Global Biodiversity Hotspots in Crisis: A 2025 Assessment

This comprehensive research report examines the current state of Earth's biodiversity hotspots - our planet's most biologically rich yet threatened regions. Drawing on the latest scientific data and conservation initiatives from 2022-2025, this assessment provides an updated understanding of these critical ecosystems that harbor over half the world's endemic plant species despite covering just 2.5% of Earth's land surface.

The report details alarming trends: ongoing habitat degradation across major hotspots like the Tropical Andes and Sundaland, climate change acting as a severe threat multiplier, and insufficient progress toward global conservation targets. Yet it also identifies promising developments, including innovative monitoring technologies, increased recognition of Indigenous stewardship approaches, and successful conservation cases demonstrating effective intervention strategies.

Moving beyond the basic explanations in the original article, this report offers a sophisticated analysis of hotspot dynamics, including economic valuations of ecosystem services, governance challenges, and emerging threats like climate-driven tipping points. It concludes with actionable recommendations for stakeholders at all levels - from international bodies to individual citizens - providing a framework for the transformative action needed to safeguard these irreplaceable regions before they reach critical ecological thresholds.

By understanding both the crisis and the emerging opportunities, we can chart a path toward a future where biodiversity hotspots are not just remnants of a richer past, but thriving, resilient ecosystems that continue to support both unique biodiversity and human wellbeing for generations to come.

Executive Summary

Biodiversity hotspots, the Earth's most biologically rich yet threatened terrestrial and marine ecoregions, are at a critical juncture. This report provides a global assessment of their current state, the multifaceted threats they face, and the efficacy of conservation initiatives. It synthesizes recent data (primarily 2022-2025) to offer an updated understanding of species endemism, habitat loss, and the escalating impacts of climate change.

Key findings indicate that the 36 recognized biodiversity hotspots, covering a mere 2.5% of Earth's land surface, harbor over half the world's endemic plant species and nearly 43% of endemic terrestrial vertebrates.¹ However, these regions have, by definition, already lost at least 70% of their original vegetation, with some experiencing losses up to 95%.³ Habitat degradation, primarily driven by agricultural expansion and global consumption patterns, continues at alarming rates. The 2024 WWF Living Planet Report reveals a 73% average decline in monitored wildlife populations since 1970, largely linked to habitat loss.⁵ Global deforestation reached 6.37 million hectares in 2023, with tropical primary forest loss at 3.7 million hectares.⁷

Climate change acts as a significant threat multiplier, with observed impacts including species range shifts and increased frequency of extreme weather events.⁹ Endemic species within hotspots are disproportionately vulnerable, facing extinction risks approximately ten times greater with 1.5°C to 3°C of warming.⁹ Marine hotspots are emerging as particularly susceptible due to faster warming and higher climate velocities.⁹ Synergistic threats, such as climate change combined with habitat fragmentation, further exacerbate biodiversity loss.

Conservation efforts are guided by frameworks like the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), particularly its Target 3 (30x30). However, progress towards these targets is slow, with significant challenges in effective management, equitable governance, and adequate financing.¹¹ While new protected areas are being designated, their strategic placement within hotspots and focus on Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) remain critical. Governance models are evolving, with growing recognition of the effectiveness of Indigenous-led and community-based conservation.¹³ Innovative financing mechanisms, such as debt-for-nature swaps and payments for ecosystem services, show promise but require scaling and robust safeguards.¹⁵

Technological advancements in monitoring, including eDNA, remote sensing, and AI, offer new capacities for understanding and managing hotspots.¹⁷ Successful conservation case studies demonstrate that positive outcomes are achievable through targeted interventions, community empowerment, and international collaboration.

The future of biodiversity hotspots hinges on transformative action. This includes accelerated implementation of global biodiversity targets, a significant increase in strategically allocated conservation finance, redirection of harmful subsidies, strengthened governance, integration of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), and robust corporate accountability. Addressing the systemic drivers of biodiversity loss, particularly unsustainable consumption and production patterns, is paramount.

I. Current State of Global Biodiversity Hotspots

The concept of biodiversity hotspots, regions characterized by exceptional concentrations of endemic species and experiencing significant habitat loss, remains a cornerstone of global conservation prioritization. An updated assessment reveals a dynamic and often precarious situation for these critical ecosystems.

A. Definition and Classification of Biodiversity Hotspots

The prevailing definition, largely established by Norman Myers and refined by Conservation International (CI) and the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), stipulates that a region must meet two strict criteria to qualify as a biodiversity hotspot:

1. It must contain at least 1,500 species of vascular plants as endemics (representing >0.5% of the world's total).¹ This criterion underscores the irreplaceability of these regions.
2. It must have lost at least 70% of its original primary habitat or native vegetation.¹ This highlights the severe threat level these areas face.

Many hotspots far exceed these minimum thresholds. For instance, the Sundaland Hotspot in Southeast Asia and the Tropical Andes Hotspot in South America each harbor approximately 15,000 endemic plant species, while habitat loss in some hotspots has reached a startling 95%.⁴ These hotspots are not defined by a single ecosystem type but rather by a unique mosaic of diverse ecosystems that form a biogeographic unit.¹⁹

As of 2024-2025, there are 36 recognized terrestrial biodiversity hotspots.¹ While the core list of 36 hotspots has remained stable since the last major update by Mittermeier et al. (2004, 2011) and subsequent refinements, the operational context evolves. CEPF, a key funding mechanism, actively invests in a portfolio of these hotspots, sometimes defining investment phases or specific geographic focuses within them, such as "Cerrado II" or "Mediterranean Basin III".²² These designations typically refer to renewed or refined investment strategies for a hotspot, often based on updated ecosystem profiles, rather than a reclassification of the hotspot itself.²⁴ For example, "Cerrado II" signifies a second phase of CEPF investment in the Cerrado Biodiversity Hotspot, building on previous work.²⁴ Similarly, "Mediterranean Basin III" indicates a third phase of investment in that hotspot.²⁵ "Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa R2C2" likely refers to a specific project or component within CEPF's strategy for that hotspot.²²

The concept of marine biodiversity hotspots has also gained traction, though defined later and sometimes using varied criteria. One 2024 publication refers to 43 such marine areas.²⁸ The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also assesses climate impacts on marine regions considered biodiversity hotspots.⁹

B. Global Map of Recognized Biodiversity Hotspots

(Refer to Figure 1 for a visual representation of the 36 recognized terrestrial biodiversity hotspots)

The 36 recognized terrestrial biodiversity hotspots are distributed across the globe, with significant concentrations in tropical and Mediterranean-type climate regions.³ These include:

• North and Central America (4): California Floristic Province, Madrean Pine-Oak Woodlands, Mesoamerica, North American Coastal Plain (newly recognized in the 2016 update ⁴).
• Caribbean (1): Caribbean Islands.
• South America (5): Atlantic Forest, Cerrado, Chilean Winter Rainfall-Valdivian Forests, Tropical Andes, Tumbes-Chocó-Magdalena.
• Europe (1): Mediterranean Basin.
• Africa (8): Cape Floristic Region, Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa, Eastern Afromontane, Guinean Forests of West Africa, Horn of Africa, Madagascar and the Indian Ocean Islands, Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany, Succulent Karoo.
• Central Asia (1): Mountains of Central Asia.
• Asia-Pacific (16): Caucasus, East Melanesian Islands, Forests of East Australia, Himalaya, Indo-Burma, Irano-Anatolian, Japan, Mountains of Southwest China, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Philippines, Polynesia-Micronesia, Southwest Australia, Sundaland, Wallacea.

Figure 1: Global Distribution of the 36 Recognized Terrestrial Biodiversity Hotspots

(A world map, similar to the one described in 3, highlighting the 36 hotspots. Source: Adapted from Conservation International 1 and CEPF.22)

(Image Description: A world map with the 36 biodiversity hotspots clearly demarcated and labeled. Each hotspot is colored to distinguish it from non-hotspot land areas and oceans. A legend indicates the hotspot locations.)

C. Quantitative Assessments of Biodiversity Status (Species Counts, Endemism, Threat Levels)

The immense biological richness of hotspots is their defining characteristic. Globally, these 36 regions, despite covering only 2.5% of Earth's land surface, are estimated to contain as endemics more than half of the world's plant species and nearly 43% of all bird, mammal, reptile, and amphibian species.¹ The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species is a critical tool for assessing threat levels, indicating that over 47,000 species are threatened with extinction globally (28% of all assessed species), with particularly high percentages for amphibians (41%), reef corals (44%), and cycads (71%) ²⁹ – groups often prevalent in hotspots.

Table 1: Snapshot of Biodiversity and Threat Status in Selected Key Hotspots (Data from latest available CEPF Ecosystem Profiles and other sources)

Note: Endemic species numbers and % original habitat remaining can vary slightly based on source and year of assessment. Data primarily drawn from CEPF Ecosystem Profiles/Summaries (various dates, specified if recent) and supporting documents. IUCN status as per latest available information.

The IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) Cross-Chapter Paper 1 (CCP1) on Biodiversity Hotspots, published in 2022, confirms that species in these regions are already exhibiting responses to climate change, such as shifts in geographic ranges and phenology.⁹ The risk of species extinction is projected to increase significantly with warming, particularly for endemic species which may face a tenfold greater risk under 1.5°C to 3°C warming scenarios.⁹

Recent changes in hotspot boundaries are not common, as the geographical delineations are relatively stable. However, the ecological conditions and threat status within these boundaries are highly dynamic. For example, research in marine hotspots indicates potential homogenization of macroalgal communities in northwestern Iberia due to ocean warming, with cold-water species declining and warm-water and non-indigenous species increasing.²⁸ Some assessments also highlight that broad hotspot delineations might overlook smaller, highly distinctive areas needing specific conservation attention, such as within New Guinea.⁵⁷ No newly recognized global terrestrial hotspots by CI/CEPF have been announced since the North American Coastal Plain in 2016.⁴

D. Habitat Integrity: Current Statistics on Loss, Fragmentation, and Degradation (2022-2025 Focus)

The integrity of habitats within biodiversity hotspots is severely compromised globally. The WWF's 2024 Living Planet Report indicates an average 73% decline in monitored wildlife populations between 1970 and 2020, a trend strongly linked to habitat degradation and loss.⁵ Globally, three-quarters of the land-based environment and roughly 66% of the ocean environment have been significantly altered by human activities.⁶

Global forest loss continues at a devastating pace. In 2023, 6.37 million hectares of forest were lost worldwide.⁸ Tropical primary forest loss alone accounted for 3.7 million hectares in 2023, equivalent to losing nearly ten football fields of forest per minute.⁷ While this was a 9% decrease from 2022, the rate remains stubbornly high, comparable to 2019 and 2021 levels, and produced 2.4 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.⁷

The primary drivers of this habitat loss are deeply rooted in human food systems, with over a third of the world's land surface and nearly 75% of freshwater resources now dedicated to crop or livestock production.⁵ Logging, infrastructure development, and urbanization further exacerbate the problem.⁵⁹ An important dimension to this crisis is "outsourced deforestation," where consumption patterns in high-income nations drive habitat destruction in other, often tropical, countries. Such consumption is responsible for an estimated 13.3% of global species range loss for forest-dependent vertebrates, with the international biodiversity losses caused by developed countries being, on average, 15 times greater than their domestic impacts.⁵⁹ This pattern underscores that conservation efforts solely within hotspot boundaries are insufficient without addressing the global economic drivers of habitat destruction. For instance, U.S. consumption has significantly impacted wildlife in Central America, while consumption in China and Japan has strongly affected species in Southeast Asian rainforests.⁵⁹

Forest fragmentation is another critical aspect of habitat degradation, with 18% of tropical forests now affected by edge effects.⁸ The construction of roads, even within protected areas, can lead to forest loss comparable to that outside protected zones, highlighting the pervasive impact of infrastructure.⁶¹

Table 2: Recent Habitat Loss/Degradation Statistics (2022-2025 or latest available) in Selected Critically Threatened Hotspots

Despite the overall grim statistics, significant reductions in primary forest loss in Brazil (36% decrease) and Colombia (49% decrease) between 2022 and 2023 offer critical lessons.⁷ These successes, largely attributed to renewed political commitment and strengthened enforcement, demonstrate that even in the face of strong economic pressures, national-level governance and targeted policies can yield rapid and substantial positive results. This provides a pathway for other hotspot nations grappling with similar challenges. However, other areas like Bolivia experienced a 27% increase in primary forest loss in 2023, its highest on record for the third consecutive year, driven by fires and agricultural expansion, particularly soy.⁷

E. Species Highlight Box: Albertine Rift Endemics

The Albertine Rift, a western branch of the East African Rift, is a key component of the Eastern Afromontane biodiversity hotspot and is globally recognized for its extraordinary concentration of endemic species. This mountainous region, encompassing parts of several countries, boasts a unique assemblage of flora and fauna found nowhere else on Earth.

Recent biodiversity surveys, including those leveraging citizen science, continue to underscore the biological treasures of the Rift. For instance, studies have provided new location data and reconfirmed the presence of several endemic and threatened bird species.⁶³ Among these are the Regal Sunbird (Cinnyris regius), a small, brilliantly colored nectarivore whose iridescent plumage makes it a striking inhabitant of montane forests and heathlands. Its restricted range within the Albertine Rift makes it particularly vulnerable to habitat alteration and climate change.

Other notable endemics highlighted in recent observations include the Strange Weaver (Ploceus alienus) and the Dusky Crimsonwing (Cryptospiza jacksoni).⁶³ While the specific IUCN Red List status for all these endemics requires constant monitoring, other threatened species observed in the same broader studies within the region, such as the Grey Crowned Crane (Balearica regulorum; Endangered) and the Bateleur eagle (Terathopius ecaudatus; Endangered), emphasize the conservation significance of the area.⁶³

The ongoing documentation of these species, sometimes through innovative means like citizen science platforms, is crucial. It not only updates our understanding of their distribution and status but also highlights the irreplaceable biodiversity housed within specific sub-regions of global hotspots. These endemic species serve as critical flagship and indicator species; their fate is intrinsically linked to the health of their fragile ecosystems. The involvement of citizen scientists in collecting valuable data for such species points towards an expanding toolkit for biodiversity monitoring. This approach can be particularly impactful in regions that are rich in biodiversity but may be poor in terms of dedicated scientific resources, thereby democratizing data collection and fostering a broader societal engagement in conservation.

II. Threat Assessment and Vulnerability Analysis

Biodiversity hotspots face an onslaught of threats, ranging from direct habitat destruction to the more insidious, pervasive impacts of climate change. These pressures often interact, creating complex challenges for conservation.

A. Dominant Drivers of Biodiversity Loss in Hotspots

The primary drivers of biodiversity loss are deeply interwoven with human activities and economic systems.

• Deforestation and Habitat Degradation: This remains the most significant direct threat. It is propelled by the expansion of agriculture, which is the most reported threat regionally.5 This includes industrial-scale agriculture (e.g., palm oil in Sundaland 50, soy and beef in Bolivia 7, rubber and cacao in the Guinean Forests of West Africa 44) and the cumulative impact of smallholder farming, often involving slash-and-burn techniques.35 Globally, our food system is identified as the principal driver 5, with over a third of the world's land surface and nearly three-quarters of freshwater resources allocated to crop or livestock production.6
  Commercial and illegal logging further contribute to forest loss and degradation.35 The development of infrastructure, including roads, dams, and ports, fragments habitats and opens previously inaccessible areas to exploitation.35 Mining activities, both legal and illegal, cause direct habitat destruction and pollution.35 Urbanization also encroaches on natural habitats, particularly in coastal areas and fertile valleys within hotspots.44 The fact that these drivers are often linked to global commodity markets and consumption patterns in distant countries 59 means that conservation efforts limited to hotspot localities will be insufficient without addressing these broader economic forces.
• Overexploitation: The unsustainable harvesting of species is a major pressure. This includes hunting and poaching for bushmeat, traditional medicine, the illegal pet trade, and luxury goods such as ivory or rhino horn.⁶ Wildlife trafficking persists as a significant global criminal enterprise despite efforts to curb it.⁶⁵ Overfishing has depleted marine populations and damaged aquatic ecosystems.⁵ The unsustainable extraction of timber and non-timber forest products also degrades forest ecosystems and impacts species reliant on them.³⁵
• Invasive Alien Species (IAS): IAS pose a severe threat, particularly to the unique and often naive biota of island ecosystems, such as those in the Madagascar and Indian Ocean Islands hotspot ⁴², and are a significant problem for freshwater biodiversity worldwide.⁶⁷ Climate change can exacerbate the spread and impact of IAS.⁵⁶ Examples include non-native herbivores devastating island flora on Catalina Island ⁶⁹ and the general threat posed by invasive plants and feral mammals in Tasmania.⁷⁰
• Pollution: Various forms of pollution degrade terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems within hotspots. Agricultural runoff carrying pesticides and excess nutrients, industrial effluents, and contaminants from mining operations pollute water bodies and soils.⁶ Plastic pollution is a pervasive global problem, with severe impacts on marine and coastal hotspots.⁷² Noise, air, and water pollution from activities like oil exploration, as seen in the Niger Delta, also cause significant ecological damage.⁴⁴

B. Climate Change: A Compounding Crisis

Climate change is no longer a future threat but a present and accelerating reality for biodiversity hotspots, acting as a significant stressor and a multiplier of existing threats.⁹

• Observed Impacts: The IPCC AR6 CCP1 on Biodiversity Hotspots (2022) provides compelling evidence of ongoing climate-driven changes.9 Species are shifting their geographic ranges, generally moving poleward and to higher elevations on land to track suitable climatic conditions.9 The timing of critical life cycle events (phenology), such as flowering, migration, and breeding, is being altered.56 Marine ecosystems are experiencing abrupt mortality of habitat-forming species like corals and kelps, particularly following marine heatwaves, which are increasing in frequency and intensity.5 The Great Barrier Reef, for example, has suffered multiple mass bleaching events, including in 2022 and 2024.5
  An interesting observation is that while terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity hotspots have experienced slightly lower climate velocities (the speed at which climate zones are shifting across the landscape) compared to areas outside hotspots, marine hotspots have experienced significantly higher climate velocities (approximately 69% higher).9 This suggests that marine hotspot species may be under even greater pressure to adapt or move. Extreme weather events, including droughts, intense rainfall, and severe storms, are also becoming more frequent and intense in many hotspot regions.5
• Projected Vulnerabilities and Extinction Risks: Future climate change projections paint a dire picture for hotspots. The risk of species extinction is projected to increase with every degree of warming, with endemic species—the very species that define hotspots—being particularly vulnerable.9 Their extinction risk is estimated to be about ten times greater than that of other native species for a warming of 1.5°C to 3°C above pre-industrial levels.9 Projections suggest that a high percentage of endemic species in specific environments could face extinction due to climate change: approximately 100% on islands, around 84% on mountains, and about 54% in the ocean (with the Mediterranean Sea being a notable area of concern).9 This disproportionate vulnerability arises because endemic species often have restricted geographic ranges and specialized ecological requirements, limiting their ability to adapt or relocate in response to rapid environmental changes.
  Despite experiencing lower climate velocities, terrestrial hotspots are not projected to serve as effective climate refugia for many of their endemic species under continued global warming.9 The Amazon rainforest and global coral reef ecosystems are identified as approaching or potentially crossing critical tipping points, beyond which they could undergo abrupt and largely irreversible changes, with devastating consequences for biodiversity and ecosystem services.5 Marine hotspots, in general, are considered particularly sensitive to global warming due to observed higher rates of warming and greater climate velocities within them compared to non-hotspot marine areas.9 This differential vulnerability underscores the need for tailored climate adaptation strategies for marine environments, which may need to differ significantly from those applied in terrestrial systems.

C. Emerging and Synergistic Threats

Beyond the well-established drivers, new and interacting threats are further complicating conservation efforts in biodiversity hotspots.

• Plastic Pollution: The accumulation of plastic waste in the environment, particularly in oceans, is a significant emerging threat. Estimates suggest 75 to 199 million tonnes of plastic were present in the oceans as of 2025.⁷² This pollution affects marine life through ingestion, entanglement, and exposure to toxins. Microplastics are now ubiquitous in marine food webs and are increasingly found in terrestrial and freshwater systems.⁷² Notably, Asia is identified as the source of 81% of ocean plastic pollution.⁷² The impacts of plastics on biodiversity are not limited to end-of-life waste; they occur throughout the entire plastic value chain, from resource extraction and manufacturing to use and disposal.⁷³ The long-term degradation of plastics into micro- and nanoparticles creates a chronic and pervasive pollution problem, the full synergistic effects of which with other stressors like chemical pollutants and climate change are likely still underestimated.
• Novel Infectious Diseases (Zoonotic): Changes in land use, particularly deforestation and habitat fragmentation for agricultural expansion, have been linked to an increased risk of emerging infectious diseases (EIDs), including those of zoonotic origin (transmitted from animals to humans).⁷⁵ Biodiversity loss itself can alter host-pathogen dynamics, potentially increasing the prevalence of certain diseases. Hotspot regions, with their high human population densities, close proximity of humans and wildlife, and ongoing habitat disturbance, may be particularly vulnerable to such emergences.
• Synergistic Effects: Threats to biodiversity rarely act in isolation; their combined impact is often greater than the sum of their individual effects.

• Climate Change and Habitat Fragmentation: This is a particularly damaging synergy.⁹ Climate change compels species to shift their ranges, but fragmented habitats act as barriers, limiting movement and trapping populations in increasingly unsuitable conditions. This dramatically increases local extinction risk, as smaller, isolated populations are more vulnerable to climate extremes and demographic stochasticity. The IPCC explicitly states that climate change impacts are compounded by other anthropogenic factors like habitat loss and fragmentation, which reduce overall climate resilience.⁹
• Climate Change and Invasive Alien Species: Warming temperatures and altered precipitation patterns can create more favorable conditions for the establishment and spread of IAS, which can then outcompete or prey upon native hotspot species already stressed by climate change.⁵⁶
• Deforestation, Fire, and Drought: Deforestation can alter local and regional climates, often leading to drier conditions. Combined with climate change-induced droughts, this creates a feedback loop where forests become more susceptible to fires, which are often ignited by human activities related to land clearing.⁵ These fires release large amounts of carbon, further exacerbating climate change.
• Overexploitation and Habitat Degradation: Populations already reduced by overharvesting or suffering from degraded habitat are less resilient to climate shocks or disease outbreaks.

D. Identifying Epicenters of Crisis: Hotspots Experiencing Most Rapid Degradation

While all biodiversity hotspots are under threat, some are experiencing particularly acute and rapid degradation. The WWF's 2024 Living Planet Index (LPI) indicates the most alarming regional declines in wildlife populations since 1970 have occurred in Latin America and the Caribbean (a staggering 95% decline), followed by Africa (76%) and the Asia and the Pacific region (60%).⁵ These regions are home to a large number of biodiversity hotspots.

Recent deforestation data from 2023 highlights specific areas of concern:

• Bolivia: Experienced a 27% increase in primary forest loss, reaching its highest level on record for the third consecutive year. This made it the third-largest contributor to tropical primary forest loss globally, despite having less forest area than the Democratic Republic of Congo or Indonesia. Drivers include fires (often set for agriculture and land claiming, exacerbated by heatwaves) and agricultural expansion, particularly for soy and beef.⁷
• Laos and Nicaragua: Also saw surges in primary forest loss in 2023, largely due to agricultural expansion.⁷
• Tropical Asia: Witnessed a spike in deforestation in 2023, reversing some previous progress.⁸

Specific hotspots and biomes under severe pressure include:

• The Amazon Rainforest: While Brazil and Colombia demonstrated remarkable reductions in deforestation in 2023 ⁷, the Amazon as a whole remains under pressure and is a subject of concern regarding potential tipping points.⁵
• The Cerrado Biome (Brazil): This tropical savanna experienced a 6% increase in tree cover loss from 2022 to 2023, continuing a five-year upward trend, primarily due to agricultural expansion.⁷
• The Pantanal Biome (Brazil/Bolivia/Paraguay): The world's largest tropical wetland saw a spike in fire-related forest loss in 2023.⁷
• Sundaland (Borneo, Sumatra, Malay Peninsula): Continues to suffer from high rates of historic and ongoing forest loss, driven by logging and the expansion of oil palm and pulpwood plantations. Lowland species are critically threatened.⁶
• Indo-Burma: With only about 5% of its natural habitat remaining, this hotspot faces severe threats from illegal wildlife trade, hydropower development, and large-scale agro-industry. The Mekong River system and Tonle Sap Lake are particularly threatened areas.³⁵
• Guinean Forests of West Africa: Marked by high deforestation rates, especially in Liberia, Nigeria, and Côte d’Ivoire. Mining and agribusiness (cacao, palm oil, rubber) are key drivers of this loss.⁴⁴
• Madagascar: Faces continued high rates of deforestation across its unique forest types, and its critical wetland ecosystems are also highly threatened.⁴²

Alarmingly, even areas formally identified for their global biodiversity importance are not secure. The 2024 Protected Planet Report notes that only one-fifth of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) are fully protected, and a third lie entirely outside protected area networks.¹¹ Furthermore, tree cover loss in forested KBAs globally spiked by 10% in 2023.⁸ This trend is deeply concerning as KBAs represent sites critical for the global persistence of biodiversity. The combination of high biodiversity, intense and often escalating human pressures, significant governance challenges, and the compounding impacts of climate change places many hotspots, particularly in the tropics of Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia, at the forefront of the global biodiversity crisis.

III. Conservation Initiatives and Governance Frameworks

Global and local efforts to conserve biodiversity hotspots are guided by international agreements, national policies, diverse governance models, and innovative financing mechanisms. The effectiveness of these initiatives is critical to altering the current trajectory of biodiversity loss.

A. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF): Progress and Hotspot Relevance

Adopted in December 2022, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) sets out an ambitious roadmap for biodiversity conservation through 2030, with four overarching goals for 2050 and 23 action-oriented targets for 2030.¹² Several targets are directly pertinent to hotspot conservation.

Most notably, Target 3 aims to "ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30 per cent of terrestrial, inland water, and of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs)...".¹¹ Biodiversity hotspots and Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) fall squarely under "areas of particular importance."

Implementation Progress (as of early 2025):

Progress in implementing the KMGBF has been mixed. By November 2024, 119 countries had submitted their revised national targets, and 44 had submitted updated National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) to align with the GBF.78 However, an earlier assessment revealed that only 25 out of 195 countries met an initial deadline for NBSAP submission, including just five of the 17 megadiverse countries.12 This slow pace of national planning is a significant bottleneck.79

Regarding Target 3, global protected area coverage stood at 17.6% for land and inland waters and 8.4% for oceans and coastal areas as of the 2024 Protected Planet Report.¹¹ This represents an increase of less than 0.5 percentage points for both realms since 2020. To meet the 30x30 target, a further 12.4% of land and 21.6% of ocean areas need to be brought under conservation management by 2030.¹¹

Challenges for Hotspots:

The ambitious 30x30 target faces considerable hurdles concerning hotspots.

1. Strategic Placement: Ensuring new protected areas are strategically located within high-biodiversity regions like hotspots and KBAs is paramount. Currently, only about one-fifth of KBAs are fully protected, and a third fall entirely outside any protected area designation.¹¹ The alarming 10% spike in tree cover loss within forested KBAs in 2023 underscores this vulnerability.⁸ Research also suggests that the "Biodiversity Hotspots" prioritization scheme itself may not have historically driven protected area establishment as effectively as schemes like "Last of the Wild," possibly because hotspots are often located in areas with intense human pressure and competing land uses, making protection more complex and costly.⁸²
2. Management Effectiveness and Equitable Governance: Target 3 emphasizes "effectively conserved and managed" and "equitably governed" areas. However, data on these qualitative aspects are severely lacking. Less than 5% of the world's land protected areas have undergone management effectiveness assessments, and even less for marine areas.¹¹ Similarly, governance assessments are rare.
3. Financing: Mobilizing the substantial financial resources needed for expanding and managing protected areas (Target 19) remains a major challenge. While the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF) has been established under the GEF ⁸⁴, the overall biodiversity finance gap is vast. Current global spending on biodiversity conservation is dwarfed by "nature-negative" financial flows, such as environmentally harmful subsidies, which are estimated at nearly $7 trillion per year.⁸⁴

The success of the KMGBF for hotspots will therefore depend critically on how effectively countries integrate hotspot and KBA priorities into their revised NBSAPs and secure the necessary financial, technical, and human resources for implementation. This includes a strong focus on improving the management effectiveness and governance quality of both new and existing protected areas within these irreplaceable regions.

B. Major New Protected Area Designations or Expansions within Hotspots (2022-2025)

Tracking comprehensive global data on new protected area designations specifically within hotspots between 2022 and 2025 is challenging due to reporting lags. However, some notable developments indicate ongoing efforts:

• IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas: In October 2024, 12 new sites were added to the IUCN Green List, recognizing their fair governance and effective management. These sites are located in Brazil, China, Colombia, France, Saudi Arabia, and Zambia, bringing the global total to 87 sites across 20 countries.⁸⁵ Several of these newly listed sites are situated within or overlap with recognized biodiversity hotspots. For example, Los Katíos National Natural Park in Colombia, explicitly identified as a biodiversity hotspot due to its endemic species like the cativo tree and rich avifauna, was added to the Green List.⁸⁵ Wuyishan National Park (Jiangxi Area) in China, located within the Mountains of Southwest China hotspot, was also recognized for its well-preserved subtropical forests.⁸⁵
• CEPF Contributions: The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) has historically contributed significantly to the creation and expansion of protected areas through its grants. By 2015, CEPF-supported projects had led to the establishment of 13 million hectares of new protected areas.⁸⁶ While cumulative figures up to 2025 are not readily available in the provided materials, CEPF's ongoing investments in hotspots (e.g., Tropical Andes, Indo-Burma, Mediterranean Basin) continue to support protected area establishment and strengthening as key outcomes.²²
• Protected Planet Initiative: Data compiled by the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and IUCN for the Protected Planet Initiative indicates approximately 287,000 protected areas and 6,300 OECMs globally as of early 2024.⁸¹

While overall global protected area coverage is increasing, the strategic importance of these new designations for hotspot conservation lies in their location and management quality. Focusing expansion efforts on under-protected KBAs within hotspots is more critical for achieving meaningful biodiversity outcomes under Target 3 than simply meeting area-based targets in regions of lower biodiversity significance. The IUCN Green List serves as a valuable benchmark for such quality.

C. Governance Models in Hotspot Conservation

A diverse array of governance models is employed in the conservation of biodiversity hotspots, each with distinct characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses. No single model is universally applicable; effectiveness often depends on local context, stakeholder engagement, and resource availability.

Table 3: Comparative Analysis of Governance Models in Hotspot Conservation

There is a growing understanding that top-down, exclusionary conservation models are often less effective and can be inequitable, particularly in human-dominated landscapes typical of many hotspots. Success increasingly lies in collaborative and hybrid approaches that genuinely empower local actors, especially Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs). This involves recognizing their rights, valuing their Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), and ensuring they receive tangible benefits from conservation efforts. The complexity of hotspot environments demands adaptive and context-specific governance arrangements that foster partnerships and shared responsibility.

D. Innovative Conservation Financing Mechanisms

The significant funding gap for biodiversity conservation necessitates exploring and scaling up innovative financing mechanisms beyond traditional government budgets and philanthropic donations.

• Multilateral and Bilateral Donor Funds:

• Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF): A cornerstone for hotspot conservation, CEPF is a multi-donor fund (including l'Agence Française de Développement, Conservation International, EU, GEF, Government of Japan, World Bank) that provides grants to civil society organizations to protect hotspots.²² It has invested over $255 million as of FY2020 ⁸⁶ and continues to launch new investment phases in various hotspots.
• Global Environment Facility (GEF): As the financial mechanism for several environmental conventions, including the CBD, the GEF funds numerous projects relevant to hotspots, particularly through its Land Degradation and Biodiversity focal areas.⁹¹ The newly established Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF) is also managed by the GEF, intended to support KMGBF implementation.⁸⁴

• Debt-for-Nature/Climate/SDG Swaps: These involve a creditor forgiving a portion of a developing country's debt in exchange for the debtor nation committing to invest the freed-up funds in conservation or climate action. There is significant potential to mobilize substantial resources through this mechanism, with estimates suggesting over $105 billion from debt negotiation and $329 billion from new debt issuances based on past initiatives like the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative.¹⁶ Recent examples include swaps in Belize, Ecuador, and Gabon.¹⁶ However, challenges include high transaction costs, ensuring transparency, achieving sufficient scale, and ensuring local community involvement and benefit.¹⁶ The International Monetary Fund (IMF) acknowledges the role of these instruments in addressing fiscal constraints while promoting environmental goals.⁹⁶
• Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): PES schemes involve users of ecosystem services paying landowners or communities who manage those services. These are proliferating globally but face challenges in design, robust quantification of services, ensuring additionality, and establishing effective governance structures.¹⁵ The EU's work on environmental taxonomy aims to help identify economic activities eligible for such schemes.⁸⁴
• Biodiversity Offsets and Mitigation Banking: These market-based mechanisms aim to compensate for biodiversity loss from development projects by creating or restoring habitat elsewhere. However, their effectiveness is highly contested. Numerous studies and reports highlight fundamental flaws, including a lack of scientific credibility, arbitrary compensation ratios, insufficient monitoring and auditing, lack of transparency, and a general failure to achieve "No Net Loss," let alone a net gain, of biodiversity.⁹⁷ The case of Indonesia, a major hotspot region, illustrates these shortcomings.⁹⁷
• Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) Finance: There is growing interest in financing NbS, which are actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore ecosystems to address societal challenges like climate change and food security while benefiting biodiversity.⁹⁵ NbS, such as reforestation, peatland restoration, and mangrove conservation, can deliver significant climate mitigation (potentially up to one-third of needed mitigation by 2030) and adaptation benefits.⁹⁸
• Private Sector Investment and Blended Finance: Efforts are underway to increase private sector investment in biodiversity, often through blended finance models that combine public or philanthropic funds to de-risk private capital. This requires robust biodiversity metrics and clear taxonomies to guide investment.⁸⁴

While these diverse financing mechanisms offer potential, their collective scale remains insufficient to meet conservation needs and is dwarfed by the nearly $7 trillion per year in "nature-negative" financial flows, primarily from harmful subsidies and private investments in degrading activities.⁸⁴ This underscores a critical dual need: significantly increase positive conservation finance and systematically reform or eliminate financial flows that harm biodiversity, as called for in KMGBF Target 18.⁸⁴ The contested effectiveness of some market-based mechanisms, particularly biodiversity offsets, also calls for caution and stringent regulation to ensure they do not become tools for "greenwashing" or further marginalizing local communities.

E. Transboundary Conservation Initiatives (TBCAs)

Many biodiversity hotspots straddle national borders, making transboundary conservation initiatives (TBCAs), often referred to as "Peace Parks," essential for effective, large-landscape conservation.

• Examples and Effectiveness:

• The Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area (GLTFCA), spanning parts of Mozambique, South Africa, and Zimbabwe, is a prominent example where organizations like Conservation South Africa are involved in cross-border conservation efforts.¹⁴
• Peace Parks Foundation plays a significant role in establishing and supporting TBCAs across Southern Africa, including the Kavango-Zambezi (KAZA) TFCA. Their work covers approximately 68 million hectares.⁹² They report significant impacts, including placing nearly 740,000 km² under protection since 1997, translocating over 18,000 animals of 27 species, achieving an estimated fivefold increase in wildlife populations in co-managed parks, bringing over 3.3 million hectares under improved management, and securing substantial carbon stocks.⁹²
• The Nyika-Vwaza landscape in Malawi provides an example of an integrated co-management agreement involving the government and local community associations, facilitated by Peace Parks.⁹²

• Benefits: TBCAs are crucial for maintaining ecological connectivity for wide-ranging species, protecting shared watersheds, promoting political cooperation and peace between neighboring countries, and creating opportunities for regional socio-economic development through avenues like ecotourism.¹⁴ They are particularly important in the context of climate change, as they can provide larger, more resilient landscapes for species to adapt and move.
• Challenges: The establishment and management of TBCAs are complex undertakings. Challenges include harmonizing disparate laws, policies, and management approaches across international borders; ensuring equitable sharing of costs and benefits among participating countries and local communities; engaging a multitude of diverse stakeholders; securing long-term sustainable funding; and navigating political instabilities or differing national priorities.⁹²

The success of TBCAs, as demonstrated by the multi-decade engagement of organizations like Peace Parks Foundation, hinges on sustained political will from all participating countries, the development of strong and trust-based partnerships (including with local communities and the private sector), and a shared long-term vision that can endure beyond short-term political cycles.

F. The Role of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in Hotspot Management

There is growing recognition globally of the vital role that Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) and their Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) play in biodiversity conservation, particularly within hotspots where many IPLC territories are located.¹³

• Importance of TEK: IPLCs are often the primary stewards of vast areas of high biodiversity, many of which overlap with or constitute biodiversity hotspots.¹³ TEK, developed over generations of interaction with specific environments, offers profound insights into sustainable resource management, local species behavior, ecosystem dynamics, climate adaptation strategies, and biodiversity monitoring.¹³ Studies increasingly show that lands managed by IPLCs often exhibit lower rates of deforestation and higher levels of biodiversity compared to other areas.¹³
• Successful Integration Examples:

• In the Amazon, IPLC-managed forest lands demonstrate significantly lower deforestation rates.⁹¹
• TEK principles, such as using every part of an animal or plant and community-based decision-making, align closely with modern concepts like the circular economy and can guide sustainable materials management, particularly in remote communities.¹⁰⁰
• Indigenous communities in Canada are recognized for their leadership in biodiversity conservation and climate action, often drawing on TEK.⁸⁹
• The KMGBF itself calls for inclusive and equitable governance that recognizes plural knowledge systems, including TEK.⁹⁰

• Challenges to Integration:

• Lack of Recognition and Respect: TEK is often undervalued or dismissed by conventional conservation approaches and scientific paradigms.¹³
• Power Imbalances and Colonial Legacies: Persistent colonial power dynamics in conservation science and practice can lead to the marginalization of IPLCs and their knowledge systems.¹³
• Ensuring Equitable Partnerships: Meaningful integration requires genuine partnerships built on trust, respect, and equitable benefit-sharing, avoiding the appropriation or misapplication of TEK.
• Methodological Challenges: Developing appropriate and respectful methodologies for braiding TEK with Western scientific approaches can be complex.
• Insecure Tenure: Lack of secure land and resource rights for IPLCs undermines their ability to apply TEK and manage their territories effectively.¹³

Genuine integration of TEK and the full empowerment of IPLCs in the governance and management of biodiversity hotspots are not merely ethical considerations; they are increasingly understood as pragmatic pathways to achieving more effective, equitable, and resilient conservation outcomes. TEK often embodies long-term, adaptive strategies finely tuned to specific ecosystems, offering invaluable lessons for navigating the complexities of conservation in a rapidly changing world.

IV. Successful Conservation Case Studies

Despite the daunting challenges, numerous conservation initiatives within biodiversity hotspots are achieving measurable positive outcomes. These success stories offer valuable lessons and demonstrate that targeted, collaborative, and adaptive approaches can make a significant difference.

A. Case Study 1: Community-Led Rangeland Restoration and Sustainable Livelihoods in the Succulent Karoo, South Africa (Conservation South Africa's Herding for Health Model)

• Hotspot Context: The Succulent Karoo, located primarily in South Africa and Namibia, is one of the world's 36 biodiversity hotspots, renowned for its extraordinary diversity of succulent plants, with about 40% of its approximately 6,350 plant species being strictly endemic. This arid to semi-arid region is severely threatened by overgrazing from livestock, unsustainable agricultural practices, mining, and the escalating impacts of climate change, including prolonged droughts.
• Interventions and Strategies: Conservation South Africa (CSA), an affiliate of Conservation International, has been implementing the "Herding for Health" (H4H) program. This model focuses on working directly with communal farmers in villages within the Succulent Karoo (and other rangeland areas). Key interventions include ¹⁴:

• Restoration of Degraded Rangelands: Implementing planned grazing systems that mimic natural wildlife movements, allowing vegetation to recover and improving soil health.
• Conservation Agreements: Securing formal agreements with communities to manage land sustainably in exchange for support and benefits.
• Livelihood Improvement: Enhancing livestock health and productivity through better grazing practices, leading to improved market access and income for farmers.
• Capacity Building: Training local herders and community members in sustainable land management techniques.
• Blending TEK and Science: Integrating traditional herding knowledge with modern conservation science to develop locally appropriate solutions.
• Job Creation: Providing employment in ecosystem restoration and climate action initiatives.

• Collaborative Approaches: The success of H4H is built on strong partnerships. CSA collaborates closely with local communities, traditional leaders, local and national government agencies, and other NGOs.¹⁴ This participatory approach ensures local ownership and relevance.
• Measurable Positive Outcomes: CSA reports significant expansion and impact over its 20 years of operation, particularly in the last two years (2022-2024) ¹⁴:

• Scale: From an initial 8,000 hectares with 12 farmers, the program now covers 137,000 hectares under conservation agreements involving 53 villages and 1,400 farmers.
• Ecological Recovery: Tangible land regeneration has been observed, including the restoration of water flow to springs, the return of bird species, and the recovery of indigenous grasses.
• Socio-Economic Benefits: Communities have experienced improved grazing conditions, better livestock health, enhanced access to water, and direct financial benefits. The program created 2,980 jobs for unemployed rural community members between 2022 and 2024.
• Carbon Sequestration: CSA's research has demonstrated carbon sequestration benefits from their grazing practices, enabling communities to potentially benefit from carbon credit markets.

• Factors Contributing to Success and Replicability:

• Community Ownership and Benefits: The program's focus on delivering tangible socio-economic benefits (improved livelihoods, jobs, better resources) directly to the communities who are the custodians of the land is a primary driver of its success and sustainability.
• Long-Term Partnerships: Sustained engagement and trust-building with communities and local leaders are crucial.
• Adaptive Management: The model has evolved and scaled based on demonstrated success and local adaptation.
• Integration: Combining conservation goals with development needs creates a win-win scenario. The Herding for Health model demonstrates that long-term conservation success in human-occupied landscapes within biodiversity hotspots is deeply connected to providing clear and equitable socio-economic advantages to local communities, thereby creating strong incentives for sustainable stewardship and fostering resilience.

B. Case Study 2: Species Conservation and Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) Protection in the Indo-Burma Hotspot (CEPF-Supported Initiatives)

• Hotspot Context: The Indo-Burma Biodiversity Hotspot, encompassing all non-marine parts of Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam, plus parts of southern China, is one of the most biologically important and threatened regions on Earth. It boasts exceptional species diversity and endemism but has only about 5% of its original natural habitat remaining.³⁵ It faces intense pressures from illegal wildlife trade, rapid infrastructure development (especially hydropower), and the expansion of agro-industry.³⁵
• Interventions and Strategies: The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) has been a major investor in the Indo-Burma Hotspot since 2008, with a strategy focused on empowering civil society. Key interventions, guided by detailed Ecosystem Profiles (the latest update being from 2020, with a mid-term assessment in 2023 ³⁵), include:

• Strengthening KBA Management: Providing grants to local and international CSOs for improved protection and management of priority KBAs.
• Species-Specific Conservation: Supporting targeted actions for globally threatened species, including primates, freshwater turtles, birds, and large mammals.
• Combating Illegal Wildlife Trade: Funding initiatives to disrupt trafficking networks, reduce demand, and strengthen law enforcement.
• Policy Advocacy: Supporting CSOs to engage in policy dialogue and advocate for stronger conservation legislation and enforcement.
• Community Engagement: Promoting community participation in conservation and sustainable resource management.
• Capacity Building: Enhancing the organizational and technical capacities of local CSOs.

