Content uploaded by Mohammed Syedul Islam
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mohammed Syedul Islam on Oct 27, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Environment and Natural Resources Journal 2016; 14(1): 17-25 17
*Corresponding author:
E-mail: syedulecon@yahoo.com
How Worthy is the Sundarbans Mangrove Forest?
An Exploratory Study
Mohammed Syedul Islam*
Department of Business Administration, International Islamic University Chittagong, Bangladesh
ABSTRACT
Sundarbans mangrove forest carries an enormous value to local and global context. It provides various ecosystem
services primarily to local communities and broadly to global communities. For instance, the Sundarbans offers
livelihood, recreational facilities within local territory and carbon sequestration at the global scale. Based on previous
studies, the paper discusses different ecosystem services of Bangladesh Sundarbans from the socioeconomic viewpoint
and compares the total economic value of Sundarbans mangrove forest with that of other mangroves in the world.
Among others, this paper recommends for sustainable management of forest to attain full benefits of the Sundarbans
mangrove with least ecological damage.
Keywords: Sundarbans mangrove forest/ Ecosystem services/ Biodiversity loss/ Socioeconomic valuation
Received: 29 January 2015 Accepted: 1 March 2016
DOI:10.14456/ennrj.2016.3
1. INTRODUCTION
The Sundarbans mangrove forest (SMF) is one of
largest mangrove forests in the world. It covers 10,000
km2 of land and water within the Ganges Delta, with
some 62 percent located in Bangladesh and the remainder
in the Indian state of West Bengal. SMF is famous for its
biodiversity having variation in both floral and faunal
species. Among floral species, a total of 334 plant species
under 245 genera were recorded in the Sundarbans in
1903 (Prain, 1903).Later, Chaffey and Sandom (1985)
recorded 66 species in the Bangladesh Sundarbans from
37 families. The Sundarbans flora is abundant with
sundari (Heritiera fomes), gewa (Excoecaria agallocha),
goran (Ceriops decandra) and keora (Sonneratia apetala)
all of which occur prominently throughout the area
(Table 1).
Table 1. Biodiversity in the Sundarbans mangrove forest (Hendrichs, 1975; Blower, 1985; Chaffey and Sandom, 1985; Acharya and
Kamal, 1994)
Type of species
Local name/ english name (scientific name)
Major plant species
Kankra (Bruguiera gymnorrhiza), Goran (Ceriops decandra), Gewa (Excoecaria agallocha), Sundari
(Heritiera fomes), Spear grass (Imperata cylindrica), Dhanshi (Myriostachya wightiana), Golpata (Nypa
fruticans), Nol kagra (Phragmites karka), Keora (Sonneratia apetala), Dhundul (Xylocarpus granatum),
Passur (Xylocarpus mekongensis).
Major animal species
Mammals: Royal Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris tigris), Spotted deer (Axis axis), Rhesus macaque (Macaca
mulatta), Wild boar (Sus scrofa), Otter (Lutra perspicillata).
Birds: Herons, egrets, storks, sandpipers, curlew, woodpeckers, barbets, shrikes, drongos, mynas, minivets,
babblers.
Reptiles: Estuarine crocodile (Crocodylus porosus), cobra, the green pit viper, the rock python, sea snakes.
Fishes: Pangas catfish (Pangasius panagasius), Hilsa shad (Hilsa ilisha), Bhetki/ barramundi (Lates
calcarifer), Giant river prawn/ fresh water prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii).
The name of the Sundarbans probably derived
from the tree species sundari (Heritiera fomes). New
forest accretions are often conspicuously dominated by
keora (Sonneratia apetala) and tidal forests. It is an
indicator species for newly accreted mud banks and is an
important species for wildlife, especially spotted deer
(Axis axis). There is an abundance of dhundul
(Xylocarpus granatum) and kankra (Bruguiera
gymnorrhiza) though distribution is discontinuous.
Among palms, dhanshi (Myriostachya wightiana) and
golpata (Nypa fruticans), among grasses spear grass
(Imperata cylindrical) and nol khagra (Phragmites karka)
are well distributed.
Variations in faunal species of the Sundarbans are
also distinctive as it forms a uniquely rich ecosystem,
famous for its tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) population of
350 found from the survey conducted in 1975. Major
animal species as reported in reconnaissance survey are
shown in Table 1 and there has seldom been carried out
the detailed survey on population. About 50 species of
mammals (Mammalia), 300 species of birds (Avifauna),
50 species of reptiles (reptilia), 8 species of amphibians
(amphibia) were reported from the Sundarbans
(Hendrichs, 1975; Blower, 1985; Rashid et al., 1994).
