1. Introduction

Today, the Earth is going through a critical moment of social–ecological challenges. Centuries of industrial development and natural resources overexploitation are turning out to be a heavy burden for the planet [1-3]^[1][2][3]. Impacts shift from local to global: the global climate is being altered and life supporting ecosystems (LSEs) continue to collapse, causing countless species to go extinct. Cattle breeding and harmful agricultural practices are destroying soils and increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, bringing the biosphere close to the threshold of a state shift of adverse conditions, or even of collapse [4-6]^[4][5][6] . In 2011, the world’s richest 500 million people were producing half of the world’s GHG emissions, whereas the poorest three billion were emitting just 7% ^[7]. Additionally, while the richest one fifth of the human population earns 74% of the world’s income, having far more than their basic needs in terms of food security and welfare, another one fifth earns just 2% of the global income and lack access to water, food, and basic services [8 15]^{[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]}. Around one billion people suffer from chronic hunger [8-10]^[8][9][10] while  global food production is already sufficient for all, but is unevenly distributed [11-13]^[11][12][13] . Using evermore limited natural resources, the human-made mass of inanimate objects equals the biomass of the overall global mass of all living taxa, including humans and their livestock ^[14].

Since their popularization by the Ourthe Common Future Report in 1987 [15] ^[15], “sustainable development”, “sustainability”, and other similar terms, mainly referring to an economic development without depletion of natural resources and their ecosystem services, have been used as mantras both in research and in policy. Thise approach assumes that “green” consumption and environmental-friendly technology, which would, in turn, lead to the sustainable development, i.e., growth of national economies,  could be solutions to the social-ecological crises that humanity faces ^[16]. In the sustainable development framework, natural resources would be able to continuously support economic growth of “developed” as well as “developing” countries. “Sustainable” large-scale agriculture and factory farming would warrant food for all present and future generations. The “Sustainable Development Goals” adopted by the UN fail to avoid, and to some extent even promote ^[17], environmental degradation. Overexploitation of the planet, claimed by the elites and the governments that they control as absolutely necessary to bring about human well-being, has not solved hunger and other pressing socio-economic issues.

Despite criticism, countless research and conservation projects struggle to make the SDGs at least minimally efficient in tackling these problems while maximally conforming to economic growth, in an “adapting the problem to the solution” fashion. In the meantime,  we watch the grabbing and privatization of natural resources [18,19]^[18][19] and the socialization of environmental damages [20]^[20] were watched. Under the “sustainable development” tinkering pragmatism, which has been extensively proven to be unable to avoid the exhaustion of diverse environmental goods and services, dreaded “business as usual” scenarios continue to unshakably rule over the anxiously-desired-but-yet-delusional, “capital-friendly” alternative paths. These findings are not new, and neither are the solutions, nor the urgency of the problems at hand. As such, the paradigm of “sustainable development” crashed against an unquestionable truth: it is not possible to reach human equality and stop the overexploitation and consequent degradation of nature in economic systems or modes of production whose soul is permanent growth, increased consumerism and inequality, and wealth accumulation [16,21,22]^[16][21][22]. Indeed, humanity (but mainly rich countries) is consuming more than the can replace, and this clear truth constitutes the background of ourthe approach: no planetary net economic growth can be ecologically sustainable [1,10,16,23]^{[1][10][16][23]}.

Countless ecosystems have suffered fragmentation and degradation, and among them, wetlands are highly affected. Coastal wetlands are extremely important LSEs, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and sequestering it in long-term carbon sinks, as plant biomass and soil refractory carbon compounds, and providing important climate adaptation and resilience services ^[24]. Beyond the threats of global warming (rainfall shortage, increase in temperature, and sea level rise) coastal wetlands face encroachment, intense exploitation, changes in hydrology, and pollution [25]^[25] . Over 60% of the world coastal wetlands have been lost in the last century ^[26].

