1. REPORTINT2014Living PlanetReport 2014Species and spaces,people and places

2. WWFWWF is one of the worlds largest and most experienced independent conservation organizations,with over 5 million supporters and a global network active in more than 100 countries.WWFs mission is to stop the degradation of the planets natural environment and to builda future in which humans live in harmony with nature, by conserving the worlds biologicaldiversity, ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable, and promotingthe reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption.Zoological Society of London)RXQGHGLQWKH=RRORJLFDO6RFLHWRI/RQGRQ=6/ 3. LVDQLQWHUQDWLRQDOVFLHQWLFconservation and educational organization. Its mission is to achieve and promote theworldwide conservation of animals and their habitats. ZSL runs ZSL London Zoo and ZSL:KLSVQDGH=RRFDUULHVRXWVFLHQWLFUHVHDUFKLQWKH,QVWLWXWHRI=RRORJDQGLVDFWLYHOLQYROYHGLQHOGFRQVHUYDWLRQZRUOGZLGH7KH=6/PDQDJHVWKHLiving Planet Index in acollaborative partnership with WWF.Global Footprint NetworkGlobal Footprint Network promotes the science of sustainability by advancing the Ecological)RRWSULQWDUHVRXUFHDFFRXQWLQJWRROWKDWPDNHVVXVWDLQDELOLWPHDVXUDEOH7RJHWKHUZLWKLWVpartners, the Network works to further improve and implement this science by coordinatingresearch, developing methodological standards, and providing decision-makers with robustresource accounts to help the human economy operate within the Earths ecological limits.Water Footprint Network7KH:DWHU)RRWSULQW1HWZRUN:)1 4. LVDPXOWLVWDNHKROGHUQHWZRUNFRPPLWWHGWRWKHtransition to fair and smart use of the worlds freshwater. WFN published the Global WaterFootprint Assessment Standard in 2011 and advances the use of Water Footprint Assessmentthrough sharing knowledge, demonstrating solutions and linking communities. WFNmaintains the worlds most comprehensive water footprint database, WaterStat, and the:DWHU)RRWSULQW$VVHVVPHQW7RROWWF InternationalAvenue du Mont-Blanc1196 Gland, Switzerlandwww.panda.orgInstitute of ZoologyZoological Society of LondonRegents Park,London NW1 4RY, UKwww.zsl.org/indicatorswww.livingplanetindex.orgGlobal Footprint Network312 Clay Street, Suite 300Oakland, California 94607, USAwww.footprintnetwork.orgWater Footprint NetworkDrienerlolaan 57522 NB Enschede7KH1HWKHUODQGVwww.waterfootprint.orgDesign by: millerdesign.co.ukCover photograph: European Space Agency. This Envisat radar image features a chain ofvolcanoes called the Virunga Mountains that stretch across Rwandas northern border with Ugandaand east into the Democratic Republic of Congo. This image was created by combining three Envisatradar acquisitions from 27 March 2003, 5 January 2006 and 12 August 2010 over the same area.ISBN 978-2-940443-87-1Living Planet Reportand Living Planet Indexare registered trademarksof WWF International.7KLVUHSRUWKDVEHHQSULQWHGRQ)6FHUWLHG5HYLYH6LON 5. CONTENTSFOREWORD 4Introduction 8At a glance 12CHAPTER 1: THE STATE OF THE PLANET 16The Living Planet Index 16The Ecological Footprint 32The Water Footprint 44People, consumption and development 54CHAPTER 2: DEVELOPING THE PICTURE 64Panning out: the planetary picture 65Zooming in 74CHAPTER 3: WHY WE SHOULD CARE 86Ecosystem services and their value 88Food, water and energy 91Healthy communities 94CHAPTER 4: ONE PLANET SOLUTIONS 100Southern Chile: protection, production and people 102Mountain gorillas: communities and conservation 106Belize: valuing natural capital 110South Africa: plantations and wetlands 114Great Barrier Reef: land, rivers and sea 118Denmark: winds of change 122We love cities 126THE PATH AHEAD 132APPENDIX 136Living Planet Index FAQ 136Ecological Footprint FAQ 148Water Footprint FAQ 161Glossary and abbreviations 164REFERENCES 168 6. Editor-In-Chief: Richard McLellan.Lead Editors:/HHQD,HQJDU%DUQH-HULHV1DWDVMD2HUOHPDQVEditorial Team: Monique Grooten, May Guerraoui, Paul Sunters.External reviewersDr Jennie Moore, Director, Sustainable Development and Environment Stewardship,BCIT School of Construction and the Environment, British Columbia Institute ofTechnology, British Columbia, Canada.Professor Topiltzin Contreras Macbeath, Head Of The Conservation BiologyResearch Group, Centro De Investigaciones Biolgicas, Universidad Autnoma delEstado de Morelos; and Minister for Sustainable Development, Government of theState of Morelos, Mexico.ContributorsZoological Society of London: Louise McRae, Robin Freeman, Stefanie Deinet.Global Footprint Network:-DVRQ2UWHJR0DWKLV:DFNHUQDJHO6WHYH*ROGQJHU*ROQDU=RNDL(OLDV/D]DUXV0LFKDHO%RUXFNH6FRWW0DWWRRQ*HR7URWWHUWater Footprint Network: Ashok Chapagain.WWF: Alison Harley (Tigers Alive), Joanne Shaw (Rhino programme), Cassandra Brooke(climate), Jon Hoekstra, (land use and ecosystem services); Rodney Taylor (forests); PaulChatterton (REDD+); Jessica Battle (marine 7. 6WXDUW2UU2OLYHU0DHQQLFNHfreshwater);Ricardo Bosshard, Rodrigo Cataln, Mara Elisa Arroyo, Marygrace Balinos, Jaime Molina,Irina Montenegro, Cristina Torres, Francisco Viddi, Trevor Walter (Chile case study); DavidGreer (mountain gorilla case study); Aimee Gonzales, Amy Rosenthal, Valerie Burgener,Gregory Verutes (Belize case study 8. /XLV1HYHV6LOYD6LQGLVZD1REXODSouth Africa case study);Sean Hoobin, Julie Chaise, Joshua Bishop, Doug Yuille (Great Barrier Reef case study);Hanne Jersild (Denmark case study 9. DULQD%RUJVWU|P+DQVVRQ-HHW0LVWU$QQVRH$URQVVRQ/LQD'DEEDJK/DXUD7UHU0L+ZDKDH.LUDQ5DMDVKHNDULDK9DQHVVD3HUH]LUHUDJinlei Feng, Liangchun Deng, (cities 10. 1DVVHU2OZHUR6KDOQQ3DFN$XUHOLH6KDSLURGIS maps).Additional key contributions received fromKate Arkema (Stanford University), Albert Bleeker (Energy Research Centre of the1HWKHUODQGV 11. Flix Pharand-Deschnes (Globaa), Jan Willem Erisman (Integrated1LWURJHQ6WXGLHV988QLYHUVLW$PVWHUGDP 12. Louise Gallagher/XF+RPDQQInstitute), James Galloway (University of Virginia), Elaine Geyer-Allely (WWFInternational), David Harmon (George Wright Society), Eric Kissel (WG2 TSU, IPCC),Allison Leech (University of Virginia), Jonathan Loh (ZSL), Anna Behm Masozera(IGCP), Robert Meisner (European Space Agency), 0HVQ0HNRQQHQ (University of7ZHQWHWKH1HWKHUODQGV 13. Pauline Midgeley (WG1 TSU, IPCC), Kate Raworth(QYLURQPHQWKDQJH,QVWLWXWH2[IRUG8QLYHUVLW 14. Johan Rockstrm (StockholmResilience Centre), Arco Van Strien6WDWLVWLFV1HWKHUODQGV 15. Joshua Tewksbury/XF+RPDQQ,QVWLWXWH 16. Katherine Trebeck2[IDP*% 17. Special thanks for review and support toRosamunde Almond (Cambridge Institute for Sustainability and Environment), MikeBarrett (WWF-UK), Carlotta Bianchi (WWF International), Ellen Bogers (Rabobank),Gemma Cranston1DWXUDODSLWDO/HDGHUV3ODWIRUP,6/ 18. Brent Corcoran (MondiGroup), Melanie Dass (Mondi Group), Jean-Philippe Denruyter (WWF International),Chris Enthoven::)1HWKHUODQGV 19. Ricardo Fuentes-Nieva2[IDP*% 20. PeterGardiner (Mondi Group), Johnson Gathia8QLWHG1DWLRQV3XEOLFDWLRQV 21. TimothyGeer (WWF International), Chris Hails (WWF International), Kerryn Haselau (MondiGroup), Leo Hickman (WWF-UK), David Hirsch (WWF International), GretchenLyons (WWF International), Shaun Martin (WWF-US), Elisabeth Mclellan (WWFInternational), Mie Oehlenschlger (WWF-Denmark), Gemma Parkes (WWFInternational), Niki Parker (WWF International), Janos Pasztor (WWF International),Richard Perkins (WWF-UK), Julie Robinson7KH1DWXUHRQVHUYDQF 22. AnabelaRodrigues (WWF-Mozambique), Johannah Sargent (WWF-UK), SophieSchlingemann (IPCC Secretariat), Sybil Seitzinger (International Geosphere-BiosphereProgramme, Sweden), Sturle Hauge Simonsen (Stockholm Resilience Centre), StephanSinger (WWF International), PJ Stephenson (WWF International), Thomas Ursem(Rabobank), Hanna Wetterstrand (Stockholm Resilience Centre), Mandy Woods(WWF-GCEI), Lucy Young (WWF-UK), Natascha Zwaal::)1HWKHUODQGV 23. Living PlanetReport 2014Species and spaces,people and places~ 24. FOREWORDMessage from WWF International Director GeneralThis latest edition of the Living Planet Report is not for the faint-KHDUWHG2QHNHSRLQWWKDWMXPSVRXWDQGFDSWXUHVWKHRYHUDOOpicture is that the Living Planet Index (LPI), which measures morethan 10,000 representative populations of mammals, birds, reptiles,DPSKLELDQVDQGVKKDVGHFOLQHGESHUFHQWVLQFH3XWanother way, in less than two human generations, population sizesof vertebrate species have dropped by half. These are the livingforms that constitute the fabric of the ecosystems which sustainlife on Earth and the barometer of what we are doing to our ownplanet, our only home. We ignore their decline at our peril.$UDQJHRILQGLFDWRUVUHHFWLQJKXPDQLWVKHDYGHPDQGXSRQWKHSODQHWVKRZVWKDWZHDUHXVLQJQDWXUHVJLIWVDVLIZHKDGPRUHWKDQMXVWRQH(DUWKDWRXUGLVSRVDO%WDNLQJPRUHIURPRXUHFRVVWHPVDQGQDWXUDOSURFHVVHVWKDQFDQEHUHSOHQLVKHGZHDUHMHRSDUGL]LQJRXUIXWXUH1DWXUHFRQVHUYDWLRQDQGVXVWDLQDEOHGHYHORSPHQWJRhand-in-hand. They are not only about preserving biodiversityDQGZLOGSODFHVEXWMXVWDVPXFKDERXWVDIHJXDUGLQJWKHIXWXUHof humanity our well-being, economy, food security and socialstability indeed, our very survival.This has to make us stop and think. What kind of future are weheading toward? And what kind of future do we want? Can weMXVWLIHURGLQJRXUQDWXUDOFDSLWDODQGDOORFDWLQJQDWXUHVUHVRXUFHVso inequitably?1DWXUDOFDSLWDOLVDNHFRQFHSWRIWKHLiving Planet Report. Whileit may be an economic metaphor, it encapsulates the idea thatour economic prosperity and our well-being are reliant upon theresources provided by a healthy planet. In a world where so manypeople live in poverty, it may appear as though protecting nature is aOX[XU%XWLWLVTXLWHWKHRSSRVLWH)RUPDQRIWKHZRUOGVSRRUHVWpeople, it is a lifeline. And we are all in this together. We all needfood, fresh water and clean air wherever in the world we live.We cannot protect nature without also recognizing the needs andaspirations of people, and the right to development. But equally,we cannot have development or meet the needs and aspirations ofpeople without protecting nature.7KLQJVORRNVRZRUULQJWKDWLWPDVHHPGLFXOWWRIHHOSRVLWLYHDERXWWKHIXWXUH'LFXOWFHUWDLQOEXWQRWLPSRVVLEOHEHFDXVHLWWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 4 WWF-Canon / Matthew Lee BY TAKING MORE FROMOUR ECOSYSTEMS ANDNATURAL PROCESSESTHAN CAN BE REPLENISHED,WE ARE JEOPARDIZINGOUR FUTURE 25. LVLQRXUVHOYHVZKRKDYHFDXVHGWKHSUREOHPWKDWZHFDQQGWKHsolution. And it is by acknowledging the problem and understandingWKHGULYHUVRIGHFOLQHWKDWZHFDQQGWKHLQVLJKWVDQGPRUHimportantly, the determination to put things right.We need a few things to change. First, we need unity around acommon cause. Public, private and civil society sectors need toSXOOWRJHWKHULQDEROGDQGFRRUGLQDWHGHRUW6HFRQGZHQHHGleadership for change. Sitting on the bench waiting for someone elseWRPDNHWKHUVWPRYHGRHVQWZRUN+HDGVRIVWDWHQHHGWRVWDUWthinking globally; businesses and consumers need to stop behavingas if we live in a limitless world.'LFXOWEXWQRWLPSRVVLEOH$QGWKHNHWRPDNLQJFKDQJHOLHVLQthe subtitle of this edition of the Living Planet Report speciesand spaces, people and places. We really are all connected andFROOHFWLYHOZHKDYHWKHSRWHQWLDOWRQGDQGDGRSWWKHVROXWLRQVWKDWZLOOVDIHJXDUGWKHIXWXUHRIWKLVRXURQHDQGRQOSODQHW1RZwe must work to ensure that the upcoming generation can seizethe opportunity that we have so far failed to grasp, to close thisdestructive chapter in our history, and build a future where peoplecan live and prosper in harmony with nature.Marco LambertiniDirector GeneralWWF InternationalIT IS BY ACKNOWLEDGING THE PROBLEMAND UNDERSTANDING THE DRIVERSOF DECLINE THAT WE CAN FINDTHE INSIGHTS AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY,THE DETERMINATION TO PUT THINGS RIGHTForeword page 5 26. WHATS ON THEHORIZON?