18 Islam MS / Environ. Nat. Resour. J. 2016; 14(1): 17-25
The Sundarbans water also supports 53 species of pelagic
fish, 124 species of demersal fish, 24 species of shrimps,
7 species of crabs, 2 species of gastropods, 6 species of
pelecypods, 8 species of locust lobster and 3 species of
turtles (Acharya and Kamal, 1994). In the Sundarbans,
insects including local honeybee (Apis dorsata) are also
available, a few of them are economically important. The
Sundarbans reserved forest lies in between the latitudes
21°30’N and 22°30’N, and longitudes 89°00’E and
89°55’E. It has a buffer zone comprising of major tree
species in the study area (Figure 1).
Figure 1. The Sundarbans mangrove forest (Bangladesh) including buffer zone (BFD, 1999).
In Bangladesh Sundarbans, (i) H. fomes, (ii) H.
fomes-E. agallocha, (iii) E. agallocha-H. fomes and (iv)
Ceriops decandra-E. agallocha forest type are distributed
as 21%, 29.7%, 14.8% and 14.46%, respectively (Siddiqi,
2001). This Sundarbans covered most of the coastal areas
between the Hoogly and the Meghna rivers. In recent
decades, the hydrological regime has been affected by the
Farakka Barrage (commissioned in 1975) that diverts up
to 40 percent of the dry season flow from the Ganges to
Hoogly river. There is an influence from other human
intervention, as well as natural, long term, large scale
plan from developments of the Ganges (moving
eastward) and its delta. The area is inundated twice a day,
during high tide. The salinity decreases along the coast
from west towards east (and of course from the sea
towards inland). The weather has a high seasonality, with
around 80 percent of the annual rainfall occurring during
the monsoon (June-October). Cyclones hit the area
occasionally, with storm surges of up to 7.5 m. The
Sundarbans was declared a reserved forest as early as
1878 under the 1865 Forest Act. In 1987, parts of the
Indian Sundarbans - the Sundarbans west wild life
sanctuary (1,33,000 hectare)- became a UNESCO World
Heritage Site, and parts of the Bangladeshi Sundarbans-
the Sundarbans wild life sanctuaries (1,40,000 hectare)
received the same status in 1997 (UNESCO, 2014).
The SMF supplies ecosystem services to both
local and global scale. Ecosystem services of the forest
range from community livelihoods, nature-based
recreation facilities, community protection from natural
threats, to carbon sequestration. It is a natural habitat for
many plants and animal species. Sundarbans mangrove is
also a great source of knowledge for academicians and
researchers. Unfortunately, there are several factors those
are threats to the biodiversity of this unique mangrove
forest. The aim of this study is to review past studies on
the contribution of the SMF of Bangladesh, to discuss on
the causes of biodiversity loss and finally compares the
total economic value of SMF with that of other
mangroves in the world.
Islam MS / Environ. Nat. Resour. J. 2016; 14(1): 17-25 19
2. COMMUNITY LIVELIHOOD
Though a large part of Sundarbans is free of
permanent human habitation, most of the communities in
the buffer zone of this forest depend on forest resources
for their livelihoods. It has a population of over 4 million
who collect wood and non-wood forest products from this
forest. Table 2 shows the plant-wise wood and non-wood
forest uses of the SMF by the local people. Wood forest
products (WFPs) include making timber, poles, posts,
charcoal and tannin, while non-wood forest products
(NWFPs) means thatching, fishing, killing wild animals,
collecting honey, fodder and medicine etc. For making
furniture, kankra, dhundul and passur trees are used,
while Sundari, kankra and passur trees are used for house
construction (Table 2).
Table 2. Major plant species in the Sundarbans mangrove forest and their economic uses (Siddiqi, 2001)
Local name
Scientific name
Type of plant
Main uses
Baen
Avicennia officinalis
Tree
Fuel wood, Anchor logs
Kankra
Bruguiera sexangula.
Tree
Furniture, Bridge and house construction
Goran
Ceriops decandra
Shrub or small tree
Fuel wood, houses posts, charcoal
Shingra
Cynometra ramiflora
Shrub or small tree
Fuel wood
Gewa
Excoecaria agallocha
Tree
Matchsticks and boxes, newsprint, and other
papers.
Sundari
Heritiera fomes
Tree
House construction, boat building, electric poles,
hard boards, fuel wood.
Kripa
Lumnitzera racemosa
Small Tree
Fuel wood, posts.
Golpata
Nypa fruticans
Recumbent palm
Thatching for houses
Hantal
Phoenix paludosa
Thorny palm
Post and rafters for huts
Keora
Sonneratia apetala
Tree
Packing boxes, construction material
Dhundul
Xylocarpus granatum
Tree
Furniture
Passur
Xylocarpus mekongensis
Tree
Furniture, bridges, house construction
Local people collect baen, goran, shingra, sundari,
and kripa for fulfilling their fuel need. Some local people
often converted the mangrove lands into salt ponds,
agriculture or aquaculture purposes (FAO, 1994). About
85 percent of the people who have access to SMF are
connected with harvesting non-wood forest products.
