Collaborative management is a widely accepted means of resolving conflict amongst natural resource stakeholders. Power sharing is central to most conceptualizations of collaboration, but theoretical insights about power are only rarely used to interrogate collaborative processes. Agenda-setting theory was used to analyse cases of collaborative deer management in England, Scotland and Indiana (USA). Collaborative management agendas across scales and social contexts were found to be primarily set by contextual factors, particularly stakeholders drawing on specific cultures and policies, and pre-defining issues. These findings highlight significant gaps between the theory and practice of collaboration. If, in practice, substantial power has been wielded in advance, the capacity of subsequent collaborative processes to share power amongst stakeholders may be severely limited. To provide opportunities for differing cultural perspectives to be expressed and challenged, convenors of collaborative processes therefore need to be aware of and reflexive upon existing power relationships and structures.

Sharing of benefits from nature conservation is widely regarded as a way to enhance local residents’ support for protected areas. While in past years, the effectiveness of such approaches has been investigated in detail, governance processes underpinning benefit sharing have received less attention. This study examines the legislation and implementation practice of a revenue sharing scheme in southern Ethiopia, an area that is currently undergoing substantial social and environmental changes that threaten livelihoods and ecosystems. Based on qualitative data from interviews, group discussions and workshops, four main areas of shortcomings in the current legislation and implementation practice were identified: information provision; imbalanced roles and responsibilities; compromised accountability; and the lack of connection between revenue and wildlife tourism in the minds of the recipients. While some of these factors fostered misunderstandings and misuse of the monies, others meant that even where revenue was disbursed it was not connected with wildlife conservation, and thus did not have the intended effect. A comparison between these factors and those in the literature on the evaluation of comanagement arrangements revealed substantial overlap. Revenue sharing may be regarded as part of the comanagement of wildlife areas, but to be successful the management of these areas needs to be shared, and not just the financial benefits.