Public policies and the conservation of threatened endemic flora: the case of Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) in the post-ECO-92 era

Políticas públicas e a conservação da flora endêmica ameaçada: o caso do Rio de Janeiro (Brasil) na era pós-ECO-92

Abstract

Biodiversity loss remains one of the most pressing challenges of the 21^st century and underscores the importance of global initiatives implemented in Brazil within the framework of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Situated within the Atlantic Forest, one of the world’s most threatened biodiversity hotspots, the state of Rio de Janeiro harbors high levels of plant diversity and endemism under intense anthropogenic pressure, making it a critical case for evaluating conservation policies. This study examines national and regional efforts to conserve over 500 threatened endemic plant species in Rio de Janeiro, focusing on the role and effectiveness of key public policy instruments. Programs implemented through PRONABIO, PROBIO, and FUNBIO have enabled important advances, supporting initiatives such as the National Forest Inventory, the Protected Areas of the State of Rio de Janeiro project, and the Keeping an Eye on the Green Project. These efforts culminated in the National Action Plan for the Conservation of Endemic Flora Threatened with Extinction in Rio de Janeiro. More recent initiatives, including the Rio de Janeiro State Biodiversity Portal and the Subnational Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (EPAEB-RJ), have sought to improve data availability and transparency. However, these advances remain uneven and often limited in continuity and scale. The analysis reveals significant asymmetries in the effectiveness of these instruments. While they have contributed to building a robust scientific and institutional foundation, their long-term effectiveness is constrained by discontinuities in funding, irregular data updating, and limited integration between scientific knowledge production and regulatory frameworks. In particular, gaps between updated scientific data and their incorporation into official instruments compromise the accuracy and effectiveness of conservation planning. These findings indicate that the main barriers to effective flora conservation are not related to a lack of scientific knowledge, but to institutional constraints affecting governance, data integration, policy implementation, continuity of financial support, and the accessibility of updated data. In this context, the experience of Rio de Janeiro highlights both the potential and the limitations of decentralized and multisectoral strategies, providing a contextual basis for discussing governance challenges relevant to conservation of threatened endemic flora in other biodiversity-rich regions.

Keywords
Atlantic forest; Biodiversity conservation; Environmental policy analysis; Hotspot; Tropical forests

Graphical abstract

Resumo

A perda de biodiversidade permanece um dos desafios mais urgentes do século XXI e ressalta a importância de iniciativas globais implementadas no Brasil no âmbito da Convenção sobre Diversidade Biológica (CDB) de 1992. Situado na Mata Atlântica, um dos hotspots de biodiversidade mais ameaçados do mundo, o estado do Rio de Janeiro abriga altos níveis de diversidade vegetal e endemismo sob intensa pressão antrópica, tornando-se um caso crítico para a avaliação de políticas de conservação. Este estudo examina os esforços nacionais e regionais para a conservação de mais de 500 espécies vegetais endêmicas ameaçadas no Rio de Janeiro, com foco no papel e na eficácia de instrumentos-chave de políticas públicas. Programas implementados por meio do PRONABIO, PROBIO e FUNBIO possibilitaram avanços importantes, apoiando iniciativas como o Inventário Florestal Nacional, o projeto Áreas Protegidas do Estado do Rio de Janeiro e o projeto Um Olhar para o Verde. Esses esforços culminaram no Plano Nacional de Ação para a Conservação da Flora Endêmica Ameaçada de Extinção no Rio de Janeiro. Iniciativas mais recentes, como o Portal da Biodiversidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro e o Plano de Ação e Estratégia Subnacional para a Biodiversidade (EPAEB-RJ), têm buscado aprimorar a disponibilidade e a transparência dos dados. Contudo, esses avanços permanecem desiguais e frequentemente limitados em continuidade e escala. A análise revela assimetrias significativas na eficácia desses instrumentos. Embora tenham contribuído para a construção de uma base científica e institucional robusta, sua eficácia a longo prazo é condicionada por descontinuidades no financiamento, atualização irregular de dados e integração limitada entre a produção de conhecimento científico e os marcos regulatórios. Em particular, as lacunas entre os dados científicos atualizados e sua incorporação em instrumentos oficiais comprometem a precisão e a eficácia do planejamento da conservação. Esses achados indicam que as principais barreiras para a conservação efetiva da flora não estão relacionadas à falta de conhecimento científico, mas a restrições institucionais que afetam a governança, a integração de dados, a implementação de políticas, a continuidade do apoio financeiro e a acessibilidade a dados atualizados. Nesse contexto, a experiência do Rio de Janeiro destaca tanto o potencial quanto as limitações de estratégias descentralizadas e multissetoriais, fornecendo uma base contextualizada para discutir desafios de governança relevantes para a conservação da flora endêmica ameaçada em outras regiões ricas em biodiversidade.

Palavras-chave
Análise de política ambiental; Conservação da biodiversidade; Florestas tropicais; Mata atlântica; Hotspot

Introduction

The rapid loss of biodiversity, driven by anthropogenic factors such as habitat destruction and the overexploitation of natural resources, poses a serious threat to both the environment and human well-being (Singh et al., 2021; Caro et al., 2022; Jaureguiberry et al., 2022). Although widely recognized as a major challenge of the 21st century (Shivanna, 2020; Kattel, 2022), global efforts and discussions to address environmental issues have gained international attention since the late 20th century (Aronson et al., 2020).

Environmental conservation emerged as a prominent global concern at the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm, Sweden. Despite limited understanding of the consequences of ecosystem degradation and resistance from world leaders due to Cold War tensions, participating countries adopted the “Stockholm Declaration and Action Plan for the Human Environment” (Pereira, 2011 Handl, 2012), which outlined 26 principles to guide global environmental efforts. Widely regarded as the starting point for international environmental policy, this event also led to the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), established to promote ongoing dialogue on environmental issues across all sectors of society (PNUMA, 2024).

Twenty years later, the first United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Earth Summit, ECO-92, or Rio-92, was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. During the event, numerous world leaders signed the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), a landmark agreement aimed at conserving biodiversity, promoting the sustainable use of its components, and ensuring the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of genetic resources. The CBD also established the Conference of the Parties (COP), which convenes signatory countries periodically to assess progress and define policies, strategies, and priorities aligned with the Convention’s objectives (CDB, 1992).

In 2002, the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP-6) adopted the First Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, aiming to reduce biodiversity loss at global, regional, and national levels through targets set for the 2002–2010 period (CBD, 2002). In 2010, at COP-10, the Second Strategic Plan was introduced, incorporating the Aichi Biodiversity Targets for 2011–2020. This framework defined 20 global targets to safeguard biodiversity, with stronger emphasis on preventing species extinction (CBD, 2011). Most recently, at COP-15, nations adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, setting 23 new targets to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 (CBD, 2022).

Recognizing the vital role of plants in global biodiversity, the CBD launched the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) in 2002 to halt the global loss of plant diversity. The 2010 review established 14 targets to be achieved by 2020, including policies promoting the sustainable use of plants for human well-being. The main goal, however, was not met. Due to the ongoing loss of plant diversity, which compromises ecosystems and species dependent on plants, including humans, a new review of the strategy is underway (Sharrock, 2012).

As a signatory to the CBD and GSPC, Brazil hosts exceptional plant diversity (around 20% of the world’s flora), with over 50,000 species of plants, algae, and fungi (BFG, 2021; Gallagher et al., 2023). This biodiversity is distributed across six major biomes: Amazon, Caatinga, Cerrado, Atlantic Forest, Pampa, and Pantanal, threatened by ecosystem degradation and fragmentation driven by overexploitation of natural resources.

Among these biomes, such pressures have historically been most intense in the Atlantic Forest. Since the colonial period in the late sixteenth century, this biome has concentrated the highest population densities in the country (Ribeiro et al., 2009) and currently supports approximately 70% of Brazil’s population (Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica & INPE, 2021). Originally extending across parts of South America, including Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay, the Atlantic Forest is now highly fragmented. In Brazil, only about 22% of its original cover remains, of which 7% is well preserved and 15% is undergoing regeneration. Most of these remnants lack formal protection, as they fall outside designated protected areas (Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica & INPE, 2021).

In Brazil, the term “Atlantic Forest” encompasses around ten phytophysiognomies: Dense Ombrophilous Forest, Open Ombrophilous Forest, Mixed Ombrophilous Forest (Araucaria Forest), Seasonal Semideciduous Forest, Deciduous Seasonal Forest, mangroves, restinga, high-altitude grasslands, inland swamps, and forest enclaves in the Northeast. The legal inclusion of these formations and their variations aim to ensure their protection under current legislation, which prohibits the cutting, exploitation, or removal of primary vegetation or areas in advanced and intermediate stages of regeneration (Brasil, 2006).

Rio de Janeiro illustrates the Atlantic Forest’s fragmentation: once fully covered by the biome, today only 21% of its original vegetation remains, mostly due to human activity since the late 16th century (Ribeiro et al., 2009; Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica & INPE, 2021). Located in Southeast Brazil, the state includes nearly all Atlantic Forest phytophysiognomies, from sea level to mountainous massifs, and high-altitude grasslands over 2,700 m. Its diverse ecosystems, shaped by altitude, climate, soil, and hydrological influences, make it a key center of plant diversity and endemism (Bohrer et al., 2009; De Souza et al., 2011; BFG, 2015; Martinelli et al., 2018). Though covering just 3.4% of Brazil’s territory (43,750 km²), the state hosts around 25% of the country’s plant species and 2.5% of its endemics, ranking fifth in botanical diversity nationwide (Pougy et al., 2018; BFG, 2015; Martinelli & Moraes, 2013; Flora e Funga do Brasil, 2024a).

Currently, the state of Rio de Janeiro harbors approximately 12,765 described plant species, including 1,057 endemics (Flora e Funga do Brasil, 2024a), representing one of the highest levels of endemism in the country (BFG, 2015). Although these numbers are continually updated through ongoing studies (BFG, 2015; Martinelli et al., 2018), the high rates of endemism, alongside those recorded across the Atlantic Forest, were key factors in classifying this domain as both a biodiversity hotspot and dark spot (Myers, 2000; Ondo et al., 2024). Thus, the region is considered a top priority for biodiversity conservation, both nationally (Mittermeier et al., 2004; Brasil, 2007) and globally (Mittermeier et al., 2011; Marques & Grelle, 2021) (Figure 1).

