top of page

ACCESS4ALL Group

Public·2286 members

The Mangrove Restoration: a Case Study of the Situation in Liberia

The case study Restoring Hope Through Mangroves – A Story from the Philippines closely reflects the situation in Liberia, as both countries are coastal and highly vulnerable to climate-related hazards. While the contexts differ, there are strong similarities in the challenges faced and the solutions being applied.

Natural Hazards and Climate Change Impacts

In Liberia, common natural hazards include coastal flooding, storm surges, heavy rainfall, river flooding, and soil erosion. Climate change has intensified these hazards, leading to more frequent flooding, unpredictable rainfall patterns, and rising sea levels that threaten coastal communities. Similar to the Philippines, environmental degradation has increased vulnerability to these events.

Areas Facing the Greatest Impacts

The most affected areas in Liberia are low-lying coastal zones, particularly in Monrovia, Buchanan, Robertsport, Greenville, and fishing communities along the Atlantic coast. Inland communities along major rivers also experience flooding during heavy rains. Like the provinces of Leyte and Samar in the Philippines, these areas are exposed due to their geographic location and dependence on natural resources.

Most Affected Communities: How and Why

The communities most affected are fishing communities, informal coastal settlements, and low-income households. These groups are vulnerable because they depend heavily on coastal ecosystems for livelihoods, live in high-risk areas, and often lack adequate infrastructure or alternative income sources. This mirrors the Philippine case, where the loss of mangroves increased exposure to storm surges and economic hardship.

Local Coping and Adaptation Methods

Liberian communities use several local strategies to cope with climate impacts, including:

  • Community-led mangrove protection and replanting

  • Traditional fishing practices adjusted to changing seasons

  • Informal flood barriers and raised housing structures

  • Small-scale farming diversification to cope with changing rainfall

These approaches are similar to the Philippines’ mangrove restoration efforts, though they are often limited by financial and technical constraints.

Institutional and External Support

Support in Liberia comes from both government and external partners. Institutions such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Disaster Management Agency (NDMA), and the Forestry Development Authority (FDA) work with communities on climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Local and international NGOs support mangrove restoration, coastal protection, and livelihood diversification, often with funding and technical assistance from international donors and development agencies.

Similarities and Differences in Challenges and Solutions

Similarities:

  • Coastal exposure to climate hazards

  • Mangrove loss increases vulnerability

  • Communities depend on fishing and coastal resources

  • Environmental restoration strengthens resilience

Differences:

  • Liberia has weaker coastal infrastructure and limited early warning systems compared to the Philippines

  • Mangrove restoration in Liberia is still emerging and less organized at scale

  • Institutional capacity and funding are more constrained

Conclusion

The comparison shows that Liberia faces challenges similar to those in the Philippines, particularly regarding coastal vulnerability and ecosystem degradation. The Philippine case offers valuable lessons for Liberia on how community-led mangrove restoration, women’s involvement, and alternative livelihoods can strengthen resilience and reduce disaster risks. Investing in nature-based solutions can help Liberia build a more climate-resilient future.

8 Views
James P Grant Brac University Logo
Hiedelberg University Logo
Heidelberg Institute of Global Health Logo
EN Co-funded by the EU_POS.jpg

Co-funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor EACEA can be held responsible for them.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • Youtube
bottom of page