147

REVIEW ARTICLE

Current Status of Mangroves Worldwide
Mami KAINUMA1, Shigeyuki BABA1,2*, Nozomi OSHIRO1,
Mio KEZUKA1 and Hung Tuck CHAN1
1

International Society for Mangrove Ecosystems (ISME),
c/o Faculty of Agriculture, University of the Ryukyus
1 Senbaru, Nishihara, Okinawa 901-0129, Japan
2
Iriomote Station, Tropical Biosphere Research Center, University of the Ryukyus
870 Uehara, Taketomi, Yaeyama, Okinawa 907-1541, Japan*e-mail: isme@mangrove.or.jp

Abstract
This paper describes, as a background, events that led to the publication of the 1997 World Mangrove
Atlas and the 2010 World Atlas of Mangroves. The 2010 Atlas produced updated country-by-country mangrove distribution maps using remote sensing techniques and assessed the status of mangroves in each country.
The current area occupied by mangroves has been estimated to be 152,360 km2 and about 0.7% of that is lostannually. It is hoped that the 2010 Atlas will serve as a baseline for future gain/loss assessment. Largely basedon the findings of the 2010 Atlas, this paper highlights the world mangrove distribution, value of mangroves,
impacts and threats to mangrove ecosystems, management and conservation of mangroves, restoration andafforestation efforts, and international cooperation for preservation of mangrove ecosystems. Although therate of mangrove deforestation has declined in recent years, much needs to be done towards balancing mangrove utilization and conservation and achieving the goals of sustainable management.
Key words: conservation, global distribution, mangrove, rehabilitation, remote sensing,sustainable management

1. Introduction
Mangroves are plant communities of the tropical andsubtropical intertidal coastal zone. These trees, shrubs
and herbs have developed morphological, physiologicaland/or reproductive strategies adapted to the harsh saline,
waterlogged and anaerobic environmental conditions
under which they live. Mangrove ecosystems provide awide range of goods and services to human communities
located in coastal areas.
It is generally acknowledged that the global extent ofmangrove forests has been decreasing due to the rapid
pace of socio-economic development in many countries.
However, it is difficult to obtain accurate data to determine the area of mangrove forests at the global scale. We
became aware of the necessity to produce a World Mangrove Atlas about 20 years ago. We prepared a project
proposal, and negotiated with the International Tropical
Timber Organization (ITTO) and the Japanese Government to provide us the funding as a member country of
ITTO. In 1997, the World Mangrove Atlas was publishedby the International Society for Mangrove Ecosystems(ISME) and ITTO in collaboration with the World
Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC). The 1997
Atlas received an overwhelming response and there were
Global Environmental Research
17/2013: 147-154
printed in Japan

many requests for more recent and precise data on theextent of mangrove forests, which was still rapidlychanging.
Prompted by the eager requests for more precise
mangrove forest data in each country, which are difficult
to obtain, we decided to compile and publish a revisedatlas. We successfully secured funding from ITTO andthe Japanese government in 2004. Funding from ITTO
came mainly from the government of Japan together withthe governments of the US and Spain. The funding imposed the condition that we had to implement the projectin collaboration with relevant UN organizations as welacked the facilities and capabilities to analyze data on
mangrove areas using satellite images. After much discussion and negotiation, we finally got the project started
in 2005 with a consortium of international organizations:
ITTO as the funding agency; ISME as the implementing
agency; and FAO, UNESCO-Man and Biosphere (MAB),
UNEP-WCMC, UNU-Institute for Water Environmentand Health (INWEH) and the Nature Conservancy(TNC) as partners.
Working with so many international organizations aspartners was a lifetime experience for ISME. After muchdelay, and ‘blood, sweat and tears,’ we published theWorld Atlas of Mangroves in 2010. The Atlas was re©2013 AIRIES148

M. KAINUMA et al.

viewed by more than 100 mangrove experts worldwide to
produce a new and accurate mangrove distribution map
and assess the condition of mangroves of each country.
This paper, therefore, is largely based on the findings ofthe 2010 Atlas, which include information on the ecology,
biodiversity, distribution, value, threat, conservation andmanagement status of mangroves worldwide.

