TNRC Guide Corruption Risks and Anti-Corruption Responses in Sustainable Livelihood Interventions

Image representing TNRC's four focus areas: wildlife, fisheries, forests, and finance

Targeting Natural Resource Corruption

Harnessing knowledge, generating evidence, and supporting innovative policy and practice for more effective anti-corruption programming

Corruption risks and anti-corruption responses in sustainable livelihood interventions

Download PDF (1.67 MB)

Can we follow up with you about the usefulness of this resource?

Submitting your email address here will not subscribe you to any lists and your information will be used solely for qualitative feedback of TNRC's content.

Thank you! We look forward to following up.

No thanks, just let me download the PDF

This TNRC Guide shares practical knowledge for program designers and implementers to reduce corruption’s impact on conservation.

Key takeaways

  • Sustainable livelihood projects can create significant opportunities for illicit private gains, along with the power and enabling conditions to pursue those gains. In other words, these projects are subject to corruption risks that may partially or completely sabotage the project or, in the worse cases, contribute to further social and environmental damage.
  • Project designers and managers need to be cognizant of the corruption risks and build appropriate and feasible anti-corruption responses into their project theories of change.
  • This guidance offers some results chains, tools, and other resources to help those practitioners do just that.

Key definitions

  • Corruption: This guidance follows Transparency International’s definition of corruption as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.
  • Duty bearer: This guidance occasionally uses this term instead of “officials” to encompass anyone entrusted with authority or power, even if they are not officially part of the government or state.
  • Sustainable livelihood: “a remunerative, satisfying and meaningful job that enables each member of the community to help nurture and regenerate the resource base” (IUCN 1999). A sustainable livelihood intervention therefore both increases the options for remunerative and satisfying work drawn from the environment, while managing or reducing the impact of that work on the environment (IMM 2008, Charles 2021).

Sustainable livelihoods and corruption

From reefs to forests and from harvest to tourism, billions of people derive their livelihoods from nature (WWF 2020). Billions, if not trillions, of dollars, pesos, and rupees have been spent supporting, protecting, and increasing the environmental sustainability of those livelihoods (e.g., Kharas and MacArthur 2019). More should undoubtedly be spent (Dasgupta 2021), given the continued, dual needs of human benefit and natural conservation (WWF 2021).

Corruption, however, is a pervasive threat to those same reefs and forests and harvests and tours. It can divert money into the pockets of a few, eat away at efforts to protect resources, and harm the human rights and social capital that underpin collaborative efforts to conserve (Belecky et al. 2021; Klein et al. 2021; Korwin 2016; Outhwaite 2020; Pretty and Smith 2004; Sheill and Parry-Jones 2021). In this sense, sustainable livelihoods work is like any development endeavor. It shares the “conditions” that give rise to corruption risk: incentive, opportunity, and enabling attitudes (UN Global Compact 2013). Or, in more elaborate terms (adapted from Wathne 2021), a sustainable livelihood project may create (or align with):

  • the opportunity for private gains;
  • the power and discretion for people (and institutions) to pursue those gains; and 
  • systems (of incentives, behavior, norms) that excuse, permit, and/or rationalize that self-serving pursuit.

This guidance contains three modules exploring the corruption opportunities, power, and justifications that might manifest in three typical sustainable livelihood interventions:

  • payments for ecosystem services (PES)
  • carbon compensation co-benefits
  • protected area and other effective area-based conservation (PA/OECM) benefit sharing

Each module identifies corruption risks in that activity type and anti-corruption responses that have been tried or can be considered to address those risks.

Anti-corruption response resources

Each section highlights a subset of key resources to help frame specific anti-corruption responses. However, many additional guides and tools exist, and these are hyperlinked throughout the text. If any link is broken, details to locate the source are available here:

Miradi model results chain

Each module includes a high-level results chain illustrating where corruption risks might occur, adapted from the Conservation Action and Measures Library. Follow the links accompanying each figure, or find Miradi files here, for detailed versions that illustrate where anti-corruption activities can be integrated into sustainable livelihood programming.

Foundations: Framing, concepts, and caveats

First, this guidance is intended for project designers and managers who are already familiar with these types of sustainable livelihood activities. The three types of projects are stylized and simplified to be applicable in the widest possible range of cases, rather than detailed guidance for how to create a specific PES, carbon compensation, or PA/OECM benefit sharing project. Other types of sustainable livelihood projects also exist.

Second, and similarly, the goal is to show illustrative examples of how entrusted power could be abused for private gain, along with broad approaches that could be tried in response. The corruption risks described are illustrative and general, not exhaustive or specific. And both risks and responses are hypothetical, except where a specific study or case is cited.[1]

Third, therefore, practitioners must adapt these risks and responses to their specific operating context. Not all approaches will be appropriate or feasible for all projects. This guidance is only a starting point of reference that will, ideally, connect practitioners with resources they can use to take what actions they can—even if those actions are limited to partnering with or supporting the actions of other organizations.

