ESG has become established as a key business theme as companies and investors seek to navigate the climate crisis, energy transition, social mega trends, mounting regulatory attention and pressure from other stakeholders. The rapidly evolving landscape has become inundated with acronyms, buzzwords and lingo, and we aim to break these down with industry experts. Welcome to ESG Currents, brought to you by Bloomberg Intelligence, your guide to navigating the evolving ESG space, one topic at a time. I'm Eric Kine, director of ESG Research.

ESG has become established as a key business theme as companies and investors seek to navigate the climate crisis, energy transition, social mega trends, mounting regulatory attention and pressure from other stakeholders. The rapidly evolving landscape has become inundated with acronyms, buzzwords and lingo, and we aim to break these down with industry experts. Welcome to ESG Currents, brought to you by Bloomberg Intelligence, your guide to navigating the evolving ESG space, one topic at a time. I'm Eric Kine, director of ESG Research.

And i am Melanie rua senior ESG associate, and we are your hosts for today's episode.

And i am Melanie rua senior ESG associate, and we are your hosts for today's episode.

Twenty twenty three was a historic year for nature markets, as mandatory and voluntary biodiversity related frameworks made significant advances, including progress on the Nature Restoration Law, the establishment of the EU's new Deforestation Law, and the final recommendations from the Task Force on Nature Related Financial Disclosures also known as TNFD. Today we're talking about biodiversity and the value of nature with David Craig, co chair of TNFD, who is also leading the measurement stream for the International Panel of Biodiversity Credits and is an advisory board member of the SMI, or Sustainable Markets Initiative, founded and co chaired by King Charles the Third. David was also the founder and CEO of Refinitive. David, thanks so much for joining us today.

Twenty twenty three was a historic year for nature markets, as mandatory and voluntary biodiversity related frameworks made significant advances, including progress on the Nature Restoration Law, the establishment of the EU's new Deforestation Law, and the final recommendations from the Task Force on Nature Related Financial Disclosures also known as TNFD. Today we're talking about biodiversity and the value of nature with David Craig, co chair of TNFD, who is also leading the measurement stream for the International Panel of Biodiversity Credits and is an advisory board member of the SMI, or Sustainable Markets Initiative, founded and co chaired by King Charles the Third. David was also the founder and CEO of Refinitive. David, thanks so much for joining us today.

Thanks very much, Eric, It's a real pleasure to be here.

Thanks very much, Eric, It's a real pleasure to be here.

So, David, we've seen major global developments since the adoption of the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in December of twenty twenty two, including the release of the Task Force for Nature Related Financial Disclosures reporting framework. For the listeners who may not know, can you touch on what TNFD is, it's mandate, and perhaps touch on the final recommendations that we're released this September.

So, David, we've seen major global developments since the adoption of the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in December of twenty twenty two, including the release of the Task Force for Nature Related Financial Disclosures reporting framework. For the listeners who may not know, can you touch on what TNFD is, it's mandate, and perhaps touch on the final recommendations that we're released this September.

Sure? Well, what is TNFD The Task Force for Nature Related Financial Disclosures. It's a voluntary group. We have just over fourteen hundred members, asset managers, ASCID, owners, banks, corporations around the world, conservatory groups and others. And the goal is to create a global framework and approach so that companies and investors can assess manage nature related financial risks and opportunities. Ultimately, not so they can just assess and disclosures, but also to redirect investment to nature positive outcomes. So what are the takeaways of the recommendations so far? And what's been fantastic about the work is that we've not just created these recommendations with the market that the market will be using, but also we've tested them, We've pilot tested them, and we actually have companies and financial investors actually going through the process of assessing their risks using the framework. So the question is what are they learning about nature related financial risk and this assessment. There's a few things that are really coming out that I think are very important. Firstly, that companies and investors are more and more recognizing that nature risk is financial risk. These are not things that are out in the far distant future. It's happening now. We're seeing temperature changes impact harvests. We're seeing overuse of fertilizer impact the ability for soil to produce. We're seeing water usage around the world being a real issue. And these are issues that are affecting across industries. It's not just textiles and farming and resources, it's industrial companies as well. So the first big takeaway is nature risk is here, and it's financial risk, and they're recognizing that we need to address it. They're also recognizing that climate and nature risk are not just two sides of the same coin, but really closely into integrated issues. In fact, climate risk both drives the impact on nature and is also accelerated by degrading nature as well. So these are closely interrelated issues, and many of the firms that are addressing TNFD are actually finding that they need to address climate and nature risk together. They're also finding that a comprehensive approach is really important. When we think about the natural system, and when we apply the recommendations of TNFD, we think about a holistic four realms of nature atmosphere, water, land, and oceans. So a comprehensive approach as you start is really important. We don't want to just focus on water use or just focus on forest deforestation, but actually look at our investment portfolios and look at our business change and understand everywhere where they could be dependent on or impacting nature. And that's a really important learning here. And one of the ways that people are doing that is they're using the approach that been developed by TNFD called leap, Locate, evaluate, assess, prepare. It's a methodology that's been developed by the industry experts that are on our task force, the corporates and the investors. That allows you to step through your business chain and where you're located and where you operate or your investment portfolio and understand where are the key locations, where are the key activities that have the most material and substantive either dependencies on nature or impacts on nature, and how those translate into risks and opportunities. So having a methodology and an approach to do this because nature is complicated, is really important and that's been a key learning from the work. And what's important that we've established is it's not just about disclosures. It's about that risk assessment of process and not just leaping to disclosures as well. So our recommendation is, don't just jump to disclosure. Actually go through the leap approach, understand your portfolio, understand your business and where the face to nature is, and then your disclosures become much more relevant, much more meaningful, and you have frankly a narrative around your relationship with nature. And I think the last learning that we've got was the benefits of building TENFD off its close cousin TCFD. So right from the start, we took the same four pillars of TCFD, we took a lot of the same language, we transposed across all of the disclosure recommendations for TCFD, put them into the TNFD, and then added the nature context specifics for that. And why is that important. There's a couple of reasons. One is it helps you naturally integrate climate and nature when you use TCFD and TNFD together. It also creates efficiencies with your teams and your approach on things like governance and strategy because you can start thinking about climate and nature together. In fact, every single one of our companies and investors who's now going through the TNFD approach is more or less combining their TCFD, TNFD, climate and nature assessment with the same approach and the same teams.

