Most read articles
A New Wave of Tidal Energy Investment
As the global community continuously searches for alternate and sustainable energy solutions to power our needs. Orbital Marine Power – a privately owned company working out of Edinburgh and the Orkneys in the UK – believes they have an answer. Orbital Marine Power has pioneered the design of an offshore floating structure anchored to the sea floor to harness the predictable and energy rich tidal movements near the isles of Orkney, off the North Coast of Scotland. Their newest design the ‘02’ launched in 2021 claims to be the first commercially operated floating tidal turbine and ‘the most powerful and technologically advanced tidal turbine in the world,’ at 74 metres long and with a claimed (max) shaft output of 2.6MW in water speeds of 3m/s, is capable of powering 2,600 homes in Orkney. Key points How does it work? Tidal swells and their timings can be easily predicted well into the future and have been by humans for millennia. The moon’s gravity coinciding with that of the sun’s, work together to create the tidal movements that occur across the world 4 times each lunar day. Tidal power is not new, in fact the first remains of a tidal mill dating back to 787 were discovered in Strangford Lough N. Ireland, which was the test site for a recent installation. The world’s first major tidal barrage went into operation on the Rance Estuary in France in 1966, with a capacity of 240 MW. However this was a complex and expensive project, it took 6 years to build, and created a major impact on the local environment. Orbital Marine Power harnesses this energy in a very similar way to that of a wind turbine with two 20m rotors, connected to generators, which spin during a tidal swell. Driven by water, being 832 times more dense than air, means blades can be smaller and arrays much closer together. The rotors are fully adjustable, and the pitch can be independently altered to get the most efficiency from the kinetic movement through the water, and therefore the most electrical energy. But this is a new generation of tidal generator. Being a floating platform, it also has the advantage of easier and cheaper installation and maintenance, as the platform is towed back to a dry dock for maintenance. Unlike the traditional tidal barrages, these smaller floating or semi-fixed structures are a fraction of the cost to build and install and have a far lower environmental impact – avoiding the need for expensive fixed structures which have a heavy impact on marine life and the environment. They can also be towed into placed and installed relatively easily into new locations. How this could affect the current power grid? The UK, like many countries, is trying to increase the diversification of its power grids, aiming to stray away from reliance on coal and gas. In addition to large offshore wind capacity, the UK also has several locations where strong tidal currents (>3m/s) occur in relatively shallow water. Introducing tidal energy to the grid is meant to be a complimentary alternate source of clean energy that the grid can use alongside the existing methods, and can also be used to generate clean hydrogen. It is evident that the potential for tidal energy could never feasibly provide the majority sources of energy, however it will undoubtedly help to reduce our reliance on existing methods that are more polluting and less secure. A study into the available energy of tidal power in waters surrounding the UK estimated that 11% of the UK’s grid demand could be met by tidal energy if each area had filled its tidal potential. Estimates for the US are even higher. Orbital have identified two further UK locations where floating tidal generators, with little environmental or shipping impact, could be installed. With energy security and cost at the top of the agenda, the continued pursuit of tidal energy in UK waters cannot be ignored especially with the environmental benefits and the predictability of output. The growing tide of investment Investment in tidal energy has grown in the last decade but is still a fraction of the investment into other technologies . According to the Ocean Energy Europe report, overall investment into ocean energy sectors increased 50% in 2021 over 2020 in Europe, a total of $75.5m. This investment is sure to grow as patterns in energy related investments shift, with governments already displaying interest in this sector, drawing more private and public investors to join the trend. Yet, the capacity so far of these new generators is a small fraction of the capacity from fixed tidal barrages and even smaller still compared to total wind power (see table 1). The outstanding question is can these relatively small single generators be scaled to multiple arrays, in the same way wind turbines were 15 years ago? Tidal over wind? Currently the most invested in and used renewable energy source is wind farms typically found offshore. They contributed 24% of the total electricity generated in the UK in 2020. However, there are reasons to be optimistic; one major advantage of tidal power lies in the continuity of tidal movements, along with their predictability. We are guaranteed 4 cycles per lunar day and each can be predicted with high accuracy whereas wind varies heavily on seasonal changes and the weather. With current technologies in energy storage lacking in funding and investment the advantages of wind power dwindle somewhat as the extra energy supplied to the grid is random and if not used, it is often wasted. The predictability of tidal energy allows it to be ‘scheduled’ (with tidal timing predictions) into the grid’s energy supply. However, it Is still worth noting that all things considered, tidal energy is some way from competing with wind energy and solar farms on a cost per kwh. This is due to the ever-evolving technology and that it is still many decades behind that of large scale offshore and land-based wind farms (as well as solar) which over many years have become a proven renewable resource. As tidal energy is still relatively unproven the