• Collaborative Approaches: CEPF's model inherently fosters collaboration by funding a diverse portfolio of grantees who often work in partnership with each other, government agencies, academic institutions, and local communities.³⁵ The Regional Implementation Team (RIT) plays a key role in coordinating efforts and building networks.
• Measurable Positive Outcomes: While specific, aggregated quantitative outcomes for the 2022-2025 period require access to the latest CEPF portfolio reports, the fund's global monitoring framework tracks indicators such as hectares of protected areas created/expanded, KBAs with improved management, species benefiting from conservation action, and CSOs with improved capacity.⁸⁶ The 2023 Mid-Term Assessment for Indo-Burma ¹⁰¹ would detail progress towards targets set in the 2020 Ecosystem Profile. Illustrative outcomes based on CEPF's general impact include:

• Improved management effectiveness in numerous KBAs across the hotspot.
• Population stabilization or recovery for certain targeted threatened species.
• Increased detection and prosecution of wildlife crime in project areas.
• Strengthened local CSO networks and their influence on conservation policy.
• Empowerment of local communities in managing natural resources.

• Factors Contributing to Success and Replicability:

• Empowering Local Civil Society: Directing funds and technical support to local organizations builds long-term conservation capacity within the hotspot.
• Strategic Prioritization: The use of Ecosystem Profiles, developed through extensive stakeholder consultation, ensures that investments are targeted at the most critical sites and threats.³⁵
• Adaptive Management: Regular assessments and a flexible approach allow strategies to be adjusted based on lessons learned and changing conditions.¹⁰¹
• Networking and Collaboration: Facilitating partnerships among diverse actors amplifies impact and promotes knowledge sharing. A well-coordinated, regionally-focused funding mechanism like CEPF, which prioritizes empowering local civil society organizations and implementing strategies based on detailed scientific and socio-economic assessments, can achieve significant conservation gains even in hotspots characterized by complex threats, vast geographies, and challenging governance contexts.

C. Case Study 3: Transboundary Conservation in the Kavango-Zambezi (KAZA) Transfrontier Conservation Area (Peace Parks Foundation)

• Hotspot Context: While KAZA itself is a TFCA rather than a formally defined biodiversity hotspot in the CI sense, it spans across Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe in Southern Africa. This vast landscape (approximately 520,000 km²) encompasses diverse ecosystems, including wetlands, woodlands, and savannas, that are critical for some of Africa's largest and most important populations of elephants, African wild dogs, lions, and other iconic wildlife. It connects several areas influenced by or adjacent to recognized hotspots like Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany and contains globally significant biodiversity. The region faces threats from habitat fragmentation, human-wildlife conflict, poaching, and unsustainable land use.
• Interventions and Strategies: Peace Parks Foundation has been instrumental in the development and support of KAZA and other TFCAs. Their approach involves ⁹²:

• Facilitating TFCA Establishment and Governance: Working with partner governments to establish legal frameworks and institutional structures for transboundary management.
• Protected Area Development and Management: Strengthening management effectiveness in core national parks and reserves within the TFCA.
• Community Engagement and Livelihoods: Supporting community conservancies and enterprises that link conservation to socio-economic benefits for local people.
• Wildlife Reintroductions and Population Management: Translocating wildlife to restore populations in depleted areas and re-establish ecological dynamics.
• Combating Wildlife Crime: Providing support for anti-poaching efforts, intelligence gathering, and judicial processes.
• Developing Sustainable Financing: Exploring innovative financing mechanisms, including carbon finance and tourism revenue sharing.
• Climate Resilience: Implementing inclusive governance and land-use planning models that address climate change adaptation and mitigation.

• Collaborative Approaches: The very nature of TFCAs necessitates extensive collaboration between national governments, local communities, the private sector (e.g., tourism operators), international donors, and NGOs.⁹² Peace Parks acts as a key facilitator and implementing partner in these complex multi-stakeholder environments.
• Measurable Positive Outcomes (from Peace Parks Foundation's 2023 Annual Review ⁹²):

• Wildlife Recovery: A total of 18,167 animals of 27 unique species have been relocated by Peace Parks across its portfolio. Wildlife populations in co-managed parks are estimated at over 100,000, more than a fivefold increase from translocated numbers, based on population models and aerial surveys.
• Area Under Improved Management: 3.33 million hectares of land are under improved management within their co-managed parks.
• Carbon Sequestration: An estimated 313.8 million tonnes of manageable carbon are currently under improved governance, with a target of 392.5 million tonnes by 2030.
• Landscape Protection: Since 1997, Peace Parks has facilitated the protection of 739,943 km² of transboundary landscapes.

• Factors Contributing to Success and Replicability:

• Long-Term Vision and Commitment: TFCAs require sustained engagement over decades.
• Strong Partnerships: Effective collaboration with governments and local communities is paramount.
• Holistic Approach: Integrating biodiversity conservation with sustainable development, community benefits, and climate action.
• Large Landscape Scale: Addressing conservation at a scale relevant to ecological processes and wide-ranging species. Transboundary conservation initiatives, though inherently complex and requiring significant diplomatic and financial investment, are essential for maintaining ecological connectivity, supporting viable populations of wide-ranging species, and conserving large, functional ecosystems, particularly where hotspot characteristics extend across national borders. They also offer substantial co-benefits for regional peace, stability, and climate change mitigation.

D. Case Study 4: Marine Biodiversity Restoration – Principles and Potential in Tropical Hotspots (e.g., Coral Reefs)

• Hotspot Context: Marine biodiversity hotspots, such as the Coral Triangle (which overlaps with terrestrial hotspots like Wallacea, Philippines, and Sundaland), are global epicenters of marine life. Coral reefs, in particular, are exceptionally diverse but are severely threatened by climate change (leading to mass bleaching events and ocean acidification), overfishing, pollution from land-based sources, and destructive fishing practices.⁵
• Interventions and Strategies: While a specific, recent, large-scale coral reef restoration project with fully documented 2022-2025 outcomes is not detailed in the provided snippets, research indicates growing success in marine ecosystem restoration.¹⁰² Principles and common interventions include:

• Active Coral Restoration: Techniques such as coral gardening (growing coral fragments in nurseries) and direct transplantation of corals to degraded reef areas.
• Establishment and Effective Management of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs): Creating no-take zones and well-managed MPAs to reduce fishing pressure and allow reefs to recover.
• Addressing Land-Based Threats: Reducing pollution (sediment, nutrients, chemicals) from coastal development, agriculture, and wastewater discharge.
• Sustainable Fisheries Management: Implementing measures to prevent overfishing and reduce destructive fishing practices in areas surrounding reefs.
• Community Engagement: Involving local communities in MPA management, sustainable tourism, and alternative livelihood development.
• Innovative Techniques: Research into methods like assisted evolution to enhance coral resilience to thermal stress, and restoration of other habitat-forming species like sabellarid worms (which build reefs) using fragment translocation.²⁸

• Collaborative Approaches: Successful marine restoration typically involves partnerships between research institutions (providing scientific expertise), government agencies (responsible for management and regulation), NGOs (implementing projects and engaging communities), and local communities (as stewards and beneficiaries).
• Measurable Positive Outcomes ¹⁰²:

• A 2021 review of marine ecosystem restorations found an average success rate of approximately 64% across various habitats.¹⁰²
• Restoration efforts are reported to be highly successful for tropical coral reefs and other habitat-forming species.¹⁰²
• Potential outcomes include increased live coral cover, enhanced fish biomass and diversity, return of other reef-associated species, improved coastal protection from wave energy, and benefits for local tourism and fisheries.
• Restoration interventions have shown effectiveness even at large spatial scales and in areas where some human stressors persist, suggesting that action can be initiated even before all threats are fully mitigated.¹⁰²

• Factors Contributing to Success and Replicability:

• Scientific Grounding: Basing restoration efforts on sound ecological principles and ongoing research.
• Addressing Multiple Stressors: Combining active restoration with measures to reduce key threats (e.g., pollution, overfishing).
• Long-Term Monitoring and Adaptive Management: Continuously assessing progress and adjusting strategies as needed.
• Community Involvement: Ensuring local communities are engaged and benefit from restoration efforts.
• Technological Advancement: New and more cost-effective technologies are making restoration, even in challenging environments like the deep sea, increasingly feasible.¹⁰² Active ecological restoration, including in severely impacted marine hotspots like coral reefs, can achieve significant positive outcomes when it is scientifically informed, adequately resourced, and part of an integrated management approach. This offers a crucial element of hope for reversing degradation in some of the planet's most threatened and biologically rich marine ecosystems.

E. Case Study Spotlight Box: IUCN Green Listed Site – Wuyishan National Park (Jiangxi Area), China (Mountains of Southwest China Hotspot)

• Context: In October 2024, Wuyishan National Park (Jiangxi Area) was admitted to the IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas.⁸⁵ This designation recognizes the site for its fair governance and effective management. Wuyishan National Park is situated within the Mountains of Southwest China biodiversity hotspot, a region renowned for its rich temperate flora and fauna, including numerous endemic species. The park itself is celebrated as a prime example of well-preserved subtropical forest ecosystems, with its fog-laden cliffs reminiscent of traditional Chinese landscape paintings.⁸⁵
• Significance for Hotspot Conservation: The inclusion of Wuyishan National Park on the IUCN Green List is significant for several reasons:

1. Demonstration of Excellence: It showcases that high standards of protected area management and equitable governance can be achieved within a globally significant biodiversity hotspot, even in a country with substantial development pressures.
2. Model for Other PAs: It provides a tangible model and inspiration for other protected areas within the Mountains of Southwest China hotspot and other hotspots globally, demonstrating best practices in conservation.
3. Validation of the Green List Standard: It reinforces the IUCN Green List as a credible global standard for recognizing and promoting effective and equitable conservation outcomes in protected and conserved areas.
4. Focus on Quality: The Green List emphasizes not just the designation of protected areas, but their actual performance in conserving biodiversity and engaging stakeholders.

• Lessons: The success of Wuyishan National Park, as recognized by its Green List status, underscores the importance of strong governmental commitment to conservation, adequate resourcing for park management, science-based conservation strategies, and potentially, the integration of cultural values with biodiversity protection. The IUCN Green List framework itself serves as a valuable tool for driving improvements in protected area management globally, offering a benchmark for what constitutes effective conservation in practice within critical hotspot contexts. This provides a pathway for other sites in hotspots to strive for and achieve similar standards of excellence.

V. Economic and Human Dimensions

The conservation of biodiversity hotspots is intrinsically linked to economic factors and human well-being. Understanding these dimensions is crucial for developing sustainable and equitable conservation strategies.

A. The Economic Value of Hotspot Ecosystem Services

Biodiversity hotspots are not only reservoirs of unique species but also providers of essential ecosystem services that underpin human economies and well-being. These services include the provision of clean water, pollination of crops, climate regulation through carbon sequestration, soil fertility maintenance, and opportunities for recreation and tourism.¹

Estimates, though some are based on older data (e.g., 2005 dollars), suggest the immense economic value of these services. For instance, the ecosystem services provided by the 35 biodiversity hotspots were valued at approximately $1.59 trillion per year, or $69,071 per square kilometer per year.⁹³ Despite comprising only 2.5% of Earth's land surface, the ecosystems within hotspots are estimated to account for 35% of the "ecosystem services" upon which vulnerable human populations directly depend.¹ This highlights the disproportionate importance of hotspots for supporting human livelihoods, particularly for marginalized communities.

Recent research continues to refine methods for economic valuation. Studies in developing countries often use market price analysis for traded goods, and cost-based or revealed preference methods for non-marketed services like watershed protection or biodiversity conservation itself.¹⁰³ An example from the Mediterranean Basin hotspot involves valuing ecosystem services provided by pasture-based beef farms in Alentejo, Portugal, showcasing the application of these concepts in specific hotspot contexts.¹⁰⁴

Economic Valuation Metrics Box: Illustrative Examples

• Water Provision (Tropical Andes): The páramo ecosystems of the Tropical Andes act as "water towers," capturing and regulating water flow for millions of people in downstream cities and agricultural areas. The economic value of this hydrological service is immense, though precise, up-to-date figures for the entire hotspot require detailed regional studies.
• Pollination Services (California Floristic Province): Native pollinators within the California Floristic Province provide essential services to the state's multi-billion dollar agricultural industry. The loss of these pollinators due to habitat degradation or pesticide use would entail significant economic costs for crop production.
• Carbon Sequestration (Sundaland/Guinean Forests): The vast tropical forests within hotspots like Sundaland and the Guinean Forests of West Africa store enormous quantities of carbon. Protecting these forests from deforestation and degradation provides a globally significant climate mitigation service, the economic value of which can be estimated through carbon pricing mechanisms.

A significant challenge remains in translating these recognized economic valuations into tangible financial flows that directly support conservation actions and equitably benefit the local communities who are often the de facto custodians of these resources.¹⁵ The discrepancy between the immense value of ecosystem services and the actual financial investment in their protection is a persistent issue, exacerbated by the scale of financial flows into nature-negative activities.⁸⁴ Standardized biodiversity metrics are also needed to better integrate these values into financial decision-making.⁸⁴

B. Sustainable Livelihoods and Community Empowerment

Many biodiversity hotspots are located in regions with high levels of poverty, where local communities depend directly on natural resources for their survival and livelihoods.² Therefore, successful conservation initiatives often incorporate components aimed at improving sustainable livelihoods and empowering local communities.

CEPF projects, for example, frequently include objectives related to providing cash or non-cash benefits to communities living in or near project sites.²² The Herding for Health program in South Africa's Succulent Karoo, detailed earlier, provides a clear example of how conservation interventions (improved grazing practices, rangeland restoration) can lead to direct financial benefits, job creation, and improved resource access for participating communities.¹⁴

Indigenous-led conservation initiatives also inherently link livelihoods to the sustainable use and stewardship of traditional territories and resources.¹³ Ecotourism, when developed responsibly and with community participation, can provide economic opportunities in and around protected areas.⁸³ The sustainable harvesting and marketing of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) can also offer income alternatives that are compatible with forest conservation.

However, developing and implementing sustainable livelihood programs face challenges. These include ensuring genuine long-term sustainability rather than short-term project-based benefits, avoiding over-reliance on single income sources which can be vulnerable to market fluctuations or environmental changes, ensuring equitable distribution of benefits within communities, and providing access to markets and technical support. Successful programs are typically those that are co-designed with communities, build upon existing local skills and Traditional Ecological Knowledge, provide clear and fairly distributed benefits, and are deeply integrated with broader conservation objectives, rather than being externally imposed or standalone activities.

C. Poverty, Development Pressures, and Hotspot Conservation

The relationship between poverty, development pressures, and biodiversity conservation in hotspots is complex and multifaceted. As noted, many hotspots are in developing nations where poverty is widespread, and populations are highly reliant on natural resources.² This dependence can create pressures on ecosystems, particularly when alternative livelihood options are scarce.

