JED38439 2

JED19410.1177/1070496510384392Adhikari et al.Journal of Environment & Development

The Use and Management of Mangrove Ecosystems in Pakistan

Bhim Adhikari1, Saima Pervaiz Baig2, and Usman Ali Iftikhar3

The Journal of Environment & Development 19(4) 446467 2010 SAGE Publications Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1070496510384392 http://jed.sagepub.com

Abstract We undertook an economic valuation of mangrove forests in Balochistan province of Pakistan drawing on primary data from a survey of 80 households depending on mangrove forests. It was found that the direct value of mangroves was USD 1,287 per hectare, while the total value for the village was calculated to be USD 4,419,935. We found that rich households made more absolute use of the mangrove products and services and the poor made more relative use. Any decrease in the quality of this ecosystem would expose the poor to the worst effects of poverty. We argue that investments in mangrove conservation under comanagement regime in this region of Pakistan make ecological and economic sense. Keywords mangrove ecosystems, poverty, environment, economic valuation, equity, distribution Never has the attention of the world been drawn so closely to coastal areas. This has unmistakably been the result of not only the Indian Ocean Tsunami but also the escalating coastal storm experiences1 in many parts of the world. The worlds coastal zones are home to over 60% of the human population, and the coastal demographic is expected to increase significantly in the next few decades. More than half the worlds population lives within 60 km of the shoreline, a figure which could rise to three quarters by the year 2020 (UN Environment Programme [UNEP], 1996). Coastal communities and
1 2

United Nations University-Institute of Water, Environment and Health, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Regional Environmental Economics Programme, IUCN Asia, Colombo, Sri Lanka 3 United Nations Development Programme, New York Corresponding Author: Dr. Bhim Adhikari, United Nations University-Institute of Water, Environment and Health, 175 Longwood Road S, Ontario L8P 0A1, Hamilton, Canada Email: bhim_adhikari@yahoo.com

Adhikari et al.

447

indigenous people depend heavily on a range of products and services provided by these ecosystems, as fisheries and fish products provide direct employment to 38 million people (Naylor & Drew, 1998; UNEP, 2006). Mangrove forests are coastal ecosystems that provide goods and services in the form of food, fuel, medicine, employment, and income from fisheries and tourism as well as protective infrastructure against climatic fluctuations and extreme events (Barbier, 2007, 2008). Local communities have always used mangroves as a source of wood for heating and cooking, and for building houses, huts, fences, matting, and scaffolds (Alongi, 2002). As much as 80% of global fish catches are directly or indirectly dependent on mangroves regulatory services (United Nations [UN], 2002). They provide habitat and nursing grounds for marine species and support the productivity of aquaculture systems such as shrimp ponds, which depend on the surrounding mangroves for nutrition (Barbier, 2003). Furthermore, mangroves play an important role in assimilating waste as they have the capacity to absorb and recycle nutrients from livestock, human settlements, and refuse areas (Ewel, 1997). A recent study on storm protection benefits due to mangroves during the super cyclone of 1999 in Orissa, India, suggests that mangrove forests provided protection benefits to houses to the extent of US$ 23,233 per km width of forests or US$ 1,218 per hectare of forests (Das, 2009). Hence the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) drew attention to the importance of mangrove ecosystems for the provision of a wide range of products and services vital for human well-being. Despite their critical role in the ecology and well-being of coastal areas and beyond, mangrove ecosystems are continuously subjected to severe degradation (World Resources Institute [WRI], 1996). Industrial activity, population growth, human migration to coastal areas, unregulated development, and poor management practices are often the factors driving mangrove degradation (UN, 2002). Almost 35% of mangroves have been lost in the last 50 years (Millennium Ecosystem [MA], 2005); however, the exact losses will never be known as a precise estimate of the global extent of mangrove habitats is difficult to measure (Alongi, 2002; Spalding et al., 1997). According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 70% of the worlds commercial fishing grounds are depleted, fully exploited or recovering from previous overfishing (cited in UNEP, 1996). In Pakistan, there has been considerable qualitative and quantitative loss of mangrove forests over the last 50 years as a result of different development activities (Rasool et al., 2002). Mangrove habitats are threatened by coastal development, pollution, sedimentation and coastal erosion, and overharvesting of mangrove trees. Furthermore, increased drawing of water from the river Indus has resulted in steadily decreasing flow of freshwater to coastal areas. Diminished freshwater flow from the Indus River into the estuary has increased salinity along the coast and the loss of silt from the Indus has deprived the mangroves of their main source of nutrients (Nizamani & Shah, n.d.). Furthermore, the direct disposal of industrial and municipal waste and shipping activities along the 135 km long Karachi coastal line is causing severe degradation of mangrove forests (Niazi & Pervez, n.d.). About 2% of the industries in the

448

The Journal of Environment & Development 19(4)

