| 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 | |