See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/292669910

Integrated Sustainable Mangrove Forest Management

Article  in  Jurnal Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Alam dan Lingkungan (Journal of Natural Resources and Environmental Management) · July 2015
DOI: 10.19081/jpsl.2015.5.1.1

CITATIONS READS

22 2,508

1 author:

Cecep Kusmana
Bogor Agricultural University
185 PUBLICATIONS   1,669 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

http: //sinta.ristekdikti.go.id/ View project

Modelling of Mangrove Ecosystem in Mahakam Delta View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Cecep Kusmana on 05 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Jurnal Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Alam dan Lingkungan Vol. 5 No. 1 (Juli 2015): 1-6

INTEGRATED SUSTAINABLE MANGROVE FOREST MANAGEMENT

Pengelolaan Hutan Mangrove yang Berkelanjutan dan Terintegrasi

Cecep Kusmana
Departemen Silvikultur, Fakultas Kehutanan, Institut Pertanian Bogor, Kampus IPB Darmaga, Bogor 16680 
[email protected]

(Diterima: 10-07-2014; Disetujui: 11-08-2014)

1. Introduction Saenger (2002) noticeably reported that early views

of mangroves during the modern era were largely
Mangrove is a saline swamp forest in tropical and based on ignorance, followed by the phase of enlight-
sub-tropical intertidal regions. In Southeast Asia, the enment where mangroves were viewed as scientific
word mangrove is used for both individual plants and curiosities which soon followed by early stage of
forest communities inhabiting tidal land. Mangroves commercial forest operations. This phase of ruthless
are among the world’s most productive ecosystems exploitation, often through colonial administrations
producing organic carbon well in excess of the ecosys- continued until 1930s. Following the war, there was a
tem requirements and contribute significantly to the period of rebuilding followed by a renewed phase of
global carbon cycle (Kathiresan & Bingham 2001). environmental exploitation until the mid 1970s. In the
They protect coastline, enrich coastal waters, support late of 1970s to early 1980s, the gradual realization of
coastal fisheries, yield beneficial forest products, serve mangroves and associated ecosystems based on a sus-
as habitat for various kinds of fauna, and as sites for tainable basis was come, but it came at the same time
burgeoning ecotourism industry. Geographically, they as the large scale development of industrial aquacul-
are mainly distributed between 30o North and 30o ture, mainly for prawns. Since enacted of Rio Declara-
South. Northern extension of this limit occur in Japan tion on Environment and Development by UNCED at
(31o 22’ N) and Bermuda (32o 20’ N); southern exten- the year of 1992, sustainable forest management
sions are in New Zealand (38o 03’ S), Australia (38o (SFM) concept has been strongly adopted until now in
45’ S), and on the east coast of South Africa (Spalding order to optimize the sustainable of economic, social
1997). A total of 124 countries and areas were identi- and ecological functions of the forest ecosystems. So
fied as containing one or more true mangrove species that, mangroves as almighty award must be utilized
(Saenger, Hegerl and Davie 1983). According to FAO with the prudent management for the fullfill the needs
(2007), some 15.2 million hectares of mangroves are and welfare of human being, harmonized with the
estimated to exist worldwide as of 2005, down from other parts of ecosystem in which human resided.
18.8 million hectares in 1980. To most extensive
mangrove area is found in Asia, followed by Africa
and North and Central America. Five countries (Indo- 2. Reasons for Mangroves to be Managed
nesia, Australia, Brazil, Nigeria and Mexico) together
account for 48 percent of the total global area, and 65 Mangrove ecosystem is an interface unique ecosys-
percent spread over 114 countries and areas, of which tem between marine and terrestrial ecosystems charac-
60 have less than 10 000 ha of mangroves each. Asia, terized by high productivity and rapid cycling of nu-
which is the region with the lowest forest in terms of trients (Snedaker 1978) that contribute a major share
percentage of land area, has the largest extent of man- of the energy requirements offshore ecosystems (Har-
groves (approximately 6 million hectares), and five of ger 1982). Therefore, they are considered as important
ten countries with the largest extent of mangroves natural resource for multiple reasons, especially for
worldwide are found in this region. the tropical countries. Some of their functions are as
For centuries, coastal people have traditionally uti- follows:
lized mangroves for subsistence purposes (Lacerda et (1) a protective barrier reducing coastal erosion,
al. 1993b), mainly firewood, charcoal tannin, dyes, storm surges and a strong winds (Harger 1982;
food and beverages, medicines, poles, and timber. Saenger et al. 1983; Odum et al. 1982; Hamilton
During the early stage of commercialization, fishing and Snedaker 1984)a spawning, feeding and
and charcoal making are generally the basic economic nursery area for many economically important
activities around the mangrove areas. However, in the marine organisms especially fishes (Snedaker,
following period, large scale commercial mangrove 1978; Saenger et al., 1983; Harger, 1982; FAO,
exploitation took place with production of logs, char- 1982)
coal, and chipwoods. (2) a habitat for wildlife such as birds, primates, am-
phibians, reptiles, mammals, etc. (Saengeret al.

