Nature Positive of Business Profitable?
"Got it In the Briefcase," Image created for Henoscene. Follow @Henoscene Visit Henoscene.com
The "nature positive" initiative has gained momentum as a promising approach to address the environmental crisis. However, it is crucial to recognize that this movement may inadvertently perpetuate the prevailing extractive economic paradigm if not carefully implemented. While striving for a nature-positive world is commendable, it is essential to ensure that the initiative is not used as a greenwashing tactic or a justification for further degradation of ecosystems and species.
The current modus operandi of the "nature positive" initiative continues to support the existing extractive economic model because it prioritizes saving the failed economic model rather than implementing a more holistic framework that treats the destruction of nature as avoidable. Allowing the current industry players and politicians who profit from the destruction of nature to be the decision-makers for the initiative would only perpetuate greenwashing and hinder real progress.
COP28's prioritization of debt-for-nature/climate swaps as a solution is also problematic, as evidence shows that these swaps have had minimal fiscal impact and fail to address the financial needs for climate change adaptation. The debt-for-nature swaps are going to have the same ramifications on global ecology that the 2008 mortgage crisis had on the global economy, but we are too busy repeating our mistakes to even break out of our self-sabotaging patterns of conduct.
To prevent the misuse of the nature-positive concept for mere PR purposes, it is crucial to remain vigilant against greenwashing. The term "nature positive" should not be casually thrown around to label any vaguely green action. Instead, it should be a call to address ongoing negative impacts comprehensively and genuinely improve the state of nature. For instance, the Australian government's Nature Positive Plan, which aims to compensate for biodiversity destruction, may inadvertently contribute to the destruction of irreplaceable habitats for endangered species and replace them with more easily replaceable biodiversity. This approach, while potentially increasing overall "nature," fails to safeguard the most threatened and unique elements of our natural world.
To ensure the authenticity and effectiveness of nature-positive commitments, three key considerations must be taken into account. Firstly, organizations should adhere to the mitigation hierarchy, which emphasizes the avoidance and minimization of biodiversity losses. It is imperative to evaluate whether proposed actions will cause harm to nature and explore alternatives to avoid such impact. If inevitable damage occurs, it should be minimized to the greatest extent possible. Any remaining negative impacts must be compensated by equivalent gains in the same type and quantity elsewhere. Unfortunately, in practice, mitigation efforts often fall short, and developers heavily rely on offsets as a last resort, which poses significant risks, and fails to adequately replace the irreplaceable features of nature. We must also admit out loud that mitigation is reactive whereas prevention is proactive. The mitigation hierarchy thus merely stratifies the severity of the blow nature takes from industrial activity and the current consumptive economy we collectively value.
Furthermore, organizations must go beyond assessing their direct impacts on biodiversity and consider the wider footprint of their operations, including the entire supply chain and resource consumption. Achieving nature-positive requires a comprehensive approach that addresses the entire lifecycle of products and services. This necessitates an improvement in supply chain knowledge and traceability, a reduction in consumption, and an investment in nature restoration to mitigate the residual harm that cannot be completely eliminated. Organizations must take responsibility for their unavoidable impacts on nature and actively participate in ecological restoration efforts, in addition to compensating for their direct and indirect impacts. Given the extensive historical damage inflicted upon the environment, even if organizations succeed in addressing their current and future impacts on biodiversity, true nature positivity will remain elusive. We have yet to blatantly own this truth, that nature-positive is, in its current iteration, just "managed resource depletion" in eco-optimistic cosplay.
The concept of voluntary biodiversity credits can potentially contribute to the nature-positive movement, although it is not without risks. Similar to carbon offsets, there is a possibility that companies may merely purchase these credits without taking substantive action to avoid and minimize biodiversity losses. Therefore, it is imperative to implement robust mechanisms to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of such credits. Since we are trying to ensure integrity, it is crucial to be forthright about industry's preference to take the path of least inconvenience toward attaining the highest profits, which does not predispose capitalistic entities to prioritize the greater good despite the diminishment of their gross margins. We must be aware that we are trying to change an inversely proportional relationship to a directly proportional one where "Nature-Positive" and business profitability are concerned, and that is frankly a pipe dream.
It is thus important to spotlight that achieving nature-positive requires a significant societal shift away from prioritizing economic growth and profit at the expense of nature, which will face immense resistance from both financial and corporate sectors.
Conservationists have long advocated for protected areas and improved environmental legislation, yet the decline of nature has continued unabated. The nature-positive initiative is a welcome step towards reversing this decline and ensuring that future generations can enjoy the benefits of nature. However, the scale of the challenge should not be underestimated, and commitments need to be translated into rigorous action to reduce the harm inflicted upon nature.
In summary, the nature-positive initiative holds great promise in promoting a more sustainable and empathetic relationship with nature if we exhibit the unwavering conviction needed to shift out of our current trajectory. Solutions can only be truly effective if they move beyond rhetoric and become a catalyst for substantial change. Rigorously adhering to the mitigation hierarchy may provide some results but even that is not going to set us on a truly "nature-positive" course. Perhaps by encompassing the entire supply chain, actively engaging in ecological restoration, implementing verifiable biodiversity credits, and guarding against greenwashing, corporations can ensure that their respective nature-positive initiatives essentially align with their intended purpose – to genuinely improve the health of our planet and create a sustainable future for all, instead of just being another green farce.
