Cover image: Sébastien Calvet / Mediapart
GreenFakes, an investigation into documents obtained by Mediapart and Africa Uncensored, shows how multinationals, such as TotalEnergies and construction giant Eiffage, obtain permits to implement projects that destroy biodiversity in developing countries, in violation of international standards, with to the complicity of consulting firms and international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the African Development Bank.
Drilling for oil in Uganda in a national park populated by elephants and lions. Cutting down a rainforest in Guinea to create iron ore and bauxite mines. Erecting a dam in Côte d’Ivoire that would ravage a jewel of biodiversity. At a time when the planet is burning up due to global warming, and when 13% of plant and animal species have already disappeared due to human activity, these destructive practices should not be tolerated. In fact, in theory, they are forbidden.
And yet, to develop mega-projects in developing countries, major French and foreign industrial groups continue to plunder natural ecosystems, thanks to “permits to destroy”, drawn up for them by environmental consultancies, and funded by major international donors such as the World Bank.
These are the findings of the “GreenFakes” series of investigations conducted by Mediapart, published in partnership with Mongabay and Africa Uncensored. They are based on internal documents from Biotope, the French leader in ecological auditing, obtained by Climate Whistleblowers, an organization specializing in the protection of climate and environmental whistleblowers.
French companies such as TotalEnergies and Chanel have called on Biotope to draw up “biodiversity action plans”, in line with international standards. In reality, however, these are “greenwashing” operations, designed to give an ecological veneer to the destruction of living organisms.
To understand this, we need to go back to 2012, when the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private finance arm of the World Bank, created Performance Standard 6, or or PS6, on biodiversity conservation. On paper, the objective is ambitious: industrial and infrastructure projects financed by the World Bank must henceforth result in no net loss of biodiversity, and even generate a net gain for “critical habitats” where protected species live.
This PS6 standard has been adopted by most international lenders, such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the African Development Bank (AfDB), as well as by numerous state-owned and private banks. Given the clout of these financial institutions, it has therefore, in theory, become extremely difficult to launch projects that would lead to biodiversity destruction.
To obtain loans, multinationals must now demonstrate upstream that they comply with the PS6 standard by drawing up detailed “biodiversity action plans” based on a protocol known as ERC to “avoid, reduce, compensate”. To put it plainly, this means minimizing environmental impact as much as possible and then repairing the damage deemed unavoidable, for example, by replanting trees elsewhere or funding programs to protect endangered species whose habitat has been destroyed.
Our investigation shows that this approach is a failure because the standard is not only flawed from the outset, but is also also very poorly applied.
Aiding and abetting engineering firms
To dress their mega-projects in green, manufacturers pay environmental consultancies to draw up “biodiversity action plans” to prove that the PS6 standard has been met.
French groups in particular call on Biotope, one of Europe’s leading firms in this field, based in Mèze, Hérault. This company is well known in France for being commissioned in 2012 to carry out an ecological study of the flora and fauna on the site that was to house the Notre-Dame-des-Landes airport (Loire-Atlantique). The consultancy was also commissioned to carry out an environmental survey prior to the planned construction of the A69 freeway between Castres and Toulouse.
Biotope boasts that it ‘brings together the largest team of ecologists at the European level’. On its website, the company describes itself as a “biodiversity and ecosystem specialist”, adding that it provides consulting, regulatory studies, training and communication, stating further that it conducts and supports projects and actions on “all six continents and all five oceans”. The company’s website also promotes its impact studies for renewable energy production and road development projects.
However, nowhere in its communications does Biotope indicate that it regularly works on destructive projects for multinationals.
Invoices analyzed by Mediapart show that between 2015 and 2022, TotalEnergies commissioned Biotope to provide at least thirty-six services, notably linked to its oil and gas mega-projects worldwide, for 898,000 euros.
Little ecological substance
“Big consultancies like Biotope are known for writing reports of little ecological substance, but with a regulatory impact, ensuring that the companies being audited are sure to have their project validated by the authorities and financial backers,” says Stéphanie Barral, an economic sociologist at INRAE, who is researching the environmental assessment market. By relying on Biotope to such an extent, TotalEnergies’ aim is to buy itself green legitimacy.”
Barral points out that the independence of the assessments is vitiated by a clear conflict of interest, since the consulting firm is paid by its client to assess the environmental impact of the project. The more it agrees with the client, the more contracts it will receive, meaning that negative findings are likely to be suppressed or avoided entirely.
An internal document from December 2019 devoted to feedback reveals that Biotope’s priority does not seem to be protecting biodiversity but satisfying its customers.
Following the drafting of the biodiversity action plan for the Djeno oil terminal in the Republic of Congo in 2015, Biotope says with satisfaction that numerous other engagements followed with TotalEnergies. The same was true of a mission in 2016 concerning a mine in New Caledonia operated by the Brazilian multinational Vale: “Contracts with them followed.”
