Wetlands-International Mangrove-Report 2022 v16F

THE STATE OF
MANGROVES
IN THE WESTERN
INDIAN OCEAN
2022
STATUS OF MANGROVES IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION Contents
Status of Mangroves in the Western Indian Ocean Region

July, 2022
Colophon This report is developed by Wetlands

International, in the context of the Save Our
Mangroves Now! Initiative. Wetlands International,
Authors Paul Erftemeijer, DAMCO Consulting Pty Ltd
and University of Western Australia; Menno de Boer,
Wetlands International; GIS and data work by: Lammert
CONTENTS
the only global not-for-profit organisation dedicated Hilarides, Wetlands International
to the conservation and restoration of wetlands aims
Published by WWF, IUCN and Wetlands International
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 01
to inspire and mobilise society to safeguard and
restore wetlands for people and nature. FOREW0RD 04
Copyright ©2022 WWF (World Wide Fund for
The SOMN! Initiative is a project between WWF, IUCN,
Nature), Germany and IUCN, (International Union for
ABOUT ‘SAVE OUR MANGROVES NOW!’, MANGROVE CAPITAL AFRICA AND GLOBAL MANGROVE ALLIANCE 06
01 MANGROVES IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION – OVERVIEW

and Wetlands International, uniting governments, Conservation of Nature), Wetlands International
conservation specialists and coastal communities 10
through a shared goal to conserve and restore Contributors Jacqueline Uku, WIOMSA; Julie Mulonga,
mangrove habitats. Wetlands International; Francis Okalo Akatsa,
1.1 The state of mangroves in the WIO Region 11
The Status of Mangroves in the Western Indian
IUCN Kenya; January Ndagala, WWF Tanzania; 1.2 Recent losses and gains of mangroves in the WIO Region 14
Salomão Bandeira, Universidade Eduardo Mondlane;
Ocean Region is part of a series of reports on the Célia Mocamo, Universidade Eduardo Mondlane; 1.3 Importance of mangroves in storing (blue) carbon in the WIO Region 17
status of the mangroves, developed under the Global Mihary Raparivo, WWF Madagascar
Mangrove Alliance (GMA). The GMA is coordinated Design: Yoke, www.yokedesign.studio 1.4 Mangrove restoration potential in the WIO Region 18
by Conservation International, The International
For further information visit
1.5 The way forward 20
Union for the Conservation of Nature, The Nature
www.SaveOurMangrovesNow.org &
Conservancy, Wetlands International and World
Wildlife Fund. The development of this report has
www.wetlands.org follow @MangrovesNow
on Twitter and look out for #rootsofhope
02 MANGROVES IN KENYA 22
been financially supported by the German Ministry
Erftemeijer, P., de Boer, M., Hilarides, L. Status of Mangroves in the
2.1 The state of mangroves in Kenya 23
for Economic Cooperation and Development, DOB
Ecology and the Swedish International Development
Western Indian Ocean Region. Wetlands International. July, 2022
2.2 Recent losses and gains of mangroves in Kenya 26
Cooperation Agency (Sida). 2.3 Importance of mangroves in storing (blue) carbon in Kenya 31
2.4 Mangrove restoration potential in Kenya 34
Case Study 38
With financial support from: And in collaboration with the

Global Mangrove Watch Partners:
STATUS OF MANGROVES IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION Contents
CONTENTS CONTINUED…
03 MANGROVES IN TANZANIA 40 05 MANGROVES IN MADAGASCAR 86
3.1 The state of mangroves in Tanzania 41 5.1 The state of mangroves in Madagascar 87
3.2 Recent losses and gains of mangroves in Tanzania 44 5.2 Recent losses and gains of mangroves in Madagascar 90
3.3 Importance of mangroves in storing (blue) carbon in Tanzania 50 5.3 Importance of mangroves in storing (blue) carbon in Madagascar 96
3.4 Mangrove restoration potential in Tanzania 54 5.4 Mangrove restoration potential in Madagascar 99
Case Study 58
Case Study 104
04 MANGROVES IN MOZAMBIQUE 62 06 METHODOLOGY 108

4.1 The state of mangroves in Mozambique 63 6.1 Mangrove Extent and Change 109
4.2 Recent losses and gains of mangroves in Mozambique 66 6.2 Mangrove Blue Carbon 110
4.3 Importance of mangroves in storing (blue) carbon in Mozambique 74 6.3 Restoration Potential 110
4.4 Mangrove restoration potential in Mozambique 78 6.4 Drivers of Change 111
4.5 The way forward 80 6.5 How Data was used in this Report 111
Case Study 82 6.6 Supporting Information 112
6.7 Value and use of the Global Mangrove Watch dataset 112
6.8 Global Mangrove Watch compared to other Datasets 112
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 114
REFERENCES 116
STATUS OF MANGROVES IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE B
uilding on earlier publications, it is the first report sequestering up to 16% (6 million 6 CO2) of the region’s
SUMMARY
to quantify and map mangrove blue carbon, total fossil fuel emissions each year, which is in the order
drivers of change and restoration potential of 36 to 41 million tons of CO2e year-1. An estimated
for mangroves in the region, using the latest and total of ~838 Mt CO2e is currently stored in the region’s
best globally available data. The report is based on mangrove biomass and sediment. Key hotspots for blue
an analysis of Global Mangrove Watch (GMW) data carbon include Lamu (Kenya), Rufiji Delta (Tanzania),
following a systematic and standardised approach Zambezi Delta (Mozambique), and Ambaro Bay and
adopted and endorsed by the world’s five main Mahajamba (Madagascar). WIO mangroves also provide
conservation organisations. The GMW dataset is derived important habitat for a significant biodiversity, ranging
from high resolution remote sensing imagery from from benthic invertebrates, fishes, insects and birds
1996-2020, and has been supplemented in this report to larger wildlife such as buffaloes, hippos, crocodiles
with insights from the latest scientific literature, socio- and primates. At least 26% of the region’s mangroves
economic evaluations and input from local partners in are located within protected areas, but this excludes
the region. some key blue carbon hotspots. The effectiveness of
mangrove conservation in the region is often weak due
The WIO region1 currently has some 745,518 ha of
to remoteness and limited resources, but community-
mangroves remaining, of which 41% (302,735 ha) are
based approaches and delegation of management
found in Mozambique, 37% (277,567 ha) in Madagascar,
responsibilities are offering promising results across
15% (110,787 ha) in Tanzania and 7% (54,430 ha) in
the region. The potential for mangrove restoration
Kenya. The ecosystem services to fisheries and coastal
in the region is high with at least 40,900 ha available
protection that are provided by mangroves in the WIO
for restoration (table 1), although this should not be
region represent an economic value in the order of
seen as a ‘quick-win’ as not all restoration efforts are
several billion US$ per year. The livelihoods of 40 million
necessarily successful, which is often due to a focus on
coastal people in the region depend on mangrove
direct planting of seedlings rather than on restoring
resources. The WIO region lost 30,156 ha (3.9%) of
the right conditions for mangroves to recover naturally.
its mangroves over the past 24 years (1996-2020)
Full restoration of these 40,900 ha could enable carbon
mainly due to unsustainable wood extraction, land
sequestration in mangrove biomass amounting up to
clearance for agriculture and the impacts of cyclones
This report presents the most 327,000 t C year-1, save 158 million t C of soil carbon
and flooding. Owing to increased awareness, greater
reliable and up-to-date information protection and local restoration efforts, changes in
stocks through avoided emissions, add trillions of
currently available on the spatial mangrove extent in the region appear to have stabilised
commercial young-of-year fish and shellfish, offer
extent and recent changes in since ~2007, except in Mozambique where losses have
coastal protection for tens of thousands of people, and
mangrove distribution in the accelerated again since 2018. Several river deltas in
contribute in the order of US$300 million per year to the
Western Indian Ocean region. the region (e.g. Zambezi, Pungwe and Mahajamba)
region’s economy through the provision of ecosystem
goods and services. The reader is referred to specific
It aims to provide a common showed downstream mangrove accretion due to alluvial
policy recommendations for the WIO region and for
knowledge base for planning and deposits from upstream soil erosion, while some
each of the individual countries that are highlighted at
decision making, but also provide showed localised mangrove losses due to cyclone-
the end of each of the respective chapters of this report.
specific recommendations to induced delta-front erosion (e.g. Pungwe). Mangroves in
support integration of mangroves the WIO region are important for (blue) carbon storage,
across policies and plans.
1. Only four countries are considered in this report: Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique and Madagascar
1
STATUS OF MANGROVES IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION Executive Summary
GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE RESTORATION POTENTIAL (HA)

Kenya 3,351 ha
Tanzania 3,611 ha
communities. The country has seen a considerable west coast. This offers opportunities to scale up ongoing
and consistent decline in the extent of its mangroves, rehabilitation efforts with guidance from the restoration
Mozambique 25,899 ha
having lost -15,910 ha over 24 years (1996-2020) due to potential map. There is need to secure sustainable
Madagascar 8,039 ha wood extraction for charcoal production and the impact financing through carbon credit schemes, improve the
WIO region 40,900 ha of cyclones and flooding. Mozambique’s mangroves mangrove conservation framework and regulations,
store up to 39% of the country’s total fossil fuel CO2 strengthen law enforcement efforts, find ways to
Table 1: Mangrove Restoration Potential in the Western Indian Ocean emissions each year. An estimated total of ~305 Mt CO2e ensure greater equity in benefit sharing from mangrove
is currently stored in the country’s mangrove biomass resource use, and scale up ongoing restoration efforts
and sediment. Potential for mangrove restoration in in Madagascar.
Kenya currently has 54,430 ha of mangroves remaining, The country has seen a consistent decline in the extent Mozambique is high with at least 25,899 ha available for
of which 70% are found in the Lamu-Tana region. of its mangroves, with an overall net loss of 6,608 ha restoration. There is an urgent need to implement the
These mangroves contribute ~US$ 85 million per year over 24 years (1996-2020), driven by land clearance for National Mangrove Management Action Plan, regulate
to the national economy and sustain the livelihoods of agriculture (rice and salt production) and unsustainable local utilisation of mangrove products, strengthen
~800,000 artisanal coastal fishermen. The country saw exploitation for wood resources, exacerbated by community involvement in mangrove management,
a consistent decline in the extent of its mangroves until extreme climatic events (storms, floods, droughts). including legal and policy reforms, explore mangrove
2016, with an overall net loss of 1,139 ha over 20 years Tanzania’s mangroves store up to 8% of the country’s blue carbon opportunities and scale up mangrove
(1996-2016), driven by exploitation for wood resources, total fossil fuel CO2 emissions each year. An estimated restoration initiatives in Mozambique.
land clearance for salt production, port development total of ~153 Mt CO2e is currently stored in the country’s
Madagascar currently has 277,567 ha of mangroves
and oil spills. Over the past five years (2016-2020), mangrove biomass and sediment. There are at least
remaining, of which 98% are found along the west coast.
however, there were significant gains (578 ha) due to 3,611 ha available for mangrove restoration along
These mangroves contribute US$530 million per year
natural expansion and restoration efforts at various the Tanzanian coast and several community-based
to the national economy of Madagascar and sustain the
sites. Kenya’s mangroves store up 3% of the country’s restoration projects underway. There is need to revive
livelihoods of >2 million coastal people. The country has
total fossil fuel CO2 emissions each year. An estimated the National Mangrove Forest Management Plan, adopt
seen a consistent decline in the extent of its mangroves
total of ~77 Mt CO2e is currently stored in the country’s a landscape-scale approach, strengthen management
until 2016, with an overall net loss of 8,526 ha over 20
mangrove biomass and sediment. There are ~3,351 ha capacity and inter-agency coordination, implement
years (1996-2016). Since 2016, however, there has been
available for mangrove restoration along the Kenyan co-management arrangements and community-based
significant net gains (1,449 ha) following coordinated
coast. Community-based co-management of mangroves forest management approaches in mangrove forests,
restoration efforts at various sites. The main socio-
has seen promising but variable results in the country. and integrate the role of women into mangrove
economic drivers of mangrove loss in Madagascar have
There is need to strengthen the management capacity decision-making, management and benefit sharing in
been the uncontrolled wood collection for charcoal
of community-based forest associations, protect blue Tanzania.
production, firewood & timber and the clearing of land
carbon hotspots, scale up restoration efforts and
Mozambique currently has 302,735 ha of mangroves for agricultural use. Madagascar’s mangroves store in
replicate successful mangrove carbon credit schemes
remaining, of which approximately 16% are found the order of 41 to 74% of the country’s total annual fossil
(such as ‘Mikoko Pamoja’) in Kenya.
in the Zambezi Delta. The ecosystem services of the fuel CO2 emissions. An estimated total of ~303 Mt CO2e
Tanzania currently has 110,787 ha of mangroves mangroves in Mozambique contribute in the order of is currently stored in the country’s mangrove biomass
remaining, of which ~42% are found in the Rufiji US$2 to 6 billion year to the national economy and
-1 and sediment. Some 35% (98,000 ha) of Madagascar’s
Delta region. Tanzania’s mangroves represent a sustain the livelihoods of ~400,000 coastal people mangroves are currently being managed by community-
total economic value of ~US$2.1 billion per year and directly dependent on mangrove-associated fisheries. based organisations in >40 Locally Managed Marine
sustain the livelihoods of over 150,000 coastal people, The mangroves of Zambezi Delta alone represent a Areas (LMMA’s) with promising results. Potential for
including 43,000 artisanal coastal fishermen and a total economic value of US$1 billion year through -1 mangrove restoration in Madagascar is relatively high,
1,200 metric tons year commercial prawn fisheries.
-1 the provision of its goods and services to the local with at least 8,039 ha available for restoration along the
2 3
FOREWORD FOREWORD
Julie Mulonga, Regional Director Wetlands International Eastern Africa Jacqueline Uku, President WIOMSA
M M
angroves matter to every one of us. They The report shows how important mangroves truly are. angroves play an important role in the and data that is sound, relevant and easily accessible.
protect our tropical coastlines, provide us Degradation rates are going down, but we still see a land and seascape of the Western Indian Without this information, comparing losses between
with food and support the livelihoods of decline in mangrove cover. Ocean region. Being on the border between sites, selecting restoration hotspots, identifying the
people living by the sea. the terrestrial and marine ecosystems, they play a hidden treasures in terms of biodiversity, and finding
The report shows the huge impact of loss of mangroves
crucial role in both. For the coastal zone, they provide the most important threats at scale will remain
The Western Indian Ocean is no different. for the livelihoods, the climate, and biodiversity. It shows
protection against extreme weather events, and provide a challenge.
that we have a huge task ahead of us. There is a limitless
Wetlands International has a long track record of essential resources to local communities. For the marine
amount of restoration potential, in which huge amounts The report provides significant information and
mangrove conservation and restoration around the ecosystems, mangroves capture sediments, protecting
of carbon can be conserved and sequestered. forward thinking that fits very well in the strategies
globe. In all our programmes, we saw a need for reliable corals and seagrasses. The latter have always been
of the countries for inclusion in the revisions of their
mangrove data to understand the value of mangroves The real strength of the report lies in the collaboration close to my heart and mangroves provide critical
Nationally Determined Contributions. It encourages
at scale, for decision-making, management planning, between global and regional actors. The best remote nursery grounds to fish that are eventually caught
nations to view mangroves as assets that support the
and for restoration efforts. sensing scientists globally collaborate on the Global in seagrass beds.
reduction of carbon emissions and to preserve them.
Mangrove Watch Initiative, led by Wetlands International
In 2021, together with the Global Mangrove At WIOMSA, we are always encouraging the
and The Nature Conservancy to develop and make This report shows us and enables us to work together
Alliance, we published the first ever State of the development and dissemination of scientific information
available the most reliable and nuanced mangrove data. across the region to better manage our mangrove
Worlds Mangroves report, a unique report that that can inform policy makers. This report is anchored
ecosystems. It is my hope that its recommendations
brought together the best available information Regionally, the “Save Our Mangroves Now!” Initiative on science as many scientists and practitioners
can inform decision-making in the sustainable
about the state of the world’s mangroves, informing has been the backdrop against which this report has contributed to its development.
conservation and management of mangroves
the global community about changes in mangrove been developed. We would like to thank the partners
This was accomplished using a combination of remote in the region.
cover and values as well as threats that require in the programme, of WWF and IUCN, for their
sensing knowledge through the Global Mangrove Watch
imminent action. invaluable contributions. In addition, the findings from the report will provide
platform and the application of local knowledge on the
crucial information for the implementation of the Great
This report is a regional spin-off of the global report Additionally, our collaboration in the region is growing mangrove ecosystems. This collaboration is reflected in
Blue Wall initiative, contributing to the achievement of
providing the regional story of mangroves in the ever stronger. With the Global Mangrove Alliance the data on the loss values as well as the case studies
not only Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 14 and its
Western Indian Ocean region. This report should i regional chapters, and regional collaborations in that serve as a source of inspiration toward advancing
targets on sustainably managing and protecting marine
nform conservation and restoration efforts at policy the WIOMN, WIOMSA and Nairobi Convention. the sound conservation and restoration of mangroves
and coastal ecosystems to avoid adverse impacts, but
and planning levels in the region, as well as for scaling in the region.
Julie Mulonga also other goals including SDG 1 (no poverty), 2 (zero
up action on the ground (or scaling on ground action).
The outlook of this report amplifies the link of science hunger), 12 (Responsible consumption and production),
A consistent methodology has been applied in to policy which is at the heart of the global aspirations 13 (Climate Action) and 17 (Partnerships for the goals).
developing this report. This includes relevant case of the UN Decade for Ocean Science for Sustainable
The Save Our Mangroves Now! Initiative has been
studies from countries in the region that help situate Development.
instrumental in facilitating this collaboration. I commend
the need and application of the report. What is more,
The real strength of this report lies in the fact that the frontrunners of the initiative in making this report
it is the first report to quantify and map mangrove
it covers our entire region and provides a coherent a success.
blue carbon, drivers of change and restoration
dataset. Responses to the increasing degradation of
potential for the region. Dr. Jacqueline Uku
these vital ecosystems offer opportunities for decision
makers in the region to make use of comparative
4 5
STATUS OF MANGROVES IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION WORKING TOGETHER
WORKING STRENGTH IN COLLABORATION
TOGETHER ON
Wetlands International collaborates with a wide range of mangrove specialists globally and in
the region, bringing together global scientific remote sensing expertise, with regional and local
context and insights. Several initiatives proved to be essential fora for collaboration:
MANGROVES IN Save Our Mangroves Now! (SOMN) is such an initiative. The Global Mangrove Alliance (GMA) was established
THE WESTERN
This report is developed as part of the collaboration in 2018 by five global conservation organisations —
in this project. Bringing together governments, Conservation International, the International Union for
conservation specialists and coastal communities, SOMN Conservation of Nature (IUCN), The Nature Conservancy
aims to reverse the decline of mangroves to restore (TNC), Wetlands International, and World Wildlife
INDIAN OCEAN
biodiversity, protect livelihoods and mitigate against the Fund (WWF). It now represents a partnership of over
impacts of the climate crisis. It is a joint initiative by the 30 organizations with a joint strategy to increase
German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and global awareness of the value of mangroves, ensure
Development (BMZ), World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the integration of mangroves in conservation, climate
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and development policy, drive scaled-up conservation
REGION
and Wetlands International. SOMN envisions a world and restoration efforts on the ground and promote
with thriving mangrove habitats that work in harmony and leverage investment in mangroves. Varying
with local communities. Its mission is to mobilize compositions of the GMA organisations collaborate
action by facilitating policymaking, programmes and in regional initiatives and national collaborations to
investments that regenerate mangrove ecosystems, implement the GMA vision.
tackle climate change and provide livelihoods, with
an ambition to ensure that mangrove ecosystems are
conserved, restored and sustainably used to the benefit
of people and nature, locally and globally.
Wetlands International, the only
global not-for-profit organisation The Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association
dedicated to the conservation and (WIOMSA) is a network of scientists in the region, that
restoration of wetlands has led aims to advance regional co-operation in all aspects of
the development of this report. coastal and marine sciences and management, and to
The organisation aims to inspire The Western Indian Ocean Mangrove Network support sustainable development in the Western Indian
and mobilise society to safeguard (www.wiomn.org), a network of regional mangrove Ocean (WIO) region, while promoting interdisciplinary
and restore wetlands for people scientists, managers and policy makers, established and multi-disciplinary approaches. Insights from
and nature. in 2011, has provided a forum for knowledge sharing, specialists from the WIOMSA network has been crucial
capacity building, standardizing of methodologies, for this report.
science-based policy development and raising the
profile of mangroves within the WIO region.
7
STATUS OF MANGROVES IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION WORKING TOGETHER
INITIATIVES FUTURE PRODUCTS

Beyond the Save Our mangroves Now In 2021, the GMA published the first edition of the Status of the World’s Mangroves
initiative, several ongoing projects have Report (https://www.mangrovealliance.org/mangrove-forests). It captured global data
contributed to the development of this report: on mangroves and emphasised the importance of conserving and restoring mangroves
globally. This report on the Status of the WIO Mangroves is
The data has been developed as part of the Global
a spin-off of the global report. In the context of
Mangrove Watch (GMW) Platform initiative (funded by
the GMA, reports on other regions will be
the Oak Foundation, COmON foundation, and Oceankind) and
developed in the coming years.
the Mangrove Capital Africa programme (funded by DOB Ecology). GMW is developed by
GMA partners Wetlands International and The Nature Conservancy, in collaboration with
Aberystwyth university, SoloEO and several other organisations. This initiative brings together
mangrove remote sensing scientists to develop the best global mangrove datasets and
Fishing boats in the mangroves
collate them into the online GMW platform (www.globalmangrovewatch.org). The GMW at Ambilobe, Madagascar
(photo credit: WWF-
gives universal access to near real-time information on where and what changes there are to
Madagascar)
mangroves across the world and why they are valuable. The majority of data used in this report
stem from the GMW initiative.
Further support for the development of the report in terms of financial resources and access to
experts has been provided by the Wetlands International programmes Mangrove Capital Africa
(funded by DOB Ecology) and Source to Sea (funded by Sida).
WHY THIS REPORT

In the context of the above initiatives, the need for a comprehensive report on the status of
the mangroves in the WIO region was identified. Mangrove extent, change, values, and threats
have been scarcely mapped on a regional scale anywhere in the world, while there are datasets
for countries and specific deltas. The WIO region is not different. Consistent datasets across
countries in the region are an important asset for sound decision-making, but have not been
available. Additionally, data has often been available only for a limited period of time.
This report aims to address those gaps. It brings together the peer reviewed GMW data on
mangrove extent, change, values, and threats in the region, and contextualises it through the
regional initiatives to provide scientifically sound recommendations for mangrove management
in the Western Indian Ocean. Most of the data cover a time series from 1996 to 2020. This
allows to observe long-term trends on mangroves in the region. This will strengthen science
based decision making. As such, the report can provide useful data for the delivery of initiatives
such as the Great Blue Wall. This is an African initiative for adapting to and mitigating the
effected of climate change by supporting the development of a regional ecological corridor,
formed by conserved and restored critical blue ecosystems such as mangroves in the Western
Indian Ocean region.
8 9
MANGROVES
STATUS OF MANGROVES IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION 1. THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION
IN THE WESTERN At least 40 million people The WIO region lost 30,156 ha
INDIAN OCEAN
in the WIO region live along (3.2%) of its mangroves over the
the coast, many of whom past 24 years (1996-2020) and has
depend on mangroves for a total of 40,900 ha available for
their livelihood and protection. restoration.
REGION At least 26% of the WIO region’s

mangroves have some form
of protection.
The WIO region’s mangroves
store up to 16% of the region’s
total fossil fuel CO2 emissions
each year, which is in the order
of 40 million tons of CO2e year-1,
with a total of ~838 Mt CO2e
745,518 ha
currently stored in the region’s
mangrove areas.
Amount of mangroves remaining in
1.1
the WIO region2 (representing 25% of Africa’s
mangroves or 5% of all mangroves in the world)
THE STATE OF
41%
The approximate amount
37%
The approximate amount
MANGROVES
(302,735 ha) located in
Mozambique
(277,567 ha) located in
Madagascar IN THE WIO
REGION
Billions of US$
Amount provided by mangroves in the WIO,
With a combined total length of
10,142 km of coastline, the WIO
region is home to 25% of Africa’s
in ecosystem services per year mangroves and about 5% of all
mangroves in the world (Figure 2).
2. In this report, the term ‘WIO region’ refers to the four countries of Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique and Madagascar combined
(but not including Somalia, Mauritius, Seychelles, Comoros, Reunion and South Africa)
11
“Mangroves
provide a range of
A
ccording to the Global Mangrove Watch data, critically important
the current extent (in 2020) of mangroves in
the WIO Region is 745,518 ha, of which 41%
goods and services to
(302,735 ha) is found in Mozambique, 37% (277,567 ha) the people in the
in Madagascar, 15% (110,787 ha) in Tanzania and 7%
(54,430 ha) in Kenya (Figure 3).
WIO Region…”
The largest continuous mangrove areas in the region
are found at Lamu & Tana in northern Kenya (40,224
ha), Rufiji Delta region in central Tanzania (45,582 ha),
Zambezi Delta in central Mozambique (48,122 ha),
and along the north-western coast of Madagascar (at mucronata, Sonneratia alba, Xylocarpus granatum,
Mahajanga, Nosy Be and Hahavavy-Diana; Figure 1) Xylocarpus moluccensis and Pemphis acidula (Beentje
(Global Mangrove Watch data for 2020). and Bandeira, 2007; Bosire et al., 2016).
About 40 million people in coastal areas of the WIO In addition, various mangrove-associated plant species
region depend on mangroves for their livelihood can be found, including typical (and common) species
Figure 1: Mangroves at Ambilobe, Diana, Madagascar (Photo Credit: WWF-Madagascar)
(Samoilys and Kanyange, 2008; UNEP/WIOMSA, 2015). such as the trees Hibiscus tiliaceus, Barringtonia racemosa
Mangroves provide a range of critically important goods and Thespesia populnea, the wild date palm Phoenix
and services to people in the WIO region as a renewable reclinata, the fern Acrostichum aureum, the climber Derris
source of timber, poles, firewood and charcoal, as well trifoliata, various halophytes such as Pemphis acidula,
as through coastal protection against storm surges Suaeda maritima, Sesuvium portulacastrum and Salicornia
and sea level rise and by sustaining their artisanal and spp., as well as seagrasses and algae. MANGROVE
commercial fisheries, providing habitat and nursery somalia EXTENT
Similar to other mangroves elsewhere in the world,
grounds for fish and shrimp (Rönnbäck, 1999; Jiddawi Kenya
the mangroves of the WIO region are also home to
and Ohman, 2003; FAO, 2007b; Lee et al., 2014;
significant animal biodiversity. This includes a diversity Areas of interest
Bosire et al., 2016).
of invertebrate fauna (esp. molluscs, polychaetes and
Throughout the region, the goods and services provided crustaceans), fishes and birds, including two critically Tanzania
zanzibar
Extent 2020
by mangroves contribute substantially to the national endangered sawfish species (in Kenya), four (critically) seychelles
economies, with estimates of the total economic value endangered bird species (in Madagascar) and an
comoros
represented by these direct and indirect ecosystem endemic Colobus monkey (in Kenya and Tanzania).
mozambique mayotte
services in the order of billions of dollars per year
Rather unique to African mangroves is the intermittent
(WWF, 2017a; Anonymous, 2021; Manzi and Kirui,
occurrence of large wildlife such as elephants,
2021; Rabemananjara et al., 2021). madagascar
baboons, hippos, Nile crocodiles, antelopes, duikers, mauritius
Ten (true) mangrove species occur in the WIO Region, lemurs and Red Colobus monkeys, besides fruit bats
la rÉunion
including Avicennia marina, Bruguiera gymnorhiza, Ceriops and smaller rodents.
tagal, Heritiera littoralis, Lumnitzera racemosa, Rhizophora
Figure 2: Map of the WIO Region Figure 3: Map showing the extent of mangroves in the WIO region in
2020. For the purpose of clarity the mangrove extent has been given
a buffer of 0.5mm
12 13
1.2. RECENT
LOSSES AND Kenya
1996
54,990
2007
54,380
2008
54,100
2009
54,345
2010
54,413
2015
54,135
2016
53,852
2017
53,955
2018
54,328
2019
54,524
2020
54,430
GAINS OF
Tanzania 117,396 112,561 111,787 111,969 111,684 111,416 110,945 110,911 111,542 111,775 110,787
Mozambique 318,645 316,543 312,373 310,792 310,143 309,983 309,703 310,208 309,560 307,152 302,735
Madagascar
MANGROVES IN
284,644 278,987 277,393 277,400 276,998 276,773 276,118 276,292 277,221 277,989 277,567
Western
775,675 762,470 755,653 754,506 753,238 752,307 750,618 751,365 752,650 751,441 745,518
Indian Ocean
THE WIO REGION