Around 299,000 peoples are employed in collecting their
means of NWFPs in Bangladesh and much of this
employment continues throughout the year or at least
during the agricultural off season. NWFPs from
mangrove forests contribute an estimated Taka 717
million (US$ 17.9 million) annually to the Bangladesh
economy, directly or indirectly (Basit, 1995). However,
some factors such as water hijacking, illegal money
collection by forest staff and collection of interest money
by local lender lead to cut the income of forest-dependent
community in the SMF area. From reconnaissance survey
among 155 respondents, Islam (2011) found the net
income (EURO 602.14) which was far smaller than the
annual selling income (EURO 1481.70) due to these
factors.
3. NATURE-BASED TOURISM
Although there was a great concern whether
tourism conserves the nature, the number of visitors to
protected areas has been increasing worldwide in last few
decades (Balmford et al., 2009). Sundarbans may be a
great source of tourism as it has exceptional scenic beauty
and unique wildlife. The SMF has good potentials to
attract local as well as foreign tourists and thereby foster
the tourism sector of Bangladesh (Table 3).
The majority of Sundarbans tourists visit during
October to April who are educated and employed in the
service sector. Both local and foreign tourists visit the
Sundarbans around the year for refreshment and
gathering knowledge. Tourism in Sundarbans is highly
park and reserved forest based (Salam et al., 2000).
However, few tourists cannot visit the Sundarbans due to
the difficulty and cost of arranging transport and to the
lack of suitable accommodation and other facilities (The
Encyclopedia of Earth, 2014).
In Indian Sundarbans, about 64 thousands of
tourists visited in 2005-2006 mainly from Kolkata and
other parts of West Bengal. Guha and Ghosh (2009)
estimated that the total revenue from Sundarbans tourism
could be increased by 300% by charging a higher entry
fee to the visitors. Since the Sundarbans mangrove forest
has many attractions as shown in Table 3, adequate
transport and accommodation facilities may be provided
to tourists unless this tourism will not affect the
ecosystem adversely and bring economic benefits to the
country as well as to the local people.
20 Islam MS / Environ. Nat. Resour. J. 2016; 14(1): 17-25
Table 3. Attractions of the Sundarbans reserve forest for tourists (Vere Moss, 1993)
Characteristics
Comments
Location
On the Bay of Bengal and largest mangrove formation in one of the world’s largest river deltas
Tropical climate
Cool and dry during the tourist season
Waterways
Large and small waterways providing opportunities for cruising and jungle boating
Wildlife
The largest single population of the Bengal tiger and exceptional population of spotted deer and wild boar,
adequate bird watching, migratory species and raptors in particular
Beaches
Unspoiled, wild, unpolluted and totally undeveloped beaches throughout along the Bay of Bengal and
around some islands
History/archeology
Rare sites set in the forest
Sociology
Fishermen in particular, otter fishermen, also other traditional collectors of forest produce.
Cuisine
Many different species of edible fish, prawns and crabs
Culture
Annual festivals at Dubla and diverse cultures
4. CARBON MITIGATION
Forests play an important role in mitigating global
climate change through sequestering atmospheric carbon
(Adame et al., 2013). However, deforestation of
mangroves was very widespread in the last few decades
(Giri et al., 2011) that have driven the policymakers to
look for the new approach to save the mangroves.
Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest
degradation (REDD+) is such a climate change
mitigation approach that will generate economic benefits
for the country. The Sundarbans is, nationally and
internationally, of great conservation significance for its
environmental services and biodiversity (Seidensticker
and Hai, 1983; Iftekhar and Saenger, 2008). To aid in the
conservation of the forest and to benefit from various
global initiatives, e.g., carbon trading, an assessment of
the carbon sequestration (above and below ground) in
Sundarbans is immensely important. Although the SMF
has no baseline data directly related to carbon storage,
few studies quantified the carbon storage of this forest
based on sampling data. Conducting a survey of 25
mangrove forest across the Indo-Pacific region, Donato et
al. (2011) claimed that mangroves are the most carbon
rich forest in the tropics and particularly the Indian
Sundarbans absorbs 212.5 to 312.5 Mg C/ha. Mitra et al.
(2011) performed another study on carbon storage by
above-ground structures of three dominant mangrove
species (Sonneratia apetala, Avicennia alba and
Excoecaria agallocha) in the Indian Sundarbans. Based
on average values of 15 plots from the central and
western region, this study observed 73.14-84.79 ton C/ha
in S. apetala, 9.82-11.02 ton C/ha in E. agallocha and
21.12-23.32 ton C/ha in A. alba in the western region.
Since the distribution of mangrove species in the
Bangladesh Sundarbans differs from that of Indian
portion, let we consider other carbon estimate conducted
in Bangladesh Sundarbans.
