Do NOT say 'provision': that term is now reserved for liabilities and never appears on the asset side of the balance sheet, under French GAAP (PGC) and under IFRS.

Avoid any weasel word like 'allowance'. To take an impairment charge against an asset is to recognise a *loss*. (It may subsequently be reversed if the loan is ever collected, but unless and until that happens, it stands as a recognised loss.)

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 9 hrs (2015-08-01 18:27:38 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

re provisions vs. dépréciations: The link to the original Cerpeg page announcing and explaining the 2005 change in terminology of the PGC (to bring it into line with IFRS) is now dead, but I found a .doc copy of it here:
ftp://78.197.132.37/Volume_1/DataUsers/Hari/04 - Anciens dos...

As evidenced by the source text prompting this term question, ten years later the official change in terminology is still widely ignored.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 9 hrs (2015-08-01 18:53:35 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Yep, pooja_chic, they like to use weasel words ('allowance') in English, too. The financial reporting standards-setters can't really police the euphemistic language that reporting entities like to use in descriptive titles, and habits die hard. A further complication applies to commercial banks because bank supervisors worldwide have failed to follow the IASB in reserving the term 'provision' for bona fide liabilities.

'Allowance for impairment' may sound less grim than 'impairment loss', but that is what it is.

There is a bit of an excuse for 'allowance' = 'dotation' in a sentence about impairment charges AND liability provisions. In a line item about only one or the other, better to leave out 'dotation' and go straight to impairment or provision.