RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
124
   Natural barriers to natural disasters:
   replanting mangroves after the tsunami
   Edward B Barbier

      The Indian Ocean tsunami disaster of December 2004 has increased interest in replanting degraded and
      deforested mangrove areas in Asia to improve coastal protection. Evidence from Thailand suggests that con-
      cern over mangrove deforestation by shrimp farms is an important motivation for many coastal households
      to participate in mangrove rehabilitation. However, successful re-establishment and management of
      mangroves as effective coastal barriers will require developing new institutions and policies, and must
      involve coastal communities in Thailand and other Indian Ocean countries in the conservation and protec-
      tion of their local mangrove forests.

   Front Ecol Environ 2006; 4(3): 124–131



   T   he December 2004 Asian tsunami, and more recently     concluded, “mangroves play a critical role in storm pro-
      the devastation along the US Gulf Coast caused by     tection, but with the subtle point that this all depends on
   Hurricane Katrina, has focused attention on the role of     the quality of the mangrove forest” (Dahdouh-Guebas et
   “natural barriers”, such as coral reefs, mangroves, and sand  al. 2005).
   dunes, in protecting vulnerable coastlines and populations     In Thailand, the Asian tsunami affected all six coastal
   from destructive storm events. Already, several govern-     provinces along the Indian Ocean (Andaman Sea) coast:
   ments in countries affected by the Asian tsunami have      Krabi, Phang-nga, Phuket, Ranong, Satun, and Trang. In
   announced plans for widespread replanting of degraded      Phang-nga, the most affected province, post-tsunami
   and deforested mangrove areas as a means of bolstering     assessments suggest that large mangrove forests in the
   coastal protection (EJF 2005; Harakunarak and          north and south of the province significantly mitigated
   Aksornkoae 2005; UNEP 2005). Unfortunately, such        the impact of the tsunami. Although the mangrove
   large-scale replanting schemes are likely to fail unless they  stands suffered damage on their seaside fringe, the tidal
   provide adequate incentives for participation by local     wave energy was substantially reduced, providing protec-
   coastal communities and, more importantly, for these com-    tion to the inland population (Harakunarak and
   munities to become involved in the long-term manage-      Aksornkoae 2005; UNEP 2005). Similar results were
   ment and conservation of the restored mangrove forests.     reported for those shorelines in Ranong Province which
    There is growing evidence that mangroves and other      were protected by dense and thriving mangrove forests.
   natural barriers are critical components in the overall     In contrast, damage was relatively extensive along the
   resilience of coastal areas to threats posed by tsunamis,    Indian Ocean coast in areas where mangroves and other
   hurricanes, and other natural disasters (Adger et al.      natural coastal barriers had been removed or severely
   2005). Mangrove wetlands, which are found along shel-      degraded (Harakunarak and Aksornkoae 2005).
   tered tropical and subtropical shores and estuaries, are      Mangrove forests are among the most threatened global
   particularly valuable in minimizing damage to property     ecosystems, but this is particularly the case in Asia. At
   and loss of human life by acting as a barrier against tropi-  least 35% of global mangrove area has been lost in the
   cal storms, such as typhoons, cyclones, hurricanes, and     past two decades, while in Asia alone 36% of mangrove
   tsunamis (Mazda et al. 1997; Massel et al. 1999; Chong     area has been deforested, at the rate of 1.52% per year
   2005). Evidence from the aftermath of the Asian tsunami     (Valiela et al. 2001). Plans by several Indian Ocean gov-
   suggests that coastal areas with intact, dense mangrove     ernments to reverse this trend and replant mangroves “in
   forests that provided higher structural complexity suf-     the wake” of the Asian tsunami suggest that they now
   fered fewer losses and less damage to property than those    recognize explicitly that mangroves and other natural
   areas in which mangroves had been degraded or con-       barriers are important forms of coastal defense against
   verted to alternative land uses (Dahdouh-Guebas et al.     storm events. For example, the Indonesian Minister for
   2005; Danielsen et al. 2005; Kathiresan and Rajendran      Forestry has announced plans to reforest 600 000 hectares
   2005; UNEP 2005). As one post-tsunami assessment        of depleted mangrove forest throughout the nation over
                                   the next 5 years (EJF 2005). The governments of Sri
                                   Lanka and Thailand have also stated publicly their inten-
   John S Bugas Professor of Economics, Department of Economics
                                   tion to rehabilitate and replant large mangrove areas
   and Finance, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071-3985
                                   (Harakunarak and Aksornkoae 2005; UNEP 2005).
   (ebarbier@uwyo.edu)

   www.frontiersinecology.org                                  © The Ecological Society of America
EB Barbier                                            Barriers to natural disasters


  Such large-scale replanting schemes face huge techni-                                      125
                                    4000
cal obstacles, especially if the objective is to restore man-
                                    3500
grove ecosystems. The considerable challenges involved
include ensuring not only adequate survival rates of          3000
replanted seedlings, but also that the developing forest        2500
exhibits sufficient structural complexity and functioning,




                                 Km2
                                    2000
which is usually measured in terms of high rates of tree
abundance, leaf fall, root production, nutrient export,         1500
biodiversity, and biogeochemical processes (Ellison 2000;
                                            FAO estimates
                                    1000
McKee and Faulkner 2000; Bosire et al. 2003, 2004,
                                            Thailand estimates
2005). Without careful ecosystem restoration and             500
replanting efforts, it has proven to be very difficult to         0
regenerate mangroves once the coastal areas have been
                                      1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
converted to other uses (eg shrimp aquaculture and agri-
                                                 Year
culture) and then abandoned (Lewis et al. 2000). In addi-
                                               2
tion, mangrove afforestation on previously unvegetated     Figure 1. Mangrove area (km ) in Thailand, 1961–2004. An
                                annual average mangrove loss of 3.44 km2 between 1993–96
tidal mudflats has been strongly criticized for poor
seedling survival rates and for producing forests with     was the basis for projected mangrove area in 2000 and 2004.
inadequate tree abundance, low structural complexity,      FAO estimates from FAO (2003); Thailand estimates from
and poor hydrological and other functional characteris-     various Royal Thailand Forestry Department sources reported in
tics (Stevenson et al. 1999; Erftemeijer and Lewis 2000;    Aksornkoae and Tokrisna (2004).
Moberg and Rönnbäck 2003). In the past, the majority of
replanting projects, especially those in Southeast Asia,    deforestation, a major cause is aquaculture expansion in
focused on afforestation as a means of generating fuel-     coastal areas, especially the establishment of shrimp farms
wood, charcoal, and woodchip products, rather than for     (Barbier and Cox 2003). Aquaculture accounts for 52%
restoring full ecosystem functioning and structural com-    of mangrove loss globally, with shrimp farming alone
plexity (Ellison 2000).                     accounting for 38%; in Asia, aquaculture contributes
  Overcoming these technical obstacles to successful      58% to mangrove loss, with shrimp farming accounting
mangrove replanting is, of course, extremely important     for 41% of total deforestation (see Valiela et al. 2001;
for ensuring successful mangrove ecosystem rehabilitation    Table 3). Forest use, mainly by industrial lumber and
and restoration in Indian Ocean countries. However,       woodchip operations, causes 26% of mangrove loss glob-
regenerating mangroves as natural barriers in coastal areas   ally and 16% in Asia; freshwater diversion accounts for
is not just a technical or ecological matter. A major policy  11% of loss globally and 14% in Asia; and reclamation of
issue is whether local coastal communities affected by     land for other uses causes 5% and 7% of loss globally and
mangrove loss in Indian Ocean countries will be willing     in Asia, respectively. The remaining sources of mangrove
to participate in the proposed post-tsunami restoration     deforestation consist of herbicide impacts, agriculture,
projects. Moreover, can these proposed, large-scale       salt ponds, and other coastal developments. A global sur-
replanting schemes rely solely on the labor of such com-    vey of 38 coastal, island, and estuarine mangrove stands
munities? Finally, if local communities are involved in     confirmed that clearcutting and reclamation for agricul-
replanting, what additional incentives are necessary to     ture and aquaculture, urban expansion, and resort devel-
encourage their long-term cooperation in conserving and     opment threatened the majority (55%) of all sites visited
protecting the restored mangrove ecosystems?          (Farnsworth and Ellison 1997).
  To answer these questions, we will explore evidence      Mangrove deforestation has been particularly prevalent
                                in Thailand. In 1961, there were approximately 3700 km2
from Thailand, one of the countries most affected by the
                                of mangroves, but this declined steadily to around
Asian tsunami, and where extensive mangrove replanting
                                2700–2900 km2 by 1980 (Figure 1). Since then, man-
schemes have been implemented in the past.
                                grove deforestation has continued, although there are dis-
                                agreements over the rate of deforestation since the 1990s.
  Will mangrove replanting be successful?
                                For example, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization
A key issue facing Asian governments concerned with       (FAO) estimates based on 1990–2000 annual average
                                deforestation rates of 18 km2 suggest a slower rate of
rehabilitating coastal mangroves is that those most
                                decline, and indicate that there may be almost 2400 km2
responsible for much of the past mangrove destruction are
unlikely to be involved in replanting and restoration      of mangroves still remaining. However, estimates based
efforts. Instead, most current replanting schemes depend    on Thailand’s Royal Forestry Department studies and
on the participation of the coastal communities most      periodic remote sensing suggest that rapid shrimp farm
affected by the loss of local mangrove forests.         expansion during the 1980s and early 1990s accelerated
 Although many factors are behind global mangrove       mangrove deforestation and, as a consequence, the

