Puzzling Confluence of Conservation and Ecotourism
in Komodo National Park, Indonesia
Cypri Jehan Paju Dale*
Gregorius Afioma**

Abstract

This paper examines the confluence of conservation and tourism development projects
in Komodo National Park – the natural home of the renowned Komodo dragon(Varanus komodoensis) and the ways local communities deal with its impacts. While theestablishment of the park as a nature reserve in 1980 has indeed stirred processes of
enclosure, dispossession, and dissolution of the commons of the native population, it stilllacked the element of accumulation as the territory was transformed into a newcommons —i.e. a new frontier of unique ecological and tourism-economic values.
Governed under the conservation regime, locals can still use resources in the parkthrough traditional and non-traditional resource uses such as the tourism economy. The
arrival of ecotourism projects in recent years, however, has induced new waves ofaccumulation by dispossession by state and corporate actors. Interestingly, local
communities have been resisting these processes by incorporating conservation andecotourism paradigms— beside their tribal claim of unique inter-species companionshipwith the Komodo dragon. These communities defend the old and new commons fromprivate and public investments and secure their access to its use and benefit, boththrough community-owned tourism business and through conventional fishinglivelihood. Based on engaged ethnographic research in the Komodo National Park in
Flores, Indonesia, this article contributes to the discussion on the interlinkage between
conservation, ecotourism, and community engagements in development.
Keywords: conservation, ecotourism, development, community, Komodo, Flores―――――――――――――* Center for Southeast Asian Studies (CSEAS), Kyoto University, Japan
Email: cdale@cseas.kyoto-u.ac.jp** Sunspirit for Justice and Peace, Flores, Indonesia Email: gregoriusafioma@gmail.com

11

Introduction
As part of an effort to boost the tourism industry, the Indonesian government
has designated Komodo National Park in the East Nusa Tenggara province as a "superpremium tourist destination." Enclosed as a conservation area (I. suaka marga satwa) in
1965 and then a national park (I. Taman Nasional) in 1980, the park is now a conserved
natural home of the charismatic animal Varanus komodoensis, the largest living lizard on
earth. The charm of the ancient lizards, combined with the scenic landscape, fantastic
under water life, and enchanting cultures of various ethnic groups of Flores haveattracted tourists since a long time ago, yet the central government’s massive scale
tourism development in recent years creates an unprecedented social and ecologicaltransformation. In addition to a construction of basic infrastructure such as ports andvisitors’ center, the government has welcomed an influx of large-scale investment, someof which are granted to operate inside the park.
Under the super-premium tourism development program, the government aims
to remove the local population of the Komodo island from the park in order to make theisland a "super-premium" and "exclusive" tourist destination." This plan was firstannounced by the governor of East Nusa Tenggara Province, Victor Laiskodat, in
December 2018 and reaffirmed by President Joko Widodo during his visit to the park in
June 2019. The governor considers the people of Komodo as "wild settlers" (I. pendudukliar), ignoring the fact that natives of Komodo, known as Ata Modo, have settled on theisland for thousand years (Verheijen 1987: 256, Auffenberg 1981:350). Ignoring therights of this population, the governor insists that in the national park, "There will be no
human rights, only animal rights" (Sunspirit and Floresa 2019). While the designation ofthis natural habitat of the Komodo dragon as a national park has forcefully denied theiragrarian rights, tourism development has put them further in the margins (Erb 2015,2012; Dale 2013; Gustave and Borchers 2007).
The stories of the last four decades of the Komodo human inhabitants compriseof a series of enforcement of conservation and tourism business schemes ofimprovements (Li 2007) on one hand, and resistance and adaptation by the communities
on the other hand. In the end, the communities adjusted to the reality that they had to let
go of their terrestrial and marine territory and engage in tourism as a new form of
livelihood. When the current administration introduced the plan to relocate thecommunity from the island for an exclusive ecotourism zone, the communities recalled
all the 40 years of exclusion and dispossession. While resisting this new government's
scheme of relocation, they propose various forms of active engagement in the tourism
economy that will allow communities’ participation in conservation and ecotourism insignificant ways.
This article aims to elaborate firstly, the history and present state of conservationand ecotourism development promoted by the state, corporations, and conservationists
in Komodo national park, and secondly, the ways in which local communities navigate
various interventions introduced to the Park. We will begin with the backgroundinformation on Komodo National Park and the relationship between government,
corporations, transnational environmental non-governmental organizations, and local
communities in the last 40 years. Then, we will explain the current policy of intensifying
nature tourism in the park that has induced intriguing new waves of green and blue
grabbing. In the second part of the article, we will narrate local communities' strategic
responses to these new waves of dispossession and the ways in which they negotiate
alternative policies of/for development. In the final part, we will present some22reflections on the relationship between capital formation, conservation, tourism, andcounter-hegemonic development.
This paper draws on long-term research and advocacy engagement with
communities and tourism development in Flores. Both authors are from Flores and haveplay a role in local civil society networks that deal with issues, such as tourism andconservation in Flores. The communities recognize us as researchers and activists withmultiple connections to academia, media, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
They also treat us as strategic allies for their agenda. While doing research is our key
activity in the field, we also get involved in the advocacy efforts with an exact position toempower local communities in negotiating a more inclusive model of development andlocal participation in tourism development and conservation. In events or situations
presented in this paper, either one or both authors were present. Often, we were asked tooffer analyses or formulate or edit community statements that were being delivered to
the government or corporate actors. Hence our approach in this paper exhibits what
Stuart Kirsch (2016) describes as an engaged ethnography. This unique position has
some limitations, for example, in our partial or partisan position. But it also gives us aunique opportunity to conduct meaningful conversations and gain access to local
perspectives that are otherwise difficult to achieve.
Conservation and the Emergence of a New Commons
The Komodo National Park (KNP) is the natural home of the Komodo dragon(Varanus komodoensis), the world’s largest surviving lizard. Located in Manggarai Barat
District, Flores, East Nusa Tenggara Province, Eastern Indonesia, the park includes
three main islands (Komodo, Rinca and Padar) and numerous smaller islands (islets) thatcover an area of 1817 km2, consisting of terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Aside frombeing the habitat of a charismatic species, KNP is also one of the world’s richest marine
biospheres with unique coral reefs. These factors make the park one of Indonesia’s mostprecious biosphere reserves as well as popular ecotourism sites.
In contrast to the image of a pristine area teeming with wildlife popularized by
the Indonesian government, international NGOs, and the media, the park is also home
for local communities. They have lived there for centuries (Verheijen 1984, Dale 2013).
Official data indicates that in 2019 the total population inside the park is 4,995 (BPS2020). They live in several kampongs that are administratively organized in three “desa”(villages). These villages are Papagarang, Pasir Panjang/Rinca, and Komodo.
Long before the formation of the national park, local communities have been
living side by side with the ancient Komodo dragons (Varanus komodoensis) in whatanthropologists call an interspecies companionship (Tsing 2012; Harraway 2003;
Verheijen 1982; Needham 1986; Forth 1988). Known in vernacular as Sebae, meaning“the other half”, the dragon is depicted in the indigenous fable as the twin of the
Komodo people’s ancestors.1 This kinship type of human-animal relationship between
The oldest documentation of the fable is written by J.A.J Verheijen who conducted
fieldwork in Komodo island in 1977 and 1982 (Verheijen 1984). During our fieldwork, ourinterlocutors repeatedly refer to the fable when describing their relationship with Komodo
dragon. Another vernacular name for the dragon is Ora.

