The CEPF niche for investment was determined through analysis of the species and site outcomes, threats and current investments and through a participatory workshop involving 48 local, national and international experts on the hotspot. Although the workshop did not prioritize sites for investment, certain sites have been selected for immediate attention under two of the five strategic directions recommended in this profile. This has been done to avoid diluting the impacts of crucial investments by spreading them across too large an area.
The species outcomes define the CEPF niche in terms of global imperatives for biodiversity conservation. The primary focus of the niche for this hotspot is the 333 species, which are most threatened with extinction according to The 2002 IUCN Red Lists (Appendix 1). The ultimate test of the success of global conservation investments in the hotspot is the number of these threatened species that survive in the long term. It follows that: (1) only those projects that contribute to the survival of these species should be funded by CEPF and (2) that monitoring the survival of these species is, in itself, an important component of the CEPF investment niche. It must also be recognized that the number of globally threatened species is dynamic and will greatly increase as the IUCN Red List is updated and becomes more comprehensive. The species outcomes will, therefore, need to be updated from time to time.
The site outcomes define the CEPF niche in terms of geographical locations. The 333 globally threatened species identified in Appendix 1 are found in the top 151 sites listed in Appendix 2. An additional nine sites are included in Appendix 2 (making the overall total of 160 sites) because they are IBAs with restricted-range bird species and globally significant congregations of birds. Projects funded by CEPF must be expected to have positive impacts on biodiversity conservation in at least one of these 160 sites. If these impacts are to be measured, site-level monitoring must also be an important part of the niche.
As noted earlier, conservation corridor outcomes were not identified in this hotspot because of the small size of the hotspot and the degree of natural fragmentation that exists, without which much of the biodiversity would never have evolved in the first place. In other hotspots, the definition of conservation corridors restricts site investments largely to those sites within the corridors. Since no conservation corridors have been defined in this profile, there are no corridor restrictions on site investment in this hotspot. Similarly there are no overall restrictions on site investments arising from prioritization. Nonetheless, some concentration of effort is required. Within the full set of 160 sites, five have been identified for particular attention for two of the strategic funding directions (Table 6). The five were selected on the basis of biological importance, irreplaceability, current investment, partnership potential and the recommendations of experts who are familiar with the sites and their suitability for the interventions proposed in this profile. Under the remaining three strategic funding directions, all 160 sites qualify for CEPF investment.
Although corridor outcomes have not been defined in this profile, there are issues of connectivity between forest patches within large sites. Many bird species in the Eastern Arc Mountains are known to move seasonally from the montane forest to the lowland, and altitudinal forest corridors are necessary for this to occur. This issue particularly relates to maintaining montane to lowland forest transitions in the Eastern Arc Mountains part of the hotspot and is important in the context of global warming. A number of forest patches are also recently isolated from each other, causing the local extinction of species, as habitat patches become too small to support them (see below). Such sites deserve particular attention.
Within the limits of these species and site outcomes, the CEPF niche was further defined by the thematic areas for investment as identified during the March 2003 workshop and by subsequent expert review. The workshop discussion of potential investment themes was guided by the assessments of biological importance, threats and current investments, as well as by the considerable experience of the workshop participants in the hotspot. Nine investment themes were presented to the workshop by the ecosystem profile team and partipants added a further three. The themes were prioritized through group work and the results were amalgamated in a plenary session. Although the different groups had different priorities, there was a good consensus in the plenary on the final ranking. This ranking was as follows:
- increase the ability of local populations in the hotspot to benefit from and contribute to biodiversity conservation
- restore and increase connectivity among fragmented forest patches in the hotspot
- improve knowledge of biodiversity in the hotspot;
- improve management of conservation units in the hotspot;
- improve awareness and education about the importance of this hotspot;
- improve coordination among all partners in the hotspot in order to maximize investments;
- engage private sector towards conservation in the hotspot;
- catalyze effective implementation of government policies (National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plans) that affect biodiversity in the hotspot;
- hotspot-wide research and conservation of endangered and critically endangered species;
- monitoring and evaluation of the status of the sites in the hotspot;
- economic evaluation of the goods and services performed by the sites in the hotspot; and
- increase ability to generate long-term funding for conservation in this hotspot.
During the group and plenary discussions it was noted that there were overlaps in these themes and that some could be usefully embedded within others (e. g., themes 5, 9 and 10 with theme 1, themes 9 and 4 with 2). With this understanding, the thematic niche for CEPF investment was defined by themes 1-3 above.
Previous: Snyopsis of Current Investment / Next: CEPF Investment Strategy