Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya ...

Eastern Arc Mountainsand Coastal Forests ofTanzania and KenyaBriefing BookPrepared for: Improving Linkages Between CEPF and World Bank Operations, AfricaForum, Cape Town, South Africa—April 25 –27, 2005

EASTERN ARC MOUNTAINS AND COASTAL FORESTSOF TANZANIA AND KENYABRIEFING BOOKTable of ContentsI. The Investment Plan• Ecosystem Profile Fact Sheet• Ecosystem ProfileII. Implementation• Overview of CEPF’s Portfolio in the Eastern Arc Mountains andCoastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenyao Charts of Portfolioo Conservation Outcomes Map• Project Map• List of grantsIII. Conservation Highlights• E-News• Other HighlightsIV. Leveraging CEPF Investments• Table of Leveraged Funds

CEPF FACT SHEETEastern Arc Mountains and CoastalForests of Tanzania and KenyaCEPF INVESTMENT PLANNED IN REGION$7 millionQUICK FACTSIn Tanzania, water flowing from the EasternArc forests is the source of 90 percent of thecountry's hydroelectric power. The forests arealso the source of water for major cities.While the Eastern Arc forests once coveredmore than 23,000 square kilometers in bothKenya and Tanzania, more recent estimatesplace the remaining forest cover as low as2,000 square kilometers.Five monkey species and at least fourspecies of prosimian primates are unique, orendemic, to this region. Found only along theTana River in Kenya, the Tana River redcolobus is Critically Endangered. Only1,000-1,200 of the Critically EndangeredZanzibar red colobus remain in the wild.The region is home to 20 out of 21 species ofthe African violet, which form the basis of aglobal houseplant trade.The Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenyaregion runs along the coasts of these two East African countries and includesZanzibar.The region has two distinct habitats - the Coastal Forests and the EasternArc Mountains. Together, they harbor at least 1,500 plant species foundnowhere else, as well as unique mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians.There are 333 globally threatened species, including the Critically EndangeredAders’ duiker (Cephalophus adersi) and the Endangered Zanzibar orKirk’s red colobus (Procolobus kirkii), found only in Zanzibar’s Jozani Forest.Previously classified as a biodiversity hotspot itself, the region now lies withintwo hotspots—the Eastern Afromontane Hotspot and the Coastal Forests ofEastern Africa Hotspot—identified as part of a hotspots reappraisal released in2005. Hotspots are Earth’s biologically richest places. They hold especiallyhigh numbers of species found nowhere else and face extreme threats: Eachhotspot has already lost at least 70 percent of its original natural vegetation.THREATSThe habitats are notably fragmented, making threatened species within keysites highly vulnerable to extinction and further habitat loss. Agriculturalencroachment, timber extraction and charcoal production are the greatestthreats to habitat in this region, although weak management capacity withingovernment and communities is a serious issue.The Eastern Arc Mountains comprise a chainof 12 mountain blocks stretching some 900kilometers from Tanzania to Kenya.The Eastern Arc Mountains andCoastal Forests of Tanzania andKenya region runs along theTanzanian and Kenyan coasts andincludes Zanzibar.1919 M STREET, NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20036, USA. 1.202.912.1808 FAX 1.202.912.1045 Updated March 2005www.cepf.net

CEPF STRATEGYWithin the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests, the CriticalEcosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) aims to improve knowledge andappreciation of biodiversity among the local populations and stimulatesupport for conservation. In conjunction with this, a commitment to scientificbest practices will improve biological knowledge in the region and showpractical applications of conservation science.The strategy is underpinned by conservation outcomes—targets against whichthe success of investments can be measured. These targets are defined at threelevels: species (extinctions avoided), sites (areas protected) and landscapes(biodiversity conservation corridors created).As a result, CEPF investment is focused on conserving the region’s 333globally threatened species, which are primarily found in 160 sites. Inaddition, key parts of the strategy focus on five select sites for maximumimpact (see strategic directions below). The strategy also includes a specialfocus on the linkages between people and biodiversity conservation.The five-year strategy, called an ecosystem profile and approved by the CEPFDonor Council in 2003, builds on the results of a number of studies andworkshops with diverse stakeholders. CEPF began awarding grants in thisregion in 2004 and, together with partners, is now actively managing andexpanding its investment portfolio.STRATEGIC FUNDING DIRECTIONSCEPF investments in the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests areguided by five strategic directions and related investment priorities that wereagreed upon at a stakeholders meeting in March 2003. Each project must belinked to one of the strategic directions to be approved for funding:1. Increase the ability of local populations to benefit from and contributeto biodiversity conservation, especially in and around Lower Tana RiverForests; Taita Hills; East Usambaras/Tanga; Udzungwas; andJozani Forest2. Restore and increase connectivity among fragmented forest patches,especially in Lower Tana River Forests; Taita Hills; EastUsambaras/Tanga; and Udzungwas3. Improve biological knowledge (all 160 sites eligible)4. Establish a small grants program (all 160 sites eligible) that focuses onCritically Endangered species and small-scale efforts to increase connectivityof biologically important habitat patches5. Develop and support efforts for further fundraisingABOUT USCEPF is a joint initiative of ConservationInternational (CI), the Global EnvironmentFacility, the Government of Japan, the JohnD. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundationand the World Bank. CI acts as the administrativepartner.CEPF provides strategic assistance tonongovernmental organizations, communitygroups and other civil society partners tohelp safeguard biodiversity hotspots—thebiologically richest and most threatenedareas on Earth. A fundamental goal is toensure civil society is engaged in conservingthe hotspots.In the Eastern Arc Mountains and CoastalForests region, a coordination unit of fourorganizations guides CEPF investments andworks directly with stakeholders to ensure aneffective, efficient and coordinated approachto achieve the outcomes.The groups are the BirdLife International-Africa Secretariat, the International Centrefor Insect Physiology and Ecology, theTanzania Forest Conservation Group and theWWF East African Regional ProgrammeOffice. In Kenya, the BirdLife Partner isNature Kenya and in Tanzania, the WildlifeConservation Society of Tanzania.HOW TO LEARN MOREFor more information about CEPF, thestrategy for this region and how to apply forgrants, visit www.cepf.net.1919 M STREET, NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20036, USA. 1.202.912.1808 FAX 1.202.912.1045 Updated March 2005www.cepf.net

ECOSYSTEM PROFILEEASTERN ARC MOUNTAINS &COASTAL FORESTS OF TANZANIA & KENYAFinal versionJuly 31, 2003(updated: march 2005)

Prepared by:Conservation InternationalInternational Centre of Insect Physiology and EcologyIn collaboration with:Nature KenyaWildlife Conservation Society of TanzaniaWith the technical support of:Centre for Applied Biodiversity Science - Conservation InternationalEast African HerbariumNational Museums of KenyaMissouri Botanical GardenTanzania Forest Conservation GroupZoology Department, University of Dar es SalaamWWF Eastern Africa Regional Programme OfficeWWF United StatesAnd a special team for this ecosystem profile:Neil BurgessTom ButynskiIan GordonQuentin LukePeter SumbiJohn WatkinAssisted by experts and contributors:KENYABarrow EdmundGakahu ChrisGithitho AnthonyKabii TomKabugi HewsonKanga ErustusMatiku PaulMbora DavidMugo RobinsonNdugire NaftaliOdhiambo PeterThompson HazellWandago BenTANZANIABaldus Rolf DBhukoli AliceDoggart NikeHowlett DavidHewawasam InduHamdan Sheha IdrissaHowell KimKajuni A RKilahama FelicianKafumu George RKimbwereza Elly DLejora Inyasi A.V.Lulandala LutherMallya FelixMariki StephenMasayanyika SammyMathias LemaMilledge SimonMlowe EdwardMpemba ErastpMsuya CharlesMungaya EliasMwasumbi LeonardSalehe JohnStodsrod Jan ErikTapper ElizabethOffninga EstherPerkin AndrewVerberkmoes Anne MarieWard JessicaBELGIUMLens LucUKBurgess NeilUSABrooks ThomasGereau RoyLanghammer PennyOcker DonnellSebunya KadduStruhsaker TomWieczkowski JulieEditing assistance by Ian Gordon, International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecologyii

CONTENTSINTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................................................5THE ECOSYSTEM PROFILE............................................................................................................................................5BACKGROUND......................................................................................................................................................................6Geography of the Hotspot.........................................................................................7The Eastern Arc Mountains ......................................................................................8The East African Coastal Forest Mosaic ................................................................10BIOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE........................................................................................................................................11Biodiversity in the Eastern Arc Mountains ..............................................................11Biodiversity in the Coastal Forests .........................................................................12Levels of Protection ................................................................................................13CONSERVATION OUTCOMES ...................................................................................................................................16Overview of Conservation Outcomes .....................................................................17Species Outcomes..................................................................................................18Site Outcomes ........................................................................................................19SOCIOECONOMIC FEATURES ..................................................................................................................................25Institutional Framework...........................................................................................25Policy and Legislation.............................................................................................29Economic Situation.................................................................................................34Infrastructure and Regional Development ..............................................................36Demography and Social Trends .............................................................................37SYNOPSIS OF CURRENT THREATS.......................................................................................................................38Levels of Threat......................................................................................................39Main Threats...........................................................................................................39Agriculture...............................................................................................................40Commercial Timber Extraction ...............................................................................42Mining .....................................................................................................................43Fires........................................................................................................................43Ranking of Threats in Tanzania..............................................................................44Analysis of Root Causes.........................................................................................45SYNOPSIS OF CURRENT INVESTMENT...............................................................................................................48Levels of Funding ...................................................................................................48Types of Project Interventions ................................................................................49Numbers of IBAs with Project Interventions ...........................................................49Spread of Conservation Attention Across Different IBAs........................................50Funding Allocation Against Biological Priority.........................................................50CEPF NICHE FOR INVESTMENT................................................................................................................................52CEPF INVESTMENT STRATEGY AND PRIORITIES..........................................................................................54Program Focus .......................................................................................................54Strategic Directions.................................................................................................54SUSTAINABILITY ...............................................................................................................................................................62CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................................................................63ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE TEXT....................................................................................................................64REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................................................................66APPENDICES.......................................................................................................................................................................71iv

INTRODUCTIONThe Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) is designed to safeguard the world's threatenedbiodiversity hotspots in developing countries. It is a joint initiative of Conservation International(CI), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the Government of Japan, the MacArthurFoundation and the World Bank. CEPF supports projects in hotspots, the biologically richest andmost endangered areas on Earth.A fundamental purpose of CEPF is to ensure that civil society is engaged in efforts to conservebiodiversity in the hotspots. An additional purpose is to ensure that those efforts complementexisting strategies and frameworks established by local, regional and national governments.CEPF aims to promote working alliances among community groups, nongovernmentalorganizations (NGOs), government, academic institutions and the private sector, combiningunique capacities and eliminating duplication of efforts for a comprehensive approach toconservation. CEPF is unique among funding mechanisms in that it focuses on biological areasrather than political boundaries and examines conservation threats on a corridor-wide basis toidentify and support a regional, rather than a national, approach to achieving conservationoutcomes. Corridors are determined through a process of identifying important species, site andcorridor-level conservation outcomes for the hotspot. CEPF targets transboundary cooperationwhen areas rich in biological value straddle national borders, or in areas where a regionalapproach will be more effective than a national approach.The Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya hotspot (hereafterreferred to as the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests hotspot) is one of the smallest ofthe 25 global biodiversity hotspots. 1 It qualifies by virtue of its high endemicity and a severedegree of threat. Although the hotspot ranks low compared to other hotspots in total numbers ofendemic species, it ranks first among the 25 hotspots in the number of endemic plant andvertebrate species per unit area (Myers et al. 2000). It also shows a high degree of congruencefor plants and vertebrates. It is also considered as the hotspot most likely to suffer the most plantand vertebrate extinction for a given loss of habitat and as one of 11 “hyperhot” priorities forconservation investment (Brooks et al. 2002).THE ECOSYSTEM PROFILEThe purpose of the ecosystem profile is to provide an overview of biodiversity values,conservation targets or “outcomes,” the causes of biodiversity loss and current conservationinvestments in a particular hotspot. Its purpose is to identify the niche where CEPF investmentscan provide the greatest incremental value.The ecosystem profile recommends strategic opportunities, called “strategic funding directions.”Civil society organizations then propose projects and actions that fit into these strategicdirections and contribute to the conservation of biodiversity in the hotspot. Applicants proposespecific projects consistent with these funding directions and investment criteria. The ecosystemprofile does not define the specific activities that prospective implementers may propose, butoutlines the conservation strategy that guides those activities. Applicants for CEPF grants arerequired to prepare detailed proposals identifying and describing the interventions andperformance indicators that will be used to evaluate the success of the project.1 At the time this document was prepared in 2003, the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests region wasclassified as a biodiversity hotspot itself. However, a hotspots reappraisal released in 2005 places this region withintwo new hotspots - the Eastern Afromontane Hotspot and the Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa Hotspot. Thisprofile and CEPF investments focus strictly on the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests comprising theoriginal hotspot as defined in this document.5

BACKGROUNDInternational interest in the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests hotspot has increasedover the last three decades as the realization of its biodiversity importance and of the globalcrisis affecting tropical forests has deepened. Although descriptions of the wealth of biodiversityin the forests of the Eastern Arc Mountains date back to 1860 and there has been outstandingscientific work in the hotspot during the last 100 years, concerns for its conservation arerelatively recent. Until about 30 years ago, nearly all the investment in the forests of the area hadbeen in plantations, many of which were established after clearing indigenous forest.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 (mostlyorganized 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 thedistribution of endemic species across sites) and on forest status and management. Thisinformation 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 1978Fourth East African Wildlife Symposium at Arusha. The conference was attended by 150delegates, most of whom were not especially interested in forest conservation. However, a postconferencetrip to Amani in the East Usambaras resulted in a report to the Government ofTanzania, drawing its attention to the biological importance of and threats to the Eastern ArcMountains (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 andparticipants presented papers on biodiversity, sociology and management. Much of the morerecent conservation effort in the Eastern Arc Mountains dates from this conference, although oneof the most important of these had already started with a UNDP/DANIDA project. This led inturn to a GEF Project Development Fund (PDF) Block A proposal and grant to characterize theconservation issues in the Eastern Arc Mountains in more detail.The Block A process started after the December 1997 conference and included preliminaryassessments of biodiversity values, conservation concerns, priority actions, financial constraints,sustainable financing opportunities, effectiveness of previous donor interventions and thedevelopment of preliminary proposals for GEF projects in the Eastern Arc Mountains. A threewaymatrix was constructed showing levels of biodiversity and endemism, the degree of threatand the level and effectiveness of previous interventions. This enabled a ranking exercise thatrevealed that three of the main forest blocks (East Usambaras, Udzungwas and Ulugurus) wereexceptionally diverse and that there was no major donor or public support for the Ulugurus. TheUlugurus, therefore, became a focus in the development of a PDF Block B proposal supportedby UNDP and the World Bank. This PDF/B involved extensive stakeholder consultations andresulted in: 1) an outline and plan for a participatory and strategic approach to conservation andmanagement in the Eastern Arc Mountains; 2) proposals for institutional reforms in the forestsector 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 legalestablishment of an Eastern Arc Mountains Endowment Fund (EAMCEF). The outcomes fromthis process were integrated into larger forest biodiversity concerns and into a proposed $62.2million Tanzania Forest Conservation and Management Project.6

During this time, awareness of the biodiversity values of the East African coastal forests hadalso grown. In 1983, a team from the International Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP, nowBirdLife International) surveyed the avifauna of Arabuko-Sokoke Forest on the north coast ofKenya and drew attention to its globally threatened bird species (Kelsey & Langton, 1984). Adetailed survey (Roberston, 1987) of the sacred Kaya Forests (conserved by the Mijikenda, agroup of nine tribes on the Kenyan coast) highlighted their conservation importance for treesand 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 andmade recommendations for their conservation.The Frontier-Tanzania Coastal Forest Research Programme carried out a series of biodiversitysurveys 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 coastalforests was held in Dar es Salaam. This raised the profile and conservation action in these forestsand led to a series of status reports on the conservation and management of the Tanzaniancoastal forests (Clarke 1995; Clarke & Dickenson 1995; Clarke & Stubblefield 1995). These andother 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 AfricaCoastal Forest Programme covering Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique (WWF-EARPO, 2002).Thirty-one scientists and stakeholders from these three countries attended a regional workshopin Nairobi in February 2002. It aimed at developing a regional synthesis on coastal forestresource issues and a vision, strategy and way forward for realising the coastal forestprogramme. There was a strong focus on country-based group work. Maps of the region wereupdated, threats and root causes were analyzed, country conservation targets were agreed on andpreliminary logframe action plans were developed for each country. National Coastal ForestTask Force meetings in each of the three countries subsequently refined these action plans. Thedocument resulting from the February 2002 workshop includes comprehensive annexes whichlist the coastal forest sites (showing their locations, areas, status, altitudes and threats) and theendemic animals, as well as the threat analysis and country action plans. A list of endemicplants, taken from Burgess & Clarke 2000, was supplied to the workshop but not included in thereport.On 12 March 2003, a CEPF workshop was held in Dar es Salaam to define the investment nichefor CEPF, building on all the previous effort. Participants included 48 people from scientific andresearch institutions, government departments, NGOs, field projects and donor organizations, allof whom worked in or had knowledge of the hotspot. The outputs from the workshop weresubsequently incorporated into a wide-ranging consultation process that helped to define theinvestment priorities for CEPF in this hotspot.Geography of the HotspotThe Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests hotspot runs along the Tanzanian and Kenyancoasts from the border with Somalia to the north to that with Mozambique to the south (Figure1). The bulk of the hotspot is in its western expansion in Tanzania, which takes in the EasternArc Mountains and the water catchment system of the Rufiji River. There is a narrow hook-likeextension of the hotspot near the Kenya/Tanzania border. This follows the Eastern ArcMountains to their northernmost limits in the Taita Hills in Kenya. The hotspot also projectsnorthwards for about 100 km in an extension that includes the forests of the Lower Tana Riverin Kenya. The hotspot includes the Indian Ocean islands of Mafia, Pemba and Zanzibar.7

In terms of plant biogeography, the hotspot straddles two ecoregions: Eastern Arc Forest andNorthern Zanzibar-Inhambane Coastal Forest Mosaic (WWF-US 2003a, b). These twoecoregions 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-US2003a,b; Burgess pers. com.). A considerable proportion of species (e.g. nearly 60 percent ofplants) are found in both ecoregions and the distinction between them has been a matter of somedebate (Lovett et al. 2000). However, each of these forest types contains an impressive numberof strict endemics. Lovett et al. (2000) conclude that the forests in these two ecoregions are verydifferent, with differences in altitude and rainfall leading to a steep gradient of speciesreplacement with elevation.The Eastern Arc MountainsThe Eastern Arc Mountains stretch for some 900 km from the Makambako Gap, southwest ofthe Udzungwa Mountains in southern Tanzania to the Taita Hills in south-coastal Kenya (Figure2) (Lovett & Wasser 1993; GEF 2002). They comprise a chain of 12 main mountain blocks:from south to north, Mahenge, Udzungwa, Rubeho, Uluguru, Ukaguru, North and South Nguru,Nguu, East Usambara, West Usambara, North Pare, South Pare and Taita Hills. The highestpoint (Kimhandu Peak in the Ulugurus) is more than 2,600 m in altitude, but most of the rangespeak between 2,200-2,500 m (GEF 2002; WWF-US 2003a). Geologically the mountains areformed mainly from Pre-Cambrian basement rocks uplifted about 100 million years ago(Griffiths 1993). Their proximity to the Indian Ocean ensures high rainfall (3,000 mm/ year onthe eastern slopes of the Ulugurus, falling to 600 mm/year in the western rain shadow) (GEF2002). Climatic conditions are believed to have been more-or-less stable for at least the past 30million years (Axelrod & Raven 1978). The high rainfall and long-term climatic stability,together with the fragmentation of the mountain blocks, have resulted in forests that are bothancient and biologically diverse.The original forest cover (2,000 years ago) on the Eastern Arc Mountains is estimated at around23,000 km 2 , of which around 15,000 km 2 remained by 1900 and a maximum of 5,340 km 2remained by the mid-1990s (Newmark 1998; GEF 2002). At that time the Udzungwas containedthe largest area of natural forest (1,960 km 2 ), followed by the Nguru, Uluguru, Rubeho, EastUsambaras, South Pare, West Usambaras, Mahenge, Ukaguru, North Pare and Taita Hills (6km 2 ). These and the following estimates of forest status and losses in the Eastern Arc8

Figure 1. Location of the Eastern Arc Mountains & Coastal Forests hotspot9

Mountains are all taken from Newmark 1998. Losses were greatest, relative to original cover, inthe Taitas (98 percent), Ukaguru (90 percent), Mahenge (89 percent) and West Usambaras (84percent). The forests had become highly fragmented, with mean and median forest patch sizesestimated at 10 km 2 and 58 km 2 , respectively. By 1994-96, the Udzungwas and the WestUsambaras 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 forestpatches 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 exceptionof a few sites where there has been active intervention, the situation at present is far more likelyto have deteriorated than improved since 1996.The East African Coastal Forest MosaicThe area defined by the Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya in the hotspot includes theintervening habitats between the coastal forest patches. Although the main biodiversity valuesare concentrated in the forests there are a significant number of endemics (especially plants) innon-forested habitats. This part of the hotspot is therefore a mosaic, which stretches from theborder of Kenya with Somalia, to the border of Tanzania with Mozambique, including theislands of Zanzibar, Mafia and Pemba. This part of the hotspot is, largely for practical reasons,partly defined by national boundaries; coastal forests in Somalia (very little left) andMozambique (large areas) are poorly known and are excluded. Northern Mozambique could beincluded with further survey work. With the exception of Somalia, the mosaic, as defined here,corresponds to the WWF ecoregion known as the “Northern Zanzibar-Inhambane Coastal ForestMosaic” (WWF-US 2003b). This falls within the “Zanzibar-Inhambane Regional Mosaic,”which is one of 18 distinct biogeographical regions that White (1983) recognized for Africa.In Kenya, the Northern Zanzibar-Inhambane Coastal Forest Mosaic is mostly confined to anarrow coastal strip except along the Tana River where it extends inland to include the forests ofthe lower Tana River (the northern-most of which occur within the Tana Primate NationalReserve) (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 kminland at the base of a few of the Eastern Arc Mountains (Udzungwa, Mahenge, Uluguru andNguru) (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 Dares Salaam (populations of more than 700,000 and 3 million, respectively).Geologically, the coastal forest strip has been subject to considerable tectonic activity and tosedimentation 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 occurup to 1040 m (Burgess et al. 2000). Rainfall ranges between 2000 mm/year (Pemba) to 500mm/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 thesouth. Dry seasons can be severe and El Niño effects dramatic. Climatic conditions are believedto have been relatively stable for the last 30 million years (Axelrod & Raven 1978), althoughvariation 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 km 2 (Kenya 660 km 2 , Tanzania 700 km 2 ) (Burgess et al.2000). Mean patch size was 6.7 km 2 in Kenya and 10.6 km 2 in Tanzania. Modal patch-sizeclasses were 0 – 1 km 2 in Kenya and 5-15 km 2 in Tanzania. The two largest coastal forests areboth in Kenya (Arabuko-Sokoke, minimum area 370 km 2 ; Shimba, minimum area 63 km 2 )(WWF-EARPO 2002), while in Tanzania there are no coastal forests larger than 40 km 2 (WWF-US 2003b). There is some uncertainty with these figures because of differences in criteria for10

patch inclusion in the data set (e.g., the exclusion of all but a few small patches (

The degree of faunal endemism in the Eastern Arc Mountains varies widely across taxa. Sixpercent of mammals, 3 percent of birds, 68 percent of forest-dependent reptiles, 63 percent offorest-dependent amphibians, 39 percent of butterflies and 82 percent of linyphiid spiders areendemic (GEF 2002). Some of these species have extremely limited distributions. The Kihansispray toad, described in 1998, is found in an area of less than 1 km 2 (Poynton et al. 1998). Threeendemic bird taxa (variously described as full species or subspecies) are restricted to the 6 km 2of forest in the Taita Hills (Brooks et al. 1998). Records for the Udzungwa partridge areconfined to two localities in the Udzungwas and one in Rubeho (Baker & Baker 2002). Amongstsome invertebrates (linyphiid spiders, opilionids and carabid beetles), single site endemismexceeds 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 EastUsambaras emerge as the most important site in terms of numbers of endemics, while theUlugurus rank top for density of endemics (Burgess et al. 2001). As expected, the big forestblocks (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 onlyforest dependent; they are dependent on primary forest. The low-elevation forests are rich inendemics and total numbers of species, but are very limited in overall area, having sufferedextensive clearance for agriculture. The uniqueness of the biodiversity in the Eastern ArcMountains is attributable to both relictual and recently evolved species (Burgess et al. 1998c;Roy et al. 1997). Biogeographical affinities indicate ancient connections to Madagascar (45species of bryophytes shared) (Pocs 1998), West Africa (many birds and plant genera) (Lovett1998b; Burgess et al. 1998c) and even Southeast Asia (where close relatives of the Udzungwaforest partridge and the African tailorbird are found) (Dinesen et al. 1994).Biodiversity in the Coastal ForestsThe pattern of endemism in the Coastal Forest Mosaic is complex, reflecting the wide range ofhabitats and heterogeneous forest types, a high degree of turnover of local species betweenadjacent forest patches and many disjunct distributions (Burgess 2000; WWF-US 2003b). Theecoregion, which includes the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba, is a mosaic of forest patches,savanna woodlands, bushlands, thickets and farmland. The highest biodiversity is found in thevarious kinds of closed canopy forest vegetation: dry forest, scrub forest, Brachystegia(miombo) forest, riverine forest, groundwater forest, swamp forest and coastal/afromontanetransition forest (Clarke 2000; WWF-US 2003b). Closed canopy forests, however, makes uponly 1 percent of the total area of the Coastal Forest Mosaic.Overall, there are more than 4,500 plant species and 1,050 plant genera (WWF-US 2003b), witharound 3,000 species and 750 genera occurring in forest. At least 400 plant species are endemicto the forest patches and about another 500 are endemic to the intervening habitats that make up99 percent of the ecoregion area (WWF-US 2003b). The majority of these species are woody butthere are also endemic climbers, shrubs, herbs, grasses and sedges (Clarke et al. 2000). Asubstantial proportion of the endemic plants are confined to a single forest (for example, RondoForest, 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 connectionwith the Guineo-Congolian lowland forests (Lovett 1993). Endemism is primarily relictualrather than recently evolved (Clarke et al. 2000; Burgess et al. 1998c).Faunal endemism rates have been estimated for forest species in the Swahelian Regional Centreof Endemism (including the transition zone in Mozambique). These are highest in theinvertebrate groups such as millipedes (80 percent of all the forest species), molluscs (68percent) and forest butterflies (19 percent) (Burgess 2000). Amongst the vertebrates, 7 percentof forest mammals, 10 percent of forest birds, 57 percent of forest reptiles and 36 percent of12

forest amphibians are endemic (Burgess 2000). If Mozambique is excluded, endemics include14 species of birds (including four on Pemba Island), eight mammals, 36 reptiles and fiveamphibians (WWF-EARPO 2002).In terms of species richness, there are at least 158 species of mammals (17 percent of allAfrotropical 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 disjunctdistributions are common. This makes it extremely difficult to prioritise the forests in terms oftheir biodiversity. Burgess (2000) made a preliminary analysis on the basis of species richnessand endemism, using vascular plants, birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians. This showedthat different forests are important for different groups. For example, while Arabuko-Sokoke istop for endemic birds and for mammal species richness, it barely makes it into the top ten forplants. Overall, the five most important forests are Rondo (plants and birds), lowland EastUsambaras and Arabuko-Sokoke (birds, mammals and reptiles), Shimba (plants and birds) andPugu Hills (birds and mammals). Pemba Island, with an area of only 101400 ha, isextraordinarily important for birds with four endemic species (Baker & Baker, 2002) whileZanzibar has six endemic mammals and three endemic birds (Siex, pers. comm.).Levels of ProtectionForests in this hotspot are located in two countries and fall under multiple management regimes.Figure 2 shows the major protected areas in and around the hotspot.In Kenya, the protected area network at national level consists of national parks, nationalreserves, forest reserves, nature reserves and national monuments (Bennun & Njoroge 1999).Many of the national monuments on the coast are sacred forests called Kaya Forests. At a lowerlevel, many forests are located on trust lands and fall under the control of County and Municipalcouncils. In Tanzania, the protected area network at national level consists of national parks,game reserves, government catchment forests, game controlled areas, forest reserves and naturereserves (Baker & Baker 2002). Below the national level a large number of forests, particularlyin the coastal forest belt, fall under local authorities, owned and managed by the villagers. Inboth countries, no exploitation is allowed in national parks and protection levels are generallyhigh (but see below for an exception in Kenya). In both countries, confusing and overlappinglegislation on the environment and natural resources is being rationalized through the enactmentof new polices.Within the Kenyan area of the hotspot, there is one national park, a 6 km 2 area to the northwestof Arabuko-Sokoke Forest. This park is, however, somewhat of an anomaly, as it contains noclosed 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 WildlifeService (KWS). The Shimba Hills were gazetted as National Forest in 1903 and then doublegazetted(with the exception of two small areas that remained as forest reserves under the controlof the Forest Department) in 1968 as the Shimba Hills National Reserve (Bennun & Njoroge1999). Protection levels are higher in the area controlled by KWS, as they have armed rangersand a clearer institutional mandate for conservation. The Tana River Primate National Reservecontains 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 fromfarmers clearing land for agriculture and possibly from the construction of several dams up-riverthat have reduced the incidence of flooding (Butynski & Mwangi 1994, Wieczkowski & Mbora1999-2000). The biodiversity in Boni and Dodori is poorly known because security problemshave prevented biological surveys.13

The largest of the Kenyan forest reserves is Arabuko Sokoke (417 km 2 ). For the last 10 yearsthis forest has been under multi-institutional management (KWS, the Forest Department, KenyaForestry 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 otherindigenous forests in Kenya but has been rarely implemented. Protection levels suffer from theproximity of the tourist resorts of Malindi and Watamu and the resultant demand for carvingwood and timber. The effectiveness of management has been variable over time, being subject tothe commitment of the personnel on the ground, the working relationships between KWS andthe Forest Department and the level of resources available. Generally, however, managementhas been more effective than in the other 17 forest reserves (WWF-EARPO 2002) within theKenyan coastal forest belt. In the fragmented forests of the Kenyan portion of the Eastern ArcMountains (Taita Hills), some patches, including plantation, have been gazetted as forestreserve. Others are on trust land administered by the local county council, some of which havebeen recommended for gazettement as forest reserves (Bennun & Njoroge 1999).14

Figure 2. Location of the major protected areas in and around the Eastern Arc Mountains andCoastal Forests hotspotNational 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 theforest reserves. An additional national monument at Gede Ruins is not a Kaya, but it includes afenced 350 ha coral rag forest that is in good condition and very well protected. There arenumerous Local Government or County Council Forests. Unfortunately, protection of theseforests is virtually non-existent, to the point where local councillors have sold forest plots foragricultural settlement (e.g., at Madunguni and Mangea Hill). A large proportion (nearly 4015

percent) of the Kenyan coastal forests fall into this category or is totally unprotected (data fromWWF-EARPO 2002).In the Tanzanian portion of the Eastern Arc Mountains, there are two national parks (UdzungwaMountains National Park, gazetted in 1992, 1,960 km 2 ; and Mikumi National Park, 3,230 km 2 ),two game reserves (Selous and Mkomazi) and a nature reserve (Amani Nature Reserve, gazettedin 1997, 83.8 km 2 ) (GEF 2002; Roe et al. 2002). However, more than 90 percent of the totalforest area in the Tanzanian portion of the Eastern Arc Mountains and almost 75 percent of thetotal forests are gazetted as government catchment forest reserves (Burgess pers. com.). Theserange in area from more than 557,000 ha (Ngindo) to less than 10 ha and include all the largerforests in the Kilimanajaro (e.g., Chome), Tanga (e.g., Nguru North, Shume Magambe) andMorogoro (e.g., Uluguru, Nguru South) regions. Most of the remainder are local authorityforests, ranging in size from 57,300 ha (Mbalwe/Mfukulembe) to less than 10 ha, although thereare a few private forests, mainly on tea estates (e.g. Ambangulu Tea Estate) and some of whichhave been covenanted for conservation. In the national park, protection levels are high, butelsewhere 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 eitherforest 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 areentirely managed by the district government as local authority forest reserves, although somehave double status (two overlapping with forest reserves and two more with private forestreserves). 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 newSadaani National Park (WWF-EARPO 2002). Some patches are also found in the Selous GameReserve and others in Mafia Island Marine Park. Offshore protected areas are also found inZanzibar (Jozani Forest Reserve) and Pemba (Ngezi Forest Reserve). There are also smallerareas 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 inZanzibar (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 frominadequate stakeholder involvement, conflicts of interest and corruption. Where forests aregazetted, the boundaries tend to be respected but the forests themselves suffer steadydegradation. The levels of protection achieved on the ground are strongly dependent on localfactors such as proximity to urban areas, pressure for land, ease of access, presence of valuabletimber and the capacity and morale of the local forestry officers (WWF-US 2003a). There is ageneral move toward various forms of participatory forest management (PFM), in the hope thatan 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 isgoing on in the forests. Although this hope is widely held, it has not yet been scientifically testedwithin the hotspot. The alternative strategies of direct payments and easements are beingexplored, but have not yet been implemented.CONSERVATION OUTCOMESThis ecosystem profile, together with profiles under development for other regions at this time,includes a new commitment and emphasis on using conservation outcomes—targets againstwhich the success of investments can be measured—as the scientific underpinning fordetermining CEPF’s geographic and thematic focus for investment.16

Conservation outcomes are the full set of quantitative and justifiable conservation targets in ahotspot that need to be achieved in order to prevent biodiversity loss. These targets are definedat three levels: species (extinctions avoided), sites (areas protected) and landscapes (corridorscreated). As conservation in the field succeeds in achieving these targets, these targets becomedemonstrable results or outcomes. While CEPF cannot achieve all of the outcomes identified fora region on its own, the partnership is trying to ensure that its conservation investments areworking toward preventing biodiversity loss and that its success can be monitored andmeasured. CI’s Center for Applied Biodiversity Science (CABS) is facilitating the definition ofconservation outcomes across the 25 global hotspots, representing the benchmarks against whichthe global conservation community can gauge the success of conservation measures.Overview of Conservation OutcomesConservation outcomes focus on biodiversity across a hierarchical continuum of ecologicalscales. This continuum can be condensed into the three levels: species, sites and landscapes. Thethree levels interlock geographically through the presence of species in sites and of sites inlandscapes. They are also logically connected. If species are to be conserved, the sites on whichthey live must be protected and the landscapes must continue to sustain the ecological serviceson which the sites and the species depend. At the landscape level, conservation corridors (withinwhich sites are nested) can sometimes be defined and investments can be targeted at increasingthe amount of habitat with ecological and biodiversity value within these corridors. Giventhreats to biodiversity at each of the three levels, quantifiable targets for conservation can be setin terms of extinctions avoided, sites protected and, where appropriate, conservation corridorscreated or preserved. This can only be done when accurate and comprehensive data are availableon the distribution of threatened species across sites and landscapes.Defining conservation outcomes is therefore a bottom-up process through which species-leveltargets are defined first and based on the species information, site-level conservation targets areidentified. Landscape-level targets are delineated subsequently, if appropriate for the region. Theprocess requires knowledge on the conservation status of individual species. This informationhas 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 ofextinction is estimated for each species. Species outcomes in the hotspot include those speciesthat are globally threatened (Vulnerable, Endangered and Critically Endangered) according toThe 2002 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Outcome definition is a fluid process and, asdata become available, species-level outcomes will be expanded to include other taxonomicgroups that previously had not been assessed, as well as restricted-range species. Avoidingextinctions means conserving globally threatened species to make sure that their Red List statusimproves or at least stabilizes. This in turn means that data are needed on population trends; formost of the threatened species, there are no such data.Recognizing that most species are best conserved through the protection of the sites in whichthey occur, site outcomes are defined for each target species. Site outcomes are focused onphysically and/or socioeconomically discrete areas of land that harbour populations of at leastone globally threatened species. These sites need to be protected from ecological transformationto conserve the target species. Sites are scale-independent and, ideally, should be manageable assingle units.Corridor outcomes are focused on landscapes that need to be conserved to allow the persistenceof biodiversity over time. Species and site outcomes are nested within corridors. The goal ofcorridors is to preserve ecological and evolutionary processes, as well as enhance connectivitybetween important conservation sites by effectively increasing the amount of habitat withbiodiversity value near them. Unlike species and site outcomes, the criteria for determining17

corridor outcomes are being defined and this is presently an important research front. CABS willmake the data on conservation outcomes publicly available on CEPF's Web site, www.cepf.net.Species OutcomesTo define the species outcomes for this hotspot, all globally threatened species in The 2002 RedList of Threatened Species that are found in the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forestshotspot were identified. Data were compiled for each species on its conservation status andknown distribution. Site outcomes were determined by identifying all sites that are important foreach globally threatened species. Following a review of the species and site outcomes and expertconsultations, corridor outcomes were not defined for this hotspot. Conservation corridors(landscape conservation units consisting of core sites and the surrounding matrix) did not makesense in this naturally fragmented, relatively small hotspot. However, it will be important toreconnect forest patches that have only become isolated in recent decades as a result of humanactivities. Failure to reconnect forest patches within a formerly continuous site will inevitablymean the extinction of numerous species as the habitat patches fall to sizes that can no longersustain their biodiversity due to island biogeography effects (Newmark 1991, 2002; Brooks etal. 2002).The definition of the conservation outcomes drew heavily on the research findings of a largenumber of scientists who have worked intensively in this hotspot over the last three decades andwho 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-US2003a,b). The key sources of data on threatened plants included the Flora of Tropical EastAfrica (see Beentje & Smith [2001] for details of publication), the TROPICOS database (MBG2003) and a database compiled by Q. Luke. Data on faunal species distributions in Tanzaniawere drawn from the University of Dar es Salaam biodiversity database (Howell & Msuya2003). The work to define national Important Bird Areas (IBAs) was also an important source ofdata. The IBA process in Kenya and Tanzania (coordinated by Nature Kenya and the WildlifeConservation Society of Tanzania as the BirdLife International partners for these countries) hadalready compiled data for threatened and restricted-range birds and their key sites (IBAs). Thesedata were already in the World Bird Database at BirdLife International. The IBAs provided astarting point for including other aspects of the biodiversity of this hotspot to identify keybiodiversity areas, or site level conservation outcomes.The results of the outcome definition indicate that 333 globally threatened (Red List) speciesoccur in the hotspot, with 105 species being represented in Kenya and 307 in Tanzania (Table1). 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 the333 globally threatened species in the hotspot, 241 are Vulnerable, 68 are Endangered and 24are Critically Endangered.The full list of species outcomes is provided in Appendix 1. The species outcomes are based onthe 2002 IUCN Red List, which is quite good for several taxonomic groups. However, Red Listdata for plants is badly in need of updating. The 2002 Red List includes some widespread plantspecies in this hotspot, others that are in far greater danger of extinction because their restricted18

