Myanmar's changing mangroves

Mangrove forests, found in tropical and subtropical coastal intertidal areas, are critical forest ecosystems. Mangroves provide essential ecosystem services at global and local scales, including storing carbon, protecting people, nature and businesses from storms and coastal erosion, providing habitat for coastal and marine wildlife and supporting the livelihoods of coastal communities.  

Did you know mangroves store 3 to 4 times more carbon than tropical forests per hectare? Myanmar's mangroves store an estimated 119 million tonnes of carbon in their biomass and soils. 

Mangrove forests and their associated resources play an important role in the country’s socio-economic development, providing highly valued commercial products, and supporting fisheries and ecotourism (18).

Mangroves play a significant role in the daily lives of local communities in Myanmar, providing food, fuel, income and protection from extreme weather and coastal erosion. Many local communities pursue subsistence livelihoods, relying on mangroves for fish catches, honey, algae and fruit (5,6). Mangroves act as nursery grounds for fish, molluscs and crustaceans, such as mud crabs, which are an important source of food and income. Poles and timber from mangroves are used as raw materials in house and boat construction. They are also used as fishing stakes by coastal fishers (7).

For many people, mangroves support important sources of income. One study found that nearly 80% of income for low-income households in mangrove areas (in this case Meinmahla Kyun and Bogalay township) came from mangrove forest products (8). Other studies have put the total household income from mangrove forest products in Myanmar at between 1,119,957 MMK or USD 784 per year (8) and 16,467,468 MMK or USD 10,987 per year (19). Research has indicated that the gender of the head of a household does not influence the overall household livelihood dependence on forest resources generally (including mangroves) (8).

Mangroves also deliver indirect socio-economic benefits by storing carbon, improving water quality, protecting coastal areas from storms and erosion, providing building materials and yielding medicine. Non-timber and non-fish mangrove products have been valued at 45 USD/ha/year, while protection against coastal erosion has been valued at 974 USD/ha/year (Exchange rate: 1 Myanmar Kyat (MMK) = 0.0010 USD) (20). Mangroves provide a wide range of non-monetary benefits, but these tend to be less well understood than monetary benefits (21). Non-monetary benefits also include recreational and cultural services and are of high importance to local indigenous traditions, knowledge and religions.

In many coastal communities, clearly divided gender roles mean that men and women may use and depend upon mangroves in different ways. For example, while certain forestry activities such as management and logging are predominantly undertaken by men, the collection of fruit and the planting can be predominately undertaken by women. Both men and women are involved in fishing but in different activities (22,23). Women tend to fish in coastal ecosystems, while men fish in the open ocean. Women’s fishing activities are often seen as an extension of their traditional household role, and their labor is often unpaid (24). Because of their different interactions with mangrove forests, men and women tend to possess different types of knowledge about these ecosystems and may be impacted by mangrove loss and degradation in different ways. At the same time, women tend to be underrepresented in decision-making on the management and use of forest resources. The rights of women and some ethnic groups to own and access forests and land are more likely to be ignored or neglected (25–27). Ensuring the meaningful participation of different stakeholder groups in designing and implementing activities, along with more systematic collection and use of information on people's dependencies on mangroves, can help to create more sustainable and equitable outcomes for conservation, management and restoration.

Community Forests (CFs) are designated by legal land use agreements and management plans between communities and the Myanmar Forestry Department. These agreements allow the forests to be used by communities, while promoting their sustainable management (28).

Community forestry has been linked to net mangrove gains globally. These outcomes are strongest where tenure rights are secure and governance is well-defined, alongside increased national commitments, policies and programmes (29). Importantly, CFs in Myanmar have been shown to improve the livelihoods of communities through access to timber,  fuel and non-timber forest products  (30).

The location and role of CFs are one way to look at the connections between people and mangroves. According to a draft database of pre-2021 data, at least 140 CFs in Myanmar are located in mangrove areas, covering 15,000 ha.  

A growing number of CFs have been established in mangroves in recent years. However, many CFs face challenges, sometimes resulting in less effective management practices, CFs becoming "inactive" or CF land being converted to other uses (source: CDE/local CSOs study on Mangrove CFs in Myeik and Kyaukpyu). This limits their effectiveness as a measure for mangrove conservation, sustainable use and restoration, but there are opportunities to address this gap.

Interventions that integrate traditional as well as scientific knowledge, while maintaining strong community leadership and ownership are more likely to be successful in the long term (31). Restoration and management interventions that are "people-centered" can yield multiple benefits including food security, improved livelihoods, biodiversity conservation and improved ecosystem functioning (32).

The success of community forests for conserving mangroves and benefiting people relies on several factors. Paing Htet Thu (MERN) explains:

Mangroves store considerable amounts of carbon in their biomass and in surrounding soil, with the majority sequestered deep into their associated soils. In Myanmar, it has been estimated that mangroves store 119 million tonnes of carbon in their biomass and soils (33). This means that conserving, sustainably managing and restoring mangroves can contribute to global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit climate change.

Mangroves also play a significant role in building and sustaining resilience to climate change. Myanmar is at significant risk of tropical storms and cyclones. These can devastate coastal communities, livelihoods, and infrastructure, and result in deaths in extreme cases. These risks are higher for groups that are considered vulnerable, such as women, children, ethnic minority groups and migrants.

Although Myanmar still retains substantial mangrove cover, it has been a global hotspot of mangrove loss and degradation. The main drivers of mangrove deforestation are conversion to rice paddies, charcoal production and aquaculture for shrimp farming. Extreme weather events, such as Cyclone Nargis in 2008, have also contributed to losses (3,36).

Over 64% of mangrove cover in the Ayeyarwady Delta was estimated to have been lost between 1978 and 2011 (37).

An analysis of mangrove areas in Rakhine, Tanintharyi and Ayeyarwady shows that mangroves in all three regions decreased between 1996 and 2016, with rates of loss highest in Rakhine, followed by Ayeyarwady and Tanintharyi.

Analysis undertaken by the UN-REDD Programme for the period between 2016-2021 shows that while mangrove loss has occurred in all three regions up to 2021, there have also been mangrove gains.

Given the global and local significance of Myanmar’s mangroves, what do these changes mean for the role of these forests in supporting local communities, combatting climate change and sustaining biodiversity and ecosystem services?

As mangroves provide such a wide range of services and benefits, a reduction in the area and condition of mangroves will likely have serious impacts on people.

Examining mangroves in and around one site can help to highlight their significance and the implications of change.

Mangrove loss and degradation have important implications for nature, people, climate change and sustainable development in Myanmar. Therefore, concrete options for conservation, sustainable use and restoration must be explored. Protecting existing mangrove forests and restoring mangrove areas lost or degraded in the past can provide a  nature-based solution  for reducing the risks of climate change and natural disasters and building resilience. Local communities should be supported to conserve and restore mangroves through strategies such as community forestry and  Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas. 

As noted above, only around 3% of Myanmar’s mangroves are within formal Protected Areas (13). Myanmar has a goal to increase the total coverage of protected areas to 10% by 2030. However, there is no specific goal for mangroves (according to the National Forestry Master Plan, 2001-02 to 2030-31). The conservation of remaining intact mangroves is crucial to sustaining the benefits mangroves provide to local communities, and meeting conservation and climate change goals.

UNESCO Biosphere Reserves and Ramsar sites, and community-based conserved areas, have been suggested as some of the best approaches to preserve mangroves while involving local communities (3). Protecting mangroves and reducing deforestation rates is more efficient and cost-effective than reforesting or restoring degraded mangroves, as these processes can take years, be expensive and have varying levels of success (33, 34).

Identifying areas of importance for ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation can provide crucial information to ensure that conservation resources are being used effectively. This can be done through spatial mapping of mangrove importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, as well as engaging with and learning from communities that rely upon mangroves for their livelihoods.

Rehabilitation programmes, linked to promoting the socio-economic development of rural communities and the establishment of plantations, have facilitated the restoration of mangrove forests in various locations in Myanmar (5). Mangroves also regenerate passively and can rapidly recolonize open or abandoned aquaculture mudflats where conditions are appropriate (42).

There are a range of approaches and tools that can help to identify and prioritize areas for restoration, including in Myanmar’s mangroves.

