Auteur moral

Auteur secondaire

Résumé

"Le deuxième Species Protection Report ? publié à l'occasion du Half-Earth Day ? met en lumière les avancées mondiales, régionales et nationales vers les objectifs de protection de la biodiversité. Désormais étendu aux espèces d'arbres en plus des vertébrés terrestres et marins, il a évalué 92 000 espèces afin d'identifier plus précisément les espèces et les régions qui nécessitent en priorité des actions de conservation."

Descripteur Urbamet

Descripteur écoplanete

inventaire d'espèces

Thème

Environnement - Nature ;Environnement - Paysage

Texte intégral

THE Species Protection Report 2025 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 4 14 24 42 54 60 62 Executive Summary Section 1: Introduction Section 2: Global Overview Section 3: Terrestrial Vertebrate SPI Section 4: Marine SPI Section 5: Case Studies Photo Credit and References Appendix The SPI Calculation Terrestrial Vertebrates Trees Subregional SPI Subregional SPI Land and Marine Conservation in Oman Conserving Marine Ecosystems in Southern and Eastern Africa The Species Protection Index Interpreting the SPI World Database of Protected Areas Marine Fish and Mammals National SPI EEZ SPI Vertebrate Species National SPI Annual Change EEZ SPI Annual Change Species Protection Successes and Gaps Species Protection Successes and Gaps 36Section 3: Tree SPI Subregional SPI National SPI As threats to biodiversity and its many benefits to people accelerate, understanding progress in the effective safeguarding of our planet?s species is ever more important. With nations worldwide committed to protecting more land, freshwater, and sea to deliver biodiversity outcomes, a globally standardized measurement and recognition of successes and key opportunities is paramount. The Species Protection Index (SPI), developed by Map of Life under the auspices of the GEO Biodiversity Observation Network, addresses this need by quantifying how adequately networks of conservation areas support species.1 As the only formally adopted indicator of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework that directly and quantitatively addresses the importance of protected areas for species conservation, the SPI monitors how protected area creation results in progress toward the goals of ?30 by 30? or ?Half-Earth?. This report, produced by the Half-Earth Project (the principal focus of the E.O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation), uses the SPI to assess the state of global species protection in 2025. As a species-level metric, the regional SPI values presented here are based on individual Species Protection Scores calculated for ~34,000 terrestrial vertebrate species, ~13,000 marine mammal and fish species, and ~45,000 tree species. Since the 2024 report, more than 70 countries and 30 marine Exclusive Economic Zones have achieved increases greater than 1 point in their terrestrial vertebrate and marine SPI, respectively. This is both due to improved reporting of existing protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures to the World Database of Protected Areas (WDPA) and new protected area establishment. Accordingly, the global terrestrial vertebrate SPI has risen by 3.1 points to 50.9 out of 100; global marine SPI has risen by 2.3 points to 62.1; and global tree SPI, calculated for the first time this year, reached 58.3 points. 15.1% of land area and 8.4% of ocean area is under some form of formal protection, as recorded in the WDPA. About one-quarter of terrestrial vertebrates and one-third of marine vertebrates have a Species Protection Score of 90 or greater out of 100, meaning that global conservation area networks have nearly or sufficiently met their habitat protection targets. One-fifth of terrestrial vertebrates and one-twelfth of marine vertebrates have extremely poor to no protection over their habitats, indicated by protection scores of less than 10. While progress has been made, much effort remains necessary to sufficiently protect and preserve the world?s biodiversity and to measure and confirm progress toward globally shared goals. © 2025. Map of Life. Licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Black Wood Turtle 65 Rhinoclemmys funerea SPS INTRODUCTION SECTION 1 6 7 In 2022, the SPI was formally adopted as a component indicator for Target 3 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). The SPI is rigorously derived from species-by-species assessment and serves as the only formal indicator for Target 3 that spatially, comprehensively, and quantitatively addresses the Target 3 components of ecological representation and biodiversity importance. This means that the SPI doesn?t reward the establishment of protected areas in biodiversity- poor locations ? only those protected areas that actually include valuable species habitat. A country?s SPI score will be particularly affected by the inclusion of habitat for species that are endemic, have restricted range size, or have no existing formal protection over their habitat. THE SPECIES PROTECTION INDEX A Component Indicator for the Global Biodiversity FrameworkA Tool for Effective Biodiversity Protection Areas of Particular Importance to Biodiversity The SPI is the only indicator for the target adopted at the headline or component level that directly and quantitatively addresses the importance protected areas play for conserving species. It is also the only species-level indicator, meaning that aggregated metrics are derived from individual species? assessments. A low SPI can therefore be traced to the exact species and places lacking protection coverage. The SPI assesses if and how effectively existing conservation areas incorporate species ranges, thus capturing an essential component of both ecosystems and ecological processes. Given its explicit nature and disaggregation to the level of single species and places, the SPI informs the specific biodiversity aspects that make a conservation areas high-value and supports their targeted monitoring and management. Ecologically Representative Effectively Conserved and Managed Box 1. The Species Protection Index addresses three key aspects of Target 3 of the Global Biodiversity Framework. Species are the key drivers of the diverse ecological functions that sustain our planet. Representing this ecological diversity within systems of protected and conserved areas is therefore a central goal for effective conservation. The Species Protection Index (SPI), first developed by Map of Life in 2014, supports action toward this goal by evaluating how well protected areas cover the habitats species need for survival.1 The SPI measures how well species ranges are represented within networks of protected areas, thereby assessing these areas? coverage of important locations for biodiversity and ecological representativeness. More than just a monitoring tool, the SPI is designed to actively assist conservation decision making by identifying gaps in biodiversity protection. The SPI is updated annually in the terrestrial and marine realms for all countries and all exclusive economic zones (EEZs ? the marine area generally extending 200 nautical miles from shore over which a nation has jurisdiction) plus international waters, respectively. Its calculation follows a standardized workflow based on the best-available species distribution information from Map of Life combined with data on conservation activities from the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). We report the 2025 SPI based on ~34,000 species of terrestrial vertebrates (nearly 100% of described species), ~13,000 species of marine mammals and fish (about 72% of described species), and, included in the calculations for the first time, ~45,000 species of trees (around two-thirds of described species). The SPI is developed and maintained by Map of Life in partnership with the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEOBON) and with support from the Half-Earth Project and the E.O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation. Target 3 calls for the effective conservation and management of 30% of land and sea areas by 2030. The SPI assesses whether that 30% actually includes the habitats that species need most. Cinnamon-chested bee-eater Merops oreobates SPS Strawberry poison dart frog Oophaga pumilio SPS54 55 http://mol.org/dashboard http://geobon.org http://geobon.org http://map.half-earthproject.org https://eowilsonfoundation.org/ https://eowilsonfoundation.org/ 8 9 THE SPI CALCULATION INPUT DATA DETAILED DISTRIBUTIONS SPECIES PROTECTION SCORES SPECIES PROTECTION INDEX SPS values are aggregated at regional levels (e.g. countries, provinces, or subregions) to determine the SPI, which indicates how well the species in a given region are protected, on average. Species Data Environmental Data Protected Areas The SPI calculation uses species expert range maps and habitat preferences along with global environmental layers and the annual January update of the WDPA. Best-available geographic data for species, environmental layers, and the World Database of Protected Areas. Top-notch statistical models create high-resolution maps of species habitat-suitable ranges.2 The ratio of the percent of habitat protected to the protection target gives the Species Protection Score. Stewardship-weighted average of all Species Protection Scores within a region gives the SPI. Based on the size of its habitat-suitable range, we assign each species a protection target, or the total percentage of its habitat that should be protected. We calculate the SPS as the ratio of the actual percentage of habitat protected to the target. We integrate species data, environmental layers, and occurrence points within these models. The habitat-suitable range maps determine the total size of a species? habitat. We