wwf global cons ervation programme report...

Reviving the Ocean Economy: the case for action – 2015 │ page 1

WWF GLOBAL CONSERVATION PROGRAMME REPORT 2015CONSERVATION STRATEGY AND PERFORMANCE UNITWWF INTERNATIONAL

DECEMBERREPORT

2015

Published in December 2015 by WWF - World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund), CH-1196, 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.

No photographs from this publication may be reproduced on the internet without prior authorization from WWF.

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.

© text 2015 WWF All rights reserved

Proposed citation: Stephenson, P.J. and McShane, T. (2015). WWF Global Conservation Programme Report 2015. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.

Front cover photo: Namaqua Daisy, Knersvlakkte, Northern Cape, South Africa. ©Peter Chadwick / WWF

WWF Global Conservation Programme Report 2015 1

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements and Contributors .....................................................................................3Acronyms and Units ...............................................................................................................4Report Summary ....................................................................................................................51 Introduction .........................................................................................................................72 Key Achievements, Issues and Impacts in 2015 ...................................................................8

2.1 Programme Conservation Achievement ratings .............................................................82.2 Biodiversity conservation ..............................................................................................9

2.2.1 Biodiversity status ..................................................................................................92.2.2 Pressures on biodiversity ...................................................................................... 152.2.3 Responses to pressures and drivers ....................................................................... 17

2.3 Carbon and energy footprint........................................................................................ 242.4 Commodities footprint ................................................................................................ 25

2.4.1 Wood, paper and pulp .......................................................................................... 252.4.2 Food – fish, meat and crops .................................................................................. 25

3 Are we delivering on our 2020 GPF goals? ........................................................................ 293.1 Are flagship species thriving? ..................................................................................... 293.2 Are global priority places protected and well managed? .............................................. 293.3 Are carbon, commodity and water footprints reduced to 2000 levels? ......................... 30

4 Are we well-placed to deliver the new WWF global goals and outcomes? ......................... 325 Evolution and use of conservation data and the impact and outcome dashboards ............... 34

5.1 Indicator development and use .................................................................................... 345.2 Important next steps in indicator use ........................................................................... 355.3 Acting on results ......................................................................................................... 355.4 Sharing lessons ........................................................................................................... 36

6 Strategies, Tools and Approaches ...................................................................................... 376.1 Engaging with communities ........................................................................................ 376.2 Working with business and industry ............................................................................ 376.3 Species conservation and protected areas .................................................................... 386.4 Linking fieldwork and policy ...................................................................................... 386.5 Building capacity ........................................................................................................ 39

7 Opportunities and Challenges: What to Do Differently?..................................................... 407.1 Complexity ................................................................................................................. 407.2 Innovation................................................................................................................... 417.3 Collaboration .............................................................................................................. 427.4 Long-term commitment .............................................................................................. 437.5 Internal transaction costs ............................................................................................. 43


8 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 459 References ......................................................................................................................... 46Annex 1: List of WWF Priority Programmes ........................................................................ 49Annex 2: Impact and Outcome Dashboards 2015 .................................................................. 51

List of Common Indicators and Data Sources used in 2015 Dashboards ............................ 51Place-based Programmes Dashboard 2015 ........................................................................ 53Flagship Species Programmes Dashboard 2015 ................................................................ 60Energy and Carbon Footprint Programme Dashboard 2015 ............................................... 64Commodity Footprint Programmes Dashboard 2015 ......................................................... 67Sample National Programme Dashboard 2015 – Forest Practice ....................................... 70


Acknowledgements and Contributors

This report is produced by the Conservation Strategy & Performance Unit at WWFInternational and was written, compiled and edited by PJ Stephenson and Thomas McShane,with input from Sheila O’Connor and Will Reidhead. However, the report is the result ofmany people’s efforts, not least the programme leaders and their teams who submittedreports.

We would like to thank the people who acted as peer reviewers for volunteering their timeand expertise. Many programme teams expressed appreciation for the feedback theyreceived. We also acknowledge the key work of those who helped compile the impact andoutcome dashboards over this year and last. Indicator data collation and analysis was led byNeil Burgess (UNEP-WCMC), Tabaré A. Currás (WWF Global Climate and Energy Initiative),Laura Jungmann (WWF Market Transformation Initiative), Jonathan Loh (WWF consultantand ZSL Fellow) and Aurélie Shapiro (WWF-Germany Remote Sensing Centre). We areextremely grateful to Selina Cartledge (WWF-UK) for loading this year’s data into thedashboards and to Gilles Guignard (CSPU) for all his hard work collating and posting reportsand reviews.

Authors: PJ Stephenson and Thomas O. McShane

Reviewers of technical progress reports:Mina BassarovaWill BealeClare CrawfordWendy ElliottAlasdair FormanLydia GaskellThomas McShane

Michael MikovIrina MontenegroElizabeth NgoyeSheila O’ConnorWill ReidheadPJ StephensonFeseha Tesema

Impact and outcome dashboards – Data collection and analysis:Neil BurgessTabaré A. CurrásLaura JungmannJonathan Loh

Aurélie ShapiroPJ Stephenson

Impact and outcome dashboards – Content, design and layout:Selina Cartledge PJ Stephenson


Acronyms and Units

AIR Amazon Indigenous REDD+AREAS Asian Rhino and Elephant Action Strategy (WWF programme)ASC Aquaculture Stewardship CouncilBCI Better Cotton InitiativeCBD Convention on Biological DiversityCBNRM Community-based Natural Resource ManagementCITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and

FloraCO2 Carbon dioxideCOP Conference of the PartiesCSO Civil Society OrganizationCSPU Conservation Strategy and Performance UnitDRC Democratic Republic of CongoEAP Ecoregion Action ProgrammeEU European UnionFSC Forest Stewardship CouncilFY Financial Year (July-June)GFTN Global Forest Trade Network (WWF)GHG Greenhouse gas emissionsGPF Global Programme Frameworkha hectares (100 hectares = 1 square kilometre)HEC human-elephant conflictINDC Intended Nationally-Determined Contributions (to reducing emissions)IUCN International Union for Conservation of NatureIUU Illegal, unregulated and unreported (fisheries)kg kilogramkm kilometreKPI Key Performance IndicatorLPR Living Planet ReportMPA Marine Protected AreaMSC Marine Stewardship CouncilMTOE million tonnes of oil equivalentNGO Non-governmental OrganizationNP National ParkPA Protected AreaPAME Protected Area Management EffectivenessPES Payment for Ecosystem ServicesREDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest DegradationRES Renewable Energy SourceRSB Roundtable on Sustainable BiomaterialsRSPO Roundtable on Sustainable Palm OilRTRS Roundtable Responsible SoySAP Species Action Plan/ProgrammeSDG Sustainable Development GoalSMART Spatial Monitoring and Reporting ToolSSC Species Survival CommissionTPR Technical Progress ReportUNEP-WCMC United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring

CentreWWF Worldwide Fund for NatureZSL Zoological Society of London


Report Summary

This report provides a summary of the progress of the WWF Global Conservation Programmeduring financial year 2015, using data compiled from technical progress reports and externaldata sets. The report is generated by WWF’s impact and outcome monitoring system, whichis well placed to adapt to the new goals and structures planned for 2016.

Worrying trends this year included population declines in Sumatran rhino, vaquita andAfrican elephant, and high levels of poaching of elephants and rhinos in Africa. Deforestationis a challenge in many terrestrial ecoregions, with the highest levels (in proportion to overallsurface area) apparent in places such as Southern Chile and the Yangtze Basin.

Good news included increases in some populations of key species such as giant pandas,greater one-horned rhinos, tigers, Amur leopards and orangutans and the continuedexpansion of protected areas networks. There is also an increasing adoption of certificationschemes to produce commodities sustainably (e.g. fisheries in places like Chile and India;timber in the Danube Carpathians and Indonesia; sugar in Honduras). More evidenceemerged of the benefits of certification schemes to biodiversity, including FSC reducing forestloss in Peru and Cameroon. Capacity building efforts were especially strong this year, withWWF programmes supporting government and civil society organizations in areas such asbusiness and conservation planning, human-wildlife conflict mitigation, and lawenforcement for poaching and illegal wildlife trade. One of the biggest policy wins came whenthe United Nations agreed the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including 17Sustainable Development Goals which recognize that nature and its services underpineconomic growth, social development and human well-being.

Overall WWF seems to be less than a quarter of the way towards realizing its existing 2020global goals, suggesting we will fall short on achieving them. With the organization about toreorient towards new global goals and outcomes it was interesting to see the status andtrends across those new areas of focus:

· Wildlife: Only 16 per cent of flagship species are stable or increasing and only threeflagship species groups are thriving. Illegal killing of elephants, rhinos and Asian bigcats for ivory, horn and other body parts is an ongoing - and in most places a growing– threat. Marine turtles and cetaceans are regular victims of lethal bycatch.

· Oceans: Marine species, especially utilized fish, are declining. About 9.7 per cent ofthe area of WWF priority marine places are protected; only Galapagos and SouthwestPacific have more than 20 per cent of their oceans in marine protected areas.

· Forests: 19.5 per cent of WWF priority forests are protected; only Amazon andMiombo Woodlands have more than 25 per cent of their area under protection.Deforestation remains a challenge and is increasing in almost all places. Forestsunder sustainable management are increasing; 181.9 million ha are FSC certified.

· Water: Flow regimes and connectivity are being maintained in several key riverbasins by limiting dam developments (e.g. Amazon, Yangtze, Mediterranean Basin).Recently 2 major Ramsar sites were declared in Colombia and Madagascar.

· Climate and energy: Energy consumption from renewable sources is rising in mostpriority countries. Pledges to the Green Climate Fund reached US$10.2 billion.

· Food: Fish, meat and crop commodities are increasingly coming under sustainableproduction schemes. For example, MSC certified fisheries catch 9 million tonnes ofseafood per year (10 per cent of total wild harvest); RSPO certified growers produce11.8 million tonnes of palm oil per year (20 per cent of global production).

The report highlights the importance of WWF strategies around community engagement,working with business and industry, capacity building, and policy and advocacy at local andglobal levels, as well as the central role species conservation and protected areas play indelivering global goals. Lessons learned included the need to address complexity morethoroughly in programme planning, to scale up innovative approaches, to collaborate withpartners to facilitate decision-making, to extend the length of conservation commitments andto reduce internal transaction costs.


1 Introduction

This report provides a summary of the progress of the WWF Global Conservation Programmeduring financial year 2015 (FY15 - July 2014 to June 2015), with some highlights also drawnfrom the first quarter of FY16. The Global Conservation Programme in 2015 comprised 74global priority programmes (Global Initiatives, ecoregion programmes, species programmes,thematic and driver-based programmes, etc. - see Annex 1) and areas of work (e.g. climateadaptation, social development for conservation), as well as hundreds of projects whichcontribute to delivery of WWF’s global goals and priorities as defined in the GlobalProgramme Framework (GPF). This programme portfolio will be adapted in FY16 to addressnew WWF global goals and outcomes approved in May 2015 – some programmes are alreadychanging status and governance systems. However, a lot of existing work across the portfoliowill remain pertinent and progress and lessons from FY15 should provide a valuableassessment and a basis for adapting and improving in the future.

The WWF Global Conservation Programme Report assesses whether or not the WWFnetwork is on track to meet its 2020 global goals and is produced annually by theConservation Strategy and Performance Unit (CSPU) at WWF International. The report alsoassesses what we are good at and where we need continued improvement. This year thereport aims to:

· Provide a summary of achievements, outcomes and impacts in FY15· Describe some key challenges, opportunities, strategies and approaches that can help

WWF better apply adaptive management and multiply its conservation efforts (evenmore relevant today in light of the change processes improving the way the WWFnetwork functions)

· Outline a preliminary assessment of how the programme is addressing new globalgoals and outcomes.

· Provide a brief update on the global impact and outcome monitoring system and theevolution of the dashboards and common indicators, to explain some of thelimitations and the areas where we are seeing progress in our ability to report.

The information compiled for this report comes from year-end FY15 technical progressreports (TPRs) from priority programmes and from data collected and compiled against a setof common indicators agreed upon by the network (Conservation Committee and the WWFResults-based Management Group). Some data have also been extracted from annual reportssubmitted by offices for the 2015 Worldwide Overview report, other internal reports andexternal publications. Wherever possible, data cited within reports has the source defined.

There was a return rate of 85 per cent (51) year-end technical progress reports from the 60priority programmes that were expected to report this year, up slightly from the 84 per centreturn rate last year. Of the programme teams that did submit a report, only 1.5 per centsubmitted it more than six weeks after the 31 August deadline, a major improvement on lastyear, when 29 per cent of reports were more than six weeks late.

Programme reports were checked for quality by CSPU. Teams were asked for furtherinformation or their reports were passed on to peer reviewers to provide feedback. CSPUused the reviews to provide input and analysis for this report. This year the peer reviewsfocused on the monitoring reports (Part 2 of the TPR), in particular the ConservationAchievement Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), as well as programme highlights, lessonsand contributions to the impact dashboards. The monitoring reports were reviewed by atleast one person and a second reviewer checked some, and a dialogue was held with theteams where possible to discuss the review. The number of peer reviews undertaken this yearwas greater than last year. A few reports were omitted because they were submitted too lateto be part of the review process.

All programme reports are available online, along with the peer reviews of reports wherethese were completed, and in the Insight Conservation Project Management System.

https://sites.google.com/a/wwf.panda.org/wwf-international/divisions/conservation/cspu/results-based-management-group/review-of-wwf-reporting/group1/impact-papers-for-review

https://sites.google.com/a/wwf.panda.org/cspu-team-workspace/reporting/1-fy15-reviews

http://insight.panda.org/INSIGHT/


2 Key Achievements, Issues and Impacts in 2015

For the third consecutive year we compiled impact and outcome dashboards to summarizedelivery of the GPF by global priority place-based programmes, flagship species programmes,the Global Climate and Energy Initiative and commodity footprint programmes. Thecontinued development of the dashboards is explained in section 5, and the dashboards forFY15 are presented in Annex 2.

Each dashboard shows:· The Conservation Achievement KPI, calculated from the programme’s monitoring

report (Part 2 of its annual TPR) to give an indication of progress againstexpected results (planned intermediary results) for FY15.

· A summary of key achievements and challenges extracted from programmereports, especially if there are direct links to outcomes and impacts.

· Available data on common impact and outcome indicators. This year across thefour dashboards data are presented for 13 indicators, sourced primarily fromexternal data sets.

The impact and outcome dashboards are meant to provide a snapshot to identify key issuesand trends: reference to the relevant FY15 TPRs will allow further understanding ofprogramme achievements and challenges.

Below we review achievements reported in programme TPRs in FY15 and data in the impactand outcome dashboards, looking at the GPF elements by issues and themes. We alsosummarize how the programmes work relates to the new global goals and outcomes thenetwork will focus on from 2016.

2.1 Programme Conservation Achievement ratings

On the performance of programmes against their expected annual results (as measured bythe Conservation Achievement KPI which has a rating of 1 to 7, with 7 the highest score), theprogramme ratings ranged from 3.0 to 6.4 (compared to 3.9 to 6.7 last year); the averagerating was 5.1 out of 7, with scores on average 0.2 lower than last year. This suggests mostprogrammes are delivering well on their commitments and to a similar scale as before.

Several programmes that had relatively high KPI scores still had some negative trends inimpact and outcome data. For example, the African elephant population continued to declinethis year but the WWF African Elephant Programme provided support for work such as anti-poaching and human-elephant conflict mitigation and had a Conservation Achievement KPIscore of 4.9 (70 per cent progress against planned annual results). The rate of deforestation iscurrently increasing in the Brazilian Amazon yet the Living Amazon Initiative’s KPI score was5.4 (77 per cent progress). This discrepancy between annual results and impact may be dueto a time lag between implementing actions and seeing an impact, overly optimistic self-assessments of progress, or inappropriate or ineffective strategies. It may also be related tounexpected external factors beyond the programmes’ control (such as the weak economy inBrazil).


2.2 Biodiversity conservation

2.2.1 Biodiversity status

The most important indicators of biodiversity status – providing us with the ultimatemeasures of impact – are the population levels of species and habitat cover. Currently, dataare most prevalent for flagship species and forest cover. In future we need to fill the datagaps, especially for species important for priority places and for marine and freshwaterhabitats.

2.2.1.1 Population trends of priority species

Greater one-horned rhino

There was a net positive growth of the greater one-horned rhino population across its rangein Nepal, India and Bhutan (Fig. 1) and the Asian Rhino and Elephant Programme and itspartners are well on track to achieve the goal of 4,000 rhinos by 2020. In 2015, Nepal’spopulation reached 645 rhinos as compared to 534 rhinos in 2011 – an increase of 21 percent.

Figure 1. Greater one-hornedrhino population numbers.

Giant panda

The fourth national giant panda survey in China in 2015 revealed that the population of wildanimals has reached 1,864 animals, an increase of 16.8 per cent since the 2003 survey. Overthe same period, habitat for the species has expanded by 11.8 per cent to 2.58 million ha. Tenyears effort by WWF to restore a panda corridor at Road G108 in the Qinling Tunnel area isdemonstrating success, with monitoring demonstrating the value of the corridor as suitablehabitat to connect sub-populations.

Tiger

Tiger populations are increasing in Russia, India and Bhutan, reflecting investments inrangers, anti-poaching tools, protected area management, and law enforcement.

A full-scale winter census of Amur tigers took place in the Russian Far East in February 2015for the first time in ten years. The preliminary results confirmed 523-540 individuals, a 10-15per cent increase in the population compared to 2005 (428-502 animals). More importantly,the situation in the four WWF tiger landscapes was much better than ten years ago:

· Land of Leopard Landscape – increase of 220 per cent in the population· Northern Tiger Landscape - increase of 106 per cent· Bikin Tiger Landscape – increase of 43 per cent· Southern Sikhote-Alin Tiger Landscape – increase of 13 per cent.

© Simon de TREY-WHITE / WWF-UK


Programme monitoring demonstrated that there are 24 Amur tigers plus 2 cubs in Jilin andHeilongjiang provinces, China. Camera trap photos indicated that the area occupied by thetigers is extending and that 2 to 3 breeding families are now resident in the northeast of thecountry.

In Bhutan, the country held its first national survey and estimated 103 tigers, higher than theoriginal estimate of 75. In Greater Mekong, ongoing capture-mark-recapture camera-trapsurveys across the Dawna Tenasserim Landscape (a Tx2 Tiger Recovery site) documentedseven adult tigers (three males and four females) and five cubs - evidence of reproduction(less adults but more than twice as many cubs as in the 2012 survey).

African elephant

WWF supported the IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group in updating elephantpopulation figures in the Elephant Database. Preliminary analyses demonstrate a decline innumbers across Africa from about 500,000 in 2006 to 470,000 in 2013.

Some parts of eastern Africa previously representing safe havens for this species have beenhit by poaching outbreaks. Tanzania’s elephant population has dropped by 60 per cent in justfive years. Government data released in 2015 shows numbers have declined from 109,051 in2009 to 43,330 in 2014 (see media reports at Cornell, 2015 and Mathiesen, 2015). Biggestdeclines were in sites previously or currently supported by WWF, such as Selous GameReserve (down from almost 45,000 to 15,000) and the Ruaha-Rungwa landscape (down from34,000 to just 8,000). Central Africa is also suffering high levels of poaching (Maisels et al.2014).

Trends vary between different populations across the continent. Numbers have declined inthe WWF project site in Transmara from 2,116 in 2006 to 1,448 in 2013. The Caprivi regionin Namibia recorded a significant increase in numbers, from 8,725 in 2006 to 14,097 in 2013.In Zambia, elephants increased in the Luangwa, Kafue and lower Zambezi ecosystems whileSioma Ngwezi National Park (NP) saw a decrease. Preliminary figures suggest Hwange NP(Zimbabwe) and Chobe NP (Botswana) are carrying more than double their elephant carryingcapacity, leading to habitat destruction and increased human-elephant conflict (HEC).

African rhinos

Despite the increasing threats from poaching (seebelow), some rhino populations in Africa arethriving and overall numbers are still increasing.The black rhino population rose from 4,880 to5,081 in the last two years; white rhinos increasedfrom 20,170 to 20,505, continuing a long-termtrend (see Flagship Species ProgrammesDashboard, Annex 2). However, the overallpopulation growth rate of around 2 per cent is lessthan the WWF goal of 5 per cent.

Rhino numbers overall have largely continued to increase due to successful projectssupported by WWF that buffer populations against losses elsewhere. The Black Rhino RangeExpansion Project has ensured continued growth or stability in the KwaZulu Natalpopulation over the last decade (Fig. 2), though poaching in 2015 curbed the populationgrowth. The Lowveld Rhino Trust in Zimbabwe (see Fig. 3) and the Black Rhino ManagementProject in Kenya have seen ongoing population growth rates of 4.2 per cent and 2.7 per centrespectively. However, if poaching is not curtailed, numbers will ultimately fall. For example,the population in Kruger NP is on the verge of decline for the first time in decades (Fereira etal. 2015).

© PJ Stephenson

http://www.elephantdatabase.org/


Figure 2. The population of blackrhinos in KwaZulu Natal, supportedby the Black Rhino Range ExpansionProject.

Figure 3.Population trends ofboth species of rhinoin Zimbabwe’sLowveldconservanciescompared withother parts of thecountry.(Source: Raoul duToit, Lowveld RhinoTrust, cited inAfrican RhinoProgramme Report.)

Asian elephant

Populations of Asian elephant are thought to be stable or increasing in five key WWFlandscapes (Nilgiris-Eastern Ghats, Kaziranga-Karbi Anglong, Terai Arc, Eastern Plains,Dawna-Tennaserim-Kuiburi) due to core habitats remaining largely intact and no reportedlarge-scale die offs or killings due to conflict or poaching.

The survival of Sumatran elephants remains a big concern for WWF and other stakeholders.In Tesso Nilo NP, population estimates using faecal DNA indicated that there might be 151elephants (95 per cent confidence interval of 128-174). Since that estimate, 26 individualshave died and half the park has been encroached, so the population is in dire straits. The onebig win was the securing of 39,000 ha in the Bukit Tigapuluh NP buffer area, home to 120-150 elephants, which could prove to be the building block of securing an elephant populationfor the longer term in central Sumatra.

Other positive news on flagship species populations thisyear include:

Orangutans: In Sebangau NP, Kalimantan, Borneo, the orang-utan population increased 7 per cent relative to 2007, with thepopulation now at 5,826 individuals. This is a long-term successfor WWF, which started work in Sebangau in 2002. In addition,70,000 ha of orangutan habitat was classified as protectionforest reserves in Malaysia. Seventy per cent of orangutans liveoutside protected areas, mainly in logging concessions, so theDwima timber group’s commitment to support orangutanconservation in its 449,906 ha of concession areas (as well asimplementing FSC) is an encouraging development. © WWF-Indonesia/Chairul Saleh


African Great Apes: In Cameroon, Lobeke National, Park - as part of the SanghaTrinational - is one of the highest priority landscapes for western lowland gorillas and centralchimpanzees (IUCN 2014) and an important site for forest elephants. The park has receivedlong-term support from WWF and recent data from the African Greats Apes Programmesuggest that ape numbers may have stabilized at around 2,650 animals between 2009 and2015, though elephants in that time may have declined from 1,715 to 1,021. (Fig. 4).

Figure 4. Population trends forgreat apes and elephants in LobekeNational Parks, Cameroon (Source:African Great Apes Programmereport).

Asian Big Cats

· Snow leopard (Uncia uncia): The total number of snow leopards in the 5 keygroupings in Russian portion of the Altai-Sayan increased to 53-58 animals in 2015versus 32-40 animals in 2011. In Mongolia, camera trap monitoring measured thehighest snow leopard density ever recorded in the country.

