July 31, 2003
(Updated March 2005)
The team would like to acknowledge the following experts and contributors: Rolf D. Baldus, Edmund Barrow, Alice Bhukoli, Tom Brooks, Neil Burgess, Nike Doggart, Chris Gakahu, Roy Gereau, Anthony Githitho, Sheha Idrissa Hamdan, Indu Hewawasam, Kim Howell, David Howlett, Tom Kabii, Hewson Kabugi, A.R. Kajuni, Erustus Kanga, Felician Kilahama, George R. Kafumu, Elly D. Kimbwereza, Penny Langhammer, Inyasi A.V. Lejora, Luc Lens, Luther Lulandala, Felix Mallya, Stephen Mariki, Sammy Masayanyika, Lema Mathias, Paul Matiku, David Mbora, Simon Milledge, Edward Mlowe, Erastp Mpemba, Charles Msuya, Robinson Mugo, Elias Mungaya, Leonard Mwasumbi, Naftali Ndugire, Donnell Ocker, Peter Odhiambo, Esther Offninga, Andrew Perkin, John Salehe, Kaddu Sebunya, Jan Erik Stodsrod, Tom Struhsaker, Elizabeth Tapper, Hazell Thompson, Anne Marie Verberkmoes, Ben Wandago, Jessica Ward and Julie Wieczkowski. Ian Gordon of the International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology provided editing assistance.
A fundamental purpose of CEPF is to ensure that civil society is engaged in efforts to conserve biodiversity in the hotspots. Anadditional purpose is to ensure that those efforts complement existing strategies and frameworks established by local, regional and national governments.
CEPF aims to promote working alliances among community groups, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), government, academic institutions and the private sector, combining unique capacities and eliminating duplication of efforts for a comprehensive approach to conservation. CEPF is unique among funding mechanisms in that it focuses on biological areas rather than political boundaries and examines conservation threats on a corridor-wide basis to identify and support a regional, rather than a national, approach to achieving conservation outcomes. Corridors are determined through a process of identifying important species, site and corridor-level conservation outcomes for the hotspot. CEPF targets transboundary cooperation when areas rich in biological value straddle national borders, or in areas where a regional approach will be more effective than a national approach.
The Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya hotspot (hereafter referred to as the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests hotspot) is one of the smallest of the 25 global biodiversity hotspots*. It qualifies by virtue of its high endemicity and a severe degree of threat. Although the hotspot ranks low compared to other hotspots in total numbers of endemic species, it ranks first among the 25 hotspots in the number of endemic plant and vertebrate species per unit area (Myers et al. 2000). It also shows a high degree of congruence for plants and vertebrates. It is also considered as the hotspot most likely to suffer the most plant and vertebrate extinction for a given loss of habitat and as one of 11 “hyperhot” priorities for conservation investment (Brooks et al. 2002).
(*March 2005 update: At the time this document was prepared in 2003, the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests region was classified as a biodiversity hotspot itself. However, a hotspots reappraisal released in 2005 places this region within two new hotspots - the Eastern Afromontane Hotspot and the Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa Hotspot. This profile and CEPF investments focus strictly on the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests comprising the original hotspot as defined in this document.)
The Ecosystem Profile
The ecosystem profile recommends strategic opportunities, called “strategic funding directions.” Civil society organizations then propose projects and actions that fit into these strategic directions and contribute to the conservation of biodiversity in the hotspot. Applicants propose specific projects consistent with these funding directions and investment criteria. The ecosystem profile does not define the specific activities that prospective implementers may propose, but outlines the conservation strategy that guides those activities. Applicants for CEPF grants are required to prepare detailed proposals identifying and describing the interventions and performance indicators that will be used to evaluate the success of the project.
The situation is now greatly changed and the last decade has seen a series of publications, workshops and conferences on the biodiversity and conservation of this hotspot (mostly organized by the United Nations Development Programme/Global Environment Facility (UNDP/GEF) and the WWF Eastern Africa Regional Programme Office (WWF-EARPO). These have produced a wealth of recent information on biodiversity issues (in particular on the distribution of endemic species across sites) and on forest status and management. This information has greatly reduced the time and effort needed to prepare this profile.
Current concerns for the conservation of the Eastern Arc Mountains date back to the 1978 Fourth East African Wildlife Symposium at Arusha. The conference was attended by 150 delegates, most of whom were not especially interested in forest conservation. However, a post-conference trip to Amani in the East Usambaras resulted in a report to the Government of Tanzania, drawing its attention to the biological importance of and threats to the Eastern Arc Mountains (Rodgers 1998).
In 1983, the Tanzania Forest Conservation Group (TFCG) was founded. In December 1997, there was a landmark international conference on the Eastern Arc Mountains at Morogoro, Tanzania attended by more than 250 delegates (Burgess et al. 1998a). During this conference, working groups reported on urgent issues such as the status of the remaining forest and participants presented papers on biodiversity, sociology and management. Much of the more recent conservation effort in the Eastern Arc Mountains dates from this conference, although one of the most important of these had already started with a UNDP/DANIDA project. This led in turn to a GEF Project Development Fund (PDF) Block A proposal and grant to characterize the conservation issues in the Eastern Arc Mountains in more detail.
The Block A process started after the December 1997 conference and included preliminary assessments of biodiversity values, conservation concerns, priority actions, financial constraints, sustainable financing opportunities, effectiveness of previous donor interventions and the development of preliminary proposals for GEF projects in the Eastern Arc Mountains. A three-way matrix was constructed showing levels of biodiversity and endemism, the degree of threat and the level and effectiveness of previous interventions. This enabled a ranking exercise that revealed that three of the main forest blocks (East Usambaras, Udzungwas and Ulugurus) were exceptionally diverse and that there was no major donor or public support for the Ulugurus. The Ulugurus, therefore, became a focus in the development of a PDF Block B proposal supported by UNDP and the World Bank. This PDF/B involved extensive stakeholder consultations and resulted in: 1) an outline and plan for a participatory and strategic approach to conservation and management in the Eastern Arc Mountains; 2) proposals for institutional reforms in the forest sector with a particular focus on facilitating participatory forest conservation and management; 3) a needs assessment for priority pilot interventions in the Ulugurus; and 4) the legal establishment of an Eastern Arc Mountains Endowment Fund (EAMCEF). The outcomes from this process were integrated into larger forest biodiversity concerns and into a proposed $62.2 million Tanzania Forest Conservation and Management Project.
During this time, awareness of the biodiversity values of the East African coastal forests had also grown. In 1983, a team from the International Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP, now BirdLife International) surveyed the avifauna of Arabuko-Sokoke Forest on the north coast of Kenya and drew attention to its globally threatened bird species (Kelsey & Langton, 1984). A detailed survey (Roberston, 1987) of the sacred Kaya Forests (conserved by the Mijikenda, a group of nine tribes on the Kenyan coast) highlighted their conservation importance for trees and led to a comprehensive survey of Kenyan coastal forests commissioned by WWF (Robertson & Luke 1993). This focussed on the plant species and on the status of the forests and made recommendations for their conservation.
The Frontier-Tanzania Coastal Forest Research Programme carried out a series of biodiversity surveys from 1989 to 1994 (Lowe & Clarke 2000; Clarke et al. 2000; Burgess et al. 2000; Broadley & Howell, 2000; Hoffman 2000). In 1993 a workshop on the East African coastal forests was held in Dar es Salaam. This raised the profile and conservation action in these forests and led to a series of status reports on the conservation and management of the Tanzanian coastal forests (Clarke 1995; Clarke & Dickenson 1995; Clarke & Stubblefield 1995). These and other studies are summarized in another landmark publication for the hotspot (Burgess & Clarke, 2000).
More recently, WWF-EARPO organised a series of workshops to develop an Eastern Africa Coastal Forest Programme covering Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique (WWF-EARPO, 2002). Thirty-one scientists and stakeholders from these three countries attended a regional workshop in Nairobi in February 2002. It aimed at developing a regional synthesis on coastal forest resource issues and a vision, strategy and way forward for realising the coastal forest programme. There was a strong focus on country-based group work. Maps of the region were updated, threats and root causes were analyzed, country conservation targets were agreed on and preliminary logframe action plans were developed for each country. National Coastal Forest Task Force meetings in each of the three countries subsequently refined these action plans. The document resulting from the February 2002 workshop includes comprehensive annexes which list the coastal forest sites (showing their locations, areas, status, altitudes and threats) and the endemic animals, as well as the threat analysis and country action plans. A list of endemic plants, taken from Burgess & Clarke 2000, was supplied to the workshop but not included in the report.
On 12 March 2003, a CEPF workshop was held in Dar es Salaam to define the investment niche for CEPF, building on all the previous effort. Participants included 48 people from scientific and research institutions, government departments, NGOs, field projects and donor organizations, all of whom worked in or had knowledge of the hotspot. The outputs from the workshop were subsequently incorporated into a wide-ranging consultation process that helped to define the investment priorities for CEPF in this hotspot.
Geography of the Hotspot
In terms of plant biogeography, the hotspot straddles two ecoregions: Eastern Arc Forest and Northern Zanzibar-Inhambane Coastal Forest Mosaic (WWF-US 2003a, b). These two ecoregions are mostly discontinuous but do meet in the lowlands of the East Usambara, Uluguru, Nguru and Udzungwa Mountains as well as in the Mahenge Plateau (WWF-US 2003a,b; Burgess pers. com.). A considerable proportion of species (e.g. nearly 60 percent of plants) are found in both ecoregions and the distinction between them has been a matter of some debate (Lovett et al. 2000). However, each of these forest types contains an impressive number of strict endemics. Lovett et al. (2000) conclude that the forests in these two ecoregions are very different, with differences in altitude and rainfall leading to a steep gradient of species replacement with elevation.