Table 1. Numbers of Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable species in five majortaxonomic groups in the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests hotspotDegree of ThreatCountryTaxonomic Group CR EN VU Total Tanzania KenyaMammals 5 8 16 29 27 9Birds 3 1028 24 1015Amphibians 4 11 18 33 31 3Gastropods 3 3 1 7 4 3Plants 9 36 191 236 221 80Total 24 68 241 333 307 105CR = Critically Endangered, EN = Endangered, VU = Vulnerableranges 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 ormore, including 973 taxa that are not in the 2002 IUCN Red List and that urgently need to beassessed for degree of threat status.Noticeably absent from the species outcomes are reptiles, freshwater fish and nearly all theinvertebrates. 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 nobodyhas yet made the required “assessment” for possible inclusion in the Red List. Amonginvertebrates, information was only available for gastropods. It is expected that many moreinvertebrate species (as well as plants and reptiles) will prove to be threatened once they areassessed using updated IUCN criteria. A list of potentially threatened dragonflies has also beencompiled 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 setof these Critically Endangered species, together with the sites they depend on, must be rankedhigh among any priorities for conservation action. For example, 17 of the 24 CriticallyEndangered species in this hotspot are each restricted to a single site. This result is important forthe site prioritization process.There are other species in the hotspot, currently listed as Endangered, which should be reassessedfor 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 avery 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—wereidentified as “landscape species,” indicating that they will likely not be conserved through a sitebasedapproach alone.Site OutcomesThe definition of site outcomes produced 160 Key Biodiversity Areas for the Eastern ArcMountains and Coastal Forests hotspot (Appendix 2, Table 3). Among these, 41 sites areimportant for mammals, 29 for birds, 19 for amphibians, four for gastropods and 140 for plants.In the hotspot, 26 sites are home to 10 or more globally threatened species, 53 sites have two to19

nine globally threatened species and 73 are important for at least one globally threatened speciesamong the considered taxonomic groups. Nine more sites are included in Appendix 2, notbecause they host globally threatened species, but because they are IBAs with restricted-rangebird species and globally significant congregations of birds. The full description of siteoutcomes and the species that occur in them is presented in Appendix 3. Figure 3 shows thelocation and distribution of the site outcomes in Kenya and Tanzania. The sites were overlaidwith other existing geographical information including national boundaries, protected areas,rivers and topography to show their distribution in relation to other features.Further analysis of the composition of the site outcomes (Appendix 2 and 3) indicates that 51 ofthe 160 sites are IBAs (Bennun & Njoroge 1999; Baker & Baker 2002). Some sites have highnumbers of threatened species. These sites include: East Usambara Mountains, UluguruMountains, Udzungwa Mountains National Park, West Usambara Mountains, UdzungwaMountains, Shimba Hills, Lindi District Coastal Forests, Nguru Mountains, Taita Hills, SouthPare Mountains and Kisarawe District Coastal Forests. When the sites are ranked according tothe number of threatened species that they contain, 23 of the top 25 sites are IBAs. This suggeststhat the IBA process succeeds in identifying the key sites for conserving species of globalconcern, at least on a broad scale.20

Table 2. Critically Endangered species and the sites where they occur in the Eastern ArcMountains and Coastal Forests hotspotTaxonomicGroupScientific Name Country Number ofSitesName of Site(s)Mammals Crocidura desperate Tanzania 1 Udzungwa MountainsCrocidura telfordi Tanzania 2 Udzungwa Mountains,Uluguru MountainsDiceros bicornis Tanzania, 2 Selous Game ReserveUdzungwa MountainsProcolobus rufomitratus Kenya 1 Lower Tana River forestsPteropus voeltzkowi Tanzania 1 Pemba IslandBirds Apalis fuscigularis Kenya 1 Taita Hills forestOrthotomus moreaui Tanzania 1 East Usambara MountainsTurdus helleri Kenya 1 Taita Hills forestAmphibians Churamiti maridadi Tanzania 1 Ukaguru MountainsNectophrynoides asperginis Tanzania 1 Udzungwa MountainsNectophrynoides wendyae Tanzania 1 Udzungwa MountainsParhoplophryne usambarica Tanzania 1 East Usambara MountainsGastropods Gulella taitensis Kenya 1 Taita Hills forestThapsia buraensis Kenya 1 Taita Hills forestZingis radiolata Kenya 1 Taita Hills forestPlants Calodendrum eickii Tanzania 1 West Usambara MountainsCombretum tenuipetiolatum Tanzania, 3 Kaya Rabai, Nzovuni River,KenyaWest Usambara MountainsCynometra filifera Tanzania 2 Lindi, Lindi creekCynometra gillmanii Tanzania 1 Kilwa District coastal forestsEuphorbia tanaensis Kenya 1 Witu forest reserveFicus faulknerianaTanzania,Kenya7 Dzirihini, East UsambaraMountains, Msambweni,near Buda Forest Reserve,Pangani (Mwera), PanganiDistrict coastal forests,Shimba HillsKaromia gigasTanzania,Kenya2 Kaya Mwarakaya, KilwaDistrict coastal forestsPlatypterocarpusTanzania 1 West Usambara MountainstanganyikensisSorindeia calanthaTanzania,Kenya4 Mount Kasigau, NguruMountains, South PareMountains, UdzungwaMountains National Park21

Table 3. Numbers of sites with Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable species in fivemajor taxonomic groups in the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests hotspotNumber of Sites*TotalTaxonomic Group Kenya Tanzania SitesMammals 14 26 40Birds 10 19 29Amphibians 2 17 19Gastropods 1 3 4Plants 52 87 140*The total number of site outcomes is 160.An alternative to a simple threatened species richness ranking is to examine the site data forcomplementarity and to determine: 1) the minimum set of sites that contain all globallythreatened 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 (Rodriguesand Langhammer pers. comm.) indicates that the minimum set consists of 35 sites and that, ofthese, 26 are irreplaceable. If the sites are ranked by species richness, the top 33 sites contain 97percent of all threatened species (although it takes 129 sites to capture 100 percent). This meansthat, except for a few species, the selection of sites by a simple threatened species richnessranking is not a bad prioritization strategy compared with the complementarity set. Among thetop 20 sites by species richness, only two (Bagomoya District Forests and North PareMountains) 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 aremany reasons for this. First, the survival of a threatened species is likely to require conservationinterventions at more than one site. For example, the best known population of Clarke’s weaveris in Arabuko-Sokoke Forest, but it doesn’t breed there. Second, a species found in several sitesmay only have viable populations in one or two of them and these critical sites may not becaptured by complementarity, or rank highly for species richness. Third, variation in the rawdata (numbers of threatened species per site) can be partly accounted for by large site differencesin area (over five orders of magnitude: Appendix 3) and/or research investment. Fourth, theoutcome 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 sitesmust take into account not only their relative biological importance, but also the degrees ofthreat to them and the current investments in them.22

Figure 3. Location and distribution of site outcomes for the Eastern Arc Mountains and CoastalForests hotspot23

Figure 1 (continued)*Site # Site Name1 Arabuko-Sokoke forest2 Bagamoyo3 Bagamoyo (Kikoka forest reserve)4 Bagamoyo District coastal forests5 Baricho near Arabuko Sokoke6 Boni forest7 Buda forest reserve8 Bungu9 Cha Simba10 Chale Island11 Chuna forest12 Dakatcha woodland13 Dar es salaam coast14 Diani forest15 Dodori forest16 Dzitzoni17 Dzombo hill forest18 East Usambara mountains19 Gede Ruins National Monument20 Gongoni forest reserve21 Handeni District coastal forests22 Jozani forest reserve, Zanzibar23 Kambe Rocks24 Kaya Bombo25 Kaya Chonyi26 Kaya Dzombo27 Kaya Fungo28 Kaya Gandini29 Kaya Gonja30 Kaya Jibana31 Kaya Kambe32 Kaya Kauma33 Kaya Kinondo34 Kaya Kivara35 Kaya Lunguma36 Kaya Miungoni37 Kaya Mtswakara38 Kaya Muhaka39 Kaya Mwarakaya40 Kaya Puma41 Kaya Rabai42 Kaya Ribe43 Kaya Sega44 Kaya Teleza45 Kaya Tiwi46 Kaya Ukunda47 Kaya Waa48 Kilombero valley49 Kilwa District coastal forests50 Kisarawe District coastal forests51 Kisiju52 Kisimani wa Ngoa53 Korogwe (Kwashemshi Sisal Estate)54 Lango ya simba* Please refer to Appendix 3 for moreinformation on each site.55 Latham Island56 Lindi57 Lindi (Kengedi)58 Lindi (Mkindani)59 Lindi (Ngongo)60 Lindi (Nondora)61 Lindi (Nyangao River)62 Lindi (Ras Rungi)63 Lindi (Tendaguru)64 Lindi creek65 Lindi District coastal forests66 Lower Tana River forests67 Lukoga forest reserve68 Lunghi forest69 Mafia Island70 Magombera forest reserve71 Mahenge72 Mahenge (Kwiro forest)73 Mahenge (Liondo)74 Mahenge (Lipindi)75 Mahenge (Sali)76 Mahenge Scarp forest reserve77 Makongwe Island78 Mangea Hill79 Marafa80 Marenji forest81 Masasi82 Masasi (Nyengedi)83 Masasi East84 Mikindani (Mnima)85 Mikindani (Mtwara inland)86 Mikindani District (Mtwara-Mikindani)87 Mikumi National Park88 Mkomazi game reserve89 Mnazi Bay90 Mount Kasigau91 Mpanga village forest reserve92 Mrima Hill forest93 Msambweni94 Mtanza forest reserve95 Mtwara96 Muheza District coastal forests97 Mwache forest reserve98 near Buda forest reserve99 Newala (Kitama)100 Newala (Kitangari)101 Newala (Mahuta)102 Newala District coastal forests103 Nguru mountains104 Nguu mountains105 North Pare Mountains106 Nyumburuni forest reserve107 Nzovuni River108 Pande and Dodwe coastal forests109 Pangani110 Pangani (Bushiri)111 Pangani (Hale-Makinjumbe)112 Pangani (Mauri)113 Pangani (Mwera)114 Pangani Dam115 Pangani District coastal forests116 Panza Island117 Pemba Island118 Ras Kituani119 River Wami120 Rubeho Mountains121 Rufiji Delta122 Rufiji District coastal forests123 Sabaki River Mouth124 Sangerawe125 Selous game reserve126 Semdoe127 Shikurufumi forest reserve128 Shimba Hills129 Shimoni forests130 Sinza River-near University of Dar131 South Pare mountains132 Taita Hills forests133 Tana River Delta134 Tanga (Duga)135 Tanga (Gombero forest reserve)136 Tanga (Morongo)137 Tanga (Nyamaku)138 Tanga (Pangani)139 Tanga (Sigi River)140 Tanga North-Kibo Salt Pans141 Tanga South142 Tumbatu Island143 Udzungwa mountains144 Udzungwa National Park145 Ukaguru mountains146 Ukunda147 Ukwama forest reserve148 Uluguru mountains149 Utete (Kibiti)150 Uvidunda mountains151 Uzaramo (Dar to Morogoro)152 Uzaramo (Msua)153 Verani South West154 Vigola155 West Usambara mountains156 Witu forest reserve157 Zanzibar (Kituani)158 Zanzibar (Muyuni)159 Zanzibar Island-East Coast160 Zanzibar Island-South Coast24

With this background, there is no present justification for the exclusion of any of the 160 siteoutcomes from possible CEPF funding. Conversely, it would be a waste of the available data notto recognize that some particularly important sites should be targeted. A mixed strategy for siteprioritization 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 allits 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 conservationorganizations in general, can track the success of their investments and interventions, bymeasuring extinctions avoided and sites protected. This is particularly important for a globalprogram like CEPF, which has a responsibility to use resources in ways that achieve biodiversityconservation most effectively at a global scale.SOCIOECONOMIC FEATURESHumans evolved in Africa and have inhabited its landscapes for hundreds of thousands of years.Their power to change these landscapes has grown through the successive discoveries of fire,agriculture, technology, trade and fossil fuels. The use of fire in East Africa dates back at least60,000 years and the ability to smelt iron at least 2,000 years. Charcoal layers and earthenwarehave been discovered in the soils under good canopy forest in East Usambaras (Rodgers 1998).But it has been the ability of humans to tap the energy locked up in fossil fuels that has mosttransformed the planet. The population growth that this has enabled means that nearly allconservation problems today involve people and their needs and that socioeconomicconsiderations must be part of the solutions.Institutional FrameworkIn both Tanzania and Kenya, the institutional frameworks that structure the interactions of peopleand forests are largely an inheritance from the colonial governments. Both countries have a CivilService structure that includes ministries, permanent secretaries and national institutions(divisions, departments) dealing with different sectors of society and the economy. In Tanzania,the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT) oversees four divisions (Wildlife (WD),Forest and Beekeeping (FBD), Fisheries and Tourism) and supervises five parastatal wildlifeorganizations including Tanzania National Parks Authority (TANAPA), Tanzania ForestryResearch Institute (TAFORI) and the Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI). Animportant function of TAWIRI is to issue research permits for all ecological and biologicalfieldwork in the country. In Zanzibar, the Zanzibar Department of Commercial Crops, Fruits andForestry (DCCFF), under the Ministry of Agriculture, Lands and Natural Resources, administersforest resources and the area proposed to become the Jozani-Chwaka Bay National Park.Research permits to work in Zanzibar and Pemba have to go through the Zanzibar authorities.In Kenya the forests are mostly under the Forest Department, within the Ministry ofEnvironment and Natural Resources. Other forest stakeholder institutions include the KenyaWildlife Service (KWS), Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI) and the National Museumsof Kenya (NMK). In addition there are a large number of NGOs with interests in environmentand conservation in the hotspot.25

Government Institutional Framework for Forestry in TanzaniaIn Tanzania, the FBD is accountable to the permanent secretary in the Ministry of NaturalResources and Tourism (MNRT) and is responsible for the protection of forests and theproductive use of forest lands to meet demands for wood products. Until relatively recently,protection focused on watersheds rather than biodiversity and production involved harvesting ofindigenous hardwoods and the establishment of industrial plantations of pine and cypress. Nowthere is official recognition of the biodiversity values of the indigenous forest reserves withinFBD and the harvesting of indigenous hardwoods has been banned in conservation areas,including the Eastern Arc and Coastal Forests. The Government Catchment Forests (mainly inthe Uluguru and East Usambara Mountains) and the nature reserves have remained undergovernment control, administered by an FBD staff of eight forest officers and 57 assistant forestofficers (GEF 2002). Because of a national policy of decentralization, most of the remainingforests are managed at the district level under a variety of regimes. There are at least sixcategories of management status: Forest Reserves, Local Authority Forest Reserves, Monuments,Village Forest Reserves, Private Forest Reserves and Public Lands/Public Forest (WWF-EARPO2002b).There are three additional management categories in the Eastern Arc Mountains, which areoutside the FBD/District level framework for forests: National Parks, Game Reserves and NatureReserves. There are two national parks (Udzungwa Mountains National Park and MikumiNational Park) managed by the Tanzanian National Park Authority based in Arusha. There aretwo game reserves (Selous and Mkomazi) and one nature reserve (Amani) managed by theWildlife Division and the Tanzanian Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI). Nature Reservesenjoy a higher level of protection than Forest Reserves.A number of problems have been identified with the administrative framework of FBD, some ofwhich are exacerbated by the decentralized structure for forest management in Tanzania (GEF2002). These include:• emphasis on regulation and enforcement rather than on service delivery;• weak oversight on forest management, poor accountability and supervision.• ineffective fiscal procedures in terms of meeting objectives and delivering services;• poor revenue collection;• no institutional mechanisms for biodiversity conservation;• no scope for the public financing of biodiversity conservation;• no institutional recognition of the needs of local communities; and• diverse and complex tenure systems.These and other institutional problems are being addressed by major reforms in the Tanzanianforest sector. A proposed $62.2 million dollar project (Forest Conservation and ManagementProject) funded by GEF, World Bank and the IDA would implement the reforms. A major outputof this project would be the establishment of the Tanzania Forest Service (TFS), which would beresponsible for the implementation of the National Forest Programme (see below).Government Institutional Framework for Forestry in KenyaIn Kenya, there is a great deal of overlap in the institutional planning, implementation,management and monitoring of environmental policies and legislation. In 1992, the National26

Biodiversity Unit included no less than 38 government ministries, departments and parastatalinstitutions dealing with biodiversity issues. There are four government institutions that aredirectly involved in forest management and conservation: the Forest Department, KWS, theKenya Forestry Research Institute and the National Museums of Kenya. At a few sites, all four arerepresented in multi-institutional management teams (e.g. the Arabuko-Sokoke ForestManagement Team at Arabuko-Sokoke Forest).The Forest Department has the major mandate. It falls under the Ministry of Environment andNatural Resources (MENR) and is responsible for:• formulation of policies for management and conservation of forests;• preparation and implementation of management plans;• management and protection of Kenya's gazetted forests;• establishment and management of forest plantations;• promotion of on-farm forestry; and• promotion of environmental awareness.The Forest Department operates some 160 forest stations, reporting to 65 District Forest Officeswhich in turn report to eight Provincial Forest Offices. In the past the department hasconcentrated on industrial forestry, but is now giving greater attention to afforestation onsmallholder farm land and the conservation of natural forests. The department has many of thesame problems as the FBD in Tanzania, although its administration does not suffer from thefragmentary effects of decentralization. Resources are limited and staffing levels are inadequatefor keeping the department fully operational. A high percentage of the department's total budgetgoes to salaries and allowances. There are plans for transforming the department into a new bodycalled the Kenya Forest Service. These plans are less advanced than those in Tanzania but theyhave the same goals.The KWS is a parastatal and is responsible for the protection of the nation's wildlife. OnDecember 5 th 1991, the directors of KWS and the Forest Department signed a memorandum ofunderstanding (MoU), covering the management of selected indigenous forest reserves. Withinthis MoU, the major responsibilities of KWS are the management of tourism, problem animalsand wildlife protection.The National Museums of Kenya (NMK) was subsequently included in the MoU under anaddendum 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 asnational monuments, through the Coastal Forest Conservation Unit (CFCU).The Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI) was established in 1986. Its mission is toenhance the social and economic welfare of Kenyans through user-oriented research forsustainable development of forests and allied natural resources. In 2002, it had 94 universitygraduate research scientists at PhD, MSc and BSc level, in 17 research centres in variousecological zones of Kenya. The Gede Regional Research Centre is responsible for research in thecoastal forests.27

Nongovernmental OrganizationsEast Africa has a plethora of environmental and conservation NGOs, many of which have beenor are involved in forestry-related activities in the hotspot. It is impossible to do much more thanlist them in the present context and to highlight a few issues of particular importance. Theirinterventions have complemented on-going government conservation and developmentinitiatives in the hotspot and have greatly assisted the Forest Department and FBD during periodswhen donor funding was difficult to get for government departments.NGOs can provide significant complementarity to government institutions:• They are able to speak out without adhering to governmental policies and to lobby thegovernment on environmental policies and decisions.• They have demonstrated accountability to donors because they need to be accountable tosurvive.• They can quickly raise and access funding, take decisions and act in response to emergenciesor changing circumstances.• They are often closer to the grassroots and have a stronger relationship with communities.• Their members are often motivated by strong convictions and are therefore highlycommitted.• They are increasingly part of a supportive international network, which can quickly shareknowledge and experience on environmental issues and which has a global voice.They have one fundamental disadvantage: they do not have the national mandates to manageforests and wildlife areas and while they can contribute to park, forest or wildlife managementthey do not have ultimate authority. This means that their ability to solve problems on the groundin forest reserves or national parks is limited. NGO project management is often challenging andit requires technical, managerial, political and interpersonal skills. High turnover in projectmanagers is not uncommon.International environmental and conservation NGOs working in East Africa include AfricanWildlife Foundation (AWF), African Conservation Centre (ACC), BirdLife International, CAREInternational and CARE Tanzania, Environmental Liaison Centre International, Friends ofConservation (FoC), the IUCN East Africa Regional Office (IUCN-EARO), TRAFFIC andWWF-EARPO. IUCN, WWF, TRAFFIC, BirdLife International and CARE International areglobal 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 ofthese well-known organizations have carried out significant activities within the hotspot. WWF-EARPO is spearheading the Eastern Africa Coastal Forest Programme in Kenya, Tanzania andMozambique.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 EANHSis composed of two partner NGOs: Nature Kenya (NK) and Nature Uganda (NU), both of whichare the national partners of BirdLife International in Kenya and Uganda. NK was one of theimplementers 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 to28

the Kenya Forests Working Group (KFWG), which is a coalition of NGOs and of anyoneinterested in forests and which has been an extremely important focus for civil society actionagainst government policies that have threatened Kenyan forests. The EAWLS has also beenvery active in the Taita Hills.National NGOs in Kenya include A Rocha Kenya (ARK) in Watamu and the Forest ActionNetwork (FAN) in Nairobi. In Tanzania, national NGOs include TFCG; Frontier-Tanzania;Journalist Environmental Association of Tanzania (JET); the Lawyers EnvironmentalAssociation of Tanzania (LEAT); and Wildlife Conservation Society of Tanzania (WCST). FANhas been particularly active on policy matters in Kenya and in stimulating networking onParticipatory Forest Management. ARK is a Christian conservation organization that is active inbird monitoring and conservation education on the north coast of Kenya. Frontier-Tanzania hasbeen responsible for much of the scientific research in the Eastern Arc Mountains, workingtogether with the University of Dar es Salaam and visiting scientists. The TFCG has aconsiderable track record of conservation initiatives on the Tanzanian side of the hotspot,particularly in working with local communities and in participatory forest management. TheWCST 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 inTanzania, while JET is invaluable in awareness raising and advocacy.Among the community-based organizations are the Arabuko-Sokoke Forest-Adjacent DwellersAssociation; the Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Guides Association; and the Shimba Hills SupportGroup. In Tanzania these organizations include the Korogwe Development EnvironmentalProtection Association; Morogoro Environmental Conservation Action Group; Sigi RiverConservation Society - Tanga and Usambara Environment Conservation Organization - Lushoto.Many of these are relatively new and need testing and capacity building, but they have thevirtues of being on-site and being rooted mostly in the local communities, where support is badlyneeded.Policy and LegislationBoth Kenya and Tanzania have recently updated, or are in the process of updating, their policiesand legislation on forests and the environment. In both countries, this is opening up newopportunities for conservation interventions.KenyaPolicyAn updated Kenya Forest Policy has been developed and is in the process of being officiallyapproved. Kenya’s Forest Policy has evolved from the Kenya Forestry Master Plan (ForestDepartment 1994), which was a joint venture of the Ministry of Environment and NaturalResources (MENR) and FINNIDA. The policy contains seven major objectives:1. Increase the forest and tree cover of the country, in order to ensure an increasing supplyof forest products and services, for meeting the basic needs of the present and futuregenerations and for enhancing the role of forestry in socioeconomic development.2. Conserve the remaining natural habitats and the wildlife therein, rehabilitate them andconserve their biodiversity.3. Contribute to sustainable agriculture by conserving the soil and water resources by treeplanting and appropriate forest management.29

4. Support the government policy of alleviating poverty and promoting rural development,by income based on forest and tree resources, by providing employment and bypromoting equity and participation by local communities.5. Fulfil the agreed national obligations under international environmental and other forestryrelated conventions and principles.6. Manage the forest resource, assigned for productive use, efficiently for the maximumsustainable benefit, taking into account all direct and indirect economic andenvironmental impacts and including a review of the ways in which forest and trees arevalued, in order to facilitate management decisions.7. Recognize and maximize the benefits of a viable and efficient forest industry for thenational economy and development.The proposed forest policy on indigenous forest states: “All gazetted indigenous forests;woodlands, bushlands and mangroves should remain reserved. They will be managed by stateapprovedagencies 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 andservices mainly locally on a subsistence basis, by community participation where appropriate.”In the general management principles, the policy states: “The rationale of forest managementdepends on local conditions set by climate, soil and tree species and on the actual forest relatedneeds of the people, which incorporate both social and cultural aspects. In all circumstances, theforest resources will be managed in a sustainable manner with due regard to environmentalconservation. 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 2001the 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 againstthese excisions. Two court cases were brought against the government’s action and these casesare ongoing. The replanting of harvested plantations, which was also recommended under thenew policy, had fallen years behind, but was revived in 2002. On the positive side, jointmanagement of certain forests with communities and environmental NGOs was undertaken on apilot basis. Since the new government took office at the end of 2002, official statements haveindicated that the new forest policy and legislation will soon be approved and put into effect andthat the issue of the 2001 excisions will be revisited.LegislationThe Forestry Department operates through the Forest Act Cap 385 of the Laws of Kenya.However the act is outdated and does not address the current issues, realities and expectations.To address this, a new Forest Bill 2000 was prepared. The bill has gone through all stages ofdevelopment, but is awaiting tabling in Parliament to become law. The bill is much morecomprehensive than the act it will replace and covers issues of community participation andmultiple stakeholders in forestry. The bill proposes the establishment of a corporate body calledthe Kenya Forest Service. Among its responsibilities, this body will:(a) formulate policies for the management, conservation and utilization of all types of forest;30

(b) manage the use and conservation of all indigenous state forests;(c) monitor and enforce compliance with the provisions of this act in respect of all forests inKenya; and(d) advise the government on all matters pertaining to the establishment, development,conservation and utilization of forests in Kenya.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 theEnvironmental Management and Coordination Bill, 1999, into law on 15 December 1999. TheEnvironmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) came into force on 14 th January2000 and takes priority over all pre-existing legislation. The EMCA establishes nationalenvironmental principles and provides guidance and coherence to good environmentalmanagement. It also deals with cross-sectional issues such as overall environmental policyformulation, environmental planning, protection and conservation of the environment,environmental impact assessment, environmental audit and monitoring, environmental qualitystandards, environmental protection orders, institutional coordination and conflict resolution.Owing to financial and bureaucratic constraints, the act has taken several years to becomeoperational. Once fully operational, the act will have impacts on other legislation dealing withenvironment such as land tenure and land use legislation, forestry legislation, wildlife legislation,water laws and agriculture legislation. The act provides a good avenue for environmentalprotection and the establishment of an operational framework under the National EnvironmentManagement Authority (NEMA).TanzaniaPolicyThe Forest Policy of Tanzania (United Republic of Tanzania 1998) gives the responsibility ofmanaging forest resources to the forest sector in collaboration with key stakeholders. Among themain features of the policy are participatory forest management, decentralization andprivatization. These are radical divergences from the earlier policy and legislation, whichrestricted management to the state authorities and had a different approach to preservation andcontrolled utilization. These reforms are a result of emerging macroeconomic policies and localand global environmental management trends. They also recognize the rights of the communitiesand roles of the private sector in managing these resources. The overall goal and objectives arepresented in Box 1.The Forest Policy is implemented through the National Forest Programme (Ministry of NaturalResources and Tourism, 2001). The key challenges for this program are ensuring sustainableutilization of forest produce and meeting the national demand for forest produce such as woodfuel, sawn timber, non-timber forest products and other forest produce. The dependence on forestproducts by the majority of the rural communities for their livelihoods enables forests tocontribute to poverty reduction.31

Box 1 National Forest Policy goal and objectivesThe overall goal:“To enhance the contribution of the forest sector to the sustainable development of Tanzania and theconservation and management of her natural resources for the benefit of present and future generations”.The objectives are:• ensured sustainable supply of forest products and services by maintaining sufficient forest area undereffective management;• increased employment and foreign exchange earnings through sustainable forest-based industrialdevelopment and trade;• ensured ecosystem stability through conservation of forest biodiversity, water catchments and soilfertility; and• enhanced national capacity to manage and develop the forest sector in collaboration with otherstakeholders.The program aims to reduce poverty through: (1) increased employment in forest industry andrelated activities by 25 percent by 2010; and (2) increased income generation from forestresources and services to local communities by 20 percent by 2010. The anticipated majorbenefits resulting from increased community and private sector participation in the managementand sustainable utilization of forests are:• better recognition of the needs and aspirations of local communities as stakeholders and jointforest owners in natural and plantation forests where land pressure is an issue (e.g.,Kilimanjaro, Tanga, Morogoro and Iringa Districts);• poverty reduction through increased income generation in the most deprived areas (i.e.,Lindi, Kigoma and Coast Regions); and• greater certainty of tenure and supply of forest products and services to encourage investmentin forestry and forest industries.LegislationExisting legislation pertaining to forest management in Tanzania is the Forest Ordinance CAP389 of 1957, which was operational from 1959. Basically, this ordinance focuses on restrictiveuse and, more so, on preservation of forests. The ordinance, to a large extent, has excluded localcommunities from involvement in management of these resources and recognises them only asbeneficiaries. This law governs conservation and management of forests and forest produce. Thisordinance, like many others developed during the colonial era, focused on preservation of naturalforests. This classical conservation was based on the belief that proper management could beimplemented through protection from human interference and exclusion from human use. Thisexclusion did not, of course, apply to the Government Forestry and Bee-keeping Division and agreat deal of natural forest destruction and replacement by plantations, continued under licenceafter independence.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 reservesand restrictions over the use of and/or occupation of such areas. The ordinance further providesfor the declaration of local authority forest reserves. The requirements for such declarationsinclude: (1) recording of rights preceding such declarations; (2) restrictions on the creation ofnew rights subsequent to declaration, in respect of unreserved land, of “reserved trees”; and (3)32

the granting of licenses for any of the purposes of the ordinance. There was clearly greatinconsistency between the ordinance and the new National Forest Policy. Taking account of theweaknesses in the existing ordinance, a Forest Bill, which revised the outdated ForestsOrdinance CAP 389 of 1957, was developed to correspond with the National Forest Policy. Thebill sought to address the inadequacies of the Forests Ordinance and provided a legal frameworkto enable the new National Forest Policy to be effectively implemented. The revised Forest Actbestows management rights under respective instruments, including:• development of collaborative forest management arrangements and management plans forNational and Local Authority, Community, Village and Private Forests; and• development of by-laws and other local instruments to facilitate forest development at thelocal level.The Forest Act (approved by the Parliament in April 2002) recognizes such initiatives and theroles of different stakeholders are acknowledged and supported, including allocation ofmanagement responsibilities, rights and duties. The act also addresses compliance withinternational initiatives toward sustainable forest management, including support forbioprospecting that benefits indigenous communities. Development of the Forest Act alsorecognizes related legislation, which include the Land Act (United Republic of Tanzania 1999a),Village Land Act (United Republic of Tanzania 1999b).National Forest ProgrammeIn January 2000, the Forestry and Beekeeping Division began developing a National ForestProgramme (NFP). The objective of the NFP is to: (1) enhance the contribution of the forest andbeekeeping sector to sustainable development of Tanzania; and (2) to enhance the conservationof natural resources for the benefit of present and future generations. The NFP was formulated asan instrument for implementation of the National Forest Policy (United Republic of Tanzania1998). The NFP is also meant to improve the design and implementation of forest managementinterventions. This includes streamlining financing in the sector and fostering implementation ofinternational processes towards Sustainable Forest Management (SFM).The formulation of the NFP included identification of issues through reviews and consultationsat national and local levels, their prioritization based on scope, resources and capacityrequirements for their implementation. Strategies for implementation were identified anddevelopment programmes designed.In May 2001, the draft NFP was submitted to the government for endorsement. The NFP hasfour development programmes, namely:(a) Forest Resources Conservation and Management Programme that focuses on promotingstakeholders’ participation in the management of natural and plantation forests,ecosystems/biodiversity conservation and sustainable utilization of forest resources.(b) Institutions and Human Resources Development Programme that addresses strengtheninginstitutional set up, coordination of forest management, establishing sustainable forest sectorfunding, improvement in research, extension services and capacity building.(c) Legal and Regulatory Framework Programme that focuses on development of regulatoryframeworks that include Forest Act, rules, regulations and guidelines to facilitate, among otherthings, operations of the private sector and participatory management.33

(d) Forestry Based Industries and Products Programme that attempts to enhance forest industrydevelopment, through promoting private sector investment and improving productivity andefficiency.Program formulation was completed in June 2001. Implementation arrangements are now beingdeveloped through partnerships with the main stakeholders, including local communities, theprivate sector and local governments.Economic SituationNational StatisticsBoth Kenya and Tanzania are grouped among the poorest nations in the world. Three of themajor economic indicators from 2001 for these two countries deserve particular attention: the lowper capita incomes ($271 in Kenya, $260 in Tanzania); the percentages of the populations earningless than one dollar a day (43 percent in Kenya, 50 percent in Tanzania) and; the economicgrowth rates (1.2 percent in Kenya, 5.6 percent in Tanzania). The post-independence histories ofthe economies in these two countries have been quite different.After independence, Kenya built up a strong economic lead over its neighbours in Eastern Africathrough the encouragement of market-oriented policies, smallholder agricultural production,public investment, tourism and incentives for private industrial investment. Over a 10-year periodfrom 1963-1973, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew by an average of 6.6 percent a year (USState Department Country Reports, 2002a). By 1997 it had dropped to 2.3 percent, then to 1.8percent in 1999 and became negative (0.4 percent) in 2000 (USAID 2000). A variety of factorswere responsible for the long decline. These included unfavourable terms of trade (increased oilprices, decreased tea and coffee prices), government invasion of the private sector, decliningtourism, political uncertainties, corruption and sheer bad governance (leading to the suspension ofbilateral and multilateral aid in 1991) (USAID 2000). Were it not for vigorous growth in the cutflower and horticultural export industries and the entrepreneurial skills of its people, Kenyawould have been in a much worse situation by 2000. A new government was democraticallyelected 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 1961until 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 toencourage participation in the private sector. In 1996, a three-year Enhanced StructuralAdjustment Facility was agreed between the IMF and the Tanzanian Government. Over the nextfour years, economic growth averaged around 4 percent, rising to 4.9 percent in 2000 and to 5.6percent in 2001 (USAID 2002). Economic growth is most evident in Dar es Salaam. Althoughthe figures look good, Tanzania’s economy is overwhelmingly donor-dependent, with theexternal debt at more than $8 billion and debt servicing absorbing 40 percent of governmentexpenditure (USAID 2002b).34

