Photo by Author.

President Jokowi explained that the new capital, IKN, was envisioned not merely as a new seat of government but as a model for a future city designed with the concept of a forest city—a place dominated by greenery rather than concrete and glass.

This statement, published on the official presidential website, sounded deeply convincing. Jokowi further described IKN as a smart city, where all activities would be supported by modern technology, and at the same time a liveable city with a healthy environment and clean air. At first glance, such rhetoric makes IKN appear to be a dream project that will lead Indonesia into a new era of civilization. Yet behind these green promises, the reality in Kalimantan reveals deforestation, the loss of living spaces, and the looming threat of displacement for Indigenous communities. The crucial question, then, is this: can a truly sustainable city be born out of deforestation and the marginalization of local people?

Green Promises: The Green City that was Promised

According to the blueprint for Nusantara as a smart city, IKN is envisioned as a world-class city for all. The government emphasizes that this new capital will be built on the principles of sustainability: managing natural resources efficiently, using energy and water wisely, developing an integrated transportation system, and ensuring sanitation and housing that are healthy, comfortable, and safe. This grand vision is translated into impressive figures: more than 84 percent of IKN’s territory is designated as green space, with 65 percent set aside as protected areas and 10 percent for food production. Out of a total land area of about 256,000 hectares, this proportion is claimed to safeguard ecosystems while supporting Sustainable Development Goal 15 on terrestrial ecosystem conservation.

In terms of jargon, narrative, and claims, IKN is portrayed as being firmly committed to building a green and sustainable capital. Yet, is this foundation of development truly aligned with global trends in sustainable cities? In its official handbook, the government compares IKN to two precedents: Brazil and Australia. Brazil relocated its capital from Rio de Janeiro to Brasília, roughly 934 kilometers inland, to renew national pride while shifting the economic and political center of gravity from a colonial Atlantic coast to the heart of the country. Brasília’s Master Plan was designed in a modern style, shaped like an airplane as a symbol of the jet age, with more than half of its territory dedicated to green open spaces, parks, botanical gardens, and sports facilities.

A similar story can be found in Australia, where Melbourne and Sydney once vied for the capital. Canberra was chosen as a compromise, with a city design born from an international competition in 1911 that emphasized harmony with the landscape, urban beauty, abundant open space, and the establishment of the Australian National University as a driver of economic development.

If Brasília and Canberra succeeded in becoming symbols of modernity and national identity, the critical question is this: can IKN truly deliver on its green and sustainable promises, or will it fall into the paradox between rhetoric and reality on the ground?

Grey Reality: When Green Cities Turn Grey

A report from the East-West Center highlights a crucial contradiction in the development of IKN. Although the new capital is being built on state forest concession land and officially labeled as degraded forest, it nonetheless involves significant changes to land cover. The report also warns of risks to biodiversity: roughly 16 percent of mammal habitats under threat are located within a 200-kilometer radius of IKN and could be directly affected. This danger is amplified by the fact that Kalimantan is a global biodiversity hotspot. Urban development and its supporting infrastructure carry the risk of disrupting critical habitats, escalating wildlife poaching, illegal logging, and land clearing, all of which threaten the survival of endangered species.

On another front, Greenpeace Indonesia campaigner Rio Rompas pointed out that the “green forest” seen in NASA satellite imagery is, in reality, eucalyptus plantation, while the natural forests in the core area of IKN had long been replaced by industrial tree plantations. Beyond the core zone, further deforestation also looms, with about 31,000 hectares—roughly half the size of Jakarta—at risk of disappearing due to land clearing for the capital’s expansion.

The issue does not end with deforestation. Indigenous communities are also under direct threat from IKN’s construction. Darmawi, a member of the Balik and Paser Maridan peoples in Sepaku District, East Kalimantan, described how they have been forcibly displaced from their ancestral lands. These lands, passed down through generations and home to ancestral graves and sacred ritual sites, were suddenly claimed by the state for infrastructure projects without meaningful consultation or consent. Project signboards—some labeled “Property of the National Police Headquarters”—now stand across areas that include mangrove forests, burial grounds, and spiritual sites such as Batu Tukar Nondoi and Bakau Lemit, many of which have already been destroyed or are under severe threat. Communities that once lived in harmony with nature, never lacking food or resources, now feel powerless as their living space shrinks, their cultural identity erodes, and their very sources of life come under siege.

When the Green Promise Becomes a Tool of Legitimacy

While the IKN claims to integrate green promises into its speeches, sustainability is projected alongside deforestation, habitat destruction, and socio-economically, the neglect of Indigenous populations. There is a gap, and this contradiction is the IKN's concern. This shows that the green narrative is not simply a development discourse. There is politics and strategy behind the IKN's green promises: they conceal obligations, downplay criticism, and dismiss controversial projects out of the question.

The repeated use of the terms forest city, green city, and sustainability is a well-paid slogan by the state that serves a dual function. First, it is intended to maintain the progressive image that Indonesia presents to the outside world. However, in the context of the IKN as a development project, it is designed to address the reality of deforestation and population displacement. In the context of green promises, the gap between what the government claims is 84 percent green space and the absence of these features "on the ground" is the operational definition of greenwashing.

According to Mulvaney & Robbins (2011) in "Green Politics: An A-to-Z Guide," governments and corporations engage in greenwashing to appear to champion environmental issues, while, in reality, doing the opposite. It's important to note that in assessing the extent to which an organization is environmentally conscious, the principles of information and change suppression, along with negative impact and damage control, are what define the organization as a "green," "sustainable," or "environmentally friendly" narrative.

In analyzing the IKN case, the promises made by the MP and his administration are exaggerated and misguided about the IKN's green and inclusive urban core. They overstate the advanced civic centers, talking about the urban mesquite complex code in a way that drains the means of improvement to enforce the green narrative rather than using it to control the beltway. Greenwashing, then, is not merely a communication tactic but a political instrument, effective in silencing critique, attracting public support, and reinforcing the status quo.

It is important to note that IKN’s green narrative reveals its dual face: promising sustainability on one side, while concealing deforestation and the marginalization of Indigenous peoples on the other. This paradox demonstrates that green promises must be understood not simply as visions of development, but as political strategies laden with interests. As a closing reflection, this leads us to one final question: can a truly sustainable city ever be born out of deforestation and the marginalization of Indigenous communities?