Oral Environmental Governance in a Small Island Context: Indigenous Ecological Regulation amid Extractive Development in Eastern Indonesia

Oral Environmental Governance in a Small Island Context: Indigenous Ecological Regulation amid Extractive Development in Eastern Indonesia | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Oral Environmental Governance in a Small Island Context: Indigenous Ecological Regulation amid Extractive Development in Eastern Indonesia Helmina Kastanya, Sudbyo Sudibyo, Sastri Sunarti, Sofwan Noerwidi, and 6 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8367992/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract In the context of small, resource-rich islands, environmental governance is often dominated by state-corporate regimes that marginalize indigenous knowledge systems. This article examines Tyarka , an indigenous oral tradition on Masela Island, Eastern Indonesia, as a form of community-based environmental governance. Using the frameworks of political ecology and indigenous governance, the study analyzes how Tyarka functions as a normative ecological system that regulates human-nature relations through moral authority, ritual performance, and collective memory. Based on ethnographic fieldwork involving participant observation, in-depth interviews, and focus group discussions with indigenous leaders and local communities, the findings indicate that Tyarka operates as an oral environmental governance mechanism that articulates ecological ethics, enforces social control, and legitimizes community-based conservation practices. However, the expansion of the Masela LNG extraction project has created a power imbalance that undermines the recognition of oral governance systems, resulting in knowledge exclusion and environmental injustice. This article argues that recognizing oral traditions as environmental governance is crucial for addressing sustainability challenges in resource-rich small island regions. By conceptualizing Tyarka as oral environmental governance, this study contributes to political ecology debates on indigenous power, knowledge, and resistance, while offering policy-relevant insights for integrating indigenous governance into environmental decision-making. oral environmental governance ecological knowledge of indigenous peoples small islands environmental governance extractive development Indonesia Introduction Environmental governance in extractive contexts is increasingly a central concern in political ecology, particularly in regions where large-scale resource exploitation intersects with indigenous territories. Across the Global South, extractive industries such as mining and oil and gas development are often promoted as engines of economic growth, yet they often result in profound ecological degradation and social inequality. These dynamics are particularly pronounced in small island environments, where ecological vulnerability, limited livelihood alternatives, and historical marginalization converge. In such settings, environmental governance is typically dominated by state-corporate regimes that prioritize technocratic regulation and economic rationality, while systematically sidelining indigenous knowledge systems and customary forms of environmental regulation. Political ecology scholars have long emphasized that environmental issues are not simply technical or ecological, but also deeply political, shaped by unequal power relations and contested forms of knowledge (Robbins, 2012; Peet & Watts, 2004). Decisions about land, sea, and resources are embedded in broader structures of authority that determine whose knowledge counts, whose voices are heard, and whose interests are prioritized. In mining areas, environmental governance tends to prioritize scientific expertise, legal instruments, and corporate assessments such as environmental impact assessments, while dismissing local ecological knowledge as anecdotal, informal, or culturally symbolic, rather than as knowledge with political consequences. This epistemic hierarchy contributes to what political ecologists describe as environmental injustice and epistemic exclusion, particularly for Indigenous and small island communities. Despite a growing body of literature on community-based conservation and indigenous environmental knowledge, most of these studies still conceptualize local traditions primarily as cultural resources or supplementary inputs to formal governance systems. Oral traditions, in particular, are often treated as expressions of heritage, identity, or beliefs, rather than as regulatory systems that actively shape human relationships with the environment. Consequently, the governance function of oral traditions their capacity to establish norms, enforce ecological ethics, and legitimize collective action remains under-theorized. This gap is particularly evident in studies of small island communities, where oral transmission has historically played a central role in managing scarce and fragile ecological resources. This article addresses this gap by examining Tyarka , an indigenous oral tradition practiced on Masela Island in Eastern Indonesia, as a form of environmental governance. Masela Island is part of the Southwest Maluku archipelago, a marginal region categorized as depan, terluar, andtinggal (frontier, outermost, and underdeveloped). The island's ecological conditions, limited freshwater availability, reliance on marine-based and subsistence livelihoods, and vulnerability to climate variability have historically demanded careful resource management grounded in customary norms. Tyarka , a ritual oral poetry performed by indigenous elders, articulates ethical principles governing the relationships between humans, the land, the sea, and non-human entities. Through symbolic language, spiritual prayer, and collective memory, Tyarka has functioned as a normative system that regulates resource use and reinforces communal responsibility for the environment. However, in recent decades, the governance landscape of Masela Island has changed due to the development of the Masela Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) project, a nationally designated strategic extractive initiative. Although framed by the state as a path to economic development and regional integration, the project has introduced power imbalances and new governance structures that marginalize indigenous institutions. Environmental decision-making processes associated with the LNG project, including environmental impact assessments and spatial planning, have largely sidelined indigenous ways of governing the environment, treating them as culturally significant but politically irrelevant. This has created tensions between state-led extractive governance and the local ecological ethics embedded in Tyarka , revealing broader struggles over authority, legitimacy, and environmental futures. Using a political ecology perspective, this article argues that Tyarka should be understood not only as a cultural expression but also as oral environmental governance . As a governance system, Tyarka operates through moral authority rather than formal law, ritual performance rather than bureaucratic procedures, and collective obligation rather than market incentives. This system establishes ecological norms, mediates access to resources, and legitimizes sanctions against overexploitation, thus serving as a socially embedded and ecologically attuned regulatory framework. The erosion of such oral governance systems under extractive regimes represents not only a loss of culture but also a form of governance displacement that undermines sustainability and equity in small island contexts. This article has three objectives. First, it attempts to analyze how Tyarka functions as an environmental governance system in the everyday ecological practices of the Masela community. Second, it examines the power relations that emerge when oral governance confronts state-corporate extractive governance, highlighting processes of marginalization and epistemic exclusion. Third, it makes a conceptual contribution to political ecology by proposing oral environmental governance as an analytical framework for understanding the regulation of human relations with nature by indigenous communities, particularly in contexts where formal governance mechanisms fail to account for local ecological realities. By situating Tyarka within debates about power, knowledge, and environmental justice, this study contributes to broader discussions about sustainability in mining regions and small island environments. Recognizing oral traditions as systems of governance, rather than mere cultural artifacts, opens up new possibilities for rethinking environmental policy and governance beyond state-centered and technocratic models. Thus, this article underscores the importance of indigenous authority and moral ecology in shaping more just and context-sensitive approaches to environmental governance. The Concept of Oral Environmental Governance Environmental governance is conventionally understood as a set of formal institutions, legal frameworks, and policy instruments that regulate and manage environmental resources. In the dominant governance paradigm, authority typically resides in the hands of the state, scientific expertise, and market-based mechanisms, while informal and uncodified regulatory systems are often marginalized from policy discourse. Political ecology critiques this narrow conceptualization by emphasizing that governance operates not only through formal rules and bureaucratic procedures, but also through culturally embedded practices, moral authority, and knowledge systems that shape human relationships with the environment at the local level. In indigenous communities, environmental governance often operates through oral transmission rather than written law. Oral traditions serve as repositories of ecological knowledge, ethical norms, and collective memory, enabling communities to regulate access to resources and mediate relationships between humans and non-human entities. However, despite their regulatory function, oral traditions are rarely studied as distinct governance systems. Instead, they are often considered cultural heritage, symbolic expressions, or additional knowledge to be "integrated" into formal governance structures. This framing obscures the political and regulatory capacity of oral traditions and reinforces epistemic hierarchies that prioritize written, scientific, and state-sanctioned forms of knowledge. This article introduces the concept of oral environmental governance to capture the ways in which indigenous oral traditions operate as systems of environmental regulation and authority. Oral environmental governance can be defined as a mode of governance in which ecological norms, access rules, and enforcement mechanisms are articulated, transmitted, and legitimized through oral practices such as ritual speech, poetry, narratives, and collective performances. Rather than relying on codified laws or bureaucratic institutions, oral environmental governance derives its authority from social legitimacy, moral obligations, and cosmological understandings of the environment. In this sense, governance is exercised not through coercive power, but through shared trust, ethical responsibility, and communal accountability. From a political ecology perspective, oral environmental governance represents a form of power that operates outside formal state structures, yet is no less effective in shaping environmental behavior. Power, in this context, is exercised through the ability to define what constitutes an appropriate relationship with the land, sea, and other non-human beings. Oral traditions encode rules regarding resource use, seasonal restrictions, and prohibitions against overexploitation, often linking ecological violations to social or spiritual consequences. These mechanisms serve as a form of social control that regulates environmental behavior and maintains ecological balance, particularly in contexts where formal law enforcement is weak or absent. Oral environmental governance also serves as an arena for resistance and negotiation in extractive landscapes. As scholars of political ecology have argued, extractive projects are not only economic interventions but also governance projects that seek to reconfigure authority over land and resources. By asserting alternative ecological values and moral claims, oral traditions challenge the legitimacy of state-corporate governance regimes and expose the power imbalances embedded in extractive development. The marginalization of oral governance systems in environmental decision-making processes thus reflects broader struggles over knowledge, authority, and the right to determine environmental futures. The concept of oral environmental governance also highlights the relational ontology underlying many indigenous ecological systems. Unlike modern governance models that treat nature as an object of management, oral traditions