Table Of ContentGeoforum 99 (2019) 32–41
ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
Geoforum
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum
Sociocarbon cycles: Assembling and governing forest carbon in Indonesia
T
Andrew McGregora,⁎, Edward Challiesb, Amanda Thomasc, Rini Astutid, Peter Howsone,
Suraya Afifff, Sara Kindonc, Sophie Bondg
aMacquarieUniversity,BalaclavaRoad,NorthRyde,NSW2109,Australia
bUniversityofCanterbury,PrivateBag4800,Christchurch8140,NewZealand
cVictoriaUniversityofWellington,Kelburn,Wellington6012,NewZealand
dNationalUniversityofSingapore,21LowerKentRidgeRoad,Singapore119077,Singapore
eNorthumbriaUniversity,Newcastle-upon-TyneNE18ST,UnitedKingdom
fUniversitasIndonesia,KampusBaruUIDepok,JawaBarat16424,Indonesia
gUniversityofOtago,POBox56,Dunedin9054,NewZealand
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
Keywords: AsIndonesia’sREDD+(ReducingEmissionsfromDeforestationandforestDegradation)programunfolds,itis
REDD+ transformingpeopleandplacesinunexpectedways,andreconfiguringhumanandnon-humanprocesses.Inthis
Socionature paperwerecognizethatforestcarbongovernanceisaboutmuchmorethancarbon.Reflectingonobservations
Carbongovernance from research in Indonesia, we develop the concept of sociocarbon cycles in an effort to move beyond the
Geometriesofpower
human-naturedualismsthatcharacterizemuchworkonREDD+.Weseecarbongovernanceasemergentsetsof
Forestcarbon
arrangementsthatarecontinuallytestedandchallengedthroughtheagencyofdiversehumanandnon-human
Indonesia
actors.Drawingoninsightsfromtheliteratureonsocionatures,andinparticularonworkonhydrosocialcycles,
weapproachcarbonasasocionaturalachievement,constitutedthroughrelationsamonginstitutions,carbon
technologies, and C atoms. Our approach recasts REDD+ as an inherently political program, rather than a
techno-scientific response to climate change. This, we contend, opens up new ways of conceptualizing and
approachingcarbon.Asociocarbonlenshighlightstheimportanceofsocialresearchinreconceptualisingbio-
physicalcarboncycles;bringsquestionsofjusticeandpowertothefore(whowinsandwholosesfromcarbon
initiatives);andaidsinunderstandingwhatcarbonis,howitismadeknown,andhowcompetingcarbonclaims
aresustained.Wesuggestthatasociocarbonlensprovidesmultiplepointsofentrytopursuemorejustgeo-
metriesofpower.
1. Introduction time the women have received support for small scale food and han-
dicraft production to develop income streams that are not reliant on
In the small village of Pendulangan, on the edge of Indonesia’s forest degradation, or more particularly forest carbon degradation.
Sungai Lamandau Wildlife Reserve in Central Kalimantan, a middle- These encounters with orangutans are endured in pursuit of a com-
agedwomanreflectsonrecentencounterswithorangutans.Theyoften munity-based forest carbon project where social and biodiversity ‘co-
emergefromtheforestnearby,sometimesransackinghousesinsearch benefits’arepositionedasuniquesellingpointsforthecarboncredits
of food. Various strategies have been used to deter the orangutans. generatedthroughtheproject.
Sometimes they are provided with a small amount of food and en- In the village of Bahanei, also in Central Kalimantan, efforts to
couraged to move on. At other times they may be hit with sticks or governforestcarbonhaveresultedinsomeyoungpeoplebeingtrained
scalded with boiling water as people try to turn them away from the intheuseofGeographicInformationSystems(GIS).Theyaremapping
village.Suchencountersarebecomingmore,ratherthanlesscommon, customaryland,seekingtogeographicallydeterminevillageboundaries
as oil palm expansion, habitat loss and conservation efforts drive or- andlanduses.ThedatatheycollectwillbeusedbyAliansiMasyarakat
angutan population growth in the adjacent reserve area. At the same AdatNusantara(AMAN)–theleadingIndigenousrightsorganizationin
⁎Correspondingauthor.
E-mailaddresses:[email protected](A.McGregor),[email protected](E.Challies),[email protected](A.Thomas),
[email protected](R.Astuti),[email protected](P.Howson),[email protected](S.Afiff),[email protected](S.Kindon),
[email protected](S.Bond).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.12.003
Received12December2017;Receivedinrevisedform11December2018;Accepted13December2018
Available online 06 January 2019
0016-7185/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.McGregor,etal. Geoforum 99 (2019) 32–41
Indonesia – to strengthenland claims and feed into the government’s formed between institutions, technologies, and C atoms to constitute
OneMapInitiative.TheInitiativeispartlyfundedbyforestcarbonfi- sociocarboncyclesandforestcarboninIndonesia,andtheirinfluence
nanceandisbeingdevelopedbytheIndonesiangovernmenttoclarify on existing geometries of power. The paper concludes with some re-
land tenure and generate ‘governable space’ for carbon investment flectionsontheadvantagesofthisapproachinaneraofclimatechange
(AstutiandMcGregor,2017).Othersarebeingtrainedinmonitoring, andglobalenvironmentalgovernance.
reportingandverificationtechnologiesthatenableforestcarbontobe
calculated and traded – forming new local institutions, opportunities 2. Socionatures
andpowerrelationslinkedtodistantcarbonmarkets.
Theseencounters,activities,livelihoods,maps,animals,plants,and The tenacious human-nature dualism that pervades so much
forests are entangled with efforts to govern carbon through the modernthoughtandpracticehascomeundersustainedcriticismover
ReducingEmissionsfromDeforestationandforestDegradation(REDD the past few decades (Bennett, 2010; Haraway, 2008; Latour, 1993;
+)program.BroadlydefinedREDD+isamultibilliondollarinterna- Whatmore, 2002). Critics have challenged the idea that there is a
tionalinitiativewhoseprimaryaimistoreduceemissionsfromdefor- knowablenature‘outthere’thatisdistinctfromandseparatetohuman
estation and forest degradation and enhance carbon stocks in devel- society, and that human activity and society can be abstracted or re-
oping countries (Angelsen et al., 2012:381). REDD+ was originally moved from the broader contexts in which they are embedded. It is
designedtoprovideeconomiccompensationtoforestownersforpro- arguedinsteadthathumansandnon-humansareinseparablyentangled
tecting forests, by making them “more valuable standing than cut in diverse relations that evolve, or become, together. Narratives of
down” (Katerere, 2010:105). However, REDD+ continues to morph humanexceptionalismarecritiquedandattentionisinsteadbeingdi-
fromitsoriginalconception,buildingonexistingprojectsandrelations rected to broader more-than-human assemblages through which the
to incorporate a much wider array of activities and meanings, trans- worldbecomes.Traditionalacademicdivisionsoflabourthatenabled
formingpeopleandplacesinunexpectedways. the‘natural’sciencestofocusonthebio-physicaldimensionsofnature,
While biodiversity, community development and customary map- and the social sciences upon the workings of society and culture, are
pingprojectshavelonghistoriesinIndonesia,forestcarbonfinanceis collapsed as the relations between material and discursiveworlds be-
altering their focus and expanding their reach. If Indonesia abandons comemoreapparent(Latour,1993).
REDD+anditsattemptstogovernforestcarbontheselives,livelihoods Thereisnowanextensiveliteratureexperimentingwiththeseways
andtechnologiesbecomemoreprecarious,dependingonfutureforest ofknowingtheworld.SomeIndigenousresearchers,forexample,have
governance priorities. Similarly, if orangutan populations decline, or described the complex entanglements involving humans and non-hu-
cottage industries fail, or customary land claims are denied, or fire mans and the non-human agencies that compose worlds in difference
breaks out, carbon governance also becomes more precarious, and ways (see Watson and Huntington, 2008). In parallel, but often with
forestcarbonprojectsarelikelytofail.Assuch,carbongovernanceis limited engagement with existing Indigenous literature (Todd, 2016),
aboutmuchmorethancarbon.Itinvolvesarranginghumansandnon- novel terms like hybridity, assemblage, co-production, more-than-
humansinwaysthatcreateverifiableforestcarbonbenefits.Weusethe human, post-human, socio-material, global ecology and socionatures
termnon-humantorefertotheentities,ecologies,processesandphe- haveemergedasconceptualtoolstoexploresuchrelations.Related,but
nomena that have the capacity to occur or continue independent of distinct concepts, such as Coupled Human and Natural Systems
humans. This capacity ensures that carbon governance is a dynamic (CHANS) (Liu et al., 2007) and socioecological systems (Folke et al.,
process where the relations and agency of human (e.g. foresters, in- 2005),thatseek(withvaryingdegreesofsuccess)tobridgethehuman
vestors, communities) and non-human actors (e.g. fire, orangutans, naturedivide,arefindingtheirwayintopolicycontexts.Inthispaper,
soils)continuouslytestandchallengethosearrangements. weusethetermsocionaturestorefertothisbroadbodyofworkfocused
Inthispaperwedrawontheseandotherpilotprojectstounsettle on the hybrid more-than-human constitution of contemporary phe-
the human-nature dualism that underlies REDD+ and many other nomena.
programs of global environmental governance (Howell, 2013). We Perhapsthemostimportantinsightsfromthesebodiesofworkre-
proposeanewconceptualmodel–whichwecallthesociocarboncycle late to agency and materiality (Bakker and Bridge, 2006). Common
– as an alternative way of understanding and pursuing carbon gov- conceptions of agency associate it with intentionality, and therefore
ernance.Themodeltakesinspirationfrom,andbuildsupon,Lintonand predominantly (although not exclusively) with human actorswho ex-
Budds’ (2014) conceptualization of the hydrosocial cycle, with which press agency through their decision-making, strategy and behaviour.
we see strong parallels. We approach carbon as a socionatural Within socionatural work, agency is considered more in terms of the
achievement, held together through a set of embedded cyclical rela- sets of relations that produce particular outcomes and is conceived
tions,ratherthananisolatableentityexistingindependentofcontext. more broadly through the ability to shape the world. As such agency
Indevelopingasociocarbonapproachweseektomakesuchrelations, extendsbeyondthehuman,asitnolongerrequiresconsciousdecision-
andtheissuestowhichtheygiverise,morevisibleforresearchersand making (while recognizing that many non-human life forms possess
practitioners. This allows technical projects of global environmental consciousness).Insteadagencyderivesfrommaterialrelationsbetween
governance to be considered in much more integrated ways that go things–whatJaneBennett(2010)referstoasvitalmaterialism.Asa
beyondwell-troddendebatesbetweencriticalanti-REDD+researchers simpleexamplerainhasagencyinthatitenablesplantstogrowwhich
and pro-REDD+ practitioners (McGregor et al., 2015). Our approach thenprovidesfoodforinsects,animalsandruraleconomies,orraincan
emphasizes that attempts to manage and control carbon are simulta- work with soil and rivers to cause flooding or riverbank erosion – in
neouslyeffortstomanageandcontrolsociety. both cases rain is actively producing and reworking the world. Rain
In what follows we briefly review some key insights from the so- events are also outcomes of different material agencies – such as cli-
cionaturesliteraturethatcontesthuman-naturedualisms.Wecannotdo maticconditionsandevaporativeprocesses.Themodernistviewofthe
justicetothebreadthanddepthofthisrapidlyunfoldingfieldbutdraw worldasasetofdeanimatedobjectsuponwhichhumansimposetheir
some general insights to highlight problems within dominant ap- will, is transformed into amuch richer animated worldof vibrant in-
proaches to forest carbon. We then explore how a socionatures ap- teractingagenciesofwhichhumansareapart(Latour,2014).Humans,
proach may provide additional insights for forest carbon governance orangutans, birds, trees, winds, maps, vehicles and roads, all exhibit
anddeveloptheconceptofasociocarboncycle.Thesubsequentsection this more diffuse form of agency, continually negotiating and re-
places the research in Indonesia, where we apply the concept of the spondingtothedynamismofoneanother.
sociocarbon cycle to better understand how REDD+ is transforming Democratisingagencyinthiswayraisesquestionsabouthowsetsof
carbon governance in the country. We focus on relations that have relationscometobearrangedinwaysthatenableparticularoutcomes.
33
A.McGregor,etal. Geoforum 99 (2019) 32–41
The concept of assemblage provides a conceptual framework for
thinkingthroughhowsetsofrelationsformandaresustained.Drawing
on the work of Deleuze and Guattari (1987), Müller (2015:28) inter-
pretsassemblageas“amodeoforderingheterogeneousentitiessothat
they work together for a certain time” towards particular ends. Their
heterogeneity means “humans, animals, things and ideas” (Müller,
2015:29) co-constitute assemblages, and that no one component is
necessarilyincharge,insteadtheyareco-evolvingaccordingtointer-
actionsamongcomponentparts.Thisleadstoinstability,withassem-
blages continuallyforming,reforminganddis-assembling,therebyin-
viting investigations into the “hard work required to draw
heterogeneous elements together… and [how to] sustain these con-
nectionsinthefaceoftension”(Li,2007:264).
The agencies of forests in absorbing carbon dioxide or providing
habitats are dependent on evolving assemblages (including laws, po-
licies,politics,weather,climate,fire,photosynthesis,orangutans,cus-
tomsandpractices)thatshapehowtheforestgrows.Theremovalofor
change in any part of that assemblage – such as a change of govern-
ment,anewlandtitle,adrought,anextinction,oraforestfire–affects
thewhole.Researchershaveanalysedhowandwhyassemblagesform
andholdtogether(Li,2007),processesofconfiguration(McGuirketal.,
2016),andthegeometriesofpowerthatproduceandareproducedby Fig.1.Thebiophysicalcarboncycle.
them(Swyngedouw,2005).Byfocusingongeometriesofpower,which
wetreathereasthespatializedsetsofpowerrelationsthatshapehow
andwhereassemblagesformandthestrategiestheyadopt,researchers adaptationmechanismsinherentinresourcemanagement–something
can “push beyond merely recognizing and describing socioecological lessexplicitlyrecognizedinanassemblage-styleapproach.
dynamics(inalltheircomplexity)towardevaluatingthem”(Mansfield The biophysical carbon cycle is a well-established concept within
etal.,2015:292).FollowingMassey(2009:19)powergeometriespro- the earth sciences that tracks the journey of carbon atoms as they
videsameans“throughwhichtoanalysetheworld,inorderperhaps,to transition through different biophysical forms – water, atmosphere,
highlight inequalities or deficiencies in democracy … [or] be an in- biomass, andearth (Fig. 1). Based ona mechanisticview of nature it
strumentthroughwhichtoimagine,andmaybetobegintobuild,more allows the movement of carbon to be predicted through increasingly
equal and democratic societies.” In this way agency becomes politi- sophisticated modelling. Much of the work by the Intergovernmental
cized,withparticularactorsinfluencingtheformationanddirectionof Panel onClimateChange (IPCC) focuses onunderstanding andcalcu-
assemblages towards progressive or regressive ends, via uneven en- lating changes to the cycle and the consequences of accumulating
counterswiththeagenciesofactorswithin. carbon(andothergreenhousegases)intheatmosphereunderarange
Concernsaboutglobalclimatechangehavesparkedcriticalinterest of scenarios. Such work has highlighted human influences in con-
in the materialities and assemblages involved in efforts to govern tributingtoandrespondingtochangesinthecarboncycle,howeverthe
carbon. Bumpus (2011), for example, has explored the socionatural- conceptualdistinctionbetweenhumansandnatureismaintained–itis
technicalcomplexesrequiredtocalculateandproducecarbonoffsets, humanimpactsonthecarboncycleanditsimpactonhumansthatare
wherethematerialitiesofcarbonshapethetype,complexityandcosts of interest. The carbon cycle is depicted as an object or predictable
of the assemblages required. Carbon trapped in refrigeration units as process separate from, and ultimately controllable through, human
HCFCsismuchmorecooperativeandcalculable,fromagovernanceor ingenuity.
management perspective, than carbon found in forests, where human The pervasive and seemingly immutable challenges of climate
andnon-humanagenciesshapeprocessesofcarbonsequestrationand change, however, encourage novel approaches that stress the inter-
storage.Lansing(2012)outlinestheintricateandfragileperformativ- connectedness of humans with the biophysical carbon cycle. Rather
ities required to fix, map and calculate forest carbon, and how these thanbeingdistinctfromhumansocieties,carbonisanessentialelement
actions come to constitute carbon economies, subjectivities, cultures, within them. Soil carbon influences plant growth, biodiversity and
and communities. From a socionatures perspective then, carbon gov- agricultural production; fossil and ocean floor carbon have powered
ernanceinvolvessetsofworld-makingpracticesthatattempttoarrange industrial revolutions, colonialism, and wars (Mitchell, 2011); ocean
unruly assemblages of diverse human and non-human actors in ways carbon is essential for microalgae, fish, estuaries, and fisheries; and
that enable carbon to materialize in particular biophysical states or atmosphericcarbonplaysamajorrolein(de)stabilizingclimatesandis
forms. nowthesubjectofarapidlyexpandingcarbonindustry.Whereandhow
carbonaccumulatesisinternallytiedtosocialorganizationanddevel-
3. Sociocarbon opment. The biophysical focus of the carbon cycle subtly diverts at-
tention away from these relationships, however it is now providing a
Oneofthechallengesforsocionaturesresearchersistotranslatethe useful way of linking seemingly unrelated activities. Whereas in the
often-dense writing around this topic into more accessible forms that past humans burned fuels or cleared land with little thought about
willbeofinterestandofusetopolicymakersandpractitionersgrap- carbonperse,theglobalperspectiveofclimatescienceconnectsthese
pling with challenges of environmental change. In this paper we re- activitiesinattemptstogovernatmosphericcarbon.However,carbon
spondtothischallengebyproposingtheideaofasociocarboncycleasa retainsa‘deanimated’status,asanobjectthatcanbegovernedandis
heuristicdeviceforthinkingaboutthehybridnatureofcarbonwithin separablefromhumansubjects(Latour,2014).Carbongovernancehas
carbon governance. We draw on the concept of a cycle for three rea- generallyfocusedeitheronmitigatingtheflowsofcarbonintotheat-
sons:itbuildsfromaconceptalreadyfamiliartomanygrapplingwith mosphere, or on minimizing impacts on human societies through
carbongovernance–thebiophysicalcarboncycle;itdrawsuponcon- adaptation.Marketmechanismstogoverncarbonfurtherencouragethe
ceptualworkalreadyconductedonthehydrosocialcycle,withwhich abstraction, calculation, standardization and trade of fungible carbon
we see strong parallels; and it captures the ongoing feedback and units, largely independent of the socionatural relationships in which
34
A.McGregor,etal. Geoforum 99 (2019) 32–41
theyareembedded(Lohmann,2011). institutions and social structures, emerging carbon technologies and
Oursociocarbonapproachpositionscarbonquitedifferently–em- infrastructure,andthevibrancyofCatomsindifferentmaterialforms.
