LIVING PLANETREPORT 2020
BENDING THE CURVE OF BIODIVERSITY LOSSSUMMARY

SUMMARY 1

WWF
WWF is one of the world’s largest and most experienced independent
conservation organizations, with over 5 million supporters and a global
network active in more than 100 countries. WWF’s mission is to stop
the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build afuture in which humans live in harmony with nature, by conserving theworld’s biological diversity, ensuring that the use of renewable natural
resources is sustainable, and promoting the reduction of pollution andwasteful consumption.

8 BILLION REASONS TO
SAFEGUARD NATURE

Institute of Zoology (Zoological Society of London)
Founded in 1826, ZSL (Zoological Society of London) is an international
conservation charity working to create a world where wildlife
thrives. ZSL’s work is realised through ground-breaking science, field
conservation around the world and engaging millions of people
through two zoos, ZSL London Zoo and ZSL Whipsnade Zoo.

As the world reels from the deepest global disruption of a lifetime,
this year’s Living Planet Report provides unequivocal evidence thatnature is unravelling and that our planet is flashing red warning
signs. Humanity’s destruction of nature is having catastrophic
impacts not only on wildlife populations but also on human healthand all aspects of our lives.

ZSL manages the Living Planet Index® in a collaborative partnershipwith WWF.

CitationWWF (2020) Living Planet Report 2020 Bending the curve of biodiversity loss.
Almond, R.E.A., Grooten M. and Petersen, T. (Eds).
WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

Design and infographics by: peer&dedigitalesupermarkt
Cover photograph: © Jonathan Caramanus / Green Renaissance / WWF-UK
Farmer Nancy Rono with a chameleon on her sleeve, Bomet County,
Mara River Upper Catchment, Kenya.

A deep cultural and systemic shift is urgently needed, one that so
far our civilisation has failed to embrace: a transition to a society
and economic system that values nature. We must rebalance
our relationship with the planet to preserve the Earth’s amazing
diversity of life and enable a just, healthy and prosperous
society – and ultimately to ensure our own survival.
Nature is declining globally at rates unprecedented in millionsof years. The way we produce and consume food and energy,
and the blatant disregard for the environment entrenched in ourcurrent economic model, has pushed the natural world to its limits.
COVID-19 is a clear manifestation of our broken relationshipwith nature, and highlights the deep interconnection between
the health of both people and the planet.
It is time we answer nature’s SOS. Not just to secure the amazing
diversity of life we love and have the moral duty to coexist with,but because ignoring it puts the future of nearly 8 billion people
at stake.
A better future starts with the decisions that governments,
companies and people around the world take today. World leaders
must take urgent action to protect and restore nature as thefoundation for a healthy society and a thriving economy.

Living Planet Report®
and Living Planet Index®
are registered trademarksof WWF International.

It’s time for the world to agree a New Deal for Nature and People,
committing to stop and reverse the loss of nature by 2030 andbuild a carbon-neutral and nature-positive society. This is our best
safeguard for human health and livelihoods in the long term, andto ensure a safe future for our children.

© WWF

Marco Lambertini,
Director General
WWF International

SETTING THE SCENE
Nature is essential for human existence and a good quality oflife, providing and sustaining the air, freshwater and soils on
which we all depend. It also regulates the climate, provides
pollination and pest control and reduces the impact of natural
hazards. While more food, energy and materials than everbefore are being supplied to people in most parts of the world,
the overexploitation of plants and animals is increasingly
eroding nature’s ability to provide them in the future.
In the last 50 years our world has been transformed by an explosion
in global trade, consumption and human population growth, as wellas an enormous move towards urbanisation. These underlying trends
are driving the destruction and degradation of nature, with the world
now overusing natural resources at an unprecedented rate. Only ahandful of countries retain most of the last remaining wilderness
areas. As a result, our natural world is transforming more rapidly
than ever before.
The 2020 global Living Planet Index shows an average 68% fall inmonitored populations of mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles
and fish between 1970 and 2016. Species’ population trends areimportant because they are a measure of overall ecosystem health.
Measuring biodiversity, the variety of all living things, is complex,
and there is no single measure that can capture all the changes inthis web of life. Nevertheless, the vast majority of indicators show net
declines over recent decades.

Now, this pioneering modelling has provided ‘proof of concept’ that
we can halt and reverse terrestrial biodiversity loss from land-use
change. With an unprecedented and immediate focus on bothconservation and a transformation of our modern food system, thisgives us a roadmap to restore biodiversity and feed a growing humanpopulation.
To do this will require strong leadership and action by us all. To
complement the voices of the Bending the Curve Initiative we also
asked thinkers and practitioners, both young and established, fromdifferent countries and cultures around the globe to share withus how they picture a healthy planet for people and nature. Theirthoughts are brought together in a first-time special supplement to
the 2020 Living Planet Report, ‘Voices for a Living Planet.’
Recently, a series of catastrophic events – wildfires, locust
plagues and the COVID-19 pandemic – have shaken the world’s
environmental conscience, showing that biodiversity conservation
should be a non-negotiable and strategic investment to preserve
our health, wealth and security. 2020 was billed as the ‘super year’in which the international community, through an historic seriesof climate, biodiversity and sustainable development meetings,
had great plans to take the reins of the Anthropocene – but, due to
COVID-19, most of these conferences have been pushed into 2021.
The current state of our planet confirms that the world and its
leaders should embrace a new global deal for people and nature thatsets us on a path where both can thrive.
We know that this WWF 2020 Living Planet Report is being
published at a challenging time. As the world inevitably enters aperiod of greater turbulence, volatility and change, we have brought
together information and knowledge that we hope will inspire
action to address the critical global ecological, social and economic
challenges of our time.

Can we reverse these trends of decline? This was the question posedin 2017 by the Bending the Curve Initiative – a consortium of WWF
and more than 40 universities, conservation organisations andintergovernmental organisations – in order to research and model
pathways to bend the curve of biodiversity loss.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2020 4

SUMMARY 5

AN SOS FOR NATURE
Biodiversity as we know it today is fundamental to humanlife on Earth, and the evidence is unequivocal – it is being
destroyed by us at a rate unprecedented in history 12.
Since the industrial revolution, human activities have increasingly
destroyed and degraded forests, grasslands, wetlands and otherimportant ecosystems, threatening human well-being. Seventyfive per cent of the Earth’s ice-free land surface has already beensignificantly altered, most of the oceans are polluted, and more than
85% of the area of wetlands has been lost.
The most important direct driver of biodiversity loss in terrestrial
systems in the last several decades has been land-use change,
primarily the conversion of pristine native habitats into agricultural
systems; while much of the oceans have been overfished. Globally,
climate change has not been the most important driver of the loss of
biodiversity to date, yet in coming decades it is projected to becomeas, or more, important than the other drivers.

Species’ population trends are important because they are ameasure of overall ecosystem health. Serious declines are a proxy
for the unravelling of nature.
The Living Planet Index (LPI) now tracks the abundance ofalmost 21,000 populations of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles andamphibians around the world. The building blocks for this indicator
are wildlife population datasets. These population trends arebrought together in the LPI to calculate the average percentagechange in population sizes since 1970 using an index (Figure 1).
This year’s index includes almost 400 new species and 4,870 new
populations.
Since the last Living Planet Index was released in 2018, the numberof species represented has improved for the majority of regions
and taxonomic groups, with the biggest boost being to amphibian
species. At present the LPI contains data only for vertebrate speciesas, historically, these have been better monitored; but efforts
to incorporate data on invertebrates are underway as we try to
broaden our understanding of changes in wildlife populations.
The 2020 global Living Planet Index shows an average 68% (range:-73% to -62%) fall in monitored populations of mammals, birds,
amphibians, reptiles and fish between 1970 and 2016 1.

Figure 1: The global Living
Planet Index: 1970 to 2016
Average abundance of 20,811
populations representing 4,392
species monitored across theglobe declined by 68%. The whiteline shows the index values andthe shaded areas represent thestatistical certainty surrounding
the trend (range: -73% to -62%).
Sourced from WWF/ZSL (2020) 1.

2

Index value (1970 = 1)

The loss of biodiversity is not only an environmental issue but adevelopment, economic, global security, ethical and moral one. It
is also a self-preservation issue. Biodiversity plays a critical role inproviding food, fibre, water, energy, medicines and other genetic
materials; and is key to the regulation of our climate, water quality,
pollution, pollination services, flood control and storm surges. In
addition, nature underpins all dimensions of human health andcontributes on non-material levels – inspiration and learning,
physical and psychological experiences and shaping our identities –that are central in quality of life and cultural integrity.

At a population level: in 2020 what does the Living
Planet Index show?

