LIVING PLANET REPORT 2016

BIODIVERSITY
The Living Planet Index,
which measures biodiversity
abundance levels based on
14,152 monitored populationsof 3,706 vertebrate species,
shows a persistent
downward trend.

• LIVING PLANET REPORT 2016

100%

RISKS

RECYCLED

Our use of natural resources
has grown dramatically,
particularly since themid-20th century, so that
we are endangering the key
environmental systems
that we rely upon.

Scientists propose that, asa result of human activity,
we have transitioned from the
Holocene into a new geologicalepoch: the “Anthropocene”.

The 21st century presents
humanity with a dual
challenge to maintainnature in all of its many
forms and functions and tocreate an equitable home
for people on a finite planet.

INT

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

© NASA

WWF.ORG

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

IN T

2016

Living Planet
Report 2016

RESILIENCEANTHROPOCENEREPORT

Risk and resiliencein a new era

WWF
WWF is one of the world’s largest and most experienced independent conservation organizations,with over 5 million supporters and a global network active in more than 100 countries. WWF’s
mission is to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future inwhich humans live in harmony with nature, by conserving the world’s biological diversity, ensuringthat the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable, and promoting the reduction of pollution
and wasteful consumption.
Zoological Society of London
Founded in 1826, the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) is an international scientific, conservationand educational organization. Its mission is to achieve and promote the worldwide conservationof animals and their habitats. ZSL runs ZSL London Zoo and ZSL Whipsnade Zoo; carries out
scientific research in the Institute of Zoology; and is actively involved in field conservationworldwide. ZSL manages the Living Planet Index® in a collaborative partnership with WWF.
Stockholm Resilience Centre
Stockholm Resilience Centre conducts independent research and is part of Stockholm University.
Founded in 2007, the Stockholm Resilience Centre advances research on the governance ofsocial-ecological systems with a focus on resilience - the ability to deal with change and continue
to develop - for global sustainability.
Global Footprint Network
Global Footprint Network is an international research organization that is measuring how theworld manages its natural resources and responds to climate change. Since 2003 Global Footprint
Network has engaged with more than 50 nations, 30 cities, and 70 global partners to deliverscientific insights that have driven high-impact policy and investment decisions. Together with
its partners, Global Footprint Network is creating a future where all of us can thrive within ourplanet’s limits.
Stockholm Environment Institute
SEI is an independent, international research institute. It has been engaged in environment anddevelopment issues at local, national, regional and global policy levels for more than a quarter of acentury. SEI supports decision making for sustainable development by bridging science and policy.
MetabolicMetabolic specializes in using systems thinking to define pathways towards a sustainable future.
Working with an international network of partners, Metabolic develops strategies, tools, and neworganizations to achieve scalable impact for addressing humanity’s most pressing challenges.
CitationWWF. 2016. Living Planet Report 2016. Risk and resilience in a new era.
WWF International, Gland, Switzerland
Design and infographics by: peer&dedigitalesupermarkt
Cover photograph: © Bjorn Holland - Getty Images

ISBN 978-2-940529-40-7
Living Planet Report®
and Living Planet Index®
are registered trademarksof WWF International.

fsc logo to be
added by printerThis report has been printed
on FSC certified Revive Silk.

CONTENTSFOREWORD AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4

A resilient Earth for future generations by Johan Rockström

4

Living on the edge by Marco Lambertini

6

Risk and resilience in a new era

10

Executive summary

12

At a glance

15

CHAPTER 1: STATE OF THE NATURAL PLANET

18

Monitoring global biodiversity

18

The Living Planet Index in perspective

44

Ecosystem services: linking nature and people

50

CHAPTER 2: HUMAN IMPACTS ON THE PLANET

58

An Earth system perspective

58

Measuring human pressures

74

CHAPTER 3: EXPLORING ROOT CAUSES

88

Toward systems thinking

88

Systems thinking applied to the food system

94

CHAPTER 4: A RESILIENT PLANET FOR NATURE AND PEOPLE

106

The dual challenge of sustainable development

106

Transitioning the global economic system

110

Transformation of energy and food systems

116

The path ahead

122

GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS124

REFERENCES

128

Editor-In-Chief: Natasja Oerlemans.
Lead Editors: Holly Strand, Annemarie Winkelhagen, Mike Barrett, Monique Grooten.
Editorial Team: Lucy Young, May Guerraoui, Natascha Zwaal, Danielle Klinge.
WWF Steering Group: Deon Nel (WWF International), Andrea Kohl (WWF-European
Policy Office), Glyn Davies (WWF-UK), Lin Li (WWF-China), Mary Lou Higgins (WWFColombia), Monique Grooten (WWF-Netherlands), Sejal Worah (WWF-India).
Key Contributors:
Zoological Society of London: Louise McRae, Robin Freeman, Valentina Marconi.
Stockholm Resilience Centre: Sarah Cornell, Johan Rockström, Patricia Villarrubia-Gómez,Owen Gaffney.
Global Footprint Network: Alessandro Galli, David Lin, Derek Eaton, Martin Halle.
Stockholm Environment Institute: Chris West, Simon Croft.
Metabolic: Eva Gladek, Matthew Fraser, Erin Kennedy, Gerard Roemers,
Oscar Sabag Muñoz.
Additional contributions received from:
Andreas Baumüller (WWF-European Policy Office), Arjette Stevens (WWF-Netherlands),
Arnout van Soesbergen (UNEP-WCMC), Bart Geenen (WWF-Netherlands), Carina
Borgström-Hansson (WWF-Sweden), Danielle Kopecky (ZSL), Dannick Randriamanantena(WWF-Madagascar), David Tickner (WWF-UK), Ellen Shepherd (UNEP-WCMC), Harriet
Milligan (ZSL), Helen Muller (ZSL), John D. Liu (EEMP, NIOO, KNAW), Jon Martindill(GFN), Karen Ellis (WWF-UK), Laurel Hanscom (GFN), Louise Heaps (WWF-UK), Mariam
Turay (ZSL), Neil Burgess (UNEP-WCMC), Pablo Tittonell (INTA), Rod Taylor (WWFInternational), Sue Charman (WWF-UK), Suzannah Marshall (ZSL), Will Ashley-Cantello(WWF-UK), Yara Shennan-Farpon (UNEP-WCMC).
Special thanks for review and support to:
Aimee Leslie (WWF International), Aimee T. Gonzales (WWF International), Andy Cornish(WWF International), Angelika Pullen (WWF-EPO), Anna Richert (WWF-Sweden),
Annukka Valkeapää (WWF-Finland), Arco van Strien (Dutch Statistics Bureau), Barney
Jeffries, Bertram Zagema, Bob Zuur (WWF-Antarctic and Southern Ocean Initiative),
Carlos Drews (WWF International), Celsa Peiteado (WWF-Spain), Chris Johnson (WWFAustralia), Chris van Swaay (De Vlinderstichting), Christiane Zarfl (Eberhard Karls
Universität Tübingen), Collin Waters (British Geological Survey), Dominic White(WWF-UK), Duncan Williamson (WWF-UK), Edegar de Oliveira Rosa (WWF-Brazil),Elaine Geyer-Allely (WWF International), Erik Gerritsen (WWF-EPO), Esther Blom (WWFNetherlands), Eva Hernandez Herrero (WWF-Spain), Florian Rauser (WWF-Germany),
Gemma Cranston (Cambridge Institute for Sustainable Leadership), Georgina Mace
(University College London), Geraldo Ceballos (Instituto de Ecologia, UNAM), Heather
Sohl (WWF-UK), Inger Näslund (WWF-Sweden), Irina Montenegro Paredes (WWF-Chile),
Jan Willem Erisman (Louis Bolk Institute), Jan Zalasiewicz (University of Leicester), Jean
Timmers (WWF-Brazil), John Tanzer (WWF International), Jörg-Andreas Krüger (WWFGermany), Joseph Okori (WWF-South Africa), Julian Blanc (CITES), Jussi Nikulah (WWFFinland), Kanchan Thapa (WWF-Nepal), Karen Mo (WWF-US), Karin Krchnak (WWF-US),
Lamine Sebogo (WWF International), Lennart Gladh (WWF-Sweden), Lifeng Li (WWFInternational), Luis German Naranjo (WWF-Colombia), Malika Virah-Sawmy (Luc
Hoffmann Institute), Mathis Wackernagel (GFN), Matthew Lee (WWF Singapore), Michele
Thieme (WWF-US), Nanie Ratsfandrihamanana (WWF-Madagascar), Nikhil Advani(WWF-US), Owen Gibbons (WWF International), Paul Chatterton (WWF-Austria), Paul
Gamblin (WWF International), Pavel Boev (WWF-Russia), Peter Roberntz (WWF-Sweden),
PJ Stephenson (WWF International), Regine Günther (WWF-Germany), Richard Lee(WWF International), Richard Perkins (WWF-UK), Robin Naidoo (WWF-US), Ronna Kelly(GFN), Rod Downie (WWF-UK), Sally Nicholson (WWF-EPO), Samantha Petersen (WWFSouth Africa), Sandra Mulder (WWF-Netherlands), Sarah Doornbos (WWF-Netherlands),
Sebastian Winkler (GFN), Stefane Mauris (WWF International), Stephen Cornelius (WWFUS), Stuart Butchart (Birdlife International), Wendy Elliott (WWF International), Winnie
De’ath (WWF International), Yan Ropert-Coudert (Centre d’Etudes Biologiques de Chizé),
Zahra Medouar (GFN) and data contributors to the LPI (see www.livingplanetindex.org)
who kindly added to the database.

Living Planet
Report 2016
Risk and resiliencein a new era

A RESILIENT EARTH FOR FUTURE
GENERATIONS

Copernicus kick-started the scientific revolution. His realization andthose that followed in his wake – from Kepler, Galileo, Newton –have allowed us to navigate our planet and solar system, and helped
create the world we now live in. And Darwin’s insights forced us tore-evaluate our place on Earth. Thanks to these insights nothing willbe the same again.
In a similar way the Anthropocene shifts our world on its axis.
This single word encapsulates the fact that human activity now
affects Earth’s life support system. It conveys the notions of deeptime – the past and future – and the uniqueness of today.
Beyond geology and Earth system science, it captures the profoundresponsibility we now must shoulder. It provides a new lens tosee our human footprint and it communicates the urgency withwhich we must now act. The dominant worldview of infinite natural
resources, of externalities and exponential growth, is at an end.
We are no longer a small world on a big planet. We are now a big
world on a small planet, where we have reached a saturation point.
Unsustainability at all scales, from localized deforestation to air
pollution from cars, hits the planetary ceiling, putting our future at
risk. Fifty years of exponential growth has accumulated to such an
extent that we have reached Planetary Boundaries – and crashedthrough them.

© SRC

It is rare that a scientific idea fundamentally alters our worldview.
Copernicus’s realization that the Earth orbits the sun is one such
example. Darwin’s theory of evolution is another. The Anthropocene– the defining concept in WWF’s Living Planet Report 2016 –is another.

The conclusion is stark: the planetary stability our species has
enjoyed for 11,700 years, that has allowed civilization to flourish,
can no longer be relied upon.
Yet, I am optimistic for our future. In the 20th century we solved
some of the biggest challenges in our history. Many diseases
have been eradicated. Child and maternal health is improving.
Poverty is decreasing. And the ozone hole is beginning to stabilize.
However, to make greater progress will necessitate brave new
innovations and shifts in thinking to enable collective action acrossthe world. In short, we need an urgent transition to a world thatworks within Earth’s safe operating space. What the Anthropocene
teaches us, and which is articulated in detail in the following pages,
is the need for a grand transformation. The Living Planet Reportprovides the necessary thought leadership and vision to put theworld on a sustainable trajectory based on systems thinking – andstarting with the food and energy systems. I am confident this willcontribute to the momentum to move from talk to action to ensure aresilient Earth for future generations.

Johan Rockström,
Executive Director
Stockholm Resilience Centre

This WWF Living Planet Report comes at a critical juncture
following the remarkable successes in 2015 of the Paris Agreement
on climate change and the agreement on the Sustainable
Development Goals for people and planet. The 2016 report is an
essential assessment of the state of the planet and it is a shock toread. It synthesizes the mountain of evidence showing the Earthsystem is under increasing threat: climate, biodiversity, ocean
health, deforestation, the water cycle, the nitrogen cycle,
the carbon cycle.

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 4

Foreword page 5

LIVING ON THE EDGE

Take biodiversity. The richness and diversity of life on Earthis fundamental to the complex life systems that underpin it.
Life supports life itself. We are part of the same equation. Lose
biodiversity and the natural world and the life support systems,
as we know them today, will collapse. We completely depend on
nature, for the quality of the air we breathe, water we drink, climate
stability, the food and materials we use and the economy we rely on,
and not least, for our health, inspiration and happiness.
For decades scientists have been warning that human actions arepushing life on our shared planet toward a sixth mass extinction.
Evidence in this year’s Living Planet Report supports this. Wildlife
populations have already shown a concerning decline, on average by
58 per cent since 1970 and are likely to reach 67 per cent by the endof the decade.
Yet there is also evidence that things are beginning to change.
First, there is no hiding, the science is definitive. Second, we are
feeling the impact of a sick planet—from social, economic andclimate stability to energy, food and water security—all increasingly
suffering from environmental degradation.
Third, we are beginning to increasingly understand that a diverse,
healthy, resilient and productive natural environment is thefoundation for a prosperous, just and safe future for humanity. This
will be crucial if we are to win the many other human development
battles such as combatting poverty, improving health and building
economies. So, while environmental degradation continues, there
are also unprecedented signs that we are beginning to embrace a“Great Transition” toward an ecologically sustainable future.

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 6© WWF

The evidence has never been stronger and our understanding
never been clearer. Not only are we able to track the exponential
increase in human pressure over the last 60 years—the so-called“Great Acceleration” and the consequent degradation of natural
systems, but we also now better understand the interdependencies
of Earth’s life support systems and the limits that our planet cancope with.

Despite 2016 set to be another hottest year on record, global CO2
emissions have stabilized over the last two years, with some arguingthey may even have peaked, and it looks like China’s huge coalburning may have finally peaked too. Economists say this is likely
a permanent trend. Rampant poaching and wildlife trafficking isdevastating ecosystems, but the U.S. and more notably China haverecently committed to a historic ban of domestic ivory trade.
Perhaps more importantly, the interdependence between the social,economic and environmental agendas is being recognized at thehighest levels through the truly revolutionary approach adopted indefining the new set of the world’s Sustainable Development Goals.
We must translate this awareness and commitment into action
and change.
We are entering a new era in Earth’s history: the Anthropocene.
An era in which humans rather than natural forces are theprimary drivers of planetary change. But we can also redefine ourrelationship with our planet, from a wasteful, unsustainable andpredatory one, to one where people and nature can coexist
in harmony.
We need to transition to an approach that decouples human andeconomic development from environmental degradation—perhaps
the deepest cultural and behavioural shifts ever experienced byany civilization.
The speed and scale of this transition is essential. As outlined inthis edition of the Living Planet Report, we have the tools to fix thisproblem and we need to start using them immediately.
There’s never been a more opportune time for the environmental
movement and our society as a whole. These changes are indeed
upon us, and if we are awed by the scale of the challenges that
this generation is facing, we should be equally motivated by theunprecedented opportunity to build a future in harmony withthe planet.

Marco Lambertini,
Director General
WWF International

Foreword page 7

1. the Cerrado is one of the richest
savannah formations on Earth
Located between the Amazon, Atlantic Forest andPantanal, the Cerrado is the largest savannah region
in South America, covering more than 20 per centof Brazil. The Cerrado is one of the world’s richest
savannah formations in terms of living beings: it
shelters 5 per cent of all the living species on Earthand one in every ten Brazilian species. There areover 10,000 species of plants, almost half of which
are found nowhere else in the world. The Cerrado isalso one of the most threatened and over-exploitedregions in the world. These wooded grasslands once
covered an area half the size of Europe: now, its native
habitats and rich biodiversity are being destroyed
much faster than the neighbouring rainforest.
Unsustainable agricultural activities, particularly soy
production and cattle ranching, as well as burningof vegetation for charcoal, continue to pose a major
threat to the Cerrado’s biodiversity.
(source: WWF-Brazil; WWF, 2014)© Tui De Roy - Minden Pictures

THE STORY OF SOYThe size and scale of the human enterprise have grownexponentially since the mid-20th century. As a result, theenvironmental conditions that fostered this extraordinary growth
are beginning to shift. To symbolize this emerging environmental
condition, Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen (2002) and others haveproposed that we have transitioned from the Holocene into a newgeological epoch, calling it the “Anthropocene” (e.g. Waters et al.,2016). During the Anthropocene, our climate has changed more
rapidly, oceans are acidifying and entire biomes are disappearing– all at a rate measurable during a single human lifetime. This
trajectory constitutes a risk that the Earth will become much lesshospitable to our modern globalized society (Richardson et al.,2011). Scientists are now trying to discern which human-inducedchanges represent the greatest threat to our planet’s resilience(Rockström et al., 2009a).
Such is the magnitude of our impact on the planet that the
Anthropocene might be characterized by the world’s sixth mass
extinction event. In the past such extinction events took placeover hundreds of thousands to millions of years. What makes the
Anthropocene so remarkable is that these changes are occurring
within an extremely condensed period of time. Furthermore,
the driving force behind the transition is exceptional. This is thefirst time a new geological epoch may be marked by what a single
species (Homo sapiens) has consciously done to the planet – as
opposed to what the planet has imposed on resident species.

400 MYA

210 MYAFirst mammals
310-320 MYA
First reptiles

500 MYA
600 MYA
700 MYA
800 MYAQUATERNARY PERIOD(2,58 MYA till present)

Pleistocene

900 MYA

Holocene

1000 MYA

Anthropocene
1100 MYA
1200 MYA
1300 MYA
1400 MYA
1500 MYA

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 10*~ 443

PALEOZOIC

300 MYA*~ 359Recent human development has taken place within therelatively stable climatic conditions of the Holocene epoch(Figure 1). The concept of a new epoch – the Anthropocene –is attracting the attention of more and more scientists with awide range of interests and expertise.

230-65 MYA
Dinosaurs*~ 251

NEO-PROTEROZOIC

Earth’s ecosystems have evolved for millions of years. This process
has resulted in diverse and complex biological communities,
living in balance with their environment. These diverse ecosystems
also provide people with food, fresh water, clean air, energy,
medicine and recreation. Over the past 100 years, however,nature and the services it provides to humanity have come underincreasing risk.

*~ 200MESOZOIC*~ 65

200 MYA

Determining epochs: a geologist’s perspective
0,2 MYAPRESENT
100 MYASETTING THE SCENECENOZOIC*end of mass
extinction events

1600 MYAMESO-PROTEROZOICRISK AND RESILIENCEIN A NEW ERA

HumansFigure 1: Geologicaltimeline
Colours on the verticaltimescale represent
different eras (IUGS,
2016; Baillie et al., 2010;
Barnosky et al., 2011)

Geologists interpret the Earth’s environmental phases,
including the history of climate, atmosphere and biodiversity,
by studying what is recorded in the rock record. Eons, eras,
periods and epochs are based on progressively smaller but
nested units of geologic time. They are defined through global
events that leave a trace within rock strata. For instance,
there might be evidence of changes in rock chemistry or of theemergence or disappearance of particular species identified
through their fossilized remains. Until recently all of thesephase or time changes resulted from naturally occurring events
such as meteorite impacts, tectonic movements, massive
volcanic activity and changes in atmospheric conditions.
Sometimes the effects of these changes on contemporary
species were so profound as to cause widespread mass
extinctions. To date, five mass extinctions have been identified
in the rock record, including at the end of the Permian period
when over 90 per cent of marine and around 70 per cent ofterrestrial species were lost (e.g. Erwin, 1994).
How might a future geologist identify the Anthropocene epoch
in the rock record? There are many features that might bear
witness to human influence. For example, remains of somemegacities may become complex fossil structures. Urbanization
itself may be regarded as an alteration in sedimentation
processes via the construction of manmade rock strata.
Scientists suggest a range of potential markers will be detected,
from pesticides to nitrogen and phosphorus, and radionuclides(Waters et al., 2016). The accumulation of particulate plastics
in marine sediments (Zalasiewicz et al., 2016) might be foundin many of the rocks. Finally, it is likely that a future geologist
will notice the rapid decline in the number of species based onclues in the fossil record (Ceballos et al., 2015): we are alreadylosing species at a rate consistent with a sixth mass extinction
event. The current evidence regarding these types of changes
indicates that the Anthropocene may have commenced in the
mid-20th Century (Waters et al., 2016).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CHARTING OUR COURSE TOWARD A
RESILIENT PLANET
Under the current trajectory, the future of many living organisms in
the Anthropocene is uncertain; in fact several indicators give cause
for alarm. The Living Planet Index, which measures biodiversity
abundance levels based on 14,152 monitored populations of 3,706
vertebrate species, shows a persistent downward trend. On average,
monitored species population abundance declined by 58 percent between 1970 and 2012. Monitored species are increasingly
affected by pressures from unsustainable agriculture, fisheries,
mining and other human activities that contribute to habitat loss
and degradation, overexploitation, climate change and pollution.
In a business-as-usual scenario, this downward trend in species
populations continues into the future. United Nations targets that
aim to halt the loss of biodiversity are designed to be achieved by
2020; but by then species populations may have declined on averageby 67 per cent over the last half-century.

ON AVERAGE,
POPULATIONS OFVERTEBRATE SPECIESDECLINED BY 58 PER
CENT BETWEEN
1970 AND 2012

Not only wild plants and animals are affected: increasingly people
are victims too of the deteriorating state of nature. Living systems
keep the air breathable and water drinkable, and provide nutritious
food. To continue to perform these vital services they need to retain
their complexity, diversity and resilience.

INCREASINGLY PEOPLE
ARE VICTIMS TOO OF
THE DETERIORATINGSTATE OF NATURE

The way we appropriate natural resources has had a tremendous
impact on the Earth’s environmental systems, impacting bothpeople and nature. This, in turn, affects the state of biodiversity
and climate. An understanding of Planetary Boundaries can help us
grasp the complexity of human impacts on the planet (Rockström
et al., 2009b; Steffen et al., 2015a). Pushing the boundaries of nine
Earth system processes may lead to dangerous levels of instability
in the Earth system and increasing risk for humans. Researchers
suggest that humans have already driven at least four of these
global processes beyond their safe boundaries. There is scientificuncertainty about the biophysical and societal effects of crossingthese boundaries, but attributable global impacts are alreadyevident for climate change, biosphere integrity, biogeochemical
flows and land-system change (Steffen et al., 2015a).

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 12

AN UNDERSTANDING
OF PLANETARY
BOUNDARIES CANHELP US GRASP THE
COMPLEXITY OF
HUMAN IMPACTS ON
THE PLANETIF CURRENT
TRENDS CONTINUE,UNSUSTAINABLE
CONSUMPTION AND
PRODUCTION PATTERNSWILL LIKELY EXPAND
ALONG WITH HUMAN
POPULATION ANDECONOMIC GROWTH

THERE IS A CLEAR
CHALLENGE FOR
HUMANITY TO ALTEROUR COURSE SO THATWE OPERATE WITHINTHE ENVIRONMENTAL
LIMITS OF OUR PLANET
AND MAINTAIN OR
RESTORE RESILIENCE
OF ECOSYSTEMS

Another way to look at the relationships between our behaviour
and the Earth’s carrying capacity is through Ecological Footprint
calculations. The Ecological Footprint represents the humandemand on the planet’s ability to provide renewable resources andecological services. Humanity currently needs the regenerative
capacity of 1.6 Earths to provide the goods and services we use eachyear. Furthermore, the per capita Ecological Footprint of highincome nations dwarfs that of low- and middle-income countries(Global Footprint Network, 2016). Consumption patterns in highincome countries result in disproportional demands on Earth’s
renewable resources, often at the expense of people and natureelsewhere in the world.
If current trends continue, unsustainable consumption andproduction patterns will likely expand along with human populationand economic growth. The growth of the Ecological Footprint,
the violation of Planetary Boundaries and increasing pressure on
biodiversity are rooted in systemic failures inherent to the current
systems of production, consumption, finance and governance. The
behaviours that lead to these patterns are largely determined by theway consumerist societies are organized, and fixed in place throughthe underlying rules and structures such as values, social norms,
laws and policies that govern everyday choices (e.g. Steinberg, 2015).
Structural elements of these systems such as the use of grossdomestic product (GDP) as a measure of well-being, the pursuit of
infinite economic growth on a finite planet, the prevalence of shortterm gain over long-term continuity in many business and politicalmodels, and the externalization of ecological and social costs inthe current economic system encourage unsustainable choices by
individuals, businesses and governments. The impacts of thesechoices are often felt well beyond the national and regional bordersin which the choices originate. This is why the links between drivers,
deeper causes and global phenomena like biodiversity loss can often
be difficult to grasp. Throughout this report, the interconnectedness
between impacts in one part of the globe and consumer choices
thousands of kilometres away are illustrated by the story of soy.
Given our current trajectory toward unacceptable conditions thatare predicted for the Anthropocene era, there is a clear challenge
for humanity to alter our course so that we operate within theenvironmental limits of our planet and maintain or restore
resilience of ecosystems. Our central role as driving force into the
Anthropocene also gives reason for hope. Not only do we recognize
the changes that are taking place and the risks they are generating
for nature and society, we also understand their causes.
Executive summary page 13

This transition requires fundamental changes in two global systems:
energy and food. For the energy system, a rapid developmentof sustainable renewable energy sources and shifting demand
toward renewable energy are key. For the food system, a dietaryshift in high-income countries – through consuming less animal
protein – and reducing waste along the food chain could contributesignificantly to producing enough food within the boundaries of one
planet. Furthermore, optimizing agricultural productivity within
ecosystem boundaries, replacing chemical and fossil inputs bymimicking natural processes, and stimulating beneficial interactions
between different agricultural systems, are key to strengthening theresilience of landscapes, natural systems and biodiversity – and thelivelihoods of those who depend on them.
The speed at which we chart our course through the Anthropocene
will be the key factor determining our future. Allowing and fostering
important innovations, and enabling them to be rapidly adopted bygovernments, businesses and citizens, will accelerate a sustainable
trajectory. So too will understanding the value and needs of ourincreasingly fragile Earth.

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 14

THE SPEED AT WHICHWE CHART OUR
COURSE THROUGH THE
ANTHROPOCENE WILL
BE THE KEY FACTOR
DETERMINING OUR
FUTURE

What is our role?

STATE OF THE NATURAL PLANETHUMAN IMPACTS ON THE PLANET• The Living Planet Index shows a declineof 58 per cent between 1970 and 2012
with greatest losses in freshwater
environments.
• If current trends continue to 2020
vertebrate populations may decline by anaverage of 67 per cent compared to 1970.
• Increased human pressure threatens thenatural resources that humanity depends
upon, increasing the risk of water andfood insecurity and competition overnatural resources

CHAPTER 2

What is going on?

• Human activities and resource uses
have grown so dramatically, particularly
since the mid-20th century, that weare endangering a number of key
environmental systems.
• These systems interact with each other,so we need to maintain them all tounderpin human well-being.
• Global impacts and associated risks tohumans are already evident for climatechange, biosphere integrity, biogeochemical flows and land-system change.
• By 2012, the equivalent of 1.6 Earths wasneeded to provide the natural resources
and services humanity consumed in
one year.

What can we do?

What are underlying reasons?

A RESILIENT PLANET FOR NATURE
AND PEOPLE

EXPLORING ROOT CAUSES• The 21st century presents humanity witha dual challenge to maintain nature in allof its many forms and functions and tocreate an equitable home for people on a
finite planet.
• The WWF One Planet Perspective
outlines better choices for governing,
using and sharing natural resources
within the Earth’s ecological boundaries.
• Redirecting our path towardsustainability requires immediate
fundamental changes in two importantsystems: energy and food.
• The speed at which we transition to asustainable society is a key factor for
determining our future.

CHAPTER 3

Transitioning toward a resilient planet entails a transformationin which human development is decoupled from environmental
degradation and social exclusion. A number of significant changes
would need to happen within the global economic system in orderto promote the perspective that our planet has finite resources.
Examples are changing the way we measure success, managing
natural resources sustainably, and taking future generations and thevalue of nature into account in decision-making.

TRANSITIONINGTOWARD A RESILIENT
PLANET ENTAILS A
TRANSFORMATION
IN WHICH HUMAN
DEVELOPMENT ISDECOUPLED FROMENVIRONMENTALDEGRADATION AND
SOCIAL EXCLUSIONCHAPTER 4

We need to design responses that match the size of the challenge ofactually shifting to sustainable and resilient modes of production
and consumption. This challenge is also outlined in the UN 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development. Protecting the Earth’s natural
capital and its attendant ecosystem services is in the interest ofboth people and nature. Developing a just and prosperous future,and defeating poverty and improving health, is much less likely tohappen in a weakened or destroyed natural environment.

CHAPTER 1

AT A GLANCE

These are the first steps to identifying solutions for restoring theecosystems we depend upon and creating resilient and hospitable
places for wildlife and people. Acting upon this knowledge will
enable us to navigate our way through the Anthropocene. Several
inspiring cases of successful transitions are highlighted throughout
the report.

• A prerequisite for reducing humanpressures and drivers is to understandthe nature of the decision-making that
results in environmental, social andecological degradation.
• Systems thinking can help to define root
causes of human behaviour that lead tounsustainable consumption patterns,
destructive production patterns,
malfunctioning governance structuresand short-term focused economicplanning.
• When applied to the food system,
root causes include the poverty trap,
concentration of power, and lock-ins
to trade, agricultural research andtechnology.

2. around half of the Cerrado is lost
Around half the native savannah and forest of the
Cerrado has been converted to agriculture since thelate 1950s. As these ecosystems are lost, so are thewildlife they support and the vital ecological services
they provide, like clean water, carbon sequestrationand healthy soils. Species that are threatened include
the jaguar, maned wolf and giant anteater, but also
many other plants and animals that are unique to the
Cerrado. Not only fragile ecosystems and species are
feeling the strain. Habitat destruction also threatens
the way of life of many indigenous people and othercommunities who rely on forests, natural grasslands
and savannahs for their livelihoods.
(source: WWF-Brazil; WWF, 2014)© Scott S. Warren - National Geographic Creative

THE STORY OF SOY

MONITORING GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY
Biodiversity encompasses the genetic variation within species,
the variety and population abundance of species in an ecosystem,and the habitats across a landscape. Monitoring of all thesedifferent aspects is imperative as it provides insight into trends inbiodiversity and ecosystem health to make informed decisions on
resource use and protection. Because biodiversity is so multifaceted,a variety of metrics are necessary; the use of any one in particularwould depend upon the biodiversity component of interest and theultimate use of the information. Contemporary examples of indices
now in use include the Living Planet Index (LPI), the IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species, and indicators that show us the state ofspecific habitats – such as forests – or the state of natural capital(Tittensor et al., 2014).

Key
Global Living Planet
Index
Confidence limits

OVER 3,000 DATASOURCES ARECOMPILED WITHIN THE
LPI DATABASEThe Global Living Planet Index
The LPI measures biodiversity by gathering population data ofvarious vertebrate species and calculating an average change inabundance over time. The LPI can be compared to the stock market
index, except that, instead of monitoring the global economy, the
LPI is an important indicator of the planet’s ecological condition(Collen et al., 2009). The global LPI is based on scientific data from
14,152 monitored populations of 3,706 vertebrate species (mammals,
birds, fishes, amphibians, reptiles) from around the world.
From 1970 to 2012 the LPI shows a 58 per cent overall decline invertebrate population abundance (Figure 2). Population sizes ofvertebrate species have, on average, dropped by more than half in
little more than 40 years. The data shows an average annual declineof 2 per cent and there is no sign yet that this rate will decrease.
The Living Planet Report 2014 reported a 52 per cent decline
from 1970 to 2010; although the marine and terrestrial datasets
have been augmented with new data, it is the stronger decline in
freshwater species that has had more influence on the global decline
in this report.
WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 18

FROM 1970 TO 2012
THE LPI SHOWS
A 58 PER CENTOVERALL DECLINEIN VERTEBRATE
POPULATIONABUNDANCE

2

Index value (1970 = 1)

CHAPTER 1: STATE OF THE
NATURAL PLANET

Figure 2: The Global
Living Planet Index
shows a decline of
58 per cent (range: -48
to -66 per cent) between
1970 and 2012
Trend in population
abundance for
14,152 populations of
3,706 species monitored
across the globe between
1970 and 2012. The whiteline shows the index
values and the shaded
areas represent the
95 per cent confidence
limits surrounding thetrend (WWF/ZSL, 2016).

1

0
1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Monitoring species
Over 3,000 data sources are compiled within the LPI database.
One requirement for including a data source is that the populationin question has been consistently monitored using the same method
over the entire length of the study time period. Some sources are
long-term monitoring studies such as the breeding bird surveys in
Europe (EBCC/RSPB/BirdLife/Statistics Netherlands, 2016) andNorth America (Sauer et al., 2014). Others are short-term projects
that addressed a particular research question. The majority ofthese sources are derived from articles found in peer-reviewed
scientific journals.
Combined into one dataset, the species census data provides animportant tool for monitoring the state of nature. However, thedistribution of locations represented by the data is uneven, lacking
ideal coverage for all species groups and regions (Figure 3).
By targeting data searches toward identified gaps in the dataset,researchers are trying to solve this problem. The LPI database iscontinually evolving and for each Living Planet Report a larger
dataset is available to use for the analysis. As such, the percentages
reported for LPIs often change from year to year as the dataset
increases (see page 40-41 for more details). The new percentages
stay within the same range (as measured by the confidence
intervals) as previous results so there are similar overall trends even
if the final percentage value is often different.

Chapter 1: State of the natural planet page 19

Since the last Living Planet Report, 668 species and 3,772 different
populations have been added (Figure 3). Representation of marine
species data, particularly fish, has increased in the latest LPI
dataset. However, there are still major geographic gaps in the data,
largely in Central, West and North Africa, Asia and South America.
Furthermore, the dataset is currently limited to populations ofvertebrate species. Methods to incorporate invertebrates and plants
are now in development.