Table 2: Extent of mangroves (ha) in the WIO region (1996-2020), as derived from remote sensing analysis
with the total area of mangroves in the region having McClanahan and Obura, 1997; Samoilys et al., 2015).
remained relatively stable since 2008. An exception is The apparent link between upstream soil erosion and
The total area of mangroves in the WIO region 3
the considerable loss of >4,000 ha during the past two downstream mangrove accretion warrants further study
QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF RECENT decreased from 775,675 ha in 1996 to 745,518 ha in years in Mozambique (2019-2020). and calls for improvement of upstream catchment
LOSSES AND GAINS (1996-2020) 2020 (Global Mangrove Watch data), representing an management but also demonstrates the important
M
While there has been an overall net loss of mangroves
angrove ecosystems in the WIO region provide overall net loss of 30,156 ha⁴ (3.9%) in 24 years (1996- role of mangroves in sediment trapping to prevent
in the WIO Region over the past 24 years, there have
a range of provisioning ecosystem services to 2020) (Figure 4; Table 2). This is in line with the global siltation of other nearshore habitats. Where significant
also been some modest localised increases in mangrove
adjacent human populations (Lugendo, 2015; average of 3.9% mangrove loss over the same period. stretches of mangroves are lost, this role can sometimes
extent during this same period at several sites in the
Bosire et al., 2016a). The East African coastal region be temporarily substituted by hybrid engineering
These figures of loss are roughly comparable with region, mainly attributable to natural accretion following
has a long history of utilisation and trade of mangrove interventions to create conditions for mangroves to
previously published values (e.g. Taylor et al., 2003; sedimentation at river mouths, as well as to restoration
poles for use in house building, fencing and roofing, as regenerate naturally (see: Tonneijck et al., 2022).
FAO, 2005) though they are significantly lower than initiatives. Most of the individual year-to-year variability
well as wood extraction for boat building, firewood and
some estimates (FAO; 2007; UNEP, 2009). Historically, in mangrove extent, however, falls within the margin of Losses have been most severe in Mozambique, which
charcoal production. With growing population pressure
the greatest losses in the WIO region occurred during error of the analysis (Figure 4). lost as much as 15,910 ha (5.3% of its total area) and
over the past decades, exploitation of mangrove
the 1980s and 1990s. The rate of decline seems to least severe in Kenya, which lost only 561 ha (1.2% of
resources has intensified, particularly near centres of Several river deltas in the region showed considerable
have slowed down significantly during the late 2000s, its total) during the 1996-2020 period. There is limited
urban development. mangrove accretion attributable to sedimentation
reliable historic information on the original total extent
from alluvial deposits due to upstream soil erosion
of mangroves in the WIO region (prior to 1996), but
in the catchments of these rivers. Examples of this
780,000
available information suggests this may have been in
775,675 include the Zambezi delta (Figure 56) and Pungwe
the order of 967,000 to 1,125,000 ha (Spalding et al.,
775,000 River estuary (at Beira) (Figure 56) in Mozambique and
1997; Taylor et al., 2003; FAO, 2007a). These mangrove
770,000 Mahajamba (Figure 76) in Madagascar. This sediment
losses in turn have had negative impacts on fisheries,
762,470
trapping by mangroves in river deltas is likely to
765,000 shoreline stability, and resource sustainability in the WIO
contribute significantly to reducing stress and impacts
AREA (HA)
760,000 Region (Bosire et al., 2016; Kairo and Mangora, 2020).

754,506 752,650 from riverine sediment discharges on nearby coral
752,307
755,000
751,441 reefs and seagrass habitats (Van Katwijk et al., 1993;
755,653
750,000
753,238 751,365
750,618
745,000
745,518 3. These statistics are limited to the countries selected for this report, i.e. Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique and Madagascar. Error bars represent
740,000 sample standard deviation (SSD).
1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021
4. Close-up inspection of satellite imagery of the Western Rufiji Delta in Tanzania and Manambolo in Madagascar suggests that an additional loss
YEAR of 5,700 ha of 'hinterland' mangrove vegetation occurred in the transitional zone towards terrestrial (inland) areas over this period, but this was
not classified as 'mangrove loss' by the Global Mangrove Watch algorithm. This mangrove loss value combines Global Mangrove Watch data with
Figure 4: Recent trends in mangrove extent (in hectares; ± SSD) in the WIO Region (1996-2020) data from Lagomasino et al. (2017) and Shapiro et al. (2019).
14 15
Tropical cyclones making landfall in Mozambique
and Madagascar can cause considerable damage to
mangrove vegetation, depending on their intensity
(Cabral et al., 2017). One the other hand, cyclones
increase freshwater input and bring in more nutrients
1.3. IMPORTANCE OF
along the way, which can ultimately enhance mangrove
growth (Rasquinha and Mishra, 2021). Mangroves
form a first line of (natural) defence against incoming
MANGROVES IN STORING
tropical cyclones, helping to reduce the storm surge,
Figure 5: Unsustainable wood extraction (for poles, timber and wind shear, and the overall intensity of the cyclone
charcoal) is one of the main drivers of mangrove loss in the WIO
region. (Photo Credit: Menno de Boer, Wetlands International)
(Spalding et al., 2014). Cyclone damage to mangroves
(BLUE) CARBON IN
can include uprooting, defoliation and die-off caused
by strong winds, flooding, and the onslaught of runoff
and excessive sedimentation, although mangroves
THE WIO REGION

DRIVERS OF CHANGE ultimately can recover from such damage over time
(Krauss and Osland, 2020).
The main drivers of mangrove loss in the WIO region
are unsustainable wood extraction (for charcoal, Mozambique is believed to have suffered higher rates
firewood, poles and timber; Figure 5), land clearance of mangrove deforestation and impacts on wildlife
for agriculture (rice and salt) and the impact of extreme during its civil war (1975-1992), although this is poorly In the context of climate change, the global role of
weather events such as cyclones and flooding (Table documented and some studies suggest it was less mangroves as carbon sinks is increasingly recognised.
2). Other drivers of loss include port development, severe than initially thought and mostly limited to the
T
hydropower dams, flood control infrastructure, oil spills vicinity of urban areas, as travel was restricted because hey are now known to have the capacity to store about five times more carbon per unit area than
(major route), sedimentation and encroachment for of the war (Hatton et al., 2001; Macamo et al., 2016a). any forest ecosystem. Assuming a global average carbon sequestration rate by mangroves of 6 to 8 t
urban development. All these impacts are exacerbated CO2e ha-1 per year (Bouillon et al., 2008; Sanderman et al., 2018), the total mangrove area in the WIO
A recent upsurge in large-scale developments, such
by population pressure, poverty, lack of alternative region is capable of storing up to 16% (6 million t CO2) of the region’s total fossil fuel CO2 emissions each year,
as the Lamu Port-South Sudan-Ethiopia-Transport
livelihoods, weak governance and the effects of climate which is in the order of 36 to 41 million tons of CO2e year-1 (Global Carbon Project, 2021).
(LAPSSET) Corridor project (Kenya), other (deep-sea)
change. Impacts are generally higher near highly
port developments (Tanzania and Mozambique), large- An estimated total of 838 Mt CO2e is currently stored in the WIO region’s mangrove biomass and underlying
populated and urban areas. Threats to mangroves
scale irrigational agriculture and biofuel plantations, oil sediments (Figure 6), corresponding to an average of 1,125 t CO2e ha-1 (Global Mangrove Watch data). Loss
(both anthropogenic and natural) are similar across
and gas and commercial mining (Mozambique), may of these mangroves would result in the release of a similar quantity of CO2. Hotspots of blue carbon in the
the region but to varying extents, with the exception of
cause further mangrove degradation and loss in the region include Lamu (Kenya), Rufiji Delta (Tanzania), Zambezi Delta (Mozambique) and Ambaro Bay and
cyclones as a major threat occurring mainly in the south
region (WWF, 2016). Mahajamba (Madagascar).
(Mozambique and Madagascar) (Charrua et al., 2020).
838.52
900 1,600 1,421 1,378
Blue Carbon 2016 (t CO2e h1-1)

800
Blue Carbon 2016 (Mt CO2e)

1,400 1,125
NON-PRODUCTIVE EXTREME WEATHER 700 1,200 1,009
1,092
EROSION COMMODITIES SETTLEMENT CONVERSION EVENTS 600
1,000
500
Kenya 305.46 303.13 800
25% 0% 6% 63% 7% 400
300 600
152.61
Tanzania 13% 17% 6% 29% 35% 200 77.32 400
100 200
Mozambique 45% 1% 2% 28% 25%
0 -
Madagascar 14% 10% 0% 40% 36%
on
ia
on
ia
e
r
r
ca
ca
ny
ny
qu
qu
an
an
gi
gi
as
as
Ke
Ke
bi
bi
nz
nz
re
re
ag
ag
am
am
WIO region 24% 7% 1% 36% 32% Ta
Ta
IO
IO
ad
ad
oz
oz
W
W
M
M
M
M
Table 3: Main drivers of mangrove loss in the WIO region (classified as per Goldberg et al., 2020) include non-productive conversion Figure 6: Total blue carbon (left) and average blue carbon content (right) in mangrove ecosystems in the WIO region
(from unsustainable resource exploitation) and extreme weather events (cyclones and floods)
16 17
1.4. MANGROVE
RESTORATION The score is an index
POTENTIAL
from 1 – 100 where
low scores indicate
Full restoration of the 40,900 ha low probability of
identified as available for restoration restoration success
IN THE WIO
and high scores
in the WIO region could enable: indicate likely
restoration success
• Carbon sequestration in
mangrove biomass amounting up
REGION
to 327,200 t of carbon each year
• Saving 15 million t C of soil carbon

stocks through avoided emissions
• Addition of commercial fisheries

There is a high potential for
species in mangrove waters in
mangrove restoration in the WIO the order of 1.4 trillion young-of-
with approximately 40,900 ha year finfish and 2.5 trillion crabs,
available for restoration (Global shrimp and molluscs (based on
Mangrove Watch data; Table 3, 2018). Land tenure considerations are also key to
preliminary analysis)
Figure 7). successful mangrove restoration (Lovelock and Brown,
2019), as are various other site selection considerations • Protection from annual coastal
S
uccessful mangrove restoration projects have (see: https://oceanwealth.org/explore-the- flooding for up to tens of
been implemented in Gazi Bay (Kenya), Tanga mangrove-restoration-potential-mapping-tool/). thousands of people
District (Tanzania), Rufiji Delta (ongoing), Limpopo
Kenya was the first country in the WIO region to secure
estuary (Mozambique), and at several sites along the
(blue) carbon credits from mangroves through a
west coast of Madagascar, while several more initiatives
scheme that rewards the restoration and protection
are currently underway in each of the four countries.
of mangrove ecosystems in Gazi Bay, the so-called
Best practices for mangrove restoration in the region “Mikoko Pamoja” project, providing the local community
have recently been synthesised in a set of guidelines with ~US$12,000 income per year for community
(Kairo and Mangora, 2020). However, mangrove development from the sale of carbon credits since 2013
restoration projects are often unsuccessful and are by (UNDP, 2020).
no means a quick-win solution. Lessons learnt from MANGROVE
mangrove restoration experiences globally suggests that RESTORATION
best results are achieved by efforts that are community- GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE RESTORATION POTENTIAL (HA) POTENTIAL
based and focus on facilitating natural recovery in 0 - 59
Kenya 3,351
an approach referred to as Ecological Mangrove
59 - 66
Restoration (EMR) (Lewis and Brown, 2014; Quarto Tanzania 3,611
66 - 77
and Thiam, 2018) through hydrological restoration Mozambique 25,899
77 - 84
(Lewis, 2005) or restoration of the sediment balance
Madagascar 8,039
(Tonneijck et al., 2022), rather than by manual planting 84 - 100
WIO region 40,900
of propagules or seedlings (Wetlands International,
Table 4: Areas (ha) available for restoration in the four countries of the WIO Region Figure 7: WIO Region: Mangrove restoration potential map
18 19
resources rather than their strict protection. By STATUS OF MANGROVES IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION 1. THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION
integrating mangrove values in coastal economies,
conservation and restoration can be reconciled with
production systems like aquaculture, agriculture and
other mangrove commodities through supporting site
KEY MESSAGES FOR POLICY & CALL FOR ACTION IN THE WIO REGION
management practices that maximise benefits from
There is need for countries in the and control, and ensure gender equity in benefit
mangrove ecosystem services and enhance sustainable
WIO region to: sharing (e.g. through investments in outreach
productivity of such commodities. This requires
that communicate the value of conservation and
landscape-scale planning and engagement of multiple • Strengthen capacities and institutional coordination
restoration)
sectors and stakeholders across the landscape. between countries in the WIO region – including
1.5. CURRENT
alignment within the framework of the Nairobi • Develop mechanisms that foster collaboration on
CONSEQUENCES OF LOSSES AND Convention – for an effective implementation of mangrove ecosystem management and include
POTENTIAL FOR RESTORATION respective National Mangrove Management Plans the various stakeholders within the landscape
MANAGEMENT
and the wider region (e.g. through a platform
The consequences of failing to effectively protect • Strengthen the governance and management of
such as the Western Indian Ocean Mangrove
mangroves has been widely felt throughout the region, mangrove ecosystems at national and regional
Network), to provide for cross-learning and sharing
AND THE WAY

especially during extreme climatic events such as level through formulation and implementation of
of experiences and implement a common vision to
cyclones and floods. The loss of nearly 25,000 hectares specific policies and legislative frameworks such as
minimise mangrove losses
of mangroves in the region over the past 25 years a Cooperative Agreement on the Conservation of
FORWARD
represents a loss of an estimated US$300 to 400 million Mangrove Ecosystems and the respective National • Enhance partnership among stakeholders in
in ecosystem services, affecting people’s livelihoods and Mangrove Management Plans addressing mangrove ecosystem conservation and
compromising safety and resilience against cyclones restoration priorities within the region and fostering
• Mobilize and allocate more resources including
and storms (see also UNEP, 2021a). The issue of development of more specific agreements and
securing sustainable financing through carbon
mangrove loss is particularly relevant in the debate regional commitments on mangrove conservation
credit schemes, focusing on Lamu & Tana, Rufiji
MANAGEMENT APPROACH AND on climate change, as mangrove loss not only leads to including the mainstreaming of mangroves in
Delta, Zambezi Delta, and Ambaro Bay, coupled with
CONSERVATION EFFORTS greenhouse gas emissions (from the carbon that was national development planning to achieve the Paris
stored in them) but also represents the loss of a major CONTENT TO BE Agreement
financial and technical capacities towards mangrove SUPPLIEDthrough the Nationally Determined
There is a growing awareness of the value of protecting conservation and management to contribute
carbon sink functionality, noting that mangroves are one Contributions (NDCs) and SDGs (e.g. SDGs 8, 13, 14, 15)
mangrove resources throughout the WIO region. At to improving the conservation of the mangrove
of the most efficient carbon sequestering ecosystems
least 26% of the region’s mangroves are currently within ecosystems and the socio-economic livelihoods of • Promote particularly successful mangrove
in the world. Where offered suitable conditions that
protected areas, but this excludes several key mangrove the people relying on them conservation initiatives, such as the delegation of
enable recovery, natural regeneration of mangroves,
blue carbon hotspots. The management of mangroves mangrove management responsibilities to local
especially in deltas, can offset part of the carbon losses • Integrate the use of risk screening tools such
in the region is guided by national strategic mangrove communities and community-based organisations
(Lagomasino et al., 2019). as Strategic Environmental Assessments,
management plans and community-based approaches. (effective in reducing mangrove losses in remote
Environmental Impact Assessments and Audits
Due to the remoteness of many mangrove areas and The potential for mangrove restoration in the WIO regions of Madagascar) and ‘Mikoko Pamoja’,
for proposed and ongoing developments in the
the limited resources to manage them, the effectiveness region is high with at least 40,900 ha available the world’s first mangrove blue carbon scheme
mangrove ecosystems to mitigate potential negative
of protection has often been weak. Meanwhile, it for restoration. While its success is by no means (effective in protecting and restoring mangroves in
environmental impacts and propagate approaches
is increasingly recognised - based on experiences guaranteed, mangrove restoration presents an rural Kenya and providing $12,138 income per year
that seek to achieve an overall net positive
worldwide - that community involvement can lead to opportunity to regain lost natural capital (along with its to the community from the sale of carbon credits),
environmental outcome.
more effective and equitable management of natural blue carbon storage functionality and other benefits) for adoption and replication elsewhere
resources, including mangroves. This has led to an and there is increasing understanding and sharing of • Formulate and implement participatory guidelines
• Develop and adopt practical tools, monitoring
increasing emphasis on decentralised community-based best practices for successful mangrove restoration. and frameworks to facilitate local community
approaches and best practices to manage the
management of mangroves throughout the region, Restoring 40,000 ha of mangroves in the region over institutional co-management arrangements such
complex interactions between mangroves, their
especially in Madagascar. High population pressure, the coming decade (www.decadeonrestoration.org) as Joint Forest Management and Community-
biodiversity and people (e.g. use the Global
poverty and subsistence livelihood dependency in could provide and sustain the livelihoods of ~2 million Based Forest Management approaches for
Mangrove Watch to rapidly identify and analyse
the WIO Region continue to present challenges to people and contribute in the order of US$300 million collective action towards mangrove management
restoration potential, threats and status of
mangrove management that demand greater emphasis per year to the region’s economy through the provision and conservation including policy and legislative
mangroves)
(priority) on sustainable utilisation of the mangrove of ecosystem goods and services. reforms, law enforcement, delegation of authority
20 21
STATUS OF MANGROVES IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION 2. Kenya
MANGROVES
IN KENYA
800,000 artisanal fishermen Kenya lost 1,139 ha (2%) of its
along Kenya’s coast depend on mangroves during 1996–2016,
mangroves for their livelihood. but gained 578 ha since 2016.
There is currently 3,351 ha Kenya’s mangroves store up to

available for restoration. 3% of the country’s total fossil
fuel CO2 emissions, which are in
the order of 16 to 18 million tons
of CO2e year-1, with a total of
77 Mt CO2e currently stored in
the country’s mangrove areas.
54,430
Amount of mangroves
ha
remaining in Kenya
2.1
THE STATE OF
74% MANGROVES
IN KENYA
The approximate amount (40,224 ha)
located in the Lamu & Tana River land and seascapes
With its 1,420 km long coastline,
US$85 mil
Kenya is home to the fifth largest
extent of mangroves in the
Western Indian Ocean (WIO) region,
representing about 2% of Africa’s
The per year contribution made mangroves and about 7% of the
to Kenya’s economy by Mangroves mangroves in the WIO region.
23
“These
mangroves
A
ccording to the present analysis, the current provide a range of al., (2021) reported 89 species of fish
extent (in 2020) of mangroves in Kenya is
54,430 ha (Figure 8).
critically important and crustaceans from four sites in the
Tana Delta.
Mangroves in Kenya are spread around 18 formations

goods and services Quarterly sampling of 14 mangrove
along the coastline with about 74% of these forests to the people creek sites in Vanga yielded 59 fish
occurring in Lamu and Tana River, where the protective
influence of barrier islands off the coast and a large
of Kenya…” species and 16 crustacean species
and confirmed their importance as
estuary has resulted in an abundance of mangroves that juvenile habitat for commercial species
cover a combined total of 40,224 ha (Global Mangrove (Wanjiru et al., 2021).
Watch data). Smaller mangrove formations occur in the
In the mangroves of the Tana Delta
mouths of semi-perennial and seasonal coastal rivers
spawning grounds for the prawns (Crona and and at the Ramisi River, terrestrial
in Vanga, Funzi, and Gazi Bay, as well as in creeks such
Rönnbäck, 2005; Abila, 2010; Fondo and animals such as crocodiles and
as Tudor, Port-Reitz, Kilifi and Mida Creek (Bosire et al.,
Omukoto, 2021). hippopotamus as well as baboons,
2016b). Kenya’s mangroves are some of the best studied
duikers, rodents and fruit bats, are
in the region owing to significant research efforts since The mangroves of the Lamu Archipelago combined with
more abundant compared to other
the 1970s (Erftemeijer et al., 2001). the nutrient-rich Somali Current create a conducive
mangrove areas in Kenya (Bosire et
habitat for some of the greatest inshore densities of
These mangroves provide a range of critically important al., 2016b). Elephants also visit the
finfish and crustaceans in Kenya (Samoilys et al., 2015).
goods and services to the people of Kenya, contributing mangrove forests of the Tana Delta
These coastal forests also protect the country from
KSh9.4 billion (equivalent to ~US$85 million) in annual to eat the climbing mangrove legume
tropical storms, coastal flooding and as an important
economic net benefits to the national economy (1,570 Derris trifoliata (Samoilys et al., 2015).
first line of defence against shoreline erosion.
$/ha) (Anonymous, 2021; Manzi and Kirui, 2021).
The mangroves of the Tana delta were estimated to
More than 85% of fishing activities along the coast are
provide US$4.6 million year-1 worth in terms of re-
carried out by artisanal fishermen in the shallow inshore
establishment and maintenance expenditures avoided
areas within and adjacent to the mangroves (Bosire et
for coastal protection (World Bank GEF, 2002).
al., 2016b). About 800,000 artisanal fishermen along the
Kenyan coast depend on mangrove-associated fisheries The mangroves of Kenya are also home to a significant
for their livelihood (Manzi and Kirui, 2021). biodiversity of associated animal species. The Tana River
Delta hosts two critically endangered sawfish species
Kenya’s mangroves are also critically important to a
(Samoilys et al., 2015) as well as the Tana River Red
US$3 million prawn trawling industry, providing MANGROVE
Colobus which is endemic to the area (Mbora, 2004).
EXTENT
At least 124 bird species have been reported from the
mangroves at Mida Creek and adjacent Watamu beach,
Areas of interest
including an internationally important population of
crab plover (Dromas ardeola) and regular sightings of
the rare Broad-billed Sand Piper (Limicola falcinellus) Extent 2020
(Seys et al., 1995; Jackson, 2010). The Tana Delta is also

critically significant as an Important Bird Area (IBA) and
Ramsar Site with at least 20 waterbird species exceeding
the Ramsar 1% global population criterion. Manyenze et Figure 8: Map showing the extent of mangroves in Kenya in 2020
25
2.2. RECENT
LOSSES AND
GAINS OF
MANGROVES
IN KENYA MANGROVE LOSS
(1996 - 2020)
Mangrove
20 years (1996-2016) (Figure 9). Since 2016, there have
QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF RECENT Extent
been significant gains (578 ha) due to natural expansion 2020
LOSSES AND GAINS (1996-2020) (following sedimentation) and restoration efforts at Mangrove
Kenya’s mangrove ecosystems provide a range of various sites (Figure 9). This decline in mangrove extent Loss
provisioning ecosystem services to adjacent human is less than previous estimates (based on Landsat data)
populations (Bosire et al., 2016b; Owuor et al., 2019). of 4,700 ha loss between 1985 and 2000 (FAO, 2007) Figure 10: Lamu & Tana Region (Kenya): Map of mangrove losses (in red) (1996-2020) (net total: -468 ha)
They have been exploited and impacted throughout the and 9,698 ha loss between 1985 and 2010 (Kirui et
country, especially near centres of urban development al., 2013). There is limited reliable historic information
and port construction, such as Mombasa (Figure 18) and on the original extent of mangroves in Kenya (prior to
Lamu (Figure 11). The total area of mangroves in Kenya 1996), but available information suggests this may have
decreased from 54,990 ha in 1996 to 53,852 ha in 2016, been in the order of 67,000 to 85,000 ha (Taylor et al.,
representing an overall net loss of 1,139 ha (2%) over 2003; GoK, 2017).
55,200
54,990
55,000
54,800
54,600 54,524
54,345 54,328
54,380
AREA (HA)
54,400
54,413
54,135 54,430 MANGROVE GAIN
54,200
(1996 - 2020)
54,000
54,100 Mangrove
53,955 Extent
53,800
53,852 2020
53,600
1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 Mangrove
Gain
YEAR
Figure 9: Recent trends in mangrove extent in Kenya (1996-2020) Figure 11: Lamu & Tana Region (Kenya): Map of mangrove gains (in blue) (1996-2020)
26 27
SUPPORTING DIAGRAMS STATUS OF MANGROVES IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION 2. Kenya
MANGROVE LOSS MANGROVE LOSS