Part of that adaptation to context involves reducing barriers for direct stakeholders to participate in, lead, and own activities. Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs), and their lands, play a crucial role in conservation (WWF et al. 2021). Therefore, all of the recommendations and potential responses in this guidance should be interpreted through the lens of inclusive conservation. Furthermore, the shorthand of “inclusive” is for readability, not to imply that inclusion is a small or perfunctory concept; rather, readers should interpret “inclusive” as recognizing, valuing, lifting up, and accommodating the different ways different people experience and contribute to conservation.[2] Similarly, while the modules use “benefit sharing” as shorthand, “individuals and communities are holders of rights, responsibilities, knowledge, capacities, interests and concerns… never mere recipients or beneficiaries of initiatives conceived and carried out by others…” (ICCA 2018).

Finally, this guidance intentionally prioritizes practice over exploration of broad anti-corruption concepts. Users may find further investigation of certain anti-corruption concepts helpful: 

  • Anti-corruption responses are often categorized as “Prevention,” “Detection,” and/or “Enforcement.” This may be a helpful way to organize anti-corruption response activities as part of project planning.
  • Root causes, and therefore the appropriate response, may exist at or across a variety of levels, from interpersonal to local to national and beyond (Wathne 2021). Generally, the most successful and sustainable anti-corruption efforts are systemic and holistic, using multiple approaches from different angles, because corruption itself is usually systemic (Tacconi and Williams 2020; Wathne 2021).
  • Even where large-scale, multi-pronged governance reform is infeasible in a single program of work, practitioners can still consider political, collective action initiatives to shift power equilibriums (Wathne 2021) or social norms around corruption (Williams and Dupuy 2019).
  • At a minimum, practitioners and experts designing or implementing sustainable livelihood interventions should try to incorporate context-specific corruption risk management into their adaptive management procedures (e.g., Johnsøn 2015, UN Global Compact 2013).

Details on these concepts, and many others, can be found at the introductory TNRC eCourse, U4’s overview of anti-corruption basics, and the Anti-Corruption Helpdesk run by Transparency International and U4.

Nature-based Solutions (NbS): How does this guidance relate?

NbS seek to address societal challenges, like climate change and sustainable development, “hand in paw” with nature. They “protect, restore or proactively manage” places to “deliver both a net socioeconomic benefit at the local level…and a net biodiversity gain…” (Pérez-Cirera et al. 2021).

Each module addresses NbS in the way most relevant to that specific topic. For example, payments for ecosystem services are one way to link the producers and recipients of NbS. Carbon compensation is one financing mechanism for NbS activities. And many NbS rely on proper management of a protected or effectively conserved area (UNDRR 2021).

Thus, in the same way that corruption can undermine the three types of sustainable livelihood interventions included here, corruption can also undermine NbS efforts. The anti-corruption responses below, therefore, will also be useful for delivering “the highest quality [NbS] interventions – those that protect nature and support people’s livelihoods, while also mitigating and adapting to climate change” (Hacking et al. 2021).

Key crosscutting resources

  • Communities, Conservation, and Livelihoods (2021)
  • A Guide for Anti-Corruption Risk Assessment (2013)
  • Legal empowerment to promote legitimate tenure rights (2021)
  • Women, Land and Corruption-- Resources for Practitioners and Policy-Makers (2018)
  • Overcoming the pitfalls of engaging communities in anti-corruption programmes (2020)
  • Supplemental Guidance: Grievance Redress Mechanisms (2017)
  • Guiding Practice from the Policies of Independent Accountability Mechanisms (2021)
  • Stakeholder Participation Guide: Supporting Stakeholder Participation in Design, Implementation and Assessment of Policies and Actions (2020)
  • Strengthening social cohesion: Conceptual framing and programming implications (2020)
  • Caja de herramientas para la gestión territorial indígena y el manejo de recursos naturales por comunidades (2021)


Rio Tambopata-View from the Kerenda Homet refugio, Located in Puerto Maldonado, Peru

Module One: Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Corruption risks and responses

This module covers the corruption risks and anti-corruption responses in PES programs. Such programs leverage market-based mechanisms to promote conservation by quantifying the value of a “service” that an element of nature provides society; charging the beneficiaries of that service; and using the proceeds to pay the owners or rights holders of that element of nature to continue to maintain it.

[1] For real-world cases of corruption, users are encouraged to explore Transparency International’s Climate and Corruption Case Atlas.

[2] Those differences include gender; indigenous heritage, background, or affiliation; class and socioeconomic status; and many, many more.


The author wishes to thank all reviewers and validation workshop participants for their invaluable contributions to each module of this guidance.


