PART I: The Great Game
The current approach to nature by businesses and their supporting actors has all the characteristics of a modern Great Game. Before this term came to describe the antics of the British and Russians in Central Asia, its original form and use (le grand jeu) was associated with meanings of risk and deception.
Harsh words perhaps. Yet standing back and assessing the state of play on nature, it is clear that we are playing a modern Great Game of Nature. One that is based upon doom and gloom narratives that mis-frame the status of nature and our dependency upon it; and uses proxies and performative actions that rely on stratagems[1] rather than strategies.
This serves the protagonists well but not nature nor society. It is time to reconsider our understanding of the current status of nature, what our dependency upon it really is and our relationship with it.
Stratagems
Pick up any report on nature and the introductory framing takes a similar form, focussed on loss, dependencies and risks. They almost use identical language:
“73% decline in wildlife populations since 1970”; and
“over half of the world’s GDP dependent on nature”;
There are two key source documents for this framing:
- the WWF Living Planet Report (published every 2 years, the latest in 2024) [2] and
- Nature Risk Rising published by the World Economic Forum in collaboration with PwC in 2020.
Its worth digging into both of these.
The WWF Living Planet Report (LPR) in 2024 indeed highlights a 73% reduction in the average size of wildlife populations. But some caution is required in how to interpret this. Firstly, the 73% reduction is a global average. The actual picture is more nuanced: currently 50% of the populations are declining, whilst 7% are stable and 43% are growing. Our World in Data has a very good primer for interpreting the LPR.
Meanwhile, 1970 is an arbitrary starting point for the data series used in the LPR, a point made by Rebecca Nesbit in her book Tickets for the Ark. This is not to deny the decline – probably any start date in the last 500 or more years would show the same historical trajectory. But look closely at that recent trajectory and something has been happening: since about 2012 the global decline has levelled out.
A quick glance at the LPR graph does not easily illustrate that levelling off. That is because the y axis of the graph is a log scale. Yet the data dispersion does not justify the use of a log scale. Its use can only be justified in masking the flattening out of the decline of species loss, thereby maintaining the narrative of ‘catastrophic decline’.
It is the same with the Intactness Index, (also presented in the LPR), which shows a decline since 1800, but has also flattened out in the last decade. Indeed, 3 of the 5 constituent regions are increasing their levels of intactness (the Americas and Africa are still in decline).
So the actual data gives us some hope. The Global Biodiversity Framework that seeks to halt and reverse biodiversity loss (at the global level) by 2030, may just be within our grasp. In fact, we may even be there because the LPR data is 4 years old by the time it is published.
Turning to the WEF report: Nature Risk Rising. The report states that “$44 trillion of economic value generation – more than half of the world’s total GDP – is moderately or highly dependent on nature and its services and is therefore exposed to nature loss”.
The WEF report has led to a fundamental mistake taking hold: the conflation of dependency and risk. This is problematic, as these are two separate issues – dependency does not immediately or always lead to ‘risk’.
But before arguing why this is the case, and why it facilitates stratagems rather than strategies, first a bit more on the context around discussions on business and nature.
Schelling and Descartes
It is a pity that the German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling was born almost two centuries after René Descartes. The 17th century enlightenment thinking, with Descartes at its centre, posited the separation of humans and nature[3]. That smoothed the way intellectually for the exploitation of nature, which capitalism then perfected. It’s a straight line from there to the idea of protected areas as the primary solution to save nature, and GRI’s approach to nature which emphasises reporting on proximity to areas of important biodiversity.
At the end of the 18th century, Schelling and others in the Jena Set took a different view about nature, arguing for the one-ness of nature and humanity. Alexander von Humbolt, who was influenced by the thinking of the Jena Set and particular his friend Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, blended science, philosophy and art in his approach to understanding and describing nature.
Its worth reflecting upon this divide, and challenging Cartesian logic.
Interacting with nature is associated with improved mental and physical health. Our unconscious minds are telling us something about our need to be part of nature, reinforcing the views of Von Humbolt and the Jena Set. Rather than maintaining a separation from nature, we are healthier when we embrace proximity and make connections with nature.
Indeed the IPBES Transformative Change Assessment identified disconnection from nature as one of the three underlying causes of biodiversity loss (the others being concentration of power and wealth, and prioritization of short-term individual and material gains).
Nature is Dynamic
The Global Biodiversity Framework has helped align governments and companies around a collective approach to nature. It is often simplified to two core elements: an ambition to “Halt and reverse nature loss”, and a “30×30” target to conserve 30% of land and seas in protected areas by 2030.
However, this reductionist shorthand omits something important. The longer official text refers to the need for well-connected protected areas. Currently, over 17% of land area is protected, yet only half of this is ‘protected and well connected’.
Nature is dynamic. All species – animals, plants, fungi, and microbes need to move. They move: to find food and homes; to breed, interact and cooperate; and to respond and adapt to disturbances such as climate change. That movement through a landscape or seascape requires a degree of intactness or at least a network of corridors. Isolated key biodiversity areas and protected habitats are not enough.
Corridors and connectivity are not new ideas. But there is increasing attention being paid to them by the scientific community. There has been a rapid increase in the number of published academic papers on corridors & connectivity – almost half a million articles in the last decade alone.
Businesses do not, in general prioritise corridors and connectivity. TNFD does not mention corridors and SBTN hardly mentions connectivity and corridors. Of the many commodity certification schemes only RTRS (soya) and Bonsucro (sugar) explicitly mention corridors.
The GRI biodiversity standard and the CSRD standard both include detailed requirements on corridors and connectivity. However, reviews of over 100 corporate reports on nature and biodiversity, by Lancaster University Pentland Centre, identified only half a dozen companies that have an approach on corridors that can be considered as intentional and strategic. Some others provide philanthropic funding for corridors.
Dependency on Nature
As IPBES has identified in its Business and Biodiversity report, and as our work at Lancaster University Pentland Centre has uncovered, dependency is not well understood by companies. A dependency does not necessary lead to a risk or an impact.
To take an example. The agriculture sector is generally classified as highly dependent on nature. Yet an industrialised agriculture system asks little of nature – perhaps soil structure for the roots to support the plants. Everything else is controlled by using chemical inputs and irrigation. The dependency is on fossil fuels. As is the risk.
Compare that with crops grown under and organic agriculture regime. A farmer sowing seeds into the soil in this system is entrusting nature to take over and deliver the crop. The farmer’s role is to then work with nature to help it to do its thing.
We can think of this nature dependency in terms of ‘supply and demand’. In converting a farm to organic agriculture there is an increased demand upon nature for healthy soils and natural pest control. Initially nature may not be able to adequately supply that demand, so crop yields dip, until nutrient levels and biological activity in the soils, and pest eating birds and insects increase. Supply meets demand once again, and crop yields rebound.
Dependency is a better starting point for interrogating resilience not risk. For example, climate change impacts the supply of services that nature can supply. Soils need to retain more water, and bird and insect populations need to survive extreme weather. Demand and supply need to find a new balance. The role of the farmer working with nature, is very different to the farmer in an industrial agriculture setting where the reliance is on external chemical inputs.
Dependency then goes hand in hand with the status of nature, and it evolves over time and as nature evolves. Without an understanding of the status of nature, and how this is changing over time it is hard to assess dependency and resilience.
Resilience and risk of course go together. In the organic agriculture case, where dependency is high, the risk comes from an imbalance in the ‘supply and demand’ of nature’s services. This could be due to a decline in the ability of nature to provide the services required of it (nutrients, water, pest control), which can change over time with the weather. Or it could be due to an underinvestment by the farmer in activities to build resilience, and the capacity of nature to provide those services. The risk could be a nature problem or a farmer/investment problem.
Nature as a Risk. Really?
So if dependency on nature can only be considered a potential risk to companies, what exactly is the risk associated with nature?
According to TNFD, in its Evidence Review on the Financial Effects of Nature-related risks, “the evidence of financial effects of nature-related risks for businesses and the economy is extensive. However, company-specific evidence is limited in the academic literature”.