2. World Mangrove Distribution
The world mangrove distribution map is shown in
Fig. 1. This map enables relatively accurate distribution
and calculation of mangrove areas country-by-country,
and can be used as a baseline database for future loss/gain
assessments. According to the World Atlas of Mangroves(Spalding et al., 2010), the area occupied by mangroves
globally is 152,360 km2, occurring in 123 countries andterritories of the tropics and subtropics (Table 1). Over
65% of the world’s mangroves are located in twelve
countries with Indonesia accounting for over 20%(Table 2). Shortly after the release of the World Atlas ofMangroves in 2010, Giri et al. (2011) published analternative estimate of the world mangrove area as137,760 km2, occurring in 118 countries, also derived
from 2000 Landsat imageries. The difference between
the two estimates is relatively small (~10%), and they
complement each other, although the methods used wererather different. Both datasets have their strengths andweaknesses, and it would be a positive action to produce
a combination map of the best of both.
As for regional distribution, most mangroves arefound in South and Central America, West and Central
Africa, and in a broad region stretching from northeast
India, through Southeast Asia into Northern Australia(Spalding et al., 2010). Sparse and discontinuous mangroves occur in parts of East Africa, the Middle East,
South Asia and much of Australia. The global map also
shows the latitudinal limits to mangrove distribution. The
most northerly mangroves are in Bermuda (32°20’N)
and the most southerly are at Corner Inlet, Australia(38°45’S). The largest mangrove tracts are found on wet
deltaic coasts, which extend inland for several tens ofkilometers, with large forest trees over 20 m in heightand high in biomass. The Sundarbans of India and
Bangladesh are the best known with a total area of
6,500 km2 which extends up to 85 km inland. Largemangrove tracts are also found in northern Brazil(6,500 km2) and the Gulf of Papua (5,400 km2).
The 2010 Atlas also included the first-ever global
compilation of mangrove species range maps for indi-vidual species, produced with expert input and support
from the International Union for Conservation of Nature(IUCN). A total of 73 species and hybrids are considered
to be true mangroves (Table 3). Two distinct floristic
realms of mangrove distribution are recognized. The
Indo-West Pacific (IWP) realm extends from East Africa
eastwards to the islands of the Central Pacific, and theAtlantic East Pacific (AEP) realm includes all of theAmericas, and West and Central Africa. There is nooverlap in species between the two realms except for thefern Acrostichum aureum. The IWP and AEP realms have
62 and 12 species and hybrids, respectively. The global
center of mangrove biodiversity is in Southeast Asia
where the highest diversity (41-47 species) can be seen inIndonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines (Fig. 2). Diversity decreases away from the tropics, and there is notmuch difference in the extent of mangroves between the
IWP and AEP realms, which account for 57% and 43%,
respectively.
Table 1 Mangrove areas by region (Spalding et al., 2010).
RegionArea (km2)

East and South Africa
Middle East
South Asia
Southeast Asia
East Asia
Australasia
Pacific Ocean
North and Central
AmericaSouth America
West and Central Africa
Total

7,917
624
10,34451,049215
10,171
5,717

Proportion of
global total (%)
5.2
0.4
6.8
33.5
0.1
6.7
3.8

22,402

14.7

23,882
20,040152,361

15.7
13.1

Table 2 Top twelve countries with the largest mangrove
areas in the world (Spalding et al., 2010).
Country
Indonesia
BrazilAustralia
MexicoNigeria
Malaysia
MyanmarBangladesh
Cuba
India
Papua New Guinea
Colombia
Total

Mangrove area
(km2)
31,89413,000
9,910
7,701
7,356
7,097
5,029
4,951
4,944
4,326
4,265
4,079
104,552

Fig. 1 Global mangrove distribution map (Spalding et al., 2010).

Proportion of
global total (%)
20.9
8.5
6.5
5.1
4.8
4.7
3.3
3.2
3.2
2.8
2.8
2.7
68.5

Current Status of Mangroves Worldwide

149

Table 3 Mangrove species and hybrids of the Indo-West Pacific and Atlantic East Pacific realms(Spalding et al., 2010). Core families and species are in bold.
FamilyIndo-West PacificAcanthaceae
Arecaceae
Avicenniaceae

Bignoniaceae
Bombacaceae
Caesalpiniaceae
Combretaceae

Ebenaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Lythraceae
Meliaceae

Myrsinaceae
Myrtaceae
Plumbaginaceae
Pteridaceae

Rhizophoraceae
Atlantic East Pacific
Avicenniaceae

Bignoniaceae
Caesalpiniaceae
Combretaceae

SpeciesAcanthus ebracteatus
Acanthus ilicifolius
Nypa fruticans
Avicennia alba
Avicennia integra
Avicennia marina
Avicennia officinalis
Avicennia rumphiana
Dolichandrone spathacea
Camptostemon philippinense
Camptostemon schultzii
Cynometra iripa
Lumnitzera littorea
Lumnitzera racemosa
Lumnitzera x rosea
Diospyros littorea
Excoecaria agallocha
Excoecaria indica
Pemphis acidula
Aglaia cucullata
Xylocarpus granatum
Xylocarpus moluccensis
Aegiceras corniculatum
Aegiceras floridum
Osbornia octodonta
Aegialitis annulata
Aegialitis rotundifolia
Acrostichum aureum
Acrostichum danaeifolium
Acrostichum speciosum
Bruguiera cylindrica