Sure? Well, what is TNFD The Task Force for Nature Related Financial Disclosures. It's a voluntary group. We have just over fourteen hundred members, asset managers, ASCID, owners, banks, corporations around the world, conservatory groups and others. And the goal is to create a global framework and approach so that companies and investors can assess manage nature related financial risks and opportunities. Ultimately, not so they can just assess and disclosures, but also to redirect investment to nature positive outcomes. So what are the takeaways of the recommendations so far? And what's been fantastic about the work is that we've not just created these recommendations with the market that the market will be using, but also we've tested them, We've pilot tested them, and we actually have companies and financial investors actually going through the process of assessing their risks using the framework. So the question is what are they learning about nature related financial risk and this assessment. There's a few things that are really coming out that I think are very important. Firstly, that companies and investors are more and more recognizing that nature risk is financial risk. These are not things that are out in the far distant future. It's happening now. We're seeing temperature changes impact harvests. We're seeing overuse of fertilizer impact the ability for soil to produce. We're seeing water usage around the world being a real issue. And these are issues that are affecting across industries. It's not just textiles and farming and resources, it's industrial companies as well. So the first big takeaway is nature risk is here, and it's financial risk, and they're recognizing that we need to address it. They're also recognizing that climate and nature risk are not just two sides of the same coin, but really closely into integrated issues. In fact, climate risk both drives the impact on nature and is also accelerated by degrading nature as well. So these are closely interrelated issues, and many of the firms that are addressing TNFD are actually finding that they need to address climate and nature risk together. They're also finding that a comprehensive approach is really important. When we think about the natural system, and when we apply the recommendations of TNFD, we think about a holistic four realms of nature atmosphere, water, land, and oceans. So a comprehensive approach as you start is really important. We don't want to just focus on water use or just focus on forest deforestation, but actually look at our investment portfolios and look at our business change and understand everywhere where they could be dependent on or impacting nature. And that's a really important learning here. And one of the ways that people are doing that is they're using the approach that been developed by TNFD called leap, Locate, evaluate, assess, prepare. It's a methodology that's been developed by the industry experts that are on our task force, the corporates and the investors. That allows you to step through your business chain and where you're located and where you operate or your investment portfolio and understand where are the key locations, where are the key activities that have the most material and substantive either dependencies on nature or impacts on nature, and how those translate into risks and opportunities. So having a methodology and an approach to do this because nature is complicated, is really important and that's been a key learning from the work. And what's important that we've established is it's not just about disclosures. It's about that risk assessment of process and not just leaping to disclosures as well. So our recommendation is, don't just jump to disclosure. Actually go through the leap approach, understand your portfolio, understand your business and where the face to nature is, and then your disclosures become much more relevant, much more meaningful, and you have frankly a narrative around your relationship with nature. And I think the last learning that we've got was the benefits of building TENFD off its close cousin TCFD. So right from the start, we took the same four pillars of TCFD, we took a lot of the same language, we transposed across all of the disclosure recommendations for TCFD, put them into the TNFD, and then added the nature context specifics for that. And why is that important. There's a couple of reasons. One is it helps you naturally integrate climate and nature when you use TCFD and TNFD together. It also creates efficiencies with your teams and your approach on things like governance and strategy because you can start thinking about climate and nature together. In fact, every single one of our companies and investors who's now going through the TNFD approach is more or less combining their TCFD, TNFD, climate and nature assessment with the same approach and the same teams.

Super interesting. There's a lot to follow up on there. I think the idea, of course that nature risk is financial risk is certainly one of the things to follow up on. But perhaps before we get there, you mentioned, you know, the leap approach and the idea of doing an assessment to understand, you know, where there might be material risk, and then of course you mentioned the idea that TNFD was largely built off its cousin, as you called it, TCFD, and that companies are starting to think about these things together. I think, you know, one of the things that we often hear in the ESG space, of course, is that there are so many frameworks out there, so many different reporting standards. You mentioned how this kind of relates to TCFD. I'm curious to hear ultimately how TNFD is planning or already relates to the other frameworks that are out there ISSB. And also, you know where the framework ultimately falls out on the concept of materiality is that of financially based materiality is what is often called double materiality. So a couple different questions.

Super interesting. There's a lot to follow up on there. I think the idea, of course that nature risk is financial risk is certainly one of the things to follow up on. But perhaps before we get there, you mentioned, you know, the leap approach and the idea of doing an assessment to understand, you know, where there might be material risk, and then of course you mentioned the idea that TNFD was largely built off its cousin, as you called it, TCFD, and that companies are starting to think about these things together. I think, you know, one of the things that we often hear in the ESG space, of course, is that there are so many frameworks out there, so many different reporting standards. You mentioned how this kind of relates to TCFD. I'm curious to hear ultimately how TNFD is planning or already relates to the other frameworks that are out there ISSB. And also, you know where the framework ultimately falls out on the concept of materiality is that of financially based materiality is what is often called double materiality. So a couple different questions.

Yeah, I think these really important questions. Right from the start, we said that we don't want to just contribute to the alphabet soup of standards and regulations. And it's also important to remember that we're not a regatary body, We're not a standard setter. We're a voluntary market group that is trying to create an approach that is designed by the market and tested by the market that then feeds into the standards bodies. So ultimately, like TCFD, the TNFD will be incorporated into the regatory standards, and ideally that they're incorporated when they be market tested and developed and proven that they're practical, they work, they're implementable. The really good news is we've already seen that happen with the CSRD. They've incorporated much of the t and f D approach, so they've even called out the leap methodology is a great way of getting to that CSRD, and we've also done the same with the GRI, the Global Resource Group as well, so integrating TNFD into that, our goal would be to have the ISSB incorporate TNFD. We don't yet know what their next priority will be after issuing S one and S two, we look forward. I think it's literally a couple of months away when they start to announce that they've welcomed the TNFD recommendation. So we would hope too that there's a very good glidepath for us into the ISSB, which will be that global baseline of standards as well. And you know, the ISSB is only a couple of years in existence and has collapsed a lot of the existing ESG and standards groups as well, so it's fantastic that we've got that global body and that global baseline along with the CSRD and the Europeans as well. Other points to mention as there's platforms like the CDP, the Common Disclosure Project which have an enormous reach that support a lot of the climate disclosures. We're working with to ensure they include now TNFD disclosures as well. So our goal is to try and not reinvent new areas. We're not a standard's body. We want to be incorporated into the existing standards bodies and the existent platforms and tools as they emerge. You asked the question about materiality. What's important for us is we don't define whether a company or a jurisdiction should look at just the dependencies on nature or the impacts on nature as well. Some people call it single or double materiality, but what it really boils down to is am I just looking at dependencies and the risks that they may have on my business or investment portfolio? Am I also looking at the impacts as well? Now interestingly, of course, impacts on nature and a natural system can become dependencies. So if you are over using fertilizer, you could say, well that's just an impact on the environment, but actually if the soil gets degraded because of that, it becomes a dependencies as well. So I think it's important not to be too black and white out where the line is on double or single materiality, because they can merge quite quickly. What we do is we our framework allows both. It's not our job to tell regatory bodies or standard setters, or in fact companies which approach they should follow, but the framework absolutely supports both, so they can look at both dependencies and impacts and how those translate to risks and opportunities.