Table 4. Carbon density of the Sundarbans mangrove forest
Site
Ecosystem carbon stocks (C/ha)
Source
Indian Sundarbans
212.5-312.5 Mg
Donato et al. (2011)
Indian Sundarbans
73.14-84.79 ton (Sonneratia apetala),
9.82-11.02 ton (Excoecariaag allocha),
21.12-23.32 ton (Avicennia alba)
Mitra et al. (2011)
Bangladesh Sundarbans
256.7 (±17) Mg
Ahmed and Iqbal (2011)
Bangladesh Sundarbans
159.5-360.0 Mg (vegetation types)
Rahman et al. (2015)
Bangladesh Sundarbans
170.1-336.1 Mg (salinity zones)
Rahman et al. (2015)
* Mg = mega gram, C/ha = carbon per hectare, 1 megaton = 106 Mg
Based on above ground and below ground pools at
155 plots in the Bangladesh Sundarbans, the mean carbon
density (including soil) was found 256.7 Mg C/ha
(Ahmed and Iqbal, 2011). In recent, Rahman et al. (2015)
estimated the carbon stock of 159.5-360.0 Mg/ha for
vegetation types, where Sundari-dominated forest
contained the highest amount of ecosystem carbon which
is 360.0 Mg/ha. For salinity types, the estimated carbon
stock was found 170.1-336.1 Mg/ha, although no
significant difference was found for salinity types. That
is, carbon density is completely independent of both
vegetation and salinity. Finally, total carbon storage of
Bangladesh Sundarbans is 105.70 megaton, assuming that
the Sundarbans reserved forest covers 4,110,693 ha
of total forest land (Ahmed and Iqbal, 2011).
5. LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY
Though the Sundarbans formed a uniquely rich
ecosystem, it is now in captious position. Many floral and
faunal species are either extinct or in endangered. Several
factors are liable for bio-diversity losses in the
Sundarbans mangroves.
Forest of the Sundarbans is showing signs of
degradation (Iftekhar and Islam, 2004b). Forest cover,
Islam MS / Environ. Nat. Resour. J. 2016; 14(1): 17-25 21
species diversity, and ecosystem function have been
declining in the last century. Though Sundarbans was
familiar with its floral diversity earlier, now it has only
three tree species, sundari (Heritiera fomes), gewa
(Excoecaria agallocha) and goran (Ceriops decandra)
those covers 95% of total SMF area (Iftekhar and
Saenger, 2008). Sundari is spread over 67% of the
vegetated area and concentrated mostly on the
northeastern side, constitutes 75% of the density of the
trees. On the contrary, gewa is spread over 74% of the
vegetated area of the forest and constitutes 39% of the
density of the tress. Even the dominance (density of trees)
of gewa is declining at a faster rate than sundari during
this period. Studies claim that deforestation in the
reserved forest affects the climatic condition and its’
biodiversity, particularly many faunal species fall into
extinction (Saikia, 2013).
Table 5. Status of threatened amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals of the Sundarbans (Khan, 1982; Hussain and Acharya, 1994;
IUCN, 2000)
Class
English name (scientific name)
Status
Amphibians
(Amphibia)
Green frog (Euphlyctis hexadactylus)
Endangered
Ornate microhylid (Microhyla ornata)
Rare
Reptiles
(Reptilia)
Estuarine crocodile (Crocodylus porosus), River Terrapin (Balagur baska), Asiatic Softshell
turtle (Chitra indica), Russels Viper (Vipera russelli)
Critically
Endangered
Blank Pond turtle (Geoclemys hamitoni), Threekeeled Land Tortoise (Melanchelys
tricarinata), Bengal Monitor (Varanus bengalensis), Yellow Monitor (Varanus flavescens),
Common Krait (Bungarus caeruleus), Banded Krait (Bungarus fasciatus), King cobra
(Ophiophagus hannah), Spot-tailed Pit Viper (Trimeresurus erythrurus),
Endangered
Yellow turtle (Morenia petersi), Spotted Flapshell turtle (Lissemys punctata), Bibron’s
Softshell turtle (Pelochelys bibroni), Gecko (Gekko geko), Ring lizard (Varanus salvator),
Common Vine snake (Ahaetulla nasutus), Dog-faced water snake (Cerberus rhynchops),
Common Bronzeback Tree snake (Dendrelaphis tristis), Dark-bellied Marsh snake
(Xenochrophis piscator), Monocellate cobra (Naja kaouthia),
Vulnerable
Birds (Aves)
Swamp partridge (Francolinus gularis)
Critically
Endangered
Red Jungle fowl (Gallus gallus), Whitebacked vulture (Gyps bengalensis), Griffon vulture
(Gyps fulvus)
Rare
Mammals
(Mammalia)
Rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta), Jackal (Canis aureus), Bengal fox (Vulpes bengalensis),
Common mongoose (Herpestes edwardsi), Palm civet (Paradoxurus harmaphroditus), Small
Civet (Viverricula indica)
Vulnerable
Jungle cat (Felis chaus), Fishing cat (Felis viverrina), Clawless otter (Aonyx cinerea), Finless
Porpoise (Neophocaenoides), Ganges River dolphin (Platanista gangetica)
Endangered
Critically
Endangered
tiger (Panthera tigris), Irrawaddy dolphin (Orcaella brevirostris)
As shown in Table 5, among four class of animal
species, some critically endangered species those live in
Sundarbans are Royal Bengal tigers (Panthera tigris
tigris), Irrawaddy dolphin (Orcaella brevirostris),
Swamp Partridge (Francolinus gularis), Estuarine
crocodile (Crocodylus porosus), River Terrapin (Balagur
baska), Asiatic Softshell turtle (Chitra indica), Russels
Viper (Vipera russelli) etc. Some species are either in
endangered such as Jungle cat (Felis chaus), Fishing cat
(Felis viverrina), Clawless otter (Aonyx cinerea), Finless
Porpoise (Neophocaenoides), Ganges River dolphin
(Platanista gangetica), Blank Pond turtle (Geoclemys
hamitoni), Threekeeled Land tortoise (Melanchelys
tricarinata) etc, or vulnerable such as Yellow turtle
(Morenia petersi), Spotted Flapshell turtle (Lissemys
punctata), Bibron’s Softshell turtle (Pelochelys bibroni),
Gecko (Gekko geko), Palm civet (Paradoxurus
harmaphroditus), Small civet (Viverricula indica) etc.