often conceptualize the environment as a network of reciprocal relationships between humans, ancestors, spirits, and non-human entities. Governance, in this sense, is inseparable from cosmology and ethics. Environmental rules are not external constraints imposed on society, but integral components of social life and moral order. This relational understanding challenges technocratic approaches to sustainability that abstract environmental management from cultural and ethical contexts. In small island environments, where ecological constraints are directly felt and social relationships are deeply interwoven, oral environmental governance plays a crucial role. Resource scarcity, dependence on marine ecosystems, and exposure to environmental change require governance systems that are adaptive, locally legitimate, and responsive to ecological feedbacks. Oral traditions enable this adaptability by allowing norms and practices to be continually reinterpreted through collective performance and dialogue. This dynamic quality contrasts with rigid regulatory frameworks that often fail to accommodate local ecological complexities. By conceptualizing Tyarka as oral environmental governance, this article advances the study of political ecology in two key ways. First, it extends the analysis of environmental governance beyond formal institutions, highlighting the political significance of oral knowledge systems in governing mining areas. Second, it contributes to debates on epistemic justice by demonstrating that the exclusion of oral traditions from environmental governance is not simply a cultural omission, but a political act that reinforces unequal power relations. Therefore, recognizing oral environmental governance has profound implications for the sustainability, justice, and democratization of environmental decision-making based on community oral traditions. Oral traditions have long been recognized as an authoritative means of transmitting knowledge and social regulation in many indigenous societies, particularly where environmental norms are embedded in performances, narratives, and collective memory rather than written codes (Finnegan 2012; Goody 1987; Hymes 1981). Seen from this perspective, oral governance is not an informal or vestigial system, but rather a structured way of regulating human-environment relations through culturally sanctioned authority. Methods This research was conducted on Masela Island, located in Southwest Maluku Regency, Eastern Indonesia. Masela is a small and remote island characterized by limited terrestrial resources, a strong dependence on marine ecosystems, and an indigenous population whose livelihoods are largely tied to fishing, small-scale agriculture, and forest utilization. The island has long relied on customary institutions to regulate access to terrestrial and marine resources, reflecting adaptive governance strategies shaped by ecological constraints and social cohesion. In recent years, Masela Island has become a mining area following the designation of the Masela Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) project as a national strategic development initiative. The expansion of mining infrastructure has introduced new governance actors, regulatory frameworks, and decision-making processes that intersect and often conflict with existing customary systems. This context provides a crucial setting for examining the interplay between oral environmental governance and state-corporate mining governance in a small island context. Small island contexts are characterized by ecological constraints, high social interdependence, and limited governance capacity conditions that often necessitate locally embedded and adaptive forms of environmental regulation (Baldacchino 2007; Connell 2013; Kelman 2018). Data were collected through qualitative ethnographic methods conducted over several fieldwork periods between 2023 and 2024. Primary data sources included participant observation, in-depth semi-structured interviews, and focus group discussions (FGDs). Participant observation focused on Tyarka ritual performances , community gatherings, and daily environmental practices related to fishing, agriculture, and forest use. In-depth interviews were conducted with traditional leaders, elders, ritual experts, fishermen, farmers, and community members involved in environmental decision-making. These interviews explored the meaning, function, and role of Tyarka regulations , as well as community perceptions of environmental change and extractive development. Focus group discussions (FGDs) were used to capture collective interpretations of Tyarka and to examine how ecological norms are negotiated and transmitted across generations. Secondary data includes policy documents, environmental impact assessment reports related to the Masela LNG project, and archival materials on local customary practices. These sources are used to contextualize local governance systems within a broader state-led environmental governance framework. Data analysis followed a thematic and interpretive approach grounded in political ecology. Interview transcripts and field notes were coded to identify recurring themes related to ecological norms, authority, enforcement mechanisms, and power relations. Particular attention was paid to how Tyarka articulated environmental rules of conduct and how these rules were contested or marginalized in interactions with extractive governance regimes. Analytical interpretation focuses on connecting empirical findings to broader political ecology debates about power, knowledge, and environmental justice. Rather than treating Tyarka as a static cultural artifact, this analysis emphasizes its role as a dynamic governance system that actively shapes environmental behavior and social relations. This approach allows for the examination of governance as a concrete practice embedded in everyday ecological interactions. Results 3.1. Tyarka as an Ecological Norm System Research findings reveal that Tyarka functions as a coherent system of ecological norms governing human interactions with land, sea, and non-human entities on Masela Island. Through oral poetry embodied in rituals performed by indigenous elders, Tyarka articulates ethical principles that define appropriate and inappropriate forms of resource use. These principles emphasize self-control, reciprocity, and respect for ecological boundaries, framing environmental exploitation as a moral issue rather than a purely economic activity. Tyarka encodes specific norms related to fishing practices, seasonal harvesting, and land use. For example, references to the sea as a living entity and marine species as relatives establish moral boundaries against overfishing and destructive techniques. Similarly, metaphors linking forests to ancestral protection articulate prohibitions against indiscriminate logging and resource extraction. These norms are not expressed as explicit rules but are embedded in symbolic language that is widely understood and socially reinforced within the community. As a system of ecological norms, Tyarka operates through collective memory and intergenerational transmission. Repeated performances of Tyarka during communal rituals and important social events ensure the continuity of ecological knowledge and ethical values. This process strengthens shared understandings of environmental responsibility and places resource management within a broader moral and cosmological framework. Adherence to ecological norms is thus maintained not through external enforcement, but through internalized obligations and social expectations. Importantly, Tyarka also establishes thresholds for acceptable environmental use by linking ecological imbalances to social and spiritual consequences. Environmental violations such as overharvesting or disregard for customary boundaries are believed to disrupt the relationships between humans, ancestors, and non-human beings. These beliefs serve as regulatory mechanisms that discourage exploitative behavior and encourage careful practices. In this way, Tyarka contributes to environmental governance by aligning ecological sustainability with social harmony and moral order. The effectiveness of Tyarka as a system of ecological norms becomes particularly evident when compared to formal environmental regulations introduced through extractive governance. While state-led regulations rely on written rules, permits, and technical assessments, Tyarka regulates through relational ethics and communal accountability. This distinction highlights how oral environmental governance offers an alternative mode of regulation that is locally legitimate, adaptive, and attuned to the ecological realities of small island environments. 4.2 Tyarka as a Social Control Mechanism In addition to formulating ecological norms, Tyarka functions as a social control mechanism that regulates environmental behavior through collective authority and moral sanctions. Rather than relying on formal punishment or legal enforcement, Tyarka regulates behavior by embedding ecological rules in social relationships, reputational dynamics, and shared moral expectations. Thus, compliance with environmental norms is maintained through social accountability, not through coercive force. Indigenous elders and ritual experts play a central role in interpreting and performing Tyarka, giving them moral authority over environmental issues. Their role is not to issue commands, but to remind community members of their obligations to the land, the sea, and ancestral connections. Through ritual performances and public recitations, Tyarka reaffirm communal values and reinforce expectations regarding the proper use of resources. Deviations from these expectations are met not with direct sanctions, but with social disapproval, reputational consequences, and moral correction. Social control is further strengthened by the communal nature of Tyarka performances. Because Tyarka is performed in a collective setting, ecological norms are publicly affirmed and socially monitored. This visibility creates a shared understanding of acceptable behavior and fosters shared responsibility among community members. Individuals who violate customary norms risk social isolation or loss of moral reputation, which in small island communities can have significant consequences for social and economic life. Importantly, Tyarka's regulatory power extends beyond human relationships to encompass non-human entities. Environmental degradation is understood as a disruption of the reciprocal relationships between humans, ancestors, and ecological beings. This relational framework amplifies the moral weight of ecological transgressions, transforming environmental misconduct into a social and spiritual issue. In this way, Tyarka aligns environmental governance with broader systems of social order and ethical accountability. Tyarka's effectiveness as a social control mechanism lies in its flexibility and interconnectedness. Unlike formal regulations that require monitoring and enforcement, Tyarka operates through internal norms that adapt to changing ecological conditions. This adaptability allows communities to respond to environmental pressures without relying on external authorities, strengthening local autonomy in environmental governance. 