Mangroves FAO 2023

THE WORLD’S MANGROVES
2000–2020
THE WORLD’S MANGROVES
2000–2020
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Rome, 2023
Required citation:
FAO. 2023. The world’s mangroves 2000–2020. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc7044en
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its
authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies
or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been
endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.
The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
views or policies of FAO.
ISBN 978-92-5-138004-8
© FAO, 2023
Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo).
Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial
purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion
that FAO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the FAO logo is not permitted.
If the work is adapted, then it must be licensed under the same or equivalent Creative Commons license. If a
translation of this work is created, it must include the following disclaimer along with the required citation:
“This translation was not created by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO
is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original English edition shall be the
authoritative edition.
Any mediation relating to disputes arising under the licence shall be conducted in accordance with the
Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) as at present
in force.
Third-party materials. Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such
as tables, figures or images, are responsible for determining whether permission is needed for that reuse
and for obtaining permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any
third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user.
Sales, rights and licensing. FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/
publications) and can be purchased through publications-sales@fao.org. Requests for commercial use should
be submitted via: www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request. Queries regarding rights and licensing should be
submitted to: copyright@fao.org.
Cover photograph: ©FAO/ADOLFO KINDGARD

CONTENTS
Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................vi
Abbreviations...........................................................................................................................................vii
Executive summary..................................................................................................................................ix
1 / INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1
Study objectives..................................................................................................................................1
Mangrove ecology...............................................................................................................................1
Functions and uses of mangroves.....................................................................................................4
Threats to mangroves........................................................................................................................8
Mangrove restoration.........................................................................................................................9
Existing estimates of mangrove area and change.........................................................................10
2 / METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................................. 13
Definition of mangroves, land use, and change drivers...............................................................13
Mangrove mapping methodology...................................................................................................14
Data collection..................................................................................................................................18
Data validation..................................................................................................................................23
3 / GLOBAL OVERVIEW OF ASSESSMENT FINDINGS................................................................ 23

Mangrove area in 2020......................................................................................................................23
Change in mangrove area................................................................................................................24
Drivers of mangrove deforestation.................................................................................................27
Drivers of mangrove gain.................................................................................................................30
Natural dynamics..............................................................................................................................31
4 / REGIONAL STATUS AND TRENDS............................................................................................. 33

Africa..................................................................................................................................................33
Asia.....................................................................................................................................................36
North and Central America..............................................................................................................38
Oceania..............................................................................................................................................40
South America...................................................................................................................................42
5 / DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................... 45
Integration of local expertise and knowledge...............................................................................45
Mangrove area comparisons............................................................................................................45
Comparing estimates of mangrove area change...........................................................................46
Drivers of mangrove loss and gain..................................................................................................46
6 / CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................. 51
References................................................................................................................................................52
iii
Annex 1 List of true mangrove species...........................................................................................56
Annex 2 Classification scheme........................................................................................................57
Tables
Table 1 Estimates of net annual mangrove loss.............................................................................11
Table 2 Mangrove mapping products used to produce mangrove coverage and
mangrove change maps......................................................................................................16
Table 3 Estimated mangrove area, by subregion, 2020 .................................................................23
Table 4 Rate of annual mangrove area change, by region, 2000–2010, 2010–2020
and 2000–2020.....................................................................................................................26
Table 5 Mangrove area losses and gains in Africa, by subregion, 2000–2010 and
2010–2020............................................................................................................................33
Table 6 Drivers of mangrove gain in Africa, by subregion, 2000–2020..........................................35
Table 7 Losses and gains in mangrove area in Asia, by subregion, 2000–2010 and
2010–2020............................................................................................................................36
Table 8 Drivers of mangrove gain in Asia, by subregion, 2000–2020.............................................37
Table 9 Mangrove area losses and gains in North and Central America, 2000–2010
and 2010–2020.....................................................................................................................38
Table 10 Drivers of mangrove gain in North and Central America, 2000–2020..............................39
Table 11 Mangrove area losses and gains in Oceania, 2000–2010 and 2010–2020.........................40
Table 12 Drivers of mangrove gain in Oceania, 2000–2020..............................................................41
Table 13 Losses and gains in mangrove area in South America, 2000–2010 and 2010–2020.........42
Table 14 Drivers of mangrove gain in South America, 2000–2020...................................................43
Table 15 Mangrove area estimates for 2020, by region or subregion,
according to three studies..................................................................................................45
Table 16 Estimates of global mangrove area loss, four global studies...........................................46
Table 17 Estimates of global mangrove area gain, three global studies.........................................46
Table A1.1 List of true mangrove species.............................................................................................56
Figures
Figure 1 Estimates of global mangrove area, 1990–2020................................................................11
Figure 2 Methodology flowchart.......................................................................................................15
Figure 3 Distribution of mangrove samples deforested between 2000 and 2020.........................24
Figure 4 Annual global mangrove area loss and gain, 2000–2010 and 2010–2020.........................24
Figure 5 Mangrove-area loss and gain, by region, 2000–2010 and 2010–2020 ..............................25
Figure 6 Annual net change in mangrove area, by region, 2000–2010 and 2010–2020..................26
Figure 7 Global drivers of mangrove loss, 2000–2020.....................................................................27
Figure 8 Relative importance of drivers of mangrove loss, 2000–2010 and 2010–2020................28
Figure 9 Composition of drivers of mangrove loss, by region, 2000–2020.....................................28
Figure 10 Proportion of mangrove expansion driven by natural expansion and
restoration, 2000–2020.......................................................................................................30
Figure 11 Area of mangrove gain, by driver and region, 2000–2020.................................................30
iv
Figure 12 Global natural dynamics of mangroves, 2000—2020........................................................31
Figure 13 Proportion of mangrove area in Africa in 2020, by subregion ..........................................33
Figure 14 Proportion of mangrove area loss in Africa in 2000–2020, by driver................................34
Figure 15 Proportion of mangrove loss in Western and Central Africa in 2000–2020,
by driver...............................................................................................................................34
Figure 16 Proportion of mangrove loss in Eastern and Southern Africa in 2000–2020,
by driver...............................................................................................................................34
Figure 17 Relative importance of drivers of mangrove loss in Western and Central Africa,
2000–2010 and 2010–2020..................................................................................................35
Figure 18 Relative importance of drivers of mangrove loss in Eastern and Southern Africa,
2000–2010 and 2010–2020..................................................................................................35
Figure 19 Proportion of mangrove loss in South and Southeast Asia in 2000–2020,
by driver...............................................................................................................................36
Figure 20 Relative importance of drivers of mangrove loss in South and Southeast Asia,
2000–2010 and 2010–2020..................................................................................................37
Figure 21 Proportion of mangrove loss in North and Central America in 2000–2020,
by driver...............................................................................................................................39
Figure 22 Relative importance of drivers of mangrove loss in North and Central America,
2000–2010 and 2010–2020..................................................................................................39
Figure 23 Proportion of mangrove loss in Oceania in 2000–2020, by driver ...................................40
Figure 24 Relative importance of drivers of mangrove loss in Oceania, 2000–2010
and 2010–2020.....................................................................................................................40
Figure 25 Proportion of mangrove loss in South America in 2000–2020, by driver.........................43
Figure 26 Relative importance of drivers of mangrove loss in South America, 2000–2010
and 2010–2020.....................................................................................................................43
Figure A2.1 Centroid and hexagon current land use, 2020...................................................................57
Figure A2.2 Centroid and hexagon changes, 2000–2010 and 2010–2020.............................................61
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report is the result of collaboration between the FAO Forestry Division (the Global Forest Resources
Assessment – FRA – and Forest Biodiversity and Restoration teams), FAO member countries, institutional
and resource partners, and local experts.
About 50 people were involved directly in the work. They include FRA Remote Sensing Survey focal
points as well as collaborators in FRA 2020 Remote Sensing Survey trainings on image interpretation.
The assessment was conceptualized and coordinated by Kenichi Shono and Adolfo Kindgard under the
overall guidance of Anssi Pekkarinen and Thomas Hofer. The survey was conducted under the coordination
of Adolfo Kindgard, with inputs from Mohamed Agamy, Valeria Contessa, Erica Lupi, Kenichi Shono and
Pedro Pablo Vivar Mulas in the FRA and Forest Biodiversity and Restoration teams. Valeria Contessa,
Adolfo Kindgard and Pedro Pablo Vivar Mulas analysed the remote sensing data. Radhika Bhargava
supported the initial scoping of available data and methodologies. Valeria Contessa and Kenichi Shono
led the statistical analysis and data visualization. Kenichi Shono and Valeria Contessa drafted the report.
Adam Gerrand, Pablo Martin, Pedro Pablo Vivar Mulas, Abdul Mukti and Rubeta Andriani contributed the
box on monitoring mangrove change between 1990 and 2022 in Indonesia. Serena Fortuna, Thomas Hofer,
Anssi Pekkarinen, Marco Piazza and Tiina Vähänen reviewed a draft and provided feedback. Alastair Sarre
edited the report, Kate Ferrucci did the design and layout, Erin O’Connell did the proofreading, and Chiara
Patriarca supported the publication process. Several regional and national FAO offices helped organize
related capacity-development events. The World’s Mangroves, 2000–2020 was supported financially by
the European Union and the Governments of Norway and Finland. FAO is grateful to all those countries,
territories, institutions and individuals who made the report possible.
vi
ABBREVIATIONS
CEO Collect Earth Online

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FRA Global Forest Resources Assessment
GMW Global Mangrove Watch
ha hectare(s)
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
JRC Joint Research Centre of the European Commission
m metre(s)
MVI Mangrove Vegetation Index
REDD+ reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and the role of
conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon
stocks in developing countries
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
USD United States dollar(s)
vii
©CIFOR/MOKHAMAD EDLIADI
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides global and regional estimates of the area covered by mangrove forests,
including area changes between 2000 and 2020. It analyses the drivers of these global, regional
and subregional changes for the periods 2000–2010 and 2010–2020 with the aim of improving
understanding of these drivers, their interactions and how their relative importance has shifted
over time.
In the study that underpins this report, FAO fish), fibre and fuels alongside cultural services
developed and validated an easy, repeatable meth- Mangroves also provide regulating services, such
odology that integrates remote sensing with local as coastal stabilization, nutrient absorption as well
knowledge. An FAO team and 48 image interpreters as carbon sequestration. Local people obtain a wide
worldwide collected and analysed data on mangrove range of benefits from the sustainable management,
area in 2020, change in mangrove area between protection and restoration of mangroves. Through
2000 and 2020, and the drivers of change over the the provision of these critical ecosystem services,
two decades. It is the first global study of mangrove mangroves make crucial contributions to many of
area to provide information on land use rather than the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030
land cover. Agenda.
Mangroves are salt-tolerant evergreen forests To estimate mangrove status and trends, the
found in intertidal environments at the land–sea study delineated mangroves from other forest types
interface. They grow at tropical and subtropical based on the dominance of true mangrove species,
latitudes in areas along sheltered coastlines, and defined various mangrove-specific classes for
shallow-water lagoons, estuaries, rivers and land use, land-use change and deforestation drivers.
deltas, mainly on soft substrates. Mangrove species It used existing remote sensing mangrove maps for
are distinguished based on morphological and the stratification and allocation of samples, and
physiological adaptations that enable them to grow local experts participated in the data collection.
in saline environments. Estimates of the number The required number of samples, 20 900 in total
of true mangrove species range from about 50 to globally, was determined considering the objective
more than 70. of obtaining accurate estimates of the mangrove
Mangrove forests occur in many tropical and area in 2020, the change in mangrove areas in the
subtropical environments, providing hundreds periods 2000–2010 and 2010–2020, and the main
of millions of coastal people with important drivers of mangrove loss.
ecosystems services. Mangroves are among the Findings are presented on mangrove area, area
world’s most productive ecosystems and are change, and drivers of change for each of the five
important carbon sinks. The high primary production regions of Africa, Asia, North and Central America,
of mangroves sustains a rich food web – from South America, and Oceania.
detritus decomposers to fish, mammals and birds – The study estimated the total global area of
supporting provisioning services for food, (especially mangroves in 2020 at 14.8 million ha, of which
ix
nearly 44 percent (6.48 million ha) is in South and (677 thousand ha) was offset by the establishment
Southeast Asia. The mangrove area in 2020 was expansion of new mangrove areas not present
2.14 million ha in South America, 2.09 million ha in in 2000 (393 thousand ha). Thus, there was a net
Western and Central Asia, 1.85 million ha in North decline in global mangrove area of 284 thousand ha
and Central America, 1.46 million ha in Oceania, over the period.
0.73 million ha in Eastern and Southern Africa, and The rate of net global mangrove loss slowed
around 200 thousand ha in Western and Central Asia between the two decadal periods, with the net
and East Asia. loss of mangrove area decreasing by 44 percent
According to the study, around half the total between the two periods, from 18.2 thousand
loss of mangrove area between 2000 and 2020 ha per year in 2000–2010 to 10.2 thousand ha per
©CIFOR/MOSES CEASER
x
year in 2010–2020. Accordingly, the annual rate of The findings of this study have important
mangrove loss globally declined from 0.12 percent implications for future work in conserving, restoring
in 2000–2020 to 0.07 percent in 2010–2020. Of the and sustainably managing mangroves, including
regions, Asia accounted for 68 percent of global the following:
mangrove area loss in 2000–2010 and for 54 percent  In Southeast Asia, the subregion with the largest
of the loss in 2010–2020. Of the global mangrove extent of mangroves globally, efforts to address
area gains, 47 percent in 2000–2010 and 54 percent land-use drivers of mangrove loss should
in 2010–2020 were in Asia. continue, directing agricultural development
The main direct drivers of mangrove loss to conserve remaining mangrove forests.
globally between 2000 and 2020 were aquaculture  In Western and Central Africa, where a high
development (27 percent) and natural retraction rate of mangrove loss persisted over the
(26 percent), followed by conversion to oil palm two measurement periods, conversion to
(8 percent), rice cultivation (8 percent) and other aquaculture and various forms of agriculture
forms of agriculture (12 percent). The significance needs to be addressed by promoting sustainable
of aquaculture as a driver of mangrove area loss use and livelihood support.
declined between the two decadal periods (from  Mangrove restoration should be given priority
about 31 percent in 2000–2010 to 21 percent in in global, regional and national restoration
2010–2020), but the importance of conversion initiatives in view of their crucial benefits for
to oil-palm plantations increased substantially livelihoods, coastal resilience and biodiversity
(from about 4 percent in 2000–2010 to 14 percent conservation.
in 2010–2020), mostly in Southeast Asia.  Mangrove restoration, sustainable use and
Natural expansion accounted for 82 percent of conservation should be further emphasized
all gains in mangrove area between 2000 and 2020 in nationally determined contributions and in
and restoration for the rest. climate-change mitigation strategies in general,
The present study shows the importance of given the importance of mangroves as carbon
natural retraction – which is at least in part a likely sinks and the co-benefits of adaptation and
consequence of the impacts of climate change – disaster risk reduction.
as a driver of mangrove loss. Climate change can  Given the ability of mangroves to naturally
affect mangroves in various ways, including through colonize suitable habitats, mangrove restoration
sea-level rise; increases in atmospheric carbon should focus on creating conducive biophysical
dioxide; rises in temperature; changes in rainfall; and and social conditions for the re-establishment
the predicted increase in the frequency and severity and growth of healthy mangrove forests.
of extreme weather. The climate-change-driven loss  The contributions of climate-change impacts
of mangroves further exposes vulnerable local com- to the retraction of mangroves should be
munities to disasters such as storm surges, floods monitored carefully because they further expose
and tsunamis – against which healthy mangroves coastal communities to disasters.
provide a certain level of protection – resulting in a
negative feedback loop. The area of mangroves lost
to natural disasters increased threefold between
the two periods of 2000–2010 and 2010–2020, and
this trend is expected to worsen. Natural retrac-
tion increased significantly in South America and
Oceania over the study period.
xi
©CIFOR/AULIA ERLANGGA
1 / INTRODUCTION
STUDY OBJECTIVES study, and Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 present the

The study reported here estimates the area of man- global and regional findings, respectively. Chapter 5
groves globally and regionally, as well as the change comprises a discussion of the methodology and
in area between 2000 and 2020. It also analyses the findings, and Chapter 6 contains a brief conclusion.
direct drivers of area change at the global, regional
and subregional levels for the periods 2000–2010 MANGROVE ECOLOGY
and 2010–2020 with the aim of improving under- Mangroves are salt-tolerant evergreen forests found
standing of these drivers and their interactions and in intertidal environments at the land–sea interface.
to shed light on how the relative importance of the They grow at tropical and subtropical latitudes in
drivers has shifted over time. areas along sheltered coastlines, shallow-water
An important aspect of the study is the incor- lagoons, estuaries, rivers and deltas, mainly on
poration of local expertise in the interpretation of soft substrates. Mangrove ecosystems represent
remote sensing data. This has helped improve the an interphase between terrestrial and marine
accuracy of mangrove identification and under- communities, which receive daily inputs of water
standing of change drivers because local experts from the ocean and often freshwater, sediments,
often have a detailed understanding of development nutrients and silt deposits from upland rivers.
activities in mangrove forests and the wider land- The term “mangrove” describes both an
scapes that may be contributing to change. The local ecosystem type and the group of woody plants
interpreters involved in the study are part of a global with specialized physiological and morphological
network of remote sensing experts established for adaptations for living in intertidal environments
the Global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) 2020 (Tomlinson, 1986). These adaptations include aerial
Remote Sensing Survey (FAO, 2022). roots for respiration and anchorage in waterlogged
Another aim of the study was to develop and muddy substrates; the ability to cope with salinity
validate a mangrove assessment methodology (e.g. through salt exclusion at the roots and the
that can be used in countries to identify hotspots elimination of excess salt by excretion); propagules
of change in mangrove area and understand the adapted to tidal dispersal (i.e. seed vivipary); and
drivers of such change. This can inform cross- highly efficient nutrient-retention mechanisms (Ball,
sectoral land-use planning and national policies to 1988; Hogarth, 2015).
ensure that these consider all the benefits provided The stature and composition of mangroves vary
by mangroves. according to climate, salinity, topography and the
This chapter describes mangroves, provides edaphic features of the area in which they exist.
background information on their functions, uses, Mangrove forests may occur as isolated patches
threats and restoration, and presents previous of dwarf stunted trees in very-high-salinity or dis-
estimates of mangrove area and change over time. turbed conditions and, on more favourable sites,
Chapter 2 sets out the methodology used in the as lush forests with canopies up to 40 m in height.
1
©CIFOR/BRUNO LOCATELLI
Human pressure and disturbance can constrain of true mangroves in 20 genera and 15 families.
mangrove development by creating stressed and Spalding et al. (2010) recognized 73 species and
polluted environments. Bands of mangroves domi- hybrids in 29 genera and 21 families (of which 36 spe-
nated by a single species are often observed based cies were considered “core” mangrove species).
on species-specific adaptions to local topography, Most mangrove species have wide distributions,
tidal ranges and salinity. In undisturbed and pris- although some have restricted ranges. The highest
tine estuaries, mangroves may extend for several species diversity is in South and Southeast Asia,
kilometres inland, as they do in the Sundarbans with minor diversity centres in southern Central
(Bangladesh and India), the Mekong delta (Viet Nam), America and the Western Indian Ocean (Spalding
the Gambia River delta (the Gambia), the Fly River et al., 2010). Mangrove diversity diminishes quickly
(Papua New Guinea), and the Florida Everglades at the geographical limits of mangrove growth in
(The United States of America). the subtropics and in arid zones, where they often
Mangrove species are distinguished based on appear as small trees. Nevertheless, such mangrove
morphological and physiological characteristics areas may still play essential roles for local people.
that enable them to grow in saline environments, At first sight, the most easily recognizable
rather than on taxonomical lineage. Estimates of adaptation to intertidal environments developed
the number of true mangrove species range from by mangroves is their aerial rooting system, which is
about 50 to more than 70, depending on how “true” completely or partly exposed to the atmosphere for
mangroves are defined and whether hybrids are part of the day but inundated at high tide. Its main
counted. Tomlinson (2016) recognized 51 species functions are the exchange of gases, anchorage of
2 THE WORLD’S MANGROVES 2000–2020

the tree in muddy soils, and nutrient absorption. in which they grow. They may exclude the uptake of
However, only the most specialized species (i.e. the salt at the root and remove excess salt at the leaf.
major components of mangrove forest communities Mechanisms for the latter include salt excretion
– true mangroves, according to Tomlinson, 1986) glands (Avicennia, Aegiceras and Aegialitis), cuticular
have developed aerial root systems; among these, transpiration, and the shedding of salt-accumulated
aerial roots may have different structures, depending leaves.
on the species. For example, stilt roots grow from The most specialized mangrove families have
the trunk and lower branches of Rhizophora spp. developed highly efficient reproduction systems.
and, to a limited extent, in the sapling stages of the In the Rhizophoraceae family, neither the fruit nor
genera Bruguiera and Ceriops (they become shallow the seed is released. Rather, the seed germinates on
buttresses in older trees). Pneumatophores – pencil- the parental tree, and the seedling itself is used as
like extensions of the subterranean rooting system the propagule (known as vivipary) (Juncosa, 1982).
– rise from the ground and can extend long distances In viviparous species, the embryo has no dormancy
from parental trees in Avicennia, Sonneratia and and is detached only when it is mature and ready
Laguncularia. In the genera Bruguiera, Ceriops and to be established. Some species, such as those in
Xylocarpus, pneumatophores may form a series of the genera Aegiceras, Avicennia, Nypa and Pelliciera,
arches or knee shapes during their horizontal growth have developed cryptovivipary, in which the embryo
(sometimes called knee roots). emerges from the seed but not from the fruit until
Mangrove species have developed various meth- after the fruit abscises.
ods for coping with the high-salinity environments
©CIFOR-ICRAF/AULIA ERLANGGA
INTRODUCTION 3
FUNCTIONS AND USES OF MANGROVES Forest products
Mangrove forests occur in many tropical and sub- In most countries, mangroves constitute a relatively
tropical environments that overlap with areas of high small proportion of the total forest area. Neverthe-
human density; they have traditionally been widely less, they produce many wood and non-wood forest
used and exploited. Mangroves provide hundreds of products that are important locally and nationally
millions of coastal people with important regulating as sources of income and subsistence. Mangrove
services, such as pollution control and protection wood, which is typically dense and durable, was
from disasters. They also support many fisheries in high demand in colonial times for shipbuilding
and cultural practices. Mangrove ecosystems make and other uses. As the number of large trees in man-
crucial contributions to many of the Sustainable grove stands diminished, however, so did the use of
Development Goals (SDGs) set in the 2030 Agenda mangroves for sawnwood. Nevertheless, mangrove
for Sustainable Development. The importance of wood is still used as poles for light construction and
restoring and protecting mangroves is reflected most as fuelwood (either burnt directly or converted to
clearly in SDG 14 (Life Below Water), which concerns charcoal). Other mangrove forest products include
the sustainable use of marine resources. Mangrove tannins and dyes; pharmaceuticals; thatch; sugar
ecosystems also contribute to SDG 1 (No Poverty) and alcohol (from nipa palm sap); and honey.
and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) by supporting fisheries and
producing various forest products; SDG 8 (Decent Biodiversity support
Work and Economic Growth) by providing work Mangroves are among the world’s most productive
and economic opportunities through fisheries and ecosystems, and their high primary production
ecotourism; SDG 13 (Climate Action) by mitigating sustains a rich food web – from detritus decomposers
climate change through carbon sequestration; and to fish, mammals and birds (Carugati et al., 2018).
SDG 15 (Life on Land) through sustainable forest Mangroves support biodiversity conservation by
management and biodiversity conservation. Local serving as habitats, spawning grounds, nurseries
people, including women, Indigenous Peoples and and sources of nutrients. They host an estimated
marginalized communities, obtain a wide range 341 threatened reptile, amphibian, mammal, fish
of benefits from the sustainable management, and bird species (Leal and Spalding, eds., 2022).
protection and restoration of mangroves. Eleven of the 70 known mangrove tree species are

©CIFOR/YOLY GUTIERREZ
in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species – two are beneficial effect. A study in the Saadani National
listed as critically endangered, three as endangered Park in the United Republic of Tanzania, for example,
and six as vulnerable (Polidoro et al., 2010). established that a 10 percent increase in mangrove
cover could (on average) increase shrimping income
Supporting fisheries by about twofold (McNally, Uchida and Gold, 2011).
Mangroves play crucial roles in many marine Thus, it is important to avoid mangrove loss (and
food chains and support the production of a to replace mangrove habitat, if lost) and prevent
wide range of commercial and non-commercial their degradation.
fish and shellfish. They do so through two main
mechanisms: their primary production; and the Aquaculture
structure provided by their aerial roots, which Mangrove habitats provide ideal conditions for aqua-
creates a physical environment suitable for many culture – both open-water estuarine mariculture (e.g.
fish species (Hutchinson, Spalding and Ermgassen, oysters and mussels) and pond culture (mainly for
2014). It is widely accepted that mangroves have shrimps). The expansion of aquaculture has been one
substantial economic value for both small-scale of the key drivers of mangrove loss since the early
and large-scale fisheries, although this varies enor- 1970s, especially in Southeast Asia (Goldberg et al.,
mously between sites. In a comprehensive literature 2020; Friess et al., 2019). Because of its high eco-
review, Hutchinson, Spalding and Ermgassen (2014) nomic returns, shrimp farming has been promoted
found that mangroves had a global median value in several countries as a means for boosting national
of USD 77 per ha per year for fish and USD 213 per economies and alleviating poverty. If poorly planned
ha per year for mixed species’ fisheries (i.e. mixed and unsustainably managed, however, it can lead to
catch of finfish, molluscs and crustaceans), with uncontrolled deforestation, the pollution of coastal
values well in excess of USD 10 000 per ha per year waters, and damage and destroy coastal ecosystems,
in the most productive locations. Hutchinson, with the subsequent loss of mangrove ecosystem
Spalding and Ermgassen (2014) also found that services and benefits. The aim of international
fish productivity increased with increasing man- guidance and standards such as the Aquaculture
grove productivity and area. Moreover, mangroves Stewardship Council Shrimp Standard (ASC, 2019)
with higher structural complexity have a greater and the International Principles for Responsible
INTRODUCTION 5
Shrimp Farming (FAO/NACA/UNEP/World Bank/WWF, biomass and soils, where it will remain for centuries
2006) is to reduce the sector’s environmental impact if undisturbed (Leal and Spalding, eds., 2022). The
while boosting its contribution to poverty alleviation. ability of mangroves to sequester and store large
Integrated mangrove-shrimp aquaculture that com- amounts of carbon have brought them to the fore-
bines the maintenance and restoration of mangrove front of the international climate change dialogue,
cover with shrimp farming has been proposed in in which the importance of “blue carbon” – which
Viet Nam and shown to be viable. Although not yet comprises the carbon stored in mangroves, salt
widely adopted, the approach has the potential to marshes and seagrasses – is also well recognized.
optimize production and environmental benefits Mangroves make substantial contributions to the
from the sustainable use of mangrove habitats. It nationally determined contributions (as specified
should be noted, however, that these systems are in the Paris Agreement on climate change) of
low intensity and typically produce low returns several countries (Friess et al., 2019). Their carbon
(McSherry et al., 2023). Harvesting can also be a sequestration and storage potential makes man-
challenge as the ponds can rarely be fully drained, or groves suitable for payment schemes for ecosystem
may have trees and other vegetation present which services, including under REDD+1 and voluntary
can tangle harvest nets. carbon standards.
Ecotourism Coastal protection and climate-change adaption

Mangrove-based ecotourism is a potentially The role of mangroves in protecting coastal com-
valuable and sustainable source of income for local munities from storms and coastal erosion will be
communities. Many examples exist of successful increasingly important as extreme weather events
mangrove-based ecotourism that provides become more intense and frequent due to climate
communities with revenue and an incentive to change (Spurrier et al., 2019). Mangroves also offer
conserve and sustainably manage mangroves protection from tsunamis – for example, the Indian
while raising the awareness of visitors about the Ocean tsunami in 2004 demonstrated the protective
many values of mangroves. Mangrove-related role of mangroves and other coastal forests and
ecotourism activities that can be combined with trees in mitigating disaster risk and enhancing
homestays in nearby villages include exploring resilience (Forbes and Broadhead, 2007). Although
mangroves on boardwalks or by boat; observing the level of protection offered by mangroves is
wildlife; kayaking; and viewing fireflies. Mangroves debated, there is evidence and consensus that
are also crucial habitat for a number of species dense coastal forest belts – if well designed and
of game fish; game fishing can bring significant managed – have the potential to act as bioshields
financial benefits such as those associated with the for the protection of people and other assets against
provision of accommodation, food, fishing guides, some tsunamis and other coastal hazards (such as
and boat and gear rentals (Hutchison, Spalding and coastal erosion, cyclones, winds and salt spray)
Ermgassen, 2014). (Forbes and Broadhead, 2007; Spalding et al., 2014).
At any elevation and distance from the sea front,
Climate change mitigation hazard from waves is consistently lower for areas
Mangroves are among the most carbon-rich behind mangroves. Spalding et al. (2014) concluded
ecosystems on Earth. They store an estimated that mangroves can protect coastal areas from
6.23 gigatonnes of carbon worldwide in their hazards by reducing wind and swell waves to lessen
1
REDD+ = reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests
and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries.

©FAO
INTRODUCTION 7
wave damage; flooding impacts of storm surges Despite the many services and benefits they
during major storms; tsunami heights, thus helping provide, mangroves are often undervalued and
minimize loss of life and damage to property; and sometimes viewed as wastelands and unhealthy
erosion by binding and building up soils as sea environments. In some places, high population
levels rise. pressure has led to the conversion of mangroves
Mangroves and other coastal forests cannot for urban development. Moreover, some govern-
fully protect against all levels of hazard. The extent ments had in the past prioritized the conversion
of protection they offer depends on factors such as of mangroves for agriculture and salt production
the width and density of vegetation; the diameter of as means for increasing food security, boosting
tree trunks and roots; wave features; land elevation; national economies and improving living stand-
and underwater topography. Mangroves should ards. Mangroves have also been fragmented and
be integrated into coastal management planning degraded through unsustainable harvesting
as part of a multidimensional approach to coastal and pollution. Indirectly, mangroves have been
protection and combined with grey infrastructure, degraded and lost by upstream dam construction on
where needed (Dasgupta et al., 2019). rivers, which modifies inputs of sediments, nutrients
and freshwater. Although mangrove forests can
THREATS TO MANGROVES protect coastal areas from storms and strong winds,
Mangroves have been converted to other land uses they are also susceptible to damage by these.
throughout human history. The rate of loss has been Awareness of the importance and value of
much more rapid in the last 50 years, however, with mangrove ecosystems has grown in recent years,
detrimental effects on ecosystem services such leading to the preparation and implementation
as carbon storage, coastal protection, livelihood of laws and regulations to better protect and
support and fish production. There is evidence that manage them. Some countries have initiated
the rate of mangrove loss is now slowing globally programmes to re-establish mangrove forests
due to greater awareness of the many benefits of through natural regeneration or active planting.
mangroves and as more mangrove areas are placed Although this is encouraging, focusing on the
under protection. Nevertheless, mangrove forests extent of mangroves may take attention away
continue to be converted to other land uses that from their degradation, which is notoriously
generate higher revenue in the short term, including difficult to define and monitor over large areas.
agriculture, aquaculture and infrastructure Mangrove degradation reduces biodiversity and
development. Even when not converted, many can have important consequences for neighbouring
mangrove areas are being degraded by wood ecosystems due to a collapse in the mangroves’
extraction, water diversion, coastal erosion and ability to produce organic matter (Carugati et al.,
extreme weather events. Recent assessments of the 2018). Another concern is fragmentation, which
distribution and drivers of mangrove loss indicate results in the loss of ecosystem functions and can be
that conversion to aquaculture and agriculture is ubiquitous, even in areas where mangrove cover is
the primary driver globally, with Southeast Asia relatively stable (Bryan-Brown et al., 2020). Although
being the hotspot for human-driven mangrove many governments recognize the importance of
deforestation (Goldberg et al., 2020; Friess et al., mangroves for fisheries, forestry, coastal protection
2019; Thomas et al., 2017; Richards and Friess, 2016). and wildlife, much still needs to be done to conserve
Climate change is also putting mangroves at greater these vital ecosystems.
risk as sea levels rise and the severity and frequency
of storms increase.

©CIFOR/SIGIT DENI SASMITO
MANGROVE RESTORATION
Significant momentum is building globally for integrity and prevent further degradation and
ecosystem restoration, as illustrated by various eventual loss.
international and national commitments and Many efforts have been made to restore man-
initiatives aimed at restoring degraded ecosystems. groves, including as part of coastal restoration
These include the Bonn Challenge, the New York efforts after disasters such as the 2004 Indian Ocean
Declaration on Forests, the United Nations Decade tsunami, which caused considerable damage to
on Ecosystem Restoration, and national restoration large areas of coastline in South and Southeast Asia.
targets, including those specified in nationally These efforts have been piecemeal, however, and
determined contributions. the rate of failure has been high. For example, for a
Alongside the movement for ecosystem res- large number of coastal restoration cases examined
toration, interest is growing in the rehabilitation, worldwide, Bayraktarov et al. (2016) found a mean
restoration and sustainable management of survival of planted mangroves seedlings of 51 per-
mangroves given the broad range of products cent. In the Philippines, mangrove plantings have
and services they provide, particularly related to had long-term survival rates of only 10–20 percent
climate-change mitigation, coastal resilience, liveli- (Primavera and Esteban, 2008). Kodikara et al. (2017)
hood support and disaster mitigation. Worthington reported that, in Sri Lanka, 40 percent of the area in
and Spalding (2018) estimated that 812 thousand 23 restoration sites examined had failed completely,
ha of mangroves were lost worldwide between 1996 with no surviving plants; only about 20 percent of
and 2016, of which some 663 thousand ha were the area planted had been restored successfully.
highly restorable. In addition, 139 thousand ha of Among the factors contributing to the high rate
existing mangroves were categorized as degraded, of mangrove restoration failure are an overemphasis
where restoration could enhance ecosystem on replanting, particularly in unsuitable habitats;
INTRODUCTION 9
poor site–species matching; a lack of maintenance; The selection of suboptimal sites for mangrove
inadequate assessment and control of barriers to planting may be driven by political, legal or socio-
mangrove recovery; and a lack of support from and economic factors. For example, seaward mudflats
participation by local communities in restoration away from the coast may have fewer challenges
efforts. The natural distribution of mangroves is regarding tenure, and therefore larger areas can be
based on species-specific tolerance to salinity secured for planting (Friess et al., 2019). Replanting
and the duration of tidal immersion. Planting a also offers opportunities for publicity and helps
limited number of easy-to-propagate mangrove draw the attention of the public and potential
species in unsuitable habitats (such as channels, funders. As a result, monospecific mangrove
mudflats and seagrass beds) is likely to result in plantations may be established on sites that do
failure. Mangrove restoration should start with an not naturally support mangroves, often resulting in
understanding of the natural vegetation present failure, particularly in the absence of maintenance
before disturbance. If a site supported mangroves and the lack of involvement of local communities.
in the past, an assessment of the barriers to natural Given the current global focus on ecosystem
mangrove regeneration should follow. If prop- restoration, there are significant opportunities for
agules are naturally available and any barriers to scaling up the restoration of coastal ecosystems
establishment (such as hydrologic constraints) are (Saunders et al., 2020). To be effective, efforts should
removed, mangroves should be able to recolonize focus on ensuring the long-term viability and quality
suitable habitats without replanting. For example, of the restored mangroves rather than on metrics
mangroves have regenerated successfully on large such as the number of seedlings and hectares planted,
areas of abandoned aquaculture ponds through the despite the attractive headlines these might make.
restoration of mangrove hydrology (Friess et al.,
2019). Where planting is required, the species EXISTING ESTIMATES OF MANGROVE AREA
used should be appropriate for the site, and the AND CHANGE
planted seedlings should be protected from cutting, Despite an extensive literature on mangroves and
browsing and other disturbances. Also, a robust numerous studies, there is a lack of consistent,
monitoring programme should be put in place based reliable and ground-truthed data on the area
on identified restoration goals and defined success of mangroves and trends in this over time. The
criteria. The data gathered through monitoring can first estimate of total mangrove area world-
be used to measure success and to indicate the wide – 15.6 million ha – was made by the Food and
need for adjustments or corrections (Lewis, 2009). Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
©CIFOR/YOLY GUTIERREZ

and the United Nations Environment Programme data, and Global Mangrove Watch analyses using
in 1980 as part of the Tropical Forest Resources ALOS-PALSAR2 (Bunting et al., 2018, 2022).
Assessment (FAO, 1981a; FAO, 1981b; FAO, 1981c). The different estimates of mangrove extent and
Spalding et al. (1997) estimated global mangrove change provided by such studies – for example,
cover at 18.1 million ha. FAO (2007) estimated the the area in 2000 was estimated at 15.7 million ha
global area of mangrove forests at 15.2 million ha by FAO (2007) and at 13.8 million ha by Giri et al.
in 2005, down from 16.9 million ha in 1990. Sub- (2011) (Figure 1) – are due to differences in data and
sequent studies to assess the extent of mangrove methodologies used. Although estimates of the rate
area include those of Spalding, Kainuma and Collins of mangrove loss also vary, there is consensus that
(2010) and Giri et al. (2011), both based on Landsat it is declining (Table 1).
Figure 1. Estimates of global mangrove area, 1990–2020
18
17 16.9
16 15.8 15.7
million ha
15.3 15.2
15.3 15.0 14.9
15 14.7
15.2
14.1 14.8
14
13.6
13.8
13
12
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
 FAO (2007)  Spalding et al. (2010)  Giri et al. (2011)

 Bunting et al. (2022)  FAO (2020)  Murray et al. (2022)
Source: Compiled by the authors using the sources cited.
Table 1. Estimates of net annual mangrove loss

SOURCE PERIOD ANNUAL AREA CHANGE ANNUAL RATE OF CHANGE
(000 ha) (%)
FAO (2007) 1980–1990 −186.9 −1.04
1990–2000 −118.5 −0.72
2000–2010 −101.8 −0.66
FAO (2020) 1990–2000 −46.7 −0.30
2000–2010 −36.4 −0.24
2010–2020 −21.1 −0.14
Bunting et al. (2022) 1996–2010 −32.7 −0.22
2010–2020 −6.6 −0.04
Hamilton and Casey (2016) 2000–2012 −13.7 −0.16
Goldberg et al. (2020) 2000–2016 −21.0 −0.13
Murray et al. (2022) 1999–2019 −27.8 −0.20
Source: Compiled by the authors using the sources cited.
2
ALOS-PALSAR = Advanced Land Observing Satellite-Phased Array Type L-band Synthetic Aperture Radar.
INTRODUCTION 11
©CIFOR-ICRAF/DONNY IQBAL
2 / METHODOLOGY
DEFINITION OF MANGROVES, APPLIED The basic land-use classification scheme of the

LAND USE, AND CHANGE DRIVERS CLASSES study is adopted from the FRA 2020 Remote Sensing
Tomlinson (1986) defined true mangroves as plant Survey (FAO, 2022) and expanded to capture the
species that: occur only in mangrove environments status of and changes in mangrove area, as well as
and not in terrestrial communities; play a major role the drivers of these changes.
in forming the structure of a mangrove community; The following additional mangrove-specific
have morphological specializations for the man- classes for land use and drivers of loss and gain
grove environment (e.g. aerial roots and vivipary); were added following a review of relevant literature
have physiological mechanisms for salt exclusion (e.g. Richards and Friess, 2016; Hamilton and Casey,
or excretion; and are taxonomically distinct from 2016; Feka and Ajonina, 2011):
terrestrial relatives. Species found in mangrove
environments that do not possess all these char- Current land use (2020)
acteristics are categorized as mangrove associates.  Mangrove forest – stocked
Such species (e.g. in the genera Caesalpinia, Mora  Mangrove forest – temporarily unstocked
and Thespesia) are often found at the landward  Aquaculture
edges of mangrove ecosystems (also called “back  Rice field
mangroves”), along river banks and in beach for-  Settlement (subclasses: human settlement;
ests. Opinions differ on the classification of true infrastructure; and mining)
mangroves versus mangrove associates, particularly
for fringe species found mainly in the landward Loss drivers (2000–2010 and 2010–2020)
transitional zones of mangroves (e.g. Acanthus spp.  Aquaculture3
and Heritiera littoralis). Species status is unresolved  Rice cultivation
for some hybrids, subspecies and synonyms.  Oil-palm plantation
Here, we use Tomlinson’s list of true mangroves  Direct settlement (urbanization and infrastructure)
supplemented with the exclusive mangrove species  Indirect settlement (salinization, wetland drying)
listed by Saenger, Hegerl and Davie (1983) for the  Timber extraction, including for fuelwood and
purpose of delineating mangroves from other forest charcoal production
types (Annex 1). Areas where these true mangrove  Natural disasters
species comprise the dominant vegetation were  Natural retraction4
identified as mangroves in our study.
3
Aquaculture is the farming of aquatic organisms, including fish, molluscs, crustaceans and aquatic plants. Farming implies some form of
intervention in the rearing process to enhance production, such as regular stocking, feeding, protection from predators, etc. Farming also
implies individual or corporate ownership of the stock being cultivated. For statistical purposes, aquatic organisms that are harvested
by an individual or corporate body which has owned them throughout their rearing period contribute to aquaculture, while aquatic
organisms which are exploitable by the public as common property resources, with or without appropriate licences, are the harvest of
fisheries (FAO, 1998).
4
In this study, natural retraction is defined as natural changes or movements in riverbeds, sediment inputs or sea levels that lead to the
local extinction of a mangrove ecosystem (Annex 2). In the study period, such natural changes were likely exacerbated by the impacts of
climate change, such as sea-level rise and more severe weather events (this issue is discussed further in Chapter 5).
13
Gain drivers (2000–2010 and 2010–2020) produced using cloud-free Landsat 7 and Landsat 8
 Natural expansion Tier 1 images following Baloloy et al. (2020).
 Restoration First, a 600 m buffer around the Global Mangrove
Watch v2 (GMW) layer was created to capture all
As the data and methods used in this study do mangrove areas off the coast. Within this buffered
not allow for the separation of different aquaculture area, pixels from the Joint Research Centre of the
practices, the class "aquaculture" is used here European Commission (JRC) mangrove dataset
as a catch-all term. However, it should be noted (Vancutsem et al., 2021) and the Global Mangrove
that aquaculture, in relation to mangrove loss, is Forest Distribution v1 2000 dataset (Giri et al., 2011)
primarily reflecting pond shrimp aquaculture, and were selected (Table 2). From the JRC mangrove
in some rare cases pond farmed fin fish. Thus, most dataset’s classes, we used the undisturbed
aquaculture practices do not affect mangroves. mangroves, mangrove deforestation (2000–2019),
Annex 2 contains the complete classification legend mangrove degradation (2000–2019) and mangrove
and detailed definitions. degraded or regrown before 2000 classes. From
the Global Mangrove Forest Distribution v1 2000
MANGROVE MAPPING METHODOLOGY dataset we used the mangrove and non-mangrove
The sampling frame for the study is the same as that pixel information for the year 2000.
used for the FRA 2020 Remote Sensing Survey (FAO, This combined dataset was used to generate
2022). It is based on a tessellation of the Earth’s the two maps. The mangrove presence (stable
surface into equal-area hexagons (39.62 ha each) mangrove) layer was generated using only pixels
originating from a discrete global grid of equal- where all datasets agreed on the presence of
sized hexagons. Each hexagon contained a 1-ha mangroves. Pixels with disagreements between
square centroid, which was used to collect more the datasets were considered as mangrove change
detailed information on land use, land-use change, areas. We applied a 120 m buffer around both maps
and related drivers. to ensure we captured all mangroves and changes.
To define the strata for our sampling design, The final stratification of hexagons into stable
we created three key maps: a Mangrove Vegetation and change classes was done using the MVI layers
Index (MVI) map, a mangrove presence map, and a for each of the target years, along with the mangrove
mangrove change map (Figure 2). The MVI layers were presence and change maps.
©CIFOR/YAYAN INDRIATMOKO

Figure 2. Methodology flowchart
DEFINE
POPULATION
AND CREATE Global mangrove
STRATA extent time-series data
Define Calculate
stable and Mangrove
change Vegetation
areas Index (MVI)
Create strata:
1. change
2. small change
3. no change forest
4. no change non-forest
SELECT Random stratified sample

SAMPLE of subregions,
proportional to area
Visual High-
interpretation resolution
in Collect time-series
Earth Online imagery
COLLECT AND
ANALYSE DATA
Assess mangrove extent,

2000–2020 change, and
change drivers
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
METHODOLOGY 15
Table 2. Mangrove mapping products used to produce mangrove coverage and mangrove
change maps
NAME SOURCE
Global Mangrove Forest Giri, C., Ochieng, E., Tieszen, L.L., Zhu, Z., Singh, A., Loveland, T., Masek, J.
Distribution, v1 2000 & Duke, N. 2011. Status and distribution of mangrove forests of the
world using earth observation satellite data: status and distributions of
global mangroves. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 20(1): 154–159.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00584.x
European Commission Vancutsem, C., Achard, F., Pekel, J.-F., Vieilledent, G., Carboni, S.,
Joint Research Centre Simonetti, D., Gallego, J., Aragão, L.E.O.C. & Nasi, R. 2021. Long-term
dataset on forest-cover (1990–2019) monitoring of forest cover changes in the humid tropics. Science
change in tropical moist Advances, 7(10): eabe1603. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abe1603
forests, 2000–2019 European Commission Joint Research Centre. Undated. Tracking long-term
(1990–2021) deforestation and degradation in tropical moist forests. In: Forest
Resources and Carbon Emissions (IFORCE). Cited 20 March 2023. https://forobs.
jrc.ec.europa.eu/TMF/index.php
Global Mangrove Watch Bunting, P., Rosenqvist, A., Lucas, R.M., Rebelo, L.M., Hilarides, L.,
(1996, 2010, 2015, 2016) Thomas, N., Hardy, A., Itoh, T., Shimada, M. & Finlayson, C.M. 2018. The
Global Mangrove Watch – a new 2010 global baseline of mangrove extent.
Remote Sensing, 10: 1669. Datasets downloaded at https://data.unep-wcmc.
org/datasets/45
To generate the MVI layers, a temporal window 2. A hexagon was assigned to the “small change”
of three years was used for each of the target years; stratum if between 5 percent and 40 percent
for example, for year 2000 all cloud-free pixels for the was covered by pixels of the change raster and
period 1999–2001 were used. The MVI layers were it had a maximum of 30 percent of pixels from
calculated using the mean (μ) values of the selected the stable mangrove raster.
pixels of the appropriate bands (B), as follows: 3. A hexagon was assigned to the “no change–
forest” stratum if it met one of the following
MVI Landsat 7: criteria:
(μB4−μB2)  between 5 percent and 40 percent of pixels
MVI =
(μB5−μB2) were from the change raster and more
than 30 percent of pixels were from stable
MVI Landsat 8: mangrove raster;
(μB5−μB3)  fewer than 5 percent of pixels were from the
MVI =
(μB6−μB3) change raster, more than 10 percent were
from the stable mangrove raster, and the
The MVI raster values, together with the stable 2000 MVI value was greater than 4.5; or
mangrove raster values and mangrove change  fewer than 5 percent of pixels were from the
areas raster, were used to determine the final change raster, fewer than 10 percent were
stratification of the hexagons. The four possible from the stable mangrove raster, and the
strata were: (1) change; (2) small change; (3) no 2020 MVI value was greater than 4.5.
change–forest; and (4) no change–no forest. 4. A hexagon was assigned to the “no change–no
The following served as criteria for assigning forest” stratum if fewer than 5 percent of pixels
strata: were from the change raster, fewer than 10
1. A hexagon was assigned to the “change” stratum percent of pixels were from the stable mangrove
if more than 40 percent was covered by pixels raster, and the MVI values for 2000 and 2020
of the change raster. were below 4.5.

The study samples to be visually assessed samples were needed to obtain accurate estimates
were randomly selected using a statistical analysis of the mangrove area globally in 2020, change in
based on the number of samples per stratum in mangrove areas in the periods 2000–2010 and
the population of each FAO subregion. Previous 2010–2020, and the main drivers of mangrove loss
experience in sampling-based estimates of global between those periods.
forest area (FAO, 2022) indicated that around 20 900
METHODOLOGY 17
DATA COLLECTION International Development) and FAO in partnership

The study applied a hybrid methodology, meaning with SilvaCarbon (an interagency cooperation pro-
that it combined existing remote sensing mangrove gramme of the Government of the United States of
maps for stratification and the allocation of samples America), the University of San Francisco’s Spatial
with the participation of local interpreters for data Informatics Group, the United States Forest Service,
collection. and Google.
The samples were classified by local mangrove Assessment of the current status of the sample
experts from interested countries, selected through sites was based on Sentinel 2 mosaics, and land-use
the FRA Remote Sensing Focal Points Network. change was assessed using Landsat mosaics for
Where local experts were unavailable, FAO experts the target years of 2000, 2010 and 2020, thereby
performed the classification. A total of 48 experts ensuring global consistency. Very-high-resolution
from 26 countries participated in collecting data images, freely available from Google Earth and Bing
from the 20 900 samples. A separate survey using Maps, were used as auxiliary data to facilitate the
a similar methodology is underway in Indonesia, understanding and classification of the samples.
which has the largest mangrove area of any country Note that the dual nature of the data collection –
worldwide (Box 1). that is, obtaining quantitative area percentages
As for the FRA 2020 Remote Sensing Survey, from the hexagons and discrete classes from the
we collected data in discrete classes at the cen- centroids – can lead to inconsistencies in the
troid level (1 ha) and quantitative data for each resulting estimates of mangrove area. These may
class at the hexagon level (39.6 ha) (FAO, 2022). arise, for example, when a sample presents a small
The visual interpretation of the samples was change in mangrove area in the hexagon between
done using Collect Earth Online (CEO)5, a cloud analysis periods but no change in the centroid. In
platform developed collaboratively by SERVIR such cases, which were particularly common in Oce-
(a joint venture between the National Aeronautics ania, the area totals calculated from the hexagons
and Space Administration – NASA – of the United do not fully match the totals for change drivers
States of America and the United States Agency for calculated from the centroids.
5
https://collect.earth

BOX 1
Improving capacity to monitor Indonesia’s mangroves
Indonesia has the world’s largest extent of mangroves, contributing 21 percent of the total global
mangrove area (FAO, 2020). Robust information on these resources is essential given their immense
economic, social and environmental importance and high biodiversity. Indonesia has established a
national forest monitoring system since 1990s with progressive improvements over time and now
called SIMONTANA. Indonesia’s Ministry of Environment and Forestry and FAO convened a workshop in
Yogyakarta, Indonesia, from 27 June to 2 July 2022 to assess mangroves in Indonesia. The assessment was
developed as part of the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 Remote Sensing Survey (FAO, 2022)
and used a similar sampling-based methodology. For the national exercise, the number of samples was
densified to 3 000 samples, and the study period was extended to investigate the extent of mangroves
between 1990 and 2022. The aim of the assessment was to provide consistent indicators of mangrove
extent, distribution and trends. These new methods used by FAO were also a good exercise for Indonesian
staff to combine their local knowledge with new technology developed in order to improve mangrove
mapping in Indonesia. The aim was to enhance mangrove mapping for improved accuracy and efficiency.
METHODS
Software and sensors. The assessment of samples was conducted on the online platform Collect Earth
Online (CEO). The status of land use in 2022 was based on cloud-free multispectral Sentinel-2 satellite
imagery, and in 1990, 2000, 2010 and 2022 was assessed using cloud-free Landsat imagery. Very-high-
resolution images from Bing Maps, DigitalGlobe and MapBox were used to support photo-interpretation.
Approach. The Ministry of Environment and Forestry designated 35 staff to participate in the
workshop. As requested by the FAO team, each participant had experience in geographic information
systems and, most importantly, local field knowledge of their study areas.
© DIRECTORATE OF INVENTORY AND MONITORING OF FOREST
RESOURCES, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTRY
The participants consisted of various regional officers from Indonesia’s MoEF staff. The participants
had expertise, local knowledge of the areas and understanding in using medium satellite resolution for
land cover.
METHODOLOGY 19
Capacity development. In the week preceding the workshop, participants were able to attend an
interactive online course involving 14 lessons on various topics, such as the tools to be used in the
assessment (i.e. CEO and Google Earth Pro); the methodology of photo interpretation for medium- and
high-resolution images; and the definitions and ecological concepts used. The course was created
specifically for this country-level workshop because some of the participants were unfamiliar with
the methodology and software used for remote sensing.
The lessons included videos demonstrating how to classify samples, as well as explanations – with
examples – of each category of land use and land-use change. The examples were based on real cases
in the study areas. At the end of each module, participants were required to complete a short exercise
on the topics covered.
©FAO
©FAO
The workshop used a dynamic participatory approach in which exercises, tests and joint discussions
on complex classification cases were conducted to ensure that participants could use the classification
criteria correctly. Evaluations were done to determine the participants’ understanding and to identify
possible weaknesses that needed to be addressed before interpreting the samples on mangroves.
Participants worked together in groups of two or three, each with their own computer, analysing their
regions of expertise and communicating with each other during the analysis.
©DIRECTORATE OF INVENTORY AND MONITORING OF FOREST
Participants worked in small groups to photo-interpret remote sensing imagery for their own regions

A field trip was conducted involving the interpreters and FAO staff. The main objective was to help
interpreters better understand the relationship between the on-the-ground reality for mangroves
and the remotely sensed products they were using as a reference for the classification. The field visit
was carried out in a community forest under a management plan and in a mangrove restoration area
developed close to aquaculture ponds.
©DIRECTORATE OF INVENTORY AND MONITORING OF FOREST
Scenes from the field trip conducted in a community mangrove forest and a mangrove restoration area
DATA VALIDATION FAO carried out an additional quality-control exer-

After data collection, FAO reviewed the mangrove cise on a randomly chosen 10 percent subsample
estimates generated for each country by compar- of the interpreted plots. Where misinterpretations
ing them with other available data sources. For were found for certain land-use/land-use-change
any given country where there was a discrepancy classes, all plots pertaining to those classes were
between our estimate and those of other sources, reviewed. Any errors detected were corrected.
METHODOLOGY 21
©FAO/SYLVAIN CHERKAOUI
3 / GLOBAL OVERVIEW
OF ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
MANGROVE AREA IN 2020

We estimate that the total global area of mangroves South America (2.14 million ha), Western and Central
in 2020 was 14.8 million ha. Mangroves are distrib- Africa (2.09 million ha), North and Central America
uted unevenly worldwide, with more than two-fifths (1.85 million ha) and Oceania 1.46 million ha), with
(43.8 percent, 6.48 million ha) occuring in South much smaller areas in other parts of tropical Asia
and Southeast Asia. The remainder is mostly in and Africa (Table 3 and Figure 3).
Table 3. Estimated mangrove area, by subregion, 2020

SUBREGION MANGROVE AREA ± 95% CONFIDENCE % OF GLOBAL
(million ha) INTERVAL (%) MANGROVE AREA
Eastern and Southern Africa 0.73 6.79 4.92
Western and Central Africa 2.09 3.80 14.2
East Asia 0.02 34.7 0.10
South and Southeast Asia 6.48 2.03 43.8
Western and Central Asia 0.02 45.6 0.14
North and Central America 1.85 4.45 12.5
Oceania 1.46 4.81 9.89
South America 2.14 3.40 14.5
World 14.8 1.4 100
©FAO/ADOLFO KINDGARD
23
Figure 3. Distribution of mangrove samples deforested between 2000 and 2020
 Mangrove loss detected between 2000 and 2020

 Mangrove cover, 2020
Sources: Background made with Natural Earth. Free vector and raster map data @ naturalearthdata.com. Global
mangrove cover shapefile from Bunting, P., Rosenqvist, A., Hilarides, L., Lucas, R.M., Thomas, N., Tadono, T.,
Worthington, T.A. et al. 2022. Global mangrove extent change 1996–2020: Global Mangrove Watch version 3.0. Remote
Sensing, 14(15): 3657. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14153657. Mangrove loss samples were generated by the present study.
CHANGE IN MANGROVE AREA of mangrove area gain, from 20.1 thousand ha per
Around half the total loss of mangrove area between year in 2000–2010 to 19.2 thousand ha per year in
2000 and 2020 (677 thousand ha) was offset by the 2010–2020 (Figure 4).
expansion of mangrove to areas not present in 2000 The rate of net loss of mangrove area de-
(393 thousand ha). Thus, there was a net decline in creased by 44 percent between the two periods,
mangrove area of 284 thousand ha over the period. from 18.2 thousand ha per year in 2000–2010 to
The rate of gross global mangrove loss 10.2 thousand ha per year in 2010–2020.
decreased by around 23 percent between the Asia, which hosts almost half the world’s man-
two decadal periods, from 38.3 thousand ha per groves, accounted for 68 percent of global mangrove
year in 2000–2010 to 29.4 thousand ha per year in area loss in 2000–2010 and for 54 percent of the loss
2010–2020. There was a slight decrease in the rate in 2010–2020; of the global mangrove area gains,
Figure 4. Annual global mangrove area loss and gain, 2000–2010 and 2010–2020
30
20
10 20.13 19.17
0
000 ha/year
−10
−29.41
−20 −38.28
−30
−40
−50
2000–2010 2010–2020
 Mangrove area gain  Mangrove area loss


54 percent in 2000–2010 and 47 percent in 2010– the area of mangrove loss was substantially larger
2020 were in Asia (Figure 5). The area of mangrove in 2010–2020 than in 2000–2010 but the area of
loss and the area of mangrove gain in Asia both mangrove gain was smaller. In North and Central
decreased significantly between the two decadal America, the area of mangrove loss was smaller
periods. The area of mangrove loss and the area of in 2010–2020 than in 2000–2010 and the area of
mangrove gain were both slightly lower in Africa in mangrove gain was substantially larger.
2000–2010 than in 2010–2020. In South America,
Figure 5. Mangrove area loss and gain, by region, 2000–2010 and 2010–2020
−46.54 15.70
Africa −47.37 24.73
−260.72 108.24
Asia −160.22 90.11
North and −32.83 19.22

Central America −27.44 33.45
−6.58 7.28
Oceania
−5.80 2.84
−36.10 50.85
South America
−53.29 40.54
−300 −250 −200 −150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150

000 ha
 Losses 2000–2010  Losses 2010–2020  Gains 2000–2010  Gains 2010–2020

Although the largest net loss of mangrove area and Southeast Asia, at −0.23 percent per year in
was in Asia, it was almost halved between the 2000–2010 (the rate declined to −0.11 percent per
two periods (Figure 6). In Africa, net annual loss year in 2010–2020). The net loss of mangrove area in
decreased by 26.6 percent, from 3.08 thousand ha Western and Central Africa was unchanged between
per year in 2000–2010 to 2.26 thousand ha per year the two decades, at −0.12 percent per year; this
in 2010–2020. North and Central America reversed a region had the highest net rate of mangrove loss
negative trend in net mangrove area change, from in 2010–2020. A shift towards a negative net rate of
a net loss of 1.36 thousand ha per year in 2000– change in Oceania (from no change in 2000–2010 to
2010 to a net gain of 0.6 ha per year in 2010–2020. a rate of −0.01 percent per year in 2010–2020) and
Conversely, South America and Oceania achieved South America (from an increase of 0.07 percent
net gains in 2000–2010 but experienced net losses per year in 2000–2010 to a loss of −0.06 percent per
in 2010–2020 (Figure 6). year in 2010–2020) suggests an increasing threat
The annual global rate of change in mangrove to mangroves in those two regions. In East Asia
area decreased from −0.12 percent in 2000–2010 (where only two countries, China and Japan, have
to −0.07 percent in 2010–2020 (Table 4). The mangroves), mangrove area increased over the two
highest rate of net mangrove loss was in South decades at a rate of 2.32 percent per year.
GLOBAL OVERVIEW OF ASSESSMENT FINDINGS 25

Figure 6. Annual net change in mangrove area, by region, 2000–2010 and 2010–2020
−3.08
Africa
−2.26
−15.25
Asia
−7.01
North and −1.36

Central America 0.60
0.07
Oceania
−0.29
1.47
South America
−1.27
-18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4

000 ha/year
 Net change 2000–2010  Net change 2010–2020

Table 4. Rate of annual mangrove area change, by region, 2000–2010, 2010–2020 and 2000–2020
SUBREGION 2000–2010 2010–2020 2000–2020
(%) (%) (%)
Eastern and Southern Africa −0.08 0.05 −0.0
Western and Central Africa −0.12 −0.12 −0.1
East Asia 2.74 1.90 2.32
South and Southeast Asia −0.23 −0.11 −0.17
Western and Central Asia 0.00 0.00 0.00
North and Central America −0.07 0.03 −0.02
Oceania 0.00 −0.02 −0.01
South America 0.07 −0.06 0.00
World −0.12 −0.07 −0.10
©FAO/AMADOU TOURÉ

DRIVERS OF MANGROVE DEFORESTATION for 12.3 percent. Direct and indirect settlement
The main direct drivers of mangrove loss globally caused 13.3 percent of mangrove loss over the two
between 2000 and 2020 were aquaculture devel- decades – this comprised the clearing of mangroves
opment, constituting 26.7 percent of total loss, for housing, other buildings and infrastructure, and
and natural retraction, at 25.9 percent. Conversion development activities that changed the hydrologic
to oil palm and rice cultivation accounted for regime or sediment inputs or produced pollution
16.6 percent of mangrove loss and conversion sufficiently extreme to cause mangroves to disap-
to other forms of agriculture and undefined uses pear (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Global drivers of mangrove loss, 2000–2020
Rice
Other cultivation
12.3% 8.4%
Indirect
Oil palm settlement
8.2% 5.6%
Natural disasters
Wood extraction
Aquaculture Natural retraction Direct settlement

3.2%
2.0%
26.7% 25.9% 7.7%
 Aquaculture  Wood extraction  Direct settlement  Indirect settlement  Natural disasters

 Natural retraction  Oil palm  Other  Rice cultivation
The relative importance of the global drivers of also increased in 2010–2020, indicating the intensi-
mangrove loss shifted considerably between the two fying impacts of climate change. Mangrove losses
periods (i.e. 2000–2010 and 2010–2020) (Figure 8). due to indirect settlement and disasters increased
Aquaculture remained a key driver but its signifi- noticeably between the two periods.
cance diminished, mainly due to the trend in South The relative importance of loss drivers differed
and Southeast Asia. The roles of conversion for markedly between regions (Figure 9) (regional and
rice cultivation and direct settlement also declined subregional trends are examined in more detail in
markedly but the relative importance of conversion Chapter 4).
to oil-palm plantations increased substantially due
to an expansion of these in Southeast Asia. The pro-
portion of mangrove loss due to natural retraction

Figure 8. Relative importance of drivers of mangrove loss, 2000–2010 and 2010–2020
2.9
2000–2010 31.3 24.0 4.1 8.4 12.3 11.8 4.4
0.9
3.3
2.1
1.6
3.4
2010–2020 20.6 28.6 13.6 17.6 9.2
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Figure 9. Composition of drivers of mangrove loss, by region, 2000–2020

51.2
Africa 9.6 11.7 23.3 6.1 6.5 31.5

12.9
Asia 149.4 20.9 23.3 69.9 53.3 37.6 53.5
North and
11.0 9.4 5.9 5.4 16.2 7.3 2.8
Central America
Oceania 1.1 9.9
South
2.5
1.3
8.1 70.6 6.0

America
21.3
13.1
World 178.2 51.2 37.3 173.1 54.6 82.4 56.3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Note: Embedded numbers show mangrove area (000 ha).



