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

eekeeping or thatch grass harvesting. In follow-up meetings with other stakeholders,
the confusion over the role of CIFOR appears widespread, including among the Forestry
Commission respondents who were introducing CIFOR to the area. That the FC should
publicly acknowledge its own ignorance of what CIFOR is doing actually works in CIFOR’s
favour as they would not necessarily be associated or linked with the FC. However the
fact that FC introduced CIFOR, to the area suggested closer lines. Respondents suggest
that many stakeholders are beginning to see a disassociation between the two
stakeholders. One government respondent questioned why the Forestry Commission
that was meant to be CIFOR’s partner were trying to dissociate themselves from CIFOR
or appearing not to understand the purpose of CIFOR’s work in the area. Thus the
respondent states that
“For the Forestry Commission to get to a point where they are saying they don’t
know CIFOR and they say they don’t know what CIFOR are doing; this situation is
similar to when a mother rejects its own child. This is unheard of. I can only say this
means there is something wrong with CIFOR and Forestry Commission relationship,
there is definitely something there”.
Another official, attributed the ignorance by Forestry Commission staff to the fact that
projects signed at head office often are imposed on local stuff without much consultation.
However, at present being introduced by the FC tends to link CIFOR to the FC, and
therefore ascribes certain FC characteristics to CIFOR. Until, stakeholders are clear about
CIFOR’s activities or until the relationship between CIFOR and FC is clarified this type of
confused identity can influence project activities.
Village respondents also confirmed the confusion over CIFOR activities thus: ‘we don’t
know which corner CIFOR are coming through because they don’t want to come out in
the open.’ The suspicion being directed towards CIFOR is not unique but reflects the ageold
habits of people who have been forced over time to be cautious of any externally
packaged village research projects. Such comments are important in this project formative
phase. CIFOR needs to explain clearly what its role and purpose will be. In the words of
a villager; ‘they must clarify their position and explain what their role is, at the moment
we don’t know how participatory they are.’ Further, CIFOR will need to clarify their
research ethics as people believe that researchers are extractive, i.e. ‘research
organizations take their results and go away and never return.’ As CIFOR starts its
project, there will be a need for confidence building with the local people and other
organizations.
Relations between villages in Batanayi RMC
In general, positions in the committees are monopolised by members from one village
(Figure 1.2). People from Mrembwe village hold the key positions. Respondents note
that these individuals, i.e. the chairperson and the treasurer often make decisions
without consulting the whole committee. Few individuals on the committee are rarely
challenged because meetings are infrequent and far between. Closer analysis of the
subcommittees also shows that members of the elite family in one village—Mrembwe—
dominate most RMC committees (Figure 1.1). Out of the discussions of networks of
relations we identified the most influential person in the community as the wife of
traditional leader of Mrembwe village (Figure 1.2). Compared to other women in her
area, this woman holds many positions. She is the most vocal woman in the study area.
15