Trend watch: Biodiversity, conservation genetics & restoration in 2026 — signals, winners, and red flags

UNDP's BIOFIN initiative helped unlock $2.7 billion for nature in 2025—up 59% from $1.7 billion in 2024—while private conservation technology ventures like Colossal Biosciences raised $200 million in Series C funding. For investors evaluating the biodiversity space, distinguishing genuine value creation from speculative hype has become critical as capital flows toward this historically underfunded sector.

Why It Matters

The biodiversity sector sits at the intersection of urgent ecological need and emerging economic opportunity. The global finance gap for biodiversity stands at approximately $700 billion annually—the difference between current spending and what's required to halt biodiversity loss. Governments have committed to mobilizing $200 billion per year from all sources by 2030 under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, with specific targets of $20 billion annually by 2025 and $30 billion by 2030 flowing from developed to developing countries.

For UK-based investors, regulatory drivers are accelerating. The UK's Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) law now requires all new developments to deliver 10% biodiversity improvement, creating a nascent market for biodiversity credits. The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) framework, with UK regulatory endorsement, is pushing listed companies to assess and disclose nature-related risks and dependencies. These requirements are creating both compliance obligations and investment opportunities.

The scientific underpinning for conservation genetics has matured significantly. Environmental DNA (eDNA) enables species detection from water or soil samples without physically observing organisms. Gene drive research offers potential for controlling invasive species or restoring lost traits to endangered populations. Advances in de-extinction technology—while controversial—have attracted significant venture capital and could eventually enable recovery of functionally extinct species.

Key Concepts

Conservation Genetics Technologies

Modern conservation genetics encompasses several technological approaches:

Environmental DNA (eDNA): Organisms continuously shed DNA into their environment through skin cells, waste, and other biological matter. By sampling water or soil and amplifying DNA traces, eDNA surveys can detect species presence far more efficiently than traditional surveys. NatureMetrics has scaled this approach commercially, enabling biodiversity monitoring across thousands of sites.

Population Genomics: Sequencing entire populations reveals genetic diversity, inbreeding levels, and adaptation potential—critical information for conservation prioritization. Low genetic diversity indicates vulnerability; high diversity suggests resilience. Genomic data increasingly informs decisions about which populations to protect and how to manage captive breeding.

Gene Editing for Conservation: CRISPR and related technologies enable precise genetic modification. Applications include removing disease susceptibility (e.g., fungal resistance in amphibians), restoring lost adaptive traits, and potentially controlling invasive species through gene drives. Ethical considerations and regulatory uncertainty limit current deployment.

De-extinction: Companies like Colossal Biosciences are working to resurrect functional proxies of extinct species—woolly mammoth, Tasmanian tiger, dodo. While full de-extinction remains scientifically challenging, intermediate products (cold-adapted elephants, disease-resistant species variants) may emerge sooner.

Restoration Economics

Ecosystem restoration investments follow several models:

Carbon-Biodiversity Stacking: Projects that generate both carbon credits and biodiversity benefits command premium pricing. Mangrove restoration, agroforestry, and rewilding projects increasingly emphasize co-benefits to access multiple revenue streams.

Biodiversity Credits: Emerging market for measured, evidence-based biodiversity outcomes. Unlike carbon markets (standardized around CO2 equivalence), biodiversity lacks a common metric, limiting trading liquidity. UK's BNG and voluntary markets are experimenting with unit definitions.

Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES): Governments and companies pay landowners to maintain or enhance natural capital—watersheds, pollinators, coastal protection. These programs typically require robust monitoring infrastructure.

Bioeconomy Integration

Conservation increasingly connects to commercial bioeconomy applications:

Genetic resources access: The Nagoya Protocol governs access and benefit-sharing for genetic resources. COP16 established the Cali Fund, requiring companies using genetic resources (pharmaceutical, cosmetics, agricultural biotech) to contribute 1% of profits or 0.1% of revenue to conservation.

Bio-inspired innovation: Natural solutions to engineering problems—biomimicry—draw on biodiversity for product development. Maintaining genetic diversity preserves optionality for future discoveries.

Sector-Specific KPI Benchmarks

KPI	Laggard	Average	Leader	Notes
eDNA species detection rate	<40%	60-75%	>90%	Of known species in target area
Restoration cost per hectare	>$5,000	$2,000-4,000	<$1,500	Varies significantly by ecosystem
Genetic diversity maintained	<80%	85-92%	>95%	Of baseline heterozygosity
Carbon-biodiversity premium	0%	15-30%	>50%	Over carbon-only credits
MRV cost as % of project value	>30%	15-25%	<10%	Monitoring, reporting, verification
Time to measurable biodiversity gain	>10 years	5-8 years	<3 years	Depends heavily on intervention type

What's Working and What Isn't

What's Working

eDNA-based monitoring at scale: NatureMetrics has demonstrated that eDNA monitoring can reduce survey costs by 50-80% while detecting species that traditional methods miss. Their technology processes water and soil samples to generate species inventories within weeks rather than the months required for conventional surveys. Financial institutions, infrastructure developers, and extractive companies are adopting eDNA for baseline assessments and ongoing monitoring—creating a recurring revenue model that supports scale.

