DOCSLIB.ORG

Payment for Watershed Services in the Uluguru Mountains-TANZANIA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Payment for Watershed Services in the Uluguru Mountains-TANZANIA Payment for Watershed Services in the Uluguru Mountains‐TANZANIA Prof. Shadrack Mwakalila, University of Dar es Salaam‐ TANZANIA Email: [email protected] Conference organised by SAIIA –Johannesburg, 22‐23 October 2013 Eastern Arc Mountains (EAM) • EAM stretch from Taita Hills in Kenya to Southern Tanzania. • Has been categorized among the 34 World Biodiversity Hotspots. • The value of EAM water to power generation, water supply to people, and for agriculture is a major incentive for forest conservation in the country. Uluguru Watershed Services • Water supply for drinking, irrigation and industrial development. • Important for storing carbon storage, • Providing a basis for ecotourism, and • Providing important forest and non‐forest products. Uluguru Watershed Degradation • Deforestation and watershed degradation at rate of 9%; • Declining in water flow volumes and increasing water turbidity in the Rivers, • Dramatic increase in sediment loading into the river that affect various uses downstream especially Dar es Salaam including high treatment and tariffs’ costs. Causes of Uluguru Watershed degradation Unsustainable farming and irrigation practices. Encroachment to the Forests and water sources Illegal gold mining. activities in river systems and within forest reserves. Accelerated poverty in local communities. Payments for Watershed Services • Implemented in the Uluguru Mountains in Tanzania by CARE International in Tanzania and WWF Tanzania Country Office. PWS Programme Objectives: • To establish long term financial investment for watershed conservation. • To establish payment mechanism Win‐win situation when that improve the quality of life of conserving watershed and vice versa (adopted from upstream communities. Curtis, 2006 Location of pilot project sites • The PWS program is being piloted in four villages in Kibungo sub‐catchment of the Ruvu River. • Ruvu River is the principal source of water to the City of Dar es Salaam and other towns such as Morogoro, Kibaha, Mlandizi and Bagamoyo. Implementation of PWS‐Phase I • Identification of Hotspots; Baseline Studies • Identification of sellers and buyers; • The identified buyers were Dar es Salaam Water Supply Cooperate Hydrology (DAWASCO) and Coca Institutional Livelihood Cost‐benefit Cola Kwanza Limited; • Development Business case and Signing of MoUs btn sellers and buyers. Technical Reports Implementation of PWS ‐ cont. Phase‐2: • Implementation of land use change interventions: • Agro‐forestry, reforestation, grass strip farming, contour farming, and terracing and riparian zone restoration. • Establishment of a payment mechanism for watershed services. Implementation of PWS ‐ cont. • Payment mechanisms: • The mechanism aimed at transferring of rewards from those who benefit from the watershed service to those who manage it. • Farmers were paid in cash depending on type of improved land use change (Sustainable Land Management) practices adopted per land size. Flow of payments to farmers 54 Individual DAWASCO Farmers 49 Individual Farmers VILLAGE CARE/WWF 23 Individual COCA COLA Farmers 18 Individual Farmers Benefits of PWS Implementation Improved soil moisture and land productivity. • The adoption of improved land use change practices enabled local farmers to improve their land productivity. • Terraces reduced run‐off and improved infiltration within the terraces hence increasing soil moisture and nutrients in the area. Improved crop yields Main Indicators Baseline Current Objectives 2009 2012 Crop Increased crop Maize production production 400kg/acre 1600kg /acre Food security Number of meals per 1.5 3.0 day Poverty Increased incomes US$ 50 US$ 500 per reduction season Health Ability to pay health No Yes services Education Ability to pay school Low Moderate contributions Improved livelihoods • Farmers through crop production earned a significant amount of cash incomes over $13,000 through selling their crops especially beans, cabbage, tomato and onions at farm gate and markets in Morogoro town. • Communities used the money generated from crop sales to cover basic needs. Benefits to the Environment • Reduction of soil erosion, sediment load. • Improving soil nutrients to produce more crops per unit area. • Increased land cover by planting timber tree species, agroforestry and fruit tree species. • Incidences of fires have been reduced significantly. Replication of this programme to other areas in Tanzania • The Wildlife Conservation Society of Tanzania is implementing PES in Uluguru Mountains. • WWF‐TCO