· Amur leopard (Panthera pardus orientalis): In the Russian Far East (AmurHeilong), a snow track census in combination with DNA analysis and photo trappingshowed a minimum of 60 Amur leopards in the Land of the Leopard NP andPoltavskiy wildlife refuge (compared to 35 in 2007) (Fig. 5). There are also 16 adultsand two cubs in Jilin and Heilongjiang provinces, indicating the species range innortheast China is expanding.

· Caucasian leopard (Panthera pardus ciscaucasica): Encouraging progress for thethreatened Caucasian leopard with a viable population of 7-10 individuals beingmonitored in Southern Caucasus.

· Asiatic lion (Panthera leo persica): This sub-species of lion, confined to the Girforest in India, has increased steadily from 180 animals in 1974 to 411 animals in 2010and 523 in 2014 (Sigh & Gibson 2011; Kateshivya 2015).

Figure 5. Amur leopard population numbers in the Land of the Leopard NP, Russia.

© naturepl.com / Lynn M. Stone / WWF


Macropods: The black-flanked rock wallabies (Petrogale lateralis) at Nangeen Hill NatureReserve have increased to 39, from just five individuals two years ago. However, they have along way to go to reach their pre-2007 level of 135.

In addition to the poaching crisis impacting African elephants, there are some worryingdeclines in several flagship species that require urgent responses:

· Vaquita: As reported last year, only about 97 vaquita remain. In July 2014, WWF-Mexico, the National Commission of Protected Natural Areas (Comisión Nacional deÁreas Naturales Prote-gidas or CONANP), andthe US Marine MammalCommission organizedthe fifth Meeting of theInternational Committeefor the Recovery ofVaquita, which con-cluded that the speciesfaces imminent extin-ction and sent urgent recommendations to the Mexican government. In April 2015,the Mexican Presidency decided to decree a two-year ban for gillnets (except for thecorvine fishery) and hook longlines in commercial fisheries from the Upper Gulf ofCalifornia. Additionally, the vaquita refuge was expanded to three times its originalsize, economic compensation to fishers was provided and an intensive surveillanceprogramme implemented.

· Sumatran rhino: This species is also on the brink of extinction with no more than100 animals remaining. It was confirmed that only 20-25 rhinos are left in BukitBarisan Selatan NP, indicating the need for urgent management of the rhinos to breedfaster via an Intensive Management Zone.

· Javan rhino: Only 55-56 individuals remain in the species’ stronghold of UjungKulon NP. Two potential sites to establish a second population are being explored.

· Irrawaddy dolphin: In the Mekong, five dolphin mortality events between Julyand December 2014 were of concern as they represented 2.4 per cent of thepopulation lost in a six month period. Demographic and ecological dolphin research isbeing continued to obtain updated population estimates and ongoing work on threatreduction for dolphin including livelihood support, community awareness raising andcommunity patrolling.

· A recent survey suggests the north Chinese leopard (Panthera pardus japonensis)has declined to between 174 and 348 animals. Only small, fragmented populationsremain, scattered across eight provinces in isolated protected areas where it is unclearif they are viable (Laguardia et al. 2015).

This year, reports noted progress on several species of importance in WWF priorityplaces:

· Saiga, Altai-Sayan: Latest estimates putnumbers in Mongolia at 15,000 animals,suggesting the population is growing (maybeas much as fivefold since 1998). Howeverthis news is tempered by the correspondingcrash in the saiga populations in CentralKazakhstan that suffered a catastrophic die-off in May 2015. Official figures suggest some134,252 animals died, about 62 per cent ofthe 2014 population (Milner-Gulland 2015).The cause is the Pasteurella bacterium, butits impact was likely compounded byenvironmental factors.

· Argali, Altai-Sayan: The total number in the transboundary Russian-Mongolianpopulation increased to 2,925 animals, twice as large as the 2017 target.

© WWF / William Shepard

© Wild Wonders of Europe /Igor Shpilenok / WWF


· Black footed ferret, Northern Great Plains: Numbers more than doubled overthe last year – from 70 to 158 – thanks to WWF work with a range of partners toreintroduce, monitor and sustain ferrets on indigenous lands.

· American bison, Northern Great Plains: Numbers rose from 1,778 last year to2,435 this year due to the expansion of herds into Fort Peck and Fort Belknap IndianReservations outside of Yellowstone NP.

· European bison, Danube Carpathians: 18 bison were released in Armenia andRomania with Rewilding Europe raising the population to 28.

· Jaguar, Atlantic Forests: Numbers reached between 59-95 individuals, up from abaseline of 30-58.

· Iberian lynx, Mediterranean:In the forests of the IberianPeninsula, the Iberian lynx (Lynxpardinus), one of the world’s mostthreatened cats, has increased innumbers from less than 100 in-dividuals in 2002 to 327 in 2014.After joint efforts of the Spanishnational and regional admin-istrations, the European Union(EU), WWF and other NGOs, thespecies has recovered from thebrink of extinction and IUCN’sRed List assessment in 2015 downlisted the species from CriticallyEndangered to Endangered (see Rodríguez & Calzada, 2015).

· Banteng, Greater Mekong: Distance-based line transects demonstrated a 16 percent increase in the estimated population since 2011 (estimated population 870 ± 170in 2011; 1,009 ± 239 in 2014).

· Tamaraw, Philippines: The world’s rarest buffalo and the largest native landanimal in the Philippines is on the comeback. In 1969 numbers were as low as 100animals, but a project to improve park management and species monitoring by WWF,the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the Tamaraw ConservationProgramme, the Far Eastern University, and the Mindoro’s Indigenous Tau Buidtribepeople, has seen numbers rise to 405.

This year WWF and the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) produced the Living Blue PlanetReport (WWF 2015), summarizing time series population data for marine species. Basedon trends in 1,234 species, marine vertebrate populations have declined by 49 per centbetween 1970 and 2012 (Fig. 6).

Figure 6. Themarine Living PlanetIndex (Source:WWF/ZSL; WWF2015).

© WWF-Spain/Jesús Cobo


2.2.1.2 Habitat cover and fragmentation

In order to improve the accuracy and coverage of our measures of habitat cover andfragmentation in WWF priority places, the WWF-Germany Remote Sensing Centreanalysed alternative data sets with different methods compared with the assessmentspresented in previous Global Conservation Programme Reports. An explanation of thechallenges with previous methods can be found in Stephenson et al. (2015a); the methodsused for this year’s analysis can be found in WWF-Germany (2015).

Analyses were updated this year for 14places (see Place-based ProgrammesDashboard, Annex 2); analysis of thedata for the remaining sites is ongoing.Preliminary analysis shows that de-forestation is causing a reduction inforest cover in many WWF places (seesection 2.2.2.3). Of the places with data,forest cover was most reduced inSouthern Chile (19 per cent of cover lostsince 2000), the Yangtze Basin (12.8 percent lost) and Cerrado Pantanal (8.7 percent lost). Fragmentation was highest(and increasing) in Cerrado Pantanal (62 per cent of the forest is fragmented), SouthernChile (56 per cent) and Atlantic Forests (52 per cent).

Significant areas of habitat were restored in 2015 through WWF efforts. Examples included:· In the African Rift Lakes, over 3,266 ha of degraded land were rehabilitated in Kenya,

the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Uganda. Over 6,000 ha of land havebeen reforested in eastern DRC since 2007, producing over 50 tonnes of sustainablecharcoal as an alternative to the illegal charcoal from Virunga NP.

· In the Atlantic Forests of Paraguay, in the last two years WWF reforested a total areaof 987.5 ha in the Ñacunday watershed and surrounding areas (Upper Parana).

· In Altai-Sayan, 365 ha of forest was restored with 1.14 million confers.· In Cerrado-Pantanal, 83 ha of forest were restored in Guariroba River Basin and 102

ha in Pipiripau River Basin.· In Madagascar, 122 ha of mangroves were planted in Ambaro Bay, as part of the

Northern Mozambique Channel work, and in the Marojejy-Anjanaharibe Sud-Tsaratanana corridor 11 ha were reforested with 30,566 seedlings.

2.2.2 Pressures on biodiversity

The main pressures on biodiversity for which data are available this year are illegal killing ofspecies, illegal wildlife trade and habitat loss.

2.2.2.1 Illegal killing

Poaching of elephants, rhinos and Asia big cats for meat, skins, ivory, horn and other bodyparts is an ongoing threat.

African rhinos are a major cause for concern: the rate of illegal killing is now more than 21times higher than it was in 2006. The number of animals killed illegally was 60 in 2006 and1,293 in 2014. The poaching onslaught in South Africa goes on unabated, with 1,215 rhinospoached in 2014 - a loss of 3.3 animals per day and a 21 per cent increase since last year’stotal of 1,004. Poaching of rhino in Namibia (mostly Etosha NP) has escalated from 26 in2014 to 68 in the first seven months of 2015. However, the Namibian government isclamping down on illegal killing and, after 48 arrests were made, no further rhino poachingincidents were documented since early May.

© PJ Stephenson


Rhino poaching in Asia declined in the last two years but is still more than twice as high as in2011 (see Annex 2, Flagship Species Programmes Dashboard). Strong law enforcementefforts in Nepal saw the country go through another 365 days of zero rhino poaching (and asof 30 June 2015 managed to remain poaching free for 423 days in total). In India, poachingat WWF priority rhino sites supported by WWF in Assam (Indian Rhino Vision 2020 sites)has declined by 47 per cent from a high in 2013 (3.75 animals lost per month) to two animalslost per month (Fig. 7).

Figure 7. Number of greaterone-horned rhinos poached peryear in Indian Rhino Vision 2020priority sites in Assam, India.Note: the number of rhinospoached in the first six months of2015 has been doubled to providea comparable estimate for 2015.

Capacity building for law enforcement effectiveness across priority landscapes in the GreaterMekong is having an impact, with zero poaching of elephants in Kuiburi and MaeWong/Khlong Lan National Parks in Thailand and Nampouy NP in Laos.

2.2.2.2 Wildlife trade

The killing of WWF flagship species continues to be driven by a thriving illegal trade inanimal products. Data from CITES (Convention on International Trade in EndangeredSpecies of Wild Fauna and Flora) and TRAFFIC (wildlife trade indicator R3 in the FlagshipSpecies Programmes Dashboard) show there was a three-fold increase in the illegal ivorytrade between 2008 and 2011. One promising piece of news this year was that, during anivory burning event, the Chinese government committed to strictly control the trade until allcommercial processing and sale ends – a significant event given that China is the largestivory market in the world. Enforcement of illegal ivory sales will be much easier once thepossibility of laundering ivory through the legal retailers is gone.

TRAFFIC data (Fig. 8) showed that the number of rhino horns seized worldwide rose from2009 and has been relatively stable over the last three years. However, given the steadyincrease in poaching, the overall seizure rate is declining and in 2014 it was only 6 per cent ofthe total number of horns obtained from poached animals.

Figure 8. Number of rhino horns seizedand the ratio of horns seized to hornspoached. Source: TRAFFIC

2.2.2.3 Deforestation and habitat loss

Based on analysis of the latest data (see Place-based Programmes Dashboard, Annex 2), ofthe 14 places with new data, the highest levels of deforestation (in the last five years, inproportion to overall surface area) were in the Yangtze Basin (3.2 percent of ecoregion area


per annum) and Southern Chile (3.1 per cent per annum). External sources also show thatthe rate of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon increased in FY15 to a level more than 50per cent higher than in FY14 (Fonseca et al. 2015). Across the Amazon there are 25 activedeforestation fronts, of which nine show increasing rates of deforestation (WWF LivingAmazon Initiative 2014).

There were some notable successes in reducing habitat loss. For example, in Madagascar, forthe first time since 2010 and 2012 respectively, no deforestation was observed inTsimanampetsotse and Kirindy Mitea, national parks that are supported by WWF.

A more detailed analysis of deforestation rates will be conducted next year when all WWFpriority places have been assessed by the WWF-Germany Remote Sensing Centre.

2.2.3 Responses to pressures and drivers

A study by the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), commissioned by WWF, demonstratedthat successful species conservation is only likely to be successful if threats are removed(Crees et al. 2015). Many WWF programmes tackled directly the threats or pressures facinghabitats and species such as overexploitation and illegal use of timber, fish and wildlife,infrastructure and transportation, energy production, climate change impacts, non-fossil fuelextractives (mining) and agriculture and aquaculture. Here we summarize progress reportedby programmes using strategies against over-exploitation and illegal use, infrastructure andextractives. The reduction of other pressures is summarized in the sections on carbon andcommodities footprints.

2.2.3.1 Improving protected areas coverage and management effectiveness

Protected areas remain an important strategy for conserving species and priority places(terrestrial, marine and freshwater). Overall in WWF priority places there was an 11.8 percent increase in protected area coverage since 2008 according to the WWF-Germany RemoteSensing Centre. In total, 1.25 billion ha of protected areas cover 11.3 per cent of WWF priorityplaces.

Several programmes reported on the establishment of new protected areas or the expansionof existing protected areas in priority places. Examples included:· The Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (being supported by the

governments of Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe) was furtherexpanded from 44 million ha to 52 million ha.

· In Madagascar, supported by WWF, four protected areas totalling 671,280 ha wereformally gazetted: Amoron’I Onilahy, Nord Ifotaka, Ankodida and the huge (537,465 ha)Complexe des Aires Protégées Ambohimirahavavy Marivorahona. In addition, theComplexe des Lacs Ambondro et Sirave, located within Kirindy Mitea NP, wasdesignated as Madagascar’s tenth Ramsar site, the result of lobbying and support byWWF.

· WWF-Indonesia was instrumental in the establishment of the 276,693 ha Pantar Straitmarine area as a locally managed marine protected area in the Coral Triangle.

· In Borneo, 35,000 ha of forest in Sabah (most of it suitable elephant habitat) wasgazetted as a ‘protection 1 forest reserve’ and 203,000 ha of ‘production’ forest was re-classified as ‘protection’ forest. The total land area of Sabah in protected forests is now 21per cent (on track for WWF’s goal of 30 per cent).

· In the Mongolian Altai-Sayan, 105,200 ha of Darvi soum of Khovd aimag was made areserve pasture, bringing the total area to 462,775 ha - 35 per cent of national saiga range.

· In South Africa, the Knersvlakte Nature Reserve of 88,000 ha was formally declared,capping a decade’s worth of work by WWF and the Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Trust.

· In Colombia, Portete National Natural Park (14,000 ha) was established in the Caribbeancoastal zone to protect mangroves, reefs, and migratory marine turtles.

· In Armenia, Caucasus, over 6,000 ha of community based protected areas were created.


· After more than a decade’s work, WWF-Spain saw the creation of a network of offshoremarine protected areas, expanding the overall MPA network from 1 per cent to 8 per centof Spanish waters.

· In the Arctic Russian Murmansk region, a nature park of 88,000 ha was established.· In Amur Heilong, the regional wetland wildlife refuge of Muhtel was established in

Khabarovskiy province in the Russian Far East; the 49,454 ha protected area is home tothe largest group of whooping swans in the Amur River basin and to Steller’s sea eagles.

· A positive development for smart fishing and the Southern Cone Alliance was the strictprotection of 117 seamounts in the Chilean Exclusive Economic Zone. All protectedseamounts are now exempt from the bottom trawling operations and the area covered bythe bottom trawl ban is 6.8 million ha or 1.8 per cent of the Zone.

A handful of protected area management effectiveness (PAME) assessments were conductedthis year. For example, in the Miombo Woodlands, baselines were established for HwangeNP (51%) and the gazetted forests of Sikumi (52%) and Ngamo (58%). However, the numberof programmes that are using and reporting on PAME is lower than needed if we are to usethis important indicator to track progress in improving management over time.

2.2.3.2 Enhancing community resource management, livelihoods and benefits

Many programmes are providing direct benefits to local people, though work in Namibiacontinues to lead the way in terms of scale of impact. Thenumber of communal conservancies grew from 79 to 82, withconservancies now covering 16.24 million ha, approximately19.7 per cent of the country. The popularity of theconservancy movement is being driven by increasing benefitsand employment opportunities from such market-basedconservation enterprises as joint venture lodges, communitycampsites, hunting concessions, and an assortment oftourism enterprises. Total land under some form ofconservation management stands at 43.7 per cent ofNamibia’s surface area. Thirty-two of the communalconservancies are found immediately adjacent to or in keycorridors between national parks, thereby also stronglyenhancing the viability of Namibia’s protected area network.

The flow of benefits (cash, employment, and in-kind returns)to conservancy members continued to improve over the pastyear. Annual CBNRM related benefits increased significantly from US$7.51 million in 2013 toUS$7.89 million in 2014. Employment for CBNRM enterprises increased slightly from 1,544full-time jobs in 2013 to 1,608 in 2014 (also see section 6.1 below).

The Madagascar programme continued to demonstrate a range of benefits to local people andpartners. For example:

· Thanks to a successful partnership between WWF, Jirama (the national electricityprovider), the Telma Foundation (belonging to a local telecommunications operator),the World Bank and the Ministry of Energy, 518 000 lamps (out of the 540,000planned) were distributed to about 120,000 households across the country betweenSeptember 2013 and December 2014.

· In the southern part of the Mahafaly land and seascape, about 600 farmers from tenvillages received technical and practical training on skills such as market gardening,basket compost, pest control.

· To improve the sustainable use of energy, 518,000 low consumption fluorescentlamps distributed to 120,000 households; 30.5 per cent of households in Toliara haveadopted fuel-efficient stoves.

Examples of other local benefits from conservation and enhanced local capacity buildingreported this year included:

© WWF-Canon / Folke Wulf


· In Uganda, the Champion District Initiative project increased the number ofhouseholds accessing renewable energy technologies to meet their lighting andcooking energy needs. A total of 42,025 households have access to clean energy foreither cooking or lighting and phone charging, exceeding the WWF target.

· In Paraguay, over 300 families in eight communities benefited from capacity buildingin agroforestry to diversify production and increase the profits of small producers.

· In the Mediterranean, over 50 MPA managers and practitioners were trained insustainable tourism, which led to participatory management planning processes thatare engaging more than 200 MPA stakeholders from six countries.

· In Greater Mekong, WWF trained more than 30 civil society organizations (CSOs) toimprove civil society understanding of hydropower and equipping them for efficientadvocacy.

· In Argentina, 45 landowners received private and public funds as compensation forconserving, restoring or sustainably managing their native forests.

· In Cerrado-Pantanal, Peruaçu Basin, 200 families benefited from production of 5tonnes of processed fruit products while improving management of natural areas.Also, 74 local technicians were trained by WWF to implement the EnvironmentalRegistry and the new Forest Code.

· WWF’s support within the Lake Naivasha–Malewa–Aberdares contributed to theupscaling of the payment for ecosystem services scheme (2,338 farmers nowparticipate compared with 470 in 2010), resulting in improved protection andrehabilitation of catchments and sub catchments in the Naivasha basin.

2.2.3.3 Reducing illegal killing and wildlife trade

Wildlife law enforcement monitoring: The Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool(SMART) is a new and improved tool for measuring, evaluating and improving theeffectiveness of wildlife law enforcement patrols and site-based conservation activities.SMART is increasingly being adopted by WWF programmes and is now used in places likeCongo Basin, Kenya and Madagascar, as well as in several tiger, elephant and rhinolandscapes in Asia. For example, this year around the Marojejy - Anjanaharibe Sud -Tsaratanana corridor in Madagascar 11 patrols were conducted by six CSOs to monitor illegallogging, poaching, forest settlement and clearances. In the Congo Basin, SMART was appliedin 11 sites, six more than last year.

Law enforcement operations:· Successful site-based law enforcement operations around the TRIDOM in Cameroon,

organised by the Ministry of Forest and Wildlife - with support from WWF andinformed by a local information network - led to the arrest of 37 wildlife traffickerswho were sentenced with penalties ranging from two months to three yearsimprisonment and fines from US$175 to US$87,000. An analysis of law enforcementfrom 2011 to 2014 in the Jengi area of southeast Cameroon (including Lobeke, Nkiand Boumba Bek National Parks) revealed a slight decline in elephants illegally killed.However arrests and subsequent prosecutions remain low.

· In Mozambique, a large-scale anti-poaching operation with multiple law enforcementministries both in Niassa and Cabo Delgado arrested over 240 illegal poachers,miners, and loggers, confiscated equipment and destroyed at least 70 illegal huts andcamps. 900 snares and traps, ten elephant tusks and 534 kg of bushmeat werecollected and numerous firearms confiscated. Fines totalling more than US$360,000were issued for illegal logging, poaching, mining and bribery.

· As a result of a focus on professionalizing and motivating law enforcement rangersacross all of the Greater Mekong’s priority landscapes (11 protected areas; 1.5 millionha; 4 landscapes), indicators of law enforcement effectiveness increased by 7.4 percent (Fig. 9) during 2014 against 2013 baselines. Impressively, two protected areas(Quang Nam Saola Reserve and Bach Ma NP) achieved 90 per cent law enforcementeffectiveness scores and joined Mae Wong, Khlong Lan, and Kuiburi National Parksin achieving necessary law enforcement patrol standards.

http://www.smartconservationsoftware.org/


Figure 9. Percentage change in enforcement minimum standards scores for 11 priorityprotected areas in the Greater Mekong.

MPF - Mondulkiri ProtectedForest;PPWS - Phnom PrichWildlife Sanctuary;SSK - Mekong FloodedForest;KL - Khlong Lan NationalPark;MW - Mae Wong NationalPark;HSNR - Hue Saola NatureReserve;QNSR - Quang Nam SaolaNature Reserve.

Law enforcement training: In Tanzania, WWF and TRAFFIC trained 71 customs,security, police, cargo handling, and wildlife division staff at Julius Nyerere InternationalAirport and Dar es Salaam Seaport. In Kenya in response to the illegal killing of rhinos, WWFfunded 48 field staff to be equipped and trained in basic forensics and rhino security patrols.

Protecting river dolphins: There was better law enforcement for Irrawaddy dolphins inCambodia as numbers of patrol days increased from 3-4 days per month in 2014 to 8-9 daysper month in the first six months of 2015; gillnet use in core and buffer zones was reduced toalmost zero through confiscation and destruction of nets and other fishing gear and the arrestof poachers. Brazil banned the use of Amazon river dolphins as bait for piracatinga fish(caught mainly for markets in Colombia).

Reducing threats to turtles:· In the Guianas, leatherback nest poaching has been reduced to less than 10 per cent.· In Gabon, TEDs have been installed on all shrimp trawlers.· In Melaka, Malaysia, licensed hawksbill egg collection was phased out in nine

beaches, and the WWF-Malaysia egg buy-back programme in Melaka and Terengganuhas saved 150-200 green turtle nests a year.

· In Australia the testing of goanna deterrents (to keep the large lizards from predatingeggs) succeeded in protecting 87 per cent of the loggerhead nests of Wreck Rock.

· In the Gulf of Ulloa in Mexico, the federal government decreed a temporary 884,800ha fisheries refuge and declared circle hooks as mandatory for the long liners inside.

· In Indonesia, at least a quarter of longline tuna fishermen (1,312) know best practicesto handle and mitigate marine turtle bycatch, boosting the survival rate of turtlescaught to up to 95 per cent.

Human-wildlife conflict mitigation can reduce motivation for illegal killing.· WWF efforts in the community of Arviat, Nunavut, are continuing to reduce and

mitigate human-wildlife conflicts, in the face of increasing polar bear activity in thearea. From 8 polar bear kills in defence of life or property in 2010, there was just onethis season (plus the human killings of 2 cubs). No polar bear or human life was lostwhen polar bears appeared in Nenets village and WWF-Russia was called tointervene.

· In the North Bank Landscape, the HEC mitigation work was effective with Asianelephant deaths reduced by 61 per cent (seven in FY15 as compared to 18 in FY14) andhuman deaths reducing by 71 per cent (ten in FY15 as compared to 35 in FY14).


