Indigenous Rights, Insurgent Cartographies, and the Promise of Participatory Mapping

by Bjørn Sletto

The Power of Maps and Mapping continues today in the close associations between state-sponsored Maps fascinate us; they entertain and they edu- cartography and global capital. This is to say, maps have long been cate. And in recent years, with the profusion the means and metaphors of state dominance in Latin America of web-based mapping interfaces operating on and elsewhere. T ubiquitous communication tools such as GPS Maps (and mapmakers) have served the process of coloniza- units and Smartphones, we have all become cartographers of sorts. tion and neocolonial projects of territorial control through their But for those who study maps—how they are made, how they are powerful representation of boundaries and new place names used, and with what consequences—maps are not innocent objects but superimposed on indigenous lands. They have served the eco- rather social productions that are vested with authority and rhetorical nomic development of the neocolonial state through their selective power. Through their authority, maps produce and reproduce social representation of “natural resources” in indigenous spaces; they relations in multiple, complex, and often poorly understood ways. have served the disciplinary purposes of the state through their The power of maps derives from the role of symbology—colors, demarcation of “protected” lands; and they have contributed to the fonts, icons—to convey meaning and shape our perceptions of people criminalization of indigenous livelihood strategies through their and places. Their power also stems from their selectivity: maps by exclusionary and rigid “zoning” of land uses in traditional lands. their very nature include certain places and features and exclude Other examples of how the rhetorical power of cartography has others, and this holds true in Google Maps as well as maps produced been used to marginalize indigenous people abound: indigenous by NGOs and government agencies. And, more subtly, the power of toponyms have been eliminated from state maps; indigenous maps derives from our assumption that they are “accurate,” especially lands have been labeled as “empty” and ripe for development; since they are products of the authoritative science of cartography and and contiguous indigenous land-use zones have been fractured the sophisticated technologies of Geographic Information Systems. in isolated “reservations,” “agricultural communities,” and so on This elusive, intrinsic power of maps has long been the focus of inter- (Bryan 2011; Craib 2004; Wainwright and Bryan 2009). est by scholars in such diverse fields as urban planning, geography, and anthropology, all joined in their concern with how the world is Indigenous and Participatory Mapping categorized, divided, bounded, and represented in maps, and with But indigenous people are now trying to harness the power of what social, political, and economic consequences (Crampton 2001; cartography to better represent their material cultures and con- Harley 1989; Kitchin and Dodge 2007; Pickles ed. 1995; Wood 1992). ceptions of space and place. This alternative cartography typically In this article I turn my attention to the recent scholarship, activism, involves some form of participatory mapmaking designed to cap- and professional practice associated with participatory approaches ture indigenous spatial knowledge, often through community-based to maps and mapping, particularly in indigenous territories in Latin workshops where indigenous representatives work with cartog- America. Much of this work takes as its starting point the troubling raphers and GIS specialists to describe, document, and represent relationship between cartography and colonialism, which, in fact, indigenous landscapes. In indigenous lands throughout Latin

