Nature Positive — a positive contribution to holistic frameworks

Achieving a Nature Positive future requires embedding systems thinking into policy and finance so that ecological integrity becomes a foundation—not a constraint—of economic decision-making.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25453/plabs.31970604

Published on April 9th, 2026

Convergence of priorities 

Despite decades of efforts to reduce environmental harm, humanity continues to exceed planetary boundaries. Incremental improvements and efforts to be “less bad” have not reduced biodiversity loss, greenhouse gas emissions, or the destruction of virgin landscapes. The scale of anthropogenic impact is now so great that slowing damage is no longer sufficient. Our impact must become positive, moving us firmly away from planetary boundaries rather than merely more slowly toward them. 

The Frontiers in Science lead article by Locke et al. contributes to this shift by articulating a Nature Positive (NP) framework grounded in systems thinking (1). The work reflects a growing recognition in sustainability science that reductionist approaches are inadequate for addressing the complex challenges of the Anthropocene. By situating the economy within society, and society within the biosphere, Locke et al. provide a scientific basis for policy frameworks that align ecological integrity, economic systems, and human well-being. 

This orientation builds on a broader convergence of holistic frameworks. Johan Rockström’s concept of Planetary Boundaries outlined humanity’s safe operating limits (2). Amy Luers and colleagues’ Planetary Intelligence framework emphasizes that humanity’s collective capacity to process information and make decisions for the planet is itself a system attribute that requires development (3). Complementing these, Kate Raworth’s Doughnut Economics visualizes a "safe and just space" for humanity, bounded by a social foundation and an ecological ceiling (4). 

At CIFOR-ICRAF, our landscape approach aligns closely with this perspective. We have long maintained that forests, farms, and protected areas must be viewed as interconnected systems (i.e., landscapes). Managing complex, dynamic landscapes is essential to balancing environmental integrity and human development. Locke et al.’s integration of abiotic factors (e.g., hydrology and climate feedbacks) with biotic components (e.g., species and ecosystems) reinforces this principle: biophysical integrity is fundamental to human well-being. 

The benefits of the holistic Nature Positive framework 

The shift toward systems thinking places new demands on policymakers and funding agencies, who must understand the wide-ranging and interconnected impacts of policy decisions across ecological, economic, and social systems. While elements of interconnectedness have long appeared in approaches such as recycling and the circular economy, NP is unique in explicitly recognizing the need to move away from, and ultimately to do away with, extractive systems (5). It frames ecological integrity not as a competing interest but as a structural foundation for human and economic activity—an understanding long reflected in Indigenous stewardship of landscapes, which recognizes the interconnections between biotic and abiotic systems (6).  For the NP framework to function as a truly global approach, it must align with a wide variety of economic, social, and political contexts, which are as interdependent and complex as the science itself. While social factors can sometimes outweigh economic ones (5), aligning the economics and financing of NP with feasible resources and systems is critical, particularly in countries that contribute most to planetary boundary transgressions. Without such alignment, NP efforts are likely to remain fragmented, difficult to scale, and ultimately ineffective. 

Finance and de-risk 

Locke et al. tackle a question of paramount scientific and societal importance: How do we rewire the global economic system to value, preserve, and restore natural capital? Ultimately, the credibility of an NP transition will depend on whether financial systems and regulatory institutions internalize ecological limits rather than treating them as externalities. The answer centers on the need for an interdisciplinary approach combining ecology, economics, and finance. 

At a fundamental level, economic modeling and trade-offs require more rigorous treatment if they are to support a holistic approach such as NP. The economic trade-offs of a rapid NP transition (e.g., short-term job losses, fiscal impacts of subsidy removal) are recognized, making it crucial to quantify the impacts of eliminating nature-negative subsidies and practices (7). Existing macroeconomic and valuation models are increasingly adopting nature-awareness principles (8) but will require further adaptation to account for non-linear ecological thresholds and long-term system dynamics inherent in a NP transition.  

More specifically, Locke et al. raise the need to explore and specify design and integrity issues for financial instruments and entities such as biodiversity credits, debt-for-nature swaps, sustainability-linked bonds, and natural asset companies. Experience with carbon markets demonstrates the risks of presenting novel financial instruments as panaceas without addressing well-known credibility and verification challenges. In this context, the work of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) represents an important step toward standardized disclosure, and hundreds of companies in dozens of countries have committed to making nature-related disclosures based on TNDF recommendations. Empirical evidence from these early adopters will be essential to demonstrate feasibility and scalability (9). 