So maybe the evidence is not so extensive.
Or perhaps it is – but its just not public. After all, individual companies have no incentive to voluntarily go out on a limb to provide information.
The Norwegian Government Pension Fund is making an attempt to quantify nature risk. It is still early days, but it seems that portfolio risk due to nature is an order of magnitude lower than the risk from climate change. Which in itself is 4th in the assessed potential impacts on its portfolio in its recent stress test.
So what exactly are these nature risks?
A MSCI/WWF report, “Nature Related Risks” has categorised nature risks as, primarily, reputational risks around ‘damage’ to nature, and physical risks due to climate change and water.
TNFD state that “the strongest evidence of material financial effects covers: …water scarcity… liability risk (litigation and fines resulting from pollution and environmental degradation); …reputational risk (deforestation, pollution and environmental degradation) … and Policy (transition) risk”.
So the actual nature and biodiversity risk boils down to operational failures leading to legal and reputation risks.
Which illustrates a new trend to redefine nature itself. The TNFD report ‘Asking Better Questions on Nature for Board Directors’, defines nature thus: “Nature consists of four realms: land, freshwater, ocean and atmosphere. Climate is a subset of nature, considered part of the atmosphere realm.”
This misses out any clear reference to biodiversity as a fundamental part of nature[4].
What starts to emerge then, is that after close to a decade of focus on nature and biodiversity we are no nearer to actually being able (or willing) to specify any material risk at the corporate level associated with nature and biodiversity, aside from the reputational risk associated with destroying it. Instead we marginalise and simplify nature, and bundle it together with closely related topics – climate and water.
Framing nature as a risk is convenient – it can be dealt with as an operational issue, that typically requires little effort or changes to thinking and operating models. So we end up with a repackaging of long standing environmental topics (water, waste, factory emissions), as evidence of companies contribution to delivering upon their nature ambitions. This is far different to thinking of nature in terms of dependency. But its a great stratagem.
Whilst this is the case at an individual corporate or value chain level, there is a different story that is economy and society wide. Central banks and a national security service refer to nature as a systemic risk to economies and societies. These analyses use the same background data and analyses of WWF, WEF and the call for actions of the Global Biodiversity Framework. So perhaps we are no further forward in our understanding.
But the threat of systemic risks to the world economy from nature loss is a different entry point for understanding what is at stake, and demands more attention and interrogation. That attention will need better bottom-up reporting to understand where the system is at risk.
Reporting
Reporting however is adding to the confusion on understanding nature. Companies report upon their proximity to areas of important biodiversity. Asset owners consolidate this to demonstrate how they are managing nature risk across their portfolio. Central banks then try and deduce systemic risk.
The problem is that proximity is only a proxy for operational risk or dependency. A factory or farm upstream of a RAMSAR site certainly provides a risk to that RAMSAR site. A factory or farm downstream of a RAMSAR site does not but it is likely to have a dependency upon it. Proximity only tells part of the story.
But there is something malign about focussing upon proximity to areas of important biodiversity. It marginalises nature, reinforcing a separation, and implying that nature is only about important places. It negates the importance of the dynamism of nature and the need for connectivity and movement.
The IPBES Business report made a series of important observations on the use and role of reporting including:
“Business impacts are frequently assessed using metrics of biodiversity, such as changes in forest cover or mean species abundance. These biodiversity metrics are not necessarily good proxies for impact on nature’s contributions to people, including ecosystem services”.
and
“Business-led initiatives have emerged to address some of these barriers but tend to focus on large companies and may emphasise disclosure over the need to deliver tangible biodiversity outcomes.”
The business response to the IPBES report was two-fold: to double down on the existing approaches to measurement, reporting and disclosure frameworks. Reporting it seems is a great stratagem.
PART II: A Nature Reset
Our fundamental relationship with nature is philosophically if not scientifically mis-framed: our understanding of our dependency on nature is superficial; the representation of the global state of nature is erroneously gloomy; and our current reporting structure is unlikely to drive a tangible change on the ground.
