Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya ...
Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya ... Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya ...
Levels of ThreatOver three-quarters of forests in this hotspot are highly or very highly threatened. In the EasternArc, 75 percent of the major sites are ranked as highly threatened (South Pare, West Usambaraand Mahenge) or very highly threatened (Taita, North Pare, Ukaguru, Rubeho, Uluguru and thelower slopes of the Udzungwas) (GEF 2002: derived from Burgess et al. 2001). East Usambara,Nguru and the higher altitudes of the Udzungwas are considered to be under medium threat.Site-specific levels of threat have also been assessed for 101 coastal forests in Kenya and 103coastal forests in Tanzania (Figure 4) (data from WWF-EARPO 2002). All of these forests areunder some threat and almost 80 percent are judged to be highly (57 percent) or very highly (32percent) threatened. The levels of threat are very similar in the two countries.Figure 4. Threat levels for sites in the Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya (Data from WWF-EARPO 2002).Number of Sites140120100806040200None Low High VeryHighLevels of ThreatTanzaniaKenyaMain ThreatsMajor threats were identified for the Eastern Arc Mountains as part of the GEF PDF Block Bprocess (GEF 2002) and for the Coastal Forest Mosaic by the WWF-EARPO workshop in 2002(Table 3). Threats were identified, categorized and analyzed differently by GEF and WWF-EARPO, so caution is necessary in comparing the results. For example, recognition of thedistinction between ultimate (e.g. human population growth and negative value systems) andproximate threats (over-exploitation) was inconsistent. A general treatment of the threatsfollows, amalgamating and re-arranging the categories in Table 3 to facilitate presentation. Table4 elaborates these threats (e.g.pressure on forest resources) and gives local examples.39
Table 3. Major threats in the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests hotspotMain ThreatsEastern Arc Mountains (GEF 2002) Coastal Forests (WWF-EARPO 2002)Commercial agriculturePressure on forest resourcesSubsistence agricultureAgricultureCommercial timberSettlementDomestic timberUrbanizationIntentional firesLack of legal protectionHousehold useWildlife-human conflicts (elephants)AgricultureHistorically, commercial agriculture has been responsible for some clearance and fragmentationof forest. There are large tea estates in Iringa, Tanga and Kagera on land that was formerlyforested. Some patches of forest in these estates have been preserved, e.g. at Ambangulu. In thelowlands, sisal estates also cleared large areas of forest, especially around the East Usambaras inTanzania. The largest current threats, however, come from the commercial cultivation ofvegetables, which are sold in the local markets and from the growing of cardamom and otherspices under forest cover.These activities result in forest clearance and the destruction of undergrowth in the forest. Theyare an important contributor to rural livelihoods and therefore pose a real problem for forestconservation as the population and the demand for arable land grows.Over the past 100 years, subsistence agriculture (mostly for maize) has been responsible for thedisappearance of most areas of unprotected forest. Forest is cleared for farm land, as it has bettergrowing potential, but, after a few years, the soils are exhausted and yields reduce to those ofother nearby non-forest agricultural lands. Inappropriate farming practices (shifting cultivationwith short fallow periods, slash and burn, cultivation on steep slopes in Eastern Arc Mountains)are common. The inevitable result, which is exacerbated by population growth, is increaseddemand for land, leading to encroachment on forests. In the absence of expanding urbanemployment and livelihood opportunities, these problems are certain to increase in the hotspot.Effective agricultural extension, promoting more sustainable and productive farming methods,can help in mitigating this threat, but price incentives, combined with strong controls orconstraints on agricultural expansion, are a more potent weapon.40
- Page 1 and 2: Eastern Arc Mountainsand Coastal Fo
- Page 3 and 4: CEPF FACT SHEETEastern Arc Mountain
- Page 5 and 6: ECOSYSTEM PROFILEEASTERN ARC MOUNTA
- Page 7 and 8: CONTENTSINTRODUCTION...............
