Lumphat

Where it ranks

The Canopy Global 1000 ranks the world’s land protected areas by conservation value: how irreplaceable the species they hold are, how connected they are to other protected land, and how intact they are, weighted by size. Plant data is being added to the ranking, so both versions are shown side by side. Neither is the final word.

Without plants, Lumphat ranks 66 of 1,000. With plants it ranks 170. It stays in the top 300 either way, which is why it is here.

Published management assessments

Management-effectiveness ratings published outside Canopy, each on its publisher’s own scale. They are not PACE scores, some are self-assessments, and different methods and years are never converted into one another or ranked together.

GEF METT score as published, unit not stated, 2021: 59, on a 0 to 102 scale; unit: METT score (raw points or percent, not stated by source).

Assessor: Project METT assessments reported by the CAMPAS project team to UNEP; individual assessors not named. Score reported as 59 in 2021 and unchanged for 2022. Unit not stated; baselines for these four sites in the 2015 project document were 30 to 49, with an end target of 50.

Scale: METT score exactly as published in a GEF project report that does not say whether it is raw points or a percentage. Never compare directly with a percentage scale. Source: CAMPAS (GEF 4905) Project Implementation Report FY2022; Intermediate Result A, row Lomphat WS METT Score. Retrieved 2026-10-05. Romanised sanctuary name matches the cohort wildlife sanctuary in the Eastern Plains Landscape; project target site.

Sources checked for this area:

UNEP / GEF / Ministry of Environment of Cambodia: Project Implementation Report FY2022: CAMPAS, GEF 4905 (Cambodia, Eastern Plains Landscape). Row for Lomphat WS read directly.

UNEP / GEF: CAMPAS UNEP Project Document, 15 May 2015, GEF 4905. Baseline METT for this target site found, but no assessment date stated; not counted.

UNESCO World Heritage Centre: UNESCO World Heritage Convention: Cambodia (State Party page). Not an inscribed World Heritage property or component; no IUCN World Heritage Outlook assessment exists.

Retrieved 2026-10-05. A park with no rating here may still have one that was not found or could not be cited from a primary document.

Irrecoverable carbon

0.68 million tonnes of carbon inside the boundary is irrecoverable: if it were lost, it could not be recovered by 2050.

Forest loss, 2001 to 2024

967 km² of the area was forest in 2000, 38% of it. 236.9 km² of that forest was lost between 2001 and 2024, 24.5% of the 2000 cover.

Forest means at least 30% tree canopy in 2000. Loss counts any clearing, including fire and natural disturbance, not only deforestation.

Not here yet

Canopy’s PACE management score, its country readiness score (C-RISK) and its weekly satellite feeds cover African protected areas today. They have not been published for this area.

Provenance

Sources

UNEP-WCMC and IUCN (2026), Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) [June 2026], Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. Available at: www.protectedplanet.net.

Hansen, M. C. et al. (2013), High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change, Science 342: 850-853. Data: Global Forest Change 2000 to 2024, v1.12, University of Maryland, CC BY 4.0.

Noon, M. L. et al. (2022), Mapping the irrecoverable carbon in Earth’s ecosystems, Nature Sustainability 5: 37-46, doi:10.1038/s41893-021-00803-6.

How the Canopy Global 1000 is built: the method is available to signed-in readers; ask for access.

Corrections

If you manage or work with this protected area and something here is wrong or out of date, tell us. Every correction is reviewed.

Cite this page

Everything here is free to use. The one condition is attribution.