Can we make participatory NTFP monitoring work? Lessons learnt from the development of a multi-stakeholder system in Northern Laos

Abstract

Monitoring natural resources is essential for their successful and sustainable management. Community participation should enable local people to take ownership of the monitoring and ensure that it is cost-effective. But even then, success is often elusive. We developed a participatory Non Timber Forest Product (NTFP) monitoring system in 6 upland villages of Luang Prabang Province, Lao PDR, using focus group discussions, interviews, village meetings and direct observations. We used simple approaches to select resources, discuss issues, and develop a cost-effective NTFP monitoring system. Communities usually relied on shifting cultivation, fishing and collection of NTFPs. Gold mining activities affected livelihoods in three villages, which had better access to markets. Participatory monitoring looks less successful when external economic pressures or a major environmental threat disturbs local livelihoods. In the case of gold mining, we observed the prioritization of villagers’ activities towards this sudden new economic opportunity. In contrast, communities not impacted by mining participated more actively in data collection. They understood how the data could be used to influence the local government, to achieve more beneficial land management for all stakeholders concerned. We believe that participatory NTFP monitoring can work and is an important tool for decision-making and economic empowerment for local communities. We identified the conditions under which participatory NTFP monitoring could work: reaching a shared understanding of what needs to be monitored and how; testing and refining a simple monitoring system; and integrating local government concerns with those of other stakeholders.

Full text

ORIGINAL PAPER
Can we make participatory NTFP monitoring work?
Lessons learnt from the development of a multi-
stakeholder system in Northern Laos
M. Boissie
`re •F. Bastide •I. Basuki •J. L. Pfund •A. Boucard
Received: 6 December 2011 / Accepted: 5 November 2013 / Published online: 20 November 2013
ÓThe Author(s) 2013. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract Monitoring natural resources is essential for their successful and sustainable
management. Community participation should enable local people to take ownership of
the monitoring and ensure that it is cost-effective. But even then, success is often elusive.
We developed a participatory Non Timber Forest Product (NTFP) monitoring system in 6
upland villages of Luang Prabang Province, Lao PDR, using focus group discussions,
interviews, village meetings and direct observations. We used simple approaches to select
resources, discuss issues, and develop a cost-effective NTFP monitoring system. Com-
munities usually relied on shifting cultivation, fishing and collection of NTFPs. Gold
mining activities affected livelihoods in three villages, which had better access to markets.
Participatory monitoring looks less successful when external economic pressures or a
major environmental threat disturbs local livelihoods. In the case of gold mining, we
observed the prioritization of villagers’ activities towards this sudden new economic
opportunity. In contrast, communities not impacted by mining participated more actively
in data collection. They understood how the data could be used to influence the local
government, to achieve more beneficial land management for all stakeholders concerned.
We believe that participatory NTFP monitoring can work and is an important tool for
decision-making and economic empowerment for local communities. We identified the
conditions under which participatory NTFP monitoring could work: reaching a shared
understanding of what needs to be monitored and how; testing and refining a simple
monitoring system; and integrating local government concerns with those of other
stakeholders.
M. Boissie
`re (&)
Centre de Coope
´ration Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le De
´veloppement (CIRAD),
Campus de Baillarguet, 34398 Montpellier Cedex 5, France
e-mail: m.boissiere@cgiar.org
M. Boissie
`re F. Bastide I. Basuki J. L. Pfund A. Boucard
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Jalan CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindang Barang, Bogor
16115, Indonesia
123
Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:149–170
DOI 10.1007/s10531-013-0589-y

Keywords Participatory monitoring system NTFP Multi-stakeholders Adaptive
management Lao PDR
Introduction
Monitoring is the systematic gathering and analysis of information to observe change in the
physical and social environment (Evans and Guariguata 2007; Garcia and Lescuyer 2008).
In the area of land management, participation in monitoring requires the involvement of
different stakeholders: local communities, decision-makers, scientists and NGOs. Its
function as a ‘‘cornerstone to effective decision-making in natural resource management’’
makes it a powerful tool for adaptive co-management (Cundill and Fabricius 2009). It
promotes social learning and collaboration in environmental management. It is not only
considered a cost-effective tool (Danielsen et al. 2005a; Sheil and Lawrence 2004), but
also a means to allow feedback for land management (Armitage et al. 2009; Berkes and
Folke 1998; Berkes et al. 2000; Stringer et al. 2006).
Most studies on participatory monitoring are site-oriented, which makes them
descriptive and anecdotal, and it is therefore difficult to extract general guidelines appli-
cable to different scales and situations. Few attempts have been made to link different
studies to a theoretical framework. Some authors have only proposed a characterization of
monitoring approaches according to the degree to which local communities are engaged in
data gathering and analysis (Danielsen et al. 2008; Evans and Guariguata 2007).
Many case studies show the value, success and interest of land users in the participatory
monitoring approach (Andrianandrasana et al. 2005; Danielsen et al. 2005b; Noss et al.
2005; Rijsoort and Jinfeng 2005). They also argue the need to promote the local point of
view and participation in decision-making (Danielsen et al. 2005a).
A few authors have underlined the limitations and caveats related to participatory
monitoring and suggested ways to address them (Garcia and Lescuyer 2008; Poulsen and
Luanglath 2005; Webber et al. 2007; Yasue et al. 2010). They highlight the difficulty in
scaling up the results for natural resource management decisions. Local people do not
always understand the concept of monitoring, and by extension, the benefits they could
receive. Lack of incentives to follow up for long periods and time limitations make
monitoring difficult to sustain. According to these authors, developing a comprehensive
framework of long-term participatory monitoring, ensuring local interest, and offering
incentives are key issues to be addressed.
We agree that incorporating local needs and opinions in all aspects of natural resource
management, including monitoring, is a prerequisite for success. In the hope of making
local participation more successful and sustainable, we developed a multi-stakeholders’
monitoring system of natural resources, in 6 villages in Northern Laos. We focused on
simple tools to assess the availability of important Non Timber Forest Products (NTFPs),
rather than focusing on biodiversity, a hard to define concept. The originality of our
approach was that it linked governance structures, important natural resources for various
stakeholders, including local communities and government staff at the district level, and a
new policy, Participatory Land Use Planning (PLUP). The latter was intended as a way to
give more voice to local people in land management. We also aimed at understanding the
conditions for participatory monitoring to work, taking into account different character-
istics such as the distance to market or the presence of roads and other infrastructure.
150 Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:149–170
123