The Eastern Arc Mountains
The original forest cover (2,000 years ago) on the Eastern Arc Mountains is estimated at around 23,000 km², of which around 15,000 km2 remained by 1900 and a maximum of 5,340 km² remained by the mid-1990s (Newmark 1998; GEF 2002). At that time the Udzungwas contained the largest area of natural forest (1,960 km²), followed by the Nguru, Uluguru, Rubeho, East Usambaras, South Pare, West Usambaras, Mahenge, Ukaguru, North Pare and Taita Hills (6 km²). These and the following estimates of forest status and losses in the Eastern Arc Mountains are all taken from Newmark 1998. Losses were greatest, relative to original cover, in the Taitas (98 percent), Ukaguru (90 percent), Mahenge (89 percent) and West Usambaras (84 percent). The forests had become highly fragmented, with mean and median forest patch sizes estimated at 10 km² and 58 km², respectively. By 1994-96, the Udzungwas and the West Usambaras contained the largest numbers of patches (26 and 17) and only one mountain block (Ukaguru) had more or less continuous forest. At that time there were an estimated 94 forest patches in the Eastern Arc Mountains. Within forest patches there was considerable degradation. Of the closed forest that remained, only 27 percent had closed forest cover. With the exception of a few sites where there has been active intervention, the situation at present is far more likely to have deteriorated than improved since 1996.
The East African Coastal Forest Mosaic
In Kenya, the Northern Zanzibar-Inhambane Coastal Forest Mosaic is mostly confined to a narrow coastal strip except along the Tana River where it extends inland to include the forests of the lower Tana River (the northern-most of which occur within the Tana Primate National Reserve) (Figures 1, 2). In Tanzania, the Mosaic runs from border to border along the coast, contracting in the Rufiji Delta region. There are also some outliers located up to ca. 300 km inland at the base of a few of the Eastern Arc Mountains (Udzungwa, Mahenge, Uluguru and Nguru) (WWF-US 2003a). Much of the Mosaic has been converted to subsistence agriculture, interrupted by plantations and human settlements, including the large cities of Mombasa and Dar es Salaam (populations of more than 700,000 and 3 million, respectively).
Geologically, the coastal forest strip has been subject to considerable tectonic activity and to sedimentation and erosion associated with movements of the shoreline (Clarke & Burgess 2000). Most coastal forests are found between 0-50 m and 300-500 m, although in Tanzania they occur up to 1040 m (Burgess et al. 2000). Rainfall ranges between 2000 mm/year (Pemba) to 500 mm/year (northern Kenya and southern Tanzania) (Clarke 2000). There are two rainy seasons (long, April-June; short, November-December) in the north, but only one (April-June) in the south. Dry seasons can be severe and El Niño effects dramatic. Climatic conditions are believed to have been relatively stable for the last 30 million years (Axelrod & Raven 1978), although variation from year to year can be considerable, leading to droughts or floods.
By the early 1990s, there were about 175 forest patches in the Coastal Forest Mosaic (Kenya 95, Tanzania 66) covering an area of 1,360 km² (Kenya 660 km², Tanzania 700 km²) (Burgess et al. 2000). Mean patch size was 6.7 km² in Kenya and 10.6 km² in Tanzania. Modal patch-size classes were 0 - 1 km² in Kenya and 5-15 km² in Tanzania. The two largest coastal forests are both in Kenya (Arabuko-Sokoke, minimum area 370 km²; Shimba, minimum area 63 km²) (WWF-EARPO 2002), while in Tanzania there are no coastal forests larger than 40 km² (WWF-US 2003b). There is some uncertainty with these figures because of differences in criteria for patch inclusion in the data set (e.g., the exclusion of all but a few small patches (<2 km²) from the Tanzanian data set and their full inclusion in the Kenya data set). The available information is also somewhat out of date and the current situation is, again, far more likely to have deteriorated than improved. No reliable estimates are available for the coastal forest with intact and contiguous canopies or for the extent of forest loss in recent history.
The global biodiversity values of the hotspot are widely recognized (Lovett 1988, 1998a, b, c; Myers 1990; Myers et al. 2000; Brooks et al. 2001; Brooks et al. 2002). This hotspot is home to at least 1,500 endemic plant species, 16 endemic mammals, 22 endemic birds, 50 endemic reptiles and 33 endemic amphibians (Lovett & Wasser, 1993; Burgess et al. 1998a; Burgess & Clarke 2000; Myers et al. 2000). It is considered as the hotspot most likely to suffer the most plant and vertebrate extinction for a given loss of habitat and as one of 11 “hyperhot” priorities for conservation investment (Brooks et al. 2002). Because of the small area of the hotspot, the densities of these endemics are among the highest in the world. At the global level, some 0.37 percent of all species (in eight major taxa) are estimated to be endemic to the Eastern Arc Mountains and 0.20 percent endemic to the Coastal Forest Mosaic (Burgess 2000).
The distribution of these endemic species within the hotspot merits special consideration. First, nearly all the forest patches have biodiversity values and most contain at least one endemic species (Burgess & Clarke 2000). Second, there are many disjunct distributions, particularly amongst the birds and the plants (Burgess & Clarke 2000). Third, there is a huge turnover of species between patches, especially in the less mobile species. Forests that are only 100 km apart can differ in 70 percent of their millipedes (Hoffman, 2000) and in 80 percent of their plants (Clarke et al. 2000). In some invertebrate taxa, 80-90 percent of species can be strictly endemic to a single site (Scharff et al. 1981; Scharff 1992, 1993; Burgess et al. 1998b).
These distribution patterns are commonly found in both the Eastern Arc Mountains and the lowland Coastal Forest Mosaic. They indicate that much of the habitat fragmentation in this area is natural and sufficiently ancient for much speciation to have taken place in isolated patches and for species to have persisted here and there due to stochastic effects. However, over a period of hundreds or perhaps thousands of years, there has also been considerable loss of habitat and habitat continuity between the natural fragments (loss of connectivity), as a result of human activities. This issue needs careful consideration when conservation interventions are planned.
Biodiversity in the Eastern Arc Mountains
The degree of faunal endemism in the Eastern Arc Mountains varies widely across taxa. Six percent of mammals, 3 percent of birds, 68 percent of forest-dependent reptiles, 63 percent of forest-dependent amphibians, 39 percent of butterflies and 82 percent of linyphiid spiders are endemic (GEF 2002). Some of these species have extremely limited distributions. The Kihansi spray toad, described in 1998, is found in an area of less than 1 km² (Poynton et al. 1998). Three endemic bird taxa (variously described as full species or subspecies) are restricted to the 6 km² of forest in the Taita Hills (Brooks et al. 1998). Records for the Udzungwa partridge are confined to two localities in the Udzungwas and one in Rubeho (Baker & Baker 2002). Amongst some invertebrates (linyphiid spiders, opilionids and carabid beetles), single site endemism exceeds 80 percent (Scharff et al. 1981; Scharff 1992, 1993; Burgess et al. 1998).
Using a subset of 239 species endemic and near-endemic to the Eastern Arc Mountains, the East Usambaras emerge as the most important site in terms of numbers of endemics, while the Ulugurus rank top for density of endemics (Burgess et al. 2001). As expected, the big forest blocks (Usambaras, Ulugurus and Udzungwas) are more species-rich than the smaller blocks (e.g., North Pare, South Pare, Ukaguru and Mahenge). Most of the endemic taxa are not only forest dependent; they are dependent on primary forest. The low-elevation forests are rich in endemics and total numbers of species, but are very limited in overall area, having suffered extensive clearance for agriculture. The uniqueness of the biodiversity in the Eastern Arc Mountains is attributable to both relictual and recently evolved species (Burgess et al. 1998c; Roy et al. 1997). Biogeographical affinities indicate ancient connections to Madagascar (45 species of bryophytes shared) (Pocs 1998), West Africa (many birds and plant genera) (Lovett 1998b; Burgess et al. 1998c) and even Southeast Asia (where close relatives of the Udzungwa forest partridge and the African tailorbird are found) (Dinesen et al. 1994).
Biodiversity in the Coastal Forests
Overall, there are more than 4,500 plant species and 1,050 plant genera (WWF-US 2003b), with around 3,000 species and 750 genera occurring in forest. At least 400 plant species are endemic to the forest patches and about another 500 are endemic to the intervening habitats that make up 99 percent of the ecoregion area (WWF-US 2003b). The majority of these species are woody but there are also endemic climbers, shrubs, herbs, grasses and sedges (Clarke et al. 2000). A substantial proportion of the endemic plants are confined to a single forest (for example, Rondo Forest, Tanzania, has 60 strict endemics and Shimba Hills, Kenya, has 12) (Clarke et al. 2000). The flora as a whole has affinities with that of West Africa, suggesting an ancient connection with the Guineo-Congolian lowland forests (Lovett 1993). Endemism is primarily relictual rather than recently evolved (Clarke et al. 2000; Burgess et al. 1998c).
Faunal endemism rates have been estimated for forest species in the Swahelian Regional Centre of Endemism (including the transition zone in Mozambique). These are highest in the invertebrate groups such as millipedes (80 percent of all the forest species), molluscs (68 percent) and forest butterflies (19 percent) (Burgess 2000). Amongst the vertebrates, 7 percent of forest mammals, 10 percent of forest birds, 57 percent of forest reptiles and 36 percent of forest amphibians are endemic (Burgess 2000). If Mozambique is excluded, endemics include 14 species of birds (including four on Pemba Island), eight mammals, 36 reptiles and five amphibians (WWF-EARPO 2002).