calculate National SPI by averaging the SPS of all species in a country, weighted by how much of a species? range falls within the country, or the country?s ?stewardship? of that species. Endemic species therefore have the highest weight in the SPI. Expert Range Maps Polygonal representations of species distributions from expert sources. Global environmental layers derived from remote sensing data for elevation, tree cover, and landcover classes. We apply a simple filtering scheme on the WDPA to remove proposed protected areas and UNESCO- MAB Biosphere Reserves. To avoid double counting overlapping parks, we rasterize the polygon layer to create a flat map of protected areas. Tree cover, elevation, and landcover species prefer- ences from expert sources. Calculating the overlap of the green and orange areas in the map above. The ratio of the real percent protected to the target protection level. Habitat Preferences Percent of species? habitat protected Species Protection Score 26,400 km2 4,700 km2 18% 18% = = = + + = 74% 24 24 (.8) (.6) (.5)73 3 38 100 Total Habitat Area Area Protected Protected Percent Protected Protection Target Species Protection Score Species Protection Scores Total Number of Species Stewardship weights Species Protection Index These habitat-suitable ranges provide a more accurate picture of the habitats a species is likely to use within the boundaries of their range. Habitat-suitable range size determines the protection target. Small range species have higher protection targets (up to 100%) than large range species. In this example, since the species with the lowest SPS has the highest stewardship and the higher-SPS species have lower stewardship, the overall SPI is lower than the simple average of scores. Diana Guenon Cercopithecus diana Expert Range Map Habitat-Suitable Range Map Area Protected 10 11 Box 2 illustrates an example of a small-range frog and a large-ranging bird that shows important implications about how protected area placement determines species protection scores. The leaf-dwelling shrub frog will only achieve an SPS of 100 if its entire range is protected, while the Yucatan poorwill will achieve an SPS of 100 if just 31% of its range is protected. A large ranging species may not necessarily need targeted land protection efforts to safeguard enough of its habitat, whereas species with a restricted habitat or several isolated habitat patches often require very targeted efforts to conserve those specific habitats. The National SPI tells you how close a country is to reaching the protection coverage targets of all its species. For an individual species, the SPS tells you how close we are to reaching its individual protection target. INTERPRETING THE SPI Species Protection Scores National SPI We cannot assume that two countries with the same SPI have deployed equal conservation efforts. As we saw, achieving high SPS for a range restricted, endemic species is more challenging than achieving the same for a large-ranging species. Similarly, achieving a high overall SPI for a country with 1,000 species will generally be more challenging than a country with 100 species. These differences are often called uneven conservation burdens between the two countries. In addition to uneven biodiversity, highly biodiverse countries in the tropics and subtropics also tend to have greater levels of natural resource extraction combined with fewer financial resources to implement effective conservation. Let?s look at an example of two countries with a similar percent of area protected but very different SPIs. Leaf-dwelling shrub frog Box 2. A comparison of the species protection score calculation between two species: the leaf dwelling shrub frog (Pseudophilautus folicola) and the Yucatan poorwill (Nyctiphrynus yucatanicus). Box 3. A comparison of the Species Protection Index calculation for two different countries with a similar percent of total land area protected: the Netherlands and Sri Lanka. Netherlands Yucatan poorwill Sri Lanka Total Habitat Area: Total Habitat Area: Area Protected Area Protected Number of Species Number of Species Endemic Species Endemic Species 6,900 km2 135,000 km2 34% 30% 316 704 0 263 6,900 km2 (100%) 41,900 km2 (31%) 790 km2 (11%) 33,200 km2 (25%) 11 99 38 Protection Target: Protection Target: Area Protected: Area Protected: Protection Score: Species Protection Index: Species Protection Index: Protection Score: Pseudophilautus folicola Nyctiphrynus yucatanicus The leaf-dwelling shrub frog is endemic to Sri Lanka with a total habitat area less than 7,000 km2. As we do for all terrestrial vertebrate species with range sizes less than 10,000 km2, we set the protection target for the leaf-dwelling shrub frog at 100%. This means we think this species needs protection over its entire range to ensure its successful conservation. Even though the total area is relatively small, it can be difficult for countries to capture a species? whole range in their protected area network, so achieving an SPS of 100 can be difficult for small-range endemic species. This frog has 11% of its range protected, so its SPS is 11. The Yucatan poorwill?s habitat, which ranges across the Yucatan Peninsula, is more than twenty times the size of the leaf-dwelling shrub frog?s range. Accordingly, it has a smaller protection target at just 31%. For the purposes of the SPI, that 31% can be anywhere over its range. So far, a quarter of this species? range is protected, resulting in an SPS of 79. This means the Yucatan poorwill is about 80% of the way toward achieving its protection goals. The Netherlands and Sri Lanka both have about a third of their land area protected, but while the Netherlands has achieved a near-perfect SPI, Sri Lanka has an SPI of just 38 ? about 13 points below the global average. This discrepancy does not necessarily mean that the Netherlands is more efficiently protecting its species than Sri Lanka. Both countries may be effectively placing protected areas, but a key difference is that Sri Lanka has much higher biodiversity ? more than twice as many terrestrial vertebrate species and 263 endemic species compared to zero endemic species in the Netherlands. This means that Sri Lanka has a doubly higher conservation burden than the Netherlands: more species to protect and greater stewardship over those species. We can see that both countries are making good progress in biodiversity protection, but from the start, the Netherlands had a shorter way to go than did Sri Lanka. 79 12 13 Protected Planet (protectedplanet.net) is the global authoritative source of data on protected and conserved areas. Managed by the UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) as a joint product of UNEP and the IUCN, Protected Planet includes the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) and associated data and indicators. In managing Protected Planet, UNEP- WCMC facilitates reporting by national governments and other data providers. By compiling these data for use by the public, Protected Planet supports a wide range of actors in monitoring conservation trends and effectiveness, and in making decisions that positively impact ecosystem and biodiversity conservation. The WDPA is a key dataset allowing the development and maintenance of a number of conservation indices, including the SPI. In addition, Protected Planet provides the foundation for monitoring and reporting for Target 3 of the GBF. Data reported to Protected Planet can include: ? Newly established protected or conserved areas ? Previously established protected or conserved areas that had not yet been reported ? Updating of geometries of existing areas in the databases ? Updating of descriptive data for areas in the databases ? Addition/updating of data on the effectiveness of protected and conserved areas ? Removal of areas that have been delisted New data are released on the Protected Planet platform on a monthly basis. The nature of the Protected Planet update cycle and data management processes have implications for analyses utilizing the data: ? Delisted protected and conserved areas are removed from the WDPA and will not be revealed in temporal analyses. ? The ?Status Year? attribute reflects the year of establishment of the protected or conserved area designation currently in place. Because protected and conserved areas are sometimes delisted and replaced by new designations (e.g., a Nature Reserve might be delisted to enable the establishment of a National Park), the ?Status Year? may not reflect the earliest year in which a geographical space was occupied by a protected or conserved area. ? There is often a lag time in reporting newly established areas to the databases. Work is underway to enhance the data delivered through Protected Planet, including to reduce the reporting lag time and make data on delisted areas accessible. For more information about data reporting to Protected Planet, visit wcmc.io/WDPA_Manual. Government bodies wishing to update their data in Protected Planet are invited to contact protectedareas@ unep-wcmc.org. WORLD DATABASE ON PROTECTED AREAS Interpreting Changes in the SPI We re-run the SPI annually using the January version of the WDPA. Each annual version of the SPI is calculated from 1980 to the present year using the ?Status Year? attribute in the database. Some areas do not have a ?Status Year? value; in these cases, we use the first year of the analyses, 1980, as the default status year. The interpretation of temporal changes in the SPI must be understood in the context of the data reporting process. Changes in the SPI between this report and last year?s report are influenced by changes in reporting to the WDPA: countries may have removed parks, reported existing or new parks, updated the statuses of existing parks, or updated the geometries of existing parks, all