· Efforts to reduce human-gorilla conflict in and around the Virunga Massif areshowing signs of progress. For example, in Mgahinga Gorilla NP in Uganda, theincidences of conflict have decreased from 85 in 2011 to 37 in 2014 (Fig. 10). Thisreduction is largely due to the reinforcement of key transboundary areas andincreased community engagement. Reports from Virunga NP also show a significantreduction in cases of crop raiding incidents to almost zero in the area where anelectrical fence was established. In Bwindi, buffer crops of tea and Mauritius thornhedge have helped reduce crop raiding.

Figure 10. Incidents of human-gorilla conflict in MgahingaGorilla National Park, Uganda.

2.2.3.4 Reducing the impacts of infrastructure and extractives

Hydropower and dams: The Living Amazon Initiative and WWF-Brazil havecollaborated to influence hydropower planning and dam construction in the Tapajos riverbasin through targeting key stakeholders in the development of decision support tools forsustainable hydropower planning. As a result, two dams were removed from the ten-yearenergy plan by the Brazilian government. In the Mediterranean, destructive hydropowerdevelopments in Una and Hrčavka canyons (Bosnia-Herzegovina) were stopped. The China’sMinistry of Environmental Protection called off a waterway regulation project in the lowermainstream of Yangtze to minimize risk to the Yangtze finless porpoise. To ensure moresustainable planning, design and operation of hydropower projects in the Mekong, WWFhas been promoting the use of the including the Hydropower Sustainability AssessmentProtocol and Rapid Basin-wide Hydropower Sustainable Development Tool by CSOs andgovernments.

Oil and gas: In the Arctic, US President Barack Obama banned future oil and gas drilling onmore than 13.5 million ha of Bristol Bay, Alaska, one of the most productive wild salmonfisheries – home to nearly 50 per cent of the world’s wild sockeye salmon and the last pristinesalmon ecosystem in North America. WWF worked for several years with a large coalition ofenvironmental, fishing, and indigenous peoples’ groups to achieve this outcome.

2.2.3.5 Influencing policy drivers

The first ever UN General Assembly resolution tackling the illegal wildlife tradecontained strong recognition of the urgency of the problem, its implication on development,rule of law and prosperity, and included strong and specific follow-up action for UN MemberStates and Institutions that will be regularly reported on. Feedback from one of thesponsoring countries was that the resolution would not have been achieved with the technicaland advocacy support provided by WWF.

On 2 August 2015, UN Member States agreed the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,including 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) covering many aspects ofeconomic growth, social development and environmental protection. The SDGs will drivetrillions of dollars in public and private aid and investment, and prompt significant legal andadministrative reform in all countries. The WWF Global and Regional Policy Unit led anetwork steering group and worked with around 70 offices and dozens of programmes and

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014

No.

ofCo

nflic

tInc

iden

ts


external government, civil society and UN partners to ensure that the SDGs recognized thatnature and its services underpin economic growth, social development and human well-beingand a green thread is woven through all SDGs. WWF also advocated for the Living PlanetIndex, Red List Index and other Biodiversity Indicators Partnership measures to form a coreset of the global indicator framework to monitor SDG delivery.

The Global and Regional Policy Team led and coordinated WWF positions on priority issuesand facilitated successful engagement at the Twelfth meeting of the Conference of the Parties(COP) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in October 2014 inPyeongchang, South Korea. WWF focused on strengthening and defending language incommitments for decisions at the COP, advocating for better and faster implementation andsecuring financing to help ensure governments achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targetsidentified in the CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020. Successful outcomes forWWF at COP12 included:

· A series of measures and actions were adopted to accelerate implementation of theStrategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and to achieve Aichi targets,

· Developed countries agreed to double international financial flows for biodiversitybasing on the 2006-2010 baselines.

· Recognition of the contribution of private protected areas, public and indigenous andlocal community managed areas, and encouragement for the private sector to protectbiodiversity.

Other policy and advocacy highlights reported this year included:· As part of its contribution to the Sydney Promises during the Sixth World Parks

Congress (November 2014), Madagascar committed formally to triple the numberof marine protected areas, to set up an innovative sustainable funding mechanism forthe Madagascar protected areas system and to stop illegal trafficking of wildlife. WWFwill be a member of a national steering committee for the rollout of the promises.

· WWF co-organized an international Yellow Sea Ecoregion workshop in Beijing withthe Beijing Forestry University. The 100 participants included local, provincial andnational government representatives, such as the State Oceanic Administration andMinistry of Environmental Protection, site managers and international experts.Participants adopted a declaration calling for sustainable conservation andmanagement in the Yellow Sea which was sent to members of the National People'sCongress and made a positive impact on some proposals submitted to the ChinesePeople's Political Consultative Conference in March 2015.

· In Coastal East Africa, WWF helped develop some 30 laws and policies in theregion, including the inclusion of Green and Blue Economy in the five-year NationalDevelopment Plan for Mozambique and the gazetting of a Green Economy SteeringCommittee and Green Economy Strategy in Kenya.

· For the Great Barrier Reef in SouthwestPacific, WWF engagement with keystakeholders and lobbying around the WWFReef Scorecard were instrumental in the electedparty in the 2015 Queensland State electionproducing a Sustainable Fishing Policy; thepolicy contained significant commitments toreduce unsustainable fishing practices and tomaximize community benefits.

· WWF’s global climate and energy teamadvocated for global leaders to demonstratestrong commitment to climate action, throughearly pledges on emissions cuts (IntendedNationally-Determined Contributions) andfinance and sustained engagement towards COP21. At least seven key countries and the EUsubsequently increased their commitments.

© James Morgan / WWF


2.2.3.6 Influencing financial flows

After private sector standards work being tackled under commodities (section 2.4) and thelegal and policy frameworks being addressed in our advocacy work (section 2.2.3.5), the mainGPF driver reported on this year was finance.

Work reported on financial mechanisms included:· In May 2015, a study identified the top ten financial institutions providing funding for

economic activities in the Amazon. This research revealed the key economic sectorscontributing to deforestation and the extent to which selected financial institutionsinvesting in the relevant sectors have policies in place that ensure the use of relevantcriteria, safeguards and measures for screening proposals from prospectivecompanies prior to financing their activities.

· As mentioned above, in Coastal East Africa a coalition consisting of WWF, UNEP, theAfrican Development Bank and Danida supported the Kenyan government in thedevelopment of its green economy strategy.

· Application of green economy tools at the landscape level in the Mekong region notonly showed a progression from policy to practice, but further strengthened greeneconomy policy work by providing on-the-ground examples to showcase topolicymakers (e.g. work in Cambodia has been fed into the working group of forestryand sustainable financing).

· In Indonesia, with members of the Green Business Network that represent variouscompanies with an interest in Borneo, WWF has been working to develop the policyframeworks and development strategies for sustainable landscapes. The GreenEconomy Development Program in Kutai Barat District supports a national priorityaction established by the REDD+ agency on spatial planning and green villagedevelopment, as well as a review of land use licensing to address the major drivers ofdeforestation such as forest conversion to oil palm, forest plantation (acacia), miningand expansion of community agriculture farming.


2.3 Carbon and energy footprint

From the carbon dioxide indicator (P5 in the Carbon and Energy Dashboard which has dataup to 2012), emissions were relatively flat or with some decreases in Europe and the USA andcontinued to show increases in China, India, Mexico and Indonesia, though the relative scaleof emissions is very different between countries (compare Mexico’s emissions of 430 Gt CO2with China’s emissions of 8,250 Gt CO2). Energy-related emissions plateaued in 2014.Reasons were the continued rapid growth of renewables, the increased effectiveness of energyefficiency policies and reduced demand for coal, particularly in China (no coal growthcompared to 74 per cent growth during the last decade), the EU (coal down by almost 7 percent in this one year) and Russia (down by 6 per cent).

Large-scale targets for solar and wind renewable energy sources (RES) appeared in in Chinaand India. Indonesia also announced its new RES target of 23 per cent of primary energy by2025, following a three-year-long WWF advocacy strategy. WWF collaborated with INAGA(the geothermal industry association) and parliament in the successful legislation of a NewGeothermal Law that will enable the country that holds 40 per cent of the world’s geothermalreserves to fully utilize this sustainable energy source. Many developing countries continuedto lead the way with RES, with Brazil, South Africa, Kenya, Uruguay, Morocco, Philippinesand Indonesia maintaining growth in renewable energy production.

Figure 11. Breakdown of renewable energy sources used in electricity production in Braziland Russia, demonstrating the heavy reliance on hydropower (which may not besustainable).

Energy consumption from renewable sources other than hydropower rose by 5.8 per cent inthree years, from 12,225 MTOE in 2011 to 12,928 MTOE in 2014; this also represents anincrease from 1.7 per cent of total consumption globally in 2011 to 2.5 per cent in 2014.Nationally, renewable energy consumption as a share of overall consumption increased inmost WWF priority countries if hydropower is excluded (the highest increase was the 3.9 percent rise in the Philippines), but it is flat in Russia and declining in Indonesia and Poland.Among priority countries for WWF, the relative scale of renewable energy consumption(minus hydro) varies greatly, from 11.5 per in the Philippines to 0.01 per cent in Russia.

Many countries rely heavily on hydropower, especially in BRICS countries (Fig. 11), but it isexcluded from calculations here, as it is not always sustainable (indeed, it may havedetrimental environmental impacts if the appropriate protocols, such as the HydropowerSustainability Assessment Protocol, are not followed).

A number of companies adopted new climate leadership targets as part of the Climate SaversProgramme: Swiss Post, the largest mail and package delivery company in Switzerland;Volvo, the Swedish producer of trucks and heavy machinery; Eneco, a Dutch utility company;Sony, the Japanese electronics and media company; and Vanke, the Chinese manufacturingcompany of buildings and the largest real estate developer in the world. Two partners (Sonyand Eneco) set strong targets in line with science, and a good set of companies are currentlyvery close to setting new science-based targets (e.g. Mondi, Alpro, Avery Dennison, Procter &Gamble).


2.4 Commodities footprint

This year there was an increase over last year in the percentage market share of severalcertified commodities, including whitefish (with the biggest annual increase of 9.6 per cent ofmarket share), cotton (up 7.4 per cent) palm oil (up 3.5 per cent) tuna (up 2.8 per cent)shrimp (up 2 per cent) and sugar (up 1 per cent). In some cases these relatively smallincreases in market share conceal significant increases in the volumes of certifiedcommodities produced: sustainable cotton production increased nearly threefold in one yearfrom 950,000 tonnes to 2.8 million tonnes; and tuna from certified sources rose by 33.1 percent from 546,775 tonnes to 727,836 tonnes (see Commodities Programmes Dashboard,Annex 2).

Market share of certified soy and biomaterials remained relatively stable (though lower thanplanned), and timber showed a small decline this year (down 0.7 per cent on last year).

2.4.1 Wood, paper and pulp

By August 2015, 181,979,315 ha of forest (an area almost threeand half times the size of France) were certified worldwideunder FSC through 1,347 certificates issued in 80 countries(Source: FSC). WWF’s Global Forest and Trade Network(GFTN) continues to show progress. As of June 2015, GFTN had67 forest management participants (representing 144,895employees) managing over 26.4 million ha of forests, of which20.1 million ha are FSC certified - 36 per cent of total FSCcertified area in countries where GFTN engages with forestmanagers.

Several programmes reported specific increases in habitat andplantations under certified management this year for wood,paper and pulp production. For example:

· In the Congo Basin, total FSC certification increased to5,437,625 ha, exceeding the WWF programme’s target of 5.3 million ha. The forestcompanies CIB and IFO regained their FSC certificates in the Republic of Congo for712,433 ha and 1.16 million ha respectively, meaning the country also regained itsposition as regional leader in FSC (2,443,176 ha certified).

· In the Danube Carpathians, 3 million ha of forest (about 25 per cent of the region)is FSC certified (up from 2.8 million ha last yr).

· In Coastal East Africa, an additional 389,315 ha came under sustainablecommunity-based forest management since 2011. In the Rovuma landscape inTanzania WWF continued to work with partners to scale-up participatory forestrymanagement and support local communities to develop innovative business models.A total of 65,578 ha of forests were secured under this scheme in FY15.

· In Borneo 150,000 ha of forest came under FSC certification.· In Argentina’s Atlantic Forests, the total area of native forest under sustainable use

reached 170,000 ha.· Indonesia saw the first FSC group certification at the concession level with two

GFTN participants in West Kalimantan receiving FSC certification for 28,220 ha ofmangrove forests.

2.4.2 Food – fish, meat and crops

Food commodities – fish, meat and crops – are increasingly coming under sustainableproduction schemes. As of June 2015, 373 fisheries are engaged in the MSC programme, ofwhich 265 fisheries are certified and 108 are in assessment. Together, fisheries alreadycertified or in full assessment record annual catches of close to 11 million metric tonnes ofseafood, around 12 per cent of the annual global harvest of wild capture fisheries. Thefisheries already certified catch close to 9 million metric tonnes of seafood (close to 10 per

© PJ Stephenson


cent of the total wild capture harvest). There is growing global coverage with 19 certifiedfisheries in developing countries and 12 more in assessment.

Other examples from the programmes in 2015 included:

Tuna· The results of stock management

measures indicated that all managedstocks in the Indian Ocean TunaCommission have progressed 25 percent towards sustainable stockmanagement; 83 per cent managedstocks in the Western and CentralPacific Fisheries Commission haveprogressed 13 per cent towardssustainable management and 99 percent of managed stocks in the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commissionhave progressed 25 per cent towards sustainable management.

· Atlantic/Mediterranean bluefin tuna stocks are showing signs of recovery – WWF isinfluencing these fisheries through the Mediterranean Advisory Council.

· The Partnership Towards Sustainable Tuna is a fisheries improvement projectimplemented by WWF-Philippines working with more than 5,000 small-scaleyellowfin tuna hand-line fishers towards MSC certification. Seven EU seafoodcompanies have invested in the fishery with co-funding by the German DevelopmentAgency.

Other fisheries· As of July 2015, a total of 171 ASC certified farms produce 496,229 tonnes of farmed

fish. This is an increase of 93 farms and 170,949 tonnes in FY15. A total of nineAquaculture Improvement Projects were started in FY15, including one farm inMadagascar, four in Belize, two in Thailand and one in Indonesia.

· Four farms in Chile obtained the ASC certification, equivalent at 10,100 tonnes ofsalmon production.

· 205,685 MT of Pangasius from Vietnam has been ASC certified (137 per cent oftarget) covering 802 ha of production and 868 ha of the shrimp production inMekong Delta were assessed as compliant under ASC standards.

· WWF-India worked with partners and the local community of clam fishers tofacilitate the country’s first MSC certified fishery (only the third in Asia) in theAshtamudi Estuary, Kerala.

· 90 per cent of Belize’s shrimp aquaculture production is ASC certified with supportfrom the WWF Guatemala/Mesoamerican Reef programme.

Palm oil· RSPO certified growers now produce 11.75 million tonnes per year or 20 per cent of

global palm oil production.· The WWF-Guatemala/MesoAmerican Reef programme has worked with Agrocaribe

to support Guatemala’s first RSPO certification.

Beef· A partnership between Korin and the Association of Organic Cattle Ranching saw use

of sustainably produced cows increase from 22 head/mo in 2014 to 280 head/mo in2015. By the end of FY15 the number of beef certified areas in Brazil increased to atleast 50,454 ha.

Sugar· In the Atlantic Forests, the Bonsucro certification reached 954,000 ha in 46 mills,

including farmers, end-users, intermediaries, and NGOs, representing 8 per cent of

© Wild Wonders of Europe /Zankl / WWF


total Brazilian sugarcane and 4 per cent of global production.· WWF-Guatemala/MesoAmerican Reef continued to develop sustainable supply

chains in many areas including Azunosa, (a Honduras company producing 60,000megatonnes of sugar on 7,000 ha of sugarcane).

Progress in other areas included:· In MesoAmerican Reef catchments, 87 per cent of the land that is devoted to

commodity agriculture (sugarcane, oil palm, pineapple, melon, banana, citrus,vegetables, shrimp) – an area of 261,512 ha – has adopted better managementpractices. Overall, commodity producers have reduced pesticide toxicity by as muchas 68 per cent and water and fertilizer application by as much as 40 per cent since thelaunch of WWF’s work in the region.

· In May 2015 in the Baltic, the International Council for the Exploration of the Seaestimated that five river stocks of salmon are within safe biological limits and that ‘ingeneral the exploitation rates in the sea fisheries have reduced to such a low level thatmost of the stocks are predicted to recover’.

· In the Orinoco River programme, WWF signed an agreement with the Nutresagroup (one of Latin America’s biggest food companies dealing with coffee, cocoa,palm oil, sugar and beef) to develop strategies, mechanisms and measurementsystems to reduce environmental and social risks throughout the supply chain ofspecific products, with a special emphasis on biodiversity, water and climate change.

· In the Antarctic and Southern Ocean programme, WWF-Norway led WWF inputinto an application for MSC certification of the Olympic Seafood Antarctic krillfishery. The Aker Biomarine krill fishery was recertified in January 2015.

· WWF-Hong Kong saw progress on its shark fin initiative with MOL, one of thelargest Japanese shipping companies, announcing an embargo on the shipping ofshark fin products.

Successful certification should ultimately result in enhanced biodiversity, though direct linksare not always easy to demonstrate. Utilized fish species have declined 50 per cent between1970 and 2010 (WWF 2015; Fig. 12). Sharks and rays are a good indicator of the overall stresson ocean health (WWF 2015). Catches of sharks, rays and related species rose more thanthreefold from the 1950s to a high in 2003 and have been falling since (Dulvy et al. 2014).This decrease is not so much a result of improved management, but of the decline inpopulations (Davidson et al. 2015). As most catches of sharks and rays are unregulated, totalcatch could be three to four times greater than reported (Worm et al. 2013). The declines infish and other marine species are likely to affect marine food webs and alter ocean ecosystemfunctioning (McCauley et al. 2015).

Figure 12. The utilized fish index shows harvested species have declined by 50 per centsince 1970. Source: WWF/ZSL (WWF 2015).


To understand better how the standards we support publically have on-the-groundenvironmental, social and economic impacts, WWF (through the Market TransformationInitiative) set up a number of impact evaluations around the world. As of July 2015, sevenfield-level impact evaluations were underway (FSC in Chile, Cameroon, Peru, Russia; RSPOin Malaysia; ASC in Chile; MSC in Indian Ocean), and one modelling analysis is in progress(Bonsucro in Brazil).

To date, two analyses have revealed positive impacts:· Preliminary findings suggest FSC reduced forest

loss by 0.7 per cent in the Peruvian Amazon and0.2 per cent in Cameroon.

· Bonsucro modelling analysis revealed potentialfor Bonsucro to increase sugarcane yields by 10per cent while preventing expansion into areas ofhigh conservation value.

This builds on evidence presented last year of the socialbenefits of FSC in the Congo Basin, of improved yieldsand crop quality in UTZ certified cocoa, coffee and tea,and of the sustainability advantages of Better Cotton(Stephenson & O’Connor 2014a).

© Diego M. Garces / WWF-Canon


3 Are we delivering on our 2020 GPF goals?

3.1 Are flagship species thriving?

WWF’s 2020 goal for species, as defined in the GlobalProgramme Framework, is “Populations of the mostecologically, economically and culturally important species arerestored and thriving in the wild”. The ultimate indicator todetermine if species are thriving is the status of theirpopulations.

Based on the data available for flagship species groups this year,the only species or subspecies showing demonstrable stability orpopulation increases across their range – in spite of still beingthreatened - are: black rhino (Diceros bicornis), white rhino(Ceratotherium simum), Asian elephant (Elephas maximus),Asian one-horned rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis), giant panda(Ailuropoda melanoleuca), Asiatic lion (Panthera leo persica),western grey whale (Eschrictius robustus), Barents Sea bowheadwhale (Balaena mysticetus) and Gilbert’s potoroo (Potorousgilbertii). Other flagships may show local population increases,but the species as a whole is thought to be in decline.

Overall, it therefore appears that only 16 per cent of WWF flagship species and subspecies arestable or increasing, with 84 per cent declining (Table 1). Last year 16 per cent wereconsidered stable, 18 per cent the year before. This suggests that, in spite of some localsuccesses, we are still well short of attaining our species goal. In some cases, we also needmore time to see conservation efforts result in increased numbers.

Table 1. Population trends in WWF flagship species.Data sources: IUCN Red List, Living Planet Index, IUCN Species Survival Commission.Note: whilst the figures provide an indication of progress, in future they will need to berelated to defined programme goals.

Flagship species No. species orsubspecies withdata

No. populationsestimated to be stable orincreasing

Per centshowingprogress

African elephant 1 0 0 per centAfrican great apes 4 0 0 per centAfrican rhinos 2 2 100.0 per centAsian big cats (includingtigers)

10 1 10.0 per cent

Asian elephant 1 1 100.0 per centAsian rhinos 3 1 33.3 per centCetaceans – freshwater 6 0 0 per centCetaceans – marine 16 2 12.5 per centGiant panda 1 1 100 per centMarine turtles 6 0 0 per centOrangutans 2 0 0 per centPolar bear 1 0 0 per centThreatened macropods 4 1 25.0 per centTotal for allspecies/subspecies

57 9 15.8 per cent

3.2 Are global priority places protected and well managed?

WWF’s 2020 goal for places is “Biodiversity is protected and well managed in the world’smost outstanding natural places”. Given that the outstanding natural places are the 35global priority places, we can only measure progress against this goal when all place-basedprogrammes are measuring state, pressure and response indicators that demonstrate delivery

© Susan A. Mainka / WWF-Canon


of their goals and objectives. This aggregation is not yet possible. However, if WWF globalpriority places are protected and well managed, regardless of the strategies our programmesemploy, we would expect to see threats and pressures (e.g. habitat loss) reduced, an improve-ment in responses (e.g. coverage and management effectiveness of protected areas) and animprovement in status (e.g. reduced fragmentation, increasing or stable species populations).

Based on the data available it is clear that only the indicator relating to protected areacoverage is showing a positive trend that is likely to help deliver the places goal but habitat isstill being lost in almost all ecoregions WWF wants to conserve. Protected area managementeffectiveness has been shown to be slightly improved in sites where WWF works (Knights etal. 2014; Stephenson & O’Connor 2014a) and species populations appear to be decliningmore slowly inside protected areas than outside (WWF 2014), but the average effectivenessscores are not yet sufficiently high and some flagships (notably African elephants, great apesand many cetaceans) continue to decline, even within protected areas.

We do not have enough data to draw a firm conclusion, but a preliminary assessment ofindicator trends would suggest that the global priority places goal is only being achieved to anextent of about 23 per cent. This is lower than last year’s estimate of 32 per cent primarilydue to the higher estimates of forest loss and fragmentation (Table 2).

Table 2. Preliminary assessment of progress against impact and outcome indicators inplace-based programmesData sources: see Place-based Programmes Dashboard.Notes: Whilst the figures provide an indication of progress, in future they will need to berelated to defined programme goals; PA coverage reaching 17 per cent of terrestrial and 10per cent of marine and coastal places are CBD goals but may not represent the goals of WWFprogrammes; The trends for flagship species (Table 1) suggests the average level of progresswill be lower across priority places when adequate population data are acquired.