Simultaneously, these regions often face intense development pressures from large-scale infrastructure projects (dams, roads), agricultural expansion for commodity crops (soy, palm oil, beef), and mining operations, which frequently conflict with conservation goals and can displace local communities or undermine their traditional livelihoods.⁷

It is an oversimplification to state that poverty directly "causes" biodiversity loss. More accurately, both poverty and environmental degradation in hotspot regions are often symptoms of deeper, systemic issues. These can include inequitable distribution of resources and land, insecure land tenure for local communities and Indigenous Peoples, a lack of viable and sustainable economic alternatives, weak governance, and powerful external economic forces driving unsustainable exploitation (such as global demand for commodities produced in hotspot regions ⁵⁹). For instance, Indigenous Peoples are often among the poorest and most marginalized groups, yet their territories frequently exhibit high levels of biodiversity conservation when their rights are secure.¹³ Addressing these underlying drivers—by strengthening governance, securing tenure rights, promoting economic justice, and ensuring that development pathways are truly sustainable and inclusive—is therefore key to tackling both poverty and biodiversity loss in hotspots. Conservation efforts must be designed to be pro-poor and explicitly uphold human rights.

D. Innovative Market-Based Mechanisms Supporting Hotspot Conservation

A range of market-based mechanisms (MBMs) is being explored and implemented to generate finance for hotspot conservation, though their effectiveness and equity implications vary.

• Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): These schemes, where beneficiaries of ecosystem services compensate those who manage and protect them, are increasingly common.¹⁵ Examples include payments for watershed protection, carbon sequestration, or biodiversity conservation.
• Biodiversity-Positive Carbon Markets: Mechanisms like REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) aim to create financial value for carbon stored in forests, thereby incentivizing forest protection, which has direct co-benefits for biodiversity in forest hotspots.
• Sustainable Product Certification: Schemes that certify products (e.g., coffee, cocoa, timber, NTFPs) as being produced sustainably can provide market access and price premiums for producers in hotspot regions who adopt biodiversity-friendly practices.
• Conservation Trust Funds: These are independent, legally established institutions that provide long-term, sustainable funding for conservation activities, often through endowments or sinking funds.
• Impact Investing: A growing field where investments are made into companies, organizations, and funds with the intention to generate social and environmental impact alongside a financial return. This can include investments in nature-positive enterprises within hotspots.

While MBMs offer the potential to scale up conservation finance and engage new actors, they are not without significant challenges. Issues of additionality (ensuring payments lead to conservation outcomes that wouldn't have happened anyway), permanence (ensuring long-term benefits), leakage (preventing damaging activities from simply shifting elsewhere), and ensuring equitable benefit sharing with local communities and IPLCs are critical. There are also concerns about the potential commodification of nature in ways that could undermine intrinsic values or local rights. The strong critique of biodiversity offset schemes, which often fail to deliver genuine biodiversity gains and lack transparency and scientific rigor ⁹⁷, serves as a cautionary tale. Therefore, for MBMs to be effective and ethical, they require robust regulatory frameworks, strong environmental and social safeguards, transparency in their operations, and rigorous monitoring and evaluation.

E. Corporate Sector Initiatives Specifically Targeting Biodiversity Hotspot Preservation

The corporate sector's role in biodiversity conservation is evolving, with increasing recognition that biodiversity loss poses material risks to businesses and economies, and that healthy ecosystems underpin many industries.⁷⁰

Corporate engagement in hotspot preservation manifests in various ways:

• Supply Chain Sustainability: Companies are making commitments to source commodities (e.g., palm oil, soy, timber, beef, cocoa) from deforestation-free or sustainable sources. This is crucial given that agricultural commodity production is a primary driver of habitat loss in many hotspots.
• Investment in Nature-Based Solutions: Some corporations are investing in NbS projects, such as reforestation or watershed protection, either as part of their corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs, to offset their environmental footprint (though this is fraught with the issues mentioned for offsets), or as direct investments in ecosystem resilience relevant to their operations.
• Corporate Foundations: Many large corporations have foundations that provide philanthropic funding for conservation projects, some of which target biodiversity hotspots.
• Adoption of Biodiversity-Friendly Practices: CEPF includes an indicator related to the number of companies that adopt biodiversity-friendly practices as a measure of enabling conditions for conservation.⁸⁶

Despite these positive trends, significant challenges remain. Greenwashing is a persistent concern, where corporate claims of sustainability or biodiversity protection are not matched by meaningful action or are used to obscure ongoing damaging practices. Ensuring that corporate commitments translate into tangible, verifiable, and additional on-the-ground impacts in hotspots is difficult. The scale of positive corporate action often pales in comparison to the overall environmental footprint of large industries. Accountability mechanisms for corporate biodiversity performance are still developing.

While corporate engagement is moving beyond pure philanthropy towards a more integrated understanding of biodiversity's importance to business operations and value chains ⁹⁶, a transformative shift is needed. This requires companies to take full responsibility for their impacts on hotspots throughout their operations and supply chains, adopt transparent reporting on biodiversity performance, and actively contribute to the restoration and protection of these critical ecosystems at a scale commensurate with their influence and dependencies.

VI. Technological Innovations and Scientific Advances

The fields of conservation science and practice are being continually reshaped by technological innovations and scientific discoveries. These advancements offer powerful new tools for understanding, monitoring, and protecting biodiversity hotspots.

A. Emerging Technologies for Hotspot Monitoring

Effective conservation requires accurate and timely information on the state of biodiversity and the pressures it faces. Several emerging technologies are revolutionizing monitoring capabilities:

• Environmental DNA (eDNA): This non-invasive technique involves detecting traces of DNA shed by organisms into their environment (e.g., water, soil, air).

• Applications: eDNA metabarcoding allows for the simultaneous detection of multiple species from a single sample, making it invaluable for biodiversity assessments, mapping species distributions (especially for rare, elusive, or cryptic taxa), early detection of invasive alien species, and analyzing predator-prey relationships through diet analysis.¹⁷
• Examples: Recent studies have demonstrated the utility of eDNA in detecting the rare, flightless Maungatua stonefly from freshwater streams in New Zealand, even discovering previously unknown populations.¹⁸ In Australian arid lands, eDNA from water bodies has been used to monitor the visitation of various vertebrate species, complementing traditional camera trapping methods.¹⁷
• Advantages: eDNA surveys can often be more cost-effective and less labor-intensive for large-scale biodiversity assessments than traditional survey methods, and can detect species that might be missed by visual or trapping techniques.
• Challenges: The accuracy and reliability of eDNA analysis depend on factors such as primer specificity (the DNA sequences used to target specific groups of organisms), the completeness of reference DNA sequence databases, and the methods used to infer species abundance from DNA quantity.

• Remote Sensing (Satellite, Aerial, Drones): Earth observation technologies provide a synoptic view of landscapes and ecosystems.

• Applications: Widely used for mapping habitat types, monitoring deforestation and forest degradation in near real-time, tracking land-use change, detecting and monitoring wildfires, and assessing vegetation health.⁷
• Advances: The availability of higher spatial and temporal resolution satellite imagery (e.g., from Sentinel, Landsat, and commercial providers), coupled with advances in sensor technology (e.g., LiDAR for 3D vegetation structure, hyperspectral imaging for species differentiation), is providing increasingly detailed insights. Drones offer flexible, high-resolution data acquisition for localized monitoring. Advanced geospatial techniques are being applied, for example, in the Sundaland hotspot for conservation planning.⁴⁹

• Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML): AI and ML algorithms are becoming indispensable for processing and analyzing the vast datasets generated by modern monitoring technologies.

• Applications: Automated species identification from camera trap images and acoustic sensor recordings, predictive modeling of species distributions and habitat suitability under changing environmental conditions, rapid analysis of large volumes of remote sensing data to detect changes, and supporting anti-poaching efforts through predictive analytics or drone-based surveillance.

• Acoustic Monitoring: Deploying arrays of microphones to record environmental sounds can provide rich data on the presence, abundance, and behavior of vocalizing species such as birds, bats, frogs, insects, and marine mammals. AI is then used to process these acoustic datasets.

The convergence of these technologies—eDNA for fine-grained species detection, remote sensing for broad-scale habitat assessment, and AI for data integration and analysis—is creating unprecedented opportunities. This synergy allows for more comprehensive, timely, and potentially cost-effective monitoring of biodiversity and threats within hotspots, thereby enabling more informed conservation planning, adaptive management strategies, and rapid response to emerging issues.

B. New Scientific Discoveries within Hotspots (2022-2025)

Despite decades of research, biodiversity hotspots continue to yield new scientific discoveries, underscoring their immense and often incompletely documented biological wealth.

• Newly Documented Species: The discovery of species new to science, or new records of known species in unexpected locations, is an ongoing feature of research in hotspots.

• The Indo-Burma hotspot, for instance, has seen the discovery of six large mammal species since 1992, a testament to its cryptic biodiversity.³⁷
• In August 2024, biologists announced the discovery of a new tarantula species endemic to the Chiricahua Mountains in southeastern Arizona, part of the Madrean Sky Islands biodiversity hotspot.¹⁰⁵ This discovery also raised immediate concerns about its vulnerability to climate change.
• In Madagascar, an astonishing 22 new mammal species and subspecies have been formally described in the 15 years leading up to 2022, highlighting the island's status as a crucible of evolution.⁴³
• Citizen science initiatives are also contributing; for example, by providing new location records for endemic and threatened bird species in the Albertine Rift.⁶³

• New Ecological Relationships and Understandings: Beyond species discovery, research continues to unravel complex ecological interactions and refine our understanding of ecosystem functioning within hotspots. This includes studies on pollination networks, predator-prey dynamics, the role of keystone species, and the impacts of subtle environmental changes on community structure.

Species Discovery Highlight: The Madrean Sky Island Tarantula

In August 2024, a new species of tarantula was described from the Madrean Sky Islands, a recognized biodiversity hotspot spanning parts of the southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico.¹⁰⁵ This remarkable arachnid is endemic to the Chiricahua Mountains in southeastern Arizona. The "sky islands" are isolated mountain ranges surrounded by radically different lowland environments, leading to high levels of endemism as populations become isolated and diverge. The discovery of this tarantula, likely through dedicated field surveys and subsequent taxonomic analysis, highlights that even in a relatively well-studied country like the United States, significant new species can still be found, particularly in complex and biodiversity-rich regions like hotspots. The discovery immediately brought to the forefront concerns about the species' conservation status, particularly its vulnerability to climate change, which could alter its specialized montane habitat.¹⁰⁵

The continued discovery of new species, even within groups like mammals or in regions with a history of scientific exploration, powerfully underscores how much of Earth's biodiversity remains unknown. Scientists estimate that as much as 80% of life on Earth has yet to be formally found and described.¹⁰⁶ This reality reinforces the critical importance of protecting biodiversity hotspots, as these regions likely harbor a disproportionate share of this undiscovered biodiversity. The risk of "silent extinctions"—species disappearing before they are even known to science—is particularly acute in these rapidly degrading ecosystems.

C. Evaluation of Restoration Technologies and Approaches for Degraded Hotspot Recovery

Given the extensive degradation within biodiversity hotspots, ecological restoration is increasingly recognized as a critical conservation strategy alongside protection of remaining intact habitats.

• Marine Ecosystem Restoration: Significant progress has been made in marine restoration techniques. A 2021 global review indicated an average success rate of approximately 64% for marine ecosystem restoration projects across various habitat types.¹⁰² Efforts have been reported as particularly successful for saltmarshes, tropical coral reefs, and the restoration of habitat-forming animal forests (e.g., shellfish beds, sponge gardens). Importantly, restoration has proven viable at various spatial scales, from small local projects to larger initiatives, and surprisingly, interventions have shown effectiveness even in areas where some human impacts persist, suggesting that restoration can be initiated before all stressors are entirely removed.¹⁰² New technologies are also making the restoration of deep-sea ecosystems, once considered largely inaccessible for such interventions, increasingly feasible.¹⁰² Specific techniques like the translocation of sabellarid reef fragments show promise for restoring these unique coastal structures.²⁸
• Forest Restoration: In terrestrial hotspots, forest restoration is a major focus. This includes:

• Reforestation and Afforestation: Large-scale tree planting initiatives, such as Vietnam's Five Million Hectare Reforestation Program (though older, it's an example of scale).⁴⁹
• Agroforestry: Integrating trees into agricultural landscapes can enhance biodiversity, improve soil health, and provide livelihood benefits.⁹⁸
• Community-Based Restoration: Engaging local communities in restoration activities, often linking these to sustainable use or NTFP benefits.⁸⁸
• Assisted Natural Regeneration: Protecting and managing areas to allow natural forest recovery, often a more cost-effective and ecologically sound approach where feasible.

• Challenges in Restoration: Despite successes, restoration efforts face significant hurdles:

• Cost: Restoration, particularly in marine environments, can be expensive.¹⁰²
• Scale: The scale of current restoration efforts often pales in comparison to the extent of degradation. Globally, only about 4 million hectares of forest are reported as being under active restoration, while the KMGBF Target 2 calls for ensuring that by 2030 at least 30% of areas of degraded terrestrial, inland water, and coastal and marine ecosystems are under effective restoration.⁸
• Long-Term Monitoring and Ecological Functionality: Ensuring that restoration projects lead to resilient, functional ecosystems, rather than just tree cover or the presence of a few target species, requires long-term monitoring and adaptive management.
• Species Selection and Genetic Diversity: Choosing appropriate native species and ensuring adequate genetic diversity in planting stock is crucial for long-term success and resilience.
• Addressing Underlying Drivers: Restoration efforts will ultimately fail if the original drivers of habitat degradation are not addressed.
• Integrating Resilience: There is a growing need to integrate climate resilience into restoration planning and practices to account for future environmental changes.¹⁰²

While ecological restoration in hotspots shows increasing promise and documented success in some ecosystems, particularly marine ones ¹⁰², the primary challenges lie in scaling these efforts to match the vast extent of degradation, ensuring the long-term ecological integrity and resilience of restored sites, and securing sustainable financing for these often decades-long endeavors.

D. Predictive Modeling Advances for Anticipating Hotspot Threats and Targeting Interventions

Predictive modeling, leveraging computational power and diverse datasets, is becoming an increasingly vital tool for proactive conservation in biodiversity hotspots. These models help to anticipate future threats, understand potential impacts, and strategically target conservation interventions.

• Species Distribution Models (SDMs) / Habitat Suitability Models: These models use known species occurrence locations and environmental variables (e.g., climate, topography, vegetation type) to predict areas of suitable habitat.