completed phase I of PWS in Usambara Mountains. • FAO is assessing the potential of PES in Kagera River. • ICRAF has implemented PES in one part of Ulugurus. • Water act include PES as a conservation instrument. • PES is included in the revised National Forestry Policy. Challenges of PWS implementation • Initial costs are high and thus needs external support to facilitate implementation. • Getting sellers is simple while engaging buyers is not easy. They feel conservation as task of someone else • Tangible impacts of PWS such as increased of water quantity can not be realized over short period of time. Conclusion Successful implementation of PWS requires: • To map services and place economic values on each one • To develop business cases for each ecological service. • To make these business cases acceptable within the Tanzanian political and government circles. • To instigate operational models whereby benefits from ecosystem services are transferred to the managers of the habitats providing the service. • Effective awareness creation all stakeholders about PWS concept. Framework for implementing PES 1. Inventory services, people & landscapes 2. Model & map service production & flows 7. Explore plausible 3. Model & map beneficiaries of scenarios services 4. Map benefits of 5. Map costs of conserving services conserving services 6. Map winners & losers 8. Design mechanisms to capture service values Acknowledgement • Dosteus Lopa the Programme Manager for CARE International in Tanzania, Morogoro; • Iddi Mwanyoka the Project Executants for WWF Tanzania Country Office, Dar es Salaam..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biodiversity Surveys in the Forest Reserves of the Uluguru Mountains
    Biodiversity surveys in the Forest Reserves of the Uluguru Mountains Part II: Descriptions of the biodiversity of individual Forest Reserves Nike Doggart Jon Lovett, Boniface Mhoro, Jacob Kiure and Neil Burgess Biodiversity surveys in the Forest Reserves of the Uluguru Mountains Part II: Descriptions of the biodiversity of individual Forest Reserves Nike Doggart Jon Lovett, Boniface Mhoro, Jacob Kiure and Neil Burgess Dar es Salaam 2004 A Report for: The Wildlife Conservation Society of Tanzania (WCST) The Uluguru Mountains Biodiversity Conservation Project in collaboration with the Uluguru Mountains Agricultural Development Project The Regional Natural Resources Office, and the Regional Catchment Forest Project With support from the Tanzania Forest Conservation Group TABLE OF CONTENTS PART II 1) Introduction to Part II ............................................................................................................... 4 2) Forest Reserve descriptions ..................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Bunduki I and III Catchment Forest Reserves .................................................................... 7 2.2 Kasanga Local Authority Forest Reserve ......................................................................... 14 2.3 Kimboza Catchment Forest Reserve ................................................................................ 23 2.4 Konga Local Authority Forest Reserve ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Cover and Change for the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya Circa 2000 to Circa 2010
    Forest cover and change for the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya circa 2000 to circa 2010 Final report Karyn Tabor, Japhet J. Kashaigili, Boniface Mbilinyi, and Timothy M. Wright Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2 1.1 Biodiversity Values of the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests ....................................... 2 1.2 The threats to the forests ............................................................................................................. 5 1.3 Trends in deforestation ................................................................................................................. 6 1.4 The importance of monitoring ...................................................................................................... 8 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 2.1 study area ............................................................................................................................................ 8 2.1 Mapping methodology ........................................................................................................................ 8 2.3 Habitat change statistics ..................................................................................................................... 9 2.4 Map validation