© The Ecological Society of America                                  www.frontiersinecology.org
   Barriers to natural disasters                                           EB Barbier


   remaining area of mangroves in 2004 may have been closer to    Ill-defined property rights have accelerated the rapid
126
   1645 km2. This view is supported by statistical evidence that  conversion of mangroves to shrimp farms and other land
   shrimp farm expansion has been the major cause of mangrove   uses in Thailand. Historically, this has been a common
   deforestation, especially over the 1979–96 period (Barbier   problem for all forested areas in this country (Thomson
   and Cox 2004). Since 1975, it is estimated that 50–65% of    et al. 1992; Feeny 2002). Although the state ostensibly
   Thailand’s mangroves may have been lost to shrimp farm     owns and controls mangrove areas through the Royal
   conversion alone (Aksornkoae and Tokrisna 2004).        Forestry Department, in practice the forests are de facto
    While converting mangrove forests into commercial       open-access areas onto which anyone can encroach.
   shrimp farms in Thailand and other Asian countries is      This has had three impacts on mangrove deforestation.
   clearly financially rewarding to investors, and earns sub-   First, the open-access conditions have allowed the
   stantial foreign exchange through exports for govern-      establishment of illegal shrimp farms and commercial
   ments, there are considerable financial subsidies and      woodchip and logging operations. Historically, this
   costly environmental impacts supporting this lucrative     process has been a frequent occurrence in all of
   industry. For example, one major external cost of shrimp    Thailand’s forested areas, as noted by Feeny (2002).
   ponds is the considerable amount of water pollution gen-    Secondly, several studies have pointed out how open-
   erated; this involves both the high salinity content of     access Thai forests are more vulnerable to rapid defor-
   water released from the ponds and agrochemical runoff.     estation and conversion to agricultural and other com-
   Shrimp ponds only have a productive life of about 5       mercial uses as the development of roads and the
   years, after which they are abandoned. These areas       highway network make these lands more accessible
   degenerate rapidly into wasteland, since the soil becomes    (Cropper et al 1999; Feeny 2002). Similar problems exist
   very acidic, compacted, and too poor in quality to be used   for the open-access coastal mangrove. In particular, the
   for any other productive use, such as agriculture.       geographical spread of shrimp farm expansion and
   Furthermore, without considerable additional investment     accompanying mangrove deforestation has proceeded
   in restoration, these areas do not naturally regenerate     from the most to the least accessible areas – beginning
   into mangrove forests. Finally, many of the conventional    in the coastal provinces near Bangkok, spreading down
   inputs used in shrimp farming are subsidized below their    the southern Gulf of Thailand coast towards Malaysia,
   world market prices, thus further increasing the private    and more recently appearing on the Andaman Sea coast
   returns to shrimp farming.                   (Raine 1994; Flaherty and Karnjanakesorn 1995;
    The result of all these subsidies, and the lack of con-    Sathirathai 1998; Vandergeest et al. 1999). Finally, the
   trols on pollution and environmental costs, is that the     open access to mangrove forests means that local coastal
   incentives to convert mangroves and other suitable       communities that depend on these forests for their eco-
   coastal land to shrimp farms are substantial. Sathirathai    nomic livelihoods have little say in the long-term con-
   and Barbier (2001) conducted an economic cost–benefit      trol, management, and use of the mangroves. Some of
   analysis of the returns to commercial shrimp farming in     these communities may have evolved traditional rules
   Thailand. Over a 20-year time horizon, and with dis-      for managing their own use and conservation of the
   count rates of 10–15%, investment in the typical farm      forests for fishing and collecting wood products, tradi-
   earns a net present financial value of US$7707 to        tional medicines, and wildlife. However, in the past,
   US$8336 per ha. However, when these returns are         they have often been powerless to stop the encroach-
   adjusted to account for the external costs of water pollu-   ment and appropriation of mangroves by powerful out-
   tion and for input subsidies associated with shrimp farm-    side investment interests (Aksornkoae et al. 2004).
   ing, the net present value is only US$194 to US$209 per      To summarize, past replanting programs in Thailand
   ha. If the costs of regenerating the mangrove forest are    and other Asian countries have largely operated within
   also included, then the economic returns to shrimp farm-    the existing legal and institutional framework that does
   ing are actually negative.                   not require those most responsible for the mangrove
    However, in Thailand, as in many other tropical Asian     deforestation – shrimp farm owners, commercial loggers,
   countries, there is no legal requirement that shrimp farm    and other coastal land developers – to either finance or
   owners invest in replanting and restoring mangroves       instigate replanting. Instead, governments and/or non-
   once farming operations have ceased and the ponds are      governmental organizations fund the rehabilitation plans,
   abandoned. Instead, throughout Asia, the current prac-     especially when this requires the acquisition of heavy
   tice is to ask local villagers to voluntarily provide labor   equipment and engineering contractors to re-convert and
   for mangrove replanting schemes (Stevenson et al. 1999;     prepare abandoned ponds and other degraded land for
   Erftemeijer and Lewis 2000; Sugunnasil and Sathirathai     restoration. Local communities are generally restricted to
   2004). The main assumption behind this practice appears     supplying the labor for manual tasks such as tending nurs-
   to be that coastal communities should be willing to pro-    eries, planting seedlings, and weeding. If the post-tsunami
   vide free labor to such rehabilitation projects, as these    mangrove restoration projects are also intending to rely
   communities will benefit most from restoration of the      mainly on labor from local coastal communities for such
   mangrove ecosystems.                      manual tasks, then it would be useful to understand more

