rating over relatively small scales (e.g. pollination by wild
insects) are considered. Although finer-scale analyses will be
essential for targeting specific conservation action at the local level,
global analyses nevertheless remain broadly useful. (*IPCC, 2007)
low biodiversity, high carbon
Overlap of Biodiversity
and Carbon Storage
high biodiversity, high carbon
high biodiversity, low carbon
low biodiversity, low carbon
Map 7 : Overlap of biodiversity and carbon storage among ecoregions of the world
Light green ecoregions contain relatively high levels (i.e. above the global median) of endemic
biodiversity (i.e. vertebrate species found nowhere else) and carbon (in vegetation and soils);
dark brown ecoregions have low biodiversity but high carbon; dark green ecoregions have high
biodiversity and low carbon; grey ecoregions are below the global median for both measures
(modified and updated from Kapos, V. et al., 2008; Naidoo, R. et al., 2008)WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 66 WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 67
MAPPInG A LoCAL eCosYsteM
seRVICe: FResHWAteR PRoVIsIon
In contrast to the worldwide benefits of carbon storage, waterrelated services are delivered locally, mainly to those living
downstream. This has made it difficult for scientists to directly
quantify these benefits on a global scale. We can, however, create
global indicators that identify areas of high potential for providing
freshwater services to people.
Map 8a shows one such indicator: a global map of surface
water “runoff” — the supply of freshwater available for use
downstream. It is based on a global model called WaterGAP
(Alcamo et al., 2003) that accounts for precipitation, vegetation,
topography and losses to groundwater to estimate runoff for all
areas of the world.
Ecosystem services are by definition benefits that people
derive from nature, and any rigorous indicator must account for
both the supply and use of the service. Map 8b combines freshwater
runoff from Map 8a (supply) with water use by people (demand)
within each of the world’s river basins (Naidoo et al., 2008). The
map identifies areas where most water is supplied to most people,
and therefore where the potential importance of freshwater
ecosystem services is currently highest. This information is useful
for the management of water resources and of the ecosystems that
provide water-related services. For example, it could help direct the
development of water funds, which are rapidly being established in
several countries to pay for land management that protects these
water-related services.
Chapter 1: The state of the planet
Water Use
0 - 0.0000261
0.0000261 - 0.0001013
0.0001013 - 0.000376
0.000376 - 0.00202
0.00202 - 0.007476
0.007476 - 0.03249
0.03249 - 7.334
Water Provision
0 - 0.00013
0.00013 - 0.0232
0.0232 - 0.0899
0.0899 - 0.198
0.198 - 0.3455
0.3455 - 0.5823
0.5823 - 1.3016
1.301600001 - 403.611
Map 8b: Global map of freshwater ecosystem service potential, developed by attributing human
demand for freshwater back upstream to areas of original runoff. Dark areas indicate high, and
light areas indicate low, levels of potential importance of freshwater ecosystem services. Units are
km3
/year for each cell on both of the above maps (redrawn from Naidoo, R. et al., 2008)
Map 8a: Global map of surface water runoff, based on the global WaterGAP model
(Alcamo, J. et al., 2003). Dark areas indicate high, and light areas indicate low,
supplies of freshwater for use downstreamWWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 68
The difference between the two maps is striking, and underlines
the importance of accounting for both supply and use in developing
indicators of ecosystem services. Many areas in the world
provide huge quantities of freshwater (dark blue on Map 8a, e.g.
Amazon and Congo basins), but, with relatively few people living
downstream to realize the benefits, the potential importance of
freshwater ecosystem services is currently low (light green on Map
8b). Conversely, less water is available in eastern Australia and
northern Africa, but, with many downstream users, freshwater
services have higher potential.
Of course, these maps indicate only one ecosystem service,
and conservation decisions should not be based on any single
factor. Biodiversity importance, as well as additional ecosystem
services (e.g. carbon storage, freshwater fisheries), should also be
taken into account.
With water demand destined to rise (Gleick, et al., 2009)
and water supplies becoming less predictable due to climate
change (IPCC, 2007a), this ecosystem service indicator is bound
to change in the future. Tracking it and other indicators over time
will provide a picture of how ecosystem services are changing
along with biodiversity and our human footprint.
Papua New Guinea: Leo Sunari, Sustainable Resource Trainer for WWF Papua New
Guinea, under a waterfall that feeds into the April River, a tributary of the mighty Sepik
River, in the province of East Sepik. This shot was taken towards the end of the dry
season, and the waterfall, though powerful, was a mere trickle when compared to its wet
season equivalent.
© BRENT STIRToN / GETTY IMAGES / WWFIn this section we take a closer look at the links between
consumption, people and biodiversity. We begin by exploring
the current relationship between human development
and Ecological Footprint. For the first time, we also look
at trends in biodiversity according to World Bank country
income category. Using the Footprint Scenario Calculator
developed by the Global Footprint Network, we then
present various scenarios for ending ecological overshoot
by changing different variables related to resource
consumption, land use and productivity. These scenarios
further illustrate the sensitivities that exist and the tough
choices we all need to make in order to close the gap
between Ecological Footprint and biocapacity — and so
live within the limits of our planet.
Photo: Approximately 75 per cent of the world’s top 100 crops rely
on natural pollinators. There is growing evidence that more diverse
pollinator communities result in higher, and more stable, pollination
services; agricultural intensification and forest loss can harm
pollinator species. Traditional bee keeping. Baima woman showing
a honey comb. Baima tribal community, Sichuan Province, China.
© MIChEl GUNThER / WWF-CANoN
CHAPteR tWo: LIVInG
on oUR PLAnet~WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 72 WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 73
BIoDIVeRsItY, DeVeLoPMent
AnD HUMAn WeLL-BeInG
Consumption and development
Is increased consumption needed for increased development?
The Ecological Footprint analyses presented in this report show
that individuals from different countries consume vastly different
amounts, with richer, more developed countries tending to
consume more than poorer, less developed countries.
A high level of human development — where people have
the ability to reach their potential and lead productive, creative
lives in accord with their needs and interests (UNDP, 2009) — is
clearly essential for all individuals. An important question to ask is
whether a high level of consumption is necessary for a high level of
human development.
Currently the most widely used indicator for development
is the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) Human
Development Index (HDI) which, by combining income, life
expectancy and educational attainment, compares countries based
on both their economic and social development level
( U NDP, 2009a).
The relationship between Ecological Footprint and HDI is not
linear but instead has two distinct parts (Figure 30). In countries
with a low level of development, development level is independent
of per capita Footprint. However, as development increases beyond
a certain level, so does per person Footprint — eventually to the
point where small gains in HDI come at the cost of very large
Footprint increases.
The UN defines the threshold for a high level of development
as an HDI value of 0.8. Countries meeting or exceeding this
threshold show an enormous range in per person Ecological
Footprint, from Peru with a Footprint of just over 1.5gha to
Luxembourg with a Footprint of over 9gha per person. The range is
similar even for countries with the highest levels of development.
Moreover, several countries with a high level of development have a
similar per person Footprint to countries with a much lower level of
development. Together with the breakdown in connection between
wealth and well-being above a certain level of GDP per capita
(Figure 31), this indicates that a high level of consumption is not
necessarily required for a high level of development or well-being.
Chapter 2: Living on our planet
Meets minimum criteria
for sustainability
2
4
6
8
10
12
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Figure 30: HDI
correlated with the
Ecological Footprint
(Global Footprint
Network, 2010; UNDP,
2009b)
Africa
Asia
Europe
Latin America &
the Caribbean
North America
Oceania
Key
Ecological Footprint per person in global hectares
World average biocapacity available per person in 1961
Human Development Index
World average biocapacity available per person in 2007WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 74 WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 75
Chapter 2: Living on our planet
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Figure 31: GDP per
person against life
expectancy (years at
birth) (UNDP, 2009b)
Africa
Asia
Europe
Latin America &
the Caribbean
North America
Oceania
Key
Life expectancy (years at birth)
Gross Domestic Product per capita (GDP in US$)
Looking beyond GDP
GDP has long been used as a general indicator of progress.
Although income is an important facet of development, it is
not the full story: well-being also includes social and personal
elements that together expand the choices people have to lead
lives they value. Furthermore, after a certain income level,
a number of hard and soft indicators for human well-being, such
as life expectancy, no longer rise with further increases in income
per capita (Figure 31).
Sustainable development is possible
Sustainable development is defined as meeting the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs (World Commission on Environment and
Development). An HDI of 0.8 sets the lower limit for “meeting the
needs of the present”, while an Ecological Footprint of <1.8gha per
person — set by the Earth’s biocapacity and human population —
sets an upper limit for living within the Earth’s ecological capacity
and so not “compromising future generations”.
Together, these indicators form a “sustainability box” which
defines the criteria that must be met for a globally sustainable
society. In 2007 there was only one country in this box: Peru, which
falls just inside with an HDI score of 0.806 and an Ecological
Footprint of just over 1.5gha per person. Cuba has been within
this box in previous years (WWF, 2006b) but, with an Ecological
Footprint of 1.85gha in 2007, it now falls just outside the lower
boundary. Colombia and Ecuador similarly fall just outside the
Footprint boundary.
These examples illustrate that it is possible for countries
to meet minimum criteria for sustainability. However, it must be
remembered that this analysis is only at a national level and does
not take into account socio-economic variation and distribution or
levels of civic influence and democracy within a country. One of the
most widely used indices of income inequality is the Gini coefficient
in which countries are given a score ranging from 0, where income
is perfectly equal between individuals, and 100, where income is
perfectly unequal (i.e. one person has all the income).
Peru has a relatively high Gini coefficient (49.8 in 2007),
indicating that distribution of income is not equitable. This
highlights the importance of using more than one indicator to
comprehensively assess the multiple facets of social, environmental
and economic sustainability.
As mentioned earlier, the biocapacity available per person is
not fixed, but will shrink as the human population grows. This is
indicated in Figure 30: when there were considerably fewer people
in 1961, the biocapacity available per person was about double what
it is today. The sustainability box is therefore a moving target, and
unless methods can be found to increase biocapacity it will become
increasingly difficult for countries to fall within it.WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 76 WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 77
The Living Planet Index by income group
The LPI analyses presented earlier in this report show strong
geographic differences in biodiversity loss between tropical and
temperate regions as well as between biogeographic realms. To show
that these differences are not necessarily geographic or biophysical
in nature, we divided the species population data (except marine
species which could not be assigned to a country) into three sets
according to country income (see Box: Country income categories).
