Information was compiled on the projects operational in the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forest Mosaic as of February 2003. All data from projects that had already finished or that were to be completed in early 2003 were excluded from the study. Data were available for both Tanzania and Kenya, although there were some gaps in the information for both countries.
Data were collected by organization, type of organization, by two subsets of sites: first, IBA and second, priority site (IBAs and non-IBA sites). The IBAs were selected as a subset because they had already been recognized as sites with global biodiversity values (Bennun & Njoroge 1999; Baker & Baker 2002). The second subset was based on the 20 sites with the greatest numbers of globally threatened species, as determined by this profile.
Although the most important sources of external and government funding for conservation in this hotspot have been captured, some caveats are necessary. There are some gaps in the data and some budget allocations are split between several implementing partners, which made calculations of funding allocations problematic (e.g. Misitu Yetu in Tanzania implemented by the NGOs WCST, TFCG and CARE and the Tanzania Government, with funding from CARE Austria and NORAD). Finally, details of the government budget allocated to conservation activities in this hotspot were hard to come by, although as most sites are managed as reserves by the government their inputs are important. Hence this analysis is biased towards the externally provided funds from various types of agencies.
Overall in 2003, more than $19 million is planned for investment in conservation of the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests, almost exclusively within forest reserves, national parks or other forms of government managed/controlled land.
Eastern Arc Mountains
Within the Eastern Arc Mountains, the majority of the funding (about $15 million per annum) currently comes from the multilateral donors GEF and World Bank. Much of this is allocated to the restructuring of the Forestry Division in Tanzania and perhaps $5 million will be spent on activities broadly classed as forest conservation within the hotspot (including the Tanzanian coastal forests) during 2003. The next largest allocation of funding comes from bilateral donors, particularly those from Scandinavia who provide well in excess of $2 million per annum. Most of this relates to direct conservation activities. NGOs and the Tanzania and Kenya governments provide significantly less funding and most of the funds utilized from NGOs actually come from the bilateral donors. Hence, both the governments and NGOs use less than $1 million per annum of their own funding in the Eastern Arc Mountains (excluding government salaries).
Coastal Forest Mosaic
Within the Coastal Forest Mosaic, about $4 million per annum is spent currently on conservation or related development activities, or about 30 percent of that used in the Eastern Arc portion. Conversely to the Eastern Arc, no multilateral funding comes to the coastal forests. The allocation of funding from NGOs appears as the largest single source of funds for these forests, although in actuality most of this funding comes from bilateral donors to the NGOs. Hence the bilateral donors are probably the largest single source of funding for this part of the hotspot. Government funding for implementation is small in the coastal forests, as it is in the Eastern Arc Mountains. Most government funding is allocated to salary support and little remains for investment in conservation activities on the ground. Private investment for conservation in the coastal forests is also small, although hard to quantify.
Types of Project Interventions
The major categories of project intervention were examined against eight possible groupings ranging from research through to capacity building. Overall there is a fairly even spread of interventions, with no one category appearing markedly more preferred amongst the existing projects. In the Eastern Arc Mountains, research (mainly biodiversity) was the most commonly reported activity and, as the data ignored the activities of visiting university scientists, this is an underestimate of the effort put into research. In the coastal forests the highest-ranking activity was livelihood enhancement, which also ranks highly in the Eastern Arc — reflecting the focus of development agencies that fund much of the conservation work in these areas on poverty alleviation. Interventions such as direct conservation payments, purchase of land for conservation or a focus on corridors had zero scores as there were none of these kinds of interventions in the area.
The number of IBA sites that have been the attention of conservation projects during the past five years gives an indication of the spread of conservation effort.
Tanzania
Across the range of organizations undertaking different kinds of projects in the hotspot, the Government Forestry Division has the widest coverage, as it manages the forest reserves that comprise the bulk of the IBA sites. After the Forestry Department, the research program of Frontier Tanzania (collaboration between the Society for Environmental Exploration and the University of Dar es Salaam) has worked in the most IBA sites. This is followed by the bilateral agency NORAD (Norwegian aid) and the World Bank (starting activities at the current time). Of the NGOs, the Tanzania Forest Conservation Group and WWF Tanzania have undertaken the most projects in the hotspot. When combined, the NGO sector had undertaken the largest number of projects at IBA sites in Tanzania, followed by the Tanzanian government, the bilateral donors and the multilateral donors.