(1996 - 2020) (1996 - 2020)
Mangrove Mangrove
Extent Extent
2020 2020
Mangrove Mangrove
Loss Loss
Figure 12: Kwale District (Kenya): Map of mangrove losses (in red) (1996-2020) Figure 14: Mombasa Region (Kenya): Map of mangrove losses (in red) (1996-2020)
MANGROVE GAIN MANGROVE GAIN

(1996 - 2020) (1996 - 2020)
Mangrove Mangrove
Extent Extent
2020 2020
Mangrove Mangrove
Gain Gain
Figure 13: Kwale District (Kenya): Map of mangrove gains (in blue) (1996-2020) Figure 15: Mombasa Region (Kenya): Map of mangrove gains (in blue) (1996-2020)
28 29
2.3. IMPORTANCE OF
poor governance and climate change have further
exacerbated the degradation and loss of mangroves
across Kenya (Manzi and Kirui, 2020). If not effectively
MANGROVES IN STORING
managed, there is a risk that these threats will result
in increasing losses of mangrove cover, blue carbon
storage, coastal protection and other ecosystem
(BLUE) CARBON IN KENYA

benefits. Degradation and loss of mangroves in
Kenya has been disproportionately higher near
urban centres than in rural areas (see Case Study 1).
Mangroves contribute approximately 70% to the wood
requirements by coastal people in Kenya for timber,
A
The total amount of ‘blue’ carbon stored in Kenya’s mangroves is
nalysis of Landsat data by Kirui et al., (2013) firewood and charcoal production, representing an
suggested that about 18% of Kenya’s mangroves economic value of approximately US$24 million
~77.3 Mt CO2e (Global Mangrove Watch data). Hotspots of blue
were lost between 1985 and 2010. An earlier year-1 in 2021 (Manzi and Kirui, 2021). Mangrove poles
carbon include the mangroves of Lamu and Kwale districts (figure 16;
study estimated that the country may have lost 50% of have made up a major regional trade commodity for
figure 17) with high amounts of above-ground mangrove biomass.
its original mangrove cover over the past 50 years (FAO, centuries. By the beginning of the 20th century, Kenya
D
2005). Losses have been especially high in the peri- was exporting an annual average of 483,000 mangrove onato et al., (2011) estimated that total carbon $12,138 income from the sale of carbon credits per
urban mangroves of Mombasa that lost 70 to 80% in the poles per year from Lamu forests alone (Manzi and stocks in mangroves generally range from 500 – year (Flint et al., 2018; UNDP, 2020).
past three decades (Mohamed et al., 2009; Bosire et al., Kirui, 2021). 1,000 t C ha globally, depending on forest type
-1
The project is accredited by Plan Vivo Foundation,
2014). One study estimates that at least 1,739 ha of the and conditions. A recent study in Kenyan mangroves
Over-exploitation and degradation of mangrove forests an international non-governmental organisation
mangroves at Lamu were lost between 1990 and 2019 at two sites (Gazi and Vanga in Kwale; see Figure 17)
led to a Presidential ban on export of mangrove poles that supports smallholders and communities
(Kairo et al., 2021). Meanwhile, there have been some reported an estimated total below-ground carbon
from Kenya since 1982. Despite the ban, mangrove wishing to manage their land and natural resources
significant gains in mangrove extent between 2000 and store of 69.41 Mt C for the entire country, with a rather
deforestation in Kenya intensified to meet the growing more sustainably by selling Plan Vivo Certificates
2019 in Vanga (235 ha), Kilifi (247 ha) Ungwana Bay (424 high value for Rhizophora mucronata stands of 1,485 t
local demand (Dahdouh-Guebas et al., 2000). (PCVs), which are recorded and tracked through the
ha) and Ngomeni (665 ha), which have been attributed C ha-1 (Gress et al., 2017).
independent Market Environmental Registry.
to natural regrowth following sedimentation, restoration
The total carbon stock of mangroves in Lamu was
efforts and implementation of conservation measures This successful initiative is currently being replicated in
estimated at 20 Mt C, with an average density of 560 t C
(Manzi and Kirui, 2021). a similar project at Vanga.
ha–1 (Kairo et al., 2021).
DRIVERS OF CHANGE Assuming a global average carbon sequestration rate

by mangroves of 6 to 8 t CO2e ha-1 per year (Bouillon et
The main socio-economic driver of mangrove loss in
Kenya has been non-productive conversion through the
“Mangroves al., 2008; Sanderman et al., 2018), the total mangrove
unsustainable exploitation for wood resources (Hamza contribute approx. area of Kenya (54,430 ha) is potentially sequestering 2
to 3% of the total annual fossil fuel emissions of Kenya,
et al., 2020). Other drivers include land clearance for salt
production, oil spills and port development (Abuodha
70% to the wood which are in the order of 16 to 18 million t CO2 year-1
and Kairo, 2001; Bosire et al., 2016b; Manzi and requirements by (Global Carbon Project, 2021).
Kirui, 2021).
coastal people The “Mikoko Pamoja” project at Gazi is an initiative
to protect and restore mangrove ecosystems in Gazi
There have also been reports of widespread dieback
of the mangrove Sonneratia alba caused by wood-
in Kenya…” Bay that would sequester over 2,000 t C and provide
boring insect infestations in several areas along the

Kenyan coast (Gordon and Maes, 2003; Jenoh et al.,
2016). Population pressure, poverty, lack of awareness,
30 31
SUPPORTING DIAGRAMS STATUS OF MANGROVES IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION 2. Kenya
ABOVE GROUND ABOVE GROUND

BIOMASS (t/Ha) BIOMASS (t/ha)
0 0
100 100
200 200
300 300
400 400
Figure 16: Lamu & Tana Region (Kenya): Mangrove above-ground biomass (amounting to 18.8 Mt). Figure 18: Mombasa Region (Kenya): Mangrove above-ground biomass (amounting to 497,927 t).
Note this is above ground biomass and does not include below ground carbon values Note this is above ground biomass and does not include below ground carbon values
Figure 17: Kwale District (Kenya): Mangrove above-ground biomass (amounting to 3.6 Mt).
Note this is above ground biomass and does not include below ground carbon values
33
The score is an
index from 1 –
100 where low
scores indicate
low probability
of restoration
success and
high scores
2.4.
indicate likely
restoration
success
MANGROVE RESTORATION
POTENTIAL IN KENYA
Kenya has a relatively high et al., 2008). Though initially planted with low species
mangrove restoration potential diversity, other (non-planted) mangrove species have
with at least 3,351 ha available colonised the restoration areas over time resulting in a
for restoration (Figure 10), more diverse ecosystem comparable to natural stands
particularly in Vanga in the (Bosire et al., 2003). Mangrove restoration may also
south (Kwale District) (Global offer opportunities to secure economic benefits through
carbon credit schemes, as successfully trialled at Gazi
Mangrove Watch data).
(see to the right).
P
ast restoration efforts in the country appear
to have made a notable difference, as Global
Mangrove Watch data indicate that total mangrove
cover in Kenya increased by some 300 ha since 2015.
Areas of increase were particularly noticeable in Vanga “Mangrove MANGROVE
and Kilifi and in Ngomeni and Ungwana Bay (Manzi and
Kirui, 2021). Other mangrove restoration initiatives are Watch data indicate RESTORATION
POTENTIAL
underway in Kwale (WWF, 2022), Lamu/Kiunga (TNC, that total mangrove 0 - 59
2021) and Sabaki Estuary (UNEP, 2021b).
cover in Kenya 59 - 66
Most mangrove restoration projects in Kenya have
embraced a participatory approach by working through increased by 66 - 77
locally established Community Forest Associations some 300 ha 77 - 84
84 - 100
(Kairo et al., 2001; WWF, 2022). Perhaps best known
is the restoration work at Gazi Bay, where 7 ha of since 2015.”
mangroves were successfully restored with nursery-
raised saplings as early as in 1991 (Kairo, 2001; Kairo
Figure 19: Kenya: Mangrove restoration potential map, showing areas available for restoration (totalling 3,351 ha)
34 35
coordination (between institutions), limited budget and critical role in carbon storage, which may be achieved
“...enhance resources (e.g. boats and surveillance infrastructure), through replication of the community-based ‘Mikoko
2.5. conservation for ineffective surveillance in remote areas, lack of clarity Pamoja’ model.
on specific roles and responsibilities, conflicts between
climate adaptation and those involved in restoration and those in harvesting,
The Lamu Port-South Sudan-Ethiopia-Transport
CURRENT
(LAPSSET) Project is likely to represent a significant
sustainable utilisation and a lack of awareness in the wider community, further
threat for large tracts of mangroves at Lamu, which
exacerbated by the effects of climate change, poverty
of mangrove and unemployment (Manzi and Kirui, 2021).
are currently sustainably managed by communities. The
MANAGEMENT
potential impacts from this development should
forests...” Mangrove areas that are known hotspots of blue carbon be carefully assessed, mitigated and monitored
storage, such as in Lamu (Figure 13) and Kwale regions (WWF, 2016).
AND THE WAY

(Figure 17) deserve greater protection to safeguard their
FORWARD MANGROVE AREAS OF PARTICULAR

INTEREST FOR CONSERVATION
Some 46% (24,924 ha) of all mangroves in Kenya are
KEY MESSAGES FOR POLICY & CALL TO ACTION IN KENYA
There is need for the Government Call to Action:
within protected areas, including Kiunga Marine Reserve,
MANAGEMENT APPROACH AND ONGOING of Kenya to:
Watamu Marine Park and Reserve (Mida Creek) and • Kenya Forest Service in collaboration with other
CONSERVATION EFFORTS Kisite-Mpunguti Marine Park and Reserve (Shimoni-Vanga • Develop and strengthen the operational and stakeholders (e.g. the mangrove platform)
Specific management measures to control mangrove area) (Kairo et al., 2002; Bosire et al., 2016b). Extra financial management capacity of Community to fully implement the National Mangrove
exploitation in Kenya were established as early as conservation attention is afforded to mangroves situated Forest Associations, Water Resources Users Ecosystem Management Plan
the 1940s and 1950s by the colonial government within World Heritage Sites such as Kiunga and Watamu, Associations and Beach Management Units
• Kenya Forest Service in collaboration with other
(Bosire et al., 2016b). A total ban on mangrove and those within the Tana River Delta Ramsar Site. enhance protection of blue carbon storage
stakeholders (e.g. the mangrove platform) to
export was imposed in 1982 to stop ongoing hotspots (such as in Lamu and Kwale region)
Other important (but smaller) mangrove areas in Kenya develop, resource and implement a plan for
deterioration of the country’s mangroves, but and areas that are of critical importance for the
are co-managed by local community forest associations, the rehabilitation of all restorable mangroves
despite this intervention, mangrove degradation has conservation of unique biodiversity (Tana Delta)
including mangrove areas at Gede-Mida, Mtwapa-Kilifi, in Kenya (for which there are ~3,000 ha
continued unabated owing to growing local demand through law enforcement
Gogoni-Gazi, Mombasa-Kilindini, Vanga, and several available), following Ecological Mangrove
(Bosire et al., 2016b). Authorities banned the use
other (smaller) sites. These areas are managed under • Integrate the use of risk screening tools such Restoration principles and guided by the
of mangroves for construction in 1997, but this ban
participatory forest management agreements with the as Strategic Environmental Assessments, restoration potential map for selection of future
was lifted again in 2003. Although the development
Kenya Forest Service, which aim to regulate human Environmental Impact Assessments and restoration sites
of a new Forestry Master Plan (KFMP) in 1994 and
activities affecting mangrove areas sustainably through Audits, as well as monitoring for proposed and
new Forest Act enacted in 2005 provided innovative • Kenya Forest Service in collaboration with other
zonation schemes with recognition of tenure rights. ongoing developments such as LAPSSET in the
approaches to forest management in Kenya, mangrove stakeholders (e.g. the mangrove platform) to
While promising, this approach has not (yet) always been mangrove ecosystems to mitigate potential
degradation continues to be pertinent till present replicate the community-led ‘Mikoko Pamoja’
effective because of limited local capacity (Manzi and negative environmental impacts and propagate
day (Bosire et al., 2016b). More recently, a National approach to other areas along the Kenyan
Kirui, 2021). approaches that seek to achieve an overall net
Mangrove Management Plan has been prepared coast (establishing a network of blue carbon
positive environmental outcome
for implementation between the years 2017-2027 Underlying constraints to successful mangrove projects and practitioners) as a means to
to enhance conservation for climate adaptation and protection in Kenya include: conflicting policies (between • Include mangrove ecosystems in the Nationally derive economic benefits for communities from
sustainable utilisation of mangrove forests (GoK, 2017). stakeholders), overlapping mandates and poor Determined Contributions under the Paris mangrove conservation and restoration through
Agreement carbon credit schemes
4. Note: this may be an overestimate, as losses of mangroves within these protected areas since their establishment (if any) have not
been incorporated.
37
CASE
STATUS OF MANGROVES IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION Case Study: Kenya
STUDY
PERI-URBAN
informal settlements characterised by low-income and tonnes of crude oil into the environment, which affected
high demand for cheap liquor, which results in a high some 234 ha of mangroves in Port Reitz (Omar et al.,
local demand for mangrove fuelwood. Illegal harvesting 2009). Illegal dumping of used oils from offshore boats
for commercial purposes such as trade in building and ships by small-scale traders causes additional
poles, commercial charcoal and fuel wood is also a small-scale spills, affecting young mangroves around
MANGROVES
major threat at this site. Encroachment of mangroves undesignated landing points.
through both commercial development and informal
Peri-urban mangroves of Mombasa form an integral
urban settlement is rampant in Mombasa County.
part of the livelihoods of adjacent communities. From
This has further contributed to mangrove degradation
house construction to daily household needs, these
through clear-felling to pave the way for building and
important ecosystems therefore need to be well-
OF MOMBASA
settlement. The pressure on social amenities such as
managed. They have however received less attention
sanitation and waste disposal has resulted in increased
and are understudied compared to other mangrove
disposal of sewage and solid waste, especially plastic,
areas in the country, despite the values associated with
into the mangrove areas. Poor land-use practices in
them. Recent studies suggest that these peri-urban
the adjacent areas are also a threat to the mangroves,
mangroves are stressed and suffering from some of the
causing increased siltation and affecting structure and
fastest rates of degradation in the country (well above
regeneration (Omar et al., 2009).
the global mean). With proper planning and targeted
Being next to the Port of Mombasa, these peri-urban restoration of degraded areas, however, it should be
mangroves suffered the effects of oil spills from five feasible for inhabitants of Mombasa to live in harmony
tanker accidents between 1983-1993 spilling 391,680 with mangroves.
tonnes of oil, and another spill in 2005 releasing 200
Values, threats and needs Mangroves are an important source of fuel wood
for proper management and timber used in the construction of houses, and
(Francis Okalo, IUCN Kenya). constitute important fishing grounds, tourism sites,
recreation areas and bee-keeping areas. Housing
M
angrove forest stands at the coastal city of and fuelwood are the most pronounced activities for
Mombasa (Kenya) and are located in a peri- mangrove utilisation in Mombasa because of the nature
urban setting associated with compounded of houses the community builds, and the level of income
pressure of coastal development and increasing human in households leaves little room for alternative sources
population, making them the most degraded in the of energy (Kenya Forest Service, 2015). Peri-urban
country. Mombasa has a creek coastline extending from mangroves also contribute to maintaining water quality
Port Reitz Area in the south to the Mtwapa Creek in through nutrient absorption and trapping of sediments
the north. and organic debris, although their role in passive
treatment of urban wastewater is poorly documented.
Mangroves surrounding these creeks are dominated
by Ceriops and Rhizophora species. With a human The over-dependence on mangroves for domestic use
population of 1.2 million, Mombasa is the second-most in Mombasa has resulted in uncontrolled cutting. An
densely populated county in Kenya (5,495 persons per additional notable threat at one of the sites, Tudor
km ). Mangroves constitute an integral component
2
Creek, is the illicit distilling of local brew (Chang’aa)
for the adjacent communities who depend on them for which mangrove wood is used as a source of fuel
for provision of basic needs, materials and services. (Bosire et al., 2014). Tudor Creek borders an area of Figure 20: Egrets perching on the branches of a mangrove tree in Lamu (Photo credit: Leo Thomw)
38 39
STATUS OF MANGROVES IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION 3. Tanzania
MANGROVES
IN TANZANIA
At least 150,000 people Tanzania lost 6,608 ha of
in Tanzania make their its mangroves over the past
living directly from mangrove 24 years (1996-2020).
resources, including 43,000
artisanal fishermen.
Tanzania’s mangroves store up to

There is currently 3,611 ha
8% of the country’s total fossil
mangroves available for
fuel CO2 emissions, with a total of
restoration.
~153 Mt CO2e currently stored in
110,787 ha
3.1
Amount of mangroves
remaining in Tanzania THE STATE OF
MANGROVES
41%
IN TANZANIA
located in the Rufiji Delta Tanzania is home to the third
largest extent of mangroves in
the Western Indian Ocean (WIO)
region, representing about 4%
US$2.1 bil
of Africa’s mangroves and about
15% of the mangroves in the
region (and 1% of the world’s
mangroves). The current extent (in
The per year contribution made 2020) of mangroves in Tanzania is
to Kenya’s economy by Mangroves 110,787 ha (Figure 22).
41
“The mangroves
of Tanzania are also
T
he largest continuous mangrove areas are home to a significant Rufiji Delta mangroves in December
found in the Rufiji delta and its surrounding 2000 counted 40,160 individual
region (the Rufiji-Mafia-Kilwa Seascape – biodiversity of waterbirds (including at least
figure 28, 29), where the protective influence of Mafia associated animal eight species with internationally
Island and river discharge from the Rufiji has resulted significant populations, notably
in an abundance of well-developed mangroves with species.” curlew sandpiper and crab plover)
tree heights of 25-30 m, covering a total of some and logged a total of 165 bird
45,582 ha in 2020 (Global Mangrove Watch data), species (Nasirwa et al., 2001). A
or 42% of the country’s total mangrove extent. variety of fish species, which are
variously resident or visit mangroves
Other important mangrove sites include coastal areas
for shelter, feeding and breeding
in Tanga district in the north (figure 24, 25), deltas (Anonymous, 2021). The mangroves of the Rufiji Delta
include juveniles of commercially
within the Ruvuma, Pangani, and Wami rivers, Mtwara alone contribute an estimated US$ 10.3 million per
important fish groups such as
where the Ruvuma River forms an estuary close to the year in direct resource use (such as wood extraction
snappers, emperors, groupers,
Mozambique border (figure 30, 31), Mafia Island, and for timber and poles) to the national economy
milkfish and mullets (Mangora et
Zanzibar (figure 26, 27), which has an estimated 19,748 (Mangrove Alliance, 2019). They are critically important
al., 2016). In the mangroves of the
ha (divided among the islands of Pemba and Unguja) to the artisanal fishers and prawn trawling industry,
Rufiji Delta, terrestrial animals such
(Mangora et al., 2016). Tanzania’s mangroves have been providing spawning grounds for shrimp and fish. It is
as crocodiles and hippopotamus as
subject to significant research efforts since the 1980s estimated that over 150,000 people in the coastal zone
well as baboons, duikers, rodents
(Erftemeijer et al., 2001). of Tanzania make their living directly from mangrove
and fruit bats, are more abundant
resources (TCMP, 2001), including some 43,000 artisanal
Mangroves provide a range of critically important goods compared to other mangrove
fishermen (Jiddawi and Ohman, 2003).
and services to the people of Tanzania. The total annual areas in Tanzania (Doody and
economic value represented by Tanzania’s mangroves Tanzania’s mangroves also contribute to protecting the Hamerlynck, 2003). In Zanzibar, the
has been estimated at TSh4.8 trillion year (equivalent
-1 country from tropical storms, coastal flooding and as an mangroves of the Jozani-Chwaka
to US$2.1 billion year ) (Anonymous, 2021). The Save
-1 important first line of defence against shoreline erosion. Bay National Park host the endemic
Our Mangroves Now! Initiative estimates that mangrove The mangroves in the Rufiji Delta comprise the second- Red Colobus Monkey (Akili &
timber benefits the Tanzanian economy $21 million largest continuous mangrove area along the East African Jiddawi 2001).
annually, and mangrove poles $6.4 million annually coast. The delta is responsible for 80% of Tanzania’s
prawn catch, which totals approximately 2,000
metric tons year-1, including a 1,200 metric tons year-1
commercial prawn fisheries with a long term maximum MANGROVE
net present value of US$39.5 million (Abdallah, 2004). EXTENT
The mangroves of Tanzania are also home to a
significant biodiversity of associated animal species, Areas of interest
including benthic invertebrates, fish, insects and birds.
At least 437 bird species have been reported from the
Extent 2020
Rufiji region to date (Lepage, 2022), including 13 globally
threatened species. A single waterbird survey of the
Figure 21: Common Greenshanks in flight in the Rufiji Delta Figure 22: Map showing the extent of mangroves in Tanzania in 2020
(photo credit: Menno de Boer, Wetlands International)
43
3.2. RECENT
The total area of mangroves in Tanzania decreased from
117,396 ha in 1996 to 110,787 ha in 2020, representing
an overall net loss of 6,608 ha over 24 years (Figure
LOSSES AND
23)6. This decline in mangrove extent is within the
range of several previously reported estimates (Wang
et al., 2003, 2005; Monga et al., 2018). Wang et al.,
GAINS OF
(2003) reported some localised (small-scale) increases
in mangrove extent at some sites along the coast of
Tanzania between 1990 and 2000, which were attributed
MANGROVES
to successful management interventions, restoration
efforts and natural regrowth. There is limited reliable
historic information on the original extent of mangroves
IN TANZANIA
in Tanzania (prior to 1996), but available information
suggests this may have been in the order of 170,000 to
>200,000 ha (Semesi, 1992; Spalding et al., 1997; Taylor
et al., 2003; FAO, 2005).
QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF RECENT The degradation and loss of mangroves in Tanzania
LOSSES AND GAINS (1996-2020) is likely to affect the provision of ecosystem services,
Tanzania’s mangrove ecosystems provide a range of such as coastal protection, biodiversity conservation
provisioning ecosystem services to adjacent human and nursery grounds for fish and shrimp that sustain
populations (Mangora et al., 2016). Mangroves in productive fisheries on which the livelihoods of many
Tanzania are being rapidly degraded and deforested coastal fishing communities and commercial prawn
through over-exploitation for poles and timber, and fishing industry depend. The loss of mangroves through
the conversion of forests to other uses like agriculture, deforestation and forest degradation is also likely to
aquaculture and salt making (Mangora et al., 2016). contribute to large quantities of CO2 emissions and
represents a major loss in carbon sink functionality of
the mangrove ecosystems (see to the right).
MANGROVE GAIN (1996 - 2020) MANGROVE LOSS (1996 - 2020)