In this paper we examine the step-by-step approach we used to develop NTFP moni-
toring with local community and government staff participation. We provide an example of
participatory approaches to integrate different perspectives (e.g. villagers, district officers
and conservation organizations). Then we discuss issues of participation and sustainability.
Finally, we propose a monitoring system that could be easily integrated into local gov-
ernance and government policies, followed by a discussion on the potential and limitations
of the approach.
Research context and site description
Research context
Between 2009 and 2010, research on participatory biodiversity and livelihood monitoring
was conducted in Laos as part of a broader study on the links between livelihoods and
biodiversity values in fragmented landscapes (CIFOR 2010; Laumonier et al. 2008; Pfund
et al. 2011; Belcher et al. 2013). These landscapes are facing rapid changes, with new
economic developments (e.g. increasing numbers of investors and companies operating in
this region, livestock improvement, tree planting, and an improved road network) (NAFRI,
NAFES and NUoL 2005).
Other contributors to change in the landscape include government policies. In the late
1990s there was a move to halt poppy farming (UNODC 2005) followed by a policy to
reduce poverty and to eradicate shifting cultivation through Land Use Planning (LUP). The
resulting progressive rural transition from subsistence agriculture to market oriented crops
has also contributed to changes in the landscape. These changes need to be monitored,
notably their effects on the availability of subsistence and marketable products. To develop
monitoring tools relevant to conservationists, local government and local communities, we
need to ensure active participation at all levels, particularly of local elites. We also con-
sidered how our approach and results could be integrated into current government policies,
especially those related to LUP, which are of growing importance in Laos.
Site description
Initially, we selected seven villages (one village was dropped from this activity because of
its relocation during the project implementation
1
) as pilot sites according to: ethnicity,
distance to a protected area [Nam Et-Phou Loei National Protected Area (NPA)], distance
to market and infrastructure, altitude (from 500 to 1,000 m), and population density
(Table 1). The location of the seven villages shows a gradient of these various factors. All
sites were located in Viengkham District (see Fig. 1), one of the poorest districts in Laos,
but with the most forest in Luang Prabang Province. Forests near the villages were
degraded and scattered in small patches in this hilly, mountainous landscape. Hmong,
Khmu and Tai-Lao were the main ethnic groups in these villages (Chazee 1999;M.
Roberts, personnal communication 2010).
Local livelihoods are mainly based on slash-and-burn cultivation of upland rice, irri-
gated rice fields (i.e. Muangmuay), fruit and vegetable gardens and livestock (e.g. cattle,
1
Phadeng Village was moved further away from the NPA buffer zone and closer (according to the
government resettlement strategy) to infrastructure and services (health and education). It was subsequently
merged with another Hmong village (Phoukhong) located close to the road (Watts et al. 2010).
Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:149–170 151
123

Table 1 Characterization of the different study sites (livelihoods, ethnic groups, population, distance to protected area, distance to infrastructure and markets)
Villages Ethnic
group
Population Livelihood Altitude
(m)
Direct distance to
protected areas (km)
Direct distance to district
markets (in km)
Phadeng-
(Phoukong)
Hmong 285 (235) Farming based on upland rice, NTFP collection, gardens,
livestock
960 2 15
Muangmuay Khmu and
Tai-Lao
972 Farming based on upland rice, irrigated rice field, NTFP
collection, gardens, cash crop plantations, livestock
490 7 28
Bouammi-
Vangmat
Khmu and
Tai-Lao
354 Farming based on upland rice, NTFP collection, gardens,
cash crop plantation, livestock
510 3 26
Donkeo Khmu 378 Farming based on upland rice, NTFP collection, gardens,
plantation, livestock
820 6 24
Vangkham Khmu 263 Farming based on upland rice, NTFP collection, gardens,
plantation, livestock
470 9 30
Houaykhone Khmu 338 Farming based on upland rice, NTFP collection, gardens,
livestock
530 5 30
Paklao Khmu 414 Farming based on upland rice, NTFP collection, gardens,
plantation, livestock
530 4 24
Information in this table was collected during the Landscape Mosaics project and the CGIAR-Canada Linkage Fund (CCLF) project, funded by CIDA
152 Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:149–170
123

pigs, chickens). In order to eradicate shifting cultivation, the local government has sup-
ported villagers’ efforts in planting cash crops such as teak (Tectona grandis), eaglewood
(Aquilaria crassna) and rubber (Hevea brasiliensis). In some villages, fish is an important
food and source of cash income (when the village is not far from a market).
NTFPs also play an important role in Viengkham’s development. Countrywide, their
commercial value may reach US$ 7–8 million a year, reflecting the expanding small and
medium-scale processing industries. It is estimated that in rural areas NTFPs, at the
household level, are annually worth about US$ 300 (NAFRI, NUOL, SNV 2007).
In Viengkham, dependency on forest products varied according to the villages’ location.
Some of the most valuable NTFPs have been domesticated or are in a process of
domestication, for example, pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan), broomgrass (Thysanolaema
maxima), peuak meuak (Boehmeria malabarica), and paper mulberry (Broussonetia pa-
pyrifera) (Weyerhaeuser et al. 2010). NTFP domestication tends to occur in villages
located far from valuable forest resources or where tenure improves the resource security.
The local government has also provided NTFP seedlings and training through a decen-
tralized technical organization called Technical Service Center (TSC), located at the vil-
lage cluster level.
Village cluster
The six villages were part of the same village cluster, or kumban pattana (Fig. 1; Table 1).
The kumban has been a priority for the Lao administration since 2004. As an institutional
link between the district and village levels, it is:
Fig. 1 Map of Muangmuay Village Cluster, District of Viengkham, Province of Luang Pabrang, Lao PDR
Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:149–170 153
123

