LIVING PLANETREPORT 2022
BUILDING A NATURE-POSITIVE SOCIETY

1

WWF
WWF is an independent conservation organisation, with more than
35 million followers and a global network active through local leadershipin over 100 countries. WWF’s mission is to stop the degradation of theplanet’s natural environment and to build a future in which people livein harmony with nature, by conserving the world’s biological diversity,
ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable, andpromoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption.

ZSL (Zoological Society of London) Institute of Zoology
ZSL is a global science-led conservation organisation helping people andwildlife live better together to restore the wonder and diversity of life
everywhere. It is a powerful movement of conservationists for the living
world, working together to save animals on the brink of extinction andthose which could be next.
ZSL manages the Living Planet Index in a collaborative partnershipwith WWF.

CitationWWF (2022) Living Planet Report 2022 – Building a naturepositive society. Almond, R.E.A., Grooten, M., Juffe Bignoli,
D. & Petersen, T. (Eds). WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4FOREWORD BY MARCO LAMBERTINI

6

SETTING THE SCENE

10AT A GLANCE

12CHAPTER 1: THE GLOBAL DOUBLE EMERGENCY14

CHAPTER 2: THE SPEED AND SCALE OF CHANGE

30

CHAPTER 3: BUILDING A NATURE-POSITIVE SOCIETY58

THE PATH AHEAD

100

REFERENCES

104

Design and infographics by: peer&dedigitalesupermarkt
Cover photograph: © Paul Robinson
Mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei) in the Virunga National Park,
Democratic Republic of Congo.

ISBN 978-2-88085-316-7
Living Planet Report®
and Living Planet Index®
are registered trademarksof WWF International.

Editorial Team
Rosamunde Almond (WWF-NL): Editor-in-chief
Monique Grooten (WWF-NL): Co-editor-in-chief
Diego Juffe Bignoli (Biodiversity Decisions): Technical editor
Tanya Petersen: Lead editor
Barney Jeffries and Evan Jeffries (swim2birds.co.uk): Proof reading
Katie Gough and Eleanor O’Leary (WWF International): Planning and communications
Advise and Review
Zach Abraham (WWF International), Mike Barrett (WWF-UK), Winnie De'Ath (WWF International), Elaine
Geyer-Allély (WWF International), Felicity Glennie Holmes (WWF International), Katie Gough (WWFInternational), Lin Li (WWF International), Rebecca Shaw (WWF International), Matt Walpole (WWFInternational), Mark Wright (WWF-UK), Lucy Young (WWF-UK) and Natasha Zwaal (WWF-NL)
Authors
Rob Alkemade (Wageningen University & Research), Francisco Alpízar (Wageningen University & Research),
Mike Barrett (WWF-UK), Charlotte Benham (Zoological Society of London), Radhika Bhargava (National
University of Singapore), Juan Felipe Blanco Libreros (Universidad de Antioquia), Monika Böhm (Indianapolis
Zoo), David Boyd (UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment; University of British
Columbia), Guido Broekhoven (WWF International), Neil Burgess (UNEP-WCMC), Mercedes Bustamante(University of Brasilia), Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer (Natural Capital Project, Stanford University; Institute on theEnvironment, University of Minnesota; SpringInnovate.org), Mona Chaya (FAO), Martin Cheek (Royal Botanic
Gardens, Kew), Alonso Córdova Arrieta (WWF-Peru), Charlotte Couch (Herbier National de Guineé and Royal
Botanic Gardens, Kew), Iain Darbyshire (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew), Gregorio Diaz Mirabal (Coordinatorof Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin – COICA), Amanda Diep (Global Footprint Network),
Paulo Durval Branco (International Institute for Sustainability, Brazil), Gavin Edwards (WWF International),
Scott Edwards (WWF International), Ismahane Elouafi (FAO), Neus Estela (Fauna & Flora International),Frank Ewert (University of Bonn, Germany), Bruna Fatiche Pavani (International Institute for Sustainability,
Brazil), Robin Freeman (Zoological Society of London), Daniel Friess (National University of Singapore),
Alessandro Galli (Global Footprint Network), Jonas Geldmann (University of Copenhagen), Elaine GeyerAllély (WWF International), Mike Harfoot (Vizzuality and UNEP-WCMC), Thomas Hertel (Purdue University,USA), Samantha Hill (UNEP-WCMC), Craig Hilton Taylor (IUCN), Jodi Hilty (Yellowstone to Yukon
Conservation Initiative), Pippa Howard (Fauna & Flora International), Melanie-Jayne Howes (Royal Botanic
Gardens, Kew; King’s College London), Nicky Jenner (Fauna & Flora International), Lucas Joppa (Microsoft),
Nicholas K Dulvy (Simon Fraser University), Kiunga Kareko (WWF-Kenya), Shadrach Kerwillain (Fauna &Flora International), Maheen Khan (University of Maastricht), Gideon Kibusia (WWF-Kenya), Eliud Kipchoge(Eliud Kipchoge Foundation), Jackson Kiplagat (WWF-Kenya), Isabel Larridon (Royal Botanic Gardens,
Kew), Deborah Lawrence (University of Virginia), David Leclère (International Institute for Applied Systems
Analysis), Sophie Ledger (Zoological Society of London), Preetmoninder Lidder (FAO), David Lin (Global
Footprint Network), Lin Li (WWF International), Rafael Loyola (International Institute for Sustainability,
Brazil), Sekou Magassouba (Herbier National de Guineé), Valentina Marconi (Zoological Society of London),Louise McRae (Zoological Society of London), Bradley J. Moggridge (University of Canberra), Denise
Molmou (Herbier National de Guineé), Mary Molokwu- Odozi (Fauna & Flora International), Joel Muinde(WWF-Kenya), Jeanne Nel (Wageningen University & Research), Tim Newbold (University College London),Eimear Nic Lughadha (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew), Carlos Nobre (University of São Paulo’s Institute forAdvanced Studies), Michael Obersteiner (Oxford University), Nathan Pacoureau (Simon Fraser University),
Camille Parmesan (Theoretical and Experimental Ecology (SETE), CNRS, France; Department of Geology,
University of Texas at Austin, USA; School of Biological and Marine Sciences, University of Plymouth, UK),
Marielos Peña-Claros (Wageningen University), Germán Poveda (Universidad Nacional de Colombia), Hannah
Puleston (Zoological Society of London), Andy Purvis (Natural History Museum), Andrea Reid (Nisga’a
Nation; University of British Columbia), Stephanie Roe (WWF International), Zack Romo Paredes Holguer(Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin – COICA), Aafke Schipper (Radboud
University), Kate Scott-Gatty (Zoological Society of London), Tokpa Seny Doré (Herbier National de Guineé),Bernardo Baeta Neves Strassburg (International Institute for Sustainability, Brazil), Gary Tabor (Centre
for Large Landscape Conservation), Morakot Tanticharoen (University of Technology Thonburi, Thailand),Angelique Todd (Fauna & Flora International), Emma Torres (UN Sustainable Development Solutions
Network), Koighae Toupou (Fauna & Flora International), Detlef van Vuuren (University of Utrecht), Mathis
Wackernagel (Global Footprint Network), Matt Walpole (WWF International), Sir Robert Watson (Tyndall
Centre for Climate Change Research), Amayaa Wijesinghe (UNEP-WCMC)
Special thanks
We thank everyone for providing us with ideas, support, and inspiration for the content for this Living Planet
Report edition: Jonathan Baillie (On The EDGE Conservation), Karina Berg (WWF-Brazil), Carina BorgströmHansson (WWF-Sweden), Angela Brennan (University of British Columbia, Vancouver), Tom Brooks (IUCN),
Stuart Chapman (WWF-Nepal), Thandiwe Chikomo (WWF-NL), Trin Custodio (WWF-Philippines), Smriti
Dahal (WWF-Myanmar), Victoria Elias (WWF-Russia), Kenneth Er (National Parks Board, Singapore), Wendy
Foden (South African National Parks - SANParks), Jessika Garcia (Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of
the Amazon River Basin – COICA), Bernardo Hachet (WWF-Ecuador), Kurt Holle (WWF-Peru), Chris Johnson(WWF-Australia), Lydia Kibarid (Lensational), Margaret Kinnaird (WWF-Kenya), Margaret Kuhlow (WWFInternational), Matt Larsen-Daw (WWF-UK), Ryan Lee (National Parks Board, Singapore), Nan Li (Linan)(WWF-China), Eve Lucas (Royal Botanic Gardens Kew), Abel Musumali (Climate Smart Agriculture Alliance),
Tubalemye Mutwale (WWF International), Mariana Napolitano Ferreira (WWF-Brazil), Luis Naranjo (WWFColombia), Deon Nel (WWF-NL), Hein Ngo (FAO), Eleanor O'Leary (WWF International), Sile Obroin (FAO),
Sana Okayasu (Wageningen University & Research), Jeff Opperman (WWF International), Pablo Pacheco(WWF International), Jon Paul Rodriguez (IUCN SSC and Venezuelan Institute for Scientific Investigations),
Kavita Prakash-Marni (Mandai Nature), Karen Richards (WWF International), Luis Roman (WWF-Peru),
Kirsten Schuijt (WWF-NL), Lauren Simmons (WWF-UK), Jessica Smith (UNEP Finance Initiative), Carolina
Soto Navarro (UNEP-WCMC), Jessica Thorn (University of York), Derek Tittensor (Dalhousie University),
Analis Vergara (WWF-US), Piero Visconti (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis), Anthony
Waldron (University of Cambridge), Gabriela Yamaguchi (WWF-Brazil)
We would also like to thank Stefanie Deinet and everyone who kindly shared data, specifically those who
supported data collection in the last two years: The Threatened Species Index team and network; Paula Hanna
Valdujo and Helga Correa Wiederhecker (WWF-Brazil); Mariana Paschoalini Frias (Instituto Aqualie/ WWFBrazil consultant); Elildo Alves Ribeiro De Carvalho Junior (Programa Monitora/ICMBio); Luciana Moreira
Lobo (KRAV Consultoria Ambiental/WWF-Brazil consultant); Felipe Serrano, Marcio Martins, Eletra de Souza,João Paulo Vieira-Alencar, Juan Camilo Díaz-Ricaurte, Ricardo Luria-Manzano (University of São Paulo)

LIVING PLANETREPORT 2022
BUILDING A NATURE-POSITIVE SOCIETY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Today we face the double, interlinked emergencies of humaninduced climate change and the loss of biodiversity, threatening
the well-being of current and future generations. As our futureis critically dependent on biodiversity and a stable climate, it isessential that we understand how nature’s decline and climatechange are connected.
The nature of these connections, the impacts they have on people
and biodiversity, and building a positive, equitable, and sustainable
future, are key themes in this edition of the Living Planet Report.
In addressing these complex, interlinked challenges we recognisethat there is no one-size-fits-all solution, nor one single source ofknowledge. To create this edition, we have therefore woven together
multiple voices and drawn on different sources of knowledge fromaround the world.
Land-use change is still the biggest current threat to nature,
destroying or fragmenting the natural habitats of many plant andanimal species on land, in freshwater and in the sea. However, if
we are unable to limit warming to 1.5°C, climate change is likely
to become the dominant cause of biodiversity loss in the coming
decades. Rising temperatures are already driving mass mortality
events, as well as the first extinctions of entire species. Every degreeof warming is expected to increase these losses and the impact they
have on people. We feature 3 stories of people on the frontline andhow they are dealing with the consequences of local changes inclimate and biodiversity.
Biodiversity indicators help us understand how our natural world ischanging over time. Tracking the health of nature over almost
50 years, the Living Planet Index acts as an early warning indicatorby tracking trends in the abundance of mammals, fish, reptiles,
birds and amphibians around the world.
In its most comprehensive finding to date, this edition shows anaverage 69% decline in the relative abundance of monitored wildlife
populations around the world between 1970 and 2018. Latin
America shows the greatest regional decline in average population
abundance (94%), while freshwater species populations have seen
the greatest overall global decline (83%).

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 4

New mapping analysis techniques allow us to build up a morecomprehensive picture of both the speed and the scale of changes
in biodiversity and climate. For example, we feature the new
biodiversity risk maps generated for the IPCC Working Group 2report published in February 2022. These maps are the result of
decades of work which has involved more than 1 million hours
of computer time. We also explore an analysis using data fromthe IUCN Red List which allows us to overlay six key threats –agriculture, hunting, logging, pollution, invasive species and climatechange – to highlight ‘threat hotspots’ for terrestrial vertebrates.
To help us imagine a future where people and nature can thrive,
scenarios and models – such as the Bending the Curve workfeatured in the 2020 Living Planet Report – can create ‘menus’ thatindicate how we can most effectively address biodiversity loss undera range of climate and development scenarios. Now, researchers are
exploring new lenses to add to this work, including the integrationof equity and fairness. This could help to better target the urgent
and unprecedented action needed to change our business-as-usual
trajectory.
We know that transformational change – game-changing shifts– will be essential to put theory into practice. We need systemwide changes in how we produce and consume, the technology weuse, and our economic and financial systems. Underpinning thesechanges must be a move from goals and targets to values and rights,
in policy-making and in day-to-day life.
To catalyse this, in 2022, the United Nations General Assemblyrecognised that everyone, everywhere, has the right to live in aclean, healthy and sustainable environment, meaning that for thosein power respecting this is no longer an option but an obligation.
Although not legally binding, the UN resolution is expected toaccelerate action, just as earlier resolutions on the right to water in2010 turbocharged progress in delivering safe water to millions ofpeople.
This edition of the Living Planet Report confirms the planet is in
the midst of a biodiversity and climate crisis, and that we have alast chance to act. This goes beyond conservation. A nature-positive
future needs transformative - game changing - shifts in how we
produce, how we consume, how we govern, and what we finance.
We hope it inspires you to be part of that change.

5

CODE RED FOR THE
PLANET (AND HUMANITY)
The message is clear and the lights are flashing red. Our mostcomprehensive report ever on the state of global vertebrate wildlife
populations presents terrifying figures: a shocking two-thirds
decline in the global Living Planet Index less than 50 years. And
this comes at a time when we are finally beginning to understandthe deepening impacts of the interlinked climate and nature crises,
and the fundamental role biodiversity plays in maintaining thehealth, productivity and stability of the many natural systems weand all life on Earth depend on. The COVID-19 pandemic has given
many of us a new awareness of our vulnerability. This is beginningto challenge the unthinking assumption that we can continue
to dominate the natural world irresponsibly, taking nature for
granted, exploiting its resources wastefully and unsustainably, anddistributing them unevenly without facing any consequences.
© WWF

Today, we know that there are consequences. Some of them arealready here: the loss of lives and economic assets from extreme
weather; aggravated poverty and food insecurity from droughts
and floods; social unrest and increased migration flows; andzoonotic diseases that bring the whole world to its knees. Natureloss is now rarely perceived as a purely moral or ecological issue,
with a broadened sense of its vital importance to our economy,social stability, individual well-being and health, and as a matterof justice. The most vulnerable populations are already the mostaffected by environmental damage, and we are leaving a terrible
legacy to our children and future generations to come. We needa global plan for nature, as we have for climate.

A global goal for nature: nature positive
We know what’s happening, we know the risks and we know thesolutions. What we urgently need now is a plan that unites theworld in dealing with this existential challenge. A plan that isagreed globally and implemented locally. A plan that clearly setsa measurable and time-bound global goal for nature as the 2016
Paris accord, with the net-zero emissions goal by 2050, did forclimate. But what can be the ‘net-zero emissions’ equivalent
for biodiversity?

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 6

Achieving net-zero loss for nature is certainly not enough; we needa nature- or net-positive goal to restore nature and not simply halt
its loss. Firstly, because we have lost and continue to lose so muchnature at such a speed that we need this higher ambition. And,secondly, because nature has shown us that it can bounce back –and quickly – if given a chance. We have many local examples ofnature and wildlife comebacks, whether it is forests or wetlands,
tigers or tuna, bees or earthworms.
We need nature positive by 2030 – which, in simple terms,
means more nature by the end of this decade than at its start (seethe explanatory infographic on page 100). More natural forests,
more fish in the ocean and river systems, more pollinators in our
farmlands, more biodiversity worldwide. A nature-positive future
will bring countless benefits to human and economic well-being,
including to our climate, food and water security. Together, thecomplementary goals of net-zero emissions by 2050 and netpositive biodiversity by 2030 represent the compass to guide
us towards a safe future for humanity, to shift to a sustainable
development model, to support the delivery of the 2030
Sustainable Development Goals.

Unmissable opportunity
For me, for WWF, and for many other organizations and a growing
number of country and business leaders (e.g. the Leaders’ Pledge
for Nature group of 93 heads of state and the President of theEuropean Commission, and the Business For Nature, the Taskforce
on Nature-Related Financial Disclosure and the Finance for
Biodiversity coalitions), agreeing on a nature-positive global goalis crucial and urgent.
World leaders have an unmissable opportunity in December 2022
to embrace a nature-positive mission at the long-awaited 15th
conference of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (COP15)
in Montreal, Canada, under the presidency of China. This is key toensuring the right level of ambition and measurability in the goals
and targets of the agreement.

7

It is key to mobilizing and aligning governments, communities,businesses, financial institutions and even consumers towards
contributing to the same shared global goal, inspiring a whole-ofsociety approach. And it is key to injecting the same high degreeof accountability that we are beginning to witness around climate
action.
Just as the global goal of ‘net-zero emissions by 2050’ is disrupting
the energy sector so that it shifts towards renewables, ‘nature
positive by 2030’ will disrupt the sectors that are drivers of natureloss – agriculture, fishing, forestry, infrastructure and extractives –driving innovation and acceleration towards sustainable production
and consumption behaviours.
Our society is at the most important fork in its history, and is facing
its deepest systems change challenge around what is perhaps themost existential of all our relationships: the one with nature. And
all this at a time when we are beginning to understand that we
depend on nature much more than nature depends on us. The
COP15 biodiversity conference can be the moment when the worldcomes together on nature.

Marco Lambertini,

Director General
WWF International

Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) mother with cub age
four months, Ranthambhore, Rajhasthan, India.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 8© naturepl.com / Andy Rouse / WWF

9

SETTING THE SCENE
Mike Barrett (WWF-UK),
Elaine Geyer-Allély (WWF International)
and Matt Walpole (WWF International)

This report presents the largest dataset yet from the Living
Planet Index, and the most comprehensive analysis of the global
state of nature from a wide array of voices and perspectives.
The findings are stark. While we need to urgently act to restore
the health of the natural world, there is no sign that the loss ofnature is being halted, let alone reversed. The declining trend invertebrate populations continues, despite an array of political andprivate sector commitments. Data gathered from almost 32,000
populations of 5,230 species across the planet leaves no doubt that
the UN Decade on Biodiversity, meant to implement broad-based
action to transform society’s relationship with nature, has fallen far
short of what is needed.
The impacts of the global nature and climate emergency are alreadybeing felt: displacement and deaths from increasingly frequent
extreme weather events, increasing food insecurity, depleted soils,
a lack of access to fresh water, and an increase in the spread of
zoonotic diseases to name just a few. These impacts affect all of us
but fall disproportionately on the poorest and most marginalised
people.
One part of the world from where we have included significantly
more data is Latin America, not least the Amazon. And we also
showcase studies from the region. This is of particular significanceas rates of deforestation are increasing. We have already lost
17% of the original extent of the forest and an additional 17%
has been degraded 163. The latest research indicates that we are
rapidly approaching a tipping point beyond which our largest
tropical rainforest will no longer function 176. This lays bare someof the challenges we face, ranging from the direct impacts of land
grabbing and habitat conversion on people and wildlife, to changes
in rainfall and soils and the catastrophic impact these have on
global efforts to avert extreme climate change.
We need to urgently ramp up mitigation actions to avert adangerous rise in global temperatures beyond 1.5°C, and to help
people adapt to the climate change we are already experiencing.
We need to restore nature and the environmental services it
provides – both the tangible provision of our clean air, fresh water,
food, fuel and fibre; and also the many intangible ways in which
nature contributes to our lives and well-being.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 10

Finally, we need an inclusive ‘whole of society’ approach thatempowers each of us to act, recognises the plurality of values andknowledge systems that can put us on a more sustainable path, andensures that the costs and benefits from our actions are socially justand equitably shared.
This edition of the Living Planet Report makes a start in that
direction by bringing multiple values, voices, and kinds of evidence
to bear to show that change is still possible, from our individual,
day-to-day choices to global change, especially in our food, financeand governance systems.
The landmark recognition in July 2022 by the UN General
Assembly of the right to a healthy environment cements ourunderstanding that climate breakdown, nature loss, pollution
and the pandemic are human rights crises. And as the UN
Sustainable Development Goals prescribe, we can only achieve afair, green and prosperous future if we find integrated solutions
to the humanitarian and environmental challenges we face. By
recognising the links between interconnected crises, we stand abetter chance of being able to remedy them.
The United Nations meets in Montreal in December 2022 to agree
a new Global Framework for Biodiversity. This is the last chance wewill get. By the end of this decade we will know whether this plan
was enough or not; the fight for people and nature will have been
won or lost. The signs are not good. Discussions so far are lockedin old-world thinking and entrenched positions, with no sign of thebold action needed to achieve a nature-positive future.
We need a plan that is both fair and inclusive, that everyone
can play a part in delivering. We need a rights-based approach
including securing the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local
communities to their land, freshwater and seas. We need torecognise that protecting and restoring nature will only be achievedby addressing the drivers of biodiversity loss and ecosystemdegradation – including the global food system – that are primarily
driven by those of us who live outside those places. And above all
we need to deliver lasting results on a greater scale and with greaterurgency than we have ever seen before. It is now or never.

11

AT A GLANCEThis report is designed as a springboard for action, to provide
food for thought and to act as a catalyst for transformationalchange. We hope it inspires you to be part of that change.

• We are living through climate and biodiversity
crises; these are not separate from each otherbut are two sides of the same coin.
• Land-use change is still the most importantdriver of biodiversity loss.
• The cascading impacts of climate change are
already affecting the natural world.
• Unless we limit warming to 1.5°C, climatechange is likely to become the dominant causeof biodiversity loss in the coming decades.
• Three photo stories explore how communities
use their knowledge to adapt to local changes
in climate and biodiversity.

CHAPTER 2

The speed and scale of change• Indicators help us to build up a picture of boththe speed and scale of change in biodiversity
around the world, and the impacts of this change.
• The Living Planet Index acts as an early warning
indicator by tracking trends in the abundance of
mammals, fish, reptiles, birds and amphibians
around the world.
• The 2022 global Living Planet Index shows anaverage 69% decrease in monitored wildlife
populations between 1970 and 2018.
• Latin America shows the greatest regional
decline in average population abundance (94%).
• Population trends for monitored freshwater
species are also falling steeply (83%).
• New mapping analysis techniques allow us tobuild up a more comprehensive picture of boththe speed and scale of changes in biodiversity
and climate, and to map where nature
contributes most to our lives.
• This edition has been written by 89 authors
from around the world, and they have drawn on
a range of different knowledge sources.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 12

Building a nature-positive
society
CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 1

The global double emergency• We know that the health of our planet isdeclining, and we know why.
• We also know that we have the knowledge
and means to address climate change andbiodiversity loss.
• The landmark recognition in July 2022 by
the UN General Assembly of the humanright to a healthy environment cements ourunderstanding that climate breakdown, nature
loss, pollution and pandemics are humanrights crises.
• We know that transformational change –game-changing shifts – will be essential to bringtheory into practice.
• There must be system-wide changes in how we
produce and consume, the technology we use,
and our economic and financial systems.
• To help us imagine a future where people andnature can thrive, we have explored a numberof scenarios and models, such as the pioneering
Bending the Curve work featured in the
Living Planet Report 2020.
• Researchers are exploring new lenses to add
to these models, including climate change
impacts, equity and fairness.
• Linking international trade to its impacts onnature is a key part of bending the curve of
biodiversity loss at scale.
• In addressing these complex, interlinked
challenges there is no one-size-fits-all solution.
To illustrate this we have collected examples
from around the world, ranging from theAmazon to Canada, Zambia, Kenya, Indonesia
and Australia.