Yeah, I think these really important questions. Right from the start, we said that we don't want to just contribute to the alphabet soup of standards and regulations. And it's also important to remember that we're not a regatary body, We're not a standard setter. We're a voluntary market group that is trying to create an approach that is designed by the market and tested by the market that then feeds into the standards bodies. So ultimately, like TCFD, the TNFD will be incorporated into the regatory standards, and ideally that they're incorporated when they be market tested and developed and proven that they're practical, they work, they're implementable. The really good news is we've already seen that happen with the CSRD. They've incorporated much of the t and f D approach, so they've even called out the leap methodology is a great way of getting to that CSRD, and we've also done the same with the GRI, the Global Resource Group as well, so integrating TNFD into that, our goal would be to have the ISSB incorporate TNFD. We don't yet know what their next priority will be after issuing S one and S two, we look forward. I think it's literally a couple of months away when they start to announce that they've welcomed the TNFD recommendation. So we would hope too that there's a very good glidepath for us into the ISSB, which will be that global baseline of standards as well. And you know, the ISSB is only a couple of years in existence and has collapsed a lot of the existing ESG and standards groups as well, so it's fantastic that we've got that global body and that global baseline along with the CSRD and the Europeans as well. Other points to mention as there's platforms like the CDP, the Common Disclosure Project which have an enormous reach that support a lot of the climate disclosures. We're working with to ensure they include now TNFD disclosures as well. So our goal is to try and not reinvent new areas. We're not a standard's body. We want to be incorporated into the existing standards bodies and the existent platforms and tools as they emerge. You asked the question about materiality. What's important for us is we don't define whether a company or a jurisdiction should look at just the dependencies on nature or the impacts on nature as well. Some people call it single or double materiality, but what it really boils down to is am I just looking at dependencies and the risks that they may have on my business or investment portfolio? Am I also looking at the impacts as well? Now interestingly, of course, impacts on nature and a natural system can become dependencies. So if you are over using fertilizer, you could say, well that's just an impact on the environment, but actually if the soil gets degraded because of that, it becomes a dependencies as well. So I think it's important not to be too black and white out where the line is on double or single materiality, because they can merge quite quickly. What we do is we our framework allows both. It's not our job to tell regatory bodies or standard setters, or in fact companies which approach they should follow, but the framework absolutely supports both, so they can look at both dependencies and impacts and how those translate to risks and opportunities.

Very interesting. I'm glad you mentioned what you did about, you know, the difference between single and double materiality, because we've actually done a fair amount of research on the topic, and I think it's kind of our opinion that they're really not as different as a lot of people in the marketplace would lead you to believe.

Very interesting. I'm glad you mentioned what you did about, you know, the difference between single and double materiality, because we've actually done a fair amount of research on the topic, and I think it's kind of our opinion that they're really not as different as a lot of people in the marketplace would lead you to believe.

It's really great to hear about how TNFD is tackling reporting fatigue and its efforts to harmonize with existing frameworks and kind of like using the former TCFD, you know, for environmental or climate related performance. It can be quite easy to identify a north Star company, so we might look at and its zero alignment, aggressive greenhouse gas emission reductions of reduction goals, but with property and of d aligned disclosure. I'm curious to hear what would be the characteristics of a north star company for biodiversity and how would investors be able to measure such performance.

It's really great to hear about how TNFD is tackling reporting fatigue and its efforts to harmonize with existing frameworks and kind of like using the former TCFD, you know, for environmental or climate related performance. It can be quite easy to identify a north Star company, so we might look at and its zero alignment, aggressive greenhouse gas emission reductions of reduction goals, but with property and of d aligned disclosure. I'm curious to hear what would be the characteristics of a north star company for biodiversity and how would investors be able to measure such performance.

Yeah, it's a great question. So what does perfect look like? The north star of where people are trying to get to. I think a lot of the investors and companies that are striving for that north star, they're starting now. One of the recommendations we make is don't wait. This is a journey. It is complicated, and there's learning involve the perceived complexity sometimes not as higher than the real complexity. But getting going now and actually helping work with us to shape industry guidance is really important when they get to that north star? What does it mean? And I think companies that have a really good understanding not just of their own operations, but their value chain upstream and downstream, where those located are, What are some of the sensitivities in their locations, and what we call ecosystem services like provision of water or pollination services or resource extraction, what ecosystem services are they most dependent on and where are the most material and high impacts. If they have a good understanding of that, and they've built that into their knowledge of the business, their forward thinking strategy, that is a very good sign that the north star is happening. And it may sound obvious, but actually a lot of companies don't actually know where they're really located or where their supplies are, so there's a place you've got to start. The second part is that, as I've mentioned earlier, we're not thinking about climate and nature is separate. We have an integrated approach. We're thinking about a combined assessment and disclosures around the natural system, which includes those four realms that I mentioned and includes climate as well, because otherwise we're being far too siloed approach, and many companies who've worked with us have found that actually doing it that way a is more efficient but actually creates a much better answer. How do I think about my industries and my investments looking at not just a climate lens, but also a natural system lens as well, making sure I understand the trade offs between the two, and I've optimized the two for where I'm touching the natural footprint. They also have aligned their business models and have gone through some transition of moving away from areas where they've got massive dependencies that they can't manage or they've got large impacts and transitioning to say, for example, lower use of water systems, different packaging, lower resource extraction or recycling, what people call the circular economy, and that they've aligned those areas to the GBF agreement. So the agreement that we have in place, the equivalent of the Paris Agreement of one point five is the coming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework Agreement, for example, the agreement that we will achieve thirty by thirty, that thirty percent of natural land is put aside for preservation, and the other targets in there that they've aligned themselves to that. And so the north Star really is starting now getting the learning underway, having a great understanding of where I'm based, where my supply chain is based, and the sensitivities around that, adopting a combined climate and nature model, and demonstrating how you're transitioning towards a GBF agreement. That to me is what great would look like for this adoption of nature related risks.