The LPI for high-income countries shows an increase of 5
per cent between 1970 and 2007 (Figure 32). In stark contrast, the
LPI for middle-income countries has declined by 25 per cent, while
the index for low-income countries has declined by 58 per cent in
the same period. The trend in low-income countries is particularly
alarming, not just for biodiversity but also for the people living in
these countries. While everyone depends on ecosystem services and
natural assets, and hence biodiversity, the impact of environmental
degradation is felt most directly by the world’s poorest and most
vulnerable people. Without access to clean water, land and adequate
food, fuel and materials, vulnerable people cannot break out of the
poverty trap and prosper.
BIoDIVeRsItY AnD
nAtIonAL InCoMe
Map 9: High, middle and
low–income countries
(classified according to
World Bank classifications,
2007: World Bank, 2003)
Chapter 2: Living on our planet
Country income categories
The World Bank classifies economies according to 2007 Gross
National Income (GNI) per person, calculated using the World
Bank Atlas method and the Atlas conversion factor (World Bank,
2003 Map 9). The purpose of the Atlas conversion factor is to
reduce the impact of exchange rate fluctuations when comparing
the national income of different countries. The category
boundaries for 2007 were:
High income: ≥US$11,906 GNI per person
Middle income: US$936–11,455 GNI per person*
Low income: ≤US$935 GNI per person
*Combines the World Bank categories of lower middle income and upper
middle income.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1970 1980 1990 2000 2007
Figure 32: The Living
Planet Index by
country income group
The index shows a 5%
increase in high-income
countries, a 25% decline in
middle-income countries,
and a 58% decline in lowincome countries between
1970 and 2007
(WWF/ZSL, 2010)
High income
Confidence limit
Middle income
Confidence limit
Low income
Confidence limit
Key
Living Planet Index (1970=1)
Year
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2007
Figure 33: Changes
in the Ecological
Footprint per person
in high-, middle- and
low-income countries
between 1961 and
2007
The dashed line
represents world
average biocapacity in
2007 (Global Footprint
Network, 2010)
High income
Middle income
Low income
Key
Ecological Footprint (gha/person)
Year
World average biocapacity per person in 2007 (1.8 gha)
Trends in the Ecological Footprint by income group
The per person Ecological Footprint of low-income countries has
decreased between 1970 and 2007, while middle-income countries’
Footprint has increased slightly. The Ecological Footprint of highincome countries has not only significantly increased, but dwarfs
that of the other two income groups (Figure 33).WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 78 WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 79
Trade flows
As discussed earlier, many drivers of biodiversity loss stem from the
production and consumption of food, fibre, materials and energy.
The Ecological Footprint analyses show that this consumption is
much higher in high-income countries than in middle- and lowincome countries, suggesting that biodiversity loss in middle- and
low-income countries is, at least in part, related to the Footprint of
people living in high-income countries.
How might consumption in one country be related to
biodiversity loss in a distant country? One factor is the globalization
of markets and ease of movement of goods around the world, which
allows countries to meet their demand for natural resources —
whether as processors or final users — through imports from other
countries. Timber from Brazil, for example, is transported to a
large number of countries around the world, with timber exports
dwarfing domestic trade (Map 10). Such maps of commodity flows
provide a snapshot of international trade — which is likely to be
greater than official figures show due to the existence of illegal trade
for many wild-sourced products.
The increasing reliance of nations on one another’s natural
resources and ecosystem services to support preferred patterns
of consumption leads to valuable opportunities for enhancing
well-being and quality of life in the exporting nations. However,
without appropriate natural resource management, this can lead
to unsustainable use of the resources and degradation of the
environment. When aggravated by lack of adequate governance,
revenue transparency or equitable access to land and resources,
development and prosperity also fail to materialize.
Chapter 2: Living on our planet
Map 10: Trade flows
of timber and wood
products from Brazil
to the rest of the
world in 2007
Consuming countries are
shown in shades of green:
the darker the colour,
the greater the volume of
imports (Global Footprint
Network, 2010)WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 80 WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 81
MoDeLLInG tHe FUtURe:
tHe eCoLoGICAL FootPRInt
toWARDs 2050
Humanity is currently consuming renewable resources at
a faster rate than ecosystems can regenerate them and continuing to
release more CO2 than ecosystems can absorb. What will the future
hold? And what actions can be taken to end ecological overshoot
and so achieve One Planet Living?
The 2008 Living Planet Report introduced “solution
wedges” to show the impact of specific actions on the future
Ecological Footprint. These wedges represented actions which
had the potential to shift the “business as usual” path towards
sustainability and ultimately bring the footprint back to one planet.
The Report focused on the carbon footprint, showing how three
wedges — energy efficiency, renewable energy, and carbon capture
and storage — could reduce the accumulation of atmospheric CO2
and therefore the carbon footprint.
The Global Footprint Network has since taken this analysis
a step further by creating a Footprint Scenario Calculator, first
developed for the “Vision 2050” report by the World Business
Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD, 2010). This tool
uses data on population, land use, land productivity, energy use,
diet and climate change to estimate how the Ecological Footprint
and biocapacity will change in the future. Changing these
assumptions allows us to make different predictions for the future
Ecological Footprint.
This edition of the Living Planet Report uses the Footprint
Scenario Calculator to illustrate how changes in energy sources
and diet could potentially affect each of the components of the
Ecological Footprint in 2015, 2030 and 2050. Comparing these
scenarios to “business as usual” highlights some of the challenges
and choices involved in ending ecological overshoot.
Chapter 2: Living on our planet
Land competition
Will there be enough land to produce enough forest products
(paper, building materials) and food for future human needs?
And, if so, will there also be enough land available to preserve
biodiversity and essential ecosystem services?
While analyses by the Food and Agriculture Organization
suggest that land availability will not be an issue in the future
(FAO, 2009a), this may not be the full picture. Crucially, these
assessments did not take into account the land needed for growing
biofuels and biomaterials at the rates needed to provide viable
replacements for fossil fuel-based energy. Furthermore, climate
change, water availability, land ownership/land tenure (especially
for small communities and indigenous peoples), and the need for
space for migratory species are all factors that will influence land
availability and suitability for agriculture.
Land competition is likely to be a greater challenge in the
future than conventional wisdom suggests. Indeed, WWF believes
that determining the optimal allocation of land to different
crops (food, biofuel, biomaterial and fibre), carbon storage and
biodiversity conservation is one of the greatest challenges facing
policy-makers, businesses and society.
Increasing biocapacity
One response to an Ecological Footprint greater than one planet is
to increase the biocapacity of the planet. The Earth’s bioproductive
area can be expanded by reclaiming degraded lands and making
marginal lands more productive. For example, restoring forests
or plantations on degraded land increases biocapacity not only
through producing timber, but also by regulating water, preventing
erosion and salination, and absorbing CO2.
Increasing the yield of crops per unit area can also increase
biocapacity. Cropland and forest yields have historically increased,
and are likely to continue to do so in the future. Yet predictions
for what these will be vary widely. The agriculture industry
forecasts that “a doubling of agricultural output without associated
increases in the amount of land or water used” is possible by 2050
(WBCSD, 2010).
The Earth’s bioproductive
area can be expandedWWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 82 WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 83
Yet an FAO Expert Meeting in 2009 on “How to Feed the World
in 2050” suggested that crop yield increases could be only half
historical rates, and that the agricultural research community
would need to intensify efforts to raise yields in “the often
unfavourable agro-ecological and also often unfavourable socioeconomic environments of the countries where the additional
demand will be” (FAO, 2009a).
Further bad news on agricultural yields could come as a
result of climate change. Research findings from the International
Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) indicate that climate
change will cause yield declines for the most important crops and
that South Asia (and especially irrigated crops) will be particularly
badly hit (Nelson, G.C. et al., 2009). Therefore, although crop
yields could double, the efforts of agriculturalists may be balanced
out by climate change or have their uptake restricted by socioeconomic factors and governance.
Chapter 2: Living on our planet
How many people will there be in 2050?
The global population projections used in these scenarios are
UN official statistics and we have used the median projections
as the basis for all the models. The UN median projections are
for a global population of almost 9.2 billion people by 2050
(UN, 2008), and a stabilized global population of 9.22 billion
people at or around 2075 (UN, 2004). The UN projections for
global population in 2050 range from 7.8 billion to 10.9 billion
(UN, 2006).
The role of cities in sustainable development
Cities are already the source of close to 80 per cent of global
CO2 emissions, and they will account for an ever-higher
percentage in the coming years as more and more people
reside in and move to cities in search of more prosperous
lifestyles. As cities expand and need more space and more
resources, they have an increasing effect on the surrounding
area. A recent study in Tanzania tracked how the expansion
of Dar es Salaam has led to predictable “waves” of forest
degradation and biodiversity loss, spreading up to nine
kilometres per year from the city, as people need to travel
greater distances to find resources such as charcoal and timber
(Ahrends, A. et al., in press). City authorities and citizens
therefore have a crucial role to play in preserving global
biodiversity, reducing Ecological Footprint and improving
social well-being and prosperity. They also have a role to play
with regard to carbon footprint — including imports of “virtual
emissions”. Collectively, cities have a unique opportunity to
make a big impact over the next 30 years, during which US$350
trillion will be invested in urban infrastructure. This can be
used to develop an attractive “One Planet” lifestyle on a large
scale, particularly in fast-growing smaller cities and developing
nations (WWF, 2010).
6.3 BILLIon
3.5 BILLIon
50%
The number of people
projected to live in
urban areas in 2050
The number of people
living in urban areas in
2010
The percentage of people
living in cities in 2010
(WBCSD, 2010)WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 84 WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 85
LIVInG PLAnet RePoRt 2010
sCenARIos
The Footprint Scenario Calculator uses the footprint data between
1961 and 2007 as a baseline, and projects the size of each footprint
component in 2015, 2030 and 2050. The “business as usual”
scenario is based on:
— A median population increase to 9.2 billion by 2050 (UN, 2008;
see box on page 84: How many people will there be in 2050?)
