a growing threat, the main drivers of
biodiversity decline continue to be the overexploitation of species,
agriculture and land conversion. Indeed, a recent assessment foundthat only a quarter of land on Earth is substantively free of the
impacts of human activities. This is projected to decline to just onetenth by 2050. Land degradation includes forest loss; while globally
this loss has slowed due to reforestation and plantations it has
accelerated in tropical forests that contain some of the highest levelsof biodiversity on Earth. Ongoing degradation has many impacts on
species, the quality of habitats and the functioning of ecosystems.
Two recent studies have focused on the dramatic reductions in bee
and other pollinator numbers and on the risks to soil biodiversity,
critical to sustain food production and other ecosystem services.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 6

CURRENT RATES OF
SPECIES EXTINCTION
ARE 100 TO 1,000
TIMES HIGHER THAN
THE BACKGROUND
RATE, THE STANDARD
RATE OF EXTINCTIONIN EARTH’S HISTORY
BEFORE HUMANPRESSURE BECAME A
PROMINENT FACTOR 1Marine and freshwater ecosystems are also facing huge pressures.
Almost 6 billion tonnes of fish and invertebrates have been takenfrom the world’s oceans since 1950. Plastic pollution has been
detected in all major marine environments worldwide, fromshorelines and surface waters down to the deepest parts of theocean, including the bottom of the Mariana Trench. Freshwater
habitats, such as lakes, rivers and wetlands, are the source of life forall humans yet they are also the most threatened, strongly affectedby a range of factors including habitat modification, fragmentationand destruction; invasive species; overfishing; pollution; disease;and climate change.
Using big data, sophisticated imaging methods and a wave ofother new tracking and analytical tools, researchers are matchingcommodities and their supply chains to specific impacts on
biodiversity. Increasing the transparency around these complex
relationships may help to stop biodiversity loss.
This global overview is useful but it’s also important to understandwhether there are differences in threats between different
geographic regions and whether similar species are affected by themin different ways. The Living Planet Index, a rich source of thisinformation, can tell us about threats at the species population level.
This more granular level of data has already highlighted different
responses in different species of penguins in western Antarctica.

BIODIVERSITY HAS
BEEN DESCRIBED AS
THE ‘INFRASTRUCTURE’
THAT SUPPORTS
ALL LIFE ON EARTH.
IT IS, SIMPLY, A
PREREQUISITE FOR OUR
MODERN, PROSPEROUS
HUMAN SOCIETY
TO EXIST, AND TO
CONTINUE TO THRIVE

The Living Planet Index also tracks the state of global biodiversity
by measuring the population abundance of thousands of vertebrate
species around the world. The latest index shows an overall
decline of 60% in population sizes between 1970 and 2014. Species
population declines are especially pronounced in the tropics, with
South and Central America suffering the most dramatic decline, an
89% loss compared to 1970. Freshwater species numbers have also
declined dramatically, with the Freshwater Index showing an 83%
decline since 1970. But measuring biodiversity – all the varieties oflife that can be found on Earth and their relationships to each other– is complex, so this report also explores three other indicators
measuring changes in species distribution, extinction risk andchanges in community composition. All these paint the same picture– showing severe declines or changes.

Executive summary page 7

What is clear is that without a dramatic move beyond ‘business as
usual’ the current severe decline of the natural systems that support
modern societies will continue. With two key global policy processes
underway – the setting of new post-2020 targets for the Convention
on Biological Diversity and the Sustainable Development Goals –there is currently a unique window of opportunity to reverse thetrend. Lessons can be learned from progress towards addressing
other critical global issues, like climate change, and everyone– governments, business, finance, research, civil society andindividuals – has a part to play.
That’s why we, along with conservation and science colleagues
around the world, are calling for the most ambitious global
agreement yet – a new global deal for nature and people. Decisionmakers at every level need to make the right political, financial andconsumer choices to achieve the vision that humanity and nature
thrive in harmony on our only planet. This vision is possible withstrong leadership from us all.
In our contribution to this ambitious pathway, WWF is collaboratingwith a consortium of almost 40 universities and conservation andintergovernmental organizations to launch the research initiative
Bending the Curve of Biodiversity Loss. This critical work will
explicitly include biodiversity in future systems modelling, helping
us to determine the best integrated and collective solutions andto understand the trade-offs we may need to accept to find thebest path ahead. These models and systems analyses will form thecornerstone of a future edition of the Living Planet Report.

WE ARE THE FIRST GENERATION THAT HAS
A CLEAR PICTURE OF THE VALUE OF NATUREAND OUR IMPACT ON IT. WE MAY BE THE LASTTHAT CAN TAKE ACTION TO REVERSE THISTREND. FROM NOW UNTIL 2020 WILL BE A
DECISIVE MOMENT IN HISTORY.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 8

WE ARE CALLING FOR
THE MOST AMBITIOUS
GLOBAL AGREEMENTYET – A NEW GLOBAL
DEAL FOR NATURE AND
PEOPLE© naturepl.com - Tim Laman - WWF

A mangrove crab on the root of a red mangrove tree (Rhizophora mangle), just below the water line
on Kostrae Island, Federated States of Micronesia.

Executive summary page 9

SETTING THE SCENE
We live in an age of rapid and unprecedented planetary change. Indeed, many scientists
believe our ever-increasing consumption, and the resulting increased demand for energy,
land and water, is driving a new geological epoch: the Anthropocene. It’s the first time in the
Earth’s history that a single species – Homo sapiens – has had such a powerful impact on
the planet.
This rapid planetary change, referred to as the “Great Acceleration”, has brought many
benefits to human society. Yet we now also understand that there are multiple connections
between the overall rise in our health, wealth, food and security, the unequal distribution ofthese benefits and the declining state of the Earth’s natural systems. Nature, underpinned bybiodiversity, provides a wealth of services which form the building blocks of modern society;but both nature and biodiversity are disappearing at an alarming rate. Despite well-meaning
attempts to stop this loss through global agreements such as the Convention on Biological
Diversity, we are failing; current targets and consequent actions amount, at best, to a
managed decline. To achieve climate and sustainable development commitments, reversing
the loss of nature and biodiversity is critical.
Since 1998 the Living Planet Report, a science-based assessment of the health of our planet,
has been tracking the state of global biodiversity. In this landmark anniversary edition, 20
years after its original publication, the Living Planet Report 2018 provides a platform for thebest science, cutting-edge research and diverse voices on the impact of humans on the healthof our Earth. More than 50 experts from academia, policy, international development andconservation organizations have contributed to this edition.
This growing collective voice is crucial if we are to reverse the trend of biodiversity loss.
The extinction of a multitude of species on Earth seems not to have captured the imagination,
or attention, of the world’s leaders enough to catalyse the change necessary. Together, we are
advocating the need for a new global deal for nature and people that addresses the crucial
questions of how to feed a growing global population, limit warming to 1.5°C, andrestore nature.
We are the first generation that has a clear picture of the value of nature and the gravesituation we are facing. We may also be the last generation that can do something about it.
We all have a role to play in reversing the loss of nature – but time is running out. Between
now and 2020 we have a unique opportunity to influence the shape of global agreements andtargets on biodiversity, climate and sustainable development – for a positive future fornature and people.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 10

A snapshot of threats

WHY BIODIVERSITY MATTERS

THREATS AND PRESSURES• Our health, food and security depend on
biodiversity. From medical treatments to foodproduction, biodiversity is critical to society
and people’s well-being.
• All our economic activity ultimately depends
on nature. It’s estimated that, globally,nature provides services worth around
US$125 trillion a year.
• Stable planetary systems have enabledmodern human society to develop. Without
healthy natural systems researchers are asking
whether continuing human development ispossible.

CHAPTER 2

Not just a ‘nice to have’• Overexploitation and agricultural activity,
driven by our runaway consumption, are still
the dominant causes of current species loss.
• Land degradation seriously impacts 75% ofterrestrial ecosystems, reducing the welfare
of more than 3 billion people, with hugeeconomic costs.
• Bees, other pollinators and our soils – criticalfor global food security – are under increasing
threat.
• Overfishing and plastic pollution are
threatening our oceans, while pollution,
habitat fragmentation and destruction have
led to catastrophic declines in freshwater
biodiversity.
• New technologies and big data are helping us
to understand and measure these threats andtheir specific impacts.

The 2018 Living Planet Index

Biodiversity 2050

BIODIVERSITY IN A CHANGING WORLD

WHAT FUTURE DO WE WANT?

• The Living Planet Index has recorded an
overall decline of 60% in species population
sizes between 1970 and 2014.
• The Living Planet Index shows species
population declines are especially pronounced
in the tropics, with South and Central America
suffering an 89% loss compared to 1970.
• A Freshwater Living Planet Index shows an
83% decline since 1970.

CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 1

AT A GLANCE• Despite multiple international policy
agreements and extensive research biodiversity
is still in decline.
• More ambition is needed to not simply halt
loss but to reverse the trend of biodiversity
decline.
• The CBD 2050 vision is that “biodiversity isvalued, conserved, restored and wisely used,maintaining ecosystem services, sustaininga healthy planet and delivering benefits
essential for all people”.
• Conservation scientists propose a 2020-2050‘blueprint for biodiversity’: a vision for the
future through the Convention on Biological
Diversity.
• Scenarios and indicators can help imagine thefuture and create good policies and monitor
progress.

Executive summary page 11

CHAPTER 1:

Why biodiversity matters~
Everything that has built modern human society,with its benefits and luxuries, is provided by nature –and we will continue to need these natural resources
to survive and thrive. Increasingly, researchdemonstrates nature’s incalculable importance toour health, wealth, food and security. What future
benefits might we discover in the millions of species
yet to be described, let alone studied? As we better
understand our reliance on natural systems it’s clearthat nature is not just a ‘nice to have’.
A butterfly rests on a branch in Kaya Kauma forest. Kilifi, Kenya.

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 12© Greg Armfield - WWF-UK

Chapter 3: Biodiversity in a changing world page 13

THE IMPORTANCE OF NATURETO OUR LIVES
Humans have evolved, grown and thrived, in nature. In fact, nature– and everything that it gives us – has been the catalyst for where
we are today. Its resources have enabled people to dominate theplanet complete with modern expectations, benefits and luxuries.
To sustain modern human society we will continue to need theresources of nature that, throughout history, have allowed us
to thrive.

Tony Juniper,
WWF

While this dependence on nature is self-evident to many, important
decisions made in boardrooms, finance ministries and presidential
offices rarely reflect this. Indeed, the perception that lies behind somany environmentally damaging choices is that nature is a ‘niceto have’ and its protection is secondary to the more importanttasks of increasing economic growth, creating jobs, enhancing thecompetitiveness of industry or keeping prices low.

NATURE IS OF
INCALCULABLEIMPORTANCE TO OURHEALTH, WEALTH AND
SECURITYAt last this is beginning to change. Many companies andgovernments are now signalling their intention to adopt more
integrated approaches, striving to protect or enhance nature while
also pursuing all of their other goals. This shift in perspective is
still in its infancy, but is based on an increasingly strong body ofevidence illustrating nature’s incalculable importance to so many
aspects of our lives, including our health and wellbeing, food supply,
wealth and security.
First, our health. Many medical treatments have been inspired bywild species, from painkillers to treatments for heart conditions andfrom cancer cures to remedies for high blood pressure 1.
The IUCN Medicinal Plants Specialist Group estimates that there
are between 50,000 and 70,000 known medicinal and aromaticplants used industrially 2. Some of them are key to drug discovery
and could be vital in finding the next blockbuster treatment.
For example, at least 70% of new small molecule drugs introduced
worldwide over the past 25 years have come from, or have been
inspired by, a natural source 2,3.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 14

TO SUSTAIN MODERNHUMAN SOCIETY WEWILL CONTINUE TO
NEED THE RESOURCES
OF NATURE

Small molecules make up the bulk of new drug candidates since
they target enzymes or receptors on the body’s cells more accurately
and specifically than large molecules like antibodies or proteins 4.
Scientists fear that biodiversity loss diminishes the supplies of raw
materials for drug discovery and biotechnology 5.
Other research increasingly shows that being in natural areas
improves our physical wellbeing, through encouraging outdoor
exercise 6, and there is a growing body of evidence to show thattime in nature can help to maintain and promote psychologicalwellbeing 7.
Equally fundamental to our wellbeing is nutrition. All our food,in the end, relies one way or another on natural systems, including
the complex ecological relationships that enable soils to support
plant growth. About 87% of all flowering plant species are pollinatedby animals 8, and crops that are partially pollinated by animals
account for 35% of global food production 9. This is explored further
in Chapter 2. Then, of course, there is the water that not only
sustains all our agriculture but also all industry.
While it is sometimes easy to assume that water security is assured
primarily via dams, reservoirs, treatment works and distribution
networks, it is in the end nature that replenishes the freshwater that
underpins all economic activity. Rainforests pump moisture into
the atmosphere and the ‘sky rivers’ that flow from them water crops
thousands of kilometres away from where they stand 10. Wetlands
purify water and recharge the aquifers from which springs flow.
Natural systems also contribute to water security through the role
they play in maintaining climatic stability 11. Water ecosystems are
explored further in the next chapter.
As climate change intensifies, nature’s value is only increasing.
It will play an essential role in helping human societies cope with
the inevitable consequences of rising global temperatures. These
include rising sea levels, more extreme rainfall, more frequent
droughts and more frequent and intense storms – all impacts that
NATO and the Pentagon recognize as significant threats to global
security. Healthy natural systems can help reduce the damage
caused by these changes 12,13.

Chapter 1: Why biodiversity matters page 15

On top of all these benefits is the immense importance of the plants
and animals found in healthy natural and semi-natural systems.
Wild animals, plants, fungi and microbes have underpinned
human wellbeing throughout our entire existence; increasingly
wildlife is being harnessed for so-called biomimicry, as engineersand designers use solutions honed by natural selection to meetchallenges in the human world, including in relation to resource
efficiency and renewable energy 14.
The incalculable potential future value of benefits we might derivefrom further discoveries based on natural diversity will only bepossible so long as ecosystems can continue to sustain the vast rangeof species that share the world with us. This includes the millions
that have yet to be described, let alone studied 15.
In our modern, urban world, we are often removed from day-to-day
contact with natural areas. The spiritual, intrinsic, aesthetic andscientific cases for the protection and restoration of nature can seem
remote or to have little immediate relevance. But as it becomes more
widely recognized that natural systems underpin our health, wealthand security the impetus to protect and restore nature is much
more powerful. If successful, we would be the first generation toaccomplish such a change in direction.

NATURE IS HOME TO
BIODIVERSITY

NATURE AS SOURCEFOR FOOD, SHELTER
AND MEDICINES

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 16

NATURE PROVIDES
CLEAN WATER, AIR AND
HEALTHY SOILS

Figure 1: The
importance of nature
to people
Nature provides us withvital goods and services.
Adapted from Van
Oorschot et al., 2016 16.

NATURE INSPIRES US

All economic activity ultimately depends on services provided bynature, making it an immensely valuable component of a nation’s
wealth. It’s estimated that, globally, nature provides services worth
around US$125 trillion a year. Governments, business and thefinance sector are starting to question how global environmental
risks – such as increasing pressure on agricultural land, soil
degradation, water stress and extreme weather events – willaffect the macroeconomic performance of countries, sectors andfinancial markets.

THE IMPORTANCE OF NATURE
TO THE WORLD’S ECONOMIES
Toby Roxburgh,
WWF

From the supply of raw materials, water, food, medicines andenergy, to the pollination of crops, formation of soils and protection
from floods, storms and erosion, the planet’s natural systems
provide a range of vital services that underpin production, trade,
livelihoods and consumption in every country (figure 1).
The natural assets that provide these services – ecosystems, species,
water, rivers, seas, land, minerals and atmosphere – are thus animmensely valuable component of a nation’s wealth, and a major
factor in determining its levels of economic prosperity.
In 2018, under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) – anorganization established to assess the state of biodiversity and theecosystem services it provides to society – more than 550 leading
experts from more than 100 countries attached numbers to thevalue of specific aspects of nature. These cutting-edge assessments
go beyond the ecosystem service concept used in the landmark 2005
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 17, additionally recognizing thecentral role that culture plays in defining all links between people
and nature 18. The IPBES Conceptual Framework – which underpins
all its assessments and syntheses – calls this much broader
notion Nature’s Contribution to People, shortened to NCP 18,19.

Chapter 1: Why biodiversity matters page 17

It takes valuing nature beyond simply assigning a dollar figure andrecognizes other knowledge systems, for example those of local
communities and indigenous peoples. Sir Robert Watson, the Chairof IPBES, highlights the multifaceted nature of this approach:“This new inclusive framework demonstrates that while natureprovides a bounty of essential goods and services, such as food,
flood protection and many more, it also has rich social, cultural,
spiritual and religious significance – which needs to be valued inpolicymaking as well.” 20
The result of three years’ work, these extensively peer-reviewed
reports cover the entire planet except the poles and the open
oceans 21-24 and focus on providing answers to some key questions,
including: why is biodiversity important, where are we making
progress, what are the main threats and opportunities forbiodiversity, and how can we adjust our policies and institutions fora more sustainable future?
The Americas regional report, for example, put the economic valueof nature’s land-based benefits there alone at more than US$24
trillion per year – equivalent to the region’s gross domestic product(GDP) 21. However, it says 65% of these contributions are in decline,with 21% declining strongly. Another report estimates that, at
the global level, nature provides services worth at least US$125
trillion per year 25. What is clear is that in every region, biodiversity
and nature’s capacity to contribute to people is being degraded,
reduced and lost due to a number of common pressures – habitat
stress; overexploitation and unsustainable use of natural resources;
air, land and water pollution; increasing numbers and impact ofinvasive alien species; and climate change, among others.
These concerns dominated the World Economic Forum 2018
Global Risks Report 26. Political and business leaders, and thefinance sector, are starting to question how global environmental
trends – such as increasing pressure on agricultural land, soil
degradation, water stress and extreme weather events – will affectthe macroeconomic performance of countries and sectors, and how
this will play out in financial markets 27. The report is evidence thatchanging planetary conditions are increasingly linked to majorsocio-economic disruptions.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 18

Figure 2: Benefits fromnatureProvisioning services are
the products obtained fromecosystems, regulating
services are the benefits
obtained from theregulation of ecosystemprocesses, cultural services
are the nonmaterial
benefits people obtain fromecosystems and supporting
services are those services
that are necessary forthe production of allother ecosystem services.
Adapted from theMillennium Ecosystem
Assessment, 2005 17.

“NATURE UNDERPINSEVERY PERSON’SWELLBEING AND
AMBITIONS –FROM HEALTH AND
HAPPINESS TO
PROSPERITYAND SECURITY” 20
SIR ROBERT WATSON, CHAIR OF IPBESPORTING CUL
P
U
S

Raw

BENEFITS
FROM
NATUREGLATIN

Pollina

Fresh

r

wate

n

Air quality regulatio
Climate r
Wateregulation

regu

latio

n

Disease andpest regulation

tion

for
Soil

M

tion
ula
reg
sion
Ero
ation
purific nt
Waterste treatme
a
and w

ion
mat

M
ext odera
rem tione e of
ven
ts

mate
rials

Food

L PROVIS
I

RE

nthesisyPhotos

A
TUR

al r

cin
edi

ING

Nutrient cycling

ues

ces

ur
eso

ON

Spir
religiitual and
ous v
alues

val

GU

tic

d
Mental anhealthphysicaltheoneati rism
Recr ecotou
and

Aes

“BIODIVERSITY AND NATURE’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO PEOPLE SOUND, TO MANY, ACADEMIC AND
FAR REMOVED FROM OUR DAILY LIVES. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH – THEY
ARE THE BEDROCK OF OUR FOOD, CLEAN WATER AND ENERGY. THEY ARE AT THE HEART NOTONLY OF OUR SURVIVAL, BUT OF OUR CULTURES, IDENTITIES AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE. THE BESTAVAILABLE EVIDENCE, GATHERED BY THE WORLD’S LEADING EXPERTS, POINTS US NOW TO A SINGLE
CONCLUSION: WE MUST ACT TO HALT AND REVERSE THE UNSUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURE – OR RISKNOT ONLY THE FUTURE WE WANT, BUT EVEN THE LIVES WE CURRENTLY LEAD. FORTUNATELY, THE
EVIDENCE ALSO SHOWS THAT WE KNOW HOW TO PROTECT AND PARTIALLY RESTORE OUR
VITAL NATURAL ASSETS.” 28
Sir Robert Watson, Chair of IPBES
Chapter 1: Why biodiversity matters page 19

CHILDREN AND NATURE
1. The school of natural healing
In Santa Rosa de Huacaria, which borders theManu National Park in Peru, Veronica Alata and her
students study medicinal plants with the help of the
Huachipaeri indigenous community. In this image
they are learning about the Pinon Colorado plant(Jatropha gossypifolia, a Euphorbiaceae) whose resin
is used to treat insect bites and intestinal infections.
A bath steeped with the leaves relieves headaches
and fevers, and the seeds are strongly purgative.
This community is part of the WWF/Pro Naturaleza
project. Education is an important component inmany nature conservation programmes around theworld, teaching children the dynamics of naturalprocesses and the different services that natureprovides.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 20

© André Bärtschi - WWF

Chapter 1: Why biodiversity matters page 21

We are living through the Great Acceleration – a unique event in the
4.5 billion-year history of our planet – with exploding humanpopulation and economic growth driving unprecedented planetarychange through the increased demand for energy, land and water.
This is so great that many scientists believe we are entering a newgeological epoch, the Anthropocene. Yet the human benefits of theGreat Acceleration have only been possible with nature. Without
healthy natural systems we need to ask whether future humandevelopment is even possible.

THE GREAT ACCELERATION
In 2016, Max Roser from the University of Oxford carried out athought experiment: imagine if the 24-hour news cycle fell silent.
Instead news came out once every 50 years 29. Now we can ask: what
would the 2018 headline be? The end of the Cold War? The riseof neoliberalism? The internet? Civil rights? The financial crisis?
Probably none of these.
The biggest single phenomenon in the last 50 years is barely
discussed in the media, politics, business or education circles. It
is the Great Acceleration – a unique event in the 4.5 billion-year
history of our planet (see figure 3). Since 1800, global population
has grown sevenfold, surpassing 7.6 billion, and the global economy
has grown 30-fold 30. But it has really been in the last 50 years that
economic development has driven a phenomenal increase in the
demand for energy, land and water that is fundamentally changing
Earth’s operating system.
It is economic development and the growth of the world’s middle
classes, not population rise per se, that is dramatically influencing
the rate of change of Earth’s life support system 30,31. This growth
has improved the lives of billions of people. Global average life
expectancy is over 70 32. Diseases such as smallpox have been
eradicated and others look set to follow soon: mumps, measles,
rubella, polio. More children reach adulthood and fewer women die
during childbirth. Poverty is at an historic low. All this we shouldcelebrate.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 22

Owen Gaffney,
Stockholm Resilience Centre
and Future EarthHowever, these exponential health, knowledge and standard-ofliving improvements of the Great Acceleration have come at ahuge cost to the stability of the natural systems that sustain us(figure 1). Our impact has now reached a scale at which it interferesprofoundly with Earth’s atmosphere, ice sheets, ocean, forests,
land and biodiversity 33. Greenhouse gas emissions have risen atalarming rates 34,35 and in April 2018, levels of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere reached an average of 410 parts per million (ppm)
across the entire month – the highest level in at least 800,000 years
36. Above Antarctica, it was discovered in 1985 that manufactured
chemicals had created a vast hole in the ozone layer 37. Rainforests
are shrinking: almost 20% of the Amazon, referred to as the lungs ofthe planet, has disappeared in just 50 years 38.

From Holocene to Anthropocene
At the end of the last ice age, the Earth entered a new geologicalepoch – the Holocene 39. This remarkably stable warm period haslasted about 11,700 years and we might expect it to continue foranother 50,000 – but the Great Acceleration changes all that 40.
Human-induced change is so great that many scientists believe weare entering a new geological epoch: the Anthropocene 41.

ANTHROPOCENE: THE
CURRENT GEOLOGICALEPOCH CHARACTERIZEDBY PLANETARYUPHEAVAL. THIS IS THE
FIRST TIME IN EARTH’S
HISTORY THAT A
SINGLE SPECIES – HOMO
SAPIENS – HAS HAD
SUCH A POWERFULEFFECT ON EARTH’S
LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM

It is not known whether a stable Anthropocene state will come toexist 42. It certainly isn’t stable now 31. In the last 50 years, global
average temperature has risen at 170 times the background rate 31.
Ocean acidification may be occurring at a rate not seen in at least
300 million years 43. Earth is losing biodiversity at a rate seen only
during mass extinctions 44. And still more change may be headed
our way as people are responsible for releasing 100 billion tonnes ofcarbon into the Earth system every 10 years 45.
So what does this mean for the Earth? So far it looks like warmwater coral reefs – the most diverse of marine habitats – may not
make it to the end of the century 46. Without colossal action to
reduce emissions, the Arctic is likely to be ice-free in summer before
mid-century 47. Ice reflects heat into space, but as it melts it exposes
more dark waters that absorb heat. Researchers are concerned this
could set up a dangerous feedback loop, amplifying warming. New
research is also linking changes in the Arctic to a major shift in thejet stream that influences weather in the northern hemisphere 48.
This can influence drought in California 49, deep freezes on theeastern coast of the US and across Europe, and the trajectoryof hurricanes. Early analysis indicates it contributed to theunprecedented heatwave across the northern hemisphere in 2018 50.

