“Nature positive” is becoming part of corporate sustainability language. It’s an attractive idea. Instead of simply reducing environmental harm, an organisation seeks to leave nature in a better condition as a result of its activities.
In Ireland, this direction is increasingly visible. The Government-backed Business for Biodiversity Ireland platform explicitly supports the transition to a nature-positive Irish economy, while Ireland’s National Biodiversity Action Plan 2023–2030 calls for integrating biodiversity more fully into public and private sector decision-making.
But an important question underlies any claim that an organisation is becoming nature positive – Compared with what?
Without an ecological baseline, measurable objectives and subsequent monitoring, it can be difficult to determine whether nature has actually benefited.
Start with what is already there
Before an organisation announces what it intends to improve, it needs to understand the ecological condition of the land, habitats or operations concerned.
That does not necessarily require an exhaustive survey of every species. The level of assessment should be proportionate to the site and the decisions being made. It does, however, require enough information to establish a meaningful starting point.
What habitats are present? What condition are they in? Are protected species using the site? Are there important hedgerows, wetlands, watercourses, mature trees or other features? Are invasive species present? How does the site connect with the surrounding landscape?
Without this information, it’s difficult to demonstrate improvement. For example, planting 500 trees sounds positive. But if those trees replace species-rich grassland or another valuable open habitat, the ecological outcome may not be positive at all.
The number of interventions matters less than the ecological change they produce.
What damage was avoided?
A credible biodiversity strategy should not begin with habitat creation. It should begin with avoiding unnecessary damage. For a development, that might mean retaining an established hedgerow, redesigning access to protect mature trees, maintaining a wildlife corridor or avoiding an important wetland.
For a corporate landholding, it may involve changing mowing, pesticide use, drainage or vegetation management. Avoidance can be less visible than planting a new biodiversity feature, but it may be more valuable ecologically.
This is one reason biodiversity performance should not be reported simply as a list of completed projects.
Is the improvement additional?
An organisation should also be able to explain what has happened specifically because of its biodiversity intervention. If planning permission already required habitat management, presenting the same work as an entirely voluntary corporate biodiversity gain may be misleading.
Similarly, protecting an area that was never realistically threatened differs from restoring a degraded habitat or changing an established management practice. This concept of additionality helps distinguish genuine improvement from normal land management or regulatory compliance.
Who looks after it when the launch photographs are finished?
Creating habitat is relatively easy. Maintaining it successfully can be much harder. A woodland, meadow, pond, or hedgerow may require years of appropriate management before you can properly assess its ecological value. Responsibility therefore matters.
Who will manage the habitat? Is there a written management plan? Has a budget been allocated? What happens if the land is sold, leased or redeveloped? How will invasive species or unsuccessful planting be dealt with? Business for Biodiversity Ireland’s own roadmap emphasises an ongoing process of assessment, commitment, transformation, monitoring and disclosure rather than treating biodiversity as a one-off intervention. That distinction helps any organisation developing a nature strategy.
Measure outcomes, not activity
A considerable difference exists between reporting that ten hectares were planted and demonstrating that ten hectares of habitat are developing successfully. The first measures activity. The second measures an ecological outcome. Monitoring might examine habitat condition, vegetation establishment, species use, water quality, invasive species, pollinator activity or another appropriate indicator. The right measure depends on the objective.
Ireland’s National Biodiversity Data Centre places evidence and biodiversity data at the centre of better decision-making, while the National Biodiversity Action Plan increasingly emphasises accountability and measurable progress. Corporate biodiversity strategies should move in the same direction.
A simple credibility test
Before describing an initiative as nature positive, an organisation should be able to answer seven straightforward questions:
What was the original ecological condition?
What impact was avoided or reduced?
What habitat or ecological function has been restored or improved?
Is the improvement additional to what would have happened anyway?
Who is responsible for managing it?
How long will that management continue?
What evidence will show whether the intervention has succeeded?
Not every organisation will have perfect answers immediately. Biodiversity recovery can take years, and ecological systems don’t always respond as expected.
The key point is that there should be a way to find out. Nature positive can be a useful ambition for Irish businesses and public bodies. But the claim’s strength should rest on evidence, not on the language used to describe it.
If an organisation wants to show that its actions have improved nature, the most convincing place to start is simple: show us the baseline.