WWF - Conservation and environmental publications: United Kingdom

Water Footprinting: Identifying & addressing water risks in the value chain

2009-08-17

Anyone enduring this year's British summer might be forgiven for questioning the fact that freshwater is becoming one of the most precious commodities on the planet – but it's true. It's also a reason why WWF's partnership with SABMiller, one of the world's largest brewers, has a particular importance.

In the past century alone, the world's consumption of water has grown at about twice the rate of population expansion. That's largely due to growing agricultural and industrial demand. It also has much to do with people's improved lifestyles and leisure activities – which often include relaxing with a beer or two.

The worldwide brewing industry, including SABMiller, consumes huge quantities of water to make the product that billions of people enjoy every day.

However, the company has declared water to be one of its 10 sustainable development priorities, and has been working with WWF in South Africa, Colombia and Honduras to encourage better water management in and around its operations. In 2008 it also joined WWF in becoming a founder member of the Water Footprint Network, an organisation that is leading the way in devising practical tools that can be used to promote the sustainable, fair and efficient use of freshwater resources throughout the world. "After all, water is scarce because humans make it scarce," declares Stuart Orr, WWF International's freshwater manager. "As we've already discovered through our own work on water footprint, it's not only how much, but often when and where water is taken that matters."

SABMiller aims to reduce water consumption in its operations to an average of 3.5 litres to make a litre of beer, saving some 20 billion litres of water a year by 2015.

"In an increasingly water-constrained world, it's critical that we become as efficient as possible, whilst working with communities to protect water resources," says SABMiller chief executive Graham Mackay. "This is an extremely challenging but achievable target, and sets a new industry benchmark."

Dax Lovegrove, WWF-UK's head of business and industry, agrees. "The company shows a clear understanding of water issues that only a handful of multinationals have demonstrated," he declares. "This is an important step forward in terms of business responsibility towards the environment."

Freshwater is essential for life on Earth. Although three-quarters of the planet may be covered in water, most of this is salt water and undrinkable. A minuscule 2.5% is freshwater, and much of that is ice. Yet whenever we in the developed world turn on a tap or a hosepipe, this colourless, odourless liquid gushes forth in litres – it's seemingly limitless, it's always there, and we take it for granted.

The average person in the UK uses approximately 150 litres of tap water a day (for baths, showers, dishwashers, gardening and so-on) – yet some 700 million people live in regions where water-stress is already a severe problem. With climate change increasing the uncertainty of water supplies, and with population growth and changing consumption patterns increasing pressure on water resources, the UN has forecast that more than 3 billion people could be living in water-stressed countries by 2025.

All the more reason why the Water Footprint Network needs to succeed. Thanks to the participation of global organisations such as WWF and SABMiller, it's off to a strong start. Already, numerous companies are testing their own water consumption levels and analysing the results with an eye on sustainable water management. And that's the crux: just as the widely accepted carbon footprint concept has helped towns, cities, businesses and consumers to understand the level of greenhouse gas emissions created by their activities, so water footprinting is creating awareness of how and where this life-giving liquid resource is used.

As a contribution towards this understanding, WWF and SABMiller are publishing a joint report* which speaks in straightforward terms: "If water footprinting is applied well it can be very useful from a business perspective, helping identify the scale of water use in water scarce areas and the potential business risks that arise. The key test of a water footprint is whether it helps a business to take better operational decisions concerning how it manages its plants, how it works with suppliers and how it engages with governments, to reduce business risk and improve environmental sustainability."

So a water footprint must not only look at the total water use in litres of water per unit of product, but it must also consider where it's used, what proportion of the area's total water resource it represents, and whether over-use creates risks to the environment, communities and businesses now or in the future. "It's the only way a water footprint can be meaningful," the report declares.

As the world's population increases, and the effects of climate change slowly but surely take hold, the free flow of abundant freshwater can never more be taken for granted. Improved water management techniques are now essential for the well-being of people, the environment, the business world and the global economy.

WWF and SABMiller are playing their full part in developing and improving those techniques, and we will keep you posted on developments in future.

River managers plan a bleak water future for Europe

2009-05-29

Brussels, Belgium: An ambitious European scheme to fix and safeguard its rivers and secure its water future is at risk of being undermined by poor and inadequate plans for water management prepared by EU countries, a new study by WWF and European Environment Bureau (EEB) has found.

The analysis has found none of the draft plans rates well across a range of water safety, conservation and management measures.