A formal administrative grouping of villages within a district defined for the purpose
of extending government policies and development programmes (MAF and NLMA
2010)
Their focus is on agricultural extension, LUP, reporting to the district, and implementing
and monitoring land management (Foppes 2008; Prime Minister 2008). A key institution
within the kumban, TSC is in charge of the agricultural and forestry extension and
management. Its roles are:
To extend and transfer production techniques, lead farmers to produce and provide
information (MAF 2008)
We used the kumban as a knowledge platform. Because the TSC acts as a disseminator for
the district, the kumban is an ideal space to promote stakeholder participation in monitoring.
Methods
Methods used for selecting the resources to be monitored, choosing indicators, developing
the monitoring tools, and building local capacity to use them, were partially adapted from
multidisciplinary approaches. The latter were developed to understand and assess local
perceptions of land features and natural resources (more in Sheil et al. 2002).
Community meetings
Community meetings, with an average of 30 attendants in each village, were held through
regular and repetitive village visits. In the meetings we presented our research purpose,
assessed local interest, and asked for villagers’ participation, then later validated our
findings (e.g. for the selected NTFPs to monitor, the monitoring tools to be used with
villagers and how to report). Community meetings were used for interactive explanation of
monitoring concepts and goals. Short dramatic performances were used to explain the
concepts (DeNeve and Heppner 1997). These plays featured three members of our team
simulating situations, in which natural resource management, market(s), and negotiations
with the authorities benefit from monitoring (Boucard et al. 2010).
During the community meetings, we tried to keep a gender balance, so that women, who
play a major role in NTFP harvesting and trade, could express their concerns and wishes.
To do so, we used the ‘‘talking stick’’ method (Colfer 2007). The speakers passed a small
bamboo stick to each other to use like a microphone. We had men or women assisting in
the meetings, especially with the people who where usually quiet. Attendance for these
meetings varied among villages and according to the season and villagers’ free time.
Participatory mapping
The objective of mapping was first to build a common understanding between villagers and
scientists on the locations of natural resources and their importance; and second, to under-
stand how villagers spatially used their land and resources (Sheil et al. 2002). Maps were
developed by 5 groups [women and men (young and old), and one group of village officials],
and then merged. Each group was provided with a base map showing the rivers, village
location, and roads based on a SPOT 5 satellite image (30 Meter Digital Elevation Model,
acquired on March 1, 2007). These separate groups were important to compare their varied
154 Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:149–170
123

knowledge and to provoke discussion. Producing these maps required good facilitation to
avoid influencing the process and to give each group a chance to provide its own version
(Chambers 2006). An example of these maps is provided in Fig. 2, for Muangmuay village.
Another example focuses only on the selected NTFPs, with their toponyms (Hargitai 2006),
and was part of the testing of the monitoring approach (Fig. 3). The development of the maps
with villagers was then followed by ground checks, using GPS, to verify the position of rivers,
hamlets and other important features with the help of local guides.
Scoring exercises
Scoring exercises were used to select the most important forest products according to the
same groups of villagers involved in the mapping exercise. These scoring activities were
also used to assess the importance of forest in the past, present and future from a local point
of view and to understand the evolution of local perceptions (Sheil et al. 2002). One
hundred counters were distributed to each group, who divided them between the different
resources or land types to indicate their relative importance.
Focus group discussions
Focus group discussions (FGD) were used to answer semi directive questionnaires on
location and local management of important NTFPs, and markets. These exercises also
used five groups as in the mapping exercises, but with different participants. We limited the
number of participants to five or six persons per group. A facilitator made sure all par-
ticipants had a chance to express themselves.
Village level interviews and household surveys
Once the NTFPs to be monitored were identified, household surveys were conducted to
locate the main area where each household collected NTFPs, the amount collected per
year, and what income these generated. At least 25 households were surveyed in each
village. Resource persons (e.g. hunters or specialists in the collection of one specific
product) were also interviewed on harvesting/hunting techniques.
Results: Participatory monitoring in the making
For the development of the monitoring tool, we identified, with the participation of mul-
tiple stakeholders, key resources and indicators to be monitored. This included ways to
conduct the monitoring. We also deliberately integrated this resource monitoring into a
local governance mechanism and we looked for long-term use of the monitoring system by
proposing that it be embedded into a key land management policy, here LUP.
Development of the multi-stakeholders’ monitoring system
Selection of key resources
We built a monitoring tool based on the local viewpoint. During FGD we prepared a list of
the most important NTFPs used by villagers, for trade or their daily needs (e.g. for
Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:149–170 155
123

construction materials, food and hunting; Boucard et al. 2010). In each of the pilot sites we
produced a list of a hundred plants and animals, using scoring exercises. We then reduced
the list to the 20 most important natural resources for each village. This was key to create a
list of resources considered as important by the villagers present during these discussions.
We then analysed the 20 natural resources based on criteria that took into account both
conservation and development priorities, according to local government and NGOs.
Resources important for conservation were wildlife found in the NPA and economic
resources were marketable NTFPs found near the village. More scientific criteria such as
the multi functionality of the chosen species (Table 2) were also considered. We scored
each of these species according to the criteria. We kept the 6 species with the highest
scores for the combined criteria. Villagers, during a community meeting, selected 3–5
species (Table 3). Facilitators made sure every group was represented and contributed to
the selection. During the community meetings, villagers adapted and sometimes partly
changed the list of resources to be monitored, according to new priorities (e.g. new market
potential or recent domestication).
The final list of resources to be monitored was based on the interests of both com-
munities and government agencies, even though interests and priorities could change over
time. Discussions and rating exercises were also conducted with representatives from the
District Department of Forestry. Among the criteria we used was villagers’ dependence on
products for subsistence (e.g. fish and bamboo shoots) and trade (e.g. peuak meuak, paper
mulberry, and broom grass). We confirmed the importance of each product, their distri-
bution within each village’s territory, and their contribution to each household’s income,
using household surveys and key informant interviews. Figure 3shows a map of the main
selected NTFPs at the village cluster level (kumban).
Fig. 2 Participatory map of natural resources and important land types according to five groups of villagers
in Muangmuay [women and men (old and young), and village officials]
156 Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:149–170
123