   www.frontiersinecology.org                                  © The Ecological Society of America
EB Barbier                                           Barriers to natural disasters


fully what motivates households                                                 127
in these communities to partici-
pate in mangrove replanting. A
recent economic study (Barbier
2006) of households from four
coastal villages in southern
Thailand suggested that the will-
ingness of the households to par-
ticipate in such schemes is
strongly influenced by whether or
not the members of the house-
hold believe that they have some
control over the management
and protection of the local man-
grove forests. This finding has
important policy implications, as
it suggests that the failure of pre-
                                       Ban Khlong Khut
sent laws and democratic institu-
                                        Nakhon-Si-Thammarat
                      Phang-nga
tions to support local involve-
                                         Ban Gong Khong
ment in administrative decisions    Ban Sam Chong Tai
may deter villagers in coastal
communities from participating           Ban Bang Pat
in mangrove replanting efforts.
  The remainder of this paper
draws on the results of this study
to identify the incentives for
local communities to participate
in mangrove replanting, and
then concludes by discussing the
key policy implications that
emerge from these results.      Figure 2. Map of Thailand indicating the four case study villages.

                                (including the two case study villages) follow traditional
  Why do local communities participate in
                                fishing and collection activies within these largely undis-
  mangrove replanting?
                                turbed forests (Figures 4 and 5). However, as Phang-nga was
The four villages included in the economic study (were Ban   heavily impacted by the tsunami, there is now discussion of
Khlong Khut and Ban Gong Khong in Nakhon-Si-          extensive mangrove replanting for this province as well
Thammarat Province on the Gulf of Thailand and Ban       (Harakunarak and Aksornkoae 2005).
Sam Chong Tai and Ban Bang Pat in Phang-nga Province        The households surveyed in the four coastal communi-
on the Indian Ocean (Figure 2). In recent years, the four    ties are all highly dependent on the surrounding man-
villages have experienced similar rates of mangrove loss,    grove forests for their income and subsistence livelihoods
again mainly due to conversion to shrimp ponds         (Table 1). The alternative source of cash income is out-
(Aksornkoae et al. 2004). Although the survey of the vil-    side employment involving unskilled male and female
lages took place well before the tsunami (April–July 2000),   household labor. For all four villages surveyed, collection
the analysis of the decision of the households to participate  of shellfish and crabs from the mangrove swamps,
in replanting is even more relevant now, given the planned   together with coastal fishing, are the principle sources of
expansion of such arrangements for southern Thailand in     mangrove-dependent employment. However, all man-
the aftermath of the Asian tsunami. Before the tsunami,     grove-based activities are conducted predominantly by
much of the replanting effort in southern Thailand was tak-   males; females spend proportionately more of their time
ing place in Nakhon-Si-Thammarat Province, with little     employed outside the household. In one village (Ban
activity in Phang-nga Province (Figure 3). There are few    Khlong Khut), a few households have their own very
remaining large areas of mangroves in Nakhon-Si-        small shrimp ponds, which employ mainly the female
Thammarat Province, although large patches of mangroves     labor of the households. In general, most of the house-
continue to support traditional mangrove-based activities    holds surveyed appear to benefit very little from nearby
in the two case study villages from that province. In con-   commercial shrimp pond operations, either in terms of
trast, in Phang-nga, there are still large tracts of pristine  permanent or casual employment.
mangrove forests and many more coastal communities         Of the 199 households surveyed, 108 had at least one

© The Ecological Society of America                                 www.frontiersinecology.org
                                 Barriers to natural disasters                                                 EB Barbier


                                                                                   Thammarat villages, whereas
128                                Table 1. Key statistics for surveyed households in four villages in Thailand
                                                                                   households in the latter communi-
                                                         Phang-nga          Nakhon-Si-Thammarat
                                                                                   ties are more willing to have shrimp
                                                   Ban Sam        Ban Bang   Ban Gong     Ban Khlong
                                                                                   farms present and are less aware of
                                                   Chong Tai         Pat    Khong        Khut
                                                                                   their environmental impacts.
                                                   n = 55        n = 41    n = 52       n = 51
                                                                                     An economic study of the 199 sur-
                                                   M    F       M    F  M    F     M    F
                                                                                   veyed households analyzed the fac-
                                                                                   tors determining the likelihood that
                                 Households with
                                  members participating                                       the members of these households
                                  in replanting          48   34       35   28  11   4     14   3
                                                                                   were likely to participate in local
                                  (% of total)         (87%) (62%)      (85%) (68%)  (21%) (8%)    (27%) (6%)
                                                                                   replanting schemes, which included
                                 Average hours per year                                       also testing whether or not this par-
                                  spent replanting        23   14       19    9  62   19     2   0.3
                                                                                   ticipation decision was determined
                                 Mangrove-dependent                                         jointly within the household
                                  income share of total
                                                                                   (Barbier 2006). The results of the
                                  income               95%          89%      66%        83%
                                                                                   analysis confirm that the degree to
                                 % of households aware of                                      which the households are dependent
                                  shrimp farm impacts        98%          100%      48%        55%
                                                                                   on mangrove-based activities for
                                 % of households wanting                                       their incomes is a major factor deter-
                                  shrimp farms in village       0%          2%      71%        43%
                                                                                   mining whether households partici-
                                 % of households aware of                                      pate in mangrove rehabilitation
                                  impacts and want farms       0%          2%      27%        12%   schemes. However, the results sug-
                                                                                   gest that other factors also appear to
                                 Fish only households          1           5       3        23
                                                                                   be important in affecting male and
                                 Collect only households        19           3      34         7
                                                                                   female participation in replanting.
                                 Fish & collect households       35           33      15        21
                                                                                     First, it is the entire household,
                                 n = number of households surveyed; M = male; F = female
                                                                                   and not just individual male or
                                                                                   female members, which decides
                                 adult male and 69 at least one adult female involved in who from the household should or should not participate
                                 annual mangrove replanting, with males generally spend- in such projects. This result is not surprising, given the
                                 ing more time participating than females. The average general tendency towards “division of labor” within the
                                 hours per household devoted to replanting each year are, household, ie males generally spend much more time on
                                 however, very low and vary from village to village. More primary mangrove-dependent activities such as fishing
                                 households in the two Phang-nga villages participate in and/or collecting, while females are more likely to be
                                 mangrove replanting than in the two Nakhon-Si- engaged in outside employment. Both of these occupa-
                                                                                   tions are important to the overall
                                                                                   subsistence and income needs of
                                                                                   the household; thus, if the house-
                                                                                   hold decides to volunteer its male
                                                                                   members for replanting, then it
                                                                                   must also consider the possible
                                                                                   implications for its mangrove-
                                                                                   dependent activities, including
                                                                                   whether the females of the house-
                                                                                   holds should seek outside employ-
   Courtesy of S Aksornkoae, Thailand Environment Institute




                                                                                   ment rather than participate in
                                                                                   these activities.
                                                                                     Secondly, the decision to allow
                                                                                   males and females to participate in
                                                                                   replanting is also influenced by the
                                                                                   household’s awareness of commu-
                                                                                   nity conservation and utilization
                                                                                   rules for managing mangroves and
                                                                                   of the environmental damages
                                                                                   caused by shrimp farms. Evidence
                                 Figure 3. Mangrove replanting in Ban Khlong Khut, Nakhon-Si-Thammarat Province, from the survey suggests that, if the
                                                                                   households are “aware” that the
                                 Thailand.

                                 www.frontiersinecology.org                                        © The Ecological Society of America
EB Barbier                                          Barriers to natural disasters


local community has the ability to                                                                            129
assert and enforce its traditonal rules
for conservation and utilization of the
local mangroves, it is because these tra-
ditional “use rights” by the community
receive some support and encourage-
ment from local officials and/or non-
governmental organizations in the area
(Aksornkoae et al. 2004). This suggests




