Biodiversity refers to the variety of life on Earth across genes, species, and ecosystems. It is a self-reinforcing system that depends on healthy habitats and balanced relationships between species, from microscopic bacteria and fungi to trees and mammals. Humans are part of biodiversity and depend on it for both economic and physical well-being, yet human activity has now put nearly a million species at risk of extinction. At the same time, the rapid expansion of digital technologies has created unprecedented capacities to observe, record, and classify the world around us. Cheap sensors, smartphones, satellites, traffic cameras, and other connected devices now generate enormous amounts of environmental data, while the internet of things and machine learning make it possible to store, process, and classify that data at scale.
These technological developments are often associated with environmental harm, but they also create real opportunities for biodiversity protection. Satellites, camera traps, drones, genome sequencing, robotics, blockchain applications, and machine learning are increasingly used to monitor ecosystems, detect change, and guide interventions. A single wildlife camera trap network, for example, can generate thousands of images per year, while connected systems can upload these images instantly and machine learning models can classify species, behaviour, and population dynamics in hours rather than years. Research institutes are using LiDAR, drones, satellite imagery, and environmental DNA to observe ecosystems with a level of speed and granularity that was previously unattainable. Businesses, too, are turning to these tools to monitor biodiversity impacts, mitigate ecological risk, and meet reporting requirements, with many CEOs now identifying biodiversity loss as a major business challenge.
Technology is therefore changing how biodiversity is made visible. But visibility is not the same as protection. New technologies can strengthen biodiversity governance, but only if they are used deliberately, improve decision-making in practice, and complement or strengthen, rather than displace, proven conservation measures. Their value lies not in novelty itself, but in whether they help societies protect and restore ecosystems more effectively.
How technology transforms monitoring, but does not guarantee protection
The greatest contribution of new technologies is that they expand the scale, speed, and depth of biodiversity monitoring. Public participation already plays an important role here. Birdwatchers sharing photographs through apps and online platforms contribute to research, while households using camera-enabled bird feeders generate data that can be logged and classified automatically. These forms of distributed monitoring show how digital tools can broaden participation in biodiversity observation and increase the volume and diversity of data available to researchers.
The effects are even more visible in institutional research and business practice. Sensors are increasingly used by companies to monitor biodiversity impacts across supply chains and operations, and an estimated 40–50% of large businesses plan to invest in technology-supported biodiversity efforts. Bonduelle, for instance, uses sensors to measure water use across plots of land in order to optimise irrigation and support pollinator protection. Ørsted has experimented with 3D-printed reefs placed between turbines at the Anholt Offshore Wind Farm in the Kattegat to help support cod populations in an area affected by ecological decline. In such cases, technology does not merely measure biodiversity loss; it is also used to actively reduce impact and redesign operations in more ecologically responsive ways.
Other technologies extend monitoring into places and processes that were previously difficult to observe. Drones support the monitoring of animal movements in African national parks, LiDAR makes it possible to map forests and detect structural changes in ecosystems, and satellites help track habitat change over large spatial scales. Among the most powerful of these emerging tools is environmental DNA, or eDNA, which identifies species through genetic material shed into water, soil, or air rather than through direct observation. eDNA can detect biodiversity with remarkable sensitivity and coverage and can be combined with satellite imagery, audio tracking, and machine learning to produce dense and integrated monitoring systems.
A leading example is the work of Naturalis Biodiversity Center in the Netherlands, which processes around 100,000 eDNA samples annually. By matching these samples against DNA reference databases, Naturalis can identify hidden biodiversity hotspots, detect local biodiversity loss, and support targeted interventions. The centre is also combining eDNA with satellite imagery, AI, and acoustic monitoring to build what it calls “close-knit monitoring of biodiversity” across fungi, flora, and fauna. This illustrates the broader promise of new technologies: they can bring previously invisible patterns into view and help connect fragmented ecological evidence into a more coherent picture.
These tools also have clear practical value for business. For companies that invest in or depend on farmland, eDNA can provide insight into soil health and help guide ecosystem restoration. For energy and marine infrastructure companies, it can help reduce ecological damage while also lowering operational and compliance risks. Because eDNA is highly scalable and adaptable, it may also simplify biodiversity reporting and support not only compliance, but more meaningful ecological decision-making.
In this sense, new technologies are reshaping biodiversity monitoring in important ways. They enable deeper system understanding, more frequent observation, and more targeted analysis. But the fact that they improve monitoring does not mean that they automatically improve biodiversity outcomes. That depends on how they are used, what they replace, and whether their insights are translated into action.
Technology should be used deliberately, not for its own sake
The benefits of biodiversity technologies are real, but so are their costs. Building, deploying, maintaining, and disposing of technologies all carry ecological burdens. Data storage, for example, requires around 10 kg of CO2 per terabyte annually, roughly the amount a healthy tree can recycle in a year. Cameras, sensors, drones, batteries, and other devices depend on lithium, plastics, and precious metals that must be mined, processed, shipped, assembled, and eventually discarded. The technologies used to aid biodiversity therefore impose material and environmental costs on the same natural systems they aim to protect.