Resource monitoring and management at the village level
During further community meetings with the contribution of all interested stakeholders,
including villagers, the Department of Forestry at the district level and TSC at the kumban
level, we chose the best way to collect regular information on the monitored resources. We
decided on the support required and the level of data collection in the village at the
household level. Volunteers were responsible for noting their NTFP collection (quantity,
location and total income), while the heads of village units (each village is divided in units,
or clusters of households, and each unit is led by a villager) together with the village head,
were in charge of aggregating the data and formulating recommendations for the kumban
Fig. 3 Map of the main selected NTPFs in Muangmuay village at cluster level according to a group of
collectors
Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:149–170 157
123

Table 2 Criteria used for NTFP selection during FGD (four separate groups of men and women, young and old) and community meetings
Criteria Justification
Distance Resources located too far from the settlement would be too time-consuming for volunteers to monitor. We emphasize resources close to the village
Availability If a resource is rare, it would be more difficult to monitor. We selected resources available in the territory
Accessibility Easy access and topography should support the selection of the resource
Easy identification This is an universal criteria for the selection of biodiversity indicators (Widmann et al. 2003)
Biodiversity value Criteria assessed by the team (rare, endangered, protected species) because not always considered by villagers
Market demand and
price
The economical value of a resource is a key factor for villagers’ motivation in monitoring
Gender We favoured as much as possible resources that involved both men and women in its collection
Multi functionality We gave a preference to species important for more than one use
Nb of selection Species that were considered important by a large number of people
158 Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:149–170
123

authorities. The village head was responsible for reporting to the kumban. It was agreed
that each participating household should use logbooks. They would record the amount of
NTFP collected every day. We did not distribute pre-prepared logbooks, but rather empty
schoolbooks, broadly available in village shops, to reduce costs and prevent dependency on
an external source of predesigned logbooks. During several training sessions, we taught
villagers how to prepare and fill in data. Once a month, a team visited each of the research
sites to check the books and help the villagers who had difficulties entering the data. The
exercise was not totally new especially for the village authorities, which have to regularly
report to the district authorities on crop production, plantation area, and number of cattle in
the village. Equally, the villagers did not want a simple model using shapes rather than
words, as this would give an impression of illiteracy. The team also provided training on
how to use the collected data, i.e. how to create bar and line charts to visualise the
evolution of the resources from tables.
As long as the activities were about selection and monitoring methods of NTFPs,
villagers’ participation was ensured in most of the villages, especially the most isolated
ones (i.e. Bouammi–Vangmat, Houaykhone, Paklao). It was, however, more difficult for
villagers located close to the road to participate as they were engaged in more diverse
market oriented activities and had less time available. In Muangmuay, the main village of
Table 3 Final list of selected NTFPs for the 6 villages of the village cluster
NTFPs Villages
Muang
Mouay
Bouammi Vang
Mat
Houy
Khone
Vang
Kham
Donkeo Paklao
Peuak Meuak
Boehmeria malabarica
XX XXXXX
Broom grass
Kem
Thysanolaema maxima
XX XXXXX
Fish
Paa
XX X X X
Cardamom
Mak Naeng
Amomum sp.
XX X
Bamboo shoot
No Hok
Dendrocalamus sp.
XX
Galangal
Kha
Alpinia galanga
X
Paper mulberry
Po Saa
Broussonetia
papyrifera
X
Sam Muang
Flemingia latifolia
X
Bitter bamboo shoot
No Khum
X
Bold: English; Underline: Lao; Italics: Latin
Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:149–170 159
123

the kumban, this was especially true. When we visited for follow-up meetings after a
month, we found the level of delegation higher in Muangmuay than in the other villages.
Household members who agreed to fill-in logbooks with the harvest of selected NTFPs
would delegate to some other household members the presentation of the monthly results
during community meetings.
Local understanding of the monitoring system and its effect on natural resource
management
Local people’s perceptions of the monitoring system
The villagers could see the monitoring system as a way to follow the evolution of
important resources and as a tool for linking local NTFP management at the village level to
decision-making at the district level.
For example, monitoring could provide information on endangered forest products,
which deserved protection measures. Bamboo shoots were considered endangered by
villagers from Vangkham village. A village-agreement led to a temporary suspension of its
collection. Villagers could then inform the district about their management practices
during the regular village head’s report to the district authorities.
Contribution of local knowledge to the NTFP monitoring system
We observed existing resource management and control at the village level in Muangmuay
and Bouammi-Vangmat where fish reserves were created in 2000 (see Fig. 3). This fish
stock can be harvested prudently for important occasions (e.g. festivities, marriages) and
only outside the breeding season. Villagers also forbid the use of blast fishing or elec-
trofishing. Another example is peuak meuak, which was selected by all the pilot villages
because of its importance for trade (the bark is used for glue and incense). This plant grows
in humid soils on riverbanks. Its harvest, in which both men and women are involved, is
recognized by villagers to be unsustainable, because of the absence of management rules
and the collection of the plant’s roots. Villagers expected the monitoring activities to help
them refine harvesting regulations for natural resources (such as fishing) and provide
numbers on trends and cash income for discussion within the village.
Villagers saw the monitoring tool as an instrument with potential for natural resource
management, but also as a distraction from their daily activities, and not providing any
direct income to the households. As long as it didn’t interfere with their normal activities,
they participated willingly; otherwise they would be more careful about getting involved.
Linking resource monitoring to multilevel governance
Once the resources to be monitored and monitoring tools were chosen we discussed, with
villagers, representatives from the district and from the kumban, about how to integrate the
monitoring tools into the district land management and reporting system in a way relevant
to all stakeholders. The decision was made to use the existing administrative structure,
present at the district level, to avoid adding administrative complexity to the existing one
and to facilitate the acceptance and ownership of the system from government stake-
holders. The existing structure requires regular reports from households to the heads of
village units, then to village heads, from village heads to kumban and then to the district
160 Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:149–170
123

government. Figure 4shows our proposal for incorporating the monitoring activities into
the structure.
Implementation tools for NTFP monitoring
With the kumban being a new institution in Laos we had to decide what its role and
functions in the monitoring system would be. Discussions with villagers, kumban repre-
sentatives, and district authorities helped to identify three potential key roles of the kumban
in monitoring in the future:
–Data collection and training: one of the recognised functions of the kumban, through
its TSC, is to provide further forestry and agricultural techniques to improve local
livelihoods. Its interest in collecting data related to key NTFPs harvested in the wild or
domesticated makes it a key institution for regularly checking the logbooks with
villagers, and collecting aggregated data.
–Data management and storage: villagers and district officers identified storage and
utilization of information as an important issue. So far, there is no appropriate
archiving of the data collected from villages, resulting in the loss of the villages’ data
for LUP. The kumban, an institution closer to the village level in which village
representatives play a vital role, could be used for archiving information reported by
villagers and facilitate data sharing with other users (e.g. development agencies at the
district level).
–Reporting: the kumban has to report to the district authority. This represents a natural
step in the sequence of aggregation, recommendations and reporting of the monitoring
Fig. 4 The monitoring system as part of Viengkham District administrative structure. In black the
administrative structure and in grey the proposed monitoring system
Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:149–170 161
123

system. The villagers should receive feedback and a report on decisions made, based on
their reports.
Figure 4also shows the frequency and level at which the collection, aggregation and
reporting was decided by each stakeholder. Regular data collection would be made at the
household level, summarized monthly at the village unit level, providing a 3-month
aggregation at the village head level, with inputs from the village units. The 3-month
aggregation would feed into recommendations for the local government. Every 3 months
the aggregated data would be stored in the kumban (through the TSC), to support the bi-
annual analyses and discussions between district, kumban and villages. Once a year the
results of these discussions would be made official and forwarded to the provincial level.
Looking for sustainability: integrating resource monitoring into the ‘‘Participatory
Land Use Planning’’ national process
Once the monitoring system, including results and activities, is embedded into the local
administrative structure it requires political support to power the system and provide
sustainability. During the project’s life we only proposed ways to embed the monitoring
tools into existing administrative structures. However, we have not received information as
to whether the villagers and kumban authorities have adopted the system or not.
The Government of Laos has, in the past, introduced different LUP policies to alleviate
poverty, with some success (Lestrelin et al. 2011). The most recent one, the PLUP, is
intended to give villagers a stronger role in the negotiation process of village boundaries,
land zoning and land management (MAF and NLMA 2010). It also recognises the key role
of the kumban in the LUP process, instead of the district as in previous LUP exercises.
With the new role given to local communities, in association with the kumban, there is
more likelihood of the proposed participatory monitoring system being sustained. PLUP
follows 9 steps (MAF and NLMA 2010): (1) preparation; (2) socio-economic, land and
forest data collection; (3) delineation of village and village cluster boundaries; (4) village
and village cluster forest and agricultural land use zoning; (5) village and village cluster
land management plans; (6) land data record keeping and digital mapping; (7) land reg-
istration and titling in rural villages; (8) village and village cluster networks and net-
working; and (9) monitoring and evaluation.
The villages of a kumban and the district authorities together designate the various
zones as part of PLUP (step 4). The zones are the areas devoted to protection, conservation,
economic activities (plantation and agriculture), infrastructure (village development) etc.
They then produce a 5-year management plan for each zone.
PLUP in Muangmuay Kumban had not reached the monitoring step (step 9) by the end
of the project (December 2010); it had only been implemented up to step 6 (more about the
PLUP process in Bourgoin and Castella 2011; Bourgoin et al. 2012; Lestrelin et al. 2011).
However, we were still able to discuss how PLUP could utilize the proposed monitoring
system (Table 4). The system can be used as a tool to assess the impact of management
decisions on local livelihoods (poverty) and natural habitats (biodiversity), based on the
zones proposed within PLUP (e.g. residential areas, conservation forest, sacred forest,
agriculture zone). However, time was lacking to ensure the formal integration of the
participatory monitoring system into PLUP, which was still in the implementation process.
PLUP needs to predict and take into account events that could disrupt both planning and
monitoring activities. This became evident during the testing of our methods, which were
disrupted severely by gold mining.
162 Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:149–170
123

Table 4 Types of monitoring and local participation for each zone of the Participatory Land Use Planning (PLUP)
Land use zone Purpose Type of monitoring Local
participation
Village residential
area
Housing, temple, school, health centre, shops etc. Livelihood (all the livelihood indicators) monitoring Yes
Conservation forest Fauna and flora conservation, non prohibited NTFP
collection
NTFP monitoring Yes
Forest surface estimated with GIS, biodiversity and species richness
measured in plots
No
Spirit or sacred
forest
Cemetery, spiritual forests Not relevant Not relevant
Protection forest Steep slopes, fragile soils, watershed, regeneration of
degraded forests, non prohibited NTFP collection, tree
seed collection
NTFP monitoring, soil and water quality monitoring Yes
Forest surface estimated with GIS No
Forest use Village NTFP collection, fuel wood, construction material,
medicinal purpose, fencing
NTFP monitoring Yes
Agricultural zone Lowland/upland rice production, fruit tree planting,
commercial tree planting, livestock grazing, fish ponds
NTFP monitoring (fishes, domesticated NTFP), soil monitoring (plants
used as indicators of fertility) and livelihood monitoring (livestock, rice
sufficiency)
Yes
Potential land for
commercial tree
planting
Commercial tree planting, commercial livestock raising,
commercial annual crops, fishes
NTFP monitoring (fishes and commercial domesticated NTFPs) and
livelihood monitoring
Yes
Other areas Recreation, irrigation Livelihood monitoring Yes
Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:149–170 163
123