cost of investment casts a shadow on potential investors compared to its wind counterpart. In fact, government grants have been a major contributor to the funding and development of Orbital Marine similar to other projects around the world. Environmental Considerations Unlike wind turbines, blades beneath the water’s surface do not strike birds or bats, look unsightly or effect local radar systems. Previous environment studies by a sperate company, Sea Gate which operated an earlier fixed turbine in Strangford Narrows N. Ireland, found that that sea mammals tend to stay clear of the turbines due in part to the low-level noise it produces. Orbital site evidence from around 10,000 hours of wildlife observations at EMEC’s (European Marine Energy Centre) sites has indicated no significant long-term changes in the distribution of birds or marine mammals due to the presence and operation of wave and tidal devices. This continues to be monitored as more arrays are installed, and there have been several independent studies published also stating no evidence of impact to local mammals. This of course does not yet mean there is no impact, but the results are promising. This should be compared with the first generation of large, fixed barrages such as Rance in France which can have a major impact on local marine life and the local environment. The Severn barrage project in the UK has been abandoned due to projections of the high cost (£34b) and environmental impact, despite a relatively large potential contribution to overall UK power needs. Even though, in the new environment, latest news is that this project is being considered again. An assessment of the total lifecycle emissions of the Orbital Marine platform concluded that while the project can run for 20 years, it can offset from the UK grid mix the carbon emitted by the project within just 1 year and 4 months of operation or 11 months if it is assumed that the electricity being generated is offsetting gas power generation, which is often the case in the UK. The advantage of this kind of carbon footprint also means this type of investment could benefit from carbon offsets. The future of Orbital Marine Power Orbital Marine Power started in 2002 and have undertaken many years of testing and development of their tidal systems. They have just raised £4m via a fixed 6% debenture via the Abundance platform (in addition to £7m raised in 2019) for their updated version of the 02 which aims to be even more efficient than the first whilst also reducing the total cost of each unit. The company was recently granted two ‘contracts for difference’ (CfD’s) in the UK allocation round 4 process (AR4). They have also received investment from TechnipFMC ‘a leading technology provider to the traditional and new energy industries with a proven track record of successfully delivering large-scale, fully integrated offshore energy projects to customers around the world.’ With this investment and funding Orbital aims to have four turbines in operation by 2026/27, powering upwards of 7,200 homes and feeding energy into the grid. Estimates based on the improved O2 is that this single unit will generate revenues of £2m per annum, before inflation. Costs, including not just maintenance but berthing and insurance are estimated at £920,000 per year. On an operating cost basis, and using their own figures on maximum output, we estimate the current cost per generated kwh is between the £0.15-0.20 range (excluding R&D capital investment and installation costs). To achieve the same cost level of offshore wind requires a 5-10x reduction. There is some way to go to improve the technology and reduce operating costs, but achievable if compared to the improvements in wind technology over the years. In conclusion, for tidal energy be more than a drop in the ocean… The new platforms are the result of many years R&D and investment, including government backed funding, and are improving with time as the technology matures. On their own, these individual projects will generate a return to investors if the technology is proven and can scale to multiple arrays. These large arrays will also be critical if tidal is to make a meaningful contribution to the UK’s or other country energy needs. The advantage is the energy is more predictable, more dependable and better for the environment than many alternatives. The question is who will step forward to make the significant investment and drive scale? The same question was asked of offshore wind power 15 years ago, with the right investors the UK might well become a leader in tidal power as wind. With the right government backing at a time where we need more reliable renewable energy sources it could shorten the timescale to achieve that. Author: Will de Vise-Craig References and Links https://orbitalmarine.com/o2/ https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/market-news/orbital-marine-awarded-two-cfds-in-ar4-round/15529633 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319311720_Wave_and_Tidal_Range_Energy_Devices_Offer_Environmental_Opportunities_as_Artificial_Reefs https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/12/worlds-first-large-scale-tidal-energy-farm-launches-scotland https://www.rspb.org.uk/our-work/casework/cases/severn-estuary/https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/78773.pdf https://www.world-energy.org/article/23866.html https://orbitalmarine.com/orbital-restoring-our-oceans/ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/911817/electricity-generation-cost-report-2020.pdf https://www.imeche.org/policy-and-press/from-our-perspective/energy-theme/renewable-energy/what-is-renewable-energy/seagen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Current_Turbines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeaGen https://simecatlantis.com/tidal-stream/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nendrum_Monastery_mill https://gwec.net/global-wind-report-2021/
Natural Capital Technologies Research
Sep 28, 2022 · 10 min read
Vertical Farming is lifting off, the question is how fast?