Yeah, it's a great question. So what does perfect look like? The north star of where people are trying to get to. I think a lot of the investors and companies that are striving for that north star, they're starting now. One of the recommendations we make is don't wait. This is a journey. It is complicated, and there's learning involve the perceived complexity sometimes not as higher than the real complexity. But getting going now and actually helping work with us to shape industry guidance is really important when they get to that north star? What does it mean? And I think companies that have a really good understanding not just of their own operations, but their value chain upstream and downstream, where those located are, What are some of the sensitivities in their locations, and what we call ecosystem services like provision of water or pollination services or resource extraction, what ecosystem services are they most dependent on and where are the most material and high impacts. If they have a good understanding of that, and they've built that into their knowledge of the business, their forward thinking strategy, that is a very good sign that the north star is happening. And it may sound obvious, but actually a lot of companies don't actually know where they're really located or where their supplies are, so there's a place you've got to start. The second part is that, as I've mentioned earlier, we're not thinking about climate and nature is separate. We have an integrated approach. We're thinking about a combined assessment and disclosures around the natural system, which includes those four realms that I mentioned and includes climate as well, because otherwise we're being far too siloed approach, and many companies who've worked with us have found that actually doing it that way a is more efficient but actually creates a much better answer. How do I think about my industries and my investments looking at not just a climate lens, but also a natural system lens as well, making sure I understand the trade offs between the two, and I've optimized the two for where I'm touching the natural footprint. They also have aligned their business models and have gone through some transition of moving away from areas where they've got massive dependencies that they can't manage or they've got large impacts and transitioning to say, for example, lower use of water systems, different packaging, lower resource extraction or recycling, what people call the circular economy, and that they've aligned those areas to the GBF agreement. So the agreement that we have in place, the equivalent of the Paris Agreement of one point five is the coming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework Agreement, for example, the agreement that we will achieve thirty by thirty, that thirty percent of natural land is put aside for preservation, and the other targets in there that they've aligned themselves to that. And so the north Star really is starting now getting the learning underway, having a great understanding of where I'm based, where my supply chain is based, and the sensitivities around that, adopting a combined climate and nature model, and demonstrating how you're transitioning towards a GBF agreement. That to me is what great would look like for this adoption of nature related risks.

Thanks and when we talk about the north Star company, it is forwardlooking something that they can strive for. So it does kind of reflect that companies need a place to star in its nature disclosure journey. So there's a current challenge of nature related data scarcity. So do you believe that nature related data scarcity tends to overshadow the equally important challenge of having internal capacity and resources need it to ingest, analyze and understand nature of related data.

Thanks and when we talk about the north Star company, it is forwardlooking something that they can strive for. So it does kind of reflect that companies need a place to star in its nature disclosure journey. So there's a current challenge of nature related data scarcity. So do you believe that nature related data scarcity tends to overshadow the equally important challenge of having internal capacity and resources need it to ingest, analyze and understand nature of related data.

Yes, it's a really important question this and something that we find a lot people say, well, there's not enough data on nature, and it's a curious statement because there's petabytes of data on nature. We have lower but satellites, we have new light our technology, we have sampling methods like EDNA, We have decades of environmental information that is available. Is it perfect No? Does it have perfect time series and sequencing nos? Has it got gaps? Absolutely? But there's a lot of data available and it's also not hard to point new data collection methods into those areas where there are gaps. I think you said it in your question, which is the challenge is not the availability of data, it's the horsepower and capability to interpret it and put it into the context of the business or the portfolio that we have, and that at the moment does take effort. It's human capital, it's people who understand both business and ecology, biodiversity. There are more skills being developed, there is more talent coming through, but it is human effort to do that. So I think a lot of people maybe expect the data just to tell them the answer. We're not there yet and a long way from that. But the other good news is, as well as the century and the other data collection technologies are evolving, there are a lot of new companies and existing companies now investing in nature analytics, nature data platforms. These might be small startups, they might be some of the traditional firms. We're seeing financial firms like Moody's, SMP, Bloomberg and others all stepping into the nature space as well. So this evolving very very quickly. There is manual effort required. It does take work, but it's not an issue around lack of data. It's the analytics and the horsepower to interpret it and put it in the context of the business or the portfolio that you have.

Yes, it's a really important question this and something that we find a lot people say, well, there's not enough data on nature, and it's a curious statement because there's petabytes of data on nature. We have lower but satellites, we have new light our technology, we have sampling methods like EDNA, We have decades of environmental information that is available. Is it perfect No? Does it have perfect time series and sequencing nos? Has it got gaps? Absolutely? But there's a lot of data available and it's also not hard to point new data collection methods into those areas where there are gaps. I think you said it in your question, which is the challenge is not the availability of data, it's the horsepower and capability to interpret it and put it into the context of the business or the portfolio that we have, and that at the moment does take effort. It's human capital, it's people who understand both business and ecology, biodiversity. There are more skills being developed, there is more talent coming through, but it is human effort to do that. So I think a lot of people maybe expect the data just to tell them the answer. We're not there yet and a long way from that. But the other good news is, as well as the century and the other data collection technologies are evolving, there are a lot of new companies and existing companies now investing in nature analytics, nature data platforms. These might be small startups, they might be some of the traditional firms. We're seeing financial firms like Moody's, SMP, Bloomberg and others all stepping into the nature space as well. So this evolving very very quickly. There is manual effort required. It does take work, but it's not an issue around lack of data. It's the analytics and the horsepower to interpret it and put it in the context of the business or the portfolio that you have.

It's a really interesting point and just curious to hear your thoughts. I think you know, obviously, everything you said makes great sense in terms of, you know, the horsepower required to ultimately ingest and analyze some of this information. But to me, one of the other challenges is it's a little bit or maybe not a little bit, but quite different than climate. There aren't global units necessarily, right, So if we think about climate change, there's you know, a unit of CO two a metric ton is the same in one location versus another, ultimately has global impacts in terms of climate change. For nature, it's much different, right. You can have different levels of water scarcity, water stress in different regions, different impacts on species, et cetera. So in your mind, is that another piece of you know, the puzzle and ultimately why we haven't done a good job of taking all the data that's available and kind of building analytics off of it.