"The European Water Framework Directive when adopted in 2000 was far from perfect but it had the makings of a world-leading vision to change the ways we manage, use and value water at a time when the worlds water future looked much more secure than it does today ," said Sergey Moroz, Water Policy Officer at WWF.

Despite increasing water challenges exacerbated by climate change, draft plans developed so far by Member States are generally putting off major and necessary decisions, providing few mechanisms and little funding to achieve good status for water bodies.

"in the interests of agriculture and industry to become less vulnerable"

"These plans dont create an impression that we are finally departing from the unsustainable practices that led us to the current water crisis," said Pieter de Pous, EEB Water Policy Officer." For example, it is in the interests of agriculture and industry to become less vulnerable to increasingly insecure water supplies but there is very little in the plans when it comes to reducing their water consumption."

What future for EUs water? expresses particular concerns with increasingly water scarce Italy and Greece where it is unclear whether they are actually planning to finalise plans even remotely comparable to what the rest of Europe is doing.

Some countries like the Netherlands that have lost much of their natural rivers and waters in the past, are now starting initiatives to give rivers more space for flooding and thus improving their ability to face future climate change impacts. The Netherlands also managed to secure funding for river restoration, although the amounts are still inadequate.

Worrying diverging trends now emerge from Eastern and Southern Europe, like in Czech Republic and Portugal, where rivers continue to be poured into concrete straightjackets for the purpose of navigation, flood defence or hydropower, said de Pous.

In Portugal up to 10 new dams for hydropower are currently proposed for construction without any adequate consideration of the likelihood that there may not be enough water to run them.

"need to be visionary to tackle lasting food and energy security, public health and climate challenges"

Water pollution remains a serious issue also not sufficiently addressed in the majority of plans and large portions of Europes waters remain at risk of becoming unavailable or in need of expensive treatment.

Water efficiency measures were particularly poor in most draft plans. A partial exception was France's Loire Bretagne basin where a water efficiency objective is proposed for drinking water supply for rural and urban areas.

"To tackle Europes water challenges, Member States plans need to be visionary, abandoning a minimalist approach to implementation and becoming the central plank of efforts to tackle lasting food and energy security, public health and climate challenges," said Moroz.

Public consultation on the draft river plans is set to close at the end of June. EU Member States will have to finalise their water plans by the end of the year and send them to the European Commission.

Weathercocks and signposts: the environment movement at a crossroads

2008-03-10

As our understanding of the scale of environmental challenges deepens, so we are also forced to contemplate the inadequacy of the current responses to these challenges. By and large, these responses retreat from engaging the values that underpin our decisions as citizens, voters and consumers: mainstream approaches to tackling environmental threats do not question the dominance of today's individualistic and materialistic values

Weathercocks and Signposts critically reassesses current approaches to motivating environmentally-friendly behaviour change. Current behaviour-change strategies are increasingly built upon analogy with product marketing campaigns. They often take as given the 'sovereignty' of consumer choice, and the perceived need to preserve current lifestyles intact. This report constructs a case for a radically different approach. It presents evidence that any adequate strategy for tackling environmental challenges will demand engagement with the values that underlie the decisions we make – and, indeed, with our sense of who we are.

Europe's Living Countryside - UK National Report

2005-12-19

The EU's Rural Development Programme is part of the Common Agricultural Policy, and WWF believes it has the potential to deliver on key environmental objectives, such as biodiversity loss and water use.

As part of the Europe's Living Countryside (ELCo) project, WWF and its partners analysed the national Rural Development programmes in seven countries and explored how environmental priorities and objectives might better be identified and addressed in the new rural development programmes.

WWF PowerSwitch! scenarios for a clean energy future

2005-11-28

Melting glaciers, violent weather, severe droughts, warming oceans, species moving to cooler habitats: these are the ominous signs of climate change.

It will be extremely difficult to keep global warming below 2ºC because of massive growth in energy demand worldwide – but it is possible. This is the challenging goal of WWF's Climate Change Programme.

The PowerSwitch! campaign zeros in on the biggest climate polluter: the coal-burning power sector. The goal of the PowerSwitch! campaign is to get governments to cut CO2 pollution produced by coal power stations and thereby force a switch to cleaner, more efficient power.

To prove that a switch from coal to clean is possible, WWF has produced PowerSwitch! scenarios for countries and regions around the world.

Risky Business - the new Shell

2005-11-25

The importance of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is recognised by communities, companies, banks and governments. An effective process can deliver environmental, social and financial benefits.

PROCESS:
This report has compared the EIA process undertaken by Shell on the Sakhalin II project with Shell's own group manual on EIA. The application of Shell's own EIA procedures has been found to be seriously lacking, with examples and evidence provided from a range of sources. This issue of sequencing is key if maximum environmental protection is to result, otherwise opportunities to change designs are lost. In this case, Shell has made decisions first, and then sought to justify them through the EIA process.

THE BIGGER PICTURE:
Despite an indication that a Strategic Environmental Assessment was required, the lack of strategic planning on Sakhalin is resulting in damaging infrastructure development. Shell did not take into account social and environmental interactions, which is impacting on fisheries, the heart of Sakhalin's economy. Damage has already emerged, with much smaller catches in Aniva Bay in 2005.

SCOPING:
Shell has been in denial of the breadth and depth of scope of EIA required for Sakhalin II, despite stakeholder input. The baseline data underpinning the Sakhalin EIA is not fit for purpose. This is evident in terms of poor data on trans-boundary species, obvious limitations in understanding of the Western Gray Whale, and the failure to recognise indigenous communities. Shell has failed to incorporate environmental information into decision-making and conduct a valid, early assessment of alternative project designs. In particular it is clear that environmental aspects were not considered in choosing the platform location, and no alternative options have been offered.

DIALOGUE:
Shell has had ample chances to alter the project, but has chosen its construction timetable over environmental protection. Shell has handled consultation so badly to date, it has already seriously damaged relations and trust with key stakeholders. This has manifested in concerned groups taking out adverts in international newspapers to convey their dissatisfaction at Shell's actions. Shell's continuing attempts to supplement the EIA constitute a paper compliance exercise which cannot involve meaningful consultation. There is so little left to consult on at this stage, any process claiming to be consulting on the whole project would be considered flawed.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
Shell is ignoring the fact that many of its impacts should be classified as of major significance. Even where the EIA indicates issues, Shell has only sought to reduce the emphasis placed on them, rather than address the problem. Worst case scenarios have not been considered in the analysis, skewing the picture to the positive. It appears Shell considers that significant impacts on a critical habitat of an endangered species are acceptable, ignoring the views of a panel of world experts and other stakeholders. Investigation of the implications of this flawed EIA shows that it is already contributing to negative impacts on the environment and local people. This has already resulted in Gray Whales being exposed to unnecessary risks and unknown impacts, whilst salmon spawning areas have already been destroyed.

Shell has not used rigorous quantitative assessments and modelling to predict the expected impacts and the effectiveness of its proposed mitigation measures. This is evident in terms of the noise the whales were exposed to during construction in Summer 2005. Shell exceeded the levels required by the eminent, independent panel of experts, on a repeated basis.

BIODIVERSITY:
The company's recognised biodiversity implementation gap is at its widest in Sakhalin, with no indication key issues were included in the early decision-making processes. Shell is putting its own credibility and reputation at risk, as will any institution associated with the project. Shell is heading for having the extinction of a species of whale on its record. Shell has not taken a sufficiently precautionary approach to guarantee it will not impact upon endangered species. International cetacean experts have stated clearly that more could have been done to reduce risks to the whales. Shell's actions are contradictory to local regulations and International biodiversity commitments.

MITIGATION:
Shell is not giving sufficient significance to the importance of the biodiversity in Sakhalin, with the focus on process rather than conservation outcomes. The overreliance on mitigation rather than prevention has caused Shell to come unstuck. Shell has not incorporated impact criteria into operational procedures to prevent significant impacts occurring. This is an example of the gap between clear statements of expected impact, and Shell delivering appropriate mitigation measures. In some cases the mitigation is ineffective (e.g. observers who cannot operate in the conditions present), in others it is not implemented (e.g., contractors failing to apply erosion control measures), whilst in a few it is non-existent (e.g. no recognised technique to clean up oil spills in ice).

IMPLEMENTATION:
In terms of specific issues, Shell refused to wait for the best scientific advice before installing the platform base. Also, Shell has not acknowledged the importance of many of the salmon streams for spawning, and as a result cannot develop appropriate crossing techniques and mitigation measures. Shell has been exposed as having an over-reliance on contractors, which has manifested itself in unacceptable practices on Sakhalin river crossings. Shell did not reduce the risk of collisions with its mitigation attempts during its construction this summer.

CONCLUSION:
Shell's denial is already resulting in irreversible impacts on the biodiversity and natural resources of Sakhalin Island. This is having a negative effect on the standards practised in Russia, given that local companies are applying better standards on projects elsewhere in Russia.