Figure 1
Specimens of the threatened endemic flora of the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

In this context, it is essential to critically examine the main actions and public policies developed and/or implemented in the State of Rio de Janeiro for the conservation of its threatened endemic flora, taking the commitments established under the CBD during ECO-92 as a regulatory framework. This study therefore examines the historical evolution of these policies by considering their institutional design, implementation, outcomes, and structural constraints. This perspective provides a basis for critically evaluating the achievements, limitations, and persistent challenges of threatened endemic flora conservation governance in the state.

Material and Methods

This study was conducted as a thematic review based on qualitative documentary analysis of public policies for the conservation of threatened endemic flora in the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. In accordance with the review typology described by Grant and Booth (2009), the study adopted a thematic review approach centered on the critical synthesis of documentary evidence concerning the historical development, implementation, and effectiveness of biodiversity conservation policies, rather than on a systematic review of scientific literature.

The review covered public policies and conservation instruments established from the adoption of the Convention on Biological Diversity at ECO-92 (1992) through December 2024. Documentary sources were obtained from official repositories of governmental and institutional organizations involved in biodiversity conservation, including the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (in Portuguese, MMA), the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (in Portuguese, ICMBio), the Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden Research Institute Conservation (in Portuguese, JBRJ), the National Center for Flora Conservation (in Portuguese, CNCFlora), the Rio de Janeiro State Secretariat for the Environment and Sustainability (in Portuguese, SEAS), the Rio de Janeiro State Environment Institute (in Portuguese, INEA), the SOS Mata Atlântica Foundation and the Carlos Chagas Filho Foundation for Research Support of the State of Rio de Janeiro (in Portuguese, FAPERJ). The documents analyzed included legislation, governmental programs, official conservation plans, biodiversity information systems, institutional initiatives, and technical reports addressing biodiversity conservation policies affecting threatened endemic plant species. Documents unrelated to plant conservation or lacking direct relevance to biodiversity governance were excluded from the analysis. Scientific publications were selected based on their relevance to the historical development, implementation, evaluation, or governance of conservation policies affecting threatened endemic flora in Rio de Janeiro and Brazil.

Following document selection, the materials were examined through qualitative documentary analysis based on the approach described by Bowen (2009), which is widely used for the systematic interpretation of institutional documents and public policies. To ensure analytical consistency, policy instruments were comparatively examined according to four complementary analytical dimensions: (i) institutional design, (ii) implementation mechanisms, (iii) measurable outcomes, and (iv) structural bottlenecks. These dimensions provided the analytical framework for comparing successive policy instruments, identifying recurring institutional patterns, and evaluating their contributions to biodiversity conservation in Rio de Janeiro.

Results and Discussion

1. Key national policies for the conservation of threatened endemic flora in Brazil

From an institutional design perspective, the establishment of the National Program on Biological Diversity (in Portuguese, PRONABIO) marked a major milestone in Brazil’s institutional response to the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Brazil was the first country to sign the CBD in 1992 and ratified it in 1994, subsequently establishing national policy instruments to translate its commitments under the Convention into concrete conservation actions. Among these, PRONABIO, coordinated by the MMA, became an important framework for organizing and supporting biodiversity conservation initiatives. Its implementation was supported by national and international resources, including contributions from the Brazilian government, the private sector, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), with support from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (Brasil, 1994).

The PRONABIO promoted partnerships between government and civil society for biodiversity conservation, sustainable use of its components, and fair benefit-sharing. It expanded collaboration and led to the creation of the Brazilian Biodiversity Fund (in Portuguese, FUNBIO) in 1995 (FUNBIO, 2022) and the Project for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Brazilian Biological Diversity (in Portuguese, PROBIO) in 1996 (Brasil, 2002c).

Concluded in 2005, PROBIO led a broad and pioneering consultation process that enabled the development of regional strategies to identify priority areas for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use across Brazil’s major ecosystems and supported the formulation of the National Biodiversity Policy (Brasil, 2002a). FUNBIO, on the other hand, was created to engage the private sector and financially supported by the GEF, to assist Brazil in implementing the CBD. It became the country’s main funding mechanism for biodiversity conservation projects and the first to extensively integrate private sector participation (Brasil, 1998). It remains active, financing diverse conservation initiatives and advancing its mission.

From the perspective of implementation mechanisms, one major outcome of both PROBIO and FUNBIO was consolidating the National Biodiversity Policy, fostering government–civil society partnerships guided by the CBD’s principles of conservation, sustainable use, and equitable benefit sharing (Brasil, 2002b). This policy promotes the conservation of threatened, endemic, or data-deficient species and strengthens ex situ conservation as an important complementary strategy to protect endangered species and those with economic potential (Brasil, 2002b).

To better align implementation and strengthen the National Biodiversity Policy, PRONABIO was revised in 2003, leading to Brazil’s National Biodiversity Commission (in Portuguese, CONABIO) (Brasil, 2003). As a deliberative body of government and civil society representatives, CONABIO coordinates, monitors, and evaluates PRONABIO’s actions, playing a key role in national biodiversity policy and Brazil’s CBD compliance. This restructuring was based on PROBIO studies (1998–2000), which identified 900 priority conservation areas and highlighted the need for ecosystem restoration and protection of species threatened by overexploitation or extinction (Brasil, 2004; MMA, 2018a). Although reduced to an advisory role in 2020 (Brazil, 2020), CONABIO was reinstated in 2024, with balanced governance ensuring equal government and civil society representation (Brasil, 2024).

Among the key biodiversity initiatives in Brazil over the past 30 years are the National Environmental Fund (in Portuguese, FNMA), the National Environment Program (in Portuguese, PNMA), and the Pilot Program for the Protection of Brazilian Tropical Forests (in Portuguese, PPG-7) (Brasil, 1998). Furthermore, in 2014, the National Program for the Conservation of Threatened Species (Pro-Species Program) was launched to prevent extinction and promote the conservation, management, and governance of native species at risk (MMA, 2014a). Pro-Species is now considered one of the most significant conservation initiatives in the country and a model for tropical regions. It aligns with CBD and GSPC goals and informs public policy, mainly through the National Action Plans for the Conservation of Endangered Species (in Portuguese, PAN).

The Pro-Species Program, established by MMA Ordinance (Ministerial Order) No. 43/2014, standardized extinction risk assessments in Brazil by adopting the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Criteria and Categories System v. 16, and legally defined “species threatened with extinction” (IUCN, 2024; Moraes et al., 2014). Previously, official national and state Red Lists used varying methodologies.

The Ministerial Order is operationalized through three main instruments: (i) the National Official Red Lists of Threatened Species, (ii) PAN, and (iii) National Databases and Information Systems. Responsibility for flora assessments was assigned to the JBRJ, and for fauna, to the ICMBio. In 2008, the CNCFlora was created within JBRJ to implement the order’s instruments and map priority areas (MMA, 2014a). Since then, CNCFlora has led key assessments, including the 2013 Red Book of the Flora of Brazil, which lists 2,113 threatened plant species (Martinelli & Moraes, 2013) and was officially recognized by Ordinance No. 443/2014 (MMA, 2014b), and advancing GSPC Target 2 (Dias & Hoft, 2013). Later works include the Red Book: Rare Plants of the Cerrado (2014), Endemic Flora of Rio de Janeiro (2018), and the 2022 list of species threatened with extinction in Brazil (Ordinance No. 148/2022), which recognizes 3,209 threatened plant species (MMA, 2022). Beyond compiling extinction risk assessments, the Red Books represent a major institutional milestone by providing a scientifically robust reference for conservation prioritization and governmental decision-making.

Since 2014, the Pro-Species Program has been supported through the project “National Strategy for the Conservation of Endangered Species – GEF Pro-Species: Everyone Against Extinction,” coordinated by the MMA in partnership with GEF, FUNBIO, World Wide Fund for Nature – Brazil (in Portuguese, WWF-Brazil), ICMBio, JBRJ, and the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (in Portuguese, IBAMA). The GEF Pro-Species also partners with State Environmental Agencies and operates in 12 states, in addition to Rio de Janeiro, covering over nine million hectares (Pró-Espécies, 2023; MMA, 2014). This strategy emphasizes integration between federal and state governments to implement conservation policies, mitigate threats, and improve the status of approximately 290 Critically Endangered species currently lacking specific conservation measures (CR-Gap). To this end, the Pro-Species Program supports PANs and develops National Territorial Action Plans (PATs) as essential planning instruments (Pró-Espécies, 2023). In Rio de Janeiro, these efforts are particularly relevant given the state’s high number of threatened endemic species and the need to integrate national conservation strategies with state-level actions.

2. Key conservation policies for threatened endemic flora in the state of Rio de Janeiro

Rio de Janeiro has historically been at the forefront of forest conservation. In 1817, King Dom João VI ordered protection of riparian forests along the Carioca River, banning vegetation overexploitation near its springs to secure the city’s water supply. Protective Forests became official state policy. In 1833, a decree protected forests in the Serra Velha, Boa Esperança, and Bacurubu watersheds (now part of Reserva Biológica do Tinguá) (Ritta, 2009; Leitão et al., 2022). In 1861, Emperor Dom Pedro II initiated reforestation and conservation in the Tijuca and Paineiras Forests (now Parque Nacional da Tijuca) (Sales & Guedes-Bruni, 2024). In 1885, protection extended to Ilha Grande’s southeastern slope, now within Parque Estadual da Ilha Grande (Santiago et al., 2009).

In the 20^th century, inspired by the model of Yellowstone National Park (USA), Brazil created its first legally protected areas: Parque Nacional do Itatiaia (1937, Decree No. 1,713) and Parque Nacional da Serra dos Órgãos (1939, Decree No. 1,822). These milestones preceded the creation of the Brazilian System of Conservation Units (in Portuguese, SNUC), formalized only in 2000 (Law No. 9,985). At the state level, Rio de Janeiro created its first protected area in 1969 with the establishment of Parque Estadual da Chacrinha (SFB, 2018).

