Data Zone
The site was identified as internationally important for bird conservation in 2016 because it was regularly supporting significant populations of the species listed below, meeting IBA criteria.
Populations meeting IBA criteria ('key species') at the site:| Species | Red List | Season (year/s of estimate) | Size | IBA criteria |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bean Goose Anser fabalis | LC | non-breeding (2011–2015) | 6,209–9,035 individuals | B1i, C3 |
| Common Crane Grus grus | LC | non-breeding (2011–2015) | 188–400 individuals | C6 |
Ideally the conservation status of the IBA will have been checked regularly since the site was first identified in 2016. The most recent assessment (2018) is shown below.
| IBA conservation status | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Year of assessment | State | Pressure | Response |
| 2018 | not assessed | very high | medium |
| Whole site assessed? | State assessed by | Accuracy of information | |
| yes | unset | medium | |
| Pressure (threats to the key species and/or their habitats) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Threat | Timing | Scope | Severity | Result |
| Agricultural expansion and intensification | happening now | whole population/area (>90%) | moderate deterioration (10–30% in 3 generations) | very high |
| Natural system modifications | happening now | most of population/area (50–90%) | moderate deterioration (10–30% in 3 generations) | high |
| Climate change and severe weather | happening now | most of population/area (50–90%) | moderate deterioration (10–30% in 3 generations) | high |
| Human intrusions and disturbance | happening now | most of population/area (50–90%) | slow deterioration (1–10% over 3 generations) | high |
| Pollution | happening now | most of population/area (50–90%) | slow deterioration (1–10% over 3 generations) | high |
| Energy production and mining | likely in short term (within 4 years) | some of population/area (10–49%) | slow deterioration (1–10% over 3 generations) | medium |
| Transportation and service corridors | happening now | few individuals/small area (<10%) | no deterioration (<1% over 3 generations) | low |
| Response (conservation actions taken for the key species and/or their habitats) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Designation | Planning | 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90%) covered by appropriate conservation designation | A management plan exists, but it is out of date or not comprehensive | Substantive conservation measures are being implemented, but these are not comprehensive and are limited by resources and capacity |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 |
| Year | Protected Area | Designation (management category) | % coverage of IBA |
|---|---|---|---|
| - | De Groote Peel | Nature Conservation Law (-) | 76 |
| 1990 | De Groote Peel II | Natural Monument (-) | 33 |
| 1990 | De Groote Peel I | Natural Monument (-) | 67 |
| 1993 | De Groote Peel | Nationaal Park (II) | 96 |
| 2009 | Groote Peel | Natuurbeschermingswet (IV) | 100 |
| Habitat | % of IBA | Habitat detail |
|---|---|---|
| Wetlands (inland) | 60 | Raised bogs |
| Shrubland | 30 | Heathland |
| Forest | 10 | Mixed woodland |
| Land use | % of IBA |
|---|---|
| water management | 100 |
| nature conservation and research | 99 |
| tourism/recreation | 30 |
| hunting | 10 |
| forestry | 5 |
Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2025) Important Bird Area factsheet: Groote Peel (Netherlands). Downloaded from
https://datazone.birdlife.org/site/factsheet/groote-peel-iba-netherlands on 21/01/2025.