In terms of species richness, there are at least 158 species of mammals (17 percent of all Afrotropical species), 94 reptiles and 1200 molluscs (WWF-US 2003b). As with the plants, endemism is primarily relictual (Burgess et al. 1998c) and single site endemism and disjunct distributions are common. This makes it extremely difficult to prioritise the forests in terms of their biodiversity. Burgess (2000) made a preliminary analysis on the basis of species richness and endemism, using vascular plants, birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians. This showed that different forests are important for different groups. For example, while Arabuko-Sokoke is top for endemic birds and for mammal species richness, it barely makes it into the top ten for plants. Overall, the five most important forests are Rondo (plants and birds), lowland East Usambaras and Arabuko-Sokoke (birds, mammals and reptiles), Shimba (plants and birds) and Pugu Hills (birds and mammals). Pemba Island, with an area of only 101 400 ha, is extraordinarily important for birds with four endemic species (Baker & Baker, 2002) while Zanzibar has six endemic mammals and three endemic birds (Siex, pers. comm.).
Levels of Protection
Within the Kenyan area of the hotspot, there is one national park, a 6 km² area to the northwest of Arabuko-Sokoke Forest. This park is, however, somewhat of an anomaly, as it contains no closed forest and exists only on paper. There are four national reserves (Shimba, Tana River, Boni and Dodori) (WWF-EARPO 2002). These fall under the jurisdiction of the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS). The Shimba Hills were gazetted as National Forest in 1903 and then double-gazetted (with the exception of two small areas that remained as forest reserves under the control of the Forest Department) in 1968 as the Shimba Hills National Reserve (Bennun & Njoroge 1999). Protection levels are higher in the area controlled by KWS, as they have armed rangers and a clearer institutional mandate for conservation. The Tana River Primate National Reserve contains 16 out of the 70 patches of riverine forest found along the lower Tana River (Butynski & Mwangi 1994). There forests have suffered severe damage during the past three decades from farmers clearing land for agriculture and possibly from the construction of several dams up-river that have reduced the incidence of flooding (Butynski & Mwangi 1994, Wieczkowski & Mbora 1999-2000). The biodiversity in Boni and Dodori is poorly known because security problems have prevented biological surveys.
The largest of the Kenyan forest reserves is Arabuko Sokoke (417 km²). For the last 10 years this forest has been under multi-institutional management (KWS, the Forest Department, Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI) and the National Museums of Kenya, (NMK)) (Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Management Team 2002). This arrangement has been taken as a model for other indigenous forests in Kenya but has been rarely implemented. Protection levels suffer from the proximity of the tourist resorts of Malindi and Watamu and the resultant demand for carving wood and timber. The effectiveness of management has been variable over time, being subject to the commitment of the personnel on the ground, the working relationships between KWS and the Forest Department and the level of resources available. Generally, however, management has been more effective than in the other 17 forest reserves (WWF-EARPO 2002) within the Kenyan coastal forest belt. In the fragmented forests of the Kenyan portion of the Eastern Arc Mountains (Taita Hills), some patches, including plantation, have been gazetted as forest reserve. Others are on trust land administered by the local county council, some of which have been recommended for gazettement as forest reserves (Bennun & Njoroge 1999).
National monument status has been given to 39 out of nearly 50 of the sacred Kaya forests (WWF-EARPO 2002), but the level of protection gained from this status is below that of the forest reserves. An additional national monument at Gede Ruins is not a Kaya, but it includes a fenced 350 ha coral rag forest that is in good condition and very well protected. There are numerous Local Government or County Council Forests. Unfortunately, protection of these forests is virtually non-existent, to the point where local councillors have sold forest plots for agricultural settlement (e.g., at Madunguni and Mangea Hill). A large proportion (nearly 40 percent) of the Kenyan coastal forests fall into this category or is totally unprotected (data from WWF-EARPO 2002).
In the Tanzanian portion of the Eastern Arc Mountains, there are two national parks (Udzungwa Mountains National Park, gazetted in 1992, 1,960 km²; and Mikumi National Park, 3,230 km²), two game reserves (Selous and Mkomazi) and a nature reserve (Amani Nature Reserve, gazetted in 1997, 83.8 km²) (GEF 2002; Roe et al. 2002). However, more than 90 percent of the total forest area in the Tanzanian portion of the Eastern Arc Mountains and almost 75 percent of the total forests are gazetted as government catchment forest reserves (Burgess pers. com.). These range in area from more than 557,000 ha (Ngindo) to less than 10 ha and include all the larger forests in the Kilimanajaro (e.g., Chome), Tanga (e.g., Nguru North, Shume Magambe) and Morogoro (e.g., Uluguru, Nguru South) regions. Most of the remainder are local authority forests, ranging in size from 57,300 ha (Mbalwe/Mfukulembe) to less than 10 ha, although there are a few private forests, mainly on tea estates (e.g. Ambangulu Tea Estate) and some of which have been covenanted for conservation. In the national park, protection levels are high, but elsewhere they are highly variable. The important catchment forest reserves are, in general, better protected than the local authority forests (Burgess et al. 1998).
In the Tanzanian coastal forests, management regimes are more complicated. Most are either forest reserves (80) or are on public land (20) with no protection status (WWF-EARPO 2002). Four are private forest reserves (Magotwe, Kichi Hills, Mlungui and Magoroto). Only three are entirely managed by the district government as local authority forest reserves, although some have double status (two overlapping with forest reserves and two more with private forest reserves ). There are two Catchment forest reserves (Mselezi, Ziwani) (Burgess and Clarke 2000; WWF-EARPO 2002) managed by the Central Government Forest and Beekeeping Division. Two others, Zaraninge and the former Mkwaja ranch, are being incorporated into the new Sadaani National Park (WWF-EARPO 2002). Some patches are also found in the Selous Game Reserve and others in Mafia Island Marine Park. Offshore protected areas are also found in Zanzibar (Jozani Forest Reserve) and Pemba (Ngezi Forest Reserve). There are also smaller areas in Zanzibar that are important for water catchment (e.g. Masingi) and for endemic species (e.g. Unguja Ukuu Forest Plantation). There is a proposal to upgrade the Jozani Reserve in Zanzibar (now known as the Jozani-Chakwa Bay Conservation Area) to a national park.
Management and protection of most of the forests throughout the hotspot have suffered from inadequate stakeholder involvement, conflicts of interest and corruption. Where forests are gazetted, the boundaries tend to be respected but the forests themselves suffer steady degradation. The levels of protection achieved on the ground are strongly dependent on local factors such as proximity to urban areas, pressure for land, ease of access, presence of valuable timber and the capacity and morale of the local forestry officers (WWF-US 2003a). There is a general move toward various forms of participatory forest management (PFM), in the hope that an exchange of forest user rights for community management responsibilities and ownership (where appropriate) will lead to better protection by the people who often know best what is going on in the forests. Although this hope is widely held, it has not yet been scientifically tested within the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests hotspot. The alternative strategies of direct payments and easements are being explored, but have not yet been implemented.
Conservation outcomes are the full set of quantitative and justifiable conservation targets in a hotspot that need to be achieved in order to prevent biodiversity loss. These targets are defined at three levels: species (extinctions avoided), sites (areas protected) and landscapes (corridors created). As conservation in the field succeeds in achieving these targets, these targets become demonstrable results or outcomes. While CEPF cannot achieve all of the outcomes identified for a region on its own, the partnership is trying to ensure that its conservation investments are working toward preventing biodiversity loss and that its success can be monitored and measured. CI's Center for Applied Biodiversity Science is facilitating the definition of conservation outcomes across the 25 global hotspots, representing the benchmarks against which the global conservation community can gauge the success of conservation measures.
Overview of Conservation Outcomes
Defining conservation outcomes is therefore a bottom-up process through which species-level targets are defined first and based on the species information, site-level conservation targets are identified. Landscape-level targets are delineated subsequently, if appropriate for the region. The process requires knowledge on the conservation status of individual species. This information has been accumulating in the Red Lists of Threatened Species developed by IUCN and partners. The Red List is based on quantitative, globally applicable criteria under which the probability of extinction is estimated for each species. Species outcomes in the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests hotspot include those species that are globally threatened (Vulnerable, Endangered and Critically Endangered) according to The 2002 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Outcome definition is a fluid process and, as data become available, species-level outcomes will be expanded to include other taxonomic groups that previously had not been assessed, as well as restricted-range species. Avoiding extinctions means conserving globally threatened species to make sure that their Red List status improves or at least stabilizes. This in turn means that data are needed on population trends; for most of the threatened species, there are no such data.
Recognizing that most species are best conserved through the protection of the sites in which they occur, site outcomes are defined for each target species. Site outcomes are focused on physically and/or socioeconomically discrete areas of land that harbour populations of at least one globally threatened species. These sites need to be protected from ecological transformation to conserve the target species. Sites are scale-independent and, ideally, should be manageable as single units.
Corridor outcomes are focused on landscapes that need to be conserved to allow the persistence of biodiversity over time. Species and site outcomes are nested within corridors. The goal of corridors is to preserve ecological and evolutionary processes, as well as enhance connectivity between important conservation sites by effectively increasing the amount of habitat with biodiversity value near them. Unlike species and site outcomes, the criteria for determining corridor outcomes are being defined and this is presently an important research front. CABS will make the data on conservation outcomes publicly available on this Web site.
The definition of the conservation outcomes drew heavily on the research findings of a large number of scientists who have worked intensively in this hotspot over the last three decades and who have contributed to various compilations of primary field data (Lovett & Wasser 1993; Burgess et al. 1998, Burgess & Clarke 2000; Newmark 2002; WWF-EARPO 2002; WWF-US 2003a,b). The key sources of data on threatened plants included the Flora of Tropical East Africa (see Beentje & Smith  for details of publication), the TROPICOS database (MBG 2003), and a database compiled by Q. Luke. Data on faunal species distributions in Tanzania were drawn from the University of Dar es Salaam biodiversity database (Howell & Msuya 2003). The work to define national Important Bird Areas (IBAs) was also an important source of data. The IBA process in Kenya and Tanzania (coordinated by Nature Kenya and the Wildlife Conservation Society of Tanzania as the BirdLife International partners for these countries) had already compiled data for threatened and restricted-range birds and their key sites (IBAs). These data were already in the World Bird Database at BirdLife International. The IBAs provided a starting point for including other aspects of the biodiversity of this hotspot to identify key biodiversity areas, or site level conservation outcomes.
The results of the outcome definition indicate that 333 globally threatened (Red List) species occur in the hotspot, with 105 species being represented in Kenya and 307 in Tanzania (Table 1). The globally threatened flora and fauna in the hotspot are represented by 236 plant species, 29 mammal species, 28 bird species, 33 amphibian species and seven gastropod species. Of the 333 globally threatened species in the hotspot, 241 are Vulnerable, 68 are Endangered and 24 are Critically Endangered.
The full list of species outcomes is provided in Appendix 1 (Download the Appendices to view each appendix.) The species outcomes are based on the 2002 IUCN Red List, which is quite good for several taxonomic groups. However, Red List data for plants is badly in need of updating. The 2002 Red List includes some widespread plant species in this hotspot, others that are in far greater danger of extinction because their restricted ranges have not yet been assessed (Q. Luke & R. Gereau pers. comm.). Gereau and Luke (2003) estimate the total number of globally threatened plant species in the hotspot is probably 1,200 or more, including 973 taxa that are not in the 2002 IUCN Red List and that urgently need to be assessed for degree of threat status.
Noticeably absent from the species outcomes are reptiles, freshwater fish and nearly all the invertebrates. None of the reptiles or fish within this hotspot is currently on the IUCN Red List. This is a result of either (1) a lack of information on these species or simply (2) because nobody has yet made the required "assessment" for possible inclusion in the Red List. Among invertebrates, information was only available for gastropods. It is expected that many more invertebrate species (as well as plants and reptiles) will prove to be threatened once they are assessed using updated IUCN criteria. A list of potentially threatened dragonflies has also been compiled by Viola Clausnitzer of the University of Marburg, Germany.
Table 2 lists the 24 Critically Endangered species in this hotspot (five mammals, three birds, four amphibians, three gastropods and nine plants). Of these 24 species, 12 occur in Tanzania, seven in Kenya and five in both Kenya and Tanzania. If extinctions are to be avoided, the full set of these Critically Endangered species, together with the sites they depend on, must be ranked high among any priorities for conservation action. For example, 17 of the 24 Critically Endangered species in this hotspot are each restricted to a single site. This result is important for the site prioritization process.
There are other species in the hotspot, currently listed as Endangered, which should be re-assessed for threat status. These include the Zanzibar red colobus monkey (Procolobus kirkii) (less than 2,000, mostly in Jozani Forest Reserve) and Aders' duiker (probably less than 800 in a very restricted range with a 50 percent decline within last 15-20 years) (Struhsaker pers. comm.). Two other Endangered species—African Elephant and African Wild Dog—were identified as "landscape species," indicating that they will likely not be conserved through a site-based approach alone.
Further analysis of the composition of the site outcomes (Appendix 2 and 3) indicates that 51 of the 160 sites are IBAs (Bennun & Njoroge 1999; Baker & Baker 2002). Some sites have high numbers of threatened species. These sites include: East Usambara Mountains, Uluguru Mountains, Udzungwa Mountains National Park, West Usambara Mountains, Udzungwa Mountains, Shimba Hills, Lindi District Coastal Forests, Nguru Mountains, Taita Hills, South Pare Mountains and Kisarawe District Coastal Forests. When the sites are ranked according to the number of threatened species that they contain, 23 of the top 25 sites are IBAs. This suggests that the IBA process succeeds in identifying the key sites for conserving species of global concern, at least on a broad scale.
An alternative to a simple threatened species richness ranking is to examine the site data for complementarity and to determine: 1) the minimum set of sites that contain all globally threatened species at least once; and 2) those sites that contain a species that occurs nowhere else (i.e. are irreplaceable, even if they only have one species). A preliminary analysis (Rodrigues and Langhammer pers. comm.) indicates that the minimum set consists of 35 sites and that, of these, 26 are irreplaceable. If the sites are ranked by species richness, the top 33 sites contain 97 percent of all threatened species (although it takes 129 sites to capture 100 percent). This means that, except for a few species, the selection of sites by a simple threatened species richness ranking is not a bad prioritization strategy compared with the complementarity set. Among the top 20 sites by species richness, only two (Bagomoya District Forests and North Pare Mountains) fail to make it into the complementarity set and only three are not irreplaceable (Bagomoya District Forests, North Pare Mountains and Mafia Island).
It must be understood, however, that neither strategy should be applied exclusively. There are many reasons for this. First, the survival of a threatened species is likely to require conservation interventions at more than one site. For example, the best known population of Clarke's weaver is in Arabuko-Sokoke Forest, but it doesn't breed there. Second, a species found in several sites may only have viable populations in one or two of them and these critical sites may not be captured by complementarity, or rank highly for species richness. Third, variation in the raw data (numbers of threatened species per site) can be partly accounted for by large site differences in area (over five orders of magnitude: Appendix 3) and/or research investment. Fourth, the outcome analysis is based on a small number of taxonomic groups and in some of these groups (especially the plants) the Red Lists are in serious need of re-assessment. Fifth, prioritizing sites must take into account not only their relative biological importance, but also the degrees of threat to them and the current investments in them.
With this background, there is no present justification for the exclusion of any of the 160 site outcomes from possible CEPF funding. Conversely, it would be a waste of the available data not to recognize that some particularly important sites should be targeted. A mixed strategy for site prioritization is therefore recommended.
CEPF investments cannot achieve all of the conservation outcomes identified in this profile, but, by defining these outcomes on the basis of globally threatened species, CEPF can ensure that all its projects in this hotspot will be targeted toward globally significant biodiversity conservation. The outcome definition also means that CEPF and other donors, as well as conservation organizations in general, can track the success of their investments and interventions, by measuring extinctions avoided and sites protected. This is particularly important for a global program like CEPF, which has a responsibility to use resources in ways that achieve biodiversity conservation most effectively at a global scale.
In Kenya the forests are mostly under the Forest Department, within the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. Other forest stakeholder institutions include the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI) and the National Museums of Kenya (NMK). In addition there are a large number of NGOs with interests in environment and conservation in the hotspot.
Government Institutional Framework for Forestry in Tanzania
There are three additional management categories in the Eastern Arc Mountains, which are outside the FBD/District level framework for forests: National Parks, Game Reserves and Nature Reserves. There are two national parks (Udzungwa Mountains National Park and Mikumi National Park) managed by the Tanzanian National Park Authority based in Arusha. There are two game reserves (Selous and Mkomazi) and one nature reserve (Amani) managed by the Wildlife Division and the Tanzanian Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI). Nature Reserves enjoy a higher level of protection than Forest Reserves.
A number of problems have been identified with the administrative framework of FBD, some of which are exacerbated by the decentralized structure for forest management in Tanzania (GEF 2002). These include:
These and other institutional problems are being addressed by major reforms in the Tanzanian forest sector. A proposed $62.2 million dollar project (Forest Conservation and Management Project) funded by GEF, World Bank and the IDA would implement the reforms. A major output of this project would be the establishment of the Tanzania Forest Service (TFS), which would be responsible for the implementation of the National Forest Programme (see below).
Government Institutional Framework for Forestry in Kenya
The Forest Department has the major mandate. It falls under the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MENR) and is responsible for:
The Forest Department operates some 160 forest stations, reporting to 65 District Forest Offices which in turn report to eight Provincial Forest Offices. In the past the department has concentrated on industrial forestry, but is now giving greater attention to afforestation on smallholder farm land and the conservation of natural forests. The department has many of the same problems as the FBD in Tanzania, although its administration does not suffer from the fragmentary effects of decentralization. Resources are limited and staffing levels are inadequate for keeping the department fully operational. A high percentage of the department's total budget goes to salaries and allowances. There are plans for transforming the department into a new body called the Kenya Forest Service. These plans are less advanced than those in Tanzania but they have the same goals.
The KWS is a parastatal and is responsible for the protection of the nation's wildlife. On December 5th 1991, the directors of KWS and the Forest Department signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU), covering the management of selected indigenous forest reserves. Within this MoU, the major responsibilities of KWS are the management of tourism, problem animals and wildlife protection.
The National Museums of Kenya (NMK) was subsequently included in the MoU under an addendum that recognized its role in cataloguing, researching and conserving forest biodiversity. NMK has also been responsible for the surveying and gazetting of sacred coastal forests as national monuments, through the Coastal Forest Conservation Unit (CFCU).
The Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI) was established in 1986. Its mission is to enhance the social and economic welfare of Kenyans through user-oriented research for sustainable development of forests and allied natural resources. In 2002, it had 94 university graduate research scientists at PhD, MSc and BSc level, in 17 research centres in various ecological zones of Kenya. The Gede Regional Research Centre is responsible for research in the coastal forests.