1

3

3

Ata Modo and Komodo is also expressed in everyday life. Our interlocutors told us vivid
stories of how in the 1960s and 1970s, when gardening and hunting were not yet
forbidden, Ata Modo and the dragons lived side by side, sharing space and food. In Loh
Liang, where Ata Modo had a lingko gardens,2 there were at least 70-100 dragons living.
During hunting expeditions, Ata Modo took only several part of the game. They
chopped and feed the dragons with the inner parts, bones, head and feed of hog deer.3
This belief system and everyday practices of kinship relations arguably ensure robust
practices of animal-human companionship in the region and thus may have contributed
to the survival of the dragons for millennia.
While external disruptions to the Komodo ecosystem can be traced back to the
Dutch colonial period, especially in 1920-20 (Barnard 2011), it was during the New
Order regime of post colonial Indonesia (1967-1998) that those interventions started toradically change the mechanisms of land control and power relations in the region. The
Indonesian government designated the area as a conservation area (I. suaka marga satwa)
on March 6th,1980 through a minister’s decree. The decree No.306/Kpts-II/92 by the
Ministry of Forestry and Plantations changed the status of a conservation area to anational park on February 29, 1992. This national park covered 40,728 hectares ofterrestrial areas in the islands of Komodo, Rinca and Padar. Later on, on June 29, 2000,
the decree number 172/Kpts-II/2000 of the Ministry of Forestry and Plantations
expanded the territory of the national park to cover both terrestrial and marine areas withthe total size of 132,572 hectares. An international recognition soon followed. In 1988,
UNESCO designated the park as a World Heritage Site and a Man and Biosphere
Reserve. In 2013, the park was inaugurated as one of the 7 World Wonders of Nature.
Since the designation of the area as a national park, the whole territory has beentaken over by the state from the local communities. The residents, who previously lived
in several rather scattered kampongs and practiced agriculture and fisheries as their main
livelihoods on top of hunting and gathering, were forced to relocate to designatedenclaves. On the island of Komodo for example, villagers from the higher part of theisland and the coastal communities were put together in present day Komodo village.
The size of the village is only 17,3 hectares and in 2019 hosted around 1789 people. They
also had to leave Loh Liang, one of the main fishing ports and agriculture areas. Today,
Loh Liang has become a compound for the field office of the national park, tourist
entrance and visitors center in the island. Although the majority of the inhabitants are
indigenous and those who are not have already occupied the land before the designationof the area as a national park, their agrarian rights are not recognized by the state,including rights over the land where they now have settled.
With a status as a national park, the whole territory and its population are
Lingko is an indigenous Manggarai system of distribuing and managing land/ agricultural
fields/gardens. A large size of land (usually in circular/round) is distributed from a center(like pizza), and each member oft he community get a wedge‐shaped gardens called
moso/moho. The center oft he cricular field also functioned as retual center. The system istoday known as spider web gardens (For a brief desctipbtion of Lodok system, see Alerton
2013:99‐20, Erb 1999:24‐25).
3Interviews in September 2020.
2

4

4

controlled by the state through the Komodo National Park Authority (KNPA) (I. Balai
Taman Nasional Komodo) that operates under the jurisdiction of the Ministry ofForestry and Environment. Various regulations and strict control have been devised andimplemented to govern this territory. At the core of this governance is the zoning system.
The park is divided into 9 zones, with specific purposes and access by specific actors toeach zone. Below is the latest zoning system as legalized by the Ministry of Forestry andEnvironment in 2012 (see map 1).

