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

much of the biodiversity would never have evolved in the first place. In other hotspots, thedefinition of conservation corridors restricts site investments largely to those sites within thecorridors. Since no conservation corridors have been defined in this profile, there are no corridorrestrictions on site investment in this hotspot. Similarly there are no overall restrictions on siteinvestments arising from prioritization. Nonetheless, some concentration of effort is required.Within the full set of 160 sites, five have been identified for particular attention for two of thestrategic funding directions (Table 6). The five were selected on the basis of biologicalimportance, irreplaceability, current investment, partnership potential and the recommendationsof experts who are familiar with the sites and their suitability for the interventions proposed inthis profile. Under the remaining three strategic funding directions, all 160 sites qualify for CEPFinvestment.Although corridor outcomes have not been defined in this profile, there are issues of connectivitybetween forest patches within large sites. Many bird species in the Eastern Arc Mountains areknown to move seasonally from the montane forest to the lowland, and altitudinal forestcorridors are necessary for this to occur. This issue particularly relates to maintaining montane tolowland forest transitions in the Eastern Arc Mountains part of the hotspot and is important in thecontext of global warming. A number of forest patches are also recently isolated from each other,causing the local extinction of species, as habitat patches become too small to support them (seebelow). Such sites deserve particular attention.Within the limits of these species and site outcomes, the CEPF niche was further defined by thethematic areas for investment as identified during the March 2003 workshop and by subsequentexpert review. The workshop discussion of potential investment themes was guided by theassessments of biological importance, threats and current investments, as well as by theconsiderable experience of the workshop participants in the hotspot. Nine investment themeswere presented to the workshop by the ecosystem profile team and partipants added a furtherthree. The themes were prioritized through group work and the results were amalgamated in aplenary session. Although the different groups had different priorities, there was a goodconsensus in the plenary on the final ranking. This ranking was as follows:1) increase the ability of local populations in the hotspot to benefit from and contribute tobiodiversity conservation2) restore and increase connectivity among fragmented forest patches in the hotspot3) improve knowledge of biodiversity in the hotspot;4) improve management of conservation units in the hotspot;5) improve awareness and education about the importance of this hotspot;6) improve coordination among all partners in the hotspot in order to maximize investments;7) engage private sector towards conservation in the hotspot;8) catalyze effective implementation of government policies (National Biodiversity StrategicAction Plans) that affect biodiversity in the hotspot;9) hotspot-wide research and conservation of endangered and critically endangered species;10) monitoring and evaluation of the status of the sites in the hotspot;11) economic evaluation of the goods and services performed by the sites in the hotspot; and12) increase ability to generate long-term funding for conservation in this hotspot.53