119,000
Mangrove Mangrove
118,000 117,396 Mangrove Mangrove
Extent Extent
Gain Loss
117,000 2020 2020
116,000
115,000
AREA (HA)
114,000
112,561
113,000 111,969 111,542 Figure 24: Tanga & Pangani Region (Tanzania): Map of mangrove gains (in blue) Figure 25: Tanga & Pangani Region (Tanzania): Map of mangrove losses (in red)
111,416 111,775 (1996-2020) (1996-2020) (net total: -195 ha)
112,000
111,000 111,787
111,684
110,911
110,000 110,945
110,787
109,000
1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021
YEAR 6. Close-up inspection of satellite imagery of the Western Rufiji Delta suggests that an additional loss of 3,700 ha of ‘hinterland’ mangrove vegetation
occurred in the transitional zone towards terrestrial (inland) areas over this period, but this was not classified as ‘mangrove loss’ by the Global
Mangrove Watch algorithm. This mangrove loss value combines Global Mangrove Watch data with data from Lagomasino et al., (2017)).
Figure 23: Recent trends in mangrove extent in Tanzania (1996-2020)
44 45
SUPPORTING DIAGRAMS STATUS OF MANGROVES IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION 3. Tanzania
MANGROVE GAIN (1996 - 2020) MANGROVE LOSS (1996 - 2020) MANGROVE LOSS (1996 - 2020) MANGROVE GAIN (1996 - 2020)
Mangrove Mangrove Mangrove Mangrove
Extent Extent Extent Extent
Gain Loss Loss Gain
2020 2020 2020 2020
Figure 26: Zanzibar (Tanzania): Map of mangrove gains (in blue) (1996-2020) Figure 27: Zanzibar (Tanzania): Map of mangrove losses (in red) (1996-2020) Figure 28: Rufiji-Mafia-Kilwa (Tanzania): Map of mangrove losses (in red) Figure 29: Rufiji-Mafia-Kilwa (Tanzania): Map of mangrove gains (in blue)
(net total: -177 ha) (1996-2020) (net total: -5,374 ha). Most loss was in areas of highest biomass (1996-2020)
(see Figure 35) and appears to be associated with conversion for rice
farming (inland, see insert) and the Nyamisati-Mafia7
7. Global Mangrove Watch underestimated the mangrove extent loss for the area of interest of Rufiji-Mafia-Kilwa seascape (Tanzania). This value
combines Global Mangrove Watch data with data from Lagomasino et al., (2017).
46 47
Mangroves at the capital city of Dar es Salaam

DRIVERS OF CHANGE decreased in extent from 4,813 ha in 1986 to 1,961
The main drivers of mangrove loss in Tanzania hectares in 2016 due to clearing for salt pans, hotel
include conversion to salt ponds and rice cultivation, construction, settlement, charcoal making, firewood
exacerbated by extreme weather events such as storms, and building poles (Maseta et al., 2021).
floods and droughts (Semesi, 1998; FAO, 2005; Mshale
Other drivers of mangrove loss in Tanzania are not
et al., 2017). Socioeconomic threats include mangrove
dissimilar from those in other parts of the world
cutting for fuelwood used in salt production, lime
(Goldberg et al., 2020). Population pressure, poverty,
burning, or smoking fish; clearance of mangrove areas
low levels of awareness, and climate change have
for salt pans involving solar evaporation; unregulated
contributed to the degradation and loss of mangroves
pole cutting for sale in Dar es Salaam, Zanzibar and the
across Tanzania (Mangora et al., 2016; Nyangoko et
Middle East; and the expansion of agricultural activities,
al., 2022). Pollution levels in the mangroves of Tanzania
MANGROVE LOSS particularly paddy rice and aquaculture (Mshale et
are generally low, apart from some localised industrial
(1996 - 2020) al., 2017). A more recent issue is the rise of mixed rice
pollution at Mtoni and Msimbazi and pesticide use
Mangrove agriculture and cattle grazing systems. In non-growing
Extent in rice paddies within the Rufiji Delta mangroves
seasons, these fields are used to graze huge cattle herds
2020 (Kruitwagen et al., 2008).
by an influx of pastoralists, which prevents natural
Mangrove
Loss
regeneration of mangroves (Mshale et al., 2017).
During the last few decades, extensive areas of

Figure 30: Ruvuma (Tanzania): Map of mangrove losses (in red) (1996-2020) (net total: -328 ha) mangroves in Tanzania have been cleared for salt
production (Semesi, 1992, 1998). Significant tracts
of mangrove forest (possibly as much as 12% of the
total area) in the Rufiji Delta were lost8 or degraded
between 1991 and 2000 because of overuse and
conversion to other land uses, such as salt exploration
and unsustainable agriculture practices (Turpie, 2000).
Heavy flooding associated with an El Nino event in
1997-1998 caused mortality of 117 ha of mangroves in
the Rufiji Delta, but these areas are now regenerating
(Erftemeijer and Hamerlynck, 2005). Clearing of
mangroves for rice farming in Tanzania was officially
banned in 1987 but continued in the Rufiji Delta with
extensive areas cleared since the ban was imposed
MANGROVE GAIN (Duvail, 2002; Monga et al., 2018; Japhet et al., 2019).
(1996 - 2020)
Ineffective management of these threats poses a risk
Mangrove
Extent that mangrove losses may increase over the coming
2020 decade in the face of population pressure and Figure 32: Fishing boats in Rufiji Delta mangroves (Photo Credit: Elizabeth
Mangrove climate change. Wamba, Wetlands International)
Gain
Figure 31: Ruvuma (Tanzania): Map of mangrove gains (in blue) (1996-2020). The patterns of losses (Figure 30) and gains 8. Global Mangrove Watch underestimated the mangrove extent loss for the area of interest of Rufiji-Mafia-Kilwa (Tanzania). This value combines
(Figure 31) in this remote bay reflects substantial natural dynamics in this sub-region Global Mangrove Watch data with data from Lagomasino et al., (2017)
49
to 460,835 t CO2e in 2016 (based on data in Njana et al., 2011; Alongi, 2020), the total mangrove area of Tanzania
3.3.
2018). This reduction was due to an estimated loss of (109,620 ha) is potentially sequestering 6 to 8% of the
“the mangrove 2,852 ha of mangroves during 1986-2016, equivalent to total annual fossil fuel emission of Tanzania, which is
area is potentially a total carbon emission of about 670,000 t CO2e over 30 in the order of 11 million t CO2 year-1 (Global Carbon
IMPORTANCE
years (Maseta et al., 2021). Project, 2021).
sequestering 6 to 8% Assuming a global average carbon sequestration rate
of the total annual by mangroves of 6 to 8 t CO2e ha-1 year-1 (McLeod et al.,
OF MANGROVES fossil fuel emission

of Tanzania…”
IN STORING
(BLUE)
CARBON IN
1.2 t C ha-1 stored in dead wood, and 30.0 t C ha-1 stored
in below-ground biomass, based on a detailed study
in 88 plots at eight sites along the Tanzanian mainland
TANZANIA
coast (Njana et al., 2018). Based on this, Njana et al.,
(2018) estimated that a total of 37.8 million t CO2e is
stored by mangroves of Tanzania. Unfortunately, their
study did not quantify the amount of carbon stored in
the soils underneath the mangroves, which are known
to store even more carbon (global average: 361 t C ha-1)
The total amount of ‘blue’ carbon than the vegetation itself (Donato et al., 2011; Alongi,
stored in Tanzania’s mangroves is 2014; Sanderman et al., 2018).
~152.6 Mt CO2e (Global Mangrove Another recent study by Alavaisha and Mangora (2016),
Watch data). which did include soil in their assessment, reported total
T
ecosystem carbon stocks (incl. soil) of 414.6 t C ha-1 and
he primary hotspot of blue carbon storage in
684.9 t C ha-1 for two small estuarine mangrove areas,
the country is the Rufiji Delta (figure 35) and
Geza and Mtimbwani, in Tanga, northern Tanzania.
surrounding seascape with high amounts of
above- and below-ground mangrove biomass and Maseta et al., (2021) estimated that the total amount of
sediment carbon. carbon stored in the biomass of the mangrove forests of
Dar es Salaam decreased from 1,131,055 t CO2e in 1986
Njana et al., (2018) reported a mean ‘total’ carbon stock
of 64.7 t C ha-1 for mangroves in mainland Tanzania,
including 33.5 t C ha-1 stored in above-ground biomass,
50 51
ABOVE GROUND BIOMASS (t/Ha) ABOVE GROUND BIOMASS (t/Ha)

0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
Figure 33: Tanga & Pangani Region (Tanzania): Mangrove above-ground biomass Figure 34: Zanzibar (Tanzania): Mangrove above-ground biomass (amounting to Figure 35: Rufiji-Mafia-Kilwa (Tanzania): Mangrove above-ground biomass Figure 36: Ruvuma (Tanzania): Mangrove above-ground biomass (amounting to
(amounting to a total of 2.5 Mt). Note this is above ground biomass and does not a total of 2 Mt). Note this is above ground biomass and does not include below (amounting to a total of 137 Mt). Note this is above ground biomass and does a total of 12 Mt). Note this is above ground biomass and does not include below
include below ground carbon values ground carbon values not include below ground carbon values ground carbon values
52 53
3.4.MANGROVE RESTORATION
The score is an
index from 1 –
100 where low
scores indicate
POTENTIAL IN TANZANIA
low probability
of restoration
success and
high scores
indicate likely
restoration
success
Tanzania has a relatively high mangrove restoration potential with at
least 3,611 ha available for restoration (Figure 37), which would restore
valuable ecosystem services and contribute to poverty reduction and
climate change adaptation.
M
angrove restoration may also offer mangrove forests as cheap source of wood for fuel and
opportunities to secure economic benefits timber, even from replanted areas (Mangora, 2007).
through carbon credit schemes (e.g. REDD+ An area of 69.3 ha of mangroves was rehabilitated
initiatives). Compared to some other countries in the successfully in Tanga District between 1994 and 2003 as
region, such as Madagascar and Kenya, there have part of a collaborative coastal management approach
been relatively few mangrove restoration initiatives in involving local communities (Verheij et al., 2004). More
Tanzania to date. recently, Rufiji Delta has become the focus of extensive
community-based mangrove restoration (see Case
Some mangrove replanting activities were conducted as
Study 2).
part of the implementation of the National Mangrove
Management Plan (Semesi, 1998) and the Tanga Coastal
Zone Conservation and Development Programme
(Verheij et al., 2004).
Mangrove restoration activities by the Forestry Division

in the Ruvuma estuary largely failed as local people –
not having been involved in the restoration program
and plagued by poverty – continued to plunder
MANGROVE
RESTORATION
POTENTIAL
0 - 59
59 - 66
66 - 77
77 - 84
84 - 100
Figure 37: Tanzania: Mangrove restoration potential map, showing areas available for restoration (totalling 3,611 ha)
54 55
“At least 60%

(>57,000 ha) of KEY MESSAGES FOR POLICY & CALL FOR ACTION IN TANZANIA
all mangroves in
Tanzania are There is need for the Government • Strengthen coordination at all levels between
within protected of Tanzania to: the fisheries and forestry agencies to support
3.5. CURRENT
implementation of interventions linked to the
areas…” • Review the National Mangrove Forest
Management Plan of 1991 and adopt a
mangrove ecosystems
landscape approach in its implementation • Include mangrove ecosystems in the Nationally
MANAGEMENT
Determined Contributions under the Paris
• Integrate gender, especially the role of women,
Agreement
as well as youth into mangrove decision making,
AND THE WAY

management and benefit sharing
resources in Tanzania (but see Verheij et al., 2004). Call to Action:
• Develop mechanisms for conflict resolution
Policy failure, weak or dysfunctional state institutions,
over mangrove resources, addressing conflict • Conduct further research into mangrove
FORWARD
along with a lack of participatory awareness and self-
between multiple users (e.g. use by cattle management and restoration for science-based
commitment have been suggested as culprits behind
grazers and rice farmers into restored decision-making and implement mangrove
the ongoing decline and deterioration of mangrove
mangrove areas in the Rufiji delta) restoration guidelines developed for the WIO
resources in Tanzania (Mangora, 2011).
region
• Integrate the use of risk screening tools such
MANAGEMENT APPROACH AND MANGROVE AREAS OF PARTICULAR as Strategic Environmental Assessments, • Strengthen communication, awareness raising
CONSERVATION EFFORTS INTEREST FOR CONSERVATION Environmental Impact Assessments and Audits, and capacity building on sustainable mangrove
as well as monitoring for proposed and ongoing utilisation as an integral component for
In recognition of their national importance, all At least 60% (>57,000 ha) of all mangroves in Tanzania
developments in the mangrove ecosystems successful restoration efforts
mangrove areas in Tanzania have been designated as are within protected areas, including the Rufiji
to mitigate potential negative environmental
forest reserves since the 1930s (Taylor et al., 2003). Delta Mangrove Forest Reserve (with ~45,500 ha of • Tanzania Forest Service in collaboration
impacts and propagate approaches that seek to
A National Mangrove Management Plan was drawn mangroves), the Saadani National Park (with extensive with other stakeholders (e.g. the mangrove
achieve an overall net positive environmental
up in 1991 for the protection and management of mangroves along the Wami River), the Jozani Chwaka platform) to develop, resource and implement
outcome
the mangrove forests of Tanzania (Semesi, 1992), but Bay National Park (with 3,240 ha of mangroves), Mnazi a plan for the rehabilitation of all restorable
the capacity to effectively enforce their protection Bay-Ruvuma Estuary Marine Park (with 7,000 ha of • Implement co-management arrangements such mangroves in Tanzania (for which there are
has remained far from reach and mangrove forests mangroves), and Mafia Marine Park (with 1,735 ha of as Joint Forest Management and Community- ~3,600 ha available), following Ecological
continue to be exploited as cheap sources of wood mangroves) (McNally et al., 2011; Lugomela, 2012). Based Forest Management approaches in Mangrove Restoration principles and guided by
and forest land for other uses by impoverished rural mangrove forests the restoration potential map for selection of
Since the establishment of Saadani National Park in
communities who depend on the mangroves for future restoration sites
2005, active protection of its mangroves along Wami
their subsistence (Mangora, 2011). Traditional and
River resulted in a drastic decline in mangrove loss
community-based forest management practices are
from wood extraction, a significant increase in shrimp
emerging as appropriate alternatives to state control
catches in the estuary and increased (net) income from
and institutional arrangement for ensuring sustainable
shrimping and fishing, contributing to poverty reduction
management of forest resources. Nonetheless,
in village communities adjacent to the park (McNally
community-based management has not yet been
et al., 2011).
robustly implemented for mangroves and other coastal
56 57
CASE
STATUS OF MANGROVES IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION CASE STUDY: TANZANIA
STUDY
CO-MANAGEMENT
COLLABORATIVE APPROACH IMPROVING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE
PROTECTED AREAS THROUGH CO-MANAGEMENT
In 2019, the Blue Action Fund granted funding to
the project “Strengthening Marine Protected Area The Rufiji-Mafia-Kilwa seascape has been managed
AND RESTORATION
Management in Rufiji, Mafia, Kilwa Districts, Tanzania” under various regimes over the past decades, of which
by WWF Germany, WWF Tanzania and Wetlands co-management has been the most promising (Mshale
International. This project, in collaboration with the et al., 2017). In the co-management framework, spatial
Mangrove Capital Africa project, aims to improve zonation and MPAs governance are key areas that
management effectiveness in marine protected are being promoted by the project. Processes for
IN THE RUFIJI-
areas (MPAs) and associated buffer zones within the establishment of MPA boundaries were supported for
Rufiji-Mafia-Kilwa seascape to maintain and improve the formal MPAs (e.g. Mafia Island Marine Park – MIMP,
ecological values and community livelihoods. This case which includes three user zones: core, specified and
study outlines two main outcomes of the work to date: general use zones), and the informal, community-
Effective co-management to improve management of based Collaborative Fisheries Management Areas
MAFIA-KILWA
protected areas, and mangrove restoration. (CFMAs). To date there are 17 CFMAs established in
SEASCAPE
(January Ndagal, WWF-Tanzania, developments in the agriculture and energy sectors
and Menno de Boer, Wetlands are negatively influencing the hydrology and sediment
International) flow downstream. These changes are impacting the
mangroves and other marine ecosystems of the Rufiji-
CHALLENGES IN THE RUFIJI-MAFIA-KILWA SEASCAPE Mafia-Kilwa seascape. In the Rufiji Delta specifically,
rice farming and cattle grazing have not had historical
The Rufiji-Mafia-Kilwa seascape faces several significant
negative effects on the mangrove extent but are
challenges that threaten its provision of valuable goods
also limiting possibilities for large-scale mangrove
and services. These challenges include unsustainable
restoration.
harvesting of mangrove products (poles, fuelwood)
and unsustainable fishing. Furthermore, upstream
Figure 38: Sukuma herdsmen in the Rufiji Delta (photo credit Priscilla Kagwa, Wetlands International).
59
CASE STUDY STATUS OF MANGROVES IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION 3. Tanzania
the seascape. Both MPA categories have community-

LESSONS LEARNED: thereof, and their significant support for conservation
based MPA management units, including 17 Village
Liaison Committees (VLC) and 42 Beach Management “Through • CBEMR requires a bigger time investment at the start
and sustainable use is based on this awareness, and
improved knowledge.
Units (BMU). For effective management, the project
these activities, of restoration to determine the right approaches,
offers capacity-building support for knowledge and but has a high return on investment in the long term. • Community users of coastal/marine resources are not
skills development. Such include facilitation of training a favourable Overall, restoration through CBEMR has much higher opposed to conservation initiatives provided these
in management effectiveness, co-management itself,
environment is success rates and lower costs compared to traditional do not exclude their traditional right to access and
mentorship – community-based mentors trained planting efforts. utilisation of the resources.
(TOT); fisheries data collection and reporting, workplan re-established…”
• Embedding restoration in a larger framework of • Conservation alongside livelihood enhancement
development, field operations and enforcement,
co-management is essential both for the restoration motivates community participation and improves the
alternative livelihood promotion, as well as seminars
success as well as equitable outcomes. legitimacy of conservation efforts.
on resource-use conflicts management, leadership
and coastal resources governance. The project has • Communities in the Rufiji-Mafia-Kilwa seascape are
also provided a range of facilities for field and office well aware of the threats to marine ecosystems and
operations, such as drones, boats, office furniture and of the impacts of unsustainable use of resources
assistance with office renovation, as well as support to Restoration efforts are focused on abandoned rice fields
the community for temporary closure to octopus fishing in the Rufiji Delta. After several years of production,
scheme, fisheries value chain improvement through farming stops and rice fields are abandoned. However,
installation of cooling hub (small-scale ice production mangroves do not return. To restore mangroves, the
plants). These activities have translated in improved CBEMR approach is being applied by digging channels to
management and livelihoods from marine and coastal restore hydrological connectivity and weeding invasive
resources across the Rufiji-Mafia-Kilwa seascape. climbers to create space and conducive conditions
for mangroves. Through these activities, a favourable
LARGE SCALE MANGROVE RESTORATION IN THE RUFIJI environment is re-established to allow for natural
mangrove regrowth and recovery. Using this method,
Despite major efforts worldwide to restore mangroves
over 200 ha of mangroves in the Rufiji Delta have
over the past few decades, the success of many
been restored over the past few years. Continuous
restoration projects has been poor. Several studies have
and growing pressure from outside the delta form
found success rates ranging between 15-20 percent
the biggest challenge for sustainable restoration.
(Kodikara et al., 2017; Primavera & Esteban, 2008). This
The demand for arable land puts more pressure on
results from a failure to address socio-economic and
the restoration sites. Wetlands International aims to
institutional drivers of loss, as well as poor site selection
address this by collaborating with a wide range of
and the use of inadequate restoration techniques. In the
stakeholders and developing a vision for the landscape
Rufiji Delta in Tanzania, Wetlands International and its
in which mangrove restoration and co-management by
partners are restoring mangroves using an inclusive and
mangrove communities are firmly embedded.
more effective approach: Community-Based Ecological
Mangrove Restoration (CBEMR). With the help of
Mangrove Action Project, the capacity of a wide range
of stakeholders, from community-based organisations
to national government, is being built in this novel
approach to mangrove restoration.
60 61
STATUS OF MANGROVES IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION 4. MOZAMBIQUE
MANGROVES
IN MOZAMBIQUE
400,000 people in Mozambique Mozambique lost 15,910 ha
directly depend on mangrove- (5%) of its mangroves over the
associated fisheries for their past 24 years (1996-2020) and has
livelihood. a total of 25,899 ha available
for restoration.
Mozambique’s mangroves store

At least 34% (~100,000 ha) of
up to 39% of the country’s total
Mozambique’s mangroves have
fossil fuel CO2 emissions each
some form of protection.
year, which are in the order of 6 to
8 million t CO2e year-1, with a total
of ~305 Mt CO2e currently stored
in the country’s mangrove areas.
302,735 ha
Amount of mangroves
remaining in Mozambique 4.1. THE
STATE OF
16% MANGROVES IN
located in the Zambezi Delta MOZAMBIQUE
Mozambique is home to the
US$2 to 6 bil
largest extent of mangroves in the
mangroves and about 40% of the
are provided by mangroves in the mangroves in the WIO region (and
WIO in ecosystem services per year 2% of all mangroves in the world).
63
A
ccording to the Global Mangrove Watch data, year-1. A recent white paper puts the total economic
The mangroves of Mozambique
the current extent (in 2020) of mangroves in value even as high as US$7.8 billion year-1 (Anonymous,
are also home to a significant
Mozambique is 302,735 ha (Figure 40). 2021).
biodiversity. For example,
The largest continuous mangrove area is found in the The mangroves are critically important to artisanal the Zambezi Delta has been
Zambezi Delta (Figures 45, 46), covering a total of some fishers and shrimp industry, as fish habitat and in documented to feature many
48,122 ha in 2020 (Global Mangrove Watch data), or providing critical spawning grounds for fish and shrimp species of global conservation
16% of the country’s total mangrove extent. Zambezi’s (Macia, 2004). Fisheries (80% of which is marine) concern and to support an
mangrove trees are among the tallest of the region, contribute approximately US$450 million year to the -1 abundance and diversity of large
reaching up to 30 m in height (Macamo et al., 2016a). country’s GDP (WWF, 2017b). The mangroves of the mammals, including particularly
Other important mangrove sites in Mozambique include Zambezi Delta sustain a US$90 million year shrimp -1 large populations of Cape
Maputo Bay (figure 58; 59), Save River estuary, Cabo industry that employs 1,200 people (Guveya and buffalos and African elephants,
Delgado, Nacala Bay, Messalo estuary, Pungué estuary, Sukume, 2008), although there are clear signs that as well as sizeable populations of
Quelimane municipality and Limpopo River estuary the country’s shrimp trawling industry (and important waterbucks, southern reedbucks,
(FAO, 2005b; Macamo et al., 2016a). source of foreign currency) is unsustainable, with sable antelopes, Lichtenstein’s
catches dropping from >9,000 tonnes year in 2002 to -1 hartebeests, Livingstone’s elands,
Mangroves provide a range of critically important
1,800 tonnes year in 2012 (WWF, 2017b).
-1 zebras, lions, leopards, wild dogs
goods and services to the people of Mozambique.
and hippos. Some 73 waterbird
The mangroves of Zambezi Delta alone represent a About two thirds of Mozambique’s population lives in
species have been recorded from
total economic value of US$1 billion year-1, including coastal areas. Of these, at least 400,000 people directly
the Zambezi Delta, as well as 94 fish
US$83 million year-1 from charcoal production and depend for their livelihood on mangrove-dependent
species, 19 amphibian species, Nile
poles (Guveya and Sukume, 2008; WWF, 2017a). The fishing activities in the coastal zone (FAO, 2007b).
crocodiles and several other reptiles,
mangroves of Limpopo Estuary (928 ha) contribute In 2012, Mozambique’s artisanal fishery subsector
including marine turtles (Beilfuss,
MZN 424 million (US$7 million) per year to the nation’s generated about 355,000 jobs, while an additional
2015; Macamo et al., 2016a).
economy (Masike, 2014). Based on these two studies, ~6,000 people were employed in aquaculture (FAO,
the total economic value of the mangroves of the whole 2007b; Nhantumo and Gaile, 2020). Mozambique’s
of Mozambique could be in the order of US$2 to 6 billion mangroves also contribute to protecting the country
from tropical storms, cyclones, coastal flooding and
as an important first line of defence against shoreline
erosion (Cabral et al., 2017). The mangroves in the
Zambezi Delta comprise the second largest continuous
mangrove area along the East African coast. Its
productivity is much related to the rivers system that MANGROVE
EXTENT
discharge immense water including those from extreme
events. The Zambezi River and its estuary give rise to
the Sofala Bank, Mozambique’s main fishing ground Areas of interest
(Guveya and Sukuma, 2008).
Extent 2020
Figure 39: Mangrove creek in Zambezi Delta, Mozambique (IUCN Mozambique) Figure 40: Map showing the extent of mangroves in Mozambique in 2020
65
4.2. “The total area
RECENT
of mangroves
in Mozambique 35,700 ha to 36,700 ha during 1995-2005 (Ferreira et al., due to the presence of more alternative livelihood
LOSSES
decreased from 2009). Similarly, Shapiro et al., (2015) suggested that the opportunities (Macamo et al., 2016a). Analysis by
318,645 ha in extent of mangroves in the Zambezi Delta had increased

by 3,723 ha (10%) from 33,311 ha to 37,034 ha during
Hatton et al., (2001), however, concluded that the impact
on the mangrove ecosystem from the war was much
AND GAINS OF
1996 to 295,290 ha 2000-2014. De Boer (2002) reported a net loss of 848 less than initially thought and limited to the immediate
in 2020…” ha of mangroves from Maputo Bay between 1958 and

1991, but this included pockets of both losses and gains
vicinity of urban areas, as travel was restricted during
the war.
MANGROVES
in different parts of the delta. A similar balance between
There is limited reliable historic information on the
losses and gains were reported for the Incomati Estuary
original extent of mangroves in Mozambique (prior to
in Maputo Bay by Macamo et al., (2015) and Da Costa
IN MOZAMBIQUE
1996), but available information suggests this may have
and Ribeiro (2017).
been well over 400,000 ha (Malleux, 1980; FAO, 1994;
It is believed that mangrove deforestation (as well as Saket and Matusse, 1994; Spalding et al., 1997) or even
impacts on wildlife populations) was higher during the >500,000 ha (Taylor et al., 2003).
Mozambique civil war (1975-1992) but has since receded
QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF RECENT The total area of mangroves in Mozambique decreased
LOSSES AND GAINS (1996-2020) from 318,645 ha in 1996 to 302,735 ha in 2020 (Global
Mangrove Watch data), representing an overall net
Mozambique’s mangrove ecosystems provide a range
loss of 15,910 ha (5%) in 24 years (1996-2020) (Figure
of provisioning ecosystem services to adjacent human
41). This decline in mangrove extent is within the range
populations (Macamo et al., 2016a). At various sites
of several previously reported estimates (Barbosa et
in the country, mangroves are being rapidly degraded
al., 2001; FAO, 2005b). However, some other previous
and deforested through over-exploitation for poles and
studies reported modest increases in mangrove extent
timber, and the conversion of forests to other uses like
at several sites in Mozambique over the past two
agriculture, aquaculture and salt making (Macamo et
decades. Analysis of Landsat data suggested that Cabo
al., 2016a).
Delgado mangroves increased by 1,000 ha (3%) from
325,000
320,000 318,645
316,543
315,000
310,792
AREA (HA)
309,560
309,983
310,000 312,373
310,208
307,152
310,143 309,703
305,000
302,735
300,000
1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021
YEAR
Figure 41: Recent trends in mangrove extent in Tanzania (1996-2020) Figure 42: Mangroves damaged by Cyclone Idai in 2019 at the Buzi-Pungwe river mouth, Mozambique (Photo Credit: Célia Mocamo, Universidade Eduardo Mondlane)
67
SUPPORTING DIAGRAMS STATUS OF MANGROVES IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION 4. MOZAMBIQUE
MANGROVE LOSS MANGROVE LOSS

(1996 - 2020) (1996 - 2020)
Mangrove Mangrove
Extent Extent
2020 2020
Mangrove Mangrove
Loss Loss
Figure 43: Primeiras & Segundas (Mozambique): Map of mangrove losses (in red) (1996-2020) (net total: -2,363 ha) Figure 45: Zambezi Delta (Mozambique): Map of mangrove losses (in red) (1996-2020) (net total: -2,460 ha), showing clear
mangrove losses of seaward facing mangroves due to the impact of cyclone(s)
MANGROVE GAIN MANGROVE GAIN

(1996 - 2020) (1996 - 2020)
Mangrove Mangrove
Extent Extent
2020 2020
Mangrove Mangrove
Gain Gain
Figure 44: Primeiras & Segundas (Mozambique): Map of mangrove gains (in blue) (1996-2020) Figure 46: Zambezi Delta (Mozambique): Map of mangrove gains (in blue) (1996-2020)
68 69
MANGROVE LOSS
(1996 - 2020)
Mangrove
Extent
2020
Mangrove
Loss
Figure 47: Map of mangrove losses (in red) at Beira (Mozambique) over the period 1996-2020 (net total: -187 ha), illustrating
mangrove loss due to the exposure and shoreline erosion of seaward-facing areas to cyclones and storm surges
MANGROVE GAIN (1996 - 2020) MANGROVE LOSS (1996 - 2020)

Mangrove Mangrove
Mangrove Mangrove
Extent Extent
Gain Loss
2020 2020
Figure 49: Inhambane (Mozambique): Map of mangrove gains (in blue) Figure 50: Inhambane (Mozambique): Map of mangrove losses (in red)
(1996-2020) (1996-2020) (net total: -60 ha)
MANGROVE GAIN
(1996 - 2020)
Mangrove
Extent
2020
Mangrove
Gain
Figure 48: Map of mangrove gains (in blue) at Beira (Mozambique) over the period 1996-2020, with significant gains in the Pungwe
river mouth due to sediment accretion, arising from alluvial deposits potentially from upstream soil erosion
71
human lives (Charrua et al., 2020; Figure 42, 53).