Affendy, Batrisyia Jamal and Ruby Woodside (2020) “Co-Benefits of Carbon Offset Projects: Information for Carbon Offset Procurement”, Second Nature,

Alves-Pinto, Helena, Jonas Geldmann, Harry Jonas, Veronica Maioli, Andrew Balmford, Agnieszka Ewa Latawiec, Renato Crouzeilles, and Bernardo Strassburg (2021) “Opportunities and challenges of other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) for biodiversity conservation”, Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, Volume 19, Issue 2,

Angelsen, Arild (2008) “Moving ahead with REDD: issues, options and implications”, CIFOR,

Ardigó, Iñaki Albisu (2016) “Corruption risks and mitigating approaches in climate finance”, U4 Expert Answer,

Beder, Sharon (2014) “Carbon offsets can do more environmental harm than good”, The Conversation,

Beevers, Michael D. (2015) “Large-scale mining in protected areas made possible through corruption”, U4 Brief 2015:7,

Belecky, Mike, William Moreto, and Rob Parry-Jones (2021) “Corrupting conservation: Assessing how corruption impacts ranger work”, TNRC Topic Brief,

Boamah, Festus and Aled Williams (2019) “‘Kenyapowerless’ – Corruption in electricity as ‘problem-solving’ in Kenya’s periphery”, U4 Brief 2019:1,

Boehm, Frédéric (2013) “Is There an Anti-corruption Agenda in Regulation? Insights from Colombian and Zambian Water Regulation”, In: International Handbook on the Economics of Corruption, Volume Two.

Boeraeve, F., M. Dufrêne, R. De Vreese, S. Jacobs, N. Pipart, F. Turkelboom, W. Verheyden, and N. Dendoncker (2018) “Participatory identification and selection of ecosystem services: building on field experiences”, Ecology and Society 23(2):27,

Böhm, Steffen (2013) “Why are carbon markets failing?”, The Guardian,

Böhm, Steffen and Siddhartha Dabhi (2009) “Upsetting the Offset”, MayFlyBooks,

Booker, Francesca (No date) “Assessing governance at protected and conserved areas (GAPA)”, IIED,

Borrell, Brendan (2010) “Cash for Conservation: Threats and Promises of Paying Communities for Their Biodiversity”, Scientific American,

Borrini-Feyerabend, Grazia, Nigel Dudley, Tilman Jaeger, Barbara Lassen, Neema Pathak Broome, Adrian Phillips, and Trevor Sandwith (2013) “Governance of Protected Areas: From understanding to action”, IUCN,

Bui Duc Tinh[PW1] , Pham Xuan Hung, Nguyen Quoc Khanh, and David Aled Williams (Forthcoming) “Applying E-Payments as an Anti-Corruption Innovation for Forest Environmental Services: Lessons from Vietnam”, TNRC Brief.

Bukuluki, Paul (No date) “Is positive recognition an incentive to fight corruption?”, Anti-Corruption Evidence Research Programme,

Bullock, Jessie and Matthew Jenkins (2020) “Corruption and marginalisation”, Transparency International Anti-Corruption Helpdesk Answer,

Burai, Petra (2020) “Overcoming the pitfalls of engaging communities in anti-corruption programmes”, U4 Issue 2020: 3, Saul Mullard (Ed.),

Butler, Rhett A. (2021) “Independent monitoring suggests sharp jump in Amazon rainforest destruction”, Mongabay Series: Amazon Conservation,

Campbell, Jasmine (2012) “Engaging With Free, Prior, and Informed Consent”, BSR,

CANARI (2010) “Community participation in natural resource management: lessons from Caribbean small island states”, CANARI Issue Paper No. 1,

CANARI (2011) “Facilitating participatory natural resource management: A toolkit for Caribbean managers”, CANARI,

Carlitz, Ruth D. and Rachael McLellan (2020) “Open Data from Authoritarian Regimes: New Opportunities, New Challenges”, Cambridge University Press.

Chagas, Thiago, Hilda Galt, Donna Lee, Till Neeff, and Charlotte Streck (2020) “A close look at the quality of REDD+ carbon credits”, Climate Focus,

Charles, Anthony (2021) “Communities, Conservation and Livelihoods”, IUCN and CCRN,

CIEL (2021) “Rights, Carbon, Caution: Upholding Human Rights under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement”, CIEL,

Compensate (2021) “Reforming the Voluntary Carbon Market”, White Paper,

Dasgupta, P. (2021) “The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review”, Full report,

Dawson, Neil M., Brendan Coolsaet, Eleanor J. Sterling, Robin Loveridge, Nicole D. Gross-Camp, Supin Wongbusarakum, Kamaljit K. Sangha, Lea M. Scherl, Hao Phuong Phan, Noelia Zafra-Calvo, Warren G. Lavey, Patrick Byakagaba, C. Julián Idrobo, Aude Chenet, Nathan J. Bennet, Stephanie Mansourian, and Francisco J. Rosado-May (2021) “The role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation”, Ecology and Society 26(3):19,

Denier, Louisa, Sebastien Korwin, Matt Leggett, and Christina MacFarquhar (2014) “The Little Book of Legal Frameworks for REDD+”, Global Canopy Programme,

