Scales of Balance Sheets
Scales of Balance Sheets, created by @henoscene Visit Henoscene.com
The term Nature Positive was coined by the Convention on Biological Diversity at COP15 (Conference of the Parties) in Montreal. Now, by COP28, the term has become ubiquitous, it is in the news, on social media, in finance pledges, corporate advertisements, and even institutional creditor commitments. Unfortunately, the premise "Nature Positive" was introduced, irresponsibly, without a detailed description of what "nature" means, which has since its inception allowed different stakeholders to interpret it in ways that befitted and bolstered their interests without consensus.
This lack of clarity around the term made the framework susceptible to greenwashing manipulation by capitalistic opportunists who prefer to ignore climate reality and sideline biodiversity extinctions to continue business as usual. Member nations could have opted for the technical term “biodiversity” instead, as it represents the measure of variation found at the genetic, species, and ecosystem levels. Anchoring the initiative epistemologically and ontologically in biodiversity would have promoted the preservation of the living planet’s resiliency and integrity as a whole and as the sum of every role it contains, however, the delegates from 196 countries intentionally picked a less incisive word, nature, which they subsequently have made little effort to provide a working definition for. Devoid of healthy boundaries and hard limits, the word - nature - akin to that which it imprecisely represents, became vulnerable to exploitation from the moment "Nature Positive" came into being.
In theory, Nature Positive seems compelling, as its scope according to IUCN enlists “species distribution, abundance, functional traits, genetic diversity, and demographic trends as well as the intactness and integrity of ecosystems and biomes.” In execution, this recourse is a far cry from what the non-profit organizations posit “Nature Positive” should accomplish: Halt and Reverse Nature Loss by 2030 on a 2020 baseline, and achieve full recovery by 2050'. A 2020 Baseline! There are an estimated 8.7 Million species, of which we have scientifically documented only 1.2 Million, our background extinction rate since humans began to live at odds with the biosphere is 1000 times higher than it would be if evolution were to take its natural course.
"Typical background loss is 0.01 genera per million genera per year. extinction rates are 1,000 times higher than natural background rates of extinction and future rates are likely to be 10,000 times higher." Sites a paper on Species Extinction by Jurriaan M. De Vos, Lucas N. Joppa, John L. Gittleman, Patrick R. Stephens, and Stuart L. Pimm.
Duplicitously, delivering on Nature Positive can also include that which is “natural” but not endemic, ecologically relevant, or wild biodiversity. By exploiting a technicality in this new nomenclature, industries and financial institutions have thus far been able to qualify even geology and monoculture cash crop plantations as “nature-positive” solutions.
It must be highlighted that the concept of being nature-positive assumes that the destruction of biodiversity for industrial growth and progress is unavoidable and can be compensated for through offsetting and ecological restoration. This approach promotes the financialization of nature, assigning a monetary value to living networks of organisms, allowing irreplaceable, inimitable ecological niches to feel equivalent in value to other biologically rich regions, making every square inch of wilderness open to being traded and exploited for the benefit of economic growth and industrial progress. Lives hang in the balance, and corporate balance sheets believe some lives can be sacrificed if other lives are allowed to exist elsewhere. Until some other corporation deems it can trade those "other" lives for yet "other" lives, until we hemorrhage the entire biosphere to the brink.
The murky measures and lack of credible indicators and often obfuscated scientific basis for an actionable strategy, further undermine the initiative's effectiveness. Instead of embracing "Nature Positive," governments should focus on creating conservation policies devoid of loopholes and noncommittal taxonomy, that take responsibility for and concerted action toward curbing biodiversity destruction by preserving their habitats from anthropogenic denudation and climate change, while also recognizing the rights and roles of Indigenous Peoples in the region. Additionally, to ensure integrity, all "Nature Positive" action plans must be designed, managed, and monitored in partnership with Indigenous Peoples and local communities, respecting their rights and incorporating local knowledge, as those inhabiting a landscape best understand its needs, seasons, and reasons.
Instead of modeling our systems on a sectional view of nature that suits what we are already doing, we should look to rebuild our system and tailor how we do things and the outcomes we incur to belong to nature as a whole. We take apart, instead of discerning how things are a part of, and that is why we have made little to no progress on any of our collective commitments, and why we have reached the tipping point of a 2-degree mean temperature rise, despite knowing of its calamitous, irreversible effect on our planet and wellbeing.