Figure 1 Zoning System in Komodo National Park (BTNK 2012)55

Detailed explanations of the zoning of the Komodo National Park:
1. Core Zone. The 34,311-hectare zone is extremely and thoroughly protected. Anychange and intervention by human activity is strictly prohibited, except activities
pertaining to research.
2. Forest Zone. The zone consists of 66,921.08 hectares where any human activity is
prohibited, as mentioned in the explanation about the core zone, except limited tourism
activity.
3. Water Protection Zone. The 36,308-hectare zone lies from the shoreline to 500 meters
off of the 20 meter isodepth line which surrounds the reef and island borders. Suchruling does not apply to the traditional maritime functioning zone. Any activity involving
sea product exploitation is prohibited in the water protection zone. The only allowed
activities are those of limited tourism.
4. Land Tourism Utilization Zone. The 824-hectare zone is intensively used for land
tourism activities.
5. Water Tourism Utilization Zone. The 1,584-hectare zone is intensively used for water
tourism activities.
6. Land Traditional Utilization Zone. The 879-hectare zone is utilized to accommodate
the basic needs of the native residents. However, the land utilization in this zone requires
a special permit from the head of the Komodo National Park.
7. Nautical Traditional Utilization Zone. The 17,308-hectare zone is provided toaccommodate the native residents. Special permits issued by the head of the Komodo
National Park are required. Residents are allowed to exploit the sea only if they use ecofriendly technology, such as a fishing rod.
8. Housing Special Zone. The 298-hectare zone is used for settlements for native
residents. The ruling is based on the special regulation issued by the Komodo National
Park and the local/regional administration.
9. Pelagic Special Zone. In this 59,601-hectare zone in the Komodo National Park,
people are free to fish or exploit a variety of sea products in which the exploitation
method is not limited only to the usage of eco-friendly technology. The zone is alsoavailable for any tourism activities.
Source: SK Ditjen PHKA Number : SK.21/IV-SET/2012
For local communities inside the park, the establishment of the Komodo National Park
as a protected area certainly involved an intensive process of enclosure, dispossession,and dissolution of the commons. Although their settlement is somehow recognized as adesa (village) similar to other villages in Indonesia, their agrarian rights over the land
have never been formally recognized. Under this zoning system, the natives of Komodo
have become a “park and parked community,” living in an enclave inside the nationalpark with no legal/agrarian rights and with limited access to land and marine utilization
zones for their livelihoods. Moreover, the whole communities have to live under theclose surveillance of the park authority. This form of surveillance includes daily patrols

66

by armed security personnel and officers of the park. Sanctions and fines are imposed onvillagers who fish or use areas beyond the designated utilization areas or forests.
Yet at this stage, those interventions have not yet embodied the elements ofaccumulation and privatization (Marx 1977, Peluso and Lund 2011, Harvey 2005). As aconservation area managed under the authority of the state, the territory is protectedfrom private or corporate land deals and is preserved for environmental, scientific, andlimited economic use. As such the park has epitomized the transformation of the
Komodo islands from a traditional commons into new commons; i.e. a new frontier of
unique ecological and economic values in relation to tourism. 4 Governed under stateauthority, this new pool of resources can be share, at least in theory, not only by the
population inside the park but also by the larger population in Flores and beyond. Whilefood gathering, hunting, and farming are no longer allowed, and fishing is only possible
in a limited area, the villagers of Komodo are offered, and forcefully encouraged, tochange their livelihoods into tourism-related activities (See also Lasso and Dahles 2018,
Sunspirit 2017). Today, at least 225 people (from 500 households in the village) live fromsouvenir trade and culinary activities in several spots inside the park. Youths find jobs,
both as rangers in the Park and as independent tour guides or operators. 5 Whileremaining critical to their history of dispossession, our interlocutors in the Komodo
village recognize the benefits they have enjoyed from tourism that comes with the park.
In Labuan Bajo, the main gateway to the park, locals have enjoyed new livelihood
opportunities thanks to the growing tourism industry in the region. If the story ended
here, it would be a happy ending tale. There is, unfortunately, another process that brings
about a tragic change: the arrival of the ecotourism regime.

Nature Tourism, a New Capitalist Formation
Similar to many countries in the Global South, Indonesia has pursued thetourism industry as a way to earn foreign exchange and create jobs. Conservation areas
and unique species attached to them are seen in this context as a vital resource for the
tourism industry. While conservation is mainly inspired by ecological or environmental
imperatives, it is economic imperatives that drive tourism development in nature reserves.
Among conservation agencies, there is also a trend towards market-oriented
conservation practices. Both tourism and conservation businesses claim that ecotourism
is a way of exploiting the economic potentials of preserved nature, which will contributeto sustainable livelihoods for local communities and open new opportunities forinvestment (Wearing and Neil 2009). Conservation and ecotourism are even claimed as
While Hardin’s unambiguous prediction of the tragedy of the commons (1968) is notapplicable in places like Komodo, the formation of a national park for special areas like
Komodo has resulted in a new frontier of value that we can call the New Commons (See also
McCay 2001)
5
By comparison to the communities in other islands of the national park (the village of Rinca
and Kerora in the Rinca island and Papagarang) whose livelihood remains predominantly
fishing, the village of Komodo has progressively adopted tourism‐related activities as theirmain livelihood.
4