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Health Monitoring in the Eastern Arc Mountains of Kenya and Tanzania: a Baseline Report on Selected Forest Reserves
    Forest Health Monitoring in the Eastern Arc Mountains of Kenya and Tanzania: a baseline report on selected forest reserves Seif Madoffe, James Mwang’ombe, Barbara O’Connell, Paul Rogers, Gerard Hertel, and Joe Mwangi Dedicated to three team members, Professor Joe Mwangi, Moi University, Eldoret, Kenya and Forest Department, Nairobi; Mr. Charles Kisena Mabula, Tanzania Forest Research Institute, Lushoto, and Mr. Onesmus Mwanganghi, National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi, who passed away shortly after the completion of the field work for this project. They will always be remembered. FHM EAM Baseline Report Acknowledgements Cooperating Agencies, Organizations, Institutions, and Individuals USDA Forest Service 1. Region 8, Forest Health Protection, Atlanta, GA – Denny Ward 2. Engineering (WO) – Chuck Dull 3. International Forestry (WO) – Marc Buccowich, Mellisa Othman, Cheryl Burlingame, Alex Moad 4. Remote Sensing Application Center, Salt Lake City, UT – Henry Lachowski, Vicky C. Johnson 5. Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA – Barbara O’Connell, Kathy Tillman 6. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT – Paul Rogers 7. Northeastern Area, State & Private Forestry, Newtown Square, PA – Gerard Hertel US Agency for International Development 1. Washington Office – Mike Benge, Greg Booth, Carl Gallegos, Walter Knausenberger 2. Nairobi, Kenya – James Ndirangu 3. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania – Dan Moore, Gilbert Kajuna Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania (Faculty of Forestry and Nature Conservation) – Seif Madoffe, R.C.
    [Show full text]
  • INDIGENOUS PLANT USES and USE VALUES in ULUGURU MOUNTAINS, MOROGORO, TANZANIA Author(S): Paulo Wilfred, Seif S
    INDIGENOUS PLANT USES AND USE VALUES IN ULUGURU MOUNTAINS, MOROGORO, TANZANIA Author(s): Paulo Wilfred, Seif S. Madoffe, Emanuel J. Luoga Source: Journal of East African Natural History, 95(2):235-240. Published By: Nature Kenya/East African Natural History Society DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2982/0012-8317(2006)95[235:IPUAUV]2.0.CO;2 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2982/0012-8317%282006%2995%5B235%3AIPUAUV %5D2.0.CO%3B2 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. Journal of East African Natural History 95(2): 235–240 (2006) INDIGENOUS PLANT USES AND USE VALUES IN ULUGURU MOUNTAINS, MOROGORO, TANZANIA Paulo Wilfred The Open University of Tanzania P.O. Box 13879 , Dar es Salaam, Tanzania [email protected] Seif S. Madoffe Department of Forest Biology, Sokoine University of Agriculture P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of the Grasshopper Fauna (Orthoptera: Acridoidea & Eumast Acoidea) of the Uluguru Mountains and the East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania
    Journal of East African Natural History 87: 221-232 (1998) A COMPARISON OF THE GRASSHOPPER FAUNA (ORTHOPTERA: ACRIDOIDEA & EUMAST ACOIDEA) OF THE ULUGURU MOUNTAINS AND THE EAST USAMBARA MOUNTAINS, TANZANIA A. Hochkirch Universitat Bremen Fachbereich 2, Institut fur Oko10gieund Evolutionsbiologie, AG Mossakowski Postfach 330440, D-28334 Bremen, Germany E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT The grasshopper fauna of the Uluguru Mountains and the East Usambara Mountains is compared. There is a marked relationship between habitat and similarity in species composition. The faunal similarity between sites rises with distance from the forest, evidently because the savannah species are widespread species that are recently co10nising degraded areas, while forest faunas have a high level of endemism and flightlessness, indicating a long history of isolation and evolution. Flightlessness seems to be a result of a lower investment in wing and egg production and higher investment in prolonging life span, supported by a high persistence of the habitat and a high predation pressure. INTRODUCTION The Eastern Arc Mountains are known for their high levels of endemism (Rodgers & Homewood, 1982; Hamilton & Bensted-Smith, 1989; Iversen, 1991a, 1991b; Lovett & Wasser, 1993). As for other taxa, the grasshopper fauna consists of many endemic species and genera, most of which are confined to the forest (Hochkirch, 1996a). The main cause for the high degree of endemism in the Eastern Arc fauna seems to be the stable climate during periods of aridification (Scharff, 1993). The endemic taxa are considered to be a mix of palaeoendemics (relicts of a former pan-African forest) and neoendemics (recent immigrants from other habitats).