Most importantly, few species become very rare in
the Sundarbans. Moreover, a number of species are
already extinct in the middle of 20th century including
hog deer (Axis porcinus), water buffalos (Bubalus
bubalis), swamp deer (Cervus duvauceli), Javan
rhinoceros (Rhinoceros sondaicus), single horned
rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis), and the mugger
crocodiles (Crocodylus palustris) in the Sundarbans
(Sarker, 1993).
Table 6. Status of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians in the Sundarbans (Rashid et al., 1994; Siddiqi, 1996; IUCN, 2000)
Type of animal species
Number of existing
species
Number of existing
species
Number of endangered
species
Mammals (Mammalia)
49
4
10
Birds (Aves)
261
2
11
Reptiles (Reptilia)
50
1
16
Amphibians (Amphibia)
8
-
1
22 Islam MS / Environ. Nat. Resour. J. 2016; 14(1): 17-25
According to Table 6, the number of existing,
extinct and endangered mammal species is 49, 4 and 10,
respectively. Among bird species, 2 are extinct and 11 are
endangered. For reptiles and amphibian, 16 and 1 species
are in endangered respectively in the Sundarbans.
Major causes of deforestation and subsequent
effect on biodiversity loss are excessive human
intervention in the forest area, the rapid expansion of
shrimp farming, illegal cutting of trees, encroachment of
forest areas, illegal poaching of wildlife and pollution in
the surrounded forest area etc. (Rahman et al., 2010).
Mining and oil exploration leads to contaminating fresh
water resources in the Sundarbans area which is another
threat to biodiversity (Gopal and Chauhan, 2006).
Moreover, weak management of reserved forest is
identified as a cause of over-extraction of forest resources
by the local community (Iftekhar and Islam, 2004a; Roy
et al., 2012). Recently, tanker crash in the Shela River
and subsequent oil spill in the Sundarbans area caused a
new threat to the Sundarbans biodiversity particularly of
Royal Bengal tigers and dolphins (National Geographic,
2014).
6. TOTAL ECONOMIC VALUE
Usually, total economic value (TEV) covers direct
value, indirect value, option value, bequest value,
existence value and intrinsic value etc. As we discussed
earlier that the SMF provides various types of direct
value such as crops, fish, firewood, timber, and non-
timber products which can be traded and the value
becomes visible. As an indirect value, it provides
different ecosystem services such as flood control, storm
protection, soil conservation, scenic beauty, and nature-
based tourism etc. those cannot be traded but significant.
Thirdly, it has option value to the next generations as it
will be possible to derive benefits from future use. The
Sundarbans mangrove forest also has bequest value,
because we can conserve this forest for future
generations, for instance, refraining from fishing or
extracting forest resources today means keeping those
resources for the future generations. However, this forest
has absolute existence value in terms of culture, heritage
and spirituality etc. Finally, the SMF carries the intrinsic
value, for example, the existence of Royal Bengal tiger as
a living resource in its own right makes this forest
unrelated to human utilization.
Table 7. The Sundarbans mangrove forest at a glance
Characteristics
Particulars
Source
UNESCO World Heritage Site
Period of declaration: 1997
UNESCO (2014)
Total Area
10,000 square kilometer
Siddiqi (2001)
Bangladesh Sundarbans
6,000 square kilometer (approx.)
Siddiqi (2001)
Population
4 million (approx.)
Chowdhury (2010)
Dependent poor community
0.5 million (approx.)
Chowdhury (2010)
Community dependent on NWFPs
0.299 million (approx.)
Basit (1995)
Annual income from NWFPs
Tk. 717 million (estimated)
Basit (1995)
Annual income from WFPs
EURO 1481 per Household
Islam (2011)
Total C storage by SMF (Bangladesh)
105.70 megaton
Ahmed and Iqbal (2011)
Total CO2 storage by SMF (Bangladesh)
387.90 megaton
Ahmed and Iqbal (2011)
Value of total C of SMF (Bangladesh)
US$ 11,077.36 million (approx.)