Avicennia bicolor
Avicennia germinans
Avicennia schaueriana
Tabebuia palustrisMora oleifera
Conocarpus erectus
Laguncularia racemosa

FamilyRubiaceae
Sonneratiaceae

Sterculiaceae

Pellicieraceae
Pteridaceae
Rhizophoraceae

Species
Bruguiera exaristata
Bruguiera gymnorhiza
Bruguiera hainesii
Bruguiera parviflora
Bruguiera sexangula
Bruguiera x rhynchopetala
Ceriops australis
Ceriops decandra
Ceriops tagal
Kandelia candel
Kandelia obovata
Rhizophora apiculata
Rhizophora mucronata
Rhizophora samoensis
Rhizophora stylosa
Rhizophora x lamarckii
Rhizophora x neocaledonica
Rhizophora x selala
Scyphiphora hydrophylacea
Sonneratia alba
Sonneratia apetala
Sonneratia caseolaris
Sonneratia griffithii
Sonneratia lanceolata
Sonneratia ovata
Sonneratia x gulngai
Sonneratia x hainanensis
Sonneratia x urama
Heritiera fomes
Heritiera globosa
Heritiera littoralis

Pelliciera rhizophorae
Acrostichum aureum
Rhizophora mangle
Rhizophora racemosa
Rhizophora x harrisonii

Fig. 2 Mangrove species diversity map (Spalding et al., 2010).
The colors indicate potential numbers of species found at the locations. It should be noted that in higher diversity areas,
it is rare to find all regional species in a single site.

150

M. KAINUMA et al.

3. The Value of Mangroves
The value of mangroves is well documented. Goods
and services include wood and non-wood forest products,
medicines, fishery resources, recreation, ecotourism, biofiltration, nursery grounds, coastal protection, and carbon
storage and sequestration (Field, 1995; Bandaranayake,1998).
Of the services provided by mangrove ecosystems,
there has been increasing interest in the important role ofmangroves in the global carbon cycle (Bouillon et al.,2008; Komiyama et al., 2008; Laffoley & Grimsditch,
2009; Donato et al., 2011). Mangrove forests are considered to be the most productive ecosystems with highbiomass, especially below-ground. A recent study quantifying tree and dead wood biomass, soil carbon content,
and soil depth in 25 mangrove forests in the Indo-Pacificregion showed that mangroves are among the mostcarbon-rich forests in the tropics, containing an averageof 1,023 MgC/ha (Donato et al., 2011). The amountof carbon stored above-ground was considerable(153 MgC/ha) but the below-ground storage dominated,accounting for 71%-98% and 49%-90% of total storagein estuarine and oceanic mangroves, respectively. Carbon
storage in estuarine mangroves is higher than in those inoceanic sites. Mangroves in the Indo-Pacific showed
three to four times higher storage than boreal, temperate
and tropical upland forests. A number of other publications have also indicated that mangroves play a significant role in storing carbon (UNFCCC, 2009; Alongi,
2011; Donato et al., 2011; Siikamaki et al., 2012).

