Data Zone
The site was identified as internationally important for bird conservation 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:Ideally the conservation status of the IBA will have been checked regularly since the site was first identified in 2001. The most recent assessment (2012) is shown below.
| IBA conservation assessment | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Year of assessment | State | Pressure | Response |
| 2012 | good | medium | 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 | good (>90%) | good (>90%) | good |
| Savanna | good (>90%) | good (>90%) | good |
| Wetlands (inland) | good (>90%) | good (>90%) | good |
| Pressure (threats to the trigger species and/or their habitats) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Threat | Timing | Scope | Severity | Result |
| Agricultural expansion and intensification | happening now | some of population/area (10–49%) | slow decline (1–10% over 3 generations) | medium |
| Biological resource use | happening now | some of population/area (10–49%) | slow decline (1–10% over 3 generations) | medium |
| Natural system modifications | happening now | some of population/area (10–49%) | slow decline (1–10% over 3 generations) | medium |
| Climate change and severe weather | happening now | some of population/area (10–49%) | no or slight decline (<1% over 3 generations) | low |
| Response (conservation actions taken for the trigger species and/or their habitats) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Designation | Planning | Action | Result |
| Whole area (>90%) covered by appropriate conservation designation | A management plan exists, but it is out of date or not comprehensive | Some limited conservation initiatives are in place | medium |
| Year | Protected Area | Designation (management category) | % coverage of IBA |
|---|---|---|---|
| - | Tero (West) | Forest Reserve (-) | 5 |
| Habitat | % of IBA | Habitat detail |
|---|---|---|
| Forest | 61 | |
| Artificial/Terrestrial | 12 | |
| Wetlands (inland) | 12 | |
| Savanna | 5 | |
| Shrubland | 5 | |
| Unknown | 2 |
| Land use | % of IBA |
|---|---|
| agriculture | - |
| forestry | - |
| water management | - |
Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2024) Important Bird Area factsheet: Sango Bay area (Uganda). Downloaded from
https://datazone.birdlife.org/site/factsheet/sango-bay-area-iba-uganda on 23/12/2024.