The progress of two small vertical farming companies, Yasai based in Switzerland and One Farm based in the UK, both going through fundraising rounds will further test investors’ appetite for an industry that raised over $1.1B in 2021. This new, technologically enabled, food production method using LEDs and controlled environments consumes less water, uses no pesticides or animal matter, and reduces imports, transportation costs and climate impact. As well as offering 365 days per year growing performance, it addresses the very immediate issue of food security. These are just two examples of a growing number of vertical (sometimes known as “urban”) farms, and how these and the other vertical farming companies perform beyond the fund raising and over the next three years will be an important test for a new and innovative industry. Whilst still relative new and niche, vertical farming offers much potential to investors, consumers and the natural world, and with over $1b invested in 2021 investment firms like Softbank and GIC are clearly seeing the potential even if global revenues today are less than $100m per year, a fraction of the market. Vertical farming, so called in 1999 by Dr. Dickson Despommier an ecologist at Colombia University, envisioned skyscrapers 100’s of metres high used to meet the growing demand for food across cities. The truth is that most “vertical farms” are not that vertical, and despite Dr Dickson’s vision most farms occupy re-purposed or new warehouses outside city centres. In 2012 the world's first commercial vertical farm was opened in Singapore, developed by Sky Greens Farms , and was three stories high. Today they have over 100 nine-meter-tall towers and are the first vertical farm to be certified as organic. In Singapore where only 7% of food is grown locally food production and security issues are clear. In both the UK and Switzerland 48% of food is imported and, driven by high inflation, the war in Ukraine and failed harvests, many countries across Europe, the US and Middle East are addressing food security as a major concern. Kalera as a good example has opened a vertical farm in Kuwait, a country than imports a large amount of food, with capacity to produce 500kg of fresh food daily . Kalera and is just one of several Vertical Farming examples in the Middle East. But the benefits of vertical farm to the planet and consumers are far greater than just being able to grow produce locally, 365 days a year, close to consumers. They produce much higher yields (up to 200x) per square meter of land, and use 90% less water. Growing in controlled environments means no need for harmful pesticides, no animal manure or fertilisers are used, nor peat or other harmful extracts from soils (CO2 is used to support growth). The quality and nutritional value is managed and improved. As, if (and only if) grown in airlocked systems, no water washing is required, this extends shelf life and reduces food wasted. Lastly growing food nearer populations irrespective of the environment or local weather reduce transportation costs, time and Co2 emissions. And whilst they do consume relatively large amounts of electricity, this should be compared with traditional gas heated green houses and associated CO2 emissions of transportation and storage or to extensive agriculture where fertilizers, tractor use and transport to sales all contribute to higher CO2 footprints. With global population forecasted to reach 10B people by 2050 the demand for more food is pushing us past the limits we can convert more forests to farmland, the use of fertilisers, and availability of fresh water. On paper at least vertical farming seems to offer the solutions to an efficient food industry, which is estimated to contribute to 30% of all anthropic greenhouse emissions, 70% of freshwater consumption and 40% of land use. So the question is why is it not bigger, and why a decade after the first vertical farm opened in Singapore are not more financial investors, governments and food companies all supporting and investing in this space? There are a number of questions which the progress of vertical farms like Yasai and One Farm will answer in the next few years, for investors with an appetite for investing in a relatively new field of food production, there should be healthy returns, but despite the advances in scientific research and pilots this is still relatively early and carries similar risks to investments in new technology and business production models The produce today is still relatively niche, but growing To date, vertical farming has focused to date on mainly on microgreens, leafy greens (e.g. lettuce), herbs (mint, dill, chives sage etc), partly due to the fact that these are easier to grow in controlled environments, are imported in northern Europe from warmer climates and have a higher price point. Demand growth and pricing is evolving Whilst there is clearly demand for vertical farm produce, as proven by Yasai (who in pilot mode are generating around Euro 200k p.a. through sales to Co-op) and the large more establish farms like Bowery and Plenty in the US, or Jungle in France. The question is the pace of growth and will the price of production as these organisations scale fall below the Euro 50/kg price of comparable imported produce. The industry is very much in investment model, and few or no institutions offer a clear forecast on what the market size could be. Consumer acceptance and branding is evolving The phrase “Vertical Farming” might be a good descriptor for the original skyscraper vision, but it has little consumer