Type ofindicator

Indicator No. placeswith trenddata

No. places showingpositive change (asdefined)

Per centshowingprogress

State Fragmentation 15 1 (fragmentation stable orreduced)

6.7 per cent

Species populations Insufficient data -Pressure Habitat loss 8 1 (rate of loss declining) 12.5 per

centResponse PA coverage 32 19 (at least 10 or 17 per

cent of place underprotection)

59.4 percent

PA managementeffectiveness

27 4 (scoring 2.0 and above) 14.8 percent

Average level of progress 23.4 percent

3.3 Are carbon, commodity and water footprints reduced to 2000 levels?

WWF’s goal for footprint is: By 2020, humanity’s global footprint falls below its 2000 leveland continues its downward trend, specifically in the areas of energy/carbon footprint,commodities (crops, meat, fish and wood) footprint and water footprint.

The main way to measure progress for this GPF goal is through the Ecological Footprint,published every two years in the WWF Living Planet Report (LPR). In LPR 2014 (WWF2014), it was clear the Ecological Footprint and the unsustainable offtake of water are stillincreasing (Fig. 13). Therefore, we are still well short of meeting our footprint goal.

Efforts to reduce some elements of the ecological footprint can be seen in the dashboards forcarbon and commodities programmes (Annex 2). Progress on reducing carbon dioxideemissions and increasing the use of renewable energy sources are still well below the levelsneeded to bring about a reduction in overall footprint. Nonetheless, the increasing share of


the commodity markets taken by certified commodities demonstrates that progress is beingmade and that footprint relating to those priority commodities should be reduced in the long-term. However, the assumption that more certification will see a reduction in populationdeclines needs to be tested rigorously. For example, the downward trend shown in exploitedfish (Fig. 12) needs to be slowed and eventually reversed as certification increases.

Figure 13. EcologicalFootprint by component.Currently the largestsingle component iscarbon (53 per cent).Source: Global FootprintNetwork (WWF 2014).


4 Are we well-placed to deliver the new WWF globalgoals and outcomes?Existing projects and programmes were set up to deliver the Global Programme Frameworkgoals. These goals were high level, and the new draft goals and outcomes are very closelylinked to them and the GPF priorities. Because they will need to be tracked with a similar setof indicators, it is possible to get an early view of the status of some of the new global goalsand outcomes (Table 3). Future Global Conservation Programme Reports includingdashboards could be adapted easily to focus on demonstrating progress once the outcomesand their indicators are finalized (see Annex 2 for a sample).

Table 3. A preliminary assessment of status in relation to the new WWF global goals andoutcomes.Note: Existing programmes were set up specifically to address the GPF goals. In future theywill need to synchronize their goals and indicators with the new global goals and indicators inorder to measure progress. Baselines will need to be established rapidly for those indicatorscurrently short of data.

Draft Outcomes Draft Measures Current Status of Key MeasuresWildlife• Species habitats andlandscapes protected andexpanded, and humanwildlife conflicts minimised• Conservation stewardshipapproaches benefit peopleand species• Illegal wildlife trade iseliminated

• Habitat coverageand connectivity• Speciespopulations• Illegal offtake ofspecies• Social indicator

· Only 16 per cent of flagshipspecies/subspecies are currently stable orincreasing.

· Only 3 of the 13 flagship species groups(African rhinos, Asian elephant, giant panda)are thriving yet are still threatened.

· Illegal killing of elephants, rhinos and Asiabig cats for meat, skins, ivory, horn and bodyparts are an ongoing challenge; marine turtlesand cetaceans are regular victims of bycatch.

Oceans• MPA networks cover 20 percent of the world’s oceans &coasts contributing toimproved human well-beingand biodiversity protection• Priority fisheries aresustainable or recovering,supporting livelihoods andbiodiversity• Illegal & destructive fishingpractices in priority fisheriesare eliminated

• Protected Areacoverage andconnectivity• Fish stocks• Illegal offtake ofspecies• Social Indicator

· Based on trends in 1,234 species, marinespecies have declined by 49 per cent between1970 and 2012 (Fig. 6).

· Utilized fish species have declined 50 per centbetween 1970 and 2010 (Fig. 12).

· WDPA data analysis by the WWF-DE RemoteSensing Centre suggests that in the 7 priorityplaces with significant marine ecoregions:o only Galapagos and Southwest Pacific

have more than 20% per cent of theirocean in MPAs

o overall about 383.4 million ha arecurrently under protection (about 9.7 percent of total ecoregion area).

Forests• 25 per cent of the world’sforests protected or underimproved managementpractices• Deforestation anddegradation is removed fromcommodity supply chains• Greenhouse gas emissionsfrom deforestation anddegradation are stabilisedthrough REDD+ and othermechanisms

• Forest coverageand connectivity• Protected Areamanagementeffectiveness• Sustainablecommoditiesmarkets• GHG emissions• Social indicator

· In the 24 WWF priority places withpredominantly forest habitats, data analysisby WWF-DE Remote Sensing Centresuggests:o Over 658.6 million ha of PAs cover 19.5

per cent of the ecoregionso Whilst 18 places have exceeded the CBD

goal of 10 per cent PA coverage, onlyAmazon and Miomo Woodlands havemore than 25 per cent of their area underprotection.

· Deforestation remains a major challenge. Ofthe places with new data, the highest levels ofdeforestation (in proportion to surface area)are in places such as Southern Chile and theYangtze Basin. Fragmentation is highest (andincreasing) in Cerrado Pantanal (62 per centof the forest), Southern Chile (56 per cent)


Draft Outcomes Draft Measures Current Status of Key Measuresand Atlantic Forests (52 per cent).

· By August 2015, 181.9 million ha of forestwere FSC certified through 1,347 certificatesin 80 countries.

Water• Critical freshwater habitatsprotected or restored• Effective transboundarywater governance• Flow regimes andconnectivity maintained orrestored in priority riverbasins

• Habitat loss anddegradation• Protected Areacoverage andconnectivity• Flow regimes• Social indicator

· Flow regimes and connectivity are beingmaintained in key river basins by limitingdam developments (examples this yearinclude WWF lobbying in the Amazon andYangtze, and the Mediterranean Basin).

· In the last 2 years, 2 major Ramsar sites havebeen declared in WWF priority places withWWF lobbying: Complexe des LacsAmbondro et Sirave, Madagascar; Fluvial Starof Inírida, Colombia.

Climate & Energy• Renewable energy provides50 per cent of global energysupply• Governments and partnersimplement strategies tobuild climate resilience forcommunities and ecosystems• At least US$ 100 billioninvested annually in lowcarbon and climate resilientfutures

• Renewableenergy production• Clean energyaccess• Adaptation planimplementation• Financial Flows• Social indicator

· Energy consumption from renewable sourcesother than hydropower rose to 2.5 per cent oftotal consumption globally in 2014, comparedwith 2.2 per cent in 2013.

· Many countries are increasing energyproduction by RES, including Brazil, China,EU, India, Indonesia Kenya, Morocco,Philippines, Uruguay, USA.

· Many priority countries have developed orare working on adaptation plans.

· Following the WWF Seize Your PowerCampaign, commitments were made to shiftan estimated US$15-20 billion out of fossilfuels into renewable energy. The GreenClimate Fund is growing and, as of November2015, had raised US$10.2 billion in pledgesfrom 38 governments.

Food• Agriculture & aquacultureproduction managedsustainably to ensurebiodiversity conservation,resilience to climate change,and benefits to people• Food waste is halved alongvalue & supply chains• Major markets shifttowards consumer choicesthat are environmentally andsocially sustainable

• Habitat loss anddegradation• Sustainablecommoditiesmarkets• Food waste• Social indicator

· Fish, meat and crops are increasingly comingunder sustainable production schemes, e.g.:o MSC certified fisheries catch close to 9

million metric tonnes of seafood per year,close to 10 per cent of the total wildcapture harvest.

o As of July 2015, a total of 171 ASCcertified farms produce 496,229 tons offarmed fish.

o RSPO certified growers now produce11.75 million tonnes or 20 per cent ofglobal palm oil production.

For WWF’s new global drivers:· Markets: More clarity is needed on defining what work will contribute to this driver.· Finance: Several programmes this year reported on progress on their work to study

and influence financial flows (e.g. Amazon, Borneo, Coastal East Africa, Mekong).· Governance: Significant progress is already underway in influencing governance of

natural resources through WWF policy work relating to CBD, CITES and the SDGs(see section 2.2.3.5).


5 Evolution and use of conservation data and theimpact and outcome dashboards

5.1 Indicator development and use

This year was the third time a set of dashboards was produced, as part of the implementationof the improved WWF system for impact and outcome monitoring. This system aims toempower local adaptive management whilst informing global decision-making (Stephenson& O’Connor 2014b; Stephenson & Reidhead 2014). The dashboard data were collated andanalyzed by CSPU and colleagues from the network and partner agencies.

Impact and outcome data cannot be collected and analyzed every year for every indicator;indeed, this would not be worthwhile since change is not always detectable on an annualbasis. Furthermore, some global data set managers only release data with a time lag.However, data collected last year are presented again this year if no new data have beenacquired, to provide an overview.

Data from 13 common indicators are presented this year in the dashboards (Annex 2):· S1. Habitat cover· S2. Habitat fragmentation· S3. Species populations· P1. Habitat loss and degradation· P2. Offtake of species· P5. CO2 gas emissions· P6. Energy consumption· R1. Protected areas coverage· R2. Protected area management effectiveness· R3. Wildlife trade· R4 (a+b). Sustainable production of commodities (volume and market share)· R5. Sustainable production of energy.

Other key indicators have been developed further this year:· Social benefits. This year CSPU, along with members of the WWF Results-based

Management Group and the Social Development for Conservation (SD4C) group,developed and tested a set of three indicators for monitoring community-basednatural resource governance. These indicators will measure the extent to whichcommunity-based governance institutions for the management of common-poolresources empower resource-dependent people, levels of conflict and incidentsreflecting competition around natural resources, and the proportion of user groupswho have exercised rights to access natural resources. Given that most of the newWWF global goals require some degree of measurement of social outcomes, thesemeasures will be a valuable addition to the set of common indicators and CSPU, theRBM Group and SD4C will communicate them to the network in 2016 and supporttheir use.

· State of the Ocean. CSPU worked closely with the Global Marine Programme andan independent consultant to review the pros and cons and issues around potentialadoption of the Ocean Health Index as a common indicator for WWF marineprogrammes. Recommendations will be made in early 2016 in time for use inmeasuring the new global marine goal.

The renewed strategic framework, with goals and outcomes established under the 2050 GPFgoals and implemented through new thematic programmes (Practices), should enhanceWWF’s ability to monitor and report on progress. Since the existing monitoring andreporting system is based on common indicators and shared data sets of use to multipleprogrammes and partner agencies, it is robust enough to monitor the future programmeportfolio in 2016 and beyond. All of the current common indicators will remain relevant tothe new goals and outcomes, but the list will be adapted as the new outcomes are finalized,

https://sites.google.com/a/wwf.panda.org/wwf-international/divisions/conservation/cspu/results-based-management-group/review-of-wwf-reporting/group1/impact-papers-for-review


and additional measures will be developed as necessary, especially to address some of thenew driver-focused work.

5.2 Important next steps in indicator use

The results we present in this report for 2015 provide a limited view of progress againstexisting GPF goals because these goals are at a high level and most programmes have apaucity of data on common indicators, thereby restricting accurate estimates of progress andour ability to aggregate network efforts. The new global goals and outcomes should helpimprove monitoring and simplify reporting by focusing the network’s efforts on measuring aset of common indicators that are of use at multiple levels and that show office contributions.

The current monitoring system and indicator framework provide a solid starting point formeasuring new goals and outcomes and we are generally seeing an increased use of data inreporting across WWF programmes. Examples this year of new baselines being determinedthat facilitate monitoring included:

· WWF-Chile established baselines for local populations of blue whales (250) andChilean dolphins (30-50).

· WWF-Pakistan obtained baseline data on turtle bycatch: based on samples from 4boats shows average bycatch rates of 17 turtles for every 1 km2 of pelagic gillnets, withone in ten captured turtles dying.

· In the Miombo Woodlands, baseline protected area management effectiveness scoreswere defined for three protected areas.

· SMART baselines were established in the Marojejy Anjanaharibe Sud Tsaratananacorridor, Madagascar.

However, to get the data needed to monitor global outcomes, the WWF network will need toramp up significantly its data collection efforts and ensure it applies more rigorously the keymethods and tools already available, such as:

· Species surveys to track populations and feed data into the Living Planet Index to fillgaps on WWF priority species

· The Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool to measure PA managementeffectiveness

· The Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool (SMART) to measure biodiversity andillegal activity.

5.3 Acting on results

The dashboards make an enormous difference to our ability to apply results-basedmanagement. They allow us:

· to compare programme performance and impact· to highlight which places or species or components of ecological footprint are showing

positive trends, thereby allowing us to identify conservation strategies that areworking well and should be replicated

· to highlight which places or species or components of ecological footprint are showingnegative trends, thereby allowing us to identify strategies that are working less welland should be adapted or changed

· to reflect on our assumptions about cause and effect of our conservation actions· to identify data gaps to fill in coming years.

A range of adaptive management responses might be expected from WWF programmes in2016 in response to the FY15 dashboards. Examples include (but are not restricted to)continued or increased efforts:

· to act with the relevant governments and partners to reverse the worrying trends inpopulations of vaquita, Sumatran rhino, Javan rhino and freshwater cetaceans

· to continue to push for increased law enforcement to reduce the illegal offtake offlagship species and the trade in their body parts, especially for African elephants andrhinos


· to learn lessons from those countries that have seen increasing numbers of keyspecies populations and have seen community management of natural resources leadto enhanced conservation success (e.g. black rhinos in southern Africa, forest reservesin east Africa, conservancies in Namibia)

· to push for the certification (and therefore greater sustainability in production of)commodities such as soy, sugar, salmon and shrimp, building on successes withcommodities like timber, whitefish, tuna and palm oil, whilst continuing to measurethe overall impact of production on biodiversity

· to lobby countries that are bucking the overall trend for increased use of renewableenergy sources and encourage all countries to scale up their efforts.

5.4 Sharing lessons

WWF’s improved impact and outcome monitoring system and its use of common indicatorsand reporting through dashboards is an innovative approach for a conservation NGO. InFY15 lessons were shared with government and NGO partners with the aim of furtherharmonizing systems across the conservation community and increasing efficiencies and costeffectiveness through sharing methods and data. WWF’s monitoring and indicator work, aswell as broader results-based management tools, were presented during a range ofconferences and meetings in the last year including the Twelfth meeting of the Conference ofthe Parties (COP12) to the CBD (Pyeongchang, Republic of Korea), the InternationalCongress on Conservation Biology (Montpellier, France), the Arctic Council meeting(Tromso, Norway), and the IUCN/SSC Leaders’ meeting and the Eye on Earth Summit (AbuDhabi, United Arab Emirates). Our experiences were also tapped for meetings of bodies suchas the UNEP GEO-6 High-level Stakeholders Group (to influence the content and structure ofthe next Global Environment Outlook) and we continue to contribute to projects withpartners in the Conservation Measures Partnership and the Cambridge ConservationInitiative to develop new measures and techniques.

CSPU continued to work with staff from WWF offices and partner agencies to producescientific papers in peer-reviewed journals to share the network’s lessons on monitoring. InFY15 papers produced included:

· a detailed explanation of our common indicator framework and how it used to trackprogress, with lessons for other NGOs and CBD Parties (Stephenson et al. 2015a)(this paper was circulated by the CBD Secretariat to all CBD Parties as backgroundfor a technical meeting)

· a summary of the enabling conditions needed for WWF’s monitoring systems towork, underlining the need for a reporting policy with high-level managementsupport, well-established project management standards, dedicated monitoringcapacity in key offices, and a dedicated central team to set standards and collate andanalyse data (Stephenson et al. 2015b)

· lessons learned from a review of the factors affecting the success of species recoveryprojects which demonstrated the importance of management strategies such asrobust threat monitoring, long-term habitat protection and effective stakeholdercoordination to avoid extinctions (Crees et al. 2015).

CSPU provided input into WWF position statements around CBD and the SDGs, furtheringour call for harmonized indicators and enhanced data sharing (Stephenson & O’Connor2014b). Workshops organized by CSPU at the CBD COP12 and at the IUCN/SSC Leaders’meeting also highlighted the challenges faced by governments and scientists in collecting andsharing biodiversity data and identified potential solutions. Workshop reports are currentlybeing adapted into papers for peer-reviewed journals and a programme of follow-up workdeveloped.

These publications and conferences reinforce WWF’s position in the internationalconservation community as a leader and innovator in impact monitoring and conservationmeasures; the network can build on this position as we move on to monitoring the new globalgoals and outcomes.


6 Strategies, Tools and Approaches

Programme reports highlighted the successful application of a variety of conservationstrategies, tools and approaches.

6.1 Engaging with communities

Community engagement is a core aspect of WWF work: of the 51 programme reports received37 (72.5 per cent) had components that specifically targeted an engagement withcommunities. In the case of place-based programmes, engagement in some form reached 87per cent.

Three aspects of engagement stood out in programme reports. The first is the establishmentof partnerships involving support for local CSOs. For example, the “Maghreb WetlandsSentinels” is an informal network (18 CSOs in Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia) supported bythe WWF Mediterranean Programme to mobilize local communities to preserve NorthAfrican wetlands.

The second involves building capacity (see section 6.5 below) within communities to allowthem to improve their livelihoods. For example, WWF and Kenya Agriculture and LivestockResearch Organization in Transmara, trained 332 men and 80 women from fourconservancies in apiary establishment and management, leading to a harvest of 284 kg ofhoney worth about US$21,200. It is recognized that bee keeping can provide a reliable andsustainable source of livelihood for local communities and may contribute to reducingpressure on critical rangeland habitats and conservancies. (See sections 2.2.3.2 and 2.2.3.3for further examples of capacity building).

The third aspect is the provision of technical support that comes in the form of bringingknowledge, policy advocacy, and logistic expertise to communities to allow them to functionin and benefit from the complexities of conservation. For example, in Namibia, sinceregistration of the first four conservancies in 1998, the conservancy movement has nowgenerated a documented US$54.5 million in benefits to conservancies and their members,while the broader CBNRM Programme (including conservancies) has produced a total ofUS$65.6 million to participants since 1995. These financial, employment and in-kind benefitshave created strong incentives for communities to live with wildlife and are funding amultitude of wildlife management and rural development activities for Namibia’s poorestcommunities.

6.2 Working with business and industry

Given the impact business and industry has on the environment, WWF’s engagement withthis sector has continued to grow and evolve. Programmes such as the Global Climate andEnergy, Market Transformation and Smart Fishing Initiatives, are specifically focused onengaging with different business and industry actors, but well over half of all programmereports received (55 per cent) demonstrated significant involvement with business andindustry in some form.

The most common form of business engagement is certification that has been welldocumented elsewhere in this report. Other forms of engagement include the developmentand support for business and industry fora or networks such as the Global Forest andTrade Network hat now has 67 forest management participants (representing 144,895employees) managing over 26.4 million ha of forests, of which 20.1 million ha are FSCcertified.

Business and industry also hold the key to addressing climate change and atmosphericpollution as can be seen by the diversity f companies that WWF engaged with through theClimate Savers Programme (see section 2,3).


6.3 Species conservation and protected areas

Over 85 per cent of the programme reports demonstrated significant contributions to speciesconservation, protected areas or both. Much of the recent work on species conservation hastaken the form of addressing illegal off-take and wildlife crime. The range of activities isdemsontrated in section in this context includes policy actions that bring togethergovernments to formulate more effective laws on the illegal killing of wildlife such as theBrazzaville International Conference on the Illegal Exploitation and Illegal Trade of AfricanWildlife and Flora convened by the Republic of Congo and the African Union Commissionunder the mandate of the African Union, to develop a Pan-African strategy to combat wildlifetrafficking. Both WWF and TRAFFIC played a central role in the preparation of theBrazzaville Conference.

WWF, through the Tigers Alive Initiative team, has developed an innovative Zero PoachingFramework and an online toolkit of best practices is being developed. The toolkit is meant tobe a one-stop location for identifying options for a site or country to implement effective toolsto achieve the outcomes of the Framework. The web-based toolkit is the result ofcollaboration amongst many partners and is due to be launched in September 2016 atzeropoaching.com.

The one issue that brings together communities andspecies conservation most closely is human-wildlifeconflict (see also section 2.2.3.3). As many of thespecies that have been targeted by WWF as priorities forconservation can have a significant impact on peoples’livelihoods (e.g. elephants in Asia and Africa, rhinos inAsia, tigers in Asia, lions in Africa) it is critical thatmethods be explored and implemented that serve tomitigate these conflicts. Most WWF flagship speciesprogrammes are monitoring and mitigating conflictwith people. For example, the African ElephantProgramme is mapping human-elephant conflicthotspots in Africa, and identified the Mara in Kenya andGamba in Gabon as demonstration sites to test HECmitigations strategies, building on lessons from the past(e.g. Stephenson et al. 2007).

With regards to protected areas, WWF has begun tolook more specifically at the conditions of service ofthose charged with managing and protecting protectedareas. Improving effective protected area capacity isseen as the long-term solution to better management and species conservation; with goodwildlife stewardship comes good protection and good community relations. WWF issupporting the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas strategic framework for capacitydevelopment in protected areas and other conserved territories. WWF’s focus has been on theinstitutionalization of competency-based training (the establishment of in-country accreditedtraining programmes for pre- and in-service rangers) and has forged an alliance with theSouthern African Wildlife College on provision of training of trainers.

Over the last year the Tigers Alive Initiative has been working to develop partnerships andadvocacy tools on improving ranger welfare, safety and employment conditions. WWF led onthe design and strategy for ranger employment standards and preliminary talks areunderway with the International Labour Organization to support this initiative.

6.4 Linking fieldwork and policy

Over 81 per cent of programme reports had significant policy components. WWF’s policywork operates primarily at two levels – local and small scale, and national or international.

© Martin Harvey / WWF-Canon


Where WWF works at relatively local levels with small scales and limited scope it notonly delivers policy outcomes but links directly to its fieldwork. Not only does policy supportfield actions but in turn these actions can support policy formulation by demonstrating whatworks and what doesn’t. For example, the Forest Carbon Programme provided support toREDD+ implementing governments, communities and WWF country offices in the designand implementation of national REDD+ and low-carbon development strategies and forestand climate policies that attract large-scale financing and have the potential to deliversignificant conservation and social benefits. In the case of Amazon Indigenous REDD+ (AIR),an innovative and holistic approach collectively developed by the Amazon Basin IndigenousPeoples aims to conserve and sustainably manage indigenous territories for cultural andecosystem services through REDD+. WWF is supporting the Coordinator of the IndigenousOrganizations of the Amazon Basin and its consortium to develop and implement AIR.

WWF also works at national or international scales with a greater number of partnersover large areas with significant scope. At these scales WWF often shares responsibility witha number of other groups to deliver policy outcomes. These actions can have significantimpacts on field actions but it is more difficult to establish causal linkages. However, workon the ground can influence high level policy. One good example is the effort made by WWFand TRAFFIC to document the extent of poaching and illegal wildlife trade which supportedlobbying on the issue and eventually helped lead to the first-ever UN General Assemblyresolution tackling illegal wildlife trade (see section 2.2.3.5). WWF and TRAFFIC wereinstrumental in ensuring this outcome, working closely with Germany and Gabon to providetechnical guidance in drafting the resolution and building momentum behind the resolution.

One key lesson is that considerable time and resources are required to coordinate effectivepolicy advocacy campaigns when the objective is also to build network-wide engagement andownership. WWF does not have a budget specifically for engaging with policy platforms suichas SDGs or CBD. The development versus environment tension also continues to be a corechallenge for WWF. The beginning of the post-2015 process had a strong focus on the povertyagenda and WWF had to work hard to show the links between poverty and human well-beingand environment. Future efforts to monitor WWF’s positive impact on people should help usdemonstrate better the role of environment in sustainable development and help makestronger advocacy cases.