of which may affect species? protection scores and therefore the SPI. Within the full temporal analyses of the 2025 version of the SPI, we can get an idea of how the protected area networks of a country have changed over time, with the understanding that due to the nature of WDPA updates, exact dates reflecting the initial existence of some form of protection in an area may differ. Box 4. A comparison of the 2025 and 2024 versions of the SPI for Madagascar. In the 2024 version of the SPI, Madagascar had a higher percent of area protected and SPI in 1980 than in the 2025 version, but the 2025 version has much greater values in the final year of analysis compared to the 2024 version. Several changes have happened, which can be confirmed through the monthly WDPA update reports: in December of 2024, Madagascar?s Ministry of Environment, with support from the Regional Centre for Mapping of Resources for Development, updated several protected areas to provide the status year, which was previously missing in the database, and added several existing areas to the database. So, since last year?s SPI report, Madagascar has gained about 6% of protected area and a resulting 21-point increase in SPI thanks in part to enhanced reporting efforts and in part thanks to new protected area designations. Species Protection Index Madagascar: v2024 versus v2025 Thirteen-lined ground squirrel 20 Ictidomys tridecemlineatus SPS Regular reporting to Protected Planet is crucial for ensuring the quality and completeness of the databases and the indices that are derived from them. Natal diving frog 1 Natalobatrachus bonebergi SPS http://protectedplanet.net https://wcmc.io/WDPA_Manual mailto:protectedareas%40unep-wcmc.org?subject= mailto:protectedareas%40unep-wcmc.org?subject= GLOBAL OVERVIEW SECTION 2 Long-tailed Salamander 72 Eurycea longicauda SPS 16 17 KEY GLOBAL TAKEAWAYS: TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATES Global terrestrial vertebrate SPI has increased by 3.1 points in the last year. Just 20% of all countries have at least 30% of their land area protected, and islands are falling behind in SPI. In the past year, more than 70 countries added or upgraded their conservation areas and/or updated their reporting of existing areas. This has translated to a substantial increase in the global SPI, an improvement felt across all four taxonomic groups. About one-fifth of all countries have at least 30% of their area protected, but the SPIs differ greatly. Island nations saturate the low-SPI section, and all of the countries with a percent protected to SPI ratio below the 1:1 line are islands. Islands tend to have several small range endemic species, which represent a greater conservation burden to those countries. Countries with a high number of species tend to sit in the middle ? this is also unsurprising as high biodiversity equals a greater conservation burden. Belarus has achieved an SPI of 74 with just 9% of its land area under protection. Its conservation burden is relatively low, with just over 300 species and no endemic species included in the SPI analysis. Brazil has the highest number of terrestrial vertebrates in the world with over 4000 species. For terrestrial vertebrates, it has achieved an SPI of 68 with 31% of land area protected. The small island of Réunion has less than 100 native terrestrial vertebrates, many of them endemic. It has achieved an SPI of 74 with a relatively high 66% of area protected. 18 19 KEY GLOBAL TAKEAWAYS: TREES Trees appear to be better protected than terrestrial vertebrates, but this pattern differs around the world. Similar to the terrestrial vertebrate SPI, the high-SPI section of the tree SPI graph above is saturated with European and African countries; however, we see that American countries sit higher in the tree SPI graph, reflecting the higher average tree SPI in the Latin America and the Caribbean subregion compared to its terrestrial vertebrate SPI. With nearly 3,000 tree species included in the analysis, Madagascar has achieved a tree SPI of 47 with 13% of its land under protection, while its terrestrial vertebrate SPI stands 15 points higher at 62. New Zealand has the highest tree SPI in Oceania at 81, which is considerably higher than its terrestrial vertebrate SPI of 49. Most of its 258 tree species are endemic. Venezuela boasts the highest tree SPI in its subregion, achieving an SPI of 95 with 57% of its land area protected. It is also the fourth most tree species-rich country according to the data included in the analysis, with nearly 6000 species. Global tree SPI has risen by 44 points since 1980. Tree SPI has risen faster than terrestrial vertebrate SPI, with an SPI 7.4 points higher than the terrestrial vertebrates. But, this pattern is not observed equally across all subregions or countries, with many factors potentially contributing to different successes in protecting the two groups. 20 21 KEY GLOBAL TAKEAWAYS: MARINE Global marine SPI has increased by 2.3 points in the last year. In the past year, the SPI of more than 30 EEZs increased by at least 1 point. Several islands achieved near-complete protection of their EEZs, and the SPI of international waters increased by 5 points. 8.4% of the world?s oceans are currently protected. Less than 20% of all EEZs have at least 30% of their waters protected, but several EEZs have achieved near-perfect SPIs. International waters, which harbor nearly 7,000 fish and marine mammals, have just 0.7% of their area under protection and an SPI of 24. The Seychelles have achieved a near-perfect SPI with just 32% of their EEZ protected and nearly 3,000 marine mammal and fish species. The Hawaiian Islands have 61% of their EEZ protected but an SPI of just 62. With hundreds of endemic reef fishes, the marine conservation burden for Hawaii is very high, contributing to this low percent protected to SPI ratio. Less than one-fifth of all EEZs have at least 30% of their area protected. Nearly all EEZs have a percent protected to SPI ratio above the 1:1 line, but dozens of EEZs remain virtually unprotected, with nearly one hundred EEZs having less than 1% of their area under protection. Oceania performs much better in marine SPI than terrestrial, with several EEZs having near perfect scores. 22 23 KEY GLOBAL TAKEAWAYS: VERTEBRATE SPECIES 90-100 40-50 60-70 20-30 70-80 80-90 30-40 50-60 10-20 0-10 Number of Species Species Protection Scores Number of Species 2500 1000 2000 3000 40000 050007500 400 198 513 69 50.9 62.1 species achieved an SPS of 100* *with at least a 10-point increase species achieved an SPS of 100* species had an SPS increase of 50 or greater species had an SPS increase of 50 or greater of marine species have a protection score greater than 90 of terrestrial species have a protection score less than 10 average SPI average SPI of marine species have a protection score less than 10 TERRESTRIAL MARINE MAMMALS MAMMALSAMPHIBIANS REPTILES FISHBIRDS Since the SPI is based on species-level calculations, we can investigate not only regional and national aggregates but also the distribution of species scores. Terrestrial and marine vertebrate species show a striking contrast: whereas the score distribution of terrestrial species peaks at both 90-100 and 0-10, marine species peak only at 90-100. The taxonomic breakdowns within also reveal differing patterns for different species groups. of terrestrial species have a protection score greater than 90 27% 20% 36% 8% *with at least a 10-point increase Yucatán Wren 6 Campylorhynchus yucatanicus SPS TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE SPI SECTION 3 TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE SPI: SUBREGIONAL 2726 NORTHERN AFRICA SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA WESTERN ASIA AUSTRALIA & NEW ZEALAND WESTERN EUROPE CENTRAL ASIA EASTERN ASIA MICRONESIA 4949 6262 6464 9292 4444 2222 3636 55 COUNTRIES COUNTRIES COUNTRIES COUNTRIES COUNTRIES COUNTRIES COUNTRIES COUNTRIES PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED SPECIES SPECIES SPECIES SPECIES SPECIES SPECIES SPECIES SPECIES 7 53 18 6 9 5 7 8 21% 18% 12% 23% 33% 10% 5% 2% 1386 6914 1302 2469 557 838 3248 214 SOUTHEASTERN ASIA 4949 COUNTRIES PROTECTED SPECIES11 14% 6601 SOUTHERN ASIA 2222 COUNTRIES PROTECTED SPECIES9 6% 3377 LATIN AMERICA & THE CARIBBEAN 5555 COUNTRIES PROTECTED SPECIES52 25% 13415 NORTHERN AMERICA NAM NAF SAF SE NE WE EE WA CA SA EA SEA ANZ LAMC 4848 COUNTRIES PROTECTED SPECIES5 16% 1835 NAMNAM LAMC NAF SAF ANZ POLYNESIA 1111 COUNTRIES PROTECTED SPECIES10 4% 162 POL SA SEA EA CA WAWE MIC SPI MELANESIA 99 COUNTRIES PROTECTED SPECIES5 4% 2046 MEL SPI SPI SPI SPI SPI SPI SPI EASTERN EUROPE 7575 COUNTRIES PROTECTED SPECIES10 13% 1115 EE SPI SOUTHERN EUROPE 6868 COUNTRIES PROTECTED SPECIES16 27% 862 SE SPI NORTHERN EUROPE 8686 COUNTRIES PROTECTED SPECIES16 21% 433 NE SPI SPI SPISPI SPI SPI SPI This map shows 2025 terrestrial vertebrate SPI at the subregional level. Western Europe has the highest overall SPI at 91, followed by Northern Europe and Eastern Europe. Southern Europe, Australia & New Zealand, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America & the Caribbean all have overall SPIs greater than 50. 