 Se.plan  is another tool that can identify areas for potential restoration and compare the potential benefits of forest restoration activities. The tool combines bio-physical data with information on selected benefits (such as carbon storage, biodiversity conservation and wood products), as well as estimated costs for restoration, to identify areas suitable or unsuitable for restoration. This can provide an initial indication of areas for restoration, which can then be discussed and analyzed in further detail with stakeholders and through ground-truthing.

Using  se.plan  to explore potential for restoration in three districts of Tanintharyi - Myeik, Kawthaung and Dawei districts – shows that around 28% of mangrove areas in the Kawthaung district are suitable for restoration activities (medium to high restoration potential). Comparatively, around 13% of Myeik mangrove areas and around 7% of Dawei mangrove areas are estimated to be suitable for restoration activities.

Restoration of mangrove areas in Kawthaung may have the greatest benefits for endangered species, biodiversity intactness, forest employment, wood fuel harvest and plantation growth rates. In contrast, mangrove areas in Dawei offer the highest potential for above-ground carbon storage. Although restoration activities in Kawthaung could result in a lot of potential benefits, this area also has the highest estimated opportunity costs (see the table below).

·       Total mangrove areas: 35,974 hectares

·       Around 28% of mangrove areas are suitable for restoration activities

·       72% or areas are considered unsuitable, with 52% of these classified as low potential for restoration (i.e., can be restored but with higher costs)

Use the slider below to explore the extent of mangroves in 2016, and the suitability of areas within those for restoration identified using the se.plan tool.

Mangroves provide multiple benefits to people  in Myanmar as well as contributing to reaching global goals on climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation.

Understanding the benefits, consequences and trade-offs of mangrove gains and losses can inform protection, restoration and management decisions. Local communities rely upon these forests and can play an important role in their conservation, management and restoration through strategies such as community forestry, locally-led restoration and  Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas .

Protecting mangroves in Myanmar provides significant ecological, economic and social benefits. From an ecological perspective, mangroves are crucial to maintaining healthy coastal ecosystems.  Mangroves also offer economically valuable resources, such as timber and fisheries that support the livelihoods of local communities and sustain industries in the region. Socially, mangroves hold cultural significance by providing recreation opportunities and fostering community development. They intertwine with local customs representing a cultural heritage that is deeply valued.

By recognizing the importance of mangrove ecosystems and implementing effective conservation measures, Myanmar can secure a sustainable future for its environment and people.

Find out more about the UN-REDD Myanmar Mangroves project  here 

Scoping report: Options for analysing mangrove ecosystem services and biodiversity in Myanmar  here 

For more information about mangrove communities and community action,  see this webstory 

Thank you to UNEP-WCMC, UNEP, FAO, UNDP, CDE, TNC and MERN for their review and contributions to this analysis.

Disclaimer: The boundaries and names shown, and the designations used on the maps in this document do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.

1.          Estoque RC, Myint SW, Wang C, Ishtiaque A, Aung TT, Emerton L, et al. Assessing environmental impacts and change in Myanmar’s mangrove ecosystem service value due to deforestation (2000–2014). Global Change Biology. 2018;

2.          Spalding MD, Kainuma M, Collins L. World atlas of mangroves. London (UK) and Washington (USA): Earthscan; 2010. 319 pp.

3.          Zöckler C, Aung C. The Mangroves of Myanmar. In: Gul B, Böer B, Khan MA, Clüsener-Godt M, Hameed A, editors. Sabkha Ecosystems: Volume VI: Asia/Pacific [Internet]. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. p. 253–68. (Tasks for Vegetation Science). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04417-6_16

4.          United Nations Environment Programme. Decades of Mangrove Forest Change: What Does it Mean for Nature, People and the Climate? [Internet]. Nairobi; 2023. Available from: https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/42254

5.          Zöckler C, Delany S, Barber J. Sustainable Coastal Zone Management in Myanmar. ArcCona Ecological Consultants and Flora Fauna International. Cambridge (UK); 2013.