4.3 Conflicts with Extractive Governance The expansion of extractive governance associated with the Masela LNG project has given rise to significant competition between formal environmental governance and state-corporate regulatory regimes. While formal governance frameworks emphasize legal compliance, environmental assessment, and economic valuation, they largely ignore the moral and relational dimensions of environmental regulation embodied in Tyarka. This distinction has resulted in competing claims to environmental authority, legitimacy, and knowledge. Environmental decision-making processes related to the LNG project, such as environmental impact assessments and spatial planning, are characterized by limited engagement with customary institutions. Although formal community consultations have been conducted, the knowledge embedded in Tyarka is not recognized as a legitimate basis for environmental assessments or decision-making. As a result, oral governance systems are effectively excluded from governance processes that determine land and sea use. This exclusion reflects a broader power imbalance inherent in extractive governance. State and corporate actors possess legal authority, technical expertise, and access to decision-making platforms, while indigenous governance systems operate outside formal institutional frameworks. Thus, Tyarka's marginalization is not accidental, but rather a consequence of governance structures that prioritize standardized, written, and scientifically framed knowledge over orally transmitted ecological ethics. Competition between governance systems has significant implications for environmental regulation. While Tyarka emphasizes prudence, self-control, and long-term ecological balance, extractive governance prioritizes resource optimization and economic efficiency. These differing logics produce conflicting environmental outcomes and undermine the effectiveness of local governance mechanisms. Community members report a weakening of customary authority as extractive governance increases, diminishing Tyarka's ability to regulate environmental behavior in areas impacted by industrial development. Despite these challenges, Tyarka continues to function as a site of negotiation and resistance. Community members use Tyarka to voice concerns about environmental degradation and to assert moral claims to land and sea. While these claims may lack formal legal recognition, they represent an alternative governance discourse that challenges extractive dominance and reaffirms indigenous peoples' ecological values. The findings presented above demonstrate that Tyarka functions as a multifaceted oral environmental governance system on Masela Island. Empirically, the results indicate that Tyarka operates simultaneously as a system of ecological norms and a mechanism of social control, regulating environmental behavior through moral authority, collective accountability, and relational ethics. This governance function is embedded in everyday practices and reinforced through ritual performance, enabling communities to manage terrestrial and marine resources without relying on formal law enforcement. At the same time, the research findings reveal that the effectiveness of oral environmental governance is increasingly threatened by the expansion of state-corporate extractive governance associated with the Masela LNG project. Tyarka's exclusion from formal environmental decision-making processes highlights a governance gap, where locally legitimate regulatory systems are marginalized by standardized, technocratic frameworks. This conflict underscores the existence of competing governance logics and authority structures within the same ecological landscape. Overall, these empirical findings raise broader analytical questions that go beyond the Masela case. How do oral governance systems exercise power without formal institutional recognition? In what ways does extractive governance reshape the environmental regulatory authority of indigenous communities? And what are the implications of epistemic exclusion for sustainability and environmental justice in small island contexts? Answering these questions requires situating the empirical results within broader political ecology debates about power, knowledge, and environmental governance. The following discussion section addresses these debates by interpreting the findings through a political ecology lens. It examines how oral environmental governance challenges state-centered regulatory models, how power relations shape the recognition of environmental knowledge, and how indigenous governance systems function as both regulatory mechanisms and forms of everyday resistance in extractive landscapes. Discussion 4.1 Oral Environmental Governance and the Limits of State-Centered Regulation The findings of this study challenge dominant assumptions in environmental governance that equate regulation with formal institutions, legal instruments, and technocratic expertise. On Masela Island, Tyarka operates as an oral environmental governance system that effectively regulates ecological behavior through moral authority, collective memory, and relational ethics. This governance model contrasts with the state-centered regulatory framework introduced through extractive development, which relies on standard procedures, written rules, and externally defined environmental impact indicators. Such governance asymmetries are characteristic of mining regions, where regulatory authority and environmental decision-making are centralized through technical expertise and corporate-state arrangements (Bridge 2004; Watts 2015). From a political ecology perspective, this contrast reveals the limitations of state-centered environmental governance in small island contexts. Formal regulatory systems are often ill-suited to address the socio-ecological complexities of indigenous territories, where environmental management is inextricably linked to social relationships, spiritual beliefs, and historical experiences. While state regulations emphasize compliance and enforcement, oral environmental governance emphasizes responsibility and reciprocity, offering a locally legitimate and ecologically grounded form of regulation. The marginalization of oral governance systems in extractive governance processes is not simply a technical omission, but a political outcome shaped by power relations. By prioritizing written documentation and scientific expertise, state-corporate regimes effectively disqualify oral traditions as legitimate sources of environmental authority. This epistemic bias reinforces governance models disconnected from local ecological realities and undermines the capacity of indigenous communities to meaningfully participate in environmental decision-making. 4.2. Power, Knowledge, and Epistemic Injustice in Extractive Landscapes Political ecology emphasizes that struggles over environmental governance are also struggles over knowledge and authority. The Tyarka case illustrates how oral traditions embody a form of ecological knowledge that is systematically excluded from formal governance. The environmental impact assessment and development planning processes associated with the Masela LNG project prioritize quantitative data, predictive modeling, and expert-driven judgment, while neglecting locally embedded ecological ethics and historical knowledge. This exclusion constitutes a form of epistemic injustice, where certain ways of knowing are rendered invisible or devalued in governance processes. By framing oral traditions as cultural artifacts rather than regulatory systems, extractive governance regimes deny Indigenous peoples the authority to define environmental values and risks. As a result, decisions about land and sea use are centralized in state and corporate institutions, despite limited engagement with local ecological contexts. The marginalization of orally transmitted ecological ethics reflects a broader pattern in which environmental conflicts are shaped by unequal recognition of knowledge systems, a dynamic widely observed in struggles for environmental justice and Indigenous sustainability (Martinez-Alier 2002; Whyte 2017). The power asymmetries observed in Masela reflect a broader pattern in mining areas, where development projects are transforming governance by displacing customary authority. Oral environmental governance systems like Tyarka not only coexist with state regulations; they are actively undermined by governance frameworks that seek to standardize environmental management across contexts. This process of governance displacement erodes the capacity of indigenous communities to govern themselves and weakens the social mechanisms that have historically maintained ecological balance. 4.3. Oral Governance as a Form of Everyday Resistance and Negotiation Beyond its regulatory function, Tyarka also operates as a form of everyday resistance within extractive landscapes. Drawing on political ecology and critical development studies, resistance need not be open protest or confrontation; it can be embedded in everyday practices, symbolic expressions, and moral narratives. Through the ongoing performance and transmission of Tyarka, the Masela community asserts alternative ecological values that challenge the extractive logic of resource commodification. This form of resistance is subtle yet politically significant. By upholding oral governance practices, community members reassert their authority over environmental norms and challenge the legitimacy of externally imposed governance regimes. Thus, Tyarka functions as a counter-hegemonic discourse that reaffirms indigenous peoples' claims to land, sea, and ecological futures. Rather than resisting development outright, oral governance provides a framework within which communities negotiate the terms of engagement with extractive projects. However, the effectiveness of such resistance is limited by structural power imbalances. Without formal recognition, oral environmental governance remains vulnerable to marginalization and co-optation. Political ecology reminds us that resistance operates within an unequal field of power, and that the sustainability of oral governance should not be romanticized as sufficient to counter extractive domination. Instead, it highlights the need to address the institutional conditions that enable or constrain indigenous governance systems. 4.4. Implications for Sustainability and Integration of Governance in Small Islands The Masela case offers broader insights into sustainability challenges in the context of mining on small islands. Small islands are often portrayed as passive victims of environmental change and mining development, but the existence of oral environmental governance systems demonstrates significant local capacity for ecological regulation. Recognizing and strengthening these systems can improve sustainability outcomes by aligning governance with local ecological knowledge and social legitimacy. Integrating oral environmental governance into broader governance frameworks requires going beyond simply symbolically incorporating indigenous knowledge. Rather than treating oral traditions as an additional cultural input, policy frameworks must recognize them as authoritative governance systems with regulatory functions. This shift has implications for environmental assessment processes, participatory governance mechanisms, and the legal recognition of indigenous institutions. From a political ecology perspective, such integration is inherently political. It involves redistributing authority, challenging epistemic hierarchies, and redefining what constitutes legitimate environmental governance. In mining areas, this may require revisiting development models that prioritize resource extraction over social and ecological well-being. For small island communities, recognizing oral environmental governance can support a more equitable and resilient approach to sustainability that respects indigenous sovereignty and ecological ethics. 4.5. Contribution to the Political Ecology and Environmental Governance Debate This study contributes to political ecology by highlighting oral traditions as arenas of governance, power, and resistance. By conceptualizing Tyarka as oral environmental governance, this article extends the analysis of environmental regulation beyond formal institutions and highlights the political significance of culturally embedded governance systems. This article also contributes to debates on epistemic justice by demonstrating how the exclusion of oral traditions from environmental governance constitutes a form of political marginalization. Furthermore, this study enriches environmental governance studies by offering an empirically based framework for analyzing indigenous governance in a small island context. The concept of oral environmental governance provides a tool for examining how communities regulate environmental behavior in the absence or failure of formal governance mechanisms. Thus, this study challenges the dominant narrative that equates governance with state authority and opens up space for a more pluralistic and context-sensitive approach to sustainability. From a social-ecological systems perspective, locally embedded governance arrangements play a crucial role in maintaining institutional resilience and fitness in complex environments ( Folke 2006; Young 2002). Conclusion This article examines Tyarka , an indigenous oral tradition of Masela Island, as a form of oral environmental governance operating in the context of resource extraction on a small island. Using a political ecology framework, the study demonstrates that Tyarka functions not only as a cultural expression but also as a regulatory system that structures human-environment relations through ecological norms, moral authority, and collective accountability. By regulating resource use through relational ethics rather than formal legal instruments, Tyarka provides a locally legitimate and adaptive mode of environmental governance that is appropriate to the ecological and social conditions of small island communities. Empirically, the findings demonstrate that Tyarka operates simultaneously as a system of ecological norms and a mechanism of social control. Through oral performances embodied in rituals and intergenerational transmission, Tyarka articulates ethical boundaries for land and sea use, prevents overexploitation, and reinforces shared responsibility for ecological sustainability. This governance function is underpinned by social legitimacy and shared moral obligations, enabling effective regulation in the absence of formal law enforcement mechanisms. These findings challenge the dominant assumption that equates environmental