4. Impacts and Threats to Mangrove
Ecosystems
4.1 Extent of mangrove loss
There are no accurate data on the original coverage ofmangroves, and the current areas represent a considerable decline as a result of human activities involving
development and conversion in almost all countries.
Even prior to these losses, mangroves were a relatively
rare forest habitat. Mangroves represent less than 1% oftropical forests worldwide and less than 0.4% of the
global total forest area (FAO, 2006).
A number of national and regional studies have estimated changes in mangrove area, but compiling a global
estimation is a challenge because it requires consistentand accurate methods and measurements over time.
While the 2010 Atlas provided the most updated global
estimate of the mangrove area to date, it is not strictly
comparable with earlier global estimates, as those wereobtained using different mapping methods. FAO (2007)
provided a detailed global assessment of the change inmangrove area over a period of 25 years (1980 to 2005),
as listed in Table 4. All regions except Australia experienced dramatic losses in mangrove area over the 25-year
period, including losses exceeding 20% in four regions(East Asia, Pacific Islands, Southeast Asia, and North
and Central America). Although rates of loss have de-clined over time (from 1.04% in the 1980s to 0.66% from2000 to 2005), they are still 3-4 times higher than the
global rate of loss of all forests (0.18% per year from2000 to 2005). Even the remaining mangrove areas are
no longer pristine and highly degraded.
4.2 Causes of mangrove loss
Mangroves have been utilized by local communities
all over the world. However, the loss of mangrove habitat
has had severe impacts on local and often poor communities, whose livelihoods are dependent on mangrove forests and fisheries. The loss of world mangroves over the
past few decades has mainly been caused by directconversion of mangrove areas for urban and industrial
development, and for aquaculture and agriculture.
Where population pressures are high and space islimited, large areas of mangroves have been converted toplantations of cash crops such as rice, coconuts and oilpalms, although mangrove soils are only marginallysuitable for agriculture. Another strong driver of mangrove conversion has been the growth of shrimp aquaculture, especially in Southeast Asia, and in Central andSouth America. It has been estimated that 38% of the
global mangrove loss has been due to the clearing ofmangroves for shrimp culture, with another 14% due toother forms of aquaculture (Valiela et al., 2001). Some of
the most rapid losses took place in the 1990s, and often
these aquaculture development projects were supported
by governments (Primavera & Esteban, 2008).
Other causes of mangrove loss include over-harvesting(e.g., for wood chips), over-fishing, pollution, sedimentation, and alteration of water flow. Figure 3 shows an
Table 4 Change in mangrove area, by region 1980-2005(FAO, 2007).
RegionReduction (%)

East Asia
Pacific Islands
Southeast Asia
North and Central America
Middle East
West and Central Africa
South Asia
South America
East Africa
Australia and New Zealand
Average

33.4
28.8
26.5
23.3
17.0
16.0
15.5
11.0
7.9
0.6
18.0

Annual change
(%)
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.7

Fig. 3 Destruction of mangroves (right) due to road construction.

Current Status of Mangroves Worldwide

example of a road constructed without culverts acrosstidal flats. Tidal flow was impeded, and this led to massmortality and total destruction of mangroves due todesiccation and salinization.
4.3 Mangrove loss by region
The following is a summary of region-wide mangrove
losses. Some issues may be country- specific and may not
apply to other countries of the region.
In Eastern and Southern Africa, mangroves have suffered fewer losses than elsewhere, with only an eightpercent decline between 1980 and 2005 (FAO, 2007).
Even so, they are heavily used, and in countries such as
Kenya and Madagascar, there is significant degradation,
as trees are sparse and stunted due to over-exploitation.
Some mangrove forests have been converted to rice
fields, salt pans and shrimp ponds, but not to the extent as
in Asia.
The Middle East has some of the most arid coastlines
in the world. Although four species are recorded, only
Avicennia marina is widespread, typically growing as a
shrub in small stands. Goats and camels of the Bedouin
nomads browse the mangroves, which are also harvested
for timber and firewood. In recent years, mangroves havebeen destroyed due to coastal development.
In South Asia almost all mangroves have been impacted by humans, and large areas have been lost throughover-exploitation or conversion to aquaculture and agriculture. Concern over the loss of mangroves has stimulated reforestation programs in Bangladesh, Pakistan andIndia.
In Southeast Asia, mangroves have long been asource of timber and fishery resources. While the Matang
mangroves in Malaysia have been sustainably managed
for timber for over 100 years and are known to be one of
the best managed mangrove forests in the world, there arehuge contrasts elsewhere in the region where mangrove
degradation and loss have been rampant. Since the 1970s,
shrimp aquaculture has intensively degraded vast areas ofmangroves in Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines andJava and Kalimantan of Indonesia.
In East Asia, mangroves occur along the coasts ofsouthern China, Taiwan and the southern islands of Japan.
With the exception of mangroves in Japan, which are
well-protected, the mangroves of East Asia are among
the most altered mangrove ecosystems in the world, due
mainly to coastal development.
In Australia and New Zealand, mangrove deforestation has been minimal, with some local development for
urban expansion and marina development. Overall,mangroves in Australasia are well-protected.
In the Pacific, mangroves are generally appreciatedand recognized by the people for their value; however,significant mangrove loss has occurred in some countries
due to urban and resort development for tourism.
In North and Central America, the causes of mangrove loss have been conversion for urban and tourism
development, agriculture and aquaculture. However, theUS, Mexico and Cuba are showing considerable interest

151

in mangrove protection. Hurricanes are a major, highly
destructive natural hazard, and impacted mangroves takeyears or decades to recover.
In South America, large areas of mangroves remain.
There has been considerable loss, however, due to shrimp
aquaculture, notably in Ecuador and northern Peru. In
eastern Guyana, mangroves have been converted to agricultural land.
In West and Central Africa, widespread loss of mangroves is associated with conversion to urban andagricultural land and, in more arid areas, the creation ofsalt pans. In the Niger Delta, oil and gas extraction has
caused pollution, damaged fish stocks and contributed tothe degradation and loss of mangroves.

5. Management of Mangroves
There is increased recognition of the importance ofmangroves worldwide and efforts have been made to
manage these ecosystems sustainably for forestry andfishery use. Policies, legislation and management arelargely developed at the national scale. Mangrove forests
in some parts of the world have been managed for timber
production. One well-known example is the mangroves(41,000 ha) in Matang, Malaysia, which have been managed successfully for more than 100 years (Azahar Muda,
2003). Such forests are managed on a sustained yieldbasis with well-established and productive Rhizophora
plantations. Based on comprehensive ten-year management or working plans, thinning (15 and 20 years) is
undertaken to produce an intermediate crop, followed by
final felling at 30 years. Enrichment planting is routinely
carried out. Successful management requires the commitment of national governments. There may be several
ways to manage mangroves effectively. The way towards
sustainable forestry practices requires a balance between
utilization and conservation, augmented with protection
and rehabilitation.

6. Conservation of Mangroves
In many countries, efforts have been made to conserve and rehabilitate mangroves. A good example ofpolitical change favoring mangrove conservation is
Thailand, where there occurred a nearly 50% decline inmangroves from 1961 to 1996 due to aquaculture, agriculture, urbanization, and road, port and harbor construction (Charuppat & Charuppat, 1997). In 1998, theThai cabinet revised its 1987 national policy and management practices for mangrove resources (Aksornkoae,
2004). All mangrove areas in Thailand are classified into
two zones. In the conservation zone, any change orutilization of the mangrove forest is absolutely prohibited.
In the development zone, government agencies areauthorized to rehabilitate any degraded mangrove area,
and utilization for fisheries, tin mining, cultivation andother activities must be strictly controlled in accordancewith proven conservation techniques.
A major constraint in managing mangroves is the152

M. KAINUMA et al.

complexity of mangrove distribution in the coastal zone.
Various governmental agencies such as those of fisheries,
forestry, coastal planning, agriculture and environment
have jurisdiction over the coastal resources, and theirpolicies are often in conflict. It is therefore important for
relevant government agencies and stakeholders to work
together to establish sound policies and legislation, andalso protect not only the mangroves but also the adjacentecosystems, such as sea grasses and coral reefs.
A number of countries, including Brazil, Mexico,
Cambodia, El Salvador and Tanzania, have establishedlegal frameworks for the protection of mangroves. Designation of protected areas is one way to protect mangrove forests. Among measures for international levelprotection are the World Heritage Convention, Ramsar
Convention, and Biosphere Reserves of UNESCO-MAB.
There are 1,200 protected areas worldwide that include
mangroves, and they account for about 25% of totalmangroves (Spalding et al., 2010).