It's a really interesting point and just curious to hear your thoughts. I think you know, obviously, everything you said makes great sense in terms of, you know, the horsepower required to ultimately ingest and analyze some of this information. But to me, one of the other challenges is it's a little bit or maybe not a little bit, but quite different than climate. There aren't global units necessarily, right, So if we think about climate change, there's you know, a unit of CO two a metric ton is the same in one location versus another, ultimately has global impacts in terms of climate change. For nature, it's much different, right. You can have different levels of water scarcity, water stress in different regions, different impacts on species, et cetera. So in your mind, is that another piece of you know, the puzzle and ultimately why we haven't done a good job of taking all the data that's available and kind of building analytics off of it.

Yeah, I mean, you're absolutely right that there isn't a fungible unit like CO two equivalents that's agnostic to where you are in the world. In fact, you know, climate when you're looking at your emissions doesn't actually matter where you make the emissions. When you're looking at nature, your dependencies and your impacts are very, very location specific. They're specific to where you are the type of ecosystem or biome as we call it, so you have to be more contextualized in the location that you are, which is why there is more lifting required to do a nature assessment than there is for a climate assessment. That said, what the TNFD does is use scientific classification of ecosystems or biomes. So we've categorized thirty four so you can understand and categorize where you are based on specific common traits of ecosystem services, state of ecosystems using scientific knowledge. So there's a if you like, a dictionary of how to break that down. It's not like it's completely open, and that's really helpful. That's had great feedback. And then the other thing that we've done is the recommendations include nine standard metrics or indicators for dependencies and impacts on land use change, one group, resource use pollution CO, two emissions reusing what's in TNFD, and invasive species, so all linked around the main drives of harm. And that's been published in September and the recommendations and been really well received. Has been very clear and specific about the types of metrics that companies and investors should be using. So we're trying to take something that is complicated and put you know, common approaches and standards around it. Yeah, it's going to take some time to bed this down. There is, as you say, still scientific debate on the state of nature in certain areas, so it does take a bit more work. But you know, I think it's work that is rewarding because if you've gone through this process and you actually do understand that interface with nature, you are, like Clee to be able to at least start to see where you can invest to change the business model to put a more harmonious relationship with nature in those places and make this more viable in the long term. So it's a case of managing through the complexity, getting going, and really starting to understand where those interfaces are.

Yeah, I mean, you're absolutely right that there isn't a fungible unit like CO two equivalents that's agnostic to where you are in the world. In fact, you know, climate when you're looking at your emissions doesn't actually matter where you make the emissions. When you're looking at nature, your dependencies and your impacts are very, very location specific. They're specific to where you are the type of ecosystem or biome as we call it, so you have to be more contextualized in the location that you are, which is why there is more lifting required to do a nature assessment than there is for a climate assessment. That said, what the TNFD does is use scientific classification of ecosystems or biomes. So we've categorized thirty four so you can understand and categorize where you are based on specific common traits of ecosystem services, state of ecosystems using scientific knowledge. So there's a if you like, a dictionary of how to break that down. It's not like it's completely open, and that's really helpful. That's had great feedback. And then the other thing that we've done is the recommendations include nine standard metrics or indicators for dependencies and impacts on land use change, one group, resource use pollution CO, two emissions reusing what's in TNFD, and invasive species, so all linked around the main drives of harm. And that's been published in September and the recommendations and been really well received. Has been very clear and specific about the types of metrics that companies and investors should be using. So we're trying to take something that is complicated and put you know, common approaches and standards around it. Yeah, it's going to take some time to bed this down. There is, as you say, still scientific debate on the state of nature in certain areas, so it does take a bit more work. But you know, I think it's work that is rewarding because if you've gone through this process and you actually do understand that interface with nature, you are, like Clee to be able to at least start to see where you can invest to change the business model to put a more harmonious relationship with nature in those places and make this more viable in the long term. So it's a case of managing through the complexity, getting going, and really starting to understand where those interfaces are.

Absolutely, so you mentioned a couple times in particular just now about how certain elements of the framework have been well received, in particular the idea you mentioned earlier of having nature and climate thought of together right that creates obvious efficiencies. The metrics that you've laid out that kind of allow reporters to potentially overcome the challenge that I raise. So to me, it sounds like you know, generally a lot of positive feedback from companies curious to hear if there are any areas of pushback or perhaps you know, opportunities that you see going forward for the framework to potentially improve.

Absolutely, so you mentioned a couple times in particular just now about how certain elements of the framework have been well received, in particular the idea you mentioned earlier of having nature and climate thought of together right that creates obvious efficiencies. The metrics that you've laid out that kind of allow reporters to potentially overcome the challenge that I raise. So to me, it sounds like you know, generally a lot of positive feedback from companies curious to hear if there are any areas of pushback or perhaps you know, opportunities that you see going forward for the framework to potentially improve.

Yeah, I mean you mentioned a lot of the positives and the things have been well received. There are still clearly gaps and challenges for companies that are addressing this. You know, the data processing and putting that in the context of your company. Some of that's in external data, some of that's internal data. I mean, many companies actually don't know their own locations, let alone their supply chain locations, and so that's work that has to be done and to do it. I think what we have found through the pilots. We've run over one hundred pilots around the world Southern hemisphere, Northern hemisphere, and from the companies that are starting the adoption process now, so we've now up to around three hundred and sixty companies financial institutions around the world committing to adoption, many of them starting using LEAP. What they have found is once you get going, it's more intuitive than they thought. So the perceived complexity versus the reality is different. So that's why we say getting going. I think there's value in the methodology. They like the flexibility of deciding what's material and what's not. We're not prescriptive on that, and I think that's incredibly helpful. And also the guides that we've published on where to start, how to start, how to get going in case examples, as well as the specificity on the metrics, I think has been very useful. I think having regimes that say that just choose what metrics you want gives you lots of flexibility is not particularly helpful with your portfolio manager trying to digest all this information. But the challenges you know, data gaps, yes they exist, but data processing. Many teams are still getting their head around climate and they've made a lot of commitments around climate, and the bandwidth has gone to look at nature. So I think as people manage those two things will find that situations better. But it's a truth that exists, and the regatory requirements that are coming, you know, are taking up band with CSRD is a big focus for European and non European entities operating in Europe. The good news is that TNFD and LEAP helped them get there. But they still require to do now mandatory work. So you know, those are the things that we're getting, which is help us more on CSRD, help us more on the bandwidth, help us more on the data gaps, and also the tools and analytics providers and where they are and who we can use and how to do them. And that's our approach to overcoming some of these real tangible challenges that are out there.