Dessalegn, Bezaiet, Ludmilla Kiktenko, Balzhan Zhumagazina, Saltanat Zhakenova, and Vinay Nangia. (2016) “Participatory Valuation of Ecosystem Services: A Case Study”, CGIAR,

Dobson, Rebecca (2015) “Carbon market corruption risks and mitigation strategies”, U4 Expert Answer,

Donofrio, Stephen, Patrick Maguire, Steve Zwick, and William Merry (2020) “Voluntary Carbon and the Post-Pandemic Recovery”, State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2020,

Dougill, Andrew J., Lindsay C. Stringer, Julia Leventon, Mike Riddell, Henri Rueff, Dominick V. Spracklen, and Edward Butt (2012) “Lessons from community-based payment for ecosystem service schemes: from forests to rangelands”, Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci; 367(1606),

Dovers, Stephen, Sue Feary, Amanda Martin, Linda McMillan, Debra Morgan, and Michael Tollefson (2015) “Engagement and participation in protected area management: who, why, how and when?”, In G. L. Worboys, M. Lockwood, A. Kothari, S. Feary and I. Pulsford (Eds.), Protected Area Governance and Management,

Duffield, Lindsay and Saskia Ozinga (2014) “Making Forestry Fairer: A Practical Guide for Civil Society Organisations Taking Part in Flegt Vpa Negotiations”, FERN,

Dupuy, Kendra E. (2017) “Chapter 5: Corruption and elite capture of mining community development funds in Ghana and Sierra Leone”, In: Aled Williams and Philippe Le Billon (Eds.) Corruption, Natural Resources and Development: From Resource Curse to Political Ecology.

Ecosystem Marketplace (2021a) “State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2021”,

Ecosystem Marketplace (2021b) “Voluntary Carbon Markets Top $1 Billion in 2021 with Newly Reported Trades”, Special Ecosystem Marketplace COP26 Bulletin,

EIA (2019) “State of Corruption: The top-level conspiracy behind the global trade in Myanmar's stolen teak”, EIA Report,

Estrada, Alejandro, Paul A. Garber, and Abishek Chaudhary (2020) “Current and future trends in socio-economic, demographic and governance factors affecting global primate conservation”, PeerJ. 2020; 8: e9816,

Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss, Sven Wunder, Manuel Ruiz-Pérez, Rocio del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez (2016) “Global Patterns in the Implementation of Payments for Environmental Services”, PLoS ONE 11(3): e0149847,

Fairhead, James, Melissa Leach, and Ian Scoones (2012) “Green Grabbing: a new appropriation of nature?”, The Journal of Peasant Studies, Volume 39, Issue 2,

Forest Trends, The Katoomba Group, and UNEP (2008) “Payments for Ecosystem Services Getting Started: A Primer”,

Franco, Jennifer (2014) “Reclaiming Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) in the context of global land grabs”, Transnational Institute, for the Hands off the Land Alliance,

Franks, Phil and Rob Small (2021) “Supplement for the Social Assessment for Protected and Conserved Areas (SAPA) Methodology manual for SAPA facilitators: General guidance on follow-up actions for enabling fair and effective law enforcement”, IIED,

Franks, Phil, Rob Small, and Francesca Booker (2018) “Social Assessment for Protected and Conserved Areas (SAPA) Methodology manual for SAPA facilitators”, IIED,

Franks, Phil and Ruth Pinto (2020) “SAPA, SAGE or GAPA? Tools for assessing the social impacts, governance, and equity of conservation”, IIED,

Fripp, Emily (2014) “Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): A practical guide to assessing the feasibility of PES projects”, CIFOR,

Frunza, Marius-Christian (2013) “Fraud and Carbon Markets: The Carbon Connection”, Routledge,

García-Jiménez, Carlos Ignacio and Yalma L. Vargas-Rodriguez (2021) “Passive government, organized crime, and massive deforestation: The case of western Mexico”, Conservation Science and Practice. 2021;3:e562,

Gardner, Charlie J., Martin E. Nicoll, Christopher Birkinshaw, Alasdair Harris, Richard E. Lewis, Domoina Rakotomalala, and Anitry N. Ratsifandrihamanana (2018) “The rapid expansion of Madagascar's protected area system”, Biological Conservation, Volume 220,

Gaworecki, Mike and Zuzana Burivalova (2017) “Cash for conservation: Do payments for ecosystem services work?”, Mongabay Series: Conservation Effectiveness,

Gianella, Camila and Cynthia Cárdenas (Forthcoming) “Community forestry and reducing corruption: Perspectives from the Peruvian Amazon”, TNRC Brief.

Gillenwater, Michael (2012) “What is Additionality? Part 1: A long standing problem”, Discussion Paper No. 001, Version 3,

Glasius, Marlies, Meta de Lange, Jos Bartman, Emanuela Dalmasso, Aofei Lv, Adele Del Sordi, Marcus Michaelsen, and Kris Ruijgrok (2018) “Research, Ethics and Risk in the Authoritarian Field”, Palgrave Macmillan,

Gold Standard (2017) “Risks & Capacities Guideline for Land Use & Forest projects”, Gold Standard for the Global Goals,

Gold Standard (2019) “Principles & Requirements”, Gold Standard Principles,, Allie (2016) “Not So Niche: Co-benefits at the Intersection of Forest Carbon”, Ecosystem Marketplace,


Gordon, Ascelin, Joseph W. Bull, Chris Wilcox, and Martine Maron (2015) “Perverse incentives risk undermining biodiversity offset policies”, Journal of Applied Ecology, 52,

Gross, Anna (2020) “Carbon offset market progresses during coronavirus”, Financial Times,

Gross, Eva M., Nilanga Jayasinghe, Ashley Brooks, Gert Polet, Rohan Wadhwa, and Femke Hilderink-Koopmans (2021) “A Future for All: The Need for Human-Wildlife Coexistence”, WWF,

Hacking, Jennifer, Brittany Williams, Sofie Tind Nielsen, and Josefina Braña Varela, “Beyond Carbon Credits: A BLUEPRINT FOR HIGH-QUALITY INTERVENTIONS THAT WORK FOR PEOPLE, NATURE AND CLIMATE”, WWF,

Hanafin, Niamh (2022) “Information Integrity: Forging a pathway to Truth, Resilience and Trust”, UNDP Strategic Guidance,

Herr, Dorothée, Juliet Blum, Amber Himes-Cornell, and Ariana Sutton-Grier (2019) “An analysis of the potential positive and negative livelihood impacts of coastal carbon offset projects”, Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 235,

Hill, Wendy, Jason Byrne, Fernanda de Vasconcellos Pegas (2016) “The ecotourism-extraction nexus and its implications for the long-term sustainability of protected areas: what is being sustained and who decides?”, Journal of Political Ecology, Vol. 23, Issue 1,

Hinson, Caitlin, Jimmy O’Keeffe, Ana Mijic, John Bryden, Jessica Van Grootveld, and Alexandra M. Collins (2022) “Using natural capital and ecosystem services to facilitate participatory environmental decision making: Results from a systematic map”, People and Nature (Early View),

Hoare, Richard (2012) “Lessons from 15 years of human-elephant conflict mitigation: Management considerations involving biological, physical and governance issues in Africa”, Pachyderm No. 51,

Hyams, Keith and Tina Fawcett (2013) “The ethics of carbon offsetting”, WIREs Climate Change, Volume 4, Issue 2,

ICCA Consortium (2018) “What is “inclusive conservation”? How do we engage in it?”, Preliminary synthesis of grassroots-led advice commissioned by WWF International,

IMM Ltd. (2008) “Sustainable Livelihoods Enhancement and Diversification (SLED): A Manual for Practitioners”, Prepared for IUCN,

Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (2016) “Governing Tenure Rights to Commons: A guide to support the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security”, FAO Governance of Tenure Technical Guide No. 8,

INTERPOL (2013) “Guide to Carbon Trading Crime”, Environmental Crime Programme and the Economic and Financial Crimes sub-Directorate,

Irfan, Umair (2020) “Can you really negate your carbon emissions? Carbon offsets, explained.”, Vox,

IUCN CEESP (1991) “Sustainable Livelihoods”, Policy Matters Issue #5,

Johnsøn, Jesper Stenberg (2018) “The basics of corruption risk management: A framework for decision making and integration into the project cycles”, U4 Issue No. 18,

Khan, Mushtaq, Antonio Andreoni, and Pallavi Roy (2019) “Anti-corruption in adverse contexts: strategies for improving implementation”, ACE SOAS Consortium Working Paper 013,

Kharas, Homi and John McArthur (2019) “Building the SDG economy: Needs, spending, and financing for universal achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals”, Brookings Working Paper 131,

Khatun, Kaysara, Nicole Gross-Camp, Esteve Corbera, Adrian Martin, Steve Ball, and Glory Massao (2015) “When Participatory Forest Management makes money: insights from Tanzania on governance, benefit sharing, and implications for REDD+”, Environment and Planning A, Volume 47,

Klein, Brian, Annah Zhu, Camilo Pardo-Herrera, and Saul Mullard (2021) “Enrolling the Local: Community-Based Anti-Corruption Efforts and Institutional Capture”, TNRC Topic Brief,

Knight, Rachael and Thierry Berger (2021) “Promoting participatory law-making for recognition of legitimate tenure rights”, IIED / FAO,

Korwin, Sebastien (2016) “REDD+ AND CORRUPTION RISKS FOR AFRICA’S FORESTS”, Case Studies From Cameroon, Ghana, Zambia And Zimbabwe,

Krause, Torsten, Wain Collen, and Kimberly A. Nicholas (2013) “Evaluating Safeguards in a Conservation Incentive Program: Participation, Consent, and Benefit Sharing in Indigenous Communities of the Ecuadorian Amazon”, Ecology and Society, Vol. 18, No. 4,

