The site was identified as important in 2001 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 (2001) may differ.
Ideally the conservation status of the IBA will have been checked regularly since the site was first identified in 2001. The most recent assessment (2019) is shown below.
IBA conservation assessment | |||
---|---|---|---|
Year of assessment | State | Pressure | Response |
2019 | not assessed | very high | negligible |
Whole site assessed? | State assessed by | Accuracy of information | |
no | unset | medium |
Pressure (threats to the trigger species and/or their habitats) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Threat | Timing | Scope | Severity | Result |
Invasive and other problematic species and genes | happening now | whole area/population (>90%) | very rapid to severe deterioration | very high |
Pollution | happening now | some of area/population (10-49%) | moderate to rapid deterioration | high |
Energy production and mining | happening now | majority/most of area/population (50-90%) | slow but significant deterioration | high |
Biological resource use | happening now | majority/most of area/population (50-90%) | slow but significant deterioration | high |
Transportation and service corridors | happening now | small area/few individuals (<10%) | slow but significant deterioration | low |
Agricultural expansion and intensification | likely in short term (within 4 years) | majority/most of area/population (50-90%) | no or imperceptible deterioration | low |
Residential and commercial development | happening now | some of area/population (10-49%) | no or imperceptible deterioration | low |
Human intrusions and disturbance | happening now | majority/most of area/population (50-90%) | no or imperceptible deterioration | low |
Response (conservation actions taken for the trigger species and/or their habitats) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Protected areas | Management plan | Other action | Result |
Little/none of site covered (<10%) | No management planning has taken place | Very little or no conservation action taking place | negligible |
Year | Protected Area | Designation | % overlap with IBA |
---|---|---|---|
- | Oban Group | Forest Reserve | 54 |
- | Cross River South | Forest Reserve | 7 |
- | Cross River North | Forest Reserve | <1 |
1988 | Cross River (Oban Division) | National Park | 68 |
1991 | Cross River | National Park | 100 |
Habitat1 | Habitat detail | % of IBA |
---|---|---|
Forest | 99 |
Land use | % of IBA |
---|---|
agriculture | - |
fisheries/aquaculture | - |
forestry | - |
hunting | - |
nature conservation and research | - |
tourism/recreation | - |
water management | - |
Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2024) Important Bird Area factsheet: Cross River National Park (Oban Division) (Nigeria). Downloaded from
https://datazone.birdlife.org/site/factsheet/cross-river-national-park-(oban-division)-iba-nigeria on 22/11/2024.