!
!
!
! !! !!
!!
! !!
!
!
!
! !! ! !!
! !!!
!
!! ! !
!
!
!
! !!
!!
!! ! !!!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!! ! !!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
! !!
!! ! !!!
! !!
! !!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!! !!
!
!!
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !!!
!
!!
!
! !!!! !
!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
! !! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !! !!!
!
! !!!!!!
!
! !!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!!!! ! ! !
! !
!!
!!
!
! !
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!! !!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!! ! !
!
!!!! ! !
!!
!
! !
!!! !
!
!!! ! !
!!
!! !
!
!! !
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
! !!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !!
!
!!!!
!
!! !!
!!!
! !!!!!
!!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!! !
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!!!!!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!
! !!
! !
!
!
!
!!!
!
!! !!!!!
!
!!!!
!!
!
!
!
! ! !! !
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!!!!
!!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!! ! !!
!!! !
!!!!
!
!!!
!
!! ! !!! !
!
!!
!!
!
!!
! !
!
!!
! !!!
!!
!
!!!
!
!!
!!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!!!! !
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!!!
!!! ! !
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!!
!!! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!! !!
!
!!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!!!!!!
!
!!! ! !
!!
! !!!
!
!
!
!!
!! !
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!
! !!!!! !
! !!!
!
!! !!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!! !
!!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!! !!!
! !!!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !! !
! ! !!!! !
!!!
!
!!
!
!
! ! ! !!
!
! !!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!! ! !
!
!!!
! !
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!! !
! ! !!
!
! !!
!!
! !!!! !
!!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
! ! !!!
! ! ! !!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!
!!
! !
! !!
!
! ! !
!!
! !
!
!!
!!!! !!
! !
!
!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!!!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!!!!!
!
!!
!!!
!!
!
!
! !
! !!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!!! ! !
! !!
!!
!!
! !
!
! !!!
!
!
!!!!! !
!
!!! !
!
!!
! !!!
!!
!
!!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
! !!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!! ! !!
!
!
!
!!
!

!!

!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!

! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!! !!
!
!!
!
! !
! !!
!
!
!
! !!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!!!!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!! !
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!!!
! !
!
!!!
!!!
!
!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!! !!!!
!
!
!!!!!
!
!
!!
!
!! ! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!!! !!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!!!!
!
!
!!!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!!
!! !
!
! !!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!!!! !
!
!
! !
!
!!
!!!
!
!!!
!
!!! ! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!!!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!! !
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!! !
!!!
!!! !!!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!!
!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!!!!! !
!!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!! !
!
!
!!!
!!!
!
!!
!!
! !
!
!
!!!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!! !
!
!
!!
!
!
! !! !!
!
! !
! !
!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
! !! !
!
!
!!!!
! !
! !!
!
!!! !
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!
! !! !
!
!!
!
! !!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!! !!! !
! !
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!! ! ! !!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !!
!
! !
!!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!!
!
! !!!
! !
!
!!
!! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!! !!
!
!
!!
! ! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!!! !! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !!
! !!
!
!
!
! !!
! !
!
!!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!! !!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!! ! !! !!
!!
!!
!
!
!! !
!
!
! !
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!! ! !
!
!!!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!! !!!
! !!
!
!!!
!
!!!
!
!! !!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!! ! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!! !
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!!!
! !
!!!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!! !
!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !!!
!
! !!
!!
!
! !!
! !
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!!! !!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!

!
!

!!!!!!
!!!
!
!!! !
!

!!
!
!
!

!
!

!!!

!

A closer look at threats
Whether or not populations are in trouble depends on species
resilience, location, and the nature of the threats (Collen et al., 2011;
Pearson et al., 2014). Threat information is available for about one
third of populations in the LPI (3,776 populations). Over half of the
populations (1,981) for which threat information is available are
declining. The most common threat to declining populations is theloss and degradation of habitat. Other studies confirm that this is
the main threat to vertebrate species (e.g. Baillie et al., 2010;
Böhm et al., 2013; IUCN, 2015). The principal causes of habitat loss
appear to be unsustainable agriculture and logging, and changes
to freshwater systems (Baillie et al., 2010). Threats often interact,which can exacerbate the effects on species: for example, habitat
destruction and overexploitation might compromise a species’
ability to respond to changes in climate (Dirzo et al., 2014).

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 20

Figure 3: The
distribution oflocations providing
data for the Living
Planet Index
Map showing the location of
the monitored populationsin the LPI. New populations
added since the last report
are highlighted in orange(WWF/ZSL, 2016).

!

!

!

!
!
!
!!!
!
! !
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!

Figure 4: Different
threat types in the
Living Planet Index
database
Categories and descriptionsof the different threat types
referred to in the Living
Planet Index database(based on Salafsky et al.,2008).

THREATS

When population information is entered in the LPI database, any
associated threat information is included. This information allows
for a better understanding of the patterns behind population decline
on regional or global levels. The database recognizes five categoriesof threats. Figure 4 shows how these threats affect species – either
directly or indirectly.

Habitat loss and degradation
This refers to the modification of the environment where a species lives, byeither complete removal, fragmentation or reduction in quality of key habitat
characteristics. Common causes are unsustainable agriculture, logging,transportation, residential or commercial development, energy production
and mining. For freshwater habitats, fragmentation of rivers and streams
and abstraction of water are common threats.

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

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

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

Climate change
As temperatures change, some species will need to adapt by shifting theirrange to track suitable climate. The effects of climate change on species areoften indirect. Changes in temperature can confound the signals that trigger
seasonal events such as migration and reproduction, causing these events
to happen at the wrong time (for example misaligning reproduction and theperiod of greater food availability in a specific habitat).
Chapter 1: State of the natural planet page 21

Terrestrial Living Planet Index
The terrestrial system includes many habitats (such as forests,
savannahs and deserts) as well as manmade environments (suchas cities or agricultural fields). It is the best monitored of thethree systems, primarily because this is where people live and also
because research in this system presents fewer logistical challenges
than research in freshwater and marine systems. For this reason,
the dataset behind the terrestrial LPI is the most comprehensive.
It is based on data for 4,658 monitored populations of
1,678 terrestrial species or 45 per cent of the species in theentire LPI database.

THE MAJORITY OF
EARTH’S LAND AREAIS NOW MODIFIED BY
HUMANS

Figure 6: Threat type
frequency for 703
declining terrestrial
populations in the
LPI database showing
1,281 recorded threats
Each population has up
to three threats recorded,
so the total number ofrecorded threats exceeds
the number of populations(WWF/ZSL, 2016).

The LPI database contains threat information for 33 per cent of
its declining terrestrial populations (n=703). Habitat loss anddegradation are the most common threats to terrestrial populationsin the LPI (Figure 6), followed by overexploitation. Other threats
vary in importance according to taxonomic group (Figure 7).

TERRESTRIAL SPECIES (703 populations)Key
Climate change

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Overexploitation

Over the past centuries, the terrestrial system has been transformed:
the majority of Earth’s land area is now modified by humans (Elliset al., 2010). This has had a large impact on biodiversity (Newbold
et al., 2015). The terrestrial LPI confirms this. It shows that
populations have declined by 38 per cent overall since 1970
(Figure 5), with an average annual decline of 1.1 per cent.

Index value (1970 = 1)

2

1

Habitat loss /degradation
Invasive species
and disease
Pollution
Figure 5: The
terrestrial LPI showsa decline of 38 per cent(range: -21 to -51 percent) between 1970
and 2012
Trend in population
abundance for
4,658 populations of
1,678 terrestrial species
monitored across theglobe between 1970 and2012 (WWF/ZSL, 2016).
Key
Terrestrial Living
Planet Index
Confidence limits

0
1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Since 1970, despite widespread modification by humans, theterrestrial system has experienced a less steep decline in population
abundance than marine and freshwater systems. Designatedprotected areas cover 15.4 per cent of the Earth’s land surface(including inland water) (Juffe-Bignoli et al., 2014). This is likely tohave contributed to the conservation and recovery of some species,
thereby putting brakes on the fall of the terrestrial vertebrate index.

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 22

Next to habitat loss and degradation, invasive species and disease
are the most common threats to amphibians and reptiles. Either
through predation or competition, the negative effects of exotic
species on native reptiles has been well documented in several
areas of the globe. The introduction of non-native rats, cats andmongooses, together with non-native reptiles, has had an enormous
impact on native reptiles, especially on islands (Whitfield Gibbons
et al., 2000).

Figure 7: Taxonomic
differences in threatfrequency for 703
declining terrestrial
populations in the
LPI database(WWF/ZSL, 2016).

AMPHIBIANS (25 populations)Key

MAMMALS (350 populations)

REPTILES (63 populations)

Climate change
Overexploitation
Habitat loss /degradation

BIRDS (265 populations)

Invasive species
and disease
Pollution

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Chapter 1: State of the natural planet page 23

A closer look at tropical forests

Sixty per cent of the declining terrestrial mammal populations in the LPI are threatened byoverexploitation. African elephant (Loxodonta africana) populations are among them, though
they also suffer from habitat loss and fragmentation. Over the past two centuries, there has
been a reduction in the range of African elephants, as well as large-scale population declines(Barnes, 1999). Poaching for ivory appears to be the primary cause of the decline in elephantnumbers (Wittemyer, 2014).
CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora andFauna) set up a system to evaluate relative poaching levels. The Proportion of Illegally Killed
Elephants (PIKE) is the number of illegally killed elephants divided by the total number ofelephant carcasses encountered. Figure 8 shows the trend in PIKE for the 54 sample sites
across Africa. The levels of illegal killing of elephants have increased since 2005 and peaked in
2011. Despite the slight decline since 2011, over half of the elephants found dead are deemed
to have been illegally killed which is above the PIKE level considered to be a cause for concern(indicated by the red line in the graph).

Estimates of the Proportion of Illegally Killed Elephants (PIKE)

A region of particular concern is Selous-Mikumi in Tanzania where PIKE is still calculated
to be higher than 0.7. Elephant population in this area declined from 44,806 estimatedindividuals in 2009 to 15,217 in 2014, a decline of 66 per cent over a five year period (Tanzania
Wildlife Research Institute, 2015). The area encompasses the Selous Game Reserve, one of
the largest faunal reserves in the world. Since 1982, the reserve has been a World Heritage
Site, but in 2014 it was placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger because of widespreadpoaching (UNESCO, 2014). The international community – and especially ivory source,transit and destination countries – have been called upon to support Tanzania in its effort toprotect the reserve’s wildlife and unique habitats.
Figure 8: Estimatesof the Proportionof Illegally Killed
Elephants (PIKE)
between 2003 and 2015
(bars) with 95 per centconfidence limits (errorbars) and the thresholdvalue of 0.5 above
which proportion ofillegally killed elephants
is a cause for concern(red line). Based on
the analyses of 14,606
elephant carcasses(CITES, 2016).

1,0

0,8

0,6

0,4

Figure 9: The tropicalforest species LPI
shows a decline of
41 per cent (range: -7 to-62 per cent) between
1970 and 2009
Trend in population
abundance for369 populations of
220 tropical forest species(84 mammals, 110 birds,
10 amphibians and
16 reptiles) monitored
across the globe between
1970 and 2009. Sufficient
data were not available
to calculate a reliable
trend beyond 2009
(WWF/ZSL, 2016).
Key

In terms of species diversity, tropical forests are among the richest
ecosystems on Earth. They also have suffered the greatest loss ofarea (Hansen et al., 2013). By 2000, 48.5 per cent of the tropical/
subtropical dry broadleaf forest habitat had been converted forhuman use (Hoekstra et al., 2005). Such an extensive modification
is likely to affect those species that live in and depend upon that
habitat. The LPI confirms this, showing a 41 per cent overall decline
in tropical forest species between 1970 and 2009 (Figure 9). Thistranslates to an average annual decline of 1.3 per cent. The index
is based on 369 populations of 220 species. The specific reason for
the temporary increase observed from the year 2000 has not been
documented but it is seen in the trend for both mammals and birds,
the two groups for which most data is available in this index.
2

Index value (1970 = 1)

African elephants: threatened by overexploitation

1

Tropical forest
Living Planet Index
Confidence limits

0
1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

0,2

0,0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Chapter 1: State of the natural planet page 25

A closer look at grasslands

Grassland butterflies

THE EFFECT OF
CONVERSION ON
GRASSLAND SPECIESIS APPARENT IN MANYSYSTEMS ACROSSTHE GLOBE

The effect of conversion on grassland species is apparent in manysystems across the globe. In North America, grassland bird species
declined consistently between 1966 and 2011 (Sauer et al., 2013)as a consequence of agricultural intensification (Reif, 2013).
In recent years, rapid declines in small mammal populations havebeen recorded in Australia’s savannah (Woinarski et al., 2010).
The grasslands LPI clearly illustrates the effects of conversion(Figure 10). The index is based on 372 populations of 126 species
that occur only in grasslands (classified under the grassland,savannahs or shrubland habitats by the IUCN Red List). It shows
an overall 18 per cent decline, with an average annual decline of
0.5 per cent. The trend starts to stabilize after 2000 and there is aslight increase from 2004. Conservation efforts have helped stem
the decline of some mammal species in Africa and it is these species
driving the trend after 2004, whereas the bird populations continue
to decline until 2012.
Figure 10: The
grassland species LPI
shows a decline of
18 per cent (range: +10
to -38 per cent) between
1970 and 2012
Trend in population
abundance for372 populations of
126 grassland species(55 mammals, 58 birds
and 13 reptiles) monitored
across the globe between
1970 and 2012
(WWF/ZSL, 2016).

Index value (1970 = 1)

2

1

Key
Grassland Living
Planet Index
Confidence limits

0
1970

1980

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 26

1990

2000

2010

The LPI database does not yet include information for invertebrate species. However,information from other monitoring efforts can help bridge the gap. Since 2005, monitoringdata for several European butterfly species has been collected and harmonized for use in theEuropean Grassland Butterfly Indicator for the European Environment Agency (Van Swaay
and Van Strien, 2005; Van Swaay et al. 2015).
The LPI methodology is applied to this data, which includes 17 grassland butterfly species
monitored in 12 countries. Results show a 33 per cent overall decline over 22 years(Figure 11). Confidence intervals reveal a wide variation in trends as some species are on
the increase while others are in decline. However, there is an overall decline which suggeststhat human modification of habitat is having an impact on grassland species. Furthermore,in many countries in Europe, butterfly numbers declined precipitously before 1990 (Van
Swaay et al., 2015); therefore abundance was already historically low at the baseline.

Figure 11: The
grassland butterflies
LPI shows a declineof 33 per cent (range:+10 to -59 per cent)between 1990 and
2012
Trend in population
abundance for
203 populations of
17 grassland butterflies
species monitored across
12 EU countries between
1990 and 2012 (WWF/ZSL, 2016). The index
differs from the official
European Grassland
Butterfly Indicator(Van Swaay et al., 2015)– which estimates a
decline of 30 per centbetween 1990 and 2013
with tighter confidence
intervals – due to a few
differences in the way
the two indices andcorresponding confidence
intervals are calculated.

2

Index value (1990 = 1)

Grasslands are terrestrial ecosystems dominated by herbaceous andshrub vegetation and maintained by fire, grazing, drought and/or
freezing temperatures (White et al., 2000). Grasslands have comeunder a high degree of pressure from humans, particularly because
these ecosystems are usually suitable for agriculture. As of 2000,
45.8 per cent of temperate grassland area had been converted andis now predominantly used for human activities (Hoekstra et al.,2005). Similarly, more than 40 per cent of the Brazilian Cerrado has
been converted to agricultural crops (Sano et al., 2010).

1

0
1970

1980

Key
Grassland butterflies
Living Planet Index
Confidence limits

1990

2000

2010

Over the 19th and 20th centuries, Europe’s large carnivore
populations saw their numbers and distribution decline dramatically,
mainly due to human intervention, such as hunting pressure andhabitat loss. This trend, however, was reversed in the last few
decades, primarily thanks to the European Union’s Birds andHabitats Directives, forming the backbone of nature conservationin Europe. The Nature Directives protect a range of species andhabitats across the 28 member states of the European Union,
including bears, lynx, wolverines and wolves.
As a result of improved legal protection, large carnivores havereturned to many European regions from which they had beenabsent for decades, and reinforced their presence where they
already occurred. Currently, many populations of large carnivores
are further increasing or at least stable. For example, the Eurasianlynx experienced a contraction in range during the 19th and firsthalf of the 20th century due to hunting pressure and deforestation.
Due to legal protection, reintroductions, translocations andnatural recolonization, populations have more than quadrupledin abundance over the past 50 years. The European population(excluding Russia, Belarus and Ukraine) was recently estimatedat 9,000-10,000 individuals, 18 per cent of the global population(Deinet et al., 2013). The comeback of large carnivores shows thatwith political will supported by a forward-looking legal framework
and a wide range of committed stakeholders, nature can recover.
In some places where large carnivores such as lynx previously
disappeared, loss of knowledge can create challenges, especiallyfor certain land-user groups like hunters or farmers. However, there
are also numerous positive examples of successful coexistence
between humans and large carnivores across Europe. Translating
the positive examples and subsequent management approaches
into the specific contexts of each region will pave the way further forthese charismatic animals. Furthermore, cooperation across Europe
will be vital as large carnivores do not respect national borders.

© Staffan Widstrand

COMEBACK OF LARGECARNIVORES IN EUROPE

Freshwater Living Planet index
Freshwater habitats – such as lakes, rivers and wetlands – carryimmense importance for life on Earth. Freshwater accounts for only
0.01 per cent of the world’s water and covers approximately 0.8 percent of the Earth’s surface (Dudgeon et al., 2006) but provides a
habitat for almost 10 per cent of the world’s known species (Balian
et al., 2008). Because humans and almost every living being requirewater, these habitats command high economic, cultural, aesthetic,
recreational and educational value.
Freshwater habitats are challenging to conserve as they arestrongly affected by the modification of their river basins as well
as by direct impacts from dams, pollution, invasive aquatic species
and unsustainable water extractions. Further, they often crossadministrative and political boundaries so they require extra effort
for collaborative forms of protection. Several studies have foundthat species living in freshwater habitats are faring worse thanterrestrial species (Collen, et al., 2014; Cumberlidge et al., 2009).
The freshwater LPI substantiates this finding, showing that on
average the abundance of populations monitored in the freshwater
system has declined overall by 81 per cent between 1970 and 2012
(Figure 12), with an average annual decline of 3.9 per cent. Thesefigures are based on data for 3,324 monitored populations of
881 freshwater species.

Index value (1970 = 1)

2

1

FRESHWATER
HABITATS ARE
CHALLENGING TOCONSERVE AS THEYARE STRONGLY
AFFECTED BY THE
MODIFICATION OF
THEIR RIVER BASINSAS WELL AS BY DIRECTIMPACTS FROM DAMS,POLLUTION, INVASIVE
AQUATIC SPECIESAND UNSUSTAINABLE
WATER EXTRACTIONS

Figure 12: The
freshwater LPI showsa decline of 81 per cent(range: -68 to -89 percent) between 1970
and 2012
Trend in population
abundance for
3,324 populationsof 881 freshwater species
monitored across theglobe between 1970 and2012 (WWF/ZSL, 2016).

Confidence limits
1980

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 30

1990

2000

The LPI database contains threat information for 31 per centof its declining freshwater populations (n=449). Based on thisinformation, the most common threat to declining populations
is habitat loss and degradation. This is mentioned in 48 per centof threatened species cases (Figure 13). Freshwater habitat loss
because of humans can occur through direct intervention, forexample through excavation of river sand or interruption of a river’s
flow. But habitat loss and degradation can also occur throughindirect effects. For example, deforestation can increase river
sediment load, leading to more erosion of the river’s bank (Dudgeon
et al., 2006) with subsequent changes in the water quality and flow.
Direct overexploitation – through unsustainable fishing or collection
for subsistence or commercial purposes – is the second mostfrequent threat to freshwater populations (24 per cent), followed byinvasive species and disease (12 per cent), pollution (12 per cent)and climate change (4 per cent).

FRESHWATER SPECIES (449 populations)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Climate change

Freshwater Living
Planet Index

1970

Figure 13: Threat type
frequency for 449
declining freshwater
populations in the LPI
database showing
781 recorded threats
Each population has up
to three threats recorded,
so the total number ofrecorded threats exceeds
the number of populations(WWF/ZSL, 2016).
Key

Key

0

THE MOST COMMONTHREAT TO DECLININGFRESHWATER
POPULATIONS IS
HABITAT LOSS AND
DEGRADATION

Overexploitation
Habitat loss /degradation
Invasive species
and disease
Pollution

The frequency with which different threats are mentioned in
the database varies according to taxonomic group (Figure 14).
For amphibians, invasive species and disease represents thesecond most prevalent threat after habitat loss. It is cited as athreat in 25 per cent of cases, potentially reflecting the impact of
Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, a species of fungus responsible
for chytridiomycosis, a disease of amphibians. This pathogen
is implicated in the steep decline or extinction of more than
200 species of amphibians (Wake and Vredenburg, 2008) andthreatens many more (Rödder et al., 2009). Furthermore,
the rapid global spread of the disease has been linked to climatechange (Pounds et al., 2006). The amphibian trade is likely tohave contributed to the original spread of the pathogen (Weldon
et al., 2004) and can still facilitate introduction into new regions(Schloegel et al., 2009).

2010

Chapter 1: State of the natural planet page 31

The reduction of wetland area directly affects wetland-dependent
species since they will face reduced habitat availability andincreased competition for food and other resources. Within the LPI,
wetland-dependent species – as defined by IUCN Red List habitat
categories – suffered an overall 39 per cent reduction in abundance
between 1970 and 2012 (Figure 15), with an average annual declineof 1.2 per cent. The index is based on 706 populations of 308
freshwater species occurring exclusively within inland wetlands.

Figure 14: Taxonomic
differences inthreat frequency
for 449 declining
freshwater populationsin the LPI database(WWF/ZSL, 2016).

AMPHIBIANS (55 populations)Key

REPTILES (49 populations)

Climate change
Overexploitation

From 2005 onwards the index is slightly increasing. Several bird
species show increasing trends at this point in time. Some species ofwater birds – geese in particular – have benefitted from improved
foraging opportunities resulting from changes in agricultural
practices in staging and wintering areas along their migration routes
in North America and Europe (Fox et al. 2005; Van Eerden et al.
2005). As data for bird populations from these areas represents a
big proportion of the LPI dataset, this is likely to have an effect on
the trends in years when little data is available, as is often the casein more recent years.

Habitat loss /degradation

MAMMALS (19 populations)

Invasive species
and disease
Pollution

BIRDS (121 populations)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

For freshwater bird, mammal, fish and reptile populations,habitat loss is the most frequently recorded threat, followed byoverexploitation. Among mammals, river dolphins are declining
rapidly due to unintentional overexploitation. Entanglement ingillnets is a frequent cause of death for Irrawady dolphins (Minton
et al., 2013; Hines et al., 2015), while unsustainable levels of bycatchin local fisheries is one of the causes of the probable extinction of
the Yangtze river dolphin (Turvey et al., 2007). Overexploitation has
been mentioned among the causes for population declines in several
reptiles (Whitfield Gibbons et al., 2000), especially freshwater
turtles collected for food or for the pet trade.

Figure 15: The wetlanddependent species
LPI shows a decline of
39 per cent (range: -8 to-60 per cent) between
1970 and 2012
Trend in population
abundance for 706 inland
wetlands populations of
308 freshwater species(4 mammals, 48 birds,
224 fish, 4 amphibians
and 28 reptiles) monitored
across the globe between
1970 and 2012 (WWF/ZSL,
2016).

A closer look at wetlands
Wetlands are found all over the world from the equatorial tropics
to the frozen plains of Siberia. Both inland wetlands and coastal
wetlands are now in decline. A recent global review found that asmuch as 87 per cent of wetland area may have been lost over thelast 300 years (Davidson, 2014). Wetland loss – mainly caused byland reclamation for agricultural use (Junk et al., 2013) – continues,
but at a much faster rate than before. The Natural WET index – anindicator of change in area of all natural wetlands (Dixon et al.,2016) – shows a 30 per cent decline over the past 40 years alone.
This includes a 27 per cent decline in the extent of inland wetlands
and a 38 per cent decline in coastal wetlands.

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 32

87 PER CENT OFWETLAND AREA MAY
HAVE BEEN LOST OVER
THE LAST 300 YEARS

2

Index value (1970 = 1)

FISHES (205 populations)

1

0
1970

Key

1980

1990

2000

2010

Wetland Living
Planet Index
Confidence limits

THE REDUCTION OF WETLAND AREA DIRECTLY AFFECTSWETLAND-DEPENDENT SPECIES SINCE THEY WILLFACE REDUCED HABITAT AVAILABILITY AND INCREASEDCOMPETITION FOR FOOD AND OTHER RESOURCES

Chapter 1: State of the natural planet page 33

A closer look at rivers
ALMOST HALF OFGLOBAL RIVER VOLUMEIS ALREADY ALTEREDBY FLOW REGULATION,
FRAGMENTATION, OR
BOTH

Although threat information for many of the populations was
unavailable, of the 226 populations for which threat data isavailable, nearly 70 per cent are threatened by alteration of theirhabitat. This is likely to explain the overall picture of decline.
The increase seen after 2006 occurs in a number of migratory fish
species: this could indicate the benefits that have been seen in someregions, for example in Europe, of improvements in water quality(EEA, 2015) and the introduction of fish passes in rivers to allow
migration where there are manmade barriers.
Figure 17: The
migratory fish LPI
shows a decline of 41
per cent (range: +12 to-69 per cent) between
1970 and 2012
Trend in population
abundance for735 populations of
162 migratory fish
species monitored
worldwide between
1970 and 2012 (WWF/ZSL, 2016). The species
included in this index
are classified as either
catadromous, anadromous,
potamodromous oramphidromous by GROMS(Global Register ofMigratory Species).

Figure 16: Global distribution of futurehydropower dams either planned(red dots, 83 per cent) or underconstruction (blue dots, 17 per cent)(Zarfl et al., 2015).

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 34

Key2

Index value (1970 = 1)

While change in size is an appropriate measure when monitoring
the health of wetlands, volume and timing of flow and connectivity
are more appropriate for monitoring the state and functionality ofrivers. Historically, rivers have been extensively altered for urban
development, transportation, flood protection, water supplies
or energy generation. At least 3,700 major dams are either plannedor under construction for hydropower and for irrigation, primarily
in countries with emerging economies (Zarfl et al., 2015)(Figure 16). Almost half (48 per cent) of global river volume
is already altered by flow regulation, fragmentation, or both.
Completion of all dams planned or under construction would
mean that natural hydrologic flows would be lost for 93 per centof all river volume (Grill et al., 2015).

Dams alter flow, temperature and sediment transport of rivers(Reidy Liermann et al., 2012). Furthermore, dams inhibit migration,affecting the regular movement and distribution of species(Hall et al., 2011). The global analysis of fish population trends
shows that on average, the abundance of fish species that migrate
within freshwater habitat (potamodromous species) or between
freshwater and marine habitats (anadromous, catadromousand amphidromous species) declined by 41 per cent overall
between 1970 and 2012 (Figure 17), with an average annual
decline of 1.2 per cent. The index is based on 162 species and735 populations.

1

0
1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Key
Dams underconstruction

Migratory fish Living
Planet Index

Dams planned

Confidence limits

Chapter 1: State of the natural planet page 35

Free-flowing rivers are the freshwater equivalent of wilderness
areas. The natural flow variations of these rivers shape and form
diverse riverine habitats, within and next to the river. In many places,
connected, free-flowing rivers are crucial for carrying sedimentdownstream, bringing nutrients to floodplain soils, maintaining
floodplains and deltas that protect against extreme weather events,
and providing recreational opportunities or spiritual fulfilment.
Almost everywhere that free-flowing rivers remain, they are home
to vulnerable freshwater biodiversity. Dams and other infrastructure
threaten these free-flowing rivers as they create barriers, causing
fragmentation and alteration to flow regimes. Dams also affect longdistance migratory fishes by obstructing their migratory pathways,
making it difficult or impossible to complete their life cycles.
The Elwha River in the Pacific Northwest of the United States
provides a striking example. Two hydroelectric dams – the Elwha
Dam constructed in 1914 and the Glines Canyon Dam completed
in 1927 – blocked passage for migratory salmon. Local people
reported a huge decline in adult salmon returning to the river after
the Elwha Dam was constructed. This heavily affected the Lower
Elwha Klallam Tribe, who relied on the river’s salmon and otherassociated species in the watershed for physical, spiritual andcultural reasons. Salmon are a keystone species in that they bringnutrients from the coast inland, nourishing both terrestrial andaquatic species that benefit from this supply of nutrients.
In the mid-1980s the Elwha Klallam Tribe and environmentalgroups started to push for the removal of the Elwha and Glines
Canyon dams. Eventually the Elwha River Ecosystem andFisheries Restoration Act of 1992 was put in place, mandating the“full restoration of the fisheries and ecosystem”. After 20 years ofplanning, work to remove the Elwha Dam began in 2011, the largest
dam removal in US history. The removal of the Glines Canyon Dam
was completed in August 2014. Fish populations are expected tomake a return to the river. Some chinook salmon already did in
2012, just after the Elwha dam came down.

© Joel W. Rogers

DAM REMOVAL FOR RIVERRESTORATION: THE ELWHA RIVER

Marine Living Planet Index

Figure 19: Threat
type frequency for829 declining marine
populations in the LPI
database showing
1,155 recorded threats
Each population has up
to three threats recorded,
so the total number ofrecorded threats exceeds
the number of populations(WWF/ZSL, 2016).

Oceans and seas cover over 70 per cent of the Earth’s surface.
They play a critical role in regulating Earth’s climate, and they also
provide us with a wealth of benefits including food, livelihoods andcultural uses. Maintaining the health of the marine environment,
including its biodiversity, is vital to humanity’s survival.
The marine LPI shows a 36 per cent overall decline between 1970
and 2012 (Figure 18) with an average annual decline of 1 per cent.
This index is based on data for 6,170 monitored populations of
1,353 marine species (birds, mammals, reptiles and fish). Most ofthese species are fish and they drive the trend shown. The majorityof the decline in the marine LPI occurred between 1970 and the late1980s, after which the trend stabilizes. This reflects the trend infish catch globally, which stabilizes at much lower population levels
after 1988 (FAO, 2016a). This is at the time when the concept ofmaximum sustainable yields was introduced to control the extent towhich fish stocks are harvested.
Although the overall marine index is stable from 1988, and somefisheries are now showing recovery because of stronger management
measures, the majority of the stocks that contribute most to global
fish catch are now either fully fished or overfished (FAO, 2016a).

Index value (1970 = 1)

2

1

1990

2000

2010

Threat information is available for 29 per cent of declining
populations (n=829). Data indicates that the most common
threat for marine species is overexploitation, followed by loss anddegradation of marine habitats (Figure 19).

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 38

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Invasive species
and disease

FISHES (447 populations)Overexploitation

Pollution

REPTILES (56 populations)Figure 18: The marine
LPI shows a decline of
36 per cent (range: -20
to -48 per cent) between
1970 and 2012
Trend in population
abundance for
6,170 populations of
1,353 marine species
monitored across the globe
between 1970 and 2012
(WWF/ZSL, 2016).

Confidence limits
1980

10%

Habitat loss /degradation

Climate change

Marine Living Planet
Index

1970

0%

Overexploitation through overfishing is the most common threat
attributed to declining fish populations (Figure 20). Recent statistics
suggest that 31 per cent of global fish stocks are overfished (FAO,
2016a). Without effective management, unsustainable levelsof fishing could lead to commercial extinction. Currently,
the Northern Pacific bluefin tuna (Collette et al., 2011) is at risk
for this reason. Also, a third of sharks, rays and skates are estimatedto be threatened with extinction primarily because of overfishing(Dulvy et al., 2014).

Key

Key

0

MARINE SPECIES (829 populations)Figure 20: Taxonomic
differences inthreat frequency
for 829 declining
marine populationsin the LPI database(WWF/ZSL, 2016).
Key

MAMMALS (82 populations)

BIRDS (244 populations)0%
Climate change
Overexploitation
Habitat loss /degradation
Invasive species
and disease
Pollution

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

For sea birds, marine mammals and reptiles, overexploitation mostly
refers to incidental killing, bycatch or targeted trade. Individuals are
considered bycatch when their capture or death is unintentional.
It also refers to accidental mortalities occurring from boat strikes.
Changes in habitat are the second most common threat associatedwith declining marine populations (Kovacs et al., 2012).
Deterioration of coastal ecosystems affect feeding, breeding andnursery grounds for many marine mammals, such as seals, sea lions
and walrus, marine turtles and seabirds. For seals and sea lions,habitat degradation also includes the loss of prey as humans areoutcompeting them for fish and other food resources (Kovacs et al.,2012). Coastal habitat change is the most frequently reported threat
for birds, as development affects nesting habitat. Other threats forseabirds include pollution and bycatch (Croxall et al., 2012).

Chapter 1: State of the natural planet page 39

How the LPI database evolves
Improving the coverage of the datasets behind the LPI is an
ongoing effort with many data gaps needing to be filled aroundthe world (Figure 3), not least for the marine LPI (see box). The
LPI shows a trend analysis on the basis of the data available. Oneof the objectives of ZSL and WWF is to keep the LPI database
up to date and seek data for species where we have no or limited
information. Since there is no central repository for this data, or for
its coordinated release, ongoing searches are conducted to find andadd data from relevant studies and reports as they become public.
The Living Planet Index draws upon known data available on thesize of populations of different species at the time of publication,and tracks changes to these over time. Each species has one ormore populations and the data for these populations comes frommany sources (see the LPR supplement for more information on thecalculation of the LPI). Importantly, the overall indices can change
if data on new species are added - which adds one or more new
populations to the database - and also if new populations of existing
species already in the LPI are added.
As an example, since the publication of the Living Blue Planet
Report in 2015, both data on populations of species new to the LPI
and on new populations of existing LPI species have been added tothe marine dataset. In this case, these new data are responsible forthe difference in the marine LPIs reported in 2015 and 2016.
To explore the impact of the addition of new data on the marine
LPI, a recalculation shows what happens when the marine LPI uses
the same set of species as used in 2015 but adds new populations
for these species (from the 2016 dataset). The result is a 44 percent decline between 1970 and 2012, eight percentage points lower
than the marine LPI for 2016 (-36%). Consequently, newly added
populations of those species which are already included within theindex account for a difference of five percentage points between the
results in 2015 (-49%) and this recalculation (-44%).