- Page 9 and 10: BACKGROUNDInternational interest in
- Page 11 and 12: In terms of plant biogeography, the
- Page 13 and 14: Mountains are all taken from Newmar
- Page 15 and 16: The degree of faunal endemism in th
- Page 17 and 18: The largest of the Kenyan forest re
- Page 19 and 20: percent) of the Kenyan coastal fore
- Page 21 and 22: corridor outcomes are being defined
- Page 23 and 24: nine globally threatened species an
- Page 25 and 26: Table 3. Numbers of sites with Crit
- Page 27 and 28: Figure 1 (continued)*Site # Site Na
- Page 29 and 30: Government Institutional Framework
- Page 31 and 32: Nongovernmental OrganizationsEast A
- Page 33 and 34: 4. Support the government policy of
- Page 35 and 36: Box 1 National Forest Policy goal a
- Page 37 and 38: (d) Forestry Based Industries and P
- Page 39 and 40: Other coastal mineral resources of
- Page 41: The major social trend in both coun
- Page 45 and 46: Commercial Timber ExtractionThere h
- Page 47 and 48: Ranking of Threats in TanzaniaBecau
- Page 49 and 50: • Decision-makers inadequately in
- Page 51 and 52: long-term funding and institutional
- Page 53 and 54: years due to a lack of funding. Oth
- Page 55 and 56: GEF-UNDP or GTZ support, as did the
- Page 57 and 58: During the group and plenary discus
- Page 59 and 60: concentrate on synergistic and dire
- Page 61 and 62: 2. Restore and increase connectivit
- Page 63 and 64: compiling lists of species and asse
- Page 65 and 66: CEPF will support efforts to raise
- Page 67 and 68: ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE TEXTACCAW
- Page 69 and 70: REFERENCESAxelrod, D.I. & P.H. Rave
- Page 71 and 72: Kesley, M. G. & T. E. S. Langton. 1
- Page 73 and 74: patterns, diversity and endemism. B
- Page 75 and 76: Taphozous hildegardeae + x xBirds 3
- Page 77 and 78: Baphia macrocalyx +Baphia pauloi +B
- Page 79 and 80: Kotschya platyphylla +Kraussia spec
- Page 81 and 82: Sibangea pleioneura +Sorindeia cala
- Page 83 and 84: Kaya Jibana KE 1 7 8 8Kaya Rabai KE
- Page 85 and 86: Pangani (Hale-Makinjumbe) TZ 1 1 1P
- Page 87 and 88: Buxus obtusifolia VU PCroton jatrop
- Page 89 and 90: Kraussia speciosa VU PMkilua fragra
- Page 91 and 92: Mesogyne insignis VU PMildbraedia c
Levels <strong>of</strong> ThreatOver three-quarters <strong>of</strong> forests in this hotspot are highly or very highly threatened. In the <strong>Eastern</strong><strong>Arc</strong>, 75 percent <strong>of</strong> the major sites are ranked as highly threatened (South Pare, West Usambara<strong>and</strong> Mahenge) or very highly threatened (Taita, North Pare, Ukaguru, Rubeho, Uluguru <strong>and</strong> thelower slopes <strong>of</strong> the Udzungwas) (GEF 2002: derived from Burgess et al. 2001). East Usambara,Nguru <strong>and</strong> the higher altitudes <strong>of</strong> the Udzungwas are considered to be under medium threat.Site-specific levels <strong>of</strong> threat have also been assessed for 101 coastal forests in <strong>Kenya</strong> <strong>and</strong> 103coastal forests in <strong>Tanzania</strong> (Figure 4) (data from WWF-EARPO 2002). All <strong>of</strong> these forests areunder some threat <strong>and</strong> almost 80 percent are judged to be highly (57 percent) or very highly (32percent) threatened. The levels <strong>of</strong> threat are very similar in the two countries.Figure 4. Threat levels for sites in the <strong>Coastal</strong> <strong>Forests</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tanzania</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Kenya</strong> (Data from WWF-EARPO 2002).Number <strong>of</strong> Sites140120100806040200None Low High VeryHighLevels <strong>of</strong> Threat<strong>Tanzania</strong><strong>Kenya</strong>Main ThreatsMajor threats were identified for the <strong>Eastern</strong> <strong>Arc</strong> <strong>Mountains</strong> as part <strong>of</strong> the GEF PDF Block Bprocess (GEF 2002) <strong>and</strong> for the <strong>Coastal</strong> Forest Mosaic by the WWF-EARPO workshop in 2002(Table 3). Threats were identified, categorized <strong>and</strong> analyzed differently by GEF <strong>and</strong> WWF-EARPO, so caution is necessary in comparing the results. For example, recognition <strong>of</strong> thedistinction between ultimate (e.g. human population growth <strong>and</strong> negative value systems) <strong>and</strong>proximate threats (over-exploitation) was inconsistent. A general treatment <strong>of</strong> the threatsfollows, amalgamating <strong>and</strong> re-arranging the categories in Table 3 to facilitate presentation. Table4 elaborates these threats (e.g.pressure on forest resources) <strong>and</strong> gives local examples.39
Change language