©Rezi/Bal
The waves crashing against the rocks and the karst hills gracing the landscape of Gunungkidul. This beauty is not merely given, but formed by industrial interests and manipulation. A series of sufferings and bitter fates occur due to living space deprivation in the name of tourism.
Tourism is recognized as one of Indonesia’s priority developments under the heading of National Tourism Strategic Areas (Kawasan Strategis Pariwisata Nasional or KSPN). The central government is targeting to increase the number of tourists, which had dropped in the last five to ten years, by developing ten New Balis. One of the New Bali is KSPN Borobudur, where the KSPN project requires the development of integrated tourism, resulting in tourism-related expansion in the surrounding areas. Gunungkidul is one of the areas affected by this expansion. The regency is situated in a strategically accessible position, supported by two key tourism infrastructures that facilitate tourism growth, namely Yogyakarta International Airport and the Southern Cross Road (Jalur Jalan Lintas Selatan). Moreover, Gunungkidul possesses natural beauty, including stunning beaches and vast karst mountains that extend across its topography.
The Indonesian government justifies the development of KSPN is aimed to alleviate poverty, create employment opportunities, promote equity, and stimulate economic growth. However, in reality, the development of KSPN has led to the dispossession of local communities’ land (Wardana 2022). The spatial contestation in Gunungkidul to a competition for land control by a handful of wong gede which refers to the patrimonial relationship between bureaucrats and investors in Gunungkidul (Ristiawan, Huijbens, and Peters 2023). The introduction of the tourism industry in Gunungkidul has resulted in extensive land acquisition in the region. Wong gede plays a significant role in dominating land ownership along the southern coast of Gunungkidul. Around 10,000 hectares of land, out of a total of 35,000 hectares, are now under investors control. Not only investors, but local bureaucrats are also entangled in a conflict of interest over control of Gunungkidul’s tourism industry. The overlapping interests within the bureaucracy have led to increasingly uncontrolled land dispossession.
The large-scale development by investors and the government has made land appropriation inevitable. Land appropriation in Gunungkidul occurs through three main processes. First, land appropriation is carried out by exploiting patrimonial ties between wong gede and the local community for tourism destination projects. Second, land appropriation is carried out by persuading locals to give up their land with the promise of tourism-driven prosperity, shifting their livelihoods to the tourism sector. Third, through confrontation between wong gede and locals who resist giving up their land (Ristiawan, Huijbens, and Peters 2023).
Wong gede is given full authority to develop Gunungkidul tourism through the serat kekancingan license, formal written license granted by the Sultanate or Regency which allowing individuals or institutions to use and manage land for a specified period and the possibility of renewal or extension (Muhsin, Nafisah, and Siswanti 2019). The permit to use Sultan Ground is used to legitimize investors’ actions in evicting local communities that have lived there for generations (Irfan 2017). To make matters worse, even those living on their land are also marginalized and dispossessed under the KSPN project (Edy and Baiquni 2019). Communities that resist are forced to confront the state. Their powerlessness against the state compels them to accept compensation for the land lost to the KSPN development.
As a result of land dispossesion, the livelihoods of communities that once depended on agriculture have gradually shifted to the tourism sector. Furthermore, ecological degradation casts a shadow over the development of the tourism industry. The charm of these tourist destinations veils an industry that hides the lurking misery beneath.
The Politics of Gunungkidul Tourism Development
The Ten New Bali Project, launched in 2020, aims to lessen Indonesia’s dependence on Bali and offer a wider range of alternative tourist destinations. The discourse of the ten New Bali project departs from the concerns for overdevelopment that have been carried out for half a century, precisely in the 1970s. This has resulted in various socio-ecological crises in Bali (Wardana 2022). The social crises include polarization caused by the collapse of Bali’s tourism industry, such as restricted access for local communities, high rates of layoffs in the tourism sector, and an increase in crime. Meanwhile, ecological impacts refer to the water crisis and environmental pollution resulting from massive tourism development (Wardana 2019). These issues have led to a shrinking space for Bali’s tourism industry. As Bali has already faced spatial limitations due to overdevelopment, the opportunity for further tourism investment has become increasingly constrained.
