 | NEWSLETTER CONTACT FAQ SEARCH SITE MAP |
| ||
|
  |   | ||||
 |   | ||||
 |
|
 | ABOUT CEPF OUR STRATEGY NEWS WHERE WE WORK PROJECT DATABASE APPLY FOR GRANTS  Eastern Arc MountainsInvestment Priorities Full Strategy Project Database for this Region View other hotspots
|  | Ecosystem Profile: Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests July 31, 2003 (Updated March 2005)Contents Acknowledgements Introduction Background Biological Importance Conservation Outcomes Socioeconomic Features Synopsis of Current Threats Synopsis of Current Investment CEPF Niche for Investment CEPF Investment Strategy and Priorities Sustainability Conclusion Acknowledgements This ecosystem profile was prepared by Conservation International and the International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology, in collaboration with Nature Kenya and the Wildlife Conservation Society of Tanzania. The ecosystem profile team included Neil Burgess, Tom Butynski, Ian Gordon, Quentin Luke, Peter Sumbi and John Watkin. Technical support was provided by the Center for Applied Biodiversity Science at Conservation International, East African Herbarium, National Museums of Kenya, Missouri Botanical Garden, Tanzania Forest Conservation Group, Zoology Department, University of Dar es Salaam, WWF Eastern Africa Regional Programme Office and WWF United States.The team would like to acknowledge the following experts and contributors: Rolf D. Baldus, Edmund Barrow, Alice Bhukoli, Tom Brooks, Neil Burgess, Nike Doggart, Chris Gakahu, Roy Gereau, Anthony Githitho, Sheha Idrissa Hamdan, Indu Hewawasam, Kim Howell, David Howlett, Tom Kabii, Hewson Kabugi, A.R. Kajuni, Erustus Kanga, Felician Kilahama, George R. Kafumu, Elly D. Kimbwereza, Penny Langhammer, Inyasi A.V. Lejora, Luc Lens, Luther Lulandala, Felix Mallya, Stephen Mariki, Sammy Masayanyika, Lema Mathias, Paul Matiku, David Mbora, Simon Milledge, Edward Mlowe, Erastp Mpemba, Charles Msuya, Robinson Mugo, Elias Mungaya, Leonard Mwasumbi, Naftali Ndugire, Donnell Ocker, Peter Odhiambo, Esther Offninga, Andrew Perkin, John Salehe, Kaddu Sebunya, Jan Erik Stodsrod, Tom Struhsaker, Elizabeth Tapper, Hazell Thompson, Anne Marie Verberkmoes, Ben Wandago, Jessica Ward and Julie Wieczkowski. Ian Gordon of the International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology provided editing assistance.Introduction The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) is designed to safeguard the world's threatened biodiversity hotspots in developing countries. It is a joint initiative of Conservation International (CI), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the Government of Japan, the MacArthur Foundation and the World Bank. CEPF supports projects in hotspots, the biologically richest and most endangered places on Earth.A fundamental purpose of CEPF is to ensure that civil society is engaged in efforts to conserve biodiversity in the hotspots. Anadditional purpose is to ensure that those efforts complement existing strategies and frameworks established by local, regional and national governments.CEPF aims to promote working alliances among community groups, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), government, academic institutions and the private sector, combining unique capacities and eliminating duplication of efforts for a comprehensive approach to conservation. CEPF is unique among funding mechanisms in that it focuses on biological areas rather than political boundaries and examines conservation threats on a corridor-wide basis to identify and support a regional, rather than a national, approach to achieving conservation outcomes. Corridors are determined through a process of identifying important species, site and corridor-level conservation outcomes for the hotspot. CEPF targets transboundary cooperation when areas rich in biological value straddle national borders, or in areas where a regional approach will be more effective than a national approach.The Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya hotspot (hereafter referred to as the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests hotspot) is one of the smallest of the 25 global biodiversity hotspots*. It qualifies by virtue of its high endemicity and a severe degree of threat. Although the hotspot ranks low compared to other hotspots in total numbers of endemic species, it ranks first among the 25 hotspots in the number of endemic plant and vertebrate species per unit area (Myers et al. 2000). It also shows a high degree of congruence for plants and vertebrates. It is also considered as the hotspot most likely to suffer the most plant and vertebrate extinction for a given loss of habitat and as one of 11 “hyperhot” priorities for conservation investment (Brooks et al. 2002).(*March 2005 update: At the time this document was prepared in 2003, the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests region was classified as a biodiversity hotspot itself. However, a hotspots reappraisal released in 2005 places this region within two new hotspots - the Eastern Afromontane Hotspot and the Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa Hotspot. This profile and CEPF investments focus strictly on the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests comprising the original hotspot as defined in this document.)The Ecosystem Profile The purpose of the ecosystem profile is to provide an overview of biodiversity values, conservation targets or “outcomes,” the causes of biodiversity loss and current conservation investments in a particular hotspot. Its purpose is to identify the niche where CEPF investments can 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 strategic directions and contribute to the conservation of biodiversity in the hotspot. Applicants propose specific projects consistent with these funding directions and investment criteria. The ecosystem profile does not define the specific activities that prospective implementers may propose, but outlines the conservation strategy that guides those activities. Applicants for CEPF grants are required to prepare detailed proposals identifying and describing the interventions and performance indicators that will be used to evaluate the success of the project.Background International interest in the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests hotspot has increased over the last three decades as the realization of its biodiversity importance and of the global crisis affecting tropical forests has deepened. Although descriptions of the wealth of biodiversity in the forests of the Eastern Arc Mountains date back to 1860 and there has been outstanding scientific work in the hotspot during the last 100 years, concerns for its conservation are relatively recent. Until about 30 years ago, nearly all the investment in the forests of the area had been 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 (mostly organized by the United Nations Development Programme/Global Environment Facility (UNDP/GEF) and the WWF Eastern Africa Regional Programme Office (WWF-EARPO). These have produced a wealth of recent information on biodiversity issues (in particular on the distribution of endemic species across sites) and on forest status and management. This information has greatly reduced the time and effort needed to prepare this profile.Current concerns for the conservation of the Eastern Arc Mountains date back to the 1978 Fourth East African Wildlife Symposium at Arusha. The conference was attended by 150 delegates, most of whom were not especially interested in forest conservation. However, a post-conference trip to Amani in the East Usambaras resulted in a report to the Government of Tanzania, drawing its attention to the biological importance of and threats to the Eastern Arc Mountains (Rodgers 1998). In 1983, the Tanzania Forest Conservation Group (TFCG) was founded. In December 1997, there was a landmark international conference on the Eastern Arc Mountains at Morogoro, Tanzania attended by more than 250 delegates (Burgess et al. 1998a). During this conference, working groups reported on urgent issues such as the status of the remaining forest and participants presented papers on biodiversity, sociology and management. Much of the more recent conservation effort in the Eastern Arc Mountains dates from this conference, although one of the most important of these had already started with a UNDP/DANIDA project. This led in turn to a GEF Project Development Fund (PDF) Block A proposal and grant to characterize the conservation issues in the Eastern Arc Mountains in more detail.The Block A process started after the December 1997 conference and included preliminary assessments of biodiversity values, conservation concerns, priority actions, financial constraints, sustainable financing opportunities, effectiveness of previous donor interventions and the development of preliminary proposals for GEF projects in the Eastern Arc Mountains. A three-way matrix was constructed showing levels of biodiversity and endemism, the degree of threat and the level and effectiveness of previous interventions. This enabled a ranking exercise that revealed that three of the main forest blocks (East Usambaras, Udzungwas and Ulugurus) were exceptionally diverse and that there was no major donor or public support for the Ulugurus. The Ulugurus, therefore, became a focus in the development of a PDF Block B proposal supported by UNDP and the World Bank. This PDF/B involved extensive stakeholder consultations and resulted in: 1) an outline and plan for a participatory and strategic approach to conservation and management in the Eastern Arc Mountains; 2) proposals for institutional reforms in the forest sector with a particular focus on facilitating participatory forest conservation and management; 3) a needs assessment for priority pilot interventions in the Ulugurus; and 4) the legal establishment of an Eastern Arc Mountains Endowment Fund (EAMCEF). The outcomes from this process were integrated into larger forest biodiversity concerns and into a proposed $62.2 million Tanzania Forest Conservation and Management Project. During this time, awareness of the biodiversity values of the East African coastal forests had also grown. In 1983, a team from the International Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP, now BirdLife International) surveyed the avifauna of Arabuko-Sokoke Forest on the north coast of Kenya and drew attention to its globally threatened bird species (Kelsey & Langton, 1984). A detailed survey (Roberston, 1987) of the sacred Kaya Forests (conserved by the Mijikenda, a group of nine tribes on the Kenyan coast) highlighted their conservation importance for trees and led to a comprehensive survey of Kenyan coastal forests commissioned by WWF (Robertson & Luke 1993). This focussed on the plant species and on the status of the forests and made recommendations for their conservation. The Frontier-Tanzania Coastal Forest Research Programme carried out a series of biodiversity surveys from 1989 to 1994 (Lowe & Clarke 2000; Clarke et al. 2000; Burgess et al. 2000; Broadley & Howell, 2000; Hoffman 2000). In 1993 a workshop on the East African coastal forests was held in Dar es Salaam. This raised the profile and conservation action in these forests and