1
ISSN 2086-4639 JPSL Vol. 5 (1): 1-6

1983; Odumet al. 1982; FAO 1982, Tomlinson mangrove area in 1980. At the regional level, Asia
1986; Macnae 1968) suffered the largest net loss: more than 1,9 million
(3) wood (timber, fuelwood, charcoal, pole, etc.) and hectares since 1980, mainly due to changes in land use
minor forest products (tannin, honey, alcohol, from 1980 to 1990. North and Central America and
food, drugs and beverages, medicine, etc.) Africa also contributed significantly to its decrease in
(Snedaker 198; Harger 1982; Odum et al. 1982; mangrove area at the global level, with losses of about
FAO 1982; Saenger et al. 1983); 690.000 and 510.000 ha respectively over the last 25
(4) valuable opportunities for education, scientific years. Because of the important mangrove val-
study and tourism (Saenger et al. 1983); and ues/functions and its considerable losses around the
(5) In Southeast Asia and the Pacific regions, the world, mangroves are clearly need to be managed
mangrove area is also used as reserved land for properly based on sustainable principle, if not they and
human resettlement, oil industry and fishpond their services will be lost.
(FAO 1982).
Generally speaking, mangrove resources to be man-
aged of a region can be defined as consisting of 3. Mangrove Management Framework
(Saenger, Hegerl & Davie 1983; Kusmana 1993):
(1) one or more plant species that are restricted to As an interface ecosystem between marine and ter-
mangroves, restrial ecosystem, mangroves as one of renewable
(2) plant species growing in mangroves and non- resources must be considered as an integral compo-
mangroves habitats, nent of a complex coastal ecosystems simultaneously
(3) mangrove-associated biota (terrestrial and marine, an integral component of a water catchment area. So
tree moss, mushroom, algae, bacteria, etc.) that that, decisions regarding to the utilization of man-
are permanent, semi-permanent, rarely occurring, groves must be constructed in the proper view of
frequent or restricted in mangroves habitat, mangrove dependency on land use in the water catch-
(4) dynamic processes that are important for ecosys- ment and on the important interrelationships of man-
tem maintenance, groves with estuaries, seagrass bed and coral reefs.
(5) mud flat found between forest fringes and the Management within those physical boundaries must
open sea, and proceed primarily on an ecological basis. After the
(6) population live in and/or surrounding mangroves. ecological factor have been adequately assessed, how-
ever, that other factors, be they economic, social or
The rate of disturbance and variety of the human- political, should be brought into focus (Saenger 2002;
induced influences on the mangrove ecosystems have Kusmana 2010). Dahuri et al. (2001) describe the rela-
been steadily increasing, so a large proportion of the tionship between upland (catchment area) and coastal
World’s mangrove is threatened with destruction. The ecosystem as noticed on Figure 1.
main cause of the mangrove destruction as currently As a renewable resource, mangroves have to be
underway in the world can be broadly distinguished managed on a sustainable basis.In regarding to the
as: (1) over exploitation by the traditional users (e.g. management of mangroves, there are some valuable
for charcoal, pole and firewood) and uncontrolled for- suggestions from Saenger (2002) such as follows:
est concession airs, (2) destructive actions resulting “Management of mangroves must be based on a phi-
from activities generally unrelated to sustained uses of losophy of conservation which, as a first step, seeks to
mangroves (e.g. conversion to agriculture, min- prevent further destruction of existing mangrove eco-
ing/mineral extraction, aquaculture, etc.) (Saenger et systems. Most importantly, it should recognize the
al. 1983), and (3) pollution and natural disaster need to devise management practices which optimize
(Kusmana 2010). So that, the conversion of mangrove the conservation of mangrove resources in such a way
areas to other uses over the past decades has been as to provide for traditional and contemporary human
alarming. For example, increasing population growth needs, while ensuring adequate provision of reserves
and economic development in Indonesia have resulted suitable for protection of diversity of plant and animal
in the destruction even disappearances of many man- life within them. The concept of sustainable economic
groves through land conversion to fishponds, industri- returns, and at the same time maintaining the ecosys-
al estates, transportation and recreation infrastructure, tem as close to its natural or original state as possible.
resettlement, tin mining, agricultural activities, and This is difficult to attain except in a few cases such as
other land uses. Major exploitation and conversions use for tourism.Consequently, sustainable use often
have resulted in the destruction of more than 50 % of does not mean the original natural system in its pris-
Indonesian mangrove areas (Kusmana et al. 2008). tine condition: a compromise may be reached which
However, FAO (2007) reported that although man- allows sustainable yield and reasonable resemblance
groves still face major threats, the rate of loss has re- to an undisturbed or non-harvested system.However,
cently been decreasing from some 187.000 ha lost preservation or maintaining a completely undisturbed
annually in the 1980s (-1,04 percent per year) to or unexploited state may be a desirable management
102.000 ha annually (-0,66 percent per year) during policy for certain localities or for some parts of exten-
the 2000-2005 period. The figures suggest that during sive mangroves. Such exploited areas serve as a ref-
the past 25 years about 3,6 million hectares have been uge for fauna and flora and as a biological resource
lost, corresponding to some 20 percent of the global
2
 JPSL Vol. 5 (1): 1-6, Juli 2015