— CO2 emissions and biofuel use increasing in line with increased
population and economic growth (OECD/IEA, 2008)
— Forest area continuing to follow the linear trends seen between
1950 and 2005
— Forest plantation and crop yields remaining constant
— World average daily calorie availability rising to 3130 kcal per
person by 2050, an 11 per cent increase over the level in 2003
(FAO, 2006b). The number of calories is high as it represents
food production, so includes both food eaten and food wasted
In addition, increases in atmospheric CO2 and methane
concentrations associated with the scenarios in food and energy
were combined with the estimates of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) to give a projected warming under each
scenario (IPCC, 2007b). This warming was then combined with a
land suitability model (Global Agro-Ecological Zones – GAEZ) to
predict changes in the area and suitability of land for growing crops
(Fischer, G. et al., 2008).
Where does biodiversity fit into this picture?
The Ecological Footprint is solely concerned with land
directly related to provision of natural resources and space for
infrastructure, and the absorption of CO2. However, there is an
inescapable link between biodiversity and human health, wealth
and well-being. It is therefore essential to explicitly recognize that
a significant percentage of the Earth’s area (and therefore
biocapacity) needs to be allocated to support biodiversity.
Chapter 2: Living on our planet
Protected areas are one way to achieve this. In 2009, there were
over 133,000 nationally designated protected areas covering a
total of nearly 19 million square kilometres of land and sea, or 12.9
per cent of the Earth’s land area and 6.3 per cent of the Earth’s
territorial seas. Only approximately 0.5 per cent of extraterritorial
seas are currently protected (IUCN/UNEP-WCMC, 2010).
The scenarios therefore include a biodiversity wedge,
set at 12 per cent of grazing land and 12 per cent of forest land set
aside exclusively for biodiversity in 2015, increasing to 15 per cent
of each land type in 2030 and 2050.
Bringing biofuels into the equation
In tackling the overall Footprint, it is important to recognize that
footprint-reduction efforts in one area could lead to footprint
increases in another. For example, fossil fuel use is the most
significant contributor to humanity’s Ecological Footprint.
However, proposals to replace liquid fossil fuels with biofuel
crops have the potential to increase pressure on land use and to
increase problems caused by agriculture — a significant threat to
biodiversity (See Box: Squeezed out for margarine) and a major
footprint contributor.
To reflect some of these trade-offs, a biofuel wedge has
been included. This represents both agricultural crops and forests
needed to produce the energy obtained from biofuels. The model
has been designed so that all the crop area devoted to biofuels is
assumed to be from sugar cane (a likely underestimation as sugar
cane is a relatively high productivity biofuel crop). While a wedge
for biofuels arguably provides a level of detail that other crops (e.g.
cereals) do not have in the model, it illustrates the trade-offs that
will need to be made in the future between energy and diet.
12.9%
LAnD
6.3%
teRRItoRIAL seAs
0.5%
HIGH seAs
PRoteCteD In 2009WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 86 WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 89
Chapter 2: Living on our planet
The “business as usual” scenario predicts that humanity will be
using resources and land at the rate of 2 planets each year by 2030,
and just over 2.8 planets each year by 2050 (Figure 34).
As the “business as usual” scenario shows, our present track
is unsustainable. We therefore present two different pathways for
the development of the world based upon changes to assumptions
regarding energy and diet. We kept the same assumptions for
biodiversity, crop yields and population growth.
Energy mix
The carbon footprint is the largest wedge and tackling it is a priority
if global temperatures are not to increase to dangerous levels. WWF
is currently carrying out a new analysis that shows how it is possible
to ensure that global temperatures stabilize at less than two degrees
Celsius above pre-industrial levels whilst providing clean energy for
the world. Using solutions with today’s technology only, this involves
some aggressive action to improve energy efficiency in buildings,
appliances, transportation and industry. In our model, global final
energy demand is 260EJ by 2050, some 15 per cent less than in
2005. A further assumption on energy is the rapid electrification
of energy supply, which permits the development of a range of
renewable energies — solar, wind, geothermal and bioenergy.
We estimate that such measures will allow 95 per cent of all
energy to be provided from renewable sources. Bioenergy is used as
a last resort — we assume that traditional fuelwood use will decline
by two-thirds, thereby improving the lives of hundreds of millions
of people. However, the need to provide solutions for long-distance
transport (trucking, airlines and shipping) requires significant
use of biofuels. To meet these demands we have assumed that the
harvest of wood from the world’s forests is doubled, whilst we
increase the cropland allocated to biofuel production to 200 million
ha. These both have a substantial footprint, which can be seen in
an increase in the biofuels wedge from 0.04 planets in 2015 to just
under 0.25 planets in 2050. This will of course have implications
for agricultural production and diet — both of which are explored
in the next section.
BUsIness As UsUAL otHeR sCenARIos
The scenarios show us that it is possible to make dramatic
reductions in Ecological Footprint, yet some big choices are ahead
of us in two main areas — energy and food. Today the overshoot
that takes us to 1.5 planets is largely due to the carbon footprint.
We are of course not setting aside land for CO2 absorption; rather,
in order that we may live within the land area that we have, CO2 is
being emitted to the atmosphere. The consequence of this is rising
atmospheric temperature. To avoid further dangerous increases in
atmospheric temperature we need to reduce our carbon footprint
through measures to improve energy efficiency, increase the
provision of electricity as an energy source, and replace liquid fossil
fuels with biofuels.
Whilst a roadmap on carbon footprint is possible, one is not
yet available for the next challenge, which will be food production.
The differences between the diets of Italy and Malaysia, if
multiplied across the world, are dramatic (Figure 35). The crucial
difference is not only in the total number of calories available but
in the quantity of meat and dairy products consumed. Conversion
of vegetable-based calories to animal-based calories is inefficient,
and in a resource-constrained world one of the key trade-offs that
society will need to grapple with is the quantity of land allocated
for meat and dairy production either as grassland or to produce
animal feed crops.
Our model shows that, even with a very low carbon footprint,
if 9.2 billion people were to aspire to the equivalent of the diet of
today’s average Malaysian, we would still need 1.3 planets by 2050.
This raises some serious consequences. Whilst we are using the
atmosphere for our excess CO2 emissions, there is no “safety valve”
for land. Even converting forests does not provide enough land
to grow the food needed for an Italian diet. We need to make our
existing land more productive.
In short, based upon the output from the model, optimizing
the use of land for food, fuel, fibre and biomaterials is not our only
challenge. If we are to provide enough food for the population of
the world in the future, we need both to consider our diets and to
devote significant long-term investment to raising biocapacity.
Biodiversity
Built-up land
Forest
Fishing
Grazing
Biofuels
Cropland
Carbon
Key
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Number of Earths
Year
Figure 35a: A projection
of the Ecological Footprint
which combines the
renewable energy scenario
with a global average diet
similar to the diet of an
Italian (Global Footprint
Network, FAO, 2006b)
Figure 35b: An
Ecological Footprint
projection based on 95%
renewable energy and
a Malaysian diet (Global
Footprint Network, FAO,
2006b)
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Number of Earths
Year
Figure 34: “Business as
usual” projections (Global
Footprint Network, 2010)
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Number of Earths
Year
Biodiversity
Built-up land
Forest
Fishing
Grazing
Biofuels
Cropland
Carbon
Key
Food consumption
As wealth increases, people consume more calories and there is
an increase in the consumption of protein in the form of meat and
dairy products (FAO, 2006b). To investigate how this affects the
Ecological Footprint, we replaced the FAO baseline diet with the
diets from two contrasting countries: Italy and Malaysia.
These two countries differ firstly in their caloric intake
(3,685kcal in Italy compared to 2,863kcal in Malaysia), and
secondly in the amount of calories consumed in the form of meat
and dairy products. The Malaysian diet is made up of 12 per cent
meat and dairy products, versus 21 per cent in the Italian diet –
half the amount when total calories are taken into account.
The first model combines the renewable energy scenario
with the assumption that everyone in the world has an average
Italian diet (Figure 35a). The second model assumes that everyone
has an average Malaysian diet (Figure 35b). The outcomes of these
are markedly different. With 9.2 billion people eating a typical
Malaysian diet the Footprint reaches just under 1.3 planets by
2050, whilst following an Italian diet the Footprint in 2050 will be
closer to 2 planets.The last two years have seen the rise of discussions at an
international level on the need to build a global “green
economy”. In a green economy, economic thinking
embraces people and the planet.
Photo: The grandchildren of WWF Climate Witness Marush
Narankhuu, a nomadic herder in Mongolia. The solar panel allows
Marush and her family to keep a phone battery charged and call for
medical assistance if needed. WWF has been at work
in the area helping local communities make sustainable use of
natural resources — in this case, energy from the sun.
CHAPteR tHRee:
A GReen eConoMY?~
© SIMoN RAWlES / WWF-CANoNWWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 92 WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 93
A GReen eConoMY?
The last two years have seen the rise of discussions at an
international level on the need to build a global “green economy”.
In a green economy, economic thinking embraces people and the
planet. The preceding sections of this report have provided the
information and assessments on a variety of issues that will need
to be addressed in the coming years by governments in their
policies, businesses in their practices and consumers in their
choices. They all have a role to play. The scope of the challenges
is significant. For its part, WWF proposes that the following six
interconnected areas be the centre of attention.
1. Development pathways
Firstly, our definition and measurement of prosperity and success
needs to change. In recent history, income and consumption have
become important facets of development and in the last 80 years
GDP has been used as the main indicator of progress. Yet it is not the
full story: ultimately we should be striving for personal and societal
well-being. Above a certain income level, more consumption does
not dramatically increase social benefits, and further increases in
income per capita do not significantly increase human well-being.
There is growing recognition that, in addition to income,
well-being includes social and personal elements that together
allow people to lead lives they value.
This is not to say that GDP does not have its place. It does,
up to a point, but it needs to be complemented by other indicators
such as those featured in this report — the Human Development
Index, the Gini coefficient, the Living Planet Index, ecosystem
services indices and the Ecological Footprint. Bringing the use
of natural resources within ecological limits is part of the jigsaw
puzzle of finding development pathways that allow us to live in
harmony with nature.
2. Investing in our natural capital
Protected areas:
In order to live in harmony with nature we also need to invest in it, not
take it for granted. A building block of this has to be the adequate
protection of representative areas of our forests, freshwater
areas and oceans. The current Convention on Biological Diversity
Chapter 3: A green economy
GDP
WILL not Be tHe Best WAY
to MeAsURe PRosPeRItY
In tHe FUtURe
(CBD) target of 10 per cent protection for each ecological region has
only been achieved in approximately 55 per cent of all terrestrial
ecoregions. Further, particular emphasis needs to be placed on those
two-thirds of the oceans which lie beyond national jurisdictions.
