Table Of Content

Geoforum 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, policies,politics,weather,climate,fire,photosynthesis,orangutans,cus- tomsandpractices)thatshapehowtheforestgrows.Theremovalofor change in any part of that assemblage – such as a change of government,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 technologies 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,technologies 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, governance 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