for restoring areas in which management policies It needs a proper management zoning to harmo-
have failed or accidents have occurred. Preservation nized the mangrove allocation for preservation, con-
of some proportion of a mangrove area can buffer the servation and intensive developments.
area generally and can be an advantageous part of an
overall sustained-use management plan.”

Fig. 1. Interconnection between upland catchment area and coastal ecosystem

without reduction option uses as well as the needs of

4. "Sustainable" and "Integrated" Meaning future generation.
Reagarding to Mangrove Management ITTO (1998) stated that sustainable forest manage-
ment (SFM) is the process of managing forest to
4.1. "Sustainable" achieve one or more clearly specified objectives of
management with regard to the production of a con-
There are two extreme options of mangrove ecosys- tinuous flow of desired forest products and services
tem management, such as: (1) mangrove to be man- without undue reduction of its inherent values and
aged as protected area without any utilization action, future productivity and without undue undesirable
and (2) mangrove to be converted to other unsustained effects on the physical and social environment. The
uses (agriculture, resettlement, airport, marinas, roads, similar manner stated by Helsinki (1993) in
etc.). In between these two extreme options of man- Suhendang (2002) that SFM is the stewardship and
agement lie additional alternative management option use of forest and forestlands in way, and at rate, that
of mangrove, what we called sustainable mangrove maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration
forest management (SFM) such as for woods and non- capacity, vitality, and potential to fulfill, now and in
wood forest products, ecotourism, agroforestry (i.e. the future, relevant ecological, economic, and social
silvofishery, agrosilvopastural system, etc). So that, as functions at local, national, and global levels, and that
a renewable resource, mangroves, which having vari- does not cause damage to other ecosystems. The SFM
ous valuable products and environmental services, itself needs the prudent process of forest planning,
must be managed on a sustainable basis. It means the utilization, rehabilitation/restoration, protection and
viewed of all mangrove functions regarding to the conservation, proper controlling, and law enforcement.
ecological, economical, and social benefits have the Munasinghe (2003) stated that sustainable develop-
equity concern. Concerning to the sound of sustaina- ment consisting of three pillars which is interconnec-
ble principle, the objective of the forest management tion and possible feedbacks into one story, such as
is to obtain the sustain optimalization among econom- economic, social, and ecological pillars (Figure 2).
ic, social, and ecological benefits from the forest eco-
system in order to fulfill the needs of recent generation