country have the facilities to treat their toxic wastes before releasing them into sea (Niazi & Pervez, n.d.) and the extensive discharge of untreated effluents from tanneries is a growing problem. More important, there is a growing problem of fish overharvesting, and this together with high prices for shrimp and low price of entry into the industry through subsidies is putting pressure on the mangrove habitats. Policy actions that promote shrimp aquaculture, for example, through financial incentives, are likely to only compound the threats to mangrove habitats in Pakistan as has happened in other countries. This is evident by the clearing of mangrove forests to create aquaculture ponds as well as the discharge of nutrient-rich effluents from shrimp farms acutely upsetting the ecological balance (Alongi, 2002). Depletion of mangrove ecosystems has important ecological, economic, and distributional implications as a large number of poor people who live in coastal villages are dependent on the goods and services provided by them (Naylor & Drew, 1998). In fact, the case for action to improve the management of mangrove ecosystems has never been stronger, nor has the link between development and conservation ever been clearer. Yet the much needed investmentsto undertake and sustain actionremain elusive. This results from the inability of markets to reveal the full range of values which mangroves confer. For example, services such as providing a habitat in which fish can thrive or coastal protection have public good and positive external benefit characteristics, and thus have no price or seem to be provided free. This means that there are no incentives or benefits2 to local communities to protect or improve mangrove habitats under the current management scenario. Whether the threats to natural resources are caused by community members or outsiders also influences the appropriate governance mechanisms: using the instruments of social control by communities or user groups is usually more effective in dealing with threats caused by insiders than with those caused by outsiders (Meinzen-Dick & Knox, 1999). Usually this signals a role for local communities in the management of mangrove habitats. Furthermore, there is a need to convince relevant government agencies as to whether public investment together with community involvement would make sense. As a result of persistent undervaluation3 coupled with lack of awareness about the link between mangroves status and provision of ecosystem services, mangroves draw low investments or even worse, public policy and investments are channeled into initiatives such as intensive aquaculture that deliberately undermine mangroves. Pakistans mangrove ecosystem is one of the largest found in an arid climate, with significant value to local communities as well as to thriving shrimp fisheries, which entirely depend upon them (Shah & Jusoff, 2007). Shrimp export has a major share of the total seafood exports of Pakistan accounting for 60% of the total fishery exports of the country (Small and Medium Enterprise Development Authority [SMEDA], 2007). However, little attention is paid to analysis that encourages public investment in the conservation of mangrove ecosystems for the dual goals of poverty reduction and environmental management. Though the economic value of mangrove forests has been well studied in countries with substantial mangrove forests (see Barbier, 2000, 2008; Christensen, 1982; Gammage, 1994; Gunawardena & Rowan, 2005; Lal, 1990;

Adhikari et al.

449

Spurgeon, 1998; Ronnback, 1999; Ruitenbeek, 1994), little research has successfully addressed the knowledge gaps with regard to contribution of mangrove forests to the local and national economies in Pakistan. Furthermore, no systematic effort has been undertaken to demonstrate the linkage between the povertyenvironment nexus in reference to mangrove forests. This article intends to make a case for the conservation of mangrove ecosystems based on these analyses. Such analyses will at the very least draw attention to potential impacts on the poor when decisions are being considered regarding alternative uses of mangrove habitats. In light of this, we ascertain the direct values of different mangrove ecosystem products (e.g., fish, crustaceans, mollusks, and nonfish products) and the indirect values of habitat provision of mangrove forests in the Miani Hor lagoon of the Balochistan province of Pakistan. We then factor this information into an analysis that demonstrates the contribution mangrove ecosystems make to the incomes of different wealth groups. As low perceived value coupled with the recent policy decision to provide financial incentives for coastal aquaculture makes mangrove forests prime targets for conversion to shrimp aquaculture, we undertake a simple cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of two scenarios4conversion to aquaculture compared with maintaining a mangrove forest under comanagementto stimulate informed policy and investment decisions. Such decisions should provoke complimentary action on hard policy instruments (e.g., regulations, rights), soft policy instruments (e.g., fiscal instruments) and investments. For this purpose, the study relied on a rapid ecological-socioeconomic assessment methodology to ascertain credible, practical and policy relevant information. We believe that contingent valuation analyses have been relatively unimportant for developing countries where livelihood and subsistence issues are of prime importance (Naylor & Drew, 1998).

Mangrove Ecosystems in Pakistan

Pakistans thriving shrimp fisheries almost entirely depend upon its mangrove ecosystem and earnings to the tune of USD 100 million in exports are made annually. Communities living next to a goods stand, use mangrove products not only as a main source of livelihood but also to supplement their income by using these products for subsistence purposes. In addition to fishing, mangroves are a source of fodder and fuel wood. Approximately 200,000 people, primarily fisher folk, occupy the land immediately adjacent to the mangrove mud flats and more than 60% of the population use Avicennia marina as their principal source of fuel and to construct their huts (Vistro, 2000). More recentlywith increased frequency of coastal stormsrecognition of the role mangrove ecosystems play in making people feel protected and secure has also increased. The coastline of Pakistan spans a total area of 990 km, of which 241 km is in the province of Sindh and 660 km in the province of Balochistan. Mangrove ecosystems lie between 24 10 and 25 37 latitude N and 61 38 and 68 10 longitude E. They are concentrated mainly in the Indus Deltaic swamps in Sindh, along the Arabian Sea

450

The Journal of Environment & Development 19(4)

Table 1. Area of Mangrove Forests in Pakistan (Ha) Region Karachi harbor area Indus delta region Miani hor Kalamat hor Jiwani Total
Source: Qureshi (2005).

Area (ha) 985.50 81,684.00 8,479.00 479.00 433.00 86,727.00

% of mangrove forests 1.14 94.18 3.96 0.22 0.50 100.00

coastline. The entire coastline of Sindh is covered with mangroves, whereas that of Balochistan is barren except for a few small patches in Miani Hor, Kalmat Hor, and Gwader bay (International Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN], 2004). The latest mangrove vegetation map prepared by the Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission (SUPARCO) using SPOT imagery in 2003 suggests that mangrove forests cover about 86,727 ha along the coast of Pakistan. Most notably it can be seen that 4.68% of mangrove forests in Pakistan exist in Balochistan (Miani Hor, Kalmat Hor, and Jiwani), of which Miani Hor contains 84% of the total area under mangroves in Balochistan (Table 1). Nearly 100 species of fish have so far been recorded living in mangrove forests in Pakistan, of which 46 species were in fingerling or young stages, and 52 in subadult or adult stages. In fact, more than 75% of commercially caught fish may inhabit mangrove forests at some point in their life. Mangrove forests are therefore critical components of the ecosystem in that they provide a complex habitat structure for numerous juvenile fish species.