In 2012, the Brazilian government introduced general vegetation protection rules, including the designation of Permanent Preservation Areas, Legal Reserve Areas, and the National Forest Inventory (in Portuguese, IFN) (Brasil, 2012). Rio de Janeiro was the first state to implement the IFN (2013–2016), coordinated by the Brazilian Forest Service (in Portuguese, SFB) and the State Secretariat for Environment and Sustainability (in Portuguese, SEAS-RJ) (SFB, 2018). Using field data, the IFN assessed ecosystem conditions and recorded over 1,700 plant species, more than 100 of which are threatened, including new occurrences (SFB, 2018). The results highlighted Rio de Janeiro’s botanical richness and the urgency of protective policies to conserve it.

Public records indicate that the first initiative to guide conservation policy for Rio de Janeiro’s threatened endemic flora was the 2015–2018 project “Protected Areas of the State of Rio de Janeiro: analyses and strategies for the conservation of threatened endemic flora” (CNCFlora, 2015). Supported by FUNBIO and conducted by SEAS-RJ and CNCFlora, the project aligned with the goals of the CBD, GSPC, and Aichi Targets. It assessed the effectiveness and coverage of Protected Areas across the state through fieldwork, herbarium analyses, and threat assessments, leading to the development of an official list of threatened endemic plant species, the identification of priority areas for conservation, and the implementation of public policies and concrete conservation actions. A major outcome was the “National Action Plan for the Conservation of Endemic Flora Threatened with Extinction in Rio de Janeiro” (in Portuguese, PAN Flora Endêmica RJ) (Figure 2A-B) (Loyola et al., 2018; Pougy et al., 2018). From the perspective of implementation mechanisms, this initiative illustrates the transition from biodiversity assessment to coordinated conservation planning by integrating scientific research, extinction risk assessment, spatial prioritization and public policy development within a single institutional framework.

Figure 2
Timeline and Institutional framework of major biodiversity conservation policies and initiatives relevant to threatened endemic flora in the State of Rio de Janeiro (1992–2024), Brazil. (A) Timeline of key policies and initiatives. (B) Institutional relationships among conservation instruments and their contribution to conservation outcomes.

Studies conducted between 2014 and 2015 identified illegal deforestation in the Atlantic Forest as the main threat to Rio de Janeiro’s endemic flora, with the state showing the highest deforestation rates nationwide (SOS Mata Atlântica, 2016). In response, the state government and Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (in Portuguese, UFRJ) launched the Keeping an Eye on the Green Project (in Portuguese, Projeto Olho no Verde) in 2016 to monitor forest cover and promote local conservation efforts. The ongoing program uses satellite data to detect changes and prevent environmental violations, especially in areas with threatened endemic species (Rio de Janeiro, 2023). These proactive actions by SEAS-RJ have been crucial to preventing species loss and preserving unique plant communities.

Despite these advances, only a limited number of Brazilian states, such as Rio de Janeiro, have implemented specific and continuous programs for monitoring biome degradation, a strategic mechanism for assessing conservation effectiveness over time. Among these initiatives, São Paulo stands out with the Environmental Monitoring by Satellite Images Program (in Portuguese, Monitoramento Ambiental por Imagens de Satélites), established in 2018, and Santa Catarina with the Deforestation Monitoring and Alert System (in Portuguese, Sistema de Monitoramento e Alertas de Desmatamento), created in 2021 (SEMIL, n.d.; IMA, 2022). These instruments enhance the capacity of public authorities by enabling the rapid detection of changes in vegetation cover and more effective responses to environmental violations. Recent evidence suggests that the adoption of such systems can contribute to reducing deforestation rates, as observed in Santa Catarina, which showed a marked decline of 86% between 2022 and 2023 (IMA, 2025).

Among the most important measurable outcomes of these initiatives, the Red Book of Endemic Flora of Rio de Janeiro, published in 2018, evaluated over 880 endemic species, classifying them as threatened with extinction (58%), lacking sufficient data to assess extinction risk (41%), or not threatened (1%) (Martinelli et al., 2018). These data have played a significant role in guiding and prioritizing in situ and ex situ conservation strategies for these taxa, promoted across sectors of society.

Also launched in 2018, the Wanted Campaign (in Portuguese, Campanha Procura-se) was developed in response to extinction risk assessments conducted by CNCFlora. The campaign aimed to gather information on 436 threatened endemic species in the state, leading to 46 rediscoveries. Target species were selected based on three criteria: having only one or two herbarium records, no recent collections (for at least 30 years), and classification as Data Deficient (DD) for risk assessment purposes (Rosa et al., 2018).

Another important initiative was the recognition of the “Official List of Threatened Endemic Plant Species of Rio de Janeiro” (in Portuguese, Lista Oficial de Espécies Endêmicas Ameaçadas de Extinção da Flora do estado do Rio de Janeiro), approved by the State Council for Environment (in Portuguese, CONEMA). This list provided clear guidelines for the collection, transport, processing, storage, and management of listed species for scientific use. It notably permits the sustainable use of Vulnerable (VU) species, supporting research and their potential inclusion in forest restoration, urban green spaces, and afforestation projects (CONEMA, 2018).

A recurring pattern across instruments is the mismatch between scientific knowledge production and its incorporation into regulatory frameworks, particularly evident in the case of the Red Book and the Official List. These instruments remain outdated relative to the most recent scientific data and have not been systematically updated within current assessment frameworks. As a result, discrepancies emerge between formal policy instruments and current scientific knowledge, including revisions in species’ geographic distribution, changes in threat status, and the exclusion of newly described taxa that have not yet been evaluated. Such inconsistencies undermine the accuracy and effectiveness of state-level conservation planning. These findings indicate that current limitations are less related to the availability of scientific knowledge and more to institutional constraints affecting data integration, governance coordination, and policy implementation.

A similar situation has been observed in other state red lists. In Paraná, although it was a pioneer, having published the first official list in 1995, the most recent update was limited to nomenclatural adjustments in 2020 (Rauber et al., 2026). In other states, such as Minas Gerais (published in 1997), Pará (published in 2007), Rio Grande do Sul (published in 2002; updated in 2014), Santa Catarina (published in 2014), São Paulo (published in 2004; updated in 2016), Bahia (published in 2017), and Espírito Santo (published in 2005; updated in 2022), these lists have likewise not been systematically revised, highlighting a persistent gap in their updating at the state level.

A representative example is Chionanthus fluminensis (Miers) P.S.Green (Oleaceae), previously classified as Critically Endangered (CR) and considered endemic to Rio de Janeiro. Based on newly available data, its conservation status has recently been revised to Endangered (EN) (Martinelli et al., 2018), and its known geographic distribution has been expanded to include the state of São Paulo (Flora e Funga do Brasil, 2024b). Similarly, recently described endemic species, such as Begonia pedrabrancesis E.L.Jacques (Jacques, 2024), have not yet been assessed for extinction risk and therefore remain absent from official decision-making instruments, despite their potential conservation relevance.

Although information on the flora of Rio de Janeiro and associated extinction risk is continuously updated in the Flora e Funga do Brasil database, a national platform built through collaboration among universities, research institutes, and environmental agencies, its broad national scope does not substitute for official state-level species lists. The absence of systematic mechanisms to integrate updated data from national databases into state instruments limits the visibility of threatened endemic flora in Rio de Janeiro and constrains the timely implementation of targeted conservation actions (Flora e Funga do Brasil, 2024a).

This gap highlights the need for a regular, transparent, and responsive cycle for the revision and dissemination of the Red Book and the Official List, which could help reduce discrepancies between advances in scientific knowledge and the formal conservation instruments derived from them. Such a mechanism could combine periodic comprehensive revisions with interim updates triggered by substantive changes in taxonomic knowledge, threat assessments, or the description of newly recognized species. Strengthening interoperability with national biodiversity databases, together with broad and timely dissemination of updates and their regulatory implications, could further improve the alignment between scientific evidence and public policy. In turn, this would enhance the capacity of conservation instruments to respond to emerging evidence and strengthen the effectiveness of flora conservation strategies in the state.

Another significant initiative to raise awareness about the state’s endemic flora, particularly extremely rare and/or little-known species, was the 2018 Guide to the Endemic Flora of the State of Rio de Janeiro (in Portuguese, Guia Procura-se: Flora Endêmica do Estado do Rio de Janeiro), part of the Wanted Campaign (in Portuguese, Campanha Procura-se), featuring over 150 target species (Rosa et al., 2018). Independently of the campaign, the rediscovery of Pleroma hirsutissimum (Cogn.) P.J.F.Guim. & Michelang. in 2021 represented a major scientific achievement, as the species had not been collected for nearly four decades (Silva-Batista & Gutiérrez, 2021a; Silva-Batista et al. 2026). Despite its scientific relevance, the guide itself was limited by its small print run, insufficient dissemination, and reliance on herbarium images, which may have restricted its reach among broader audiences. These limitations could be addressed through botanical illustrations or AI-generated reconstructions, together with broader dissemination. The guide also mentions the still-unreleased “Botanical Detective” app (in Portuguese, Detetive Botânico).

The Project “Protected Areas of the State of Rio de Janeiro: analyses and strategies for the conservation of threatened endemic flora” also led to the publication of the “Inventory of the Flora in State Protected Areas” (in Portuguese, Lista da Flora das Unidades de Conservação Estaduais) in 2015, which compiles all plant species recorded within Rio de Janeiro’s state-level Protected Areas (PA) (Maurenza et al., 2018). This list has become an important tool for managing the state’s flora, particularly threatened endemic species, as it provides each species’ scientific names, threat categories, and records of the presence of plant species within state PA until October 2017. Updates are currently carried out independently within each PA, driven by isolated initiatives from various sectors of society.