                                                                Courtesy of S Aksornkoae, Thailand Environment Institute
that households are more likely to
allow members to engage in mangrove
replanting if the community already
exerts some control over the manage-
ment of local mangroves and if there is
a perception that these forests are
threatened by shrimp farm expansion.
 Finally, female participation in
replanting appears to face additional
constraints, such as the distance of the
household to mangroves, the number of
children under the age of 6 in the house- Figure 4. Mangrove forests with fish cage culture in Ban Sam Chong Thai, Phang-
hold, and the size of the remaining man- nga Province, Thailand.
grove area that is to be rehabilitated. As
                                 The connection between the willingness of coastal
the number of small children in the household increases,
females will devote more of their time to child rearing. households to participate in replanting projects and the
Females from households that are located at increasing dis- belief that their communities exert control over the man-
tances from the mangroves, and are engaged in activities agement and protection of their local mangrove forests
that require larger mangrove areas, are less likely to partici- appears to be even more important. This suggests that
pate in replanting. Both factors suggest that household there is an urgent need to address the main institutional
members recognize that larger and more distant mangroves failure concerning management of local mangrove
require more replanting effort, and are reluctant to allocate resources in coastal areas of Thailand and other Indian
                                Ocean countries. As discussed above, the current law and
female labor for the additional time required.
                                formal institutional structures of resource management in
                                Thailand do not recognize that local coastal communities
  Towards a policy for sustainable mangrove
                                should have some say in the long-term control, use, and
  management
                                management of nearby mangrove forests. Some of these
These results have important implications for the pro- coastal communities have developed their own rules for
posed post-tsunami plans in Thailand and other Indian utilization of the forests, but without legal recognition of
Ocean countries to replant and restore mangroves along these informal rights communities are unable to enforce
coastlines. If, as expected, the proposed large-scale their local rules effectively and are often powerless to stop
schemes in Thailand and other countries rely on local encroachment by outsiders. This reduces the ability and
mangrove-dependent households to “volunteer” their willingness of communities to conserve and protect their
labor for replanting, then, the study suggests, some volun- mangrove forests, which in turn limits participation in
teer labor might be forthcoming; ie those households that mangrove replanting.
are highly dependent on mangrove forests for their        A new institutional framework for coastal mangrove
income are likely to devote some male and female labor management in Thailand and other Indian Ocean coun-
to these initiatives. However, such volunteer labor for tries should include the following features (Barbier and
large-scale rehabilitation projects is likely to be inade- Sathirathai 2004). (1) The remaining mangrove areas
quate. For one, as Table 1 shows, even the most willing should be designated as either conservation (ie preserva-
households do not provide much free labor annually (at tion) or economic zones. Shrimp farming and other extrac-
most, 62 hours of male labor and 19 hours of female labor tive commercial uses (eg wood concessions) should be
per household in one village). Furthermore, there appear restricted to the economic zones only. However, local com-
to be constraints on the ability of female members to munities that depend on the collection of forest and fishery
engage in replanting. Thus, providing a fair wage to com- products from mangrove forests should be allowed access to
pensate local villagers for providing their labor to large- both zones, as long as such harvesting activities are con-
scale mangrove rehabilitation schemes in Indian Ocean ducted sustainably. (2) The establishment of community
countries will be critical to the initial success.       mangrove forests should also occur in both the economic

© The Ecological Society of America                                www.frontiersinecology.org
                                 Barriers to natural disasters                                              EB Barbier


                                                                             countries must take to reduce the cur-
130
                                                                             rent incentives for excessive mangrove
                                                                             conversion to shrimp farming. These
                                                                             include eliminating preferential subsi-
                                                                             dies for the inputs, such as larvae,
                                                                             chemicals, and machinery; ending pref-
                                                                             erential commercial loans for clearing
                                                                             land and establishing shrimp ponds;
                                                                             employing land auctions and conces-
                                                                             sion fees for the establishment of new
   Courtesy of S Aksornkoae, Thailand Environment Institute