Author’s calculation
* NWFPs = non-wood forest products, WFPs = wood forest products, C = carbon, SMF = Sundarbans mangrove forest
As we seen from the Table 7, the economic
benefits from the Sundarbans are not only quantitative
but also qualitative in nature. SMF serves to the local as
well as the global community by its treasure trove that
ranges from feeding poor community to carbon
sequestration. It is now clear that the Sundarbans absorbs
a huge amount of carbon each year. Economists have
already developed carbon price based on marginal social
costs associated with emission (Mandell, 2010). The
mean value of carbon per ton is US$ 104.80 and the
interval estimate of carbon per ton ranges from US$ -6.60
to US$ 2400. Based on US$ 104.80 per ton of carbon,
value of total carbon storage is therefore US$ 11,077.36
million from the Sundarbans forest stocks.
TEV of different mangrove forests across the
world varies significantly. These variations in the values
realized may be due to the geographical characteristics of
the mangroves and the communities’ access to various
use and non-use benefits of mangroves.
Table 8. Total Economic Value (TEV) of different mangroves
Country
Estimate
Source
Thailand
US$ 853.5 ha/year
Sathirathai (1997)
Malaysia
US$ 61,357 ha/year
Leong (1999)
Mexico
US$ 2,772 ha/year
Cabrera et al. (1998)
Philippines
US$ 315 ha/year
Walton et al. (2006)
Sri Lanka
US$ 12,229 ha/year
Iftekhar (2008)
Bangladesh
US$ 631 ha/year
Costanza et al. (1997)
Islam MS / Environ. Nat. Resour. J. 2016; 14(1): 17-25 23
As shown in Table 8, the highest total economic
value was found for Malaysia (US$ 61,357) while the
lowest economic value was found US$ 315 ha/year in
Phillippines. The total economic value of mangrove in
Thailand, Mexico, and Sri Lanka was US$ 853.5, US$
2,772, and US$ 12,229 ha/year, respectively. The real
contribution of the Sundarbans reserve forest to the
national economy has not been evaluated so far. Compare
to mangrove forests in other parts of the world, the annual
economic value of Bangladesh Sundarbans was
considerably low (US$ 631 ha/year) due to considering
only the ecological services.
7. DISCUSSION
Some issues have come forward through this study
for the sustainable management of the Sundarbans
mangrove forest. Over-consumption of forest resources is
the common phenomenon in the Sundarbans region;
particularly non-agricultural households depend highly on
the Sundarbans as a means of their livelihood. Moreover,
conflict of interest and hijacking are also prevalent in the
mangrove area (Islam, 2011). Bangladesh Forest
Department should, therefore, define the optimum limit
for consumption at the local level. Evidence shows that
alternative sources of income for livelihood can reduce
the pressure on protected areas (Saikia, 2013). We
thereby recommend that sufficient employment
opportunities should be created by government for local
communities or should provide necessary support to them
to divert to agricultural farming so that dependent
communities becomes less harmful to the SMF.
The tragedy of commons is a common
phenomenon in the case of common property resource.
Enforcing State rules is not sufficient to preserve the
traditional reserve forest. Participatory forest
management approach should, therefore, develop to
conserve the biodiversity of SMF. In this regard, both
government (GOs) and non-government organizations
(NGOs) should motivate stakeholders ethically by
providing necessary training and workshops or by
campaigning.
Since the mangroves have been clearing for
aquaculture and silviculture practices, more attention
should be paid to monitor those practices in the SMF area
and restore those degraded forest lands. In the long run,
advanced research on aquaculture and silviculture are
needed to improve these practices.
Tourism facilities in the Indian Sundarbans attract
more local and international tourists than in the
Bangladesh Sundarbans. Different resorts, parks, and
transport facilities are available in the Indian Sundarbans.
While it is possible to collect 300 percent more revenue
from tourists in the Indian Sundarbans, it would be hardly
possible to collect the same amount of revenue due to the
remoteness of Bangladesh Sundarbans and necessary
support from local tourism entrepreneurs. A well-
equipped sustainable tourism approach should, therefore,
be introduced by Government to earn substantial revenue
from this sector. Moreover, campaigning on this world
heritage and sufficient transport and accommodation
facilities outside the reserved forest are necessary to
attract international tourists.
We found economic value of carbon sequestration
of the SMF which remains as a primary estimate within
current literature. If carbon sequestration by SMF based
on all species in the SMF can be calculated, then we can
monetize this carbon value more accurately. However,
government of Bangladesh may involve with carbon
trading under REDD+ program with advanced
industrialized countries based on the economic value of
carbon as estimated from the Bangladesh Sundarbans
(Table 7). Under this approach, the government may save
the degraded Sundarbans mangrove by conserving
various plant species.
8. CONCLUSIONS
Mangrove is invaluable Sundarbans mangrove
forest provides ecosystem services in numerous ways to
people; however, we found the economic value of SMF
in terms of livelihood, tourism, and carbon sequestration.