3
ISSN 2086-4639 JPSL Vol. 5 (1): 1-6

Fig. 2. Three pillars of sustainable development

It In term of mangrove forest management, those

pillars have the concerns such as follows: Some tools have been developed to measure the
(a) Ecological pillar regards to maintain the existence, performance of Sustainable Forest Management
biodiversity, function and productivity as well as (SFM) including mangrove forest are:
the carrying capacity of mangrove ecosystem. Be- (a) ITTO’s Criteria for the Measurement of Sustaina-
sides, the effort of rehabilitation/restoration for de- ble Tropical Forest Management (ITTO, 1992)
stroyed mangrove areas and protec- which was developed to ITTO’s Criteria and Indi-
tion/preservation for undisturbed (pristine) man- cators for Sustainable Forest Management of Natu-
grove as well as fragile habitats. ral Tropical Forest (ITTO, 1998) consisting of
(b) Social pillar regards to the perception, understand- seven criteria such as:
ing, attitude, and behavior of the community to the (1) enabling conditions for SFM,
existence, status, values and functions of man- (2) forest resource security,
groves. It is also regarding to the local community (3) forest ecosystem health and condition,
empowerment in mangrove management. (4) flow of forest produce,
(c) Economic pillar regards to the diverse utilization (5) biological diversity,
of mangrove ecosystem for various valuable prod- (6) soil and water,
ucts (woods and non-wood forest products), aes- (7) economic, social and cultural aspects.
thetic and other environmental services. (b) Principle and Criteria for Forest Stewardship (FSC,
1999) consisting of 10 principles and 55 criteria,
For running optimize among three pillars needs the such as:
proper institutional and regulations which the concern (1) Compliance with law and FSC principles (6
such as follows: criteria)
(a) Institutional takes a concern to strengthen the ca- (2) Tenure and use rights and responsibilities (3
pacity building of central and local government as criteria)
well as community; to strengthen the role of man- (3) Indigenous people rights (4 criteria)
agement authority and scientific authority; and to (4) Community relations and worker’s right (5
well develop the collaboration, coordination and criteria)
sinergizationamong stakeholders. (5) Benefit from the forest (6 criteria)
(b) Regulations concern to firmly the policies regard- (6) Environment impact (10 criteria)
ing the sustainable mangrove forest management; (7) Management plan (4 criteria)
strengthen mangrove forest status on a coastal spa- (8) Monitoring and assessment (5 criteria)
tial planning of a region; and law enforcement and (9) Maintenance of high conservation value for-
obedient to the regulations regarding to mangrove est (4 criteria),
forest management. (10) Plantations (8 criteria)
The concept of sustainability (i.e. sustainable man- (c) LEI’s Indicator Intensity Scale for Sustainable
grove forest management) requires tools to ensure a Production Natural Forest (LEI 1999) consisting of
balance between economic, social and ecological di- the aspects of production, ecology and social
mensions of development. It provides the overarching sustainability.
goals wanted by society, but they are difficult to (d) Ministry of Forestry’s Criteria and Indicator of
measure (Vogt et al. 2010). Sustainable Production Natural Forest (MoF 1993)
4
 JPSL Vol. 5 (1): 1-6, Juli 2015