Finally, Locke et al. clearly support a role for central banks, financial regulators, and fiscal policymakers in advancing an NP framework. Existing models and tools supporting NP financial regulation, such as those developed within the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), should receive greater recognition and wider support. In practice, this could include mandating nature-related stress testing, adjusting capital requirements (e.g., green supporting factors versus brown penalizing factors), and incorporating natural capital into sovereign credit ratings are not merely technical adjustments; these are structural mechanisms for shifting incentives and financial systems away from short-term and extractive mindsets. Fiscal policy must phase out nature-negative subsidies and practices, replacing them with policies that favour preservation and restoration – from procurement to infrastructure development. 

Embedding Nature Positive in policy to change mindsets 

Despite many efforts to reduce the impact of anthropogenic activities, we continue to transgress planetary boundaries. The landscape approach of CIFOR-ICRAF, alongside the work of Locke et al., supports the argument that policies promoting the NP approach are now central to global sustainability. In addition, these approaches complement the holistic frameworks mentioned above in the introduction by providing an orientation for such frameworks that is focused on reversing ecological decline while ensuring that biodiversity, climate, and anthropogenic activities are connected.   

By recognizing the importance of restoration across all biomes and the need to account for large-scale natural processes involving interactions among biotic and abiotic components, Locke et al. develop critical metrics that enable clearer evaluation and broader understanding of NP objectives. These contributions strengthen the scientific foundation necessary for a holistic alignment of ecological integrity with economic and financial systems. 

The emergence of a NP community at the intersection of ecology, economics, and finance will be essential to accelerating a just, green transition. Realizing this potential will depend on moving from conceptual alignment to implementation within policy, financial regulation, and institutional practice. 

Copyright statement 

Copyright: © 2026 [author(s)]. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in Frontiers Policy Labs is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.      

Generative AI statement 

The authors declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.  

References 

1. Locke H, Rockström J, Plowright RK, Laffoley D, Little Bear L, Peres CA, et al. Nature Positive: halting and reversing biodiversity loss towards restoring Earth system stability. Front Sci (2026) 4:1609998. doi: 10.3389/fsci.2026.1609998 

2. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS, Lambin E, et al. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc (2009) 14(2):32. Available at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/

3. Luers AL. Planetary intelligence for sustainability in the digital age: five priorities. One Earth (2021) 4(6):772–5. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2021.05.013

4. Raworth K. Doughnut economics: seven ways to think like a 21st century economist. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing (2018). 

5. Locke H, Bear LL, Ubalijoro E, Baptiste B, Wei F. Building a Nature-Positive society. In: Lambertini M, Bull JW, Little Bear L, Locke H, Zabey E, Maseke D, Rodríguez CM. Becoming Nature Positive: transitioning to a safe and just future(1st edition). London: Routledge (2025). 176–84. doi: 10.4324/9781003474043

6. Reyes-García V, Nelson V, Bonilla-Moheno M, Hausner VH, Leventon J, Wheeler HC, et al. Indigenous Peoples and local communities as agents of transformative change for sustainability. Commun Earth Environ (2026) 7(102):1–11. doi: 10.1038/s43247-025-03098-z

7. Maseke D. Nature-Positive finance. In: Lambertini M, Bull JW, Little Bear L, Locke H, Zabey E, Maseke D, Rodríguez CM. Becoming Nature Positive: transitioning to a safe and just future(1st edition). London: Routledge (2025). 176–84. doi: 10.4324/9781003474043

8. Johnson JA, Baldos U, Cervigni R, Chonabayashi S, Corong E, Gavryliuk O, et al. The Economic Case for Nature: a global Earth-Economy model to assess development policy pathways. World Bank (2021). doi: 10.1596/35882

9. For example, see: Nedopil C, Yue M, Hughes AC. Are debt-for-nature swaps scalable: which nature, how much debt, and who pays?.Ambio (2024) 53(1):63–78. doi:  10.1007/s13280-023-01914-4