ALCA CEO Jody Gunn reflects on the Summit conversations, signals and outcomes ahead of COP17.
Kumamoto is globally renowned for its biodiversity. The ancient grasslands of Mount Aso, surrounded by one of the world’s largest volcanic calderas area, are a celebrated example of Japan’s Satoyama model - where nature and human activity have co-existed for centuries, and in fact, actively shape and sustain each other.
Yet beneath the surface of this beautiful, lush Japan, rich in sacred rituals and symbols of the deep connection between people, nature and culture, lies a familiar story of fragile and declining ecosystems. While around 70% of Japan is forested, it is increasingly composed of unmanaged timber plantations rather than biodiverse, old-growth forests. Urban development and industrialisation are driving the loss of natural coastlines, wetlands and lowland forests, while shrinking rural populations mean fewer people are managing complex Satoyama landscapes. Invasive species, warming temperatures, ocean acidification all bring further pressures.
This was the setting for the second Global Nature Positive Summit, which I attended alongside 2,700 other delegates. The private sector made up almost two thirds of attendance and was the highest proportion of business representation at any major global nature conference to date.
As Australia prepares for COP17, and continues its environmental reforms, here are five observations that stood out for me from Kumamoto.
1. Nature is increasingly being recognised as essential infrastructure
The phrase “nature as infrastructure” echoed across governments, financial institutions, businesses and civil society. Astrid Schomaker, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, reminded delegates that biodiversity is not a constraint on economic development, but the infrastructure that underpins it.
A representative of a major Asian development bank recalled looking up the definition of infrastructure, defined as ‘facilities that provide sustained services for human society’, prompting what he described as his ‘aha’ moment: nature not only fits that definition, it is the most fundamental infrastructure we have.
Many, similar sentiments were shared by business and investors throughout the summit, signalling a shift in thinking. For decades, nature has been treated as an externality or an ‘environmental’ issue. Increasingly, it is being recognised as the foundation upon which economies, communities and businesses depend. The message was clear: we cannot afford not to invest in nature.
The record private sector participation highlights an obvious difference between the first and second Global Nature Positive Summits: the conversations about nature are no longer confined to environment departments and organisations. Whether this represents a fundamental shift in business practice remains to be seen, but nature is increasingly entering mainstream business conversations.
2. Business needs governments to provide certainty
The sophistication of business engagement was a strong signal. The language has shifted noticeably since Sydney in 2024. Many companies are now discussing biodiversity as a material business issue rather than simply a sustainability issue. Whether this translates into measurable improvements for nature is the next, and most important, test.
Asian and Australian companies, including AACo and Blackmore, demonstrated how nature is becoming embedded across whole of business strategy. AACo was particularly forward leaning, in stating that for them, “it’s not about nature and the business… nature is the business”.
Across the Summit, businesses called on governments to create the enabling conditions that make nature-positive investment easier. Mandatory nature-related disclosures, particularly through the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) were frequently raised as providing the policy certainty companies need.
Japan illustrates how quickly disclosure frameworks can be adopted. More than 235 Japanese organisations have already adopted the TNFD framework – among the highest levels of uptake globally. Adoption of TNFD is encouraging, but disclosure should be viewed as the beginning of the journey rather than evidence that nature outcomes are improving. Measuring dependencies and impacts is only valuable if it leads to different decisions and investment on the ground.
Thankfully, a consistent message throughout discussion on TNFD and disclosures was that disclosure is no longer the destination, but the challenge is turning disclosure into measurable action…
3. Data is becoming less of a barrier
To be fair, biodiversity data never should have been the barrier it was made out to be. Two years ago, many companies genuinely argued that biodiversity data was simply too complex to use effectively. That conversation appears to have shifted. There was growing confidence that global efforts are simplifying biodiversity measurement through science-based, comparable and business-oriented metrics.
Recommended global indicators, soon to be announced at COP17 are creating a common language for governments, investors and companies. (Note: they’re likely to include ecosystem extent, ecosystem condition, species extinction risk and species populations.)
Global initiatives are also accelerating this work. The Group on Earth Observations is building a shared observation system that improves access to environment data, while the Global Biodiversity Information Facility continues expanding the world’s largest open access biodiversity database, making information more accessible and comparable across countries.
Rather than every company building its own approach, global collaboration could look like creating shared data infrastructure that reduces friction and improves consistency.
And on collaboration, a theme that persisted from the 2024 Summit was the need for closer collaboration between business and academia. Companies want practical solutions and speed. Scientists want evidence that interventions are delivering measurable ecological outcomes. Stronger partnerships between the two will help build confidence that nature-positive claims are credible and durable.
Finally, for anyone wanting to translate disclosure to delivery: if you’re not already thinking about measuring the data using the metrics shared above, you’ll want to turn your minds to that.
4. Culture and societal norms can shape progress.
Japan’s leadership on nature appeared strong. Senior executives from large and multi-national companies spoke openly and confidently about ambitious nature-positive strategies. Whether every claim would withstand independent scientific scrutiny or indeed meet the intent of the nature positive definition was not always easy to judge from conference presentations alone. Several academics and civil society organisations noted that stronger partnerships between business and academics remain essential.
