2010 and beyond -- the biodiversity challenge

2 0 1 0 A N D B E Y O N D

Ris ing to the b iod ivers i ty cha l lenge

LPR_CBD_text.qxd 8/4/08 13:46 Page 99

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Living Planet IndexThe authors are extremely grateful to the following individuals and organizations for sharing their data: RichardGregory and the European Bird Census Council for data from the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoringscheme; the Global Population Dynamics Database from the Centre for Population Biology, Imperial CollegeLondon; Derek Pomeroy, Betty Lutaaya and Herbert Tushabe for data from the National Biodiversity Database,Makerere University Institute of Environment and Natural Resources, Uganda; Kristin Thorsrud Teien and JorgenRanders, WWF-Norway; Pere Tomas-Vives, Christian Perennou, Driss Ezzine de Blas and Patrick Grillas, Tour duValat, Camargue, France; Parks Canada; David Henry, Kluane Ecological Monitoring Project; Lisa Wilkinson,Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division. Many thanks to Chris Hails and Gordon Shepherd, WWF International, for theirhelp and support on this project.

Ecological FootprintMuch of the background research for this report would not have been possible without the generous supportof The Skoll Foundation, The Roy A. Hunt Foundation, Flora Family Foundation, Mental Insight Foundation,The Dudley Foundation, Erlenmeyer Stiftung and a dedicated community of individual donors.

EDITOR

Jonathan Loh1,2

AUTHORS

Living Planet Index2

Ben CollenLouise McRaeGayle KothariRachel MellorOlivia DanielAnnemarie GreenwoodRajan AminSarah HolbrookJonathan E.M. Baillie

Ecological Footprint3

Steven GoldfingerJustin KitzesMathis WackernagelAudrey PellerRobert Williams

Building security for the futureRémy Kalter Rolf Hogan Gordon Shepherd

1. WWF InternationalAvenue du Mont-BlancCH-1196 GlandSwitzerlandwww.panda.org

2. Institute of ZoologyZoological Society of LondonRegent’s ParkLondon NW1 4RY, UKwww.zoo.cam.ac.uk/ioz

3. Global Footprint Network1050 Warfield AveOakland, CA 94610, USAwww.footprintnetwork.org

PHOTOS

Front cover (left to right): WWF-Canon/Michel Terrettaz; WWF-Canon/Homo ambiens/R. Isotti-A. Cambone;WWF-Canon/Sebastian Rich; WWF/Catherine Holloway;WWF-Canon/Roger Le Guen. Page 7 (left to right, top tobottom): WWF-Canon/Jason Rubens; WWF-Canon/Homo ambiens/R. Isotti-A. Cambone; WWF-Canon/Jo

Benn; WWF-Canon/Roger Le Guen; WWF-Canon/Michel Gunther; WWF/Catherine Holloway; WWF-Canon/Homoambiens/R. Isotti-A. Cambone; WWF-Canon/VladimirFilonov; WWF-Canon/Michel Terrettaz; WWF/ChineseAcademy of Science; WWF-Canon/Hal Whitehead;WWF/James W. Latourette.

Published in April 2008 byWWF–World Wide Fund ForNature (formerly World WildlifeFund), Gland, Switzerland.

Any reproduction in full or inpart of this publication mustmention the title and credit theabove-mentioned publisher asthe copyright owner.

© text and graphics: 2008 WWFAll rights reserved

ISBN: 978-2-88085-287-0

The material and the geographicaldesignations in this report do notimply the expression of any opinionwhatsoever on the part of WWFconcerning the legal status of anycountry, territory, or area, orconcerning the delimitation of itsfrontiers or boundaries.

A BANSON ProductionCambridge, UK

Printed in Switzerland by Ropress on Aconda Verd Silk FSC, 40%recycled fibre and 60% virgin woodfibre, at least 50% of which is certifiedin accordance with the rules of FSC,using vegetable-oil-based inks.

WWF(also known as World WildlifeFund in the USA and Canada) isone of the world’s largest andmost experienced independentconservation organizations, withalmost 5 million supporters and a global network active in over100 countries. WWF’s mission isto stop the degradation of theplanet’s natural environment andto build a future in which humanslive in harmony with nature.

ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDONFounded in 1826, the ZoologicalSociety of London (ZSL) is an international scientific,conservation and educationalcharity: its key role is theconservation of animals and theirhabitats. ZSL runs ZSL LondonZoo and ZSL Whipsnade Zoo,carries out scientific research in the Institute of Zoology and is actively involved in fieldconservation in over 30 countriesworldwide. www.zsl.org

GLOBAL FOOTPRINTNETWORKpromotes a sustainable economyby advancing the EcologicalFootprint, a tool that makessustainability measurable.Together with its partners, thenetwork coordinates research,develops methodologicalstandards, and provides decisionmakers with robust resourceaccounts to help the humaneconomy operate within theEarth’s ecological limits.


1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 20101965 1975 1985 1995 2005

Fig. 1: GLOBAL LIVING PLANET INDEX, 1970–2005

0.8

0.6

1.4

1.6

0

0.2

0.4

1.2

1.8

1.0

Ind

ex (1

970=

1.0)

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 20101965 1975 1985 1995 2005

Fig. 2: GLOBAL ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT, 1961–2003

0.8

0.6

1.4

1.6

0

0.2

0.4

1.2

1.8

1.0

Num

ber

of p

lane

t E

arth

s

1RISING TO THE BIODIVERSITY CHALLENGE

I N T R O D U C T I O N

At the start of the millennium the United Nations set a clear,measurable objective for biodiversity conservation. We

are now only two years away from reporting on the target agreedby the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)in 2002: to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the cur-rent rate of biodiversity loss at global, regional and nationallevels as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefitof all life on Earth. The EU countries also agreed in 2002 to amore ambitious target – to halt biodiversity loss by 2010.

These targets mean that the public can hold the world’sgovernments collectively responsible for ensuring that globalbiodiversity is conserved, or at least that the rate of its loss isreduced. Regrettably, in 2008, it does not look as if sufficienteffort has been made to stem the loss of biodiversity, and itappears unlikely that the global 2010 target will be achieved.WWF uses two indicators to measure trends in the state ofglobal biodiversity and the human demands on the biosphere.These indicators have also been adopted by the CBD, amonga suite of indicators to assess progress towards the global2010 target.