llilas portal 12 America and beyond, indigenous communi- allies, has resulted in an explosion of cre- publications (Sletto 2009a, b; Sletto ed. ties and organizations are forming alliances ative, participatory mapping practices and 2012).2 These exchanges and collaborative with scholars, activists, and NGOs to ren- critical deliberations of this emerging field scholarship have revealed three principal der legible community rights, resource uses, among indigenous people and their allies. trends in what can loosely be called a new, sacred places, and other important spatial These articulations of intellectual explora- participatory cartography: innovations in features to outside entities (Caballero Arias tions with activism and technical innovations the practices and conceptualizations of 2007; Mansutti 2006; Offen 2003; Sletto have broad implications for scholarship on the process of mapmaking; a rethinking 2010). space, power, and identity in the post-neo- and expansion of the role of mapmaking Because of the potential of such par- liberal state, but are only beginning to be for endogenous community building and ticipatory mapping projects to bring forth systematically documented in academia and resource management; and inventions in indigenous knowledge and perspectives, beyond. At the University of Texas, scholars the forms of maps and the conceptions of they are increasingly becoming central to associated with the LLILAS Faculty Research what maps and other spatial representations participatory approaches to biodiversity Initiative “Participatory Mapping and the are and can be. conservation and land-use planning in areas Struggle for Land and Resources”1 are now As our thinking about maps and mapmak- populated by indigenous people. In some working with colleagues in Brazil, Colombia, ing continues to evolve, we are seeing a shift cases, participatory mapping projects have Argentina, Venezuela, and elsewhere to pro- in focus from “maps” to “cartographies.” This contributed to greater indigenous self-deter- vide a space for reflections on these recent, is to say, the work currently done by indig- mination and more democratic planning and exciting trends in participatory mapping. This enous practitioners and scholars and their resource management. But more important, includes a series of international conferences colleagues is resulting in a wealth of creative, this new counter-mapping (Peluso 1995) on participatory mapping starting at Cornell radical, and alternative spatial representa- represents the potential for an alternative University in 2006 and followed by Rio de tions that push the boundaries of what was means of storytelling and place-making, a Janeiro in 2010; Bogotá, Colombia, in 2011; commonly considered a “proper map.” We radical change in the ways landscapes and and Rosario, Argentina, in 2012. are seeing a reconceptualization of maps as places are documented, represented, and The Cornell conference, hosted by the Cor- creative re-presentations of space and cul- vested with meaning. The rhetorical power of nell Society for Humanities, and the Bogotá ture, constructed by indigenous peoples on maps and GIS, which for so long has served conference, cosponsored by the Rights and their own terms through a multitude of forms to marginalize indigenous people, thus ironi- Resources Initiative and LLILAS and hosted and media, and ultimately serving to recon- cally becomes the source for indigenous by the Universidad de Los Andes, were both figure spatial and social relations to their community building, territoriality, develop- chaired by the author, and both events sought benefit. These radical innovations in tech- ment and land-use planning, and cultural to bring together indigenous and nonindig- niques and representational forms promise survival (Caballero Arias and Zent 2006; enous leaders, scholars, and practitioners to better reflect spatial phenomena that were Chapin et al. 2005; Chapin and Threlkeld to facilitate transdisciplinary dialogue and excluded or poorly represented in traditional 2001; Fox et al. 2005; Herlihy and Knapp 2003; Stocks 2003). The creative productions of new forms of maps in such participatory mapping projects have been made possible by technological and political developments: cheaper and more user-friendly tools for participatory mapping are readily available, an increasing number of NGO and academics are engaged in participatory mapping, and the postdicta- torship and postwar period has opened up access to mapping technologies and data previously available to only the military, including much cheaper and easier access to satellite imagery and georeferenced spatial data produced by state agencies, interna- tional organizations, and NGOs.

Rethinking Participatory Mapping The availability of these new technolo- gies, coupled with decentralization of state power and increasing capacities on the part of indigenous cartographers and their Reviewing the first draft of the map of Yukpa territory in Toromo, Venezuela, July 2011.