0 1002025 SPI MEL MIC POL TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE SPI: NATIONAL SLOVENIA9494 SOUTHERN EUROPE SPI PROTECTED PROTECTED 43% 32% BELIZE CANADA ALGERIA 9090 7878 7070 LATIN AMERICA & THE CARIBBEAN NORTHERN AMERICA NORTHERN AFRICA NIUE2323 POLYNESIA SPI SPI SPI SPI PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED 14% 20% 36% 54% BOTSWANA9494 SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA SPI PROTECTED29% NETHERLANDS9999 WESTERN EUROPE SPI0 1002025 SPI SAUDI ARABIA7171 WESTERN ASIA SPI PROTECTED19% AUSTRALIA NEW CALEDONIA 6666 2929 AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND MELANESIA SPI SPI PROTECTED PROTECTED 22% 20% MONGOLIA KAZAKHSTAN BHUTAN CAMBODIA PALAU 8282 5656 6767 9191 1212 EASTERN ASIA CENTRAL ASIA SOUTHERN ASIA SOUTHEASTERN ASIA MICRONESIA SPI SPI SPI SPI SPI PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED 7% 40% 52% 20% 10% 100100 EASTERN EUROPE LATVIA POLAND 9999 NORTHERN EUROPE SPI SPI PROTECTED PROTECTED 19% 41% 2928 This map displays national 2025 terrestrial vertebrate SPI. For each subregion, we?ve highlighted a country with one of the highest SPIs in the subregion. Compared to the 2024 SPI report, two new countries have claimed the highest SPI spot in their subregion: Latvia in Northern Europe and Saudi Arabia in Western Asia. TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE SPI: CHANGE 0 20+POINT INCREASE MEXICO CABO VERDE +14+14 +27+27 +24+24 +63+63 +24+24 +26+26 +24+24 +24+24 +15+15 +19+19 +22+22+14+14 SPI SPI SPISPI PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTEDPROTECTED +5% +15% +6%+3% MADAGASCARSAUDI ARABIA OMAN YEMEN +30+30+17+17 SPI SPI PROTECTED PROTECTED +18% +1% BOSNIA MONTENEGRO SPI SPI PROTECTED PROTECTED +5% +11% KOSOVO GEORGIA ARMENIA AZERBAIJAN NORTH MACEDONIA SERBIA SPI SPI SPI SPI SPI SPI PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED +19% +12% +14% +12% +14% +3% 3130 Since the 2024 SPI report, global terrestrial vertebrate SPI has increased by 3.1 points. This map displays global, country-level change in SPI and highlights some of the countries with the largest terrestrial SPI increases between the 2024 SPI and the new 2025 SPI. 32 33 TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE SPECIES PROTECTION SUCCESSES Böhme?s Bright-eyed Frog Keel-billed Motmot Eastern TurEgyptian Spiny-Tailed Lizard Boophis boehmei Electron carinatum Capra cylindricornisUromastyx aegyptia EN VU VU NT 7542 22 44 61 93 66 100 Böhme?s bright-eyed frog is one of the many endangered endemic species of Madagascar.3 It lives across forest habitats in the eastern side of the country. Thanks to efforts by Madagascar?s Ministry of Environment and the Regional Centre for Mapping of Resources for Development, the statuses of several protected areas across this species range have been updated to ?Designated? in the WDPA, thus increasing this species? SPS by more than 30 points. However, this species is still threatened by land development and agriculture and requires additional protection of its dwindling habitat to ensure its survival. Within the latest version of the SPI, several terrestrial vertebrate species have seen substantial increases in their species protection scores, thanks to a combination of newly designated protected areas and improved reporting to the WDPA. Let?s look at a few examples. The keel-billed motmot is a vibrant but uncommon vulnerable bird found in scattered populations across southern Mexico and Central America.6 Forest clearing for housing development and agriculture is the main threat facing this bird. Several protected areas have already been established across its range, and the recent Reserva comunal Tres Pico, covering a large portion of its possible extant range in Mexico, has helped this species achieve a 100 SPS in the past year. It is crucial that suitable habitat for this species is preserved, and strengthened management of old and new protected areas is needed to protect these habitats from further clearing and degradation. The eastern tur is a goat-like species that lives across the Caucasus Mountains in Georgia, Russia, and Azerbaijan. Poaching is the biggest threat to this species, which has legal protection in Georgia but is hunted by permit in Azerbaijan and Russia. Competition with grazing livestock and habitat degradation also threaten the Eastern Tur,7,8 and avalanches pose a significant non-human threat as well. It is classified as near-threatened.9 Within the last year, significant updates to the WDPA for Georgia and Azerbaijan, facilitated in large part by the Emerald Network, have helped increase this species? protection score; however, important populations, particularly in Dagestan, remain unprotected. The Egyptian spiny-tailed lizard is found across the Arabian Peninsula and into northeastern Egypt. Adapted to desert and shrubland environments, this vulnerable lizard is threatened by habitat loss and degradation as well as increasing human harvesting pressures for the international pet and medicinal trades.4,5 Several newly established and newly reported protected areas across its range, notably in Oman and Saudi Arabia, have substantially increased its protection score. However, this network of protected areas must be able to effectively address both habitat threats and illegal harvesting in order to adequately protect this species. Total Habitat Area: Located in: Located in: Located in: Located in: Total Habitat Area: Total Habitat Area:Total Habitat Area: 6,850 km2 Madagascar Oman, Yemen, Saudia Arabia, Qatar, Iran, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, Syria Georgia, Russia, Azerbaijan Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica 47,400 km2 31,600 km23,205,000 km2 6,850 km2 (100%) 28,000 km2 (59%) 18,900 km2 (60%)480,000 km2 (15%) 5,150 km2 (75%) 28,300 km2 (60%) 14,500 km2 (46%)449,000 km2 (14%) Protection Target: Protection Target: Protection Target:Protection Target: Area Protected: Area Protected: Area Protected:Area Protected: Protection Score: Protection Score: Protection Score:Protection Score: 2024 SPS 2024 SPS 2024 SPS2024 SPS 2025 SPS 2025 SPS 2025 SPS2025 SPS 3534 TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE SPECIES PROTECTION GAPS Oaxacan Mushroomtongue Salamander Natal Midlands Dwarf Chameleon Growling Imperial PigeonPatagonian Mara Bolitoglossa macrinii Bradypodion thamnobates Ducula finschiiDolichotis patagonum EN EN NTNT 1 133 4 As its name suggests, the Oaxacan Mushroomtongue Salamander is endemic to Oaxaca, Mexico in the Sierra Madre del Sur (though its tongue doesn?t really resemble a mushroom). It is found in a handful of locations in mixed pine/oak forests and coffee plantations and is threatened by habitat conversion. Though this species is protected under Mexican law, there are practically no protected areas over its habitat, and it is classified as endangered.10 Establishment of new protected areas with effective maintenance, particularly in the salamander?s pine/oak forest habitat, may be crucial for conserving this species. The Natal Midlands Dwarf Chameleon is and endangered species endemic to South Africa, occurring in scattered populations across KwaZulu-Natal Province.15,16,17 While the species is hanging on in peri-urban areas with sufficient vegetation, most of its habitat has been transformed for agriculture, housing development, and plantations. Ongoing habitat loss along with emerging threats from climate change and the pet trade have pushed this species to endangered status.18,19,20 Very limited protection exists across its remaining habitat, and short of reaching the 100% protection target, any new protected areas that prevent habitat loss and restore previous habitat may help this species persist. The Patagonian Mara is a large, near-threatened9 rodent found across the lowland forests, scrublands, and grasslands of Argentina.12,13 Despite its large range, it is not locally abundant and has suffered localized extinctions in the past several decades.14 Major threats against this species include habitat destruction for agriculture and hunting for skins, alongside competition with introduced herbivores.12 Though there are several protected areas across its habitat, the total coverage and protection score are still insufficient. Additional protected area designations that prevent habitat conversion and poaching are needed to conserve this species. The Growling Imperial Pigeon is a near-threatened species endemic to the islands of the Bismarck Archipelago of Papua New Guinea, where it lives in old growth forests.21 Like other forest-dependent species on these islands, this species is threatened by habitat degradation, logging, and conversion of forests to oil palm plantations, although its level of tolerance to degraded forest habitat is not well studied.22 Protected areas are very scarce over this pigeon?s range, and conservation may be challenging given other land use demands. Total Range Area: Total Range Area: Total Range Area:Total Range Area: 3,250 km2 5,680 km2 33,200 km2647,000 km2 Located in: Mexico Located in: Argentina Located in: Located in: Papau New Guinea South Africa 3,250 km2 (100%) 5,680 km2 (100%) 22,500 km2 (68%)97,000 km2 (15%) 18 km2 (<1%) 230 km2 (4%) 2,300 km2 (7%)32,300 km2 (5%) Protection Target: Protection Target: Protection Target:Protection Target: Area Protected: Area Protected: Area Protected:Area Protected: Protection Score: Protection Score: Protection Score:Protection Score: 2025 SPS 2025 SPS 2025 SPS 2025 SPS SPI successes have not happened evenly around the world, and there remain many species with little to no protection over their habitats and many gaps in country reporting to the WDPA. Let?s look at a few examples of species whose protection scores are still lagging behind. Olive Mallee Eucalyptus olivina 74 SPS TREE SPI SECTION 3 TREE SPI: SUBREGIONAL This map shows 2025 tree SPI at the subregional level. Latin America and the Caribbean, Melanesia, and Western Asia all have a tree SPI at least 10 points greater than their terrestrial vertebrate SPI, while Northern America, Northern Africa, Central Asia, and Northern Europe all have a tree SPI more than 10 points less than their terrestrial vertebrate SPI. 38 39 NORTHERN AFRICA SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA WESTERN ASIA AUSTRALIA & NEW ZEALAND WESTERN EUROPE CENTRAL ASIA EASTERN ASIA MICRONESIA 3434 6161 7171 9797 2626 1818 5757 44 COUNTRIES COUNTRIES COUNTRIES COUNTRIES