Globalization and Indigenous People Adaptation:

Sasi as Social Institution in Maluku

Citra Hennida

, Santi Isnaini

, Sri Endah Kinasih

International Relations Department, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia

Communication Department, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia

Department of Anthropology, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia

Keywords: globalization, indigenous people, sasi, sustainability

Abstract: Globalisation integrates goods, services, people, capital and information. As a result, the economic, social

and political institutions formed by globalisation become homogenous. The ultimate goal of globalisation is

equitable welfare and distribution of wealth. Unfortunately, not all parties benefit from globalisation.

Globalisation gives rise to a lame distribution and many groups become more vulnerable. One of these

disadvantaged groups is indigenous people. Indigenous societies have developed their own economic, social

and political institutions. They also have magical religious ties to the areas where they live. Therefore,

indigenous people are threatened when the seas and forests that they occupy are exploited because of

industry needs. However, in some areas, these indigenous societies have succeeded in developing a social

order that fortifies them from outside influences and in certain cases, they managed to keep nature more

sustainable. In Indonesia, the practice is known as sasi. The people of Maluku practice sasi in the

management of sustainable natural resources. Sasi is considered to be a successful way to conserve natural

resources. The problem raised in this research is how the local community, through their social institutions,

can adapt in the globalisation situation. The other question is, what kind of situation is needed for the local

social order to run?

1 INTRODUCTION

Globalisation overcomes the obstacles of space and

time. Globalisation also integrates goods, services,

people and capital. Along with commercialisation

and exploitation of resources; the intensity of the

exchange of goods, services, capital and people

increases. This situation results in globalisation

being considered the cause of the deteriorating

environmental situation. Changing forests to

industrial areas and destroying forests marginalises

the traditional communities living around the forest.

Cases that have afflicted the Indian indigenous

peoples around the Amazon forest include the

Kayapo tribe due to the commercialisation of non-

timber forest products and the Sarayaku tribe due to

the exploitation of oil mines. The inclusion of

corporations in the use of Brazilian nuts as a raw

material for beauty products has provoked the

Kayapo tribe into conflict over the management of

Brazilian nut forest products. The Sarayaku tribe in

Ecuador must leave the forest due to forest clearing,

due to mining exploitation. Another example is what

is happening to the traditional fishermen in Nauru.

The presence of many phosphate-mining companies

from Australia has deteriorated the quality of the

environment. Coastal areas are becoming polluted so

the catches are reduced. For indigenous people, the

land is a part of their history and lifestyle. Therefore,

being uprooted makes traditional communities

unable to survive.

Indigenous people also develop their individual

social institution as part of their existence. In

Maluku, Indonesia, the social institutions developed

and practiced by the indigenous peoples are legally

recognised. It called as sasi. For reasons of

conservation and local conflict resolution, sasi is

used. Sasi is used in conjunction with applicable

laws and regulations from the central and regional

governments. As a result, sasi can be a tool to

protect the marine area and to help marine products

become sustainable. The existence of sasi has been

praised by the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and

Fisheries, Susi Pudjiastuti, in the statement that the

Hennida, C., Isnaini, S. and Kinasih, S.

Globalization and Indigenous People Adaptation.

DOI: 10.5220/0008817300960100

In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Contemporary Social and Political Affairs (ICoCSPA 2018), pages 96-100

ISBN: 978-989-758-393-3

practice of sasi carried out by the Moluccan

community should be imitated and implemented by

other regions so then the quality of the catches can

be maintained (Kompas October 23, 2017).

Departing from these situations, the research

question posed is how local communities - through

the social institutions that are owned - can adapt to

globalisation. What kind of situation is needed so

then the ideal condition can be created? The research

found that applying the co-management model and

expanding the function of sasi into a conservation

function allows for adaptation to the effects of

globalisation. Co-management and conservation

makes resource management expandable by

involving more parties, including NGOs that have

not been involved in the practice of sasi. In addition,

efforts to enforce the sasi laws also have a wide

range. Sasi has, so far, only affected indigenous

people who believe in sasi. Outside society does not

have to obey sasi. As a result, the sasi law becomes

weak when faced with the mass commercialisation

of resources. By expanding its conservation

function, compliance with the sasi law is binding for

all people in the region, both indigenous and

migrant.

2 METHODOLOGY

This research focused on globalisation and sasi as

the social capital in indigenous communities. This

research study used a descriptive research

methodology as an attempt to explain and interpret

the particular phenomenon, problem and/or

behaviour focused on. In this study the author’s aim

was to explain how the local communities, through

local social institutions, can adapt in a situation of

globalisation that is detrimental to the local

communities. The social institutions that are referred

to here are sasi, which is a part of the Moluccan

community, Indonesia.

In this study, data was collected from primary

and secondary sources. The primary data was

obtained from the laws and public official

statements. The secondary data was obtained

through a literature review, namely by collecting the

data relevant to the issues discussed in the literature

such as books, journals, and news in the media.

The data analysis technique used in this study

was qualitative analysis. Qualitative analysis

emphasises the interpretation of the data and of the

statements obtained from the secondary and primary

sources, which are then associated with the theories,

concepts and prepositions determined by the

researcher. The qualitative analysis consisted of

three activities that flow simultaneously, namely

data reduction, data presentation and conclusion

drawing or verification.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Globalisation is seen of as an economic phenomenon

that results in an increase in the movement of

commodities, money, capital and information.

Globalisation leads to a situation of integration.

Global integration brings in many opportunities but

on the other hand, it also carries risks. Integration

also means rising inequality, shifting power, and

cultural uniformity. Social, political and economic

harmonisation can raise the level of persecution

against indigenous groups. Indigenous people who

have different social, economic and political

practices are considered to be misfits in the situation

of globalisation. As a result, they are marginalised

and harmed by globalisation. For example,

negotiations between the government and

companies, multilateral institutions and investor

countries sometimes involves few or no indigenous

people who often live where industrial operations

will take place. The presence of investors results in

land ownership by large corporations and super rich

individuals. As a result, the land use follows the

wishes of the interests of investors. The government,

in the name of development, then serves the needs of

the investors and many of these needs marginalises

the interests of indigenous people.

Indigenous groups who are in a marginal

position sometimes experience worsening conditions

in this situation. Not only in relation to changes in

the environment of the region in which they live, but

also changes in their food sources and changes in the

community culture. An indigenous community is

defined as the people who inhabit the land

associated with their ancestral heritage. Their

custom and values are different from the national

community. Lenzerini (2007) defines a group as an

indigenous group when: (1) there is a historical

connection that connects the pre-invasion society

with the conservation of a particular system of

government; (2) they have a subjective parameter

that is identified as the identification of an

indigenous community and the acceptance of that

person as a member of the community. The UN

defines indigenous communities as peoples and

nations who have a historic continuity in their

territory and who consider themselves to be distinct

from other sectors of society. They practice their

Globalization and Indigenous People Adaptation

own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal

systems. Indigenous people are a vulnerable group

because they are tied to nature by a magical religious

relationship. Based on the understanding of ILO No.

169, indigenous people have the following

characteristics:

 They identify themselves with certain groups;

 They have a relationship that is tied to their

ancestral land and natural resources;

 They have different social, economic, political

and cultural institutions;

 The land was acquired before the colonial

period;

 They experienced a period of conquest or

colonisation and

 They have a different language.

The indigenous community is become marginalised

because of the things that are considered "different".

Globalisation results in inequality, especially for

indigenous people. The World Inequality Report

2018 data notes that 1% of the world's population

has 27% of the world’s wealth. In North America

and Western Europe, 1% of the population

contributes to 28% of the total growth. In India and

China, the same wealth of 1% of the population

accounts for 18% of the total growth. India is said to

have experienced extreme inequality, with an

average national growth of 223%, but the growth

experienced by the poor population is only 107%;

half below the national average. The Middle East

region has the highest inequality of 61%, followed

by the Latin American region with 55%, North

America with 47% and Western Europe with 37%.