Yeah, I mean you mentioned a lot of the positives and the things have been well received. There are still clearly gaps and challenges for companies that are addressing this. You know, the data processing and putting that in the context of your company. Some of that's in external data, some of that's internal data. I mean, many companies actually don't know their own locations, let alone their supply chain locations, and so that's work that has to be done and to do it. I think what we have found through the pilots. We've run over one hundred pilots around the world Southern hemisphere, Northern hemisphere, and from the companies that are starting the adoption process now, so we've now up to around three hundred and sixty companies financial institutions around the world committing to adoption, many of them starting using LEAP. What they have found is once you get going, it's more intuitive than they thought. So the perceived complexity versus the reality is different. So that's why we say getting going. I think there's value in the methodology. They like the flexibility of deciding what's material and what's not. We're not prescriptive on that, and I think that's incredibly helpful. And also the guides that we've published on where to start, how to start, how to get going in case examples, as well as the specificity on the metrics, I think has been very useful. I think having regimes that say that just choose what metrics you want gives you lots of flexibility is not particularly helpful with your portfolio manager trying to digest all this information. But the challenges you know, data gaps, yes they exist, but data processing. Many teams are still getting their head around climate and they've made a lot of commitments around climate, and the bandwidth has gone to look at nature. So I think as people manage those two things will find that situations better. But it's a truth that exists, and the regatory requirements that are coming, you know, are taking up band with CSRD is a big focus for European and non European entities operating in Europe. The good news is that TNFD and LEAP helped them get there. But they still require to do now mandatory work. So you know, those are the things that we're getting, which is help us more on CSRD, help us more on the bandwidth, help us more on the data gaps, and also the tools and analytics providers and where they are and who we can use and how to do them. And that's our approach to overcoming some of these real tangible challenges that are out there.

Absolutely following up on the companies who committed to adopting the framework, in January, TNFD announce the inaugural cohort of three hundred and twenty early adopters, which is a great milestone. And taking a regional look at the early adopters, we saw that European companies took the largest slice of the pie, representing forty three percent of total companies, followed by Asia Pacific at forty two percent. I'm curious to know what the possible reasons are for the lack of representation from emerging and developing countries as well well as US and Canada.

Absolutely following up on the companies who committed to adopting the framework, in January, TNFD announce the inaugural cohort of three hundred and twenty early adopters, which is a great milestone. And taking a regional look at the early adopters, we saw that European companies took the largest slice of the pie, representing forty three percent of total companies, followed by Asia Pacific at forty two percent. I'm curious to know what the possible reasons are for the lack of representation from emerging and developing countries as well well as US and Canada.

Yes, so we did the Early Adopters program only six months after to really just get us going and had amazing companies and financial institutions sign up we had a culture of the world's jesups sign on to adopting, so we shouldn't read too much into what is a relatively low set of numbers, particularly when you break it down by country, because they quickly come quite small. We've had i think over forty seven countries represented, so actually the breadth of countries that were signing on to TNFD was really encouraging. But yes, you do point out some things which you know are trends, not necessarily surprising. Clearly, the regatory environment and the focus in Europe has been traditionally stronger in this area. Asia was strong, but actually swayed a lot by Japan. Japan was our highest country of adoption, and you think, well, why is that well? Countrally, Japanese companies have traditionally being quite astute and focused on their relationship with nature. We also saw TCFD had very high adoption with nature as well in Japan, so there's a number of reasons behind that, as well as state government signaling as well. And then the US and Canada. We didn't expect it to be the first or ahead. We know it's traditionally further behind on these areas, but we've got some fantastic companies that have signed up, an institutions, Bank of America, Dow just to name a couple, and it will continue to grow, and it is growing. So I think it's very early days for the initial one. We are still seeing now and adopters are still signing up. Our next milestone is for Columbia COP sixteen in November, and I think we'll see a lot more sign up to voluntarily adopt TNFD as well.

Yes, so we did the Early Adopters program only six months after to really just get us going and had amazing companies and financial institutions sign up we had a culture of the world's jesups sign on to adopting, so we shouldn't read too much into what is a relatively low set of numbers, particularly when you break it down by country, because they quickly come quite small. We've had i think over forty seven countries represented, so actually the breadth of countries that were signing on to TNFD was really encouraging. But yes, you do point out some things which you know are trends, not necessarily surprising. Clearly, the regatory environment and the focus in Europe has been traditionally stronger in this area. Asia was strong, but actually swayed a lot by Japan. Japan was our highest country of adoption, and you think, well, why is that well? Countrally, Japanese companies have traditionally being quite astute and focused on their relationship with nature. We also saw TCFD had very high adoption with nature as well in Japan, so there's a number of reasons behind that, as well as state government signaling as well. And then the US and Canada. We didn't expect it to be the first or ahead. We know it's traditionally further behind on these areas, but we've got some fantastic companies that have signed up, an institutions, Bank of America, Dow just to name a couple, and it will continue to grow, and it is growing. So I think it's very early days for the initial one. We are still seeing now and adopters are still signing up. Our next milestone is for Columbia COP sixteen in November, and I think we'll see a lot more sign up to voluntarily adopt TNFD as well.

So at the beginning, you mentioned, of course that you know one of the goals of TNFD is to help investors make decisions and mobilize cap towards companies that are potentially having a nature positive impact. We of course know that the Global Biodiversity Framework estimates that about two hundred billion needs to be raised from public and private sources by twenty thirty to finance some of the goals that you mentioned. Curious to hear kind of how TNFD ultimately plays into that further.

So at the beginning, you mentioned, of course that you know one of the goals of TNFD is to help investors make decisions and mobilize cap towards companies that are potentially having a nature positive impact. We of course know that the Global Biodiversity Framework estimates that about two hundred billion needs to be raised from public and private sources by twenty thirty to finance some of the goals that you mentioned. Curious to hear kind of how TNFD ultimately plays into that further.