6.5 Building capacity

Ninety-four per cent of reports highlighted capacity building as part of their programme.Capacity building may be described as a process of explicit activities that strengthen thecapacity of an organization to be more effective in achieving its goals (see O’Connor &McShane, 2013).

Within WWF, capacity building focuses on one or more of three inter-related areas:programme performance (strategy and delivery); internal organization (systems, structures,governance); external linkages (partnerships and organizational relationships). Outside ofWWF, capacity building generally involved partners who were critical to the success ofcurrent efforts and could ensure sustainability beyond WWF involvement. In Altai-Sayan, aprogramme with several streams of capacity building, this year beneficiaries included 18herders (in leopard monitoring), 56 protected areas rangers (in anti-poaching) and 300villagers (in business development).The use of Civil Society Organizations to build capacitiesof other CSOs is an innovative approach we are starting to witness. For example, CURE, aMalawi based NGO, designed a course on advocacy which it used in the peer training ofnational CSOs that work with WWF within the Miombo ecoregion.

Capacity building remains poorly accounted for in terms of time and cost and as a result it isdifficult to determine its importance or value. Most of the information provided remainsanecdotal or has limited evidence of its ultimate value to conservation and human well-being.Most of the programmes acknowledge that capacity is core for much of the work they do andis also one of the greatest constraints so we need to develop a more systematic approach toplanning and monitoring the use of this key tool.


7 Opportunities and Challenges: What to DoDifferently?

As a large, global and decentralized organization, it is often difficult for WWF to learn aboutcommon on-going challenges and to understand how to take advantage of opportunities tofurther our conservation agenda. The Global Conservation Programme Report providesinsights into both of these areas with the hope that the information provided can be pickedup and explored further by relevant teams. Identifying challenges and opportunities enablesadaptive management, and using the end of year technical reporting to look for commonfactors that inhibit, slow down or accelerate and multiply conservation action is desired (andalso timely given that the global goals and programme portfolio are being revised). Wehighlight and share a few of these common factors here; others can be found in programmeTPRs.

7.1 Complexity

In a complex world the issues that need to be taken into account when designing andimplementing a global conservation programme like WWF’s requires expertise from a widerange of disciplines. The ability to call on and use various points of view and expertise willhelp to ensure that critical factors are not missed and that the best expertise available can bebrought to bear in solving problems (see Perrings 2014).

Different social and ecological values manifest at different scales and much of what WWF isdoing (from place-based actions to policy work to campaigns) occurs both within andbetween scales. The recent review of the global conservation programme (O’Connor &McShane 2013) demonstrated that many WWF programmes are still not adequatelyassessing the context of their work, and thereby selecting appropriate strategies to target therelevant stakeholders, and many are not tracking assumptions. Effective programmeplanning will come only with increased understanding of political, social, economic,institutional and ecological dynamics at multiple spatial and temporal scales (see Sayer &Campbell 2004). An example of the challenge: in 2014 and 2015 a series of crises in keycountries and internationally made it difficult to scale-up national action for Global Climateand Energy Initiative. Developments over the last six months include, amongst others,drought and a corruption scandal in Brazil, continuing slow economic growth in Japan,political focus by EU policymakers on the crisis in the Ukraine and in Greece, ongoingconflicts and tension in the Middle East, a seemingly top-level decision to expand nuclearenergy in South Africa, and challenging politics between the US administration andCongress. In cases such as this, dynamics operating at one scale may prevent or constrainsuccessful implementation at another. Understanding these interactions is key to definingand quantifying outcomes and impacts.

Analytical tools and methods need to be applied to the ecological, political, economic,institutional and social contexts in which programmatic decisions occur. There are no simple,long-term solutions except to revisit regularly decisions and strategies as new knowledgeemerges and as the contexts change (Sayer & Campbell 2004).

One programme dealing with differing and changing contexts is the Amur HeilongProgramme. WWF can clearly demonstrate through its indicators that it has made adifference in this region. For example: The Amur remains the longest free-of-dams river ineastern Asia; Amur tiger and Amur leopard numbers are increasing in northeast China andthe Russian Far East; financial and political support has been leveraged for conservation inRussia and subsequent improved new legislation. However, due to very different political,cultural and economic environments, this work requires different approaches by the threeWWF offices (China, Mongolia, Russia) whilst operating under a mutual understanding ofwhat can be achieved realistically in a transboundary context. Other offices need to followsuit and better understand and adapt to the complexity of their local context.


7.2 Innovation

WWF has a long history of innovation. Some of the most innovative programmes earlierwere those that linked conservation and business, effectively mainstreaming conservationpractices within the global market - as happened with the WWF-supported certificationprogrammes for forests and fisheries (FSC and MSC). Reports this year demonstrated thatmany programmes continue to develop and test new ideas. Examples include:

· The METT+ tool on social economic benefits was developed by the Coastal EastAfrica Initiative to measure the impacts of WWF’s work on local communities andhow communities benefit. METT+ results indicate that, generally, community-ownedprotected areas score higher in the number of beneficiaries and wealth equality thanthose with state or other ownership (see also Knights et al. 2014). Similarly, resourcerights, access and benefits scores were higher at community-owned sites, as wasgovernment transparency.

· Developed as a tool to improve monitoring of fish catches, the Coral TriangleProgramme is working with the software company Traceall Global to create an easy,accurate, web-based system of monitoring catch of individual fishers tosupport an effective traceability system. The prototype architecture of traceability isbuilt around existing supply chains that allow the software to be applied to small-scale fisheries and any species. The Philippines Bureau of Fisheries and AquaticResources is interested in adopting the system for use initially for the exports of bluecrabs, tuna, and octopus - all supplied by small scale fishers. WWF Philippines hasprovided the venue to test the prototype and, once fully tested, WWF will advocate forits use to governments, business and industry.

· The MesoAmerican Reef Programme is integrating retired or former fishers onstaff to serve as reserve rangers boosting the rangers’ credibility and increasingcommunications between fishers and the reserve patrols. The addition of moreregular meetings with fishers and reserve authorities and a better warning system tomonitor infractions has improved the overall management and dynamic of theTurneffe Atoll Marine Reserve in Belize.

· In the Mediterranean, WWF, together with the Italian National Research Council, theSpanish Marine Science Institute, and other partners, is using technological andsocio-economic solutions to fisheries problems. They are testing ways of minimizingunwanted catches by incentivizing the adoption of fishing technologies andpractices that reduce unwanted catch and post-harvest discards, while avoidingdamage to sensitive marine species and habitats.

· In the Miombo Woodlands the installation of two centralized jatropha oilprocessing plants in Mudzi and Mutoko districts, Zimbabwe, increased incomes ofcommunities with jatropha hedges. The seed oil is mainly used to produce laundrysoap for sale on the local market. Seedcake from the process is now being channeledto produce bio gas for household domestic use, especially cooking, with the aim toreduce the demand for fuelwood.

· Much of WWF’s work on mitigating human-wildlife conflict has led toinnovative new tools and systems, such as the use of chili-based deterrents to reduceelephant crop-raiding, and the human-wildlife conflict ‘Safe Systems’ approach. Thelatter (developed by the Tigers Alive Initiative and now being adapted for use withother species) is a holistic, long-term approach drawn directly from the road transportsystem which reduced traffic accident mortality.

Other innovations have now become mainstreamed. A good example is the use of held-heldglobal positioning systems to help provide georeferenced data on illegal activity and wildlifesightings through the SMART ranger-based monitoring system. A key opportunity forinnovation within WWF is its ability to learn from its extensive portfolio of programmes andprojects through adaptive management. Part of the secret of successful innovation is notbeing afraid of failure, but learning from it, adapting and moving forward. Innovation will bekey in harder to design strategies, such as those relating to drivers, and strong programmedesign will help projects move rapidly up the innovation “funnel”.


7.3 Collaboration

A recurring theme in reports is the importance of partnerships and collaboration - WWFcannot deliver its goals on its own. WWF’s portfolio of programmes provides a richopportunity to learn from experience.

In the Amazon, collaboration with regional and national universities built technical andpolitical capacities on forest and climate issues among practitioners, policy makers andindigenous leaders. The Universidad Nacional de Madre de Dios and Derecho, Ambiente yRecursos Naturales, the Forest Carbon Programme and WWF-Peru co-designed a certifiedcourse on environmental and forestry governance in the region and mechanisms to applyenvironmental governance principles. The Amazon Programme also identified the need tobecome actively involved in strengthening more regional exchange and collaboration (e.g.with basins outside the region such as Mekong) as well as influencing how Brazil engageswith other countries in the region, and toughening WWF relationships with other sectors(e.g. Ministries of Energy, the energy sector, etc.). By working on these topics numerousopportunities for collaboration and exchange of experiences and lessons learned emerged.

In the Caucasus, the building of partnerships and close collaboration with partnerinstitutions is bringing positive results. For example: field work in Nakhchyvan (Azerbaijan)is implemented by an experts’ team from the Institute of Bioresources; in Georgia WWFcollaborates with the NGO NACRES working in the field for wildlife surveys and monitoring;and in Armenia anti-poaching activities are implemented via capacity building with the StateEnvironment Inspection.

On the Northern Great Plains collaboration andtrust built with tribal communities has resulted innew initiatives for black-footed ferret recovery onCrow Reservation and for community engagementaround bison restoration and human livelihoods onthe Fort Peck Reservation. Collaboration withMontana State University has broadened WWF accessto leaders on Fort Peck who are focused on health andcommunity well-being, and who want to strengthenthe link to the role bison play in the community.

The Partnership Towards Sustainable Tuna isimplemented by WWF-Philippines at Lagonoy Gulfand Mindoro Strait and works with more than 5,000small-scale yellowfin tuna handline fishers towardsMSC certification. WWF, in collaboration with localauthorities, has successfully organized andempowered fishers into associations to become activeparticipants in the policy and decision-makingprocess. Seven European seafood companies haveinvested in the fishery with co-funding by the GermanDevelopment Agency. The EU project partnersinclude New England Seafood, Marks & Spencer,

Waitrose, Sainsbury, Bell, Coop and SeaFresh. The project is on track towards achieving MSCgoals by early next year.

Going forward WWF should keep in mind that collaboration is not the same as cooperation;it is more than the intersection of common goals, but a collective determination to reach anagreed objective by sharing knowledge, learning, and building consensus often under someform of civility guidelines (Sabatier et al. 2005). Such a process must generate mutualunderstanding and trust rather than animosity and suspicion among different interestgroups. Such a process needs to facilitate decision-making rather than impose single points-of-view upon diverse interest groups (see Hirsch et al. 2013).

© Day's Edge / WWF-US


7.4 Long-term commitment

It has been raised numerous times before, but the longer WWF has made a commitment toconservation in a given area the greater the chance that conservation will be successful. It hasbeen posited that at least ten years is required in terms of commitment, but in reality there isno specific or set time requirement (see O’Connor & McShane 2013). Different situationsrequire different levels of effort. However, commitments made to places usually need longtime periods to mature.

In the Caucasus, as mentioned in the previous section, long-term partnerships are key toachieving long-term conservation goals. It took 15 years of collaborative work betweenWWF and the German development agency BMZ/KfW to establish the first national park inthe south Caucasus according to international standards. Such cooperation brought aboutlong-term and large-scale opportunities for scaling up conservation efforts to the landscapelevel.

WWF-Mexico and its collaborative partners have identified the following achievements ofpromoting and practicing ecosystem-based fisheries management over the past 15 years inthe Gulf of California: 1) recognition (by the General Fisheries Law of Mexico) of scienceas foundation for decision-making processes in fisheries management; 2) implementation ofbiomass assessments for defining total allowable catches for sardine, curvine, shrimp andbivalve fisheries in Sonora and Sinaloa; 3) management programmes defined for crab, fishand octopus fisheries in South Baja California and Sonora; 4) environmental impactassessments for multi-specific artisanal fisheries in the Upper Gulf of California; 5) elevenfishery no-take zones decreed along the Loreto-La Paz corridor; and 6) design andimplementation of artisanal fisheries buy-outs in the Upper Gulf of California.

Perhaps the best example of long-term commitment can be found in Namibia. WWF hasbeen supporting Namibia’s CBNRM Programme for 22 years, with communal conservancieshaving now become recognized as one of the world’s most successful communityconservation initiatives. However, the development and long-term sustainment of theprogramme remains a challenge, especially under the burden of demands for support fromincreasing numbers of communal conservancies. WWF is proactively addressing thissituation through the development and implementation of a National CBNRM SustainabilityStrategy, which has been fully embraced in the Namibia CBNRM Policy.

It is clear that even with long-term commitments challenges remain. The move towards morecountry and place-based efforts may provide the opportunity to make long-termcommitments and to provide the learning experiences to build on successes and adapt todifferent challenges.

7.5 Internal transaction costs

Internal transactions costs remain a challenge to many programmes, often caused bycompeting strategies. Many programmes have overlapping geographies or objectives, withexamples including the work on climate and energy (Forest Carbon Programme and GlobalClimate and Energy Initiative), fisheries (Coral Triangle, Coastal east Africa, Smart Fishing,Market Transformation), trade (Amazon, Coastal East Africa, Market Transformation) andREDD+ (Forest and Climate, Amazon, Green Heart of Africa, Heart of Borneo), and theoverlap of all flagship species programmes with the place-based programmes in their range.Extra complications and transaction costs emerge in some transboundary programmes,where there are sometimes no common strategies for common conservation targets (e.g.Greater Black Sea Basin) or complicated multi-layered programmes across vast landscapesdesignated for different utilisation regimes across different political and regulatoryframeworks at various governmental levels (e.g. Borneo, Congo).

To be effective, WWF needs to define more clearly its teams’ roles, responsibilities, reportinglines and mandates to avoid duplicating effort and expenses across programmes and offices.The new-look global conservation programme, approved by the WWF Assembly in 2015, with


reduced layers of planning and governance, will help reduce internal transaction costs but wewill need to monitor the situation to make sure that it does. We will also need to ensure thatWWF’s objectives and indicators are harmonized better than they are now across all levelsfrom field projects to offices to transboundary programmes to global Practices. In particular,offices delivering collective contributions to global goals and outcomes will need to worktogether closely and ensure joint planning. Potentially doing a relationship /transactionmapping exercise would point out where the strongest overlaps and highest transaction costsare (see O’Connor & McShane 2013).

Other transaction costs occur through internal decision-making processes. For example incentral Africa the lack of agreed internal law enforcement procedures posed a seriouschallenge to several project sites. As noted by the African Great Apes Programme, financialand administrative procedures that enable the implementation of key activities fromYaoundé (such as running informant networks and supporting the organization of targetedarrest operations to tackle high profile wildlife traffickers), took many months of delayedreview by WWF in order to be adopted. The lengthy evaluation process to determine thelegality of WWF’s role in these activities likely had a very negative impact on the performanceof the law enforcement programme. While the programme team understands that such legalconcerns need to be answered, they should be treated with the concern and expediencyrequired.

Another challenge is that some programmes feel network governance bodies and senior staffdo not support them when they report a crisis. An example this year is the Asia Rhino andElephant Programme (AREAS). In spite of recently having to report on the demise and localextinctions of Sumatran rhinos and Javan rhinos, the network has made no clear andconsolidated response. In the current restructuring, it is hoped that there will be clarity onhow governance bodies like the Network Executive Team and the Board should act whenWWF priorities – especially high profile species – are in very imminent danger of extinctionso that the highest political influence can be brought to bear to turn the tide and programmeteams do not have to spend excessive time lobbying for internal support.


8 Conclusions

Based on the results and analyses presented in this report, from programme TPRs andexternal data sets, it is clear that WWF is, at best, between 16 per cent and 24 per cent of theway to delivering its 2020 global goals. In coming years, under the new-look globalconservation programme led by Practices, we need to ensure programmes scale up theirefforts to tackle the threats and drivers that are still making positive outcomes and impactsdifficult. The network’s renewed push on drivers should help with this.

Delivery of our global goals will be further enhanced if we take note and act on the lessonslearned from this year. Key issues for WWF to address going forward include:

· Tackle the pressures and drivers threatening our most endangered flagship species,especially the vaquita, Sumatran rhino, Javan rhino and freshwater cetaceans, andramp up efforts to reduce the poaching of African elephants and rhinos.

· Learn from and replicate the successful strategies that helped bring about increases incertain populations of species such as the greater one-horned rhino, giant panda, tigerand orangutan.

· Understand and address the drivers of forest loss in those places where deforestationis increasing.

· Enhance efforts to empower community management of natural resources, toreplicate successes seen with this approach in species populations (e.g. black rhinos insouthern Africa), protected area management effectiveness (e.g. forest reserves in eastAfrica) and livelihoods (e.g. conservancies in Namibia).

· Test strategies and assumptions to enhance our impacts (in the way, this year, thebenefits of certification were better understood).

· Enhance efforts to monitor threats to biodiversity and the effectiveness and impact ofcapacity building initiatives.

· Continue to improve and build capacity for monitoring, evaluation and datacollection, and enhance the use of key monitoring tools to track species, habitats,protected areas and their management effectiveness, and human benefits fromconservation.

· Develop and strengthen strategic partnerships for conservation measures with bodiessuch as the CBD Secretariat, CBD Parties, UNEP-WCMC, ZSL and others.

· Reduce internal transaction costs and increase efficiency within and acrossprogrammes by harmonizing strategies and measures from project to office to globallevel, and expediting more rapidly the policies and decisions required to supporturgent field action.

· Ensure we continue to engage local communities as well as business and industry andfacilitate decision-making among collaborators.

· Make adequately long-term commitments to conservation programmes and partnersto ensure we make an impact.

· Finalize as quickly as possible the new global goals, outcomes and indicators toenhance our ability to monitor progress.

· Develop more structured learning frameworks and processes so WWF acts morequickly in response to successes and failures, and ensure that the lessons fromresearch and innovations that successfully enhance conservation delivery arecaptured and used.

We hope that programme teams, as well as network governance bodies, will take note of theconclusions and trends identified in this report and continue to adapt and improve. In thatway we can continue our progress towards becoming an organization focused on deliveringour conservation priorities through results-based management.


9 References

CIRVA (2014). Report of the Fifth Meeting of the ‘Comité Internacional para la Recuper-ación de la Vaquita’ (CIRVA-5). Available online at: http://www.iucn-csg.org/index.php/2014/08/02/the-vaquita-new-report-from-cirva-released/

Cornell, M. (2015). Why are most of Tanzania’s elephants disappearing? NationalGeographic website: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150612-tanzania-environmental-investigation-agency-mary-rice-elephants-poaching-cites-corruption/

Crees, J.J., Collins, A.C., Stephenson, P.J., Meredith, H.M.R., Young, R.P., Howe, C., StanleyPrice, M.R. & Turvey, S.T. (2015). A multi-species comparative approach to assessingdrivers of success in mammalian conservation recovery programmes. ConservationBiology. DOI: 10.1111/ cobi.12652.

Davidson, L.N.K., Krawchuk, M.A. and N.K Dulvy. (2015). Why have global shark and raylandings declined: improved management or overfishing? Fish & Fisheries. DOI:10.1111/faf.12119.

Dulvy, N.K., Fowler, S.L., Musick, J.A., Cavanagh, R.D., Kyne, P.M., Harrison, L.R., Carlson,J.K., Davidson, L.N.K., Fordham, S.V., Francis, M.P., Pollock, C.M., Simpfendorfer, C.A.,Burgess, G.H., Carpenter, K.E., Compagno, L.J.V., Ebert, D.A., Gibson, C., Heupel, M.R.,Livingstone, S.R., Sanciangco, J.C., Stevens, J.D., Valenti, S., & White, W.T. (2014).Extinction risk and conservation of the world’s sharks and rays. eLife, 3: e00590.

Ferreira, S. M., Greaver, C., Knight, G. A., Knight, M. H., Smit, I. P., & Pienaar, D. (2015).Disruption of rhino demography by poachers may lead to population declines in KrugerNational Park, South Africa. PloS One, 10(6): e0127783.

Fonseca, A., Justino, M., Souza Jr., C., & Veríssimo, A. (2015). Deforestation report for theBrazilian Amazon (July 2015). Imazon/SAD, Belém, Brazil.

Hirsch, P.D., Brosius, J.P., O’Connor, S., Zia, A., Welch-Devine, M., Dammert, J.L.,Songorwa, A.,Tran Chi Trung, Rice,J.L., Anderson, Z.A., Hitchner, S., Schelhas, J. &McShane, T.O. (2013) Navigating complex trade-offs in conservation and development:An integrative framework. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies, 31: 99-122.

IUCN (2014). Regional Action Plan for the Conservation of Western Lowland Gorillas andCentral Chimpanzees 2015–2025. IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group. Gland,Switzerland.

Kateshivya, G.B. (2015). Gujarat’s Gir sanctuary now has 523 Asiatic lions. The IndianExpress website: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/asiatic-lion-population-in-gujarat-crosses-500-barrier/.

Knights, K., Cuadros, I., Zamora, C., Coad, L., Leverington, F., O’Connor, B., Gonçalves deLima, M., Kingston, N., Danks, F., Hockings, M., Malugu, I., Scheren, P., Ngoye, E.,Stephenson, P.J. & Burgess, N.D. (2014). A preliminary assessment of protected areamanagement within the WWF ‘Coastal East Africa’ priority place, eastern Africa. Parks,20.2: 77-88.

Laguardia, A., Kamler, J. F., Li, S., Zhang, C., Zhou, Z., & Shi, K. (2015). The currentdistribution and status of leopards Panthera pardus in China. Oryx., DOI10.1017/50030605315000988

Maisels, F., Strindberg, S., Blake, S., Wittemyer, G., Hart, J., Williamson, E.A., Aba'a, R.,Abitsi, G., Ambahe, R.D., Amsini, F., Bakabana, P.C., Hicks, T.C., Bayogo, R.E., Bechem,M., Beyers, R.L., et al. (2013). Devastating decline of forest elephants in central Africa.PLoS ONE, 8(3): e59469.

Mathiesen, K. (2015). Tanzania elephant population declined by 60 per cent in five years,census reveals. The Guardian website:http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/02/tanzania-epicentre-of-elephant-poaching-census-reveals

McCauley, D.J., Pinsky, M.L., Palumbi, S.R., Estes, J.A., Joyce, F.H. & Warner, R.R. (2015).Marine defaunation: Animal loss in the global ocean. Science, 347 (6219). DOI:10.1126/science.1255641.

Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2015). Catastrophe and hope for the saiga. Oryx, 49: 577.O’Connor, S. & McShane, T.O. (2013). Global Conservation Programme Portfolio Review.

Conservation Strategy & Performance Unit, WWF International, Gland, Switzerland

http://www.iucn-csg.org/index.php/ 2014/08/02/the-vaquita-new-report-from-cirva-released/

http://www.iucn-csg.org/index.php/ 2014/08/02/the-vaquita-new-report-from-cirva-released/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150612-tanzania-environmental-investigation-agency-mary-rice-elephants-poaching-cites-corruption/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150612-tanzania-environmental-investigation-agency-mary-rice-elephants-poaching-cites-corruption/

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/asiatic-lion-population-in-gujarat-crosses-500-barrier/

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/asiatic-lion-population-in-gujarat-crosses-500-barrier/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/02/tanzania-epicentre-of-elephant-poaching-census-reveals

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/02/tanzania-epicentre-of-elephant-poaching-census-reveals


Perrings, C. (2014). Our Uncommon Heritage: Biodiversity Change, Ecosystem Servicesand Human Well-being. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Reidhead, W., Deleligne, A. & Stephenson, P.J. (2011). WWF Global ConservationProgramme Report FY2011. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.

Rodríguez, A. & Calzada, J. (2015). Lynx pardinus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species2015: e.T12520A50655794. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T12520A50655794.en. Downloaded on 20 November 2015.

Sabatier, P.A., Focht, W., Lubell,M., Tractenberg, Z., Vedlitz, A., & Matlock, M. (2005).Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management. The MITPress, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

Sayer, J. & Campbell, B. (2004) The Science of Sustainable Development: Local Livelihoodsand the Global Environment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2014). Global Biodiversity Outlook 4.CBD, Montréal, Canada.

Singh, H. S., & Gibson, L, (2011). A conservation success story in the otherwise diremegafauna extinction crisis: the Asiatic lion (Panthera leo persica) of Gir forest.Biological Conservation, 144: 1753-1757.

Stephenson, P.J., Burgess, N.D., Jungmann, L., Loh, J., O’Connor, S., Oldfield, T., Reidhead,W. & Shapiro, A. (2015a). Overcoming the challenges to conservation monitoring:integrating data from in situ reporting and global data sets to measure impact andperformance. Biodiversity, 16 (2-3): 68-85. DOI: 10.1080/14888386.2015.1070373.

Stephenson, P.J., Malima, C., Tchamba, M., Tchikangwa, N.B. & Foguekem, D. (2007).Human-elephant conflict: WWF case studies from Cameroon and Tanzania. Pp 63-72 inWalpole, M & Linkie, M (eds.) Mitigating Human-Elephant Conflict: Case Studies fromAfrica and Asia. Fauna & Flora International, Cambridge, UK.

Stephenson, P.J. & O’Connor, S. (2014a). WWF Global Conservation Programme Report2014. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.

Stephenson, P.J. & O’Connor, S. (2014b). A Case Study of Conservation Monitoring Relatedto Aichi Targets: Experiences and lessons from WWF. WWF International, Gland,Switzerland. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1054.3842.

Stephenson. P.J., O’Connor, S., Reidhead, W. & Loh, J. (2015b). Using biodiversity indicatorsfor conservation. Oryx, 49: 396. DOI:10.1017/S0030605315000460.

Stephenson, P.J. & Reidhead, W. (2014). Portfolio management: Measuring short and long-term results in WWF. Pp 602-606 in Project Management Best Practices: AchievingGlobal Excellence (ed. H.R. Kerzner). Third Edition. Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, USA.

Worm, B., Davis, B., Kettemer, L, Ward-Paige, C.A., Chapman, D., Heithaus, M.R., Kessel,S.T., & Gruber, S.H. (2013). Global catches, exploitation rates, and rebuilding options forsharks. Marine Policy, 40: 194-204.

WWF (2014). Living Planet Report 2014: species and spaces, people and places. McLellan,R., Iyengar, L., Jeffries. B. & Oerlemans, N. (eds.). WWF International, Gland,Switzerland.

WWF (2015). Living Blue Planet Report. Species, habitats and human well-being. Tanzer,J., Phua, C., Lawrence, A., Gonzales, A., Roxburgh, T. & Gamblin, P. (eds.). WWF, Gland,Switzerland.

WWF-Germany (2015). Forest Indicator Monitoring via Satellite in WWF Global PriorityEcoregions. WWF-Germany, Berlin, Germany.

WWF Living Amazon Initiative (2015). Deforestation Fronts in the Amazon Region: Currentsituation and future trends. WWF Living Amazon Initiative, Brasilia, Brazil.


Annex 1: List of WWF Priority ProgrammesProgrammes for which reports were available to feed into this year’s Global Conservation ProgrammeReport are marked with an asterix.

GPF PRIORITY NAME OF PROGRAMMEPLACESAfrican Rift Lakes Region *Albertine Rift Ecoregion ProgrammeAltai-Sayan Montane Forests *Altai-Sayan Ecoregion Action Programme (EAP)Amazon and Guianas *Living Amazon InitiativeAmur-Heilong *Amur-Heilong EAPArctic *Global Arctic ProgrammeAtlantic Forests *Atlantic Forests Ecoregion ProgrammeBorneo *Heart of Borneo ProgrammeCerrado-Pantanal *Pantanal ProgrammeChihuahuan Deserts & Freshwater Chihuahuan Desert ProgrammeChoco-Darien *Choco-Darien Ecoregional ProgrammeCoastal East Africa *Coastal East Africa InitiativeCongo Basin *Green Heart of Africa ProgrammeCoral Triangle *Coral Triangle ProgrammeEastern Himalayas *Living Himalayas InitiativeFynbos *CAPE Action Plan for the EnvironmentGalapagos Galapagos ProgrammeGreater Black Sea Basin *Danube Carpathian EAP, Caucasus EAPLake Baikal NoneMadagascar *Madagascar and Western Indian Ocean Islands including:

West Indian Ocean Marine Programme, Spiny Forests EAPMoist Forests EAP

Mediterranean * Mediterranean Initiative plus Mediterranean Programmeincluding Cork Oak Forest Projects, MediterraneanFreshwater Programme

Mekong Complex *Greater Mekong's Ecoregion Action Programme includingGreater Annamites EAP, Lower Mekong Dry Forests EAP,Mekong River EAP.

Miombo Woodlands *Miombo Ecoregion Conservation Programme

Namib-Karoo-Kaokoveld *"Living in a Finite Environment" (LIFE) Project, and WWFNamibia Programme

New Guinea and offshore islands *New Guinea and Islands Initiative (NGI), New Guinea -TransFly Savanna EAP (to become part of the PacificProgramme)

Northern Great Plains *Northern Great Plains ProgrammeOrinoco River & Flooded Forests *Integrated Management of the Orinoco BasinSoutheastern Rivers & Streams NoneSouthern Chile *Southern Chile Programme (terrestial and marine)Southern Ocean *Antarctic & Southern Ocean Programme including New

Zealand Marine EAPSouthwest Australia *Southwest Australia Ecoregion Initiative including

Southwestern Australia Forest and Scrub EAP and threatenedmacropods

Southwest Pacific *Fiji (Terrestrial EAP and Barrier Reef EAP), New CaledoniaDry Forest EAP, and *Great Barrier Reef EAP

Sumatra (incl. western tip of Java) Part of WWF Indonesia’s programmeWest Africa Marine NoneWestern Ghats *Southwestern Ghats EAP (Project based)Yangtze Basin *Yangtze EAP (Project based)


GPF PRIORITY NAME OF PROGRAMMEREGIONAL PLACESAlps European Alpine ProgrammeBaltic *Baltic EAPGulf of California *Gulf of California ProgrammeIndus Delta Indus EAPMesoamerican Reef *Mesoamerican Reef EAPYellow Sea *Yellow Sea EAP (Project based)FLAGSHIP SPECIESAfrican elephant *African Elephant Programme (Species action programme ,

SAP)African great apes *African Great Apes Programme (SAP)African rhinos *African Rhino Programme (SAP)Asian big cats *Tigers Alive Initiative

(other Asian big cat work done in ecoregion programmessuch as Amur Heilong and Altai-Sayan; a snow leopardstrategy was developed in 2015)

Asian elephant *AREAS (Asian Rhino and Elephant Action Strategy)Programme

Asian rhinos *AREAS ProgrammeGiant panda *Green Heart of China/Giant Panda ProgrammeMarine cetaceans *Cetacean programme (SAP)Marine turtles *Martine Turtles programme (SAP)Orangutans Projects based in Indonesia and Malaysia; *summary report

prepared by Global Species ProgrammePolar bear *Polar Bear programme (currently as part of Arctic

Programme, species action plan in prep)River dolphins *Cetacean programme (SAP) including River Dolphin

InitiativeThreatened macropods *Macropod SAP, Project work in New Guinea and Islands

Initiative (NGI), New Guinea - TransFly Savanna EAP andSouthwest Australia EAP.

FOOTPRINT ELEMENTSEnergy/carbon *Global Climate & Energy Initiative

China for a Global Shift Initiative (also addressescommodities)*Forest and Climate Programme

Commodities (crops, meat, fish,wood)

*Market Transformation GI*Smart Fishing Initiative

Water Global Freshwater Programme

Cross-cutting thematic and driver-based programmes and or areas of work include:· *Global Species Programme· Global Marine Programme· Global Freshwater Programme· *Global Forest Programme· *Global and Regional Policy Unit· European Policy Programme· Private Sector Finance Programme· Public Sector Partnerships/Finance programme· Extractives/Mining· Footprint/Green Economy· Climate Adaptation.· Social Development for Conservation.


Annex 2: Impact and Outcome Dashboards 2015

List of Common Indicators and Data Sources used in 2015Dashboards

All dashboards

Conservation Achievement KPI: A rating between 1 and 7 showing average performance against plannedresults for the year. 7: The planned results have been entirely met (or almost) and demonstrate clear progresstowards the objectives, or the objectives have been achieved entirely; 4: There were moderate shortcomings in theachievement of the planned results this year; 1: The achievement of the planned results is very low.Note: Conservation Achievement KPI ratings in the dashboards may differ from those in the TPRs if the scoresneeded recalculating for consistency with other programmes or to show a decimal point. Programmes with no KPIrating either did not report or the rating was not possible to calculate from the report.

Key achievements and challenges: A summary (extracted from the programmes’ own annual reports)highlighting key stories, especially those related to impacts and outcomes. Whilst some teams provided feedbackon dashboard draft text, the final version is the responsibility of the report editors.

Dashboard: Place-based Programmes

Indicator Details Notes on Graphs Data Source and LeadPRESSURE (or Threat)P1. Rate ofhabitat loss

Number of hectares of forest coverlost

Forest as per cent ofecoregion area lost.Updated 2013

SarVisionAurelie Shapiro, WWF-DERemote Sensing Hub.

STATE (or Biodiversity Condition)S1. Habitat cover Area (millions of hectares and per

cent of ecoregion) with forestcover

per cent of ecoregionarea and total hectareswith forestUpdated 2015


S2. Habitatfragmentation

Per cent of ecoregion area withstable core and with fragmentedforest

Pale green =fragmented forest; darkgreen = stable coreforest.Updated 2015


S3. Speciespopulations

Population numbers of keyspecies in the priority place

1-3 species populationsover time, or an indexof multiple species.Updated 2015

Living Planet Index, IUCNSSC Specialist Groups,Programme Reports. Jonathan Loh, WWF/ZSL.

RESPONSE (or Strategy)R1. Protectedarea coverage

Number of hectares of habitatunder formal protection (and percent of place protected),disaggregated by forest andmarine

Bold line: totalhectaresDotted line: per cent ofplace.Updated 2013

World Database on ProtectedAreas.Aurelie Shapiro, WWF-DERemote Sensing Hub.

R2. Protectedareamanagementeffectiveness

Weighted average rating ofmanagement effectiveness for allexisting protected areas within apriority place (scored up to 3)

Gauge showing meanrating: red (0-0.99)poor; orange (1-1.99)moderate; green (2-3)good performance.Updated 2014 for 12places.

IUCN WCPA, UNEP-WCMC,University of Queensland,University of Oxford.Neil Burgess, UNEP-WCMC.

Dashboard: Flagship Species Programmes

Indicator Details Notes on Graphs Data Source and LeadSTATE (or Biodiversity Condition)S3. Speciespopulations

Population numbers of flagshipspecies

Populations over timefor species, sub-speciesor sub-populations (e.g.in one PA).Updated 2015 for somespecies

Living Planet Index, IUCNSSC Specialist Groups.Jonathan Loh, WWF/ZSL.

PRESSURE (or Threat)P2. Species Number of illegally killed animals, Some new data in 2015 CITES, TRAFFIC


Indicator Details Notes on Graphs Data Source and Leadofftake or proportion of illegally killed

animals to compared to legallykilled

Jonathan Loh, WWF/ZSL.

RESPONSE (or Strategy)R3. Wildlifetrade

Estimated illegal trade in animalproducts

Some new data in 2015 CITES, TRAFFICJonathan Loh, WWF/ZSL.

Dashboard: Energy and Carbon Footprint Programmes

Indicator Details Notes on Graphs Data Source and Lead

PRESSURE (or Threat)

P5. CO2 gasemissions

Energy-related CO2 emissions(gigatonnes) regionally and inWWF focus countries

Updated 2015 International EnergyAuthority. Tabaré A. Currás, GlobalClimate and EnergyInitiative.

P6. Energyconsumption

Per cent of renewable energy as ashare of primary energyconsumption (excludinghydropower)

Updated 2015 International EnergyAuthority, BP.Tabaré A. Currás, GlobalClimate and EnergyInitiative.

RESPONSE (or Strategy)

R5. Sustainableproduction ofenergy

Per cent RES market sharecompared with total production

Updated 2015 The Renewable EnergyPolicy Network for the 21st

Century, Bloomberg NewEnergy Finance,International RenewableEnergy Agency.Tabaré A. Currás, GlobalClimate and EnergyInitiative.

Dashboard: Commodity Footprint Programmes

Indicator Details Notes on Graphs Data Source and Lead

RESPONSE (or Strategy)

R4a. Sustainableproduction ofcommodities

Number of:- hectares certified and uncertified(timber, pulp & paper)- metric tonnes certified anduncertified (crops such as soy,cotton, sugar, etc)- metric tonnes certified anduncertified (fish, seafood)WWF priority commodities.

Grey: uncertifiedproductionGreen: certifiedproduction.Updated 2015

Data collated by MarketTransformation Initiativefrom range of sources e.g.FSC, MSC, RSPO, etc.Laura Jungmann, MarketTransformation Initiative.

R4b. Sustainableproduction ofcommodities

Percentage market share (uptake)for key commodities (i.e. per centof total production certified).

Solid blue line showsprogress; dotted blueline what is needed toreach goal (dotted redline).Updated 2015

Data collated by MarketTransformation Initiativefrom range of sources e.g.FSC, MSC, RSPO, etc.Laura Jungmann, MarketTransformation Initiative.

Place-based Programmes Dashboard 2015PRESSURE

PROGRAMME CONSERVATIONACHIEVEMENT KPI

KEY ACHIEVEMENTS AND CHALLENGESP.1 Rate of habitat loss S.1 Habitat cover - forests S.2 Habitat fragmentation -

forests S.3 Species population R.1 PA coverage R.2 PA managementeffectiveness

% of ecoregion area per year % of ecoregion area % of ecoregion area --------- % of ecoregion area Mean PAME score

African RiftLakes

5.0 The Mara-Serengeti elephant population increased from 2,058 (1986)to 7,535 (2014).Kenyan black rhino population up from 300 (1990s) to 648 in 2014.Over 3,266 ha of degraded land rehabilitated in Kenya, DRC andUganda. Over 6,000 ha of land reforested in eastern DRC since 2007producing over 50 tonnes of sustainable charcoal as an alternative forthe illegal charcoal from Virunga NP.Petroleum SEA included in draft National Environment Policy and Act,and Public Finance Management Bill passed in Uganda.In Mara and Naivasha, strong CSOs implementing water, land andforest conservation interventions (347 ha indigenous forest restored)

Altai-Sayan

Snow leopards in Russian ASER increased to 53-58 (from 32-40 in2011).Argali Russia-Mongolia population increased to 2,925 animals, twicethe 2017 target.567,975 ha of saiga and snow leopard range now under stateprotection.105,200 ha of Darvi soum of Khovd aimag, Mongolia made reservepasture, bringing total area to 462,775 ha (35.3% of MongolianSaiga’s range)365.3 ha forest restored with 1.14 million confers.Poachers’ snares in Argut River snow leopard habitat decreased by89% since 2008.Capacity building: 18 herders in leopard monitoring, 56 PA rangers inanti-poaching, 300 villagers in business development.

Amazon(Living Amazon

Initiative)

5.4 Under the green hydropower strategy, two dams were removed fromthe 10 year energy plan by the Brazilian government; HydropowerSuitability Index launched in Peru to guide better decision-making.Launch of a publication on the challenges of tackling deforestation,and a new study to better understand and influence critical financialactors and investments.

Amur-Heilong

5.1 Tigers increased 10-15% in Russian Far East: 523-540 (compared to428 – 502 in 2005). Numbers increased over 10 yrs in 4 WWF tigerlandscape: doubling at Northern Tiger landscape (+106%), +43% atBikin, +13% at Southern Sikhote-Alin, +220% at the Land of Leopard.Amur leopards also ioncreaing in Russian Far East: a minimum of 60animals registered by camera traps in Land of the Leopard NP andPoltavskiy wildlife refuge (up from 35 in 2007).

Arctic(Global ArcticProgramme)

4.2 Russia: Murmansk region established 88,000 ha as Nature Park.USA: Obama banned future oil and gas drilling in more than 135,000km2 of Bristol Bay, Alaska (areas provides 50% of the world’s sockeyesalmon catch).Arctic Council approved a framework for a pan-Arctic network ofMPAs.Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Arctic Scoping Studyreport completed – with partners UNEP, TEEB, CAFF, GRID-Arendal.Study provides an inventory of Arctic ecosystem services andvaluation approaches.

STATE RESPONSE

0.06% 0.01%

0.22%

0%

1%

2000-05 2005-10 2010-14

0.15%

0%

1%

2000-05 2005-10 2010-14

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2000 2005 2010 2014

Core Fragmented

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2000 2005 2010 2013 2014

Core Fragmented

12.0m Ha 12.2m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

13.9m Ha

17.3m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

257.3mHa

287.7mHa

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

27.0m Ha 28.0m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

1.77

1.38

1.77

1.8

01234567

1.46

143.6mHa

149.8mHa

204.4mHa

205.5mHa

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Arctic Terrestrial Arctic Marine

01234567

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

28.3m Ha27.9m Ha

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2000 2005 2010 2015

36.0m Ha35.8m Ha

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2000 2005 2010 2015

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010In

dex

valu

e(1

970

=1)

Arctic Index

High Arctic Low Arctic Sub Arctic

0

100

200

300

400

500

1962 1972 1982 1992 2002 2012

Mountain gorillas

Virunga Range

Bwindi, Uganda

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2011 2015

Snow leopards in Russian ASER

upperestimate

lowerestimate

0

20

40

60

80

100

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

2004 2009 2014

Amur

Leop

ards

Amur

Tige

rs

Cats in Russian Far East

Amur Tigers: upper estimateAmur Tigers: lower estimateAmur Leopard

01234567

Place-based ProgrammesPRESSURE


KEY ACHIEVEMENTS AND CHALLENGESP.1 Rate of habitat loss S.1 Habitat cover - Forests S.2 Habitat fragmentation -

Forests S.3 Species population R.1 PA coverage R.2 PAME


AtlanticForests

5.3 56% forest plantations in Brazil (4.3 million ha, most in this ecoregion)now FSC certified, including 36,900 ha of Small and Low IntensityManaged Forest plantations from small and medium-scale producersof wood and other forest-based products.In Argentina, the total area of native forest under sustainable usereached 170,000 ha.Bonsucro certification reached 954,000 ha in 46 mills.Protected areas coverage was increased in several places includingthe states of Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paolo.

Borneo(Heart ofBorneo)

35,000 ha in Sabah gazetted as ‘protection 1 forest reserve’ (27,000ha suitable for elephants) and 203,000 ha of ‘production’ forest re-classified as ‘protection’ forest. Total land area of Sabah in protectedforests now 21% (on track for 30% goal).150,000 ha of forest FSC certified.

CerradoPantanal

4.6 Forest restoration: 83 ha in Guariroba River Basin and 102 ha inPipiripau River Basin.Partnership between Korin and the Association of Organic CattleRanching saw use of sustainably produced cows increase from 22cows/mo in 2014 to 280 cows/mo in 2015. By the end of FY15 thenumber of beef certified areas in Brazil increased to at least 50,454ha, and 3 new farms joined the partnership.In the Peruaçu basin, 200 families benefited from production of 5tonnes of processed fruit products while improving management ofnatural areas.74 local technicians were trained by WWF to implement theEnvironmental Registry and the new Forest Code.

ChihuahuanDesert

Choco Darien

3.0 129 fishing families in Choco, Valle, Cauca and Nariño benefited fromnew sustainable fisheries practices by replacing 25,100 circle hooksfor “J”-hooks.Capacity building activities with the national fisheries authority(AUNAP) in Colombia: 171 fishers participated in 5 workshops to raiseawareness on IUU fishing impacts.WWF contributed to building participatory and science-based policyand decision-making frameworks for the management of 2 PAs, andthe region that corresponds to the jurisdiction of Corponariño underthe policy framework of the Climate Adaptation Plan.

STATE RESPONSE

0.43%

0.27%

0.43%

0%

1%

2000-05 2005-10 2010-14

0.32%

0%

1%

2000-05 2005-10 2010-14

0.93%

0.48% 0.49%

0%

1%

2000-05 2005-10 2010-14

9.5m Ha 10.2m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

6.4m Ha 6.6m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

22.1m Ha 22.5m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

2.6m Ha 2.7m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2000 2005 2010 2014

Core Fragmented

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2000 2005 2010 2014

Core Fragmented

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

2000 2005 2010 2014

Core Fragmented

1.53

2.13

1.32

2

7.3m Ha 8.4m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 1.81

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

39.6m Ha37.6m Ha

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2000 2005 2010 2015

42.7m Ha 42.0m Ha

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2000 2005 2010 2015

35.7m Ha32.6m Ha

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2000 2005 2010 2015

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

01234567

5200

5400

5600

5800

6000

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Orangutan population inSebangau NP






Coastal EastAfrica

5.9 All major tuna species (skip jack, yellowfin and bigeye) are currentlyreported as sustainably fished (Indian Ocean Tuna Commission).The area in the region under sustainable forest management reached389,315 ha.WWF helped develop c. 30 laws and policies in the region (e.g.inclusion of Green and Blue Economy in 5-year National DevelopmentPlan (Moz), gazetting of Green Economy Steering Committee andGreen Economy Strategy (Ke)).WWF facilitated the adoption of Maputo Declaration on MinimumTerms and Conditions for Fisheries Access Agreements by the threeCEA States

Congo Basin(Green Heart of

Africa)

5.3 Total FSC certification increased to 5.4 million ha (over the 5.3 millionha target).PA management effectiveness continued to be strengthened; SMARTnow being used by 50% of WWF sites.Significant efforts made to boost capacity of key stakeholders tocombat wildlife crime, and a new Central African Anti-poaching planwas finalized and adopted by the Economic Community of CentralAfrican States. Foundations for a green economy continue to be built,including engaging with the Central African Forest Commission(COMIFAC) on a land-use planning system, and implementing keyinterventions on palm oil and extractives.

CoralTriangle

4.8 Commitment made to establish Tun Mustapha Park (1 million ha) inSabah, Malaysia (50 islands; 80,000 people living off the coast andislands).Revised fisheries code adopted in the Philippines (including need toenact appropriate harvest control regulations) to remove risk of IUUentering the supply chain.Fiji successfully listed reef, manta and 9 species of mobula ray underAppendix I and II of Convention on Migraory Species.WWF & Australian Department of Environment signed 2 yragreement to develop a framework for sustainable nature-basedtourism in the Coral Triangle.

EasternHimalayas

(LivingHimalayas)

5.0 Built internal capacity on skills and tools to engage with governmentson infrastructure development issues (notably hydropower, roads,PES and Inegrated Water Resource Management, etc.).A comprehensive regional spatial framework for ecosystemscontiguity and ecological connectivity being developed through East-West (terrestrial) and North-South (freshwater) connectivity.

STATE RESPONSE

0.24%0.18%

0.26%

0%

1%

2000-05 2005-10 2010-14

0.26%0.18%

0.24%

0%

1%

2000-05 2005-10 2010-14

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2000 2005 2010 2014

Core Fragmented

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2000 2005 2010 2014

Core Fragmented

1.29

1.56

1.89

0.9m Ha2.0m Ha

18.6m Ha20.7m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Coastal East Africa Marine Coastal East Africa

42.0m Ha 43.1m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

9.8m Ha 10.0m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

8.9m Ha 13.9m Ha

7.8m Ha 8.3m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Coral Triangle Marine Coral Triangle

1.54

01234567

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

01234567

01234567

44.9m Ha43.5m Ha

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2000 2005 2010 2015

238.4mHa

231.0mHa

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2000 2005 2010 2015






Fynbos

Galapagos

Greater BlackSea Basin

(Danube-Carpathians)

6.4 18 bison released in Armenis, Romania with Rewilding Europe raisingpopulation to 28.3 million ha forest (c. 25% of region) now FSC certified (from 2.8million last yr).33,600 ha of old/virgin forest identified (Ro, Ukr) and protectionsecured.Sterlet and starry sturgeon breeding on Bulgarian side of Danube;methods for future restocking tested.In Romania, forest code adopted with WWF-proposed amendmentsand key dam and road threats mitigated.