How much space should be set aside to conserve biodiversity,
not just for carbon storage and the maintenance of ecosystem
services, but also for the inherent ethical reasons that have guided
the principles of sustainable development? WWF and many
other organizations believe that a 15 per cent target should be the
minimum. This new target is important as protected areas will
play an increasing role in building resilience to climate change.
We are already on a pathway to temperature increases that will
require extra space for the evolution of nature and the migration
of species.
Biome-based imperatives:
Yet creating protected areas will not be enough. The three biomes of
forests, freshwater and oceans have their own particular challenges.
Forests: Deforestation continues at an alarming rate. At the CBD
9th Conference of the Parties (COP 9) in Bonn in 2008, 67 ministers
signed up to achieving zero net deforestation by 2020. Now we need
a worldwide effort involving traditional means (protected areas),
new initiatives (REDD+) and market mechanisms (best practice in
commodity supply chains) to bring this about.
Freshwater: We need to manage freshwater systems with the
aim of providing for human needs and freshwater ecosystems.
This means better policies for keeping water use within nature’s
limits and avoiding the fragmentation of freshwater systems.
It also means providing everyone with water as a basic human
right, creating agricultural systems that optimize water without
impacting the watershed, and designing and operating dams
and other in-stream infrastructure to better balance nature and
humanity’s needs.
Marine: Overcapacity of fishing fleets, and, from that,
overexploitation, is the main pressure on marine fisheries globally,
leading to the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem structure. The
overfishing includes the indiscriminate capture of non-target
marine life, typically referred to as bycatch and/or discards. In the
short term, we need to reduce the capacity of commercial fishing
zeRo
A WoRLDWIDe eFFoRt
to ACHIeVe zeRo net
DeFoRestAtIon
eLIMInAte
oVeRFIsHInG AnD
DestRUCtIVe
FIsHInG
PRACtICesWWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 94 WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 95
fleets in order to bring fishing into balance with sustainable
harvesting levels. As populations then recover this should permit
higher, longer-term harvesting catches.
Investment in biocapacity:
Complementary to investment in the direct protection of nature,
we need to invest in biocapacity. Options for enhancing land
productivity include restoring degraded land and improving land
tenure, land management, crop management and crop yield.
Here, markets have a role to play. Better management
practices for the production of crops increase the efficiency of
production, thus helping to increase biocapacity as well as reduce
the Ecological Footprint. This is complemented by certification
schemes (such as those run by the Forest Stewardship Council and
Marine Stewardship Council) for sustainable production practices
that maintain ecosystem integrity and long-term productivity.
By involving companies at different points along the supply
chain, market mechanisms help to connect sustainable producers
to domestic or international markets and influence industryscale behaviour. Whilst this behaviour is voluntary, the ultimate
goal should be to transform markets so that environmental
sustainability is no longer a choice but a value embedded in every
product available to consumers.
Valuing biodiversity and ecosystem services:
To facilitate this investment we need a proper system for
measuring the value of nature. Governments can account for
ecosystem services in cost-benefit analyses that guide landuse policies and development permits. We must start with the
measurement of the economic value of biodiversity and ecosystem
services by governments. This would be the first step to providing
new additional financing for biodiversity conservation, which
in turn would lead to a new impetus for the conservation and
restoration of biodiversity and ecosystem services, including roles
for local communities and indigenous peoples.
Companies can act in a similar way to make better longerterm sustainable investment decisions. We need to move to a
situation where products include the costs of externalities — such
as water, carbon storage and restoring degraded ecosystems
— in their price. Voluntary certification schemes are one way
of achieving this. Users can be expected to invest in long-term
sustainable management of resources as long as resources have
Chapter 3: A green economy
Enhance land productivity
Develop valuation tools
to distinguish between
the evaluation and the
appreciation of nature
a clear future value, and as long as they are assured of continued
access to, and substantial benefits from, those resources in
the future.
3. Energy and food
Our scenario modelling has highlighted two big issues for the
future that we need to focus on: energy and food.
In a new energy analysis WWF is undertaking, we show
how the provision of clean renewable energy for all is possible.
This will involve investing in energy-efficient buildings and
transport systems that consume less energy, and shifting to
electricity as a primary energy source as this facilitates the supply
of renewable energy. We believe it is possible not only to increase
access to clean energy for those who currently rely on fuelwood,
but to virtually eliminate the reliance on fossil fuels, thereby
cutting carbon emissions dramatically. This will involve investing
in technology and innovation to make production more energy
efficient. It will also create a whole new era of green jobs.
Food is set to be the next major issue for the world — not just
tackling malnutrition and over-consumption, but also ensuring
equitable access to food and revising our aspirations regarding the
food we eat. This is part of the debate on development pathways
that countries will need to follow. It will play out also in debates on
how we allocate the productive land.
4. Land allocation and land-use planning
Will there be enough land for us to produce the food, feed and fuel
for our needs in the future? And will there also be enough land
available to conserve biodiversity and ecosystem services?
The FAO has estimated that an increase of 70 per cent in
food production is required to feed the future global population
(FAO, 2009). It has concluded that there is enough land. Yet in
order to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels we will also need to
allocate significant areas of land and forests for biofuels and
biomaterials.
Our work on the ground across the world has provided
us with the insight that in reality there are likely to be many
constraints to making more land available or to raising yields:
land tenure rights for small communities and indigenous peoples,
land ownership questions, a lack of infrastructure, and water
availability are just some of the factors that will restrict the
amount of land available for growing crops.
Equalise food aspirations
We will be faced with
land allocation dilemmas
?WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 96 WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 97
A further tension will be the strategic direction that governments of
countries with high and low levels of biocapacity take. For example,
Canada and Australia have high biocapacity per person and have the
opportunity to use and consume more, or to export their “excess”.
Countries like Singapore or the UK have a deficitthat can only be
met by relying on the productivity of other countries’ resources.
Biocapacity has already become a geopolitical issue.
The grab for land and water which is happening especially in
Africa is a natural though worrying response to concerns about
biocapacity. We will need new tools and processes for managing
and deciding upon these competing demands on land.
5. Sharing limited resources/inequality
These tools and processes will need to guarantee equitable access
to and distribution of energy, water and food across nations and
peoples. The failure of the Copenhagen climate conference in
December 2009 and the scrambles by individual governments to
secure water, land, oil and minerals illustrate the difficulties of
reaching international agreement on such issues. One idea is to
consider national “budgets” for our key resources. For example,
allocating a national carbon budget would allow each country
to decide at a national level how it would keep greenhouse gas
emissions within safe limits. The logic behind the concept
of carbon budgets could serve as a useful starting point for
discussions on the allocation of other resources.
The analysis in this report indicates that the emphasis is on
governments, companies and individuals to tackle high levels of
consumption. There is a legitimate desire by those on low incomes
to consume more, especially in low-income countries. However, a
different mindset will be required from the higher-income countries
and those across the world with high-consumption lifestyles.
For individuals there are many personal choices ahead,
including purchasing more goods produced in a sustainable
manner, making fewer journeys and eating less meat. We also need
a mindset shift to tackle both wasteful and artificial consumption
— the former associated with individual decisions and the latter
driven in part by industry overcapacity.
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)
report has highlighted the perverse nature of subsidies across
energy, fisheries and agriculture. When nature is fully accounted
for, far from adding value to society, these subsidies have become
Chapter 3: A green economy
Biocapacity – a
geopolitical issue?
drivers of overcapacity which leads to wasteful and artificial
consumption as well as the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem
services. These subsidies are therefore harmful to the long-term
prosperity of humanity.
6. Institutions, decision-making and governance
Who is going to lead these transformations, and who will take the
decisions? Despite decades of international recognition of the need
to conserve biodiversity and achieve sustainable development, both
these goals remain elusive. This is a failure of governance — both
of institutions and of regulation — a failure of governments and a
failure of the market.
There are emerging solutions, at both national and local
levels. Far-sighted governments will see the opportunity to
gain national economic and societal competitiveness through
approaches such as valuing nature and allocating resources in a
manner that provides societal prosperity and resilience. This is
likely to also involve investments in local governance involving
multi-stakeholder groups formed to tackle specific issues, such as
the management of and equitable access to resources. There are
already some examples of this in action, for example in the regency
of Merauke in Papua, Indonesia, where ecosystem and communitybased spatial planning has formal status (WWF-Indonesia, 2009).
Yet national-level efforts will not be enough. International
collective action will also be needed to tackle global issues such
as subsidies and global inequality. Developing mechanisms at
the international level can help ensure the coordination of local,
regional and sector-specific solutions. International action is
also needed to develop financing mechanisms to facilitate the
changes needed.
Businesses also have a role to play, both nationally and
internationally, in strengthening governance through engagement
in voluntary measures (such as roundtables and certification) and
working with civil society and governments to ensure that such
voluntary governance mechanisms are more formally recognized.
More important is their ability to use the power of the market to
drive change, based upon the recognition that natural assets are
different from created assets.
GloBAl
Co-oPERATIoN,
GoVERNMENTS,
BUSINESSES &
inDiviDUalSWWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 98 WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 99
As We PRePARe oUR neXt LIVInG PLAnet RePoRt
tHe eYes oF tHe WoRLD WILL ALso Be on An IMPoRtAnt
ConFeRenCe. tWentY YeARs AFteR tHe FIRst RIo ConFeRenCe
on tHe enVIRonMent AnD DeVeLoPMent — tHe so-CALLeD
eARtH sUMMIt — tHe WoRLD WILL GAtHeR FoR
A CHAnCe to tAke stoCk oF tHe stAte oF PRoGRess on
tHe enVIRonMent AnD DeVeLoPMent. WWF’s eXPeCtAtIon
Is tHAt tHe IssUes RAIseD In tHIs RePoRt WILL Be tHe
CentRePIeCe oF tHe ConFeRenCe, AnD We stAnD ReADY to
DeBAte tHe IssUes WItH ReADeRs AnD PARtneRs.
