A multi-taxon analysis of European Red Lists reveals major threats to biodiversity.

Biodiversity loss is a major global challenge and minimizing extinction rates is the goal of several multilateral environmental agreements. Policy decisions require comprehensive, spatially explicit information on species' distributions and threats. We present an analysis of the conservation status of 14,669 European terrestrial, freshwater and marine species (ca. 10% of the continental fauna and flora), including all vertebrates and selected groups of invertebrates and plants. Our results reveal that 19% of European species are threatened with extinction, with higher extinction risks for plants (27%) and invertebrates (24%) compared to vertebrates (18%). These numbers exceed recent IPBES (Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) assumptions of extinction risk. Changes in agricultural practices and associated habitat loss, overharvesting, pollution and development are major threats to biodiversity. Maintaining and restoring sustainable land and water use practices is crucial to minimize future biodiversity declines.

Ongoing declines for the world's amphibians in the face of emerging threats.

Systematic assessments of species extinction risk at regular intervals are necessary for informing conservation action1,2. Ongoing developments in taxonomy, threatening processes and research further underscore the need for reassessment3,4. Here we report the findings of the second Global Amphibian Assessment, evaluating 8,011 species for the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species. We find that amphibians are the most threatened vertebrate class (40.7% of species are globally threatened). The updated Red List Index shows that the status of amphibians is deteriorating globally, particularly for salamanders and in the Neotropics. Disease and habitat loss drove 91% of status deteriorations between 1980 and 2004. Ongoing and projected climate change effects are now of increasing concern, driving 39% of status deteriorations since 2004, followed by habitat loss (37%). Although signs of species recoveries incentivize immediate conservation action, scaled-up investment is urgently needed to reverse the current trends.

Identifying species likely threatened by international trade on the IUCN Red List can inform CITES trade measures.

Overexploitation is a major threat to biodiversity and international trade in many species is regulated through the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). However, there is no established method to systematically determine which species are most at risk from international trade to inform potential trade measures under CITES. Here, we develop a mechanism using the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red List of Threatened Species to identify species that are likely to be threatened by international trade. Of 2,211 such species, CITES includes 59% (1,307 species), leaving two-fifths overlooked and in potential need of international trade regulation. Our results can inform deliberations on potential proposals to revise trade measures for species at CITES Conference of the Parties meetings. We also show that, for taxa with biological resource use documented as a threat, the number of species threatened by local and national use is four times greater than species likely threatened by international trade. To effectively address the overexploitation of species, interventions focused on achieving sustainability in international trade need to be complemented by commensurate measures to ensure that local and national use and trade of wildlife is well-regulated and sustainable.

A global reptile assessment highlights shared conservation needs of tetrapods.

Comprehensive assessments of species' extinction risks have documented the extinction crisis1 and underpinned strategies for reducing those risks2. Global assessments reveal that, among tetrapods, 40.7% of amphibians, 25.4% of mammals and 13.6% of birds are threatened with extinction3. Because global assessments have been lacking, reptiles have been omitted from conservation-prioritization analyses that encompass other tetrapods4-7. Reptiles are unusually diverse in arid regions, suggesting that they may have different conservation needs6. Here we provide a comprehensive extinction-risk assessment of reptiles and show that at least 1,829 out of 10,196 species (21.1%) are threatened-confirming a previous extrapolation8 and representing 15.6 billion years of phylogenetic diversity. Reptiles are threatened by the same major factors that threaten other tetrapods-agriculture, logging, urban development and invasive species-although the threat posed by climate change remains uncertain. Reptiles inhabiting forests, where these threats are strongest, are more threatened than those in arid habitats, contrary to our prediction. Birds, mammals and amphibians are unexpectedly good surrogates for the conservation of reptiles, although threatened reptiles with the smallest ranges tend to be isolated from other threatened tetrapods. Although some reptiles-including most species of crocodiles and turtles-require urgent, targeted action to prevent extinctions, efforts to protect other tetrapods, such as habitat preservation and control of trade and invasive species, will probably also benefit many reptiles.