~A park ranger looks out over the Semliki River in Virunga1DWLRQDO3DUN'HPRFUDWLF5HSXEOLFRIRQJR'5 27. In Virunga, the issues explored in the Living Planet Reportare coming to a head. Few places on Earth contain so manyspecies or such an extraordinary range of landscapes.$IULFDVROGHVWQDWLRQDOSDUNDOVRSURYLGHVYLWDOHFRVVWHPservices: supplying fresh water, controlling erosion, storingcarbon, and providing tens of thousands of people witha livelihood.But this World Heritage Site is under threat, as the fossil-fuelindustry goes to ever greater lengths to meet global energydemands. Earlier this year, hope was restored for Virungawhen, UK-based company Soco International PLC agreedto end its oil exploration activities in Virunga followingDQLQWHUQDWLRQDOFDPSDLJQOHGE::)1HYHUWKHOHVVRLOconcessions allocated across 85 per cent of the park put itslong-term future in doubt.DRC desperately needs development. But will it bedevelopment that plunders natural capital to fuelXQVXVWDLQDEOHFRQVXPSWLRQ2UZLOOLWEHWUXOVXVWDLQDEOHGHYHORSPHQWWKDWDOORZVHYHURQHWRSURWIURPQDWXUHVgifts, now and for generations to come? People must choosethe future of Virunga, as we must choose the future for theplanet as a whole. 28. Brent Stirton / Reportage by Getty Images / WWF-Canon 29. ECONOMICDOMAINWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 8Figure 1: Ecosystemssustain societies thatcreate economiesINTRODUCTION6XVWDLQDEOHGHYHORSPHQWKDVJXUHGSURPLQHQWORQWKHinternational agenda for more than a quarter of a century. Peopletalk earnestly of the environmental, social and economic dimensionsof development. Yet we continue to build up the economiccomponent, at considerable cost to the environmental one. We riskundermining social and economic gains by failing to appreciateour fundamental dependency on ecological systems. Social andeconomic sustainability are only possible with a healthy planet.ECOLOGICALDOMAINSOCIALDOMAINEcosystems sustain societies that create economies. It does not workany other way round. But although human beings are a product ofthe natural world, we have become the dominant force that shapesecological and biophysical systems. In doing so, we are not onlythreatening our health, prosperity and well-being, but our veryfuture. This tenth edition of the Living Planet Report reveals theHHFWVRIWKHSUHVVXUHVZHDUHSODFLQJRQWKHSODQHW,WH[SORUHVWKHimplications for society. And it underlines the importance of thechoices we make and the steps we take to ensure this living planetcan continue to sustain us all, now and for generations to come.Chapter 1 presents three established indicators of the state of theplanet and our impact upon it: the Living Planet Index (LPI), theEcological Footprint and the water footprint.The LPI, which measures trends in thousands of vertebrate speciespopulations, shows a decline of 52 per cent between 1970 and 2010(Figure 2). In other words, vertebrate species populations acrossthe globe are, on average, about half the size they were 40 years ago.This is a much bigger decrease than has been reported previously,DVDUHVXOWRIWKHZHLJKWHGDGMXVWPHQWVPDGHWRWKHPHWKRGRORJ 30. Introduction page 92101970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearIndex Value (1970 = 1)Figure 2: Global LivingPlanet IndexThe global LPI shows adecline of 52 per cent between1970 and 2010. This suggeststhat, on average, vertebratespecies populations are abouthalf the size they were 40years ago. This is based ontrends in 10,380 populationsof 3,038 mammal, bird,UHSWLOHDPSKLELDQDQGVKspecies. The white line showsthe index values and theshaded areas represent theSHUFHQWFRQGHQFHOLPLWVsurrounding the trend (WWF,ZSL, 2014).KeyGlobal Living PlanetIndexRQGHQFHOLPLWVwhich aims to be more representative of global biodiversity(the methodology is explained further in Chapter 1 and in detail inAppendix).The Ecological Footprint (Figure 3) shows that 1.5 Earths wouldbe required to meet the demands humanity makes on nature eachyear. These demands include the renewable resources we consumeIRUIRRGIXHODQGEUHWKHODQGZHEXLOGRQDQGWKHIRUHVWVZHneed to absorb our carbon emissions. For more than 40 years,KXPDQLWVGHPDQGKDVH[FHHGHGWKHSODQHWVELRFDSDFLWWKHamount of biologically productive land and sea area that is availableto regenerate these resources. This continuing overshoot is makingLWPRUHDQGPRUHGLFXOWWRPHHWWKHQHHGVRIDJURZLQJJOREDOhuman population, as well as to leave space for other species.Adding further complexity is that demand is not evenly distributed,with people in industrialized countries consuming resources andservices at a much faster rate.The water footprint helps us comprehend the massive volumes ofwater required to support our lifestyles especially to grow food.As human population and consumption continue to grow, so toodo our demands for water but the volume of freshwater availableGRHVQRW7RGDPRUHWKDQDWKLUGRIWKHZRUOGVSRSXODWLRQDERXW2.7 billion people live in river basins that experience severe waterscarcity for at least one month each year.Chapter 2 introduces a range of complementary information andindicators for assessing and understanding the state of the naturalZRUOGDQGWKHKXPDQDFWLYLWLHVWKDWDHFWLW:HSUHVHQWDQGGLVFXVVthe concept of planetary boundaries the thresholds beyond which 31. 2101961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 10Number of Planet EarthsYearFigure 3: HumanitysEcological Footprint1.5 Earths would berequired to meet thedemands humanitycurrently makes on nature.For more than 40 years,humanitys demand hasexceeded the planetsbiocapacity the amountof biologically productiveland and sea area that isavailable to regeneratethese resources (GlobalFootprint Network, 2014).we risk potentially catastrophic changes to life as we know it. Threeof these nine planetary boundaries appear to have already beencrossed: biodiversity is declining far faster than any natural rate;the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is alreadyFDXVLQJVLJQLFDQWFKDQJHVWRRXUFOLPDWHDQGHFRVVWHPVDQGwhile converting nitrogen from the air into fertilizer has helpedIHHGWKHZRUOGQLWURJHQSROOXWLRQKDVEHFRPHDVLJQLFDQWLIunderappreciated, environmental threat. We also look at otherindicators that deepen our understanding of ecosystems andUHVRXUFHSUHVVXUHVLQGLHUHQWFRQWH[WVDQGDWGLHUHQWOHYHOVDQGsee how this data can feed into practical tools and policy actions totackle issues such as deforestation and water risk.Why should we care about what the science and research tellsus? Chapter 3 presents some possible answers to this question,EORRNLQJDWKRZHQYLURQPHQWDOFKDQJHVDHFWRXUVRFLDODQGeconomic development, and how we might respond.Better understanding of the services that ecosystems provideKLJKOLJKWVMXVWKRZPXFKZHGHSHQGXSRQWKHQDWXUDOZRUOGForests, for example, provide shelter, livelihoods, water, fuel andfood to 2 billion people directly, and help regulate the climate foreveryone on the planet. Marine ecosystems support more thanPLOOLRQMREVJOREDOODQGDUHDVLJQLFDQWVRXUFHRISURWHLQparticularly in developing countries. While it is impossible to put aprice-tag on nature, ascribing an economic value to ecosystems andthe services they provide is one way to convey what we stand to loseif we continue to squander our natural capital.Key+XPDQLWVEcological FootprintWorld biocapacityWorld biocapacity 32. As the LPI declines and the Ecological Footprint increases, theSODQHWVFDSDFLWWRVXSSODQGUHSOHQLVKYLWDOQDWXUDOUHVRXUFHVGLPLQLVKHV7RGDDOPRVWDELOOLRQSHRSOHVXHUIURPKXQJHUmillion live without a safe, clean water supply and 1.4 billion lackaccess to a reliable electricity supply. Securing resilient, healthycommunities where people can thrive will become an even greaterchallenge than it is today as population and consumption increase,and climate change and ecosystem degradation take their toll.%XWWKHFKDOOHQJHLVQRWDQLQVXUPRXQWDEOHRQH$VWKHQDOFKDSWHUGHPRQVWUDWHVSHRSOHDURXQGWKHZRUOGDUHQGLQJEHWWHUZDVWRPDQDJHXVHDQGVKDUHQDWXUDOUHVRXUFHVZLWKLQWKHSODQHWVFDSDFLWZLWKZLGHVSUHDGHQYLURQPHQWDOVRFLDODQGHFRQRPLFEHQHWV.HWRWKLVLV::)V2QH3ODQHW3HUVSHFWLYH)LJXUH 33. DQunderstanding that the natural capital upon which our society andSURVSHULWDUHEXLOWLVQLWHDQGWKDWZHQHHGWRXVHLWPRUHZLVHODQGVKDUHLWPRUHIDLUO2QOWKHQFDQZHWUXOEHJLQWRWDONDERXWsustainable development.EQUITABLERESOURCEGOVERNANCEIntroduction page 11Figure 4: One PlanetPerspective(WWF, 2012).BETTER CHOICESFROM A ONE PLANETFOOD, WATER ANDENERGY SECURITYPRESERVENATURAL CAPITALPRODUCE BETTERCONSUMEMORE WISELYBIODIVERSITYCONSERVATIONREDIRECTFINANCIALFLOWSECOSYSTEMINTEGRITYPERSPECTIVE 34. AT A GLANCEChapter 1: The state of the planetBiodiversity is declining sharply The global Living Planet Index (LPI) shows an overall declineof 52 per cent between 1970 and 2010. Due to changes inPHWKRGRORJWREHWWHUUHHFWWKHUHODWLYHVL]HVRIVSHFLHVJURXSVacross biomes, this percentage has decreased considerably incomparison with previous publications. Falling by 76 per cent, populations of freshwater speciesdeclined more rapidly than marine (39 per cent) and terrestrial(39 per cent) populations. The most dramatic regional LPI decrease occurred in South$PHULFDIROORZHGFORVHOEWKH$VLD3DFLFUHJLRQ In land-based protected areas, the LPI declined by 18 per cent,less than half the rate of decline of the overall terrestrial LPI.2XUGHPDQGVRQQDWXUHDUHXQVXVWDLQDEOHDQGincreasing We need 1.5 Earths to meet the demands we currentlymake on nature. This means we are eating into our naturalFDSLWDOPDNLQJLWPRUHGLFXOWWRVXVWDLQWKHQHHGVRIIXWXUHgenerations. The carbon Footprint accounts for over half of the totalEcological Footprint, and is the largest single component forapproximately half of the countries tracked. Agriculture accounts for 92 per cent of the global waterIRRWSULQW+XPDQLWVJURZLQJZDWHUQHHGVDQGFOLPDWHFKDQJHare exacerbating challenges of water scarcity. 7KHGXDOHHFWRIDJURZLQJKXPDQSRSXODWLRQDQGKLJKSHUcapita Footprint will multiply the pressure we place on ourecological resources. The Ecological Footprint per capita of high-income countriesUHPDLQVDERXWYHWLPHVPRUHWKDQWKDWRIORZLQFRPHFRXQWULHV By importing resources, high-income countries in particular,PDHHFWLYHOEHRXWVRXUFLQJELRGLYHUVLWORVV:KLOHKLJKincome countries appear to show an increase (10 per cent) inbiodiversity, middle-income countries show declines (18 percent), and low-income countries show dramatic and markeddeclines (58 per cent). Countries with a high level of human development tend to havehigher Ecological Footprints. The challenge is for countries toincrease their human development while keeping their Footprintdown to globally sustainable levels.WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 12 35. Chapter 2: Developing the pictureAdditional indicators and ways of thinking give newperspectives on the state of the planet. 