Chapter 3: A green economyWWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 100 WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 101
LIVInG PLAnet InDeX:
teCHnICAL notes
Global Living Planet Index
The species population data used to calculate the index are
gathered from a variety of sources published in scientific journals,
in NGO literature, or on the World Wide Web. All data used in
constructing the index are time series of either population size,
density, abundance or a proxy of abundance. The period covered
by the data runs from 1970 to 2007. Annual data points were
interpolated for time series with six or more data points using
generalized additive modelling, or by assuming a constant annual
rate of change for time series with less than six data points, and
the average rate of change in each year across all species was
calculated. The average annual rates of change in successive years
were chained together to make an index, with the index value
in 1970 set to 1. The global, temperate and tropical LPIs were
aggregated according to the hierarchy of indices shown in Figure
36. Temperate and tropical zones for terrestrial, freshwater and
marine systems are shown on Map 2 (page 28).
System and biome LPIs
Each species is classified as being terrestrial, freshwater or marine,
according to which system it is most dependent on for survival
and reproduction. Each terrestrial species population was also
assigned to a biome depending on its geographic location. Biomes
are based on habitat cover or potential vegetation type. The indices
for terrestrial, freshwater and marine systems were aggregated
by giving equal weight to temperate and tropical species within
each system, i.e. a tropical index and a temperate index were first
calculated for each system and the two were then aggregated
to create the system index. The grassland and dryland indices
were calculated as an index of populations found within a set of
terrestrial biomes: grasslands included tropical and subtropical
grasslands and savannahs, temperate grasslands and savannahs,
flooded grasslands and savannahs, montane grasslands and
shrublands, and tundra;
Appendix
drylands included tropical and subtropical dry forests, tropical
and subtropical grasslands and savannahs, Mediterranean forests,
woodlands and scrub, deserts, and xeric shrublands. Each species
was given equal weight.
Realm LPIs
Each species population was assigned to a biogeographic realm.
Realms are geographic regions whose species’ have relatively
distinct evolutionary histories from one another. Each species
population in the LPI database was assigned to a realm according
to its geographic location. Realm indices were calculated by giving
equal weight to each species, with the exception of the Nearctic
realm, in which indices for bird and non-bird species were
calculated and then aggregated with equal weight. This was done
because the volume of time series data for birds available from
this realm far outweighs all other species put together. The data
from Indo-Malaya, Australasia and Oceania were insufficient to
calculate indices for these realms, so they were combined into a
super-realm, Indo-Pacific.
Nearctic 2,607 684 4
Palearctic 4,878 514 62
Afrotropical 7,993 237 42
Neotropical 13,566 478 22
Indo-Pacific 13,004 300 24
Taxonomic LPIs
Separate indices were calculated for bird and mammal species to
show trends within those vertebrate classes. Equal weight was given
to tropical and temperate species within each class. Individual
species’ graphs show trends in a single population time series to
illustrate the nature of the data from which LPIs are calculated.
Actual species’
number by realm
Actual species in LPI
database
Number of countries
in LPI database
Appendix table 1:
The number of terrestrial
and freshwater species
by realmWWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 102 WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 103
Total Global 2,544 -28% -36% -20%
Tropical 1,216 -60% -67% -51%
Temperate 1,492 29% 18% 42%
Terrestrial Global 1,341 -25% -34% -13%
Temperate 731 5% -3% 14%
Tropical 653 -46% -58% -30%
Freshwater Global 714 -35% -47% -21%
Temperate 440 36% 12% 66%
Tropical 347 -69% -78% -57%
Marine Global 636 -24% -40% -5%
Temperate 428 52% 25% 84%
Tropical 254 -62% -75% -43%
Biogeographic
realms Afrotropical 237 -18% -43% 23%
Indo-Pacific 300 -66% -75% -55%
Neotropical 478 -55% -76% -13%
Nearctic 684 -4% -12% 5%
Palearctic 514 43% 23% 66%
By country
income High income 1,699 5% -3% 13%
Middle income 1,060 -25% -38% -10%
Low income 210 -58% -75% -28%
For more information on the Living Planet Index at a global and national level, see
Butchart, S.H.M. et al., 2010; Collen, B. et al., 2009; Collen, B. et al., 2008; Loh, J. et
al., 2008; Loh, J. et al., 2005; McRae, L. et al., 2009; McRae, L. et al., 2007
No. of species
in index
Percent change*
1970-2007
95% Confidence limits
Upper
Appendix
Appendix Table 2:
Trends in the Living
Planet Indices
between 1970 and
2007, with 95%
confidence limits
Income categories are
based on the World Bank
income classifications,
2007. Positive number
means increase, negative
means decline
Lower
GLOBAL
LPI
POPULATION
1
TROPICAL
POPULATION
2
TEMPERATE
TROPICAL
TERRESTRIAL
SPECIES
1
POPULATION
3
TERRESTRIAL
LPI
TEMPERATE
TERRESTRIAL
TROPICAL
FRESHWATER
SPECIES
3
FRESHWATER
LPI
TEMPERATE
FRESHWATER
TROPICAL
MARINE
SPECIES
2
MARINE
LPI
TEMPERATE
MARINE
Figure 36: Turning population trends into
the Living Planet Index
Each of the individual populations within the
database is classified according to whether it
is tropical/temperate and freshwater/marine/
terrestrial. These classifications are specific to the
population rather than to the species, and some
migratory species, such as red salmon, may have
both freshwater and marine populations, or may be
found in both tropical and temperate zones. These
groups are used to calculate the “cuts” of the LPI
found on pages 22 to 33, or are all brought together
to calculate the global Living Planet IndexWWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 104 WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 105
eCoLoGICAL FootPRInt:
FReqUentLY AskeD qUestIons
How is the Ecological Footprint calculated?
The Ecological Footprint measures the amount of biologically
productive land and water area required to produce the resources
an individual, population or activity consumes and to absorb
the waste it generates, given prevailing technology and resource
management. This area is expressed in global hectares (hectares
with world-average biological productivity). Footprint calculations
use yield factors to normalize countries’ biological productivity
to world averages (e.g. comparing tonnes of wheat per UK hectare
versus per world average hectare) and equivalence factors to take
into account differences in world average productivity among land
types (e.g. world average forest versus world average cropland).
Footprint and biocapacity results for countries are
calculated annually by Global Footprint Network. Collaborations
with national governments are invited, and serve to improve the
data and methodology used for the National Footprint Accounts.
To date, Switzerland has completed a review, and Belgium,
Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Japan and the UAE have
partially reviewed or are reviewing their accounts. The continuing
methodological development of the National Footprint Accounts is
overseen by a formal review committee. A detailed methods paper
and copies of sample calculation sheets can be obtained from
www.footprintnetwork.org
Footprint analyses can be conducted on any scale. There
is growing recognition of the need to standardize sub-national
Footprint applications in order to increase comparability across
studies and longitudinally. Methods and approaches for calculating
the Footprint of municipalities, organizations and products are
currently being aligned through a global Ecological Footprint
standards initiative. For more information on Ecological Footprint
standards see www.footprintstandards.org
What is included in the Ecological Footprint?
What is excluded?
To avoid exaggerating human demand on nature, the Ecological
Footprint includes only those aspects of resource consumption and
Appendix
waste production for which the Earth has regenerative capacity,
and where data exist that allow this demand to be expressed in
terms of productive area. For example, toxic releases are not
accounted for in Ecological Footprint accounts. Nor are freshwater
withdrawals, although the energy used to pump or treat water
is included.
Ecological Footprint accounts provide snapshots of past
resource demand and availability. They do not predict the future.
Thus, while the Footprint does not estimate future losses caused by
current degradation of ecosystems, if this degradation persists it
may be reflected in future accounts as a reduction in biocapacity.
Footprint accounts also do not indicate the intensity
with which a biologically productive area is being used. Being a
biophysical measure, it also does not evaluate the essential social
and economic dimensions of sustainability.
How is international trade taken into account?
The National Footprint Accounts calculate the Ecological Footprint
associated with each country’s total consumption by summing
the Footprint of its imports and its production, and subtracting
the Footprint of its exports. This means that the resource use and
emissions associated with producing a car that is manufactured in
Japan but sold and used in India will contribute to India’s rather
than Japan’s consumption Footprint.
National consumption footprints can be distorted when
the resources used and waste generated in making products for
export are not fully documented for every country. Inaccuracies in
reported trade can significantly affect the Footprint estimates for
countries where trade flows are large relative to total consumption.
However, this does not affect the total global Footprint.
How does the Ecological Footprint account for the
use of fossil fuels?
Fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas are extracted from
the Earth’s crust and are not renewable in ecological time spans.
When these fuels burn, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted into
the atmosphere. There are two ways in which this CO2 can be
stored: human technological sequestration of these emissions,
such as deep-well injection, or natural sequestration. Natural
sequestration occurs when ecosystems absorb CO2 and store it
either in standing biomass such as trees or in soil. WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 106 WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 107
The carbon footprint is calculated by estimating how much
natural sequestration would be necessary to maintain a constant
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. After subtracting the
amount of CO2 absorbed by the oceans, Ecological Footprint
accounts calculate the area required to absorb and retain the
remaining carbon based on the average sequestration rate of the
world’s forests. CO2 sequestered by artificial means would also be
subtracted from the Ecological Footprint total, but at present this
quantity is negligible. In 2007, one global hectare could absorb the
CO2 released by burning approximately 1,450 litres of gasoline.
Expressing CO2 emissions in terms of an equivalent
bioproductive area does not imply that carbon sequestration in
biomass is the key to resolving global climate change. On the
contrary, it shows that the biosphere has insufficient capacity
to offset current rates of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The
contribution of CO2 emissions to the total Ecological Footprint
is based on an estimate of world average forest yields. This
sequestration capacity may change over time. As forests mature,
their CO2 sequestration rates tend to decline. If these forests are
degraded or cleared, they may become net emitters of CO2.
Carbon emissions from some sources other than fossil fuel
combustion are incorporated in the National Footprint Accounts
at the global level. These include fugitive emissions from the
flaring of gas in oil and natural gas production, carbon released
by chemical reactions in cement production and emissions from
tropical forest fires.
Does the Ecological Footprint take into account
other species?