Biotope even emphasizes that its biodiversity action plans are not ‘simple documents’ to be handed over to customers, but are instead meant to support process with high-level consultancies to be valued financially.
The same document refers to pressure exerted by customers on several projects, such as dams in Madagascar and Côte d’Ivoire. Biotope notes, with regard to the construction of a port in Morocco by the Moroccan state-owned company Nador West Med, that “it is a difficult client when the presence of critical species is announced”. According to the minutes of a meeting held in 2022, the firm even seems to validate in advance the conclusions sought by French automotive equipment manufacturer Forvia (formerly Faurecia): “We need to demonstrate that their site has no impact on biodiversity or water.”
Catering to multinationals’ wishes pays off. In several meeting minutes, Biotope boasts of “very strong business growth,” “excellent commercial results,” and “very good full-year results.” In 2023, the French consultancy achieved [adds sales] and net income of almost 6 million euros.
Euphemizing ecological impacts
This flexibility towards industrialists seems to have concrete consequences on the content of the “action plans” supposed to protect biodiversity. The working documents relating to the plan for the Djeno oil terminal in the Republic of Congo state that “the analysis framework used to draw up the plan will be presented and discussed during the mission, to ensure that it meets Total’s expectations”. Another document even states that the content of the action plan will ultimately have to be validated by the oil multinational.
“It’s not unique to Biotope, but we’ve often seen clients modify or cut our impact studies at the last minute,” a former Biotope employee confirms to Mediapart. “What also happens regularly with our projects in developing countries is that the client has already started work on the site before we’ve even had a chance to begin our field studies.”
Researcher Stéphanie Barral is not surprised. “This commercial relationship between major groups and consultancy firms”, he says, “is conducive to the exertion of pressure to influence the results of environmental assessments in the direction of euphemizing project impacts”.
Funders are also very flexible about the PS6 standard they have promised to respect, lending money on the basis of shaky “action plans” that in no way guarantee the absence of net biodiversity loss.
“IFC Performance Standard 6 was created to accompany the destruction of the environment,” explains Vincent Devictor, Director of Research at the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) and the Institut des Sciences de l’Évolution in Montpellier. “This process assumes that what has been destroyed can be substituted. But living identities, from the cell to the ecosystem, are characterized by their uniqueness. Replacing one forest with another is nonsense in itself, since each one is unique”.
Virginie Maris, a researcher at CNRS and biodiversity specialist agrees. “This type of standard is purely based on accounting logic”, she says. “The ecological quality of what has been destroyed can never be restored. The ‘avoid, reduce, compensate‘ approach is, above all, a way of perpetuating business”.
In a report on the subject, the NGO Les Amis de la Terre stresses that the IFC’s PS6 standard contains “numerous loopholes”, transforming what is presented as a tool for protecting biodiversity into a smokescreen that allows companies to finance the destruction of critical habitats.
The standard, supplemented by a guidance note, is full of vague terms. For example, companies must not “significantly” degrade natural habitats, or ensure that there is no net loss of biodiversity “where practicable”. IFC Performance Standard 6 also prohibits projects in critical habitat areas, but an exemption is provided if certain criteria are met.
One of the major loopholes in the standard is that it authorizes so-called “avoided loss” compensation. With this highly controversial method, manufacturers do not need to replant the forests they have destroyed. All they have to do is finance measures to protect areas threatened by deforestation elsewhere.
Brian Padilla, ecologist at the Muséum nationale d’histoire naturelle (MNHN), points out that the application of the standard, and in particular compensation, is not up to the challenge: “There is a complete gap”, he says, “between what is stated in the biodiversity action plans for major projects in protected areas in the Global South and our ability to protect and restore these ecosystems. It’s all smoke and mirrors”.
Black Box
We sent detailed questions and requests for comment to Biotope, but the firm did not respond, despite numerous follow-ups. The International Finance Corporation (IFC), a subsidiary of the World Bank, replied by e-mail, stating that projects do not necessarily have to fully comply with the PS6 standard at the time they are granted financing, but that compliance must be achieved after a ‘reasonable period of time’. The World Bank subsidiary pointed out that follow-up audits are carried out annually by “independent consultants”. “When the client encounters difficulties in meeting the social and environmental commitments outlined in the contracts, IFC’s approach is generally to work with the client to bring them towards compliance”, the IFC response stated.
“GreenFakes” is a series of investigations conducted by Mediapart, published in partnership with Mongabay and Africa Uncensored. They are based on internal documents from Biotope, leading French ecological auditing firm, obtained by Climate Whistleblowers, an organization specializing in the protection of climate and environmental whistleblowers.
Add comment