7. Restoration and Afforestation Efforts
In recent years, mangrove restoration efforts havebeen made in many countries. Among the most importantlessons learned is that it is critical to involve local
communities. They are often the main beneficiaries ofmangrove ecosystems and they often suffer the mostfrom the conversion of mangroves. In the Philippines, thesuccess rate of reforestation projects has been highest incommunity-led projects (Primavera & Esteban, 2008).
A number of studies have been conducted on the roleof mangroves in mitigating the impact of tsunami waves
and in coastal protection. Some of them have shown thatcoastal areas behind mangroves suffered less damage
after the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami (Dahdouh-Guebas
et al., 2005; Danielsen et al., 2005; Kathiresan &Rajendran, 2005). On the other hand, there have beenother researchers who have pointed out that elevation anddistance from the shore are more important factors (Kerret al., 2006; Baird & Kerr, 2008). Another study found asignificant role of mangroves in protecting villages andreducing death toll in Orissa, India, during the supercyclone in 1999 (Das & Vincent, 2009).
Many countries have conducted mangrove rehabilitation projects to establish green-belts along their coastlines. UNEP (2007) reported that 27,500 ha had beenplanted with 30 million mangrove seedlings in Aceh,
Indonesia, following the tsunami. Most of the planting,however, was unsuccessful due to poor species and site
selections, insufficient preparation, inadequate guidance,and lack of tending (Chan & Baba, 2009). The emphasis
was on the number of seedlings planted and not on percentage survival. A successful mangrove afforestation
project has been implemented by ISME in the Republicof Kiribati since 2005 (Baba, 2011). Funded by Japan’s
Cosmo Oil Company, Ltd., the project involved theparticipation of local environmental youth groups andschool children. A unique close group planting technique was applied where three propagules per group of
Rhizophora stylosa were planted at a close spacing of
25 x 25 cm and 50 x 50 cm along the shoreline between
the mean water level and the mean high water level (Fig.
4). Close group planting (with a preferred spacing of 50 x
50 cm) promotes faster seedling growth within and between groups through intra-specific competition. Withineach group, at least one seedling will usually grow faster.
The foliage of the established seedlings provides shade to
the soil surface beneath. The shade ameliorates thesurface soil temperature and reduces evaporation, leading
to less salt accumulation on the soil surface (Baba, 2011).
At the Ananau Causeway, survival was 90% after one
year and over 50% after three years, with trees bearing
flowers and fruits (Suzuki et al., 2009). During a special
visit in September 2011, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary
General of the UN, planted mangroves alongside
Mr. Anote Tong, President of Kiribati, using this method.

Fig. 4 A unique close-group planting technique developed by ISME in Kiribati.

Current Status of Mangroves Worldwide

8. International Cooperation for Mangrove
Ecosystems
There is an urgent need for conservation and sustainable management of existing mangrove ecosystems, andto rehabilitate degraded mangrove forests. As similar
problems are observed in different countries worldwide,
it is wise to share the lessons learnt through case studies
of success and failure. In this context, international
collaboration and cooperation are pertinent.
ISME is an international non-government and nonprofit scientific organization with more than 20 years ofexperience in conservation, rehabilitation and sustainable
management of mangrove ecosystems. Through international cooperation, the society collects, evaluates anddisseminates information on mangrove ecosystems. As
of December 2012, ISME’s membership stood at over
1,100 individual members and 40 institutional members
from 93 countries. The society has conducted projects
and activities in Brazil, India, Indonesia, Kiribati, theMaldives, Malaysia, Pakistan, Samoa, Thailand, Tuvalu,
UAE and Vietnam. The society has also undertaken
research, conducted training courses and organized international conferences in support of sustainable management and rational use of mangrove ecosystems. A
2.5-month training course, Conservation and Sustainable
Management of Mangrove Ecosystems, has been implemented by ISME since 1995. Funded by JICA, a total of
119 trainees from 39 countries have participated. ISME
has also published a number of books. Recent publications include the World Atlas of Mangroves in English,
French and Spanish (Spalding et al., 2010), Summary ofWorld Atlas of Mangroves (ITTO, 2012), and Manual on
Guidelines for Rehabilitation of Coastal Forests
Damaged by Natural Hazards in the Asia-Pacific Region(Chan & Baba, 2009). A policy brief, Securing the Futureof Mangroves, was published with partners of the 2010
Atlas for decision-makers (Van Lavieren et al., 2012).
ISME is publishing a trilogy as part of its Mangrove
Educational Book Series. The three books (Baba et al.,2013; Clough, 2013; Ong & Gong, 2013) provide comprehensive and updated accounts of mangroves – theirdistribution, structure, function, and environmental andsocio-economic values.
As considerable knowledge on sustainable management and utilization of mangroves is available, there is anurgent need to provide financial and social incentives for
its long-term implementation. We believe that one ofthe potential schemes which would provide necessaryfinancing for mangrove restoration activities is the Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM) under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) from the
Kyoto Protocol. Another potential scheme is sustainable
management and protection of mangroves under the
support of Reduced Emission from Deforestation and
Degradation (REDD+). Developing countries can apply
for funds to reduce loss of forest coverage, restore areas
and/or increase areas of new forest.