7

7

the most profitable and sustainable way of resource use, as its business model provides
an opportunity to finance the protected area as well as to create profit-making
opportunities for the tourism industry (Bradon 1996, Spergel 2001).
With the Komodo National Park as its main attraction Flores has long become
the target of such tourism development, at least since the last 25 years (Cole 2008, Erb2009). Yet merging tourism to the already complex governance of conservation areas
creates complexity. Komodo National Park, which was previously envisioned as a mainly
conservation area, is re-designed as an investment site ready to be exploited for the sakeof the state’s foreign exchange income. Conservation, in this regard, was simply a processof pre-commodification (Kelly 2011) that serves two strategic purposes: first, to preserveand enclose the territory to become a new frontier of value (with Komodo and its habitat
as its main capital) and second, to facilitate a seemingly legitimate process of
dispossession and exclusion of local communities from ownership and access to theterritory, and to repudiate their interspecies connection to the local bio-diversity. The
new regime of ecotourism, built upon the existing conservation regime, pushes a further
process in several waves of tragic change.
The first wave of ecotourism intervention in the Komodo islands took placeabout twenty-five years ago. Under the strong influence of the US-based conservationist
business consortium The Nature Conservancy (TNC) with the support of the World
Bank, the management of the park was privatized, and its conservation practice wastransformed towards market-oriented conservation and tourism. Starting in 1995, TNC
assisted the park authority to re-envision its mission. The organization encouraged the
expansion of the park to the marine area and promoted eco and dive tourism to increase
revenues for the park (Erb 2015). For the management of the park, a collaborative
management framework—called the Komodo Collaborative Management (KCMI)—
was established in 2004. Under KCMI, the management of the park was taken over by acompany, PT Putri Naga Komodo (PT PNK), which, interestingly, is a joint venture
between The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and PT Jaytasha Putrindo Utama (PT JPU), a
tourist operator (Borchers, 2008; Gustave & Borchers, 2007). The company describes
itself as follows:“Under the World Bank-funded Komodo Collaborative Management Initiative(KCMI), PNK is working with the Komodo National Park Authority to protect
the Park’s uniquely rich marine and terrestrial biodiversity and develop the
Komodo National Park as an eco-tourism destination for the benefit of local
communities and future generations.” 6
One of the key activities of the PNK was, in the words of the company itself,“Various revenue generating mechanisms to achieve financial sustainability” (PNK 2004).
On the ground, the company held an exclusive right to collect various fees, which
include an entrance fee for general tourists, fees for diving activities, fees for researchers,
and fees for documentary activities (video and photography). The company also worked
together with the state security apparatus (police and military authorities) for intensified
joint patrols to control and ensure that local fishermen and residents obeyed to the park’s
6

https://komodonationalpark.org/pnk/index.php, retrieved 2 April 2020.

88

zoning system (TNC and BTNK 2004).
The KCMI was applauded (by its inventors) as ‘a groundbreaking policy’ that
aimed ‘to ensure the effective long-term management of KNP’ (PT PNK and TNC,
2004:1). Despite of its claims to success, however, the KCMI was subject to criticism andresistance since its inception, including by local communities. The communities strongly
opposed the newly instituted rules and regulations of the national park (Erb, 2012,
Cochrane 2013), as it was seen as limiting their access and use of the islands’ resources,
while at the same time granting access and benefits for the powerful tourism actors. The
Komodo National Park Authority (KNPA) which had been supportive to KCMI at the
beginning decided to withdraw from the collaboration. Despite of the availability offunds from donor organizations (including the World Bank) and revenues collected fromentrance fees, the KCMI failed. PT PNK and TNC ‘disappeared’ from the province in2010/2011. In other words, only 5 years after its confident start, the seemingly
convincing collaborative management ended with an unresolved conflict. The
management of the park was taken back by the Komodo National Park Authority(Cochrane 2013, Dale 2013).
The second wave of ecotourism in the Komodo National Park took place more
recently along with the new plan of the Indonesian government to turn Labuan BajoFlores into one of the so-called “10 New Balis”. Labuan Bajo was even designated as a“super priority tourism destination.” As part of the design, the Indonesian governmentchanged the status of the park and the surrounding area to become the so-called"National Strategic Territory" (I. Kawasan Strategis Nasional) to be developed as a “worldclass eco-tourism destination”.
Under this new scheme, several development plans inside Komodo National
Park were instigated. First, the island of Komodo, one of the three big islands inside thepark, was designated specifically as a premium or exclusive tourism zone with an
entrance fee of US$ 1,000. The similarly priced safari parks in Africa are often referred toas a model for this exclusive tourism zone. Secondly, the government granted
concessions to a number of private companies and state enterprises that cover an area up
to 447.17 hectares inside the park under the so-called “nature-tourism businesspermit”(izin pengusahaan usaha pariwisata alam). Those private companies are PT. Komodo
Wildlife Ecotourism (Permit No. 796/Menhut/II/2013 for Padar island and Loh Liang
Komodo island) and PT Segara Komodo Lestari (permit No.5.557/Menhut/II/2013 for
Rinca island), and PT Flobamor (a state enterprise owned by the provincial governmentof Eastern Nusatenggara) for Rinca, Padar, and Komodo islands (Sunspirit 2019).
Thirdly, the government planned to relocate village communities of the Komodo islands
in order to, in the government’s words, “rehabilitate Komodo’s habitat” (FDN 2019).
The government argues that “it is called the Komodo Island, so it is for the Komodo notfor humans” (Henschke and Wijaya 2019).
Ecotourism is commonly believed a sustainable way to explore the economic
potentials of biodiversity and nature areas, which will contribute to the sustainable
livelihoods for local communities and open new opportunities for investment (UNWTO
Declaration 2002; Das and Chatterjee 2015; Wearing and Neil 2009; Brandon 1996;
Spergel 2001; Cohrane 2009). Some even argue that ecotourism is a sound conservation
99