Characteristics of the Study Site

The mangrove ecosystem under consideration is situated in Miani Hor; a lagoon situated approximately 95 km west of Karachi in Sonmiani Tehsil,5 Balochistan. There are three villages in the area: Sonmiani, Bheera, and Damb. This tidal lagoon is about 50 km long and 20 km wide and its total area is 363 km2. The Porali River and its distributaries drain into it. The lagoon changes greatly between high and low tides and the area typically comprises of narrow twisting channels, with steep mud banks visible at low tide surrounded by numerous flat islets of mud covered with mangrove trees. Avicennia marina (timmer), Rhizophoras mucronata (Kumri) and Ceriops tagal (Kain) are three common varieties of mangroves present in the Miani lagoon. In fact, the lagoon is the only area on the coast of Pakistan that can boast of a naturally existing stand of R. mucronata. The satellite image of Miani Hor is shown in Figure 1. The mangrove area is estimated to be 3431.36 ha (representing 42% of the total cover in Balochistan), of which only 294.33 ha have been declared as

Adhikari et al.

451

Figure 1. Satellite image of Miani Hor

Source: Qureshi (2005).

Protected Forestry and transferred to the Balochistan Forestry Department in 1958. The rest of the mangroves are under the jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue, Government of Balochistan (GoB). The Village Damb was selected for the purpose of this study. Spread over 200 acres, Damb is located at 100 km west of Karachi on the coast of the Arabian Sea. The Village is distinctly divided into two parts; a commercial part which is close to the coast and a residential portion. It has 11 Mohallas6 with the total number of households exceeding 600. The total population of Damb is around 6,600, comprising of 3,600 males and 3,000 females, with an average household size of 11 people. Around 15% to 20% of the houses are katcha (not concrete), and the remaining houses are pucca (cemented). The main occupation of the villagers is fishing and the fishing season commences in August continuing until May. During the season, other business activities are also at their peak, when a large number of outsiders temporarily settle in the village and earn their livelihood by working as khalasi (labor) on boats. Approximately 10,000 to 15,000 people throng into Damb from all over the Country. Furthermore, foreigners such as Afghanis, Bengalis and Burmese also settle here during the fishing season. In fact, according to the locals, the number of Afghanis and Bengalis surpass that of locals in the fishing season. The seasonal migrants live in small huts located in the commercial section and rented out to them by the locals. In order to maintain and uphold cultural and traditional identities, outsiders are not allowed to enter residential

452

The Journal of Environment & Development 19(4)

areas and remain confined to the commercial section only. The number of seasonal emigrants starts decreasing from January until there are almost none left by May, when the off-season starts. It is during this season that all business activity in the Village is at a low level and while some fishing does take place in the lagoon, many of the fishermen seek loans from middlemen in order to meet their needs and to repair and maintain their fishing gear. The fishermen and fish laborers work on the patti (share) system. Therefore, wages are not dependent on seasons. The simple formula of the patti system is total earnings minus trip expenses, divided into sharesthe boat owner receives 4.5 shares and the laborers receive one share each. Often the captain, engine driver, and senior crew get some additional shares from the boat owner as well as what constitutes one additional share from all the crewmembers. The crew members on a boat therefore face two imbalances in the patti system: (a) in that they pay an equal share of the trip expenses before net revenues are determined and (b), that they do not receive an equal proportion of the catch share revenues (4.5 shares are allocated to the owner and higher shares for captain). While there is no formal credit system available, an informal system does exist. In this system, the middlemen who buy fish catch are the money lenders and therefore, set the condition that a fisherman would sell his catch to the same lender. It is believed that this credit-bound sale usually deprives the fishermen of a competitive price and fosters chronic indebtedness. Mangrove wood as a source of fuel is rarely used. The main mangrove stands are approximately 2-3 km away from the Village beyond the lagoon. This makes their use as fuel-wood storefront impractical. The preferred fuel-wood is Devi (mesquite), which is available at a much cheaper rate from vendors, as well as being freely available in the surrounding areas. According to villagers, the price of a maund7 of mangrove wood ranges between Rs. 100 -130, while the price of Devi8 ranges between Rs. 45 and 60 per maund (depending on season). Unsurprisingly, 45% of the households use Devi as fuel-wood, while coal (30 %), kerosene oil (5%), and LPG (20%) are also used as fuel by the better-off households. There are a few extremely poor households that use mangrove wood as fuel, collecting it on fishing trips. In total there are 40-50 households (3% of total population) in the whole village that use mangrove wood for fuel and this amounts to approximately 70-80 maunds per month. As mentioned before, the mangrove forest land belongs to the Revenue Department, Government of Balochistan. However, the mangrove area can be divided into three indicative portions or blocks (Table 2).

Survey Method, Data Collection and Analysis Survey Method

Data for this study was collected through three different survey stages. The first stage comprised of scoping visits to the Damb Village to gather general information regarding the site, the mangrove ecosystems and the local community. This scoping exercise

Adhikari et al.
Table 2. Mangrove Ownership and Management Mangrove site Kapa wari dhoree, Nandh Gagho, Nandhy Bandaar, Wadhee Bandaar, Karbhati [all on the west of village Bheera, north-west of village Dam and north of Miani Hor] Vick, Budkashi, wanti and remaining mangroves [west Miani Horr and village Dam] CBO site [west Miani Horr and village Dam] Pir Hayat Block [west Miani Horr and village Dam] Used by Bira Village Ownership Revenue Department

453

Conservation and development None

Village Dam, Baloch Goth Village Dam Village Dam and Baloch Goth

Revenue Department Revenue Department Revenue Department

None

CBO-SSDCN, IUCN, WWF, EU and UNDP project, etc. Forest Department of Government of Balochistan

helped to define the methodology for data collection and to develop questionnaires for household surveys. After the first visit, a household survey questionnaire was developed, which was pretested in another visit. Feedback from the pretesting was incorporated in the final version of the survey. The second stage consisted of undertaking a participatory rural appraisal (PRA) exercise to develop a socioeconomic profile of the study sites. The PRA exercise entailed disaggregating the households into different groups (wealth ranking) based on the criteria defined by the villagers themselves (see Adhikari, 2005). Five groupsthe poorest, the poor, lower middle, middle, and richwere identified after the wealth ranking exercise. The third stage consisted of a detailed household survey. Hence, from the information obtained in the PRA exercise, a household list was generated and the households were ranked according to wealth. Out of a total 413 full time fishing households, the sample size consisted of 80 households, which ended up being 68 after removing the incomplete household questionnaire forms. Households from a range of poor to rich households were surveyed, while care was given to ensure that a statistically significant number from each category of household in the villages was included.