Chapter 1: Why biodiversity matters page 23

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND EARTH’S SYSTEMSThe Great Acceleration, and the rapid and immense social, economic and ecological changes
it has spurred, show us that we are in a period of great upheaval. Some of these changes havebeen positive, some negative, and all of them are interconnected. What is increasingly clear isthat human development and wellbeing are reliant on healthy natural systems, and we cannot
continue to enjoy the former without the latter.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC TRENDSWORLD POPULATIONREAL GDP

7

60

5
4
3
2
1
0
1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

50
40
30
20
10
0
1750

2000

URBAN POPULATION

1950

0
1750

2000

200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1750

1

2000

450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1750

2000

1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1750

400
300
200
100

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

0
1750

2000

4,5
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
1750

LARGE DAMS
30
thousand km3

25
20
15
10
5
1800

1850

1900

1950

TRANSPORTATION
billion phone subscriptions

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
1800

1900

1950

1850

1800

1850

1900

1950

1900

1950

2000

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 24

1900

1950

2000

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

1950

2000

INTERNATIONAL TOURISM

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1750

1850

PAPER PRODUCTION

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

1400

0
1750

1850

GLOBAL WATER USE

35

0
1750

1800

million tonnes

0
1750

1800

FERTILIZER CONSUMPTION
million tonnes

2

1
0,5

2000

500
exajoule (EJ)

billion1900

PRIMARY ENERGY USE

3

thousand dams

1850

600

4

million motor vehicles

1800

2
1,5

million arrivals

billion

6

FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT
2,5
trillion US dollars

70
trillion US dollars

8

1800

1850

1900

1950

1800

1850

1900

Figure 3: The Great Acceleration
The increasing rates of change in human activity since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The 1950s marks
an explosion in growth. After this time, human activities (left panels) begin to interfere significantly with Earth’s
life support system (right panels) (these graphs are from Steffen et al., 2015 30 and all the references to the datasets
behind them are in the original paper).

EARTH SYSTEM TRENDSCARBON DIOXIDE (CO2)NITROUS OXIDE

330
300

1800

1850

1900

1950

320
310
300
290
280
270
260
1750

2000

STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

1850

1900

1950

40
20

1900

1950

2000

2000

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1750

0,4
0,2
0
-0,2
-0,4
-0,6
1750

2000

MARINE FISH CAPTURE

1800

1850

1900

1950

SHRIMP AQUACULTURE

80

4

70

3,5
million tonnes

60
50
40
30
20
10
1800

1850

1900

1950

3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0
1750

2000

TROPICAL FOREST LOSS

1850

1900

1950

DOMESTICATED LAND

30

0,5
% of total land area

25
20
15
10
5
0
1750

1800

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

0,25

0
1750

1800

1850

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

1950

2000

NITROGEN TO COASTAL ZONE

0,5

0
1750

800

OCEAN ACIDIFICATION

human N flux, Mtons yr-1

1850

1000

8,4
8,2
8
7,8
7,6
7,4
7,2
7
6,8
6,6
6,4
1750

1900

1950

2000

% decrease in mean species abundance

1800

1200

2000

hydrogen ion, nmol kg-1

temperature anomaly, °C

60

0
1750

1400

SURFACE TEMPERATURE

80% loss

1800

1600

600
1750

0,6

100

million tonnes

Athmospheric conc., ppb

360

270
1750

% loss (area)

METHANE
1800

330
Athmospheric conc., ppb

athmospheric conc., ppm

390

1800

1850

1900

TERRESTRIAL BIOSPHERE DEGRADATION
40
30
20
10
0
1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

Chapter 1: Why biodiversity matters page 25

2000

CHAPTER 2:

The threats and pressures
wiping out our world ~Understanding that Earth’s natural systems are
critical in maintaining our modern human societymeans piecing together the biggest threats tonature so that we can better protect it. Climatechange is certainly a growing threat, but today,
the main drivers of biodiversity decline continue
to be the overexploitation of species, agriculture
and land conversion – all driven by runaway
human consumption. Researchers are developing
sophisticated new tracking and analytical tools
to match commodities and their supply chains to
specific impacts on biodiversity, and increasing thetransparency around these complex relationships
may help to stop biodiversity loss.
Aerial view of oil palm plantation. Sungai Petani vicinity, Kedah,
Malaysia.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 26

© naturepl.com - Tim Laman - WWF

Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 27

THREATS OLD AND NEW
In a recent paper, researchers writing in the journal Nature analysed
the most prevalent threats facing more than 8,500 threatened ornear-threatened species on the IUCN Red List (explored in detail in
Chapter 3) 1. They found that the key drivers of biodiversity decline
remain overexploitation and agriculture. Indeed, of all the plant,
amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal species that have gone extinct
since AD 1500, 75% were harmed by overexploitation or agriculturalactivity or both.
Beyond overexploitation and agriculture, invasive species areanother frequent threat, their spread relying heavily on traderelated activities such as shipping. Pollution and disturbance, forexample through agricultural pollution, dams, fires and mining, areadditional sources of pressure. Climate change is playing a growingrole and is already beginning to have an effect at an ecosystem,
species and even genetic level 2. However, according to the IUCNRed List data, whatever the threat category or the species group,
overexploitation and agriculture are the ‘big killers’ with the greatest
current impact on biodiversity.
Overexploitation and ever-expanding agriculture are driven by
spiralling human consumption. Over the past 50 years our Ecological
Footprint – a measure of our consumption of natural resources –has increased by about 190% 3. Creating a more sustainable system
will require major changes to production, supply and consumption
activities. For this we need a detailed understanding of how thesecomplex components link together, and the actors involved, fromsource to shelf, wherever they may be on the planet.
This chapter explores the impacts that consumption,overexploitation and agriculture are having on land and forests,
in our oceans and on our precious freshwater reserves. It also looks
at some cutting-edge initiatives where sophisticated new tracking
and analytical tools are being used to understand the complex
trade-and-impact relationships at play by following commodities
like soy from field to factory and supermarket shelf, or by using big
data to help reveal the true extent to which fish are being taken fromour oceans.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 28

OF ALL SPECIES THATHAVE GONE EXTINCTSINCE AD1500, 75%
WERE HARMED BY
OVEREXPLOITATION OR
AGRICULTURE

DRIVERSPRESSURES

THREATSBIODIVERSITY

BENEFITSFROM NATURE

CONSUMPTIONAGRICULTURE

HABITAT LOSSAND DEGRADATIONSPECIESPROVISIONINGPRODUCTIONFORESTRYOVEREXPLOITATIONECOSYSTEMSREGULATING

MARKETSFISHING AND HUNTING

CLIMATE CHANGESUPPORTING

FINANCEENERGY AND
TRANSPORTATIONPOLLUTIONCULTURAL

GOVERNANCEMININGINVASIVE SPECIESINFRASTRUCTURE

Figure 4: Threats tonature and the drivers
and pressures behindthemHabitat loss due
to agriculture andoverexploitation remain
the biggest threats
to biodiversity andecosystems.

“GUNS, NETS AND BULLDOZERS: THE THREATSOF OLD ARE STILL THE DOMINANT DRIVERS OF
CURRENT SPECIES LOSS.” (MAXWELL ET AL., 2016) 1

Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 29

Humanity’s demands have far exceeded what Earth can renew.
Prior to the explosive population growth of the 20th century,
humanity’s consumption was much smaller than the Earth’s
regeneration, but this is no longer the case. Consumption indicators– such as the Ecological Footprint – provide a picture of overall
resource use.

RUNAWAY CONSUMPTION
The ability of ecosystems to renew themselves is called biocapacity.
The biologically productive areas of Earth provide this service 4,5.
Both the demand on this area – people’s Ecological Footprint– as well as biocapacity are measured in global hectares (gha),biologically productive hectares with world-average productivity 6-8.
Together biocapacity and Ecological Footprint provide an empiricalbasis for determining whether humanity is living within the meansof our planet, and how this relationship has been altered over time 9.
Through changes in technology and land management practices,
biocapacity has increased about 27% in the past 50 years. But it
has not kept pace with human consumption: humanity’s Ecological
Footprint has increased about 190% over the same time period.

Figure 5:
World Ecological FootprintKeyofconsumption by area
type in global hectares,
Grazingland
1961-2014.
The largest
contribution
theForesttoproducts
Ecological Footprint is
Fishing grounds
carbon emissions from
Croplandfossil fuelburning (60%) 3.

25

Billions of global hectares (gha)Laurel Hanscom,
Alessandro Galli andMathis Wackernagel,
Global Footprint Network

20

15

Key
10

Built-up land
CarbonGrazinglandWorld biocapacity
Forest products
Fishing grounds

5

Cropland
Built-up land0
1961

Carbon
1970

1980

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 30

1990

2000

2010

World biocapacity

The Ecological Footprint of consumption
Follow any supply chain to see that natural resources power ourinterconnected economic and social systems. In turn, our economic andsocial systems enable human achievement and wellbeing. Indeed, thewelfare of modern human society is highly dependent on the systems
we have established for distributing and redistributing resources.

Figure 6: Land use
categories comprising
the Ecological
Footprint
The Ecological Footprint
measures how muchdemand humanconsumption places on thebiosphere. It is measured
in standard units called
global hectares 3.

Prior to the explosive population growth of the 20th century,
humanity’s rate of consumption was much smaller than the Earth’s
rate of renewal. As a result, prevailing economic models are basedon growth, very rarely taking resource limitations into account. But
this simplification is no longer viable.
Ecological Footprint accounting tracks human demand on natureby quantifying the biologically productive area required to meet
all these competing demands, including food, fibre, timber,accommodation of roads and buildings, and sequestration of carbon
dioxide from fossil fuel burning. The demand covers six area types 10:
Grazing land footprint measures the demand for grazing land toraise livestock for meat, dairy, leather and wool products.
Forest product footprint measures the demand for forests toprovide fuel wood, pulp and timber products.
Fishing grounds footprint measures the demand for marine andinland water ecosystems needed to restock the harvested seafoodand support aquaculture.
Cropland footprint measures the demand for land for food andfibre, feed for livestock, oil crops and rubber.
Built-up land footprint measures the demand for biologically
productive areas covered by infrastructure, including roads, housing
and industrial structures.
Carbon footprint measures carbon emissions from fossil fuelburning and cement production. These emissions are converted
into forest areas needed to sequester the emissions not absorbed byoceans. It accounts for forests’ varying rates of carbon sequestration
depending on the degree of human management, the type and age offorests, emissions from forest wildfires and soil build-up and loss 11.
Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 31

A SNAPSHOT OF CONSUMPTIONWORLDWIDE
Natural resources are unevenly distributed across the Earth. The
pattern of human consumption of these resources differs from resource
availability, since resources are not consumed at the point of extraction.

Figure 7: Global mapof Ecological Footprintof consumption, 2014
Total Ecological Footprint
is a function of both total
population and rates ofconsumption. A country’s
consumption includes the
Ecological Footprint it
produces, plus imports
from other countries,
minus exports 3.
Key< 1.75 gha
1.75 - 3.5 gha
3.5 - 5.25 gha
5.25 - 7 gha> 7 ghaInsufficient data

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 32

Looking at the Ecological Footprint of each person at the national levelprovides additional insight into where the world’s resources are being
consumed 12. Varying levels of Ecological Footprint are due to different
lifestyles and consumption patterns, including the quantity of food,goods and services residents consume, the natural resources they use,
and the carbon dioxide emitted to provide these goods and services.

Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 33

To look deeper into production-related impacts on theenvironment, the mapping and monitoring of supply chains is
crucial to identify and understand how global consumption drives
environmental impacts.

INTEGRATING DATA TO CONNECTCONSUMERS TO THEIR IMPACTS
Products are transferred to consumers along supply chains,which frequently involve a series of complex interactions between
producers, traders, manufacturers and retailers. Supply chains are
the link between the driving forces of environmental change, likeconsumption activities, and the pressures these impose (such as
land-use change), the state of the environment and the resulting
impacts (for example, species loss).

Simon Croft,
Jonathan Green andChris West,
Stockholm Environment
Institute

Adapting production, supply and consumption activities tocreate a significantly more sustainable system requires a detailed
understanding of how these components link together, the places
and actors involved, their respective roles, and the associatedenvironmental impacts.

SUPPLY CHAINS ARE
THE LINK BETWEENCONSUMPTION AND ITSIMPACTS

Consumption ‘footprints’ attempt to measure the consequencesof what we consume on the world around us. Typically, they
do so at the scale of pressures rather than states and impacts 13.
Consequently, they often fail to provide detail on how consumption
activities act as a driver of on-the-ground impacts, and thecomplexity of international supply chains makes it difficult toconnect the various linked processes that result in changes to theenvironment. However, understanding these drivers and processes
is an important component of designing effective sustainableproduction and consumption policies.
The data landscape underpinning footprinting methodologies isdeveloping rapidly, providing new opportunities to make importantconnections between these elements.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 34

Step 1: Assessing impacts on biodiversity
Biodiversity value varies dramatically within and across landscapes.
Therefore, the starting point for assessing biodiversity impacts
associated with consumption activity is to understand the stateof the environment, species’ individual habitat preferences,interactions with other species and their geographic ranges.
Advances in remote sensing and vegetation mapping, throughinitiatives such as the European Commission’s Copernicus Satellite
Programme, provide unprecedented capabilities to monitor changes
in land cover globally, and at high spatial and temporal resolution.
For example, the two Sentinel-2 satellites, launched in 2015 and2017, survey the entire Earth’s land surface (bar the poles) every fivedays at a resolution of between 10m and 60m 14.
This wealth of information needs to be converted into tools to makeit easier for companies – and individuals – to visualize, monitor
and better understand the consequences of their own actions forthe environment. Global Forest Watch is one example of how thisdata can be used. This online platform provides near real-time
information about how forests are changing around the world andincludes capabilities for companies to assess impacts associatedwith the production of the commodities they include in theirproducts 15.
When combined with information on the distribution of
biodiversity, this allows assessment of habitat conversion andresulting losses of populations and species. These biodiversity
losses can then be linked to the particular commodities producedon converted land. In many areas, fine-scale geographic records oncrop production are available. Even when unavailable, ever-moredetailed remote sensing analyses enable the extent and expansionof particular commodity crops to be mapped, showing the direct
association between habitat loss and specific production systems 16.

Step 2: Connecting production and consumption
There is a wealth of information that can be used to connect
the places where commodities are produced to where they are
consumed. For example, UN ComTrade 17 and FAO statistics 18 offer
an insight into the global commodity trade. However, some materials
are imported into one country, and then processed or simply
transferred from one ship to another, and then exported again.
Known as the ‘Rotterdam Effect’ after the busiest port in Europe,

Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 35

this can lead to errors in accurately linking goods to their true origin 19.
Chatham House’s Resource Trade platform 20 accounts for thisphenomenon, and allows the visualization of the country of origin of
traded commodities.
While global trade datasets like these offer a first approximationof global commodity interdependencies, they do not provide thefine-scale connections between producer systems and trade flowsthat are required to reliably link specific impacts to consumers.
The new material flow platform Trase combines data from sources
such as customs agencies, shipping contracts and tax offices toreveal these sub-national linkages and the trading companies 21,22.
This is important as restructuring and redesigning supply chains topromote sustainability requires information on those involved inorder to leverage changes in sourcing behaviour.

Step 3: Linking supply chains to consumer demands
Once commodities disperse into the supply chain, these pathways
often become complex and opaque. This is especially true for highly
processed deforestation-linked commodities such as soy and oil
palm, which are often ‘embedded’ in other products such as animal
feed and processed food. Embedded consumption can form asignificant component of a consumer’s total footprint. Assessing
linkages between the production of a commodity and its direct,
indirect and embedded consumption is essential in comprehensively
analysing the impacts of changes in consumer demand.
Multi-Regional Input-Output (MRIO) models offer one approach
to approximating consumer dependence on direct and embedded
materials 23. MRIO datasets describe spending between sectors
and economies, and by final consumers. This information, and theinterlinkages and dependencies implicit within it, can be used toestimate global reliance on industrial sectors to satisfy localised final
demand 24. Combining this information with fine-scale and detailed
material flow data 25 provides the potential for comprehensive,product- and geographically-specific accounts of consumptionassociated biodiversity loss.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 36

EMBEDDED
CONSUMPTION CANFORM A SIGNIFICANTCOMPONENT OF A
CONSUMER’S TOTALFOOTPRINT

The way our supply chains are structured, the materials they use,
how these are extracted and manufactured, and the consumption
choices we make have a myriad of impacts on the world around us.
Using different datasets helps us to map these out and understandthe consequences of our choices.

CHOICE AND CHANGE: THE
IMPACTS OF CONSUMPTION
Pablo Tittonell,
Natural Resources andEnvironment Programof INTA, Argentina,
University of Groningen
and the University ofWageningen

Human activities associated with the production or harvesting of food,
fibre and energy from terrestrial ecosystems have enormous impacts
on biodiversity. Different types of land use affect the balance between
wild and domesticated species, the size and quality of habitats, and thenon-living chemical and physical parts of the environment that affectliving organisms and the functioning of ecosystems.
Impacts of land use choices on biodiversity may be positive or
negative, permanent or transitory, localised or global. Negative
impacts can be direct, such as direct biodiversity loss (e.g. throughdeforestation), the disruption of habitats and of biodiversity-mediatedfunctions (e.g. soil formation), or they can be indirect, through theireffect on the broader environment that ultimately affects habitats,functions and species richness and abundance (Figure 8).

Direct biodiversity loss
TODAY, AGRICULTURE
ACCOUNTS FOR THE
LION’S SHARE OF
THE CONVERSION OF
FORESTED LAND

Today, agriculture accounts for the lion’s share of the conversionof forested land. Decreases in forest area and forest quality both
impact the plants and animals living within them. A recent study ofmore than 19,000 species of birds, amphibians and mammals foundthat deforestation substantially increased the odds of a species being
listed on the IUCN Red List as threatened and exhibiting declining
populations 26. The study also found that the risk of becoming
more threatened was disproportionately high in relatively intact
landscapes. This implies that even minimal deforestation has had
severe consequences for biodiversity.

Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 37

Part of the annual rate of forest loss has been offset in recent years
by the expansion of forest onto abandoned agricultural land
(2.2 million hectares per year -1). Forest plantations (3.1 million
hectares per year -1) 27 also add to, rather than subtract from, forest
cover. Yet these two land use types are quite different from oldgrowth forests. Plantations especially often represent a considerable
simplification in terms of biodiversity: this is explored later in thischapter in the forests section.

Disruption of habitats
The degree of forest fragmentation, for example, is a major threat tobiodiversity conservation and ecosystem service provision. Haddad
et al. (2015) 28 estimated that in 70% of the forest masses of theworld, a forest edge can be found within a mean distance of less than
1km. This has huge implications for habitat structure and quality;
forest recolonization and the disruption of corridors for wildlife
dispersal; forest microclimate and hydrology; and it influences
the ecological dynamics at the interface between forests’ open
landscapes. Fragmentation can also make forests more accessible
to people, increasing the pressure on forest resources such as woodfor fuel and timber, bushmeat, and plants for food and medicine.
It is also at the interface between forest and open landscapes where
forest biodiversity provides ecosystem services of critical importancefor food and agriculture, such as pollination or water regulation.

FOREST
FRAGMENTATION IS
A MAJOR THREATTO BIODIVERSITYCONSERVATION

Figure 8:
Direct and indirect
negative impacts of land
use choices on biodiversity

DISRUPTION OF FUNCTIONSDISRUPTION OF HABITATENVIRONMENT
pollution
degradation
emissions

LAND USE CHOICESDIRECT BIODIVERSITY LOSS
WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 38

Pollution and degradation of the environment
Excessive use of synthetic agricultural inputs – including pesticides,
antibiotics, hormones and fertilizers – often accompanies
agricultural land use. Pesticide use is a well-documented threat
to birdlife 29. It is also associated with declines in soil and aquatic
biodiversity 30-33. The effects of land degradation on people andecosystems will be further explored in the next section.

Disruption of ecosystem functions
An often-overlooked contribution of biodiversity to humaneconomies and wellbeing is the reduction of risks associated withnatural and human-induced disasters 34. Ecosystems such as forests
play an important role in reducing disaster risks, and thus mitigate
some of the most acute effects of climate change. When such natural
infrastructures are lost, people exposed to natural hazards suchas floods, storms and landslides tend to migrate and settle in new
areas, often on land that is marginal for land-based livelihood
activities, or in cities. This may result in further pressure on natureand biodiversity loss.
Critical reductions in pollinator numbers and performance becauseof pesticide use 35 can end up reducing agricultural productivity.
About 87% of all flowering plant species are pollinated by animals 36,
and crops that are partially pollinated by animals account for 35%
of global food production 37. Even when domestic honeybees areused to secure pollination, the presence of wild pollinators improves
pollination efficiency 38. This is further explored later in this chapter.
A less apparent component of biodiversity that is fundamental forfood production, but highly susceptible to land-use choices, is theliving soil community. A first global assessment of soil biodiversity
was published recently in the Global Atlas of Soil Biodiversity 39.
This included the first global map of risks to soil biodiversity
and this is explored later in this chapter. Human activities haveimportant consequences for the abundance and/or richness of soilorganisms, particularly through the negative impacts of land-use
change and agricultural intensification 40. Soil biodiversity is not
only key to sustain food production and other ecosystem services
but also to detoxify polluted soils, suppress soil-borne diseases andcontribute to the nutritional quality of food 41.

Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 39

LAND DEGRADATIONLand degradation is a problem in virtually every terrestrial
ecosystem, reducing the welfare of more than 3 billion people.
A recent assessment found that only a quarter of land on Earthis substantively free of the impacts of human activities and thisis projected to decline to just one-tenth by 2050. This ongoingdegradation has many impacts on species, the quality of habitats
and the functioning of ecosystems. Two recent studies have focusedon the dramatic reductions in bee and other pollinator numbers andon the risks to soil biodiversity, critical to sustain food production
and other ecosystem services.
Zebu Brahmin cattle in dusty sunset, Pantanal, Brazil.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 40

© Staffan Widstrand - WWF

Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 41

THE IMPACTS OF LANDDEGRADATIONLand degradation is the persistent reduction of the capacity of theland to support both biodiversity and human needs. It takes many
forms, including the loss of soil, or soil health, in croplands; lossof habitat and hydrological function in urban areas; deforestation
or over-logging in forests; overgrazing and shrub encroachment inrangelands; and drainage and eutrophication in wetlands.

Robert Scholes,
University of the
Witwatersrand andCo-chair of the IPBESLand Degradation and
Restoration Assessment

In March 2018, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity andEcosystem Services (IPBES) released its latest Land Degradation and
Restoration Assessment (LDRA), finding that only a quarter of landon Earth is substantively free of the impacts of human activities 178.
By 2050 this fraction is projected to decline to just a tenth. Wetlands
are the most impacted category, having lost 87% of their extent in themodern era. The immediate causes of land degradation are typically
local – the inappropriate management of the land resource – but
the underlying drivers are often regional or global. The key driveris the growing demand for ecosystem-derived products, beyond thedeclining capacity of ecosystems to supply them.

