A recent comprehensive study helmed by Griffith University has cast doubt on the prevailing enthusiasm surrounding the term “nature positive,” challenging its practical implications within global conservation efforts. Far from being a genuine solution for biodiversity preservation, the research contends that “nature positive” has evolved primarily as a political catchphrase, masking an alarming reality where meaningful environmental improvement remains elusive. This misalignment, the study warns, could inadvertently heighten risks to biodiversity worldwide, undermining decades of conservation commitments.
Published in the renowned journal npj Biodiversity, the investigation delves deeply into the nuanced political and economic undercurrents shaping the discourse at the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), an international summit held in late 2024 and early 2025. The research team, comprising experts from Australia, Chile, China, and Japan and led by Emeritus Professor Ralf Buckley, scrutinizes how the rhetoric of “nature positivity” contrasts starkly with the sector-wide realities, particularly in the tourism industry—a sector often championed as a driver of sustainable development.
A critical aspect of the study differentiates between “small-t tourism,” encompassing activities such as visitors and mobile tours in protected national parks, and “Big Tourism,” which represents the sprawling operations of multi-billion-dollar global corporations backed by powerful financial entities. Despite widespread claims, the researchers reveal that a minuscule fraction—only about 0.01%—of this vast tourism sector actually generates net positive contributions to environmental conservation. This statistic starkly illuminates the disconnect between public perceptions driven by green marketing and the ecological footprints of tourism conglomerates.
Professor Buckley’s team highlights that Big Tourism, significantly influenced by the private equity sector valued at around US$13 trillion, exerts substantial net negative impacts, notably through aggressive land acquisitions often termed “land grabs.” These actions frequently encroach upon public protected areas, detracting from conservation goals and exacerbating habitat loss. The study underscores that while “nature positive” language proliferates in corporate communications and governmental rhetoric, the underlying practices often prioritize profit and expansion over biodiversity protection.
This dichotomy extends to policy-making realms, with Australia serving as a pertinent case study. The researchers point out that although Australian governments have adopted “nature positive” terminology in their political discourse, there has been a consistent failure to translate rhetoric into substantive action. A poignant example lies in the unfulfilled promise to establish an independent Environment Protection Agency, a move deemed vital for enforcing environmental regulations and safeguarding biodiversity.
The timing of these findings is particularly significant, arriving on the eve of Australia’s federal elections. Environmental concerns rank highly among voters, yet the study critiques both major political parties for their underwhelming performance on environmental protection fronts. Despite vocal commitments to “nature positive” agendas, tangible legislative progress has been minimal. In fact, the report highlights a worrying trend wherein key environmental laws were weakened mere days before the onset of the election caretaker period, effectively diluting conservation efforts at a critical political juncture.
Beyond national contexts, the research throws into sharp relief the broader hazards of embracing “nature positive” rhetoric without rigorous accountability or clear benchmarks. Greenwashing, defined as the superficial use of environmentally positive language devoid of substantive action, has emerged as a prominent tactic. The deceptive allure of such rhetoric risks stalling necessary regulatory reforms, delaying the imposition of environmental fees, and providing cover for exploitative land acquisition strategies detrimental to global biodiversity.
Methodologically, the study employs an observational approach, analyzing political texts, policy drafts, corporate reports, and lobbying activities leading up to CBD COP16. This granular analysis reveals how “nature positive” operates more as a strategic governance tool rather than a genuine conservation ethic within sector-scale political ecology. By embedding itself within influential arenas of power, the phrase facilitates political maneuvering that often runs counter to the substantive interests of biodiversity preservation.
An additional layer of complexity arises from the economic scale of the forces involved. The private equity sector’s monumental influence over “Big Tourism” is a key driver of resource extraction and habitat disruption, reflecting broader systemic challenges in aligning profit motives with ecological sustainability. This dynamic underscores the necessity for reforming financial incentives and regulatory frameworks to curb environmentally damaging practices that hide behind “nature positive” branding.
The authors suggest that the path forward demands a recalibration of both language and action. Policymakers, conservationists, and the public must resist complacency driven by superficial slogans and instead demand transparency, measurable outcomes, and enforceable commitments. Without such rigor, the seductive simplicity of “nature positive” will remain a hollow banner, offering political convenience but no substantive progress against the accelerating threats of biodiversity loss.
Importantly, the study serves as a clarion call amid a global conservation landscape at a crossroads. With COP16 being a pivotal moment for international biodiversity governance, the findings highlight the imperative of scrutinizing political ecology at sectoral scales. The tourism industry, emblematic of many resource-intensive sectors, can no longer be treated as an unquestioned ally of nature. Instead, it requires careful governance, aligned incentives, and verifiable contributions to conservation outcomes.
Emeritus Professor Buckley and his colleagues illuminate the stark reality that optimistic environmental narratives must be tethered to accountability. Their work challenges scientists, journalists, and the public to peer beyond the veneer of “nature positive” claims and engage critically with the political and economic structures that shape conservation futures. As the global community grapples with biodiversity crises, these insights underscore the vital importance of marrying rhetoric with reality to achieve genuine ecological resilience.
This groundbreaking study not only reframes the discourse on “nature positive” but also equips policymakers and stakeholders with the conceptual tools necessary to parse rhetoric from reality. It advocates for a political ecology rooted in empirical assessment and robust governance, an approach that transcends sloganism to protect the planet’s biological heritage effectively.
Subject of Research: Political ecology and conservation outcomes related to the term “nature positive” within the tourism sector at the 16th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP16).
Article Title: Nature positive rhetoric, risk and reality: sector-scale political ecology at CBDCOP16
News Publication Date: 24-Apr-2025
Web References:
Keywords: biodiversity, nature positive, tourism sector, political ecology, greenwashing, conservation policy, private equity, land grabs, environmental legislation, CBD COP16, Australia environment policy