Butterflies (Rhopalocera spp.) near
the Augusto Falls on the Juruena River,
Juruena National Park, Brazil.

© Zig Koch / WWF

13

CHAPTER 1

THE GLOBAL DOUBLE
EMERGENCY
We are living through both climate and biodiversity crises.
These have been described as two sides of the same coin, driven
by the unsustainable use of our planet’s resources. It is clear:
unless we stop treating these emergencies as two separate
issues, neither problem will be addressed effectively.
Giant kelp is one of the fastest growing of all plants and can grow 50cm a day;these giant stands can reach 50m from sea floor to the surface, their fronds carried
upwards by air-filled floats. Channel Islands National Park, California, USA.

© Gisle Sverdrup / Silverback / Netflix

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 14

15

THE CLIMATE AND BIODIVERSITY CRISES– TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN
Today we face the double, interlinked emergencies ofhuman-induced climate change and the loss of biodiversity,
threatening the well-being of current and future generations.
Sir Robert Watson (Tyndall Centre for
Climate Change Research)

Biodiversity is the variety of life and the interactions between living
things at all levels on land, in water and in the sea and air – genes,
populations, species and ecosystems. Terrestrial, freshwater andmarine ecosystems – for example forests, grasslands, wetlands,
mangrove swamps and the oceans – provide us with services
essential for human well-being such as food and feed, medicines,
energy and fibres. They regulate climate, natural hazards andextreme events, air quality, the quantity and quality of fresh water,
pollination and the dispersal of seeds, pests and diseases, soils,
ocean acidification, and the creation and maintenance of habitats.
These ecosystems also provide for physical and psychologicalexperiences, learning and inspiration, while supporting identities
and a sense of place. Everything that enables us to live comes fromnature.
The major direct driving forces for the degradation of terrestrial,
freshwater and marine systems are changes in land and sea use, theoverexploitation of plants and animals, climate change, pollution
and invasive alien species. These direct drivers of biodiversity loss,
and the degradation of ecosystems and their services, stem fromincreasing demands for energy, food and other materials becauseof rapid economic growth, increases in population, international
trade, and choices of technology, especially over the last 50 years.
We have exploited the services that have market value – forexample the production of food, fibre, energy and medicines – at
the expense of the services that have no market prices but broader
economic and social value.

The Earth has already warmed by 1.2oC since pre-industrial
times. While climate change has not been the dominant driver ofthe loss of biodiversity to date, unless we limit warming to lessthan 2oC, and preferably 1.5oC, climate change is likely to become
the dominant cause of biodiversity loss and the degradation of
ecosystem services in the coming decades. About 50% of warmwater corals have already been lost due to a variety of causes.
A warming of 1.5oC will result in a loss of 70-90% of warm-watercorals, and a 2oC warming will result in a loss of more than 99%.
And yet, progress to conserve and restore biodiversity has largely
failed in all countries – none of the 20 Aichi biodiversity targets
for 2020 were fully met, and in some cases the situation in 2020
was worse than in 2010. Equally we are failing to achieve the Paristarget of less than 2oC – current pledges put us on a pathway to
2-3oC and possibly higher. To be on a pathway to 1.5oC requires
global emissions to be about 50% less than current emissions by2030, and net zero by mid-century. Unfortunately, we are likely topass the 1.5oC target before 2040.
Climate change and biodiversity loss are not only environmental
issues, but economic, development, security, social, moral
and ethical issues too – and they must therefore be addressed
together along with the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs). While industrialised countries are responsible for mostenvironmental degradation, it is poor countries and poor people
who are the most vulnerable. Unless we conserve and restore
biodiversity, and limit human-induced climate change, almost noneof the SDGs can be achieved – in particular food and water security,
good health for everyone, poverty alleviation, and a more equitableworld.

Everyone has a role to play in addressingthese emergencies; and most now
acknowledge that transformations areneeded. This recognition now needs to beturned into action.

One million plants and animals are threatened with extinction.
1-2.5% of birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles and fish havealready gone extinct; population abundances and genetic diversity
have decreased; and species are losing their climatically determined
habitats.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 16

17

The cascading impacts of climate change on
people and nature
Human-driven global warming is changing the natural world,
driving mass mortality events as well as the first extinctions ofentire species. Every degree of warming is expected to increase
these losses and the impact they have on people.
Camille Parmesan (Theoretical andExperimental Ecology (SETE), CNRS,France; Department of Geology,
University of Texas at Austin, USA;
School of Biological and Marine
Sciences, University of Plymouth, UK)

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 18

We are also seeing the first extinctions of entire species. The golden
toad went extinct in 1989 due to more and more days without thefog normal to Costa Rican cloud forests. The Bramble Cay melomys,a small rodent that lived on a single small island between Australia
and Papua New Guinea, was declared extinct in 2016 after sea level
rise and a series of heavy storms flooded its home, killing its foodplant and destroying its nesting sites. Every degree of warming is
expected to increase these losses (Figure 1).

An updated synthesis of the impacts of climate change on wild
species, and on the ecosystems they live in, was recently publishedby the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC
6th assessment report) 11, 170. These impacts include increasing
heatwaves and droughts that are driving mass mortality events intrees, birds, bats, and fish. A single hot day in 2014 killed more than
45,000 ‘flying fox’ bats in Australia. Climate changes have also been
linked to the loss of whole populations of more than 1,000 plant
and animal species.

Figure 1: Projected loss of terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity
compared to pre-industrial period
Biodiversity loss with increasing global warming. The higher the percentage of
species projected to be lost (due to loss of suitable climate in a given area), the higher
the risk to ecosystem integrity, functioning and resilience to climate change. Colour
shading represents the proportion of species for which the climate is projected to
become sufficiently unsuitable that the species becomes locally Endangered (sensu
International Union for the Conservation of Nature, IUCN) and at high risk of local
extinction within a given area at a given global warming level. Source: Reprinted
from Figure 2.6 in Parmesan et al. (2022) 11, based on data from Warren et al (2018) 178.

+ 4.0˚ C+ 2.0˚ C+ 3.0˚ C+ 1.0˚ CKey< 25%
25 - 50%
50 - 75%> 75%

19

Not all species are suffering from climate change. Beetles andmoths that attack northern forests are surviving better in warmer
winters and producing more generations per year with the longer
growing season, causing mass die-offs of trees in the northerntemperate and boreal zones of North America and Europe. Many
insects and worms that cause diseases in both wildlife and humans
have moved into new areas and are causing new diseases to emerge
in the high Arctic and Himalayan highlands.
Warming is also changing how ecosystems function, putting
into motion ecological processes that, themselves, in time cause
more warming: this process is called a ‘positive climate feedback’.
Increases in wildfires, trees dying due to drought and insect
outbreaks, peatlands drying and tundra permafrost thawing, allrelease more CO₂ as dead plant material decomposes or is burned.
This is starting to transform systems that have historically beensolid carbon sinks into new carbon sources.
Once these ecological processes reach a tipping point they will
become irreversible and commit our planet to continue warming
at a very high rate. This is one of the biggest risks from "overshoot"of the internationally agreed-upon thresholds for dangerous climatechange, (exceeding a defined threshold of warming for at least a
decade or more), and would be a disaster for society as well as formuch of our planet’s wildlife.

A queen garden bumblebee (Bombus hortorum) visiting a white nettle(Lamium album). Bumblebees are important pollinators for both wild
plants and many crops. Even though individual species are expected
to benefit from climate change, a study of 66 bumblebee species acrossNorth America and Europe 171 found declines in most bees at most sites.
This is probably due to harm caused by pesticides and herbicides that
surpasses any potential positive effects of climate change.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 20© Ola Jennersten / WWF-Sweden

21

Vital links between forests, climate, waterand food
Forests are critical for stabilising our climate, but deforestation
threatens this vital function as well as other ecosystem services
including buffering against the impact of heatwaves, and providing
freshwater to agricultural lands.
Stephanie Roe(WWF International) and
Deborah Lawrence(University of Virginia)

Forests are fundamental for regulating the Earth’s climate,exchanging more carbon, water and energy with the atmospherethan any other terrestrial ecosystem 1. Forests also affect rainfall
patterns and the severity of heatwaves, impacting the resilience ofagricultural systems and local communities 2.

Rainfed agriculture uses 80% of global croplands and is responsiblefor 60% of all food produced 9. Forest destruction could therefore
put the food security of billions of people and the livelihoodsof millions at risk. This risk is compounded by impacts fromclimate change that can make droughts more frequent and more
severe and reduce agricultural and labour productivity 10,11. The
global Sustainable Development Goal of halting deforestation andrestoring and sustainably managing forests therefore plays animportant role in protecting biodiversity and in limiting global
warming, adapting to climate change, and providing valuable
water for our food system.

Nancy Rono, a farmer,
on her farm in Bomet County, Mara
River Upper Catchment, Kenya.

Forests store more carbon than all the Earth’s exploitable oil,gas and coal 3,4, and between 2001 and 2019 forests absorbed
7.6 gigatonnes of CO₂ from the atmosphere every year 5, or about
18% of all human-caused carbon emissions 6.
In addition to carbon, the physical structure of forests also
affects both the global and local climates. Forests absorb energy
from the sun because they are dark. This energy is used to move
vast quantities of water from the soil back into the atmosphere,
through a process called evapotranspiration, cooling the surface
temperature locally and globally. The roughness of forest canopies
contributes to the upward mixing of warm air into the atmosphere,
drawing away heat and redistributing essential moisture. Thesebiophysical processes stabilise weather as well as climate, limiting
maximum daily temperatures by up to several degrees, reducing
the intensity and duration of extreme heat and dry spells, andmaintaining rainfall seasonality 7. The combined net effect of forests
cools the planet by about 0.5ºC 7.
Yet every year we lose roughly 10 million hectares of forests – anarea about the size of Portugal 8. Deforestation, especially in thetropics, causes carbon emissions and leads to warmer, drier local
climates, increasing droughts and fires and, depending on the scale,
reducing rainfall and shifting global precipitation patterns. For
example, clearing the tropical forests in Central Africa or SouthAmerica could increase average daytime temperatures by 7-8ºC anddecrease rainfall across those regions by around 15% 2,7.

© Jonathan Caramanus / Green Renaissance / WWF-UK

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 22

23

Restoring natural connections across the landscapeEcological connectivity is severely threatened by the destruction
and degradation of nature that fragments habitats. To counter this,connectivity conservation is rapidly emerging as a solution to restore
the movement of species and the flow of natural processes.
Gary Tabor (Center forLarge Landscape Conservation) andJodi Hilty (Yellowstone to Yukon
Conservation Initiative)

Figure 2: Global mammal
movement probability (MMP)
between terrestrial protectedareas (PAs)
MMP is the predicted flow ofmammal movement between
PAs and reflects how medium
to large mammals are moving
in response to human pressureson the environment. High MMP
reflects concentrated movements,
typically within corridors thatfunnel mammals between higher
human footprint areas or withinlarge blocks of intact land situatedwithin a network of large PAs (e.g.
the Amazon basin). Orange andpurple reflect areas where the flowof mammals is dispersed among
many pathways. Black regions
are not devoid of connectivity,
but rather depict areas of lower
mammal movement between PAs
relative to the global scale. Box 1:
corridors through mountains ofwestern North America (e.g.the
Yellowstone to Yukon corridor).
Box 2: corridors and dispersed
flow across sub-Saharan Africa’s
Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier
Conservation Area and coastal
deserts of Namibia. Box 3: flows
through rainforests of Indonesia
and Malaysia (e.g. Heart of Borneo
conservation area). Source:
Brennan et al. (2022) 17

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 24

Ecological connectivity refers to the unimpeded movement ofspecies and the flow of natural processes that sustain life on Earth 12.
Habitat fragmentation across land, air and waters breaks thisconnectivity and is a global threat to the conservation of biodiversity
and the ecological processes that sustain the biosphere 13,14. Throughthe destruction and degradation of habitat, fragmentation impacts
nature in three specific ways. Firstly, it reduces overall habitat areaand quality. Secondly, it also increases isolation from other habitat
patches. Finally, it amplifies edge effects around the boundary ofa habitat fragment, for example, by increasing the frequency ofabrupt transitions from natural to altered habitats 14.

This leads into a downward spiral of ecologicaldysfunctions. From the unravelling of foodwebs to the loss of ecological processes such as
freshwater flows or pollination, fragmentation
limits the ability of species to move to fulfil theirneeds – to migrate, to disperse, to find mates,
to feed and to complete their life cycles – andcan lead to extinction 15. Finally, fragmentation
exacerbates the wide-ranging, damaging impactsof climate change. Today just 10% of the world’s
terrestrial protected areas are connected 16.
Around the globe, two-thirds of criticalconnectivity areas linking protected areas
are unprotected 17.
Connectivity conservation – protecting andrestoring ecological connections across lands
and waters through ecological corridors, linkage

areas and wildlife crossing structures – is rapidly
emerging around the world as an effective way
to combat habitat fragmentation and to enhance
climate resilience 18. Scientific evidence built on
island biogeography research and species metapopulation studies demonstrates that connected
habitats are more effective for preserving
species and ecological functions 19. Globallyagreed IUCN guidelines define how to advanceecological corridors to achieve connectivity frompolicy to on-the-ground action, at the same time
recognising the needs and rights of Indigenous
and local peoples 20. As ways of enhancing
connectivity are developed, it is important torecognise the intersectionality of this work: it
can and should also advance social and economic
targets, which interact with the benefits thatnature provides 21.

1.
1.
3.
2.
2.

Key
MMP
High

3.

Low

25

The magic of mangroves – a key nature-based
solution for coastal communities
Mangrove forests are a win-win-win solution for biodiversity,
climate and people, if we continue to conserve and restore them.
Daniel Friess and Radhika Bhargava(National University of Singapore)and Juan Felipe Blanco Libreros(Universidad de Antioquia)

However, hotspots of mangrove loss still remain, particularly in
Myanmar 28, and several countries are developing food security
policies that may lead to further mangrove conversion. Ambitious
restoration targets, while welcome, often prove difficult to translate
into on-the-ground success. Further conservation and restoration
efforts are needed for mangroves to continue to improve climate,biodiversity and livelihoods across the world.
Mangroves in Los Túneles on
Isabela Island, Galapagos, Ecuador.

Mangroves are unique forests of the sea. They are an importantreservoir of biodiversity, and support the livelihoods of coastal
communities by providing services such as food and fuel, byunderpinning economically-important fisheries, and throughcultural services such as ecotourism, education, and spiritualvalues 22,23.
Mangroves are also a key nature-based solution to climate change.
They contribute to mitigation through sequestering and storing‘blue carbon’ in their waterlogged soils, at densities exceeding
many other ecosystems 24. Some of the most carbon-rich mangroves
are found on the Pacific coast of Colombia – these exceed 50m inheight 25. In addition, mangroves help climate change adaptation,
as their tangled above-ground roots are a buffer to waves 26 and trap
sediments, allowing some mangroves to increase their surfaces andkeep pace with sea-level rise 27.
Despite their importance, mangroves continue to be deforested
by aquaculture, agriculture and coastal development, at current
rates of 0.13% per year 28. Many mangroves are also degraded byoverexploitation and pollution, alongside natural stressors suchas storms and coastal erosion. Mangrove loss represents the lossof habitat for biodiversity and the loss of ecosystem services forcoastal communities, and in some locations it can mean the lossof the very land where coastal communities live. For instance,
137km2 of the Sundarbans mangrove forest have been eroded since1985 29, reducing land and ecosystem services for many of the
10 million people who live there.
Encouragingly, mangrove deforestation has reduced dramaticallysince the 1980s 30 and we now have plausible scenarios where
the global mangrove area may stabilise or even increase by2070 31. The latter would require extensive mangrove restoration,
but such actions, when successful, can bring back valuableecosystem services that improve livelihoods and mitigate
climate change.
© Antonio Busiello / WWF-US

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 26

27

Voices for Just Climate Action
Climate change impacts will be felt by everyone everywhere, but
not equally. Some of the communities most vulnerable to climatechange live in countries in the Global South – and some of these,
despite resource constraints, are applying creative solutions totackle the crisis that co-benefit people and nature, leaning on a
wealth of local knowledge to support their efforts. To amplify
these local voices, a global coalition has come together to create
the Voices for Just Climate Action (VCA) alliance. This alliancepartnership includes Akina Mama wa Afrika, Fundación Avina,
Slum Dwellers International, SouthSouthNorth, Hivos, andWWF-Netherlands. The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs
is providing VCA with technical and financial support between
2021 and 2025 via a €55 million grant.

A natural barter system in Kenya
Droughts are intensifying in many parts of Africa, threatening foodsecurity as well as the livelihoods of countless communities. In
Amboseli, Kenya, Maasai communities have been impacted as theirlivelihoods rely entirely on selling livestock – but the drought hasleft their livestock in poor health, making it difficult for the Maasai
to put food on the table. Maasai women – often left behind when
their husbands undertake long journeys with their livestock insearch of green pastures – assume responsibility for the well-beingof their families.
Faced with increasing hardships, these women are using theirlocal knowledge to find solutions. In Esiteti, a village in Amboseli,
Maasai women have created a barter system with farmers wholive across the border in Tanzania. They exchange Magadi, thesalty mineral soil found in abundance in their region, for items
including beans, potatoes, maize, cooking oil and sugar from thefarmers. This mutually beneficial arrangement is possible because
the climate varies markedly between the border areas of the twocountries; the Tanzanian side is located under the foot of Mount
Kilimanjaro, where the drought is not as intense as in Kenya.
Magadi is also a healthier alternative to mineral salt and is notreadily available in Tanzania.

A Maasai woman with a camera in Kenya. Lensational.org is a non-for-profit
organisation who are training underrepresented women across 22 locations toshare their own stories through photography, video, and digital storytelling.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 28© Claire Metito/Lensational

29

CHAPTER 2

THE SPEED AND SCALE
OF CHANGE
Our well-being, health and economic future are criticallydependent on biodiversity and natural systems, and many
indicators show that biodiversity is in decline. It is essentialthat we understand how and why nature is changing in order
to alter this path. New mapping analysis techniques allow us
to build up a more comprehensive picture of both the speed
and scale of changes in biodiversity and climate, and to map
where nature contributes most to our lives.
Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) hunting in the Veľká Fatra National Park, Slovakia.

© Tomas Hulik

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 30

31

The Living Planet Index: an early warning indicator

Why trends in abundance are important

We now have a better picture than ever before of how species
populations are faring around the world. The 2022 global Living
Planet Index shows an average 69% decrease in relative abundanceof monitored wildlife populations between 1970 and 2018.

The Living Planet Index tracks the abundance of populations ofmammals, birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians around the world. In
2022 the Index included almost 32,000 species populations, which
is 11,000 more than in 2020, the largest increase yet in number of
populations between two editions of this report.

The Living Planet Index (LPI) tracks changes in the relative
abundance of wild species populations over time 42-44. The global
Index is constructed by calculating an average trend for tensof thousands of terrestrial, freshwater and marine vertebrate
populations from across the globe. Despite 30 years of policy
interventions to stop biodiversity loss we continue to observe
similar declines to those shown in previous reports.

Valentina Marconi, Louise McRae,
Sophie Ledger, Kate Scott-Gatty,
Hannah Puleston, Charlotte Benham,and Robin Freeman(Zoological Society of London)

The 2022 global LPI shows an average 69% decline in monitored
populations between 1970 and 2018 (range: -63% to -75%).
The Index contains both increasing and declining trends.
To ensure the accuracy of the statistics, the Index has been stresstested by recalculating it excluding certain species or populations.
This confirms it is not driven by extreme declines or increases
in species or populations. The LPI is continually changing: 838
new species and 11,011 new populations have been added to thedataset since the 2020 Living Planet Report. The new data has
led to a substantial increase in the number of fish species included(29%, +481 species) and has improved coverage for previously
underrepresented areas such as Brazil.

2

Index value (1970 = 1)

Figure 3: The global Living
Planet Index (1970 to 2018)
The average change in relative
abundance of 31,821 populations,representing 5,230 species
monitored across the globe,
was a decline of 69%. The whiteline shows the index values andthe shaded areas represent thestatistical certainty surrounding
the trend (95% statisticalcertainty, range 63% to 75%).
Source: WWF/ZSL (2022) 184.

1

These populations, or trends in relative abundance, are importantbecause they give a snapshot of changes in an ecosystem.
Essentially, declines in abundance are early warning indicatorsof overall ecosystem health. At the same time, population trends
are responsive – therefore if conservation or policy measures are
successful, species abundance trends will quickly show this.

ABUNDANCE

Sourcing data in languages other than English
Around the world, many languages are used to communicate
science 46. However, global biodiversity databases such as the
LPI store fewer records for countries where English is not widely
spoken 47, which are often in the most biodiverse regions. This ispartly a result of the greater accessibility of English language data
sources, and also because the working language of the LPI team isEnglish.
For this year’s Living Planet Report, collaborators from WWFBrazil and the University of São Paulo have searched throughjournals and environmental impact reports in Portuguese. Thanks
to their efforts, we now have 3,269 populations for 1,002 Brazilian
species (575 of which are new to the database) contributing to the
LPI. The number of scientific articles on conservation in otherlanguages has been increasing over the past few decades at a rate
similar to English-language articles 48. In the future, we plan toexpand our collaboration network to introduce data in many otherlanguages into the Living Planet Index Database. This not only
creates a more representative biodiversity data set, but also ensuresthat important scientific and monitoring studies from around theworld are included in the index.

- 69%

Key
Global Living Planet Index
Confidence limits

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 32

0
1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2018

33

Changes in biodiversity vary in different parts of the world
The global Living Planet Index does not give us the entire picture – there aredifferences in abundance trends between regions, with the largest declines intropical areas.
support the monitoring of progress towards thetargets developed under the Convention
on Biological Diversity.

Europe and Central Asia

2

Index value (1970 = 1)

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform
on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)
divides the world into different geographic
regions 39, 45. This breakdown is designed toTrends for each species group are weighted
according to how many species are found ineach IPBES region. More details about theseregional trends and the other cuts of the Living
Planet Index can be found in the 2022 Living
Planet Report: Deep dive into the Living PlanetIndex.

The LPI trends presented here follow the IPBES
regional classifications, with all terrestrial andfreshwater populations within a country assigned
to an IPBES region. The Americas are further
subdivided into North America, and Latin
America and the Caribbean (Mesoamerica,
the Caribbean and South America combined).

Valentina Marconi, Louise McRae
and Robin Freeman (Zoological Societyof London)

1

- 18%

0
1970

Index value (1970 = 1)

1980

1990

2000

2018

2010

North America

2

1

- 20%

0
1970

1980

1990

2000

2018

2010

Asia and the PacificIndex value (1970 = 1)

2

Latin America and the Caribbean

Figure 4: The Living PlanetIndex for each IPBES region(1970 to 2018)
The white line shows the index
values and the shaded areas
represent the statistical certainty
surrounding the trend (95%).
Source: WWF/ZSL (2022) 184.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 34

- 55%
0
1970

1

- 94%

0
1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2018

1980

1990

2000

2010

2018

Africa2

Index value (1970 = 1)

Index value (1970 = 1)

2

1

1

- 66%
0
1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2018

35

The Freshwater Living Planet Index

What’s happening to fish on the move?