Why could this be? Clay Shirky once said that “institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution”.
The framing of the problem and the solutions have guided the stratagems used by companies and those representing and advising them. These have come to define the Great Game of Nature.
It is time for a reset. Here are some thoughts on what that would entail.
Stop the Hyperventilation
Statements such as ‘accelerating / catastrophic biodiversity loss’ and ‘nature related risks’; are no longer helpful. We need a clear focussed analysis and actionable insights, not slogans and hyperventilation.
The 2026 version of the Living Planet Report is an excellent opportunity to do a deep dive into the context behind the populations that are increasing, those that are stable and those that are still declining. We need to understand how no-deforestation policies, certification schemes and water governance are all contributing to make a difference. As part of this the LPR should keep the 1970 baseline, to remind us where we have come from, but instigate a 2015 baseline so we know where we are going.
Embrace Complexity
Nature and biodiversity is complex. Attempting to simplify it (through global targets and global level reporting), is not the right approach. Tackling complexity requires a mindset that accepts that complexity; and treats every value chain on its own merits and every landscape according to its own situation. Reporting then needs to demonstrate not only a consistent global approach, but to find a way communicate the status and functioning of nature at the landscape level.
Uptake by companies on the development of nature scenarios has been slow compared to the development of climate scenarios. This is understandable, but developing scenarios is vital to forcing a deeper understanding of dependencies, resilience and systemic risk. Work at Lancaster University has compiled examples of best practice on corporate scenario development.
Concentrate on a few Corporate Sectors
Central banks have identified biodiversity loss as a systemic risk that ripples across the economy. But rather than a broad-brush approach requiring all corporate sectors to focus on TNFD reporting and biodiversity strategies, we need to double down on the sectors that are associated with the key drivers of biodiversity loss, those that limit the functioning of nature, and those operating in those places where nature continues to be destroyed.
The first focus then needs to be agriculture, food and fisheries. Agriculture and food have made significant strides to halt deforestation and conversion, but there is a lot more to do. Climate has not historically been a significant driver of nature loss in almost all regions and populations (LPR 2024), but it will be in the future, especially given the acceleration in climate disturbance witnessed in the last five years.
Other sectors that create barriers to the free movement of species also need to be a priority. This includes lineal infrastructure (roads, rail, pipelines etc) and shipping routes, as does any sector that owns or influences land at a large scale such as forest companies.
And we need to focus on those locations where: biodiversity is still being lost; populations are still in decline; climate change will become a new driver; and where we can nurture nature to help it restore itself.
Think Local, Act Global
We have to stop promoting global solutions for nature. ‘Think global act local’ is a phrase that originated in the environmental movement and was then picked up by global corporations. It is intended to encourage local action on global issues, but the exhortation is the wrong way around. Context is everything in nature: we need to start with thinking locally and designing an approach to work with nature according to the local context. Global action comes from copying the initiative in different places, or spreading the principles and tools so that context specific action is happening across a company’s value chains.
Value Chains and Landscapes
Systemic risk is a concern, and so we need to work on two levels – individual value chains and the landscapes they are embedded within. Our dependency upon nature requires a shared approach and responsibility. There is much to learn from the well-established approaches to water stewardship. Progress comes not just from individual actions in value chains, but from collaborative and collective action in landscapes and seascapes.
Companies need to be able to understand the status of biodiversity not just at (eg) the farm level but also the broader landscape level. Utilities companies need to manage the biodiversity under their powerlines, and work with neighbours to ensure those same powerlines facilitate connectivity across the landscape. Reporting of status and actions needs to occur at both levels – value chain and landscape.
Invest in Corridors
It is time to move beyond key/important biodiversity areas as the only solution to nature conservation and restoration. The academic literature is now focussing on connectivity. If the past was about PA creation, the future is about connectivity and connecting those PAs.