led to a series of status reports on the conservation and management of the Tanzanian coastal forests (Clarke 1995; Clarke & Dickenson 1995; Clarke & Stubblefield 1995). These and other studies are summarized in another landmark publication for the hotspot (Burgess & Clarke, 2000). More recently, WWF-EARPO organised a series of workshops to develop an Eastern Africa Coastal Forest Programme covering Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique (WWF-EARPO, 2002). Thirty-one scientists and stakeholders from these three countries attended a regional workshop in Nairobi in February 2002. It aimed at developing a regional synthesis on coastal forest resource issues and a vision, strategy and way forward for realising the coastal forest programme. There was a strong focus on country-based group work. Maps of the region were updated, threats and root causes were analyzed, country conservation targets were agreed on and preliminary logframe action plans were developed for each country. National Coastal Forest Task Force meetings in each of the three countries subsequently refined these action plans. The document resulting from the February 2002 workshop includes comprehensive annexes which list the coastal forest sites (showing their locations, areas, status, altitudes and threats) and the endemic animals, as well as the threat analysis and country action plans. A list of endemic plants, taken from Burgess & Clarke 2000, was supplied to the workshop but not included in the report.On 12 March 2003, a CEPF workshop was held in Dar es Salaam to define the investment niche for CEPF, building on all the previous effort. Participants included 48 people from scientific and research institutions, government departments, NGOs, field projects and donor organizations, all of whom worked in or had knowledge of the hotspot. The outputs from the workshop were subsequently incorporated into a wide-ranging consultation process that helped to define the investment priorities for CEPF in this hotspot. Geography of the Hotspot The Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests hotspot runs along the Tanzanian and Kenyan coasts from the border with Somalia to the north to that with Mozambique to the south (Figure 1 - Download the full strategy to view all graphics, tables and appendices). The bulk of the hotspot is in its western expansion in Tanzania, which takes in the Eastern Arc Mountains and the water catchment system of the Rufiji River. There is a narrow hook-like extension of the hotspot near the Kenya/Tanzania border. This follows the Eastern Arc Mountains to their northernmost limits in the Taita Hills in Kenya. The hotspot also projects northwards for about 100 km in an extension that includes the forests of the Lower Tana River in Kenya. The hotspot includes the Indian Ocean islands of Mafia, Pemba and Zanzibar.In terms of plant biogeography, the hotspot straddles two ecoregions: Eastern Arc Forest and Northern Zanzibar-Inhambane Coastal Forest Mosaic (WWF-US 2003a, b). These two ecoregions are mostly discontinuous but do meet in the lowlands of the East Usambara, Uluguru, Nguru and Udzungwa Mountains as well as in the Mahenge Plateau (WWF-US 2003a,b; Burgess pers. com.). A considerable proportion of species (e.g. nearly 60 percent of plants) are found in both ecoregions and the distinction between them has been a matter of some debate (Lovett et al. 2000). However, each of these forest types contains an impressive number of strict endemics. Lovett et al. (2000) conclude that the forests in these two ecoregions are very different, with differences in altitude and rainfall leading to a steep gradient of species replacement with elevation. The Eastern Arc Mountains The Eastern Arc Mountains stretch for some 900 km from the Makambako Gap, southwest of the Udzungwa Mountains in southern Tanzania to the Taita Hills in south-coastal Kenya (Figure 2) (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 highest point (Kimhandu Peak in the Ulugurus) is more than 2,600 m in altitude, but most of the ranges peak between 2,200-2,500 m (GEF 2002; WWF-US 2003a). Geologically the mountains are formed 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 on the eastern slopes of the Ulugurus, falling to 600 mm/year in the western rain shadow) (GEF 2002). Climatic conditions are believed to have been more-or-less stable for at least the past 30 million 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 both ancient and biologically diverse.The original forest cover (2,000 years ago) on the Eastern Arc Mountains is estimated at around 23,000 km², of which around 15,000 km2 remained by 1900 and a maximum of 5,340 km² remained by the mid-1990s (Newmark 1998; GEF 2002). At that time the Udzungwas contained the largest area of natural forest (1,960 km²), followed by the Nguru, Uluguru, Rubeho, East Usambaras, South Pare, West Usambaras, Mahenge, Ukaguru, North Pare and Taita Hills (6 km²). These and the following estimates of forest status and losses in the Eastern Arc Mountains are all taken from Newmark 1998. Losses were greatest, relative to original cover, in the Taitas (98 percent), Ukaguru (90 percent), Mahenge (89 percent) and West Usambaras (84 percent). The forests had become highly fragmented, with mean and median forest patch sizes estimated at 10 km² and 58 km², respectively. By 1994-96, the Udzungwas and the West Usambaras contained the largest numbers of patches (26 and 17) and only one mountain block (Ukaguru) had more or less continuous forest. At that time there were an estimated 94 forest patches in the Eastern Arc Mountains. Within forest patches there was considerable degradation. Of the closed forest that remained, only 27 percent had closed forest cover. With the exception of a few sites where there has been active intervention, the situation at present is far more likely to have deteriorated than improved since 1996. The East African Coastal Forest Mosaic The area defined by the Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya in the hotspot includes the intervening habitats between the coastal forest patches. Although the main biodiversity values are concentrated in the forests there are a significant number of endemics (especially plants) in non-forested habitats. This part of the hotspot is therefore a mosaic, which stretches from the border of Kenya with Somalia, to the border of Tanzania with Mozambique, including the islands 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) and Mozambique (large areas) are poorly known and are excluded. Northern Mozambique could be included 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 Forest Mosaic” (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 a narrow coastal strip except along the Tana River where it extends inland to include the forests of the lower Tana River (the northern-most of which occur within the Tana Primate National Reserve) (Figures 1, 2). In Tanzania, the Mosaic runs from border to border along the coast, contracting in the Rufiji Delta region. There are also some outliers located up to ca. 300 km inland at the base of a few of the Eastern Arc Mountains (Udzungwa, Mahenge, Uluguru and Nguru) (WWF-US 2003a). Much of the Mosaic has been converted to subsistence agriculture, interrupted by plantations and human settlements, including the large cities of Mombasa and Dar es Salaam (populations of more than 700,000 and 3 million, respectively).Geologically, the coastal forest strip has been subject to considerable tectonic activity and to sedimentation and erosion associated with movements of the shoreline (Clarke & Burgess 2000). Most coastal forests are found between 0-50 m and 300-500 m, although in Tanzania they occur up to 1040 m (Burgess et al. 2000). Rainfall ranges between 2000 mm/year (Pemba) to 500 mm/year (northern Kenya and southern Tanzania) (Clarke 2000). There are two rainy seasons (long, April-June; short, November-December) in the north, but only one (April-June) in the south. Dry seasons can be severe and El Niño effects dramatic. Climatic conditions are believed to have been relatively stable for the last 30 million years (Axelrod & Raven 1978), although variation from year to year can be considerable, leading to droughts or floods.By the early 1990s, there were about 175 forest patches in the Coastal Forest Mosaic (Kenya 95, Tanzania 66) covering an area of 1,360 km² (Kenya 660 km², Tanzania 700 km²) (Burgess et al. 2000). Mean patch size was 6.7 km² in Kenya and 10.6 km² in Tanzania. Modal patch-size classes were 0 - 1 km² in Kenya and 5-15 km² in Tanzania. The two largest coastal forests are both in Kenya (Arabuko-Sokoke, minimum area 370 km²; Shimba, minimum area 63 km²) (WWF-EARPO 2002), while in Tanzania there are no coastal forests larger than 40 km² (WWF-US 2003b). There is some uncertainty with these figures because of differences in criteria for patch inclusion in the data set (e.g., the exclusion of all but a few small patches (<2 km²) from the Tanzanian data set and their full inclusion in the Kenya data set). The available information is also somewhat out of date and the current situation is, again, far more likely to have deteriorated than improved. No reliable estimates are available for the coastal forest with intact and contiguous canopies or for the extent of forest loss in recent history.Biological Importance In this section, biological importance is assessed primarily in terms of endemic species. Subsequently, in the Conservation Outcomes, the emphasis is on the Red Lists of threatened species that occur in the hotspot. Because of the relatively small area of this hotspot, the high degree of threat it faces (Brooks et al. 2002) and the current criteria for inclusion in the Red List (IUCN 1994), all, or at least most, of the endemics are candidate “threatened species.” This consideration is perhaps most obvious in the case of the plants where there are more than 1,500 endemic species in the hotspot, but only 236 (16 percent) are currently included in the Red List.The global biodiversity values of the hotspot are widely recognized (Lovett 1988, 1998a, b, c; Myers 1990; Myers et al. 2000; Brooks et al. 2001; Brooks et al. 2002). This hotspot is home to at least 1,500 endemic plant species, 16 endemic mammals, 22 endemic birds, 50 endemic reptiles and 33 endemic amphibians (Lovett & Wasser, 1993; Burgess et al. 1998a; Burgess & Clarke 2000; Myers et al. 2000). It is considered as the hotspot most likely to suffer the most plant and vertebrate extinction for a given loss of habitat and as one of 11 “hyperhot” priorities for conservation investment (Brooks et al. 2002). Because of the small area of the hotspot, the densities of these endemics are among the highest in the world. At the global level, some 0.37 percent of all species (in eight major taxa) are estimated to be endemic to the Eastern Arc Mountains and 0.20 percent endemic to the Coastal Forest Mosaic (Burgess 2000). The distribution of these endemic species within the hotspot merits special consideration. First, nearly all the forest patches have biodiversity values and most contain at least one endemic species (Burgess & Clarke 2000). Second, there are many disjunct distributions, particularly amongst the birds and the plants (Burgess & Clarke 2000). Third, there