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

Box 2.2 Mapping relationships in overal project Romwe, Zimbabwe
Data for mapping relationships was gathered by different researchers at different times. In
the first instance, data was compiled in a PRA report prepared for the DFID project. In this
earlier work, stakeholders involved in natural resources management are compiled on a list,
which also rates the importance of that stakeholder to natural resources management (see
Nemarundwe et al. 1999). Additional fieldwork using key interviews and focused group
discussions showed discrepancies between reality and the data presented in the reports that
were being prepared. There was nothing in the reports about the stakeholders who were
powerful and made decisions in the microcatchment. These stakeholders did not even appear
in the PRA report or in the Venn diagram presented in Campbell and Sayer (in press). In two
cases identified, the traditional leader Muroti is listed but is known to have no interest in or
control over events in the village. Chigora assumed power and acts in place of the legitimate
traditional leader and does so unchallenged. Second, Mavende is thought to be very powerful
in one sub project yet she is does not hold any formal position on the project. She is however,
clearly the defacto leader on that project. Traditional leader - Ndingaddiiwo who holds the
leadership position on the sub project is now a figurehead. He rarely participates or attends
meetings or matters related to the component.
In the second part of the research we started our investigation with the simple question ‘who
are these people; what are they in the villages; and why have they become so powerful?’ An
analysis of meetings revealed that indeed the people who dominate public debates and make
decisions publicly were not the same as those people designated to do so or who appear in the
project reports. The analysis of the meetings revealed that the key players who dominated
discussion monopolised resources and were entry points for outsiders in the community were
not the traditionally accepted entry points, but just families with extensive networks in the
village. Using the data from the first PRA, key interviews were undertaken with various members
of the community. This exercise revealed a somewhat different and more detailed picture of
relationships. In particular, the picture that emerged from the follow-on interviews showed
clearly that all the powerful individuals in the project were from the Ngonyamas family.
However, even this picture seemed unsatisfactory, as we still did not understand why one
particular family was able to assume leadership positions in an area controlled by three
traditional leaders. Though we established at this point that there were kinship ties between
the Ngonyama family and two of the traditional leaders – Muroti and Chingoka there was no
such relationship between the Ngonyama family and the third traditional leader - Ndingadiiwo.
Also puzzling to the researchers was why people of one village were allowing the blatant
takeover of the traditional leadership position role by one member of the Ngonyama family
when the incumbent was alive. We wondered why Mavende had managed to attain such a
powerful position to replace a very powerful traditional leader – Ndingadiiwo (Figure 2.1).
Using these questions as a starting point we went to do some more key interviews. There
were suggestions that the traditional leader Ndingadiiwo had an extramarital relationship
with Mavende. It was also hinted that this Mavende was a witch. This accusation is difficult to
verify. When people believe in witchcraft then the witches are feared. In addition the woman’s
son was the first catchment manager for the project and a prime mover in its implementation.
Some people in the village accuse the family of behaving as if they brought the project and
therefore expecting others in the village to acknowledge this fact.
Continued to the next page
27