Corridors are not just a must for nature, they also bring operational benefits for companies in the agriculture, forestry and infrastructure sectors. They can help build anticipatory resilience reducing the impacts of extreme weather events – moderating microclimates, stream flow, and providing effective firebreaks and pollinator habitats. They can also provide a tangible way to engage with communities and governments, and unlock co-finance. They are a science based way to meet corporate commitments on nature-positive or regenerative agriculture, and provide practical evidence and data points to help reporting.
Put Nature on the Team
When approaching nature, the triage of “Protect, Manage, Restore” has long been used. It is of course a reflection of a mindset of duality – nature as separate from humanity.
It may be a step too far for many to view trees, birds, and soil in the same way as we view grandparents, parents and children; but we need to find a way to better integrate science, philosophy and art when approaching nature. It would be better if our triage is “Connect, Partner, Nurture”.
To take a practical step, sustainability teams need to have someone in their team representing nature – speaking for nature with the same authority and consequences as the in-house lawyer. Providing nature with a legal status in more places would be a next step.
Disclosure and Action
After all the recent developments on voluntary reporting guidelines and new legislation, it is not the moment to propose a whole new approach to reporting on nature. But it is the time for Governments, asset owners, academics and specialist NGOs to recognise the limitations of proxy indicators, and ask more probing questions of companies. Questions to understand how well they understand and are navigating their dependencies on nature, eliminating their impacts upon nature, and mitigating risks from nature loss and the changing status of nature. Questions such as:
- What is the status of nature (degrading, stable, recovering) and governance of the priority ecosystems that a company is operating in/sourcing from?
- What proportion of landscapes that companies manage/are sourcing from have partnerships and collaborative strategies in place to create and maintain nature corridors?
- How much of future sales growth will be accommodated through: a) crop productivity growth? b) rehabilitation of degraded, underutilized/unused land? c) land clearing?
- What would be the consequences of loss of (natural) pollination services?
- What would be the consequences of being able to rely upon effective natural pest control?
- What proportion of sourcing comes from ‘healthy soil’ (with measured data on water absorption/retention, microbial activity, soil organisms, carbon content)?
- What does proximity of operations to sensitive biodiversity areas mean in practice (in terms of status, dependency and/or risk)?
There is also a role for academia and others to provide more business friendly guidance for companies to understand, analyse and interpret their dependencies.
Business as Usual?
There is something deeper in the IPBES Business and Biodiversity report, which states:
“Current conditions are sufficient to drive some actions by some businesses but are insufficient to achieve transformative change necessary to halt and reverse biodiversity loss”.
and that:
“… alternative models and measures of economic welfare, such as bioeconomy, circular economy, degrowth, postgrowth, inclusive wealth, and decoupling, can enable transformational action by businesses to address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss.”
In other words, our whole economic system may be the problem. IPBES has been carefully spelling this out before. In its Transformative Change Assessment it identified concentration of power and wealth, and prioritization of short-term individual and material gains (together with the disconnection from nature) as the three underlying causes of biodiversity loss.
Governments have signed off these texts, though with no signs that they have the appetite to change the economic system. Until the day they do.
Part III: Nature Never Loses
Whether our relationship with nature continues to be dominated by the Great Game, or we manage a Nature Reset, the long sweep of history should give pause for a final thought:
“Nature doesn’t care. Nature is everything. Nature always wins. Nature never loses.”
Carl Cheng.
Which should give pause for thought about a Cartesian world compared to the views of the Jena Set. And the dangers of treating nature as a Great Game.
NOTES:
[1] Cambridge Dictionary: a stratagem is ‘a carefully planned way of achieving or dealing with something, often involving a trick’
[2] Disclosure: I was the Editor in Chief for the 2010 version of the Living Planet Report
[3] Some have suggested that Aristotle was the first to draw a distinction between humans and nature, on the basis that his classification of nature has humans at the top. However as David Bainbridge has pointed out Aristotle understood the limitations of his categorisation.
[4] Under this definition of nature one might also logically ask why rocks, minerals and fossil fuels are not included. A convincing case for this is made by Anjana Khatwa, in her book The Whispers of Rock.