DRIVERS OF CHANGE Losses can be observed on Global Mangrove Watch
The main socio-economic drivers of mangrove loss maps (figure 45, 47). A recent study showed some
in Mozambique are wood extraction for charcoal substantial post-cyclone recovery of mangroves along
production (especially near highly populated areas). sheltered creeks after 14 years but almost no recovery
Other causes include port development, urban at exposed seaward sites (Macamo et al., 2016b).
encroachment, conversion for agriculture, aquaculture Decrease of mangrove cover is especially pronounced
and salt pans, upstream hydropower dams (Zambezi) close to human settlements and near urban centres
and the impact of major cyclones, regular floods and (e.g. Maputo – figure 51), while there is generally
construction of flood control infrastructure (Slobodian no loss or increase in remote areas owing to poor
and Badoz, 2019; Macamo et al., 2021). In the last 25 accessibility (De Boer, 2002; Macamo et al., (2016a).
years, Mozambique was affected by several cyclones Other drivers of mangrove loss in Mozambique are
and associated flooding events, including Cyclone not dissimilar from those in other parts of the world
Nádia (in 1994), Cyclones Hudah, Gloria, Coline and (Goldberg et al., 2020). Population pressure, poverty,
Leon-Eline (in 2000), Cyclone Japhet (in 2003), Cyclone low levels of awareness, and climate change have
fávio (in 2007), Cyclone Jokwe (in 2008), Funso (in exacerbated to the degradation and loss of mangroves
2012) and Cyclones Idai and Kenneth (in 2019), causing across Mozambique (Barbosa et al., 2001; Taylor et al.,
widespread damage to coastal mangroves and loss of 2003; Macamo et al., 2016a).
MANGROVE LOSS (1996 - 2020) MANGROVE GAIN (1996 - 2020)

Mangrove Mangrove
Mangrove Mangrove
Extent Extent
Loss Gain
2020 2020
Figure 51: Maputo Bay (Mozambique): Map of mangrove losses (in red) Figure 52: Maputo Bay (Mozambique): Map of mangrove gains (in blue)
(1996-2020) (net total: 1,125 ha) showing a clear pattern of encroachment (1996-2020), showing clear signs of shoreline accretion
and conversion of mangrove areas from the landward side
Figure 53: Mangrove damage left behind by Cyclone Idai (2019) at the Buzi-Pungwe River mouth (Beira, Mozambique) (Photo Credit: Célia Mocamo,
Universidade Eduardo Mondlane)
72 73
“One of the main

hotspots of blue
carbon storage in
the country is the
Zambezi Delta…”
ABOVE GROUND
BIOMASS (t/Ha)
0
4.3.
100
200
IMPORTANCE OF MANGROVES
300
400
IN STORING (BLUE) CARBON

Figure 54: Primeiras & Segundas (Mozambique): Mangrove above-ground biomass (amounting to a total of 44.5 Mt).
IN MOZAMBIQUE
The total amount of ‘blue’ the sediment (upper 2 m) ranged from 275 to 314 t C
carbon stored in Mozambique’s ha-1, accounting for 45-73% of all carbon stored in the
mangroves is ~305.46 MtCO2e mangroves of the delta (Stringer et al., 2015). Gullström
(Global Mangrove Watch data). et al., (2021) reported a total organic carbon stock of
11-33 t C ha-1 (or 40-121 t CO2-e ha-1) in the sediment
O
ne of the main hotspots of blue carbon storage of mangrove forest sites in Southern Mozambique.
in the country is the Zambezi Delta (figure Assuming a global average carbon sequestration rate
55) with high amounts of above- and below- by mangroves of 6 to 8 t CO2-e ha-1 year-1 (McLeod et
ground mangrove biomass and sediment carbon (see al., 2011; Alongi, 2020) the total mangrove area of
Case Study 3). A recent study by Stringer et al., (2015) Mozambique (295,290 ha) is potentially sequestering
estimated the total amount of carbon stored in the 22 to 39% of the total annual fossil fuel emission of
mangroves (incl. sediment) of the Zambezi Delta to Mozambique, which is in the order of 6 to 8 million t
be in the order of 14.3 Mt C. Total carbon stocks in CO2 year-1 (Global Carbon Project, 2021).
Figure 55: Zambezi Delta (Mozambique): Mangrove above-ground biomass (amounting to a total of 62.9 Mt).
74 75
ABOVE GROUND BIOMASS (t/Ha) ABOVE GROUND BIOMASS (t/Ha)

0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300
Figure 56: Beira (Mozambique): Mangrove above-ground biomass (amounting to a total of 8.6 Mt). Figure 57: Inhambane (Mozambique): Mangrove above-ground biomass Figure 58: Maputo Bay (Mozambique): Mangrove above-ground biomass
Note this is above ground biomass and does not include below ground carbon values (amounting to a total of 601,594 t ). Note this is above ground biomass and (amounting to a total of 5.2 Mt ). Note this is above ground biomass and
does not include below ground carbon values does not include below ground carbon values
76 77
The score is an
index from 1 –
100 where low
scores indicate
low probability
of restoration
success and
highscores
indicate likely
restoration
success
4.4. MANGROVE
RESTORATION POTENTIAL
IN MOZAMBIQUE
Mozambique has a high mangrove Urban areas with high rate of mangrove deforestation
restoration potential with 25,899 (e.g. Maputo, Beira, Nacala-a-Velha) have been
ha available for restoration (Global suggested as priority areas for mangrove reforestation
Mangrove Watch data; Figure 59), (Barbosa et al., 2001). A mangrove area of 26.3 ha
which would restore valuable in the Limpopo estuary degraded by the 2000 floods
MANGROVE
ecosystem services and contribute was successfully rehabilitated through hydrological
RESTORATION
restoration and community participation between 2000
to poverty reduction and climate POTENTIAL
and 2013 (Macamo et al., 2016a). Other mangrove
change adaptation. 0 - 59
restoration initiatives are ongoing at Quelimane
M
District in Zambezia (https://ecologi.com/ projects/ 59 - 66
angrove restoration may also offer
reforestation-projects-in-mozambique), Chinde 66 - 77
opportunities to secure economic
District (https://www.blueforestsolutions.org/ 77 - 84
benefits through carbon credit schemes
mozambique) and sites around Maputo (https://
(e.g. REDD+ initiatives). 84 - 100
getoffset.io/mangroves-mozambique/).
The country has designed a national strategy for
mangrove restoration which seeks to restore an initial
5,000 hectares of mangrove forest by the year 2022. Figure 59: Mozambique: mangrove restoration potential map (available area: 25,899 ha)
78 79
4.5. KEY MESSAGES FOR POLICY & CALL FOR ACTION IN MOZAMBIQUE
CURRENT There is need for the Government of Call to Action:
MANAGEMENT
Mozambique to:
• Community based natural resources
• Adopt and implement the National Strategy and management committees and provincial /
AND THE WAY

Action Plan for Mangrove Forest Management district government, in collaboration with other
stakeholders (e.g. the mangrove platform) to
• Integrate gender, especially the role of women,
develop, resource and implement a plan for
as well as youth into mangrove decision making,
FORWARD
the rehabilitation of all restorable mangroves
management and benefit sharing
in Mozambique (for which there are ~25,000
• Implement co-management arrangements such ha available), following Ecological Mangrove
as Joint Forest Management and Community- Restoration principles and guided by the
Based Forest Management approaches in restoration potential map for selection of
MANAGEMENT APPROACH AND policy failure, weak or dysfunctional state institutions,
mangrove forests future restoration sites
ONGOING CONSERVATION EFFORTS and a lack of participatory awareness and self-
commitment have been suggested as culprits behind • Integrate the use of risk screening tools such • Manage local use of mangrove products such
The management of mangroves in the country falls
the ongoing decline and deterioration of mangrove as Strategic Environmental Assessments, as poles, wood, bark (etc), towards a more
under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Land, Forest
resources in Mozambique (Macamo et al., 2016a,b). Environmental Impact Assessments and Audits, sustainable utilisation of these mangrove
and Rural Development (MITADER). Forests within
as well as monitoring for proposed and ongoing resources and equitable sharing of benefits
municipalities are managed by the respective municipal
MANGROVE AREAS OF PARTICULAR developments in the mangrove ecosystems
council. Community Councils for Fisheries (CCPs) who • Explore international REDD+ and other ‘blue
INTEREST FOR CONSERVATION to mitigate potential negative environmental
are instrumental in the designation of fishing grounds carbon’ opportunities for mangrove restoration
impacts and propagate approaches that seek
and their management within local communities, often Some 100,000 ha (34%) of Mozambique’s mangroves and conservation (see: IUCN and WWF, 2016)
to achieve an overall net positive environmental
include mangrove habitats within their boundaries are within (7) protected areas (Macamo et al., 2016),
outcome
(Macamo et al., 2016a). Mangroves in Mozambique including the Quirimbas National Park & Biosphere
are protected by law from commercial exploitation, Reserve (Cabo Delgado), Bazaruto Archipelago National • Include mangrove ecosystems in the
pollution, degradation and land conversion, but this Park (Inhambane), Vilanculos Coastal Wildlife Sanctuary Nationally Determined Contributions under
legal protection is often difficult to enforce effectively, (San Sebastian), Pomene Reserve (Inhambane), the Paris Agreement
considering the large extension and remoteness Marromeu Game Reserve (Zambezi floodplain &
of many mangrove areas, lack of resources and delta), and the more recently established Ponta de
awareness (Macamo et al., 2016a). At the national Ouro Partial Marine Reserve (incorporating Inhaca
level, a mangrove management forum oversees Island and Maputo Bay) and Primeiras & Segundas
mangrove management in the country and a National Environmental Protection Area (Macamo et al., 2016a).
Strategy and Action Plan for Mangroves Management According to a recent analysis by Gullström et al.,
in Mozambique has been prepared that advocates for (2021), however, several of the key mangrove blue
the conservation and restoration of mangrove forests carbon sink hotspots in Mozambique are currently
to maintain the ecological processes and functions of outside the boundaries of existing protected areas.
mangrove ecosystems (Macamo et al., 2016a). Poor Also, the effectiveness of the protection is sometimes
cross-sectoral coordination (overlapping mandates), weak (especially in remote areas).
80 81
CASE
STUDY
BLUE CARBON about 28% of the total mangrove area of the country
occur in the Zambezi delta, and 50% of fishing captures
come from Sofala Bank. There is occurrence of several
10%, some 196 hectares per year (Shapiro et al., 2015).
Eight true mangrove species are found here: Avicennia
marina, Bruguiera gymnorhiza, Ceriops tagal, Heritiera
STOCKS, ECOSYSTEM
charismatic species of fauna, such as humpback littoralis, Lumnitzera racemosa, Rhizophora mucronata,
and minke whales, as well as bottlenose, humpback Sonneratia alba, Xylocarpus granatum, X. moluccensis,
and rough-toothed dolphin, marine turtles and the with mean height between 7 and 13 m (Trettin et al.,
Zambezi shark. The large-tooth sawfish (Pristis pristis) 2016). Species wise, R. mucronata, H. littoralis and B.
SERVICES AND
which was abundant some 150 years ago, as reported gymnorhiza are the tallest species (Trettin et al., 2016).
by the explorer David Livingstone, is now a Critically Estimates indicate that these mangroves store large
Endangered species. The Delta is also an important amounts of carbon, which vary between 110.7 and
habitat for several species of bird, including migratory, 482.6 Mg ha-1 (Stringer et al., 2015; Trettin et
MANGROVE
endemic and protected species. al., 2016).
Most of the ecological information that has been The mangroves of the delta provide several ecological
produced about the delta was collected from the delta and socio-economic goods and services, and a
sensu strictum (i.e. between Chinde and Marromeu conservative dollar value of USD 2,400 per hectare per
GOVERNANCE IN THE
Reserve). The mangrove extent in this area was year was stablished (Machava-António et al., 2020).
estimated in 37,034 ha in 2013, with a yearly increase Such a monetary accounting can be used to inform
ZAMBEZI DELTA
(Salomão Bandeira & Célia Macamo, outstanding ecological features, including the extensive
Eduardo Mondlane University, and highly productive mangrove forests which can
Department of Biological Sciences, grow up to 50 km inland and spans 200 km along the
Maputo, Mozambique). coast. This high productivity is due to, among other
factors, the complex river system with more than
The Zambezi Delta is a beacon of mangrove wealth 20 streams (some part of the proper delta) that
in Mozambique and indeed the entire eastern Africa. discharge large amounts of water into this section
The Delta is part of an important EBSA (Ecologically of the coast. Therefore, the Delta supports the most
or Biologically Marine Significant Area) site names productive fishing ground of the country (the Sofala
Quelimane to Zuni River Bank), and one of the most productive fishing grounds
(https://www.cbd.int/ebsa/), due to several of the Western Indian Ocean – estimates indicate that Figure 60: Dense stand of Sonneratia alba in the Zambezi delta (Photo: S. Bandeira)
82 83
CASE STUDY STATUS OF MANGROVES IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION 4. MOZAMBIQUE
decision making on mangrove management and to “Mangroves

improve the performance of the value chain and the
provide habitat
wellbeing of local communities. Mangroves provide
habitat for several fauna species, including those of for several fauna
economic importance such as the penaeid shrimps
species…”
and several species of fish. However, recent figures
indicate a steady decrease in fish captures, due to
overfishing and changes in environmental conditions
of the delta. The mangroves of the delta also protect
the coastline against erosion and provide climate
regulation services through carbon sequestration.
Wood, charcoal, honey, fish, and other mangrove
products are extracted from the delta, comprising an
town. Quelimane is a reminder of mixed results out of
important source of livelihood for local communities.
the delta but in February 2022 Mozambique and Blue
While Zambezi delta mangroves is the largest in carbon Forest (UAE-based mangrove restoration specialist)
sequestration, there is a need to adopt sustainable blue launched Africa´s largest mangrove restoration project
carbon approaches to support mangrove conservation to plant up to 100 million mangrove plants is central
as it is evident that they do provide significant profits Mozambique (Sofala and Zambezia provinces), that
to several sectors of the national economy such as the can reach 200,000 tons of CO2 carbon offset annually.
Zambezi delta carbon footprint into Sofala bank. While it is questionable how such initiative reached to a
target of 185 000 hectares (nearly half of Mozambique
Mangrove overexploitation occurs mainly around and
mangroves), such initiative has to follow best practice
in the vicinity of Quelimane, at the northern Zambezi
including continue search of alternative livelihoods for
delta arm at the Bons Sinais Estuary, were urban
the poor coastal communities.
expansion, salt pans and wood exploitation have
resulted in severe erosion and loss of several hectares Additional governance issues: deforestation of the
of mangroves, prompting restoration initiatives in recent northern outer delta and mostly the abandoned
years. Southwards, at Chinde town, changes in the Delta aquaculture pond (over 500 ha), seating at the fast-
hydrology (exacerbated by the high tides that can moving 7 meters tidal river Rio-dos-Bons-Sinais has
reach 7 meters of amplitude) pose a challenge to this apparently continuously increased creaks build-up and
mangrove vegetation into town suburbs. This, similar
to sea level rise event, has complicating and destroyed
existing roads and bridges infrastructures, challenging
Quelimane. Engagement for intervention and informed
science is needed. Governance is key to secure Zambezi
Delta mangrove sanctuary!
84 85
STATUS OF MANGROVES IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION 5. Madagscar
MANGROVES IN
MADAGASCAR
Madagascar’s mangroves sustain Madagascar lost 8,526 ha of
the livelihoods of >2 million its mangroves between 1996
people in coastal areas. and 2016, but gained 1,449 ha
since 2016.
Madagascar’s mangroves store

There is currently 8,039 ha
41 to 74% of the country’s total
mangroves available for
fossil fuel CO2 emissions each year,
restoration.
which are in the order of 3 to 4
million t CO2e year-1, with a total of
~303 Mt CO2e currently stored in
277,567 ha
Amount of mangroves
remaining in Madagascar 5.1. THE
STATE OF
98% MANGROVES IN
located along the west coast MADAGASCAR
Madagascar is home to the second
US$530 mil
largest extent of mangroves in the
mangroves and about 37% of the
Contribution per year made to mangroves in the WIO region (and
Madagascar’s economy by Mangroves 2% of all mangroves in the world).
87
STATUS OF MANGROVES IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION 5. Madagascar
A
ccording to the present analysis, the current The largest systems are found at Mahajamba Bay and
extent (in 2020) of mangroves in Madagascar Ambaro-Ambanja Bays with stands of over 20,000 ha.
is 277,567 ha (Figure 62). The east coast only has about 4,260 ha of mangroves
found in several smaller, localised but densely vegetated
The vast majority (98%) of these mangroves (273,307
sites (Rakotomavo, 2018).
ha) are situated along the west coast of the country,
with major formations in the estuaries of major rivers These mangroves provide a range of critically important
such as the Mahavavy du Nord, Narindra (Loza), goods and services to the people of Madagascar,
Mahajamba Betsiboka (Figure 66, 67), Bombetoka, contributing MGA2.1 trillion (equivalent of US$530
Mahavavy du Sud, Besalampy, Maintirano, Tsiribihina million) per year to the national economy and
and Mangoky (Ratsimbazafy et al., 2016). supporting the local subsistence livelihood of
>2 million people (Anonymous, 2021; Rabemananjara
et al., 2021).
Madagascar’s mangroves are critically important to

the commercial fishing industry and traditional fishers
(Figure 61), providing spawning grounds for shrimp
and fish (Rasolofo, 1997). In 2014, Madagascar’s prawn
trawling industry exported US$25 million worth of
trawled shrimps, which highly depend on mangroves
(WWF, 2015). These coastal forests also protect the
country as a first line of defence from tropical storms,
coastal flooding and shoreline erosion.
The mangroves of Madagascar are also home to a

unique biodiversity of associated animal species.
Several endemic and (critically) endangered bird
species are found in the coastal mangroves of western
Madagascar, including the Madagascar heron (Ardea
humbloti), Madagascar teal (Anas bernieri), Madagascar
plover (Charadrius thoracicus), Madagascar fish eagle
(Haliaeetus vociferoides) and Madagascar kingfisher
(Alcedo vintsioides) (Ratsimbazafy et al., 2016). MANGROVE
EXTENT
Recent research found that at least 23 species of lemur
in Madagascar use mangrove habitat (regularly or at
least occasionally) and suggest that over half of all Areas of interest
lemur species have mangroves within their ranges
(Gardner, 2016).
Extent 2020
Figure 61: Local fisherman mending his nets in the mangroves at Maintirano,
Madagascar (Photo Credit: WWF-Madagascar) Figure 62: Map showing the extent of mangroves in Madagascar in 2020
88 89
5.2.
RECENT LOSSES AND
GAINS OF MANGROVES
IN MADAGASCAR
QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF RECENT 20 years (Figure 63). This was followed by a gain of
LOSSES AND GAINS (1996-2020) approximately 1,449 ha between 2016 and 2020 owing
to successful restoration and conservation programs
Madagascar’s mangrove ecosystems provide a range
as well as natural regrowth/expansion. These figures
of provisioning ecosystem services to adjacent human
lie within the range of previously published values (Giri
populations (Rasolofo, 1997) and are thus heavily
& Muhlhausen, 2008; Gardner, 2016; Shapiro et al.,
exploited throughout the country. Their management
2019), but are significantly less than Jones et al., (2016)
is hampered by a complex legal framework, and they
who estimated a loss of 57,349 ha between 1990 and
are poorly represented in the country’s protected
2010 based on Landsat data. There is limited reliable
area system (Rabemananjara et al., 2021). As
historic information on the original extent of mangroves
a consequence, the total area of mangroves in
in Madagascar (prior to 1996), but available information
Madagascar decreased from 284,644 ha in 1996
suggests this may have been in the order of 330,000 to
to 276,118 ha in 2016, representing an overall net
340,000 ha (Ranaivoson, 1998; Taylor et al., 2003).
loss of 8,526 ha9 (2,3% of total) over a period of
Mangrove Mangrove
Mangrove Mangrove
285,000 284,644
Extent Extent
Loss Gain
2020 2020
284,000
283,000
282,000
Figure 64: Ambaro Bay (Madagascar): Map of mangrove losses (in red) Figure 65: Ambaro Bay (Madagascar): Map of mangrove gains (in blue)
281,000
(1996-2020) (net total: -207 ha) (1996-2020)
280,000
AREA (HA)
278,987
279,000
277,400 277,221 277,989
278,000
276,773
277,000
277,567
277,393
276,000 276,998
276,292
276,118
275,000
1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021
9. Close-up inspection of satellite imagery of Manambolo in Madagascar suggests that an additional loss of 2,000 ha of ‘hinterland’ mangrove
YEAR
vegetation occurred in the transitional zone towards terrestrial (inland) areas over this period, but this was not classified as ‘mangrove loss’ by
the Global Mangrove Watch algorithm. This mangrove loss value combines Global Mangrove Watch data with data from Shapiro et al., (2019).
Figure 63: Recent trends in mangrove extent in Madagascar (1996-2020)
90 91
SUPPORTING DIAGRAMS STATUS OF MANGROVES IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION 5. Madagascar
MANGROVE LOSS (1996 - 2020) MANGROVE GAIN (1996 - 2020) MANGROVE LOSS (1996 - 2020) MANGROVE GAIN (1996 - 2020)
Extent Extent Extent Extent
Loss Gain Loss Gain
2020 2020 2020 2020
Figure 66: Mahajamba (Madagascar): Map of mangrove losses (in red) Figure 67: Mahajamba (Madagascar): Map of mangrove gains (in blue) (1996- Figure 68: Tambohorano (Madagascar): Map of mangrove losses (in red) (1996- Figure 69: Tambohorano (Madagascar): Map of mangrove gains (in blue) (1996-
(1996-2020) showing significant losses in the central area due to the 700 2020), showing distinct patterns of accretion, arising from alluvial deposits 2020) (net total: -634 ha) 2020), showing significant accretion at the delta front of the Manambaho River,
ha Mahajamba Shrimp Farm development (see: Le Groumelec et al., 2008). potentially from upstream soil erosion arising from alluvial deposits potentially from upstream soil erosion
However, owing to significant mangrove gains elsewhere in this Bay
(see Figure 68), the overall net total loss in this sub-region was only -13 ha
92 93
al., 2016). Small-scale harvesting of mangrove