The first of the two, the Living Planet Index (LPI), developed inpartnership with the Zoological Society of London, uses pop-ulation trends in species from around the world to assess thestate of global biodiversity. Over the past two years the coverageof the dataset has been expanded, methodological improve-ments made and better standards for LPI data implemented. The index tracks nearly 4,000 populations of 241 fish, 83amphibian, 40 reptile, 811 bird and 302 mammal species.Indices for marine, terrestrial and freshwater species arecalculated separately and then averaged to create an aggregatedindex. Between 1970 and 2005 the LPI declined by 27 per centoverall. Although the decline appears to have flattened out in thelast few years, an analysis of switch points shows no significantchange in the direction of the index since 1976, meaning thatthe 2010 target is very unlikely to be met.

The second is the Ecological Footprint, which measures humandemands on the biosphere to produce resources and absorbcarbon dioxide. Over the past three years, Global FootprintNetwork and its partner organizations have developed newmethods and standards for calculating the Ecological Footprint

(www.footprintstandards.org). They have also been workingwith countries to refine the data and methods used to evaluatenational footprints. These collaborations have improved theanalysis presented in this report. In 2003, the most recent yearfor which there are data, humanity’s total footprint exceeded theproductive capacity of the biosphere by 25 per cent, and its rateof growth showed no sign of diminishing. This means that thefundamental drivers of biodiversity loss – the appropriation ofthe biosphere for the production of natural resources, and thedisposal of associated waste products – are still increasing.

Figure 1: Global Living Planet Index. The average of threeindices which measure overall trends in populations ofterrestrial, marine and freshwater vertebrate species. The indexdeclined by 27 per cent from 1970 to 2005.

Figure 2: Global Ecological Footprint. A measure of theproductive capacity of the biosphere used to provide naturalresources and absorb wastes. Humanity’s footprint was equi-valent to about half of the Earth’s biologically productivecapacity in 1961, but grew to a level 25 per cent above it in 2003.


2 2010 AND BEYOND

Less significant in the past, but with thepotential to become the greatest threat tobiodiversity over the course of the next few decades, is climate change. Already,impacts of climate change have beenmeasured in arctic and alpine as well ascoastal and marine ecosystems, such ascoral reefs. The global extent of climatechange will mean that no ecosystem on thesurface of the Earth will be immune fromrising air or sea temperatures or changingweather patterns.

It is clear that all of these direct threats orpressures are the effect, in turn, of moredistant, indirect drivers of biodiversity loss which relate to the consumption ofresources and pollution arising from theirwaste products. The ultimate drivers ofthreats to biodiversity are the humandemands for food, water, energy andmaterials. These can be considered, sectorby sector, in terms of the production andconsumption of agricultural crops, meat and dairy products, fish and seafood, timberand paper, water, energy, transport, and landfor towns, cities and infrastructure. As thehuman population and global economygrow, so do the pressures on biodiversity.The Ecological Footprint is a measure of theaggregate demands that the consumption ofthese resources places on natural ecosystemsand species. Understanding the linkages andinteractions between biodiversity, the driversof biodiversity loss and the human footprintis fundamental to slowing, halting andreversing the ongoing declines in naturalecosystems and populations of wild species.

BEYOND 2010By opting for a target to reduce the rateof biodiversity loss, the signatory nationsconceded that halting the decline by 2010 is probably unachievable. With only twoyears to go, unless immediate action is taken to reduce the growing pressures onnatural ecosystems, the loss of globalbiodiversity is set to continue unabated.

Whether or not we are on track to achieve the 2010 target, it is not too soon to start thinking about subsequenttargets. Any future goals must be measuredusing indicators of the state of globalbiodiversity, the drivers and pressures causing its decline, and the societal impacts and responses to biodiversity loss. Indicators must be relevant, cost-effective and easily communicated, and anynew targets should be measurable usingthose indicators.

Only a tiny fraction of all biomes, ecoregionsand species are being monitored. The range of biodiversity that is covered by theexisting indicators is far from complete, and we are particularly ignorant concerningtropical ecoregions, marine and freshwaterbiomes, and invertebrates. Addressing these knowledge gaps is essential.

Only by monitoring the state of globalbiodiversity, the drivers that affect it, and the impact of interventions designed toprotect it, will we be able to identify andimplement the most cost-effective andefficient responses to biodiversity loss.

The Living Planet Index shows that wildspecies and natural ecosystems are underpressure to a greater or lesser degree acrossall biomes and regions of the world. Thedirect, anthropogenic threats to biodiversityare often grouped under five headings: ■ habitat loss, fragmentation or change,

especially due to agriculture ■ overexploitation of species, especially

due to fishing■ pollution■ the spread of invasive species or genes■ climate change.

All five of these threats stem ultimately fromhuman demands on the biosphere – theproduction and consumption of naturalresources for food and drink, energy ormaterials, and the disposal of associatedwaste products – or the displacement ofnatural ecosystems by towns, cities andinfrastructure. Further, the massive flows of goods and people around the world havebecome a vector for the spread of alienspecies and diseases (see Figure 3).

Natural habitat, especially in terrestrialecosystems, is lost, altered or fragmentedthrough its conversion for cultivation,grazing, aquaculture, industrial or urban use.River systems are dammed and altered forirrigation, hydropower or flow regulation,and even marine ecosystems, particularly theseabed, are physically degraded by trawling,construction and extractive industries.

Overexploitation of wild species populationsis the result of harvesting or killing animals

or plants, for food, materials or medicine,over and above the reproductive capacity ofthe population to replace itself. It has beenthe dominant threat to marine biodiversity,and overfishing has devastated manycommercial fish stocks, but overexploitationis also a serious threat to many terrestrialspecies, particularly among tropical forestmammals hunted for meat. Overharvestingof timber and fuelwood has also led to loss of forests and their associated plant and animal populations.

Invasive species, which have been introducedeither deliberately or inadvertently from onepart of the world to another and becomecompetitors, predators or parasites ofindigenous species, are responsible fordeclines in many native species populations.This is especially important on islands and in freshwater ecosystems, where they arethought to be the main cause of extinctionamong endemic species.

Pollution is another important cause ofbiodiversity loss, particularly in aquaticecosystems. Excess nutrient loading is aresult of the increasing use of nitrogen andphosphorous fertilizers in agriculture, whichcauses eutrophication and oxygen depletion.Toxic chemical pollution often arises frompesticide use in farming or aquaculture, fromindustry or mining wastes. One result ofincreasing carbon dioxide concentrations inthe atmosphere is the acidification of theoceans, which is likely to have widespreadeffects on marine species, particularly shell-and reef-building organisms.