phasizingitsinseparabilityfromthesocialandecologicalprocessesthat Changes in one part of the cycle, such as establishing an emissions
constitute it. We draw inspiration from Linton and Budds’ (2014) target,necessitatechangesinallotherpartsofthecycle.Thismayin-
conceptualization of the hydrosocial cycle where the geography, con- clude establishing a new monitoring body and associated policies,
stitutionandmeaningsofwhatweknowaswaterarepositionedasthe particularmeasurementandverificationtechnologies,skillsandinfra-
outcomesofanongoingcyclicalprocessinvolvingthreedifferentsetsof structure,andthecooperationofCatomstobehaveinpredictableand
agents.Inthehydrosocialcycle,thefirstsetofagentsaretherelevant measurableways.Humanandnon-humanlifeisinseparablyentangled
socialstructures,institutionsandassociatedpowerrelations;thesecond with C atoms, being partly constituted by C atoms, and reliant on C
focusesonthematerialityandagencyoftechnologyandinfrastructure; atoms within food, habitat, livelihoods and climatic conditions, and
and the third focuses on the agency of H2O molecules themselves. A henceactivelyshapingandshapedbythesocialstructures,institutions
changeinonecomponentofthehydrosocialcycle,suchasachangein andtechnologiesofcarbongovernance.Sociocarboncyclesreflectthese
law,policyorownership,ornewhydropowerorfiltrationtechnologies, lively agencies as well as broader pre-existing political ecologies ar-
or intense rain, flooding or drought, necessitates changes in all other rangedaroundparticularagenciesofCatoms,suchasthoseassociated
elements in an ongoing cyclical process. Importantly, this work dis- withfossilfuel,forestryoragriculturalindustries.Assuch,sociocarbon
tinguishes between the H2O molecules that are the molecular com- cycles do not emerge in a vacuum and nor are they uniform. Instead
poundswithinhydrologicalcycles,andthemeanings,ideasandpower theyvaryacrosstimeandspace,buildingfromtherelationsthatpre-
relations associated with ‘water’ that are produced through, and re- cededthem.
produce, the hydrosocial cycle. In this conceptualization water and Ofcoursethereareotherbroaderassemblagesatplay–theweather
society are shown to be internally entwined,and continuallyco-evol- forexamplecaninfluencecarbonsequestration,orelectoralpriorities
vingandremakingoneanother. may stall climate action. However, focusing in on three influential
Similarcyclicrelationscanbeseeninattemptstogoverncarbon.A componentsatthecentreofcarbongovernanceassemblages,andem-
diverse range of institutions, social structures, and associated power phasizing their inter-relatedness, highlights the socionatural composi-
relations,haveevolvedalongsideeffortstogoverncarbon–suchasthe tionofwhatisnormallyconsideredabiophysicalobject.Assuch,the
IPCC, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change sociocarbon cycle opens up new ways of conceptualizing and ap-
(UNFCCC), national climate change agencies, carbon investors and proachingcarbon.Ascarbonandsocietyareconstantlyco-constituting
carbon standards. They work with and respond to emerging carbon oneanother,andheresocietyisbroadlyconceivedasasocionaturalor
technologies and infrastructure, such as carbon markets, offset me- multispecies achievement, any shift in the properties of carbon ne-
chanisms, and evolving monitoring and measurement methodologies. cessarilyimpliesassociatedshiftsinsociety.Governingcarbon,inthis
TheseinstitutionsandtechnologiesreflecttheagencyofCatoms,which sense,entailsgoverningsocietyandviceversa.Italsoimpliesamore
aretaken heretoincludethemanycompoundsthat includeCatoms, subtle shift; rather than governing an isolated inanimate object, gov-
such as CO2 or CH4, as well as the material forms through which C ernance requires working with an animated integrated subject, one
atoms cycle, such as plants, human and non-human animals, socio- whosematerialityandagencyareactivelyreworkingtheworld,justas
ecological systems, soils, atmospheres, and oceans. We distinguish C humansseektoreworkit.
atoms – referring to a chemical element – from carbon, which is the The potential value of this conceptual maneuver is considerable.
material-semioticoutcomeproducedthroughtheassemblageofatoms, First,inemphasizingthesocialityofcarbonitheightenstheimportance
technologies,instruments,knowledgesandinstitutions.WhileCatoms of social research. Whereas the biophysical carbon cycle privileges
pre-exist life on earth, carbon is a much more recent socionatural scientific knowledge, the sociocarbon cycle suggests that such knowl-
construction entangled with the ontologies and epistemologies of edge only tells part of the story. If the ocean is absorbing greater
Westernscience. amountsofcarbon,whatarethesocialdimensionsofthisshift–what
AsFig.2shows,fromasociocarbonperspective,attemptstogovern typesofsociocarbonrelationsareconstitutingandbeingconstitutedby
carbon mean engaging with cyclical interactions between carbon ocean carbonization? Similarly, efforts to increase plant biomass or
pursue carbon capture and storage, as a means of absorbing atmo-
sphericcarbon,arereliantuponthetechnologiesandsocialstructures
thatenablethistobedone.Asecond,relatedbenefitderivesfromthe
greater visibility justice issues are likely to receive through a socio-
carbonlens.Ifcarbongovernanceisremakingsociety,analysiscanand
shouldbedirectedtothesociallyprogressiveorregressiveelementsof
that remaking – what new power geometries are being formed, who
winsandwholosesfromcarboninitiatives,andhowcaninjusticesbe
addressed?Athird,moreconceptualbenefitisinunderstandingwhat
carbonisandhowitismadeknown.ThevitalityofCatomsandtheir
many material forms requires expert knowledges, practices and tech-
nologies to define, locate and confirm carbon. For example, the mar-
ketizationandcommodificationofcarbonasatradeableemissionsre-
ductionisdependentonawiderangeofconventions,practices,rules,
standardsandinstitutionsthatrendercarbonknowableandverifyand
trackitsproductionandexchange.Assuchmultiplesociocarboncycles
cancoexistatanyonetimeasdifferentinstitutionsandmethodologies
engage and interact with C atoms in diverse ways, constituting com-
petingcarbonclaimsandknowledges.
Thesociocarboncyclefocusesattentionontheseinstitutions,tech-
nologies and materialities that produce carbon as a calculable object.
This allows the biophysical carbon cycle to be re-conceptualized as
embeddedwithsociocarboncycles(Fig.3),highlightingtheinterplay
Fig.2.Thesociocarboncycle. and interdependence between human activity and the movement of
35
A.McGregor,etal. Geoforum 99 (2019) 32–41
Fig.3.Sociocarboncycleswithinthebiophysicalcarboncycle.
carbonthroughsociety.Itiswiththisframeworkinmindthatwedraw rates of deforestation and has consequently attracted a high level of
ontheunfoldingREDD+programinIndonesiatoexploretheuseful- REDD+investment.TheREDD+programisthelatestinalongseries
nessasociocarbonapproach. ofattemptstoreformthegovernanceofIndonesia’sforests.Thefoun-
dations of forest governance issues in the post-colonial period derive
fromtheBasicForestryLaw,introducedin1967duringtheSuhartoera,
4. ExploringREDD+inIndonesia
inwhichthestatelaidclaimtoover70%ofthecountryofficiallyde-
signatedasforested(KuwasanHutan).SupportersoftheSuhartoregime
In what follows we explore how a sociocarbon approach provides
were favoured in the allocation of forest concessions for extractive
new ways of interpreting and practicing REDD+ in Indonesia by fo-
enterprises, contributing to high rates of deforestation as well as the
cusing on the relations constituting the program. Our discussion is
repressionofmillionsofpeoplewholivedinandreliedonforestspaces
based on a Marsden funded research project that ran from 2012 to
fortheirlivelihoods(Peluso,2007).Inthepost-SuhartoReformasiera
2016, examining the political ecology of REDD+ in Indonesia. The
many natural resource management responsibilities were devolved to
projectinvolvedresearchersfromAotearoa/NewZealand,Indonesia,
districtandprovincialgovernmentsinlinewithaneo-liberalstructural
Australia, Germany and the United States and sought to understand
adjustmentagenda,leadingtoanunexpectedspikeindeforestationas
howREDD+wastransformingforestgovernanceatthreeinstitutional
localactorssoughttoprofitfromthenewarrangementbothfinancially
scales–international,nationalandlocal.Smallteamsformedtofocus
andpolitically.AsubsequentrevisionoftheBasicForestryLawin1999
on each scale of governance, with three PhD researchers driving the
reined in local governments by recentralizing some forest authority,
empiricalresearchprogram.TwoCentralKalimantancasestudyareas–
whilealsoretainingsomelocalscaleautonomy
Sungai Lamandau and Bahanei – were the main, but not only, focal
These shifts in forest governance have taken place amidst a rapid
pointsforthelocalscaleresearch.Closeto400semi-structuredinter-
expansion of plantation economies (most notably oil palm), rampant
views were conducted across five years involving government, civil
legal and illegal logging and mining, agricultural expansion at forest
society, private, multilateral, donor, and community stakeholders.
