Under the current trajectory, the future of many living organisms in the Anthropocene is uncertain; in fact, several indicators give cause for alarm. The Living Planet Index, which measures biodiversity abundance levels based on 14,152 monitored populations of 3,706 vertebrate species, shows a persistent downward trend. The Living Planet report 2016 titled “Risks and resilience in the new era” issued by the conservation group WWF and the Zoological Society of London has brought forth startling facts.
The report tells us that on average, monitored species population abundance declined by 58 percent between 1970 and 2012. Monitored species are increasingly affected by pressures from unsustainable agriculture, fisheries, mining and other human activities that contribute to habitat loss and degradation, overexploitation, climate change and pollution. In a business as usual scenario, this downward trend in species populations continues into the future. The United Nations targets that aim to halt the loss of biodiversity are designed to be achieved by 2020, but by then species populations may have declined on average by 67 percent over the last half century.
The observed decline in species populations is inextricably linked to the state of ecosystems and habitats that sustain our planet’s species. Destruction of habitats represents a risk threat not just to plants and wildlife, but to humans as well. These habitats are vital to our survival, wellbeing and prosperity. The stock of renewable and non-renewable natural resources e.g., plants, animals, air, water, soils, minerals can be described as “natural capital.” Natural capital delivers a flow of benefits to people both locally and globally, often referred to as “ecosystem services.” Throughout history there has been a limit to nature’s capacity to absorb the impact of human development. However, different societies, and different groups within society, have perceived and responded to these limits very differently. At times, people have seemed particularly unaware of natural limits and the consequent risks of exceeding them. For example, early industrial societies often discharged waste or emissions from industrial processes directly into the ground, waterways or the air. The resulting damage to human health and ecosystems amassed to the point that it threatened to undermine industrialisation’s economic and social advances. Over time, societies started to regulate emissions of environmental pollutants, control resource extractions, and limit the degree to which the natural environment could be changed by direct human modification. This regulatory approach toward human impacts on the environment is based on the idea that we can define “safe limits” for human activities.
Establishment of safe limits at local and regional scales remains a necessity as local pollution is still damaging local environments. But we now face constraints at the planetary level as well. The world’s population has grown from about 1.6 billion people in 1900 to today’s 7.4 billion. Over the same period, technological innovations and the use of fossil energy helped meet the many demands of this growing population. For example, in the early 1900s an industrial method was developed for fixing nitrogen into ammonia. The resulting synthetic fertilizer now sustains about half of the world’s population. Readily available fossil fuels provide energy for domestic use and industrial production, enabling global trade. But this also results in rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global warming. Human activities and accompanying resource uses have grown so dramatically, especially since the mid-20th century that the environmental conditions that fostered our development and growth are beginning to deteriorate.
The 21st century presents humanity with a dual challenge, as it has to maintain nature in all of its many forms and functions, and to create an equitable home for people on a finite planet. This dual challenge is outlined in the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The goals for sustainable development combine the economic, social and ecological dimensions necessary to sustain human society. These dimensions are all interconnected and must therefore be addressed in an integrated manner. We must minimise climate change while securing our future freshwater supply, and we should protect forests and grasslands as well as our oceans and atmosphere. Modification of any of these interconnected facets of the biosphere can affect the others, thereby altering the biosphere as a whole. For example, the use of biofuels to reduce CO2 emissions can have adverse effects on food availability and the environment if biofuel crops compete for land, water and other resources. An integrated approach for managing our biosphere will improve social stability, economic prosperity and individual wellbeing. We are not going to develop a just and prosperous future, nor defeat poverty and improve health, in a weakened or destroyed natural environment. Earth’s species and habitats have their own intrinsic value, but they also form the foundation of human societies and economies. Efforts must particularly focus on protecting and restoring key ecological processes necessary for food, water and energy security, as well as climate change resilience and adaptation.
The living planet report 2016 suggests that if current trends continue, the UN Global Goals for Sustainable Development will be increasingly difficult to meet. Indeed, we are already off track for reaching the UN biodiversity targets that aim to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2020. In the future, a basic fact must therefore inform development strategies, economic models, business models and lifestyle choices that we have only one planet and its natural capital is limited.
The writer is Executive Director, Centre for Environment & Development