Don’t dilute the term Nature Positive
Publication year
Resource type
UNCCD Library
External document
Material Type
article
Nature Positive is an aspirational term that is increasingly being used by businesses, governments and NGOs, but there is a danger that its meaning is being diluted away from measurable overall net gain in biodiversity towards merely any action that benefits nature, argues E.J. Milner-Gulland.
The term ‘Nature Positive’ is becoming common currency in discourses around biodiversity conservation, particularly at the intersection with actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Many businesses have expressed interest in becoming Nature Positive (at the latest count 153 have signed up at the business-focused getnaturepositive.com site, including some major multinationals), and governments and multilateral organizations are increasingly using the term.
The term is appealing because it suggests an optimistic, intuitive and clear summary of where society needs to get to, and it can be used equally by business, government and civil society to describe their aspirations to protect and recover nature. However, once terms start gaining traction, particularly relatively general terms like Nature Positive, there is a risk of slippage and loss of meaning. It is already starting to feel like any actions that increase biodiversity anywhere, and by any amount, can be called Nature Positive. This trend has to be resisted.
The naturepositive.org site gives a clear definition of what they mean by the term: “We need to halt and reverse nature loss measured from a baseline of 2020, through increasing the health, abundance, diversity and resilience of species, populations and ecosystems so that by 2030 nature is visibly and measurably on the path of recovery.”
Implicit in this definition is the ‘net’ idea; that overall and on balance, there will be more nature after 2030 than there is in 2020. ‘Net’ recognizes that human activities will continue to impact negatively on nature, but that this needs to be appropriately compensated for. The definition aligns with the concept of ‘biodiversity net gain’, with the shift from ‘biodiversity’ to ‘nature’ making it more inclusive and the shift from ‘net gain’ to ‘positive’ making it much less technical sounding. A number of papers have advocated for this type of framing, including refs. 1,2.
However, the aspirational language in some more recent definitions can hide an erosion in the importance attached to measurable net gain.
The term ‘Nature Positive’ is becoming common currency in discourses around biodiversity conservation, particularly at the intersection with actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Many businesses have expressed interest in becoming Nature Positive (at the latest count 153 have signed up at the business-focused getnaturepositive.com site, including some major multinationals), and governments and multilateral organizations are increasingly using the term.
The term is appealing because it suggests an optimistic, intuitive and clear summary of where society needs to get to, and it can be used equally by business, government and civil society to describe their aspirations to protect and recover nature. However, once terms start gaining traction, particularly relatively general terms like Nature Positive, there is a risk of slippage and loss of meaning. It is already starting to feel like any actions that increase biodiversity anywhere, and by any amount, can be called Nature Positive. This trend has to be resisted.
The naturepositive.org site gives a clear definition of what they mean by the term: “We need to halt and reverse nature loss measured from a baseline of 2020, through increasing the health, abundance, diversity and resilience of species, populations and ecosystems so that by 2030 nature is visibly and measurably on the path of recovery.”
Implicit in this definition is the ‘net’ idea; that overall and on balance, there will be more nature after 2030 than there is in 2020. ‘Net’ recognizes that human activities will continue to impact negatively on nature, but that this needs to be appropriately compensated for. The definition aligns with the concept of ‘biodiversity net gain’, with the shift from ‘biodiversity’ to ‘nature’ making it more inclusive and the shift from ‘net gain’ to ‘positive’ making it much less technical sounding. A number of papers have advocated for this type of framing, including refs. 1,2.
However, the aspirational language in some more recent definitions can hide an erosion in the importance attached to measurable net gain.
Keywords
biodiversity
nature conservation
nature-based solutions
sustainability