1

- 68%
0
1970

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2020 6

1980

1990

2000

2010

2016

Key
Global Living Planet Index
Confidence limits

SUMMARY 7

Biodiversity is declining at different rates in different places

Figure 2: The Living Planet Index for each IPBES region
The white line shows the index values and the shaded areas represent the statistical certainty
surrounding the trend (95%). All indices are weighted by species richness, giving species-rich taxonomic
groups in terrestrial and freshwater systems more weight than groups with fewer species. Regions map:
IPBES (2015) 2. LPI data WWF/ZSL (2020) 1.

The global LPI does not give us the entire picture – there are differences inabundance trends between regions, with the largest declines in tropical areas.
the overexploitation of species, climate change,
and the introduction of alien species
are key drivers.

2

Index value (1970 = 1)

The 94% decline in the LPI for the tropicalsubregions of the Americas is the most striking
result observed in any region. The conversion ofgrasslands, savannahs, forests and wetlands,

1

- 24%

0

1970

1990

1980

2010

2000

2016

Index value (1970 = 1)

2

1

- 33%

0

1970

1980

1990

2010

2000

2016

Index value (1970 = 1)

2

1

- 45%

2

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2016

2

1

- 94%

0

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2016

Index value (1970 = 1)

Index value (1970 = 1)

0

1

- 65%
0

1970

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2020 8

1980

1990

2000

2010

2016

SUMMARY 9

The Freshwater Living Planet Index
Freshwater biodiversity is declining far faster than that in our
oceans or forests. Based on available data, we know that almost
90% of global wetlands have been lost since 1700 83; and global
mapping has recently revealed the extent to which humans havealtered millions of kilometres of rivers 84. These changes have had aprofound impact on freshwater biodiversity with population trends
for monitored freshwater species falling steeply.

Key
Freshwater Living Planet
Index
Confidence limits

2

Index value (1970 = 1)

Figure 3: The Freshwater
Living Planet Index: 1970
to 2016
The average abundance of
3,741 freshwater populations,representing 944 species monitored
across the globe, declined by 84%
on average. The white line shows
the index values and the shaded
areas represent the statisticalcertainty surrounding the trend(range -89% to -77%). Sourced from
WWF/ZSL (2020) 1.

The 3,741 monitored populations – representing 944 species
of mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and fishes – in the
Freshwater Living Planet Index have declined by an average of
84% (range: -89% to -77%), equivalent to 4% per year since 1970
(Figure 3). Most of the declines are seen in freshwater amphibians,
reptiles and fishes; and they’re recorded across all regions,particularly Latin America and the Caribbean.

1

- 84%
0
1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2016

The bigger the size, the bigger the threats

Photo right page:
A young Florida manatee (Trichechus
manatus latirostrus) stays warm ina freshwater spring in winter, Three
Sisters Spring, Florida, USA.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2020 10

Species with a larger body size compared with other species in thesame taxonomic group are sometimes referred to as ‘megafauna’.
In the freshwater system, megafauna are species that grow tomore than 30kg, such as sturgeon and Mekong giant catfish, riverdolphins, otters, beavers and hippos. They are subject to intense
anthropogenic threats 3, including overexploitation 4, and strong
population declines have been observed as a result 5. Mega-fishes are
particularly vulnerable. Catches in the Mekong river basin between
2000 and 2015, for example, have decreased for 78% of species,and declines are stronger among medium- to large-bodied species 6.
Large fishes are also heavily impacted by dam construction, whichblocks their migratory routes to spawning and feeding grounds 7, 3.

© naturepl.com / Alex Mustard / WWF

SUMMARY 11

The Living Planet Index is one indicator among many showing
severe declines in recent decades

Humanity’s influence on the decline of nature isso great that scientists believe we are enteringa new geological epoch, the Anthropocene. Yet,measuring biodiversity, the variety of all living

1.0

1ABUNDANCE- 68%

Red List Index of species survival

Index value (1970 = 1)

2

1970

Living Planet Index
The Living Planet Index (LPI) now tracks the abundance ofalmost 21,000 populations of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles
and amphibians around the world 1. Using the data from
20,811 populations of 4,392 species, the 2020 global LPI

1980

2000

1990

2010

0.8

shows an average 68% decline in monitored populations
between 1970 and 2016 (range: -73% to -62%). The percentagechange in the index doesn’t represent the number of individual
animals lost but reflects the average proportional change inanimal population sizes tracked over 46 years.

Legumes
Monocots

ReptilesCrustaceans

Mammals
Sharks & rays

Conifers

Amphibians
0.7

0.6

EXTINCTION RISK

Cycads
Worse

1970

2016

Dragonflies

Birds

0.9

0.5

0

Bony fishes Cone snails

Corals

Betterthings, is complex, and there is no single measurethat can capture all of the changes in this webof life. The vast majority of indicators show net
declines over recent decades.

1980

1990

2000

Red List Index
The Red List Index (RLI), based on data from the IUCNRed List of Threatened Species 85, shows trends in survival
probability (the inverse of extinction risk) over time 86. A Red
List Index value of 1.0 equates to all species within a groupqualifying as Least Concern (i.e. not expected to become

2010

2020

Extinct in the near future). An index value of 0 equates toall species having gone Extinct. A constant value over time
indicates that the overall extinction risk for the group isunchanged. If the rate of biodiversity loss were reducing, theindex would show an upward trend. A decline in the index
means that species are being driven towards extinction at anaccelerating rate.

1

1

DISTRIBUTION

BII by IPBES region

Species Habitat Index

0.995

0.990

0.985

GlobalAmericas
Asia Pacific
AfricaEurope - Central Asia

0.980

2014

COMPOSITION

0.6

0.975
2001

Species Habitat Index
Human land-use change, and increasingly climate change, arealtering landscapes worldwide. Remotely sensed monitoringand model-based projections offer an increasingly strong
and near-global capture of these changes to the land cover.
The Species Habitat Index (SHI) quantifies the resulting
implications for species populations 8, 9. For thousands ofspecies with validated habitat associations worldwide the

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2020 12

0.8

2005

2010

2015

2018

index measures the losses in habitat-suitable range fromobserved or modelled habitat change 10. Between 2000 and2018 the index has fallen by 2%, indicating a strong andgeneral downward trend in habitat available to species. For
select regions and species the SHI decrease is much steeper,with double-digit percentage losses suggesting extensive
contractions in total population sizes and thus the ecologicalroles provided by species.

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

Biodiversity Intactness Index
The Biodiversity Intactness Index (BII) estimates how muchoriginally present biodiversity remains on average acrossthe terrestrial ecological communities within a region. It
focuses on the effects of land use and related pressures, whichhave so far been the dominant drivers of biodiversity loss 11, 12.
Because it is estimated across a very large set of ecologicallydiverse animal and plant species, the BII is a useful index of

1950

2000

ecosystems’ ability to provide benefits to people (ecosystemservices). For this reason, it is used in the Planetary
Boundaries framework as an indicator of biosphere integrity 13.
The global average BII (79%) is well below the proposed lower
safe limit (90%) and continues to fall, especially in Africa 14,
suggesting that the world’s terrestrial biodiversity is alreadydangerously compromised. The BII is very low in someregions, such as Western Europe, that have a long history ofintensive use of the landscape.

SUMMARY 13

Soil biodiversity: saving the world beneath our feet

Are “the little things that run the world” disappearing?

Soil is a critical component of the natural environment – yetmost people are totally unaware of, or underestimate, the vital rolethat soil biodiversity plays in the ecosystem services on which
we depend.

There is evidence of recent, rapid declines in insect abundance,
diversity and biomass, but the picture is complex and mostevidence comes from a few taxa and a few countries in the northernhemisphere.

Soil hosts one of the largest reservoirs of biodiversity on Earth:
up to 90% of living organisms in terrestrial ecosystems, including
some pollinators, spend part of their life cycle in soil habitats 75.
The variety of soil components, filled with air and water, create
an incredible diversity of habitats for a myriad of different soilorganisms that underpin our life on this planet.
Without soil biodiversity, terrestrial ecosystems may collapse.
We now know that above- and belowground biodiversity are in
constant collaboration 15-17, and an improved understanding of
this relationship will help to better predict the consequences of
biodiversity change and loss.

E.O. Wilson famously described them as “the little things that run
the world” 18 and in Western Europe and North America, insect
monitoring schemes and long-term studies show startlingly rapid,
recent and ongoing declines in insect numbers, distributions orcollective weight (biomass). Given that the spread of intensive
agriculture occurred earlier in Western Europe and North
America than in other regions 19, it seems likely that the insect
losses being observed there provide a forecast of global insect
losses if anthropogenic disturbance and land-use change continue
worldwide. Initiating long-term and large scale monitoring is key tounderstanding current and future levels of insect population change.