ONLY A QUARTER OFLAND ON EARTH IS
SUBSTANTIVELY FREE
OF THE IMPACTS OF
HUMAN ACTIVITIESThe consequences of land degradation are also both local and global.
For instance, there is a complex interaction between degradation,
poverty, conflict and the migration of people. Degraded land often
bleeds sediments and nutrients into rivers, or exports windborne
dust to distant locations. Loss of habitat is the key driver of declining
terrestrial biodiversity worldwide, and land degradation is a big
contributor to global climate change. In the opinion of the LDRA
expert authors, most of the UN Sustainable Development Goals cannot
be achieved unless land degradation is simultaneously addressed.
Preventing degradation is much cheaper in the long run thanpermitting it, and then later paying for the impacts and restoration.
In many landscapes we no longer have that choice. Yet, there ishope. In all ecosystems assessed, examples of successful damage
rehabilitation can be found. Rehabilitating damaged lands is costeffective despite the high initial price, if the full long-term costs andbenefits to society are considered. Many of the necessary actions
are at the policy level – locally, nationally and internationally.
Coordinated, urgent action is needed to slow and reverse thepervasive undermining of the basis of life on Earth.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 42© Natthawee Suwannatthacho - Shutterstock

Land degradation is a pervasive, systemic phenomenon: it occurs in all parts of the terrestrial world
and can take many forms. Combating land degradation and restoring degraded land is an urgent
priority to protect the biodiversity and ecosystem services vital to all life on Earth and to ensure
human well-being.
Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 43

CHILDREN AND NATURE
2. Our shopping basket
An average family on a supermarket outing may notrealize how many goods in their shopping baskets –from food to cosmetics – contain palm oil. It is now
the world’s most produced, consumed and traded
vegetable oil. Yet, much of the oil palm’s expansion
has taken place in high biodiversity tropical forests.
The conversion of these, and peat land, to palm oil
plantations releases massive quantities of carbon
dioxide, fuelling climate change, and destroys the
habitat of species like orang-utans. But palm oil
doesn’t have to be destructive. Consumers, businesses
and governments have the power to insist that palm
oil is produced sustainably, without causing further
loss of forests and biodiversity.
WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 44

© Richard Stonehouse - WWF

Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 45

Pollinators: what’s all the buzz about?
Michael Garratt, Tom Breeze, Deepa Senapathi, University of Reading
The majority of flowering plants are pollinated by insects andother animals. It has been estimated that the proportion ofanimal-pollinated wild plant species rises from an averageof 78% in temperate-zone communities to 94% in tropicalcommunities 36. Taxonomically speaking, pollinators are adiverse group, including more than 20,000 species of bees,
many other types of insects (e.g. flies, butterflies, moths, wasps
and beetles) and even vertebrates such as some birds andbats. Most pollinators are wild but a few species of bees can be
managed, such as honeybees (Apis mellifera, Apis cerana), somebumblebees and a few solitary bees 42.
Our food production depends heavily upon these pollinators– more than 75% of the leading global food crops benefit frompollination 43. Some of these crops – especially fruits andvegetables – are key sources of human nutrition. High yields
in large-scale intensive production of crops such as apples,
almonds and oilseeds depend on insect pollination 44-46 but so
do the crops of smallholder farmers in the developing world,
where healthy populations of wild pollinators increase yields
significantly 47. Economically, pollination increases the global
value of crop production by US$235-577 billion per year to
growers alone and keeps prices down for consumers by ensuring
stable supplies 48.
Changing land use due to agricultural intensification andurban expansion is one of a number of key drivers of pollinator
loss, especially when natural areas, that provide foraging andnesting resources, are degraded or disappear. Improving habitat
diversity within the landscape, and the inclusion of nonagricultural habitats within land management plans, have beenshown to ameliorate pollinator loss, boost pollinator numbers
and improve ecosystem services 49. Landscape-scale initiatives
to improve habitat heterogeneity and connectivity have been
incorporated in several national and international initiatives
which focus on protecting pollinators 50. The abundance, diversity
and health of pollinators is also threatened by a number ofother drivers including a changing climate, invasive species andemerging diseases and pathogens; appropriate local, nationaland global actions are needed to mitigate these threats as well 42.
The red-tailed bumblebee (Bombus lapidarius) is a widespread and generalist
species of bumblebee and so it is a really important pollinator of many different crops
across Europe.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 46

© Ola Jennersten - WWF-Sweden

Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 47

WHAT’S SO SPECIAL IN THE SOIL?
A quarter of all the life on Earth can be found beneath our feet 39.
Soil biodiversity encompasses microorganisms (those only visible
under microscopes, such as fungi and bacteria), microfauna(with a body size less than 0.1mm, such as nematodes andtardigrades), mesofauna (invertebrates ranging from 0.1 to 2mm
in width, including mites and springtails), macrofauna (with abody size from 2 to 20mm in width, including ants, termites andearthworms) and megafauna (that are more than 20mm wide,
including soil-living mammals such as moles).
These underground organisms influence the physical structure
and chemical composition of soils. They are essential for enablingand regulating critical ecosystem processes such as carbon
sequestration, greenhouse gas emissions, and the uptake of nutrientsby plants. They represent a storehouse for potential medical
applications as well as new biological controls on
pathogens and pests.

Figure 9: Global
map showing the
distribution ofpotential threats tosoil biodiversity
All datasets were
harmonized on a 0-1 scaleand summed, with total
scores categorized into
five risk classes (fromvery low to very high) 39.
Key
Very low
Low
ModerateHigh
Very highNot available
Water
Ice
WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 48

Alberto Orgiazzi and
Arwyn Jones,
European Commission Joint
Research Centre (JRC)

The recently published Global Soil Biodiversity Atlas mapped forthe first time potential threats to soil biodiversity across the globe 39.
A risk index was generated by combining eight potential stressors
to soil organisms: loss of above-ground diversity, pollution andnutrient overloading, overgrazing, intensive agriculture, fire, soil
erosion, desertification and climate change. Proxies were chosen to
represent the spatial distribution of each threat. Figure 9 shows the
distribution of index scores and represents a first attempt to assessthe distribution of threats to soil organisms at global scale.
The areas with the lowest level of risk are mainly concentrated
in the northern part of the northern hemisphere. These regions
are generally less subjected to direct anthropogenic effects (e.g.
agriculture) although indirect effects (such as climate change)
may become more significant in the future. Not surprisingly, theareas with highest risk are those that reflect the greatest exposure
to human activities (e.g. intensive agriculture, increased
urbanization, pollution).

Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 49

Globally the rate of net forest loss has slowed due to reforestationand plantations; but while decreasing over time, deforestation rates
are still high in tropical forests, which contain some of the highest
levels of biodiversity on Earth. While throughout history people
have cleared forest land for food and farming and harvested forest
resources to support their livelihoods and market demand, now thepressures on these forests are more industrial and more connectedwith global market trends.

VALUING FORESTS FOR PEOPLE
AND NATURE
Forests are among the richest ecosystems. Tropical, temperate andboreal forests cover nearly 30% of the Earth’s land area 27, and yet
they are home to more than 80% of all terrestrial species of animals,
plants and insects 51,52.
While globally the rate of forest area net loss has slowed due toreforestation and the establishment of new plantations, as wellas policy and regulatory efforts to reduce forest conversion, it hascontinued at relatively high levels in tropical forests, particularly
in some frontier areas in South America, sub-Saharan Africa andSoutheast Asia 53. In one study carried out in 46 countries in thetropics and subtropics, large-scale commercial agriculture and local
subsistence agriculture were responsible for about 40% and 33% of
forest conversion, between 2000 and 2010 54. The remaining 27%
of deforestation was due to urban growth, infrastructure expansion
and mining (this is further explored in FAO FRA 2016 27).
Yet it is not just forest area that is being reduced by humanactivities; forest quality is also being affected. On a global scale,the area of minimally disturbed forests declined by 92 million
hectares between 2000 and 2013, at the rate of 0.6% per year 55.
Using proximity to forest edges as a way of measuring forests’vulnerability shows that 60-70% of the world’s forests are at risk
from the negative effects of human activities, altered microclimate
and invasive species 28,56,57.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 50

Karen Mo, Pablo Pachecoand Huma Khan,
WWF

What does the future hold? The pressure on forests from both
small- and large-scale agriculture is likely to continue in order togrowing demand for fibre and fuel as well as for food. Between
1971 and 2016 the global production of major food crops – wheat,rice, maize and soy – increased by 116%, 133%, 238% and 634%
respectively 18. In the future, there will be many more mouths to feed
as the current world population of 7.6 billion is expected to reach
8.6 billion in 2030, rising to 9.8 billion in 2050 58. While part of theincreased food supply will originate from growing yields in existing
agricultural lands, additional land will be needed.
This will further increase the pressure on tropical forests, thus
continuing to threaten priority areas for biodiversity conservation,
unless there is a fundamental shift in how forests are valued for the
many benefits they provide. For example, in addition to providing
habitats for animals and livelihoods for people, forests also offer
watershed protection, prevent soil erosion and mitigate climatechange. WWF explored some of these vulnerable areas as part of thelatest chapter of a series of Living Forests reports 59.

Living Forests report series
In the last chapter in a series of five Living Forests reports, WWF
highlighted areas of forest most vulnerable to deforestation between
2010 and 2030 59. By drawing on projections in the International
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis ‘Living Forests Model’,a major literature survey and interviews with dozens of experts
around the world, the report identified 11 deforestation fronts(shown overleaf in figure 10). These are places where the largest
concentrations of forest loss or severe degradation are projected tooccur between 2010 and 2030 under business-as-usual scenarios andwithout interventions to prevent losses. The report also reviewed the
major drivers of deforestation in each of these areas (table 1).

ON A GLOBAL SCALE, THE AREA OF MINIMALLYDISTURBED FORESTS DECLINED BY 92 MILLIONHECTARES BETWEEN 2000 AND 2013

Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 51

DEFORESTATION FRONTS
Chocó-Darién

AmazonCongo Basinobal priority places map,
most Southern tip of thee Cerrado. This means theaco should not extend sol priority places map thatland to the westernth, and then up into
ave the Atlantic forest
ow area on Marrio's map.

attached screen shot is tobrazil to within theary, and keep the Eastern
co/Atlantic forest closer
ob along the

CerradoAtlantic Forest/
Gran Chaco

East Africa

The most common pressures causing deforestation and severe forest degradation arelarge- and small-scale agriculture; unsustainable logging; mining; infrastructure projects;
and increased fire incidence and intensity. New roads can have a small direct impact but
a large indirect effect through opening up forests to settlers and agriculture. Poor forest
management, destructive logging practices and unsustainable fuelwood collection degrade
forests and often instigate an increasing spiral of degradation that eventually leads todeforestation (‘death by a thousand cuts’). Table 1 gives a summary of these pressures 59.

Table 1: Summary of mainpressures on forests in different
deforestation fronts
Key
Primary cause of forest loss and/or
severe degradation
Important secondary cause of forest
loss and/or severe degradation
Less important cause of forest loss
and/or severe degradation
Not a cause of forest loss and/or
severe degradation
WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 52

Figure 10:
Hotspots of projected forest loss
between 2010 and 2030 59.

Greater Mekong

Key
ForestBorneoDeforestation fronts and projected
deforestation, 2010-2030

New Guinea
SumatraEastern Australia

LIVESTOCKLARGE-SCALEAGRICULTURE

AMAZON■■ATLANTIC
FOREST/GRAN CHACO■■BORNEO■SMALL-SCALEAGRICULTURE & UNSUSTAINABLE
COLONIZATIONLOGGING■■

PULP
PLANTATIONS

■

FIRES

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

CERRADO■■CHOCÓ-DARIÉN

■

■

■

■

CONGO BASIN

■

■

■

■

EAST AFRICA

■

■

■

■

EASTERN
AUSTRALIA■■■

CHARCOAL AND
FUELWOODINFRASTRUCTURE HYDROELECTRIC
POWER

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

MINING■GREATERMEKONG■■■■NEW GUINEA

■

■

■

■

■

SUMATRA

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 53

The rapid loss of some of the ocean’s most productive and speciesrich habitats like coral reefs, mangroves and seagrasses threatens
the wellbeing of hundreds of millions of people. Plastic pollutionis also a growing global problem. Plastic debris has been detected
in all major marine environments worldwide, from shorelines
and surface waters down to the deepest parts of the ocean, even at
the bottom of the Mariana Trench. Almost 6 billion tonnes of fish
and invertebrates have been taken from the world’s oceans since1950. Now, big data and a new wave of technologies are helping
to improve our understanding of what is happening in our oceansby tracking where large vessels are travelling. Layering thisinformation together with data from a range of sources is helping
us to build up a more comprehensive picture of our ocean footprint.

OCEAN HABITATS VITAL TO
HUMANITY IN STEEP DECLINE
Billions of people worldwide - especially the world’s poorest- relyon healthy oceans to provide livelihoods, jobs and food and therange of goods and services that flow from coastal and marine
environments. The FAO estimates that fisheries and aquaculture
alone assure the livelihoods of 10-12% of the world’s population, and4.3 billion people are reliant on fish (including freshwater) for 15%of their animal protein intake 60. Nearly 200 million people dependon coral reefs to protect them from storm surges and waves 61.

John Tanzer, Paul Gamblin
and Linwood Pendleton,
WWF

However, some of the key habitats that underpin ocean health andproductivity are in steep decline. Coral reefs support more than aquarter of marine life 62 but the world has already lost about halfof its shallow water corals in only 30 years 63. If current trends
continue, up to 90% of the world’s coral reefs might be gone by midcentury 64. The implications of this for the planet and all of humanity
are vast.

NEARLY 200 MILLIONPEOPLE DEPEND ON
CORAL REEFS TO
PROTECT THEM FROMSTORM SURGES AND
WAVESWhat is widely recognized as a crisis for biodiversity also risks
becoming a major humanitarian challenge, particularly for coastal
areas in South East Asia, Melanesia, Coastal East Africa and the
Caribbean where there is strong dependence of communities
on marine resources for food and livelihoods 65.
WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 54

Tropical seas overheated by climate change have bleached,damaged and killed coral at unprecedented levels. Mass bleaching
was first documented in the 1980s and satellite imagery has
connected the distribution of bleaching events on Australia’s Great
Barrier Reef in 1998, 2002 and 2016 with increased sea surface
temperatures 66. In the aftermath of the bleaching event in 2016,
extreme, prolonged heat led to catastrophic die-off of fast-growing
coral species – which have complex shapes that provide important
habitats – and these were replaced by slower-growing groups thatshelter fewer sea creatures. This drastically changed the species
composition of 29% of the 3,863 reefs that make up the Great
Barrier Reef 67. Other threats to coral reefs include overfishing,selective fishing and destructive fishing practices, and pollution
from runoff which sullies reef waters, compromising coral health 68.
Mangroves are a key natural asset for many tropical and subtropicalcoastlines, providing livelihoods to many millions of coastal families
and protecting them from violent storms and coastal erosion 69,70.
They sequester nearly five times more carbon than tropical forests 71
and provide nurseries to innumerable juvenile fish species that growto join wider ocean ecosystems. Clearing for development as well as
over-exploitation and aquaculture have contributed to a decline in
the extent of mangroves by 30% to 50% over the past 50 years 71.

IF CURRENT TRENDSCONTINUE, UP TO 90%
OF THE WORLD’S CORALREEFS MIGHT BE GONE
BY MID-CENTURY

Seagrasses, marine flowering plants that include the widelydistributed genera Zostera, Thalassia, and Posidonia, also represent
important coastal ecosystems that provide critical human benefits
including habitat that supports commercial and subsistence
fisheries, nutrient cycling, sediment stabilization, and globallysignificant sequestration of carbon (reviewed in Waycott, 2009 72).
They are threatened directly by destructive fishing practices, boat
propellers, coastal engineering, cyclones, tsunamis and climatechange, and indirectly by changes in water quality due to land runoff (reviewed in 72). In their global assessment, Waycott et al. 2009 72
found that seagrasses have been disappearing at a rate of 110
km2 per year since 1980 and that 29% of the known areal extent
has disappeared since seagrass areas were initially recorded in
1879. These rates of decline are comparable to those reported for
mangroves, coral reefs and tropical rainforests, and place seagrassmeadows among the most threatened ecosystems on Earth.

Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 55

Global Fishing Watch is harnessing vessel tracking systems,
satellite data, artificial intelligence and Google’s computing power
to generate a clearer view of global industrial fishing activity bylarger vessels, weighing 300 tonnes or more.

TRACKING THE GLOBALFOOTPRINT OF FISHERIES
Millions of square kilometres of ocean and hundreds of thousandsof fishing vessels – the fishing industry has long been hard tomonitor, and its global footprint is difficult even to visualize. A lotof industrial fishing takes place unobserved, far from land; oncethe boats move on, they leave behind few visible traces of theiractivity. In this environment, illegal fishing activity flourishes and isthought to be worth between US$10 billion and US$23 billion peryear 73. Now, a wave of new technologies is creating an information
revolution that has the power to transform our understanding ofwhat’s happening on our blue planet.

Sarah Bladen andDavid Kroodsma,
Global Fishing Watch

Global Fishing Watch is an international non-profit organizationcommitted to advancing the sustainability of our oceans throughincreased transparency. It processes data from Automatic
Identification System (AIS) transponders used by large vessels
to publicly broadcast their position in order to avoid collisions at
sea. Vessels using AIS continuously send out signals showing theiridentity, position, course and speed, and this information is picked
up by satellites. According to the International Convention for the
Safety of Life at Sea, while on international voyages, large fishingvessels (over 300 tonnes), cargo ships over a certain weight, and all
passenger ships are required to use AIS.

NEW TECHNOLOGIESARE CREATINGAN INFORMATIONREVOLUTION TO
TRANSFORM OUR
UNDERSTANDING OFILLEGAL FISHING

By analysing the identity, speed and direction of broadcasting
vessels, we can derive new intelligence on vessel behaviour andactivity. Global Fishing Watch uses machine learning algorithms todetermine which vessels are fishing boats, and where, when and how
they are fishing. Global Fishing Watch has so far analysed 22 billion
messages publicly broadcast from vessels’ AIS positions between
2012 and 2016.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 56

Figure 11: Global
Fishing Activity, 2016
Industrial-scale fishingactivity by vessels
broadcasting AIS. Fishinghotspots were seen in
the North East Atlanticand Mediterranean,
Northwest Pacific, andin upwelling regions ofSouth America and West
Africa. Boundaries or‘holes’ in effort show where
regulations apply, e.g. theexclusive economic zones ofisland states 74. All the data
is available for download 75.
Key
Hours of fishing per km2
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10

This data is made publicly available through an online platform,
where it can be used by researchers and others. They recorded
data on more than 40 million hours of fishing in 2016 alone,
tracking vessels over more than 460 million kilometres – a distanceequivalent to the moon and back 600 times. The researchers foundthat when dividing the ocean into a grid of about 50 kilometres ona side (about 160,000 cells), fishing activity was observed in overhalf the ocean. This represents a huge area, over 200 million square
kilometres. Moreover, in almost another 20% of the ocean, few
vessels carry AIS or AIS reception is poor, meaning that the actualarea of the ocean affected by industrial fishing is likely higher.
For a paper published in Science, the Global Fishing Watch researchteam produced ‘heat maps’ – see figure 11 – that illustrate whereindustrial fishing by large vessels is most intense 74. These ‘hot spots’include the northeast Atlantic and northwest Pacific, as well as innutrient-rich regions off South America and West Africa. The team
examined the origin of the fishing vessels as well, finding that justfive countries and territories – including China, Spain and Japan –account for more than 85% of the fishing effort they observed on thehigh seas.
These groundbreaking new datasets, and the high-definition view
they give of global industrial fishing activity, are increasingly
being used by governments and management bodies to inform
policy decisions and enforcement, and to strengthen transparent
governance of marine resources in support of sustainability goals.

Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 57

BUILDING UP A PICTURE
The analysis presented by Global Fishing Watch is just one of many
attempts to estimate the global impact of fishing. Although the data
set used to generate this map includes only a small proportionof the world’s estimated 2.8 million motorized fishing vessels, it
contains 50 to 75% of active vessels larger than 24m and >75%
of vessels larger than 36m, the size at which most vessels aremandated by the International Maritime Organization to transmit AIS
signals 74. Nevertheless, it does not map small-scale or illegal fishers
and many industrial commercial vessels are smaller than this, so it’s
clear that this is only part of the story.
The data can also be assessed and interpreted in different ways,
as is evidenced by a follow-up response to the Science paper
discussed here by Amoroso et al. 2018 who use a smaller grid size
to show that the area of ocean physically swept by fishing gear issubstantially smaller 74,164. As we’ve explored in other sections of
this report, this is where the power of big and open data can help
drive conservation science forward. The Global Fishing Watch
website brings together the information shown here with data from a
range of other sources, including satellite surveys of fishing vessels
operating at night and data from within coastal EEZs and fisheriesauthorities within specific countries, such as the Indonesian
Government’s Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 75.
The website is also interactive, showing changes over time.
Other sources document the extent of illegal, small-scale andunreported catches. This includes the Sea Around Us datasets
we explore in the next section 76 and other online databases 77.
Layering together datasets like this is helping to build up a morecomprehensive picture of what we’re catching and where, giving us
the true scale of our footprint on the oceans.
Our understanding of the ecological footprint of fishing is likely
to evolve, as will the uses we find for these data. By making thishigh-resolution data publicly available, Global Fishing Watch
and others have helped to ensure that this evolution happens
transparently and at a rate previously unheard of in marine
conservation science.
Artisanal fishermen return to the port after fishing for hake off the coast of Valparaiso,
Chile.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 58

© Meridith Kohut - WWF-US

Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 59

Global sea catch increased from the 1950s on, peaking at 130 million
tonnes in 1996. While since then it has decreased at an averagerate of 1.2 million tonnes per year, we still extract over 110 million
tonnes from the oceans each year.

WHAT AND HOW MUCH HAVEWE CAUGHT?
Almost 6 billion tonnes of fish and invertebrates (e.g. crustaceans
and molluscs) have been extracted from the world’s oceans since1950. Annual catch increased dramatically from 28 million tonnes
in 1950 to more than 110 million tonnes in 2014. However, sincepeaking in 1996 at about 130 million tonnes, catch has been
decreasing at an average rate of 1.2 million tonnes per year 78.

Maria L.D. Palomares
and Daniel Pauly,
Sea Around Us, Universityof British Columbia

Figure 12: Averageannual catches of
the world’s maritime
fishing countries in the
1950s compared to the
2000s
Blue indicates zero or very
minute catches, and yellow
indicates light or no fishing.
Zones of moderately heavy(in orange) to heavy fishingintensity (in red) now wrap
around every continent,
affecting all coastal areas
and many parts of thehigh seas. Maps generated
by the Sea Around Us
information system 76.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 60

These figures are the results of research conducted by Sea AroundUs, a research initiative at the University of British Columbia thatassesses the impact of the world’s fisheries on marine ecosystems.
Sea Around Us ‘reconstructed’ post-1950 data from the 273
Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of 217 maritime countries andterritories around the world to arrive at a more accurate estimate ofactual catch figures than has been officially reported. Each country’s
EEZ extends 200 nautical miles from its coastline. The researchers
combine national-level FAO data from within the EEZs withadditional data sources including local catch statistics, social science
reports, colonial archives, and expert knowledge 78.
Estimates of unreported catches include the dead fish andinvertebrates that are returned to the sea before landing, referred
to as discards. Although these have only a low commercial
value, they definitely have high ecological impact 79. Measures of
uncertainty in catch statistics are also calculated and incorporated
in the final figures. These additions increase the overall estimate offisheries catches substantially with discards making up 10-20% ofreconstructed catches to the year 2000 and less than 10% fromthen on 79.
Since 2000, 73% of the global catch has come from fishing vessels
within their EEZs, while distant-water fleets caught the remainder(either legally or illegally) in the EEZs of developing countries, or on
the high seas 80. About 77% of the cumulative catch since 2000 was
taken by industrial fleets, mostly by the top 10 fishing countries –China followed by Peru, Thailand, the Russian Federation, the USA,
Indonesia, Japan, Chile, India and Vietnam. The amount of fishcaught by these fleets ranges from 114,000 to 774,000 tonnes per
year. In contrast, about 20% is taken by artisanal fleets, about 3% by
subsistence fishers, and less than 1% by recreational fishers 78.

OUT OF 1,500 SPECIESRECORDED AS BEING
CAUGHT, JUST 10 MAKE
UP A THIRD OF TODAY’SGLOBAL CATCH

A new analysis of Sea Around Us data for the Living Planet Reportcompares cumulative catches in the 1950s to the 2000’s (figure 12).
Zones of moderately heavy (in orange) to heavy fishing intensity (inred) now wrap around every continent, affecting all coastal areas
and many parts of the high seas. This implies that fishing activities
have exposed shallow coastal marine ecosystems to potential longterm damage, notably by trawling 81. These maps also show thegrowth of fishing intensity in the south and east, particularly South
East Asia, over the last 60 years.

Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 61

Plastics in the ocean
Carel Drijver and Giuseppe Di Carlo, WWF
Plastic debris in the marine environment is widely documented,
but the quantity entering the ocean from waste generated onland is unknown. By linking worldwide data on solid waste,
population density and economic status, a recent global study
estimated the mass of land-based plastic waste entering theocean in 2010 to be between 4.8 to 12.7 million tonnes 82.
This estimate is just a snapshot of a single year but plastics, often
used just once, are designed to be durable and can potentiallyremain in the ocean for years before breaking down or sinking(reviewed in Thompson, 2009 83). Plastic marine debris ranges
from microscopic pieces – either intentionally manufactured for
products such as soap, creams, gels and toothpaste or broken
down by sunlight, wind and currents – to larger waste items suchas bags, cigarette filters, balloons, bottles, caps, or straws which
are the most visible form of plastic pollution (reviewed by Law
2017 84 and for examples in the Mediterranean see UNEP/MAP,
2015 85). Plastic debris has been detected in all major marine
environments worldwide, from shorelines and surface water 86
down to the deepest parts of the ocean, even at the bottom of
the Mariana Trench (reviewed in Law, 2017 84 and images in the
JAMSTEC photo archive 87).
A 10-year study on the loggerhead turtle showed that 35% of thespecimens analysed had ingested debris, which were almost allplastic 90. In a study carried out in the Mediterranean, 18% oftuna and swordfish had plastic debris in their stomachs 91 as did
17% of blackmouth catsharks in the Balearic Islands, most ofwhich was cellophane and PET 92.
The threat is growing. By using a mixture of literature surveys,
oceanographic modeling and ecological models, Wilcox et al.
explored the risk of plastic ingestion to 186 seabird species
globally 96. Their models indicate that today, 90% of the world’s
seabirds have fragments of plastic in their stomachs compared
to only 5% in 1960. Impacts were found to be greatest at thesouthern boundary of the Indian, Pacific and Atlantic Oceans,a region thought to be relatively pristine. If action is not taken to
reduce the flow of plastics into the sea, their models predict thatplastic will be found in the digestive tracts of 99% of all seabird
species by 2050.
Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) with a plastic bag, Moore Reef, Great Barrier
Reef, Australia. The bag was removed by the photographer before the turtle had achance to eat it.
WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 62

© Troy Mayne - WWF

Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 63

THREATS AND PRESSURES ON
OUR SOURCE OF LIFE
Freshwater ecosystems provide habitat for more than 100,000
known species of fishes, molluscs, reptiles, insects, plants andmammals despite covering less than 1% of the Earth’s surface.
In addition, freshwater habitats such as lakes, rivers and wetlands
are the source of life for all humans and command high economic
value. They are also the most threatened, strongly affected byfactors such as habitat modification, fragmentation and destruction;
invasive species; overfishing; pollution; forestry practices; disease;and climate change. In many cases, these combined threats have
led to catastrophic declines in freshwater biodiversity. New imaging
technology is allowing us to view these changes in real time.
Ngonye falls. Sioma Ngwezi. Upper Zambezi. Western Zambia

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 64

© Patrick Bentley - WWF-US

Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 65

THE IMPORTANCE OF HEALTHYFRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS
Freshwater ecosystems contain disproportionately more species perunit area than marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Although they coverless than 1% of the Earth’s surface, freshwater habitats are home tomore than 10% of known animals and about one-third of all known
vertebrate species 97. These distinct ecosystems are under increasinglevels of threat and, as this report will explore in Chapter 3 using theFreshwater Living Planet Index 98, the trend for freshwater species isalarming 99. For example, in the 20th century freshwater fishes have
had the highest extinction rate worldwide among vertebrates 100.
Freshwater ecosystem health is defined by its water quality andquantity, connectivity to other parts of the system and landscape,habitat condition, and diversity of plant and animal species 101,102.
The pressures created by human settlements and infrastructure,
water use, pollution, overexploitation, invasive species and climatechange are impinging on all aspects of the health of rivers, lakes,
and wetlands 99,103,104.
Globally, wetland extent is estimated to have declined by more than
50% since 1900 105. Rivers are increasingly disconnected due todams and other infrastructure, with reservoirs altering natural flow
regimes and trapping an estimated > 25% of the total sediment load
globally that formerly reached the ocean 106,107.
Freshwater ecosystems are also impacted by increasing withdrawal
and consumption of surface water for a variety of uses but
dominated by agriculture, which is responsible for approximately
70% of total consumption 108-110.
Water quality is also of concern, with eutrophication and toxic
pollution being major sources of water quality degradation. Finally,
climate change is exacerbating existing stressors and causingchanges in the timing, availability and temperature of waters,
affecting the condition of freshwater habitats and the life history offreshwater species 111,112.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 66

Michele Thieme,
Jeff Opperman andDavid Tickner,
WWF

Connected, flowing rivers: critical for freshwater
ecosystems and their services
Almost every ancient civilization can trace its origins to a majorriver: Mesopotamia’s Tigris-Euphrates, Egypt’s Nile, and China’s
Yellow and Yangtze rivers among them 113,114.
That’s because river systems, including their floodplains and deltas,
are among the most biologically diverse and productive ecosystems
on the planet. Freshwater and inland fisheries provide the primarysource of protein for hundreds of millions of people worldwide.
By depositing nutrient-rich silt on floodplains and deltas, rivers
have created some of the most fertile agricultural land 115.
For these and other economic and ecosystem benefits to be realized,rivers must retain key characteristics and processes. When naturalconnectivity and flow are retained the river is called ‘free-flowing’(figure 13). However, infrastructure development – especially dams
– has caused a dramatic decline in the number of these; currently
there are more than 50,000 large dams worldwide 116. Undammed
rivers are still at risk with more than 3,600 hydropower damsplanned globally 117.
Options for protecting rivers can entail both preventing theconstruction of poorly planned dams and ensuring that any
dams that are constructed are located and designed to mitigate
environmental damage as much as possible. There are plenty ofexamples where public engagement has influenced dam siting 118,119
and prices for renewable sources, such as wind and solar, aredropping precipitously alongside other advances such as grid
integration and improved storage technologies. Collectively, this‘renewable revolution’ can catalyse other pathways for energy
development, suggesting that countries can meet energy objectives
with less hydropower, and therefore fewer dams, than previously
planned.
River protection can also occur via various legal and policy
mechanisms. Legal protections for rivers began in the United States
which became the first country to pass national-level legislation toprotect wild rivers with the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
in 1968 120. Recently Mexico created a new model for effectively
protecting rivers. The National Water Reserves Program ‘reserves’a certain percentage of the river’s flow for nature, thus ensuring
it will continue to support people and economic activities while
maintaining flow and connectivity.
Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 67

As of June 2018, Mexico had authorized/approved more than
300 water reserves, including one for the country’s longest remaining
free-flowing river, the Usumacinta River. Each reserve declaration
will remain active for the next 50 years 121. Norway’s legal frameworkoffers an excellent example of how planning and policy can directhydropower toward low-conflict rivers and away from high-conflict
rivers. This type of basin-level or system-scale approach can help toavoid costly restoration efforts into the future 122.
As is the case with Mexico’s Water Reserves programme, a criticalaspect of protecting rivers is maintaining the flow regime necessary
to support key river functions and ecosystem services. This flow
regime is termed its environmental flow and is defined as “thequantity, timing, and quality of water flows required to sustain
freshwater and estuarine ecosystems and the human livelihoods
and well-being that depend on these ecosystems” 123. The science ofenvironmental flow assessment has advanced rapidly over the lasttwo decades and it is possible now to provide recommendations
for environmental flows even in data-scarce regions 124. Moreover,an increasing number of nations have mandated certain levelsof environmental flows as a central tenet of water policy 125. The
implementation of environmental flows often requires challenging
shifts in infrastructure planning and water allocation. Still, there
are an increasing number of known successes in China, Pakistan,South Africa, Australia and the US 126. These successes seem to have anumber of enabling conditions in common, including the existence ofprogressive legislation and regulation, collaboration and leadership,
resources and capacity, and adaptive management 126. The Brisbane
Declaration and Global Action Agenda on Environmental Flows,
published in 2018, is a clarion call to governments and stakeholders
to build on previous successes through widespread implementationof environmental flows through legislation and regulation, water
management programmes and research, linked by partnershiparrangements involving diverse stakeholders 123.
Where river connectivity and flows have already been compromised,actions such as the periodic release of water, floodplain reconnection,or the removal of aging dams can help to restore ecosystem
functions. More than 1,500 dams have now been removed fromacross Europe and the United States. Analyses of river connectivity
metrics combined with other ecological, social and economic
variables can reveal where the greatest gains in connected rivers andthe values that they provide can be achieved for the lowest cost 127-130.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 68

Figure 13:

Definition of a free-flowing river
A free-flowing river occurs where natural aquatic ecosystem functions and services are largely
unaffected by anthropogenic changes to fluvial connectivity allowing an unobstructed exchangeof material, species and energy within the river system and surrounding landscapes beyond.
For a river to be ‘free-flowing’, it must remain highly connected in four ways:

 ongitudinally
L
Which refers to connectivity between upstream anddownstream. Dams are the most common disrupter of
longitudinal connectivity.

Laterally
Which refers to the ability of a river to swell and shrink,rise and fall naturally, and connect to its floodplains.
This is disrupted when roads, buildings and otherdevelopment (including agriculture when it is protectedby levees or dykes) takes place on floodplains, limiting
their ability to absorb the river’s flow.

Temporally
Or the natural ability of river flows to changeintermittently. For example, when a dam is built it
consistently holds a volume of water behind it andreleases water in a way that does not match the natural
timing of the river’s natural flows.

Vertically
Which refers to the ability of a river to draw waterfrom or contribute to underground aquifers and theatmosphere. This can be interrupted by over-extractionof groundwater and impermeable development on
floodplains, among other causes.

Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 69

WHAT LIES ON THE SURFACE
Where and when water is found on the planet’s surface is hugely
important as it influences the climate system, the movement ofspecies, sustainable development, and social, institutional andeconomic security. While surface water is only a tiny fraction of the
Earth’s water resources, it is the most accessible part, and provides
wide-ranging ecosystem services. It is also the easiest form of water
to monitor over time over large areas.
Since the mid-1980s, the NASA / United States Geological Survey
Landsat programme has collected more than 3 million images ofour planet. These have allowed us to build up a picture of changes
in the occurrence of water on the Earth’s surface over the last three
decades. This has been made possible by the development of the
Global Surface Water Explorer (Water Explorer), developed by theEuropean Commission’s Joint Research Centre and Google’s EarthEngine Team 131,132. Images and data generated by the Water Explorer
provide visual information about the location of surface water bodies
such as lakes and rivers, and how these have changed over time.
The maps and data can be downloaded using an online tool and canbe used to support applications such as water resource management,
climate modelling, food security and biodiversity conservation.
The Water Explorer shows that over 2.4 million km2 of the world’s
lakes and rivers are currently considered permanent – that is, they
have remained unchanged over the past three decades. However,in the mid- 1980s there was an additional 90,000km2 of lakes andrivers – the area of Lake Superior – classified as permanent whichhave proved to be anything but. Over 70% of the net loss of surface
waters is concentrated in just five countries in Central andWestern Asia.

Changes to the Rio Grande
The Rio Grande/Rio Bravo basin stretches over 870.000 sq km. of
the southwestern United States and northern Mexico 133. Winding
its way through this arid landscape, the Rio Grande – called the
Rio Bravo in Mexico – forms a natural boundary between the twocountries and creates a thin line of life for millions of people andan incredible range of flora and fauna. Over the last half-century,
the condition of the river itself has changed significantly. Dams,
water diversion, contamination, invasive species and climate change

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 70

Alan Belward,
Jean-Francois Pekel,
Andrew Cottam,
Luca De Felice,
European Commission Joint
Research Centre (JRC)
Noel Gorelick,
Google Earth Engine

are changing this once vibrant, productive river 134. Along parts of
the river, the flow has diminished to a trickle, water quality has
plummeted, dense stands of invasive giant cane (Arundo donax)
have taken over banks, and sediment has buried prime aquaticand riparian habitat. As a result, populations of many native andendemic species have become locally extinct and the livelihoods ofmany riverside communities and citizens compromised.
The Water Explorer provides a new perspective on areas likethis where the loss of freshwater is an ongoing crisis and wherepermanent loss could possibly be averted. Figure 14 shows a ‘surface
water occurrence’ map of the Rio Grande delta, created on the
Water Explorer website (the river itself forms the national border
between the United States and Mexico). It captures a visual historyof the river and the surrounding delta over the last 30 years. The
map shows variations in water persistence and location in varying
tones. Deep blue signifies water that is present today and was always
present. Pale lilac indicates that water was present for only partof the time. The pale pinkish tones depict locations where water
was present for a short time in the past. Areas where water neveroccurred are depicted in white.
If the Rio Grande flowed all year long, every year, the whole area
it covers would appear as unbroken deep blue lines in the Water
Explorer occurrence map. Now, however, it no longer flows yearround, nor is its flow to the sea in continuous uninterrupted
channels. The lack of deep blue tones on the map, the broken line of
the river channel, the numerous canals abstracting water (on bothsides of the national border) and the dominance of pale lilacs all too
eloquently document the change this renowned river is undergoing.

Figure 14: Rio Granderiver system
Shades of purple measure
the length of time water has
been present on the surface(darker tones equate tolonger periods of time
where water is present).
Satellite images Landsat
courtesy USGS/NASA.
Global Surface Water
Explorer maps courtesy
JRC/Google https://globalsurface-water.appspot.com

Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 71

Global consumption has exploded since the 1950s and we are now
seeing the outcomes of this phenomenon. Worldwide, forests arebeing lost, freshwater ecosystems are endangered, oceans are
overfished and species are disappearing. A global overview is useful
but it’s also important to understand whether there are differencesin threats between different geographic regions and whether
similar species are affected by them in different ways. The Living
Planet Index is a rich source of this information and can tell us
about threats at the species population level.

THREATS THROUGH THE LENS
OF THE LIVING PLANET INDEX
Published now for two decades, the global Living Planet Index has
set out the state of the Earth’s biodiversity by showing the averagerate of change over time across a set of species populations. Thisis explored in depth in Chapter 3. As such, threats to the planet’s
natural systems can also be viewed through the lens of the global
Living Planet Index, and realm- or species-specific indices.
Information about threats is available for just over a quarter of all
species records in the global LPI – 3,789 populations. These threats
are grouped under five major categories: habitat degradation andloss, overexploitation, invasive species and disease, pollution, andclimate change (based on 135). Figure 16 (overleaf) outlines each indetail and shows how these threats affect species – either directly or
indirectly.
The most commonly reported threat category across all LPI
populations is habitat degradation and loss. This accounts for nearly
half of all threats within each taxonomic group (45% to 49%) except
fish (28%) (see also 136-138. The second most commonly reported
threat is overexploitation. At the lower end, it accounts for 17% of
threats to bird populations and – at the high end – 55% of threats
to fish populations. Together, habitat loss and degradation plus
species overexploitation account for at least two-thirds of all threats
recorded for populations within each taxonomic group.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 72

Stefanie Deinet,
Louise McRae,
Robin Freeman,
Zoological Society of
London (ZSL)

Invasive species and disease are reported most frequently as threats
for reptiles and amphibians, and mammals (12% and 9%; see also137). Pollution shows up more for birds (10%) and for amphibians
and reptiles (5%) than for the other taxonomic groups.
Within the LPI, climate change was most commonly reported as athreat for bird and fish populations – at 12% and 8% respectively
and less frequently for other groups 139. A more in-depth analysisof LPI data also reveals a strong association between the warming
climate and declines of bird and mammal populations globally.
This shows that population declines have already been greatest inareas that have experienced the most rapid warming 140.
The influence of climate change on wild populations is relatively
moderate for now. However, it is quickly accelerating and could takea dominant role in shaping future biodiversity 141-143. It is also likelythat losses of wild species already suffering from more ‘traditional’
threats like habitat loss and overexploitation may be exacerbated 144
by compromising a species’ ability to respond to changes in climate 138.
In the vast majority of cases, species are affected by more than one
threat and can experience a cocktail effect as these reinforce eachother. Knowledge of which threats are affecting species at different
locations and scales is important if we are to successfully bend thespecies population abundance curve in a positive direction.
Figure 15: Relative
frequency of major
threats by taxonomic
group
Threat data is available
for 3,789 populations in
the global LPI database.
Each of these populations
could be associated with up
to three different threats.
There were 6,053 threats
recorded in all 98.
Key

BIRDS

MAMMALSFISHES
Habitat degradation/
loss
Exploitation
Invasive species anddiseaseREPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS

Pollution
Climate change

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 73

LPI – THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY

Figure 16: Different
threat types in the
Living Planet Database
Descriptions of thedifferent major threat
categories used in the
Living Planet Database.
This classification is also
followed by the IUCN Red
List and based on Salafsky
et al., 2008 135.

HABITAT LOSS AND DEGRADATIONThis refers to the modification of the environment where a species lives,by complete removal, fragmentation or reduction in quality of key habitat.
Common causes are unsustainable agriculture, logging, transportation,
residential or commercial development, energy production and mining. For
freshwater habitats, fragmentation of rivers and streams and abstraction ofwater are common threats.

SPECIES OVEREXPLOITATION
There are both direct and indirect forms of overexploitation. Directoverexploitation refers to unsustainable hunting and poaching or harvesting,whether for subsistence or for trade. Indirect overexploitation occurs when
non-target species are killed unintentionally, for example as bycatch infisheries.

POLLUTION
Pollution can directly affect a species by making the environment unsuitablefor its survival (this is what happens, for example, in the case of an oil
spill). It can also affect a species indirectly, by affecting food availability or
reproductive performance, thus reducing population numbers over time.

INVASIVE SPECIES AND DISEASE
Invasive species can compete with native species for space, food and otherresources, can turn out to be a predator for native species, or spread diseases
that were not previously present in the environment. Humans also transport
new diseases from one area of the globe to another.

CLIMATE CHANGE
As temperatures change, some species will need to adapt by shifting theirrange to track suitable climate. The effects of climate change on species areoften indirect. Changes in temperature can confound the signals that trigger
seasonal events such as migration and reproduction, causing these events
to happen at the wrong time (for example misaligning reproduction and theperiod of greater food availability in a specific habitat).

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 74

© Staffan Widstrand - WWF

Melting iceberg on coast Qaanaaq, Greenland, Arctic.

Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 75

CHILDREN AND NATURE
3. Jaladuddin the storyteller
Jaladuddin is a retired teacher and lives in Kusumtala
village on the Sundarban Islands in India. He
regularly talks about local history and the impacts ofclimate change. In many countries children receive noformal education – they may be kept at home to help
their families with household chores or the cultivationof land. Informal education is an important way oftransmitting knowledge and experience from one
generation to the next and many communities havelively storytelling traditions.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 76

© Simon Rawles - WWF

Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 77

Threats to LPI populations around the world
All freshwater and terrestrial populations in the global LPI are assigned to one of five major
biogeographic realms, regions characterized by distinct assemblages of species (defined in
Olson et al. 2001 145). The Index is then recalculated for just the species populations in that
region and, where possible, threats for each realm are catalogued. This gives us a better
understanding of how biodiversity is changing in different parts of the world and helps us to
identify whether different local threat processes are driving these changes.
Information about threats is available for just under a quarter – or 3,789 populations – inthe global LPI. Each population can be associated with up to three different threats. Habitat
degradation and loss is consistently the most reported threat in all realms; but there is somevariation between realms and taxonomic groups.

NEARCTIC

BIRDS

NEARCTIC

MAMMALSFISHESREPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS

0%

10%

20% 30% 40%

50% 60%70% 80%90% 100%

NEOTROPICAL
Figure 17: The distribution of
threats for each taxonomic
group for each realm
Threat data is available for
3,789 – just under a quarter – ofthe terrestrial and freshwater
populations in the global LPI
database 91.

NEOTROPICAL

BIRDS

Key
Habitat degradation/loss
Exploitation
Invasive species and disease
Pollution
Climate change
WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 78

MAMMALSFISHESREPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS

0%

10%

20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

70% 80% 90% 100%

What is a biogeographic realm?
Biogeographic realms are regions characterized by distinct assemblages of species.
They represent large areas of the Earth’s surface separated by major barriers to plant and animal
migration – such as oceans, broad deserts and high mountain ranges – where species have
evolved in relative isolation over long periods of time.

PALEARCTIC

BIRDS
MAMMALSFISHESREPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS

0%

10%

20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

90% 100%

PALEARCTIC

AFROTROPICALINDO - PACIFIC
AFROTROPICAL

BIRDS
MAMMALSFISHESBIRDS

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS

MAMMALS

0%10%

20% 30% 40%

50% 60%70% 80%90% 100%

INDO-PACIFICFISHESREPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS

0%

10%

20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 79

90% 100%

Penguins on the move: who wins and who
loses when the competition heats up?
Harriet Clewlow, British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and University of Exeter
Rod Downie, WWF
Norman Ratcliffe and Phil Trathan, British Antarctic Survey (BAS)Louise McRae and Stefanie Deinet, Zoological Society of London (ZSL)
Threats to species are often complex and highly interconnected,
meaning different species, and even different populations of thesame species, can display very different responses. The response
can depend greatly upon the nature of the threat, the resilienceof the species, their geographic location and the presence/
absence of other closely related species 146,147. Here, we explore
ways in which changes in climate are affecting different species ofpenguins in western Antarctica.
Areas with extreme climates – such as polar regions or deserts– are experiencing dramatic changes in temperatures, as well as
severe weather events. The effects of these changes on resident
species are often complex and unpredictable. The vast continentof Antarctica offers an excellent example. West Antarctica has
experienced rapid increases in temperature (a total +2.8°C rise)during the second half of the 20th century, with recent pausesin this warming in line with natural variability 148,149. Meanwhile,
east Antarctica temperatures have fallen 150. These shifts intemperature affect habitat and food availability dramatically for
different species, including exerting a powerful influence over
populations of Antarctica’s five penguin species – emperor,
Adélie, gentoo, chinstrap and macaroni. Understanding how
habitats and species respond to climate change is essential if
we are to successfully conserve the biodiversity of these special
regions 151.
In west Antarctica, rapid warming is causing sea ice extent todecrease rapidly. As a result populations of the ice-adapted Adélie
are generally declining, whereas populations of the ice-averse
gentoo penguin are increasing 152,153 (figure 18). Populationsof chinstrap penguins are declining around the Scotia Arc butcolonies on the South Sandwich Islands are more stable 154.
Meanwhile Adélies are experiencing population increases ineast Antarctica, likely associated with the region experiencing
temperature declines and increases in sea ice 155.

Figure 18: Locationand trend of monitored
penguin colonies on the
Antarctic Peninsula
The top inset shows theSouth Orkney Islands(including Signy
Island). The points show
approximate locations,colours show the averagetrend for each colony
using count data captured
between 1970 and 2014,
and the shape denotes the
penguin species monitored.
Data is from MAPPPD 163
with additions from otherscientific papers.
Key
AdélieChinstrap
GentooDeclined
StableIncreased
Antarctic Peninsula

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 80

Adélie

Chinstrap

GentooChapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 81

Changes in sea ice can only go so far in explaining penguin
population trends. On tiny Signy Island in western Antarctica,
gentoo penguin numbers have increased by 255% since 1978.
At the same time, Adélie and chinstrap penguins have declined
by 42% and 68% respectively 152. These large population shifts
seem to be indirectly caused by sea ice declines affecting theirfood supply 153. Antarctic krill is the preferred prey of all three
penguins 156. Declines in this food supply do not just directly
affect their survival but also affect them indirectly by altering
competition between the species for the available krill and foralternative prey, leading to the observed population declines.
Gentoos are resident at this breeding archipelago all year
round, giving them an advantage over Adélies and chinstraps
breeding in the same area: they can respond to environmental
conditions and prey abundance to ensure they synchronize
their breeding with optimal conditions and take advantage of
newly revealed snow-free breeding space 157,158.
Regionally in Antarctica, extreme weather has been linked
with calving ice shelves 159,160. An abundance of regional sea ice
close to the coast and large icebergs can block penguins’ accessto breeding grounds and foraging areas 161, a particular problem
in east Antarctica. Extreme sea ice events such as these havealready caused an entire Adélie penguin colony to fail tobreed twice in four years at Dumont D’Urville in eastern
Antarctica 162.
Two Adelie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) on an iceberg in Antarctica.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 82

© naturepl.com - Edwin Giesbers - WWF

Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 83

PLANETARY BOUNDARIESIn recent decades, a clearer scientific picture has emerged of manyof the complex links between life, climate, and other aspects ofthe physical environment on Earth. Field studies, models, Earthobservations and geological evidence have all been used to build anunderstanding of global change, the capacity of living organisms toadapt to change and the systemic risks when adaptation fails.