The Ecological Footprint compares human demand on nature with
nature’s capacity to meet this demand. It thus serves as an indicator
of human pressure on local and global ecosystems. In 2007,
humanity’s demand exceeded the biosphere’s regeneration rate by
more than 50 per cent. This overshoot may result in depletion of
ecosystems and fill-up of waste sinks. This ecosystem stress may
negatively impact biodiversity. However, the Footprint does not
measure this latter impact directly, nor does it specify how much
overshoot must be reduced by if negative impacts are to be avoided.
Appendix
Does the Ecological Footprint say what is a “fair” or
“equitable” use of resources?
The Footprint documents what has happened in the past. It can
quantitatively describe the ecological resources used by an
individual or a population, but it does not prescribe what they
should be using. Resource allocation is a policy issue, based on
societal beliefs about what is or is not equitable. While Footprint
accounting can determine the average biocapacity that is available
per person, it does not stipulate how this biocapacity should be
allocated among individuals or countries. However, it does provide
a context for such discussions.
How relevant is the Ecological Footprint if the supply
of renewable resources can be increased and advances
in technology can slow the depletion of non-renewable
resources?
The Ecological Footprint measures the current state of resource
use and waste generation. It asks: in a given year, did human
demands on ecosystems exceed the ability of ecosystems to meet
these demands? Footprint analysis reflects both increases in the
productivity of renewable resources and technological innovation
(for example, if the paper industry doubles the overall efficiency
of paper production, the Footprint per tonne of paper will halve).
Ecological Footprint accounts capture these changes once they
occur and can determine the extent to which these innovations
have succeeded in bringing human demand within the capacity
of the planet’s ecosystems. If there is a sufficient increase in
ecological supply and a reduction in human demand due to
technological advances or other factors, Footprint accounts will
show this as the elimination of global overshoot.
For additional information about current Ecological Footprint
methodology, data sources, assumptions and results, please visit:
www.footprintnetwork.org/atlas
For more information on the Ecological Footprint at a global level, please see:
Butchart, S.H.M. et al., 2010; GFN, 2010b; GTZ, 2010; Kitzes, J.,2008; Wackernagel,
M. et al., 2008; at a regional and national level please see: Ewing, B. et al., 2009;
GFN, 2008; WWF, 2007; 2008c; for further information on the methodology used
to calculate the Ecological Footprint, please see: Ewing B. et al., 2009; Galli, A. et
al., 2007.The Earth from space. The atmosphere is visible as a thin
layer. As we increasingly recognize the need to manage
our planet, protecting our atmosphere will be crucial to
protecting life on Earth.
FRAGILe eARtH~
© naSaWWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 110 WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 111
ReFeRenCes
Afrane, Y.A., Zhou, G. Lawson, B.W., Githeko, A.K. and Yan, G. 2007., Lifetable analysis of Anopheles arabiensis in western Kenya highlands: Effects of land
covers on larval and adult survivorship. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and
Hygiene. 77: (4): 660-666.
Afrane, Y.A., Zhou, G., Lawson, B.W., Githeko, A.K. and Yan, G.Y., 2005.
Effects of deforestation on the survival, reproductive fitness and gonotrophic cycle
of Anopheles gambiae in Western Kenya highlands. American Journal of Tropical
Medicine and Hygiene. 73: (6): 326-327.
Afrane, Y.A., Zhou, G.F., Lawson, B.W., Githeko, A.K. and Yan, G.Y., 2006.
Effects of microclimatic changes caused by deforestation on the survivorship and
reproductive fitness of Anopheles gambiae in Western Kenya highlands. American
Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 74: (5): 772-778.
Ahrends, A., Burgess, N.D., Bulling, N.L., Fisher, B., Smart, J.C.R., Clarke,
G.P. and Mhoro, B.E. In press. Predictable waves of sequential forest degradation and
biodiversity loss spreading from an African city. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences.
Alcamo, J., Doll, P., Henrichs, T., Kaspar, F., Lehner, B., Rosch, T. and Siebert,
S., 2003. Development and testing of the WaterGAP 2 global model of water use and
availability. Hydrological Sciences Journal-Journal Des Sciences Hydrologiques. 48:
(3): 317-337.
Brander, L.M., Florax, R.J.G.M. and Vermaat, J.E., 2006. The empirics of
wetland valuation: A comprehensive summary and a meta-analysis of the literature.
Environmental & Resource Economics. 33: (2): 223-250.
Butchart, S.H.M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J.P.W.,
Almond, R.E.A., Baillie, J.E.M., Bomhard, B., Brown, C., Bruno, J., Carpenter, K.E.,
Carr, G.M., Chanson, J., Chenery, A.M., Csirke, J., Davidson, N.C., Dentener, F., Foster,
M., Galli, A., Galloway, J.N., Genovesi, P., Gregory, R.D., Hockings, M., Kapos, V.,
Lamarque, J.F., Leverington, F., Loh, J., McGeoch, M.A., McRae, L., Minasyan, A.,
Morcillo, M.H., Oldfield, T.E.E., Pauly, D., Quader, S., Revenga, C., Sauer, J.R., Skolnik,
B., Spear, D., Stanwell-Smith, D., Stuart, S.N., Symes, A., Tierney, M., Tyrrell, T.D., Vie,
J.C. and Watson, R., 2010. Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines. Science.
328: (5982): 1164-1168.
Campbell, A., Miles, L., Lysenko, I., Hughes, A. and Gibbs, H., 2008. Carbon
storage in protected areas: Technical report. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring
Centre, Cambr idge, UK .
CBD, 2010. Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 (GBO-3). Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity, 413 Saint Jacques Street, suite 800, Montreal QC
H2Y 1N9, Canada (http://gbo3.cbd.int/).
Chapagain, A.K., 2010. Water Footprint of Nations Tool (under development).
WWF-UK, Godalming, UK.
Chapagain, A.K. and Hoekstra, A.Y., 2004. Water Footprints of Nations.
UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands.
Chapagain, A.K. and Hoekstra, A.Y., 2007. The water footprint of coffee and tea
consumption in the Netherlands. Ecological Economics. 64: (1): 109-118.
Chapagain, A.K. and Orr, S., 2008. UK Water Footprint: The impact of the UK’s
food and fibre consumption on global water resources. WWF-UK, Godalming, UK.
Collen, B., Loh, J., Whitmee, S., Mcrae, L., Amin, R. and Baillie, J.E.M.,
2009. Monitoring Change in Vertebrate Abundance: the Living Planet Index.
Conservation Biology 23: (2): 317-327.
Collen, B., McRae, L., Kothari, G., Mellor, R., Daniel, O., Greenwood, A.,
Amin, R., Holbrook, S. and Baillie, J., 2008. Living Planet Index In: Loh, J. (ed.),
2010 and beyond: rising to the biodiversity challenge. WWF International, Gland,
Switzerland.
Dudley, N., Higgins-Zogib, L. and Mansourian, S., 2005. Beyond Belief:
Linking faiths and protected areas to support biodiversity conservation. WWF
International, Switzerland.
Dudley, N. and Stolton, S., 2003. Running Pure: The importance of forest
protected areas to drinking water. WWF International, Switzerland (http://assets.
panda.org/downloads/runningpurereport.pdf).
Ewing, B., Goldfinger, S., Moore, D., Niazi, S., Oursler, A., Poblete, P.,
Stechbart, M. and Wackernagel, M., 2009. Africa: an Ecological Footprint Factbook
2009. Global Footprint Network, San Francisco, California, USA.
Ewing B., Goldfinger, S., Oursler, A., Reed, A., Moore, D. and Wackernagel,
M., 2009. Ecological Footprint Atlas. Global Footprint Network, San Francisco,
California, USA.
FAO, 2005. State of the World’s Forests. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO, 2006a. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005: Progress towards
sustainable forest management. FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy.
FAO, 2006b. World agriculture: towards 2030/2050 – Interim report. FAO,
Rome, Italy.
FAO, 2009a. The resource outlook to 2050: By how much do land, water and
crop yields need to increase by 2050? FAO Expert Meeting: “How to Feed the World
in 2050”, Rome, Italy.
FAO, 2009b. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture, 2008 (SOFIA)
FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO, 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment, 2010: Key findings. FAO,
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00153 Rome, Italy (www.fao.org/forestry/fra2010).
FAOSTAT, 2010. Oil palm imports by region, FAO Statistics Division, 2010.
FAS, 2008. Foreign Agricultural Service of the United States Department
of Agriculture Reports: Oilseeds - Palm oil: world supply and distribution. (http://
www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline).
Fischer, G., Nachtergaele, F., Prieler, S., van Velthuizen, H.T., Verelst, L. and
Wiberg, D., 2008. Global Agro-ecological Zones Assessment for Agriculture (GAEZ,
2008). IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria and FAO, Rome, Italy.
Galli, A., Kitzes, J., Wermer, P., Wackernagel, M., Niccolucci, V. and Tiezzi,
E. 2007. An Exploration of the Mathematics Behind the Ecological Footprint.
International Journal of Ecodynamics. 2: (4): 250-257.
GFN, 2008. India’s Ecological Footprint – a Business Perspective. Global
Footprint Network and Confederation of Indian Industry, Hyderabad, India.
GFN, 2010a. The 2010 National Footprint Accounts. Global Footprint
Network, San Francisco, USA (www.footprintnetwork.org).
GFN, 2010b. Ecological Wealth of Nations Global Footprint Network, San
Francisco, California, USA. WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 112 WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 113
Gleick, P., Cooley, H., Cohen, M., Morikawa, M., Morrison, J. and
Palaniappan, M., 2009. The World’s Water 2008-2009: the biennial report on
freshwater resources. Island press, Washington, D.C., USA. (http://www.worldwater.
org/books.html).
Goldman, R.L., 2009. Ecosystem services and water funds: Conservation
approaches that benefit people and biodiversity. Journal American Water Works
Association (AWWA). 101: (12): 20.
Goldman, R.L., Benetiz, S., Calvache, A. and Ramos, A., 2010. Water funds:
Protecting watersheds for nature and people. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington,
Virginia, USA.
Goossens, B., Chikhi, L., Ancrenaz, M., Lackman-Ancrenaz, I., Andau, P.
and Bruford, M.W., 2006. Genetic signature of anthropogenic population collapse in
orang-utans. Public Library of Science Biology. 4: (2): 285-291.
Goulding, M., Barthem, R. and Ferreira, E.J.G., 2003. The Smithsonian:
Atlas of the Amazon. Smithsonian Books, Washington, D.C., USA.
