Year of most recent IBA criteria assessment: 2001
Populations of IBA trigger speciesNote: This table presents the IBA criteria triggered and the species that triggered then at the time of assessment, the current IUCN Red List category may vary from that which was in place at that time.
For more information about the IBA assessment process and criteria please click here
Most recent IBA monitoring assessment | |||
---|---|---|---|
Year of assessment | Threat score (pressure) | Condition score (state) | Action score (response) |
2012 | medium | near favourable | medium |
Was the whole site covered? | Yes | State assessed by | Habitat |
Accuracy of information | good |
Threats to the site (pressure) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Threat Level 1 | Threat Level 2 | Timing | Scope | Severity | Result |
Agricultural expansion and intensification | livestock farming and ranching (includes forest grazing) - nomadic grazing | happening now | some of area/population (10-49%) | no or imperceptible deterioration | low |
Biological resource use | gathering terrestrial plants - unintentional effects (species being assessed is not the target) | happening now | small area/few individuals (<10%) | no or imperceptible deterioration | low |
Biological resource use | hunting & collecting terrestrial animals - intentional use (species being assessed is the target) | happening now | small area/few individuals (<10%) | no or imperceptible deterioration | low |
Biological resource use | logging & wood harvesting - unintentional effects: subsistence/small scale | happening now | some of area/population (10-49%) | slow but significant deterioration | medium |
Natural system modifications | fire & fire suppression - increase in fire frequency/intensity | happening now | some of area/population (10-49%) | slow but significant deterioration | medium |
Condition of habitat (state) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Habitat | Habitat Detail | Reference Area (ha) | Actual Area (ha) | % of habitat remaining | % of carrying capacity (overall) | Result |
Forest | 0 | 0 | good (> 90%) | good (> 90%) | favourable | |
Grassland | 0 | 0 | good (> 90%) | moderate (70-90%) | near favourable |
Conservation actions taken at site (response) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Conservation Designation | Management Planning | Conservation Action | Result |
Whole area of site (>90%) covered by appropriate conservation designation | A management plan exists but it is out of date or not comprehensive | Substantive conservation measures are being implemented but these are not comprehensive and are limited by resources and capacity | medium |
Protected Area | Designation | Area (ha) | Relationship with IBA | Overlap with IBA (ha) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Zulia | Forest Reserve | 92,579 | protected area overlaps with site | 0 |
Nyangea - Napore | Forest Reserve | 42,307 | protected area overlaps with site | 0 |
Lopeichubei | Forest Reserve | 16,664 | protected area overlaps with site | 0 |
Lomej | Forest Reserve | 766 | protected area overlaps with site | 0 |
Kidepo Valley | National Park | 143,000 | protected area overlaps with site | 143,000 |
Karenga | Community Wildlife Management Area | 95,600 | protected area is adjacent to site | 0 |
IUCN Habitat | Habitat detail | Extent (% of site) |
---|---|---|
Artificial/Terrestrial | - | |
Shrubland | - | |
Grassland | - | |
Forest | - |
Land-use | Extent (% of site) |
---|---|
nature conservation and research | - |
tourism/recreation | - |
Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2023) Important Bird Areas factsheet: Kidepo Valley National Park. Downloaded from
http://www.birdlife.org on 07/02/2023.