REGULATED DESTRUCTION

The report 'Regulated Destruction' by Friends of the Earth International critiques biodiversity offsetting as a mechanism that enables corporate pollution and habitat destruction. It argues that by framing nature as 'natural capital' or 'ecosystem services', these instruments allow companies to circumvent environmental protections through promises of restoration or protection elsewhere. The document examines national implementations in India, Uganda, Canada, Colombia, Brazil, and Costa Rica, and highlights the role of the World Bank's IFC Performance Standard 6 in driving these practices. It further contends that offsetting leads to 'double land grabs' and is used by the aviation and agro-industry to maintain a social license to operate despite ongoing deforestation and emissions.

• Biodiversity offsetting is based on the flawed assumption that ecological damage in one location can be cancelled out by protecting or restoring biodiversity elsewhere, which the report claims leads to more destruction and a 'double land grab' where corporations control land at both the site of destruction and the offset site.
• The 'mitigation hierarchy' (avoid, minimize, restore, offset), intended to make offsetting a last resort, has instead become a norm that legalizes destruction in areas where environmental regulations would otherwise prohibit it.
• The World Bank's International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standard 6, revised in 2012, facilitates the financing of projects that destroy 'critical habitat' provided the company presents a biodiversity offset plan.
• In India, the Compensatory Afforestation Fund has accumulated over 500 billion Indian Rupees (USD 6.8 billion) by 2016, yet large areas of forest have been destroyed without the promised compensatory afforestation taking place.
• Colombia has implemented extensive biodiversity offsetting and carbon offset mechanisms, such as the 'Habitat Bank' and 'BanCO2', which the report argues increase corporate control over land and undermine peasant autonomy.
• Brazil's Forest Code allows landowners to use 'forest restoration certificates' (CRAs) to avoid restoring illegally cleared land on their own property, which the report warns could incentivize further deforestation if it becomes cheaper to buy credits than to forego profit from clearing.
• REDD+ is critiqued as a tool for 'greenwashing' that allows global food and agro-industry corporations to claim 'zero-net deforestation' while continuing industrial-scale deforestation and restricting the agricultural practices of peasant and indigenous communities.
• The aviation industry uses carbon and biodiversity offsetting, such as the ICAO's CORSIA scheme and the Airport Carbon Accreditation scheme, to maintain growth and expand airports (e.g., Heathrow) while claiming carbon neutrality.
• Biodiversity offsets often fail to provide long-term protection; the report cites examples in Uganda (Bujagali dam) and Australia (Warkworth coal mine) where offset sites were subsequently destroyed for other corporate projects.

APA

Kill, J. (n.d.). REGULATED DESTRUCTION. Friends of the Earth International. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/foe-FoN2-regulated-destruction-EN-WEB.pdf

Chicago

Kill, Jutta. REGULATED DESTRUCTION. Friends of the Earth International, n.d. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/foe-FoN2-regulated-destruction-EN-WEB.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Kill |first1=Jutta |title=REGULATED DESTRUCTION |publisher=Friends of the Earth International |url=https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/foe-FoN2-regulated-destruction-EN-WEB.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{killndregulated, author = {Kill, Jutta}, title = {{REGULATED DESTRUCTION}}, institution = {Friends of the Earth International}, url = {https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/foe-FoN2-regulated-destruction-EN-WEB.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }