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 (2012) is shown below.
IBA conservation assessment | |||
---|---|---|---|
Year of assessment | State | Pressure | Response |
2012 | favourable | 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%) | favourable |
Savanna | good (> 90%) | good (> 90%) | favourable |
Wetlands (inland) | good (> 90%) | good (> 90%) | favourable |
Pressure (threats to the trigger species and/or their habitats) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Threat | Timing | Scope | Severity | Result |
Agricultural expansion and intensification | 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 |
Natural system modifications | happening now | some of area/population (10-49%) | slow but significant deterioration | medium |
Climate change and severe weather | 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 |
Whole area of site (>90%) covered by appropriate conservation designation | A management plan exists but it is out of date or not comprehensive | Some limited conservation initiatives are in place | medium |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 | % overlap with IBA |
---|---|---|---|
- | Tero (West) | Forest Reserve | 5 |
1932 | Malabigambo | Forest Reserve | 21 |
1932 | Tero | Forest Reserve | 2 |
1932 | Kaiso | Forest Reserve | 4 |
1932 | Namalala | Forest Reserve | 4 |
2006 | Sango Bay-Musambwa Island-Kagera Wetland Sustem | Ramsar Site, Wetland of International Importance | - |
Habitat1 | Habitat detail | % of IBA |
---|---|---|
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 23/11/2024.