Populations in the freshwater Living Planet Index have been hit
the hardest, declining by an average of 83%, with the addition ofa large amount of new data confirming the results shown inprevious reports.

Many fish species migrate to feed and breed, yet this movement isdependent on the connectivity of freshwater ecosystems – which
is declining.

Valentina Marconi(Zoological Society of London),Monika Böhm (Indianapolis Zoo),Louise McRae and Robin Freeman(Zoological Society of London)

Freshwater environments host a rich biodiversity, including
one-third of vertebrate species. Freshwater is also essential to oursurvival and well-being 49 in domestic use, energy production, foodsecurity, and industry 50. Although fresh water covers less than 1%of the planet’s surface, more than 50% of the human population
lives within 3km of a freshwater body 51.
This human proximity can be a threat to freshwater species andhabitats, including many biodiversity hotspots 182, via pollution,water abstraction or flow modification, species overexploitationand invasive species. Because freshwater environments are highly
connected, threats can travel easily from one location to another 52,53.

Freshwater Living Planet
Index
Confidence limits

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 36

Key solutions for reconnecting freshwater habitats are to improvefish passages through barriers and to remove dams. For example,
the removal of two dams and improvements to other dams in the
Penobscot River in Maine, USA, resulted in an increase in river
herring numbers from a few hundred to nearly 2 million within five
years, enabling people to return to fishing 55.

Figure 6: The freshwater
migratory fish Living PlanetIndex (1970 to 2016)
The average change in relative
abundance of 1,406 monitored
populations of 247 species wasa decline of 76%. The white line
shows the index values andthe shaded areas represent thestatistical certainty surrounding
the trend (95% statistical certainty,
range 88% to 53%). Source: Deinet
et al. (2020) 56.

2

Index value (1970 = 1)

KeyLouise McRae(Zoological Society of London)

The LPI of freshwater migratory fish (fish that live in freshwater
habitats either partly or exclusively) shows an average decline of
76% between 1970 and 2016, with habitat loss and modifications, inparticular barriers to migration routes, accounting for around halfof the threats to these populations.

2

Index value (1970 = 1)

Figure 5: The Freshwater
Living Planet Index(1970 to 2018)
The average abundance of 6,617
freshwater populations acrossthe globe, representing 1,398
species, declined by 83%. The whiteline shows the index values andthe shaded areas represent thestatistical certainty surrounding
the trend (95% statistical certainty,
range 74% to 89%). Source:
WWF/ZSL (2022) 184.

Based on 6,617 monitored populations, representing 1,398 species
of mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and fish, the freshwater
LPI provides an indication of the status of freshwater habitats.
Since 1970 these populations have declined by an average of 83%(range: -74% to -89%). Using the largest sample size so far – 454
new freshwater species and 2,876 new populations have been
added to the dataset – we can see that, as with the global LPI, thedecline is similar to those presented in previous editions of the
Living Planet Report.

Only 37% of rivers longer than 1,000km remain free-flowing
over their entire length 54. When some fish species migrate large
distances along these ‘Swimways’ 55, the presence of dams andreservoirs poses a threat to their survival.

1

1

Key

- 76%

- 83%
0

0
1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2018

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2016

Freshwater migratory fish
Living Planet Index
Confidence limits

37

From abundance to extinction: what do we know
about species extinction risk and recovery?
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species assesses the relativerisk of a species’ extinction. Now, new Green Status assessments
provide a tool for assessing the recovery of species populations andmeasuring their conservation success.
Craig Hilton Taylor (International Union
for Conservation of Nature)

More than 140,000 species have been evaluated using information
on life-history traits, population, distribution size and structure,and their change over time to assign them to one of eightcategories: Extinct, Extinct in the Wild, Critically Endangered,Endangered, Vulnerable, Near Threatened, Least Concern, orData Deficient 57.

While the IUCN Red List assesses extinction risk, it does notprovide a roadmap for species recovery. Now, new classifiers ofspecies recovery and conservation impact – known as the Green
Status of Species 58 – provide a tool for assessing the recovery of
species populations and measuring their conservation success.
When viewed alongside Red List assessments, Green Statusassessments show a fuller picture of a species’ conservation status.
This reveals that some species’ extinction risk can be low, yet they
are still depleted compared with their historical population levels(e.g. black stork 59). The Green Status can also show the past,current and potential future impact of conservation for a species,
showing the value of targeted actions for species recovery (e.g.
Darwin’s frog 60).

Darwin’s frog (Rhinoderma
darwinii) has a Green Status of
Critically Depleted but has high
Recovery Potential.

For five taxonomic groups in which all species have been assessedat least twice, the Red List Index (RLI) shows trends over time intheir relative survival probability based on genuine changes in these
Red List Categories. These data show that cycads (an ancient groupof plants) are most threatened, while corals are declining fastest.
Baseline RLI values are available for additional groups which have
only been assessed once; reptiles have a similar initial RLI value tomammals, and dragonflies a similar RLI value to birds.
1,0CoralsEXTINCTION RISKRed List Index of species survival

BetterBony fishes

Birds

0,9

Dragonflies

Monocots

Mammals
0,8Cone snails
Legumes

ReptilesCrustaceans
Sharks & rays

Amphibians

Conifers

0,70,6© Jaime Bosch

Cycads
Worse

0,5

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Figure 7: The Red List Index (RLI)
It shows trends in survival probability (the inverse of extinction risk) over time 61.
An RLI value of 1.0 equates to all species within a group qualifying as Least Concern(i.e. not expected to become Extinct in the near future 61). An index value of 0 equatesto all species having gone Extinct. A constant value over time indicates that theoverall extinction risk for the group is unchanged. If the rate of biodiversity loss
were reducing, the Index would show an upward trend. A decline in the Index meansthat species are being driven towards extinction at an accelerating rate. Source:
IUCN (2021) 57.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 38

39

Using the IUCN Red List to build a picture of
threat hotspots
A new analysis based on data from the Red List allows us to overlay
six key threats – agriculture, hunting, logging, pollution, invasive
species and climate change – to terrestrial vertebrates.
Mike Harfoot (Vizzuality
and UNEP-WCMC), Neil Burgess(UNEP-WCMC) and Jonas Geldmann(University of Copenhagen)Combining expert-based information from the IUCN Red List on
the spatial distributions of and threats to all terrestrial amphibians,
birds and mammals – a total of 23,271 species – we have generated
global maps of the threat to these groups from agriculture, hunting
and trapping, logging, pollution, invasive species and climatechange 62.

These maps show that agriculture is the mostprevalent threat to amphibians, whereas hunting
and trapping are most likely to threaten birds andmammals. Geographically, Southeast Asia is theregion where species are most likely to face threatsat a significant level, while polar regions, the east
coast of Australia and South Africa showed thehighest impact probabilities for climate change,
driven in particular by impacts on birds.
Mapping the likelihood of impact of the six
threats and combining this with information on
areas of high conservation priority (determinedfor example by species richness) allows theidentification of novel ‘hotspots’ of conservation
priority and threat intensity (Figure 8).

This work has revealed that threats fromagriculture, hunting and trapping, and logging
are predominantly occurring in the tropics; while
pollution hotspots are most prominent in Europe.
The Himalayas, Southeast Asia, the east coastof Australia, the dry forest of Madagascar, theAlbertine Rift and Eastern Arc Mountains ineastern Africa, the Guinean forests of West Africa,
the Atlantic Forest, the Amazon basin and theNorthern Andes into Panama and Costa Rica
in South and Central America were all deemed‘high-priority areas for risk mitigation’ for all
taxonomic groups across all threat categories.

Figure 8: Global hotspotsof risk
The relative importance of eachpixel across species and threatsas measured by the number oftimes a pixel falls into a hotspot
region for any taxon or threat.
Hotspot regions are defined as
locations containing the highest
10% of numbers of species atrisk from each major threat
and taxonomic group. Source:
Harfoot et al. (2022) 62.
Key

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 40

41

Disappearing oceanic sharks and rays
The global abundance of oceanic sharks and rays has declined by
71% over the last 50 years, due primarily to an 18-fold increase infishing pressure since 1970.
Nathan Pacoureau
and Nicholas K Dulvy(Simon Fraser University)

Sharks and rays are important to the health of our oceans, yet they
have become increasingly valued for their meat, for parts used fortheir purported medicinal properties (e.g. manta and devil ray gillplates), or for use in dishes such as shark fin soup 63,64.
The global abundance of 18 of 31 oceanic sharks and rays has
declined by 71% over the last 50 years 65. This collapse in theirabundance reflects an increase in extinction risk for most species.
By 1980, nine of the 31 oceanic sharks and rays were threatened.
By 2020, three-quarters (77%, 24 species) were threatened with anelevated risk of extinction. For example, the oceanic Whitetip Sharkhas declined by 95% globally over three generation lengths, andhas consequently moved from Vulnerable to Critically Endangeredon the IUCN Red List 66.
2

Oceanic sharks LPI
Small < 250 cm
Credible intervals
Oceanic sharks LPI
Medium 250 - 500 cm
Credible intervals
Oceanic sharks LPI
Large > 500 cm
Credible intervals

Index value (1970 = 1)

Key

1

- 31%
- 75%
- 81%

0
1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2018

Figure 9a: Living Planet Index from 1970 to 2018 disaggregated bybody size (maximum total length divided into three categories: small, ≤250 cm;
medium, 250–500 cm; large, >500 cm). The overfishing of sharks and rays has
followed a classic pattern of serial depletion. The large-bodied species were caught
first and therefore initially declined faster than smaller species, as they are generally
more valuable with a greater volume of meat and fins. But critically these largerbodied species live longer and are late-maturing, hence they have less capacity toreplace the numbers lost due to unrestrained fishing pressure. Smaller sharks andrays have faster life histories and can withstand greater fishing mortality thanlarger sharks. Source: Pacoureau et al. (2021) 65.

Scalloped hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna lewini),
Cocos Island, Costa Rica, Pacific Ocean.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 42© naturepl.com / Jeff Rotman / WWF

43

Index value (1970 = 1)

2

Key
Shortfin Mako
Living Planet Index

Due to the complexity and scale of oceanic food webs, the impactof the decline in oceanic sharks and rays on the ecosystem is
uncertain 67-69, however the profound effects of depleting thesepredatory species are becoming apparent. For example, the declineof large apex predators such as sharks and tunas can result insignificant functional changes to oceanic food webs 69,70.

1

- 38%

0

Credible intervals

1970

1980

1990

2000

2018

2010

Index value (1970 = 1)

2

Key

Sharks and rays are also critical to many local communities andeconomies 71. The severe declines reported also threaten foodsecurity and income in many low-income nations 72. Subsistence
fisheries for a variety of sharks and rays have existed in thesecountries for hundreds of years 73, and the development ofalternative livelihood and income options for fishers could
significantly ease transitions to sustainability. Halting declines andrebuilding populations to sustainable levels through catch limits
will help secure the future of these iconic predators, as well as theecosystems and people that depend on them.

Spotted eagle ray (Aetobatus narinari)swimming near the ocean floor near
Darwin Island, Galapagos Islands.

1

- 75%

Oceanic Whitetip Shark
Living Planet Index0

Credible intervals

1970

1980

1990

2000

2018

2010

Index value (1970 = 1)

2

KeyWhite Shark
Living Planet Index
Credible intervals

1

- 37%

0
1970

Figure 9b: Living Planet Index from 1970 to 2018
for three species of oceanic sharks
Some formerly abundant, wide-ranging shark species
have declined so steeply that they now fall into the twohighest threat categories on the IUCN Red List. For
example, the commercially valuable Shortfin Mako shark
was recently classified as Endangered, while the iconic

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 44

1980

1990

2000

2010

2018

oceanic Whitetip Shark is now considered CriticallyEndangered. White Shark numbers had declined on
average by an estimated 70% worldwide over the last five
decades, but they are now recovering in several regions,
including off both coasts of the US (where their retention
has been banned since the mid-1990s). Source: Pacoureau
et al. (2021) 65.

© Daniel Versteeg / WWF

45

How intact is nature?
The Biodiversity Intactness Index estimates how much of an area’s
natural biodiversity remains, helping us to understand past, current
and future changes to nature.
Andy Purvis (Natural History
Museum) and Samantha Hill
(UNEP-WCMC)

Biological communities can change fundamentally because of humanpressures compared to the state in which they would have been inpristine conditions, even without any species going locally extinct.

The Biodiversity Intactness Index (BII) ranges from 100-0%, with
100 representing an undisturbed natural environment with little
to no human footprint 74,75. If the BII is 90% or more, the area hasenough biodiversity to be a resilient and functioning ecosystem.
Under 90%, biodiversity loss means ecosystems may function lesswell and less reliably. If the BII is 30% or less, the area’s biodiversity
has been depleted and the ecosystem could be at risk of collapse.
BII models now include site-level pressures, simple measures oflandscape-scale pressures, and landscape history – that is, howlong ago human use first covered 30% of the land. Such indicators
can be used to test whether planned conservation actions will beenough to stop the further loss of biodiversity 76.

COMPOSITION

Figure 10: Biodiversity
Intactness Index for the year
2020 at 0.25° resolution
The global average is 77%.
Source: Natural History Museum(2022) 75.
Key

0

25

50

75

100

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 46

47

People and nature
The science of mapping and modelling Nature’s Contributions to
People involves predicting how a change in ecosystems leads to achange in their benefits to people.
Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer (Instituteon the Environment, University of
Minnesota; SPRING, springinnovate.org;
Natural Capital Project,
Stanford University)

Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP) are the contributions thatnature makes to people’s quality of life, which can be assessedby modelling the ecological supply of those benefits and thehuman demand for them. The supply side of NCP is based on
ecosystem processes and functions. For example, bees and otherwild pollinators nesting in natural areas pollinate nearby crops;
plants growing along streams and on hillsides help trap pollutants,
naturally purifying our water; mangroves, coral reefs and othercoastal habitats protect us from coastal storms, erosion andflooding. The demand side of NCP depends on people’s location
and activity as well as their needs and preferences, which reflect
the extent of their dependence on nature. Special attention shouldbe paid to vulnerable populations, which may lack access tosubstitutes for NCP.
To identify where nature contributes most to people’s quality of life,
the areas benefitting dependent populations must be mapped 132.
How these areas are mapped depends on how the benefit isdelivered – for example, bee flight patterns between their nestingsites and pollination-dependent crops; the path water takes througha watershed on its way to a stream used by people for drinking
water, recreation, fishing or other activities; or the physical featuresthat reduce the destructive force of waves on a shoreline where
people and property are exposed.
Global analyses have found trade-offs between biodiversity and
NCP, specifically with carbon, water provisioning, and fisheries
production 77, 78, which suggests that multiple strategies forconservation will be needed to manage the benefits for nature andpeople. Regional analyses further reveal that synergies may besomewhat limited if conservation efforts are constrained by existing
protected area structures, which were not necessarily designed tomaximise NCP 79.

Looking at bluebells (Hyacinthoides non-scripta)
in a wood in Hertfordshire, England, UK.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 48© naturepl.com / Andy Sands / WWF49

Indigenous leadership is key to taking care of ourliving planet
The importance of Indigenous leadership in conservation is being
increasingly recognised. By learning from Indigenous experts,
we (re)open a door to an approach to conservation that respects theinherent interconnections between people and place.
Andrea Reid (Nisga’a Nation and
the Centre for Indigenous Fisheries,
University of British Columbia)

Around the globe, it is clear that leaders in dominant societies
have failed to control the human activities driving climate change
and habitat loss, while Indigenous lands and waters have beensuccessfully taken care of over millennia 80. In Canada, Brazil
and Australia, for instance, vertebrate biodiversity in Indigenous
territories equals or surpasses that found within formally protectedareas 81. Far from the colonial idea of separating people fromnature in order to preserve it – and the concept of the pristine or
wilderness free from human influence – Indigenous approaches toconservation regularly place reciprocal people-place relationships
at the centre of cultural and care practices. These approaches hingeon systems of Indigenous knowledge which include scientific andecological understandings that are carried across generations
through language, story, ceremony, practice and law (Figure 11).

These elders advocate for Indigenous language revitalisation andfundamentally Indigenous leadership as being keys to unlock moresustainable and just futures.
Part of this just future involves recognising the distinct value inknowledge systems – both Indigenous and non-Indigenous. These
include Etuaptmumk, or two-eyed seeing – that is, learning tosee from one eye with the strengths of Indigenous knowledge
and ways of knowing, and from the other eye with the strengthsof mainstream knowledge and ways of knowing, and to use boththese eyes together for the benefit of all 83. Etuaptmumk, whenpractised and honoured appropriately, means not only working
with Indigenous knowledge as another source of evidence, but also
the people and the land inherently tied to these ways of knowing.

Global biodiversity loss carries profound consequences for
Indigenous Peoples and their ways of life. The loss of fish, forexample, is far more than simply a loss of food. Fishing enables
the monitoring of waterways, provides a vehicle for knowledge
and language transfer, and embodies Indigenous legal traditions.
Elders across British Columbia, Canada have reported a loss ofaccess to salmon that parallels the trends in this report (an 83%
decline in their lifetimes) 82.
The plural ‘Peoples’ recognises that more than one
distinct group comprises the many Indigenous
populations of the world, totalling more than 370 million
across 70 countries worldwide. ‘Indigenous Peoples’ iscapitalised in the same way as other nations or cultures,such as Canadian or European.
Indigenous Peoples – “Inheritors and practitioners of uniquecultures and ways of relating to people and the environment. They
have retained social, cultural, economic and political characteristics
that are distinct from those of the dominant societies in which theylive.” Source: UN (2022) 84.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 50

Figure 11: Interrelationships between traditional ecological knowledge,
Indigenous science and Indigenous knowledge systems
are depicted here using the symbology of the life cycle of Pacific salmon, startingwith the salmon egg at the core of the image. The understandings and philosophies
embedded with this centre are carried through time and across generations, throughlanguage, story, ceremony, practice and law. Salmon and Salmon People not only
coexist in these settings but are interdependent on one another. Source: Illustrationcommissioned from Nicole Marie Burton.

51

The cultural and economic importance ofindigenous plants
Forest tree species that provide edible fruit and nuts are being
planted in initiatives in countries such as Guinea to support
conservation and improve livelihoods.
Denise Molmou, Sekou
Magassouba, Tokpa Seny Doré
(Herbier National de Guinée),Charlotte Couch(Herbier National de Guinée
and Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew),
Isabel Larridon(Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew),
Melanie-Jayne Howes(Royal Botanic Gardens,
Kew and King’s College London),Iain Darbyshire, Eimear Nic
Lughadha and Martin Cheek(Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew)

Motivating local communities to protect natural habitats rich indiversity, such as Tropical Important Plant Areas (TIPAs), is crucial
for plant conservation 85. Supporting the propagation and plantingof ‘useful’ indigenous plant species to improve livelihoods is one
path to achieving this goal.
In the Republic of Guinea, the fruit and seed of several forest tree
species have traditionally been harvested from the wild. However,by the 1990s, 96% of the nation’s original forest had been cleared 86,
and deforestation is still ongoing today 87. Demand exceeds supply
for edible nuts such as tola (Beilschmiedia mannii), petit kola
(Garcinia kola) and the gingerbread plum bansouma (Neocaryamacrophylla) that have long been popular 88,89 and are increasingly
recognised as a source of nutrients that could help support humanhealth 90-92.
These useful species are included in the planting mix of an
initiative 93 designed to multiply Critically Endangered tree species
in the buffer zones of three TIPAs in Guinea 94. This approach
incentivises conservation and offers the potential to increase
incomes and provide nutrients for local communities in a country
ranked among the lowest in the Human Development Index.

Habitat of the wild bansouma tree or gingerbread plum tree
(Neocarya macrophylla). Seeds are locally traded in Guinea as an
edible nut. Redtail monkeys eat the fruits but not the nut-containing
endocarps. The trees are currently being cleared for charcoal, andthose on flat land for plantations of invasive non-native cashews.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 52© Martin Cheek

53

Protection, preservation andresilience in Zambia
In Zambia, rising temperatures and changing rainfall patterns
have led to an increase in the frequency of floods and droughts.
Among other things, these events have disrupted water systems
that are fundamental to sustaining ecosystems as well as the
livelihoods and health of local communities. In Lusaka and theSouthern Province of the country, water scarcity is a reality due
to past prolonged dry spells, tree cutting, and the disturbance ofwater catchment areas. There are both environmental and social
impacts of water insecurity, which are further exacerbated by
the changing climate. This is especially true for women and girls
who primarily bear the burden of providing this core necessity
for their families.
A local initiative, Climate Smart Agriculture Alliance (CSAA),
is working with community members in the area, planting
indigenous crop species within water catchment zones of oneof the districts Chikankata to protect water resources for futureuse. This strengthens and amplifies their choice of a local
solution to this crisis and enables those who are most affectedby water scarcity to take responsibility for sustainably managing
the resource. Local community members manage the water
catchment areas, protecting and preserving them while atthe same time building resilience to the impacts of theclimate crisis.

A local woman carrying empty buckets down to theLuangwa River in Zambia to collect water.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 54© James Suter / Black Bean Productions / WWF-US

55

The state of Indigenous land and water knowledge
in Australia
Indigenous Peoples have cared for and managed surface andgroundwater for many generations – in the case of Australia, many
thousands of generations stretching back more than 65,000 years.
Indigenous Peoples’ connection to water is strong and is a basis ofcultural identity, language, gender, law and, most of all, survival ona dry continent.
Bradley J. Moggridge (Universityof Canberra)

The knowledge and stories held by Indigenous Peoples havebeen acquired through many generations of observing andunderstanding their territories, and through knowing andprotecting water.
Indigenous research methodologies can provide a basis forthe exploration of this knowledge in a way that is culturally
appropriate and which generates a culturally safe space for
Indigenous researchers and communities 95. In southeast Australia,
the National Cultural Flows Research Project (NCFRP) has
supported capacity-building, free, prior and informed consent,
and Indigenous-led science. The NCFRP developed an assessmentof Aboriginal cultural water values; robust methodologies for
ecological, socioeconomic, health and well-being outcomes; andrecommended policy, legal and institutional changes to enable
the implementation of cultural flows 96. However, the take-up by
jurisdictions of the NCFRP methods to date in Australia is limited.
The development of Indigenous research methodologies in thecontext of water continues to be limited in Australia, primarily
due to government inaction, the limited number of Indigenous
water practitioners, and non-Indigenous researchers dominating
the sector. Indigenous knowledge, research and perspectives canbe well placed to inform and complement western science, butfinding this common ground is one of the struggles of cross-culturalresearch 97,98. At a national and regional scale Indigenous paradigms
can impact the way society values and manages water. If this were
to be incorporated into water planning, Australians would benefit
through the protection and recognition of different types of flows.
So too would water itself, in its many forms.

Gum tree (Eucalyptus) growing along Yellow Water River,Kakadu National Park, Northern Territory, Australia.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 56© Wim van Passel / WWF

57

CHAPTER 3

BUILDING A NATURE-POSITIVE
SOCIETY
We know that the health of our planet is declining, and we know
why. We also know that we have the knowledge and means toaddress climate change and biodiversity loss. First, we explore
how values, rights and norms can take centre stage in decisionand policy-making to drive the transformative change we need.
In addition, we consider models and scenarios which help us
to imagine the future and understand what role economics,
technology, consumption and production should also play. In
the Amazon and Congo Basin, two pilot initiatives are taking
their first steps to turn theory into practice.
Sirjana Tharu in her chamomile field in Nepal.