Figure 4: Soil communities
Soil biodiversity underpins terrestrial
ecosystems (agricultural, urban, nature
and all biomes, including forests,
grasslands, tundra and deserts)

MEGAFAUNA
MACROFAUNAMESOFAUNA
Number of datasets

50

MICROBES & MICROFAUNA

40
20
0

Figure 5: Estimates of long-term change in terrestrial insect numbers(abundance or biomass), from 103 studies reviewed by Van Klink et al(2020) 77. Three-quarters of the studies (77/103) are from Europe and North
America, with very few from Africa (1), Asia (5, excluding Russia and the Middle
East) or South America (3). The inset shows a histogram of the number ofdatasets with at least one data point for each year.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2020 14

1925

1950

1975

2000

2025

Key
Trend slope
Decrease

Increase

SUMMARY 15

Plant diversity is in serious decline
Plants are the structural and ecological foundation of virtually all
terrestrial ecosystems and provide fundamental support for life on
Earth. They are vital to human health, food and well-being 20.

Nymphaea thermarum, the world’s
smallest waterlily, known only
from the damp mud created by the
overflow from a single hot spring in
Rwanda. The last plant desiccatedand died when the stream feeding
the hot spring was diverted for
local agriculture in 2008. An ex situ
collection is being maintained at theRoyal Botanic Gardens Kew: in thehope of a possible reintroduction
if this fragile habitat can be restored.

Plant extinction risk is comparable to that of mammals and higher
than for birds. The number of documented plant extinctions is
twice as many as for mammals, birds and amphibians combined 21.
In addition, an assessment of a sample of thousands of species
representing the taxonomic and geographic breadth of global
plant diversity showed that one in five (22%) are threatened withextinction, most of them in the tropics 22.

The first Global Tree Assessment
will cover all 60,000 known tree
species across the planet to give us acomplete picture of the conservation
status of the world’s trees 24. Beyond
trees, the results will also be vital forother biodiversity and ecosystems
that depend on trees for theirsurvival, to guide conservation
action and ensure that biodiversity
is managed, restored and saved
from extinction.

© Andrew McRobb - Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew© Malin Rivers

Seed banks worldwide hold around
7 million crop samples, helping tosafeguard biodiversity and global
nutritional security. In the pastfew decades hundreds of local,
national, regional and international
seed banks have been established.
Perhaps the most well-known,
the Svalbard Global Seed Vault in
Norway, provides a back-up service
for when things go wrong in otherseed banks. Seed banks are usedby researchers and plant breeders
to develop new, improved cropvarieties.

Plant diversity loss not only
threatens plants and theirecosystems, but also the invaluable
spectrum of services that plants
provide to people and the planet.
Arabica coffee (Coffea arabica) is
the world’s most popular coffee
bean. An extinction risk assessment
which incorporated the likely effects
of climate change categorised
C. arabica as Endangered, with apredicted loss of more than half its
natural population by 2088 23.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2020 16

Terminalia acuminata, commonly
known as Guarajuba, is an
Endangered tree endemic to Brazil.
Previously thought to be Extinct
in the Wild, it was rediscovered
when reassessed for the Global Tree
Assessment.

© Jenny Williams, RBG Kew© Svalbard Global Seed Vault / Riccardo Gangale

A view of the front of the Svalbard
Global Seed Vault, Svalbard
archipelago, Norway.

SUMMARY 17

OUR WORLD IN 2020

© Sam Hobson / WWF-UK

30
20
10
0
1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1980

1990

2000

2010

Key
Developed economies
Developing economies
Least developed economies
World

20
15
10

2017

8

0
1970

25

2017

5
0
1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2017

C. protection of key biodiversity areas
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2018

2000

2010

2017

F. child mortality rate

E. urban population
8

250
deaths / 1,000 live births

total million tonnes / year40

D. total population
number of people (billion)

B. extraction of living biomass
30

average % of key biodiversity areas
covered by protected areas

A. gross domestic product (GDP) per person50% of the total country population
living in urban areas

GDP per person x 1,000 (US$ 2010)

In the last 50 years our world has been transformed by
an explosion in global trade, consumption and humanpopulation growth, as well as an enormous move towards
urbanisation, changing how we live unrecognisably. Yet thishas come at a huge cost to nature and the stability of the
Earth’s operating systems that sustain us.

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2017

200
150
100
50
0
1970

1980

1990

Figure 6: Development pathways since 1970 have featured unequal
benefits and burdens that differ across countries
The lowest increases in GDP have occurred in the currently least developed countries(a), while increased consumption in more developed countries has increased
extraction of living materials from nature that largely come from developing
countries (b) and protection of key biodiversity areas has been highest in developed
countries (c). Total human population has increased more rapidly in developing
countries (d) while urban population is largest in developed countries and increasing
fastest in least developed countries (e). Child mortality has sharply decreased
globally, though challenges remain for least developed countries (f).
Sources: modified from World Bank (2018) 27, IPBES (2019) 26.

This collection of red plastic is just a small selection of the plastic pollutantscollected by the Rame Peninsula Beach Care Group in Whitsand Bay, Cornwall.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2020 18

SUMMARY 19

Humanity now overspends its biological budget every year
Since 1970, our Ecological Footprint has exceeded
the Earth’s rate of regeneration. This overshooterodes the planet’s health and, with it, humanity’s
prospects. Both human demand and natural
resources are unevenly distributed across the
Earth. The pattern of human consumption ofthese resources differs from resource availability,
since resources are not consumed at the point of
extraction. The Ecological Footprint per person,
across countries, provides insights into countries’
resource performance, risks andopportunities 28-30.

Varying levels of Ecological Footprint are due todifferent lifestyles and consumption patterns,
including the quantity of food, goods and services

residents consume, the natural resources theyuse, and the carbon dioxide emitted to provide
these goods and services.

Figure 7: Global map of
the Ecological Footprint ofconsumption per person in 2016
The Ecological Footprint per person isa function of both total population andrates of consumption within a country.
A country’s consumption includes
the Ecological Footprint it produces,plus imports from other countries,
minus exports. Sourced from Global
Footprint Network (2020) 31.
Key> 5 gha/person
3.5 - 5 gha/person
2 - 3.5 gha/person
1.6 - 2 gha/person< 1.6 gha/person
Insufficient data

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2020 20

SUMMARY 21

Mapping the last wilderness areas on Earth
Advances in satellite technology allow us to visualise how the Earthis changing in real time. Human footprint mapping then showswhere we are and aren’t impacting land on Earth. The latest map

Figure 8:
The broad methodologicalframework used to create a mapof cumulative human pressure –adapted from Watson and Venter(2019) 33.

reveals that just a handful of countries – Russia, Canada, Brazil andAustralia – contain most of the places without a human footprint,
the last remaining terrestrial wilderness areas on our planet 32.

Key
Damagedpopulation density

IntactWilderness

High: 50

High: 1

High: 0

Low: 4

Low: 4

Low: 1Figure 9:
The proportion of each terrestrial biome (excluding
Antarctica) considered wilderness (dark green, humanfootprint value of <1), intact (light green, human footprint
value of <4), or highly modified by humanity (red, humanfootprint value of > or equal to 4). Adapted from Williams
et al. (2020) 32.

croplandrailways and roads
HIGH

night-time lights

navigable waterways

LOW

built environments
pasture land

1.
human
1.Identyfie
Identifycore
corepressures
human pressuresdevelopdata on
2.2. Acquire
Acquireor ordevelopindividual
humanpressures
data onindividual
human pressures

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2020 22

pressure
3.3. Assign
Assignrelative
relativescoresto individualpressurespressurescorestoindividual pressurepressures to
4.4. OOverlay
verlayindividual
individual
createHuman Footprint
maps
pressuresto create
Human Footprint maps

SUMMARY 23

Our ocean is in ‘hot water’
DRIVER OF CHANGE
Fishing
Climate change
Land-based pollution
Ocean-based pollution
Coastal development
Invasive alien species
Offshore infrastructure
Shipping
Mariculture (aquaculture of marine organisms)

Deep-sea mining

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2020 24

Overfishing, pollution and coastal
development, among other pressures,
have impacted the entire ocean, fromshallow waters to the deep sea, and climate change
will continue to cause a growing spectrum of effects
across marine ecosystems.

POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS

EXAMPLES OF ECOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES

Overexploitation, bycatch of non-target species, seafloor
habitat destruction from seafloor trawling, illegal,
unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing, gathering oforganisms for the aquarium trade.

Reduced population sizes, ecosystem restructuring and trophic cascades,
reductions in body size, local and commercial extinction of species, ‘ghostfishing’ due to lost or dumped fishing gear.

Warming waters, ocean acidification, increased oxygen
minimum zones, more frequent extreme events, change inocean currents.

Reef die-off through bleaching, species moving away from warming waters,changes in ecological interactions and metabolism, changes in interactions
with human activities (e.g. fishing, vessel strikes) as organisms alter theirlocation and space use, changes in ocean circulation patterns and productivity,changes in disease incidence and the timing of biological processes.

Nutrient run-off, contaminants such as heavy metals, microand macro-plastics.

Algal blooms and fish kills, accumulation of toxins up the food web, ingestionof and entanglement in plastic and other debris.

Waste disposal, fuel leaks and dumping from ships, oil spills
from offshore platforms, noise pollution.

Toxic impacts on marine organismal physiology, noise pollution impacts on
marine animal behaviour.

Destruction of habitats, increased pressure on local
shorelines, increased pollution and waste.

Reduction in area of habitats such as mangroves and seagrasses, limits theability of coastal habitats and organisms to shift and migrate to adapt toclimate change.

Invasive species accidentally (e.g. through ballast water) or
deliberately introduced; more climate-driven invasions likely.

Invasive species can outcompete native species, disrupt ecosystems andcause local or global extinctions.

Physical disturbance of the seafloor, creation of habitat
structure.

Local seafloor habitat destruction, provision of structures for organisms tocolonise and aggregate around.

Vessel strikes, pollution from dumping.

Impacts on population sizes of endangered marine mammals hit by vessels,
physiological and physical impacts of pollution.

Physical presence of aquaculture facilities, pollution.

Potential for nutrient build-up and algal blooms, disease, antibiotic use,
escape of captive organisms and impacts on local ecosystem, indirect impact
of capture fisheries to source fishmeal as foodstuff.

Seafloor destruction, settlement plumes on seabed,potential for leakages and chemical spills, noise pollution.

Destruction of physical habitat (e.g. cold-water corals) and benthic layer,
potential smothering of organisms by settlement plumes.

Figure 10:
Anthropogenic drivers of change
in marine ecosystems, types ofnegative impact that can arise
from them, and examples ofpotential ecological consequences.
It is important to recognise thatnegative impacts can be mitigatedand must be weighed against
societal benefits in some cases.
For deep-sea mining, impacts
are projected since it is not yet
applied at scale. Note that impacts
for individual drivers can varyfrom very local to global scales.
Sourced from IPBES (2019) 26 andreferences therein.

SUMMARY 25

CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS TO
BIODIVERSITY

The first mammal extinction from climate change
The Bramble Cay melomys(Melomys rubicola), the firstmammal to become extinct
as a direct result of climatechange, Bramble Cay, Torres
Strait Islands, Australia.

Up to one-fifth of wild species are at risk of extinction thiscentury due to climate change alone, even with significant
mitigation efforts, with some of the highest rates of loss
anticipated in biodiversity ‘hotspots’.

Figure 11: Species exposed
to climate change pressures
may be impacted throughfive mechanisms, in positive,
negative or combined ways
Each species’ sensitivity andadaptive capacity to these
impacts is influenced by its
unique biological traits and life
history. Together, these pressures,
mechanisms, sensitivities andadaptive capacity affect eachspecies’ vulnerability to extinction(Figure adapted from Foden et al.
(2018) 34).

Just 30 years ago, climate change impacts on species were extremely
rare, but today they are commonplace. Some species are relatively
buffered from changes (e.g. deep-sea fishes), but others (e.g. Arctic
and tundra species) already face enormous climate change pressures.
Such pressures impact species through various mechanisms
including direct physiological stress, loss of suitable habitat,
disruptions of interspecies interactions (such as pollination orinteractions between predators and prey), and the timing of key life
events (such as migration, breeding or leaf emergence) (Figure 11) 34.
Recent climate change impacts on flying foxes and the Bramble
Cay melomys show how quickly climate change can lead to drastic
population declines, and warn of unseen damage to less conspicuous
species (see boxes).

© Bruce Thompson / Auswildlife

The Bramble Cay melomys, Melomys rubicola,
made headlines in 2016 when it was declared
extinct following intensive surveys of the
5-hectare coral cay in Australia’s Torres Strait
where the species lived. It is the first known

Temperatures rise, bats fall
© Martin Harvey / WWF

Exposure to
CLIMATE CHANGE PRESSURESMECHANISM OF NEGATIVE IMPACT

VE

PAC
IT Y

2. HABITAT OR MICROHABITAT INCREASESIN AVAILABILITY OR QUALITY
3. INTERSPECIES INTERACTIONS ALTER.
 BENEFICIAL,  DETRIMENTAL
4. BENEFICIAL CHANGE IN PHENOLOGY

SI

T IV

P TI

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2020 26

CA

1. ABIOTIC CONDITIONS BECOME INCREASINGLY
ALIGNED WITH PHYSIOLOGICAL PREFERENCES

IT Y

SEN
SI

IMPACTS ON SPECIES
Changes in population
distribution and genetic
characteristics lead toaltered vulnerability
to extinction

ADA

5. EXACERBATION OF NON-CLIMATE CHANGE
RELATED THREATS

ADA
PTI
VE
Y
ACIT
CAP

ITY
TIV

3. INTERSPECIES INTERACTIONS ALTER.
 DETRIMENTAL,  BENEFICIAL
4. DISRUPTION OF PHENOLOGY

A spectacled flying fox(Pteropus conspicillatus)colony leaving roost at sunset,
Australia. Flying foxes roosten masse, making detectionof population-level impacts ofextreme events easier than forsolitary species.

MECHANISM OF POSITIVE IMPACT

1. ABIOTIC CONDITIONS BECOME DECREASINGLY
ALIGNED WITH PHYSIOLOGICAL PREFERENCES
2. HABITAT OR MICROHABITAT DECLINES
IN AVAILABILITY OR QUALITY

mammal extinction to be linked directly to
climate change 35. This rodent has been lost. It
will, however, remain immortalised as a stark
reminder that the time to act on climate change
is now 36.

SEN

5. MITIGATION OF NON-CLIMATE CHANGE
RELATED THREATS

Flying foxes (genus Pteropus) are notphysiologically capable of tolerating
temperatures above 42oC 37. At thesetemperatures, their usual coping behaviours– such as shade-seeking, hyperventilation andspreading saliva on their bodies (they can’t
sweat) – are insufficient to keep them cool,and they begin to clump together in a frenzy toescape the heat. As they drop from the trees,many are injured or become trapped and die.
Between 1994 and 2007, more than 30,000
flying foxes from at least two species, from a
global population of less than 100,000, arethought to have died during heatwaves 37, 38.
SUMMARY 27

Nature’s contributions to People refers to all thecontributions, both positive and negative thatnature makes to people’s quality of life 40.
The Nature’s Contributions to People concept
includes a wide range of descriptions of humandependence on nature, such as ecosystem goods
and services, nature’s gifts, and many others.
It recognizes the central role that culture plays indefining all links between people and nature.
It also elevates, emphasises and operationalises
the role of indigenous and local knowledge 40,26.
This table represents the global trends for someof these contributions from 1970 to the present
day and it was included in the IPBES Summaryfor Policy Makers 26.

Key

Global trends
Decrease

Increase

Levels of certainty
Well establishedEstablished but incomplete
Unresolved

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2020 28

50-YEAR GLOBAL TREND

SELECTED INDICATOR• Extent of suitable habitat• Biodiversity intactness

POLLINATION AND DISPERSAL OF SEEDSAND OTHER PROPAGULES• Pollinator diversity

REGULATION OF AIR QUALITY• Retention and prevented emissions of air pollutants byecosystems

REGULATION OF CLIMATE• Prevented emissions and uptake of greenhouse gases by
ecosystems

REGULATION OF OCEAN ACIDIFICATION• Capacity to sequester carbon by marine and terrestrial
environments

REGULATION OF FRESHWATER QUANTITY,
LOCATION AND TIMING• Ecosystem impact on air-surface-ground water partitioning

REGULATION OF FRESHWATER AND
COASTAL WATER QUALITY• Extent of ecosystems that filter or add constituent
components to water

FORMATION, PROTECTION AND DECONTAMINATIONOF SOILS AND SEDIMENTS• Soil organic carbon

REGULATION OF HAZARDS AND
EXTREME EVENTS• Ability of ecosystems to absorb and buffer hazards

REGULATION OF DETRIMENTAL ORGANISMS
AND BIOLOGICAL PROCESSESNON-MATERIAL

Figure 12:
Global trends from1970 to the present of the
18 categories of Nature’sContributions to People:
14 of the 18 categories
analysed have declined
since 1970 (Figure
adapted from Díaz et al.
(2019) 11, IPBES(2019) 26).

REGULATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSES

People value nature in many different ways,
and bringing these together can be used toshape policies that will create a healthy andresilient planet for people and nature.

HABITAT CREATION AND MAINTENANCE

MATERIALS AND ASSISTANCE

STRETCHING OUR SAFETY NETALMOST TO BREAKING POINT

NATURE’S CONTRIBUTION TO PEOPLE

ENERGY
FOOD AND FEED
MATERIALS AND ASSISTANCE
MEDICINAL, BIOCHEMICAL AND
GENETIC RESOURCESLEARNING AND INSPIRATION• Extent of natural habitat in agricultural areas• Extent of natural habitat in agricultural areas• Diversity of competent hosts of vector-borne diseases• Extent of agricultural land – potential land for bioenergy
production• Extent of forested land
• Extent of agricultural land – potential land for food and feed
production• Abundance of marine fish stocks• Extent of agricultural land – potential land for material
production• Extent of forested land
• Fraction of species locally known and used medicinally• Phylogenetic diversity• Number of people in close proximity to nature• Diversity of life from which to learn

PHYSICAL AND
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPERIENCES• Area of natural and traditional landscapes and seascapes

SUPPORTING IDENTITIES• Stability of land use and land cover

MAINTENANCE OF OPTIONS• Species’ survival probability• Phylogenetic diversity

SUMMARY 29

Intrinsically interlinked:
healthy planet, healthy people

HEALTH is “A state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. The
enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of thefundamental rights of every human being without distinction ofrace, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.”
The World Health Organization, WHO (1948) 45.

WATER QUALITY

NUTRITION

CLIMATECHANGE

FOOD & WATERSECURITY

The past century has seen extraordinary gains in human healthand well-being. Child mortality among under-5s has halved since1990 42, the share of the world’s population living on less than $1.90
a day fell by two-thirds over the same period 43, and life expectancy
at birth is around 15 years higher today than it was 50 years ago 44.
This is rightly celebrated, but it has been achieved alongside theexploitation and alteration of the world’s natural systems, which
threatens to undo these successes.

The links between BIODIVERSITY and HEALTH are diverse, fromtraditional medicines and pharmaceuticals derived from plants towater filtration by wetlands 26, 47, 48.

DISASTER RISKAGRICULTURAL
BIODIVERSITY

TRADITIONALMEDICINE
MENTAL HEALTHSUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENTHEALTHOUTCOMES

AIR QUALITY

MICROBIAL
BIODIVERSITYECOSYSTEMSBIOMEDICAL/PHARMACEUTICALDISCOVERYINFECTIOUS DISEASESBIODIVERSITY is “The fruit of billions of years of evolution, shaped bynatural processes and, increasingly, by the influence of humans.
It forms the web of life of which we are an integral part and uponwhich we so fully depend. It also encompasses the variety of
ecosystems such as those that occur in deserts, forests, wetlands,
mountains, lakes, rivers, and agricultural landscapes. In eachecosystem, living creatures, including humans, form a community,
interacting with one another and with the air, water, andsoil around them.” The Convention on Biological Diversity,
CBD (2020) 46.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2020 30

Figure 13:
Reprinted figure from
“Connecting global priorities:
Biodiversity and humanhealth a state of knowledge
review,” World HealthOrganization (WHO) and
Secretariat of the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD),
Copyright (2015) 49

SUMMARY 31

Human wealth depends on nature’s health© Karine Aigner / WWF-US

Our economies are embedded within nature, and it is only byrecognising and acting on this reality that we can protect andenhance biodiversity and improve our economic prosperity.
COVID-19 is nature sending us a message. In fact, it reads like an
SOS signal for the human enterprise, bringing into sharp focus
the need to live within the planet’s ‘safe operating space’. The
environmental, health and economic consequences of failing to do
so are disastrous.
Now more than ever before, technological advances allow us tolisten to such messages and better understand the natural world.
We can estimate the value of ‘natural capital’ – the planet’s stock ofrenewable and non-renewable natural resources, like plants, soils
and minerals – alongside values of produced and human capital –for example, roads and skills – which together form a measure of acountry’s true wealth.
Data from the United Nations Environment Programme showsthat, per person, our global stock of natural capital has declined
nearly 40% since the early 1990s, while produced capital has
doubled and human capital has increased by 13% 82.
But too few of our economic and finance decision-makers know
how to interpret what we are hearing, or, even worse, they choose
not to tune in at all. A key problem is the mismatch between theartificial ‘economic grammar’ which drives public and private policyand ‘nature’s syntax’ which determines how the real world operates.
The result is that we miss the message.
So, if the language of economics is failing us, how and where
do we begin to find better answers? Unlike standard models of
economic growth and development, placing ourselves and our
economies within nature helps us to accept that our prosperity is
ultimately bounded by that of our planet. This new grammar isneeded everywhere, from classrooms to boardrooms, and fromlocal councils to national government departments. It has profound
implications for what we mean by sustainable economic growth,
helping to steer our leaders towards making better decisions thatdeliver us, and future generations, the healthier, greener, happier
lives that more and more of us say we want.
From now on, protecting and enhancing our environment must beat the heart of how we achieve economic prosperity.
WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2020 32

Salima Gurau picks vegetables from the gardensof the homestay her family runs in Nepal.

SUMMARY 33

Biodiversity is fundamental to food security
Urgent action is needed to address the loss of the biodiversity that
feeds the world.

LIVELIHOODS

In 2019, the UN Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) launched the first report on
The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Foodand Agriculture 55. Five years in the making,the report was prepared under the guidance of
FAO’s Commission on Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture. It details the many benefits

FOOD SECURITY

that biodiversity brings to food and agriculture,
examines how farmers, pastoralists, forest
dwellers, fishers and fish farmers have shaped
and managed biodiversity, identifies major
drivers of trends in the status of biodiversity,and discusses trends in the use of biodiversityfriendly production practices.

RESILIENCE

Domesticated

Wild
TERRESTRIAL
PLANTS

Figure 14: Key direct andindirect contributions of
biodiversity to food security
Information for this figure wasdrawn from a number ofsources: 55-68.

DIRECT: BIODIVERSITY USED AS FOOD

Around 6000 species 61 of which 9 account for 2/3 of crop production 67
Over 1160 wild plant species used as food by humans 68

Thousands of varieties, landraces and cultivars (exact numbers unknown) 57 some 5.3 million samples are stored in gene banks 66

TERRESTRIALANIMALS
About 40 species of birds and mammals, of which 8 provide more than
95% of the human food supply from livestock 59

At least 2111 insect 58, 1600 bird, 1110 mammal, 140 reptile and
230 amphibian 68 species eaten by humans

About 8800 breeds (distinct within-species populations) 65

AQUATIC ANIMALSAND PLANTS
Almost 700 species used in aquaculture, of which 10 account for
50% of production 64

Over 1800 species of fish, crustaceans, molluscs, echinoderms, coelenterates
and aquatic plants harvested by global capture fisheries 63

Few recognised strains (distinct within-species populations) 64

10 species/species groups account for 28% of production 62

MICRO-ORGANISMS
AND FUNGI
Thousands of species of fungi and micro-organisms essential for foodprocesses such as fermentation 55

1154 species and genera of edible wild mushrooms 56

Around 60 species of edible fungi commercially cultivated 60

INDIRECT: BIODIVERSITY THAT CREATES THE CONDITIONS FOR FOOD PRODUCTIONGENES, SPECIES ANDECOSYSTEMS

Thousands of species of pollinators, soil engineers, natural enemies of pests, nitrogen-fixing
bacteria, and wild relatives of domesticated species.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2020 34

Ecosystems such as seagrass meadows, coral reefs, mangroves, other wetlands,
forests and rangelands that provide habitats and other ecosystem services tonumerous species important to food security

SUMMARY 35

IMAGINING A ROADMAP FOR PEOPLE
AND NATURE
Pioneering modelling has provided the ‘proof of concept’ that
we can halt, and reverse, terrestrial biodiversity loss fromland-use change. With an unprecedented and immediate
focus on both conservation and a transformation of ourmodern food system, the Bending the Curve Initiative gives
us a roadmap to restore biodiversity and feed a growing
human population.
Modelling isn’t magic. It is used around the world every day, to plan
traffic, forecast population growth areas to understand where to build
schools – and, in conservation, to understand, for example, how ourclimate will continue to change into the future. Now, the remarkablerise in computing power and artificial intelligence allows us, withever-increasing sophistication, to look at a range of complex possible
futures asking not ‘what?’, but ‘what if?’
The Bending the Curve Initiative used multiple state-of-theart models and scenarios to investigate whether we can reverse
terrestrial biodiversity declines – and if so, how. Building on
pioneering work that modelled pathways to achieve sustainability
objectives 70 and recent efforts by the scientific community for
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and theIntergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity andEcosystem Services 71-73, seven different future what-if scenarios
were developed.
69

The reference what-if scenario is based on the IPCC’s ‘middle-ofthe-road’ scenario (SSP2 in Fricko et al. (2017) 74), and assumes abusiness-as-usual future, with limited efforts towards conservationand sustainable production and consumption. In this model,
human population peaks at 9.4 billion by 2070, economic growth ismoderate and uneven, and globalisation continues. In addition to thereference scenario, six additional what-if scenarios were developed to
explore the potential effects of different actions.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2020 36

Just as with modelling for climate change, or indeed COVID-19,
interventions to determine possible future pathways were broken
into action ‘wedges’. These include measures around increased
conservation as well as reducing the impact of our global foodsystem on terrestrial biodiversity, in terms of both production andconsumption.