COUNTRIES COUNTRIES COUNTRIES COUNTRIES PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED SPECIES SPECIES SPECIES SPECIES SPECIES SPECIES SPECIES SPECIES 7 53 18 6 9 5 7 8 21% 18% 12% 23% 33% 10% 5% 2% 302 8212 394 3374 235 97 4430 418 SOUTHEASTERN ASIA 4141 COUNTRIES PROTECTED SPECIES11 14% 7872 SOUTHERN ASIA 2020 COUNTRIES PROTECTED SPECIES9 6% 1888 LATIN AMERICA & THE CARIBBEAN 7373 COUNTRIES PROTECTED SPECIES52 25% 21,962 NORTHERN AMERICA NAM NAF SAF SE NE WE EE WA CA SA EA SEA ANZ LAMC 3838 COUNTRIES PROTECTED SPECIES5 16% 1556 NAMNAM LAMC NAF SAF ANZ POLYNESIA 44 COUNTRIES PROTECTED SPECIES10 4% 185 POL SA SEA EA CA WA WE MIC SPI MELANESIA 1515 COUNTRIES PROTECTED SPECIES5 4% 3452 MEL SPI SPI SPI SPI SPI SPI SPI EASTERN EUROPE 6868 COUNTRIES PROTECTED SPECIES10 13% 318 EE SPI SOUTHERN EUROPE 7575 COUNTRIES PROTECTED SPECIES16 27% 327 SE SPI NORTHERN EUROPE 5353 COUNTRIES PROTECTED SPECIES16 21% 171 NE SPI SPI SPISPI SPI SPI SPI 0 1002025 SPI MEL MIC POL TREE SPI: NATIONAL This map displays national 2025 tree SPI. For each subregion, we?ve highlighted the country with one of the highest SPIs in the subregion. Some are the same as the terrestrial vertebrate SPI highlights, like Cambodia, Bhutan, and New Caledonia, but most subregions have a different country boasting the highest tree SPI and highest terrestrial vertebrate SPI. SLOVENIA9999 SOUTHERN EUROPE SPI PROTECTED PROTECTED 43% 30% VENEZUELA CANADA SUDAN 9595 7474 4747 LATIN AMERICA & THE CARIBBEAN NORTHERN AMERICA NORTHERN AFRICA SAMOA 2323 POLYNESIA SPI SPI SPI SPI PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED 14% 20% 57% 3% NIGER100100 SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA SPI PROTECTED19% FRANCE9898 WESTERN EUROPE SPI 0 1002025 SPI YEMEN8989 WESTERN ASIA SPI PROTECTED1% NEW ZEALAND NEW CALEDONIA8181 2626 AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND MELANESIA SPISPI PROTECTED PROTECTED34% 20% JAPAN KAZAKHSTAN BHUTAN CAMBODIA PALAU 8282 4040 7676 8080 1010 EASTERN ASIA CENTRAL ASIA SOUTHERN ASIA SOUTHEASTERN ASIA MICRONESIA SPI SPI SPI SPI SPI PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED 7% 40% 52% 22% 10% 100100 EASTERN EUROPE LITHUANIA LATVIA POLAND 100100 100100 NORTHERN EUROPE NORTHERN EUROPE SPI SPI SPI PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED 19% 19% 41% 4140 MARINE SPI SECTION 4 Hooded Butterflyfish Chaetodon larvatus 39 SPS MARINE SPI: SUBREGIONAL 4544 NORTHERN AFRICA SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA WESTERN ASIA AUSTRALIA & NEW ZEALAND WESTERN EUROPE EASTERN ASIA MICRONESIA 1717 5050 6969 9898 6161 4242 COUNTRIES COUNTRIES COUNTRIES COUNTRIES COUNTRIES COUNTRIES COUNTRIES PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED SPECIES SPECIES SPECIES SPECIES SPECIES SPECIES 7 53 18 6 9 7 8 2% 26% 6% 43% 39% 10% 21% 3280 4664 3284 6743 1006 5776 SOUTHEASTERN ASIA 4646 COUNTRIES PROTECTED SPECIES11 33% 5679 SOUTHERN ASIA 22 COUNTRIES PROTECTED SPECIES9 0.3% 4199 LATIN AMERICA & THE CARIBBEAN 5656 COUNTRIES PROTECTED SPECIES52 26% 5143 NORTHERN AMERICA NAM NAF SAF SE NE WE EE WA SA EA SEA ANZ MEL MIC LAMC POL 3232 COUNTRIES PROTECTED SPECIES5 14% 5222 NAMNAM LAMC NAF SAF ANZ POLYNESIA 3737 COUNTRIES PROTECTED SPECIES10 29% 4534 POL SA SEA EA WA WE MIC SPI MELANESIA 5555 COUNTRIES PROTECTED SPECIES5 16% 5184 MEL SPI SPI SPI SPI SPI SPI EASTERN EUROPE 55 COUNTRIES PROTECTED SPECIES10 3% 1120 EE SPI SOUTHERN EUROPE 6464 COUNTRIES PROTECTED SPECIES16 10% 1651 SE SPI NORTHERN EUROPE 7272 COUNTRIES PROTECTED SPECIES16 11% 767 NE SPI SPI SPISPI SPI SPI SPI 0 1002025 SPI 8181 SPECIES5363 This map shows 2025 marine SPI at the subregional level. Western Europe has the highest overall SPI at 98, followed by Micronesia with an SPI of 81. International waters, not shown on the map, have 0.7% protection coverage and an SPI of 24. MARINE SPI: EEZ 4746 0 1002025 SPI PROTECTED PROTECTED UNITED KINGDOM9696 NORTHERN EUROPE SPI PROTECTED44%39% 19% CANADA COOK ISLANDS 4646 100100 NORTHERN AMERICA POLYNESIA SPI SPI PROTECTED PROTECTED 13% 100% BONAIRE, ST EUSTATIUS, & SABA 100100 LATIN AMERICA & THE CARIBBEAN SPI PROTECTED99% SUDAN6363 NORTHERN AFRICA SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA SPI PROTECTED15% FRANCE SPAIN 9898 8585 WESTERN EUROPE SOUTHERN EUROPE SPI SPI NEW CALEDONIA COCOS ISLAND SEYCHELLES 9999 100100 100100 AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND MELANESIA SPI SPI SPI PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED 95% 100% 33% BANGLADESH JAPAN PHILIPPINES PALAU 3838 7373 6565 100100 SOUTHERN ASIA EASTERN ASIA SOUTHEASTERN ASIA MICRONESIA SPI SPI SPI SPI PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED 3% 98% 13% 8% OMAN 8585 WESTERN ASIA SPI PROTECTED16% POLAND 8787 EASTERN EUROPE SPI PROTECTED24% This map displays 2025 marine SPI at the level of Exclusive Economic Zones. For each subregion, we?ve highlighted the EEZ with one of the highest SPIs in the subregion. MARINE SPI: CHANGE 4948 +80+80 +8+8+16+16 +16+16 OMAN YEMENUNITED KINGDOM BANGLADESH SPI SPISPI SPI PROTECTED PROTECTEDPROTECTED PROTECTED +16% +0.4%10% +2% +100+100 +7+7 +12+12 +16+16 +33+33 +6+6 +100+100SPI SPI SPI SPI SPI SPI SPI PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED+100% +0.3% +0.3% +11% +17% +0.1% +84% SAINT HELENA MADAGASCAR ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA BELIZE MEXICO CAPE VERDE CHRISTMAS ISLAND COCOS (KEELING) ISLAND MACQUARIE ISLAND +21+21 +99+99 SPI SPI PROTECTED PROTECTED +66% +99% 0 20+POINT INCREASE Since the 2024 SPI report, global marine SPI has increased by 2.3 points. This map displays global, EEZ-level change in SPI and highlights some of the countries with the largest marine SPI increases between the 2024 SPI and the new 2025 SPI. 50 51 MARINE SPECIES PROTECTION SUCCESSES Oman Anemonefish Short-beaked Garfish Slantband WrasseGrey Seal Amphiprion omanensis Belone svetovidovi Thalassoma loxumHalichoerus grypus DDLC LC LC 89 63 100 100 3 3 61 79 The Oman anemonefish is found in the coral reefs off the coast of Oman and the Socotra Archipelago, where it lives commensally with sea anemones like other members of its genus.23 Though the species is currently considered least concern,24 Oman?s coral reefs continue to face threats from coastal pollution and climate change. The Oman anemonefish?s protection score has skyrocketed thanks to the recent establishment and reporting of two large marine protected areas ? the Arabian Sea Reserve and the Marine Mammals Reserve. The latter was originally established to conserve an important subpopulation of the humpback whale, but increased protection and management of the area will likely benefit many other species residing within. The short-beaked garfish is an epipelagic species found in the waters of the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of western Europe and throughout the Mediterranean Sea, where it is fairly common and also harvested in commercial fisheries.28 This species is one of the many that have fully met their protection targets in the past year thanks to improved reporting to the WDPA and the establishment of several new marine protected areas over their range, particularly in the United Kingdom exclusive economic zone and in areas across the Mediterranean. Though not endangered itself,29 many other species with varying threat statuses have also benefitted from these areas, but more conservation efforts remain to be done. The slantband wrasse is a little-studied species known only from a few individuals found in the shallow waters off the coast of Oman and Socotra Island, where it probably inhabits coral reefs.30 Lack of information about this species? populations have hindered threat status assessment, thus the species being listed as data deficient.31 However, thanks in large part to the new marine protected areas declared in Oman?s exclusive economic zone, the majority of this species? predicted habitat is now under protected status. As many species go extinct before they have even been sufficiently studied, conserving critical habitats can help prevent the loss of yet-to-be-studied species. The grey seal ranges throughout the sub-arctic North Atlantic continental shelves with three distinct geographic subpopulations inhabiting the Northwest Atlantic, Northeast Atlantic, and Baltic Sea.25,26 Though grey seal populations have had a tumultuous past and are still threatened by fishing gear and pollution, these days the species is considered least concern.27 This species is one of the few marine mammals that has reached its protection target in the past year, in part thanks to the establishment (and formal reporting) of several new marine protected areas in northern and western Europe, particularly within the United Kingdom exclusive economic zone. Total Range Area: Total Range Area: Total Range Area: Total Range Area: 41,500 km2 2,388,000 km2 7,264,000 km2 36,800 km2 Located in: Arabian Sea (Oman, Yemen) Located in: Located in: Mediterranean, North Atlantic (Western Europe) Arabian Sea (Oman) Located in: Coastal North Atlantic (Western and Northern Europe, Iceland, and Eastern North America 41,500 km2 (100%) 362,000 km2 (15%) 1,017,000 km2 (14%) 36,800 km2 (100%) 37,000 km2 (89%) 362,000 km2 (15%) 1,129,700 km2 (16%) 23,100 km2 (63%) Protection Target: Protection Target: Protection Target: Protection Target: Area Protected: Area Protected: Area Protected: Area Protected: Protection Score: Protection Score: Protection Score:Protection Score: 2024 SPS 2024 SPS 2024 SPS2024 SPS 2025 SPS 2025 SPS 2025 SPS2025 SPS Within the latest version of the SPI, several marine vertebrate species around the world have seen substantial increases in their species protection scores, thanks to a combination of newly designated protected areas and improved reporting to the WDPA. Let?s look at a few examples. 