The term nature positive has enormous appeal. It is inherently optimistic and concise, and intuitively captures an outcome that few would oppose. It is perhaps no surprise then, that only a few years after it emerged the phrase is now in broad circulation. The genesis of the term and its deeper meaning is that it is a global goal to halt and reverse nature loss, and is enshrined in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
But with widespread use comes the potential for misuse of the term. Anything related to nature conservation might be branded nature positive, with the potential to drift towards greenwashing. Fear of misrepresentation of misuse may drive yet another concern – greenhushing – silencing the efforts toward positive outcomes for nature.
The Nature Positive Initiative was set up to drive alignment around use of the term nature positive and support broader, longer-term efforts to deliver positive biodiversity outcomes. We prepared an overarching definition of nature positive in 2023, and over the past 18 months have been working with our partners on identifying and piloting a set of State of Nature indicators and metrics. These are the building blocks to measure positive changes in nature, initially on land, and now for freshwater and marine ecosystems.
With a definition, and emerging consensus on how to measure it, a range of stakeholders are beginning to seek guidance on how they might frame their efforts in relation to nature positive.
Governments, civil society groups, businesses, financial institutions and others wish to contribute to nature-positive outcomes but concerns persist on what they can say, and how to demonstrate genuine achievements. While disputes over the term net zero have slowed climate progress, we now have the chance to safeguard nature positive from similar setbacks. Guidance on usage is needed to build clarity, consistency and rigour and ultimately to drive credible action to recover nature.
There is plenty to build on in addressing this challenge. Organizations such as the International Social and Environmental Accreditation Alliance (ISEAL) have been striving to bring rigour to sustainability claims for over a decade and our partners at the Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) have published guidance on public claims on science-based targets for nature. The European Commission’s Project Align along with partners such as Capitals Coalition have investigated many of the challenges around use of nature positive. Here is also an active global academic community that has studied the success and challenges of vital components such as the mitigation hierarchy, and biodiversity net gain (Bull et al., 2020, Maron et al., 2023, Milner-Gulland, E. J., 2022, ). We must use this knowledge. Learning from the past and building on it will be our pathway to building consensus on guidance.
While directly attributing a company or action to being nature positive has to date been discouraged, the phrase is currently being used in a wide range of situations. For some it is a broad system-level term, such as “nature-positive finance”, but there is also a continuum of increasingly more focused uses from institutional statements to communicate a broad aspiration or vision, to commitments supported by specific pledges and outcomes, or even claims on products or for specific geographies. With this spectrum of application other key questions emerge: Are all of these use cases appropriate? And what can a range of actors do to build rigour into different use cases? Is there a core set of minimum practices or outcomes that an institution must adhere to when describing how they are fulfilling their nature commitments and describing their outcomes? How can we collectively move towards open accountability such that actors are taking sufficient action? How much is enough?
We have begun a process to identify and understand the nuances of these and other issues, and to develop practical guidance for actors with the ambition to contribute to nature-positive outcomes. We are now running a public survey, to garner opinion and seek input, as well as running a webinar to introduce this work.
Additionally there will be a panel discussion as part of our presence at the IUCN World Conservation Congress. This will be followed by technical workshops with key stakeholders, to dive more deeply into the questions raised above, and begin developing guidance. From this will follow a draft for consultation early in 2026. Watch out for ways to engage – we welcome input and advice from anyone interested in this topic, to bring further rigour to the term, give confidence to those who use it and drive meaningful action.
Learn more about state of nature metrics, including the terrestrial piloting programme and progress on marine metrics, here.
Sign up to our newsletter
You may
Also like...
-
The bioeconomy at COP30: putting people, planet and profit in harmony
COP30 Special Envoy for Bioeconomy Marcelo Behar and Marco Lambertini, Convener of the Nature Positive Initiative discuss what a bioeconomy means for them and how it fits with wider goals including halting and reversing nature loss.
naturepositive.org -
The Nature Positive flag flew high at IUCN Congress
Nature Positive was seen and heard at every turn in Abu Dhabi during the quadrennial IUCN World Conservation Congress.
naturepositive.org -
Parallel universes collide in New York during Climate Week
Marco Lambertini, Convener of the Nature Positive Initiative, reflects on the mood at UNGA and New York Climate Week 2025.
naturepositive.org