margins, and devastating forest fires (Abood et al., 2015). As a con-
Theseactivitieswereaccompaniedbyparticipantobservationandlong
sequence,Indonesiahasbecomethelargestcontributorofgreenhouse
periods ofethnographicworkbasedinIndonesia.Theprojectwasin-
gases from primary forest loss in the world, removing 840,000ha of
fluenced by debates in political ecology and primarily focused on
primary forest each year (Margono et al., 2014). REDD+ promises a
neoliberal,governmentalandenvironmentaljusticeelementsofREDD
means to address some of these issues, creating financial rewards for
+. The advantage of the multiscalar analysis has been to make the
reductions in deforestation and forest degradation as well as for im-
connectionsbetweencorporateboardrooms,governmentpolicies,and
proved forest governance. Indonesia was a vocal supporter of the
human and non-human lives and livelihoods less opaque. It is these
fledgling REDD+ program at the 2007 COP13 in Bali and in 2009
linkagesthatinspiredtheconceptualframingofthispaper.
pledged to reduce emissions by 26%, or 41% with international
TheprojectfocusedonIndonesiaasithasoneoftheworld’shighest
36
A.McGregor,etal. Geoforum 99 (2019) 32–41
support, by 2020 (Luttrell et al., 2014). This declaration, and the so- providetwoexamplesfromeachrelationthatdemonstratethetypesof
cioecologicalcontextofforestgovernanceinIndonesiahasprovedat- insightsthatarisefromthisformofanalysis.Ineachcaseweattemptto
tractivetoREDD+proponents,withNorwaypledgingUS$1billionfor focusontheagencyofmultiplehumanandnon-humanactorsandthe
REDD+developmentincountry(Luttrelletal.,2014). worlds and power geometries being co-produced. The aim is to high-
Astheprimary mechanismoftheUNFCCC toaddressforest emis- light thedynamism ofrelations rather than thetemporarysubstances
sions,REDD+hasattractedahugeamountofresearch,fartoomuchto thatareproducedthroughthemandaresooftenthefocusofresearch.
becoveredinanydetailhere(forareviewseedenBestenetal.,2014).
Researchhastendedtobesplitbetweenthoseworkingonthetechnical 5.1. RelationsbetweenCatomsandtechnology
challenges of REDD+ implementation (including project design, gov-
ernance systems, institutional architecture, carbon accounting in- InthissectionwefocusontherelationsthathaveformedbetweenC
tegrity, payment systems, monitoring and emissions measurement atoms, technology and infrastructure. We approach C atoms not as
technologies,safeguards,andpolicy)(seeSillsetal.,2014)andmore deanimatedmeasurableobjectsbutasdynamicagenticsubjectswhose
critical work investigating REDD+ with concerns for environmental behaviourandgeographyisco-evolvingwiththetechnologiesandso-
justice, eco-governmentality, neo-liberalisation of nature, and con- cialstructuresaroundthem.Twotypesofrelationsareconsideredhere:
servationanddevelopmentoutcomes(seeMcGregoretal.,2014).De- atomic-scaletechnologiesthathaveevolvedtotracktheexchangeofC
spite their different approaches both research trajectories emphasise atoms between forests and atmosphere; and the social technologies
thatREDD+isnotcurrentlyworkinginIndonesia,withonlyafraction aimedatgoverninghowhumanpopulationsinteractwiththeCatoms
ofNorway’soriginal$1billionresult-basedpaymentpledgefindingits storedinforests.
way into the country (Redford et al., 2013; Fletcher et al., 2016). TrackingthefluxofCatomsbetweenforestsandtheatmosphere,or
Problematicissuesincludeuncertaintiesingovernanceresponsibilities; estimating the amount of C atoms that have been retained in forests
knowledgetransferandunderstanding;landtenure;lawenforcement, throughavoideddeforestation,isadifficultandtechnically-challenging
corruption,institutionalandlocalopposition;competinglandusesand process (Henders and Ostwald, 2012). The agency of C atoms have
livelihoodimpacts;benefitsharing;measuring,reportingandverifying necessitatedthedevelopmentofawiderangeofforestcarbonmodel-
(MRV);accessandexclusionsandunevenpowerrelations(Lundetal., ling knowledges andtechnologies thatinclude temporaldeforestation
2017).Researchtendstobecompartmentalised,focusingononeaspect baselines, remote sensing and processing technologies, geographic in-
of REDD+ implementation or opposition, with deanimated C atoms formation systems, forest carbon inventories, and verified carbon ac-
implicitlypositionedasobjectstobecontrolled,orasseparatetoand counting systems (e.g. Angelsen, 2009; Angelsen et al., 2012). In-
distinctfromissuesofsocialjustice,powerandpolitics.Inwhatfollows donesia’sincreasinglyautomatedNationalCarbonAccountingSystem,
weresistthiscompartmentalisationbyapplyingthesociocarboncycle for example, attempts to calculate the flows of C atoms between the
todevelopnovelinsightsaboutREDD+inIndonesia. country’sforestsandtheatmosphereusingsatellitedata(Roswintiarti
et al., 2013). These technologies are being continually updated ac-
5. REDD+sociocarboncyclesinIndonesia cordingtorecognisedinternationalstandardsinanattempttomakethe
fluxes of C atoms more visible, calculable, fungible, governable and
REDD+ is predicated on governing the flux of C atoms between tradable.Theyarerelationalachievementsreflectingboththematerial
forestsandtheatmosphere.Financeisgeneratedwhenexpectedflows agencies of C atoms, evolving scientific knowledge, and multi-scalar
ofCatomsfromforeststotheatmosphereareslowedthroughavoided politicaleconomiesinfluencingresearchandfunding.
deforestationordegradation,orwhentherateatwhichforestsextract Adiverserangeofsocialtechnologieshavealsoevolved,orientedat
orsequesterCatomsfromtheatmosphereisimprovedthroughaffor- governinghowpeopleinteractwithforests,andconsequentlytheflux
estation and improved forest management. At its core then, REDD+ of C atoms between forests and the atmosphere. Free Prior Informed
seeks to intervene in the biophysical carbon cycle for forest carbon Consent (FPIC), for example, involves fraught consultation processes
gains. Societies are clearly apart ofthis cycle,as it is humanactions andproceduresorientedatimprovingknowledgeaboutCatomfluxes
thataredrivingforestdegradationandconservation.Howevertheyare andgainingcommunitysupportforREDD+programs(Howell,2015).
normallypositionedasseparatetoanddistinctfromthemovementofC ParticipatoryMRVproducescarbonlivelihoodsbytrainingandpaying
atoms.Forexample,measuring,reportingandverifying(MRV)Catoms people in project areas to measure and calculate C atom fluxes
is at the centre of REDD+ Readiness programs, while social con- (Beaudoin et al., 2016). Carbon mapping delineates the geographic
siderationsgenerallyenterviaprovisionsforco-benefitsandsafeguards distributions of C atoms, territorialising what sorts of behaviours are
–i.e.measuresthatseektomitigatenegativeimpacts(safeguards)and permissiblewhere,andenforcedthroughvariousdisciplinarytechnol-
securepositiveoutcomes(co-benefits)fromthemovementofCatoms. ogiessuchasforest(carbon)guards(AstutiandMcGregor,2017;Nel,
This distinction is maintained within program methodologies where 2017).Anationalknowledgebaseonsafeguardshasbeendevelopedto
MRV technologies that focus on C atom calculations are prioritized, couplesuccessfulCatomsequestrationinforestswithimprovementsin
whilesafeguardsandco-benefitsaregenerallyaddressedseparatelyand socioecological conditions (Jagger and Rana, 2017). For each tech-
secondarily. This nature-society dualism (Howell, 2013) underpins nology best practice guidelines are evolving that seeks to normalise
fears that forest communities will be given secondary consideration social behaviours in ways that are compliant with enhanced accumu-
behind the technical performance of REDD+ projects (Brown et al., lationofCatomsinforests.