Limitations to the development of an effective natural resource monitoring
In 2010–2011, gold mining in the Nam Xuang River severely affected Muangmuay
Kumban; the river’s ecosystem was destroyed leaving villagers downstream without any
fish resources. Official gold exploitation started in November 2010, giving rise to a rapid,
uncontrolled spread of registered and unofficial miners. In July 2011, the local government
put a stop to all gold mining in the area (Vilaphong, personal communication, 2013). The
gold mining happened at a time PLUP was still under discussion and different steps had not
been implemented in the kumban. The district authorities did not have the legal planning
tool to prevent the uncontrolled mining and damage to the environment. There was also a
clear lack of coordination between the district and provincial authorities on the issuing of
mining concessions and villagers were not part of any negotiation. All but two of our target
villages (Donkeo and Houaykhone) were affected by gold mining. In Bouammi and
Paklao, small unofficial gold companies began to extract, but stopped because of threats of
district sanctions. The most affected villages were Muangmuay, Vangkham and Vangmat
(a subdivision of Bouammi village
2
). Between April and July 2010 the official company
produced up to 7 kg of gold. The villagers were equally interested in gold extraction.
Between July and September 2010, 30 villagers from Muangmuay invested in a village-
based gold concession. According to villagers, in little more than 4 months, the village
production reached almost 1 kg of gold. But the most vulnerable families were worried
about food resources particularly fish and other water resources (i.e. river algae, crabs,
shrimp, molluscs). The official company confirmed the villagers’ fears that it would not be
possible to harvest such resources for several years after the mining finished.
Discussion
To achieve collaborative monitoring, it is important to reach a shared understanding among
the different stakeholders, especially decision makers (in our case district authorities) and
natural resource managers at the village level, of what needs to be monitored. Of equal
importance is how to test and refine the monitoring system and embed it into the local
governance, taking into account all stakeholders’ concerns and practical choices.
Participatory monitoring as a negotiation tool
Communities are rarely in a position strong enough to negotiate with decision-makers
under pressure from the private sector, especially in Laos, where top-down governance is
combined with the economic interests of neighbouring countries looking for land (i.e.
Thailand, Vietnam, and China) (Baird 2010). The example of the gold mining illustrates
well the impact of new commercial activities and the limited capacity and power of the
local people to react to the transformation of the landscape around their villages. Villagers
living in close proximity to the gold mining were in fact more interested in short-term
benefits through small-scale gold extraction than worried about long-term impacts on their
2
The former village of Vangmat was merged with its neighbouring village, Bouammi, following a recent
government policy for village stabilisation aimed to group small villages into bigger units. However,
Vangmat remains physically separated from Bouammi (located 30 min walk from each other), each with its
own territory. We therefore separated these two settlements.
164 Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:149–170
123

important NTFPs. Villagers not directly involved in the mining activity were more aware
of its impact on the river conditions and their main source of food and livelihoods.
At the time of the gold mining activities, however, PLUP had not been entirely
implemented in Muangmuay kumban. We believe that its full implementation would have
enhanced local people’s capacity for negotiation, and level of understanding of environ-
mental risks and impacts.
A system that takes into account local governance and reflects all stakeholders’
concerns
In the past, local perceptions were rarely taken into account when dealing with natural
resource management (Fraser et al. 2006). In Laos, until 2011, the priority was generally
given to what was considered important by the district authorities and conservation
institutions. Government authorities still consider ‘informing’ villagers about the gov-
ernment’s decisions as a form of ‘local participation’. According to Watts (2010), working
in the same sites:
Villagers [] have significantly less voice than people representing higher levels of
governance. 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 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 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 mon-
itoring 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 willingness of local 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
Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:149–170 165
123

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. We emphasised the latter
during each of our meetings with villagers. We explained how to build an argument with or
without the support of proven facts. For example, by using quantitative information on the
cardamom harvest from the wild, during the previous few months, villagers were able to
discuss with district officers whether the area designated in the land use plan for this NTFP
collection was sufficient or not. They could also discuss whether the proposed management
plans during PLUP for the area, and for the resource in question, were appropriate or not.
However, the example of the gold mine shows the limitations of participatory approaches
and of the level of empowerment they can provide to local communities. As far as
incentives are concerned, local people’s concerns in terms of land and natural resource
management were small when compared to the bigger issues. This included the lack of
power to prevent or control the private companies’ activities and the short-term benefits
when villagers were given permits for exploiting gold in the river within the concession
area. But if properly embedded into official government policies, PLUP can include actual
and potential drivers of change (e.g. agro-industry, mining) as one of the issues to be
discussed and agreed upon between villagers and government organizations.
A system applicable to ongoing government policies
Monitoring, as part of PLUP, was first implemented in Muangmuay kumban at the time of
our project. PLUP is important as it provides orientations regarding land management in
the kumban for a period of 5 years.
Two of the PLUP monitoring objectives (MAF and NLMA 2009,2010) are to:
Assess the impacts of PLUP on natural resource management at the village and
village cluster levels.
And
Improve forest and agricultural land management used by communities at the village
and village cluster levels.
Our monitoring system developed a regular and repetitive assessment of NTFP harvest, in
order to understand the changes in the environment, based on the impact of decisions made
during PLUP. Table 4shows a potential monitoring system that provides information on
the effectiveness of different land uses, based on relevant, selected indicators. If this
suggestion is accepted, the monitoring system could link local people’s priorities to major
government decisions and policies. Participatory monitoring could be applied in each of
the official zones proposed for PLUP. Even if some zones may need a non-participatory
kind of monitoring, for example, GIS monitoring and biophysical monitoring in protected
areas, participatory monitoring may still be complementary.
166 Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:149–170
123

