Living planet report 2014

1. Living Planet Report 2014 Species and spaces, people and places Monique Grooten 17 September 2014, Raad van toezicht State of the Planet ©EuropeanSpaceAgency

2. Living Planet Report 2012

3. Living Planet Report 2014 Source: Global Footprint Network, 2014 Familiar: Water Footprint and Ecological Footprint Ecological Footprint per country, per capita, 2010 Blue water scarcity in 405 river basins between 1996 and 2005

4. Living Planet Report 2014 Source: Stockholm Resilience Centre, 2009. New: Developing the picture Planetary boundaries Distribution of the world urban population by region Forest area in 2000 and projected forest area in 2050 2050 2000

5. Living Planet Report 2014 Source: Leach et al, 2012 New: Developing the picture Personal nitrogen footprint of USA, UK, Germany and the Netherlands Species’ ability to keep pace with climate change The diversity of languages (black dots) strongly correlates with areas of high plant diversity Global trends in the state of marine fish stocks, 1974-2011

6. ©Naturepl.com/AndyRouse/WWF-Canon If large images don’t need any text on top it can be removed - Improved method LPI Living Planet Report 2014

7. Living Planet Report 2014 Source: WWF, ZSL, 2014 The state of the planet - Biodiversity Global Living Planet Index

8. Living Planet Report 2014 Source: WWF, ZSL, 2014 The state of the planet - Biodiversity The distribution of locations providing data for the Living Planet Index

9. Source: WWF, ZSL, 2014 Living Planet Report 2014 New weighting method Illustration of how the global LPI is calculated using the LPI-D method

10. Source: WWF, ZSL, 2014 Living Planet Report 2014 The state of the planet - Biodiverity Living Planet Index by biogeographic realms Indo-Pacific (-67%) Palearctic (-30%) Afrotropical (19%) Neotropical (-83%) Nearctic (-20%)

11. Source: WWF, ZSL, 2014 Living Planet Report 2014 The most dramatic decline: The freshwater Living Planet Index (-76%)

12. Source: WWF, ZSL, 2014 Living Planet Report 2014 Positive result: PA essential instrument for species conservation The terrestrial Living Planet Index populations inside protected areas (-18%)

13. Living Planet Report 2014 Source: WWF, ZSL, 2014 Better insights – in threats in LPI populations Primary threats to Living Planet Index populations

14. ©EdwardParker/WWF-Canon Uses and outreach: Biodiversity matters • Credibility and agenda setting • Widely used/referenced by global media, academia, scientific organizations, UN bodies, governments, environmental movement • Science based: >120 contributors • Global reach; Translated into 15 languages (report and summary) • Policy document;. • Focus on sollutions; Highlighting WWF’s “One Planet Perspective” – and focusing on the importance of protecting nature for providing food, water and energy security • Increasingly national editions; base line reports

15. Living Planet Report 2014 Source: Van Strien et al., 2013, with data from Dutch Butterfly Conservation and FLORON National succes! LPI will be calculated by CBS Complementary indicator: Distribution of butterflies (n=46), dragonflies (n=57) and higher plants (n=1425) in the Netherlands 1990-2012

17. Living Planet Report 2014 Source: WWF, 2012 More emphases on solutions

18. Living Planet Report 2014 Source: WWF, ZSL, 2014 The state of the planet - Ecological Footprint LPI and World Bank country income groups (2013)

19. Source: WWF, ZSL, 2014 Living Planet Report 2014 The state of the planet - Biodiversity The tropical Living Planet Index (-56%)

Editor's Notes

An individual’s Ecological Footprint varies significantly depending on a number of factors, including their country of residence, the quantity of goods and services they consume, the resources used and the wastes generated to provide these goods and services. This comparison includes all countries with populations greater than 1 million for which complete data are available.
Figure 38: Planetary boundaries We have already overstepped three of the nine planetary boundaries (Stockholm Resilience Centre, 2009).
Figure 43: Personal nitrogen footprint of USA, UK, Germany and the Netherlands N-footprints are shown by sector. Nitrogen footprint of food consumption is the nitrogen directly consumed, whereas that of food production is the virtual loss to the environment (Leach et al, 2012).
The global LPI continues to show a decline of -52% between 1970 and 2010. This is based on trends in 10,380 populations of 3,038 mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian and fish species – many more than in any previous edition of the Living Planet Report.
The distribution of locations providing data for the Living Planet Index Each point represents one population and is coded as to whether it is terrestrial, freshwater or marine. The map also shows the biogeographic realm divisions used for terrestrial/freshwater systems and oceans for marine systems
Figure 6: Illustration of how the global LPI is calculated using the LPI-D method
Figure 15: LPI by biogeographic realms The tables show the number of species for each vertebrate group, with the colour denoting the average overall trend for each group (red – decline; orange – stable; green – increase) (WWF, ZSL, 2014).
Figure 13: The freshwater LPI shows a decline of 76 per cent between 1970 and 2010 This is based on trends in 3,066 populations of 757 mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian and fish species (WWF, ZSL, 2014).
Figure 16: The terrestrial LPI of populations inside protected areas shows a decline of 18 per cent between 1970 and 2010 This is based on trends in 1,956 populations of 773 mammal, bird, reptile and amphibian species (WWF, ZSL, 2014).
Exploitation and habitat loss or change are the two primary threats to LPI populations, with climate change being identified as a growing major threat. Information on threats has been identified for 3,430 populations in the LPI assigned to seven categories. Other populations are either not threatened or lack threat information (WWF, ZSL, 2014).
Figure 45: Complementary indicator: Distribution of butterflies (n=46), dragonflies (n=57) and higher plants (n=1425) in the Netherlands 1990-2012 (Van Strien et al., 2013, with data from Dutch Butterfly Conservation and FLORON).
Other indicators, ways of thinking and areas of research reinforce these messages – complementing, deepening and extending the concepts discussed in chapter 1. A growing number of metrics and methodologies help us to understand more about the health of the planet, our impact upon it, and the possible implications. We can change our perspective and adjust our focus, panning out to look at global issues, or zooming in on specific regions, themes or species.
Figure 59: One Planet Perspective (WWF, 2012).
Comparing LPI trends in countries with different average levels of income shows stark differences. While high-income countries appear to show an increase (10 per cent) in biodiversity, middle-income countries show declines (18 per cent), and low-income countries show dramatic and marked declines (58 per cent). These differences may reflect the ability of higher-income countries to allocate resources to biodiversity conservation and restoration domestically. More importantly, they may also reflect the way these countries import resources – effectively outsourcing biodiversity loss and its impacts to lower-income countries.
Figure 10: The tropical LPI shows a decline of 56 per cent between 1970 and 2010 This is based on trends in 3,811 populations of 1,638 species (WWF, ZSL, 2014).

Living planet report 2014

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Living planet report 2014

Similar to Living planet report 2014 (20)

More from Wereld Natuur Fonds (WNF)

More from Wereld Natuur Fonds (WNF) (7)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Living planet report 2014

Editor's Notes