category_news

The urgency of nature-positive transitions

Published on
May 20, 2025

As the global food system continues to contribute to climate change, biodiversity loss, and environmental degradation, the paper “Enablers and Barriers for Nature-Positive Food Systems” argues that reversing these trends will require a fundamental shift—from systems that are nature-negative or at best nature-neutral, to systems that actively regenerate ecosystems and strengthen biodiversity. The authors make a clear call for action. “Our prosperity is fundamentally linked to nature’s health,” said Krista Kruft, co-author and advisor Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Partnerships at Wageningen Social & Economic Research. “To ensure food security for future generations, we must not only reduce our negative impact on ecosystems—we must actively restore and regenerate them.”

In the paper, nature-positive food systems are defined as systems that place nature at the centre of decision-making. They promote improved ecosystem functioning and greater biodiversity through shared understanding and collective action. These systems must be context-specific, with solutions adapted to local geographies, cultures, and governance dynamics.

Case studies as learning grounds

The researchers conducted four diverse case studies: one in Kenya, one in India, and two in the Netherlands. Each study served as a microcosm to understand how barriers and enablers operate across different societal and environmental contexts.

The case study in Kenya focused on the Menengai Forest Reserve explores how balancing the interests of diverse stakeholders—farmers, forest users, and community groups—can support a nature positive food system by protecting ecosystems while enhancing local livelihoods. Practical and political barriers were most prominent here, with overlapping interests in land use creating tensions between conservation and livelihoods. Although there was promise in youth training programmes and the formation of community interest groups, many young people hesitated to take entrepreneurial risks, citing fear of loans and lack of long-term land access.

The case study in India explored traditional animal healthcare practices among smallholder dairy farmers in Gujarat. This case presented a more balanced picture, with personal beliefs and collective trust in ecological knowledge serving as enabling factors. Yet, barriers such as loss of traditional knowledge and limited business support continued to undermine broader progress toward a system-wide transition that is socially supported, economically viable, and ecologically regenerative.

In the Netherlands, one study centred on organic dairy farming (with a focus on ecological milk production and animal well-being), while the other examined agroforestry and food forests. The Dutch case studies revealed unique tensions. The organic dairy sector suffers from limited consumer demand and a perceived negative image within policy circles. Still, farmer-led innovation and international knowledge exchanges act as enablers to accelerate progress toward a nature positive food system. In agroforestry, the pioneering spirit of farmers was a driving force for nature positive change, but was counteracted by high start-up costs, bureaucratic hurdles, and insufficient policy support.

The spheres of transformation

The authors structured their analysis using the “Spheres of Transformation” model, which differentiates between the personal, political, and practical dimensions of change. “Change must happen on all these levels at once,” co-author Judith Klostermann stressed. “If you believe in nature-positive farming but the policy system blocks you, you get stuck. If the system shifts but people don’t trust it, change stalls. Real transformation comes from aligning all three.”

Three pathways to action

Based on these insights, the authors propose three integrated pathways to support food systems in becoming nature-positive. The first is placing nature at the heart of decision-making, which includes recognising power dynamics and addressing issues of social and gender equity. The second pathway is about building a shared understanding through dialogue, using neutral tools such as NPFS indicators and landscape canvases to bridge gaps between stakeholders. The third focuses on taking coordinated, long-term action across sectors and levels, ensuring that all voices are included—especially those of women, youth, and indigenous groups who are often marginalised.

These pathways are not sequential or mutually exclusive; rather, they must be pursued in parallel and adjusted dynamically according to local needs. Only by engaging with all three can a food system truly shift toward sustainability.

Towards a shared future

The white paper closes with a strong call to action. Policymakers, civil society organisations, private sector actors, and researchers must work together and invest in the transformative capacities of people and institutions. “A nature-positive food system is possible,” says Kruft. “But only if we place both people and nature at the heart of our decisions. This is not about tweaking the current system—it’s about rethinking it altogether.” They also highlights the need to support communities of practice, foster trust and confidence, and create an enabling environment that makes sustainable behaviours the norm rather than the exception.

This publication is part of an ongoing conversation, not a final answer. The authors invite readers to continue engaging, sharing experiences, and learning together to shape a food system that nourishes both people and planet.

The work was carried out as part of the Nature Positive Food Systems (NPFS) project, funded by the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Food Security and Nature, and aims to equip decision-makers with practical insights for change.