The CEPF program focus is firmly on reducing the extinction risk for the 333 globally threatened species in the hotspot and on improving the protection of the 152 sites in which these species are found (plus the additional nine IBAs). This focus necessarily involves both people and science. Underlying all the threats to the biodiversity in this hotspot is pressure from rapidly increasing and impoverished human populations. These populations have little sympathy or incentive for species and habitat conservation and limited awareness of the importance of maintaining ecosystem services and functions. The CEPF program, therefore, focuses on actions that will address this issue. If these actions are to be effective, they must be grounded in good science. Interventions must be targeted on the most important sites and must be based on scientifically tested best practices. As such, the program also focuses on improving biological knowledge in the hotspot and on practical applications of conservation science. This focus on people and science builds on over three decades of research and conservation effort in the Eastern Arc Mountains and East African Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya.
Five strategic directions for the CEPF investment strategy were developed. These were based on the workshop documents, presentations and discussions and on subsequent expert review. The documents and presentations included background on CEPF and its goals, site and species outcomes and the assessments of threats and current investment. The strategic directions are summarised in Table 6, together with investment priorities and are described in more detail below. The order of presentation should not be interpreted as a rank order of importance.
Table 6. CEPF strategic funding directions and investment priorities in the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya hotspot (2003-2008)
| CEPF Strategic Directions |
CEPF Investment Priorities |
| 1. Increase the ability of local populations to benefit from and contribute to biodiversity conservation, especially in and around Lower Tana River Forests; Taita Hills; East Usambaras/Tanga; Udzungwas; and Jozani Forest |
1.1 Evaluate community-based forest management initiatives in the hotspot to determine best practices. |
| 1.2 Promote nature-based, sustainable businesses that benefit local populations in the hotspot. |
| 1.3 Explore possibilities for direct payments and easements (Conservation Concessions) for biodiversity conservation in the hotspot and support where appropriate. |
| 1.4 Build the capacity of community-based organizations in the hotspot for advocacy in support of biodiversity conservation at all levels. |
| 1.5 Support cultural practices that benefit biodiversity in the hotspot. |
| 1.6 Research and promote eco-agricultural options for the local populations of the hotspot. |
| 2. Restore and increase connectivity among fragmented forest patches in the hotspot, especially in Lower Tana River Forests; Taita Hills; East Usambaras/Tanga; and Udzungwas
|
2.1 Assess potential sites in the hotspot for connectivity interventions. |
| 2.2 Support initiatives that maintain or restore connectivity in the hotspot. |
| 2.3 Monitor and evaluate initiatives that maintain or restore connectivity in the hotspot. |
| 2.4 Support best practices for restoring connectivity in ways that also benefit people. |
| 3. Improve biological knowledge in the hotspot (all 160 sites eligible) |
3.1 Refine and implement a standardized monitoring program across the 160 eligible sites. |
| 3.2 Support research in the less studied of the 160 eligible sites in the hotspot. |
| 3.3 Monitor populations of Critically Endangered and Endangered Species in the hotspot. |
| 3.4 Support research in the hotspot to facilitate Red List assessments and re-assessments for plants, reptiles, invertebrates and other taxa. |
| 3.5 Compile and document indigenous knowledge on hotspot sites and species. |
| 3.6 Support awareness programs that increase public knowledge of biodiversity values of the hotspot. |
| 4. Establish a small grants program in the hotspot (all 160 sites eligible) that focuses on critically endangered species and small-scale efforts to increase connectivity of biologically important habitat patches |
4.1 Support targeted efforts to increase connectivity of biologically important habitat patches. |
| 4.2 Support efforts to increase biological knowledge of the sites and to conserve critically endangered species. |
| 5. Develop and support efforts for further fundraising for the hotspot |
5.1 Establish a professional resource mobilization unit, within an appropriate local partner institution, for raising long-term funds and resources for the hotspot. |
| 5.2 Utilize high-level corporate contacts to secure funding from the private sector for the hotspot. |
| 5.3 Train local NGOs and community-based organizations in fundraising and proposal writing. |
1. Increase the ability of local populations in the hotspot to benefit from and contribute to biodiversity conservation, especially in and around Lower Tana River Forests, Taita Hills, East Usambaras/Tanga, Udzungwas and Jozani Forest.