is a huge turnover of species between patches, especially in the less mobile species. Forests that are only 100 km apart can differ in 70 percent of their millipedes (Hoffman, 2000) and in 80 percent of their plants (Clarke et al. 2000). In some invertebrate taxa, 80-90 percent of species can be strictly endemic to a single site (Scharff et al. 1981; Scharff 1992, 1993; Burgess et al. 1998b). These distribution patterns are commonly found in both the Eastern Arc Mountains and the lowland Coastal Forest Mosaic. They indicate that much of the habitat fragmentation in this area is natural and sufficiently ancient for much speciation to have taken place in isolated patches and for species to have persisted here and there due to stochastic effects. However, over a period of hundreds or perhaps thousands of years, there has also been considerable loss of habitat and habitat continuity between the natural fragments (loss of connectivity), as a result of human activities. This issue needs careful consideration when conservation interventions are planned. Biodiversity in the Eastern Arc Mountains In the Eastern Arc Mountains, around 40 percent (800 of more than 2000) of the plant species and 2 percent of genera (16 of about 800) are estimated to be endemic (Lovett & Wasser 1993; Lovett 1998b; GEF 2002). This area is the centre of endemism for the African violet, with 20 out of 21 species being endemic. Trees have attracted the most attention, but non-vascular plants also show significant endemism (32 of about 700 species of bryophytes) (Pocs 1998). The endemics are found in most of the forest types, as well as in intervening habitats such as rocky outcrops, heathland, montane grasslands and wetlands (Lovett 1998b).The degree of faunal endemism in the Eastern Arc Mountains varies widely across taxa. Six percent of mammals, 3 percent of birds, 68 percent of forest-dependent reptiles, 63 percent of forest-dependent amphibians, 39 percent of butterflies and 82 percent of linyphiid spiders are endemic (GEF 2002). Some of these species have extremely limited distributions. The Kihansi spray toad, described in 1998, is found in an area of less than 1 km² (Poynton et al. 1998). Three endemic bird taxa (variously described as full species or subspecies) are restricted to the 6 km² of forest in the Taita Hills (Brooks et al. 1998). Records for the Udzungwa partridge are confined to two localities in the Udzungwas and one in Rubeho (Baker & Baker 2002). Amongst some invertebrates (linyphiid spiders, opilionids and carabid beetles), single site endemism exceeds 80 percent (Scharff et al. 1981; Scharff 1992, 1993; Burgess et al. 1998).Using a subset of 239 species endemic and near-endemic to the Eastern Arc Mountains, the East Usambaras emerge as the most important site in terms of numbers of endemics, while the Ulugurus rank top for density of endemics (Burgess et al. 2001). As expected, the big forest blocks (Usambaras, Ulugurus and Udzungwas) are more species-rich than the smaller blocks (e.g., North Pare, South Pare, Ukaguru and Mahenge). Most of the endemic taxa are not only forest dependent; they are dependent on primary forest. The low-elevation forests are rich in endemics and total numbers of species, but are very limited in overall area, having suffered extensive clearance for agriculture. The uniqueness of the biodiversity in the Eastern Arc Mountains is attributable to both relictual and recently evolved species (Burgess et al. 1998c; Roy et al. 1997). Biogeographical affinities indicate ancient connections to Madagascar (45 species of bryophytes shared) (Pocs 1998), West Africa (many birds and plant genera) (Lovett 1998b; Burgess et al. 1998c) and even Southeast Asia (where close relatives of the Udzungwa forest partridge and the African tailorbird are found) (Dinesen et al. 1994).Biodiversity in the Coastal Forests The pattern of endemism in the Coastal Forest Mosaic is complex, reflecting the wide range of habitats and heterogeneous forest types, a high degree of turnover of local species between adjacent forest patches and many disjunct distributions (Burgess 2000; WWF-US 2003b). The ecoregion, 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 the various kinds of closed canopy forest vegetation: dry forest, scrub forest, Brachystegia (miombo) forest, riverine forest, groundwater forest, swamp forest and coastal/afromontane transition forest (Clarke 2000; WWF-US 2003b). Closed canopy forests, however, makes up only 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), with around 3,000 species and 750 genera occurring in forest. At least 400 plant species are endemic to the forest patches and about another 500 are endemic to the intervening habitats that make up 99 percent of the ecoregion area (WWF-US 2003b). The majority of these species are woody but there are also endemic climbers, shrubs, herbs, grasses and sedges (Clarke et al. 2000). A substantial proportion of the endemic plants are confined to a single forest (for example, Rondo Forest, Tanzania, has 60 strict endemics and Shimba Hills, Kenya, has 12) (Clarke et al. 2000). The flora as a whole has affinities with that of West Africa, suggesting an ancient connection with the Guineo-Congolian lowland forests (Lovett 1993). Endemism is primarily relictual rather than recently evolved (Clarke et al. 2000; Burgess et al. 1998c).Faunal endemism rates have been estimated for forest species in the Swahelian Regional Centre of Endemism (including the transition zone in Mozambique). These are highest in the invertebrate groups such as millipedes (80 percent of all the forest species), molluscs (68 percent) and forest butterflies (19 percent) (Burgess 2000). Amongst the vertebrates, 7 percent of forest mammals, 10 percent of forest birds, 57 percent of forest reptiles and 36 percent of forest amphibians are endemic (Burgess 2000). If Mozambique is excluded, endemics include 14 species of birds (including four on Pemba Island), eight mammals, 36 reptiles and five amphibians (WWF-EARPO 2002). In terms of species richness, there are at least 158 species of mammals (17 percent of all Afrotropical species), 94 reptiles and 1200 molluscs (WWF-US 2003b). As with the plants, endemism is primarily relictual (Burgess et al. 1998c) and single site endemism and disjunct distributions are common. This makes it extremely difficult to prioritise the forests in terms of their biodiversity. Burgess (2000) made a preliminary analysis on the basis of species richness and endemism, using vascular plants, birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians. This showed that different forests are important for different groups. For example, while Arabuko-Sokoke is top for endemic birds and for mammal species richness, it barely makes it into the top ten for plants. Overall, the five most important forests are Rondo (plants and birds), lowland East Usambaras and Arabuko-Sokoke (birds, mammals and reptiles), Shimba (plants and birds) and Pugu Hills (birds and mammals). Pemba Island, with an area of only 101 400 ha, is extraordinarily important for birds with four endemic species (Baker & Baker, 2002) while Zanzibar has six endemic mammals and three endemic birds (Siex, pers. comm.).Levels of Protection Forests in this hotspot are located in two countries and fall under multiple management regimes. In Kenya, the protected area network at national level consists of national parks, national reserves, 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 lower level, many forests are located on trust lands and fall under the control of County and Municipal councils. In Tanzania, the protected area network at national level consists of national parks, game reserves, government catchment forests, game controlled areas, forest reserves and nature reserves (Baker & Baker 2002). Below the national level a large number of forests, particularly in the coastal forest belt, fall under local authorities, owned and managed by the villagers. In both countries, no exploitation is allowed in national parks and protection levels are generally high (but see below for an exception in Kenya). In both countries, confusing and overlapping legislation on the environment and natural resources is being rationalized through the enactment of new polices.Within the Kenyan area of the hotspot, there is one national park, a 6 km² area to the northwest of Arabuko-Sokoke Forest. This park is, however, somewhat of an anomaly, as it contains no closed forest and exists only on paper. There are four national reserves (Shimba, Tana River, Boni and Dodori) (WWF-EARPO 2002). These fall under the jurisdiction of the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS). The Shimba Hills were gazetted as National Forest in 1903 and then double-gazetted (with the exception of two small areas that remained as forest reserves under the control of the Forest Department) in 1968 as the Shimba Hills National Reserve (Bennun & Njoroge 1999). Protection levels are higher in the area controlled by KWS, as they have armed rangers and a clearer institutional mandate for conservation. The Tana River Primate National Reserve contains 16 out of the 70 patches of riverine forest found along the lower Tana River (Butynski & Mwangi 1994). There forests have suffered severe damage during the past three decades from farmers clearing land for agriculture and possibly from the construction of several dams up-river that have reduced the incidence of flooding (Butynski & Mwangi 1994, Wieczkowski & Mbora 1999-2000). The biodiversity in Boni and Dodori is poorly known because security problems have prevented biological surveys.The largest of the Kenyan forest reserves is Arabuko Sokoke (417 km²). For the last 10 years this forest has been under multi-institutional management (KWS, the Forest Department, Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI) and the National Museums of Kenya, (NMK)) (Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Management Team 2002). This arrangement has been taken as a model for other indigenous forests in Kenya but has been rarely implemented. Protection levels suffer from the proximity of the tourist resorts of Malindi and Watamu and the resultant demand for carving wood and timber. The effectiveness of management has been variable over time, being subject to the commitment of the personnel on the ground, the working relationships between KWS and the Forest Department and the level of resources available. Generally, however, management has been more effective than in the other 17 forest reserves (WWF-EARPO 2002) within the Kenyan coastal forest belt. In the fragmented forests of the Kenyan portion of the Eastern Arc Mountains (Taita Hills), some patches, including plantation, have been gazetted as forest reserve. Others are on trust land administered by the local county council, some of which have been recommended for gazettement as forest reserves (Bennun & Njoroge 1999).National monument status has been given to 39 out of nearly 50 of the sacred Kaya forests (WWF-EARPO 2002), but the level of protection gained from this status is below that of the forest reserves. An additional national monument at Gede Ruins is not a Kaya, but it includes a fenced 350 ha coral rag forest that is in good condition and very well protected. There are