The accelerating biodiversity and climate crises have exposed the limitations of sectoral, incremental approaches to environmental management. A growing body of evidence shows that the accelerated loss of species, ecosystems, and ecological processes is undermining Earth system stability and directly threatening human well-being (1). In this context, the emergence of the “Nature Positive” (NP) paradigm represents a significant conceptual and operational turning point. By explicitly linking biodiversity, biogeophysical processes, and planetary resilience, NP builds on more than two decades of global and national assessments, which began with the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), were further developed through the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), and were then consolidated in Brazil through the assessments of the Brazilian Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (BPBES). A recent lead article for Frontiers in Science by Locke et al. (2) has synthesized this perspective by situating the NP paradigm within an Earth system framework focused on stability, resilience, and the protection of intact ecosystems.

The MEA marked the first global effort to systematically demonstrate that human well-being is fundamentally dependent on ecosystem functioning (3). Its central contribution was to show that approximately 60% of assessed ecosystem services were degraded or used unsustainably, providing a strong scientific basis for integrating biodiversity into development agendas. However, the MEA largely framed nature through a functional lens focused on ecosystem services and their benefits to society. As a result, it remained only loosely connected to Earth system dynamics and to the biophysical limits that ultimately constrain socioeconomic development.

The establishment of IPBES substantially expanded this framework. The 2019 Global Assessment represented a major advance by explicitly recognizing biodiversity as a structural component of Earth system resilience and by demonstrating that human pressures on nature had reached unprecedented levels (1). Conceptual innovations such as the introduction of Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP) and the formal inclusion of multiple knowledge systems—scientific, indigenous, and local—constituted important epistemological shifts (4). Nonetheless, the policy responses emerging from this landmark assessment remained largely centered on conservation, restoration, and sustainable use targets. While large-scale ecological, hydrological, and climatic processes were acknowledged, they were not fully operationalized within global policy frameworks (1).

More recently, IPBES assessments have undergone a clear paradigm shift by explicitly embracing systemic transformation and cross-sectoral integration. The Transformative Change Assessment goes beyond diagnosing biodiversity loss to address its underlying structural drivers, including dominant economic models, governance arrangements, social values, and consumption patterns (5). By focusing on leverage points for systemic change, it reframes biodiversity loss as a symptom of deeper socioeconomic dynamics and proposes deliberate, coordinated pathways toward sustainability (5). This shift aligns biodiversity governance with broader debates on transformation, justice, and long-term resilience, rather than treating environmental degradation as an isolated technical problem.

In parallel, the NP paradigm reinforces and extends this trajectory by articulating a clear global objective: to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030. In doing so, it reframes biodiversity policy from a predominantly sectoral conservation agenda into a systemic strategy aimed at stabilizing the Earth system. This framing directly aligns with the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and addresses long-standing gaps identified in earlier assessments, particularly the need to prioritize the protection of intact biomes and the maintenance of large-scale ecological processes, such as hydrological regulation, climate feedbacks, and species migrations (6).

The relevance of this shift is especially evident in the context of the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030). Although restoration is widely recognized as an essential component of sustainability strategies, global assessments consistently warn that it cannot substitute for the conservation of intact ecosystems (1, 6). The loss of functional biomes entails the degradation of processes, such as moisture recycling, sediment transport, ocean circulation, and climate regulation, that are not readily recoverable within timeframes compatible with biodiversity and climate targets. Thus, the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration can only achieve its objectives if it is embedded within the logic underlying NP principles that prioritize avoiding losses, reducing pressures, and using restoration as a complementary rather than compensatory strategy.

BPBES assessments offer a particularly strong empirical foundation for operationalizing this integrated logic. The Brazilian Diagnosis of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (7) and the Marine–Coastal Diagnosis (8) describe a country characterized by profound territorial heterogeneity. Brazil still retains extensive areas of relatively intact ecosystems, especially in the Amazon, Cerrado, and marine–coastal zones, alongside regions that have undergone intense transformation due to agriculture, urbanization, and infrastructure development. This spatial mosaic closely mirrors the three global conditions described in the Three Global Conditions Framework (3Cs), underscoring the need for differentiated strategies that combine strict protection, sustainable use, and targeted restoration (9).

An integrated reading of BPBES assessments shows that conserving large areas of native vegetation is essential not only for safeguarding Brazil’s biodiversity but also for maintaining regional and continental-scale climate stability, water security, and food production systems (7, 8). These findings strongly align with the NP paradigm, which emphasizes biome integrity as a prerequisite for Earth system resilience. In this light, biodiversity conservation is better understood not as a trade-off with development, but as a prerequisite for long-term socioeconomic stability.

Another key point of convergence among the MEA legacy, IPBES advances, and the NP approach concerns the role of Indigenous peoples and local communities. While the MEA acknowledged these knowledge systems in a limited way, IPBES took decisive action by formally integrating them into its assessment processes (1). BPBES further consolidated this integration by adopting it as a core organizing principle of its national diagnoses (7). The NP paradigm strengthens this trajectory by recognizing that Indigenous peoples and local communities are currently the primary stewards of many of the world’s remaining intact ecosystems and of the ecological processes they sustain. This recognition has direct implications for the effective implementation of the GBF and the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration.

Finally, the NP approach converges with one of the most robust conclusions emerging from global and national assessments: reversing biodiversity loss is impossible without profound economic transformation. The recognition that the economy is embedded within society and ultimately within the biosphere echoes the critique articulated by Dasgupta (10) and reinforces IPBES’s warnings regarding the unsustainability of prevailing production and consumption models (1). By explicitly linking biodiversity outcomes to financial flows, investment strategies, and governance systems, the NP paradigm provides a coherent scientific and normative basis for aligning public policy, private-sector action, and global governance with Earth system limits.

In summary, the NP paradigm does not replace the MEA, IPBES, or BPBES. Rather, it integrates and updates their collective legacy. By re-centering ecological processes, biome integrity, and Earth system stability within global and national agendas, it offers a coherent framework for aligning the GBF, the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, and national policies around a shared objective: maintaining a functional, resilient, and habitable Earth for human societies and the diversity of life.