Prevalence of sustainable and unsustainable use of wild species inferred from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

Unsustainable exploitation of wild species represents a serious threat to biodiversity and to the livelihoods of local communities and Indigenous peoples. However, managed, sustainable use has the potential to forestall extinctions, aid recovery, and meet human needs. We analyzed species-level data for 30,923 species from 13 taxonomic groups on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species to investigate patterns of intentional biological resource use. Forty percent of species (10,098 of 25,009 species from 10 data-sufficient taxonomic groups) were used. The main purposes of use were pets, display animals, horticulture, and human consumption. Intentional use is currently contributing to elevated extinction risk for 28-29% of threatened or near threatened (NT) species (2752-2848 of 9753 species). Intentional use also affected 16% of all species used (1597-1631 of 10,098). However, 72% of used species (7291 of 10,098) were least concern, of which nearly half (3469) also had stable or improving population trends. The remainder were not documented as threatened by biological resource use, including at least 172 threatened or NT species with stable or improving populations. About one-third of species that had use documented as a threat had no targeted species management actions to directly address this threat. To improve use-related red-list data, we suggest small amendments to the relevant classification schemes and required supporting documentation. Our findings on the prevalence of sustainable and unsustainable use, and variation across taxa, can inform international policy making, including the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

Predominio del Uso Sustentable y No Sustentable de Especies Silvestres Inferido a partir de la Lista Roja de Especies Amenazadas de la UICN Resumen La explotación insostenible de especies silvestres representa una verdadera amenaza para la biodiversidad y el sustento de las comunidades locales y los pueblos indígenas. Sin embargo, el uso sostenible gestionado tiene el potencial para prevenir extinciones, auxiliar en la recuperación y satisfacer las necesidades humanas. Analizamos los datos a nivel de especie correspondientes a 30,923 especies de 13 grupos taxonómicos localizados en la Lista Roja de Especies Amenazadas de la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza (UICN) para investigar los patrones del uso intencional de recursos biológicos. Usamos el 40% de las especies analizadas (10,098 de 25,009 especies pertenecientes a diez grupos taxonómicos con suficiente información). Los principales motivos para el uso de vida silvestre fueron como mascotas, animales de exhibición, horticultura y consumo humano. El uso intencional está actualmente contribuyendo a un riesgo elevado de extinción para 28 - 29% de las especies amenazadas o casi amenazadas (NT) (2,752 - 2,848 de 9,753 especies). El uso intencional también afectó al 16% de todas las especies utilizadas (1,597 - 1,631 de 10,098). Sin embargo, el 72% de las especies utilizadas (7,291 de 10, 098) pertenecen a la categoría de preocupación menor, de las cuales casi la mitad (3,469) también contaban con tendencias poblacionales estables o de mejoría. Las especies restantes no estaban documentadas como amenazadas por el uso de recursos biológicos, incluyendo al menos 172 especies amenazadas o NT con poblaciones estables o en aumento. Casi un tercio de las especies que tienen documentado el uso como una amenaza no cuentan con acciones de manejo para abordar directamente esta amenaza. Para mejorar la información de la lista roja relacionada con el uso, sugerimos pequeñas modificaciones a los esquemas relevantes de clasificación y la documentación de apoyo requerida. Nuestros descubrimientos sobre el predominio del uso sustentable y no sustentable, y la variación entre taxones, puede orientar la formulación de políticas internacionales, incluyendo a la Plataforma Intergubernamental de Políticas Científicas sobre Biodiversidad y Servicios Ecosistémicos, el Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica y la Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas.

Overfishing drives over one-third of all sharks and rays toward a global extinction crisis.

The scale and drivers of marine biodiversity loss are being revealed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List assessment process. We present the first global reassessment of 1,199 species in Class Chondrichthyes-sharks, rays, and chimeras. The first global assessment (in 2014) concluded that one-quarter (24%) of species were threatened. Now, 391 (32.6%) species are threatened with extinction. When this percentage of threat is applied to Data Deficient species, more than one-third (37.5%) of chondrichthyans are estimated to be threatened, with much of this change resulting from new information. Three species are Critically Endangered (Possibly Extinct), representing possibly the first global marine fish extinctions due to overfishing. Consequently, the chondrichthyan extinction rate is potentially 25 extinctions per million species years, comparable to that of terrestrial vertebrates. Overfishing is the universal threat affecting all 391 threatened species and is the sole threat for 67.3% of species and interacts with three other threats for the remaining third: loss and degradation of habitat (31.2% of threatened species), climate change (10.2%), and pollution (6.9%). Species are disproportionately threatened in tropical and subtropical coastal waters. Science-based limits on fishing, effective marine protected areas, and approaches that reduce or eliminate fishing mortality are urgently needed to minimize mortality of threatened species and ensure sustainable catch and trade of others. Immediate action is essential to prevent further extinctions and protect the potential for food security and ecosystem functions provided by this iconic lineage of predators.

