For nature tech to scale with integrity, trust is essential and MRV (Measurement, Reporting, and Verification) is how that trust is built. This blog post takes stock of MRV today: how it is applied across carbon, biodiversity, water, and ecosystem services; the role of digital tools; and the importance of community-led approaches.

The aim is to provide a clear, accessible guide for practitioners and innovators working to strengthen the credibility of nature-based solutions.

Introduction: Why MRV Matters in Nature Tech

Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) is the framework used to track, communicate, and validate outcomes in climate, conservation, and restoration initiatives. In the nature tech sector, MRV underpins credibility: it shows whether projects are delivering the ecological and social benefits they claim.

MRV rests on three components:

Measurement: collecting data on ecological variables such as carbon stocks, species abundance, water quality, or soil health.
Reporting: presenting this information in a structured and transparent way so that it can be compared, aggregated, and used by funders, policymakers, and communities.
Verification: ensuring results are accurate and reliable, typically through independent review, audits, or digital tools that provide transparency.

Historically, MRV has been most established in the carbon space, reflecting its central role in climate policy and carbon markets. Carbon MRV has benefited from decades of investment in methodologies, standards, and providers. But in nature tech, the scope is broader. New approaches are emerging for biodiversity, water, and wider ecosystem services, supported by digital innovations such as remote sensing, artificial intelligence, and blockchain. Frameworks like the Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) bridge ecological data and policy indicators, while initiatives like the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) are shaping demand for standardized reporting on nature.

As the sector grows, MRV is becoming the common foundation that links project-level outcomes with global targets, financial disclosure requirements, and public accountability.

Types of MRV in Nature Tech

MRV is not a single system but a set of approaches shaped by what outcomes a project is designed to track. In nature tech, four domains stand out: carbon, biodiversity, water, and ecosystem services.

Carbon MRV is the most established, underpinning international climate policy and carbon markets. A forest carbon project in Peru, for example, might combine field plots, biomass measurements, and satellite imagery to estimate how much carbon is stored as deforestation is avoided. Standards such as Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard prescribe methodologies, while independent audits confirm compliance. Despite decades of practice, challenges remain. Investigations into tropical forest offsets have shown how overstated claims can undermine trust, underscoring the need for more transparent and consistent methods. Nature tech innovators are responding with near-real-time monitoring platforms that integrate satellite feeds and ground data to improve accuracy and credibility.

Biodiversity MRV is less standardized but rapidly evolving. Unlike carbon, which can be expressed in a single metric (tons of CO₂ equivalent), biodiversity cannot be captured in a single metric. Instead, it is assessed through indicators ranging from species richness and abundance to habitat quality and genetic diversity. The EBVs provide one framework for structuring these indicators in a globally comparable way. On the ground, tools include camera traps, with detailed protocols developed by groups such as Natural Solutions, and environmental DNA (eDNA) methods that detect species presence even in degraded landscapes. Research has also shown how insect communities can serve as indicators of restoration success. Broader frameworks such as Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) are widely used, though critiques suggest they can overlook local priorities or depend on incomplete datasets. At the policy level, the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework is driving demand for consistent monitoring; a 2025 Nature Ecology & Evolution analysis found that even in the best-case scenario, 12% of GBF elements lack indicators, with overall coverage typically below 50%.

Water MRV is gaining traction, particularly for wetland and watershed projects. Wetland restoration in East Africa, for instance, may track groundwater recharge, infiltration rates, and nutrient levels. The Ramsar Convention has shown how Indigenous and local communities play a vital role in water monitoring, given their reliance on wetlands for livelihoods. Methods range from hydrological stations to satellite-based mapping of surface water. The main challenge is standardization: water systems are highly local and seasonal, making it difficult to create universal frameworks. Even so, water outcomes are increasingly reported as co-benefits in carbon and biodiversity MRV, especially as cities and agricultural systems confront water stress.

Ecosystem Services MRV captures benefits beyond carbon, biodiversity, and water such as pollination, soil fertility, and flood protection. Tools like InVEST and ARIES combine ecological monitoring with modeling, while participatory approaches help track cultural services that cannot be measured remotely. The Nature Finance spectrum highlights the difficulty of selecting tools and metrics that can demonstrate multiple outcomes at once. In practice, ecosystem services are often reported as co-benefits alongside carbon or biodiversity metrics, but their importance is rising as funders seek alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals.

Digital Innovations in MRV

Alongside these outcome focused domains, digital technologies are transforming how MRV is done. Satellite remote sensing, IoT sensors, AI-driven analytics, and blockchain are enabling monitoring that is more frequent, transparent, and scalable across carbon, biodiversity, water, and ecosystem services.