Greater BlackSea Basin

(Caucasus)

5.1 Population of 7-10 Caucasian leopards in Southern Caucasus.Over 6,000 ha new community based PAs created in Armenia.Several studies published to provide the economic and social case toadopt sustainable management (eg The Economics Of Ecosystemsand Biodiversity regional report, national freshwater assessments).New reports identified 35 freshwater Key Biodiversity Areas,providing an important step towards strengthening the PA system.National standards developed in georgia to support FSC-basedvoluntary certification.

Madagascar

No deforestation in Tsimanampetsotse and Kirindy Mitea NPs (forfirst time since 2010 and 2012 respectively).122 ha of mangroves planted in Ambaro Bay, N.Moz Channelseascape.4 PAs supported by WWF totalling 671,280 ha (AmbohimirahavavyMarivorahona complex, Amoron’I Onilahy, ord Ifotaka and Ankodida)formally gazetted. “Complexe des Lacs Ambondro et Sirave” in Kirindy Mitea NPdesignated as Madagascar’s 10th Ramsar site after WWF lobbying.National tuna strategy endorsed.Sustainable energy: 518,000 low consumption fluorescent lampsdistributed to 120,000 households; 30.5% of households in Toliarahave adopted fuel efficient stoves.

STATE RESPONSE

0.17%

0.49%0.43%

0%

1%

2000-05 2005-10 2010-14

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2000 2005 2010 2014

Core Fragmented

1.41

1.68

5.1m Ha 5.1m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

13.7m Ha 14.6m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

2.1m Ha 2.2m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

M -13.8mHa; T -

0.8m Ha

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Galapagos Marine Galapagos

1.89

21.0m Ha 20.0m Ha

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2000 2005 2010 2015

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

2000 2002 2004 2006

Inde

x

Four species of sturgeon

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2000 2005 2010 2013 2014

Core Fragmented

01234567

01234567

1.41

5.6m Ha 5.6m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014






Mediterranean

5.0 Atlantic/Mediterranean bluefin tuna showing signs of recovery –WWF influencing fisheries through Mediterranean Advisory Council.Bosnia and Herzegovina; Destructive hydropower developments inUna and Hrčavka canyons were stopped; hydropower operators in theHutovo Blato watershed have to fund restoration of the wetland as acondition to continue operating.The innovative Green Heart of Cork project rewarded landowners forsustainable forest management.

MekongComplex

(GreaterMekong)

5.4 In Dawna Tenasserim Landscape (Thailand) camera traps showed 7tigers with 5 cubs in FY15 - less adults but more cubs than in 2012.16% increase in banteng population estimate since 2011 (870 ± 170 in2011; 1,009 ± 239 in 2014).Law enforcement effectiveness increased by 7.4% from 2013 resultingin zero poaching of flagship species in 2 NPs (Kuiburi NP and MaeWong Klong Lan NP).Land use planning and green economy interventions in Cambodiaresulted in government decision to revoke 117,000 ha of economicland concessions.

Miombo

5.3 In Zambia, elephants increased in the Luangwa, Kafue and lowerZambezi ecosystems while Sioma Ngwezi NP saw a decrease.Preliminary figures suggest Hwange NP (Zim) and Chobe NP (Bots) arecarrying more than double their elephant carrying capacity, leading tohabitat destruction and increased human-elepahnt conflict.Baseline PAME scores were measured for Hwange NP (51) and thegazetted forests of Sikumi (52) and Ngamo (58).Continued forest loss (e.g. 330,000 ha per yr in Zimbabwe) driven byagricultural expansion, tobacco curing, infrastructure development,commercialization of wood energy and bush fires.

Namib-Karoo

5.6 Communal conservancies grew from 79 to 82 and cover 16.24 millionha (19.7% of country); since 1998 movement has generated US$54.5million in benefits.Poaching of rhino in Namibia (mostly Etosha) has escalated from 26 in2014 to 68 by Aug 2015. 48 arrests made, with no further poachingsince May.

New Guineaand Offshore

Islands

Lobbying efforts unlikely to stop the proposed Bosavi gas pipelinefrom the P’ynang Field, which may impact the candidateBosavi/Great Papuan Plateau World Heritage Site.The Kikori River Basin Conservation Blueprint was published andlaunched, identifying areas of High Conservation Value to help plansustainable development and empower the people of Kikori tomanage their landscape and their natural heritage.Forest and mangrove nursery management training conducted forsmall and medium scale portable sawmill operators in Kikori Region.

STATE RESPONSE

0.06% 0.01%0.13%

0%

1%

2000-05 2005-10 2010-14

0.71%

0%

1%

2000-05 2005-10 2010-14

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2000 2005 2010 2014

Core Fragmented

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2000 2005 2010 2014

Core Fragmented

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2000 2005 2010 2013 2014

Core Fragmented

1.53

1.8

1.74

11.5m Ha 12.5m Ha

38.4m Ha46.5m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Mediterranean Marine Mediterranean

36.2m Ha 36.8m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

40.5m Ha 40.8m Ha

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

19.4m Ha22.6m Ha

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20141.63

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

01234567

0

1

23

4

56

7

127.4mHa

121.3mHa

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

38.6m Ha 38.2m Ha

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2000 2005 2010 2015

65.6m Ha 63.7m Ha

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2000 2005 2010 2015

0

40

80

120

160

200

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Thou

sand

s African elephants in northernBotswana

020406080

100120140160180200

1995 2012

Lions in northwest Namibia

0.1m Ha 0.1m Ha

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2011 2014

Banteng

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7




Forests S.3 Species population R.1 PA coverage R.2 PA managementeffectiveness


NorthernGreat Plains

5.6 Black footed ferret numbers more than doubled over the last year –from 70 to 158 – thanks to WWF work with a range of partners toreintroduce, monitor and sustain ferrets on indigenous lands.American bison numbers rose from 1,778 last year to 2,435 this yeardue to the expansion of herds into Fort Peck and Fort Belknap IndianReservations outside of Yellowstone NP.

Orinoco

6.0 WWF signed an agreement with the Nutresa group, one of the LatinAmerica’s biggest food companies dealing with coffee, cocoa, palmoil, sugar and beef, to develop strategies, mechanisms andmeasurement systems to reduce environmental and social risksthroughout the supply chain of specific products, with a specialemphasis on biodiversity, water and climate change.

SouthernChile

5.3 Population baselines established for blue whales (250) and Chileandolphins (30-50).4 farms obtained ASC certification, equivalent to 10,100 tonnes ofsalmon production, with an additional 18 farms under assessment.Strict protection of 117 seamounts in the Chilean Exclusive EconomicZone - protected seamounts exempt from the bottom trawlingoperations and the area covered by the bottom trawl ban is 6.8million ha or 1.8 per cent of the Zone, including important areas forindustrial fisheries.

SouthernOcean

4.3 Penguin numbers in different parts of Antarctica are increasing ordecreasing in response to changes in sea ice and possibly krillabundance.New MPA proposals (Antarctic Peninsula & Weddell Sea) supportedby 23/25 members of Commission for the Conservation of AntarcticMarine Living Resources China and Russia resistance slowed EastAntarctica and Ross Sea proposals.The Aker Biomarine krill fishery was recertified.

SouthwestAustralia

5.5 The black-flanked rock wallabies at Nangeen Hill have increased to 39,from just 5 two years ago (but short of pre-2007 level of 135).Conservation grants supported 36 projects to result in 100 km offencing to protect bushland areas, 136 ha of revegetation, baiting andtrapping of rabbits and feral predators, and 60 ha of chemical controlof serious environmental weed infestations.

STATE RESPONSE

0.29%

1.31%

3.12%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

2000-05 2005-10 2010-140%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2000 2005 2010 2014

Core Fragmented

1.36

1.75

5.8m Ha 5.9m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

4.8m Ha 4.8m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

7.6m Ha 7.7m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

0.02m Ha 0.02m Ha

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

01234567

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

13.6m Ha11.0m Ha

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2000 2005 2010 2015

01234567

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

100

200

300

0

1000

2000

3000

2012 2013 2014 2015

blac

k-fo

oted

ferr

ets

Biso

n

Bison Black-footed Ferrets

25.4m Ha45.5m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

0

10

20

30

40

50

2013 2015

Black-flanked rock wallabies

Nangeen Hill Reserve

01234567






SouthwestPacific

5.5 The Great Sea Reef was announced as Fiji’s next nominated Ramsarsite.Significant government commitments secured to reduce farmpollution on Great Barrier Reef by boosting water quality and laws tostop unsustainable tree clearing, water extraction, and agriculturaldevelopment;In 200,000 ha zone from Keppel Bay to Fitzroy River protectionprovided for snubfin dolphin.20-30% reduction in fishing in Great Barrier Reef predicted fromlicence surrender programme.

Sumatra

WesternGhats

4.5 Anamalai Tiger Reserve tiger population was found to be stable ascompared to study conducted in 2013.Asia elephants stable in Nilgiris-Eastern Ghats landscape.Human-wildlife conflict declining in project areas and human deathsfalling (40 in 2013; 20 in 2014).To improve the protection of tigers and their habitats, 522 forest fieldpersonnel from 5 forest divisions were trained on “Combat StrategyOperations” by Special Task Force of the Tamil Nadu State Police.

Yangtze

From 2011 to 2015, WWF promoted the upgrade of He-wang-miaooxbow reserve from county level to provincial level to act as a safehaven for finless porpoises (translocation strategy endorsed; socialeconomic study conducted; reserve planning and awareness raisingactivities).A waterway regulation project in the lower mainstream of Yangtzewas called off by China's Ministry of Environmental Protection, tominimize risk to porpoises.

STATE RESPONSE

0.84%

0%

1%

2000-05 2005-10 2010-14

3.19%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

2000-05 2005-10 2010-14

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2000 2005 2010 2014

Core Fragmented

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2000 2005 2010 2013 2014

Core Fragmented

2.13

2.28

1.89

5.0m Ha 5.0m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

1.2m Ha1.5m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

26.4m Ha 26.5m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

17.4m Ha

12.5m Ha

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2000 2005 2010 2015

51.3m Ha44.7m Ha

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2000 2005 2010 2015

0

50

100

150

200

2010 2011 2012 2013

Sumatran rhino

01234567

34.7m Ha

90.2m Ha

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1970 1990 2010

Yangtze river dolphin and finlessporpoise

Yangtze dolphin, baiji

Finless porpoise

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Flagship Species Programmes Dashboard 2015PRESSURE RESPONSE


KEY ACHIEVEMENTS AND CHALLENGES S.3 Species population S.3 Species population P.2 Species offtake R.3 Wildlife trade

AfricanElephant

4.9 Ongoing decline in numbers from c. 500,000 in 2006 to 470,000in 2013; Tanzania lost 60% of its elephants in 5 yrs.Significant increase of arrests and prosecutions of wildlifecriminals in Central Africa target landscapes.Human-elephant conflict stabilized in Qurimbas NP and undercontrol in Mara, KAZA and Ruvuma.Ivory action plans supported in 5 countries and development ofa southern African anti-poaching strategy.

African Rhino

5.6 In spite of poaching, species populations sluightly icnreasing:black rhinos rose from 4,880 to 5,081 in the last two years; whiterhinos increased from 20,170 to 20,505. Conservancies bufferinglosses: the Lowveld Rhino Trust (Zim) and the Black RhinoManagement Project (Ke) show ongoing population growth ratesof 4.2% and 2.7% respectively.Illegal killing now more than 21 times higher than 2006: 3.3animals killed per day in S Africa.Range states strengthening commitments and legislativechanges.

Asian Rhino

5.1 Zero poaching of Greater one-horned rhinos in Nepal – as of endof FY15 total of 423 days of zero poachingNepal rhino population increasing by 21% from 2011 – currently(2015) in Nepal 645 rhinos compared to 534 in 2011Reduced rhino poaching in India (Assam) from high of 3.75/mthin 2013 to 2/mth in 2015 (47% decline)On track to achieve 4,000 rhinos in Nepal, India and Bhutan by2020

Asian Elephant

5.1 Asian Elephants stable or increasing in 5 key WWF landscapes(Nilgiris-Eastern Ghats, Kaziranga-Karbi Anglong, Terai Arc,Eastern Plains, Dawna-Tennaserim-Kuiburi).39,000 ha of Bukit Tigapuluh NP (Sumatra) secured (home to 120-150 elephants).Corridor linking Kuiburi NP with Kaeng Krachan NP now underlegal control of Kuiburi NP ensuring habitat connectivity.Zero poaching in Mae Wong/Khlong Lan NP and Kuiburi NP inThailand and Nampouey NP (Laos) – WWF supportingimplementation of SMART as a law enforcement tool.In the North Bank Landscape, the HEC mitigation work waseffective with human deaths reduced by 71% and elephantdeaths reduced by 61%.

Tiger(Tigers Alive)

5.4 Tiger populations increased in Russia (up 10-15% in Russian FarEast), India, Nepal and Bhutan, reflecting investments in rangers,anti-poaching tools, protected area management, and lawenforcement.First record of tiger breeding in China after 10 years and anincrease in tiger breeding on the Thailand-Myanmar border.After persistent lobbying by WWF, tiger range states agreed tocomplete national tiger censuses for 2016.

STATE

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

20

40

60

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Thou

sand

s

Sources: various

Asian ElephantIndia Sri LankaSumatra Borneo (Malaysia, Indonesia)Myanmar Peninsular MalaysiaThailand Laos

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

wei

ghtr

elat

ive

to19

97(=

100)

source: CITES

Mean estimate of illegal ivory trade

Worked

Raw

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

wei

ghtr

elat

ive

to19

97(=

100)

Source: CITES

Mean estimate of illegal ivory trade

Worked Raw

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2010 2011 2012 2013

Sumatran rhino

Sumatra

Sabah

Total

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Source: IUCN/SSC African Rhino Specialist Group

No. rhinos poached per year in Africa

Total African Rhinos South Africa

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014Prop

orto

inIll

egal

lyKi

lled

Elep

hant

s

Source: MIKE reported to CITES CS65 Inf.1

Proportion of Illegally Killed Elephants, AsiaAsiaSouth AsiaSoutheast Asia

0

400

800

1200

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Tota

lille

gally

kille

del

epha

nts

inM

IKE

sites

Source: MIKE report in CITES SC65 Inf.1

Illegal killing of African elephants

Eastern Central Southern Western

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015

Tigers

Siberian Tiger, Russia Sumatran tiger, Sumatra Bengal tiger, India

0

5

10

15

20

25

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015Th

ousa

nds

source: African Rhino Specialist Group

African rhinos

Southern white rhino C.s. simum

Northern white rhino C.s. cottoni

Black rhino D.bicornis

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

2012 2013 2014

Dete

ctio

nra

te(p

erce

nt)

Num

bero

fhor

nsTh

ousa

nds

Rhino horn trafficking and seizures

Horns taken from poached rhinos (all Africa)Confiscations/seizuresProportion of poached horns recovered/seized (right axis)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

20122007200219981995

Thou

sand

s

Source: AfESG 2013 elephantdatabase.org

African elephants

Speculative

Possible

Probable

Definite

0

50

100

150

200

250

20122007200219981995

Central Africa

0

50

100

150

200

250

20122007200219981995

Eastern Africa

0

100

200

300

400

20122007200219981995

Southern Africa

0

5

10

15

20

20122007200219981995

Western Africa

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015

2012 total: 3,224

Greater one-horned rhino

Kaziranga, India

Nepal

Jaldapara, India

Gourumara, India

Pabitora, India

Orang, India

Manas, India

2020 Target

Source: Government statistics0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1965 1985 2005

Javan rhino

MAX

MEAN

MIN

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

PIro

port

ion

ofIll

egal

lyKi

lled

Tige

rs

No.

oftig

ers

Source: National Tiger Conservation Authority

Tiger mortality in India

Poaching including seizures Natural and other causesCases under scrutiny PIKT (right axis)

0

10

20

30

40

50

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

No. rhinos poached per year in Asia

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Bang

lade

sh

Bhut

an

Chin

a

Indi

a

Indo

nesia

Lao

PDR

Mal

aysia

Mya

nmar

Nep

al

Russ

ia

Thai

land

Viet

Nam

Gra

ndTo

tal

Avg No.tigers seized peryear (2000-2009)

Avg no. tigers seized peryear (2010-2012)

Flagship Species Programmes


KEY ACHIEVEMENTS AND CHALLENGES S.3 Species population S.3 Species population S.3 Species population R.3 Wildlife trade

Marine Turtles

5.6 In Guianas poaching of leatherbacks reduced to less than 10%.Turtle excluder devices installed on all Gabon shrimp trawlers.In Malaka, Malaysia, licensed hawksbill egg collection phasedout in 9 beaches, and egg buy-back programme in Melaka &Terengganu saved 150-200 green turtle nests p.a.In Australia the testing of goanna deterrents succeeded inprotecting 87% of the loggerhead nests of Wreck Rock.In the Gulf of Ulloa, Mexico, the federal government decreed atemporary 884,800 ha fisheries refuge where circle hooksmandatory for long liners.In Indonesia implementation of best management practicesboosted the survival rate of marine turtles caught as bycatch toup to 95%.

African GreatApes

4.5 The ebola epidemic brought severe challenges to both humansand great apes.Progress was made building effective partnerships to multiplydelivery (e.g. the development of a joint 10 yr action plan forwestern lowland gorillas and chimpanzees that will guidegovernment, donors and other key stakeholders).Human-ape conflict was reduced in key areas - e.g. annualincidents reduced from 85 (2011) to 37 (2014) in Mgahinga NP,Uganda.improvement in central African law enforcement (e.g. in Dzanga-Sangha, 33 out of 37 prosecuted wildlife traffickers wereconvicted), supported by new informant networks and significantinvestments in training for rangers and magistrates.

STATE

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

100

200

300

400

500

1962 1972 1982 1992 2002 2012

Mountain gorillas

Virunga Range

Bwindi, Uganda

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

P.t.schweinfurthii

(Congo toTanzania)

P.t. troglodytes(Cameroon to

Congo)

P.t. ellioti(Nigeria andCameroon)

P.t. verus(Senegal to

Nigeria)

Total

Thou

sand

s

Chimpanzee baselines

2003 lower estimate 2003 upper estimate

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Thou

sand

s Chimpanzees

Uganda

Gabon

Liberia

Sierra Leone

Mali

Cote D'Ivoire

Guinea

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

No.

nest

sTh

ousa

nds

Loggerhead turtle

Between Kosi Estuary Mouth & Bhanga Nek, NE coast of S AfricaFethiye Bay, Mugla Province, TurkeyZakynthos Island, GreeceEspirito Santo state, BrazilCanaveral National Seashore, Central Florida, USAWoongarra Coast beween Burnett & Elliott Rivers, E Australia

0

30

60

90

120

150

0

5

10

15

20

25

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Tort

ugue

robe

ach

Thou

sand

s

No.

nest

sTh

ousa

nds

Green turtle

West Grande Terre & Settlement beaches, Aldabra atoll, SeychellesTurtle Islands, Sarawak, MalaysiaThe Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge, Florida, USAHeron Island in the southern Great Barrier Reef region, AustraliaTortuguero Beach, Costa Rica (right axis)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Thou

sand

s Hawksbill, Olive Ridley & Kemp's Ridley turtles

Kemp's ridley turtle, Rancho Nuevo beach,Tamaulipas, MexicoOlive ridley turtle, Cayenne/Remire-montjoly,French GuianaHawksbill turtle, Bahia and Sergipe States, north-eastern Brazil

281/6994

79/10888

2/1302 0/70%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

Green Leatherback Olive Ridley Hawksbill

% nests with eggs poached

Source: 5 beaches in Guianas



KEY ACHIEVEMENTS AND CHALLENGES S.3 Species population S.3 Species population S.3 Species population S.3 Species population

Cetacean(freshwater)

5 Irrawaddy dolphin: Patrol days in Cambodia increased (3-4 d/moin 2014 to 8-9 d/mo 2015); gillnet use in core and buffer zonesdown to almost zero, with poachers arrested and illegal fishinggear seized.WWF-Pakistan monitoring network protecting stranded Indusriver dolphins in canals, channels and lakes along Indus: 10dolphins rescued.Yantze finless porpoise will be protected and managed accordingto the standards of National First Grade Key Protected WildAnimals. A waterway regulation project in the lower mainstreamof Yangtze was called off by the Chinese Ministry ofEnvironmental Protection to minimize risk to dolphins.Brazil banned use ofAmazon river dolphin as bait for piracatingafishing.

Cetacean(marine)

5 WWF pressure contributed to Hong Kong governmentcommitting to designate SW Lantau and Sokos Island as a PA forthe Indopacific humpack dolphin.After a WWF campaign, Poland started implementing thenational programme for conserving the Balitic harbour porpoise;WWF led the biggest ghost nets retrieval project in the worldwith solid engagement of fishermen removing 40 tonnes ofderelict fishing gear from the Baltic.Alarming bycatch in tuna gillnets, Pakistan - almost 10,000cetaceans caught p.a. from 13 species with almost 100%mortality - WWF working with government and fishermen tofind solutions.WWF strengthened its presence in global fora, such InternationalWhaling Commission and with national governments in order toimprove possibilities of conservation of critical species (i.e.vaquita, boto, Ibarrady, harbour porpoise, artic cetaceans,among others).

Giant Panda

5.3 The giant panda population in the wild increased by 16.8% to1,864 over ten years as documented in the 4th national giantpanda survey, with an 11.8% expansion of its habitat to 2.58million ha.Ten years effort by WWF to restore a panda corridor at RoadG108 Qinling Tunnel area is demonstrating success, with themonitoring highlighting the functioning of the corridor assuitable habitat for the exchange of subpopulations.

Polar Bear

5 WWF efforts in the community of Arviat, Nunavut, arecontinuing to reduce and mitigate human-polar bear conflicts, inthe face of increasing polar bear activity in the area. From 8 polarbear kills in defence of life or property in 2010, there was justone this season (plus the human killings of 2 cubs). No polarbear or human life lost when polar bears appeared in Nenetsvillage and WWF-Russia was called to intervene.37,959,316 ha of polar bear habitat in Russia is now underprotection (but priority areas to be defined).

STATE

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Blue whale

California Current ecosystem Oregon-Washington

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Beluga and narwhal

Beluga, Cook Inlet, AlaskaBeluga, Eastern Chukchi Sea, AlaskaBeluga, St. Lawrence EstuaryBeluga, Eastern Hudson Bay

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Gree

cean

dCh

ina

New

Zeal

and

Thou

sand

s

Dolphins

Hector's dolphin, New Zealand

Short-beaked common dolphin, Eastern Ionian Sea, Greece

Indo-pacific humpbacked dolphin, North Lantau, China

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

VaquitaSource: CIRVA 2014

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Yangtze river dolphin and finless porpoise

Yangtze dolphin, baiji Finless porpoise

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Indus river dolphin

Jinnah barrage to Chashma Barrage Chashma barrage to Taunsa BarrageTaunsa barrage to Guddu Barrage Guddu barrage to Sukkur BarrageSukkur barrage to Kotri Barrage, Jinnah barrage to Kotri Barrage

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Giant panda

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Irrawaddy river dolphin, Mekong

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Ganges River Dolphin

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Inde

x

Polar bear(average of 10 out of 19 sub-populations)



KEY ACHIEVEMENTS AND CHALLENGES

ThreatenedMacropods

5.9 The black-flanked rock wallabies at Nangeen Hill Nature Reservehave increased to 39, from just 5 two years ago.WWF-Australia continues to work with Aboriginal communities,governments, universities, community groups, and otherpartners to undertake threatened macropod conservationprojects. In FY2015, these projects successfully secured criticalhabitat, monitored the status of populations in remote andinaccessible areas, investigated the causes of serious populationdeclines, and supported captive breeding facilities.