llilas portal 13 participatory maps, such as the deeper spiri- but rather evolving stories of space and culture the “power of maps” can be used to strengthen tual meanings of places and landscapes, the that are shaped by the engagement of read- social bonds and a sense of community, to variability of boundaries depending on kinship ers (Kitchin and Dodge 2007; Sletto 2010c). reproduce cultures and identities in the and other social relations, and the temporal- Mapping can be thought of as a space of face of social change, and to rebuild con- ity of landscapes and land uses. engagement where social and spatial relations nections to a common heritage. Indigenous For example, in the Cauca region of Colom- are reconfigured, and where representations peoples are now increasingly using social bia, the Fundación Minga has developed of these relations will take a multitude of cartography for purposes of place-making innovative mapping projects resulting in mapas forms. In order to productively reconceptualize and resource management: documenting tra- parlante, that is, living maps that serve to facil- maps as cartographies and take advantage of ditional resources and resource uses in ways itate critical conversations and endogenous their potentials for democracy and liberation, that accord with local realities; developing documentation of local knowledge among mapmaking must be situated within commu- socially embedded, sustainable land-use and residents in Afro-Colombian communities. nity-led social processes,, that is, mapmaking resource management strategies; and perhaps In Venezuela, the author has worked for the should follow from social mobilization. We more important, using creative mappings to past five years with the Yukpa to develop an see this reconceptualization of the process of reestablish their own, unique relationships interactive web-based map that includes video, participatory mapmaking in the Projeto Nova with place and nature. photos, and drawings, and that is intended for Cartografia Social da Amazônia (PNCSA)3 In Peru, for example, indigenous com- preservation of culture as well as territorial in Manaus, Brazil, where social cartography munities in the Cuenca del Río Corrientes claims-making. And in Ecuador, the Kichwa de is conceived of as a means for expression of have already gained titles to their lands, but Pastaza have adapted participatory mapping collective identities. Within the quilombola they continue to suffer from contamination tools to their own cultural context, producing communities, for example, mapmaking has caused by oil companies and external pres- endogenous re-presentations of space that been reconceptualized as a natural exten- sures exerted by extractivist interests. In incorporate spiritual significance and social sion of endogenous, community-led social order to document this contamination and relations associated with landscapes with processes, that is, maps follow from social create community-based master plans and Western cartographic standards. mobilization, not the other way around. resource management strategies, they have This reconceptualization of what constitutes Finally, this new thinking about process adopted participatory mapping as a prin- a “map” also requires new thinking about the has been accompanied by innovative uses cipal research and planning tool. They are process of mapmaking. The discussion sur- of participatory mapping within indigenous not, however, simply copying strategies used rounding participatory mapping has tended communities for purposes of social develop- elsewhere, but instead they are constantly to emphasize maps as products rather than ment, cultural preservation, and endogenous innovating and adapting these tools to serve mapping as process. Maps, however, are not resource management. By reconceptualizing their future needs. neutral objects divorced from social context, participatory mapping as social engagements, Discussion In coming years, scholars at the University of Texas at Austin and beyond will continue to reflect critically about the social implications of participatory mapping in indigenous lands. Productive dialogue between indigenous and Western scholars and practitioners about the potentials and pitfalls of participatory mapping has long been lacking, and critical thinking about the politics, potentials, and pitfalls of these technologies has been spotty and uneven. By its very nature, Western car- tography results in maps that fail to represent the complexities of indigenous landscapes. Indigenous land tenure and boundaries are fluid, overlapping, and changing; indigenous conceptions of space reflect complex social relations, and the meanings of landscapes are interwoven with spiritual relationships. Often, participatory mapping projects result in maps that simplify indigenous cultures and gloss over the contested relationships between iden- tity formations and constructions of histories Section of the participatory map of Yukpa territory, Venezuela. and landscapes. Also, participation in such