Economic Activities on the CoastThe economic situation on the Kenyan and Tanzanian coasts has worsened during the last decadebecause of declines in the tourism, textiles and cashew nut industries. Coast tourism is goingthrough particularly bad times, having suffered successive blows from health scares, gulf wars,competition with other tourist destinations (especially South Africa), ethnic clashes (in Kenya)and terrorist activities (both Kenya and Tanzania). Currently there is severe over-capacity in thehotel and tourism service industry. In June 2003, hotel staff in Kenya received reduced payfollowing the suspension of British Airways flights because of terrorist threats.In the early 1990s, textile manufacturing was the leading industrial category in coastal Kenya interms of the numbers of registered companies (24 out of 159: UNEP 1998). Several of thesefirms 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 rurallivelihoods, 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 thelate 1990s after years of proa blems. As a result of the declines in the tourism, textiles andcashew nut industries, many people have lost jobs and livelihoods, with significant effects to thelocal economy. Some of the strain has been borne by the forests, which play an important role inmitigating poverty. For example, more than 40 percent of household consumption in the EasternArc Mountains is forest-derived (GEF 2002).Other industrial activities, many of them based on the coast because of maritime access toimports and exports, have been more robust. These include: cement, lime and quarrying; steelrolling mills and iron smelting; oil refining; manufacture of paints, plastics, rubber, chemical andmetal products; wood processing (paper, pulp, board and timber); light processing for export ofagricultural crops (coffee, groundnuts, cotton and sisal); and food and beverage industries. Aselsewhere in the world there has been considerable growth in information technology-basedservices, although these have been constrained by poor landline facilities, high telephone chargesand poor connectivity. There has also been increasing South African investment in the coastaleconomy, particularly in Tanzania.Industries outside the major cities and towns are mostly based on mineral resources, especiallysand, salt and limestone. Sand for building is mined in many localities along the coast, notably atMazeras 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 sitewithin the forest, especially for frogs and birds). Extensive salt works have been established atvarious sites (e.g. in Tanga District in Tanzania and at Ngomeni, Gongoni and Kurawa inKenya), where they have been responsible for local destruction of mangrove forests. Limestonedeposits are abundant along the coast. They form a 4-8 km band, parallel to the coast and about70 m thick from across the Kenya-Tanzanian border north to Malindi. All along the coast, corallimestone 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. Inthe Bamburi area just north of Mombasa, limestone is quarried on a large scale for cementmanufacture by a subsidiary of La Farge, a French-based multinational. This site at Bamburi hasbecome famous for its ecological restoration of quarries and La Farge has recently entered into apartnership agreement with WWF (WWF-EARPO 2002).35

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 miningin Kenya. There are vast titanium reserves in the Magarini Sands belt, which stretches fromShimoni in the south coast to Mambrui in the north. Titanium has traditionally been used tomake a white pigment for paint, plastic and paper, but is increasingly in demand for applicationsin the armaments and space industries. Since 1995, a Canadian-based company (TiominResources Inc.) has been negotiating an agreement with the Kenyan government to minetitanium. 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 subsistencefarming, supplemented by tree crops and fishing. There are large sisal plantations (e.g. Vipingoin Kenya) and tea estates (e.g. in Iringa and Kagera in Tanzania), which provide limited andpoorly 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 andbananas (UNEP 1998). Cassava and maize are the staples everywhere and coconuts yield avariety 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 thecontinental shelf next to the East African coast, the Southeast Monsoon (which restricts theactivities 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 ArcMountains, but farmers to the north and north-west of Mombasa need emergency food supplieswhenever 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 scaletrading, sewing, electronic and other repairs) and the informal jua kali (Kiswahili for “fiercesun”) sector, which includes tin smiths, second hand clothing and cobblers.Infrastructure and Regional DevelopmentThere are two large cities within the hotspot, each of which has grown around an important andancient deep-water seaport on the Indian Ocean. Mombasa is Kenya’s second largest city, with apopulation of more than 700,000. Despite deteriorating equipment and problems withinefficiency and corruption, it remains one of the most modern ports in Africa. It has 21 berths,two bulk oil jetties and dry bulk wharves and handles all sizes of ships and cargo. It also haslarge warehousing (including bonded warehousing) and cold storage facilities. It is connected toNairobi and thence inland to the land locked countries of Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and theDemocratic Republic of Congo by both road and rail. In the mid-to-late 1990s, the Mombasa-Nairobi road was in a very poor state but it is now mostly in good condition. Other roads fromMombasa, south to the border and north past Malindi are paved but have rough stretches. Therailway connects Mombasa to Nairobi and to Kisumu on Lake Victoria, but it has suffered frompoor maintenance. There is an excellent international airport in Mombasa (Moi InternationalAirport) and domestic air services to Malindi on the north coast and Diani on the south coast.36

Dar es Salaam is the largest city of Tanzania with a population of around three million. It isincreasingly competitive with Mombasa as the most important seaport in the region. It has eightdeep-water berths for general cargo, three berths for container vessels, eight anchorages, a grainterminal, an oil jetty and onshore mooring for supertankers. It underwent major rehabilitationstarting in 1997 at a cost of about $24 million. In addition to Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and theDemocratic Republic of Congo, it also serves Malawi and Zambia. Freight is largely carried bytrains and heavy-duty vehicles. Most primary roads (e.g. from Dar north to Tanga and inland toDodoma, Arusha and Morogoro) are in good condition, but rural and feeder roads are bad andcan be impassable in the rains. Major road development and the construction of a bridge over theRufiji are ongoing and will open up access from Dar es Salaam to the South. The TanzaniaZambia Railway Authority maintains good rail links between Dar es Salaam and Zambia. Thereare also train services to Tanga on the north coast and to Arusha via Moshi and Mwanza viaMorogoro. The Dar-es Salaam International Airport has daily flights to national, regional andinternational destinations. In addition there are daily ferryboats to Zanzibar and sea transport toother 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 andelectricity services, but most villages have neither piped water nor electricity, unless they are onthe main roads. In Kenya, more than 65 percent of the population depend on pit latrines or thebush (UNEP 1998). Because of a heavy investment in coastal tourism, there are a large numberof 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 Tanzaniaand Kenya are unreliable, but new mobile phone networks have hugely improvedcommunication in both countries.Demography and Social TrendsThe demographic and social trends in Tanzania and Kenya are similar. The annual populationgrowth rate has slowed down in both countries, but remains high at 2.8 percent in Tanzania(Mariki et al. 2003) and 2.7 percent in Kenya (Bennun & Njoroge 1999). At these ratespopulations will double over the next 25 years. Total populations are about 37.4 million inTanzania and 30.7 million in Kenya (World Bank 2001). Average population densities are 40(Tanzania) and 53 (Kenya) persons per km 2 (calculated from data in USAID 2002a, b), withmost people concentrated in areas of high rainfall and good soils. For example, an estimated fourmillion people live within 10 km of one of the Eastern Arc Mountain ranges (GEF 2002). InKenya, only 18 percent of the land is arable, with another 9 percent marginal and the rest arid orsemi-arid (NRI 1996).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). InKenya in 2003, the incoming government made primary education free of charge, but it is not yetclear whether it will be able to provide the extra resources required by this new policy. Themajor health problems are malaria and HIV/AIDS. Largely because of the latter, lifeexpectancies have dropped to 50 years (Tanzania) and 49 years (Kenya) and infant mortalityrates have increased to 115 (Kenya) and 98 (Tanzania) per 1,000 births (USAID 2002a, b).37

The major social trend in both countries is urbanization. Africa’s cities are growing faster withlower economic growth than any other region of the world (USAID 2000). Between 1975 and2000, the percentage of the population living in urban areas in Tanzania increased from 15percent to 25 percent (Mariki et al. 2003). In Kenya this percentage was estimated at 33 percentin 2000 and is projected to reach 48 percent in 2020 (USAID 2000). The population of Nairobihas grown by 600 percent since 1950 and is currently around 4.5 million although it wasoriginally designed for a population of 1 million (USAID 2000). Poor immigrants to the city areforced to live in slum areas, where there is little sanitation or fresh water and where rents areabsurdly high for the quality of accommodation that is provided. The fact that urbanisation isnonetheless proceeding at such a high rate indicates that people (particularly the youngergeneration) see little future for themselves in the rural areas. A major social consequence ofurbanisation is the weakening of traditional customs and obligations, including those associatedwith the extended family. City life also leads to later marriages and less traditional lifestylesamong the youth.Religion is extremely important in the lives of both urban and rural Kenyans and Tanzanians. InTanzania 45 percent are Muslims and 45 percent are Christians, with 10 percent havingindigenous beliefs. In Kenya, the majority (40 percent) are Protestant, 30 percent are Catholic, 20percent are Muslim and an estimated 10 percent hold indigenous beliefs (USAID 2002a, b). Inboth countries the proportion of Muslims is much higher on the coast. Even in recent times, therehas been tolerance between faiths and the few religious clashes that are reported arise from intradenominationalstruggles.Both Kenya and Tanzania are ethnically diverse with more than 120 different local languages inTanzania and more than 40 in Kenya (USAID 2002a, b). Ethnic differences have played a largerole in Kenyan political and economic alliances, but this has not been the case in Tanzania. Thisis mainly because of a more even spread of ethnic origins in Tanzania, which prevented any onetribe from dominating national affairs. In both countries, ethnic differences are less important tothe younger than the older generations. The official language is Kiswahili in Tanzania andEnglish 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 are67 percent (Tanzania) and 59 percent (Kenya) (USAIDa, b).SYNOPSIS OF CURRENT THREATSThe overriding problem facing the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests hotspot isdegradation, fragmentation and loss of the only remaining habitat for many known (andunknown) globally threatened species. This is the result of many factors, such as growing humanpopulation exerting pressure on forest resources and land; poverty leading to unsustainable useof forest resources; under-resourced government institutions; a legacy of outdated environmentalpolicies and legislation; and lack of political will. The hotspot is dominated by a large andexpanding economically impoverished human population. Despite the high biologicalimportance, legal protection for important areas in the hotspot is either weak, lacking altogetheror poorly enforced. Most sites lack strategic management and action plans. On the positive side,these problems are widely recognized and various initiatives (including institutional, policy andlegislative reforms) have been launched to address them.38

Levels of ThreatOver three-quarters of forests in this hotspot are highly or very highly threatened. In the EasternArc, 75 percent of the major sites are ranked as highly threatened (South Pare, West Usambaraand Mahenge) or very highly threatened (Taita, North Pare, Ukaguru, Rubeho, Uluguru and thelower slopes of the Udzungwas) (GEF 2002: derived from Burgess et al. 2001). East Usambara,Nguru and the higher altitudes of the Udzungwas are considered to be under medium threat.Site-specific levels of threat have also been assessed for 101 coastal forests in Kenya and 103coastal forests in Tanzania (Figure 4) (data from WWF-EARPO 2002). All of these forests areunder some threat and almost 80 percent are judged to be highly (57 percent) or very highly (32percent) threatened. The levels of threat are very similar in the two countries.Figure 4. Threat levels for sites in the Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya (Data from WWF-EARPO 2002).Number of Sites140120100806040200None Low High VeryHighLevels of ThreatTanzaniaKenyaMain ThreatsMajor threats were identified for the Eastern Arc Mountains as part of the GEF PDF Block Bprocess (GEF 2002) and for the Coastal Forest Mosaic by the WWF-EARPO workshop in 2002(Table 3). Threats were identified, categorized and analyzed differently by GEF and WWF-EARPO, so caution is necessary in comparing the results. For example, recognition of thedistinction between ultimate (e.g. human population growth and negative value systems) andproximate threats (over-exploitation) was inconsistent. A general treatment of the threatsfollows, amalgamating and re-arranging the categories in Table 3 to facilitate presentation. Table4 elaborates these threats (e.g.pressure on forest resources) and gives local examples.39

Table 3. Major threats in the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests hotspotMain ThreatsEastern Arc Mountains (GEF 2002) Coastal Forests (WWF-EARPO 2002)Commercial agriculturePressure on forest resourcesSubsistence agricultureAgricultureCommercial timberSettlementDomestic timberUrbanizationIntentional firesLack of legal protectionHousehold useWildlife-human conflicts (elephants)AgricultureHistorically, commercial agriculture has been responsible for some clearance and fragmentationof forest. There are large tea estates in Iringa, Tanga and Kagera on land that was formerlyforested. Some patches of forest in these estates have been preserved, e.g. at Ambangulu. In thelowlands, sisal estates also cleared large areas of forest, especially around the East Usambaras inTanzania. The largest current threats, however, come from the commercial cultivation ofvegetables, which are sold in the local markets and from the growing of cardamom and otherspices under forest cover.These activities result in forest clearance and the destruction of undergrowth in the forest. Theyare an important contributor to rural livelihoods and therefore pose a real problem for forestconservation as the population and the demand for arable land grows.Over the past 100 years, subsistence agriculture (mostly for maize) has been responsible for thedisappearance of most areas of unprotected forest. Forest is cleared for farm land, as it has bettergrowing potential, but, after a few years, the soils are exhausted and yields reduce to those ofother nearby non-forest agricultural lands. Inappropriate farming practices (shifting cultivationwith 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 increaseddemand for land, leading to encroachment on forests. In the absence of expanding urbanemployment 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 orconstraints on agricultural expansion, are a more potent weapon.40

Table 4. Main categories, components and examples of threats in the Eastern Arc Mountains andCoastal Forests hotspotCategories Components ExamplesAgriculture Cultivation Mainly maize, vegetables and cooking bananas: Ruvu South,Nyumburuni (Tz. Coast); cardamom under forest cover in theNguru South Mountains; Kaya Kinondo (Ke. Coast).EncroachmentFireGrazingMang’alisa FR in Rubeho Mountains, Kazimzumbi FR (Tz.Coast); Mangea Hill (Ke. Coast).Usually set deliberately to clear bush or encourage freshgrass for grazing: Amani Nature Reserve and Bombo East inE. Usambaras, Pande GR & Rondo FR (Tz. Coast); TaitaHills.Mgambo and Mlinga FRs in E. Usambaras, Pangani Falls,Tongwe FR (Tz. Coast).Pressure onForest ResourcesDevelopmentTimberPolewoodFuelwoodCharcoalCarving woodHuntingTourismSaltMiningSettlementUrbanizationRoadsLutali in S. Udzungwas, Mogoroto Forest in E. Usambaras,Kimbozo FR (Tz. Coast); Dakatcha woodlands & ShimbaHills NR (Ke. Coast).Sagara FR in W.Usambaras, Nyangamara & KoleKole FR(Tz. Coast); Arabuko-Sokoke FR (Ke coast).Uluguru Mountain Forests, Litopo & Ndimba FRs, (Tz.Coast); Jozani Forest (Zanzibar); Taita Hills (Ke. EasternArc)Near urban centres: Uzigua & Kazizumbi FRs (Tz. Coast);Jozani Forest (Zanzibar); Madunguni (Ke. Coast).Forests in Tanga District (Tz. coast) e.g.Kilulu Hills, &Tongwe FR, believed to be exported to Kenya’s woodcarving trade; Arabuko Sokoke FR (Ke. Coast).New Dabaga/ Ulangambi & W. Kilombero FR in UdzungwaMountains, Pagale Hill (Tz. Coast); Arabuko-Sokoke FR (Ke.Coast).Coast only: Kiwenga (Zanzibar) & Ngezi FR (Pemba); KayaDiani & Kaya Kinondo (Ke. Coast).Coast only: Coastal forests, especially mangroves, in TangaDistrict, Pangani Falls, Tongwe (Tz coast); Ngomeni,Gongoni, Kurawa (Ke. Coast)Pugu, ruby mining in Ruvu FR (Tz. Coast); titanium mining inKwale District (Ke. Coast).In unprotected forests, e. g. Maforonya Forest, Pangani Falls& Tongwe FR (Tz. Coast); also in Local Council Forests, e.g.Madunguni Forest (Ke. Coast).Ras Kiuyu (Pemba); Kaya Kinondo (Ke. coast).New road to Dar opening access to Kitope, Rondo, &Ngarama FRs, road through Katundu FR (Tz coast).41

Commercial Timber ExtractionThere have been national moratoriums on commercial logging in high forests in Tanzania sincethe early 1990s and in indigenous forests in Kenya since the late 1990s, but enforcement andmonitoring have been erratic in both countries. In Tanzania, where the local district forestofficers (DFOs) report to the local district authorities rather than to FBD headquarters, thecommand structure is compromised and local pressure on DFOs to ignore illegal logging can bestrong. In Kenya, high-level political connections enabled certain large timber companies tocontinue to extract indigenous trees despite the moratorium, although their activities have mainlyfocused on other areas of the country (e. g. Mount Elgon). Throughout both Kenya and Tanzania,the threats are greatest to forests where high value timber like camphor (Ocotea usambarensis)or mvule (Milicia excelsa) is present.In practice, the government system of obtaining licenses to log trees from forest reserves is oftenignored and the majority of logging being undertaken in the reserves is illegal. There is a greatdeal of commercial timber extraction by small-scale poachers, responding to the demands ofurbanization and tourism development. Very little of the value of this timber goes back to thepoachers, who are usually at the bottom end of an exploitative network of foresters, middlemenand contractors. Forests close to tourist areas, such as Arabuko-Sokoke Forest near Malindi andWatamu in Kenya, suffer from the high demand for carving wood (Brachylaena huillensis) andtimber for the construction of hotels, private residences and tourist attractions. The carving woodindustry is much bigger in Kenya than in Tanzania and poaching of carving wood trees is mostcommon in Tanzania near the Kenya/Tanzania border.Other Forest Resource ExtractionCommercial fuelwood extraction and charcoal production are a problem near urban centres, withDar es Salaam and Mombasa and the Stone City in Zanzibar as majormarkets. Fuelwood is also commercially harvested from Udzungwa Mountain National Park forlocal brewing. As roads are improved, more forests become at risk because of increased accessfor fuelwood and charcoal merchants. For example, Rondo and Kitope Forest Reserve arethreatened by the development of a new road to Dar es Salaam.Most timber for local construction in the villages close to the forests comes from the foreststhemselves, mainly in the form of poles of young trees. For larger buildings, doors and windowframes planked timber is obtained from pitsawing groups working in the forests. As most ofthese teams are either operating in areas where logging is not permitted or they lack the licensesfor the trees that they are cutting, the majority of timber being used in local construction isillegal. Most of this timber is sold and hence is, in reality, a commercial use of the forests, onlyto supply the local market.A range of other products is extracted for various household uses, like medicinal plants, ediblefruits, wild honey, grass and fodder for livestock and bamboo collection for tomato basketweaving. These activities can cause local problems, especially where extraction methods aredestructive 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 local42

ushmeat trade threatens the smaller mammals. Although this trade is not on the scale found inWest and Central Africa, local consumption of game meat can threaten rare wildlife. Forexample, the endangered Aders’ duiker has been reduced to very low population levels by localhunters in Arabuko-Sokoke Forest, (FitzGibbon et al. 1995; Kanga 1996) and also in JozaniForest in Zanzibar (Struhsaker & Siex, pers. comm.).MiningMining within forests is currently a minor threat, but (as noted earlier) this may change: largereserves of titanium have been discovered on Kenya’s coast, from Kwale to Malindi District andunderneath Arabuko-Sokoke Forest. Tiomin Resources Inc. plans to strip mine four areas incoastal Kenya, starting with an area of 64 km 2 in Kwale District, which will be mined for at least14 years. All vegetation and physical structures will be removed and mineral deposits will beexposed to a depth of more than 30 m. Tiomin has promised to compensate the originallandowners and to rehabilitate and return the land to them, but agreement has not yet beenreached on its operations. There is considerable public concern about environmental impacts andthe distribution of economic benefits, and the new Kenyan government appears to be taking astricter line with Tiomin on these issues (Reuters 2003).FiresFires are commonly used by rural farmers to clear fields prior to planting. Where populationdensities are high, vegetation from the fields to be farmed that season is cleared into piles andburned on the site. In general, few of these fires spread into forest margins or montanegrasslands. Within the forests, fires are started for forest clearance for cultivation and these canget out of control and burn larger areas. Sometimes, wild honey harvesters start forest fires whenthey smoke the bees to get their honey. Fires are sometimes started deliberately for politicalreasons (e.g. in UMNP in 2000 during the election). Where human population density is lower,there is a much higher tendency for the slopes of Eastern Arc Mountains to be subject towildfires that can have a number of causes and once started will spread up the slope in anuncontrolled fashion. Occasionally, these fires reach the forests and during dry years they canenter the forest and cause considerable damage. They also burn huge areas of upland grass in theEastern Arc Mountains.43

Ranking of Threats in TanzaniaBecause of the different ways in which threats have been identified and analyzed in differentportions of the hotspot, it is difficult to include all the data in an overall ranking of threats in thehotspot. The most compatible datasets come from site-by-site analyses of threats for 114 sites inthe Tanzanian Coastal Forests (WWF-EARPO 2002) and for 136 sites in the Tanzanian EasternArc Mountains (data from Neil Burgess). Figure 5 summarizes this data in ranked form for thetop 10 threats common to both datasets.The top 10 overall threats (in ranked order) are agriculture and encroachment, fire, timberextraction, polewood cutting, population growth, charcoal production, grazing, hunting, miningand roads. Population growth was included as a threat in both datasets, although it may be betterconsidered as an ultimate factor, driving the other proximate threats. Two additional threats wereidentified only for the Eastern Arc Mountains Forests (corruption and medicinal plants) andanother 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 additionalthreats to either the Coastal Forests or the Eastern Arc Mountains is almost certainly an artefactof the different analyses used. For example, corruption and fuelwood extraction are a problem inboth ecoregions.Despite these problems and the exclusion of the Kenyan data, Figure 5 provides a reasonablepicture of the relative importance of the overall threats in the hotspot.Figure 5. Ranking of threats in the Eastern Arc Mountains (136 forests) and Coastal Forests (108forests)20Threat Score181614121086420E. Arc ForestsCoastal ForestsMiningRoadsHuntingGrazingCharcoalPopulationPolewoodTimberFireAgr / EncThreat44

Population growth, hunting, grazing and mining rank higher in the Eastern Arc Mountains.Agriculture and encroachment, timber extraction, polewood cutting and especially charcoal rankhigher in the Coastal Forests. Some of these differences in ranking may result from differentdegrees of legal protection in the two countries. In both, the most important threats arise from theimmediate needs of people, rather than from any large-scale developmental projects or corporateventures.Analysis of Root CausesRoot causes of threats in the hotspot were analyzed in workshops during proposal preparationboth by GEF and WWF-EARPO (GEF 2002; WWF-EARPO 2003). Table 5 is adapted from theGEF analysis, which broadly captures the root causes identified by WWF-EARPO and lists someof their manifestations. The order of presentation of these root causes is not a ranking of theirimportance.Table 5. Summary of root causes of threats to the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal ForestshotspotRoot CauseManifestationPopulation growth • Drives increased demand for resources at alllevels.Poverty • Overexploitation of “free” forest resources(timber, polewood, etc).• Lack of opportunity to think beyond immediateneeds.• Vulnerability to corruption• Involvement in illegal activitiesInefficient land-use practices • Low agricultural yields• Declining soil fertility• Increased demand for land• Agricultural encroachment and clearing offorestsNegative value systems re conservation and lack ofenvironmental awareness• Absence of local constituencies forconservation.• Ignorance of consequences of damage toenvironment.• Low motivation to conserve biodiversityLack of experience and incentives to developalternative livelihoods• Little opportunity to change environmentallydamaging lifestylesLack of fora for communal exchange and networking • No transfer of lessons learned• No sharing of common problems• Opportunities for engaging in conservation notcommunicatedLack of local mechanisms for controlling forestexploitation• Absence or breakdown of traditionalconservation practices• Local communities overexploit forestresources• Exploitation of forest resources by outsiders isunchecked• Unprotected forests are lostLimited ecosystem-wide strategic focus • Piecemeal conservation efforts• Short-term projects• Lack of continuity in conservation activities• Lack of co-ordination among different projects• Landscape issues not tackledWeak forest governance • Inadequate stakeholder involvement45

• Decision-makers inadequately informed• Lack of monitoringInadequate and poorly targeted fiscal resources • Inadequate budgets for authorities managingforests• Most money spent on salaries with little foroperational costs• Poor morale among staff managing forestsLimited effectiveness of protection regimes • High levels of illegal activities in forests• Forest degradation and biodiversity loss• Corrupt practices facilitated• Low morale among forest guardsIn the likely absence of positive macro-economic changes and of large-scale industrialization inthe continent, the next generation of rural farmers in Africa will continue to depend heavily onthe free resources that that they can extract from their surroundings. The first three root causes inTable 5 (population growth, poverty and inefficient land use) will, therefore, continue to generatethreats to forests and forest lands for some time to come. What is less clear is how muchconservation organizations can do about these problems and what proportion of their limitedresources should be invested in the attempt. Development agencies have been active in Africawith far more resources for many decades, yet rural poverty persists. Another difficulty is thatthe path to development often involves the massive ecological transformation of landscapes andit is precisely this process that is destroying tropical forests. This is what makes conservationistsand development practitioners such awkward partners (Struhsaker 1997; Oates 1999; Terborgh1999).The fourth root cause in Table 5 is negative value systems re conservation and lack ofenvironmental awareness. A variety of innovative approaches to raising conservation awarenesshave been developed during the last 50 years and international conservation organizations havesucceeded in putting biodiversity issues firmly on global agendas. The hotspot focus of CEPFand the resources it commands, is a good example of this, but the need to reach the rural poor iswhat is implied in Table 5. This is as urgent as ever, but all too often it generates contradictorymessages. Unless awareness can be linked to incentive, only the contradictions are seen. In theabsence 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 mostpromising approach in parts of this hotspot may be through innovative awareness raising ofwater catchment values of the Eastern Arc Mountains.Many conservation projects have tackled the issues of alternative livelihoods and of communalexchange and networking. The creation of alternative livelihoods is a useful local approach forcivil society, especially when combined with good law enforcement by those institutionsresponsible for forest management. This combination is more rare than it ought to be. Theproblems 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 ofworkshop and community outreach techniques. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the CEPFworkshop organized as part of producing this profile was the first time that people working in theEastern Arc Mountains and the Coastal Forests of Kenya and Tanzania had met to discusscommon problems. It is also still true that exchange and networking is much more commonamong people working in NGOs and government institutions than at the community level.46

Workshops and meetings are expensive and they lose value when the same faces repeatedlyappear.The lack of local mechanisms for controlling forest exploitation reflects both a breakdown incultural traditions and how the Tanzanian and Kenyan governments took such matters out of thehands of the local people sometime ago. That so little forest remains, outside forest and localauthority reserves suggests that the government interventions were well advised. Where there hasbeen continuity in forest protection by local communities, as in the case of some of the Kayaforests in coastal Kenya, there has been real success and the prospects for replication with othersacred 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. Soundtechnical advice on sustainable offtake is also, obviously, essential. Good networking on theseproblems should help.The need for an ecosystem-wide strategic focus has long been recognized in efforts to conservemajor water catchments such as the Ulugurus, which supply 3 million people in Dar es Salaamwith water. In biodiversity conservation, the lack of such a focus has been the impetus for majorconservation investments such as the big GEF project for the Eastern Arc Mountains. The CEPFapproach of defining species, sites and corridor outcomes within the context of landscape levelhotspots is also a systematic attempt to deal with this difficulty.Weak forest governance is pervasive in the hotspot and is being increasingly addressed byinvolving more stakeholders, particularly among the local communities and civil society. Forestmanagement is a multi-stakeholder business. As described in the section on policy andlegislation, reform in both Kenya and Tanzania is directly tackling this issue. This reform iscreating opportunities for both the private sector and for local communities to become involvedin forest management. To date, most conservation organizations have paid far more attention tothe latter than the former.The issue of inadequate and poorly directed fiscal resources afflicts nearly every governmentdepartment 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 this41,700 ha forest (Muriithi & Kenyon 2002), out of which 98 percent ($104,536) was used to paysalaries. This left only $2,114 for operational costs. In 1998, $7,536 was raised from this forestfrom fines, rents, timber royalties and sales of fuelwood, polewood and Christmas trees. The bestthat can be said for such a situation is that it is easy to persuade local communities that they havemore to gain from their own enterprises than from sharing in official Forest Departmentrevenues. Although the budget for Arabuko-Sokoke is obviously inadequate, it is nonethelesshigher than those for most forests in Kenya and Tanzania. It works out at roughly $.2.5 perhectare, compared to overall estimates of $ 1.08 (Kenya) and $ 1.01 (Tanzania) per hectare forpublic expenditure on forestry (Whiteman 2003).With funding like this, it is surprising that there is any protection at all. It is hard for ForestDepartment officers to do a good job in such circumstances, particularly when corruption comesfrom the top (as in the recent past in Kenya) and where the resource is valuable (e.g. carvingwood at Arabuko-Sokoke). This problem can only be effectively tackled by a combination of47

long-term funding and institutional reforms (GEF 2002) in the context of good governance atnational 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 toimprove protection. In the absence of better governance from the top, participatory managementmay simply lengthen the food chain for illegally harvested forest produce.SYNOPSIS OF CURRENT INVESTMENTInformation was compiled on the projects operational in the Eastern Arc Mountains and CoastalForest Mosaic as of February 2003. All data from projects that had already finished or that wereto be completed in early 2003 were excluded from the study. Data were available for bothTanzania and Kenya, although there were some gaps in the information for both countries.Data were collected by organization, type of organisation, by two subsets of sites: first, IBA andsecond, priority site (IBAs and non-IBA sites). The IBAs were selected as a subset because theyhad 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 ofglobally threatened species, as determined by this profile.Although the most important sources of external and government funding for conservation in thishotspot have been captured, some caveats are necessary. There are some gaps in the data andsome budget allocations are split between several implementing partners, which madecalculations of funding allocations problematic (e.g. Misitu Yetu in Tanzania implemented bythe NGOs WCST, TFCG and CARE and the Tanzania Government, with funding from CAREAustria and NORAD). Finally, details of the government budget allocated to conservationactivities in this hotspot were hard to come by, although as most sites are managed as reserves bythe government their inputs are important. Hence this analysis is biased towards the externallyprovided funds from various types of agencies.Levels of FundingOverall in 2003, more than $19 million is planned for investment in conservation of the EasternArc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya, almost exclusively within forestreserves, national parks or other forms of government managed/controlled land.Eastern Arc MountainsWithin the Eastern Arc Mountains, the majority of the funding (about $15 million per annum)currently comes from the multilateral donors GEF and World Bank. Much of this is allocated tothe restructuring of the Forestry Division in Tanzania and perhaps $5 million will be spent onactivities broadly classed as forest conservation within the hotspot (including the Tanzaniancoastal forests) during 2003. The next largest allocation of funding comes from bilateral donors,particularly those from Scandinavia who provide well in excess of $2 million per annum. Mostof this relates to direct conservation activities. NGOs and the Tanzania and Kenya governmentsprovide significantly less funding and most of the funds utilized from NGOs actually come fromthe bilateral donors. Hence, both the governments and NGOs use less than $1 million per annumof their own funding in the Eastern Arc Mountains (excluding government salaries).48

Coastal Forest MosaicWithin the Coastal Forest Mosaic, about $4 million per annum is spent currently on conservationor related development activities, or about 30 percent of that used in the Eastern Arc portion.Conversely to the Eastern Arc, no multilateral funding comes to the coastal forests. Theallocation of funding from NGOs appears as the largest single source of funds for these forests,although in actuality most of this funding comes from bilateral donors to the NGOs. Hence thebilateral donors are probably the largest single source of funding for this part of the hotspot.Government funding for implementation is small in the coastal forests, as it is in the Eastern ArcMountains. Most government funding is allocated to salary support and little remains forinvestment in conservation activities on the ground. Private investment for conservation in thecoastal forests is also small, although hard to quantify.Types of Project InterventionsThe major categories of project intervention were examined against eight possible groupingsranging from research through to capacity building. Overall there is a fairly even spread ofinterventions, with no one category appearing markedly more preferred amongst the existingprojects. In the Eastern Arc Mountains, research (mainly biodiversity) was the most commonlyreported activity and, as the data ignored the activities of visiting university scientists, this is anunderestimate of the effort put into research. In the coastal forests the highest-ranking activitywas livelihood enhancement, which also ranks highly in the Eastern Arc – reflecting the focus ofdevelopment agencies that fund much of the conservation work in these areas on povertyalleviation. Interventions such as direct conservation payments, purchase of land forconservation or a focus on corridors had zero scores as there were none of these kinds ofinterventions in the area.Numbers of IBAs with Project InterventionsThe number of IBA sites that have been the attention of conservation projects during the pastfive years gives an indication of the spread of conservation effort.TanzaniaAcross the range of organizations undertaking different kinds of projects in the hotspot, theGovernment Forestry Division has the widest coverage, as it manages the forest reserves thatcomprise the bulk of the IBA sites. After the Forestry Department, the research program ofFrontier Tanzania (collaboration between the Society for Environmental Exploration and theUniversity of Dar es Salaam) has worked in the most IBA sites. This is followed by the bilateralagency NORAD (Norwegian aid) and the World Bank (starting activities at the current time). Ofthe NGOs, the Tanzania Forest Conservation Group and WWF Tanzania have undertaken themost projects in the hotspot. When combined, the NGO sector had undertaken the largest numberof projects at IBA sites in Tanzania, followed by the Tanzanian government, the bilateral donorsand the multilateral donors.KenyaIn Kenya a number of different agencies undertake conservation projects in the IBA sites.According to the information provided, the Kenyan Forest Department and the NationalMuseums of Kenya have covered the largest number of sites during the past five years. WWF-EARPO also used to support several forest sites, but their activities are much reduced in recent49

years due to a lack of funding. Other major players in Kenyan IBA conservation in this hotspotare the National Museums of Kenya (Kaya sites in particular) and the Government ForestryDivision (Forest Reserves). BirdLife International and Nature Kenya provide very significantfunding to one IBA site—Arabuko-Sokoke—which is also the largest coastal forest in thehotspot.Spread of Conservation Attention Across Different IBAsThe conservation attention received by the IBA sites from different agencies was examined as apreliminary indication of gaps in project coverage. Secondary stages in such an analysis wouldneed to consider other factors such as biological value, integrity and size, threats and evenfeasibility of operating in the area.TanzaniaA ranked assessment of the degree of conservation attention that different IBA sites havereceived during the past five years illustrates that the Udzungwa Mountains have received themost conservation attention throughout this period. Conservation efforts have also focused on theEast and West Usambaras and the Ulugurus. These are all Eastern Arc Mountains blocks.Eastern Arc IBAs that have received far less attention are Ukaguru, Nguru, Nguu, Rubeho andUvidundwa. Within the coastal forests the IBAs of Kilwa and Rufiji Districts have had the mostconservation projects and IBAs such as those in Newala District have received the leastattention.KenyaAn assessment of the coverage of IBA sites by conservation projects in Kenya shows thatArabuko-Sokoke and the Taita Hills receive the largest attention from conservation projects. TheShimba Hills, Diani and the Tana River Primate Reserve follow these sites in terms of attentionthey receive. Three IBAs have no conservation projects in recent times: Tana River Delta,Dakacha Woodlands and Dzombo Hills.Funding Allocation Against Biological PriorityFigure 6 assesses the match between funding allocation and biological priority. The 20 sitescontaining the largest numbers of globally threatened species (Appendix 2) vary considerably inthe amount of external donor funding they are expected to receive during 2003. This fundingexcludes the funds that the Tanzanian and Kenyan governments provide to the management ofnational parks, national reserves and forest reserves and national monuments – which may besignificant in some places and very small in others.Eighty percent of the 20 sites containing the most globally threatened species from this hotspotare in Tanzania. Given that 90 percent of the total forest area in the hotspot is in Tanzania, this isto 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 Kenyanpart of the hotspot, with some of the Eastern Arc blocks (e.g., the Rubehos and Nguus andUvidundwas) and some coastal forests (e.g., those of Newala District) remaining practicallyunknown. This means that the importance of the Tanzanian sites may be underestimated. Thesecond factor is related to the way in which the sites are defined. In Kenya every small patch of50

forest has been assigned to its own site, whereas in Tanzania, many of the sites areamalgamations of several forestFigure 6. Funding allocation from external agencies for conservation activities during 2003 in the20 sites containing the most Red List species (Appendix 2) in the Eastern Arc Mountains andCoastal Forests hotspotTotal Annual Spend (USD- 2003)1,600,0001,400,0001,200,0001,000,000800,000600,000400,000200,0000East Usambara mountainsUluguru mountainsUdzungwa National ParkUdzungwa mountainsWest Usambara mountainsShimba HillsLindi District coastal forestsNguru mountainsTaita Hills forestsSouth Pare m ountainsKisarawe District coastal forestsRufiji District coastal forestsBagamoyo Dis trict coas tal forestsArabuko-Sokoke forestSelous game reserveMuheza District coas tal forestsNorth Pare MountainsKilwa District coastal forestsMafia Is landDiani forestRanked Top-20 sites for threatened species (highest on left, lowest on right)patches. In some cases, these forest patches are scattered over a wide area and encompassing awide range of altitudes and climatic conditions. This tends to elevate the importance of theTanzanian 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 in2003 is the Udzungwa Mountains (although some of this funding is only for the Kihansi Damarea), followed by the Ulugurus. The Selous Game Reserve also receives significant funding butthis is mainly to conserve its large mammals, not forests. Also the Selous Game Reserve coversan enormous area.Thirdly, some sites receiving little external funding in 2003 have received significant fundingover long periods in the past. The East Usambaras, which contain the most globally threatenedspecies, 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 futureis unclear. The South and North Pare Mountains also lack funding but until recently had received51

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 inthese sites over the last 10 years could be jeopardized.Fourthly, other important sites in Figure 6 have not had any external funding for decades. Mostimportant amongst these is the Nguru Mountains, which has never had an externally fundedproject 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 theirbiodiversity values. These include the Nguu and Rubeho Mountains in Tanzania (which aredifficult 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 conservationsupport in the past. Such sites should rank highly as priorities for investment, both in terms ofbiological study and conservation action.CEPF NICHE FOR INVESTMENTThe CEPF niche for investment was determined through analysis of the species and siteoutcomes, threats and current investments and through a participatory workshop involving 48local, national and international experts on the hotspot. Although the workshop did not prioritizesites for investment, certain sites have been selected for immediate attention under two of thefive strategic directions recommended in this profile. This has been done to avoid diluting theimpacts of crucial investments by spreading them across too large an area.The species outcomes define the CEPF niche in terms of global imperatives for biodiversityconservation. The primary focus of the niche for this hotspot is the 333 species, which are mostthreatened with extinction according to The 2002 IUCN Red Lists (Appendix 1). The ultimatetest of the success of global conservation investments in the hotspot is the number of thesethreatened species that survive in the long term. It follows that: (1) only those projects thatcontribute to the survival of these species should be funded by CEPF and (2) that monitoring thesurvival of these species is, in itself, an important component of the CEPF investment niche. Itmust also be recognized that the number of globally threatened species is dynamic and willgreatly increase as the IUCN Red List is updated and becomes more comprehensive. The speciesoutcomes will, therefore, need to be updated from time to time.The site outcomes define the CEPF niche in terms of geographical locations. The 333 globallythreatened species identified in Appendix 1 are found in the top 152 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 congregationsof birds. Projects funded by CEPF must be expected to have positive impacts on biodiversityconservation in at least one of these 160 sites. If these impacts are to be measured, site-levelmonitoring must also be an important part of the niche.As noted earlier, conservation corridor outcomes were not identified in this hotspot because ofthe small size of the hotspot and the degree of natural fragmentation that exists, without which52

much of the biodiversity would never have evolved in the first place. In other hotspots, thedefinition of conservation corridors restricts site investments largely to those sites within thecorridors. Since no conservation corridors have been defined in this profile, there are no corridorrestrictions on site investment in this hotspot. Similarly there are no overall restrictions on siteinvestments 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 thestrategic funding directions (Table 6). The five were selected on the basis of biologicalimportance, irreplaceability, current investment, partnership potential and the recommendationsof experts who are familiar with the sites and their suitability for the interventions proposed inthis profile. Under the remaining three strategic funding directions, all 160 sites qualify for CEPFinvestment.Although corridor outcomes have not been defined in this profile, there are issues of connectivitybetween forest patches within large sites. Many bird species in the Eastern Arc Mountains areknown to move seasonally from the montane forest to the lowland, and altitudinal forestcorridors are necessary for this to occur. This issue particularly relates to maintaining montane tolowland forest transitions in the Eastern Arc Mountains part of the hotspot and is important in thecontext 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 (seebelow). Such sites deserve particular attention.Within the limits of these species and site outcomes, the CEPF niche was further defined by thethematic areas for investment as identified during the March 2003 workshop and by subsequentexpert review. The workshop discussion of potential investment themes was guided by theassessments of biological importance, threats and current investments, as well as by theconsiderable experience of the workshop participants in the hotspot. Nine investment themeswere presented to the workshop by the ecosystem profile team and partipants added a furtherthree. The themes were prioritized through group work and the results were amalgamated in aplenary session. Although the different groups had different priorities, there was a goodconsensus in the plenary on the final ranking. This ranking was as follows:1) increase the ability of local populations in the hotspot to benefit from and contribute tobiodiversity conservation2) restore and increase connectivity among fragmented forest patches in the hotspot3) improve knowledge of biodiversity in the hotspot;4) improve management of conservation units in the hotspot;5) improve awareness and education about the importance of this hotspot;6) improve coordination among all partners in the hotspot in order to maximize investments;7) engage private sector towards conservation in the hotspot;8) catalyze effective implementation of government policies (National Biodiversity StrategicAction Plans) that affect biodiversity in the hotspot;9) hotspot-wide research and conservation of endangered and critically endangered species;10) monitoring and evaluation of the status of the sites in the hotspot;11) economic evaluation of the goods and services performed by the sites in the hotspot; and12) increase ability to generate long-term funding for conservation in this hotspot.53

During the group and plenary discussions it was noted that there were overlaps in these themesand 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 wasdefined by themes 1-3 above.CEPF INVESTMENT STRATEGY AND PRIORITIESProgram FocusThe CEPF program focus is firmly on reducing the extinction risk for the 333 globally threatenedspecies in the hotspot and on improving the protection of the 152 sites in which these species arefound (plus the additional nine IBAs). This focus necessarily involves both people and science.Underlying all the threats to the biodiversity in this hotspot is pressure from rapidly increasingand impoverished human populations. These populations have little sympathy or incentive forspecies and habitat conservation and limited awareness of the importance of maintainingecosystem services and functions. The CEPF program, therefore, focuses on actions that willaddress this issue. If these actions are to be effective, they must be grounded in good science.Interventions must be targeted on the most important sites and must be based on scientificallytested best practices. As such, the program also focuses on improving biological knowledge inthe hotspot and on practical applications of conservation science. This focus on people andscience builds on over three decades of research and conservation effort in the Eastern ArcMountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya.Strategic DirectionsFive strategic directions for the CEPF investment strategy were developed. These were based onthe workshop documents, presentations and discussions and on subsequent expert review. Thedocuments and presentations included background on CEPF and its goals, site and speciesoutcomes and the assessments of threats and current investment. The strategic directions aresummarised in Table 6, together with investment priorities and are described in more detailbelow. The order of presentation should not be interpreted as a rank order of importance.Table 6. CEPF strategic funding directions and investment priorities in the Eastern Arc Mountainsand Coastal Forests hotspot (2003-2008)Strategic Funding Directions1. Increase the ability of localpopulations to benefit from andcontribute to biodiversityconservation, especially in andaround:1. Lower Tana River Forests2. Taita Hills3. East Usambaras/Tanga4. Udzungwas5. Jozani ForestInvestment Priorities1.1 Evaluate community-based forest managementinitiatives in the hotspot to determine best practices1.2 Promote nature-based, sustainable businessesthat benefit local populations in the hotspot1.3 Explore possibilities for direct payments andeasements (Conservation Concessions) forbiodiversity conservation in the hotspot andsupport where appropriate1.4 Build the capacity of community-basedorganizations in the hotspot for advocacy insupport of biodiversity conservation at all levels1.5 Support cultural practices that benefit biodiversityin the hotspot.54

1.6 Research and promote eco-agricultural options forthe local populations of the hotspot2. Restore and increase connectivityamong fragmented forest patches inthe hotspot, especially in:1. Lower Tana River Forests2. Taita Hills3. East Usambaras/Tanga4. Udzungwas2.1 Assess potential sites in the hotspot forconnectivity interventions2.2 Support initiatives that maintain or restoreconnectivity in the hotspot2.3 Monitor and evaluate initiatives that maintain orrestore connectivity in the hotspot2.4 Support best practices for restoring connectivity inways that also benefit people3. Improve biological knowledge in thehotspot (all 160 sites eligible)4. Establish a small grants program inthe hotspot (all 160 sites eligible)that focuses on critically endangeredspecies and small-scale efforts toincrease connectivity of biologicallyimportant habitat patches5. Develop and support efforts forfurther fundraising for the hotspot3.1 Refine and implement a standardized monitoringprogram across the 160 eligible sites3.2 Support research in the less studied of the 160eligible sites in the hotspot3.3 Monitor populations of Critically Endangered andEndangered Species in the hotspot3.4 Support research in the hotspot to facilitate RedList assessments and re-assessments for plants,reptiles, invertebrates and other taxa.3.5 Compile and document indigenous knowledge onhotspot sites and species3.6 Support awareness programs that increase publicknowledge of biodiversity values of the hotspot4.2 Support targeted efforts to increase connectivity ofbiologically important habitat patches4.3.Support efforts to increase biological knowledge ofthe sites and to conserve critically endangeredspecies5.1 Establish a professional resource mobilization unit,within an appropriate local partner institution, forraising long-term funds and resources for thehotspot5.2 Utilize high-level corporate contacts to securefunding from the private sector for the hotspot5.3 Train local NGOs and community-basedorganizations in fundraising and proposal writing1. Increase the ability of local populations in the hotspot to benefit from and contribute tobiodiversity conservation, especially in and around Lower Tana River Forests, TaitaHills, East Usambaras/Tanga, Udzungwas and Jozani ForestThese sites were selected based on current lack of investment, assessment of opportunities forsuccess and biological prioritization. The paradigm, which links poverty to environmentaldegradation and biodiversity loss, has driven much of the conservation effort in this hotspot fortwo decades and it inevitably emerged as a dominant theme in the workshop. CEPF should55

concentrate on synergistic and direct linkages between people and biodiversity conservation.There is a rich field here for interventions and the piloting of new approaches, while building onprevious conservation efforts in the hotspot. There are opportunities to promote agriculturalpractices that improve production and enhance biodiversity. These practices include both old andnew techniques. They have been brought together under the umbrella term “ecoagriculture” byMcNeely and Scherr (2003). There are also opportunities to exploit synergies between differentinvestment priorities. The following investment priorities were identified under this strategicdirection.1.1 Evaluate community-based forest management initiatives in the hotspot to determine bestpractices. Community-based conservation initiatives include efforts to involve and capacitatelocal communities in the management of biodiversity sites (mainly forests) in the hotspot. Bothin Kenya and Tanzania, new policies are promoting various forms of community participation inforest management (joint forest management, community-based forest management andparticipatory forest management). There are at least 32 such initiatives in the hotspot. Underthese arrangements, community user rights are negotiated in return for responsibilities such asself-policing, with extraction rates based on estimates of sustainability. The effects oncommunity livelihoods, law enforcement and biodiversity protection are all routinely expected tobe positive, but a scientific consensus on this expectation is yet to be reached. Strong opinionsare much commoner than hard data. Scientific testing of participatory management strategies inthe hotspot is badly needed. CEPF will prioritize research and analysis rather than financingapplied projects under this investment priority.1.2 Promote nature-based businesses that benefit local populations. Experience within thehotspot has shown that nature-based businesses that benefit local populations can buildsignificant constituencies for conservation. Because of extreme poverty, even small incomesfrom such businesses can make real differences in local attitudes towards conservation, providedthat the linkage between revenue and the continued existence of the biodiversity resource isdirect and obvious. It follows that revenues must be reasonably reliable and that any resource usemust be sustainable. Examples include beekeeping, tourism, butterfly farming (Gordon &Ayiemba 2003), cultivation for essential oil extraction and domestication of medicinal plants.1.3 Explore possibilities for direct payments and easements (conservation concessions) forbiodiversity conservation in the hotspot and support where appropriate. Recent reviews (e.g.,Ferraro & Kiss 2002) argue that direct payments for conservation are more cost-effective andprovide more benefits to biodiversity than community-based interventions such as IntegratedConservation and Development Projects. Under direct payments and easements,communities/land owners are paid directly for the right to manage the site for conservationpurposes under leasehold or alternative arrangements. This eliminates the expenditures that sooften inflate project costs to no good end and the net benefits that reach the communities arecommensurably greater. Running costs become the responsibility of theorganization/corporation/individual that makes the payments. Direct payments and easements arerelatively untried in Africa, so any attempt at their implementation would need to be on a pilotbasis. CEPF could facilitate advice on the appropriateness of this approach in this hotspot andfund training and assistance for local organisations to act as honest brokers in the negotiation ofany such arrangement, but could not provide the resources for the direct payments. These56

negotiations could include raising funds from the local corporate and private sector, whichbenefit from the ecological services (water and hydropower) provided by the Eastern ArcMountains. It should be noted that CEPF cannot capitalize conservation concessions, nor can itpurchase land for conservation.1.4 Build the capacity of community-based organizations in the hotspot for advocacy insupport of biodiversity conservation at all levels. Grassroots advocacy for conservation can helpto prevent theft/invasion/encroachment/ development of sites with biodiversity value (Gordon &Ayiemba 2003). Many excisions have in recent years been made in the name of squatters or ofthe local community, while the land was subsequently allocated to the well connected. In suchsituations, community protests can be more effective than the lobbying of city-based NGOs.Local communities are also effective watchdogs, since they live next to biodiversity sites andknow most about what is going on in them. Local communities often include retired senior civilservants and others with relatives in corridors of power and, therefore, have more leverage thanmay at first be apparent. In Tanzania there are forest and wildlife committees within thevillage/ward structures that could be supported.1.5 Support cultural practices that benefit biodiversity in the hotspot. Sacred forests areknown from all over Africa, but the protection they have enjoyed for centuries is being rapidlyeroded by factors such as cultural change and greatly increased land demand. There are a greatnumber of traditionally protected forests in Tanzania (Mwihomeke et al. 1998), but the most wellknown examples within the hotspot are the Kaya Forests of coastal Kenya. These forests containa high diversity of plants including significant numbers of endemics (Robertson 1987; Robertson& Luke 1993) and Red List plant species (Appendix 2). According to local traditions, the forestshistorically sheltered small fortified villages. The sites of the original settlements (often markedby forest clearings) were maintained by the communities (led by the elders) as sacred places ofritual and burial grounds. Destruction of vegetation around these sites was prohibited so as topreserve the surrounding ‘Kaya’ forest as a screen or buffering environment for the clearings.Since 1992, the Kenyan Government has gazetted a number of them as national monuments,with assistance from the well-known Kaya Project of the Coastal Forest Conservation Unit(CFCU) of The National Museums of Kenya. CEPF should support such initiatives throughoutthe hotspot, with a particular emphasis on contemporary validation of their historical, culturaland biodiversity values.1.6 Research and promote ecoagricultural options for the local communities of the hotspot.McNeely and Scherr (2003) document 36 case studies where agricultural practices improveproductivity and enhance biodiversity. In 25 cases the beneficiaries were subsistence farmers.McNeely and Scherr suggest that ecoagriculture could be usefully promoted around biodiversityhotspots surrounded by poor small-scale farmers. Ecoagriculture includes well-establishedagricultural practices such as agroforestry, medicinal plant domestication, bioprospecting andorganic farming. There is a great deal of ecoagricultural expertise in East Africa, which could beput to use by the local communities in this hotspot. In view of the effectiveness of priceincentives, introduction of high value crops (e.g. medicinal plants and plants containing essentialoils) could be a good option, particularly if these also have positive biodiversity values and ifcontrols on forest encroachment are adequately enforced.57

2. Restore and increase connectivity among fragmented forest patches in the hotspot,especially in Lower Tana River Forests, Taita Hills, East Usambaras/Tanga andUdzungwasIt is a well-established principle in ecology that species richness is positively correlated witharea. When a forest is fragmented, each fragment of forest contains fewer species than did theintact forest and large fragments contain more species than small fragments (Laurance et al.2001 and references therein; Newmark 2002). Some species are lost immediately throughsampling effects, while others are lost because they need large areas to sustain their populations.Local extinctions continue well after the fragmentation event, as genetic diversity decreases andisolated populations become more inbred and vulnerable to diseases and random events. Somespecies disappear because they depend on others that are lost. Edge effects become moreimportant as fragment size decreases, affecting microclimates, exposing trees to winds and otherconditions that exceed their physiological tolerance and further reducing the amount of habitatfavoured by forest-dependent species. Some species do well in such conditions and there may belocal increases in biodiversity, with edge-tolerant species thriving and matrix species penetratingthe forest fragments. But for most of the forest-dependent species and these include many of theRed List species in this hotspot, fragmentation further threatens their survival. For example, inthe Taita Hills, fragmentation is associated with adverse effects on sex ratios and developmentalstability in threatened bird species, including the Critically Endangered Taita thrush (Lens & VanDogen 1999; Lens et al. 1998, 1999a, b, 2001, 2002).Reconnecting recently fragmented forest patches can save species from extinction. Gene flowcan be restored among isolated populations, locally extinct species can be reintroduced throughimmigration and ecologically complex processes that sustain diversity can be re-established. Thisis an important research front and the hotspot is an ideal location for such work. There are manyopportunities for implementation and investigation in both conservation science and communityconservation. Best practices could be replicated over larger areas. The hotspot is also a treasurehouse for evolutionary biology. A wide variety of taxa, at various levels of speciation, areavailable to examine issues of genetic divergence and isolation in relation to distance, mobilityand vagility. The sites chosen for this strategic direction were assessed from a biologicalperspective and were determined to present the greatest opportunity for successful connectivityefforts.2.1 Assess potential sites in the hotspot for connectivity interventions. Not all forestfragments should be reconnected. Where fragmentation is natural and long established, anynegative effects will have already been expressed and, over evolutionary time, new subspeciesand species will have evolved. There is little doubt that this process of fragmentation andisolation has been responsible, for example, for the extraordinary diversity of some of theinvertebrates (millipedes, linyphiid spiders, opilionids and carabid beetles) in the Eastern ArcMountains, where single site endemism exceeds 80 percent (Scharff et al. 1981; Scharff 1992,1993; Hoffman 1993, 2000; Burgess et al. 1998). The most suitable sites for connectivityinterventions are, therefore, those in which (1) fragmentation is relatively recent, where (2)detailed scientific background data are available, where (3) this is considered to be a priorityconservation action and where (4) this is a realistic activity. It will also be important to identifyaltitudinal forest corridors, which are, or could be, used for seasonal altitudinal migration.58

2.2 Support initiatives that maintain or restore connectivity in the hotspot. Where theestablishment of biodiversity corridors makes ecological, conservation and practical sense, itshould be supported. Examples of narrow gaps between formerly joined forests are numerous inthis hotspot. Some of the most important opportunities for restoring connectivity are in the TaitaHills, Lower Tana River Forests, Uluguru Mountains, East Usambara Mountains and UdzungwaMountains. In several of these sites, connectivity has a direct bearing on the conservation ofglobally threatened bird species.2.3 Monitor and evaluate initiatives that maintain or restore connectivity in the hotspot.Baseline monitoring, before restoring connectivity, is essential and indicator species should beidentified and monitored so as to track impacts. The choice of indicator species should reflect awide spectrum of mobility (“from a slug to a bird”) and the availability of backgroundknowledge (e.g. on population genetics). Effects on Red List species should be studied in asmuch detail as funds and circumstances allow. Monitoring of altitudinal connectivity will beparticularly interesting in the context of climate change.2.4 Support best practices for restoring connectivity in ways that also benefit people. Lens etal. (2003) have drawn attention to the opportunities for benefiting people while establishingbiodiversity corridors. These include allowing local farmers to harvest old and neglectedplantations, paying them for nurturing regenerating forest and planting indigenous seedlings,improving water catchments and encouraging agroforestry on their farms. The Taita Hills and theEast Usambara Mountains are particularly suitable for such activities.2. Improve knowledge of biodiversity in the hotspotThis profile notes numerous gaps in biological knowledge in the hotspot. Many sites remain littlestudied and some of these sites are relatively large (e.g., the Nguru Mountains, Nguu Mountains,Rubeho Mountains, Boni Forest, Dodori Forest). Even the better-known sites continue to yieldmany new species. There has been an extraordinary amount of speciation amongst theinvertebrates, yet data on the invertebrate biodiversity in the hotspot is meagre. Indigenousknowledge of the flora and fauna is inadequately documented and is fast being lost. Publicawareness of the biodiversity values of this hotspot is very limited, both locally andinternationally. Ultimately, our capacity to conserve depends on the range and depth of ourknowledge. As such, improving knowledge must be a key element in the CEPF strategy for thishotspot.3.1 Refine and implement a standardized monitoring program across sites. For the purposeof site monitoring, standardised, simple and cost-effective protocols must be established andimplemented for selected species that are generalist indicators of habitat health. The number oftaxa monitored should be minimal so as to economise on effort and expense. Suitable protocolsalready exist for a number of taxonomic groups and their systematic application across sites willcreate a data set with greatly added value. Standardised monitoring protocols are required toassess the impacts of conservation projects and to evaluate project success.3.2 Support research in the less studied of the 160 eligible sites in the hotspot. Little knownsites need more biodiversity surveys and other scientific investigations. The focus should be59

compiling lists of species and assessing distribution and abundance, so that the necessary dataare available for assessing the relative biological importance of sites and the degree of threatstatus of species.3.3 Monitor populations of Critically Endangered and Endangered Species in the hotspot.Particular attention must be given to monitoring the 24 Critically Endangered and 68 Endangeredspecies of this hotspot (Table 1, 2, Appendix 3). Their continued existence is the bottom line forCEPF interventions. This calls for a wise use of resources, as the monitoring of rare species cantake much time and effort. Expert training of and support for, local field technicians may be oneway to compensate for the short field visits of professional scientists. Special care will benecessary to ensure that monitoring activities do not expose endangered species to any addedrisks.3.4 Support research in the hotspot to facilitate Red List Assessments and re-assessments forplants, reptiles and other taxa. The deficiencies of the 2002 Red Lists for this hotspot havealready been noted. This is dramatically illustrated by the 973 plant taxa in the List of PotentiallyThreatened Plants (Gereau and Luke 2003) that is included in the Outcomes Database for thehotspot. The situation is scarcely any better for the reptiles, where none of the more than 50endemic reptiles in this hotspot are included in the 2002 Red List. Red List assessments forinvertebrates would probably add thousands more species to the conservation outcomes for thishotspot. Red List assessments must be an investment priority.3.5 Compile and document indigenous knowledge on hotspot sites and species. The values ofindigenous knowledge of biodiversity and the urgent need for its documentation are widelyrecognized. An enormous amount of knowledge on biodiversity and its uses has beenaccumulated among indigenous peoples in the hotspot and has been transferred orally across thegenerations. While much of this has been recorded, the literature is scattered and hard to find. Itneeds to be compiled in both hard copy and database form. In any research in this area, therecognition of Intellectual Property Rights must be a primary consideration and the sources ofinformation must be meticulously recorded.3.6 Support awareness programs that increase public knowledge and appreciation ofbiodiversity values in this hotspot. The usefulness of awareness programs in conservation is oftenquestioned. One problem is that they are often limited in their impacts by short project lifecycles,whereas awareness needs to be continually re-enforced (as shown by commodity marketing).Another is that awareness of biodiversity is seldom linked to any real benefits for the targetcommunities. Innovative approaches are needed that circumvent these difficulties. Ways need tobe found to put a bright and constant spotlight on the ecological services provided by thehotspot’s forests (particularly water catchment and hydropower). Current public awareness of theglobal biodiversity values of the hotspot also needs to be boosted at all levels.4. Establish a Small Grants Program for all the 160 important sites identified for thehotspot, that focuses on critically endangered species and small scale efforts to increaseconnectivity of biologically important habitat patches60

Experience, particularly in the GEF, shows that small grants can be cost effective. Small grantsshould be made available through CEPF for community-based organizations and NGOs workingto save Critically Endangered species and threatened sites in this hotspot. The intention is not toduplicate or compete with existing small grants programs on conservation issues, but to seeksynergies and leverage funds for NGOs, community-based organizations and institutions oflearning. Small grants programs incur high administration costs (per grant dollar) because of theburden of dealing with several small projects at once. Costs are also incurred because thebeneficiaries are usually less well established than those receiving large grants and require closermonitoring and guidance on the ground. CEPF will evaluate the possibility of partnering with anin-region organization to host its small (>10,000 per grant) grants program.A focus on the threatened sites and species in this hotspot will be a mandatory criterion forfunding and selection of proposals will be made on the strength of this focus and the likelihoodof positive impacts. In order to ensure a wide distribution of the available funds over these sitesand species, the ceiling on grants for any one proposal will be $10,000.4.1 Support targeted efforts to increase connectivity of biologically important habitat patchesin the hotspot. Community-based organizations should be encouraged to engage in efforts toincrease small-scale connectivity. It is widely recognized that project ownership at thecommunity level is a key factor in project sustainability. There may also be opportunities for thecontribution of labor, for corridor establishment and maintenance, to be accepted as payment inkind for other community development projects. Any such arrangement will require thatappropriate monitoring systems are in place to ensure that all obligations are met.4.2 Support efforts to increase biological knowledge of the sites and efforts to conserveCritically Endangered Species in the hotspot. Small grants programs can be extremely useful andcost-effective in supporting low-cost research. There are a number of universities in Kenya andTanzania with active postgraduate programmes in biology and conservation. Small grant supportfor field research by postgraduate students within the hotspot will bear dividends in terms of bothcapacity building and new knowledge. Small grant support should also be given to projects thatdirectly reduce threats to Critically Endangered species.5. Develop and support efforts for further fundraising for the hotspotAlthough fundraising was not seen as a priority theme by the 12 March workshop in Dar esSalaam, it is prudent to plan ahead. Most of the larger grant-dependent institutions now have fulltime Resource Mobilization Units (RMUs) or Project Development Departments. These havebeen very successful in obtaining funds in an increasingly competitive environment and inpreventing funding gaps for projects that need long-term financing. Efforts to secure long-termfunding can be greatly enhanced through:• coordinated, centralized and choreographed project marketing and improved investorrelations;• centralized information centres for resource mobilization and proposal development;• training and institutional development in resource mobilization, proposal development andwriting and project marketing; and• strategically intertwined and targeted resource mobilization and public awareness.61

CEPF will support efforts to raise further funds for this hotspot in partnership with an institutionworking in Tanzania or Kenya.5.1 Establish a professional Resource Mobilization Unit, within an appropriate local partnerinstitution, for raising funds and resources for the hotspot. An appropriate institution in Tanzaniaor Kenya should be identified to host or co-host an RMU for the Eastern Arc and Coastal Forestshotspot. Depending on the arrangements, this RMU could provide services to both thatinstitution and CEPF or it could concentrate on hotspot funding alone.5.2 Utilize high-level corporate contacts to secure funding from the private sector for thehotspot. There has been relatively little private sector involvement in the hotspot. In a few cases(notably with TFCG in Tanzania), private sector support has been obtained, but this has mostlybeen through local approaches to mid-level management and the funding obtained has beensmall-scale. Given the global importance of the hotspot and the interest this has stimulated, it istime to move up the corporate ladder and seek support from higher levels of management,particularly within the multinationals that have interests in East Africa. CEPF is in a goodposition to facilitate this process and a professional RMU would quickly follow up anyopportunities that might arise.5.3 Train local NGOs and community-based organizations in fundraising and proposalwriting for the hotspot. Although many of the local NGOs and some community-basedorganizations have developed skills in fundraising and proposal writing, the standard is still lowin the international context in which funding is being sought. The RMU could be of greatassistance in raising this standard through workshops, publications, sharing databases andcollaboration with local NGOs and community-based organizations in proposal developmentfrom the inception of an idea to the submission of the document.SUSTAINABILITYThe issue of sustainability for conservation interventions is usually addressed by one or acombination of five strategies:1. establishing sustainable funding mechanisms such as a Trust or Endowment Fund;2. building local human capacity to manage conservation issues;3. fostering private sector involvement in conservation;4. establishing/assisting commercially viable conservation projects; and5. leveraging further donor funding.62

An Endowment Fund for the Eastern Arc Mountains is one of the outcomes for the big GEFproject (GEF 2002). An alternative sustainable funding mechanism is suggested in this profile: aResource Mobilization Unit. This unit will become self-sustaining through the funds it raises.Local human capacity will be built by 14 of the investment priorities. Fostering private sectorinvolvement can be done through four of them. Commercially viable conservation projects arethe outcome of two-three investment priorities. Leveraging of further donor funding is the onlypossible strategy for five of the investment priorities. It will also be necessary if the small grantsare to continue and it should be pursued by the RMU for all priorities as opportunity arises.CONCLUSIONThe biological importance of the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania andKenya is well recognized. There have been a considerable number of biodiversity investigationsand conservation efforts in this hotspot during the last three decades. Despite this investment,there are significant gaps in our biological knowledge. There are also important opportunities forthe further application of conservation science, particularly with respect to forest fragmentation.The major threats to the hotspot arise from the needs of impoverished local people, rather thanfrom any large-scale developmental projects or corporate ventures. These considerations haveled to a definition of the CEPF niche that builds on previous work through a focus on people andscience.The people focus will be on the interface between biodiversity and development and will addressways in which local populations can benefit from and contribute to, biodiversity conservation inthe hotspot. The science focus will be on opportunities for improving connectivity in fragmentedforests and on gaps in our biological knowledge of the hotspot. In each case, projects funded byCEPF must have a positive effect on at least one of the 333 threatened species and/or the 160sites identified in this profile. Building local human capacity is the major element in thesustainability strategy. No matter how global the world becomes, it will be local actions that willlargely determine the future of biodiversity hotspots. The prospects for the hotspots will begreatly improved if these local actions are motivated by conservation concerns and guided bygood science.63

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE TEXTACCAWFBPCD-ROMCFCUCEPFCFCUCIDANIDADFODRCEAMCEFEANHSEAWLSELCIEMCAFANFBDFDFINNIDAFoCFRGEFGEF/SGPGDPGISGTZHIV-AIDSIBAICBPICDPIDAIUCNIUCN-EAROJETKEFRIKFWGKWSLEATMENRMNRTAfrican Conservation CentreAfrican Wildlife FoundationBefore PresentCompact Disc - Read Only MemoryCoastal Forest Conservation UnitCritical Ecosystem Partnership FundCoastal Forest Conservation UnitConservation InternationalDanish International Development AgencyDistrict Forest OfficerDemocratic Republic of CongoEastern Arc Mountains Endowment FundEast Africa Natural History SocietyEast African Wildlife SocietyEnvironmental Liaison Centre InternationalEnvironmental Management and Coordination Act (Kenya)Forest Action NetworkForestry and Beekeeping Division (Tanzania)Forest Department (Kenya)Finnish International Development Assistance AgencyFriends of ConservationForest ReserveGlobal Environment FacilityGlobal Environment Facility / Small Grants ProgrammeGross Domestic ProductGeographic Information SystemGerman Agency for Technical CooperationHuman Imunodeficiency Virus - Acquired Immunodeficiency SyndromeImportant Bird Area (according to Birdlife International)International Council for Bird Preservation (now BirdLife International)Integrated Conservation and Development ProjectInternational Development AssistanceInternational Union for the Conservation of Nature (World ConservationUnion)International Union for the Conservation of Nature - East AfricanRegional ProgrammeJournalist Environmental Association of TanzaniaKenya Forestry Research InstituteKenya Forest Working GroupKenya Wildlife ServiceLawyers Environmental Association of TanzaniaMinistry of Environment and Natural Resources (Kenya)Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (Tanzania)64

MoUNEMANEMCNFPNGONKNMKNORADNRNRINUPACTPDFPDF/BPFMRMUSFMTAFORITANAPATAWIRITFCGTFSUMNPUNDPUSAIDWCSTWDWWF-EARPOWWF-USMemorandum of UnderstandingNational Environment Management Authority (Kenya)National Environment Management Council (Tanzania)National Forest ProgrammeNongovernmental OrganizationNature KenyaNational Museums of KenyaNorwegian Agency for Development CooperationNational ReserveNatural Resources InstituteNature UgandaPrivate Agencies Collaborating TogetherProject Development FundProject Development Fund / Block BParticipatory Forest ManagementResource Management UnitSustainable Forest ManagementTanzania Forestry Research InstituteTanzania National Parks AuthorityTanzania Wildlife Research InstituteTanzania Forest Conservation GroupTanzania Forest Service (to be established)Udzungwa Mountains National ParkUnited Nations Development ProgrammeUnited States Agency for International DevelopmentWildlife Conservation Society of TanzaniaWildlife Department, TanzaniaWWF Eastern African Regional Programme OfficeWWF United States65

REFERENCESAxelrod, D.I. & P.H. Raven. 1978. Late Cretaceous and Tertiary vegetation history of Africa.. InBiogeography and Ecology of Southern Africa. M.J.A. Werger, ed.. Dr. W. Junk Publications,The Hague. Pp 77–130.Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Management Team. 2002. Arabuko-Sokoke Strategic ForestManagement Plan 2002–2027. BirdLife International, Cambridge.Baker, N. & E. Baker. 2002. Important Bird Areas of Tanzania: A First Inventory. WildlifeConservation Society of Tanzania, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.Beentje, H. & S. Smith. 2001. FTEA and after. Syst. Geogr. Pl. 71: 265-290.Bennun, L.A. & P. Njoroge. 1999. Important Bird Areas in Kenya. Nairobi, Africa: NatureKenya.Broadley, D.G. & K.M. Howell. 2000. Reptiles. In The Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa. N.D.Burgess & G.P. Clarke, eds. IUCN: Cambridge and Gland. Pp. 191–199.Brooks, T.M., L. Lens, M. De Meyer, E. Waiyaki, & C. Wilder. 1998. Avian Biogeography ofthe Taita Hills, Kenya. Journal of East African Natural History 87: 189–194.Brooks, T.M., A. Balmford, N.D. Burgess, J. Fjeldsa, L.A. Hansen, J. Moore, C. Rahbek & P.Williams. 2001. Towards a blueprint for Conservation in Africa. Bioscience 51: 613–624.Brooks, T.M, R.A. Mittermeier, C.G. Mittermeier, G.A.B. da Fonseca, A.B. Rylands, W.R.Konstant, P. Flick, J. Pilgrim, S. Oldfield, G. Magin & C. Hilton-Taylor. 2002. Habitat Lossand Extinction in the Hotspots of Biodiversity. Conservation Biology 16: 909–923.Burgess, N.D. 2000. Global importance and patterns in the distribution of coastal forest species.In The Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa. N.D. Burgess & G.P. Clarke, eds. IUCN: Cambridgeand Gland. Pp. 235–248Burgess, N.D. & G.P. Clarke, eds.. 2000. The Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa. IUCN:Cambridge and Gland.Burgess, N.D., G.P. Clarke, & W.A. Rodgers. 1998c. Coastal Forests of eastern Africa: status,species endemism and its possible causes. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 64: 337–367.Burgess, N.D., J. Fjeldsa & R. Botterweg. 1998b. The faunal importance of the Eastern ArcMountains. Journal of East African Natural History 87:37–58.Burgess, N.D., J.C. Lovett & S. Muhagama. 2001. Biodiversity conservation and sustainableforest management in the Eastern Arc Mountains. Unpublished Report prepared forGEF/PDFB Eastern Arc Strategy Process.Burgess, N.D., G.P. Clarke, J. Madgewick, S.A. Robertson & A. Dickinsen. 2000. Distributionand Status. In The Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa. N.D. Burgess & G.P. Clarke, eds. IUCN:Cambridge and Gland. Pp. 71–81.Burgess, N.D., D. Kock, A. Cockle, C. FitzGibbon, P. Jenkins, & P. Honess. 2000. Mammals. InThe Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa. N.D. Burgess & G.P. Clarke, eds. IUCN: Cambridgeand Gland. Pp. 173–190.Burgess, N.D., M. Nummelin, J. Fjeldsa, K.M Howell, K. Lukumbyzya, L. Mhando, P.Phillipson, & E. Vanden Berghe, editors. 1998a. Biodiversity and Conservation of the EasternArc Mountains of Tanzania and Kenya. Journal of the East African Natural History Society(special issue) 87: 367pp.Butynski, T.M. & G. Mwangi. 1994. Conservation status and distribution of the Tana River redcolobus and crested mangabey. Unpublished report for Zoo Atlanta, National Museums ofKenya, Institute of Primate Research and East African Wildlife Society. Pp. 67.66