2.  Protecting, Conserving, and Restoring Mangroves

Among these wetlands, mangrove forests are some of the most important ecosystems, with a high provision of goods and services in relation to their extension^{[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]} [27-34]. Mangroves are salt-tolerant trees that inhabit the mid and upper intertidal coastal fringes (mainly estuaries and deltas) of tropical and subtropical regions [35,36]^[35][36]. Rainfall, tidal height, salinity, soil characteristics (nutrients and oxygen content, grain composition, and humidity), and biotic factors, like herbivory, are among the main ecological factors determinant of their development, diversity and high biomass [36,37]^[36][37]. On a global scale, Indo-West Pacific mangroves, with around 40 tree species, have around six times more species than the Atlantic Caribbean-East Pacific mangroves (7 species) ^[35]. Their position between land and sea has made them especially vulnerable to clearing and conversion into infrastructural enterprises, aquaculture ponds, salt works, cattle breeding areas, and human settlements [38-40]^[38][39][40] . Total mangrove ecosystem carbon stocks (vegetal biomass and soil) can reach an average of 856 ± 32 MgC/ha, approximately 11.7 PgC globally ^[41], which is more than 2.3 times the yearly carbon emissions of the USA in 2018 ^[42]. For these reasons, their conservation and eventual restoration can keep a huge amount of carbon locked in the ecosystem, which would accelerate atmospheric warming if released.

However, despite a slight reduction in forest loss rates, mainly in the Americas, Africa, and Australia [43^{[43][44][45][46]},44], mangrove clearing and fragmentation continues, especially in Southeast Asia^[43][44][45] [43,45,46]. Worse yet, recent research highlights widespread indirect impacts, which result in a reduction of ecosystem services, and in the resistance and resilience to environmental impacts ^[20].  Necessary ample reforestation programs have not been implemented, although conservation of these forests should motivate supranational efforts. The opportunities of mangrove restoration are many, and their restoration is possible and strategic to stop the “economically and socially illogical” destruction of these forests. In the last four decades, only around 2,000 km² of mangroves have been restored. However, 8,120 km² of lost mangroves worldwide are yet restorable, and, if they were rehabilitated, 69 million tons of atmospheric carbon could be sequestered (equivalent to the annual emissions of 25 million American homes), also enhancing small-scale fisheries and increasing coastal protection ^[47].

The arguments presented  here find support in existing scientific and economic literature, expert-based approaches, and articles from renowned sources. Recent history has shown that the use of mangroves has not been and cannot ever be “sustainable” under the current developmentalist, capital-oriented economic system. The recent privatization trend has led to unjust and unsustainable resource allocation ^[48], conflicts around access and use, lack of compliance with management regulations ^[49], and, in some cases, even the complete loss of the privatized wetlands^[50] [50]. The threats posed by the current development and exploitation paradigm over mangroves is one part of the same threat to all biosphere ecosystems, but there are paths to slow down and hopefully reverse the collapse of these unique LSEs and of the biosphere itself. All viable paths, however, necessarily involve a worldwide overcoming of the capitalist (i.e. every capital accumulation & nature predatory aimed) mode of production and of sociability into one where economic growth and capital accumulation are no longer an imperative. Solutions are still to be collectively built and, despite the perspective of struggles and mistakes along the way, all challenges are worth facing when we are confronted with i imminent global disaster.