Kenya
In Kenya a number of different agencies undertake conservation projects in the IBA sites. According to the information provided, the Kenyan Forest Department and the National Museums of Kenya have covered the largest number of sites during the past five years. WWF-EARPO also used to support several forest sites, but their activities are much reduced in recent years due to a lack of funding. Other major players in Kenyan IBA conservation in this hotspot are the National Museums of Kenya (Kaya sites in particular) and the Government Forestry Division (Forest Reserves). BirdLife International and Nature Kenya provide very significant funding to one IBA site-Arabuko-Sokoke-which is also the largest coastal forest in the hotspot.
The conservation attention received by the IBA sites from different agencies was examined as a preliminary indication of gaps in project coverage. Secondary stages in such an analysis would need to consider other factors such as biological value, integrity and size, threats and even feasibility of operating in the area.
Tanzania
A ranked assessment of the degree of conservation attention that different IBA sites have received during the past five years illustrates that the Udzungwa Mountains have received the most conservation attention throughout this period. Conservation efforts have also focused on the East and West Usambaras and the Ulugurus. These are all Eastern Arc Mountains blocks. Eastern Arc IBAs that have received far less attention are Ukaguru, Nguru, Nguu, Rubeho and Uvidundwa. Within the coastal forests the IBAs of Kilwa and Rufiji Districts have had the most conservation projects and IBAs such as those in Newala District have received the least attention.
Kenya
An assessment of the coverage of IBA sites by conservation projects in Kenya shows that Arabuko-Sokoke and the Taita Hills receive the largest attention from conservation projects. The Shimba Hills, Diani and the Tana River Primate Reserve follow these sites in terms of attention they receive. Three IBAs have no conservation projects in recent times: Tana River Delta, Dakacha Woodlands and Dzombo Hills.
Figure 6 assesses the match between funding allocation and biological priority. The 20 sites containing the largest numbers of globally threatened species (Appendix 2) vary considerably in the amount of external donor funding they are expected to receive during 2003. This funding excludes the funds that the Tanzanian and Kenyan governments provide to the management of national parks, national reserves and forest reserves and national monuments - which may be significant in some places and very small in others.
Eighty percent of the 20 sites containing the most globally threatened species from this hotspot are in Tanzania. Given that 90 percent of the total forest area in the hotspot is in Tanzania, this is to be expected. Two factors, however, have affected the site ranking. The first is research effort. Tanzanian forests have generally received much less biological study than those in the Kenyan part of the hotspot, with some of the Eastern Arc blocks (e.g., the Rubehos and Nguus and Uvidundwas) and some coastal forests (e.g., those of Newala District) remaining practically unknown. This means that the importance of the Tanzanian sites may be underestimated. The second factor is related to the way in which the sites are defined. In Kenya every small patch of forest has been assigned to its own site, whereas in Tanzania, many of the sites are amalgamations of several forestpatches. In some cases, these forest patches are scattered over a wide area and encompassing a wide range of altitudes and climatic conditions. This tends to elevate the importance of the Tanzanian sites in terms of their numbers of threatened species.
Secondly, it is clear that funding is not evenly spread across these sites. The best-funded site in 2003 is the Udzungwa Mountains (although some of this funding is only for the Kihansi Dam area), followed by the Ulugurus. The Selous Game Reserve also receives significant funding but this is mainly to conserve its large mammals, not forests. Also the Selous Game Reserve covers an enormous area.
Thirdly, some sites receiving little external funding in 2003 have received significant funding over long periods in the past. The East Usambaras, which contain the most globally threatened species, is set to receive few funds during 2003. This site benefited from significant investment ($1 million per annum) during the past 10 years, but that funding has since ceased and the future is unclear. The South and North Pare Mountains also lack funding but until recently had received GEF-UNDP or GTZ support, as did the West Usambaras which had 10 years of GTZ funding. Should funding stop completely, then much of the progress with forest conservation achieved in these sites over the last 10 years could be jeopardized.
Fourthly, other important sites in Figure 6 have not had any external funding for decades. Most important amongst these is the Nguru Mountains, which has never had an externally funded project intervention and is also relatively poorly known biologically. Within the coastal forests, those of Muheza District have no external support and yet contain important biological values, especially close to the East Usambara Mountains.
Lastly, some sites do not appear in Figure 6 because there is inadequate knowledge of their biodiversity values. These include the Nguu and Rubeho Mountains in Tanzania (which are difficult to access) and Boni and Dodori Forests in Kenya (where there are security problems). They will receive no external conservation support in 2003 and have never received conservation support in the past. Such sites should rank highly as priorities for investment, both in terms of biological study and conservation action.
Previous: Synopsis of Current Threats / Next: CEPF Niche for Investment