DRIVERS OF MANGROVE GAIN Figure 10. Proportion of mangrove gain driven
Natural expansion comprised 82 percent of all by natural expansion and restoration, 2000–2020
gains in mangrove area globally over the study

(000 ha and %)
period (i.e. 2000–2020) (Figure 10). Nonetheless,
restoration efforts were found to have contributed
64.4
to the increase to differing extents, depending on 18%
the region. These interventions had most impact in
South and Southeast Asia and Africa, where 25 and
33 percent of mangrove expansion, respectively,
was due to restoration activities (Figure 11).
294.5
82%
 Natural retraction
 Restoration
Figure 11. Area of mangrove gain, by driver and region, 2000–2020
200
180
160 48.44
140
120
000 ha
100
80 4.82
138.64
60
40 76.67
11.13 52.26
20
22.95
0 3.96
Africa Asia North and Oceania South
Central America
America
 Natural expansion  Restoration


NATURAL DYNAMICS (173.1 thousand ha) (Figure 12). Natural disasters
Considering only the natural dynamics of man- resulted in the loss of another 13.1 thousand ha of
grove expansion and retraction (i.e. excluding mangroves over the period. Even though the net
anthropogenic losses and restoration efforts), change in mangrove area globally was negative
the study found that, over the period 2000–2020, over the period, the area of natural expansion
mangroves expanded over a much larger area far exceeded the area lost to natural causes (by
globally (294.5 thousand ha) than they retracted 58 percent, or by 63 percent when the contribution
due to natural causes, excluding natural disasters of natural disasters is included).
Figure 12. Global natural dynamics of mangroves, 2000—2020
350
300
250
200
000 ha
150 294.5
100
173.1
50
0
Natural expansion Natural retraction
©CIFOR/KATE EVANS

©FAO/UNDP PERU-CFI LA
4 / REGIONAL STATUS
AND TRENDS
and 2010–2020 and decreased in Eastern and
AFRICA
Southern Africa, and the rate of gain of mangroves
Mangrove status and trends increased in both subregions (Table 5). The rate of
Of the five regions, Africa had the second-largest area net change in mangrove area was steady in Western
of mangroves (after Asia) in 2020, at 2.82 million ha; and Central Africa between the two periods, at
this was 19 percent of the global mangrove area. −0.12 percent; this was the highest rate of man-
Western and Central Africa hosted the majority grove loss of any subregion globally in 2010–2020.
(74 percent) of Africa’s mangroves (Figure 13). Conversely, for Eastern and Southern Africa, a net
The rate of loss of mangroves increased slightly annual loss of 0.08 percent in 2000–2010 turned to
in Western and Central Africa between 2000–2010 a net increase of 0.05 percent per year in 2010–2020.
Table 5. Mangrove area losses and gains in Africa, by subregion, 2000–2010 and 2010–2020
SUBREGION LOSS GAIN ANNUAL NET CHANGE
(000 ha) (000 ha) (%)
2000– 2010– 2000– 2010– 2000– 2010–
2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020
Eastern and Southern Africa −16.10 −14.06 10.64 17.44 −0.08 0.05
Western and Central Africa −30.44 −33.32 5.06 7.29 −0.12 −0.12
Figure 13. Proportion of mangrove area in Africa

in 2020, by subregion
(000 ha and %)
0.73
26%
2.09
74%
©FAO/MARTA MOREIRAS
 Western and Central Africa

 Eastern and Southern Africa
REGIONAL STATUS AND TRENDS 33

Drivers of mangrove loss and gain Figure 15. Proportion of mangrove loss in Western
According to our assessment, the main driver of and Central Africa in 2000–2020, by driver
mangrove loss in Africa in 2000–2020 was “other”,

(000 ha and %)
accounting for 36 percent of the loss. This category
encompasses various forms of agriculture (excluding
13.8 9.6
aquaculture and rice cultivation), such as conversion
23% 16%
to grasslands for livestock grazing and any other
1.3
trajectory of change not classifiable among the 2%
other available classes. The second-ranked driver

was direct settlement (urbanization), at 26 percent, 6.5
11%
and the third was wood extraction, primarily for
fuelwood and charcoal production, at 13 percent
(Figure 14).
The importance of these drivers varied consider- 6.1 23.3
10% 38%
ably between the two subregions. The predominant
driver of mangrove loss in Western and Central
 Aquaculture  Indirect settlement
Africa was direct settlement, mainly urbanization,  Wood extraction  Natural retraction
at 38 percent, and “other” accounted for 23 percent  Direct settlement  Other
(Figure 15). In Eastern Africa, the only two discern-
ible drivers were “other” (63 percent of mangrove
loss) and wood extraction (37 percent) (Figure 16).
Figure 14. Proportion of mangrove loss in Africa Figure 16. Proportion of mangrove loss in Eastern
in 2000–2020, by driver and Southern Africa in 2000–2020, by driver
(000 ha and %) (000 ha and %)
31.5 9.6 10.4

36% 11% 37%
11.7
13%
6.5
7%
6.1 23.3 17.6
7% 26% 63%

 Wood extraction  Natural retraction  Wood extraction  Other
 Direct settlement  Other
Source: Authors’ own elaboration. Source: Authors’ own elaboration.

There was a significant shift in the drivers loss in 2000–2010, caused only 2.4 percent of loss
of mangrove loss in Western and Central Africa in 2010–2020. New drivers with more impact in the
between 2000–2010 and 2010–2020. Direct settle- latter period were aquaculture, natural retraction
ment, which accounted for 74 percent of mangrove and indirect settlement (Figure 17).
Figure 17. Relative importance of drivers of mangrove loss in Western and Central Africa, 2000–2010
and 2010–2020
2.4
2000–2010 23.5 74.1
31.9 21.6 22.1 20.3
2.3
1.8
2010–2020
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
 Aquaculture  Natural retraction  Other

 Direct settlement  Indirect settlement  Wood extraction
Only two drivers of mangrove loss were at play Figure 18. Relative importance of drivers of
in Eastern and Southern Africa. The role of wood mangrove loss in Eastern and Southern Africa,
2000–2010 and 2010–2020
extraction leading to mangrove deforestation
declined between the two periods but the impor-
tance of “other” increased (Figure 18).
Natural expansion was responsible for most 2000–2010 58.8 41.2
(82 percent) of mangrove gain in Western and

Central Africa between 2000 and 2020 (Table 6).
2010–2020 68.5 31.5
Restoration had a larger role in the expansion of
mangroves in Eastern and Southern Africa over the
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
period, accounting for 39 percent.
 Other  Wood extraction
Table 6. Drivers of mangrove gain in Africa, by subregion, 2000–2020

SUBREGION NATURAL RESTORATION TOTAL
EXPANSION
000 ha (% of total)
Eastern and Southern Africa 14.3 (61) 9.19 (39) 23.5 (100)
Western and Central Africa 8.61 (82) 1.94 (18) 10.5 (100)

period at a rate of 2.32 percent annually. South
ASIA
and Southeast Asia experienced a relatively high
Mangrove status and trends rate of net loss in 2000–2010, at 0.23 percent, but
The area of mangroves in Asia in 2020 is estimated this declined to 0.11 percent per year in 2010–2020
at 6.5 million ha, which was 44 percent of man- (Table 7).
grove area worldwide in that year; Asia had the
largest area of mangroves among the five regions Drivers of mangrove loss and gain
worldwide, almost all of it (99.5 percent) in South In South and Southeast Asia, the main driver of
and Southeast Asia. mangrove loss between 2000 and 2020 was aquacul-
There were significant differences in mangrove ture, accounting for 35 percent, followed by natural
loss and gain among the subregions in Asia. No retraction (17 percent). Conversion for rice cultiva-
loss or gain of area was detected in Western and tion and oil-palm plantations was also important,
Central Asia between 2000 and 2020. In East Asia, with each land use accounting for 13 percent of the
the mangrove area expanded over the 20-year loss (Figure 19).
Table 7. Losses and gains in mangrove area in Asia, by subregion, 2000–2010 and 2010–2020
SUBREGION LOSS GAIN ANNUAL NET CHANGE
(000 ha) (000 ha) (%)
2000– 2010– 2000– 2010– 2000– 2010–
2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020
East Asia 0 0 2.95 2.58 2.74 1.90
South and Southeast Asia −261 −160 105 87.5 −0.23 −0.11
Western and Central Asia 0 0 0 0 0 0
Figure 19. Proportion of mangrove loss in South

and Southeast Asia in 2000–2020, by driver
(000 ha and %)
53.5 149.4
13% 35%
37.6
9%
53.3
13%
20.9
5%
69.9 12.9 23.3

17% 3% 5%

 Rice cultivation  Natural retraction
 Direct settlement  Other
 Oil palm  Natural disasters

A diverse and dynamic set of drivers was respon- Restoration efforts played a larger role in the
sible for mangrove loss in South and Southeast Asia. expansion of mangrove area in Asia than in other
Most notably, the role of aquaculture declined subregions over the 20-year period. In East Asia, the
stantially between the two measurement periods, entire gain in mangrove area, although modest, was
as did the role of conversion to rice cultivation and attributable to restoration interventions. Restora-
direct settlement. On the other hand, conversion to tion contributed about one-quarter of the observed
oil-palm plantations emerged as the predominant gain in mangrove area in South and Southeast Asia
driver of mangrove loss between 2010 and 2020. The over the two decades (Table 8).
impact of disasters and indirect settlement on man-
grove loss also increased significantly (Figure 20).
Figure 20. Relative importance of drivers of mangrove loss in South and Southeast Asia, 2000–2010
and 2010–2020
1.3
4.2
4.2
2000–2010 43.7 17.2 6.0 18.0 6.4
2010–2020 22.1 16.2 23.5 16.6 4.1 7.7 6.0
2.7
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
 Aquaculture  Natural retraction  Oil palm  Other

 Rice cultivation  Direct settlement  Indirect settlement  Natural disasters
Table 8. Drivers of mangrove gain in Asia, by subregion, 2000–2020

SUBREGION NATURAL RESTORATION TOTAL
EXPANSION
000 ha (% of total)
East Asia 0 3 (100) 3 (100)
South and Southeast Asia 13.9 (75) 45.4 (25) 184 (100)
Western and Central Asia 0 0 0
©CIFOR/KATE EVANS

The total loss of mangrove area decreased
NORTH AND
slightly in the region between 2000–2010 and
CENTRAL AMERICA
2010–2020, from about 33 thousand ha to
Mangrove status and trends 27 thousand ha. The gain in mangrove area was
The mangrove area in North and Central America about 19 thousand ha in the earlier period and
in 2020 is estimated at 1.85 million ha, which was 33 thousand ha in the latter. Thus, there was an
12.5 percent of the global mangrove area in that overall negative trend in mangrove area in 2000–
year. The region has the fourth-largest mangrove 2010 and a positive trend in 2010–2020 (Table 9).
area worldwide.
Table 9. Mangrove area losses and gains in North and Central America, 2000–2010 and 2010–2020
REGION LOSS GAIN ANNUAL NET CHANGE
(000 ha) (000 ha) (%)
2000– 2010– 2000– 2010– 2000– 2010–
2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020
North and Central America −32.8 −27.4 19.2 33.4 −0.07 0.03
©CIFOR/BRUNO LOCATELLI

Drivers of mangrove loss and gain Figure 21. Proportion of mangrove loss in South
The main driver of mangrove loss between 2000 and Southeast Asia in 2000–2020, by driver
and 2020 in North and Central America was natural

(000 ha and %)
retraction (including that arising from the impacts
2.8
of climate change), accounting for 28 percent, 5%
11.0
followed by aquaculture (19 percent) and wood 7.3 19%
extraction (16 percent) (Figure 21). Mangroves face 13%
multifaceted threats in the region.

Aquaculture, rice cultivation and indirect
9.4
settlement emerged as important drivers of man- 16%
grove loss in the region in 2010–2020 (Figure 22).

In contrast, wood extraction, which was a signifi-
cant driver in 2000–2010, ceased to be a factor in
2010–2020, and the importance of direct settlement
16.2 0.2 5.4 5.9
also declined. 28% 0% 9% 10%
No sample plots showing mangrove gain in the
 Aquaculture  Natural disasters
region due to restoration were observed in either  Wood extraction  Natural retraction
measurement period; thus, all gains in mangrove  Direct settlement  Other
 Indirect settlement  Rice cultivation
area between 2000 and 2020 were attributed to
natural expansion (Table 10).
Figure 22. Relative importance of drivers of mangrove loss in North and Central America, 2000–2010
and 2010–2020 and 2010–2020
2000–2010 14.7 28.7 13.2 14.7 28.7
24.4 26.5 11.7 11.2 4.3 21.2

0.7
2010–2020
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
 Aquaculture  Natural retraction  Other  Rice cultivation

 Direct settlement  Indirect settlement  Wood extraction  Natural disasters
Table 10. Drivers of mangrove gain in North and Central America, 2000–2020
REGION NATURAL RESTORATION TOTAL
EXPANSION
000 ha (% of total)
North and Central America 52.3 (100) 0 52.3 (100)

periods, but the gain in mangrove area decreased
OCEANIA
from 7.28 thousand ha in the first measure-
Mangrove status and trends ment period to 2.84 thousand ha in the second
The mangrove area in Oceania in 2020 is estimated (Table 11). The overall net change in mangrove
at 1.46 million ha, which was 9.9 percent of the area was minimal in 2000–2010, but there was a net
global mangrove area in that year. loss of mangroves in the second period of about
There was minimal change in the area of 3 thousand ha, or 0.02 percent of the region’s total
mangroves lost between the two measurement mangrove area.
Table 11. Mangrove area losses and gains in Oceania, 2000–2010 and 2010–2020
(000 ha) (000 ha) (%)
2000– 2010– 2000– 2010– 2000– 2010–
2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020
North and Central America −6.58 −5.80 7.28 2.84 0.00 −0.02
Drivers of mangrove loss and gain resource extraction and agricultural conversion
According to the assessment, mangrove loss in in Oceania but are susceptible to coastal erosion
Oceania was caused by only two drivers over the exacerbated by climate change and to urban devel-
two decades. The main one was natural retraction, opment, including for tourism.
which caused 90 percent of mangrove loss between Direct settlement contributed to less than one-
2000 and 2020, and the other was direct settlement third of mangrove loss in Oceania in 2000–2010,
(10 percent) (Figure 23). Thus, it appears that man- but all loss in 2010–2020 was assessed as due to
groves are not under serious direct pressure from natural retraction (Figure 24).
Figure 23. Proportion of mangrove loss in Figure 24. Relative importance of drivers of
Oceania in 2000–2020, by driver mangrove loss in Oceania, 2000–2010 and
2010–2020
(000 ha and %)
9.9
90% 2000–2010 79.5 20.5
2010–2020 100
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
 Natural retraction  Direct settlement