Between 2015 and 2018, another document was developed to guide public policies and conservation research: the book Priority Areas for the Conservation of Endemic Flora in the State of Rio de Janeiro (in Portuguese, Áreas Prioritárias para a Conservação da Flora Endêmica do Estado do Rio de Janeiro) (Loyola et al., 2018). The analyses revealed that agriculture and livestock farming, which occupies 60% of the territory, are the leading causes of degradation and threat to biodiversity in the state. The study also found that species classified as Critically Endangered (CR) and Endangered (EN) are primarily concentrated in the central and southwestern regions of Rio de Janeiro. Additionally, it emphasized the need for further research to address significant knowledge gaps, especially in areas outside Protected Areas, demonstrating how scientific information can be translated into spatial planning tools capable of supporting based conservation policies.

Despite their technical robustness and applicability to restoration initiatives, these instruments have not yet been formally incorporated into the regulatory framework governing forest restoration at the state-level. Although Rio de Janeiro has established the “State System for Monitoring and Evaluation of Forest Restoration” (in Portuguese, SEMAR), which provides general guidance for the planning, implementation, and monitoring of restoration projects, no state resolution or normative act explicitly mandates or recommends the use of these lists as official references for species selection in forest restoration programs. This regulatory gap limits the practical application of available scientific knowledge into public policy and allows discretionary or inconsistent criteria to prevail in restoration programs, particularly regarding the choice of native species and the management of invasive alien plants.

In this context, the formal recognition of these lists as guiding instruments for state forest restoration programs could strengthen their practical application. Such recognition could support the prioritization of native species included in the official lists in projects financed, licensed, or implemented by the state, while also providing clearer criteria for the gradual replacement of invasive alien species with ecologically suitable native alternatives. Existing public nurseries and forest seed banks managed by the INEA (INEA, n.d.), could provide infrastructure for implementing these approaches in collaboration with protected area administrations and with the technical support of environmental agencies, particularly in regions with limited logistical capacity.

In parallel, the list of native plant species proposed as alternatives to invasive alien plants represents a strategic tool for biodiversity management in the state (CNCFlora, 2018). Although a preliminary Reference List of Invasive Alien Species of the State of Rio de Janeiro was prepared in 2009 by researchers from the Rio de Janeiro State University (UERJ) (Bergallo et al., 2021) and subsequently revised starting in 2021 (Silva-Batista & Gutiérrez, 2021b). However, this list has not yet been formally institutionalized through a state-level legal instrument, unlike in other Brazilian states.

Currently, states such as Bahia, the Federal District, Paraná, Pernambuco, Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, and São Paulo have officially adopted state-level lists of invasive alien species. Paraná stands out as a pioneer, having published the first official state list in the country in 2007, followed by São Paulo (2009), Santa Catarina (2012), Rio Grande do Sul (2013), the Federal District (2018), Pernambuco (2022), and Bahia (2023) (Dechoum et al., 2024). The official recognition of this list would support evidence-based prevention, control, and early detection of invasive alien species, while strengthening coherence between state restoration policies, national guidelines (CONABIO, 2018; ICMBio, 2019), and international biodiversity commitments, including the Aichi Targets and the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (MMA, 2018b), which emphasize invasive alien species management as a global priority.

The foregoing actions and documents laid the groundwork for the development of the “National Action Plan for the Conservation of the Endangered Flora of the Rio de Janeiro State” (in Portuguese, PAN Flora Endêmica RJ), launched in 2018. This plan was developed and implemented through the collaboration of various sectors of society (Martinelli et al., 2018). Its overarching goal is to improve the conservation status of Rio de Janeiro’s endemic flora through 46 actions, organized into four thematic objectives and distributed across 16 cross-cutting and 30 region-specific actions covering nine hydrographic regions in the state (Pougy et al., 2018).

The National Action Plan (in Portuguese, PAN) coordinators and collaborators include professionals from diverse public and private institutions involved in the conservation of endangered endemic plant species. Among its numerous cross-cutting actions, two are particularly noteworthy: (i) the execution of scientific expeditions for botanical collection, seed tree marking, and documentation of endangered and Data Deficient (DD) species, extending beyond the ecological remnants of Protected Areas; and (ii) the development of technical research on germination, propagation, and ex situ conservation of endangered endemic species, aiming to establish cultivation protocols to be implemented in public nurseries (Pougy et al., 2018).

The actions proposed by the PAN Flora Endêmica RJ have helped integrate and strengthen various ongoing conservation projects across Rio de Janeiro. Some results have been published on the Pro-Species website in 2020 and 2021, allowing public access to the initiative’s progress. Highlights include: (i) the incorporation of priority conservation areas into the Keeping an Eye on the Green Project (Silva-Batista & Loureiro, 2021); (ii) field expeditions to verify records of endangered endemic species, associated with seedling production in state-run nurseries (Silva-Batista & Gutiérrez, 2021c); (iii) the revision of the Reference List of Invasive Alien Species in the State of Rio de Janeiro and the mapping of these species’ distribution (Silva-Batista & Gutiérrez, 2021b); and (iv) training of public servants through the Invasive Alien Species Management Course in state Protected Areas (Silva-Batista & Gutiérrez, 2021b).

Despite its solid structure, there is little official data available on the implementation of the PAN, which constrains the full assessment of the progress in its 46 proposed actions. Since 2021, no updated information has been released, even though the plan was scheduled to conclude in June 2024 (JBRJ, 2024). As a result, it is not possible to evaluate key performance indicators, such as variation in the number of threatened or endemic species, changes in extinction risk categories, hectares effectively restored, improvements in landscape connectivity, records of rediscovered or newly described taxa, or the practical uptake of official species lists in restoration programs.

Similar limitations in reporting and transparency have been documented in other National Action Plans for Brazilian flora, including the National Action Plan for the Conservation of Cacti (2010–2015) and the National Action Plan for the Conservation of Sempre-Vivas (2012–2017) (ICMBio, n.d.). Ongoing PAN, such as the National Action Plan for the Conservation of Threatened Tree Species of Southern Bahia (2023–2028) and the National Action Plan for the Conservation of Threatened Flora of the Upper Tocantins Basin (2023–2028), likewise lack systematic public reports (ICMBio, n.d.), preventing comparative or longitudinal evaluations.

Among the PAN analyzed, the National Action Plan for the Conservation of Lacustrine and Lagoon Systems of Southern Brazil (2018–2023) stands out among the initiatives analyzed as the only one that made planning, monitoring, and evaluation matrices publicly available (ICMBio, n.d.). Nevertheless, these documents provide limited quantitative analysis and do not report consolidated outcomes metrics, such as the challenges encountered during implementation, ecological gains, restored areas, or measurable reductions in threats, thereby constraining broader evaluation and the replications to future initiatives.

The absence of consolidated outcome metrics in the PAN Flora Endêmica RJ and other PANs limits their capacity to inform assessments of conservation effectiveness and facilitate comparisons across initiatives. In this context, relevant indicators for assessing PAN performance could include measurable changes in species conservation status, records of newly described species, rediscoveries, or new occurrences, spatial indicators of restoration or protection (e.g., hectares under restoration or newly established protected areas), and regulatory or policy outcomes, such as updated threatened species lists or formal incentives for the use of native species in restoration programs. The systematic reporting of such indicators could strengthen the evaluation of conservation effectiveness, facilitate comparisons across PANs, and support the development of subsequent conservation strategies. This contrasts with other national and state-level policies, such as the National Action Plan for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Mangroves (2015–2020), for which the public dissemination of outcomes and lessons learned supported the formulation of the National Program for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Mangroves, established in 2024 by Federal Decree (Decree No. 12,045 of June 5, 2024).

At the end of 2024, during the 16th Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (COP16), the government of the State of Rio de Janeiro launched the Biodiversity Portal of the State of Rio de Janeiro (in Portuguese, Portal da Biodiversidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro) and foundational document of “The Sub National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan – Rio de Janeiro” (in Portuguese, EPAEB-RJ). The EPAEB-RJ outlines strategic guidelines and targets to halt biodiversity loss in the state by 2030, in alignment with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The Biodiversity Portal was conceived as the primary platform for disseminating updated technical and scientific data on biodiversity conservation policies and actions in the state (INEA, n.d.).

Despite this important institutional advance, persistent structural bottlenecks remain. The public availability of technical reports and datasets remains incomplete, outdated, unavailable, and discontinuous. This interruption undermines the evaluation of policy effectiveness, limits transparency, and weakens accountability, as progress toward established targets cannot be independently or consistently assessed over time.

The effectiveness of state biodiversity portals and institutional platforms as policy evaluation instruments depends not only on their existence, but on regular disclosure of standardized and up-to-date monitoring data, supported by clearly defined institutional responsibilities. In this context, the Biodiversity Portal and EPAEB-RJ provide institutional mechanisms that could support greater continuity in biodiversity data. Systematic publication of PAN monitoring summaries and related datasets through the state portal, coordinated by the responsible environmental agencies and formally linked to the EPAEB-RJ implementation framework, could further strengthen this function. Similarly, the adoption of explicit update schedules, such as annual or biennial reporting, could enhance transparency and enable more consistent evaluation of conservation outcomes. Although these policies represent an important institutional advance, their long-term effectiveness will ultimately depend on sustained financial support, interinstitutional coordination, and periodic evaluation of conservation outcomes.

Another structural constraint affecting the effectiveness of flora conservation in the state of Rio de Janeiro is the strong reliance on episodic funding mechanisms, predominantly based on competitive project calls. Although initiatives supported by institutions such as the FUNBIO and the Carlos Chagas Filho Foundation for Research Support of the State of Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) have enabled significant advances, this funding model inherently favours short-term projects with limited timeframes (FUNBIO, 2022).

Specifically, regarding FAPERJ, a review of funding programs and calls issued between 2002 and 2026 reveals the limited recurrence of structured initiatives directly focused on biodiversity. During this period, only three non-continuous programs were identified: the Support for the Study of Biodiversity in the State of Rio de Janeiro (Biota-RJ), with calls in 2010, 2012, and 2014; the Support for Biodiversity Conservation: Biological Collections of the State of Rio de Janeiro (COLBIO), with editions in 2020 and 2021; and the Biodiversa+ program (2023–2024). The sporadic nature of these initiatives underscores the lack of a continuous and structured funding framework for biodiversity conservation in the state (FAPERJ, 2026).

