Data Zone
The site was identified as internationally important for bird conservation in 2003 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 List | Season (year[s] of estimate) | Size | IBA criteria |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bengal Florican Houbaropsis bengalensis | CR | resident (2002) | abundant | A1, A3 |
| Greater Adjutant Leptoptilos dubius | NT | non-breeding (2002) | rare | A1 |
| Lesser Adjutant Leptoptilos javanicus | NT | resident (2002) | uncommon | A1, A4i |
| Asian Openbill Anastomus oscitans | LC | non-breeding (2002) | abundant | A4i |
| White-shouldered Ibis Pseudibis davisoni | CR | non-breeding (2002) | rare | A1 |
| Intermediate Egret Ardea intermedia | LC | non-breeding (2002) | abundant | A4i |
| Spot-billed Pelican Pelecanus philippensis | NT | non-breeding (2002) | abundant | A1 |
| Greater Spotted Eagle Clanga clanga | VU | non-breeding (2002) | uncommon | A1 |
| White-browed Reed-warbler Acrocephalus tangorum | VU | winter (2002) | uncommon | A1 |
Ideally the conservation status of the IBA will have been checked regularly since the site was first identified in 2003. The most recent assessment (2009) is shown below.
| IBA conservation assessment | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Year of assessment | State | Pressure | Response |
| 2009 | very poor | high | low |
| Whole site assessed? | State assessed by | Accuracy of information | |
| no | habitat | medium | |
| State (condition of the trigger species' habitats) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Habitat | Quantity (% remaining) | Quality (% carrying capacity) | Result |
| Grassland | poor (40–69%) | moderate (70–90%) | very poor |
| Pressure (threats to the trigger species and/or their habitats) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Threat | Timing | Scope | Severity | Result |
| Agricultural expansion and intensification | happening now | most of population/area (50–90%) | moderate decline (10–30% over 3 generations) | high |
| Biological resource use | happening now | some of population/area (10–49%) | slow decline (1–10% over 3 generations) | medium |
| Response (conservation actions taken for the trigger species and/or their habitats) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Designation | Planning | Action | Result |
| Most of area (50–90%) covered (including the most critical parts for important bird species) | No management planning has taken place | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1993 | Tonle Sap Biosphere | Multiple Use Management Area (VI) | 34 |
| Habitat | % of IBA | Habitat detail |
|---|---|---|
| Artificial/Terrestrial | - | Rice paddies; Perennial crops, orchards and groves; Small settlements, rural gardens |
| Grassland | - | Edaphic grassland |
| Wetlands (inland) | - | Ephemeral wetlands; Rivers and streams; Freshwater lakes and pools; Permanent swamps |
| Land use | % of IBA |
|---|---|
| agriculture | - |
| forestry | - |
| other | - |
Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2024) Important Bird Area factsheet: Veal Srongae (Cambodia). Downloaded from
https://datazone.birdlife.org/site/factsheet/veal-srongae-iba-cambodia on 06/12/2024.