While one-third of the world’s mangrove forests has lost
in past fifty years (Alongi, 2002). Sundarbans, the largest
mangrove forest in the world has also lost its ecological
diversity due to natural and anthropogenic causes. Since
the estimated economic value may differ from the actual
value it is, therefore, necessary to estimate the total
economic value covering as many services as provided by
the SMF. Different benefits of ecosystem services, as
well as loss of biodiversity of the SMF under this study
will bear a signal to national and international policy
makers for sustainable forests management.
Due to data insufficiency, future researchers may
calculate total economic value of SMF by applying
market as well as non-market valuation techniques. Since
the value generated from nature-based tourism cannot be
found directly, enthusiastic researchers can also estimate
the value to recreation from the Sundarbans using travel
cost method.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank Professor Dr. Md.
Danesh Miah of the Institute of Forestry & Environmental
Sciences at the University of Chittagong for giving his
valuable suggestions on this paper.
REFERENCES
Acharya G, Kamal D. Fisheries. In: Hussain Z, Acharya
G. editors. Mangrove of the Sundarbans. Vol. 2.
Bangladesh: IUCN; 1994. p. 101-14.
Adame MF, Kauffman JB, Medina I, Gamboa JN, Torres
O, Caamal JP, Reza M, Herrera-Silveira JA. Carbon
stocks of tropical coastal wetlands within the karstic
landscape of the Mexican caribbean. PLOS ONE
2013;8(2):1-13.
Ahmed I, Iqbal MZ. Sundarbans Carbon inventory 2010,
a comparison with 1997 inventory. SAARC Forestry
2011;1:59-72.
Alongi DM. Present state and future of the world's
mangrove forests. Environmental Conservation
2002;29(3):331-49.
24 Islam MS / Environ. Nat. Resour. J. 2016; 14(1): 17-25
Balmford A, Beresford J, Green J, Naidoo R, Walpole M,
Manica A. A global perspective on trends in nature-
based tourism. PLoS Biology 2009;7(6):1-6.
Bangladesh Forest Department (BFD). RIMS/GIS
Database. [Internet]. 1999 [cited 1999 Aug 25].
Available from: http://www.bforest.gov.bd/
Basit MA. Non-wood forest products from the mangrove
forests of Bangladesh. In: Durst PB, Bishop A.
editors. Beyond Timber: Social, Economic and
Cultural Dimensions of Non-Wood Forest Products in
Asia and the Pacific. Proceedings of a Regional
Expert Consultation; 1994 28 Nov - 2 Dec;
FAD/RAP, Bangkok: Thailand; 1995.
Blower JH. Sindarbans Forest Inventory Project,
Bangladesh: Wildlife Conservation in the Sundarbans.
England: Overseas Development Administration;
1985. p. 39.
Cabrera MA, Seijo JC, Euan J, Pérez E. Economic values
of ecological services from mangrove ecosystem.
International Newsletter of Coastal management
1998;33:1-2.
Chaffey DR, Sandom JH. Sundarbans forest inventory
project, Bangladesh. A Glossary of Vernacular Plant
Names and a Field Key to the Trees. England:
Overseas Development Administration; 1985. p. 23.
Chowdhury MTA. Resource-dependent livelihoods in the
Sundarbans: CRBOM small publications series No.
18. Central Java, Indonesia: Center for River Basin
Organizations and Management; 2010.
Costanza R, D'arge R, Groot RD, Farber S, Grasso M,
Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’neill RV, Paruelo
J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, Belt MVD. The value of the
worlds ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature
1997;387:253-60.
Donato DC, Kauffman JB, Murdiyarso D, Kurnianto S,
Stidham M, Kanninen M. Mangroves among the most
carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nature GeoScience
2011;4:293-7.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Mangrove
Forest Management Guidelines (FAO Forestry Paper
117). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations; 1994.
Giri C, Ochieng E, Tieszen LL, Zhu Z, Singh A,
Loveland T, Masek J, Duke N. Status and distribution
of mangrove forests of the world using earth
observation satellite data. Global Ecology and
Biogeography 2011;20:154-9.
Gopal B, Chauhan M. Biodiversity and its conservation
in the Sundarban mangrove ecosystem. Aquatic
Sciences 2006;68(3):338-54.
Guha I, Ghosh S. A Glimpse of the tiger: How Much are
Indians Willing to Pay for It? (SANDEE Working
Papers No 39-09). Kathmandu: South Asia Network
for Development and Environmental Economics.
2009. p. 1-43.
Hendrichs H. The status of the tiger Panthera tigris
(Linne, 1758) in the Sundarbans mangrove forest
(Bay of Bengal). Saugetierkundliche Mitteilungen
1975;23:161-99.
Hussain Z, Acharya G. editors. Mangroves of the
Sundarbans: Bangladesh Vol 2. Gland, Switzerland:
IUCN; 1994. p. 257.