These sites were selected based on current lack of investment, assessment of opportunities for success and biological prioritization. The paradigm, which links poverty to environmental degradation and biodiversity loss, has driven much of the conservation effort in this hotspot for two decades and it inevitably emerged as a dominant theme in the workshop. CEPF should concentrate on synergistic and direct linkages between people and biodiversity conservation. There is a rich field here for interventions and the piloting of new approaches, while building on previous conservation efforts in the hotspot. There are opportunities to promote agricultural practices that improve production and enhance biodiversity. These practices include both old and new techniques. They have been brought together under the umbrella term "ecoagriculture" by McNeely and Scherr (2003). There are also opportunities to exploit synergies between different investment priorities. The following investment priorities were identified under this strategic direction.
1.1 Evaluate community-based forest management initiatives in the hotspot to determine best practices. Community-based conservation initiatives include efforts to involve and capacitate local communities in the management of biodiversity sites (mainly forests) in the hotspot. Both in Kenya and Tanzania, new policies are promoting various forms of community participation in forest management (joint forest management, community-based forest management and participatory forest management). There are at least 32 such initiatives in the hotspot. Under these arrangements, community user rights are negotiated in return for responsibilities such as self-policing, with extraction rates based on estimates of sustainability. The effects on community livelihoods, law enforcement and biodiversity protection are all routinely expected to be positive, but a scientific consensus on this expectation is yet to be reached. Strong opinions are much commoner than hard data. Scientific testing of participatory management strategies in the hotspot is badly needed. CEPF will prioritize research and analysis rather than financing applied projects under this investment priority.
1.2 Promote nature-based businesses that benefit local populations. Experience within the hotspot has shown that nature-based businesses that benefit local populations can build significant constituencies for conservation. Because of extreme poverty, even small incomes from such businesses can make real differences in local attitudes towards conservation, provided that the linkage between revenue and the continued existence of the biodiversity resource is direct and obvious. It follows that revenues must be reasonably reliable and that any resource use must be sustainable. Examples include beekeeping, tourism, butterfly farming (Gordon & Ayiemba 2003), cultivation for essential oil extraction and domestication of medicinal plants.
1.3 Explore possibilities for direct payments and easements (conservation concessions) for biodiversity conservation in the hotspot and support where appropriate. Recent reviews (e.g., Ferraro & Kiss 2002) argue that direct payments for conservation are more cost-effective and provide more benefits to biodiversity than community-based interventions such as Integrated Conservation and Development Projects. Under direct payments and easements, communities/land owners are paid directly for the right to manage the site for conservation purposes under leasehold or alternative arrangements. This eliminates the expenditures that so often inflate project costs to no good end and the net benefits that reach the communities are commensurably greater. Running costs become the responsibility of the organization/corporation/individual that makes the payments. Direct payments and easements are relatively untried in Africa, so any attempt at their implementation would need to be on a pilot basis. CEPF could facilitate advice on the appropriateness of this approach in this hotspot and fund training and assistance for local organisations to act as honest brokers in the negotiation of any such arrangement, but could not provide the resources for the direct payments. These negotiations could include raising funds from the local corporate and private sector, which benefit from the ecological services (water and hydropower) provided by the Eastern Arc Mountains. It should be noted that CEPF cannot capitalize conservation concessions, nor can it purchase land for conservation.
1.4 Build the capacity of community-based organizations in the hotspot for advocacy in support of biodiversity conservation at all levels. Grassroots advocacy for conservation can help to prevent theft/invasion/encroachment/ development of sites with biodiversity value (Gordon & Ayiemba 2003). Many excisions have in recent years been made in the name of squatters or of the local community, while the land was subsequently allocated to the well connected. In such situations, community protests can be more effective than the lobbying of city-based NGOs. Local communities are also effective watchdogs, since they live next to biodiversity sites and know most about what is going on in them. Local communities often include retired senior civil servants and others with relatives in corridors of power and, therefore, have more leverage than may at first be apparent. In Tanzania there are forest and wildlife committees within the village/ward structures that could be supported.
1.5 Support cultural practices that benefit biodiversity in the hotspot. Sacred forests are known from all over Africa, but the protection they have enjoyed for centuries is being rapidly eroded by factors such as cultural change and greatly increased land demand. There are a great number of traditionally protected forests in Tanzania (Mwihomeke et al. 1998), but the most well known examples within the hotspot are the Kaya Forests of coastal Kenya. These forests contain a high diversity of plants including significant numbers of endemics (Robertson 1987; Robertson & Luke 1993) and Red List plant species (Appendix 2). According to local traditions, the forests historically sheltered small fortified villages. The sites of the original settlements (often marked by forest clearings) were maintained by the communities (led by the elders) as sacred places of ritual and burial grounds. Destruction of vegetation around these sites was prohibited so as to preserve the surrounding 'Kaya' forest as a screen or buffering environment for the clearings. Since 1992, the Kenyan Government has gazetted a number of them as national monuments, with assistance from the well-known Kaya Project of the Coastal Forest Conservation Unit (CFCU) of The National Museums of Kenya. CEPF should support such initiatives throughout the hotspot, with a particular emphasis on contemporary validation of their historical, cultural and biodiversity values.
