Where the power lies: multiple stakeholder politics over natural ...

18
5. What is the nature of participation by each stakeholder (regularity of attendance,
contribution to discussions)?
Sometimes the list of all the stakeholders can be very long. There are methodologies to
streamline the list into those stakeholders that have a more direct and significant stake.
One example of such a methodology is the ‘who counts’ matrix developed by Colfer (1995)
at the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). The “Who Counts Matrix is a
useful method tool for assessing the relative importance of stakeholders (Box 9).
Box 9. ‘The ‘who counts’ matrix”
“The ‘who counts’ matrix’ proposes a method for identifying and defining the most significant
stakeholders in sustainable forest management. The method has been field tested in West
Africa, North America and Indonesia. Stakeholders are placed on one axis and six factors
which are considered most relevant to relations of forests and people on the other axis. The
following are identified as the six factors used in the matrix:
Proximity (closeness) to forests;
Pre-existing rights of tenure (these vary from place to place);
Dependency on the forest for a range of goods and services;
Level of local/indigenous knowledge about the forests;
Forest culture integration (religious and symbolic links with the forest) and;
Power deficits (people who live with or in or near the forest often have little power
compared to other stakeholders).
The method is qualitative and relies heavily on the ‘best judgement of the experts’. Using a
scoring system on a scale of 1-3 (1=high; 2=medium; and 3=low with an additional variable)
based on field experience, then one can calculate the mean scores for different stakeholders.
A reasonable cut off point for defining the stakeholders seems to be 2. Some weaknesses have
been identified in the application of the matrix. This is an easy and popular way to decide on
stakeholders who are key. (See Colfer 1995).
Sometimes it may be useful to further aggregate particular stakeholders to understand
the forces driving them. Thus, for example, stakeholders representing local people may
only represent a segment of that population, leaving out migrants, nomadic and other
groups. It is important to note that even as a stakeholder is representing an organization
or a constituency, sometimes they differentiate between actions or responses made in
their individual capacity or as a representative of the organization. In many developing
countries stakeholders participating at the local level represent the lowest rank of huge
bureaucracies or hierarchies and often have no power to make decisions without consulting
those in ‘higher office’. In Zimbabwe for example, some government field workers often
refuse to make decisions until they consult their superiors or until they get authorization
from head office. It is important to note that sometimes not all stakeholders who should
be involved are involved. However, there are cases where some stakeholders deliberately
shun involvement even though they have the opportunity to be involved. Research in
southern Africa suggests that stakeholders will often be differentiated within their own
constituencies but assume a single identity when confronted with other stakeholders
(Murphree 1994). For example, a researcher working in the Eastern Highlands of Zimbabwe
found that state departments sometimes represent a unified ‘we’ and other times depicted
as ‘us and them’ but also one finds that individual departments can dissociate themselves
from other departments (Moore 1996).