The site was identified as important in 1999 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 (1999) may differ.
Ideally the conservation status of the IBA will have been checked regularly since the site was first identified in 1999. The most recent assessment (2023) is shown below.
IBA conservation assessment | |||
---|---|---|---|
Year of assessment | State | Pressure | Response |
2023 | unfavourable | high | medium |
Whole site assessed? | State assessed by | Accuracy of information | |
yes | habitat | good |
State (condition of the trigger species' habitats) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Habitat | Quantity (% remaining) | Quality (% carrying capacity) | Result |
Forest | moderate (70-90%) | moderate (70-90%) | unfavourable |
Pressure (threats to the trigger species and/or their habitats) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Threat | Timing | Scope | Severity | Result |
Invasive and other problematic species and genes | happening now | some of area/population (10-49%) | moderate to rapid deterioration | high |
Agricultural expansion and intensification | happening now | some of area/population (10-49%) | slow but significant deterioration | medium |
Residential and commercial development | likely in long term (beyond 4 years) | some of area/population (10-49%) | slow but significant deterioration | medium |
Energy production and mining | happening now | some of area/population (10-49%) | slow but significant deterioration | medium |
Biological resource use | happening now | some of area/population (10-49%) | slow but significant deterioration | medium |
Human intrusions and disturbance | happening now | some of area/population (10-49%) | slow but significant deterioration | medium |
Geological events | past (and unlikely to return) and no longer limiting | some of area/population (10-49%) | slow but significant deterioration | low |
Transportation and service corridors | happening now | some of area/population (10-49%) | no or imperceptible deterioration | low |
Response (conservation actions taken for the trigger species and/or their habitats) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Protected areas | Management plan | Other action | Result |
Most of site (50-90%) covered (including the most critical parts for important bird species) | 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 | % overlap with IBA |
---|---|---|---|
- | Buyanga | Forest Reserve | - |
1933 | Kakamega | Forest Reserve | 97 |
1985 | Kakamega | National Reserve | 24 |
The Local Conservation Group(s) listed below are working to conserve this IBA.
Name | Year formed |
---|---|
Kakamega Forest Guides Association | 1995 |
KEEP | 1995 |
Mureshi community Forest association | 2007 |
Habitat1 | Habitat detail | % of IBA |
---|---|---|
Forest | Mid-altitude forest - transitional | 65 |
Grassland | Grassland - secondary | 25 |
Artificial/Terrestrial | 10 |
Land use | % of IBA |
---|---|
forestry | - |
nature conservation and research | - |
Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2024) Important Bird Area factsheet: Kakamega forest (Kenya). Downloaded from
https://datazone.birdlife.org/site/factsheet/kakamega-forest-iba-kenya on 22/11/2024.