1.1
10% Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
 Natural retraction
 Direct settlement

No sample plots showing mangrove gain due to gains between 2000 and 2020 were attributed to
restoration were observed in Oceania in either natural expansion (Table 12).
measurement period; thus, all mangrove area
Table 12. Drivers of mangrove gain in Oceania, 2000–2020

EXPANSION
000 ha (% of total)
Oceania 3.96 (100) 0 3.96 (100)
©FAO/AHMAD MUSTAPHA MOHAMAD PAZI

conversely, the gain in mangrove area was lower in
SOUTH AMERICA
the second period. Thus, there was a net increase
Mangrove status and trends in mangrove area between 2000 and 2010 and a
The mangrove area in South America in 2020 is net loss between 2010 and 2020 (Table 13). There
estimated at 2.14 million ha, which was 14.5 percent was minimal net change in mangrove area between
of the global mangrove area in that year. 2000 and 2020.
Mangrove area loss increased by almost 50 per-
cent between the two measurement periods but,
Table 13. Losses and gains in mangrove area in South America, 2000–2010 and 2010–2020
(000 ha) (000 ha) (%)
2000– 2010– 2000– 2010– 2000– 2010–
2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020
South America −36.1 −53.3 50.8 40.5 0.07 −0.06
©CIFOR/ULET IFANSASTI

Drivers of mangrove loss and gain Figure 25. Proportion of mangrove loss in South
The main driver of mangrove loss in South America America in 2000–2020, by driver
over the two decades was natural retraction,

(000 ha and %)
accounting for about 80 percent of gross loss,
followed by aquaculture (9 percent) and “other” 0.2
0%
(7 percent) (Figure 25). 2.5
3%
Although natural retraction was the dominant
8.1
driver of mangrove loss in both measurement 9%
periods, Figure 26 shows that the drivers of 6.0
7%
change diversified in the period 2010–2020, with
1.3
aquaculture, oil-palm plantations, other conversion 1%
and indirect settlement all making significant
contributions.
Most of the gain in mangrove area in the region
70.6
over the study period was due to natural expan- 80%
sion, with only 6 percent attributable to restoration

 Aquaculture  Natural retraction
(Table 14).  Wood extraction  Oil palm
 Indirect settlement  Other
Figure 26. Relative importance of drivers of mangrove loss in South America, 2000–2010 and
2010–2020
1.3
0.7
2000–2010 98.0
2.0
2010–2020 15.0 67.0 11.0 4.0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
 Aquaculture  Natural retraction  Oil palm

 Other  Indirect settlement  Wood extraction
Table 14. Drivers of mangrove gain in South America, 2000–2020

EXPANSION
000 ha (% of total)
South America 76.7 (94) 4.82 (6) 81.5 (100)

©CIFOR-ICRAF/AULIA ERLANGGA
5 / DISCUSSION
INTEGRATION OF LOCAL EXPERTISE AND MANGROVE AREA COMPARISONS

KNOWLEDGE This study uses the concepts of land use and land-
The State of the World’s Mangroves 2022 (Leal and use change. Therefore, our estimates of mangrove
Spalding, eds., 2022) recognized the important area are not directly comparable with those of
potential role of local people in addressing data land-cover products such as global mangrove maps
deficiencies and knowledge gaps concerning man- produced using automatic and semi-automatic
grove conservation and restoration. classification of land cover in optical or radar sat-
The present study used a hybrid methodology ellite imagery. Nevertheless, a comparison of the
involving remote sensing, existing global mangrove results obtained in the present study with existing
maps and the expertise of local interpreters. land-cover data can provide insights into the status
Forty-eight experts from 26 countries participated and dynamics of the mangroves.
in collecting data from 20 900 samples. A number of recent studies assessed the extent
The involvement of local experts added value to the of mangrove area (e.g. Giri et al., 2011; Bunting et al.,
analysis by making it possible to distinguish between 2018, 2022; Zanaga et al., 2021; Vancutsem et al.,
land cover and land use and by enabling deeper exam- 2021). All were based almost entirely on the auto-
ination of specific deforestation drivers (e.g. oil-palm matic or semi-automatic classification of remote
plantations, aquaculture and rice cultivation). The sensing data. Although these layers can be used to
classification of drivers of change in mangrove area is derive area figures through pixel counting, estimates
much more difficult if it relies solely on remote sensing, produced in this way are known to be biased (Dong
given the similarity in spectral signatures that differ- et al., 2022; Moody and Woodcock, 1994; Ozdogan
ent land-cover classes can present (e.g. aquaculture and Woodcock, 2006; Czaplewski and Catts, 1992).
and coastal waters; Goldberg et al., 2020). Table 15 presents a comparison of our results with
Table 15. Mangrove area estimates for 2020, by region or subregion, according to three studies
REGION/SUBREGION BUNTING et al. (2022) FAO (2020) PRESENT STUDY
(000 ha) (000 ha) (000 ha)
Africa 2,934 3,240 2,819
Eastern and Southern Africa 792 936 726
Western and Central Africa 2,143 2,304 2,093
Asia 5,828 5,545 6,511
East Asia 23 32 15
South and Southeast Asia 5,777 5,330 6,476
Western and Central Asia 29 184 21
North and Central America 2,283 2,552 1,846
Oceania 1,652 1,255 1,461
South America 2,038 2,124 2,140
Total 14,735 14,717 14,777
45
those produced using FRA 2020 reported data (FAO, estimates are highly variable. Goldberg et al. (2020)
2020) and the most recent Global Mangrove Watch reported mangrove loss only; therefore, that study
data (Bunting et al., 2022), which have known map is not represented in Table 17.
commission and omission errors. Although the esti- Although the continuing net loss of mangroves
mates of global mangrove area in 2020 in Bunting is concerning, the results of this and other studies
et al. (2022), FAO (2020) and this study are very similar, (e.g. Leal and Spalding, eds., 2022) highlight the
there are significant differences at the regional level. dynamic nature of mangroves, with coastal eco-
systems transitioning from one form to another
COMPARING ESTIMATES OF MANGROVE as environmental conditions change. Forty-eight
AREA CHANGE percent of the area of mangroves lost between
Goldberg et al. (2020), Murray et al. (2022) and 2000 and 2020 was offset by the re-establishment
Bunting et al. (2022) all generated estimates of of mangroves in deforested areas or the coloniza-
mangrove area change. Goldberg et al. (2020) and tion of new areas (i.e. those that did not previously
Murray et al. (2022) did not make their full original support mangroves). Mangrove gain from natural
dataset available publicly, or they used different regeneration exceeded mangrove loss due to nat-
geographical subdivisions, so it was only possible ural retraction over the 20-year period, attesting
to compare the results of the present study with to the resilience of mangroves and the persistence
global estimates of those sources. Due to differing of mangrove communities in the face of changing
analysis timeframes, we transformed the various environmental conditions (Alongi, 2015). If suitable
estimates into rates of annual change to enable habitats exist and propagules are available, man-
comparisons. Table 16 (mangrove area loss) and groves can often recover on their own from natural
Table 17 (mangrove area gain) show that the and anthropogenic disturbances.
Table 16. Estimates of global mangrove area loss, four global studies
ANNUAL MANGROVE LOSS
(000 ha)
Bunting et al. (2022), Goldberg et al. (2020), Murray et al. (2022), Present study,
1996–2020 2000–2016 1999–2019 2000–2020
38.9 21.0 27.8 33.8
Table 17. Estimates of global mangrove area gain, three global studies
ANNUAL MANGROVE GAIN
(000 ha)
Bunting et al. (2022), Murray et al. (2022), Present study,
1996–2020 1999–2019 2000–2020
17.1 9.14 19.6
DRIVERS OF MANGROVE LOSS AND GAIN finding that shrimp farming, oil-palm plantations
According to the present study, the conversion of and rice cultivation accounted for 47 percent of
mangroves for the production of agricultural com- mangrove loss between 2000 and 2016.
modities (i.e. aquaculture, oil-palm plantations and The relative importance of the drivers of man-
rice cultivation) accounted for at least 43.3 percent grove deforestation shifted noticeably between the
of global mangrove loss between 2000 and 2020. two decadal periods examined in the present study.
Goldberg et al. (2020) reported a similar result, The area of mangroves cleared was 51 percent lower

©CIFOR/SIGIT DENI SASMITO
in 2010–2020 than in 2000–2010 for aquaculture; drop from 31 percent in 2000–2010, due entirely to a
80 percent lower for rice cultivation; 87 percent reduction in the importance of this driver in South
lower for direct settlement; and 73 percent lower and Southeast Asia. Mangrove conversion for aqua-
for unsustainable wood extraction. In many of the culture increased sharply in 2010–2020 in North and
subregions examined, the drivers of mangrove Central America, South America and Western and
deforestation diversified between the two periods Central Africa, indicating that this driver might need
of analysis, with natural disasters, indirect settle- to be better managed in those regions to ensure an
ment and other types of agriculture increasing in appropriate balance between conservation, local
significance. livelihoods and economic outcomes.
Overall, the net rate of global mangrove area loss The conversion of mangroves for aquaculture,
declined from −0.12 percent per year in 2000–2010 oil-palm plantations and rice cultivation continues
to −0.07 percent per year in 2010–2020, equivalent to threaten mangroves in South and Southeast
to a 44 percent drop in the area lost in 2010–2020 Asia, where these land uses were responsible for
compared with the preceding decade. In large part 61 percent of mangrove loss in 2000–2020. Although
this was due to economic development in key man- conversion for aquaculture declined significantly
grove countries, restoration, greater recognition of between 2000–2010 and 2010–2020, conversion to
the multiple benefits of mangroves, and increased oil-palm plantations increased sharply. The overall
protection of mangroves – with up to 42 percent rate of net loss of mangroves declined significantly
of remaining mangrove areas now under legal in 2010–2020 compared with the previous decade,
protection globally (Leal and Spalding, eds., 2022). due to growing awareness of the importance of
Aquaculture was the predominant anthropo- mangroves for climate-change mitigation and
genic driver of mangrove loss globally in 2010–2020, adaptation, biodiversity conservation, fisheries,
accounting for 21 percent. Nevertheless, this was a and livelihoods. Other positive factors in South
DISCUSSION 47
and Southeast Asia in recent years include efforts On the other hand, mangroves would likely decline
by governments and communities to restore in the Pacific and Caribbean islands – where there
mangroves, improved regulation of the use and is little upland space to colonize – as sea levels rise.
conversion of mangroves, and an increase in the Alongi (2015) also predicted that mangroves along
area of mangroves under protection (Spalding, arid coastlines would decline in area, structure or
Kainuma and Collins, 2010). functionality as precipitation decreased. In a study
The results of the present study show the grow- of subtropical wetlands in Florida, Coldren et al.
ing importance of natural retraction – in part a likely (2018) found that global warming might accelerate
consequence of the impacts of climate change – as mangrove expansion in some areas.
a driver of mangrove loss. However, climate change The climate-change-driven loss of mangroves
can affect mangroves in various ways, including further exposes vulnerable communities, including
through sea-level rise; increases in atmospheric in Small Island Developing States, to disasters such
carbon dioxide; rises in temperature; changes in as storm surges, floods and tsunamis – against
rainfall; and the predicted increase in the frequency which healthy mangroves provide a certain level
and severity of extreme weather (CMEP, 2017). Such of protection – resulting in a negative feedback
impacts will likely affect different regions in differ- loop. The area of mangroves lost to natural dis-
ent ways. Alongi (2015) predicted that mangrove asters increased threefold between the periods
forests would experience either little change or of 2000–2010 and 2010–2020, and this trend is
some positive impact in areas where precipitation expected to worsen in coming years.
is forecast to increase, such as in Southeast Asia Globally, we found that the area of mangroves
and along the western and central coasts of Africa. gained through natural expansion greatly exceeded

©UNDPCAMBODIA/MANUTH BUTH
the area lost due to natural retraction. It is not threatened in the subregion by aquaculture devel-
possible to explain this phenomenon on the basis opment, conversion to other forms of agriculture,
of the current study – it might be expected that natural retraction, and indirect settlement, with
natural retraction would outpace natural expansion large areas of mangroves mangroves unprotected
given the increasing impacts of climate change, (69 percent of the total resource in the subregion;
but the opposite trend was observed. This finding Leal and Spalding, eds., 2022). Future efforts to
shows the difficulty of predicting the effect of restore, conserve and sustainably use mangroves
climate change on mangrove communities given will need to manage these emerging and diversi-
the complex interplay between local biophysical fying threats through integrated, cross-sectoral
conditions and the consequences of global warming. approaches.
It also demonstrates the resilience of mangroves
in responding to environmental change and in
colonizing suitable habitats. In some of our sample
plots, for example, we observed a significant natural
expansion of mangroves on sediment depositions
created by the discharge of mine tailings.
The drivers of mangrove deforestation shifted
noticeably in Western and Central Africa – the
subregion with the highest rate of mangrove loss
in 2010–2020 – between the two measurement peri-
ods. In coming years, mangroves will continue to be
DISCUSSION 49
©CIFOR-ICRAF/DONNY IQBAL
6 / CONCLUSION
In the study reported here, FAO developed and 3. Mangrove restoration should be given priority
validated an easy, repeatable methodology that in global, regional and national restoration
integrates remote sensing with the expertise of initiatives in view of their crucial benefits for
local interpreters. An FAO team and 48 interpreters livelihoods, coastal resilience and biodiversity
from 26 countries successfully collected data on conservation.
mangrove area in 2020, change in mangrove area 4. Mangrove restoration, sustainable use and
between 2000 and 2020, and the drivers of change conservation should be further emphasized
over the two decades. This is the first global study in nationally determined contributions and in
of mangrove area to provide information on land climate-change mitigation strategies in general,
use rather than land cover, which was only possible given the importance of mangroves as carbon
because of the involvement of local experts sinks and the co-benefits of adaptation and
The sampling-based methodology developed disaster risk reduction.
and validated in this study offers opportunities for 5. Given the ability of mangroves to naturally
intensification at the national and subnational levels colonize suitable habitats and the high rate
to assess changes and trends in mangroves with of failure of mangrove restoration efforts that
sufficient resolution to enable informed strategic have relied largely on replanting, mangrove
planning for mangrove management and restora- restoration should focus on creating conducive
tion. FAO is exploring the possibility of integrating biophysical and social conditions for the
the methodology with existing national forest re-establishment and sustained growth of
inventories in several countries, which would also healthy mangrove forests.
support national and international reporting on 6. The contributions of climate-change impacts
mangroves. The findings of this study have impor- to the retraction of mangroves should be
tant implications for future work in conserving, monitored carefully because they further expose
restoring and sustainably managing mangroves, coastal communities to disasters.
including the following:
1. In Southeast Asia, the subregion with the larg-
est extent of mangroves worldwide, efforts to
address land-use drivers of mangrove loss should
continue, directing agricultural development to
avoid deforesting remaining mangrove forests.
2. In Western and Central Africa, where a high
rate of mangrove loss persisted over the two
measurement periods, conversion to aqua-
culture and other forms of agriculture needs
to be addressed by promoting sustainable use
and livelihood support.
51
REFERENCES
Alongi, D.M. 2015. The impact of climate change baseline of mangrove extent. Remote Sensing,
on mangrove forests. Current Climate Change 10(10): 1669. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10101669
Reports, 1: 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Carugati, L., Gatto, B., Rastelli, E., Lo Martire, M.,
s40641-015-0002-x Coral, C., Greco, S. & Danovaro, R. 2018. Impact
ASC. 2019. ASC Shrimp Standard Version 1.1. of mangrove forests degradation on biodiversity
Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC). www. and ecosystem functioning. Scientific Reports, 8(1):
asc-aqua.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ 13298. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-31683-0
ASC-Shrimp-Standard_v1.1_Final.pdf Coldren, G.A., Langley, J.A., Feller, I.C. & Chapman,
Baloloy, A.B., Blanco, A.C., Rhommel, R., S.K. 2018. Warming accelerates mangrove
Ana, C.S. & Nadaoka, K. 2020. Development and expansion and surface elevation gain in a
application of a new mangrove vegetation index subtropical wetland. Journal of Ecology, 107(1):
(MVI) for rapid and accurate mangrove mapping. 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13049
ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote CMEP. 2017. Caribbean Marine Climate Change
Sensing, 166: 95–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Report Card 2017. P. Buckley, B. Townhill, U. Trotz,
isprsjprs.2020.06.001 K. Nichols, P.A. Murray, C. Clarke Samuels,
Ball, M.C. 1988. Ecophysiology of mangroves. Trees, A. Gordon & M. Taylor, eds. Commonwealth
2: 129–142. Marine Economies Programme (CMEP). 12 p.
Bayraktarov, E., Saunders, M.I., Abdullah, S., Czaplewski, R.L. & Catts, G.P. 1992. Calibration of
Mills, M., Beher, J., Possingham, H.P., remotely sensed proportion or area estimates
Mumby, P.J. & Lovelock, C.E. 2016. The cost for misclassification error. Remote Sensing
and feasibility of marine coastal restoration. of Environment, 39(1): 29–43. https://doi.
Ecological Applications, 26(4): 1055–1074. https:// org/10.1016/0034-4257(92)90138-A
doi.org/10.1890/15-1077 Dasgupta, S., Islam, M.S., Huq, M., Huque, K.Z.
Bryan-Brown, D.N., Connolly, R.M., Richards, D.R., & Hasib M.R. 2019. Quantifying the protective
Adame, F., Friess, D.A. & Brown, C.J. 2020. capacity of mangroves from storm surges in
Global trends in mangrove forest fragmentation. coastal Bangladesh. PLoS ONE, 14(3): e0214079.
Scientific Reports, 10(1): 7117. https://doi. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214079
org/10.1038/s41598-020-63880-1 Dong, Q., Chen, X., Chen, J., Yin, D., Zhang, C.,
Bunting, P., Rosenqvist, A., Hilarides, L., Lucas, R.M., Xu, F., Rao, Y. et al. 2022. Bias of area counted
Thomas, N., Tadono, T., Worthington, T.A. from sub-pixel map: origin and correction.
et al. 2022. Global mangrove extent change Science of Remote Sensing, 6: 100069. https://
1996–2020: Global Mangrove Watch version doi.org/10.1016/j.srs.2022.100069
3.0. Remote Sensing, 14(15): 3657. https://doi. Eggleston, H.S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T. &
org/10.3390/rs14153657 Tanabe, K., eds. 2006. 2006 IPCC guidelines for
Bunting, P., Rosenqvist, A., Lucas, R., Rebelo, L.-M., national greenhouse gas inventories. Hayama,
Hilarides, L., Thomas, N., Hardy, A. et al. 2018. Japan, Institute for Global Environmental
The Global Mangrove Watch – a new 2010 global Strategies.

