In general terms, for a business to deliver net gains for biodiversity they need to ensure that the losses resulting from their activities are halted or minimised as far as practicable and that actions are taken that lead to measurable gains. This can relate to site-based impacts and/or through the delivery of broader transformative actions that seek to reverse ecosystem losses in a way that is unrelated to activities.​​

Net gains is often used interchangeably with the term ‘net positive impact’. In some countries, compensation, net gains and no net loss requirements have been established for some considerable time. Outside of national policy and regulation the principle of net gains has been well established for over a decade within the safeguarding requirements of International Finance Institutions. In this context, net gains or net positive impact have generally related to where actions taken by a project lead to measurable gains that exceed the losses that may result from site-based activities. Often, operationalising a net gain approach has generally involved the application of the mitigation hierarchy, including the use of offsets. However, net gains may also be achieved using additional conservation actions where significant residual impacts do not remain after applying avoidance, minimisation and restoration measures. ​

Over the last decade, programmes and guides have been produced to support the effective design and implementation of offset approaches. In addition, there has been a significant number of studies reviewing the success of net gain policies and actions, which have presented a very mixed picture of success. Also, over the last few decades several companies have set net positive impact policies related their operations – some of whom remain early in their journey and others who have retracted their commitments.

Nevertheless, the momentum within business to manage their impacts on biodiversity and to help drive positive outcomes continues to build. Indeed, through various commitments and pledges, individual businesses and wider coalitions are driving the agenda in this regard. Target 15 in the Global Biodiversity Framework is specifically aimed at the role of the business sector in halting and reversing biodiversity loss. In addition, a number of initiatives have recently been developed to help companies to set goals, assess and disclose their impacts on biodiversity, and to deliver transformative actions.

‘Nature positive’ is an emerging term that has gained traction in recent times. This was developed by the Global Goal for Nature Group as an umbrella goal for the recently approved Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). Although the term didn’t make it into the text of the GBF, many of it’s components remain intrinsic to the mission. The goal relates to a combined societal outcome that halts and reverses nature loss by 2030 measured against a static baseline of 2020, with full recovery of functioning ecosystems to safeguard the stability and resilience of life on Earth by 2050. Whether the goal for nature positive can be met is dependent on a range of actions that cumulatively contribute to reaching these desired outcomes. An individual organisation or the specific activities they undertake cannot be determined as being nature positive in isolation. However, organisations can contribute towards this outcome, although mechanisms to enable and support this are still in development. In basic terms this can be achieved through halting losses from activities and by delivering net positive outcomes for biodiversity and people. Net positive outcomes may be delivered as a balance to address losses for site-based impacts or could be related to broader transformative actions. Bluedot have published a short article that introduces what nature positive means and how organisations may contribute to this goal through targeted actions (accessible by clicking any of the images below).

A variety of guides and framework initiatives exist that seek to help organisations to strategically deliver net positive outcomes and nature positive contributions. A collection of recent publications is shown below. These all provide great resources for organisations to build their approaches; and there appears to be some convergence around the approaches endorsed under TNFD and SBTN frameworks. There is also clear alignment between frameworks and recommendations. However, the ability to align with the different approaches may be different across organisations. There is, however, still a need to provide practical guidance to help organisations to take ideas from concept to real-scenario application.

To add to existing guidance and to provide a simple and practical approach to support organisations to deliver net positive biodiversity impacts we offer a net positive methodological framework and approach. This framework (refer to graphic below) provides a logical stepwise process that organisations can apply in any area where there are site-based direct operations or value chain activities. The framework does not provide guidance on assessing dependencies on nature. Reference can be made to some of the guidance shown above for these aspects (e.g., SBTN and TNFD). The framework takes consideration of i) the state of the environment, ii) pressures on biodiversity values, and iii) what responses should be undertaken. Such a state-pressure-response (SPR) (or derivative) approach is a commonly accepted framework for the development of indicators for biodiversity management and are used to support the development of conservation policy and goals. ​

The steps also help to identify areas where organisations may need support to define their approach and/or where information can be standardised across sectors for common application. Where there is opportunity for support to be provided to organisations this is highlighted in boxes below.

To help organisations to understand the ecological context of the environment in which they influence it is helpful for them to be able to identify the most appropriate ecological seascape units, especially if such areas have been pre-defined. For example, these units may be biomes or ecoregions and may also relate to spatial scales relevant to the movements of priority migratory species. This multi-scale approach will help organisations to look beyond local site-based impacts to understand the relationship of their activities across seascapes; and will support the design of net positive actions that are appropriately scaled to ecological attributes and pressures.

To inform net positive impact strategies data gathering should be focused on understanding the extent and integrity of attributes within seascapes and the pressures that may be leading to biodiversity loss. This information would inform the identification of priority ecological features and allow for targeted net positive actions to be delivered independently by organisations and/ or collectively with partners. The framework for data collection should also enable contributions to net positive outcomes to be measured and monitored over time. This would help organisations to operationalise the implementation of broad transformative ecosystem-based actions.

1. Criteria that automatically qualifies features for selection on the priority list of features.​
2. Supporting criteria that help to define importance of features or the severity of pressures (e.g., protected or internationally recognised areas, critical attributes and other pressure indicators)​

We set out some potential criteria that can be used to identify a list of priority habitats and species below.

The establishment of a common set of biodiversity state criteria will help organisations to standardise approaches. Ideally, strategic assessments related to such criteria will have been completed across seascape areas and priorities already defined. This can then be used by organisations to provide an immediate understanding of priority features that may be targeted for net positive actions. It will avoid duplication of assessments and ensure that the same priority features are identified across different organisations. It will also help to support collaborative and in-combination approaches to be undertaken that could maximise benefits for priority features.

Pressures can be assessed on two geographical scales:​

1. Pressures that historically or currently threaten the priority features in the seascape​
2. Pressures that may arise from site-based activities​

Understanding these pressures provides the context for determining appropriate actions that lead to net positive outcomes related to project activities or that seek to transform conditions in the seascape to more favourable status for species and habitats.

The determination of priority features using biodiversity state criteria considers threatened status and other indicators of severity of pressures on features in the seascape and beyond (whether natural or human-induced). The priority features are therefore defined by the extent and magnitude of pressures on features present in the seascape. Pressures could be categorised in relation to the main direct drivers of change reported in the IPBES global assessment (i.e., land and sea use change, climate change, resource exploitation, pollution and invasive alien species). Identifying the main threats to priority features in the seascape can help determine the feasibility and design of potential conservation actions to address threats.

Strategic assessments of pressures and biodiversity status provide a basis for understanding pressures in the seascape. There are numerous examples of where strategic assessments have been completed, for example OSPAR feature-specific reports, Marine Evidence based Sensitivity Assessment (MarESA), and the Feature Activity Sensitivity Tool (FeAST). Standardised assessments help understand the types and relative magnitude of pressures across sites and organisational activities and inform the prioritisation of actions.

The assessment of pressures includes the evaluation of feasibility for the delivery of actions by any individual organisation alone or in collaboration with others. For example, using habitat- or species-specific actions, how feasible is it for an organisation to exert influence over pressures in the seascape that are leading to marine biodiversity loss. Actions may be prioritised where it is possible for an organisation to exert a high level of influence. Most likely, the level of control will be highest in nearshore and coastal environments where organisations can define spatial management areas for actions such as coastal habitat restoration. The level of control on third-party activities in offshore environments that create the main threats to biodiversity, including for example habitat disturbance or loss, fisheries by-catch, overexploitation, ship strikes or introduction of invasive alien species, is generally quite low; and in such environments restoration is generally best delivered through the removal of pressures. However, even where a lower level of influence is only possible, it is likely that broader conservation actions are still feasible for all threats; and organisations may be able to contribute to these efforts through partnerships with existing programmes. Care needs to be taken to ensure that any such contribution leads to measurable additional outcomes.

Guidance can be developed to understand the level of influence that organisations can have on the main sources of threats for marine biodiversity across different seascapes. This can include the grading of control related to different activities and the types of impacts. This may include the development of control criteria to place influence into low, medium and high categories. Based on this, recommendations can be made for actions that can be driven by an individual organisation or are dependent upon collaborative and partnership approaches.​

An assessment of site-based pressures from direct company or value-chain operations can be undertaken using the process shown in the figure below. To determine the focus of net positive actions relating to site-based impacts, the assessment can be undertaken related to pre-defined biodiversity pressure indicators – an example set of indicators is provided below. Residual magnitude categories can be used to determine the residual magnitude of effects following application of the mitigation hierarchy. The need for offsets to mitigate impacts can also be defined to provide a focus for net positive actions. Also, moderate or major residual impacts on pressure indicators can be taken forward as a targeted priority focus for net positive impact actions. ​