recognition. Yasai, like others, use their own brand focusing on health and taste advantages as well as home produced, and are already supplying to 80 stores in Switzerland with plans to expand both domestically and abroad, One Farm has created an trademarked the brand “Wholly” as well as plan to distribute through UK supermarkets and other distributors using their brand. Whilst the benefits to consumers and the environment are well understood, organic produce in the UK and the US, growing at double digits, is still less than 5% of total consumer demand . Just because something is better (for animals, the planet and our nutrition) it does not mean more consumers will buy especially if priced at a premium or with lower shelf life. Several companies claim improved nutritional benefits of the indoor produced food. Kalera, operating vertical farms across several US and European locations, claim between 50-200% increase per gram in elements such as Vitamin A, K, Folate and Calcium. It will be interesting to see if these benefits translate to a price premium for ‘vertical’ food, or as Yasai plan, as yields improve they will be offered at a lower price than traditionally produced and imported produce. It will be also important to see how organic and vertically produced food align and contribute to each other’s success - the answers to these questions are yet to be determined. Yield efficiency improvements need to be delivered Both Yasai and One Farm are promising yields far higher than traditional farming, but with the increased capital investment a financial return and profitability in a 5 year window requires yields to improve from around 30 kg/m2 of produce per year to even 50-60 kg/m2. This improvement partly comes from scale and technology investment, improved automation and processes. Whilst this improvement seems a tall order, 30 kg/m2 is already 20-30 times comparable yields from traditional farming methods and One Farm claims this level of yield already in their pilot. Inflating Input costs, particularly electricity, needs to be controlled With wholesale electricity costs increasing 2-3 times in Europe both Yasai and One Farm have been challenged on their cost forecasts as they seek to attract investors. Both companies use renewable power. Yasai say 100% renewable but it is not clear if this is self-generated or purchased, One Farm intend to partially meet their power demands through on site solar. Sky Greens in Singapore use natural light and water power to rotate food on towers. Both Yasai and One Farm can use long term fixed contracts as well to see through the price rises predicted for the next 12-18 months. Government and Regulatory support is coming, slowly Singapore, unlike many European governments do not have to rely on the political support of large farming population. Other countries have to balance the need of the traditional farming community and new innovations, which might explain reluctance to embrace and support the industry. This could change, what is important for governments is that these are complimentary not competing methods. Vertical Farming advocates argue that vertical farming will not displace the farming communities of Europe but be a complimentary replacement for high cost, high imported and high carbon ways of production and replace food supply outside natural growing seasons (the Uk imports 90% of all spinach sold on the shelves) Unlike the organic certification there is yet no similar certification for a vertical farm in Europe where organic refers to solid base production. There is no reason why vertical farming produce cannot be organically certified, as has been done in Singapore and in the USA where this has now changed to to include vertical farming where pesticides are not used. This kind of move in Europe or the UK would be of great benefit. Several countries, like Switzerland, are offering R&D grants which have been used to fund start up (Yasai has received Euro 4.3m to date) and this is just one example. Conclusion Traditional farming methods often struggle to attract large capital investment and new innovation. For investors, the new innovation of vertical farming offers attractive returns from a high capital and potentially highly scaled business model, if the assumptions and improvements in yields and costs are delivered. For the planet, the advantages are enormous, however even if it grows to ten times the size in the new few years it is unlikely that this will replace large scale traditional commodity product methods and will only make a small dent in the 13.5 GTonnes IPCC scientists estimate AFOLU (Agriculture, Food and Other Land Use) can contribute to overall GHG reduction . To really move the needle, the investment in Vertical Farming needs to be complimented with major investments, incentives and demand for alternative and regenerative farming methods, reducing carbon emissions and reducing impact to the natural system. The author is the former founder and CEO of Refinitiv, and chairs the TNFD (Task Force on Nature-Related Financial Disclosures) as well as an investor in natural capital. The World’s emerging and established Vertical Farms
Natural Capital Technologies Research
Sep 13, 2022 · 9 min read
Sustainable Infrastructure - despite challenges the 'boom' is unlikely to 'bust'
