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

level. Some additional stakeholders were added on to the list based on group and key
interview data that was received. We were able to meet with some but not all the
stakeholders identified. Profiles of each of the organizations were made from the responses
from key interviews and group discussions with respondents at the district offices in
Gokwe and local people residing in one of the resource management areas around the
forest under the Batanayi Resource Management Committee (RMC). Communities are
defined administratively by the Forestry Commission in relation to this committee. There
are three villages in the RMC. The names of villages have been changed to honour
confidentiality agreements. Names of respondents who made statements that are directly
cited in this Annex have also been withheld.
Who is involved in the management of Mafungautsi forest?
On the basis of data collected from an expert group meeting the following stakeholders
were identified:
4
Forestry Commission (district, province and the head office). The Forestry Commission
manages the forest under an act of law.
Communities through their RMCs (must be differentiated by ethnicity and period of
residence as migrants tend to be isolated in the development projects).
Donors (CIDA is the biggest donor in the area and provides funding to the Forestry
Commission).
CIFOR (an international research organization, a recent presence at the local level).
Rural district councils (established by act of Parliament to coordinate development
activities at a district level).
Politicians (there are local level politicians and higher level politicians. Councillors
from the district council are elected to their positions like the member of Parliament
who represents a larger area and sits in the Parliament of Zimbabwe. Both are
active at the local level, though MPs tend to patronize local politicians).
The State (distinguished from the Forestry Commission and referred to locally as
Hurumende or the government, it is perceived to be a much bigger and more powerful
entity than the Forestry Commission).
Outsiders (poachers, urban entrepreneurs and seasonal collectors, neighbouring small scale
commercial farmers). This group is not included in the structures governing the state forest.
Research organizations and NGOs (there were numerous students from local and
overseas universities undertaking research in the area. NGOs undertake both
development and research activities in the area).
Traditional leaders (in this paper, the term is referring local leaders within the traditional
hierarchy who are known as ‘kraalheads’. These individuals are responsible for small
numbers of households varying between 20 to 50 households. Each Kraalhead exist in
relation to other Kraalheads who together comprise an area under the control of a
headman. Beyond the headman is the ‘larger area’ consisting of several headman under
the control of a chief. This is the highest level of traditional authority in the country).
Detailed descriptions of the structures of these stakeholders already exist in both published
and unpublished literature. In this section we only present data gathered from group
discussions with local people and from key respondent interviews.
The Forestry Commission
The forest was transferred to the extension divisions in 1993 to facilitate the development
of the CIDA-assisted joint management project. One forestry extension officer has the
overall responsibility for managing three forest reserves and coordinating all forestry
extension activities nationwide. Since 1994, a project officer has been added to the staff