Using the IUCN Red List to map threats to terrestrial vertebrates at global scale.

The Anthropocene is characterized by unparalleled human impact on other species, potentially ushering in the sixth mass extinction. Yet mitigation efforts remain hampered by limited information on the spatial patterns and intensity of the threats driving global biodiversity loss. Here we use expert-derived information from the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List on threats to 23,271 species, representing all terrestrial amphibians, birds and mammals, to generate global maps of the six major threats to these groups: agriculture, hunting and trapping, logging, pollution, invasive species, and climate change. Our results show that agriculture and logging are pervasive in the tropics and that hunting and trapping is the most geographically widespread threat to mammals and birds. Additionally, current representations of human pressure underestimate the overall pressure on biodiversity, due to the exclusion of threats such as hunting and climate change. Alarmingly, this is particularly the case in areas of the highest biodiversity importance.

Testing a global standard for quantifying species recovery and assessing conservation impact.

Recognizing the imperative to evaluate species recovery and conservation impact, in 2012 the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) called for development of a "Green List of Species" (now the IUCN Green Status of Species). A draft Green Status framework for assessing species' progress toward recovery, published in 2018, proposed 2 separate but interlinked components: a standardized method (i.e., measurement against benchmarks of species' viability, functionality, and preimpact distribution) to determine current species recovery status (herein species recovery score) and application of that method to estimate past and potential future impacts of conservation based on 4 metrics (conservation legacy, conservation dependence, conservation gain, and recovery potential). We tested the framework with 181 species representing diverse taxa, life histories, biomes, and IUCN Red List categories (extinction risk). Based on the observed distribution of species' recovery scores, we propose the following species recovery categories: fully recovered, slightly depleted, moderately depleted, largely depleted, critically depleted, extinct in the wild, and indeterminate. Fifty-nine percent of tested species were considered largely or critically depleted. Although there was a negative relationship between extinction risk and species recovery score, variation was considerable. Some species in lower risk categories were assessed as farther from recovery than those at higher risk. This emphasizes that species recovery is conceptually different from extinction risk and reinforces the utility of the IUCN Green Status of Species to more fully understand species conservation status. Although extinction risk did not predict conservation legacy, conservation dependence, or conservation gain, it was positively correlated with recovery potential. Only 1.7% of tested species were categorized as zero across all 4 of these conservation impact metrics, indicating that conservation has, or will, play a role in improving or maintaining species status for the vast majority of these species. Based on our results, we devised an updated assessment framework that introduces the option of using a dynamic baseline to assess future impacts of conservation over the short term to avoid misleading results which were generated in a small number of cases, and redefines short term as 10 years to better align with conservation planning. These changes are reflected in the IUCN Green Status of Species Standard.

