A total of 119 experts from the scholarly community and common society have approached the United Nations (UN), World Economic Forum (WEF), European Commission (EC) and World Wild Fund to dismiss the 'Nature Positive fund' at the 15th Conference of Parties (COP15) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Montreal, Canada.
As reported by Down to Earth, a letter with the title "Nature Must be Protected from the Nature Positive Economy" stated that the nature-positive agenda advocated for the ¡°financialization of nature¡¯s destruction, via a monetary valuation of ecosystems, biodiversity offsetting and diverting the conversation away from the need to curb biodiversity destruction and towards ¡®sustainable¡¯ finance regulation.¡± This was one of the goals that the nature-positive agenda sought to achieve.
Conservationists believe that halting and reversing current trends of ecological destruction is necessary to achieve a "nature-positive" world by the end of the decade.
Gavin Edwards, director of WWF's Global Nature Positive Initiative, told Reuters, "The idea (is) that there should be more nature in 2030 than 2020."
He explains that this "nature-positive" goal could be comparable to the 1.5C pledge, protecting nature is necessary to increase biodiversity and cut emissions where it is needed to stop rising temperatures. "Essentially, that curve has to be bent up at the same time as the climate curve is being bent down."?
Conservation groups say that "nature-positive " outcomes include protecting and restoring natural processes, ecosystems, and species. Metrics like the number of species, habitat integrity, and tree cover can be used to measure this.
The specific details will differ from one country to another, said Edwards.
According to him, the "ratchet" mechanism of the Paris climate agreement, in which national commitments are updated following a global progress inventory, can hold nations accountable for their nature protection goals. ¡°It dictates where we need to go collectively, and a process of accountability to help us get there."
According to the document, the nature positive agenda was based on false assumptions like the idea that traditional environmental regulation had failed and that monetary considerations would lead to better conservation outcomes or that it was possible to reflect all nature's values in monetary values.
The experts warned that incorrect policy decisions could be made based on false figures, which would have long-lasting effects. This is due to the fact that the monetary valuation of nature's ecological functions can create the appearance of substitutability between essential ecosystemic functions, leading people to believe that nature is in good shape as long as the total monetary value stays the same, reports Down to Earth.
The letter also mentioned that the goal of nature positive is to stop and reverse the loss of nature by 2030, resulting in a "net gain" of biodiversity.
However, the "net" element allows for "offsetting" destruction with promises of restoration, similar to the net zero climate targets.
¡°The same dynamic is already at play in ¡®net zero¡¯ climate policies, where rich countries often prefer to pay for planting a few trees where land is cheap or protecting forests allegedly at risk of destruction rather than change their lifestyle and curb more drastically their emissions,¡± the letter noted.
The letter warns that private finance and financial markets are empowered by the nature-positive fund concept because they realize they have a crucial role to play.