THE LIVING PLANET INDEX DRAWS UPON KNOWN DATAAVAILABLE ON THE SIZE OF POPULATIONS OF DIFFERENTSPECIES AT THE TIME OF PUBLICATION, AND TRACKSCHANGES TO THESE OVER TIME
WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 40

The remaining eight percentage points difference between 2015 and2016 is explained by the inclusion of populations of new species.
These new species comprise three birds, one mammal and 115 fish.
New fish species data covered all marine realms except the Arctic.
Whilst variations in trend occur with the addition of new data, these
are within the confidence limits of the previous results and thegeneral trend still shows substantially lower population sizes overtime than the start of the LPI in 1970.
Challenges in monitoring of marine species globally
One of the central challenges in understanding the impact ofhumans on marine species populations is that official statistics
appear to be significantly underestimating the amount of wild
fish caught. A recent study revealed that between 1950 and 2010,
actual global catches of fish were likely to have been 50% higher
than reported to the United Nations (Pauly and Zeller, 2016).
The data behind the marine LPI is mostly comprised of fish
populations and of these, a large proportion are commercial
fish stocks from areas where they are subject to more effective
fisheries management including catch monitoring. The marine
LPI currently has limited data from artisanal, subsistence andrecreational fishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU)
fishing and bycatch. This is due to the challenges of monitoring
the impact of these activities, or in some cases, the data arecollected but not reported. IUU fishing is a major problem in thehigh seas outside of areas of national jurisdiction, but it can also
occur in many coastal areas (FAO, 2016).
It is widely acknowledged that the catches from artisanal andsubsistence fisheries comprise a major part of world fisheries andare crucial for food security in developing countries. As such, it
is vital to understand how these populations are responding tofishing pressure to avoid overexploitation.
If many key species and regions are not being monitored yet,or if monitoring is inadequate, this poses a serious challenge
in understanding the impact of humans on marine species
populations and developing appropriate policies to counter
negative effects. Gathering further data on fish stocks and othermarine species across a range of habitats is a priority for future
estimates of overall marine population trends. As the marine LPI
largely relies on official statistics, it is not possible yet to fullyreflect the non-commercial, subsistence components of fisheries.
It is therefore likely that fish populations are declining at muchgreater levels that the marine LPI is currently able to show.

Chapter 1: State of the natural planet page 41

© Global Warming Images - WWF

A closer look at coral reefs
Coral reefs are highly biodiverse habitats located in shallow partsof the ocean. Thousands of species take advantage of the food,protection and nursery habitat provided by reefs (Burke et al.,2011). While reefs cover less than 0.1 per cent of the total area of
the world’s ocean, they support over 25 per cent of all marine fish
species (Spalding et al., 2001).
Three-quarters of the world’s coral reefs are now threatened (Burkeet al., 2011) and the species they support are subject to high andincreasing pressure.
Scientists warn that strong action is needed to reduce theconcentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, includingCO2. Otherwise coral reefs could face large-scale extinction by midcentury, due to widespread and regular mass coral bleaching eventsand acidification (Hoegh-Guldberg, 2015) (see box). Coral reefs also
face other serious threats, including overfishing and destructive
fishing (such as the use of explosives and cyanide); sediment,
nutrient and pesticide pollution; and coastal development.

THREE-QUARTERS OF
THE WORLD’S CORALREEFS ARE NOWTHREATENED

Warming waters bring coral bleaching and mortality
across the globe
Bleaching occurs when corals are stressed by unusual conditions
such as high water temperatures. If the water gets too warm,
corals expel the tiny algae living in their tissues, causing the coral
to turn completely white. Heat stress can kill corals directly or
indirectly via starvation and disease (Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999).
In a severe bleaching event, large swathes of reef-building
corals die.
The 2015-2016 global mass coral bleaching event – the third
ever recorded – may be the longest and most intense in history,
impacting reefs from Hawaii to the Great Barrier Reef, and thoseof South East Asia and Africa (NOAA, 2016). Scientists expectthat climate change will cause these bleaching events to occur
more regularly, compromising the ability of corals to recover
between each episode (Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999, Donner et al.,2005; Frieler et al., 2013).

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 42

Coral reef off Dahab in the Red Sea in Egypt showing signs of coral bleaching. Like many areasof coral around the world, reefs in the Red Sea are increasingly threatened by global warminginduced coral bleaching. Bleaching is caused when the water temperature rises to a point that thezooxanthellae – the symbiotic algae that live on corals – cannot tolerate. They can recover if thewater temperature drops, but prolonged heat will eventually kill the coral.

THE LIVING PLANET INDEX INPERSPECTIVE

The Red List Index
BY 2020 VERTEBRATE
POPULATIONS MAY
HAVE DECLINED BY AN
AVERAGE OF 67 PER
CENT SINCE 1970

Different indicators shed light on particular aspects of biodiversity,and provide a way of understanding the magnitude and mechanismsof threats and pressures. The LPI monitors trends in population
abundance through the changing sizes of wildlife populations.
The Red List Index (RLI) differs by monitoring how the global
extinction risk of a species is changing. Another measure is how
many species there are in a given local area (local richness).

Figure 22: Red List
Index of species
survival for birds,
mammals, amphibians,
corals and cycads(IUCN and Birdlife
International, 2016).
Key

Projecting the Living Planet Index

Birds

The Global Biodiversity Outlook 4 (CBD, 2014a) compares thecurrent status of indicators and their projected trends up to 2020
with the UN biodiversity targets. Figure 21 shows what will happen if
current trends continue to 2020; by this time vertebrate populations
may have declined by an average of 67 per cent since 1970.

Index value (1970 = 1)

2

Figure 21: The
Living Planet Index
extrapolated to 2020
under a business as
usual scenario
The Living Planet Index(solid black line) with model
fit and extrapolation to2020 (white line, shadedarea) under a business as
usual scenario, shadedband shows 95 per centconfidence limits of themodel fit. Using methodfrom Tittensor et al., 2014.
Key

1

Global Living Planet
Index
Confidence limits
Global Living PlanetIndex - extrapolated

Mammals
CoralsAmphibians
Cycads1,0
Red List Index of species survival

In 2010, the Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD)
196 signatory countries agreed to 20 ambitious biodiversity
targets for 2020. They require nations to take effective and urgent
action to halt the loss of biodiversity and ensure that ecosystems areresilient and continue to provide essential services, thereby securing
the planet’s variety of life, and contributing to human well-being
and poverty eradication (CBD, 2014a). The LPI is one of a suite ofglobal indicators used to monitor whether the targets are being met(Tittensor et al., 2014).

By tracking the number of threatened species, the RLI quantifies
overall risk of extinction and how it is changing over time. The RLI
is based on IUCN Red List assessments that classify species into oneof seven categories (Extinct, Critically Endangered, Endangered,
Vulnerable, Near Threatened, Least Concern or Data Deficient).
This classification relies on a wide range of criteria including range
size, population size and threats. As species can be reassessed overtime, the number of species that are threatened with extinction andthe severity of that threat can change. Declines in the RLI indicate
either that more species are threatened with extinction or somespecies are increasingly threatened with extinction. The RLI is now
calculated for five groups – birds, mammals, amphibians, corals andcycads (a class of seed plants found in the tropics) (Figure 22).

Better

0,9

0,8

0,7

0,6

0,5
1970

Worse
1980

1990

2000

2010

The position of each line shows how the level of extinction risk
varies between species groups. In this graph, cycads have the lowest
index value in 2003 and 2014 and so these species are at greater riskof extinction compared to birds, mammals, corals and amphibians.
The slope of each line corresponds to the speed that extinction
risk of a group is changing: a steeper slope equals more change
per unit time. Corals exhibit faster change than the other groups;
between 1996 and 2008, their survival status dropped considerably.
Analysing how patterns of extinction risk vary and have changed up
to now helps us understand the potential for future extinctions andwhether or not we are experiencing unusual levels of extinction (seebox on the sixth mass extinction).

Confidence limits

0
1970

1980

1990

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 44

2000

2010

2020

Chapter 1: State of the natural planet page 45

Projecting biodiversity trends: the Local
Biodiversity Intactness Index

Entering the sixth mass extinction?
Palaeontologists characterize mass extinctions as biological or biotic crises defined by theloss of a vast amount of species in a relatively short geological time period. A mass extinction
has occurred only five times in the past ~ 540 million years (Barnosky et al., 2011; Jablonski,
1994; Raup and Sepkoski, 1982).
Mass extinctions have occurred in response to changes in key environmental systems,
for example in response to changes in climate or atmospheric composition, the availabilityof land at different latitudes or sea at different depths, or combinations of these (Barnosky
et al., 2011; Erwin, 1994). But in the last few centuries the Earth has experienced
exceptionally high and increasing rates of species loss (eg. Ceballos et al., 2015; Régnier
et al., 2015).
Recent studies suggest probable extinction rates at present are up to 100-1,000 extinctions
per 10,000 species per 100 years, which is much higher than the long-term rate of extinction(excluding the episodes of crisis in Earth’s history) – the background extinction rate
(Ceballos et al., 2015; Steffen et al., 2015a). This suggests that we are on the edge of a sixth
mass extinction.

Figure 24: Predicted
net loss of local species
richness for 2090
using the PREDICTS
framework
Net loss is shown forthe ‘business-as-usual’scenario, based on apre-human baseline.
Data derived from
Newbold et al., 2015.
Key

Cumulative extinctions as % of IUCN-evaluated species

> 30%
1,6
1,4
1,2
1,0
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
1500-1600

1600-1700

1700-1800

Key
Birds

1800-1900

1900-2014

Figure 23: Cumulative
vertebrate extinctions
as a percentage of
researched species(IUCN, 2014)
Graph shows thepercentage of the numberof species evaluated among
mammals (5513; 100 per
cent of those described),
birds (10,425; 100 per cent),
reptiles (4414; 44 per cent),
amphibians (6414; 88 percent), fishes (12,457; 38 percent), and all vertebrates
combined (39,223; 59 percent). Dashed black curve
represents the numberof extinctions expectedunder a constant standard
background rate of 2 E/
MSY (Ceballos et al., 2015).

25 - 30%
20 - 25%
10 - 20%
5 - 10%0 - 5%Gain

The Local Biodiversity Intactness Index (LBII) forecasts how species
richness (the number of species counted at a study site) will change
in the future due to the impacts of land-use change, pollution andinvasive species (Newbold et al., 2015). In addition to recording
the current state of global biodiversity, indicators can be projected
forward to predict how close the world is to meeting the 2020
targets (Tittensor et al., 2014).
Figure 24 shows LBII richness projected for 2090. The map
demonstrates that if human enterprise continues to develop at
the current pace (business-as-usual scenario) we can expect tosee substantial changes in species richness across the globe. Red
areas show regions that are expected to experience a loss of over
30 per cent of their initial species richness. The darker green areas
are predicted to see a gain in species richness. These are primarily
in northern regions and drylands where climate change may
make environmental conditions more suitable for some species.
For example the warming of some areas of the Arctic is alreadyproducing a longer growing season and more plant species are able
to thrive (Snyder, 2013).
The LBII has also been used to evaluate anthropogenic impacts
that have already happened. Newbold et al. (2016) estimate thatthe proposed Planetary Boundary for biodiversity has already beenbreached across 58.1 per cent of the world’s land surface.

Mammals
Reptiles, Amphibians, Fishes
All vertebrates
Long-term rate of extinction

Chapter 1: State of the natural planet page 47

Mangroves protect and stabilize coastlines – particularly importantas climate change brings more extreme storms and increased wave
action. They also act as sinks, sequestering 3–5 per cent morecarbon per unit area than any other forest system. But mangroves
are disappearing, cleared for urban and tourism development or
felled for fuel and building materials. Wise use of mangroves,such as creating coastal reserves and helping local communities
develop livelihoods built on keeping them intact, is crucial fornature and people.
The most extensive mangrove cover, about a million hectares
bordering the Western Indian Ocean, is found in the river deltas of
Kenya, Madagascar, Mozambique and Tanzania. As an ecozone
between land and sea, mangroves are home to a huge variety ofcreatures, from birds and land mammals to dugongs, ﬁve marine
turtle species and many kinds of ﬁsh. And much of the economicallyimportant prawn harvest along this coast depends on mangroves forsafe spawning and nursery grounds.
In the Melaky region on Madagascar’s west coast, local people aretaking action to remedy the loss of mangroves, which are crucial
to their livelihoods. Since September 2015, men, women andchildren from the village of Manombo have become key players
in mangrove conservation and restoration. Mangrove restoration
benefits local communities by improving access to fish and crab
stock, which provide a regular income, and builds resilience against
climate change. The village community participated in a reforestation
campaign, planting around 9,000 mangrove seedlings to restore
degraded forests around their village. Next to Manombo, othercommunities have together planted 49,000 seedlings. For the local
communities and the future of their forests, that equals
a real success.
(source: WWF-Madagascar; WWF, 2016a)© WWF - Madagascar

COMMUNITY MANGROVERESTORATION MADAGASCAR

ues

G
LATIN
tion

PollinaGUM
ext odera
rem tione e of
ven
ts

Fresh

r

wate

n

Air quality regulatio
Climate r
Wateregulation

regu

tion
ula
reg
sion
Ero
ation
purific nt
Waterste treatmeaand w

Figure 25: Ecosystemservices
Provisioning services are
the products obtained fromecosystems, regulating
services are the benefits
obtained from theregulation of ecosystemprocesses, cultural services
are the nonmaterial
benefits people obtain fromecosystems and supporting
services are those services
that are necessary forthe production of allother ecosystem services.
Adapted from theMillennium Ecosystem
Assessment, 2005.

RE

n

tio
rma

INCREASED HUMANPRESSURE IS
DIMINISHING NATURAL
CAPITAL AT A FASTERRATE THAN IT CAN
BE REPLENISHED

mate
rials

AL PROVISI
R
U
T

ING

thesis

a

cin

di
Me

ECOSYSTEMSERVICESyn
Photos

fo
Soil

Raw

val

s
rce

sou
l re

ON

Spir
religiitual and
ous v
alues

PORTING CUL
P
U
S

tic

latio

n

Disease andpest regulation

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 50

theNutrient cycling

The observed decline in species populations is inextricably linked
to the state of ecosystems and habitats that sustain our planet’s
species. Destruction of habitats represents a risk not just to plants
and wildlife, but to humans as well. These habitats are vital to oursurvival, well-being and prosperity. The stock of renewable andnon-renewable natural resources (e.g., plants, animals, air, water,
soils, minerals) can be described as “natural capital”. Natural capitaldelivers a flow of benefits to people both locally and globally, often
referred to as “ecosystem services” (Figure 25).
The ecosystem-based assets of natural capital evolved to be selfsustaining. But increased human pressure on ecosystems andspecies – such as conversion of natural habitat to agriculture,
overexploitation of fisheries, pollution of freshwater by industries,
urbanization and unsustainable farming and fishing practices – isdiminishing natural capital at a faster rate than it can be replenished(EEA, 2013). We are already experiencing the costs of natural
capital depletion. These costs are expected to grow over time,increasing the risk of food and water insecurity, higher prices formany commodities, and increased competition for land and water.
Over time, depletion of natural capital will exacerbate conflict andmigration, climate change and vulnerability to natural disasters suchas flooding and drought, and have a negative impact on physical andmental health and well-being (MEA, 2005).

Aesd
Mental anhealthphysicalHEALTHY ECOSYSTEMSARE VITAL TO OURSURVIVAL, WELL-BEING
AND PROSPERITYoneati rism
Recr ecotou
andWe need diverse ecosystems to deliver all the services we depend
upon. Many of our essential foods and materials are derived froma variety of animals and plants. A great many species are critical
for the functioning of ecosystem processes such as regulation andpurification of water and air, climatic conditions, pollination andseed dispersal, and control of pests and diseases. And by affecting
nutrient and water cycling systems and soil fertility, some species
indirectly support the supply of food, fibre, fresh water andmedicines (MEA, 2005).

Food

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: LINKING
NATURE AND PEOPLE

In spite of the critical importance of our natural capital stock,
developing a meaningful way to monitor changes and how these
are affecting human well-being is still a challenge. There are anumber of approaches to track changes in specific aspects of natural
capital and for understanding the consequences for humans. In thenext pages some examples are presented of existing metrics that
illustrate the relationship between natural capital stock, ecosystemservices and human well-being.

Chapter 1: State of the natural planet page 51

Forest coverForests are critical to the way Earth functions. They lock up vast
amounts of carbon and release oxygen. They influence rainfall, filter
fresh water and prevent flooding and soil erosion. They produce
wild foods, fuelwood and medicines for the people that live in andaround them. They are storehouses of potential future crop varieties
and genetic materials with untapped healing qualities. Wood andother fibre grown in forests can be used as a renewable fuel or as
raw material for paper, packaging, furniture or housing.

Soil quality
FORESTS ARE VITALFOR THE WAY EARTH
FUNCTIONS

While the pressures on forests vary across regions, the biggest causeof deforestation is expanding agriculture – including commercial
livestock and major crops such as palm oil and soy (Gibbs et al.,2010; Hosonuma et al., 2012; Kissinger et al., 2012). Small-scale
farmers also play a role, often due to poverty and insecure land
tenure. Mining, hydroelectricity and other infrastructure projects
are also major pressures – new roads can have a large indirect
impact through opening up forests to settlers and agriculture.

Figure 26: The state ofglobal soil degradation(UNEP, 1997).
Key
Very degraded soil
Degraded soil

Next to deforestation, forest degradation is a threat to forest
biodiversity. The key drivers of tropical forest degradation include
unsustainable logging, fuelwood collection and uncontrolled fires(Kissinger et al., 2012). Degradation depletes the reproductive andecosystem service provision capacity of standing forests. It is adirect source of greenhouse-gas emissions and can be a catalyst foreventual deforestation.
The Global Forest Resources Assessment reported that the rate ofnet global deforestation had slowed down considerably in the last
25 years (FAO Forestry, 2015). Its latest data shows that 129 million
hectares of forest have been lost since 1990 on a net basis – an arealarger than South Africa. However, this net figure masks the changes
in natural forests over planted forests. On a gross basis, a total of
239 million hectares of natural forest was lost over the same period.
And the proportion of the world’s forests that are planted rose from4 per cent to 7 per cent. Although planted forests are important forthe provision of timber, other resources and economic development,
natural forests are often a more valuable source of ecosystemservices overall and their loss should not be understated. They often
provide better habitats with more species diversity, potentially morecarbon storage and regenerative capacity (Gamfeldt et al., 2013).
It is important that at the global level we are able to monitor not justthe quantity of forests but also the quality of those forests.

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 52

The world’s food and water supply is greatly dependent upon goodquality soil. However, about 30 per cent of global land area has
already experienced significant degradation – that is, a reductionin the capacity of land to provide ecosystem services and assure its
functions over a period of time. One third of grasslands, a quarter ofcroplands, and almost a quarter of forests experienced degradation
over the last three decades. The annual cost of land degradation
is estimated to be about US$300 billion. This includes losses toboth agricultural production and other ecosystem services(Nkonya et al., 2016).

Stable soil
Without vegetation

Land degradation arises in part from land-use change and also
from poor agricultural management practices. The latter reduces
the quality and fertility of soils and this further lowers agricultural
productivity and associated yields. According to the FAO, thesituation is most acute in Africa, where two-thirds of agriculturallands are degraded and per capita food production is declining asa result of soil quality loss (FAO, 2011a). Land degradation also
reduces carbon fixation since above and below ground biomass iscompromised. In the period 1981-2003 this led to a loss of nearlya billion tonnes of carbon (Bai et al., 2008).

ON A GROSS BASIS,A TOTAL OF 239
MILLION HECTARES OF
NATURAL FOREST WASLOST SINCE 1990

Chapter 1: State of the natural planet page 53

Water availability

Fish stocks

Reliable access to fresh water is vital for domestic life,
agriculture and industry. Competition for water between thesedemands increases the risk of local and national-scale conflict(UNESCO, 2015).

More than 3 billion people obtain up to 20 per cent of their animal
protein from fish, and the majority of the planet’s fish comes fromthe ocean (WWF, 2015a; FAO, 2016a). Per capita fish consumption
continues to rise (FAO, 2016a) and so meeting the increasing
demand for fish as food is a major global challenge.

Since 1992, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) has calculated total renewable water resources
available per capita (FAO, 2016b). The data shows that increased
human population, combined with shifting consumption patterns,
has resulted in steadily increasing pressure on water resources.
Nearly 50 countries experienced water stress or water scarcity
in 2014, up from just over 30 in 1992 (Figure 27). Africa has thehighest proportion of countries experiencing water stress (41 percent), but Asia has the highest proportion of countries experiencing
absolute water scarcity (25 per cent).

Number of countries

40

30

20

10
0
1992

1997

2002

2007

2012

2014

NEARLY 50 COUNTRIES EXPERIENCED WATERSTRESS OR WATER SCARCITY IN 2014

Figure 27: Number ofcountries experiencing
different types of water
stressNumber of countries
experiencing different
types of water stress froma total of 174 countries(FAO, 2016b). Water
stress is defined as annual
renewable water resourcesof less than 1,700 m3 per
inhabitant, water scarcity
as less than 1,000 m 3 per
inhabitant, and absolute
water scarcity as lessthan 500m3 per inhabitant(UN-Water, 2011). Annual
renewable water resources
equals the amount of water
available per person per
year. Figure compiled by
UNEP-WCMC.

Figure 28: Global
trends in the stateof world marine fishstocks since 1974
31.4 per cent of assessedfish stocks were estimatedas fished at a biologicallyunsustainable level andtherefore overfished.
Fully fished stocks
accounted for 58.1 per centand underfished stocks
10.5 per cent (FAO, 2016a).
Key
At biologicallyunsustainable levels
Within biologicallysustainable levels

100

OVERFISHED

90
80
70
Percentage

50

Based on FAO’s analysis of assessed commercial stocks (FAO,
2016a), the share of fish stocks within biologically sustainable levels
decreased from 90 per cent in 1974 to 68.6 per cent in 2013.
The remaining 31.4 per cent of fish stocks are estimated to be ata biologically unsustainable level and are therefore overfished.
Of the total number of stocks assessed in 2013, fully fished stocks
accounted for 58.1 per cent and underfished stocks – that is, thosewhich could sustainably support increased harvesting – 10.5 percent (Figure 28).

60

FULLY FISHED

50
40
30
20

UNDERFISHED

10
0
1974

1979

1984

1989

1994

1999

2004

2009

2013

OVER 30 PER CENT OF FISH STOCKS AREOVERFISHED

Key
Water stress
Water scarcity
Absolute water
scarcity

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 54

Chapter 1: State of the natural planet page 55

3. worldwide demand threatens
the CerradoHigh in protein and energy, soy is a key part of the
global food supply. Mainly used as animal feed,
soy has become one of the world’s biggest crops due
to rising demand worldwide for meat products.
But its growth has come at a cost. Vast areas of forest,
savannah and grassland have been cleared over thelast few decades as soy production has expanded.
In total, the area of land in South America devoted
to soy grew from 17 million hectares in 1990 to 46
million hectares in 2010, mainly on land converted
from natural ecosystems. And forests and othernatural ecosystems are coming under ever greaterpressure as production and demand continues togrow. Soy production is expected to increase rapidly
as economic development leads to higher animal
protein consumption, especially in developing andemerging countries. Today’s main and fastest-growing
soy importer is China, for animal feed and cooking oil.
China´s meat consumption is rapidly increasing,and projections indicate a steady steep long-term
increase of soy imports, which is likely to increasepressure on the Cerrado, the Amazon, the Chaco andother threatened ecosystems.
(source: WWF-Brazil; WWF, 2014)© Alffoto

THE STORY OF SOYCHAPTER 2: HUMAN IMPACTS
ON THE PLANETWORLD POPULATION
7WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 58

5
4
3
2

360
330
300

1
1800

1850

1900

1950

270
1750

2000

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

1850

1900

1950

2000

1900

1950

2000

1900

1950

2000

1900

1950

2000

FRESHWATER USE

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

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

1800

1850

MARINE FISH CAPTURETROPICAL FOREST LOSS
80

30

70
million tonnes

25
20
15
10
5

60
50
40
30
20
10

1800

1850

1900

1950

0
1750

2000

Figure 29: The “great acceleration”
Figures illustrate trends and how the size and scale ofevents have changed. Source: IGBP, 2016. Plots based on
the analysis of Steffen et al., 2015b.

1800

1850

TRANSPORTATION
1400
1200
million vehicles

0
1750

1800

4,5

thousand km3

million tonnes

HUMAN ACTIVITIESAND ACCOMPANYINGRESOURCE USESHAVE GROWN SO
DRAMATICALLY THATTHE ENVIRONMENTAL
CONDITIONS THATFOSTERED OUR
DEVELOPMENT
AND GROWTH ARE
BEGINNING TO
DETERIORATE

01750% loss since 1700 AD

Establishment of safe limits at local and regional scales remains anecessity as local pollution is still damaging local environments.
But we now face constraints at the planetary level as well. The
world’s population has grown from about 1.6 billion people in1900 to today’s 7.3 billion (UN, 2016). Over the same period,
technological innovations and the use of fossil energy helped meetthe many demands of this growing population. For example, inthe early 1900s an industrial method was developed for fixing
nitrogen into ammonia. The resulting synthetic fertilizer now
sustains about half of the world’s population (Sutton et al., 2013).
Readily available fossil fuels provide energy for domestic use andindustrial production, enabling global trade. But this also resultsin rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global warming.
Human activities and accompanying resource uses have grownso dramatically, especially since the mid-20th century (Steffen
et al., 2007), that the environmental conditions that fostered ourdevelopment and growth are beginning to deteriorate (Steffen et al.,
2004; IPCC, 2012; IPCC, 2013) (Figure 29).

parts per million

billion

6

AN EARTH SYSTEM PERSPECTIVE
Throughout history there has been a limit to nature’s capacity toabsorb the impact of human development. However, different
societies, and different groups within society, have perceived andresponded to these limits very differently (Costanza et al., 2006;
Sörlin and Warde, 2009). At times, people have seemed particularly
unaware of natural limits and the consequent risks of exceedingthem. For example, early industrial societies often discharged
waste or emissions from industrial processes directly into theground, waterways or the air. The resulting damage to humanhealth and ecosystems amassed to the point that it threatened
to undermine industrialization’s economic and social advances.
Over time societies started to regulate emissions of environmental
pollutants, control resource extractions, and limit the degree towhich the natural environment could be changed by direct humanmodification (Bishop, 1978). This regulatory approach toward
human impacts on the environment is based on the idea that we candefine “safe limits” for human activities (Crowards, 1998).

CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2)
390

8

1000

Key
Rest of the world
BRICS countries
OECD countries
World

800
600
400
200
0
1750

1800

1850

Climate change

It is clear that responding to risks at the planetary scale will bevastly more challenging than anything we have dealt with before.
At times, the complexity of global systems, the politics ofdesignating limits and the consequences of ignoring constraints allseem insurmountably difficult. However, the strong international
accord shown in the 2015 Paris Agreement for action on climatechange affords us some assurance that the challenges ahead are
not insurmountable.
We were unaware of planetary changes until relatively recently.
Scientists are still compiling and analysing information to grasp theeffects of these changes on nature and humans. An Earth systemperspective can help us to perceive complex relationships between
human actions and global impacts that affect the natural state of theplanet. It enables us to see how local changes have consequencesthat play out at other geographic scales, and to recognize that
impacts that influence one system might affect other systems
as well.

Biosphere integrity

The nine Planetary Boundaries subsystems are 1) biosphere integrity(or destruction of ecosystems and biodiversity), 2) climate change,and 3) its twin problem ocean acidification, 4) land-system change,
5) unsustainable freshwater use, 6) perturbation of biogeochemical
flows (nitrogen and phosphorus inputs to the biosphere), 7)
alteration of atmospheric aerosols, and 8) pollution by novel
entities, including 9) stratospheric ozone depletion(Steffen et al., 2015a).

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 60

Novel entities

Loss of ecological
functions

THE PLANETARY
BOUNDARIES CONCEPTILLUSTRATES THE
RISKS OF HUMAN
INTERFERENCE WITH
THE EARTH SYSTEM

Stratosphericozone depletion

Land-systemchangeAtmosphericaerosol loading

Freshwater use

The Planetary Boundaries concept (Rockström et al., 2009a; 2009b)
is an attempt to provide this Earth system perspective. Althoughstill evolving, it is a useful integrating framework for illustrating
the risks of human interference with the Earth system throughour patterns of consumption and production. It delineates safe
boundaries for critical Earth system processes. Within this safe
operating space – which is based on our evolving understandingof the functioning and resilience of the global ecosystem – humansocieties can develop and thrive.
Nine human-produced alterations to the functioning of the Earthsystem form the basis of the Planetary Boundaries framework(Rockström et al., 2009b; Steffen et al., 2015a) (Figure 30).
It is clear that at a certain point our modifications will cause
unacceptable and irreversible changes to resources that we depend
upon (e.g. CBD, 2014a; IPCC, 2014a; UNEP, 2013).

Extinction rate

Phosphorus

Biogeochemical flows Nitrogen

ANALYSIS SUGGESTSTHAT HUMANS HAVEALREADY PUSHED FOUR
OF THESE SYSTEMSBEYOND THE LIMIT OF A
SAFE OPERATING SPACE

Figure 30: Planetary
Boundaries
The green zone is thesafe operating space(below the boundary),yellow represents thezone of uncertainty, withan increasing risk of
disrupting Earth systemstability; and red is thehigh-risk zone, pushing the
Earth system out of a stable
Holocene-like state. The
Planetary Boundary itself
lies at the inner heavy circle(Steffen et al., 2015).

Ocean acidification

Key
Beyond zone of uncertainty (high risk)
In zone of uncertainty (increasing risk)
Below boundary (safe)

Current analysis suggests that humans have already pushed
four of these systems beyond the limit of a safe operating space.
There is some scientific uncertainty about the biophysical andsocietal effects of exceeding Planetary Boundaries. However,
attributable global impacts and associated risks to humans
are already evident for climate change, biosphere integrity,
biogeochemical flows and land-system change (Steffen et al.,2015a). Other assessments suggest that freshwater use has also
passed beyond a safe threshold (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2016;
Vörösmarty et al., 2010).

Chapter 2: Human impacts on the planet page 61

Human impacts on the planet
through unsustainable
resource use

Biosphere integrity and climate change

OZO
N

OCEA
N AC
IDIF
I

ION
CAT

PHERIC AEROSOLS
ATMOS

RS
ETO
EPL
ED

BIOSPHERE INTEGRITYAND CLIMATE CHANGESFRESHWATER
USE

Because of the complex multiscale linkages and connections
between the nine Planetary Boundaries, human modifications of
one boundary category can lead to elevated risks or significant
improvements in others. Similarly, consequences of human activity
in a particular geographic region are not restricted to that area.
Repercussions can play out across scales disproportionate to theoriginal disturbance. For example, the loss of Amazonian forest
affects the water cycle, reducing rainfall in southern South America(Nobre, 2014). Tropical deforestation (regional land-system change)
also affects the carbon cycle, contributing to global climate change(Lawrence and Vandecar, 2015; Sheil and Murdiyarso, 2009; Ciais
et al., 2013). Increased atmospheric CO2 – a major cause of global
climate change – is causing global acidification of the ocean.
Ocean acidification affects the saturation states of biologicallyimportant calcium carbonate minerals. This inhibits the abilityof some organisms to produce and maintain their shells.
The consequences for biosphere integrity are seen at the regional
scale, as tropical coral reefs are adversely affected (Kwiatkowski etal., 2015). Thus regional forest loss in the Amazon has ramifications
that cross biomes, hemispheres and Planetary Boundary systems.

HUMAN ACTION
OCCURS AT SUCH AMAGNITUDE THATWE HAVE BECOMEA GEOLOGICALLYSIGNIFICANT FORCE,
CREATING GREATCHANGES IN CLIMATEAND BIOSPHEREINTEGRITYYSTEM CHANGESDLANThe biosphere and climate have co-evolved for nearly four billion
years (Lenton and Watson, 2011). Organisms exploit and change
their environment. Conversely, the environment constrains andnaturally selects the organisms that can live there. Large changes,
such as tectonic collisions or meteorite impacts, have propelled theEarth through different chapters that geologists describe as periods,
eras, epochs or ages. Nowadays, human action occurs at such amagnitude that we have become a geologically significant force,creating great changes in climate and biosphere integrity (Figure 31).
We initiate this both directly and indirectly by changing the sevenother subsystem Planetary Boundaries, altering their feedbacks withthe climate and biosphere systems (Arneth et al., 2010).

Figure 31: Theinterrelations
between the Planetary
Boundaries
All the Planetary Boundary
processes are interlinked asthey affect the interactions
and feedbacks between
biosphere integrity andclimate. Some of theseeffects are stronger andmore direct than others.
In turn, harm to biosphere
integrity and climatechange reduces the safe
operating space for otherprocesses (Steffen et al.,2015a).

BIOG
E
O
C
H
EMIC
A
L
F
LOW

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 62

IES
NTIT
EL E
NOV

Biosphere integrity
Biosphere integrity plays a critical role in determining the state of
the Earth system, regulating its material and energy flows and its
responses to abrupt and gradual change (Mace et al., 2014). Lenton
and Williams (2013) describe the biosphere as the totality of all
ecosystems on Earth – terrestrial, freshwater and marine – andtheir living organisms. The biosphere not only interacts with theother Planetary Boundary categories, but also maintains the overall
resilience of the Earth system.

Chapter 2: Human impacts on the planet page 63

Species diversity is a particularly important aspect of biosphere
integrity in that it helps maintain the resilience of terrestrial,
freshwater and marine ecosystems (Biggs et al., 2012; Cumming
et al., 2013). Protecting species is a way to protect the genetic code
embedded in biota. The genetic code is ultimately responsible forthe biosphere’s functional role and its capacity to innovate andpersist into the future (Mace et al., 2014).
Both genetic diversity and diversity in the functions that ecosystems
perform are important measures of biosphere integrity (Steffen etal., 2015). Robust indicators for functional diversity are still being
developed. The extinction rate of species is only a proxy for loss ofgenetic diversity until more appropriate data and indicators can beassessed (Steffen et al., 2015a).