DRIVERS OF CHANGE wood is important for local livelihoods, but it can
The primary drivers responsible for the loss of impact forest composition and structure and (if not
mangroves in Madagascar over the past decades include controlled) cause widespread loss of vegetation
non-productive conversion through unsustainable wood (Scales and Friess, 2021). Other drivers of mangrove
collection for charcoal production, timber and firewood loss in Madagascar are not dissimilar from those
(including for smoking of fish), and land clearance for in other parts of the world (Goldberg et al., 2020)
agriculture and aquaculture (Giri and Muhlhausen, and include encroachment of human settlements,
2008; Le Groumellec et al., 2008; Shapiro et al., 2019) coastal sedimentation due to upstream deforestation,
(see Case Study 4). The wood energy requirement in migration and increased population growth,
main coastal urban centres such as Nosy-Be, Mahajanga exacerbated by climate change, natural disasters
and Morondava is estimated to be approximately (e.g. cyclones, droughts) and poverty (Clausen et
2.5 million m3 year to which mangroves contribute
-1 al., 2010; Shapiro et al., 2019; Rabemananjara et
approximately 8% (Rasolofo, 1997; Rabemananjara al., 2021). Weak law enforcement of existing forest
et al., 2021). management laws and regulations further contributes
to the degradation and loss of mangroves across
In the coastal cities of Hell Ville and Ambanja, 73%
Madagascar (Rabemananjara et al., 2021).
and 60% of the charcoal demand is derived from
mangrove wood respectively (Ratsimbazafy et

Mangrove Mangrove
Mangrove Mangrove
Extent Extent
Loss Gain
2020 2020
Figure 70: Manambolo (Madagascar): Map of mangrove losses (in red) Figure 71: Manambolo (Madagascar): Map of mangrove gains (in blue)
(1996-2020) (net total: -3,137 ha10) (1996-2020)
10. Global Mangrove Watch underestimated the mangrove extent loss for the area of interest of Manambolo (Madagascar). This value combines
Global Mangrove Watch data with data from Shapiro et al., (2019).
94 95
5.3.
“The importance
of the mangroves
IMPORTANCE
(especially in NW
Madagascar) for
OF MANGROVES
carbon storage is
increasingly
IN STORING
recognised…”
(BLUE) sediments in the Betsiboka estuary (NW Madagascar)
CARBON IN
were found to contain significant quantities of terrestrial
carbon, trapped by the mangroves in the estuary
(Ralison et al., 2008). The carbon sequestration capacity
MADAGASCAR
of the aboveground biomass of the mangroves along
the east coast have been estimated at more than 5 - 20
t ha-1 year-1 along a South-North gradient, equivalent
to a sequestration potential of 21,300 to 85,200 t year-1
An estimated total of ~303 for the whole eastern coast (Rakotomavo, 2018). These
Mt CO2e is currently stored in values are within the range of previously published
the country’s mangrove biomass values for mangroves globally (Bouillon et al., 2008;
ABOVE GROUND BIOMASS (t/Ha)
and underlying sediment (Global Sanderman et al., 2018).
Mangrove Watch data). Assuming a global average carbon sequestration
0 100 200 300 400
H
rate by mangroves of 6 to 8 t carbon ha-1 year-1, the
otspots of blue carbon include Ambaro Bay
total mangrove area of Madagascar (277,567 ha) is
(Figure 72) and Mahajamba (Figure 73) north-
potentially sequestering 41 to 74% of the total annual
western Madagascar with particularly high Figure 72: Ambaro Bay (Madagascar): Mangrove above-ground biomass Figure 73: Mahajamba (Madagascar): Mangrove above-ground biomass
fossil fuel emission of Madagascar, which is in the (amounting to a total of 65.2 Mt). Note this is above ground biomass and (amounting to a total of 65.9 Mt). Note this is above ground biomass and
amounts of above-ground mangrove biomass. does not include below ground carbon values does not include below ground carbon values
order of 3 to 4 million t CO2 (Global Carbon Project,
Recent total carbon stock estimates for the mangrove 2021). The importance of the mangroves (especially
ecosystem in Ambaro-Ambanja bays varied from 126 to in NW Madagascar) for carbon storage is increasingly
571 t C ha , with an overall mean of 356 t C ha
-1 -1 recognised and their protection may hold significant
(Jones et al., 2015). Estimates suggest that higher potential through REDD+ carbon credit schemes
stature closed-canopy mangroves in southwest (though still in its infancy) and deserves further
Madagascar have total vegetation carbon values as attention (see: Ajonina et al., 2014; Franklin et al., 2014;
high as 147 t C ha and soil organic carbon of 446 t C
-1 Flint et al., 2018; UNDP, 2020).
ha- (Jones et al., 2014; Benson et al., 2017). Mangrove
-1
96 97
5.4. “Further
MANGROVE
large-scale mangrove
rehabilitation efforts
RESTORATION
are recommended
to offset losses…”
POTENTIAL IN
MADAGASCAR
Madagascar has a relatively high of Assassins), Regional Directorate of the Environment,
mangrove restoration potential Ecology and Forests (at Boeny), Eden Reforestation
with at least 8,039 ha available for Projects (at Mahajanga) and WeForest (at Kalomboro).
restoration, evenly spread along Further large-scale mangrove rehabilitation efforts
the west coast (Global Mangrove are recommended to offset losses, set aside areas for
Watch data; Figure 77). blue carbon farming and conservation, and meet the
T
demand for firewood and charcoal production through
he results of our analysis suggest that total
sustainable harvesting (Rabemananjara et al., 2021).
mangrove cover in Madagascar increased by
ABOVE GROUND BIOMASS (t/Ha)
some 3,000 ha since 2015, which is attributed to
0 100 200 300 400 restoration efforts over the past decade.
Substantial mangrove rehabilitation works were

implemented in the Menabe, Melaky and Diana regions
from 2007 to 2017 by sixteen community-based
Figure 74: Tambohorano (Madagascar): Mangrove above-ground biomass Figure 75: Manambolo (Madagascar): Mangrove above-ground biomass
(amounting to a total of 36.9 Mt). Note this is above ground biomass and does (amounting to a total of 10.7 Mt). Note this is above ground biomass and does organisations facilitated by WWF (Figure 76). Other
not include below ground carbon values not include below ground carbon values
previous mangrove restoration efforts include the work
by Honko in collaboration with local community-based
associations (at Bay of Ranobe), Blue Ventures (at Bay
Figure 76: Restored mangroves at Ankazomborona

Ambilobe, Diana (Photo Credit: WWF-Madagascar
98 99
5.5.CURRENT
The score is an
index from 1 –
100 where low
“Management
scores indicate
rights of mangrove
MANAGEMENT
low probability
forests in Madagascar
of restoration
success and
high scores
indicate likely
have been transferred
AND THE WAY

restoration
success
to community-based
organizations…”
FORWARD
MANAGEMENT APPROACH AND
ONGOING CONSERVATION EFFORTS
Mangrove conservation measures in Madagascar were of mangroves in the country. These issues are being
only implemented starting a decade ago (Shapiro et addressed in a National Mangrove Management
al., 2019). Management rights of mangrove forests in Strategy and a Fisheries Management Plan for NW
Madagascar have been transferred to community-based Madagascar that are currently under development.
organisations (CBOs) or Vondron’ Olona Ifotany (VOI) Nevertheless, the decentralised approach to mangrove
(also known as ‘Fokonolona’) under the authority of management in Madagascar represents a strong
the decentralised technical services of the Ministry of empowerment of local communities that depend so
Environment, Ecology, Oceans and Forest (DREEMF). strongly on mangrove resources for their subsistence.
Through the establishment of informal reserve Substantial efforts have been made (facilitated by
committees, local laws and regulations, temporary international NGOs) to strengthen the capacity of the
closures and forest policing systems – with local villagers community-based organisations in decision-making,
conducting patrols to enforce protection of the reserves organisational management, mangrove restoration
– communities are directly involved in the day-to-day techniques, market access and alternative livelihoods,
MANGROVE management, protection and rehabilitation of mangrove as well as advocacy and lobbying to influence decision-
RESTORATION
resources. The effectiveness of this decentralised making processes related to mangroves (Ratsimbazafy
POTENTIAL
approach still varies significantly and can be weak near et al., 2016). For example, WWF has partnered with
0 - 59
urban areas and sites of major economic activity (such local Madagasy communities since 2007 to protect
59 - 66 as rice farming) or encroachment by migrants. and restore the mangroves in the Menabe, Melaky
66 - 77 and Diana regions. A total of 50,000 ha of mangroves
A lack of stakeholder coordination, inconsistent
77 - 84 have been successfully protected and over 2 million
management programs and an absence of clear cross-
84 - 100 new mangrove trees have been planted from 2007 to
sectoral policies or climate-adaptation strategies have
2017 by a dedicated group of sixteen community-based
also been cited as contributing factors (Ratsimbazafi et
organisations (Shapiro et al., 2019).
al., 2016). In addition, there is controversy surrounding
mapping data and statistics on the extent and loss
Figure 77: Madagascar: 2020 mangrove restoration potential map (8,039 ha available)
100 101
MANGROVE AREAS OF PARTICULAR

INTEREST FOR CONSERVATION mouse lemur (the smallest primate species known to
science), Madagascar sacred ibis, Madagascar plover
KEY MESSAGES FOR POLICY & CALL FOR ACTION IN MADAGASCAR
Only 4,6% (12,778 ha) of all mangroves in Madagascar and Madagascar heron. The Mananara Marine National
are currently within protected areas, including the Park and Sahamalaza-Iles Radama UNESCO Biosphere
There is need for the Government of Call to Action:
Biosphere Reserve of Sahamalaza, the Marine Protected Reserve also include significant mangrove habitat. The
Madagascar to:
Area of Nosy Hara (1,500 ha), Ambodivahibe (700 ha), Bay of Assassins is the focus of the Tahiry Honko project • The Ministry of Environment, Ministry of
the National Park of the Baly Bay, the National Park of by Blue Ventures (since 2019). This project involves the • Enhance the governance framework for Fisheries, International NGOs, Locals NGOs,
Kirindy Mitea (Belo sur Mer) and the new Protected Area conservation, reforestation and sustainable use of > mangroves through revision of relevant policies Local CSOs, Local Communities, Private Sector,
of Antrema (Ratsimbazafy et al., 2016). A further 35% 1,200 hectares of mangroves within a locally managed and laws, such as specific decrees related to Research Institutions and Universities to scale
(~98,000 ha) of Madagascar’s mangroves are managed marine area, the Velondriake LMMA. community-based mangrove management up ongoing mangrove restoration efforts in
by community-based organisations in >40 LMMA’s, initiatives, strengthen law enforcement, Madagascar, for which there are some 8,000 ha
Areas that are hotspots of blue carbon storage, such
often with the support of international NGOs such as delegate authority & control, and ensure greater available (evenly distributed along the west
as Ambaro Bay and Mahajamba in north-western
WWF, CI, WCS, Asity, Reef Doctor and Blue Ventures equity in benefit sharing coast); site selection for future restoration
Madagascar deserve protection. There is also a need
(Ratsimbazafy et al., 2016; UNEP, 2021a). Another key efforts could be guided by the restoration
to consider protecting the mangrove areas along the • Harmonise data collection and utilisation on
site for mangrove conservation is the Menabe Antimena potential maps in this report
east coast, which are few and unique and important mangrove extent and losses in Madagascar
Protected Area in western Madagascar, which is a
because of their high capacity for carbon sequestration through agreement by adopting a common • The Ministry of Environment to secure
hotspot for biodiversity, home to many endemic plant
but are under threat from anthropogenic pressures standard methodology for mangrove mapping sustainable financing through carbon credit
and animal species such as the Madame Berthe’s
(Rakotomaco, 2018). and monitoring schemes (e.g. through feasibility pilot studies
NEW COPY TO BEatSUPPLIED
Tsiribihina and Ambaro Bay)
• Strengthen the management capacity of
community-based organisations and reduce
their dependency on external support (e.g.
NGOs) through networking, sharing of
information and experiences, and training
• Enhance protection of sites known to be

hotspots for blue carbon storage (such as
Ambaro Bay and Mahajamba) or of critical
importance for the conservation of unique
biodiversity, whilst recognising that the priority
for Madagascar is the sustainable use of its
mangrove resources through community-based
management
102 103
CASE
STUDY
SOCIO- The current socio-economic context of Madagascar,
characterised by significant rural poverty and rapid
population growth in coastal communities have resulted
degradation in Ambaro Bay. The communities are
pushed to unsustainable use of mangroves. The
proximity of the mangrove sites in the DIANA region
ECONOMIC DRIVERS
in weak enforcement and widespread disregard of the to several large cities means that there is now a strong
laws and regulations that are supposed to regulate the demand for charcoal and timber, especially in the
use of natural resources. This has been particularly felt Ambilobe district. The estimated need for firewood
in the case of mangroves, resulting in the loss of nearly and construction wood for Ambilobe is 571,921
3,487 ha of Ambaro Bay’s mangroves over the past 20 m3 per year, representing 5,680 ha of forests (not
OF MANGROVE LOSS
years, especially in areas where there is no community- only mangroves). Mangrove wood is contributing
based management. about 4.7% for a superficies nearing 284 Ha per year
(representing 1.2% deforestation rate). Another 1,675
Rapid population growth in the northern part of
ha of mangroves have been transformed into rice and
Madagascar (2.3% in the area of Ambaro bay),
IN AMBARO BAY,
crop fields to meet the high demand of Ambilobe and
combined with increasing poverty and immigration
surrounding cities for food.
are the main socio-economic drivers behind mangrove
MADAGASCAR
(Mihary Raparivo, WWF and responsibility to local communities. This seems to
Madagascar) have mitigated trends in mangrove loss in Madagascar
in recent years. Due to the high dependence of coastal
M
adagascar has seen substantial losses of communities on the diverse resources provided by the
mangroves over the past few decades. While mangroves for their daily subsistence, these measures
the precise statistics regarding the extent of aim to control and manage community access and use
these losses vary between different literature sources, of mangrove resources and services in the country.
the fact remains that there has been significant loss
Recently named a RAMSAR SITE, the mangroves of
and degradation of this precious natural resource
Ambaro Bay, DIANA seascape, currently cover an area
across the country.
of 30,064 ha, representing ~10% of the total area of
Several measures were taken in recent years to mangroves in Madagascar. Some 13% of the mangroves
address this rampant loss of mangroves, including at Ambaro Bay consist of very dense mangroves, 30%
restrictions to the cutting of mangroves wood, creation of dense mangroves, 40% of sparse mangroves and
Figure 78: Community involvement in management and rehabilitation of mangrove resources at Maintirano (Photo Credit: WWF Madagascar)
of protected areas and transfer of management power 17% of stunted mangroves (YPA 2019).
105
CASE STUDY STATUS OF MANGROVES IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION 5. Madagascar
“...the government
has shown its re-
Erosion in the highlands of Ambilobe district commitment to the
(COMATSA protected area) is causing silting of
downstream mangrove areas. Rapid expansion of
fight against the
shrimp farming and crab fishing is also a direct factor exploitation of
of mangrove degradation, especially the conversion of
forests into breeding ponds for shrimp farming.
mangroves…”
Given these major threats, the government, with its
branches at all levels, has been struggling to fully
play its role in monitoring, control and regulation of
mangroves and other natural resources. Their limited
means do not allow for sustainable and coordinated Shrimp Zones with the aim to set up regulations related
actions despite the presence of committed partners. to the management of the area to ensure sustainable
This is reflected in the lack of importance awarded to shrimp fishing activities.
mangroves in strategic development documents and
A national strategy for sustainable management of
the weak influence of the government in the market
mangroves is currently being finalised with the support
regulation of fishing products like crabs and shrimps,
of various stakeholders convinced of the importance of
which indirectly impacts the mangroves.
integrated management of mangroves at the economic,
Through multiple projects currently under social and ecological levels. Influenced by this initiative,
implementation for the conservation and protection the government has shown its re-commitment to the
of mangroves, 22,065 ha of mangroves in Ambaro fight against the exploitation of mangroves through
Bay have now been put under community-based the strengthening of Order no. 32100/2014 of 24
management status. These areas are now having October 2014 of the Ministry in charge of forests, which
clear management plans and governance structures prohibits the indiscriminate exploitation of mangroves.
in place to ensure their sustainable conservation for This case study showcases an inclusive approach
the benefits of local communities’ subsistence and to mangrove management in which government
the nature. At least 172 households supported by (enforcing legislation) and community (through
WWF have diversified their source of income through delegated responsibilities) are acting complementary
implementation of resilient income-generating activities to each other in the protection of mangroves.
and innovative partnerships. Prior to the nomination
of Ambaro Bay as a Ramsar Site, the government of
Madagascar had established through a ministerial
decree the two Zones of Ambavanankarana and
Ankazomborona in Ambaro Bay as Biologically Sensitive
106 107
STATUS OF MANGROVES IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION Methodolody
METHODOLOGY 6.1.
elevation and distance from ocean water. Training
for the habitat mask and classification of the 2010
mangrove mask was based on randomly sampling 38
million points using the mangrove masks (for the year
2000) of Giri et al., (2011) and Spalding et al., (2010)
MANGROVE
and the water occurrence layer defined by Pekel et al.,
(2016). The dataset is available for download at
http://data.unep-wcmc.org/datasets/45.
EXTENT AND The Global Mangrove Watch dataset (v2.0) was

published in by Bunting et al., (2018), and covered the
CHANGE
following years: 1996, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2015
and 2016. Subsequently, a further refinement has
been undertaken of this version of the global mapping
dataset to increase mapping quality and completeness
of the mangrove extent (Bunting et al., 2022). Overall
This dataset shows the global
mapping accuracy of the updated version (v2.5)
areal extent of mangrove habitat was estimated to be 95.7% (up from 83.1% for the
(km2) for several years. previous version) based on 50,750 reference points
T
located across 60 globally distributed sites. Overall, the
he (global) dataset was generated by Aberystwyth
GMW baseline v2.5 is now considered to be the most
University and soloEO within the framework of the
complete and best available global map of mangrove
Global Mangrove Watch (GMW) project, which is
extent available to date. GMW v3.0 added for the
part of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency’s (JAXA)
years 2018, 2019, and 2020 based on the GMW v2.5
Kyoto & Carbon Initiative, with the work presented in
2010 baseline. GMW v3.0 also analysed the v2.0 years
this report initiated as part of the Mangrove Capital
producing a more consistent and accuracy timeseries
The data on mangrove extent, change, Africa Programme, which is coordinated by Wetlands
of mangrove change.
restoration potential, blue carbon, and drivers International and financed by DOB Ecology.
of change - as used for this report - are available The extent of mangrove forests was derived by Random
Changes in mangrove extent over time for specific
as global datasets. This data was developed via Forest Classification of a combination of L-band radar
locations were calculated from the mapping data
several initiatives by Wetlands International and (ALOS PALSAR) and optical (Landsat-5, and Landsat-7)
of consecutive time-periods (t1 and t2); with gains
its partner organisations and has been applied satellite data. All data and software that were used to
and losses defined as the increase and decrease in
mangrove extent (ha) between t1 and t2. Net change
here for the areas of interests in the WIO region. derive the GMW mangrove maps are available in the
(ha) for the period t1 – t2 was taken as the sum of gains
public domain. Approximately 15,000 Landsat scenes
and losses.
The methodologies used for the development and 1,500 ALOS PALSAR (1 x 1 degree) mosaic tiles were
of the various data sources (from previous used for the global mapping effort to create optical The maps and statistics on mangrove extent and change
initiatives) are summarised in the sections and radar image composites covering the coastlines for the WIO Region presented in this report were taken
below. The sources of information, such as along the tropical and sub-tropical coastlines in the from this global dataset, and as such essentially offer a
publication on the methods, are referenced and Americas, Africa, Asia and Oceania. The classification more detailed view and analysis of a regional sub-set of
links are provided where available. In section was constrained using a mangrove habitat mask, which the global mangrove watch dataset for the WIO Region.
defined regions where mangrove ecosystems are likely The full published global mangrove dataset (GMW v2.0)
6.5, the application of the data for the areas of
to exist. The mangrove habitat definition was based can be accessed on www.globalmangrovewatch.org. The
interests in the WIO region is described.
on basic geographical parameters such as latitude, updated version (GMW v3.0) will be published in 2022.
108 109
done in 2000 and region-specific allometric models where mangroves were previously present) – to rank
6.2. MANGROVE BLUE CARBON AND 6.4. DRIVERS OF CHANGE
validated using in-situ measurements in field plots the relative suitability for restoration. It also filters
ABOVE GROUND BIOMASS across three continents. This was converted to mean out locations where the technical challenge or cost of The maps on ‘drivers of change’ for the WIO Region,
Two carbon datasets have been used in this report. AGB carbon using the stoichiometric factor of 0.451 restoration may be too high (e.g. sites experiencing as presented in this report, were produced by NASA,
The first is the ‘Mangrove Blue Carbon dataset, in which (Simard et al., 2019; https://daac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/ erosion). The online version of this tool is accessible at: and published as the ‘drivers of change’ dataset which
above and belowground carbon are combined. The dsviewer.pl?ds_id=1665). Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) maps.oceanwealth.org/mangrove-restoration. is based on the work by Goldberg et al., (2020). Using
second is the Above Ground Biomass dataset. This is estimates of the top metre of mangrove soils, based on a Random Forest-based analysis of over one million
The work on the Mangrove Restoration Potential Map
because the Blue Carbon data were not available for the a methodology developed by Sanderman et al., (2018), Landsat images, Goldberg et al., (2020) presented
(MRP Map) began with the utilisation of the latest
level of detail of the areas of interests. were overlaid with 2016 mangrove extent maps from the first 30 m resolution global maps of the drivers
mangrove extent maps, derived by Global Mangrove
Bunting et al., (2018) to produce a global map of soil of mangrove loss from 2000 to 2016, capturing both
The above ground biomass set shows the aboveground Watch (GMW, v2.0), which for the first time provided a
organic carbon at a 30 m spatial resolution. Above- human-driven and natural stressors (see: www.
biomass (AGB) density (Mg ha-1) of mangrove habitat globally consistent picture of mangrove change. These
ground and soil carbon values originally expressed mangrovelossdrivers.app/about for further details).
in a specific location. It is based on the global extent were used to derive maps of mangrove losses, a key
in metric tonnes (megagrams, or Mg) of carbon per
of mangroves for select years from 1996 to 2016 component of determining areas for restoration. The
hectare were converted to total carbon using the 6.5. HOW DATA IS USED IN THIS REPORT
(Bunting et al., (2018)) combined with the canopy same maps, in combination with other remote-sensing
Bunting et al., (2018) mangrove extent for each country
height and allometric relationships of (Simard et al derived indices, were then used to develop a model to In the development of this report, data described above
and converted to Mt CO2e using a conversion factor of
(2019)). They measured AGB and canopy height at map mangrove degradation in remaining mangrove have been analysed, and statistics and maps have been
3.67 (Howard et al., 2014).
331 plots between 26°S and 25°N. They used those areas. The work has generated the Mangrove derived for the WIO region, the four countries, and the
measurements to create global and three regional Restoration Potential Map, which provides a critical tool identified areas of interest. The areal extent (ha), change
6.3. RESTORATION POTENTIAL
allometric models relating AGB to basal area weighted for encouraging restoration and enabling robust, data- between 1996 and 2020, and above ground biomass
height and maximum canopy height. To map AGB across Rapid losses of mangroves over the past 50 years driven policy changes and investments. were calculated for all areas of interest within the
the tropics, they applied the regional allometric models have had negative consequences on the environment, region. Additionally, for each of the four countries and
As part of the development of the Mangrove
to a map of basal area weighted height. The map of climate and humanity through diminished benefits the WIO region as a whole, the areal extent for 1996,
Restoration Potential map, all mangrove areas have
basal area weighted height was derived from ground such as carbon storage, coastal protection and fish 2007, 2010, 2016, 2019, and 2020 were calculated. For
been classified into deltaic, estuarine, lagoonal and
elevation from the Shuttle Radio Topography Mission production. Restoration of mangrove forests is these countries and the region, the blue carbon content
fringing systems and subsequent analyses are based
(SRTM) (2000) and canopy elevation from ICESat/GLAS technically possible and has already been undertaken (Mt CO2e, drivers of change, and restoration potential
on the resulting 6000 typological units. The mangrove
spaceborne lidar (2003–2009). in many settings, but efforts have often failed due to have also been determined. All calculations were done
restoration potential score is an index from 1 – 100
poor site selection. The work on the global mangrove using QGIS software. The blue carbon statistics (which
The Mangrove Blue Carbon data set, in which above where low scores indicate low probability of restoration
restoration potential map describes the findings from include above- and below-ground carbon) were not
and below ground carbon are combined, shows the success and high scores indicate likely restoration
an entirely new effort to locate and map, on a global available on the sub-national level. Therefore, only
amount and density of carbon stored in mangrove success. The scores are given for the typological units in
scale, the places where mangroves can be restored. carbon data for above-ground biomass is presented
biomass and soil. Total values represent the sum of the region.
for those sites in the respective country chapters. Areas
above- and below-ground carbon and soil organic The Mangrove Restoration Potential Map was
For this report, we selected the data from the WIO of interests were selected by the Save Our Mangroves
carbon values representative of the mangrove forest developed by The Nature Conservancy and IUCN,
region to produce relevant maps of the mangrove Now! Team members in each country (Kenya, Tanzania,
environment. Total values are expressed in Megatons in collaboration with the University of Cambridge
restoration potential for selected areas of interest Mozambique, Madagascar). As some data combined in
of carbon dioxide equivalents (Mt CO2e), while mapped (Worthington and Spalding, 2018). It is a unique
within the region. The mangrove restoration potential this report have been generated in different years, there
carbon density values (per-hectare values) are depicted interactive tool designed to explore potential mangrove
value given in the maps in this report present the share is a risk that some of the statistics expressed as share
as metric tonnes of CO2 equivalents per hectare (t CO2e restoration areas world-wide, along with the benefits
of the polygons potentially available for restoration in of total (%) may be slightly off due to mangrove extent
ha-1). Above-ground estimates of mangrove carbon associated with such restoration. The tool combines
(%). The total restoration potential for a country is given losses incurred over the years. For example, this could
were obtained from (Simard et al., 2019; https://doi. geospatial data – on environmental conditions and
in total area (ha). be true for the share of mangrove area protected (in
org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1665). The data were derived boundary configuration of lost mangroves (ensuring
each of the countries), where totals are derived from
from remotely sensed canopy height measurements mangrove restoration potential is only given in areas
different years.
111
110 111
Global Mangrove Watch is the evidence base informing • Global Mangrove Watch uses a range of data types maps and statistics). This makes the total loss in this
6.6. SUPPORTING INFORMATION the Global Mangrove Alliance, a collaboration of (Sentinel 2, Landsat, Radar) which decreases the area 5,374 ha. The additional loss is also included in
Background information to support the data, figures, organisations working to increase the world’s mangrove chance of false positives. When only optical data the total loss of Madagascar and the WIO region as
and maps developed for this publication was derived cover with 20% by 2030. Learn more at is used, seagrass areas at low tide are sometimes a whole
from various sources. Key sources of information www.mangrovealliance.org. erroneously classified as mangrove areas by other
• Madagascar: In the area of interest of Ambaro
included the socio-economic profiles and policy briefs datasets
Bay (figure 64, 65), Global Mangrove Watch found a
developed as part of the SOMN! Initiative for each of the 6.8. GLOBAL MANGROVE WATCH COMPARED
• On the other hand, when using radar data, Global total loss of 207 ha. Close-up inspection of satellite
four selected WIO countries. All references are included TO OTHER DATASETS
Mangrove Watch sometimes erroneously classifies imagery of the northwest of Madagascar suggests
in the reference list.
It is widely known that estimates of mangrove extent rice fields as mangrove areas that an additional loss of ‘hinterland’ mangrove
can vary between different data sources. Datasets vegetation may have occurred in the transitional
6.7. VALUE AND USE OF THE GLOBAL • Since Global Mangrove Watch is a global dataset,
from other studies have been compared to the zone towards terrestrial (inland) areas over this
MANGROVE WATCH DATASET specific mangrove areas are sometimes missed.
datasets used in this report. Some other datasets period, but this was not classified as ‘mangrove loss’
However, this is not the case in the WIO region,
Global Mangrove Watch (GMW: found significantly different values for mangrove by the Global Mangrove Watch algorithm and not
since the data have been manually verified
www.globalmangrovewatch.org) is an online platform extent and change. For example, in Madagascar included in the analysis of this report, thus potentially
that provides the mangrove remote sensing data and previous estimates of mangrove extent for a similar • The Global Mangrove Watch dataset provides data underestimating total loss’. However, in the seaward
monitoring tools necessary for this. It gives universal timeframe ranged from 213,000 ha (Gardner, 2016; from 1996 onwards. Any losses that might have zone of this area, Other data sources missed large
access to near real-time information on where and Rakotomavo, 2018) to 340,400 ha (Taylor et al., 2003). occurred before that, will not show as losses in areas of mangrove gain. Therefore, in order to obtain
what changes there are to mangroves across the Global Mangrove Watch found 276.000 ha. This is in our analysis true mangrove extent and loss values, detailed
world and highlights why they are valuable. With line with Giri and Muhlhausen (2008). analysis should be conducted. In this report, Global
In a few instances, Global Mangrove Watch data
high-resolution information on topography, soil Mangrove Watch values have been maintained
Aside from variations in mangrove extent, different erroneously missed certain areas of loss. Where
conditions and hydrology, GMW gives coastal and
datasets also give different values for mangrove this occurred, it is described in the relevant country There is an urgent need for one coherent dataset. With
park managers, conservationists, policy makers and
extent change over time. Taking the example of chapters. This occurred in the following areas: its wider range of input data, the Global Mangrove
practitioners the evidence needed to respond to illegal
Madagascar: some datasets (e.g. Jones et al., 2016) Watch is most likely to be more accurate than most
logging, pinpoint the causes of local mangrove loss • Madagascar: In the area of interests of Manambolo
report a loss of over 50,000 ha of mangroves lost other datasets, as it takes into account lower- and
and track restoration progress. It is a tool that can help (figure 70), Global Mangrove Watch found a total loss
between 1990 and 2010, while Global Mangrove more sparsely distributed mangroves. For regional and
mangroves be central to climate mitigation, adaptation of 1,137 ha. Detailed analysis showed that Shapiro et
Watch found a loss between 1996 and 2020 of 6,452 national mangrove extent and change maps, Global
and sustainable development plans and policies. GMW al., (2019) in this case came closer to the true value of
ha. This is in line with Giri and Muhlhausen (2008). To Mangrove Watch extent maps seem to come closest to
was established in 2011 under the Japan Aerospace mangrove loss. Therefore, the loss indicated in this
verify the quality and understand the differences, the the reality. However, local mapping datasets sometimes
Exploration Agency’s (JAXA) Kyoto & Carbon Initiative publication has been included in this report (both the
varying datasets have been compared. The differences better reflect details, especially when substantial
by Aberystwyth University, solo Earth Observation and maps and statistics). This makes the total loss in this
between different datasets can be explained by ground-truthing was part of the methodology.
the International Water Management Institute, with area 3,137 ha. The additional loss is also included in
several factors:
the aim to provide open access geospatial information the total loss of Madagascar and the WIO region as a The Global Mangrove Watch dataset continues to be
about mangrove extent and changes to the Ramsar • Global Mangrove Watch is more sensitive than whole improved. To do so, local ground-truthing data are
Convention on Wetlands. In collaboration with Wetlands most other datasets, which allows it to find the vital. In future versions of the Global Mangrove Watch
• Tanzania: In the Rufiji-Mafia-Kilwa seascape, and
International and with support from DOB Ecology, the lower classes of mangroves datasets, the corrections can be incorporated and
more specifically the Rufiji Delta (figure 28), the
first GMW baseline maps were released in 2018 at the uploaded onto the Global Mangrove Watch Platform.
• Some datasets do not classify areas of sparse Global Mangrove Watch dataset found a total loss of
Ramsar COP13. The GMW maps also constitute the
mangrove growth as mangrove habitat, while 1,674 ha. Detailed analysis showed that Lagomasino
official mangrove datasets used by UNEP for reporting
Global Mangrove Watch does. This sometimes et al., (2017) in this case came closer to the true value
on Sustainable Development Goal 6.6.1 (change in
leads to a higher estimate of extent compared of mangrove loss. Therefore, the loss indicated in this
the extent of water-related ecosystems over time).
to other datasets publication has been included in this report (both the
112 113
STATUS OF MANGROVES IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION Acknowledements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following people are acknowledged