    [Show full text]
  • Endemic Species of the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania
    ENDEMIC SPECIES OF THE EASTERN ARC MOUNTAINS OF TANZANIA APOCKET FIELD GUIDE SAMPLE COMPILED BY COLIN WATKINS, LEAH COLLETT AND CORINNA RAVILIOUS WITH ARTISTS MARTIN WOODCOCK AND RIZIKI KATEYA STRUCTURE OF THE IUCN RED LIST CATEGORIES LOCATION MAP OF THE EASTERN ARC MOUNTAINS ENDEMIC WILDLFE OF THE EASTERN ARC MOUNTAINS OF TANZANIA INTRODUCTION The Eastern Arc Mountains1 of Northeast Tanzania are internationally recognised as a Biodiversity Hotspot2 being particularly rich in the number and variety of endemic species. The mountain forests of the ‘Arc’ have 700 tree species a significant number ofwhich are endemic or rare. Those listed in this guide are assessed by IUCN as endangered or vulnerable. Wild flowers abound and, for example, all the wild species ofAfrican violets, Saintpaulia, only grow in the ‘Arc’ or the adjacent coastal forests. More than a dozen species of tropical Streptocarpus are similarly endemic to the Arc. The ‘Arc’ has more than 30 endemic species ofbirds3, three endemic monkeys as well as other small mammals. Rare and endemic chameleons and frogs are also present as are several species of butterflies. The 13 very ancient and geologically stable mountain ranges of the ‘Arc’ are effectively ‘land islands’ that have benefited from a constant warm and wet climate with rain bearing winds blown inland from the Indian Ocean for as long as 30 million years. Taken together the geology and climate make a perfect combination for endemism4. What distinguishes these mountains and their forests, most of which are found between 1500 and 3000m above sea level is, that unlike other great tropical forests in Africa and elsewhere, they are set within vast plains where elephants, rhinos, lions, leopards and great herds of antelopes, gazelles, monkeys and the symbol ofTanzania, the giraffe, roam.
    [Show full text]
  • Eastern Afromontane Biodiversity Hotspot
    Ecosystem Profile EASTERN AFROMONTANE BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOT FINAL VERSION 24 JANUARY 2012 Prepared by: BirdLife International with the technical support of: Conservation International / Science and Knowledge Division IUCN Global Species Programme – Freshwater Unit IUCN –Eastern Africa Plant Red List Authority Saudi Wildlife Authority Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, Centre for Middle Eastern Plants The Cirrus Group UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre WWF - Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Programme Office Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund And support from the International Advisory Committee Neville Ash, UNEP Division of Environmental Policy Implementation; Elisabeth Chadri, MacArthur Foundation; Fabian Haas, International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology; Matthew Hall, Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, Centre for Middle Eastern Plants; Sam Kanyamibwa, Albertine Rift Conservation Society; Jean-Marc Froment, African Parks Foundation; Kiunga Kareko, WWF, Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Programme Office; Karen Laurenson, Frankfurt Zoological Society; Leo Niskanen, IUCN Eastern & Southern Africa Regional Programme; Andy Plumptre, Wildlife Conservation Society; Sarah Saunders, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; Lucy Waruingi, African Conservation Centre. Drafted by the ecosystem profiling team: Ian Gordon, Richard Grimmett, Sharif Jbour, Maaike Manten, Ian May, Gill Bunting (BirdLife International) Pierre Carret, Nina Marshall, John Watkin (CEPF) Naamal de Silva, Tesfay Woldemariam, Matt Foster (Conservation International)
    [Show full text]
  • Ecosystem: Eastern Arc Mountains & Coastal Forests of Tanzania & Kenya
    ECOSYSTEM PROFILE EASTERN ARC MOUNTAINS & COASTAL FORESTS OF TANZANIA & KENYA Final version July 31, 2003 (updated: march 2005) Prepared by: Conservation International International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology In collaboration with: Nature Kenya Wildlife Conservation Society of Tanzania With the technical support of: Centre for Applied Biodiversity Science - 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 WWF United States And a special team for this ecosystem profile: Neil Burgess Tom Butynski Ian Gordon Quentin Luke Peter Sumbi John Watkin Assisted by experts and contributors: KENYA Hamdan Sheha Idrissa Perkin Andrew Barrow Edmund Howell Kim Verberkmoes Anne Marie