Yeah, it's a really good question, and actually something that is the ultimate goal is to not just manage risk, but also manage the opportunity side, but redirect finance into those what is called nature positives here, the things that contribute to a nature positive world where we're stopping the depletion of the natural system and helping and supporting it to go back to a state where it can support our economies and humanity. I think firstly, companies who are performing this assessment approach, they're going to give a lot more attention to the areas of their supply chains, both the direct and the indirect activities that are either very highly dependent on ecosystem services, water pollination, fertile land, resource availability, those things that they depend on. They're going to have a lot more focus on where are those areas that provide risk, and they're going to try and manage that risk down. So we're seeing a lot more investment, for example, in just water efficiency, water recycling, water usage methods. You simple things that you can do just to halve the amount of water that you use have an enormous impact. Just as an example for doing that, we're also going to see companies looking at their chemical pollutant footprint and thinking, well, that's harming the environment. It has an impact. How do I manage that down and how do I do that before regulators say well, I can't use those harmful substances anymore. Very topical, of course is the use the amount of use of pesticides and fertilizer. As we all know, our agricultural systems are highly dependent on this, and many parts of the world are trying to limit it down and help people transition to a different area. So the companies that move ahead on that first will be redirecting then their own investment into those areas, and the investors who then find those companies will direct investment into those companies that are finding ways to change their business models, and they'll be investing to help them make the transition. We're having a lot of conversations at the moment with banks about how do they help fund the transition to nature positive as well, So you know, some people call that in setting. So where I'm reducing harm in my value chain, I think the other interesting question is how much will we see biodiversity credits being used for offsets where in setting is no longer possible. All areas of harm have been reduced as much as I can, But how do I then invest so I can offset the resulting harm? And I think TNFD with its transparency on metrics, particularly as people have to disclose you know, land use change, and these kind of areas will be then looking at how can I offset that land use change, and you'll see that either on a voluntary basis through so T and FD, you're also seeing regulation and compliance play a role in that as well. We've just seen the launch of the Biodiversity net gain regime in the UK where companies who develop land have to demonstrate a ten percent net uplift in land that is adjacent or next to before they're allowed to do the development. So I think through transparency, both voluntary and compliance, this increased focus on dependencies and drivers as harm will result to finance being then redirected into these nature positive areas. The increased transparency for investors helps, but of course if you increase transparency for investors, you're also increasing transparency for other stakeholders employees, local communities and others. So I think that's a good way of forcing change to do it. And then of course as companies see this change happening, you're seeing, as we are, new innovation startups in technology, new production methods and new methods for nature positive activity. So this becomes quite circular. As they see the shift, then they can make an investment case for the new technologies and products that are required so that our footprints are less dependent on using nature in the way that we have, and we're working on transition guidance and planning. At the moment, we're working on combined nature and climate transition planning. So as companies think about transition, they're going to have to think about how they fund it, and that will encourage funding and investment into these nature positives. So I see this as like a circle. Companies pay more attention, they make more disclosures, investors have a lot more attention and information on the area. They help fund into those positive business models, help fund the transition using the banks as well, and as a result of this shift, you then see more investors coming into the space with new technologies and models as well. So you know, sometimes this sort of two hundred three hundred four hundred billion, whatever the number is, is seen as like a big check arrives. I think it's a lot of incremental steps or across businesses to do that. It's not necessarily suddenly a big check arise. It's thousands of steps across thousands of value chains and thousands of investors that start to make a large incremental change on all of.

Yeah, it's a really good question, and actually something that is the ultimate goal is to not just manage risk, but also manage the opportunity side, but redirect finance into those what is called nature positives here, the things that contribute to a nature positive world where we're stopping the depletion of the natural system and helping and supporting it to go back to a state where it can support our economies and humanity. I think firstly, companies who are performing this assessment approach, they're going to give a lot more attention to the areas of their supply chains, both the direct and the indirect activities that are either very highly dependent on ecosystem services, water pollination, fertile land, resource availability, those things that they depend on. They're going to have a lot more focus on where are those areas that provide risk, and they're going to try and manage that risk down. So we're seeing a lot more investment, for example, in just water efficiency, water recycling, water usage methods. You simple things that you can do just to halve the amount of water that you use have an enormous impact. Just as an example for doing that, we're also going to see companies looking at their chemical pollutant footprint and thinking, well, that's harming the environment. It has an impact. How do I manage that down and how do I do that before regulators say well, I can't use those harmful substances anymore. Very topical, of course is the use the amount of use of pesticides and fertilizer. As we all know, our agricultural systems are highly dependent on this, and many parts of the world are trying to limit it down and help people transition to a different area. So the companies that move ahead on that first will be redirecting then their own investment into those areas, and the investors who then find those companies will direct investment into those companies that are finding ways to change their business models, and they'll be investing to help them make the transition. We're having a lot of conversations at the moment with banks about how do they help fund the transition to nature positive as well, So you know, some people call that in setting. So where I'm reducing harm in my value chain, I think the other interesting question is how much will we see biodiversity credits being used for offsets where in setting is no longer possible. All areas of harm have been reduced as much as I can, But how do I then invest so I can offset the resulting harm? And I think TNFD with its transparency on metrics, particularly as people have to disclose you know, land use change, and these kind of areas will be then looking at how can I offset that land use change, and you'll see that either on a voluntary basis through so T and FD, you're also seeing regulation and compliance play a role in that as well. We've just seen the launch of the Biodiversity net gain regime in the UK where companies who develop land have to demonstrate a ten percent net uplift in land that is adjacent or next to before they're allowed to do the development. So I think through transparency, both voluntary and compliance, this increased focus on dependencies and drivers as harm will result to finance being then redirected into these nature positive areas. The increased transparency for investors helps, but of course if you increase transparency for investors, you're also increasing transparency for other stakeholders employees, local communities and others. So I think that's a good way of forcing change to do it. And then of course as companies see this change happening, you're seeing, as we are, new innovation startups in technology, new production methods and new methods for nature positive activity. So this becomes quite circular. As they see the shift, then they can make an investment case for the new technologies and products that are required so that our footprints are less dependent on using nature in the way that we have, and we're working on transition guidance and planning. At the moment, we're working on combined nature and climate transition planning. So as companies think about transition, they're going to have to think about how they fund it, and that will encourage funding and investment into these nature positives. So I see this as like a circle. Companies pay more attention, they make more disclosures, investors have a lot more attention and information on the area. They help fund into those positive business models, help fund the transition using the banks as well, and as a result of this shift, you then see more investors coming into the space with new technologies and models as well. So you know, sometimes this sort of two hundred three hundred four hundred billion, whatever the number is, is seen as like a big check arrives. I think it's a lot of incremental steps or across businesses to do that. It's not necessarily suddenly a big check arise. It's thousands of steps across thousands of value chains and thousands of investors that start to make a large incremental change on all of.

Those absolutely, and I think that's a really good way to.

Those absolutely, and I think that's a really good way to.

Look at it.

Look at it.

And continuing with evidence we see of capital being channeled towards nature positivity. That's kind of the things we highlight in our biodiversity topic primer. We did see that jump in the number of biodiversity related funds going to in twenty twenty three from just seven in twenty twenty one, and then assets of course increasing to one point or five billion, that big number we mentioned, from just two hundred and twenty six million during the same period. And you do touch on this or a little bit already, but so it seems in your view that you do believe greater reporting on nature could in fact increase flows towards biodiversity related funds, projects and activities. Yeah.