governance exclusively with state-centered institutions and technocratic regulation. At the same time, this research reveals that oral environmental governance is increasingly marginalized by state-corporate extractive governance associated with the Masela LNG project. Environmental decision-making processes prioritize standardized, scientific, and legally codified forms of knowledge, while marginalizing orally transmitted ecological ethics and customary authority. This exclusion constitutes a form of epistemic injustice that weakens indigenous communities' capacity for environmental self-governance and undermines locally rooted sustainability practices. The conflict between oral and extractive governance systems reflects broader power asymmetries that shape environmental outcomes in extractive frontier regions. Conceptually, this article contributes to the study of political ecology and environmental governance by advancing oral environmental governance as an analytical framework. This concept expands existing discussions on indigenous environmental governance by highlighting the regulatory and political functions of oral traditions. It highlights how governance can be realized through moral authority, relational ontology, and collective memory, challenging narrow, institution-centered models of environmental regulation. By situating oral traditions within debates on power, knowledge, and environmental justice, this study underscores the need to recognize diverse governance modalities in addressing sustainability challenges. These findings have important implications for environmental policy and governance in the context of small island communities dependent on natural resources. Integrating oral environmental governance into formal decision-making processes requires more than symbolic recognition of Indigenous cultures. It requires structural changes that recognize Indigenous authority, incorporate Indigenous ecological ethics into environmental assessments, and create participatory mechanisms that enable oral knowledge systems to shape governance outcomes. Without such recognition, sustainability initiatives risk repeating governance failures and exacerbating social and ecological inequalities. In conclusion, recognizing oral traditions like Tyarka as environmental governance systems is crucial for advancing more equitable and context-sensitive approaches to sustainability in extractive landscapes. As small islands continue to face intensifying extractive pressures, the inclusion of indigenous governance systems offers a crucial pathway for reimagining environmental governance beyond state-centered and technocratic paradigms. By foregrounding oral environmental governance, this study calls for a pluralistic understanding of governance that respects indigenous authority, promotes epistemic justice, and enhances ecological resilience. Declarations Funding Declaration : This research was funded by the Research Program of the Research Organization for Archaeology, Language, and Literature, National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Indonesia. Clinical Trial Number: Not applicable. Ethics Statement: This study employs qualitative methods, including interviews and documentation of oral and customary ecological knowledge. Participation was entirely voluntary, and all participants were informed about the purpose of the research, the methods employed, and the intended use of the data prior to their participation. Verbal informed consent was obtained from all participants. The research did not involve medical procedures, experimentation, or interventions on human subjects. Data collection and analysis were conducted in accordance with internationally recognized ethical principles for social science and humanities research, including respect for participants’ autonomy, cultural sensitivity, and the protection of anonymity and confidentiality. In line with prevailing institutional and national guidelines for non-interventional social science research in Indonesia, this study did not require formal approval from an Institutional Review Board or ethics committee. References Agrawal, A. 2005. Environment: Technologies of Governance and the Formation of Subjects . Durham: Duke University Press. Escobar, A. 2008. Territories of Difference: Place, Movement, Life, and Social Aspects . Durham: Duke University Press. Li, TM 2007. The Desire for Self-Improvement: Governance, Development, and Political Practice . Durham: Duke University Press. Peet, R., and M. Watts. 2004. Ecologies of Liberation: Environment, Development, Social Movements . 2nd edition. London: Routledge. Robbins, P. 2012. Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction . 2nd edition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Scott, J.C. 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed . New Haven: Yale University Press. Berkes, F. 2008. Sacred Ecology . 2nd edition. New York: Routledge. Berkes, F. 2012. Sacred Ecology . 3rd edition. New York: Routledge. Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2000. Rediscovering traditional ecological knowledge for adaptive management. Ecological Applications 10 (5): 1251–1262. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing Common Resources: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ostrom, E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing the sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325 (5939): 419–422. Finnegan, R. 2012. Oral Literature in Africa . Cambridge: Open Book Publishers. Hymes, D. 1981. “In Vain I Tried to Tell You”: Essays in Native American Ethnopoetics . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Goody, J. 1987. The Interface Between Writing and Orality . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ingold, T. 2000. Environmental Perceptions: Essays on Livelihoods, Shelter, and Skills . London: Routledge. Martinez- Alier, J. 2002. The Environment of the Poor . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Whyte, KP 2017. Indigenous climate change studies: Integrating futures into Indigenous perspectives, decolonizing the Anthropocene. English Notes 55 (1–2): 153–162. Baldacchino, G. 2007. Islands and Governance . Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. Connell, J. 2013. Islands in danger? Environment, economics, and contemporary change. Edward Elgar . Kelman, I. 2018. The island exceptionalism in the climate change narratives of small island developing states (SIDS). Journal of Island Studies 13 (1): 149–166. Bridge, G. 2004. Contested terrain: Mining and the environment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 29: 205–259. Watts, M. 2015. Securing oil: Borders, risks, and spaces of accumulated insecurity. Political Geography 47: 65–74. Acciaioli, G. 2008. The environment revisited: Indigenous Peoples' Lindu conservation strategies and customary land reclamation in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Anthropology Forum 18 (3): 291–324. Zerner, C. 1994. Through a green lens: The construction of customary and community environmental law in the Maluku Islands, Indonesia. Law & Society Review 28 (5): 1079–1122. Thorburn, CC 2000. Changing practices and institutions of customary marine resource management: A case study of Lola sasi in the Kei Islands, Indonesia. World Development 28 (8): 1461–1479. Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: An emerging perspective for social-ecological systems analysis. Global Environmental Change 16 (3): 253–267. Young, OR 2002. Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8367992","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":562372635,"identity":"79ef92c3-08d6-4f58-9b40-0d2bcab2cf43","order_by":0,"name":"Helmina Kastanya","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Research and Innovation Agency","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Helmina","middleName":"","lastName":"Kastanya","suffix":""},{"id":562372640,"identity":"18b7c3fd-fd5f-43d5-bcfd-701ddebda6de","order_by":1,"name":"Sudbyo Sudibyo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Gadjah Mada University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sudbyo","middleName":"","lastName":"Sudibyo","suffix":""},{"id":562372641,"identity":"fda89dd4-af08-4d1e-bf6a-5356c6aa946d","order_by":2,"name":"Sastri Sunarti","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Research and Innovation Agency","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sastri","middleName":"","lastName":"Sunarti","suffix":""},{"id":562372642,"identity":"e8b5e6b0-b5c0-4dc7-83ac-fa85c29233ef","order_by":3,"name":"Sofwan Noerwidi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Research and Innovation Agency","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sofwan","middleName":"","lastName":"Noerwidi","suffix":""},{"id":562372643,"identity":"1c3b4b94-b1d4-43df-80c0-eb493c755aaa","order_by":4,"name":"Atisah Atisah","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Research and Innovation Agency","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Atisah","middleName":"","lastName":"Atisah","suffix":""},{"id":562372644,"identity":"45050837-127c-4848-adfd-c6f5ce57100f","order_by":5,"name":"Diah Meutia Harum","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Research and Innovation Agency","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Diah","middleName":"Meutia","lastName":"Harum","suffix":""},{"id":562372645,"identity":"1ce47a05-acef-416a-ae75-27cb33aea125","order_by":6,"name":"Ninawati Syahrul","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Research and Innovation Agency","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ninawati","middleName":"","lastName":"Syahrul","suffix":""},{"id":562372646,"identity":"5a6d600f-b530-4b4e-a924-c6159b9a6dc3","order_by":7,"name":"Tugas Tri Wahyono","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Research and Innovation Agency","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tugas","middleName":"Tri","lastName":"Wahyono","suffix":""},{"id":562372647,"identity":"ea184033-7335-44f4-ab0a-f6ea2aa5db6b","order_by":8,"name":"Suyami Suyami","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Research and Innovation Agency","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Suyami","middleName":"","lastName":"Suyami","suffix":""},{"id":562372649,"identity":"e95e7d17-701c-40a1-a0c1-4d97376e5aca","order_by":9,"name":"Titih Nursugiharti","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Research and Innovation Agency","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Titih","middleName":"","lastName":"Nursugiharti","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-12-15 15:38:50","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8367992/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8367992/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":98628390,"identity":"f0db49aa-48b2-411a-ad8b-fbcf55916352","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-19 17:11:24","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":626714,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8367992/v1/f50bf652-3df8-4040-a2db-85347e95c64d.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Oral Environmental Governance in a Small Island Context: Indigenous Ecological Regulation amid Extractive Development in Eastern Indonesia","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eEnvironmental governance in extractive contexts is increasingly a central concern in political ecology, particularly in regions where large-scale resource exploitation intersects with indigenous territories. Across the Global South, extractive industries such as mining and oil and gas development are often promoted as engines of economic growth, yet they often result in profound ecological degradation and social inequality. These dynamics are particularly pronounced in small island environments, where ecological vulnerability, limited livelihood alternatives, and historical marginalization converge. In such settings, environmental governance is typically dominated by state-corporate regimes that prioritize technocratic regulation and economic rationality, while systematically sidelining indigenous knowledge systems and customary forms of environmental regulation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePolitical ecology scholars have long emphasized that environmental issues are not simply technical or ecological, but also deeply political, shaped by unequal power relations and contested forms of knowledge (Robbins, 2012; Peet \u0026amp; Watts, 2004). Decisions about land, sea, and resources are embedded in broader structures of authority that determine whose knowledge counts, whose voices are heard, and whose interests are prioritized. In mining areas, environmental governance tends to prioritize scientific expertise, legal instruments, and corporate assessments such as environmental impact assessments, while dismissing local ecological knowledge as anecdotal, informal, or culturally symbolic, rather than as knowledge with political consequences. This epistemic hierarchy contributes to what political ecologists describe as environmental injustice and epistemic exclusion, particularly for Indigenous and small island communities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite a growing body of literature on community-based conservation and indigenous environmental knowledge, most of these studies still conceptualize local traditions primarily as cultural resources or supplementary inputs to formal governance systems. Oral traditions, in particular, are often treated as expressions of heritage, identity, or beliefs, rather than as regulatory systems that actively shape human relationships with the environment. Consequently, the governance function of oral traditions their capacity to establish norms, enforce ecological ethics, and legitimize collective action remains under-theorized. This gap is particularly evident in studies of small island communities, where oral transmission has historically played a central role in managing scarce and fragile ecological resources.