Sarah Cornell,
Stockholm Resilience Centre
and Stockholm University

Our new knowledge has come about none too soon. For now,
we can understand today’s ongoing destruction of ecosystems
and biodiversity in the context of even longer-term and largerscale changes in the Earth system. We can see that current levelsof decline and degradation are not normal – they increasingly
resemble some of the catastrophic extinctions in the geologicalpast 165,166, giving us reason to be concerned about planetary
health, not just the state of local ecosystems. It is clear that humanmodifications are causing irreversible changes to the life-sustaining
processes and resources that we depend upon.
The Planetary Boundaries concept 167-169 is an effort to use thisEarth system perspective to provide information on human-drivenchanges. The concept suggests that the world’s societies need to set
limits on human-caused disturbances to tightly linked Earth systemprocesses. It is usually presented as the framework shown infigure 19.
Although the concept is still evolving, it is already a usefulintegrating framework for illustrating the risks of humaninterference with the Earth system through our patterns ofconsumption and production. It presents the idea of a safe zone
for critical Earth system processes. Within this so-called safe
operating space – which is based on our evolving understandingof the functioning and resilience of the global ecosystem – humansocieties can develop and thrive.
The Planetary Boundaries framework highlights nine critical issues
where human activities are reducing the safe operating space:
1) loss of biosphere integrity (the destruction of ecosystems andbiodiversity), 2) climate change, 3) ocean acidification, 4) landsystem change, 5) unsustainable freshwater use, 6) perturbationof biogeochemical flows (nitrogen and phosphorus inputs to thebiosphere), 7) alteration of atmospheric aerosols, and 8) pollution
by novel entities, including 9) stratospheric ozone depletion 169.
WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 84

HUMAN MODIFICATIONSARE CAUSINGIRREVERSIBLE
CHANGES TO THE LIFESUSTAINING PROCESSESAND RESOURCES THATWE DEPEND ON

Current analysis suggests that people have already pushed atleast four of these systems beyond the limit of a safe operating
space. Attributable global impacts and associated risks to humans
are already evident for climate change, biosphere integrity,
biogeochemical flows and land-system change 169. Other
assessments indicate that freshwater use has also passed beyonda safe threshold 99,170.
Biosphere integrity plays a critical role in determining the stateof the Earth system, regulating its material flows, energy balance,
climate, and responses to abrupt and gradual change 182. Lenton
and Williams (2013) describe the biosphere as the totality of all
ecosystems on Earth – terrestrial, freshwater and marine – andtheir living organisms 183. The biosphere not only interacts with theother planetary boundary categories, but also maintains the overall
resilience of the Earth system. Our changing climate will impact
the Earth system in many ways because climate influences the waysthat ecosystems on land and below water function and interact witheach other.

OZO
N

OCEA
N AC
IDIF
I

ION
CAT

PHERIC AEROSOLS
ATMOS

RS
ETO
EPL
ED

S

M CHANGE-SYSTELAND

BIOSPHERE INTEGRITYAND CLIMATE CHANGE

FRESHWATER
USE

IES
NTIT
EL E
NOV

BIOGEOC
HEM
I
C
A
L FL
OW

Figure 19: The
connections between
the Planetary
Boundaries
All the Planetary Boundary
processes are interlinked asthey affect the interactions
and feedbacks between
biosphere integrity andclimate. Some of theseeffects are stronger andmore direct than others.
In turn, harm to biosphere
integrity and climatechange reduces the safe
operating space for otherprocesses 169.

Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 85

Exploring biodiversity and climate in more detail
Biosphere integrity has undergone change throughout human history, but there is noprecedent for the current losses of biodiversity and ecosystems. Climate change andocean acidification are planetary boundary processes that are also in a state of extremechange. Both share a major common cause: carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere.
All three of these altered processes are already producing negative impacts on
ecosystems and human societies worldwide (e.g. the IPBES 2018 series of Regional
Assessments 171-174 and 175-177). As changes in these three processes continue to accelerate,
their interactions mean that effects on organisms and ecosystems extend to all partsof the world, even where there is no direct impact from human activities. The complex
interactions make it difficult to predict how the system will respond to future change,
and increase the risk of unmanageable ecosystem changes at very large scales.
Ecosystems and societies are also experiencing rising risks from human-induced
transformations to other planetary boundary processes. In addition to land-use change
explored within this chapter, ecosystems are altered through unsustainable freshwater
use and increased flows of nitrogen and phosphorus, especially from fertilizers.
These drivers of ecosystem change are often linked with loss of biodiversity on land
and in aquatic environments 178.
The Planetary Boundaries framework also highlights the problematic release of chemical
pollution, such as the CFCs that threatened to destroy the protective ozone layer high inthe atmosphere, and alterations of atmospheric aerosols. These chemical disturbances
have multiple effects on ecosystems, so although there is no single global quantification
for a planetary boundary, planet-scale processes are increasingly taken into account as
the precautionary principle is applied in pollution policy 179-181.
Scientific communities are working to combine their knowledge of these different
components of the Earth system in new and better ways. They aim to support better
prediction, monitoring and management of ecosystem change in the context of achanging climate and increasingly globalized human drivers.

THERE IS NO PRECEDENT FOR THE CURRENT LOSSES OF
BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEMS AND THIS EXTENDS TO ALL
PARTS OF THE WORLD, EVEN WHERE THERE IS NO DIRECTIMPACT FROM HUMAN ACTIVITIESWWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 86

© naturepl.com - Peter Scoones - WWF

Bleached coral caused by loss of algae due to temperature change. Maldives.

Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world page 87

CHAPTER 3:

Biodiversity in a changing
world ~First published 20 years ago, for two decades
the Living Planet Index has tracked the state ofbiodiversity by measuring the population abundanceof thousands of vertebrate species around the world.
The latest index shows an overall decline of 60% in
population sizes between 1970 and 2014. Current
rates of species extinction are 100 to 1,000 times
higher than the background rate, also known as thestandard rate of extinction in Earth’s history before
human pressure became a prominent factor. Species
population declines are especially pronounced in thetropics, with South and Central America suffering
the most dramatic decline, an 89% loss compared to1970. Freshwater species numbers have also declinedwith a focused Freshwater Index showing an 83%
decline since 1970. To put these trends in a broader
context, this chapter also explores three otherindicators measuring changes in species distribution,
extinction risk and community composition. All theseresults paint the same picture – that of continuing
biodiversity loss.
Mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei) and their infant in the
Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 88

© Scott Masciarelli

Chapter 3: Biodiversity in a changing world page 89

POPULATION INDICATOR:
THE LIVING PLANET INDEXThe Living Planet Index (LPI) is an indicator of the state of global
biodiversity and the health of our planet. First published in 1998, for
two decades it has tracked the population abundance of thousandsof mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians around the world.
It uses the trends that emerge as a measure for changes inbiodiversity.

Index value (1970 = 1)

2

GLOBAL

Stefanie Deinet,
Louise McRae andRobin Freeman,
Zoological Society London

Figure 20: The Global
Living Planet Index:
1970 to 2014
Average abundanceof 16,704 populations
representing 4,005 species
monitored across the globe
declined by 60%. The whiteline shows the index
values and the shaded
areas represent thestatistical certainty
surrounding the trend(range: -50% to -67%) 1.

1

Key
0
1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Global Living Planet
Index
Confidence limits

The species population data that is collected goes into a global
index, as well as indices for more specific biogeographic areas,
referred to as realms, based upon distinct groupings of species.
This report also includes a Freshwater Living Planet Index tohighlight the dramatic decline in freshwater species populations.
This year’s indices include data from 1970 – set as a common
starting year for many indicators – to 2014, because not enoughinformation is available before 1970 or after 2014 to produce arobust and meaningful index. This is because it takes time to collect,process and publish monitoring data, so there can be a time lag
before this can be added to the LPI.
The global index, calculated using available data for all species andregions, shows an overall decline of 60% in the population sizesof vertebrates between 1970 and 2014 (figure 20) – in other words,
an average drop of well over half in less than 50 years.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 90

How to interpret the Living Planet Index
Living Planet Indices – whether the Global Index or those for a specific realm or species
group – show the average rate of change over time across a set of species populations. These
populations are taken from the Living Planet Database, which now contains information on
more than 22,000 populations of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians. The global
LPI is based on just over 16,700 of these populations. This is because some populations
overlap in both space and time, so to avoid double-counting, certain populations are notincluded when calculating a global trend.
Figure 21: Interpretingthe LPI
Explanations of the mostimportant terms needed tounderstand the LPI 1.

Baseline
The index starts at a value of
1. If the LPI and confidence
limits move away from thisbaseline, we can say there has
been an increase (above 1) or
decline (below 1) compared
to 1970.

Index value (1970 = 1)

2

Index values
These values represent the average change in population
abundance – based on the relative change and not theabsolute change – in population sizes. The shaded areas
show 95% confidence limits. These illustrate how certain
we are about the trend in any given year relative to 1970.
The confidence limits always widen throughout the timeseries as the uncertainty from each of the previous years
is added to the current year.

GLOBAL

1

0
1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Cut-off
The final year of the index depends on data availability and is the latest year for which wehave a good amount of data. For the final year, this is because it takes time to collect, process
and publish monitoring data, so there can be a time lag before these can be added to the LPI.
Chapter 3: Biodiversity in a changing world page 91

Realm Living Planet Indices
As seen in the map below (figure 22), populations are in decline in all realms, but declines areespecially pronounced in the three tropical realms. Here, average vertebrate abundance in2014 was less than half of what it was in 1970. The LPI indicates that the Neotropical realm,
covering South and Central America, and the Caribbean, has suffered the most dramatic
decline at 89% loss compared to 1970. Nearctic and Palearctic populations are faring slightly
better with declines of 23% and 31%.

Index value (1970 = 1)2

1

NEARCTIC

0
1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

The Nearctic Living Planet Index
The average abundance for 2,417 terrestrial andfreshwater populations (representing 875 species).
These populations declined by 23% (+11% to -47%)
between 1970 and 2014 1.

NEOTROPICAL

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 92

2

Index value (1970 = 1)

Figure 22: The Living
Planet Index for eachrealm
The white line in the LPI
graph shows the index
values and the shaded areas
represent the statisticalcertainty surrounding thetrend (95%). Threat data isavailable for 3,789 – justunder a quarter – of the
populations in the global
LPI 1. This is explored inchapter 2.

1

0
1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

The Neotropical Living Planet Index
The average abundance for 1,040 populations(representing 689 species) in the Neotropicalbiogeographic realm. Vertebrate populations declined
by an average of 4.8% annually between 1970 and 2014,translating to an overall decline of 89%. This represents
the most dramatic change in any biogeographic realm 1.

The Palearctic Living Planet Index
The average abundance for 2,866 terrestrial andfreshwater populations (representing 576 species).
These populations declined by 31% (-6% to -50%)
between 1970 and 2014 1.

Index value (1970 = 1)

2

1

0
1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2000

2010

PALEARCTIC

AFROTROPICALINDO - PACIFIC
2

1

0
1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

The Afrotropical Living Planet Index
The average abundance for 1,115 terrestrial andfreshwater Afrotropical populations (representing
320 species). These populations declined by
56% between 1970 and 2014. The decrease wasparticularly steep in the 1980s 1.

Index value (1970 = 1)

Index value (1970 = 1)

2

1

0
1970

1980

1990

The Indo-Pacific Living Planet Index
The average abundance for 1,083 terrestrial andfreshwater populations (representing 488 species)in the Indo-Pacific biogeographic realm. The
Indo-Pacific Index experienced the second mostpronounced decline, after the Neotropical index:
64% overall between 1970 and 2014 1.
Chapter 3: Biodiversity in a changing world page 93

Where does the data come from?
The LPI is calculated from data collected at regular intervals
over time on populations of mammal, bird, fish, reptile andamphibian species from around the world. These data are gatheredfrom a variety of sources such as journals, online databases andgovernment reports.
Each edition of the Living Planet Report takes advantage of anever-increasing number of data records. Results reported here arebased on 16,704 populations of 4,005 different species – with 319
species making their LPI database debut. The majority of these
additional populations are from North America but focused datacollection has also improved representation in the Indo-Pacific andAfrotropical realms (figure 23). The largest enhancement, of morethan 4%, can be seen in reptile species in Australasia and Oceania(Indo-Pacific realm), followed by mammal species in the Neotropics
and the Nearctic. The baseline year is always 1970 but the cut-off
year advances as more data is gathered and becomes available.
This year’s cut-off is 2014.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 94

Figure 23: Locationsof Living Planet Index
species populations
Map showing thelocations of the monitored
populations in the LPI.
Newly added populations
since the last report arehighlighted in orange, orin red for species new to
the LPI 1.

Freshwater Living Planet Index
Freshwater ecosystems provide habitat for at least 126,000, or
around 1 in 10, known species of fishes, molluscs, reptiles, insects,
plants and mammals 3 despite covering less than 1% of the Earth’s
surface 4.
These ecosystems are also the most threatened – they are strongly
affected by habitat modification, fragmentation and destruction;
invasive species; overfishing; pollution; forestry practices; disease;and climate change. In many cases, these combined threats have led
to catastrophic declines in freshwater biodiversity 5,6.
The 3,358 populations – representing 880 species of mammals,
birds, amphibians, reptiles and fishes – in the Freshwater LPI show
an 83% decline, equivalent to 4% per year since 1970. The largest
declines are seen in populations in the Neotropics (-94%), the IndoPacific (-82%) and the Afrotropics (-75%), especially in reptiles andamphibians, and in fishes.

Figure 24: The
Freshwater Living
Planet Index:
1970 to 2014
The average abundanceof 3,358 freshwater
populations representing
880 species monitored
across the globe declined by
83%. The white line shows
the index values and theshaded areas represent
the statistical certainty
surrounding the trend(range -73% to -90%) 1.

Index value (1970 = 1)

2

FRESHWATER

1

0
1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Key
Freshwater Living
Planet Index
Confidence limits

Chapter 3: Biodiversity in a changing world page 95

CHILDREN AND NATURE
4. River living
The Tonle Sap River in Cambodia connects the
Tonle Sap Lake and the Mekong River and is a
migration route for many fish, including the criticallyendangered Mekong giant catfish (Pangasiandon
gigas). Local children experience the value of thisnatural system in a very direct way: the river provides
them with fresh water, and fish are a critical protein
source in their daily diets. With a growing world
population, it’s expected that by 2050 two-thirdsof humanity will live in cities 23 with a less direct
relationship to nature than these children.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 96

© Zeb Hogan - WWF

Chapter 3: Biodiversity in a changing world page 97

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 98

Dr Ben Collen(1978-2018)© ZSL - Ben setting up an array ofcamera traps which captured the firstwild footage of Pygmy hippopotamus
in Liberia in 2011

We pay tribute to a great scientist, collaborator and friend whose
research was and continues to be pivotal to the Living Planet
Report series.
Ben’s research into the impact of a changing environment on theplanet’s wildlife was central to the science that underpins ourunderstanding of the world and the life it sustains. Having earned
his PhD at the Institute of Zoology and Imperial College London
from 2002 to 2005, he joined ZSL in 2005 as a Postdoctoral
Research Associate. He went on to lead the Indicators andAssessments Unit, during which time he developed theconceptual and analytical basis for the Living Planet Index.
During this time, he also advanced our understanding of theextinction risk of many species and helped develop the sampled
approach to the Red List Index, a critical tool for assessing theextinction risk of lesser-known taxonomic groups.

© Dr Lawrence Bellamy - Seabird spotting at Blakeney Point in Norfolk 2016

In 2013 Ben moved on to become a lecturer, then reader inbiodiversity, at UCL’s Centre for Biodiversity and Environment
Research, but his connection to ZSL remained as a collaborator,and supervisor of many PhD and masters students who valued
his leadership, knowledge and support. In 2015 he won theprestigious ZSL Marsh Award for Conservation Biology,
which acknowledged his contribution to designing and using
biodiversity indicators. By then his innovative approaches had
been applied and operationalised with numerous worldwide
collaborators. His appointments were many and varied,
including as an Honorary Research Fellow for UNEP, and amember of multiple IUCN Red List committees.
Ben’s contribution to science is in no doubt. His influential andwide-ranging publications in some of the world’s most highprofile journals are a testament to his passion, great talent, anddedication to conservation science. But it is the kindness andsincerity that he brought to his relationships with his friends,
colleagues, students and peers that remains with all of us.
Ben brought a great deal of fun and adventure to all that he did,making a mark on all those who crossed his path, and we will
miss him dearly.
Chapter 3: Biodiversity in a changing world page 99

For two decades the Living Planet Index has set out the state of ourplanet’s biodiversity by tracking a rise or decline in numbers ofspecific species. Biodiversity has many components, and there is no
single measure that can capture all of its changes, so in this LPR welook beyond population abundance and at three other indicatorsthat measure species’ extinction risk, changes in species community
composition and changes in species distribution. All show severe
declines or changes.

DIFFERENT BIODIVERSITY
INDICATORS, SAME STORY
Biodiversity: A multifaceted concept requires
multiple indicators
Biodiversity is often referred to as the ‘web of life’. It is the varietyof all living things – plants, animals and micro-organisms – andthe ecosystems of which they are a part. It includes diversity within
species and between species and can refer to any geographic scale –from a small study plot to the entire planet 7.
“The biodiversity we see today is the fruit of billions of yearsof evolution, shaped by natural processes and, increasingly,
by the influence of humans. It forms the web of life of which
we are an integral part and upon which we so fully depend.
It also encompasses the variety of ecosystems such as thosethat occur in deserts, forests, wetlands, mountains, lakes,
rivers, and agricultural landscapes. In each ecosystem, living
creatures, including humans, form a community, interactingwith one another and with the air, water, and soil around them.”
Convention for Biological Diversity 8
Species, and the natural systems around us, respond to humanpressures and conservation interventions in a variety of ways andthere is no single measure to capture all these changes. That’s
why different metrics and indicators are needed to understandbiodiversity change as well as to track progress towards biodiversity
targets and to devise effective conservation programmes.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 100

Piero Visconti,
Zoological Society of
London (ZSL) and University
College London (UCL)In addition, the direction of abundance trends is only available
for a minority of species. For example, the IUCN Red List uses
information about species-level increases and decreases as one of
the criteria for assessing extinction risk. The Database currently
contains this information for 60% of mammals, 64% of amphibians,
92% of birds and 52% of the world’s reptiles 9. The magnitude ofthese trends is known for far fewer species. Other taxonomic groups
are even less well-monitored 9. To compensate for this scarcity ofobservational data, other biodiversity measures and ecologicalmodels can be used to track biodiversity change and inform
conservation strategies.
To complement the population-based Living Planet Index and put
the trends that it measures in a broader context, we have includedin this report an overview of three other biodiversity indicators:
the Species Habitat Index, measuring changes in species
distribution, the IUCN Red List Index which tracks extinction
risk, and the Biodiversity Intactness Index that looks at changes incommunity composition.

ABUNDANCE

DISTRIBUTIONCOMPOSITION

EXTINCTION RISK
Chapter 3: Biodiversity in a changing world page 101

Collecting LPI data
The Living Planet Database draws on information from3,268 data sources. The index is based on relative changes in
populations over time so the data can be collected in many ways
– ranging from counting the number of individual animals in aherd of wildebeest in Kenya or camera trapping tapirs in Costa
Rica and tigers in India, to surveys of nesting sites of songbirds
or tracking the traces animals leave behind, for example thetracks of Eurasian lynx in Russia.
Some of these datasets are part of long-term researchmonitoring programmes. Others are generated as part of citizen
science programmes or large-scale monitoring surveys, such as
the North American Breeding Bird Survey.
Axel, an intern at The Biodiversity and Education Center, Gamba, replaces a card ina camera trap in Gabon, Africa.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 102

© James Morgan - WWF

Chapter 3: Biodiversity in a changing world page 103

PUTTING THE LPI IN CONTEXTDistribution: the Species Habitat Index
The Species Habitat Index, an aggregate measure of the extent ofsuitable habitat available for each species, has been proposed as anadditional indicator to help provide a richer picture of both past andprojected future biodiversity change. This index captures changes
in species range and incorporates information about species
habitat preferences, observed or modelled data on habitat loss andrestoration, habitat fragmentation and climate change. When used
together, species distribution and habitat suitability models canestimate the combined impact of habitat loss and climate change on
species, in both the past and the future 10-12.

Piero Visconti,
Zoological Society of
London (ZSL) and University
College London (UCL)

The overall trends in the Species Habitat Index for mammals
declined by 22% from 1970 to 2010, with the greatest declines in the
Caribbean (>60%). Other regions with declines of more than 25%
were Central America, North-East Asia and North Africa 13.

Extinction risk: the IUCN Red List of Threatened
SpeciesThousands of experts periodically assess the extinction risk ofnearly 100,000 species using the criteria and categories of the IUCNRed List. Using information on life-history traits, population anddistribution size and structure, and their change over time, Red
List assessors classify species into one of eight categories (Extinct,
Extinct in the Wild, Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable,
Near Threatened, Least Concern or Data Deficient). As species arereassessed over time, some species may genuinely improve in statusowing to conservation action, while others may deteriorate owing
to increasing threats. The Red List Index shows the net balance
between these factors, and filters out reclassifications owing to
improved knowledge or taxonomic revision 14,15.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 104

Stuart Butchart,
BirdLife International
Piero Visconti,
Zoological Society of
London (ZSL) and University
College London (UCL)
Craig Hilton-Taylor,
IUCN

Key
Birds
Mammals
CoralsAmphibians
Cycads1,0
Red List Index of species survival

Figure 25: IUCN Red
List Index of species
survival for mammals,
birds, amphibians,
corals and cycads

Better

0,9

0,8

0,7

0,6
Worse

0,5
1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Key

A Red List Index
value of 1.0 equates to all species within a group
Birds
qualifying as Least Concern (i.e. not expected to become Extinct in
Mammals
the near future). An index value of 0 equates to all species having
Coralsgone Extinct. A constant value over time indicates that the overall
Amphibians
extinction risk for the group is unchanged. If the rate of biodiversity
Cycadsloss were reducing, the index would show an upward trend.
Currently, the Red List Index is available for five taxonomic groups
in which all species have been assessed at least twice: birds,
mammals, amphibians, corals and cycads (an ancient group ofplants). Current index values for all groups show declines, indicatingthat species are moving towards extinction more rapidly.
Thematic versions of the index show that pollinators are in decline(at least among birds and mammals 16), and that wild relatives of
farmed and domesticated species are also declining, potentiallythreatening future food security through loss of genetic diversity 17.

Chapter 3: Biodiversity in a changing world page 105Composition: the Biodiversity Intactness
Index (BII)
The Biodiversity Intactness Index (BII) estimates how much ofa region’s originally present biodiversity remains, relative to if
the region were still covered with primary vegetation and facing
minimal human pressures.
The BII – as an indicator – has been implemented in the PREDICTS
modelling framework 18,19. It is underpinned by a large global
database of local sites facing different pressures 20. Importantly, thedatabase is reasonably representative in its coverage of both species
and terrestrial biomes. With most of the data being on insects andplants, BII is one of the few indicators not predominantly based onvertebrates.

Andy Purvis andAdriana De Palma,
Natural History Museum,LondonSamantha Hill,
UN Environment World
Conservation Monitoring
Centre (UNEP-WCMC)

The Index ranges from 100–0% with 100 representing an
undisturbed or pristine natural environment with little to no humanfootprint. The most recent global estimates suggest that the BII fell
from 81.6% in 1970 to 78.6% in 2014 21 (figure 26).
Models that focus on tropical and subtropical forest biomes, using
finer-scale land-use data, suggest their BII is both lower anddeclining more rapidly – from 57.3% in 2001 to 54.9% in 2012 22(figure 26). Yet, as alarming as these estimates are, they may beover-optimistic. That’s because the PREDICTS framework does not
yet incorporate the effects of climate change or the delayed impactsof land-use change and because global land-use data does notdistinguish plantations from natural forest 19.
Figure 26: Trends in the
Biodiversity Intactness
Index (BII)
Dark brown line: Global
average BII 1970-2014from projections made at
0.25-degree scale 20. Light
brown line: Average BII for
tropical and subtropicalforest biomes 2001-2012
from projections made at
1km resolution 21.

1,0Biodiversity Intactness Index

0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4

Key

0,3
0,2
0,1

Global (using coarsescale pressure data)

01970

Tropical forest (using
1km-resolutionpressure data)

1980

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 106

1990

2000

2010

© National Geographic Stock - Steve Winter - WWF

A camera trap captures an endangered snow leopard (Panthera uncia) in Hemis National Park, ahigh altitude national park in the eastern Ladakh region of the state of Jammu and Kashmir in India.

