Nature Measurement for FIs

• From Frameworks to Practice

  Operationalizing nature-related impact and dependency assessment for financial institutions

  Financial institutions (FIs) are increasingly expected to assess and disclose their impacts and dependencies on nature. Yet current frameworks often clarify what should be measured without showing clearly how to do it in practice. Based on master’s thesis research conducted at the Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, with support from the Finance for Biodiversity Foundation, this brief identifies implementation gaps and practical considerations for FIs, standard setters and protocol developers.

  Why this matters

  • Nature-negative private finance flows remained around US$5-6 trillion per year between 2020 and 2023
  • FIs influence nature through lending, investment, insurance and stewardship across value chains
  • Better measurement supports disclosure, risk management, targets and capital allocation

Purpose: To translate thesis findings into practical, research-based considerations that can support discussion on future nature-related measurement guidance

Framework Foundations

What existing frameworks already provide

• TNFD
  • Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures. Helps institutions identify, assess and disclose nature-related dependencies, impacts, risks and opportunities. The LEAP approach and four-pillar architecture structure assessment and disclosure.
• PBAF
  • Partnership for Biodiversity Accounting Financials. Offers detailed biodiversity-accounting guidance for FIs, including requirements on attribution, baselines, transparency, limitations and asset-class application.
• GHG Protocol
  • Greenhouse Gas Protocol. Provides mature accounting principles – relevance, completeness, consistency, transparency, and accuracy – and clear boundary-setting for climate measurement.
• PCAF
  • Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials. Shows how climate accounting can be operationalized for FIs through attribution rules, asset-class guidance, data quality hierarchies and reporting transparency.

The thesis finds that these frameworks already provide important foundations. The challenge is not the absence of guidance, but the gap between high-level guidance and implementation-ready measurement pathways for different FI types, asset classes and use classes.

Where Implementation Breaks Down

Three recurring gaps emerged from the comparative analysis

1. METHODOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS
   • Scopes, boundaries and baselines are not consistently defined.
   • Attribution to financed activities remains difficult.
   • Frameworks prescribe methods differently, creating duplications and fragmentation.
2. MEASURMENT CAPABILITIES
   • Location-specific and asset-level data are often incomplete or costly.
   • Supply-chain traceability remains weak, especially for indirect impacts.
   • Metrics, tools, modelled outputs and proxy assumptions are difficult to compare.
3. DECISION-USEFUL OUTPUTS
   • Outputs are often designed for disclosure rather than portfolio decisions.
   • FIs need guidance by institution type, asset class and use case.
   • Results must be translated for non-technical decision-makers and linked to real decisions.

Recommendations for a Nature Measurement Protocol

Three research-based suggestions

1. CORE CONCEPTUAL AND STRUCTURAL FOUNDATION
   • Establish common definitions, baselines, scopes and boundaries, a transparent disclosure structure, and a shared logic for assessing impacts, dependencies, risks and opportunities; align with the Global Biodiversity Frameworks (GBF), TNFD and related frameworks.
2. TIERED GUIDANCE ON METRICS AND TRANSPARENCY
   • Provide started and advanced options; clarify when to use pressure-based, state-of-nature and dependency metrics; require disclosure of assumptions, data quality, proxies and uncertainty; strengthen comparability while preserving flexibility.
3. DECISION-USEFUL PATHWAYS
   • Show how measurement results should feed into risk management, protfolio review, stewardship, lending and investment decisions, target setting and capital allocation. Include modular guidance for different FI types, asset classes and use cases.

About This Brief

About the Research

• This brief draws on a structured analysis of the TNFD, PBAF, PCAF, and the GHG Protocol. It combines that analysis with structured stakeholder input from financial institutions and expert dialogues in 2026.

Key sources and links

• Gómez Chatham (2026); Convention on Biological Diversity – Global Biodiversity Framework; Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures; Partnership for Biodiversity Accounting Financials; Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials; Greenhouse Gas Protocol; UNEP State of Finance for Nature.
• The brief also reflects FfB-PBAF considerations on nature-related impact and dependency assessment while remaining a VU-IVM research output.

Authors: Emma Gómez Chatham and Thomas van Huysteen

Contributing Authors: Julen González Redín and Wijnand Broer

VU-IVM Policy Brief July 2026