Valuation of Mangrove Products

For the valuation of mangrove products, the market price method was used to value onshore (or onsite) fish and crustacean products. This is considered the most

454

The Journal of Environment & Development 19(4)

straightforward and simplest method for valuing ecosystem products (i.e., how much it costs to buy, or what it is worth to sell). In a well-operating and competitive market these prices are determined by the relative demand for and supply of the product in question, and should hence reflect its true scarcity, and equate to its marginal value. Three main steps in the valuation of mangrove products were (a) assessment of the quantity of the product collected; (b) market price for these products; and (c) value of the products by multiplying price by quantity. The household survey enlisted the products collected, amount of each product consumed and/or sold, the market (or in the rare case substitute) price of the product, and the total household product values for the representative sample. The effect on production method was selected as appropriate for valuing the service of fish habitat since this method allows for assessing the value of ecosystem services by looking at their contribution to other sources of productionin this case near shore fisheries. The most difficult aspect of this method is determining and quantifying the biophysical or doseresponse relationship that links changes in the supply or quality of ecosystem products and services with other sources of production. For example, detailed data are required to precisely assess the impacts of the loss of coastal ecosystems and breeding grounds on local fisheries production. To be able to specify these kinds of relationships with confidence usually involves wide consultation with other experts. There are three main steps involved to collect and analyze the data required for valuing mangroves as breeding grounds: (a) determine the contribution of healthy mangrove ecosystems to near shore fisheries; (b) relate the loss of fish habitat to a physical change in near shore fisheries catch; and (c) estimate the market value of the loss in production. To apply the effect on production technique, three scenarios were developed using the following equation; Qit St-T ___ = _____ a Qi0 S0 where St is the area of remaining undisturbed mangroves at time t, and are impact intensity and delay parameters, respectively, Qit/Qi0 (t = 0), S0 = St (t = 0). Qit/Qi0 is the change in offshore fish catch and it is calculated through the equation by assessing the change in mangrove area after accounting for parameters such as population growth rate over a certain period of time. The first scenario simply states no change in mangrove area, and derives the net present value (NPV) of the site level value (per hectare) over a period of 5 years with an annual population growth rate of 2% to reflect a change in demand for offshore fish products. Two alternative scenarios were developed that sought to analyze how a 50% decrease of the mangrove area in Miani Hor would impact offshore fish productivity. Review of ecological literature and consultations with ecologists provided the basis for the assumption that a 50% loss of mangrove area in the mangrove fish habitat would reduce fish productivity in a range from 30% to 60%, but would take a period of 5

Adhikari et al.

455

years to manifest. These ecological studies point out that the change per year has to be assumed to be non-linear for both scenarios, as the shrinking of habitat would mean that some fish would migrate to the remaining 50% of the area or migrate to open seas, with some fish being caught, and some fish being lost instantly.

Socioeconomic Status of the Respondents

The primary use of the mangroves is the collection of fishery products; therefore the direct value is the value of fisheries that are mangrove resident and are collected onsite. Care was taken to collect data on the specific areas where fishing activities took place and analysis was undertaken by separating onsite or onshore fishing (within the lagoon and creeks) for direct value of products; and offshore fishing mangrove transient speciesto calculate effect on production from habitat provision (10-15 km in the open sea). The data showed that offshore fishing was primarily trash fish, while a majority of other species were caught within the lagoon. Trash fish are primarily small fish such as sardines, which are sold as poultry feed. The sampled households included a mix of boat owners and fishermen who worked as wage laborers on other owners boats. The analysis of socioeconomic characteristics of households in the study sites revealed the low level of education of poorer households (Table 3), indicating the poorest households do not own livestock or fishing boats. Their earnings come from working as wage laborers on small boats owned by others. The lower middle group of households is generally small boat owners, while some earn their living as wage laborers on larger boats. The middle group is also small boat owners. The rich group has the smallest household size at seven, but is still deprived of higher literacy levels. Nonetheless, they own large boats and often have a few boats leased out to other fishermen. It was observed that the rich group earns the highest net fishing income (USD 5,185/month) in comparison to their poorer counterparts.

Results and Discussions Direct Values of Products

The average total income from onshore fisheries was calculated and the net value was arrived at by subtracting the average total costs from it. The total costs included the costs for labor, maintenance of fishing gear and fuel. This analysis revealed that the minimum value per household per year is USD 179, while the maximum being USD 76,779. Further, the average net value per household per year in US Dollars is 5,699.9 Table 4 presents the total net value at the site level as well as the value of mangroves in per hectare terms. This represents the second step in the process of arriving at the economic benefits. It should be noted that per hectare estimates were derived by first extrapolating the total sample net value per year to account for all the 366 households engaged at the village level in onsite exploitation of fishery products. The figure

456

The Journal of Environment & Development 19(4)

Table 3. Characteristics of Sample Households Income groups Household characteristics Household size (No. of individuals) Education (No. of school years of household head) Livestock ownership (No.) Poultry (No.) Poorest 11 1 0 2 Poor 9 3 1 1 Lower middle 10 1 2 2 Middle 10 2 1 1 Rich 7 2 3 5

Table 4. Total Net Value and Per Hectare Value of Mangrove (On-Site, USD) A Sample number of collecting households 58 B Total sample net value per year in US$ 699,640 C Total number of collecting households 366 D Total site level value in US$ 4,414,968 E Per hectare value in US$ 1,287

derived represents the village level value, which is then divided by the mangrove area. These extractive uses were found to be sustainable through literature on stock assessments conductedif they were not, it would not be possible to take the full value as a sustainable value of mangroves, as it would be leading to degradation and loss. The direct benefits in per hectare terms of the mangroves ecosystem in Miani Hor were calculated to be USD 1,287, while the total value for the Village was calculated to be USD 4,419,935. This suggests that the local economy is almost entirely supported by the adjacent mangrove ecosystem. It appears that almost all of the average households total income is derived from fishing both onsite and off-shore, constituting 95% of the total benefits. The analysis of the sample average household also showed that on average they relied almost equally on both onshore and offshore fisheries with offshore at 50% of the total income per year (see Figure 3). The average household has about USD 118 per capita monthly income, which is significantly higher than the estimated USD 15 per capita monthly income poverty line in Pakistan. The average households total income from all sources revealed a healthy USD 12,762 (or PKR 765,720) per household per year or USD 1,063 per household per month (see Figure 2).