NGOs can provide significant complementarity to government institutions:
They have one fundamental disadvantage: they do not have the national mandates to manage forests and wildlife areas and while they can contribute to park, forest or wildlife management they do not have ultimate authority. This means that their ability to solve problems on the ground in forest reserves or national parks is limited. NGO project management is often challenging and it requires technical, managerial, political and interpersonal skills. High turnover in project managers is not uncommon.
International environmental and conservation NGOs working in East Africa include African Wildlife Foundation (AWF), African Conservation Centre (ACC), BirdLife International, CARE International and CARE Tanzania, Environmental Liaison Centre International, Friends of Conservation (FoC), the IUCN East Africa Regional Office (IUCN-EARO), TRAFFIC and WWF-EARPO. IUCN, WWF, TRAFFIC, BirdLife International and CARE International are global organizations with regional and national offices in Dar es Salaam and/or Nairobi. AWF, ACC and FoC operate throughout Africa, but are linked with parent institutions abroad. All of these well-known organizations have carried out significant activities within the hotspot. WWF-EARPO is spearheading the Eastern Africa Coastal Forest Programme in Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique.
The East African Wild Life Society (EAWLS) and the East Africa Natural History Society (EANHS) operate only in East Africa, although their membership is international. The EANHS is composed of two partner NGOs: Nature Kenya (NK) and Nature Uganda (NU), both of which are the national partners of BirdLife International in Kenya and Uganda. NK was one of the implementers for BirdLife's IBA project and it published the IBA book for Kenya (Bennun & Njoroge 1999). It has been particularly active in Arabuko-Sokoke Forest. The EAWLS is host to the Kenya Forests Working Group (KFWG), which is a coalition of NGOs and of anyone interested in forests and which has been an extremely important focus for civil society action against government policies that have threatened Kenyan forests. The EAWLS has also been very active in the Taita Hills.
National NGOs in Kenya include A Rocha Kenya (ARK) in Watamu and the Forest Action Network (FAN) in Nairobi. In Tanzania, national NGOs include TFCG; Frontier-Tanzania; Journalist Environmental Association of Tanzania (JET); the Lawyers Environmental Association of Tanzania (LEAT); and Wildlife Conservation Society of Tanzania (WCST). FAN has been particularly active on policy matters in Kenya and in stimulating networking on Participatory Forest Management. ARK is a Christian conservation organization that is active in bird monitoring and conservation education on the north coast of Kenya. Frontier-Tanzania has been responsible for much of the scientific research in the Eastern Arc Mountains, working together with the University of Dar es Salaam and visiting scientists. The TFCG has a considerable track record of conservation initiatives on the Tanzanian side of the hotspot, particularly in working with local communities and in participatory forest management. The WCST is the BirdLife national partner for Tanzania and has produced the Tanzanian IBA book (Baker & Baker, 2002). LEAT provides important legal support on conservation issues in Tanzania, while JET is invaluable in awareness raising and advocacy.
Among the community-based organizations are the Arabuko-Sokoke Forest-Adjacent Dwellers Association; the Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Guides Association; and the Shimba Hills Support Group. In Tanzania these organizations include the Korogwe Development Environmental Protection Association; Morogoro Environmental Conservation Action Group; Sigi River Conservation Society - Tanga and Usambara Environment Conservation Organization - Lushoto. Many of these are relatively new and need testing and capacity building, but they have the virtues of being on-site and being rooted mostly in the local communities, where support is badly needed.
Policy and Legislation
The proposed forest policy on indigenous forest states: “All gazetted indigenous forests; woodlands, bushlands and mangroves should remain reserved. They will be managed by state-approved agencies which will allocate them primarily for: (1) regulated multi-purpose forestry, using zoning concepts which do not endanger the conservation functions of the forest; (2) preservation of biodiversity; (3) conservation of soil and water; and (4) providing products and services mainly locally on a subsistence basis, by community participation where appropriate.”
In the general management principles, the policy states: “The rationale of forest management depends on local conditions set by climate, soil and tree species and on the actual forest related needs of the people, which incorporate both social and cultural aspects. In all circumstances, the forest resources will be managed in a sustainable manner with due regard to environmental conservation. Reliable information on forest resources and their utilisation should be ensured. This information should include forest-health monitoring.”
Up to the end of 2002, the new forest policy had not been implemented on the ground. In 2001 the Government gazetted the excision of 67,185 ha of forest reserves, mainly for settlement, further decreasing the country's forest cover. There was strong protest from civil society against these excisions. Two court cases were brought against the government's action and these cases are ongoing. The replanting of harvested plantations, which was also recommended under the new policy, had fallen years behind, but was revived in 2002. On the positive side, joint management of certain forests with communities and environmental NGOs was undertaken on a pilot basis. Since the new government took office at the end of 2002, official statements have indicated that the new forest policy and legislation will soon be approved and put into effect and that the issue of the 2001 excisions will be revisited.
In addition to the Forest Act, there are about 77 statutes that deal with environmental legislation. Until 1999, there was no environmental legislation framework. Parliament passed the Environmental Management and Coordination Bill, 1999, into law on 15 December 1999. The Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) came into force on 14th January 2000 and takes priority over all pre-existing legislation. The EMCA establishes national environmental principles and provides guidance and coherence to good environmental management. It also deals with cross-sectional issues such as overall environmental policy formulation, environmental planning, protection and conservation of the environment, environmental impact assessment, environmental audit and monitoring, environmental quality standards, environmental protection orders, institutional coordination and conflict resolution. Owing to financial and bureaucratic constraints, the act has taken several years to become operational. Once fully operational, the act will have impacts on other legislation dealing with environment such as land tenure and land use legislation, forestry legislation, wildlife legislation, water laws and agriculture legislation. The act provides a good avenue for environmental protection and the establishment of an operational framework under the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA).
The Forest Policy is implemented through the National Forest Programme (Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, 2001). The key challenges for this program are ensuring sustainable utilization of forest produce and meeting the national demand for forest produce such as wood fuel, sawn timber, non-timber forest products and other forest produce. The dependence on forest products by the majority of the rural communities for their livelihoods enables forests to contribute to poverty reduction.
The program aims to reduce poverty through: (1) increased employment in forest industry and related activities by 25 percent by 2010; and (2) increased income generation from forest resources and services to local communities by 20 percent by 2010. The anticipated major benefits resulting from increased community and private sector participation in the management and sustainable utilization of forests are:
The main focus in the ordinance is gazettement of forests as reserves. For instance, Part II, Sections 5 to 9 of the ordinance provide for the declaration of central government forest reserves and restrictions over the use of and/or occupation of such areas. The ordinance further provides for the declaration of local authority forest reserves. The requirements for such declarations include: (1) recording of rights preceding such declarations; (2) restrictions on the creation of new rights subsequent to declaration, in respect of unreserved land, of “reserved trees”; and (3) the granting of licenses for any of the purposes of the ordinance.
There was clearly great inconsistency between the ordinance and the new National Forest Policy. Taking account of the weaknesses in the existing ordinance, a Forest Bill, which revised the outdated Forests Ordinance CAP 389 of 1957, was developed to correspond with the National Forest Policy. The bill sought to address the inadequacies of the Forests Ordinance and provided a legal framework to enable the new National Forest Policy to be effectively implemented. The revised Forest Act bestows management rights under respective instruments, including:
The Forest Act (approved by the Parliament in April 2002) recognizes such initiatives and the roles of different stakeholders are acknowledged and supported, including allocation of management responsibilities, rights and duties. The act also addresses compliance with international initiatives toward sustainable forest management, including support for bioprospecting that benefits indigenous communities. Development of the Forest Act also recognizes related legislation, which include the Land Act (United Republic of Tanzania 1999a), Village Land Act (United Republic of Tanzania 1999b).
National Forest Programme
The formulation of the NFP included identification of issues through reviews and consultations at national and local levels, their prioritization based on scope, resources and capacity requirements for their implementation. Strategies for implementation were identified and development programmes designed.
In May 2001, the draft NFP was submitted to the government for endorsement. The NFP has four development programmes, namely:
Program formulation was completed in June 2001. Implementation arrangements are now being developed through partnerships with the main stakeholders, including local communities, the private sector and local governments.
After independence, Kenya built up a strong economic lead over its neighbours in Eastern Africa through the encouragement of market-oriented policies, smallholder agricultural production, public investment, tourism and incentives for private industrial investment. Over a 10-year period from 1963-1973, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew by an average of 6.6 percent a year (US State Department Country Reports, 2002a). By 1997 it had dropped to 2.3 percent, then to 1.8 percent in 1999 and became negative (0.4 percent) in 2000 (USAID 2000). A variety of factors were responsible for the long decline. These included unfavourable terms of trade (increased oil prices, decreased tea and coffee prices), government invasion of the private sector, declining tourism, political uncertainties, corruption and sheer bad governance (leading to the suspension of bilateral and multilateral aid in 1991) (USAID 2000). Were it not for vigorous growth in the cut flower and horticultural export industries and the entrepreneurial skills of its people, Kenya would have been in a much worse situation by 2000. A new government was democratically elected at the end of 2002 and there are considerable expectations that the economy will improve.
Tanzania was a one-party state with a socialist mode of development from independence in 1961 until the mid-1980s. Despite a substantial influx of foreign aid, the economy did not prosper. Beginning in 1986, the government began to liberalize its control of the economy and to encourage participation in the private sector. In 1996, a three-year Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility was agreed between the IMF and the Tanzanian Government. Over the next four years, economic growth averaged around 4 percent, rising to 4.9 percent in 2000 and to 5.6 percent in 2001 (USAID 2002). Economic growth is most evident in Dar es Salaam. Although the figures look good, Tanzania's economy is overwhelmingly donor-dependent, with the external debt at more than $8 billion and debt servicing absorbing 40 percent of government expenditure (USAID 2002b).