Blended finance for restoration: Conservation International's $300 million blended finance initiative combines philanthropic capital, development finance, and private investment to fund restoration projects that generate both ecological and financial returns. This approach addresses the fundamental challenge that conservation projects often cannot generate market-rate returns but can achieve positive financial performance with concessionary capital in the capital stack. Projects in Brazil, Indonesia, and Africa demonstrate that blended structures can attract institutional capital to nature.

UK Biodiversity Net Gain implementation: Despite initial skepticism, the UK's mandatory BNG requirement is creating genuine market activity. Developers are purchasing credits from habitat banks, and landowners are registering restoration projects to generate tradeable units. While the market remains nascent and pricing volatile, BNG demonstrates that regulatory mandates can catalyze private investment in biodiversity outcomes.

What Isn't Working

Early-stage funding gap persists: Sustainability startups raised only $2.3 billion in 2025—down 67% from prior years—with biodiversity ventures particularly affected. The "funding freeze" for early-stage nature startups means promising technologies struggle to reach commercial scale. Most are relying on SAFE notes, convertible debt, philanthropy, and crowdfunding rather than traditional venture capital. This gap between mega-deals (Colossal's $200M) and struggling small startups threatens pipeline development.

Biodiversity credit standardization stalled: Unlike carbon markets, biodiversity lacks a universally accepted metric. Multiple competing frameworks—percentage improvement, species counts, habitat hectares, biodiversity units—prevent the trading liquidity that would attract institutional capital. The UK's BNG uses specific metric methodology, but voluntary global markets remain fragmented. Without standardization, biodiversity credits remain difficult to value and trade.

De-extinction timeline optimism: While Colossal and similar ventures attract headlines and capital, actual de-extinction remains distant. Creating a woolly mammoth proxy (an Asian elephant with mammoth genes) requires solving multiple technical challenges, any one of which could prove insurmountable. Investors should view de-extinction as high-risk R&D with potential intermediate products rather than near-term commercial opportunity.

Key Players

Established Leaders

Conservation International: Global NGO transitioning from pure philanthropy to blended finance, with $300 million target for restoration investment. Their venture arm finances sustainable agriculture, forestry, ecotourism, and SMEs in conservation-dependent communities.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC): Largest environmental NGO by assets, increasingly active in market-based conservation mechanisms. TNC's blue carbon and forest carbon projects generate credits while delivering biodiversity co-benefits.

World Wildlife Fund (WWF): Global conservation leader with strong brand and partnerships with major corporations. WWF's corporate engagement programs influence supply chain practices and create demand for verified biodiversity outcomes.

Kew Royal Botanic Gardens: UK's leading plant science institution, maintaining the Millennium Seed Bank with seeds from over 40,000 species. Kew's genomics capabilities support conservation breeding and genetic diversity assessment.

Emerging Startups

Colossal Biosciences (US): De-extinction and conservation genetics leader with $200 million Series C. While woolly mammoth headlines attract attention, Colossal's intermediate technology—genetic engineering for disease resistance, cold adaptation, and species revival—may deliver commercial products sooner.

NatureMetrics (UK): eDNA monitoring platform with $25 million in funding. NatureMetrics has scaled from research tool to commercial service, processing thousands of samples for biodiversity assessment. Their recurring revenue model (ongoing monitoring subscriptions) provides sustainable business foundation.

MORFO (France): Drone-based reforestation deploying 180 seed pods per minute across 50 hectares daily. MORFO's technology dramatically reduces restoration costs while improving survival rates through precision placement and seed coating technology.

Pivotal (UK): Biodiversity data and credit platform focused on species-level tracking and financial mechanisms. Pivotal is working to solve the measurement and verification challenges that limit biodiversity credit market development.

Restor (Switzerland): High-resolution monitoring platform for ecosystem restoration tracking. Restor aggregates satellite, drone, and ground data to provide verification services for restoration projects globally.

Key Investors & Funders

GEF (Global Environment Facility): Approved $1.1 billion for 45 biodiversity/climate projects in 2024, mobilizing $7.5 billion in co-financing. GEF funding often catalyzes larger private investment.

Mercuria Silvania Fund: $500 million nature investment platform focused on protection and restoration of ecosystems, with particular emphasis on Brazil. The fund demonstrates appetite for large-scale nature investment from commodity trading capital.

Planet A Ventures: European greentech VC with specific biodiversity conservation investments, representing the growing interest from generalist climate funds in nature-based solutions.

Superorganism: Early-stage biodiversity venture fund co-founded by industry veterans, targeting the gap between seed funding and Series A that constrains biodiversity startup development.

