Introduction

Biodiversity loss is accelerating globally, threatening ecological stability and posing risks to dependent societies. In agriculture, regenerative practices have been identified as a potential mitigation approach, though financing the transition remains a critical barrier. It has been estimated that global annual transition needs are USD 200–450 billion over at least the next decade, while current investments amount to only about one-tenth of this (p.5).

The private sector has historically been overlooked in this context. FinBio and Svensk Kolinlagring partnered in 2024 on a field-scale pilot measuring environmental-DNA (eDNA) sampling of insects and soil biota on farms enrolled in carbon-sequestration programmes.

Method

Three workshops were conducted — one in-person and two online — using the Three Horizons of Growth framework to assess market readiness (Horizon 1: 0–2 years; Horizon 2: 3–5 years; Horizon 3: 5–10 years) and the NABC (Needs, Approach, Benefits, Competition) framework to analyse prioritised business cases.

Workshop results

Workshop 1 highlighted key themes including baseline data needs, economic linkages, data acquisition routes, stakeholder collaboration, and regulatory context. A key insight was that the financing gap stems not from a lack of capital, but from limited confidence among financiers that regenerative agriculture meets risk and return standards (p.8). Banks and insurers rely heavily on yield-based metrics due to fiduciary constraints and sparse local evidence on regenerative outcomes.

Eight distinct needs were identified in Workshop 2 and ranked by market potential and readiness. Three were selected for NABC analysis in Workshop 3:

The first is a baseline databank for banks to support better risk assessment for loans based on carbon sequestration, biodiversity, land value, and economic performance (Horizon 1). The second is a baseline databank for insurance companies for better risk assessment of premiums on the same criteria (Horizon 2). The third is a standardised MRV system for biodiversity, enabling companies to document and communicate positive biodiversity contributions along the supply chain, reduce greenwashing risk, and meet consumer and regulatory requirements (Horizon 1).

Outlook

Six types of biodiversity-linked financial products were identified: biodiversity-linked loans, biodiversity-linked insurance, biodiversity-linked or nature bonds, integrated carbon–biodiversity credits, biodiversity-linked investment funds, and risk mitigation products for financial institutions.

In the short term, preferential loan rates and insurance premium discounts were seen as the most effective levers, while certification schemes and credits may support longer-term ESG-driven markets if credibility, transparency, and cost-effectiveness are ensured.

Recommended next steps include measurement standardisation, development of open-source digital infrastructure, scaling the field pilot network across varied ecological zones, and policy alignment with the EU Soil Monitoring Law.

Conclusions

Biodiversity data can support financial and food sectors in risk assessment, compliance, strategic investments, and reporting. Agricultural landscapes are highly diverse, and future use of biodiversity data must allow for local adaptation and avoid one-size-fits-all frameworks.

Near-term opportunities include using biodiversity and soil-health indicators to adjust credit and insurance conditions. Standardisation of MRV is needed in the medium term for credibility and comparability. Long-term potential includes the emergence of markets for biodiversity-linked credits and payments for ecosystem services. Strong demand from financial actors for indicators of soil health, biodiversity, land value, and economic performance is predicted, though challenges include balancing cost-effectiveness with ecological accuracy, ensuring farmer buy-in, regional relevance, and simplicity.