Chapter 3: Biodiversity in a changing world page 107

CHAPTER 4:

Aiming higher: what future
do we want? ~The immense changes in societies around the globe,
especially since the Industrial Revolution, havebrought equally immense impacts on nature. Without
a dramatic move beyond ‘business as usual’ thecurrent severe decline of the natural systems that
support modern societies will continue – with serious
consequences for nature and people. With two key
global policy processes underway there is currently
a unique window of opportunity to reverse the trend– and bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Lessons
can be learned from progress towards solving othercritical global issues, like climate change, andeveryone – governments, business, finance, research,
civil society and individuals – has a part to play.
Polar bear jumping on ice, Spitsbergen, Norway.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 108

© Steve Morello - WWF

Chapter 4: Aiming higher: what future do we want? page 109

BENDING THE CURVE OFBIODIVERSITY LOSS
Biodiversity has been described as the ‘infrastructure’ that supports
all life on Earth. The natural systems and biochemical cycles that
biological diversity generates allow the stable functioning of ouratmosphere, oceans, forests, landscapes and waterways. They are,simply, a prerequisite for our modern, prosperous human society toexist, and to continue to thrive 1,2.
The Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992 was a critical landmark
in mankind’s relationship with nature. For the first time theglobal community came together and collectively agreed on theimportance of the natural world and our responsibility to protect it.
In the quarter-century since then, there have been some successes– the recovery of great whale populations and the huge growth inprotected areas among them. But these remain isolated wins and, as
this report makes clear, the continued decline in species shows that
we have failed the natural world. Many of these changes have been
driven by a spiralling increase in our consumption. This has now
reached a scale whereby it is interfering profoundly with biodiversity
and all the other natural systems.
This degradation of nature is among the most serious issues that theworld faces, but current targets and consequent actions amount, atbest, to a managed decline. This chapter is inspired by a paper thatwas conceived during the brainstorming for this anniversary editionof the Living Planet Report and published on 14 September 2018 in
Nature Sustainability. The paper – ‘Aiming Higher – bending the
curve of biodiversity loss’ 3 – argues that what the world requires
is bold and well-defined goals and a credible set of actions to
restore the abundance of nature to levels that enable both people
and nature to thrive. In the paper – and this chapter – the authors
stress that without this dramatic change in efforts to reverse theEarth’s ongoing biodiversity decline, the persistent failure to meetconservation and biodiversity targets is likely to continue. If thistrend is not reversed there is a question as to whether the Agenda
2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) can be achieved,
including mitigating climate change 4, adapting to climate impacts 5,maintaining the quality of soil, air and water, and supporting aresilient basis for the food, fuel and fibre that future generations ofpeople will need 6.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 110

Georgina Mace, University
College London (UCL)
Mike Barrett, WWF
Neil Burgess,UN Environment World
Conservation Monitoring
Centre (UNEP-WCMC)
and the University of
Copenhagen
Sarah E. Cornell, Stockholm
Resilience Centre (SRC)
Robin Freeman, ZoologicalSociety of London (ZSL)
Monique Grooten, WWF
Andy Purvis, Natural History
Museum, London

WE NEED TO AIMHIGHER, AND DO
BETTER, TO PROTECTAND RESTORE OUR LIFE
SUPPORT SYSTEMS –TO BEND THE CURVE OFBIODIVERSITY LOSS.
THIS MEANS GOING
BEYOND BUSINESS AS
USUAL

A unique opportunity
SETTING A CLEAR
GLOBAL BIODIVERSITYTARGET, TURNING OURKNOWLEDGE INTO
GREATER ACTION FOR
BIGGER IMPACT

Between now and the end of 2020, there is a unique window ofopportunity to shape a positive vision for nature and people.
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD – see box 1), is in
the process of setting new goals and targets for the future. These,
together with the Sustainable Development Goals, will become thekey international frameworks for protecting nature and enhancing
biodiversity.
Existing CBD goals and targets are to be achieved by 2020. The 196
countries that are parties to the Convention are currently working
on a post-2020 strategic plan with new goals and targets. This
provides a vital opportunity to create a bold and achievable planof action. If the loss of biodiversity is to be halted and reversed,
this opportunity must be seized.
Although the CBD has a vision for 2050 (box 1), currently there
are no biodiversity policy commitments beyond 2030. However,
because of the nature of the challenge we face, it’s critical toconsider a longer timescale. When wildlife populations and habitats
are damaged, or lost, some kinds of recovery can take decades. Also,
the intensity of some threats, such as climate change, will increase
after 2030. Climate change targets are routinely set for 2050 and
2080, recognizing the long-term dynamics of the climate system.
Species and ecosystems also demonstrate dynamics that may playout over decades to centuries, hence longer-term goals, supported
by policy commitments, are also crucial.
Despite numerous international scientific studies and policy
agreements confirming that the conservation and sustainable useof biological diversity is a global priority, worldwide trends inbiodiversity continue to decline. Figure 27 shows starkly how poorly
natural systems have fared since internationally agreed policy
commitments such as the CBD targets came into force. However, italso offers a vision for the future: if we aim higher and move awayfrom business as usual, implementing approaches designed torestore nature rather than simply tracking a managed decline, thenwe can achieve a healthier, more sustainable world that is good forpeople as well as our natural systems.
This chapter uses text and ideas from a paper published by the chapter authors
in Nature Sustainability on the 14th September 2018: Mace, G. M. et al. Aiming
higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Nature Sustainability 1: 448-451,
doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0130-0 (2018).

Chapter 4: Aiming higher: what future do we want? page 111

Box 1: The Convention on Biological Diversity and the Aichi Targets
At the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, two binding agreements were initiated: the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD). The CBD was the first global agreement on the conservation and sustainable
use of biological diversity and came into force in 1993. Every country in the world, except theUSA, is now a Party to the Convention. While the CBD sets overall goals and policies with generalobligations, the responsibility for achieving these goals rests largely with countries themselves.
The current CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity (2011-2020) is intended to be an overarchingframework for biodiversity conservation, not only for the biodiversity-related conventions,but for the entire UN system and all other partners engaged in biodiversity management andpolicy development. The plan includes a long-term vision:“By 2050, biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and wisely used,maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering
benefits essential for all people.”
To meet this vision the CBD, through agreement with the Parties, has developed a set of fivemedium-term strategic goals with 20 targets – called the Aichi Targets.
Goal C is “To improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species andgenetic diversity” and includes three targets.
Target 11 concerns the global coverage of protected areas

Target 12 is directed at the conservation of species	Target 13 concerns the conservation of genetic diversity of cultivated plants,
farmed and domesticated animals, and their wild relatives

Target 12 is the most direct and straightforward measure of biodiversity, and metrics existat global scale that have already been adopted by the CBD in various assessment processes.
It states, “By 2020 the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and theirconservation status, particularly of those most in decline, has been improved and sustained.”
The target is only directed at “known threatened species” – those listed as CriticallyEndangered, Endangered or Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List (www.iucnredlist.org). In 2017
this was just over 25,000 species, out of over 60,000 that have been assessed for the Red
List. Note that this is only a small proportion of all known species (more than 1.3 million)
and a sample that is strongly biased towards terrestrial and large-bodied vertebrates.
To meet Target 12, none of these threatened species should have gone extinct, and thosespecies in steepest decline should show improvements in their status by at least moving to acategory of lower threat (see Chapter 2 for more details about these categories).
WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 112

The Strategic Plan for the Convention on Biological Diversity(2010–2020) includes the 20 Aichi Targets to be achieved by 2020.
Recent projections suggest that this is unlikely for most of thetargets 8. Yet the 2050 vision requires a much more ambitious goal,
which will necessitate recovery of biodiversity and bending the curveby 2030. The black line indicates currently observed trends (to2015), dotted lines show extrapolations from current trends (black)and projections for biodiversity after 2030 that are declining (red),stabilizing (orange) or recovering (green).

“Develop national strategies, plans orprogrammes for the conservation andsustainable use of biological diversity;
Integrate [...] the conservation andsustainable use of biological diversity
into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoralplans, programmes and policies”

CBD“...achieve by 2010
a significant reductionof the current rate ofbiodiversity loss”

Biodiversity index

COP6

UN Decade of Biodiversity(2011-2020): Strategic plan,
20 Biodiversity Targets
across five strategic goals

Aichi Targets
Modelled
projections

Observed trends

Extrapolated
trends
1970

1990

2010

2030

2050

Figure 27: Biodiversity
declines have continued
despite repeated policy
commitments aimed at
slowing or halting therate of loss
(redrawn from Mace et al.
2018 3).

Chapter 4: Aiming higher: what future do we want? page 113

Box 2: The UN Sustainable Development Goals
On 1 January 2016, the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with their accompanying
169 targets came into force. These underpin the UN-led 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. Collectively, they represent a hugely ambitious blueprint for the sustainable
future of humanity on this planet with the aspirational pledge “that no one will be left
behind”. Critically, they are defined as being “integrated and indivisible”, meaning thatcountries are not able to pick and choose which elements to address but must work
towards the achievement of them all. Collectively, they also balance the three dimensionsof sustainable development: environmental, social and economic. The stated aim is that theSDGs will be delivered by 2030, although some targets, and especially the environmental
targets, have end dates of 2020.
Within the preamble the signatories declare that they will “protect the planet fromdegradation, including through sustainable consumption and production, sustainably
managing its natural resources and taking urgent action on climate change, so that it can
support the needs of the present and future generations”.
This commitment is translated into 3 of the 17 goals that are specifically directed at thenatural world:
	
Goal 13 (Climate change): Take urgent action to combat climate change
and its impacts.

 oal 14 (Life below water): Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seasGand marine resources for sustainable development.

	
Goal 15 (Life on land): Protect, restore and promote sustainable use ofterrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, andhalt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.
Both Goals 14 and 15 have specific targets directed at reducing threats, securing ecosystem
functions and services, and supporting the flows of benefits from biodiversity to people. One
target in Goal 15 concerns the state of biodiversity itself (“Take urgent and significant action
to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020,
protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species”). This target reflects Aichi Target
12. There is no equivalent target in Goal 14 (Life below water) but we can infer that the goalof halting biodiversity loss also applies to species living in the oceans.
Halting biodiversity loss is a more ambitious target than the Aichi Target of preventing theextinction and improving the status of known threatened species, because it concerns all
species and is not restricted to extinction risk alone. Halting the “loss of biodiversity” should
be interpreted as also halting declines in abundance and distribution of species, as well as the
structure and functioning of biological communities.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 114

Collectively, the Sustainable Development Goals aspire to take us
towards ‘the world we want’ and the UN frames them as creating a“blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all”.
Figure 28 explores these SDGs in more detail. Although the 17 Goals
are presented separately, they are not independent of each other.
Johan Rockström and Pavan Sukhdev modified an infographic
developed by the science director of the Stockholm ResilienceCentre, Carl Folke, and others to present new way of viewing the
Sustainable Development Goals and to show how they are all linked
to food.

Figure 28:
The intertwined natureof the biosphere, oursociety and our economy,
and by extension the
SDGs that are designed
to effect progress withinthose systems (credit:
Azote Images for Stockholm
Resilience Centre).

This framework emphasizes that, given pressing needs tosimultaneously avoid dangerous climate change, feed the world’s
growing population and restore biodiversity, cross-cutting solutions
are crucial. These must enable our land and oceans to support
all three objectives effectively and equitably, while recognizing
the interactions and interdependencies between them that offer
opportunities as well as risks.

ECONOMYSOCIETY
BIOSPHERE

Chapter 4: Aiming higher: what future do we want? page 115

Box 3: Global biodiversity commitments to 2020, 2030 and 2050
enshrined in the CBD and SDG frameworks
Convention on Biological Diversity
By 2050, biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and wisely
used, maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet
and delivering benefits essential for all people (CBD vision).
	CBD Aichi target 5: By 2020, the rate of loss of all natural habitats,including forests, is at least halved and where feasible brought close to zero,and degradation and fragmentation is significantly reduced.
	CBD Aichi target 12: By 2020 the extinction of known threatened species
has been prevented and their conservation status, particularly of those most in
decline, has been improved and sustained.

Sustainable Development Goals
	SDG 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources.

	SDG 15: Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial
ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt andreverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.
Target 15.5: Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradationof natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity, and protect and prevent theextinction of threatened species.

NB. Although the SDGs are set to 2030, some biodiversity-related targets give 2020 as anend date. Given the difficulty of abruptly halting current trends, we suggest 2030 for the two
biodiversity-related SDG targets.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 116

A roadmap for 2020 to 2050
As well as the existing global targets, many regional, national andlocal initiatives and projects aim to protect biodiversity. Given thecontinuing loss of nature as shown in figure 27, however, it’s clearthat these efforts are not enough. So, what will it take to ‘bend thecurve’ of biodiversity loss?
We can learn lessons from other critical global issues as we develop
a roadmap for reaching biodiversity goals and obtaining national
commitments with appropriate levels of ambition. For climatechange, the world has mobilized around one clearly specified goal –keeping global warming below 2°C. Future climate targets are basedon scenario analyses that identify the most impactful suite of actions
to achieve this long-term goal. For example, the climate stabilization‘wedges’ 9 were developed as a portfolio of available technologies
that could collectively achieve the necessary cuts in greenhouse gas
emissions over a 50-year period. The wedge approach has also beensuccessfully applied to other environmental challenges, such as
water stress 10.
The SDG process has similarly focused on motivating societal
engagement around its 17 goals, building buy-in for an integrated
agenda. Both agreements explicitly recognize that the status quo is
not an option and instead set necessarily hard-hitting global targets
to reverse business-as-usual trends.
In the Aiming Higher paper, the authors suggest three necessary
steps in a roadmap for the post-2020 agenda: (1) clearly specify thegoal for biodiversity recovery, (2) develop a set of measurable andrelevant indicators of progress, and (3) agree a suite of actions thatcan collectively achieve the goal in the required timeframe. Here we
describe each of them.

Step 1: Translate the aspirational vision to an
ambitious goal
The first step in the development of a biodiversity roadmap is tospecify the goal.
The current CBD vision is that “By 2050, biodiversity is valued,
conserved, restored and wisely used, maintaining ecosystemservices, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits
essential for all people.”

Chapter 4: Aiming higher: what future do we want? page 117

When it was written, it was an aspirational vision for the future.
The Aiming Higher paper argues that this vision is concrete
and achievable enough to be the basis of the goal of a post-2020
agreement on biodiversity. Achieving this ambitious goal will
require a new set of targets that aim higher and are effective
beyond 2020.

Step 2: Identify ways to measure progress
towards the goal
Keeping track of the status of biodiversity, and progress towards
targets, requires suitable indicators. Since the current targets wereset, almost a decade ago, there has been an explosion of these, so thesecond step is to identify the best metrics to measure true progress
towards the chosen goal.
Measuring progress towards biodiversity targets is more
complicated than tracking progress under the Paris Climate
Agreement on greenhouse gas emission reductions. Biodiversity
assessment requires multiple measures at different spatial scales
and across different ecological dimensions. The different metrics
that are in common use capture different properties of biodiversity,and their responses to pressures vary 11. Mace et al. has argued
for indicators that can track three key dimensions of biodiversity
necessary for the vision and the goals described here, and in the
CBD and SDG targets:
1) Changes in population abundance: Trends in the abundance ofwild species are well captured by population-level indicators suchas the Living Planet Index (LPI) 14
2) Extinction rate on a global scale: The extent to which species are
threatened with the risk of extinction is estimated by the Red List
Index (RLI) 12,13
3) Changes to local biodiversity: Changes in the ‘health’ of
ecosystems can be estimated by comparing what currently exists
with what once existed in a given place using indicators such as
the Biodiversity Intactness Index (BII) 15,16
The required trajectories for these three biodiversity indicators areshown in figure 29.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 118

The two top graphs showlines for both threatened
and all species because
preventing extinction isthe aim of the current Aichi
Target 12 and is an absolutemeasure of conservation
success or failure.
Key
All species

Population trend

Figure 29 illustrates how each of these indicators would respond– or their trajectories would change – in a world where the policy
goals and targets in Box 3 are met and nature is recovering.

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Conservation status

Figure 29:
Required trajectories
for the three proposed
biodiversity indicatorsreflecting conservation
status (i.e. global extinctionrisk), population trend(changes to average
population abundance) andbiotic integrity (changes tolocal, functional diversity)from the present to 2050,
based on the commitments
in Box 3. These curves
would represent a
successful recovery andrestoration of nature.
Note that while the curves
are based on recent data
and analyses they arenecessarily approximate
and so the indicator axes do
not have figures attachedto them.

In the bottom graph, wehave included biomes as
tracking changes to biomes
is critical to Aichi Target
5. There is also a line for
ecoregions, as these areused within Target 11 aspart of the element onprotected areas and toensure that biodiversity indifferent areas of the worldis equally represented (seeboxes 1, 2 and 3 for more
information about all thesetargets).

Biotic integrity

Threatened species

Key
BiomesEcoregions

Chapter 4: Aiming higher: what future do we want? page 119

These three indicators are by no means the only indicators that
could be used. However, they have the advantage of already being
applied widely in the scientific and policy communities and of being
globally relevant and robust. Their methodologies have been peerreviewed for scientific publication. There is extensive data behindeach one, with global coverage; and they have open-access methods
and datasets that are continually being refreshed and expanded.
If they are to be used to support concrete global action, there is aneed to improve taxonomic representativeness, integration and data
coverage. A clear policy process could act as a spur to improve andbuild on the underlying datasets.

Step 3: Identify actions to deliver the required
transformation in global biodiversity
Scenarios and models can help scientists to visualize and explore
how alternative actions affect the dynamic interdependencies
between nature, nature’s benefits to people and quality of life.
The CBD Global Biodiversity Outlook 4 report represents one of
the more recent authoritative assessments of biodiversity status
and trends 17. Scenario and projection models have also started to
explore future biodiversity impacts associated with climate change
scenarios 18 as well as scenarios where the Sustainable Development
Goals are met through changes in factors such as production,
consumption, waste, protected areas and forestry 19,20.
Global projections, scenarios and models of ecosystems provide
insights into the trajectory of change in biodiversity and ecosystemservices over the coming century on land, in the sea and, still toa much lesser extent, in fresh water (reviewed in Tittensor et al.
2017 21). However, the challenge we face is that we not only need to
identify potential pathways that will allow us to restore biodiversity,
we also need to achieve the necessary transformation while feedinga still-growing population under the accelerating effects of climatechange in a rapidly changing world. Therefore, although traditional
biodiversity conservation interventions such as protected areasand species conservation planning remain crucial, action must also
address the major drivers of biodiversity loss and ecosystem change,such as agriculture and overexploitation.
Guided by these analyses, integrative policies for sustainableconsumption and production (such as changing modern (Western)
diets to contain less meat) can benefit biodiversity, climate and foodsupply 22. Their role in policy-making is examined in more detailin the next section.
WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 120© Wild Wonders of Europe / Konrad Wothe / WWF

Male roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in flower meadow with Siberian irises (Iris sibirica) Eastern
Slovakia, Europe.

Chapter 4: Aiming higher: what future do we want? page 121

How scenarios can imagine the future and help to create
good policy
David Leclère, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
Scenario analysis and modelling play an important role in building visions of
the future based on different policy choices and actions. Models are simplified
representations of the real world, based on available knowledge. They allow
exploring the possible future states of biodiversity, under a set of assumptions
concerning future human actions and environmental conditions, referred
to as scenarios. As such, scenarios and models are vital tools for building a
biodiversity roadmap, and can be used to combine the best available scientific,
indigenous and local knowledge in assessments and to support decision-making
at various stages of the policy cycle (Figure 30).
Exploratory scenarios can help set an agenda by examining a range ofplausible futures, often based on possible storylines. These provide a means offraming what to expect in the future and with level of certainty, depending on
which storyline materializes or how uncertain our knowledge is.
Intervention scenarios show alternative ways to reach an agreed-upon target.
Target-seeking scenarios inform the policy design phase by exploring what
actions and preconditions could allow reaching a given target. During policy
implementation, policy-screening scenarios can represent potential outcomes ofalternative policy options.
Retrospective policy evaluation provides a gap analysis by comparing theobserved trajectories of implemented policies to scenarios that would haveachieved the intended target.
Models and scenarios can help in designing policy roadmaps 23, but their use incontexts that link nature and human wellbeing has so far been hampered by thecomplexity associated with projections of pressures, subsequent biodiversity
responses 24, and how these would would affect human wellbeing. In addition,
the many targets of the sustainable development agenda are interrelated, andidentifying actions that avoid trade-offs and exploit synergies remains remains
challenging in terms of how much knowledge needs to be integrated. Morecomprehensive models are therefore needed and foundations for this work areunder way through initiatives such as the IPBES Modelling and Scenarios Task
Force and specific projects such as the climate change-oriented Inter-Sectoral
Impact Model Intercomparison Project (reviewed in Tittensor et al. 2017 21).
These will need to be scaled up and broadened to incorporate biodiversity as
an integral component of the models, to better represent interactions between
ecological, social and economic factors but also to increase their relevance forvarious stakeholders at multiple scales.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 122

N
TARGET-SEEKING SCENARIOS

present

futurepast

Policy A

IEW

R

EV

Figure 30: Illustrationof the use of models andscenarios at various
stages of the policycycle
In all cases, models
mobilize available
knowledge to link future
biodiversity states toassumptions about future
actions or environmental
conditions. These canthen be explored using
different scenarios. Figure
reproduced from 25.

present

futurePolicy A

Policy B
past

present

future

LE
P
IM

ME

past

Gap

futurePOLICY-SCREENING SCENARIOS
biodiversity indicatorbiodiversity indicator

RETROSPECTIVE POLICY EVALUATION

present

NTA
TION

past

Intervention scenarios

biodiversity indicator

EXPLORATORY SCENARIOS

biodiversity indicator

AGEN
DA
S

DES
IG

NG
I
T
ET

MODELS AND SCENARIOS CAN HELPIN DESIGNING POLICY ROADMAPS AND
IDENTIFY POTENTIAL WIN-WIN SOLUTIONSFOR BOTH NATURE AND FOR PEOPLE
Chapter 4: Aiming higher: what future do we want? page 123

THE PATH AHEAD
The evidence becomes stronger every day that humanity’s survival
depends on our natural systems, yet we continue to destroy thehealth of nature at an alarming rate. It’s clear that efforts to stem
the loss of biodiversity have not worked and business as usual
will amount to, at best, a continued, managed decline. That’s why
we, along with conservation and science colleagues around theworld, are calling for the most ambitious international agreement
yet – a new global deal for nature and people – to bend the curveof biodiversity loss. Decision-makers at every level from individuals
to communities, countries and companies need to make the right
political, financial and consumer choices to realize the vision thathumanity and nature can thrive. This vision is possible with strong
leadership from us all.
A male Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) in Kanha National Park, Madhya Pradesh,
India.

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 124

naturepl.com - Nick Garbutt - WWF

Chapter 4: Aiming higher: what future do we want? page 125

NATURE IS OUR HOME
Reframing the debate
This Living Planet Report joins an ever-increasing number of
research and policy papers building the case that our planet’s
natural systems are fundamental to our society. Underpinning ourhealth, wealth, food and security they are core to our existence, notjust a ‘nice to have’.
This report’s Living Planet Index also outlines how much nature weare losing. It shows an overall decline of 60% in species population
sizes between 1970 and 2014, while current rates of species
extinctions are 100 to 1,000 times higher than the background rate(the extinction before human pressure became a prominent factor).
Other indicators measuring different changes in biodiversity all
paint the same picture – that of dramatic, continued loss.
Yet, the future of millions of species on Earth seems not to havecaptured the imagination or attention of the world’s leaders enoughto catalyse the change necessary. We need to radically escalate thepolitical relevance of nature and galvanize a cohesive movement
across state and non-state actors to drive change, to ensure thatpublic and private decision-makers understand that business as
usual is not an option.
Between now and 2020, a year when global leaders will make key
decisions on biodiversity, climate and sustainable development,
we have a unique opportunity to build momentum towards the mostambitious deal yet – one that provides a blueprint for biodiversity
and for people to 2050 and beyond.

A global deal for nature and people
Indeed, in 2017, almost 50 conservation scientists challenged
the business-as-usual approach, calling for a far more ambitious
response to the extinction crisis. They published a paper proposing
a new ‘Global Deal for Nature’ as a “companion to the Paris Climate
Agreement to promote increased habitat protection and restoration,national and ecoregion scale conservation strategies, and theempowerment of indigenous peoples to protect their sovereign
lands.”WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 126

As an idea it has fast gained momentum. Bending the curve of
biodiversity loss – with a new framework for biodiversity thatcan start to reverse the loss of nature by 2030 – needs to be at its
core. Such a deal is essential not just for nature but for people too,because addressing the decline in natural systems is key to achieving
the 2030 agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris
Agreement on Climate Change.

Imagining the future: Scenarios and leadershipfor the future we want
In our contribution to this ambitious pathway, WWF is collaboratingwith a consortium of almost 40 universities, conservation
organizations and intergovernmental organizations to launch theresearch initiative Bending the Curve of Biodiversity Loss.
Models and scenarios can assist in mapping the best path ahead.
This critical work will explicitly include biodiversity in futuresystems modelling, helping us to identify potential win-win
solutions for both nature and people. These new models will form
the cornerstone of a future edition of the Living Planet Report.
We are proud to be a part of this collective initiative. We all needto embrace this ambition. Piecing together the biggest threats tonature means that we can better protect it. Not much time is left.

WE ARE THE FIRST GENERATION THAT HAS
A CLEAR PICTURE OF THE VALUE OF NATURE
AND THE ENORMOUS IMPACT WE HAVE ON IT.
WE MAY ALSO BE THE LAST THAT CAN ACT TO
REVERSE THIS TREND. FROM NOW UNTIL 2020
WILL BE A DECISIVE MOMENT IN HISTORY.