Iftekhar MS. An overview of mangrove management
strategies in three South Asian countries: Bangladesh,
India and Sri Lanka. International Forestry Review
2008;10(1):38-51.
Iftekhar MS, Islam MR. Managing mangroves in
Bangladesh: a strategy analysis. Journal of Coastal
Conservation 2004a;10(1):139-46.
Iftekhar MS, Islam MR. Degeneration of Bangladesh's
Sundarbans mangroves: a management issue.
International Forestry Review 2004b;6(2):123-35.
Iftekhar MS, Saenger P. Vegetation dynamics in the
Bangladesh Sundarbans mangroves: a review of forest
inventories. Wetlands Ecological Management
2008;16:291-312.
Islam MS. Biodiversity and Livelihoods: A Case Study in
Sundarbans Reserve Forest, World Heritage and
Ramsar Site (Bangladesh). [dissertation] Austria:
University of Klagenfurt; 2011.
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Red List of Threatened Animals of Bangladesh.
Dhaka, Bangladesh: IUCN-The World Conservation
Union; 2000. p. 54.
Khan MAR. Wildlife of Bangladesh (A Checklist).
University of Dhaka. 1982. p. 173.
Leong LF. Economic valuation of the mangrove forests in
Kuala Selangor, Malaysia. [dissertation] Malaysia,
University of Malaya; 1999.
Mandell S. Carbon Emission Values in Cost Benefit
Analyses. Transport Policy 2011;18:888-92.
Mitra A, Sengupta K, Banerjee K. Standing biomass and
carbon storage of above-ground structures in
dominant mangrove trees in the Sundarbans. Forest
Ecology and Management 2011;261:1325-35.
National Geographic. After oil spill in Bangladesh's unique
mangrove forest, fears about rare animals. [Internet].
2014 [cited 2014 Dec 16]. Available from:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/12/1412
16-sundarbans-oil-spill-bangladesh-tigers-dolphins-
conservation/
Prain D. The flora of Sundarbans. The Records of the
Botanical Survey of India 1903;114:231-72.
Rahman MM, Rahman MM, Islam KS. The causes of
deterioration of Sundarban mangrove forest ecosystem
of Bangladesh: conservation and sustainable
management issues. AACL Bioflux 2010;3(2):77-90.
Rahman MM, Khan MNI, Hoque AKF, Ahmed I. Carbon
stock in the Sundarbans mangrove forest: spatial
variations in vegetation types and salinity zones.
Wetlands Ecology and Management 2015;23(2):269-
83.
Rashid SMA, Khan A, Akonda AW. Fauna. In: Hussain
Z, Acharya G. editors. Mangroves of the Sundarbans:
Bangladesh. Vol 2. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN; 1994.
p. 115-32.
Roy AKD, Gow KAJ. A review of the role of property
rights and forest policies in the management of the
Islam MS / Environ. Nat. Resour. J. 2016; 14(1): 17-25 25
Sundarbans mangrove forest in Bangladesh. Forest
policy and Economics 2012;15:46-53.
Saikia H. Management of forest resources and
biodiversity conservation: some evidence from India.
Environment and Natural Resources Journal
2013;11(1):41-57.
Salam MA, Lindsay GR, Beveridge MCM. Eco-tourism
to protect the reserve mangrove forest the Sundarbans
and its flora and fauna. Anatolia 2000;11(1):56-66.
Sarker SU. Ecology of Wildlife (UNDP/FAO/BGD/85/011).
Field Document no. 50. Chittagong: Institute of Forestry
and Environmental Sciences; 1993.
Sathirathai S. Economic Valuation of Mangroves and the
Roles of Local Communities in the Conservation of
Natural Resources: Case Study of Surat Thani, South
of Thailand. Bangkok: EEPSEA; 1997.
Seidensticker J, Hai MA. The Sundarbans Wildlife
Management Plan: Conservation in the Bangladesh
Coastal Zone. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN; 1983.
Siddiqi NA. Country Report for Assessment of Faunal
Biodiversity in Bangladesh. Singapore: Economy and
Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA).
Colombo: South Asia Cooperative Environment
Programme; 1996. p. 62.
Siddiqi NA. Mangrove Forestry in Bangladesh. Institute
of Forestry & Environmental Sciences, University of
Chittagong. Chittagong: Nibedon Press Limited;
2001.
The encyclopedia of earth. Sundarbans, Bangladesh.
[Internet]. 2014 [cited 2014 Dec 26]. Available from:
http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/156336
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organizations (UNESCO). World Heritage
Convention. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2014 Dec 22].
Available from: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/798
Vere Moss P. Tourism and Recreation. Integrated
Resource Development of the Sundarbans Reserved
Forest. FAO/UNDP Project BGD/84/056: 1993. p. 11.
Walton MEM, Samonte-tan GPBS, Primavera JH,
Edwards-jones G, Vay LL. Are mangroves worth
replanting? The direct economic benefits of a
community - based reforestation project. Environ-
mental Conservation 2006;33:335-43.