6.          Feurer M, Gritten D, Than MM. Community forestry for livelihoods: Benefiting from Myanmar’s mangroves. Forests [Internet]. 2018 Mar 17 [cited 2021 Nov 15];9(3):150. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/9/3/150/htm

7.          Win UT. Use of mangroves for aquaculture: Myanmar. Primavera JH (ed), Garcia LMB (ed), Castanos MT (ed), Surtida MB (ed), editors. Promot mangrove-friendly shrimp Aquac Southeast Asia [Internet]. 2004 [cited 2021 Aug 20];145–54. Available from: http://repository.seafdec.org/handle/20.500.12066/5229

8.          Aye WN, Wen Y, Marin K, Thapa S, Tun AW. Contribution of mangrove forest to the livelihood of local communities in Ayeyarwaddy Region, Myanmar. Forests. 2019;10(5):1–13.

9.          IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2020-2 [Internet]. 2020. Available from: http://www.iucnredlist.org

10.        Brooks TM, Pimm SL, Akçakaya HR, Buchanan GM, Butchart SHM, Foden W, et al. Measuring Terrestrial Area of Habitat (AOH) and Its Utility for the IUCN Red List. Trends Ecol Evol. 2019;34(11):977–86.

11.        Bunting P, Rosenqvist A, Lucas RM, Rebelo LM, Hilarides L, Thomas N, et al. The Global Mangrove Watch—A New 2010 Global Baseline of Mangrove Extent. Remote Sens 2018, Vol 10, Page 1669 [Internet]. 2018 Oct 22 [cited 2021 Nov 24];10(10):1669. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/10/10/1669/htm

12.        Lampi Marine National Park. About Lampi [Internet]. Available from: http://www.lampipark.org/about-lampi/

13.        Bunting P, Rosenqvist A, Lucas RM, Rebelo L-M, Hilarides L, Thomas N, et al. The Global Mangrove Watch-A New 2010 Global Baseline of Mangrove Extent. Remote Sens [Internet]. 2018;10:1669. Available from: www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing

14.        World Bank. Myanmar Country Forest Note. 2020.

15.        UNEP-WCMC, IUCN. Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) [Online] [Internet]. Cambridge (UK); 2023. Available from: www.protectedplanet.net

16.        IUCN. A global standard for the identification of Key Biodiversity Areas: Version 1.0. 2016;26. Available from: https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/Rep-2016-005.pdf

17.        Langhammer P, Bakarr M, Bennun L, Brooks T, Clay R, Darwall W, et al. Identification and Gap Analysis of Key Biodiversity Areas: Targets for Comprehensive Protected Area Systems. 2007.

18.        Myint KK. Socio-economics of mangrove ecosystem in South-eastern Ayeyarwady Delta area of Myanmar. J Aquac Mar Biol. 2019;8(6):226–36.

19.        GGKP. Economic Appraisal of Ayeyarwady Delta Mangrove Forests. Seoul; 2020.

20.        Emerton L, Aung YM. The Economic Value of Forest Ecosystem Services in Myanmar and Options for Sustainable Financing [Internet]. Yangon; 2013 [cited 2021 Nov 22]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269099141_The_Economic_Value_of_Forest_Ecosystem_Services_in_Myanmar_and_Options_for_Sustainable_Financing

21.        Wai TT. Economic Dependency of Local Communities on Mangroves: A Case Study in Bogalay, Myanmar [Internet]. 2017. Available from: http://www.eepseapartners.org/economic-dependency-local-communities-mangroves-case-study-bogalay-myanmar/

22.        Binney J, Buncle A, Thomy B, Folkerson M V., Skull S, Tait J, et al. Economic Valuation of Ecosystem services. Ayeyarwady State of the Basin Assessment (SOBA) Report 5.1. Myanmar; 2017.

23.        FAO. MYANMAR - MISSION REPORT ON INLAND AQUACULTURE AND FISHERIES [Internet]. Available from: https://www.fao.org/3/ad497e/ad497e04.htm

24.        UNEP. Global Gender and Environmental Outlook. Nairobi, Kenya; 2016.

25.        IUCN. Gender equity is key to mangrove restoration [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2022 Oct 1]. Available from: https://www.iucn.org/news/forests/201707/gender-equity-key-mangrove-restoration

26.        REDD+ Myanmar. Initial Briefing on Promoting Women’s Active Involvement in REDD+ in Myanmar. Report by the UN-REDD Programme on behalf of the Secretary to the REDD+ Taskforce.

27.        Naujoks J, Thandarko M, Khaleim N. Rooting out inequalities: Women’s participation in forest management in conflict-affected areas of Karen state in Myanmar. 2020.