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis article addresses this gap by examining \u003cem\u003eTyarka\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e, an indigenous oral tradition practiced on Masela Island in Eastern Indonesia, as a form of environmental governance. Masela Island is part of the Southwest Maluku archipelago, a marginal region categorized as \u003cem\u003edepan, terluar, andtinggal\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(frontier, outermost, and underdeveloped). The island\u0026apos;s ecological conditions, limited freshwater availability, reliance on marine-based and subsistence livelihoods, and vulnerability to climate variability have historically demanded careful resource management grounded in customary norms. \u003cem\u003eTyarka\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e, a ritual oral poetry performed by indigenous elders, articulates ethical principles governing the relationships between humans, the land, the sea, and non-human entities. Through symbolic language, spiritual prayer, and collective memory, Tyarka has functioned as a normative system that regulates resource use and reinforces communal responsibility for the environment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, in recent decades, the governance landscape of Masela Island has changed due to the development of the Masela Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) project, a nationally designated strategic extractive initiative. Although framed by the state as a path to economic development and regional integration, the project has introduced power imbalances and new governance structures that marginalize indigenous institutions. Environmental decision-making processes associated with the LNG project, including environmental impact assessments and spatial planning, have largely sidelined indigenous ways of governing the environment, treating them as culturally significant but politically irrelevant. This has created tensions between state-led extractive governance and the local ecological ethics embedded in \u003cem\u003eTyarka\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e, revealing broader struggles over authority, legitimacy, and environmental futures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUsing a political ecology perspective, this article argues that \u003cem\u003eTyarka\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eshould be understood not only as a cultural expression but also as \u003cem\u003eoral environmental governance\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e. As a governance system, \u003cem\u003eTyarka\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eoperates through moral authority rather than formal law, ritual performance rather than bureaucratic procedures, and collective obligation rather than market incentives. This system establishes ecological norms, mediates access to resources, and legitimizes sanctions against overexploitation, thus serving as a socially embedded and ecologically attuned regulatory framework. The erosion of such oral governance systems under extractive regimes represents not only a loss of culture but also a form of governance displacement that undermines sustainability and equity in small island contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis article has three objectives. First, it attempts to analyze how Tyarka functions as an environmental governance system in the everyday ecological practices of the Masela community. Second, it examines the power relations that emerge when oral governance confronts state-corporate extractive governance, highlighting processes of marginalization and epistemic exclusion. Third, it makes a conceptual contribution to political ecology by proposing \u003cem\u003eoral environmental governance\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eas an analytical framework for understanding the regulation of human relations with nature by indigenous communities, particularly in contexts where formal governance mechanisms fail to account for local ecological realities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBy situating Tyarka within debates about power, knowledge, and environmental justice, this study contributes to broader discussions about sustainability in mining regions and small island environments. Recognizing oral traditions as systems of governance, rather than mere cultural artifacts, opens up new possibilities for rethinking environmental policy and governance beyond state-centered and technocratic models. Thus, this article underscores the importance of indigenous authority and moral ecology in shaping more just and context-sensitive approaches to environmental governance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Concept of Oral Environmental Governance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEnvironmental governance is conventionally understood as a set of formal institutions, legal frameworks, and policy instruments that regulate and manage environmental resources. In the dominant governance paradigm, authority typically resides in the hands of the state, scientific expertise, and market-based mechanisms, while informal and uncodified regulatory systems are often marginalized from policy discourse. Political ecology critiques this narrow conceptualization by emphasizing that governance operates not only through formal rules and bureaucratic procedures, but also through culturally embedded practices, moral authority, and knowledge systems that shape human relationships with the environment at the local level.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn indigenous communities, environmental governance often operates through oral transmission rather than written law. Oral traditions serve as repositories of ecological knowledge, ethical norms, and collective memory, enabling communities to regulate access to resources and mediate relationships between humans and non-human entities. However, despite their regulatory function, oral traditions are rarely studied as distinct governance systems. Instead, they are often considered cultural heritage, symbolic expressions, or additional knowledge to be \"integrated\" into formal governance structures. This framing obscures the political and regulatory capacity of oral traditions and reinforces epistemic hierarchies that prioritize written, scientific, and state-sanctioned forms of knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis article introduces the concept of \u003cem\u003eoral environmental governance\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eto capture the ways in which indigenous oral traditions operate as systems of environmental regulation and authority. Oral environmental governance can be defined as a mode of governance in which ecological norms, access rules, and enforcement mechanisms are articulated, transmitted, and legitimized through oral practices such as ritual speech, poetry, narratives, and collective performances. Rather than relying on codified laws or bureaucratic institutions, oral environmental governance derives its authority from social legitimacy, moral obligations, and cosmological understandings of the environment. In this sense, governance is exercised not through coercive power, but through shared trust, ethical responsibility, and communal accountability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom a political ecology perspective, oral environmental governance represents a form of power that operates outside formal state structures, yet is no less effective in shaping environmental behavior. Power, in this context, is exercised through the ability to define what constitutes an appropriate relationship with the land, sea, and other non-human beings. Oral traditions encode rules regarding resource use, seasonal restrictions, and prohibitions against overexploitation, often linking ecological violations to social or spiritual consequences. These mechanisms serve as a form of social control that regulates environmental behavior and maintains ecological balance, particularly in contexts where formal law enforcement is weak or absent.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOral environmental governance also serves as an arena for resistance and negotiation in extractive landscapes. As scholars of political ecology have argued, extractive projects are not only economic interventions but also governance projects that seek to reconfigure authority over land and resources. By asserting alternative ecological values and moral claims, oral traditions challenge the legitimacy of state-corporate governance regimes and expose the power imbalances embedded in extractive development. The marginalization of oral governance systems in environmental decision-making processes thus reflects broader struggles over knowledge, authority, and the right to determine environmental futures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe concept of oral environmental governance also highlights the relational ontology underlying many indigenous ecological systems. Unlike modern governance models that treat nature as an object of management, oral traditions often conceptualize the environment as a network of reciprocal relationships between humans, ancestors, spirits, and non-human entities. Governance, in this sense, is inseparable from cosmology and ethics. Environmental rules are not external constraints imposed on society, but integral components of social life and moral order. This relational understanding challenges technocratic approaches to sustainability that abstract environmental management from cultural and ethical contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn small island environments, where ecological constraints are directly felt and social relationships are deeply interwoven, oral environmental governance plays a crucial role. Resource scarcity, dependence on marine ecosystems, and exposure to environmental change require governance systems that are adaptive, locally legitimate, and responsive to ecological feedbacks. Oral traditions enable this adaptability by allowing norms and practices to be continually reinterpreted through collective performance and dialogue. This dynamic quality contrasts with rigid regulatory frameworks that often fail to accommodate local ecological complexities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBy conceptualizing \u003cem\u003eTyarka\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eas oral environmental governance, this article advances the study of political ecology in two key ways. First, it extends the analysis of environmental governance beyond formal institutions, highlighting the political significance of oral knowledge systems in governing mining areas. Second, it contributes to debates on epistemic justice by demonstrating that the exclusion of oral traditions from environmental governance is not simply a cultural omission, but a political act that reinforces unequal power relations. Therefore, recognizing oral environmental governance has profound implications for the sustainability, justice, and democratization of environmental decision-making based on community oral traditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOral traditions have long been recognized as an authoritative means of transmitting knowledge and social regulation in many indigenous societies, particularly where environmental norms are embedded in performances, narratives, and collective memory rather than written codes (Finnegan 2012; Goody 1987; Hymes 1981). Seen from this perspective, oral governance is not an informal or vestigial system, but rather a structured way of regulating human-environment relations through culturally sanctioned authority.