                                                                             farms in the economic zones of coastal
                                                                             areas; and finally, charging replanting
                                                                             fees for farms that convert mangroves
                                                                             (Barbier and Sathirathai 2004).
                                                                             Reducing the other environmental
                                                                             impacts of shrimp farming is also impor-
                                                                             tant, notably problems of water pollu-
                                                                             tion, the depletion of wild fish stocks for
                                                                             feed, and disease outbreaks within
                                                                             ponds (Jory 1996; Naylor et al. 2000;
                                                                             Goldberg and Naylor 2005). For exam-
                                 Figure 5. Rich and productive mangrove forests in Phang-nga Province, Thailand.
                                                                             ple, it was clear that the households in
                                 and conservation zones. However, the decision to allow the four villages surveyed were aware of these environmen-
                                 local management efforts should be based on the capability tal impacts and were clearly concerned that their local
                                 of communities to effectively enforce their local rules and mangroves were being converted to such an unsustainable
                                 manage the forest to prevent over-utilization, degradation, practice. As one industry expert has commented, “The key
                                 and conversion to other land uses. Moreover, such commu- to industry sustainability in Thailand, as it is for most
                                 nity rights should not involve full ownership of the forest, shrimp farming countries, is continuing research and
                                 but be in the form of user rights. (3) Community mangrove breakthroughs in three areas: species domestication, mini-
                                 forests should be co-managed by the government and local mizing the negative environmental impact of pond efflu-
                                 communities. Such an arrangement will require the active ents on coastal ecosystems, and controlling diseases, espe-
                                 participation of existing coastal community organizations cially those caused by viruses” (Jory 1996). Improving the
                                 and will allow the representatives of such organizations to sustainability of shrimp aquaculture and controlling the
                                 have the right to express opinions and make decisions excessive mangrove deforestation caused by the industry
                                 regarding the management plan and regulations related to may also be critical for ensuring the participation of local
                                 the utilization of mangrove resources. (4) The government coastal communities in mangrove replanting efforts, as
                                 must provide technical, educational, and financial support well as for gaining their cooperation in long-term man-
                                 for local community organizations participating in manag- grove forest management.
                                 ing the mangroves. For example, if only user rights (but not
                                 full ownership rights) are granted to local communities,      Acknowledgements
                                 then their access to formal credit markets for initiatives
                                 such as investment in mangrove conservation and replant- I am grateful to N Baron, A Ellison, F Dahdouh-Guebas,
                                 ing may be restricted. The government may need to pro- and A Simons for comments on an earlier draft of this
                                 vide special lines of credit to support such community- paper, and to S Aksornkoae for permission to use Figures
                                 based activities.                        3–5 in this paper.
                                  Such an institutional framework is particularly relevant
                                 if the mangrove rehabilitation and replanting projects       References
                                 instigated in the wake of the Asian tsunami are to move Adger WN, Hughes TP, Folke C, et al. 2005. Social–ecological
                                 beyond simply replanting seedlings in tidal mudflats. If the     resilience to coastal disasters. Science 309: 1036–39.
                                 ultimate goal is successful ecological restoration and con- Aksornkoae S, Sugunnasil W, and Sathirathai S. 2004. Analytical
                                                                   background of the case studies and research sites: ecological,
                                 servation of large-scale mangrove areas that have been        historical and social perspectives. In: Barbier EB and
                                 converted to other land uses, then increased participation      Sathirathai S (Eds). Shrimp farming and mangrove loss in
                                 of coastal communities in these efforts is a priority.        Thailand. London, UK: Edward Elgar.
                                  However, while establishing an improved institutional Aksornkoae S and Tokrisna R. 2004. Overview of shrimp farming
                                                                   and mangrove loss in Thailand. In: Barbier EB and Sathirathai
                                 framework is necessary for controlling excessive shrimp
                                                                   S (Eds). Shrimp farming and mangrove loss in Thailand.
                                 farm expansion and subsequent mangrove loss, it is not suf-     London, UK: Edward Elgar.
                                 ficient on its own. There are clearly other steps that Asian Barbier EB. 2006. Mangrove dependency and the livelihoods of

                                 www.frontiersinecology.org                                     © The Ecological Society of America
EB Barbier                                                    Barriers to natural disasters

   coastal communities in Thailand. In: Hoanh CT, Tuong TP,          man, land, and forests in Thailand, 1790–1990. In: Richards JF
                                                                          131
   Gowing JW, and Hardy W (Eds). Environment and livelihoods          (Ed). Land property and the environment. San Francisco, CA:
   in tropical coastal zones: managing agriculture–fishery–aqua-        Institute for Contemporary Studies Press.
   culture conflicts. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.         Goldburg RJ and Naylor RL. 2005. Future seascapes, fishing, and
Barbier EB and Cox M. 2003. Does economic development lead to          fish farming. Front Ecol Environ 3: 21–28.
   mangrove loss? A cross-country analysis. Contemp Econ Policy      Harakunarak A and Aksornkoae S. 2005. Life-saving belts: post-
   21: 418–32.                                 tsunami reassessment of mangrove ecosystem values and man-
Barbier EB and Cox M. 2004. An economic analysis of shrimp farm         agement in Thailand. Trop Coasts (July): 48–55.
   expansion and mangrove conversion in Thailand. Land Econ        Jory DE. 1996. Marine shrimp farming in the Kingdom of
   80: 389–407.                                Thailand: Part II. Aquacult Mag July/August: 71–78.
Barbier EB and Sathirathai S. 2004. Conclusion of the study and       Kathiresan K and Rajendran N.2005. Coastal mangrove forests
   policy recommendations. In: Barbier EB and Sathirathai S          mitigated tsunami. Estuar Coast Shelf S 65: 601–06.
   (Eds). Shrimp farming and mangrove loss in Thailand.          Lewis III RR, Erftemeijer P, Sayaka A, et al. 2000. Mangrove reha-
   London, UK: Edward Elgar.                          bilitation after shrimp aquaculture: a case study in progress at
Bosire JO, Dahdouh-Guebas F, Kairo JG, et al. 2003. Colonization         the Don Sak National Forest Reserves, Surat Thani, Southern
   of non-planted mangrove species into restored mangrove           Thailand. Surat Thani, Thailand: Mangrove Forest
   stands in Gazi Bay, Kenya. Aquat Bot 76: 267–79.              Management Unit, Surat Thani Regional Forest Office, Royal
Bosire JO, Dahdouh-Guebas F, Kairo JG, et al. 2004. Spatial varia-        Forest Department.
   tions in macrobenthic fauna recolonisation in a tropical man-      Massel SR, Furukawa K, and Brinkman RM. 1999. Surface wave
   grove bay. Biodivers Conserv 13: 1059–74.                  propagation in mangrove forests. Fluid Dyn Res 24: 219–49.
Bosire JO, Dahdouh-Guebas F, Kairo JG, et al. 2005. Litter degrada-     Mazda Y, Wolanski E, King E, et al. 1997. Drag force due to vegeta-
   tion and CN dynamics in reforested mangrove plantations at         tion in mangrove swamps. Mangroves and Salt Marshes 1:
   Gazi Bay, Kenya. Biol Conserv 126: 287–95.                 193–99.
Chong J. 2005. Protective values of mangrove and coral ecosys-        McKee KL and Faulkner PL. 2000. Restoration of biogeochemical
   tems: a review of methods and evidence. Gland, Switzerland:         function in mangrove forests. Restor Ecol 8: 247–59.
   IUCN.                                  Moberg F and Rönnbäck P. 2003. Ecosystem services of the tropical
Cropper M, Griffiths C, and Mani M. 1999. Roads, population           seascape: interactions, substitutions and restoration. Ocean
   pressures, and deforestation in Thailand, 1976–1989. Land          Coast Manage 46: 27–46.
   Econ 75: 58–73.                             Naylor RL, Goldberg RJ, Primavera JH, et al. 2000. Effect of aqua-
Dahdouh-Guebas F, Jayatissa LP, Di Nitto D, et al. 2005. How effec-       culture on world fish supplies. Nature 45: 1017–23.
   tive were mangroves as a defence against the recent tsunami?      Sathirathai S and Barbier EB. 2001. Valuing mangrove conserva-
   Curr Biol 15: 443–47.                            tion in southern Thailand. Contemp Econ Policy 19: 109–22.
Danielsen F, Sørensen MK, Olwig MF, et al. 2005. The Asian tsunami: a pro-  Stevenson NJ, Lewis III RR, and Burbridge PR. 1999. Disused
   tective role for coastal vegetation. Science 310: 643.           shrimp ponds and mangrove rehabilitation. In: Streever W
Erftemeijer PLA and Lewis III RR. 2000. Planting mangroves on          (Ed). An international perspective on wetland rehabilitation.
   intertidal mudflats: habitat restoration or habitat conversion?       Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Proceedings of the Regional Seminar for East and Southeast       Sugunnasil W and Sathirathai S. 2004. Coastal communities, man-
   Asian Countries: ECOTONE VIII; Ranong and Phuket,              grove loss and shrimp farming: social and institutional perspec-
   Thailand, 23–28 May 1999; Bangkok, Thailand: Royal Forestry         tives. In: Barbier EB and Sathirathai S (Eds). Shrimp farming
   Department.                                 and mangrove loss in Thailand. London, UK: Edward Elgar.
EJF (Environmental Justice Foundation). 2005. Did the loss of        Thomson JT, Feeny DH, and Oakerson RJ. 1992. Institutional
   mangrove forests exacerbate the impact of the tsunami?           dynamics: the evolution and dissolution of common property
   London, UK: Environmental Justice Foundation.                resource management. In: Bromley DW (Ed). Making the com-
Ellison AM. 2000. Mangrove restoration: do we know enough?            mons work: theory, practice, and policy. San Francisco, CA:
   Restor Ecol 8: 219–29.                           Institute for Contemporary Studies Press.
FAO (UN Forest and Agricultural Organization). 2003. Status and       UNEP (United Nations Environment Program). 2005. After the
   trends in mangrove area extent worldwide. Rome, Italy: Forestry       tsunami: rapid environmental assessment report – February 22,
   Department. Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper 63.          2005. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP.
Farnsworth EJ and Ellison AM. 1997. The global conservation sta-       Valiela I, Bowen JL, and York JK. 2001. Mangrove forests: one of
   tus of mangroves. Ambio 26: 328–34.                     the world’s threatened major tropical environments. BioScience
Feeny D. 2002. The co-evolution of property rights regimes for          51: 807–15.




© The Ecological Society of America                                          www.frontiersinecology.org