Code: 17.3.1 Ecotourism in Selo, Boyolali, : Government and Society Relations in the Decentralization Era

Suryo Adi Pramono and Lucinda Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Atma Jaya University, Indonesia

Abstract As a country consists of various eco-cultural heritages, Indonesia puts tourism as the one of very prospective pillars for foreign exchange. Tourism is expected to give great contribution for Indonesia economic recovery, especially after the economic crises in the middle of 1997. In order to increase the tourism performance, President Megawati Soekarnoputri declared Eco-tourism and Volcano Year in Selo in October 17, 2002. In spite of a small village between Merapi and Merbabu Mountains in Central of Java, Selo became a monumental place of tourism dynamic in Indonesia, as well as a central point in Merapi-Merbabu National Park.

In order to raise Local Income (Pendapatan Asli Daerah), the provincial government integrated Selo area with Borobudur and Solo areas in the tourism project called Sosebo (Solo, Selo and Borobudur). Because of its beautiful nature and for the nature conservation in those two mountains, Selo will be developed to be ecotourism area. It is for this purpose and with the support from the Government of Boyolali , the provincial government declared this ecotourism project to public. But some local groups in Selo and NGOs protested and supposed their objections on this project. They accused government have ignored some principles of decentralization: public initiative and participation, and partnership.

Related to those problems, some questions appeared. How far can the plan of ecotourism project in Selo be implemented among various interests of stakeholders? How far do those principles become the basic of relationship between government and local community in the project? How do they solve the problems and conflicts among them and how is the pospect of the project in the future? To answer those questions, we use qualitative research and public participation and community-based tourism approaches.

Description of Location Selo is the capital of Kecamatan Selo (Subdistrict of Selo) and located between and . It is divided by an alternative road that connects Regency of Boyolali in the East and Regency of in the West. On the north side of this road which crosses Selo, there are community settlement, bungalows (owned by the Regent of Boyolali and Tourism and Culture Office), subdistrict office of Selo, police office, shops, kiosks and grave of Ki Ageng Hajar Lelono. All are located on the slope area of Mount Merbabu. While on the south side of

1

4th International Symposium of the journal ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA — 12–15 July 2005 — Depok that road, there are community settlement, shops, kiosks, office of Tourist Information Center (TIC), and grave of Ki Ageng Kebo Kanigoro. Because its position is located between Mount Merapi and Mount Merbabu, Selo becomes the stopping place for mountain climbers who try to climb until the peaks of Mount Merapi in the south and Mount Merbabu in the north. Many climbers also climb from to the south and stop at Selo to took a break. After that, they continued to climb to peak of Mount Merapi. They usually went down to Selo again because the southern line, namely through Kaliurang is very steep. Therefore Selo is a strategic transit place for the mountain climbers.

Such geographical position make Selo becomes developing location of settlement between those two mountains. Besides Selo, there are other developing settlements namely Cepogo, Jrakah, and Ketep. Cepogo, Selo, and Jrakah are the areas of settlement between those two mountains which have many residents and they all are including in Kabupaten Boyolali (Regency of Boyolali). While Ketep is located in Kabupaten Magelang (Regency of Magelang). Nowadays, the government of Province of and Culture and Tourism Office, are developing tourism line put Selo as one of tourist destinations. This tourism line is line of Solo, Selo, and Borobudur (Sosebo or SSB). The local residents in Selo hope that this tourism program will bring progress to their town physically, economically, and socially.

Although becomes the route connection of Boyolali and Magelang, the geographical position of Selo makes it not so easy to be reached by public transportation. Selo is usually reached by using small bus from eastern and urban transportation from western. But the frequency of public transportation is low, so the passengers must wait for a long time, especially in the afternoon. The entrepreneurs of small bus have tried to serve passengers with the new line acrossing Selo, namely from Boyolali, Cepogo, Selo, Jrakah, Ketep, Tlatar, Sawangan, Blabak and Magelang. But because of small number of passengers, curved road, bad condition of the road, and foggy in the afternoon, they suffered a financial loss. This situation made them stop the bus operation of that new line. That’s why Selo is easier reached by using private cars and motorcycles, not by public transportation.

2

4th International Symposium of the journal ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA — 12–15 July 2005 — Depok All along the alternative road to Selo, there is a good mountainous scenary: terracering rice fields, various shade trees, underbrushes, vegetable gardens, and various pine trees. We can also watch local residents’ houses, from traditional house to modern house. There are many small joglo (Javanese traditional house) in front of the houses all along the road near Selo. Those joglo are still new and it seems that they were established as a part of governmental project for welcoming the President Megawati Soekarnoputri who officially declared “The Year of Ecotourism” and “The National Park of Merapi-Merbabu”. This event was concentrated in Selo in 2003.

Selo located at the slope of mountain has the beauty scenery and fresh air. It is a good place for recreation because there are recreation places such as Joglo 1 (unites with the office of Tourism Information Center; it also has Home Theatre, park, stage, musholla or small mosque, and joglo for taking a rest), Joglo 2 (located near the peak of Mount Merapi), the curved road called Tikungan Petruk, the peak of Mount Merapi, traditional market named Pasar Bubar, Tumang (center of handicrafts made from copper, brass, and aluminum). In Selo, there are also various shops, kiosks, bungalow, houses for homestay. For traditional foods, Selo has jadah, wajik, tahu and tempe bacem, and wedang jahe. Visitors usually come to Selo in holidays while the mountain climbers usually come to climb the Mount Merapi on New Year night, malam 1 Sura or the night of Javanese New Year, and Indonesian Independence Day’s Night. Selo also has sacred places to be visited like grave of Ki Ageng Hajar Lelono and the place where Ki Ageng Kebo Kanigoro was disappeared. These two person were believed by local residents had great spiritual and religious capability so many people come to their places to ask for blessing.

As a tourist destination, Selo gets more and more attention from Provincial Government of Central Java, especially when it became the place for declaring “The Year of Ecotourism” and “The National Park of Merapi-Merbabu” in 2003. Those attentions can be seen in the making of hot-mixed road, the donation for making facility of bathing, washing, and toilet for every homestay, the constructions of Joglo 1 & 2, the contructions of bungalows, park, home theatre and Tourist Information Center or TIC. All are purposed to make ecotourism project in Selo, which is united into tourist lane of Solo-Selo-Borobudur, can run well. But according to staffs of TIC, the success of ecotourism project depends on the awareness of Selo residents in developing themselves and their own region, not on the assistances from government.

3

4th International Symposium of the journal ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA — 12–15 July 2005 — Depok

The Project of Ecotourism and Efforts for Its Realization The project of ecotourism was initiated by the Provincial Government of Central Java, in this case especially by Governor Mardiyanto. This project is related to the efforts of provincial government to raise Pendapatan Asli Daerah (PAD) or Local Income. Local Income has an important position in Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah (APBD) or Local Budget. It is for this purpose, provincial government has an opinion that tourism is one of the important and potential sectors which can bring great income for Local Income. Before making the strategy for tourism in Province of Central Java, the government has made the map of tourist potentials. For many years, Provincial Government of Central Java watched that many tourists, mainly foreign tourists, came to various important tourist destinations in Central Java through Yogyakarta as their main entrance. Meanwhile, in the decentralization era which puts Local Income as the main income for developing a region and empowering its people, it is important to Provincial Government of Central Java to make tourists come to Central Java via its own tourist main entrances, namely via Ahmad Yani Airport in and Adi Sumarno Airport in Solo, not via Yogyakarta.

Two main tourist destinations in Province of Central Java are Borobudur Temple and Prambanan Temple. Although these temples located in Central Java, but most of tourists came to there via Yogyakarta because they are geographically located very near from Yogyakarta. So, most tourists first came to Yogyakarta because it is also a famous tourist destination; they stayed for a while at Yogyakarta and when they went to those two temples, they also used travel agencies in Yogyakarta. So, it is clear that the tourists’expenditures are not pouring into Central Java Provincial treasury, but into Yogyakarta Provincial treasury. Another reason why the Provincial Government of Central Java tries very hard to make people all around the world understand that Borobudur and Prambanan Temples are located in Central Java is, because for a long time most people who came to these temples usually tought that they are located in Yogyakarta, they are the properties of Yogyakarta.

By promoting two main tourist entrances in Central Java, the provincial government also hopes that tourists will stay a little longer at Central Java. Therefore, government has to make good

4

4th International Symposium of the journal ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA — 12–15 July 2005 — Depok strategies for their local tourism. One of those strategy is, developing tourist line of Solo-Selo- Borobudur (Sosebo). So, Selo becomes a connected point between Solo and Borobudur. Selo was then determined as a destination for ecotourism.

When President of Megawati Soekarnoputri came to Selo to declared The Year of Ecotourism, various public facilities were established by Provincial Government of Central Java and Regencial Government of Boyolali. Those facilities were intentionally prepared to welcome the President Megawati. The attendance of President Megawati was viewed as a part of marketing strategy for tourism in Central Java because that event must be reported by mass media from Indonesia and other countries. After declaration, those facilities are supposed to be used for supporting ecotourism in Selo.

The Provincial Government of Central Java has initiated programs of reforestation and natural conservation in order to support ecotourism program in Selo. Indeed, Selo has potentials for activities of ecotourism, such as for trekking or hiking, nature photography, camping, mountain climbing, and botanical study. Reforestation program was conducted by Forest and Plantation Office of Boyolali Regency by planting trees on two sides of the road to Selo. But from the first time, this project was conducted without involving residents of Selo and seemed to be given as the contract works to outsider. In order to plant many trees as soon as possible, the contract workers did not remove the polybag of each tree planted on the ground. They did not plant trees in the right way. As the result, the planted trees could not grow well and in a few days they were wilted and died because the roots of those trees did not reached the soil to get nitrate. While in other failed-reforestation program, the selected species of trees could not adapt the climate and temperature in Selo so they were died in the few days after planting.

Another reforestation program was the trainings for local residents who are mostly the farmers. The trainings were conducted several times in order local residents know how to plant in the right way and how to preserve environment. Local residents were trained to make terraced land before planting seeds because this way can make the farmer and his family save and the slope land will not erode. Although the farmers had to be trained and got the right concept of planting seeds, it very hard to change the tradition of cultivation they have for centuries. They still plant seeds on

5

4th International Symposium of the journal ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA — 12–15 July 2005 — Depok the slope land without making it terraced first. They argue that the slope ground is very helpful for them in planting because they do not need to bend their body while they are digging the soil with hoe and planting seeds. They also argue that their ancestor did in same way for centuries and nothing happened because of that way. The sturdiness of their way of thinking is forced by the fact that cultivation done by Forest and Plantation Office was not succeed. As the result, the program of forestation in supporting program of natural conservation faced with serious problems technically and socio-culturally. There is other problem in Selo relating to conservation. The local residents in Selo often cut the trees and this activity started after the collapse of Soeharto Rezime in May 1998. After that crucial event brought many changes in Indonesian political system usually called Reformation in May, the local residents of Selo seem have a courage to express whatever they want to do. They dare to cut off trees in the forests located at mountain slope. As the result, Mount Merapi and Mount Merbabu are starting to become deforested mountains. In other side, Forest and Plantation Office and Perhutani only have limited budget to reforestation on those mountains. The forest damages on Mount Merapi and Mount Merbabu have bad impacts on the attractiveness of Selo and its environment as a destination for ecotourism.

The environmental problems mentioned above will make ecosystems in Selo becomes worse and local residents will loose financial profits. If local residents and government do not find a way to solve these problems, it is impossible to have a sustainable ecotourism in Selo. Whereas if ecotourism runs well, it promises employment and income for local community while allowing the continued existence of the natural resource base. But it cannot survive unless the resource on which it is based is protected. It can empower local community, giving them a sense of pride in their natural resources and control over their community’s development. It can educate travelers or tourists about the importance of the ecosystems they visit and actively involve them in conservation efforts. In sum, ecotourism has the potential to maximize economic benefits and minimize environmental costs (Whelan, 1991: 4). In this point, it is important for local residents and government to have common interests in developing ecotourism in Selo by conducting dialogues with all stakeholders in all process of making decisions of it. Thus, each policy of tourism should be a participatory policy.

6

4th International Symposium of the journal ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA — 12–15 July 2005 — Depok In other side, as a tourist destination Selo gets only little attention and support from provincial and regencial governments. Staffs of Information Tourist Center often complain about the small numbers of brochures and leaflets. According to those staffs, media such brochure and leaflet are the very important media to give informations and promotions to tourists about objects of ecotourism in Selo. These media can also help tourists to arrange their schedule and priority to those tourist objects. The enough numbers of brochures and leaflets actually shows the readiness of TIC’s staffs and provincial and regencial governments in developing ecotourism in Selo. Based on that condition, staffs of TIC evaluated that Tourism and Culture Office of Boyolali Regency is not good enough in promoting ecotourism in Selo. They considered the staffs of that office “only working behind the desk” so they do not understand very well about developing tourism in the field. According to opinions of TIC’s staffs, the Tourism and Culture Office does not have the strategy for local tourist development yet. They knew that total income from tourist sector in Boyolali Regency is much less than total income of Borobubur Temple. This fact shows that tourist potentials in Boyolali are not handled well. Up till now, the biggest portion of tourist income comes from Tlatar, then the next are Selo, Tumang, Paras, Pengging, and Tampir. Tlatar is a recreation area for fishing and it also serves various menu with fish. The fishing activity in rural atmosphere of Tlatar attracts domestic tourists to go there.