As a result, the continuity of conservation actions, the maintenance of long-term monitoring programs, and the accumulation of institutional learning are systematically weakened, particularly for policies that require consistent time series and periodic evaluations.

The absence of a stable and dedicated budget for flora conservation further exacerbates these limitations by increasing vulnerability to political and economic fluctuations. This instability directly affects the sustainability of monitoring efforts, the maintenance of technical teams, and the regular updating of biodiversity data and threat assessments. In contrast, stable financing mechanisms offer greater predictability, support continuous institutional capacity, and enable the systematic evaluation of long-term outcomes. International experience consistently highlights that the combination of permanent funding structures and continuous monitoring frameworks is a critical determinant of effective biodiversity conservation policies (OECD, 2019).

Notably, Rio de Janeiro is currently the only Brazilian state with a dedicated funding mechanism for the Atlantic Forest, the Atlantic Forest Fund (FMA-RJ). This fund operates as a key financial instrument for biodiversity conservation, primarily supported by environmental compensation mechanisms established under federal legislation. Under this framework, enterprises responsible for significant environmental impacts are required to finance the implementation and maintenance of state-level protected areas (FUNBIO, n.d.).

Despite its potential, the fund has important limitations in its funding scope, as it primarily supports the creation and maintenance of protected areas while lacking systematic investment in scientific research and biodiversity monitoring within these areas. This gap may hinder the generation of essential knowledge needed to assess the effectiveness of conservation actions and to support evidence-based decision-making.

Estimates suggest that biome-scale environmental compensation mechanisms could mobilize resources on the order of billions of dollars, underscoring their strategic and economic relevance (de Lima, 2020). However, the extent to which this potential can be translated into sustained conservation outcomes depends on the articulation of national and state policies capable of integrating permanent funding mechanisms, research support, and long-term monitoring programs. Such integration could strengthen the effectiveness of conservation actions. Although these arrangements depend on complex political processes, they are important for sustaining long-term conservation in the Atlantic Forest, a globally recognized biodiversity hotspot.

Although the initiatives described were developed within distinct historical and institutional contexts, their comparative analysis reveals consistent patterns in the evolution of biodiversity conservation policies in Rio de Janeiro (Table 1). Together, these initiatives demonstrate a progressive transition from broad national strategies toward increasingly specialized and regionally adapted conservation instruments. Early programs, including PRONABIO, PROBIO, and FUNBIO, established the legal, financial, and institutional foundations upon which more targeted initiatives were subsequently developed, culminating in state-level instruments such as the Red Book of the Endemic Flora of Rio de Janeiro, the PAN Flora Endêmica RJ, the Rio de Janeiro State Biodiversity Portal and the EPAEB-RJ. This institutional evolution reflects the gradual incorporation of scientific knowledge into public decision-making and the increasing diversification of conservation strategies (Figure 2A).

Table 1
Comparative framework of the main public policy instruments for flora conservation in the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Policy instrument/tool	Stated goals	Available indicators	Documented outcomes	Bottlenecks/implementation risks
PRONABIO	Implement commitments established under the CBD and to develop a national biodiversity policy	National guidelines; Priority areas; Supported projects	Establishment of the institutional framework for national biodiversity policy; Prioritization of conservation areas; Guidance for subsequent programs	Dependence on external funding and limited institutionalization; Irregular data updates
PROBIO	Produce scientific data to support conservation policies	Biological inventories; Priority maps; Technical reports	Generation of strategic biodiversity data, supporting planning and strengthening the science–policy interface	Project-based data production, with weak integration into regulatory instruments and irregular updates
FUNBIO	Financial support to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use actions	Funded projects; Financial volume; Territorial coverage	Consolidation as Brazil’s main biodiversity financing mechanism, supporting national and subnational initiatives	Episodic funding and reliance on competitive calls, limiting continuity and long-term monitoring
National Forest Inventory (IFN–RJ)	Generate standardized data on forest structure, composition, and biodiversity	Sampled plots; Recorded species; Threatened taxa	Documentation of over 1,700 plant species, including new records and identification of knowledge gaps	Low temporal resolution and limited integration into state-level conservation planning
Olho no Verde Project	Monitor vegetation cover and prevent illegal deforestation	Monitored area; Alerts issued; Enforcement actions	Enhanced detection of illegal deforestation; Incorporation of priority areas for threatened endemic flora	Emphasis on land-cover change rather than species-level outcomes; Limited public reporting of long-term effectiveness
PAN Flora Endêmica RJ	Reduce extinction risk of endemic flora through coordinated actions	Planned actions; Participating institutions; Documented activities	Scientific expeditions, seed collection, ex situ research and integration with remote sensing monitoring.	Lack of publicly available monitoring data after 2021; Absence of consolidated outcome indicators
Red Book and Official List of Rio de Janeiro	Assess extinction risk to guide conservation and restoration efforts	Assessed species; Threat categories	Assessment of more than 880 species; Legal recognition of threatened taxa; Definition of conservation priorities	Outdated official lists, with unassessed newly described species and no formal update cycle
Restoration and invasive alien species lists of Rio de Janeiro	Guide restoration programs and invasive alien species control	Technical species lists; records of native species and seed source trees.	Identification of native species suitable for restoration and alternatives to invasive taxa	Absence of binding state regulations and weak institutional enforcement

These initiatives should not be interpreted as isolated actions, but rather as complementary components of a broader conservation framework (Figure 2B). Biodiversity inventories, extinction risk assessments, protected areas, monitoring programs, ex situ conservation, biodiversity information systems, and environmental education have progressively become interconnected instruments supporting conservation planning and policy implementation. Collectively, these policies have generated important scientific advances, including comprehensive biodiversity inventories, official red lists, conservation action plans, spatial databases, and priority-area assessments, substantially expanding the knowledge available for threatened endemic flora and strengthening evidence-based conservation planning.

Despite these advances, there are persistent asymmetries in policy effectiveness (Table 1). Although several initiatives have successfully strengthened institutional capacity and scientific knowledge, measurable ecological outcomes remain less well documented than institutional achievements. Long-term reductions in extinction risk, population recovery, and other indicators of conservation effectiveness are still insufficiently monitored. Moreover, recurrent limitations, including discontinuities in public funding, delays in updating official conservation instruments, fragmentation among biodiversity databases, limited integration between scientific information and governmental decision-making, and insufficient long-term monitoring, continue to constrain the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation policies.

Overall, the main challenges for the conservation of plant biodiversity in Rio de Janeiro no longer lie primarily in the production of scientific knowledge, but in ensuring the institutional continuity, financial stability, and governance capacity required to translate this knowledge into sustained conservation outcomes. Rather than depending on the creation of new conservation initiatives, future progress will largely rely on strengthening coordination among existing policy instruments, ensuring continuous financial support, periodically updating official conservation assessments, and establishing robust mechanisms for monitoring policy effectiveness. Viewed together, the initiatives summarized in Table 1 demonstrate that long-term biodiversity conservation depends as much on stable governance and institutional integration as on scientific advances.

Final Considerations

This review provides an integrated assessment of more than three decades of public policies for the conservation of threatened endemic flora in the State of Rio de Janeiro within the regulatory context established by the Convention on Biological Diversity following ECO-92. The evidence indicates that major advances have resulted from the consolidation of institutional frameworks, the expansion of scientific knowledge, and the development of increasingly specialized conservation instruments. However, the effectiveness of these policies has been constrained by discontinuities in implementation, limited institutional coordination, insufficient updating of conservation assessments and biodiversity databases, and uneven incorporation of scientific evidence into management and regulatory processes. Biodiversity conservation should therefore be understood as a continuous governance process rather than as a succession of isolated initiatives.

These findings should, however, be interpreted in light of the limitations inherent to the documentary record, particularly differences in the availability, scope, and temporal coverage of institutional documents and measurable outcomes across policy instruments. In addition, the focus on Rio de Janeiro, given its particular ecological and institutional context, limits the direct transferability of some findings to other regions. Nevertheless, the trajectory documented here helps identify governance gaps that may also be relevant to plant conservation in other biodiversity-rich regions, while recognizing that institutional contexts differ.

Future efforts should prioritize strengthening and consolidating existing policy instruments rather than simply creating new ones. Priority actions include establishing regular and transparent mechanisms for updating the Red Book and the Official List, with defined revision schedules (e.g., five-year cycles), complemented by interim updates when substantial changes occur in taxonomic knowledge, species descriptions, or threat assessments, as well as their integration with national biodiversity databases and broad dissemination of updates and their regulatory implications. Further priorities include formally incorporating scientifically validated species lists into forest restoration policies, strengthening the monitoring and public reporting of PAN outcomes through standardized indicators, and ensuring that lessons learned from completed action plans inform subsequent conservation strategies. The continuity, standardization, and public accessibility of biodiversity monitoring data should also be strengthened through institutional platforms such as the Biodiversity Portal and EPAEB-RJ, supported by clearly defined institutional responsibilities and regular reporting schedules, including annual or biennial updates where appropriate. These measures should be supported by stable funding mechanisms, interinstitutional coordination, periodic evaluation of conservation outcomes, and sustained integration of scientific evidence into public policies and management processes.

Acknowledgments

The authors sincerely thank the editor and reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive comments and suggestions, which greatly contributed to improving the quality, clarity, and overall strength of this article. This research was funded by FAPERJ – Carlos Chagas Filho Foundation for Research Support of the State of Rio de Janeiro (E-26/210.288/2021, E-26/201.511/2022 and E-26/204.346/2024) and the CNPq – The Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (309959/2025-0).

Data Availability

The data used in this study are available at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18474820.