Chapter 4: Aiming higher: what future do we want? page 127

CHILDREN AND NATURE
5. Celebrating nature
In Southern Myanmar this local community iscelebrating seven new community forests in theregion with a traditional Karen dance, and children
are encouraged to participate. Ceremonies are an
important part of almost all traditional cultures. In
some cases they celebrate a good harvest, others
strengthen connections with less visible aspects of theenvironment, such as holy places.
WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 128

© Mallory Graves - WWF-Greater Mekong

Chapter 4: Aiming higher: what future do we want? page 129

REFERENCES
Chapter 1: Why biodiversity matters
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

17
18
19
20

TEEB. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming
the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions andrecommendations of TEEB. (European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, 2010).
Brahic, C. Biodiversity may yield new ‘blockbuster’ drugs. New Scientist 20 March(2007).
Newman, D. J. & Cragg, G. M. Natural products as sources of new drugs over thelast 25 years. Journal of Natural Products 70: 461-477, doi:10.1021/Np068054v(2007).
NCI. NCI Dictionary of Cancer Terms. <https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms> (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Bethseda, USA, 2018).
Alves, R. R. N. & Rosa, I. M. L. Biodiversity, traditional medicine and publichealth: where do they meet? Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 3: 14,
doi:10.1186/1746-4269-3-14 (2007).
O’Brien, L. Trees and woodlands: Nature’s health service. (Forest Research,
Forestry Commission England, Farnham, UK, 2005).
Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P., de Vries, S. & Spreeuwenberg,
P. Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health 60: 587 (2006).
Ollerton, J., Winfree, R. & Tarrant, S. How many flowering plants are pollinatedby animals? Oikos 120: 321-326, doi:10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18644.x (2011).
Kleijn, D. et al. On the relationship between farmland biodiversity and land-use
intensity in Europe. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276:
903 (2009).
Juniper, T. Rainforests: Dispatches from Earth’s Most Vital Frontlines. 448(Profile Books, 2018).
UNESCO-WWAP. The World Water Development Report 2015: Water for a
Sustainable World. (UNESCO, Paris, France, 2015).
Bradshaw, C. J. A., Sodhi, N. S., Peh, K. S. H. & Brook, B. W. Global evidence that
deforestation amplifies flood risk and severity in the developing world. Global
Change Biology 13: 2379-2395, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01446.x (2007).
Cooper, E., Burke, L. & Bood, N. Belize’s Coastal Capital: The Economic
Contribution of Belize’s Coral Reefs and Mangroves. (World Resources Institute(WRI), Washington, DC, USA, 2009).
Benyus, J. Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. 320 (HarperCollins,
2002).
Mora, C., Tittensor, D. P., Adl, S., Simpson, A. G. & Worm, B. How many species
are there on Earth and in the ocean? PLOS Biology 9, e1001127, doi:10.1371/
journal.pbio.1001127 (2011).
Van Oorschot, M. et al. The contribution of sustainable trade to the conservationof natural capital: The effects of certifying tropical resource production on public
and private benefits of ecosystem services. (PBL Netherlands Environmental
Assessment Agency, The Hague, Netherlands, 2016).
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being:
Synthesis. (World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA, 2005).
Díaz, S. et al. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359: 270,
doi:10.1126/science.aap8826 (2018).
Díaz, S. et al. The IPBES Conceptual Framework – connecting nature and people.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14: 1-16, doi:10.1016/
j.cosust.2014.11.002 (2015).
IPBES. Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP) - Article by IPBES Experts
in Science <https://www.ipbes.net/news> (Intergovernmental Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), Bonn, Germany, 2018).

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 130

21

22

23

24

25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41

IPBES. Summary for policymakers of the regional assessment report on
biodiversity and ecosystem services for the Americas of the Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service. 41 (IPBESSecretariat, Bonn, Germany, 2018).
IPBES. Summary for policymakers of the regional assessment report on
biodiversity and ecosystem services for Africa of the Intergovernmental SciencePolicy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. 49 (IPBES Secretariat,
Bonn, Germany, 2018).
IPBES. Summary for policymakers of the regional assessment report on
biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia of theIntergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Service. 48 (IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 2018).
IPBES. Summary for policymakers of the regional assessment reporton biodiversity and ecosystem services for Asia and the Pacific of theIntergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services. 41 (IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 2018).
Costanza, R. et al. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global
Environmental Change 26: 152-158, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002 (2014).
World Economic Forum. The Global Risks Report 2018, 13th Edition. (World
Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland, 2018).
CISL. Unhedgeable risk: How climate change sentiment impacts investment.
(Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL), University ofCambridge, Cambridge, UK, 2015).
IPBES. Biodiversity and Nature’s Contributions Continue Dangerous Decline,
Scientists Warn. <https://www.ipbes.net/news > (IPBES, Medellín, Colombia,
2018).
Roser, M. Stop saying that 2016 was the ‘worst year’. Washington Post 29th
December 2016 (2016).
Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O. & Ludwig, C. The trajectory of
the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration. The Anthropocene Review 2: 81-98,
doi:10.1177/2053019614564785 (2015).
Gaffney, O. & Steffen, W. The Anthropocene equation. The Anthropocene Review
4: 53-61, doi:10.1177/2053019616688022 (2017).
WHO. Global Health Observatory (GHO) data: Life Expectancy. <http://
www.who.int/gho/mortality_burden_disease/life_tables/en/> (World HealthOrganization (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland, 2018).
Crutzen, P. J. Geology of mankind. Nature 415: 23, doi:10.1038/415023a (2002).
MacFarling Meure, C. et al. Law Dome CO2, CH4 and N2O ice core
records extended to 2000 years BP. Geophysical Research Letters 33,
doi:10.1029/2006GL026152 (2006).
Etheridge, D. M. et al. Natural and anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2
over the last 1000 years from air in Antarctic ice and firn. Journal of GeophysicalResearch: Atmospheres 101, 4115-4128, doi:10.1029/95JD03410 (1996).
Scripps Institute of Oceanography. Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere Hits
Record High Monthly Average (ed. Monroe, R.) (UC San-Diego, California, USA,2018).
Farman, J. C., Gardiner, B. G. & Shanklin, J. D. Large losses of total ozone
in Antarctica reveal seasonal ClOx/NOx interaction. Nature 315: 207,
doi:10.1038/315207a0 (1985).
Nobre, C. A. et al. Land-use and climate change risks in the Amazon and theneed of a novel sustainable development paradigm. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 113: 10759 (2016).
Cohen, K. M., Harper, D. A. T., Gibbard, P. L. & Fan, J.-X. The ICS International
Chronostratigraphic Chart. 199-204 (International Commission on Stratigraphy,2018).
Ganopolski, A., Winkelmann, R. & Schellnhuber, H. J. Critical insolation-CO2
relation for diagnosing past and future glacial inception. Nature 534, S19,
doi:10.1038/nature18452 (2016).
Waters, C. N. et al. The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct
from the Holocene. Science 351 (2016).

References page 131

42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Steffen, W. et al. Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, doi:10.1073/pnas.1810141115(2018).
Honisch, B. et al. The geological record of ocean acidification. Science 335: 10581063, doi:10.1126/science.1208277 (2012).
Barnosky, A. D. et al. Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived?
Nature 471: 51-57, doi:10.1038/nature09678 (2011).
Le Quéré, C. et al. Global Carbon Budget 2017. Earth Systems Science Data 10,
405-448, doi:10.5194/essd-10-405-2018 (2018).
Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean
Acidification. Science 318: 1737 (2007).
Jahn, A. Reduced probability of ice-free summers for 1.5°C compared to 2°C
warming. Nature Climate Change 8: 409-413, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0127-8(2018).
Francis, J., A. & Vavrus, S., J. Evidence for a wavier jet stream in response to rapid
Arctic warming. Environmental Research Letters 10, 014005, doi:10.1088/17489326/10/1/014005 (2015).
Cvijanovic, I. et al. Future loss of Arctic sea-ice cover could drive a substantial
decrease in California’s rainfall. Nature Communications 8: 1947, doi:10.1038/
s41467-017-01907-4 (2017).
World Weather Attribution. Heatwave in northern Europe, summer 2018. www.
worldweatherattribution.org/attribution-of-the-2018-heat-in-northern-europe(2018).

Chapter 2: The threats and pressures wiping out our world
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

9
10

11
12

Maxwell, S. L., Fuller, R. A., Brooks, T. M. & Watson, J. E. M. Biodiversity: The
ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature 536: 143-145 (2016).
Scheffers, B. R. et al. The broad footprint of climate change from genes to biomes
to people. Science 354 (2016).
Global Footprint Network. National Footprint Accounts 2018 edition.
<https://data.footprintnetwork.org/> (2018).
Wackernagel, M. et al. in Routledge Handbook of Sustainability Indictors (eds. S.
J. Bell & S. Morse) 244-264 (Routledge, 2018).
Ibid., 521-539.
Galli, A. On the rationale and policy usefulness of Ecological Footprint
Accounting: The case of Morocco. Environmental Science & Policy 48: 210-224,
doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.01.008 (2015).
Wackernagel, M., Cranston, G., Morales, J. C. & Galli, A. in Handbook of
Sustainable Development: second revised edition (eds. G. Atkinson, S. Dietz, E.
Neumayer, & M. Agarwala) (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014).
Lin, D. et al. Tracking Supply and Demand of Biocapacity through Ecological
Footprint Accounting. In: Sustainability Assessment of Renewables-Based
Products: Methods and Case Studies (eds. J. Dewulf, S. De Meester, R.
Alvarenga), 179–200 (Wiley, 2015).
Wackernagel, M. & Rees, W. E. Our Ecological Footprint – Reducing Human
Impact on the Earth. Environment and Urbanization 8: 216-216 (1996).
Borucke, M. et al. Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere’s
regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts’ underlying
methodology and framework. Ecological Indicators 24: 518-533, doi:10.1016/j.
ecolind.2012.08.005 (2013).
Mancini, M. S. et al. Ecological Footprint: Refining the carbon Footprint
calculation. Ecological Indicators 61: 390-403, doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.09.040(2016).
Galli, A., Wackernagel, M., Iha, K. & Lazarus, E. Ecological Footprint: Implications
for biodiversity. Biological Conservation 173, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.10.019(2014).

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 132

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24

25
26
27
28
29
30

31
32

33
34
35

Verones, F., Moran, D., Stadler, K., Kanemoto, K. & Wood, R. Resource footprints
and their ecosystem consequences. Scientific Reports 7, doi:10.1038/srep40743(2017).
ESA. Sentinel Online data portal < https://sentinel.esa.int/web/sentinel/home>
European Space Agency (ESA), EO Ground Segment and Mission Operations
Department, EO Common Services Section, Rome, Italy, 2018).
Global Forest Watch. Global Forest Watch Commodities: Online data and analysis
platform <http://commodities.globalforestwatch.org> (2018).
Gibbs, H. K. & Salmon, J. M. Mapping the world’s degraded lands. Applied
Geography 57: 12-21, doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.11.024 (2015).
DESA/UNSD, United Nations Comtrade database. <https://comtrade.un.org>
United Nations Statistics Division, United Nations Department of Economic andSocial Affairs (DESA): New York, USA (2018).
FAOSTAT. Food and agriculture data <http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home>(UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy, 2018).
Kastner, T., Kastner, M. & Nonhebel, S. Tracing distant environmental impactsof agricultural products from a consumer perspective. Ecological Economics 70:
1032-1040, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.01.012 (2011).
Chatham House. Resource Trade Earth, <http://resourcetrade.earth> (2018).
SEI and Global Canopy Trase Earth <https://trase.earth> (Stockholm
Environment Institute (SEI) and Global Canopy, 2018).
Godar, J., Persson, U. M., Tizado, E. J. & Meyfroidt, P. Towards more accurate andpolicy relevant footprint analyses: Tracing fine-scale socio-environmental impacts
of production to consumption. Ecological Economics 112: 25-35, doi:10.1016/
j.ecolecon.2015.02.003 (2015).
Leontief, W. W. & Leontief, W. Input-output economics. (Oxford University Presson Demand, 1986).
Bruckner, M., Fischer, G., Tramberend, S. & Giljum, S. Measuring telecouplingsin the global land system: A review and comparative evaluation of land footprintaccounting methods. Ecological Economics 114: 11-21, doi:10.1016/
j.ecolecon.2015.03.008 (2015).
Croft, S. A., West, C. D. & Green, J. M. H. Capturing the heterogeneity of subnational production in global trade flows. Journal of Cleaner Production (2018).
Betts, M. G. et al. Global forest loss disproportionately erodes biodiversity in intact
landscapes. Nature 547: 441, doi:10.1038/nature23285 (2017).
FAO. State of the World Forests. (UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome,
Italy, 2016).
Haddad, N. M. et al. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s
ecosystems. Science Advances 1 (2015).
Tsiafouli, M. A. et al. Intensive agriculture reduces soil biodiversity across Europe.
Global Change Biology 21, 973-985, doi:10.1111/gcb.12752 (2015).
Brodeur, J. C. et al. Accumulation of current-use pesticides, cholinesterase
inhibition and reduced body condition in juvenile one-sided livebearer fish
(Jenynsia multidentata) from the agricultural Pampa region of Argentina.
Chemosphere 185: 36-46, doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.06.129 (2017).
Hallmann, C. A., Foppen, R. P. B., van Turnhout, C. A. M., de Kroon, H.
& Jongejans, E. Declines in insectivorous birds are associated with highneonicotinoid concentrations. Nature 511: 341, doi:10.1038/nature13531 (2014).
Lopez-Antia, A., Ortiz-Santaliestra, M. E., Mougeot, F. & Mateo, R. Imidaclopridtreated seed ingestion has lethal effect on adult partridges and reduces both
breeding investment and offspring immunity. Environmental Research 136: 97107, doi:10.1016/j.envres.2014.10.023 (2015).
Mineau, P. & Whiteside, M. Pesticide acute toxicity is a better correlate of U.S.
grassland bird declines than agricultural intensification. PLOS One, e57457,
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057457 (2013).
Renaud, F., Sudmeier-Rieux, K. & Estrella, M. The role of ecosystems in disasterrisk reduction. (United Nations University Press, 2013).
Gill, R. J. et al. Protecting an Ecosystem Service: Approaches to Understanding
and Mitigating Threats to Wild Insect Pollinators. Advances in EcologicalResearch 54, doi:10.1016/bs.aecr.2015.10.007 (2016).

References page 133

36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58

Ollerton, J., Winfree, R. & Tarrant, S. How many flowering plants are pollinatedby animals? Oikos 120: 321-326, doi:10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18644.x (2011).
Kleijn, D. et al. On the relationship between farmland biodiversity and land-use
intensity in Europe. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276:
903, doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.1509 (2009).
Garibaldi, L. A. et al. Wild Pollinators Enhance Fruit Set of Crops Regardless of
Honey Bee Abundance. Science 339: 1608, doi:10.1126/science.1230200 (2013).
Orgiazzi, A. et al. Global Soil Biodiversity Atlas. 176 (European Commission,
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2016).
Tsiafouli, M., A. et al. Intensive agriculture reduces soil biodiversity acrossEurope. Global Change Biology 21: 973-985, doi:10.1111/gcb.12752 (2014).
El Mujtar, V., Muñoz, N., Prack McCormick, B., Pulleman, M. & Tittonell, P. Roleand management of soil biodiversity for food security and nutrition; where do westand? Global Food Security (in press).
Potts, S. G. et al. Safeguarding pollinators and their values to human well-being.
Nature 540: 220-229 (2016).
Klein, A.-M. et al. Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for worldcrops. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 274: 303-313(2007).
Klein, A.-M. et al. Wild pollination services to California almond rely on seminatural habitat. Journal of Applied Ecology 49: 723-732, doi:10.1111/j.13652664.2012.02144.x (2012).
Garratt, M. P. D. et al. Insect pollination as an agronomic input: Strategies foroilseed rape production. Journal of Applied Ecology doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13153(2018).
Garratt, M. P. D. et al. Avoiding a bad apple: Insect pollination enhances fruit
quality and economic value. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 184: 34-40,
doi:10.1016/j.agee.2013.10.032 (2014).
Garibaldi, L. A. et al. Mutually beneficial pollinator diversity and crop yieldoutcomes in small and large farms. Science 351: 388-391 (2016).
Breeze, T. D., Gallai, N., Garibaldi, L. A. & Li, X. S. Economic measures ofpollination services: shortcomings and future directions. Trends in Ecology &Evolution 31: 927-939, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2016.09.002 (2016).
Senapathi, D. et al. The impact of over 80 years of land cover changes on bee andwasp pollinator communities in England. Proceedings of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences 282: 20150294, doi:10.1098/rspb.2015.0294 (2015).
Senapathi, D., Goddard, M. A., Kunin, W. E. & Baldock, K. C. R. Landscape
impacts on pollinator communities in temperate systems: evidence and knowledge
gaps. Functional Ecology 31: 26-37, doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12809 (2017).
Shvidenko, A. et al. Forest and woodland systems in Ecosystems and Human
Well-Being: Current State and Trends (ed. R. Hassan) 595–621 (Island Press,
2005).
Aerts, R. & Honnay, O. Forest restoration, biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.
BMC Ecology 11, doi:10.1186/1472-6785-11-29 (2011).
FAO. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: How are the world’s forestschanging? 2nd edition. (United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO), Rome, Italy, 2016).
Hosonuma, N. et al. An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers
in developing countries. Environmental Research Letters 7 (2012).
Potapov, P. et al. The last frontiers of wilderness: Tracking loss of intact forest
landscapes from 2000 to 2013. Science Advances 3, doi:10.1126/sciadv.1600821(2017).
Tyukavina, A. et al. Aboveground carbon loss in natural and managed tropicalforests from 2000 to 2012. Environmental Research Letters 10: 074002 (2015).
Riitters, K., Wickham, J., Costanza, J. K. & Vogt, P. A global evaluation of forest
interior area dynamics using tree cover data from 2000 to 2012. LandscapeEcology 31: 137-148, doi:10.1007/s10980-015-0270-9 (2016).
UN DESA. World population prospects. Key findings and advance tables, 2017
revision. (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population
Division, 2017).

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 134

59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81

82
83

WWF. Living Forests Report Chapter 5: Saving Forests at Risk. (WWF, Gland,
Switzerland, 2015).
FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2014: Opportunities andchallenges. 223 (UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy,2014).
Ferrario, F. et al. The effectiveness of coral reefs for coastal hazard risk reduction
and adaptation. Nature Communications 5: 3794, doi:10.1038/ncomms4794(2014).
Reaka-Kudla, M. L., Wilson, D. E. & Wilson, E. O. Biodiversity II: Understanding
and Protecting Our Biological Resources (Joseph Henry Press, 1997).
Van Hooidonk, R., Maynard, J. A., Manzello, D. & Planes, S. Opposite latitudinal
gradients in projected ocean acidification and bleaching impacts on coral reefs.
Global Change Biology 20: 103-112, doi:10.1111/gcb.12394 (2013).
Van Hooidonk, R. et al. Local-scale projections of coral reef futures andimplications of the Paris Agreement. Scientific Reports 6: 39666, doi:10.1038/
srep39666 (2016).
Burke, L., Reytar, K., Spalding, M. & Perry, A. Reefs at Risk Revisited (World
Resources Institute (WRI), Washington DC, USA, 2011).
Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals.
Nature 543: 373, doi:10.1038/nature21707 (2017).
Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming transforms coral reef assemblages. Nature
556: 492-496, doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0041-2 (2018).
Hughes, T. P. et al. Climate Change, Human Impacts, and the Resilience of Coral
Reefs. Science 301: 929 (2003).
Spalding, M., Kainuma, M. & Collins, L. World Atlas of Mangroves. 336(Earthscan, 2010).
Cummings, A. R. & Shah, M. Mangroves in the global climate and environmental
mix. Geography Compass 12: e12353, doi:10.1111/gec3.12353 (2017).
Donato, D. C. et al. Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics.
Nature Geoscience 4: 293, doi:10.1038/ngeo1123 (2011).
Waycott, M. et al. Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the globe threatens coastal
ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106: 12377 (2009).
Agnew, D. J. et al. Estimating the Worldwide Extent of Illegal Fishing. PLOS One
4: e4570, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004570 (2009).
Kroodsma, D. A. et al. Tracking the global footprint of fisheries. Science 359: 904908 (2018).
Global Fishing Watch. (Global Fishing Watch, 2018).
Sea Around Us. Sea Around Us information system <http://www.seaaroundus.
org> accessed: December 2017 (Sea Around Us, Global Fisheries Cluster,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, 2017).
Watson, R. A. A database of global marine commercial, small-scale, illegal andunreported fisheries catch 1950–2014. Scientific Data 4: 170039, doi:10.1038/
sdata.2017.39 (2017).
Pauly, D. & Zeller, D. Catch reconstructions reveal that global marine fisheries
catches are higher than reported and declining. Nature Communications 7: 10244,
doi:10.1038/ncomms10244 (2016).
Zeller, D., Cashion, T., Palomares, M. & Pauly, D. Global marine fisheries discards:
A synthesis of reconstructed data. Fish and Fisheries 19: 30-39, doi:doi:10.1111/
faf.12233 (2018).
Tickler, D., Meeuwig, J. J., Palomares, M.-L., Pauly, D. & Zeller, D. Far fromhome: Distance patterns of global fishing fleets. Science Advances 4 (2018).
Collins, J. W. The Beam Trawl Fishery of Great Britain with Notes on BeamTrawling in Other European Countries in Bulletin of the United States FishCommission, 289-407 doi:10.5962/bhl.title.34731 (Government Printing Office,
1889 ).
Jambeck, J. R. et al. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347:
768 (2015).
Thompson, R. C., Moore, C. J., vom Saal, F. S. & Swan, S. H. Plastics, theenvironment and human health: current consensus and future trends.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364: 2153
(2009).

References page 135

84
85

86
87

88
89
90

91
92

96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107

Law, K. L. Plastics in the Marine Environment. Annual Review of Marine Science
9: 205-229, doi:10.1146/annurev-marine-010816-060409 (2017).
UNEP/MAP. Marine Litter assessment in the Mediterranean – 2015.
(Coordinating Unit for the Mediterranean Action Plan Secretariat to the Barcelona
Convention and its Protocols, UN Environment Programme/Mediterranean
Action Plan, UNEP, Nairobi, 2015).
Sebille, E. v. et al. A global inventory of small floating plastic debris.
Environmental Research Letters 10: 124006, doi:10.1088/17489326/10/12/124006 (2015).
JAMSTEC. Deep-sea Debris Database <http://www.godac.jamstec.go.jp/catalog/
dsdebris/e/index.html> Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology(JAMSTEC), Global Oceanographic Data Center (GODAC) Data Research andDevelopment Group, Tokyo, Japan, 2018).
Gall, S. C. & Thompson, R. C. The impact of debris on marine life. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 92: 170-179, doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.041 (2015).
Deudero, S. & Alomar, C. Mediterranean marine biodiversity under threat:
Reviewing influence of marine litter on species. Marine Pollution Bulletin 98:
58-68, doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.07.012 (2015).
Casale, P., Freggi, D., Paduano, V. & Oliverio, M. Biases and best approaches forassessing debris ingestion in sea turtles, with a case study in the Mediterranean.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 110: 238-249, doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.06.057(2016).
Romeo, T. et al. First evidence of presence of plastic debris in stomach of large
pelagic fish in the Mediterranean Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 95: 358-361,
doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.04.048 (2015).
Alomar, C. & Deudero, S. Evidence of microplastic ingestion in the shark
Galeus melastomus Rafinesque, 1810 in the continental shelf off the western
Mediterranean Sea. Environmental Pollution 223: 223-229, doi:10.1016/
j.envpol.2017.01.015 (2017).
Wilcox, C., Van Sebille, E. & Hardesty, B. D. Threat of plastic pollution to seabirds
is global, pervasive, and increasing. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 112: 11899, doi:10.1073/pnas.1502108112 (2015).
Balian, E. V., Segers, H., Lévèque, C. & Martens, K. The Freshwater Animal
Diversity Assessment: an overview of the results. Hydrobiologia 595: 627-637,
doi:10.1007/s10750-007-9246-3 (2008).
WWF/ZSL. The Living Planet Index database, <www.livingplanetindex.org>(2018).
Vörösmarty, C. J. et al. Global threats to human water security and riverbiodiversity. Nature 467: 555, doi:10.1038/nature09440 (2010).
Burkhead, N. M. Extinction Rates in North American Freshwater Fishes, 1900–
2010. Bioscience 62: 798-808 (2012).
Karr, J. R. & Dudley, D. R. Ecological perspective on water quality goals.
Environmental Management 5: 55-68 (1981).
Poff, N. L. et al. The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation andrestoration. Bioscience 47: 769-784 (1997).
Dudgeon, D. et al. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status
and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews 81: 163-182, doi:10.1017/
S1464793105006950 (2006).
Allan, J. D. et al. Overfishing of inland waters. Bioscience 55: 1041-1051,
doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[1041:OOIW]2.0.CO;2 (2005)
Davidson, N. C. How much wetland has the world lost? Long-term and recent
trends in global wetland area. Marine and Freshwater Research 65: 934–941(2014).
Vörösmarty, C. J. & Sahagian, D. Anthropogenic disturbance of the terrestrial
water cycle. Bioscience 50: 753-765, doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0753:AD
OTTW]2.0.CO;2 (2000).
Grill, G. et al. An index-based framework for assessing patterns and trends
in river fragmentation and flow regulation by global dams at multiple scales.
Environmental Research Letters 10, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/1/015001 (2015).