strategy (Gustave and Borchers 2007). The case of the Komodo National Park, however,shows a more complex story (see also Erb 2012, 2015; Cochrane 2013, Dale 2013). In
the Komodo National Park, local communities have participated in the conservation
agenda and engaged tourism as their new livelihood (Lasso and Heidi 2018), yet the
recent introduction of ecotourism development have, once again, marginalized them.
While the conservation regime during the New Order deprived the communities of theiragrarian rights, the ecotourism scheme by the current regime will radically alter theirlivelihood and their relationship with their territory for the sake of the world class tourist
destination status. The current confluence of neoliberal ecotourism and conservation
practices will cause not only enclosure and dispossession of the new commons as has
happened in the 1980s and 1990s, but also an accumulation of profit by privatecompanies. While conservation alone has made the territory public under the authority ofthe state – without the involvement of private companies –, the current ecotourism
development gears towards not only the privatization of the national park but also an
accumulation by dispossession by private and powerful interests at the expense of thelocal communities and other powerless tourism actors (Harvey 2004, West 2016, Hall
et.al. 2013, Kelly 2011).7
While heavily influenced by neoliberal policies prescribed by transnational
conservation organizations assisting the Indonesian government in conservation andecotourism sectors, this new wave of accumulation is arguably also shaped by Indonesia’s
current power configuration and mode of development. The ruling elites—alliances ofelected officials and business interests, often the same persons with double roles8-- haveconsidered tourism in conservation areas as a new economic frontier to be exploited
after the extractive industries. Using the state budget, they have intensified theinfrastructure development for tourism and created new institutions, such as Tourism
Autorhity Board (BOP LBF) to intensify this exploitation while at the same time
releasing conservation territories with high economic values of tourism for privatizationand mainstream capital accumulation in the hand of their own group. It is thus a form ofgreen and blue grabbing with a strong role of the government to facilitate private
accumulation in the name of conservation and ecodevelopment (Fairhead et.al. 2012).
Communities and the Puzzling Confluence
Although under the influence of neoliberal ideology promoted by international
agencies such as the World Bank and TNC state and corporate actors seem to be themost influential actors of conservation and ecotourism in the Komodo National Park,
Hence, the confluence of conservation and ecotourism reflects a process of accumulation
by dispossession or just another example of ‘primitive accumulation’ as described by Marx
(1976). In David Harvey’s words, as a process, this "entailed taking land, say, enclosing it,
and expelling a resident population to create a landless proletariat, and then releasing theland into the privatized mainstream of capital accumulation" (Harvey 2005:145, see also
Benjaminsen and Bryceson 2012)
7

Known in popular slang as Pengpeng, an acronim of Penguasa (ruler) and pengusaha(business persons).

8

10

10

they are not the only ones. In recent years, local communities both inside the park and in
Flores have consolidated themselves and initiated some actions in defense of the newcommons, and in pursuing conservation and ecotourism in their own terms. We observe
the emergence of various community mobilizations that directly confront the
government’s new conservation and ecotourism schemes during the period of 2019-2020.
Beside a series of demonstrations in Labuan Bajo, the movements also meet and directly
negotiate with the central government as we have narrated in the opening vignette of thisarticle. Moreover, there is an emerging agency of the local communities in dealing
directly with private business operating in the park.
In response to such passionate resistance to the recent governments plan, in
August 2019 the Ministry of Forestry and Environment established the so-called “Tim
Terpadu dalam Rangka Pengkajian Pengelolaan Taman Nasional Komodo sebagai Kawasan Wisata
Alam Strategis” (or Timdu in brief, the integrated team to reassess the management of the
Komodo National Park as a strategic nature tourism zone). This Timdu is an ad hoc
panel consisting of officials of various ministries, local governments in the provincial andregency levels, developmental NGOs and private companies operating in Komodo withthe tasks to (1) communicate the government’s plan in Komodo and (2) to discuss theaspiration and demand of the communities (Letter of the Minister of Forestry andEnvironment, dated 9 August 2019). One week later, the Timdu conducted a field visit
to Flores. The encounter between the Timdu and Komodo communities during this visit(which both authors attended) is telling. It illustrates the way the “communities” areengaged with the puzzling confluence of conservation and ecotourism development, andhence, we present here several important events in Komodo.
Komodo Island, 15 August 2019.
This might be one of the biggest days for the life of the Komodo people as acommunity. Very early in the morning, everyone starts to get busy. A group of young
people prepares a big banner and some posters. The banner reads, “Kami menolak
dipindahkan” (We are against relocation) and it is displayed at the entrance of the village
port. Others set up the sound system. A group of middle aged women walks from one
house to another, with sticks in their hands. They knock the wooden poles of the houses(most of the houses in Komodo are stilt houses with wooden poles).
“Come on, everyone should be at the mosque yard at the port at 8 o’clock,” they
shout. Someone makes the same announcement through the mosque’s loudspeakers,
adding that the officers are on the way to their village, and everyone should hurry up.
Around 8 am, almost 1,000 people, old and young, men and women, gather inthe port. Several young people whom we know as organizers of the previous
demonstrations in Labuan Bajo are busy explaining their scenario today. “There will be
no dialogue. We will only declare our statement, and then ask them to leave and report tothe central and provincial governments of our firm position. We do not talk to thieves.”
Not long afterwards, two speedboats approach the port. The crowds chant songs,“Tolak, tolak, tolak penutupan. Tolak penutupan di Pulau Komodo!” (“We refuse, refuse,refuse the closure of the Komodo Islands!”). A large crowd blocks the port. They do not1111allow the guests to get off the boats. For about 30 minutes the officers remain in theboats until they are allowed to get off and stand at the edge of the wooden jetty. We
notice that the officers are surprised by the large crowds. They try to negotiate with theleaders and propose to have a meeting with the representatives of the communities. But
the chants get louder, until Akbar, one of the youth leaders steps forward, calms thecrowd and reads a statement that goes as follows:“We, the people of Komodo, the citizens and the sovereign owner of the landand sea in Komodo, herewith reject the government’s plan to evict and relocate
us from our ancestor’s land to a different island. We know conservation better.
We have done it long before the arrival of the national park.”
The statement also asks the Ministry of Environment and Forestry and the Ministry of
Tourism to recognize and facilitate their active contribution in conservation efforts andtourism development in the islands. It says,“We demand the recognition of the Komodo Indigenous Council as an Advisory Member
and/or Steering Committee in the structure of the National Park Authority. We
demand the role of the Komodo Indigenous Youth Council as a conservation
taskforce (garda konservasi), and not simply as a partner of forest rangers (polisi
kehutanan) and park tour guides. We categorically reject all forms of leisure facilities, suchas hotels, resorts, restaurants, and other facilities inside the Komodo National Park. We
demand the government not to grant any permit to corporations to erect any physicalconstructions inside the park, as it will endanger the natural ecosystem of Komodo
and its whole habitat. We demand an exclusive right for the community to run
economic activities, such as food provisions and souvenir kiosks in strategic
tourist areas such as in Loh Liang” (emphases added).
He then hands over the document to the head of the delegation and asks them to leave
the village.
Two months later in October 2019 the government announced that there would
be no relocation of Komodo villages, a decision that was celebrated gratefully by thecommunities. The government, however, still continues with the other components ofthe plan, i.e. the development of Komodo as an exclusive safari park where privatecompanies will be able to establish their eco-tourism resorts.
Labuan Bajo, February 2020
Another wave of mobilization took place in Labuan Bajo in February 2020. It
was triggered by a meeting at the Ministry of Forestry and Environment on January 30th
which was attended by officials from several ministries and the provincial government
and which decided that ecotourism development plans in the Komodo National Park
will be executed in 2020. It includes the plot to enclose Komodo Islands and thesurrounding marine area as a “premium nature tourism site” with an entrance fee of 1000
USD and the construction of a new visitors center on Rinca Island. Moreover, themeeting also provided final approval for the corporations who had secured permits tostart the construction of their facilities inside the park.
12