B I O D I V E R S I T Y L O S S A N D T H E H U M A N F O O T P R I N T



HABITAT LOSS

OVEREXPLOITATION

POLLUTION

INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES

CLIMATE CHANGE

Forest, woodland and mangrove loss and fragmentation

Grassland and savannah loss and degradation

River fragmentation and regulation

Coral reef and coastal habitat destruction

Benthic habitat destruction

OverfishingMarine bycatch

Overharvesting terrestrial species

Nutrient loading/eutrophication and toxic blooms

Acid rain

Pesticides and toxic chemicals

Oil spills

Ocean acidification

Degradation of arctic and alpine environments

Loss of polar sea ice

Coral reef bleaching and die-off

Alteration of seasonal cycles

Drought-induced forest die-off and desertification

Loss of seasonal wetlands

Conversion to croplandConversion to grazing landConversion to aquaculture

Timber, pulp and paper productionFuelwood collection

Trawler fishingLine fishing

Bushmeat huntingWildlife trade

Nitrogen and sulphur emissionsOrganic wasteAgrochemical useMining waste and contamination

Timber, paper and fibreFuelwood

Food crops, oil crops, fibre cropsMeat, dairy, eggs, skinsFarmed fish and seafood

Construction, cementMining and metals

Wild meat, fish andseafood

TransportTradeTourism

Domestic waterIndustrial processing

Energy useFossil fuel combustion

Marine invasive species

Freshwater invasive species

Terrestrial invasive species, esp. on small islands

THREATSor PRESSURES

DIRECT PRESSURES ON BIODIVERSITY INDIRECT DRIVERS OF BIODIVERSITY

LOSS/HUMAN ACTIVITIESECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT/CONSUMPTION SECTORS

Shipping

Deliberate or inadvertent introduction of alien species

Conversion to urban land and road buildingDam building

Carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gas emissions

Fig 3: BIODIVERSITY LOSS, HUMAN PRESSURE AND THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT


4 2010 AND BEYOND

between 1995 and 2005 (Figure 5). Manymarine ecosystems are changing rapidlyunder human influence, and one recent study estimates that more than 40 per cent of the world’s ocean area is stronglyaffected by human activities while few areasremain untouched (Halpern et al., 2008). Freshwater ecosystems provide water, foodand other ecological services essential to human well-being. In spite of onlycovering about 1 per cent of the total landsurface of the Earth, inland waters are hometo an enormous diversity of over 40,000vertebrate species. The overall freshwaterLPI fell by 29 per cent between 1970 and2003 (Figure 6).

Figure 4: Terrestrial Living Planet Index.The terrestrial LPI represents average trendsin 813 species (1,820 populations) and

shows an overall decline of 25 per cent from 1970 to 2005. Two indices, for tropicaland temperate regions, are aggregated with equal weighting to produce theterrestrial LPI.

Figure 5: Marine Living Planet Index. Themarine LPI represents overall trends in 320species (1,180 populations) and falls rapidlyover the last ten years of the period. Fourocean basin indices are aggregated toproduce the marine LPI.

Figure 6: Freshwater Living Planet Index.The freshwater LPI represents trends in 344 species (988 populations) and shows an overall decline of 29 per cent. Tropicaland temperate regional indices areaggregated with equal weighting to produce the freshwater LPI.

The Living Planet Index (LPI) is a measureof the state of the world’s biodiversity basedon trends from 1970 to 2005 in nearly 4,000populations of 1,477 vertebrate species. It iscalculated as the average of three separateindices that measure trends in populations of 813 terrestrial species, 320 marine speciesand 344 freshwater species.

The index shows an overall decline over the35-year period, as do each of the terrestrial,marine and freshwater indices individually(Figures 4, 5 and 6). The global LPI showsan overall decline from 1970 to 2005 of 27 per cent (Figure 1).

No attempt is made to select species on thebasis of geography, ecology or taxonomy, sothe LPI dataset contains more populationtrends from well-researched regions, biomes

and species. In compensation, temperate and tropical regions are given equal weightwithin the terrestrial and freshwater indices,as are the four ocean basins within themarine LPI, with equal weight being given to each species within each region or oceanbasin. An assumption is made that theavailable population time series data arerepresentative of vertebrate species in theselected ecosystems or regions, and thatvertebrates are a good indicator of overallbiodiversity trends.

The terrestrial LPI is the average of twoindices which measure trends in temperateand tropical species respectively, and showsan overall decline of 25 per cent between1970 and 2005 (Figure 4). The marine LPI shows a decline of 28 per cent between1970 and 2005, with a dramatic decline

Fig. 5: MARINE LIVING PLANET INDEX,1970–2005

0.8

0.6

1.8

1.6

1.2

0

0.2

0.4

1.4

1.0

Ind

ex (1

970=

1.0)

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Fig. 6: FRESHWATER LIVING PLANET INDEX,1970–2003

0.8

0.6

1.8

1.6

1.2

0

0.2

0.4

1.4

1.0

Ind

ex (1

970=

1.0)

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Fig. 4: TERRESTRIAL LIVING PLANET INDEX,1970–2005

0.8

0.6

1.8

1.6

1.2

0

0.2

0.4

1.4

1.0

Ind

ex (1

970=

1.0)

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

T H E G L O B A L L I V I N G P L A N E T I N D E X



The European1 index shows an initial positivetrend and then a decline since 1990, but therehas been little absolute change since 1970(Figure 9). The North American2 index showsno overall trend from 1970 to 2005. The Asia-Pacific3 region has undergone the greatestindustrial and economic change over the last20 years, and the index for this region displaysthe greatest decline in species populationtrends since the late 1980s.

Figure 7: Temperate and tropical terrestrialindices. The temperate terrestrial index showsno overall change in the abundance of 591species while the tropical terrestrial indexshows a decline of 46 per cent on average in 237 species from 1970 to 2005.

Figure 8: Temperate and tropical freshwaterindices. The temperate freshwater index,

showing the average change in abundance of 293 species, fell by 26 per cent over theperiod 1970–2003, while the tropicalfreshwater index shows a decline of 35 percent in 57 species from 1970 to 2000.