7KHSODQHWDUERXQGDULHVFRQFHSWGHQHVQLQHUHJXODWLQJSURFHVVHVthat keep the Earth in a stable state where life can thrive. Transgressing any of the nine boundaries could generate abruptor irreversible environmental changes. Three appear to have beencrossed already: biodiversity loss, climate change and nitrogen. 8UJHQWDQGVXVWDLQHGJOREDOHRUWVFRXOGVWLOONHHSWHPSHUDWXUHULVHVEHORZWKHOHYHOGHQHGDVVDIHEXWRXUZLQGRZRIopportunity is fast closing. 1LWURJHQLVHVVHQWLDOWRJOREDOIRRGVHFXULWEXWQLWURJHQpollution has severe impacts on aquatic ecosystems, air quality,biodiversity, climate and human health. Local and thematic analysis helps identify the causes andHHFWVRIJOREDOFKDOOHQJHVDQGSURYLGHVLQVLJKWVIRUGHYLVLQJpractical solutions.Chapter 3: Why we should care(QYLURQPHQWDOFKDQJHVDHFWXVDOO Human well-being depends on natural resources such as water,DUDEOHODQGVKDQGZRRGDQGHFRVVWHPVHUYLFHVVXFKDVpollination, nutrient cycling and erosion control. Putting ecosystems at the centre of planning, and managingactivities that depend on natural resources, brings economicDQGVRFLDOEHQHWV :KLOHWKHZRUOGVSRRUHVWFRQWLQXHWREHPRVWYXOQHUDEOHWKHLQWHUFRQQHFWHGLVVXHVRIIRRGZDWHUDQGHQHUJVHFXULWDHFWus all. )RUWKHUVWWLPHLQKLVWRUWKHPDMRULWRIWKHZRUOGVpopulation lives in cities, with urbanization growing fastest inthe developing world.Chapter 4: One planet solutions/LYLQJZLWKLQWKHSODQHWVPHDQVLVSRVVLEOH Individuals, communities, businesses, cities and governmentsare making better choices to protect natural capital and reducetheir footprint, with environmental, social and economicEHQHWVDVGHPRQVWUDWHGLQUHDOZRUOGFDVHVWXGLHV KDQJLQJRXUFRXUVHDQGQGLQJDOWHUQDWLYHSDWKZDVZLOOQRWbe easy. But it can be done.At a glance page 13 36. naturepl.com / Andy Rouse / WWF-CanonA LIVING PLANET~Only around 880 mountain gorillas remain in the wild about 200 of them in Virunga National Park. Although theyremain critically endangered, they are the only type of greatape whose numbers are increasing, thanks to intensiveconservation efforts.Mountain gorillas are among the 218 mammal species foundin Virunga, along with 706 bird species, 109 reptile species,78 amphibian species and more than 2,000 species of plants.But drilling for oil could lead to habitat degradation and seethe park lose its protected status and World Heritage Sitelisting, leaving its wildlife increasingly vulnerable.Globally, habitat loss and degradation, hunting and climatechange are the main threats facing the worlds biodiversity.They have contributed to a decline of 52 per cent in theLiving Planet Index since 1970 in other words, the numberRIPDPPDOVELUGVUHSWLOHVDPSKLELDQVDQGVKZLWKZKLFKwe share our planet has fallen by half. 37. The Living Planet IndexThe global LPI reveals a continual decline in vertebrate populationsover the last 40 years. This global trend shows no sign of slowingdown. For this tenth edition of the Living Planet Report, the LPIPHWKRGRORJKDVEHHQXSGDWHGDQGQHWXQHGWRJLYHDEHWWHUrepresentation of the global distribution of vertebrate species (See%R[DQG$SSHQGL[IRUPRUHGHWDLOV 38. 7KHZHLJKWHG/3,/3,' 39. shows that the size of populations (the number of individualanimals) decreased by 52 per cent between 1970 and 2010(Figure 5). This is a steeper decline than reported in previous yearswhen the dominance of data from North America and Europe DUHDVZKHUHORQJWHUPWUHQGLQIRUPDWLRQKDVEHHQPRUHUHDGLODYDLODEOHKDGDVWURQJLQXHQFHRQWKHJOREDO/3,The LPI is calculated using trends in 10,380 populations ofRYHUYHUWHEUDWHVSHFLHVVKHVDPSKLELDQVUHSWLOHVELUGVand mammals). These species groups have been comprehensivelyresearched and monitored by scientists and the general public formany years, meaning that a lot of data is available to assess the stateRIVSHFLFSRSXODWLRQVDQGWKHLUWUHQGVRYHUWLPH21WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 16Figure 5: Global LivingPlanet Index shows adecline of 52 per centbetween 1970 and 2010(WWF, ZSL, 2014).01970 1980 1990 2000 2010Index value (1970=1)YearKeyGlobal Living PlanetIndexRQGHQFHOLPLWVCHAPTER 1:THE STATE OF THE PLANET 40. Box 1: Explaining the use of LPI-D, the weighted LPITaxonomic groupsNumber of speciesFreshwaterLPI654321FishesBirdsMammalsReptiles andamphibiansMarineLPIRealmMarine realm1. Tropical /subtropical Indo-Pacific2. Atlantic tropical and sub-tropical3. Atlantic north temperate4. South temperate and Antarctic5. Pacific north temperate6. ArcticChapter 1: The State of the planet page 17Figure 6: Illustrationof how the global LPIis calculated using theLPI-D methodThe bar charts showthe relative number ofspecies in each realmand by taxonomic groupwithin each realm basedon estimates taken from:LOGQGHU::) 41. the IUCN Red List (IUCN,2013), Freshwater Speciesof the World (WWF/TNC, 2013) and the OceanBiogeographic InformationSystem (OBIS, 2012). Aweighted average methodthat places most weight onthe largest (most species-rich)groups within a realmGlobalLPINumber of speciesNumber of speciesTerrestrialLPIis used. Once the averagetrend for each realm hasbeen calculated, a weighted5432154321average to calculate eachRealmRealmsystem LPI is used, placingTerrestrial andthe most weight on theFreshwater realmslargest (most species-rich)realm within a system. The1. Neotropicalglobal LPI is the average of2. Indo-Pacificthe terrestrial, freshwater3. Afrotropicaland marine system LPIs4. Palearctic(WWF, ZSL, 2014).5. Nearctic7KH/3,'LVDYDULDWLRQRIWKH/3,PHWKRGWKDWKDVEHHQXVHGLQSUHYLRXVHGLWLRQVRIthe Living Planet Report7KH/3,'XVHVWKHHVWLPDWHGQXPEHURIVSHFLHVLQGLIIHUHQWtaxonomic groups and biogeographic realms to apply weightings to the LPI data. (SeeAppendix for more detail on these weightings).This is to account for the fact that the population trends for each taxonomic groupand biogeographic realm in the LPI database are not a perfect representation of the numberand distribution of vertebrate species that exist in the world. This means that, withoutZHLJKWLQJWKH/3,RYHUUHSUHVHQWVWUHQGVLQ(XURSHDQG1RUWK$PHULFDDQGDPRQJELUGVDQGXQGHUUHSUHVHQWVWUHQGVLQ$IULFD$VLDDQG/DWLQ$PHULFDDQGDPRQJUHSWLOHVDPSKLELDQVDQGVKHV)RUWKH/3,'PHWKRG=6/KDVXVHGHVWLPDWHVRIWKHQXPEHURIVSHFLHVLQHDFKtaxonomic group in each biogeographic realm to apply a proportional amount of weightingto the data on those species in the LPI database, giving the most weight to the groups andrealms with the most species, and the least weight to those groups and realms with the fewest. 42. Arctic(DFKSRSXODWLRQWLPHVHULHVLQWKH/3,GDWDEDVHLVDVVLJQHGWRa region a biogeographic realm RURFHDQDQGFODVVLHGDFFRUGLQJto whether the population lives predominantly in a terrestrial,freshwater or marine system (Figure 7). This makes it possible tolook at how species are faring in different regions and biomes.Figure 8 shows that the global LPI comprises a mixture ofincreasing, decreasing and stable populations across all speciesgroups. Even though slightly more populations are increasing thandeclining, the magnitude of the population decline is much greaterthan that of the increase, resulting in an overall reduction since 1970.654321WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 18TROPICALFigure 7: Thedistribution of locationsproviding data for theLiving Planet IndexEach point represents onepopulation and is coded asto whether it is terrestrial,freshwater or marine.The map also shows thebiogeographic realmdivisions used for terrestrial/freshwater systems andoceans for marine systems(WWF, ZSL, 2014).KeyKey'HFOLQHStableIncreaseNORTHTEMPERATEAfrotropicalNearcticNeotropicalPalearcticIndo-PacificAtlantic northPacific temperatenorthtemperatePacificnorthtemperateAtlantic tropicaland subtropicalTropical andsubtropicalTropical and Indo-PacificsubtropicalIndo-PacificSouth temperateand AntarcticSOUTHTEMPERATEFigure 8: The numberof declining, stable andincreasing populations(1970 - 2010) in theglobal LPI(WWF, ZSL, 2014).0Birds Fishes Reptiles amphibiansMammalsNumber of populations x 1000TerrestrialMarineFreshwater 43. Chapter 1: The State of the planet page 19Figure 9: The temperateLPI shows a decline of36 per cent between1970 and 2010This is based on trends inSRSXODWLRQVRIspecies (WWF, ZSL, 2014).KeyTemperate LivingPlanet IndexRQGHQFHOLPLWVFigure 10: The tropicalLPI shows a decline of56 per cent between1970 and 2010This is based on trends inSRSXODWLRQVRIspecies (WWF, ZSL, 2014).The global LPI can be subdivided to show trends intemperate and tropical regions separately, based on whether thebiogeographic realm in which the population is located ispredominantly temperate or tropical.The results indicate that vertebrates are declining in bothtemperate and tropical regions, but that the average decline isgreater in the tropics. The 6,569 populations of 1,606 species in thetemperate LPI declined by 36 per cent from 1970 to 2010 (Figure 9).The tropical LPI shows a 56 per cent reduction in 3,811 populationsof 1,638 species over the same period (Figure 10).2101970 1980 1990 2000 2010Index value (1970=1)Year2101970 1980 1990 2000 2010Index value (1970=1)YearKeyTropical LivingPlanet IndexRQGHQFHOLPLWV 44. The main threats to populations in the LPI are recorded based oninformation provided by each data source. Up to three main threatsare recorded, relating to the population rather than the species asa whole. Habitat loss and degradation, and exploitation throughKXQWLQJDQGVKLQJLQWHQWLRQDOOIRUIRRGRUVSRUWRUDFFLGHQWDOOfor example as bycatch) are the primary causes of decline (Figure 11).Climate change is the next most common primary threat inthe LPI. Climate change has already been linked to the populationdecline and possible extinction of a number of amphibian speciesin the Neotropics (La Marca et al., 2005; Ron et al., 2003) and inAustralia (Osborne et al., 1999; Mahoney, 1999). In the Arctic, theeffects of a rapidly warming climate have been suggested as likelycauses of decline in body condition and numbers in many polar bear(Ursus maritimus) and caribou (Rangifer tarandus) populations(Stirling et al., 1999; Vors and Boyce, 2009).7.1%WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 20Figure 11: Primarythreats to LPIpopulationsInformation on threatsKDVEHHQLGHQWLHGIRU3,430 populations inthe LPI assigned toseven categories. Otherpopulations are eithernot threatened or lackthreat information(WWF, ZSL, 2014).KeyExploitation37%31.4%13.4%5.1%4% 2%Habitat degradation/changeHabitat lossClimate changeInvasive species/genesPollution'LVHDVHThreats to species 45. The terrestrial LPI contains population trends for 1,562 speciesof mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians from a wide range ofhabitats. The index shows that terrestrial populations have beendeclining since 1970 (Figure 12) a trend that currently shows nosign of slowing down or being reversed. On average, in 2010 theyear for which the most recent comprehensive dataset is available terrestrial species had declined by 39 per cent. The loss of habitat tomake way for human land use particularly for agriculture, urbandevelopment and energy production continues to be a majorthreat to the terrestrial environment.When habitat loss and degradation is compounded by theadded pressure of wildlife hunting, the impact on species can bedevastating. Take, for example, the forest elephant (Loxodontaafricana cyclotis), a subspecies of the African elephant, which isdistributed throughout fragmented forested areas in West