SPECIES DIVERSITY
IS AN IMPORTANT
ASPECT OF BIOSPHEREINTEGRITY BECAUSEIT HELPS MAINTAIN
THE RESILIENCE OFECOSYSTEMSWWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 64

Changes in climate and extreme weather events already affect biodiversity across the globe.
Ecosystems are likely to undergo divergent responses to climate change dependent on theextent to which they are already degraded (IPCC, 2014b). Spatially restricted species, such as
those occurring at high altitude/latitude, are particularly vulnerable (IPCC, 2014b). There isalready evidence that the structure and dynamics of ecosystems are being redrawn as species
adapt, disperse or become locally extinct (Walther et al., 2002).
Major impacts on species already observed include:		Poleward and altitudinal range shifts. E.g. butterflies are highly sensitive toclimate, and are among groups of species which appear to be shifting theirrange in response (Parmesan et al., 2006).

Climate change
Anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions have increased since
the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population
growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmosphericconcentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide thatare unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects,
together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been
detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely tohave been the dominant cause of the observed warming since themid-20th century (IPCC, 2014a).
Growing evidence suggests that the Earth has already exceeded thePlanetary Boundary for climate change and is approaching several
thresholds in the global land and ocean environment. The loss ofArctic summer sea ice is almost a certainty within a few decades
unless strong mitigation action is taken soon (Stocker et al., 2013).
The loss of a year-round northern ice sheet is an example of a welldefined Earth system threshold (Miller et al., 2013; Stranne et al.,2014) which – if breached – would alter many physical feedback
mechanisms that play a vital role in regulating global climate. The
snow and ice of the Arctic region reflect solar energy and insulate theocean against heat loss (IPCC, 2013). Other strong feedbacks involve
sea-level rise, permafrost and changes in Arctic vegetation (Schuur
et al., 2015; Callaghan et al., 2011). Another potential tipping point
involves the deterioration of carbon sinks, such as the forests andsoils that naturally store large amounts of carbon. For example, theongoing destruction of the world’s rainforests is triggering climatecarbon cycle feedbacks that accelerate Earth’s warming and intensify
the climate impacts (Raupach et al., 2014). These kinds of abrupt
shifts in ice cover and the biosphere would take Earth into a newstate (Drijfhout et al., 2015).

How species respond to climate change		Timing and volume of rainfall and water availability becoming moreunpredictable. E.g. African elephants need up to 300 litres of water a day,just for drinking. As rainfall patterns change, both humans and wildlife arecompeting for diminishing sources of water (Mariki et al., 2015).
		Complex responses for migratory species. E.g., due to the warming of their
Arctic breeding grounds, red knot birds are becoming smaller, with smaller
bills. Their survival rates are dropping in Africa, because it is increasingly
difficult for them to reach deeply buried molluscs, their major food sourcein their overwintering grounds (Van Gils et al., 2016).

GROWING EVIDENCE
SUGGESTS THAT THE
EARTH HAS ALREADY
EXCEEDED THE
PLANETARY BOUNDARYFOR CLIMATE CHANGE

		Changes in phenology (the timing of life-cycle events). E.g., hundreds ofplant and animal species are beginning to respond to an earlier spring(Primack et al., 2009).
		Changes in community composition and abundance. E.g., predicted changes
in fish production indicate increased productivity at high latitudes anddecreased productivity at low/mid latitudes, with considerable regionalvariations (Allison et al., 2009).
Threats such as habitat destruction and overexploitation are likely to be exacerbatedby a changing climate. For example, plants and animals that might otherwise be
somewhat resilient to a changing climate may face increased exploitation in the future.
Faced with increased hardships due to changes in climate and extreme weather events,
people may take advantage of alternative natural resources to sustain themselves.
Thus the impacts on biodiversity are likely to intensify. This is a potentially severe, but
under-researched threat: most assessments of species vulnerability to climate change havefocused on direct impacts, and largely neglected indirect impacts, such as these human
responses (Pacifici et al., 2015).

A closer look at the subsystem boundaries
Exceeding the thresholds of subsystems like biogeochemical flows or
land-system change is likely to affect the well-being of many people
but it will not – by itself – signify a transition to a new Earth system
state. Nevertheless, crossing a subsystem boundary pushes theentire Earth system toward fundamental change represented by theboundaries of either biosphere integrity or climate change (Steffen
et al., 2015a).

RUNOFFDEPOSITION

Biogeochemical flows
This subsystem category emphasizes two elements – nitrogen andphosphorus – as their cycles have radically changed in response
to modern industrial and agricultural practices (Erisman et al.,2013; Carpenter and Bennett, 2011). Nitrogen deposition pollutes
fresh waters and coastal zones and accumulates in the terrestrial
biosphere (Erisman et al., 2013). Similarly, much of the phosphorus
mobilized by humans ends up in aquatic systems (Carpenter andBennett, 2011). Rivers, lakes and other water bodies can become
oxygen-starved as bacteria consume decaying blooms of algae thatgrow in response to the high nutrient supply (e.g. Rabotyagov etal., 2014). This is an example of biogeochemical changes directly
affecting biosphere integrity.
A significant amount of applied nitrogen and phosphorus makes
its way to the sea, where it pushes marine systems into higher risk
conditions. For example, the decline in marine life in the Gulf of
Mexico’s “dead zone” is the result of large quantities of nutrient
runoff into the Mississippi River and other Gulf watersheds.
Varying from year to year, the dead zone has at times stretched over
20,000km2 (Rabotyagov et al., 2014).
According to Steffen et al. (2015a) the Planetary Boundaries for both
nitrogen and phosphorus have already been breached due to humanactivity (see box).
Land-system change
All over the planet, forests, grasslands, wetlands and otherhabitats have been and continue to be converted to agriculturaland urbanized landscapes. The resulting habitat loss is a serious
driving force behind reductions in biodiversity. Land conversion
also holds consequences for water flows and for the biogeochemical
cycling of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus and other importantelements (e.g. Erisman et al., 2013). While individual incidents ofland cover change occur on a local scale, the combined results holdconsequences for Earth system processes on a global scale.
WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 66

LEACHING

Nitrogen - too much of a vital resource
The chemical element nitrogen (N) is a basic requirement for all living organisms, because it isessential for our structural growth and metabolisms. It is a key component of essential aminoacids and proteins, vitamins and DNA itself. Moreover, 78 per cent of the Earth’s atmosphereis comprised of the molecule di-nitrogen (N2). Atmospheric nitrogen is harmless because it isin a chemically stable form. Everything in nature has evolved with this background of stable
nitrogen gas in the atmosphere – that is Earth’s “normal”.

PLANETARY
BOUNDARIES FOR
BOTH NITROGEN
AND PHOSPHORUS
HAVE ALREADY BEEN
BREACHED DUE TO
HUMAN ACTIVITY

A relatively small amount of the Earth’s total nitrogen exists in reactive forms that can be usedby living organisms. When nitrogen is available in the wrong proportions compared with otheressential elements, organisms can’t thrive. In fact, the composition of much of the world’s
terrestrial biodiversity is the result of limitations in the availability of reactive nitrogen.
Under conditions with high inputs of nitrogen in natural ecosystems, often as a result ofleakage from agricultural production, faster-growing species that can rapidly assimilate N andacid-tolerant species are favoured (Erisman et al., 2013). This means ecosystems change assome species thrive more than others under different nutrient conditions. We see this in lakes:
algae blooms while larger aquatic plants die.
Modern fertilizer production and application converts more atmospheric nitrogen into reactive
forms than all of the Earth’s terrestrial processes combined. Much of this new reactive nitrogenis inadvertently released into the environment instead of being taken up by crops. So when weconvert (or “fix”) atmospheric nitrogen in large quantities outside the natural pool of reactive
nitrogen that cycles through Earth’s ecosystems, we are interfering with Earth’s normal(e.g. Sutton et al., 2013).
On a global scale, the negative consequences of human-generated nitrogen flows are becoming
ever more apparent. Numerous (often interlinked) thresholds for human and ecosystem healthhave been exceeded due to excess reactive nitrogen pollution. These include thresholds fordrinking water quality (due to nitrates) and air quality (smog, particulate matter, ground-levelozone). Eutrophication of freshwater and coastal ecosystems (dead zones), climate change andstratospheric ozone depletion are additional consequences of the human-modified reactive
nitrogen cycle. Each of these environmental effects can be magnified by a “nitrogen cascade”
whereby a single molecule of reactive nitrogen triggers a sequence of negative environmental
impacts through time and space (Erisman et al., 2015).

A boundary for human changes to land systems needs to reflect notjust the absolute quantity of land, but also its function, quality andspatial distribution (Steffen et al., 2015a). Forests play a particularly
important role in controlling the linked dynamics of land use andclimate, so they are the focus of the boundary for land-systemchange (Steffen et al., 2015a; Snyder et al., 2004). Steffen et al.
(2015a) indicate that the boundary for land-system change has
been exceeded.

THE PLANETARY
BOUNDARY FOR LANDSYSTEM CHANGE HAS
BEEN EXCEEDEDFreshwater use
Humans have substantially disrupted hydrological systems throughrising consumptive use and impoundment of water (Vörörsmartyand Sahagian, 2000). As a result, streams, wetlands and lakes havedried (Vörösmarty et al., 2010; Davidson, 2014; Jiménez Cisneros etal., 2014); regional atmospheric vapour flows have shifted (Nobre,2014); and river levels have changed due to increased reservoir
storage (Reager et al., 2016; Gornitz, 2000). Changing the water
cycle affects both the climate and the biosphere. Some scientists
have therefore proposed a Planetary Boundary based on total
consumptive freshwater use (Steffen et al., 2015).
However, putting this proposed global boundary on freshwater
use into practice raises many issues. Water resources are unevenly
distributed across the Earth. The same volume of consumptive water
use can have significantly different ecosystem impacts in arid basinsthan in humid ones. The timing of river flows and water use is also
critical to freshwater ecosystem health; the impact of the same
volume of water abstraction in a low flow season can be far greaterthan in a high flow season (Weiskel et al., 2014). It is difficult to takeaccount of these spatial and temporal factors in a planetary-scaleboundary. Yet it is obvious we need to give careful thought to water
management at all scales as water resources and freshwater habitats
globally are currently exploited beyond sustainable limits.
Ocean acidification
As with climate change, the cause of ocean acidification is increased
atmospheric CO2. Around a quarter of the CO2 that humans release
into the atmosphere is ultimately dissolved into the oceans (Heinze
et al., 2015). This slows the planet’s warming. However in the ocean
it forms carbonic acid, altering ocean chemistry and decreasing thepH (acidity) of the surface water. Surface ocean acidity has alreadyincreased by 30 per cent since pre-industrial times (Royal Society,2005). Beyond a threshold concentration, this rising acidity makes
it hard for organisms such as corals, some shellfish and plankton
species to grow and survive (e.g. Wittman and Pörtner, 2013).

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 68

CHANGING THE WATERCYCLE AFFECTS BOTH
THE CLIMATE AND THE
BIOSPHERE

Loss of these species would change the structure and dynamics ofocean ecosystems and could potentially lead to drastic reductions infish stocks (CBD, 2014b; Gattuso and Hansson, 2011).

RISING OCEAN ACIDITY
MAKES IT HARD FOR
ORGANISMS SUCH
AS CORALS, SOMESHELLFISH AND
PLANKTON SPECIES TOGROW AND SURVIVE

Furthermore, changes in ocean acidity may in turn affect climate, byaltering the way that marine life cycles carbon and contributes to its
burial in deep ocean sediments, and by changing the emissions ofbiogenic climate-active gases (Reid et al., 2009; Yool et al., 2013; Sixet al., 2013; Kroeker et al., 2013; Gattuso et al., 2015). The Planetary
Boundary for ocean acidification is defined with reference to thischemical threshold, yet it is closely linked to both climate change
and biosphere integrity boundaries. Large-scale spatial patterns ofacidification are already evident (Steffen et al. 2015a), but better
ocean monitoring is still needed to track chemical changes andecosystem responses (Hyde et al., 2013).
Stratospheric ozone depletion
The stratospheric ozone layer is critical in that it filters out
ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun. If this layer is diminished,increasing amounts of UV radiation will reach the Earth’s surface.
This would undoubtedly cause a higher incidence of skin cancer,
cataracts and immune system disorders in humans and would
inflict harm on terrestrial and marine biological systems as well(e.g. WHO/UNEP, 1994). The Antarctic ozone hole appeared
when increased concentrations of anthropogenic ozone-depletingchemical substances, interacting with polar stratospheric clouds,
passed a certain threshold and tipped the Antarctic stratosphere
into a new regime (British Antarctic Survey, 2016). The Montreal
Protocol, which came into force in 1989, initiated worldwide action
to prevent our crossing into a higher-risk zone.
Novel entities
Emissions of toxic and long-lived synthetic substances such asorganic pollutants, heavy metal compounds and radioactive
materials create considerable risk to the Earth system. These
compounds can have potentially irreversible effects on livingorganisms and on the physical environment. Depending on thesituation, absorption and bioaccumulation of chemical pollution
may or may not be lethal; but other effects – including reduced
fertility and the potential of permanent genetic damage – can harm
ecosystems far from the pollution source. For example, persistentorganic compounds have caused dramatic reductions in bird
populations and impaired reproduction and development in marine
mammals. There are many examples of additive and synergic
effects from these compounds, but these are still poorly understoodscientifically (see box).
Chapter 2: Human impacts on the planet page 69

At present, scientists are unable to quantify a single chemical
pollution boundary, but the nature of the risks are understoodto the degree that novel entities have been included as aPlanetary Boundaries category. In itself, this signals the need forprecautionary action and further research (Persson et al., 2013).
Chemical pollution by plastic waste
The environmental fate of plastic is emerging as a serious
anthropogenic disturbance to the Earth system. Plastics were firstmanufactured in large quantities in the mid-20th century, andrapidly became indispensable to modern society. By the 1970s,
concern was growing over the quantity of plastic waste, and inparticular the microplastic debris reaching the ocean. This concern
has increased sharply in recent years, as evidence mounts thatplastic waste has become a global, ecologically systemic problem.
The current state of knowledge on the sources, fate and effects of
microplastics in the marine environment has been assessed by agroup of experts (GESAMP, 2015).
Knowledge about the ecological effects of plastic waste is still
incomplete, yet it is already clear that both direct and indirect
effects are damaging. Organisms that consume or become
entrapped in plastic waste are harmed and often die. Chemical
substances can become concentrated on plastic surfaces, especiallyon microparticles which have a high surface-area-to-volume ratio.
Microparticles can also serve as physical catalysts for new
chemical reactions.
Although evidence for the exact environmental pathway is still
fragmented, the capacity of plastic to concentrate chemical
substances has led to the concern that harmful substances could
accumulate at higher trophic levels (Rochman et al., 2013). It isa global problem since there are high concentrations of plastic
debris found almost everywhere in the world. Finally, the effects
are essentially irreversible. Therefore, there is plenty of evidence
that marine plastic debris meets the requirements for becoming
a chemical pollution Planetary Boundary category (as argued by
Persson et al., 2013).
Atmospheric aerosol loading
Aerosols are microscopic particles or droplets suspended in theatmosphere. Humans alter aerosol concentrations by emitting
atmospheric pollution, as many pollutant gases condense into
droplets and particles. Further, land-use change increases therelease of dust and smoke into the air (Brasseur et al., 2003).
WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 70

Aerosols affect climate by changing how much solar radiation isreflected or absorbed by the atmosphere (Boucher et al., 2013).
Aerosols also play a critically important role in the global water
cycle, because they interact with water vapour.
They provide a surface for various chemical reactions that would
not otherwise occur (Andreae and Crutzen, 1997; Boucher et al.,2013). Because of these properties, aerosols affect cloud formation
and regional weather patterns, such as the monsoon systems intropical regions (e.g. Ramanathan et al., 2005). Efforts in defining
a Planetary Boundary for atmospheric aerosol loading have focusedon the physical changes to regional climate (Steffen et al., 2015a),but the complex interactions with the biosphere suggest that there
is no single quantitative boundary.

EVIDENCE MOUNTSTHAT PLASTIC WASTE
HAS BECOME A
GLOBAL, ECOLOGICALLYSYSTEMIC PROBLEM

Practical implications of Planetary Boundaries
WE CANNOT TACKLEJUST ONE BOUNDARYWITHOUT ADDRESSINGTHE OTHERS. CHANGESIN THE PLANETARY
BOUNDARIES ARE NOTISOLATED FROM ONE
ANOTHER BUT CAN IN
FACT REINFORCE
EACH OTHER.

Only recently have we recognized planetary-level processes that
affect the resilience and adaptive capacity of Earth. Scientists
are still compiling and debating evidence on the dynamics
and feedbacks of the Earth system, and the scope and natureof sustainable human activity. But even without full scientificunderstanding of these thresholds, the Planetary Boundaries
concept is useful for framing our current understanding of potential
tipping points and underlines the importance of applying the
precautionary principle in the management of natural systems.
Many researchers already point out that determining andrespecting Planetary Boundaries could greatly reduce the risk that
the Anthropocene will become inhospitable to life as we know it(Brandi, 2015; Griggs et al., 2013; MacLeod et al., 2014; Steffen andStafford Smith, 2013).
The next challenge is to complement the Planetary Boundaries
thinking with current and hard data on the state of these boundaries
and their human drivers. Even as we continue to home in on thequantification of these boundaries, one thing is clear: we cannot
tackle just one boundary without addressing the others. Changes
in the Planetary Boundaries are not isolated from one another but
can in fact reinforce each other. If we seek to fix climate change byremoving CO2 from the atmosphere through new technologies, but
fail to consider the role of land-system change, biogeochemical flows
and the other subsystems on the integrity of the biosphere, we cannot
chart a sustainable course through the Anthropocene. Furthermore,
finding better ways to translate the concept and global data into
practical tools for decision makers will become increasingly critical.

Chapter 2: Human impacts on the planet page 71

To date, 328 cities from 26 countries on five continents havedemonstrated climate leadership in WWF’s Earth Hour City
Challenge by publicly reporting their commitments and actions
toward a sustainable future based on 100 per cent renewableenergy. Seoul was elected the winner of this global challenge
in 2015. The South Korean capital has taken a comprehensive
approach to tackling climate change by moving away from fossil
fuels and nuclear energy through massive investment in renewableenergy, energy efficiency, and by engaging the public to participate
in this transition.
The first phase of the city’s One Less Nuclear Power Plant
programme set and achieved the goal of reducing the city’s energy
consumption from external sources by 2 million tonnes of oil
equivalent, roughly comparable to the energy production of a nuclear
plant with 2-3 reactors. It did this in less than three years throughheavy investments in energy efficiency and local renewables. Actions
included investments in hydrogen cells, waste heat, geothermalenergy, energy caps for new buildings, building retrofit programmes,
replacing 8 million light bulbs with high efficient LEDs, eco-friendly
transportation and solar PV – including the Sunlight City project,which involved installing rooftop solar panels on about 10,000
buildings, for a total capacity of 320 MW. The city also built solar
power stations with a combined capacity of 30 MW in spaces suchas sewage facilities and parking lots.
These actions replaced oil imports worth US$1.5 billion, and created
34,000 green jobs. The programme has also pioneered active citizen
participation in energy savings, which accounted for 40 per cent of
total reductions. Most of this saving came through the Eco-Mileage
programme, which rewards people for saving energy with points
that they can use to purchase eco-friendly products or to receive
financial support for retrofitting buildings. Since 2009 this programme
has more than tripled in size to over 1.7 million participants – almost
half of the city’s households. Much of Seoul’s success can be
attributed to the visionary leadership of Mayor Park Won-Soon, aformer human rights lawyer, civic activist and social designer, who
has made collaborative governance and innovation the two mainprinciples of the city administration.
(Source: WWF, 2015b)© ICLEI e.V. 2015

SEOUL CLIMATE LEADERSHIPOne way to track human demand for renewable resources andecological services is with accounting tools known as footprint
indicators. Footprint indicators can help illustrate the humanenvironment relationship through micro- and macroeconomic
systems. The resulting understanding of social and economic
drivers, and their environmental impacts, can guide decisionmaking in support of sustainability. There are several footprintaccounts available and more in development. They have beenused to gauge the appropriation of carbon, water, land, materials,
nitrogen, biodiversity and other resources (Galli et al., 2012;
Galli, 2015a). Among them, the Ecological Footprint – used inthis report – is probably the most known and used.

Ecological Footprint of consumption
The general intent of the Ecological Footprint is to compare actual
human consumption of renewable resources and ecological services
against nature’s supply of such resources and services (Wackernagel
and Rees, 1996). It does this by estimating the biologically
productive land and water surfaces required to supply the goods
and services we use and then compares that with the area thatexists – the Earth’s biocapacity – using global hectares as the unitof measurement. Biocapacity functions as an ecological benchmark
against which we can gauge the demand that human activities placeon ecosystems (Galli et al., 2014; Wackernagel et al., 2014;
Lin et al., 2015).
As with any metric, the Ecological Footprint uses just one lens– biocapacity – to track the human dependence on complex andinterdependent environmental systems. It does not address allenvironmental pressures and consequences that are related tohuman consumption, such as pollution and loss of habitat (see Galliet al., 2012). Rather it provides insight on a minimum condition
for sustainability: whether or not human consumption activities fit
within the biological threshold defined by the Earth’s biocapacity(Lin et al., 2015).

SINCE THE EARLY
1970S, HUMANITY
HAS BEEN DEMANDING
MORE FROM THE
PLANET THAN IT
CAN RENEW

Figure 32: Global
Ecological Footprint bycomponent vs Earth’s
biocapacity, 1961-2012
Carbon is the dominantcomponent of humanity’s
Ecological Footprint(ranging from 43 per centin 1961 to 60 per cent in2012). It is the largest
Footprint component at the
global level as well as for
145 of the 233 countries andterritories tracked in 2012.
Its primary cause has been
the burning of fossil fuels– coal, oil and natural gas.
The green line represents
the Earth’s capacity to
produce resources andecological services(i.e., the biocapacity). It
has been upward trending
slightly, mainly due toincreased productivities
in agriculture (Global
Footprint Network, 2016).
Data are given in global
hectares (gha).
Key
CarbonFishing grounds
Cropland
Built-up land

Since the early 1970s, humanity has been demanding more fromthe planet than it can renew (Figure 32). By 2012, the biocapacity
equivalent of 1.6 Earths was needed to provide the natural resources
and services humanity consumed in that year (Global Footprint
Network, 2016). Exceeding the Earth’s biocapacity is possible onlyin the short term. Only for a brief period can we cut trees fasterthan they mature, harvest more fish than the oceans can replenish,
or emit more carbon into the atmosphere than the forests andoceans can absorb. The consequences of “overshoot” are alreadyclear: habitat and species loss, and accumulation of carbon in theatmosphere (Tittensor et al., 2014; UNEP, 2012).
20

Billions global hectares (gha)

MEASURING HUMAN PRESSURES

100World biocapacity

1961

1970

1980

1990

2000

2012

Even as the consequences of human pressure on the environment
are increasingly acknowledged and observed, there has yet to be arational economic response. According to Ecological Footprint datafrom the past four decades, the few marked reductions in the total
global Ecological Footprint do not correspond to intentional policies
to limit human impact on nature. Rather they were temporaryconsequences of major economic crises, such as the 1973 oil crisis,
the deep economic recession in the USA and many of the OECD
countries during 1980-1982 and the 2008-2009 global economic
recession. These reductions in total Ecological Footprint were only
temporary and were followed by a rapid return of the Ecological
Footprint to an upward climb (Galli et al., 2015). Similar patterns
are found in several studies on global carbon emissions (Peters etal., 2011, 2012).

Forest products
Grazing land

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 74

Chapter 2: Human impacts on the planet page 75

Exploring the Ecological Footprint of Consumption
The Ecological Footprint equates humanity’s demand on nature to the amount of biologically
productive area required to provide resources and absorb waste (currently just carbon
dioxide from fossil fuel, land-use change and cement). It considers six demand categories:

Figure 33: Land use
categories comprising
the Ecological
Footprint

CROPLAND FOOTPRINT

refers to the demand for land on which to produce food and fibrefor human consumption, feed for livestock, oil crops and rubber.

GRAZING LAND FOOTPRINT

refers to the demand for rangelands to raise livestock for meat,
dairy, leather and wool products.

FISHING GROUNDS FOOTPRINT

refers to the demand for marine and inland water ecosystems
necessary to generate the annual primary production(i.e., phytoplankton) required to support seafood catch aswell as aquaculture.

FOREST PRODUCT FOOTPRINT

refers to the demand for forests to provide fuel wood, pulp andtimber products.

BUILT-UP LAND FOOTPRINT

refers to the demand for biologically productive areas needed forinfrastructure, including transportation, housing and industrial
structures.

CARBON FOOTPRINT

refers to the demand for forests as the primary ecosystems available
to long-term sequester carbon not otherwise absorbed by the oceans.
It captures different rates of carbon sequestration depending on
the degree of human management of forests and the type and age
of forests, and includes the emissions related to forest wildfires, soil
and harvested wood (see Mancini et al., 2016).

Biocapacity is a measure of the existing biologically productive area capable ofregenerating natural resources in the form of food, fibre and timber, and of providing
carbon dioxide sequestration. It is measured in relation to five categories of use: cropland,grazing land, fishing grounds, forest land, and built-up land. Together, these satisfy humandemand in the six Footprint categories. This is because forest land satisfies two demand
categories: forest products and carbon sequestration (Wackernagel et al., 2014; Mancini etal., 2016). Biocapacity can change from year to year due to climate, ecosystem management,changing soil conditions and agricultural inputs. Most of the biocapacity increase that
the Earth has experienced in the last five decades comes from increasingly intensive
agricultural practices.
Both Ecological Footprint and biocapacity are expressed in a productivity-adjusted hectareequivalent unit called a global hectare (gha). One gha represents a biologically productive
hectare with world-average productivity (Galli, 2015b). Conversion from actual land areas toglobal hectares is performed by means of yield factors and equivalence factors. Yield factors
are country-specific and equivalence factors represent a global average, but both values
vary by land use and by year (Borucke et al., 2013). By translating to global hectares, highly
productive areas (like tropical forests) and low productivity areas (like alpine deserts)
are normalized. According to these accounts, in 2012, the Earth’s total biocapacity
was 12.2 billion gha, or 1.7 gha per person, while humanity’s Ecological Footprint was
20.1 billion gha, or 2.8 gha per person.

Mapping the Ecological Footprint of consumption
Average per capita Ecological Footprints vary among countries
due to varying levels of total consumption, and also according todifferent relative demands for each Footprint component. They
include the quantity of goods and services residents consume,natural resources used, and carbon generated to provide these goods
and services. Figure 34 shows the average Ecological Footprint perperson per country in 2012.

Among countries with highest per capita Ecological Footprints,
the carbon Footprint component is particularly high due to bothfossil fuels consumption and the use of energy-intensive goods.
Per capita Ecological Footprints of several countries are as muchas six times larger than the available per capita share of global
biocapacity (1.7 gha). This implies that residents of these countries
are placing disproportionate pressure on nature as they appropriate
more than their fair share of the Earth’s resources. At the other endof the scale, some of the world’s lowest-income countries have percapita Ecological Footprints that are less than half the per capita
biocapacity available globally, as many people in these countries
struggle to meet basic needs.

Figure 34: Average
Ecological Footprint in global
hectares per person per country,
in 2012Global map of national Ecological
Footprint per person in 2012. Resultsfor Norway and Burundi refer to year
2011 due to missing input data foryear 2012 (Global Footprint Network,2016). Data are given in global
hectares (gha).
Key< 1.75 gha
1.75 - 3.5 gha
3.5 - 5.25 gha
5.25 - 7 gha> 7 ghaInsufficient data

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 78

Chapter 2: Human impacts on the planet page 79

The Ecological Footprint per income level

Patterns of consumption per income level

Grouping Ecological Footprints by national income level reveals
the inequality in national demand for renewable resources andecological services – as well as indicating how such inequality haschanged over time (Figure 35). During the period 1961-2012,
the average per capita Ecological Footprint increased from 5 gha
to 6.2 gha, with a peak of 6.6 gha in 1985, in high-income countries;
increased from 1.4 to 2.3 gha per capita in middle-income countries;
and remained almost flat (at approximately 1 gha per capita) in
low-income countries. The per capita Ecological Footprint for
high-income countries in 2012 is lower than in 1985. Although
there are quite some differences across this group of countries, theoverall decline appears to be due to the effects of the economic crisis
initiated in 2007-2008.
7

1985

2012

Global hectares (gha) per capita

6
5

1961

Figure 35: Per capita
average Ecological
Footprint for high-,
middle- and lowincome countries,
by demand category,in 1961, 1985 and 2012
World countries aregrouped in income groups
according to relative GDP
values in 2016. The WorldBank classification is used
here, grouping countries as1) high income (per capita
gross national income isequal toUS$10,066 per year
or higher), 2) middle income(per capita gross national
income is between US$826
and US$10,065) and 3) low
income (per capita grossnational income is below
US$825). Data are given inglobal hectares (gha).

Not only does overall demand for biocapacity vary by country, patterns of consumption
vary as well (Figure 36). In low-income countries like Tanzania, for example, 94 per cent of
the Ecological Footprint is determined by food and housing demand. As disposable income
rises, consumption increases beyond basic needs, and categories such as mobility, goods andservices account for a larger share of the population’s Ecological Footprint, as is the casefor the USA.

15%

Fishing grounds
Cropland

1961
1961

1

1985

2012

Built-up land
Forest products
Grazing land0High Income

Middle Income

Low Income

Moreover, Figure 35 seems to illustrate that, irrespective of theincome level, countries are following – although at a different pace –a similar development pattern, characterized by a shift from agrarian(biomass-based) to industrialized (fossil-fuel-based) economies. In
high-income countries, the carbon share of the Ecological Footprint
grew, while its biomass-based share (i.e., the sum of cropland,grazing land, forest and fishing ground Footprints) decreased. The
same patterns can be observed for middle-income countries. But in
low-income countries, biomass-based components still represented
the main Footprint share in 2012 although the underlying factors
changed over time: the share of the cropland Footprint increased,
while the share of forest and grazing land decreased. There was also
an increase in the share of the carbon Footprint.
WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 80

16%

24%

26%

27%
Germany

11%

8%
35%

15%

United States of America
Carbon

1985

2

25%
28%

Key
2012

18%

14%

4
3

7%

2% 3%1%
20%

10%

74%

Tanzania

5%

31%
China

17%

51%
17%
Argentina

Figure 36: Ecological
Footprint breakdown
by consumption
activities for selected
countries, in 2012
This series of pie charts
indicate the contribution(in percentage values)
from main categories ofconsumption (e.g., food,housing, transportation,etc) to USA, Germany,
Argentina, Tanzania
and China total national
Ecological Footprint(Global Footprint
Network, 2016).
The size of the pie
charts is relative to thesize of the per capita
Ecological Footprint ofeach country’s average
resident.
Key
Food
Housing
Mobility
Goods
Services

Even among countries whose populations have similar Ecological Footprint levels,
underlying consumption patterns may differ. China and Argentina, for example, have
Ecological Footprints per capita of 3.4 gha and 3.1 gha, respectively. In Argentina, due
to high levels of meat consumption, food accounts for slightly more than half of the total
Footprint, while in China food only accounts for a third. Consumption related to housing,on the other hand, accounts for a far larger share of the Ecological Footprint in China thanit does in Argentina. This is likely due to China’s greater reliance on fossil fuels (e.g. coal)for heating (Chen et al., 2007; Hubacek et al., 2007). While both countries’ populations
place roughly equivalent pressures on the environment to fulfil their consumption, theconsumption activities and therefore the drivers of demand vary greatly. Their respective
Ecological Footprint profiles would steer policymakers wishing to address their countries’
consumption of renewable resources and services toward different areas for interventions –food vs. housing, for instance.

Mapping biocapacity

Projecting the Ecological Footprint

Just as human demand on nature varies among countries, nature’s
capacity to provide goods and services, or biocapacity, is unevenly
distributed (Figure 37). Brazil, China, the United States, Russia
and India account for nearly half of the planet’s total biocapacity.
These few countries function as global biocapacity hubs as they areamong the primary exporters of resources to the other countries.
This results in great pressure on ecosystems in these countries,
undoubtedly contributing to habitat loss. This is an example wherepressure is driven by consumption activities in other, distantcountries (Galli et al., 2014; Lazarus et al., 2015). To achieve global
sustainability in the sense of living equitably within one planet will
require that we recognize our societies’ ecological interdependence
and interconnectedness and become more receptive to global
and interregional resource management agreements and policies(Kissinger et al., 2011; Rees, 2010).

Figure 38 shows the historical trends of humanity’s Ecological
Footprint and biocapacity, expressed in global hectares of
bioproductive land respectively required and available, from 1961
to the latest calculated year (2012), as well as projected trends up
to 2020. Since entering in a global overshoot situation in 1971,
humanity’s demand for the Earth’s regenerative capacity has
steadily increased.

Key< 10 million gha
10 - 25 million gha
25 - 500 million gha> 500 million gha
Insufficient data

Key
Ecological Footprint
Confidence limits

Under a business-as-usual path for the underlying drivers ofresource consumption, assuming current population and income
trends remain constant, human demand on the Earth’s regenerative
capacity is projected to continue growing steadily and to exceed
such capacity by about 75 per cent by 2020. Changing this course by
design will require considerable shifts in technology, infrastructure
and behaviour, in order to support less resource-intensive
production and lifestyles (see for instance Moore et al., 2012).

25

Billions global hectares (gha)Figure 37: Total
Biocapacity per
country, in 2012
Results for Norway and
Burundi refer to year
2011 due to missing input
data for year 2012 (Global
Footprint Network, 2016).
Data are given in global
hectares (gha).

Figure 38: Global
Ecological Footprint
trends for 19612012 and statisticalextrapolation for2013-2020
The red line represents
humanity’s Ecological
Footprint while the green
line represents the Earth’s
biocapacity. The shaded
areas represent 95 percent statistical confidencebounds for the modelled
extrapolations (basedon an ARMA model fit see Petris, et al., 2009).
Extrapolation assumes
that underlying processes
remain constant (Global
Footprint Network, 2016).
Data are given in global
hectares (gha).