And continuing with evidence we see of capital being channeled towards nature positivity. That's kind of the things we highlight in our biodiversity topic primer. We did see that jump in the number of biodiversity related funds going to in twenty twenty three from just seven in twenty twenty one, and then assets of course increasing to one point or five billion, that big number we mentioned, from just two hundred and twenty six million during the same period. And you do touch on this or a little bit already, but so it seems in your view that you do believe greater reporting on nature could in fact increase flows towards biodiversity related funds, projects and activities. Yeah.

Absolutely, And the numbers that you reported on demonstrate, you know, it's gone from you know, it's doubling in the space of just what two years, and I think that will continue. And of course the investments at scale might not come from the small startups, but they actually may come from the big companies that are market making the shifts as well. I mean, the example they often use is TetraPak that has invested in plant based recyclable packaging. I think they produced two hundred billion items a year, a massive producer of packaging, and they've taken a decision to invest in a whole new set of packaging components and products and technologies, and so they would become a candidate for a for a nature fund, whereas before the nature funds were looking at where the investment opportunities are and only finding the small, tiny little firms wasn't big enough to scale. So I think hopefully we're starting to see this comet scale now excellent.

Absolutely, And the numbers that you reported on demonstrate, you know, it's gone from you know, it's doubling in the space of just what two years, and I think that will continue. And of course the investments at scale might not come from the small startups, but they actually may come from the big companies that are market making the shifts as well. I mean, the example they often use is TetraPak that has invested in plant based recyclable packaging. I think they produced two hundred billion items a year, a massive producer of packaging, and they've taken a decision to invest in a whole new set of packaging components and products and technologies, and so they would become a candidate for a for a nature fund, whereas before the nature funds were looking at where the investment opportunities are and only finding the small, tiny little firms wasn't big enough to scale. So I think hopefully we're starting to see this comet scale now excellent.

And I guess just one final question. You mentioned the upcoming Cup sixteen in Columbia later this year. You mentioned one of the goals for TNFT, of course, will be to have more companies sign up and start reporting to the framework. Curious to hear any other expectations or goals that you have for the upcoming Cup.

And I guess just one final question. You mentioned the upcoming Cup sixteen in Columbia later this year. You mentioned one of the goals for TNFT, of course, will be to have more companies sign up and start reporting to the framework. Curious to hear any other expectations or goals that you have for the upcoming Cup.

Yeah, I think it's going to be a great cop It's fantastic Columbia is hosting. It has one of the most intact biodiversity regions in the world, a lot of history and culture behind that. Having spoken to many of the people that are leading the conference, there a few things I would hope happen and for see happening. One is there'll be great business presence as there was in Montreal back what two years ago, and a lot of focus from business coming up and having a voice and contributing and participating in the discussion. And I think that was a really positive thing. It was the first time it had happened at a Nature Biodiversity cop Some specifics are also going to happen. The signatory countries all have to come back to the COP and provide what's called an eNB SAP, a national biodiversity sustainable Action plan, So all of the countries have to come back and explain how they're going to achieve the targets and the goals laid out in the Global Biodiversity Framework, land use change, pesticides, fertilizers, pollutants, all of the things that were laid out there number fifteen, which is around disclosures on nature related risks. So each country comes back, and I think companies will be looking at what each country is coming back with and figuring out how they then integrate to these national plans, many of which will be supported by policy, subsidy and other areas. So I think there's a very interesting moment where we look at a country level the GBF. Because the GBF was a global framework. As we said before, nature and biodiversity is location specific. So now countries are coming back and saying how are they going to contribute to that plan? And I think companies will be looking very closely at what those plans said. So from our point of view, it's an important milestone for the next set of adopters and also all of the things that we're working on around transition. I think for countries and companies as a whole, it's a really important moment where we start to see what these specific plans look like to achieve the Global Biodiversity Framework targets.

Yeah, I think it's going to be a great cop It's fantastic Columbia is hosting. It has one of the most intact biodiversity regions in the world, a lot of history and culture behind that. Having spoken to many of the people that are leading the conference, there a few things I would hope happen and for see happening. One is there'll be great business presence as there was in Montreal back what two years ago, and a lot of focus from business coming up and having a voice and contributing and participating in the discussion. And I think that was a really positive thing. It was the first time it had happened at a Nature Biodiversity cop Some specifics are also going to happen. The signatory countries all have to come back to the COP and provide what's called an eNB SAP, a national biodiversity sustainable Action plan, So all of the countries have to come back and explain how they're going to achieve the targets and the goals laid out in the Global Biodiversity Framework, land use change, pesticides, fertilizers, pollutants, all of the things that were laid out there number fifteen, which is around disclosures on nature related risks. So each country comes back, and I think companies will be looking at what each country is coming back with and figuring out how they then integrate to these national plans, many of which will be supported by policy, subsidy and other areas. So I think there's a very interesting moment where we look at a country level the GBF. Because the GBF was a global framework. As we said before, nature and biodiversity is location specific. So now countries are coming back and saying how are they going to contribute to that plan? And I think companies will be looking very closely at what those plans said. So from our point of view, it's an important milestone for the next set of adopters and also all of the things that we're working on around transition. I think for countries and companies as a whole, it's a really important moment where we start to see what these specific plans look like to achieve the Global Biodiversity Framework targets.

Absolutely certainly a lot to look forward to with COUP sixteen and just so much I think great information here. David, want to thank you so much for taking the time to chat with us today.

Absolutely certainly a lot to look forward to with COUP sixteen and just so much I think great information here. David, want to thank you so much for taking the time to chat with us today.

Thank you very much. It's been a real pleasure to talk to you and engage on this really important topic.

Thank you very much. It's been a real pleasure to talk to you and engage on this really important topic.

Absolutely definitely a very very important topic. Can actually find more information on biodiversity and other key ESG topics by going to the Primer's tab on the ESG team dashboard. Bispace ESG go on the Bloomberg terminal. If you have an ESG quandary or burning questions you would like to ask bi's expert analysts, send us an email at ESG Currents at bloomberg dot net. Thank you, and we look forward to the next episode.

Absolutely definitely a very very important topic. Can actually find more information on biodiversity and other key ESG topics by going to the Primer's tab on the ESG team dashboard. Bispace ESG go on the Bloomberg terminal. If you have an ESG quandary or burning questions you would like to ask bi's expert analysts, send us an email at ESG Currents at bloomberg dot net. Thank you, and we look forward to the next episode.