andHQWUDO$IULFD'XHWRDUDSLGORVVRIWKHLUWUDGLWLRQDOKDELWDWIRUHVWHOHSKDQWVKDGEHHQUHVWULFWHGWRDPHUHSHUFHQWRIWKHLUKLVWRULFrange (circa 1900) by 1984. Further recent analysis suggests that,across the forest elephants range, the population size declined bymore than 60 per cent between 2002 and 2011 primarily due toincreasing rates of poaching for ivory (Maisels et al., 2013).Chapter 1: The State of the planet page 21Terrestrial LPI2101970 1980 1990 2000 2010Index Value (1970 = 1)YearFigure 12: Theterrestrial LPI showsa decline of 39 per centbetween 1970 and 2010This is based on trends inSRSXODWLRQVRImammal, bird, reptile andamphibian species (WWF,ZSL, 2014).KeyTerrestrial LivingPlanet IndexRQGHQFHOLPLWV 46. Freshwater LPIThe freshwater index shows the greatest decline of any of the biome-basedindices. The LPI for freshwater species shows an averagedecline of 76 per cent in the size of the monitored populationsbetween 1970 and 2010 (Figure 13).The indication that freshwater species are faring muchworse than terrestrial species has been reinforced in other studies(Collen et al., 2014; Darwall et al., 2011; Cumberlidge et al., 2009).Further, freshwater protected areas have fallen far behind asHHFWLYHFRQVHUYDWLRQVWUDWHJLHVSRVVLEOEHFDXVHWUDGLWLRQDOterrestrial protected area models translate imperfectly to complex,interconnected freshwater ecosystems (Abell et al., 2007).The main threats to freshwater species are habitat loss andfragmentation, pollution and invasive species (Collen et al., 2014).Direct impacts on water levels or on freshwater system connectivityhave a major impact on freshwater habitats. For example, theRRURQJDFRDVWDOZHWODQGRILQWHUQDWLRQDOVLJQLFDQFHLQ6RXWK$XVWUDOLDKDVVXHUHGIURPORZZDWHUOHYHOVDQGULVLQJVDOLQLWVLQFH1985, primarily as a result of water extraction for irrigation (Gosbelland Grear, 2005). This has resulted in population declines in manyUHVLGHQWDQGPLJUDWRUVSHFLHVLQFOXGLQJVKDQGVKRUHELUGVVXFKas the curlew sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea).21WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 22Figure 13: Thefreshwater LPI showsa decline of 76 per centbetween 1970 and 2010This is based on trends in3,066 populations of 757mammal, bird, reptile,DPSKLELDQDQGVKVSHFLHV(WWF, ZSL, 2014).01970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearIndex Value (1970 = 1)KeyFreshwater LivingPlanet IndexRQGHQFHOLPLWV 47. Marine LPIMarine populations are assigned to marine realms. The marine LPIshows a decline of 39 per cent between 1970 and 2010 (Figure 14). Thisis based on trends in 3,132 populations of 910 mammal, bird, reptileDQGVKVSHFLHV7KHLQGH[WUHQGVKRZVDXFWXDWLQJSLFWXUHRIGHFOLQHand stability throughout the time period. The period from 1970 throughWRWKHPLGVH[SHULHQFHGWKHVWHHSHVWIDOODIWHUZKLFKWKHUHZDVsome stability, until another period of decline in recent years.Although the overall picture shows a declining trend, marinepopulation trends differ across the globe. Some increases have beenrecorded among populations in the temperate oceans, particularlyDPRQJPDPPDODQGVKVSHFLHVZKLFKPDLQGLFDWHVSHFLHVpopulations recovering from long-term historical declines (Thurstanet al., 2010; Lotze et al., 2011).The sharpest declines in marine populations have beenobserved in the tropics and the Southern Ocean. Species in declineLQWKHWURSLFVLQFOXGHPDULQHWXUWOHVSDUWLFXODUOLQWKH,QGR3DFLFUHDOPDQGVHDELUGVRYHUDOOLQWKH$WODQWLFZLWKEFDWFKIURPVKLQJEHLQJRQHRIWKHPDLQGULYHUVEHKLQGWKHVHWUHQGV$PRQJWKHVKspecies showing declines are many shark species, which have sufferedDVDUHVXOWRIRYHUVKLQJERWKLQWURSLFDO$WODQWLF%DXPDQG0HUV 48. DQG3DFLFUHJLRQVODUNHHWDOE 49. In the Southern Ocean, declines have been observed amongPDQVKSRSXODWLRQV7KLVLVOLNHOGXHWRJURZLQJVKHULHVDFWLYLWin this area, including both reported and illegal or unregulatedVKLQJ$0/5 50. /DUJHPLJUDWRUVHDELUGVVXFKDVDOEDWURVVand petrels have also been under threat from the rising presenceRIVKLQJYHVVHOVDVWKHDUHIUHTXHQWOFDXJKWDVEFDWFK7KLVis causing declines in population numbers and threatening somespecies, such as the iconic wandering albatross (Diomedea exulans)%LUG/LIH,QWHUQDWLRQDO 51. Chapter 1: The State of the planet page 232101970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearIndex Value (1970 = 1)Indo-Pacifictropical sub-tropicalSouth temperate and AntarcticFigure 14: The marineLPI shows a declineof 39 per cent between1970 and 2010This is based on trends in3,132 populations of 910mammal, bird, reptileDQGVKVSHFLHV::)ZSL, 2014).KeyMarine Living3ODQHW,QGH[RQGHQFHOLPLWVIndo-Pacifictropical sub-tropicalAtlantictropical sub-tropicalPacific northtemperatePacificnorthtemperateAtlantic northtemperateArctic 52. All terrestrial and freshwater species populations can be assigned toRQHRIYHPDMRUELRJHRJUDSKLFUHDOPVZKLFKHQDEOHVXVWREHWWHUXQGHUVWDQGKRZELRGLYHUVLWLVFKDQJLQJLQGLHUHQWODQGUHJLRQVRIthe world. Species population trends in all biogeographic realms showGHFOLQHV%XWWKHVLWXDWLRQLVZRUVWLQWKHWURSLFDOUHDOPVSDUWLFXODUOLQWKH1HRWURSLFVZKHUHVSHFLHVGHFOLQHGESHUFHQW)LJXUH 53. 2101970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearIndex value (1970=1)Nearctic21Figure 15: LPI by biogeographic realmsThe tables show the number of species for eachvertebrate group, with the colour denotingthe average overall trend for each group (red decline; orange stable; green increase)(WWF, ZSL, 2014).WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 24Fishes 83Amphibians 73Reptiles 48Birds 461Mammals 807KH1HDUFWLFLQGH[UHYHDOVWKDWRQDYHUDJHSRSXODWLRQVGHFOLQHGESHUFHQWDOWKRXJKWKHDSSHDUUHODWLYHOVWDEOHLQPRUHUHFHQWHDUV+RZHYHUWKHUHLVFRQVLGHUDEOHYDULDWLRQZLWKsome populations increasing whileothers decreased.0Index value (1970=1)1970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearFishes 86Amphibians 61Reptiles Birds 310Mammals 66The Neotropical index shows a dramaticDQGFRQWLQXHGGHFOLQHLQSRSXODWLRQVZLWKRQDYHUDJHGHFOLQHVRISHUcent. This is the most dramatic regionaldecrease and highlights the intensepressure felt by tropical species.NeotropicalBiogeographic realms 54. Fishes 28Amphibians 22Reptiles 28Birds 250Mammals 952107KH3DOHDUFWLFLQGH[VKRZVDQRYHUDOODYHUDJHGHFOLQHRISHUFHQWZLWKPL[HGSHULRGVRIORVVDQGVWDELOLW7KHUHLVFRQVLGHUDEOHYDULDWLRQLQWKLVLQGH[UHHFWLQJDPL[WXUHRILQFUHDVHVDQGGHFUHDVHVLQGLHUHQWSRSXODWLRQVPalearcticIndex value (1970=1)1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Year7KH,QGR3DFLFLQGH[VKRZVlarge and continuing declinesin species populations. It hasthe second highest rate ofdecline (67 per cent) afterthe Neotropics.Chapter 1: The State of the planet page 25210Index value (1970=1)Fishes 25Amphibians 2Reptiles 12Birds 104Mammals 121211970 1980 1990 2000 2010Year7KH$IURWURSLFDOLQGH[DOVRUHHFWVa pattern of declines and increases,ZLWKPRUHUHFHQWLQFUHDVHVRFFXUULQJZLWKJUHDWHUYDULDELOLWLQSRSXODWLRQOHYHOV7KLVUHVXOWVLQDORZHUFRQGHQFHLQWKHDYHUDJHLQGH[YDOXHVGXULQJWKHVHFRQGKDOIof the time period. This change inWUHQGKDOIZDWKURXJKWKHWLPHVHULHVLVGXHWRYDULQJWUHQGVLQELUGVDQGVKVRPHRIZKLFKDUHVKRZLQJLQFUHDVHV'HVSLWHVRPHHYLGHQFHRIUHFHQWLQFUHDVHVWKHUHis still a decline of 19 per centrecorded since 1970.0Index value (1970=1)1970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearFishes 56Amphibians 13Reptiles 19Birds 349Mammals 104Afrotropical Indo-Pacific 55. 210Index Value (1970=1)1970 1980 1990 2000 2010WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 26YearFigure 16: Theterrestrial LPI ofpopulations insideprotected areas showsa decline of 18 per centbetween 1970 and 2010This is based on trends inSRSXODWLRQVRImammal, bird, reptile andamphibian species (WWF,ZSL, 2014).Protected areas are a way of conserving wild species and theirhabitats through better management of, access to, and use of, agiven area of land or sea. To get an insight into whether protectedareas are helping to conserve species, it is possible to focus ontrends in populations from the terrestrial LPI that occur inside aprotected area. The resulting index (Figure 16) is different from theWHUUHVWULDO/3,RYHUDOOLWUHPDLQVPRUHRUOHVVVWDEOHXQWLOWKHPLG1990s, after which there is a slight decline. Registering an overallreduction of 18 per cent since 1970, populations in protected areasare faring better than terrestrial populations as a whole, whichhave declined by 39 per cent. Protection may not be the only reasonfor this difference other reasons that could contribute to thisimproved status include targeted conservation action, or the speciesfor which data is available being less susceptible to threats. The LPIof protected areas does not distinguish between pressures beingsuccessfully controlled through protected area legislation and thearea being situated away from such pressure hotspots. However,the relative trend is encouraging.Protected areas can offer refuge to threatened species thatwould otherwise be at greater risk of targeted exploitation. Forexample declines in tiger (Panthera tigris) populations, due toSRDFKLQJKDELWDWORVVDQGKXPDQZLOGOLIHFRQLFWKDYHEHHQmost pronounced outside protected areas (Walston et al., 2010).RQYHUVHO1HSDOVWLJHUSRSXODWLRQORFDWHGLQYHSURWHFWHGDUHDVand three wildlife corridors, rose by 63 per cent between 2009 and2013 (Figure 17). This conservation success has been attributed toWKH1HSDOHVHJRYHUQPHQWVDQWLSRDFKLQJHIIRUWVDQGLPSURYHGVLWHprotection for wild tigers.KeyTerrestrial LivingPlanet Index insideprotected areasRQGHQFHOLPLWVProtected areas and protecting species 56. Chapter 1: The State of the planet page 27Figure 17: The increasein number of tigers inNepal between 2008/9and 2013The error bars show theupper and lower limits ofeach population estimate(Government of Nepal,WWF-Nepal).2502001501005002008/2009 2013Tiger population estimateHowever, in some African protected areas, declines in largemammal species have been unabated (Craigie et al., 2010). Thisemphasizes the importance of maintaining the effectiveness ofprotected areas through strong management and law enforcement.This is vital for species that are targeted by poachers. For example,many rhino populations in Africa (Figure 18) have becomeregionally extinct or are in decline, despite largely occurring insideprotected areas.Figure 18: Currentrange of black andwhite rhino (Emslie,2012a, 2012b) andindividual populationtrendsThe range is shown aswhole countries due to thesecurity issues of showingexact locations andincludes countries wherepopulations have beenreintroduced or introducedto new areas. The dots showthe approximate location ofmonitored populations anddenotes whether the overalltrend has been an increaseor decrease. Dots outsidethe range are in countrieswhere rhino are suspectedto have gone extinct.Species current rangeBlack and white rhinoBlack rhinoWhite rhinoMonitored populationsPopulation increasePopulation decrease 57. white (Ceratotherium simum) distributed across southern andeastern Africa, but the majority occur in just four countries: South$IULFD1DPLELD=LPEDEZHDQG.HQD(PVOLHDE 58. There are fewer than 5,000 black rhino and about 20,000 whiterhino left in the wild (Emslie, 2012a; 2012b). Both species haveexperienced a loss in their range, and efforts have been made toreintroduce rhino to areas where they previously occurred, whichhas resulted in some increasing trends. However, the black rhinois considered to be at a very high risk of extinction (CriticallyEndangered) due to its low numbers and current threats (Emslie,2012a). The white rhino is said to be Near Threatened, whichmeans that if threats persist and no action is taken, this species maysoon also be at risk (Emslie, 2012b).210Africa has two species of rhino black (Diceros bicornis) and1980 1990 2000 2006Index value (1980=1)WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 28YearFigure 19: Index ofpopulation trends forblack and white rhino(Diceros bicornis andCeratotherium simum)from 1980 to 2006The time series is shorterthan other LPIs due to dataavailability. This index isbased on 28 black and 10white rhino populationsfrom 20 countries(WWF, ZSL, 2014).KeyRhino LPIRQGHQFHOLPLWVAccording to the available population data, both species declinedby an average of 63 per cent between 1980 and 2006 (Figure 19).0RVWRIWKLVGHFOLQHRFFXUUHGGXULQJWKHVDQGV'HVSLWHmany efforts to bolster populations such as by reintroducingrhinos the trend, although improved, has not been fully reversed.Illegal wildlife trade is by far the biggest threat currentlyfacing both black and white rhino populations due to demand fortheir horns. A single horn can be sold for a very high price, makingit an attractive prospect for poachers. The situation is exacerbatedby a number of factors, including growing demand for rhino hornin Asia, particularly Viet Nam; weak governance and poor lawenforcement in countries with wild rhinos; and the increase incorruption and emergence of crime syndicates attracted by theKLJKSURWVIURPWKHUKLQRKRUQWUDGH0LOOLNHQ 59. In South Africa, where 80 per cent of all African rhinos arelocated, the rate of rhino poaching continues to accelerate. Thenumber of animals poached for their horns rose from 13 in 2007 toPRUHWKDQLQ)LJXUH 60. 'HVSLWHJURZLQJDZDUHQHVVand improved protection, nearly 5 per cent of the countrys overallrhino population was killed by poachers in 2013 alone, furtherincreasing the pressure on existing populations.Clearly threats to species are not mitigated by the designation12001000800600400200of a protected area alone. A recent study of 87 marine protectedDUHDVVKRZVWKDWWKHLUVXFFHVVGHSHQGVRQYHNHIDFWRUVKRZPXFKVKLQJLVDOORZHGHQIRUFHPHQWOHYHOVKRZORQJSURWHFWLRQhas been in place, size of area, and degree of isolation (Edgar et al., 61. $UHDVZLWKQRVKLQJVWURQJHQIRUFHPHQWDQGDWOHDVWyears of protection, with a large area (at least 100km2) and isolatedEVDQGRUGHHSZDWHUEURXJKWVLJQLFDQWEHQHWVRPSDUHGWRXQSURWHFWHGDUHDVWKHKDGWZLFHDVPDQODUJHVKVSHFLHVDQGYHWLPHVPRUHODUJHVKELRPDVVRUWLPHVPRUHLQWKHFDVHRIsharks. By contrast, protected areas with only one or two of theseIHDWXUHVZHUHLQGLVWLQJXLVKDEOHIURPVKHGVLWHVWhile better design and management is needed to helpprotected areas to achieve their full potential, evidence suggests theyKDYHDVLJQLFDQWUROHWRSODLQKDOWLQJGHFOLQHVLQELRGLYHUVLWThe need for stronger protection will become increasinglyimportant as human consumption places ever greater pressure onnatural ecosystems. This is the subject of the next section.Chapter 1: The State of the planet page 29Figure 20: Increasein the number ofrhino lost to poachingin South Africafrom 2007 to 2013(Government of SouthAfrica, WWF, 2014).02007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Number of rhino poachedYear 62. HANDS ANDFOOTPRINTS~This worker in Nigeria is helping to clean up one of theFRXQWOHVVRLOVSLOOVWKDWVSROOXWHGWKH1LJHU'HOWDRYHUWKHSDVWYHGHFDGHVDSURFHVVWKDWZLOOWDNHHDUVDQGcost US$1 billion, according to the UN. Soil and water havebeen contaminated, and people and wildlife have suffered.Similar spills in Virunga would be disastrous for the parkspriceless biodiversity and the many people who rely on itsnatural resources.But oils impacts on the planet go far beyond local pollution.Fossil fuels have powered modern economic growth,but theyre also one of the main reasons that humanitysEcological Footprint is now larger than the planet cansustain. We simply dont have enough productive land andsea available to continue to meet our demands for food,forest products and living space, and to absorb our carbondioxide emissions. As human populations and consumptiongrow, precious natural places like Virunga are coming underever greater pressure. 63. National Geographic Stock / Ed Kashi /WWF-Canon 64. The Ecological FootprintFor more than 40 years, humanitys demand on nature hasexceeded what our planet can replenish. Our Ecological FootprintZKLFKPHDVXUHVWKHDUHDLQKHFWDUHV 65. UHTXLUHGWRVXSSOWKHecological goods and services we use outstrips our biocapacity the land actually available to provide these goods and services.Biocapacity acts as an ecological benchmark against which theEcological Footprint can be compared. Both biocapacity andEcological Footprint are expressed in a common unit called aglobal hectare (gha).Humanity currently needs the regenerative capacity of 1.5Earths to provide the ecological goods and services we use eachyear. This overshoot is possible because for now we can cutWUHHVIDVWHUWKDQWKHPDWXUHKDUYHVWPRUHVKWKDQWKHRFHDQVFDQreplenish, or emit more carbon into the atmosphere than the forestsand oceans can absorb. The sum of all human demands no longerWVZLWKLQZKDWQDWXUHFDQUHQHZ7KHFRQVHTXHQFHVDUHGLPLQLVKHGresource stocks and waste accumulating faster than it can beabsorbed or recycled, such as with the growing carbon concentrationin the atmosphere.7HFKQRORJLFDOLQQRYDWLRQVXFKDVLQFUHDVLQJHIFLHQFLQthe use of resources and energy, or improving ecosystem yields,FRXOGUHGXFHRYHUVKRRWEXWPDDOVREULQJWUDGHRIIV)RUexample, enhancing agricultural biocapacity through fertilizers andPHFKDQL]DWLRQKDVUHTXLUHGJUHDWHUXVHRIIRVVLOIXHOVOHDGLQJWRDlarger carbon Footprint.2101961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Ecological Footprint(Number of planet Earths)WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 32YearFigure 21: GlobalEcological Footprint bycomponent (1961-2010)Currently, the largestsingle component of theEcological Footprint is theFDUERQFRPSRQHQWSHUcent) (Global FootprintNetwork, 2014).CarbonFishing groundsCropland%XLOWXSODQGForest productsGrazing productsKey 66. Chapter 1: The State of the planet page 33IN 2010, GLOBALECOLOGICALFOOTPRINT WAS18.1 BILLION GHA, OR2.6 GHA PER CAPITA.EARTHS TOTALBIOCAPACITY WAS12 BILLION GHA, OR1.7 GHA PER CAPITAGlobally, humanitys Ecological Footprint decreased by 3 percent between 2008 and 2009, due mostly to a decline in demand forfossil fuels and hence a decreasing carbon Footprint. A small declinein demand for forest products was also apparent in 2008 and 2009.+RZHYHUWKHODWHVWJXUHVIRUVKRZWKH)RRWSULQWUHWXUQLQJWRan upward trend.Carbon has been the dominant component of humanitysEcological Footprint for more than half a century (Figure 21). Andfor most years, it has been on an upward trend. In 1961, carbon was36 per cent of our total Footprint, but by 2010 (the year for whichthe most complete dataset is available), it comprised 53 per cent.The primary cause has been the burning of fossil fuels coal, oil andnatural gas.OUR DEMAND FOR RENEWABLE ECOLOGICAL RESOURCESAND THE GOODS AND SERVICES THEY PROVIDE IS NOWEQUIVALENT TO MORE THAN 1.5 EARTHSSINCE THE 1990S WE HAVE REACHED OVERSHOOT BY THENINTH MONTH EVERY YEAR. WE DEMAND MORE RENEWABLERESOURCES AND CO2 SEQUESTRATION THAN THE PLANET CANPROVIDE IN AN ENTIRE YEAR 67. Regional and national Ecological Footprints84Global biocapacity available per person in 1961 (3.2 gha)84Global biocapacity available per person in 2010 (1.7 gha)In regions where population has grown at a faster rate than percapita consumption, population is the dominant force behind totalFootprint gains. In Africa, Footprint growth is almost entirelydriven by population gains: its population increased by 272 percent,but its per capita Footprint remained essentially unchanged. InNorth America, Latin America, the Middle East/Central Asia and$VLD3DFLFERWKSRSXODWLRQDQGSHUFDSLWDFRQVXPSWLRQFKDQJHVare driving Footprint growth, but population increases are themain driver. In the EU, population growth and per capita growthFRQWULEXWHURXJKOHTXDOO2QOWKHQRQ(8(XURSHDQFRXQWULHVexperienced a decline in total Footprint during this period, resultingpredominately from a decline in population.WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 34Figure 22: Change inthe average EcologicalFootprint per capitaand in population foreach geographic regionin 1961 and 2010The area of each barrepresents the totalFootprint for each region(Global Footprint Network,2014).0Ecological Footprint (gha per capita)0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Population (billions)00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Ecological Footprint (gha per capita)Population (billions)19612010KeyNorth AmericaEUOther EuropeLatin AmericaMiddle East/Central Asia$VLD3DFLILFAfricaA regional assessment of humanitys Ecological Footprint in 1961and 2010 (Figure 22) shows that the global supply of and demandIRUUHQHZDEOHUHVRXUFHVKDYHFKDQJHGRYHUWKHSDVWKDOIFHQWXUlargely due to population growth. 68. Ranking countries by total and per capita Ecological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igure 24: Share of totalEcological FootprintDPRQJWKHWRSYHcountries with thehighest demand and therest of the world (GlobalFootprint Network, 2014).KeyKLQD8QLWHG6WDWHVRI$PHULFD,QGLDBrazilRussia5HVWRIZRUOG52.8%3.7%3.7%7.1%13.7%19.0%::)/LYLQJ3ODQHW5HSRUWSDJH 73. 12Per capita Ecological Footprint (global hectares demanded per person) Country1086420KuwaitQatarUnited Arab EmiratesDenmarkBelgiumTrinidad and TobagoSingaporeUnited States of AmericaBahrainSwedenCanadaNetherlandsAustraliaIrelandFinlandUruguayAustriaSwitzerlandCzech RepublicEstoniaOmanMongoliaFranceSloveniaGermanyItalyPortugalUnited KingdomKazakhstanGreeceRepublic of KoreaMauritiusSaudi ArabiaIsraelCyprusLithuaniaPolandBelarusRussiaSpainParaguayJapanTurkmenistanLatviaSlovakiaLebanonLibyaCroatiaMexicoVenezuelaNew ZealandBulgariaBrazilMacedonia TFYRMalaysiaChileIranHungaryArgentinaBotswanaPapua New GuineaWorld AverageUkraineTurkeySouth AfricaGabonBosnia and HerzegovinaSerbiaBoliviaCosta RicaRomaniaMauritaniaNigerThailandPanamaChinaJamaicaThe size and composition of a nations per capita Ecological)RRWSULQWUHHFWVWKHJRRGVDQGVHUYLFHVXVHGEDQDYHUDJHSHUVRQLQWKDWFRXQWUDQGWKHHIFLHQFZLWKZKLFKUHVRXUFHVLQFOXGLQJfossil fuels, are used in providing these goods and services.Not surprisingly, of the 25 countries with the largest per capita(FRORJLFDO)RRWSULQWPRVWZHUHKLJKLQFRPHQDWLRQVIRUYLUWXDOOall of these countries, carbon was the biggest Footprint component.A nations Footprint can exceed its own biocapacity that is,LWFDQRSHUDWHZLWKDQHFRORJLFDOGHFLWEKDUYHVWLQJHFRVVWHPVfaster than they regenerate, drawing on resources that haveaccumulated over time; by importing products, and thus using thebiocapacity of other nations; and/or by using the global commons,for instance by releasing carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuelburning into the atmosphere.Figure 23: EcologicalFootprint per country,per capita, 2010This comparison includesall countries withpopulations greater than1 million for which completedata is available (GlobalFootprint Network, 2014).Key%XLOWXSODQGFishing groundsForest productsGrazing productsCroplandCarbonWorld average biocapacity 