Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesiTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
The headline figure does not mean that 73% of the world’s animals—or 73% of species—have disappeared. WWF’s 2026 Living Planet Report says the average size of monitored vertebrate populations fell by 73% between 1970 and 2022. The index tracks population trends, not every animal on Earth, and the available sources do not quantify how many species or populations remain unmonitored.
What does the 73% decline measure?
The Living Planet Index summarizes the cumulative average proportional change in the sizes of monitored animal populations at sites around the world. In the 2026 report, it draws on 35,803 population trends from 5,790 vertebrate species across 1970–2022. The index includes trends that rose, fell, or remained stable; it is not a tally of individual animals that died or species that went extinct. WWF’s Living Planet Report 2026 describes the finding and its underlying measure.
That distinction matters: a population’s proportional change is measured against its own starting level, then combined with other monitored trends. The 73% result therefore describes the average direction and scale of change across the index, not a literal reduction of 73% in the total number of all wild animals.
How can the average fall when many populations are stable or increasing?
In the report, 43% of included populations were increasing and 7% were stable. The aggregate remains strongly negative because the decreases among declining populations outweigh the increases among rising ones. A global average can therefore coexist with recoveries in particular places and declines elsewhere; it does not say that every species, site, or population is moving in the same direction.
#1 Best Overall
For readers asking, “Should we read that to mean that we’re doing a good job and that species loss is stabilizing over the last couple years?” the answer is no: similar headline figures in successive editions do not establish a flat or improving recent trend. The editions use different sets of species and extend the time series, so their headline percentages are not direct year-to-year comparisons. The 1970 starting point also matters, particularly in places where large-scale impacts were already underway before that baseline. WWF’s explanation of the index discusses how to interpret it.
Where are the reported declines steepest?
The 2026 report gives these average declines in monitored populations over 1970–2022. They are not the percentages of species or individual animals lost.
Rank #2
| Grouping | Average decline in monitored populations |
|---|---|
| Latin America and the Caribbean | 95% |
| Africa | 80% |
| Asia–Pacific | 49% |
| Freshwater ecosystems | 85% |
| Terrestrial ecosystems | 69% |
| Marine ecosystems | 59% |
These are separate regional and ecosystem groupings, not interchangeable rankings of equivalent samples. The monitored species, population composition, and significance of the 1970 baseline can differ, so the values should not be treated as perfectly like-for-like comparisons. The report’s regional and ecosystem results provide the figures and context.
Why are wildlife populations declining?
WWF identifies habitat loss and degradation as the most frequently reported driver of biodiversity loss, often associated with agricultural expansion for food. Other pressures identified in the report include overexploitation, climate change, pollution, invasive species, and disease. Their relative importance varies by population and location; the index’s global average does not assign one cause to every decline. WWF’s 2026 report outlines these drivers.
Is nature in free fall, or is there reason for hope?
The report’s global result signals a serious continuing decline, but it does not erase evidence of recovery. Dr Louise McRae of the ZSL Institute of Zoology, who leads the research behind the Living Planet Index, said: “This year’s Living Planet Index shows the need for rapid action to address the continued decline in biodiversity.” She also noted: “However, behind every global statistic is evidence of wildlife populations rebounding and habitats recovering, driven by people working together to reverse biodiversity loss.” WWF-UK’s report announcement gives the statements in context.
Green sea turtles show what targeted recovery can achieve
The report describes green sea turtles as a recovery example: in 2025, the species was downlisted from Endangered to Least Concern on the IUCN Red List. WWF attributes that improvement to decades of coordinated work across nesting countries, including protecting nesting females and eggs, managing beaches, regulating lighting, reducing bycatch with turtle-excluder devices and other measures, enforcing rules against illegal take, and engaging communities. This is a species-specific success, not evidence that all wildlife populations are reversing their declines. WWF-UK’s announcement describes the example and actions.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What the index cannot tell us about animals that are not counted
The Living Planet Index is based on monitored vertebrate populations; it is not a census of all animal life. The available sources do not establish a global count or percentage of wildlife species or populations that are unmonitored, nor do they resolve how representative the monitored sample is of all wildlife. It is accurate to say that many animals are not captured by this index’s coverage; it is not possible from these sources to put a reliable number on that gap. The report’s description of its dataset sets out the monitored population coverage.
Recommended Free Tools
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
