31.01.2013 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

in Mafungautsi. We found that some local forestry officials were unwilling to have <strong>the</strong>ir<br />

opinions documented or cited. Some officials were only willing to discuss <strong>the</strong>ir views<br />

after assurances of confidentiality were given. Some researchers also declined to comment<br />

on <strong>the</strong> project for fear that such disclosures would compromise <strong>the</strong>ir working relations<br />

with <strong>the</strong> state which still controlls <strong>the</strong> forest.<br />

Policy and legal context of Mafungautsi Joint Forest Management Project<br />

There is much interest and experience in management on <strong>the</strong> basis of <strong>multiple</strong> <strong>stakeholder</strong><br />

groups in Zimbabwe. Over most of <strong>the</strong> key resources like water and wildlife <strong>the</strong> g<strong>over</strong>nment<br />

is developing management approaches that include o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>stakeholder</strong>s, especially local<br />

communities. However, experiences with CAMPFIRE have demonstrated that <strong>the</strong> intended<br />

inclusion of local people in <strong>the</strong> management of wildlife has not been as complete as would<br />

be ideal. Instead, <strong>the</strong> rural district councils maintain <strong>the</strong>ir grasp on <strong>power</strong> even though <strong>the</strong><br />

legislation clearly intended for that <strong>power</strong> to be passed down fur<strong>the</strong>r (Murphree 1990;<br />

1991). In many analyses, local people have thus remained <strong>power</strong>less in spite of <strong>the</strong> rhetoric<br />

to <strong>the</strong> contrary. In <strong>the</strong> water sector, reforms have taken a similar path. The reconfiguration<br />

of <strong>power</strong> away from white farmers to communities has not yet been seen; instead,<br />

communities continue to underwrite white farmer programs for water because <strong>the</strong>y really<br />

have no <strong>power</strong> to veto anything that <strong>the</strong> white farmers want (Sithole 2000). Thus far,<br />

Zimbabwe has much experience in multisples takeholder groups but has yet to have a real<br />

success story. The pilot case of joint management of state forests with o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>stakeholder</strong>s<br />

has taken ten years and still no concrete suggestions or policies have been developed for<br />

managing similar forests or indeed to reduce <strong>the</strong> conflicts among <strong>the</strong> <strong>stakeholder</strong>s involved.<br />

There is an adequate institutional framework for <strong>the</strong> integration of <strong>stakeholder</strong>s at <strong>the</strong><br />

district level. But this framework tends to be discounted and bypassed as most ministries<br />

and g<strong>over</strong>nment departments ignore <strong>the</strong>ir existence. This is one reason for <strong>the</strong> conflict<br />

between <strong>the</strong>m and ministries or departments because <strong>the</strong> district councils feel sidelined<br />

as often no organisations wants to work with <strong>the</strong>ir structures. Some local g<strong>over</strong>nment<br />

structures at village level are often deemed illegitimate.<br />

Mafungautsi State Forest Reserve is found in Gokwe District, in Mashonaland West Province.<br />

The forest is about 82 000 ha in extent and was reserved in 1954. Most of <strong>the</strong> settlement<br />

is at <strong>the</strong> forest margin though communities use a wide variety of products and services<br />

from <strong>the</strong> forests. Some of <strong>the</strong> use is termed ‘illegal and poaching’ by <strong>the</strong> forestry<br />

authorities. In general, communities are allowed subsistence use of <strong>the</strong> forests but need<br />

permits to collect certain products. There is much literature on local use of forestry in<br />

Mafungautsi and detailed accounts and analyses of <strong>the</strong> relationships between <strong>the</strong> forestry<br />

authorities and <strong>the</strong> communities have been made <strong>over</strong> <strong>the</strong> years (Bradley and McNamara<br />

1993; Matzke 1993; Vermuelen 1994; Matose 1994, 1997; Nhira 1995; Nemarundwe et al<br />

1999; Roper and Maramba 2000). The relationship between <strong>the</strong> forestry authority and<br />

<strong>the</strong> local people is best described as being largely characterised by suspicion, years of<br />

conflict and <strong>the</strong>re is sometimes violent confrontation (Matose 1994, 1997).<br />

To understand what type of arrangements forests in Zimbabwe are managed under, we<br />

applied <strong>the</strong> concept of ‘tenurial niche’ developed by John Bruce of <strong>the</strong> University of Wisconsin<br />

Land Tenure Center (Bruce 1986) to define finer categories of forest resources in relation to<br />

<strong>the</strong> <strong>stakeholder</strong> composition, and came up with <strong>the</strong> list presented in Box 1.1 The concept of<br />

social forest describes property relationships, not space or physical characteristics.<br />

Mafungautsi State Forest is one of a number of forests managed by <strong>the</strong> Forestry<br />

Commission. In recent years, literature reviewing <strong>the</strong> project has suggested that <strong>the</strong><br />

2

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!