for their contribution of data, information,
The following people are thanked for
their peer review of this report:
photographs, input and support for Anete Berzina Rodrigo (IUCN), Pete Bunting
this report: (Aberystwyth University), Arin de Hoog (Wetlands
Pieter van Eijk (Wetlands International; oversight International), Dorothee Herr (IUCN), Marice Leal
and supervision), George Maina (TNC-Kenya), Lilian (The Nature Conservancy), Kate Longley-Wood
Nyaega (Wetlands International-Eastern Africa), (The Nature Conservancy), Modesta Medard
Titus Wamae (Wetlands International-Eastern (WWF-Tanzania), Peter Manyara (IUCN), Thomas
Africa), Asma Awadh (WWF-Kenya), Irene Mwaura Sberna (IUCN), Anouk Neuhaus (WWF-Germany),
(WWF-Kenya), Kipkorir Sigi Langat (KMFRI), Siro Lilian Nyaega (WI-Eastern Africa), Francis Okalo
Abdallah (WWF Kenya), Maafaka Ravelona (WWF- Akatsa (IUCN-Kenya), Harifidy Olivier Ralison
Madagascar), Dannick Radriamanatena (WWF- (WWF-Madagascar), Laura Puk (WWF-Germany),
Madagascar), Mihary Raparivo (WWF-Madagascar), Isabel Ramos (IUCN-Mozambique), Dannick
and Isabel Ramos (IUCN-Mozambique) Randriamanatena (WWF-Madagascar), Maafaka
Ravelona (WWF-Madagascar), Susanna Tol
(Wetlands International), Julika Tribukait (WWF-
Germany), Pieter van Eijk (WI-Global Office) and
Titus Wamae (WI-Eastern Africa).
The German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, DOB Ecology and the Swedish
International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) are thanked for their financial support for this work.
Figure 79: Young fisherman sorting out his daily catch from the mangroves in the Rufiji Delta, Tanzania (Photo Credit: Elizabeth Wamba, Wetlands International)
114 115
STATUS OF MANGROVES IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION References
REFERENCES Abdallah, A.M., 2004. Management of the commercial

prawn fishery in Tanzania. UNU-Fisheries Training
Programme, Final Project 2004, 46 pp.
https://www.mangrovealliance.org/wp-content/
uploads/2021/11/SOMN-White-Paper-4Nov21.pdf
Barbosa, F.M.A., C.C. Cuambe and S.O. Bandeira, 2001.

