Operational Risk:

Critical

Score:

10/100

Next Risk Category Right Arrow
Left Arrow Back to France Overview

Disregard of Corruption in-Country

Collapse
Q51 0/100

Do the armed forces have military doctrine addressing corruption as a strategic issue on operations?

View Question
Military doctrine Score: 0 / 100
According to a commando soldier deployed in several external operations (Opex) from Africa to the Middle East (1), forces undergo cultural training at EMSOME…
Explore
Transparency Score: NA / 100
This indicator is scored Not Applicable, as no explicit doctrine that considers corruption as a strategic issue for operations exists. No aspect of the…
Explore
Q52 0/100

Is there training in corruption issues for commanders at all levels in order to ensure that these commanders are clear on the corruption issues they may face during deployment?

View Question
Score: 0 / 100
The word “corruption” is not mentioned in the various “operational preparation” training phases followed by troops about to be deployed in external operations (OPEX),…
Explore
Q53 25/100

Is corruption as a strategic issue considered in the forward planning of operations? If so, is there evidence that commanders at all levels apply this knowledge in the field?

View Question
Forward planning Score: 25 / 100
As explained by an anonymous commando soldier, [1] some practices of corruption like facilitation payments, small bribes, or “backchich” can be addressed during cultural…
Explore
Application Score: 25 / 100
Corruption is taken into account in planning for very few operations. As such, mitigation approaches are not implemented consistently during deployments. [1] No record…
Explore

Corruption within Mission

Expand
Q54 0/100

Are trained professionals regularly deployed to monitor corruption risk in the field (whether deployed on operations or peacekeeping missions)?

View Question
Corruption monitoring Score: 0 / 100
As mentioned, there is no reference to corruption specifically in the context of « operational preparation » for the deployment of the armed forces…
Explore
M&E policy Score: 0 / 100
At the time of the assessment, there was no M&E guidance for the mission on how to monitor corruption risks. It is, however, worth…
Explore
Transparency Score: NA / 100
This indicator is scored Not Applicable. The Sapin 2 law [1] empowered the Military Ethics Committee, appointing an “ethics chief”(2) in charge of monitoring…
Explore

Contracting

Expand
Q55 25/100

Are there guidelines, and staff training, on addressing corruption risks in contracting whilst on deployed operations or peacekeeping missions?

View Question
Comprehensiveness Score: 50 / 100
Contracting in operations is under the responsibility of the deployed directors of the Armed Forces Commissioner Service (Service du commissariat des armées), who are…
Explore
Training Score: 0 / 100
The main provider for the armed forces abroad is a public institution with legal personality under the supervision of the MOAF. This is the…
Explore

Private Security Companies

Expand
Q56 NS/100

Are private military contractors employed and if so, are they subject to a similar level of scrutiny as for the armed forces?

View Question
Policies Score: NS / 100
This indicator is not assigned a score in the GDI. In choosing sub-contractors, the Ministry of the Armed Forces (MOAF) has to abide by…
Explore
Scrutiny Score: NS / 100
This indicator is not assigned a score in the GDI. According to a journalist and expert researcher on defence issues, [1] PMCs are not…
Explore
Enforcement Score: NS / 100
This indicator is not assigned a score in the GDI. As we have seen, there are no real policies and laws on the use…
Explore