The causes of inequality are to do with

contemporary capitalism, the legacy of slavery, and

racial cleavage. Globalisation, through its

international institutions, drives the growth of

private capital. Private capital is growing rapidly,

and on the contrary, the public capital is getting

lower. Meanwhile, the 2016 data showed that the

level of inequality in Indonesia was the sixth largest

in the world after Russia, Denmark, India, the

United States, and Thailand. The wealth of the four

richest people in Indonesia (all of whom are men)

was equal to 100 million average-income people.

The number of poor people in Indonesia is still large

at 93 million people, equivalent to 36% of the total

population (Oxfam, 2017).

On the other hand, indigenous people have

developed their own social institutions. For example

in coastal communities, their particular social

institution is used to regulate the use of resources in

the sea and coastal areas. Regulated areas are usually

controlled by indigenous groups or families that

apply prohibitions such as when and how resources

are accessed, used and distributed (Colding & Folke,

2001). Social institutions function as a form of

environmental management (Colding & Folke,

2001; Cinner & Aswani, 2007). The aim for this

prohibition is that the existing resources can be

utilised together and distributed evenly into one

community. In Indonesia, this practice can be found

in many parts of Eastern Indonesia, especially

Maluku. The practice is called sasi.

Sasi is carried out by forming a team selected by

mutual agreement. Sasi is translated as "traditional",

"community-based" or "indigenous" (Pannell 1997).

Sasi is a local system related to the management and

utilisation of natural resources, both on land and at

sea, known throughout Maluku. Sasi functions as the

prohibition of taking certain natural resources from

certain areas and in a certain period of time. This is

to ensure that there is a better harvest. The

philosophy of sasi is a way of managing natural

resources at sea and on land in order to improve the

welfare of the community and the reforestation /

conservation of nature. This system is applied to

sasi-sea, sasi-river, land, forest and coastal areas.

The sasi law is a customary law relating to the

prohibition of taking either forest products or sea

products within a certain period of time as

determined by custom and supervised by the elders

(sasi adat), government (sasi negri), or church (sasi

gereja) (Pannell, 1997).

People have practiced sasi for a long time.

Historically, this closure is a temporary and limited

control based on social, economic and cultural

grounds (Foale et al, 2011). Sasi is carried out as an

effort to honour the death of the indigenous elders,

protecting the sacred sites, welcoming the need for

Christmas celebrations, and paying for schools.

Currently, sasi is starting to be abandoned due to

commercialisation and industrialisation. The large

number of migrants also affects sasi. Its legal

strength only affects local people. Due to

globalisation, local people are not the only ones who

have access to the resources. Henley (2008) revealed

that exploitation is also carried out by local residents

because their work is incorporated into the global

industry chain with the appropriate use of resources.

For this reason, if sasi is maintained, then it is

necessary to expand the scope of its functions. These

functions can involve many actors and it should be

recognised by the international community as a

method of conservation. Sasi can be used to

strengthen conservation, such as control of fishing

grounds and making an effort to secure future

ICoCSPA 2018 - International Conference on Contemporary Social and Political Affairs

supplies (Thorburn, 2000; Cohen & Foale, 2013).

The most appropriate model is co-management. Co-

management is a hybrid model of different social

institutions. This hybrid model has been widely

applied in many places (Aswani & Ruddle, 2013).

One instance is Solomon Island. They applied a

hybrid model to manage their coastal ecosystems.

The hybrid system is between environmental and

fishery laws, and the customary laws of the

indigenous peoples (Lane, 2006). Govan (2009)

identified 100 co-managed marine areas that have

applied the hybrid model. Although coastal area

governance is covered under the law, coastal

communities can make claims for the adoption of

customary institutions or certain social groups

related to the management of resources in the region

(Cribb & Ford, 2009, Harkes & Novaczek, 2003,

Phillips, 2003).

The co-management model also involves NGOs

(Non-Governmental Organisations). NGOs act to

provide advice and methods of management and

conservation, and they also facilitate advocacy in the

local government. In addition, local communities are

not just involved in their activities but they are

involved in the policy making process and how

governance is carried out (Walton, 2010).

Furthermore, Walton (2010) suggested that there are

three things that can be done in conservation:

 Promoting advocacy by involving all parties;

 Promoting equity by involving local

perspectives;

 Promoting reflection to be able to identify

which parties are in need of being defended.