1.6 Research and promote ecoagricultural options for the local communities of the hotspot. McNeely and Scherr (2003) document 36 case studies where agricultural practices improve productivity and enhance biodiversity. In 25 cases the beneficiaries were subsistence farmers. McNeely and Scherr suggest that ecoagriculture could be usefully promoted around biodiversity hotspots surrounded by poor small-scale farmers. Ecoagriculture includes well-established agricultural practices such as agroforestry, medicinal plant domestication, bioprospecting and organic farming. There is a great deal of ecoagricultural expertise in East Africa, which could be put to use by the local communities in this hotspot. In view of the effectiveness of price incentives, introduction of high value crops (e.g. medicinal plants and plants containing essential oils) could be a good option, particularly if these also have positive biodiversity values and if controls on forest encroachment are adequately enforced.
2. Restore and increase connectivity among fragmented forest patches in the hotspot, especially in Lower Tana River Forests, Taita Hills, East Usambaras/Tanga and Udzungwas.It is a well-established principle in ecology that species richness is positively correlated with area. When a forest is fragmented, each fragment of forest contains fewer species than did the intact forest and large fragments contain more species than small fragments (Laurance et al. 2001 and references therein; Newmark 2002). Some species are lost immediately through sampling effects, while others are lost because they need large areas to sustain their populations.
Local extinctions continue well after the fragmentation event, as genetic diversity decreases and isolated populations become more inbred and vulnerable to diseases and random events. Some species disappear because they depend on others that are lost. Edge effects become more important as fragment size decreases, affecting microclimates, exposing trees to winds and other conditions that exceed their physiological tolerance and further reducing the amount of habitat favoured by forest-dependent species. Some species do well in such conditions and there may be local increases in biodiversity, with edge-tolerant species thriving and matrix species penetrating the forest fragments. But for most of the forest-dependent species and these include many of the Red List species in this hotspot, fragmentation further threatens their survival. For example, in the Taita Hills, fragmentation is associated with adverse effects on sex ratios and developmental stability in threatened bird species, including the Critically Endangered Taita thrush (Lens & Van Dogen 1999; Lens et al. 1998, 1999a, b, 2001, 2002).
Reconnecting recently fragmented forest patches can save species from extinction. Gene flow can be restored among isolated populations, locally extinct species can be reintroduced through immigration and ecologically complex processes that sustain diversity can be re-established. This is an important research front and the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests hotspot is an ideal location for such work. There are many opportunities for implementation and investigation in both conservation science and community conservation. Best practices could be replicated over larger areas. The hotspot is also a treasure house for evolutionary biology. A wide variety of taxa, at various levels of speciation, are available to examine issues of genetic divergence and isolation in relation to distance, mobility and vagility. The sites chosen for this strategic direction were assessed from a biological perspective and were determined to present the greatest opportunity for successful connectivity efforts.
2.1 Assess potential sites in the hotspot for connectivity interventions. Not all forest fragments should be reconnected. Where fragmentation is natural and long established, any negative effects will have already been expressed and, over evolutionary time, new subspecies and species will have evolved. There is little doubt that this process of fragmentation and isolation has been responsible, for example, for the extraordinary diversity of some of the invertebrates (millipedes, linyphiid spiders, opilionids and carabid beetles) in the Eastern Arc Mountains, where single site endemism exceeds 80 percent (Scharff et al. 1981; Scharff 1992, 1993; Hoffman 1993, 2000; Burgess et al. 1998). The most suitable sites for connectivity interventions are, therefore, those in which (1) fragmentation is relatively recent, where (2) detailed scientific background data are available, where (3) this is considered to be a priority conservation action and where (4) this is a realistic activity. It will also be important to identify altitudinal forest corridors, which are, or could be, used for seasonal altitudinal migration.
2.2 Support initiatives that maintain or restore connectivity in the hotspot. Where the establishment of biodiversity corridors makes ecological, conservation and practical sense, it should be supported. Examples of narrow gaps between formerly joined forests are numerous in this hotspot. Some of the most important opportunities for restoring connectivity are in the Taita Hills, Lower Tana River Forests, Uluguru Mountains, East Usambara Mountains and Udzungwa Mountains. In several of these sites, connectivity has a direct bearing on the conservation of globally threatened bird species.