2008). Both sets of relations are reshaping the conditions where humans
Webeginfromtheobservationthatthesocialstructures,technology andnon-humansnegotiatelivesandlivelihoods.Theseconditionsare
andCatomsthatarebeingassembledthroughthe‘hardwork’ofREDD inflected with multi-scalar power relationships, de/legitimizing dif-
+ proponents are socionatural achievements. They are evolving in ferenttypesofknowledgeandwaysofknowing.Internationalscientific
relationalwayswithchangesinonecomponentnecessitatingchanges expertiseandpractices,forexample,arelikely(orperhaps,intermsof
throughout the whole. Hence rather than focus on the more visible carbon market compliance, are required) to be favoured over more
points or ‘substances’ (Emirbayer, 1997) within sociocarbon cycles – localtechnologiesanduses(Baileyetal.,2011).Theco-evolutionofC
such as institutions or technology – we focus on the shifting and un- atoms with technologies are producing techno-scientific research in-
stablerelationsthatbindthemtogether.Inwhatfollowsweapproach dustries;carboneconomies;carbonlaws,regulationsandpolicies;new
the sociocarbon cycle through three sets of interlinked relations that formsofpolicingandcriminality;education,training,occupationsand
constitutethewhole–therelationsbetweentechnologyandCatoms;C livelihoods; and particular geographies of C atoms and the socio-
atomsandsocialstructures;andsocialstructureswithtechnology.We ecologiestheysupport.FocusingontherelationsbetweenCatomsand
37
A.McGregor,etal. Geoforum 99 (2019) 32–41
technology,ratherthanoneitherinisolation,recognisestheyproduce particularnon-humanpopulations.
much more than abstracted carbon calculations, instead having wide In both examples, institutions do not somehow pre-exist C atoms,
rangingimpactsacrossscaleandspace. instead institutional composition and activities emerge through rela-
tionswithCatoms.FornewinstitutionslikeCarbonConservationand
5.2. RelationsbetweenCatomsandsocialstructures theAcehREDD+Taskforce,theirexistencewaspredicatedonforming
predictablerelationswithCatomsinforests–arelationthatprovedtoo
The relations between C atoms and technology do not exist in a hard to govern in post-conflict, post-disaster Aceh – resulting in the
vacuumbutflowthroughthesocialstructuresandinstitutionsevolving disappearance of those institutions (Swainson, 2016). In other cases
with forest carbon. A vast cross-scalar forest carbon community com- whereREDD+projectsareunfoldingrelationshavebeentemporarily
prisedofcarbonstandards,markets,traders,buyers,andmarketers,as established between institutions and C atoms (see Indriatmoko et al.,
well as project developers, consultants, managers, implementers, and 2014), however these are fragile and unstable, always at risk of un-
village committees, has evolved in Indonesia and elsewhere. The ex- cooperativeagencies,suchasfire,disease,landclearance,resistance,or
istenceofeachinstitution,anditslongevityandsuccessistiedtotheir policychange(seeforexampleSillsetal.,2014).Astheexperienceof
combined ability to govern and profit from how C atoms behave. In AMANsuggestshowever,recognizingCatomsasanimatedactors,ra-
what follows we briefly review two examples where the relations be- ther than deanimated objects, can provide new ways of challenging
tween C atomsand institutions are transforming forest governance in existinggeometriesofpower.
unexpectedways.
Atanationalscale,thefirstexamplecomesfromthereinvigoration 5.3. Relationsbetweensocialstructuresandtechnology
of Indigenous land claims. Astuti and McGregor (2017) argue that a
new political conjuncture has emerged in forest politics whereby the Just as C atoms are entangled with shifting landscapes of carbon
secureproperty rights soughtby REDD+proponents,a nationalland institutions and technology, sotoo are those institutions and technol-
use mapping project known as One Map, along with a Constitutional ogies co-evolving in relational ways with important consequences for
Courtdecision,haveprovidedtheconditionsforIndigenouslandclaims the human and non-human actors involved. As work in science and
tobemobilized.TheumbrellaIndigenousrepresentativeorganization technologystudieshasconvincinglyshown,technologiesarenotinert
AMANhasstrategicallyengagedwithCatomstopromoteandpoliticize toolsofinstitutions,butinsteadactivelyco-constitutethoseinstitutions
Indigenouslandrights(Afiff,2016).Ithasbenefitedfromtherealiza- as well as the broader socioecological relations with which they are
tionthatcarbonmarketsrequireclarityoflandtenureinordertoinvest entwined (Latour, 2004). Here we emphasise this more active inter-
inandprofitfromspatially-specificCatomfluxes,somethingthatisnot pretation of technology by focusing on how relations between tech-
possible while Indigenous groups contest ownership of ancestral land nologiesandinstitutionsarereshapingpowerrelationsandgovernance
(Agungetal.,2014).AMANplayedanessentialroleinsupportingthe withintheforestsector.
agreementbetweenNorwayandIndonesiaandisworkingwithREDD+ OurfirstexamplerelatestotheformerMinistryofForestry(MoF),
institutions and infrastructures to produce new socioecological rela- whichwaswidelyperceivedtobelackingtheknowledge,capacity,and
tionsandspaceswheretheproductionofforestcarboniscoupledwith confidence of various stakeholders to set up the infrastructure and
theproductionofIndigenouslandrights(Afiff,2016).Evenwherelocal technologies required to effectively produce carbon credits. Instead a
communitygroupsdonotidentifyasIndigenous,manyarestrategically REDD+ Taskforce was set up outside MoF to report directly to the
engagingwithCatomstopursuelocalintereststhatchallengeexisting President, a requirement of the billion dollar Norwegian funding
powerrelations(Howson,2017).Whilesuccesshasvaried,andoppo- agreement. The REDD+ Taskforce developed social technologies to
sition continues (see Eilenberg, 2015; Lounela, 2015), the enhanced incorporateperspectivesfromawiderangeofgovernment,civilsociety
visibilityofIndigenouspoliticswithinforestgovernanceisanoutcome and private sector organizations that were previously excluded from
of AMAN’s novel sociocarbon politics, in which the relation it has opaqueMoFdecision-makingprocesses(AstutiandMcGregor,2015a).
formed with C atoms has become a vehicle to advance land rights The atomic and social technologies required to calculate, monitor,
claims. verifyandsellthemovementofCatomssawaninfluxofinternational
Asecondexampleisevidentatamorelocalscalewheretheability capitalflowthroughtotheREDD+Taskforce,anditsshort-livedsuc-
ofCatomstofixthemselvesintreesandconvertintocarbohydrateshas cessor – the REDD+ Agency. For several years this threatened the
sustained the development of diverse socionatures and multispecies MoF’s authority over forest resources and saw other actors, including
communities (see McGregor and Thomas, 2017). Somesocioecologies government, university, private sector and civil society institutions
house particular non-humans, such as Sumatran tigers or orangutans, developing the infrastructure and technology required for REDD+
whichattractenvironmentalNGOsaswellasprivatesectorinstitutions (Astuti and McGregor, 2015a). While the MoF, reconstructed as the
who are increasingly pursuing REDD+ as a form of corporate social Ministry of Environment and Forestry, has since repositioned itself
responsibility (Dixon and Challies, 2015). As such, how C atoms cir- morecentrallywithinREDD+negotiations,thetechnicalchallengeof
culate through socioecological systems, and what sorts of human and measuringthefluxofCatomshasresultedininstitutionalchangesand
non-human relations are sustained by it, influences where and how shiftsinthegeometriesofpowergoverningIndonesia’sforests.
REDD+ projects and institutions locate. One of the first, most high A second example emerges out of the production of forest carbon
profilebutultimatelyfailedREDD+projects,forexample,wasfocused maps. Maps play a key role in visualizing carbon, furthering carbon
ontherichbiodiverseareasofUluMasenandLeuserEcosystemsinthe territorialization, vilifying encroachment and configuring support for
provinceofAceh(McGregor,2010).Inthiscasediverseactorssuchas projectdevelopment(Nel,2017). Themapsareproduced throughsa-
CarbonConservation,MerrillLynch,andFloraandFaunaInternational telliteoraerialremotesensingincombinationwiththegroundtruthing
alignedwithrecentlyformedinstitutionslikeAcehGreenandtheAceh of data to delineate areas of high forest carbon content. While such
REDD+TaskforceinanefforttoformprofitablerelationswithCatoms mapsmayappearassimpleapoliticalreflectionsof(new)realities,their
in forests, Sumatran tigers, rhinos, and orangutans. It is also why, as productionhasbeenassociatedwithconsiderablechangewithinsocial
alluded to in the introduction, the Pendulangan community is en- structures and institutions at multiple scales. For example, efforts to
couragedtoputupwithdisruptiveorangutans,whoactivelycontribute identify forest carbon have exposed differences in the maps used by
to the Climate Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) ‘gold different Ministries in even identifying where forests are (Astuti and
standard’certificationthatincentivisestheproductionandsaleofforest McGregor,2015b).RecognitionofthissawREDD+fundingchanneled
carbonfromthearea.Ineachcaseinstitutionshaveattemptedtoform intotheOneMapInitiative,whichmadeuseofthetypesofparticipa-
relations with C atoms that are coupled with the preservation of tory mapping approaches favoured by donors (Mulyani and Jepson,
38
A.McGregor,etal. Geoforum 99 (2019) 32–41
2017). This mapping process has weakened institutional political havebeenestablished,andnewforestcarbonprioritieshavebeenin-
ecologies that thrived in the opacity created by overlapping and con- stitutionalized alongside older ones. At the same time, international
tradictorymaps,while,asmentionedpreviously,creatingopeningsand carbonmarkets,tradersanddevelopers,alongsidefor-profitbanksand
opportunitiesforothers(e.g.forIndigenousandothergroupstomake businesses have become involved in the forest sector and new alle-
land claims). Civil society has also used maps, particularly the gov- giancesanddivisionshaveappearedincivilsocietylandscapes.Thisis
ernment’s controversial forest moratorium map, to contest private nottosaythatcarbonforestryhasreplacedpreviouspoliticalecologies
sector logging concessions, alert authorities to breaches, and pursue offorestuse–itclearlyhasnot.However,existingpower geometries
legalactionagainstdeforestation(Afiff,2016).Assuchmappingtech- arebeingchallenged,alteredandrecreatedininterestingwaysthatare
nologies have elicited institutional changes within government and oftenomittedfromREDD+research.
betweengovernmentandcivilsociety,withNGOsactingaswatchdogs Wehavealsoshownhowlocalactorsattempttoco-optcarbonin-
forthestate,whilstalsocontestingthemapsthestateproduces. itiativestopursueprogressivesocioecologicalspaces.AsMcGuirketal.