74. JamaicaEl SalvadorJordanMyanmarEcuadorTunisiaColombiaMaliEgyptAlbaniaChadGuatemalaGhanaUzbekistanAlgeriaSwazilandGuinea-BissauGambiaCubaGuineaHondurasSyriaViet NamMoldovaAzerbaijanArmeniaIraqPeruBurkina FasoMoroccoNicaraguaSudanDominican RepublicBeninKyrgyzstanIndonesiaZimbabweSenegalUgandaNigeriaLaosNorth KoreaSri LankaCameroonCentral African RepublicTanzaniaGeorgiaLiberiaSomaliaCambodiaEthiopiaMadagascarSierra LeonePhilippinesLesothoAngolaTogoCte d'IvoireKenyaIndiaCongoBurundiYemenZambiaRwandaMozambiqueTajikistanNepalMalawiDemocratic Republic of CongoBangladeshPakistanAfghanistanHaitiEritreaOccupied Palestinian TerritoryTimor-LesteIn 2010, the most recent year for which data is available, percapita Ecological Footprint exceeded global per capita biocapacity(1.7 gha) in 91 of the 152 countries (Figure 23). At a national levelthe carbon component represents more than half the Ecological)RRWSULQWIRUDTXDUWHURIDOOFRXQWULHVWUDFNHG,QIDFWWKHFDUERQFootprint is the largest single component for approximately half ofall countries tracked.Contributions to the global ecological overshoot vary acrossnations. For example, if all people on the planet had the Footprintof the average resident of Qatar, we would need 4.8 planets. If welived the lifestyle of a typical resident of the USA, we would need 3.9SODQHWV7KHJXUHIRUDWSLFDOUHVLGHQWRI6ORYDNLDRU6RXWK.RUHDwould be 2, or 2.5 planets respectively, while a typical resident ofSouth Africa or Argentina would need 1.4 or 1.5 planets respectively.AT A NATIONAL LEVEL THE CARBONFOOTPRINT REPRESENTS MORE THANHALF THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT FORA QUARTER OF ALL COUNTRIES TRACKED:RUOGDYHUDJHELRFDSDFLWSHUSHUVRQZDVJKDLQ 75. BiocapacityIn 2010, Earths biocapacity was approximately 12 billion globalhectares (gha) which amounts to about 1.7 gha for every person onthe planet. This biologically productive land must also support the10 million or more wild species with which we share the planet.Human demands on nature vary considerably from countryto country, and the biocapacity that provides for this demand isXQHYHQOVSUHDGDFURVVWKHJOREH)LJXUH 76. $ELRFDSDFLWZHDOWKnation does not necessarily have a biocapacity reserve. Even innations with high biocapacity, local, national and internationaldemand can exceed availability.The number of nations whose Footprint exceeds theirbiocapacity has been steadily increasing with each passing year.'RPHVWLFGHPDQGVFRQWLQXHWRULVHDVDUHVXOWRILQFUHDVLQJpopulations and growth in per capita consumption. And for manynations, their biocapacity is subject to even greater pressure as moreand more biocapacity is used to meet export demands.THE NUMBER OF NATIONS WHOSEFOOTPRINT EXCEEDS THEIR BIOCAPACITYHAS BEEN STEADILY INCREASING WITHEACH PASSING YEAR. AS RESOURCESBECOME CONSTRAINED, COMPETITIONIS GROWING WHICH COULD HAVEINCREASINGLY SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC,SOCIAL AND POLITICAL IMPLICATIONSWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 38 77. Almost 60 per cent of the worlds total biocapacity islocated in just 10 countries (Figure 26).For most countries with a high biocapacity per capita,the forest land component represents the largest proportion ofWRWDOELRFDSDFLW)RUHVWVDUHSDUWLFXODUOVLJQLFDQWHFRVVWHPVbecause they provide services not only to local users, butalso to others. As well as harbouring great biodiversity, theySODDVLJQLFDQWUROHLQFOLPDWHVWDELOLWWKURXJKVWRULQJDQGsequestering carbon, and in the water cycle the subject of thenext section.Figure 26: Top 10national biocapacitiesin 2010Ten countries accounted formore than 60 per cent of theEarths total biocapacity in7KHLQFOXGHYHRIWKHsix BRIICS countries: Brazil,Russia, India, Indonesiaand China (Global FootprintNetwork, 2014).15.1%11.1%9.6%7.4%4.9%38.7%1.6%2.4%2.5% 2.6% 4.0%KeyBrazilChinaUnited Statesof AmericaRussiaIndiaCanadaIndonesiaAustraliaArgentinaDemocraticRepublic of CongoRest of worldWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 41 78. Figure 25: Total biocapacity(in global hectares) percountry in 2010(Global Footprint Network, 2014).Key'DWDDUHJLYHQLQJOREDOhectares (gha) 10 millionPLOOLRQPLOOLRQ 1,000 million,QVXIFLHQWGDWD 79. WATER FOOTPRINTS~,QWKHVKLQJYLOODJHRI9LWVKXPELRQWKHVRXWKHUQVKRUHVRILake Edward, people depend on fresh water from the lake.Lake Edward, part of a wetland of international importance,was the focus for Socos oil exploration. A spill here couldbe devastating.Fresh water is a precious resource. More than a third ofthe worlds population lives in river basins that experiencesevere water shortages for at least one month each year(Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012). This number is likely togrow as human demands increase and climate change makesrainfall patterns more extreme and erratic. 80. Brent Stirton / Reportage by Getty Images / WWF-Canon 81. :DWHULVWKHEDVLVRIOLIHHWWKHUHLVDQLWHDPRXQWDYDLODEOHSome 97.5 per cent of our planets water is salt water. Almost all ofthe remaining fresh water is locked up in glaciers and ice caps, or inDTXLIHUVGHHSXQGHUWKHVXUIDFH3RVWHOHWDO 82. $IUDFWLRQRIper cent of water is renewed each year by the hydrological cycle, andthis amount is unevenly distributed. This means that some countrieshave an abundance of freshwater sources and others clearly do not.The course of human development has been greatlyLQXHQFHGEWKHDYDLODELOLWRIZDWHUUHVRXUFHV7KHUVWVLJQLFDQWhuman settlements were established alongside freshwater bodies,and great civilizations developed and spread along their waterways.The 20th century saw huge advances in technology and humansability to harness nature for productive purposes. Societiesdeveloped infrastructure projects, for instance building largedams to support irrigation, hydropower, and industrial and urbandevelopment. This development had huge impacts on the growth ofnations and economies. However, much of this success has come atDFRVWZLWKULYHUVDQGDTXLIHUVLQPDQSDUWVRIWKHZRUOGSROOXWHGimpaired or dried up.Communicating the importance of water in modern societyhas been challenging because of our disconnection from naturalwater sources. For many, water simply comes from a tap. Yet morethan ever, the need to reconnect our societies and economies towater is urgent. Water is used in some form in almost all foodproduction and manufacturing processes. Products may be viewedDVFRQWDLQLQJWKHTXDQWLWRIZDWHUXVHGLQWKHLUSURGXFWLRQWKLVis referred to as a water footprint.Water footprint is made up of three types of water use,known as blue, green and grey water footprints. The green waterfootprint is the volume of rainwater stored in soil that evaporatesthrough crop growth. The blue water footprint is the volume offreshwater taken from surface (lakes, rivers, reservoirs) and groundZDWHUDTXLIHUV 83. WKDWLVXVHGDQGQRWUHWXUQHGWRWKHVVWHPLWZDVwithdrawn from. The largest share of global blue water footprintRFFXUVLQFURSHOGVDVDUHVXOWRIHYDSRUDWLRQRILUULJDWLRQZDWHUThere is no green water footprint of household and domestic wateruses, although they do show blue and grey water footprints. Thegrey water footprint is the volume of water polluted as a result ofproduction processes (industrial and agricultural) and from wasteZDWHUIURPKRXVHKROGZDWHUXVH,WLVWKHYROXPHRIZDWHUUHTXLUHGWRGLOXWHSROOXWDQWVWRVXFKDQH[WHQWWKDWWKHZDWHUTXDOLWUHDFKHVacceptable levels.WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 4497%Some 97.5 percent ofour planets water issalt waterAlmost all of theremaining fresh water islocked up in glaciers andice caps, or in aquifersdeep under the surface0.01%A fraction of 1 percentof water is renewedeach year by thehydrological cycleThe available fresh wateris unevenly distributedThe water footprint 84. The water footprint has both temporal and spatial elements,DFFRUGLQJWRZKHQDQGZKHUHZDWHULVXVHG7KHZKHUHTXHVWLRQleads us to the local context: the impact of the same water footprintwill, of course, be very different in a region where fresh water isVFDUFHFRPSDUHGWRRQHZKHUHLWLVDEXQGDQW(TXDOOFRXQWULHVwith ample water resources at a national level may contain areas ofscarcity. The when aspect helps us to understand the variabilityin the availability and consumption of water resources through theyear in a given place. With climate change expected to make rainfallSDWWHUQVPRUHHUUDWLFDQGLQWHQVHWKHTXHVWLRQRIZKHQZLOObecome even more important.The concept of the water footprint helps governments,businesses and individuals to better understand how we usewater in our lives and economies. It has exposed our often hiddendependence on this vital resource, and the vulnerability this implies.The water footprint provides an indicator of both direct and indirectuse of freshwater. The water footprint of production includes allthe water a country uses to produce goods and services, whetherthey are consumed locally or exported, expressed in cubic metresof water. The water footprint of production can help us understandand link supply chains and economic activities to areas of waterstress or pollution.Chapter 1: The State of the planet page 45Green water footprintThe volume of rainwater storedin soil that evaporates throughcrop growth.Blue water footprintThe volume of freshwater takenfrom surface (lakes, rivers,reservoirs) and ground waterDTXLIHUV 85. WKDWLVXVHGDQGQRWreturned to the system it waswithdrawn from.Grey water footprintThe volume of water polluted asa result of production processes(industrial and agricultural)and from waste water fromhousehold water use. It is theYROXPHRIZDWHUUHTXLUHGWRdilute pollutants to the extentWKDWWKHZDWHUTXDOLWUHDFKHVacceptable levels. 86. Water footprint of national productionEach country plans how it will use water to meet the needs of itspeople, economy and environment. In many ways, water shapeshow economies develop, and determines which sectors are viableDQGZKLFKDUHQRW7KHZDWHUIRRWSULQWRISURGXFWLRQKHOSVWRUHHFWthis, by accounting for all of the water used within a country forhousehold, industrial and agricultural purposes, regardless of wherethe products are actually consumed.Figure 27 shows the water footprint of production for thecountries with the 20 largest water footprints in the world. The barsindicate the absolute amount of water use, separated into greenand blue water footprints. The different coloured dots indicate therelative stress within these countries. These averages mask regionaland river basin dynamics. More detailed analysis of river basinstress is needed to better understand local dynamics, issues andremedies (see the hydrograph in Figure 30 for one example).National water footprint statistics are useful for identifyingwater hotspots on one level; the national water footprint ofproduction bars in Figure 27 give a useful picture of overallimpact. However, as mentioned above, national statistics can oftenPDVNEDVLQOHYHOUHDOLWLHVZKLOHPRVWRIWKHWRSFRXQWULHVVKRZQhave an apparently healthy ratio of blue water footprint to bluewater availability, they include many river basins that suffer severewater scarcity for at least part of the year. River basin informationalways tells a more relevant story, which is why the delineation inFigure 29 is an important improvement on our understanding ofwater footprint metrics.NATIONAL WATER FOOTPRINT STATISTICS AREUSEFUL FOR IDENTIFYING WATER HOTSPOTS.HOWEVER, THEY CAN MASK BASIN-LEVELREALITIES. MANY RIVER BASINS OF THESETOP 20 COUNTRIES SUFFER SEVERE WATERSCARCITY FOR AT LEAST PART OF THE YEARWWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 46 87. Chapter 1: The State of the planet page 470Green and blue water footprint (Mm3 X 100,000 / yr)India USA China Brazil Russia Indonesia Nigeria Argentina Pakistan Thailand Canada Australia Mexico Philippines Ukraine Turkey Iran Malaysia Viet Nam Myanmar Ethiopia Bangladesh France Spain Kazakhstan Sudan Country1110987654321Figure 27: Waterfootprint of nationalproduction of top20 countries withindication of overallrisk of blue waterscarcity(Hoekstra andMekonnen, 2012).KeyBlueGreenStress on blue waterresources7KHGLHUHQWFRORXUHGGRWVrepresent total blue waterfootprint of productionexpressed as the ratio of bluewater footprint to blue wateravailability. 88. 0RVWRIWKHZRUOGVIRRGFRPHVIURPUDLQIHGDJULFXOWXUHseven times more green water than blue water is used in agriculturalproduction (6,884 billion m3 compared to 945 billion m3).Agricultural production accounts for 92 per cent of the global waterfootprint, with 78 per cent of world crop production relying onrainfall. Industrial production takes up 4.4 per cent, while 3.6 perFHQWLVXVHGIRUGRPHVWLFZDWHUVXSSO$SSUR[LPDWHORQHIWKRIthe global water footprint relates to production for export 19 percent in the agricultural sector and 41 per cent for industry (Hoekstraand Mekonnen, 2012).2SSRUWXQLWLHVH[LVWWRVLJQLFDQWOLQFUHDVHWKHSURGXFWLYLWRIERWKUDLQIHGDQGLUULJDWHGDJULFXOWXUHLQPDQUHJLRQV$WWKHVDPHWLPHJUHHQZDWHUEDVHGSURGXFWLRQZLOOEHFRPHLQFUHDVLQJOvulnerable in some areas due to climate change affecting rainfallpatterns. There will also be areas where rainfall will increase,presenting opportunities for new regions. Irrigation has increasedDJULFXOWXUDOSURGXFWLYLWVLJQLFDQWOEXWLQVRPHFDVHVKDVDOVRincreased water scarcity downstream. Irrigation is sometimes poorlymonitored and managed, and groundwater may be pumped fasterWKDQLWLVUHFKDUJHGFDOOLQJLQWRTXHVWLRQLWVVXVWDLQDELOLW$JDLQFRQWH[WLVDOOLPSRUWDQWZKLOHVRPHFRXQWULHVDUHGLVFRYHULQJVLJQLFDQWJURXQGZDWHUUHVHUYHVLQRWKHUSDUWVRIWKHZRUOGVXFKDV$XVWUDOLD,QGLDDQG86$WKHVHOLIHJLYLQJDTXLIHUVDUH987654321Domesticwater supply10.5WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 48Figure 28: Breakdownof the global bluegreen and grey waterfootprint of productionin billion m3/year,1996-2005A further breakdownshows that the agriculturesector has the largest waterfootprint, dominated by thegreen water component(Hoekstra andMekonnen, 2012).0Water footprint of production Gm3 x 1000 / yearAgriculturalproductionIndustrialproductionWater footprint production categoryKeyGreen waterBlue waterGrey water9876543210Water footprint of production Gm3 x 1000 / yearCropproduction10.5PastureWater supply inanimal raisingAgricultural production category0IndustrialproductionDomesticwater supply0Pasture Water supplyin animal raising 89. EHLQJVHYHUHOGHSOHWHG'HYHORSLQJQHZXQGHUJURXQGIUHVKZDWHUresources can help increase food production, but best managementpractices and water stewardship principles need to be applied toavoid any negative impacts on people and nature in the long term.While water needs to be monitored and managed at a riverbasin or catchment level, the water footprint assessment helps toprovide an insight into global pressures and risks. It is not feasibleWRWUDQVSRUWODUJHTXDQWLWLHVRIDFWXDOZDWHUDURXQGWKHZRUOGEXWDZDWHUVFDUFHFRXQWUFDQLPSRUWFURSVDQGSURGXFWVIURPRWKHUcountries. Trade can help to alleviate local water shortages but itcan also exacerbate them.Globally, the number of people affected by absolute orseasonal water shortages is projected to increase steeply owing toclimate change and increasing water demands (Schiermeier, 2013;Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012). In this context, understanding theLPSDFWWKDWIRRGDQGEUHSURGXFWLRQKDVRQZDWHUUHVRXUFHVLVYLWDOLQRUGHUWRVHFXUHDGHTXDWHVXSSOLHVIRUSHRSOHDQGHFRVVWHPVBlue water scarcityStress on blue water resources is calculated on a monthly basiswith more than 200 river basins, home to some 2.67 billion people,already experiencing severe water scarcity for at least one monthevery year (Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012).In many cases, the blue water footprint leaves rivers incapableRIPDLQWDLQLQJQDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQWDORZVWKHTXDQWLWWLPLQJDQGTXDOLWRIZDWHURZVUHTXLUHGWRVXVWDLQIUHVKZDWHUDQGHVWXDULQHHFRVVWHPVDQGWKHKXPDQOLYHOLKRRGVDQGZHOOEHLQJthat depend on these ecosystems (Global Environmental FlowsNetwork, 2007 and Hoekstra et al., 2012). The freshwater LPIUHHFWVWKHLPSDFWRIORZHUHQYLURQPHQWDORZVRQVSHFLHVZLWKDdecline of 76 per cent since 1970 a steeper fall than for marine andterrestrial ecosystems.MORE THAN 200 RIVER BASINS, HOMETO SOME 2.67 BILLION PEOPLE, ALREADYEXPERIENCE SEVERE WATER SCARCITYFOR AT LEAST ONE MONTH EVERY YEARChapter 1: The State of the planet page 49 90. Figure 29: Blue water scarcity in 405river basins between 1996 and 2005The darkest blue shading indicates river basinswhere more than 20% of water available in thebasin is being used throughout the year. Someof these areas are in the most arid areas in theworld (such as inland Australia); however, otherareas (such as western USA) have many monthsRIZDWHUVFDUFLWEHFDXVHVLJQLFDQWDPRXQWVRIwater within these basins are being channelledinto agriculture (Hoekstra et al., 2012).WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 50Number of months in whichwater scarcity !1210no dataMonths inwhich waterscarcity!The countries with the largest water footprint of production China, India and the USA also suffer moderate to severe waterscarcity in different regions, at different times of the year. The USAis the largest exporter of cereal crops; however recent droughtsKDYHUHVXOWHGLQORZHUWRWDOFURSLHOGVZLWKVXEVHTXHQWLPSDFWVRQfood prices. If, as projected, extreme weather events exacerbatedEFOLPDWHFKDQJHEHFRPHPRUHIUHTXHQWDQGXQSUHGLFWDEOHLWZLOOimpact global food trade especially for importing countries thatUHORQZDWHULQWHQVLYHFRPPRGLWLHVIRUEDVLFQHHGV0HDQZKLOHgrowing water demands and scarcity in China and India FRXQWULHVWKDWDUHODUJHOVHOIVXIFLHQWLQPRVWIRRGVFRXOGOHDGto an increased dependence on imports, placing more pressure onglobal food trade. Considering that these two countries make upmore than a third of global population, these trends could haveVLJQLFDQWFRQVHTXHQFHVRQIRRGSULFHVJOREDOOEXTREME WEATHEREVENTS DUE TOCLIMATE CHANGECOULD SEVERELYIMPACT GLOBAL FOODTRADE ESPECIALLYFOR IMPORTINGCOUNTRIES THAT RELYON WATER-INTENSIVECOMMODITIES FORBASIC NEEDS 91. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecMonthChapter 1: The State of the planet page 51Figure 30: Mekonghydrograph: Waterscarcity over the yearfor the Mekong basin(monthly averagefor the period 1996-2005) 7KHULYHUUXQRis divided into four zonesRIGLHUHQWVKDGHVRIEOXHDQGZKLWHEDVHGRQSUHVXPSWLYHHQYLURQPHQWDORZUHTXLUHPHQWV7KHDFWXDOEOXHZDWHUfootprint is plotted over theKGURJUDSKDVDVROLGWKLFNUHGOLQH,IWKHOLQHIDOOVLQWKHSDOHEOXH]RQHZDWHUVFDUFLWLVORZPHDQLQJWKDWWKHUHLVQRDEVWUDFWLRQIURPWKHHQYLURQPHQWDOTXRWD+RZHYHULILWPRYHVXSLQWRWKHEULJKWEOXHGDUNEOXHRUZKLWH]RQHVZDWHUVFDUFLWEHFRPHVPRGHUDWHVLJQLFDQWRUVHYHUHUHVSHFWLYHOLQWKDWSDUWRIWKHHDU+RHNVWUDHWDO 92. The Mekong hydrographFigure 30 shows the hydrograph of the Mekong River.9080706050403020100Million m3 per month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eyNatural run-offMore than 40%30 - 40%Blue water footprint 95. LOCAL NEEDS, GLOBALPRESSURES~In the weekly market in Vitshumbi, people buy freshYHJHWDEOHVDQGIUHVKOFDXJKWVKIURP/DNH(GZDUGFew countries are richer in biocapacity and naturalUHVRXUFHVWKDQ'5HWLWVLQKDELWDQWVKDYHRQHRIWKHlowest Ecological Footprints on the planet, and the countryVLWVURFNERWWRPRIWKH81LQHTXDOLWDGMXVWHG+XPDQ'HYHORSPHQW,QGH[Oil extraction in Virunga, to help fuel the unsustainableOLIHVWOHVRIKLJKHULQFRPHFRXQWULHVPLJKWEULQJVKRUWWHUPSURWVWRDIHZ%XWLWVXQOLNHOWRGHOLYHUUHDOGHYHORSPHQW,QWKH1LJHU'HOWDSRYHUWDQGLQHTXDOLWLQGLFDWRUVKDYHworsened since the discovery of oil. In the long term, theonly way for the Congolese people to meet their needs andimprove their prospects is through sustainable managementand wise use of the countrys natural capital. 96. Brent Stirton / Reportage for Getty Images / WWF-Canon 97. People, consumption and developmentIt is impossible to fully understand the pressures being placedon the planet without considering the trends and implications ofa growing global population. Human population demographicsand dynamics have immense implications for virtually everyenvironmental issue. Equally important, are consumption and risingZHDOWKZLWKLQWKHVHSRSXODWLRQV7KLVZLOODHFWZKHUHDQGKRZintensively resources are used, their quality and availability, andwho is able to access them.The worlds total population today is already in excess of7.2 billion, and growing at a faster rate than previously estimated.Revised estimates suggest that world population is likely to reach9.6 billion by 2050 0.3 billion larger than under earlier UNprojections (UNDESA, 2013a). Much of this growth is occurring inleast developed countries (UNDESA, 2013b).Population is unevenly distributed across the planet: 25 percent of the worlds 233 countries hold 90 per cent of the population(UNDESA, 2013b). Further, half of all future population growth isexpected to occur in just eight countries: Nigeria, India, Tanzania,the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Niger, Uganda, Ethiopiaand the USA (UNDESA, 2013b). Of these countries, Nigeria willexperience the most growth, and is expected to become the thirdmost populous country in the world by 2050 (behind China and,QGLD 98. :KLOHWKHUVWVHYHQFRXQWULHVKDYHUHODWLYHOORZSHUFDSLWDEcological Footprints, the USA has one of the worlds highest.Population and natural resourcesJust as population is not evenly distributed around the world, norare natural resources or their use. This raises questions around theability of individual countries to maintain the quality of their naturalresources and meet the resource needs of their growing populationsin the context of global consumption patterns.Population and consumption trends will inevitably increasepressure on limited available natural resources, ecosystems,societies and economies and lead to further disparity in resourceavailability with consequences that will be felt locally and globally.WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 54 99. Box 2: Water scarcity in river basins directly impactspeople, agriculture and industriesIndia, China and the USA the three countries with the highest waterfootprint of production also contain 8 of the top 10 most populousEDVLQVH[SHULHQFLQJDOPRVWHDUURXQGZDWHUVFDUFLW)LJXUH 100. High levels of water scarcity a dire situation for local populations are likely to be compounded by climate change, further populationgrowth and the rising water footprint that tends to accompany growingDIXHQFH7KLVKDVLPSOLFDWLRQVQRWMXVWIRUWKHKXQGUHGVRIPLOOLRQVRIpeople directly affected, but also for the rest of the world.Chapter 1: The State of the planet page 55Basin informationFigure 31: Top 10basins by populationand months of waterscarcity, 1996-2005(Hoekstra and Mekonnen,2012).BasinCountryMonths per year basinfaces moderate or worsewater scarcityPopulationDTXLMexico12650,988Yongding HeChina1291,200,200PennerIndia1210,924,200TarimChina119,311,040CauveryIndia1235,203,300BravoUSA119,249,380San AntonioUSA12915,156IndusIndia,Afghanistan,Pakistan12212,208,000*URRW.HLSouth Africa11873,587NuecesUSA12613,863Water RiskHIGH High (5)(5)low Low (1)(1) 101. The Ecological Footprint shows that in the last 50 years, theplanets total biocapacity has increased from 9.9 to 12 billion gha(Figure 32). However, during the same period, the global humanpopulation increased from 3.1 billion to 6.9 billion, and per capitaEcological Footprint increased from 2.5 to 2.6 gha (Figure 33).300%250%200%150%100%50%WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 56Figure 32: Trendsin total biocapacity,Ecological Footprintand world populationfrom 1961 to 2010(Global Footprint Network,2014).1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Index (change from 1961, 1961=100%)Year0%Population1961 : 3.09 billion2010 : 6.9 billionBiocapacity:1961 : 9.9 billion gha2010 : 12 billion ghaEcological Footprint:1961 : 7.6 billion gha2010 : 18.1 billion ghaKeyBiocapacityEcological FootprintPopulationTHE INCREASE IN THE EARTHSPRODUCTIVITY HAS NOT BEENENOUGH TO COMPENSATE FORTHE DEMANDS OF THE GROWINGGLOBAL POPULATION 102. 