52 53 MARINE SPECIES PROTECTION GAPS Burmeister?s Porpoise Milne Bay Epaulette Shark West African SeahorseAtlantic Humpback Dolphin Phocoena spinipinnis Hemiscyllium michaeli Hippocampus algiricusSousa teuszii VU VU NT CR 7 3 10 16 Burmeister?s porpoise is found in the nearshore waters of South America from Peru to southern Brazil, where it occurs at low densities.32 This species is not well studied, but due to its restricted range, apparent low abundance, and a lack of clarity on the isolation of different subpopulations, Burmeister?s porpoise is considered near threatened.33 Several intensive fisheries exist across its range, and in these areas this species is often victim to bycatch. It is also intentionally harvested in some parts of its range, particularly in Peruvian waters.34,35 The coastal waters of South America are in general not well protected, thus this species is one of many with very low protection scores. The Milne Bay epaulette shark is endemic to the shallow coastal waters of eastern Papua New Guinea, where it is found inhabiting coral reefs, seagrass beds, and rocky outcrops.43,44 This vulnerable species45 is harvested by artisanal fishing and is further threatened by habitat loss and degradation, particularly throughout its coral reefs habitats. Conversion of forest to palm oil plantations on nearby coasts, along with other development, are one main causes of habitat degradation, and climate change is another emerging threat. Few marine protected areas exist over its range, but like many coastal species, marine protected areas may not be sufficient to conserve habitat while nearby land development continues to pollute and degrade marine habitat. The West African seahorse is found in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of West Africa in shallow, silty or sandy waters and among seagrass and macroalgae beds.46,47,48 Like many of the coastal and nearshore species highlighted in this report, the seahorse is threatened by habitat degradation and pollution from coastal development.49 In addition, this species is vulnerable to bycatch in large fisheries and is intentionally harvested in artisanal fisheries.50 All these threats have pushed the West African seahorse into the vulnerable category.41 Only a few protected areas exist over its range, and far more are needed to reach its protection target. The Atlantic humpback dolphin is found in small, fragmented populations in the nearshore shallow waters of western Africa,36,37,38 where it is threatened on multiple fronts, namely bycatch in fisheries39 and pollution and habitat degradation from coastal development.40,41 Though there remains a lack of research on this species in some parts of its range, all known populations appear to be in continuing decline, thus the critically endangered status of this species.42 There are few marine protected areas across its range, and the Atlantic humpback dolphin is in dire need of further targeted conservation efforts. Total Range Area: Total Range Area: Total Range Area: Total Range Area: 880,700 km2 418,000 km2 270,000 km2 334,000 km2 Located in: Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (coastal South America) Located in: Atlantic Ocean (coastal Western Africa) Located in: Located in: Atlantic Ocean (coastal Western Africa) Solomon Sea (Eastern Papua New Guinea) 326,000 km2 (37%) 25,080 km2 (56%) 183,600 km2 (68%) 207,000 km2 (62%) 21,500 km2 (2%) 22,300 km2 (5%) 28,700 km2 (11%) 6,100 km2 (2%) Protection Target: Protection Target: Protection Target: Protection Target: Area Protected: Area Protected: Area Protected: Area Protected: Protection Score: Protection Score: Protection Score: Protection Score: 2025 SPS 2025 SPS 2025 SPS 2025 SPS SPI successes have not happened evenly around the world, and there remain many species with little to no protection over their habitats and many gaps in country reporting to the WDPA. Let?s look at a few examples of species whose protection scores are still lagging behind. Chinese Red Pika Ochotona erythrotis 0 SPS CASE STUDIES SECTION 5 56 57 LAND AND MARINE CONSERVATION IN OMAN The Oman Environment Authority (OEA) leads the development of plans and programs to protect the environment and preserve its natural resources in the Sultanate of Oman. The OEA contributes to the development of the horizons of scientific research in the environmental fields and the collection and application of scientific data for environmental research and management. The OEA is also responsible for spreading awareness and establishing guidelines and requirements among all groups of society for preserving the environment and its resources. Western Mountain Nature Reserve Al Buraimi Oasis Nature Reserve Al-Dhahirah Nature Reserve Oman Vision 2040 is a development program launched by the national government in 2020. One of the twelve national priorities within the program is the environment and natural resources. This pillar of Oman Vision 2040 aims to achieve This reserve, covering nearly 500 km2 of the Hajar Mountains, encompasses the internationally- recognized ancient Semail Ophiolite geologic formations. The diverse montane habitats within support a rich biodiversity, such as the Arabian tahr, Arabian gazelle, red and mountain foxes, and the black hedgehog alongside several migratory birds, like the sand partridge and the lappet- faced vulture, and two reptiles species endemic to the mountain range: Jayakar?s lizard and the Oman Saw-scaled Viper. Located in the mountains of northern Oman, this reserve provides critical habitat for more than 80 recorded plant species and dozens of vertebrates, including the globally threatened Egyptian vulture and Arabian ibex. This reserve, established by royal decree in 2024, harbors more than 70 recorded plant species and several endangered animals, including the Arabian tahr, Arabian gazelle, and caracal. This includes the key target of establishing thirty new reserves by 2040. The Sultanate of Oman uses the SPI to align conservation actions with the Sustainable Development Goals and Oman Vision 2040. One of the Key Performance Indicators for this pillar is the Environmental Performance Index (EPI), an aggregate indicator for tracking states? environmental performance maintained by the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy. The SPI is one of the component indicators within the EPI. By 2030, the Vision aims to achieve an EPI of 65.46 or higher (or be within the top 40 countries) and by 2040, an EPI of 74.69 or higher (or be within the top 20 countries). In the past year, the OEA has assisted in both establishing new protected areas and reporting Oman?s protected area data to the WDPA. These efforts, represented by two large pushes to report Oman?s data in the March and July 2024 updates of the WDPA, have significantly improved both the terrestrial and marine SPI of the country: with an additional 18% of land area added to protected area networks, Oman?s terrestrial SPI has increased by 29 points, and with an additional nearly 16% of marine area coming under legal protection, Oman?s marine SPI has shot up by 79 points. The Oman Environment Authority Protected Area Establishment and WDPA Reporting TERRESTRIAL SPI v2024 v2025 Oman Vision 2040 Effective, balanced, and resilient ecosystems to protect the environment and ensure sustainability of natural resources to support the national economy. ? Pre-existing protected areas Newly-reported to the WDPA v2024 v2025MARINE SPI The Al Buraimi Oasis Nature Reserve. © OEA An Arabian tahr living in Al-Dhahirah Nature Reserve. This species is globally endangered, but new reserves over its habitat have increased its SPS by 14 points to 31. © OEA A lizard in the Western Mountain Nature Reserve. © OEA 1 2 3 1 2 3 58 59 CONSERVING MARINE ECOSYSTEMS IN SOUTHERN AND EASTERN AFRICA The RCMRD is an inter-governmental organization established in Nairobi, Kenya in 1975 under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa and the then Organization of African Unity, now African Union. Its 20 member states are Botswana, Burundi, Comoros, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Namibia, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, South Sudan and Zimbabwe. RCMRD?s vision is ?to be a premier centre of excellence in the provision of geo-information and allied technologies for sustainable development in the member States and other stakeholders.? Its mission is ?to strengthen the member States and our stakeholders? capacity through generation, application and dissemination of geo-information and allied technologies for sustainable development.? This recent workshop, hosted by the Regional Centre of Excellence (RCoE) for Biodiversity, Forests, and Seascape Ecosystem Management, an initiative spearheaded by the RCMRD, brought together policymakers, researchers, and seascape conservation experts from East and Southern Africa to explore data-driven strategies for sustainable marine ecosystem management. The objectives of the workshop included: Map of Life partnered with RCoE to provide marine SPI data for this critical workshop. Workshop participants were able to explore lists of marine mammal and fish species for each focal country, analyze the range maps of these species, and demonstrate how the SPI can measure the progress of marine protected areas toward achieving biodiversity conservation targets in the GBF. The workshop concluded with the signing of a data-sharing agreement, which will help promote collaboration and transparency across member states of the RCMRD to conserve marine ecosystems and species. The workshop attendees also established a set of key goals for future RCoE and RCMRD initiatives: ? Engage communities in marine ecosystem management by developing participatory programs that incorporate indigenous knowledge and traditional practices into conservation