Scenario’s aimed at bending the curve
Three of the scenarios picture single types of interventions aimed atbending the curve:
1. The increased conservation efforts (C) scenario included
an increase in the extent and management of protected areas, andincreased restoration and landscape-level conservation planning.
2. The more sustainable production (supply-side efforts orSS) scenario included higher and more sustainable increases inboth agricultural productivity and trade of agricultural goods.
3. The more sustainable consumption (demand-side efforts
or DS) scenario reduced waste of agricultural goods from field
to fork and included a diet shift to a lower share of animal calories
in high meat-consuming countries.
The three other scenarios modelled different combinations of theseincreased efforts:
4. The fourth looked at conservation and sustainableproduction (C+SS scenario).
5. The fifth combined conservation and sustainableconsumption (C+DS).
6. T
 he sixth scenario investigated interventions in all three sectors at
once. This was known as the ‘integrated action portfolio’ ofinterventions, or IAP scenario.

SUMMARY 37

Bending the curve

The thick coloured lines on the graph show how biodiversity is
projected to respond under each scenario. As four land-use models
were used, this shows the average value across all of them.

Difference to 2010 indicator value

0.05

●
●●●

0.00

●●

−0.05

●

2000 2010

2050

2100

The projected change
in biodiversity undereach land-use change
model in 2100

Scenario (mean & range across land use change models)Key
Historical

Inc. conservation efforts (C)Baseline (BASE)

Inc. conservation & supply-side efforts (C+SS)

Supply-side efforts (SS)Inc. conservation & demand-side efforts (C+DS)

Demand-side efforts (DS)Integrated action portolio (IAP)

2100 values for individual land-use change

AIM

GLOBIOM

IMAGE

MAgPIE

Figure 15: Projected contributions of various efforts to reverse
biodiversity trends from land-use change.
This illustration uses one biodiversity indicator to show how future actions toreverse biodiversity trends have varying results across the seven scenarios
indicated by different colours. The line and shaded area for each scenario
represent the average and range of the projected relative changes across fourland-use models (compared to 2010). This graph shows the projected responseof one of the biodiversity indicators – mean species abundance, or MSA – using
one of the biodiversity models (GLOBIO – more details about all the biodiversity
indicators and models can be found in the technical supplement). Sourced from
Leclère et al. (2020) 69

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2020 38

The grey line shows that in the reference baseline ‘business-as-usual’scenario, global biodiversity trends continue declining throughout
the 21st century, with a speed similar to recent decades until 2050.
Single interventions:• The red line shows the effect of putting in place sustainableproduction measures alone.
• The blue line shows the effect of putting in place sustainableconsumption interventions alone.
• The green line shows the effect of putting in place more ambitious
conservation measures alone.
Integrated interventions combine these three in differentways:• The purple line shows how biodiversity is projected to respond
if increased conservation measures are combined with moresustainable production efforts.
• The light blue line shows how biodiversity is projected to respond
if increased conservation measures are combined with moresustainable consumption efforts.
• The yellow line shows how biodiversity responds under the‘integrated action portfolio’ that combines all three single
interventions: increased conservation measures and moresustainable production and consumption efforts.

Conservation is critical but not enough – we must alsotransform food production and consumption patterns
This research shows that bolder conservation efforts are key tobending the curve: more than any other single type of action,
increased conservation was found to limit further biodiversity losses
in the future and to set global biodiversity trends on a recovery
trajectory. Only an integrated approach, combining ambitious
conservation with measures targeting the drivers of habitat
conversion – such as sustainable production or consumption
interventions, or preferably both – will succeed in bending the curveof biodiversity loss.

SUMMARY 39

THE PATH AHEAD© WWF / Simon Rawles

The Living Planet Report 2020 is being published at a timeof global upheaval, yet its key message is something that has
not changed in decades: nature – our life-support system –is declining at a staggering rate. We know that the health ofpeople and that of our planet are increasingly intertwined;
the devastating forest fires of the past year and the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic have made this undeniable.
The Bending the Curve modelling tells us that, withtransformational change, we can turn the tide of biodiversity
loss. It is easy to talk about transformational change, but how
will we, living in our complex, highly connected modern society,make it a reality? We know that it will take a global, collective
effort; that increased conservation efforts are key, along withchanges in how we produce and consume our food and energy.
Citizens, governments and business leaders around the globe
will need to be part of a movement for change with a scale,urgency and ambition never seen before.
We want you to be part of this movement. For ideas andinspiration, we invite you to explore our Voices for a Living
Planet supplement. We have invited thinkers and practitioners
from a range of fields in many countries to share their views on
how to bring about a healthy planet for people and nature.
Voices for a Living Planet complements the themes of the
Living Planet Report 2020 by reflecting a diversity of voices
and opinions from all over the globe. Covering ideas ranging
from human rights and moral philosophy to sustainable financeand business innovation, it provides a starting point for hopefulconversations, food for thought and ideas for a future in whichpeople and nature can thrive.
We hope it will inspire you to be part of the change.

Children walking in the Forest Landscape Restoration HQ and nursery in
Rukoki Sub-County, Kasese District, Rwenzori Mountains, Uganda.

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2020 40

SUMMARY 41

REFERENCES

20
21
1
2

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

15
16
17

18
19

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2020 42

WWF/ZSL. (2020). The Living Planet Index database. <www.livingplanetindex.
org>.
IPBES. (2015). Report of the Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on the work of its third session.
Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity andEcosystem Services. Third session, Bonn, Germany. <https://ipbes.net/event/ipbes-3-plenary>.
He, F., Zarfl, C., Bremerich, V., Henshaw, A., Darwall, W., et al. (2017).
Disappearing giants: A review of threats to freshwater megafauna. WIREs Water
4:e1208. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1208.
Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T. M., Betts, M. G., Ceballos, G., et al. (2019).
Are we eating the world’s megafauna to extinction? Conservation Letters12:e12627. doi: 10.1111/conl.12627.
He, F., Zarfl, C., Bremerich, V., David, J. N. W., Hogan, Z., et al. (2019). The
global decline of freshwater megafauna. Global Change Biology 25:3883-3892.
doi: 10.1111/gcb.14753.
Ngor, P. B., McCann, K. S., Grenouillet, G., So, N., McMeans, B. C., et al. (2018).
Evidence of indiscriminate fishing effects in one of the world’s largest inland
fisheries. Scientific Reports 8:8947. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-27340-1.
Carrizo, S. F., Jähnig, S. C., Bremerich, V., Freyhof, J., Harrison, I., et al. (2017).
Freshwater megafauna: Flagships for freshwater biodiversity under threat.
BioScience 67:919-927. doi: 10.1093/biosci/bix099.
Jetz, W., McPherson, J. M., and Guralnick, R. P. (2012). Integrating biodiversity
distribution knowledge: Toward a global map of life. Trends in Ecology &Evolution 27:151-159. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.09.007.
GEO BON. (2015). Global biodiversity change indicators. Version 1.2. Group on
Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network Secretariat, Leipzig.
Powers, R. P., and Jetz, W. (2019). Global habitat loss and extinction risk ofterrestrial vertebrates under future land-use-change scenarios. Nature Climate
Change 9:323-329. doi: 10.1038/s41558-019-0406-z.
Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondízio, E. S., Ngo, H. T., Agard, J., et al. (2019). Pervasive
human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformativechange. Science 366:eaax3100. doi: 10.1126/science.aax3100.
IPBES. (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystemservices of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity andEcosystem Services. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany.
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., et al. (2015).
Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet.
Science 347:1259855. doi: 10.1126/science.1259855.
Hill, S. L. L., Gonzalez, R., Sanchez-Ortiz, K., Caton, E., Espinoza, F., et al.
(2018). Worldwide impacts of past and projected future land-use change on
local species richness and the Biodiversity Intactness Index. bioRxiv (Preprint):311787. doi: 10.1101/311787.
Wardle, D. A., Bardgett, R. D., Klironomos, J. N., Setälä, H., van der Putten, W.
H., et al. (2004). Ecological linkages between aboveground and belowgroundbiota. Science 304:1629-1633. doi: 10.1126/science.1094875.
Bardgett, R. D., and Wardle, D. A. (2010). Aboveground-belowground linkages:
Biotic interactions, ecosystem processes, and global change. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, UK.
Fausto, C., Mininni, A. N., Sofo, A., Crecchio, C., Scagliola, M., et al. (2018). Oliveorchard microbiome: characterisation of bacterial communities in soil-plantcompartments and their comparison between sustainable and conventionalsoil management systems. Plant Ecology & Diversity 11:597-610. doi:
10.1080/17550874.2019.1596172.
Wilson, E. O. (1987). The little things that run the world (the importance andconservation of invertebrates). Conservation Biology 1:344-346.
Ellis, E. C., Kaplan, J. O., Fuller, D. Q., Vavrus, S., Klein Goldewijk, K., et al.

22
23

24
25
26

27
28
29
30
31

32
33
34
35

36
37
38
39
40

(2013). Used planet: A global history. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 110:7978-7985. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1217241110.
Antonelli, A., Smith, R. J., and Simmonds, M. S. J. (2019). Unlocking theproperties of plants and fungi for sustainable development. Nature Plants
5:1100-1102. doi: 10.1038/s41477-019-0554-1.
Humphreys, A. M., Govaerts, R., Ficinski, S. Z., Nic Lughadha, E., andVorontsova, M. S. (2019). Global dataset shows geography and life form predictmodern plant extinction and rediscovery. Nature Ecology & Evolution 3:10431047. doi: 10.1038/s41559-019-0906-2.
Brummitt, N. A., Bachman, S. P., Griffiths-Lee, J., Lutz, M., Moat, J. F., et al. (2015).
Green plants in the red: A baseline global assessment for the IUCN Sampled Red
List Index for plants. PLOS ONE 10:e0135152. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0135152.
Moat, J., O’Sullivan, R. J., Gole, T., and Davis, A. P. (2018). Coffea arabica(amended version of 2018 assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. IUCN. Accessed 24th February, 2020. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/
IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS.T18289789A174149937.en.
Rivers, M. (2017). The Global Tree Assessment – Red listing the world’s trees.
BGjournal 14:16-19.
UN. (2020). Department of Economic and Social Affairs resources website. United
Nations (UN). <https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/resources.html>.
IPBES. (2019). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on
biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondízio
E. S, E. S., Ngo, H. T., Guèze, M., et al. editors. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany.
World Bank. (2018). World Bank open data. <https://data.worldbank.org/>.
Galli, A., Wackernagel, M., Iha, K., and Lazarus, E. (2014). Ecological Footprint:
Implications for biodiversity. Biological Conservation 173:121-132. doi:
10.1016/j.biocon.2013.10.019.
Wackernagel, M., Hanscom, L., and Lin, D. (2017). Making the sustainable
development goals consistent with sustainability. Frontiers in Energy Research 5
doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2017.00018.
Wackernagel, M., Lin, D., Evans, M., Hanscom, L., and Raven, P. (2019). Defying
the footprint oracle: Implications of country resource trends. Sustainability
11:Pages 2164. doi: 10.3390/su11072164.
Global Footprint Network. (2020). Calculating Earth overshoot day 2020:
Estimates point to August 22nd. Lin, D., Wambersie, L., Wackernagel, M., andHanscom, P. editors. Global Footprint Network, Oakland. <www.overshootday.
org/2020-calculation> for data see <http://data.footprintnetwork.org>.
Williams, B. A., Venter, O., Allan, J. R., Atkinson, S. C., Rehbein, J. A., et al.
(2020). Change in terrestrial human footprint drives continued loss of intact
ecosystems. OneEarth (In review) doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3600547.
Watson, J. E. M., and Venter, O. (2019). Mapping the continuum of humanity’sfootprint on land. One Earth 1:175-180. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2019.09.004.
Foden, W. B., Young, B. E., Akçakaya, H. R., Garcia, R. A., Hoffmann, A. A., etal. (2018). Climate change vulnerability assessment of species. WIREs Climate
Change 10:e551. doi: 10.1002/wcc.551.
Waller, N. L., Gynther, I. C., Freeman, A. B., Lavery, T. H., and Leung, L. K.-P.
(2017). The Bramble Cay melomys Melomys rubicola (Rodentia: Muridae): A
first mammalian extinction caused by human-induced climate change? Wildlife
Research 44:9-21. doi: 10.1071/WR16157.
Fulton, G. R. (2017). The Bramble Cay melomys: The first mammalian extinction
due to human-induced climate change. Pacific Conservation Biology 23:1-3. doi:
10.1071/PCV23N1_ED.
Welbergen, J. A., Klose, S. M., Markus, N., and Eby, P. (2008). Climate change andthe effects of temperature extremes on Australian flying-foxes. Proceedings of theRoyal Society B: Biological Sciences 275:419-425. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2007.1385.
Welbergen, J., Booth, C., and Martin, J. (2014). Killer climate: tens of thousandsof flying foxes dead in a day. The Conversation. <http://theconversation.com/
killer-climate-tens-of-thousands-of-flying-foxes-dead-in-a-day-23227>.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being:
Biodiversity synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B., Watson, R. T., et al. (2018).
Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359:270-272. doi: 10.1126/
science.aap8826.

SUMMARY 43

42

43
44
45
46
47

48
49

55

56
57
58
59

60
61
62
63
64
65
66

WWF LIVING PLANET REPORT 2020 44

UN IGME. (2019). Levels & trends in child mortality: Report 2019, estimatesdeveloped by the United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality
Estimation. United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation(UN IGME). United Nations Children’s Fund, New York.
The World Bank Group. (2019). Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90 a day (2011
PPP) (% of population). Accessed 9th November, 2019. <https://data.worldbank.
org/indicator/SI.POV.DDAY>.
United Nations DESA Population Division. (2019). World population prospects
2019, Online edition. Rev. 1. Accessed 9th November, 2019. <https://population.
un.org/wpp/>.
WHO. (1948). Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization.
World Health Organisation (WHO), Geneva. <https://www.who.int/about/whowe-are/constitution>.
CBD. (2020). Sustaining life on Earth: How the Convention on Biological
Diversity promotes nature and human well-being. Secretariat of the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CDB), Montreal, Canada.
Atanasov, A. G., Waltenberger, B., Pferschy-Wenzig, E.-M., Linder, T., Wawrosch,C., et al. (2015). Discovery and resupply of pharmacologically active plantderived natural products: A review. Biotechnology Advances 33:1582-1614. doi:
10.1016/j.biotechadv.2015.08.001.
Motti, R., Bonanomi, G., Emrick, S., and Lanzotti, V. (2019). Traditional herbal
remedies used in women’s health care in Italy: A review. Human Ecology 47:941972. doi: 10.1007/s10745-019-00125-4.
WHO/CBD. (2015). Connecting global priorities: Biodiversity and humanhealth. World Health Organisation (WHO) and Secretariat of the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CDB), Geneva. <https://www.who.int/globalchange/
publications/biodiversity-human-health/en/>.
FAO. (2019). The state of the world’s biodiversity for food and agriculture.
Bélanger, J. and Pilling, D. editors. FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture Assessments, Rome. <http://www.fao.org/3/CA3129EN/
CA3129EN.pdf>.
Boa, E. (2004). Wild edible fungi. A global overview of their use and importanceto people. Non-wood Forest Products 17. FAO, Rome, Italy. <http://www.fao.
org/3/a-y5489e.pdf>.
FAO. (2010). The second report on the state of the world’s plant genetic
resources for food and agriculture. Rome. <http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/
i1500e/i1500e.pdf>.
van Huis, A., Van Itterbeeck, J., Klunder, H., Mertens, E., Halloran, A., et al.
(2013). Edible insects: Future prospects for food and feed security. FAO Forestry
Paper No. 171. FAO, Rome. <http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3253e/i3253e.pdf>.
FAO. (2015). The second report on the state of world’s animal genetic resources
for food and agriculture. Scherf, B. D. and Pilling, D. editors. FAO Commission
on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Assessments, Rome. <http://
www.fao.org/3/a-i4787e.pdf>.
Chang, S., and Wasser, S. (2017). The cultivation and environmental impact ofmushrooms. Oxford University Press, New York.
Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research. (2017). Mansfeld’sworld database of agriculture and horticultural crops. Accessed 25th June, 2018.
<http://mansfeld.ipk-gatersleben.de/apex/f?p=185:3>.
FAO. (2018). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2018. Meeting thesustainable development goals. FAO, Rome. <http://www.fao.org/3/i9540en/
I9540EN.pdf>.
FAO. (2018). Fishery and aquaculture statistics. FishstatJ – Global production
by Production Source 1950-2016. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.
<http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstatj/en>.
FAO. (2019). The state of the world’s aquatic genetic resources for food andagriculture. FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
Assessments, Rome. <http://www.fao.org/3/CA5256EN/CA5256EN.pdf>.
FAO. (2019). DAD-IS – Domestic Animal Diversity Information System. Rome.
Accessed 11th December, 2019. <http://www.fao.org/dad-is/en>.
FAO. (2019). WIEWS – World Information and Early Warning System on Plant
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome. Accessed 11th December,2019. <http://www.fao.org/wiews/en/>.