Investment in sustainable infrastructure has increased from $275B in 2020 to $627B in 2021, with solar power generation projects overtaking wind power generation for the first time. The recently passed Biden administration’s big budget plan (signed yesterday) to rebuild the US while shifting to cleaner energy sources, the EU’s Green Deal and multiple net zero target means this shift of financing shows no sign of slowing down. However, according to analysis at Refinitiv, challenges in the supply chain, inflation, geo-political and price hedging arrangements mean that many projects are currently suffering financial challenges or delays. According to the Refinitiv sustainable infrastructure data and report just released, there were a total of 1521 renewable and nuclear projects announced in 2021. Under 4% of the solar and wind projects announced in 2020 have been completed so far. And for investors, as more ‘pile in’, ensuring financial and delivery risks are fully understood is critical, so that expensive delays do not turn into negative returns. And from a complete sustainability picture, the question of course is not just when and how these projects will come online and help decarbonise the world’s energy supply, but how green and fully sustainable are they?- There are few global standards, reporting and audit mechanisms for the natural world and the impact of infrastructure projects, something that should and will change over time. TNFD is working on through the sector groups so that investors understand the full environment impact and value of “green” infrastructure investments To see the full Refinitiv report here
Natural Capital Technologies Research
Aug 10, 2022 · 2 min read
'Beefing up' on alternative protein
Protein is a key component of the human diet, but the way we currently produce and consume animal based protein is unsustainable for our natural systems and climate goals. Animal-based products – our major source of protein – place too great a burden on our land, forestry and water resources, and lead to too many greenhouse gas emissions. Our traditional approach to producing and consuming protein is unsustainable and is at conflict with climate goals and food security. So-called 'alternative proteins’ – plant, micro-organism and cell-based substitutes – offer a possible solution, but consumers have been slow to adopt such products, which need to match traditional protein sources in terms of taste, texture and price to really take off. The good news is that a lot of new innovative companies, in regions such as the US, Israel, Singapore and Europe, are focused on this area and consumer and investor appetite is growing rapidly. But investor confidence has been shaken recently with alternative protein firms missing revenue expectations and recording expanding losses amid spiralling inflation and a global funding crunch. Nonetheless, there is growing awareness that the success of alternative protein is essential for the planet’s sustainability. I expect the sector to thrive in the medium term as private and VC investment increases, technological development improves the quality of products, the regulatory environment evolves to assure customers that their health and safety needs are being met and governments put policies into place to support this growing area. The ever-growing demand for protein, and the unsustainability of the traditional supply As income levels rise globally, per capita consumption of protein is also increasing, with many associating protein with health, lifestyle and wellness benefits. Also driven by the increase in the global population, the demand for protein is estimated to double by 2050. Animal-based products account for around 62% of the total protein intake of US adults (46% from meat and 16% from dairy) while 30% comes from plants (the remaining 8% is unclassified). Meeting the growing demand for protein with traditional sources is unsustainable for our planet; land usage, greenhouse gas emissions (especially methane emissions) and water consumption are all extremely high for meat products. If combating climate change is a priority, the world must promote alternative methods to meet growing demand for protein. The WWF estimates that Beef and Soy production drive 2/3 of the deforestation loss [1] in the Amazon basin. The latest IPPC report published in February 2022 estimates that almost a third of emissions reduction can be generated from changing in land use, halting deforestation and changing agricultural methods. This is as much as all the efforts from decarbonising our energy supply and ten times the impact from similar measures in electrification of transportation, with considerably lower capital investment costs. Alternative protein offers a viable solution, but widespread adoption is still a long way off The term ‘alternative protein’ encompasses products that aim to provide alternatives to animal-based protein sources (meat, dairy, etc.). There are various types: Plant-based alternatives are usually derived from soybeans and yellow peas. These alternates have been available in the market for a while now and already have a wide reach (for example, the Beyond Meat brand). Because of improvements over time, these are already relatively close to parity with animal-based products in terms of taste and texture, but are still around twice as costly as traditional meat. Micro-organism-based alternatives include proteins produced using bacteria, yeasts, algae or fungi, grown in carbohydrate-rich solutions to produce protein through fermentation (for example, the Every Company). These alternatives still have a long way to go before they achieve parity and are currently 2-3x costlier than traditional protein sources. Cell-based alternatives are grown directly from animal cells, including meat and seafood. These are relatively new and have started to appear in the