A quel point le « Nature Positive » sera-t-il vraiment positif ?

The report analyzes the 'Nature Positive' concept, which aims to stop and reverse biodiversity loss. It argues that the term is vaguely defined and relies on 'net gain' accounting, which allows for the continued destruction of ecosystems if compensated elsewhere. The authors contend that such offsetting is often technically impossible, particularly in forest and marine ecosystems, and frequently leads to human rights violations against Indigenous Peoples and local communities. The document further asserts that the concept is pushed by the private sector to avoid strong regulations and to create new business opportunities, while failing to integrate the rights and knowledge of those who protect 80% of existing biodiversity.

• The term 'Nature Positive' lacks a precise definition within the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), leading to ambiguity where 'nature' may be used to describe low-biodiversity areas like monoculture plantations, which facilitates corporate greenwashing.
• The 'Nature Positive' approach is based on a 'net gain' accounting logic that accepts the 'inevitable' destruction of biodiversity provided it is offset by restoration or conservation elsewhere.
• Biodiversity offsetting is often ineffective; specifically, area-based metrics have failed for wetlands and forest habitats, and successful restoration of complex forest and marine ecosystems is virtually non-existent.
• The implementation of offsetting measures frequently results in human rights violations, as Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLC) are often excluded from compensation zones despite protecting 80% of existing biodiversity.
• Proposed metrics for 'Nature Positive' are vague and easily manipulated by industry; for example, focusing on carbon storage can lead to tree plantations that capture carbon but provide poor biodiversity outcomes.
• The private sector supports the 'Nature Positive' framing to avoid strong regulatory transformations of the economic systems responsible for biodiversity loss, while eyeing an estimated $10 trillion in business opportunities in food, infrastructure, and energy.

APA

Marien, N., & Fernandez, M. (2022). A quel point le « Nature Positive » sera-t-il vraiment positif ? Friends of the Earth International. https://www.foei.org/fr/a-quel-point-le-nature-positive-sera-t-il-vraiment-positif/

Chicago

Marien, Nele, and Mirna Fernandez. A quel point le « Nature Positive » sera-t-il vraiment positif ? Friends of the Earth International, 2022. https://www.foei.org/fr/a-quel-point-le-nature-positive-sera-t-il-vraiment-positif/.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Marien |first1=Nele |last2=Fernandez |first2=Mirna |title=A quel point le « Nature Positive » sera-t-il vraiment positif ? |publisher=Friends of the Earth International |date=28 November 2022 |url=https://www.foei.org/fr/a-quel-point-le-nature-positive-sera-t-il-vraiment-positif/ |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{marien2022quel, author = {Marien, Nele and Fernandez, Mirna}, title = {{A quel point le « Nature Positive » sera-t-il vraiment positif ?}}, institution = {Friends of the Earth International}, year = {2022}, month = nov, url = {https://www.foei.org/fr/a-quel-point-le-nature-positive-sera-t-il-vraiment-positif/}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }