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

RMC when a former treasurer used the revenue to purchase a cow for his own use without
authorisation from the RMC. Local people suggest that he was able to make the purchase
and use the cow exclusively because other committee members feared being bewitched.
In this instance, the woman is also suspected to have great witchcraft powers. However,
she does draw on wide ranging sources for her power. We noted that other stakeholders
are reluctant to challenge such an individual or stakeholder in any one place knowing or
fearing that the individual may exact retribution in another place. Respondents suggest
that the monopoly of power by families is an accepted fact.
The use of resources within defined areas controlled by each RMC is problematic. Though
areas under RMCs are clearly defined administratively, concerns have been raised about
who has rights to benefit. The RMC derives its revenue from payments on permits to harvest
products from the forest. For example, out of 40 bundles of thatch grass a person collects,
16 go to the RMC and 7 go to transporters. Though each village is part of an RMC and has a
designated area it should use, distant villages far from their designated areas sometimes
get their permits from RMCs that are closer to their homes. People from these villages
argue that they ‘can’t walk 20km to get resources from Batanai, when they live close to
another RMC.’ These villagers therefore generate revenue for those other RMCs. In Batanai
RMC, Mrembwe village uses resources without much competition from Chanetsa and Vizho
which are far away. Mrembwe villagers argue that the villages that fail to generate revenue
for their RMC should therefore not be included in projects financed by that revenue.
Currently the revenue is used for development projects that benefit all villages under the
RMC. Those people generating revenue feel that ‘it is unfair that people from distant
villages to benefit from the income generated in Batanai, when they harvest resources
from another RMC and send their money to those RMCs.’ This problem demonstrates the
bureaucratic tendency to use boundaries that bear no relation to the actual resource use
patterns of the villages involved. That specification that use of RMC resources should be
linked to access to dividends within the same RMC underlines the need to recognize that
administrative boundaries are not always appropriate units in community-based management
Relations between the Forestry Commission and other state departments
The Forestry Commission likes ‘playing alone’ they do not do enough to involve other
stakeholders. However, more interviews with researchers and other FC officials suggest
that the level of FC involvement is gauged on the performance of the project coordinator
who has shown little interest in the project. One government informant stated, ‘Since
she took over nothing has happened, she just does not seem to be interested. Forestry
Commission participation in the project is dead.’ ‘She’ refers to the project coordinator.
There are indications that collaboration is being hampered by what another government
respondent described as ‘personalities in the project are problematic, especially working
with that woman; the relationship is simply, not working out!’ Because other stakeholders
feel so strongly about the participation of an individual, this demonstrates how the lines
between project and the individual can become blurred. Respondents outside the village
insist that the problem is ‘that woman’ and claim that ‘the project coordinator has
always shown suspicion towards other stakeholders, fearing that they are up to picking
on her alleged disinterest in doing work on the ground.’ (Interview with a stakeholder at
a workshop). Further evidence of lack of interest in the project was captured in a statement
a participant at the stakeholder workshop thus: ‘If the project coordinator continues to
run away from her roles, it is feared that she will be overtaken by events, possibly fail
to cope with demands from the project and also fail to learn from the process.’
Cooperation among organizations involved in the forest is far from perfect. There are
varying degrees of participation by members of different organizations.
17