• Summary
• Text
• Details
• Map
• Resources

The site was identified as internationally important for bird conservation in 2004 because it was regularly supporting significant populations of the species listed below, meeting IBA criteria.

Populations meeting IBA criteria ('key species') at the site:

Species	Red List	Season (year/s of estimate)	Size	IBA criteria
Pin-tailed Sandgrouse Pterocles alchata	LC	breeding (2000)	20–30 breeding pairs	B2
Little Swift Apus affinis	LC	breeding (-)	150 breeding pairs	B2
Northern Bald Ibis Geronticus eremita	EN	breeding (2002)	55 individuals	A1, A4i, B1i, B2
Pygmy Cormorant Microcarbo pygmaeus	LC	non-breeding (2001)	550 individuals	A1, B1i
Pallid Scops-owl Otus brucei	LC	breeding (-)	1–5 breeding pairs	B2
Pied Kingfisher Ceryle rudis	LC	breeding (-)	5–10 breeding pairs	B2
Graceful Prinia Prinia gracilis	LC	breeding (-)	20 breeding pairs	B2
Trumpeter Finch Bucanetes githagineus	LC	breeding (-)	5–20 breeding pairs	B2
Cinereous Bunting Emberiza cineracea	NT	breeding (2001)	50 breeding pairs	A1, B2

Ideally the conservation status of the IBA will have been checked regularly since the site was first identified in 2004. The most recent assessment (2016) is shown below.

State (condition of the key species' habitats)
Habitat	Quantity (% remaining)	Quality (% carrying capacity)	Result
Desert	moderate (70–90%)	good (>90%)	near favourable

Pressure (threats to the key species and/or their habitats)
Threat	Timing	Scope	Severity	Result
Agricultural expansion and intensification	happen­ing now	some of popul­ation/area (10–49%)	slow deteri­oration (1–10% over 3 gener­ations)	medium
Biological resource use	happen­ing now	some of popul­ation/area (10–49%)	slow deteri­oration (1–10% over 3 gener­ations)	medium
Energy production and mining	happen­ing now	few individ­uals/small area (<10%)	slow deteri­oration (1–10% over 3 gener­ations)	low
Natural system modifications	past (and unlikely to return) and no longer limiting	most of popul­ation/area (50–90%)	rapid deteri­oration (>30% over 3 gener­ations)	low

Response (conservation actions taken for the key species and/or their habitats)
Designation	Planning	Action	Result
Little/none of site covered (<10%)	A manage­ment plan exists, but it is out of date or not compre­hensive	Substantive conservation measures are being implemented, but these are not comprehensive and are limited by resources and capacity	low

Year	Protected Area	Designation (management category)	% coverage of IBA
-	Birecik Firat YHGS	Wildlife Development Area (-)	-
2008	Birecik Lake Wetland	Other Area (IV)	-

The Local Conservation Group(s) listed below are working to conserve this IBA.

Name	Year formed
Doğa Kültür ve Yaşatma Derneği	2011

For more information on BirdLife's work with Local Conservation Groups, please visit Spotlight on local empowerment.

Habitat	% of IBA	Habitat detail
Artificial/Aquatic & Marine	major (>10)
Artificial/Terrestrial	major (>10)	Arable land; Urban parks and gardens
Desert	major (>10)	Semidesert
Wetlands (inland)	major (>10)	Rivers and streams

Land use	% of IBA
agriculture	major (>10)
energy production and mining	major (>10)
tourism/recreation	major (>10)

---

Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2025) Important Bird Area factsheet: Southern Euphrates Valley and Birecik Plains (Türkiye). Downloaded from https://datazone.birdlife.org/site/factsheet/southern-euphrates-valley-and-birecik-plains-iba-türkiye on 15/01/2025.