DESTRUCCIÓN REGLAMENTADA

The document critiques biodiversity offsetting as a mechanism of 'regulated destruction' that allows companies to destroy nature in one location by promising to protect or restore it elsewhere. It argues that this approach redefines nature as 'natural capital' or 'ecosystem services,' reducing complex ecological systems to tradable units. The report examines national implementations in India, Uganda, Canada, Colombia, Brazil, and Costa Rica, highlighting how these schemes often lead to 'double land grabbing,' the displacement of local communities, and the failure to provide long-term protection. It specifically criticizes the World Bank's IFC Performance Standard 6 for enabling the financing of destruction in 'critical habitats.' Furthermore, it analyzes how the aviation and agribusiness sectors use carbon offsets and REDD+ to greenwash their operations while continuing destructive activities.

• Biodiversity offsetting is framed as a 'last resort' within a mitigation hierarchy, but in practice, it often legalizes environmental destruction in areas where it would otherwise be prohibited.
• The financialization of nature redefines the environment as 'natural capital' and 'ecosystem services,' which strips nature of its uniqueness and reduces it to a set of tradable, priced units.
• Offsetting schemes can lead to 'double land grabbing,' where corporations control land at both the site of destruction and the site of the promised offset, often violating the customary rights of indigenous and peasant communities.
• The World Bank's International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standard 6 facilitates the financing of destruction in 'critical habitats' by allowing companies to use biodiversity offsets to justify such projects.
• In India, the Compensatory Afforestation Fund has accumulated over 500 billion Indian rupees (approximately $6.8 billion) by 2016, yet extensive forest destruction has occurred without the promised reforestation taking place.
• REDD+ is criticized as a greenwashing tool for the agribusiness and aviation sectors, shifting the blame for deforestation onto peasant farmers while allowing industrial-scale destruction to continue.
• The report highlights that 'perpetuity' in offset agreements is often unreliable, as sites designated for long-term protection are sometimes later destroyed for new corporate projects.
• In Colombia, the 'BanCO2' mechanism uses legally binding contracts that force peasant families to restrict their land use in exchange for small payments, potentially undermining their control over their territories.
• The aviation industry uses the CORSIA framework and airport accreditation plans to claim 'carbon neutrality' while excluding the primary source of emissions—flights—from their calculations.

APA

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

Chicago

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

Wikipedia

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

BibTeX

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