Clarke, G.P. 1995. Status reports for 6 Coastal Forests in Lindi Region, Tanzania. Frontier-Tanzania Technical Report No. 18. Pp 63. The Society for Environmental Exploration/TheUniversity of Dar es Salaam, London and Dar es Salaam.Clarke, G.P. 2000. Climate and climatic history. In The Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa. N.D.Burgess & G.P. Clarke, eds. IUCN: Cambridge and Gland. Pp. 47–67.Clarke, G.P. & N.D. Burgess. 2000. Geology and Geomorphology. In The Coastal Forests ofEastern Africa. N.D. Burgess & G.P. Clarke, eds. IUCN: Cambridge and Gland. Pp. 29–39.Clarke, G.P. & A. Dickinson. 1995. Status reports for 11 Coastal Forests in Coast Region,Tanzania. Frontier-Tanzania Technical Report No. 17. Pp. 113. The Society forEnvironmental Exploitation/The University of Dar es Salaam, London and Dar es Salaam.Clarke, G.P. & S.A. Robertson. 2000. Vegetation Communities. In The Coastal Forests ofEastern Africa. N.D. Burgess & G.P. Clarke, eds. IUCN: Cambridge and Gland. Pp. 83–102.Clarke, G.P. & L. K. Stubblefield. 1995. Status Reports for 7 Coastal Forests in Tanga Region,Tanzania. Frontier-Tanzania Technical Report No. 16. 67 pp. The Society for Environmentalexploration/The University of Dar es Salaam, London and Dar es Salaam.Clarke, G.P., K. Vollesen, & L.B. Mwasumbi. 2000. Vascular Plants. In The Coastal Forests ofEastern Africa. N.D. Burgess & G.P. Clarke, eds. IUCN: Cambridge and Gland. Pp. 129–147.Dinesen, L., T. Lehmberg, J.O. Svendsen, L.A. Hansen & J. Fjeldsa. 1994. A new genus andspecies of perdicine bird (Phasianidae, Perdicini) from Tanzania: a relict form with Indo-Malayan affinities. Ibis 136: 2–11.Ferraro, P.J. & A. Kiss. 2002. Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science 298: 1718–1719.FitzGibbon, C.D., H. Mogaka & J. Fanshawe. 1995. Subsistence hunting in Arabuko-SokokeForest and its effects on mammal populations. Conservation Biology 9: 1116–1126.Forest Department. 1994. The Kenya Forestry Plan. FINNIDA/Forest Department, Karura,Nairobi.Gereau, R. & Q.L. Luke. 2003. List of Potentially Threatened Plants in the Eastern ArcMountains and Coastal Forest Biodiversity Hotspot of Kenya and Tanzania. Unpublishedreport.GEF. 1998. Overall Performance Study (Washington DC, 1998)GEF. 2002. Project Brief: Conservation and Management of the Eastern Arc Mountain Forests,Tanzania. GEF Arusha, Tanzania.Gordon, I. & W. Ayiemba. 2003. Harnessing butterfly biodiversity for improving livelihoods andforest conservation: the Kipepeo Project. The Journal of Environment and Development 12:82–98.Griffiths C.J 1993. The geological evolution of Eastern Africa. In Biogeography and Ecology ofthe rain forest of eastern Africa. J.C. Lovett & S.K Wasser, eds. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge. Pp. 9–21.Hoffman, R.L. 1993. Biogeography of East African montane forest millipedes. In Biogeographyand Ecology of the rain forest of eastern Africa. J.C. Lovett & S.K Wasser, eds. CambridgeUniversity press, Cambridge. Pp. 103–115.Hoffman, R.L. 2000. Millipedes. In The Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa. N.D. Burgess & G.P. Clarke,eds. IUCN: Cambridge and Gland. Pp. 211–218.IUCN. 1994. The 1994 IUCN Red list of the Threatened Species. IUCN, Cambridge and Gland.IUCN. 2002. The 2002 IUCN Red List of the Threatened Species. IUCN, Cambridge and Gland.Kanga, E. 1996. Survey of Aders’ Duiker Cephalophus adersi and other ungulates in theArabuko-Sokoke Forest Reserve, Kenya. Unpublished Report, national Museums of Kenyaand Zoo Atlanta.67

Kesley, M. G. & T. E. S. Langton. 1984. The Conservation of Arabuko-Sokoke Forest. ICBPStudy Report No.4. International Council for Bird Preservation, Cambridge.Kenya Forest Department. 1994. The Kenya Forestry Plan. FINNIDA/Forest Department, Karura,Nairobi.Laurance, W.F, T.E. Lovejoy, H.L. Vasconcelos, E.M. Bruna, R.K. Didham, P.C. Stouffer, C.Gascon, R.O. Bierregaard, S.G. Laurance & E. Sampaio. Ecosystem Decay of AmazonianForest fragment: a 22-year Investigation. Conservation Biology 16: 605-618.Lens, L. & S. Van Dongen. 1999. Evidence for organism-wide asymmetry in five bird species ofa fragmented afrotropical forest. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 266:1055–1060.Lens, L, F. Adriaensen, & E. Matthysen. 1999a. Dispersal studies in recently and historicallyfragmented forests—a comparison between Kenya and Belgium. In Proceedings of the 22ndInternational Ornithological Congress. N. Adams & R. Slotow, eds. University of Natal,Durban, Natal. Pp. 2480–2491.Lens, L., K. Wakanene, B. Bytebier & M. De Meyer. 2003. Forest restoration in the Taita Hills.Unpublished concept paper.Lens, L, P. Galbusera, T. Brooks, E. Waiyaki, & T. Schenck. 1998. Highly skewed sex ratios inthe critically endangered Taita Thrush as revealed by CHD genes. Biodiversity andConservation 7: 869–873.Lens, L., S. Van Dongen, K. Norris, M. Githiru & E. Matthysen. 2002. Avian persistence infragmented rain forest. Science 298: 1236–1238.Lens L, S. Van Dongen, C.M. Wilder, T. Brooks & E. Matthysen. 1999b. Fluctuating asymmetryincrease with habitat disturbance in seven bird species of a fragmented afrotropical forest.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 266: 1241–1246.Lovett, J.C. 1988. Endemism and affinities of the Tanzanian montane forest flora. InMonographs in Systematic Botany. P. Goldblatt & P.P. Lowry, eds. Missouri BotanicalGardens 25:491–496.Lovett, J.C. 1993. Temperate and tropical floras in the mountains of eastern Tanzania. OperaBotanica 121:217–227Lovett, J.C. 1998a. Continuous changes in Tanzania moist forest tree communities withelevation. Journal of Tropical Ecology 14:719–722Lovett, J.C. 1998b Importance of the Eastern Arc mountains for vascular plants. Journal of EastAfrican Natural History 87:59–74.Lovett, J.C. 1998c. Eastern tropical African centre of endemism: a candidate for World HeritageStatus? Journal of East African Natural History 87: 359–366.Lowe, A.J. & G.P. Clarke. 2000. Vegetation Structure. In The Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa.N.D. Burgess & G.P. Clarke, eds. IUCN: Cambridge and Gland. Pp. 103–113.Lovett, J.C. & S.K. Wasser, eds. 1993. Biogeography and Ecology of the Rain Forests of EasternAfrica. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeLovett, J.C., J.R. Hansen & V. Holrlyck. 2000. Comparison with eastern Arc Forests. In TheCoastal Forests of Eastern Africa. N.D. Burgess & G.P. Clarke, eds. IUCN: Cambridge andGland. Pp. 115–125.Mariki, S.W., F. Shechambo & J. Salehe. 2003. The contribution of environmental goods andservices to Tanzania’s economy: with reference to poverty reduction. IUCN-EARO, Nairobi.McNeely, J.A. & S.J. Scherr. 2003. Ecoagriculture. Island Press, Washington.68

Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. 2001. National Forest Programme. Forestry andBeekeeping Division, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.Missouri Botanical Garden (MBG). 2003. TROPICOS database. Online atwww.mobot.mobot.org/W3T/Search/vast.html. Last accessed March 15, 2003.Muriithi, S. & W. Kenyon. 2002. Conservation of biodiversity in Arabuko-Sokoke Forest,Kenya. Biodiversity and Conservation 11: 1437–1450.Mwihomeke, S.T., T.H. Msangi, C.K Mabula, J. Ylhaisi, & K.C.H. Mndeme. Traditionallyprotected forest and nature Conservation in the north Pare mountains and Handeni District,Tanzania. Journal of East African Natural History 87:279–290.Myers, N. 1990. The biological challenge: extended hot spot analysis. The Environmentalist 10:243–256.Myers, N., R.A Mittermeier, C.G. Mittermeier, G.A.B. da Fonseca & J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversityhotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858.National Biodiversity Unit. 1992. The costs, benefits and unmet needs of biological diversityconservation in Kenya. A study prepared for the Government of Kenya and the UnitedNations Environmental Programme. Nairobi, National Biodiversity Unit.NRI. 1996. Kenya Natural Resources Profile. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute.Newmark, W.D. 1991. Tropical forest fragmentation and the local extinction of understoreybirds in the eastern Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. Conservation Biology 5: 67–78.Newmark, W. 1998. Forest area, fragmentation and loss in the Eastern Arc Mountains:implications for the conservation of biological diversity. Journal of East African NaturalHistory 87: 29–36.Newmark, W.D. 2002. Conservation biodiversity in Eastern African forests: a study of theEastern Arc Mountains. Ecological Studies, Vol. 155, Springer, Berlin, Germany.Oates, J. 1999. Myth and Reality in the Rain Forests. University of California Press, London,England.Pocs, T. 1998. Distribution of bryophytes along the Eastern Arc Mountains. Journal of EastAfrican Natural History 87: 75–84.Poynton, J.C., K.M. Howell, B.T. Clarke & J.C. Lovett. 1998. A critically endangered newspecies of Nectophrynoides (Anura: Bufonida) from the Kihansi Gorge, UdzungwaMountains, Tanzania. African Journal of Herpetology 47: 59–67.Pressey, R.L. 1994. Ad hoc reservations: forward or backward steps in developing representativereserve systems. Conservation Biology 8: 662–668.Robertson, S.A. 1987. Preliminary Floristic Survey of Kaya Forest on Coastal Kenya.Unpublished Report. National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi.Robertson, S.A. & W. R.Q. Luke. 1993. Kenya Coastal Forests. WWF, Nairobi.Rodgers, W. A., 1998. An introduction to the Eastern Arc Mountains. Journal of East AfricanNatural History 87:7–18.Roe, D., T. Mulliken, S Milledge, J. Mremi, S. Mosha, & M. Grieg-Gran. 2002. Making a killingor making a living? Wildlife trade, trade controls and rural livelihoods. Biodiversity andLivelihood Issues No. 6. IIED, London, UK.Roy, M.S., J.M.C. da Silva, P. Arctander, J. Garcia-Moreno & J. Fjeldsa. 1997. The role ofmontane regions in the speciation of South American and African birds. In Avian MolecularEvolution and Systematics. D.P. Mindell, ed. Academic Press, London and New York.Reuters. 2003. Kenya says Canada miner must hike land payout.> http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/20936/story.htmScharff, N. 1992. The Linyphiid fauna of eastern Africa (Araneae: Linyphiidae)—distribution69

patterns, diversity and endemism. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society of London 45: 117–154.Scharff, N. 1993. The Linyphiid spider fauna (Araneae: Lyniphiidae) of mountain forests in theEastern Arc Mountains. In Biogeography and Ecology of the rainforests of Eastern Africa.J.C. Lovett & S.K. Wasser, eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pp. 115–132Scharff, N., M. Stoltze & F.P. Jensen. 1981. The Uluguru mountains, Tanzania: Report of aStudy-Tour, 1981. Zoological Museum of The University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen.Struhsaker, T. 1997. Ecology of an African Rain Forest: Logging in Kibale and the Conflictbetween Conservation and Exploitation. Gainesville, University Press, Florida.Terborgh, J. 1999. Requiem for Nature. Island Press, Washington, D.CUNEP. 1998, Eastern Africa Atlas of Coastal Resources: Kenya. UNEP, NairobiUnited Republic of Tanzania. 1998. The Forest Policy of Tanzania. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.United Republic of Tanzania. 1999a. Land Act (Act No. 6 of 1999). Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.United Republic of Tanzania. 1999b. Village Land Act (Act No. 7 of 1999). Dar es Salaam,Tanzania.United States Department of State. 2002a. Background Note: Kenya.http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2962/htmUnited States Department of State. 2002b. Background Note: Tanzania.http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2843/htmUSAID. 2003. http://www.usaid.gov/regions/afr/country_info/kenya.htmlUSAID. 2000. USAID Kenya Strategic Plan: Environmental threats and opportunitiesassessment. USAID, Nairobi. http://www.frameweb.org/pdf/Kenya.PDFWhite, F. 1983. The vegetation of Africa. A descriptive memoir to accompany theUNESCO/AETFAT/UNSO Vegetation Map of Africa. Paris, UNESCOWhiteman, A. 2003. Recent trends in fiscal policies in the forest sector in Africa. In State of theWorlds Forests 2003, pp 108-121. FAO, RomeWieczkowski, J. & D.N.M. Mbora. 1999–2000. Increasing threats to the conservation ofendemic endangered primates and forests of the lower Tana River, Kenya. African Primates4: 32–40.World Bank. 2001. www.worldbank.org/data/quickreference/quickref.html)WWF-EARPO. 2002. Eastern African Coastal Forest Progamme. Regional Workshop Report.Nairobi 4–7 February 2002.WWF-US 2003a. Ecoregional reports: Eastern Arc Forest. Eastern and Southern Africa Biomes.J. Schipper & N. Burgess, authors.WWF-US 2003b. Ecoregional reports: Northern Zanzibar-Inhambane coastal Forest Mosaic.Eastern and Southern Africa Bioregions. J. Schipper & N. Burgess, authors.70

APPENDICESAppendix 1. Globally threatened species in the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forestshotspot (The IUCN 2002 Red List of Threatened Species)IUCN STATUSDISTRIBUTIONCritically EndangeredEndangeredVulnerableTanzaniaKenyaScientific Name*Mammals 5 8 16 27 9Beamys hindei + x xCephalophus adersi + x xCephalophus spadix + xCrocidura desperata + xCrocidura elgonius + xCrocidura monax + xCrocidura tansaniana + xCrocidura telfordi + xCrocidura usambarae + xCrocidura xantippe + xDendrohyrax validus + xDiceros bicornis + xGalago rondoensis + xLoxodonta africana + x xLycaon pictus + xMyonycteris relicta + x xMyosorex geata + xOtomops martiensseni + xParaxerus palliatus + x xParaxerus vexillarius + xProcolobus gordonorum + xProcolobus kirkii + xProcolobus rufomitratus + xPteropus voeltzkowi + xRhynchocyon chrysopygus + xRhynchocyon cirnei + xRhynchocyon petersi + x xSylvisorex howelli + x71

Taphozous hildegardeae + x xBirds 3 10 15 24 10Anthreptes pallidigaster + x xAnthreptes rubritorques + xAnthus sokokensis + x xApalis chariessa + xApalis fuscigularis + xArdeola idae + xBathmocercus winifredae + xBubo vosseleri + xCinnyricinclus femoralis + x xHirundo atrocaerulea + xHyliota usambarae + xMalaconotus alius + xModulatrix orostruthus + xNectarinia rufipennis + xOrthotomus moreaui + xOtus ireneae + x xPloceus burnieri + xPloceus golandi + xPloceus nicolli + xSheppardia gunningi + x xSheppardia lowei + xSheppardia montana + xSwynnertonia swynnertoni + xTurdus helleri + xXenoperdix udzungwensis + xZoothera guttata + x xZosterops silvanus + xZosterops winifredae + xAmphibians 4 11 18 31 3Afrixalus sylvaticus + x xAfrixalus uluguruensis + xArthroleptides martiensseni + xArthroleptides yakusini + xArthroleptis tanneri + xBoulengerula taitana + xBufo brauni + xBufo udzungwensis + xChuramiti maridadi + xHoplophryne rogersi + xHoplophryne uluguruensis + x72

Hyperolius kihangensis + xHyperolius minutissimus + xHyperolius rubrovermiculatus + xHyperolius tannerorum + xLeptopelis barbouri + xLeptopelis parkeri + xLeptopelis uluguruensis + xLeptopelis vermiculatus + xNectophrynoides asperginis + xNectophrynoides cryptus + xNectophrynoides minutus + xNectophrynoides tornieri + xNectophrynoides wendyae + xParhoplophryne usambarica + xPhlyctimantis keithae + xPhrynobatrachus kreffti + xPhrynobatrachus uzungwensis + xProbreviceps uluguruensis + xSchoutedenella xenodactyla + xScolecomorphus vittatus + xStephopaedes howelli + xStephopaedes usambarae + xGastropods 3 3 1 4 3Gulella amboniensis + xGulella taitensis + xLanistes alexandri + xLanistes farleri + xLanistes stuhlmanni + xThapsia buraensis + xZingis radiolata + xPlants 9 36 191 221 80Adenopodia rotundifolia +xAllanblackia stuhlmannii +xAllanblackia ulugurensis +xAllophylus chirindensis +xxAlsodeiopsis schumannii +xAngylocalyx braunii +xxAnnickia kummeriae +xAoranthe penduliflora +xAristogeitonia monophylla +xxBaikiaea ghesquiereana +xBaphia kirkii +x73

Baphia macrocalyx +Baphia pauloi +Baphia puguensis +Baphia semseiana +Bauhinia loeseneriana +Bauhinia mombassae +Beilschmiedia kweo +Berlinia orientalis +Bersama rosea +Bertiera pauloi +Bussea eggelingii +Buxus obtusifolia +Calodendrum eickii +Camptolepis ramiflora +Canthium impressinervium +Canthium kilifiense +Canthium pseudoverticillatum +Canthium rondoense +Canthium shabanii +Canthium siebenlistii +Canthium vollesenii +Casearia engleri +Cephalosphaera usambarensis +Chassalia albiflora +Chytranthus obliquinervis +Cladolejeunea aberrans +Coffea costatifructa +Coffea fadenii +Coffea mongensis +Coffea pocsii +Coffea pseudozanguebariae +Coffea zanguebariae +Cola octoloboides +Cola porphyrantha +Cola scheffleri +Combretum tenuipetiolatum +Craterispermum longipedunculatum +Croton dictyophlebodes +Croton jatrophoides +Cuviera migeodii +Cuviera schliebenii +Cuviera tomentosa +Cynometra brachyrrhachis +Cynometra engleri +xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx74

Cynometra filifera +Cynometra gillmanii +Cynometra longipedicellata +Cynometra lukei +Cynometra suaheliensis +Cynometra ulugurensis +Cynometra webberi +Dalbergia acariiantha +Dalbergia vacciniifolia +Dasylepis integra +Dialium holtzii +Diospyros amaniensis +Diospyros greenwayi +Diospyros magogoana +Diospyros shimbaensis +Diphasiopsis fadenii +Dombeya amaniensis +Drypetes gerrardinoides +Drypetes sclerophylla +Ehretia glandulosissima +Englerodendron usambarense +Erythrina haerdii +Erythrina sacleuxii +Euphorbia lividiflora +Euphorbia tanaensis +Euphorbia wakefieldii +Fernandoa lutea +Ficus faulkneriana +Garcinia acutifolia +Garcinia bifasciculata +Garcinia semseii +Gardenia transvenulosa +Gigasiphon macrosiphon +Guibourtia schliebenii +Hirtella megacarpa +Intsia bijuga +Isoberlinia scheffleri +Isolona heinsenii +Ixora albersii +Julbernardia magnistipulata +Karomia gigas +Keetia koritschoneri +Keetia purpurascens +Khaya anthotheca +xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx75

Kotschya platyphylla +Kraussia speciosa +Lagynias pallidiflora +Lasianthus grandifolius +Lasianthus pedunculatus +Lasianthus wallacei +Leptactina papyrophloea +Lettowianthus stellatus +Lijndenia brenanii +Lingelsheimia silvestris +Lovoa swynnertonii +Macaranga conglomerata +Mammea usambarensis +Memecylon greenwayii +Memecylon teitense +Mesogyne insignis +Micrococca scariosa +Mildbraedia carpinifolia +Millettia bussei +Millettia elongatistyla +Millettia eriocarpa +Millettia micans +Millettia sacleuxii +Millettia schliebenii +Millettia semsei +Millettia sericantha +Mimusops acutifolia +Mimusops penduliflora +Mimusops riparia +Mkilua fragrans +Monotes lutambensis +Morinda asteroscepa +Multidentia castaneae +Multidentia sclerocarpa +Neohemsleya usambarensis +Newtonia paucijuga +Ocotea kenyensis +Octoknema orientalis +Ouratea scheffleri +Ouratea schusteri +Oxystigma msoo +Paranecepsia alchorneifolia +Pavetta axillipara +Pavetta holstii +xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx76

Pavetta linearifolia +Pavetta lynesii +Pavetta manyanguensis +Pavetta nitidissima +Pavetta sparsipila +Pavetta tarennoides +Pittosporum goetzei +Platypterocarpus tanganyikensis +Polyceratocarpus scheffleri +Polysphaeria macrantha +Populus ilicifolia +Pouteria pseudoracemosa +Premna hans-joachimii +Premna schliebenii +Premna tanganyikensis +Prunus africana +Psychotria alsophila +Psychotria crassipetala +Psychotria cyathicalyx +Psychotria elachistantha +Psychotria megalopus +Psychotria megistantha +Psychotria peteri +Psychotria petitii +Psychotria pseudoplatyphylla +Psychotria taitensis +Psydrax faulknerae +Psydrax kibuwae +Psydrax micans +Pycnocoma littoralis +Pycnocoma macrantha +Renauldia lycopodioides +Rhipidantha chlorantha +Rhus brenanii +Rothmannia macrosiphon +Rytigynia binata +Rytigynia caudatissima +Rytigynia eickii +Rytigynia hirsutiflora +Rytigynia longipedicellata +Rytigynia nodulosa +Rytigynia pseudolongicaudata +Schefflera lukwangulensis +Shirakiopsis triloculare +xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx77

Sibangea pleioneura +Sorindeia calantha +Sterculia schliebenii +Strychnos mellodora +Stuhlmannia moavi +Suregada lithoxyla +Synsepalum kaessneri +Synsepalum subverticillatum +Tannodia swynnertonii +Tapiphyllum schliebenii +Tarenna drummondii +Tarenna luhomeroensis +Tarenna quadrangularis +Ternstroemia polypetala +Tessmannia densiflora +Tetrorchidium ulugurense +Toussaintia orientalis +Tricalysia acidophylla +Tricalysia pedicellata +Tricalysia schliebenii +Trichilia lovettii +Trichocladus goetzei +Turraea kimbozensis +Uvariodendron gorgonis +Uvariodendron kirkii +Uvariodendron oligocarpum +Uvariodendron pycnophyllum +Uvariodendron usambarense +Uvariopsis bisexualis +Vangueria bicolor +Vangueriopsis longiflora +Vepris sansibarensis +Vismia pauciflora +Vitellariopsis cuneata +Vitellariopsis kirkii +Vitex amaniensis +Vitex zanzibarensis +Warburgia elongata +Warburgia stuhlmannii +Xylopia collina +Zanthoxylum deremense +Zanthoxylum holtzianum +Zanthoxylum lindense +Zenkerella egregia +xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx78

Zenkerella perplexa +xZimmermannia capillipes +xZimmermannia nguruensis +xZimmermannia ovata +xZiziphus robertsoniana +x* There are currently no reptiles or fish in this hotspot that are listed as globally threatened on the IUCNRed List.Appendix 2. Sites in the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests hotspot ranked according to the totalnumber of globally threatened species that they containANIMALSPLANTSIUCN Red List Status* IUCN Red List Status* GrandSite Name Country CR EN VU Total CR EN VU Total TotalEast Usambara Mountains TZ 2 9 25 36 1 5 69 75 111Uluguru Mountains TZ 1 6 19 26 7 48 55 81Udzungwa National Park TZ 1 9 10 1 2 56 59 69Udzungwa Mountains TZ 5 6 27 38 2 27 29 67West Usambara Mountains TZ 6 17 23 3 2 38 43 66Shimba Hills KE 5 5 10 1 5 40 46 56Lindi District Coastal Forests TZ 4 4 8 13 24 37 45Nguru Mountains TZ 9 9 1 2 30 33 42South Pare Mountains TZ 1 3 4 1 28 29 33Taita Hills Forests KE 5 1 2 8 1 23 24 32Kisarawe District Coastal Forests TZ 4 4 8 2 20 22 30Rufiji District Coastal Forests TZ 2 4 6 5 11 16 22Bagamoyo District Coastal Forests TZ 4 4 8 2 11 13 21Arabuko-Sokoke Forest KE 8 3 11 8 8 19Selous Game Reserve TZ 1 1 2 2 14 16 18Muheza District Coastal Forests TZ 2 5 7 6 6 13North Pare Mountains TZ 2 2 11 11 13Kilwa District Coastal Forests TZ 2 2 4 2 1 5 8 12Mafia Island TZ 2 2 4 1 7 8 12Diani Forest KE 2 1 3 1 7 8 11Gongoni Forest Reserve KE 2 9 11 11Kaya Ribe KE 3 7 10 10Kilombero Valley TZ 3 3 7 7 10Mrima Hill Forest KE 2 1 3 3 4 7 10Pangani District Coastal Forests TZ 2 3 5 1 4 5 10Lower Tana River Forests KE 1 3 4 1 5 6 10Buda Forest Reserve KE 1 8 9 9Handeni District Coastal Forests TZ 1 2 3 6 6 9Mangea Hill KE 9 9 9Pangani KE 3 6 9 9Ukaguru Mountains TZ 1 3 4 1 4 5 9Witu Forest Reserve KE 1 8 9 9Dzombo Hill Forest KE 1 1 2 5 7 8Jozani Forest Reserve, Zanzibar TZ 4 4 8 879

Kaya Jibana KE 1 7 8 8Kaya Rabai KE 1 1 6 8 8Mahenge TZ 1 1 2 1 5 6 8Pande and Dodwe Coastal Forests TZ 2 1 3 5 5 8Boni Forest KE 2 2 5 5 7Kaya Muhaka KE 2 5 7 7Marenji Forest KE 2 2 5 5 7Rubeho Mountains TZ 1 4 5 1 1 6Kaya Gandini KE 2 2 3 3 5Mwache Forest Reserve KE 2 3 5 5Kaya Kivara KE 4 4 4Kaya Mtswakara KE 4 4 4Mkomazi Game Reserve TZ 1 1 3 3 4Mount Kasigau KE 1 3 4 4Pemba Island TZ 1 2 3 1 1 4Cha Simba KE 2 1 3 3Chale Island KE 1 2 3 3Kaya Kambe KE 1 2 3 3Kaya Kauma KE 3 3 3Kaya Kinondo KE 3 3 3Kaya Lunguma KE 3 3 3Magombera Forest Reserve TZ 1 1 1 1 2 3Newala District Coastal Forests TZ 3 3 3Ukunda KE 1 1 2 1 1 3Bagamoyo TZ 2 2 2Dakatcha Woodland KE 2 2 2Gede Ruins National Monument KE 1 1 2 2Kaya Chonyi KE 2 2 2Kaya Miungoni KE 2 2 2Kaya Tiwi KE 1 1 1 1 2Kaya Ukunda KE 2 2 2Kaya Waa KE 2 2 2Kisimani wa Ngoa KE 2 2 2Lango ya Simba KE 1 1 2 2Lindi TZ 1 1 2 2Lindi (Nyangao River) TZ 1 1 1 1 2Mtanza Forest Reserve TZ 2 2 2Nguu Mountains TZ 1 1 2 2Nyumburuni Forest Reserve TZ 1 1 2 2Pangani (Mwera) TZ 1 1 2 2River Wami TZ 1 1 1 1 2Semdoe TZ 1 1 2 2Shimoni Forests KE 1 1 1 1 2Utete (Kibiti) TZ 2 2 2Uvidunda Mountains TZ 1 1 1 1 2** TZ 2 2 2Bagamoyo (Kikoka Forest Reserve) TZ 1 1 1Baricho near Arabuko Sokoke KE 1 1 180

Bungu TZ 1 1 1Chuna Forest KE 1 1 1Dar es salaam Coast TZ 1 1 1Dodori Forest KE 1 1 1Dzitzoni TZ 1 1 1Kambe Rocks KE 1 1 1Kaya Bombo KE 1 1 1Kaya Dzombo KE 1 1 1Kaya Fungo KE 1 1 1Kaya Gonja KE 1 1 1Kaya Mwarakaya KE 1 1 1Kaya Puma KE 1 1 1Kaya Sega KE 1 1 1Kaya Teleza KE 1 1 1Kisiju TZ 1 1 1Korogwe (Kwashemshi Sisal Estate) TZ 1 1 1Lindi (Kengedi) TZ 1 1 1Lindi (Mkindani) TZ 1 1 1Lindi (Ngongo) TZ 1 1 1Lindi (Nondora) TZ 1 1 1Lindi (Ras Rungi) TZ 1 1 1Lindi (Tendaguru) TZ 1 1 1Lindi Creek TZ 1 1 1Lukoga Forest Reserve TZ 1 1 1Lunghi Forest KE 1 1 1Mahenge (Kwiro Forest) TZ 1 1 1Mahenge (Liondo) TZ 1 1 1Mahenge (Lipindi) TZ 1 1 1Mahenge (Sali) TZ 1 1 1Mahenge Scarp Forest Reserve TZ 1 1 1Makongwe Island TZ 1 1 1Marafa KE 1 1 1Masasi TZ 1 1 1Masasi (Nyengedi) TZ 1 1 1Masasi East TZ 1 1 1Mikindani (Mnima) TZ 1 1 1Mikindani (Mtwara inland) TZ 1 1 1Mikindani District (Mtwara-Mikindani) TZ 1 1 1Mikumi National Park TZ 1 1 1Mpanga Village Forest Reserve TZ 1 1 1Msambweni KE 1 1 1Mtwara TZ 1 1 1near Buda Forest Reserve KE 1 1 1Newala (Kitama) TZ 1 1 1Newala (Kitangari) TZ 1 1 1Newala (Mahuta) TZ 1 1 1Nzovuni River KE 1 1 1Pangani (Bushiri) TZ 1 1 181

Pangani (Hale-Makinjumbe) TZ 1 1 1Pangani (Mauri) TZ 1 1 1Pangani Dam TZ 1 1 1Panza Island TZ 1 1 1Ras Kituani TZ 1 1 1Sangerawe TZ 1 1 1Shikurufumi Forest Reserve TZ 1 1 1Sinza River-near University of Dar es salaam TZ 1 1 1Tanga (Duga) TZ 1 1 1Tanga (Gombero Forest Reserve) TZ 1 1 1Tanga (Morongo) TZ 1 1 1Tanga (Nyamaku) TZ 1 1 1Tanga (Pangani) TZ 1 1 1Tanga (Sigi River) TZ 1 1 1Tumbatu Island KE 1 1 1Ukwama Forest Reserve TZ 1 1 1Uzaramo (Dar to Morogoro) TZ 1 1 1Uzaramo (Msua) TZ 1 1 1Verani South West TZ 1 1 1Vigola TZ 1 1 1Zanzibar (Kituani) TZ 1 1 1Zanzibar (Muyuni) TZ 1 1 1Latham Island TZ 0Mnazi Bay TZ 0Rufiji Delta TZ 0Sabaki River Mouth KE 0Tana River Delta KE 0Tanga North-Kibo Salt Pans TZ 0Tanga South TZ 0Zanzibar Island-East Coast TZ 0Zanzibar Island-South Coast TZ 0*IUCN STATUS: conservation "degree of threat" status according to The 2002 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species(CR=Critically Endangered, EN=Endangered, VU=Vulnerable).**Sites were not identified for these two species due to lack of data.82

Appendix 3. Sites in the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests hotspot that host globally threatened species, restricted range birds and globally significantcongregations of birds.RangeRestrictedSpeciesGloballySignificantCongregations IBASite NameCountryLatitude(S)Longitude(E) Area (ha)Globally ThreatenedSpeciesStatus*TaxonomicGroup**Arabuko-Sokoke Forest KE 3.33 39.87 41600Anthreptes pallidigaster EN B + +Anthus sokokensis EN BAristogeitonia monophylla VU PBeamys hindei VU MBuxus obtusifolia VU PCanthium kilifiense VU PCanthiumpseudoverticillatum VU PCephalophus adersi EN MCynometra webberi VU PGardenia transvenulosa VU PLoxodonta africana EN MNewtonia paucijuga VU POtus ireneae EN BParaxerus palliatus VU MPloceus golandi EN BRhynchocyonMchrysopygusENRothmannia macrosiphon VU PSheppardia gunningi VU BZoothera guttata EN BBagamoyo TZ 6.25 38.50 Baphia kirkii VU PVitex zanzibarensis VU PBagamoyo (Kikoka ForestReserve) TZ 6.47 38.73 Pavetta linearifolia VU PBagamoyo District CoastalForests TZ 6.13 38.6617800Afrixalus sylvaticusVU A(Zaraninge FR) Anthus sokokensis EN BBaphia kirkii VU PBeamys hindei VU M++83

Buxus obtusifolia VU PCroton jatrophoides VU PDiospyros shimbaensis EN PGardenia transvenulosa VU PKraussia speciosa VU PLoxodonta africana EN MLycaon pictus EN MMillettia elongatistyla VU PMyonycteris relicta VU MParaxerus palliatus VU MPsydrax faulknerae VU PPycnocoma littoralis VU PRhynchocyon petersi EN MRothmannia macrosiphon VU PStuhlmannia moavi VU PTapiphyllum schliebenii EN PToussaintia orientalis VU PBaricho near Arabuko Sokoke KE 3.00 39.92 Vitellariopsis kirkii VU PBoni Forest KE 1.67 41.17 Canthium kilifiense VU PCanthiumpseudoverticillatum VU PDalbergia vacciniifolia VU PLoxodonta africana EN MMkilua fragrans VU PRhynchocyonchrysopygus EN MSynsepalumsubverticillatum VU PBuda Forest Reserve KE 4.45 39.40 Canthium kilifiense VU PChytranthus obliquinervis VU PDiospyros shimbaensis EN PLagynias pallidiflora VU PMkilua fragrans VU PRothmannia macrosiphon VU PSterculia schliebenii VU PSynsepalum VU P84

subverticillatumTarenna drummondii VU PBungu TZ 5.05 38.40Uvariodendronpycnophyllum EN PCha Simba KE 4.23 39.45 Cola octoloboides EN PEuphorbia wakefieldii EN PTarenna drummondii VU PChale Island KE 4.45 39.55 Buxus obtusifolia VU PVitex zanzibarensis VU PZiziphus robertsoniana EN PChuna Forest KE 4.57 39.15 Warburgia stuhlmannii VU PDakatcha Woodland KE 3.02 39.85 32000 Anthus sokokensis EN B + +Dar es salaam Coast TZ 6.83 39.32Diani Forest KE 4.30 39.58Ploceus golandi EN B61000Coffeapseudozanguebariae VU P80Canthiumpseudoverticillatum VU PCoffeapseudozanguebariae VU PDalbergia vacciniifolia VU PDiospyros greenwayi VU PPsydrax faulknerae VU PPycnocoma littoralis VU PRhynchocyon petersi EN MSynsepalumsubverticillatum VU PTaphozous hildegardeae VU MZiziphus robertsoniana EN PZoothera guttata EN BDodori Forest KE 1.75 41.50 Loxodonta africana EN MDzitzoni KE 3.65 39.73 Euphorbia wakefieldii EN PDzombo Hill Forest KE 4.43 39.22 295Anthus sokokensis EN B + +Buxus obtusifolia VU PCoffeapseudozanguebariae VU PCola octoloboides EN P++++85

Kraussia speciosa VU PMkilua fragrans VU PTarenna drummondii VU PZiziphus robertsoniana EN PEast Usambara Mountains TZ 4.96 38.67 42413 Afrixalus sylvaticus VU A + +(Lutindi FR, Nkombola FR,Kilanga FR, Mtai FR, KwangumiFR, Bamba FR,Afrixalus uluguruensisVU ASegoma FR, Manga FR,Longuza FR, Kihuhwi-Sigi FR,Amani East FR, Amani Allanblackia stuhlmannii VU PWest FR, Amani FR, MnyusiScarp FR, Kwamkoro FR,Kihuhwi FR, Allophylus chirindensis VU PKwamsambia FR, Amani-SigiFR) Alsodeiopsis schumannii VU PAngylocalyx braunii VU PAnnickia kummeriae VU PAnthreptes pallidigaster EN BAnthreptes rubritorques VU BAoranthe penduliflora VU PAristogeitonia monophylla VU PArthroleptidesmartiensseni EN ABeamys hindei VU MBeilschmiedia kweo VU PBubo vosseleri VU BBufo brauni VU ACanthiumpseudoverticillatum VU PCanthium siebenlistii VU PCephalosphaerausambarensis VU PChassalia albiflora VU PChytranthus obliquinervis VU PCladolejeunea aberrans EN PCoffea mongensis VU PCoffeapseudozanguebariae VU P86