References

• ARONSON, J., GOODWIN, N., ORLANDO, L., EISENBERG, C., & CROSS, A. T. 2020. A world of possibilities: Six restoration strategies to support the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Restoration Ecology, 28(4), 730–736. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13170.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13170
• BERGALLO, H.G., SILVEIRA FILHO, T.B., & ZILLER, S.R. 2021. Primeira lista de referência de espécies exóticas invasoras no estado do Rio de Janeiro-Brasil: Implicações para pesquisas, políticas e manejo. Bioinvasiones, 8(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.3391/bioinvas.2021.8.1.01.
  » https://doi.org/10.3391/bioinvas.2021.8.1.01
• BFG – The Brazil Flora Group. 2015. Growing knowledge: An overview of seed plant diversity in Brazil. Rodriguésia, 66(4), 1085–1113. https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-7860201566411.
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-7860201566411
• BFG – The Brazil Flora Group. 2021. Coleção Flora do Brasil 2020 Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro. http://doi.org/10.47871/jbrj2021004.
  » https://doi.org/10.47871/jbrj2021004
• BOHRER, C.B.D.A., DANTAS, H.G.R., CRONEMBERGER, F.M., VICENS, R.S., & ANDRADE, S.F. 2009. Mapeamento da vegetação e do uso do solo no Centro de Diversidade Vegetal de Cabo Frio, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Rodriguésia, 60(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-7860200960101.
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-7860200960101
• BOWEN, G.A. 2009. Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027.
  » https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
• BRASIL. 1994. Decreto n. 1.354, de 29 de dezembro de 1994. Institui o Programa Nacional da Diversidade Biológica, e dá outras providências.https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/d1354.htm
  » https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/d1354.htm
• BRASIL. MINISTÉRIO DO MEIO AMBIENTE, DOS RECURSOS HÍDRICOS E DA AMAZÔNIA LEGAL. 1998. Primeiro relatório nacional para a Convenção sobre Diversidade Biológica Brasília: MMA.
• BRASIL. MINISTÉRIO DO MEIO AMBIENTE, SECRETARIA DE BIODIVERSIDADE E FLORESTAS. 2002a. Avaliação e identificação de áreas e ações prioritárias para a conservação, utilização sustentável e repartição dos benefícios da biodiversidade nos biomas brasileiros Brasília: MMA/SBF.
• BRASIL. 2002b. Decreto n. 4.339, de 22 de agosto de 2002. Institui princípios e diretrizes para a implementação da Política Nacional da Biodiversidade http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/2002/D4339.htm
  » http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/2002/D4339.htm
• BRASIL. MINISTÉRIO DO MEIO AMBIENTE. 2002c. Projeto de conservação e utilização sustentável da diversidade biológica brasileira: Relatório de atividades Brasília: MMA.
• BRASIL. 2003. Decreto n. 4.703, de 21 de maio de 2003. Dispõe sobre o Programa Nacional da Diversidade Biológica – PRONABIO e a Comissão Nacional da Biodiversidade, e dá outras providências.https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/2003/d4703.htm
  » https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/2003/d4703.htm
• BRASIL. 2004. Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Projeto de Conservação e Utilização Sustentável da Diversidade Biológica Brasileira – PROBIO: Relatório de atividades PROBIO 2002-2004 Brasília: MMA.
• BRASIL. 2006. Lei n. 11.428, de 22 de dezembro de 2006. Dispõe sobre a utilização e proteção da vegetação nativa do Bioma Mata Atlântica, e dá outras providências.https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2006/lei/l11428.htm
  » https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2006/lei/l11428.htm
• BRASIL. MINISTÉRIO DO MEIO AMBIENTE, SECRETARIA DE BIODIVERSIDADE E FLORESTAS. 2007. Áreas prioritárias para conser­vação, uso sustentável e repartição de benefícios da biodiversidade brasileira: atualização – Portaria MMA nº 9, de 23 de janeiro de 2007. Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Brasília. https://www.gov.br/icmbio/pt-br/assuntos/criacao-de-unidades-de-conservacao/legislacao/copy_of_PortariaMMA09.2007.pdf
  » https://www.gov.br/icmbio/pt-br/assuntos/criacao-de-unidades-de-conservacao/legislacao/copy_of_PortariaMMA09.2007.pdf
• BRASIL. 2012. Lei n. 12.651, de 25 de maio de 2012. Dispõe sobre a proteção da vegetação nativa; altera as Leis n. 6.938, de 31 de agosto de 1981, 9.393, de 19 de dezembro de 1996, e 11.428, de 22 de dezembro de 2006; revoga as Leis n. 4.771, de 15 de setembro de 1965, e 7.754, de 14 de abril de 1989, e a Medida Provisória n. 2.166-67, de 24 de agosto de 2001; e dá outras providências.https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2012/lei/l12651.htm
  » https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2012/lei/l12651.htm
• BRASIL. 2024. Decreto n. 12.017, de 10 de maio de 2024. Altera o Decreto n. 4.703, de 21 de maio de 2003, e o Decreto n. 10.141, de 28 de novembro de 2019, para dispor sobre a Comissão Nacional de Biodiversidade.https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2023-2026/2024/Decreto/D12017.htm
  » https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2023-2026/2024/Decreto/D12017.htm
• CARO, T., ROWE, Z., BERGER, J., WHOLEY, P., & DOBSON, A. 2022. An inconvenient misconception: Climate change is not the principal driver of biodiversity loss. Conservation Letters, 15(3), e12868. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12868.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12868
• CDB – CONVENÇÃO SOBRE DIVERSIDADE BIOLÓGICA. 1992. Convenção da Diversidade Biológica https://www.gov.br/mma/pt-br/textoconvenoportugus.pdf
  » https://www.gov.br/mma/pt-br/textoconvenoportugus.pdf
• CBD – Convention on Biological Diversity. 2002. Report of the sixth meeting of the conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-06/official/cop-06-20-en.pdf
  » https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-06/official/cop-06-20-en.pdf
• CBD – Convention on Biological Diversity. 2011. Nagoya Protocol on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization to the convention on biological diversity https://www.cbd.int/abs/text/default.shtml
  » https://www.cbd.int/abs/text/default.shtml
• CBD – Convention on Biological Diversity. 2022. Nations adopt four goals, 23 targets for 2030 in landmark UN biodiversity agreement.https://www.cbd.int/article/cop15-cbd-press-release-final-19dec2022 (accessed April 7, 2026).
  » https://www.cbd.int/article/cop15-cbd-press-release-final-19dec2022
• CNCFLORA – CENTRO NACIONAL DE CONSERVAÇÃO DA FLORA. 2015. Reunião sobre o projeto: Unidades de Conservação do Estado do Rio de Janeiro: análises e estratégias para conservação da flora endêmica ameaçada.http://cncflora.jbrj.gov.br/portal/static/pdf/relatorios/Relatorio_reuniao_especialistas_03_09_15.pdf (accessed April 7, 2026).
  » http://cncflora.jbrj.gov.br/portal/static/pdf/relatorios/Relatorio_reuniao_especialistas_03_09_15.pdf
• CNCFLORA – CENTRO NACIONAL DE CONSERVAÇÃO DA FLORA. 2018. Listagem de plantas alternativas às plantas exóticas invasoras listadas para o estado do Rio de Janeiro.https://ckan.jbrj.gov.br/dataset/plantas-alternativas-as-plantas-exoticas-invasoras-rj (accessed April 7, 2026).
  » https://ckan.jbrj.gov.br/dataset/plantas-alternativas-as-plantas-exoticas-invasoras-rj
• CONABIO – COMISSÃO NACIONAL DE BIODIVERSIDADE. 2018. Resolução n. 07, de 29 de maio de 2018. Aprova a Estratégia Nacional para Espécies Exóticas Invasoras.https://www.gov.br/mma/pt-br/assuntos/biodiversidade-e-ecossistemas/fauna-e-flora/especies-exoticas-invasoras/resconabio072018estratgianacionalparaespciesexticasinvasoras.pdf
  » https://www.gov.br/mma/pt-br/assuntos/biodiversidade-e-ecossistemas/fauna-e-flora/especies-exoticas-invasoras/resconabio072018estratgianacionalparaespciesexticasinvasoras.pdf
• CONEMA – CONSELHO ESTADUAL DE MEIO AMBIENTE DO RIO DE JANEIRO. 2018. Resolução CONEMA n. 80, de 24 de maio de 2018. Aprova a lista oficial de espécies endêmicas ameaçadas de extinção da flora do estado do Rio de Janeiro.https://app.sogi.com.br/Manager/texto/arquivo/exibir/arquivo?eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9AFFIj AvMTI5MzU3NC9TR19SZXF1aXNpdG9fTGVnYWxfVG V4dG8vMC8wL1JFU09MVWNhTyBDT05FTUEgTsK6IDgwLmRvYy8 wLzAiAFFm0g_nQmXf_9K9K0cPVD1et2ZMExVzaiV-ItSewqQyTA
  » https://app.sogi.com.br/Manager/texto/arquivo/exibir/arquivo?eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9AFFIj AvMTI5MzU3NC9TR19SZXF1aXNpdG9fTGVnYWxfVG V4dG8vMC8wL1JFU09MVWNhTyBDT05FTUEgTsK6IDgwLmRvYy8 wLzAiAFFm0g_nQmXf_9K9K0cPVD1et2ZMExVzaiV-ItSewqQyTA
• DE LIMA, R.A.F., OLIVEIRA, A.A., PITTA, G.R., DE GASPER, A.L., VIBRANS, A.C., CHAVE, J., TER STEEGE, H. & PRADO, P.I. 2020. The erosion of biodiversity and biomass in the Atlantic Forest biodiversity hotspot. Nature Communications 11:6347. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20217-w.
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20217-w
