Understanding Habitat Banking

Habitat banking (also called mitigation banking or conservation banking) is a market-based approach to conservation. A landowner or organization restores, creates, enhances, or permanently protects an area of habitat (a “bank”) and earns credits for the ecological value created. Those credits can then be sold to others who must compensate for unavoidable environmental impacts elsewhere. It lets conservation be funded up front and ensures habitat is protected before impacts occur.

A habitat bank is an area of land (wetland, stream, forest, grassland, peatland, or species habitat) that has been restored or protected specifically to generate conservation credits. Once approved by the relevant regulator, the bank’s ecological gains are quantified as credits that can be sold. In the US these include wetland and stream mitigation banks (under the Clean Water Act) and species conservation banks (under the Endangered Species Act).

A credit is a standardized unit representing a measured amount of ecological value: for example a restored hectare of wetland, a length of restored stream, or protected habitat for a particular species. A bank is certified for a set number of credits based on ecological assessment. When a project causes an impact (a “debit”), the proponent buys an equivalent number of credits to balance it.

A service area is the geographic region within which a bank’s credits can be used. Because conservation value is local, credits generally can only offset impacts occurring within the same watershed or ecoregion. A bank with several habitat types may have a different service area for each.

Habitat banking is the last step in a sequence regulators expect proponents to follow: first avoid impacts, then minimize those that can’t be avoided, and only then offset (compensate for) the residual, unavoidable impacts. Buying credits addresses that final step. It is not a licence to skip avoidance and minimization.

A bank operator restores or protects habitat and is certified to hold a number of credits. A developer, public agency, or other proponent with an unavoidable impact buys the number of credits their permit requires. Ownership transfers, the bank’s ledger is debited, and the proponent uses the credits to satisfy their regulatory obligation.

Conservation organizations, First Nations and Indigenous communities, private landowners, restoration companies, and governments. Internationally, NGOs like the RSPB run banks in the UK, specialized firms in Australia and the US design and manage banks at scale, and Indigenous-led banks are emerging in several countries. In Canada, banks have so far been mostly proponent-led (built by a developer for their own future projects); enabling independent third-party banks is an active area of policy discussion (see the Canada section below).

Anyone who must compensate for unavoidable impacts to habitat, typically developers, infrastructure and resource projects, and public agencies. Increasingly, companies also purchase credits voluntarily to meet biodiversity or ESG commitments.

Credits are based on ecological assessments and certified by the relevant regulatory authority before they can be sold. Banks are typically held to performance milestones and long-term monitoring to confirm the habitat is functioning as intended.

Bank lands are usually protected permanently, through conservation easements or similar legal mechanisms, and funded for long-term management, so the habitat stays protected far beyond the life of any single project that buys its credits.

Yes, in many jurisdictions, and for decades. The closest structural parallels to Canada are the United Kingdom and Australia (both Commonwealth, common-law countries with federal/sub-national divisions of environmental authority). Germany has run a habitat offsetting regime since 1976, predating most others. The United States has the deepest market and longest operational history (since the 1980s). Newer programs in Finland and Colombia show how the model continues to evolve.

The US has the most mature market. Wetland and stream mitigation banking operates under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (US Army Corps of Engineers / EPA) since the 1980s, and species conservation bankingunder the Endangered Species Act (US Fish & Wildlife Service). Thousands of banks operate nationwide, tracked publicly through the US Army Corps of Engineers’ RIBITS registry, essentially the national equivalent of what the Canadian Offset Registry aims to be here. US firms like Resource Environmental Solutions (RES), Wildlands, and Naturion supply credits at scale. Canada’s fish habitat banking is technically rooted in the same family of ideas, so the US is a useful operational reference, though Canada’s policy direction increasingly draws on the broader international experience above.

All of these programs have working markets and decades of learning, but each also has live critiques. These are mostly around additionality (would the conservation have happened anyway?), monitoring capacity, and whether habitat creation actually delivers the ecological function that was lost. The UK’s own National Audit Office reviewed BNG in 2024 and found broad support for the approach, while flagging that some local authorities may lack the ecological expertise to enforce it properly. Good design (clear measurement, strong monitoring, in-perpetuity protection, and adherence to the mitigation hierarchy) is what distinguishes a credible offset from a token one. Canada is in a fortunate position to learn from what has worked and what hasn’t before building its own framework at scale.