In other side, the coordinations of inter-offices were not maximal so they seemed run program individually, not as a group has collective interest. This condition could be seen when Forest and Plantation Office conducted program of reforestation by planting trees in Selo, they did not coordinate with Tourism and Culture Office and with of TIC’s staffs in Selo. As the result, the staffs of Tourism and Culture Office did not know this program, they only knew that there were workers planting trees on the two side of alternative road in Selo without releasing trees from polybag. The program did not run well because Forest and Plantation Office did not involve local residents who know very well what kind of tree suitable to be planted on Selo. The absence of coordination made Forest and Plantation Office decided to plant the same trees on Selo as they did in other places. They thought if program of reforestation was succeed in other villages, it would also be succeed in Selo without realizing that the trees they planted on Selo were not suit for the climate and temperature there. Finally those trees were died soonly.

7

4th International Symposium of the journal ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA — 12–15 July 2005 — Depok Although it seemed there was a little attention, in fact local government also did something for project of ecotourism in Selo. The Forest and Plantation Office have conducted several trainings and socialization of natural conservation, including reforestation. Governmental officials of subdistrict and villages conducted dialogs with local residents when the issue of National Park of Mount Merapi made them feel restless. The local residents presumed they could not exploit forest’s products from that national park. They did not realize that the success of project of national park will support the success of ecotourism project Selo. It is true that for a long time, the local residents have exploited forest’s products for their own interests and few of them have also stolen woods from national park. These activities have resulted to the damage of national park. Forest and Plantation Office and Forest Rangers have tried to prevent the robberies of woods because if these robberies are not stopped, the ecotourism potentials in Selo will be damaged.

Another efforts were done such as the Public Works Office has developed hot-mixed road accroses Selo, and Tourism and Culure Office have granted money for repairing MCK (public bathing, washing, and toilet facilities) in every homestay. The Regent of Boyolali himself with thousands of people conducted rituals of Malam 1 Syura in Selo, which go on from middle of the night until early dawn. This traditional celebration is usually reported by several private televisions. The attendance of Boyolali Regent in that ceremony covered by TV station helped the spread of informations of ecotourism in Selo to all over Indonesia.

Relations between Government and Society Based on findings mentioned above, we can recognize the relations between government and society in ecotourism project in Selo. Generally, the government has various roles, especially as: 1. the provider of public facilities and infrastructures 2. the supporter of financial assistance 3. the organizer of training 4. the enlightener of business opportunity 5. the initiator of ecotourism

8

4th International Symposium of the journal ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA — 12–15 July 2005 — Depok Those governmental roles are actually contrary to decentralization principles because based on The Law No. 22/1999 (then revised to be The Law No. 32/2004) on Local Government said that local development has to be based on initiative of local residents. Local authonomy (read: decentralization) is parallel to local initiative so it is local residents who have the most important role, not government. From this point, the development of ecotourism in Selo should be initiated and conducted by local residents. By doing such this way, the ecotourism in Selo is really a “community-based tourism” (CBT). In fact, according to TIC’s staffs, the initiative of developing tourist line of Solo-Selo-Borobudur did not come from local residents or Regencial Government of Boyolali, but from Provincial Government of Central Java. So is the ecotourism project in Selo, the initiative came from Provincial Government of Central Java.

The problem appears when local residents are shackled with their traditional occupations so that they are very difficult to do other works can make their life better economically. That is why, if there is no initiative from provincial government to make Selo as a tourist destination, there will be no initiative comes from local residents to develop potentials of tourism in Selo. Thus, in one side, the dominant initiatives of provincial government will make ecotourism project in Selo is contrary to principles of local authonomy or decentralization which put importantly the initiatives come from local residents and which place local residents as the subjects of development, including in ecotourism project. But in other side, the awareness of local residents to initiate activities and to become main actors in tha project is very low. So, it can be concluded that without initiative from provincial government, the ecotourism project in Selo will never exist. This is a complex problem between government and Selo society in decentralization era.

