Biodiversity tech

Over the past decade, data has become the core infrastructure of many economic sectors, from finance and logistics to marketing and agriculture. Yet nature and biodiversity—despite being increasingly recognized as the foundation of long-term growth—remain among the last domains to be fully “datafied.” This is not due to a lack of awareness, but because nature is inherently difficult to measure: highly contextual, variable across space and time, and lacking shared standards for comparison.

The emergence of biodiversity tech marks a critical turning point. Startups in this field approach nature not through moral narratives or corporate social responsibility alone, but through a fundamentally economic question: can biological data become an operational dataset—purchased repeatedly, embedded in decision-making, and used for risk management?

This article analyzes two representative startups addressing this question from different angles: NatureMetrics and Biome Makers. Both leverage eDNA and environmental DNA sequencing, yet they build very different business models, data value chains, and competitive advantages. The case is designed to help learners understand the deeper logic of “data-as-a-service” in biodiversity tech, beyond surface-level technology.

The core strategic challenge

The central strategic issue both companies face can be summarized in one question: how can biological data—scientific, complex, and uncertain by nature—be transformed into a trusted data product with economic value and market acceptance?

This question is particularly relevant as biodiversity tech attracts early-stage investment but lacks a standardized playbook like fintech or traditional SaaS. Startups must prove not only their technology, but also institutional trust, standardization, and long-term customer integration.

Case 1: NatureMetrics – from eDNA to nature risk management

NatureMetrics emerged as infrastructure, energy, and conservation projects faced increasing pressure to demonstrate their biodiversity impacts. Traditional environmental impact assessments were static, manual, and difficult to compare over time. NatureMetrics reframed biodiversity as a variable to be measured repeatedly, much like revenue or emissions.

Its core value lies not in detecting species, but in converting eDNA into indicators usable for nature risk management. Standardized sampling kits collect water, soil, or sediment, which are sequenced and processed through bioinformatics pipelines, then integrated into the Nature Intelligence platform. Here, biological results become dashboards and time series.

Baseline and trend analysis are central. Single measurements may be scientific, but only repeated measurements create data strong enough to assess risk, recovery, or degradation. Once customers establish baselines and reporting processes, switching providers becomes costly—not just financially, but in terms of data continuity.

NatureMetrics combines per-sample project fees with platform subscriptions. This results in long sales cycles and high trust requirements, but strong long-term retention—typical of risk and compliance data markets, where reliability outweighs short-term growth.

Case 2: Biome Makers – from soil microbiomes to farming decisions

Biome Makers addresses a different problem. In intensive agriculture, soil is often treated as a physical medium, while its microbial ecosystem—critical to nutrients, disease, and resilience—remains invisible. Biome Makers views soil as a living system, where microbial DNA reveals biological functions.

Unlike NatureMetrics, Biome Makers focuses on daily operational decisions rather than reporting or macro risk. The BeCrop platform uses AI to infer biological functions related to nutrient cycling, disease risk, and input efficiency. Results are mapped at plot level and compared across seasons.

Its revenue model reflects this logic: BeCrop Test serves as the entry point, while BeCrop Platform generates subscription revenue tied to farm and project management. Partnerships with fertilizer and biological input companies enable faster scaling, as data becomes a tool to validate product performance—not only for farmers, but across the agricultural value chain.

Biome Makers’ competitive advantage lies in its accumulated microbiome database across crops, geographies, and seasons. This data improves AI models and creates a proprietary functional language of soil health that is difficult for new entrants to replicate quickly.

Two data logics, two scaling strategies

Although both use eDNA, the two companies build different data flywheels. NatureMetrics operates at the portfolio and risk level: more sites and longer time series strengthen risk models and enterprise value. Biome Makers operates at the operational level: more seasons and trials improve recommendations and agricultural ROI.

These differences drive distinct choices in target customers, pricing, and growth pace. NatureMetrics prioritizes standards, institutional partnerships, and trust; Biome Makers prioritizes volume, deep integration into agriculture, and scalable production.

A shared insight is that sequencing technology itself is not the hardest advantage to copy. What is truly defensible is domain-specific datasets, QA/QC processes, and accumulated market trust.

For Vietnam and ASEAN, the opportunity is not in replicating global platforms, but in going deep into specific ecosystems, measuring them consistently over time, and linking data to clear economic decisions. In doing so, data becomes not just a description of nature, but infrastructure for capital allocation and action.

NatureMetrics and Biome Makers show that biodiversity tech is not a race of technology, but a race to build trusted data infrastructure. Those who move early on data, standardization, and trust will accumulate powerful long-term advantages. This teaching case provides a foundation for analyzing data strategies in biodiversity tech and for reflecting on viable paths for startups and investors in emerging economies.

© Copyright KisStartup. Any reproduction, citation, or reuse must clearly acknowledge KisStartup as the source.

References (IEEE)
[1] NatureMetrics, “Nature Intelligence platform overview,” 2024.
[2] Renewable Matter, “NatureMetrics: scalable biodiversity metrics powered by eDNA,” 2024.
[3] Biome Makers, “BeCrop technology overview,” 2024.
[4] EU CORDIS, “AI-driven soil microbiome analysis project,” 2023.
[5] TNFD, Recommendations of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, 2023.
[6] Serena Capital, “VC funding trends in Nature Tech,” 2024.

When looking at the global map of biodiversity tech startups, it is easy to notice that most market leaders today come from Europe, North America, and Australia. This often leads to a quick conclusion: Vietnam and ASEAN can only be technology users, not technology creators. However, if we look deeper into the economic logic of nature tech, this conclusion is incomplete.

Biodiversity tech is not a game for the countries with the most capital. It is a game for places with real ecological challenges, weak baseline data, and rapidly growing demand for measurement. From this perspective, Vietnam and ASEAN are not outside the wave—the real question is which entry point they choose.

From “global technology” to “local problems that can scale”

A common trait among successful biodiversity tech startups is that they did not begin with global ambitions. They started with a very specific, narrowly defined problem that could be repeated and scaled. NatureMetrics did not begin by “measuring global biodiversity”; it started by addressing the need to assess ecological impacts for specific infrastructure and conservation projects, then gradually standardized processes, accumulated data, and expanded to portfolio-level applications [1], [2].

This logic fits ASEAN particularly well. The region has high biodiversity density and large agricultural, fisheries, and forestry systems—but lacks standardized ecological data. This gap is not a weakness; it is a market entry point.

From KisStartup’s perspective, the strategic question is not “what technology to build,” but rather: which problem are people willing to pay to measure better?

Three viable market entry paths for biodiversity tech in Vietnam/ASEAN

First, becoming a local provider of field data and MRV (Measurement–Reporting–Verification). Many conservation, ecosystem restoration, green infrastructure, and regenerative agriculture projects in ASEAN still rely on traditional surveys that are costly and difficult to compare over time. Meanwhile, donors, development banks, and international corporations increasingly demand quantitative evidence of ecological impact [3], [4].

A startup does not need to build a global platform from day one. Doing one ecosystem extremely well—such as mangroves, river basins, or coastal aquaculture zones—with standardized measurement processes, time-series data, and reporting capabilities already turns data into a strategic asset. With sufficient trust, local startups can become data partners to larger platforms rather than direct competitors.

Second, linking biodiversity tech with regenerative agriculture and export value chains. This is where ASEAN—and Vietnam in particular—has clear advantages. Industries such as coffee, tea, cocoa, rice, and seafood face growing international pressure on traceability, environmental impact, and ecosystem restoration [5], [6].

The case of Biome Makers shows how soil biological data can become a direct economic decision-making tool for agriculture [7]. In Vietnam, the goal does not need to be copying BeCrop globally, but starting with concrete questions: where is soil biological function declining in the Central Highlands’ coffee farms, how fast does it recover, and which practices make a difference? Once standardized and linked to production outcomes, such data supports not only farming decisions but also market proof for sustainable exports.

Third, nature intelligence for sectors with high nature-related risks—especially water, fisheries, and ecotourism. ASEAN is highly exposed to climate change, water stress, and salinity intrusion. Investment decisions in water infrastructure, aquaculture, and nature-based tourism increasingly require near real-time ecological data [8].

Monitoring models using sensors, eDNA, bioacoustics, or satellite imagery—already deployed in Europe—can be localized for river basins, lakes, and lagoons in Vietnam. The local startup advantage lies not in core technology, but in field deployment capability, ecosystem understanding, and maintaining long-term data streams.

Biodiversity credits: a major opportunity—but not for those lacking data discipline

Biodiversity credits are often mentioned as a promising market. In theory, they are highly attractive. In practice, global experience shows that the biggest risk is not lack of capital, but lack of credible data [9], [10].

For ASEAN startups, the opportunity is not issuing credits at all costs, but becoming measurement and verification infrastructure for restoration projects. As international biodiversity credit standards are still forming, organizations with strong MRV capabilities, time-series data, and independent audit readiness will hold a powerful position.

Biodiversity tech is a game of accumulated data, not tech demos

Looking at NatureMetrics and Biome Makers, one common pattern stands out: DNA sequencing or AI is not the hardest part to replicate. What is hardest to replicate is the domain-specific dataset accumulated over time, tightly linked to ecological context and economic decisions.

For Vietnam and ASEAN, this carries an important implication. Instead of rushing to “go global,” a more sustainable strategy is to go deep into one ecosystem, measure it well, measure it long enough, and connect data to real-world actions. Once data is trusted and economically useful, geographic and business model expansion will follow.

You don’t need to be global immediately—but you must deliver valuable local measurement

Biodiversity tech is not about whether ASEAN has enough technology. It is about whether we are willing to treat nature as a system that must be managed seriously. When nature can be measured, reported, and used to make better decisions, it stops being a vague “common asset” and becomes a real part of the economy.

Part 3 will dive deeper into two representative models—NatureMetrics and Biome Makers—to analyze how they build data flywheels, create hard-to-copy competitive advantages, and extract concrete lessons for startups and investors in the region.

© Copyright belongs to KisStartup. Any form of copying, quoting, or reuse must clearly credit KisStartup.

References
[1] NatureMetrics, “NatureMetrics raises $25m Series B to scale biodiversity monitoring,” Jan. 2025.
[2] Renewable Matter, “NatureMetrics: scalable biodiversity metrics powered by eDNA,” 2024.
[3] J. B. S. Cambridge, “Biodiversity startups: emerging forces in conservation,” 2024.
[4] Nature4Climate, “Nature Tech Report 2024,” 2024.
[5] OECD, Data Analytics in SMEs, OECD Publishing, 2019.
[6] VietnamPlus, “Scaling up digitalisation for SMEs requires solid data foundation,” 2024.
[7] Biome Makers, “BeCrop technology overview,” 2024.
[8] Darwin Data, “How AI is revolutionising biodiversity monitoring,” 2024.
[9] Carbon Pulse, “Biodiversity credit markets: integrity challenges ahead,” 2024.
[10] Impact Loop, “Why biodiversity credits need robust MRV systems,” 2024.