12

Leaders of various tourism-related associations in Labuan Bajo and Garda
Pemuda Komodo organized an assembly on February 4th. They decided to consolidate
themselves in a forum called Gabungan Masyarakat Peduli Konservasi dan Pariwisata(GMPKP) (the Association of Concerned Communities for Conservation and Tourism).
The founding members of the collective are ASITA, ASKAWI, HPI, FORMAPP,
P3Kom, DOCK, AWSTAR, Garda Pemuda Komodo, Kompas Rinca and Sunspirit for
Justice and Peace.9 One of the immediate actions of this collective was the organizationof a mass demonstration in Labuan Bajo on February 12th, involving more than 1000
participants (arguably one of the largest demonstrations in the history of this town).
Apart from local regional offices (regency and local parliaments), the protesters marchedto the office of the Komodo National Park Authority (BTNK) and Badan Otorita
Pariwisata Labuan Bajo Flores (BOP-LBF).
A closer look at their manifestation will help us understand not only their agenda,
but also their position in the complex web of power relations in Komodo. It says, “Wedemand the immediate annulment of permits for three private companies to operate on
the islands of Komodo, Rinca and Padar, and the cancellation of the plan to grant PT
Flobamor and its associates to operate inside the Komodo National Park”. They argue
that the development of resorts, villas, restaurants, and all supporting facilities inside theconservation territory is fundamentally contradictive to the conservation principles thatthey have supported (GMPKP Statement, February 2020).
They also criticize the policy to make Komodo islands an exclusive and superpremium site with USD 1000 entrance fee collected by PT Flobamor and its associates; apolicy that involves the relocation of the local communities. “Such policy,” they argue inthe manifestation, “is a form of business monopoly, a practice that is certainly harmful
for local communities in Komodo and all other tourism stakeholders in Labuan Bajo.” Inother parts of their statement, they criticize the plan to privatize the islets of Bero andMuang to become part of a Special Economic Zone (KEK) and demand the government
to officially abandon the plan to evict Komodo villagers in the name of conservation.
Komodo and Padar Islands, September-October 2020
In September 2020, we visited Komodo village again; this time to film the testimonies of“older generations” who were the eyewitnesses of the formation of the National Park in
the 1970-1980. Among our key interlocutors were Bapa Magu (60) and Bapa Arsad (HajiAmin) (66). Magu’s father worked with Auffenberg during his extended fieldwork in
Komodo between 1960-1980. Hence, he has a vivid memory of the one of the extended
studies about the dragon. Arsad was an assistant to Dutch anthropologist J.A.J Verheijen
whose book is the only monograph written on Ata Modo, their land, and language (1987).
They recalled the formation of the national park as “a violent and inhuman process.”
They describe living under the national park authority as “living under colonialism.”
ASITA (Association of Indonesian Tour and Travel Agencies) Manggarai Barat branch,
ASKAWI (Association of Tourist Boats), HPI (Indonesian Tour Guide Association) Labuan Bajo
branch, FORMAPP (Community Forum on Tourism), P3Kom (Association of Professional
Divers of Komodo), DOCK (Dive Operators Community), AWSTAR (Association of Land
Tourism Transport), Garda Pemuda Komodo (Komodo Youth Association), Kompas Rinca(Rinca Community Based Tourism Initiative) and NGO Sunspirit for Justice and Peace.
9

13

13

Bapa Magu guided us to important sites in Loh Liang, showing us the location of
the lodok of their Lingko, the living fences of their garden, and the old graves of theirrelatives in the area that is now claimed as the National Park. Bapa Arshad, who remains
a fisherman until today, told us his personal stories of conflict with the National Park's
patrol force. “Now and then, they approach me on my boat, saying ‘don’t fish here, youwill destroy the corals’.” In response to them, he said, “Look, it is not the coral that isafraid of my fishing net; it is my fishing net that is afraid of the coral. The fishing net
costs 5 million rupiahs.” He added that it is in the interest of traditional fishingcommunities to take care of the coral, and hence fishing should not be forbidden.
When we asked Magu and Arshad whether they have heard of PT KWE, which has been
granted a concession to open a resort in their village, both said yes. They were invited tothe consultation, and they have given their consent. “Look, my generation will soon begone. We have suffered a lot. If the company is better than the national park, let them
open a hotel here. My children and grandchildren can work there,” said Magu. Magu andArshad also noted that the company promised to open a senior high school, give some
portions of the revenue to the village, and ensure that Komodo's youth will work there.
During our stay in the village, we run into a field team of PT KWE who was preparing
the community for a kick start event for their project in Padar island.
In Loh Liang, after touring their former lodok, we showed Magu PT KWE’s concession
map, which overlaps with their former lodok. Surprised, he said, “They never show us
this map. We do not know that they give this location to the company.”Some membersof Garda Komodo and Pokdarwis, who accompanied us during the visit to Loh Liang
told him, “We need to talk more about this,” which he replied with “Yes, if the company
brings us another bad thing, we have to refuse it.”Two weeks after, on October 9, we heard that PT KWE conducted a so-called “prosesi
adat dan doa meminta restu leluhur Ata Modo” (an adat procession and prayers to ask
the consent of the Ata Modo ancestors) as an important step before starting theirconstruction. Local authorities (district head, police, and military officers) attended theprocession.10 From the communities’ side, two groups with different agendas attended:
one to participate and support the ritual and the other to protest. Not surprisingly, or
should we say surprisingly, Magu and Amin were among the rituals' supporters. Akbar
and other youths from Garda Komodo who protested asked the company to “come tothe village and do another consultation process that involves everyone.” In their written
statement, Garda demands that the central government “recognizes and facilitates activerole of the Komodo community in conservation and tourism efforts.”11This wide array of mobilization on one hand and an inclination to collaborate with thecorporation on the other shows four significant dynamics. Firstly, against the state's
privatization schemes, international conservation businesses, and corporate actors, local
communities strive to defend their access and benefit to the park as new commons. In
addition to indigenous claims over the terrestrial and marine territory, they uphold theiractive participation in the communities-owned tourism endeavors and gain benefits frominvestments. Secondly, using conservation and sustainable development as theirhttps://hariansiber.com/pt‐kwe‐menggelar‐porosesi‐adat‐dan‐doa‐bersama‐di‐pulau‐padar/,retrieved 18 October 2020.

10

11

Written Statement, Garda Komodo, 9 October 2020.

14

14

framework— a paradigm that they adopted from the conservationists to revive theirintimate and non-capitalist connection to the territory and the ecosystem, including the
komodo— these local actors refashion themselves as the guardians of Komodo dragons
and its ecosystem. Under this framework, they demand active participation both inconservation and tourism endeavors.
Thirdly, local communities perceive the state and corporate actors with their neoliberalland-use paradigm as predatory and enemies of conservation and community tourism.
Such a strategy serves to de-legitimatize the state and corporate actors, on the one hand,and consolidate their agency as true champions of conservation and sustainable
tourism. Fourthly, as illustrated in the current controversy over PT KWE in Padar, actors
in the Komodo community deploy different strategies for engaging and disengaging withprivate interests. While some actors refuse to collaborate with corporations, others see
collaboration as a way to get the benefit of ecotourism. On a deeper level, there is aconsensus among these divergent groups that their agrarian rights and their benefits
from ecotourism should be enhanced. All these dynamics show that local communities
have developed their own vision and paradigm of conservation and ecotourism toprotect the park as a new commons, to claim access to and benefit from tourism
business, and to prevent new waves of accumulation in the name of conservation andnature tourism development.
Conclusion
The confluence of tourism and conservation in the Komodo National Park haveresulted in puzzling waves of environmental and social transformation in the islands ofFlores. The creation of the national park in 1980 had put an end to traditional commonsfor the native population through enclosure, dispossession, and dissolution of the
traditional commons. Under the authority of the state (still without involvement ofprivate companies), this process has transformed the area into a new type of commonswith new ecological and economic values (through conservation and tourism), although
limited. Here, we see that conservation has generated a new social formation and new
livelihood opportunity for the native population in the tourism sector. The recent
ecotourism development, however, has induced new waves of dispossession, enclosure,and dissolution of the new commons. Introduced through the language of ecotourism,
these development projects epitomize exclusionary practices of accumulation bydispossession and displacement. Ecotourism, thus, triggers new waves of green and blue
grabbing. Most importantly, however, the Indonesian government together with its
private partners introduces a capitalist accumulation that benefits powerful tourism
players at the expense of the communities and less powerful actors. The underlying
dynamics at play, we argue, is fundamentally a power struggle for control over Komodo
National Park, not only as a territory/land and its traditional use, but also as newcommons; i.e. as a territory of new ecological and economic values, especially its tourism
values.
In response to these new waves, interestingly, local communities have not only
evoked their tribal rights as the primary owners and guardians of the ecosystems. But
also, they have strategically appropriated the discourse of conservation and ecotourism,
and used it to fight privatization and dispossession and to defend the park as a new15

15

commons. Right at the center of the contestation is the issue of ownership, access, andbenefit, both of the resources (the conservation area and its biodiversity) and its
industrialization and capitalization (ecotourism business in the conservation area). While
local communities are clearly to be put in a marginalized position by the state andcorporate actors, they assert their political agency to strengthen their claim and halt
capital expansion in the conservation frontiers. They also negotiate better terms and analternative conservation and ecotourism practice that will benefit them and serve a multispecies survival in the islands of Flores.
Both in the hands of the state and their corporate associates and the local
communities, the puzzling confluence of conservation and ecotourism in the islands ofFlores produces a contingent process that will continue to define social andenvironmental power dynamics in the islands of Flores in the years to come.

Bibliography
Allerton, Catherine (2016). Potent landscapes: Place and mobility in eastern Indonesia. Honolulu :University of Hawai'i Press.
Auffenberg, Walter. (1981). The behavioral ecology of the Komodo monitor.
Gainesville: University Presses of Florida.
Barnard, Timothy P. (2011). Protecting the Dragon: Dutch Attempts at Limiting Accessto Komodo Lizards in the 1920s and 1930s. Indonesia, (92), 97-123.
Benjaminsen, Tor Arve, and Ian Bryceson. 2012. "Conservation, green/blue grabbing
and accumulation by dispossession in Tanzania". Journal of Peasant Studies. 39 (2):335-355.
Bonnie J. McCay (2001) “Community and the Commons: Romantic and Other Views,”
in Arun Agrawal and Clark C. Gibson, eds. Communities and the Environment:
Ethnicity, Gender, and the State in Community-Based Conservation, Rutgers
University Press.
Borchers, H. (2008). Dragon tourism revisited: The sustainability of tourism
development in Komodo National Park. In M. Hitchcock, V. T. King, & M.
Parnwell (Eds.), Tourism in Southeast Asia: Challenges and new directions (pp. 270-285).
Copenhagen, Denmark: NIAS Press.
Brandon, K. (1996). “Ecotourism and Conservation: A Review of Key Issues” in WorldBank Environment Department Paper No. 033. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Brockington D, Igoe J. (2006). “Eviction for Conservation: A Global Overview.”
Conservation Sociology 4:424-70.
Cochrane, J. (2009). New directions in Indonesia’s ecotourism. In M. Hitchcock, V. T.
King, & M. Parnwell (Eds.), Tourism in Southeast Asia: Challenges and new directions(pp. 254 269). Copenhagen, Denmark: Nias Press.
Cochrane, J. (2013). Exit the dragon: Collapse of co-management at Komodo nationalpark. Tourism Recreation Research, 38(2), 127-143.
Cole, S. (2008). Tourism, culture and development: Hopes, dreams and realities in East Indonesia.
Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publications.
Cole, Stroma, and Nigel Morgan (2010). Tourism and inequality: problems and prospects.
Wallingford, Oxfordshire: CABI.
16

16

Dale, C. J. P (2013) Kuasa, Pembangungan dan Pemiskinan Sistemik, Flores: Sunspirit.
Das, M., & Chatterjee, B. (2015). “Ecotourism and Empowerment: A Case Analysis of
Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary, Odisha, India.” IIM Kozhikode Society &Management Review, 4(2): 136–145.
Erb, M. (1999). The Manggaraians: A guide to traditional lifestyles. Shah Alam: Times Editions.
Erb, M. (2012). The Dissonance of Conservation: Environmentalities and theenvironmentalisms of the poor in eastern Indonesia. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology,
25, 3-15.
Erb, M. (2015). Sailing to Komodo: Contradictions of tourism and development ineastern Indonesia. ASEAS – Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies, 8(2), 143164.
Fairhead, James, et.al. (2012) Green Grabbing: a new appropriation of nature?,The
Journal of Peasant Studies, 39:2, 237-261,
Flores Documentary Network (FDN) (2019) Video Series on Komodo Community.
Film.
Gustave, R. & Borchers, H. (2007). Conservation and conflict in Komodo National Park.
In N. Sodhi, G. Acciaioli, M. Erb, & A. K. J. Tan (Eds.), Biodiversity and human
livelihoods in protected areas: Case studies from the Malay Archipelago (pp. 187-202).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hall, Derek, Philip Hirsch, and Tania Li. (2013). Powers of exclusion: land dilemmas inSoutheast Asia. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.
Hardin, Garreth. (1968) “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Science, vol. 162, 1968, pp.
1243-8.
Harvey, David (2013, 2005) The new imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Henschke, Rebecca and Wijaya, Callistasia. 2019. “The Fight for Dragon Island.” BBC
Report.
(https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/5bBE5791M9/The_fight_for_Dragon_Island), retrieved 20 March 2020
Kelly, A.B. (2011). Conservation practice as primitive accumulation. Journal of PeasantStudies, 38(4), 683–701.
Kirsch, S. (2018). Engaged Anthropology: Politics beyond the Text. Oakland, California:
University of California Press.
KNP and TNC (2000). 25 Years Management Plan, Bali: KNP and TNC.
KNP and TNC (2010). Resource Use Monitoring Trend in PNK, Bali: KNP and TNC.
Lasso, Aldi and Dahles, Heidi. (2018). Are tourism livelihoods sustainable? Tourism
development and economic transformation on Komodo Island, Indonesia. Asia
Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 23:5, 473-485
Marx, K. (1977) [1867]. Capital. Vol. I. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Nancy Lee Peluso & Christian Lund (2011) New frontiers of land control: Introduction,
Journal of Peasant Studies, 38:4, 667-681,
Pannell, S. (2013). “Nature and culture in a global context: A case study from World
Heritage Listed Komodo National Park, eastern Indonesia” in Transcending the
Culture–Nature Divide in Cultural Heritage, ed. By, Sally Brockwell, Sue
O’Connor & Denis Byrne, Cambera: ANU E Press

17

17

Spergel, Barry. (2001). Raising Revenues for Protected Areas. Washington, D.C.: WWF Centerfor Conservation Finance.
Sunspirit and Floresa, (2019). “Tutup TNK: langkah bijak Laiskodat?”
https://sunspiritforjusticeandpeace.org/2019/05/11/1036/, retrieved 30 March2020.
TNC and TNK. (2004). Progress report on The Nature Conservancy’s Komodo marine
conservation project - July 2004, Denpasar: TNC, TNK, and Kementrian
Lingkungan Hidup.
UNWTO. (2002). UN Declaration on Sustainable Tourism. New York: the United Nations.
Verheijen, J.A.J. (1984). Komodo: Tanah, Rakyat, dan Bahasanya. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka.
Wearing, Stephen and Neil John. (2009). Ecotourism: impacts, potentials and possibilities (2nded.). Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
West P, Igoe J, Brockington D (2006). “Parks and Peoples: The Social Impact ofProtected Areas”, Annual Review of Anthropology. 2006(35):251-277.
West, Paige. 2016. Dispossession and the Environment: Rhetoric and Inequality in Papua New
Guinea. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

18

18