numerous Local Government or County Council Forests. Unfortunately, protection of these forests is virtually non-existent, to the point where local councillors have sold forest plots for agricultural settlement (e.g., at Madunguni and Mangea Hill). A large proportion (nearly 40 percent) of the Kenyan coastal forests fall into this category or is totally unprotected (data from WWF-EARPO 2002).In the Tanzanian portion of the Eastern Arc Mountains, there are two national parks (Udzungwa Mountains National Park, gazetted in 1992, 1,960 km²; and Mikumi National Park, 3,230 km²), two game reserves (Selous and Mkomazi) and a nature reserve (Amani Nature Reserve, gazetted in 1997, 83.8 km²) (GEF 2002; Roe et al. 2002). However, more than 90 percent of the total forest area in the Tanzanian portion of the Eastern Arc Mountains and almost 75 percent of the total forests are gazetted as government catchment forest reserves (Burgess pers. com.). These range in area from more than 557,000 ha (Ngindo) to less than 10 ha and include all the larger forests in the Kilimanajaro (e.g., Chome), Tanga (e.g., Nguru North, Shume Magambe) and Morogoro (e.g., Uluguru, Nguru South) regions. Most of the remainder are local authority forests, ranging in size from 57,300 ha (Mbalwe/Mfukulembe) to less than 10 ha, although there are a few private forests, mainly on tea estates (e.g. Ambangulu Tea Estate) and some of which have been covenanted for conservation. In the national park, protection levels are high, but elsewhere they are highly variable. The important catchment forest reserves are, in general, better protected than the local authority forests (Burgess et al. 1998). In the Tanzanian coastal forests, management regimes are more complicated. Most are either forest reserves (80) or are on public land (20) with no protection status (WWF-EARPO 2002). Four are private forest reserves (Magotwe, Kichi Hills, Mlungui and Magoroto). Only three are entirely managed by the district government as local authority forest reserves, although some have double status (two overlapping with forest reserves and two more with private forest reserves ). There are two Catchment forest reserves (Mselezi, Ziwani) (Burgess and Clarke 2000; WWF-EARPO 2002) managed by the Central Government Forest and Beekeeping Division. Two others, Zaraninge and the former Mkwaja ranch, are being incorporated into the new Sadaani National Park (WWF-EARPO 2002). Some patches are also found in the Selous Game Reserve and others in Mafia Island Marine Park. Offshore protected areas are also found in Zanzibar (Jozani Forest Reserve) and Pemba (Ngezi Forest Reserve). There are also smaller areas in Zanzibar that are important for water catchment (e.g. Masingi) and for endemic species (e.g. Unguja Ukuu Forest Plantation). There is a proposal to upgrade the Jozani Reserve in Zanzibar (now known as the Jozani-Chakwa Bay Conservation Area) to a national park.Management and protection of most of the forests throughout the hotspot have suffered from inadequate stakeholder involvement, conflicts of interest and corruption. Where forests are gazetted, the boundaries tend to be respected but the forests themselves suffer steady degradation. The levels of protection achieved on the ground are strongly dependent on local factors such as proximity to urban areas, pressure for land, ease of access, presence of valuable timber and the capacity and morale of the local forestry officers (WWF-US 2003a). There is a general move toward various forms of participatory forest management (PFM), in the hope that an exchange of forest user rights for community management responsibilities and ownership (where appropriate) will lead to better protection by the people who often know best what is going on in the forests. Although this hope is widely held, it has not yet been scientifically tested within the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests hotspot. The alternative strategies of direct payments and easements are being explored, but have not yet been implemented. Conservation Outcomes This ecosystem profile, together with profiles under development for other regions at this time, includes a new commitment and emphasis on using conservation outcomes—targets against which the success of investments can be measured-as the scientific underpinning for determining CEPF's geographic and thematic focus for investment. Conservation outcomes are the full set of quantitative and justifiable conservation targets in a hotspot that need to be achieved in order to prevent biodiversity loss. These targets are defined at three levels: species (extinctions avoided), sites (areas protected) and landscapes (corridors created). As conservation in the field succeeds in achieving these targets, these targets become demonstrable results or outcomes. While CEPF cannot achieve all of the outcomes identified for a region on its own, the partnership is trying to ensure that its conservation investments are working toward preventing biodiversity loss and that its success can be monitored and measured. CI's Center for Applied Biodiversity Science is facilitating the definition of conservation outcomes across the 25 global hotspots, representing the benchmarks against which the global conservation community can gauge the success of conservation measures.Overview of Conservation Outcomes Conservation outcomes focus on biodiversity across a hierarchical continuum of ecological scales. This continuum can be condensed into the three levels: species, sites and landscapes. The three levels interlock geographically through the presence of species in sites and of sites in landscapes. They are also logically connected. If species are to be conserved, the sites on which they live must be protected and the landscapes must continue to sustain the ecological services on which the sites and the species depend. At the landscape level, conservation corridors (within which sites are nested) can sometimes be defined and investments can be targeted at increasing the amount of habitat with ecological and biodiversity value within these corridors. Given threats to biodiversity at each of the three levels, quantifiable targets for conservation can be set in terms of extinctions avoided, sites protected and, where appropriate, conservation corridors created or preserved. This can only be done when accurate and comprehensive data are available on the distribution of threatened species across sites and landscapes. Defining conservation outcomes is therefore a bottom-up process through which species-level targets are defined first and based on the species information, site-level conservation targets are identified. Landscape-level targets are delineated subsequently, if appropriate for the region. The process requires knowledge on the conservation status of individual species. This information has been accumulating in the Red Lists of Threatened Species developed by IUCN and partners. The Red List is based on quantitative, globally applicable criteria under which the probability of extinction is estimated for each species. Species outcomes in the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests hotspot include those species that are globally threatened (Vulnerable, Endangered and Critically Endangered) according to The 2002 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Outcome definition is a fluid process and, as data become available, species-level outcomes will be expanded to include other taxonomic groups that previously had not been assessed, as well as restricted-range species. Avoiding extinctions means conserving globally threatened species to make sure that their Red List status improves or at least stabilizes. This in turn means that data are needed on population trends; for most of the threatened species, there are no such data. Recognizing that most species are best conserved through the protection of the sites in which they occur, site outcomes are defined for each target species. Site outcomes are focused on physically and/or socioeconomically discrete areas of land that harbour populations of at least one globally threatened species. These sites need to be protected from ecological transformation to conserve the target species. Sites are scale-independent and, ideally, should be manageable as single units.Corridor outcomes are focused on landscapes that need to be conserved to allow the persistence of biodiversity over time. Species and site outcomes are nested within corridors. The goal of corridors is to preserve ecological and evolutionary processes, as well as enhance connectivity between important conservation sites by effectively increasing the amount of habitat with biodiversity value near them. Unlike species and site outcomes, the criteria for determining corridor outcomes are being defined and this is presently an important research front. CABS will make the data on conservation outcomes publicly available on this Web site. Species Outcomes To define the species outcomes for this hotspot, all globally threatened species in The 2002 Red List of Threatened Species that are found in the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests hotspot were identified. Data were compiled for each species on its conservation status and known distribution. Site outcomes were determined by identifying all sites that are important for each globally threatened species. Following a review of the species and site outcomes and expert consultations, corridor outcomes were not defined for this hotspot. Conservation corridors (landscape conservation units consisting of core sites and the surrounding matrix) did not make sense in this naturally fragmented, relatively small hotspot. However, it will be important to reconnect forest patches that have only become isolated in recent decades as a result of human activities. Failure to reconnect forest patches within a formerly continuous site will inevitably mean the extinction of numerous species as the habitat patches fall to sizes that can no longer sustain their biodiversity due to island biogeography effects (Newmark 1991, 2002; Brooks et al. 2002). The definition of the conservation outcomes drew heavily on the research findings of a large number of scientists who have worked intensively in this hotspot over the last three decades and who have contributed to various compilations of primary field data (Lovett & Wasser 1993; Burgess et al. 1998, Burgess & Clarke 2000; Newmark 2002; WWF-EARPO 2002; WWF-US 2003a,b). The key sources of data on threatened plants included the Flora of Tropical East Africa (see Beentje & Smith [2001] for details of publication), the TROPICOS database (MBG 2003), and a database compiled by Q. Luke. Data on faunal species distributions in Tanzania were drawn from the University of Dar es Salaam biodiversity database (Howell & Msuya 2003). The work to define national Important Bird Areas (IBAs) was also an important source of data. The IBA process in Kenya and Tanzania (coordinated by Nature Kenya and the Wildlife Conservation Society of Tanzania as the BirdLife International partners for these countries) had already compiled data for threatened and restricted-range birds and their key sites (IBAs). These data were already in the World Bird Database at BirdLife International. The IBAs