The monitoring system proposed here links various types of activities to their effects. In
some cases, we can distinguish between a minimal monitoring system, made of repeated,
shared and discussed observations of changes among various social groups, and the
optimal monitoring system providing facts and ‘hard’ data. A major part of our multi-
stakeholder monitoring system was to recognize that changes in the landscape and people’s
livelihoods are occurring, and to look for ‘more desirable’ futures, acceptable to villagers
and decision-makers (Belcher et al. 2013). With sufficient time secured and regular ‘‘inter-
level’’ meetings, it could become the first step towards ‘adaptive monitoring systems’.
Time for explaining, testing and refining the monitoring system
Because our project ran for only 2 years, we focused on a system development, rather than
a full implementation of natural resource monitoring, hoping for a follow-up through future
national or international development projects. This was barely enough time to familiarise
the project staff with the concepts and to develop and test the monitoring approach. More
time is needed to refine the approach based on the results from the test, and to work at its
integration into PLUP. It is also necessary to follow the local pace, at the district level,
which needs annual reporting on impacts of its policies and decisions. Of equal importance
is the pace at the kumban and village levels, which follows different seasons. This would
include seasons for NTFPs, rice harvest, and reporting to the district.
Projects, when using participatory monitoring, need to understand the economic context
in which a target area evolves, and to include the short and medium-term variables
affecting the area (e.g. seasonal activities and annual changes). Equally, projects need to be
aware of and adapt to various threats and unexpected changes, such as gold mining, that
can suddenly affect the system and compromise the accuracy of the results. Adaptive and
progressive approaches need therefore to be developed, starting small on common con-
cerns and building on the first experiences. For these reasons, short-term research and
development projects can be effective in ensuring that monitoring is sustained only if they
make the link to long-term processes and programs.
Conclusion
Participatory NTFP monitoring can work. It is potentially an important tool for multi-
stakeholder decision-making, but both its limitations and potential for management need to
be clearly identified. Our research shows that simple ways to monitor limited, but relevant,
forest products require a sufficient time frame. It should also be noted that the integration
of existing and possible future activities that enhance the local interest and sense of
ownership are key to ensure participation and sustainability of the overall process.
Not a technical issue but needs time for full implementation
During the project implementation, we found that working with the villagers on specific
resources (important economic NTFPs) is easy and sufficient to provide numbers that can
be locally relevant and help with local decision-making in natural resource management.
As we explained before, this requires following the local pace, villagers’ agenda and
seasonal duties, which all need time.
In order to be fully implemented, monitoring requires secured time. The time we had
during our project was enough to develop an approach to identify the different issues to be
Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:149–170 167
123

included in a monitoring system (i.e. time, seasonal calendar, people’s availability,
necessity of a multi-stakeholder engagement, selection of simple but important NTFPs).
The repetition of assessments and measurements, and data quality control needs regular
visits to the monitored villages. In our case, the 2 year-duration of our research was not
enough to achieve long-term impacts. It did not allow real testing. We were only able to
test the monitoring system for 6 months, which did not cover a full season of NTFP
collection. Unpredictable events were among the limitations we identified for full imple-
mentation of the monitoring system. We recommend at least two cycles of NTFP harvest
(i.e. 2 years), which would allow comparison, to test the approach and learn from the
results.
Integration into national policies (here PLUP) was in progress at the end of the project
(Lestrelin et al. 2011, Bourgoin and Castella 2011, Bourgoin et al. 2012), but we lacked
time to discuss with decision-makers ways the monitoring could be used to assess the
impact of LUP and to scale up.
Scaling up
The monitoring system developed in Laos has the potential to address multi-stakeholders’
concerns: villagers, including local elites, local authorities at the kumban and district
levels, and organizations working on community development and conservation. Inte-
grating these management practices into multi-level and multi-scale governance could
support win-win solutions for both the villagers (data to negotiate) and the district
authorities (data to deliver to the provincial level). If embedded in existing local gover-
nance and applied in key government policies, it could be used as a tool to empower local
communities. This could be achieved by providing them with information on the effects of
land management policies on forest resources and livelihoods. The different steps we
propose could be applied easily to different situations elsewhere in the country. This could
be with different ethnic groups, involving villages at different steps of rural transition, and
different scales, from the village level to the village cluster and to the landscape. For the
time being, we can only share the potential of this approach and call for more imple-
mentation trials before expanding it to different situations and provinces in the country.
Acknowledgments The authors thank the Viengkham community for their participation to their activities.
They also thank Glen Mulcahy, Douglas Sheil and the anonymous reviewer for their valuable comments and
editing, and Mohammad Agus Salim for designing the maps. They acknowledge the Swiss Agency for
Development and Cooperation (SDC) and the European Commission for their financial support. This
research was carried out by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), the Agricultural
Research Center for International Development (CIRAD), as part of the CGIAR Research Program on
Forests, Trees and Agroforestry, and the National Agricultural and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI) in
Lao PDR.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the
source are credited.
References
Andrianandrasana HT, Randriamahefasoa J, Durbin J, Lewis RE, Ratsimbazafy JH (2005) Participatory
ecological monitoring of the Alaotra wetlands in Madagascar. Biodivers Conserv 14:2757–2774
168 Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:149–170
123

