16 March 2017
The WWF Living Planet Report 2016
Naively optimistic or realistic vision?
by Lynda Goetz
Most of us recognise the panda symbol, but how many of us really know what the organisation it represents actually does?
WWF was founded in 1961 and registered under Swiss law. The initials originally stood for World Wildlife Fund, but by 1986 it was realised that the original name no longer reflected the scope of its activities and it changed its name to Worldwide Fund for Nature (although the United States and Canada retained the old name). However, given that the foundation operated in many countries and the name was translated into 15 different languages, the name-change caused massive confusion, so in 2001 the organisation reverted to using the original initials WWF. This is the name the foundation is known by today.
The stated mission of the WWF (http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_quick_facts.cfm) is ‘to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature’. It aims to do this in three deceptively simple ways: 1) by conserving the world’s biological diversity; 2) by ensuring that the use of renewable sources is sustainable; and 3) by promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption. Today, more than ever, its work (in partnership with organisations such as The World Bank, USAID and the UN, as well as business and industry) is vital and influential. It has some 1,300 projects on the go worldwide at any one time, employs over 6,000 people and has some 5 million supporters around the globe.
Every year since 1998 the charity has produced a Living Planet Report to show the state of the natural world and the impact of human activity upon it. This is a fully referenced (but not difficult to read) scientific paper running to over 70 pages (although a summary is available). In 2006 the message of the report was that in the previous 20 years we had been exceeding the Earth’s ability to support our lifestyle, that we had been living beyond our means and that the choices we made would affect generations to come.
A decade later, the 2016 report (sporting impressive graphics not available ten years ago) shows that our degradation of the planet continues, but contains a hope that not only are we recognising the changes that have taken and continue to take place, but we now also understand better the causes – which are the first steps to identifying solutions.
Nevertheless, the Living Planet Index (LPI), a measure of biodiversity based on population data of vertebrates (but with plans to include invertebrates and plants), still shows an alarming decline in abundance over the last 40 odd years with little indication this annual 2% decline will decrease. The most common threat to declining populations is the loss and degradation of habitat. Other threats are over-exploitation, pollution, invasive species, disease and climate change.
WWF describes the natural resources that support human life (e.g. air, animals, plants, water, soils, minerals) as ‘natural capital’ and points out, what many already recognise only too clearly, that we are diminishing this natural capital at a faster rate than it can be replenished. Clearly, the depletion and the ensuing greater competition for these resources will exacerbate conflict and migration. The report also identifies what it calls the Planetary Boundaries concept (scientific attempts to understand the complex relationships between human actions and global impact) and delineates safe limits for the functioning of these critical Earth subsystems (e.g. biosphere integrity, land-system change, unsustainable freshwater use). Analysis apparently suggests that four of the nine systems identified – namely climate change, biosphere integrity, biogeochemical flows and land-system change – have already been pushed beyond safe limits by human activity.
Whilst many now recognise the consequences of human pressure on the environment, there is as yet no rational economic response. The few marked reductions in the total global Ecological Footprint over the last four decades or so have not occurred as a result of intentional policies, but rather as temporary consequences of major economic crises. The report contains many terms which may not be familiar to those outside the environmental world (these are explained in a glossary at the end) but even to those unfamiliar with much of the terminology, it is clear that we are ‘overusing’ our planet’s resources. This is particularly true in the developed world, of course, but even in developing countries overpopulation and corrupt governments have caused and continue to cause massive problems (see Madagascar Today, Shaw Sheet issue 78, 03/11/2016).
One of the conclusions of the WWF report is that if we are to live equitably within the one planet and achieve some form of global sustainability, we are going to need to recognise our societies’ interdependence and interconnectedness and become more receptive to global and interregional resource management agreements and policies. Is this a feasible ambition at a time when so many countries appear to be retreating to narrower and more nationalistic boundaries?
According to the 2016 Living Planet Report, one of the prerequisites for effecting significant change in human systems is to understand what lies behind the decision-making. The writers of the report consider that the tendency to resort to simplistic solutions when dealing with complex problems may also be an issue (e.g. building more roads in response to traffic congestion – resulting in different and often increased problems). So-called ‘systems thinking’ looks at ‘four levels of thinking’ and attempts to go below the ‘tip of the iceberg’ of events to better understand patterns, structures and mental models or belief systems, all of which affect outcomes.
In December 2015 the United Nations Climate Change Conference produced what is now known as the Paris Agreement, signed in New York on 22nd April 2016. This was, at long last, a consensus to ‘pursue efforts’ to limit global warming and keep the temperature increase to 1.5° C. Each country ratifying the Agreement is required to set a target for emission reduction (but the amount is voluntary and there are no enforcement measures against those who fail to meet their targets). The Agreement entered into force on 4th November 2016, by which time 133 of the 194 countries were on board. Almost contemporaneously the UN had set out its seventeen 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.
The UN Sustainable Development Goals are effectively a time-bound mission statement for ending poverty, protecting the planet, securing world peace, protecting human rights, promoting gender equality etc etc etc. They replaced the eight Millenium Development Goals (which were not met within the time limits, although much progress was made). These are the stuff of endless debates and conferences worldwide – indeed there was one in Bonn only last week, the three day ‘Global Festival of Ideas for Sustainable Development’. It is easy in some ways to feel sceptical of such sweepingly grand ideals and ambitious visions which seem to imagine a totally reformed world by 2030. Apart from the almost-certainly unrealistic time-scale, however, this grandiose vision (shared to a large extent by those who compiled the WWF Living Planet Report) may be the best hope we have for what has come to be called the Anthropocene* era.
As the WWF report points out, the UN aspirations will be increasingly difficult to meet if current trends continue, and we are already off-track for the targets that aim to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2020. WWF argues that fundamental changes in thinking are required to meet the challenge of sustainable development, but it remains hopeful that humankind will somehow rise to the challenges and that we will alter behaviour in time to avert the catastrophic outcomes that could result if we ignore the danger signals.
As individuals it is hard to influence the sort of massive changes in behaviour and thinking which will be necessary, but perhaps just by being aware and sharing our awareness with others we can educate ourselves and move others just enough to alter the zeitgeist; so that tipping points are reached and governments wake up to the views and feelings of those they govern, and industries to the sensibilities of those for whom they provide goods and services. Where we are the leaders and representatives, even at local levels, we need to communicate, to explain but at the same time to understand the fears and preoccupations of those we seek to influence. Human self-interest drives many forms of behaviour, but it is in the interest of all of us to nurture this planet on which we live. It seems highly unlikely that the speed of change implied by the UN vision can be met. At least the WWF report appears to recognise that ‘changes to societal values are likely to be achievable only over the long-term and in ways that we have not yet imagined’. Let us hope that the cautious optimism expressed in WWF’s 2016 Report is not misplaced.
*The current geological age during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and environment.
If you enjoyed this article please share it using the buttons above.
Please click here if you would like a weekly email on publication of the ShawSheet
