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

years due to a lack of funding. Other major players in Kenyan IBA conservation in this hotspotare the National Museums of Kenya (Kaya sites in particular) and the Government ForestryDivision (Forest Reserves). BirdLife International and Nature Kenya provide very significantfunding to one IBA site—Arabuko-Sokoke—which is also the largest coastal forest in thehotspot.Spread of Conservation Attention Across Different IBAsThe conservation attention received by the IBA sites from different agencies was examined as apreliminary indication of gaps in project coverage. Secondary stages in such an analysis wouldneed to consider other factors such as biological value, integrity and size, threats and evenfeasibility of operating in the area.TanzaniaA ranked assessment of the degree of conservation attention that different IBA sites havereceived during the past five years illustrates that the Udzungwa Mountains have received themost conservation attention throughout this period. Conservation efforts have also focused on theEast 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 andUvidundwa. Within the coastal forests the IBAs of Kilwa and Rufiji Districts have had the mostconservation projects and IBAs such as those in Newala District have received the leastattention.KenyaAn assessment of the coverage of IBA sites by conservation projects in Kenya shows thatArabuko-Sokoke and the Taita Hills receive the largest attention from conservation projects. TheShimba Hills, Diani and the Tana River Primate Reserve follow these sites in terms of attentionthey receive. Three IBAs have no conservation projects in recent times: Tana River Delta,Dakacha Woodlands and Dzombo Hills.Funding Allocation Against Biological PriorityFigure 6 assesses the match between funding allocation and biological priority. The 20 sitescontaining the largest numbers of globally threatened species (Appendix 2) vary considerably inthe amount of external donor funding they are expected to receive during 2003. This fundingexcludes the funds that the Tanzanian and Kenyan governments provide to the management ofnational parks, national reserves and forest reserves and national monuments – which may besignificant in some places and very small in others.Eighty percent of the 20 sites containing the most globally threatened species from this hotspotare in Tanzania. Given that 90 percent of the total forest area in the hotspot is in Tanzania, this isto 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 Kenyanpart of the hotspot, with some of the Eastern Arc blocks (e.g., the Rubehos and Nguus andUvidundwas) and some coastal forests (e.g., those of Newala District) remaining practicallyunknown. This means that the importance of the Tanzanian sites may be underestimated. Thesecond factor is related to the way in which the sites are defined. In Kenya every small patch of50