As Europe explores new ways to finance biodiversity conservation and restoration, nature credits are gaining attention. But how can we reliably measure whether biodiversity is actually improving? DNA-based monitoring could become an important part of the answer.
A new approach to financing biodiversity
In July 2025, the European Commission published its Roadmap towards Nature Credits, outlining a possible framework for attracting private investment into biodiversity conservation and ecosystem restoration. The initiative is gathering momentum, with an expert group working throughout 2026 to explore methodologies, certification and governance.
The concept is straightforward: landowners, conservation organisations and other stakeholders implementing activities that deliver measurable biodiversity benefits could be rewarded through nature credits, also known as biodiversity credits. These credits could then be purchased by companies and other organisations wishing to finance positive outcomes for nature.
Unlike carbon credits, which generally use a common measurement unit—tonnes of CO₂ equivalent—biodiversity credits face a fundamental challenge: biodiversity is multidimensional, highly variable and dependent on local ecological conditions. Improvements in a forest, wetland or marine ecosystem cannot be directly compared using a single universal metric.
For nature credits to become a credible financing mechanism, they must therefore be supported by robust scientific evidence. This means not only demonstrating changes in biodiversity, but also establishing whether these changes result from the conservation or restoration measures being implemented.
The challenge: Measuring genuine biodiversity gains
Reliable measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) is central to the credibility of nature-credit systems. A biodiversity monitoring programme needs to answer several questions:
- What was the biodiversity condition before an intervention?
- How has biodiversity changed over time?
- Can the observed changes be attributed to the intervention rather than natural variability or other factors?
- Are the benefits additional to what would have happened without the project?
- Can the results be independently assessed and reproduced?
Answering these questions requires scientifically sound indicators, appropriate sampling designs, standardised methods and transparent data analysis. Traditional ecological surveys remain essential, but monitoring biodiversity across large areas and over extended periods can be expensive and labour-intensive. Molecular technologies offer new possibilities for collecting biodiversity information efficiently and consistently.
How can DNA technologies contribute?
Environmental DNA (eDNA) and DNA metabarcoding allow scientists to detect organisms from genetic material collected in environmental samples, such as water, soil or sediment. By analysing DNA from multiple organisms simultaneously, metabarcoding can provide information about species occurrence, biodiversity composition and changes in ecological communities. These approaches are particularly valuable for detecting species that are difficult to observe directly and for monitoring diverse biological communities.
For example, repeated eDNA surveys could help assess changes in fish and aquatic invertebrate communities following wetland or river restoration. Standardised sampling before and after restoration, supported by suitable reference or control sites, could provide evidence of biodiversity responses to management interventions.
Wildlife genotyping and population genetics offer complementary information. Non-invasive genetic monitoring can identify individual animals, support estimates of population size, and provide insights into population connectivity and genetic diversity. Such information may be particularly relevant for projects targeting threatened species, restoring ecological connectivity or improving habitat conditions for wildlife.
Recent scientific literature has recognised the potential of molecular techniques for biodiversity credit monitoring. Ford et al. (2024), in the Journal of Applied Ecology, identify DNA metabarcoding among the technologies that could make biodiversity monitoring more scalable and provide auditable evidence of biodiversity observations.
From DNA data to reliable biodiversity indicators
DNA technologies are powerful, but they do not provide a complete picture of ecosystem condition on their own. For example, detecting a species through eDNA does not necessarily indicate its abundance, and metabarcoding sequence counts generally cannot be interpreted directly as numbers of organisms. Detection is influenced by sampling conditions, laboratory methods, the availability of reference sequences and other factors. Repeated surveys, rigorous quality control, appropriate statistical analyses and integration with conventional ecological methods are therefore essential.
In the context of nature credits, the key challenge is not simply generating more biodiversity data. It is translating those data into meaningful, reproducible indicators of ecological change, with clearly documented uncertainties. Depending on the ecosystem and conservation objectives, DNA-based measurements may complement habitat assessments, field observations, remote sensing and other ecological monitoring approaches.
How can DivjaLabs contribute
At DivjaLabs, we combine molecular genetics, genomics, bioinformatics and ecological modelling to address practical biodiversity conservation and wildlife management challenges. Our work spans the entire process, from study design and sampling protocols to laboratory analyses, statistical modelling and scientific interpretation.
In the SeaInsights project, for example, we have developed and implemented eDNA-based approaches for monitoring marine biodiversity in the Northern Adriatic. Our extensive experience in non-invasive wildlife genetics also includes individual identification, population estimation and monitoring of genetic diversity and population connectivity. These capabilities are directly relevant to the scientific challenges facing emerging nature-credit systems.
We see particular opportunities for DNA-based methods to contribute to:
- Establishing biodiversity baselines before restoration or conservation interventions.
- Monitoring biodiversity responses using standardised, repeatable sampling.
- Developing indicators of species occurrence, community composition, population abundance and genetic diversity.
- Integrating molecular data with ecological modelling to assess biodiversity trends and quantify uncertainty.
- Providing transparent and traceable scientific evidence to support biodiversity assessments and independent verification.
Building confidence in nature-positive outcomes
Nature credits are still an emerging concept. Their future success will depend on credible standards, transparent governance, additionality and demonstrable ecological benefits. They should support genuinely positive outcomes for nature, rather than provide a justification for biodiversity loss elsewhere. Nevertheless, the growing interest in nature credits highlights a broader need: reliable and cost-effective methods for measuring biodiversity change.
DNA-based technologies can make a substantial contribution to meeting this need, particularly when combined with sound ecological study design and rigorous data interpretation.
At DivjaLabs, we are interested in collaborating with conservation and restoration projects, environmental consultancies, researchers and organisations developing biodiversity monitoring and assessment frameworks. Are you planning a biodiversity restoration or monitoring project? Contact us at info@divjalabs.com to explore how molecular methods could support your objectives.