Kronenberg, Jakub and Klaus Hubacek (2013) “Could Payments for Ecosystem Services Create an "Ecosystem Service Curse"?”, Ecology and Society 18(1): 10,

Lamers, Machiel, René van der Duim, Jakomijn van Wijk, Rita Nthiga, Ingrid J. Visseren-Hamakers (2014) “Governing conservation tourism partnerships in Kenya”, Annals of Tourism Research, Volume 48,

Landell-Mills, Natasha and Ina T. Porras (2002) “Silver bullet or fools' gold?”, A global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor (IIED),

Le Billon, Philippe (2021) “Crisis conservation and green extraction: biodiversity offsets as spaces of double exception”, Journal of Political Ecology, Volume 28, Issue 1,

Leimona, Beria, Meinevan Noordwijk, Rudolf de Groot, and Rik Leemans (2015) “Fairly efficient, efficiently fair: Lessons from designing and testing payment schemes for ecosystem services in Asia”, Ecosystem Services, Volume 12,

Leslie, Sam, Ashley Brooks, Nilanga Jayasinghe, and Femke Hilderink-Koopmans (2019) “Human Wildlife Conflict mitigation: Lessons learned from global compensation and insurance schemes”, HWC SAFE Series, WWF Tigers Alive,

Levine, Arielle (2007) “Staying Afloat: State Agencies, Local Communities, and International Involvement in Marine Protected Area Management in Zanzibar, Tanzania”, Conservation & Society, Vol. 5, No. 4,

Lin, Brenda B., Sarina Macfadyen, Anna R. Renwick, Saul A. Cunningham, and Nancy A. Schellhorn (2013) “Maximizing the Environmental Benefits of Carbon Farming through Ecosystem Service Delivery”, BioScience, Volume 63, Issue 10,

Locatelli, Giorgio, Giacomo Mariani, Tristano Sainati, and Marco Greco (2017) “Corruption in public projects and megaprojects: There is an elephant in the room!”, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Volumes 26–27,

Loft, Lasse, Stefan Gehrig, Dung Ngoc Le, and Jens Rommel (2019) “Effectiveness and equity of Payments for Ecosystem Services: Real-effort experiments with Vietnamese land users”, Land Use Policy, Volume 86

Lofts, Katherine, Alain Frechette, and Kundan Kumar (2021) “Status of Legal Recognition of Indigenous Peoples’, Local Communities’ and Afro-descendant Peoples’ Rights to Carbon Stored in Tropical Lands and Forests”, Rights and Resources Initiative,

Lucas, Anton (2016) “Elite Capture and Corruption in two Villages in Bengkulu Province, Sumatra”, Hum Ecol Interdiscip J. 44: 287–300,

Luttrell, Cecilia and Emily Fripp (2015) “Lessons from voluntary partnership agreements for REDD+ benefit sharing”, CIFOR Occasional Paper,

Marnewick, Daniel, Harry Jonas, and Candice Stevens (2020) “Site-level methodology for identifying other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs)”, Draft Version 1.0, IUCN WORLD COMMISSION ON PROTECTED AREAS,

Marquette, Heather and Caryn Peiffer (2021) “Why a 'Corruption Functionality Framework'?”, ACE Global Integrity,

Mbeche, Robert and Achiba Gargule (2022) "Anti-corruption and equitable benefit sharing in Kenya’s wildlife and forest sectors: Gaps and lessons", TNRC Topic Brief,

Milne, Sarah (2020) “Beyond Carbon Credits”, TEDxANU,

Milne, Sarah, Sango Mahanty, Phuc To, Wolfram Dressler, Peter Kanowski, and Maylee Thavat (2019) “Learning From ‘Actually Existing’ REDD+: A Synthesis of Ethnographic Findings”, Conservation & Society, Vol. 17, No. 1,

Mooney, Chris, Juliet Eilperin, Desmond Butler, John Muyskens, Anu Narayanswamy, and Naema Ahmed (2021) “Countries’ climate pledges built on flawed data, Post investigation finds”, Washington Post,

Morgera, Elisa and Elsa Tsioumani (2010) “The Evolution of Benefit Sharing: Linking Biodiversity and Community Livelihoods”, 19 Rev. Eur. Comp. & Int'l Envtl. L. 150,

Mugyenyi, Onesmus, Anna Amumpiire, and Namujuzi Frances (2015) “Sustainable Conservation of Bwindi Impenetrable National Park and community welfare improvement”, Policy Brief,

Murphy, James T. and Mary Lawhon (2010) “Market intermediaries and rural people in Bolivia’s forest products sector: Are trusting partnerships possible?”, Version "Forethcoming [sic] in Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography",

Myers, Kim (2021) “What’s in a carbon credit?”, Ecosystem Marketplace Article,

Myers Madeira, Erin, Lisa Kelley, Jill Blockhus, David Ganz, Rane Cortez, and Greg Fishbein (2013) “Sharing the Benefits of REDD+ LESSONS FROM THE FIELD”, The Nature Conservancy,

Nayak, Prateep Kumar (2021) “Power in realising community conservation and livelihoods”, In Anthony Charles (ed.), Communities, Conservation and Livelihoods.