RESUMEN: Reconociendo que era imperativo evaluar la recuperación de especies y el impacto de la conservación, la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza (UICN) convocó en 2012 al desarrollo de una "Lista Verde de Especies" (ahora el Estatus Verde de las Especies de la UICN). Un marco de referencia preliminar de una Lista Verde de Especies para evaluar el progreso de las especies hacia la recuperación, publicado en 2018, proponía 2 componentes separados pero interconectados: un método estandarizado (i.e., medición en relación con puntos de referencia de la viabilidad de especies, funcionalidad y distribución antes del impacto) para determinar el estatus de recuperación actual (puntuación de recuperación de la especie) y la aplicación de ese método para estimar impactos en el pasado y potenciales de conservación basados en 4 medidas (legado de conservación, dependencia de conservación, ganancia de conservación y potencial de recuperación). Probamos el marco de referencia con 181 especies representantes de diversos taxa, historias de vida, biomas, y categorías (riesgo de extinción) en la Lista Roja de la IUCN. Con base en la distribución observada de la puntuación de recuperación de las especies, proponemos las siguientes categorías de recuperación de la especie: totalmente recuperada, ligeramente mermada, moderadamente mermada, mayormente mermada, gravemente mermada, extinta en estado silvestre, e inderterminada. Cincuenta y nueve por ciento de las especies se consideraron mayormente o gravemente mermada. Aunque hubo una relación negativa entre el riesgo de extinción y la puntuación de recuperación de la especie, la variación fue considerable. Algunas especies en las categorías de riesgo bajas fueron evaluadas como más lejos de recuperarse que aquellas con alto riesgo. Esto enfatiza que la recuperación de especies es diferente conceptualmente al riesgo de extinción y refuerza la utilidad del Estado Verde de las Especies de la UICN para comprender integralmente el estatus de conservación de especies. Aunque el riesgo de extinción no predijo el legado de conservación, la dependencia de conservación o la ganancia de conservación, se correlacionó positivamente con la potencial de recuperación. Solo 1.7% de las especies probadas fue categorizado como cero en los 4 indicadores de impacto de la conservación, lo que indica que la conservación ha jugado, o jugará, un papel en la mejoría o mantenimiento del estatus de la especie la gran mayoría de ellas. Con base en nuestros resultados, diseñamos una versión actualizada del marco de referencia para la evaluación que introduce la opción de utilizar una línea de base dinámica para evaluar los impactos futuros de la conservación en el corto plazo y redefine corto plazo como 10 años.

A framework for evaluating the impact of the IUCN Red List of threatened species.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species, a species extinction risk assessment tool, has been guiding conservation efforts for over 5 decades. It is widely assumed to have been instrumental in preventing species from moving closer to extinction and driving recoveries. However, the impact of the IUCN Red List in guiding conservation has not been evaluated. We conducted, transcribed, and coded interviews with experts who use the IUCN Red List across a range of sectors to understand how the list is used in conservation. We developed a theory of change to illustrate how and why change is expected to occur along causal pathways contributing to the long-term goal of the IUCN Red List and an evaluation framework with indicators for measuring the impact of the IUCN Red List in generating scientific knowledge, raising awareness among stakeholders, designating priority conservation sites, allocating funding and resources, influencing development of legislation and policy, and guiding targeted conservation action (key themes). Red-list assessments were the primary input leading to outputs (scientific knowledge, raised awareness), outcomes (better informed priority setting, access to funding and resource availability, improved legislation and policy), and impact (implemented conservation action leading to positive change) that have resulted in achievement of IUCN Red List goals. To explore feasibility of attributing the difference made by the IUCN Red List across themes, we studied increased scientific knowledge, raised awareness, access to funding and resource allocation, and increased conservation activity. The feasibility exploration showed increased scientific knowledge over time identified through positive trends in publications referring to the IUCN Red List in the literature; raised awareness of the list following high IUCN activity identified by peaks in online search activity; an increased proportion of conservation funding bodies requesting IUCN Red List status in the application process; and, based on interviews with Amphibian Specialist Group members, red-list assessments were essential in connecting relevant stakeholders and ensuring conservation action. Although we identified the IUCN Red List as a vital tool in global conservation efforts, it was challenging to measure specific impacts because of its ubiquitous nature. We are the first to identify the influence of the IUCN Red List on conservation.

Un Marco de Referencia para la Evaluación del Impacto de la Lista Roja de Especies Amenazadas de la UICN Resumen La Lista Roja de Especies Amenazadas de la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza (UICN), una herramienta para la valoración del riesgo de extinción de las especies ha guiado los esfuerzos de conservación durante más de cinco décadas. A partir de esto, se ha asumido como generalidad que la lista ha sido determinante para prevenir que las especies se acerquen más a la extinción y para impulsar la recuperación de especies. Sin embargo, todavía no se ha evaluado el impacto que la Lista Roja de la UICN ha tenido en las directrices de la conservación. Realizamos, transcribimos y codificamos entrevistas con expertos que usan la Lista Roja de la UICN en una gama de sectores para así entender cómo se usa la lista para la conservación. Desarrollamos una teoría de cambio para ilustrar cómo y por qué se espera que ocurra un cambio en Atorno a las vías causales que contribuyen al objetivo de largo plazo que tiene la Lista Roja de la UICN. También formulamos un marco de trabajo con los indicadores necesarios para evaluar el impacto que tiene la Lista Roja de la UICN en la generación de conocimiento científico, la creación de conciencia entre los actores sociales, la designación de sitios prioritarios para la conservación, la asignación de fondos y recursos, la influencia sobre el desarrollo de la legislación y de las políticas, y la orientación de acciones de conservación enfocadas (temas clave). Las evaluaciones de la lista roja fueron los aportadores principales que derivaron en resultados (conocimiento científico, creación de conciencia), consecuencias (establecimiento de prioridades mejor informadas, acceso a financiamiento y disponibilidad de recursos, mejorías en la legislación y en la política) e impactos (acciones implementadas de conservación que derivaron en cambios positivos) que han resultado en la obtención de objetivos de la Lista Roja de la UICN. Para explorar la viabilidad de la atribución de la diferencia que genera la Lista Roja de la UICN en todos los temas clave estudiamos el incremento en el conocimiento científico, la conciencia generada, el acceso a financiamientos y la asignación de recursos, y el crecimiento en las acciones de conservación. Esta exploración de la viabilidad mostró un incremento con el tiempo del conocimiento científico, identificado por medio de tendencias positivas en las publicaciones de la literatura referidas a la Lista Roja de la UICN. También mostró una mayor conciencia por la lista tras una alta actividad de la UICN, la cual identificamos por medio de picos en la actividad de búsqueda en línea. Finalmente, la exploración arrojó una proporción crecida de organizaciones de financiamiento para la conservación que solicitaron el estado de la especie en la Lista Roja de la UICN durante el proceso de aplicación y, con base en entrevistas realizadas a miembros del Grupo Especialista en Anfibios, que las valoraciones de la lista roja fueron esenciales para conectar entre sí a los actores relevantes y para asegurar las acciones de conservación. Aunque identificamos que la Lista Roja de la UICN es una herramienta vital para los esfuerzos mundiales de conservación, fue todo un reto medir los impactos específicos debido a su naturaleza ubicua. Somos los primeros en identificar la influencia que tiene la Lista Roja de la UICN sobre la conservación.

Using historical and palaeoecological data to inform ambitious species recovery targets.

Historical data are a valuable resource for addressing present-day conservation issues, for example by informing the establishment of appropriate recovery targets. However, while the recovery of threatened species is the end goal of many conservation programmes, data made available through the efforts of palaeoecologists and historical ecologists are rarely consulted. The proposal of a 'Green List of Species' by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) will soon change this. The Green List of Species measures recovery against historical baselines; in particular, the method requires estimates of species range and abundance in previous centuries. In this paper, we present the case for why setting species recovery against a historical baseline is necessary to produce ambitious conservation targets, and we highlight examples from palaeoecology and historical ecology where fossil and archival data have been used to establish historical species baselines. Finally, we introduce Conservation Archive (https://conservationarchive.shinyapps.io/ConservationArchive/), a database of resources that can be used to infer baseline species conditions, and invite contributions to this database. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'The past is a foreign country: how much can the fossil record actually inform conservation?'

Measuring Terrestrial Area of Habitat (AOH) and Its Utility for the IUCN Red List.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species includes assessment of extinction risk for 98 512 species, plus documentation of their range, habitat, elevation, and other factors. These range, habitat and elevation data can be matched with terrestrial land cover and elevation datasets to map the species' area of habitat (AOH; also known as extent of suitable habitat; ESH). This differs from the two spatial metrics used for assessing extinction risk in the IUCN Red List criteria: extent of occurrence (EOO) and area of occupancy (AOO). AOH can guide conservation, for example, through targeting areas for field surveys, assessing proportions of species' habitat within protected areas, and monitoring habitat loss and fragmentation. We recommend that IUCN Red List assessments document AOH wherever practical.

Quantifying species recovery and conservation success to develop an IUCN Green List of Species.

