The Taskforce’s efforts to normalise carbon rationalities through introducing specialist languages and concepts were accompanied by mapping practices oriented at making carbon visible. Maps that show the carbon density of forests were frequently used in Taskforce presentations to highlight narratives regarding REDD+ opportunities, potentials, and threats (eg Figure 5.2). The maps inform stakeholders of the forest types that store high amounts of carbon and can therefore be made profitable through REDD+. In some cases carbon maps are overlaid with other types of spatial information, such as mining concessions in a particular province, as shown in a map produced by the UN-REDD Program Indonesia in Central Sulawesi (Figure 5.3) (Blyth et al., 2012). In this map overlapping areas of high carbon density and mining concessions can be used as basic information to discuss the economic trade offs between REDD+ and mining interests.
Figure 5.2 Map of Indonesian forest carbon stock (IFCA, 2008; cited in Masripatin, 2010)
Figure 5.3 Mining concessions in relation to total carbon in Central Sulawesi (Blyth et al., 2012) Carbon maps function as important visualisation technologies to steer forest policy development and decision-making processes towards REDD+ goals. In an interview, a government official highlights her experience regarding the way she communicates the urgency of the REDD+ programme to her intended audience,
Since COP 13 in Bali, it is common to discuss sustainable development and green economy using a map of Indonesia that is overlaid with a map of carbon potential stored in Indonesia’s forests. The audiences are usually quick to make a connection between the topic that I intended to speak with the presentation slide… I think this map speaks for itself (Interview, Randy, February 2014) Carbon maps serve as “almost everyday images” (O’Neill and Smith, 2014, p. 79) in the discussion of climate mitigation and forest governance. In visualizing a certain element within the forest they frame a particular way of seeing. The carbon map hides the immense complexity and uncertainties within carbon measurement and accounting (Gibbs et al., 2007; Asner, 2009), and renders an intangible molecule visible and real, while potentially obscuring other socio-ecological data and ways of seeing. In the maps above, for example, carbon is clearly prioritised over other forest interests in biodiversity, livelihoods and timber. Mapping technologies help in drawing boundaries around what readers should consider normal and important, being essential in visualizing carbon as politically, economically, and scientifically acceptable and governable (O’Neill and Smith, 2014).
In 2011, reflecting the country’s REDD+ ambitions, a Presidential Decree imposed a moratorium on new licences for the development of primary forest and peatland. The promotion of peatland to a conservation status akin to forests, despite generally being much less biodiverse, is a direct reflection of the high amount of carbon stored in these areas, and reflects the changing criteria being used to value different socio- ecological systems. However attempts to map primary forest and peatland has proved difficult, with different actors referring to peatlands in different ways (Caldecott et al., 2013). Three different “official/authoritative definitions” of peat have been issued by three different ministries, i.e. the MOF, MOA, and MOE. Consequently, each of the ministries has also released different thematic maps of peatland, reflecting their own visualisation strategies and priorities.
In response the Taskforce has engaged with a national donor-funded strategy known as One Map that seeks to provide a single authoritative map to guide all land
use decisions in Indonesia (see Chapter 6). To seek consensus on One Map in regards to peatlands a series of expert meetings were held by the Taskforce’s Working Group on the Moratorium. A member of the Working Group explains that
Through the One Map processes we will have one source of spatial information. The accuracy of which will not be doubted by any actors. If we could control one variable of the spatial governance debates in Indonesia, including the definition of peatland, then the rest of the debates will voluntarily follow the controlled variable (Interview, Suwardiyanto, July 2013).
One Map then seeks to establish “one truth” about the amount of carbon stored in different land types upon which the practices of REDD+ governance can be built. Through this technology, the outcomes of which are accessible through public web- portals7, the carbon values of different land types becomes standardised and mainstreamed within land use planning. The technology thereby makes carbon visible to authorities at all levels, requiring them to consider carbon, and REDD+ more generally, in their land use decisions. In the process the carbon values calculated and embedded into One Map are intended to influence the conduct and decisions of land use authorities and, as a consequence, govern human - forest interactions. Those who may value forests for other reasons, such as forest communities, or developers, are invisible, and potentially disempowered, by these technologies.
In parallel, however, AMAN took the opportunity to show the importance of recognizing and protecting Indigenous forests by overlaying the indicative map of Indigenous territories with map of forest areas (Figure 5.4). By using a map of potential forests and present them as significant carbon sinks, AMAN renders visible the Indigenous territories and influenced the tone of REDD+ discourse in Indonesia to be more centred on Indigenous tenure rights. Furthermore, by employing the slogan “No Rights – No REDD+”, AMAN steers the way REDD+ policies and programs
7 A centralized database of spatial information is made publicly available in portal.ina-
are being made in an effort to attract financial and political support for their agenda (Howell, 2014). Meanwhile, for the Taskforce, AMAN’s endorsement to REDD+ implementation is regarded as a strong legitimacy and sign of acceptance (see Chapter Seven). AMAN’s attempt to produce forests map shows how the Taskforce’s governmental strategies to normalize and visualize carbon have been incorporated by other forest stakeholders. It also demonstrates elements of agency on the part of AMAN who is engaging with governmental technologies to seek progressive goals – using carbon rationalities to highlight the relationships between Indigenous communities and their land. In this way REDD+ governmental technologies can be subverted by NGOs to produce not-quite-neoliberal strategies that facilitate more progressive possibilities (Anthias and Radcliffe, 2015; de Freitas, Marston and Bakker, 2015). Figure 5.4 Overlay of Indigenous territories and forest areas (AMAN, 2014)