Nest, Michael, Saul Mullard, and Cecilie Wathne (2020) “Corruption and climate finance. Implications for climate change interventions”, U4 Brief 2020:14,

Nguyen, Quang Tan, Thi Truong Luong, Thi Hai Van Nguyen, and K’Tip (2010) “Evaluation and Verification of the Free, Prior and Informed Consent Process under the UN-REDD Programme in Lam Dong Province, Vietnam”, RECOFTC,

Noe, Christine, Adriana Budeanu, Emmanuel Sulle, Mette Fog Olwig, Dan Brockington, and Ruth John (2017) “Partnerships for Wildlife Protection and their Sustainability Outcomes: A Literature Review”, Copenhagen Business School,


Omoding, James, Gretchen Walters, Edward Andama, Salete Carvalho, Julien Colomer, Marina Cracco, Gerald Eilu, Gaster Kiyingi, Chetan Kumar, Council Dickson Langoya, Barbara Nakangu Bugembe, Florian Reinhard, and Celina Schelle (2020) “Analysing and Applying Stakeholder Perceptions to Improve Protected Area Governance in Ugandan Conservation Landscapes”, Land, 9(6), 207,

Outhwaite, Willow (2020) “Accessing, harvesting and trading in wildlife: Corruption in the use of permits and allocation of access rights”, TNRC Topic Brief,

Outhwaite, Willow, Eleanor Drinkwater, Louise Shelley, and Mike Belecky (Forthcoming) “Monitoring wildlife crime cases: a possible approach to reduce corruption in the justice system?” TNRC Topic Brief.

Pacha, María José (2015) “Ecosystem services valuation as a decision-making tool”, Living Amazon WWF Report,

Packer, Craig and Stephen Polasky (2018) “Reconciling corruption with conservation triage: Should investments shift from the last best places?”, PLoS Biol.16(8),

Pascual, Unai, Jacob Phelps, Eneko Garmendia, Katrina Brown, Esteve Corbera, Adrian Martin, Erik Gomez-Baggethun, and Roldan Muradian (2014) “Social Equity Matters in Payments for Ecosystem Services”, BioScience, Volume 64, Issue 11,

Pascual, Unai, Patricia Balvanera, Sandra Díaz, et al. (2017) “Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach”, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Volumes 26–27,

Pérez-Cirera, V., S. Cornelius, and J. Zapata (2021) “POWERING NATURE: CREATING THE CONDITIONS TO ENABLE NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS”, Case studies,

Peskett, Leo and Gernot Brodnig (2011) “Carbon rights in REDD+: exploring the implications for poor and vulnerable people”, World Bank and REDD-net,

Portugal Del Pino, Diego, Simone Borelli, and Stephan Pauleit (2020) “Nature-Based Solutions in Latin American Cities”, The Palgrave Handbook of Climate Resilient Societies,

Pretty, Jules and David Smith (2004) “Social Capital in Biodiversity Conservation and Management”, Conservation Biology, Volume 18, No. 3,

PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers) (2016) “Fighting corruption at the subnational level: Risks and opportunities in devolved states”, Public Sector Research Centre,

Rights and Resources Initiative (2021) “Best Practices from RRI Collaborators in Africa”, RRI / CIEL,

Robinson, Brian E., Yuta J. Masuda, Allison Kelly, Margaret B. Holland, Charles Bedford, Malcolm Childress, Diana Fletschner, Edward T. Game, Chloe Ginsburg, Thea Hilhorst, Steven Lawry, Daniela A. Miteva, Jessica Musengezi, Lisa Naughton-Treves, Christoph Nolte, William D. Sunderlin, and Peter Veit (2018) “Incorporating Land Tenure Security into Conservation”, Conservation Letters, Volume 11, Issue 2,

Rodden, Jonathan and Erik Wibbels (2019) “Decentralized Governance and Accountability: Academic Research and The Future of Donor Programming”, USAID,

Roe, Dilys, Francesca Booker, Olivia Wilson-Holt, and Rosie Cooney (2020) “Diversifying Local Livelihoods while Sustaining Wildlife: Exploring incentives for community-based conservation”, Luc Hoffman Institute,

Roe, D., B. Turner, A. Chausson, E. Hemmerle, and N. Seddon (2021) “Investing in nature for development: do nature-based interventions deliver local development outcomes?”, IIED,

Rosenbaum, Kenneth L. (2005) “TOOLS FOR CIVIL SOCIETY ACTION TO REDUCE FOREST CORRUPTION: Drawing Lessons from Transparency International”, World Bank,

Salzman, Jim (2005) “The promise and perils of payments for ecosystem services”, Int. J. Innovation and Sustainable Development, Vol. 1, Nos. 1/2,

