Universal heritage meets local livelihoods: ‘awkward engagements’ at the world cultural heritage listing in Bali

Abstract

In 2012 the UNESCO World Heritage Committee added to its World Heritage List the ‘Cultural Landscape of Bali Province: the subak system as a manifestation of the Tri Hita Karana Philosophy’. Barely a year later, UNESCO had become sufficiently concerned about reports of various problems that it advised the Government of Indonesia of these concerns. Through ethnographic study of the initial implementation of the listing, this article reveals problems of uncontrolled development, and disputes over the allocation of benefits to local communities, and challenges to effective governance. It focuses on two key locations of the site, offering an analysis of problems, their causes and effects. Beginning with the premise that the gulf of understanding between the global World Heritage system and local communities often creates a range of unintended consequences, this article reveals the many ‘awkward engagements’ that have emerged ‘on the ground’ in Bali as local agencies of government are left to their own devices to manage the World Heritage site.

Keywords:

• Intangible heritage
• cultural landscape
• living heritage
• heritage management
• friction

Acknowledgements

Various people have contributed to this work in various ways, including I.W. Alit Arthawiguna, Stephen Lansing, the pekaseh and farmers of subaks Jatiluwih, Pulagen, Kulub (Atas and Bawah, past and present), Anton Muhajir, the head and staff of Dinas Kebudayaan Gianyar, Masril Koto, Nonette Royo, Albert Salamanca, Wiwik Dharmiasih (almost) and especially Prof W. Windia. My research in Bali (over the years) has been partially funded by the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) and Udayana University, and Auckland, Massey and Melbourne universities have contributed to funding of my research over the years. Finally, my thanks to the editor and reviewers of this journal for a rigorous process and good advice which has produced a better article. While not all may agree with my interpretations, I am grateful to all and any errors are my own.

Notes

1. The understandings on which this article is based include over two decades of ethnographic research in Bali, much of it on rice farming as well as casual observation of the unfolding WH process over many years. More specifically, it is based on multiple visits to both sites in 2015 and 2016, conversations with some of the key people at these sites, involved in the application for WH listing and at the various levels mediating between them, as well as perusal of key documents, many of which are publicly available.

2. While this kind of understanding of the heritage system has long been established in the more critical literature of heritage studies (e.g. Graham, Ashworth, and Tonbridge 2000; Harvey 2001; Smith 2006; Labadi 2013) my point of departure is that the practice of the system is less critically informed and tends to reinforce the problems that flow from this practice.

3. There has since been a substantial reconfiguration of the system of ministries in Indonesia and the one now with primary responsibility for Cultural Heritage listings is the Ministry of Culture.

4. For a map of these sites see http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1194/multiple=1&unique_number=1836

5. The post-Suharto decentralisation and fragmentation of Indonesian administrative structures has been extensively documented and discussed. Standard references include Aspinall and Fealy (2003), Holtzappel and Ramstedt (2009), Aspinall and Mietzner (2010), Erb, Faucher, and Sulistiyanto (2013).

6. The ongoing situation in Jatiluwih is a matter of public record. My account here is based largely on published sources supplemented by personal communications with interested parties and a brief visit in mid-2015.

7. Badan Pengelolah Daya Tarik Wisata Jatiluwih (BPDTW) = Jatiluwih Tourist Attraction Management Body.

8. These broad figures were told to me by the pekaseh of Subak Jatiluwih and are consistent with those of Sri Widari (2015). At the time or writing US$1 was worth around Rp. 13,000.

9. My generalisations about farmers’ views are based primarily on conversation with the pekaseh of Subak Jatiluwih, but they are consistent with brief conversations with other farmers, the well-informed views of Prof. W. Windia, an (anonymous) activist/journalist and several media reports.

10. This information was provided directly by some of the people involved, who need not be identified here.

11. This account is based on a series of visits in 2015 and 2016. These included several conversations with the pekaseh of the subaks involved as well as with staff of the Gianyar branch of Department of Culture, Prof. W Windia and one of his colleagues at Udayana University. I was also present at the meeting described below.

12. SRI (System of Rice Intensification) is a flexible package of low-tech methods for improving productivity and reducing water and fertiliser inputs. It was developed by a French priest in Madagascar in the 1980s, but has since been widely disseminated across tropical Asia (http://sri.ciifad.cornell.edu/aboutsri/aboutus/).