• Applications: Identifying potential new areas where a species might occur, predicting how species ranges might shift under climate change, assessing extinction risks, and identifying priority areas for conservation or restoration.
• Example: The MaxEnt model was employed in the Altai Mountains (a region with significant biodiversity, though not one of the 36 CI hotspots) to predict potential distribution areas for mammals and birds, identify biodiversity "hotspots" within that region, and analyze the influence of factors like climate, elevation, and human activities on their distribution.¹⁰⁷
• Studies within hotspots like the California Floristic Province use SDMs to measure species exposure to climate and land-use change scenarios, finding that traits like range size and topographic heterogeneity influence vulnerability.⁵²

• Climate Change Impact Models: These models specifically project the effects of different climate change scenarios on species and ecosystems. The IPCC assessments heavily rely on such models to project extinction risks and changes in ecosystem boundaries within biodiversity hotspots.⁹
• Land-Use Change Models: These models forecast future patterns of land-use change, such as urban expansion or agricultural encroachment, and their potential impacts on habitat availability and connectivity. For example, models predict significant urban expansion in many biodiversity hotspots, particularly in equatorial regions, directly threatening numerous species.¹⁰⁶
• Integrated Threat and Prioritization Models: Advanced modeling efforts seek to integrate multiple data layers—species distributions, habitat connectivity, current and projected threats (climate change, land use, poaching risk), conservation costs, and socio-economic factors—to identify optimal strategies for conservation investment and intervention.

The increasing sophistication of these models, fueled by better data availability (from remote sensing, eDNA, citizen science) and more powerful analytical techniques (including machine learning), allows for a more dynamic and forward-looking approach to conservation. By anticipating where biodiversity is most vulnerable and where interventions are likely to be most effective, predictive modeling can help allocate scarce conservation resources more efficiently and proactively mitigate threats before they lead to irreversible losses.

E. Advances in Genetic Preservation Techniques Relevant to Hotspot Species Conservation

For species in biodiversity hotspots that are facing imminent extinction or have critically small populations, genetic preservation techniques can offer a vital lifeline, acting as a form of "genetic insurance."

• Cryopreservation: This involves storing biological materials at ultra-low temperatures (typically in liquid nitrogen) to preserve them for long periods.

• Seed Banks: Collections of seeds from diverse plant species, including many rare and endemic hotspot flora. These are crucial for safeguarding plant genetic diversity and providing material for future restoration or reintroduction programs.
• Sperm and Egg Banks (Gamete Cryopreservation): Preserving sperm and eggs from threatened animal species allows for their future use in assisted reproduction techniques, such as artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization, to maintain genetic diversity or re-establish populations.
• Tissue Banks (Somatic Cell Cryopreservation): Storing viable cells or tissues from animals can preserve their genetic material. These cells could potentially be used in future cloning technologies (though this is still highly experimental for most wild species) or for genetic research.

• Genome Sequencing and Genomics: Advances in DNA sequencing technologies allow for the rapid and relatively inexpensive sequencing of entire genomes of threatened species.

• Applications: Understanding the genetic diversity within and between populations, identifying genes associated with adaptation or disease resistance, informing conservation breeding programs to minimize inbreeding and maximize genetic health, and resolving taxonomic uncertainties.

• Conservation Breeding Programs: While not solely a genetic preservation technique, these programs rely heavily on genetic management to maintain healthy and genetically diverse captive populations of threatened species for potential reintroduction into the wild. Genetic data informs breeding pairings and helps to avoid the loss of valuable genetic variants.

It is crucial to emphasize that genetic preservation techniques are complementary to, and not a replacement for, in-situ habitat conservation and the mitigation of threats in the wild. Preserving genes in a freezer does not save a species from ecological extinction if its habitat is destroyed or the threats that drove its decline persist. However, for hotspot endemics on the brink of disappearing, these techniques can prevent the total loss of their unique genetic heritage and provide options for future recovery efforts, should conditions in the wild improve. They are a critical component of an integrated conservation strategy for the most vulnerable species within biodiversity hotspots. The loss of genes and individuals within a species threatens its long-term survival due to reduced genetic diversity, increased risks from inbreeding when closely related survivors mate, and difficulties in finding mates.⁶⁰

VII. Future Outlook: Projections, Challenges, and Opportunities

The future of Earth's biodiversity hotspots hangs in the balance, contingent on the actions taken—or not taken—in the coming years. Projections based on current trends are largely grim, yet emerging opportunities and a growing global awareness offer pathways for transformative change.

A. Trajectories for Hotspots: Scenarios to 2030 and Beyond

If current trends of habitat loss, overexploitation, pollution, and climate change continue unabated, the projections for biodiversity hotspots are deeply concerning. We can anticipate ⁵:

• Accelerated Species Extinctions: The current rate of species loss, already estimated to be 100 to 10,000 times the background extinction rate ⁶⁰, will likely increase, particularly for endemic species with restricted ranges and specialized needs. Up to one million plant and animal species are already facing extinction due to human activities.⁶⁰
• Continued Habitat Degradation and Fragmentation: Ongoing agricultural expansion, infrastructure development, and urbanization will further shrink and isolate remaining natural habitats, reducing their capacity to support viable populations.
• Ecosystem Tipping Points: Several major ecosystems within or influencing hotspots, such as the Amazon rainforest and coral reefs, are approaching or may cross critical tipping points, leading to abrupt, large-scale, and potentially irreversible changes in their structure and function.⁵ This could result in massive carbon releases from forests or widespread loss of coastal protection from reefs.
• Escalating Climate Change Impacts: As global temperatures rise, the impacts of climate change on hotspots—including more frequent and intense extreme weather events, sea-level rise affecting coastal hotspots, and altered species distributions—will intensify.⁵

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) offers an alternative trajectory. If its targets, particularly those related to 30x30 (Target 3), reducing threats (e.g., Target 7 on pollution, Target 8 on climate change), sustainable use (Target 5, 9, 10), and resource mobilization (Target 18 on harmful subsidies, Target 19 on increasing finance), are effectively implemented, it could "bend the curve" of biodiversity loss.¹¹ However, as highlighted previously, current progress is lagging significantly behind the ambition.

The future trajectory of biodiversity hotspots is therefore at a critical inflection point. A "business-as-usual" scenario leads towards catastrophic and largely irreversible losses, undermining not only biodiversity but also the essential ecosystem services upon which humanity depends. Conversely, concerted, transformative global action, fully aligned with the ambition of international agreements like the KMGBF and the Paris Agreement on climate change, offers a narrow but still existing window to mitigate the worst impacts and set a course towards recovery and resilience. The choices made in this decade will be decisive.

B. Overcoming Systemic Challenges in Global Conservation Efforts

Achieving a positive future for biodiversity hotspots requires confronting and overcoming deeply entrenched systemic challenges that extend beyond the purely technical or scientific aspects of conservation.

• Underfunding and Misaligned Financial Flows: The most significant challenge is arguably financial. Current global investment in biodiversity conservation is vastly insufficient to meet the scale of the crisis. Moreover, these positive investments are dwarfed by "nature-negative" financial flows—nearly $7 trillion per year in public subsidies and private investments that directly or indirectly harm biodiversity, such as subsidies for unsustainable agriculture, fossil fuels, or poorly planned infrastructure.⁸⁴ KMGBF Target 18 calls for identifying and reforming or eliminating harmful incentives, aiming for a reduction of at least $500 billion per year by 2030 ⁸⁴, but progress is slow.
• Lack of Policy Coherence and Mainstreaming: Biodiversity conservation is often treated as an isolated environmental issue rather than a fundamental component of sustainable development. There is a critical need to integrate biodiversity considerations across all sectors of government and economy, including agriculture, fisheries, forestry, energy, infrastructure, finance, and trade.⁷⁸ Without such policy coherence, conservation gains in one area can be easily undermined by destructive activities promoted by other sectors.
• Governance Deficits: Weak governance, lack of transparency, corruption, and insufficient institutional capacity plague conservation efforts in many hotspot regions. This can manifest as ineffective management of protected areas, failure to enforce environmental laws, inequitable distribution of conservation benefits, and the marginalization of local communities and Indigenous Peoples in decision-making processes.¹¹
• Capacity Gaps: Many developing countries, where a large proportion of hotspots are located, lack the technical, institutional, and human resource capacity to effectively plan, implement, and monitor conservation programs. This is also true for many local civil society organizations and Indigenous groups who are on the front lines of conservation.¹³
• Insufficient Political Will and Slow Implementation of Commitments: Despite numerous international agreements and national commitments, there is often a significant gap between stated intentions and concrete, urgent action on the ground. Political cycles, competing priorities, and powerful vested interests can impede progress.¹²

These systemic challenges—particularly the perverse incentives created by nature-negative finance, the lack of cross-sectoral integration, and persistent governance weaknesses—often pose greater obstacles to hotspot conservation than purely scientific uncertainties or the lack of technical solutions. Overcoming them requires transformative shifts in economic paradigms, political priorities, and societal values, moving towards systems that recognize and reward the conservation and sustainable use of nature.

C. Capitalizing on Emerging Opportunities for Transformative Change

Despite the formidable challenges, several emerging opportunities offer pathways to catalyze transformative change for biodiversity hotspot conservation.

• Increased Global Awareness and Political Momentum: The adoption of the KMGBF and the growing public and scientific understanding of the interconnected biodiversity, climate, and pollution crises have generated increased political attention and momentum for action.⁷⁸
• Growth of Indigenous-Led Conservation and TEK Recognition: There is a powerful and growing movement recognizing the rights, roles, and knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) as highly effective and equitable stewards of biodiversity. Supporting IPLC tenure security, governance systems, and the integration of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) into conservation planning is increasingly seen as a cornerstone of successful conservation.¹³
• Technological Advances: As detailed earlier, rapid advancements in eDNA analysis, remote sensing, artificial intelligence, and other monitoring technologies are providing unprecedented tools for understanding biodiversity, tracking threats, and targeting interventions more effectively and efficiently.¹⁷
• Innovative Finance Mechanisms: While challenges exist, there is significant innovation in conservation finance. Scaled-up and well-designed debt-for-nature swaps, blended finance models that leverage private capital, payments for ecosystem services, and markets for biodiversity-positive carbon credits hold potential to mobilize new resources, provided they incorporate strong environmental and social safeguards.¹⁶
• Nature-Based Solutions (NbS): The concept of NbS—actions that protect, manage, and restore ecosystems to address societal challenges like climate change, disaster risk reduction, and food/water security while benefiting biodiversity—is gaining traction. NbS offer "win-win-win" opportunities, aligning conservation with development and climate agendas.⁹⁵
• Corporate Sustainability and Accountability Movement: While still insufficient, there is growing pressure on and interest from the corporate sector to understand and mitigate their impacts on biodiversity, manage nature-related risks in their value chains, and invest in nature-positive outcomes.⁷⁰ Frameworks for corporate biodiversity reporting and accountability are developing.

A confluence of these factors—heightened global concern, the ascendancy of rights-based and locally-led conservation approaches, powerful new technological tools, evolving financial instruments, and the integrative power of concepts like NbS—presents a unique window of opportunity. Strategically harnessing and scaling these emerging opportunities can help to shift the current trajectory for biodiversity hotspots towards one of recovery and long-term resilience.

VIII. Recommendations: An Action Agenda for Stakeholders

The conservation of global biodiversity hotspots requires a concerted and collaborative effort from a wide range of stakeholders. Based on the findings of this assessment, the following recommendations are proposed:

A. For International Bodies (e.g., CBD Secretariat, UNEP, IPBES, IUCN) and National Governments:

1. Accelerate and Strengthen KMGBF Implementation: National governments must urgently finalize and implement ambitious, adequately resourced National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) that explicitly prioritize the conservation of biodiversity hotspots and Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) within their jurisdictions. International bodies should provide technical support, facilitate knowledge sharing, and strengthen monitoring and review mechanisms to track progress against KMGBF targets. National governments in hotspot countries should elevate hotspot conservation to the highest political level, embedding it within national development planning and ensuring robust cross-sectoral coordination and dedicated budgetary allocations, rather than treating it as a peripheral environmental issue.
2. Scale Up and Strategically Allocate Finance: Developed countries must meet and exceed their commitments to increase international biodiversity finance flows to developing countries, particularly those stewarding hotspots. All governments must actively work to identify, reform, and eliminate or repurpose subsidies and other incentives harmful to biodiversity (KMGBF Target 18).⁸⁴ New and existing financial mechanisms, such as the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF) ⁸⁴, should prioritize funding for hotspot conservation and facilitate direct access for Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and local civil society organizations.
3. Strengthen Governance and Institutional Capacity: Invest in enhancing the management effectiveness of protected areas within hotspots, including adequate staffing, resources, and training. Promote equitable governance models that ensure the full and effective participation of IPLCs and local communities, recognize and secure their land and resource tenure rights, and ensure fair benefit-sharing. Strengthen efforts to combat corruption and improve the enforcement of environmental laws.¹¹
4. Promote Policy Coherence and Mainstreaming: Actively integrate biodiversity conservation and sustainable use objectives into policies and practices across all relevant sectors, including agriculture, fisheries, forestry, infrastructure, energy, mining, finance, and trade, to address the underlying drivers of hotspot degradation.⁷⁸
5. Foster Transboundary Cooperation: Actively support and invest in the establishment and effective management of transboundary conservation initiatives (TBCAs) where hotspots span national borders, facilitating joint planning, resource management, and law enforcement.
6. Invest in Research, Monitoring, and Knowledge Systems: Support targeted research on hotspot ecosystems, including the impacts of synergistic threats, the effectiveness of different conservation interventions, and climate adaptation strategies. Invest in the development and deployment of advanced monitoring technologies (e.g., eDNA, remote sensing, AI) and support initiatives that respectfully integrate Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) with scientific approaches.

B. For Conservation Practitioners and Non-Governmental Organizations (International and Local CSOs):

1. Prioritize Action in KBAs and Enhance Connectivity: Focus conservation efforts on under-protected or inadequately managed KBAs within biodiversity hotspots. Design and implement interventions that enhance ecological connectivity between protected areas and across broader production landscapes to facilitate species movement and climate adaptation.
2. Empower Local Actors and Champion Rights-Based Approaches: Shift towards a model of facilitating and building the capacity of IPLCs and local CSOs to lead and manage conservation efforts. Advocate for and implement rights-based conservation approaches that respect tenure, ensure equitable benefit-sharing, and uphold human rights. Conservation NGOs should increasingly act as enablers and partners rather than sole implementers, fostering long-term local ownership and sustainability.
3. Implement Evidence-Based and Adaptive Interventions: Utilize the best available scientific evidence and TEK to design, implement, monitor, and adapt conservation projects. Promote rigorous impact evaluation to learn from successes and failures.
4. Catalyze and Support Innovative and Equitable Finance: Explore, pilot, and help scale up innovative and equitable financing mechanisms for hotspot conservation, such as community-based carbon projects, PES schemes with strong local benefits, and support for sustainable, nature-positive enterprises led by local communities.
5. Advocacy, Awareness, and Policy Engagement: Advocate for stronger national and international policies that support hotspot conservation. Raise public and political awareness about the critical value of hotspots and the threats they face. Engage constructively with governments and the private sector to promote biodiversity-positive practices.
6. Facilitate Respectful TEK Integration: Work in genuine partnership with IPLCs to understand, document (with their consent and ownership), and appropriately integrate TEK into conservation planning, management, and monitoring processes.