Effect on Production
Due to the fact that a significant share of fish caught and income derived was from collecting fish in the open sea, the effect on production was used to analyze the

Adhikari et al.

457

14000 12000 Average Income USD 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 619 Net Fishing Net Fishing Total Non-fishing Income Onshore Income Off shore Income Income Sources 5,699 6,444

12,762

Total HH Income

Figure 2. Sources of income for the average sample households (USD/year)

Source: Household and community survey.

90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 USD 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Poor Lower Middle Net fishing income onsite Middle Wealth Category Total Income other sources Upper Middle Rich

Net fishing income offsite

Figure 3. Povertyenvironment relationships

Source: Household and community survey.

contribution that mangrove habitats of the Miani Hor mangrove ecosystem make in the production of offshore fisheries. In order to set up the analysis, the net income of offshore fisheries was calculated for the sample by deducting costs of fishing from

458

The Journal of Environment & Development 19(4)

Table 5. Net Present Value of Habitat Provision of Mangrove Ecosystems Scenarios Baseline Current year (PKR) 52,410 Year 1 (PKR) Year 2 (PKR) Year 3 (PKR) Year 4 Year 5 Total Total NPV (PKR) (PKR) NPV PKR USD 238,669 199,635 161,190 39,034 77,479 3,978 3,327 2,686 651 1,291

53,458 54,527 55,618 56,730 57,865 5% 15% 23% 28% 30% Scenario 1 52,410 51,624 46,355 41,978 39,204 38,059 15% 35% 50% 55% 60% Scenario 2 52,410 47,169 36,425 28,026 24,986 22,213 30% change in productivity manifest over 5 years 60% change in productivity manifest over 5 years

total revenue. This value was then extrapolated to the village level and calculated to be USD 2,996,976, which in per hectare terms amounts to USD 873. The average value per household is USD 13,505. The analysis suggests that the habitat provided by the mangrove ecosystem has a substantial economic value, and contributes to not only the local economy, but also to the national one. We also discussed the details of annual changes for both scenarios (Table 5). A 10% discount rate was applied for all three scenarios, and annual changes to prices under both alternative scenarios were reflected through higher percentage changes; as population growth and loss of productivity meant increased demand. The current per hectare value of USD 873 or PKR 52,410 was used as the current year value for all three scenarios. In the baseline, the NPV per hectare calculated amounted to USD 3,978. Scenario 1 reflects a 30% nonlinear change over the 5 year period, resulting in an NPV of USD 3,327. Scenario 2 in contrast reflects a 60% change in productivity and the resultant NPV per hectare at USD 2,686. Based on the differences between the baseline and the two scientifically determined alternative scenarios, the effect on production analysis reveals that the value added by fish habitat services of the Miani Hor mangrove ranges between USD 651 and 1,291 per hectare per year. It is thus clearly evident that the habitat services provided by the Miani Hor mangrove ecosystem for offshore fisheries would decrease substantially with the degradation of every hectare of the mangrove. This would result in a loss of value that would impact both the local as well as the national economy.

Assessment of Livelihood Benefits, Local and National Economy

The poorest households rely most heavily on onshore fishing and as such directly on the mangrove ecosystem products (Figure 4). Up to 79% of their total income is directly dependent on the mangrove ecosystem through onsite fishing. Since onsite fishing keeps these households away from the worst effects of poverty, the sustainability of onsite fishery is a matter of survival for this group. A majority of their collection is of shrimp (primarily tiger shrimp), which depend on the mangroves for breeding,

Adhikari et al.

459

90000 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 Poorest Poor Lower Middle middle Rich Net fishing income (Onshore) Net fishing income (Offhore) Total income (other sources) Total household income

Figure 4. Contributions of onshore and offshore net fishing income for households (PKR/ year)
Source: Household and community survey.

nursing and habitat provision. Like the poorest, the poor group is also dependent on onshore fishing, with three quarters of their income coming from this source (Figure 4). Any loss of onsite mangrove benefits could entail these households nearing or falling below the USD 1 income poverty level. However, as they are also primarily wage laborers, the difference in income is probably due to their slightly higher reliance on other sources to supplement their total income. Dependency on onshore fishing is also the case for the lower middle households as it constitutes 70% of their total income and is composed of mainly shrimp and pomfret collection. What this suggests is that while this group is firmly above the various poverty measures, the sustainability of onshore fisheries is still crucial for its continued well-being. The middle income group also relies heavily on onshore fishing, which contributes 71% to their total income. What seems to make their income much higher than other groups is their reliance on a high value and large quantity of jellyfish catch. Jellyfish collection is a relatively new phenomenon in this area (started approximately 5 years ago) and is sold in drums for export purposes. The major source of income for the rich group is offshore fishing, which constitutes 62% of their total income. The average rich household is engaged in fishing in the open sea mainly to collect trash fish. This fish is collected in large quantities and is sold in Karachi for making poultry feed. However, the average rich household also engages in offshore fishing and collects large quantities of jellyfish and other onshore fish species. The benefits from mangrove forests (Table 6) highlight the importance of investing in the conservation of not only the Miani Hor mangroves, but also in the conservation of mangroves in general. In Balochistan, this is also explicitly supported by the fact that there are only three sites of naturally occurring mangrove plantations and the Miani Hor Mangroves cover the largest area among these. Investing in their conservation would

460

The Journal of Environment & Development 19(4)

Table 6. Direct and Indirect Economic and Livelihood Benefits of Miani Hor Mangrove (US$) Benefits from mangrove Direct economic and livelihood benefits (Average value/household/per year Total direct benefits for the site (per year) Per hectare of direct economic benefits Per hectare of indirect value (habitat provisioning) Total estimated value per hectare of select mangroves benefits Value (US$) 5,699 4,419,935 1,287 651-1,291 1,938-2,587

not only ensure the well-being of the local communities, but also the growth of the national economy through the fisheries sector.

