Net Positive Impact as a framework

The International Union for Conservation and Nature (IUCN) published a report named “No Net Loss and Net Positive Impact Approaches for Biodiversity” in 2015 which explains these concepts and their application in different sectors. The concepts will be applied as a framework here for the evaluation of the clean-up operation. So “No Net Loss” (NNL) as defined by the IUCN report is that any negative impact triggered by a project needs to be compensated for with other measures. The focus here lies on biodiversity, thus compensation measures would need to foster biodiversity elsewhere in the region where the damage due to a considered project occurs. Further, “Net Positive Impact” is when the compensation measures taken even outweigh the damage inflicted, so that the overall outcome of a project would then be a biodiversity gain so to speak instead of losses. Nevertheless, the compensation needs to be accessed for feasibility and effectivity under the particular local conditions. Additionally, the recommendation is given to always aim for a Net Positive Impact project in order to make sure that never less than a No Net Loss is achieved in the end. This actually acknowledges that there is some uncertainty involved in biodiversity projects, that humans can restore nature only imperfectly so to say. (IUCN, 2015)

Table 5: Five main stages for a NPI approach, modified from IUCN, 2015, page 17-20; Applied to the arctic clean-up operation.

1)      Identify priority values in the region and define the goal	Protect the sensitive ecosystem of the arctic à awareness raising for marine litter
2)      Establish a baseline reference for comparison before and after	No excursion there otherwise is the reference
3)      Estimate the full negative impact of the project itself and of the planned compensation	Neg. impact: 268 t of CO2 emitted; Pos. impact: removal of 500 kg of plastic debris / cleaning of 9-12 km of coastline
4)      Implement the project plan	Done once in 2015, next time this summer
5)      Monitor the goal achievement, use the feedback to adjust the compensation if necessary	Assumed positive impact for wildlife & the desired behavioural change in people are difficult to quantify

In Table 5, the main steps for a NPI procedure are listed and applied onto the clean-up operation. The special characteristic of the considered case here is that the whole project itself could be seen as a compensation measure. Then the removal of plastics from the ecosystem would compensate for plastic pollution somewhere else, though this would not respect the rule that compensation needs to be done in the same region where the negative impact occurs. A better tactic would therefore be to regard the plastic picking as the reparation for the carbon emissions occurring from the trip (flights and boat). Hence, the resulting awareness raising would be an extra positive effect of the operation. 

The Net Positive Impact approach adapted to the examined clean-up expedition as described above could be developed further to a new model concept for ecotourism. Instead of aiming for to minimise the negative impact caused by tourists in the destination regions, the goal would then actually be to achieve a positive impact there. This could be done by establishing the participation in local project as a mandatory part of the tourists´ activities on site. Suitable projects would be clean-up actions in different surrounding environments, but also tree planting or wildlife protection activities for instance. In addition to the positive ecological impact and the awareness raising as described, this might even create jobs for local people who would perhaps be needed in the project management and thus stimulate encounters between locals and visitors, possibly generating better mutual understanding. All in all, the implication of an active NPI approach in ecotourism could produce several positive effects and foster behavioural changes in people participating.