Gakahu Chris Kajuni A R Ward Jessica Githitho Anthony Kilahama Felician Kabii Tom Kafumu George R BELGIUM Kimbwereza Elly D Kabugi Hewson Lens Luc Kanga Erustus Lejora Inyasi A.V. Matiku Paul Lulandala Luther Mbora David Mallya Felix UK Mugo Robinson Mariki Stephen Burgess Neil Ndugire Naftali Masayanyika Sammy Odhiambo Peter Mathias Lema USA Thompson Hazell Milledge Simon Brooks Thomas Wandago Ben Mlowe Edward Gereau Roy Mpemba Erastp Langhammer Penny Msuya Charles TANZANIA Ocker Donnell Mungaya Elias Sebunya Kaddu Baldus Rolf D Mwasumbi Leonard Bhukoli Alice Struhsaker Tom Salehe John Wieczkowski Julie Doggart Nike Stodsrod Jan Erik Howlett David Tapper Elizabeth Hewawasam Indu Offninga
    [Show full text]
  • Climate, Forest Cover and Water Resources Vulnerability in The
    Climate, Forest Cover, and Water Resources Vulnerability Wami/Ruvu Basin, Tanzania Wami River Basin, Tanzania|i Tanzania Integrated Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (iWASH) Program Climate, Forest Cover, and Water Resources Vulnerability Wami/Ruvu Basin, Tanzania Wami/Ruvu Basin, Tanzania |i Funding for this publication was provided by the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) as a component of the Tanzania Integrated Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (iWASH) Program. The views and opinions of the authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Agency for International Development, the United States or Florida International University. Copyright © Global Water for Sustainability Program – Florida International University This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. No use of the publication may be made for resale or for any commercial purposes whatsoever without the prior permission in writing from the Global Water for Sustainability Program – Florida International University. Any inquiries can be addressed to the same at the following address: Global Water for Sustainability Program Florida International University Biscayne Bay Campus 3000 NE 151 St. ACI-267 North Miami, FL 33181 USA Email: [email protected] Website: www.globalwaters.net For bibliographic purposes, this document should be cited as: GLOWS – FIU. 2014. Climate, Forest Cover and Water Resources Vulnerability, Wami/Ruvu Basin, Tanzania. 87 p. ISBN: 978-1-941993-03-3 Cover Photographs: Front Cover from left: Headwater catchments of various tributaries of the Wami and Ruvu rivers in the Eastern Arc Mountains having a mosaic of primary forest and cleared land; a stream in the Eastern Arc foothills and a lake in the floodplains of the Wami.
    [Show full text]
  • Tanzania's Nature Reserves
    THE ARC JOURNAL ISSUE 30 Biannual Newsletter Issue No. 30 May 2017 This Edition of the Arc Journal is focused on Tanzania’s 12 Nature Forest Reserves. It includes descriptions of each of the 12 reserves as well as information on their biodiversity, threats, management and tourism SPECIAL opportunities. View of Mkingu Nature Reserve. ISSUE Photo by Rob Beechey. Tanzania’s Nature Reserves Introducing Tanzania’s Nature Reserves coastal forests in southern Tanzania (Rondo) and one encompasses the forests of a recently dormant Prof. Dos Santos, Head of the Tanzania Forest Services Agency volcano (Mount Hanang). The last one (Minziro) In Tanzania, the Forest Legislation of 2002 recognises includes areas of lowland swamp forest close to the Nature Forest Reserves as protected forest areas of Uganda border that is of similar composition to the particularly high importance for the conservation of forests of the Congo Basin. biodiversity. Formation of Nature Reserves started in These 12 Nature Forest Reserves are being managed the 1990s with the gazettement of the Amani Nature by dedicated conservators distributed at each site, Reserve in the East Usambara Mountains. supported by teams of professional staff. At the Since 2002, the government has been working to TFS headquarters the Nature Forest Reserves fall identify and upgrade the status of a network of key under the section that manages the natural forests sites for conservation that were already under the of Tanzania. management of the Tanzania Forest Services (TFS) TFS is committed to improving the management Agency. There are two portfolios of Nature Forest and conservation of these sites and aims to Reserve – firstly within the Eastern Arc Mountains, generate sustainable sources of revenue for both the whilst the other portfolio includes the best examples management of the reserves and also to help support of other forests in the country.