PovertyEnvironment Relationships
The above livelihood assessment of the different groups shows the dependency of households on the Miani Hor mangroves, not only directly through collection of fish species within the lagoon area, but also from the habitat it provides. The information collected on the fish species (both onsite and offshore) showed that all of these depend on the mangroves in one way or another. The fish species collected from within the lagoon live within the mangroves. Even trash fish species collected offshore use these mangroves as breeding and nursing grounds during a part of their life. Most of these households in the study area are heavily dependent on fishing and the existence of the mangrove ecosystem is essential to their continued well-being. The equity and distributional assessment also provided profound insight into the classic povertyenvironment relationship (Cavendish, 2000). In analyzing the income groups, one can see that in the absolute sense the use of onsite products increases, with the rich group making the most use and the poor group making the least use. However, Figure 5 presents a different picture. It shows that even though the poor make less use in absolute terms, this amount contributes significantly to their overall income (almost 80%), while the rich group is relatively less reliant on onsite products for their total income (approximately 35%). This means that the poor are the most dependent on these mangroves in relative terms and any change in the quality of this ecosystem would expose this group to the worst effects of poverty. If these mangroves are cut or degraded the livelihoods of the poor groups would decrease substantially. This is because the poor have fewer choices and cannot switch from one income source to the other like the better off groups can.

Making the Investment in Mangrove Ecosystems

Finally, we attempted to provide some insights in support of an argument for investing in ecosystem conservationspecifically mangrove conservationthrough a

Adhikari et al.

461

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Poor Lower Middle Net fishing income onsite Middle Upper Middle Rich

Net fishing income offsite

Total Income other sources

Figure 5. Poverty-environment relationship

Source: Household and community survey.

cost-benefit analysis. For this purpose, the costs and benefits of two scenarios were comparedconverting a hectare of mangrove into an intensive shrimp farm with a hectare of sustainably managed mangrove ecosystem over a period of 10 years. The costs of the shrimp farm were taken from a feasibility study undertaken by the FAO in 1996 and the data available presented the capital and operational costs of setting up and operating a shrimp farm. Both costs were converted into current 2007 costs. It was assumed after consulting literature (Sarathai & Barbier, 2001) that the economic life of a shrimp farm is only 5 years due to increasing degradation of the pond from intense cultivation. Therefore, the benefits of high yielding shrimp output last for 5 years. It was also assumed that the introduction of shrimp farms happened in the context of large conversions of the Miani Hor mangrove ecosystem (more than 50%). Thus, a loss of 30% in offshore fishery (the low range) and all of the direct benefits supported by the converted hectare were assumed. The standard problem with conventional wisdom on cost-benefit analysis is that it ignores the benefits of mangrove goods and services and does not factor these into the analysis, but rather as costs incurred. In this analysis the loss of benefits was treated as costs over a period of 10 years. Moreover, management of mangrove benefits and costs was analyzed over a 10-year period, and the NPV of total costs and total benefits for both scenarios was calculated. The NPV of costs of conversion per hectare of Miani Hor mangroves to shrimp farms is USD 48,270 (Table 7), while the NPV of benefits is USD 59,200. The net benefit from the shrimp farm is thus USD 10,930. Costs of conversion included accounting for operational costs over a period of ten years and capital costs (such as construction). Land costs were not included because many would already own the land. The costs

462

The Journal of Environment & Development 19(4)

of direct and indirect mangrove benefits lost over a period of 10 years after accounting for population growth was also included. On the other hand, if the Miani Hor mangroves are co-managed they would provide net benefits of USD 11,196. In this case comanagement would mean ensuring the sustainable use of the ecosystem for fisheries and other products with involvement of the government and local communities by instituting regulatory and monitoring procedures. The benefits are not what can be gained by converting the ecosystem into a shrimp farm, but rather gains from using the products and services it provides in a sustainable manner. The costs are per hectare for the monitoring and enforcement of the mangrove forest management. These were derived in consultation with experts and a review of official statistics, which indicated the costs of comanaging a hectare of mangroves (i.e., Forestry Department together with the communities) and include transaction costs such as monitoring costs. The benefits are calculated by assuming a 3,000/kg productivity of jaira shrimp production at PKR 260 per kg (the average value in our sample). The net benefits derived clearly provide evidence for policy makers that investing in the Miani Hor mangroves is an economically viable option as it provides benefits that surpass those that would be obtained from conversion to shrimp farm. In other words, the simple CBA carried out demonstrates that shrimp farming is an economically sub-optimal option to pursue in mangrove areas. Lal (1990) reported a negative NPV for converting mangrove forests to shrimp and rice farms for a 50-year period. In our results, while the difference in net benefits in favor of conserving mangroves is modest, the CBA nevertheless demonstrates that when mangrove degradation is factored in, the balance shifts even if the broader tangible and intangible benefits of mangrove ecosystems are not incorporated. Indeed investment in mangrove ecosystem conservation makes sense. This finding is similar to that of Khor (1995) who concluded that conserving mangroves is much more profitable than the shrimp culture that caused economic harm in the Andhra Pradesh of India. CBA revealed that the co-management of mangroves through sharing the responsibility and authority for the management of mangrove habitats between the government and local stakeholders is a strong alternative management strategy. However, this co-management strategy should first identify relevant stakeholders for the management of mangrove habitats in the study area. Our analysis shows that major stakeholders include internal actors (e.g., local communities, government agencies such as the revenue department and forestry department and local NGOs), external (institutions interested in mangrove conservation), and the broader external stakeholders (e.g., INGOs such as WWF, IUCN, and local authorities, all having an interest in, or claims about sustainable management of mangrove forests). Since forest management is responsible for the sustainable management of mangrove forests, co-management in this case would be between the local communities and the department of forestry. However, pragmatism and cautiousness should characterize new institution building as the social and cultural context of comanagement arrangements should be guided by a set of institutional principles described in the commons literature (Jentoft, McCay, & Wilson, 1998).