Cola scheffleri VU PCrocidura elgonius VU MCrocidura monax VU MCrocidura tansaniana VU MCrocidura xantippe VU MCynometra brachyrrhachis VU PCynometra engleri VU PCynometralongipedicellata VU PCynometra suaheliensis VU PCynometra webberi VU PDendrohyrax validus VU MDialium holtzii VU PDiospyros amaniensis VU PDombeya amaniensis VU PEnglerodendronusambarense VU PErythrina sacleuxii VU PFicus faulkneriana CR PGigasiphon macrosiphon EN PHoplophryne rogersi EN AHyliota usambarae EN BIsoberlinia scheffleri VU PIsolona heinsenii EN PJulbernardiamagnistipulata VU PKhaya anthotheca VU PKraussia speciosa VU PLagynias pallidiflora VU PLeptopelis barbouri VU ALeptopelis parkeri VU ALeptopelis uluguruensis VU ALeptopelis vermiculatus VU ALettowianthus stellatus VU PLijndenia brenanii VU PMemecylon greenwayii VU P87

Mesogyne insignis VU PMildbraedia carpinifolia VU PMillettia sacleuxii VU PModulatrix orostruthus VU BMorinda asteroscepa VU PMultidentia sclerocarpa VU PMyonycteris relicta VU MNectophrynoides tornieri VU ANewtonia paucijuga VU POrthotomus moreaui CR BOtomops martiensseni VU MOtus ireneae EN BOuratea scheffleri VU POuratea schusteri VU POxystigma msoo VU PParaxerus palliatus VU MParhoplophryneusambarica CR APavetta holstii VU PPhrynobatrachus kreffti EN APloceus nicolli EN BPolyceratocarpusscheffleri VU PPolysphaeria macrantha VU PPouteria pseudoracemosa VU PPremna schliebenii VU PPrunus africana VU PPsychotria peteri VU PPycnocoma macrantha VU PRenauldia lycopodioides EN PRhynchocyon petersi EN MRothmannia macrosiphon VU PRytigynia eickii VU PSchoutedenellaxenodactyla VU AScolecomorphus vittatus VU A88

Gede Ruins NationalMonumentKE3.30 40.02Gongoni Forest Reserve KE 4.42 39.47Sheppardia gunningi VU BStephopaedes usambarae EN ASuregada lithoxyla VU PSwynnertonia swynnertoni VU BSylvisorex howelli VU MSynsepalum kaessneri VU PTarenna drummondii VU PTricalysia acidophylla VU PUvariodendron gorgonis VU PUvariodendron kirkii VU PUvariodendronoligocarpum VU PUvariodendronpycnophyllum EN PUvariodendronusambarense VU PVangueria bicolor VU PVepris sansibarensis VU PVitellariopsis cuneata VU PVitex amaniensis VU PZanthoxylum deremense VU PZanthoxylum holtzianum VU PZenkerella egregia VU PZimmermannia capillipes VU P44Beamys hindeiM + +VURhynchocyonMchrysopygusENCoffeapseudozanguebariae VU PDiospyros shimbaensis EN PGigasiphon macrosiphon EN PKraussia speciosa VU PMicrococca scariosa VU PMkilua fragrans VU PRothmannia macrosiphon VU PSterculia schliebenii VU P89

Synsepalumsubverticillatum VU PTarenna drummondii VU PVitex zanzibarensis VU PHandeni District Coastal5519Forests TZ 5.50 38.50Buxus obtusifolia VU P(Mtunguru FR, GendagendaNorth FR, Gendagenda SouthFR) Diospyros greenwayi VU PMyonycteris relicta VU MJozani Forest Reserve,ZanzibarTZParaxerus palliatus VU MPycnocoma littoralis VU PRhynchocyon petersi EN MStuhlmannia moavi VU PTarenna drummondii VU PTricalysia acidophylla VU PCephalophus adersiM +6.20 39.40 1100ENDendrohyrax validus VU MParaxerus palliatus VU MProcolobus kirkii EN MRhynchocyon petersi EN MSheppardia gunningi VU BStephopaedes howelli EN ATaphozous hildegardeae VU MKambe Rocks KE 3.85 39.63 25 Euphorbia wakefieldii EN PKaya Bombo KE 4.12 39.57 10 Vitellariopsis kirkii VU P200CanthiumKaya Chonyi KE 3.78 39.68pseudoverticillatum VU PTarenna drummondii VU PKaya Dzombo KE 4.43 39.22 Rhynchocyon petersi EN M+++Kaya Fungo KE 3.78 39.50 100 Warburgia stuhlmannii VU PKaya Gandini KE 4.02 39.50 150 Angylocalyx braunii VU P + +Anthus sokokensis EN BCanthium kilifiense VU PVitellariopsis kirkii VU P90

Zoothera guttata EN BKaya Gonja KE 4.55 39.07 Vitellariopsis kirkii VU PKaya Jibana KE 3.83 39.68 150Angylocalyx braunii VU PCanthium kilifiense VU PCoffeapseudozanguebariae VU PDiospyros shimbaensis EN PMkilua fragrans VU PMultidentia sclerocarpa VU PShirakiopsis triloculare VU PUvariodendron gorgonis VU PKaya Kambe KE 3.85 39.67 75Angylocalyx braunii VU PCoffeapseudozanguebariae VU PCola octoloboides EN PKaya Kauma KE 3.61 39.73 100 Buxus obtusifolia VU PCoffeapseudozanguebariae VU PVitellariopsis kirkii VU PKaya Kinondo KE 4.38 39.53 30 Vitex zanzibarensis VU PKraussia speciosa VU PSynsepalumsubverticillatum VU PKaya Kivara KE 3.68 39.68 150 Canthium kilifiense VU PMkilua fragrans VU PNewtonia paucijuga VU PTarenna drummondii VU PKaya Lunguma KE 4.13 39.50 150 Canthium kilifiense VU PCoffeapseudozanguebariae VU PVitellariopsis kirkii VU PKaya Miungoni KE 4.60 39.17 Kraussia speciosa VU PTarenna drummondii VU PKaya Mtswakara KE 3.92 39.58 120 Aristogeitonia monophylla VU PBuxus obtusifolia VU PPavetta linearifolia VU P91

Kaya Muhaka KE 4.33 39.53Vitellariopsis kirkii VU P150Canthiumpseudoverticillatum VU PCola octoloboides EN PGigasiphon macrosiphon EN PLettowianthus stellatus VU PMkilua fragrans VU PRothmannia macrosiphon VU PSynsepalumsubverticillatum VU PKaya Mwarakaya KE 3.79 39.70 Karomia gigas CR PKaya Puma KE 4.13 39.27 Pavetta linearifolia VU PKaya Rabai KE 3.93 39.58 150Angylocalyx braunii VU PBauhinia mombassae EN PCanthium kilifiense VU PCanthiumpseudoverticillatum VU PCoffeapseudozanguebariae VU PCombretumtenuipetiolatum CR PKraussia speciosa VU PSynsepalumsubverticillatum VU PKaya Ribe KE 3.88 39.63 100Angylocalyx braunii VU PBauhinia mombassae EN PBuxus obtusifolia VU PCola octoloboides EN PCynometra brachyrrhachis VU PDiospyros shimbaensis EN PMkilua fragrans VU PSterculia schliebenii VU PSynsepalumsubverticillatum VU PVitellariopsis kirkii VU PKaya Sega KE 4.55 39.10 50 Vitellariopsis kirkii VU PKaya Teleza KE 4.13 39.50 100 Canthium VU P92

pseudoverticillatum

Anthus sokokensis EN BAoranthe penduliflora VU PAristogeitonia monophylla VU PBaphia puguensis EN PBeamys hindei VU MCoffeapseudozanguebariae VU PDalbergia acariiantha VU PDalbergia vacciniifolia VU PGarcinia acutifolia VU PGardenia transvenulosa VU PLoxodonta africana EN MMesogyne insignis VU PMillettia micans VU PMultidentia castaneae VU PMyonycteris relicta VU MNewtonia paucijuga VU PRhynchocyon petersi EN MRothmannia macrosiphon VU PRytigynia binata VU PSheppardia gunningi VU BShirakiopsis triloculare VU PSterculia schliebenii VU PSynsepalum kaessneri VU PTarenna drummondii VU PToussaintia orientalis VU PVitex zanzibarensis VU PWarburgia elongata EN PZoothera guttata EN BKisiju TZ 7.40 39.33 Rhynchocyon petersi EN MKisimani wa Ngoa KE 3.12 39.87 Buxus obtusifolia VU PCoffeapseudozanguebariae VU PKorogwe (Kwashemshi SisalEstate) TZ 5.04 38.48 Vitellariopsis cuneata VU PLango ya Simba KE 2.27 40.22 Angylocalyx braunii VU P94

Cynometra lukei EN PLatham Island TZ 6.90 39.93

Gigasiphon macrosiphon EN PGuibourtia schliebenii VU PLeptactina papyrophloea EN PLettowianthus stellatus VU PLoxodonta africana EN MMillettia eriocarpa VU PMimusops acutifolia VU PMkilua fragrans VU PMonotes lutambensis EN PMyonycteris relicta VU MNewtonia paucijuga VU PParaxerus palliatus VU MPremna tanganyikensis VU PPsydrax faulknerae VU PPsydrax micans VU PRhynchocyon petersi EN MRytigynia longipedicellata EN PSheppardia gunningi VU BSterculia schliebenii VU PTapiphyllum schliebenii EN PTricalysia schliebenii VU PTrichilia lovettii VU PVismia pauciflora EN PXylopia collina EN PZanthoxylum deremense VU PZoothera guttata EN BLukoga Forest Reserve TZ 8.13 36.68 Kraussia speciosa VU PLunghi Forest KE 1.67 41.67 Canthium kilifiense VU PMafia Island TZ 7.89 39.76 115 000 Aristogeitonia monophylla VU P +Baphia kirkii VU PCoffea costatifructa VU PDendrohyrax validus VU MDiospyros greenwayi VU PDiospyros shimbaensis EN PEuphorbia lividiflora VU P96

Mkilua fragrans VU PParaxerus palliatus VU MRhynchocyon petersi EN MStephopaedes howelli EN AZanthoxylum lindense VU PMagombera Forest Reserve TZ 7.92 37.05 Isolona heinsenii EN PKeetia purpurascens VU PProcolobus gordonorum VU MMahenge TZ 8.68 36.72 300000Arthroleptides yakusini EN AIsolona heinsenii EN PCanthiumpseudoverticillatum VU PDombeya amaniensis VU PLettowianthus stellatus VU PMyonycteris relicta VU MRothmannia macrosiphon VU PTarenna drummondii VU PMahenge (Kwiro Forest) TZ 8.68 36.68 Psychotria megalopus VU PMahenge (Liondo) TZ 8.70 36.78 Lagynias pallidiflora VU PMahenge (Lipindi) TZ 8.68 36.72 Premna schliebenii VU PMahenge (Sali) TZ 8.97 36.68 Octoknema orientalis VU PMahenge Scarp Forest Reserve TZ 8.68 36.72 Garcinia semseii VU PMakongwe Island TZ 5.38 39.62 Intsia bijuga VU PMangea Hill KE 3.25 39.72 Buxus obtusifolia VU PCanthium kilifiense VU PCoffeapseudozanguebariae VU PMkilua fragrans VU PNewtonia paucijuga VU PPavetta linearifolia VU PRothmannia macrosiphon VU PSynsepalum kaessneri VU PToussaintia orientalis VU PMarafa KE 3.03 39.97 Warburgia stuhlmannii VU PMarenji Forest KE 4.50 39.20 1520Anthus sokokensis EN B + +97

Coffeapseudozanguebariae VU PRhynchocyon petersi EN MRothmannia macrosiphon VU PSterculia schliebenii VU PTarenna drummondii VU PWarburgia stuhlmannii VU PMasasi TZ 10.83 38.58 Tricalysia schliebenii VU PMasasi (Nyengedi) TZ 10.83 38.58 Berlinia orientalis VU PMasasi East TZ 10.83 38.58 Shirakiopsis triloculare VU PMikindani (Mnima) TZ 10.48 39.72 Xylopia collina EN PMikindani (Mtwara inland) TZ 10.50 40.00 Berlinia orientalis VU PMikindani District (Mtwara-Mikindani) TZ 10.50 40.00 Euphorbia lividiflora VU PMikumi National Park TZ 7.17 37.17 323000 Tricalysia pedicellata VU P + +Mkomazi Game Reserve TZ 4.17 38.17 250000Adenopodia rotundifolia VU P +Lycaon pictus EN MPolysphaeria macrantha VU PRytigynia eickii VU PMnazi Bay TZ 10.42 39.17 10000 + +Mount Kasigau KE 3.83 38.67 Diphasiopsis fadenii VU POuratea schusteri VU PPsychotria taitensis VU PSorindeia calantha CR PMpanga Village Forest Reserve TZ 4.77 38.65 Dasylepis integra VU PMrima Hill Forest KE 4.48 39.27 250 Gigasiphon macrosiphon EN P + +Lovoa swynnertonii EN PMkilua fragrans VU PMyonycteris relicta VU MRhynchocyon petersi EN MSynsepalumsubverticillatum VU PTarenna drummondii VU PUvariodendron gorgonis VU PZiziphus robertsoniana EN P98

Zoothera guttata EN BMsambweni KE 4.46 39.48 Ficus faulkneriana CR PMtanza Forest Reserve TZ 7.87 38.87 Coffea zanguebariae VU PKeetia purpurascens VU PMtwara TZ 10.50 40.00 Baphia macrocalyx VU PMuheza District CoastalForests TZ 5.17 38.94 4267Anthus sokokensis EN B + +(Tongwe FR, Kwani FR, PanganiFalls FR, Amboni Caves FR,Kilulu FR) Buxus obtusifolia VU PCoffeapseudozanguebariae VU PDendrohyrax validus VU MGulella amboniensis VU GKhaya anthotheca VU PMicrococca scariosa VU POtomops martiensseni VU MParaxerus palliatus VU MPycnocoma littoralis VU PRhynchocyon petersi EN MTaphozous hildegardeae VU MUvariodendronusambarense VU PMwache Forest Reserve KE 4.00 39.53 Aristogeitonia monophylla VU PBauhinia mombassae EN PEuphorbia wakefieldii EN PSterculia schliebenii VU PVitellariopsis kirkii VU Pnear Buda Forest Reserve KE 4.45 39.40 Ficus faulkneriana CR PNewala (Kitama) TZ 10.75 39.50 Berlinia orientalis VU PNewala (Kitangari) TZ 10.65 39.33 Premna tanganyikensis VU PNewala (Mahuta) TZ 10.87 39.44 Xylopia collina EN PNewala District CoastalForestsTZ10.75 39.5038136Baphia macrocalyxVU P(Makonde Scarp FR, MkunyaRiver FR) Canthium impressinervium VU PMillettia eriocarpa VU P+99

Nguru Mountains TZ 6.09 37.51 32908Allanblackia stuhlmannii VU P + +(Kanga FR, Nguru South FR,Mkindo FR) Allanblackia ulugurensis VU PAnthreptes rubritorques VU BArthroleptis tanneri VU ABaphia semseiana VU PBauhinia loeseneriana VU PBeamys hindei VU MBeilschmiedia kweo VU PBubo vosseleri VU BCephalosphaerausambarensis VU PChassalia albiflora VU PCoffea mongensis VU PCola scheffleri VU PCraterispermumlongipedunculatum VU PCrocidura monax VU MGarcinia semseii VU PIsolona heinsenii EN PKraussia speciosa VU PLasianthus pedunculatus VU PLeptopelis uluguruensis VU ALovoa swynnertonii EN PMesogyne insignis VU PMillettia bussei VU PMillettia sacleuxii VU PMillettia semsei VU PMillettia sericantha VU PMyonycteris relicta VU MNewtonia paucijuga VU POctoknema orientalis VU PPavetta axillipara VU PPavetta holstii VU PPavetta manyanguensis VU PPavetta sparsipila VU P100

Scolecomorphus vittatus VU ASorindeia calantha CR PSylvisorex howelli VU MTetrorchidium ulugurense VU PTricalysia acidophylla VU PTricalysia pedicellata VU PUvariodendronusambarense VU PZanthoxylum deremense VU PZimmermannia nguruensis VU PNguu Mountains TZ 5.53 37.48 28456 Hoplophryne rogersi EN A + +(Kwediboma FR, Mkongo FR,Nguru North FR, Derema FR,Pumila FR,Scolecomorphus vittatusVU AMbwegele FR, Mkuri FR, KilindiFR, Rudewa FR)North Pare Mountains TZ 3.74 37.65 3000Cinnyricinclus femoralis VU B + +(Minja FR, Mramba FR, KamwalaCynometra suaheliensisI & II proposed FR, KindorokoFR, Kiverenge FR)VU PCynometra webberi VU PDialium holtzii VU PErythrina sacleuxii VU PJulbernardiamagnistipulata VU PMemecylon teitense VU PMildbraedia carpinifolia VU PPrunus africana VU PScolecomorphus vittatus VU AUvariodendron kirkii VU PVepris sansibarensis VU PZanthoxylum holtzianum VU PNyumburuni Forest Reserve TZ 7.90 39.03 Sheppardia gunningi VU BLoxodonta africana EN MNzovuni River KE 4.07 39.48Combretumtenuipetiolatum CR PPande and Dodwe CoastalForests TZ 6.79 39.16 1600Anthus sokokensis EN B + +101

(Pande game reserve, DondweFR)Coffeapseudozanguebariae VU PCroton jatrophoides VU PGardenia transvenulosa VU PRothmannia macrosiphon VU PSheppardia gunningi VU BTarenna drummondii VU PZoothera guttata EN BPangani KE 3.85 39.67 Bauhinia mombassae EN PCola porphyrantha EN PCynometra brachyrrhachis VU PEuphorbia wakefieldii EN PMicrococca scariosa VU POxystigma msoo VU PShirakiopsis triloculare VU PSterculia schliebenii VU PUvariodendron gorgonis VU PPangani (Bushiri) TZ 5.33 38.95 Vitellariopsis kirkii VU PPangani (Hale-Makinjumbe) TZ 5.33 38.63 Mimusops riparia VU PPangani (Mauri) TZ 5.13 38.38 Mimusops riparia VU PPangani (Mwera) TZ 5.48 38.90 Ficus faulkneriana CR PDiospyros greenwayi VU PPangani Dam TZ 5.58 38.75 Cynometra brachyrrhachis VU PPangani District CoastalForests TZ 5.52 38.744400Afrixalus uluguruensisVU A(Msumbugwe FR) Ficus faulkneriana CR PGardenia transvenulosa VU PLoxodonta africana EN MMyonycteris relicta VU MParaxerus palliatus VU MRhynchocyon petersi EN MRothmannia macrosiphon VU PStuhlmannia moavi VU PWarburgia stuhlmannii VU PPanza Island TZ 5.47 39.65 Intsia bijuga VU P++102

Pemba Island TZ 5.20 39.76 101400Dendrohyrax validus VU M + +(Ngezi FR) Lagynias pallidiflora VU PPteropus voeltzkowi CR MSchoutedenellaxenodactyla VU ARas Kituani TZ 7.12 39.55 61000 Zanthoxylum lindense VU PRiver Wami TZ 6.13 38.82 Lanistes alexandri EN GStuhlmannia moavi VU PRubeho Mountains TZ 7.00 36.53 62861Bathmocercus winifredae VU B + +(Mafwemiro FR, Ukwiva FR,Mangalisa FR) Bubo vosseleri VU BPavetta lynesii VU PPloceus nicolli EN BSheppardia lowei VU BXenoperdix udzungwensis VU BRufiji Delta TZ 8.00 39.27 72000 + +Rufiji District Coastal Forests TZ 8.27 38.98 2025 Aristogeitonia monophylla VU P +(Kiwengoma FR) Baikiaea ghesquiereana EN PBaphia puguensis EN PBeamys hindei VU MGardenia transvenulosa VU PIsolona heinsenii EN PVitex zanzibarensis VU PLettowianthus stellatus VU PLovoa swynnertonii EN PLoxodonta africana EN MMillettia bussei VU PMillettia schliebenii VU PMkilua fragrans VU PMyonycteris relicta VU MNewtonia paucijuga VU PParaxerus palliatus VU MRhynchocyon cirnei VU MRhynchocyon petersi EN MRothmannia macrosiphon VU P103

Tarenna drummondii VU PTessmannia densiflora EN PToussaintia orientalis VU PSabaki River Mouth KE 3.15 40.13 200 + +Sangerawe TZ 5.13 38.62 Lijndenia brenanii VU PSelous Game Reserve TZ 9.00 38.00 5000000Aristogeitonia monophylla VU P + +SemdoeTZ4.95 38.70Canthium vollesenii VU PCoffea costatifructa VU PCoffea zanguebariae VU PCynometra lukei EN PDiceros bicornis CR MDrypetes sclerophylla VU PKeetia purpurascens VU PLoxodonta africana EN MMillettia micans VU PMillettia semsei VU PParanecepsiaalchorneifolia VU PPsydrax faulknerae VU PRytigynia binata VU PStuhlmannia moavi VU PVismia pauciflora EN PVitellariopsis cuneata VU PVitex zanzibarensis VU PArthroleptidesmartiensseni EN ANectophrynoides tornieri VU AShikurufumi Forest Reserve TZ 7.00 37.67 Rytigynia eickii VU PShimba Hills KE 4.25 39.42 21740Canthium kilifiense VU P + +Canthiumpseudoverticillatum VU PAfrixalus sylvaticus VU AAllophylus chirindensis VU PAngylocalyx braunii VU PAnthus sokokensis EN B104

Aristogeitonia monophylla VU PBauhinia mombassae EN PBeamys hindei VU MBuxus obtusifolia VU PCanthium kilifiense VU PCanthiumpseudoverticillatum VU PCephalosphaerausambarensis VU PChytranthus obliquinervis VU PCoffeapseudozanguebariae VU PCola porphyrantha EN PCynometra suaheliensis VU PCynometra webberi VU PDalbergia vacciniifolia VU PDialium holtzii VU PDiospyros amaniensis VU PDiospyros greenwayi VU PDiospyros shimbaensis EN PErythrina sacleuxii VU PEuphorbia wakefieldii EN PFicus faulkneriana CR PHyperoliusrubrovermiculatus EN AJulbernardiamagnistipulata VU PKraussia speciosa VU PLagynias pallidiflora VU PLettowianthus stellatus VU PLovoa swynnertonii EN PLoxodonta africana EN MMildbraedia carpinifolia VU PMkilua fragrans VU PMultidentia sclerocarpa VU PMyonycteris relicta VU MNewtonia paucijuga VU P105

Shimoni Forests KE 4.65 39.38Paraxerus palliatus VU MPavetta tarennoides VU PPrunus africana VU PPsydrax faulknerae VU PRhynchocyon petersi EN MRothmannia macrosiphon VU PSheppardia gunningi VU BSterculia schliebenii VU PStrychnos mellodora VU PSynsepalum kaessneri VU PSynsepalumsubverticillatum VU PTarenna drummondii VU PUvariodendron kirkii VU PVangueriopsis longiflora VU PVepris sansibarensis VU PVitellariopsis kirkii VU PZanthoxylum holtzianum VU PZoothera guttata EN BCoffeapseudozanguebariae VU PTaphozous hildegardeae VU MSinza River-near University ofDar TZ 6.82 39.27 Croton jatrophoides VU PSouth Pare Mountains TZ 4.29 37.94 25000 Adenopodia rotundifolia VU P + +(Kwizu FR, Kankoma Local AreaFR, Chome FR, Casearia engleri VU PChengweni Local Area FR,Gonja Local Area FR, ChambogoFR) Chassalia albiflora VU PChytranthus obliquinervis VU PCoffea fadenii VU PCrocidura usambarae VU MCynometra suaheliensis VU PCynometra webberi VU PDasylepis integra VU PDialium holtzii VU P106

Erythrina sacleuxii VU PIxora albersii VU PJulbernardiamagnistipulata VU PMacaranga conglomerata VU PMammea usambarensis VU PMemecylon teitense VU PMildbraedia carpinifolia VU POcotea kenyensis VU PPavetta holstii VU PPolysphaeria macrantha VU PPrunus africana VU PPsychotria crassipetala VU PPsychotria cyathicalyx VU PPsychotriapseudoplatyphylla VU PPsydrax faulknerae VU PRhynchocyon petersi EN MSchefflera lukwangulensis VU PScolecomorphus vittatus VU ASorindeia calantha CR PUvariodendron kirkii VU PVepris sansibarensis VU PZanthoxylum holtzianum VU PZosterops winifredae VU BTaita Hills Forests KE 3.42 38.33 400Apalis fuscigularis CR B + +Boulengerula taitana VU ACinnyricinclus femoralis VU BCoffea fadenii VU PDasylepis integra VU PDialium holtzii VU PDiospyros greenwayi VU PDiphasiopsis fadenii VU PErythrina sacleuxii VU PGulella taitensis CR GJulbernardia VU P107

magnistipulataMacaranga conglomerata VU PMemecylon teitense VU PMildbraedia carpinifolia VU POcotea kenyensis VU POuratea schusteri VU PPrunus africana VU PPsychotria alsophila VU PPsychotria crassipetala VU PPsychotria petitii VU PPsychotriapseudoplatyphylla VU PPsydrax faulknerae VU PRenauldia lycopodioides EN PRytigynia eickii VU PThapsia buraensis CR GTurdus helleri CR BUvariodendron kirkii VU PVepris sansibarensis VU PZanthoxylum holtzianum VU PZimmermannia ovata VU PZingis radiolata CR GZosterops silvanus EN BTana River Delta KE 2.50 40.33 130000 + +Lower Tana River Forests KE 2.50 40.50 60000 Chytranthus obliquinervis VU P + +Cynometra lukei EN PKraussia speciosa VU POxystigma msoo VU PParaxerus palliatus VU MPavetta linearifolia VU PPopulus ilicifolia VU PProcolobus rufomitratus CR MTaphozous hildegardeae VU MBeamys hindei VU MTanga (Duga) TZ 5.12 39.10 Rothmannia macrosiphon VU P108

Tanga (Gombero ForestReserve) TZ 4.97 39.00 Pavetta linearifolia VU PTanga (Morongo) TZ 5.20 39.02 Psydrax faulknerae VU PTanga (Nyamaku) TZ 5.25 39.07 Baphia kirkii VU PTanga (Pangani) TZ 5.25 39.07 Dalbergia vacciniifolia VU PTanga (Sigi River) TZ 5.25 39.07 Psydrax kibuwae VU PTanga North-Kibo Salt Pans TZ 4.82 39.00 300 + +Tanga South TZ 5.25 39.07 4400 + +TZ - - Lanistes farleri EN GTZ - - Lanistes stuhlmanni EN GTumbatu Island TZ 5.82 39.22 Dendrohyrax validus VU MUdzungwa Mountains TZ 8.00 36.00 115000 Crocidura elgonius VU M + +(Image FR, Kisinga Rugaro FR,Ulambangi FR, New Dabaga FR,Ihangana FR,NectophrynoidesasperginisCR AIdewa FR, Udzungwa Scarp FR,Lulanda FR, Kigogo FR, MufindiScarp East & Uvariodendron gorgonis VU PWest FRs, Matundu FR, IyondoFR, West Kilombero FR, IhangaFR, Nyanganje FR) Allanblackia ulugurensis VU PPsychotria cyathicalyx VU PAfrixalus uluguruensis VU AAllanblackia stuhlmannii VU PAllophylus chirindensis VU PAnthreptes pallidigaster EN BAnthreptes rubritorques VU BApalis chariessa VU BArthroleptides yakusini EN ABathmocercus winifredae VU BBeamys hindei VU MBersama rosea VU PBertiera pauloi VU PBubo vosseleri VU BBufo brauni VU ABufo udzungwensis VU A109

Canthium siebenlistii VU PCephalophus spadix VU MCraterispermumlongipedunculatum VU PCrocidura desperata CR MCrocidura monax VU MCrocidura telfordi CR MDiceros bicornis CR MDrypetes gerrardinoides VU PErythrina haerdii VU PGarcinia semseii VU PHirtella megacarpa VU PHirundo atrocaerulea VU BHoplophryne uluguruensis VU AHyperolius kihangensis EN AHyperolius minutissimus VU AKotschya platyphylla VU PLagynias pallidiflora VU PLasianthus pedunculatus VU PLeptopelis barbouri VU ALeptopelis parkeri VU ALeptopelis uluguruensis VU ALeptopelis vermiculatus VU ALoxodonta africana EN MModulatrix orostruthus VU BNectarinia rufipennis VU BNectophrynoides tornieri VU ANectophrynoides wendyae CR AOctoknema orientalis VU PPavetta lynesii VU PPhlyctimantis keithae VU APhrynobatrachusuzungwensis EN APloceus nicolli EN BPolyceratocarpusscheffleri VU P110

Procolobus gordonorum VU MPsychotria megalopus VU PRenauldia lycopodioides EN PRhus brenanii EN PRytigyniapseudolongicaudata VU PSchefflera lukwangulensis VU PSchoutedenellaxenodactyla VU ASheppardia lowei VU BSwynnertonia swynnertoni VU BTernstroemia polypetala VU PTricalysia acidophylla VU PTrichilia lovettii VU PTrichocladus goetzei VU PXenoperdix udzungwensis VU BZanthoxylum deremense VU PUdzungwa National Park TZ 7.83 36.75 199000Allanblackia stuhlmannii VU P +Allanblackia ulugurensis VU PAlsodeiopsis schumannii VU PAngylocalyx braunii VU PAnthreptes rubritorques VU BAoranthe penduliflora VU PApalis chariessa VU BBaphia semseiana VU PBathmocercus winifredae VU BBeilschmiedia kweo VU PBersama rosea VU PBertiera pauloi VU PBubo vosseleri VU BCanthium siebenlistii VU PCephalosphaerausambarensis VU PCoffea mongensis VU PCola scheffleri VU PCraterispermum VU P111

longipedunculatumDiospyros amaniensis VU PDombeya amaniensis VU PGigasiphon macrosiphon EN PHirtella megacarpa VU PIsoberlinia scheffleri VU PIsolona heinsenii EN PKeetia koritschoneri VU PKotschya platyphylla VU PLagynias pallidiflora VU PLasianthus pedunculatus VU PLettowianthus stellatus VU PLijndenia brenanii VU PMillettia elongatistyla VU PMimusops riparia VU PModulatrix orostruthus VU BMorinda asteroscepa VU PNectarinia rufipennis VU BNewtonia paucijuga VU POcotea kenyensis VU POctoknema orientalis VU POuratea schusteri VU PPavetta holstii VU PPavetta lynesii VU PPavetta nitidissima VU PPavetta sparsipila VU PPloceus nicolli EN BPolyceratocarpusscheffleri VU PPouteria pseudoracemosa VU PPsychotria megalopus VU PRothmannia macrosiphon VU PRytigynia caudatissima VU PRytigynia hirsutiflora VU PRytigyniapseudolongicaudata VU P112

Schefflera lukwangulensis VU PSheppardia lowei VU BSibangea pleioneura VU PSorindeia calantha CR PSuregada lithoxyla VU PSwynnertonia swynnertoni VU BTannodia swynnertonii VU PTarenna luhomeroensis VU PTarenna quadrangularis VU PTernstroemia polypetala VU PTricalysia acidophylla VU PTrichilia lovettii VU PTrichocladus goetzei VU PUvariodendronusambarense VU PUvariopsis bisexualis VU PVangueriopsis longiflora VU PVitellariopsis cuneata VU PXenoperdix udzungwensis VU BUkaguru Mountains TZ 6.40 36.97 15494Bathmocercus winifredae VU B + +(Uponera FR, Ikwamba FR,Mamiwa-Kisara South FR,Mamiwa-KisaraChuramiti maridadiCR ANorth FR, Mamboto FR) Millettia elongatistyla VU PPavetta lynesii VU PRenauldia lycopodioides EN PRytigyniapseudolongicaudata VU PSchefflera lukwangulensis VU PScolecomorphus vittatus VU ASheppardia lowei VU BUkunda KE 4.32 39.53 Ficus faulkneriana CR PRhynchocyon petersi EN MTaphozous hildegardeae VU MUkwama Forest Reserve TZ 7.67 36.50 Kotschya platyphylla VU PUluguru Mountains TZ 7.00 37.67 31113 Afrixalus uluguruensis VU A + +113

(Uluguru North FR, UluguruSouth FR, Kimboza FR, RuvuFR, Allanblackia stuhlmannii VU PMangala FR, Milawilila FR,Ngambaula FR) Allanblackia ulugurensis VU PAllophylus chirindensis VU PAlsodeiopsis schumannii VU PAnthreptes rubritorques VU BAoranthe penduliflora VU PApalis chariessa VU BArthroleptides yakusini EN AArthroleptis tanneri VU ABaphia pauloi EN PBathmocercus winifredae VU BBeamys hindei VU MBertiera pauloi VU PBubo vosseleri VU BBufo brauni VU ACanthiumpseudoverticillatum VU PCoffea pocsii VU PCrocidura monax VU MCrocidura telfordi CR MCrocidura xantippe VU MCynometra ulugurensis EN PDiospyros amaniensis VU PDiospyros greenwayi VU PEuphorbia wakefieldii EN PGarcinia bifasciculata EN PGarcinia semseii VU PHoplophryne uluguruensis VU AIsoberlinia scheffleri VU PKeetia koritschoneri VU PKhaya anthotheca VU PKraussia speciosa VU PLasianthus grandifolius VU P114

Lasianthus pedunculatus VU PLasianthus wallacei VU PLeptopelis parkeri VU ALeptopelis uluguruensis VU ALingelsheimia silvestris EN PMalaconotus alius EN BMesogyne insignis VU PMicrococca scariosa VU PMillettia bussei VU PMillettia elongatistyla VU PMillettia semsei VU PMillettia sericantha VU PMimusops penduliflora EN PMorinda asteroscepa VU PMyosorex geata EN MNectophrynoides cryptus VU ANectophrynoides minutus EN ANectophrynoides tornieri VU APavetta holstii VU PPavetta sparsipila VU PPhrynobatrachusuzungwensis EN APittosporum goetzei VU PPloceus nicolli EN BPouteria pseudoracemosa VU PProbreviceps uluguruensis VU APsychotria cyathicalyx VU PPsychotria elachistantha VU PPsychotria megistantha VU PRhipidantha chlorantha VU PRytigynia binata VU PRytigynia eickii VU PRytigynia nodulosa VU PSchefflera lukwangulensis VU PSchoutedenellaxenodactyla VU A115

Scolecomorphus vittatus VU ASuregada lithoxyla VU PSylvisorex howelli VU MSynsepalum kaessneri VU PTarenna quadrangularis VU PTernstroemia polypetala VU PTricalysia acidophylla VU PTricalysia pedicellata VU PTrichocladus goetzei VU PTurraea kimbozensis EN PUvariodendron gorgonis VU PVitex amaniensis VU PZenkerella egregia VU PZenkerella perplexa VU PUtete (Kibiti) TZ 7.73 38.90 Multidentia castaneae VU PPsydrax micans VU PUvidunda Mountains TZ 7.53 36.92 30000 Millettia bussei VU P + +Sheppardia lowei VU BUzaramo (Dar to Morogoro) TZ 6.75 38.85 Millettia micans VU PUzaramo (Msua) TZ 6.77 38.43 Pavetta linearifolia VU PVerani South West TZ 4.92 39.68 Intsia bijuga VU PVigola TZ 7.80 36.35 Sibangea pleioneura VU PWest Usambara Mountains TZ 4.67 38.33 38169Rytigynia eickii VU P + +(Shagayu FR, Shume-MagambaAdenopodia rotundifoliaFR, Mkusu FR, Kisima-Gonja FR,Ndelema FR,VU PBalangai FR, Mafi FR) Afrixalus uluguruensis VU AAllanblackia stuhlmannii VU PAlsodeiopsis schumannii VU PAnthreptes rubritorques VU BArthroleptidesmartiensseni EN AArthroleptis tanneri VU ABeamys hindei VU MBubo vosseleri VU B116

Bufo brauni VU ACalodendrum eickii CR PCanthium shabanii VU PCanthium siebenlistii VU PCasearia engleri VU PCladolejeunea aberrans EN PCoffea mongensis VU PCombretumtenuipetiolatum CR PCrocidura elgonius VU MCrocidura monax VU MCrocidura tansaniana VU MCrocidura usambarae VU MCrocidura xantippe VU MCroton dictyophlebodes VU PCroton jatrophoides VU PCynometra suaheliensis VU PCynometra webberi VU PDasylepis integra VU PDialium holtzii VU PDombeya amaniensis VU PErythrina sacleuxii VU PHirtella megacarpa VU PHyperolius tannerorum EN AIxora albersii VU PJulbernardiamagnistipulata VU PKeetia koritschoneri VU PLeptopelis parkeri VU ALeptopelis vermiculatus VU AMacaranga conglomerata VU PMammea usambarensis VU PMesogyne insignis VU PMildbraedia carpinifolia VU PMorinda asteroscepa VU PNectophrynoides tornieri VU A117