European Commission Joint Research Centre. Forbes, K. & Broadhead, J. 2007. The role of coastal
Undated. Tracking long-term (1990–2021) forests in the mitigation of tsunami impacts. RAP
deforestation and degradation in tropical Publication 1/2007. Bangkok, FAO.
moist forests. In: Forest Resources and Carbon Friess, D.A., Rogers, K., Lovelock, C.E., Krauss,
Emissions (IFORCE). [Cited 20 March 2023]. K.W., Hamilton, S.E., Lee, S.Y., Lucas, R.
https://forobs.jrc.ec.europa.eu/TMF/index.php et al. 2019. The state of the world’s mangrove
FAO. 1988. Definition of aquaculture. Seventh forests: past, present, and future. Annual
Session of the Indo-Pacific Fisheries Council Review of Environment and Resources, 44(1):
Working Party of Experts on Aquaculture, p.1–3. 89–115. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
Bangkok. environ-101718-033302
FAO. 2007. The world’s mangroves 1980–2005. Rome. Giri, C., Ochieng, E., Tieszen, L.L., Zhu, Z., Singh, A.,
FAO. 2010. Global ecological zones for FAO forest Loveland, T., Masek, J. & Duke, N. 2011. Status
reporting: 2010 update. Forest Resources and distribution of mangrove forests of the world
Assessment Working Paper No. 179. Rome. using earth observation satellite data: status and
FAO. 2018. Terms and definitions – FRA 2020. Forest distributions of global mangroves. Global Ecology
Resources Assessment Working Paper 188. and Biogeography, 20(1): 154–159. https://doi.
Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/I8661EN/i8661en. org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00584.x
pdf Goldberg, L., Lagomasino, D., Thomas, N. &
FAO. 2020. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020. Fatoyinbo, T. 2020. Global declines in human‐
Main report. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/ driven mangrove loss. Global Change Biology,
ca9825en 26(10): 5844–5855. https://doi.org/10.1111/
FAO. 2022. FRA 2020 Remote Sensing Survey. FAO gcb.15275
Forestry Paper No. 186. Rome. https://doi. Hamilton, S.E. & Casey, D. 2016. Creation of a high
org/10.4060/cb9970en spatio-temporal resolution global database of
FAO/NACA/UNEP/World Bank/W WF. 2006. continuous mangrove forest cover for the 21st
International Principles for Responsible Shrimp century (CGMFC-21): CGMFC-21. Global Ecology
Farming. Bangkok, FAO, Network of Aquaculture and Biogeography, 25(6): 729–738. https://doi.
Centres in Asia-Pacific (NACA), United Nations org/10.1111/geb.12449
Environment Programme (UNEP), World Bank Hogarth, P.J. 2015. The biology of mangroves
and Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF). 20 p. and seagrasses. Oxford University Press.
FAO/UNEP. 1981a Los Recursos Forestales de la https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/978019
America Tropical Proyecto de Evaluación de los 8716549.001.0001
Recursos Forestales Tropicales, Rome, 343 pp Hutchison, J., Spalding, M. & Ermgassen, P. 2014.
FAO/UNEP. 1981b Tropical Forest Resources The role of mangroves in fisheries enhance-
Assessment Project, Forest Resources of Tropical ment. The Nature Conservancy and Wetlands
Africa. Part II: Country Briefs. Rome, 586 p International. 54 p.
FAO/UNEP. 1981c Tropical Forest Resources Juncosa, A.M. 1982. Embryo and seedling develop-
Assessment Project, Forest Resources of Tropical ment in Rhizophoraceae. Durham, USA, Duke
Asia Rome, 475 pp University.
Feka, N.Z. & Ajonina, G.N. 2011. Drivers causing Kodikara, K.A.S., Mukherjee, N., Jayatissa, L.P.,
decline of mangrove in West-Central Africa: Dahdouh-Guebas, F. & Koedam, N. 2017.
a review. International Journal of Biodiversity Have mangrove restoration projects worked?
Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, An in-depth study in Sri Lanka: evaluation of
217–230. mangrove restoration in Sri Lanka. Restoration
REFERENCES 53
REFERENCES
Ecology, 25(5): 705–716. https://doi.org/10.1111/ Primavera, J.H. & Esteban, J.M.A. 2008. A review
rec.12492 of mangrove rehabilitation in the Philippines:
Lewis, R.R. 2009. Methods and criteria for successful successes, failures and future prospects.
mangrove forest restoration. In: G.M.E. Perillo, Wetlands Ecology and Management, 16(5): 345–
E. Wolanski, D.R. Cahoon, M.M. Brinson, eds. 358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-008-9101-y
Coastal wetlands: An integrated ecosystem Richards, D.R. & Friess, D.A. 2016. Rates and
approach. Elsevier. drivers of mangrove deforestation in Southeast
Leal, M. & Spalding, M.D., eds. 2022. The State of Asia, 2000–2012. Proceedings of the National
the World’s Mangroves 2022. Global Mangrove Academy of Sciences, 113(2): 344–349. https://
Alliance. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510272113
McNally, C.G., Uchida, E. & Gold, A.J. 2011. The Saenger, P., Hegerl, E.J. & Davie, J.D.S. 1983. Global
effect of a protected area on the tradeoffs status of mangrove ecosystems. Commission
between short-run and long-run benefits from on Ecology Papers No. 3. Gland, Switzerland,
mangrove ecosystems. Proceedings of the International Union for Conservation of Nature.
National Academy of Sciences, 108(34): 13945– Sandker, M., Carrillo, O., Leng, C., Lee, D.,
13950. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1101825108 d’Annunzio, R. & Fox, J. 2021. The importance
McSherry, M., Davis R.P., Andradi-Brown, D.A., of high-quality data for REDD+ monitoring
Ahmadia, G.N., Van Kempen, M. & Wingard and reporting. Forests, 12(1): 99. https://doi.
Brian, S. 2023. Integrated mangrove aquaculture: org/10.3390/f12010099
The sustainable choice for mangroves and Saunders, M.I., Doropoulos, C., Bayraktarov, E.,
aquaculture? Front. For. Glob. Change 6:1094306. Babcock, R.C., Gorman, D., Eger, A.M., Vozzo,
https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2023.1094306 M.L. et al. 2020. Bright spots in coastal marine
Moody, A. & Woodcock, C.E. 1994. Scale- ecosystem restoration. Current Biology, 30(24):
dependent errors in the estimation of land-cover R1500–R1510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
proportions – implications for global land-cover cub.2020.10.056
datasets. Photogrammetric Engineering Remote Spalding, M., Blasco, F., Field, C., International
Sensing, 60: 585–594. Society for Mangrove Ecosystems, World
Murray, N.J., Worthington, T.A., Bunting, P., C o n s e r v a t i o n M o n i to r i n g C e n t r e &
Duce, S., Hagger, V., Lovelock, C.E., Lucas, R. International Tropical Timber Organization,
et al. 2022. High-resolution mapping of losses eds. 1997. World mangrove atlas. Okinawa,
and gains of Earth’s tidal wetlands. Science, Japan, International Society for Mangrove
376(6594): 744–749. https://doi.org/10.1126/ Ecosystems.
science.abm9583 Spalding, M., Kainuma, M. & Collins, L. 2010. World
Ozdogan, M. & Woodcock, C.E. 2006. Resolution atlas of mangroves. London, Washington, DC,
dependent errors in remote sensing of culti- Earthscan.
vated areas. Remote Sensing of Environment, Spalding, M., McIvor, A., Tonneijck, F.H., Tol, S. &
103(2): 203–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. van Eijk, P. 2014. Mangroves for coastal defence:
rse.2006.04.004 Guidelines for coastal managers & policy
Polidoro, B.A., Carpenter, K.E., Collins, L., makers. Wetlands International and The Nature
Duke, N.C., Ellison, A.M., Ellison, J.C., Conservancy. 42 p.
Farnsworth, E.J. et al. 2010. The loss of species: Spurrier, L., Breda, A. van, Martin, S., Bartlett, R.
mangrove extinction risk and geographic areas & Newman, K. 2019. Nature-based solutions for
of global concern. PLoS ONE, 4: e10095. water-related disasters. Unasylva, 251: 67–74.

Thomas, N., Lucas, R., Bunting, P., Hardy, A., Worthington, T. & Spalding, M. 2018. Mangrove
Rosenqvist, A. & Simard, M. 2017. Distribution restoration potential: A global map highlighting
and drivers of global mangrove forest change, a critical opportunity. Apollo – University of
1996–2010. PLOS ONE, 12(6): e0179302. https:// Cambridge Repository. https://doi.org/10.17863/
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179302 CAM.39153
Tomlinson, P.B. 1986. The botany of mangroves. Zanaga, D., Van De Kerchove, R., De Keersmaecker, W.,
Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. Souverijns, N., Brockmann, C.N., Quast, R.,
Tomlinson, P.B. 2016. The botany of mangroves. Wevers, J. et al. 2021. ESA WorldCover 10 m 2020
Second edition. Cambridge University Press. v100. Zenodo. [Cited 24 March 2023]. https://
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139946575 zenodo.org/record/5571936
Vancutsem, C., Achard, F., Pekel, J.-F., Vieilledent,
G., Carboni, S., Simonetti, D., Gallego, J.,
Aragão, L.E.O.C. & Nasi, R. 2021. Long-term
(1990–2019) monitoring of forest cover changes
in the humid tropics. Science Advances, 7(10):
eabe1603. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.
abe1603
REFERENCES 55
REFERENCES
ANNEX 1
LIST OF TRUE MANGROVE SPECIES
Table A1.1. List of true mangrove species

SPECIES SPECIES
1 Acrostichum aureum 32 Osbornia octodonta
2 Acrostichum speciosum 33 Pelliciera rhizophorae
3 Aegialitis annulata 34 Rhizophora apiculata
4 Aegialitis rotundifolia 35 Rhizophora harrisonii
5 Aegiceras corniculatum 36 Rhizophora lamarckii
6 Avicennia alba 37 Rhizophora mangle
7 Avicennia bicolor 38 Rhizophora mucronata
8 Avicennia germinans 39 Rhizophora racemosa
9 Avicennia integra 40 Rhizophora samoensis
10 Avicennia marina 41 Rhizophora stylosa
11 Avicennia officinalis 42 Scyphiphora hydrophylacea
12 Avicennia rumphiana 43 Sonneratia alba
13 Avicennia schaueriana 44 Sonneratia apetala
14 Bruguiera cylindrica 45 Sonneratia caseolaris
15 Bruguiera exaristata 46 Sonneratia x gulngai
16 Bruguiera gymnorhiza 47 Sonneratia x hainanensis
17 Bruguiera hainesii 48 Sonneratia ovata
18 Bruguiera parviflora 49 Xylocarpus granatum
19 Bruguiera sexangula 50 Xylocarpus moluccensis
20 Camptostemon schultzii
21 Camptostemon philippinensis
22 Ceriops australis
23 Ceriops decandra
24 Ceriops tagal
25 Excoecaria agallocha
26 Kandelia candel
27 Kandelia obovata
28 Laguncularia racemosa
29 Lumnitzera littorea
30 Lumnitzera racemosa
31 Nypa fruticans

ANNEX 2
CLASSIFICATION SCHEME
TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The terms and definitions used in this mangrove Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
assessment are structured according to those used (Eggleston et al., eds., 2006), in which Volume 4
in FAO (2018). provides guidance for preparing annual greenhouse-
Some of the terms and definitions used in the gas inventories in the agriculture, forestry and other
land-use classification categories (Figure A2.1) land-use sectors.
explained below are based on definitions in the
Figure A2.1. Centroid and hexagon current land use, 2020
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4
Stocked forest
Naturally
regenerated Temporarily
forest unstocked forest
Forest Planted forest Stocked planted forest

Temporarily unstocked
planted forest
Mangroves
Stocked mangrove forest
Temporarily unstocked
mangrove forest
Other Wooded
Land
Aquaculture
Cropland With trees Rice fields
Without trees Other
Grassland With trees Natural mangrove
Without trees grassland
Other Land Settlement With trees Other

Without trees Human settlement
Bare soil Infrastructure
Mining
Oil palm Other
Inland water
Water
Sea water
ANNEX 57
DEFINITIONS FOR CENTROID AND Level 2
HEXAGON CURRENT LAND USE, 2020 Under “forest”:
Some of the terms and definitions used in the land-
use classification. Naturally regenerated forest
Forest predominantly composed of trees estab-
Level 1 lished through natural regeneration.
Forest Explanatory notes:
Land spanning more than 0.5 ha with trees higher  Includes forests for which it is not possible
than 5 m and a canopy cover of more than 10 per- to distinguish whether they were planted or
cent, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ. naturally regenerated.
Does not include land that is predominantly under  Includes forests with a mix of naturally regen-
agricultural or urban land use. Forest is determined erated native tree species and planted/seeded
both by the presence of trees and the absence of trees, and where the naturally regenerated trees
other predominant land uses. The trees should be are expected to constitute the major part of the
able to reach a minimum height of 5 m in situ. The growing stock at stand maturity.
definition encompasses forest roads, firebreaks  Includes coppice from trees originally estab-
and other small open areas inside the forest. It also lished through natural regeneration.
includes windbreaks, shelterbelts and corridors of  Includes naturally regenerated trees of intro-
trees but it does not include trees used for livestock duced species.
breeding or crops under the trees. The definition
includes abandoned shifting cultivation land with Planted forest
a regeneration of trees that have reached, or are Forest predominantly composed of trees estab-
expected to reach, a canopy cover of 10 percent lished through planting and/or deliberate seeding.
and a height of 5 m. Explanatory notes:
Please refer to FAO (2018) for other explanatory  In this context, “predominantly” means that the
notes. planted/seeded trees are expected to constitute
more than 50 percent of the growing stock at
Other wooded land maturity.
Land not classified as forest, spanning more than  Includes coppice from trees that were originally
0.5 ha, with trees higher than 5 m and a canopy planted or seeded.
cover of 5–10 percent, or trees able to reach these
thresholds in situ; or land with a combined cover of This category includes planted forest that is
shrubs, bushes and trees above 10 percent. Does intensively managed and meets ALL the following
not include land that is predominantly under agri- criteria at planting and stand maturity: one or two
cultural or urban land use. species, even age class, and regular spacing.
Explanatory notes:
Other land  Specifically includes short-rotation plantations
All land not classified as forest or other wooded for wood, fibre and energy.
land. Includes agricultural land, meadows, pastures,  Specifically excludes forests planted for protec-
built-up areas, barren land, land under permanent tion or ecosystem restoration.
ice, etc. Also includes all areas considered as “other  Specifically excludes forests established through
land with tree cover”. planting or seeding which at stand maturity resem-
ble or will resemble naturally regenerating forest.