© Emmanuel Rondeau / WWF-US

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 58

59

OUR RIGHT TO A CLEAN, HEALTHY ANDSUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT
In 2022 the United Nations Human General Assemblyrecognised that everyone, everywhere, has the right to live
in a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, meaningthat for those in power respecting this is no longer an option
but an obligation.
David Boyd (UN Special Rapporteuron human rights and the environment,
University of British Columbia)

Imagine a world where everyone breathes clean air, drinks safe
water and eats sustainably produced food. Imagine a world freefrom pollution and toxic substances, with a safe climate, healthy
biodiversity and flourishing ecosystems.
Is this an impossible dream? No, absolutely not. This is a visionof a world where everyone’s fundamental human right to live
in a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is respected bygovernments and businesses.
In 2022 the United Nations Human General Assembly finallyrecognised that everyone, everywhere, has this right 99. Now it’stime to implement it, as world leaders urged at the Stockholm+50
conference in 2022, a meeting commemorating the UN’s first-everinternational environmental conference in 1972 100. Fulfilling thisright is no longer an option, but an obligation.
Implementing the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable
environment means taking a rights-based approach to theinterconnected crises that are preventing people from living inharmony with nature – the climate emergency, the collapse of
biodiversity, and pervasive pollution 101-104.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 60

With rights come responsibilities – for governments, businesses
and individuals. The primary burden falls upon governments to
put in place laws and policies to ensure that everyone, without
discrimination, is able to enjoy their rights. In the context of saving
nature, this means enacting and enforcing restrictions on fossil
fuels, making laws to protect endangered species and spaces,
funding ecological restoration, phasing out and better regulating
extractive industries, requiring businesses to carry out humanrights and environmental due diligence across their supply chains,
ending subsidies that encourage activities that degrade ecosystems,
and shifting to sustainable production and consumption, including
the transition to a circular economy.
A rights-based approach means listening to everyone’s voices
and ensuring that the people whose lives, health and rights could
be affected by a proposed action have a seat at the table where
decisions are made. This approach focuses on the most vulnerable
and disadvantaged populations and ensures accountability.
History demonstrates – through the progress achieved byabolitionists, suffragettes, civil rights activists and Indigenous
Peoples – the powerful role of human rights in sparking
transformative societal changes. The right to a clean, healthy andsustainable environment can be a catalyst for systemic changes,
as has been demonstrated by leading nations and recent events 103.
In more than 80 nations, the right to a healthy environment
has sparked stronger environmental laws and policies, better
implementation and enforcement, greater public participation,and – most importantly – improved environmental performance.
It has been used by citizens around the world to protect threatened
species and endangered ecosystems.
After adding the right to a healthy environment to its constitution
in 1994, Costa Rica became a global environmental giant. Thirty
per cent of Costa Rica is in national parks. Ninety-nine per centof its electricity comes from renewables, including hydro, solar,
wind and geothermal. Laws ban open pit mining and oil and gas
development, while carbon taxes are used to pay Indigenous
Peoples and farmers to restore forests. Back in 1994, deforestation
had reduced forest cover to 25% of all land, but today reforestation
has driven that number back above 50% 105.

61

France embraced the right to a healthy environment in 2004,
sparking strong new laws to ban fracking, implement the right tobreathe clean air, and prohibit the export of pesticides that are notauthorised for use in the European Union because of health andenvironmental concerns.
Costa Rica and France lead the High Ambition Coalition for
Nature and People 106, are key members of the Beyond Oil and
Gas Alliance 107 and have been leading voices in the campaign for
universal recognition of the right to a healthy environment.
In recent months, the right to a healthy environment has beenused by communities to block offshore oil and gas activities inArgentina and South Africa, because of the potential impacts on
marine mammals. The right was used to compel governments inIndonesia and South Africa to take action to improve air quality
and to stop an ill-advised coal-fired power project in Kenya. The
right was used to protect forests from mining in Ecuador and toeliminate the use of a bee-killing pesticide in Costa Rica. Climate
lawsuits drawing upon the right to a healthy environment are
occurring all over the world, and research indicates they are
more likely to be successful than not 108.
Although not legally binding, the UN resolution is expected toaccelerate action to address the global environmental crisis, justas UN resolutions on the right to water in 2010 turbocharged
progress in delivering safe water to millions of people.
It’s time to turn the dream of a healthy environment into a reality
for everyone on Earth by harnessing this fundamental humanright to spark transformative and systemic changes.

An Amazon river dolphin or boto (Inia geoffrensis)
in flooded forest on the Ariau River, a tributaryof Rio Negro in Amazonia, Brazil.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 62© naturepl.com / Kevin Schafer / WWF

63

THE ROOTS OF AN INTERTWINED CRISIS
In 2021, for the first time, the UN climate and biodiversity
bodies – IPBES and the IPCC – came together to highlight themultiple connections between the climate and biodiversity
crises, including their common roots, and warn of theemerging risks of an unlivable future.
David Leclère (International Institute forApplied Systems Analysis),
Bruna Fatiche Pavani (International
Institute for Sustainability, Brazil),
Detlef van Vuuren(University of Utrecht),
Aafke Schipper (Radboud University),
Michael Obersteiner (Oxford University),
Neil Burgess (UNEP-WCMC),
Rob Alkemade(Wageningen University & Research),
Tim Newbold(University College London),Mike Harfoot(Vizzuality and UNEP-WCMC)

The recent assessment reports from the IPBES 39, the IPCC 109-111
and the joint IPBES-IPCC workshop 112 unambiguously document
further climate change and the continuing degradation of
biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people. Over the last
50 years, the mean global temperature and the frequency of
extreme weather events have increased, as have the numberof species threatened with extinction.
These trends result from direct human drivers, such as greenhousegas emissions from fossil fuel combustion, habitat conversion anddegradation from land-use change, pollution and unsustainable
harvests, and the introduction of invasive species. Some directdrivers like land-use change and pollution can cause both climatechange and biodiversity degradation, while others primarily drive
one or the other: for example, biological invasion has a limited
impact on our climate.
Direct drivers are underpinned by a range of more indirect drivers,
such as increases in human population and affluence, as well associocultural, economic, technological, institutional and governancefactors, connected to values and behaviours. Over the last 50
years, the human population has doubled, the global economy has
grown nearly fourfold and global trade has grown tenfold, together
dramatically increasing the demand for energy and materials.
Economic incentives have generally favoured expanding economic
activity, often with environmental harm, rather than conservation
or restoration.

Aerial view of a harvested corn field and forest under thehaze of smoke from uncontrolled forest fires in Brazil.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 64© Day's Edge Productions / WWF-US

65

Humanity’s Ecological Footprint exceeds Earth’s
biocapacity

Breaking down the Ecological Footprint

Humans use as many ecological resources as if we lived on almost
two Earths. This erodes our planet’s health and humanity’s
prospects.

Figure 12: The global
Ecological Footprint andbiocapacity from 1961 to 2022
in global hectares per person
The blue line is the total Ecological
Footprint per person, and the pinkline is the Carbon Footprint perperson (a subset of the Ecological
Footprint). The green lineshows the
biocapacity per person. Results for
2019-2022 are nowcast estimates;
remaining data points are directly
taken from the National Footprint
and Biocapacity Accounts, 2022
edition.
Key
Ecological Footprint
Biocapacity
Carbon footprint

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 66

Our planet’s biocapacity is the ability of its ecosystems toregenerate 113, 183. It is the underlying currency of all living systems
on Earth. For instance, biocapacity provides people with biologicalresources and absorbs the waste that they produce. We can measureboth biocapacity and the demand people put on it; the latter we callpeople’s Ecological Footprint. It includes all competing demands onnature, from food and fibre production to the absorption of excesscarbon emissions. Ecological Footprint accounts document thathumanity overuses our planet by at least 75%, the equivalent toliving off 1.75 Earths 113,115. This overshoot erodes the planet’s healthand, with it, humanity’s prospects.
Human demand and natural resources are unevenly distributed
across the Earth 113,115. Consumption of these resources differsfrom resource availability, as resources may not be consumed
at the point of extraction. Ecological Footprints per person
provide insights into countries’ resource performance, risks andopportunities 114,116,117. Varying levels of Ecological Footprint are
due to different lifestyles and consumption patterns, including thequantity of food, goods and services residents consume, the natural
resources they use, and the CO₂ emitted to provide these goods
and services.

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.
Humanity’s Ecological Footprint
by land use
Key
Grazing land footprint
Forest product footprint
Fishing grounds footprint

3,5

Cropland footprint

5%

Built-up land footprint

3,0Global hectares per person

Amanda Diep, Alessandro Galli,David Lin and Mathis Wackernagel(Global Footprint Network)

Grazing land footprint measures the demand for grazing land toraise livestock for meat, dairy, leather and wool products.

Carbon footprint

2,5

19%

Humanity’s Ecological Footprintby activities

2,0

Key

1,5

Food

1,0

15%
60%

10%

3%

30%

15% 22%19%

Housing
0,5Personal transportation
Goods

0
1961

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

Services

2%

Figure 13: Humanity’s
Ecological Footprint by land
use and by activities
The Ecological Footprint
measures how much demand
human consumption places on
the biosphere and compares it towhat ecosystems can renew. In
2020, the world average Footprint
amounts to 2.5 global hectares perperson, compared to 1.6 global
hectares of biocapacity. The
Footprint can be broken down
by area categories (outer circle)
or, using Multi-Regional InputOutput Assessments, by activity
fields (inner circle) 185,186,187,188,189.

67

Consumption around the world
The Ecological Footprint per person is a country’s Ecological
Footprint divided by its population.

To live within the means of our planet,humanity’s Ecological Footprint would haveto be lower than our planet’s biocapacity, which
is currently at 1.6 global hectares per person.
So, if a country’s Ecological Footprint is

6.4 global hectares per person, its residents’demand on nature for food, fibre, urban
areas and carbon sequestration is four times
more than what’s available on this planet
per person.

Figure 14: The Ecological
Footprint per person is acountry’s Ecological Footprint
divided by its population
To live within the means of ourplanet, humanity’s Ecological
Footprint would have to be lower
than our planet’s biocapacity,which is currently at 1.6 global
hectares per person. So, if acountry’s Ecological Footprint is
6.4 global hectares per person, its
residents’ demand on nature forfood, fibre, urban areas and carbon
sequestration is four times morethan what’s available on this planet
per person. For more details see
data.footprintnetwork.org.
Key< 1.7 gha/person
1.7 - 3.4 gha/person
3.4 - 5.1 gha/person
5.1 - 6.7 gha/person> 6.7 gha/person
Insufficient data

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 68

69

THE CHOICES WE MAKE WILL SHAPE CLIMATE AND BIODIVERSITY OUTCOMES

Human Drivers - indirect
DEMOGRAPHIC

With a fundamental, system-wide reorganisation acrosstechnological, economic and social factors, including
paradigms, goals and values, there might still be a chance that
we can reverse the trend of nature’s decline.

Aafke Schipper (Radboud University),
Michael Obersteiner (Oxford University),
Neil Burgess (UNEP-WCMC),
Rob Alkemade(Wageningen University & Research),
Tim Newbold(University College London),Mike Harfoot(Vizzuality and UNEP-WCMC)

Such transitions can only be achieved by acting on all indirectdrivers simultaneously, representing rapid, far-reaching andunprecedented “transformative changes” – a term defined by
IPBES as “a fundamental, system-wide reorganisation acrosstechnological, economic and social factors, including paradigms,
goals and values”.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 70

FOSSIL RESOURCEEXTRACTION

As illustrated in Figure 15, under current policies, sustained
increases in net greenhouse gas emissions are expected to pushglobal war-ming to about +3.2°C by 2100 (range 2.5-3.5°C) 110, while
negative trends in biodiversity and ecosystem functions are projected
to continue, with new threats such as climate change progressively
adding to pressures from other direct drivers such as land-use
change and overexploitation 112. As ecosystems degrade, theircapacity to both support the provision of agricultural and forestry
products and to store carbon from the atmosphere deteriorates:
these mutually reinforcing climate and biodiversity crises mean thatsatisfactorily resolving either requires consideration of the other 39.
To keep the sustainable development agenda in sight, a strong
sustainability transition is needed in the coming decades. Limiting
global warming to 1.5°C, to avoid severe impacts (in line with the Paris
Agreement) will require rapidly bending the curve of greenhouse gas
emissions to reach net zero around mid-century. Reversing global
biodiversity declines by mid-century (as foreseen by the post-2020
Global Biodiversity Framework) will also require reversing the decline
in natural ecosystems and the degradation of all ecosystems.

GOVERNANCE

LAND & SEA USE

OVEREXPLOITATIONVALUES

2020

2050

2100

biodiversity outcomes

2020

2050

INVASIVE SPECIESTRANSITION SCENARIO
Transformative change,leading to rapidly decreasingpressures

STATUS QUO SCENARIO
Current policies & values,
leading to increasingpressuresclimate outcomes

POLLUTION

climate outcomes

2100

2020

2050

2100

Global biodiversity indicator

Detlef van Vuuren(University of Utrecht),

TECHNOLOGICAL

Global warming

Bruna Fatiche Pavani (International
Institute for Sustainability, Brazil),Over the coming decades, if unaddressed, most drivers are expected
to cause further climate change and biodiversity loss and, hence,loss of Nature’s Contribution to People. This will negatively impact
many aspects of a good quality of life for all, and entails a large riskof jeopardising the Sustainable Development Goals.

ECONOMIC

Human Drivers - direct

Global warmingDavid Leclère (International Institute forApplied Systems Analysis),

SOCIOCULTURAL

Global biodiversity indicator

THE NEED FOR A RAPID SYSTEM-WIDE
TRANSFORMATION

biodiversity outcomes

2020

2050

2100

Figure 15:
Earth’s climate, biodiversity and people at a crossroads

71Scenario-based modelling is increasingly mobilised at thescience-policy interface to identify plausible futures. It
highlights the need to tackle drivers as a clear element of therequired transformative change.
David Leclère (International Institute forApplied Systems Analysis),
Bruna Fatiche Pavani (International
Institute for Sustainability, Brazil),
Detlef van Vuuren(University of Utrecht),
Aafke Schipper (Radboud University),
Michael Obersteiner (Oxford University),
Neil Burgess (UNEP-WCMC),
Rob Alkemade(Wageningen University & Research),
Tim Newbold(University College London),Mike Harfoot(Vizzuality and UNEP-WCMC)

Studies exploring how to reach ambitious targets for biodiversity(as illustrated in Figure 16) suggest that increasing traditional
conservation and restoration efforts is key, but this will fail to bend
the curve if it is not complemented by a significant effort to address
direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity loss.
In particular, more sustainable production and consumption
practices – such as sustainable increases in yield and trade,reduction of waste, and the adoption of a higher share of plantbased products in our diets – can be instrumental in limiting futureland-use expansion and making space for ecosystem restoration.
While the joint effect of climate change and land-use change on
biodiversity is uncertain, biodiversity declines cannot be reduced
if we fail to limit warming below 2°C (or preferably 1.5°C) 39,111.
This will require rapid and deep decarbonisation in all sectors –energy, buildings, transport, industry, agriculture and land use.
Demand-side efforts based on responsible consumption principles
could represent 40-70% of net emission reductions by 2050 111.
For both climate and biodiversity this will require deliberate
challenging of routine values and practices to act on indirectdrivers, through multi-actor governance interventions onleverage points.

In order to bend the curve any earlier
than 2050 and minimise biodiversity
losses, ambitious conservation needs
to be combined with sustainableproduction and consumption
measures - the yellow line.

Biodiversity indicator value

TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGE NEEDSDELIBERATE ACTION ON DRIVERS

2010 INDICATOR VALUE

Conservation actions are crucial but
the green line shows that alone theycannot bend the curve before 2050,
and will allow much greater
overall losses.
The grey line shows that biodiversity
continues to decline if we continue on
our current path and recovery does
not begin before 2100.

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Figure 16:
What bending the curve means for biodiversity, andhow to get there. This illustration uses one biodiversity
indicator (Mean species abundance, MSA) for one
biodiversity model (GLOBIO), averaged across four
land use models, to explain what the different scenariosmean for projected biodiversity trends and what thistells us about how to bend the curve. Adapted from
Leclère et al. (2020) 76.

Scenarios on future efforts to bend thecurve (mean across land-use change models)HistoricalNo action
Increased conservation efforts
Integrated Action Portfolio
The date when recovery begins

Woman selling fruit and vegetables in the towns central
market, Kota Bharu, Kelantan State, Malaysia.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 72

73

TRADE Hub: towards sustainable global supply chains
There is an urgent need to address the sustainability of natural
resource supply chains, given the impact they have on nature andpeople. A new ambitious multi-country collaboration is linking
international trade systems to social and environmental impacts totry to bend the curve of biodiversity loss at scale.
Amayaa Wijesinghe and Neil Burgess(UNEP-WCMC)

There is compelling evidence that global trade is associated withsignificant negative impacts on biodiversity and people, particularly
in producing countries 118. The intricate web of supply chains
underlying our economies means that these negative trade-related
impacts on nature and people can be shifted around the world,from buyers to sellers and exporters to importers. Therefore, thephenomenon of exported biodiversity risk through international
supply chains, such as exported deforestation, is a criticallyimportant driver of biodiversity loss that must be addressed 119.
The Trade, Development and Environment Hub (TRADE Hub)is a multi-country, interdisciplinary collaboration that seeks
to understand international trade systems and their social andenvironmental impacts. Using this knowledge, the Hub seeks to
inform transformational change at all levels, from international
trade agreements through to national legislation, including throughthe mainstreaming of biodiversity impacts and dependencies intrade policy and implementation 120.
At present, global momentum is building to go beyond voluntarysustainability commitments previously put in place by individual
entities, towards legally binding due diligence processes governedby importing countries or blocs 121. In the UK, for instance,
mandatory due diligence to evidence that imports are sustainably
produced has already been introduced through Schedule 17 of
the UK’s Environment Act. Secondary legislation, to determine
mechanisms for implementation, is now being drafted.
TRADE Hub provides ongoing analyses on nation-to-nation tradethat feeds directly into these discussions, such as through thedevelopment of indicators that can trace how biodiversity loss
can be attributed to global supply chains 119. Further, together
with partners in Indonesia, Brazil, Central Africa, China andTanzania, TRADE Hub focuses on pathways towards equitable andsustainable upstream practices, especially supporting producer
livelihoods, while aligning with downstream requirements, such as
from end consumers.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 74

Palm oil being poured into a bottle
for purchase. Oshwe, Democratic
Republic of the Congo.

© Karine Aigner / WWF-US

75

The importance of diversification
Many contemporary agrifood systems are unsustainable and, as
currently governed, not fit for purpose. To achieve the Sustainable
Development Goals, agrifood systems must be transformed tonourish people, nurture the planet, advance equitable livelihoods
and build resilient ecosystems.
Ismahane Elouafi (Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations),*
Preetmoninder Lidder(Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations),*
Mona Chaya (Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations),*
Thomas Hertel (Purdue University, USA),
Morakot Tanticharoen (University ofTechnology Thonburi, Thailand)Frank Ewert (Leibniz Centre for
Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF)
and University of Bonn, Germany)

In 2021, close to 193 million people in 53 countries or territories
experienced acute food insecurity at crisis levels or worse (IPC/CH
Phase 3-5), an increase of nearly 40 million people compared to theprevious high reached in 2020 122. Almost 3.1 billion people cannot
afford a healthy diet and millions of children suffer from stunting
or wasting, while the global obesity rate continues to grow 123.
Interconnected and colliding global and local crises are unfolding.
Right now, conflicts including the war in Ukraine, economic
slowdowns, and the lingering impacts of COVID-19 are further
pushing millions of people into poverty and hunger. Highinequalities in income, employment opportunities and access toassets and services are increasing vulnerability, especially of smallscale producers, women, youth and Indigenous Peoples, furthering
food and nutrition insecurity.
The importance of building efficient, inclusive, resilient andsustainable agrifood systems that provide affordable, nutritious
and healthy diets for all with simultaneous improvements in theeconomic, environmental and social dimensions of sustainability
has never been more apparent.
A radical transformation of agrifood systems is urgently needed,with diversification at many different levels and across componentsof the entire system at its core.
Diversification in food production, particularly acrosscropping and animal systems, is a means of increasing productivity,
building resilience to climate change, enhancing resistance to pests
and diseases, buffering economic shocks, improving the ecological
performance of crops, and conserving biodiversity 124.

At the household level, diversification of income sources
through risk management, safety nets and labour market
diversification is key to improving the well-being of individuals.
Diversification through robust markets and trade,i.e. imports from multiple trade partners and across multiple
commodities, is important for increasing food supply diversity 125.
Diversity in well-connected food supply chains is essential
for absorbing and recovering from shocks and stresses. Finally,
diversity in diets is critical for ensuring healthy and nutritious
outcomes at the consumer level.
Diversifying agrifood systems leads to multiple benefits.
Nonetheless, the interactions among diversification of production
and other parts of the agrifood system are complex and needmore attention.

Levels oforganisation

GLOBE

CONTINENT/NATIONREGION/LANDSCAPE

FARM

Global andcontinental trade
agreements

Agrifood System
Food waste

Production

Supply chain,markets,
and trade

Consumers

Globalproduction
diversification

Global trading
diversification

Diverse global
consumption
patterns

SocialSafety nets

Risk
insurances(Agro)
ecologicaldiversification
Diversificationof household
earnings

FIELD* The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views

Examplemeasures

Figure 17:
Food system diversification toenhance food systems resilience.
Source: Adapted from Hertel et al.
(2021) 124.

Crop andvariety
diversification

Enhanced resiliencethrough diversificationof production, tradingand household-related
measures

Enhanced foodsecurity and healththrough diversificationin production, trade,and diets

Household
Field, farm,landscape/region
diversification

Local/regional
trading
diversification

Local/regional
diet diversity

or policies of FAO.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 76

77

TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGE NEEDS TOPLACE PEOPLE AND NATURE AT ITS HEART
Integration across sectors and embedding social andenvironmental justice principles at the heart of the transition
will be crucial.
David Leclère (International Institute forApplied Systems Analysis),
Bruna Fatiche Pavani (International
Institute for Sustainability, Brazil),
Detlef van Vuuren(University of Utrecht),
Aafke Schipper (Radboud University),
Michael Obersteiner (Oxford University),
Neil Burgess (UNEP-WCMC),
Rob Alkemade(Wageningen University & Research),
Tim Newbold(University College London),Mike Harfoot (Vizzuality and
UNEP-WCMC)

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 78

A critical transformative change intervention will be to adopt across-sectoral, integrated approach (also termed ‘nexus approach’),to promote solutions with co-benefits and avoid solutions withtrade-offs between biodiversity, climate and other SDGs 39,109,112.
Examples of potential synergies include actions such as protecting
remaining forests and restoring ecosystems – sometimes labelled‘nature-based solutions’ and often promoted as double-wins
for biodiversity and the climate. Such solutions are also gaining
interest for their potential to offset further greenhouse gas
emissions and/or ecosystem degradation elsewhere. However,appropriate safeguards are needed to ensure adequate design
and the maintenance of co-benefits: the afforestation of natural
grassland and the reforestation of forested ecosystems withmonocultures of non-native species will be detrimental – notbeneficial – to biodiversity.
Model and scenario work can explore pathways that maximise
co-benefits and minimise trade-offs between climate andbiodiversity and identify hard-to-avoid trade-offs (see Future
modelling frontiers 1): while technically challenging (see Future
modelling frontiers 2), this will support a needed shift ingovernance and policy towards integrated thinking and nexus
approaches. This concept needs to cover also indirect, andsometimes long-distance, inter-relationships; for example in global
supply chains, and the broader sustainable development agenda,
including other environmental and social issues such as freshwateruse, pollution, poverty and hunger. For example, model andscenario work shows that some forms of climate action may entail
risks for the Sustainable Development Goals related to water use
and pollution, biodiversity, health and hunger, while sustainableproduction and consumption measures in the food and energy
systems can be beneficial for all these goals 76,126,127.