Blockchain in particular has attracted attention for its ability to create tamper-proof records that reduce the risk of manipulation or double counting. A review in Springer Nature highlighted blockchain’s potential to increase trust in biodiversity MRV, while the UN Biodiversity Lab offers open-access ecological data to support decision-making. Initiatives such as Regen Network and Open Forest Protocol are piloting blockchain-based verification for carbon and biodiversity.

These innovations are not a standalone category of MRV, but rather cross-cutting enablers. While interoperability and technical literacy remain barriers, hybrid approaches that combine digital tools with field-based monitoring are emerging as the most viable path forward.

The Three Pillars of MRV

While MRV systems vary across carbon, biodiversity, water, and ecosystem services, they all rest on the same foundation: Measurement, Reporting, and Verification.

Measurement is the starting point. In carbon projects, this might mean forest plots or soil sampling combined with satellite imagery. In biodiversity, it could involve species counts, DNA barcoding, or camera trap data. At the global level, the EBVs aim to turn fragmented ecological data into indicators that are comparable across countries. The challenge lies in deciding what to measure, balancing accuracy with cost, and ensuring data can be scaled reliably.

Reporting translates measurement into structured information that others can use. Transparency and comparability are key here. The TNFD is a prominent example: while designed for corporate reporting, its framework is increasingly being adapted to restoration and conservation projects. Similarly, the Global Biodiversity Framework depends on countries aligning their monitoring with global indicators. Reporting also raises questions of accessibility: who receives the data, in what format, and how it is used to drive action.

Verification provides assurance that reported outcomes are real. Traditionally, this has meant independent third-party audits under standards such as Verra or Gold Standard in the carbon space. Today, digital tools are expanding what verification can look like. Blockchain can create immutable records of MRV data, while platforms like the UN Biodiversity Lab make datasets publicly available, reducing opacity. The challenge is striking a balance: verification must be rigorous enough to build trust without being so costly or complex that smaller projects are excluded.

Together, these three pillars ensure MRV is more than a technical process.

Cross-Cutting Dimensions in MRV

MRV is shaped not only by technical methods but also by social and ethical considerations. Two dimensions stand out as especially important: the role of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and equity in access to data and decision-making.

Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IP and LC) are central to credible MRV. Many projects take place on lands they manage or depend on, making their involvement essential. The Ramsar Convention on wetlands shows how local communities contribute both knowledge and monitoring capacity. The principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) sets a baseline for ensuring MRV processes respect community rights. Increasingly, community-led monitoring is seen as best practice, combining scientific rigor with legitimacy and local insight.

Equity and Access are also recurring issues. Advanced MRV systems often rely on satellites, sensors, and modeling tools that are expensive and controlled by a small number of institutions. This raises questions about who owns the data, who has the skills to interpret it, and who ultimately benefits. Open-access initiatives such as the UN Biodiversity Lab provide a counterexample, showing how digital platforms can democratize ecological information and expand participation.

These dimensions highlight that MRV is not just about measurement. It is about designing systems that are legitimate, inclusive, and usable. Without trust and accessibility, even the most advanced MRV frameworks risk being sidelined or ignored.

Debates and Challenges in MRV

MRV provides the backbone of credibility for nature-based solutions, but it is also an evolving field with unresolved debates. These challenges shape how MRV develops and how it is trusted by investors, policymakers, and communities.

One persistent issue is the imbalance between carbon and biodiversity MRV. Carbon benefits can be expressed in a single unit (tons of CO₂ equivalent) which has supported standardization and market growth. Biodiversity outcomes, by contrast, cannot be reduced to a single metric. The EBVs are one attempt to bring structure, but uptake is uneven. The KBA framework is widely used for prioritizing sites, yet critics note it can miss local priorities or rely on incomplete datasets.

Another debate concerns gaps in global monitoring frameworks. The 2025 Nature Ecology and Evolution analysis of the Global Biodiversity Framework found that even in the best-case scenario, 12% of GBF elements lack indicators, with overall coverage typically below 50%. This reveals a broader tension: global frameworks are valuable for alignment, but they often leave practitioners struggling to connect project-level data with high-level targets.

Concerns about greenwashing also loom large. In carbon markets, investigative reporting has shown that some projects overstated benefits or relied on flawed baselines, eroding confidence. Similar risks exist in biodiversity and ecosystem services MRV, where loosely defined indicators or selective reporting can paint an overly optimistic picture. Without rigorous verification, MRV can be misused to legitimize weak claims rather than ensure accountability.