• DECHOUM, M.S., JUNQUEIRA, A.O.R. & ORSI, M.L. (Eds.). 2024. Relatório temático sobre espécies exóticas invasoras, biodiversidade e serviços ecossistêmicos Editora Cubo. https://doi.org/10.4322/978-65-00-87228-6.
  » https://doi.org/10.4322/978-65-00-87228-6
• DE SOUZA W,M., SOBRAL, M.E.G., ROCHA, C.T.V., LANDAU, E.C., & STEHMANN, J.R. 2011. Distribution and endemism of angiosperms in the Atlantic Forest. Natureza & Conservação 9:188–193. https://doi.org/10.4322/natcon.2011.024.
  » https://doi.org/10.4322/natcon.2011.024
• DIAS, B.F.S. & HOFT, R. 2013. Desafios para a implementação da Estratégia Global para a Conservação de Plantas do Brasil. In: MARTINELLI, G. & MORAES, M.A. (EDS.), Livro vermelho da flora do Brasil, p. 26–39. Instituto de Pesquisas Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro.
• FAPERJ – FUNDAÇÃO CARLOS CHAGAS FILHO DE AMPARO À PESQUISA DO ESTADO DO RIO DE JANEIRO. 2026. Programas e editais https://www.faperj.br/?id=28.5.7 (accessed April 7, 2026).
  » https://www.faperj.br/?id=28.5.7
• FLORA E FUNGA DO BRASIL. 2024a. Flora e Funga do Brasil Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro. http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/ (accessed December 10, 2024).
  » http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/
• FLORA E FUNGA DO BRASIL. 2024b. Oleaceae in Flora e Funga do Brasil Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro. https://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/FB10976 (accessed April 7, 2026).
  » https://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/FB10976
• FUNBIO – FUNDO BRASILEIRO PARA A BIODIVERSIDADE. 2022. Relatório Anual de Atividades 2022 Rio de Janeiro.
• FUNBIO – FUNDO BRASILEIRO PARA A BIODIVERSIDADE. n.d. Atlantic Forest Fund (FMA/RJ) agreement https://www.funbio.org.br/programas_e_projetos/acordo-fma-rj/ (accessed April 7, 2026).
  » https://www.funbio.org.br/programas_e_projetos/acordo-fma-rj/
• FUNDAÇÃO SOS MATA ATLÂNTICA & INPE – INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE PESQUISAS ESPACIAIS. 2021. Atlas dos remanescentes florestais da Mata Atlântica: período 2019/2020, relatório técnico. Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica, São Paulo.
• GALLAGHER, R.V., ALLEN, S.P., GOVAERTS, R., RIVERS, M.C., ALLEN, A.P., KEITH, D.A., MEROW, C., MAITNER, B., BUTT, N., AULD, T.D., ENQUIST, B.J., EISERHARDT, W.L., WRIGHT, I.J., MIFSUD, J.C.O., ESPINOSA-RUIZ, S., POSSINGHAM, H. & ADAMS, V.M. 2023. Global shortfalls in threat assessments for endemic flora by country. Plants, People, Planet https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10369.
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10369
• GRANT, M.J. & BOOTH, A. 2009. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal 26(2):91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
• HANDL, G. 2012. Declaration of the United Nations conference on the human environment (Stockholm Declaration), 1972 and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law, 11(6), 1–11.
• ICMBIO – INSTITUTO CHICO MENDES DE CONSERVAÇÃO DA BIODIVERSIDADE. 2019. Guia de orientação para o manejo de espécies exóticas invasoras em Unidades de Conservação federais ICMBio, Brasília.
• ICMBIO – INSTITUTO CHICO MENDES DE CONSERVAÇÃO DA BIODIVERSIDADE. n.d. Planos de ação nacionais para a conservação de espécies ameaçadas https://www.gov.br/icmbio/pt-br/assuntos/biodiversidade/pan (accessed January 5, 2026).
  » https://www.gov.br/icmbio/pt-br/assuntos/biodiversidade/pan
• IMA – INSTITUTO DO MEIO AMBIENTE DO ESTADO DE SANTA CATARINA. 2022. IMA identifica desmatamento ilegal por imagens de satélite e atua contra crimes ambientais em Santa Catarina https://www.ima.sc.gov.br/index.php/noticias/1638-ima-lanca-sistema-para-monitorar-desmatamento-ilegal-em-santa-catarina (accessed April 7, 2026).
  » https://www.ima.sc.gov.br/index.php/noticias/1638-ima-lanca-sistema-para-monitorar-desmatamento-ilegal-em-santa-catarina
• IMA – INSTITUTO DO MEIO AMBIENTE DO ESTADO DE SANTA CATARINA. 2025. Pesquisa nacional aponta que Santa Catarina reduziu em 12% o desmatamento da Mata Atlântica https://www.ima.sc.gov.br/index.php/noticias/2788-pesquisa-nacional-aponta-que-santa-catarina-reduziu-em-12-o-desmatamento-da-mata-atlantica (accessed April 7, 2026).
  » https://www.ima.sc.gov.br/index.php/noticias/2788-pesquisa-nacional-aponta-que-santa-catarina-reduziu-em-12-o-desmatamento-da-mata-atlantica
• INEA – INSTITUTO ESTADUAL DO AMBIENTE. n.d. Banco Estadual de Sementes Florestais (BESEF) https://www.inea.rj.gov.br/banco-de-sementes-besef/ (accessed April 7, 2026).
  » https://www.inea.rj.gov.br/banco-de-sementes-besef/
• INEA – INSTITUTO ESTADUAL DO AMBIENTE. n.d. Portal da Biodiversidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro https://geoportal.inea.rj.gov.br/portal/apps/sites/#/portal-da-biodiversidade-do-estado-do-rio-de-janeiro (accessed April 7, 2026).
  » https://geoportal.inea.rj.gov.br/portal/apps/sites/#/portal-da-biodiversidade-do-estado-do-rio-de-janeiro
• IUCN – INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE. 2024. Guidelines for using the IUCN Red List categories and criteria https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/redlistguidelines (accessed April 7, 2026).
  » https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/redlistguidelines
• JACQUES, E.L. 2024. Begoniaceae in Flora e Funga do Brasil Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro. https://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/FB624147 (accessed April 7, 2026).
  » https://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/FB624147
• JAUREGUIBERRY, P., TITEUX, N. & WIEMERS, M. 2022. The direct drivers of recent global anthropogenic biodiversity loss. Science Advances 8(45):eabm9982. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abm9982.
  » https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abm9982
• JBRJ – INSTITUTO DE PESQUISAS JARDIM BOTÂNICO DO RIO DE JANEIRO. 2024. PAN Flora Endêmica do Rio de Janeiro https://www.gov.br/jbrj/pt-br/assuntos/conservacao/cncflora/nucleo-estrategias-para-conservacao-da-flora-ameacada-de-extincao/pan-flora-endemica-do-rio-de-janeiro (accessed April 7, 2026).
  » https://www.gov.br/jbrj/pt-br/assuntos/conservacao/cncflora/nucleo-estrategias-para-conservacao-da-flora-ameacada-de-extincao/pan-flora-endemica-do-rio-de-janeiro
• KATTEL, G.R. 2022. Climate warming in the Himalayas threatens biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and ecosystem services in the 21st century: Is there a better solution? Biodiversity and Conservation 31(8):2017–2044. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-022-02417-6.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-022-02417-6
• LEITÃO, I.A.C., DA SILVA SALES, G.P., DA SILVA NUNES, R. & GUEDES-BRUNI, R.R. 2022. Transformação da paisagem nas serranias do Tinguá e arredores da Baía de Guanabara: História ambiental, biodiversidade e recursos hídricos. Fronteira: Journal of Social, Technological and Environmental Science 11:113–133. https://dx.doi.org/10.21664/2238-8869.2022v11i4.
  » https://doi.org/10.21664/2238-8869.2022v11i4
• LOYOLA, R., MACHADO, N., RIBEIRO, B.R., MARTINS, E. & MARTINELLI, G. 2018. Áreas prioritárias para conservação da flora endêmica do estado do Rio de Janeiro I Graficci Programação Visual.
• MARTINELLI, G. & MORAES, M.A. 2013. Livro vermelho da flora do Brasil Instituto de Pesquisas Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro.
• MARTINELLI, G., MARTINS, E., MORAES, M., LOYOLA, R. & AMARO, R. 2018. Livro vermelho da flora endêmica do estado do Rio de Janeiro Instituto de Pesquisas Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro.
• MARQUES, M.C. & GRELLE, C.E. 2021. The Atlantic Forest: History, biodiversity, threats and opportunities of the mega-diverse forest. Springer International Publishing https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69380-1.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69380-1
• MAURENZA, D., BOCAYUVA, M., POUGY, N., MARTINS, E. & MARTINELLI, G. 2018. Lista da flora das Unidades de Conservação estaduais do Rio de Janeiro Andrea Jakobsson Estúdio, Rio de Janeiro.
• MITTERMEIER, R.A., ROBLES GIL, P., HOFFMANN, M., PILGRIM, J., BROOKS, T., MITTERMEIER, C.G., LAMOREUX, J. & DA FONSECA, G.A.B. 2004. Hotspots revisited: Earth’s biologically richest and most endangered terrestrial ecoregions CEMEX/Agrupación Sierra Madre, Mexico City.
• MITTERMEIER, R.A., TURNER, W.R., LARSEN, F.W., BROOKS, T.M. & GASCON, C. 2011. Global biodiversity conservation: The critical role of hotspots. In: Biodiversity hotspots: Distribution and protection of conservation priority areas, p. 3–22. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5_1.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5_1
• MMA – MINISTÉRIO DO MEIO AMBIENTE E MUDANÇA DO CLIMA. 2014a. Portaria MMA nº 43, de 31 de janeiro de 2014.https://www.gov.br/icmbio/pt-br/assuntos/biodiversidade/fauna-brasileira/lista-de-especies-quase-ameacadas-e-dados-insuficientes/p_mma_43_2014_institui_programa_nacional_conservao_espcies_ameaadas_extino_proespecies.pdf (accessed April 7, 2026).