Nexus thinking can also be applied in support of conservation andrestoration action, such as in spatial planning tools from global tosub-national scales (see Future modelling frontiers 4), helping toprioritise restoration actions for multiple goals 128.
Factors such as the capacity to mobilise resources for the transition,
the degree to which basic material living conditions are satisfied,the expected vulnerability to environmental degradation, and thehistorical responsibility for ongoing environmental degradation
are not equally distributed across countries, sectors and actors.
Considerations of equitable effort-sharing in the transition are
key points of discussion during international negotiations under
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
and the Convention on Biological Diversity. For example, ascompared to other nations, developed countries have achieved
a higher level of development, have a larger capacity to mitigate
and mobilise funding for adaptation, will be less affected by futureenvironmental degradation, and are responsible for about halfof cumulative historical greenhouse gas emissions: the applicationof equity principles implies that developed nations should
undergo faster emission reductions than other nations, andcontribute to international financial transfers for climate mitigation
and adaptation.
A sustainability transition will affect the lives and livelihoods ofpeople in both positive and negative ways, and should contributeto reducing existing inequalities and injustices rather thanexacerbating them. This requires a recognition of values, rights
and the interests of all people, a shift in governance towards
rights-based approaches and adequate procedural mechanisms
to ensure effective and inclusive representation, and a more
systematic assessment of the distributional impacts of costs andbenefits of actions across actors.
Much work remains to be done, but model and scenario work has
been used to explore the implications of various equity principles
for distributing climate mitigation efforts across nations 129,130
and the potential climate implications of ensuring decent living
standards for all 131, as well as distributional aspects of Nature’sContributions to People 132. It has also explored the economic
impacts of further ecosystem degradation 133, funding gaps to reachspecific conservation targets 134, and how equity questions could
be included in the design of ambitious pathways for biodiversity(see Future modelling frontiers 3).

79

Assisted natural forest regenerationin Zambia
The forests in Zambia are under serious threat due to largescale deforestation, with most occurring in open access zones
that are under a weak or ineffective management regime.
Wood fuel (charcoal and firewood), agricultural expansion,
timber extraction, bush fires, and mining and infrastructuraldevelopment are some of the main causes of deforestation in
the country.
In the Assisted Natural Forest Regeneration project, the Climate
Smart Agriculture Alliance (CSAA) is working with farmers
in the Central Province to manage the natural regenerationof deforested areas. Natural regeneration requires time andzero external intervention to flourish, so farmers from local
communities are trained in areas such as fire management andcontinuous monitoring to ensure that areas under regeneration
are protected. Local farmers actively participate in therestoration and protection of the forest. They assume the roleof traditional leaders who are considered the custodians of
nature in such communities.

A woman prepares a fire by the sideof the Luangwa River in Zambia.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 80© James Suter / Black Bean Productions / WWF-US

81

Future modelling frontiers 1: pathways integrating
both climate and biodiversity action
Aafke Schipper (Radboud University),David Leclère (International Institutefor Applied Systems Analysis)
and Rob Alkemade (Wageningen
University & Research).

Global biodiversity scenario studies have recently shifted focus
from making exploratory projections to identifying strategies forachieving objectives for desirable nature futures 76,135. For strategies
to be effective, they need to tackle the direct and indirect driversof biodiversity change and account for synergies and trade-offs
with other Sustainable Development Goals 136-139. The IMAGEGLOBIO framework was used to assess the effectiveness of twocontrasting strategies for putting nature on a path to recovery while
contributing to halting climate change and feeding an increasing
and wealthier global population 179.
The strategies reflect different values of nature 140, different
approaches to area-based conservation, and differences inagricultural production systems, thus broadening our view on the‘solution space’. The study revealed that both strategies may 'bend
the curve' of biodiversity, but only if area-based conservation is
combined with changes in the energy and food systems, minimisingfood waste, reducing the consumption of animal products andlimiting climate change (Figure 18).

Half Earth integrated sustainability
Sharing the Planet integrated sustainability
Shared Socioeconomic
Pathways 2 baseline

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 82

Model and scenario studies are investigating pathways for
ambitious targets for biodiversity and climate (see Future
modelling frontiers 1), with explicit accounting for both climate
and land-use change pressures on biodiversity. Yet these two major
drivers of biodiversity change may reinforce one another 141-144 for
two key reasons 145. First, land-use changes create fragmented
landscapes, through which it is harder for species to move to keep
up with climate change 144. Second, land-use change from natural
habitats to human-used land (agriculture and cities) alters the
local climate, typically creating hotter and drier conditions, and so
adding to the effects of regional climate warming 146.

Tim Newbold(University College London),Bruna Fatiche Pavani (International
Institute for Sustainability, Brazil),
Aafke Schipper (Radboud University)and David Leclère (International
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis)

These interactions further highlight the importance of integrated
approaches, but they are challenging to include in models. For
example, recent work suggests that increasing natural habitats
within landscapes might reverse the direct impacts of land-use
change on biodiversity, and buffer the effects of climate change by
providing cooler and wetter local climate conditions and corridors
143, 144, 147. However, this might not work everywhere 148.

b.
60%

60%

59%

59%

58%

58%
Mean Species Abundance

Key

a.

Mean Species Abundance

Figure 18: Contribution ofconservation measures tobiodiversity intactness in
2050 for two contrasting
conservation strategies, anda baseline comparison
Biodiversity intactness isexpressed by the mean species
abundance (MSA) indicator of
the GLOBIO model. a) Overall
global terrestrial mean species
abundance. b) Measurescontributing to preventing
terrestrial mean species
abundance loss in 2050. Source:
Adapted from Kok et al. (2020) 179.

Future modelling frontiers 2: better modelling ofclimate and land-use impacts on biodiversity

57%
56%
55%
54%
53%

57%

55%

Mitigating impacts from climate change

54%

Reducing impacts from fragmentation,
infrastructure and encroachment

53%

52%

52%

51%

51%

50%

50%

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Key

56%

Nature restoration in supporting mixed
systems (SP-IS)
Ecological restoration (HE-IS)
Expanding and improving conservation
Half Earth integrated sustainability

Sharing the Planet integrated sustainability

Shared Socioeconomic Pathways 2 baseline83Towards multi-use landscapes in Africa
Urgent and transformative action is needed to address the complex,
interconnected challenges facing society today. Siloed and fragmented
approaches cannot adequately fight climate change, biodiversity loss,
water scarcity, food security and poverty. A new approach is putting
nature at the heart of decision-making and calls for collaborative
action within and between sectors to achieve success.
Pippa Howard, Nicky Jenner, Koighae
Toupou, Neus Estela, Mary MolokwuOdozi, Shadrach Kerwillain, Angelique
Todd (Fauna & Flora International)

Figure 19:
The CALM framework at a
glance: individual, collective
and collaborative actions all
contribute to landscape objectives.
Source: Adapted from FFI(2021) 149.

In West Africa, in the transboundary forest landscape that
extends from southeast Guinea into Sierra Leone to the west,
Liberia to the south and Ivory Coast to the east, Fauna & FloraInternational, with partners and stakeholders, is introducing
the CALM (Collaboration Across the Landscape to Mitigate theimpacts of development) framework 149 to put nature at the heartof sustainable development.
The region is rich in biodiversity and home to a rapidly growing
population. Many rural communities rely on small-scale
agriculture for subsistence and are heavily dependent on accessto land and the essential services provided by nature. Multiple
economic sectors reliant on natural resource extraction also
operate in this landscape, which is expected to face intensifyingpressure from planned large-scale mining projects as well as

associated transport infrastructure. The potential for significant
cumulative impacts on biodiversity and communities is high.
CALM builds on the strengths of existing concepts and approaches:
landscape approaches, the mitigation hierarchy, and the conceptof socioecological systems. The framework is designed to embednature into land use and development processes and calls for
greater coordination and collaboration towards achieving common
sustainable landscape objectives.
The framework is designed to be used in complex multi-use
landscapes where pressure from concurrent developments is
intensifying or is anticipated, and to address shortcomings incurrent business-as-usual management, so that landscapes areresilient, development is sustainable, and social and ecologicalvalues survive and thrive.
As each decision, project and activity cuts away a little moreforest, adds pollutants to the rivers and soils, and extracts morenatural resources than are put back, the cumulative effects on
species, ecosystems and the people that depend on them are often
significant. There is growing concern that this will lead to ‘deathby a thousand cuts’ 150. In piloting the CALM framework,
Fauna & Flora International is engaging diverse actors andinstitutions to better understand forest landscapes under pressure
from development, foster dialogue, and identify opportunities forcollective and collaborative action to achieve sustainable
landscape objectives.

All land users contribute tolandscape objectives throughindividual, collective andcollaborative actions to:1.
3.

1. AVOID and SECURE priority areas tomaintain biodiversity and ecosystemservices2.
2.

2. MITIGATE and MANAGE induced andcumulative effects across the landscape3. RESTORE degraded ecosystems and
AVOID and MINIMISE future impacts

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 84

85

What do we need from economics fortransformative change?
Economics, at its core, is the study of how people make choices
under conditions of scarcity, and of the consequences of thosechoices for society. Simply put, we need to move to an economy
that values well-being in its diverse forms, not only monetary, andone which is fully responsive to resource scarcity.
Francisco Alpízar and Jeanne Nel(Wageningen University & Research)

Figure 20:
Conventional conservation efforts
have mainly focused on events that
directly drive biodiversity loss (e.g.
habitat loss or over-exploitationof species), or understanding thepatterns causing these events(e.g. trends in land use over timelinked to species decline). Whilethese approaches help us to react
to events and anticipate and planfor them, they ignore the root
causes that led to these eventsand patterns in the first place –the so called ‘indirect drivers’.
Transformative approaches focus
on addressing these indirectdrivers: the systemic structures(e.g. economics, political and social
systems) and the values and norms
that shape our relation to nature.
Source: adapted from Abson et al.
(2017) 181.

Conventional environmental policy and management has mainly
focused on the direct causes of nature’s degradation. For example,
deforestation directly causes biodiversity loss, and the excessive
use of agrochemicals pollutes the soil and water. While necessary,
there is widespread agreement among the science and policy
communities that this conventional conservation approach alone isfailing to change the destructive way in which our economies andsocieties use and relate to nature 39, 76, 112.
More urgent and ambitious ‘transformative changes’ are needed
to the ways in which we live in modern human society to reduce
the root causes of nature degradation 151. These causes can be
demographic (e.g. human population dynamics), sociocultural (e.g.
production and consumption patterns, status-seeking behaviour),financial (e.g. the focus on GDP growth and increasing wealththrough investments or profits), technological, or related to poor
institutions and governance.
In all cases, these root causes relate to the way in which individuals,
households, firms, and organisations use scarce natural resourcesto achieve multiple, sometimes competing goals, and the value
allocated to nature in making the necessary trade-offs.

EVENTSPATTERNSSYSTEMIC STRUCTURESVALUES AND NORMS

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 86

VALUES AND NORMSSYSTEMIC STRUCTURESPATTERNSEVENTS

There are three key principles that need to be embedded into
economics to drive the transformative changes required:

Creating a future in which people and nature flourish
depends on how society values nature and how that isbuilt into daily decisions.
Different perspectives and multiple values (not only money-based)
define everyday practices and decisions. Institutions should
articulate these values into social conventions, norms and rules.
Yet current institutions and government policies lopsidedly favour
nature’s degradation, thereby either actively promoting destructive
practices or failing to regulate them. Harmful subsidies, e.g. thosemaking fossil fuels cheaper or land clearing less costly, were
estimated at US$ 4-6 trillion in 2020 38, and existing governanceof common pool natural resources relies on weak legislation (e.g.
voluntary incentives) with no clear line of responsibility. As a result
it frequently fails to protect key natural infrastructure, for example
the world’s oceans, rainforests and wetlands, that provide criticalservices to people.

Embedding nature more explicitly into financial andeconomic systems can help to shift choices towards
sustainable practices.
Three global transitions are key from an economic perspective:
The prices of commodities and inputs should reflect
the true cost to society in terms of environmental andhuman impacts, thereby rebalancing the demand and supply of
consumption goods, from food to sneakers, to within the limits ofnature’s capacity.
The use of economic tools like social cost-benefit analysis,
and improved discounting to account for very long-termhorizons, should become part of the global standard ofpractice for credible decision-making by businesses, financial
institutions, and multilateral organisations. For example,
infrastructure projects funded by multilateral banks should
undergo a thorough social cost-benefit analysis.
An improved recognition of the public nature of key
natural resources (e.g. our oceans, rivers and riparian forests,
wetlands) should lead to special attention in terms of governanceand precautionary safeguards.

87

Transformative changes can be triggered bycarefully designed interventions, targeting criticalleverage points, at different scales of action thatchange the choice architecture underpinning
day-to-day decisions.
The design of such interventions and associated enabling
conditions needs to consider trade-offs between competing goals
that span different places and people throughout the entire
socioecological system, and the role of incentives and politicalbarriers to policy implementation 152. Transformative change
requires a mix of regulations, public engagement and behavioural/market-based instruments, while simultaneously discontinuing
harmful subsidies and disincentives 153, 154.

CREATING ENABLING CONDITIONSTRIGGERING LEVERAGE POINTSAgents of change

MIX OF INTERVENTIONS
Figure 21:
System tipping dynamics-agents ofchange and a mix of interventions
can create enabling conditions thattrigger and accelerate transformative
pathways to sustainable extraction,
production, consumption and trade.
Source: After Chan et al. (2020) 180;
Lenton et al. 2022 155.

Dzame Shehi handles a chameleon found by theroadside. Dzombo village. Kwale, Kenya.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 88© Greg Armfield / WWF-UK

89

Making technology work for the planet
The economics are simple, the science is complicated. Can
technology help us to explore, monitor, model, and ultimately
manage Earth’s natural resources sustainably?
Lucas Joppa (Microsoft)

The economics are simple – the foundation of modern life isbuilt upon the natural resources delivered by climates, ecosystems
and species.
The science is complicated. Determining how natural systems are
created and maintained – and how they become destabilised whendisrupted – is a complex task requiring deep insights from physics,
chemistry, biology and ecology.
Our understanding of these systems is not perfect. We have only
discovered a fraction of the species on this planet and have an evenmore rudimentary understanding of the traits they possess and theinteractions they engage in to achieve the balance of nature humans
are completely reliant on.
But we also know that for far too long people have borrowed fromour environmental future to pay for our economic present. We
know climates are quickly destabilising, ecosystems are decaying,and species are going extinct. We now have an urgent choice – torepay our debts, or continue to destabilise the infrastructure ofmodern human society.

We can explore for new species using visual, acoustic and genomic
sensors, monitor deforestation in all the world’s forests andprotected areas in real time, model and predict the ecosystems
that will be most under threat, and manage these systems throughdecision support frameworks – if we want to.
Because the difficulty ahead is not one of technologicalcapability, but of human desire. Harnessing the infrastructureof the information age to protect our planet will require a rapid,
purposeful, coordinated and dedicated global agreement andinvestment. An effort that moves beyond experimentation to deliver
actual products that can be deployed at scale by governments andorganisations around the world. An effort that feeds into repeatable
reporting frameworks that allow us to manage our world more
adaptively. One can imagine a Living Planet Report underpinned
by a vast technological infrastructure feeding information fromecosystems around the world into a centralised repository overseen
by scientists dedicated to maintaining the system and responding to
its alerts. I do.
It is time to do more than imagine. We must put technology towork for the planet – to help people explore, monitor, modeland ultimately manage Earth’s natural resources. Doing so will
represent one of the most valuable investments human societies
can make – simultaneously ensuring the future of humanity
while paying off the debts of our past.

Logic dictates the answer; defaulting is not an option. We knowwhat we must do: balance to zero the accumulation of greenhousegases in our atmosphere, the destruction of our forests, fields, andwater, and the population declines and extinctions of species.
But questions remain. How should we structure policies to achievethis, and how should we enforce them and measure their impacts
while constantly increasing our basic understanding of the natural
systems we are working to conserve?
The technology to answer these questions is now available. Accessto unprecedented amounts of data from sensors on satellites,
smartphones and in situ devices can be combined with incredible
amounts of computing power through advanced algorithms to help
us classify, predict and make decisions about managing natural
systems.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 9091

Greening Kaptagat in Kenya“We are the generation who inherited the world from the pioneersof yesteryears and our great contribution will be anchored onsustainability. Our task, however, is not so simple. It is a race
against time to save what is left of our home. Every minutecounts just like a marathon. My generation of athletes will run
this marathon to save our forests.” Dr. Eliud Kipchoge, renowned
world marathon and nature champion.
Jackson Kiplagat, Joel Muinde,
Kiunga Kareko and Gideon Kibusia(WWF-Kenya)Dr. Eliud Kipchoge (two time
Olympic Champion & Kenya’s Delegate
to COP 26 in Glasgow)

Stretching across 32,941 hectares, the Kaptagat landscape,including a 13,000 hectare forest, is an extension of the larger
Cherangany-Elgeyo Hills ecosystem, one of Kenya’s five key water
towers 156. Due to its high altitude and climate it is where many elite
athletes, including Eliud Kipchoge, the renowned world marathon
champion, train 157.
Like many landscapes across Kenya, Kaptagat faces countless
threats including climate change, unsustainable agricultural
practices, illegal logging, overgrazing, forest encroachment, forest
fires and landslides 156. So, in line with the Kenyan government’s
development strategy, Kenya Vision 2030 (Constitution of Kenya,
2010; Government of Kenya, 2016), WWF-Kenya and the Eliud
Kipchoge Foundation are implementing the project Greening
Kaptagat: Establishing Agroforestry and Clean Energy Solutions
within a Forest-Based Landscape 160.
By working with community members, and in partnership withgovernment agencies and passionate nature champions, morethan 225 hectares of land has been restored in the last two years.
Seedlings have been sourced from women and youth groups aswell as nurseries owned and run by local community forest groups,
enhancing their livelihoods through increased income. Overall, theGreening Kaptagat project will lead to at least 1,000 hectares ofdeforested and degraded land being put under restoration, and at
least 1,000 people benefiting from improved land productivity.

Dr. Eliud Kipchoge at the Fourth
Annual Kaptagat Tree Planting Drivein 2020. Through the Eliud Kipchoge
Foundation, he has adopted 50 hectaresin Kaptagat forest for restoration aspart of WWF’s Greening Kaptagat
Landscape Restoration Programmewith the government of Kenya and local
communities.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 92

Further, by training local farmers on sustainable crop andanimal farming, there will be less pressure on the landscape,especially from overgrazing and encroachment on the forest for
more farmland. Through the provision of grain silos and hermetic
bags there will be lower post-harvest losses. The project has
also facilitated global and national advocacy to mainstream
climate policy.

© WWF-Kenya

93

Future modelling frontiers 3: better inclusion ofequity and fairness in biodiversity pathways
Mike Harfoot(Vizzuality and UNEP-WCMC),David Leclère(International Institute forApplied Systems Analysis)

A fair and just transition will need several interventions, fromthe effective recognition and participation of marginalised
groups in decision-making, to promoting deliberation on
the fair distribution of efforts and benefits. The implicationsof various equity principles for the distribution of climate
action across nations have been explored 129, but less sofor biodiversity; this might be a significant barrier to theimplementation of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity
Framework. What could a fair distribution of actions acrossnations towards an emblematic goal, such as a global net gainof natural ecosystems, look like?

The benefits and costs arising from restoration, conservationand conversion activities can vary significantly for a given
landscape. The multicriteria optimisation of priority areas
should afford better results for biodiversity and Nature’sContribution to People in efforts to increase agricultural
productivity and ecosystem restoration. The recent Amazon
2030 initiative recommends the immediate development andadoption of spatial prioritisation maps, to optimise costs andbenefits for Amazon forest restoration, by private and publicdecision-makers and agents of international cooperation andinvestment 191.

In available land-use change projections we pictured such a
net gain in the global area of natural ecoystems 76 but, is the
distribution of efforts across countries fair? Such projections
are broadly consistent with the idea that nations which havealready converted a large share of their natural ecosystems
and reached a high human development level could be asked
to reach ambitious net gain trajectories, while countries in the
opposite situation might still be allowed a managed net loss
trajectory – a frame that was proposed by others to illustrate
how equity principles such as historical responsibility and rightto development could play out 161.

Modelling exercises are currently being carried out to assessthe different levels of global efforts 193 to discuss the goals
that will guide the action-oriented targets from parties to theConvention on Biological Diversity until 2050 192. It is importantto point out that these scenarios account for future projections
on agricultural and urban expansion, population growth andclimate change, beyond restrictions for restoration on a
local level.

Beyond this illustration, the development of fair transition
models and scenarios could be used to explore pathways
compatible with a broader set of alternative equity principles,
representing a diversified set of worldviews. Models could
also explore the distribution of efforts and benefits at various
scales and for various groups, including the risks to Indigenous
Peoples and Local Communities from additional conservation
and restoration efforts, and the potential benefits from rightsbased approaches.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 94

Future modelling frontiers 4: modelling biodiversity
targets at regional and global scales
Bruna Fatiche Pavani, Bernardo
Baeta Neves Strassburg, Paulo
Durval Branco and Rafael Loyola(International Institute for
Sustainability, Brazil)

Feasible targets should aim forenvironmental and socioeconomic gains
simultaneously, bending the curve forbiodiversity and Nature’s Contribution
to People through systematic spatialplanning.

95

The Amazon We Want: a transition tosustainable development
The Amazon Assessment Report 2021, produced by the Science
Panel for the Amazon, is the most comprehensive and compellingscientific portrait of the Amazon ever produced, providing aroadmap for the region’s survival and sustainable development.
Carlos Nobre (University of São Paulo’s
Institute for Advanced Studies),
Mercedes Bustamante(University of Brasilia),
Germán Poveda(Universidad Nacional de Colombia),
Marielos Peña-Claros(Wageningen University)and Emma Torres (UN Sustainable
Development Solutions Network)

The Amazon Assessment Report 2021, developed by more than
240 scientists, looks at the Amazon’s current state, threats, andpolicy-relevant solutions based on the knowledge of the scientificcommunity of the region and Indigenous and local knowledge.
Based on the current state and its threats, the authors recommend
four key actions: (1) an immediate moratorium on deforestationand degradation in areas approaching a tipping point; (2) theachievement of zero deforestation and degradation by 2030; (3)the restoration of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems; and (4) an
inclusive and just bioeconomy of healthy forests and rivers.
These actions are urgent because 17% of the Amazon basin has
been deforested 162, with an additional 17% of the biome degraded 163.
This is threatening the Amazon, a critical element in the Earth’s
climate system, storing 150 to 200 billion tonnes of carbon 164, 165,
and its biodiversity – including 18% of vascular plant species, 14%of birds, 9% of mammals, 8% of amphibians and 18% of fishes that
inhabit the tropics (data calculated for the biogeographic limits of
the Science Panel for the Amazon utilising data from 166 and 167).
Currently, 27% of the Amazon is occupied by Indigenous territories
with the lowest rates of deforestation 168. To safeguard andstrengthen their rights, and advance sustainable development,
the Science Panel for the Amazon considers investments inscience, technology, innovation, and Indigenous Peoples and local
community-led land conservation essential to avoid catastrophic
outcomes in the Amazon and globally.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 96

AMAZON PEOPLES' RIGHTS, KNOWLEDGE
AND WELL-BEINGCONSERVATION AND
RESTORATION

Indigenous peoples and local communities'
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS recognized and protected

Innovative approaches for conservation
and restoration IMPLEMENTEDKNOWLEDGE DIALOGUES and public participationand decision-making effectively implemented

Network of Protected areas effectively
implemented and MANAGED

CULTURAL DIVERSITY and gender equality are
pursued
INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION and capacity
building are accessible and supported
Thriving LIVELIHOODS and improved
WELL-BEING of Amazon people

GOVERNANCE AND
FINANCEKNOWLEDGE-BASED POLICIESdesigned and implemented
Establishment of sustainability-oriented
global partnerships for resources and
FINANCIAL INVESTMENTS
Effective CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION indecision-making is guaranteed
Pan-Amazonian and MULTILATERAL AMAZON
COORDINATION is implemented, and illegal
activities are curbed

Aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems
are CONSERVED, sustainably used
and restored
Resilience and landscapeconnectivity RESTORED
and maintained

HEALTHY STANDING
FORESTS AND FLOWINGRIVERS BIOECONOMY
Scientific, and Indigenous and local
KNOWLEDGE CONNECTED and expanded
Inclusive models for the use of BIOLOGICALRESOURCES are implemented
INNOVATIVE APPROACHES to agribusinessproduction and low carbon development
implemented

Figure 22:
Multiple and connected dimensions for a fair and just transformation towards
the Vision of the Living and Sustainable Amazon. Source: Science Panel for the
Amazon (2021) 169.

