Competing peatlands : (De)valuing of carbon in peatland restoration in Denmark

Restoring cultivated peatlands has become a silver bullet in climate change mitigation policies globally due to peatlands’ potentials to sequester carbon. In Denmark, carbon is the focal point for such interventions but simultaneously conspicuous by its absence in local restoration efforts. Scientific abstractions render carbon visible through maps and models presenting soil’s carbon content, emissions, and rewetting effects. On the local level, carbon is regarded as abstract and intangible and restoration effects are disputed. To intensify restoration efforts and create incentives for landowners, peat’s value is translated into monetary terms which illuminates a paradox between the omnipresence and absence of carbon in peatland restoration efforts. On the one hand, peatlands are made uniform politically based on scientific knowledge production and translated into a CO2 tax that reduces all peatlands into the same monetary value if cultivation continues. On the other hand, the invisibility of carbon locally turns peatland valuation into a matter of other ways of knowing the land such as subsidy schemes, amenity value and cultivation history to create restoration compensations for landowners by highlighting the uniqueness of each field. Through the lens of valuation (Heuts and Mol 2013) and abstraction (Power 2004; Cooper 2015), this paper explores the role of carbon in peatland restoration efforts in Denmark by asking how carbon abstractions are negotiated in peatland valuations. Drawing on empirical findings from Denmark, I argue that abstractions in valuations not only determine which aspects of peatlands are recognized and prioritized but also influence governance decisions, land management and restoration effects.Keywords: Cabon abstractions, soil valuations, knowledge production, peatland restoration, DenmarkReferencesCooper, Mark H. 2015. “Measure for Measure? Commensuration, Commodification, and Metrology in Emissions Markets and Beyond.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 47 (9): 1787–1804. https://doi.org/10.1068/a130275p.Heuts, Frank, and Annemarie Mol. 2013. “What Is a Good Tomato? A Case of Valuing in Practice.” Valuation Studies 1 (2): 125–46. https://doi.org/10.3384/vs.2001-5992.1312125.Power, Michael. 2004. “Counting, Control and Calculation: Reflections on Measuring and Management.” Human Relations 57 (6): 765–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726704044955.