provided a starting point for including other aspects of the biodiversity of this hotspot to identify key biodiversity areas, or site level conservation outcomes. The results of the outcome definition indicate that 333 globally threatened (Red List) species occur in the hotspot, with 105 species being represented in Kenya and 307 in Tanzania (Table 1). The globally threatened flora and fauna in the hotspot are represented by 236 plant species, 29 mammal species, 28 bird species, 33 amphibian species and seven gastropod species. Of the 333 globally threatened species in the hotspot, 241 are Vulnerable, 68 are Endangered and 24 are Critically Endangered.The full list of species outcomes is provided in Appendix 1 (Download the Appendices to view each appendix.) The species outcomes are based on the 2002 IUCN Red List, which is quite good for several taxonomic groups. However, Red List data for plants is badly in need of updating. The 2002 Red List includes some widespread plant species in this hotspot, others that are in far greater danger of extinction because their restricted ranges have not yet been assessed (Q. Luke & R. Gereau pers. comm.). Gereau and Luke (2003) estimate the total number of globally threatened plant species in the hotspot is probably 1,200 or more, including 973 taxa that are not in the 2002 IUCN Red List and that urgently need to be assessed for degree of threat status. Noticeably absent from the species outcomes are reptiles, freshwater fish and nearly all the invertebrates. None of the reptiles or fish within this hotspot is currently on the IUCN Red List. This is a result of either (1) a lack of information on these species or simply (2) because nobody has yet made the required "assessment" for possible inclusion in the Red List. Among invertebrates, information was only available for gastropods. It is expected that many more invertebrate species (as well as plants and reptiles) will prove to be threatened once they are assessed using updated IUCN criteria. A list of potentially threatened dragonflies has also been compiled by Viola Clausnitzer of the University of Marburg, Germany.Table 2 lists the 24 Critically Endangered species in this hotspot (five mammals, three birds, four amphibians, three gastropods and nine plants). Of these 24 species, 12 occur in Tanzania, seven in Kenya and five in both Kenya and Tanzania. If extinctions are to be avoided, the full set of these Critically Endangered species, together with the sites they depend on, must be ranked high among any priorities for conservation action. For example, 17 of the 24 Critically Endangered species in this hotspot are each restricted to a single site. This result is important for the site prioritization process. There are other species in the hotspot, currently listed as Endangered, which should be re-assessed for threat status. These include the Zanzibar red colobus monkey (Procolobus kirkii) (less than 2,000, mostly in Jozani Forest Reserve) and Aders' duiker (probably less than 800 in a very restricted range with a 50 percent decline within last 15-20 years) (Struhsaker pers. comm.). Two other Endangered species—African Elephant and African Wild Dog—were identified as "landscape species," indicating that they will likely not be conserved through a site-based approach alone. Site Outcomes The definition of site outcomes produced 160 Key Biodiversity Areas for the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests hotspot (Appendix 2, Table 3). Among these, 41 sites are important 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 to nine globally threatened species and 73 are important for at least one globally threatened species among the considered taxonomic groups. Nine more sites are included in Appendix 2, not because they host globally threatened species, but because they are IBAs with restricted-range bird species and globally significant congregations of birds. The full description of site outcomes and the species that occur in them is presented in Appendix 3. Figure 3 shows the location and distribution of the site outcomes in Kenya and Tanzania. The sites were overlaid with 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 of the 160 sites are IBAs (Bennun & Njoroge 1999; Baker & Baker 2002). Some sites have high numbers of threatened species. These sites include: East Usambara Mountains, Uluguru Mountains, Udzungwa Mountains National Park, West Usambara Mountains, Udzungwa Mountains, Shimba Hills, Lindi District Coastal Forests, Nguru Mountains, Taita Hills, South Pare Mountains and Kisarawe District Coastal Forests. When the sites are ranked according to the number of threatened species that they contain, 23 of the top 25 sites are IBAs. This suggests that the IBA process succeeds in identifying the key sites for conserving species of global concern, at least on a broad scale.An alternative to a simple threatened species richness ranking is to examine the site data for complementarity and to determine: 1) the minimum set of sites that contain all globally threatened species at least once; and 2) those sites that contain a species that occurs nowhere else (i.e. are irreplaceable, even if they only have one species). A preliminary analysis (Rodrigues and Langhammer pers. comm.) indicates that the minimum set consists of 35 sites and that, of these, 26 are irreplaceable. If the sites are ranked by species richness, the top 33 sites contain 97 percent of all threatened species (although it takes 129 sites to capture 100 percent). This means that, except for a few species, the selection of sites by a simple threatened species richness ranking is not a bad prioritization strategy compared with the complementarity set. Among the top 20 sites by species richness, only two (Bagomoya District Forests and North Pare Mountains) fail to make it into the complementarity set and only three are not irreplaceable (Bagomoya District Forests, North Pare Mountains and Mafia Island).It must be understood, however, that neither strategy should be applied exclusively. There are many reasons for this. First, the survival of a threatened species is likely to require conservation interventions at more than one site. For example, the best known population of Clarke's weaver is in Arabuko-Sokoke Forest, but it doesn't breed there. Second, a species found in several sites may only have viable populations in one or two of them and these critical sites may not be captured by complementarity, or rank highly for species richness. Third, variation in the raw data (numbers of threatened species per site) can be partly accounted for by large site differences in area (over five orders of magnitude: Appendix 3) and/or research investment. Fourth, the outcome analysis is based on a small number of taxonomic groups and in some of these groups (especially the plants) the Red Lists are in serious need of re-assessment. Fifth, prioritizing sites must take into account not only their relative biological importance, but also the degrees of threat to them and the current investments in them. With this background, there is no present justification for the exclusion of any of the 160 site outcomes from possible CEPF funding. Conversely, it would be a waste of the available data not to recognize that some particularly important sites should be targeted. A mixed strategy for site prioritization is therefore recommended.CEPF investments cannot achieve all of the conservation outcomes identified in this profile, but, by defining these outcomes on the basis of globally threatened species, CEPF can ensure that all its projects in this hotspot will be targeted toward globally significant biodiversity conservation. The outcome definition also means that CEPF and other donors, as well as conservation organizations in general, can track the success of their investments and interventions, by measuring extinctions avoided and sites protected. This is particularly important for a global program like CEPF, which has a responsibility to use resources in ways that achieve biodiversity conservation most effectively at a global scale. Socioeconomic Features Humans 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 least 60,000 years and the ability to smelt iron at least 2,000 years. Charcoal layers and earthenware have 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 most transformed the planet. The population growth that this has enabled means that nearly all conservation problems today involve people and their needs and that socioeconomic considerations must be part of the solutions.Institutional Framework In both Tanzania and Kenya, the institutional frameworks that structure the interactions of people and forests are largely an inheritance from the colonial governments. Both countries have a Civil Service 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 wildlife organizations including Tanzania National Parks Authority (TANAPA), Tanzania Forestry Research Institute (TAFORI) and the Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI). An important function of TAWIRI is to issue research permits for all ecological and biological field work in the country. In Zanzibar, the Zanzibar Department of Commercial Crops, Fruits and Forestry (DCCFF), under the Ministry of Agriculture, Lands and Natural Resources, administers forest 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 of Environment and Natural Resources. Other forest stakeholder institutions include the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI) and the National Museums of Kenya (NMK). In addition there are a large number of NGOs with interests in environment and conservation in the hotspot. Government Institutional Framework for Forestry in Tanzania In Tanzania, the FBD is accountable to the permanent secretary in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT) and is responsible for the protection of forests and the productive use of forest lands to meet demands for wood products. Until relatively recently, protection focused on watersheds rather than biodiversity and production involved harvesting of indigenous hardwoods and the establishment of industrial plantations of pine and cypress. Now there is official recognition of the biodiversity values of the indigenous forest reserves within FBD and the harvesting of indigenous hardwoods has been banned in conservation areas, including the Eastern Arc and Coastal Forests. The Government Catchment Forests (mainly in the Uluguru and East Usambara Mountains) and the nature reserves have remained under government control, administered by an FBD staff of eight forest officers and 57 assistant forest officers (GEF 2002). Because of a national policy of decentralization, most of the remaining forests are managed at the district level under a variety of regimes. There are at least six categories of management status: Forest Reserves, Local Authority Forest Reserves, Monuments, Village Forest Reserves, Private Forest Reserves and Public Lands/Public Forest (WWF-EARPO 2002b). There are three additional management categories in the Eastern Arc Mountains, which are outside the FBD/District level framework for forests: National Parks, Game Reserves and Nature Reserves. There are two national parks (Udzungwa Mountains National Park and Mikumi National Park) managed by the Tanzanian National Park Authority based in Arusha. There are two game reserves (Selous and Mkomazi) and one nature reserve (Amani) managed by the Wildlife Division and the Tanzanian Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI). Nature Reserves enjoy a higher level of protection than Forest Reserves.A number of problems have been identified with the administrative framework of FBD, some of which are exacerbated by the decentralized structure for forest management in Tanzania (GEF 2002). These include:
