The site was identified as important in 2008 because it was regularly supporting significant populations of the species listed below, meeting ('triggering') IBA criteria.
Populations meeting IBA criteria ('trigger species') at the site:1. The current IUCN Red List category. The category at the time of the IBA criteria assessment (2008) may differ.
Ideally the conservation status of the IBA will have been checked regularly since the site was first identified in 2008. The most recent assessment (1990) is shown below.
IBA conservation assessment | |||
---|---|---|---|
Year of assessment | State | Pressure | Response |
1990 | not assessed | very high | not assessed |
Whole site assessed? | State assessed by | Accuracy of information | |
no | unset | good |
Pressure (threats to the trigger species and/or their habitats) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Threat | Timing | Scope | Severity | Result |
Energy production and mining | happening now | majority/most of area/population (50-90%) | very rapid to severe deterioration | very high |
Transportation and service corridors | happening now | majority/most of area/population (50-90%) | very rapid to severe deterioration | very high |
Biological resource use | happening now | whole area/population (>90%) | very rapid to severe deterioration | very high |
Pollution | happening now | whole area/population (>90%) | very rapid to severe deterioration | very high |
Climate change and severe weather | happening now | whole area/population (>90%) | moderate to rapid deterioration | very high |
Agricultural expansion and intensification | happening now | small area/few individuals (<10%) | slow but significant deterioration | low |
Residential and commercial development | happening now | small area/few individuals (<10%) | no or imperceptible deterioration | low |
Human intrusions and disturbance | happening now | small area/few individuals (<10%) | no or imperceptible deterioration | low |
Natural system modifications | happening now | small area/few individuals (<10%) | no or imperceptible deterioration | low |
Response (conservation actions taken for the trigger species and/or their habitats) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Protected areas | Management plan | Other action | Result |
Not assessed | Not assessed | Not assessed | not assessed |
Year | Protected Area | Designation | % overlap with IBA |
---|---|---|---|
- | Pañacocha | Forest Reserve | - |
1991 | Sacha Lodge | Forest Reserve | - |
1999 | Cuyabeno | Reserva de Producción de Fauna | 6 |
2017 | Complejo de Humedales Cuyabeno Lagartococha Yasuní | Ramsar Site, Wetland of International Importance | 100 |
Habitat1 | Habitat detail | % of IBA |
---|---|---|
Forest | Flooded tropical evergreen forest, Palm forest, Second-growth or disturbed forest, Tropical lowland evergreen forest, River-edge (river island) forest, Gallery (or Riparian) forest | major (>10) |
Artificial/Terrestrial | Improved pasture land, Perennial crops, orchards, groves | minor (<10) |
Wetlands (inland) | Freshwater lakes and pools, Rivers, Freshwater marshes/swamps, Riverine sand beaches, Streams | minor (<10) |
Land use | % of IBA |
---|---|
tourism/recreation | major (>10) |
nature conservation and research | major (>10) |
Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2024) Important Bird Area factsheet: Bajo Napo (Ecuador). Downloaded from
https://datazone.birdlife.org/site/factsheet/bajo-napo-iba-ecuador on 22/11/2024.