Integrating Knowledge for Sustainable Mangroves in Portuguese-Speaking African Countries (PALOP) through the Nature’s Contributions to People Framework
This systematic review of 132 publications reveals that mangrove research in Portuguese-speaking African countries is heavily skewed toward Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau with a dominant carbon-centric focus, creating critical knowledge gaps in local material and non-material dependencies that threaten to decouple coastal governance from community needs and perpetuate epistemic inequalities.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Mangroves are the tangled, salt-tolerant forests that line the edges of tropical coastlines, growing where the land meets the sea. For decades, scientists have known these ecosystems are vital. They act as nurseries for fish, shield villages from storm surges, and trap vast amounts of carbon from the atmosphere. But to truly protect them, we need to understand not just how they function as nature, but how they function for people. This requires looking at the full spectrum of benefits they provide, a concept scientists call "Nature's Contributions to People." This framework moves beyond simple lists of resources to include the complex ways nature supports human life: the food and fuel it provides, the protection it offers against disasters, and the deep cultural and spiritual connections communities feel toward these landscapes. When we only count the carbon or the timber, we miss the rest of the story, potentially leaving the people who depend on these forests out of the conversation about their own future.
A team of researchers from Portugal recently set out to examine this exact story across a specific group of nations: the Portuguese-speaking African countries, known as PALOP. These include Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, and São Tomé and Príncipe. The team wanted to know what the scientific community actually knows about the mangroves in these regions. They did not go out to measure trees or interview villagers themselves; instead, they performed a massive, systematic review of existing scientific literature. They scoured global databases for every peer-reviewed study published between 1991 and 2024 that focused on mangroves in these five countries. They found 132 studies that met their strict criteria. Using the "Nature's Contributions to People" framework as a guide, they sorted every finding into categories to see what was being studied and, perhaps more importantly, what was being ignored.
The results revealed a landscape of knowledge that is deeply uneven. The scientific effort is heavily concentrated in just two countries: Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau. Together, these two nations account for nearly 88 percent of all the research found in the review. Mozambique alone holds more than 60 percent of the total scientific output. The other three nations—Angola, Equatorial Guinea, and São Tomé and Príncipe—are almost invisible in the scientific record. Despite having significant mangrove forests of their own, the research on their ecosystems is so scarce that it creates a near-total void of local evidence. This means that while scientists have a detailed picture of the mangroves in Mozambique, the managers and communities in Angola or Equatorial Guinea are left without a local evidence base to guide their decisions. They are forced to rely on general assumptions or data from far away, which may not fit their specific reality.
Even within the countries that are well-studied, the focus of the research is skewed. The scientists found that the vast majority of studies focus on the "regulating" functions of mangroves. These are the invisible processes that keep the environment stable, such as protecting coastlines from erosion or storing carbon to fight climate change. More than 60 percent of all the recorded findings fell into these categories. In contrast, the "material" contributions—the tangible things people take from the forest, like wood for building, fuel for cooking, or food from fishing—were studied far less often. The "non-material" contributions, which include the cultural identity, spiritual values, and sense of place that mangroves provide to local communities, were also largely overlooked, except in Guinea-Bissau where some cultural research exists. This creates a picture where the forest is seen primarily as a carbon sink or a physical barrier, rather than as a living pantry and a cultural home for the people who live nearby.
Perhaps the most striking discovery was what was completely missing from the scientific record. The researchers identified three critical areas where no studies were found at all across the entire region. First, there was no research on pollination. While mangrove trees often spread their seeds through water, many still rely on insects and birds to pollinate their flowers, a process essential for the forest to reproduce and stay healthy. Second, there was no data on how these forests help regulate ocean acidification, a chemical process linked to the carbon they store that is vital for marine life. Third, there was a total absence of research on how mangroves control freshwater flows. In a region where saltwater is increasingly invading the land and threatening crops, understanding how these forests keep fresh water available is crucial, yet it remains undocumented.
The authors argue that this pattern of research is not accidental. It reflects a global trend where funding and scientific attention are driven by international climate agendas that prioritize carbon and biodiversity metrics over local human needs. When research focuses only on the global benefits of carbon storage, it can inadvertently ignore the daily survival needs of local communities, such as their need for firewood or fishing grounds. This disconnect risks leading to "green grabbing," where conservation efforts designed to meet global targets end up restricting local people from using the resources they need to live. The study suggests that to truly protect these ecosystems, the scientific community must decolonize its priorities. This means actively seeking out the knowledge held by local communities, funding research in the neglected countries, and studying the full range of how mangroves support human life, not just how they support the climate. Without this shift, the management of these vital forests will remain unbalanced, serving global goals while leaving local realities in the dark.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.