Figure 9: Regional terrestrial/freshwaterindices. These three regional indices (Europe1,North America2 and Asia-Pacific3) show very different average trends in terrestrial andfreshwater species populations. The indicesare based on data for 276 species, 576species and 165 species respectively.

Each region of the world shows varyingtrends in species populations, reflecting thediffering anthropogenic and environmentalpressures on biodiversity. The terrestrial LPIreveals a marked difference in trends betweentropical and temperate species (Figure 7).Tropical terrestrial species populationsappear to have declined by 46 per cent onaverage between 1970 and 2005, whiletemperate species showed little overall change.Because of insufficient data on freshwaterspecies populations, especially from thepresent decade, the freshwater indices havebeen calculated only to 2003 for temperateregions and to 2000 for tropical regions. The freshwater index for temperate regionsdeclined by 26 per cent between 1970 and2003, while the index for tropical regionsfell by 35 per cent between 1970 and 2000(Figure 8). These results do not necessarily

imply that biodiversity in temperate regionsis in a better state than it is in tropicalregions: many declines among temperatespecies occurred before 1970 and so thesetrends are not reflected in this index. Therapid decline in tropical species is paralleledby a loss of natural habitat, particularlywithin tropical forest biomes.

Terrestrial and freshwater species werecombined to give an indication of biodiversitytrends within Europe, North America andAsia-Pacific – the regions with the most dataavailable. Unfortunately, species populationdata from Latin America and Africa wereinsufficient to show overall trends for thosecontinents as a whole with confidence, butdata availability is improving and it isexpected that it will be possible to makeindices for these regions by 2010.

Fig. 8: TEMPERATE AND TROPICAL FRESHWATER INDICES, 1970–2003

Ind

ex (1

970=

1.0)

Temperate Tropical

1970 1980 1990 2000 20100

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Fig. 9: REGIONAL TERRESTRIAL/FRESHWATER INDICES, 1970–2005

Ind

ex (1

970=

1.0)

Europe North America Asia-Pacific

1970 1980 1990 2000 20100

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Fig. 7: TEMPERATE AND TROPICAL TERRESTRIAL INDICES, 1970–2005

0.8

0.6

1.8

1.6

1.2

0

0.2

0.4

1.4

1.0

Ind

ex (1

970=

1.0)

Temperate Tropical

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

1 Includes continental Europe as far as the Ural Mountains,plus Greenland, Iceland, Svalbard, Turkey, Georgia,Armenia and Azerbaijan.

2 Includes Canada and USA.3 Includes continental Asia east of the Ural Mountains, the

Middle East, South and Southeast Asia, and Australasia.

Ter rest r ia l and f reshwater L iv ing P lanet Ind ices


6 2010 AND BEYOND

mid-1990s (Figure 12). This fall in birdpopulations may be the result of multiplethreats, including bycatch from long-linefishing, pollution and the decline inabundance of marine fish as indicated by the marine fish index.

Figure 10: Northern marine indices. Thesetwo indices show little or no overall changein abundance over the period 1970–2005,although both show a downward trend sincethe mid-1990s. The indices are based onpopulations of 185 and 84 speciesrespectively.

Figure 11: Southern marine indices. Thesetwo indices represent trends in 48 and 52marine species respectively, and both showsevere declines over the three decades from1970 to 2002.

Figure 12: Marine fish and bird indices.The marine fish index shows an averagedecline in abundance of 21 per cent across 145 species of marine fish between1970 and 2005, whereas the trend in 120species of marine birds shows an overall fallof 14 per cent over the same period, butwith a steeper drop since the mid-1990s.

The global marine LPI is the average of four ocean basin indices (Figures 10 and11), all of which show some decline inrecent years to a greater or lesser extent. Itis also possible to disaggregate global trendsby species group as well as by region, andthis has been done for marine fish and birds(Figure 12).

Species populations in the North Pacific andNorth Atlantic/Arctic Oceans show little orno absolute change from 1970 to 2005,although both ocean basin indices show adownward trend from about 1990 onwards(Figure 10). The indices of the southernhemisphere oceans are based on a smallerdataset than those of the northern hemisphereoceans. They reveal a long-term decline inthe South Atlantic/Southern Ocean and adramatic decline in the South Pacific/Indian

Ocean since the mid-1990s (Figure 11),although with lower confidence than for the northern hemisphere. According to arecent assessment of pressures on marineecosystems (Halpern et al., 2008), the NorthSea, the East and South China Seas, theBering Sea and much of the coastal watersof Europe, North America, the Caribbean,China and Southeast Asia are heavilyimpacted by fishing, invasive species,pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

The marine fish index remained fairly leveluntil about 1990 but subsequently dropped,indicating an overall fall in abundance of 21per cent during the 35-year period (Figure 12).

The index for marine birds shows a positivetrend from 1970 to the mid-1990s, but arapid decline of about 30 per cent since the

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Fig. 11: SOUTHERN MARINE INDICES, 1970–2002

0.8

0.6

1.8

1.6

1.2

0

0.2

0.4

1.4

1.0

Ind

ex (1

970=

1.0)

South Pacific/Indian Ocean South Atlantic/Southern Ocean

Fig. 12: MARINE FISH AND BIRD INDICES, 1970–2005

0.8

0.6

1.8

1.6

1.2

0

0.2

0.4

1.4

1.0

Ind

ex (1

970=

1.0)

Marine fish Marine birds

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Fig. 10: NORTHERN MARINE INDICES, 1970–2005

0.8

0.6

1.8

1.6

1.2

0

0.2

0.4

1.4

1.0

Ind

ex (1

970=

1.0)

North Atlantic/Arctic Ocean North Pacific

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Mar ine L iv ing P lanet Ind ices



Trends in sample popu la t ions o f se lected spec ies

1970 2005

100,000

Est

imat

ed n

o. o

f nes

ts

Green turtle (Chelonia mydas), Costa Rica

1970 2005

130

Ann

ual p

opul

atio

n in

dex

Common snipe (Gallinago gallinago), Sweden

1970 2005

250

No.

of a

ctiv

e ne

sts

White-rumped vulture (Gyps bengalensis ), India

1970 2005

400

No.

of i

ndiv

idua

ls

Baiji (Lipotes vexillifer ), China

1970 2005

7,000

No.

of i

ndiv

idua

ls

African elephant (Loxodonta africana), Tanzania

1970 2005

100

No.

of i

ndiv

idua

ls

Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes ), Côte d’Ivoire

1970 2005

30

No.