28.        Rakhine Coastal Region Conservation Association. Community Forest & Mangrove Protection [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2023 Jun 2]. Available from: https://www.rakhineconservation.org/?page_id=139

29.        Hagger V, Worthington TA, Lovelock CE, Adame MF, Amano T, Brown BM, et al. Drivers of global mangrove loss and gain in social-ecological systems. Nat Commun [Internet]. 2022;13(1):6373. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-33962-x

30.        Feurer M, Gritten D, Than MM. Community forestry for livelihoods: Benefiting from Myanmar’s mangroves. For 2018, Vol 9, Page 150 [Internet]. 2018 Mar 17 [cited 2021 Aug 20];9(3):150. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/9/3/150/htm

31.        Ellison AM, Felson AJ, Friess DA. Mangrove Rehabilitation and Restoration as Experimental Adaptive Management. Front Mar Sci. 2020;7(May):1–19.

32.        Elias M, Kandel M, Mansourian S, Meinzen-Dick R, Crossland M, Joshi D, et al. Ten people-centered rules for socially sustainable ecosystem restoration. Restor Ecol [Internet]. 2022 May 1;30(4):e13574. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13574

33.        Hamilton SE, Friess DA. Global carbon stocks and potential emissions due to mangrove deforestation from 2000 to 2012. Nat Clim Chang 2018 83 [Internet]. 2018 Feb 26 [cited 2021 Aug 20];8(3):240–4. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0090-4

34.        Sanderman J, Hengl T, Fiske G, Solvik K, Adame MF, Benson L, et al. A global map of mangrove forest soil carbon at 30 m spatial resolution. Environ Res Lett [Internet]. 2018 Apr 30 [cited 2021 Nov 24];13(5):055002. Available from: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aabe1c

35.        FAO. Myanmar: Intact mangroves could have reduced Nargis damage [Internet]. 2008. Available from: https://reliefweb.int/report/myanmar/myanmar-intact-mangroves-could-have-reduced-nargis-damage

36.        Alban JDT De, Jamaludin J, Wen DW de, Than MM, Webb EL. Improved estimates of mangrove cover and change reveal catastrophic deforestation in Myanmar. Environ Res Lett [Internet]. 2020 Jul 26;15(3):34034. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab666d

37.        Richards DR, Friess DA. Rates and drivers of mangrove deforestation in Southeast Asia, 2000–2012. Proc Natl Acad Sci [Internet]. 2016 Jul 26;113(2):344–9. Available from: https://www.pnas.org/content/113/2/344

38.        Gaw LYF, Linkie M, Friess DA. Mangrove forest dynamics in Tanintharyi, Myanmar from 1989–2014, and the role of future economic and political developments. Singap J Trop Geogr [Internet]. 2018 May 1 [cited 2022 Jul 12];39(2):224–43. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/sjtg.12228

39.        Yong JWH. An ecological and plant biodiversity assessment of Meinmahla Kyun Wildlife Sanctuary (MKWS) in relation to human livelihood and biodiversity conservation and restoration. 2015.

40.        Friess DA, Rogers K, Lovelock CE, Krauss KW, Hamilton SE, Lee SY, et al. The state of the world’s mangrove forests: Past, present, and future. https://doi.org/101146/annurev-environ-101718-033302 [Internet]. 2019 Oct 10 [cited 2021 Aug 20];44:89–115. Available from: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033302

41.        Su J, Friess DA, Gasparatos A. A meta-analysis of the ecological and economic outcomes of mangrove restoration. Nat Commun [Internet]. 2021 Aug 19 [cited 2021 Aug 25];12(1):1–13. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25349-1

42.        Friess DA, Krauss KW, Horstman EM, Balke T, Bouma TJ, Galli D, et al. Are all intertidal wetlands naturally created equal? Bottlenecks, thresholds and knowledge gaps to mangrove and saltmarsh ecosystems. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc [Internet]. 2012;87:346–66. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21923637

43.        Worthington T, Spalding M. Mangrove Restoration Potential: A global map highlighting a critical opportunity Mangrove Restoration Potential A global map highlighting a critical opportunity. [cited 2021 Nov 24]; Available from: www.globalmangrovewatch.org