In Kenya, there is a great deal of overlap in the institutional planning, implementation, management and monitoring of environmental policies and legislation. In 1992, the National Biodiversity Unit included no less than 38 government ministries, departments and parastatal institutions dealing with biodiversity issues. There are four government institutions that are directly involved in forest management and conservation: the Forest Department, KWS, the Kenya Forestry Research Institute and the National Museums of Kenya. At a few sites, all four are represented in multi-institutional management teams (e.g. the Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Management Team at Arabuko-Sokoke Forest).The Forest Department has the major mandate. It falls under the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MENR) and is responsible for:
East Africa has a plethora of environmental and conservation NGOs, many of which have been or are involved in forestry-related activities in the hotspot. It is impossible to do much more than list them in the present context and to highlight a few issues of particular importance. Their interventions have complemented on-going government conservation and development initiatives in the hotspot and have greatly assisted the Forest Department and FBD during periods when donor funding was difficult to get for government departments. NGOs can provide significant complementarity to government institutions:
Both Kenya and Tanzania have recently updated, or are in the process of updating, their policies and legislation on forests and the environment. In both countries, this is opening up new opportunities for conservation interventions.Kenya Policy An updated Kenya Forest Policy has been developed and is in the process of being officially approved. Kenya's Forest Policy has evolved from the Kenya Forestry Master Plan (Forest Department 1994), which was a joint venture of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MENR) and FINNIDA. The policy contains seven major objectives:
The 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 of development, but is awaiting tabling in Parliament to become law. The bill is much more comprehensive than the act it will replace and covers issues of community participation and multiple stakeholders in forestry. The bill proposes the establishment of a corporate body called the Kenya Forest Service. Among its responsibilities, this body will:
Policy The Forest Policy of Tanzania (United Republic of Tanzania 1998) gives the responsibility of managing forest resources to the forest sector in collaboration with key stakeholders. Among the main features of the policy are participatory forest management, decentralization and privatization. These are radical divergences from the earlier policy and legislation, which restricted management to the state authorities and had a different approach to preservation and controlled utilization. These reforms are a result of emerging macroeconomic policies and local and global environmental management trends. They also recognize the rights of the communities and roles of the private sector in managing these resources. The overall goal and objectives are presented in Box 1.The Forest Policy is implemented through the National Forest Programme (Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, 2001). The key challenges for this program are ensuring sustainable utilization of forest produce and meeting the national demand for forest produce such as wood fuel, sawn timber, non-timber forest products and other forest produce. The dependence on forest products by the majority of the rural communities for their livelihoods enables forests to contribute to poverty reduction.The program aims to reduce poverty through: (1) increased employment in forest industry and related activities by 25 percent by 2010; and (2) increased income generation from forest resources and services to local communities by 20 percent by 2010. The anticipated major benefits resulting from increased community and private sector participation in the management and sustainable utilization of forests are:
Existing legislation pertaining to forest management in Tanzania is the Forest Ordinance CAP 389 of 1957, which was operational from 1959. Basically, this ordinance focuses on restrictive use and, more so, on preservation of forests. The ordinance, to a large extent, has excluded local communities from involvement in management of these resources and recognises them only as beneficiaries. This law governs conservation and management of forests and forest produce. This ordinance, like many others developed during the colonial era, focused on preservation of natural forests. This classical conservation was based on the belief that proper management could be implemented through protection from human interference and exclusion from human use. This exclusion did not, of course, apply to the Government Forestry and Bee-keeping Division and a great deal of natural forest destruction and replacement by plantations, continued under licence after 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 reserves and restrictions over the use of and/or occupation of such areas. The ordinance further provides for the declaration of local authority forest reserves. The requirements for such declarations include: (1) recording of rights preceding such declarations; (2) restrictions on the creation of new rights subsequent to declaration, in respect of unreserved land, of “reserved trees”; and (3) the granting of licenses for any of the purposes of the ordinance.There was clearly great inconsistency between the ordinance and the new National Forest Policy. Taking account of the weaknesses in the existing ordinance, a Forest Bill, which revised the outdated Forests Ordinance CAP 389 of 1957, was developed to correspond with the National Forest Policy. The bill sought to address the inadequacies of the Forests Ordinance and provided a legal framework to enable the new National Forest Policy to be effectively implemented. The revised Forest Act bestows management rights under respective instruments, including:
In January 2000, the Forestry and Beekeeping Division began developing a National Forest Programme (NFP). The objective of the NFP is to: (1) enhance the contribution of the forest and beekeeping sector to sustainable development of Tanzania; and (2) to enhance the conservation of natural resources for the benefit of present and future generations. The NFP was formulated as an instrument for implementation of the National Forest Policy (United Republic of Tanzania 1998). The NFP is also meant to improve the design and implementation of forest management interventions. This includes streamlining financing in the sector and fostering implementation of international processes towards Sustainable Forest Management (SFM).The formulation of the NFP included identification of issues through reviews and consultations at national and local levels, their prioritization based on scope, resources and capacity requirements for their implementation. Strategies for implementation were identified and development programmes designed.In May 2001, the draft NFP was submitted to the government for endorsement. The NFP has four development programmes, namely:
Both Kenya and Tanzania are grouped among the poorest nations in the world. Three of the major economic indicators from 2001 for these two countries deserve particular attention: the low per capita incomes ($271 in Kenya, $260 in Tanzania); the percentages of the populations earning less than one dollar a day (43 percent in Kenya, 50 percent in Tanzania) and; the economic growth rates (1.2 percent in Kenya, 5.6 percent in Tanzania). The post-independence histories of the economies in these two countries have been quite different.After independence, Kenya built up a strong economic lead over its neighbours in Eastern Africa through the encouragement of market-oriented policies, smallholder agricultural production, public investment, tourism and incentives for private industrial investment. Over a 10-year period from 1963-1973, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew by an average of 6.6 percent a year (US State Department Country Reports, 2002a). By 1997 it had dropped to 2.3 percent, then to 1.8 percent in 1999 and became negative (0.4 percent) in 2000 (USAID 2000). A variety of factors were responsible for the long decline. These included unfavourable terms of trade (increased oil prices, decreased tea and coffee prices), government invasion of the private sector, declining tourism, political uncertainties, corruption and sheer bad governance (leading to the suspension of bilateral and multilateral aid in 1991) (USAID 2000). Were it not for vigorous growth in the cut flower and horticultural export industries and the entrepreneurial skills of its people, Kenya would have been in a much worse situation by 2000. A new government was democratically elected at the end of 2002 and there are considerable expectations that the economy will improve.Tanzania was a one-party state with a socialist mode of development from independence in 1961 until the mid-1980s. Despite a substantial influx of foreign aid, the economy did not prosper. Beginning in 1986, the government began to liberalize its control of the economy and to encourage participation in the private sector. In 1996, a three-year Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility was agreed between the IMF and the Tanzanian Government. Over the next four years, economic growth averaged around 4 percent, rising to 4.9 percent in 2000 and to 5.6 percent in 2001 (USAID 2002). Economic growth is most evident in Dar es Salaam. Although the figures look good, Tanzania's economy is overwhelmingly donor-dependent, with the external debt at more than $8 billion and debt servicing absorbing 40 percent of government expenditure (USAID 2002b). Economic Activities on the Coast The economic situation on the Kenyan and Tanzanian coasts has worsened during the last decade because of declines in the tourism, textiles and cashew nut industries. Coast tourism is going through 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 the hotel and tourism service industry. In June 2003, hotel staff in Kenya received reduced pay following the suspension of British Airways flights because of terrorist threats. In the early 1990s, textile manufacturing was the leading industrial category in coastal Kenya in terms of the numbers of registered companies (24 out of 159: UNEP 1998). Several of these firms have since collapsed as a result of massive importation of cheap second hand clothing (mitimbu). The cashew nut industry, which used to be a significant contributor to rural livelihoods, has also suffered