Recommendations for using co-management (Evans

et al, 2011; Cinner et al, 2012) have also been

expressed by Cohen & Steenbergen (2015). They

revealed the use of a hybrid model that combines

local practices, science-based management, and

conservation. This means that relying on only local

practices such as sasi is not enough. Sasi is used to

strengthen the indigenous people’s legitimacy and to

ensure that there is the equitable distribution of

resources to the local population. When the sasi

period was opened up, the harvest period was only

brief and only to be to meet the needs of the

community. Environmental management

interventions can be a formal foundation for

practice. Therefore, sasi is not enough. The

objective of the session also needs to be expanded so

then people outside of the local community adhere

to this practice. Nevertheless, using an ordinary

conservation model is less than ideal. The conflict

between the conservation area manager and the

surrounding population is one of the problems that

can arise. Community management is considered to

be better than usual conservation models (Porter-

Bolland et al, 2012; Vergara-Asenjo & Potvin,

2014). Co-management can offer other solutions.

Co-management combines the role of the

government as a regulator and the local community

as the resource users (Cundill et al, 2013; Carlson &

Berkes, 2005).

4 CONCLUSIONS

Globalisation has a negative impact on indigenous

people. Globalisation intensifies capital, resulting in

resource exploitation in many places including the

places that are still inhabited by indigenous people.

Indigenous people are often displaced from where

they live as a result. Apart from this, an impact of

industrialisation is where the lives of the indigenous

people become polluted. As a result, their needs and

livelihood is threatened. In order for the indigenous

community to not be threatened, it is necessary to

campaign for the use of existing social institutions.

Sasi is a social practice carried out in Maluku.

Sasi was originally used for social, economic and

political reasons by the local communities such as

for church construction, Christmas celebrations,

paying for schools and respecting the death of the

indigenous elders. Gradually, this situation has

begun to be abandoned and the indigenous people

are unable to control the behaviour of working

migrants. Therefore, in order to face the challenges

brought in by globalisation, Sasi can be expanded to

have a conservation function. The conservation

function will expand the involvement of many

parties. The conservation function allows Sasi to be

a co-management. Co-management combines

government rules, modern management and local

practices. So far, sasi has combined the church, adat

and local government. There needs to be additional

actors, namely NGOs. NGOs are suitable partners

because NGOs have knowledge of management best

practices and conservation experience. In addition,

NGOs have the ability to advocate for the practice of

sasi to be formally recognised and institutionalised.

This way, sasi can change its shape to become more

modern. This form of sasi can then be seen of as a

new form of conservation model and an adaptive

behaviour of the local communities against the

effects of globalisation and climate change.

Globalization and Indigenous People Adaptation

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This article was created as part of the Higher

Education Basic Research (Penelitian Unggulan

Dasar Perguruan Tinggi-PDUPT), which was funded

by the Ministry of Research and Technology of the

Republic of Indonesia in the 2018 budget year.

Authors would like to thank the Research and

Innovation Institute (Lembaga Penelitian dan

Inovasi Universitas Airlangga) for its assistance.

REFERENCES

Aswani, S. & Ruddle, K. 2013. “Design of realistic hybrid

marine resource management programs in Oceania”.

Pacific Science 67(3): 461-476.

Carlsson, L. & Berkes, F. 2005. “Co-Management:

Concepts and Methodological Implications”. Journal

of Environmental Management 75(1): 65-76.

Cinner, JE. & Aswani, S. 2007. “Integrating customary

management into marine conservation.” Biological

Conservation 140(4): 201-216.

Cinner, J., Mcclanahan, TR., Macneil, A. 2012. “Co-

Management of coral reef social-ecological systems”.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

USA. 109(14): 5219-5222.

Cohen, P.J. & Foale, S.J. 2013. “Sustaining Small-scale

Fisheries with Periodically Harvested Marine

Reserves”. Marine Policy 37(1): 278–287

Cohen, PJ. & Steenbergen, DJ. 2015. “Social Dimensions

of Local Fisheries Co-Management in the Coral

Triangle”. Environmental Conservation. 42(3): 278-

288.