To prevent the tourism industry from relying on a single location, new tourism spaces are needed to expand investment opportunities through spatio-temporal fix (Harvey 2003). Flowing capital into new tourist destinations can be done in two ways: (1) by gradually relocating concentrated capital through long-term projects and/or (2) by creating new markets elsewhere to utilize both capital and labor. Ironically, this spatio-temporal fix plays out like a vicious cycle because every time spatial expansion occurs, it inevitably generates another surplus of capital setting the stage for yet another round of adjustment. The problem lies in the fact that the implementation of spatio-temporal adjustment of production locations leads to the inescapable reality of systematic dispossession of land and living space. At its core, the implementation of spatio-temporal fix paves the way for land appropriation and the displacement of local communities from their living spaces.
Indonesia’s tourism development model, which invites private sector participation, has sparked tensions and conflicts with local communities. This is mainly because such development often takes shape through the appropriation of community-owned assets. This form of dispossession is referred to as a model of accumulation by dispossession (ABD), a concept developed from Marx’s perspective on primitive accumulation (Harvey 2003). The key difference lies in the fact that primitive accumulation took place during the transition from precapitalist to a capitalist economic system. In contrast, ABD occurs when the capitalist system is already well established. The influence of ABD is also broader and more subtle, such as speculative financial tactics, natural resource extraction, commodification of culture, international licensing from the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the privatization of knowledge. In the context of tourism, ABD operates through the commodification and privatization of land. By doing so, it creates space for spatio-temporal fixes to facilitate new circuits of capital.
This spatio-temporal process and ABD represent a continuation of capitalism under the framework of neoliberal policies, characterized by capital concentration among a few actors and its redistribution into new investments. This cannot be separated from the role of the state as a lawmaker, which actually launches the expansion of space for these new circuits of capital. In the context of global development, many countries adopt the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) formula, which is a set of economic and bureaucratic reforms required to secure loans from the IMF or the World Bank. These reforms play a crucial role in advancing the neoliberalization agenda by pushing states to adopt deregulation and privatization (Fletcher 2023). The massive adoption of SAPs was driven by a crisis caused by the capital surplus in 1970 (Arrighi 1994). This surplus inevitably sought new spaces and markets for investment. SAPs set out to target developing countries facing economic crises in the 1980s by promoting privatization in the tourism sector. This sector is essential for generating national income through the inflow of foreign and domestic tourists. However, the ease of attracting investment often came at the cost of environmental concerns. (Mchallo 2018)
The central government prioritizes land use to support the development of tourism infrastructure, including resorts, hotels, and various other tourism investments (Ristiawan, Huijbens, and Peters 2023). As a result, the emerging domestic tourism industry has come under the control of foreign capital (Mowforth and Munt 2003). In addition, SAPs, which are considered as free market reforms, have also influenced a market-based approach to nature conservation. By tying conservation to market logic, local livelihoods are pushed aside and profits end up with those already in power.
Gunungkidul, considered a potential and strategic area for this development project, continues to be affected by the expansion of business interests and the neoliberalization of tourism. Over time, Gunungkidul has been incorporated into the governance framework of UNESCO’s Global Geoparks initiative, which paved the way for global institutional investments—including the World Bank. As mentioned earlier, the characteristics of neoliberalism seek to monetize conservation potential by promoting economic diversification through geotourism (Newsome and Dowling 2010). However, such practices have sparked tensions over authority and control between the central and local governments, both of which play key roles in legitimizing the tourism business.
Initially, tourism management in Indonesia was decentralized, with local governments responsible for developing and regulating the sector within their respective regions. However, this system causes inequality between regions. This opened the door for local authorities to pursue alternative funding sources to support their development projects. The central government eventually saw this fragmented system gave rise to local fiefdoms, competition between regions, and corruption (Ristiawan, Huijbens, and Peters 2023).
The central government used this momentum to decentralize policies under the justification of improving management. This is manifested by the introduction of the Indonesian Omnibus Law (UU Cipta Kerja), which centralized authority over environmental impact assessments (Analisis Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan or AMDAL) in the hands of the central government. Another related move was the formation of the National Geopark Committee in 2016, under the Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs and Maritime and Investment Affairs (Kementerian Koordinator Bidang Perekonomian, Kemaritiman, dan Investasi). This committee later launched the Geopark Investment Forum, a platform designed to attract foreign investment. According to the central government, opening up investment markets under state oversight would help create a healthier investment climate.