Sarmiento Barletti, Juan Pablo and Anne M. Larson (2017) “Rights abuse allegations in the context of REDD+ readiness and implementation: A preliminary review and proposal for moving forward”, CIFOR Info Brief No. 190,

Sattler, Claudia, Susanne Trampnau, Sarah Schomers, Claas Meyer, and Bettina Matzdorf (2013) “Multi-classification of payments for ecosystem services: How do classification characteristics relate to overall PES success?”, Ecosystem Services, Volume 6,

Schneider, Lambert (2007) “Is the CDM fulfilling its environmental and sustainable development objectives? An evaluation of the CDM and options for improvement”, WWF,

Sheill, Kate and Rob Parry-Jones (2021) “Natural resources, human rights, and corruption: What are the connections?”, TNRC Topic Brief,

Silverman, Allison (2015) “Using International Law to Advance Womens’ Tenure Rights in REDD+”, RRI / CIEL,

Snyman, Sue and Kelly S. Bricker (2019) “Living on the edge: benefit-sharing from protected area tourism”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27:6,

Soliev, Ilkhom, Insa Theesfeld, Eileen Abert, and Wiebke Schramm (2021) “Benefit sharing and conflict transformation: Insights for and from REDD+ forest governance in sub-Saharan Africa”, Forest Policy and Economics, Volume 133,

Song, Lisa (2019) “An even more inconvenient truth: Why Carbon Credits for Forest Conservation May Be Worse than Nothing”, ProPublica,

Tacconi, Luca and David Aled Williams (2020) “Corruption and Anti-Corruption in Environmental and Resource Management”, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Vol. 45:305-329,



Timoshyna, Anastasiya and Eleanor Drinkwater (2021) “Understanding corruption risks in the global trade in wild plants”, TNRC Topic Brief,

TNRC (2020) “Understanding crime convergence to better target natural resource corruption”, TNRC Blog Post,

Transparency International (2011) “Global Corruption Report: Climate Change A User's Guide”, Working Draft,

UNDRR (2021) “Words into Action: Nature-based Solutions for Disaster Risk Reduction”, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction,

UN Global Compact (2013) “A Guide for Anti-Corruption Risk Assessment”,



Vanderklift, Mathew A., Raymundo Marcos-Martinez, James R.A. Butler, Michael Coleman, Anissa Lawrence, Heidi Prislan, Andrew D.L. Steven, and Sebastian Thomas (2019) “Constraints and opportunities for market-based finance for the restoration and protection of blue carbon ecosystems”, Marine Policy, Volume 107,

Van Hecken, Gert, Johan Bastiaensen, and Catherine Windey (2015) “Towards a power-sensitive and socially-informed analysis of payments for ecosystem services (PES): Addressing the gaps in the current debate”, Ecological Economics, Volume 120,


Wathne, Cecilie (2021) “Understanding corruption and how to curb it”, Saul Mullard (Ed.),

Watson, Charlene and Liane Shalatek (2020) “Climate Finance Thematic Briefing: REDD+ Finance”, Climate Finance Fundamentals 5,


Williams, David Aled and Kendra E. Dupuy (2019) “Will REDD+ Safeguards Mitigate Corruption? Qualitative Evidence from Southeast Asia”, The Journal of Development Studies, 55:10, 2129-2144,

Williams, Aled, Kendra Dupuy, and Fiona Downs (2015) “REDD Integrity: An evidence based approach to anti-corruption in REDD+”, U4 Issue March 2015: No. 7,

Wilson-Holt, Olivia and Paul Steele (2019) “Human–wildlife conflict and insurance: Can insurance reduce the costs of living with wildlife?”, IIED Discussion Paper,

Wittman, Hannah K. and Cynthia Caron (2007) “Carbon Offsets and Inequality: Social Costs and Co-Benefits in Guatemala and Sri Lanka”, Society & Natural Resources, Volume 22, Issue 8,

World Bank (2016) “Carbon Credits and Additionality: Past, Present, and Future”, Technical Note 13,

Wunder, Sven (2015) “Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services”, Ecological Economics, Volume 117,

Wunder, Sven, Stefanie Engle, and Stefano Pagiola (2008) “Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries”, Ecological Economics, Volume 65, Issue 4,

Wunder, Sven (2005) “Payments for environmental services: Some nuts and bolts”, CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 42,

WWF (2020) “Living Planet Report 2020 - Bending the curve of biodiversity loss”, R.E.A. Almond, M. Grooten, and T. Petersen (Ed.),

WWF (2021) “People. Nature. Together.”, August 2021 update,


WWF, UNEP-WCMC, SGP/ICCA-GSI, LM, TNC, CI, WCS, EP, ILC-S, CM, IUCN (2021) “The state of Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Communities’ lands and territories”, Technical review,

Zafra-Calvo, N., U. Pascual, D. Brockington, B. Coolsaet, J. A. Cortes-Vazquez, N. Gross-Camp, I. Palomo, and N. D. Burgess (2017) “Towards an indicator system to assess equitable management in protected areas”, Biological Conservation, Volume 211, Part A,