Abstract

A topical issue in natural resource management is that of scale, in particular, the organizational entry-point to community-based systems of natural resource management. This study investigated access to woodland resources from the perspective of the relevance of units (traditional villages) enjoying policy attention and the nature of boundaries of resource management units as espoused in academic debates. The relevance of the boundaries was investigated from the perspective of flow of resources across boundaries of the recommended units, and resource use relations among communities residing in contiguous units. The study used questionnaire surveys, informal interviews, and personal observations to explore woodland resource use patterns within and across the villages. People acquired woodland products from both within their own villages and from adjacent ones. Most people extracted resources from within residence villages but varying proportions of the people extracted various products from other villages. In general, members of the ruling clan – those holding exclusively ancestral beliefs, those with traditional main house types – were more likely to acquire resources from neighboring villages. People extracted lighter products like wild fruits, mushrooms, and medicinal herbs from other villages compared to bulkier products like fuel wood, kraal (cattle pens) and fence posts, wall and roof poles, and brushwood. The main reasons why people did not extract woodland products from other villages were availability of the products in their own villages, the long distances to walk to gather the resources from other villages, and, to a small extent, availability of substitutes and exclusion to some products by members of other villages. Overall, people did not deny woodland resource users from other villages access to resources in their own villages, although this applied less so in the case of extraction from areas under ritual designations or extraction for commercialization. The study argues that instead of aspiring for ``hard'' or ``distinct'' boundaries, policy needs to recognize ``diffuse and soft'' product use boundaries as a given, so as to promote resource management formulations/options that are more in phase with the operational contexts