How to select the corporate biodiversity impact measurement tool most appropriate for your needs? The Biodiversity Measurement Navigation Wheel 2.0 guides you to choose the right tool(s) based on key questions around your use case and resources.   Developed by the EU B@B Platform (European Union’s Business & Biodiversity Platform), the Wheel references 29 measurement approaches: https://t.ly/y7B4v   To use it, answer the following questions: - What is your objective (Business Application)? - For which Organisational focus areas should #biodiversity be measured (corporate, site, etc.)? - Which pressures on biodiversity need to be covered? - Which aspects of biodiversity (species, habitats, genetic diversity, ecosystem services)? - What types of ambitions and targets do you seek to support (#NaturePositive, no net loss, etc.)? - Do you seek quantified impacts or monetised impacts? - What level of efforts are you ready to invest into the measurement (expertise, open or commercial, cost, time investment)? - To what sector do you belong?   🗺 The report guides you through a number of tables detailing the coverage & features of each tool for each question.   🔎 Let’s take the example of a company seeking to cover the following business applications: current (1) and future (2) performances, tracking progress against targets (3), comparing options (4) and risk & opportunity assessment (7). Aiming to do this at the corporate level, Figure 2 in the report highlights three possible approaches: Environmental Profit & Loss (EP&L), #GlobalBiodiversityScore (GBS) and READS (an approach developed by Repsol).   The company wants impacts to be quantified in biophysical units and not as monetary values: that filters out the EP&L. READS covers both species and habitats according to the report [note: its outputs however appear focused on monetary valuation so this may require double checking], while the GBS covers only habitats (ecosystem condition expressed in #MeanSpeciesAbundance).   In terms of level of efforts, the two remaining solutions for this company differ: 👉 GBS: external expertise is likely required but trainings are available, costs for hiring external expertise are likely high (> 20 person-days) and other costs (training, licensing, etc.) moderate (EUR 4000 to 10 000), efforts on the company’s side (assessed only for the first assessment) are likely high (more than 30 person-days) 👉 READS: internal expertise is reported to be sufficient in some cases, but trainings are available when external expertise is required, costs for hiring external expertise are moderate (between 5 and 20 person-days) and other costs high (> EUR 10 000), efforts on the company’s side range from moderate to high (> 10 person-days).   📣 Have a look at the report to discover what are the best tools for your specific case, beyond this simple example! This is really THE authoritative source on everything related to biodiversity impact and dependency measurement.