'HVSLWHWHFKQRORJLFDODGYDQFHVDJULFXOWXUDOLQSXWVDQGirrigation that have boosted the average yields per hectare ofproductive area, especially for cropland, biocapacity per capita hasreduced from 3.2 to 1.7 gha. This increased exploitation of ecologicalUHVRXUFHVKDVLQPDQFDVHVFRPHDWWKHH[SHQVHRIWKHHIFLHQFTXDOLWDQGKHDOWKRIHFRVVWHPIXQFWLRQV$VDUHVXOWWKHZRUOGKDVIDOOHQIXUWKHUEHKLQGLQLWVTXHVWIRUDVXVWDLQDEOHIXWXUHChapter 1: The State of the planet page 57Figure 33: Trends inEcological Footprintand biocapacity percapita between 1961and 2010(Global Footprint Network,2014).3.53.02.52.01.51.00.50Global hectares per capita1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearKeyBiocapacity reserveBiocapacity deficitEcological Footprintper personBiocapacity perpersonTHE DECLINE IN BIOCAPACITY PERCAPITA IS PRIMARILY DUE TO ANINCREASE IN GLOBAL POPULATION:MORE PEOPLE HAVE TO SHARE THEEARTHS RESOURCES 103. LPI, Ecological Footprint and incomeLiving Planet IndexComparing Living Planet Index trends in countries with differentaverage levels of income shows stark differences (Figure 34). WhileKLJKLQFRPHFRXQWULHVDSSHDUWRVKRZDQLQFUHDVHSHUFHQW 104. LQELRGLYHUVLWPLGGOHLQFRPHFRXQWULHVVKRZGHFOLQHSHUFHQW 105. DQGORZLQFRPHFRXQWULHVVKRZGUDPDWLFDQGPDUNHGGHFOLQHSHUFHQW 106. 7KHVHGLIIHUHQFHVPDUHHFWWKHDELOLWRIKLJKHUincome countries to allocate resources to biodiversity conservationand restoration domestically. More importantly, they may alsoUHHFWWKHZDWKHVHFRXQWULHVLPSRUWUHVRXUFHVHIIHFWLYHORXWVRXUFLQJELRGLYHUVLWORVVDQGLWVLPSDFWVWRORZHULQFRPHcountries (Lenzen et al., 2012).Furthermore, the LPI database only dates back to 1970. Ifthe baseline were extended to the beginning of the 20th century,RUHDUOLHUWKH/3,ZRXOGOLNHOUHHFWDQRYHUDOOGHFOLQHIRUKLJKincome countries. In Europe, North America and Australia,populations of many species were heavily impacted and exploitedbefore 1970, and increases since then are most likely a result ofrecoveries from previously depleted levels.21WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 58Figure 34: LPI andWorld Bank countryincome groups (2013)(WWF, ZSL, 2014)NOTE: This graph usesunweighted LPI (LPI-U).For more details see LPIFAQ in appendix (page 140).Key0Index Value (1970 = 1)1970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearHigh incomeMiddle incomeLow incomeConfidence limits 107. 1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Chapter 1: The State of the planet page 59Figure 35: Ecological 7Footprint (gha) percapita in high-, middle-andEcological Footprint (gha per capita)Year6543210low-incomecountries (World BankFODVVLFDWLRQDQGGDWD 108. between 1961 and 2010The green line representsworld average biocapacityper capita (GlobalFootprint Network, 2014;World Bank, 2013).+LJKLQFRPHFRXQWULHVXVHRIHFRORJLFDOUHVRXUFHVDQGVHUYLFHVLVVWLOODERXWYHWLPHVPRUHSHUFDSLWDWKDQWKDWRIORZLQFRPHFRXQWULHV+LJKLQFRPHFRXQWULHVRIWHQUHORQWKHbiocapacity of other nations or the global commons to meet theirconsumption demands. While importing biocapacity may beQDQFLDOODIIRUGDEOHIRUKLJKLQFRPHFRXQWULHVWRGDSULFHVcould change, or ecological constraints could disrupt supply chains.0LGGOHDQGORZLQFRPHQDWLRQVWSLFDOOKDYHVPDOOHUSHUFDSLWD)RRWSULQWV1HYHUWKHOHVVQHDUOKDOIRIWKHPLGGOHDQGORZLQFRPHQDWLRQVOLYHRQSHUFDSLWD)RRWSULQWVORZHUWKDQgha the maximum per capita Footprint that could be replicatedworldwide without resulting in global overshoot. Even a Footprintof this size would mean that humanity claims the entire biocapacityof the planet, leaving no space for wild species.Low incomeKeyHigh incomeMiddle incomeWorld biocapacityEcological FootprintComparing the average per capita Ecological Footprints of groupsRIKLJKPHGLXPDQGORZLQFRPHFRXQWULHV)LJXUH 109. VKRZVWKDWKLJKLQFRPHFRXQWULHVKDYHPDLQWDLQHGKLJKOHYHOVRIFRQVXPSWLRQEXWWKLVWUHQGXFWXDWHVZLWKWKHJOREDOHFRQRP(YHQWVVXFKDVRLOcrises (in the 1970s) and recessions in the 1980s and 2000s shockedHFRQRPLHVDQGVLJQLFDQWOUHGXFHGUHVRXUFHGHPDQGV+RZHYHUZLWKVXEVHTXHQWHFRQRPLFUHFRYHUFDPHLQFUHDVLQJFRQVXPSWLRQ'HPDQGVRQUHVRXUFHVZKLFKLQFUHDVHGGXULQJWKHKSHUJURZWKperiod of the early 2000s dropped when the worlds economiesstarted to contract in 2007. 110. For a countrys development to be replicable worldwide, it musthave a per capita Ecological Footprint no larger than the per capitabiocapacity available on the planet, while maintaining a decentVWDQGDUGRIOLYLQJ7KHODWWHUFDQEHGHQHGDVDVFRUHRIRUDERYHRQWKH81'3VLQHTXDOLWDGMXVWHG+XPDQ'HYHORSPHQW,QGH[,+', 111. 81'3 112. XUUHQWOQRFRXQWUPHHWVERWKof these criteria (Figure 36).WWF Living Planet Report 2014 page 60High HumanDevelopmentVery HighHumanDevelopmentMinimum global sustainabledevelopment quadrantMediumHumanDevelopmentLow Human Development108642Ecological Footprint per capita (gha)00.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0UN Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI)Figure 36: Correlatingthe EcologicalFootprint with IHDI(latest data sets)The dots representingeach country arecoloured according totheir geographic regionand scaled relative totheir population (GlobalFootprint Network, 2014;UNDP, 2013).The path of progression to achieve sustainable developmentYDULHVEHWZHHQFRXQWULHV'HYHORSPHQWDQGLPSURYHGOLYLQJstandards are, up to a point, linked to growing consumption ofecological services: the high human development in developedcountries has been achieved at the expense of a high Ecological)RRWSULQW'HFRXSOLQJDQGUHYHUVLQJWKLVUHODWLRQVKLSLVDNHJOREDOFKDOOHQJH7KHFKDOOHQJHIRUFRXQWULHVLQWKHERWWRPOHIWVHFWRULVWRVLJQLFDQWOLQFUHDVHWKHLU,+',ZLWKRXWVLJQLFDQWOLQFUHDVLQJWKHLU(FRORJLFDO)RRWSULQWDQGIRUFRXQWULHVLQWKHXSSHUULJKWVHFWRUZLWKKLJK,+',WRUHGXFHWKHLU)RRWSULQWV:LWKHDUGDWDLQWHUYDOVRI+',DYDLODEOH,+',ZDVQRWLQWURGXFHGXQWLO 113. DSORWRI+',YHUVXV(FRORJLFDO)RRWSULQWLVable to show countries direction of progression (Figure 37). WhileQRWDGMXVWHGIRULQHTXDOLWZKLFKWHQGVWREHJUHDWHULQFRXQWULHVZLWKORZ+',WUHQGVRIVHYHUDOVHOHFWHGFRXQWULHVVKRZWKDWWKHhave improved their level of human development since 1980.China and the USA show the most striking movement.7KHJURZWKLQKLQDV+',KDVEHHQDFFRPSDQLHGEDFFHOHUDWLQJresource use, particularly in the last decade. The USAs per capitaEcological Footprint trended upward between 1980 and 2000 untilKeyAfricaMiddle East/Central Asia$VLD3DFLILFSouth AmericaCentral America/CaribbeanNorth AmericaEUOther EuropeThe path to sustainable development 114. High HumanDevelopmentMediumHumanDevelopment10Ecological Footprint per capita (gha) UN Human Development Index (HDI)8642Chapter 1: The State of the planet page 61Low Human DevelopmentVery HighHumanDevelopmentMinimum global sustainabledevelopment quadrantChinaTurkeyUSAGermanyBrazil00.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0Figure 37: TheEcological Footprintin relation to HDI.Time trends (1980-2010)are shown for a smallselection of countries.The dotted lines mark theHDI thresholds for low,medium, high and veryhigh human development(Global Footprint Network,2014; UNDP, 2013).NOTE: In this graph HDIis not inequality-adjusted.LWVKDUSOGHFOLQHGGXULQJWKHRQVHWRIWKHUHFHQWJOREDOQDQFLDOcrisis. Brazil, whose Footprint and HDI values are slightly higherthan Chinas, has achieved a decent standard of living as measuredby the HDI (though its IHDI score is lower) while barely increasingits per capita Ecological Footprint over the last 50 years. Turkeys+',KDVDOVRLQFUHDVHGVLJQLFDQWOVLQFHLWKDVQHDUOFDXJKWup with Brazil in terms of absolute HDI value, while maintaining aslightly lower Ecological Footprint per capita.China, Brazil and Turkey are on track to reach the HDI levelWKDW*HUPDQKDGLQEXWZLWKDUHODWLYHOORZHUSHUFDSLWD)RRWSULQW7KHUHXQLFDWLRQRI(DVWDQG:HVW*HUPDQZDVfollowed by slow population growth and a downward trendingcarbon Footprint, which contributed to Germanys total Footprintreduction over the next decade. Germanys per capita Footprintis still more than twice the per capita biocapacity available for theplanet as a whole. However, it has continued to increase its HDIsince 2000 while maintaining a relatively constant Footprint.(DFKFRXQWUPDIROORZDGLHUHQWSDWKWRZDUGVXVWDLQDELOLWWKHFKDOOHQJHLVGHWHUPLQLQJKRZWRUHGXFHUHVRXUFHconsumption by design while improving human development.:KDWHYHUDFRXQWUVUHVRXUFHDQGHFRQRPLFZHDOWKHDFKQHHGVDnational development strategy that addresses the reality of globalbiocapacity limits and the role biodiversity and ecosystems play insupporting human existence and enterprise. By recognizing nationsVSHFLFFKDOOHQJHVDQGRSSRUWXQLWLHVWRGDLWLVSRVVLEOHWRZRUNtoward a future of secure natural resources that enables socialimprovement and prosperity globally. 115. design note:Check for gutter and re-peatimage if necessarySECRETS AND SERVICES~With its diverse landscapes and habitats, Virungacontains some of the richest biodiversity on the planet.As well as being a priceless part of our common heritage,it has huge educational and research value. Its hundredsof plant species contain secrets that could one day yield amedical breakthrough.The forests of the Congo Basin help generate rainfall, andDEVRUEDQGVWRUHFDUERQWRWKHEHQHWRIDOO:LWKWKHcarbon Footprint making up more than half of humanitysEcological Footprint, and CO2 levels in the atmospherealready at levels unprecedented in human history, protectingVirungas forests is more important than ever. 116. Brent Stirton / Reportage by Getty Images / WWF-Canon 117. CHAPTER 2:DEVELOPING THE PICTUREThe indicators presented in the previous chapter show someVWDUNWUXWKV7KH/3,UHHFWVDVWHHSGHFOLQHDPRQJPDQpopulations of the species that help to sustain life on Earth. TheEcological Footprint shows that we are using ecological servicesat a faster rate than the planet can replenish. The water footprintGHPRQVWUDWHVWKHHHFWVRIKXPDQLWVGHPDQGVRQLQFUHDVLQJOscarce freshwater resources.Other indicators, ways of thinking and areas of researchreinforce these messages complementing, deepening andextending the concepts discussed in chapter 1. A growingnumber