**6.2. Suitability to the local social-cultural contexts**

As seen till now, supernatural agents, rather than people, are expected to monitor resource use and inflict punishment on violators, which is the essential characteristic of the local forest resource management practiced in Amanioho.

As commons studies have suggested, the cost of monitoring behaviour of resource user and enforcing rules have significant effects on the sustainability of resource use [26]. Formal institutions for resource management depend on a third-party legal structure where a regulatory agency often hires its own monitors (e.g. forest wardens, police and park guards) and mediators (e.g. lawyers). Thus, such a regulatory structure may require high costs charged to the society [2].

By contrast, the forest resource management in Amanioho does not burden the community with the high cost of monitoring human conducts and enforcing the rules. In Amanioho, as described in the previous section, there are more than 250 forest lots in the village territory. Thus, it would be difficult to monitor resource user's behaviour in huge forested areas. Under such situations, the resource management based on a supernatural enforcement mechanism is very practical.

Furthermore, this resource management system is suitable to the local socio-cultural context. As I illustrate in another paper, in Amanioho, the locals have a strong fear of sorcery. Sorcery is regarded as an expression of the jealousy and discontent of others. Consequently, they avoid social discord and friction within the village [21]. 'The fear of sorcery' here means not only the fear that someone put a curse on him/her but also the fear that someone suspect him/ her of casting sorcery on them. If some friction and discord happen among villagers, they are tormented with a fear of sorcery. This is one of the main reasons for them to be inclined to detest friction and discord with others. Thus, the local people dislike pointing out errors of other people such as violations of *seli kaitahu* in face-to-face situations and avoid directly inflicting punishment on those who break the rules.

This disposition was also observed when I conducted household interview about forest tenure. Through the interviews, it turned out that several villagers have contradictory accounts of the history of forest rights inheritance and transfer. Where such differing accounts arose, they bitterly resented those who have the contradictory understanding of the forest tenure status to their own version. However, they showed no intention to resolve the discrepancy through direct dialogue and negotiation. All they can do is complain to their families and relatives. By no means do they try to assert the legitimacy of the recognition to the opponent under a faceto-face situation. Such a conduct must be accompanied with *mukae* (strong shame).

Under the social-cultural context I described earlier, if there is an infringement of *seli kaitahu*, it is unlikely that the forest owner tries to find out and punishes the violator. The IRM, which is based on the supernatural enforcement mechanism, can prevent friction and discord among the villagers which may be caused by a social enforcement process. Thus, the IRM based on supernatural enforcement mechanism in Amanioho is a high suitability for the social-cultural context in which people have a strong disposition towards avoiding social friction and discord.

As described in the previous section, a few villagers started to apply *sasi gereja* to forest management in the mid-2000s. Ym. A. was the first villager to impose a *sasi gereja* on a forest in Amanioho. As the head of the village, he was in a position to take the initiative in formulating a new forest resource management action against a series of *seli kaitahu* violations. However, he did not try to identify the violator. He did not try to make a new forest resource management system based on social enforcement mechanism. In *sasi gereja*, the Christian God took the place of the ancestor and forest spirits. Despite such a change, this management method is similar to *seli kaitahu* because supernatural agents are expected to monitor people's forest use and inflict punishments on the rule breakers. Ym. A. made an effort to reinstate the orderly, well-structured forest use by applying a new management system, *sasi gereja*, which is based on a supernatural enforcement mechanism instead of creating a more 'rational' management system with a social enforcement mechanism. The imposition of *sasi gereja* did not require the locals to be directly involved in the enforcement process. Therefore, it was quite suitable to the local social-cultural context.

The idea that if one violates *seli kaitahu*, then the violator and/or his/her family members will surely meet with misfortune, is widely shared in Amanioho. Thus, it is still uncertain that *seli kaitahu* will be replaced by the *sasi gereja*. However, if this system is not degraded by outsiders who have different social-cultural backgrounds, the local people are likely to maintain their orderly forest use depending on supernatural agencies, even as the management system transforms. The case of Ym. A. appears to imply their tendencies to establish and maintain the order in forest resource use depending on the forces of supernatural agencies.