of i

ndiv

idua

lsAmur tiger (Panthera tigris), Russia

1970 2005

500,000

Pop

ulat

ion

estim

ate

Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus ), North Pacific

1970 2005

50

No.

of f

ry p

er 1

00m

2

Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar ), Norway

1970 2005

Index

Rel

ativ

e ab

und

ance

Scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini ), United States of America

1970 2005

10

No.

of d

ens

per

100

km2

Polar bear (Ursus maritimus), Russia

1970 2005

40,000

Bio

mas

s (to

nnes

)

Swordfish (Xiphias gladius), North Atlantic


8 2010 AND BEYOND

H E A D E R

Fig. 13: ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT PER PERSON, BY COUNTRY, 2003 10

9

8

7

6

4

5

3

2

1

0

2003

glo

bal

hec

tare

s p

er p

erso

n

■ Built-up land

■ Nuclear energy

■ CO2 from fossil fuels

■ Fishing ground

■ Forest

■ Grazing land

■ Cropland

UN

ITE

D S

TATE

S O

F A

ME

RIC

A

UN

ITE

D A

RA

B E

MIR

ATE

S

FIN

LAN

D

CA

NA

DA

KU

WA

IT

AU

STR

ALI

A

ES

TON

IA

SW

ED

EN

NE

W Z

EA

LAN

D

NO

RW

AY

DE

NM

AR

K

FRA

NC

E

BE

LGIU

M/L

UX

EM

BO

UR

G

UN

ITE

D K

ING

DO

M

SPA

IN

SW

ITZ

ER

LAN

D

GR

EE

CE

IRE

LAN

D

AU

STR

IA

CZ

EC

H R

EP.

SA

UD

I AR

AB

IA

ISR

AE

L

GE

RM

AN

Y

LITH

UA

NIA

RU

SS

IAN

FE

DE

RAT

ION

NE

THE

RLA

ND

S

JAPA

N

PO

RTU

GA

L

ITA

LY

KO

RE

A, R

EP.

KA

ZA

KH

STA

N

HU

NG

AR

Y

TUR

KM

EN

ISTA

N

LIB

YA

SLO

VE

NIA

BE

LAR

US

PO

LAN

D

SLO

VAK

IA

UK

RA

INE

TRIN

IDA

D A

ND

TO

BA

GO

BU

LGA

RIA

MO

NG

OLI

A

CR

OAT

IA

LEB

AN

ON

LATV

IA

ME

XIC

O

IRA

N

PAP

UA

NE

W G

UIN

EA

RO

MA

NIA

CH

ILE

BO

SN

IA A

ND

HE

RZ

EG

OV

INA

MA

CE

DO

NIA

, FY

R

SO

UTH

AFR

ICA

, RE

P.

SE

RB

IA A

ND

MO

NTE

NE

GR

O

AR

GE

NTI

NA

MA

LAY

SIA

WO

RLD

VE

NE

ZU

ELA

BR

AZ

IL

TUR

KE

Y

CO

STA

RIC

A

UR

UG

UAY

PAN

AM

A

MA

UR

ITIU

S

UZ

BE

KIS

TAN

JOR

DA

N

AZ

ER

BA

IJA

N

JAM

AIC

A

SY

RIA

CH

INA

PAR

AG

UAY

DO

MIN

ICA

N R

EP.

ALG

ER

IA

The Ecological Footprint measureshumanity’s demand on the biosphere in termsof the area of biologically productive landand sea required to provide the resources weuse and to absorb our waste. In 2003 theglobal Ecological Footprint was 14.1 billionglobal hectares, or 2.2 global hectares perperson (a global hectare is a hectare withworld-average ability to produce resourcesand absorb wastes). The total supply ofproductive area, or biocapacity, in 2003 was11.2 billion global hectares, or 1.8 globalhectares per person.

The footprint of a country includes all thecropland, grazing land, forest and fishinggrounds required to produce the food, fibreand timber it consumes, to absorb the wastesemitted in generating the energy it uses, andto provide space for its infrastructure.

People consume resources and ecologicalservices from all over the world, so theirfootprint is the sum of these areas, whereverthey may be on the planet.

Humanity’s footprint first grew larger than global biocapacity in the 1980s; thisovershoot has been increasing every yearsince, with demand exceeding supply byabout 25 per cent in 2003. This means that ittook approximately a year and three monthsfor the Earth to produce the ecologicalresources we used in that year.

Separating the Ecological Footprint into its individual components demonstrates howeach one contributes to humanity’s overalldemand on the planet. Figure 14 tracks thesecomponents in constant 2003 global hectares,which adjust for annual changes in theproductivity of an average hectare. This

E C O L O G I C A L F O O T P R I N T



In 2003, the globally available biocapacity was 1.8 global hectares per person (or less if we take into account the needs of wild species).

DO

MIN

ICA

N R

EP.

ALG

ER

IA

BO

TSW

AN

A

CU

BA

TUN

ISIA

EC

UA

DO

R

KO

RE

A, D

PR

ALB

AN

IA

GA

BO

N

THA

ILA

ND

GA

MB

IA

EL

SA

LVA

DO

R

EG

YP

T

BO

LIV

IA

GU

ATE

MA

LA

CO

LOM

BIA

MO

LDO

VA, R

EP.

HO

ND

UR

AS

MA

UR

ITA

NIA

KY

RG

YZ

STA

N

NIC

AR

AG

UA

NIG

ER

IA

SE

NE

GA

L

SW

AZ

ILA

ND

NA

MIB

IA

NIG

ER

AR

ME

NIA

UG

AN

DA

IND

ON

ES

IA

PH

ILIP

PIN

ES

CH

AD

AN

GO

LA

SU

DA

N

SR

I LA

NK

A

BU

RK

INA

FA

SO

GH

AN

A

GU

INE

A

MYA

NM

AR

LAO

PD

R

MO

RO

CC

O

VIE

T N

AM

CE

NTR

AL

AFR

ICA

N R

EP.

PE

RU

TOG

O

IRA

Q

ZIM

BA

BW

E

YE

ME

N

MA

LI

CA

ME

RO

ON

ETH

IOP

IA

BE

NIN

KE

NYA

LES

OTH

O

GE

OR

GIA

IND

IA

CÔ

TE D

'IVO

IRE

SIE

RR

A L

EO

NE

ER

ITR

EA

CA

MB

OD

IA

MA

DA

GA

SC

AR

TAN

ZA

NIA

, UN

ITE

D R

EP.

NE

PAL

BU

RU

ND

I

LIB

ER

IA

GU

INE

A-B

ISS

AU

RW

AN

DA

TAJI

KIS

TAN

MO

ZA

MB

IQU

E

ZA

MB

IA

CO

NG

O

PAK

ISTA

N

CO

NG

O, D

EM

. RE

P.

HA

ITI

MA

LAW

I

BA

NG

LAD

ES

H

SO

MA

LIA

AFG

HA

NIS

TAN

Fig. 14: ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT BY COMPONENT, 1961–2003

8

6

0

2

4

12

14

10

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 03

Bill

ion

2003

glo

bal

hec

tare

s

■ Nuclear energy

■ CO2 from fossil fuels

■ Built-up land

■ Fishing ground

■ Forest

■ Grazing land

■ Cropland

makes it possible to compare absolute levelsof demand over time. The carbon dioxide(CO2) footprint, from the use of fossil fuels, was the fastest-growing component,increasing more than ninefold between 1961 and 2003.

How is it possible for an economy tocontinue operating in overshoot? Over time,the Earth builds up ecological assets, likeforests and fisheries. These accumulatedstocks can, for a limited period, be harvestedfaster than they regenerate. CO2 can also beemitted into the atmosphere faster than it isremoved, accumulating over time.

For three decades now we have been inovershoot, drawing down these assets andincreasing the amount of CO2 in the air. Wecannot remain in overshoot much longerwithout depleting the planet’s biological

resources and interfering with its long-termability to renew them.

Figure 13: Ecological Footprint per person,by country. This includes all countries withpopulations greater than 1 million for whichcomplete data are available.

Figure 14: Ecological Footprint bycomponent. The footprint is shown inconstant 2003 global hectares.

In both diagrams, hydropower is included in the

built-up land footprint and fuelwood within the

forest footprint. For additional information about

the Ecological Footprint methodology, data

sources, assumptions and definitions (including

revisions to the UAE footprint), please visit

www.footprintnetwork.org/2006technotes.

NWwrethde


on fish as their principal source of animalprotein.

But the current fish catch is unsustainable.According to the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations, more than50 per cent of global fish stocks are fullyexploited and 25 per cent overexploited,depleted or recovering from depletion. Somefisheries have already collapsed, and others are predicted to do so. According to somescientists, commercial fishing will no longerbe viable by 2048. Yet, despite the role thatmarine protected areas can play in replenishingstocks, less than 1 per cent of the marineenvironment is protected.

When countries made the commitment toprotect one-tenth of ecosystem types by2010, they were, in part, agreeing to ensure

future food supplies. But more systematicidentification and protection of the placescontaining wild crop relatives and of keybreeding and nursery areas for fish stocks are needed to secure the future food supplyfor a growing population.

WATER SUPPLYExploitation of the planet’s freshwater isincreasing to the extent that, by 2030, nearlyhalf the world’s population will be facing watershortages. Rivers have been dammed anddiverted, and wetlands drained – all impactingfreshwater ecosystems and species. Forestclearance, climate change, pollution andinefficient water use, combined with the globalcommitment to supply increasing numbers ofpeople with a reliable supply of freshwatersufficient to meet their needs, are putting such pressure on water systems that only

Food, clean water, medicines and protection from natural hazards are important ingredientsin maintaining our security and quality of life.Can we guarantee their continued availability?The answer is “yes” – but only if we conservethe biodiversity that underpins the naturalhabitats and ecosystems which, in turn, supportthem. The global community recognized theneed to conserve biodiversity in 2002 whengovernments committed to achieving “asignificant reduction of the current rate ofbiodiversity loss” by 2010. But this reportclearly shows that this target is unlikely to bemet, with biodiversity continuing to be lost.

Protecting biodiversity – the genetic pool, theextent and variety of species and ecosystems– is critical to maintaining and improving thequality of life of the world’s people.

Neglecting biodiversity invites crop collapse,thirst, disease and disaster.

The degradation of ecosystems has alreadytaken us to new levels of vulnerability – and climate change is intensifying this. Asecosystems are degraded, species are lost andkey natural services fail. Humanity is alreadyincurring the costs of biodiversity loss, whichare disproportionately borne by poor peopleand nations, but which also scale incomelevels and cross borders.

FOOD SECURITYOf the 75,000 or so edible plant species, onlyaround 150 are widely cultivated, just three ofwhich provide 50 per cent of our food. Inhumanity’s drive to feed an ever-growingpopulation, we have become dependent on a few high-yielding varieties of these crops.

The maintenance of biodiversity, however, is key to ensuring we have crops that canwithstand diseases and a changing climate.Traditional varieties and the wild relatives ofcommercial crops provide a critical reserve of genes that are regularly needed tostrengthen and adapt their modern domesticcousins in a changing world. Allowing theseto become extinct on farms or in the wildendangers food security. Yet researchsuggests that the world’s centres of cropdiversity remain inadequately protected, andthat we may have already eradicated three-quarters of the planet’s agricultural cropgenetic diversity.

We are also failing to look after our oceanharvests. The annual catch of the globalfishing industry is worth US$70–80 billion,with around 500 million people relying

10 2010 AND BEYOND

B I O D I V E R S I T Y – B U I L D I N G S E C U R I T Y F O R T H E F U T U R E

FACTS ON FOOD SECURITY■ Populations of teosinte, the closestwild relative of maize, shrank by morethan 50 per cent in the last 40 years inCentral America.■ 75 per cent of rice varieties grown inSri Lanka are descended from oneparent plant.■ Global fishing fleets are estimated tohave a capacity 250 per cent greaterthan sustainable available catches.■ 75 per cent of global fish stocks arefully used, overused or in crisis.

FACTS ON WATER SECURITY■ Natural or semi-natural habitats can helpto mitigate flooding.■ Protected areas can provide barriersagainst the impacts of drought anddesertification.■ Freshwater species are thought to be some of the most threatened. A third of all freshwater species that havebeen assessed are threatened withextinction, and populations of freshwaterspecies have declined by 30 per centoverall. ■ Over 30 per cent of the world’s largestcities rely directly on protected areas for

their drinking water. A further 10 per centobtain their water from sources thatoriginate in “protected” watersheds, i.e. thatinclude protected areas, or from forests thatare managed in a way that prioritizes theirwater-securing functions.■ The economic value of watersheds is almost always underestimated orunrecognized.■ On top of the current 1.4 billion peopleliving in water-stressed areas, by 2050, afurther 700 million to 2.8 billion people are expected to face increased watershortages.


