The world watched as international media reported the death and destruction resulting from the tsunami that swept Asia in December 2004. One of those who closely monitored news reports was David Batker, director of the Asia Pacific Environmental Exchange’s (APEX) Center for Applied Ecological Economics in Seattle, Washington.
Through education and advocacy, the center promotes ecosystem health and ecological economics, focusing on the areas of toxics, forests, fisheries and global trade policy. Mott, through its Environment program, supports organizations that promote greater public participation in the economic decisionmaking processes related to the reform of international financial and trade institutions. APEX is a project of the Tides Center, a Mott grantee.
In the Q&A that follows, Batker -- an international specialist in the field of ecological economics -- discusses the relationship between multilateral bank policies and ecosystem preservation and restoration.
Mott: How do healthy ecosystems like mangroves and coral reefs prevent damage from typhoons, storm surges, tsunamis and other natural disasters in coastal zones?
David Batker (DB): Coral reefs and mud flats both break the waves a mile or two out beyond the coast line. A giant wave, like a tsunami, is broken early and the coral reefs absorb that energy. The same with mud flats.
Mangroves are tremendous defense against storms, tsunamis and other impacts on the coast. They have an amazing system of roots that go into the mud; they can be 40- to 60- foot tall trees. Old growth mangroves are enormous, very dense forests. So, in fact, an old growth forest is a much better defense against a tsunami or storm than a sea wall. A 10- or 15-foot high seawall is not going to provide the protection that a 40- foot forest of mangroves will.
Natural ecosystems provide protection against tsunamis and waves at no cost, if they are healthy. That protection also is equitably distributed. In other words, if you have belts of mangroves on the coast in Bangladesh, or in parts of Sri Lanka, then it doesn’t matter if you are rich or poor. If you are on the other side of it, you will get the buffering effect. Whereas now, if we want to construct a defense against tidal surges or other things, we put up a seawall around a wealthy hotel.
Ecosystems are also more sustainable. These ecosystems, if they are kept healthy and intact, are going to be there 400 years from now when a tsunami comes around, whereas seawalls and other defenses require constant maintenance and they are much more costly to build and maintain.
Mott: How do economic development strategies and investments threaten these ecosystems? Such as, if someone says, “We are going to build a shrimp pond or we are going to build a hotel here and tear out all of the mangroves for a beautiful beach.”
DB: This is one reason we were very concerned. Our Mott grant allowed us to survey international lending for shrimp aquaculture. We looked at the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, the InterAmerican Development Bank, the U.S. Export/Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). We found that in certain countries the IMF’s conditionality required that they should expand exports, including shrimp aquaculture. So there were special subsidies given for shrimp aquaculture. This was a very bad strategy for Ecuador. There, they cut down a huge amount of mangroves, which displaced fisherfolks. They lost their livelihood because of the decline of fisheries due to the decline of mangroves.
By studying how shrimp aquaculture destroys mangrove systems, we made some progress. The World Bank and the Asian Development Bank both agreed not to lend for shrimp aquaculture. I think we made the IMF aware that export-led growth, through shrimp aquaculture, is not a winning path. But, of course, it is very lucrative for local farmers.
Mott: But isn’t that only helping a single person, as opposed to helping the overall industry?
DB: Exactly. So we went to the Philippines to evaluate the economic value of mangroves in a community called Tagabinet on the island of Palawan, which has about 40 percent of the Philippines’ remaining mangroves. We had experts from the shrimp aquaculture industry, and others, to calculate the benefits and costs of shrimp aquaculture versus wild mangrove ecosystems services to this community that was deciding between shrimp aquaculture and old grove wild mangroves.
We learned that you lose with shrimp aquacultures. You lose coastal aquifers and protection of the coral reefs, and you lose far more abundant and valuable wild fisheries production. Shrimp aquacultures garner $5,000 to $30,000 a year for three to nine years while someone can earn up to $64,000 annually from fishing and other activities associated with wild mangroves. Ultimately, [shrimp agriculture] is a losing operation overall because as you are collecting $30,000 for only one owner you are losing $64,000 annually [into perpetuity] for everyone else down the coast.
The mayor was wildly in favor of this analysis so during the workshop we set up a mangrove replanting plan and database for him. He adopted it with so much gusto that soon they had 10,000 school kids replanting mangroves. They replanted an enormous area and decided to make it an annual event.
Mott: Explain how communities get equal benefits when their ecosystems are protected, but how they are unequally impacted when those ecosystems are destroyed.
DB: I think this tsunami is a great example of that. If you have a healthy ecosystem like mangroves, and if you are poor, you have an abundance of wild fisheries. In all of south Asia -- and southeast Asia along the coast -- if you are poor or underemployed or unemployed, it’s cheap to get a line and a hook and fish. At least you can put food on the table. The health of the ecosystem protects the most vulnerable and provides the greatest need, which is food security.
When that ecosystem is degraded, the safety net is gone for the poorest. The same is true, for instance, in the storm protection against the tsunami. Where ecosystems were healthier – where there were coral reefs, healthy mud flats and mangrove forests -- that is where there was less damage and death by the tsunamis. That’s why it is critical to maintain the coastal buffer.
Mott: Isn’t that also true in areas of the U.S., such as Florida?
DB: Absolutely! We did a study with economists at Louisiana State University where I went to school and it showed basically that the more healthy wetlands you have, the less damage you get from hurricanes. For every mile of wetlands that you lose, you increase the power of the hurricanes because they gain power over open water and they lose power over rough wetlands or forested areas.
That is why the damage from hurricanes has increased so greatly. Right now they are still trying to clean up parts of Florida from the 2004 hurricanes. The federal government is investing about $12 billion to restore Louisiana wetlands. That cost could all be recouped in one storm with the prevention of greater damage to New Orleans and other coastal cities.
Mott: So you’re not only addressing threats to the ecosystem, but also looking at ways to restore them?
DB: Yes. Multilateral development banks have listened to the first part. They realize that shrimp aquaculture is damaging. The World Bank and the Asian Development Bank have agreed not to lend for shrimp aquaculture. They have given some loans for ecological restoration, but I think they haven’t realized that this type of restoration is more productive for development than other investments. You get a higher rate of return investing in ecological restoration and a greater development impact than you do with other investments. We are still making that argument, but I think they are coming around slowly.