Layer 1 — Project
Two sources of requirement
Regulatory · legal obligation
- Res. 749/17 MAyDS
- Provincial law — Chubut, Santa Cruz, Río Negro, Buenos Aires, Córdoba, Mendoza
Safeguards · contractual obligation
- IFC PS6
- IDB PS 6 — Performance Standard 6
Frameworks & standards
One field dataset. Two critical questions.
A project must prove it complies. A company must disclose what it does with nature. CyA works at that crossing point.
The problem
Two distinct requirements. Two languages that don’t always speak to each other.
Energy and mining companies face two requirements — project and corporate — and solve them separately. The field biologist doesn’t speak the language of the financial report, and vice versa. CyA closes that distance: one source of truth for two audiences.
The model
A measurement core feeding two layers of use.
One technical structure answers two distinct questions. What changes is the destination of the data, not how it is produced.
Measurement core
CyA’s proprietary engineering
- Distance Sampling with detectability correction
- PBR — Potential Biological Removal
- Diversity and abundance indices
- Acoustic monitoring of bats and night birds
- Fatality searches and analysis
- Airspace use from vantage points
- Geospatial traceability on a QGIS base
- Time series comparable across campaigns
Layer 2 — Corporate
Disclosure frameworks and metrics
- GRI 101 — biodiversity disclosure
- TNFD — LEAP approach, site by site
- ESRS — EU sustainability, under review
- IFRS S (ISSB) — financial reporting tied to sustainability
- MSA — Mean Species Abundance, footprint metric
TNFD — the hinge
Corporate disclosure that requires site-level data.
TNFD lives in the world of corporate disclosure (Layer 2), but its LEAP approach is explicitly locational: it is answered site by site. Without rigorous Layer 1 work underneath, it is practically impossible to build a Layer 2 report that withstands an audit. Both layers are the same structure.
The LEAP approach
-
L
Locate
Locate the business interfaces with nature — sites, ecosystems and dependencies.
-
E
Evaluate
Evaluate dependencies and impacts on biodiversity at each identified site.
-
A
Assess
Assess material risks and opportunities arising from those dependencies and impacts.
-
P
Prepare
Prepare information to report, manage and communicate to investors and stakeholders.
TNFD is not answered from a desk. It is answered with localised, traceable and consistent data.
Why it matters more every day
From data as narrative to data as number.
Two fronts push in the same direction — reporting becomes audited, financing becomes metric.
01
Reporting — From voluntary to verifiable.
Nature disclosure is leaving voluntary narrative behind and moving towards a system of comparable, traceable and auditable data. Weak data is a liability; sound data sustains decisions before regulators, auditors, risk committees, banks and public opinion.
02
Financing — From narrative to audited KPI.
Sustainable finance instruments are evolving from the generic green-bond logic (use of proceeds) towards structures tied to indicators and verified performance — sustainability-linked bonds and loans. In that scenario, biodiversity data can become a relevant variable to assess risk, access financing and discuss capital conditions.
The trajectory of nature disclosure
Four eras, one direction.
-
Era 1
Voluntary.
Narrative reports, no common standard, low comparability.
-
Era 2
Standardised.
GRI 101, TNFD, ESRS and other frameworks build a shared vocabulary.
-
Era 3
Audited.
Verifiable data points gain weight; legal, reputational and financial exposure rises for poorly substantiated information.
-
Era 4
Financialised.
Environmental indicators are embedded in covenants, KPIs and performance-linked financial instruments.
Closing
The future of biodiversity data is not in the report: it is in its capacity to travel from the field to the permit, the audit and the capital.
If your project must comply, report or be financed — let’s talk.