In the first two weeks after the Tsunami, I
found myself spending a lot of time on the coast of Sri Lanka.
Initially it was with search teams looking for survivors and the
dead, followed by visits with the media to carry the message of
re-building the nation. At first, as with many others, my
feelings and thoughts were pre-occupied with those who had
suffered the loss of lives or had their livelihoods destroyed.
After the search for the survivors and the dead, my time was
occupied with taking action to restore the livelihoods of
people. Although 1 received many phone calls from the media on
environmental issues, preparing more detailed answers on
environmental issues was a second priority, in the days soon
after the Tsunami.
A frequent question to me, which 1 would like to
address now, was on a story popular with some environmentalists,
that the presence of mangroves saved lives from the Boxing Day
Tsunami. Is this true or is it a myth contrived by the
environmental lobby.
The answer is yes or no, depending on how one
attributes the presence of mangroves to saving lives.
The simplest reason why mangroves saved lives
is, if there were mangroves, there was often no town or village
in the way of the Tsunami. 1 don’t believe there is something
inherently special about mangroves as an eco system that saved
lives or blunted the force of the Tsunami. Where fewer lives
were lost it was due to what 1 would describe as the ‘coastal
reservation’ effect.
First of all, let me counter the idea that the
presence of mangroves reduce the force of an incoming Tsunami.
The force with which the waves hit the
shoreline, did not depend on the type or amount of terrestrial
vegetation or eco system on the shore line. It depended entirely
on the oceanic topography, currents and other physical factors.
A physical barrier such as a reef, would have blunted the force
of the on-coming waves. A gently sloping sea bottom, extending
well out from the shore, would also normally be expected to
gradually dissipate the energy of the on-coming waves.
In certain places where mangroves were present,
for example in and around Yala National Park, the waves were
very strong. Where there were no physical barriers present such
as sand dunes, whatever was on the shoreline, mangrove or scrub
jungle, bore the full fury of the Tsunami. In Yala, 1 noticed
that in some places, there was no evidence left of the modest
area of mangroves that once existed. The waves had ripped them
off.
North of Colombo, in the stretch from Chilaw to
Puttalam, the extensive mangroves have now almost entirely been
removed and replaced with prawn farms. In this area, there was
little or no damage from the Tsunami, as the area was on the
leeward side of the seismic origin. If one were to engage in
fitting the facts to commercially advantageous theories, the
prawn farming lobby could argue that all mangroves should be
converted to prawn farms to act as a buffer for Tsunamis. This
is patently absurd. In Negombo, a string of hotels stud a wide
sandy beach. There were no mangroves on this stretch. The sea
did rise and water came inland over a hundred meters from the
shoreline and flooded the ground floor of the five star hotel,
The Beach. But it was not a destructive wave. A few hundred
meters away is the Seashells Hotel, no more than a few tens of
meters away from the shoreline. The rising sea stopped at the
edge of the hotel. Once again one cannot contrive theories where
mangroves don’t exist and hotels do, on sandy beaches, wide or
narrow, it stops a Tsunami in its track. To re-iterate, the
force of the waves from the Tsunami had to do with coastal
topography and physical factors, which at times over a few
hundred meters, could produce widely varying strengths of the
impact.
If we agree that the force of the waves is due
to oceanic factors, the next question is how good a buffer or
natural shock absorber, are mangroves. The most effective buffer
is a strong, man made or natural physical barrier. Where there
were large sand dunes, around 30 to 40 feet in height and
broader in width, the force of the waves was broken. The
colonial Dutch fort of Galle, is a good example of an effective
man-made Tsunami defence. Although it was originally built for
military reasons, anyone atop its high ramparts, some which are
over thirty feet wide and as tall, would have escaped unscathed.
Vegetation, building and people behind big sand dune complexes
survived. A good example of a survivor is the Yala Village
hotel, tucked behind extensive sand dunes. A few kilometers
away, the Yala Safari Game Lodge, built between one of the many
long gaps between sand dunes, was totally destroyed. Mangroves
and scrub jungle would also slow down the passage of water. But
the waves would need to pass several hundred meters of mangrove
or scrub jungle (or even bare land) before the force of water
was abated to the same degree as a forty foot high and forty
foot wide sand dune system.
Clearly the saving of lives by mangroves was a
secondary effect by creating a coastal reservation belt. Towns
and villages which were several hundred meters inland behind a
mangrove complex, were safe. The Galle Road heading south,
passes behind a vast complex of mangroves in the
Rekawa-Kalametiya area. The coastal area is thinly populated, on
certain stretches, as much of the villages and towns are beside
the road, well behind the mangroves. The coastal reservation
system so created meant that the water did not reach these
road-side villages and towns. So lives were saved. However in
the same area, just a few villages were right beside the shore.
These did suffer a loss of lives. But the total number of people
besides the sea was relatively small, in these mangrove rich
areas. Therefore, the overall number of casualties was very
small relative to a large sea-side town such as Hambantota or
Galle. The bottom line is that anything that was a few hundred
metres inland, whether buffered by mangroves or bare land, was
safe.
If in Sri Lanka, the first five hundred meters
of coastline had been scrub jungle, mangrove or even a cash
crop, with a rule that all human habitation had to be behind
this belt, there may have been little or no human casualties on
land. This does not of course mean that for human safety, such a
wide coastal reservation system has to be implemented. Although
a risk remain of a Tsunami, the degree of risk may not warrant
such extreme measures. However, where there is already a belt of
natural vegetation in the form of mangroves or scrub jungle, it
makes sense to preserve these. Not just as a defence against
tsunamis, but for preserving the integrity of the island’s
rapidly degrading eco-systems.
With mangroves, there are other reasons for
preserving them. They are a vital part of the oceanic food web.
Destruction of mangroves result in the inevitable destruction of
fish stocks. Sri Lanka’s marine fisheries, on which so many
people depend for a livelihood, will be severely damaged if the
remaining mangroves are damaged any more. Mangroves and other
wetlands also act as buffers against freshwater floods, when
there is heavy rain. Mangroves, acting as a coastal reservation,
which serves as a tsunami buffer is a bonus. But there are more
over-riding physical, commercial and scientific reasons for
holding onto what is left of our precious mangroves.