The recentralization policy has met with firm opposition from local authorities. Local authorities and business owners shared the view that the central government’s attempt to nationalize building permit regulations was merely a hollow gesture. This assumption stems from the sense that the central government is out of touch with the local context. In Yogyakarta’s local politics, the Sultan took advantage of Yogyakarta’s special status to assert ownership over land, referring to it as “Sultan Ground.” This series of actions eventually pressured the national government to pass a law granting Yogyakarta special privileges and autonomy in regional governance. In the end, Gunungkidul only became a contested asset among both national and local government actors, used to open pathways for capital to flow into the region (Ristiawan, Huijbens and Peters 2023).
The Stronghold of International Tourism
Showcasing the beauty of nature through tourism comes with the responsibility of ensuring it is managed with conservation in mind. In the case of karst geotourism in Gunungkidul, conservation is outlined in the Master and Detailed Plan for the Karst KSPN 2016 (Rencana Induk dan Detail KSPN Karst Gunungkidul 2016) as part of managing the Gunungsewu geopark ecosystem. The natural attractions include caves, beaches, lakes, and rivers. The primary objective is to enhance community welfare by utilizing these natural sites. However, promoting landscape conservation as a tourism commodity often creates a conflict of interest. In many cases, this approach tends to prioritize business interests rather than environmental preservation (McAfee 1999).
Rather than prioritizing conservation, both the central and local governments have actively welcomed investment to develop internationally recognized geotourism. As tourism investment continues to grow, the benefits are enjoyed by a privileged minority, leaving the karst environment to suffer the consequences. Three resorts have been strongly associated to this environmental damage in Gunungkidul, namely Drini Park, Stone Valley by HEHA, and Beach Club Bekizart. However, public opposition led to the cancellation of the Bekizart Beach Club project—owned by celebrity Raffi Ahmad—after it was proven to be harming the karst landscape.”
The construction of the resorts requires vast areas of land which often leads to the purchase of rice fields owned by local communities. While privatized resort projects are frequently promoted as a way to improve local livelihoods, they usually end up offering only the illusion of prosperity. These farmers are left struggling to protect their land and livelihood (Ristiawan, Huijbens, and Peters 2023).
The implementation of the KSPN project rolled out the red carpet for investors to take control of areas in Gunungkidul, transforming them into Bali-like tourist destinations. In effect, the attempt to ‘Bali-fy’ Gunungkidul could end up spreading the tourism crisis to other regions like a contagious epidemic. Local communities now face spatial conflicts against wong gede—both international, national, and local—who aim to use and control the area for financial gain. Powerless, the people are ordered to step aside from the investment battle, forced to become tourists in their homeland.
Authors: Ayu Farryla Wira Susanto and Dhony Alfian
Editor: Nafiis Anshaari
Illustrator: M. Rafi Pahrezi
Translator: Winema Aleshanee Rasti Azzayna
Bibliography
Arrighi, Giovanni. 1994. The Long Twentieth Century : Money, Power, and the Origins of Our Times. London: Verso.
Asnawi, A. 2024. “Raffi Ahmad Mundur Dari Proyek Beach Club Di Karst Gunungkidul.” Mongabay.co.id. June 15, 2024. https://www.mongabay.co.id/2024/06/15/raffi-ahmad-mundur-dari-proyek-beach-club-di-karst-gunungkidul/.
Bhawono, Aryo. 2024. “Tiga Resort Di Gunung Kidul Diduga Langgar Kawasan Karst.” Betahita.id. 2024. https://betahita.id/news/detail/9776/tiga-resor-di-gunung-kidul-diduga-langgar-kawasan-karst.html?v=1723128338.
Edy, Hendry, dan M. Baiquni. 2019. “DAMPAK PEMBANGUNAN INFRASTRUKTUR JALUR JALAN LINTAS SELATAN (JJLS) DI YOGYAKARTA TERHADAP PERUBAHAN PENGGUNAAN LAHAN DAN HARGA LAHAN,” January.
Erlin, Erfan 2023. “Pariwisata Gunungkidul Jadi Magnet Investor, Alih Fungsi Lahan Capai 10.000 Hektare.” Https://Www.idxchannel.com/. www.idxchannel.com. November 22, 2023. https://www.idxchannel.com/economics/pariwisata-gunungkidul-jadi-magnet-investor-alih-fungsi-lahan-capai-10000-hektare.