consisting the aspects of forest resources, 5. Conclusion

sustained-yield, conservation, social-economic and
institutional. Mangrove forest as a renewable resource must be
(e) CIFOR’s Criteria and Indicator for Assessing the managed based on sustainable basis in which the ben-
Sustainability of Forest Management: Conserva- efits of ecological, economic and social from the for-
tion of Biodiversity (Stork et al. 1997) est have to equity concern in achieving the optimum
(f) CIFOR’s Principles, Criteria and Indicators: Ap- forest products and services in fulfill the needs of
plying Ockham’s Razor to the People-Forestry recent generation without destruction of future
Link (Colfer with Prabhu and Wollenberg 1995) generation needs and that does not undesirable effects
on the physical and social environment. This
CIFOR’s Testing Criteria and Indicators for As- Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) practices
sessing the Sustainability of Forest Measurement: Ge- needs the supporting of sustainability in the
netic Criteria and Indicators (Namkoong et al. 1996). development of social, economic and environment
(ecological) sounds simultaneously, it should be run
4.2. "Integrated" by the proper institutional and regulations. In
operational scale, SFM need integration in terms of
The meaning of “integrated” word regarding to knowledge, technical, consultative of stakeholders,
mangrove forest management relates five dimensions, coordination among sectors and other stakeholders,
such as: and considerations of ecological inter-relationship in
(1) Knowledge which mangroves as an integral part of both a coastal
The management of mangroves needs interdi- ecosystem and a watershed (catchment area). Some
ciplinary approach relates various diciplines tools have been developed to measure the performent
(ecology, economy, sociology, technique, law, of SFM, such as initiated by ITTO at 1992 and
and other relevance diciplines). followed by Ministry of Forestry of Indonesia (1993),
(2) Technical consideration CIFOR (1995), LEI (1999), FSC (1999), etc., however,
In managing a mangrove ecosystem, considera- the true nuance of SFM’s performance is not easy to
tions of economic, social culture, and environ- be measured.
ment (ecology) should be brought into focus in
balance simultaneously.
(3) Coordination Reference
Harmonized collaboration among stakeholders
(government, private, community) regarding to [1] Colfer, C. J. P., R. Prabhu, E. Wollenberg, 1995. Principles,
mangrove ecosystem management should be criteria and indicators: applying ockham’s razor to the
people-forestry link. Working Paper No. 8. Center for
constructed. In term of government which re- International Forestry Research, Bogor.
lates many sectors, should be a good coordina- [2] Dahuri, R., J. Rais, S. P. Ginting, M. J. Sitepu, 2001.
tion among them concerning duty, authority Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Wilayah Pesisir dan Lautan secara
and responsibility, either for horizontal sector Terpadu. PT Pradnya Paramita, Jakarta.
integration or vertical one. [3] [FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
(4) Consultative Nations,1982. Management and utilization of mangroves in
Mangrove forest management practices should Asia and the Pacific. FAO Environmental Paper 3, FAO,
Rome.
be constructed from the needs and aspiration of
[4] [FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
all stakeholders strating from the processes of Nations, 2007. The World’s Mangrove 1980-2005. Food and
planning until implementation as well as moni- Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
toring and evaluation. The last process give [5] [FSC] Forest Stewardship Council, 1999. Document 1.2.
chance to the manager do early correction to Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship. FSC, A.C.,
management practices in order to obtain the Oaxaca, Mexico.
goal of mangrove ecosystem management [6] Hamilton, L. S., S. C. Snedaker (eds.), 1984. Handbooks for
mangrove areas management. IUCN-UNESCO, pp. 123.
agreed by stakeholders.
(5) Ecological inter-relationship [7] Harger, J. R. E., 1982. Major problems in the functional
analysis of mangroves in Southeast Asia. Paper presented at
Mangrove is an integral part of the complex the symposium on mangrove forest ecosystem productivity,
coastal ecosystems consisting of estuary, coral April 20-22, 1982, Bogor.
reef, seagrass bed, and other agro-complex [8] [ITTO] International Tropical Timber Organization, 1992.
ecosystems. Beside, mangroves are also signif- Criteria for the Measurement of Sustainable Tropical Forest
icantly influenced by both natural process and Management. ITTO Policy Development Series No. 3 ITTO,
Yokohama.
human activities coming from upland and
[9] [ITTO] International Tropical Timber Organization, 1998.
oceans. So that, a mangrove ecosystem man- Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Management of
agement practice must be considered those eco- Natural Tropical Forest. ITTO Policy Devlopment Series No.
logical inter-connection among those ecosys- 7. ITTO, Yokohama.
tems. [10] Kathiresan, K., B. L. Bingham, 2001. Biology of mangroves
and mangrove ecosystems. Advance in Marine Biology 40,
pp. 81-251.