GTZ, 2010. A Big Foot on a Small Planet? Accounting with the Ecological
Footprint. Succeeding in a world with growing resource constraints. In:
Sustainability has many faces, N° 10. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische
Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Eschborn, Germany.
Hansen, M.C., Stehman, S.V., Potapov, P.V., Loveland, T.R., Townshend,
J.R.G., DeFries, R.S., Pittman, K.W., Arunarwati, B., Stolle, F., Steininger, M.K.,
Carroll, M. and DiMiceli, C., 2008. Humid tropical forest clearing from 2000 to
2005 quantified by using multitemporal and multiresolution remotely sensed data.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
105: (27): 9439-9444.
Hoekstra, A.Y. and Chapagain, A.K., 2008. Globalization of water: Sharing
the planet’s freshwater resources. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.
Hoekstra, A.Y., Chapagain, A.K., Aldaya, M.M. and Mekonnen, M.M., 2009.
Water footprint manual: State of the art 2009. Water Footprint Network, Enschede,
the Netherlands.
IPCC, 2007a. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation - Contribution of Working
Group III to the fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
IPCC, 2007b. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution
of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, NY, USA (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm).
Kapos, V., Ravilious, C., Campbell, A., Dickson, B., Gibbs, H.K., Hansen,
M.C., Lysenko, I., Miles, L., Price, J., Scharlemann, J.P.W. and Trumper, K.C.,
2008. Carbon and biodiversity: a demonstration atlas. UNEP World Conservation
Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK.
Kitzes, J., Wackernagel, M., Loh, J., Peller, A., Goldfinger, S., Cheng, D.,
2008. Shrink and share: humanity’s present and future Ecological Footprint.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences. 363: (1491):
467-475.
Klein, A.M., Vaissiere, B.E., Cane, J.H., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Cunningham,
S.A., Kremen, C. and Tscharntke, T., 2007. Importance of pollinators in changing
landscapes for world crops. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences.
274: (1608): 303-313.
Laird, S., Johnston, S., Wynberg, R., Lisinge, E. and Lohan, D., 2003.
Biodiversity access and benefit–sharing policies for protected areas: an introduction.
United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies, Japan.
Loh, J., Collen, B., McRae, L., Carranza, T.T., Pamplin, F.A., Amin, R. and
Baillie, J.E.M., 2008. Living Planet Index. In: Hails, C. (ed.), Living Planet Report
2008, WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.
Loh, J., Collen, B., McRae, L., Holbrook, S., Amin, R., Ram, M. and Baillie, J.
2006. The Living Planet Index. In: Goldfinger, J.L.S. (ed.), The Living Planet Report
2006, WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.
Loh, J., Green, R.E., Ricketts, T., Lamoreux, J., Jenkins, M., Kapos, V. and
Randers, J., 2005. The Living Planet Index: using species population time series
to track trends in biodiversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
B-Biological Sciences. 360: (1454): 289-295.
Lotze, H.K., Lenihan, H.S., Bourque, B.J., Bradbury, R.H., Cooke, R.G.,
Kay, M.C., Kidwell, S.M., Kirby, M.X., Peterson, C.H. and Jackson, J.B.C., 2006.
Depletion, degradation, and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal seas. Science.
312: (5781): 1806-1809.
McRae, L., Loh, J., Bubb, P.J., Baillie, J.E.M., Kapos, V. and Collen, B., 2009.
The Living Planet Index – Guidance for National and Regional Use. UNEP-WCMC,
Cambridge, UK.
McRae, L., Loh, J., Collen, B., Holbrook, S., Amin, R., Latham, J., Tranquilli,
S. and Baillie, J., 2007. Living Planet Index. In: Peller, S.M.A. (ed.), Canadian Living
Planet Report 2007, WWF Canada, Toronto, Canada.
MEA, 2005a. Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis:
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
MEA, 2005b. Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water
synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
MEA/WHO, 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Human health:
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, WHO Press, World Health Organization,
Switzerland.
Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Green, R.E., Lehner, B.,
Malcolm, T.R. and Ricketts, T.H., 2008. Global mapping of ecosystem services and
conservation priorities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America. 105: (28): 9495-9500.
Nantha, H.S. and Tisdell, C., 2009. The orangutan-oil palm conflict:
economic constraints and opportunities for conservation. Biodiversity and
Conservation. 18: (2): 487-502.
Nelson, G.C., Rosegrant, M.W., Koo, J., Robertson, R., Sulser, T., Zhu, T.,
Ringler, C., Msangi, S., Palazzo, A., Batka, M., Magalhaes, M., Valmonte-Santos, R.,
Ewing, M. and Lee, D., 2009. Climate change: Impact on agriculture and costs of
adaptation. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C., USA.
Newman, D.J., Cragg, G.M. and Snader, K.M., 2003. Natural products as
sources of new drugs over the period 1981-2002. Journal of Natural Products. 66:
(7): 1022-1037.
OECD/IEA, 2008. Energy Technology Perspectives. International Energy
Agency, Paris, France.
OECD/IEA, 2008. World Energy Outlook. International Energy Agency, 9
Rue de la Fédération, 75015 Paris, France.WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 114 WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 115
Pattanayak, S.K., C G Corey, Y F Lau and R A Kramer, 2003. Forest malaria:
A microeconomic study of forest protection and child malaria in Flores, Indonesia.
Duke University, USA (http://www.env.duke.edu/solutions/documents/forestmalaria.pdf).
Pomeroy, D.a.H.T., 2009. The State of Uganda’s Biodiversity 2008: the
sixth biennial report. Makerere University Institute of Environment and Natural
Resources, Kampala, Uganda.
Richter, B.D., 2010. Lost in development’s shadow: The downstream human
consequences of dams. Water Alternatives, (http://www.water-alternatives.org/
index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=99&Itemid=1).
Richter, B.D., Postel, S., Revenga, C., Scudder, T., Lehner, B.C., A. and Chow,
M., 2010. Lost in development’s shadow: The downstream human consequences of
dams. Water Alternatives. 3: (2): 14-42.
Ricketts, T.H., Daily, G.C., Ehrlich, P.R. and Michener, C.D., 2004. Economic
value of tropical forest to coffee production. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America. 101: (34): 12579-12582.
Schuyt, K. and Brander, L., 2004. The Economic Values of the World’s
Wetlands. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland, (http://assets.panda.org/
downloads/wetlandsbrochurefinal.pdf).
SIWI-IWMI, 2004. Water – More Nutrition Per Drop. Stockholm
International Water Institute, Stockholm, (www.siwi.org).
Stern, N., 2006. Stern Review on The Economics of Climate Change. HM
Treasury, London, (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/Independent_Reviews/stern_
review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm).
Stolton, S.M., Barlow, N., Dudley and Laurent, C.S., 2002. Sustainable
Livelihoods, Sustainable World: A study of sustainable development in practice from
promising initiatives around the world. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.
Strassburg, B.B.N., Kelly, A., Balmford, A., Davies, R.G., Gibbs, H.K., Lovett,
A., Miles, L., Orme, C.D.L., Price, J., Turner, R.K. and Rodrigues, A.S.L., 2010.
Global congruence of carbon storage and biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems.
Conservation Letters. 3: (2): 98-105.
Thurstan, R.H., Brockington, S. and Roberts, C.M., 2010. The effects of 118
years of industrial fishing on UK bottom trawl fisheries Nature Communications. 1:
(15): 1- 6.
Tollefson, J., 2009. Climate: Counting carbon in the Amazon. Nature. 461:
(7267): 1048-1052.
UN-Water, 2009. 2009 World Water Day brochure (http://www.unwater.org/
worldwaterday/downloads/wwd09brochureenLOW.pdf).
UN, 2004. World Population to 2300. United Nations Population Division,
New York (http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/
WorldPop2300final.pdf).
UN, 2006. World Population Prospects: The 2006 revision. United Nations
Population Division, New York (http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/
wpp2006/English.pdf).
UN, 2008. World Population Prospects: The 2008 revision population
database, United Nations Population Division, New York. (http://esa.un.org/UNPP/)
(July 2010).
UNDP, 2009a. Human Development Report 2009 Overcoming barriers:
Human mobility and development. United Nations Development Programme, 1 UN
Plaza, New York, NY 10017, USA (http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2009_EN_
Complete.pdf).
UNDP, 2009b. Human Development Report: Human development index
2007 and its components (http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2009/).
UNESCO-WWAP, 2003. The World Water Development Report 1: Water
for People, Water for Life. United Nations World Water Assessment Programme,
UNESCO, Paris, France.
UNESCO-WWAP, 2006. Water a shared responsibility: The United Nations
World Water Development Report 2. United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris, France.
UNICEF/WHO, 2008. Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: Special
Focus on Sanitation. UNICEF and World Health Organization Joint Monitoring
Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation, UNICEF: New York and WHO: Geneva.
Van der Werf, G.R., Morton, D.C., DeFries, R.S., Olivier, J.G.J., Kasibhatla,
P.S., Jackson, R.B., Collatz, G.J. and Randerson, J.T., 2009. CO2 emissions from
forest loss. Nature Geoscience. 2: (11): 737-738.
Van Schaik, C.P., Monk, K.A. and Robertson, J.M.Y., 2001. Dramatic decline
in orang-utan numbers in the Leuser Ecosystem, Northern Sumatra. Oryx. 35: (1):
14-25.
WBCSD, 2010. Vision, 2050. World Business Council for Sustainable
Development, Geneva, Switzerland (http://www.wbcsd.org/DocRoot/
opMs2lZXoMm2q9P8gthM/Vision_2050_FullReport_040210.pdf).
WDPA, 2010. The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), IUCN/UNEPWCMC, Cambridge, UK. (http://www.wdpa.org/) (accessed: January 2010).
World Bank, 2003. Sustaining forests: A World Bank Strategy The World
Bank, Washington, D.C., USA. (http://go.worldbank.org/4Y28JHEMQ0).
WWF-Indonesia, 2009. Papua Region report.
WWF, 2006a. Free-flowing rivers: Economic luxury or ecological necessity?
WWF Global Freshwater Programme, Zeist, Netherlands (http://assets.panda.org/
downloads/freeflowingriversreport.pdf).
WWF, 2006b. Living Planet Report 2006. WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
WWF, 2007. Europe, 2007: Gross Domestic Product and Ecological
Footprint. WWF European Policy Office (EPO), Brussels, Belgium.