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 136

108 De Graaf, I. E. M. et al. A global-scale two-layer transient groundwater model:
Development and application to groundwater depletion. Advances in Water
Resources 102: 53-67, doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2017.01.011 (2017).
109 Gleeson, T., Wada, Y., Bierkens, M. F. P. & van Beek, L. P. H. Water balance of
global aquifers revealed by groundwater footprint. Nature 488: 197, doi:10.1038/
nature11295 (2012).
110 FAO. AQUASTAT database, <http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data>(2016 ).
111 Xenopoulos, M. A. et al. Scenarios of freshwater fish extinctions from climatechange and water withdrawal. Global Change Biology 11: 1557-1564 (2005).
112 Allan, J. D., Palmer, M. & Poff, N. L. Climate change and freshwater ecosystems in
Climate change and biodiversity (eds. T.E. Lovejoy & L. Hannah) 274-295 (Yale
University Press, 2005).
113 Mays, L. W. A very brief history of hydraulic technology during antiquity.
Environmental Fluid Mechanics 8: 471-484 (2008).
114 Macklin, M. G. & Lewin, J. The rivers of civilization. Quaternary Science Reviews
114: 228-244, doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2015.02.004 (2015).
115 Opperman, J. J., Moyle, P. B., Larsen, E. W., Florsheim, J. L. & Manfree, A. D.
Floodplains: Processes and Management for Ecosystem Services (University ofCalifornia Press, 2017).
116 ICOLD. ICOLD World Register of Dams, <www.icold-cigb.net/GB/world_
register/general_synthesis.asp> (2017).
117 Zarfl, C., Lumsdon, A. E., Berlekamp, J., Tydecks, L. & Tockner, K. A global boom
in hydropower dam construction. Aquatic Sciences 77: 161-170 (2015).
118 Kirchherr, J., Charles, K. & Walton, M. J. The interplay of activists and dam
developers: the case of Myanmar’s mega-dams. International Journal of Water
Resources Development 33: 111-131, doi:10.1080/07900627.2016.1179176 (2017).
119 Kirchherr, J., Pohlner, H. & Charles, K. J. Cleaning up the big muddy: A metasynthesis of the research on the social impact of dams. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review 60: 115-125, doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2016.02.007 (2016).
120 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wild and Scenic Rivers System:
About the WSR Act, <www.rivers.gov/wsr-act.php> (2016).
121 Barrios Ordóñez, J. E. et al. National Water Reserve Program in Mexico:Experiences of ecological flow & allocation of water to environment. (InterAmerican Development Bank, Washington DC, USA, 2015).
122 Bernhardt, E. S. et al. Synthesizing U.S. River Restoration Efforts. Science 308:
636-637, doi:10.1126/science.1109769 (2005).
123 Arthington, A. H. et al. The Brisbane Declaration and Global Action Agenda on
Environmental Flows (2018). Frontiers in Environmental Science 6, doi:10.3389/
fenvs.2018.00045 (2018).
124 Opperman, J. J. et al. A Three-Level Framework for Assessing and Implementing
Environmental Flows. Frontiers in Environmental Science 6, doi:10.3389/
fenvs.2018.00076 (2018).
125 Le Quesne, T., Kendy, E. & Weston, D. The Implementation Challenge. Taking
Stock of Government Policies to Protect and Restore Environmental Flows.
(WWF-UK/The Nature Conservancy, 2010).
126 Harwood, A. et al. Listen to the river: Lessons from a global review ofenvironmental flow success stories. (WWF-UK, Woking, UK, 2017).
127 Null, S. E., Medellín-Azuara, J., Escriva-Bou, A., Lent, M. & Lund, J. R. Optimizing
the dammed: Water supply losses and fish habitat gains from dam removal in
California. Journal of Environmental Management 136: 121-131 (2014).
128 O’Connor, J. E., Duda, J. J. & Grant, G. E. 1000 dams down and counting. Science
348: 496-497, doi:10.1126/science.aaa9204 (2015).
129 American Rivers. American Rivers Dam Removal Database, Version 4.
doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.5234068.v4. (2018).
130 McPhail, J. D. & Lindsey, C. C. Zoogeography of the freshwater fishes of Cascadia(the Columbia system and rivers north to the Stikine) in The zoogeography ofNorth American freshwater fishes (eds. C.H. Hocutt & E.O. Wiley) (John Wiley,1986).
131 EC Joint Research Centre. Global Surface Water Explorer. < https://globalsurface-water.appspot.com> 2018).

References page 137

132 Pekel, J.-F., Cottam, A., Gorelick, N. & Belward, A. S. High-resolution mappingof global surface water and its long-term changes. Nature 540: 418, doi:10.1038/
nature20584 (2016).
133 Parcher, J., Woodward, D. & Durall, R. A descriptive overview of the Rio GrandeRio Bravo Watershed. Journal of Transboundary Water Resources 1: 159-177(2010).
134 Nava, L. et al. Existing Opportunities to Adapt the Rio Grande/Bravo Basin Water
Resources Allocation Framework. Water 8: 291, doi:10.3390/w8070291 (2016).
135 Salafsky, N. et al. A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: unifiedclassifications of threats and actions. Conservation Biology 22: 897-911,
doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00937.x (2008).
136 Collen, B. et al. Global patterns of freshwater species diversity, threat andendemism. Global Ecology and Biogeography 23: 40-51, doi:10.1111/geb.12096(2014).
137 Böhm, M. et al. The conservation status of the world’s reptiles. BiologicalConservation 157: 372-385, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.015 (2013).
138 Dirzo, R. et al. Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 345: 401-406,
doi:10.1126/science.1251817 (2014).
139 Hoegh-Guldberg, O. & Bruno, J. F. The impact of climate change on the world’s
marine ecosystems. Science 328: 1523-1528 (2010).
140 Spooner, F. E. B., Pearson, R. G. & Freeman, R. Rapid warming is associated withpopulation decline among terrestrial birds and mammals globally. Global Change
Biology, doi:10.1111/gcb.14361 (2018).
141 Bellard, C., Bertelsmeier, C., Leadley, P., Thuiller, W. & Courchamp, F. Impactsof climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecology Letters 15: 365-377,
doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01736.x (2012).
142 Foden, W. B. et al. Identifying the World’s Most Climate Change Vulnerable
Species: A Systematic Trait-Based Assessment of all Birds, Amphibians andCorals. PLOS One 8 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065427 (2013).
143 Pecl, G. T. et al. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: Impacts on
ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355, doi: 10.1126/science.aai9214(2017).
144 Joppa, L. N. et al. Filling in biodiversity threat gaps. Science 352: 416,
doi:10.1126/science.aaf3565 (2016).
145 Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the worlds: A new map of life on Earth.
Bioscience 51: 933-938, doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0933:TEOTWA]2.0.
CO;2 (2001).
146 Collen, B. et al. Predicting how populations decline to extinction. PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society B 366: 2577-2586, doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0015(2011).
147 Pearson, R. G. et al. Life history and spatial traits predict extinction risk due toclimate change. Nature Climate Change 4: 217-221, doi:10.1038/nclimate2113(2014).
148 Turner, J. et al. Absence of 21st century warming on Antarctic Peninsula
consistent with natural variability. Nature 535: 411-415, doi:10.1038/nature18645(2016).
149 Vaughan, D. G. et al. Recent rapid regional climate warming on the Antarctic
Peninsula. Climatic Change 60: 243–274 (2003).
150 Turner, J. & Overland, J. Contrasting climate change in the two polar regions.
Polar Research 28: 146-164, doi:10.1111/j.1751-8369.2009.00128.x (2009).
151 Williams, S. E., Shoo, L. P., Isaac, J. L., Hoffmann, A. A. & Langham, G. Towards
an integrated framework for assessing the vulnerability of species to climatechange. PLOS Biology 6: e325, doi:10.1371/journal 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060325.
g001 (2008).
152 Dunn, M. J. et al. Population size and decadal trends of three penguin species
nesting at Signy Island, South Orkney Islands. PLOS One 11: e0164025,
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0164025 (2016).
153 Forcada, J., Trathan, P. N., Reid, K., Murphy, E. J. & Croxall, J. P. Contrasting
population changes in sympatric penguin species in association withclimate warming. Global Change Biology 12: 411-423, doi:10.1111/j.13652486.2006.01108.x (2006).

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 138

154 Lynch, H. et al. In stark contrast to widespread declines along the Scotia Arc, asurvey of the South Sandwich Islands finds a robust seabird community. Polar
Biology 39: 1615-1625, doi:10.1007/s00300-015-1886-6 (2016).
155 Kato, A., Ropert-Coudert, Y. & Naito, Y. Changes in Adélie penguin breeding
populations in Lutzow-Holm Bay, Antarctica, in relation to sea-ice conditions.
Polar Biology 25: 934–938, doi:10.1007/s00300-002-0434-3 (2002).
156 Ratcliffe, N. & Trathan, P. N. A review of the diet and at-sea distribution of
penguins breeding within the CAMLR Convention Area. CCAMLR Science 19: 75114 (2012).
157 Ahola, M. P., Laaksonen, T., Eeva, T. & Lehikoinen, E. Climate change can alter
competitive relationships between resident and migratory birds. Journal ofAnimal Ecology 76: 1045−1052, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2007.01294.x (2007).
158 Lynch, H. J., Fagan, W. F., Naveen, R., Trivelpiece, S. G. & Trivelpiece, W. Z.
Differential advancement of breeding phenology in response to climate mayalter staggered breeding among sympatric pygoscelid penguins. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 454: 135-145, doi:10.3354/meps09252 (2012).
159 Hogg, A. E. & Gudmundsson, G. H. Impacts of the Larsen-C Ice Shelf calving
event. Nature Climate Change 7: 540-542, doi:10.1038/nclimate3359 (2017).
160 IPCC. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. 976(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2007).
161 Lescroel, A., Ballard, G., Gremillet, D., Authier, M. & Ainley, D. G. Antarctic
climate change: extreme events disrupt plastic phenotypic response in Adélie
penguins. PLOS One 9: e85291, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085291 (2014).
162 Ropert-Coudert, Y. et al. A complete breeding failure in an Adélie penguin colony
correlates with unusual and extreme environmental events. Ecography 38: 111113, doi:10.1111/ecog.01182 (2015).
163 Humphries, G. R. W. et al. Mapping Application for Penguin Populations andProjected Dynamics (MAPPPD): data and tools for dynamic management anddecision support. Polar Record 53: 160-166, doi:10.1017/S0032247417000055(2017).
164 Amoroso, R.O., et al. Comment on “Tracking the global footprint of fisheries”.
Science 361(6404) doi: 10.1126/science.aat6713 (2018).
165 McCallum, M. L. Vertebrate biodiversity losses point to a sixth mass extinction.
Biodiversity Conservation 24: 2497–2519, doi:10.1007/s10531-015-0940-6(2015).
166 Ceballos, G. & Ehrlich, P. R. The misunderstood sixth mass extinction. Science
360: 1080 (2018).
167 Rockstrom, J. et al. Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for
Humanity. Ecology and Society 14 (2009).
168 Rockstrom, J. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461: 472-475,
doi:10.1038/461472a (2009).
169 Steffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on achanging planet. Science 347: 736-+, doi:10.1126/science.1259855 (2015).
170 Mekonnen, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. National water footprint accounts: the green,
blue and grey water footprint of production and consumption Vol. 50 (UNESCOIHE, 2011).
171 IPBES. Summary for policymakers of the regional assessment report on
biodiversity and ecosystem services for Africa of the Intergovernmental SciencePolicy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. 49 (IPBES Secretariat,
Bonn, Germany, 2018).
172 IPBES. Summary for policymakers of the regional assessment report on
biodiversity and ecosystem services for the Americas of the Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service. 41 (IPBESSecretariat, Bonn, Germany, 2018).
173 IPBES. Summary for policymakers of the regional assessment reporton biodiversity and ecosystem services for Asia and the Pacific of theIntergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services. 41 (IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 2018).

References page 139

174 IPBES. Summary for policymakers of the regional assessment report on
biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia of theIntergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Service. 48 (IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 2018).
175 CBD. Global Biodiversity Outlook 4. 155 pages (Convention on Biological
Diversity, Montréal, Canada, 2014).
176 UNEP. Global Environment Outlook – Environment for the future we want
(GEO5). (United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi Kenya, 2012).
177 IPCC. Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working
Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. 1-32 (Cambridge University Press, 2014).
178 IPBES. Summary for policymakers of the thematic assessment report on landdegradation and restoration of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform
on Biodiversity and ecosystem Services. (IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany,2018).
179 Persson, L. M. et al. Confronting Unknown Planetary Boundary Threats from
Chemical Pollution. Environmental Science & Technology 47: 12619-12622,
doi:10.1021/es402501c (2013).
180 MacLeod, M. et al. Identifying Chemicals That Are Planetary Boundary Threats.
Environmental Science & Technology 48: 11057-11063, doi:10.1021/es501893m(2014).
181 Diamond, M. L. et al. Exploring the planetary boundary for chemical pollution.
Environment International 78: 8-15, doi:10.1016/j.envint.2015.02.001 (2015).
182 Mace, G. M. et al. Approaches to defining a planetary boundary for biodiversity.
Global Environmental Change – Human and Policy Dimensions 28: 289-297,
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.009 (2014).
183 Lenton, T. M. & Williams, H. T. P. On the origin of planetary-scale tipping points.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28: 380-382, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2013.06.001(2013).

Chapter 3: Biodiversity in a changing world
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

WWF/ZSL. The Living Planet Index database, <www.livingplanetindex.org>(2018).
Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the worlds: A new map of life on Earth.
Bioscience 51: 933-938 (2001).
Balian, E. V., Segers, H., Lévèque, C. & Martens, K. The Freshwater Animal
Diversity Assessment: an overview of the results. Hydrobiologia 595: 627-637,
doi:10.1007/s10750-007-9246-3 (2008).
Gleick, P. H. Water Resources in Encyclopedia of Climate and Weather (ed. S.H.
Schneider) (Oxford University Press, 1996).
Collen, B. et al. Global patterns of freshwater species diversity, threat andendemism. Global Ecology and Biogeography 23: 40-51, doi:10.1111/geb.12096(2014).
Cumberlidge, N. et al. Freshwater crabs and the biodiversity crisis: Importance,
threats, status, and conservation challenges. Biological Conservation 142: 16651673, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.02.038 (2009).
United Nations. Convention on Biological Diversity: Article 2. (Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD), United Nations, Montreal, Canada, 1992).
CBD. Sustaining life on Earth: How the Convention on Biological Diversity
promotes nature and human well-being. (Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada, 2000).
IUCN and BirdLife International. Red List Index of species survival, calculated
from data in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Available at: www.
iucnredlist.org (2018).

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 140

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

18
19

20
21
22
23

Jetz, W., Wilcove, D. S. & Dobson, A. P. Projected impacts of climate and land-use
change on the global diversity of birds. PLOS Biology 5: 1211-1219, doi:10.1371/
journal.pbio.0050157 (2007).
Visconti, P. et al. Projecting Global Biodiversity Indicators under Future
Development Scenarios. Conservation Letters 9: 5-13, doi:10.1111/conl.12159(2016).
Visconti, P. et al. Future hotspots of terrestrial mammal loss. PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 366: 2693-2702,
doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0105 (2011).
Leclere, D. et al. Towards pathways of bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity
trends within the 21st century (International Institute of Applied Systems
Research (IIASA), 2018).
Butchart, S. H. M. et al. Improvements to the Red List Index. PLOS One 2: e140,
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000140 (2007).
Butchart, S. H. M. et al. Global biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines. Science
328: 1164-1168, doi:10.1126/science.1187512 (2010).
Regan, E. C. et al. Global Trends in the Status of Bird and Mammal Pollinators.
Conservation Letters 8: 397-403, doi:10.1111/conl.12162 (2015).
McGowan, P. J. K., L. Mair, A. Symes, J. R. S. Westrip, H. Wheatley, S. Brook, J.
Burton, S. King, W. J. McShea, P. D. Moehlman, A. T. Smith, J. C. Wheeler, andS. H. M. Butchart. 2018. Tracking trends in the extinction risk of wild relativesof domesticated species to assess progress against global biodiversity targets.
Conservation Letters 0:e12588.
Newbold, T. et al. Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond theplanetary boundary? A global assessment. Science 353: 288-291, doi:10.1126/
science.aaf2201 (2016).
Purvis, A. et al. Chapter Five - Modelling and Projecting the Response of Local
Terrestrial Biodiversity Worldwide to Land Use and Related Pressures: The
PREDICTS Project in Advances in Ecological Research Vol. 58 (eds. D. A. Bohan,
A. J. Dumbrell, G. Woodward & M. Jackson) 201-241 (Academic Press, 2018).
Hudson, L. N. et al. The database of the PREDICTS (Projecting Responses of
Ecological Diversity In Changing Terrestrial Systems) project. Ecology and
Evolution 7: 145-188, doi:10.1002/ece3.2579 (2017).
Hill, S. L. L. et al. Worldwide impacts of past and projected future land-use
change on local species richness and the Biodiversity Intactness Index. bioRxiv,
doi:10.1101/311787 (2018).
De Palma, A. et al. Changes in the Biodiversity Intactness Index in tropical andsubtropical forest biomes, 2001-2012. bioRxiv, doi:10.1101/311688 (2018).
UN DESA. World Urbanization Prospects: 2018 Revision. (Population Division of
the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), New York, USA,2018).

Chapter 4: Aiming higher: what future do we want?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Griggs, D. et al. Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495:
305, doi:10.1038/495305a (2013).
Díaz, S. et al. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359: 270,
doi:10.1126/science.aap8826 (2018).
Mace, G. M. et al. Aiming higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Nature
Sustainability 1: 448-451, doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0130-0 (2018).
Griscom, B. W. et al. Natural climate solutions. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences USA 114: 11645-11650, doi:10.1073/pnas.1710465114 (2017).
Oliver, T. H. et al. Biodiversity and Resilience of Ecosystem Functions. Trends in
Ecology & Evolution 30: 673-684, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2015.08.009 (2015).
Isbell, F. et al. Linking the influence and dependence of people on biodiversity
across scales. Nature 546: 65-72, doi:10.1038/nature22899 (2017).
Waage, J. et al. Governing the UN Sustainable Development Goals: interactions,infrastructures, and institutions. The Lancet Global Health 3: e251-e252,
doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(15)70112-9 (2015).

References page 141

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21

22
23

24
25

Tittensor, D. P. et al. A mid-term analysis of progress toward international
biodiversity targets. Science 346: 241-244, doi:10.1126/science.1257484 (2014).
Pacala, S. & Socolow, R. Stabilization wedges: Solving the climate problem forthe next 50 years with current technologies. Science 305: 968-972, doi:10.1126/
science.1100103 (2004).
Wada, Y., Gleeson, T. & Esnault, L. Wedge approach to water stress. Nature
Geoscience 7: 615, doi:10.1038/ngeo2241 (2014).
Hill, S. L. L. et al. Reconciling Biodiversity Indicators to Guide Understanding andAction. Conservation Letters 9: 405-412, doi:10.1111/conl.12291 (2016).
Butchart, S. H. M. et al. Measuring global trends in the status of biodiversity:
Red List Indices for birds. PLOS Biology 2: 2294-2304, doi:10.1371/journal.
pbio.0020383 (2004).
Butchart, S. H. M. et al. Improvements to the Red List Index. PLOS One 2: e140,
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000140 (2007).
McRae, L., Deinet, S. & Freeman, R. The diversity-weighted Living Planet Index:
controlling for taxonomic bias in a global biodiversity indicator. PLOS One 12:
e0169156, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0169156 (2017).
Newbold, T. et al. Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond theplanetary boundary? A global assessment. Science 353: 288-291, doi:10.1126/
science.aaf2201 (2016).
Scholes, R. J. & Biggs, R. A biodiversity intactness index. Nature 434: 45,
doi:10.1038/nature03289 (2005).
CBD. Global Biodiversity Outlook 4 (Convention on Biological Diversity,
Montréal, Canada, 2014).
Newbold, T. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity.
Nature 520: 45, doi:10.1038/nature14324 (2015).
Visconti, P. et al. Projecting Global Biodiversity Indicators under Future
Development Scenarios. Conservation Letters 9: 5-13, doi:10.1111/conl.12159(2016).
Van Vuuren, D. P. et al. Pathways to achieve a set of ambitious global
sustainability objectives by 2050: Explorations using the IMAGE integrated
assessment model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 98: 303-323,
doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2015.03.005 (2015).
Tittensor, D. P., Baquero, A., Harfoot, M. & Hill, S. L. Review of future projectionsof biodiversity and ecosystem services (Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA),
Montreal, Canada, 2017).
Obersteiner, M. et al. Assessing the land resource-food price nexus of the
Sustainable Development Goals. Science Advances 2, doi:10.1126/sciadv.1501499(2016).
IPBES. Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessment of scenariosand models of biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Secretariat ofthe Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services, Bonn, Germany, 2016).
Rosa, I. M. D. et al. Multiscale scenarios for nature futures. Nature Ecology &Evolution 1: 1416-1419, doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0273-9 (2017).
IPBES. The methodological assessment report on scenarios and models of
biodiversity and ecosystem services 348 (Secretariat of the Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, 2016).

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 142

References page 143

WWF WORLDWIDE NETWORKWWF Offices

WWF Associates

Armenia

Madagascar

Fundación Vida Silvestre (Argentina)

Australia

Malaysia

Pasaules Dabas Fonds (Latvia)

Austria

MexicoNigerian Conservation Foundation (Nigeria)

Azerbaijan

Mongolia

Belgium

MoroccoBelizeMozambique

BhutanMyanmarBolivia

Namíbia

BrazilNepal

Bulgaria

Netherlands

Cambodia

New ZealandPublication details

Cameroon

NorwayCanadaPakistan

Central African Republic

PanamaChile

Papua New Guinea

China

Paraguay

Colombia

Peru

Croatia

Philippines

Published in October 2018 by WWF – World
Wide Fund for Nature (Formerly World
Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland (“WWF”).
Any reproduction in full or in part of thispublication must be in accordance withthe rules below, and mention the title andcredit the above-mentioned publisher as the
copyright owner.

Cuba

PolandDemocratic Republic of Congo

Romania

Denmark

RussiaEcuadorSingapore

Fiji

Slovakia

Finland

Solomon Islands

FranceSouth Africa

French Guyana

Spain

Gabon

Suriname

Georgia

SwedenGermany

Switzerland

GreeceTanzania

GuatemalaThailand

GuyanaTunisia

Honduras

TurkeyHong Kong

UgandaHungary

Ukraine

India

United Arab Emirates

Indonesia

United Kingdom

Italy

United States of America

Japan

Vietnam

Kenya

ZambiaKorea

Zimbabwe

Laos

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 page 144

Recommended citation:
WWF. 2018. Living Planet Report 2018.
Aiming Higher. Grooten, M. and Almond,
R.E.A.(Eds). WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
Notice for text and graphics: ©2018 WWF
All rights reserved.
Reproduction of this publication (except
the photos) for educational or other noncommercial purposes is authorized subject
to advance written notification to WWF
and appropriate acknowledgement as statedabove. Reproduction of this publication
for resale or other commercial purposes is
prohibited without prior written permission.
Reproduction of the photos for any purpose issubject to WWF’s prior written permission.
The designation of geographical entities
in this book, and the presentation of thematerial, do not imply the expression of any
opinion whatsoever on the part of WWF
concerning the legal status of any country,
territory, or area, or of its authorities, orconcerning the delimitation of its frontiers
or boundaries.

WWF International
Rue Mauverney 28
1196 Gland, Switzerland
www.panda.org
Institute of Zoology
Zoological Society of London
Regent’s Park, London NW1 4RY, UK
www.zsl.org/indicators
www.livingplanetindex.org

LIVING PLANET REPORT 2018

NATURE MATTERS
Biodiversity is essential for ourhealth, wellbeing, food andsecurity as well as the stabilityof economic and politicalsystems worldwide.

• LIVING PLANET REPORT 2018

BIODIVERSITY

100%

RECYCLED

The Living Planet Index,
which measures biodiversity
abundance levels based on
16,704 populations of 4,005
vertebrate species acrossthe globe, shows an overall
decline of 60% since 1970.

AIMING HIGHER
THREATSThe biggest drivers ofcurrent biodiversity loss areoverexploitation and agriculture,both of which are the result ofcontinually increasing humanconsumption.

A new global deal for natureand people, with clear,ambitious goals, targets andmetrics, is needed to bend
the curve of biodiversity loss.

INT

Why we are here
To stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment andto build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.

© NASA© 1986 Panda Symbol WWF ̶ World Wide Fund For Nature (Formerly World Wildlife Fund)® “WWF” is a WWF Registered Trademark. WWF, Rue Mauverney 28, 1196 Gland,
Switzerland ̶ Tel. +41 22 364 9111; Fax +41 22 364 0332. For contact details and further
information, please visit our international website at www.panda.org

WWF.ORG

panda.org/lpr