Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya ...

long-term funding and institutional reforms (GEF 2002) in the context of good governance atnational level. Site level interventions (training of guards, provision of uniforms and boots, etc.)are helpful, but their positive effects are at best short-lived unless the larger problem is tackled.Solving the larger problem is also necessary if community partnerships in management are toimprove protection. In the absence of better governance from the top, participatory managementmay simply lengthen the food chain for illegally harvested forest produce.SYNOPSIS OF CURRENT INVESTMENTInformation was compiled on the projects operational in the Eastern Arc Mountains and CoastalForest Mosaic as of February 2003. All data from projects that had already finished or that wereto be completed in early 2003 were excluded from the study. Data were available for bothTanzania and Kenya, although there were some gaps in the information for both countries.Data were collected by organization, type of organisation, by two subsets of sites: first, IBA andsecond, priority site (IBAs and non-IBA sites). The IBAs were selected as a subset because theyhad 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 ofglobally threatened species, as determined by this profile.Although the most important sources of external and government funding for conservation in thishotspot have been captured, some caveats are necessary. There are some gaps in the data andsome budget allocations are split between several implementing partners, which madecalculations of funding allocations problematic (e.g. Misitu Yetu in Tanzania implemented bythe NGOs WCST, TFCG and CARE and the Tanzania Government, with funding from CAREAustria and NORAD). Finally, details of the government budget allocated to conservationactivities in this hotspot were hard to come by, although as most sites are managed as reserves bythe government their inputs are important. Hence this analysis is biased towards the externallyprovided funds from various types of agencies.Levels of FundingOverall in 2003, more than $19 million is planned for investment in conservation of the EasternArc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya, almost exclusively within forestreserves, national parks or other forms of government managed/controlled land.Eastern Arc MountainsWithin 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 tothe restructuring of the Forestry Division in Tanzania and perhaps $5 million will be spent onactivities broadly classed as forest conservation within the hotspot (including the Tanzaniancoastal 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. Mostof this relates to direct conservation activities. NGOs and the Tanzania and Kenya governmentsprovide significantly less funding and most of the funds utilized from NGOs actually come fromthe bilateral donors. Hence, both the governments and NGOs use less than $1 million per annumof their own funding in the Eastern Arc Mountains (excluding government salaries).48