Thus, the common interest is not only a matter how to put it on the interest from governmental point of view or from local residents’s point of view, but how to put it as common interests of government and local residents via dialogues and making decisions participatorily. The reframing of common interest is therefore not only to give commont interest back to local residents from their point of view (because it has been dominated for a long time by government), but to put it in the dialectical processes between government and lical residents in order to reformulate their common interests togetherly. The case of ecotourism project in Selo shows us that the common interest in governmental perspective is actually welcomed by majority of local residents, although

9

4th International Symposium of the journal ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA — 12–15 July 2005 — Depok the gist of this project is not understood enough so the awareness of local residents is not growing up, yet. The process of dialogue between government and local residents therefore becomes very important to reframe common interest participatorily for governmental purpose (increasing Pendapatan Asli Daerah = Local Income) and for purpose of local residents (become wealthier).

In the relations with government, the positions of local residents can be described as follows: a. First, the local residents in Selo generally consider that the project of ecotourism gives them financial benefits so they respond this project positively although some people and NGOs reject it. b. Second, although the local residents in Selo respond ecotourism project positively, in fact they do not have enough understanding of what ecotourism is, especially the ecotourism in the context of community-based tourism (CBT). c. Third, it is assumed that the unknowing of ecotourism and CBT might be related with the traditional means of livehood which local residents have, namely engaging in farming and planting, breeding livestocks, and trading. They have already worked in such ways for many generations so their cycle of life is very determined by those works. They are spending much time for those works so they have no time for thinking about other things such as the developing potentials of ecotourism in their region that may make their life better. Thus, the concepts of ecotourism and CBT are still “strange” for them. d. Fourth, because they have been engaging in those works for many generations, their working ways are also traditional which are often not friendly to environment. In farming and planting, for examples, they cultivate soil on the slope land, cut off trees planted on slope land and after thar they do not plant new tree anymore. They also throw garbage everywhere. So the attitudes of local residents actually do not support the program of natural conservation. When the governmental staffs who promoted natural conservation and kindly environment have warned the local residents for not doing such ways, local people usually answered that whatever they did for their own life have been done for centuries and in fact there was not dangerous impact on them. So, for local residents, there is no problem about their behaviors in working. e. Fifth, although the staffs of TIC welcome the ecotourism project in Selo, they are critical in implementation of it. On one side, they welcome it in order that the life of Selo local residents can be prosperous, and tourism is a way to reach for this purpose. But on other side, they are

10

4th International Symposium of the journal ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA — 12–15 July 2005 — Depok critical to the realization and governmental commitment of that ecotourism project, especially the commitment of Tourism and Culture Office of Boyolali Regency. They know that The Office has limited budget so it is impossible to financing that project continually. They question the perspective and mission of Boyolali’s Regent, does he have a commitment to develop tourism in Boyolali, including Selo? In fact, the TIC’s staffs are pessimistic of political will from the regent on this project. The small numbers of brochure and leaflet about tourism in Selo is a good example to see how far the political will is. Nevertheless, TIC’s staffs keep trying to develop tourism in Selo. One of their efforts was to send proposal to provincial government in order the provincial government gives financial assistance to a group of children dancers of Soreng (a traditional dance) in Selo. Yet, TIC’s staffs actually never know about grand design of ecotourism project in Selo, they do not know whether many things they have done are parallel with the grand design of ecotourism project or not. They only conducted whatever they could do for interest of local residents in Selo. f. Sixth, there are some groups of people and NGOs, as civil society actors (Chandhoke: 1995), reject ecotourism project in Selo and National Park of Mount Merapi. They argue that the development of ecotourism in Selo will destroy traditions, nature and economic life of society. They consider if Selo becomes a tourist destination which is visited by many domestic and international tourists, the cultures visitors brought to Selo will disturb cultural traditions of local residents. They are worry if it happens, the local residents will loose their own culture as they have seen in other tourist destinations. The existence of many tourists will also damage the nature, such as the soil and air pollutions because the mountain climbers usually throw cigarette butts everywhere that can cause the fire in the woods. Another worry is the coming of investors to invest their capitals in Selo if ecotourism becomes advanced there. If this is happened, it is the investors who will dominate Selo and the local residents will be set apart economically. In other word, the progress in Selo is not for local residents, but for investors from outside. This protection for local residents is not only in project of ecotourism, but also in National Park of Mount Merapi or TNGM. They reject TNGM because this project from national government will prevent local residents to take products from forest located around the slope of Mount Merapi. It is Forest and Plantation Office and Perhutani who prohibit local residents to take any kind of forest products. For many years, local residents have gotten benefits from forest around Mount Merapi so that prohibition will bring financial problem to them. Another reason for their rejection