67
68
69
70

71

72
73

74

75
76
77
78
79

80

81
82
83
84
85
86

FAO. (2019). FAOSTAT. Rome. Accessed 11th December, 2019. <http://www.fao.
org/faostat/en/>.
IUCN. (2019). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2019-3.
Accessed 11th December, 2019. <http://www.iucnredlist.org/>.
Leclère, D., Obersteiner, M., Barrett, M., Butchart, S. H. M., Chaudhary, A., et al.
(2020). Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy.
Nature.
van Vuuren, D. P., Kok, M., Lucas, P. L., Prins, A. G., Alkemade, R., et al.
(2015). Pathways to achieve a set of ambitious global sustainability objectives
by 2050: Explorations using the IMAGE integrated assessment model.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 98:303-323. doi: 10.1016/j.
techfore.2015.03.005.
IPBES. (2016). Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessmentof scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services of theIntergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services. Ferrier, S., Ninan, K. N., Leadley, P., Alkemade, R., Acosta, L. A., etal. editors. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity andEcosystem Services. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3235429.
Popp, A., Calvin, K., Fujimori, S., Havlik, P., Humpenöder, F., et al. (2017).
Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Global Environmental
Change 42:331-345. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.002.
Kim, H., Rosa, I. M. D., Alkemade, R., Leadley, P., Hurtt, G., et al. (2018).
A protocol for an intercomparison of biodiversity and ecosystem services
models using harmonized land-use and climate scenarios. Geoscientific Model
Development Discussions 11:4537-4562. doi: 10.5194/gmd-11-4537-2018.
Fricko, O., Havlik, P., Rogelj, J., Klimont, Z., Gusti, M., et al. (2017). The marker
quantification of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2: A middle-of-the-road
scenario for the 21st century. Global Environmental Change 42:251-267. doi:
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.004.
Bardgett, R. D., and van der Putten, W. H. (2014). Belowground biodiversity andecosystem functioning. Nature 515:505-511. doi: 10.1038/nature13855.
Stork, N. E. (2018). How many species of insects and other terrestrial arthropods
are there on Earth? Annual Review of Entomology 63:31-45. doi: 10.1146/
annurev-ento-020117-043348.
van Klink, R., Bowler, D. E., Gongalsky, K. B., Swengel, A. B., Gentile, A., et al.
(2020). Meta-analysis reveals declines in terrestrial but increases in freshwater
insect abundances. Science 368:417-420. doi: 10.1126/science.aax9931.
Biesmeijer, J. C., Roberts, S. P. M., Reemer, M., Ohlemüller, R., Edwards, M., etal. (2006). Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain
and the Netherlands. Science 313:351-354. doi: 10.1126/science.1127863.
Fox, R., Oliver, T. H., Harrower, C., Parsons, M. S., Thomas, C. D., et al. (2014).
Long-term changes to the frequency of occurrence of British moths are consistent
with opposing and synergistic effects of climate and land-use changes. Journal ofApplied Ecology 51:949-957. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12256.
Habel, J. C., Trusch, R., Schmitt, T., Ochse, M., and Ulrich, W. (2019). Long-termlarge-scale decline in relative abundances of butterfly and burnet moth species
across south-western Germany. Scientific Reports 9:1-9. doi: 10.1038/s41598019-51424-1.
Powney, G. D., Carvell, C., Edwards, M., Morris, R. K. A., Roy, H. E., et al. (2019).
Widespread losses of pollinating insects in Britain. Nature Communications
10:1-6. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-08974-9.
UNEP. (2018). Inclusive wealth report 2018: Measuring sustainability and wellbeing. United Nations Environment Programme.
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. (2018). Global wetland outlook: State of theworld’s wetlands and their services to people. Gardner, R.C., and Finlayson, C.
Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland.
Grill, G., Lehner, B., Thieme, M., Geenen, B., Tickner, D., et al. (2019). Mapping theworld’s free-flowing rivers. Nature 569:215-221. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1111-9.
IUCN. (2020). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020-2.
<https://www.iucnredlist.org>.
Butchart, S. H. M., Resit Akçakaya, H., Chanson, J., Baillie, J. E. M., Collen, B., etal. (2007). Improvements to the Red List Index. PLOS ONE 2:e140. doi: 10.1371/
journal.pone.0000140.

SUMMARY 45

WWF WORLDWIDE NETWORKWWF Offices

LIVING PLANETREPORT 2020
BENDING THE CURVE OF BIODIVERSITY LOSSEXPLORE MORE

A DEEP DIVE INTO
FRESHWATER
LIVING PLANET REPORT 2020

WWF Associates

Armenia

Madagascar

Fundación Vida Silvestre (Argentina)

Australia

Malaysia

Pasaules Dabas Fonds (Latvia)

Austria

MexicoNigerian Conservation Foundation (Nigeria)

Azerbaijan

Mongolia

Belgium

MoroccoBelizeMozambiqueTOO HOT TO HANDLE:A DEEP DIVE INTO
BIODIVERSITY IN A
WARMING WORLD

BhutanMyanmarBolivia

Namíbia

BrazilNepal

Bulgaria

Netherlands

Cambodia

New Zealand

Cameroon

NorwayCanadaPakistan

LIVING PLANET REPORT 2020

Central African Republic

PanamaChile

Papua New Guinea

China

Paraguay

Colombia

Peru

Croatia

Philippines

Cuba

PolandDemocratic Republic of Congo

Portugal

Denmark

Romania

EcuadorRussiaFijiSingapore

Finland

Slovakia

FranceSolomon Islands

French Guyana

South Africa

Gabon

Spain

Georgia

Suriname

Germany

SwedenGreeceSwitzerland

GuatemalaTanzania

GuyanaThailandHonduras

Tunisia

Hong Kong

TurkeyHungary

UgandaIndia

UkraineIndonesia

United Arab Emirates

Italy

United Kingdom

Japan

United States of America

Kenya

Vietnam

Korea

ZambiaLaos

Zimbabwe

VOICES FOR A
LIVING PLANETSPECIAL EDITION LIVING PLANET REPORT 2020

Publication details
Published in September 2020 by WWF – World
Wide Fund for Nature (Formerly World WildlifeFund), Gland, Switzerland (“WWF”).
Any reproduction in full or in part of thispublication must be in accordance with the rules
below, and mention the title and credit the abovementioned publisher as the copyright owner.
Recommended citation:
WWF (2020) Living Planet Report 2020 Bending the curve of biodiversity loss.
Almond, R.E.A., Grooten M. and Petersen, T. (Eds).
WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
Notice for text and graphics: © 2020 WWF
All rights reserved.
Reproduction of this publication (except thephotos) for educational or other non-commercial
purposes is authorized subject to advance
written notification to WWF and appropriate
acknowledgement as stated above. Reproductionof this publication for resale or other commercial
purposes is prohibited without prior written
permission. Reproduction of the photos forany purpose is subject to WWF’s priorwritten permission.
The opinions expressed in this publication arethose of the authors. They do not profess to reflect
the opinions or views of WWF. The designations
employed in this publication and the presentationof material therein do not imply the expressionof any opinion whatsoever on the part of WWF
concerning the legal status of any country, area or
territory or of its authorities.

• LIVING PLANET REPORT 2020 - SUMMARYOUR MISSION IS TO STOP THE
DEGRADATION OF THE PLANET’S
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND
TO BUILD A FUTURE IN WHICH
HUMANS LIVE IN HARMONY
WITH NATURE.

INT© 2020panda.org

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

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