The return of the muro: Institutional bricolage, customary institutions, and protection of the commons in Lembata Island, Nusa Tenggara
Versions
- 2020-04-26 (2)
- 2020-04-26 (1)
The Lembata region is known for complex environmental conflicts between local institutions and external interests to protect endangered species such as the dugong and sperm whale. In this paper, we examine how the Tokajaeng community applies traditional rules (muro) in the face of environmental threats to the commons, such as depletion of forests and mangroves, and degradation of coral reefs. Critical Institutional Analysis is applied to examine institutional arrangements governing the commons. The approach acknowledges the complexity of institutions entwined in everyday social life, power relations that animate them, their socio-historical formation, and interplay between formal and informal institutions, as well as the convergence between modern and traditional arrangements. Fieldwork involved in-depth investigation on how the Tokajaengs create and applied rules (muro) and how they actively participated in the process of establishing new rules. We find that the muro responds reflexively to both internal and external dynamics in protecting the commons. They at once adapt to changes that threaten the commons in a way that each new threat corresponds with a new rule. Therefore, although the muro is a longstanding institution for local conservation, once suppressed for almost three decades during the New Order era, new arrangements have emerged since 2005 following political reforms in Indonesia. In the context of state efforts applying top-down conservation instruments, the muro shows the value of local institutional authority rooted in local belief systems that can take on new shapes through adaptive mechanisms. The muro therefore offers new opportunities for rethinking conservation in the Wallacea region, in ways that can actively engage local authority to devise and enforce rules to protect the environment.
Bakker, K. (2007). The “commons” versus the “commodity”: Alter‐globalization, anti‐privatization and the human right to water in the global south. Antipode, 39(3), 430-455. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2007.00534.x
Bollier, D. (2014). The Commons as a Template for Transformation. Great Transition Initiative. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10535/9300
Chikozho, C., & Mapedza, E. (2017). In search of socio-ecological resilience and adaptive capacity: articulating the governance imperatives for improved canal management on the Barotse floodplain, Zambia. International Journal of the Commons, 11(1) , 119–143 doi: http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.636
Cleaver, F., & De Koning, J. (2015). Furthering critical institutionalism. International Journal of the Commons, 9(1),1-18. doi: http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.605
Davidson, J., & Henley, D. (Eds.). (2007). The revival of tradition in Indonesian politics: The deployment of adat from colonialism to indigenism. Routledge.
Epstein, G. (2017). Local rulemaking, enforcement and compliance in state-owned forest commons. Ecological Economics, 131, 312-321. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.09.012
Euler, J. (2018). Conceptualizing the commons: Moving beyond the goods-based definition by introducing the social practices of commoning as vital determinant. Ecological Economics, 143, 10-16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.020
Griffiths, J. (1986). What is legal pluralism?. The journal of legal pluralism and unofficial law, 18(24), 1-55. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.1986.10756387
Gupta, J., & Bavinck, M. (2014). Towards an elaborated theory of legal pluralism and aquatic resources. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 11, 86-93. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.10.007
Harvey, D. (2011). The future of the commons. Radical history review, 2011(109), 101-107. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/01636545-2010-017
Kahin, Audrey R. (1994). Regionalism and decentralization. in Bourchier, D and Legge J (eds). Democracy in Indonesia: 1950s and 1990s. Monash: Center of Southeast Asian Studies, Monash University. pp. 204-222.
Jones, S. (2015). Bridging political economy analysis and critical institutionalism: an approach to help analyse institutional change for rural water services. International Journal of the Commons, 9(1), 65–86. doi: http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.520
Miyagana, K and Shimamada, D. (2018). The tragedy of the commons’ by underuse: toward a conceptual framework based on ecosystem services and satoyama perspective. International Journal of the Commons 12(1),332–351. http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.817
Mosse, D. (2006). Collective action, common property, and social capital in South India: An anthropological commentary. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 54(3), 695-724.doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/500034
van der Muur, W., Vel, J., Fisher, M. R., & Robinson, K. (2019). Changing Indigeneity Politics in Indonesia: From Revival to Projects. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14442213.2019.1669520
Nugroho, K, Carden, F, and Antlov, H. (2018). Pentingnya Pengetahuan Lokal! Kekuasaan, Konteks, dan Pembuatan Kebijakan di Indonesia. Jakarta: Knowledge Sector Indonesia.
Nyenyezi Bisoka, A. (2019). Competing claims over access to land in Rwanda: legal pluralism, power and subjectivities. Competing claims over access.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Ostrom, E. (2008). The challenge of common-pool resources. Environment: Science Policy for Sustainable Development 50 (4), 8-21. doi: http://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.50.4.8-21
Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond market and states: polycentric governance of complex economic system. American Economic Review 100(3), 641-672.
Peluso, N.L., Afiff, S., Rachman, N.F. (2012). Membuat alasan dan alas yang sama demi reformasi: gerakan-gerakan agrarian dan lingkungan di Indonesia. Wacana 28, 13-55.
Rachman, N. F. (2017). Petani dan Penguasa: Dinamika Perjalanan Politik Agraria Indonesia. Yogyakarta: INSISTPress.
Sahide, MAK, S Supratman, A Maryudi, Y-S Kim, and L Giessen. (2016). Decentralisation Policy as Recentralisation Strategy: Forest Management Units and Community Forestry in Indonesia. International Forestry Review 18(1), 78–95. doi: https://doi.org/10.1505/146554816818206168
Saragi, T. P. (2004). Mewujudkan Otonomi Masyarakat Desa: Alternatif Pemberdayaan Desa. Jakarta: CV. Cipiruy.
Saunders, F.P. (2014). The promise of common pool resource theory and the reality of commons projects. International Journal of the Commons 8(2), 636-656. doi: http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.477
Shaw, M. (2014). Learning from The Wealth of the Commons: a review essay. Community Development Journal, 49(suppl_1), i12-i20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsu012
Jacqueline, V. E. L., Zakaria, Y., & Bedner, A. (2017). Law-making as a strategy for change: Indonesia’s new Village Law. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 4(2), 447-471. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/als.2017.21
Wright, E. O. (2011). Commentary: Sociologists and Economists on ‘the Commons. In Pranab Bardhan and Isha Ray (eds). The Contested commons; Conversation between Economists and Anthropologists. Blackwell.
This is an open access journal which means that all contents is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.
Submission of an article implies that the work described has not been published previously (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out, and that, if accepted, will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English or in any other language, without the written consent of the Publisher. An article based on a section from a completed graduate dissertation may be published in Forest and Society, but only if this is allowed by author's(s') university rules. The Editors reserve the right to edit or otherwise alter all contributions, but authors will receive proofs for approval before publication.
Forest and Society operates a CC-BY 4.0 © license for journal papers. Copyright remains with the author, but Forest and Society is licensed to publish the paper, and the author agrees to make the article available with the CC-BY 4.0 license. Reproduction as another journal article in whole or in part would be plagiarism. Forest and Society reserves all rights except those granted in this copyright notice