The successful execution of "Nature Positive'' outcomes relies on understanding how each option’s effectiveness, potential risks, and capacity for inclusive governance cumulatively realize the intended targets. Obviously, there is little point to deploying nature-based solutions without expediently phasing out fossil fuels and their derivatives, else we are merely putting a band-aid on an internal rupture. To reduce unpropitious influences on both environmental and human health all industry practices that compromise ecological resilience and destroy biological variance must be confronted with foresight and promptly concluded. Nature-positive alternatives are only going to prove viable and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect ecosystems if we first eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels and disposable lifestyles that consume oil-based derivatives. Ending unsustainable industrial practices should remain top of mind, tip of tongue, and enacted now. Not reduced by 2030, or phased out by 2050, rather halted immediately. However, this is not possible, not with the current paradigm whose priorities are in direct contradiction to what is urgently needed. We cannot transform our ecological and social footprints as frantically required while continuing to hang onto the fiction of money and our twice-divorced-from-reality, mercenary economy.
Let’s be honest about what is likely to occur, and forecast based on our true tendencies and material actions versus projecting based on our potential for good through impressive promises that we seldom deliver upon. Given our collective proclivity for maintaining the illusory status quo, because it is convenient, valued by those it benefits, and allows us the comfort of not having to change, we should learn to be forthcoming about what we can truthfully accomplish collaboratively. We should be candid about the lives we are willing to sacrifice, the people we are willing to step over and blindside in pursuit of our next transitory, acquisitive desire. If COP 28 or any of these bureaucratic conferences were honest, we would make greater strides toward a more accurate collective outcome. Ever noticed how all these conferences have the same institutional attendees making the same commitments and remarks under new hashtags each year only to result in no substantive change YoY (year over year)? Why are we unable to admit to our track record and reality of being?
We can attest to biodiverse ecosystems being essential to a thriving economy and a habitable planet all day, but where do we see industrial activities and profit margins earnestly dialing back their current adversarial impacts? Nature-based solutions can only reinforce adaptation and resilience when they are not actively being mutilated during their rest and recovery periods. We cannot continue emitting and expect to reduce flood and drought risk, we cannot continue fishing industrially and expect fish stocks to replenish. This should be self-evident, yet it eludes all decision-makers.
Despite our prolific use of phrases like "triple bottom line" and "3BL" most corporate balance sheets, while providing a concise snapshot of an organization's financial health, often fail to account for the broader implications on environmental and social wellbeing. Frequently companies only account for that which they mandatorily need to provide reports on, by law. Most balance sheets primarily focus on financial metrics such as revenues, costs, and profits, neglecting to capture the external costs associated with environmental degradation or social inequality. For instance, a company may generate substantial profits while disregarding its carbon emissions, depletion of natural resources, or exploitative labor practices. By solely prioritizing short-term financial gains, corporate balance sheets risk undermining long-term sustainability and fail to effectively measure an organization's impact on the environment and society as a whole. Consequently, they allow companies to perpetuate harmful practices and disregard their responsibility toward the planet and the communities they operate in.
Consensus on tangible deliverables against a very clearly attenuated timeline is indispensable to preventing greenwashing and ensuring social and ecological integrity, but we seldom agree on anything but a guns-and-butter model, and even that bare minimum is only committed to in ten or twenty-year time horizons. One hand will continue killing, taking, and plundering, but we promise with this other hand that we will nurture, nourish, and protect.
We end up misusing nature-based solutions to justify emissions, extinctions, and extractions, instead of strengthening linkages between climate action and biodiversity conservation by supporting a rights-based approach that denies carbon and biodiversity trade-off markets and incorporates the role of healthy ecosystems in climate policies. A safe, diverse, resilient planet is a basic right to life on earth, yet this simple fact escapes the mathematics of our pro-nature solutions. By implementing substantive actions with honesty and accountability, we could achieve a nature-positive and resilient global economy, but that has not been and is not likely going to be our priority. Our enthusiasm to preserve our current way of operating at its core, while only ever making superficial changes, particularly around annual hashtags, cannot ever result in a "nature-positive" present or future. If we could at least act with awareness of the bias at play, we might be able to better equip current and future generations for the dystopia we are prone to perpetuating.
Unfortunately, we choose to be self-deceptive at a time when it causes us all more harm to sport this false mask. It would be prudent to acknowledge that any continued support for the existing extractive economic model can only render initiatives like "Nature Positive" to be the next wave of “greenwashing” we condone. We cannot prioritize profit that can only occur through the destruction of biodiversity on some scale in some place while making bold assertions about building ecological resilience and biodiversity preservation. This is an oxymoron. The sooner we admit to this, the greater our ability to be prepared for the consequences we give rise to will be.