2.3 Monitor and evaluate initiatives that maintain or restore connectivity in the hotspot. Baseline monitoring, before restoring connectivity, is essential and indicator species should be identified and monitored so as to track impacts. The choice of indicator species should reflect a wide spectrum of mobility ("from a slug to a bird") and the availability of background knowledge (e.g. on population genetics). Effects on Red List species should be studied in as much detail as funds and circumstances allow. Monitoring of altitudinal connectivity will be particularly interesting in the context of climate change.
2.4 Support best practices for restoring connectivity in ways that also benefit people. Lens et al. (2003) have drawn attention to the opportunities for benefiting people while establishing biodiversity corridors. These include allowing local farmers to harvest old and neglected plantations, paying them for nurturing regenerating forest and planting indigenous seedlings, improving water catchments and encouraging agroforestry on their farms. The Taita Hills and the East Usambara Mountains are particularly suitable for such activities.
3. Improve knowledge of biodiversity in the hotspot.This profile notes numerous gaps in biological knowledge in the hotspot. Many sites remain little studied and some of these sites are relatively large (e.g., the Nguru Mountains, Nguu Mountains, Rubeho Mountains, Boni Forest, Dodori Forest). Even the better-known sites continue to yield many new species. There has been an extraordinary amount of speciation amongst the invertebrates, yet data on the invertebrate biodiversity in the hotspot is meagre. Indigenous knowledge of the flora and fauna is inadequately documented and is fast being lost. Public awareness of the biodiversity values of this hotspot is very limited, both locally and internationally. Ultimately, our capacity to conserve depends on the range and depth of our knowledge. As such, improving knowledge must be a key element in the CEPF strategy for this hotspot.
3.1 Refine and implement a standardized monitoring program across sites. For the purpose of site monitoring, standardised, simple and cost-effective protocols must be established and implemented for selected species that are generalist indicators of habitat health. The number of taxa monitored should be minimal so as to economise on effort and expense. Suitable protocols already exist for a number of taxonomic groups and their systematic application across sites will create a data set with greatly added value. Standardised monitoring protocols are required to assess the impacts of conservation projects and to evaluate project success.
3.2 Support research in the less studied of the 160 eligible sites in the hotspot. Little known sites need more biodiversity surveys and other scientific investigations. The focus should be compiling lists of species and assessing distribution and abundance, so that the necessary data are available for assessing the relative biological importance of sites and the degree of threat status of species.
3.3 Monitor populations of Critically Endangered and Endangered Species in the hotspot. Particular attention must be given to monitoring the 24 Critically Endangered and 68 Endangered species of this hotspot (Table 1, 2, Appendix 3). Their continued existence is the bottom line for CEPF interventions. This calls for a wise use of resources, as the monitoring of rare species can take much time and effort. Expert training of and support for, local field technicians may be one way to compensate for the short field visits of professional scientists. Special care will be necessary to ensure that monitoring activities do not expose endangered species to any added risks.
3.4 Support research in the hotspot to facilitate Red List Assessments and re-assessments for plants, reptiles and other taxa. The deficiencies of the 2002 Red Lists for this hotspot have already been noted. This is dramatically illustrated by the 973 plant taxa in the List of Potentially Threatened Plants (Gereau and Luke 2003) that is included in the Outcomes Database for the hotspot. The situation is scarcely any better for the reptiles, where none of the more than 50 endemic reptiles in this hotspot are included in the 2002 Red List. Red List assessments for invertebrates would probably add thousands more species to the conservation outcomes for this hotspot. Red List assessments must be an investment priority.
3.5 Compile and document indigenous knowledge on hotspot sites and species. The values of indigenous knowledge of biodiversity and the urgent need for its documentation are widely recognized. An enormous amount of knowledge on biodiversity and its uses has been accumulated among indigenous peoples in the hotspot and has been transferred orally across the generations. While much of this has been recorded, the literature is scattered and hard to find. It needs to be compiled in both hard copy and database form. In any research in this area, the recognition of Intellectual Property Rights must be a primary consideration and the sources of information must be meticulously recorded.
3.6 Support awareness programs that increase public knowledge and appreciation of biodiversity values in this hotspot. The usefulness of awareness programs in conservation is often questioned. One problem is that they are often limited in their impacts by short project lifecycles, whereas awareness needs to be continually re-enforced (as shown by commodity marketing). Another is that awareness of biodiversity is seldom linked to any real benefits for the target communities. Innovative approaches are needed that circumvent these difficulties. Ways need to be found to put a bright and constant spotlight on the ecological services provided by the hotspot's forests (particularly water catchment and hydropower). Current public awareness of the global biodiversity values of the Eastern Arc and Coastal Forests hotspot also needs to be boosted at all levels.