  » https://www.gov.br/icmbio/pt-br/assuntos/biodiversidade/fauna-brasileira/lista-de-especies-quase-ameacadas-e-dados-insuficientes/p_mma_43_2014_institui_programa_nacional_conservao_espcies_ameaadas_extino_proespecies.pdf
• MMA – MINISTÉRIO DO MEIO AMBIENTE E MUDANÇA DO CLIMA. 2014b. Portaria MMA nº 443, de 17 de dezembro de 2014 Diário Oficial da União, 245, Seção 1, 110–121.
• MMA – MINISTÉRIO DO MEIO AMBIENTE E MUDANÇA DO CLIMA. 2018a. Portaria MMA nº 463, de 18 de dezembro de 2018 https://uc.socioambiental.org/sites/uc/files/2019-04/PORTARIA%20N%C2%BA%20463%2C%20DE%2018%20DE%20DEZEMBRO%20DE%202018%20-%20Imprensa%20Nacional.pdf (accessed April 18, 2026).
  » https://uc.socioambiental.org/sites/uc/files/2019-04/PORTARIA%20N%C2%BA%20463%2C%20DE%2018%20DE%20DEZEMBRO%20DE%202018%20-%20Imprensa%20Nacional.pdf
• MMA – MINISTÉRIO DO MEIO AMBIENTE E MUDANÇA DO CLIMA. 2018b. Resolução nº 7, de 29 de maio de 2018. Dispõe sobre a Estratégia Nacional para Espécies Exóticas Invasoras.https://www.ibama.gov.br/component/legislacao/?view=legislacao&legislacao=138909 (accessed April 7, 2026).
  » https://www.ibama.gov.br/component/legislacao/?view=legislacao&legislacao=138909
• MMA – MINISTÉRIO DO MEIO AMBIENTE E MUDANÇA DO CLIMA. 2022. Portaria MMA nº 148, de 7 de junho de 2022 Diário Oficial da União, 108, Seção 1, 74.
• MORAES, M.A., BORGES, R.A.X., MARTINS, E.M., FERNANDES, R.A., MESSINA, T. & MARTINELLI, G. 2014. Categorizing threatened species: An analysis of the Red List of the flora of Brazil. Oryx 48(2):258–265. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531200018X.
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531200018X
• MYERS, N., MITTERMEIER, R.A., MITTERMEIER, C.G., DA FONSECA, G.A.B. & KENT, J. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403(6772):853–858. https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501.
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501
• OECD – ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT. 2019. Biodiversity: Finance and the economic and business case for action OECD Publishing, Paris.
• ONDO, I., DHANJAL‐ADAMS, K.L., PIRONON, S., SILVESTRO, D., COLLI‐SILVA, M., DEKLERCK, V., GRACE, M.O, MONRO, K.A., NICOLSON, N., WALKER, B. & ANTONELLI, A. 2024. Plant diversity darkspots for global collection priorities. New Phytologist 244(2):719–733. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.20024.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.20024
• PEREIRA, A.C. 2011. “A poluição da pobreza”: A cobertura das conferências climáticas – Estocolmo, 1972; Rio 1992; Kioto, 1997 e Copenhague, 2009 – por Veja Revista de Estudos da Comunicação 12(29). https://doi.org/10.7213/rec.v12i29.22379.
  » https://doi.org/10.7213/rec.v12i29.22379
• PNUMA – PROGRAMA DAS NAÇÕES UNIDAS PARA O MEIO AMBIENTE. 2024. O que você precisa saber sobre Estocolmo+50 https://www.unep.org/pt-br/noticias-e-reportagens/reportagem/o-que-voce-precisa-saber-sobre-estocolmo50 (accessed April 7, 2026).
  » https://www.unep.org/pt-br/noticias-e-reportagens/reportagem/o-que-voce-precisa-saber-sobre-estocolmo50
• POUGY, N., MARTINS, E., VERDI, M., FERNANDEZ, E., LOYOLA, R., SILVEIRA-FILHO, T.B. & MARTINELLI, G. 2018. Plano de ação nacional para a conservação da flora endêmica ameaçada de extinção do estado do Rio de Janeiro Andrea Jakobsson, Rio de Janeiro.
• PRÓ-ESPÉCIES. 2023. Projeto Pró-Espécies: Todos contra a extinção https://proespecies.eco.br/projeto/ (accessed April 7, 2026).
  » https://proespecies.eco.br/projeto/
• RAUBER, C.R., PROCHAZKA, L.S., TEMPONI, L.G. & ALCANTARA, S. 2026. At the Edge of the Abyss: Endangered Plant Species in Paraná, Brazil. The Botanical Review https://doi.org/10.1007/s12229-026-09327-0.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s12229-026-09327-0
• RIBEIRO, M.C., METZGER, J.P., MARTENSEN, A.C., PONZONI, F.J. & HIROTA, M.M. 2009. The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: How much is left, and how is the remaining forest distributed? Implications for conservation. Biological Conservation 142(6):1141–1153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.02.021.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.02.021
• RIO DE JANEIRO (ESTADO). 2023. Resolução Conjunta SEAS/INEA nº 103, de 3 de julho de 2023 Diário Oficial do Estado do Rio de Janeiro 126:20.
• RITTA, J.S. 2009. A água do Rio: Do Carioca ao Guandu – a história do abastecimento de água da cidade do Rio de Janeiro Synergia/Light/SEAERJ, Rio de Janeiro.
• ROSA, P., BAEZ, C., MARTINS, E. & MARTINELLI, G. 2018. Guia Procura-se: Flora endêmica do estado do Rio de Janeiro Instituto de Pesquisas Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro.
• SALES, G.P.D.S., BRITO, M.R.D. & GUEDES-BRUNI, R.R. 2024. “Éden Fluminense”: De área de reflorestamento no maciço da Tijuca a espaço público europeizado do Rio de Janeiro na segunda metade do século XIX. História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos 31:e2024039. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-59702024000000039.
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-59702024000000039
• SEMIL – SECRETARIA DE MEIO AMBIENTE, INFRAESTRUTURA E LOGÍSTICA DO ESTADO DE SÃO PAULO. n.d. Monitoramento Ambiental por Imagens de Satélites (MAIS) https://semil.sp.gov.br/sma/mais/ (accessed April 7, 2026).
  » https://semil.sp.gov.br/sma/mais/
• SFB – SERVIÇO FLORESTAL BRASILEIRO. 2018. Inventário Florestal Nacional: Rio de Janeiro – principais resultados MMA, Brasília, DF.
• SHARROCK, S. 2012. GSPC: Global Strategy for Plant Conservation: a guide to the GSPC: all the targets, objectives and facts Botanic Gardens Conservation International, Richmond. https://www.bgci.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/gspc_guide.pdf
  » https://www.bgci.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/gspc_guide.pdf
• SHIVANNA, K.R. 2020. The sixth mass extinction crisis and its impact on biodiversity and human welfare. Resonance 25(1):93–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12045-019-0897-3.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s12045-019-0897-3
• SILVA-BATISTA, I.C. & GUTIÉRREZ, M. 2021a. Equipes realizam estudos para a produção de mudas da Pleroma hirsutissimum https://proespecies.eco.br/equipes-realizam-estudos-para-a-producao-de-mudas-da-pleroma-hirsutissimum/ (accessed April 7, 2026).
  » https://proespecies.eco.br/equipes-realizam-estudos-para-a-producao-de-mudas-da-pleroma-hirsutissimum/
• SILVA-BATISTA, I.C. & GUTIÉRREZ, M. 2021b. PAN Flora Endêmica do RJ realiza ações de prevenção de espécies exóticas invasoras https://proespecies.eco.br/pan-flora-endemica-do-rj-realiza-acoes-de-prevencao-de-especies-exoticas-invasoras/ (accessed April 7, 2026).
  » https://proespecies.eco.br/pan-flora-endemica-do-rj-realiza-acoes-de-prevencao-de-especies-exoticas-invasoras/
• SILVA-BATISTA, I.C. & GUTIÉRREZ, M. 2021c. Equipe do PAN Flora Endêmica do RJ realiza diversas ações no Território Vale do Paraíba https://proespecies.eco.br/equipe-do-pan-flora-endemica-realiza-diversas-acoes-no-territorio-vale-do-paraiba/ (accessed April 7, 2026).
  » https://proespecies.eco.br/equipe-do-pan-flora-endemica-realiza-diversas-acoes-no-territorio-vale-do-paraiba/
• SILVA-BATISTA, I.C. & LOUREIRO, M.A.C. 2021. Inclusão de áreas prioritárias para conservação de espécies no projeto estadual “Olho no Verde” https://proespecies.eco.br/foram-incluidas-areas-prioritarias-para-conservacao-de-especies-no-projeto-estadual-olho-no-verde-para-aumentar-a-fiscalizacao-e-monitoramento/ (accessed April 7, 2026).
  » https://proespecies.eco.br/foram-incluidas-areas-prioritarias-para-conservacao-de-especies-no-projeto-estadual-olho-no-verde-para-aumentar-a-fiscalizacao-e-monitoramento/
• SILVA-BATISTA, I.C., MORAES, R.R., ANDRADE, O.F., LEAL-COSTA, M.V., PACHECO, G., LOUREIRO, M.A.C. & GUIMARÃES, P.J.F. 2026. Redescoberta de Pleroma hirsutissimum (Cogn.) P.J.F.Guim. & Michelang. (Melastomataceae): uma espécie criticamente em perigo e da flora endêmica do estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Biodiversidade Brasileira 16(1). https://doi.org/10.37002/biodiversidadebrasileira.v16i1.2591.
  » https://doi.org/10.37002/biodiversidadebrasileira.v16i1.2591
• SINGH, V., SHUKLA, S. & SINGH, A. 2021. The principal factors responsible for biodiversity loss. Open Journal of Plant Science 6(1):11–14. https://doi.org/10.17352/ojps.000026.
  » https://doi.org/10.17352/ojps.000026
• SOS MATA ATLÂNTICA. 2016. Atlas dos remanescentes florestais da Mata Atlântica: período 2014–2015 SOS Mata Atlântica, São Paulo. http://mapas.sosma.org.br/site_media/download/atlas_2015-2016_relatorio_tecnico_2017.pdf (accessed April 7, 2026).
  » http://mapas.sosma.org.br/site_media/download/atlas_2015-2016_relatorio_tecnico_2017.pdf

*

Corresponding author: [e-mail]

Associate Editor

Carmen Zickel.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest related to the publication of this manuscript.

Ethics

This study did not involve human beings or animals and/or clinical trials that should be approved by an Institutional Committee.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  12 Oct 2026
• Date of issue
  2026

History

• Received
  18 Sept 2025
• Accepted
  24 Aug 2026