**3.1. Defining actors dynamics, relationships and interests in the THWS**

Two main conflicting interests were clearly visible in the THWS: the need to conserve the rich biodiversity of the forest area and the need for local community members to meet their livelihood need, which also depends on this forest. The narratives from this study also reveals that though the interest of the actors involved have not change over time, their perceptions and strategies to protect their interests are constantly changing. Most notably, the support of the local community member to the project has greatly depreciated from 2004 when they fully supported the project till present when they now hold different views on the project (**Table 1**). Couple to this, the collaboration of the Ngo with the local administration has also been challenging. The interests of the local government in the THWS are largely define by the administrators in charge and given that the persons in charge are constantly changing, new administrators often come in with their own agenda and personal demands, which often require the NGO to adapt it collaboration strategies to cope with the situations. Narratives from this study also revealed that elites and at time, the local government representatives have sometimes mobilised local community members to stand against conservation or demand rewards from the NGO for using their forest for conservation. These actions was analysed to be motivated by personal interests held by these stakeholders. These dynamic relationships and interest were observed to pose a major challenge to the sustainability of the THWS. On the other hand, this study also revealed that the NGO have been able to muddle through these challenges in one way or the other and continue pursuing its agenda in the THWS despite the shortcomings as we will discuss in Section 3.2.


**Table 1.** Actors perceptions and framing of conservation and local livelihood.

#### **3.2. Dimensions of conservation and livelihood framing in the THWS**

The difference in actors' views in the framing of conservation and local livelihoods challenges in the THWS indicated they were no effective collaborative actions between stakeholders. The absence of a common ground for action explains why there is little or no overlapping in the way the different actors frame the issues as observed above.