The development of an international regimeunder the Convention on Biological Diversityfor the equitable sharing of benefits from theuse of genetic resources could benefit peoplein developing and developed countries alike.These benefits would provide a majorincentive for the conservation of biodiversityand traditional knowledge, while in the longerterm helping to ensure the health of all.

DISASTER MITIGATIONWith climate change likely to bring rising sea levels, stronger storms and unpredictablerainfall patterns, it is suggested that as manyas 150 million people could becomeenvironmental refugees by 2050. Inevitablysuch large movements of people are likely tolead to economic and political instability.

Protecting natural areas can lessen the impactof natural hazards, reducing the likelihoodthat they provoke disasters. Corals andmangrove forests, for example, can helpmitigate the effects of storms in coastal areas,while forests and wetlands play a key role inpreventing floods and landslides.

BUILDING SECURITYThe true protection of biodiversity can onlyhappen through cross-sectoral action. Fromministries of finance, health, agriculture andfood to leaders of business and industry,producers and consumers, all have a role toplay. Our efforts must be directed towardssustainability: of our food and water, ourmedicines, our economies and our existence.

RECOMMENDATIONS

WWF calls on governments to:

1. Develop joint biodiversity protectionimplementation plans between environment,agriculture, food, water, finance and healthministries in order to take urgent action toreduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010.

2. Urgently implement the Convention onBiological Diversity Programme of Work onProtected Areas prioritizing the protection ofareas that are important for food security,water supply, medicine and disastermitigation.

3. Implement incentive and financingmeasures that support the establishment and maintenance of protected areas.

4. Accelerate the development and adoptionof an international regime on the equitablesharing of benefits from the utilization ofgenetic resources by 2010.

5. Take account of the true cost of ecosystemservices in national budgets and adopt nationalindicators that measure the state of biodiversityand pressures on natural ecosystems.

desalination plants seem, in some places, tobe guarantors of future supplies.

However, forests – a natural catchmentinfrastructure – are the most economicrehydration tool, yet currently are not theinstrument of choice for enough of our centresof population. Carefully located and managed,protected forest areas can act as naturalreservoirs, providing efficient water collection,natural filtration and aquifer replenishment.

HUMAN HEALTHAn estimated 80 per cent of people indeveloping countries rely on herbal remediesand medicines for their health care, with wildplants forming the primary ingredients. Tomaintain this natural pharmacy it is vital toboth protect and provide for the sustainableuse of these medicinal plants.

The pharmaceutical industry also relies onbiodiversity. In 2002–2003, four-fifths ofnew chemicals introduced globally as drugswere inspired by natural products. Butwithout systems and mechanisms that canconserve the diversity of life on Earth, howmany potential cures will be lost asbiodiversity is eroded?


FACTS ON HEALTH■ As many as 50 per cent of prescriptiondrugs are based on a molecule that occursnaturally in a plant.■ Between 50,000 and 70,000 plantspecies are known to be used in traditionaland modern medicinal systems throughoutthe world.■ In China, 40 per cent of urban patientsand 90 per cent of rural patients rely ontraditional medicine. ■ Only about 200 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa (less than 30 per cent ofthe population) have access to modernhealth care and pharmaceuticals. The

other 480 million rely on traditionalmedicines.■ In Sub-Saharan Africa, the ratio oftraditional healers to the population isapproximately 1:500, while the ratio ofmedical doctors to the population is1:40,000.■ Internationally, the trade in medicinalplants is estimated to be worth US$60billion per year.■ An estimated 323,000–470,000households (2.6 million people) areengaged in the collection of wild medicinal plants for sale in Nepal.

FACTS ON DISASTER MITIGATION■ Centuries ago, restoration of forests in the watershed above Malaga, Spain,ended the flooding that had been recordedat regular intervals over 500 years.■ In the Seychelles, wave energy hasdoubled as a result of sea-level rise, lossof coral reefs and changes to reef make-up. Models predict that wave energy will

double again in the next decade due tofurther reef damage.■ Philippines President Gloria Arroyoblamed indiscriminate logging, which hasleft the country with less than 6 per cent of its original forest, for flash floods andlandslides that left over 1,600 people deador missing in 2004.


Global Living Planet Index

The species population data used to calculate

the LPI are gathered from a variety of sources

published in scientific journals, NGO literature

and on the worldwide web. All data used in

constructing the index are time series of either

population size or a proxy of population size.

The terrestrial and marine datasets comprise

data from 1960 to 2005 and the freshwater

dataset from 1960 to 2003 owing to fewer

numbers of time series from recent years.

Generalized additive modelling was used

to determine the underlying trend in each

population time series. These were then used

to calculate the average rate of change in

each year across all species. All indices were

calculated using population data from 1960 to

2005, or the most recent year for which data

were available, and set equal to 1.0 in 1970 (pre-

1970 trends are not shown). The global LPI was

aggregated according to the hierarchy of indices

shown in Figure 15. For further details please

refer to Loh et al. (2005).

Regional indices

The indices for Europe and North America were

aggregated by weighting two groups – bird

species and all other vertebrate species – to

reflect the actual species numbers in those

groups from those regions (approximately 30

per cent are birds). This was because the data

availability in Europe and North America is

biased towards bird species (about 75 per cent

of the data). This resulted in the mammal, fish,

2010 AND BEYOND12

T E C H N I C A L N O T E S

reptile and amphibian species representing

over twice the weight of the bird species in the

overall index for both regions. The species in

the Asia-Pacific index were left unweighted.

Figure 15: Hierarchy of indices within the

Living Planet Index. Each population carries

equal weight within each species; each species

carries equal weight within tropical and

temperate realms or within each ocean basin;

temperate and tropical realms, or ocean

basins, carry equal weight within each system;

each system carries equal weight within the

overall LPI.