severely from competition with India and from internal problems. A cashew nut processing factory at Kilifi, on the north coast of Kenya, finally closed down in the late 1990s after years of problems. As a result of the declines in the tourism, textiles and cashew nut industries, many people have lost jobs and livelihoods, with significant effects to the local economy. Some of the strain has been borne by the forests, which play an important role in mitigating poverty. For example, more than 40 percent of household consumption in the Eastern Arc Mountains is forest-derived (GEF 2002). Other industrial activities, many of them based on the coast because of maritime access to imports and exports, have been more robust. These include: cement, lime and quarrying; steel rolling mills and iron smelting; oil refining; manufacture of paints, plastics, rubber, chemical and metal products; wood processing (paper, pulp, board and timber); light processing for export of agricultural crops (coffee, groundnuts, cotton and sisal); and food and beverage industries. As elsewhere in the world there has been considerable growth in information technology-based services, although these have been constrained by poor landline facilities, high telephone charges and poor connectivity. There has also been increasing South African investment in the coastal economy, particularly in Tanzania. Industries outside the major cities and towns are mostly based on mineral resources, especially sand, salt and limestone. Sand for building is mined in many localities along the coast, notably at Mazeras near Mombasa. Silica sand for glass manufacture was formerly mined in Arabuko-Sokoke Forest. (Ironically, the old sand quarries have since become a distinctive biodiversity site within the forest, especially for frogs and birds). Extensive salt works have been established at various sites (e.g. in Tanga District in Tanzania and at Ngomeni, Gongoni and Kurawa in Kenya), where they have been responsible for local destruction of mangrove forests. Limestone deposits are abundant along the coast. They form a 4-8 km band, parallel to the coast and about 70 m thick from across the Kenya-Tanzanian border north to Malindi. All along the coast, coral limestone is quarried as building blocks, but there is local variation in limestone quality, affecting its potential use. In Tiwi on the south Kenyan coast it is used for lime manufacture. In the Bamburi area just north of Mombasa, limestone is quarried on a large scale for cement manufacture by a subsidiary of La Farge, a French-based multinational. This site at Bamburi has become famous for its ecological restoration of quarries and La Farge has recently entered into a partnership agreement with WWF (WWF-EARPO 2002). Other coastal mineral resources of minor local importance include barites, galena, iron ore, gypsum and rubies. However all of these may be dwarfed by the development of titanium mining in Kenya. There are vast titanium reserves in the Magarini Sands belt, which stretches from Shimoni in the south coast to Mambrui in the north. Titanium has traditionally been used to make a white pigment for paint, plastic and paper, but is increasingly in demand for applications in the armaments and space industries. Since 1995, a Canadian-based company (Tiomin Resources Inc.) has been negotiating an agreement with the Kenyan government to mine titanium. Tiomin hopes to start its activities in the Kwale District and expects to generate around $47 million in annual cash flow. For the vast majority of people in the rural areas the major economic activity is subsistence farming, supplemented by tree crops and fishing. There are large sisal plantations (e.g. Vipingo in Kenya) and tea estates (e.g. in Iringa and Kagera in Tanzania), which provide limited and poorly paid jobs, but employment opportunities are few and the landless are in desperate straits. Cassava is the major agricultural crop, followed by maize, citrus, coconuts, mangoes and bananas (UNEP 1998). Cassava and maize are the staples everywhere and coconuts yield a variety of products from roofing material to palm wine. Other crops are locally important (e.g. coffee in Kwale District in Kenya). The fishing industry is constrained by the small area of the continental shelf next to the East African coast, the Southeast Monsoon (which restricts the activities of small canoes) and low productivity due to nutrient deficient currents (UNEP 1998). Food security is not a problem within and around the high rainfall areas in the Eastern Arc Mountains, but farmers to the north and north-west of Mombasa need emergency food supplies whenever the rainfall is poor. Complaints of declining soil fertility are widespread. Other minor but widespread livelihoods are earned from artisan activities (wood carving, furniture making, boat building and handicrafts), service provision (e.g. kiosks for small scale trading, sewing, electronic and other repairs) and the informal jua kali (Kiswahili for "fierce sun") sector, which includes tin smiths, second hand clothing and cobblers.Infrastructure and Regional Development There are two large cities within the hotspot, each of which has grown around an important and ancient deep-water seaport on the Indian Ocean. Mombasa is Kenya's second largest city, with a population of more than 700,000. Despite deteriorating equipment and problems with inefficiency 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 has large warehousing (including bonded warehousing) and cold storage facilities. It is connected to Nairobi and thence inland to the land locked countries of Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and the Democratic 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 from Mombasa, south to the border and north past Malindi are paved but have rough stretches. The railway connects Mombasa to Nairobi and to Kisumu on Lake Victoria, but it has suffered from poor maintenance. There is an excellent international airport in Mombasa (Moi International Airport) and domestic air services to Malindi on the north coast and Diani on the south coast. Dar es Salaam is the largest city of Tanzania with a population of around three million. It is increasingly competitive with Mombasa as the most important seaport in the region. It has eight deep-water berths for general cargo, three berths for container vessels, eight anchorages, a grain terminal, an oil jetty and onshore mooring for supertankers. It underwent major rehabilitation starting in 1997 at a cost of about $24 million. In addition to Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo, it also serves Malawi and Zambia. Freight is largely carried by trains and heavy-duty vehicles. Most primary roads (e.g. from Dar north to Tanga and inland to Dodoma, Arusha and Morogoro) are in good condition, but rural and feeder roads are bad and can be impassable in the rains. Major road development and the construction of a bridge over the Rufiji are ongoing and will open up access from Dar es Salaam to the South. The Tanzania Zambia Railway Authority maintains good rail links between Dar es Salaam and Zambia. There are also train services to Tanga on the north coast and to Arusha via Moshi and Mwanza via Morogoro. The Dar es Salaam International Airport has daily flights to national, regional and international destinations. In addition there are daily ferryboats to Zanzibar and sea transport to other destinations on the Tanzanian coast (Mtwara, Tanga, Kilwa, Lindi and Mafia Island).Both cities and most of the larger towns in the hotspot have unreliable water supplies and electricity services, but most villages have neither piped water nor electricity, unless they are on the main roads. In Kenya, more than 65 percent of the population depend on pit latrines or the bush (UNEP 1998). Because of a heavy investment in coastal tourism, there are a large number of comfortable hotels along the coast in Kenya and a smaller number on the Tanzanian coast. Good private hospitals are available in Mombasa and Dar es Salaam, but are expensive. Government hospitals and clinics are severely under-resourced. Telephone landlines in Tanzania and Kenya are unreliable, but new mobile phone networks have hugely improved communication in both countries.Demography and Social Trends The demographic and social trends in Tanzania and Kenya are similar. The annual population growth 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 rates populations will double over the next 25 years. Total populations are about 37.4 million in Tanzania and 30.7 million in Kenya (World Bank 2001). Average population densities are 40 (Tanzania) and 53 (Kenya) persons per km² (calculated from data in USAID 2002a, b), with most people concentrated in areas of high rainfall and good soils. For example, an estimated four million people live within 10 km of one of the Eastern Arc Mountain ranges (GEF 2002). In Kenya, only 18 percent of the land is arable, with another 9 percent marginal and the rest arid or semi-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). In Kenya in 2003, the incoming government made primary education free of charge, but it is not yet clear whether it will be able to provide the extra resources required by this new policy. The major health problems are malaria and HIV/AIDS. Largely because of the latter, life expectancies have dropped to 50 years (Tanzania) and 49 years (Kenya) and infant mortality rates have increased to 115 (Kenya) and 98 (Tanzania) per 1,000 births (USAID 2002a, b).The major social trend in both countries is urbanization. Africa's cities are growing faster with lower economic growth than any other region of the world (USAID 2000). Between 1975 and 2000, the percentage of the population living in urban areas in Tanzania increased from 15 percent to 25 percent (Mariki et al. 2003). In Kenya this percentage was estimated at 33 percent in 2000 and is projected to reach 48 percent in 2020 (USAID 2000). The population of Nairobi has grown by 600 percent since 1950 and is currently around 4.5 million although it was originally designed for a population of 1 million (USAID 2000). Poor immigrants to the city are forced to live in slum areas, where there is little sanitation or fresh water and where rents are absurdly high for the quality of accommodation that is provided. The fact that urbanisation is nonetheless proceeding at such a high rate indicates that people (particularly the younger generation) see little future for themselves in the rural areas. A major social consequence of urbanisation is the weakening of traditional customs and obligations, including those associated with the extended family. City life also leads to later marriages and less traditional lifestyles among the youth.Religion is extremely important in the lives of both urban and rural Kenyans and Tanzanians. In Tanzania 45 percent are Muslims and 45 percent are Christians, with 10 percent having indigenous beliefs. In Kenya, the majority (40 percent) are Protestant, 30 percent are Catholic, 20 percent are Muslim and an estimated 10 percent hold indigenous beliefs (USAID 2002a, b). In both countries the proportion of Muslims is much higher on the coast. Even in recent times, there has been tolerance between faiths and the few religious clashes that are reported arise from intra-denominational struggles.Both Kenya and Tanzania are ethnically diverse with more than 120 different local languages in Tanzania and more than 40 in Kenya (USAID 2002a, b). Ethnic differences have played a large role in Kenyan political and economic alliances, but this has not been the case in Tanzania. This is mainly because of a more even spread of ethnic origins in Tanzania, which prevented any one tribe from dominating national affairs. In both countries, ethnic differences are less important to the younger than the older generations. The official language is Kiswahili in Tanzania and English in Kenya, but both languages are widely understood in both countries. In Kenya, Kiswahili is the predominant language of the coast. Literacy rates for the official languages are 67 percent (Tanzania) and 59 percent (Kenya) (USAIDa, b).Synopsis of Current Threats The overriding problem facing the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests hotspot is degradation, fragmentation and loss of the only remaining habitat for many known (and unknown) globally threatened species. This is the result of many factors, such as growing human population exerting pressure on forest resources and land; poverty leading to unsustainable use of forest resources; under-resourced government institutions; a legacy of outdated environmental policies and legislation; and lack of political will. The hotspot is dominated by a large and expanding economically impoverished human population. Despite the high biological importance, legal protection for important areas in the hotspot is either weak, lacking altogether or 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 and legislative reforms) have been launched to address them.Levels of Threat Over three-quarters of forests in this hotspot are highly or very highly threatened. In the Eastern Arc, 75 percent of the major sites are ranked as highly threatened (South Pare, West Usambara and Mahenge) or very highly threatened (Taita, North Pare, Ukaguru, Rubeho, Uluguru and the lower 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 103 coastal forests in Tanzania (Figure 4) (data from WWF-EARPO 2002). All of these forests are under some threat and almost 80 percent are judged to be highly (57 percent) or very highly (32 percent) threatened. The levels of threat are very similar in the two countries.Main Threats Major threats were identified for the Eastern Arc Mountains as part of the GEF PDF Block B process (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 the distinction between ultimate (e.g. human population growth and negative value systems) and proximate threats (over-exploitation) was inconsistent. A general treatment of the threats follows, amalgamating and re-arranging the categories in Table 3 to facilitate presentation. Table 4 elaborates these threats (e.g.pressure on forest resources) and gives local examples.Agriculture Historically, commercial agriculture has been responsible for some clearance and fragmentation of forest. There are large tea estates in Iringa, Tanga and Kagera on land that was formerly forested. Some patches of forest in these estates have been preserved, e.g. at Ambangulu. In the lowlands, sisal estates also cleared large areas of forest, especially around the East Usambaras in Tanzania. The largest current threats, however, come from the commercial cultivation of vegetables, which are sold in the local markets and from the growing of cardamom and other spices under forest cover. These activities result in forest clearance and the destruction of undergrowth in the forest. They are an important contributor to rural livelihoods and therefore pose a real problem for forest conservation as the population and the demand for arable land grows. Over the past 100 years, subsistence agriculture (mostly for maize) has been responsible for the disappearance of most areas of unprotected forest. Forest is cleared for farm land, as it has better growing potential, but, after a few years, the soils are exhausted and yields reduce to those of other nearby non-forest agricultural lands. Inappropriate farming practices (shifting cultivation with short fallow periods, slash and burn, cultivation on steep slopes in Eastern Arc Mountains) are common. The inevitable result, which is exacerbated by population growth, is increased demand for land, leading to encroachment on forests. In the absence of expanding urban employment and livelihood opportunities, these problems are certain to increase in the hotspot. Effective agricultural extension, promoting more sustainable and productive farming methods, can help in mitigating this threat, but price incentives, combined with strong controls or constraints on agricultural expansion, are a more potent weapon.Commercial Timber Extraction There have been national moratoriums on commercial logging in high forests in Tanzania since the early 1990s and in indigenous forests in Kenya since the late 1990s, but enforcement and monitoring have been erratic in both countries. In Tanzania, where the local district forest officers (DFOs) report to the local district authorities rather than to FBD headquarters, the command structure is compromised and local pressure on DFOs to ignore illegal logging can be strong. In Kenya, high-level political connections enabled certain large timber companies to continue to extract indigenous trees despite the moratorium, although their activities have mainly focused 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 often ignored and the majority of logging being undertaken in the reserves is illegal. There is a great deal of commercial timber extraction by small-scale poachers, responding to the demands of urbanization and tourism development. Very little of the value of this timber goes back to the poachers, who are usually at the bottom end of an exploitative network of foresters, middlemen and contractors. Forests close to tourist areas, such as Arabuko-Sokoke Forest near Malindi and Watamu in Kenya, suffer from the high demand for carving wood (Brachylaena huillensis) and timber for the construction of hotels, private residences and tourist attractions. The carving wood industry is much bigger in Kenya than in Tanzania and poaching of carving wood trees is most common in Tanzania near the Kenya/Tanzania border.Other Forest Resource Extraction Commercial fuelwood extraction and charcoal production are a problem near urban centres, with Dar es Salaam and Mombasa and the Stone City in Zanzibar as major markets. Fuelwood is also commercially harvested from Udzungwa Mountain National Park for local brewing. As roads are improved, more forests become at risk because of increased access for fuelwood and charcoal merchants. For example, Rondo and Kitope Forest Reserve are threatened 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 forests themselves, mainly in the form of poles of young trees. For larger buildings, doors and window frames planked timber is obtained from pitsawing groups working in the forests. As most of these teams are either operating in areas where logging is not permitted or they lack the licenses for the trees that they are cutting, the majority of timber being used in local construction is illegal. Most of this timber is sold and hence is, in reality, a commercial use of the forests, only to supply the local market.A range of other products is extracted for various household uses, like medicinal plants, edible fruits, wild honey, grass and fodder for livestock and bamboo collection for tomato basket weaving. These activities can cause local problems, especially where extraction methods are destructive such as careless debarking of medicinal trees. Targeted species are already scarce. Hunting is historically responsible for the absence of several large mammals (buffalo, rhino, elephant, leopard, bushbuck) from large areas in the hotspot where they used to roam. The local bushmeat trade threatens the smaller mammals. Although this trade is not on the scale found in West and Central Africa, local consumption of game meat can threaten rare wildlife. For example, the endangered Aders' duiker has been reduced to very low population levels by local hunters in Arabuko-Sokoke Forest, (FitzGibbon et al. 1995; Kanga 1996) and also in Jozani Forest in Zanzibar (Struhsaker & Siex, pers. comm.). Mining Mining within forests is currently a minor threat, but (as noted earlier) this may change: large reserves of titanium have been discovered on Kenya's coast, from Kwale to Malindi District and underneath Arabuko-Sokoke Forest. Tiomin Resources Inc. plans to strip mine four areas in coastal Kenya, starting with an area of 64 km2 in Kwale District, which will be mined for at least 14 years. All vegetation and physical structures will be removed and mineral deposits will be exposed to a depth of more than 30 m. Tiomin has promised to compensate the original landowners and to rehabilitate and return the land to them, but agreement has not yet been reached on its operations. There is considerable public concern about environmental impacts and the distribution of economic benefits, and the new Kenyan government appears to be taking a stricter line with Tiomin on these issues (Reuters 2003). Fires Fires are commonly used by rural farmers to clear fields prior to planting. Where population densities are high, vegetation from the fields to be farmed that season is cleared into piles and burned on the site. In general, few of these fires spread into forest margins or montane grasslands. Within the forests, fires are started for forest clearance for cultivation and these can get out of control and burn larger areas. Sometimes, wild honey harvesters start forest fires when they smoke the bees to get their honey. Fires are sometimes started deliberately for political reasons (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 to wildfires that can have a number of causes and once started will spread up the slope in an uncontrolled fashion. Occasionally, these fires reach the forests and during dry years they can enter the forest and cause considerable damage. They also burn huge areas of upland grass in the Eastern Arc Mountains. Ranking of Threats in Tanzania Because of the different ways in which threats have been identified and analyzed in different portions of the hotspot, it is difficult to include all the data in an overall ranking of threats in the hotspot. The most compatible datasets come from site-by-site analyses of threats for 114 sites in the Tanzanian Coastal Forests (WWF-EARPO 2002) and for 136 sites in the Tanzanian Eastern Arc Mountains (data from Neil Burgess). Figure 5 summarizes this data in ranked form for the top 10 threats common to both datasets.The top 10 overall threats (in ranked order) are agriculture and encroachment, fire, timber extraction, polewood cutting, population growth, charcoal production, grazing, hunting, mining and roads. Population growth was included as a threat in both datasets, although it may be better considered as an ultimate factor, driving the other proximate threats. Two additional threats were identified only for the Eastern Arc Mountains Forests (corruption and medicinal plants) and another seven only for the Coastal Forests (settlement, urbanisation, | |||||||||