llilas portal 14 mapping projects is often limited, and partici- most important, to further the struggle for 2005. Mapping Communities: Ethics, Values, patory mapping projects may reshape identity justice in indigenous communities and other Practice. Honolulu: East-West Center. formations and exacerbate local inequalities. marginalized communities that have long Harley, J. B. 1989. “Deconstructing the Map.” As participatory mapping technologies lacked a map of their own—let alone the Cartographica 26: 1–20. are increasingly appropriated and refined means to make one. ✹ Herlihy, Peter, and Gregory Knapp. 2003. “Maps by indigenous peoples themselves, however, of, by, and for the Peoples of Latin America.” the possibilities increase for more representa- Bjørn Sletto is Associate Professor of Commu- Human Organization 62 (4): 303–314. tive and socially appropriate processes and nity and Regional Planning and coordinator Kitchin, Rob, and Martin Dodge. 2007. Progress in more innovative and productive forms of of the dual degree program in Community and Human Geography 31 (3): 331–344. maps. One such technological frontier is the Regional Planning and Latin American Studies Mansutti, Alexander. 2006. “La demarcación de Internet and the host of rapidly developing at the University of Texas at Austin. territorios indígenas en Venezuela: Algunas web-based mapping technologies, which condiciones de funcionamiento y el rol de los allow indigenous people and their allies to Notes antropólogos.” Antropológica 105–106: 13–39. use Google Earth, Google Maps, and other 1. See http://www.utexas.edu/cola/insts/llilas/ Offen, Karl. 2003. “Narrating Place and Identity, user-driven mapping interfaces to facilitate faculty/fri.php or Mapping Miskitu Land Claims in Northeastern participation in mapping projects, and to 2. The Bogotá conference was made possible Nicaragua.” Human Organization 62 (4): 382–392. publish online maps where users can explore through financial support provided by the Peluso, Nancy. 1995. ‘Whose Woods Are These?’ not only spatial information but also other Rights and Resources Initiative (http://www. Counter-mapping Forest Territories in data such as photographs and video. These rightsandresources.org/) and generous staff and Kalimantan, Indonesia.” Antipode 4: 383–406. new Internet technologies can make possible logistical support from the Departamento de Pickles, John, ed. 1995. Ground Truth: The Social representations that are more true to the Historia de la Facultad de Ciencias Sociales at Implications of Geographic Information Systems. complex articulations of space, time, and the Universidad de Los Andes (http://historia. New York: Guilford Press. culture that characterize indigenous land- uniandes.edu.co/index.php). The examples Sletto, Bjørn. 2010. “Autogestión en representaciones scapes. On the other hand, while the Internet discussed in this article were presented at the espaciales indígenas y el rol de la capacitación permits indigenous people and their allies to Bogotá conference and are available for down- y concientización: El caso del Proyecto rapidly disseminate their own representa- load at https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B9h8 Etnocartográfico Inna Kowantok, Sector 5 Pemón tions of space and culture worldwide, wide MnJJQyEmMTA1NTBmZGEtZmIyZC00NWI1LW (Kavanayén-Mapauri), La Gran Sabana.” dissemination does not necessarily translate E4YzMtMTZiYWJhODZiNzJm&hl=en_US. Antropológica 113: 43–75. into effective claims-making, and the use of 3. http://www.novacartografiasocial.com/ ———. 2009a. “Introduction to Special Issue: digital technologies carries the risk of increas- Indigenous Cartographies.” Cultural Geographies ing inequities between those with access to References 16 (2): 147–152. these technologies and those without. Par- Bryan, Joe. 2011. “Walking the Line: ———. 2009b. “‘Indigenous People Don’t Have ticipatory maps thus constitute increasingly Participatory Mapping, Indigenous Rights, and Boundaries:’ Reborderings, Fire Management, important elements of broader indigenous Neoliberalism.” Geoforum 42 (2011) 40–50. and Productions of Authenticities in Indigenous representational strategies, reflecting the Caballero Arias, Hortensia. 2007. “La demarcación Landscapes.” Cultural Geographies 16 (2): complex entanglements of local and global de tierras indígenas en Venezuela. Revista 253–277. processes that accompany the productions Venezolana de Economía y Ciencias Sociales ———. 2009c. “‘We Drew What We Imagined:’ of postcolonial landscapes. 13 (3): 189–208. Participatory Mapping, Performance and the Participatory mapping is shifting rapidly Caballero Arias, Hortensia, and Egleé L. Zent. 2006. Arts of Landscape-Making.” Current Anthropology from being the purview of North American “Introducción.” Antropológica 105–106: 5–12. 50 (4): 443–476. and European scholars and development Chapin, Mac, Zachary Lamb, and Bill Threlkeld. ———, ed. 2012. Cartografía participativa y practitioners to a set of tools and epistemolo- 2005. “Mapping Indigenous Lands.” Annual derechos al territorio y los recursos: Memorias gies of spatial production that is increasingly Review of Anthropology 34: 619–638. del foro internacional. Teresa Lozano Long driven by indigenous people, on their own Chapin, Mac, and Bill Threlkeld. 2001. Indigenous Institute of Latin American Studies, University terms, embedded within their own commu- Landscapes: A Study in Ethnocartography. of Texas. nity-driven social processes, and oriented Washington, D.C.: Center for the Support Stocks, Anthony. 2003. “Mapping Dreams in toward their own ends. In the process, of Native Lands. Nicaragua’s Bosawas Reserve.” Human indigenous practitioners and intellectuals Craib, Raymond. 2004. Cartographic Mexico: Organization 62 (4): 344–356. and their collaborators have brought par- A History of State Fixations and Fugitive Land- Wainwright, Joel, and Joe Bryan. 2009. ticipatory mapping from a prescriptive set of scapes. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. “Cartography, Territory, Property: Postcolonial Western-driven tools to a fulcrum for creative Crampton, Jeremy. 2001. “Maps as Social Reflections on Indigenous Counter-mapping in thinking and intellectual exploration. The Constructions: Power, Communication and Nicaragua and Belize.” Cultural Geographies innovative practices and theory development Visualization.” Progress in Human Geography 16 (2): 153–178. in participatory mapping promise to expand 25 (2): 235–252. Wood, D. 1992. The Power of Maps. New York: the frontiers of postdevelopment theory and, Fox, Jefferson, K. Suryanata, and P. Hershock, eds. Guilford Press.

llilas portal 15