R weferences

1. 1. Georgescu-Roegen, N. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1971. ISBN 0-674-28164-0.
2. 2. Daly, H.E. Steady-State Economics: With New Essays; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1991; ISBN 1-55963-071-X.
3. 3. Rifkin, J.; Howard, T. Entropy, Into the Greenhouse World; Bantam Dell Pub Group: New York, NY, USA, 1989.
4. 4. Diamond, J. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed; Penguin Group: New York, NY, USA, 2005; ISBN 0-14-311700-9.
5. 5. Steffen, W.; Rockström, J.; Richardson, K.; Lenton, T.M.; Folke, C.; Liverman, D.; Summerhayes, C.P.; Barnosky, A.D.; Cornell, S.E.; Crucifix, M.; et al. Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 8252.
6. 6. Bendell, J. Deep Adaptation: A Map for Navigating Climate Tragedy; University of Cumbria: Carlisle, UK, 2018.
7. 7. Biello, D. Human Population Reaches 7 Billion—How Did This Happen and Can It Go On. Sci. Am. 2011, 28.
8. 8. Atamanov, A.; Castaneda Aguilar, R.A.; Fujs, T.H.M.J.; Dewina, R.; Diaz-Bonilla, C.; Mahler, D.G.; Jolliffe, D.M.; Lakner, C.; Matytsin, M.; Montes, J.; et al. March 2020 PovcalNet Update: What’s New (English); Global Poverty Monitoring Technical Note, No. 11; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2020.
9. 9. Magdoff, F. The World Food Crisis. Mon. Rev. 2008, 60, 1–15.
10. 10. Jackson, T. Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet; Routledge: London, UK, 2009; ISBN 1-84977-433-1.
11. 11. Magdoff, F.; Tokar, B. Agriculture and Food in Crisis. Mon. Rev. 2009, 61, 1–16.
12. 12. Altieri, M.A.; Nicholls, C.I. Agroecology Scaling Up for Food Sovereignty and Resiliency. In Sustainable Agriculture Reviews: Volume 11; Lichtfouse, E., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 1–29. ISBN 978-94-007-5449-2.
13. 13. Horton, P. We Need Radical Change in How We Produce and Consume Food. Food Secur. 2017, 9, 1323–1327.
14. 14. Elhacham, E.; Ben-Uri, L.; Grozovski, J.; Bar-On, Y.M.; Milo, R. Global Human-Made Mass Exceeds All Living Biomass. Nature 2020, 588, 442–444.
15. 15. WCED, U. Our Common Future — The Brundtland Report. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Berlin (Germany). 1987. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf(accessed on 16 October 2021).
16. 16. Magdoff, F.; Foster, J.B. What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know about Capitalism: A Citizen’s Guide to Capitalism and theEnvironment; NYU Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011; ISBN 1-58367-242-7.
17. 17. Zeng, Y.; Maxwell, S.; Runting, R.K.; Venter, O.; Watson, J.E.M.; Carrasco, L.R. Environmental Destruction Not Avoided with the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 795–798.
18. 18. Agrawal, A.; Chhatre, A.; Hardin, R. Changing Governance of the World’s Forests. Science 2008, 320, 1460–1462.
19. 19. Ávila-García, P.; Sánchez, E.L. The Environmentalism of the Rich and the Privatization of Nature: High-End Tourism on the Mexican Coast. Latin Am. Perspect. 2012, 39, 51–67.
20. 20. de Lacerda, L.D.; Ward, R.D.; Godoy, M.D.P.; Meireles, A.J.d.A.; Borges, R.; Ferreira, A.C. 20-Years Cumulative Impact from Shrimp Farming on Mangroves of Northeast Brazil. Front. For. Glob. Chang. Trop. For. 2021, 4.
21. 21. Xue, J.; Arler, F.; Næss, P. Is the Degrowth Debate Relevant to China? Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2012, 14, 85–109.
22. 22. Milanovi´c, B. Capitalismo Sem Rivais: O Futuro Do Sistema Que Domina o Mundo. 2020. Available online: https://www.amazon.com.br/Capitalismo-sem-rivais-futuro-sistema/dp/6551140246 (accessed on 16 October 2021).
23. 23. Kallis, G. Socialism without Growth. Capital. Nat. Soc. 2019, 30, 189–206.
24. 24. Moomaw, W.R.; Chmura, G.L.; Davies, G.T.; Finlayson, C.M.; Middleton, B.A.; Natali, S.M.; Perry, J.E.; Roulet, N.; Sutton-Grier, A.E. Wetlands in a Changing Climate: Science, Policy and Management. Wetlands 2018, 38, 183–205.
25. 25. Junk, W.J.; An, S.; Finlayson, C.M.; Gopal, B.; Kvˇet, J.; Mitchell, S.A.; Mitsch, W.J.; Robarts, R.D. Current State of Knowledge Regarding the World’s Wetlands and Their Future under Global Climate Change: A Synthesis. Aquat. Sci. 2013, 75, 151–167.
26. 26. Davidson, N.C. How Much Wetland Has the World Lost? Long-Term and Recent Trends in Global Wetland Area. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2014, 65, 934–941.
27. 27. Valiela, I.; Bowen, J.L.; York, J.K. Mangrove Forests: One of the World’s Threatened Major Tropical Environments. BioScience 2001, 51, 807–815.
28. 28. Manson, F.J.; Loneragan, N.R.; Skilleter, G.A.; Phinn, S.R. An Evaluation of the Evidence for Linkages between Mangroves and Fisheries: A Synthesis of the Literature and Identification of Research Directions. In Oceanography and Marine Biology; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2005; pp. 493–524.
29. 29. McLeod, E.; Salm, R.V. Managing Mangroves for Resilience to Climate Change; World Union (IUCN): Gland, Switzerland, 2006. ISBN 2-8317-0953-9.Sustainability 2022, 14, 1263, 22-27.
30. 30. Alongi, D.M. Present State and Future of the World’s Mangrove Forests. Environ. Conserv. 2002, 29, 331–349.
31. 31. Donato, D.C.; Kauffman, J.B.; Murdiyarso, D.; Kurnianto, S.; Stidham, M.; Kanninen, M. Mangroves among the Most Carbon-Rich Forests in the Tropics. Nat. Geosci. 2011, 4, 293–297.
32. 32. Lugo, A.E. Conserving Latin American and Caribbean Mangroves: Issues and Challenges. Madera Bosques 2002, 8, 5–25.
33. 33. Alongi, D.M. Carbon Cycling and Storage in Mangrove Forests. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 2014, 6, 195–219.
34. 34. Bhomia, R.K.; Kauffman, J.B.; McFadden, T.N. Ecosystem Carbon Stocks of Mangrove Forests along the Pacific and Caribbean Coasts of Honduras. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 24, 187–201.
35. 35. Ricklefs, R.E.; Latham, R.E. Global Patterns of Diversity in Mangrove Floras. In Species Diversity in Ecological Communities: Historical and Geographical Perspectives; Ricklefs, R.E., Schluter, D., Eds.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1993; pp. 215–229.
36. 36. Duke, N.; Ball, M.; Ellison, J. Factors Influencing Biodiversity and Distributional Gradients in Mangroves. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. Lett. 1998, 7, 27–47.
37. 37. Ferreira, A.C.; Ganade, G.; Morais Freire, F.A.; Attayde, J.L. Propagule Predation in a Neotropical Mangrove: The Role of the Grapsid Crab Goniopsis Cruentata. Hydrobiologia 2013, 707, 135–146.
38. 38. Richards, D.R.; Friess, D.A. Rates and Drivers of Mangrove Deforestation in Southeast Asia, 2000–2012. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 344.
39. 39. Ferreira, A.C.; Lacerda, L.D. Degradation and Conservation of Brazilian Mangroves, Status and Perspectives. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2016, 125, 38–46.
40. 40. Lacerda, L.D.; Borges, R.; Ferreira, A.C. Neotropical Mangroves: Conservation and Sustainable Use in a Scenario of Global Climate Change. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2019, 29, 1347–1364.
41. 41. Kauffman, J.B.; Adame, M.F.; Arifanti, V.B.; Schile-Beers, L.M.; Bernardino, A.F.; Bhomia, R.K.; Donato, D.C.; Feller, I.C.; Ferreira, T.O.; Maria del Carmen, J.G.; et al. Total Ecosystem Carbon Stocks of Mangroves across Broad Global Environmental and Physical Gradients. Ecol. Monogr. 2020, 90, e01405.
42. 42. IE CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion; IEA Atlas of Energy: Paris, France, 2020. Available online: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/474cf91a-636b-4fde-b416-56064e0c7042/WorldCO2_Documentation.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2021).