Stopping declines in biodiversity is critically important, but it is only a first step toward achieving more ambitious conservation goals. The absence of an objective and practical definition of species recovery that is applicable across taxonomic groups leads to inconsistent targets in recovery plans and frustrates reporting and maximization of conservation impact. We devised a framework for comprehensively assessing species recovery and conservation success. We propose a definition of a fully recovered species that emphasizes viability, ecological functionality, and representation; and use counterfactual approaches to quantify degree of recovery. This allowed us to calculate a set of 4 conservation metrics that demonstrate impacts of conservation efforts to date (conservation legacy); identify dependence of a species on conservation actions (conservation dependence); quantify expected gains resulting from conservation action in the medium term (conservation gain); and specify requirements to achieve maximum plausible recovery over the long term (recovery potential). These metrics can incentivize the establishment and achievement of ambitious conservation targets. We illustrate their use by applying the framework to a vertebrate, an invertebrate, and a woody and an herbaceous plant. Our approach is a preliminary framework for an International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Green List of Species, which was mandated by a resolution of IUCN members in 2012. Although there are several challenges in applying our proposed framework to a wide range of species, we believe its further development, implementation, and integration with the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species will help catalyze a positive and ambitious vision for conservation that will drive sustained conservation action.

Assessing the Cost of Global Biodiversity and Conservation Knowledge.

Knowledge products comprise assessments of authoritative information supported by standards, governance, quality control, data, tools, and capacity building mechanisms. Considerable resources are dedicated to developing and maintaining knowledge products for biodiversity conservation, and they are widely used to inform policy and advise decision makers and practitioners. However, the financial cost of delivering this information is largely undocumented. We evaluated the costs and funding sources for developing and maintaining four global biodiversity and conservation knowledge products: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems, Protected Planet, and the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas. These are secondary data sets, built on primary data collected by extensive networks of expert contributors worldwide. We estimate that US$160 million (range: US$116-204 million), plus 293 person-years of volunteer time (range: 278-308 person-years) valued at US$ 14 million (range US$12-16 million), were invested in these four knowledge products between 1979 and 2013. More than half of this financing was provided through philanthropy, and nearly three-quarters was spent on personnel costs. The estimated annual cost of maintaining data and platforms for three of these knowledge products (excluding the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems for which annual costs were not possible to estimate for 2013) is US$6.5 million in total (range: US$6.2-6.7 million). We estimated that an additional US$114 million will be needed to reach pre-defined baselines of data coverage for all the four knowledge products, and that once achieved, annual maintenance costs will be approximately US$12 million. These costs are much lower than those to maintain many other, similarly important, global knowledge products. Ensuring that biodiversity and conservation knowledge products are sufficiently up to date, comprehensive and accurate is fundamental to inform decision-making for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Thus, the development and implementation of plans for sustainable long-term financing for them is critical.

Clarifying misconceptions of extinction risk assessment with the IUCN Red List.

The identification of species at risk of extinction is a central goal of conservation. As the use of data compiled for IUCN Red List assessments expands, a number of misconceptions regarding the purpose, application and use of the IUCN Red List categories and criteria have arisen. We outline five such classes of misconception; the most consequential drive proposals for adapted versions of the criteria, rendering assessments among species incomparable. A key challenge for the future will be to recognize the point where understanding has developed so markedly that it is time for the next generation of the Red List criteria. We do not believe we are there yet but, recognizing the need for scrutiny and continued development of Red Listing, conclude by suggesting areas where additional research could be valuable in improving the understanding of extinction risk among species.

Analysing biodiversity and conservation knowledge products to support regional environmental assessments.

Two processes for regional environmental assessment are currently underway: the Global Environment Outlook (GEO) and Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Both face constraints of data, time, capacity, and resources. To support these assessments, we disaggregate three global knowledge products according to their regions and subregions. These products are: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Key Biodiversity Areas (specifically Important Bird &Biodiversity Areas [IBAs], and Alliance for Zero Extinction [AZE] sites), and Protected Planet. We present fourteen Data citations: numbers of species occurring and percentages threatened; numbers of endemics and percentages threatened; downscaled Red List Indices for mammals, birds, and amphibians; numbers, mean sizes, and percentage coverages of IBAs and AZE sites; percentage coverage of land and sea by protected areas; and trends in percentages of IBAs and AZE sites wholly covered by protected areas. These data will inform the regional/subregional assessment chapters on the status of biodiversity, drivers of its decline, and institutional responses, and greatly facilitate comparability and consistency between the different regional/subregional assessments.