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

must get permits if they want to sell the products. One local respondent compared the
management arrangement where all use especially for valuable wet timber is unheard of
and is determined by the forestry authority to the absolute power a husband has over his
spouse in this way, “wet trees are the wives of the forestry Commission, it is not possible
for anyone to ask to harvest that tree, it is similar to asking a man to if one can have
relations with his wife”. Another, local respondent explained the resentment that locals
feel at being limited to subsistence use of the forests when outsiders can come and
harvest valuable timber in this statement: ‘FC wants to look after people who come
from far and neglects people who live here. You would not buy a uniform for another’s
child when your own has nothing, You would first clothe your child then clothe the
other.’ Despite the project, resentment towards the Forestry Commission is undiminished
among the general population.
Very few people, especially transporters and local livestock owners, saw any positive
impact of having the project. Though no figures are available to verify this claim, both
forestry officials and local people observe that incidences of poaching are higher relative
to the pre-project situation. For example, one villager who lived on the edge of the
forest states:
12
‘Sometimes I do not go to get the permit, I just go into the forest, as you can see I
live on the forest boundary. The RMC members live far away and when I do not have
time to visit them, I just go into the forest and get what I want. Also some of the
RMC members are too full of themselves and they take their time processing the
permits as if to make you feel their authority. Once I got caught and they took all the
grass.’
Once the revenue is collected, the local community, the RMC and the Forestry Commission
hold consultations to decide on which projects should be financed. Local people allege
that they only use the revenue under the direction of the Forestry Commission. The
Forestry Commission prefers certain types of projects and forces the local people to
select these even when they are low priority. Local villagers complain that even when
the Forestry Commission
‘says the money is yours, but tells people do this and do that in that way and this
way, where is our ownership in that…the money generated by the RMC is controlled
by the Forestry Commission, the money from the RMC is not our money, that is why
people poach, they say the resources belong to the Forestry Commission and they
are not being used.’
Respondents find that their choices of project are rejected by the officials who state
that
‘you have lost focus, what you plan to do has nothing to do with the Forestry
Commission, but this rejects people’s desires, beekeeping is not popular, we told the
authority that we wanted to build a school, but they also said we lost focus. Beekeeping
is not sustainable, we want things that will last, no one survives on a gum tree which
they want us to plant.’
Relations between the RMCs and RDCs
The creation of RMCs is highly contested by other local organizations like Rural district
council which argues that the joint management project should have been implemented
by the Village development committee, a local government administrative structure set