Local people and their aspirations must be included in any management or governance institution if landscape governance is to be equitable. By including staff from the district in our team, we tried to develop a monitoring system not only relevant to village and kumban priorities, but also the district. This was also applicable when choosing NTFPs, and the way to report the results and recommendations for further action. The involvement of local people from each village in all steps of the monitoring system, from its design to testing, was also to ensure local relevance and

participation. Reasons for participating or not in monitoring activities During the testing period we measured local participation and looked for the reasons why certain villages were more engaged in the process than others, but this was limited by the project’s life, the impact of gold mining, and the understanding

of the overall process (e.g. the issue of tax BMN673 on NTFPs). Gold mining activities had a major impact on daily life in three of our pilot villages (i.e. Muangmuay, Vangmat, and Vangkham) and, by extension, on our activities and research results. A considerable number SN-38 in vitro of villagers involved in gold mining stopped participating in the monitoring work. Three of the six villages were showing promising signs in the utilization of the monitoring tool. Some villagers, individually or collectively, developed a sense of ownership of the tool and appreciated its benefits, not necessarily as a means of negotiation, but for themselves to visualize the changes affecting their

forest resources. These three villages were located upstream from the gold extraction. Fish was still an important resource for them. Participation was also influenced by the villagers’ capacity for self-mobilization. Having meetings on a regular basis is necessary for sharing and discussing the monitoring results; this was something villagers were not necessarily used to. Another issue affecting the EPZ015938 concentration willingness of local Mirabegron people to participate was tax. They were sometimes concerned that if they declared the real value of marketable NTFPs, they would have to pay more tax. These concerns were enhanced by the involvement of local authorities in the process. This is why, occasionally, they did not provide true amounts and did not attend meetings. To address this issue, the links between the different levels (village, kumban and district) need to be emphasized and strengthened, and the possible impacts of monitoring activities clarified. Incentive for participating and local priorities Collecting data on NTFP harvest is an investment in terms of time and effort, and without incentives, even the most relevant monitoring is unlikely to be sustained. Incentives could be, for example, better access to government programmes, services, and capacity building in terms of using the results as a powerful negotiating tool.