20

15

10

5

Biocapacity
Confidence limits

0
1961

1966

1971

1976

1981

1986

1991

1996

2001

2006

2011

2016

2021

UNDER A BUSINESS-AS-USUAL PATH HUMAN DEMAND ON
THE EARTH’S REGENERATIVE CAPACITY IS PROJECTEDTO CONTINUE GROWING STEADILY AND TO EXCEED SUCH
CAPACITY BY ABOUT 75 PER CENT BY 2020

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 82

Chapter 2: Human impacts on the planet page 83

Linking consumption to production:
the case of soy
Footprint indicators – such as the Ecological Footprint – provide
a picture of overall resource use. To look deeper into the natureof production-related impacts on the environment, it is necessary
to obtain additional information on the location of production,
production processes used, their reliance on external inputs (suchas water and fertilizers) and so on (e.g. Croft et al., 2014; Vanden Bergh and Grazi, 2014; 2015). Even moderate advances indisaggregating links between consumption and production have thepotential to offer significant insights into supply chain dependencies
and drivers of impact.
Global production of soybean has increased rapidly over the lasthalf-century – reaching 278 million tonnes in 2013 according to
FAO statistics (FAO, 2015). This increase is driven in significant partby growing demand for meat products, as one of the main uses ofsoybeans is as livestock feed. Expansion of soybean production has
been associated with extensive land-use change and deforestationin biologically-important habitats, such as the Brazilian Cerrado(Gibbs et al., 2015).

EXPANSION OF
SOYBEAN PRODUCTION
HAS BEEN ASSOCIATED
WITH EXTENSIVELAND-USE CHANGE
AND DEFORESTATION
IN BIOLOGICALLYIMPORTANT HABITATS,
SUCH AS THE
BRAZILIAN CERRADO

Figure 39: Brazilian state-levelproduction of soybean and proportionof total state soybean production due
to EU demanda) 2011 Brazilian state-level production ofsoybean (tonnes) driven by EU28 consumptionof goods and services, accounting for
direct and embedded purchases.
b) Proportion of total state soybean
production due to EU demand.
National average is 0.21.
Source: West et al., 2013 and Godaret al., 2015; state-level production
data sourced from Brazilian Instituteof Geography and Statistics (IBGE, 2016).
Work is in progress to develop these methods toprovide finer-scale, municipality-level results.

MATO GROSSO

State production due toState production
toEUduedemand(tonnes)
EU demand (tonnes).
Key

No production
1 -50,000
No production 50,000 - 500,000
500,000 - 1,000,000
1 - 50,000
1,000,000 - 2,500,000
50,000 - 500,000
2,500,000 - 5,000,000
500,000 - 1,000,000
1,000,000 - 2,500,000
2,500,000 - 5,000,000

Figure 39 quantifies Brazilian state-level production of soybean
to fulfil demand for goods and services in the European Union –capturing important sources of demand such as use within animal
feed. There are regional differences in production levels andproduction drivers. For example, Mato Grosso state in the centre-westof Brazil is the largest producer for EU consumption, but in the easternstate of Bahia – also a significant producer – a higher proportion of
total production is destined for EU consumption. Both states contain
important Cerrado habitat at risk from agricultural expansion.
Ongoing incorporation of fine-scale production data, such as
municipality-level statistics (Godar et al. 2015), is increasing the
spatial resolution of consumption-based approaches. Additionally,
techniques are being developed to assess supply chain-driven
impacts on biodiversity in key areas of conservation concern (e.g.
Lenzen et al., 2012; Moran et al., 2016; Chaudhary and Kastner,2016). In combination, these approaches have the potential to
improve understanding of the cause-effect relationships between
consumption activities and biodiversity loss. Alongside aggregate
footprint indicators, they could represent a significant step forward
in informing decision-makers and supporting their interventions tocounter the negative impacts of consumption.
WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 84

BAHIA

MATO GROSSO

BAHIA

Proportion of total
state production due to EU
demandProportion of total
state production due
to EU demand.
Key

No production
0.03 - 0.10
0.10 - 0.20
0.20 - 0.30
0.30 - 0.40

No production
0.03 - 0.10
0.10 - 0.20
0.20 - 0.30
0.30 - 0.40
0.40 - 0.53

0.40 - 0.53

Chapter 2: Human impacts on the planet page 85

4. Europe’s livestock relies on soyfrom the Cerrado
Europe’s intensive livestock sector relies on soy,
most of it imported from South America, to meetdemand for meat and dairy products. Demand for soy
within the EU uses an area of 13 million hectares inSouth America, out of a total of 46 million hectaresof soy production. This is equivalent to 90 per centof Germany’s entire agricultural area. The main
European importers of soy are countries with large
industrial-scale pig and chicken production. Under
European agricultural policy, tariffs on animal feed
are lower than for many other agricultural products,
so soy meal is a relatively cheap import. European
soybean imports also surged after the World Trade
Organization was formed in 1995, removing many
restrictions on international trade. European imports
from South America may increase in the future. The
increase in support for the production of biofuelsis also a factor in soy imports into Europe as is theabandonment of local protein and legume production
by European farmers.
(source: WWF-Brazil; WWF, 2014)© Tom van Limpt - Hollandse Hoogte - laif

THE STORY OF SOYCHAPTER 3:
EXPLORING ROOT CAUSES

Problem-solving in a complex world

TOWARD SYSTEMS THINKING
It is clear that we need to steer the course of socio-economic
development onto a pathway that does not conflict with the welfareof people and the biosphere. But the increased risk associated withexceeding Planetary Boundaries, the upward trend in consumption
footprints, and the continuous declining Living Planet Indices,
signal that efforts directed at sustainability have been far from
sufficient. So how can we begin to affect development in a way thatwill make essential changes at a relevant magnitude?
A prerequisite for affecting significant change in human systems
is to understand the nature of the decision-making that results inenvironmental, social and ecological degradation. The industries,
organizations and individuals who directly utilize natural resources,
the end users of what is produced – as well as all the multiple
entities in between – make choices based on a complex set ofsignals. They respond to market prices and other information
to make decisions within the constraints of their physical,
socio-economic and legal environments. These environments
are themselves shaped by less apparent phenomena, including
unsustainable consumption patterns, destructive production
practices, malfunctioning governance structures, and financial
systems that prioritize short-term returns (Macfadyen et al.,2015; Konefal et al., 2005; Dallas, 2012; Schor, 2005). All of theseelements form a multi-level framework that shapes the behaviourof individuals, and vice versa. Trillions of decisions and actions takeplace within this systemic framework every day, resulting in both
visible and invisible impacts on society and the Earth system.

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 88

A PREREQUISITEFOR AFFECTINGSIGNIFICANT CHANGE
IN HUMAN SYSTEMSIS TO UNDERSTAND
THE NATURE OF THE
DECISION-MAKING
THAT RESULTS IN
ENVIRONMENTAL,
SOCIAL AND
ECOLOGICALDEGRADATION.

IN SPITE OF THE
COMPLEXITY,WE OFTEN TURNTO SUPERFICIALSOLUTIONS WHEN
TRYING TO SOLVECOMPLEX PROBLEMSIn spite of the multi-layered complexity that defines the humanexperience, we often turn to superficial solutions when trying tosolve complex problems (Hjorth and Bagheri, 2006). For example,
say we are trying to solve a problem like traffic congestion. The
initial response is likely to be to build more roads. Building newroads will possibly destroy habitats or lead to other impacts during
construction, but the new roads will have a far less obvious effect;
making driving more convenient attracts more people to driving,which will increase CO2 emissions. More roads will also probably
result in more loss of life since more cars means more accidents.
Thus the resulting situation may even be worse than the originalissue, while the rebound effect of increasing traffic flows may meanthat congestion may not even be reduced in the long run.

FINDING SOLUTIONSREQUIRES A
MUCH DEEPER
UNDERSTANDING OF
PRESSURES, DRIVERS,
ROOT CAUSES AND THE
BASIC DYNAMICSOF SYSTEMS

Instead, the envisioning of complex problems and implementationof solutions requires a much deeper understanding of pressures,
drivers, root causes and the basic dynamics of systems. For theexamples above perhaps we should be asking why so many people
like or need to drive? How can we design cities so that driving is lessnecessary? What are the alternative forms of transportation that canbe made more attractive and convenient? How can we get people totry these alternative forms of transport? System thinking can help
us ask the right questions by examining complex problems layer bylayer and then analysing the connections between these layers.

The four levels of thinking model
Systems thinking provides a set of conceptual and analyticalmethods used for modelling and decision-making. It represents arigorous yet flexible way to facilitate thinking, visualizing, sharing,and communication of change in complex organisations andorganizational decision-making over time (Wolstenholme 1997 in
Cavana and Maani, 2000).
A common tool used in systems thinking is the “four levels of
thinking” model. This model is designed to break a problem down
into four levels so that we can more easily define the root causes
and the basic dynamics of the system (Maani and Cavana, 2007).
More specifically, the model teases out the hierarchical relationshipbetween events or symptoms, patterns or behaviours, systemic
structures, and mental models.

Chapter 3: Exploring root causes page 89

In Figure 40, events represent only the “tip of the iceberg”
phenomena within a system. Because events are tangible or visible
and immediate, most policy discussion and problem-solving
interventions occur at this level. But when addressing events we aretreating symptoms but not the source of the problem. By applying
the four levels of thinking it becomes clear why tip-of-the-iceberg
solutions may not have long-lasting effects. If the issue has deeproots within our socio-economic system, it will simply re-emerge at
different times or in different places.

The third level of thinking uncovers systemic structures, which are
the political, social, biophysical or economic structures that define
the way different elements in the system can behave and interact.
It is at this level that we truly begin to understand the causal
relationships between events and various actors within the system.
One of these systemic structures is the prevailing economic model.
Our economy is the emergent result of our collective behaviour,
beliefs and values.
The global economic growth generated through our current
economic system has reduced poverty and given rise to significant
improvements in standards of living (World Bank, 2013). However,this GDP-growth-focused economic model has led to severe wealthinequality as well as culturally entrenched aspirations for material
consumption. It has encouraged growth well beyond our basic needs
and beyond what can be supported by the carrying capacity of asingle Earth (Hoekstra and Wiedmann, 2014).

EVENTSAt the fourth and deepest level of thinking are the mental models
of individuals and organizations that reflect the beliefs, values
and assumptions that we personally hold. They are often hidden
beneath a surface of rationalization for acting in a particular way(Maani and Cavana, 2007). Mental models – which can vary acrosscultures – are rarely taken into account in decision-making (Nguyen
and Bosch, 2013). However, belief systems – “we need to get richer
in order to be happier”, “people are poor because they don’t try
hard enough” – significantly affect all layers above. They influence
the design of system structures, the guidelines and incentives thatgovern behaviours, and ultimately, the individual events that makeup the flow of daily life.

PATTERNSSYSTEMIC STRUCTURESMENTAL MODELSThe second level of thinking concerns the patterns that emerge
when a set of events repeatedly occurs to form recognizable
behaviours or outcomes. Single events can range in magnitude froman individual choice about what to buy in the supermarket, to theperiodic occurrence of a large hurricane. Only when these eventsare grouped together and arranged on a timeline can we see thebigger pattern forming from the choices of many individuals in the
supermarket – or from the frequency, magnitude and locations ofhurricanes. For instance, by grouping individual hurricane events
over time, we have observed that large hurricanes (single events)
have been increasing in both frequency and intensity, creating a
detectable shift in weather patterns, due at least in part to climatechange (Holland and Bruyere, 2014). Once we see a pattern or
trend, we can extrapolate what future events might occur.

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 90

Figure 40: An
illustration of the“four levels of thinking”
model
showing that events or
symptoms are only the tipof the iceberg in the overall
dynamics of a system.
Meanwhile the underlying
determinants of thesystem’s behaviour are lessapparent. The deeper we go
below the surface events,
the closer we get toward“root causes”. Adapted from
Maani and Cavana (2007).

After we have considered and analysed all four levels, we are ina position to identify points of leverage. For instance, individual
consumers can change their purchasing behaviour, or people withgreater political or economic influence can formulate strategies forpolicy change. Though more difficult, it is also possible to change
the mental models upon which the structures, patterns and events
are based. Certain types of activities will have greater impact andinfluence than others. To understand where each of us has thegreatest leverage to lead toward a systemic transition in favour ofsustainable development, it is important to recognize what elements
we are working on within the complex system, and that we need toadjust our mental models for problem-solving. Only then can we
effect genuine and lasting change.

Chapter 3: Exploring root causes page 91

China’s Loess Plateau, the birthplace of the largest ethnic groupon the planet, was once an abundant forest and grassland system.
One of the central civilizations on Earth grew on the plateau while
simultaneously reducing biodiversity, biomass and accumulatedorganic matter. Over time, the landscape lost its ability to absorb
and retain moisture, causing an area the size of France to dry out.
Without the constant nutrient recycling from decaying organic matter,
the soil lost its fertility and was eroded away by the wind and water,
leaving a vast barren landscape. By 1,000 years ago the site of themagnificent early dynasties in China had been abandoned by thewealthy and powerful. By the mid-1990s the plateau was mainly
famous for the recurrent cycle of flooding, drought and famine
known as “China’s Sorrow”.
Today, large areas of the Loess Plateau have been restored. Thechanges have been brought about by differentiating and designating
ecological and economic land, terracing, sediment traps, check dams
and other methods of infiltrating rainfall. At the same time, efforts
have been made to increase biomass and organic material throughmassive planting of trees in the ecological land and using sustainable,
climate-smart agricultural methods in the economic lands.
The crucial step toward restoration was the understanding that,in the long run, safeguarding ecosystem functions is vastly morevaluable than the production and consumption of goods andservices. It therefore made sense to designate as much of the landas possible as ecological land. This also led to a counter-intuitive
outcome: concentrating investment and production in smaller areas
was found to increase productivity. It’s a clear illustration of how
functional ecosystems are more productive than dysfunctional ones.
The work on China Loess Plateau shows that it is possible to restore
large-scale degraded ecosystems. This helps us adapt to climate
impacts, makes the land more resilient and increases productivity.
The Loess Plateau also shows that valuing ecosystem function
higher than production and consumption provides humanity with thelogical framework to choose to make long-term investments and see
the positive results of trans-generational thinking.
(Source: Liu, 2012; Liu & Bradley, 2016)© EEMPC

ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION OF
THE LOESS PLATEAU IN CHINASYSTEMS THINKING APPLIED TO THE
FOOD SYSTEM
To understand how the four levels of thinking can be applied tosolve complex problems, we take a closer look at the food system,
one of the most complex sectors of the global economy. Food
production is one of the primary causes of biodiversity loss throughhabitat degradation, overexploitation of species such as overfishing,pollution and soil loss (Rockström et al., 2009b; Godfray et al.,2010; Amundson et al., 2015). It is also a primary force behind thetransgression of the Planetary Boundaries for nitrogen, phosphorus,
climate change, biosphere integrity, land-system change andfreshwater use (Rockström et al., 2009b). Even though its current
environmental impacts are immense, the food system is expected to
expand rapidly to keep up with projected increases in population,
wealth and animal-protein consumption. It is reasonable to question
whether this is possible without triggering an environmental andagricultural collapse (Searchinger et al., 2013). In the analysis
below, the focus is on the agricultural production system as part of
the food system.

FORESTS
 26%

ABL

TOTAL
AVAILABLE LANDON EARTH

AND

LL

BIT

HA
P L A N TA
UR
TL
AG R IC U

 34%

E S U R FAC E

SHRUB
 8%

Figure 41: A breakdownof how global land
is divided into basic
functional categories
and how arable land isspecifically divided into
different functions
In the graphic below, “foodcrops for industry” refers tofood crops grown and used
for industrial uses, as in
the case of corn for biofuel
production, whereas
non-food crops include
plants grown directly
and exclusively for fibre,
pharmaceuticals or fuel,such as cotton. Percentages
may not add to 100 per centbecause the data has beenrounded. Figure adaptedfrom Gladek et al., 2016,
data source FAO, 2015.

From the 1.5 billion hectares of cropland globally, a third is used to produce animal feed
(calculations based on FAO, 2015). An additional 3.4 billion hectares of grasslands are used as
pasture for animals. A very large proportion of agricultural land, almost 80 per cent, is thus
directly or indirectly allocated to livestock for the production of meat, dairy and other animal
proteins (calculations based on FAO, 2015). Yet these land-based animal products provide
only about 17 per cent of calories and 33 per cent of protein consumed by humans globally(calculations based on FAO, 2015).
Even so, more than enough food is produced for today’s global population (Gladek et al., 2016).
Yet over 795 million people remain undernourished. In addition, many millions more suffer fromchronic protein and micronutrient deficiencies, even though they may consume enough calories.
On the other end of the spectrum, the number of overweight people reached 1.9 billion in 2014,
with over 600 million obese (WHO, 2015). Furthermore, an estimated one third of food globallyis wasted due to harvest loss, losses during storage and distribution, and discards of expired foodby consumers – an enormous loss of financial, human and natural capital (FAO, 2013).

 45% FOOD%GLACIERS 10%

Agriculture occupies about 34 per cent of the total land area on the planet and roughly halfof the plant-habitable surface (Figure 41) (FAO, 2015). Agricultural production is estimatedto account for 69 per cent of water withdrawals (FAO, 2016b). Together with the rest of
the food system, agriculture is responsible for 25-30 per cent of greenhouse-gas emissions(IPCC, 2013; Tubiello et al., 2014).

69

BARREN 19%

Agricultural land mainly used for livestock production

GRASSLAND 23%

INFRASTRUCTURE
FRESHWATER
 1%
 1%

CROPLANDS
 10%

 33% ANIMAL FEED
 12% FOOD CROPS FOR INDUSTRY 5% FOOD LOSSES AT FARM LEVEL

 2% NON-FOOD CROPS FOR INDUSTRIAL USES
 2% SAVED FOR SEEDSFour levels of thinking and the food system

These daily market interactions between producers and consumers
give the food system its current form.

Agricultural production in the food system is characterized byfundamental problems such as widespread hunger and poverty,
concentration of power and lock-ins in trade, agricultural researchand technology that reinforce the current unsustainable situation.
Many of the problems emerge from complex interactions between
people, policies and the environment, and can only be addressed byconsidering all the levels of the system: events, patterns, systemic
structures and mental models. Applying the four levels of thinking
model to the problem of poverty will show us both the depth of the
problem and where the leverage points for change might lie.
Level 1: Events – crop failures, famine, spike in food prices
Examples of food system events include crop failures, spikes in foodprices, food safety crises and famine. When taking a closer look at
a famine, we can see that hunger is often rooted in poverty. People
living in poverty cannot afford to buy nutritious food for themselves
and their families. This puts them at an extreme disadvantage,rendering them less able to earn the money that would help themescape poverty and hunger. This is not just a day-to-day or seasonal
problem: when children are chronically malnourished, it can affecttheir future income, condemning them to a life of continued poverty
and hunger leading to a so-called “poverty trap”. Policy responses
to hunger that only considered solutions at the level of events might
involve simply providing food or monetary aid. However, the highincidence of hunger has much deeper roots that will cause povertyrelated events to resurface in the future. The issue of famine andpoverty is especially entwined with the global food system, as theworld’s lowest-income countries are those most dependent on
agriculture as a primary source of livelihoods for large parts of their
populations. The incidence of poverty among small- and mediumscale farmers is high (Carter and Barrett, 2006); in fact, the vast
majority of the world’s poorest people are farmers (UNCTAD, 2013).
Level 2: Patterns – land degradation, levels of fertilizer
consumption, meat consumption trends
Many of the patterns or trends within the food system are formedby choices we make about what food to consume. In their turn,these patterns shape global agricultural practices. Expansion ofsoy production as feed for livestock to meet the increased demand
for meat and dairy, and rising levels of fertilizer consumption, areexamples of patterns resulting from demand. Equally important,
supply patterns, which include food availability, prices and marketing,have a very strong influence on what people choose to consume.

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 96

Take the example of poverty and hunger among small-scale
farmers. At this level we could identify a pattern of many smallscale farmers without access to sufficient resources such as seeds,
tools, water or knowledge. These farmers are unable to improvetheir agricultural production techniques to provide for their families(Tittonell and Giller, 2013). And as soil without the right resources
becomes increasingly nutrient-depleted and eroded, it becomes
more difficult to rehabilitate. Eventually, its quality is so poor that
production must either shift to new land, or demand for imported
food increases (Vanlauwe et al., 2015). As such, poverty is one of
the main drivers of the low yields and unsustainable agricultural
practices that are leading to widespread land degradation, crop
failures and biodiversity loss.

EVENTSPATTERNSSYSTEMIC STRUCTURESMENTAL MODELSEVENTSMANY OF THE TRENDSWITHIN THE FOOD
SYSTEM ARE FORMEDBY CHOICES WE MAKE
ABOUT WHAT FOOD
TO CONSUMESYSTEMIC STRUCTURESPATTERNSEVENTSPATTERNSSYSTEMIC STRUCTURESMENTAL MODELSMENTAL MODELSTHE CURRENT FOOD
SYSTEM PRIVILEGESA SELECT FEW, WHILE
MARGINALIZING A
VAST NUMBER OFOTHERS AND SEVERELYDAMAGING NATURE
AND ECOSYSTEMS.

Level 3: Systemic structures – agricultural subsidies,
trade agreements, commodity markets
Influential structures in the food system include agricultural policies(including subsidies), cultural dietary practices, commodity markets
and biophysical limitations. These underlying structures andprocesses keep the food system more or less fixed in place. Taking
the example of hunger and poverty, the increased dependence on
unsustainable industrial farming techniques is often reinforced
by governing structures. Desiring to serve the needs of their
impoverished populations, many governments encourage theexploitation of natural resources or the development of lands forthe production of cash crops for export, at the expense of local
food security (Matondi et al., 2011). In countries across the globe,
export commodities have developed into an essential source ofincome, employment and government revenues. This orientationof agriculture toward global markets has also resulted in risks
by exposing economies to price shocks and “commodity-induced
poverty traps” (IPES-Food, 2016).
While drivers and root causes are specific per region, they can be
aggregated into broad and recurring categories. What emerges is adominant model of food production and provisioning that privilegesa select few, while marginalizing a vast number of other actors, andseverely damaging nature and ecosystems (Gladek et al., 2016).
For instance, structures supporting the above-mentioned poverty
trap include educational systems, trade policies and price structures.
Creating solutions at this level would lead to more significant
results than addressing trends in production techniques or simply
providing food aid.
Chapter 3: Exploring root causes page 97

Level 4: Mental models – higher economic status triggers
higher levels of consumption
There are certain belief systems, or paradigms, that drive
unsustainable patterns of consumption and production, resulting
in a host of social and environmental problems. For example, inmany parts of the world consumers associate a high level of meat
consumption with wealth. Therefore, as wealth increases, so does
meat consumption, along with the demand for resources required
to produce it – often at the cost of food that can be directly
consumed by humans. Another paradigm is that the supply ofnatural resources is unlimited and that ecosystem benefits such as
clean water or air do not figure into cost-benefit accounting. Thisway of thinking underlies the depletion or degradation of many
natural resources.

What is keeping the unsustainable food system
in place?

EVENTSPATTERNSSYSTEMIC STRUCTURES

Many of the patterns, systemic structures and mental models thatshape the current food system will prevent us from enjoying a viablefood system in the future. This system has already helped usher
the Earth into the Anthropocene. Continuing without significant
change will lead to further, untenable transgressions of Planetary
Boundaries and diminish the very resources on which the foodsystem is based. New models of both production and consumption
are needed to form a sustainable, resilient food system that canabsorb and recover quickly from shocks, while continuously
providing food to many more people (Macfadyen et al., 2015).
However, this will require a weakening of the feedback loops or“lock-ins” that reinforce the current system. The poverty trap inwhich many small farmers are caught is one such example; someother key lock-ins are presented below.

MENTAL MODELS

Concentration of power
Liberal economic policies, such as the removal of agricultural
trade barriers and corporate deregulation, have facilitated therestructuring of power and wealth within the global food system(Food & Water Watch, 2013). Trade liberalization often limits
diversiﬁcation of crops and locks countries into unsustainable
development patterns. It increases the vulnerability of developing
countries by weakening the position of local agricultural producers
and increasing dependency on international trade. Tradeliberalization also tends to reshape supply chains in favour oftransnational corporations. Corporate power is strengthened whilestate power to regulate is curtailed. The consequences are not solely
economic: international trade in agricultural commodities has had
a profound negative effect on the environment, and on healthynutrition (De Schutter, 2009).

Figure 42: Root
causes that keep theunsustainable foodsystem in place
Graphic adapted from
Gladek et al., 2016.

75 PER CENT OF THE
WORLD’S FOOD IS
GENERATED FROM ONLY
12 PLANTS AND FIVEANIMAL SPECIESWWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 98

Mega companies affect biodiversity in a number of ways. Firstly,
the sheer scale of their operations translates into massive land-use
intensification and land conversion, which results in habitat loss
(German et al., 2011). Secondly, local agrobiodiversity is usually
reduced to just a few crops, resulting in a dramatic loss of genetic
diversity (Gladek et al., 2016; FAO, 2011b). Nowadays 75 per centof the world’s food is generated from only 12 plants and five animal
species (FAO, 2004). Finally, large-scale monoculture operations
rely on high volumes of chemical inputs that impact wild species
and habitat either directly or indirectly through pollution to land or
water (Matson et al., 1997).
Chapter 3: Exploring root causes page 99

MOSAICRESTFERTILIZER PRODUCERS

7 OTHER
4 COMPANIESPESTICIDE PRODUCERSOTHERMONSANTOOTHER

SEED PRODUCERS

6 COMPANIES

40%

35%
25%

50%

50%

35%
35%
30%

1%

65%
OF LANDLARGE SCALEFARMS (> 50 ha)

15%

4 LARGE TRADE& PROCESSING
DISTRIBUTORS

45%

OF FOOD

10 LARGESTBUYING COMPANIESFOOD & BEVERAGES23%
OF LAND

SUPERMARKETS& HYPERMARKETSSUPERMARKETCHAINS

12%
MEDIUM SCALE

OF FOODOTHER4%OF LANDOTHER FOOD &BEVERAGE COMPANIES

19.5%

OF FOODTRADITIONALFARMS (1-2 ha)

72%

8%

TRADE & LOCAL
PROCESSING

OF LAND

SMALL SCALEFARMS (<1 ha)

157
MILLION FARMSTOTALCONSUMERS

35.5%

MEDIUM-LARGESCALE FARMS(3-49 ha)

5.6
BILLIONKey

SUBSISTENCEFARMERS

Figure 43: An overview
of the consolidation ateach step in the foodchain from inputs to
production to retail(Gladek et al., 2016 basedon FAO, 2014a; FAO,
2010; OECD Competition
Committee, 2013; Nielsen,2015). Graphic produced
by Metabolic.

Cereals (25%)
Sugar crops (23%)
Fruits and vegetables (19%)
Meats, milk, eggs and animal fats (13%)
Starchy roots (10%)
Oilcrops (6%)
Fish and seafood (3%)
Pulses (2%)

In addition to strengthening inequalities, power dynamics
contribute to a fundamental systemic fragility. If just a couple ofcompanies within the agri-food supply chain were to fail, the foodsystem would suffer major disruptions. These concentrated supply
chains also support lock-ins in terms of technology, production
practices, research and education, and create a climate ofunbalanced influence in political lobbying.
Meanwhile, deregulation means a few transnational corporations
such as big food traders, producers and retailers increasingly direct
what and how food is produced across the globe. Figure 43 illustrates
this highly consolidated food chain. In the farming sector, 1 per centof farms now control 65 per cent of agricultural land (FAO, 2014).
These large farms dominate production methods in the market (FAO,
2014). Large-scale farmers and landowners often have a dominant
political and economic role, and are able to maintain their positionsof power and privilege, leaving small farmers at a disadvantage(Piketty, 2014). Similarly, powerful groups of crop breeders, pesticideand fertilizer manufacturers, grain traders and supermarket retailers
encourage food systems in which uniform crop commodities can beproduced and traded on a massive scale (IPES-Food, 2016).
In spite of all the drawbacks, there are some benefits resulting
from consolidated, large-scale operations. These include often
more efficient resource use, and the ability of large organizations toleverage change. Concentration of power, when wielded responsibly,
can also bring positive change (Stephan et al., 2016): companies
with significant market share are able to single-handedly create
new standards and put pressure on their supply chains to innovate
toward, for example, emissions reductions.
Institutional lock-ins in trade
Developed countries and emerging economies use a number oftools to protect their markets, such as export tariffs, fiscal barriers,
trade quotas, export subsidies and monetary policy instruments,
among others (Serpukhov, 2013). Subsidies represent 22 per centof farm receipts in OECD countries (OECD, 2010). These allow
farmers to buy fossil fuels, water and fertilizers at reduced costs,
leading to further market distortions, and further entrenchingproduction techniques that harm the environment (Anderson etal., 2013). Because these techniques rely heavily on automation(and its associated fuel use) as well as fossil-fuel derived chemicals(fertilizers, pesticides), the agricultural system is now more tightly
bound than ever to the volatility of the fossil-fuel market. This
results in a feedback loop or lock-in effect that undermines the
structural resilience of the food system (Pfeiffer, 2006).
WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 102

Agricultural research lock-ins
The “green revolution” played an important role in establishingintensive agricultural production methods globally and helping toavert anticipated large-scale food shortages following the Second
World War. However, some of these methods have been criticizedfor driving ecological degradation, for example through soil erosion,water, air and soil pollution from fertilizers and pesticides, andincreased use of non-renewable resources like fossil fuels (Pfeiffer,2006). Regardless, from 1960 to 2000, 70 per cent of the total
increase in global crop production in developing nations could betraced to agricultural intensification (FAO, 2003).
Continued emphasis on intensification and consolidation in
the global agricultural system can partially be attributed to thestructure of global agricultural research and development funding.
Agricultural research and development still reinforces unsustainable
and environmentally destructive industrial practices, even thosethat are associated with the greatest negative environmental
impacts. Research sponsors still emphasize yield gains throughthe application of synthetic inputs such as chemical fertilizers, andoften focus on maximizing yields in the near term at the expense of
productive capacity in the future (Tilman et al., 2002; Deguines etal., 2014). The criteria against which farming is typically measured– e.g. yields of specific crops, productivity per worker – tend tofavour large-scale industrial monocultures (IPES-Food, 2016).
Consequently research supports yield maximization, even thoughsuch production systems rarely result in a maximum profit forfarmers (Vanloqueren and Barrett, 2008) and almost never inhealthy, sustainable environments.
Technological lock-ins
Despite a wide variety of production methods, technological lock-ins
explain why the input-intensive model of production is so dominant
today. Industrial agriculture requires significant upfront investment,
which usually requires farmers to scale up production (IPES-Food,
2016). Furthermore, technological innovations have generally
favoured large-scale producers due to their capital- and resourceintensive nature. Once these investments and structural shifts havebeen made, it is increasingly difficult for farmers to change course.
For example, when farmers invest in expensive equipment, likemachinery for monoculture crop production, it is difficult for themto switch to a different system of production until the equipment is
paid off. And the use of alternatives may not yield enough shortterm benefits to be considered viable (IPES-Food, 2016).

Chapter 3: Exploring root causes page 103

5. healthy and sustainable diets reduce
the pressure on nature
Increasing meat consumption is the main driverbehind soy’s rapid expansion. Around 75 per cent ofsoy worldwide, and 93 per cent in Europe, is used
for animal feed. Most people consume far more soy
than they think: while many people imagine soy iseaten mainly by vegetarians, the average European
consumes 61kg of soy per year, most of it indirectlyin the form of animal products like chicken, pork,
beef and farmed fish as well as eggs, milk, cheese andyogurt. If high-income countries adopted a healthy,balanced diet, bringing animal protein consumption
in line with nutritionists’ recommendations, it could
reduce the pressure on natural ecosystems as well
as benefiting people’s health. This transition should
start immediately – but in the short term, switching
to deforestation-free and conversion-free soy is vital.
Consumers of all food products using soy have thefuture of forests, savannahs and grasslands at the
point of their fork.
(source: WWF Brazil; WWF, 2014; WWF, 2016a)© Kelly Sillaste - Getty Images

THE STORY OF SOYCHAPTER 4: A RESILIENT
PLANET FOR NATURE AND
PEOPLE

Figure 44: The
UN Global Goals
for Sustainable
Development(UN, 2015).

THE DUAL CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENTThe 21st century presents humanity with a dual challenge: tomaintain nature in all of its many forms and functions and to create
an equitable home for people on a finite planet. This dual challenge
is outlined in the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
The goals for sustainable development combine the economic,
social and ecological dimensions necessary to sustain human society
through the Anthropocene (Figure 44). These dimensions are allinterconnected and must therefore be addressed in an integrated
manner. We must minimize climate change while securing our
future freshwater supply; and we should protect forests andgrasslands as well as our oceans and atmosphere. Modification of
any of these interconnected facets of the biosphere can affect theothers, thereby altering the biosphere as a whole. For example, theuse of biofuels to reduce CO2 emissions can have adverse effects
on food availability and the environment if biofuel crops compete
for land, water and other resources. An integrated approach for
managing our biosphere will improve social stability, economic
prosperity and individual well-being. We are not going to develop ajust and prosperous future, nor defeat poverty and improve health,in a weakened or destroyed natural environment.

THE GOALS FORSUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENTCOMBINE THE
ECONOMIC, SOCIALAND ECOLOGICALDIMENSIONSNECESSARY TO
SUSTAIN HUMAN
SOCIETY THROUGH THE
ANTHROPOCENE

The analyses presented in this report suggest that if current trends
continue, the UN Global Goals for Sustainable Development will
be increasingly difficult to meet. Indeed we are already off track
for reaching the UN biodiversity targets that aim to halt the lossof biodiversity by 2020. In the future, a basic fact must therefore
inform development strategies, economic models, business models
and lifestyle choices: we have only one planet and its natural capitalis limited.

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 106

Chapter 4: A resilient planet for nature and people page 107

BETTER CHOICESFROM A ONE PLANETPERSPECTIVE
REDIRECTFINANCIALFLOWSPRESERVE NATURAL CAPITALEQUITABLERESOURCE
GOVERNANCE

PRODUCE BETTER

Share available
resources•
Make fair andecologicallyinformed choices•
Measure successbeyond GDP• Restore damaged ecosystems and ecosystem services• Halt loss of priority habitats• Significantly expand the global protected areas network

Value nature•
Account forenvironmental
and social costs•
Support and reward
conservation,
sustainable resource
management
and innovation• Significantly reduce inputs and waste in production systems• Manage resources sustainably• Scale-up renewable energy production

CONSUME MORE WISELY• Achieve low-footprint lifestyles• Change energy consumption patterns• Promote healthy consumption patterns

ECOSYSTEMINTEGRITY

FOOD, WATER AND
ENERGY SECURITY
BIODIVERSITYCONSERVATION

The WWF “One Planet Perspective”
The WWF One Planet Perspective outlines better choices for using,
sharing and managing natural resources within the Earth’s ecologicalboundaries and thus will help nations meet their Sustainable
Development Goal commitments (Figure 45). It helps to alignindividual initiative, corporate action and government policy in order
to attain a sustainable global society. When applied to business, “OnePlanet Thinking” encourages companies to align their activities sothat they are actively contributing to a healthy and resilient planet for
future generations (Kerkhof et al., 2015; Cranston et al., 2015).

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 108

Figure 45: WWF One
Planet Perspective
The better choices
outlined in the figure leadto ecosystem integrity,
biodiversity conservationand food, water and energy
security.

Minor changes to improve efficiency in resource use or reduce
pollution through end-of-pipe solutions will simply not bring aboutbadly needed change. Instead, we must adopt an entirely new
perspective that will guide decision making at all levels. The goal of
making better choices is to create a situation where food, energy andwater is available to all, biodiversity is maintained, and ecosystem
integrity and resilience are ensured. Resilient ecosystems are able
to absorb and recover from shocks and disturbances, maintainfunctionality and service by adapting to disruptions, and transform
when necessary.

Toward sustainable development
How do we define what constitutes a better choice? As explained in
the previous chapter, systems thinking can help us understand theunderlying causes of unsustainable development. Once the patterns,
systemic structures and mental models that shape the destructive
aspects of the human enterprise are identified and analysed,
leverage points are easier to perceive. Leverage points are thoseplaces in a system where a given amount of change can result in thelargest possible impact. Common leverage points for sustainability
include government and corporate planning efforts, technologicalinnovation, trade agreement negotiations, and the influence of largesocial organizations.
Leverage points and corresponding strategies are meant to triggera transition. A relatively smooth and successful transition often
involves a dual process. The old system structures, attitudes
and behaviours are gradually improved; simultaneously, radical
innovations are introduced that will eventually transform the system
in a fundamental way (Kemp and Rotmans, 2005; Kemp et al.,2007). Incremental improvements within the confines of the oldsystem maintain and improve functionality during the time it takes
for new system innovations to take effect (Kemp and Rotmans,
2005). For example, developing techniques within the current
energy system that improve efficiency of cars and other appliances
can contribute substantially to the reduction of carbon emissions,especially in the short term. But if the use of these appliances andcars increases, so do overall emissions. Only the transition toward
100 per cent sustainable and renewable energy sources will assurea real future-proof solution. Examples of such solutions might be
the further development, production and large-scale adoption of
the electric car or the development and wide implementation ofalternative green transport systems.

Chapter 4: A resilient planet for nature and people page 109

TRANSITIONING THE GLOBALECONOMIC SYSTEM

prevent forest loss and degradation through good governance andcontrol of outside pressures that lead to forest loss and degradation;
protect and restore the most ecologically valuable forests; introduce
incentives for sound stewardship of production forests; increase
efficiency of wood use; reduce waste of farm and forest products;
and optimize alternative land uses that will ease the pressure toclear more forest land.

“What we measure informs what we do. And if we aremeasuring the wrong thing, we are going to do the wrong
thing”
Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize-winning economist at the World
Economic Forum in Davos (2016) pointing out the shortcomings of
GDP as indicator of progress.
Ideally, changing the global economic system would entail atransformation in which human development is decoupled fromenvironmental degradation and social exclusion. For this to occur,
a number of significant changes – both incremental and radical –would need to take place in the areas of natural capital protection,
governance, financial flows, markets, and the energy andfood systems.

Protecting natural capital
Earth’s species and habitats have their own intrinsic value, but theyalso form the foundation of human societies and economies. Efforts
must particularly focus on protecting and restoring key ecologicalprocesses necessary for food, water and energy security, as well asclimate change resilience and adaptation. To adequately protect
natural capital, resources need to be used sustainably, and theglobal network of protected areas needs to be expanded. Adequate
funding mechanisms are needed if protected area management is
to be effective.
Achieving Zero Net Deforestation and Degradation
The full value of forests will only be realized if deforestation and forest
degradation is stopped. Zero net deforestation leaves some room forchange in the configuration of the land-use mosaic, provided the net
quantity, quality and carbon density of forests is maintained. Avoiding
forest degradation is equally important for reducing carbon emissions,preserving biodiversity, and maintaining critical services for people,
particularly, local communities and indigenous groups. Zero Net
Deforestation and Degradation (ZNDD) will require a mosaic ofprotected and sustainably managed forests, integrated with otherland uses such as farms, settlements and infrastructure. Strategies
and policy changes by governments and industry are needed to:

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 110

TO PRESERVE NATURAL
CAPITAL, RESOURCES
NEED TO BE USEDSUSTAINABLY, AND
THE GLOBAL NETWORKOF PROTECTEDAREAS NEEDS TO BE
EXPANDED.

Encouraging strategic river basin management
Societies throughout history have gone to great lengths to exploit riverresources by building dams, diverting water to irrigate agriculturalland and using rivers as sewers of first resort. Such approaches havecertainly brought some social and economic benefits. But they havealso fragmented rivers, interrupted the seasonal flows of water andcaused massive pollution. Unfortunately, rivers have typically been
managed in a piecemeal fashion with insufficient consideration of the
cumulative impacts of development. A strategic, basin-level approachto management by governments, communities and businesses can
optimize the balance between water resources development andmaintenance of critical ecosystem functions. It can also help tominimize costly restoration activities in the future.
Expansion of marine protected areas
Marine natural capital should be built into national accounting,and the importance of ecosystem services and natural assets
should be considered in key decisions that affect the marine
environment. Marine protected areas are important for conserving
and replenishing the oceans’ natural capital and build resilienceof marine ecosystems. To date, only 3.9 per cent of total oceanarea is under some form of protection (Boonzaier & Pauly, 2016):
concerted action is needed to reach the 2020 UN biodiversity
target to protect at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas.
Governments, businesses and local communities around the world
can all contribute to establish effectively and equitably managed,
ecologically representative and well-connected networks of marine
protected areas.

Equitable resource governance
Legal and policy frameworks should support equitable accessto food, water and energy, and stimulate inclusive processes forsustainably managed land and sea use. This will require an evolved
definition of well-being and success that considers personal, societal
and environmental health. It will also necessitate decision-making
that respects future generations and the value of nature.

Chapter 4: A resilient planet for nature and people page 111

An inclusive definition of economic success
Taking full account of the impact of human activities will require
fundamental changes to the way we value economic success andhow we perceive well-being and prosperity. A high or increased
GDP is the goal for most governments. But GDP represents only
the monetary value of all the finished goods and services produced
within a country’s borders in a specific time period. Today’s
overemphasis on GDP needs to be replaced by goals and associatedindicators that combine economic performance with ecological andsocial aspirations. For example, a measure of the inventory andregenerative capacity of natural capital within a country can be anequally valid way to assess long-term economic performance andfuture prospects.
Future generations decision-making
Policymakers should take account of long-term sustainability andresilience. At present, many governments still focus on relatively
short-term time horizons when developing policy. In doing sothey fail to take account of medium- to long-term risks associatedwith environmental degradation such as soil erosion, freshwater
shortages, pollution and waste; and exhaustion of natural resources.
Fixed-term electoral cycles compound this problem, by encouraging
individual politicians and party campaigns to focus on policies thatwill promote benefits within this short timeframe. The creation oflegislation that will embed longer-term horizons into policymaking,beyond any one government’s tenure, could help to overcome thedominance of temporary solutions and near-sighted policies.
Valuing nature in economic and policy decisions
The value of nature can be incorporated into many kinds ofdecision making, but especially those concerning development
strategies, infrastructure and the use of land, water and othernatural assets. Despite the considerable ecological and social costsof unsustainable production and consumption, factoring these into
cost-benefit accounting is still rare. However, some decision-makers
are beginning to incorporate the value of nature and its services,
recognizing that not to do so will ultimately undermine society’s
well-being. Countries such as Botswana, Colombia, Costa Rica,
Indonesia, Madagascar and the Philippines are already developing
natural capital accounts that measure the state of their natural
assets over time (World Bank, 2015). Greater emphasis on land-use
planning will enable governments to better understand and manage
competing, ever-increasing demands on land and water resources.
This is illustrated in the recent history of the area around Lake
Navaisha, Kenya’s second largest freshwater body (see box).

WE NEED TO MAKE
FUNDAMENTAL
CHANGES TO THE WAY
WE VALUE ECONOMIC
SUCCESS AND HOW WE
PERCEIVE WELL-BEING
AND PROSPERITY

Resilient landscapes for nature and people: the case of Lake Naivasha
An integrated landscape approach can help to reconcile the sometimes-competing objectives of
economic development and environmental sustainability. This is illustrated by the story of Lake
Naivasha. The lake is Kenya’s second largest freshwater body and supports a large horticultureindustry, representing about 70 per cent of Kenya’s cut-flower exports and 2-3 per cent of thecountry’s GDP. The lake supports a fishing industry, a growing tourism and holiday homes
sector, as well as dairy and beef industries. Geothermal energy production has grown rapidly
and contributes 280 MW to the country’s energy grid (Denier et al., 2015). The lake’s catchment
area is predominantly devoted to smallholder agriculture that collectively produces large
quantities of fresh produce for local Kenyan markets. The human population of the basin has
grown rapidly, with 650,000 people in 2009, and a current estimated growth rate of 13 per centthroughout the current decade (Pegram, 2011). The basin is recognized for its rich biodiversity
evidenced by a Ramsar site, an International Bird Area, a key water tower and a national park.
The diversity of stakeholders, ecological zones and economic activities and theinterconnectivity of the upper and lower catchment areas make this relatively small basin(3,400km2) prone to conflicts over natural resource access and quality. A severe drought in2009 was a wake-up call to develop an integrated approach to natural resource management(Denier et al., 2015). Formerly antagonistic stakeholders came together to develop a common
vision for the Lake Naivasha basin, and this process was supported by political commitment(Kissinger, 2014). This led to the formation of the Imarisha Lake Naivasha Management
Board, a public-private partnership, in 2011.

3 eConomiC aCtivity and land uSe
Togetherstakeholders
havebaSin
implemented a number of critical measures under theinthethenaivaSha

multi-partner Integrated Water Resources Action Plan (Denier et al., 2015). They piloted apayment
services
schemeinNaivasha
which stakeholders
the lower reaches of the
There is a forwideenvironmental
range of agriculturalland user
in thebasin, ranging infromtraditional pastoralists
to subsistence
and small holder
farmers, throughdairy andcatchments
offer small
incentive payments
to upstream
smallholders
for carrying out good
beef farmers
to high-techinternationalcommercial
andflowerfarming.
land-usepractices.
In 2012,785 farmers
werevegetable
involvedincut
thisscheme(Bymolt and Delnoyne,2012).
also because
developed
and agreed
to abeauty,
water
allocation
The Lake The
itself isstakeholders
internationally renownedof its biodiversity
and natural
which
attracts thou-plan for the basinsands of local and international tourists. In the south of the Lake, close to Hell’s Gate National Park, geotherthat
will take effect during times of increased water stress. (Denier et al., 2015).
mal steam is harnessed to drive electrical turbines, which then contribute electricity to the national grid.

Lake Naivasha Basin

Lake Naivasha

Figure 3: Land use in the Naivasha

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 112

When attempting to understand the water stresses of Lake Naivasha, it is tempting to only focus on the lake
itself and its immediate surrounds (as has the media). However, in order to get a full picture of the ecological,
social and economic stresses of the lake, it necessary to look at the water and land use of the entire basin(including the upper catchment) and how it links to the Kenyan and international economy.

Figure 46:
Land use in the
Naivasha Basin(WWF, 2011)

Redirecting financial flows

Resilient markets for production and consumption

Sustainable financial flows that support conservation and sustainableecosystem management are an essential enabling condition for bothpreserving natural capital and promoting resilient and sustainable
markets. Still, many financial institutions continue to invest
substantially in harmful and unsustainable activities such as coalmining, environmentally damaging agriculture and oil drilling.

Producing better and consuming more wisely are key to establishingresilient markets that stay within our planet’s safe operating space,safeguard our natural wealth, and contribute to our economic
and social well-being. Sustainable resource management andincorporation of the true costs of production in the value chain willencourage these better choices.

Long-term perspective on financial risks
Recognizing the interdependence of human demands for food,water, energy and environment, and our reliance on the Earth’s
core physical and natural systems, is a holistic and powerful vehicle
for analysing business and policy problems (Reynolds & Cranston,2014). There are two reasons why businesses should be interested
in the food-water-energy-environment nexus. Firstly, financial
stability will be improved by avoiding the cost implications ofresource scarcity and environmental damage such as floods, storms
and drought. Secondly, businesses want to avoid the cost burden
of future regulation in markets that begin to regulate in reaction toenvironmental decline or to reputational disasters. One way
for public policy and regulations to bring this about is to ensurethat externalities are included on balance sheets (Reynolds &Cranston, 2014).

Sustainable resource management
An economy in which resources are kept in use for as long as
possible and in which products and materials are recovered andregenerated at the end of their life is a way to decouple economic
development from environmental degradation. Equally, a shift awayfrom dependence on fossil-based resources toward sustainably
produced renewable resources is key for sustaining human needs
over time.

Currently financial markets focus on short-term income andreduction of immediate risk when making investment decisions.
There is little private sector incentive to consider long-term risks
from environmental degradation or declining opportunities frominvestment. Instead many continue to invest in economic activities
that result in environmental damage. Somewhat perversely, they
can record incrementally less damaging activities as progress(Reynolds & Cranston, 2014). Changes to financial sector regulation
could address this by requiring financial institutions to report onsustainability impacts. Then the private sector would be compelled
to scrutinize the sustainability of their business operations, as it
would affect their ability to access capital. An even more effective
leverage point might be the mental models of investors – that
is, all individuals who hold any form of financial asset, as wellas institutions such as pension funds, insurance companies andsovereign wealth funds. If investors were concerned enough about
environmental performance – and understood the importance of
their own role in safeguarding natural capital – they would monitor
performance and hold financial institutions to account.

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 114

THERE IS STILLLITTLE PRIVATESECTOR INCENTIVE
TO CONSIDER LONGTERM RISKS FROMENVIRONMENTALDEGRADATION
OR DECLININGOPPORTUNITIESFROM INVESTMENT

This transition to sustainability requires fundamentally different
business models, where businesses depend on the fees generated
through ongoing servicing of a product, or from reusing materials,
rather than profiting from the total number of products sold.
Stronger regulation to promote resource efficiency and penalize
pollution, possibly through changes in the law or tax system,
could help promote such an approach and stimulate the business
innovation required.
Incorporating true costs
Businesses can also incorporate the value of nature into theirdecisions. This can be encouraged through appropriate government
regulation. For example, businesses can be required to pay the true
costs of environmental damage or natural capital depletion, or they
can be subject to sustainability reporting requirements. Requiring
financial markets to take responsibility for environmental (andassociated financial) risks as a result of capital allocation can also
have a far-reaching impact. It could alter the incentive balance infavour of sustainability.

Chapter 4: A resilient planet for nature and people page 115

TRANSFORMATION OF ENERGY AND
FOOD SYSTEMS
Redirecting our path toward sustainability requires fundamental
changes in two critical systems: energy and food. Current structuresand behaviours within these systems have a tremendous impact on
biodiversity, ecosystem resilience and human well-being.

Toward sustainable renewable energy sources
Alternative energy source development
As fossil-fuel burning is the largest manmade driver of climatechange, the vast majority of fossil fuels would be best left in the
ground. Fortunately, renewable energy alternatives are becoming
more and more competitive. Further development and rapid
widespread adoption of renewable energy innovations are expected
to reduce climate risks, while improving human health, boosting
our economies, and creating jobs to replace those in fossil-basedindustries. While the global transition toward sustainable renewableenergy sources such as wind and solar remains an immense task,
many countries are already committed to transforming theirtraditional energy supply systems.
Shifting demand to renewable energy
Governments can promote a shift away from intensive carbon use byimplementing policies that favour sustainably produced renewableenergy over fossil sources. Additionally, some financial institutions
are already in the process of reducing climate-related risks; these
innovators are leaders in the new, low-carbon economy. Other
institutions could be encouraged with incentives or policies to shiftmoney out of fossil fuels.

FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND RAPID WIDESPREAD
ADOPTION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY INNOVATIONS CANHELP REDUCE CLIMATE RISKS, WHILE IMPROVING HUMANHEALTH, BOOSTING OUR ECONOMIES, AND CREATING JOBSTO REPLACE THOSE IN FOSSIL-BASED INDUSTRIESWWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 116

Toward resilient food systems
AGRICULTURALPRODUCTION IS
HIGHLY INFLUENCED
BY CONSUMPTIONCHOICES, LIFESTYLES,WASTE AND
DISTRIBUTION

Transitioning toward an adaptive and resilient food system thatprovides nutritious food for all within the boundaries of a single
planet – while at the same time supporting livelihoods and well-being– is a daunting but essential goal. As we have seen, various structures
within the current industrialized global food system reinforce thestatus quo; i.e., agricultural subsidies, governmental research
programmes, and metrics that do not consider the environmental,social, ethical and cultural impacts in the costs of production. Thesesame structures also represent leverage points for change.
Among other factors, agricultural production is highly influenced
by consumption choices, lifestyles, waste and distribution. So, while
reducing agriculture’s environmental impacts and reducing waste
along the food chain will be instrumental in meeting future needs,
reducing the footprint of food consumption can make a significant
contribution.
Promoting healthy and sustainable consumption patterns
More food can be delivered by changing our dietary preferences,
especially those in high-income countries characterized by a highshare of animal proteins. Food availability (in terms of calories,
protein and critical nutrients) can be increased by shifting crop
production away from livestock feed, bioenergy crops, foods with
low nutritional value and other non-food applications. Encouraging
consumers to eat healthy diets with moderate animal protein could
enhance food availability and reduce the environmental impacts ofagriculture. Other targeted efforts – such as reducing waste associatedwith the production and consumption of our most resource-intensive
foods, especially meat and dairy – could be pursued.
Scaling up existing niche innovations
To meet the vast and interconnected challenges in food systems,
efforts to improve or alter the specific aspects of current mainstream
agricultural practices will not be sufficient (IPES-Food, 2016).
Fortunately, the seeds of a more transformative shift towardsustainability may already have germinated via niche innovations
appearing in various locations around the globe. Many promising
trends started out as small-scale developments. For example, organic
agriculture started as a niche market (Smith, 2007), but has now
become more mainstream in many areas (Darnhofer et al., 2010).
Farmers on China’s Loess Plateau practice methods such as terracing
to regenerate soil quality. If such practices spread to other parts of theworld, we could have a more sustainable global food system.

Chapter 4: A resilient planet for nature and people page 117

Toward yield optimization
Within today’s food systems success is often reduced to increased
yields, net outputs and net calorie availability (Tittonell et al., 2016).
Just as with the GDP, if the goal for agriculture is too narrowly
focused on quantity per hectare or on short-term maximizationof yields instead of optimizing productivity within the boundariesof the ecosystem it depends upon, its long-term prospects will
suffer. Safeguarding long-term productivity, preserving the natural
resource base for the future, ensuring resilience of yields in theface of environmental shocks and disease outbreaks, and whereand for whom food is produced are all important. They should berecognized as publicly valued goals, with corresponding measures of
performance. (De Schutter and Gliesman, 2015; IPES-Food, 2016).
The design and production methods of agricultural landscapesshould support the functional biodiversity necessary for long-term
production. Agricultural systems should also protect or enhance
ecosystem services that are essential for agriculture and foodsecurity. For this will make production systems more resilient
to climate impacts, fluctuations in water availability and otherdisturbances. In general, producers should seek an optimal balance
between productivity and diversity in the system to meet bothhuman needs and ecosystem integrity. The quantity and type of
inputs (agro-chemicals and water) should be sustainable – as thegoal is to optimize long-term productivity, rather than maximize
short-term production and profit. In doing so, the environmental,social and economic needs of present and future generations will all
be represented.
Promoting agroecological practices
Sustainable agricultural solutions are highly diverse, and are
dependent on a broad range of factors such as climate, soil type andfertility, water availability, rainfall patterns, technology availability
and preferences, labour requirements, and cultural factors.
Emerging evidence shows that practices based on agroecology arecapable of sustaining, stabilizing and improving yields, preserving
the environment, providing decent employment and secure
livelihoods, and delivering diverse, nutrient-rich foods – in theplaces where they are needed most (De Schutter and Gliesman,2015) (see box). Agroecology projects in 20 African countries
already demonstrate a doubling of crop yields over a period of
3-10 years (De Schutter, 2011). Furthermore, a study in semi-arid
Burkina Faso shows how native woody perennial shrubs could
support the restoration of soil productive capacity and enhanceyields within one year in farmers’ ﬁelds (Tittonell et al., 2016).

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 118

SAFEGUARDING LONGTERM PRODUCTIVITY,PRESERVING THE
NATURAL RESOURCEBASE FOR THE FUTURE,
ENSURING RESILIENCEOF YIELDS IN THE FACE
OF ENVIRONMENTAL
SHOCKS AND DISEASEOUTBREAKS, AND
WHERE AND FOR WHOM
FOOD IS PRODUCED ARE
ALL IMPORTANT

Agroecology: farming with nature
Agroecology achieves sustainability by reintegrating modern agriculture with the ecosystems
on which it relies. Agroecology replaces external chemical inputs with alternatives that mimic
natural processes and enhance beneficial biological interactions and synergies in the farmenvironment. For example, trees can be reintroduced to provide shade for crops, sequester
carbon and provide habitat for beneficial organisms. Agroecology also encourages integrated
systems, such as the pairing of rice and fish. For crops in the right combinations can enhance
growing conditions for one another (De Schutter and Gliesman, 2015).
Agroecological approaches deliver significant benefits in terms of resource efficiency andgreenhouse-gas savings, while sparing soils and ecosystems from long-term degradation bychemical fertilizer and pesticides (Figure 47). And while agroecology shifts the focus awayfrom narrow measures of productivity, it is nonetheless highly productive. Particularly indeveloping countries, there is the potential for sustaining and even increasing production
when the multiple outputs of integrated systems (e.g. rice and fish) are considered. Malawi,
a country that launched a massive chemical fertilizer subsidy programme a few years ago,
has now switched to agroecology. Consequently, maize yields have increased from 1 tonne/
ha to 2-3 tonnes/ha, to the benefit of more than 1.3 million of the country’s poorest people.
Projects in Indonesia, Vietnam and Bangladesh have recorded reductions of up to 92 per centin insecticide use for rice, leading to financial savings and better health for poor farmers (DeSchutter, 2011). Agroecology therefore facilitates ecological intensification while ensuringthat any production gains can be sustained into the future. Reliance on local inputs andthe recycling of waste as inputs significantly reduces the costs of production, making it afinancially sustainable option for farmers who are risk-averse or who have poor access tocredit (De Schutter and Gliesman, 2015).

NatureAnimalfeed

Biodiversity

Crops

SOIL

Soil
organisms

Agricultural
products

Humannutrition

Roots
Figure 47: Theinteraction between
the production of food,nature and health(adapted from Louis Bolk
Institute, the Netherlands).

ManureHealthCrop
residues

Diversified farms and farming landscapes
The landscape is the scale at which the various components of a
resilient agricultural system should be integrated. Landscapes
offer the necessary ecological structure and ecosystem services
to support agricultural production (Tittonell et al., 2016). Also,
certain sustainable agricultural practices are best implemented at
the landscape-level. For example, it would not make sense to apply
area-wide pest management, water purification and distribution, andprevention of soil erosion in isolated patches (Macfadyen et al., 2015).
Diversifying farms and farming landscapes, increasing biodiversity
and stimulating interactions between different species can bepart of holistic strategies to build healthy agro-ecosystems, secure
livelihoods, protect natural systems and preserve biodiversity.
Diversified farming is applicable to all types of agriculture, including
highly specialized industrial agriculture and subsistence farming(IPES-Food, 2016) (Figure 48).

Figure 49: Interaction
between supplychain and integrated
landscape approach
Adapted from Van
Oorschot et al., 2016;
WWF MTI, 2016.

Companies in the supply chain could encourage landscape-scale
diversiﬁcation as it will reduce variability in supply and improve
recovery from shocks, making their own business interests more
resilient to risk (Macfadyen et al., 2015). This is because landscapesthat integrate crop, livestock and forestry systems with natural areas
experience a higher, and more resilient, provision of ecosystemservices such as crop pollination and pest control by natural
enemies (Kremen and Miles, 2012; Liebman and Schulte, 2015;
Tscharntke et al., 2005).

CONSUMERSRETAILERSMANUFACTURERS

Figure 48:
Transitioning towards
diversified andsustainable farming
systems from different
starting points

TRADERSPROCESSORS

Adapted from
IPES-Food, 2016.

DIVERSIFIED AGRO-ECOLOGICAL FARMING SYSTEMS
Connect to Markets
Optimize
Diversify
Mechanize
Build knowledge
SUBSISTENCE AGRICULTURE

Relocalize
Optimize
Diversify
Reduce chemical inputs
Build knowledge

VALUES OF
PRODUCTS
AND SERVICESPAYMENT AND
INFLUENCEFARMERS AND WORKERSLOCAL POPULATIONREGIONAL CITIZENSPROTECTED AREAS

INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE

Promoting landscape approaches in supply chains
In addition to farmers, other stakeholders along the food supply
chain can contribute to and promote sustainable agricultural
practices at the landscape level (Figure 49). For example, foodretailers operate at the interface between producers and consumers.
They can inﬂuence production practices at the landscape scale(Jennings et al., 2015), and – through prices – they can alert
consumers to environmental costs of production, thereby increasing
demand for sustainable products (Lazzarini et al., 2001).
WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 120

SUPPLY-CHAINSORGANISATIONPRIMARY
PRODUCERSFARM LEVELLANDSCAPE LEVELREGIONAL TO NATIONAL LEVELSPATIAL ORGANISATION OF PRODUCTION SYSTEMS AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Chapter 4: A resilient planet for nature and people page 121

THE PATH AHEAD
The facts and figures in this report tend to paint a challenging
picture, yet there is still considerable room for optimism. If wemanage to carry out critically needed transitions, the rewards will
be immense. Fortunately, we are not starting from scratch. There
are several countries that have managed to raise the standards ofliving for their populations with much lower resource intensity thanindustrial countries. Furthermore, the world is reaching a consensus
regarding the direction we must take. In 2015, the 2030 Sustainable
Development Goals were adopted. And at the Paris climate
conference (COP21) in December 2015, 195 countries adopted a
global agreement to combat climate change, and to accelerate andintensify the actions and investments needed for a sustainable
low-carbon future. Furthermore, we have never before had suchan understanding of the scale of our impact on the planet, the way
the key environmental systems interact or the way in which we canmanage them.

IF WE MANAGE
TO UNDERGO THE
CRITICAL TRANSITIONSNECESSARY, THE
REWARD WILL BE
IMMENSE

Ultimately, addressing social inequality and environmental
degradation will require a global paradigm shift toward living withinsafe Planetary Boundaries. We must create a new economic systemthat enhances and supports the natural capital upon which it relies.
Earlier in this chapter, leverage points were identified to support
the necessary transitions. These were mainly focused on changing
societal patterns and systemic structures either by implementing
incremental changes or by supporting the development of nicheinnovations. Changing mental models, societal attitudes and values
underlying the current structures and patterns of our global economy
is a more challenging course of action. How can we “repurpose”
businesses so that they are not just focusing on short-term profit but
are also expected to be accountable for social and environmental
benefits? Or how should we redefine what desirable economic
development looks like? And how can we reduce the emphasis on
material wealth, confront consumerism and the throw-away culture,and promote the desirability of more sustainable diets? These kindsof changes to societal values are likely to be achievable only over thelong term and in ways that we have not yet imagined.

ADDRESSING SOCIALINEQUALITY ANDENVIRONMENTALDEGRADATION WILLREQUIRE A GLOBAL
PARADIGM SHIFTTOWARD LIVINGWITHIN PLANETARY
BOUNDARIES

Still, the speed at which we transition to a sustainable society is a key
factor for determining our future. Allowing and fostering importantinnovations and enabling them to undergo rapid adoption in a wider
arena is critical. Sustainability and resilience will be achieved much
faster if the majority of the Earth’s population understand the value
and needs of our increasingly fragile Earth. A shared understandingof the link between humanity and nature could induce a profoundchange that will allow all life to thrive in the Anthropocene.

SUSTAINABILITY AND RESILIENCE WILL BE ACHIEVED
MUCH FASTER IF THE MAJORITY OF THE EARTH’S
POPULATION UNDERSTAND THE VALUE AND NEEDS OF OURINCREASINGLY FRAGILE EARTH
WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 122

Chapter 4: A resilient planet for nature and people page 123

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Biocapacity Biocapacity refers to the amount of biologically productive
land and water areas available within the boundaries of a given
country, and how productive they are. Biocapacity is calculated
for each of the five major land use types: cropland, grazing land,fishing grounds (marine and inland waters), forest, andbuilt-up land.
Ecological The most commonly reported type of Ecological
Footprint of Footprint, it is defined as the area used to support a defined
Consumption population’s consumption. The consumption Footprint (in gha)includes the area needed to produce the materials consumed andthe area needed to absorb the carbon dioxide emissions.
(Ecological) Overshoot: Global overshoot occurs when humanity’s demand on
overshoot nature exceeds the biosphere’s supply, or regenerative capacity.
Such overshoot leads to a depletion of Earth’s life supporting
natural capital and a buildup of waste. At the global level,
ecological deficit and overshoot are the same, since there is no netimport of resources to the planet. Local overshoot occurs when alocal ecosystem is exploited more rapidly than it can renew itself.
Global hectare Global hectares are the accounting unit for Ecological Footprint
and biocapacity accounts. These productivity-weighted
biologically productive hectares allow researchers to report
both the biocapacity of the Earth or a region, and the demandon biocapacity (the Ecological Footprint). A global hectare is abiologically productive hectare with world average biologicalproductivity for a given year. Global hectares are needed because
different land types have different productivity. A global hectare of,for example, cropland, would occupy a smaller physical area thanthe much less biologically productive pasture land, as more pasturewould be needed to provide the same biocapacity as one hectare ofcropland. Because world bioproductivity varies slightly from year
to year, the value of a gha may change slightly from year to year.
Living Planet Index The LPI reflects changes in the health of the planet’s ecosystems
by tracking trends in over 14,000 populations of vertebrate
species. Much as a stock market index tracks the value of a setof shares over time as the sum of its daily change, the LPI first
calculates the annual rate of change for each species’ population in
the dataset. The index then calculates the average change acrossall populations for each year from 1970, when data collection
began, to 2012, the latest date for which data is available (seesupplement for more details).

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 124

Lock-ins Lock-ins are an emergent property of systems that occur througha combination of factors, including the system’s own pathdependency and self-reinforcing and regulatory mechanisms
and prevent the system from changing to a different state.
Natural capital Natural capital is defined as the stock of environmental assets
such as soil, biodiversity and freshwater which generate benefits
to humans.
IUCN Red list of The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ provides taxonomic,
Threatened Species conservation status and distribution information on plants, fungi
and animals that have been globally evaluated using the IUCN Red
List Categories and Criteria. This system is designed to determine
the relative risk of extinction, and the main purpose of the IUCNRed List is to catalogue and highlight those plants and animals
that are facing a higher risk of global extinction.
Red List Index The Red List Index (RLI), based on the IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species, is an indicator of the changing state of global
biodiversity. It is based on movement of species status throughthe IUCN Red List Categories, and measures trends in extinction
risk over time.
Resilience The ability of a social-ecological system to absorb and recoverfrom shocks and disturbances, maintain functionality and service
by adapting to chronic stressors, and transform when necessary.
Root causes A root cause is a critical component, among many contributing
ones, whose presence is determinant to a problematic outcome ofinterest. It is usually, but not necessarily, identified as an initialcause in a chain, so that addressing the root cause is necessary to
preventing the outcome.
Systems thinking Systems thinking is a holistic perspective on reality that stems
from the awareness of the interconnectedness of all things andthe recognition that complex wholes with emergent properties(ie: systems) arise from the interactions of their component
elements. As a discipline, it applies a wide range of tools andframeworks in the understanding, communication, and analysisof transdisciplinary issues, including sustainability, engineeringand management.

Glossary of Terms page 125

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONSARMA Autoregressive-moving-average model
BRICS Association of five major emerging national economies: Brazil, Russia, India,
China and South Africa
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CITES The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna andFlora
CO² Carbon dioxide
E/MSY Extinctions per million species-years
EBCC European Bird Census Council
EEA European Environment Agency
EF Ecological Footprint
EU European Union
FAO United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization
FAOSTAT Statistics Division of FAO
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GESAMP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental
Protection
GFN Global Footprint Network
gha global hectares
GROMS Global Register of Migratory Species
IGBP International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme
IPCC International Panel on Climate Change
IPES-Food International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems
IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature
IUGS International Union of Geological SciencesIUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated
LBII Local Biodiversity Intactness Index
LED Light-Emitting Diode
LPI Living Planet Index
MEA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
MW Megawatt
MYA Million Years Ago
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Agency
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
PB Planetary Boundaries
PIKE Proportion of Illegally Killed Elephants
PREDICTS Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity In Changing Terrestrial Systems
PV Photovoltaics
RLI Red List Index
RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
SEI Stockholm Environment Institute
SRC Stockholm Resilience Centre

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 126

UN
UNCTAD
UNEP
UNEP-WCMCUNESCOWET index
WHOWWF
WWF MTIZNDDZSLUnited Nations
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Environment Programme – World Conservation Monitoring
CentreUnited Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Wetland Extent Trend index
World Health Organization
World Wide Fund for Nature
World Wide Fund for Nature – Market Transformation Initiative
Zero Net Deforestation and Degradation
Zoological Society of London

List of Abbreviations page 127

REFERENCES
Allison, E.H., Perry, A.L., Badjeck, M.C., Adger, W.N., Brown, K., Conway, D.,
Halls, A.S., Pilling, G.M., Reynolds, J.D., Andrew, N.L. and N.K. Dulvy. 2009.
Vulnerability of national economies to the impacts of climate change on fisheries.
Fish & Fisheries 10 (2): 173-196. Doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2008.00310.x.
Amundson, R., Berhe, A.A., Hopmans, J.W., Olson, C., Sztein, A.E. and D.L. Sparks.
2015. Soil and human security in the 21st century. Science 348, 6235.
Doi: 10.1126/science.1261071.
Anderson, K., Rausser G. and J. Swinnen. 2013. Political Economy of Public Policies:
Insights from Distortions to Agricultural and Food Markets. Journal of Economic
Literature, 51(2): 423-77. Doi: 10.1257/jel.51.2.423.
Andreae, M.O. and Crutzen, P.J. 1997. Atmospheric aerosols: Biogeochemical sources
and role in atmospheric chemistry. Science 276: 1052-1058.
Doi: 10.1126/science.276.5315.1052.
Arneth, A., Harrison, S.P., Zaehle, S., Tsigaridis, K,, Menon, S., Bartlein, P.J., Feichter,J., Korhola, A., Kulmala, M., O’Donnell, D., et al. 2010. Terrestrial biogeochemical
feedbacks in the climate system. Nature Geoscience 3: 525- 532.
Doi: 10.1038/ngeo905.
Baillie, J.E.M., Griffiths, J., Turvey, S.T., Loh, J. and B. Collen. 2010. Evolution Lost:
status and trends of the world’s vertebrates. Zoological Society of London,
London, UK.
Balian, E.V., Segers, H., Lévèque, C. and K. Martens. 2008. The Freshwater Animal
Diversity Assessment: an overview of the results. Hydrobiologia 595 (1):627-637.
Doi: 10.1007/s10750-007-9246-3.
Barnes, R.F.W. 1999. Is there a future for elephants in West Africa? Mammal Review
29 (3): 175-200. Doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2907.1999.00044.x.
Barnosky, A.D., Matzke, N., Tomiya, S., Wogan, G.O.U., Swartz, B., Quental, T.B.,
Marshall, C., McGuire, J.L., Lindsey, E.L., Maguire, K.C., Mersey, B. and E.A.
Ferrer. 2011. Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471:
51-57. Doi: 10.1038/nature09678.
Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., Biggs, D., Bohensky, E.L., BurnSilver, S., Cundill, G., Dakos, V.,
Daw, T.M., Evans, L.S., Kotschy, K. et al. 2012. Toward principles for enhancing
the resilience of ecosystem services. Annual Review of Environment andResources 37: 421-448. Doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-051211-123836.
Bishop, R.C. 1978. Endangered species and uncertainty: The economics of a safe
minimum standard. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 60 (1): 10-18.
Doi: 10.2307/1240156.
Böhm, N., Collen, B., Baillie, J.E.M., Bowles, P., Chanson, J., Cox, N., Hammerson, G.,
Hoffmann, M., Livingstone, S.R., Ram, M. et al. 2013. The conservation status of
the world’s reptiles. Biological Conservation 157: 372-385.
Doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.015.
Boonzaier, L. and Pauly, D. (2016). Marine protection targets: an updated assessment of
global progress. Oryx 50(1), pp 27-35.
Borucke, M., Moore, D., Cranston, G., Gracey, K., Katsunori, I., Larson, J., Lazarus, E.,
Morales, J.C., Wackernagel, M. and A. Galli. 2013. Accounting for demand andsupply of the biosphere’s regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts’
underlying methodology and framework. Ecological Indicators 24: 518-533.
Doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.08.005.
Boucher, O., Randall, D., Artaxo, P., Bretherton, C., Feingold, G., Forster, P., Kerminen,
V.-M., Kondo, Y., Liao, H., Lohmann, U., et al. 2013: Clouds and Aerosols. In:
IPCC 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution ofWorking Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York,NY, USA. Doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.
Brandi, C., 2015. Safeguarding the earth system as a priority for sustainable
development and global ethics: the need for an earth system SDG. Journal of
Global Ethics 11 (1): 32–36. Doi: 10.1080/17449626.2015.1006791.

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 128

Brasseur, G.P., Prinn, R.G. and A.P. Pszenny (Eds.). 2003. Atmospheric Chemistry ina Changing World. An Integration and Synthesis of a Decade of Tropospheric
Chemistry Research. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Germany.
Doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-18984-5.
British Antarctic Survey. 2016. Meteorology and Ozone Monitoring Unit 2016. Antarctic
Ozone. Available at: www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/jds/ozone/index.html#data[Accessed June 2016].
Burke, L., Reytar, K., Spalding, M. and A. Perry. 2011. Reefs at Risk Revisited. World
Resources Institute, Washington DC, USA.
Bymolt, R. and Delnoye, R. 2012. Green Economic Development in Lake Naivasha
Basin, Assessing potential economic opportunities for small-scale farmers. Royal
Tropical Institute, Amsterdam, Holland.
Callaghan, T.V., Johansson, M., Prowse, T.D. et al. 2011. Arctic Cryosphere: changes
and impacts. Ambio 40: 3-5. Doi: 10.1007/s13280-011-0210-0.
Carpenter, S.R., and Bennett, E.M. 2011. Reconsideration of the planetary boundary forphosphorus. Environmental Research Letters 6, 014009 1-12.
Doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/6/1/014009.
Carter, M.R. and Barrett, C.B. 2006. The economics of poverty traps and persistentpoverty. An asset-based approach. The Journal of development studies 42 (2):178-199.
Cavana, R.Y. and Maani, K.E. 2000. A Methodological Framework for Integrating
Systems Thinking and System Dynamics. In: ICSTM2000, International
Conference on Systems Thinking in Management, Geelong, Australia.
CBD. 2014a. Global Biodiversity Outlook 4. Montréal, Canada.
CBD. 2014b. An Updated Synthesis of the Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Marine
Biodiversity. Montreal, Technical Series No. 75, 99 pages.
Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P.R., Barnosky, A.D., García, A., Pringle, R.M. and T. M. Palmer.
2015. Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass
extinction. Science Advances 1 (5): e1400253 1-5. Doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1400253.
Chaudhary, A. and Kastner, T. 2016. Land use biodiversity impacts embodied ininternational food trade. Global Environmental Change 38: 195-204.
Doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.03.013.
Chen, B., Chen, G.Q., Yang, Z.F. and M.M. Jiang. 2007. Ecological footprint accounting
for energy and resource in China. Energy Policy 35: 1599-1609.
Doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.04.019.
Ciais, P., Sabine, C., Bala, G., Bopp, L., Brovkin, V., Canadell, J., Chhabra, A., DeFries,
R., Galloway, J., Heimann, M., et al.. 2013. Carbon and Other Biogeochemical
Cycles. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution ofWorking Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.K.,
Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V. and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA.
CITES. 2016.Trends in levels of illegal killing of elephants in Africa to 31 December
2015. Available at www.cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/prog/MIKE/reports/
MIKE_trend_update_2015.pdf [Accessed June 2016].
Collen, B., Loh, J., Whitmee, S., McRae, L., Amin, R. and J.E.M. Baillie. 2009.
Monitoring Change in Vertebrate Abundance: the Living Planet Index.
Conservation Biology 23 (2): 317–327. Doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01117.x.
Collen, B., McRae, L., Deinet, S., De Palma, A., Carranza, T., Cooper, N., Loh, J.
and J.E.M. Baillie. 2011. Predicting how populations decline to extinction.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 366 (1577):
2577-2586. Doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0015.
Collen, B., Whitton, F., Dyer, E.E., Baillie, J.E.M., Cumberlidge, N., Darwall, W.R.T.,
Pollock, C., Richman, N.I., Soulsby, A. and M. Böhm. 2014. Global patterns
of freshwater species diversity, threat and endemism. Global Ecology and
Biogeography 23: 40-51. Doi: 10.1111/geb.12096.
Collette, B.B., Carpenter, K.E., Polidoro, B.A., Juan-Jordá, M.J., Boustany, A., Die, D.J.,
Elfes, C., Fox, W., Graves, J., Harrison, L.R. et al. 2011. High value and long-lived:
A double jeopardy for threatened tunas and billfishes. Science 333(6040): 291292.

References page 129

Costanza, R., Graumlich, L. and W. Steffen (eds.). 2006. Sustainability or Collapse? An
Integrated History and Future of People on Earth. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,
USA.
Cranston, G., Green, J. and H. Tranter. 2015. Doing Business with nature:opportunities from natural Capital. University of Cambridge. Available at:
http://www.cisl.cam.ac.uk/publications/publication-pdfs/doing-business-withnature.pdf [Accessed June 2016].
Croft, S., Dawkins, E. and C. West. 2014. Assessing physical trade flows of materialsof biological origin to and from Scotland. Joint Nature Conservation Committee
Report No: 533. Joint Nature Conservation, Peterborough, UK.
Crowards, T.M. 1998. Safe minimum standards: Costs and opportunities. Ecological
Economics 25: 303-314. Doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00041-4.
Croxall, J.P., Butchart, S.H.M., Lascelles, B., Stattersfield, A.J., Sullivan, B., Symes,
A. and P. Taylor. 2012. Seabird conservation status, threats and priority actions:a global assessment. Bird Conservation International 22 (1): 1-34.
Doi: 10.1017/S0959270912000020.
Crutzen, P.J. 2002. Geology of mankind. Nature 415 (6867): 23. Doi: 10.1038/415023a.
Cumberlidge, N., Ng, P.K.L., Yeo, D.C.J., Magalhães, C., Campos, M.R., Alvarez, F.,
Naruse, T., Daniels, S.R., Esser, L.J., Attipoe, F.Y.K., Clotilde-Ba, F. et al. 2009.
Freshwater crabs and the biodiversity crisis: Importance, threats, status, andconservation challenges. Biological Conservation 142: 1665-1673.
Doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.02.038.
Cumming, G.S., Olsson, P., Chapin III, F.S. and C.S. Holling. 2013. Resilience,experimentation and scale mismatches in social-ecological landscapes. LandscapeEcology 28(6): 1139-1150 Doi: 10.1007/s10980-012-9725-4.
Dallas, L.L. 2012. Short-Termism, the Financial Crisis, and Corporate Governance.
Journal of Corporation Law. 37: 264-363. San Diego Legal Studies Paper No.
12-078.
Darnhofer, I., Lindenthal, T., Bartel-Kratochvil, R. and W. Zollitsch. 2010.
Conventionalisation of organic farming practices: from structural criteria towards
an assessment based on organic principles. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development 30 (1): 67–81. Doi: 10.1051/agro/2009011.
Davidson, N.C. 2014. How much wetland has the world lost? Long–term and recent
trends in global wetland area. Marine and Freshwater Research 65 (10): 934-941.
Doi: 10.1071/MF14173.
De Schutter, O. 2009. International Trade in Agriculture and the Right to Food.
Dialogue on globalization. Occasional paper 46. Geneva office of Friedich Ebert
Stiftung.
De Schutter, O. and Gliesman, S. 2015. Agroecology is Working – But We Need
Examples to Inspire Others. Foodtank. Available at: www.foodtank.com/
news/2015/09/agroecology-is-working-but-we-need-examples-to-inspire-others[Accessed June 2016].
De Schutter, O. 2011. Agroecology and the Right to Food. Report presented at the 16th
Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council [A/HRC/16/49].
Deguines, N., Jono, C., Baude, M., Henry, M., Julliard, R. and C. Fontaine. 2014. Largescale trade-off between agricultural intensification and crop pollination services.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12(4):212-217. Doi: 10.1890/130054.
Deinet, S., Ieronymidou, C., McRae, L., Burfield, I.J., Foppen, R.P., Collen, B. and M.
Böhm. 2013. Wildlife comeback in Europe: The recovery of selected mammal andbird species. Final report to Rewilding Europe by ZSL, BirdLife International andthe European Bird Census Council. London, UK: ZSL.
Denier, L., Scherr, S., Shames, S., Chatterton, P., Hovani, L. and N. Stam. 2015. The
Little Sustainable Landscapes Book. Global Canopy Programme, Oxford, UK.
Dirzo, R., Young, H.S., Galetti, M., Ceballos, G., Isaac, N.J.B. and B. Collen. 2014.
Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 345 (6195): 401-406.
Doi: 10.1126/science.1251817.
Dixon, M.J.R., Loh, J., Davidson, N.C., Beltrame, C., Freeman, R. and M. Walpole.
2016. Tracking global change in ecosystem area: The Wetland Extent Trends
index. Biological Conservation 193: 27-35. Doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.10.023.

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 130

Donner, S. D., Skirving, W. J., Little, C. M., Oppenheimer, M., & O. Hoegh-Guldberg.
2005. Global assessment of coral bleaching and required rates of adaptation underclimate change. Global Change Biology 11(12): 2251-2265.
Doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.01073.x.
Drijfhout, S., Bathiany.S., Beaulieu, C., Brovkin, V.,Claussen, M., Huntingford, C.,
Scheffer, M., Sgubin, G. and D. Swingedouw. 2015. Catalogue of abrupt shifts inIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate models. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 112(43) E5777–E5786.
Doi: 10.1073/pnas.1511451112.
Dudgeon, D., Arthington, A.H., Gessner, M.O., Kawabata, Z., Knowler, D.J., Lévêque,C., Naiman, R.J., Prieur-Richard, A., Soto, D., Stiassny, M.L.J. and C.A. Sullivan.
2006. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation
challenges. Biological reviews 81 (2): 163-182. Doi: 10.1017/S1464793105006950.
Dulvy, N. K., Fowler, S.L., Musick, J.A., Cavanagh, R.D., Kyne, P.M., Harrison, L.
R., Carlson, J.K., Davidson, L.N.K., Fordham, S.V., Francis, M.P. et al. 2014.
Extinction risk and conservation of the world’s sharks and rays. eLife (3): e00590.
Doi: 10.7554/eLife.00590.
EBCC/ RSPB/ BirdLife/ Statistics Netherlands. 2016. Pan-European Common Bird
Monitoring Scheme. European Bird Census Council. Available at: www.ebcc.info/
index.php?ID=28 [Accessed June 2016].
EEA. 2013. Assessment of Global Megatrends, an Update. European Environment
Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.
EEA. 2015. The European environment — state and outlook 2015 A comprehensive
assessment of the European environment’s state, trends and prospects, in a
global context. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ellis, E.C., Klein Goldewijk, K., Siebert, S., Lightman, D. and N. Ramankutty. 2010.
Anthropogenic transformation of the biomes, 1700 to 2000. Global Ecology and
Biogeography 19 (5): 589–606. Doi: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00540.x.
Erisman, J.W., Galloway, J.N., Seitzinger, S., Bleeker, A., Dise, N.B., Roxana Petrescu,
A.M., Leach, A.M. and W. de Vries. 2013. Consequences of human modification of
the global nitrogen cycle. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 368:
20130116. Doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0116.
Erisman, J.W.; J.N. Galloway; N.B. Dise; M.A. Sutton; A. Bleeker; B. Grizzetti; A.M.
Leach & W. de Vries. 2015. Nitrogen: too much of a vital resource. Science Brief.
WWF Netherlands, Zeist, The Netherlands.
Erwin, D. H. 1994. The Permo-Triassic extinction. Nature 367 (6460): 231-236.
Doi: 10.1038/367231a0.
FAO. 2003. World agriculture: towards 2015/2030. Earthscan Publications Ltd.
FAO. 2004. What is Agrobiodiversity? FAO factsheet. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy.
FAO 2005-2016. International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal,
Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. Available at http://www.fao.org/fishery/iuu-fishing/en. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome,
Italy. [Accessed June 2016].
FAO. 2010. Report of the FAO workshop on child labour in fisheries and aquaculture
in cooperation with ILO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome, Italy.
FAO. 2011a. The state of the world’s land and water resources for food and agriculture(SOLAW) - Managing systems at risk. Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations, Rome, Italy and Earthscan, London, UK.
FAO. 2011b. Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. Contributing to food security andsustainability in a changing world. Outcomes of an expert workshop held by FAO
and the platform on agrobiodiversity research from 14–16 April 2010 in Rome,
Italy. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy.
FAO. 2013. Food wastage footprint. Impacts on natural resources. Summary report.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy.
FAO. 2014. The state of food and agriculture 2014 in brief. FAO factsheet. Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy.
FAO. 2015. FAOSTAT Agricultural Production Data. Available at www.faostat3.fao.
org/download/Q/QC/E [Accessed July 2016]. Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations. Rome, Italy.

References page 131

FAO. 2016a. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016. Contributing to foodsecurity and nutrition for all. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome, Italy.
FAO. 2016b. AQUASTAT. Main Database, Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations. Available at: www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/query/index.
html?lang=en [Accessed June 2016].
FAO Forestry. 2015. Global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA2015). Desk reference.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Fox, A. D., Madsen, J., Boyd, H., Kuijken, E., Norriss, D.W., Tombre, I. M. and D.A.
Stroud. 2005. Effects of agricultural change on abundance, fitness components
and distribution of two arctic-nesting goose populations. Global Change Biology
11 (6): 881–893. Doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.00941.x.
Frieler, K., Meinshausen, M. , Golly, A., Mengel, M., Lebek, K., Donner, S.D. and O.
Hoegh-Guldberg. 2013. Limiting global warming to 2°C is unlikely to save mostcoral reefs. Nature Climate Change 3 (2): 165-170. Doi: 10.1038/nclimate1674.
Galli, A. 2015a Footprints. Oxford Bibliographies. Oxford University Press, NY, USA.
Doi: 10.1093/OBO/9780199363445-0046.
Galli, A. 2015b. On the Rationale and Policy Usefulness of Ecological Footprint
Accounting: the case of Morocco. Environmental Science & Policy 48 (21).
Doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.01.008.
Galli, A., Halle, M. and N. Grunewald. 2015. Physical limits to resource access andutilisation and their economic implications in Mediterranean economies.
Environmental Science & Policy 51: 125-136. Doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.002.
Galli, A., Wackernagel, M., Iha, K. and E. Lazarus. 2014. Ecological Footprint:
Implications for biodiversity. Biological Conservation 173: 121-132.
Doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.10.019.
Galli, A., Wiedmann, T., Ercin, E., Knoblauch, D., Ewing, B. and S. Giljum. 2012.
Integrating Ecological, Carbon and Water footprint into a “Footprint Family”
of indicators: Definition and role in tracking human pressure on the Planet.
Ecological Indicators 16: 100-112. Doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.017.
Gamfeldt, L., Snäll, T., Bagchi, R., Jonsson, M., Gustafsson, L., Kjellander, P., RuizJean, M.C., Fröberg, M., Stendahl, J., Philipson et al. 2013. Higher levels ofmultiple ecosystem services are found in forests with more tree species. Naturecommunications 4: 1340 1-8. Doi: 10.1038/ncomms2328.
Gattuso, J.P. and Hansson, L. (eds) .2011. Ocean Acidification. Oxford University Press.
Oxford: UK.
Gattuso J-P., Magnan, A., Billé, R., Cheung, W.W.L., Howes, E.L., Joos, F., Allemand,D., Bopp, L., Cooley, S.R., Eakin, C.M. et al. 2015. Contrasting futures for oceanand society from different anthropogenic CO2 emissions scenarios. Science 349(6243). Doi: 10.1126/science.aac4722.
German, L., Schoneveld, G. and E. Mwangi. 2011 Contemporary processes of largescale land acquisition by investors: case studies from sub-Saharan Africa.
Occasional Paper 68. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
GESAMP. 2015. Sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the marine environment:a global assessment. Report. Stud. GESAMP No. 90.
Doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3803.7925.
Gibbs, H.K., Ruesch, A.S., Achard, F., Clayton, M.K., Holmgren, P., Ramankutty, N. and
J.A. Foley. 2010. Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agriculturalland in the 1980s and 1990s. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,107(38): 16732–16737. Doi: 10.1073/pnas.0910275107.
Gibbs, H.K., Rausch, L., Munger, J., Schelly, I., Morton, D.C., Noojipady, P., SoaresFilho, B., Barreto, P., Micol, L. and N.F. Walker. 2015. Brazil’s Soy Moratorium.
Science 347 (6220): 377-378. Doi: 10.1126/science.aaa0181.
Gladek, E., Fraser, M., Roemers, G., Sabag Muñoz, O., Kennedy, E. and P. Hirsch. 2016.
The Global Food System: an Analysis. Metabolic, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Global Footprint Network. 2016. National Footprint Accounts, 2016 Edition. Available
at: www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/blog/national_footprint_
accounts_2016_carbon_makes_up_60_of_worlds_footprint. [Accessed June2016].

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 132

Godar, J., Persson, U. M., Tizado, E. J. and P. Meyfroidt. 2015. Towards more accurate
and policy relevant footprint analyses: Tracing fine-scale socio-environmental
impacts of production to consumption. Ecological Economics 112: 25-35.
Doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.02.003.
Godfray, H.C.J., Beddington, J.R., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J.F.,
Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S.M. and C. Toulmin. 2010. Food security: thechallenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327 (5967): 812–818.
Doi: 10.1126/science.1185383.
Gornitz, V. 2000. Impoundment, groundwater mining, and other hydrologictransformations: Impacts on global sea level rise. In Douglas, B.C., Kearney, M.S.
and S.P. Leatherman (eds). Sea Level Rise: History and Consequences, pp 97-119.
Academic Press, Cambridge, USA.
Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockström, J., Öhman, M.C., Shyamsundar,P., Steffen, W., Glaser, G., Kanie, N. and I. Noble. 2013. Policy: Sustainable
development goals for people and planet. Nature 495: 305- 307.
Doi: 10.1038/495305a.
Grill, G., Lehner, B., Lumsdon, A.E., MacDonald, G.K., Zarfl, C. and C. Reidy
Liermann. 2015. An index-based framework for assessing patterns and trends
in river fragmentation and flow regulation by global dams at multiple scales.
Environmental Research Letters 10 (1): 015001 1-15.
Doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/1/015001.
Guan, D., Hubacek, K., Weber, C.L., Peters, G.P. and D.M. Reiner. 2008. The drivers ofChinese CO2 emissions from 1980 to 2030. Global Environmental Change 18 (4):626-634. Doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.08.001.
Hall, C.J., Jordaan, A. and M.G. Frisk. 2011. The historic influence of dams on
diadromous fish habitat with a focus on river herring and hydrologic longitudinalconnectivity. Landscape Ecology 26 (1): 95-107. Doi: 10.1007/s10980-010-9539-1.
Hansen, M.C., Potapov, P.V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S.A., Tyukavina, A.,
Thau, D., Stehman, S.V., Goetz, S.J., Loveland, T.R. et al. 2013. High-resolution
global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342 (6160): 850-853.
Doi: 10.1126/science.1244693.
Heinze, C., Meyer, S., Goris, N., Anderson, L., Steinfeldt, R., Chang, N., Le Quéré, C.
and D.C.E. Bakker. 2015. The ocean carbon sink – impacts, vulnerabilities andchallenges. Earth System Dynamics 6 (1): 327-358. Doi: 10.5194/esd-6-327-2015.
Hines, E.M., Strindberg, S., Junchumpoo, C., Ponnampalam, L.S., Ilangakoon, A.D.,
Jackson-Ricketts, J. and S. Monanunsap. 2015. Line transect estimates of
Irrawaddy dolphin abundance along the eastern Gulf Coast of Thailand. Frontiersin Marine Science 2: 63 1-10. Doi: 10.3389/fmars.2015.00063.
Hjorth, P. and Bagheri, A. 2006. Navigating towards sustainable development: A system
dynamics approach. Futures, 38(1): 74–92. Doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2005.04.005.
Hoegh-Guldberg, O. 1999. Climate change, coral bleaching and the future of the world’s
coral reefs. Marine & Freshwater research 50 (8): 839-866.
Doi: 10.1071/MF99078.
Hoegh-Guldberg, O. 2015. Reviving the Ocean Economy: the case for action – 2015.
WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.
Hoekstra, A.Y. and Wiedmann. T.O. 2014. Humanity’s unsustainable environmental
footprint. Science. 344 (6188): 1114-1117. Doi: 10.1126/science.1248365.
Hoekstra, J.M., Boucher, T.M., Ricketts, T.H. and C. Roberts. 2005. Confronting abiome crisis: global disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecology Letters 8(1): 23-29. Doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00686.x.
Holland, G. and Bruyere, C.L. 2014. Recent intense hurricane response to global climatechange. Climate Dynamics. 42 (3): 617-627. Doi: 10.1007/s00382-013-1713-0.
Hosonuma, N., Herold, M., De Sy, V., De Fries, R.S., Brockhaus, M., Verchot, L.,
Angelsen, A., and E. Romijn. 2012. An assessment of deforestation and forest
degradation drivers in developing countries. Environmental Research Letters, 7:044009. Doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044009.
Hubacek, K., Guan, D. and A. Barua. 2007. Changing lifestyles and consumption
patterns in developing countries: A scenario analysis for China and India. Futures
39: 1084-1096. Doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2007.03.010.

References page 133

Hyde, D.J., Mc Govern, E. and P. Walsham (eds). 2013. Chemical aspects of ocean
acidification monitoring in the ICES marine area. ICES Cooperative Research
Report 319.
IBGE. Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. 2016. Available at: www.sidra.
ibge.gov.br/bda/tabela/listabl.asp?z=t&o=11&i=P&c=1612 [Accessed June 2016].
IGBP. 2016. Great acceleration. Available at: www.igbp.net/globalchange/
greatacceleration.4.1b8ae20512db692f2a680001630.html [Accessed June 2016].
IPCC. 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance
Climate Change Adaptation. Special Report of Working Groups I and II of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA. Doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139177245.
IPCC. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution ofWorking Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change. Stocker, T.F., Qin,D., Plattner, G-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.K.,
Boschung, J. Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V. and P.M. Midgley (eds.). Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA.
IPCC. 2014a. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups
I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. [Pachauri, R. and Meyer, L.A.(eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.
IPCC. 2014b. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part
A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change .[Field,
C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., T.E. Bilir, T.E.,
Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C.., Girma, B ., Kissel, E.S.,
Levy, A.N., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea, P.R. and L.L. White. (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 1132 pp.
IPES-Food. 2016. From uniformity to diversity: a paradigm shift from industrial
agriculture to diversified agroecological systems. International Panel of Experts
on Sustainable Food systems.
IUCN. 2014. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2014.3. Avalaible at:
http://www. iucnredlist.org [Accessed March 2015].
IUCN. 2015. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015-4. Available atwww.iucnredlist.org [Accessed June 2016].
IUCN and Birdlife International. 2016. Red List Index of species survival.
IUGS. 2016. International chronostratigraphic chart. Available at: http://www.
stratigraphy.org/ICSchart/ChronostratChart2016-04.pdf [Accessed June 2016].
Jablonski, D. 1994. Extinctions in the fossil record. Philosophical Transactions of theRoyal Society B 344: 11-17. Doi: 10.1098/rstb.1994.0045.
Jennings, S., Miller, S. and C. McCosker. 2015. Landscape collaboration for sustainable
land use. National Centre for Universities and Business, London, UK.
Jiménez Cisneros, B.E., Oki, T., Arnell, N.W., Benito, G., Cogley, J.G., Döll, P.,
Jiang, T. and S.S. Mwakalila. 2014. Freshwater resources. In: Climate Change
2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral
Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 229-269.
Juffe-Bignoli, D., Burgess, N.D., Bingham, H., Belle, E.M.S., de Lima, M.G., Deguignet,
M., Bertzky, B., Milam, A.N., Martinez-Lopez, J. et al. 2014. Protected Planet
Report 2014. UNEP-WCMC. Cambridge, UK.
Junk, W.J., An, S., Finlayson, C.M., Gopal, B., Květ, J., Mitchell, S.A., Mitsch, W.J. and
R.D. Robarts. 2013. Current state of knowledge regarding the world’s wetlands
and their future under global climate change: a synthesis. Aquatic Sciences 75 (1):151-167. Doi: 10.1007/s00027-012-0278-z.
Kemp, R. and Rotmans, J. 2005. The Management of the Co-Evolution of Technical,
Environmental and Social Systems. In: Weber, M. and Hemmelskamp, J. Towards
Environmental Innovation Systems: 33-55.
Kemp, R., Loorbach, D.A. and J. Rotmans. 2007. Transition management as a model
for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development.
International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 14(1):78–91. Doi: 10.1080/13504500709469709.

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 134

Kerkhof, A., De Boer, E., Meijer, G., Scheepmaker, J. and K. Blok. 2015. Towards
companies that perform within the earth’s regenerative capacity. Eneco-Ecofys
paper. Available at: http://www.ecofys.com/files/files/eneco-ecofys-2015-paperone-planet-thinking.pdf [Accessed June 2016].
Kissinger, M., Rees, W.E. and V. Timmer. 2011. Interregional sustainability: governanceand policy in an ecologically interdependent world. Environmental Science &Policy 14: 965-976. Doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2011.05.007.
Kissinger, G., Herold, M. and V. De Sy. 2012. Drivers of Deforestation and Forest
Degradation: A Synthesis Report for REDD+ Policymakers. Lexeme Consulting,Vancouver, Canada.
Kissinger, G. 2014. Financing Strategies for Integrated Landscape Investment.
Integrated Landscape Initiative Analysis. EcoAgriculture Partners, on behalf of
the Landscapes for People, Food and Nature Initiative. p. 11, 15-16.
Konefal, J., Mascarenhas, M. and M. Hatanaka. 2005. Governance in the Global
Agro-food System: Backlighting the Role of Transnational Supermarket Chains.
Agriculture and Human Values 22 (3): 291-302. Doi: 10.1007/s10460-005-6046-0.
Kovacs, K.M., Aguilar, A., Aurioles, D., Burkanov, V., Campagna, C., Gales, N., Gelatt,T., Goldsworthy, S.D., Goodman, S.J., Hofmeyr, G.J.G et al. 2012. Global threats
to pinnipeds. Marine Mammal Science 28(2): 414-436.
Doi: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.2011.00479.x.
Kremen, C. and Miles, A., 2012. Ecosystem Services in Biologically Diversified versus
Conventional Farming Systems: Benefits, Externalities, and Trade-Offs. Ecology
and Society 17 (4):40. Doi: 10.5751/ES-05035-170440.
Kroeker K.J., Kordas, R.L., Crim, R., Hendriks, I.E., Ramajo, L., Singh, G.S., Duarte,
C.M., and J-P. Gattuso. 2013. Impacts of ocean acidification on marine organisms:
quantifying sensitivities and interaction with warming. Global Change Biology.
19, 1884–1896. Doi: 10.1111/gcb.12179.
Kwiatkowski, L., Cox, P., Halloran, P.R., Mumby, P.J. and A.J. Wiltshire. 2015.
Coral bleaching under unconventional scenarios of climate warming and ocean
acidification. Nature Climate Change 5: 777-781. Doi: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2655.
Lawrence, D. and Vandecar, K. 2015. Effects of tropical deforestation on climate andagriculture. Nature Climate Change 5: 27-36. Doi: 10.1038/nclimate2430.
Lazarus, E., Lin, D., Martindill, J., Hardiman, J., Pitney, L. and A. Galli. 2015.
Biodiversity Loss and the Ecological Footprint of Trade. Diversity 7: 170-191.
Doi: 10.3390/d7020170.
Lazzarini, S.G., Chaddad, F.R. and M.L. Cook. 2001. Integrating supply chain andnetwork analyses: The study of netchains. Journal on Chain and Network Science
1(1): 7–22. Doi: 10.3920/JCNS2001.x002.
Lenton, T. and Watson, A. 2011. Revolutions That Made the Earth. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, UK.
Lenton, T.M. and Williams, H.T.P. 2013. On the origin of planetary-scale tipping points.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28 (7): 380–382. Doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2013.06.001.
Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Kanemoto, K., Foran, B., Lobefaro, L. and A. Geschke. 2012.
International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations. Nature 486:109-112. Doi: 10.1038/nature11145.
Liebman, M. and Schulte, L.A., 2015. Enhancing agroecosystem performance andresilience through increased diversification of landscapes and cropping systems.
Elementa. Science of the Anthropocene. 2.
Doi: 10.12952/journal.elementa.000041.
Lin, D., Galli, A., Borucke, M., Lazarus, E., Grunewald, N., Martindill, J., Zimmerman,
D., Mancini, S., Iha, K. and M. Wackernagel. 2015. Tracking Supply and
Demand of Biocapacity through Ecological Footprint Accounting. In: Dewulf,J., De Meester, S. and R.A.F. Alvarenga (eds.). Sustainability Assessment ofRenewables-Based Products: Methods and Case Studies, pp. 179-200. Wiley,
Hoboken, NJ, USA.
Liu, J.D. 2012. Finding Sustainability in Ecosystem Restoration. Available at: www.
permaculturenews.org/2012/11/17/ finding-sustainability-in-ecosystemrestoration/ [Accessed June 2016].