Yes, but it’s early and limited. Fish habitat banks have existed since the mid-1990s, run by provincial governments, Crown corporations, and industry, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) recognizes habitat banking under the Fisheries Act. However, it remains a minor part of Canada’s fish-habitat compensation framework; most offsetting is still done project-by-project. Beyond fish habitat, Environment and Climate Change Canada released a draft Biodiversity Offsetting Policy in 2020 (setting “no net loss” as the goal across instruments like the Species at Risk Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, and the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation), and Canada’s 2030 Nature Strategy (2024) commits to halting and reversing biodiversity loss, with no net loss as a minimum, moving toward net gain. The market infrastructure is still being built, which is part of why a shared registry is useful.

In proponent-led banking, a developer builds a habitat bank in advance to offset their own future projects. In third-party banking (the model behind the UK BNG market, Australia’s biodiversity credit systems, and the larger US firms), an independent party (a private company, conservation group, or Indigenous organization) restores habitat, earns credits, and sells them to whoever needs to offset an impact. Most Canadian habitat banking to date is proponent-led; broad third-party banking is not yet generally enabled, though there are early examples (the North Fraser Harbour bank, established 1993, is considered Canada’s first third-party fish habitat bank) and organizations such as the Canadian Wildlife Federation are actively calling for it. Enabling third-party banking is widely seen as the key to unlocking a true credit market in Canada, and legislation has now been introduced to do exactly that. See the next question for details.

Possibly, and soon. On September 21, 2026, the federal government introduced Bill C-39, the Building Canada Strong Act, a broader package of reforms to federal project approvals. Within it, a set of Fisheries Act amendments would modify the fish habitat bank regime to allow third parties to hold and sell habitat credits, not just proponents offsetting their own projects. That is the specific legal restriction the Canadian Wildlife Federation and others have been asking Ottawa to remove for years.

Alongside enabling third-party credits, the bill would let a proponent pay a fee in lieu of an offset for minor-impact projects, with the money credited to the federal Environmental Damages Fund, and would shift some regulation-making power for fish habitat banking from the Governor in Council to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, which could let DFO stand up the operating rules for third-party banks faster than a typical regulatory process. The bill also touches the Impact Assessment Act, the Species at Risk Act, and several other statutes as part of a push toward one-year federal project decisions. None of this is law yet.Bill C-39 was introduced on September 21, 2026 and passed second reading in the House of Commons on October 8, 2026. As of October 9, 2026 it is being studied by the House's Legislative Committee on Bill C-39, where amendments can be made. It still needs to pass third reading in the House, go through the Senate and receive Royal Assent, with the detailed rules for third-party banking likely following in separate DFO regulations after that. The current status is always on LEGISinfo. We'll update this page as it moves.

There’s no single offsetting law. Instead several federal statutes each address it in their own way, including the Fisheries Act (fish and fish habitat, administered by DFO), the Species at Risk Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, the Canada Wildlife Act, the Impact Assessment Act, and the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation, alongside provincial and territorial rules. A 2025 legal review found that most of these allow for “no net loss,” but only one currently provides for “net gain,” so further reform is expected as Canada works toward its 2030 biodiversity commitments.

The Canadian Offset Registry (COR) is a public, map-based registry of habitat offset and restoration projects in Canada. It shows offsets compiled from public data and offsets submitted by their providers, with the source of each one labelled. Proponents and offset providers can connect directly through the listings, and the COR team can also make introductions privately, with both parties' consent.

Use List an Offset to submit yours (it’s reviewed before appearing publicly), or Browse Offsets to explore listings on the map and filter by province, habitat type, offset type, regulatory program, and source. If you need to offset an impact, tell us about it and we'll look for offsets that could fit. Listings compiled from public data have no contact details; use “Contact COR about this project” on the listing instead.

1. Find each other on the registry. Offset providers list offsets on the public map. Proponents browse them and get in touch, directly or through COR.2. Or tell COR privately. Proponents can tell COR about an offset need, and offset providers can tell us privately what they could deliver. Nothing is published.3. Introductions, with consent. When we see a possible fit, the COR team can make an introduction, only with both parties’ consent. From there the parties work directly. Regulators decide whether any offset satisfies a requirement.COR does not hold funds or process transactions. See How it works.

Browsing the registry and listing an offset are currently free.

COR is operated by AJM Environmental Inc., an environmental consulting firm. Parties are never required to use AJM’s services. Information shared with COR is used only as described in our privacy policy. Introductions are made on the merits of the need and the project, whoever the parties are.

No. COR helps parties find one another and, when it helps, makes introductions. Whether a particular offset or credit satisfies a legal requirement is determined by the relevant regulator (for example DFO, provincial agencies, or municipalities). Always confirm acceptability with the appropriate authority.