11

4th International Symposium of the journal ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA — 12–15 July 2005 — Depok that they have showed some projects of national parks were failed. The rejections from some groups and NGOs were shown in various ways, one of them was the protest conducted when President Megawati Soekarnoputri attended for declaration of National Park of Mount Merapi in Selo. g. Seventh, although NGOs were critical to national government who was failed in managing some national parks in Indonesia, but ironically some people in Selo they cared for, destroyed their own environment. These people destroyed forests by cut off trees massively, especially after political reformation in 1998. They did it because of financial problems as the impacts of economic and monetary crisis in 1998 and also because of their own interests to have much money from forests without thinking about the negative impacts for the next generation. The forest rangers have tried very hard to prevent it but they were failed because they have limited personals, budget and equipments. As the result, denudation of forests has happened especially on the slope of Mount Merapi in northern side of Selo.

Based on the explanations mentioned above, we can see that the relations between government and society (read: stakeholders) in ecotourism project in Selo have various aspects. These relations can be seen in the simple table below:

Relations of Stakeholders in Project of Ecotourism in Selo

NGOs TIC Local Owners of Pillager of Government Government people Homestay Forest of Regency of Province Products NGOs cooperative Critical conflictual conflictual conflictual conflictual conflictual TIC critical cooperative cooperative cooperative conflictual cooperative- cooperative critical Local people conflictual cooperative cooperative cooperative cooperative- cooperative cooperative conflictual Owners of conflictual cooperative cooperative cooperative No cooperative cooperative Homestay relations Pillager of conflictual conflictual cooperative- no relations cooperative conflictual conflictual Forest conflictual Products Governemnt conflictual cooperative- cooperative cooperative conflictual cooperative cooperative of Regency critical Government conflictual cooperative cooperative cooperative conflictual cooperative cooperative of Province

12

4th International Symposium of the journal ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA — 12–15 July 2005 — Depok Obstacles 1. The Lower Awareness of Tourism Ecotourism relies on awareness of local people as the main actors to attract and serve tourists. The awareness is a reflection that combines two domains, namely internal and external domains. The external things in a society, according to George Herbert Mead (Ashley: 1995) in perspective of symbolic interactionism, are caught from experiences that are then made dialogue with mind and conviction to be a value and awareness in self. The old awareness can be strengthened or on the contrary replaced via that process to be a new awareness. It is the awareness, which produces motives, activates individual to be the actor (self-mobilization) with various considerations based on imagination, logical reasoning, experience, memory, feeling and intuition. The actors of tourism should conceptually experience this process. Based on the data from field research, the new awareness of local residents to put tourism into their life is still far from the expectation. The majority of local residents in Selo still have the old attitudes and awareness as farmers, gardeners, breeders, and traders who do not link their occupations with the potentials of tourism they have in their region. There are only a few people who have that awareness. So, the development of home stays initiated by provincial government makes local people were open in mind that they have a new opportunity in tourism without leaving their old traditions and occupations. But local residents also face problem of participation and budget so not all owners of home stay have confidence they can be succeed and can use the tourist potentials in Selo as new opportunity.

The lower awareness of local people to be the actors of tourism has caused to their low authonomy to be the hosts of tourist destination. Although government has tried to empower several people via various programs such as trainings of tourist guide, of translator, of home stay’s manager, of natural conservation, conducting comparative study, but the awareness of tourism is only owned by a few people that have a life related to tourism. Other people are still with their old life without trying to connect their occupations with the potentials of tourism they have. All programs of tourist empowerment have conducted in Selo could actually give them enough skills to put their occupations into the frame of ecotourism development in Selo. But they still stick to their opinions that “if they do not cultivate, they can not eat” (yen ora macul, ora mangan). And the limited economic resource gives no other choice for local residents except

13

4th International Symposium of the journal ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA — 12–15 July 2005 — Depok fulfilling their basic needs. Various efforts to make them aware have been done by the staffs of Tourism and Culture Office in Selo, but it seems far from success. Therefore, the efforts of tourist development in Selo are not put into “shoulders” of local people, but those efforts become the tasks of both regencial and provincial governments. In this point, the concept of “community- based tourism” is far from its implementation, especially if we want to see it as a way to make program of ecotourism in Selo successful.

