There has been an expansion in Independent Forest Monitoring (IFM) initiatives, with more predicted under the FLEGT processes. Yet the characteristics of IFM are not widely understood, and other activities such as management systems audits, log tracking, civil society activism and NGO campaigning are seen as substitutes, whereas in fact they all complement each other in a ‘system of accountability’. The official yet independent nature of IFM is particularly suited to ‘bridging the gap’ between the role of the state and that of civil society in regulation and law enforcement, and needs to be adapted to local circumstances. IFM-style mechanisms of civil society oversight need to include freedom to investigate a broad range of issues, a review mechanism to build ownership and accountability, a firm legal basis and proper authority, and secure funding, so that reports are acted on and the monitoring function is institutionalised beyond a project horizon.