97

An urgent call to protect 80% of the Amazon
by 2025
Amazonian Indigenous organisations representing 511 nations
and allies are calling for a global agreement for the permanent
protection of 80% of the Amazon by 2025 as an urgent measure to
avert an imminent tipping point and planetary crisis.
Gregorio Diaz Mirabal and Zack Romo
Paredes Holguer (Coordinatorof Indigenous Organizations of
the Amazon River Basin – COICA),
Alonso Córdova Arrieta (WWF-Peru)

The Amazon is the largest and most bioculturally diverse tropicalforest in the world. It is home to more than 500 Indigenous Peoples(IP) groups, including 66 groups living in voluntary isolation andinitial contact 172. The Amazon River system holds nearly 20% of
the world’s fresh water 173, while Indigenous Territories physicallyoccupy 2.37 million km2 of the Amazon basin 174. By themselves,
Amazonia Indigenous Territories are responsible for storing nearly
one third (32.8%) of the Amazonia region's above-ground carbon(28.247 million tonnes), making a significant contribution to themitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change. In 2021, the IUCN
highlighted the role of Indigenous territories by recognising themas “spaces for sustainable conservation” 175.
These are scientific and statistical data, but for Amazonian
Indigenous Peoples the Amazon is more than that. It is the space
where our past, present and future converge; it is the energy andconnection with our ancestors, with the rivers, the mountains, andthe animals. It represents our home, our source of healing andfood; it is our life.
Yet, governments and national leaders do not understand thisworldview and do not use the integrative approach of Indigenous
Peoples for environmental and social safeguards. As a result, both
impacts and threats are advancing in our territories, bringing the
Amazon region to a dangerous tipping point.
Science has established that the tipping point is between athreshold of 20 to 25% of deforestation and forest degradation
combined 177. Data shows that 26% of the Amazon is undera state of advanced disturbance 176 which includes forest
degradation, recurrent fires, and deforestation. This is not a
future scenario; we are currently experiencing a continuous levelof destruction in the region with devastating local impacts andnegative implications at a global level for climate stability.

The horizon set for global conservation goals is the year 2030,
but in eight years the Amazon as we know it might haveceased to exist. Facing this scenario, we the Indigenous Peoples
dream about working with territorial and global alliances toprotect and defend our Amazon, mother jungle, and to stop it frombreathing its last breath. We need its air, its water, its medicine andits food, we need its spiritual strength, and that will only be possible
with the unity, respect and inclusion of all wisdom, technologies
and knowledge, sitting at the same table and at the same level.
That is why COICA is calling for a global agreement for thepermanent protection of 80% of the Amazon by 2025, backed by
all Amazon governments and by Indigenous Peoples and the global
community, as an urgent response to the current climate andbiodiversity crises facing humanity.
To accomplish this we need legal security for our territories asa guarantee for life; recognition of the right to free, prior, andinformed consultation; protection and respect for the traditional
knowledge systems of Indigenous Peoples as solutions; an end tothe criminalisation of Indigenous defenders as well as the violence,systemic threats and murders against them; and direct financing for
Indigenous Peoples with permanent technical support for humanand economic resource management.
Finally, we direct a question to politicians, academics and to theworld: is it possible for the Amazon biome to be declared as living
Intangible Cultural Heritage, and for all the creatures who live in it
to no longer be murdered, burned and contaminated? Is it possible
to save this ecosystem from extinction? We believe it certainly is,but to achieve it, it is urgent to value Indigenous Peoples and toallow them to lead this process together with all of you.

About COICA
Coordinator of the Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin, is an indigenous organization of international convergencethat acts on behalf of 511 Indigenous Peoples, of which approximately 66 are Indigenous Peoples in Voluntary Isolation
and Initial Contact (PIACI). COICA is articulated through organizations with a political-organizational base, present in the
9 Amazonian countries:
AIDESEP (Peru): Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Jungle. COIAB (Brazil): Coordinator of the
Indigenous Organizations of the Brazilian Amazon (Coordenação das Organizações Indígenas da Amazônia Brasileira). ORPIA(Venezuela): Regional Organization of the Indigenous Peoples of Amazonas. CIDOB (Bolivia): Confederation of Indigenous
Peoples of Bolivia. CONFENIAE (Ecuador): Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of the Ecuadorian Amazon. APA (Guyana):
Amerindian Peoples Association of Guyana. OPIAC (Colombia): National Organization of the Indigenous Peoples of theColombian Amazon. OIS (Suriname): Indigenous Organizations of Suriname (Organization van Inheemsen in Suriname). FOAG
(French Guiana): Federation of Autochthonous Organizations of French Guiana (Federation Organizations Autochtones Guyane).
Source: https://coicamazonia.org/somos/

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 98

99

THE PATH AHEAD
Gavin Edwards, Scott Edwards,
Lin Li and Guido Broekhoven(WWF International)

The evidence presented in this edition of the Living Planet Report
is clear. The pressure we are placing on the natural world is driving
an escalating nature crisis which, in turn, is undermining its ability
to provide crucial services, including climate change mitigation
and adaptation. Our destruction of nature is also increasing ourvulnerability to pandemics, while placing the most vulnerable at thegreatest risk.
There is still time to act, but urgency is needed. A number ofsolutions are available, developed by many different stakeholders,from business to Indigenous Peoples and local communities. These
range from new financial disclosure initiatives to better understandand align the impact of finance, to the multi-use landscapeapproaches and case studies detailed in this report.

The UN Convention on Biological Diversity’s COP15 provides amomentous opportunity for world leaders to adopt an ambitious
global biodiversity framework that drives immediate action fora nature-positive world. When governments protect 30% of theworld’s land, freshwater and oceans through rights-based andcommunity-led approaches; tackle the drivers of nature loss thatlargely originate in the other 70%; ratchet up their actions if they
are collectively falling short; and commit the requisite resources
for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, then a naturepositive world will be within reach. World leaders who havesigned the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature must play a special role inearly implementation, leading the way, including by securing thenecessary finance.

The drivers of biodiversity loss are complex and cross-cutting, and
it is vital to acknowledge that there is no single, simple solution.
It is therefore all the more important that the world adopts ashared global goal for nature, to guide and drive action acrossgovernments, business and society.

Action to secure a nature-positive world this decade, measured
through an increase in the health, abundance, diversity andresilience of species, populations and ecosystems, can be taken by
everyone, and also adopted nationally and ultimately globally, tourgently transform our relationship with nature.
Encouragingly, momentum is building. More than 90 world leaders
have endorsed a Leaders’ Pledge for Nature, committing to reverse
biodiversity loss by 2030, and G7 have signalled their ambition tosecure a nature-positive world.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 100

Indicators of Biodiversity

A global goal of reversing biodiversity loss to secure a naturepositive world by 2030 is necessary if we are to turn the tide on
nature loss and safeguard the natural world for current and future
generations 193. It must be our guiding star, in the same way that thegoal of limiting global warming to 2°C, and preferably 1.5°C, guides
our efforts on climate.

Figure 23: Nature Positiveby 2030
A measurable global goal fornature. Source: Locke et al.
(2021) 193.

FULL
RECOVERYBY 2050
ZERO NETLOSS OF NATUREFROM 2020
2020

2030

2040

2050

101

Recognition of the integrated nature of our environmental
challenges in turn enables the search for win-win solutions.
Again, the science is clear: immediate action to reverse
biodiversity loss is essential if we are to succeed in limiting
climate change to 1.5°C; and climate change is expected to
become a dominant driver of biodiversity loss if left unchecked.
It will only be through identifying and pursuing solutions thattackle these connected challenges while also benefiting people
that we will be able to course-correct and secure a healthiernatural world, to help achieve the Sustainable Development
Goals.
The Living Planet Report 2022 provides a snapshot of thehealth of our natural world, our life support system. There arecauses for dismay, but there are also causes for optimism. It
must be our rallying cry for the urgent action needed to deliver anature-positive, net-zero emissions and equitable future for all.

Baobab trees in the allée des baobabs (the alley of baobabs)in the western coastal region of Madagascar.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 102© Justin Jin / WWF France

103

15

REFERENCES

16
1
2
3
4

5

6

7
8
9
10

11

12

13

14

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 104

Bonan, G. B. (2008). Forests and climate change: forcings, feedbacks, and theclimate benefits of forests. Science, 320(5882), 1444–1449. doi.org/10.1126/
science.1155121
Lawrence, D. & Vandecar, K. (2015). Effects of tropical deforestation on climate andagriculture. Nature Climate Change, 5(1), 27–36. doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2430
Heede, R. & Oreskes, N. (2016). Potential emissions of CO₂ and methane fromproved reserves of fossil fuels: An alternative analysis. Global Environmental
Change, 36, 12–20. doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.10.005
Pan, Y., Birdsey, R. A., Fang, J., Houghton, R., Kauppi, P. E., Kurz, W. A., Phillips,
O. L., Shvidenko, A., Lewis, S. L., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Pacala, S.
W., McGuire, A. D., Piao, S., Rautiainen, A., Sitch, S. & Hayes, D. (2011). A large andpersistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science, 333(6045), 988–993. doi.
org/10.1126/science.1201609
Harris, N. L., Gibbs, D. A., Baccini, A., Birdsey, R. A., de Bruin, S., Farina, M.,
Fatoyinbo, L., Hansen, M. C., Herold, M., Houghton, R. A., Potapov, P. V., Suarez,
D. R., Roman-Cuesta, R. M., Saatchi, S. S., Slay, C. M., Turubanova, S. A. &Tyukavina, A. (2021). Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes.
Nature Climate Change, 11(3), 234–240. doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00976-6
Friedlingstein, P., Jones, M. W., O’Sullivan, M., Andrew, R. M., Bakker, D. C. E.,
Hauck, J., Le Quéré, C., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Sitch, S., Canadell,J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S. R., Anthoni, P., Bates, N. R., Becker, M.,
Bellouin, N., Bopp, L., Chau, T. T. T., Chevallier, F., … Zeng, J. (2022). Global
carbon budget 2021. Earth System Science Data, 14(4), 1917–2005. doi.
org/10.5194/essd-14-1917-2022
Lawrence, D., Coe, M., Walker, W., Verchot, L. & Vandecar, K. (2022). The unseen
effects of deforestation: biophysical effects on climate. Frontiers in Forests andGlobal Change, 5, 756115. doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2022.756115
FAO & UNEP. (2020). The State of the World’s Forests 2020. doi.org/10.4060/
ca8642enFAO. (2020). The State of Food and Agriculture 2020. Overcoming water
challenges in agriculture. FAO. doi.org/10.4060/cb1447en
Bezner Kerr, R., Hasegawa, T., Lasco, R., Bhatt, I., Deryng, D., Farrell, A., GurneySmith, H., Ju, H., Lluch-Cota, S., Meza, F., Nelson, G., Neufeldt, H. & Thornton,
P. (2022). Food, fibre, and other ecosystem products. In: Climate Change 2022:
Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to
the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
<https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_
FinalDraft_Chapter05.pdf>
Parmesan, C., Morecroft, M. D., Trsurat, Y., Adrian, R., Arneth, A., Gao, Q.,
Gonzalez, P., Harris, R., Price, J., Stevens, N. & Talukdarr, G. H. (2022). Terrestrial
and freshwater ecosystems and their services. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge
University Press. <https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg2/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGII_
FinalDraft_Chapter02.pdf>
CMS. (2020). Improving ways of addressing connectivity in the conservation of
migratory species. Resolution 12.26 (REV.COP13), Gandhinagar, India (17-22
February 2020). UNEP/CMS/COP13/ CRP 26.4.4. Convention on Migratory
Species. <https://www.cms.int/en/document/improving-ways-addressingconnectivity-conservation-migratory-species-0>
Barnosky, A. D., Hadly, E. A., Bascompte, J., Berlow, E. L., Brown, J. H., Fortelius,M., Getz, W. M., Harte, J., Hastings, A., Marquet, P. A., Martinez, N. D., Mooers,A., Roopnarine, P., Vermeij, G., Williams, J. W., Gillespie, R., Kitzes, J., Marshall,C., Matzke, N., Mindell, D. P., Revilla, E. & Smith, A. B. (2012). Approaching astate shift in Earth’s biosphere. Nature, 486(7401), 52–58. doi.org/10.1038/
nature11018
Haddad, N. M., Brudvig, L. A., Clobert, J., Davies, K. F., Gonzalez, A., Holt, R. D.,
Lovejoy, T. E., Sexton, J. O., Austin, M. P., Collins, C. D., Cook, W. M., Damschen,
E. I., Ewers, R. M., Foster, B. L., Jenkins, C. N., King, A. J., Laurance, W. F., Levey,
D. J., Margules, C. R., Melbourne, B. A., Nicholls, A. O., Orrock, J. L., Song, D.-X.
& Townshend, J. R. (2015). Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s
ecosystems. Science Advances, 1(2), e1500052. doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500052

17
18

19
20

21
22

23

24
25

26
27
28
29

30

31

32

Tucker, M. A., Böhning-Gaese, K., Fagan, W. F., Fryxell, J. M., Van Moorter, B.,
Alberts, S. C., Ali, A. H., Allen, A. M., Attias, N., Avgar, T., Bartlam-Brooks, H.,
Bayarbaatar, B., Belant, J. L., Bertassoni, A., Beyer, D., Bidner, L., van Beest, F.
M., Blake, S., Blaum, N., Bracis, C., Brown, D., de Bruyn, P. J. N. … Mueller, T.
(2018). Moving in the Anthropocene: Global reductions in terrestrial mammalian
movements. Science, 359(6374), 466–469. doi.org/10.1126/science.aam9712
Ward, M., Saura, S., Williams, B., Ramírez-Delgado, J. P., Arafeh-Dalmau, N.,
Allan, J. R., Venter, O., Dubois, G. & Watson, J. E. M. (2020). Just ten percent of
the global terrestrial protected area network is structurally connected via intact
land. Nature Communications, 11(1), 4563. doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18457-x
Brennan, A., Naidoo, R., Greenstreet, L., Mehrabi, Z., Ramankutty, N. & Kremen, C.
(2022). Functional connectivity of the world’s protected areas. Science, 376(6597),
1101–1104. doi.org/10.1126/science.abl8974
Keeley, A. T. H., Beier, P., Creech, T., Jones, K., Jongman, R. H., Stonecipher,G. & Tabor, G. M. (2019). Thirty years of connectivity conservation planning: anassessment of factors influencing plan implementation. Environmental Research
Letters, 14(10), 103001. doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab3234
Hilty, J., Keeley, A., Merenlender, A. & Lidicker Jr., W. (2019). Corridor Ecology,
Second Edition. Island Press. <https://www.ubcpress.ca/corridor-ecology-secondedition>
Hilty, J., Worboys, G. L., Keeley, A., Woodley, S., Lausche, B. J., Locke, H., Carr,
M., Pulsford, I., Pittock, J., White, J. W., Theobald, D. M., Levine, J., Reuling, M.,
Watson, J. E. M., Ament, R., Groves, C. & Tabor, G. M. (2020). Guidelines forconserving connectivity through ecological networks and corridors. IUCN. doi.
org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2020.PAG.30.en
Fraenkel, M., Aguilar, G. & McKinnon, K. (2020). Foreword. In: Guidelines forconserving connectivity through ecological networks and corridors. IUCN. doi.
org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2020.PAG.30.en
Mukherjee, N., Sutherland, W. J., Dicks, L., Hugé, J., Koedam, N. & DahdouhGuebas, F. (2014). Ecosystem service valuations of mangrove ecosystems to inform
decision making and future valuation exercises. PLOS ONE, 9(9), e107706. doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107706
Sandoval, L., Mancera-Pineda, J., Leal-Flórez, J., Blanco-Libreros, J. & DelgadoHuertas, A. (2022). Mangrove carbon sustains artisanal fish and other estuarine
consumers in a major mangrove area of the southern Caribbean Sea. Marine
Ecology Progress Series, 681, 21–35. doi.org/10.3354/meps13910
Donato, D. C., Kauffman, J. B., Murdiyarso, D., Kurnianto, S., Stidham, M. &Kanninen, M. (2011). Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics.
Nature Geoscience, 4(5), 293–297. doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1123
Blanco-Libreros, J. F., López-Rodríguez, S. R., Valencia-Palacios, A. M., Perez-Vega,
G. F. & Álvarez-León, R. (2022). Mangroves from rainy to desert climates: baseline
data to assess future changes and drivers in Colombia. Frontiers in Forests andGlobal Change, 5. <doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2022.772271>
Sánchez-Núñez, D. A., Bernal, G. & Mancera Pineda, J. E. (2019). The relative roleof mangroves on wave erosion mitigation and sediment properties. Estuaries andCoasts, 42(8), 2124–2138. doi.org/10.1007/s12237-019-00628-9
Krauss, K. W., McKee, K. L., Lovelock, C. E., Cahoon, D. R., Saintilan, N., Reef, R. &Chen, L. (2014). How mangrove forests adjust to rising sea level. New Phytologist,
202(1), 19–34. doi.org/10.1111/nph.12605
Goldberg, L., Lagomasino, D., Thomas, N. & Fatoyinbo, T. (2020). Global declines
in human-driven mangrove loss. Global Change Biology, 26(10), 5844–5855. doi.
org/10.1111/gcb.15275
Bhargava, R., Sarkar, D. & Friess, D. A. (2021). A cloud computing-based approachto mapping mangrove erosion and progradation: Case studies from the Sundarbans
and French Guiana. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 248, 106798. doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecss.2020.106798
Friess, D. A., Rogers, K., Lovelock, C. E., Krauss, K. W., Hamilton, S. E., Lee, S.
Y., Lucas, R., Primavera, J., Rajkaran, A. & Shi, S. (2019). The state of the world’s
mangrove forests: Past, present, and future. Annual Review of Environment andResources, 44(1), 89–115. doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033302
Buelow, C. A., Connolly, R. M., Turschwell, M. P., Adame, M. F., Ahmadia, G. N.,
Andradi-Brown, D. A., Bunting, P., Canty, S. W. J., Dunic, J. C., Friess, D. A., Lee,S. Y., Lovelock, C. E., McClure, E. C., Pearson, R. M., Sievers, M., Sousa, A. I.,
Worthington, T. A. & Brown, C. J. (2022). Ambitious global targets for mangrove
and seagrass recovery. Current Biology, 32(7), 1641-1649.e3. doi.org/10.1016/j.
cub.2022.02.013
IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group. (2022). Status of the world’s cetaceans – IUCN
– SSC Cetacean Specialist Group. <https://iucn-csg.org/status-of-the-worldscetaceans/>

105

33

34

35
36

37

38
39
40
41
42
43

44
45
46
47

48

49
50

51
52

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 106

Johnson, C., Reisinger, R. R., Friedlaender, A., Palacios, D., Willson, A., Zerbini,A. & Lancaster, M. (2022). Protecting Blue Corridors – Challenges and Solutionsfor Migratory Whales Navigating National and International Seas. WWF
International, Switzerland. doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.6196131.
Harrison, A.-L., Costa, D. P., Winship, A. J., Benson, S. R., Bograd, S. J., Antolos,
M., Carlisle, A. B., Dewar, H., Dutton, P. H., Jorgensen, S. J., Kohin, S., Mate, B.
R., Robinson, P. W., Schaefer, K. M., Shaffer, S. A., Shillinger, G. L., Simmons, S.
E., Weng, K. C., Gjerde, K. M. & Block, B. A. (2018). The political biogeography of
migratory marine predators. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2(10), 1571–1578. doi.
org/10.1038/s41559-018-0646-8
O’Leary, B. C., Hoppit, G., Townley, A., Allen, H. L., McIntyre, C. J. & Roberts, C.
M. (2020). Options for managing human threats to high seas biodiversity. Ocean &Coastal Management, 187, 105110. doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105110
Wright, G., Gjerde, K. M., Johnson, D. E., Finkelstein, A., Ferreira, M. A., Dunn,
D. C., Chaves, M. R. & Grehan, A. (2021). Marine spatial planning in areas
beyond national jurisdiction. Marine Policy, 132, 103384. doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpol.2018.12.003
Roberts, C. M., O’Leary, B. C. & Hawkins, J. P. (2020). Climate change mitigationand nature conservation both require higher protected area targets. PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375(1794), 20190121.
doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0121
Dasgupta, P. (2021). The economics of biodiversity: the Dasgupta review: fullreport (Updated: 18 February 2021). HM Treasury.
IPBES. (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem servicesof the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services (Version 1). Zenodo. doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.3831673
Duelli, P. & Obrist, M. K. (2003). Biodiversity indicators: the choice of values
and measures. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 98(1), 87–98. doi.
org/10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00072-0
Purvis, A. & Hector, A. (2000). Getting the measure of biodiversity. Nature,405(6783), 212–219. doi.org/10.1038/35012221
Collen, B., Loh, J., Whitmee, S., McRae, L., Amin, R. & Baillie, J. E. M. (2009).
Monitoring change in vertebrate abundance: the Living Planet Index. Conservation
Biology, 23(2), 317–327. doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01117.x
Loh, J., Green, R. E., Ricketts, T., Lamoreux, J., Jenkins, M., Kapos, V. & Randers,J. (2005). The Living Planet Index: using species population time series totrack trends in biodiversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, 360(1454), 289–295. doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1584
McRae, L., Deinet, S. & Freeman, R. (2017). The diversity-weighted Living PlanetIndex: Controlling for taxonomic bias in a global biodiversity indicator. PLOS ONE,12(1), e0169156. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169156
IPBES Technical Support Unit On Knowledge And Data. (2021). IPBES regions andsub-regions (1.2) [Data set]. Zenodo. doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.5719431
Amano, T., González-Varo, J. P. & Sutherland, W. J. (2016). Languages are still amajor barrier to global science. PLOS Biology, 14(12), e2000933. doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pbio.2000933
Amano, T. & Sutherland, W. J. (2013). Four barriers to the global understandingof biodiversity conservation: wealth, language, geographical location and security.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280(1756), 20122649.
doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.2649
Chowdhury, S., Gonzalez, K., Aytekin, M. Ç. K., Baek, S., Bełcik, M., Bertolino, S.,
Duijns, S., Han, Y., Jantke, K., Katayose, R., Lin, M., Nourani, E., Ramos, D. L.,
Rouyer, M., Sidemo-Holm, W., Vozykova, S., Zamora-Gutierrez, V. & Amano, T.
(2022). Growth of non-English-language literature on biodiversity conservation.
Conservation Biology. doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13883
Strayer, D. L. & Dudgeon, D. (2010). Freshwater biodiversity conservation: recent
progress and future challenges. Journal of the North American BenthologicalSociety. 29(1), 16. doi.org/10.1899/08-171.1
Bogardi, J. J., Dudgeon, D., Lawford, R., Flinkerbusch, E., Meyn, A., Pahl-Wostl, C.,
Vielhauer, K. & Vörösmarty, C. (2012). Water security for a planet under pressure:interconnected challenges of a changing world call for sustainable solutions.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(1), 35–43. doi.org/10.1016/j.
cosust.2011.12.002
Kummu, M., de Moel, H., Ward, P. J. & Varis, O. (2011). How close do we live towater? A global analysis of population distance to freshwater bodies. PLoS ONE,
6(6), e20578. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020578
Darwall, W., Smith, K., Allen, D., McGregor Reid, G., Clausnitzer, V. & Kalkman, V.
(2009). Freshwater biodiversity – a hidden resource under threat. In: Wildlife in achanging world: an analysis of the 2008 IUCN red list of threatened species (J.-C.
Vié, C. Hilton-Taylor, S. N. Stuart, IUCN – The World Conservation Union & IUCN
Species Survival Commission, Eds.). IUCN; Lynx Edicions.