Fletcher, Robert. 2023. “Tourism and Neoliberalism.” Tourism Geographies, October, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2023.2269882.
gunungkidul.sorot.co. 2023. November 22, 2023. https://gunungkidul.sorot.co/berita-108189-bupati-himbau-warga-tak-tergiur-jual-lahan-ke-investor.html.
Harvey, David. 2003. The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
I A. J. Mchallo. 2018. “The Impact of Structural Adjustment Programmes on the Natural Resource Base: The Case of Tourism Development” 1 (2): 88–111.
IRFAN, DEWA. 2017. “POLITIK AGRARIA DI DAERAH ISTIMEWA : KONFLIK HAK KEPEMILIKAN DAN PENGUASAAN TANAH DI KABUPATEN GUNUNGKIDUL (STUDI KASUS SULTAN GROUND DI PESISIR PANTAI KABUPATEN GUNUNGKIDUL).” Umy.ac.id. http://repository.umy.ac.id/handle/123456789/11861.
McAfee, Kathleen. 1999. “Selling Nature to Save It? Biodiversity and Green Developmentalism.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 17 (2): 133–54. https://doi.org/10.1068/d170133.
Mowforth, Martin, dan Ian Munt. 2003. Tourism and Sustainability : Development and New Tourism in the Third World. London: Routledge.
Muhsin, Ahmad , Laila Nafisah, dan Yuni Siswanti. 2019. Surat Kekancingan Tanah Sultan Ground. PENERBIT DEEPUBLISH.
Newsome, David, dan Ross Dowling. 2010. “Setting an Agenda for Geotourism.” Goodfellow Publishers EBooks, April. https://doi.org/10.23912/978-1-906884-09-3-1056.
“PERATURAN PRESIDEN REPUBLIK INDONESIA NOMOR 18 TAHUN 2020.” n.d. Diakses 2 November2024. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/131386/perpres-no-18-tahun-2020.
“PERATURAN PRESIDEN REPUBLIK INDONESIA NOMOR 88 TAHUN 2024.” n.d. Diakses 2 November , 2024. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/297024/perpres-no-88-tahun-2024.
“RENCANA INDUK DAN DETAIL KSPN KARST GUNUNG KIDUL DAN SEKITARNYA 2016.” n.d. Accessed November 2, 2024. https://visitingjogja.jogjaprov.go.id/webdinas/download/executive-summary-rencana-induk-dan-detail-kspn-karst-gunungkidul-dskt/.
Rucitarahma Ristiawan, Edward H Huijbens, dan Karin Peters. 2023. “Projecting Development through Tourism: Patrimonial Governance in Indonesian Geoparks” 12 (1): 223–23. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12010223.
Rucitarahma Ristiawan, Edward H Huijbens, dan Karin Peters. 2023. “Apprehending Land Value through Tourism in Indonesia: Commodification of Rural Landscapes through Geoparks.” Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, October. https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12597.
SINERGI BULETIN BPIW Edisi 20. 2017, August 2017. https://bpiw.pu.go.id/publication/book/pdf/FA%20Sinergi%20edisi%2020%20final.pdf.
Sulistya, Ananda Ridho. 2022. “Pengembangan Pariwisata Jogja Abaikan Kepentingan Rakyat | Balairungpress.” Balairungpress. August 27, 2022. https://www.balairungpress.com/2022/08/pengembangan-pariwisata-jogja-abaikan-kepentingan-rakyat/.
travel.tempo.co. 2020. “Triliunan Untuk Bangun 10 Bali Baru, Ini Yang Didapat Pemerintah.” Tempo. TEMPO.CO. February 26, 2020. https://travel.tempo.co/read/1312474/triliunan-untuk-bangun-10-bali-baru-ini-yang-didapat-pemerintah.
UNDANG-UNDANG REPUBLIK INDONESIA NOMOR 13 TAHUN 2012. n.d. Diakses 2 November 2024. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/39064.
Wardana, Agung. 2019. Contemporary Bali : Contested Space and Governance. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wardana, Agung. 2022. “Geografi Hukum Proyek Strategis Nasional: Studi Kasus Bendungan Bener Di Purworejo, Jawa Tengah.” Undang 5 (1): 1–41. https://doi.org/10.22437/ujh.5.1.1-41.
wisata.gunungkidulkab.go.id. 2023. Wisata.gunungkidulkab.go.id. January 5, 2023. https://wisata.gunungkidulkab.go.id/sejarah-geopark-global-unesco-gunung-sewu/.