Economic Activities on the Coast
In the early 1990s, textile manufacturing was the leading industrial category in coastal Kenya in terms of the numbers of registered companies (24 out of 159: UNEP 1998). Several of these firms have since collapsed as a result of massive importation of cheap second hand clothing (mitimbu). The cashew nut industry, which used to be a significant contributor to rural livelihoods, has also suffered severely from competition with India and from internal problems. A cashew nut processing factory at Kilifi, on the north coast of Kenya, finally closed down in the late 1990s after years of problems. As a result of the declines in the tourism, textiles and cashew nut industries, many people have lost jobs and livelihoods, with significant effects to the local economy. Some of the strain has been borne by the forests, which play an important role in mitigating poverty. For example, more than 40 percent of household consumption in the Eastern Arc Mountains is forest-derived (GEF 2002).
Other industrial activities, many of them based on the coast because of maritime access to imports and exports, have been more robust. These include: cement, lime and quarrying; steel rolling mills and iron smelting; oil refining; manufacture of paints, plastics, rubber, chemical and metal products; wood processing (paper, pulp, board and timber); light processing for export of agricultural crops (coffee, groundnuts, cotton and sisal); and food and beverage industries. As elsewhere in the world there has been considerable growth in information technology-based services, although these have been constrained by poor landline facilities, high telephone charges and poor connectivity. There has also been increasing South African investment in the coastal economy, particularly in Tanzania.
Industries outside the major cities and towns are mostly based on mineral resources, especially sand, salt and limestone. Sand for building is mined in many localities along the coast, notably at Mazeras near Mombasa. Silica sand for glass manufacture was formerly mined in Arabuko-Sokoke Forest. (Ironically, the old sand quarries have since become a distinctive biodiversity site within the forest, especially for frogs and birds). Extensive salt works have been established at various sites (e.g. in Tanga District in Tanzania and at Ngomeni, Gongoni and Kurawa in Kenya), where they have been responsible for local destruction of mangrove forests. Limestone deposits are abundant along the coast. They form a 4-8 km band, parallel to the coast and about 70 m thick from across the Kenya-Tanzanian border north to Malindi. All along the coast, coral limestone is quarried as building blocks, but there is local variation in limestone quality, affecting its potential use. In Tiwi on the south Kenyan coast it is used for lime manufacture. In the Bamburi area just north of Mombasa, limestone is quarried on a large scale for cement manufacture by a subsidiary of La Farge, a French-based multinational. This site at Bamburi has become famous for its ecological restoration of quarries and La Farge has recently entered into a partnership agreement with WWF (WWF-EARPO 2002).
Other coastal mineral resources of minor local importance include barites, galena, iron ore, gypsum and rubies. However all of these may be dwarfed by the development of titanium mining in Kenya. There are vast titanium reserves in the Magarini Sands belt, which stretches from Shimoni in the south coast to Mambrui in the north. Titanium has traditionally been used to make a white pigment for paint, plastic and paper, but is increasingly in demand for applications in the armaments and space industries. Since 1995, a Canadian-based company (Tiomin Resources Inc.) has been negotiating an agreement with the Kenyan government to mine titanium. Tiomin hopes to start its activities in the Kwale District and expects to generate around $47 million in annual cash flow.
For the vast majority of people in the rural areas the major economic activity is subsistence farming, supplemented by tree crops and fishing. There are large sisal plantations (e.g. Vipingo in Kenya) and tea estates (e.g. in Iringa and Kagera in Tanzania), which provide limited and poorly paid jobs, but employment opportunities are few and the landless are in desperate straits. Cassava is the major agricultural crop, followed by maize, citrus, coconuts, mangoes and bananas (UNEP 1998). Cassava and maize are the staples everywhere and coconuts yield a variety of products from roofing material to palm wine. Other crops are locally important (e.g. coffee in Kwale District in Kenya). The fishing industry is constrained by the small area of the continental shelf next to the East African coast, the Southeast Monsoon (which restricts the activities of small canoes) and low productivity due to nutrient deficient currents (UNEP 1998). Food security is not a problem within and around the high rainfall areas in the Eastern Arc Mountains, but farmers to the north and north-west of Mombasa need emergency food supplies whenever the rainfall is poor. Complaints of declining soil fertility are widespread.
Other minor but widespread livelihoods are earned from artisan activities (wood carving, furniture making, boat building and handicrafts), service provision (e.g. kiosks for small scale trading, sewing, electronic and other repairs) and the informal jua kali (Kiswahili for "fierce sun") sector, which includes tin smiths, second hand clothing and cobblers.
Infrastructure and Regional Development
Dar es Salaam is the largest city of Tanzania with a population of around three million. It is increasingly competitive with Mombasa as the most important seaport in the region. It has eight deep-water berths for general cargo, three berths for container vessels, eight anchorages, a grain terminal, an oil jetty and onshore mooring for supertankers. It underwent major rehabilitation starting in 1997 at a cost of about $24 million. In addition to Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo, it also serves Malawi and Zambia. Freight is largely carried by trains and heavy-duty vehicles. Most primary roads (e.g. from Dar north to Tanga and inland to Dodoma, Arusha and Morogoro) are in good condition, but rural and feeder roads are bad and can be impassable in the rains. Major road development and the construction of a bridge over the Rufiji are ongoing and will open up access from Dar es Salaam to the South. The Tanzania Zambia Railway Authority maintains good rail links between Dar es Salaam and Zambia. There are also train services to Tanga on the north coast and to Arusha via Moshi and Mwanza via Morogoro. The Dar es Salaam International Airport has daily flights to national, regional and international destinations. In addition there are daily ferryboats to Zanzibar and sea transport to other destinations on the Tanzanian coast (Mtwara, Tanga, Kilwa, Lindi and Mafia Island).
Both cities and most of the larger towns in the hotspot have unreliable water supplies and electricity services, but most villages have neither piped water nor electricity, unless they are on the main roads. In Kenya, more than 65 percent of the population depend on pit latrines or the bush (UNEP 1998). Because of a heavy investment in coastal tourism, there are a large number of comfortable hotels along the coast in Kenya and a smaller number on the Tanzanian coast. Good private hospitals are available in Mombasa and Dar es Salaam, but are expensive. Government hospitals and clinics are severely under-resourced. Telephone landlines in Tanzania and Kenya are unreliable, but new mobile phone networks have hugely improved communication in both countries.
Demography and Social Trends
Social services in both countries are rudimentary, especially in the rural areas. Only 74 percent (Tanzania) and 73 percent (Kenya) of children attend primary school (USAID 2002a, b). In Kenya in 2003, the incoming government made primary education free of charge, but it is not yet clear whether it will be able to provide the extra resources required by this new policy. The major health problems are malaria and HIV/AIDS. Largely because of the latter, life expectancies have dropped to 50 years (Tanzania) and 49 years (Kenya) and infant mortality rates have increased to 115 (Kenya) and 98 (Tanzania) per 1,000 births (USAID 2002a, b).
The major social trend in both countries is urbanization. Africa's cities are growing faster with lower economic growth than any other region of the world (USAID 2000). Between 1975 and 2000, the percentage of the population living in urban areas in Tanzania increased from 15 percent to 25 percent (Mariki et al. 2003). In Kenya this percentage was estimated at 33 percent in 2000 and is projected to reach 48 percent in 2020 (USAID 2000). The population of Nairobi has grown by 600 percent since 1950 and is currently around 4.5 million although it was originally designed for a population of 1 million (USAID 2000). Poor immigrants to the city are forced to live in slum areas, where there is little sanitation or fresh water and where rents are absurdly high for the quality of accommodation that is provided. The fact that urbanisation is nonetheless proceeding at such a high rate indicates that people (particularly the younger generation) see little future for themselves in the rural areas. A major social consequence of urbanisation is the weakening of traditional customs and obligations, including those associated with the extended family. City life also leads to later marriages and less traditional lifestyles among the youth.
Religion is extremely important in the lives of both urban and rural Kenyans and Tanzanians. In Tanzania 45 percent are Muslims and 45 percent are Christians, with 10 percent having indigenous beliefs. In Kenya, the majority (40 percent) are Protestant, 30 percent are Catholic, 20 percent are Muslim and an estimated 10 percent hold indigenous beliefs (USAID 2002a, b). In both countries the proportion of Muslims is much higher on the coast. Even in recent times, there has been tolerance between faiths and the few religious clashes that are reported arise from intra-denominational struggles.
Both Kenya and Tanzania are ethnically diverse with more than 120 different local languages in Tanzania and more than 40 in Kenya (USAID 2002a, b). Ethnic differences have played a large role in Kenyan political and economic alliances, but this has not been the case in Tanzania. This is mainly because of a more even spread of ethnic origins in Tanzania, which prevented any one tribe from dominating national affairs. In both countries, ethnic differences are less important to the younger than the older generations. The official language is Kiswahili in Tanzania and English in Kenya, but both languages are widely understood in both countries. In Kenya, Kiswahili is the predominant language of the coast. Literacy rates for the official languages are 67 percent (Tanzania) and 59 percent (Kenya) (USAIDa, b).
Synopsis of Current Threats
Levels of Threat
Site-specific levels of threat have also been assessed for 101 coastal forests in Kenya and 103 coastal forests in Tanzania (Figure 4) (data from WWF-EARPO 2002). All of these forests are under some threat and almost 80 percent are judged to be highly (57 percent) or very highly (32 percent) threatened. The levels of threat are very similar in the two countries.