Abila, R., 2010. Economic evaluation of the prawn Status and distribution of mangroves in Mozambique.
fisheries of the Malindi-Ungwana Bay along Kenya’s South African Journal of Botany 67: 393-398.
coast. Final Report submitted to Kenya Fisheries
Beentje, H.J. and S. Bandeira, 2007. Field Guide to
Department, February 2010, 67 pp.
the Mangrove Trees of Africa and Madagascar. Royal
Abuodha, P.A.W. and J.G. Kairo, 2001. Human-induced Botanic Gardens, Kew. ISBN 9781842461358.
stresses on mangrove swamps along the Kenyan Coast.
Beilfuss, R.D., 2015. The Zambezi Delta (Mozambique).
Hydrobiologia 458: 255-256.
Chapter in: C.M. Finlayson et al. (eds.), The Wetland
Ajonina, G., J.G. Kairo, G. Grimsditch, T. Sembres, G. Book, Springer Science, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-6173-
Chuyong, D.E. Mibog, A. Nyambane and C. FitzGerald, 5_195-2.
2014. Carbon pools and multiple benefits of mangroves
Benson, L., L. Glass, T.G. Jones, L.
in Central Africa: Assessment for REDD+. 72pp.
Ravaoarinorotsihoarana and C. Rakotomahazo, 2017.
(Downloaded from https://stg-wedocs.unep.org/
Mangrove carbon stocks and ecosystem cover dynamics
handle/20.500.11822/32816).
in Southwest Madagascar and the implications for
Akili, J.M. and N.S. Jiddawi, 2001. A preliminary local management. Forests 2017, 8, 190; doi:10.3390/
observation of the flora and fauna of Jozani/ Pete f8060190.
mangrove creek, Zanzibar, Tanzania. In: Richmond MD
Bosire, J.O., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Kairo, J.G., Koedam,
and Francis J (eds). Marine Science Development in
N., 2003. Colonization of non-planted mangrove species
Tanzania and Eastern Africa. Proceedings of the 20th
into restored mangrove stands in Gazi Bay, Kenya.
Anniversary Conference in Marine Sciences in Tanzania.
Aquatic Botany 76: 267-279.
IMS, WIOMSA, pp 343-357.
Bosire, J.O., J.J. Kaino, O.A. Olagoke, L.M. Mwihaki, G.M.
Alavaisha, E. and M.M. Mangora, 2016. Carbon stocks in
Ogendi. J.G. Kairo, U. Berger and D. Macharia, 2014.
the small estuarine mangroves of Geza and Mtimbwani,
Mangroves in peril: unprecedented degradation rates
Tanga, Tanzania. International Journal of Forestry
of peri-urban mangroves in Kenya. Biogeosciences 11:
Research (Hindawi), Volume 2016, Article ID 2068283, 11
2623-2634.
pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/2068283
Bosire J.O., Mangora M.M., Bandeira S., Rajkaran A.,
Alongi, D.M., 2014. Carbon cycling and storage in
Ratsimbazafy R., Appadoo C., Kairo J. G. (eds.). 2016a.
mangrove forests. Annual Reviews in Marine Science 6
Mangroves of the Western Indian Ocean: Status and
(2014): 195-219.
Management. WIOMSA, Zanzibar Town, 161 pp.
Alongi, D.M., 2020. Global significance of mangrove blue
Bosire, J.O., J.K.S. Lang’at, B. Kirui, J.G. Kairo, L.M. Mugi
carbon in climate change mitigation. Science 2020, 2, 67;
and A.J. Hamza, 2016b. Mangroves of Kenya. Chapter
doi:10.3390/sci2030067
2 in: Bosire J.O. et al. (eds.), Mangroves of the Western
Anonymous, 2021. Roots of hope: the socio-economic Indian Ocean: Status and Management. WIOMSA,
value of mangroves in the Western Indian Ocean region. Zanzibar Town, pp. 15-30.
Global Mangrove Alliance, 13 pp.
116 117
Bouillon, S., A.V. Borges, E. Castañeda-Moya, K. Dahdouh-Guebas, F., C. Mathenge, J.G. Kairo & N. FAO, 2007b. Fishery Country Profile – The Republic of earth observation satellite data. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 20:
Diele, T. Dittmar, N.C. Duke, E. Kristensen, S.Y. Lee, Koedam, 2000. Utilization of mangrove wood products Mozambique. Food and Agriculture Organization of the 154–159.
C. Marchand, J.J. Middelburg, V.H. Rivera-Monroy, T.J. around Mida Creek (Kenya) amongst subsistence and United Nations, FID/CP/MOZ, September 2007, 17 pp.
Global Carbon Project, 2021. Supplemental data of
Smith and R.R. Twilley, 2008. Mangrove production and commercial users. Economic Botany 54(4): 513-527.
Fatoyinbo, T. and M. Simard, 2013. Height and biomass Global Carbon Project 2021 (1.0) [Data set]. Global
carbon sinks: a revision of global budget estimates.
De Boer, W.F., 2002. The rise and fall of the mangrove of mangroves in Africa from ICESat/GLAS and SRTM. Carbon Project. https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2021.
Global Biogeochemical Cycles 22:GB2013. https://doi.
forests in Maputo Bay, Mozambique. Wetlands Ecology International Journal of Remote Sensing 34 (2): 668-681.
org/10.1029/2007GB003052. GoK, 2017. National Mangrove Ecosystem Management
and Management 189: 313-322.
Ferreira, M.A., F. Andrade, S.O. Bandeira, P. Cardoso, Plan. Kenya Forest Service, Nairobi, Kenya. American
Bunting, P., Rosenqvist, A., Lucas, R., Rebelo, L.M.,
Donato, D.C., J.B. Kauffman, D. Murdiyarso, S. Kurnianto, M.R. Nogueira and J. Paula, 2009. Analysis of cover Journal of Transplantation 18(1):115.
Hilarides, L., Thomas, N., Hardy, A., Itoh, T., Shimada, M.;
M. Stidham, M. Kanninen, 2011. Mangroves among change (1995-2005) of Tanzania/Mozambique trans-
Finlayson, C. The Global Mangrove Watch - A new 2010 Goldberg, L., D. Lagomasino, N. Thomas and T.
the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. National boundary mangroves using Landsat imagery. Aquatic
global baseline of mangrove extent. Remote Sensing Fatoyinbo, 2020. Global declines in human-driven
Geosciences 4 (2011): 293-297. Conservation 19: 38-45.
2018, 10, 1669. mangrove loss. Global Change Biology 26: 5844-5855.
Doody, K. and O. Hamerlynck, 2003. Biodiversity of Rufiji Flint, R., D. Herr, F. Vorhies and J.R. Smith, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15275.
Bunting, P., A. Rosenqvist, L. Hilarides, R.M. Lucas and N.
District – A Summary. Rufiji Environment Management Increasing success and effectiveness of mangrove
Thomas, 2022. Global Mangrove Watch: Updated 2010 Gordon, I. and K. Maes, 2003. Die-back in Sonneratia
Project, Technical Report No. 44, October 2003, 107 pp. conservation investments: A guide for project
Mangrove Forest Extent (v2.5). Remote Sensing 2022 alba in Kenyan mangroves is due to attack by a
developers, donors and investors. IUCN, Geneva,
(Special Issue ‘Remote Sensing in Mangroves: Part II’), Duvail, S., 2002. Cartography of the lower Rufiji and Cerambycid beetle and a Metabellid moth. The
Switzerland, and WWF Germany, Berlin, Germany.
14(4), 1034; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14041034 mangrove clearing based on aerial photography and Netherlands: Studies from Kenya Research African
Supplementary documentation: Case studies of
existing vegetation maps. Technical Note for Rufiji Studies Centre, Leiden, pp. 281–290.
Cabral, P., G. Augusto, A. Akande, A. Costa, N. Amade, S. mangrove projects from Kenya, Madagascar and Viet
Environmental Management Project/IUCN, 15 August
Niquisse, A. Atumane, A. Cuna, K. Kazemi, R. Mlucasse Nam, pp. 76-103. Gress, S.K., M Huxham, J.G. Kairo, L.M. Mugi and R.A.
2002.
and R. Santha, 2017. Assessing Mozambique’s exposure Briers, 2017. Evaluating, predicting and mapping
Fondo, E.N. and J.O. Omukoto, 2021. Observations of
to coastal climate hazards and erosion. International Erftemeijer, P.L.A. and 0. Hamerlynck, 2005. Die-back belowground carbon stores in Kenyan mangroves.
industrial shallow-water prawn trawling in Kenya. Pp.
Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 23: 45-52. of the mangrove Heritiera littoralis in the Rufiji Delta Global Change Biology 23: 224-234.
44–45 in: E.S. Kappel et al. (Eds), Frontiers in Ocean
(Tanzania) following El Niño floods. Journal of Coastal
Charrua, A.B., S.O. Bandeira, S. Catarino, P. Cabral and Observing: Documenting Ecosystems, Understanding Gullström, M., M. Dahl, O. Lindén, F. Vorhies, S.
Research, Special Issue No. 42: 228-235.
M.M. Romeiras, 2020. Assessment of the vulnerability of Environmental Changes, Forecasting Hazards. Forsberg, R.O. Ismail and M. Björk, 2021. Coastal blue
coastal mangrove ecosystems in Mozambique. Ocean Erftemeijer, P.L.A., A. Semesi and C.A. Ochieng, 2001. Supplement to Oceanography 34(4). https://doi. carbon stocks in Tanzania and Mozambique: Support
and Coastal Management 189 (2020) 105145. Challenges for marine botanical research in East Africa: org/10.5670/oceanog.2021.supplement.02-17. for climate adaptation and mitigation actions. Gland,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105145 results of a bibliometric survey. South African Journal of Switzerland: IUCN. x+80 pp
Franklin R, et al., 2014. Tsiribihina Delta Mangrove
Botany 67: 411-419.
Clausen, A., H. Rakotondrazafy, H.O. Ralison and A. REDD+ Project: Description of Financial Model. Blue Guveya, E. and C. Sukume, 2008. The economic
Andriamanalina, 2010. Mangrove ecosystems in western FAO, 2005a. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005 Ventures, WWF Madagascar and Western Indian Ocean value of the Zambezi Delta. Technical Report to WWF
Madagascar: an analysis of vulnerability to climate - Thematic Study on Mangroves – Tanzania. Food and Programme Office, May 2014. Mozambique Country Office, November 2008, 187 pp.
change. WWF Study Report, September 2010, 24 pp. Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome,
Gardner, C.J., 2016. Use of mangroves by lemurs. Hamza, A.J., L.S. Esteves, M. Cvitanovic and J. Kairo, 2020.
August 2005, 12 pp.
Crona, B.I. and P. Rönnbäck, 2005. Use of replanted International Journal of Primatology 37: 317-332. Past and present utilization of mangrove resources in
mangroves as nursery grounds by shrimp communities FAO, 2005b. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005 - Eastern Africa and drivers of change. Journal of Coastal
Giri, C. and J. Muhlhausen, 2008. Mangrove forest
in Gazi Bay, Kenya. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science Thematic Study on Mangroves – Mozambique. Food and Research, Special Issue No. 95: 39-44.
distributions and dynamics in Madagascar (1975-2005).
65: 535-544. Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome,
Sensors 8: 2104-2117. Hatton, J., M. Couto and J. Oglethorpe, 2001. Biodiversity
August 2005, 13 pp.
Da Costa, A.B. and L.P.F. Ribeiro, 2017. Mangroves of and War: A Case Study of Mozambique. Washington,
Giri, C., E. Ochieng, L.L. Tieszen, Z. Zhu, A. Singh, T.
Maputo, Mozambique: from threatened or thriving? FAO, 2007a. The World’s Mangroves 1980-2005. FAO D.C.: Biodiversity Support Program. World Wildlife Fund,
Loveland, J. Masek and N. Duke, 2011. Status and
The Plan Journal 2(2): 629-651. doi: 10.15274/ Forestry Paper 153. Food and Agriculture Organization, Washington, 87 pp.
distribution of mangrove forests of the world using
tpj.2017.02.02.21 Rome, 89 pp.
118 119
Howard, J., Hoyt, S., Isensee, K., Pidgeon, E., Telszewski, Mahajamba Bay, Madagascar. Journal of Marine Science Kimirei, I.A., 2012. Importance of mangroves and Lee, S.Y., J.H. Primavera, F. Dahdouh-Guebas, K. McKee,
M., 2014. Coastal blue carbon: methods for assessing and Engineering 3: 793-820. seagrass beds as nurseries for coral reef fishes in J.O. Bosire, S. Cannicci, K. Diele, F. Fromard, N. Koedam,
carbon stocks and emissions factors in mangroves, tidal Tanzania. PhD thesis, Nijmegen University. C. Marchand, I. Mendelssohn, N. Mukherjee and S.
Jones, T.G., L. Glass, S. Gandhi, L.
salt marshes, and sea grass meadows. In: Conservation Record, 2014. Ecological role and services of tropical
Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, A. Carro, L. Benson, et al., Kirui K.B., Kairo J.G., Bosire J., Viergever K.M., Rudra S.,
International, Intergovernmental Oceanographic mangrove ecosystems: a reassessment. Global Ecology
2016. Madagascar’s mangroves: quantifying nation- Huxham M. and R.A. Briers, 2013. Mapping of mangrove
Commission of UNESCO. International Union for and Biogeography 23: 726-743.
wide and ecosystem specific dynamics, and detailed forest land cover change along the Kenya coastline using
Conservation of Nature, Arlington, Virgina, USA.
contemporary mapping of distinct ecosystems. Remote Landsat imagery. Ocean and Coastal Management: Le Groumelec, M., V. Rigolet, P. Duraisamy, M.
IGNFI-CENACARTA, 1999. The Classification System - Sensing 8, 106. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2011.1012.1004 Vandeputte and V.M. Rao, 2008. Development of the
Definition of the Land Cover Types. Rural Rehabilitation shrimp industry in the Western Indian Ocean - a holistic
Kairo, J.G., 2001. Ecology and restoration of mangrove Kodikara, K.A.S., Mukherjee, N., Jayatissa, L.P., Dahdouh-
Project. approach of vertical integration, from domestication and
systems in Kenya. PhD thesis, Free University of Brussels Guebas, F. and N. Koedam, 2017. Have mangrove
biosecurity to product certification. In: ‘Diseases in Asian
IUCN and WWF, 2016. National Blue Carbon Policy (VUB), Belgium. restoration projects worked? An in-depth study in Sri
Aquaculture VII’, Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on
Assessment. Mozambique. IUCN, WWF, 26pp. Lanka. Restoration Ecology 25(5): 705-716.
Kairo, J.G. and M.M. Mangora, 2020. Guidelines on Diseases in Asian Aquaculture, Jun 2008, Taipei, Taiwan,
https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12492
Jackson, C., 2010. The birds of Mida Creek. Unpublished Mangrove Ecosystem Restoration for the Western pp. 291-307 (downloaded from: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-
report, A Rocha Kenya and Department of Ornithology, Indian Ocean Region. UNEP-Nairobi Convention/USAID/ Krauss, K.W. and M.J. Osland, 2020. Tropical cyclones 02805094)
National Museums of Kenya, October 2010, 4 pp. DOI: WIOMSA. UNEP, Nairobi, 71 pp. and the organization of mangrove forests: a review.
LePage, D., 2022. Avibase - Bird Checklists of the
10.13140/RG.2.2.23157.81126 Annals of Botany 125: 213-234.
Kairo, J.G., F. Dahdouh-Guebas, J. Bosire and N. Koedam, World: Rufiji. https://avibase.bsc-eoc.org/checklist.
Japhet, E., M.M. Mangora, C.C. Trettin and J.A. Okello, 2001. Restoration and management of mangrove Kruitwagen, G., H.B. Pratap, A. Covaci and S.E. jsp?region=TZpwru
2019. Natural recovery of mangroves in abandoned systems with a special reference on East Africa. South Wendelaar Bonga, 2008. Status of pollution in mangrove
Lewis, R.R.III, 2005. Ecological engineering for successful
rice farming areas of the Rufiji Delta, Tanzania. Western African Journal of Botany 67: 383-389. ecosystems along the coast of Tanzania. Marine
management and restoration of mangrove forests.
Indian Ocean Journal of Marine Science 18(2): 25-36. Pollution Bulletin 56: 1022-1042.
Kairo J.G., B. Kivyatu and N. Koedam, 2002. Application Ecological Engineering 24: 403-418.
Jenoh, E.M., E.M.R. Robert, I. Lehmann, E. Kioko, J.O. of remote sensing and GIS in the management of Lagomasino, D., T. Fatoyinbo, S. Lee, E. Feliciano, C.
Lewis, R.R.III and B. Brown, 2014. Ecological mangrove
Bosire, N. Ngisiange, F. Dahdouh-Guebas and N. mangrove forests within and adjacent to Kiunga Trettin, and M.C. Hansen, 2017. CMS: Mangrove Canopy
rehabilitation – a field manual for practitioners.
Koedam, 2016. Wide ranging insect infestation of the Marine Protected Area, Lamu, Kenya. Environment, Characteristics and Land Cover Change, Tanzania, 1990-
Mangrove Action Project, Canadian International
pioneer mangrove Sonneratia alba by two insect species Development and Sustainability 4: 153-166. 2014. ORNL DAAC, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA.
Development Agency and Oxfam, 2014, 275 pp.
along the Kenyan coast. PLoS ONE 11(5): e0154849. https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1377
Kairo, J.G., Lang’at, J.K.S., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Bosire, https://blue-forests.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0154849
J., Karachi, M., 2008. Structural development and Lagomasino, D., T. Fatoyinbo, S.K. Lee, E. Feliciano, C. Whole-EMR-Manual-English.pdf
Jiddawi, N.S. and M.C. Ohman, 2003. Marine fisheries in productivity of replanted mangrove plantations in Trettin, A. Shapiro and M.M. Mangora, 2019. Measuring
Lovelock, C.E. and B.M. Brown, 2019. Land tenure
Tanzania. Ambio 31: 518-527. Kenya. Forest Ecology and Management 255: 2670-2677. mangrove carbon loss and gain in deltas. Environ. Res.
considerations are key to successful mangrove
Lett. 14 (2019) 025002.
Jones, T.G., H.R. Ratsimba, L. Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, Kairo, J., A. Mbatha, M.M. Murithi and F. Mungai, 2021. restoration. Nature Ecology & Evolution 3, August 2019,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf0de
G. Cripps and A. Bey, 2014. Ecological variability and Total ecosystem carbon stocks of mangroves in Lamu, p. 1135
carbon stock estimates of mangrove ecosystems in Kenya; and their potential contributions to the climate
Lugendo, B., 2015. Mangroves, salt marshes and
northwestern Madagascar. Forests 5: 177-205. change agenda in the country. Frontiers in Forests and
seagrass beds. Chapter 5 in: UNEP/WIOMSA, 2015. The
Global Change 4:709227. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2021.709227
Jones, T.G., H.R. Ratsimba, L. Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, Regional State of the Coast Report: Western Indian
L. Glass, L. Benson, M. Teoh, A. Carro, G. Cripps, C. Kenya Forest Service, 2015. Mombasa Mangrove Forest Ocean. UNEP-Nairobi Convention and WIOMSA, Nairobi,
Giri, S. Gandhi et al., 2015. The dynamics, ecological Participatory Management Plan 2015-2019. Kenya Kenya, pp. 49-64.
variability and estimated carbon stocks of mangroves in Forest Service (KFS), 95 pp.
120 121
Lugomela, C., 2012. The mangrove ecosystem of Chwaka Mangora, M.M., 2011. Poverty and institutional habitats in sequestering CO2. Frontiers in Ecology and climate change and ecosystem-based adaptation
Bay. Chapter 4 in: M. De La Torre-Castro and T.J. Lyimo management stand-off: a restoration and conservation Environment 9: 552-560. in the mangrove ecosystem of the Rufiji Delta,
(Eds.), ‘People, Nature and Research in Chwaka Bay’, dilemma for mangrove forests of Tanzania. Wetlands Tanzania, Climate and Development, DOI:
McNally, C.G., E. Uchida and A.J. Gold, 2011. The effect
WIOMSA, Zanzibar (Tanzania), pp. 69-87. Ecology and Management 19: 533-543. 10.1080/17565529.2021.2022449.
of a protected area on the tradeoffs between short-
Macamo, C.C.F., H. Balidy, S.O. Bandiera and J.G. Kairo, Mangora, M.M., B.R. Lugendo, M.S. Shalli and S. Semesi, run and long-run benefits from mangrove ecosystems. Omar, M.S., G. Neukermans, J.G. Kairo, F. Dahdouh-
2015. Mangrove transformation in the Incomáti Estuary, 2016. Mangroves of Tanzania. In: Bosire JO, Mangora Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108: Guebas and N. Koedam, 2009. Mangrove forests in
Maputo Bay, Mozambique. WIO Journal of Marine MM, Bandeira S, Rajkaran A, Ratsimbazafy R, Appadoo C, 13945-13950. a periurban setting: the case of Mombasa (Kenya).
Science 14(1-2): 11-22. Kairo JG (eds), Mangroves of the Western Indian Ocean: Wetlands Ecology and Management 17(3): 243-255.
Mohamed, M.O.S., G. Neukermans, J.G. Kairo, F.
status and management. WIOMSA, Zanzibar, pp 33-49.
Macamo C., Bandeira S., Muando S., Abreu D., and H. Dahdouh-Guebas and N. Koedam, 2009. Mangrove Owuor, M.A., R. Mulwa, P. Otieno, J. Icely and A. Newton,
Mabilana, 2016a. Mangroves of Mozambique. Chapter Mangrove Alliance, 2019. Tanzania - Mangrove forests in a peri-urban setting: the case of Mombasa 2019. Valuing mangrove biodiversity and ecosystem
4 in: Bosire J.O. et al. (eds.), Mangroves of the Western Governance Policy Brief. Save Our Mangroves Now!, (Kenya). Wetlands Ecology and Management 17: 243- services: A deliberative choice experiment in Mida
Indian Ocean: Status and Management. WIOMSA, WWF/IUCN, December 2019, 4 pp. https://www. 255. Creek, Kenya. Ecosystem Services 40 (2019) 101040,
Zanzibar Town, pp. 51-73. mangrovealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101040
Monga, E., Mangora, M., and J. Mayunga, 2018.
MangroveGovernance_PolicyBrief_TANZANIA.pdf
Macamo, C.C.F., E. Massuanganhe, D.K. Nicolau, S.O. Mangrove cover change detection in the Ruﬁji Delta in Pekel, J.F., A. Cottam, N. Gorelick and A.S. Belward, 2016.
Bandeira and J.B. Adams, 2016b. Mangrove’s response Manyenze, F., C.N. Munga, C. Mwatete, H. Mwamlavya Tanzania. WIO Journal of Marine Science 17(2): 1-10. High-resolution mapping of global surface water and its
to cyclone Eline (2000): What is happening 14 years and J.C. Groeneveld, 2021. Small-scale fisheries of the long-term changes. Nature 540: 418-422.
Mshale, B., Senga, M. and E. Mwangi, 2017. Governing
later? Aquatic Botany 134: 10-17. Tana Estuary in Kenya. WIO Journal of Marine Science
mangroves: Unique challenges for managing Tanzania’s Primavera, J.H. and J.M.A. Esteban, 2008. A review of
Special Issue 1 / 2021: 93-114.
Macamo C., R. Mahanzule, S. Bandeira, H. Balidy and V. coastal forests. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR; Washington, mangrove rehabilitation in the Philippines: Successes,
Machava, 2021. Mangrove Socioeconomic Evaluation Manzi, H. and V.C. Kirui, 2021. Assessment of the socio- DC: USAID Tenure and Global Climate Change Program, failures and future prospects. Wetlands Ecology and
and Conservation Framework in Mozambique. IUCN economic role of mangroves and their conservation 78 pp. Management 16(5): 345-358.
Draft Report, 93 pp. framework in Kenya. International Union for
Muhate, 2015. REDD+ Mozambique, Context, Challenges Quarto, A. and I. Thiam, 2018. Community-based
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and Geo-Spatial Research
Machava-António, V., S.O. Bandeira, C.C. Macamo and and Integration of Mangroves, accessible at https:// ecological mangrove restoration. Nature & Faune 32(1):
International, Project Report, March 2021, 229 pp.
R. Mahanzule, 2020. Value chain analysis of mangrove www.thebluecarboninitiative.org/ 39-45.
forests in central Mozambique: Uses, stakeholders and Maseta, G.J., S. Mwansasu and M.A. Njana, 2021. Carbon
Nasirwa, O., A. Owino, E. Munguya and J. Washire, Rabemananjara, Z.H., A. Rakotosoa and A.A.N.
income. WIO Journal of Marine Science 19(1): 1-17. dynamics and sequestration by the urban mangrove
2001. Waterbird counts in the Rufiji Delta, Tanzania, Ratosovon, 2021. Assessment of socio-economic role
forests of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. WIO Journal of
Macia, A., 2004. Mangroves and adjacent habitats in December 2000. Rufiji Environmental Management of mangroves and their conservation framework in
Marine Science 20(2): 11-23.
as nurseries for penaeid shrimps at Inhaca Island, Project, Technical Report No. 24, December 2001, 23 pp. Madagascar. Technical Report profiling the socio-
Mozambique. PhD Thesis. Stockholm University. Masike, S., 2014. Economic Valuation of the Mangrove economic role of mangroves. “BMZ-MG204200 Save
Nhantumo, E. and B. Gaile, 2020. Shallow water shrimp
Ecosystem in the Limpopo River Estuary. For the USAID Our Mangroves Now! 2.0”; Réf: 69/CTR-S/FY21/TNR, June
Malleux, J. 1980. Avaliação dos Recursos florestais fishery in Mozambique: Who benefits from fiscal
Southern Africa Resilience in the Limpopo River Basin 2021, 94 pp.
da Republica Popular de Moçambique. (Cited in FAO, reform? IIED, Working Paper, May 2020, 42 pp.
(RESILIM) Program. Technical Report, Ministry of Land,
2005b). Rakotomavo, A., 2018. The mangroves of the east of
Environment and Rural Development (CSDCZ) and Njana, M.A., E. Zahabu and R.E. Malimbwi, 2018. Carbon
Madagascar: ecological potentials and pressures. Open
Mangora, M., 2007. Living on mangroves: a look at the USAID, 70 pp. stocks and productivity of mangrove forests in Tanzania,
Journal of Ecology 8: 447-458.
Ruvu Estuary mangrove forest, Tanzania. Education for Southern Forests. Journal of Forest Science 80(3): 217-
McLeod, E., G.L. Chmura, S. Bouillon, M. Björk, C.M. https://doi.org/10.4236/oje.2018.88027
Nature (EFN) News, World Wildlife Fund US, Washington 232.
Duarte, C.E. Lovelock, W.H. Schlesinger and B.R.
DC, pp 6-7. Ralison, O.H., A.V. Borges, F. Dehairs, J.J. Middelburg
Silliman, 2011. A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an Nyangoko, B.P., H. Berg, M.M. Mangora, M.S. Shalli
and S. Bouillon, 2008. Carbon biogeochemistry of the
improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal and M. Gullström, 2022. Community perceptions of
122 123
Betsiboka estuary (north-western Madagascar). Organic livelihoods: perceptions from Tanga, Tanzania. Technical Shapiro, A., D. Randriamanantena, H. Kuechle and F. TCMP, 2001. State of the coast 2001: People and the
Geochemistry 39: 1649-1658. Report, IUCN and Cordio East Africa, June 2008, 30 pp. Razafindramasy, 2019. Les mangroves de Madagascar: environment. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Tanzania Coastal
Superficies, condition et évolution 2000-2018 ⁄⁄ Management Partnership. TNC, 2021. Mother Mangrove.
Ranaivoson, E., 1998. Biodiversité côtière et marine. In: Samoilys, M., M. Pabari, T. Andrew, G.W. Maina, J.
The mangroves of Madagascar: Cover, status and The women behind Kenya’s mangrove restoration.
Monographie Nationale sur la Biodiversité. UNEP, ONE, Church, A. Momanyi, B. Minei, M. Monjane, A. Shah,
trends 2000-2018. WWF Germany, Berlin, and WWF Accessed on 1 Feb 2022 at: https://www.nature.org/en-
ANGAP, Ministère de l’Environnement, Ministère des M. Menomussanga and D. Mutta, 2015. Resilience
Madagascar, Antananarivo, 39 pp. us/about-us/where-we-work/africa/stories-in-africa/
Eaux et Forêts, pp. 117-137. of Coastal Systems and Their Human Partners in the
women-kenya-mangrove-forest/?en_txn1=s_two.
Western Indian Ocean. Nairobi, Kenya: IUCN ESARO, Simard, M., T. Fatoyinbo, C. Smetanka, V.H. Rivera-
Rasolofo, M.V., 1997. Use of mangroves by traditional reg_af.x.x.&sf158782976=1
WIOMSA, CORDIO and UNEP Nairobi Convention, monroy, E. Castaneda-mova, N. Thomas, and T. Van
fishermen in Madagascar. Mangroves and Salt Marshes
x + 74 pp. der Stocken, 2019. Global mangrove distribution, Tonneijck, F., F. Van der Goot and F. Pearce, 2022.
1: 243-253.
aboveground biomass, and canopy height. ORNL DAAC, Building with Nature in Indonesia. Restoring an eroding
Sanderman, J., T. Hengl, G. Fiske, K. Solvik, M.F.
Rasquinha, D.N. and D.R. Mishra, 2021. Tropical cyclones Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA. coastline and inspiring action at scale. Wetlands
Adame, L. Benson, J.J. Bukoski, P. Carnell, M.
shape mangrove productivity gradients in the Indian https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1665 International and Ecoshape Foundation, February 2022,
Cifuentes-Jara, D. Donato, C. Duncan, E.M. Eid, P.
subcontinent. Scientific Reports (2021) 11:17355. 47 pp.
Ermgassen, C.J.E. Lewis, P.I. Macreadie, L. Glass, S. Slobodian, L. and L. Badoz, 2019. Tangled roots and
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-96752-3
Gress, S.L. Jardine, T.G. Jones, E.N. Nsombo, M.M. changing tides: mangrove governance for conservation Trettin, C.C., C.E. Stringer and S.J. Zarnoch, 2016.
Ratsimbazafy, R., D. Randriamanantena, J. Rahman, C.J. Sanders, M. Spalding and E. Landis, and sustainable use. WWF Germany, Berlin, Germany Composition, biomass and structure of mangroves
Rakotondrazafy, H. Rakotomalala, V. Ramahery, E. 2018. A global map of mangrove forest soil carbon and IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. xii+280pp within the Zambezi River Delta. Wetlands Ecology and
Roger, H. Razakanirina, H. Rabarison, T. Lavitra, J. at 30m spatial resolution. Environmental Research Management 24: 173-186.
Spalding, M.D. and M. Leal (Eds.), 2021. The State of the
Mahafina, L. Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, G. Cripps, K. Letters 13 (2018) 055002.
World’s Mangroves 2021. Global Mangrove Alliance, 41 Turpie, J.K., 2000. The use and value of natural resources
England, A. Carro, T.G. Jones, L. Glass, B. Taylor and L. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabe1c
pp. of the Rufiji Floodplain and Delta, Tanzania. Technical
Danhaive, 2016. Mangroves of Madagascar. Chapter
Scales, I.R. and D.A. Friess, 2021. Patterns of Report for the Rufiji Environment Management Project.
6 in: Bosire J.O. et al. (Eds.), Mangroves of the Western Spalding, M.D., M. Kainuma and L. Collins, 2010.
mangrove forest disturbance and biomass removal
Indian Ocean: Status and Management. WIOMSA, World Atlas of Mangroves. Earthscan. 319 pp. UNDP, 2020. Mikoko Pamoja, Kenya. United Nations
due to small-scale harvesting in southwestern
Zanzibar Town, pp. 95-112. Development Programme, Equator Initiative Case
Madagascar. Wetlands Ecology and Management 27: Spalding, M., A. McIvor, F.H. Tonneijck, S. Tol and P. van
Study Series, New York, 16 pp. (downloaded from:
Rönnbäck, P., 1999. The ecological basis for economic 609-625. Eijk, 2014. Mangroves for coastal defence. Guidelines
https://www.equatorinitiative.org/wp-content/
value of seafood production supported by mangrove for coastal managers & policy makers. Published by
Semesi, A.K., 1992. Developing management plans for uploads/2020/03/Mikoko-Pamoja-Kenya.pdf)
ecosystems. Ecological Economics 29: 235-252. Wetlands International and The Nature Conservancy. 42
the mangrove forest reserves of mainland Tanzania.
pp. UNEP, 2009. Transboundary diagnostic analysis of
Rubens, J. and S. Kazimoto, 2003. Mafia Island: a Hydrobiologia 247: 1-10.
land-based sources and activities affecting the Western
demonstration case. WCPA-Marine & WWF MPA Stringer C.E., C.C. Trettin, S.J. Zarnoch and W. Tang, 2015.
Semesi, A.K., 1998. Mangrove management and Indian Ocean coastal and marine environment. UNEP,
Management Effectiveness Initiative, Technical Report, Carbon stocks of mangroves within the Zambezi River
utilization in Eastern Africa. Ambio 27: 620-626. Nairobi, Kenya, 378 pp.
September 2003, 31 pp. Delta, Mozambique. Forest Ecology and Management
Seys, J., G. Moragwa, P. Boera and M. Ngoa, 1995. 354: 139-148. UNEP, 2021a. Western Indian Ocean Marine Protected
Saket, M. and R. Matusse, 1994. Study for the
Distribution and abundance of birds in tidal creeks Areas Outlook: Towards achievement of the Global
determination of the rate of deforestation of the Taylor, M., C. Ravilious and E.P. Green, 2003. Mangroves
and estuaries of the Kenyan coast between the Sabaki Biodiversity Framework Targets. UNEP-Nairobi
mangrove vegetation in Mozambique. FAO/PNUD/ of East Africa. UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring
River and Gazi Bay. Scopus 19: 47-60. Convention and WIOMSA, Nairobi, Kenya, 298 pp.
MOZ/92/013. Unidade de Inventário Florestal Centre (WCMC), Cambridge, 24 pp.
Departamento de Florestas DNFFB. Min da Agricultura, Shapiro, A., C. Trettin, H. Küchly, S. Alavinapanah and S. UNEP, 2021b. In Kenya, a river estuary comes back to
Maputo. Bandeira, 2015. The mangroves of the Zambezi Delta life. Accessed on 1 Feb 2021, https://www.unep.org/
from 1994 to 2013: increase in extent observed via news-and-stories/story/kenya-river-estuary-comes-
Samoilys, M.A. and M.W. Kanyanga, 2008. Assessing
satellite. Remote Sensing 7: 1-17. back-life
links between marine resources and coastal peoples’
124 125
Note: $ refers to US dollars unless otherwise specified. Local currency exchange equivalent amounts were correct at
UNEP/WIOMSA, 2015. The Regional State of the Worthington, T. and M. Spalding, 2018. Mangrove the time of publication.
Coast Report: Western Indian Ocean. UNEP-Nairobi Restoration Potential. A global map highlighting a critical
The designation of geographical entities in this publication, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the
Convention and WIOMSA, Nairobi, Kenya, 546 pp. opportunity. The Nature Conservancy, IUCN, University expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN, WWF, Wetlands International and BMZ concerning the
of Cambridge. Online resource accessible at: legal status of any country, territory, or area, of its authorities, or concerning of its frontiers or boundaries. The views
Van Katwijk, M.M., N. Meier, R. van Loon, E. van Hove, expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of WWF, IUCN, Wetlands International and BMZ.
https://oceanwealth.org/explore-the-mangrove-
W. Giesen, G. van der Velde and C. den Hartog, 1993. This publication is part of the “Save Our Mangroves Now!” initiative’s work to close existing knowledge gaps
restoration-potential-mapping-tool/ concerning mangrove protection. It has been produced with the financial support of the Federal Ministry for
Sabaki River sediment load and coral stress: correlation
Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of “Save
between sediments and condition of the Malindi- WWF, 2015. Strengthening Madagascar’s shrimp Our Mangroves Now!” and can in no way be taken to represent the views of BMZ.
Watamu reefs in Kenya (Indian Ocean). Marine Biology industry. Posted on 25 May 2015. Downloaded
117: 675-683. from: https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?247290/
Strengthening-Madagascars-Shrimp-Industry
Verheij, E., S. Makoloweka and H. Kalombo, 2004.
Collaborative coastal management improves coral reefs WWF, 2016. Development of the Lamu County Spatial
and fisheries in Tanga, Tanzania. Ocean and Coastal Plan. Safeguarding future prosperity by protecting
Management 47: 309-320. nature. WWF Briefing Document, October 2016, 12 pp.
Wang, Y., G. Bonynge, J. Nugranad, A. Ngusaru and M. WWF, 2017a. Ecosystem services valuation of mangrove
Traber, 2005. Involving geospatial information in the forests in the Zambezi Delta, Mozambique. Technical
analysis of land-cover change along the Tanzania coast. Report, 106 pp. https://www.blueforestsolutions.org/_
Coastal Management 33: 87-99. files/ugd/6f1fa5_eb3667efd8cb43fca02d7b8c24060ec4.
pdf
Wang, Y., J. Tobey, G. Bonynge, J. Nugranad, V. Makota,
M. Traber, A. Ngusaru, L. Hale, R. Bowen and 2003. WWF, 2017b. A sustainable shrimp fishery for
Remote sensing of mangrove change along the Tanzania Mozambique. WWF Fact Sheet, July 2017, 4 pp. (https://
coast. Marine Geodesy 26: 35-48. www.fishforward.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/
WWF_Factsheet_Moçambique-EN.pdf)
Wanjiru, C., S. Rueckert and M. Huxham, 2021.
Composition and structure of the mangrove fish and WWF, 2022. Public-private-people partnerships to
crustacean communities of Vanga Bay, Kenya. WIO save coastal Kenya forests. Accessed 1 Feb 2022:
Journal of Marine Science 20(2): 25-44 https://www.wwfkenya.org/public_private_people_
partnerships_to_save_coastal_kenya_forests/
Wetlands International, 2018. Mangrove restoration:
to plant or not to plant? Wetlands International, Global
Mangrove Alliance, May 2018, 12 pp.
https://www.wetlands.org/publications/mangrove-
restoration-to-plant-or-not-to-plant/
World Bank GEF, 2002. Development and protection of

the coastal and marine environment in sub-Saharan
Africa. Regional consolidated analysis of the first phase
of the GEF MSP sub-Saharan Africa Project (GF/6010-
0016). Washington, DC: World Bank.
126 127

Wetlands-International Mangrove-Report 2022 v16F

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wetlands-International Mangrove-Report 2022 v16F

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wetlands-International Mangrove-Report 2022 v16F

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE STATE OF

Status of Mangroves in the Western Indian Ocean Region

Colophon This report is developed by Wetlands

01 MANGROVES IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN REGION – OVERVIEW

With financial support from: And in collaboration with the

04 MANGROVES IN MOZAMBIQUE 62 06 METHODOLOGY 108

GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE RESTORATION POTENTIAL (HA)

WORKING STRENGTH IN COLLABORATION

INITIATIVES FUTURE PRODUCTS

WHY THIS REPORT

REGION At least 26% of the WIO region’s

Amount of mangroves remaining in

THE WIO REGION

760,000 Region (Bosire et al., 2016; Kairo and Mangora, 2020).

THE WIO REGION

Blue Carbon 2016 (t CO2e h1-1)

Blue Carbon 2016 (Mt CO2e)

• Saving 15 million t C of soil carbon

• Addition of commercial fisheries

AND THE WAY

There is currently 3,351 ha Kenya’s mangroves store up to

With its 1,420 km long coastline,

Mangroves in Kenya are spread around 18 formations

(Seys et al., 1995; Jackson, 2010). The Tana Delta is also

MANGROVE LOSS MANGROVE LOSS

MANGROVE GAIN MANGROVE GAIN

(BLUE) CARBON IN KENYA

DRIVERS OF CHANGE Assuming a global average carbon sequestration rate

boring insect infestations in several areas along the

ABOVE GROUND ABOVE GROUND

locally established Community Forest Associations some 300 ha 77 - 84

AND THE WAY

FORWARD MANGROVE AREAS OF PARTICULAR

Tanzania’s mangroves store up to

MANGROVE GAIN (1996 - 2020) MANGROVE LOSS (1996 - 2020)

Mangroves at the capital city of Dar es Salaam

During the last few decades, extensive areas of

Mangrove climate change. Wamba, Wetlands International)

OF MANGROVES fossil fuel emission

ABOVE GROUND BIOMASS (t/Ha) ABOVE GROUND BIOMASS (t/Ha)

Mangrove restoration activities by the Forestry Division

“At least 60%

landscape approach in its implementation • Include mangrove ecosystems in the Nationally

AND THE WAY

the seascape. Both MPA categories have community-

Mozambique’s mangroves store

4.2. “The total area

318,645 ha in extent of mangroves in the Zambezi Delta had increased

in 2020…” ha of mangroves from Maputo Bay between 1958 and

MANGROVE LOSS MANGROVE LOSS

MANGROVE GAIN MANGROVE GAIN

MANGROVE GAIN (1996 - 2020) MANGROVE LOSS (1996 - 2020)

human lives (Charrua et al., 2020; Figure 42, 53).

MANGROVE LOSS (1996 - 2020) MANGROVE GAIN (1996 - 2020)

“One of the main

IN STORING (BLUE) CARBON

ABOVE GROUND BIOMASS (t/Ha) ABOVE GROUND BIOMASS (t/Ha)

AND THE WAY

decision making on mangrove management and to “Mangroves

Madagascar’s mangroves store