Meaningful Benefits or Divisive Outcomes? Local Perspectives from Peru, Kenya, and Thailand on Benefit Sharing in PES and Nature-Based Carbon Projects

Dominique Schmid, (Switzerland)

Benefit-sharing mechanisms (BSMs) are central to payments for ecosystem services and nature-based carbon projects, designed to channel benefits to local and Indigenous communities. Yet, their design often generates conflict. Competing rationales-rewarding performance, compensating costs, prioritizing the poorest, recognizing rights, or supporting facilitators-frequently clash, producing tensions over fairness and legitimacy. These challenges are compounded by weak transparency, insecure tenure, and power asymmetries. Drawing on 190 semi-structured interviews across 13 cases in Peru, Kenya, and Thailand, this study examines how communities evaluate fairness in BSM and which benefits they find meaningful and why. Results reveal sharp divisions: in Peru, Indigenous groups prioritized collective investments while smallholders sought individual payments; in Kenya, women emphasized water access while men highlighted agricultural inputs; in Thailand, younger participants favored performance-based rewards while elders viewed them as divisive. Such conflicts show how allocation choices can deepen inequality and erode trust. By applying the Environmental Justice and Sustainable Livelihoods Framework, we demonstrate how perceptions of fairness and benefit “meaningfulness” are embedded in broader struggles over rights, recognition, and livelihood security.