• Summary
• Text account
• Data table and detailed info
• Map
• Reference and further resources

The site was identified as important in 2000 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:

Species	Red List1	Season	Year(s)	Size	IBA criteria
Mute Swan Cygnus olor	LC	winter	1994	7,155 individuals	A4i, B1i, C3
Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus	LC	winter	1994	306 individuals	B1i, C2
Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus	LC	passage	1993	300 individuals	A4i, B1i, C2
Goosander Mergus merganser	LC	winter	1994	3,700 individuals	A4i, B1i, C3
Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula	LC	winter	1995	57,000 individuals	A4i, B1i, C3
Eurasian Coot Fulica atra	LC	winter	1994	19,271 individuals	B1i, C3
Pied Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta	LC	breeding	1994	109 breeding pairs	B3
Mew Gull Larus canus	LC	breeding	1996	1,731-2,277 breeding pairs	B2
Common Tern Sterna hirundo	LC	breeding	1994	363 breeding pairs	C6
Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea	LC	breeding	1994	301 breeding pairs	C6
A4iii Species group - waterbirds	n/a	winter	1994	50,000-99,999 individuals	A4iii, C4

1. The current IUCN Red List category. The category at the time of the IBA criteria assessment (2000) may differ.

Ideally the conservation status of the IBA will have been checked regularly since the site was first identified in 2000. The most recent assessment (2019) is shown below.

Pressure (threats to the trigger species and/or their habitats)
Threat	Timing	Scope	Severity	Result
Human intrusions and disturbance	happening now	whole area/population (>90%)	very rapid to severe deterioration	very high
Biological resource use	happening now	majority/most of area/population (50-90%)	moderate to rapid deterioration	high
Natural system modifications	happening now	some of area/population (10-49%)	moderate to rapid deterioration	high
Invasive and other problematic species and genes	happening now	some of area/population (10-49%)	moderate to rapid deterioration	high
Pollution	likely in long term (beyond 4 years)	majority/most of area/population (50-90%)	moderate to rapid deterioration	medium

Response (conservation actions taken for the trigger species and/or their habitats)
Protected areas	Management plan	Other action	Result
Whole area of site (>90%) covered by appropriate conservation designation	No management plan exists but the management planning process has begun	Substantive conservation measures are being implemented but these are not comprehensive and are limited by resources and capacity	not assessed

Year	Protected Area	Designation	% overlap with IBA
-	Roskilde Fjord	Game Reserve	-
1980	Boserup Skov, Kattinge Vig	Fredet ved afgørelse, exl. Kirkeomgivelser	2
1983	Roskilde Fjord; Kattinge Vig og Kattinge Sø	Special Protection Area (Birds Directive)	100
1985	Øer i Roskilde Fjord	Fredet ved afgørelse, exl. Kirkeomgivelser	1
1988	Jægerspris Nordskov	Fredet ved afgørelse, exl. Kirkeomgivelser	1
1992	Roskilde Kommune	§3 beskyttet natur (alle søer, moser, vandløb, heder, enge mv)	1
1992	Frederikssund Kommune	§3 beskyttet natur (alle søer, moser, vandløb, heder, enge mv)	<1
1992	Lejre Kommune	§3 beskyttet natur (alle søer, moser, vandløb, heder, enge mv)	<1
1998	Roskilde Fjord	Site of Community Importance (Habitats Directive)	100
2009	Roskilde Fjord og Jaegerspris Nordskov	Baltic Sea Protected Area (HELCOM)	97

Habitat1	Habitat detail	% of IBA
Marine Neritic		80
Artificial/Terrestrial	Arable land	10
Forest		5
Marine Intertidal		5

1. IUCN Habitat classification.

Land use	% of IBA
unknown	-

---

Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2024) Important Bird Area factsheet: Roskilde Fjord, Selsø and Kattinge Søerne (Denmark). Downloaded from https://datazone.birdlife.org/site/factsheet/roskilde-fjord-selsø-and-kattinge-søerne-iba-denmark on 22/11/2024.