Risques de corruption et réponses anti-corruption dans les interventions en faveur de moyens de subsistance durables

The document outlines how corruption—defined as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain—can sabotage conservation projects. It analyzes three specific intervention types: Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES), carbon offset co-benefits, and benefit-sharing in Protected Areas (PA) and Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures (OECM). For each, it identifies systemic risks such as elite capture, data manipulation, and the misappropriation of funds, while proposing responses including participatory planning, independent monitoring, and the establishment of grievance mechanisms.

• Sustainable livelihood projects are inherently vulnerable to corruption because they often create opportunities for illicit private gain, provide the power to pursue those gains, and exist within systems that may rationalize such behavior.
• In Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES), corruption risks manifest across four stages: identifying the service and ownership, managing agreements, executing payments, and verifying results. Risks include elite influence over site selection and the 'ransom behavior' where landowners degrade resources to increase future compensation payments.
• Carbon offset projects face significant 'integrity' risks, including the manipulation of baseline data to inflate credits and the 'SDG washing' of co-benefits to overstate development impacts.
• Carbon offset initiatives are susceptible to external corruption that threatens permanence, such as state-tolerated land grabbing or impunity for environmental crimes like intentional forest fires.
• In Protected Areas (PA) and OECMs, the power to restrict resource access creates opportunities for extortion and 'green grabbing,' where land is seized under the guise of conservation to benefit connected individuals.
• Human-Wildlife Conflict (HWC) compensation programs are often undermined by systemic corruption, where officials may extort bribes to confirm eligibility for aid or divert funds intended for affected communities.
• Effective anti-corruption responses must be systemic and inclusive, prioritizing Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and the empowerment of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) to prevent elite capture.
• Technical and administrative responses to reduce corruption include implementing asset disclosure requirements for decision-makers, using third-party resource inventories, and establishing independent accountability mechanisms.

APA

Whitt, J. P. (2022). Risques de corruption et réponses anti-corruption dans les interventions en faveur de moyens de subsistance durables. WWF International. https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/310/2lncqkds0v_R1_Sustainable_Livelihoods_French_Final.pdf

Chicago

Whitt, J. Preston. Risques de corruption et réponses anti-corruption dans les interventions en faveur de moyens de subsistance durables. WWF International, 2022. https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/310/2lncqkds0v_R1_Sustainable_Livelihoods_French_Final.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Whitt |first1=J. Preston |title=Risques de corruption et réponses anti-corruption dans les interventions en faveur de moyens de subsistance durables |publisher=WWF International |date=August 2022 |url=https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/310/2lncqkds0v_R1_Sustainable_Livelihoods_French_Final.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{whitt2022risques, author = {Whitt, J. Preston}, title = {{Risques de corruption et réponses anti-corruption dans les interventions en faveur de moyens de subsistance durables}}, institution = {WWF International}, year = {2022}, month = aug, url = {https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/310/2lncqkds0v_R1_Sustainable_Livelihoods_French_Final.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }