From Preservation to Restoration: How Emerging Biotechnologies Can Strengthen Conservation

Humanity faces an unprecedented biodiversity crisis: our sixth mass extinction. Only this time, it is driven not by natural forces but by human actions such as habitat destruction, pollution, invasive species, overexploitation, and climate change. Extinction rates now exceed natural extinction levels by 1,000 to 10,000 times and species populations across the planet are collapsing at alarming rates. The World Wildlife Fund reports an average global decline of 69% in monitored populations of mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and fish between 1970 and 2022, and an even steeper 73% decline in Canada between 1970 and 2020. Freshwater species and ecosystems have been particularly hard-hit, falling by 85% since 1970. This accelerating loss threatens the ecological systems essential to human survival: climate stability, food production, and freshwater security. Yet, Canadian environmental laws remain unused and reactive rather than pre-emptive or restorative, failing to protect biodiversity and prevent further decline. Society has been negligent, and current conservation efforts are insufficient. We must innovate beyond traditional conservation methods. Biotechnology, though controversial, offers a tool with the potential to drive large-scale biodiversity restoration and ecosystem resilience.  

This is not an argument for technological solutionism. Biotechnology is not a one-size-fix-all, nor can it replace core conservation measures such as creating protected areas, pollution prevention and protecting endangered species. What it can do is support and accelerate restoration when used safely, transparently, and with robust oversight. In this sense, biotechnology should complement, not substitute, effective legislation and traditional conservation tools. 

The current legislative framework 

Canada has no single biodiversity statute. Instead, Canada regulates biodiversity through international agreements, national strategies, and a combination of federal and provincial legislation which regulate the environment based on their respective constitutional powers.  

Federal law - SARA, CEPA, and the Fisheries Act 

Canada has robust federal legal tools. The Species at Risk Act, 2002 (SARA) seeks to prevent species at risk from becoming extinct or extirpated, avoid further detriment or decline to biodiversity and critical habitats, and enable recovery. The Fisheries Act, 1985 seeks to protect fish species, marine mammals, and their habitat by focusing on the management and proper control of fishery resources and aquatic pollution prevention. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA) establishes a robust framework for sustainable development and environmental protection through the risk management and pollution prevention of toxic substances–substances harmful to ecosystems or life. CEPA is the only environmental law in Canada that explicitly addresses biotechnology by regulating living organisms created by biotech and requiring the government to ensure “the safe and effective use of biotechnology” (s. 2(1)(j.1)); but doesn’t elaborate on how and mostly focuses on assessment regulation.   

The responsible application of these legislative tools through mechanisms like emergency orders and prosecutions can lead to meaningful improvements in biodiversity outcomes. However, in practice, delayed emergency orders, chronic underfunding, and procedural delay undermine their effectiveness. Political caution results in uneven implementation.  

Similarly, national nature strategies inspired by international agreements have historically failed to achieve their intended goals. Canada has struggled to follow through on these commitments, including meeting the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. In 2024, the federal government released the final version of its Nature 2030 Strategy, outlining an ambitious goal of conserving 30% of land and sea areas for biodiversity and restoring degraded ecosystems within six years. However, tangible progress remains limited. At the end of 2024, data from Environment and Climate Change Canada showed that Canada protected less than 14% of Canadian lands and waters for conservation. Continued approval of major industrial projects and resource developments continues to erode these efforts, revealing a persistent gap between Canada’s environmental aspirations and its practical execution. 

Biotechnology and restorative biotechnology - how can it help conservation 

Modern biotechnology can fill that gap. Biotechnology involves using living organisms or their components—whether natural or modified—to create, improve, or optimize materials, processes, and technologies. It includes methods like genetic engineering, fermentation, and synthetic biology to advance medicine, agriculture, environmental sustainability, and industry. This commentary focuses on conservation, restorative biotechnology, and applications of biotechnology that support biodiversity conservation. Unlike agricultural or pharmaceutical biotechnology, this field aims to restore ecosystems, enhance genetic diversity, and strengthen species’ resilience to environmental change. It encompasses techniques such as: genomic rescue; cryopreservation; engineered microbes for pollution cleanup; gene editing for adaptation; and synthetic biology for ecosystem recovery. 

Biotechnology offers transformative solutions to some of the planet’s most pressing environmental challenges by enhancing ecosystem resilience, managing invasive species, and protecting endangered wildlife. Through genetic engineering, researchers can restore keystone species like the American chestnut tree by introducing blight resistance, or control invasive rats and safeguard seabird populations using modified DNA sequences called gene drives. Assisted reproduction and cryopreservation techniques are reviving species on the brink of extinction, such as the Black-footed ferret, Przewalski’s horse, and coral species. As of 2025, coral “assisted evolution” programs led by AIMS and NOAA are showing success through selective and cross-breeding for heat tolerance, with transplanted Elkhorn corals demonstrating promise in restoring reefs damaged by bleaching. Concurrently, researchers in Vancouver, Waterloo, and Hawaii are advancing biotechnological methods to combat plastic pollution using bacteria and marine fungi capable of degrading harmful materials like phthalates, PET, and polyurethane–paving the way for a cleaner and more sustainable future.  

Reform proposal 

Parliament must take legislative action. CEPA requires amendments to address emerging biotechnologies and ensure safer environmental regulation. Its definitions, such as those relating to “micro-organism” and “animate” entities, must be updated to reflect advances in genetic engineering. Growing accessibility of DIY biotechnology now enables the public to create novel organisms without meaningful oversight. Current regulatory gaps include the absence of containment standards, incident-reporting authority, and clear guidance for amateur scientists who are often unaware of their legal obligations under the NSNR (Organisms) and CEPA. Although CEPA’s risk assessment process can impose conditions on potentially toxic organisms, there is no post-release monitoring on the health or environmental impact of the organism. The framework does not adapt to changes in environmental or climate conditions that could alter an organism’s risk profile. Correspondingly, Canada should amend both SARA and the Fisheries Act to include restorative biotechnology and genetic restoration activities, strengthen recovery planning and safeguards, and incorporate new permit and oversight mechanisms. Strengthening these acts to include: expanded definitions; quality-control standards; mandatory containment and incident-reporting requirements; and long-term monitoring and oversight for new living organisms is essential to safeguard ecosystems and ensure responsible innovation. 

Conclusion 

Canada cannot meet the scale of the biodiversity crisis with outdated, reactive laws. Strengthening CEPA, SARA, and the Fisheries Act–among others–would allow Canada to regulate emerging biotechnologies responsibly while enabling their use in conservation and ecosystem recovery. With clear safeguards and long-term monitoring, biotechnology can become a carefully governed tool that complements traditional conservation measures and helps rebuild Canada’s declining biodiversity. 

The opinions expressed are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect CIPPIC’s policy position.