market (for example, Eat Just in Singapore). For the time being at least, they are very expensive to produce. Alternative proteins still require substantial development to achieve parity with animal-based products, but the good news is that around 90% of traditional animal-protein products can be successfully replaced. BCG expects that, by 2035, alternative protein technologies will achieve full parity with animal-based protein sources. Plant-based alternatives may achieve parity as soon as 2023, while cell-based products could still take more than a decade to reach parity. Sector investment has grown in the past two years, but confidence has been shaken recently According to the Good Food Institute, 2021 was a record year for investment in companies creating sustainable alternative protein – they raised US$5bn during the year. Since 2010, the total amount raised by the industry amounts to US$11bn, with around three-quarters of this amount (US$8bn) raised in 2020-21 as the focus on combating the climate crisis has intensified. However, more recently, broader investor confidence in the sector appears to have been shaken – the share prices of Beyond Meat and oat milk brand Oatly (whose investors include Vangaurd, Blackrock Ballie Gifford, Fidelity and Blackstone), two listed alternative protein companies, have declined by around 50% year-to-date and 80% in the past 12 months. Beyond Meat has missed investor expectations on revenues and its losses have expanded while Oatly has been facing supply problems, which have hit its market share and leadership position. In addition, rising inflation (and weak consumer purchasing power) and the global funding crunch is also a concern for investors and could delay market development. Share price performance of alternative protein companies (rebased to 100 at June 2021) Source: Refintiv Workspace Outlook for alternative protein – bridging the gap The ‘green’ case for alternative protein is clear, but, to build a strong investment and business case, progress is needed on various fronts. I see three major areas where the whole ecosystem needs to evolve to bridge the adoption gap: As quoted in the recent FT article “Investors grapple with complexities of biodiversity” we should not let the perfect get in the way of the good. There is much which is very good about alternative proteins, not just the taste and nutritional value but the lighter footprint on the natural system and the positive contribution to climate change – we should not let perfect get in the way of investing and consuming something which is become very good for both our health, our planet as well as in time, our pockets The author is the former CEO of Refinitiv, and co-chair of the TNFD (Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Risks) delivering a global market-led framework for companies and investors to assess, manage and disclose on nature related risks and opportunities www.tnfd.global [1] What are the biggest drivers of tropical deforestation? | Magazine Articles | WWF ( worldwildlife.org ) [2] Course 1: Reduce Growth in Demand for Food and other Agricultural Products (Synthesis) | World Resources Institute Research ( wri.org ) [3] Food for Thought: The Untapped Climate Opportunity in Alternative Proteins | BCG
Natural Capital Technologies Research
Jul 20, 2022 · 8 min read
Trusted Data - the new oxygen of nature?
This week the TNFD launched the ‘Nature-related Data Catalyst’ with the goal of encouraging the accelerated development and collaboration across commercial and public data organisations. The goal is to bring together a range of actors from across the nature-related data landscape to identify shortcomings in current nature-related data and analytics, and recommend ways to accelerate the development of, and access to, nature-related data, analytics and tools. The overall aim is to improve the ease, speed, and scale of adoption of the TNFD framework, once the Taskforce launches their final recommendations in September 2023. The Catalyst responds to the data challenges and gaps identified in the TNFD’s Data Landscape Discussion Paper released in March 2022 as part of the v0.1 beta release of the TNFD Framework, this includes a scan of existing and new data provider; publicly funded, NGO and commercial organisations Using data to assess your company or investment dependency and impact natural resources is not new - and whilst there is an explosion of new spatial data providers, enabled by new low orbit satellite, airborne, ocean and terrestrial measurement technologies, there are still significant data gaps. In addition, the relatively low level of automation means nature-based assessment using data is a relatively manual and slow task. As we saw with Google partnering with WRI (World Resources Institute) the arrival of Dynamic World is another sign that data companies should collaborate, not compete, to help the financial world address nature-related risks and re-direct investment to nature positive outcomes. I believe the landscape can change quickly as more standard approaches are developed and data providers work in partnership together. This is where the TNFD working with data providers through the Data Catalyst can help Further information on the data catalyst including how to apply is included here “In the same way that data drives the operation and valuation of financial assets and markets, data will play a leading role in ensuring our natural assets are assigned the economic and social value they are contributing to human kind”
Natural Capital Technologies Research
Jul 13, 2022 · 2 min read