Nature-positive

"[1] This reflects the definition used by Harvey Locke et al. in a 2021 paper – "halting and reversing nature loss by 2030, measured from a baseline of 2020.

Mainstreaming distinguishes nature positive from NNL and NPI approaches, where biodiversity considerations are generally dealt with by ecological managers at project sites.

[25] Overall, nature positive, NNL, and NPI policies differ through their scope, mainstreaming (embedding biodiversity considerations across a business or organisation), integration, and ambition.

[30] By 2020, proponents of nature positive argued that there was no concise headline goal to address biodiversity loss[14] – while the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development proposes equitable human development, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change puts forward a carbon-neutral goal of net zero emissions for 2050, and the Paris Climate Change Agreement aims to limit global warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, there was no equivalent for biodiversity loss.

[18][16] For example, the United Nations, World Economic Forum,[16] the G7,[13] and the European Union[31] have all discussed the nature positive goal, both within and beyond published reports.

In addition, the Nature Positive Initiative[32] (NPI) was launched in September 2023 to promote awareness of the nature-positive goal and align the definition used for the term.

For example, the UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI) published a 'Financial Sector Guide for the Convention on Biological Diversity' in June 2021.

[35] It described this report as "nature-positive finance guidance" with the aim of mobilising "financial institutions to engage positively with nature."

The UNEP FI also published a report entitled 'Adapt to Survive: Business transformation in a time of uncertainty' in 2021,[36] which states that "shifting towards a Nature Positive approach is the best way for business to transform" and defines a Nature Positive economy as "an economy that is regenerative, collaborative and where growth is only valued where it contributes to social progress and environmental protection.

[48] Fears were expressed that increased use of the term had introduced a danger of diluting its meaning, where used too freely to refer to any action that benefits nature.

[18] Furthermore, in a 2024 paper, Maron and colleagues argued the need to implement the mitigation hierarchy as essential to prevent greenwashing and enable achievement of the nature-positive goal.

However, Friends of the Earth have argued that the net approach fails to account for loss of ecosystem function, assumes like-for-like compensation is possible, and sets unrealistic expectations for offsetting.

[55] The conservationists that proposed nature-positive argue that this is an "inevitable result of humanity's ongoing demand [...] and differing stages of development.

For example, in the UK, the British Government has been called on by the Wildlife Trusts to raise its ambition for nature positive development through the Biodiversity Net Gain policy[56] and the devolved government in Wales was called on by Climate Cymru,[57] RSPB Cymru, and Wales Environment Link[58] to draft a Nature Positive Bill.

For example, the Australian government's Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment, and Water released a Nature Positive Plan (NPP) in 2022.

The budget has been criticised by environmental groups and academics, including because of the allocation of more funds to carbon capture and storage than to addressing biodiversity loss.

"[64] This definition of nature-positive has received criticism because it does not include a 2020 baseline for measurable improvement, and instead leaves this to be determined by the Head of Environment Information Australia.

Senior Lecturer in environmental policy at the University of New South Wales, Megan Evans, described this as "absolutely greenwashing" and said that "it is a pathetic definition".

[61] An amendment to the definition set out in the bill was proposed by Crossbench MP, Zoe Daniel, that instead defines nature-positive as "halting and reversing the decline in diversity, abundance, resilience and integrity of ecosystems and native species populations by 2030 (measured against a 2021 baseline), and achieving recovery by 2050.

In September 2020, President of the European Commission at the time, Ursula von der Leyen endorsed the Leaders' Pledge for Nature.

For example, the European Commission Directorate-General for Research & Innovation released a report from independent experts about the role of nature-based solutions for a nature-positive economy.

[70] In June 2024, a mid-term review of the EU's 8th Environmental Action Programme reiterated a call to member states to "mainstream an ecosystem approach" and to work towards nature-positive economies and societies.

[21] The aim is for the character to be used to promote the nature-positive goal, with the government allowing free use "on posters, flyers, pamphlets, pop advertisements, business cards, websites, and other media that contribute to the dissemination and awareness of nature positivity, and are created to publicize the efforts being made by all local governments, companies, organizations, and individuals that aim to be nature positive.

Targets for achieving the nature-positive goal were set in the 2023 'Environmental Improvement Plan', published by the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs.

The UK government has also been called on by the Wildlife Trusts to raise its ambition for nature positive development through the Biodiversity Net Gain policy.

[88] The devolved Scottish Government made a commitment to be nature positive by 2030 in its 'Scottish Biodiversity Strategy to 2045', published in December 2022 and later updated in September 2023.

[89][90] The Strategy sets out priority actions to achieve the nature positive goal and is part of Scotland's Biodiversity Delivery Framework (BDF).