Overview
A landmark paper published on 8 April 2026 in Frontiers in Science, led by conservationist Harvey Locke and Earth system scientist Johan Rockström, has established what is arguably the most rigorous scientific framework to date for defining and measuring a “Nature Positive” future. The paper sets out a precise, measurable goal: to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030, measured against a 2020 baseline, across three interconnected scales of ecological organisation: species, ecosystems, and natural processes. The authors’ central warning is that current global frameworks, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) adopted in December 2022, are materially insufficient because they fail to adequately account for the large-scale abiotic and biotic natural processes that underpin Earth system stability.
For Australian environmental practitioners and their clients, this paper matters for reasons well beyond academic interest. “Nature Positive” is the organising concept behind Australia’s federal Nature Positive Plan, the Nature Repair Act 2023 (Cth), and the ongoing reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The scientific definitions and metrics established in this paper are precisely the kind of peer-reviewed evidence that standard-setters, regulators, and courts rely upon when interpreting legislative intent and setting assessment thresholds. In short, this research is likely to shape how federal environmental assessments are conducted, how biodiversity offsets are evaluated, and how corporate Nature Positive commitments are scrutinised in the years ahead.
The paper’s authorship is itself significant. Harvey Locke is one of the architects of the global 30×30 conservation target, which calls for the protection of 30 per cent of land and ocean by 2030, a target now embedded in the Kunming-Montreal GBF. Johan Rockström is the lead scientist behind the Planetary Boundaries framework. Together, their collaboration produces a synthesis that bridges conservation biology with Earth system science, and it is that integration of disciplines that gives the framework its particular authority in both policy and regulatory contexts.
Key details of the Nature Positive scientific framework
The paper’s central scientific contribution is the explicit definition of Nature Positive as a measurable outcome across three scales, not merely a directional aspiration. At the species level, the framework requires halting and reversing biodiversity loss as conventionally measured through species abundance and extinction risk. At the ecosystem level, it requires protecting and restoring the structural integrity and functional connectivity of ecosystems. Critically, the third scale, natural processes, is the one most absent from existing regulatory and assessment frameworks. Natural processes include large-scale abiotic cycles such as the hydrological cycle, nutrient cycling, and carbon sequestration, as well as biotic processes such as pollination, seed dispersal, and predator-prey dynamics that regulate ecosystem function. The authors argue that these processes cannot be assessed or managed at the species or ecosystem scales alone.
The 2020 baseline is a precise and consequential technical choice. Setting 2020 as the reference point means that any nature loss occurring after that date counts against a Nature Positive outcome, regardless of future restoration commitments. This directly challenges the logic of offset strategies that promise net gains over a 25 to 100-year timeframe while permitting near-term destruction of intact habitat. The paper explicitly states that complex ecological functions and carbon stores in intact biomes cannot be reliably rebuilt within the critical 2030 to 2050 window. This is not a policy preference; it is a scientific finding about the temporal and functional limitations of ecological restoration at scale.
The authors establish a clear scientific hierarchy for achieving Nature Positive outcomes. Protecting remaining intact biomes takes strict precedence over restoration. The paper’s reasoning is grounded in the recognised ecological principle that intact ecosystems contain irreplaceable structural complexity, soil biota, carbon stocks, and species assemblages that have developed over centuries or millennia and cannot be replicated through active restoration within the timeframes that climate and biodiversity targets demand. Restoration is positioned as a necessary complement to protection, not a substitute for it. This hierarchy has direct implications for the mitigation hierarchy applied in environmental impact assessment, reinforcing that avoidance of impact on intact ecosystems must be demonstrated before any offset or restoration mechanism can be considered credible.
The paper also directly critiques the Kunming-Montreal GBF’s 30×30 target as necessary but not sufficient. The authors note that area-based protection alone does not guarantee the preservation of natural processes, particularly where protected areas are fragmented, degraded at their edges, or disconnected from the broader landscape matrix. The framework therefore calls for assessment of ecological connectivity and process integrity alongside the simple quantification of protected area coverage. For practitioners, this signals that future regulatory frameworks may move beyond asking “how many hectares are protected” toward asking “are the ecological processes within and between those areas functioning?”
Australian context: Nature Positive reforms, the EPBC Act, and the Nature Repair Market
Australia is in the middle of a federal environmental law reform process for which this paper provides direct scientific grounding. The Nature Positive Plan, released by the Australian Government in late 2022, committed to embedding Nature Positive as the organising principle of Australia’s environmental law and policy framework. [Article text incomplete — remainder of section missing from source.]
References and related sources
- Primary source: www.frontiersin.org
- frontiersin.org
- https://doi.org/10.3389/fsci.2026.1609998
- EPBC Act
How iEnvi can help
iEnvi provides specialist consulting services relevant to this topic. Our team includes CEnvP Site Contamination Specialists with experience across contaminated land, groundwater, remediation, ecology, and regulatory compliance.
- iEnvi contaminated land investigation services
- iEnvi remediation and validation services
- iEnvi expert services and independent review services
This is an iEnvi Machete news summary. Prepared by iEnvi to summarise the source article for contaminated land, groundwater, remediation, approvals and site risk professionals.
Published: 11 Apr 2026
Need advice on this topic? Speak to an iEnvi expert at info@ienvi.com.au or 1300 043 684, or contact us online.