It also does not bode well for Shell aspirations in other similar locations in the Arctic. Shell has shown interest in the Barents, Berings and Beaufort Sea, all WWF priority Ecoregions. The same issues of whales, ice, fisheries and local communities will face Shell in these locations, but on this evidence they are not equipped to deal with it.

Shell has set its own standards on EIA, which are aligned with World Bank requirements. It is clear the company has not applied this process satisfactorily, to meet any international standard. If financial institutions claiming to have meaningful standards get involved in the project at this late stage it will make a mockery of their standards too.

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development has a responsibility to tell Shell the Sakhalin II project does not meet its policies; this is the only way Shell will get the message it has to change.

The Changing Nature of High Seas Fishing: How Flags of Convenience provide cover for illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing

2005-11-02

The report The Changing Nature of High Seas Fishing: how Flags of Convenience provide cover for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing is the culmination of over a year of investigation and research funded by the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the International Transport Workers' Federation and WWF International, on Flags of Convenience and Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing on the high seas. IUU fishing is one of the most serious threats to the health of the world's fisheries and oceans. This report:

- documents trends in the use of Flags of Convenience (FOCs) which allow for extensive

- IUU fishing operations on the high seas;

- describes specific examples of IUU activity;

- names FOC countries, companies and vessels with an opportunity to engage in or support IUU fishing;

- identifies major components of the global infrastructure supporting high seas fishing and companies that could be enlisted to address the IUU challenge;

- describes the impact of free-riding FOC fishing States on resource management, human rights and marine conservation;

- recommends solutions or steps to be taken to eliminate IUU fishing and the FOC system.

Extreme Weather – Summer temperature graphs for European cities

2005-08-11

The WWF report, Europe feels the heat - Extreme weather and the power sector, shows London is the city where average maximum summer temperature increased the most, up 2°C over the last 30 years, followed by Athens and Lisbon (1.9ºC), Warsaw (1.3ºC) and Berlin (1.2ºC).

Meanwhile, the increase in average summer mean temperature was highest in Madrid - up by a staggering 2.2°C, followed by Luxembourg (2ºC), Stockholm (1.5ºC), and Brussels, Rome and Vienna (1.2ºC). In the last five years, average summer temperatures in 13 of the 16 cities looked at were at least 1ºC higher than during the first five years of the 1970s.

The pdf contains the summer temperature graphs for the EU capital cities - clearly showing the warming trend.

WWF report: Europe feels the heat – Extreme weather and the power sector (self-starting file for on-screen viewing)

2005-08-11

As European cities swelter in the summer heatwave, a new report from WWF, analyzing summer temperature data from 16 EU cities, shows the continent's capitals warming by sometimes more than 2°C in the last 30 years.

The global conservation organization's report, Europe feels the heat - Extreme weather and the power sector, shows London is the city where average maximum summer temperature increased the most, up 2°C over the last 30 years, followed by Athens and Lisbon (1.9ºC), Warsaw (1.3ºC) and Berlin (1.2ºC).

Meanwhile, the increase in average summer mean temperature was highest in Madrid - up by a staggering 2.2°C, followed by Luxembourg (2ºC), Stockholm (1.5ºC), and Brussels, Rome and Vienna (1.2ºC). In the last five years, average summer temperatures in 13 of the 16 cities looked at were at least 1ºC higher than during the first five years of the 1970s.

WWF's report highlights the likelihood of more frequent and intense heatwaves, droughts and rainstorms as average temperatures increase, the kind of events expected as a result of global warming.

It emphasizes that the power sector has fuelled a major part of this hike in temperatures, being responsible for 37 percent of man-made CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels, mainly coal.

On the run – escaped farmed fish in Norwegian waters

2005-05-12

The wild Atlantic salmon has a fascinating migratory lifecycle, which takes it from its river of birth to thousands of kilometres out at sea, and back again to the exact same river to spawn. It is an example of a species adapted to its environment through thousands of years of evolution, where each river holds a unique and local salmon stock.

However, these strong survival genes are now threatened. Farmed fish are bred to grow quickly, taste good and be more nutritious for humans – none of which are useful survival traits in the wild. As the fish farming industry has been present in Norwegian waters for more than 20 years, we are now able to see the consequences of these fish escaping into the wild. In areas with dense fish farming, the negative impacts on wild salmon populations are indisputable.