    [Show full text]
  • The Biological Importance of the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania and Kenya
    BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 134 (2007) 209– 231 available at www.sciencedirect.com journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon The biological importance of the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania and Kenya N.D. Burgessa,b,c,*, T.M. Butynskid, N.J. Cordeiroe,f, N.H. Doggartg, J. Fjeldsa˚ h, K.M. Howelli, F.B. Kilahamaa, S.P. Loaderk, J.C. Lovettl, B. Mbilinyia, M. Menegonm,D.C.Moyern, E. Nashandaj, A. Perking, F. Roverom, W.T. Stanleyo, S.N. Stuartp aConservation and Management of the Eastern Arc Mountain Forests (CMEAMF), Forestry and Beekeeping Division, P.O. Box 289, Morogoro, Tanzania bWWF-USA Conservation Science Programme, 1250 24th St. NW, Washington, DC 20037-1193, USA cConservation Biology Group, Zoology Department, Cambridge University, CB2 3EJ, UK dEastern Africa Regional Program, Conservation International, c/o IUCN, P.O. Box 68200, Nairobi 00200, Kenya eField Museum of Natural History, 1400 S Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60605, USA fTanzania Wildlife Research Institute, P.O. Box 661, Arusha, Tanzania gTanzania Forest Conservation Group, P.O. Box 23410, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania hZoological Museum, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100, Copenhagen, Denmark iZoology Department, University of Dar es Salaam, P.O. Box 35064, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania jForestry and Beekeeping Division, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, P.O. Box 9372, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania kDepartment of Zoology, the Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, SW7 5BD, UK lEnvironment Department, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK mSezione di Zoologia dei Vertebrati, Museo Tridentino di Scienze Naturali, Via Calepina 14, I-38100 Trento, Italy nWildlife Conservation Society, P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Outcomes Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests
    Conservation Outcomes Machakos SOMALIA Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests The CEPF Niche for Investment 40°E The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) ensures that conservation action focuses on the Although the workshops did not prioritize the sites 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 ecosystem profile and five- year investment species at the greatest risk of extinction and the sites for investment, five sites were selected for greater Lunghi Forest strategy for the Eastern Arc Mountains and and landscapes that are most important for their focus under two of the five strategic directions for Lunghi Forest kilometers Boni Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya was protection. These targets are defined at three levels, CEPF investment. This has been done to avoid scale: 1/1,000,000 Forest projection: Lamberts Equal Area Azmuthial developed based on stakeholder workshops species, sites and landscapes, representing discrete diluting the impacts of crucial investments by 38° east longitude 7° south latitude and analyses by a consortium of locally based units along an ecological continuum, using a data- spreading them across too large an area. Dodori Forest conservation organizations coordinated by the driven process and standardized criteria. Species Biodiversity hotspots are regions International Centre of Insect Physiology and outcomes aim to avoid extinctions, and the primary The five sites receiving more focused attention hotspot boundary that harbor especially high numbers Ecology and Conservation International. set of targets for species outcomes are those species through Strategic Directions 1 and 2 are: Lower of endemic species and, at the that are globally threatened (Critically Endangered, Tana River Forests, Taita Hills, East Usambaras/ Lower Tana 2°S 2°S s same time, have been significantly More than 48 local, national and international Endangered and Vulnerable) according to the IUCN Tanga, Udzungwas, and Jozani Forest.
    [Show full text]