153

References
Aksornkoae, S. (2004) Sustainable use and conservation ofmangrove forest resources with emphasis on policy and management practices in Thailand. In: M. Vannucci, ed., Mangrove
Managemnt and Conservaton: Present and Future, pp. 149-160,
UNU Press,Tokyo, Japan.
Alongi, D.M. (2011) Carbon payments for mangrove conservation:
ecosystem constraints and uncertainties of sequestration
potential. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(4): 462-470.
Azahar Muda, D., Nik Mohd Shad Nik Mustafa (2003) A Working
Plan for the Matang Mangrove Forest Reserves, Perak: theThird 10-year Period (2000-2009) of the Second Rotation. State
Forestry Department of Perak Darul Ridzuan.
Baba, S. (2011) Close group planting of mangroves on atolls andcoral islands of the Pacific. ISME/GLOMIS Journal, 9(4): 11-12.
Baba, S., H.T. Chan and S. Aksornkoae (2013) Useful Products
from Mangrove and Other Coastal Plants. ISME Mangrove
Educational Book Series No. 3. International Society for
Mangrove Ecosystems and International Tropical Timber
Organization.
Baird, A.H. and A.M. Kerr (2008) Landscape analysis and tsunami
damage in Aceh: comment on Iverson and Prasad (2007).
Landscape Ecology, 23: 3-5.
Bandaranayake, W.M. (1998) Traditional and medicinal uses ofmangroves. Mangroves and Salt Marshes, 2: 133-148.
Bouillon, S., A.V. Borges, E. Castañeda-Moya, K. Diele, T.
Dittmar, N.C. Duke, E. Kristensen, S.Y. Lee, C. Marchand, J.J.
Middelburg, V.H. Rivera-Monroy, T.J. Smith and R.R. Twilley(2008) Mangrove production and carbon sinks: A revision of
global budget estimates. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 22(2):GB2013, doi:2010.1029/2007GB003052.
Chan, H.T. and S. Baba (2009) Manual on Guidelines for
Rehabilitation of Coastal Forests damaged by Natural Hazards
in the Asia-Pacific Region. International Society for Mangrove
Ecosystems and International Tropical Timber Organization,
Okinawa, Japan.
Charuppat, T. and J. Charuppat (1997) Application of Landsat-5TMof Monitoring the Changes of Mangrove Forest Area in Thailand.
Bangkok, Thailand.
Clough, B. (2013) Continuing the Journey amongst Mangroves.
ISME Mangrove Educational Book Series No. 1. International
Society for Mangrove Ecosystems and International Tropical
Timber Organization, Okinawa, Japan.
Dahdouh-Guebas, F., L.P. Jayatissa, D. Di Nitto, J.O. Bosire, D. Lo
Seen and N. Koedam (2005) How effective were mangroves as adefence against the recent tsunami? Current Biology, 15: 443.
Danielsen, F., M.K. Sørensen, V. Selvam, T. Hiraishi, M.S.
Rasmussen, F. Parish, M.F. Olwig, N.D. Burgess, V.M.
Karunagaran, L.B. Hansen, N. Suryadiputra and A. Quarto(2005) The Asian tsunami: A protective role for coastal
vegetation. Science, 310: 643.
Das, S. and J.R. Vincent (2009) Mangroves protected villages andreduced death toll during Indian super cyclone. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Science U S A, 106(18): 7357-7360.
Donato, D.C., M. Kanninen, J.B. Kauffman, D. Murdiyarso, S.
Kurnianto and M. Stidham (2011) Mangroves among the mostcarbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nature Geoscience, 4:293-297.
FAO (2006) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005: Progress
Towards Sustainable Forest Management. Forestry Department,
FAO, Rome.
FAO (2007) The World’s Mangroves 1980-2005. FAO, Rome,
Italy.
Field, C., ed. (1995) Journey amongst Mangroves. International
Society for Mangrove Ecosystems, Okinawa, Japan.
Giri, C., F. Ochieng, L. Tieszen, Z. Zhu, A. Singh, T. Loveland J.D.
Masek and N. Duke (2011) Status and distribution of mangrove
forests of the world using earth observation satellite data. Global