Table 7. NPV of Costs and Benefits comparing an Intensive Shrimp Farm and a Managed Mangrove Site (PKR) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10

Net present value Year 0 8,333 6,323

48,270 13,000 13,260 13,525 13,796 14,072 14,353

14,656

6,449 1,313 664 8,425 1,449 733 2,182

6,578 1,339 677 8,594

6,710 1,366 690 8,766

6,844 1,393 704 8,941

6,981 1,421 718 9,120

1,478 747 2,225

1,508 762 2,270

1,538 777 2,315

1,569 793 2,362

59,200

10,930 1,976 389 396 404 412 2,016 2,056 2,097 2,139 421 2,182 429 2,225 438 2,270 446 2,315 455 2,362 464 2,409 474

Intensive shrimp farm costs Capital costs Annual operational costs Direct mangrove value losses Indirect mangrove value losses Total costs Intensive shrimp farm benefits Gross benefits Jaira shrimp (3,000 kg/year at PKR 260/kg) Net present benefits Managed mangroves benefits Mangrove benefits Managed mangroves costs Mangrove costs Net present benefits Difference

13,937

2,741 11,196 266

463

464

The Journal of Environment & Development 19(4)

Conclusion
This study presents the economic and livelihood arguments for investing in mangrove conservation in Pakistan and recommends institutional arrangements for the sustainable management of mangrove habitats. It does this by undertaking a rapid ecologicalsocioeconomic assessment of the mangrove ecosystem of Miani Hor to determine the relationship between the ecological values of mangrove ecosystems and the socioeconomic values. The three different types of assessments in this study reveal a very interesting picture. First, the direct use economic values give insight on the particular goods that are provided by this ecosystem to the local economythose emanating from onshore or onsite fisheries. Second, the effect on production method is used to assess the value that these mangroves provide as habitat to offshore fish species. Offshore fishingwhich is primarily trash fish collectionis a major contributor to the entire fishing economy in the Village. Finally, the livelihood analysis shows that ranging from the poorest to richeach group is heavily reliant on the mangroves. In particular, the livelihood analysis shows that while the poorest households made more relative use of the mangroves, the richer households used them more in absolute terms. This dependence on the mangroves for livelihoods provides evidence that all local groups should have an interest in conserving the ecosystem. The results presented from this case study reveal that conservation of mangrove forests is an optimal policy option compared to converting them into shrimp farms. Since there is no prior evidence of the existence of community-based systems of mangrove forest management and there is a low-level of prior institutional engagement, co-management is shown as the better choice compared to community-based management of these mangroves because this governance structure places less demands on social capital (Birner & Wittmer, 2004). However, the form of comanagement will depend on a number of local contextual factorssuch as demographic and community characteristics, social, economic, and political structures, existing institutions and shared values for collective actionthat ultimately determine what arrangement can realistically work. Although proposing the specific measures of comanagement for these mangrove habitats is out of scope of the present study, the analysis presented here makes a case for enabling legislation to authorize and legitimize the right to organize and to make and enforce institutional arrangements, oversight of responsive and inclusive local institutional arrangements as well as an overall enabling environment for co-management. In particular, the government through the Forestry Department Balochistan and the Board of Revenue need to ensure that these stands are conserved by providing the right regulatory and monitoring mechanisms. This has to be done in collaboration with the communities who live around and receive benefits from these mangrove forests. Finally, the analysis shows that investment in mangrove conservation is justified given the economic and ecological values provided by this natural resource. Further, such investments should include community capacity building and include facilitating participatory approaches for co-management such as participatory assessment and planning, monitoring and benefit sharing.

Adhikari et al. Acknowledgments

465

The authors wish to acknowledge the generous financial support of the Royal Netherlands Embassy in Pakistan. They are grateful to Mr. Tahir Qureshi, IUCN Pakistan for his support in our field work. They are thankful to IUCN Pakistan Programme for providing them with the opportunity to undertake this study and also wish to thank three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments during final revisions.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared that they had no conflicts of interest with respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed that they received the following support for their research and/or authorship of this article: The authors wish to acknowledge the generous financial support of the Royal Netherlands Embassy in Pakistan.

Notes
1. Katrina in the Gulf of Mexico and Nargis in the Bay of Bengal are two infamous coastal storm examples 2. Alternatively, the costs are not paid by all users who benefit 3. In contrast, the economic returns on health, education and infrastructure such as roads with public good and positive externality characteristics are well established. 4. Our analysis deliberately keeps things simple, practical and understandable for decision making. 5. Local administrative unit and second lowest tier of the local government 6. to neighborhoods. 7. 1 maund equals 40 kg 8. An invasive species that paradoxically has become important source of fuel in the coastal region. 9. The sample median value was selected as average net value because the data exhibited a wide range and high standard deviation and was markedly, positively skewed.

References
Adhikari, B. (2005). Poverty, property rights and natural resource: Understanding distributional implications of common property resource management. Environment and Development Economics, 10, 7-31. Alongi, D. M. (2002). Present state and future of the world`s mangrove forests. Environmental Conservation, 29, 331-349. Barbier, E. B. (2000). Valuing the environment as input: review of applications to mangrovefishery linkages. Ecological Economics, 35, 47-61. Barbier, E. B. (2003). Habitat-fishery linkages and mangrove loss in Thailand. Contemporary Economic Policy, 21, 59-77.

