Table 1. A proposed typology of benefit sharing arrangements for the governance of social-ecological systems in developing countries


Category
Examples of benefit sharing approaches Governance arrangements Benefit sharing outcomes (real and potential) Related literature
Co-Management
Community-based Natural Resource Management, Integrated Conservation and Development Projects, Community-based Wildlife Conservation, Joint Forest Management, Integrated Water Resource Management
 
Designed to provide the means for local communities to share power with governmental actors - There is differential control over access to benefits
- The flows of benefits are bureaucratically structured
- Participating groups tend to be mixed (homogenous/heterogeneous)
- Monitoring and enforcement of agreements is usually difficult
- Efficiency in delivery is dependent on the levels of bureaucracy
- Main implementation weakness is how to curtail the unyielding power of state actors
Murphree 1996; Gibson 1999; Murombedzi 2000; Barrow and Murphree 2001; Dzingirai and Breen 2005; Nkhata et al. 2009; Nkhata and Breen 2010; Pomeroy et al. 2010; Tole 2010
Market-Oriented
Payments for Ecosystem Services, Clean Development Mechanisms, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation Designed to address market failures where the value of benefits cannot be captured in monetary terms - There is limited structured control over access to benefits
- Multiple channels exist for flows of benefits
- Delivery of benefits can be symmetrical (producers vs. suppliers)
- Participating groups tend to be heterogeneous
- Monitoring and enforcement of agreements is litigation driven
- Efficiency in delivery is dependent on the structure of incentives
- Main implementation weakness is to find willing buyers for ecosystem services
Wunder 2007; Brockhaus and Botoni 2009; Kosmus and Cordero 2009; Nelson et al. 2009
Egalitarian
Access and Benefit Sharing Designed to address social injustices related to equitable access to, and sharing of benefits from, ecosystem services - Delivery of benefits is asymmetrical (local vs. national impacts)
- There is no structured control over access to benefits
- Flows of benefits do not follow specific channels
- Delivery of benefits is perceived to be fair and equitable
- Participating groups tend to be homogeneous
- Monitoring and enforcement of agreements is based on social pressure
- Efficiency in delivery is dependent on social cohesion
- Main implementation weakness is to buffer the sharing schemes from external forces and shocks
CBD 1992; CBD 2000; Jayaraman 1996; Schuklenk and Kleinsmidt 2006; Suneetha and Pisupati 2009