Disclosure ready? Trends and gaps in nature tools and corporate sustainability disclosure
Session Description
UNEP-WCMC opened this session by naming the tension at the heart of nature-related disclosure directly: some argue companies already have all the data and tools they need, others argue there's nowhere near enough, and the truth sits somewhere in between. Sarah Pickering presented UNEP-WCMC's Nature Tools Compass, developed with Capitals Coalition, WBCSD, and other partners under the EU Horizon Sustain project, mapping 74 free or free-functionality tools available to businesses and financial institutions across the TNFD LEAP framework. Jonathan Hall then presented Conservation International's complementary mapping work, developed in partnership with Nature Tech Collective, which organised the nature tech landscape into a "5M framework" (Measurement, Modelling, Material change, Market pressures, Monetization) built from roughly 650 organisations. The remainder of the session split attendees into three breakout groups, covering measurement versus estimation of impact, measuring positive impacts and opportunities, and value chain assessment complexity, before reconvening for a group debrief. Alena Cierna also floated extending the conversation into an ongoing working group after the Unconference.
Speakers
Alena Cierna, Senior Programme Officer, UNEP-WCMC
Sarah Pickering, Programme Officer, UNEP-WCMC
Watch the Session Recording
Key Takeaways
Tool availability varies significantly by LEAP stage: 38 tools were identified for Locate versus 26 for Evaluate, with the Evaluate phase further skewed toward assessing impact drivers (17 tools) over ecosystem services or species status.
A notable primary-data gap: only 2 tools support primary, site-level data collection, versus 7 offering remote sensing data and 20 relying on secondary sources like sector-average databases, even though LEAP encourages primary data where possible.
Conservation International's mapping found monitoring tools dominate the sector, with a further concentration in remote sensing specifically, but data interpretation and integration lag behind, meaning a lot of collected data isn't translating into real-world conservation action.
Conservation International also flagged a taxonomic and geographic bias in biodiversity records, creating blind spots in decision-making, plus cost and complexity barriers around more advanced tools like eDNA and bioacoustics.
Jonathan Hall was explicit that Conservation International's mapping wasn't meant to duplicate similar efforts already underway, including Wild Labs and the Nature Tech Observatory, framing it as one input among several rather than a definitive answer.
One group raised whether companies can reasonably rely on global trade flow data to estimate likely sourcing locations for a commodity like soy, in the absence of full supply chain transparency.
Cost came up repeatedly: some datasets that used to be free now require payment, and committing budget to nature data collection only becomes sustainable if there's a clear economic case for the business.
Corporate financial reporting cycles, often quarterly or yearly, are fundamentally mismatched with the longer time horizons needed to properly value nature-related benefits.
The construction industry's certification model came up as a possible template: layered requirements from government, local planning authorities, and certification bodies have driven large-scale market transformation over time, without needing one single tool or actor to be responsible for the whole chain.
Discussion touched on whether the sector should be aggregating impact assessment up to a sourcing or regional level rather than staying at individual site level, and how to get corporates collaborating in pre-competitive spaces on shared landscape-level challenges.