Armitage DR, Plummer R, Berkes F, Arthur FI, Charles AT, Davidson-Hunt IJ, Diduck AP, Doubleday NC,
Johnson DS, Marschke M, McConney P, Pinkerton EW, Wollenberg EV (2009) Adaptive co-man-
agement for social–ecological complexity. Front Ecol Environ 7:95–102
Baird IG (2010) Land, rubber and people: rapid agrarian changes and responses in southern Laos. J Lao Stud
1:1–47
Belcher B, Bastide F, Castella JC, Boissie
`re M (2013) Development of a village-level livelihood monitoring
tool: a case-study in Viengkham District, Lao PDR. Int Forest Rev 15(1):48–59
Berkes F, Folke C (1998) Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mech-
anisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2000) Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive man-
agement. Ecol Appl 10:1251–1262
Boucard A, Boissie
`re M, Castella JC, Basuki I, Ponkphady S, Mouaxeng-cha K, Thephavanh M, Vongmany
O (2010) Methodology of design of a participatory monitoring system for clusters of villages in Lao
PDR. Technical Report, CIFOR and NAFRI
Bourgoin J, Castella JC (2011) ‘‘PLUP FICTION’’: landscape simulation for participatory land use planning
in Northern Lao PDR. Mt Res Dev 31:78–88
Bourgoin J, Castella JC, Pullar D, Lestrelin G, Bouahom B (2012) Toward a land zoning negotiation support
platform: ‘‘Tips and tricks’’ for participatory land use planning in Laos. Landsc Urban Plan
104:270–278
Chambers R (2006) Participatory mapping and geographic information systems: whose map? Who is
empowered and who disempowered? Who gains and who loses? EJISDC 25:1–11
Chazee L (1999) The peoples of Laos, rural and ethnic diversities. White Lotus, Bangkok
CIFOR (2010) Building sustainable landscape management in the Lao PDR. Policy Brief, CIFOR and
NAFRI
Colfer CJP (2007) Simple rules for catalyzing collective action in natural resource management contexts.
CIFOR, Jakarta
Cundill G, Fabricius C (2009) Monitoring in adaptive co-management: toward a learning based approach.
J Environ Manag 90:3205–3211
Danielsen F, Burgess ND, Balmford A (2005a) Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based
approaches. Biodivers Conserv 14:2507–2542
Danielsen F, Jensen AE, Alviola PA, Balete DS, Mendoza M, AnsonTagtag, Custodio C, Eenghoff M
(2005b) Does monitoring matter? A quantitative assessment of management decisions from locally-
based monitoring of protected areas. Biodivers Conserv 14:2633–2652
Danielsen F, Burgess ND, Balmford A, Donald PF, Funder M, Jones JPG, Alviola P, Balete DS, Blomley T,
Brashares J et al (2008) Local participation in natural resource monitoring: a characterization of
approaches. Conserv Biol 23(1):31–42
DeNeve KM, Heppner MJ (1997) Role play simulations: the assessment of an active learning technique and
comparisons with traditional lectures. Innov High Educ 21:231–246
Evans KA, Guariguata MR (2007) A global review of participatory monitoring in tropical forest manage-
ment. CIFOR, Bogor
Foppes J (2008) Knowledge capitalization: agriculture and forestry development at ‘‘Kum Ban’’ Village
cluster level in Lao PDR. Technical report, LEAP and NAFES
Fraser EDG, Dougill AJ, Mabee WE, Reed M, McAlpine P (2006) Bottom up and top down: analysis of
participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empow-
erment and sustainable environmental management. J Environ Manag 78:114–127
Garcia CA, Lescuyer G (2008) Monitoring, indicators and community based forest management in the
tropics: pretexts or red herrings? Biodivers Conserv 17(6):1303–1317
Hargitai HI (2006) Planetary maps: visualization and nomenclature. Cartographica 41(2):150–164
Laumonier Y, Bourgeois R, Pfund J-L (2008) Accounting for the ecological dimension in participatory
research and development: lessons learned from Indonesia and Madagascar. Ecol Soc 13:22
Lestrelin G, Bourgoin J, Bouahom B, Castella J-C (2011) Measuring participation: case studies on village
land use planning in northern Lao PDR. Appl Geogr 31:950–958
MAF (2008) Ministerial direction of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry on ‘‘establishing agriculture
and forestry technical service center’’ MAF, Vientiane
MAF, NLMA (2009) Participatory Agriculture and Forest Land Use Planning at Village and Village Cluster
Level. Report, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and National Land Management Authority
MAF, NLMA (2010) Participatory Agriculture and Forest Land Use Planning at Village and Village Cluster
Level. Report, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and National Land Management Authority
NAFRI, NAFES, NUOL (2005) Improving livelihoods in the upland of the Lao PDR, Volume 1: Initiatives
and approaches. National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute, Vientiane
Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:149–170 169
123

NAFRI, NUOL, SNV (2007) Non-Timber Forest Products in the Lao PDR. A Manual of 100 Commercial
and Traditional Products. The National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute, Vientiane
Noss AJ, Oetting I, Cue
´llar RL (2005) Hunter self-monitoring by the Isosen
˜o-Guaranı
´in the Bolivian Chaco.
Biodivers Conserv 14:2679–2693
Pfund J-L, Watts J, Boissie
`re M, Boucard A, Bullock R, Ekadinata A, Dewi S, Feintrenie L, Levang P,
Rantala S et al (2011) Understanding and integrating local perceptions of trees and forests into
incentives for sustainable landscape management. Environ Manag 48(2):334–349. doi:10.1007/
s00267-011-9689-1
Poulsen MK, Luanglath K (2005) Projects come, projects go: lessons from participatory monitoring in
southern Laos. Biodivers Conserv 14:2591–2610
Prime Minister (2008) Supplement to the Prime Minister’s order on establishing of development villages
and village clusters. Vientiane
Rijsoort JV, Jinfeng Z (2005) Participatory resource monitoring as a means for promoting social change in
Yunnan, China. Biodivers Conserv 14:2543–2573
Sheil D, Lawrence A (2004) Tropical biologists, local people and conservation: new opportunities for
collaboration. Trends Ecol Evol 19:634–638
Sheil D, Puri RK, Basuki I, Heist MV, Wan M, Liswanti N, Rukmiyati, Sardjono MA, Samsoedin I, Sidiyasa
K et al (2002) Exploring biological diversity, environment and local people’s perspectives in forest
landscapes methods for a multidisciplinary landscape assessment. Center for International Forestry
Research, Bogor
Stringer LC, Dougill AJ, Fraser E, Hubacek K, Prell C, Reed MS (2006) Unpacking ‘‘participation’’ in the
adaptive management of social-ecological systems: a critical review. Ecol Soc 11:39
UNODC (2005) Laos Opium Survey. Report, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
Watts J (2010) The governance of tropical landscapes. In: Colfer CJP, Pfund J-L (eds) Collaborative
governance of tropical landscapes. Earthscan, London, pp 35–54
Watts JD, Vihema
¨ki H, Boissie
`re M, Rantala S (2010) Information flows, decision-making and social
acceptability in displacement processes. In: Colfer CJP, Pfund J-L (eds) Collaborative governance of
tropical landscapes. Earthscan, London, pp 79–106
Webber AD, Hill CM, Reynolds V (2007) Assessing the failure of a community-based human-wildlife
conflict mitigation project in Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda. Oryx 41:177–184
Weyerhaeuser HM, Bertomeu A, Wilkes, Mei Y (2010) Cross-border NTFP value chains Laos, China.
Technical report, NAFRI and ICRAF http://www.nafri.org.la/document/URDP/documents/05_
Specialreports/09_Laos-China_NTFP.pdf. Accessed 22 Sep 2011
Widmann P, Baral HS, Easton M (2003) Nepal development of participatory biodiversity monitoring
concept and methodology. Chria Forest Development Project PN 2001.2173.1, GOPA-AGEG, Bad
Homburg
Yasue M, Kaufman L, Vincent ACJ (2010) Assessing ecological changes in and around marine reserves
using community perceptions and biological surveys. Aquat Conserv Marine Freshwater Ecosyst
20:407–418
170 Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:149–170
123