4. Establish a Small Grants Program for all the 160 important sites identified for the hotspot, that focuses on critically endangered species and small scale efforts to increase connectivity of biologically important habitat patches.
Experience, particularly in the GEF, shows that small grants can be cost effective. Small grants should be made available through CEPF for community-based organizations and NGOs working to save Critically Endangered species and threatened sites in this hotspot. The intention is not to duplicate or compete with existing small grants programs on conservation issues, but to seek synergies and leverage funds for NGOs, community-based organizations and institutions of learning. Small grants programs incur high administration costs (per grant dollar) because of the burden of dealing with several small projects at once. Costs are also incurred because the beneficiaries are usually less well established than those receiving large grants and require closer monitoring and guidance on the ground. CEPF will evaluate the possibility of partnering with an in-region organization to host its small (>10,000 per grant) grants program.
A focus on the threatened sites and species in this hotspot will be a mandatory criterion for funding and selection of proposals will be made on the strength of this focus and the likelihood of positive impacts. In order to ensure a wide distribution of the available funds over these sites and species, the ceiling on grants for any one proposal will be $10,000.
4.1 Support targeted efforts to increase connectivity of biologically important habitat patches in the hotspot. Community-based organizations should be encouraged to engage in efforts to increase small-scale connectivity. It is widely recognized that project ownership at the community level is a key factor in project sustainability. There may also be opportunities for the contribution of labor, for corridor establishment and maintenance, to be accepted as payment in kind for other community development projects. Any such arrangement will require that appropriate monitoring systems are in place to ensure that all obligations are met.
4.2 Support efforts to increase biological knowledge of the sites and efforts to conserve Critically Endangered Species in the hotspot. Small grants programs can be extremely useful and cost-effective in supporting low-cost research. There are a number of universities in Kenya and Tanzania with active postgraduate programmes in biology and conservation. Small grant support for field research by postgraduate students within the hotspot will bear dividends in terms of both capacity building and new knowledge. Small grant support should also be given to projects that directly reduce threats to Critically Endangered species.
5. Develop and support efforts for further fundraising for the hotspot.
Although fundraising was not seen as a priority theme by the 12 March workshop in Dar es Salaam, it is prudent to plan ahead. Most of the larger grant-dependent institutions now have full time Resource Mobilization Units (RMUs) or Project Development Departments. These have been very successful in obtaining funds in an increasingly competitive environment and in preventing funding gaps for projects that need long-term financing. Efforts to secure long-term funding can be greatly enhanced through:
- coordinated, centralized and choreographed project marketing and improved investor relations;
- centralized information centres for resource mobilization and proposal development;
- training and institutional development in resource mobilization, proposal development and writing and project marketing; and
- strategically intertwined and targeted resource mobilization and public awareness.
CEPF will support efforts to raise further funds for this hotspot in partnership with an institution working in Tanzania or Kenya.
5.1 Establish a professional Resource Mobilization Unit, within an appropriate local partner institution, for raising funds and resources for the hotspot. An appropriate institution in Tanzania or Kenya should be identified to host or co-host an RMU for the hotspot. Depending on the arrangements, this RMU could provide services to both that institution and CEPF or it could concentrate on hotspot funding alone.
5.2 Utilize high-level corporate contacts to secure funding from the private sector for the hotspot. There has been relatively little private sector involvement in the hotspot. In a few cases (notably with TFCG in Tanzania), private sector support has been obtained, but this has mostly been through local approaches to mid-level management and the funding obtained has been small-scale. Given the global importance of the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests hotspot and the interest this has stimulated, it is time to move up the corporate ladder and seek support from higher levels of management, particularly within the multinationals that have interests in East Africa. CEPF is in a good position to facilitate this process and a professional RMU would quickly follow up any opportunities that might arise.
5.3 Train local NGOs and community-based organizations in fundraising and proposal writing for the hotspot. Although many of the local NGOs and some community-based organizations have developed skills in fundraising and proposal writing, the standard is still low in the international context in which funding is being sought. The RMU could be of great assistance in raising this standard through workshops, publications, sharing databases and collaboration with local NGOs and community-based organizations in proposal development from the inception of an idea to the submission of the document.
Previous: CEPF Niche for Investment / Next: Sustainability