Examples

NatureMetrics' UK Infrastructure Monitoring: NatureMetrics partnered with National Highways (UK government road agency) to deploy eDNA monitoring across major infrastructure projects. By sampling watercourses before, during, and after construction, the program detects impacts on fish, invertebrates, and amphibians that traditional surveys miss. The data feeds directly into BNG calculations and regulatory compliance. National Highways reports 70% reduction in survey timelines and improved detection of protected species, enabling faster project approvals and more targeted mitigation.
Mercuria's Brazilian Restoration Investment: Commodity trader Mercuria launched its $500 million Silvania Fund focused on Brazilian ecosystem restoration, demonstrating that large-scale private capital can flow to nature. The fund acquires degraded land, implements restoration using native species, and generates returns through sustainable forestry, carbon credits, and biodiversity credits. The structure—combining land appreciation, product revenue, and environmental credit income—provides multiple return pathways that reduce overall investment risk.
Colossal's Conservation Genetics Pivot: While de-extinction headlines dominate coverage, Colossal Biosciences is increasingly focusing on near-term conservation applications. Their partnership with the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance applies genetic engineering to protect endangered species from disease—specifically developing fungal resistance in amphibians threatened by chytrid fungus. This pivot from theoretical de-extinction to practical conservation genetics addresses investor concerns about timeline while maintaining technological differentiation.

Action Checklist

Assess portfolio companies' nature-related risks using TNFD framework; prioritize those with material dependencies on biodiversity or ecosystem services
Evaluate eDNA monitoring providers for due diligence and ongoing monitoring; request case studies demonstrating accuracy versus traditional surveys
Map biodiversity credit market development in target jurisdictions; the UK's BNG provides most mature template but voluntary markets are emerging globally
Consider blended finance structures for nature investments; concessionary capital in the stack can improve risk-adjusted returns for commercial investors
Distinguish genuine conservation genetics from de-extinction hype; focus on near-term applications (disease resistance, population genomics) rather than speculative long-term projects
Monitor Cali Fund implementation and Nagoya Protocol compliance; companies using genetic resources face new benefit-sharing requirements

FAQ

Q: What's the realistic return profile for biodiversity investments? A: Pure conservation rarely generates market-rate returns, but integrated approaches can achieve 6-12% IRR. Carbon-biodiversity stacking projects (restoration that generates both carbon credits and biodiversity co-benefits) command 15-50% premiums over carbon-only projects. Sustainable forestry with biodiversity management delivers 8-15% returns. Blended structures with concessionary capital can enhance commercial tranche returns. Expect 7-15 year investment horizons—restoration takes time.

Q: How do we verify biodiversity outcomes for investment purposes? A: Robust verification requires baseline assessment (what species/habitats existed before intervention), ongoing monitoring (detecting changes over time), and attribution (demonstrating causation between intervention and outcome). eDNA provides cost-effective species monitoring. Satellite imagery tracks habitat extent. Combination approaches using ground-truthing deliver highest confidence. Budget 10-15% of project costs for MRV in well-designed programs.

Q: What regulatory changes should investors anticipate? A: TNFD-aligned disclosure will likely become mandatory for UK listed companies within 2-3 years, similar to TCFD's trajectory. EU's Nature Restoration Law creates restoration obligations that may generate demand for nature-based solutions. COP16's Cali Fund introduces new benefit-sharing requirements for companies using genetic resources. Biodiversity credit markets remain unregulated but voluntary standards are emerging. Watch for UK FCA consultation on nature-related disclosure requirements.

Q: How should we evaluate conservation genetics ventures? A: Assess four dimensions: (1) Technical feasibility—how close is the technology to deployment? (2) Regulatory pathway—what approvals are required? (3) Commercial model—who pays and how? (4) Ethical positioning—does the approach have social license? De-extinction ventures face challenges on all four dimensions. Near-term applications (eDNA monitoring, population genomics services, disease resistance engineering) score better and offer shorter paths to revenue.

Q: What distinguishes biodiversity credits from carbon credits? A: Carbon credits are standardized around a common unit (tonne CO2-equivalent) with established methodologies, verification standards, and trading infrastructure. Biodiversity lacks equivalent standardization—no universal "biodiversity unit" exists. This limits trading liquidity and price discovery. UK BNG defines specific metrics, but global voluntary markets use competing approaches. Biodiversity credits currently trade primarily through bilateral negotiation rather than exchange-based markets.

Sources

UNDP. "Global Momentum for Nature Finance: UNDP's Biodiversity Finance Initiative Helps Countries Unlock Over $2.7 Billion for Nature." 2025.
GEF. "GEF Council Approves $1.1 Billion and Sets Plans for Biodiversity Fund." 2024.
World Economic Forum. "We Need Early-Stage Investors for a Nature-Positive Future." June 2025.
Conservation International. "Innovations in Finance." 2024.
NEEF. "2025 Biodiversity Conservation Grant: A Grant Writer's Guide." January 2025.
Bruegel. "Finance for Nature: How to Improve Funding for the Protection of Biodiversity." 2024.