2. The Lower Creativity The lower awareness of tourism mentioned above make local residents have no enough creativity to develop tourist potentials in their region. Whereas in fact creativity is an instrument to reach aim (based on concept of rationality by Max Weber). Because of the purpose of their life is not in tourism, creative efforts to develop tourism do not appear in Selo. One of TIC’s staffs tried to compare the creativity of local residents in Selo to local residents in Borobudur and Bandungan. He said that local residents in Borobudur are very creative in creating attractions of tourism, such as creating attractions of art and paintings, conducting local festivals, creating attractions to break national records (MURI=Museum Rekor Indonesia or Museum of Indonesian Records), making various handicrafts, and developing tourist village (desa wisata). While people of Bandungan are very creative in cultivation of flowers and vegetables, and in making bamboo handicrafts. It is different in Selo because local residents here are satisfied to be traditional farmer, gardener, breeder, and trader. Therefore, it is impossible for tourists to find Selo’s original souvenirs although we can find some galleries and kiosks in Selo are selling products made from copper that are made by people in Tumang, a village located near Selo.

3. Poor Economic Condition and Lower Educational Background Because of poor condition of economy, local residents in Selo can only send their children to elementary dan junior high school. They also consider that it is enough if their children can read, write, and count. The higher education, such as senior high school or university, is “a luxury thing” for them. If they have to choose maintaining their fields and livestocks or selling them for financing their children’s school, they will choose the first choice. In such condition, it is difficult to have a young generation better than former generation so that it is difficult too to have a good young generation with a certain quality in the near future. If education is seen as a medium of opening awareness to develop future better than now, then the low awareness of local people in 14

4th International Symposium of the journal ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA — 12–15 July 2005 — Depok Selo in sending their children to higher education makes the prospect of ecotourism in Selo becomes unclear. Thus, there is a connection between limited economic capability, the awareness of how important education is, low in education among young people, low quality in human resources, and vagued prospect of ecotourism project in Selo in one side and perspective of CBT that seems not be understood by majority of local residents.

4. Stagnant Social Organizations The forming of social organizations in certain sectors has been tried by some active local residents in supporting the development of tourism. Those sectors are homestay, tourist guide, and kelompok sadar wisata or darwis (group of people awareness on tourism). It was conducted based on both initiative of local residents and staffs of related offices, but those organization were difficult to be manage. The organizations of tourist guide and darwis have been stagnant although they institutionally still exist. Unsolving internal problems have deactivated operationalization of organizational management. While paguyuban or association of homestay manager is still in process of growing up. This association is small in numbers of members but grows relatively fastly in accumulation of fund for loans. The weakness of those organizations reflects the weakness of capacity, cohesion, management of organization, the understanding of significance of organization, and the characters of personality in those communities.

5. Bad Coordinations among Stakeholders Other obstacle is about coordinations among stakeholders. There are bad coordinations among governmental institutions, such as coordination among Forest and Plantation Office, Tourism and Culture Office, and Perhutani (about programs of reforestation and ecotourism), coordination between regencial government and provincial government (about the sustainability of ecotourism program), coordination between TIC and Tourism and Culture Office (about the strategy, facility and promotion of tourism), coordination between Forest and Plantation Office and various rural institutions and associations (about reforestation), coordination between Tourism and Culture Office and rural and subdistrict governments (about awareness as the actors of tourism). Finally, the network was formed based on their experiences in coordination; the network between people and institutions have mutual understanding and supporting in real activities on ecotourism project. In this point, the structural network is still not effective yet in supporting the sustainability of ecotourism project. 15

4th International Symposium of the journal ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA — 12–15 July 2005 — Depok

6. Illegal Loggings The management of nature is an other problem. The damage of nature was aggravated by unawareness of local residents on concept and implementation of sustainable development and natural conservation. Forest pillaging and “forest denudation” on slope of Mount Merapi by local people were the real cases. The staffs of Forest and Plantation Office, and of Tourism and Culture Office, Forest Guard, Chief of Village, Head of Subdistrict, prominent figures in Selo, all have no power to protect forests from illegal loggings. Local residents did illegal loggings for fulfilling their daily needs; some even did it because they were greedy to have financial benefits from it. They do not think that what they have done will threaten the life of their descendants. They still do not have enough understanding how important nature and its conservation for their life.

7. The Unsafety for Mountain Climbers The mountain climbers often reported that they have lost their stuffs when they camped at some places in their way to climb to the peak of Mount Merapi. Some climbers complained about the bad security in that mountain so the robbery often happened. The staffs of TIC could only say that the robbery and other criminal acts in Mount Merapi are not under their authority, but under the authority of policeman. TIC has main task to give informations about tourism in Selo, but if there is a climber is lost, the staffs of TIC also search for him/her.