Inbothexamplesnewrelationsbetweentechnologyandinstitutions (2014:138)note,carbongovernancecan“sedimentexistinggoverning
areshakingupexistinggeometriesofpower.Theimpactsstretchfrom orderingsand[…]contributetowardstheformationoftransformative
thediminishedroleofMoF,anditseventualreformingintotheMinistry governance possibilities that may be both entangled with and exceed
of Environment and Forestry, through to the new community institu- neoliberal governance forms”. In this case, the revitalization of In-
tions, skills and tensions evolving in REDD+ areas. In Central digenous politics has benefited from the active engagement of In-
Kalimantan, for example, GIS is being used to create a map of com- digenous organizations with REDD+ sociocarbon cycles. Indigenous
munity territory, complete with zones for what sort of activities are communities have engaged with REDD+ to pursue historic land
permissible where. This is creating antagonisms among neighboring strugglesthatchallengegeometriesofpowerinheritedfromtheSuharto
communitieswhohavepreviouslysharedresources,andisalsoforming era. This has been accompanied by new, more intimate sets of inclu-
new power geometries between villages (Astuti and McGregor, 2017; sions and exclusions deriving from local articulations of Indigenous
Howson,2017).Themappingprocesscanalsoinflameethnictensions politics (Howell, 2015; Astuti and McGregor, 2017). As such the so-
asprojectdevelopersdistinguishbetweenIndigenousdistrictsthatare ciocarbon cycle provides ways of examining how institutions, tech-
morelikelytobeidealizedasindependent,self-reliantandempowered, nologiesandCatomsco-produceparticularsocioecologicaloutcomes,
andtransmigrantvillagesthataredismissedaslessauthenticormerely and how different actors seek to shape those outcomes at different
‘Javanese’ (Howson, 2017; Howson and Kindon, 2015). This con- scales.
tributestochangesincommunity–landrelationsthatcanchallengeor The practical and policy implications of a sociocarbon cycles ap-
reinforcealreadyexistingsocialinequalitiesandinstitutions.Transmi- proach are potentially significant for REDD+ as a program, and for
grants, women and other marginalized groups, for example, have climatechangemitigationandadaptationinterventionsgenerally.The
generallyhadlessaccesstoprogrambenefits,beingexcludedfromthe approachmakesexplicitthemultitudeofrelationsthatshape,andare
male-dominatedcommunityinstitutionsthatnegotiatednewrelations shapedby,attemptstogovernforestcarbon(ortorenderforestcarbon
withREDD+technologies(Howson,2017;HowsonandKindon,2015; governable).Inhighlightingthesocialityofcarbon,andinpositioning
Lohmann,2011;SiscawatiandMahaningtas,2012). carbon as the product of cyclic relations among C atoms, institutions
andtechnologies,asociocarbonlensopensupmultiplepointsofentry
6. Shiftinggeometriesofpower forresearch,policyandaction.Forexample,policymakerscanfocuson
thesortsofrelationstheywanttoestablishthroughREDD+,basedon
Thesociocarbonlensweareproposingadvancesunderstandingof whatsortsofprinciples,anddirectattentiontomonitoringsuchrela-
carbon governance in a variety of ways. Most significantly it diverts tions.Ratherthanjustcalculatingforestcarbon,researchcanassessthe
attentionfromexistingcarbon-centricnarrativesthatassesstheimpacts qualityoftherelationsthatenableforestcarbontobecalculated.The
andsuccessoftheprogramaccordingtoverifiedemissionsreductions. focusshiftstotheworldsthatareco-createdthroughtheproductionof
Ifwetookthisapproachwecouldsaythat,fortheamountofmoney forestcarbon,whoorwhatisbeingaffectedbythoserelationsacross
invested in Indonesia, it has been a failure. These kinds of carbon- space, scale and through multi-species communities. Very practical
centricnarrativesarealignedwithbroaderdepoliticisingprocessesthat questions can be asked about how changes to REDD+ technologies,
approach environmental issues as technical and fixable in supposedly institutionsorCatomsarereshapingsocionaturesinwaysthatgobe-
apolitical ways (Swyngedouw, 2013). Our analysis instead brings the yondthenormallimitsofsafeguardsanalysis.Foractivists,recognizing
broadrangeofsocioecologicalandhighlypoliticalchangestakingplace REDD+asapoliticalprojectenabledbyagencieswithinsociocarbon
asaconsequenceofREDD+intoview.Transformationshaveoccurred cyclesprovidesmultipleavenuestoalterorrejectthesecyclesinpur-
inthepoliticallandscapeofforestgovernancewherenewrelationships suitofmorejustgeometriesofpower(Massey,2009).Thefocusmoves
betweeninstitutions,technologyandinfrastructureandCatomshave from governing carbon to exploring the desirability of the world-
emerged,changinghowandwhereREDD+projectsareimplemented, makingsociocarbonrelationsthatemerge.
andresisted(seeEilenberg,2015;Lounela,2015).REDD+isasmuch, Totracesuchrelationspolicymakersandresearchersneedtodraw
or more, about this broader range of transformations, as it is about ona wider spectrum ofresearch approaches and knowledges,and at-
verifiedcarbonemissionsreductions. tend to a wider range of agents and relations, to anticipate the im-
Focusingonthemultiplerelationsthatconstitutesociocarboncycles plicationsofinterventions.Ourresearchsuggestsaneedtoexplorethe
implies assessment of carbon governance projects not only on their roleofstories,suchasthosethatbrieflyopenedthispaper,inillumi-
atomic-scale efficiencies but also in terms of how they are reshaping nating shifting relationships. Pallett and Chilvers (2015) focus on
geometriesofpowerandwhetherthesearemovingtowardsmorejust storiesasawayofcapturingprocesses,relationshipsandthediversity
andequitablesocioecologicaloutcomes.Researcherscanfocusonhow ofwaysthatthesemightbeexperienced.Stories,theyargue,canfocus
and why sociocarbon cycles evolve in the ways they have, and what on “various practices, memories and materialities” (p. 158), and may
impacts they are having. Within Indonesia the development of socio- provide one methodological approach to research that is attentive to
carboncyclesandalltheinstitutions,infrastructureandagenciesthat marginalgroups–includingnon-humans(Dowlingetal.,2017).REDD
come with that, has unsettled existing political ecologies, such as the +alreadyreliesonstoriesthatlinkREDD+creditsbacktoparticular
plantation and extractive industries driving forest degradation. The projects and outcomes ‘on the ground’. These stories – of orangutan
autonomy of relevant Ministries has been shrunk, the Ministry of conservation, forest protection or community development – serve to
Forestry has merged with the Ministry of Environment, the transpar- sell REDD+ to socially and environmentally responsible corporations
ency of land use and land claims has improved, logging moratoriums (Dixon and Challies, 2015), but they are also inevitably partial
39
A.McGregor,etal. Geoforum 99 (2019) 32–41
accounts,determinedbycertainparametersthathavebeenidentifiedas contexts,wheretheagencyofCatomsinfluencestherelationsinwhich
measurableandmarketable.Incontraststoriesshouldberecognisedas they are embedded. This process also enables a focus on power geo-
“sites of contestation over the meaning of places, resources and land metriescapableofhighlightinginjustices.Focusingonrelationsandthe
use” (Houston, 2013, p. 419) and can be used to explore issues from wayssocieties,technologiesandCatomsshiftandrearrangeallowsfor
environmental injustice (Houston, 2013) to climate change (Veland more nuanced responses tounpredictable non-human agency. For ex-
etal.,2018).Asociocarbonperspectivecanhighlightwhosestoriesget ample, research might focus on highlighting or verifying stories that
toldandgainprominence,andenablethetellingofalternativeorun- entanglehumansandorangutansontheedgeoftheSungaiLamandau
expectedstoriesthatarecurrentlyobscured. Wildlife Reserve with carbon fluxes and markets, seeking more just
The added complexity that emerges through revealing the hybrid outcomesfromseeminglydisconnectedprocesses.Indrawingattention
natureofcarbondoesnotsimplifythetaskofthoseseekingtogovern to the relationships that make up sociocarbon cycles, we also seek to
carbon and climate change. However, in recognizing this hybridity, disruptarelianceon,andprivilegingof,Westernscientificor‘expert’
REDD+ policy and practice may be better placed to approach forest knowledge in the management of carbon through flows of C atoms.