WWF, 2008a. 2010 and Beyond: Rising to the biodiversity challenge.
WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.
WWF, 2008b. Deforestation, Forest Degradation, Biodiversity Loss and
CO2 Emissions in Riau, Sumatra, Indonesia. One Indonesian Province’s Forest
and Peat Soil Carbon Loss over a Quarter Century and its Plans for the Future.
WWF Indonesia Technical Report, Gland, Switzerland (http://assets.panda.org/
downloads/riau_co2_report__wwf_id_27feb08_en_lr_.pdf).
WWF, 2008c. Hong Kong Ecological Footprint Report: Living Beyond
Our Means.
WWF, Hong Kong, Wanchai, Hong Kong.
WWF, 2008d. The Living Planet Report. WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
WWF, 2010. Reinventing the city: three prerequisites for greening urban
infrastructures. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 116 WWF Living Planet Report 2010 page 117
WWF Associates
Fundación Vida Silvestre (Argentina)
Fundación Natura (Ecuador)
Pasaules Dabas Fonds (Latvia)
Nigerian Conservation Foundation (Nigeria)
Others
Emirate Wildlife Society (UAE)
As at: August 2010
WWF WoRLDWIDe netWoRk
WWF Offices
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Belize
Bhutan
Bolivia
Brazil
Bulgaria
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chile
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
D.R. of Congo
Denmark
Ecuador
Finland
Fiji
France
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guyana
Honduras
Hong Kong
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Italy
Japan
Kenya
Laos
Madagascar
Malaysia
Mauritania
Mexico
Mongolia
Mozambique
Namibia
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Níger
Norway
Pakistan
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Russia
Senegal
Singapore
Solomon Islands
South Africa
Spain
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Tanzania
Thailand
Tunisia
Turkey
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States of America
Vietnam
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Publication details
Published in October 2010 by WWF – World Wide
Fund For Nature (Formerly World Wildlife Fund),
Gland, Switzerland. Any reproduction in full or in
part of this publication must mention the title and
credit the above-mentioned publisher as the
copyright owner.
© Text and graphics: 2010 WWF
All rights reserved
The material and the geographical designations in
this report do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of WWF concerning the legal
status of any country, territory, or area, or concerning
the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
Living Planet Index
The authors are extremely grateful to the following individuals and organizations
for sharing their data: Richard Gregory, Petr Vorisek and the European Bird Census
Council for data from the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring scheme; the
Global Population Dynamics Database from the Centre for Population Biology,
Imperial College London; 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 Jorgen
Randers, WWF-Norway; Pere Tomas-Vives, Christian Perennou, Driss Ezzine
de Blas, Patrick Grillas and Thomas Galewski, Tour du Valat, Camargue, France;
David Junor and Alexis Morgan, WWF Canada and all data contributors to the
LPI for Canada; Miguel Angel Nuñez Herrero and Juan Diego López Giraldo, the
Environmental Volunteer Programme in Natural Areas of Murcia Region, Spain;
Mike Gill from the CBMP, Christoph Zockler from UNEP-WCMC and all data
contributors to the ASTI report (www.asti.is); Arjan Berkhuysen, WWF Netherlands
and all data contributors to the LPI for global estuarine systems. A full list of data
contributors can be found at www.livingplanetindex.org
Ecological Footprint
The authors would like to thank the following national governments for their
collaboration on research to improve the quality of the National Footprint Accounts:
Switzerland; United Arab Emirates; Finland; Germany; Ireland; Japan; Belgium;
and Ecuador.
Much of the research for this report would not have been possible without the
generous support of: Avina Stiftung, Foundation for Global Community, Funding
Exchange, MAVA - Fondation pour la Protection de la Nature, Mental Insight
Foundation, Ray C. Anderson Foundation, Rudolf Steiner Foundation, Skoll
Foundation, Stiftung ProCare, TAUPO Fund, The Lawrence Foundation, V. Kann
Rasmussen Foundation, Wallace Alexander Gerbode Foundation, The Winslow
Foundation; Pollux-Privatstiftung; Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian; Oak Foundation;
The Lewis Foundation; Erlenmeyer Foundation; Roy A. Hunt Foundation; Flora
Family Foundation; The Dudley Foundation; Foundation Harafi; The Swiss Agency
for Development and Cooperation; Cooley Godward LLP; Hans and Johanna
Wackernagel-Grädel; Daniela Schlettwein-Gsell; Annemarie Burckhardt; Oliver and
Bea Wackernagel; Ruth and Hans Moppert-Vischer; F. Peter Seidel; Michael Saalfeld;
Peter Koechlin; Luc Hoffmann; Lutz Peters; and many other individual donors.
We would also like to acknowledge Global Footprint Network’s 90 partner
organizations, and the Global Footprint Network National Accounts Committee for
their guidance, contributions, and commitment to robust National Footprint Accounts. WWF
WWF is one of the world’s largest and most experienced
independent conservation organizations, with over 5
million supporters and a global Network active in more
than 100 countries.
WWF’s mission is to stop the degradation of the planet’s
natural environment and to build a future in which
humans live in harmony with nature, by conserving
the world’s biological diversity, ensuring that the use of
renewable natural resources is sustainable, and promoting
the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption.
Zoological Society of London
Founded in 1826, the Zoological Society of London (ZSL)
is an international scientific, conservation and educational
organization. Its mission is to achieve and promote the
worldwide conservation of animals and their habitats. ZSL
runs ZSL London Zoo and ZSL Whipsnade Zoo, carries
out scientific research in the Institute of Zoology and is
actively involved in field conservation worldwide.
Global Footprint Network
The Global Footprint Network promotes the science of
sustainability by advancing the Ecological Footprint,
a resource accounting tool that makes sustainability
measurable. Together with its partners, the Network
works to further improve and implement this science
by coordinating research, developing methodological
standards, and providing decision-makers with robust
resource accounts to help the human economy operate
within the Earth’s ecological limits.
WWF International
Avenue du Mont-Blanc
1196 Gland, Switzerland
w w w.panda.org
Institute of Zoology
Zoological Society of London
Regent’s Park, London NW1 4RY, UK
www.zsl.org/indicators
www.livingplanetindex.org
Global Footprint Network
312 Clay Street, Suite 300
Oakland, California 94607, USA
www.footprintnetwork.org
Concept and design by © ArthurSteenHorneAdamson
ISBN 978-2-940443-08-6
Living Planet Index
The authors are extremely grateful to the following individuals and organizations
for sharing their data: Richard Gregory, Petr Vorisek and the European Bird Census
Council for data from the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring scheme; the
Global Population Dynamics Database from the Centre for Population Biology,
Imperial College London; 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 Jorgen
Randers, WWF-Norway; Pere Tomas-Vives, Christian Perennou, Driss Ezzine
de Blas, Patrick Grillas and Thomas Galewski, Tour du Valat, Camargue, France;
David Junor and Alexis Morgan, WWF Canada and all data contributors to the
LPI for Canada; Miguel Angel Nuñez Herrero and Juan Diego López Giraldo, the
Environmental Volunteer Programme in Natural Areas of Murcia Region, Spain;
Mike Gill from the CBMP, Christoph Zockler from UNEP-WCMC and all data
contributors to the ASTI report (www.asti.is); Arjan Berkhuysen, WWF Netherlands
and all data contributors to the LPI for global estuarine systems. A full list of data
contributors can be found at www.livingplanetindex.org
Ecological Footprint
The authors would like to thank the following national governments for their
collaboration on research to improve the quality of the National Footprint Accounts:
Switzerland; United Arab Emirates; Finland; Germany; Ireland; Japan; Belgium;
and Ecuador.
Much of the research for this report would not have been possible without the
generous support of: Avina Stiftung, Foundation for Global Community, Funding
Exchange, MAVA - Fondation pour la Protection de la Nature, Mental Insight
Foundation, Ray C. Anderson Foundation, Rudolf Steiner Foundation, Skoll
Foundation, Stiftung ProCare, TAUPO Fund, The Lawrence Foundation, V. Kann
Rasmussen Foundation, Wallace Alexander Gerbode Foundation, The Winslow
Foundation; Pollux-Privatstiftung; Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian; Oak Foundation;
The Lewis Foundation; Erlenmeyer Foundation; Roy A. Hunt Foundation; Flora
Family Foundation; The Dudley Foundation; Foundation Harafi; The Swiss Agency
for Development and Cooperation; Cooley Godward LLP; Hans and Johanna
Wackernagel-Grädel; Daniela Schlettwein-Gsell; Annemarie Burckhardt; Oliver and
Bea Wackernagel; Ruth and Hans Moppert-Vischer; F. Peter Seidel; Michael Saalfeld;
Peter Koechlin; Luc Hoffmann; Lutz Peters; and many other individual donors.
We would also like to acknowledge Global Footprint Network’s 90 partner
organizations, and the Global Footprint Network National Accounts Committee for
their guidance, contributions, and commitment to robust National Footprint Accounts.
WWF_LPR2010_cover_aw.indd 2 16/09/2010 14:09Biodiversity, biocapacity
and development~
Living Planet
Report 2010
THIS REPORT
HAS BEEN
PRODUCED IN
COLLABORATION
WITH:
INT
2010
REPORT
int WWF.ORG L Vi inG PLAnEt REPORt 2010
L Vi inG PLAnEt REPORt 2010
© nasa
BiOdiVERsity
BiOcAPAcity
dEVELOPmEnt
AWAREnEss
New species continue to
be found, but tropical
species’ populations have
fallen by 60% since 1970
Per capita productive
land now half the level
of 1961
There are 1.8 billion people
using the internet, but
1 billion people still lack
access to an adequate supply
of freshwater
34 per cent of Asia-Pacific
CEOs and 53 per cent of Latin
American CEOs expressed
concern about the impacts
of biodiversity loss on their
business growth prospects,
compared to just 18 per cent
of Western European CEOs
LiVinG PLAnEt REPORt 2010
100%
RECYCLED
© 1986 Panda symbol WWF-World Wide Fund For nature (Formerly World Wildlife Fund)
® “WWF” is a WWF Registered Trademark. WWF International, avenue du Mont-Blanc, 1196 Gland,
switzerland — Tel. +41 22 364 9111 Fax +41 22 364 0332. For c