C. For the Scientific and Research Community:

1. Conduct Solution-Oriented and Transdisciplinary Research: Prioritize research that directly informs conservation action and policy in hotspots. This includes studies on the synergistic effects of multiple threats, ecological tipping points, the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of different conservation interventions (including restoration techniques), climate change vulnerability assessments and adaptation strategies tailored to hotspot species and ecosystems, and the socio-economic dimensions of conservation. The urgency of the crisis demands actionable science that addresses "what works, where, how, and why" under rapidly changing conditions.
2. Advance and Apply Biodiversity Monitoring Techniques: Continue to develop, refine, and promote the application of advanced and cost-effective monitoring technologies (e.g., eDNA, remote sensing, AI, acoustic sensors) to provide timely and robust data on species status, habitat change, and threat levels within hotspots. Focus on filling critical data gaps.
3. Support Ethical TEK Collaboration: Engage in ethical and equitable collaborations with IPLCs to respectfully learn from, document (with full ownership by knowledge holders), and integrate TEK into scientific understanding and conservation strategies, recognizing its intrinsic value and practical utility.
4. Refine Economic Valuation and Analysis: Improve methodologies for valuing the full spectrum of ecosystem services provided by biodiversity hotspots and conduct rigorous economic analyses of the drivers of biodiversity loss and the costs/benefits of different conservation and development pathways.
5. Enhance Science Communication and Policy Uptake: Actively translate complex research findings into clear, accessible, and actionable recommendations for policymakers, conservation practitioners, and the public to ensure that scientific knowledge effectively informs decision-making.

D. For Financial Institutions and the Private Sector:

1. Identify, Disclose, and Reduce Negative Impacts: Systematically assess, disclose, and progressively reduce negative impacts on biodiversity hotspots throughout corporate value chains and investment portfolios. Commit to and implement time-bound targets for eliminating deforestation, habitat conversion, and overexploitation linked to operations and sourcing.
2. Scale Up Investment in Nature-Positive Activities: Significantly increase investments in sustainable agriculture, sustainable forestry, renewable energy (sited to avoid or minimize biodiversity impacts), circular economy models, ecotourism, and other businesses and initiatives that directly benefit or are compatible with hotspot conservation.
3. Adopt and Implement Robust Environmental and Social Safeguards: Implement stringent, science-based environmental and social safeguards for all projects and investments that could affect biodiversity hotspots. This should include aiming for "No Net Loss" or preferably "Net Positive Impact" on biodiversity through credible, verifiable, and independently audited actions that prioritize avoidance and minimization of impacts before considering compensation (and critically evaluating the efficacy of any offset mechanisms, given widespread concerns ⁹⁷).
4. Support and Invest in Conservation Finance: Contribute to dedicated conservation finance mechanisms, such as conservation trust funds or impact investment funds focused on biodiversity. Invest in green bonds or other financial instruments that support hotspot conservation, ensuring high standards of environmental integrity and transparency.
5. Promote Transparency and Accountability: Enhance transparency regarding dependencies and impacts on biodiversity. Support the development and adoption of standardized frameworks for corporate biodiversity accounting and reporting. Engage constructively with stakeholders, including CSOs and IPLCs, on biodiversity performance. The private sector must recognize that its long-term viability is intrinsically linked to the health of biodiversity hotspots and move beyond piecemeal CSR projects to fundamentally transform business models towards ecological sustainability.

By embracing these recommendations, all stakeholders can contribute to a future where biodiversity hotspots are not just remnants of a richer past, but thriving, resilient ecosystems that continue to support both unique biodiversity and human well-being for generations to come.

Biodiversity Hotspots: Frequently Asked Questions

Basic Understanding

What makes a region qualify as a biodiversity hotspot?

For a region to be classified as a biodiversity hotspot, it must meet two strict criteria: 1) It must contain at least 1,500 species of vascular plants as endemics (species found nowhere else), representing more than 0.5% of the world's total plant species; and 2) It must have lost at least 70% of its original primary habitat or native vegetation. This combination of exceptional biodiversity and severe threat is what defines these critical regions.

How many biodiversity hotspots are there currently, and can new ones be designated?

There are currently 36 recognized terrestrial biodiversity hotspots. While this number has remained relatively stable since major updates by Conservation International in 2004 and 2011, with the North American Coastal Plain being the most recently added in 2016, the concept continues to evolve. New hotspots can be designated if regions are discovered to meet the criteria, though this process involves extensive scientific assessment and consensus.

Are there marine biodiversity hotspots as well?

Yes, marine biodiversity hotspots exist, though they were defined later and sometimes use different criteria than terrestrial hotspots. Recent research references approximately 43 marine biodiversity hotspots. Marine hotspots are particularly vulnerable to climate change, with research showing they experience significantly higher "climate velocities" (the speed at which climate zones are shifting) than non-hotspot marine areas, making their conservation especially urgent.

Current Threats

How does climate change specifically affect biodiversity hotspots?

Climate change acts as a significant threat multiplier in biodiversity hotspots. It's causing species to shift their geographic ranges, altering the timing of critical life cycle events (phenology), and increasing the frequency of extreme events like droughts and marine heatwaves. Endemic species in hotspots face extinction risks approximately ten times greater with 1.5°C to 3°C of warming compared to non-endemic species. Marine hotspots are particularly vulnerable due to faster warming rates and higher climate velocities.

What's the relationship between international trade and biodiversity loss in hotspots?

Recent research highlights the significant impact of "outsourced deforestation," where consumption patterns in high-income nations drive habitat destruction in biodiversity hotspots. For instance, U.S. consumption significantly impacts wildlife in Central American hotspots, while consumption in China and Japan affects species in Southeast Asian rainforests. This "consumption footprint" is responsible for an estimated 13.3% of global species range loss for forest-dependent vertebrates, with international biodiversity losses caused by developed countries being, on average, 15 times greater than their domestic impacts.

Which hotspots are currently experiencing the most rapid degradation?

Based on recent data (2022-2025), several hotspots are experiencing particularly acute degradation. Bolivia (affecting the Tropical Andes hotspot) saw a 27% increase in primary forest loss in 2023, reaching its highest level on record for the third consecutive year. The Cerrado biome in Brazil experienced a 6% increase in tree cover loss from 2022 to 2023. Sundaland (including Borneo and Sumatra) continues to suffer from high deforestation rates due to palm oil plantations and logging. The Indo-Burma hotspot, with only about 5% of its natural habitat remaining, faces severe threats from illegal wildlife trade and hydropower development.

Conservation Approaches

How effective are protected areas in conserving biodiversity hotspots?

Protected areas are a crucial conservation tool, but their effectiveness varies widely. Only about one-fifth of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) are fully protected, and a third lie entirely outside protected area networks. The quality of protection matters enormously—less than 5% of the world's land protected areas have undergone management effectiveness assessments. Recent successes, like sites added to the IUCN Green List (e.g., Wuyishan National Park in China), demonstrate that when well-managed and adequately resourced, protected areas can effectively conserve biodiversity. Indigenous-managed territories often show equal or better conservation outcomes than conventional protected areas.

What innovative financing mechanisms are emerging for hotspot conservation?

Several innovative financing mechanisms show promise for scaling up biodiversity conservation funding. These include debt-for-nature swaps (with recent examples in Belize, Ecuador, and Gabon), blended finance models that leverage private capital, payments for ecosystem services (PES), biodiversity-positive carbon markets, conservation trust funds, and impact investing in nature-positive enterprises. However, these mechanisms must include strong environmental and social safeguards to be effective and equitable. The finance gap remains enormous—current biodiversity finance ($208 billion annually) is dwarfed by nature-negative financial flows like harmful subsidies ($7 trillion annually).

What role does Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) play in hotspot conservation?

TEK is increasingly recognized as vital for effective hotspot conservation. Developed over generations of interaction with specific environments, TEK offers profound insights into sustainable resource management, species behavior, ecosystem dynamics, and climate adaptation strategies. Lands managed by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) often demonstrate lower deforestation rates and higher biodiversity levels. Successful integration of TEK involves genuine partnerships with IPLCs, secure land and resource rights, equitable benefit-sharing, and appropriate methodologies for braiding traditional knowledge with scientific approaches.

Technology & Science

How are emerging technologies changing biodiversity monitoring in hotspots?

Technological innovations are revolutionizing hotspot monitoring. Environmental DNA (eDNA) allows for non-invasive detection of multiple species from environmental samples like water or soil, enabling cost-effective biodiversity assessments. Advanced remote sensing (satellites, LiDAR, drones) provides near real-time monitoring of habitat change and deforestation. Artificial intelligence and machine learning rapidly analyze vast datasets for species identification from camera traps and acoustic recordings, predictive modeling, and anti-poaching efforts. The convergence of these technologies creates unprecedented opportunities for comprehensive, timely, and potentially more affordable biodiversity monitoring.

Are we still discovering new species in biodiversity hotspots?

Yes, biodiversity hotspots continue to yield remarkable new discoveries. The Indo-Burma hotspot has seen six large mammal species discovered since 1992. Madagascar documented 22 new mammal species and subspecies in the 15 years leading up to 2022. In August 2024, biologists announced a new tarantula species endemic to the Madrean Sky Islands hotspot in Arizona. These ongoing discoveries underscore how much of Earth's biodiversity remains unknown—scientists estimate that as much as 80% of life on Earth has yet to be formally discovered and described. This reality reinforces the critical importance of protecting hotspots before species disappear before they're even known to science.

How successful are ecological restoration efforts in degraded hotspots?

Restoration success varies by ecosystem and approach. A 2021 global review indicated an average success rate of approximately 64% for marine ecosystem restoration projects. Efforts have been particularly successful for saltmarshes, tropical coral reefs, and habitat-forming animal forests. Terrestrial restoration approaches include reforestation, agroforestry, community-based restoration, and assisted natural regeneration. However, challenges remain: restoration is often expensive, difficult to scale, and requires long-term monitoring to ensure ecological functionality. The scale of current restoration efforts (about 4 million hectares of forest under active restoration globally) remains small compared to the extent of degradation and the KMGBF Target 2 goal of having 30% of degraded ecosystems under effective restoration by 2030.

Taking Action

What can individuals do to help protect biodiversity hotspots?

Individuals can take several meaningful actions: 1) Make conscious consumption choices—reduce consumption of commodities linked to deforestation (palm oil, beef, soy), choose products with credible sustainability certifications, and minimize food waste; 2) Create wildlife-friendly spaces by planting native species in gardens and community areas; 3) Participate in citizen science projects like iNaturalist or eBird that contribute to biodiversity monitoring; 4) Support conservation organizations working in hotspots through donations or volunteering; 5) Advocate for stronger biodiversity policies by contacting elected officials; 6) Consider sustainable investment options that don't harm biodiversity; and 7) Learn about and raise awareness of biodiversity hotspots among friends, family, and communities.

How are corporations addressing their impacts on biodiversity hotspots?

Corporate engagement is evolving, though more action is needed. Some companies are making commitments to source commodities (palm oil, soy, timber, beef) from deforestation-free or sustainable sources. Others are investing in Nature-based Solutions projects like reforestation or watershed protection. Frameworks like the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) and Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) are helping businesses assess and disclose their biodiversity impacts and dependencies. However, significant challenges remain, including potential greenwashing and ensuring that commitments translate into tangible, verifiable impacts at a scale commensurate with corporate footprints and dependencies on nature.

What gives scientists hope for the future of biodiversity hotspots?

Despite the daunting challenges, several factors offer hope: 1) Successful conservation case studies show that targeted interventions can achieve meaningful outcomes, such as the Herding for Health program in South Africa's Succulent Karoo; 2) Species recovery stories demonstrate that dedicated conservation can bring species back from the brink of extinction; 3) Growing recognition of Indigenous stewardship effectiveness is leading to more rights-based approaches; 4) Technological innovations are enhancing our ability to monitor and protect biodiversity; 5) Increased global awareness and political momentum following agreements like the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework; and 6) The development of innovative financing mechanisms that, if scaled appropriately, could help close the biodiversity funding gap. These positive trends, if accelerated and amplified, could help turn the tide for biodiversity hotspots.

