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

esidency is not sanctioned by them find themselves abandoned or live in conflict with
the local system. The migrants should and must come through the traditional leaders
and be legitimately settled.
Outsiders
This is a broad group of stakeholders including poachers, entrepreneurs, government
ministers, and people from other villages remote from the forest who come to the area
and compete for the resources of the forest. Local people resent what they call outsiders
and often believe that the presence of some of them is sanctioned by the district council.
1.3 Relations among the stakeholders at the Mafungautsi Joint Forest
Management Project
Methods and process notes
Because of the highly sensitive nature of the relations between the Forestry Commission
and the community most of the information gathered here was based on key informant
interviews and focused group discussions held sometimes in less public fora. It is best to
start with group discussions and follow up with key interviews and focused groups. Based on
all the interviews with local and external respondents, it is clear that the Forestry Commission
is by far the most dominant stakeholder. All relations of stakeholders tended to be defined
in relation to the FC.
Forestry Commission and RMC relations
All parts of communal areas bordering the forests are now represented by Resource
Management Committees (RMCs), which were established to represent the local people
in their dealings with the Forestry Commission. RMCs cover a number of VIDCOs. A
VIDCO is an administrative boundary demarcating an area of authority under an elected
committee. VIDCOs vary in terms of population size and extent. Originally, there
were three or four VIDCOs under one RMC committee. Most of these early RMCs faced
serious administrative setbacks resulting in the reduction of RMC areas to about one
or two VIDCOs. Smaller institutions are viewed as being more responsive to the local
people’s needs as they would then coincide with a particular decision-making unit
such as the VIDCO.
Forestry Commission and local communities relations
There are indications that the level of hostility towards the state Forestry Commission
varies within villages. The hostility is associated with the protection of forest resources
and products. Previously any use by local villages of none forest timber products was
regarded as poaching. However, since the project started local people have been allowed
to extract resources and use the forest for grazing. Permission is granted through permits
that are issued by the RMCs. Local people expressed dissatisfaction at having control
over some but not all of the valuable products from the forest.
Some comparisons were drawn between RMCs and Communal Area Management Program
For Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) producer communities. In the CAMPFIRE programme
control over wildlife resources has been devolved to all the producer communities. Under
the management arrangement, proprietary rights cover all wildlife found in the producer
area. Thus local producer communities derive benefit under the program from revenue
and other benefits from harvest of all wildlife in their areas, not just small or big game.
The local communities around the forests question why under their own arrangement
they are only allowed to use some of the less valuable resources for subsistence and
11