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis research was conducted on Masela Island, located in Southwest Maluku Regency, Eastern Indonesia. Masela is a small and remote island characterized by limited terrestrial resources, a strong dependence on marine ecosystems, and an indigenous population whose livelihoods are largely tied to fishing, small-scale agriculture, and forest utilization. The island has long relied on customary institutions to regulate access to terrestrial and marine resources, reflecting adaptive governance strategies shaped by ecological constraints and social cohesion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn recent years, Masela Island has become a mining area following the designation of the Masela Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) project as a national strategic development initiative. The expansion of mining infrastructure has introduced new governance actors, regulatory frameworks, and decision-making processes that intersect and often conflict with existing customary systems. This context provides a crucial setting for examining the interplay between oral environmental governance and state-corporate mining governance in a small island context. Small island contexts are characterized by ecological constraints, high social interdependence, and limited governance capacity conditions that often necessitate locally embedded and adaptive forms of environmental regulation (Baldacchino 2007; Connell 2013; Kelman 2018).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData were collected through qualitative ethnographic methods conducted over several fieldwork periods between 2023 and 2024. Primary data sources included participant observation, in-depth semi-structured interviews, and focus group discussions (FGDs). Participant observation focused on \u003cem\u003eTyarka ritual performances\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e, community gatherings, and daily environmental practices related to fishing, agriculture, and forest use.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn-depth interviews were conducted with traditional leaders, elders, ritual experts, fishermen, farmers, and community members involved in environmental decision-making. These interviews explored the meaning, function, and role of \u003cem\u003eTyarka regulations\u003c/em\u003e, as well as community perceptions of environmental change and extractive development. Focus group discussions (FGDs) were used to capture collective interpretations of \u003cem\u003eTyarka\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eand to examine how ecological norms are negotiated and transmitted across generations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecondary data includes policy documents, environmental impact assessment reports related to the Masela LNG project, and archival materials on local customary practices. These sources are used to contextualize local governance systems within a broader state-led environmental governance framework.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData analysis followed a thematic and interpretive approach grounded in political ecology. Interview transcripts and field notes were coded to identify recurring themes related to ecological norms, authority, enforcement mechanisms, and power relations. Particular attention was paid to how Tyarka articulated environmental rules of conduct and how these rules were contested or marginalized in interactions with extractive governance regimes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnalytical interpretation focuses on connecting empirical findings to broader political ecology debates about power, knowledge, and environmental justice. Rather than treating Tyarka as a static cultural artifact, this analysis emphasizes its role as a dynamic governance system that actively shapes environmental behavior and social relations. This approach allows for the examination of governance as a concrete practice embedded in everyday ecological interactions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003ch2\u003e3.1. Tyarka as an Ecological Norm System\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch findings reveal that Tyarka functions as a coherent system of ecological norms governing human interactions with land, sea, and non-human entities on Masela Island. Through oral poetry embodied in rituals performed by indigenous elders, Tyarka articulates ethical principles that define appropriate and inappropriate forms of resource use. These principles emphasize self-control, reciprocity, and respect for ecological boundaries, framing environmental exploitation as a moral issue rather than a purely economic activity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTyarka encodes specific norms related to fishing practices, seasonal harvesting, and land use. For example, references to the sea as a living entity and marine species as relatives establish moral boundaries against overfishing and destructive techniques. Similarly, metaphors linking forests to ancestral protection articulate prohibitions against indiscriminate logging and resource extraction. These norms are not expressed as explicit rules but are embedded in symbolic language that is widely understood and socially reinforced within the community.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a system of ecological norms, Tyarka operates through collective memory and intergenerational transmission. Repeated performances of Tyarka during communal rituals and important social events ensure the continuity of ecological knowledge and ethical values. This process strengthens shared understandings of environmental responsibility and places resource management within a broader moral and cosmological framework. Adherence to ecological norms is thus maintained not through external enforcement, but through internalized obligations and social expectations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eImportantly, Tyarka also establishes thresholds for acceptable environmental use by linking ecological imbalances to social and spiritual consequences. Environmental violations such as overharvesting or disregard for customary boundaries are believed to disrupt the relationships between humans, ancestors, and non-human beings. These beliefs serve as regulatory mechanisms that discourage exploitative behavior and encourage careful practices. In this way, Tyarka contributes to environmental governance by aligning ecological sustainability with social harmony and moral order.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe effectiveness of Tyarka as a system of ecological norms becomes particularly evident when compared to formal environmental regulations introduced through extractive governance. While state-led regulations rely on written rules, permits, and technical assessments, Tyarka regulates through relational ethics and communal accountability. This distinction highlights how oral environmental governance offers an alternative mode of regulation that is locally legitimate, adaptive, and attuned to the ecological realities of small island environments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.2 Tyarka as a Social Control Mechanism\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to formulating ecological norms, Tyarka functions as a social control mechanism that regulates environmental behavior through collective authority and moral sanctions. Rather than relying on formal punishment or legal enforcement, Tyarka regulates behavior by embedding ecological rules in social relationships, reputational dynamics, and shared moral expectations. Thus, compliance with environmental norms is maintained through social accountability, not through coercive force.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndigenous elders and ritual experts play a central role in interpreting and performing Tyarka, giving them moral authority over environmental issues. Their role is not to issue commands, but to remind community members of their obligations to the land, the sea, and ancestral connections. Through ritual performances and public recitations, Tyarka reaffirm communal values and reinforce expectations regarding the proper use of resources. Deviations from these expectations are met not with direct sanctions, but with social disapproval, reputational consequences, and moral correction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSocial control is further strengthened by the communal nature of Tyarka performances. Because Tyarka is performed in a collective setting, ecological norms are publicly affirmed and socially monitored. This visibility creates a shared understanding of acceptable behavior and fosters shared responsibility among community members. Individuals who violate customary norms risk social isolation or loss of moral reputation, which in small island communities can have significant consequences for social and economic life.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eImportantly, Tyarka's regulatory power extends beyond human relationships to encompass non-human entities. Environmental degradation is understood as a disruption of the reciprocal relationships between humans, ancestors, and ecological beings. This relational framework amplifies the moral weight of ecological transgressions, transforming environmental misconduct into a social and spiritual issue. In this way, Tyarka aligns environmental governance with broader systems of social order and ethical accountability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTyarka's effectiveness as a social control mechanism lies in its flexibility and interconnectedness. Unlike formal regulations that require monitoring and enforcement, Tyarka operates through internal norms that adapt to changing ecological conditions. This adaptability allows communities to respond to environmental pressures without relying on external authorities, strengthening local autonomy in environmental governance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e4.3 Conflicts with Extractive Governance\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe expansion of extractive governance associated with the Masela LNG project has given rise to significant competition between formal environmental governance and state-corporate regulatory regimes. While formal governance frameworks emphasize legal compliance, environmental assessment, and economic valuation, they largely ignore the moral and relational dimensions of environmental regulation embodied in Tyarka. This distinction has resulted in competing claims to environmental authority, legitimacy, and knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEnvironmental decision-making processes related to the LNG project, such as environmental impact assessments and spatial planning, are characterized by limited engagement with customary institutions. Although formal community consultations have been conducted, the knowledge embedded in Tyarka is not recognized as a legitimate basis for environmental assessments or decision-making. As a result, oral governance systems are effectively excluded from governance processes that determine land and sea use.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis exclusion reflects a broader power imbalance inherent in extractive governance. State and corporate actors possess legal authority, technical expertise, and access to decision-making platforms, while indigenous governance systems operate outside formal institutional frameworks. Thus, Tyarka's marginalization is not accidental, but rather a consequence of governance structures that prioritize standardized, written, and scientifically framed knowledge over orally transmitted ecological ethics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCompetition between governance systems has significant implications for environmental regulation. While Tyarka emphasizes prudence, self-control, and long-term ecological balance, extractive governance prioritizes resource optimization and economic efficiency. These differing logics produce conflicting environmental outcomes and undermine the effectiveness of local governance mechanisms. Community members report a weakening of customary authority as extractive governance increases, diminishing Tyarka's ability to regulate environmental behavior in areas impacted by industrial development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite these challenges, Tyarka continues to function as a site of negotiation and resistance. Community members use Tyarka to voice concerns about environmental degradation and to assert moral claims to land and sea. While these claims may lack formal legal recognition, they represent an alternative governance discourse that challenges extractive dominance and reaffirms indigenous peoples' ecological values.