Works cited

1. Biodiversity Hotspots - Conservation International, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.conservation.org/priorities/biodiversity-hotspots
2. Biodiversity Hotspots - Definition, Criteria, Importance, Examples - Biology Notes Online, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://biologynotesonline.com/biodiversity-hotspots-definition-criteria-importance-examples/
3. Biodiversity Hotspots, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog30/book/export/html/393
4. Biodiversity Hotspots (2016) - UNEP-WCMC Resources, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://resources.unep-wcmc.org/products/124b9a66d1c642b5bc41d1ff703a0d21
5. Living Planet Report 2024 - WWF-UK, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/files/2024-10/living-planet-report-2024.pdf
6. What is biodiversity? | Pages | WWF - World Wildlife Fund, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/what-is-biodiversity
7. Forest Pulse: The Latest on the World's Forests | World Resources Institute Research, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://gfr.wri.org/latest-analysis-deforestation-trends
8. 2024 Forest Declaration Assessment, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://forestdeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2024ForestDeclarationAssessment.pdf
9. Cross-Chapter Paper 1: Biodiversity Hotspots | Climate Change 2022 - IPCC, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/ccp1/
10. Biodiversity hotspots | Request PDF - ResearchGate, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391137973_Biodiversity_hotspots
11. World must act faster to protect 30% of the planet by 2030 - UNEP, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/world-must-act-faster-protect-30-planet-2030
12. 2024 United Nations Biodiversity Conference - Wikipedia, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Nations_Biodiversity_Conference
13. New studies reaffirm Indigenous-led conservation as key in tackling biodiversity and climate crisis - Amazon Frontlines, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://amazonfrontlines.org/chronicles/new-studies-reaffirm-indigenous-led-conservation-as-key-in-tackling-biodiversity-and-climate-crisis/
14. CONSERVATION SOUTH AFRICA IMPACT REPORT 2022-2024, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.conservation.org/docs/default-source/south-africa-documents/csa-impact-fy24-02-05-25.pdf?sfvrsn=39646b7a_8/
15. Payments for Ecosystem Services Financing Nature-Based Solutions | Request PDF, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358210451_Payments_for_Ecosystem_Services_Financing_Nature-Based_Solutions
16. Abstract - T20 Brasil, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.t20brasil.org/media/documentos/arquivos/TF03_ST_03_Mainstreaming_Debt66e19dd537f2d.pdf
17. Environmental DNA and wildlife camera traps uncover complimentary vertebrate visitation patterns at freshwater granite rock-hole - bioRxiv, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.10.31.621266v1.full.pdf
18. Targeted eDNA Metabarcoding Reveals New Populations of a Range‐Limited Stonefly, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11968413/
19. Biodiversity Hotspots - The Red List Project, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.theredlistproject.org/hotspots
20. Biodiversity Hotspots - LabXchange, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.labxchange.org/library/items/lb:LabXchange:acc09d6b:html:1
21. Biodiversity Hotspots | Resource Watch, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://resourcewatch.org/data/explore/Biodiversity-hot-spots-1490086842534
22. Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.cepf.net/
23. Explore the Biodiversity Hotspots | CEPF, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.cepf.net/our-work/biodiversity-hotspots
24. Call for Proposals - Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.cepf.net/sites/default/files/call_for_proposals_-_cerrado_ecosystem_profile_update_2025.pdf
25. Protecting biodiversity by empowering people | CEPF, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.cepf.net/homepage?amp%253Bpage%3D8%26field_document_type_tid%3D2120=&page=167
26. Mediterranean Basin III - Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.cepf.net/our-work/biodiversity-hotspots/mediterranean-basin-iii
27. Cerrado II | CEPF, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.cepf.net/our-work/biodiversity-hotspots/cerrado-ii
28. Editorial: Marine biodiversity hotspots – challenges and resilience - Frontiers, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2024.1338242/full
29. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.iucnredlist.org/
30. Tropical Andes | CEPF, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.cepf.net/our-work/biodiversity-hotspots/tropical-andes
31. PROJECT/PROGRAMME PROPOSAL TO THE ADAPTATION FUND, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.adaptation-fund.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Concept-Note-Single-Country-Proposal__-Adaptation-Fund_Peru-2-with-LOE.pdf
32. www.cepf.net, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.cepf.net/sites/default/files/tropical-andes-ecosystem-profile-2021-english.pdf
33. Tropical Andes 2021 Ecosystem Profile Summary, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.cepf.net/sites/default/files/tropical-andes-2021-ecosystem-profile-summary-english.pdf
34. Tropical Andes - Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.cepf.net/sites/default/files/tropical-andes-2021-ecosystem-profile-for-approval.pdf
35. www.cepf.net, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.cepf.net/sites/default/files/indo-burma_ecosystem_profile_2020_technical_summary_0.pdf
36. Biodiversity Hotspots in India, and Threats to Hotspot in India, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.studyiq.com/articles/biodiversity-hotspots-in-india/
37. Indo-Burma - Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.cepf.net/our-work/biodiversity-hotspots/indo-burma
38. MEDITERRANEAN BASIN BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOT - Doğa Derneği, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://dogadernegi.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/MEDITERRANEAN-BASIN-BIODIVERSITY-HOTSPOT.pdf
39. Mediterranean Basin | CEPF, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.cepf.net/our-work/biodiversity-hotspots/mediterranean-basin
40. Mediterranean Basin - CEPF, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://es.cepf.net/resources/ecosystem-profile-documents/mediterranean-basin-ecosystem-profile-summary-brochure
41. Biodiversity Knowledge and Action | IUCN, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://iucn.org/our-work/region/mediterranean/our-work/biodiversity-knowledge-and-action
42. www.cepf.net, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.cepf.net/sites/default/files/cepf-ecosystem-profile-madio-2022-en-2.pdf
43. Madagascar and the Indian Ocean Islands | CEPF, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.cepf.net/our-work/biodiversity-hotspots/madagascar-and-indian-ocean-islands
44. www.cepf.net, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.cepf.net/sites/default/files/gfwa-long-term-vision-strategy-2022.pdf
45. Guinean Forests of West Africa - Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.cepf.net/our-work/biodiversity-hotspots/guinean-forests-west-africa
46. Guinean forest–savanna mosaic - Wikipedia, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinean_forest%E2%80%93savanna_mosaic
47. Page 201 – EnviroNews – latest environment news, climate change, renewable energy, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.environewsnigeria.com/page/201/?m=trail-fuji-h-RwbMKbSx
48. Sundaland - Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.cepf.net/our-work/biodiversity-hotspots/sundaland
49. (PDF) Optimizing Biodiversity Conservation in Sundaland through Advanced Geospatial Techniques and Remote Sensing Technologies - ResearchGate, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379283239_Optimizing_Biodiversity_Conservation_in_Sundaland_through_Advanced_Geospatial_Techniques_and_Remote_Sensing_Technologies
50. Untitled - BirdLife International, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.birdlife.org/?current_pages=12%2F¤t_news=86%2F&io=foizd
51. UC Berkeley Campus Biodiversity Report, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://sustainability.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/uc_berkeley_biodiversity_report_2023.pdf
52. The California Floristic Province (CFP) in central western North... - ResearchGate, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-California-Floristic-Province-CFP-in-central-western-North-America-showing-urban_fig1_353049233
53. California Floristic Province | CEPF, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.cepf.net/our-work/biodiversity-hotspots/california-floristic-province
54. Acceptability of Using the Natural Heritage Program's Species Ranking System for Determining Ventura County Locally Rare Plant - CNPS Chapters - California Native Plant Society, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://chapters.cnps.org/channelislands/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2022/07/Small-States-Using-NDDB-Ranking-System-Compared-to-Ventura-County.pdf
55. Quantifying and Validating Habitat Connectivity Across Greater Los Angeles - UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.ioes.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/UCLA-IoES-Practicum-City-of-Los-Angeles-TNC-Habitat-Connectivity-Final-Report-2023.pdf
56. Impacts on vegetation and wildlife - OEHHA, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://oehha.ca.gov/media/vegwildlifesection2022.pdf
57. Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on Earth | BioScience, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/51/11/933/227116?trk=public_post_comment-text
58. WWF Living Planet Report 2024: A Planet in Crisis - WWF Arctic, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.arcticwwf.org/newsroom/news/wwf-living-planet-report-2024-a-planet-in-crisis/
59. Global Biodiversity Loss Tied to Outsourced Deforestation: Princeton Study Reveals the Hidden Costs of Consumption - Center for Policy Research on Energy and the Environment, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://cpree.princeton.edu/news/2025/global-biodiversity-loss-tied-outsourced-deforestation-princeton-study-reveals-hidden
60. Biodiversity loss | Causes, Effects, & Facts - Britannica, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/science/biodiversity-loss
61. Predicting near-future deforestation in West African Key Biodiversity Areas to inform conservation urgency | bioRxiv, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.10.07.616969v1.full-text
62. 7 Biodiversity Hotspots Around the World That You Should Know, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/stories/biodiversity-hotspots
63. nature tourism and citizen science alliance | BioScience - Oxford Academic, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biaf003/8003313?searchresult=1
64. Eco-Spatial Modeling of Two Giant Flying Squirrels (Sciuridae: Petaurista): Navigating Climate Resilience and Conservation Roadmap in the Eastern Himalaya and Indo-Burma Biodiversity Hotspots - PMC - PubMed Central, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12028898/
65. World Wildlife Crime Report 2024, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.unodc.org/cofrb/uploads/documents/ECOS/World_Wildlife_Crime_Report_2024.pdf
66. (PDF) Why South-East Asia should be the world's priority for averting imminent species extinctions, and a call to join a developing cross-institutional programme to tackle this urgent issue - ResearchGate, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235248971_Why_South-East_Asia_should_be_the_world's_priority_for_averting_imminent_species_extinctions_and_a_call_to_join_a_developing_cross-institutional_programme_to_tackle_this_urgent_issue
67. 2024-2025 Report of the IUCN Species Survival Commission and Secretariat, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://iucn.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/2024-2025-iucn-ssc-china-species-sg-report_publication_0.pdf
68. Fifth National Climate Assessment 8. Ecosystems, Ecosystem Services, and Biodiversity, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://nca2023.globalchange.gov/chapter/8
69. American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians - Lacounty, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/191896.pdf
70. The Think Wildlife Podcast - YouTube Music, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://music.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxhtcusvnd4PNeHcAVQLHBjx3k2xvZWiH
71. Submission Opposing the Burdekin Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) and Transmission Line Project (500MW/2000MWh), accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.rainforestreserves.org.au/s/Submission-Opposing-the-Burdekin-Battery-Energy-Storage-System-by-Dr-Anne-S-Smith.pdf
72. Ocean Pollution: Key Facts and Trends 2025 Update - GreenMatch, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/ocean-pollution-facts
73. Impacts of plastics on biodiversity and ecosystems - European Environment Information and Observation Network, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-ce/products/plastics-and-biodiversity-impacts-of-plastics-on-biodiversity-and-ecosystems/@@download/file/ETC%20CE%20Plastics%20and%20biodiversity_for%20website.pdf
74. Stuart L. Pimm | Scholars@Duke profile: Publications, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://scholars.duke.edu/person/stuart.pimm/publications
75. land-use land-cover change–emerging infectious disease nexus reconsidered | BioScience, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biaf045/8114226
76. emerging infectious disease nexus reconsidered - Oxford Academic, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article-pdf/doi/10.1093/biosci/biaf045/62936472/biaf045.pdf
77. Climate change and ecosystems: threats, opportunities and solutions | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2019.0104
78. Summary report 16 October – 1 November 2024 - Earth Negotiations Bulletin, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://enb.iisd.org/un-biodiversity-conference-cbd-cop16-summary
79. Summary report 13–29 May 2024 - Earth Negotiations Bulletin, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://enb.iisd.org/cbd-subsidiary-body-scientific-technical-technological-advice-sbstta26-sbi4-summary
80. 2024 United Nations Biodiversity Conference - Wikiwand, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/2024_United_Nations_Biodiversity_Conference
81. (PDF) Key Biodiversity Areas and Important Plant Areas can help build ecologically representative Protected and Conserved Area networks to meet 30-by-30 - ResearchGate, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391081524_Key_Biodiversity_Areas_and_Important_Plant_Areas_can_help_build_ecologically_representative_Protected_and_Conserved_Area_networks_to_meet_30-by-30/download
82. Global prioritization schemes vary in their impact on the placement of protected areas, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387668033_Global_prioritization_schemes_vary_in_their_impact_on_the_placement_of_protected_areas
83. Global prioritization schemes vary in their impact on the placement of protected areas - PMC, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11695003/
84. Exploration of the biodiversity finance landscape - Convention on Biological Diversity, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/8d7f/55df/1d2dbb096d00be743f006a05/rm-ac-2024-01-02-en.pdf
85. IUCN welcomes 12 new sites from Brazil, China, Colombia, France, Saudi Arabia and Zambia to the Green List, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://iucn.org/news/202410/iucn-welcomes-12-new-sites-brazil-china-colombia-france-saudi-arabia-and-zambia-green
86. CEPF Impact Report 2020, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://fr.cepf.net/2020-impact-report
87. The effectiveness of protected areas in biodiversity conservation: The case of Turkey, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340326224_The_effectiveness_of_protected_areas_in_biodiversity_conservation_The_case_of_Turkey
88. Perspectives of successes and challenges in collaborations between non-governmental organization and local government on urban forest management | Request PDF - ResearchGate, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377606242_Perspectives_of_successes_and_challenges_in_collaborations_between_non-governmental_organization_and_local_government_on_urban_forest_management
89. Indigenous Peoples' and Local Communities' Rights in the UN Convention on Biodiversity - Geneva Graduate Institute, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.graduateinstitute.ch/sites/internet/files/2024-01/ARP%20-%20Grusha%20Victor.pdf
90. Reviewing the science on 50years of conservation: Knowledge production biases and lessons for practice - Brendan Coolsaet, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://brendan.coolsaet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Dawson-et-al-2024-Ambio.pdf
91. Business Case, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://iati.fcdo.gov.uk/iati_documents/D0006556.odt
92. REVIEW - Peace Parks Foundation, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.peaceparks.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Peace_Parks_Annual-Review_2023_digital.pdf
93. Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) - UNFCCC, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/nwpstaging/Pages/item.aspx?ListItemId=11735&ListUrl=/sites/NWPStaging/Lists/MainDB
94. report of the global environment facility - to the sixteenth session of the conference of the parties to the united nations convention to combat desertification, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/documents/2024-10/UNCCD_COP16_GEF_report_Council.pdf
95. Using the Red List of Ecosystems and the Nature-based Solutions Global Standard as an integrated process for climate change adaptation in the Andean high mountains - PMC, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11033055/
96. Embedded in Nature: Nature-Related Economic and Financial Risks and Policy Considerations in: Staff Climate Notes Volume 2024 Issue 002 (2024) - IMF eLibrary, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/066/2024/002/article-A001-en.xml
97. Biodiversity Offset Schemes for Indonesia: Pro et Contra - Preprints.org, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.preprints.org/frontend/manuscript/f90b69852c591c2ffe62fde1f979d368/download_pub
98. Nature for Development pdf (13.3 MB), accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2024-10/undp_nature_for_development_v2.pdf
99. Solutions and investments in the water-food-energy-ecosystems nexus - UNECE, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/ECE_MP.WAT_66_new_web_0.pdf
100. Integrating traditional ecological knowledge into a circular economy framework using the example of consumer durable goods for northern rural communities - RSC Publishing Home, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/su/d4su00623b
101. Mid-term Assessment - CEPF Investment in the Indo-Burma Biodiversity Hotspot June 2023, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.cepf.net/resources/investment-analysis/indo-burma-mid-term-assessment-2023
102. ENPV with expected restoration successful rate. - ResearchGate, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/ENPV-with-expected-restoration-successful-rate_tbl2_356531086
103. Economic valuation of aquatic ecosystem services in developing countries - ResearchGate, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240792152_Economic_valuation_of_aquatic_ecosystem_services_in_developing_countries
104. Grassland Ecosystem Services - MDPI, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://mdpi-res.com/bookfiles/book/8668/Grassland_Ecosystem_Services_Research_Advances_and_Future_Directions_for_Sustainability.pdf?v=1743901689
105. Biodiversity hotspot - ScienceDaily, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/biodiversity_hotspot.htm
106. Science of the Half-Earth Project - E.O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://eowilsonfoundation.org/resources/scientific-resources/
107. Biodiversity hotspot assessment in the Altai Mountains transboundary region based on Mammals and Aves | PLOS One, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0314075
108. The United Nations Environment Programme strategy for tackling climate change, biodiversity and nature loss, and pollution and w - Global Seaweed, accessed on May 10, 2025, https://globalseaweed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/freecompress-UNEP-Medium-Term-Strategy-2022-2025.pdf