466

The Journal of Environment & Development 19(4)

Barbier, E. B. (2007). Natural capital and labor allocation: Mangrove-dependent households in Thailand. Journal of Environment and Development, 16, 398-431. Barbier, E. B. (2008). In the wake of tsunami: Lessons learned from the household decision to replant mangroves in Thailand. Resource and Energy Economics, 30, 229-249. Birner, R., Wittmer, H. (2004). On the efficient boundaries of the state: The contribution of transaction-costs economics to the analysis of decentralization and devolution in natural resource management. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 22, 667-685. Cavendish, W. (2000). Empirical regularities in the poverty-environment relationship of rural households: evidence from Zimbabwe. World Development, 28, 1979-2003. Christensen, B. (1982). Management and utilization of mangroves in Asia and the Pacific. FAO Environment Paper No. 3, Rome: United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. Das, S. (2009). Can mangroves minimize property loss during big storms? An analysis of house damage due to the super cyclone in Orissa (SANDEE Working Papers No. 42). Kathmandu, Nepal: SANDEE. Ewel, K. C. (1997). Water quality improvement by wetlands. In G. Daily (Ed.), Natures services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems (pp. 329-344). Washington, DC: Island Press. Gammage, S. (1994). Estimating the total economic value of a mangrove ecosystem in El Salvador. Report to the UK Overseas Development Administration (ODA), London. Gunawardena, M., & Rowan, J. S. (2005). Economic valuation of a mangrove ecosystem threatened by shrimp aquaculture in Sri Lanka. Environmental Management, 36, 535-550. International Union for Conservation of Nature. (2004) GEF/UNEP medium-sized project brief: pro-poor mechanisms for financing protected areas in south Asia. Bangkok, Thailand: Author. Jentoft, S., McCay, B. J., & Wilson, D. C. (1998). Social theory and fisheries co-management. Marine Policy, 22, 423-436. Lal, P. N. (1990). Conservation or conversion of mangroves in Fiji. Occasional Papers No. 11, East-West Environmental and Policy Institute (EWEPI), Honolulu: EWEPI. Meinzen-Dick, R., & Knox, A. (1999, June 21-25). Collective action, property rights and devolution of natural resource management: A conceptual framework. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Collective Action, Property Rights and Devolution of Natural Resource Management, Exchange of Knowledge and Implications for Policy, Philippines. Available at http://www.capri.cgiar.org/pdf/devolution_meinzenknox.pdf Millennium Ecosystem. (2005). Millennium Ecosystem assessment, ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. Naylor, R., & Drew, M. (1998). Valuing mangrove resources in Kosrae, Micronesia. Environment and Development Economics, 3, 471-490. Niazi, M. R. K., & Pervez, A. (n.d.) Environmental Impact and Consequences of Marine Life and Mangroves. Abbottabad, Pakistan: COMSATS Institute of Information Technology. Nizamani, A.A., & Shah, A.A., (n.d.) A review of forest policy trends for community participation in Pakistan. Sindh Forest Department, Karachi, Pakistan. Available at http://enviroscope .iges.or.jp/modules/envirolib/upload/616/attach/03Pakistan.pdf Qureshi, T. (2005). Mangroves of Pakistan: status and management. IUCN Pakistan. Rasool, F., Tunio, S., and Hasnain, S.A. Ahmad, E. (2002) Mangrove conservation along the coast of Sonmiani, Balochistan, Pakistan. Trees, 16, 213-217.

Adhikari et al.

467

Ronnback, P.M. (1999). The ecological basis for economic value of seafood production supported by mangrove ecosystems. Ecological Economics, 29, 235-252. Ruitenbeek, H. J. (1994). Modelling economy-ecology linkages in mangroves: economic evidence for promoting conservation in Bintuni Bay, Indonesia. Ecological Economics, 10, 233-247. Sathirathai, S. & Barbier, E. (2001). Valuating mangrove conservation in southern Thailand. Contemporary Economic Policy, 19(2), 109-122. Shah, A. A., & Jusoff, K. (2007). Mangrove conservation through community participation in Pakistan: the case of Sonmiani Bay. International Journal of Systems Applications, Engineering & Development Issue, 4(1), 75-81. Small and Medium Enterprise Development Authority. (2007). Pre-feasibility study shrimp farming in Pakistan. Lahore, Pakistan: Author. Spalding, M., Blasco, F., & Field, C. (1997). World Mangrove Atlas. Okinawa, Japan: The International Society for Mangrove Ecosystems. Spurgeon, J. P. G. (1998). The socio-economic costs and benefits of coastal habitat rehabilitation and creation. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 37, 373-382. United Nations. (2002). United Nations atlas of the oceans. Retrieved September 3, 2010, from http://www.oceansatlas.com/index.jsp UN Environment Programme. (1996). Oceans and Coasts. In A. Rogers, (Ed.), Taking action: an environmental guide for you and your community. Nairobi, Kenya: UN Environment Programme. UN Environment Programme. (2006). Marine and coastal ecosystems and human wellbeing: A synthesis report based on the findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. UNEP. Vistro, N. (2000). Mangrove forests: an important woodfuel resource of the coastal belt (RWEDP Report # 49). Regional Wood Energy Development Programme in Asia, Bangkok. World Resources Institute. (1996). World resources 1996-97. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Bios
Bhim Adhikari is an environmental social scientist currently working with United Nations University-Institute of Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH) in Hamilton, Canada. He has published in Ecological Economics, Environment and Development Economics, Journal of Development Studies, among others. Saima Baig is the coordinator of the Regional Environmental Economics Programme of IUCN Asia Regional Office in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Usman Ali Iftikhar is an environmental economist focusing on integrating pro-poor perspective into environmental approaches. He is currently Policy Advisor (MDGs) with the Bureau of Development Policy at the United Nations Development Programme in New York.