Although the robbery is not under TIC’s authority, the staffs usually give report of each robbery to the policeman so the policeman can handle it as soon as possible. But there is problem about the case of robbery. TIC’s staffs are difficult to differentiate who is a real climber, who is a criminal disguised as a climber. Therefore, TIC’s staffs can only appeal mountain climbers to be careful with their stuffs.

According to TIC’s staffs, the criminal acts like robbery in Mount Merapi were started after the base camp on the top side of the mountain was removed to the lower side. There were some people accused that the criminal acts done by some residents of Selo disappointed of losing financial benefits because of the removing of the base camp. But the many residents of Selo accused all the criminal acts were done by outsiders, not by people from Selo. In their opinions, it 16

4th International Symposium of the journal ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA — 12–15 July 2005 — Depok is impossible the local residents in Selo want to disturb their own place; they must protect their own region because they realize they will suffer a financial loss if the number of visitors is decreased.

Another problem is, there were several uncorrect reports about the lost climbers. After TIC’s staffs sent a search team to look for the lost climber, they finally realized that the report was not right. Based on this fact, TIC’s staffs must be critical in responding report of lost climber or other reports og criminal acts. This situation aroused suspicion and untrust among TIC’s staffs, people who reported the lost climber, and local residents. This condition will disturb the efforts of developing ecotourism in Selo.

Ending Note: The Prospect of Ecotourism Based on explorative explainations mentioned above, we can conclude some ending notes of the prospect of ecotourism project in Selo. They are: 1. Actually there are potentials of nature and local residents in developing ecotourism project in Selo, but the awareness of it is still low. 2. Few people and parties have had the awareness of ecotourism but this awareness is not strong enough to be the awareness of all people in Selo, so there is no community’s awareness yet in concept and developing ecotourism. 3. Because the awareness is partial, the organizing of social organizations for supporting the ecotourism program becomes difficult although they can grow slowly. 4. Local residents in Selo still have old paradigm that puts government as the subject of development while local residents as the object of it. This old paradigm contradicts with paradigm of local decentralization. Therefore, the awareness and motivation of people in developing community-based tourism almost do not exist. When the support and assistance from government for this project were decreased drastically after the declaration of “Year of Ecotourism” by President Megawati Soekarnoputri, local residents could not do much to develop it by their own power. 5. Generally, the prospect of ecotourism in Selo to be success is still far because of those obstacles mentioned above. So, Selo may still only become transit place for mountain climbers in near future although there have been visitors who came for enjoying fresh air,

17

4th International Symposium of the journal ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA — 12–15 July 2005 — Depok taking a rest, or for participating in various trainings conducted in Selo. The investors will come, too for participating in ecotourism but they may be in small numbers. So, ecotourism in context of community-based tourism is far from its realization. What has been declared by government is not more than an instant policy that is not supported by macro strategy and sustainable realization.

References

Books Ashley, David and David Michael Orenstein 1995 Sociological Theory: Classical Statements, Third Edition. Boston. Allyn and Bacon.

Atmaja, Ida Bagus Yoga 2002 Ekowisata Rakyat: Lika-Liku Ekowisata di Tenganan, Pelaga, Sibetan dan Nusa Ceningan-Bali. Kuta-Bali. Wisnu Press. Chandhoke, Neera 1995 State and Civil Society. Explorations in Political Theory. New Delhi. Sage Publications. Cresswell, John W. 1994 Research Design, Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks. Sage Publications. Hefner, Robert W. 1998 Democratic Civility, The History and Cross-Cultural Possibility of a Modern Political Ideal. New Brunswick (USA). Transaction Publishers. Hikam, Mohammad A.S. 1996 Demokrasi dan Civil Society. Jakarta. LP3ES. Newman, Lawrence W. 1997 Social Research Methods, Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston. Allyn and Bacon. Smith, Valene L. and William R. Eadington (eds.)

18

4th International Symposium of the journal ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA — 12–15 July 2005 — Depok 1992 Tourism Alternatives, Potentials and Problems in the Development of Tourism. Philadelphia. University of Philadelphia Press. 2001 Undang-undang Otonomi Daerah 1999 (UU No. 22, 25 dan 28, 1999) Dilengkapi Juklak Otonomi Daerah 2001. Bandung. Citra Umbara. Whelan, Tensie 1991 “Ecotourism and Its Role in Sustainable Development” in Tensie Whelan (ed.). Nature Tourism, Managing for the Environment. Washington, D.C. Island Press.

Newspapers Kedaulatan Rakyat, September 2001 – July 2003. KOMPAS, October 2002 – August 2003.

19

4th International Symposium of the journal ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA — 12–15 July 2005 — Depok