Table 2: LIVING PLANET INDICES

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Global Living Planet Index 1.000 1.035 1.020 0.998 0.963 0.886 0.761 0.725

Terrestrial Global 1.000 1.045 1.002 0.944 0.896 0.864 0.763 0.749Temperate 1.000 0.980 0.995 0.976 1.004 1.026 1.052 1.039Tropical 1.000 1.114 1.008 0.913 0.800 0.727 0.554 0.540

Freshwater Global 1.000 1.027 1.070 1.052 0.946 0.802 0.678 –Temperate 1.000 1.104 1.178 1.160 1.051 0.881 0.707 –Tropical 1.000 0.956 0.972 0.954 0.851 0.730 0.650 –

Regional terrestrial/freshwater Europe 1.000 1.106 1.124 1.137 1.286 1.193 0.980 0.821North America 1.000 0.867 0.916 0.904 0.879 0.855 0.774 1.010Asia-Pacific 1.000 1.110 1.157 1.132 1.022 0.750 0.519 0.227

Marine Global 1.000 1.032 0.991 1.001 1.053 1.003 0.850 0.722North Atlantic/Arctic Ocean 1.000 1.073 1.140 1.142 1.175 1.174 1.172 0.946North Pacific Ocean 1.000 1.111 1.165 1.322 1.374 1.227 1.100 1.096South Pacific/Indian Ocean 1.000 0.906 1.033 1.074 1.098 1.010 0.798 –South Atlantic/Southern Ocean 1.000 1.052 0.702 0.621 0.694 0.694 0.507 –Birds 1.000 1.035 1.091 1.130 1.246 1.197 1.061 0.861Fish 1.000 1.088 1.062 1.048 1.042 0.943 0.912 0.788

Table 1: NUMBERS OF SPECIES WITHIN EACH SYSTEM AND VERTEBRATE CLASS

Terrestrial Freshwater Marine TotalFish 94 147 241Amphibians 14 69 83Reptiles 16 17 7 40Birds 538 153 120 811Mammals 245 11 46 302Total 813 344 320 1 477


Table 3: INDEX VALUES WITH 95% CONFIDENCE LIMITS

No. of Change (%) 95% confidence limitsspecies 1970–2005* Lower Upper

Global Living Planet Index 1 477 -27 -37 -16Terrestrial Global 813 -25 -37 -9

Temperate 591 3 -3 11Tropical 237 -46 -62 -22

Freshwater Global 344 -29 -43 -12Temperate 293 -26 -39 -10Tropical 57 -35 -55 -6

Regional terrestrial/ Europe 276 -12 – –freshwater North America 576 1 – –

Asia-Pacific 165 -77 -88 -56Marine Global 320 -28 -47 -3

North Atlantic/Arctic Ocean 185 -5 -33 34South Atlantic/Southern Ocean 48 -46 -70 3North Pacific Ocean 84 10 -23 52South Pacific/Indian Ocean 52 -53 -81 -1Birds 120 -14 -40 14Fish 145 -21 -41 5

* 1970-2003 for freshwater and temperate freshwater index; 1970-2000 for tropical freshwater index; 1970-2002 forSouth Pacific/Indian Ocean and South Atlantic/Southern Ocean indices.

Halpern, B.S., Selkoe, K.A., Micheli, F. andKappel, C.V. (2007). Evaluating and rankingthe vulnerability of global marine ecosystemsto anthropogenic threats. ConservationBiology 21:5, 1301–1315.

Halpern, B.S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K.A., Kappel,C.V., Micheli, F., D’Agrosa, C., Bruno, J.F.,Casey, K.S., Ebert, C., Fox, H.E., Fujita, R.,Heinemann, D., Lenihan, H.S., Madin, E.M.,Perry, M.T., Selig, E.R., Spalding, M., Steneck,R. and Watson, R. (2008). A global map ofhuman impact on marine ecosystems.Science 319:5865, 948–952.

Loh, J., Green, R.E., Ricketts, T., Lamoreaux, J.,

Jenkins, M., Kapos, V. and Randers, J. (2005). The Living Planet Index: Using species population time series to track trends in biodiversity. PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society 360,289–295.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005).Ecosystems and Human Well-being:Biodiversity Synthesis, World ResourcesInstitute, Washington, DC.

UNEP (2006) Marine and Coastal Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Synthesis ReportBased on the Findings of the MillenniumEcosystem Assessment. UNEP.

AustraliaAustriaBelgiumBhutanBoliviaBrazilCanadaCaucasus (Georgia)Central Africa

(Cameroon)Central America (Costa

Rica)ChinaColombiaDanube-Carpathian

(Austria)DenmarkEastern Africa (Kenya)FinlandFrance

GermanyGreater Mekong

(Viet Nam)GreeceGuianas (Suriname)Hong KongHungaryIndiaIndonesiaItalyJapanMadagascarMalaysiaMediterranean

(Italy)MexicoMongoliaNepalNetherlandsNew Zealand

NorwayPakistanPeruPhilippinesPolandRussiaSingaporeSouth AfricaSouthern Africa

(Zimbabwe)South Pacific (Fiji)SpainSwedenSwitzerlandTanzaniaTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited StatesWestern Africa (Ghana,

Senegal)

Arctic ProgrammeEuropean Policy

(Belgium)Macroeconomics

for Sustainable Development (USA)

WWF ASSOCIATESFundación Vida Silvestre

(Argentina)Fundación Natura

(Ecuador)Pasaules Dabas Fonds

(Latvia)Nigerian Conservation

Foundation (Nigeria)Fudena (Venezuela)

WWF WORLDWIDE NETWORK

REFERENCES

Freshwater MarineTerrestrial

Tropicalspecies

Species 2

Species 3

Population 1

Population 2

Population 3

Temperatespecies

N. Atlantic/Arctic

N. Pacific

S. Atlantic/Southern

S. Pacific/Indian

LIVING PLANET INDEX

Fig. 15: HIERARCHY OF INDICES WITHIN THE LIVING PLANET INDEX

Temperatespecies

Species 1

Tropicalspecies


WWF’s mission is to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmonywith nature, by: - conserving the world’s biological diversity- ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable- promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption.

WWF InternationalAvenue du Mont-Blanc CH-1196 GlandSwitzerland Tel: +41 22 364 9111Fax: +41 22 364 8836

© 1986 P

anda symbol W

WF-W

orld Wide Fund For N

ature ®

“WW

F” and “living planet” are WW

FR

egistered Trademarks 04.08 (2M

)


2010 and beyond -- the biodiversity challenge

Documents

wwf internationalavenue

wwfnorway pere tomasvives

hunt foundation

skoll foundation

dudley foundation

flora family foundation

mental insight foundation

population biology