Mangrove Oil palm
Forest predominantly composed of true mangrove Includes all oil-palm (Elaeis spp.) plantations for
species (listed in Annex 1) established through commercial agriculture in the production of palm oil.
natural regeneration or through planting and/or
deliberate seeding. Includes mangrove species Level 3
shorter than 5 m in height. Temporarily unstocked
This subcategory for natural, planted and mangrove
Under “other land”: forests comprises forest areas that are temporarily
Cropland unstocked or with trees shorter than 1.3 m that
Includes arable and tillable land, rice fields, and have not yet reached but are expected to reach a
agroforestry systems. Includes all annual and canopy cover of at least 10 percent and a tree height
perennial crops as well as temporary fallow land of at least 5 m.
(i.e. land set at rest for one or several years before Explanatory notes:
being cultivated again). Annual crops include cere-  Includes forest areas that are temporarily
als, oilseeds, vegetables, root crops and forages. unstocked due to clearcutting as part of forest
Perennial crops include trees and shrubs, in com- management practice or due to disasters and
bination with herbaceous crops (e.g. agroforestry) which are expected to be regenerated within
or as orchards, vineyards and plantations such as five years. In exceptional cases, local conditions
cocoa, coffee, tea, oil palm, coconut and bananas. may justify a longer time frame.
 Includes areas converted from other land use
Grassland and with trees shorter than 1.3 m.
Includes all pasture lands and all natural grasslands,  Includes failed plantations.
as well as agricultural and silvopastoral systems.
The term grassland in the remote sensing survey is Other land with tree cover (subcategory of
closely linked to livestock breeding, independently the level-2 categories cropland, grassland and
of whether tree cover is high in situ. If the land use is settlement)
for raising livestock, the land must be categorized Land classified as “other land”, spanning more than
as grassland regardless of whether there is a high 0.5 ha with a canopy cover of more than 10 percent
density of trees, bushes or a mixture of shrubs of trees able to reach a height of 5 m at maturity.
with trees. Explanatory notes:
 Land use is the key criterion for distinguishing
Settlement between forest and other land with tree cover.
Includes all developed land, including transpor-  Specifically includes palms (coconut, dates,
tation infrastructure and human settlements of etc.), tree orchards (fruit, nuts, olive, etc.),
any size. Includes trees in urban settings such as agroforestry and trees in urban settings.
in parks and gardens. Also includes mining areas,  Includes groups of trees and scattered trees
which are not considered bare soil because the soil (e.g. trees outside forest) in agricultural land-
was exposed by human activities. scapes, parks, gardens and around buildings,
provided that area, height and canopy-cover
Bare soil criteria are met.
Includes all bare soil for natural site conditions –  Includes tree stands in agricultural production
rocks, sand (beaches or desert) and snow-covered systems, such as fruit tree plantations/orchards.
mountain tops.
ANNEX 59
In these cases, the height threshold can be lower Rice fields
than 5 m. Any cultivation of rice (Oryza sativa), submerged
 Includes agroforestry systems when crops or not. Includes rice-cum-fish cultures, which are
are grown under tree cover and tree planta- mixes of rice cultivation and fish harvesting in the
tions established mainly for purposes other same ponds.
than wood.
 Excludes scattered trees with a canopy cover Natural mangrove grasslands
of less than 10 percent, small groups of trees Natural grasses that grow in mangrove habitats,
covering less than 0.5 ha, and tree lines less which comprise mangrove associate species (not
than 20 m wide (the latter are included under true mangroves).
“forest”).
Human settlement
Level 4 A human settlement of any size.
Aquaculture
Aquaculture or farming in water is the aquatic equiv- Infrastructure
alent of agriculture or farming on land. Defined Any transportation infrastructure, such as railways
broadly, agriculture includes farming both animals and highways.
(animal husbandry) and plants (agronomy, horti-
culture and forestry in part). Similarly, aquaculture Mining
covers the farming of both animals (e.g. crustaceans, Any area designated for the extraction of valuable
finfish and molluscs) and plants (e.g. seaweeds minerals or other geologic materials from the Earth.
and freshwater macrophytes). Although agriculture
is based predominantly on the use of freshwater,
aquaculture occurs in both inland (freshwater) and
coastal (brackish water, seawater) areas.

Figure A2.2. Centroid and hexagon changes, 2000–2010 and 2010–2020
Aquaculture
Rice fields
Oil Palm plantations
Direct settlement (urbanization and infrastructure)
Naturally Regenerated Indirect settlement (salinization, wetland drying)
(N.R.) Forest Loss
Charcoal and fuelwood extraction
Natural disasters
Natural retraction
Other
N. R. Forest Gain
Natural expansion
Restoration
Stable Stocked Stable Unstocked

Stable N. R. Forest
Stocked to Unstocked Unstocked to Stocked
Natural Forest to Plantation
Aquaculture
Rice fields
Oil Palm plantations
Direct settlement (urbanization and infrastructure)
Mangrove Loss
Indirect settlement (salinization, wetland drying)
Charcoal and fuelwood extraction
Natural disasters
Natural retraction
Other
Mangrove Gain Natural expansion

Restoration
Stable Mangrove Stable Stocked Stable Unstocked

Stocked to Unstocked Unstocked to Stocked
Stable Non Forest
ANNEX 61
DEFINITIONS FOR CENTROID AND Loss to oil-palm plantations
HEXAGON CHANGES, 2000–2010 AND Change in land use from forest to any type of oil-
2010–2020 palm plantation.
Level 1 Loss to direct settlement (urbanization and

Figure A2.2 shows the various subcategories of infrastructure)
level-1 categories. Forest loss to urbanization and other types of
infrastructure, such as roads and mining activities.
Forest loss
Indicates any land-use change from a forest use to Loss to indirect settlement (salinization, wetland
any other non-forest use (other land, water or – in drying)
very rare cases – other wooded lands). Forest loss because of pedologic, microclimatic
or hydrologic changes of the area indirectly gen-
Forest gain erated by human actions (e.g. construction of a
Indicates any land-use change from non-forest dam upstream).
use to forest use. Can be a new forest plantation
established on a previous barren area, or natural Loss to charcoal and fuelwood extraction
forest expansion. Forest loss because of any type of wood extraction.
Includes wood extraction for timber, fuelwood or
Stable natural forest charcoal production. Wood extraction for fuelwood
Refers to areas in which the forest land use remains and charcoal can be a gradual process, starting with
in place over the study period. Includes temporarily the loss of a few trees at a time, which, if continuous,
unstocked areas because of forest management or will lead to ecosystem degradation. Only when the
natural causes. Also includes planted forest. ecosystem is degraded and the trees can no longer
reach the forest threshold, with visible forest loss
Stable mangrove in the imagery, will it be classified as forest loss.
Refers to areas in which the mangrove vegetation
and forest land use remain in place over the study Loss to natural disasters
period. In case of particularly severe disasters such as
floods, storm surges, tsunamis or landslides, the
Stable non-forest pedologic, microclimatic and hydrologic conditions
Refers to areas in which the other wooded land or of the area may change irrevocably and no longer
other land use (cropland, settlement, grassland, allow the growth of mangrove vegetation.
etc.) remains in place over the study period.
Loss to natural retraction
Level 2 For mangroves, natural changes or movements
Loss to aquaculture in riverbeds and sediment inputs or sea-level rise
Change in land use from forest to any type of that leads to the local extinction of the mangrove
aquaculture. ecosystem.
Loss to rice fields Loss to others

Change in land use from forest to any type of Any other type of land-use change from forest to
rice field. non-forest not included in the previous categories.

Gain – natural expansion expected to be left to regenerate naturally, the
Regarding naturally regenerated forest, includes areas should still be considered to be under a
areas designated for a land-use change from forest land use.
non-forest to forest through the natural regrowth
of trees, without the direct human action of replant- Stable stocked
ing trees. Regarding mangroves, natural changes A forest area where the threshold values for cate-
or movements in riverbeds and sediment inputs gorization as forest (i.e. canopy cover of at least 10
may lead to the local colonization of new areas by percent and tree height of at least 5 m) are always
mangrove vegetation. met within the study period.
Gain – restoration Stable unstocked

Change in land use from non-forest to forest because A forest area where the thresholds for categorization
of direct human action. Includes reforestation and as forest (i.e. canopy cover of at least 10 percent and
afforestation projects, through both direct plant- tree height of at least 5 m) are not reached in the
ing/seeding and hydrologic restoration and the period of study but the potential exists for them to
control of disturbances that result in the natural be reached in the near future.
regeneration of mangroves. Also includes protected
areas ensured by new regulations, where the forest Stocked to unstocked
is naturally regrowing because laws ban human A forest area where the thresholds for categorization
disturbance. as forest (i.e. canopy cover of at least 10 percent and
tree height of at least 5 m) were met in the beginning
Stable forest subcategories of the study period (e.g. 2000, for the period 2000–
Changes between stocked and unstocked are tied 2010) but were temporarily not met at the end of the
to the definition of “temporarily unstocked”, which period (e.g. 2010, for the period 2000–2010), for one
is mainly found in forests under management for of the reasons listed for “temporarily unstocked”.
timber production. A temporarily unstocked area
contains trees shorter than 1.3 m that have not yet Unstocked to stocked
reached but are expected to reach a canopy cover of A forest area where the thresholds for categorization
at least 10 percent and a tree height of at least 5 m. as forest (i.e. canopy cover of at least 10 percent
In all these forest areas where trees are replanted and tree height of at least 5 m) were not met at the
after extraction, despite temporary tree-cover loss beginning of the measurement period (e.g. 2000, for
after clearcutting, the cleared area is still considered the period 2000–2010) for one of the reasons listed
a forest land use. for “temporarily unstocked” but were met at the end
Two other cases of forest land use may be con- of the period (e.g. 2010, for the period 2000–2010).
sidered “temporarily unstocked”, as follows:
 In many boreal forests, management practices Natural forest to forest plantation
allow silvicultural cutting and then abandon- A forest area where the natural forest has been
ment of the land for natural regeneration. If converted to a forest plantation (e.g. eucalypt,
there is no evidence of land-use change, these rubberwood or poplar) but the land use remains
areas should still be considered to be under a forest (so there is no loss or gain).
forest land use.
 In cases of disasters such as wildfires, insect
outbreaks and windstorms, where the forest is
ANNEX 63
©CIFOR/DANIEL MURDIYARSO
FAO Forestry Division - Natural Resources and Sustainable Production
https://www.fao.org/forestry/en/
www.fao.org/in-action/forest-landscape-restoration-mechanism/en/ ISBN 978-92-5-138004-8
www.fao.org/forest-resources-assessment/background/en/
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

9 789251 380048
Rome, Italy
CC7044EN/1/07.23

Mangroves FAO 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mangroves FAO 2023

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

Mangroves FAO 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE WORLD’S MANGROVES

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Cover photograph: ©FAO/ADOLFO KINDGARD

3 / GLOBAL OVERVIEW OF ASSESSMENT FINDINGS................................................................ 23

4 / REGIONAL STATUS AND TRENDS............................................................................................. 33

CEO Collect Earth Online

STUDY OBJECTIVES study, and Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 present the

2 THE WORLD’S MANGROVES 2000–2020

4 THE WORLD’S MANGROVES 2000–2020

Ecotourism Coastal protection and climate-change adaption

6 THE WORLD’S MANGROVES 2000–2020

8 THE WORLD’S MANGROVES 2000–2020

10 THE WORLD’S MANGROVES 2000–2020

Figure 1. Estimates of global mangrove area, 1990–2020

 FAO (2007)  Spalding et al. (2010)  Giri et al. (2011)

Source: Compiled by the authors using the sources cited.

Table 1. Estimates of net annual mangrove loss

DEFINITION OF MANGROVES, APPLIED The basic land-use classification scheme of the

14 THE WORLD’S MANGROVES 2000–2020

SELECT Random stratified sample

Assess mangrove extent,

Source: Authors’ own elaboration.

16 THE WORLD’S MANGROVES 2000–2020

DATA COLLECTION International Development) and FAO in partnership

18 THE WORLD’S MANGROVES 2000–2020

Improving capacity to monitor Indonesia’s mangroves

20 THE WORLD’S MANGROVES 2000–2020

DATA VALIDATION FAO carried out an additional quality-control exer-

MANGROVE AREA IN 2020

Table 3. Estimated mangrove area, by subregion, 2020

 Mangrove loss detected between 2000 and 2020

 Mangrove area gain  Mangrove area loss

24 THE WORLD’S MANGROVES 2000–2020

North and −32.83 19.22

−300 −250 −200 −150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150

 Losses 2000–2010  Losses 2010–2020  Gains 2000–2010  Gains 2010–2020

GLOBAL OVERVIEW OF ASSESSMENT FINDINGS 25

North and −1.36

-18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4

 Net change 2000–2010  Net change 2010–2020

26 THE WORLD’S MANGROVES 2000–2020

Figure 7. Global drivers of mangrove loss, 2000–2020

Aquaculture Natural retraction Direct settlement

 Aquaculture  Wood extraction  Direct settlement  Indirect settlement  Natural disasters

GLOBAL OVERVIEW OF ASSESSMENT FINDINGS 27

 Aquaculture  Wood extraction  Direct settlement  Indirect settlement  Natural disasters

Source: Authors’ own elaboration.

Figure 9. Composition of drivers of mangrove loss, by region, 2000–2020

Africa 9.6 11.7 23.3 6.1 6.5 31.5

Asia 149.4 20.9 23.3 69.9 53.3 37.6 53.5

Oceania 1.1 9.9

8.1 70.6 6.0

World 178.2 51.2 37.3 173.1 54.6 82.4 56.3

 Aquaculture  Wood extraction  Direct settlement  Indirect settlement  Natural disasters

Note: Embedded numbers show mangrove area (000 ha).

28 THE WORLD’S MANGROVES 2000–2020

GLOBAL OVERVIEW OF ASSESSMENT FINDINGS 29

gains in mangrove area globally over the study

Source: Authors’ own elaboration.

Figure 11. Area of mangrove gain, by driver and region, 2000–2020