{"id":57395,"date":"2022-12-09T17:34:05","date_gmt":"2022-12-09T16:34:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/international\/?p=57395"},"modified":"2022-12-09T17:34:10","modified_gmt":"2022-12-09T16:34:10","slug":"what-wrong-nature-positive","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/international\/story\/57395\/what-wrong-nature-positive\/","title":{"rendered":"What is wrong with \u201cNature Positive\u201d?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\u201cNature Positive\u201d is more focused on saving a failed economic model than on protecting biodiversity.<\/em><\/p>\n\n

Biodiversity lovers and anyone following the Biodiversity COP15 that kicked off in Montreal this month may have noticed the term \u201cNature Positive\u201d floating around. It\u2019s in the news, on social media, finance pledges, in corporate advertisements, and most recently, it has appeared in COP15\u2019s draft text agreement.<\/p>\n\n

But what does \u201cNature Positive\u201d mean?<\/p>\n\n

Good question \u2013 no one really knows. That\u2019s the problem.<\/p>\n\n

Let\u2019s break it down: \u201cNature Positive\u201d. What does \u201cnature\u201d mean?<\/h3>\n\n

There\u2019s no straightforward answer here. For the official UN biodiversity negotiations at COP15, \u201cbiodiversity\u201d is a technical term, with clear definitions for ecosystems, habitats, and species.<\/p>\n\n

But there is no definition of nature in the UN biodiversity negotiations at COP15, and the definition put forward by those selling \u201cNature Positive\u201d as a concept includes things that are \u201cnatural\u201d but not biodiversity, such as geology and mono-cropped plantations<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n

\"\"
Aerial view of forests in Brandenburg, affected by the lack of spring’s rainfalls.
\u00a9 Ruben Neugebauer \/ Greenpeace<\/div><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n

If \u201cNature Positive\u201d is incorporated in COP15\u2019s final text, then different actors could use nature to mean anything they wanted. The lack of proper differentiation in terms is important for technical texts. Not all things have the same impact on biodiversity. 100 trees planted in a line on a palm oil plantation are all natural, but they do not carry the same network of biodiversity as a natural growth forest rich in ecosystems that interlap and support each other and us.<\/p>\n\n

So, \u201cNature\u201d is unclear. What does \u201cpositive\u201d mean?<\/h3>\n\n

That\u2019s where things get really scary. The term \u201cpositive\u201d here is very shaky.<\/p>\n\n

The idea of something being \u201cNature Positive\u201d in any measurable sense assumes that it\u2019s possible to reliably calculate the deficit and surplus of biodiversity between two different ecosystems \u2013 and that you can trade a deficit here and a surplus there as if they\u2019re just variables.<\/p>\n\n

Likewise the \u201cpositive\u201d in \u201cNature Positive\u201d implies a net positive<\/a> via all these iffy calculations \u2013 that some destruction of biodiversity is unavoidable but can be compensated by ecological restoration elsewhere.  <\/p>\n\n

Trying to better quantify and understand biodiversity is a good idea \u2013 but it\u2019s precarious to start stockbroking ecosystems when we don\u2019t even have a fair idea of whether we\u2019re able to measure their value to biodiversity.<\/p>\n\n

Why is anyone advocating for \u201cNature Positive\u201d then?<\/h3>\n\n

Proponents of \u201cNature Positive\u201d point to three key measures: zero net loss of nature starting from a 2020 baseline, net positive improvements in nature as early as 2030, and full recovery of nature by 2050. <\/p>\n\n

That\u2019s very vague, and further inspection will show you that these measures lack both credible indicators for their measurement as well as a scientific basis to substantiate them. The indicators put forward for these measures \u2013 carbon stored in nature and the extent of existing habitats \u2013 do not accurately cover the complexity of biodiversity as it exists in ecosystems.<\/p>\n\n

The use of \u201cnet\u201d in these targets reflects a principle of \u201cnet gain,\u201d which would allow for biodiversity offsetting. For example, a mining operation could say destroying one forest is the same as destroying another, and that it\u2019s possible to offset the detriment of destroying one by protecting the other. (It\u2019s not!)<\/p>\n\n

\"\"
Greenpeace Canada activists drop a 46-foot tall banner inside Montreal\u2019s l\u2019Anneau structure, on the heels of the opening of the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP 15).
\u00a9 Toma Iczkovits \/ Greenpeace<\/div><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n

What are the potential repercussions of \u201cNature Positive\u201d?<\/h3>\n\n

The \u201cNature Positive\u201d agenda promotes the financialisation of nature \u2013 that there is a monetary value to nature, that this dollar figure could define all that nature means to us, and that we can start trading plots of nature like tokens and feeding into an ecosystem service that only benefits some people, in particular economies. <\/p>\n\n

The vagueness of \u201cNature Positive\u201d doesn\u2019t sit well with the grand promises made \u2013 as proponents paint it as the biodiversity example of the 1.5 degrees Celsius target for limiting global warming. The idea is easy to sell, but it is a promise too big for the vague measures and their lack of accounting methodology. <\/p>\n\n

So, what should governments do at COP15?<\/h3>\n\n

Governments should take \u201cNature Positive\u201d completely off the discussion table. It is too risky to include ill-defined terminology with no metrics into the final agreement text, especially if you\u2019re inviting money into the picture. Instead of further empowering private lobbies and financial markets, governments should step up, create appropriate conservation policies with explicit recognition of the rights and role of Indigenous Peoples<\/a>, and do their job to curb biodiversity destruction. <\/p>\n\n

\"\"
COP 27 People’s Plenary. \u00a9 Marie Jacquemin \/ Greenpeace<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n

The decision makers for all of this would be the exact same industry players and politicians who are destroying nature for profit now. \u201cNature Positive\u201d would be a bag of tricks for them to distract, defer, and obscure their harm for nature: \u201cdestroying your forest is okay, because we\u2019re not destroying someone else\u2019s.\u201d This is not only greenwashing, it is dangerous.<\/p>\n\n

Mar\u00edlia\u00a0Monteiro\u00a0Silva is a Senior Portfolio Manager with Greenpeace International.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u201cNature Positive\u201d is more focused on saving a failed economic model than on protecting biodiversity.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":106,"featured_media":57397,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_planet4_optimize_post_is_variant":false,"_planet4_optimize_experiment_name":"","_planet4_optimize_variant_name":"","ep_exclude_from_search":false,"p4_og_title":"","p4_og_description":"","p4_og_image":"","p4_og_image_id":"","p4_seo_canonical_url":"","p4_campaign_name":"not set","p4_local_project":"not set","p4_basket_name":"not set","p4_department":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[70],"tags":[84],"p4-page-type":[59],"class_list":["post-57395","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-nature","tag-forests","p4-page-type-story"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/international\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57395","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/international\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/international\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/international\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/106"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/international\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=57395"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/international\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57395\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":57402,"href":"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/international\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57395\/revisions\/57402"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/international\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/57397"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/international\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=57395"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/international\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=57395"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/international\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=57395"},{"taxonomy":"p4-page-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/international\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/p4-page-type?post=57395"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}