Neohemsleyausambarensis VU POcotea kenyensis VU POuratea schusteri VU PParaxerus vexillarius VU MPhrynobatrachus kreffti EN APlatypterocarpustanganyikensis CR PPloceus nicolli EN BPrunus africana VU PPsychotria alsophila VU PPsychotria cyathicalyx VU PRenauldia lycopodioides EN PRhynchocyon petersi EN MSchefflera lukwangulensis VU PScolecomorphus vittatus VU ASheppardia montana EN BSylvisorex howelli VU MUvariodendron kirkii VU PUvariodendronoligocarpum VU PUvariopsis bisexualis VU PVepris sansibarensis VU PVitellariopsis cuneata VU PZanthoxylum holtzianum VU PWitu Forest Reserve KE 2.37 40.50 Angylocalyx braunii VU PCamptolepis ramiflora VU PCanthium kilifiense VU PCanthiumpseudoverticillatum VU PEuphorbia tanaensis CR PKraussia speciosa VU PMkilua fragrans VU PPsychotria crassipetala VU PSynsepalumsubverticillatum VU PZanzibar (Kituani) TZ 6.20 39.40 Coffea VU P118

pseudozanguebariaeZanzibar (Muyuni) TZ 6.37 39.47 Micrococca scariosa VU PZanzibar Island-East Coast TZ 6.17 39.33 10000 + +Zanzibar Island-South Coast TZ 6.17 39.33 4000 + +**Taxonomic Group: M=mammal, B=bird, A=amphibian, G=gastropod, P=plant.119

An Overview of CEPF’s Portfolio in the Eastern Arc Mountains and CoastalForests of Tanzania and KenyaThe Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya hold a greatconcentration of endemic plant and vertebrate species per unit area, juxtaposed with asevere degree of threat. Combined, these factors mean this region is likely to suffersome of the most plant and vertebrate extinctions for a given loss of habitat. Theremaining forests are irreplaceable in every sense of the word.The region straddles two ecoregions, which have distinct composition as detailed below.A more comprehensive biological description is contained in the ecosystem profile.Previously classified as a biodiversity hotspot itself, the Eastern Arc Mountains andCoastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya region now lies within two new hotspots—theEastern Afromontane Hotspot and the Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa Hotspot—identified as part of a global hotspots reappraisal released in 2005. CEPF investmentcontinues to focus strictly on the geographic area comprising the original hotspot.Biodiversity in The Eastern Arc MountainsFrom the Taita Hills in southern Kenya extending south to the Udzungwa Mountains inTanzania, this chain of ancient mountains are famous as the center of endemism of theAfrican violet (Saintpaulia spp.).Almost 40 percent of the approximately 2,000 vascular plants found here are endemic.They are located in almost all of the types of altitudinal forests, as well as in interveninghabitats such as rocky outcrops, heathland, montane grasslands, and wetlands. Ofthose studied, non-vascular plants also show significant endemism. Predictably, there isa direct correlation between the area of forest blocks and species richness.Faunal endemism is also extremely high for reptiles, amphibians and especiallyinvertebrates. There are also several endemic birds and mammals, such as theCritically Endangered Tana River red colobus found only along the Tana River in Kenya.Recent research has also revealed new species of mammals within the Eastern Arc thatare likely to be endemic or near endemic.The vulnerability of several species is compounded as they have extremely limiteddistributions. The Kihansi spray toad, described in 1998, was known from an area ofless than 1 square kilometer within the spray zone of a large waterfall on the Kihansiriver but is now presumed to be extinct as a result of a hydropower facility that alteredthe river flow and destroyed the spray zone followed by an outbreak of the infectiouschytrid fungus.1

The flora and fauna of the Eastern Arc Mountains represent an interesting combinationof species associated with West Africa, Madagascar and even Southeast Asia but, as anartifact of geographic isolation, has resulted in recently evolved species.Biodiversity in the Coastal ForestsPart of the coastal forests ecoregion along the East African coast include the islands ofZanzibar (Unguja and Pemba) and comprises a mosaic of forest patches and interveninghabitats. Closed canopy forest represents only 1 percent of the area but contains atleast 400 endemic plant species out of the 3,000 plant species identified from coastalforests. The remaining 99 percent of the area is a heterogeneous mix including savannawoodlands, bushlands, thickets, and farmland that contain more than 500 endemic plantspecies. Many of the plant species are relicts of a historical connection to the Guineo-Congolian lowland forests of West Africa.The highest biodiversity is found in the various kinds of closed canopy forest vegetation:dry forest, scrub forest, Brachystegia (miombo) forest, riverine forest, groundwaterforest, swamp forest, and coastal/afromontane transition forest. In total, there are morethan 4,500 plant species and 1,050 plant genera. Single site endemism and disjunctdistributions are common, illustrated by the fact that a substantial proportion of theendemic plants are confined to a single forest.Unlike in other hotspots, these forests and the prevalence of endemic species are theresult of geographic isolation. Thus recreating biodiversity conservation corridorsbetween sites is not appropriate, however the current degree of fragmentation of forestswithin individual sites poses a significant threat to the conservation of species. With thisin mind, increasing connectivity between remnant fragments is vital.ThreatsThe most prevalent threat to the remaining forests within the Eastern Arc Mountains andCoastal Forests is habitat destruction leading to fragmentation and loss of remaininghabitats for many known (and unknown) globally threatened species.There are four main threats that, combined, place significant pressure on the remainingforest fragments:• Agriculture;• Commercial timber extraction;• Mining; and• Fires.There are several, yet intrinsically linked root causes of these threats. Burgeoninghuman population exerting pressure on forest resources and land; poverty leading tounsustainable use of forest resources; lack of strategic management and action plans;under-resourced government institutions; a legacy of outdated environmental policiesand legislation; and lack of political will all combine to undervalue forests and theecosystem services that they provide.On the positive side, these problems are widely recognized and various initiatives(including institutional, policy and legislative reforms) have been launched to address2

them. Government, local community and private sector are on the cusp of change inTanzania and Kenya. CEPF’s investment will serve to foster this switch in attitudes.CEPF Niche for InvestmentTanzania and Kenya have had a history of support in the management of naturalresources, both at the national and institutional level and site-specific project activities.There is also a considerable amount of biological inventory and research activities thathas been accomplished over the last centaury. CEPF seeks to capitalize on theseachievements, bearing in mind the biological priorities and threats described above aswell as past and ongoing conservation activities.It is also extremely important to bring into the public domain the current level ofunderstanding and knowledge, as well as the lessons learned from previousconservation approaches so that these can be interpreted back to the communitiescentral to the future conservation of these forests, and applied elsewhere.The ecosystem profile was developed by a team of specialists and culminated in astakeholders’ workshop to identify the most effective means to implement the availablefunding. Twelve themes were developed during the workshop, which were collectivelydebated and refined into the strategic directions, listed below, that focus CEPFinvestment.The Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests was developed as part of the fourthcycle of CEPF profiles and therefore included technical support from ConservationInternational’s Center for Applied Biodiversity Science for scientific, stakeholder-drivendevelopment of conservation outcomes at the species, site and landscape levels.Defining conservation outcomes greatly assisted the focus of CEPF’s investment toensure that these funds have the greatest impact on the most pressing conservationissues.Species outcomesThe results of the outcome definition process indicate that 333 globally threatened (RedList) species occur in this region, with 105 species being represented in Kenya and 307in Tanzania. The globally threatened flora and fauna are represented by 236 plantspecies, 29 mammal species, 28 bird species, 33 amphibian species, and sevengastropod species. Of the 333 globally threatened species, 241 are Vulnerable, 68 areEndangered and 24 are Critically Endangered.Site outcomesThe site outcomes define the CEPF niche in terms of geographical locations. A matrixwas developed overlaying the 333 globally threatened species and the top 152 sites inwhich these species occur. This matrix was enhanced with data from the Important BirdAreas for restricted-range bird species and globally significant congregations of birds.Due to the small size of the region and the degree of natural fragmentation that exists,without which much of the biodiversity would never have evolved in the first place nocorridor outcomes have not been defined in this profile, there are issues of connectivitybetween forest patches within large sites. Many bird species in the Eastern ArcMountains are known to move seasonally from the montane forest to the lowland, andaltitudinal forest corridors are necessary for this to occur. This issue particularly relatesto maintaining montane to lowland forest transitions in the Eastern Arc Mountains part of3

the region and is important in the context of global warming. A number of forest patchesare also recently isolated from each other, causing the local extinction of species, ashabitat patches become too small to support them (see below). Such sites deserveparticular attention.1. Increase the ability of local populations to benefit from and contribute tobiodiversity conservation.Poverty - the fundamental cause of unsustainable practices that degrade theenvironment - is compounded by issues pertaining to tenure of all resources, notjust land. Activities that strive to alleviate poverty need to address culture, localeconomy and the resource base. CEPF aims to enable civil societyorganizations to promote and develop feasible alternative livelihoods. Naturebasedalternatives such as commercial insects, honey and non-timber forestproducts that demonstrate a direct link with the forest resources lead tocommunity protection of the forests. Improving the productivity of existingagriculture land is essential if the pressure on the forests is to be reduced.Alternatives to wood and charcoal as the main household fuels need to beproposed.2. Restore and increase connectivity among fragmented forest patches,especially in Lower Tana River Forests; Taita Hills; East Usambaras/Tanga;and UdzungwasThroughout the region, there is a significant risk of local extinctions as a directresult of the degree of fragmentation of the once contiguous forests in a numberof locations. In all of these geographic areas we need to find creative solutionsto not only arrest the current level of fragmentation, but to increase the currentlevels of connectivity to ensure the long–term survival of these species.Such solutions will involve a concerted effort of all relevant stakeholders’. Ineach of the priority locations, local scientific knowledge should guide subsequentconservation activities in order to ensure that these efforts are targetedappropriately. Those communities most engaged in activities to re-establishconnectivity also need to be assisted in recruiting addition benefits and improvinglivelihoods as a result of their efforts.3. Improve biological knowledge (all 160 sites eligible)Gaps in the current level of knowledge occur on two levels. There are a numberof lesser-known sites that have not been thoroughly surveyed. There are alsoseveral species that whilst we know these to occur, many aspects of their biologyand life cycles remain a mystery. It is essential to know the latter to effectappropriate conservation measures. In all activities under this strategic direction,adding value to already existing institutions in Tanzania and Kenya and providingtraining to nationals of these countries is a priority.4. Establish a small grants program (all 160 sites eligible) that focuses onCritically Endangered species and small-scale efforts to increaseconnectivity of biologically important habitat patchesFor smaller sums of money, it is envisaged that a locally established small grantfund addressing species and site outcomes would yield the most pragmaticreturns. This fund would be accessible to students and community groupsinterested in addressing research and conservation activities within the region.4

5. Develop and support efforts for further fundraising for the regionSecuring long-term funding to support the institutions that are responsible for thecontinued protection of these forests is vital. There are several options alreadyavailable and the practicality of applying these in East Africa will be explored. Aspart of the GEF/UNDP project a trust fund for the Eastern Arc Mountains ofTanzania will be established. There may be opportunities to develop a similarfund for the Coastal Forests. Opportunities under the Kyoto Protocol may alsoprovide a means to support long-term funding.In addition to the identification of the strategic directions outlined above, each strategicdirection has further refined investment guidance provided through investment priorities,which are more specific and concrete. The investment priorities provide more specifictargets for CEPF funding in the region and are used to inform grantmaking decisions.They are included as part of the full investment priority table in the ecosystem profile andon the CEPF Web site (www.cepf.net).The Eastern Arc and Coastal Forests region was approved for grant funding by theCEPF Donor Council in July 2003 with a total allocation of $7 million. CEPF’sinvestment in the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests was one of the mosthighly anticipated sources of funds for biodiversity conservation, a direct result of theconsultative nature of developing the ecosystem profile. As a result, CEPF was beeninundated with applications, even prior to approval of the ecosystem profile by theCouncil. Active grantmaking started in January 2004. The time between Donor Councilapproval and awarding the first grant was spent ensuring implementation began with theimportant first step of developing a Coordination Unit to provide right representation inboth Tanzania and Kenya.To date, CEPF has awarded 23 grants valued at $1.51 million (see Chart 1 included atthe end of the overview). These grants range in size from $7,153 to $700,000 with theaverage grant size being $70,132 (see list of grants). The full status of the portfolio todate and the timeline of grants awarded are illustrated in Charts 3 and 4.Coordinating CEPF Grantmaking on the GroundBuilding on CEPF experiences in other hotspots, CEPF established a locally basedcoordination unit to act as the “eyes and ears” in the region. For the Eastern Arc andCoastal Forest, four organizations that were the lynch pins in developing the ecosystemprofile combined to create the coordination unit. This reinforced the continuity andmomentum from the development of the ecosystem profile into grantmaking. TheCoordination Unit in this region was modeled on the Succulent Karoo coordination body.The goal of the Coordination Unit is to ensure that: “the biodiversity of the Eastern Arcand Coastal Forests is conserved in perpetuity, with no further species extinctions,through a combination of sound conservation science and the active engagement of civilsociety.” Within the coordination unit, each organization is responsible for one of thefour key outputs to be delivered throughout the duration of the CEPF five-yearinvestment as detailed.5

OrganizationInternational Centre for Insect Physiologyand EcologyTanzania Forest Conservation GroupWorld Wide Fund for Nature East AfricaRegional and Tanzania programme officesBirdLife in conjunction with its nationalpartner organizations NatureKenya andWildlife Conservation Society of TanzaniaOutputAn Eastern Arc and Coastal ForestsCoordination Unit exists with appropriatemechanisms to facilitate achievement ofthe Investment Priorities identified in theCEPF Ecosystem Profile.Stakeholders within civil society andgovernment are aware of the CEPFprocess, goals, and achievements and aresharing experiences.Civil society stakeholders supported todesign effective conservation projects inline with the CEPF ecosystem profile andsubmit proposals to CEPF.A comprehensive and complementarysuite of CEPF projects (within budget) is inplace to fully address the strategicdirections and investment priorities in theecosystem profile.This union of four important organizations is unique in the region and is an example ofthe whole being greater than the sum of the individual parts. In addition, one of thegreatest strengths of the coordination unit has been the links with many otherorganizations and individuals, which ensure that CEPF’s funds are implementedappropriately: complimenting ongoing activities and making the best use of the fundingavailable.Community consultation meetingsAssisting civil society forms the core of CEPF’s investment in implementing CEPF in theEastern Arc and Coastal Forests. In order to ensure that civil society organizations,especially community-based organizations were alerted to the opportunity, a series of 4community consultative meeting were held through out the region in Mombasa, Dar esSalaam, Morogoro and Tanga.The series of meetings served to introduce CEPF to communities and describe theapplication procedure, as well as work with potential grantees to develop their ideas andassist in drafting letters of inquiry. These consultative meetings were then followed upby a series of training of trainers’ workshops that provided further assistance tocommunity representatives in developing ideas for submission to CEPF. There havebeen remarkable results from the combination of consulting with community groups andensuring that there are people able to assist with developing Letters of Inquiry.Review processIn order to ensure the most appropriate use of the available funds a transparent,objective, and efficient review process was developed in a consultative manner and isused to guide investment. The CEPF Coordination Unit and CEPF review each Letterof Inquiry. Most applications are also reviewed by at least two external reviewers withexpertise relevant to the proposed project.6

Reviewers look at:• the relevance of the application to the Strategic Directions and fit to theinvestment priorities;• the capacity of the organization applying to implement the proposed activitiesincluding the quality of partnerships;• the project’s impact on conservation outcomes (this is considered in relation tothe proposed budget and to CEPF’s five-year perspectives) and;• the coherence of the proposed project.In addition to the review process, the Coordination Unit also developed a communicationstrategy to ensure that CEPF’s message and approach are consistent and reachingrelevant sectors of society.Working through AlliancesIt has been extremely fortuitous that, at the same time as CEPF investment launched,the GEF-UNDP Conservation and Management of the Eastern Arc Mountain Forests(CMEAMF GEF-UNDP: URT/01/G32) is being implemented concurrently. From theoutset, CMEAMF and CEPF have blending proposed outputs of both sets of investmentto deliver enhanced conservation outcomes. The Coordination Unit has developedextremely close ties with the national coordinator and chief technical advisor who sit onCEPF’s steering committee and Coordination Unit for this region. The technical supportand assistance and input provided by this project have been invaluable.There are further opportunities for alliances through the WWF Eastern Africa CoastalForests Ecoregional Programme supported by the GEF Medium Sized Project for theKwale District. Similar to the collaboration with the CMEAMF, there are considerablelinks and opportunities for co-funding between the two projects, enhanced by twomembers of the CEPF Coordination Unit sitting on the National and Regional CoastalForest task Forces for this programme.USAID through the Forestry/Range Rehabilitation and Environmental ManagementStrengthening Initiative is also active at Arabuko Sokoke Forest on Kenya’s northerncoast, supporting livelihoods and participatory forest management, in addition to fundinga live forest exhibit/ecotourist attraction in Mombasa for the National Museums of Kenya.This exhibit will provide market outlets for CEPF-supported livelihood initiatives, inaddition to being an awareness-raising and educational center for the region.CEPF has developed strong links with the Japanese Bank for International Cooperation(JBIC), especially regarding the possible re-establishment of the Tana Delta IrrigationScheme. The lower Tana forests are a priority area, especially to ensure the long-termsurvival of the endemic red colobus and Tana Delta mangabey. An environmentalimpact assessment has been funded by CEPF to investigate three main areas:• socioeconomic survey;• botanical, forest health and assessment of increasing connectivity; and• a survey of primate groups in the 23 forest blocks that would be affected by there-establishment of the project.7

The recommendations from this report will ideally influence how the re-establishment ofthe irrigation project will be undertake to improve local livelihoods and forest health, andensure the survival of the primates as flagship species.In addition to the alliances with GEF and JBIC, CEPF has also been successful insecuring funding from Conservation International’s Global Conservation Fund (GCF) tocontribute to the compensation scheme for the cardamom farmers. The GCFcontribution is vital to leverage additional funds from World Bank and FinnishGovernment.CEPF is also looking at opportunities to engage with the private sector that haveconsiderable influence throughout the region. Sisal, tea and coffee estates have anumber of important forests blocks in both the Eastern Arc Mountain range and thecoastal strip. There are several mining operations whose activities – if implementedappropriately - could also mitigate the potential to eliminate some of the most importantfragments of remaining forests.CEPF Approach to GrantmakingAfter little more than a year into implementation, CEPF has received 230 applications forfunding throughout the region and beyond. This vast number is largely a result of twothings: 1) the anticipation preceding the launch of CEPF as a result of the stakeholderdrivenprofiling process within the region and 2) the effectiveness of the communityconsultations and training of trainers workshops held in mid-2004.Site-specific workshopsTwo priority areas—the Udzungwas Mountains and the Taita Hills—received particularinterest from all sectors. In general, the individual proposals represented a discordantmix of research activities and social and livelihood aspects.In a bid to clarify the situation for both these geographic areas, CEPF supportedworkshops that brought together the main actors involved with these areas to identifyconservation priorities and outline the most effective means to move forward.Both of these workshops helped clarify the most effective approaches for CEPF andothers to invest in and improve the conservation status of these areas and integrate withongoing activities.8

Box 1: Udzungwa Mountains National Park WorkshopThe Udzungwa Mountains lie at the eastern end of a chain of 14 mountain blocks supportingancient rain forests with globally important levels of endemism for plants and animals. By virtueof the biological importance the Government of Tanzania gazetted the 1,990-square-kilometerUdzungwa Mountains National Park (UMNP) in 1992.In order to identify priority activities that would enhance conservation in the UdzungwaMountains a stakeholders’ workshop was held 15 –17 December 2004 in Morogoro, Tanzania.The workshop was convened by World Wide Fund for Nature’s Tanzania Programme Office(WWF-TPO) and supported by CEPF, the UNDP/GEF-funded project “Conservation andManagement of the Eastern Arc Mountain Forests,” and the Forest and Beekeeping Divisionand Tanzanian National Parks Authority of the Tanzanian Ministry of Natural Resources andTourism. It was the first meeting of its kind for this region of Tanzania.The 45 participants at the workshop comprised representatives from local communities, localgovernment, Tanzanian national authorities, and biological researchers, as well as commercialoperations including Kilombero Valley Teak Company and Illovu Sugar Company. Nongovernmentalorganizations including WWF-TPO, the Tanzanian Forest Conservation Group(TFCG) and the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) were also present.The workshop focused on four biologically important areas around the UMNP:• lowland Magombera Forest (important for Iringa red colobus) and its connections to theSelous Game Reserve;• Uzungwa Scarp Forest Reserve, which was included in the original early 1980sproposal for UMNP;• Ndundulu and Nyumbanitu forests within the West Kilombero Scarp Forest Reserve,which are adjacent to UMNP western boundaries and contain several endemic speciesthat do not occur in the park; and• large mammal movement corridors between UMNP and Mikumi National Park and theSelous Game Reserve.Workshop participants were tasked to provide information on the current status of each area, listthe relevant stakeholders, list conservation problems and solutions and finally propose projectsthat could be funded to tackle the conservation problems.Successfully implementing the recommendations – through CEPF and other donors - willenhance the conservation status of the Udzungwa Mountains and surrounding area.Whilst many of the applications received have been reworked based upon commentsreceived during the review process, there have been a number of small grants awarded.These include grants to address emerging problems as well as pilot projects that preludelarger investments bearing in mind the lessons learned.Small grants awarded to date include:• Socioeconomic and primate surveys in the Lower Tana River Forests, providingessential background information for connectivity interventions supported by theJapanese Bank for International Cooperation;• Carbon storage studies at Arabuko-Sokoke and the Lower Tana River Forests,providing baseline information for accessing carbon trading funds; and• Workshops in the Taita Hills and Udzungwa mountains to resolve overlappingproposals and contentious issues.9

Cornerstone projectsIn addition to the Coordination Unit, there are a number of other projects being put inplace that will underpin CEPF’s investment to ensure that the implementation of theportfolio has a sustainable and far-reaching impact.Monitoring processBirdLife International and its respective national partners will undertake a region-widemonitoring process. This project, to a large extent, represents a regional Center forBiodiversity Conservation and will monitor the success of CEPF investment andintegrate with other ongoing large-scale monitoring programs active in the region. Thisproject includes the development of a forest change map that will provide detailedinformation on the rate and scale of forest change and serve to re-orientate CEPFinvestment to the most threatened areas and track CEPF and partner institutionprogress toward achieving the conservation outcomes through maintaining the outcomesdatabase. This work will be undertaken in collaboration and with assistance from theEastern Arc Mountain Forests Conservation and Management Project (CMEAMF -Eastern Arc Mountains) and WWF (Coastal Forests).Red listing of plantsDespite many years of botanical research, the conservation status of many of thespecies, especially species with limited range, in this region is poorly known. This jointproject between Missouri Botanical Gardens and IUCN – The World Conservation Unionmakes the best use of the respective skills in assessing and ratifying the conservationstatus of plant species. Far from undertaking the assessment independently, data fromseveral botanical inventory projects will feed into this umbrella project for inclusion in thered listing process. These data in turn will contribute to the outcomes database.Journal of East African Natural HistoryThe ecosystem profile places a strong emphasis on improving biological knowledgewithin the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests and there are a number ofinventory projects for lesser known sites and species throughout the region. However, itis vital that these data are accessible to all interested parties. CEPF is in the final stagesof approving a grant to the East African Natural History Society that will support fourthematic issues of the Journal of East African Natural History relevant to the region.This grant also requires that all relevant articles since 1910 be published on the Internetas PDF files, vastly increasing the access to this historic journal. The informationcontained can then be used in interpreting research findings for use in awareness andeducation programs.Future DevelopmentsAfter a year rationalizing the applications and liaising closely with the potential granteesthe positioning of CEPF within the donor and conservation sectors, CEPF is poised toimplement a number of large projects. These projects will build upon the criteriaestablished above and incorporate the findings of the site-specific workshops and pilotprojects.Alternative nature-based livelihoodsThere are several successful examples of nature-based alternative livelihood activities10

established in the region and elsewhere that promote sustainable livelihoods. ICIPE, inpartnership with locally based organizations, will lead a project that will focus onpromoting alternative, nature-based livelihood opportunities. It will focus on the prioritysites identified within the ecosystem profile and develop synergies with connectivityprojects in Tana River communities to support forest conservation and to establish andmaintain connectivity in these important sites, Taita Hills, and East Usambara Forests.The project will initiate and support community-based income generating activities, suchas sustainable beekeeping, wild silk and medicinal plant enterprises.Small grants programStrategic Direction 4 calls for the establishment of a small grants program with thefollowing foci:• Support targeted efforts to increase connectivity of biologically important habitatpatches.• Support efforts to increase biological knowledge of the sites and to conserveCritically Endangered species.Experience, particularly in the GEF, shows that small grants can be cost effective. Smallgrants will be made available through CEPF for community-based organizations,researchers, and NGOs working to save Critically Endangered species and threatenedsites in this region. The Coordination Unit is submitting a proposal to administer thisSmall Grants Program in consultation with CEPF, with a project-funding ceiling of$20,000. This level of small grants program would support a range of projects notcurrently supported by other donors. Such sums can be extremely helpful in supportinglow-cost research, and are particularly suitable for postgraduate student projects thatcan build local capacity. They can also be swiftly funded on the basis of a high qualityLetter of Inquiry, without the need to develop a full proposal.Micro (community) grants programThe above small grants program makes little provision for funds that will enablecommunities to apply for funding for small-scale livelihood, land-use planning anddevelopment of local economies. To this end, it is anticipated that part of StrategicDirection 1 will be used to establish a micro grants scheme that will be locally managedthrough the Coordination Unit.These micro grants will be locally administered and accompanied with training andassistance in reporting and accounting as needed. In developing this proposal theapplicants have been trying to develop the most appropriate methods of reporting,including the suggestion that community groups can report on their progress usingannotated pictures.-March 2005* Prepared for: Improving Linkages Between CEPF and World Bank Operations, Africa Forum,Cape Town, South Africa, April 25-26, 2005.11

March 2005 Charts: Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania and KenyaChart 1. Approved Grants by Strategic DirectionChart 2. Portfolio Status by Strategic Direction60$657,631$64,558$790,4991. Increase ability of localpopulations2. Restore and increaseconnectivity amongfragmented forest patches3. Improve biologicalknowledgeTotal: $1,512,688# of Grants504030201001. Increase ability of localpopulations2. Restore and increaseconnectivity amongfragmented forestpatches3. Improve biologicalknowledge4. Small Grants Program5. Develop and supportefforts for furtherfundraisingMultipleApprovedRejectedPendingChart 3. Combined Value of Grants Awarded$1,600,000$1,400,000$1,200,000$1,000,000$800,000$600,000$400,000$200,000$0Jul-03Jan-04Jul-04Jan-05

Eastern Arc Mountains Portfolio Project Map KeyMapped# Organization Name Project TitleStrategic Direction 1* Tanzania Forest Conservation Group Evaluation of TFCG's participatory forest management initiatives in the EasternArc.1 Wakuluzu: Friends of the Colobus Trust Ltd. Conserving Coastal and Eastern Arc Forests Through Community Access toRetail Markets for Good Wood Wood Carvings on the South Coast of Kenya2 International Centre of Insect Physiology and Baseline Carbon Storage Assessment of Kenya’s Coastal ForestsEcology* World Wide Fund for Nature - TanzaniaProgramme OfficeDo Payments For Environmental Services Offer the Potential For Long TermSustainable Financing?4 Kasigau Conservation Trust Capacity Building to Empower Community Conservation3 Kaya Kinondo Conservation and Development Kaya Kinondo Community Ecotourism ProjectGroup and Coastal Forest Conservation Unit* International Centre of Insect Physiology andEcologyCEPF Investment Coordination and Sustainability in the Eastern Arc / CoastalForests HotspotStrategic Direction 25 East African Wild Life Society Facilitating a Process of Stakeholders Consultations on the Interventions Requiredto Restore and Increase the Connectivity of Forest Patches in Taita Hills* Center for Applied Biodiversity Science Standardizing Forest Change Methodologies Between Sokoine University andCABS to Assist in Identifying Connectivity Priorities Across the Eastern Arc andCoastal Forests6 World Wide Fund for Nature - TanzaniaProgramme OfficeFacilitating the Process of Designing CEPF/GCF Connectivity Interventions in theUdzungwa Mountains Area7 National Museums of Kenya Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment of the Rehabilitation of theTana DeltaIrrigation Project with Design of Critical Primate Habitat Improvement, IncreasedIndigenous Forest Connectivity and Community WoodlotsStrategic Direction 38 The Society for Environmental Exploration The Forgotten Coastal Forests of Mtwara: A Reconnaissance to PrioritizeBiological Knowledge for Community Conservation Initiatives* African Butterfly Research Institute Overview of Butterfly Faunas of Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests:Biodiversity, Endemism, Conservation* Missouri Botanical Garden Plant Conservation Assessment in the Eastern Arc Mountains and CoastalForests Mosaic Biodiversity Hotspot of Kenya and Tanzania* Center for Applied Biodiversity Science Instituting a standardised sustainable biodiversity monitoring system in theEastern Arc/ Coastal Forests Hotspot* Wildlife Conservation Society Coordination, Facilitation and Dissemination of Research Workds within theCritical Ecosystem Priority* University of York Field Guide to the Moist Forest Trees of Tanzania9 Dr. Carolyn L. Ehardt Conservation Ecology of the Endangered Endemic Sanje Mangabey Cercocebussanjei of the Udzungwa Mountains, Tanzania10 TRAFFIC International Preventing Unsustainable Timber Trade from the Coastal Forests of SoutheastTanzania Following Completion of the Mkapa Bridge* Conservation International “Scientific Advisor” for the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests ofTanzania and Kenya Hotspot* East Africa Natural History Society Managing CEPF’s Outcomes Database for the Eastern Arc Mountains andCoastal Forests Of Tanzania and Kenya Hotspot11 Wildlife Conservation Society Chytrid Distribution and Pathogenicity Among Frogs of the Udzungwas12 Conservation International-Regional ProgramDivisionPrimates on Mt. Kasigau, Kaya Rubai and Along the Tana River, Kenya: Preparingfor Red List Assessments and Conservation Action* These projects are region wide and are not spatially represented on the project map

Approved GrantsEastern Arc Mountains(Through March 2005)Strategic Direction 1: Increase the ability of local populations to benefit from and contribute to biodiversityEvaluation of Tanzania Forest Conservation Group's Participatory Forest Management Initiatives in theIdentify the best practises and lessons learnt from communities engaged in participatory forest management withinTanzania. These findings will be shared with all stakeholders through a variety of media describing impacts andbenefits of participatory forest management on biodiversity conservation and local livelihoods.Funding: $33,910Grant Term: 3/05-12/05Grantee: Tanzania Forest Conservation GroupConserving Coastal and Eastern Arc Forests Through Community Access to Retail Markets for Good WoodWood Carvings on the South Coast of KenyaAlert both tourists and artisans in this popular tourist destination about the threats to indigenous trees favored by craftsmen inmeeting the demand for woodcarvings as safari souvenirs, and promote the use of alternative and abundant timber includingneem and jacaranda timber as “good woods.”Funding: $19,999Grant Term: 1/05-12/05Grantee: Wakuluzu: Friends of the Colobus Trust Ltd.Baseline Carbon Storage Assessment of Kenya’s Coastal ForestsAssess the carbon storage potential of East Africa's coastal forests as a prelude to establishing compensation schemes tocommunity-managed forests from greenhouse gas emitting industries under the Kyoto Protocol.Funding: $19,500Grant Term: 10/04-3/05Grantee: International Centre of Insect Physiology and EcologyDo Payments For Environmental Services Offer the Potential For Long Term Sustainable Financing?Knowing the value of watershed services provided by forests is vital in defining the link between urban populations thatrely on these ecological functions, this study will assess the contribution made by the forests of the Uluguru Mountains.These forests are the source of the Ruvu River that supplies Morogoro and Dar es Salaam with water and generateshydroelectric power.Funding: $19,800Grant Term: 10/04-9/06Grantee: World Wide Fund for Nature - Tanzania Programme OfficeCapacity Building to Empower Community ConservationCreate environmental conservation awareness among the village members and promote ecotourism in the region.Funding: $11,285Grant Term: 10/04-9/05Grantee: Kasigau Conservation TrustKaya Kinondo Community Ecotourism ProjectDemonstrate the positive influence of ecotourism by connecting conservation management in the Kinondo region withtangible social and economic benefits to the local people.Funding: $19,915Grant Term: 10/04-3/06Grantee: Kaya Kinondo Conservation and Development Group and Coastal Forest Conservation Unit1

CEPF Investment Coordination and Sustainability in the Eastern Arc / Coastal Forests HotspotCoordinate CEPF's investments in this hotspot to ensure they are complementary with on-going activities, engage a widearray of nongovernmental organizations and achieve the greatest impact. The International Centre of Insect Physiologyand Ecology will lead a consortium of the WWF Eastern Africa Regional Programme Office, the Tanzania ForestConservation Group and BirdLife Africa as the eyes and ears of CEPF in the region to promote the conservation ofbiological diversity at all levels of civil society.Funding: $700,000Grant Term: 2/04-12/08Grantee: International Centre of Insect Physiology and EcologyStrategic Direction 2: Restore and increase connectivity among fragmented forest patches in the hotspotFacilitating a Process of Stakeholders Consultations on the Interventions Required to Restore and Increasethe Connectivity of Forest Patches in Taita HillsEnsure that the findings from research undertaken within the hotspot are made available to all relevant institutions andindividuals to raise awareness and conservation of these vital habitats. The grantee will perform this role and assistnon-Tanzanian researchers with securing the relevant research permits.Funding: $17,905Grant Term: 2/05-2/05Grantee: East African Wild Life SocietyStandardizing Forest Change Methodologies Between Sokoine University and CABS to Assist in IdentifyingConnectivity Priorities Across the Eastern Arc and Coastal ForestsDemonstrate the methodology developed to detect forest change and assess how similar this is to methodologies being usedto detect forest change by Sokoine University and the WWF approach, and ideally develop a standardized method for thisanalysis so that the individual parts can be compiled as a region-wide forest cover change map. The project will alsoenable the grant recipient to assess the ability of other organizations to assist in compiling relevant data.Funding: $7,153Grant Term: 2/05-2/05Grantee: Conservation InternationalFacilitating the Process of Designing CEPF/GCF Connectivity Interventions in the Udzungwa MountainsDetermine, through a stakeholders' workshop, a cohesive set of conservation priorities in the areas surrounding UdzungwaNational Park that face demands from the local communities and commercial enterprise, as well as the need to protect theecological services of the catchment forests that provide habitat for several endemic species.Funding: $20,000Grant Term: 12/04-12/05Grantee: World Wide Fund for Nature - Tanzania Programme OfficeRapid Environmental Impact Assessment of the Rehabilitation of theTana Delta Irrigation Project withDesign of Critical Primate Habitat Improvement, Increased Indigenous Forest Connectivity and CommunityReview previous research and documentation of the Lower Tana River Forest area, update both the biological andsocioeconomic baseline and use this information to design an environmental component of a planned rehabilitation withthe focus of enhancing conservation management while also engaging local residents in discussion and action regarding thelong-term benefits of forest connectivity.Funding: $19,500Grant Term: 10/04-12/04Grantee: National Museums of Kenya2

Strategic Direction 3: Improve biological knowledge in the hotspotThe Forgotten Coastal Forests of Mtwara: A Reconnaissance to Prioritize Biological Knowledge forCommunity Conservation InitiativesUndertake biological inventories of major taxa in selected forests in Mtwara region, a largely neglected part of southernTanzania's coast. These data will contribute to assessments of the conservation status of these species and will betranslated into Kiswahili for the benefit of local communities and administration managing these forests.Funding: $69,037Grant Term: 2/05-12/05Grantee: The Society for Environmental ExplorationOverview of Butterfly Faunas of Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests: Biodiversity, Endemism,Collate existing data on all butterfly species, especially endemic butterfly species, throughout the region from existingcollections (the grant recipient has the largest collection of African butterflies in existence), as well as identify gaps in thecurrent knowledge and undertake field surveys to provide a complete a record.Funding: $19,700Grant Term: 2/05-1/06Grantee: African Butterfly Research InstitutePlant Conservation Assessment in the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests Mosaic BiodiversityHotspot of Kenya and TanzaniaSurvey important sites and species with limited distributions to update the conservation status of forest plants. Species new toscience will be published and type specimens deposited in collections as well as being available online through the websitebelow. This information will contribute to the Red Listing of plant species.http://mobot.mobot.org/W3T/Search/vast.htmlFunding: $318,001Grant Term: 2/05-1/08Grantee: Missouri Botanical GardenInstituting a Standardized Sustainable Biodiversity Monitoring System in the Eastern Arc / Coastal Forestsof Tanzania and KenyaMonitor conservation outcomes as a result of all investments undertaken at species, site and landscape scales. Inaddition, provide a mechanism for all data accrued from projects to be available to address the most urgent priorities thatcan be compared against an analysis of forest change throughout the region.Funding: $64,132Grant Term: 1/05-12/08Grantee: Conservation InternationalCoordination, Facilitation and Dissemination of Research Works within the Critical Ecosystem PriorityFacilitate researchers in obtaining research permits and in conducting research to ensure that the information generatedwill be disseminated to the relevant government departments and community-based organizations.Funding: $20,000Grant Term: 1/05-12/05Grantee: Wildlife Conservation Society-TanzaniaField Guide to the Moist Forest Trees of TanzaniaPublish the completed text of a Field Guide to Moist Forest Trees of Tanzania.Funding: $19,697Grant Term: 9/04-2/05Grantee: University of York3

Conservation Ecology of the Endangered Endemic Sanje Mangabey Cercocebus sanjei of the UdzungwaMountains, TanzaniaComplete a study that will define, for the first time, the ecological requirements, behaviour and demographics of the SanjeMangabey Cercocebus sanji in the Udzungwa Mountains National Park. These data are vital in determining theconservation needs of this highly endangered endemic primate.Funding: $13,000Grant Term: 8/04-10/05Grantee: Dr. Carolyn L. EhardtPreventing Unsustainable Timber Trade from the Coastal Forests of Southeast Tanzania FollowingCompletion of the Mkapa BridgeBuild on existing baseline research about threats to coastal forests from illegal timber extraction in this hotspot, which hasincreased due to completing the Mkapa Bridge over the Rufiji River in southeast Tanzania and improved infrastructure.TRAFFIC will undertake a rapid assessment of the threats to these forests and define conservation action needed.Funding: $19,999Grant Term: 7/04-6/05Grantee: TRAFFIC International“Scientific Advisor” for the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya HotspotProviding up-to-date advice on the research priorities within the hotspot the scientific advisor will also ensure that dataare collected in a standard and comparable manner, thus ensuring that a cohesive set of research projects are implementedthroughout the hotspot.Funding: $90,400Grant Term: 7/04-6/05Grantee: Conservation InternationalManaging CEPF’s Outcomes Database for the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests Of Tanzania andMaintain and expand the conservation outcomes database for this hotspot pending the development of a comprehensivemonitoring system for the duration of the CEPF investment period. Ultimately, this will improve the Red Listing ofspecies and benefit conservation action in the region.Funding: $9,998Grant Term: 3/04-2/05Grantee: East Africa Natural History SocietyChytrid Distribution and Pathogenicity Among Frogs of the UdzungwasConduct a study to improve understanding of the level of infection and the threat posed by the Chytrid fungus amongstendemic amphibian species in the Udzungwa Mountains.Funding: $19,999Grant Term: 3/04-3/05Grantee: Wildlife Conservation Society*The original grant term has been increased by three months.Primates on Mt. Kasigau, Kaya Rubai and Along the Tana River, Kenya: Preparing for Red List Assessmentsand Conservation ActionConduct research on primate species in important sites in Kenya to fill knowledge gaps on population and distribution dataand enable adequate assessment of extinction risks and conservation action.Funding: $19,900Grant Term: 1/04-6/04Grantee: Conservation International4

Conservation HighlightsE-News• Stakeholders Identify Priorities for Udzungwa Mountains National Park – February2005• Tanzania Seizes 157 Containers of Timber in Port – September 2004• New Investment Gives Hope for Threatened Species in Tanzania and Kenya – July2004• CEPF Set for Expansion – August 2003Other Highlights• News Article: Sh550 plan to protect endangered species• News Article: New Fund will Help Communities to Conserve Plant, Animal Species• Journal Article: New conservation investment into the Eastern Arc Mountains andEastern African Coastal Forests biodiversity “Hotspot”• News Article: Fund gets Sh553m. to conserve ecosystem• News Article: La Tanzanie et Kenya reçoivent des fonds pour la preservation desresources naturelles• News Article: Tiomin Given Final Approval for Kwale Titanium Mine

Stakeholders Identify Priorities for Udzungwa Mountains National ParkDiverse stakeholders recently agreed themost important actions to help conserveUdzungwa Mountains National Park in theEastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania region.Representatives from local communities,local and national government, commercialoperations and civil society groupsparticipated in the discussions together withbiological researchers to single out importantconservation issues and identify the moststrategic initiatives for Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) and other donor funding.© WWF Tanzania Program Office, photo by Kathryn DoodyMore than 45 people participated in the Morogoro, Tanzaniaworkshop to identify priorities, at one point taking a break to appearin this group photograph.They highlighted schemes for enhanced legal protection of forests, community-needsassessments, and income-generation activities, as well as mapping and monitoring of wildlifecorridors.The altitudinal range of continuous forest in Udzungwa Mountains National Park, scaling from 300to 2,700 meters, results in a wide variety of habitats, from lowland forest to moist cloud forest upto the peak of Mwaniahana Mountain.The park is home to rich forest bird habitats, a number of plant species found nowhere else, thelargest population of the endemic Sanje mangabey (Cercocebus sanjei), and colonies of theUdzungwa red colobus monkey (Procolobus gordonorum), which is also endemic. Largemammals, elephants and buffalo also inhabit the area, moving between the UdzungwaMountains, the Selous Game Reserve, and Mikumi National Park.Convened by the WWF Tanzania Program Office and supported by CEPF, the meeting inMorogoro, Tanzania was the first of its kind in this region. It also received backing from a joint UNDevelopment Program and Global Environment Facility initiative, and the Tanzanian NationalParks Authority.Its success in forging consensus and further engaging stakeholders in implementation of theCEPF investment strategy for the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania andKenya also led to a similar workshop this month in the Taita Hills region of Kenya.For more information about Udzungwa Mountains National Park, visit www.udzungwa.org.

Tanzania Seizes 157 Containers of Timber in Porthttp://www.cepf.net/xp/cepf/news/newsletter/2004/september_topstory.xmlPage 1 of 34/18/2005TEXT ONLY CONTACT FAQ SEARCHABOUT CEPFOUR STRATEGYCEPF NEWSPress ReleasesE-News Top StoriesIn Focus FeaturesWHERE WE WORKRECENT GRANTSAPPLY FOR GRANTSTanzania Seizes 157 Containersof Timber in PortSeptember 2004The Tanzanian government has imposed a ban on theexport of timber and seized 157 containers of logs, many ofwhich were harvested illegally from the coastal forests ofRufiji, Kilwa and Lindi districts in the southeast of thecountry.The shipping containers holding hundreds of roundwoodtimber logs are being held in Dar es Salaam port. The banon logging for export became effective July 1, following agazette notice by Minister of Natural Resources andTourism Zakia Hamdani Meghji.TRAFFIC, WWF and local groups including the TanzaniaForest Conservation Group and Wildlife ConservationSociety of Tanzania are hailing the government’scommitment to halting illegal logging in the Eastern ArcMountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenyabiodiversity hotspot."Just as the people of southeast Tanzania, among thepoorest in the country, were rapidly becoming disenchantedby highly organized and largely illegal timber harvesting, thishigh level of government support comes at a welcome timeand is highly commendable,” said Simon Milledge, seniorprogram officer for TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa based inTanzania.© TRAFFIC, photo bMilledgeDozens of logs set foNovember just northSoutheast Tanzania.CEPF and fourorganizations reannounced a $7investment stratconserve the ricresources of theMountains andForests of TanzKenya hotspot.Visit the news aarchive for this hNeil Burgess of WWF-US, who is the chief technical advisorin Tanzania for the GEF-financed Conservation andManagement of the Eastern Arc Mountains Forest Projectimplemented by the World Bank, agreed. “It’s great to seeTanzania taking the conservation of these forests soseriously, and addressing this issue with the full force of thelaw,” he said.The coastal forests of Rufiji, Kilwa and Lindi districts ofsoutheast Tanzania are not only priority sites in terms ofbiological importance but are amongst the least studied inthe hotspot.They are rapidly becoming the most vulnerable coastalforests due to uncontrolled extraction of timber and otherforest resources following the completion of Mkapa Bridgeover Rufiji River, the largest bridge of its kind in east and

Tanzania Seizes 157 Containers of Timber in Porthttp://www.cepf.net/xp/cepf/news/newsletter/2004/september_topstory.xmlPage 2 of 34/18/2005southern Africa.At the opening of the bridge in August 2003, PresidentBenjamin Mkapa warned against uncontrolled charcoalproduction and timber harvesting with disregard to laws andprinciples of sustainable utilization.A recently awarded Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund(CEPF) grant to TRAFFIC aims to address these issuesthrough field research to compare current timber trade levelswith historical transect data and baseline data collected byTRAFFIC with support from the Rufford Maurice LaingFoundation and WWF before completion of the bridge.Previously, seasonal flooding of the Rufiji River delta duringmonsoons resulted in serious isolation south of the river.However, improved transport infrastructure is opening upthe entire southeast portion of Tanzania to much-neededdevelopment, which inadvertently exposes the coastalforests to the growing demands of urban and foreign timbermarkets.“We envisage that the additional information on the status ofkey forests and levels of harvesting—building on baselineinformation we collected before completion of the Mkapabridge—will add more solid facts to justify the kind ofmanagement actions that are starting to emerge now,”Milledge said.The results will assist the government in ensuring thatnegative environmental and associated livelihood impactsare minimized during the forthcoming period of developmentfollowing creation of a permanent link between southeastTanzania and Dar es Salaam.The containers were locked out by the ban deadline beforethey could be loaded onto ships. Other hundreds of logsmay be stockpiled in forests or on the way to the port fromlogging sites inland.Four private companies had threatened legal action,including demands of $1.6 million in compensation forstorage loss. However, the Ministry of Natural Resourcesand Tourism recently confirmed that all 157 containersinspected contained tree species not authorized for export.”In terms of raising awareness and law enforcement action,the last month has been really positive but harvesting andexports continue in some areas and concerted efforts shouldcontinue,” Milledge said. “In particular, the export of logs andsawn wood from small ports along the southeast coastlineneed more attention.“It is also hoped that any legal proceedings consider theeconomic impact of declines in some species that could take20 to 30 years to recover, huge revenue losses bymisclassification and under-payment of royalties, and mostimportantly, degradation of landscapes that support so manylivelihoods.”Subscribe to the Newsletter or View more E-News top stories

New Investment Gives Hope for Threatened Species in Tanzania and KenyaCEPF and four East African organizations recently announced a $7million investment strategy to conserve the rich natural resources ofthe Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania andKenya.The announcement activities included consultative meetings inMombasa, Tanga, Dar es Salaam and Morogoro with more than 140representatives from community-based groups, nongovernmentalorganizations and the private sector to discuss how they can helpimplement and benefit from the strategy.The $7 million will be awarded as grants to civil society groups to helpsafeguard the biodiversity hotspot, which is home to at least 1,500species of plants, Kirk’s red colobus (also known as Zanzibar redcolobus) and other wildlife unique to the area.In Tanzania, water flowing from the Eastern Arc forests is the source of 90 percent of thecountry's hydroelectric power. The forests are also the source of water for major cities, includingDar es Salaam, Tanga and Morogoro.However, while the Eastern Arc forests once covered more than 23,000 square kilometers in thetwo countries, more recent estimates place the remaining forest cover as low as 2,000 squarekilometers."The investment brings urgently needed resources to help us ensure that these preciousresources are properly managed in step with sustainable development," said Nike Doggart of theTanzania Forest Conservation Group.The group will coordinate CEPF investments in the region together with BirdLife International, theInternational Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology and the WWF-Eastern Africa ProgrammeOffice. The local BirdLife Partners are NatureKenya and the Wildlife Conservation Society ofTanzania.The investment strategy, known as an ecosystem profile, includes a special focus on the linkagesbetween people and conservation, with support to enable local populations to directly participatein conservation efforts.Many of the meeting participants, who included representatives from more than 70 communitybasedgroups, will also receive training in how to develop sound proposals and apply for funding.The first of these special training sessions will take place July 15 in Mombasa and others will beheld in Tanga, Dar es Salaam and Morogoro.Learn more about this hotspot and the CEPF ecosystem profile.© Patricio Robles Gil/SierraMadreThe Eastern Arc Mountainshotspot is home to 333 globallythreatened species, includingKirk's red colobus (above).

CEPF Set for Expansionhttp://www.cepf.net/xp/cepf/news/newsletter/2003/august_topstory.xmlPage 1 of 24/18/2005TEXT ONLY CONTACT FAQ SEARCHABOUT CEPFOUR STRATEGYCEPF NEWSPress ReleasesE-News Top StoriesIn Focus FeaturesWHERE WE WORKRECENT GRANTSAPPLY FOR GRANTSCEPF Set for ExpansionAugust 2003The CEPF Donor Council approved new ecosystem profilesand investment strategies on July 31 for the partnership toexpand to two new biodiversity hotspots: Caucasus and theEastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania andKenya.Final endorsement of the strategies is expected from theofficial Global Environment Facility focal points within eachof the countries within these two hotspots in the next fewweeks. CEPF grants can be disbursed once this requiredendorsement is formalized. The expansion will bring thenumber of hotspots to 13 where CEPF grants are availableto civil society, such as nongovernmental organizations,community groups and academic institutions.The Caucasus hotspot spans 500,000 square kilometers ofmountains in Eurasia between the Black Sea and theCaspian Sea. The area includes parts of Georgia, Armeniaand Azerbaijan, and small portions of Russia, Iran andTurkey. The deserts, savannas, swamp forests and aridwoodlands that comprise the Caucasus hotspot containmore than twice the animal diversity found in adjacentregions of Europe and Asia, yet its biodiversity is being lostat an alarming rate.© Nina MarshallBorjomi-Kharagauli NWest Lesser CaucasYou can learn mspecial sectionsnew hotspots: CEastern Arc MoRelated story: WDevelop FramewCEPF InvestmeCaucasusThe CEPF strategy for this hotspot is based on the results ofstakeholder workshops and background reports coordinatedby WWF Caucasus. More than 130 experts representingscientific, governmental and nongovernmental groups fromthe six countries participated in these preparations.The strategy is underpinned by conservation outcomes—targets against which the success of investments can bemeasured. These targets are defined at three levels:species (extinctions avoided), sites (areas protected) andlandscapes (corridors created). As a result, CEPFinvestment in the Caucasus is focused on conserving thehotspot's 51 globally threatened species, the majority ofwhich are found in specific sites in five target conservationcorridors: Greater Caucasus, Caspian, West LesserCaucasus, East Lesser Caucasus and Hyrcan.The Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests hotspotstretches along most of the eastern coast of Tanzania andinto extreme southeastern Kenya. The region is notablyfragmented with endemic species being found in small sites.

CEPF Set for Expansionhttp://www.cepf.net/xp/cepf/news/newsletter/2003/august_topstory.xmlPage 2 of 24/18/2005Agriculture and encroachment along with timber extractionare the greatest threats.Within the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forestshotspot, CEPF aims to improve knowledge and appreciationof biodiversity among the local populations and stimulatesupport for conservation. In conjunction with this, acommitment to scientific best practices will improvebiological knowledge in the hotspot and show practicalapplications of conservation science.CEPF investment will focus on conserving the hotspot's 333globally threatened species, which are primarily found in 160sites. In addition, key parts of the strategy focus on selectsites for maximum impact.Subscribe to the Newsletter or View more E-News top stories© 2005 Conservation International Privacy Policy Terms of UsePhoto credits for banner images: (Frog) © CI, Haroldo Castro; (Chameleon) © CI, Russell A. Mittermeier

Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania and KenyaThe East Africanhttp://www.nationmedia.com/eastafrican/20072004/Opinion/Opinion2.htmlOpinionMonday, July 5, 2004New Fund Will Help Communities to Conserve Plant, AnimalSpeciesRecently, a number of organisations jointly established the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund(CEPF), which is expected to address the rising threat to wildlife species in the Eastern ArcMountains and the Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya. Special Correspondent JOHNMBARIA talked to the Fund's communications director BOBBIE JO KELSOWhat does CEPF do?The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund provides funding and technical assistance to nongovernmentalorganisations, community groups and other civil society partners to help safeguardthe earth’s biologically richest, yet most threatened, areas. It is a joint initiative of ConservationInternational of the US, the Global Environment Facility, the government of Japan, the John D.and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the World Bank.How Important is the East African biodiversity hotspot?The Eastern Arc Mountains and the Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya have at least 1,500species of plants and 50 species of reptiles which are not found anywhere else on earth. Otherwildlife unique to this area include 21 species of African violet, the Zanzibar red colobus monkey,the Rondo galago and the Aders’ duiker.The hotspot stretches 900 km along the East African coast – from the Kenya-Somalia border inthe north, to the Tanzania-Mozambique border in the south. In Tanzania, the hotspot stretchesinland to include the Pare, Usambara, Nguru, Rubeho, Uluguru and Udzungwa Mountains, aswell as forests throughout the coastal zone such as Ruvu South, Pande and the lowlandUsambaras. It also includes the islands of Zanzibar. Water flowing from the Eastern Arc forestsgenerate 90 per cent of Tanzania’s hydro-electric power. The forests are also the source of waterfor major cities, including Dar es Salaam, Tanga and Morogoro.In Kenya, the Taita Hills, the Arabuko-Sokoke Forest, the Tana River forests and the Shimba Hillsas well as the many "kayas" or sacred forests are part of the hotspot.There is a growing appreciation that poverty is the biggest contributor to biodiversitydegradation in Africa. By putting the civil society at the heart of your project, aren't youcreating another elitist project that will alienate the poor, who draw sustenance from thehotspot?No, the project will not alienate the poor people living on biological resources. These people arepart and parcel of the civil society who we will seek to involve and not to alienate. The way thatCEPF makes its investments is designed to involve and support people in conservation effortsand in ways that build their capacity to sustain the specific projects.

Recently, we held a community consultative meeting with 50 community-based organisations inMombasa and plan to hold others in Morogoro, Dar es Salaam and Tanga soon. By holding themeetings, we hope to reach out to community members in order to better explain our strategy andto start developing ideas on how they can get support for projects that will help conserve naturalresources.What kind of commercial opportunities do you plan to exploit once the project takes off?One of our partners is the International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), whichis able to offer expertise on commercial insects (apiculture, sericulture and butterfly farming),natural product development (as with Mondia tonic and Naturub in Kakamega) and in ecoagriculturaltechnologies that increase productivity and enhance biodiversity such as biologicalcontrol of pests.How will the project's finances be spent?The $7 million investment for the hotspot is approved by the CEPF donor council, which includesrepresentatives from each of the five CEPF donor institutions. The total investment of $7 millionwill be distributed across the ecosystem profile's five specific strategic directions that also includerelated investment priorities.The exact way in which the funds will be spent will depend on the applications that we receivefrom the civil society, including the community-based organisations. The total budget to beinvested in the projects will depend on what initiatives civil society organisations request fundingfor.How will the Fund focus on the important linkages between people and conservation?The purpose of CEPF is to engage civil society, such as non-governmental organisations andcommunity-based organisations in conservation efforts. Recognising the inextricable link betweenbiodiversity conservation and economic prosperity, CEPF focuses on developing countries withinbiodiversity hotspots and supports initiatives that contribute to poverty alleviation. People are atthe heart of the CEPF approach.The entire approach is centred on the people. However, one of the strategic directions isspecifically designed to increase the ability of local populations to benefit from and contribute tobiodiversity conservation. Under this direction, the investment priorities include, for example,promoting nature-based, sustainable businesses that benefit local populations in the hotspot suchas beekeeping, tourism and butterfly farming.These activities have a track record of sustainability beyond the end of donor funding. Forexample, a community-based butterfly farming project at Arabuko-Sokoke Forest started in 1993is still going strong in 2004, having been financially self-sustaining since 1998. An initialinvestment of $50,000 in this project from the GEF Small Grants Programme has since generatedover $600,000 in export revenues and leveraged over $700,000 in co-financing.

T H E A R C J O U R N A L I S S U E 1 6New conservation investment into the Eastern ArcMountains and Eastern African Coastal Forestsbiodiversity “Hotspot”Neil Burgess, WWF-USA Conservation Science Program, 1250 24th Street NW, Washington DC, USAThe term biodiversity ‘Hotspot’ was first applied in 1988when an English Professor (Norman Myers) wrote apaper that identified regions in the world where at least0.5% of all the worlds plants are concentrated,including the Tanzanian Eastern Arc Mountains. The‘Hotspots’ idea captured the interest of manyconservationists - if they could identify those areaswhere endemic species were concentrated and thenundertake effective work in the same areas - then muchof the biodiversity of the world could be saved atrealistic expense and within relatively small amounts ofthe worlds land.The ‘Hotspots’ concept was further refined between1996 and 1998 when the USA-based conservationNGO ‘Conservation International’ completed ac o m p rehensive global re-analysis of global plantBiodiversity Hotspots. In order to qualify eachproposed area had to have at least 1,500 plants whollyendemic to it (approximately 0.5% of the worlds totalknown species of plants), and at least 75% of theoriginal habitat needed to have been destro y e d .Through this process, twenty-five plant hotspots wereidentified around the world. Together these contain133,399 endemic plant species (44% of the knownworld total) and 9,681 endemic animals (35% of thetotal known). These Hotspots cover an area of 2.1million km2, or about 1.4 % of the land area of theglobe.Five of the 25 hotspots are found on mainland Africaand one covers Madagascar and nearby islands. InTanzania there is a single plant Hotspot, which is partlyshared with Kenya – the Eastern Arc and easternAfrican Coastal Forests Hotspot (Figure 1). Over thepast year efforts have been made to identify prioritiesfor conservation investment into this Hotspot and $7million has now been made available for conservationin the area by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund(CEPF), which is a collaboration between ConservationI n t e rnational, the World Bank, the MacArt h u rFoundation, the Global Environment Facility and theJapanese Government (see cepf.net). During therecent CEPF assessment, updated information wascompiled on a number of diff e rent measures ofbiodiversity value in the Hotspot, especially habitatarea, and the distribution of endemic and globallythreatened species.Habitats. The hotspot is estimated to have originallysupported around 23,000 km 2 of forest, of which around15,000 km 2 was left in 1900, and a maximum of 5,340km 2 remained by the mid 1990s. These forestedhabitats were embedded within much larger areas ofhigh altitude grasslands and low altitude savannawoodlands and bushlands. Forest area has declinedprimarily due to clearance for agricultural use, but alsodue to logging, clearance to make charcoal and due to13the spread of wildfires. Most remaining forest patchesare found in areas protected by the Government,principally as Forest Reserves. There is no accuratedata on the current status of the habitats of the Hotspot,but information from all sources indicates a continuedand sometimes serious decline, especially of forest andmontane grassland habitats.Endemic species. Current data show that the hotspotis home to at least 1,400 endemic plant species, 16endemic mammals, 22 endemic birds, 50 endemicreptiles and 33 endemic amphibians (Table 1). Theextremely dense packing of endemics in the small areaof remaining habitat of this Hotspot makes many of theplants and animals in this hotspot threatened withglobal extinction. The level of extinction risk is used asa core part of the CEPF process to identify conservationpriorities in the Hotspot.Globally threatened species. All species listed asglobally threatened by IUCN that are found in theEastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzaniaand Kenya have been identified and their distributionsmapped. The globally threatened fauna (based onIUCN classifications) in the hotspot are represented by29 mammal species, 28 bird species, 33 amphibianspecies, and 7 gastropods. The globally threatenedflora contains 237 plant species, which is regarded asa great underestimate. In total, 334 globally threatenedspecies are found, with 110 species in Kenya and 310in Tanzania (see cepf.net). The degree of threat toreptiles, freshwater fish, and almost all groups ofinvertebrates has not been assessed and hence thesespecies could not be used in this exercise.Sites. The CEPF process used the number of globallyt h reatened species to identify critical sites forconservation investment. A number of sites in thisHotspot have very high numbers of threatened species.These include: East Usambara Mountains, UluguruMountains, Udzungwa Mountains, West UsambaraMountains, Shimba Hills, Lindi District Coastal Forests,Nguru Mountains, Taita Hills, South Pare Mountains,and Kisarawe District Coastal Forests. These are thekey areas for conservation efforts seeking to preventextinction within the hotspot.Landscapes and corridors. The Eastern Arc mountainblocks are naturally isolated due to their topographyand cooler and moister climates. They are surroundedby a ‘sea’ of hot and dry savanna that prevents themovement of species between different blocks. In thelowland coastal forests, it might appear that forestcover could have been almost continuous in the distantpast (and therefore cover a vast area). However thedistribution patterns of species in these forests indicateparts of this forest have also been isolated for a longtime. These ancient patterns of forest isolation have

Hotspot Vascular Birds Mammals Reptiles AmphibiansPlantsEastern Arc Rich End Rich End Rich End Rich End Rich Endand CoastalT H E A R C J O U R N A L I S S U E 1 6Table 1. Species richness and endemism in the Eastern Arc and Coastal Forests Hotspot (From Mittermeier etal. 1999).Rich = Species Richness (number of species). End = Endemism (number of species confined to the hotspot).Forests 4000 1400 585 22 183 16 188 50 63 33been dramatically changed over the past few hundred(or perhaps 1000) years as humans have cleared largeareas of habitat for farmland and plantations. Manyindividual Eastern Arc Mountains (e.g. the EastUsambaras) now contain a number of disconnectedhabitat patches that were joined together only a fewdecades ago. Fragmentation of the forest habitat atthis local scale has serious consequences forbiodiversity conservation. In particular it is well knownthat as habitat patch sizes fall, then the number ofspecies within them declines. Below a certain size,then a species will become extinct within a patch. Toprevent this occurring, connecting the forest patchesthrough habitat corridors is an essential conservationstrategy.CEPF Role in assisting theconservation of forests in theEastern Arc and CoastalForests HotspotThe investment profile developed for CEPFfundingused data on the distribution of species,habitats, threats, and existing projects to setpriorities for conservation investment within thishotspot. The CEPF investment of $7 million overthe next 5 years will be available to civil societyinstitutions (NGOs, CBO, private sector,parastatals, Universities) to undert a k econservation investments within three broad areasthat were agreed by various stakeholders from theregion.1. Increase the ability of local populations in theHotspot to benefit from, and contribute to,biodiversity conservation2. R e s t o re and increase connectivity amongfragmented forest patches in the Hotspot3. Improve biological knowledge in the HotspotCEPF has requested interested civil societyagencies to complete Letters of Inquiry andsubmit them for consideration. The format forthese can be found on cepf.net. The projects thatCEPF supports also need to link to other existingp rojects and hence add value to existingconservation efforts in the region. For the EasternArc Mountains of Tanzania, a UNDP/GEF projectthrough the Forest Department of the Ministry ofNatural Resources and Tourism will develop aholistic conservation strategy for the Eastern Arcmountain blocks. It is hoped that CEPF investment willassist in the development of this strategy, which will bethe main government vehicle for prioritisingc o n s e rvation investment into this region. For thecoastal forests, national coastal forest task forces areestablished in Kenya and Tanzania, involving groups ofNGOs and government departments. Again it is hopedthat the CEPF investment will help to support these taskforces as they seek to mainstream the conservation ofcoastal forest habitats into government, and NGO workprogrammes.It is an exciting time to be involved in the conservationof Eastern Arc and coastal forests in Tanzanian (andKenya) and it is hoped that the investment of CEPF,when combined with the efforts of government, NGOsand their various conservation donors will be able tostem the tide of forest loss in the region and provide theforests and their biodiversity with a brighter future.Boundaries of the Eastern Arc and Coastal Forests Hotspot in Tanzaniaand the positions of relevant protected areas within this region (fromcepf.net - Eastern Arc and Coastal Forests Hotspot profile).14

Kenya Times Newspaperfile://D:\Eastern%20Arc\Kenya%20Times%20Newspaper.htmPage 1 of 24/18/2005NewsEditorialsSportsBusinessSchool TimesMagazineInsightLettersCartoonsArchivesBy Anne KagoFund gets Sh553m. to conserve ecosystemTHE Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) and four Eastorganisations yesterday announced a Sh553 million investmenstrategy.This was done during the launch of the new CEPF coordinationoccasioned by signing of memorandum of understanding by thBirdlife International, the Tanzania forest conservation group aICIPE.This strategy is aimed at conserving the rich natural resourcesEastern Arc Mountains and the coastal forests of Tanzania andCEPF Investment will enable the civil society to take action tosafeguard the region, recognised as the worlds’s important biohotspots and to bring urgently needed resources to help in ensthat these biodiversirty hotspots are properly managed in stepsustainable development.This strategy includes a special focus on the important linkagesbetween people and conservation, with support for projects tolocal population to both directly participate in and benefit fromconservation efforts.The forest bill that had been shot down in Parliament had incorthese initiatives.According to The Bird life Africa partnership head of secretariatHazell Thompson there was a need to establish a fund that invlocal community who don’t have the access to present proposainitiate this strategies for their communities.It is therefore in this light that the CEPF was formed, It is jointinitiative of the conservation international, the Global Environmfacility, the Japanese government, the John D. and Catherine TMacAuthur foundation and the world bank.“Placing Locally based leaders at the heart of our strategy is ke

Kenya Times Newspaperfile://D:\Eastern%20Arc\Kenya%20Times%20Newspaper.htmPage 2 of 24/18/2005approach in this hotspot” said Mr John Watkin, CEPF grant manAfrica. “Our New new partnership will focus on people and sciehelping ensure CEPF investments involve communities and a wof organizations for success.”The CEPF investments will be guided by an ‘ecosystem profile tcompiled in 2003 by ICIPE with input from more than seventyincluding scientist, government staff and non governmentalorganizations from the two countries.Other BusinessCopyright © 2003 Kenya Times Media Trus

La Tanzanie et le Kenya reçoivent des fonds pour la préservation des ressources naturellesfile://D:\Eastern%20Arc\La%20Tanzanie%20et%20le%20Kenya%20reçoivent%20des%2...Page 1 of 24/18/2005La Tanzanie et le Kenya reçoivent des fonds pour la préservation des ressources2004-06-15 09:16:13NAIROBI, 14 juin (XINHUANET) -- Une stratégie d'investissement d'une valeur de 7 milde dollars a été lancée lundi par le Fonds de partenariat pour les écosystèmes d'importavitale ( Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund) et par quatre organisations d'Afrique oriendans le but de préserver les riches ressources naturelles de Tanzanie et du Kenya.Ces investissements concernent la préservation d'espèces menacées dans les montagnde l'Arc oriental et les forêts côtières de ces deux pays africains, où vivent au moins 1 5espèces de plantes et 50 espèces de reptiles que l'on ne trouve nulle part ailleurs."Ces investissements apportent des ressources dont nous avions un besoin urgent poupermettre une gestion adaptée de ces ressources précieuses en accord avec ledéveloppement durable", a indiqué Nike Doggart, du Groupe de préservation des forêtsTanzanie.Aperçu sur la ChinePCCAPNPrésident de la RPCCette stratégie comprend une attention particulière pour les liens importants entrepopulations et préservation, avec un soutien à des projets qui permettent aux populationlocales de participer directement aux efforts de préservation et d'en bénéficier directemFinConseil desAffaires d'EtatCour populairesuprêmeParquet populairesuprêmeCCPPCPartis etGroupementsdémocratiques

La Tanzanie et le Kenya reçoivent des fonds pour la préservation des ressources naturellesfile://D:\Eastern%20Arc\La%20Tanzanie%20et%20le%20Kenya%20reçoivent%20des%2...Page 2 of 24/18/2005Copyright 2004: pour l'Agence de Presse Xinhua

The Dominion: Tiomin Given Final Approval for Kwale Titanium Minefile://D:\Eastern%20Arc\The%20Dominion%20Tiomin%20Given%20Final%20Approval...Page 1 of 44/18/2005Print Edition Weblog Underreported Français LocalFebruary 09, 2005Tiomin Given Final Approval for Kwale Titanium MineNAIROBI, KENYA -- After years of negotiations, the Kenyan government has given a Canadian miningcompany, Tiomin Resources Inc., the final approval to start a multimillion dollar titanium miningproject in Kwale. On Feb. 2, the Kenyan government signed a fiscal agreement with Jean-CharlesPotvin, President and CEO of Tiomin, which includes a 50 per cent reduction of the corporate tax ratefor 10 years from the start of commercial production of the mine. The agreement also stipulates a 2.5 percent gross revenue royalty to the Kenyan government.The biggest foreign investment deal since the current government came to power, the mining projectwill exploit the titanium-rich sands in Kwale for at least 14 years. The Kwale project is the first of fourlarge mineral sand deposits along the coast of Kenya that Tiomin started exploring in 1995 . The Kwaleproject is expected to produce large quantities of ilmenite, rutile, and zircon, which are used in the paint,ceramic and electronic industries.The Kenyan coast is a unique tropical expanse of beaches, ancient Arabic architecture, diverse coralreefs and mangrove forests that stretches 402 kilometres. The Kenyan coastal forest is considered byConservation International to be one of the world’s 25 hotspots – areas of extraordinary biodiversity thatare seriously threatened. Many endangered species, including the only bands of Colobus monkeys on theEast African coast and also Kenya’s last remaining herds of sable antelope, depend on the coast’s fragileecosystem, which is already under stress from the tourism industry.The mining project will not only impact the coastal ecosystem but also the residents of the area whomust be relocated. There has been opposition to the project from local communities who are concernedover the destruction of their land and compensation issues. However, construction of the project willlikely begin later this year, and commercial production is expected to start by early 2007.This agreement with the Kenyan government comes at a time when Tiomin has also received a licenseto begin mining gold and other minerals in Peru.Gemma Richardson» Dongo Kundu, a film about the impact of the Tiomin project» Tiomin Resources, official site» read other articles in canadian news» Email this article to a friend

The Dominion: Tiomin Given Final Approval for Kwale Titanium Minefile://D:\Eastern%20Arc\The%20Dominion%20Tiomin%20Given%20Final%20Approval...Page 3 of 44/18/2005» FAQ» Writer's Guidelines» Open PositionsOther Sites» IndependentMedia.ca» Paul Martin TimeArchivesCanadian NewsInternational NewsFeaturesReadingAccountsComicsEnvironmentArtsReviewFirst NationsMedia AnalysisLabourHealthFrançaisOttawaSyndicationRSS feeds are available for the newspaper and the weblog.Paper: RSS 1.0, RSS 2.0Weblog: RSS 1.0, 2.0MastheadCoordinating Editor:Dru Oja JayArts Editors:Max Liboiron, Jane HendersonInternational News Editor:Geoff HamiltonCanadian News Editor:Mark ParkerEnvironment Editor:Hillary LindsayHealth Editor:Andrea SmithMedia Analysis Editor:Anthony FentonReview Editor:Linda BesnerFirst Nations Editor:Kim PetersenCorrespondents:Shella Gardezi

The Dominion: Tiomin Given Final Approval for Kwale Titanium Minefile://D:\Eastern%20Arc\The%20Dominion%20Tiomin%20Given%20Final%20Approval...Page 4 of 44/18/2005Copy Editors:Kate Andronov, Lisa Marie Blahey, Alex Hollenberg, Amanda Janes, Mark Parker, Antoni WysockiWeb hosting generously provided by Kendall Clark of Monkeyfist.com

Organization Project Title Funding Amount Co FinancingCEPF: African Butterfly Research InstituteCo-Financing: African Butterfly ResearchInstituteCEPF; Missouri Botanical GardenCo-Financing: Missouri Botanical Garden($138,571), IUCN ($18,000), FairchildTropical Botanical Garden ($49,000)*CEPF: TRAFFIC InternationalCo-Financing: WWF Tanzania ProgramOfficeProject/RegionalLeveragingTotalLeveragedOverview of Butterfly Faunas of Eastern Arc Mountains andCoastal Forests: Biodiversity, Endemism, Conservation 19,700 $17,000.00 $17,000.00Plant Conservation Assessment in the Eastern Arc Mountainsand Coastal Forests Mosaic Biodiversity Hotspot of Kenya andTanzania 318,001 $205,571.00 $205,571.00Preventing Unsustainable Timber Trade from the CoastalForests of Southeast Tanzania Following Completion of theMkapa Bridge 19,999 $5,000.00 $5,000.00TOTAL $227,571.00 $0.00 $227,571.00* This project is being implemented in partnership with and IUCN grant for $92,000.** Significant additional funds are expected to be leveraged from JBIC through the East Africa Wildlife Society project in the Taita Hills.

Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?