carbon in an integrated way, which sees social and technological di- Suchadisruptionmayprovideopportunitiesforalternativevoicesand
mensionsnotasperipheralorsecondarytomovementsofCatoms,but perspectivestobesharedandheard.
ratherasmutuallyconstitutive,offorestcarbonanditsgovernance.A Finally, a sociocarbon approach provides a richer and more com-
relationalapproachtoforestcarbongovernancecanprioritiseforming plete picture of what actually constitutes forest carbon. It is a socio-
more just cyclical relations between C atoms, technology and institu- natural construction comprised of institutions, technology, and C
tions. Research can focus on the nature and impacts of sociocarbon atoms. What is calculated and verified, bought and sold, as forest
relations to inform a sociocarbon politics directed at making such re- carbonissociallyandmateriallyproducedthroughtheinteractionsof
lations more equitable, inclusive and progressive. Such approaches thoseinthecycle.Asociocarbonlensmakesvisiblethehardworkre-
challengemuchcurrentworkonsafeguardsandco-benefitsthatoften quired to create forest carbon and its diverse socioecological con-
adoptsanapoliticalapproachinseekingtosecuresocialandenviron- sequences.Forestcarbonislessameasurableentityorthingandmorea
mental gains from carbon programs. A relational approach draws at- rationality and practice produced through socionatural relationships
tentiontoawiderangeofpotentialinclusionsandexclusions,justices thatfavourparticularsetsofrelationsattheexpenseofothers.
andinjustices,andprogressiveorrepressivepowerrelations,thatform
and reform as C atoms, institutions and technologies revolve through Acknowledgements
sociocarboncycles.
Theauthorswouldliketoacknowledgeresearchfundingprovided
7. Conclusion by the Royal Society of New Zealand’s Marsden Fund. We also ap-
preciateandacknowledgetherichinputsmadebyLucaTacconi,Sean
Inthispaperwehaveproposedanewwayofengagingwithforest WeaverandRowanDixontothebroaderproject,andtoSeanDunnefor
carbonprojects,andclimategovernancemoregenerally,thatdrawson hiscreativeworkontheimages.
insightsfromthesocionaturesliterature.Wehaveemphasizedtheinter-
relationships,asopposedtothedistinctions,amongphenomenaoften Reference
categorized, and analysed, through human-nature dualisms. It is our
contention that there is no way of governing carbon that is not si- Abood,S.A.,Lee,J.S.H.,Burivalova,Z.,Garcia-Ulloa,J.,Koh,L.P.,2015.Relativecon-
multaneouslyanattempttogovernsociety.Carbonissoentrenchedin tributionsofthelogging,fiber,oilpalm,andminingindustriestoforestlossin
Indonesia.Conserv.Lett.8(1),58–67.
the functioning of societies, not just in terms of dependence on fossil
Afiff,S.,2016.REDD,landmanagementandthepoliticsofforestandlandtenurereform
fuels but also in fundamentally underpinning land based production withspecialreferencetothecaseofCentralKalimantanprovince.In:McCarthy,J.,
globally (Scharlemann et al., 2014), that social structures and tech- Robinson,K.(Eds.),LandandDevelopmentinIndonesia:SearchingforPeople’s
Sovereignty.ISEAS,Singapore,pp.113–140.
nologies inevitably bear its imprint. As carbon circulates through the
Agung,P.,Galudra,G.,VanNoordwijk,M.,Maryani,R.,2014.Reformorreversal:the
global biophysical carbon cycle, societies also change through their impactofREDD+readinessonforestgovernanceinIndonesia.ClimatePolicy14(6),
internalrelationalities.Thisisnottosaycarbondeterminesthestruc- 748–768.
Angelsen,A.(Ed.),2009.RealisingREDD+:NationalStrategyandPolicyOptions.
tureofsocietyinanenvironmentallydeterministway,butratherthatit
CIFOR,Bogor,Indonesia.
isanimportantagentthatisinternallyrelatedtohowsocietiesevolve. Angelsen,A.,Brockhaus,M.,Sunderlin,W.,Verchot,L.(Eds.),2012.AnalysingREDD+
Reconceptualizing the traditional global biophysical carbon cycle as challengesandchoices.CIFOR,Bogor,Indonesia.
embedded within sociocarbon cycles (Fig. 3) emphasizes human con- Astuti,R.,McGregor,A.,2015a.Governingcarbon,transformingforestpolitics:acase
studyofIndonesia’sREDD+TaskForce.AsiaPacificViewpoint56(1),21–36.
tributions to the cycling of carbon through different forms, and the Astuti,R.,McGregor,A.,2015b.Respondingtothegreeneconomy:howREDD+andthe
movementofcarbonthoughsociety. OneMapInitiativearetransformingforestgovernanceinIndonesia.ThirdWorld
Any attempt to govern carbon is really an attempt to govern so- Quart.36(12),2273–2293.
Astuti,R.,McGregor,A.,2017.Indigenouslandclaimsorgreengrabs?Inclusionsand
ciocarbon cycles. In the case of REDD+, a sociocarbon approach
exclusionswithinforestcarbonpoliticsinIndonesia.J.PeasantStud.44(2),
highlightstherelationsthatarereconfiguredwhenprojectproponents 445–466.
distribute seemingly innocuous GIS technologies or form new forest Bailey,I.,Gouldson,A.,Newell,P.,2011.Ecologicalmodernisationandthegovernanceof
carbon:acriticalanalysis.Antipode43(3),682–703.
carboncommitteesandinstitutions.Suchinterventionscanbeseenas
Bakker,K.,Bridge,G.,2006.Materialworlds?Resourcegeographiesandthe‘matterof
effortstoredesignasociocarboncycle,notjusttheflowofCatoms,in nature’.Prog.Hum.Geogr.30(1),5–27.
waysamenabletoglobalclimategoals,reconfiguringpowergeometries Beaudoin,G.,Rafanoharana,S.,Boissiere,M.,Wijaya,A.,Warhana,W.,2016.
Completingthepicture:importanceofconsideringparticipatorymappingforREDD
andcreatingnewwinnersandlosers.Assuchthesociocarboncyclecan
+measurement,reportingandverification(MRV).PLoSONE11(12),e0166592.
bring issues of justice, power, non-human agency, and the socio- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166592.
ecologicalconstitutionofcarbonprogramsintofocus.Italsohighlights Bennett,J.,2010.VibrantMatter:aPoliticalEcologyofThings.DukeUniversityPress,
Durham;London.
thediverseeffortsandresourcesneededtomakeREDD+workinthe
Brown,D.,Seymour,F.,Peskett,L.,2008.HowdoweachieveREDDco-benefitsandavoid
senseofgoverningCfluxes,andarrangingsocietiesandtechnologiesin doingharm?In:Angelsen,A.(Ed.),MovingAheadwithRedd:Issues,Options,and
amenableways. Implications.CIFOR,Bogor,pp.107–118.
Furthermore, a sociocarbon approach challenges dominant ap- Bumpus,A.G.,2011.Thematterofcarbon:understandingthematerialityoftCO2ein
carbonoffsets.Antipode43(3),612–638.
proachestoforestcarbonthatdecontextualizeitbypositioningitasa Deleuze,G.,Guattari,F.,1987.AThousandPlateaus:CapitalismandSchizophrenia.
calculableandgovernableentitythatexistsseparatetohumans.Instead UniversityofMinnesotaPress,Minneapolis.
we have sought to recentre carbon within complex socionatural denBesten,J.W.,Arts,B.,Verkooijen,P.,2014.TheevolutionofREDD+:ananalysisof
40
A.McGregor,etal. Geoforum 99 (2019) 32–41
discursive-institutionaldynamics.Environ.Sci.Policy35(SupplementC),40–48. D.K.,2015.Environmentalpoliticsafternature:conflictingsocioecologicalfutures.
Dixon,R.,Challies,E.,2015.MakingREDD+pay:shiftingrationalesandtacticsofpri- Ann.Assoc.Am.Geogr.105(2),284–293.
vatefinanceandthegovernanceofavoideddeforestationinIndonesia.AsiaPacific Margono,B.A.,Potapov,P.V.,Turubanova,S.,Stolle,F.,Hansen,M.C.,2014.Primary
Viewpoint56(1),6–20. forestcoverlossinIndonesiaover2000–2012.Nat.Clim.Change4(8),730–735.
Dowling,R.,Lloyd,K.,Suchet-Pearson,S.,2017.QualitativemethodsII:‘more-than- Massey,D.,2009.Conceptsofspaceandpowerintheoryandinpoliticalpractice.
human’methodologiesand/inpraxis.Prog.Hum.Geogr.41(6),823–831. DocumentsD'AnàlisiGeogràfica55,15–26.
Eilenberg,M.,2015.ShadesofgreenandREDD:localandglobalcontestationsoverthe McGregor,A.,2010.GreenandREDD?Towardsapoliticalecologyofdeforestationin
valueofforestversusplantationdevelopmentontheIndonesianforestfrontier.Asia Aceh,Indonesia.Hum.Geogr.3(2),21–34.