The agreement of a common set of biodiversity pressure indicators and residual magnitude categories will provide a standardised platform for organisations to assess the consequence of their site-based impacts and define where impacts of note are likely; and where net positive actions may be needed. This can support screening studies or more detailed assessments. ​

​Following completion of the screening assessment for ‘state’ and ‘pressures’, the potential priorities for net positive actions can defined following the process set out in the adjacent figure. This will include the identification of priority actions based on the review of state and pressures, but will also consider all features that may be affected by project activities​

The agreement of a common set of response criteria will provide a standardised platform for organisations to assess potential net gain actions and to develop priorities that deliver maximum positive outcomes for biodiversity and people.

• a high or moderate practicality of restoration has been determined​
• most of the feasibility response criteria have been met​
• the potential for positive outcomes are maximised relating to biodiversity and social criteria​

Priorities for active interventions should relate to where moderate or high potential practicality has been determined. The potential for passive restoration will largely relate to the level of control that an organisation may be able to exert on pressures.​

It is likely that an assessment of options using the proposed criteria will conclude that feasibility for active interventions will be higher for nearshore and intertidal habitats where there are multiple pressures and where the potential for some intervention or influence is more likely. ​

Identifying the priority response actions will be context-specific and may comprise feature-specific actions or multi-feature approaches. Certainly, when considering restoration interventions organisations should not only think about actions for individual features or for a narrow set of outcomes. In this regard, organisations may seek to take a multiple habitat or seascape ecology approach to restoration. Such approaches are likely to be positive for all the biodiversity outcomes criteria either directly or indirectly. Actions that are prioritised for habitats with a high degree of interconnectivity as this will support broad enhancement to ecosystem integrity and maximise benefits. For instance, actions that focus on restoration of mosaics will provide cascading ecological effects supporting biodiversity gains and resilience that are more than the sum of the parts. Such approaches will also enable effective scaling up of actions to provide potential for positive effects far from the site through species movements. Restoring interconnected habitat mosaics will benefit multiple species, including potentially reducing extinction risk. Taking forward such approaches is therefore aligned with key restoration principles, including taking actions that seek to drive the highest level of recovery attainable. Interest for whole-site approaches is rapidly growing in the restoration practitioner and scientific communities that are contributing to new initiatives. Indeed, this is a focus of numerous current restoration activities and supporting initiative in Europe, North America and Australia that are linking multiple nearshore habitats for restoration efforts, such as wetlands, kelp, seagrass, coral reefs and shellfish reefs. As well as being positive for biodiversity such approaches offer synergies that also contribute to climate mitigation and human well-being (e.g., through carbon storage, protection from erosion, nutrient cycling and improved water quality and a wide range of other contributions). ​

In addition to the benefits that habitat restoration may provide, species-specific actions may also be implemented. These actions may include reducing threats where feasible, and other measures that often have a high level of practicality including artificial enhancements such as the provision of artificial nesting facilities, rearing support, rescue and rehabilitation etc. Such species-specific actions will be less positive across all biodiversity outcomes criteria in comparison ecosystem-based approaches mentioned above, but they have an important role in reducing the threat of extinction.​

In some places, studies have been completed or are underway to understand the potential for restoration within seascapes, for example the Restoring Meadow, Marsh and Reef (ReMeMaRe) and Marine Restoration Potential (MaRePo) strategic initiative in the UK. The primary goal for the ReMeMaRe project is to achieve “enhanced health and connectivity of estuaries and coasts, by restoring priority habitats and species and expanding towards integrated seascape and landscape scale restoration”. Such strategic approaches are very helpful to support organisations in identifying potential opportunities for actions. Where such assessments have not been completed, the potential for the restoration of habitats will often relate to existing presence or historical presence or could relate to areas where there are supportive processes and conditions. Identification of degraded or modified areas and threats mapping can also provide a focus for understanding where actions may be taken. Finally, the identification of existing initiatives in seascape areas is also very helpful to provide evidence of implementation and to potentially provide opportunity for supporting or expanding existing programmes, enable collaborative approaches and to scale positive outcomes by undertaking interconnected actions. ​