This oversimplification has stalled projects that could have been developed under proper standards, creating value without compromising ecosystems. Dredging is essential for ports to function. Today, dredging is positioned as a key tool for sustainable development. Nevertheless, whenever a port project involving dredging is proposed, the social reaction is usually immediate: concern, doubt, and, at times, rejection. Rejecting all dredging does not protect the environment; it can condemn entire regions to logistical and economic stagnation. The message is clear: port development and sustainability are not opposites. Generalizing that all dredging is harmful is as irresponsible as executing it without studies. The real environmental risk is not well-executed dredging, but the prejudices that stall sustainable projects and limit port competitiveness. For decades, dredging has been perceived as a necessary but uncomfortable activity: essential for port development, navigation, and coastal protection, though frequently associated with environmental impacts, social conflicts, and regulatory controversies. This is not theory; it is well-executed engineering. In the same vein, projects like Puerto Barú show that it is possible to integrate sustainability from the design stage. It is not about avoiding dredging, but about doing it correctly: with rigorous studies, continuous monitoring, and effective control. It allows ships to operate safely, keeps maritime routes active, and keeps countries connected to international trade. In contexts where mangroves have high ecological and social value, this sensitivity is legitimate. But we must say it bluntly: dredging is not, by definition, a destructive activity. The problem is continuing to make decisions—or halt them—without understanding how it really works. The author is a civil and hydrotechnical engineer. This is not rhetoric; it is evidence. These types of experiences reflect a paradigm shift. The real problem is not dredging, but how it is designed, executed, and controlled. More importantly: the real challenge is not well-done dredging, but the misinformation that paralyzes necessary decisions. The problem has never been dredging itself. With clear standards, transparency, and technical backing. In economies with a vocation for logistics, this is not an option; it is a basic condition for port and logistics competitiveness. Because there is a reality that is rarely stated clearly: ships do not go where there are ports; they go where there is cargo. It is not about being for or against dredging, but about demanding that it be done well. The dredging of the access channels to the Port of Guayaquil, which pass through areas of high ecological value, demonstrates that it is possible to maintain navigability without affecting the ecosystem's functionality. And that cargo only moves if there are safe, predictable, and efficient operational conditions. They are designed following the dynamics of the estuarine system, dredging volumes are optimized based on technical modeling, and sediments are managed under strict environmental criteria. Today, channels are no longer imposed upon nature but are adapted to it. It can be harmful if executed without technical rigor. However, this vision is changing. It is the shift from a reactive logic—mitigating impacts afterward—to a proactive one, where sustainability is integrated from the start. The public conversation needs to evolve. But, when done well, it is perfectly compatible with environmental protection. Without adequate navigable channels, there is simply no possible port competitiveness. This is where case studies stop being academic and become decisive. It is not a coincidence. They can coexist. It responds to information gaps and past experiences where poorly executed projects generated unnecessary impacts.