strategies. ? Conduct civil education campaigns through targeted outreach to raise awareness about marine conservation's economic and ecological benefits. ? Harmonize regional policies by aligning cross- border agreements to marine conservation efforts, such as standardizing MPA regulations. ? Integrate conservation goals by aligning national policies with international frameworks, such as the GBF. ? Expand the use of GIS, remote sensing, and drones for ecosystem monitoring and enforcement of regulations. This can be boosted by collaborating with private entities to provide funding and technical expertise for technology adoption. ? Continue partnerships between MOL and RCMRD, including increasing species data coverage in the RCoE geoportal ? Strengthening the relationships between the RCoE and member countries, particularly institutions that manage marine seascape data on protected and conserved areas. ? Demonstrating the importance of data, information, and knowledge products in decisions related to the effectiveness and governance of marine protected and conserved areas. ? Demonstrating the information management process of the RCoE to encourage member country active engagement. ? Discussing the role RCoE can play in supporting member country monitoring and reporting on Seascape-related targets in the GBF. ? Conducting a marine seascape stakeholder analysis map to help RCoE better understand and meet the interests and needs of users and potential users in member countries. The Regional Centre for Mapping of Resources for Development (RCMRD) Marine Ecosystem Management Data and Information Needs Workshop The SPI as a Management Tool Key Workshop Takeaways Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, November 26-27 2024 Attendees listen to a presentation at the RCoE Marine Workshop 2024. © RCMRD Attendees listen to a presentation at the RCoE Marine Workshop 2024. © RCMRD A representative from a member country gives a talk at the RCoE Marine Workshop 2024. © RCMRD Contracting Member States Sudan South Sudan Ethiopia Somalia Eritrea Djibouti Kenya Uganda Rwanda Burundi Angola Namibia Botswana South Africa Eswatini Lesotho M ad ag as ca r M oz am biq ueZambia Zimbabwe Malawi Comoros Seychelles Mauritius Tanzania Non-contracting Member States 60 61 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PHOTO CREDITS REFERENCES This report was produced by the Half-Earth Project, a collaborative initiative led by the E.O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation in partnership with Map of Life at the Yale Center for Biodiversity and Global Change, Vizzuality, and Esri. Funding for the report and for metric development and calculations was provided by the E.O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation, Google, NASA, and other partners. Thank you to Heather Bingham of the World Conservation Monitoring Center for providing text edits to the World Database on Protected Areas section. © 2025. Map of Life. Licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Cover Photo Pages 4-5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 10 Page 12 Page 13 Pages 14-15 Pages 24-25 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36-37 Page 42-43 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Pages 54-55 Pages 56-57 Pages 58-59 © Tz-Hsuan Tseng © Ivan Kuzmin via AdobeStock © Tz-Hsuan Tseng © Jeremy Cohen (Leaf Dwelling Shrub Frog) © geoffrey-delahaye via iNaturalist (Yucatan Poorwill) © Juan Bou Riquer via iNaturalist © Jeremy Cohen © Craig via AdobeStock © Mike Wilhelm via AdobeStock © Luis Trinchan via AdobeStock (Böhme?s Bright-Eyed Frog) © John Sullivan via iNaturalist (Egyptian Spiny-Tailed Lizard) © cog2022 via iNaturalist (Keel-Billed Motmot) © Dan Vickers via iNaturalist (Eastern Tur) © Simon Tonge via iNaturalist (Oaxcan Mushroomtongue Salamander) © Sean Michael Rovito via iNaturalist (Patagonian Mara) © marcos2005 via iNaturalist (Natal Midland Dwarf Chameleon) © Gus Benson via iNaturalist (Growling Imperial Pigeon) © Nik Borrow via iNaturalist © Dean Nicolle via iNaturalist © mirecca via AdobeStock (Oman Anemonefish) © cmarmotte via iNaturalist (Grey Seal) © Martha de Jong-Lantink via iNaturalist (Short-Beaked Garfish) © Jofre via iNaturalist (Slantband Wrasse) © Randall, J.E. via iNaturalist (Burmeister?s Porpoise) © Daniel Stange via iNaturalist (Atlantic Humpback Dolphin) © Xavier Rufray via iNaturalist (Milne Bay Epaulette Shark) © Erik Schlogl via iNaturalist (West African Seahorse) © Luis P. B. via iNaturalist © Tz-Hsuan Tseng © Oman Environment Authority © Regional Center for Mapping of Resources for Development 1.  Jetz W, McGowan J, Rinnan DS, Possingham HP, Visconti P, O?Donnell  B,  et  al.  Include  biodiversity  representation  indicators  in  area-based  conservation targets. Nature Ecology & Evolution. 2022;6(2):123-6. 2.  Powers RP, Jetz W. Global habitat loss and extinction risk of terrestrial  vertebrates  under  future  land-use-change  scenarios.  Nature Climate Change. 2019;9(4):323-9. 3.  IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group. 2015. Boophis boehmei (errata  version  published  in  2016). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species  2015. Accessed on 15 August 2025. 4. Wilms, T., et al. 2012. Uromastyx aegyptia (errata version published in  2017). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2012.   Accessed on 15  August 2025. 5.  Knapp, A. 2004. An assessment of the international trade in Spiny-tailed  Lizards Uromastyx  with  a  focus  on  the  role  of  the  European  Union.  TRAFFIC Europe. European Commission., Brussels. 6.  BirdLife International. 2020. Electron carinatum. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020. Accessed on 15 August 2025. 7.  NACRES. 2006. Tur in Georgia: Status Report and Conservation Action  Plan. NACRES, Tbilisi. 8. Weinberg, P.I., et al. 1997a. The Commonwealth of Independent States  (former USSR).  In: D.M.  Shackleton  (ed.), Wild Sheep and Goats and their Relatives. Status Survey and Action Plan for Caprinae, pp. 172-193.  IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 9.  Lortkipanidze, B. & Weinberg, P. 2020. Capra cylindricornis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020. Accessed on 15 August 2025. 10. IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group. 2019. Bolitoglossa macrinii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019. Accessed on 15 August 2025. 11. Roach, N. 2016. Dolichotis patagonum. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016. Accessed on 15 August 2025. 12.  Lacher, T.E., Jr. 2016. Family Caviidae. In: Wilson, D.E., Lacher, T.E., Jr  and Mittermeier, R.A. (eds), Handbook of Mammals of the World. Vol. 6. Lagomorphs and Rodents: Part 1., Lynx Editions, Barcelona. 13.  Campos, C. M., et al. 2001. Dolichotis patagonum. Mammalian Species  652: 1-5. 14.  Cabrera,  A.  1953.  Los  roedores  argentinos  de  la  familia  Caviidae.  Publicaciones  de  la  Escuela Veterinaria, Universidad  de Buenos Aires  6: 1-93. 15.  Tolley,  K.A.  2022.  Bradypodion thamnobates.  The  IUCN  Red  List  of  Threatened Species 2022. Accessed on 15 August 2025. 16.  Tilbury,  C.R.  2018.  Chameleons of Africa-An Atlas Including the Chameleons of Europe, the Middle East and Asia.  Edition  Chimaira,  Frankfurt am Main. 17.  Tolley, K.A. and Burger, M. 2007. Chameleons of Southern Africa. Struik,  Cape Town. 18.  Rouget, M.,  et  al.  2004. Mapping  the  potential  ranges  of major  plant  invaders  in  South  Africa,  Lesotho  and  Swaziland  using  climatic  suitability. Diversity and Distributions 10: 475-484. 19.  Schoeman, F., et al. 2013. South African National Land-Cover Change  Map. South African Journal of Geomatics 2(2): 94-105. 20.  Skowno, A.L., et al. 2019. Chapter 7: Ecosystem Assessments. In: Skowno  A.L., Raimondo D.C., Poole C.J., Fizzotti B. (ed.), National Biodiversity Assessment 2018 Technical Report Volume 1: Terrestrial Realm.  South  African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. 21.  BirdLife  International.  2018.  Ducula finschii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018. Accessed on 15 August 2025. 22.  Buchanan, G.M., et al. 2008. Using remote sensing to inform conservation  status assessment: estimates of recent deforestation rates on New Britain  and the impacts on endemic birds. Biological Conservation 141(1): 56-66. 23.  Lieske,  E.  and Myers,  R.  2004. Coral Reef Guide ? Red Sea.  Harper- Collins, London, U.K. 24. Myers, R.,  Allen, G. & Rocha,  L.A.  2017. Amphiprion omanensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017. Accessed on 15 August 2025. 25.  Hall, A. 2002. Gray seal Halichoerus grypus. In: W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig,  J. and G. M. Thewissen (eds), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, pp. 522- 524. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA. 26.  Bonner, W.N. 1981. Grey seal Halichoerus grypus Fabricius, 1791. In: S.  H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds), Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 2: Seals, pp. 111-144. Academic Press. 27.  Bowen, D. 2016. Halichoerus grypus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016. Accessed on 15 August 2025. 28.  Dorman, J.A. 1984. Belone svetovidovi  (Atheriniformes, Belonidae) - A  species of garfish new to ireland, with records of other unusual fish from  Courtmacsherry Bay. Irish Naturalist 21(8): 356-357. 29.  Collette, B. 2015. Belone svetovidovi (Europe assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015. Accessed on 15 August 2025. 30.  Randall,  J.E.  and  Mee,  J.K.L.  1994.  A  new  labrid  fish  of  the  genus  Thalassoma from Oman. Fauna of Saudi Arabia 14: 302-308. 31.  Pollard, D. & Cabanban, A. 2010. Thalassoma loxum. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010. Accessed on 15 August 2025. 32.  Brownell  Jr.,  R.  L.  and  Clapham,  P.  J.  1999.  Burmeister?s  porpoise  Phocoena spinipinnis  Burmeister,  1865.  In:  S.  H.  Ridgway  and  R.  Harrison (eds), Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 6: The second book of dolphins and the porpoises, pp. 393-410. Academic Press. 33.  Félix,  F.,  et  al.  2018.  Phocoena spinipinnis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018. Accessed on 15 August 2025. 34.  Alfaro-Shigueto,  J.,  et  al.  2010. Where  small  can  have  a  large  impact:  Structure and characterization of small-scale fisheries in Peru. Fisheries Research 106(1): 8-17. 35. Mangel,  J.C.,  et  al.  2013.  Using  pingers  to  reduce  bycatch  of  small  cetaceans in Peru?s small-scale driftnet fishery. Oryx 47(4): 595-606. 36.  Jefferson, T. A.,  et  al.  1997. Dolphins  and porpoises  of West Africa:  a  review of records (Cetacea: Delphinidae, Phocoenidae). Mammalia 61:  87-108. 37.  Van Waerebeek, K., et al. 2004. Distribution, status, and biology of the  Atlantic  humpback  dolphin, Sousa teuszii (Kukenthal,  1892).  Aquatic Mammals 30(1): 56-83. 38. Weir,  C.R.,  and  Collins,  T.  2015.  A  Review  of  the  Geographical  Distribution  and  Habitat  of  the  Atlantic  Humpback  Dolphin  (Sousa teuszii). Advances in Marine Biology 72: 79-117. 39.  Collins, T., et al. 2010. The Atlantic humpback dolphin (Sousa teuszii) in  Gabon and Congo: cause for optimism or concern? . Paper SC/62/SM9  presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, June 2010 (unpublished). 40.  Perrin,  W.  F.,  Van  Waerebeek,  K.  2007.  The  small-cetacean  fauna  of  the  west  coast  of  Africa  and Macaronesia:  diversity  and  distribution.  In Western African talks on cetaceans and their habitats, UNEP/CMS- WATCH-Inf.  6. Convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals, Adeje, Tenerife. 41. Weir, C. R., et al. 2011. West Africa?s Atlantic humpback dolphin (Sousa teuszii): endemic, enigmatic and soon endangered? African Zoology 46:  1-17. 42.  Collins, T., Braulik, G.T. & Perrin, W. 2017. Sousa teuszii (errata version  published  in  2018).  The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species  2017.  Accessed on 15 August 2025. 43.  Allen, G.R., et al. 2016. Review of the bamboo shark genus Hemiscyllium  (Orectolobiformes:  Hemiscyllidae).  Journal of the Ocean Science Foundation 23: 51-97. 44.  Dudgeon,  C.L.,  et  al.  2020.  Walking,  swimming  or  hitching  a  ride?  Phylogenetics  and  biogeography  of  the  walking  shark  genus  Hemiscyllium. Marine and Freshwater Research. 45.  VanderWright, W.J., et al. 2021. Hemiscyllium michaeli (amended version  of  2020  assessment).  The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species  2021.  Accessed on 15 August 2025. 46. Mamonekene,  V.,  et  al.  2006.  Fish  Diversity  at  Rabi  and  Gamba  Ogooue-Maritime Province, Gabon. Bulletin of the Biological Society of Washington 12: 285-296. 47.  Lourie, S.A., et al. 2004. A Guide to the Identification of Seahorses. Project  Seahorse and TRAFFIC North America, University of British Columbia  and World Wildlife Fund, Washington D.C. 48.  Lourie,  S.A.  2016.  Seahorses: A Life-Size Guide to Every Species.  The  University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 160 pp. 49.  Portmann, J. E. 1989. State of the marine environment: West and Central  African  Region.  UNEP  Regional  Seas  Reports  and  Studies  No.  108.  UNEP. 50.  Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., et al. 2016. An assessment of West African  seahorses in fisheries catch and trade. Journal of Fish Biology 88(2): 751- 759. 51.  Pollom, R. 2017. Hippocampus algiricus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017. Accessed on 15 August 2025. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ https://stock.adobe.com/images/black-river-turtle-rhinoclemmys-funerea-warming-under-sun-tortuguero-costa-rica/184064195?prev_url=detail https://www.flickr.com/photos/tm45/51878286197/ https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/466112074 https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/6277945 https://www.flickr.com/photos/tm45/48179285216/ https://stock.adobe.com/images/the-rare-and-endangered-kloof-frog-also-known-as-the-natal-diving-frog-or-boneberg-s-frog-natalobatrachus-bonebergi-near-a-slow-moving-stream-in-a-forest/667780121 https://stock.adobe.com/images/longtail-salamander/243049272?prev_url=detail https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/466244827?size=medium https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/297484956 https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/202651911 https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/458679239 https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/499465424 https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/1144897 https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/36252587?size=medium https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/172064806 https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/3005271?size=large https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/341964348 https://stock.adobe.com/search/images?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Binclude_stock_enterprise%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Bgentech%5D=exclude&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aaudio%5D=0&filters%5Bis_editorial%5D=0&order=relevance&limit=100&search_type=see-more&search_page=1&price%5B%24%5D=1&load_type=page&acp=&aco=marine+fish&serie_id=434968212&get_facets=0&asset_id=848009994 https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/464735335 https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/200723208 https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/55216704 http://iNaturalist https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/263952169 https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/104014593 https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/105867121 https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/200281234 62 63 APPENDIX Data Sources Species Group Species Habitat Preferences Environmental Layers Region LayersSpecies Range Maps Dataset Dataset Amphibians Elevation Country Boundaries IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2025. Version 2025-2. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 2025-04-22. Mammals Tree Cover Protected Areas Reptiles Birds Land Cover Exclusive Economic Zones Marine Mammals Marine Fishes Trees All Groups Amatulli, G., et al. (2018) A suite of global, cross-scale topographic variables for environmental and biodiversity modeling. Scientific Data (5);180040. doi:10.1038/sdata.2018.40. Available at www. earthenv.org/topography. Jetz, W., et al. (2012). The global diversity of birds in space and time. Nature, (491);444-448. doi. org/10.1038/nature11631 IUCN (2016). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. International Union for Conservation of Nature. Accessed on January 2017. Downloaded at www.iucnredlist.org Mammal Diversity Database. (2020). Mammal Diversity Database (Version 1.2) [Data set]. Zenodo. doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4139818. Map of Life. (2021). Mammal range maps harmonised to the Mammals Diversity Database [Data set]. Map of Life. doi.org/10.48600/MOL-48VZ-P413 Roll, U. and Meiri, S. (2022). GARD 1.7 - updated global distributions for all terrestrial reptiles [Dataset]. Dryad. doi.org/10.5061/dryad.9cnp5hqmb Guo, WY., et al. (2023) Climate change and land use threaten global hotspots of phylogenetic endemism for trees. Nat Commun 14, 6950. doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-42671-y Misc. literature and expert sources Misc. literature and expert sources Kaschner, K., et al. (2019). AquaMaps Native: Predicted range maps for aquatic species. Retrieved from https://www.aquamaps.org. Kaschner, K., et al. (2019). AquaMaps Native: Predicted range maps for aquatic species. Retrieved from https://www.aquamaps.org. ESA. Land Cover CCI Product User Guide Version 2. Tech. Rep. (2017). Version 2022. Available at: maps.elie.ucl.ac.be/CCI/viewer/download/ESACCI-LC-Ph2-PUGv2_2.0.pdf Hansen, M. C., et al. (2013) High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change. Science 342 (15 November): 850-53. Version 2023. Data available online from: glad.earthengine.app/ view/global-forest-change. Flanders Marine Institute (2019). Maritime Boundaries Geodatabase, version 11. Available online at www.marineregions.org/. https://doi.org/10.14284/382 Database of Global Administrative Boundaries (GADM) version 4.1. Available online at gadm.org/ data.htm. UNEP-WCMC and IUCN (2025), Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) and World Database on Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (WD- OECM) [Online], January 2025, Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. Available at: www. protectedplanet.net. Source Source Source http://www.iucnredlist.org https://www.earthenv.org/topography https://www.earthenv.org/topography http://doi.org/10.1038/nature11631 http://doi.org/10.1038/nature11631 http://www.iucnredlist.org http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4139818 https://doi.org/10.48600/MOL-48VZ-P413 https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.9cnp5hqmb https://www.aquamaps.org. https://www.aquamaps.org. http://maps.elie.ucl.ac.be/CCI/viewer/download/ESACCI-LC-Ph2-PUGv2_2.0.pdf https://glad.earthengine.app/view/global-forest-change https://glad.earthengine.app/view/global-forest-change https://www.marineregions.org/ https://doi.org/10.14284/382 https://gadm.org/data.htm https://gadm.org/data.htm http://www.protectedplanet.net http://www.protectedplanet.net