Colding, J & Folke, C. 2001. “Social taboos: ‘invisible’

systems of local resource management and biological

conservation”. Ecological Application 11(2): 584-600.

Cribb, R.B. & Ford, M. 2009. “Indonesia as an

Archipelago: Managing Islands, Managing the Seas”.

In R. B. Cribb & M. Ford (eds.). Indonesia Beyond the

Water’s Edge: Managing an Archipelagic State.

Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies

Cundill, G., Thondhlana, G., Sisitka, L., Shackleton, S.,

Blore, M. 2013. “Land Claims and the Pursuit of Co-

Management on Four Protected Areas in South

Africa”. Land Use Policy 35(2): 171-178.

Evans, L., Cherrett, N., Pemsl, DE. 2011. “Assessing the

Impact of Fisheries Co-Management Interventions in

Developing Countries: A Meta Analysis”. Journal of

Environmental Management. 92(8): 1938-1949.

Foale, S., Cohen, P., Januchowski-Hartley, S., Wenger, A.

& Macintyre, M. 2011. “Tenure and Taboos: Origins

and Implications for Fisheries in the Pacific”. Fish and

Fisheries 12(4): 357– 369

Govan, H. 2009. “Achieving the potential of locally

managed marine areas in the South Pacific”. SPC

Traditional Marine Resource Management and

Knowledge Information Bulletin 25: 16–25

Harkes, I. & Novaczek, I. 2003. “Institutional Resilience

of Marine Sasi: a traditional Fisheries Management

System in Central Maluku. In G. Persoon, D.M. E van

Est & P.E. Sajise (eds.). Co-Management of Natural

Resources in Asia: A Comparative Perspective.

Copenhagen: Nordic Institute of Asian Studies Press

(NIAS)

Henley, D. 2008. “Natural Resource Management:

Historical Lessons from Indonesia”. Human Ecology

36(2): 273-290.

Kompas, 23 Oktober 2017. Susi: Kearifan Nelayan Banda

harus ditiru.

https://ekonomi.kompas.com/read/2017/10/23/105554

126/susi-kearifan-nelayan-banda-harus-ditiru.

Accessed 20 July 2018.

Lane, MB. 2006. “Towards Integrated Coastal

Management in Solomon Islands: Identifying Strategic

Issues for Governance Reform”. Ocean and Coastal

Management 49(7): 421– 441.

Lenzerini, F. 2007. Reparation for Indigenous Peoples in

International and Comparative Law: an Introduction.

Oxford: Oxford University Press

Oxfam. 2017. “Towards a more equal Indonesia: how the

government can take action to close the gap between

the richest and the rest”. Oxfam Briefing Paper

February 2017. https://www.oxfam.org/en/indonesia-

even-it/inequality-indonesia-millions-kept-poverty.

Accessed 20 July 2018.

Pannell, S. 1997. “Managing the Discourse of Resource

Management: the Case of Sasi from “Southeast”

Maluku, Indonesia”. Oceania 67(4): 289-307.

Phillips, A. 2003. “Turning Ideas on Their Head. the New

Paradigm for Protected Areas”. The George Wright

Forum 20(2): 8– 32.

Porter-Bolland, L., Ellis, EA., Guariguata, MR., Ruiz-

Mallen, I., Negrete-Yankelevich, S., Reyes-Garcia, V.

2012. “Community Managed Forests and Forest

Protected Areas: an Assassment of Their Conservation

Effectiveness Across the Tropics”. Forest Ecology and

Management 268(1): 6-17.

Thorburn, C.C. 2000. “Changing Customary Marine

Resource Management Practice and Institutions: the

case of Sasi Lola in the Kei Islands, Indonesia”. World

Development 28(8): 1461–1479.

Vergara-Asenjo, G. & Potvin, C. 2014. “Forest Protection

and Tenure Status: the Key Role of Indigenous

Peoples and Protected Areas in Panama”. Global

Environmental Change 28(2): 205-215.

Walton, AA. 2010. “Conservation through Different

Lenses: reflection, Responsibility, and the Politics of

Participation in Conservation Advocacy”.

Environmental Management. 45(1): 19-25.

ICoCSPA 2018 - International Conference on Contemporary Social and Political Affairs

100