Creating a framework for a Nature Postive Economy

In 2022 Dr. Milner-Gulland argued for the need for clear “nature positive” guidelines in the Nature Ecology & Evolution journal. The objective of this paper is to consider her calls to not dilute the term nature positive and instead design an effective framework for a nature positive economy.

To create a framework for setting nature positive guidelines for organisations, I believe we first need to understand some key work delivered to date. Relevant frameworks can be described as follows:

1. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF).

· Ratified in 2022 by almost 200 countries

· 23 targets agreed by 2030 include: Protect 30% of Earth’s lands oceans, coastal areas, inland waters (a.k.a. 30 by 30); Reduce by $500 billion annual harmful government subsidies; Cut food waste in half (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2022)

2. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting — Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA)

· Developed by the UN over 10 years and adopted in 2021

· Described as an “integrated statistical framework for organizing biophysical information about ecosystems, measuring ecosystem services, tracking changes in ecosystem extent and condition, valuing ecosystem services and assets and linking this information to measures of economic and human activity” United Nations (2021).

3. The Task Force for Nature Related Finance (TNFD)

· Includes governments of Australia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, plus the UN Development Programme, conservation charity WWF and the Green Finance Institute

· Responds to the GBF target 15 for corporations to monitor and report on biodiversity impact.

· Builds on SEEA by providing a process for applying Ecosystem Accounting Frameworks, known as LEAP. See diagram below

4. Measurement approaches including CBF, BIA-GIS, BFFI

· Provide computer programs for organizations to run the assessments described by the TNFD

· Rely largely on modeled data such as GLOBIO which provides average data for different scenarios e.g. impact of certain emissions, land use for given extraction etc.

Therefore, to respond to Dr. Milner-Gulland (2022), it could be argued that the targets and timelines have been set by the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and that frameworks for costing and reporting have been initiated. I would therefore recommend a detailed analysis of these models, including scrutiny of the outcomes from the TNFD early adopters, launching in 2024. Such in depth analysis is not possible within the confines of such a short paper. However, I will attempt to highlight some perceived shortcomings, which could be addressed by a working group.

Firstly, by corporations simply assessing their impact they are taking a passive role in nature recovery. I agree with the author that the next iterations of the frameworks above should result in action plans. Perhaps the TNFD model should in fact be LEAP-A, to include Act as a final step. Since the computer models are relying on generic data they could equally offer generic action points for each data set. These action plans should be co-produced by the communities affected, relying on local knowledge for restoring biodiversity. For example, from indigenous communities on restoring soils in deforested rainforests or fishing communities affected by damaged coral reefs and ocean acidification. Organizations would need to be accountable for delivering their action plans.

Secondly, I agree with the recommendation that progress needs to be monitored. If a standardized reporting model was agreed, then data could be collected against this annually and reported to Governments. Governments would then include this data in their country’s success indicators, in addition to GDP. I believe GBF targets can act as a framework for comparison in the short run, in the same way UN SDGs have been incorporated into decision making and reporting. However, by 2030, new targets will need to be set that can be more ambitious and include a return to biodiversity levels of the 1950s. Alternatively, the Anthropocene model could serve as the baseline with a target to return to Holocene level indicators, as per the Planetary Boundaries model (Richardson et al., 2023)

Thirdly, if this reporting was a legal requirement set by nation Governments, and agreed by UN members, then all organisations operating within that nation would be obliged to adopt such a framework. Thus, focusing their attention on environmental impact. Furthermore, both non-compliance in reporting or in mitigation would need to be regulated and fined. Progressive nations, such as Welsh devolved Government, are beginning to create the legal frameworks required for such regulation. For example, by embedding the polluter pays principle into environmental legislation, as outlined in the recent “Securing a Sustainable Future Environmental Principles, Governance and Biodiversity targets for a Greener Wales” White Paper (Welsh Government, January 2024).

Fourthly, infrastructure would need to be created to deliver the action plans proposed by reporting frameworks. The rise of the ‘right tree in the right place’ movement highlights that blanket measures, such as capturing carbon through trees, are not sufficient. I would consider an obligation to first improve biodiversity on sites within the corporation’s supply chain, rather than simply relying on offsetting. To take the example of a technology company, an action plan could include; reducing energy consumption in addition to transitioning to renewable energy sources, consideration of replacing rare minerals with recycled components, reducing waste and ensuring any remaining minerals extracted are done so with minimal impact to their local environment. Thus, encouraging corporations to develop more regenerative business models. Such an obligation also requires corporations to take ownership of the impact of organizations within their supply chains, potentially in countries who do not regulate via the framework discussed above.

However, corporations may lack the skills to manage nature recovery at scale. A potential solution is a regulated market of delivery partners, via evolved biodiversity credit markets. Once internal improvements have been actioned, corporations would be required to invest in nature recovery to fulfill their remaining obligations. This will be critical because as described by Millner-Gulland, only 33% of Oxford University’s impact can be mitigated by direct actions. A regulated biodiversity credit market would require delivery partners to be vetted for their conservation credentials. For example, in England the Wildlife Trust, a well-respected national NGO, are developing a model for delivering the new Biodiversity Net Gain obligation for developers. Such conservation charities have the skillset to identify local projects able to deliver net positive biodiversity outcomes and to report on impact metrics.

To conclude, the foundations have been laid for a standardized environmental impact reporting framework. The next few years will be critical to evaluate and improve on the models under development. The Ecological Benefits Framework (EBF) is an example of attempts to link reporting with impact, which is the critical next step. The UN has the influence to ensure that what emerges is embedded in the laws of nation states, forming the regulations and supporting infrastructure which are critical to a true nature positive net gain.

Reference:

Convention on Biological Diversity (2022), The Biodiversity Plan for life on Earth, Montreal. Available from https://www.cbd.int/gbf

Ecological Benefits Framework, retrieved from https://ebfcommons.org/ on July 26, 2024

Milner-Gulland, E.J, (2022), Don’t dilute the term Nature Positive. Nat Ecol Evol 6, 1243–1244. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01845-5

Richardson K, Steffen W, Lucht W, Bendtsen J, Cornell SE, Donges JF, Drüke M, Fetzer I, Bala G, von Bloh W, Feulner G. (2023) Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Science Advances. Sep 13;9(37)

Taskforce for Nature Related Financial Disclosure (TNFD) (October 2023), Guidance on the identification and assessment of nature-related Issues: The TNFD LEAP approach, Version 1.1

United Nations (2023). State of financing for nature

United Nations (2021). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting —

Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA). White cover publication, pre-edited text subject to official editing. Available at: https://seea.un.org/ecosystem-accounting

Welsh Government (April 2024), Securing a Sustainable Future Environmental Principles,Governance and Biodiversity targets for a Greener Wales, Welsh Government consultation on the White Paper