Over the past 100 years, subsistence agriculture (mostly for maize) has been responsible for the disappearance of most areas of unprotected forest. Forest is cleared for farm land, as it has better growing potential, but, after a few years, the soils are exhausted and yields reduce to those of other nearby non-forest agricultural lands. Inappropriate farming practices (shifting cultivation with short fallow periods, slash and burn, cultivation on steep slopes in Eastern Arc Mountains) are common. The inevitable result, which is exacerbated by population growth, is increased demand for land, leading to encroachment on forests. In the absence of expanding urban employment and livelihood opportunities, these problems are certain to increase in the hotspot. Effective agricultural extension, promoting more sustainable and productive farming methods, can help in mitigating this threat, but price incentives, combined with strong controls or constraints on agricultural expansion, are a more potent weapon.
Commercial Timber Extraction
In practice, the government system of obtaining licenses to log trees from forest reserves is often ignored and the majority of logging being undertaken in the reserves is illegal. There is a great deal of commercial timber extraction by small-scale poachers, responding to the demands of urbanization and tourism development. Very little of the value of this timber goes back to the poachers, who are usually at the bottom end of an exploitative network of foresters, middlemen and contractors. Forests close to tourist areas, such as Arabuko-Sokoke Forest near Malindi and Watamu in Kenya, suffer from the high demand for carving wood (Brachylaena huillensis) and timber for the construction of hotels, private residences and tourist attractions. The carving wood industry is much bigger in Kenya than in Tanzania and poaching of carving wood trees is most common in Tanzania near the Kenya/Tanzania border.
Other Forest Resource Extraction
Most timber for local construction in the villages close to the forests comes from the forests themselves, mainly in the form of poles of young trees. For larger buildings, doors and window frames planked timber is obtained from pitsawing groups working in the forests. As most of these teams are either operating in areas where logging is not permitted or they lack the licenses for the trees that they are cutting, the majority of timber being used in local construction is illegal. Most of this timber is sold and hence is, in reality, a commercial use of the forests, only to supply the local market.
A range of other products is extracted for various household uses, like medicinal plants, edible fruits, wild honey, grass and fodder for livestock and bamboo collection for tomato basket weaving. These activities can cause local problems, especially where extraction methods are destructive such as careless debarking of medicinal trees. Targeted species are already scarce.
Hunting is historically responsible for the absence of several large mammals (buffalo, rhino, elephant, leopard, bushbuck) from large areas in the hotspot where they used to roam. The local bushmeat trade threatens the smaller mammals. Although this trade is not on the scale found in West and Central Africa, local consumption of game meat can threaten rare wildlife. For example, the endangered Aders' duiker has been reduced to very low population levels by local hunters in Arabuko-Sokoke Forest, (FitzGibbon et al. 1995; Kanga 1996) and also in Jozani Forest in Zanzibar (Struhsaker & Siex, pers. comm.).
Ranking of Threats in Tanzania
The top 10 overall threats (in ranked order) are agriculture and encroachment, fire, timber extraction, polewood cutting, population growth, charcoal production, grazing, hunting, mining and roads. Population growth was included as a threat in both datasets, although it may be better considered as an ultimate factor, driving the other proximate threats. Two additional threats were identified only for the Eastern Arc Mountains Forests (corruption and medicinal plants) and another seven only for the Coastal Forests (settlement, urbanisation, fuelwood, carving wood, salt, tourism and open access). Of these additional threats, three (carving wood, salt and tourism) may be genuinely restricted to the coastal forests. The apparent restriction of the other additional threats to either the Coastal or the Eastern Arc Mountain Forests is almost certainly an artefact of the different analyses used. For example, corruption and fuelwood extraction are a problem in both ecoregions.
Despite these problems and the exclusion of the Kenyan data, Figure 5 provides a reasonable picture of the relative importance of the overall threats in the hotspot. Population growth, hunting, grazing and mining rank higher in the Eastern Arc Mountains. Agriculture and encroachment, timber extraction, polewood cutting and especially charcoal rank higher in the Coastal Forests. Some of these differences in ranking may result from different degrees of legal protection in the two countries. In both, the most important threats arise from the immediate needs of people, rather than from any large-scale developmental projects or corporate ventures.
Analysis of Root Causes
In the likely absence of positive macro-economic changes and of large-scale industrialization in the continent, the next generation of rural farmers in Africa will continue to depend heavily on the free resources that that they can extract from their surroundings. The first three root causes in Table 5 (population growth, poverty and inefficient land use) will, therefore, continue to generate threats to forests and forest lands for some time to come. What is less clear is how much conservation organizations can do about these problems and what proportion of their limited resources should be invested in the attempt. Development agencies have been active in Africa with far more resources for many decades, yet rural poverty persists. Another difficulty is that the path to development often involves the massive ecological transformation of landscapes and it is precisely this process that is destroying tropical forests. This is what makes conservationists and development practitioners such awkward partners (Struhsaker 1997; Oates 1999; Terborgh 1999).
The fourth root cause in Table 5 is negative value systems re conservation and lack of environmental awareness. A variety of innovative approaches to raising conservation awareness have been developed during the last 50 years and international conservation organizations have succeeded in putting biodiversity issues firmly on global agendas. The hotspot focus of CEPF and the resources it commands, is a good example of this, but the need to reach the rural poor is what is implied in Table 5. This is as urgent as ever, but all too often it generates contradictory messages. Unless awareness can be linked to incentive, only the contradictions are seen. In the absence of material incentives for conservation, it is difficult to change value systems, particularly when poverty gives little opportunity to think beyond short-term needs. The most promising approach in parts of this hotspot may be through innovative awareness raising of water catchment values of the Eastern Arc Mountains.
Many conservation projects have tackled the issues of alternative livelihoods and of communal exchange and networking. The creation of alternative livelihoods is a useful local approach for civil society, especially when combined with good law enforcement by those institutions responsible for forest management. This combination is more rare than it ought to be. The problems of communal exchange and networking are now much less serious than they were, thanks to the growth of communications technology and to the increasing effectiveness of workshop and community outreach techniques. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the CEPF workshop organized as part of producing this profile was the first time that people working in the Eastern Arc Mountains and the Coastal Forests of Kenya and Tanzania had met to discuss common problems. It is also still true that exchange and networking is much more common among people working in NGOs and government institutions than at the community level. Workshops and meetings are expensive and they lose value when the same faces repeatedly appear.
The lack of local mechanisms for controlling forest exploitation reflects both a breakdown in cultural traditions and how the Tanzanian and Kenyan governments took such matters out of the hands of the local people sometime ago. That so little forest remains, outside forest and local authority reserves suggests that the government interventions were well advised. Where there has been continuity in forest protection by local communities, as in the case of some of the Kaya forests in coastal Kenya, there has been real success and the prospects for replication with other sacred forests in Tanzania are good. Where the continuity is lacking, the prospects are weaker. This is a serious issue for Participatory Forest Management initiatives in the hotspot. Sound technical advice on sustainable offtake is also, obviously, essential. Good networking on these problems should help.
The need for an ecosystem-wide strategic focus has long been recognized in efforts to conserve major water catchments such as the Ulugurus, which supply 3 million people in Dar es Salaam with water. In biodiversity conservation, the lack of such a focus has been the impetus for major conservation investments such as the big GEF project for the Eastern Arc Mountains. The CEPF approach of defining species, sites and corridor outcomes within the context of landscape level hotspots is also a systematic attempt to deal with this difficulty.
Weak forest governance is pervasive in the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests hotspot and is being increasingly addressed by involving more stakeholders, particularly among the local communities and civil society. Forest management is a multi-stakeholder business. As described in the section on policy and legislation, reform in both Kenya and Tanzania is directly tackling this issue. This reform is creating opportunities for both the private sector and for local communities to become involved in forest management. To date, most conservation organizations have paid far more attention to the latter than the former.
The issue of inadequate and poorly directed fiscal resources afflicts nearly every government department in Kenya and Tanzania. A good example in the hotspot is provided by Arabuko-Sokoke Forest. In the 1998-99 financial year, the Forest Department spent $106,497 on this 41,700 ha forest (Muriithi & Kenyon 2002), out of which 98 percent ($104,536) was used to pay salaries. This left only $2,114 for operational costs. In 1998, $7,536 was raised from this forest from fines, rents, timber royalties and sales of fuelwood, polewood and Christmas trees. The best that can be said for such a situation is that it is easy to persuade local communities that they have more to gain from their own enterprises than from sharing in official Forest Department revenues. Although the budget for Arabuko-Sokoke is obviously inadequate, it is nonetheless higher than those for most forests in Kenya and Tanzania. It works out at roughly $.2.5 per hectare, compared to overall estimates of $1.08 (Kenya) and $1.01 (Tanzania) per hectare for public expenditure on forestry (Whiteman 2003).
With funding like this, it is surprising that there is any protection at all. It is hard for Forest Department officers to do a good job in such circumstances, particularly when corruption comes from the top (as in the recent past in Kenya) and where the resource is valuable (e.g. carving wood at Arabuko-Sokoke). This problem can only be effectively tackled by a combination of long-term funding and institutional reforms (GEF 2002) in the context of good governance at national level. Site level interventions (training of guards, provision of uniforms and boots, etc.) are helpful, but their positive effects are at best short-lived unless the larger problem is tackled. Solving the larger problem is also necessary if community partnerships in management are to improve protection. In the absence of better governance from the top, participatory management may simply lengthen the food chain for illegally harvested forest produce.
Synopsis of Current Investment
Data were collected by organization, type of organization, by two subsets of sites: first, IBA and second, priority site (IBAs and non-IBA sites). The IBAs were selected as a subset because they had already been recognized as sites with global biodiversity values (Bennun & Njoroge 1999; Baker & Baker 2002). The second subset was based on the 20 sites with the greatest numbers of globally threatened species, as determined by this profile.
