The latest IPBES report is clear: businesses are highly dependent on Nature. Hence, it becomes critical to measure the impact on biodiversity of their operation, allowing companies to take the best operational decisions to reduce it and to potentially monetise the positive effects of improving practices.

For example, a company that shifts to regenerative agriculture can bring multiple advantages to the environment. These benefits could be monetarily valued in different ways, such as Credit mechanisms – e.g. Biodiversity or Nature Credits -, Payments for Ecosystem Services and Green Premiums, paid either by the final consumer (B2C activity) or a company (B2B activity).

In general, there are two methods to measure biodiversity impacts. The first is action-based, linking an activity with the average impact measured. Despite only considering a general context and average data, it is easy to use and scale. The second is outcome-based, measuring specific on-the-ground effects. In this case, the assessments are more detailed, yet it can be complex and costly to execute.

And to clearly measure the biodiversity state of nature, there are two main categories of indicators:

• Species diversity: species richness, presence of important species…
• Habitat quality and complexity: canopy cover, presence of specific habitats such as wetlands…

Over time, different types of measurement have been developed, each with its own purpose and attributes.

The most common, and historical, is field sensing. On-the-ground biodiversity information is collected either manually by an ecologist or using devices like bioacoustics sensors or camera traps. New platforms, such as the crowdsourced iNaturalist, have also been gaining traction and reducing the costs of collecting information.

However, advanced technologies are being scaled as well. Soil and water sampling, with either eDNA or Chemical & Physical analysis, are powerful tools to understand species richness and ecosystem conditions. Remote sensing, utilising drones or satellites, collect data from the air with different resolution levels, facilitating flora assessments at large scale.

This measurement market, despite its ongoing improvements, still has key pain points:

• Lack of maturity and excessive fragmentation, with many new solutions created in the past few years.
• Solutions are not always adapted to local contexts, due to specific flora and fauna.
• Measurement is still quite expensive, and can vary a lot from one player to another.