53

54

55

56

57
58
59
60
61

62

63

64
65

66

67
68
69
70

Dudgeon, D., Arthington, A. H., Gessner, M. O., Kawabata, Z.-I., Knowler, D.
J., Lévêque, C., Naiman, R. J., Prieur-Richard, A.-H., Soto, D., Stiassny, M. L.
J. & Sullivan, C. A. (2006). Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status
and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews, 81(02), 163. doi.org/10.1017/
S1464793105006950
Grill, G., Lehner, B., Lumsdon, A. E., MacDonald, G. K., Zarfl, C. & Reidy
Liermann, C. (2015). An index-based framework for assessing patterns andtrends in river fragmentation and flow regulation by global dams at multiple
scales. Environmental Research Letters, 10(1), 015001. doi.org/10.1088/17489326/10/1/015001
Brink, K., Gough, P., Royte, J., Schollema, P. P. & Wanningen, H. (2018). From Sea
to Source 2.0: Protection and restoration of fish migration in rivers worldwide.
World Fish Migration Foundation. <https://worldfishmigrationfoundation.com/
wp-content/uploads/2021/01/from_sea_to_source_2_0.pdf>
Deinet, S., Scott-Gatty, K., Rotton, H., Marconi, V., McRae, L., Baumgartner, L.
J., Brink, K., Claussen, J. E., Cooke, S. J., Darwall, W., Eriksson, B. K., Garcia de
Leaniz, M. L., Thieme, M., Royte, J., Silva, L. G. M., Tickner, D., Waldman, D.,
Wanningen, H., Weyl, O. L. F. & Berkhuysen, A. (2020). The Living Planet Index(LPI) for migratory freshwater fish – Technical Report. World Fish Migration
Foundation, The Netherlands. <https://worldfishmigrationfoundation.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/07/LPI_report_2020.pdf>
IUCN. (2021). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2021-3. <https://www.iucnredlist.org/en>
IUCN. (2021). IUCN Green Status of Species (1st ed.). IUCN, International Union
for Conservation of Nature. doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2021.02.en
Cano-Alonso, L. S. (2021). Ciconia nigra (Green Status assessment).
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. <https://www.iucnredlist.org/
species/22697669/111747857>
Azat, C. & Valenzuela-Sánchez, A. (2021). Rhinoderma darwinii (Green Statusassessment). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. <https://www.iucnredlist.org/
species/22697669/111747857>
Butchart, S. H. M., Akçakaya, H. R., Chanson, J., Baillie, J. E. M., Collen, B.,
Quader, S., Turner, W. R., Amin, R., Stuart, S. N. & Hilton-Taylor, C. (2007).
Improvements to the Red List Index. PLOS ONE, 2(1), e140. doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0000140
Harfoot, M. B. J., Johnston, A., Balmford, A., Burgess, N. D., Butchart, S. H. M.,
Dias, M. P., Hazin, C., Hilton-Taylor, C., Hoffmann, M., Isaac, N. J. B., Iversen, L.
L., Outhwaite, C. L., Visconti, P. & Geldmann, J. (2021). Using the IUCN Red List to
map threats to terrestrial vertebrates at global scale. Nature Ecology & Evolution,
1–10. doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01542-9
Clarke, S. C., McAllister, M. K., Milner-Gulland, E. J., Kirkwood, G. P., Michielsens,
C. G., Agnew, D. J., Pikitch, E. K., Nakano, H. & Shivji, M. S. (2006). Global
estimates of shark catches using trade records from commercial markets. Ecology
Letters, 9(10), 1115–1126.
McClenachan, L., Cooper, A. B. & Dulvy, N. K. (2016). Rethinking trade-driven
extinction risk in marine and terrestrial megafauna. Current Biology, 26(12),1640–1646.
Pacoureau, N., Rigby, C. L., Kyne, P. M., Sherley, R. B., Winker, H., Carlson, J. K.,
Fordham, S. V., Barreto, R., Fernando, D., Francis, M. P., Jabado, R. W., Herman,
K. B., Liu, K.-M., Marshall, A. D., Pollom, R. A., Romanov, E. V., Simpfendorfer,
C. A., Yin, J. S., Kindsvater, H. K. & Dulvy, N. K. (2021). Half a century of global
decline in oceanic sharks and rays. Nature, 589(7843), 567–571. doi.org/10.1038/
s41586-020-03173-9
Rigby, C. L., Barreto, R., Carlson, J., Fernando, D., Fordham, S., Francis, M. P.,
Herman, K. B., Jabado, R. W., Liu, K. M., Marshall, A., Pacoureau, N., Romanov, E.,
Sherley, R. B. & Winker, H. (2019). Carcharhinus longimanus. The IUCN Red Listof Threatened Species 2018: e.T39341A2903170. doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.20191.RLTS.T39341A2903170.en.
Heithaus, M. R., Frid, A., Vaudo, J. J., Worm, B. & Wirsing, A. J. (2010). Unravelingthe ecological importance of elasmobranchs. In: Sharks and Their Relatives II. CRC
Press.
Kitchell, J. F., Essington, T. E., Boggs, C. H., Schindler, D. E. & Walters, C. J.
(2002). The role of sharks and longline fisheries in a pelagic ecosystem of thecentral Pacific. Ecosystems, 5(2), 202–216.
Pimiento, C., Leprieur, F., Silvestro, D., Lefcheck, J. S., Albouy, C., Rasher, D. B.,
Davis, M., Svenning, J.-C. & Griffin, J. N. (2020). Functional diversity of marine
megafauna in the Anthropocene. Science Advances, 6(16), eaay7650.
Polovina, J. J., Frazier, M., Howell, E. A. & Woodworth, P. (2009). Increases in
the relative abundance of mid-trophic level fishes concurrent with declines in apex
predators in the subtropical North Pacific, 1996–2006. Fishery Bulletin, 107(4),523–531.

107

71
72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80
81

82
83

84
85

86

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 108

Dulvy, N. K., Simpfendorfer, C. A., Davidson, L. N., Fordham, S. V., Bräutigam,
A., Sant, G. & Welch, D. J. (2017). Challenges and priorities in shark and ray
conservation. Current Biology, 27(11), R565–R572.
Dulvy, N. K., Fowler, S. L., Musick, J. A., Cavanagh, R. D., Kyne, P. M., Harrison,
L. R., Carlson, J. K., Davidson, L. N., Fordham, S. V., Francis, M. P., Pollock, C. M.,
Simpfendorfer, C. A., Burgess, G. H., Carpenter, K. E., Compagno, L. J., Ebert, D.
A., Gibson, C., Heupel, M. R., Livingstone, S. R., Sanciangco, J. C., Stevens, J. D.,
Valenti, S. & White, W. T. (2014). Extinction risk and conservation of the world’s
sharks and rays. ELife, 3, e00590. doi.org/10.7554/eLife.00590
Jabado, R. W., Kyne, P. M., Pollom, R. A., Ebert, D. A., Simpfendorfer, C. A., Ralph,G. M., Al Dhaheri, S. S., Akhilesh, K. V., Ali, K. & Ali, M. H. (2018). Troubled waters:
Threats and extinction risk of the sharks, rays and chimaeras of the Arabian Sea andadjacent waters. Fish and Fisheries, 19(6), 1043–1062.
Hill, S. L. L., Gonzalez, R., Sanchez-Ortiz, K., Caton, E., Espinoza, F., Newbold, T.,
Tylianakis, J., Scharlemann, J. P. W., Palma, A. D. & Purvis, A. (2018). Worldwide
impacts of past and projected future land-use change on local species richness andthe Biodiversity Intactness Index (p. 311787). bioRxiv. doi.org/10.1101/311787
Natural History Museum. (2022). Biodiversity Intactness Index data | Natural
History Museum. Biodiversity Indicators | Natural History Museum. <https://www.
nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/biodiversity-indicators/biodiversity-intactness-indexdata>
Leclère, D., Obersteiner, M., Barrett, M., Butchart, S. H. M., Chaudhary, A.,
De Palma, A., DeClerck, F. A. J., Di Marco, M., Doelman, J. C., Dürauer, M.,
Freeman, R., Harfoot, M., Hasegawa, T., Hellweg, S., Hilbers, J. P., Hill, S. L. L.,
Humpenöder, F., Jennings, N., Krisztin, T., Mace, G. M., Ohashi, H., Popp, A., …
Young, L. (2020). Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated
strategy. Nature, 585(7826), 551–556. doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2705-y
Jung, M., Arnell, A., de Lamo, X., García-Rangel, S., Lewis, M., Mark, J., Merow,C., Miles, L., Ondo, I., Pironon, S., Ravilious, C., Rivers, M., Schepaschenko, D.,
Tallowin, O., van Soesbergen, A., Govaerts, R., Boyle, B. L., Enquist, B. J., Feng,X., Gallagher, R., Maitner, B., Meiri, S., … Visconti, P. (2021). Areas of global
importance for conserving terrestrial biodiversity, carbon and water. Nature
Ecology & Evolution, 5(11), 1499–1509. doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01528-7
Sala, E., Mayorga, J., Bradley, D., Cabral, R. B., Atwood, T. B., Auber, A., Cheung,W., Costello, C., Ferretti, F., Friedlander, A. M., Gaines, S. D., Garilao, C., Goodell,W., Halpern, B. S., Hinson, A., Kaschner, K., Kesner-Reyes, K., Leprieur, F.,
McGowan, J., Morgan, L. E., Mouillot, D., Palacios-Abrantes, J., Possingham, H. P.,
Rechberger, K. D., Worm, B. & Lubchenco, J. (2021). Protecting the global ocean
for biodiversity, food and climate. Nature, 592(7854), 397–402. doi.org/10.1038/
s41586-021-03371-z
O’Connor, L. M. J., Pollock, L. J., Renaud, J., Verhagen, W., Verburg, P. H., Lavorel,
S., Maiorano, L. & Thuiller, W. (2021). Balancing conservation priorities for natureand for people in Europe. Science, 372(6544), 856–860. doi.org/10.1126/science.
abc4896
Goolmeer, T., Skroblin, A. & Wintle, B. A. (2022). Getting our Act together toimprove Indigenous leadership and recognition in biodiversity management.
Ecological Management & Restoration, 23(S1), 33–42. doi.org/10.1111/emr.12523
Schuster, R., Germain, R. R., Bennett, J. R., Reo, N. J. & Arcese, P. (2019).
Vertebrate biodiversity on indigenous-managed lands in Australia, Brazil, andCanada equals that in protected areas. Environmental Science & Policy, 101, 1–6.
doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.07.002
Reid, A. J., Young, N., Hinch, S. G. & Cooke, S. J. (2022). Learning from Indigenous
knowledge holders on the state and future of wild Pacific salmon. FACETS, 7,
718–740. doi.org/10.1139/facets-2021-0089
Reid, A. J., Eckert, L. E., Lane, J.-F., Young, N., Hinch, S. G., Darimont, C. T.,
Cooke, S. J., Ban, N. C. & Marshall, A. (2021). “Two-Eyed Seeing”: An Indigenous
framework to transform fisheries research and management. Fish and Fisheries,
22(2), 243–261. doi.org/10.1111/faf.12516
UN. (2022). Indigenous Peoples at the United Nations. <https://www.un.org/
development/desa/indigenouspeoples/about-us.html>
Darbyshire, I., Anderson, S., Asatryan, A., Byfield, A., Cheek, M., Clubbe, C.,Ghrabi, Z., Harris, T., Heatubun, C. D., Kalema, J., Magassouba, S., McCarthy, B.,
Milliken, W., de Montmollin, B., Lughadha, E. N., Onana, J.-M., Saïdou, D., Sârbu,A., Shrestha, K. & Radford, E. A. (2017). Important Plant Areas: Revised selection
criteria for a global approach to plant conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation,
26(8), 1767–1800. doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1336-6
Sayer, J. A., Harcourt, C. S. & Collins, N. M. (1992). The Conservation Atlas ofTropical Forests: Africa. IUCN and Simon and Schuster, Cambridge, UK.

87

88
89
90

91
92

93
94
95

96
97
98
99
100

101

102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109

110

Fitzgerald, M., Nackoney, J., Potapov, P. & Turubanova, S. (2021). Agriculture is
the primary driver of tree cover loss across the Forestière region of the Republicof Guinea, Africa. Environmental Research Communications, 3(12), 121004. doi.
org/10.1088/2515-7620/ac4278
Burkill, H. N. (1995). The Useful Plants of West Tropical Africa. Volume 3, families
J-L. Kew: Royal Botanic Gardens.
Burkill, H. N. (1994). The Useful Plants of West Tropical Africa. Volume 2, families
E-I. Kew: Royal Botanic Gardens.
Akintimehin, E. S., Karigidi, K. O., Anthony, E. O. & Adetuyi, F. O. (2021).
Proximate composition, minerals, vitamins, phytochemical constituents and antinutrient profile of Beilschmiedia mannii seeds and Combretum racemosum leaves
for soup preparation. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 59, 1847–1854. doi.
org/10.1007/s13197-021-05198-y
Essien, E. U., Esenowo, G. J. & Akpanabiatu, M. I. (1995). Lipid composition oflesser known tropical seeds. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition, 48(2), 135–140.
doi.org/10.1007/BF01088309
Lykke, A. M., Gregersen, S. B., Padonou, E. A., Bassolé, I. H. N. & Dalsgaard, T.
K. (2021). Potential of unconventional seed oils and fats from west African trees:
A review of fatty acid composition and perspectives. Lipids, 56(4), 357–390. doi.
org/10.1002/lipd.12305
Herbier National de Guinée. (2022). Conservation des arbres menacées de Guinée.
<http://www.herbierguinee.org/conservation-des-arbres-menacees.html>
Couch, C., Cheek, M., Haba, P. M., Molmou, D., Williams, J., Magassouba, S.,
Doumbouya, S. & Diallo, Y. M. (2019). Threatened habitats and Important Plant
Areas (TIPAs) of Guinea, west Africa. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. London.
Moggridge, B. J., Thompson, R. M. & Radoll, P. (2022). Indigenous researchmethodologies in water management: learning from Australia and New Zealandfor application on Kamilaroi country. Wetlands Ecology and Management. doi.
org/10.1007/s11273-022-09866-4
NCFRP. (2016). National Cultural Flows Research Project. <https://culturalflows.
com.au/>Whyte, K. P., Brewer, J. P. & Johnson, J. T. (2015). Weaving Indigenous science,
protocols and sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 11(1), 25–32. doi.
org/10.1007/s11625-015-0296-6
Wilson, S. (2008). Research Is Ceremony. Fernwood Publishing, Nova Scotia.
<https://fernwoodpublishing.ca/book/research-is-ceremony-shawn-wilson>
UN General Assembly. (2022). The Human Right to a Clean, Healthy andSustainable Environment. A/RES/76/300. <https://news.un.org/en/
story/2022/07/1123482>
UNEP. (2022). Presidents’ Final Remarks to Plenary: Key recommendations foraccelerating action towards a healthy planet for the prosperity of all. <https://
wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/40110/Key%20Messages%20
and%20Recommendations%20-%20Formatted.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y>
UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment. (2022). The rightto a clean, healthy and sustainable environment: non-toxic environment (A/HRC/49/53) <https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc4953right-clean-healthy-and-sustainable-environment-non-toxic>
UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment. (2021). Humanrights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable
environment (A/76/179).
UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment. (2020). Good
Practices Report: Recognizing and implementing the right to a healthy environment
UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment. (2019). Issue ofhuman rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy andsustainable environment (A/HRC/40/55)
Boyd, D. R. (2015). The Optimistic Environmentalist: Progressing Towards a
Greener Future. ECW Press.
HAC. (2022). HAC for Nature and People. <https://www.hacfornatureandpeople.
org>
Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance. (2022). <https://beyondoilandgasalliance.com/>de Vilchez, P. & Savaresi, A. (2022). The right to a healthy environment and climate
litigation: A mutually supportive relation? <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.
cfm?abstract_id=3829114>
IPCC. (2022). Climate Change 2022. Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
Summary for Policymakers. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
<https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_
SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf>
IPCC. (2022). Climate Change 2022. Mitigation of Climate Change. Summary for
Policymakers. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. <https://report.ipcc.
ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf>

109

111
112
113
114
115

116
117
118

119
120

121
122
123
124
125
126

127

128

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 110

IPCC. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Summary for
Policymakers. (p. 32). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. <https://www.
ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf>
Pörtner et al. (2021). IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop: Biodiversity andclimate change workshop report. <https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/2021-06/
20210609_workshop_report_embargo_3pm_CEST_10_june_0.pdf>
Wackernagel, M., Hanscom, L., Jayasinghe, P., Lin, D., Murthy, A., Neill, E. &Raven, P. (2021). The importance of resource security for poverty eradication.
Nature Sustainability, 4(8), 731–738. doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00708-4
Wackernagel, M., Lin, D., Evans, M., Hanscom, L. & Raven, P. (2019). Defying theFootprint Oracle: Implications of country resource trends. Sustainability, 11(7),2164. doi.org/10.3390/su11072164
York University, Ecological Footprint Initiative & Global Footprint Network.
(2022). National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts, 2022 edition. Produced
for the Footprint Data Foundation and distributed by Global Footprint Network.
<https://www.footprintnetwork.org/licenses/public-data-package-free/>
Galli, A., Wackernagel, M., Iha, K. & Lazarus, E. (2014). Ecological Footprint:
Implications for biodiversity. Biological Conservation, 173, 121–132. doi.
org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.10.019
Wackernagel, M., Hanscom, L. & Lin, D. (2017). Making the Sustainable
Development Goals consistent with sustainability. Frontiers in Energy Research, 5.
<https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fenrg.2017.00018>
Vause, J. (2020). Exploring the relationship between trade and biodiversity
through the lens of the Dasgupta Review of the Economics of Biodiversity. UK
Research and Innovation Global Challenges Research Fund (UKRI GCRF) Trade,
Development and the Environment Hub. <https://tradehub.earth/wp-content/
uploads/2021/03/Vause-2020-Exploring-Trade-and-Biodiversity.pdf>
Molotoks, A. & West, C. (2021). Which forest-risk commodities imported to the
UK have the highest overseas impacts? A rapid evidence synthesis. Emerald Open
Research, 3, 22. doi.org/10.35241/emeraldopenres.14306.1
UNEP. (2021). Biodiversity and international trade policy primer: How does
nature fit in the sustainable trade agenda? UK Research and Innovation Global
Challenges Research Fund (UKRI GCRF) Trade, Development and the Environment
Hub, UN Environment Programme (UNEP), and the Forum on Trade, Environment& the SDGs (TESS). <https://tradehub.earth/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/
Biodiversity-and-International-Trade-Policy-Primer-Document_05.pdf>
WWF-UK. (2022). Designing due diligence. WWF-UK. <https://www.wwf.org.uk/
sites/default/files/2022-03/WWF-UK_Designing%20Due%20Diligence%20-%20
Final%20.pdf>
FSIN and Global Network Against Food Crises. (2022). 2022 Global Report on
Food Crises. <https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb9997en>
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. (2022). The State of Food Security andNutrition in the World 2022. Repurposing food and agricultural policies to makehealthy diets more affordable. Rome, FAO.
Hertel, T., Elouafi, I., Tanticharoen, M. & Ewert, F. (2021). Diversification forenhanced food systems resilience. Nature Food, 2(11), 832–834. doi.org/10.1038/
s43016-021-00403-9
FAO. (2021). The State of Food and Agriculture 2021; Making agrifood systems
more resilient to shocks and stresses. Rome, FAO. <https://www.fao.org/
documents/card/en/c/cb4476en>
Doelman, J. C., Beier, F. D., Stehfest, E., Bodirsky, B. L., Beusen, A. H. W.,
Humpenöder, F., Mishra, A., Popp, A., van Vuuren, D. P., de Vos, L., Weindl, I.,
van Zeist, W.-J. & Kram, T. (2022). Quantifying synergies and trade-offs in the
global water-land-food-climate nexus using a multi-model scenario approach.
Environmental Research Letters, 17(4), 045004. doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/
ac5766
Springmann, M., Clark, M., Mason-D’Croz, D., Wiebe, K., Bodirsky, B. L.,
Lassaletta, L., de Vries, W., Vermeulen, S. J., Herrero, M., Carlson, K. M., Jonell,M., Troell, M., DeClerck, F., Gordon, L. J., Zurayk, R., Scarborough, P., Rayner,
M., Loken, B., Fanzo, J., Godfray, H. C. J., Tilman, D., Rockström, J. & Willett, W.
(2018). Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature,562(7728), 519–525. doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0594-0
Strassburg, B. B. N., Iribarrem, A., Beyer, H. L., Cordeiro, C. L., Crouzeilles, R.,
Jakovac, C. C., Braga Junqueira, A., Lacerda, E., Latawiec, A. E., Balmford, A.,
Brooks, T. M., Butchart, S. H. M., Chazdon, R. L., Erb, K.-H., Brancalion, P.,
Buchanan, G., Cooper, D., Díaz, S., Donald, P. F., Kapos, V., Leclère, D., Miles, L.,
Obersteiner, M., Plutzar, C., de M. Scaramuzza, C. A., Scarano, F. R. & Visconti,
P. (2020). Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration. Nature, 586(7831),
724–729. doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2784-9

129 Dooley, K., Holz, C., Kartha, S., Klinsky, S., Roberts, J. T., Shue, H., Winkler, H.,
Athanasiou, T., Caney, S., Cripps, E., Dubash, N. K., Hall, G., Harris, P. G., Lahn,
B., Moellendorf, D., Müller, B., Sagar, A. & Singer, P. (2021). Ethical choices behindquantifications of fair contributions under the Paris Agreement. Nature Climate
Change, 11(4), 300–305. doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01015-8
130 Robiou du Pont, Y., Jeffery, M. L., Gütschow, J., Rogelj, J., Christoff, P. &Meinshausen, M. (2017). Equitable mitigation to achieve the Paris Agreement goals.
Nature Climate Change, 7(1), 38–43. doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3186
131 Kikstra, J. S., Mastrucci, A., Min, J., Riahi, K. & Rao, N. D. (2021). Decent living
gaps and energy needs around the world. Environmental Research Letters, 16(9),095006. doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac1c27
132 Chaplin-Kramer, R., Sharp, R. P., Weil, C., Bennett, E. M., Pascual, U., Arkema,
K. K., Brauman, K. A., Bryant, B. P., Guerry, A. D., Haddad, N. M., Hamann, M.,
Hamel, P., Johnson, J. A., Mandle, L., Pereira, H. M., Polasky, S., Ruckelshaus,M., Shaw, M. R., Silver, J. M., Vogl, A. L. & Daily, G. C. (2019). Global modeling of
nature’s contributions to people. Science, 366(6462), 255–258. doi.org/10.1126/
science.aaw3372
133 Johnson, J. A., Baldos, U., Liu, J., Nootenboom, C., Polasky, S. & Roxburg, T.
(2020). Global Futures: Modelling the global economic impacts of environmental
change to support policy-making. <https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/
downloads/global_futures_technical_report.pdf>
134 Waldron, A., Adams, V., Allan, J., Arnell, A., Asner, G., Atkinson, S., Baccini, A.,
Baillie, E., Balmford, A., Beau, J. A., Brander, L., Brondizio, E., Bruner, A., Burgess,N., Burkart, K., Butchart, S., Button, R., Carrasco, R., Cheung, W., Christensen, V.,
Clements, A., Coll, M., … Zhang, Y. (2020). Protecting 30% of the planet for nature:
costs, benefits and economic implications. Working paper analysing the economic
implications of the proposed 30% target for areal protection in the draft post-2020
Global Biodiversity Framework.<https://www.conservation.cam.ac.uk/files/
waldron_report_30_by_30_publish.pdf>
135 Rosa, M. R., Brancalion, P. H. S., Crouzeilles, R., Tambosi, L. R., Piffer, P. R., Lenti,
F. E. B., Hirota, M., Santiami, E. & Metzger, J. P. (2021). Hidden destruction ofolder forests threatens Brazil’s Atlantic Forest and challenges restoration programs.
Science Advances, 7(4), eabc4547. doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abc4547
136 Díaz, S., Zafra-Calvo, N., Purvis, A., Verburg, P. H., Obura, D., Leadley, P., ChaplinKramer, R., De Meester, L., Dulloo, E., Martín-López, B., Shaw, M. R., Visconti, P.,
Broadgate, W., Bruford, M. W., Burgess, N. D., Cavender-Bares, J., DeClerck, F.,
Fernández-Palacios, J. M., Garibaldi, L. A., Hill, S. L. L., Isbell, F., Khoury, C. K.,
Krug, C. B., Liu, J., Maron, M., McGowan, P. J. K., Pereira, H. M., Reyes-García,
V., Rocha, J., Rondinini, C., Shannon, L., Shin, Y.-J., Snelgrove, P. V. R., Spehn,
E. M., Strassburg, B., Subramanian, S. M., Tewksbury, J. J., Watson, J. E. M. &Zanne, A. E. (2020). Set ambitious goals for biodiversity and sustainability. Science,
370(6515), 411–413. doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1530
137 Mace, G. M. (2014). Whose conservation? Science, 345(6204), 1558–1560. doi.
org/10.1126/science.1254704
138 Rosa, I. M. D., Pereira, H. M., Ferrier, S., Alkemade, R., Acosta, L. A., Akcakaya, H.
R., den Belder, E., Fazel, A. M., Fujimori, S., Harfoot, M., Harhash, K. A., Harrison,
P. A., Hauck, J., Hendriks, R. J. J., Hernández, G., Jetz, W., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen,
S. I., Kim, H., King, N., Kok, M. T. J., Kolomytsev, G. O., Lazarova, T., Leadley, P.,
Lundquist, C. J., García Márquez, J., Meyer, C., Navarro, L. M., Nesshöver, C., Ngo,
H. T., Ninan, K. N., Palomo, M. G., Pereira, L. M., Peterson, G. D., Pichs, R., Popp,
A., Purvis, A., Ravera, F., Rondinini, C., Sathyapalan, J., Schipper, A. M., Seppelt,
R., Settele, J., Sitas, N. & van Vuuren, D. (2017). Multiscale scenarios for nature
futures. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1(10), 1416–1419. doi.org/10.1038/s41559017-0273-9
139 Soergel, B., Kriegler, E., Bodirsky, B. L., Bauer, N., Leimbach, M. & Popp, A. (2021).
Combining ambitious climate policies with efforts to eradicate poverty. Nature
Communications, 12(1), 2342. doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22315-9
140 Pereira, L. M., Davies, K. K., Belder, E., Ferrier, S., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S.,
Kim, H., Kuiper, J. J., Okayasu, S., Palomo, M. G., Pereira, H. M., Peterson, G.,
Sathyapalan, J., Schoolenberg, M., Alkemade, R., Carvalho Ribeiro, S., Greenaway,
A., Hauck, J., King, N., Lazarova, T., Ravera, F., Chettri, N., Cheung, W. W. L.,
Hendriks, R. J. J., Kolomytsev, G., Leadley, P., Metzger, J., Ninan, K. N., Pichs, R.,
Popp, A., Rondinini, C., Rosa, I., Vuuren, D. & Lundquist, C. J. (2020). Developing
multiscale and integrative nature–people scenarios using the Nature Futures
Framework. People and Nature, 2(4), 1172–1195. doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10146
141 Frishkoff, L. O., Karp, D. S., Flanders, J. R., Zook, J., Hadly, E. A., Daily, G. C. &M’Gonigle, L. K. (2016). Climate change and habitat conversion favour the same
species. Ecology Letters, 19(9), 1081–1090. doi.org/10.1111/ele.12645

111

142 Hendershot, J. N., Smith, J. R., Anderson, C. B., Letten, A. D., Frishkoff, L. O.,
Zook, J. R., Fukami, T. & Daily, G. C. (2020). Intensive farming drives long-term
shifts in avian community composition. Nature, 579(7799), 393–396. doi.
org/10.1038/s41586-020-2090-6
143 Oliver, T. H., Gillings, S., Pearce-Higgins, J. W., Brereton, T., Crick, H. Q. P.,
Duffield, S. J., Morecroft, M. D. & Roy, D. B. (2017). Large extents of intensive
land use limit community reorganization during climate warming. Global Change
Biology, 23(6), 2272–2283. doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13587
144 Platts, P. J., Mason, S. C., Palmer, G., Hill, J. K., Oliver, T. H., Powney, G. D., Fox,
R. & Thomas, C. D. (2019). Habitat availability explains variation in climate-driven
range shifts across multiple taxonomic groups. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 15039. doi.
org/10.1038/s41598-019-51582-2
145 Oliver, T. H. & Morecroft, M. D. (2014). Interactions between climate change andland use change on biodiversity: Attribution problems, risks, and opportunities.
WIREs Climate Change, 5(3), 317–335. doi.org/10.1002/wcc.271
146 Williams, J. J. & Newbold, T. (2020). Local climatic changes affect biodiversity
responses to land use: A review. Diversity and Distributions, 26(1), 76–92. doi.
org/10.1111/ddi.12999
147 Outhwaite, C. L., McCann, P. & Newbold, T. (2022). Agriculture and climate change
are reshaping insect biodiversity worldwide. Nature, 605(7908), 97–102. doi.
org/10.1038/s41586-022-04644-x
148 Hellegers, M., van Swaay, C. A. M., van Hinsberg, A., Huijbregts, M. A. J. &Schipper, A. M. (2022). Modulating effects of landscape characteristics on
responses to warming differ among butterfly species. Frontiers in Ecology and
Evolution, 10. <https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fevo.2022.873366>
149 FFI. (2021). Coordinated and collaborative application of the mitigation hierarchyin complex multi-use landscapes in Africa. A conceptual framework integrating
socioecological considerations. Fauna & Flora International: Cambridge,
UK. <https://www.fauna-flora.org/app/uploads/2021/02/FFI_CALM_
Framework_2021_ENG-1.pdf>
150 Carrington, D. (2019). ‘Death by a thousand cuts’: vast expanse of rainforest lost in
2018. The Guardian. <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/25/
death-by-a-thousand-cuts-vast-expanse-rainforest-lost-in-2018>
151 Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondízio, E. S., Ngo, H. T., Agard, J., Arneth, A., Balvanera, P.,
Brauman, K. A., Butchart, S. H. M., Chan, K. M. A., Garibaldi, L. A., Ichii, K., Liu,J., Subramanian, S. M., Midgley, G. F., Miloslavich, P., Molnár, Z., Obura, D., Pfaff,
A., Polasky, S., Purvis, A., Razzaque, J., Reyers, B., Chowdhury, R. R., Shin, Y.-J.,
Visseren-Hamakers, I., Willis, K. J. & Zayas, C. N. (2019). Pervasive human-driven
decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science,
366(6471), eaax3100. doi.org/10.1126/science.aax3100
152 Sterner, T., Barbier, E. B., Bateman, I., van den Bijgaart, I., Crépin, A.-S.,
Edenhofer, O., Fischer, C., Habla, W., Hassler, J., Johansson-Stenman, O., Lange,
A., Polasky, S., Rockström, J., Smith, H. G., Steffen, W., Wagner, G., Wilen, J. E.,
Alpízar, F., Azar, C., Carless, D., Chávez, C., Coria, J., Engström, G., Jagers, S. C.,
Köhlin, G., Löfgren, Å., Pleijel, H. & Robinson, A. (2019). Policy design for the
Anthropocene. Nature Sustainability, 2(1), 14–21. doi.org/10.1038/s41893-0180194-x
153 Alkemade, F. & de Coninck, H. (2021). Policy mixes for sustainability transitions
must embrace system dynamics. Environmental Innovation and Societal
Transitions, 41, 24–26. doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.10.014
154 Jagers, S. C., Harring, N., Löfgren, Å., Sjöstedt, M., Alpizar, F., Brülde, B.,
Langlet, D., Nilsson, A., Almroth, B. C., Dupont, S. & Steffen, W. (2020). On thepreconditions for large-scale collective action. Ambio, 49(7), 1282–1296. doi.
org/10.1007/s13280-019-01284-w
155 Lenton, T. M., Benson, S., Smith, T., Ewer, T., Lanel, V., Petykowski, E., Powell, T.
W. R., Abrams, J. F., Blomsma, F. & Sharpe, S. (2022). Operationalising positive
tipping points towards global sustainability. Global Sustainability, 5, e1. doi.
org/10.1017/sus.2021.30
156 Ministry of Environment and Forestry. (2020). Integrated master plan forrestoration and rehabilitation of Elgeyo-Cherangany hills ecosystem. <https://www.wwfkenya.org/knowledge_hub/our_publications_/?233611/IntegratedMaster-Plan-for-Rehabilitation-and-Restoration-of-the-Cherangany-Elgeyo-HillsEcosystem>
157 Pitsiladis, Y. (Ed.). (2007). East African running: toward a cross-disciplinary
perspective. Routledge.
158 Constitution of Kenya. (2010). Constitution of Kenya, Article 69(1)(c). <http://
www.kenyalaw.org/lex/actview.xql?actid=Const2010#KE/CON/Const2010/
chap_5>WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 112

159 Government of Kenya. (2016). Green Economy Strategy and Implementation Plan
2016 – 2030. Government of Kenya. <http://www.environment.go.ke/wp-content/
uploads/2018/08/GESIP_Final23032017.pdf>
160 UK PACT, S. H. (2020). UK PACT supports Kenya’s low-carbon and inclusive green
growth ambition with £3.7m funding. <https://www.ukpact.co.uk/news/uk-pactsupports-kenyas-low-carbon-and-inclusive-green-growth-ambition-with-3.7million-funding>
161 Maron, M., Simmonds, J. S., Watson, J. E. M., Sonter, L. J., Bennun, L., Griffiths,
V. F., Quétier, F., von Hase, A., Edwards, S., Rainey, H., Bull, J. W., Savy, C. E.,
Victurine, R., Kiesecker, J., Puydarrieux, P., Stevens, T., Cozannet, N. & Jones, J. P.
G. (2020). Global no net loss of natural ecosystems. Nature Ecology & Evolution,
4(1), 46–49. doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-1067-z
162 RAISG. (2020). Amazonia Under Pressure 2020. Amazon Network ofGeoreferenced Socio-environmental Information. RAISG. <https://www.
amazoniasocioambiental.org/en/publication/amazonia-under-pressure-2020/>
163 Bullock, E. L., Woodcock, C. E., Souza Jr., C. & Olofsson, P. (2020). Satellite-based
estimates reveal widespread forest degradation in the Amazon. Global Change
Biology, 26(5), 2956–2969. doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15029
164 Malhi, Y., Saatchi, S., Girardin, C. & AragãO, L. E. O. C. (2009). The
production, storage, and flow of carbon in Amazonian forests. In: Amazonia
and Global Change (pp. 355–372). American Geophysical Union (AGU). doi.
org/10.1029/2008GM000733
165 Saatchi, S. S., Houghton, R. A., Dos Santos Alvalá, R. C., Soares, J. V. & Yu, Y.
(2007). Distribution of aboveground live biomass in the Amazon basin. Global
Change Biology, 13(4), 816–837. doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01323.x
166 Raven, P. H., Gereau, R. E., Phillipson, P. B., Chatelain, C., Jenkins, C. N. & Ulloa
Ulloa, C. (2020). The distribution of biodiversity richness in the tropics. Science
Advances, 6(37), eabc6228. doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abc6228
167 Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Brooks, T. M., Pilgrim, J. D., Konstant,
W. R., da Fonseca, G. A. B. & Kormos, C. (2003). Wilderness and biodiversity
conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(18),10309–10313. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1732458100
168 Josse C, Futada S. M, von Hildebrand M, de los Rios M.M, Oliveira-Miranda M.A,
Moraes E.N.S., Tuesta E. (2021). Chapter 16: The state of conservation policies,
protected areas, and Indigenous territories, from the past to the present. In:
Nobre, C. & Encalada, A. (2021). Amazon Assessment Report 2021 (1st ed.). UN
Sustainable Development. <doi.org/10.55161/KZLB5335>
169 Science Panel for the Amazon, Nobre, C. & Encalada, A. (2021). Amazon
Assessment Report 2021 (1st ed.). UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network(SDSN). doi.org/10.55161/RWSX6527
170 Cooley, S., Schoeman, D., Bopp, L., Boyd, P., Donner, S., Ghebrehiwet, D. Y., Ito,
S.-Y., Kiessling, W., Martinetto, P., Ojea, E., Racault, M.-F., Rost, B., & SkernMauritzen, M. (2022). Ocean and Coastal Ecosystems and their Services. In:
Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution ofWorking Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. <https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/
wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FinalDraft_Chapter03.pdf>
171 Soroye, P., Newbold, T. & Kerr, J. (2020). Climate change contributes to widespread
declines among bumble bees across continents. Science, 367(6478), 685–688. doi.
org/10.1126/science.aax8591
172 COICA. (2022). Amazonia for life: protected 80% by 2025. Key results and policy.
<https://amazonia80x2025.earth/declaration>
173 Lovejoy, T. E. & Nobre, C. (2019). Amazon tipping point: Last chance for action.
Science Advances, 5(12), eaba2949. doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba2949
174 Walker, W. S., Gorelik, S. R., Baccini, A., Aragon-Osejo, J. L., Josse, C., Meyer,C., Macedo, M. N., Augusto, C., Rios, S., Katan, T., de Souza, A. A., Cuellar,
S., Llanos, A., Zager, I., Mirabal, G. D., Solvik, K. K., Farina, M. K., Moutinho,
P. & Schwartzman, S. (2020). The role of forest conversion, degradation, anddisturbance in the carbon dynamics of Amazon indigenous territories and protectedareas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(6), 3015–3025. doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.1913321117
175 IUCN. (2021). Proceedings of the Members’ Assembly: World Conservation
Congress Marseille, France 3–10 September 2021. <https://portals.iucn.org/
library/sites/library/files/documents/WCC-7th-005-En.pdf>
176 RAISG. (2020). Amazonia Under Pressure 2020. Amazon Networkof Georeferenced Socio-environmental Information. <https://www.
amazoniasocioambiental.org/en/publication/amazonia-under-pressure-2020>
177 Lovejoy, T. E. & Nobre, C. (2018). Amazon tipping point. Science Advances, 4(2),eaat2340. <doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat2340>

113

178 Warren, R., J. Price, E. Graham, N. Forstenhaeusler, and J. VanDerWal. (2018).
The projected effect on insects, vertebrates, and plants of limiting global warming to
1.5° C rather than 2° C. Science, 360(6390): 791-795.
179 Kok, M. T. J., Meijer, J. R., van Zeist, W.-J., Hilbers, J. P., Immovilli, M., Janse, J.
H., Stehfest, E., Bakkenes, M., Tabeau, A., Schipper, A. M., & Alkemade, R. (2022).
Assessing ambitious nature conservation strategies within a 2 degree warmer andfood-secure world [Preprint]. <doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.04.236489>
180 Chan, K.M., Boyd, D.R., Gould, R.K., Jetzkowitz, J., Liu, J., Muraca, B., Naidoo, R.,
Olmsted, P., Satterfield, T., Selomane, O. & Singh, G.G., 2020. Levers and leverage
points for pathways to sustainability. People and Nature, 2(3), 693-717.
181 Abson D.J., Fischer J., Leventon J., Newig J., Schomerus T., Vilsmaier U., Von
Wehrden H., Abernethy P., Ives C.D., Jager N.W., Lang D.J. (2017) Leverage points
for sustainability transformation. Ambio, 46(1), 30-39.
182 He, F., Bremerich, V., Zarfl, C., Geldmann, J., Langhans, S. D., David, J. N. W.,
Darwall, W., Tockner, K., & Jähnig, S. C. (2018). Freshwater megafauna diversity:
Patterns, status and threats. Diversity and Distributions, 24(10), 1395–1404. <doi.
org/10.1111/ddi.12780>
183 Lin, D., Hanscom, L., Murthy, A., Galli, A., Evans, M., Neill, E., Mancini, M. S.,
Martindill, J., Medouar, F.-Z., Huang, S., & Wackernagel, M. (2018). Ecological
Footprint Accounting for Countries: Updates and Results of the National Footprint
Accounts, 2012–2018. Resources, 7(3), 58. doi.org/10.3390/resources7030058
184 WWF/ZSL. (2022). The Living Planet Index database. <www.livingplanetindex.
org>.
185 Galli, A., Iha, K., Moreno Pires, S., Mancini, M. S., Alves, A., Zokai, G., Lin, D.,
Murthy, A., & Wackernagel, M. (2020). Assessing the Ecological Footprint andbiocapacity of Portuguese cities: Critical results for environmental awareness andlocal management. Cities, 96, 102442. doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102442
186 Galli, A., Iha, K., Halle, M., El Bilali, H., Grunewald, N., Eaton, D., Capone, R., Debs,
P., & Bottalico, F. (2017). Mediterranean countries’ food consumption and sourcing
patterns:An Ecological Footprint viewpoint. Science of the Total Environment, 578,
383–391. <doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.191>
187 Galli, A., Weinzettel, J., Cranston, G., & Ercin, E. (2013). A Footprint Family
extended MRIO model to support Europe’s transition to a One Planet Economy.
Science of the Total Environment, 461–462, 813–818.<doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2015.09.040>
188 Mancini, M. S., Galli, A., Niccolucci, V., Lin, D., Bastianoni, S., Wackernagel,M., & Marchettini, N. (2016). Ecological Footprint: Refining the carbon
Footprint calculation. Ecological Indicators, 61, 390–403. <doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2015.09.040>
189 Wackernagel, M., Hanscom, L., Jayasinghe, P., Lin, D., Murthy, A., Neill, E., &Raven, P. (2021). The importance of resource security for poverty eradication.
Nature Sustainability, 4(8), 731–738. <doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00708-4>
190 Maani, K., & Cavana, R. Y. (2017). Systems Thinking, System Dynamics: Managing
Change and Complexity (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.
191 IIS. (2022). Identificando Áreas Prioritárias para Restauração, Bioma Amazônia.
Instituto Internacional para Sustentabilidade. <https://amazonia2030.org.br/wpcontent/uploads/2022/02/AMZ-29.pdf>
192 CBD. (2021). First draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.
Convention on Biological Diversity. Open ended working group on the
post-2020 global biodiversity framework. <https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/
abb5/591f/2e46096d3f0330b08ce87a45/wg2020-03-03-en.pdf>
193 Locke, H., Rockström, J., Bakker, P., Bapna, M., Gough, M., Lambertini, M., Morris,
J., Zabey, E. & Zurita, P. (2021). A Nature-Positive World: the Global Goal for
Nature, Naturepositive.org. <https://f.hubspotusercontent20.net/hubfs/4783129/
Nature%20Positive%20The%20Global%20Goal%20for%20Nature%20paper.pdf>

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022 114

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

Namibia

BrazilNepal

Bulgaria

Netherlands

Publication details

Cambodia

New Zealand

Cameroon

NorwayCanadaPakistanPublished in October 2022 by WWF – World Wide
Fund for Nature (Formerly World Wildlife Fund),Gland, Switzerland (“WWF”).

Central African Republic

PanamaChile

Papua New Guinea

China

Paraguay

Colombia

Peru

Croatia

Philippines

Cuba

PolandDemocratic Republic of Congo

Portugal

Denmark

Romania

EcuadorRussiaFijiSingapore

Finland

Slovakia

FranceSolomon Islands

French Guyana

South Africa

Gabon

Spain

Georgia

Suriname

Germany

SwedenGreeceSwitzerland

GuatemalaTanzania

GuyanaThailandHonduras

Tunisia

Hong Kong

TurkeyHungary

UgandaIndia

UkraineDisclaimer:

Indonesia

United Arab Emirates

Italy

United Kingdom

Japan

United States of America

Kenya

Viet Nam

Korea

ZambiaLaos

Zimbabwe

The designation of geographical entities and thepresentation of the material, do not imply theexpression of any opinion whatsoever on thepart of WWF concerning the legal status of any
country, territory, or area, or of its authorities,
or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers orboundaries.

Any reproduction in full or in part of thispublication must be in accordance with the rules
below, and mention the title and credit the abovementioned publisher as the copyright owner.
Recommended citation:
WWF (2022) Living Planet Report 2022 - Building
a nature-positive society. Almond, R.E.A.,
Grooten, M., Juffe Bignoli, D. & Petersen, T. (Eds).
WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
Notice for text and graphics: © 2022 WWF
All rights reserved.
Reproduction of this publication (except thephotos) for educational or other non-commercial
purposes is authorised subject to advance
written notification to WWF and appropriate
acknowledgement as stated above. Reproductionof this publication for resale or other commercial
purposes is prohibited without prior written
permission. Reproduction of the photos forany purpose is subject to WWF’s prior written
permission.

115

• LIVING PLANET REPORT 2022

OUR MISSION IS TO STOP THE
DEGRADATION OF THE PLANET’S
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND
TO BUILD A FUTURE IN WHICHPEOPLE LIVE IN HARMONY
WITH NATURE.

INT© 2022

panda.org

For contact details and further information, please visit our international
website at www.panda.org/LPR2020

WWF.ORG© 1986 Panda symbol WWF – World Wide Fund for Nature (Formerly World Wildlife Fund)® “WWF” is a WWF Registered Trademark. WWF, Avenue du Mont-Bland,
1196 Gland, Switzerland. Tel. +41 22 364 9111. Fax. +41 22 364 0332.