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings presented above demonstrate that Tyarka functions as a multifaceted oral environmental governance system on Masela Island. Empirically, the results indicate that Tyarka operates simultaneously as a system of ecological norms and a mechanism of social control, regulating environmental behavior through moral authority, collective accountability, and relational ethics. This governance function is embedded in everyday practices and reinforced through ritual performance, enabling communities to manage terrestrial and marine resources without relying on formal law enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the same time, the research findings reveal that the effectiveness of oral environmental governance is increasingly threatened by the expansion of state-corporate extractive governance associated with the Masela LNG project. Tyarka's exclusion from formal environmental decision-making processes highlights a governance gap, where locally legitimate regulatory systems are marginalized by standardized, technocratic frameworks. This conflict underscores the existence of competing governance logics and authority structures within the same ecological landscape.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, these empirical findings raise broader analytical questions that go beyond the Masela case. How do oral governance systems exercise power without formal institutional recognition? In what ways does extractive governance reshape the environmental regulatory authority of indigenous communities? And what are the implications of epistemic exclusion for sustainability and environmental justice in small island contexts? Answering these questions requires situating the empirical results within broader political ecology debates about power, knowledge, and environmental governance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe following discussion section addresses these debates by interpreting the findings through a political ecology lens. It examines how oral environmental governance challenges state-centered regulatory models, how power relations shape the recognition of environmental knowledge, and how indigenous governance systems function as both regulatory mechanisms and forms of everyday resistance in extractive landscapes.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003ch2\u003e4.1 Oral Environmental Governance and the Limits of State-Centered Regulation\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study challenge dominant assumptions in environmental governance that equate regulation with formal institutions, legal instruments, and technocratic expertise. On Masela Island, Tyarka operates as an oral environmental governance system that effectively regulates ecological behavior through moral authority, collective memory, and relational ethics. This governance model contrasts with the state-centered regulatory framework introduced through extractive development, which relies on standard procedures, written rules, and externally defined environmental impact indicators. Such governance asymmetries are characteristic of mining regions, where regulatory authority and environmental decision-making are centralized through technical expertise and corporate-state arrangements (Bridge 2004; Watts 2015).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom a political ecology perspective, this contrast reveals the limitations of state-centered environmental governance in small island contexts. Formal regulatory systems are often ill-suited to address the socio-ecological complexities of indigenous territories, where environmental management is inextricably linked to social relationships, spiritual beliefs, and historical experiences. While state regulations emphasize compliance and enforcement, oral environmental governance emphasizes responsibility and reciprocity, offering a locally legitimate and ecologically grounded form of regulation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe marginalization of oral governance systems in extractive governance processes is not simply a technical omission, but a political outcome shaped by power relations. By prioritizing written documentation and scientific expertise, state-corporate regimes effectively disqualify oral traditions as legitimate sources of environmental authority. This epistemic bias reinforces governance models disconnected from local ecological realities and undermines the capacity of indigenous communities to meaningfully participate in environmental decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e4.2. Power, Knowledge, and Epistemic Injustice in Extractive Landscapes\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePolitical ecology emphasizes that struggles over environmental governance are also struggles over knowledge and authority. The Tyarka case illustrates how oral traditions embody a form of ecological knowledge that is systematically excluded from formal governance. The environmental impact assessment and development planning processes associated with the Masela LNG project prioritize quantitative data, predictive modeling, and expert-driven judgment, while neglecting locally embedded ecological ethics and historical knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis exclusion constitutes a form of epistemic injustice, where certain ways of knowing are rendered invisible or devalued in governance processes. By framing oral traditions as cultural artifacts rather than regulatory systems, extractive governance regimes deny Indigenous peoples the authority to define environmental values and risks. As a result, decisions about land and sea use are centralized in state and corporate institutions, despite limited engagement with local ecological contexts. The marginalization of orally transmitted ecological ethics reflects a broader pattern in which environmental conflicts are shaped by unequal recognition of knowledge systems, a dynamic widely observed in struggles for environmental justice and Indigenous sustainability (Martinez-Alier 2002; Whyte 2017).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe power asymmetries observed in Masela reflect a broader pattern in mining areas, where development projects are transforming governance by displacing customary authority. Oral environmental governance systems like Tyarka not only coexist with state regulations; they are actively undermined by governance frameworks that seek to standardize environmental management across contexts. This process of governance displacement erodes the capacity of indigenous communities to govern themselves and weakens the social mechanisms that have historically maintained ecological balance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e4.3. Oral Governance as a Form of Everyday Resistance and Negotiation\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBeyond its regulatory function, Tyarka also operates as a form of everyday resistance within extractive landscapes. Drawing on political ecology and critical development studies, resistance need not be open protest or confrontation; it can be embedded in everyday practices, symbolic expressions, and moral narratives. Through the ongoing performance and transmission of Tyarka, the Masela community asserts alternative ecological values that challenge the extractive logic of resource commodification.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis form of resistance is subtle yet politically significant. By upholding oral governance practices, community members reassert their authority over environmental norms and challenge the legitimacy of externally imposed governance regimes. Thus, Tyarka functions as a counter-hegemonic discourse that reaffirms indigenous peoples\u0026apos; claims to land, sea, and ecological futures. Rather than resisting development outright, oral governance provides a framework within which communities negotiate the terms of engagement with extractive projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, the effectiveness of such resistance is limited by structural power imbalances. Without formal recognition, oral environmental governance remains vulnerable to marginalization and co-optation. Political ecology reminds us that resistance operates within an unequal field of power, and that the sustainability of oral governance should not be romanticized as sufficient to counter extractive domination. Instead, it highlights the need to address the institutional conditions that enable or constrain indigenous governance systems.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e4.4. Implications for Sustainability and Integration of Governance in Small Islands\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Masela case offers broader insights into sustainability challenges in the context of mining on small islands. Small islands are often portrayed as passive victims of environmental change and mining development, but the existence of oral environmental governance systems demonstrates significant local capacity for ecological regulation. Recognizing and strengthening these systems can improve sustainability outcomes by aligning governance with local ecological knowledge and social legitimacy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIntegrating oral environmental governance into broader governance frameworks requires going beyond simply symbolically incorporating indigenous knowledge. Rather than treating oral traditions as an additional cultural input, policy frameworks must recognize them as authoritative governance systems with regulatory functions. This shift has implications for environmental assessment processes, participatory governance mechanisms, and the legal recognition of indigenous institutions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom a political ecology perspective, such integration is inherently political. It involves redistributing authority, challenging epistemic hierarchies, and redefining what constitutes legitimate environmental governance. In mining areas, this may require revisiting development models that prioritize resource extraction over social and ecological well-being. For small island communities, recognizing oral environmental governance can support a more equitable and resilient approach to sustainability that respects indigenous sovereignty and ecological ethics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e4.5. Contribution to the Political Ecology and Environmental Governance Debate\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study contributes to political ecology by highlighting oral traditions as arenas of governance, power, and resistance. By conceptualizing Tyarka as oral environmental governance, this article extends the analysis of environmental regulation beyond formal institutions and highlights the political significance of culturally embedded governance systems. This article also contributes to debates on epistemic justice by demonstrating how the exclusion of oral traditions from environmental governance constitutes a form of political marginalization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, this study enriches environmental governance studies by offering an empirically based framework for analyzing indigenous governance in a small island context. The concept of oral environmental governance provides a tool for examining how communities regulate environmental behavior in the absence or failure of formal governance mechanisms. Thus, this study challenges the dominant narrative that equates governance with state authority and opens up space for a more pluralistic and context-sensitive approach to sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom a social-ecological systems perspective, locally embedded governance arrangements play a crucial role in maintaining institutional resilience and fitness in complex environments ( Folke 2006; Young 2002).