Beyond material costs, these technologies can also create practical and ecological risks. Drones used for wildlife monitoring can disturb the very animals they are tracking, and automated sound-recognition systems can misclassify bird populations, thereby distorting local biodiversity assessments. More broadly, there is a risk that technology becomes a form of “tech-washing”: a way of signalling environmental engagement without addressing the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss. Monitoring may create the appearance of action while more difficult, but more effective, interventions are postponed.
This is the central risk: better monitoring does not automatically produce better biodiversity outcomes. If technological insights are not translated into policy, regulation, restoration, or changed land use, then technology may simply add another layer of extraction, emissions, and distraction. The problem becomes even more serious when technology begins to substitute rather than support established measures that are already known to work.
Good policy and established approaches remain central
Many effective biodiversity interventions do not depend on advanced technologies at all. They depend on habitat, incentives, and space. Planting hedgerows alongside farms, for example, can provide shelter, food, and safe movement corridors for a wide range of species. In a single 90-metre stretch of hedgerow, ecologist Rob Wolton counted more than 2,000 species. Tree planting can help recycle CO2 while supporting ecological recovery, and the restoration of marshlands can both increase biodiversity and function as a carbon sink. These measures are relatively inexpensive, materially light, and capable of delivering durable ecological benefits.
At a larger scale, policy reform can be even more consequential. Changing farm subsidies away from systems that reward maximum output and toward systems that reward ecological stewardship has already shown tangible results. In the UK, post-Brexit agricultural reforms reduced subsidies for livestock and grain production while introducing grants for biodiversity-friendly practices such as leaving crop stubble over winter and sowing wildflowers. Farmers can receive £58 per hectare for leaving crop residues in place, creating nesting habitat for species such as skylarks and yellowhammers, while grants for sowing wildflowers reach £739 per hectare. These reforms have supported tree planting, wetland restoration, and insect recovery while reducing food production only marginally, because farm incomes have been maintained through redesigned incentives.
This is where new technologies can make their strongest contribution: not as substitutes for such measures, but as tools that improve them. Monitoring systems can help identify how biodiversity systems work, where restoration is most needed, where ecological thresholds are being crossed, and where incentives should be adjusted. eDNA and related tools may be especially valuable here because they can generate detailed ecological insights that support more adaptive and targeted policymaking. For example, if one farm already supports strong biodiversity, it may be possible to permit more intensive production there, while another farm may require stronger incentives for restoration or reduced fertiliser use. In this way, technology can support a more reflexive and targeted form of policymaking.
The same applies to business. Technologies can help firms identify ecological risk, design less harmful operations, and direct investment toward more effective mitigation. But these applications only create value if they lead to better choices on the ground. Technology should therefore be used with a clear objective and a pathway to real impact. Otherwise, it risks imposing new ecological costs without meaningfully improving biodiversity outcomes.
Looking forward: technology should strengthen, not substitute, conservation
New technologies have transformed biodiversity monitoring by making ecological change more visible, measurable, and actionable. They allow researchers, policymakers, and businesses to detect patterns that would otherwise remain hidden, to monitor change at greater scale, and to evaluate interventions over time. This is a major advance, but it is not a solution in itself.
Biodiversity ultimately depends on one thing above all: space, protection, and ecological continuity. Species and ecosystems need habitats that are protected, restored, and connected. The most effective responses to biodiversity loss therefore remain fundamentally material and political: protecting nature, reforming incentives, restoring habitats, and limiting harmful land and resource use. Technology can help guide these efforts and assess whether they work. It can sharpen and strengthen action. But it cannot replace it.
Policy and business leaders should therefore treat biodiversity technologies as what they are: tools for seeing more clearly where and how change is needed, not solutions in themselves. Monitoring elephants with drones, analysing soundscapes with algorithms, or sequencing eDNA at scale can only matter if the insights they generate shape policy and practice. Used carelessly, such technologies may intensify pressure on the very systems they aim to help. Used deliberately, they can make conservation smarter, more targeted, and more adaptive.
The question is no longer whether useful technologies for biodiversity exist. It is whether we can use them selectively, critically, and in ways that reinforce the proven foundations of biodiversity protection. Technology can help make nature visible. But only good policy, restoration, and restraint can give it room to flourish.
As changemakers, we believe that what happens in the outside world is the most powerful force shaping organizational strategy – and also the most underestimated. To do well, organizations need to understand what’s happening in the outside world. To do significantly better, they need to be aware of what it means for their future, their relations, their strategy, and their impact. We serve as a bridge between society and tailored strategy by analysing societal dynamics, global trends, and shifting public expectations with a multidisciplinary team of international analysts, excellent tooling, sophisticated AI, and a systems approach. This article is part of Q1 2026 research focus, which centers on biodiversity.
For more information, please contact theoutsideworld@ftrprf.com.