A further challenge is the fragmentation of standards and systems. Carbon markets already feature multiple registries and methodologies; biodiversity MRV is even more scattered, with EBVs, KBAs, and bespoke project metrics competing for attention. Digital platforms promise more integration, but many remain siloed. The result is a patchwork that makes comparison across projects and landscapes difficult.

Finally, MRV raises questions of capacity and equity. Advanced solutions such as AI or blockchain may strengthen transparency but risk excluding smaller projects that lack technical skills or resources. The Ramsar wetlands example shows how Indigenous and local communities can play a vital role in monitoring, yet their contributions risk being undervalued if MRV systems privilege remote sensing over local knowledge.

These debates are not signs of weakness but of a field in transition. They underscore the need for MRV systems that are not only scientifically robust but also inclusive, transparent, and practical.

Looking Ahead: The Future of MRV in Nature Tech

MRV is evolving quickly as new demands, technologies, and frameworks reshape what is possible. Several trends are likely to define its future in the nature tech sector.

First, there will be greater integration across domains. Projects are increasingly expected to report not only on carbon but also on biodiversity, water, and wider ecosystem services. Integrated MRV will require methods that can handle complexity while still producing results that are transparent and comparable.

Second, digital innovation will accelerate. Advances in remote sensing, AI, and distributed ledger technologies will expand monitoring capabilities and lower costs. Yet adoption will depend on how well these tools can be adapted to local contexts and combined with trusted field-based methods.

Third, global frameworks will set stronger expectations. Initiatives like the Global Biodiversity Framework and TNFD are creating pressure for standardized reporting on nature-related outcomes. The ability of projects to align with these expectations will shape both credibility and access to finance.

Finally, inclusivity will become a benchmark for credibility. The role of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in MRV is increasingly recognized, and systems that ignore their knowledge or exclude their participation risk losing legitimacy. Ensuring equitable access to data and capacity will be just as important as technical precision.

Together, these shifts point toward MRV systems that are more integrated, transparent, and inclusive, and more central than ever to scaling credible nature-based solutions.

Conclusion

MRV is what turns ambition into accountability in nature tech. It links ambitious claims with tangible outcomes, whether in carbon markets, biodiversity monitoring, or watershed restoration. While challenges remain, from fragmented standards to gaps in global frameworks, progress is accelerating.

For the nature tech community, the task ahead is clear: to build MRV systems that are scientifically rigorous, socially legitimate, and practical to implement. Projects that succeed will not only demonstrate their impact but also set the standard for a sector rapidly moving from experimentation to scale.

Resources and Further Reading

Measurement

Biodiversity Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV), Natural Solutions; Intro to MRV methodologies and benefits. Link
Nature Finance Spectrum and Biodiversity Measurement Tools, BioInt; Tools and frameworks for selecting biodiversity metrics. Link
Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs), GeoBon; Framework bridging raw data with policy indicators for global biodiversity monitoring. Link
Assessing Monitoring Gaps in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, Nature Ecology and Evolution; Critique highlighting challenges in biodiversity framework indicators. Link
Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) Framework Review, Critical assessment of KBA standards and gaps. Link
DNA Barcoding for Restoration Success, Wiley; Case studies on using DNA barcoding as ecological indicators (institutional login required). Link
Camera Traps for Biodiversity Monitoring, Natural Solutions; Protocols and applications in ecological restoration and conservation by an NTC member. Link

Reporting

Disclosure Recommendations and Metrics, Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD); Guidance for nature impact reporting, including restoration projects. Link

Verification

Blockchain Technology for Environmental Conservation, Springer Nature; Exploring digital ledger tech for immutable biodiversity data communication (institutional login required). Link
UN Biodiversity Lab, UN: Data portal for ecosystem restoration, degraded ecosystems, and KBAs. Link

Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IP and LC)

Indigenous Peoples and Wetlands Restoration, Ramsar; Community engagement and monitoring in wetland ecosystems. Link
Free, Prior & Informed Consent, The Nature Conservancy; Practices for consultation and engagement with Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Link

Comprehensive MRV Overviews and Trends

MRV: A Critical Tool for Tracking Emissions, ICOS Carbon Portal. Link
MRV 101: UNDERSTANDING MEASUREMENT, REPORTING, AND VERIFICATION, Transparency Partnership. Link
Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) Framework Document; UN-REDD Programme. Link
The State of Nature Tech, Nature Tech Collective and Nature4Climate Report. Link
Governing high-integrity markets for ecosystem services; Science Direct. Link
Strengthening MRV Standards; Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP). Link

MRV 101: The State of Measurement, Reporting, and Verification in Nature Tech