References page 135

Liu, J.D. and Bradley, H. 2016. Chapter 4.8. A continuing inquiry into ecosystem
restoration examples from China’s Loess Plateau and locations worldwide andtheir emerging implications. Land Restoration Reclaiming Landscapes for a
Sustainable Future. Pages 361–379. Doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-801231-4.00027-6.
Maani, K.E. and Cavana, R.Y. 2007. Systems Thinking, System Dynamics: Managing
Change and Complexity. Pearson Education Canada; 2nd edition (6 June 2007).
Mace, G.M., Reyers, B., Alkemade, R., Biggs, R., Chapin III, F.S., Cornell, S.E., Diaz,S., Jennings, S., Leadley, P., Mumby, P.J., et al.. 2014. Approaches to defining aplanetary boundary for biodiversity. Global Environmental Change 28: 289-297.
Doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.009.
Macfadyen, S., Tylianakis, J.M., Letourneau, D.K., Benton, T.G., Tittonell, P., Perring,
M.P., Gómez-Creutzberg, C., Báldi, A., Broadhurst, L., Okabe, K. et al.. 2015. The
role of food retailers in improving resilience in global food supply. Global Food
Security 7: 1-8. Doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2016.01.001.
MacLeod, M., Breitholtz, M., Cousins, I.T., de Wit, C.A., Persson, L.M., Rudén, C.,
McLachlan, M.S., 2014. Identifying Chemicals That Are Planetary Boundary
Threats. Environmental Science Technology. 48: 11057–11063.
Doi: 10.1021/es501893m.
Mancini, M.S., Galli, A., Niccolucci, V., Lin, D., Bastianoni, S., Wackernagel, M. and N.
Marchettini. 2016. Ecological Footprint: Refining the carbon Footprint calculation.
Ecological Indicators 61: 390-403. Doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.09.040.
Mariki, S.B., Svarstad, H. and T.A. Benjaminsen. 2015. Elephants over the Cliff:
Explaining wildlife killings in Tanzania. Land Use Policy 44: 19–30.
Doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.10.018.
Matondi, P.B., Havnevik, K. and A. Beyene. 2011. Biofuels, land grabbing and foodsecurity in Africa. Zed Books, London, UK.
Matson, P. A, Parton, W. J., Power, A.G. and M.J. Swift. 1997. Agriculturalintensification and ecosystem properties. Science 277 (5325): 504–509.
Doi: 10.1126/science.277.5325.504.
Mekonnen, M.M. and Hoekstra, A.Y. 2016. Four billion people facing severe water
scarcity. Science Advances 2 (2): e1500323. Doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1500323.
MEA. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington,
DC, USA.
Miller, G.H., Brigham-Grette, J., Alley, R.B., Anderson, L., Bauch, H.A., Douglas,
M.S.V., Edwards, M.E., Elias, S.A., Finney, B.P., Fitzpatrick, J.J. et al. 2013.
Paleoclimate, Paleoclimate history of the Arctic. In: Encyclopedia of Quaternary
Science. Elsevier, 113-125. Doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53643-3.00030-3.
Minton, G., Peter, C., Poh, A.N.Z., Ngeian, J., Braulik, G., Hammond, P.S. and A.A.
Tuen. 2013. Population estimates and distribution patterns of Irrawaddy
dolphins (Orcaella brevirostris) and Indo-Pacific finless porpoises (Neophocaena
phocaenoides) in the Kuching Bay, Sarawak. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 61(2): 877-888.
Moore, D., Cranston, G., Reed, A. and A. Galli. 2012. Projecting future human demandon the Earth’s regenerative capacity. Ecological Indicators 16: 3-10.
Doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.03.013.
Moran, D. D., Petersone, M. and F. Verones. 2016. On the suitability of input-output
analysis for calculating product-specific biodiversity footprints. Ecological
Indicators 60: 192-201.Doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.06.015.
Newbold, T., Hudson, L.N., Hill, S.L.L., Contu, S., Lysenko, I., Senior, R.A., Börger, L.,
Bennett, D.J., Choimes, A., Collen, B. et al. 2015. Global effects of land use on local
terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520 (7545): 45-50. Doi: 10.1038/nature14324.
Newbold, T., Hudson, L.N., Arnell, A.P., Contu, S., De Palma, A., Ferrier, S., Hill,
S.L.L., Hoskins, A.J., Lysenko, I., Phillips, H.R.P. et al. 2016. Has land use pushed
terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment.
Science 353 (6296): 288-291. Doi: 10.1126/science.aaf2201.
Nguyen, N.C. and Bosch, O.J.H. 2013. A Systems Thinking Approach to identify
Leverage Points for Sustainability: A Case Study in the Cat Ba Biosphere Reserve,
Vietnam. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 30(2), 104–115.
Doi: 10.1002/sres.2145.

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 136

Nielsen. 2015. The future of grocery: E-commerce, digital technology and changing
shopping preferences around the world. The Nielsen Company, New York.
Available at: www.nielsen.com/eu/en/insights/reports/2015/the-future-ofgrocery.html [Accessed June 2016].
Nkonya, E., Mirzabaev, A., and J. von Braun (eds). 2016. Economics of Land
Degradation and Improvement – A Global Assessment for Sustainable
Development. Springer International Publishing AG, Switzerland.
Doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19168-3.
NOAA. 2016. El Niño prolongs longest global coral bleaching event, Press release,Feb 23, 2016. Available at: www.noaa.gov/el-niño-prolongs-longest-global-coralbleaching-event [Accessed June 2016].
Nobre, A.D. 2014. The Future Climate of Amazonia, Scientific Assessment Report.
Sponsored by CCST-INPE, INPA and ARA. São José dos Campos, Brazil. Available
at: www.ccst.inpe.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ The_Future_Climate_of_
Amazonia_Report.pdf [Accessed June 2016].
OECD Competition Committee. 2013. Competition Issues in the Food Chain
Industry. Policy paper. Available at: www.oecd.org/daf/competition/
CompetitionIssuesintheFoodChainIndustry.pdf [Accessed June 2016].
OECD. 2010. Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries 2010: At a glance. OECD
Publishing, Paris. Doi: 10.1787/agr_oecd-2010-en.
Pacifici, M., Foden, W.B., Visconti, P., Watson, J.E.M., Butchart, S.H.M., Kovacs, K.M.,
Scheffers, B.R., Hole, D.G., Martin, T.G., Akçakaya, H.R. et al. 2015. Assessing
species vulnerability to climate change. Nature Climate Change 5: 215–225.
Doi: 10.1038/nclimate2448.
Parmesan, C., 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change.
Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 37: 637–669.
Doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110100.
Pauly, D. and Zeller, D. (eds) 2015. Catch Reconstruction: concepts, methods and data
sources. Online Publication. Sea Around Us (www.seaaroundus.org). University of
British Columbia, Canada.
Pauly, D. and Zeller, D. 2016. Catch reconstructions reveal that global marine fisheries
catches are higher than reported and declining. Nature Communications 7(10244). Doi: 10.1038/ncomms10244.
Pearson, R.G., Stanton, J.C., Shoemaker, K.T., Aiello-Lammens, M.E., Ersts, P.J.,
Horning, N., Fordham, D.A., Raxworthy, C.J., Ryu, H.Y., McNees, J. and H.R.
Akçakaya. 2014. Life history and spatial traits predict extinction risk due toclimate change. Nature Climate Change 4 (3): 217-221.
Doi: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2113.
Pegram, G. 2011. Shared risk and opportunity in water resources: Seeking asustainable future for Lake Naivasha. WWF report. WWF International, Gland,
Switzerland.
Persson, L.M., Breitholtz, M., Cousins, I.T., De Wit, C.A., MacLeod, M. and M.S.
McLachlan. 2013. Confronting Unknown Planetary Boundary Threats from
Chemical Pollution. Environmental Science & Technology 47: 12619-12622.
Doi: 10.1021/es402501c.
Peters, G.P., Minx, J.C., Weber, C.L. and O. Edenhofer. 2011. Growth in emission
transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 108 (21): 8903–8908. Doi: 10.1073/pnas.1006388108.
Peters, G.P., Marland, G., Le Quéré, C., Boden, T., Canadell, J.G. and M.R. Raupach.
2012. Rapid growth in CO2 emissions after the 2008–2009 global financial crisis.
Nature Climate Change 2: 2-4. Doi:10.1038/nclimate1332.
Petris, G., Petrone, S. and P. Campagnoli. 2009. Dynamic Linear Models with R.
Springer, New York, NY, USA. Doi: 10.1007/b135794.
Pfeiffer, D.A. 2006. Eating fossil fuels: oil, food and the coming crisis in agriculture.
New Society Publishers. Gabriola Island, Canada.
Piketty, T. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Harvard University Press,
Boston, MA, USA.
Pounds, J.A., Bustamante, M.R., Coloma, L.A., Consuegra, J.A., Fogden, M.P.L., Foster,P.N., La Marca, E., Masters, K.L., Merino-Viteri, A., Puschendorf, R., et al..
2006. Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global
warming. Nature 439: 161-167. Doi: 10.1038/nature04246.

References page 137

Primack, R.B., Ibáñez, I., Higuchi, H., Lee, S.D., Miller-Rushing, A.J., Wilson, A.M.,
Silander, J.A. 2009. Spatial and interspecific variability in phenological responses
to warming temperatures. Biological Conservation 142: 2569–2577.
Doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.06.003.
Rabotyagov, S.S., Klingy, C.L., Gassmanz, P.W., Rabalais, N.N. and R.E. Turner. 2014.
The Economics of Dead Zones: Causes, Impacts, Policy Challenges, and a Model ofthe Gulf of Mexico Hypoxic Zone. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy
8 (1): 58-79. Doi: 10.1093/reep/ret024.
Ramanathan, V., Chung, C., Kim, D., Bettge, T., Buja, L., Kiehl, J.T., Washington, W.M.,
Fu, Q., Sikka, D.R. and M. Wild. 2005. Atmospheric brown clouds: Impacts on
South Asian climate and hydrological cycle. Proceedings of the National Academyof Sciences 102 (15): 5326–5333. Doi: 10.1073/pnas.0500656102.
Raup, D.M. and Sepkoski, J.J. 1982. Mass extinctions in the marine fossil record.
Science 215 (4539): 1501-1503.
Raupach, M.R., Gloor, M., Sarmiento, J.L., Canadell, J.G., Frölicher, T.L., Gasser, T.,
Houghton, R.A., Le Quéré, C. and C.M. Trudinger. 2014. The declining uptake rateof atmospheric CO2 by land and ocean sinks. Biogeosciences, 11: 3453–3475.
Doi: 10.5194/bg-11-3453-2014.
Reager, J.T., Gardner, A.S., Famiglietti, D.N., Wiese, D.N., Eicker, A. and M.-H. Lo.
2016. A decade of sea level rise slowed by climate-driven hydrology. Science 351(6274): 699-703. Doi: 10.1126/science.aad8386.
Rees, W.E. 2010. Globalization and extended eco-footprints: neo-colonialism and (un)sustainability. In: Engel, J.R., Westra, L. and K. Bosselmann (eds.). Democracy,
Ecological Integrity and International Law, pp. 467-489. Cambridge Scholars
Publishing, Newcastle, UK. Doi: 10.5848/CSP.1786.00024.
ISBN: 9781443817868.
Régnier, C., Achaz, G., Lambert, A., Cowie, R.H., Bouchet, P. and B. Fontaine. 2015.
Mass extinction in poorly known taxa. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 112 (25): 7761-7766. Doi: 10.1073/pnas.1502350112.
Reid, P.C., Fischer, A.C., Lewis-Brown, E., Meredith, M.P., Sparrow, M., Andersson,
A.J., Antia, A., Bates, N.R., Bathmann, U., Beaugrand, G., et al. 2009. Chapter 1
Impacts of the Oceans on Climate Change. Advances in Marine Biology 56: 1-150.
Doi: 10.1016/S0065-2881(09)56001-4.
Reidy Liermann, C., Nilsson, C., Robertson, J. and R.Y. Ng. 2012. Implications of Dam
Obstruction for Global Freshwater Fish Diversity. BioScience 62 (6): 539-548.
Doi: 10.1525/bio.2012.62.6.5.
Reif, J. 2013. Long-term trends in bird populations: a review of patterns and potential
drivers in North America and Europe. Acta Ornithologica 48 (1): 1-16.
Doi: 10.3161/000164513X669955.
Reynolds, J. and Cranston, G. 2014. Nexus thinking: can it slow the Great
Acceleration? Cambridge Institute for Sustainable Leadership. Available at:
http://www.cisl.cam.ac.uk/research/publications/latest-publications/nexusthinking-can-it-slow-the-great-acceleration [Accessed June 2016].
Richardson, K., Steffen, W. and D. Liverman. (eds.). 2011. Climate Change: Global
Risks, Challenges and Decisions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Rochman, C. M., Hoh, E., Kurobe, T and S.J. The. 2013. Ingested plastic transfers
hazardous chemicals to fish and induces hepatic stress. Scientific Reports 3: 3263.
Doi: 10.1038/srep03263.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, III, F.S., Lambin, E.F.,
Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J.,et al. 2009a. Planetary
boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecological Society
14 (2), 32.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, III, F.S., Lambin, E.F.,
Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., et al. 2009b. A safe
operating space for humanity. Nature 461(7263): 472-475.
Doi: 10.1038/461472a;pmid:19779433.
Rödder, D., Kielgast, J., Bielby, J., Schmidtlein, S., Bosch, J., Garner, T.W.J., Veith, M.,
Walker, S., Fisher, M.C. and S. Lötters. 2009. Global Amphibian Extinction Risk
Assessment for the Panzootic Chytrid Fungus. Diversity 1: 52-66.
Doi: 10.3390/d1010052.

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 138

Royal Society. 2005. Ocean Acidification Due to Increasing Atmospheric Carbon
Dioxide. Policy Document. The Royal Society, London, UK.
Salafsky, N., Salzer, D., Stattersfield, A.J., Hilton-Taylor, C., Neugarten, R., Butchart,
S.H.M., Collen, B., Cox, N., Master, L.L., O’Connor, S. and D. Wilkie. 2008. A
Standard Lexicon for Biodiversity Conservation: Unified Classifications of Threats
and Actions. Conservation Biology 22(4): 897-911.
Doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00937.x.
Sano, E.E., Rosa, R., Brito, J.L.S. and L.G. Ferreira. 2010. Land cover mapping of thetropical savanna region in Brazil. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
166(1): 113-124.Doi: 10.1007/s10661-009-0988-4.
Sauer, J. R., Hines, J. E. Fallon, J.E., Pardieck, K.L., Ziolkowski Jr., D.J. and W.A. Link.
2014. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 19662012. Version 02.19.2014 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD,
USA. Available at: www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs2012.html [Accessed June2016].
Sauer, J.R., Link, W.A., Fallon, J.E., Pardieck, K.L. and D.J. Ziolkowski Jr. 2013. The
North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966-2011: Summary
Analysis and Species Accounts. North American Fauna 79: 1–32.
Doi: 10.3996/nafa.79.0001.
Schloegel, L.M., Picco, A.M., Kilpatrick, A.M., Davies, A.J., Hyatt, A.D. and P.
Daszak. 2009. Magnitude of the US trade in amphibians and presence of
Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and ranavirus infection in imported North
American bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana). Biological Conservation 142(7): 14201426. Doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.02.007.
Schor, J.B. 2005. Prices and quantities: Unsustainable consumption and the global
economy. Ecological Economics 55 (3): 309-320.
Doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.07.030.
Schuur E.A.G. , McGuire A.D., Schädel C., Grosse, G., Harden, J.W., Hayes, D.W.,
Hugelius, G., Koven, C.D., Kuhry, P., Lawrence, D.M. et al. .2015. Climate change
and the permafrost carbon feedback. Nature 520 (7546):171–179.
Doi: 10.1038/nature14338.
Searchinger, T., Hanson, C., Ranganathan, J., Lipinski, B., Waite, R., Winterbottom, R.,
Dinshaw, A. and R. Heimlich. 2013. Creating a Sustainable Food Future . A menu
of solutions to sustainably feed more than 9 billion people by 2050. Technical
Report: World Resources Institute. Doi: 10.1016/S0264-8377(03)00047-4.
Serpukhov, M. 2013. Hidden Protectionism as an Instrument of Modern International
Trade Policy. Economics of development 2013; 68(4): 23–27.
Sheil, D. and Murdiyarso, D. 2009. How Forests Attract Rain: An Examination of a New
Hypothesis. BioScience 59 (4): 341-347. Doi: 10.1525/bio.2009.59.4.12.
Six K.D., Kloster S., Ilyina T., Archer S.D., Zhang K. and Maier-Reimer E. 2013. Global
warming amplified by reduced sulphur fluxes as a result of ocean acidification.
Nature Climate Change 3: 975-978. Doi: 10.1038/nclimate1981.
Smith, A. 2007. Translating Sustainabilities between Green Niches and Socio-TechnicalRegimes. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 19 (4):427–450.
Doi: 10.1080/09537320701403334.
Snyder, P.K. 2013. Arctic greening: Concerns over Arctic warming grow. Nature Climate
Change 3(6): 539-540. Doi: 10.1038/nclimate1914.
Snyder, P.K., Delire, C. and J.A. Foley. 2004. Evaluating the influence of different
vegetation biomes on the global climate. Climate Dynamics 23 (3-4): 279–302.
Doi: 10.1007/s00382-004-0430-0.
Sörlin, S. and Warde, P. 2009. Making the Environment Historical – An Introduction.
In: Sörlin, S. and Warde, P. (eds.). Nature’s End: History and the Environment,
pp. 1-19. Palgrave MacMillan, London, UK. Doi: 10.1057/9780230245099.
Spalding, M.D., Ravilious, C. and E.P. Green. 2001. World Atlas of Coral Reefs.
Prepared at the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre. University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Steffen, W., Sanderson, A., Tyson, P.D., Jäger, J., Matson, P.A., Moore III, B., Oldfield,
F., Richardson, K., Schellnhuber, H.J., Turner II , B.L. and R.J. Wasson. 2004.
Global Change and the Earth System: A Planet Under Pressure. The IGBP Book
Series, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, USA.

References page 139

Steffen, W., Crutzen, P.J. and J.R. McNeill. 2007. The Anthropocene: are humans now
overwhelming the great forces of nature? Ambio 36 (8): 614-621.
Doi: 10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[614:TAAHNO]2.0.CO;2.
Steffen, W. and Stafford Smith, M. 2013. Planetary boundaries, equity and global
sustainability: Why wealthy countries could benefit from more equity. Current
Opinion in Environmental. Sustainability 5: 403-408.
Doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.04.007.
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennet, E.M., Biggs,
R., Carpenter, S.R., De Vries, W., De Wit, C.A., et al.. 2015a. Planetary boundaries:
Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347 (6223): 1259855-1- 1259855-10. Doi: 10.1126/science.1259855.
Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O. and C. Ludwig. 2015b. The
trajectory of the Anthropocene: the Great Acceleration. The Anthropocene Review.
2 (1): 81-98. Doi: 10.1177/2053019614564785.
Steinberg, P.F. 2015. Who Rules the Earth? How social rules shape our planet and ourlives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Stephan, U., Patterson, M., Kelly, C. and J. Mair. 2016. Organizations Driving Positive
Social Change: A Review and an Integrative Framework of Change Processes.
Journal of Management 42 (5): 1250-1281. Doi: 10.1177/0149206316633268.
Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Alexander, L.V., Allen, S.K,. Bindoff, N.L., Bréon,F.-M., Church, J.A,. Cubasch, U., Emori,S. et al. 2013. Technical Sum¬mary. In:
Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels,
Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.). Climate Change 2013: The PhysicalScience Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Reportof the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA.
Stranne C, Jakobsson M. and G. Björk G. 2014. Arctic Ocean perennial sea ice
breakdown during the Early Holocene Insolation Maximum. Quaternary Science
Reviews 92 123-132.
Sutton, M.A., Bleeker, A., Howard, C.M., Bekunda, M., Grizzetti B., de Vries, W., vanGrinsven, H.J.M., Abrol, Y.P., Adhya, T.K., Billen, G. et al. 2013. Our Nutrient
World: The challenge to produce more food and energy with less pollution.
Global Overview of Nutrient Management. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology,
Edinburgh on behalf of the Global Partnership on Nutrient Management and theInternational Nitrogen Initiative.
Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute. 2015. Population Status of Elephant in Tanzania
2014. TAWIRI Aerial Survey Report. Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute, Arusha,
Tanzania.
Tilman, D., Cassman, K.G., Matson, P.A., Naylor, R. and S. Polasky. 2002. Agricultural
sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418: 671-677.
Doi: 10.1038/nature01014.
Tittensor, D.P., Walpole, M., Hill, S.L.L., Boyce, D.G., Britten, G.L., Burgess, N.D.,
Butchart, S.H.M., Leadley, P.W., Regan, E.C., Alkemade, R. et al. 2014. A midterm analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science 346(6206): 241–244. Doi: 10.1126/science.1257484.
Tittonell, P. and Giller, K.E. 2013. When yield gaps are poverty traps: The paradigm ofecological intensification in African smallholder agriculture. Field Crops Research,
143, 76–90. Doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2012.10.007.
Tittonell, P., Klerkx, L., Baudron, F., Félix, G.F., Ruggia, A., Van Apeldoorn, D.,
Dogliotti, S., Mapfumo, P. and W.A.H. Rossing. 2016. Ecological Intensification:
Local Innovation to Address Global Challenges. Sustainable Agriculture Reviews
19:1-34. Doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-26777-7_1.
Tscharntke, T., Klein, A.M., Kruess, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I. and C. Thies, 2005.
Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity-ecosystemservice management. Ecology Letters. 8 (8): 857–874.
Doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00782.x.
Tubiello, F. N., Salvatore, M., Cóndor Golec, R. D., Ferrara, A., Rossi, S., Biancalani, R.,
Federici, S., Jacobs, H. and A. Flammini, A. 2014. Agriculture, Forestry and Other
Land Use Emissions by Sources and Removals by Sinks. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy.

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 140

Tubiello, F.N. and Van der Velde, M. (2011). Land water use options for climate change
adaption and mitigation in agriculture. The State of the World’s Land and Water
Resources for Food and Agriculture (SOLAW) -Background Thematic Report TR04A. FAO. GET-Carbon, New York, USA.
Turvey, S.T., Pitman, R.L., Taylor, B.L., Barlow, J., Akamatsu, T., Barrett, L.A., Zhao, X.,
Reeves, R.R., Stewart, B.S., Wang, K., Wei, Z., Zhang, X., Pusser, L.T., Richlen, M.,
Brandon, J.R. and D. Wang. 2007. First human-caused extinction of a cetacean
species? Biology Letters 3: 537-540. Doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0292.
UN. 2015. The UN Global Goals for Sustainable Development. Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300 [Accessed June 2016].
UN 2016. World population projections. Available at: http://www.un.org/en/
development/desa/population/events/pdf/other/10/World_Population_
Projections_Press_Release.pdf [Accessed June 2016].
UNCTAD. 2013. Staples production: efficient “subsistence” smallholders are key topoverty reduction, development, and trade. Paper for GLOBAL COMMODITIESFORUM 2013. Recommitting to commodity sector development as an engine of
economic growth and poverty reduction. Geneva, Switzerland.
UNEP. 1997. International Soil Reference and Information Centre (ISRIC). World Atlasof Desertification. Philippe Rekacewicz, UNEP/GRID-Arendal.
UNEP. 2012. Global Environmental Outlook-5: Environment for the future we want.
United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
UNEP. 2013. Global Chemicals Outlook - Towards Sound Management of Chemicals.
United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya,
UNESCO. 2014. Poaching puts Tanzania’s Selous Game Reserve on List of World
Heritage in Danger. Unesco World Heritage Center. Available at: whc.unesco.org/
en/news/1150/ [Accessed June 2016].
UNESCO. 2015. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2015: Water
for a sustainable world. UNESCO. Paris, UNESCO.
UN-Water. 2011. Policy Brief: Water Quality. UN Water.
Van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. and Grazi, F. 2014. Ecological Footprint policy? Land use as anenvironmental indicator. Journal of Industrial Ecology 18 (1): 10-19.
Doi: 10.1111/jiec.12045.
Van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. and Grazi, F. 2015. Reply to the first systematic response by the
Global Footprint Network to criticism: A real debate finally? Ecological Indicators
58: 458-463. Doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.05.007.
Van Eerden, M. R., Drent, R. H., Stahl, J. and J.P. Bakker. 2005. Connecting seas:
western Palaearctic continental flyway for water birds in the perspective ofchanging land use and climate. Global Change Biology 11 (6): 894-908.
Doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.00940.x.
Van Gils, J.A., Lisovski, S., Lok, T., Meissner, W., Ożarowska, A., de Fouw, J.,
Rakhimberdiev, E., Soloviev, M.Y., Piersma, T. and M. Klaassen. 2016. Body
shrinkage due to Arctic warming reduces red knot fitness in tropical wintering
range. Science 13 vol. 352 (6287): 819-821. Doi: 10.1126/science.aad6351.
Van Oorschot, M., Wentink, C., Kok, M., Van Beukering, P., Kuik, O., Van Drunen,
M., Van de Berg, J., Ingram, V., Judge, L., Arets, E and F. Veneklaas. 2016. The
contribution of sustainable trade to the conservation of natural capital: The
effects of certifying tropical resource production on public and private benefitsof ecosystem services. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The
Hague, Netherlands.
Van Swaay, C.A.M. and Van Strien, A. 2005. Using butterfly monitoring data to develop
a European grassland butterfly indicator, pp. 106-108 E. Kuehn et al., eds. Studies
on the ecology and conservation of Butterflies in Europe. Vol 1: General concepts
and case studies, 1983, p.128.
Van Swaay, C.A.M., Van Strien, A.J., Aghababyan, K., Åström, S., Botham, M., Brereton,
T., Chambers, P., Collins, S., Domènech Ferrés, M. et al. 2015. The European
Butterfly Indicator for Grassland species 1990-2013. Report VS2015.009. De
Vlinderstichting, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Vanlauwe, B.; Six, J.; Sanginga, N. and A.A. Adesina. 2015. Soil fertility decline at thebase of rural poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. Nature Plants 1: 15101.
Doi: 10.1038/NPLANTS.2015.101.

References page 141

Vanloqueren, G. and Baret, P. V. 2008. Why are ecological, low input, multi resistantwheat cultivars slow to develop commercially? A Belgian agricultural ‘lock-in’ casestudy. Ecological Economics, 66(2-3), 436–446.
Doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.10.007.
Vörösmarty, C.J. and Sahagian, D. 2000. Anthropogenic disturbance of the terrestrial
water cycle. BioScience 50 (9): 753-765.
Doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0753:ADOTTW]2.0.CO;2.
Vörösmarty, C.J., McIntyre, P.B., Gessner, M.O., Dudgeon, D., Prusevich, A., Green,P., Glidden, S., Bunn, S.E., Sullivan, C.A., Liermann, C.R and P.M. Davies. 2010.
Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467 (7315):555-561. Doi: 10.1038/nature09440.
Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W.E. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human
Impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC, Canada.
Wackernagel, M., Cranston, G., Morales, J.C. and A. Galli. 2014. Ecological Footprintaccounts. In: Atkinson, G., Dietz, S., Neumayer, E. and M. Agarwala (eds.).
Handbook of Sustainable Development: second revised edition, pp. 371-398.
Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, Glos, UK.
Wake, D.B., Vredenburg, V.T. 2008. Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction?
A view from the world of amphibians. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 105 (suppl. 1): 11466-11473. Doi: 10.1073/pnas.0801921105.
Walther, G.R., Post, E., Convey, P., Menzel, A., Parmesan, C., Beebee, T.J.C., Fromentin,
J.M., Hoegh-Guldberg O. and F. Bairlein. 2002. Ecological responses to recent
climate change. Nature 416 (6879): 389-395. Doi: 10.1038/416389a.
Waters, C.N., Zalasiewicz, J., Summerhayes, C., Barnosky, A.D., Poirier, C., Gatuszka,
A., Cearreta, A., Edgeworth, M., Ellis, E.C., Ellis, M. et al.. 2016. The Anthropocene
is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene. Science 351(6269): aad2622-1-aad2622-10. Doi: 10.1126/science.aad2622.
Weiskel, P.K., Wolock, D.M., Zarriello, P.J., Vogel, R.M., Levin, S.B. and R.M. Lent.
2014. Hydroclimatic regimes: a distributed water-balance framework forhydrologic assessment, classification, and management. Hydrology and Earth
System Sciences 18: 3855-3872. Doi: 10.5194/hess-18-3855-2014.
Weldon, C., du Preez, L.H., Hyatt, A.D., Muller, R. and R. Speare. 2004. Origin of theamphibian chytrid fungus. Emerging Infectious Disease 10 (12).
Doi: 10.3201/eid1012.030804.
West, C., Dawkins, E., Croft, S., Brugere, C., Sheate, W. and D. Raffaelli. 2013.
Measuring the impacts on global biodiversity of goods and services imported
into the UK. Final report. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs.
White, R., Murray, S. and M. Rohweder. 2000. Pilot analysis of global ecosystems:
Grassland ecosystems. World Resources Institute, Washington D.C, USA.
Whitfield Gibbons, J., Scott, D.E., Ryan, T.J., Buhlmann, K.A., Tuberville, T.D., Metts,
B.S., Greene, J.L., Mills, T., Leiden, Y., Poppy, S. and C.T. Winne. 2000. The
Global Decline of Reptiles, Déjà Vu Amphibians. Bio Science 50 (8): 653-666.
WHO. 2015. Obesity and overweight. WHO factsheet no. 311. Available at:www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/index.html [Accessed June 2016].
WHO/UNEP. 1994. International Programme on Chemical Safety. Ultraviolet
radiation: an authoritative scientific review of environmental and health effects
of UV, with reference to global ozone layer depletion / published under the joint
sponsorship of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International
Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection and the World HealthOrganization. Geneva : World Health Organization, 2nd edition.
Wittemyer, G., Northrup, J.M., Blanc, J., Douglas-Hamilton, I., Omondi, P. and K.P.
Burnham.2014. Illegal killing for ivory drives global decline in African elephants.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111 (36): 13117–13121.
Doi: 10.1073/pnas.1403984111.
Wittmann, A.C. and Pörtner, H.O. 2013. Sensitivities of extant animal taxa to ocean
acidiﬁcation. Nature Climate Change 3: 995-1001. Doi: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1982.
Woinarski, J.C.Z., Armstrong, M., Brennan, K., Fisher, A., Griffiths, A.D., Hill, B.,
Milne, D.J., Palmer, C., Ward, S., Watson, M., Winderlich, S., and S. Young. 2010.
Monitoring indicates rapid and severe decline of native small mammals in Kakadu
National Park, Northern Australia. Wildlife Research 37: 116–126.
Doi: 10.1071/WR09125.

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 142

World Bank. 2013. Remarkable Declines in Global Poverty But Major Challenges
Remain. Available at: www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2013/04/17/
remarkable-declines-in-global-poverty-but-major-challenges-remain [Accessed
June 2016].
World Bank. 2015. Natural Capital Accounting. Available at: www.worldbank.org/en/
topic/environment/brief/environmental-economics-natural-capital-accounting.
[Accessed June 2016].
WWF. 2014. The growth of soy. Impact and solutions. WWF International. Gland,
Switzerland.
WWF. 2015a. WWF Living Blue Planet Report 2015. Species, habitats and human wellbeing. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.
WWF 2015b. Seoul succeeds in WWFs Earth Hour City Challenge. Available at: http://
wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?243831/Seoul-succeeds-in-WWFs-Earth-Hour-CityChallenge-2015 [Accessed June 2016].
WWF 2016a. Soy score card. Available at: http://soyscorecard.panda.org/ [Accessed
June 2016].
WWF 2016b. For a living Africa. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.
WWF-Brazil.2016. Cerrado factsheet. Available at: www.wwf.org.br/natureza_
brasileira/areas_prioritarias/cerrado/cerrado_in_english/ [Accessed June 2016].
WWF/ZSL. 2016. The Living Planet Index database. WWF and the Zoological Societyof London. Available at: www.livingplanetindex.org [Accessed 23 May 2016].
Yool, A., Popova, E. E., Coward, A. C., Bernie, D., and T.R. Anderson. 2013. Climatechange and ocean acidification impacts on lower trophic levels and the export oforganic carbon to the deep ocean, Biogeosciences, 10: 5831-5854.
Doi: 10.5194/bg-10-5831-2013.
Zalasiewicz, J., Waters, C.N., Ivar do Sul, J.A., Corcoran, P.L., Barnosky, A.D.,
Cearreta, A., Edgeworth, M., Galuszka, A., Jeandel, C., Leinfelder, R., et al. 2016.
The geological cycle of plastics and their use as a stratigraphic indicator of the
Anthropocene. Anthropocene. Doi: 10.1016/j.ancene.2016.01.002.
Zarfl, C., Lumsdon, A.E., Berlekamp, J., Tydecks, L. and K. Tockner. 2015. A global
boom in hydropower dam construction. Aquatic Sciences 77: 161-170.
Doi: 10.1007/s00027-014-0377-0.

References page 143

WWF WORLDWIDE NETWORKWWF Offices*

WWF Associates*

Armenia

Laos

Fundación Vida Silvestre (Argentina)

Australia

Madagascar

Pasaules Dabas Fonds (Latvia)

Austria

Malaysia

Nigerian Conservation Foundation (Nigeria)

Azerbaijan

MexicoBelgium

Mongolia

BelizeMozambique

BhutanMyanmarBolivia

Namibia

BrazilNepal

Bulgaria

Netherlands

Cambodia

New ZealandPublication details

Cameroon

NorwayCanadaPakistan

Central African Republic

PanamaChile

Papua New Guinea

China

Paraguay

Colombia

Peru

Croatia

Philippines

Published in October 2016 by WWF –World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World
Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland (“WWF”).
Any reproduction in full or in part of thispublication must be in accordance withthe rules below, and mention the title andcredit the above-mentioned publisher as the
copyright owner.

Democratic Republic of Congo

PolandDenmark

Romania

EcuadorRussiaFijiSingapore

Finland

Solomon Islands

FranceSouth Africa

French Guyana

Spain

Gabon

Suriname

Georgia

SwedenGermany

Switzerland

GreeceTanzania

GuatemalaThailand

GuyanaTunisia

Honduras

TurkeyHong Kong

UgandaHungary

United Arab Emirates

India

United Kingdom

Indonesia

United States of America

Italy

Vietnam

Japan

ZambiaKenya

Zimbabwe

Korea*As at August 2016

Notice for text and graphics:© 2016 WWF. All rights reserved.
Reproduction of this publication (except
the photos) for educational or other noncommercial purposes is authorized subject
to advance written notification to WWF andappropriate acknowledgement as stated above.
Reproduction of this publication for resaleor other commercial purposes is prohibitedwithout WWF’s prior written permission.
Reproduction of the photos for any purpose
is subject WWF’s prior written permission.
The designation of geographical entities
in this report, and the presentation of thematerial, do not imply the expression of any
opinion whatsoever on the part of WWF
concerning the legal status of any country,
territory, or area, or of its authorities, orconcerning the delimitation of its frontiers
or boundaries.

WWF International
Avenue du Mont-Blanc
1196 Gland, Switzerland
www.panda.org
Institute of Zoology
Zoological Society of London
Regent’s Park,London NW1 4RY, UK
www.zsl.org/indicators
www.livingplanetindex.org
Stockholm Resilience Centre
Kräftriket,
104 05 Stockholm, Sweden
www.stockholmresilience.org
Global Footprint Network
312 Clay Street, Suite 300
Oakland, California 94607, USA
www.footprintnetwork.org
Stockholm Environment InstituteLinnégatan 87D
115 23 Stockholm, Sweden
www.sei-international.org
MetabolicMeteorenweg 280
1035 RN Amsterdam, The Netherlands
www.metabolic.nl

WWF Living Planet Report 2016 page 144