Perhaps uptake is easier in Japan because of its long cultural connection to nature. Some Japanese companies have operated continuously for many hundreds of years. By contrast, Australia’s First Nations systems of sustainable practice and trade were disrupted by colonisation, and Australia’s current economic and business model was not set up to reflect Australia’s First Nations people’s Connection to Country.
Coupled with Japan’s deep cultural connection between nature, people and place, this reinforced for us that successful transitions are driven not only by better science and economics but also by cultural values and behaviour.
There was a difference in cultural perspectives between the two Summits. In Australia, First Nations leadership and Connection to Country were central. In Kumamoto, discussions reflected Japan’s own deep relationship between nature, people and place, taking a distinctly Satoyama flavour. Local agricultural leaders, regional municipalities and youth networks were visible and engaged in side events showcasing community-led biodiversity initiatives. While this may have reflected the Summit’s regional context and audience, I was struck by the relatively limited representation of Indigenous and First Nations voices from beyond the region. Given the central role Indigenous and First Nations peoples play in stewarding globally significant biodiversity, and the global footprint of many of the corporations at the Summit, this is an area where future international gatherings could become even stronger.
And on societal norms, I heard many presenters say “we’re beginning to understand our relationship to nature”. Perhaps we don’t simply need organisations learning about biodiversity, but also unlearning the assumptions and re-shape the systems that have separated people from nature for generations.
5. Progress is still happening, but the headwinds are strong
The optimism in Kumamoto was tempered by realism. Political shifts, growing ESG backlash, mis- and dis-information and global instability were all recognised as significant risks to the nature-positive transition. I found it reassuring that after several years of increasing ambition, these headwinds have surprised even the most experienced leaders.
Yet there was also a sense of confidence that the transition has become irreversible. While the politics have changed, and will continue to change, the ecological and economic reality is only gets more real. Businesses are already experiencing climate and biodiversity risks through disrupted supply chains, insurance costs, water security and changing consumer expectations. These are no longer future risks.
Paul Polman, business leader, investor and philanthropist. made an observation that resonated strongly: “when organisations become silent because they are nervous about criticism, a vacuum is created. And that vacuum is quickly filled by different stories”.
As we face these headwinds, the response isn’t to retreat, but nor is it to simply tell better stories (though these are important). It is to produce stronger evidence and communicate where corporate action is delivering measurable benefits for nature. Credibility will become increasingly important as scrutiny grows.
Looking toward COP17
The Summit concluded with participating organisations adopting the Kumamoto Declaration, which sets out a shared ambition to strengthen implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
The declaration reinforces the Summit’s central message that investing in nature is an investment in our shared future. It calls for business to avoid and minimise impacts first, adopt science-based metrics, recognise natural capital as a vital asset, and ensure the transition to a nature-positive economy delivers benefits for local communities. Having also attended the Sydney Global Nature Positive Summit in 2024, I noticed a shift in the conversations. Businesses were spending less time debating policy settings, and more time focusing on implementation. They were asking how to embed nature across business strategy, not if or when, and calling for stronger policy, such as mandatory reporting.
Throughout the Summit, the call was to turn ambition into disclosure and disclosure to action. But there is one more step: action must become evidence. For those of us working in conservation, success will not be measured by commitments or reports, but by healthier ecosystems, recovering species and more resilient landscapes.
As we move toward COP17, we will receive the first comprehensive assessment of global progress against the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Astrid Schomaker indicated there will be genuine reasons for optimism, but also a clear message that progress remains uneven, and too slow. Business was urged to attend COP17 in force, demonstrating to governments that the private sector supports continued ambition.
For me personally, it was valuable, and a highlight, to connect with conservation leaders from across Australia, Japan, Europe, North America and Asia, strengthening relationships that will support future collaboration and contribution to international conservation initiatives. This included meeting representatives from the Japan Committee for IUCN and the Satoyama Initiative, and of course to continue conversations with colleagues through the International Land Conservation Network (ILCN) ahead of the 2027 ILCN Global Congress in Naarm/Melbourne.
The transition to a nature-positive future will not be easy. Political uncertainty, economic pressures and increasing scrutiny will continue to test ambition. But I left Kumamoto more optimistic than when I arrived. Not because every commitment will deliver positive outcomes for nature, but because the conversation has clearly progressed. The impacts of nature loss are being realised by business and investors, and this is being translated to strategy - and whilst not in a wholesale way yet, certainly more than was observed at the 2024 Summit. Maybe that’s because time has passed, perhaps it is geographically influenced - the reason is likely a bit of both.
When we can demonstrate that our collective efforts are genuinely improving ecosystems, species and the livelihoods of their stewards, we’ll build the trust needed to accelerate the transition.
Our actions today will shape the landscapes future generations inherit. Whether places like Kumamoto remain rich with life-supporting nature, or become reminders of times past and opportunities missed, depends on what we choose to do next.
.jpg)