5
 ISSN 2086-4639 JPSL Vol. 5 (1): 1-6

[11] Kusmana, C., 1993. A Study on Mangrove Forest

Management Based on Ecological Data in East Sumatra,
Indonesia. PhD. Dissertion, Kyoto University, Japan.
[12] Kusmana, C., Istomo, C. Wibowo, S.W. Budi, I.Z. Siregar, T.
Tiryana, S. Sukardjo, 2008. Manual of Mangrove Silviculture
in Indonesia. Korea International Cooperation Agency
(KOICA), Jakarta.
[13] Kusmana, C., Istomo, C. Wibowo, S.W. Budi, I.Z. Siregar, T.
Tiryana, S. Sukardjo,2010. Konservasi dan Pengelolaan
Mangrove. Presented on: Konferensi dan Pameran Nasional
“Penyelamatan Hutan Pantai dan Peningkatan Kesejahteraan
Masyarakat Pesisir”, 23 November 2010.
[14] Lacerda, L. D., J. E. Conde, C. Alarcon, R. Alvarez-León, P.
R. Bacon, L. D’Croz, B. Kjerfve, J. Polania, M. Vannucsi,
1993. Mangrove ecosystems of Latin America and the
Caribbean: a summary. In: Lecarda, L.D (Ed.), Conservation
and sustainable utilization of mangrove forest in Latin
America and Africa regions. Part I – Latin America.
ITTO/ISME, Okinawa, pp. 1-42.
[15] [LEI] Lembaga Ekolabel Indonesia, 1999. Skala intensitas
indikator pengelolaan hutan alam produksi lestari, Pedoman
LEI-02. Lembaga Ekolabel Indonesia, Jakarta.
[16] Macnae, W., 1968. A general account of the fauna and flora
of mangrove swamps and forests in the Indowest-Pacific
region. Adv. Mar. Biol. , pp. 73-270.
[17] Munasinghe, M., 1993. Environmental Economics and
Sustainable Development. World Bank Environment Paper
No. 3. Washington DC.
[18] [MoF] Ministry of Forestry Republic of Indonesia, 1993.
Keputusan Menteri Kehutanan Nomor 252/Kpts-II/93 tentang
Kriteria dan Indikator Pengelolaan Hutan Produksi Alam
Indonesia secara Lestari, Jakarta.
[19] Namkoong, G., T. Boyle, H.R. Gregorius, H. Joly, O.
Savolainen, W. Ratnam, A. Young, 1996. Testing Criteria
and Indictors for Assessing the Sustainability of Forest
Management: Genetic Criteria and Indicators. Working Paper
No. 10. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor.
[20] Odum, W. E., C. C. McIvor, T. J. Smith, 1982. The ecology
of the mangroves of South Florida: a community profile. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services,
Washington D.C.
[21] Saenger, P., E. J. Hegerl, J. D. S. Davie, 1983. Global status
of mangrove ecosystems. IUCN. Comision on Ecology
Number 3.
[22] Saenger, P., 2002. Mangrove Ecology, Silviculture and
Conservation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.
[23] Snedaker, S. C., 1978. Mangroves: Their value and
perpetuation. Nature and Resources 14, pp. 6-13.
[24] Stork, N. E., T. J. B. Boyle, V. Dale, H. Eeley, B. Finegan, M.
Lawes, N. Manokaran, R. Prabhu, J. Soberon, 1997. Criteria
and indicators for assessing the sustainability of forest
management: conservation of biodiversity. Working Paper
No. 17. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor.
[25] Suhendang, E., 2002. Pengantar Ilmu Kehutanan. Yayasan
Penerbit Fakultas Kehutanan IPB, Bogor.
[26] Tomlinson, P. B., 1986. The Botany of Mangroves.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[27] Vogt, K. A., T. Patel-Weynand, M. Shelton, D.J. Vogt, J.C.
Gordon, C.T. Mukumoto, A.S. Suntana, P.A. Roads, 2010.
Sustainability Unpacked: Food, Energy and Water for
Resilient Environments and Societies. Earthscan, Washington
DC.

View publication stats