Although the most important sources of external and government funding for conservation in this hotspot have been captured, some caveats are necessary. There are some gaps in the data and some budget allocations are split between several implementing partners, which made calculations of funding allocations problematic (e.g. Misitu Yetu in Tanzania implemented by the NGOs WCST, TFCG and CARE and the Tanzania Government, with funding from CARE Austria and NORAD). Finally, details of the government budget allocated to conservation activities in this hotspot were hard to come by, although as most sites are managed as reserves by the government their inputs are important. Hence this analysis is biased towards the externally provided funds from various types of agencies.
Levels of Funding
Eastern Arc Mountains
Coastal Forest Mosaic
Types of Project Interventions
Numbers of IBAs with Project Interventions
Spread of Conservation Attention Across Different IBAs
The conservation attention received by the IBA sites from different agencies was examined as a preliminary indication of gaps in project coverage. Secondary stages in such an analysis would need to consider other factors such as biological value, integrity and size, threats and even feasibility of operating in the area.
Funding Allocation Against Biological Priority
Eighty percent of the 20 sites containing the most globally threatened species from this hotspot are in Tanzania. Given that 90 percent of the total forest area in the hotspot is in Tanzania, this is to be expected. Two factors, however, have affected the site ranking. The first is research effort. Tanzanian forests have generally received much less biological study than those in the Kenyan part of the hotspot, with some of the Eastern Arc blocks (e.g., the Rubehos and Nguus and Uvidundwas) and some coastal forests (e.g., those of Newala District) remaining practically unknown. This means that the importance of the Tanzanian sites may be underestimated. The second factor is related to the way in which the sites are defined. In Kenya every small patch of forest has been assigned to its own site, whereas in Tanzania, many of the sites are amalgamations of several forestpatches. In some cases, these forest patches are scattered over a wide area and encompassing a wide range of altitudes and climatic conditions. This tends to elevate the importance of the Tanzanian sites in terms of their numbers of threatened species.
Secondly, it is clear that funding is not evenly spread across these sites. The best-funded site in 2003 is the Udzungwa Mountains (although some of this funding is only for the Kihansi Dam area), followed by the Ulugurus. The Selous Game Reserve also receives significant funding but this is mainly to conserve its large mammals, not forests. Also the Selous Game Reserve covers an enormous area.
Thirdly, some sites receiving little external funding in 2003 have received significant funding over long periods in the past. The East Usambaras, which contain the most globally threatened species, is set to receive few funds during 2003. This site benefited from significant investment ($1 million per annum) during the past 10 years, but that funding has since ceased and the future is unclear. The South and North Pare Mountains also lack funding but until recently had received GEF-UNDP or GTZ support, as did the West Usambaras which had 10 years of GTZ funding. Should funding stop completely, then much of the progress with forest conservation achieved in these sites over the last 10 years could be jeopardized.
Fourthly, other important sites in Figure 6 have not had any external funding for decades. Most important amongst these is the Nguru Mountains, which has never had an externally funded project intervention and is also relatively poorly known biologically. Within the coastal forests, those of Muheza District have no external support and yet contain important biological values, especially close to the East Usambara Mountains.
Lastly, some sites do not appear in Figure 6 because there is inadequate knowledge of their biodiversity values. These include the Nguu and Rubeho Mountains in Tanzania (which are difficult to access) and Boni and Dodori Forests in Kenya (where there are security problems). They will receive no external conservation support in 2003 and have never received conservation support in the past. Such sites should rank highly as priorities for investment, both in terms of biological study and conservation action.
CEPF Niche for Investment
The species outcomes define the CEPF niche in terms of global imperatives for biodiversity conservation. The primary focus of the niche for this hotspot is the 333 species, which are most threatened with extinction according to The 2002 IUCN Red Lists (Appendix 1). The ultimate test of the success of global conservation investments in the hotspot is the number of these threatened species that survive in the long term. It follows that: (1) only those projects that contribute to the survival of these species should be funded by CEPF and (2) that monitoring the survival of these species is, in itself, an important component of the CEPF investment niche. It must also be recognized that the number of globally threatened species is dynamic and will greatly increase as the IUCN Red List is updated and becomes more comprehensive. The species outcomes will, therefore, need to be updated from time to time.
The site outcomes define the CEPF niche in terms of geographical locations. The 333 globally threatened species identified in Appendix 1 are found in the top 151 sites listed in Appendix 2. An additional nine sites are included in Appendix 2 (making the overall total of 160 sites) because they are IBAs with restricted-range bird species and globally significant congregations of birds. Projects funded by CEPF must be expected to have positive impacts on biodiversity conservation in at least one of these 160 sites. If these impacts are to be measured, site-level monitoring must also be an important part of the niche.
As noted earlier, conservation corridor outcomes were not identified in this hotspot because of the small size of the hotspot and the degree of natural fragmentation that exists, without which much of the biodiversity would never have evolved in the first place. In other hotspots, the definition of conservation corridors restricts site investments largely to those sites within the corridors. Since no conservation corridors have been defined in this profile, there are no corridor restrictions on site investment in this hotspot. Similarly there are no overall restrictions on site investments arising from prioritization. Nonetheless, some concentration of effort is required. Within the full set of 160 sites, five have been identified for particular attention for two of the strategic funding directions (Table 6). The five were selected on the basis of biological importance, irreplaceability, current investment, partnership potential and the recommendations of experts who are familiar with the sites and their suitability for the interventions proposed in this profile. Under the remaining three strategic funding directions, all 160 sites qualify for CEPF investment.
Although corridor outcomes have not been defined in this profile, there are issues of connectivity between forest patches within large sites. Many bird species in the Eastern Arc Mountains are known to move seasonally from the montane forest to the lowland, and altitudinal forest corridors are necessary for this to occur. This issue particularly relates to maintaining montane to lowland forest transitions in the Eastern Arc Mountains part of the hotspot and is important in the context of global warming. A number of forest patches are also recently isolated from each other, causing the local extinction of species, as habitat patches become too small to support them (see below). Such sites deserve particular attention.
Within the limits of these species and site outcomes, the CEPF niche was further defined by the thematic areas for investment as identified during the March 2003 workshop and by subsequent expert review. The workshop discussion of potential investment themes was guided by the assessments of biological importance, threats and current investments, as well as by the considerable experience of the workshop participants in the hotspot. Nine investment themes were presented to the workshop by the ecosystem profile team and partipants added a further three. The themes were prioritized through group work and the results were amalgamated in a plenary session. Although the different groups had different priorities, there was a good consensus in the plenary on the final ranking. This ranking was as follows:
During the group and plenary discussions it was noted that there were overlaps in these themes and that some could be usefully embedded within others (e. g., themes 5, 9 and 10 with theme 1, themes 9 and 4 with 2). With this understanding, the thematic niche for CEPF investment was defined by themes 1-3 above.
CEPF Investment Strategy and Priorities
Table 6. CEPF strategic funding directions and investment priorities in the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya hotspot (2003-2008)
|Strategic Directions||Investment Priorities|
|1. Increase the ability of local populations to benefit from and contribute to biodiversity conservation, especially in and around Lower Tana River Forests; Taita Hills; East Usambaras/Tanga; Udzungwas; and Jozani Forest||1.1 Evaluate community-based forest management initiatives in the hotspot to determine best practices.|
|1.2 Promote nature-based, sustainable businesses that benefit local populations in the hotspot.|
|1.3 Explore possibilities for direct payments and easements (Conservation Concessions) for biodiversity conservation in the hotspot and support where appropriate.|
|1.4 Build the capacity of community-based organizations in the hotspot for advocacy in support of biodiversity conservation at all levels.|
|1.5 Support cultural practices that benefit biodiversity in the hotspot.|
|1.6 Research and promote eco-agricultural options for the local populations of the hotspot.|
2. Restore and increase connectivity among fragmented forest patches in the hotspot, especially in Lower Tana River Forests; Taita Hills; East Usambaras/Tanga; and Udzungwas
|2.1 Assess potential sites in the hotspot for connectivity interventions.|
|2.2 Support initiatives that maintain or restore connectivity in the hotspot.|
|2.3 Monitor and evaluate initiatives that maintain or restore connectivity in the hotspot.|
|2.4 Support best practices for restoring connectivity in ways that also benefit people.|
|3. Improve biological knowledge in the hotspot (all 160 sites eligible)||3.1 Refine and implement a standardized monitoring program across the 160 eligible sites.|
|3.2 Support research in the less studied of the 160 eligible sites in the hotspot.|
|3.3 Monitor populations of Critically Endangered and Endangered Species in the hotspot.|
|3.4 Support research in the hotspot to facilitate Red List assessments and re-assessments for plants, reptiles, invertebrates and other taxa.|
|3.5 Compile and document indigenous knowledge on hotspot sites and species.|
|3.6 Support awareness programs that increase public knowledge of biodiversity values of the hotspot.|
|4. Establish a small grants program in the hotspot (all 160 sites eligible) that focuses on critically endangered species and small-scale efforts to increase connectivity of biologically important habitat patches||4.1 Support targeted efforts to increase connectivity of biologically important habitat patches.|
|4.2 Support efforts to increase biological knowledge of the sites and to conserve critically endangered species.|
|5. Develop and support efforts for further fundraising for the hotspot||5.1 Establish a professional resource mobilization unit, within an appropriate local partner institution, for raising long-term funds and resources for the hotspot.|
|5.2 Utilize high-level corporate contacts to secure funding from the private sector for the hotspot.|
|5.3 Train local NGOs and community-based organizations in fundraising and proposal writing.|