43. 43. Hamilton, S.E.; Casey, D. Creation of a High Spatio-Temporal Resolution Global Database of Continuous Mangrove Forest Cover for the 21st Century (CGMFC-21). Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2016, 25, 729–738.
44. 44. Friess, D.A.; Rogers, K.; Lovelock, C.E.; Krauss, K.W.; Hamilton, S.E.; Lee, S.Y.; Lucas, R.; Primavera, J.; Rajkaran, A.; Shi, S. The State of the World’s Mangrove Forests: Past, Present, and Future. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2019, 44, 89–115.
45. 45. Bryan-Brown, D.N.; Connolly, R.M.; Richards, D.R.; Adame, F.; Friess, D.A.; Brown, C.J. Global Trends in Mangrove Forest Fragmentation. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 7117.
46. 46. Goldberg, L.; Lagomasino, D.; Thomas, N.; Fatoyinbo, T. Global Declines in Human-Driven Mangrove Loss. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2020, 26, 5844–5855.
47. 47. Worthington, T.; Spalding, M. Mangrove Restoration Potential: A Global Map Highlighting a Critical Opportunity; IUCN: Berlin, Germany, 2018.
48. 48. Farley, J.; Batker, D.; De la Torre, I.; Hudspeth, T. Conserving Mangrove Ecosystems in the Philippines: Transcending Disciplinary and Institutional Borders. Environ. Manag. 2010, 45, 39–51.
49. 49. Recio, M.; Kuper, J.; Vallejo, M.; Sommerville, M.; Jhaveri, N. Central America Mangroves, Tenure, and REDD+ Assessment; Tenure and Global Climate Change Program, USAID: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
50. 50. Adger, W.N.; Luttrell, C. Property Rights and the Utilisation of Wetlands. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 35, 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00169-5.

See an extended versicon of these ideas in:  Ferreira, A.C.; Borges, R.; de Lacerda, L.D. 2022. “Can Sustainable Development Save Mangroves?”  Sustainability, 14, 1263. https://doifronted with.org/10.3390/su14031263