Knowing that stocks of coastal cod are at their lowest level ever, and that cod farming is quickly growing as an industry, WWF fears that we risk repeating history and that escaped farmed cod in a few years will pose a threat to our already dwindling coastal cod stocks.

This report also describes some of the actions taken by the fish farming industry and the Norwegian Government to reduce the amount of escaped farmed fish and concludes with some recommendations for further improvements in management.

It is WWF's sincere hope that by addressing this issue, we will see a steep decline in the number of farmed fish escaping in the coming years. This report should serve as a wakeup call for governments to better manage their fish farming industries, and indicates to the fish farming industry that changes in its attitudes and practices are needed.

Zero emission housing takes off

2005-04-08

The Beddington Zero Energy Development, or BedZED for short, in south London, looks a little like a Lego 'toy-town' village.

The buildings have a unique roof shape, not unlike an aeroplane wing, and they're topped by tall brightly coloured exhaust vents.

But the 'toy-town' exterior hides a very high tech interior, as John Fitzgerald discovered.

Multi-stakeholder Governance: A Brief Guide

2005-03-09

A comparison of existing criteria, standards and other initiatives for soy production

2005-03-09

Forest Conversion News No 6 - February 2005

2005-02-23

The effects of FSC Certification in Estonia, Germany, Latvia, Russia, Sweden and the UK. Summary report & country reports

2005-02-14

Background and Overview

Five years after forest certification began its rapid expansion in Europe the questions "what benefits have certification brought?" or "what tangible differences are there to forest management because of certification?" are being asked. In an attempt to answer these questions WWF carried out an analysis of forest certification in Europe. The analysis was based on information available on the internet. The benefits of forest certification quoted in this paper refer only to those provided by FSC certification.

The analysis was carried out for six countries: Estonia, Germany, Latvia, Russia, Sweden and the UK. It is based upon the publicly available information from audit reports prepared by independent assessors. The Corrective Action Requests, listed in the audit reports, provide a summary of the changes that forest managers have had to make to achieve or maintain the forest certification standard. It is important to note however, that improvements made in preparation of the certification audits are not captured in this analysis, so the summary provided almost certainly underestimates the benefits provided.

2817 Corrective Action Requests were reviewed, covering 18million hectares of forest. Together they provide a comprehensive overview of the impacts of forest certification. This report presents the results of this analysis, comparing the trends across all 6 countries whilst drawing important conclusions for key audiences and stakeholders in the debate on certification. The conclusions presented are those based on results from at least three countries, with the majority of observations valid for five or six countries. They therefore present evidence of fundamental system-wide improvements to the management of Europe's forests.

Finally, this report concentrates on the consistent Europe-wide benefits of certification. It is important to note that in addition to the generic results presented in this report, significant country specific improvements were also recorded in all countries. For example,

• in Sweden, which started from a relatively high level of forest management, FSC certification has led to improved planning and use of forest residues for biomass in order not to compromise biodiversity management, and on social issues the rights of the Sami people are now formally respected and addressed in forest management.

• in Russia employment rights for forest workers have been strengthened with workers now paid on time.

The ability to improve country specific issues in forest management in different national contexts is an important additional conclusion from this analysis, however not covered in detail in this overview.

Saving the Treasures of the Sea

2005-01-28

First published in 2003.

Guidelines for sustainable tourism investments in vulnerable ecological areas of the Mediterranean coasts

2004-12-17

The tools proposed by the Guidelines provide investors with the information they need to identify the most environmentally vulnerable areas, where conventional tourism investment could have a negative impact. At the same time, they are meant for the assessment of the investment sustainability and as a guidance for the planning and implementation stages.

Indeed, these tools are also available for policy makers to strengthen national environmental policies and to implement strategies for sustainable development.

The present Guidelines were conceived after a study phase carried out by the WWF to analyse the most important forests and marine areas along Mediterranean coasts, in terms of their biodiversity and status of protection: the identification of particularly vulnerable stretches along the basin raised the question of their correct management and the need for a sustainable development of tourism at those sites.

The Guidelines will focus on the role played by investors in the implementation of sustainable tourism activities in such vulnerable areas, and their consequent viability. In fact, as the driving force of the tourism industry, investors should be the first ones to advocate a reform towards more sustainable practices within this sector, from the choice of the location to the building and management of the tourism facility.

The recommendations and the assessment tool that are illustrated in the following chapters are meant as a contribution towards the desired sustainability of the tourism industry. It is hoped that the Guidelines will provide a basis for approaches and behaviour that will promote tourism investments equally respectful of the environment, the culture and the economy.