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis article examines \u003cem\u003eTyarka\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e, an indigenous oral tradition of Masela Island, as a form of \u003cem\u003eoral environmental governance\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eoperating in the context of resource extraction on a small island. Using a political ecology framework, the study demonstrates that Tyarka functions not only as a cultural expression but also as a regulatory system that structures human-environment relations through ecological norms, moral authority, and collective accountability. By regulating resource use through relational ethics rather than formal legal instruments, Tyarka provides a locally legitimate and adaptive mode of environmental governance that is appropriate to the ecological and social conditions of small island communities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmpirically, the findings demonstrate that Tyarka operates simultaneously as a system of ecological norms and a mechanism of social control. Through oral performances embodied in rituals and intergenerational transmission, Tyarka articulates ethical boundaries for land and sea use, prevents overexploitation, and reinforces shared responsibility for ecological sustainability. This governance function is underpinned by social legitimacy and shared moral obligations, enabling effective regulation in the absence of formal law enforcement mechanisms. These findings challenge the dominant assumption that equates environmental governance exclusively with state-centered institutions and technocratic regulation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the same time, this research reveals that oral environmental governance is increasingly marginalized by state-corporate extractive governance associated with the Masela LNG project. Environmental decision-making processes prioritize standardized, scientific, and legally codified forms of knowledge, while marginalizing orally transmitted ecological ethics and customary authority. This exclusion constitutes a form of epistemic injustice that weakens indigenous communities' capacity for environmental self-governance and undermines locally rooted sustainability practices. The conflict between oral and extractive governance systems reflects broader power asymmetries that shape environmental outcomes in extractive frontier regions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConceptually, this article contributes to the study of political ecology and environmental governance by advancing \u003cem\u003eoral environmental governance\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eas an analytical framework. This concept expands existing discussions on indigenous environmental governance by highlighting the regulatory and political functions of oral traditions. It highlights how governance can be realized through moral authority, relational ontology, and collective memory, challenging narrow, institution-centered models of environmental regulation. By situating oral traditions within debates on power, knowledge, and environmental justice, this study underscores the need to recognize diverse governance modalities in addressing sustainability challenges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings have important implications for environmental policy and governance in the context of small island communities dependent on natural resources. Integrating oral environmental governance into formal decision-making processes requires more than symbolic recognition of Indigenous cultures. It requires structural changes that recognize Indigenous authority, incorporate Indigenous ecological ethics into environmental assessments, and create participatory mechanisms that enable oral knowledge systems to shape governance outcomes. Without such recognition, sustainability initiatives risk repeating governance failures and exacerbating social and ecological inequalities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, recognizing oral traditions like Tyarka as environmental governance systems is crucial for advancing more equitable and context-sensitive approaches to sustainability in extractive landscapes. As small islands continue to face intensifying extractive pressures, the inclusion of indigenous governance systems offers a crucial pathway for reimagining environmental governance beyond state-centered and technocratic paradigms. By foregrounding oral environmental governance, this study calls for a pluralistic understanding of governance that respects indigenous authority, promotes epistemic justice, and enhances ecological resilience.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eDeclaration\u003c/strong\u003e: This research was funded by the Research Program of the Research Organization for Archaeology, Language, and Literature, National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Indonesia.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical Trial Number:\u003c/strong\u003e Not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Statement: \u003c/strong\u003eThis study employs qualitative methods, including interviews and documentation of oral and customary ecological knowledge. Participation was entirely voluntary, and all participants were informed about the purpose of the research, the methods employed, and the intended use of the data prior to their participation. Verbal informed consent was obtained from all participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research did not involve medical procedures, experimentation, or interventions on human subjects. Data collection and analysis were conducted in accordance with internationally recognized ethical principles for social science and humanities research, including respect for participants\u0026rsquo; autonomy, cultural sensitivity, and the protection of anonymity and confidentiality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn line with prevailing institutional and national guidelines for non-interventional social science research in Indonesia, this study did not require formal approval from an Institutional Review Board or ethics committee.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAgrawal, A. 2005. \u003cem\u003eEnvironment: Technologies of Governance and the Formation of Subjects \u003c/em\u003e. Durham: Duke University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEscobar, A. 2008. \u003cem\u003eTerritories of Difference: Place, Movement, Life, and Social Aspects \u003c/em\u003e. Durham: Duke University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi, TM 2007. \u003cem\u003eThe Desire for Self-Improvement: Governance, Development, and Political Practice \u003c/em\u003e. Durham: Duke University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePeet, R., and M. Watts. 2004. \u003cem\u003eEcologies of Liberation: Environment, Development, Social Movements \u003c/em\u003e. 2nd edition. London: Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRobbins, P. 2012. \u003cem\u003ePolitical Ecology: A Critical Introduction \u003c/em\u003e. 2nd edition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScott, J.C. 1998. \u003cem\u003eSeeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed \u003c/em\u003e. New Haven: Yale University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBerkes, F. 2008. \u003cem\u003eSacred Ecology \u003c/em\u003e. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBerkes, F. 2012. \u003cem\u003eSacred Ecology \u003c/em\u003e. 3rd edition. New York: Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBerkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2000. Rediscovering traditional ecological knowledge for adaptive management. \u003cem\u003eEcological Applications \u003c/em\u003e10 (5): 1251\u0026ndash;1262.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOstrom, E. 1990. \u003cem\u003eGoverning Common Resources: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action \u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOstrom, E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing the sustainability of social-ecological systems. \u003cem\u003eScience \u003c/em\u003e325 (5939): 419\u0026ndash;422.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFinnegan, R. 2012. \u003cem\u003eOral Literature in Africa \u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHymes, D. 1981. \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;In Vain I Tried to Tell You\u0026rdquo;: Essays in Native American Ethnopoetics \u003c/em\u003e. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoody, J. 1987. \u003cem\u003eThe Interface Between Writing and Orality \u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIngold, T. 2000. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Perceptions: Essays on Livelihoods, Shelter, and Skills \u003c/em\u003e. London: Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMartinez- Alier, J. 2002. \u003cem\u003eThe Environment of the Poor \u003c/em\u003e. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhyte, KP 2017. Indigenous climate change studies: Integrating futures into Indigenous perspectives, decolonizing the Anthropocene. \u003cem\u003eEnglish Notes \u003c/em\u003e55 (1\u0026ndash;2): 153\u0026ndash;162.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaldacchino, G. 2007. \u003cem\u003eIslands and Governance \u003c/em\u003e. Montreal: McGill-Queen\u0026apos;s University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eConnell, J. 2013. Islands in danger? Environment, economics, and contemporary change. \u003cem\u003eEdward Elgar \u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKelman, I. 2018. The island exceptionalism in the climate change narratives of small island developing states (SIDS). \u003cem\u003eJournal of Island Studies \u003c/em\u003e13 (1): 149\u0026ndash;166.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBridge, G. 2004. Contested terrain: Mining and the environment. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Environment and Resources \u003c/em\u003e29: 205\u0026ndash;259.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWatts, M. 2015. Securing oil: Borders, risks, and spaces of accumulated insecurity. \u003cem\u003ePolitical Geography \u003c/em\u003e47: 65\u0026ndash;74.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAcciaioli, G. 2008. The environment revisited: Indigenous Peoples\u0026apos; Lindu conservation strategies and customary land reclamation in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. \u003cem\u003eAnthropology Forum \u003c/em\u003e18 (3): 291\u0026ndash;324.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZerner, C. 1994. Through a green lens: The construction of customary and community environmental law in the Maluku Islands, Indonesia. \u003cem\u003eLaw \u0026amp; Society Review \u003c/em\u003e28 (5): 1079\u0026ndash;1122.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThorburn, CC 2000. Changing practices and institutions of customary marine resource management: A case study of Lola sasi in the Kei Islands, Indonesia. \u003cem\u003eWorld Development \u003c/em\u003e28 (8): 1461\u0026ndash;1479.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFolke, C. 2006. Resilience: An emerging perspective for social-ecological systems analysis. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Environmental Change \u003c/em\u003e16 (3): 253\u0026ndash;267.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYoung, OR 2002. \u003cem\u003eInstitutional Dimensions of Environmental Change \u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"oral environmental governance, ecological knowledge of indigenous peoples, small islands, environmental governance, extractive development, Indonesia","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8367992/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8367992/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"In the context of small, resource-rich islands, environmental governance is often dominated by state-corporate regimes that marginalize indigenous knowledge systems. This article examines Tyarka , an indigenous oral tradition on Masela Island, Eastern Indonesia, as a form of community-based environmental governance. Using the frameworks of political ecology and indigenous governance, the study analyzes how Tyarka functions as a normative ecological system that regulates human-nature relations through moral authority, ritual performance, and collective memory. Based on ethnographic fieldwork involving participant observation, in-depth interviews, and focus group discussions with indigenous leaders and local communities, the findings indicate that Tyarka operates as an oral environmental governance mechanism that articulates ecological ethics, enforces social control, and legitimizes community-based conservation practices. However, the expansion of the Masela LNG extraction project has created a power imbalance that undermines the recognition of oral governance systems, resulting in knowledge exclusion and environmental injustice. This article argues that recognizing oral traditions as environmental governance is crucial for addressing sustainability challenges in resource-rich small island regions. By conceptualizing Tyarka as oral environmental governance, this study contributes to political ecology debates on indigenous power, knowledge, and resistance, while offering policy-relevant insights for integrating indigenous governance into environmental decision-making.","manuscriptTitle":"Oral Environmental Governance in a Small Island Context: Indigenous Ecological Regulation amid Extractive Development in Eastern Indonesia","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-12-19 09:16:10","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8367992/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"b9812bfa-a0ef-4f03-afa2-aa404c8211f0","owner":[],"postedDate":"December 19th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-12-19T09:16:17+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-12-19 09:16:10","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8367992","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8367992","identity":"rs-8367992","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}