«AUCUNE PERTE NETTE» DE BIODIVERSITÉ : UNE FAUSSE SOLUTION

The report critiques the 'No Net Loss' (NNL) concept, asserting that it functions as a financial and accounting tool that permits the destruction of biodiversity in one location provided it is protected or restored elsewhere. It argues that NNL is fundamentally flawed because biodiversity is not interchangeable and that the mechanism leads to land grabbing and the violation of indigenous rights. The document further claims that NNL 'greens' the image of a fossil-fuel-dependent development model and pushes the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) toward market-based solutions, which the authors argue should be replaced by a priority on avoiding biodiversity loss entirely.

• The 'No Net Loss' (NNL) objective does not prevent biodiversity loss; instead, it uses a form of accounting where destruction in one area is balanced by protection or restoration elsewhere, meaning NNL goals only exist when there is actual loss.
• Biodiversity offset credits have evolved into a commercial sector, particularly in the United States where over 400 biodiversity banks and private companies operate, allowing legal pollution and destruction thresholds to be bypassed without transparent legislative procedures.
• The annual market for biodiversity offsets is estimated between 2.4 and 4 billion dollars, with a potential to exceed 45 billion dollars if 9% of the planet's ecosystems are restored through these mechanisms.
• While the mitigation hierarchy—avoid, minimize, restore, and finally offset—is intended to prioritize avoidance, in practice, offsetting is being used more frequently, despite the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) recommending it as a last resort.
• Biodiversity offsets create risks of land grabbing and the infringement of rights for local communities and indigenous peoples, as these mechanisms require vast areas of land that may not be available in many countries.
• The author contends that the concept of equivalence in offsetting is erroneous because nature and biodiversity are not composed of interchangeable elements.

APA

Collins, A., & Rojas, I. (n.d.). «AUCUNE PERTE NETTE» DE BIODIVERSITÉ : UNE FAUSSE SOLUTION. Friends of the Earth International. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Aucune-perte-nette-de-biodiversite_Amis-de-la-terre-internationale.pdf

Chicago

Collins, Amelia, and Isaac Rojas. «AUCUNE PERTE NETTE» DE BIODIVERSITÉ : UNE FAUSSE SOLUTION. Friends of the Earth International, n.d. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Aucune-perte-nette-de-biodiversite_Amis-de-la-terre-internationale.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Collins |first1=Amelia |last2=Rojas |first2=Isaac |title=«AUCUNE PERTE NETTE» DE BIODIVERSITÉ : UNE FAUSSE SOLUTION |publisher=Friends of the Earth International |url=https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Aucune-perte-nette-de-biodiversite_Amis-de-la-terre-internationale.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{collinsndaucune, author = {Collins, Amelia and Rojas, Isaac}, title = {{«AUCUNE PERTE NETTE» DE BIODIVERSITÉ : UNE FAUSSE SOLUTION}}, institution = {Friends of the Earth International}, url = {https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Aucune-perte-nette-de-biodiversite_Amis-de-la-terre-internationale.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }