4 hours Ago
April 24, 2025 This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlightedthe following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility: fact-checked trusted source proofread by Griffith University A new article led by Griffith University argues that the term nature positive is being adopted more for political rhetoric and less for any real-life improvement in nature conservation, posing a new risk to biodiversity. The commentary, "Nature positive rhetoric, risk and reality: sector-scale political ecology at CBDCOP16" published in njp Biodiversity , explores the tourism sector as an example.
The team, led by Emeritus Professor Ralf Buckley with co-authors from universities in Australia, Chile, China and Japan, analyzed the fine-scale political processes in the lead-up to CBD COP16, the 16th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which started in late 2024 and resumed in early 2025. They distinguish "small-t tourism"—such as visitors and mobile tours in national parks —from "Big Tourism," which consists of multi-billion-dollar global corporations and political associations. "Only 0.
01% of the global tourism sector makes net positive contributions to conservation," Professor Buckley said. "Big Tourism, which is largely owned by the US$13 trillion private equity sector, has net negative effects via land grabs." According to the researchers, few tourism enterprises make net positive contributions to conservation, and "nature positive" terms were being used for "marketing greenwash, to delay and avoid environmental fees and regulations, and to lobby for land grabs in public protected areas.
" Professor Buckley suggests Australia has adopted "nature positive" political terminology, but in practice has failed to implement past promises to establish a new independent Environment Protection Agency. "These findings are very timely in the lead-up to the Australian federal election, given the importance of environmental concerns to the electorate, but the very low performance by both major parties," Professor Buckley said. "Despite nature positive political rhetoric, in reality the government significantly weakened its flagship environmental legislation just two days before the start of the election caretaker period.
" More information: Ralf C. Buckley et al, Nature positive rhetoric, risk and reality: sector-scale political ecology at CBD COP16, npj Biodiversity (2025). DOI: 10.
1038/s44185-025-00087-5 Provided by Griffith University.