154

M. KAINUMA et al.

Ecology and Biogeography, 20(1): 154-159.
ITTO (2012) Mapping mangroves. Tropical Forest Update, 21:
1-24.
Kathiresan, K. and N. Rajendran (2005) Coastal mangrove forests
mitigated tsunami. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 65:
601-606.
Kerr, A. M., A.H. Baird and S.J. Campbell (2006) Comments on“Coastal mangrove forests mitigated tsunami” by K. Kathiresan
and N. Rajendran (Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 65, 601-606)
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 67: 539-541.
Komiyama, A., J.E. Ong and S. Poungparn (2008) Allometry,biomass, and productivity of mangrove forests: A review.
Aquatic Botany, 89(2): 128-137.
Laffoley, D. and G. Grimsditch (2009) The Management of Natural
Costal Carbon Sinks. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Ong, J.E. and W.K. Gong (2013) Structure, Function andManagement of Mangrove Ecosystems. ISME Mangrove Educational Book Series, No. 2. International Society for Mangrove
Ecosystems and International Tropical Timber Organization,
Okinawa, Japan.
Primavera, J.H. and J.M.A. Esteban (2008) A review of mangrove
rehabilitation in the Philippines – success, failures and future
prospects. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 5: 345-358.
Siikamaki, J., J.N. Sanchirico and S.L. Jardine (2012) Global
economic potential for reducing carbon dioxide emissions frommangrove loss. [Research Support, Non-U.S. Government].
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 109(36):14369-14374.
Spalding, M., M. Kainuma and L. Collins (2010) World Atlas ofMangroves. A collaborative project of ITTO, ISME, FAO,
UNEP-WCMC, UNESCO-MAB, UNU-INWEH and TNC.
Earthscan, UK and USA.
Suzuki, T., Y. Mochida and S. Baba (2009) Relationship between
habitat and structure of a Rhizophora stylosa forest on Tawara
atoll, Republic of Kiribati. Mangrove Science, 6: 17-23.
UNEP (2007) After the Tsunami: Coastal Ecosystem RestorationLessons Leant. United Nations Environment Programme.
UNFCCC (2009) Fact Sheet: Reducing Emission from Deforestation in Developing Countries: Approaches to Stimulate
Action. UNFCCC, Montreal.
Valiela, I., J.L. Bowen and J.K. York (2001) Mangrove forests:
One of the world’s threatend major tropical environments.
Bioscience, 51(10): 807-815.
Van Lavieren, H., M. Spalding, D. Alongi, M. Kainuma, M.
Clusener-Godt and Z. Adeel (2012) Securing the Future of
Mangroves. A Policy Brief. Ontario, Canada: UNU-INWEH,
UNESCO-MAB, ISME, ITTO, FAO, UNEP-WCMC and TNC.

Mami KAINUMA
Mami KAINUMA is a senior researcher for theInternational Society for Mangrove Ecosystems(ISME). She has a Ph.D. in Microbiology fromthe University of California, Davis, USA. She
has been involved in various ISME mangroverelated projects, including construction of theon-line mangrove database GLOMIS (www.
glomis.com), and instruction for a mangrove training course. She was the
project coordinator and co-author for the World Atlas of Mangroves. Her
current interest is genetic analysis of mangroves for application in
biodiversity conservation.

Shigeyuki BABA
Shigeyuki BABA is a Professor at the Tropical
Biosphere Research Center, University of the
Ryukyus, and Executive Director of International Society for Mangrove Ecosystems(ISME). He has planned and conducted many
mangrove related projects, such as the World
Mangrove Atlas 1997, Global Mangrove
Database and Information System (GLOMIS), World Atlas of Mangroves2010, and more. He has trained not only undergraduate, master’s anddoctoral students, but also more than 300 trainees on mangroves through
JICA training courses.

Nozomi OSHIRO
Nozomi OSHIRO has been working with ISME
since 1990, when ISME was established, as an
assistant to the Executive Director in managing
the Secretariat’s finances and administration. She
has supported various ISME projects as an
assistant coordinator including the ITTO/ISME
Small Project 564/09 Rev. 1 (F), entitled:“Production of an educational book series on mangroves for sustainable
management and utilization of mangrove ecosystems,” and ISME’s
mangrove planting projects in Kiribati, India and Malaysia.

Mio KEZUKA
Mio KEZUKA has worked at the International
Society for Mangrove Ecosystems (ISME) since2012 as a researcher and coordinator of JICA
mangrove training courses. She obtained her
M.Sc. degree in Marine Biosciences from theTokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, Japan, but she has keen interest in
mangrove related activities and NGO activities such as ISME’s mangrove
planting projects in India, Kiribati and Malaysia.

Hung Tuck CHAN
CHAN obtained his Ph.D. from the University ofAberdeen in Scotland, UK. A former Division
Director of the Forest Research Institute Malaysia(FRIM), he served as the Vice-President of
ISME (from 2005) and as the Treasurer of ISME
(from 2011). He was appointed Project Coordinator (PC) of ITTO/ISME Pre-Project
134/07 Rev. 1 (F), and ITTO/ISME Small Project 564/09 Rev. 1 (F).
Currently, he is Editor of ISME/GLOMIS Electronic Journal and Producerof ISME Newsletter.

(Received 15 January 2013, Accepted 8 May 2013)