Asian Big Cats

n/a Snow leopard: The total number of snow leopards in the 5 keygroupings in Russian portion of Altai-Sayan increased to 53-58animals in 2015 (up from 32-40 animals in 2011). In Mongolia,camera trap monitoring recorded the highest snow leoparddensity ever in the country.Amur leopard in the Russian Far East (Amur Heilong): Aminimum of 60 animals in Land of the Leopard NP and Poltavskiywildlife refuge (compared to 35 in 2007). There are also 16 adultsand two cubs in Jilin and Heilongjiang provinces , indicating thespecies range in northeast China is expanding.Caucasian leopard: A viable population of 7-10 individuals isbeing monitored in Southern Caucasus.

Orangutans

5 In Sebangau NP (Borneo) the population reached 5,826, anincrease of 7% since 2007. This is a long-term success for WWF,which started work in Sebangau in 2002.70,000 ha of orangutan habitat classified as protection forestreserves in Malaysia.The Dwima group (timber extraction) committed to supportorangutan conservation in all its 449,906 ha of concession areas(as well as implementing FSC). This kind of commitment iscritical, given that 70% of orangutan populations live outsideprotected areas (mainly in logging concessions).

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

5200

5400

5600

5800

6000

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Orangutan population in Sebangau NP

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Thou

sand

s Snow leopards by country, 2003

lower estimate

upper estimate

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Amur leopard

Land of the Leopard NationalPark, Russia

0

10

20

30

40

50

2013 2015

Black-flanked rock wallabies

Nangeen Hill Reserve

Energy and Carbon Footprint Programmes Dashboard 2015RESPONSE

PROGRAMMECONSERVATIONACHIEVEMENT

KPI

KEY ACHIEVEMENTS AND CHALLENGESP.5 CO2 Emissions P.6 Energy Consumption R.5 Energy (Electricity) production by RES

& countries Mt Co2 emissions in WWF climate and energy prioritycountries

% renewable energy as a share of primary energy,excluding hydropower

% renewable energy as a share of electricity production,excluding hydropower

Global Climateand Energy

Initiative

5.5 WWF advocated for global leaders to demonstrate strongcommitment to climate action, through early pledges on emissionscuts (Intended Nationally-Determined Contributions or INDCs) andfinance and sustained engagement towards COP 21. At least 7 keycountries and EU increased their INDCs commitments.WWF contributed to the emerging CSO coalition on clean energyaccess for the poor (“ACCESS”).At least 270 stakeholders in the UK, US, Asia and Australia engagedas part of participatory process to create tools and guidance forcompanies to take on science-based targets.

China

China’s INDC commits the country to peaking GHG emissions by2030, a reduction in CO2 per unit of GDP of 35-40% below 2005levels by 2030 and an increase in non-fossil fuels in primary energyconsumption up to 20% by 2030.China also indicated it would offer South-South climate anddevelopment finance.WWF has been advocating nationally and internationally for moreclimate action by China, particularly on transitioning to renewableenergy, through reports, policy work and media. The targets arenot sufficient at the moment but for China, the largest developingcountry, to make such commitments is a significant step in globalclimate action.

United States

The US INDC committing to 26 to 28 % emission reductions below2005 levels by 2025, while insufficient, represents importantaction and a reliable target. In addition, the US promised US$3billion to the Green Climate Fund, subject to Congressionalapproval. WWF worked with a large civil society coalition toensure that the Obama administration pledged the maximumamount possible.91 cities purchased 100% renewable power, while city climatechange reporting included renewable energy investments for thefirst time.

EU28data excludes UK and Germany, but keeps the

same name for sake of simplicity

The EU Council approved binding EU targets for 2030 of at least40% GHG emission reductions below 1990 levels, at least 27% ofrenewable energy and an energy efficiency increase of at least27%. The EU’s INDC reflects the GHG reduction target. Althoughpushing for much higher targets, WWF and its allies weresuccessful in securing the 40% reduction target as a floor foraction rather than as a cap. The EU INDC also does not includefinance or adaptation though it has made a separate submissionon adaptation action and EU member states pledged the highestper capita levels of finance to the Green Climate Fund inDecember 2014.

India

The US and India made a joint announcement to collaborate onIndia’s intended goal to ramp up its solar capacity to 100 GW by2022 and India has signalled that it could further increase thistarget with additional support. In India, WWF has been making thecase for the role of renewable energy in achieving India’sdevelopment objectives. Indications are that India’s INDC willinclude targets for renewable energy and energy efficiency scaleup which are part of WWF’s key asks.

PRESSURE

01234567

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

mill

ion

tonn

esCO

20

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

mill

ion

tonn

esCO

2

0

500

10001500

2000

2500

30003500

4000

4500

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

mill

ion

tonn

esCO

2

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

mill

ion

tonn

esCO

2

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

2000 2005 2010 2013

%Sh

are

RES

inEl

ectr

icity

Prod

uctio

n

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

2000 2005 2010 2013

%Sh

are

RES

inEl

ectr

icity

Prod

uctio

n

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

2000 2005 2010 2013

%Sh

are

RES

inEl

ectr

icity

Prod

uctio

n

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

2000 2005 2010 2013

%Sh

are

RES

inEl

ectr

icity

Prod

uctio

n

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

2000 2005 2010 2013

%Sh

are

RES

inEl

ectr

icity

Prod

uctio

n

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

mill

ion

tonn

esCO

2

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

2011 2012 2013 2014

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

2011 2012 2013 2014

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

2011 2012 2013 2014

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

2011 2012 2013 2014

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

2011 2012 2013 2014

Energy and Carbon Footprint ProgrammesRESPONSE

CONSERVATIONACHIEVEMENT

KPI

KEY ACHIEVEMENTS AND CHALLENGES P.5 CO2 Emissions P.6 Energy Consumption R.5 Energy (Electricity) production by RES

Countries Mt Co2 % RES % Share

RussianFederation

Demand for coal fell by 6%.

Japan

Japan saw a dramatic scale-up of solar resulting from the post-Fukushima nuclear phase–out. Japan approved an additionalrenewables capacity of about 73 GW, mostly from solar power.WWF has been active in pushing for a strong feed-in tariff and forthe country to move away from coal as a substitute for nuclear.

Germany

The recent German decision to retire some hard coal and lignitepower stations by 2020 was the first-of-its-kind action of any EUcountry to go further than required under the EU EmissionsTrading System. WWF added significantly to the decision and alsois leading a debate on “Emissions Performance Standards” forpower stations in Europe adding to absolute carbon caps.

United Kingdom

80 UK businesses including Willmott Dixon, Cisco, E.on, John LewisPartnership, SSE, and BT have joined with WWF to call on the newgovernment to take decisive action to combat climate change andbuild a low-carbon economy.

Mexico

Mexico’s INDC indicated that it would unconditionally reduceGHGs by 22% below Business as Usual (BAU) levels by 2030 andthat the country would reduce emissions by 36% below BAU by2030 if certain conditions were met. In line with WWF’s asksMexico sets an example in terms of transparency of its proposedefforts as well as by including adaptation actions. In an importantsignal for international action on climate change, Mexico alsoannounced a contribution to the Green Climate Fund.Mexico advanced its commitments towards renewable energy bysetting an aspirational target of 25% renewable electricity by 2018.WWF was consulted as member of the organized society duringthe whole Mexican energy reform process.

PRESSURE

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

mill

ion

tonn

esCO

2

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

mill

ion

tonn

esCO

20

500

1000

1500

2000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010m

illio

nto

nnes

CO2

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

mill

ion

tonn

esCO

2

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

mill

ion

tonn

esCO

2

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

2000 2005 2010 2013

%Sh

are

RES

inEl

ectr

icity

Prod

uctio

n

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

2000 2005 2010 2013

%Sh

are

RES

inEl

ectr

icity

Prod

uctio

n

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

2000 2005 2010 2013

%Sh

are

RES

inEl

ectr

icity

Prod

uctio

n

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

2000 2005 2010 2013

%Sh

are

RES

inEl

ectr

icity

Prod

uctio

n

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

2000 2005 2010 2013

%Sh

are

RES

inEl

ectr

icity

Prod

uctio

n

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

2011 2012 2013 2014

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

2011 2012 2013 2014

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

2011 2012 2013 2014

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

2011 2012 2013 2014

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

2011 2012 2013 2014

Energy and Carbon Footprint ProgrammesRESPONSE

CONSERVATIONACHIEVEMENT

KPI

KEY ACHIEVEMENTS AND CHALLENGES P.5 CO2 Emissions P.6 Energy Consumption R.5 Energy (Electricity) production by RES

Countries Mt Co2 % RES % Share

Indonesia

Indonesia officially announced its new RES target of 23% ofprimary energy by 2025, following a 3-year-long WWF advocacystrategy. WWF Indonesia collaborated with INAGA (geothermalindustry association) and Parliament in the successful legislation ofa New Geothermal Law that will enable the country that holds 40%of the world’s geothermal reserves to fully utilize this sustainableenergy source. Indonesia has also started to reduce its domesticliquid fuel subsidies; one of the key barriers to large scale RESuptake and a huge drain to its national budget.

Brazil

Brazil started work on its INDC and invested heavily in preparationwork for the multilateral process through various submissions onitems including commitment periods, differentiation, crediting forearly action etc. As a senior partner in the Climate observatoryNGO coalition, WWF has been a leading voice in civil society callingfor Brazil to play a more constructive role.Brazil has established itself as a Latin-American hub for renewableenergy, and announced a “non-conventional” (non-hydro)renewable energy target in power generation of 28% to 33% by2030. WWF has supported this process and focused with differentregional actors to push for financial support and instruments thatfoster the penetration of particularly solar.

South Africa

South Africa launched a public consultation on its INDC and willinclude adaptation in its contribution. It will focus on therelationship between adaptation costs and lacking mitigationaction – which is a key WWF ask. Informed by the INDC resourcepack WWF in South Africa was able to provide strong contentleadership for joint civil society messaging.

Poland

An amendment to the Polish renewable energy law will allowfinancing of micro-RES technologies.

Turkey

Philippines

PRESSURE

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

mill

ion

tonn

esCO

2

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

mill

ion

tonn

esCO

2

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

mill

ion

tonn

esCO

2

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

mill

ion

tonn

esCO

2

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

mill

ion

tonn

esCO

2

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

mill

ion

tonn

esCO

2

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

2000 2005 2010 2013

%Sh

are

RES

inEl

ectr

icity

Prod

uctio

n

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

2000 2005 2010 2013

%Sh

are

RES

inEl

ectr

icity

Prod

uctio

n

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

2000 2005 2010 2013

%Sh

are

RES

inEl

ectr

icity

Prod

uctio

n

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

2000 2005 2010 2013

%Sh

are

RES

inEl

ectr

icity

Prod

uctio

n

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

2000 2005 2010 2013

%Sh

are

RES

inEl

ectr

icity

Prod

uctio

n

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

2000 2005 2010 2013

%Sh

are

RES

inEl

ectr

icity

Prod

uctio

n

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

2011 2012 2013 2014

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

2011 2012 2013 2014

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

2011 2012 2013 2014

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

2011 2012 2013 2014

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

2011 2012 2013 2014

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

2011 2012 2013 2014

Commodity Footprint Programmes Dashboard 2015PROGRAMME CONSERVATION

ACHIEVEMENT KPI Indicator R.4a Sustainable production of commodities R.4b Sustainable production of commodities

Commodity

MarketTransformation

Initiative

Smart FishingInitiative

TimberFS

Cce

rtifi

edhe

ctar

es%

FSC

cert

ified

hect

ares

%FS

Cce

rtifi

edhe

ctar

es

Soy

RTRS

cert

ified

tons

RESPONSE

Pulp andPaper

Good progress across most commodities. Examples include: RSPI-certified growers produce 11.75 million tonnes or 20% of global palm oil production; sustainable cotton production increased nearlythreefold in one year from 950,000 tonnes to 2.8 million tonnes.Impact analyses are revealing positive impacts with some schemes e.g. Bonsucro, FSC.WWF provided input into standards review processes for: FSC, MSC, ASC, RSPO, Bonsucro and on RTRS maps.Big wins on production-side policy include WWF’s successful push on OECD agriculture guidance to include safeguards.A major win for the Finance Work Stream included the public adoption of the Banking & Environment Initiative Soft Commodities Compact by ten major financial institutions.

Tuna from certified sources rose by 33.1 per cent from 546,775 tonnes to 727,836 tonnes with progress by regional fisheries organisations in SFI priority regions. Results of stock management measuresindicate that all managed stocks in the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission have progressed 25% towards sustainable stock management; 83% of managed stocks in the Western and Central Pacific FisheriesCommission have progressed 13% towards sustainable management and 99% of managed stocks in the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission have progressed 25% towards sustainable management.Improved implementation of IUU regulation and control measures by priority countries including US, EU, Africa (Indian Ocean) and in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission.MSC standards have been improved in five major areas: stock management, treatment of vulnerable marine ecosystems, minimization of mortality of unwanted catch, shark fining and exclusion of slavelabour conditions.Major monitoring and evaluation challenges include difficulty to access global data on the volumes of tuna and whitefish seafood sales due to market restrictions, and measuring human benefits.

8.4%10.1%

14.3% 14.7% 14.0%

15.1%

20.4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021

% FSC certified hectares

Latest results Planned + Final resultsPlanned Intermediate Result, & Yr. Expected Final Result

53.0% 53.4% 54.0% 55.2%

55.0%60.0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021

% FSC certified hectares recycled


5.6% 5.6%6.6% 6.7% 6.4%

6.8%8.1%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021

% FSC certified hectares virgin fibre


0.0% 0.2% 0.4%0.4% 0.4%

7.0%

25.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021

% RTRS certified tons


178 181 184 182

17681269 1269 1300

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2012 2013 2014 2015

globally producedtimber million Ha

FSC million Ha

440,000 1,004,558 1,255,041 1,406,000

261,578,498 267,583,000 283,950,000320,050,000

-

50,000,000

100,000,000

150,000,000

200,000,000

250,000,000

300,000,000

350,000,000

2012 2013 2014 2015

tons of global soyproduction

tons RTRS certified

3.9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Commodity Footprint Programmes

Commodity Indicator R.4a sustainable production of commodities R.4b sustainable production of commodities

Palm Oil

RSPO

cert

ified

tons

Cotton

BCIc

ertif

ied

tons

Sugar%

Bons

ucro

cert

ified

tons

Biomaterials

%RS

B,Bo

nsuc

ro,R

TRS,

RSPO

cert

ified

biom

ater

ials

Tuna

MSC

cert

ified

tons

Whitefish

MSC

cert

ified

tons

RESPONSE

1.0%

13.9% 16.4%16.4%

19.9%

30.0%

50.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021

% RSPO certified tons


0.0% 1.8%4.0% 3.7%

11.8%

6.0%

25.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021

% BCI certified tons


0.0% 1.5%2.6% 2.5% 3.5%

20.0%

25.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021

% Bonsucro certified tons


0.0% 2.0%3.0% 3.0% 3.0%

15.0%

25.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021

% RSB, Bonsucro, RTRS, RSPO certified biomaterials


0.0%

10.8%

12.7%

11.2%14.0%

15.0%

25.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021

% MSC certified tons


19.0%

37.5%

52.9%57.4%67.0%

75.0% 75.0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021

% MSC certified tons


7,929,652 10,633,139 13,682,334 14,431,197

57,200,95764,826,662

79,313,000 72,720,000

- 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000 60,000,000 70,000,000 80,000,000 90,000,000

100,000,000

2012 2013 2014 2015

metric tonnes of globalPO and palm kernelproduction

492,595 1,100,000 950,000 2,800,000

27,200,000 26,360,000 25,530,000 23,830,000

-

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

2012 2013 2014 2015

metric tons globalproduction

metric tonnes of BCIcertified cotton

43 55 58

1,7742,165

1,670

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2012 2013 2014 2015M

illio

ns

tonnes globalsugarcane production

tonnes certifiedproduction

465,722 543,817 546,775 727,836

4,300,000 4,300,0004,888,960 5,072,037

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

2012 2013 2014 2015

tons of global tunaproduction

tons MSC certifiedproduction

Commodity Footprint Programmes

Commodity Indicator R.4a sustainable production of commodities R.4b sustainable production of commodities

ShrimpAquaculture

ASC

cert

ified

tons

SalmonAquaculture

ASC

cert

ified

tons

Beef

Dairy

Wild Shrimp

Forage Fish

RESPONSE

5.0%

15.0%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021

% ASC certified tons


8.0%

70.0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021

% ASC certified tons


Sample National Programme Dashboard 2015 - Forest PracticeNote: This is only a mock-up to demonstrate some of the data already available; when global outcomes and indicators are finalized, Practice dashboards will need to be developed with input from key end users.

Goal: The integrity of the world's most important forests, including their benefits to human well-being, is enhanced and maintained.

- At least 25% of the world's forests are protected or under improved management practices, benefiting biodiversity and forest dependent communities Mock -up goals (attained):- Deforestation and degrdation is removed from supply changes of key commodities- GHG emissions from deforestation and degradation are stabilised through REDD+ and other mechanisms PRESSURE

PRIORITY PLACES KEY ACHIEVEMENTS AND CHALLENGES P.1 Rate of habitat loss S.1 Forest cover S.3 Species population R.1 PA coverage R.2 PA managementeffectiveness

National Collective % of ecoregion area per year % of ecoregion area --------- --------- ---------

DRCKenya

Uganda

Mara-Serengeti elephants increasing (2,058 in 1986) to7,535 in 2014); Kenyan black rhino population up from 300(1990s) to 648 in 2014.Over 3,266 ha of degraded land rehabilitated in Kenya, DRCand Uganda.Strong CSOs implementing water, land and forestconservation interventions (347 ha indigenous forestrestored)

DRC

Mountain gorillas continuing to increase.Over 6,000 ha of land reforested in eastern DRC since 2007producing over 50 tonnes of sustainable charcoal as analternative for the illegal charcoal from Virunga NP.

Atlantic ForestsArgentina

BrazilParaguay

56% forest plantations in Brazil (4.3 million ha, most in thisecoregion) now FSC certified, including 36,900 ha of Smalland Low Intensity Managed Forest plantations from smalland medium-scale producers of wood and other forest-based products.In Argentina, the total area of native forest undersustainable use reached 170,000 ha.Bonsucro certification reached 954,000 ha in 46 mills.

Borneo IndonesiaMalaysia

35,000 ha in Sabah gazetted as ‘protection 1 forest reserve’(27,000 ha suitable for elephants) and 203,000 ha of‘production’ forest re-classified as ‘protection’ forest. Totalland area of Sabah in protected forests now 21% (on trackfor 30% goal).150,000 ha of forest FSC certified.

Madagascar Madagasgar

No deforestation in Tsimanampetsotse and Kirindy MiteaNPs (for first time since 2010 and 2012 respectively).122 ha of mangroves planted in Ambaro Bay, N.MozChannel seascape.4 PAs supported by WWF totalling 671,280 ha formallygazetted.National tuna strategy endorsed.

Southern Chile Chile

4 farms obtained ASC certification, equivalent to 10,100tonnes of salmon production, with an additional 18 farmsunder assessment.Strict protection of 117 seamounts in the Chilean ExclusiveEconomic Zone - protected seamounts exempt from thebottom trawling operations and the area covered by thebottom trawl ban is 6.8 million ha or 1.8 per cent of theZone, including important areas for industrial fisheries.

etc.

Global(totals or averages)

Trend favourable for protected area coverage (up to 19.5%of WWF priority forests), area under certification (FSC now1.9 million ha) and on track to meet global outcome 1;trends for habitat loss, species populations and PAME stillgoing in wrong direction and unlikely to meet globaloutcomes 2 and 3.

Mock up goals (off track):Outcomes:

Note that for future Practice monitoring, goals need to be set for each outcome and each indicator (linked to the critical contributions process).

African RiftLakes

STATE RESPONSECRITICAL

CONTRIBUTIONS

Mock-up goals (on track):

0.06% 0.01%

0.22%

0%

1%

2000-05 2005-10 2010-14

0.43%

0.27%

0.43%

0%

1%

2000-05 2005-10 2010-14

0.32%

0%

1%

2000-05 2005-10 2010-14

12.0m Ha 12.2m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

9.5m Ha 10.2m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

6.4m Ha 6.6m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

0.17%

0.49%0.43%

0%

1%

2000-05 2005-10 2010-14

0.29%

1.31%

3.12%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

2000-05 2005-10 2010-14

1.53

2.13

1.8

1.68

1.75

5.1m Ha 5.1m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

4.8m Ha 4.8m Ha

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

28.3m Ha27.9m Ha

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2000 2005 2010 2015

39.6m Ha37.6m Ha

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2000 2005 2010 2015

42.7m Ha 42.0m Ha

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2000 2005 2010 2015

21.0m Ha 20.0m Ha

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2000 2005 2010 2015

13.6m Ha11.0m Ha

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2000 2005 2010 2015

0

100

200

300

400

500

1962 1972 1982 1992 2002 2012

Mountain Gorillas

Virunga Range

Bwindi, Uganda

5000

5200

5400

5600

5800

6000

2003 2007 2015

Orangutan Population inSubangau NP

1.64

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

630 millha

659 millha

0.20% 0.17%

0.50%

0%

1%

2000-05 2005-10 2010-14

Average Annual Rate of Habitat Lossacross WWF Places

WWF NETWORK OFFICES

WWF offices

Armenia

Australia

Austria

Azerbaijan

Belgium

Belize

Bhutan

Bolivia

Brazil

Bulgaria

Cambodia

Cameroon

Canada

Central African Republic

Chile

China

Colombia

Croatia

D.R. of Congo

Denmark

Ecuador

Finland

Fiji

France

French Guyana

Gabon

Georgia

Germany

Greece

Guatemala

Guyana

Honduras

Hong Kong

Hungary

India

Indonesia

Italy

Japan

Kenya

Korea

Laos

Madagascar

Malaysia

Mexico

Mongolia

Mozambique

Myanmar

Namibia

Nepal

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Pakistan

Panama

Papua New Guinea

Paraguay

Peru

Philippines

Poland

Romania

Russia

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

WWF Associates

Fundación Vida Silvestre (Argentina)

Pasaules Dabas Fonds (Latvia)

Nigerian Conservation Foundation (Nigeria)

*As at December 2015

© 1986 Panda symbol WWF – World Wide Fund For Nature (Formerly World Wildlife Fund) ® “WWF” is a WWF Registered Trademark. WWF, Avenue du Mont-Blanc, 1196 Gland, Switzerland Tel. +41 22 364 9111 Fax +41 22 364 0332. For contact details and further information, please visit our international website at www.panda.org

5.1/7

13

9M84%

The average programme score for the conservation achievement KPI in 2015 is 5.1 out of 7

9 million tonnes of seafood produced per year by MSC certified fisheries

84 per cent of WWF flagship species are still in decline

13 impact and outcome indicators analyzed in 5 dashboards

WWF Global Conservation Programme Report in numbers

Why we are here

panda.org

To stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment andto build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.

© N

AS

A

INT• WWF GLOBAL CONSERVATION REPORT 2015

WWF.PANDA.ORG

wwf global cons ervation programme report...

Documents