Rhetoric Over Reality: Concerns Grow Over ‘Nature Positive’ Claims in Global Tourism

Nature positive—a term used everywhere in modern environmental vocabulary—has been called into question in a recent report by Griffith University. In this report, while the phrase is becoming trendy for policymakers and business leaders, especially in tourism, it has no basis in the real world and there are no quantifiable results. Published in npj Biodiversity, the commentary is directed to the mismatch between public environment promises at the national level and actual conservation, and it aims developments up to the 16th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP16).

The study, which has authors from Australia, Chile, China, and Japan, analyzes the way the tourism industry, particularly corporate tourism on a large scale, is responding to the concept of "nature positive." Researchers make a comparison between "small-t tourism," i.e., mobile and individual tourism in national parks, and "Big Tourism," i.e., international corporations financed by private equity. The study concludes that tourism activities are largely not nature positive for biodiversity. Rather, these companies could be utilizing the term as greenwashing—a bid to appear green without making any significant changes.

A tiny percentage of the global tourism business ends up going into conservation, as indicated in the study. The majority of the large players in business have negative environmental impacts, many times through activities such as intruding on land in preserved public areas, under the guise of environmentalism. The activities, as the study argues, serve to counteract actual ends of conservation and drive the enforcement of effective environmental regulations.

The commentary also reminds us of the political misuse of the "nature positive" label, with particular reference to Australia. The rhetoric has been adopted into policy buzzwords, but the research shows that there is still a massive gap between rhetoric and reality. Hence, for example, promises to establish an autonomous Environment Protection Agency have not seen the light of day, and landmark environmental legislations have been repealed at the most dangerous points of politics. This raises doubt about the political parties' sincerities in making green promises, particularly during the country's general elections.

Through examination of sectoral-level political ecology of environmental negotiations, the study puts the dangers of excessive reliance on seductive yet vague language front and center. It highlights the need for clear, verifiable measures in alignment with international biodiversity agreement objectives. Use of vague, undefined language like "nature positive" may, the researchers think, serve to divert effort away from systemic change that is required.

They want governments and firms to be doing harder examination of green assertions. Without robust machinery to confirm whether industries are, in fact, contributing to preservation, the "nature positive" label can get used as a tool in the guise of pretext for further duplication and not be genuinely an inciter to unwinding biodiversity.

In short, the study warns that the recent usage of "nature positive" for rhetorical and tactical purposes can do more harm than good to conservation. As COP16 is likely to shape world biodiversity objectives, the report calls for responsibility and real action rather than marketing glitz.

Source/Credits:
Adapted Content from Griffith University via Phys.org | Original study published in npj Biodiversity (2025). DOI: 10.1038/s44185-025-00087-5