PacificViewpoint56(1),48–61. McGregor,A.,Weaver,S.,Challies,E.,Howson,P.,Astuti,R.,Haalboom,B.,2014.
Emirbayer,M.,1997.Manifestoforarelationalsociology.Am.J.Sociol.103(2), Practicalcritique:bridgingthegapbetweencriticalandpractice-orientedREDD+
281–317. researchcommunities.AsiaPacificViewpoint55(3),277–291.
Folke,C.,Hahn,T.,Olsson,P.,Norberg,J.,2005.Adaptivegovernanceofsocial-ecolo- McGregor,A.,Challies,E.,Howson,P.,Astuti,R.,Dixon,R.,Haalboom,B.,Afiff,S.,2015.
gicalsystems.Annu.Rev.Environ.Resour.30(1),441–473. Beyondcarbon,morethanforest?REDD+governmentalityinIndonesia.Environ.
Fletcher,R.,Dressler,W.,Büscher,B.,Anderson,Z.R.,2016.QuestioningREDD+andthe Plann.A47(1),138–155.
futureofmarket-basedconservation.Conserv.Biol.30(3),673–675. McGregor,A.,Thomas,A.,2017.Forest-leddevelopment?Amore-than-humanapproach
Haraway,D.,2008.WhenSpeciesMeet.UniversityofMinnesotaPress,Minneapolis; toforestsinSoutheastAsia.In:McGregor,A.,Miller,F.,Law,L.(Eds.),Routledge
London. HandbookofSoutheastAsianDevelopment.Routledge,London,pp.392–407.
Henders,S.,Ostwald,M.,2012.Forestcarbonleakagequantificationmethodsandtheir McGuirk,P.M.,Bulkeley,H.,Dowling,R.,2014.Practices,programsandprojectsofurban
suitabilityforassessingleakageinREDD.Forests3(1).https://doi.org/10.3390/ carbongovernance:perspectivesfromtheAustraliancity.Geoforum52(Supplement
f3010033. C),137–147.
Houston,D.,2013.Environmentaljusticestorytelling:angelsandisotopesatYucca McGuirk,P.M.,Bulkeley,H.,Dowling,R.,2016.Configuringurbancarbongovernance:
Mountain,Nevada.Antipode45(2),417–435. insightsfromSydney,Australia.Ann.Am.Assoc.Geogr.106(1),145–166.
Howell,S.,2013.Divideandrule:natureandsocietyinaglobalforestprogramme.In: Mitchell,T.,2011.CarbonDemocracy:PoliticalPowerintheAgeofOil.Verso,London.
Hastrup,Kirsten(Ed.),AnthropologyandNature.Routledge,London,pp.147–166. Müller,M.,2015.Assemblagesandactor-networks:rethinkingsocio-materialpower,
Howell,S.,2015.Politicsofappearances:somereasonswhytheUN-REDDprojectin politicsandspace.Geogr.Compass9(1),27–41.
CentralSulawesifailedtounitethevariousstakeholders.AsiaPacificViewpoint56 Mulyani,M.,Jepson,P.,2017.Doesthe‘OneMapInitiative’representanewpathfor
(1),37–47. forestmappinginIndonesia?AssessingthecontributionoftheREDD+initiativein
Howson,P.,2017.IntimateexclusionsfromtheREDD+forestsofSungaiLamandau, effectingforestgovernancereform.Forests8(1),14.
Indonesia.Conserv.Soc.15(2),125–135. Nel,A.,2017.Contestedcarbon:carbonforestryasaspeculativelyvirtual,falteringly
Howson,P.,Kindon,S.,2015.AnalysingaccesstothelocalREDD+benefitsofSungai materialanddisputedterritorialassemblage.Geoforum81(SupplementC),144–152.
Lamandau,CentralKalimantan,Indonesia.AsiaPacificViewpoint56(1),96–110. Pallett,H.,Chilvers,J.,2015.Organizationsinthemaking:learningandinterveningat
Indriatmoko,Y.,Atmadja,S.,Ekaputri,A.D.,Komalasari,M.,2014.RimbaRaya thescience-policyinterface.Prog.Hum.Geogr.39(2),146–166.
BiodiversityReserveProject,CentralKalimantan.IndonesiaCenterforInternational Peluso,N.L.,2007.Violence,decentralization,andresourceaccessinIndonesia.Peace
ForestryResearch(CIFOR),Bogor,Indonesia. Rev.J.Soc.Just.19(1),23–32.
Jagger,P.,Rana,P.,2017.Usingpubliclyavailablesocialandspatialdatatoevaluate Redford,K.H.,Padoch,C.,Sunderland,T.,2013.Fads,funding,andforgettinginthree
progressonREDD+socialsafeguardsinIndonesia.Environ.Sci.Policy76,59–69. decadesofconservation.Conserv.Biol.27(3),437–438.
Katerere,Y.,2010.Aclimatechangesolution?WorldFinanc.May–June,104–106. Roswintiarti,O.,Tjahyaningsih,A.,Furby,S.,Wallace,J.,2013.Indonesia'sNational
Lansing,D.M.,2012.Performingcarbon’smateriality:theproductionofcarbonoffsets CarbonAccountingremotesensingprogram–anationalsystemformonitoringforest
andtheframingofexchange.Environ.Plann.A44(1),204–220. changes.PaperpresentedattheGeoscienceandRemoteSensingSymposium
Latour,B.,1993.WeHaveNeverBeenModern.HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge, (IGARSS),2013.IEEEInternational.
Massachusetts. Scharlemann,J.P.W.,Tanner,E.V.J.,Hiederer,R.,Kapos,V.,2014.Globalsoilcarbon:
Latour,B.,2004.PoliticsofNature:HowtoBringtheSciencesintoDemocracy.Harvard understandingandmanagingthelargestterrestrialcarbonpool.CarbonManage.5
UniversityPress,Cambridge,Massachusetts. (1),81–91.
Latour,B.,2014.AgencyatthetimeoftheAnthropocene.NewLiteraryHistory45(1), Sills,E.,Atmadja,S.,deSassi,C.,Duchelle,A.,Kweka,D.,PradnjaResosudarmo,I.A.,
1–18. Sunderlin,W.(Eds.),2014.REDD+ontheGround:ACaseBookforSubnational
Li,T.M.,2007.Practicesofassemblageandcommunityforestmanagement.Econ.Soc.36 InitiativesAcrosstheGlobe.CenterforInternationalForestryResearch,Indonesia.
(2),263–293. Siscawati,M.,Mahaningtas,A.,2012.Genderjustice:foresttenureandforestgovernance
Linton,J.,Budds,J.,2014.Thehydrosocialcycle:definingandmobilizingarelational- inIndonesia.RightsResour.InitiativeBrief3,1–18.
dialecticalapproachtowater.Geoforum57(SupplementC),170–180. Swainson,L.,2016.TheComplexitiesofGreenEconomyPolicyReform:ACaseStudyin
Liu,J.,Dietz,T.,Carpenter,S.R.,Folke,C.,Alberti,M.,Redman,C.L.,Provencher,W., Aceh,Indonesia.TheAustralianNationalUniversity.
2007.Coupledhumanandnaturalsystems.AMBIOJ.Hum.Environ.36(8), Swyngedouw,E.,2005.Governanceinnovationandthecitizen:theJanusfaceofgov-
639–649. ernance-beyond-the-state.UrbanStud.42(11),1991–2006.
Lohmann,L.,2011.Theendlessalgebraofclimatemarkets.CapitalismNat.Social.22(4), Swyngedouw,E.,2013.Thenon-politicalpoliticsofclimatechange.ACME12(1),1–8.
93–116. Todd,Z.,2016.AnIndigenousfeminist’stakeontheontologicalturn:“Ontology”isjust
Lounela,A.,2015.ClimatechangedisputesandjusticeinCentralKalimantan,Indonesia. anotherwordforcolonialism.J.Histor.Sociol.29(1),4–22.
AsiaPacificViewpoint56(1),62–78. Veland,S.,Scoville-Simonds,M.,Gram-Hanssen,I.,Schorre,A.,ElKhoury,Q.,Nordbø,
Luttrell,C.,Resosudarmo,I.A.P.,Muharrom,E.,Brockhaus,M.,Seymour,F.,2014.The M.,Lynch,A.,Hochachka,G.,Bkørkan,M.,2018.Narrativemattersforsustain-
politicalcontextofREDD+inIndonesia:constituenciesforchange.Environ.Sci. ability:thetransformativeroleofstorytellinginrealising1.5Cfutures.Curr.Opin.
Policy35,67–75. Environ.Sustain.31,41–47.
Lund,J.F.,Sungusia,E.,Mabele,M.B.,Scheba,A.,2017.Promisingchange,delivering Watson,A.,Huntington,O.H.,2008.They’rehere—Icanfeelthem:theepistemicspaces
continuity:REDD+asconservationfad.WorldDev.89,124–139. ofIndigenousandWesternKnowledges.Soc.Cult.Geogr.9(3),257–281.
Mansfield,B.,Biermann,C.,McSweeney,K.,Law,J.,Gallemore,C.,Horner,L.,Munroe, Whatmore,S.,2002.HybridGeographies:NaturesCultureSpaces.Sage,London.
41
