Dead planet, living planet

flora and fauna that are crucial in the natural cycling of these ecosystems, thus ensuring their long-term function. Indeed, many rivers are straight- ened and wetlands and marshes drained or dried out behind dikes to ensure agricultural expansion, however, this invariably causes higher water velocity, higher risk of floods, and increased organic pollution further downstream (Bruijnzeel 2004; UNEP, 2005). These ecosystems also help buffer global climate change (Nepstad 2007). Hence, restoration must not address the catchments in terms of forests and riverine vegetation including ground layer, but must also ensure the natural meandering pathways and the flood marshes and wetlands to ensure proper filtration and buffering mecha- nisms against extreme flows. Worldwide, nearly 900 million people still do not have access to safe water (UNDESA 2009) Restoration to re-establish diverse grazing and cropping systems, partially restoring naturally supplementing plants and trees in more diversified crop- ping and grazing systems, combined with green technology in irrigation efficiency, could help drastically reduce the 70–90% of the water currently consumed and partly wasted by agriculture. This, in turn, would increase water availibility to cities, improve water quality, as well as make more water available for irrigation. Such cropping systems capture more water through wetlands, marshes and lakes during flood seasons, rather than this causing floods and marine pollution as a result of seasonally extremely high veloc- ity and volume. This is particularly important for countries like Pakistan, where a near doubling in population from 184 million people in 2010 to a projected 335 million people by 2050 (UN population division, 2007) – and already facing water scarcity and flood challenges. Pakistan is one of many states that will need to address new ways to secure sufficient water supply for upholding food security in the future. Restoration is financially viable (TEEB, 2009): Cities like Rio de Janeiro, Johannesburg, Tokyo, Melbourne, New York and Jakarta all rely on pro- tected areas to provide residents with drinking water. They are not alone – a third of the world’s hundred largest cities draw a substantial proportion of their drinking water from forest protected areas (Dudley and Stolton 2003). Forests, wetlands and protected areas with dedicated management actions often provide clean water at a much lower cost than man-made sub- stitutes like water treatment plants for example in Venezuela: the national protected area system prevents sedimentation that if left unattended could reduce farm earnings by around USD 3.5 million/year (Pabon-Zamora et al . 2008).

Figure 8: As water is extracted and used along the supply chain, both the quality and quantity of water available is reduced.

Global water withdrawal percentage by sector

Contaminated food provision Waste water discharge

Reusing processed sewage

Drinking water treatment

Sewage sludge

Ecosystem degradation

41