Saving a Species Threatened by Trade: a Network Study of Bali Starling Leucopsar Rothschildi Conservation

Saving a species threatened by trade: a network study of Bali starling Leucopsar rothschildi conservation

P AUL R. JEPSON

Abstract Saving species from extinction is a central tenet of Introduction conservation, yet success in this endeavour remains unpredictable and elusive, especially where wildlife trade is in- aving species from extinction is a central tenet of conser- volved. Influential conservation policy actors operating Svation, yet despite transformations in conservation sci- internationally advocate strong regulatory and enforcement ence, policy, resources and public awareness, success in this approaches to governance of wildlife trade. However, a endeavour remains unpredictable and elusive. This seems to broad body of evidence suggests that in some situations be particularly so where wildlife trade is involved, as shown positive incentives for sustainable use may achieve better by high-profile policy and media campaigns in response to conservation outcomes. This analysis of efforts over  the plight of several iconic taxa, notably elephants, rhi- decades to avoid the extinction of the Bali starling noceros, tigers and pangolins (e.g. United for Wildlife,  Leucopsar rothschildi draws on network perspectives from ). Difficulties in saving threatened species may be  environmental governance and geography, and shows how more systemic. For instance, in a review of bird species an international project adopting traditional enforcement categorized as Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red List    approaches generated a ‘prestige of ownership’ dynamic (IUCN, ), Butchart et al. ( ) identified only for among local elites. This placed trade in Bali starlings which interventions had prevented their extinction. This above the enforcement competencies of the relevant govern- case study of conservation of the Bali starling Leucopsar  – ment authority, leading to the demise of the species. rothschildi in Indonesia over decades ( ) aims Subsequently, two separate Indonesian initiatives created to develop earlier contributions that I and co-authors have spaces of regulatory flexibility and embraced traits of the made to the debate about the efficacy of strategies to govern starling’s phenotype to construct identities for the species wildlife trade, and to theory development in the conser- suited to the local context. This enrolled a wider range of vation of threatened species.  stakeholders in the conservation of the species, including The London Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade bird-keeping elites, and led to significant successes in restor- brought attention to the pressures facing wildlife with a ing captive and free-flying populations. This case study market value. A focus of the conference was the alignment highlights the potential of conservation networks that in- of wildlife trade with security agendas and calls to class wild- ‘ ’ volve non-establishment personnel and, while recognizing life crime as a serious crime (London Conference  the appeal of generic enforcement approaches to politicians, Declaration, ). However, the last significant review of funders and the urban public, it adds to an increasing body wildlife trade and regulation found that regulatory systems of evidence that suggests top-down prescriptive conser- frequently fail and the conceptual or empirical foundations vation frameworks may undermine the ability of situated of such strategies are often faulty or untested (Oldfield,   conservationists to develop interventions appropriate to ). Cooney & Jepson ( ) questioned the efficacy of their political and cultural realities. generic trade bans and argued for more situated governance approaches that adopt either regulation or incentive-based Keywords Bali starling, conservation effectiveness, govern- approaches or a blend of the two, depending on the charac- ance, Indonesia, Leucopsar rothschildi, networks, species teristics of the species concerned and the context of their conservation, wildlife trade conservation. Challender & MacMillan (), writing from an economics perspective, similarly outlined the risks associated with reducing ‘the complex social, cultural and economic nature of wildlife trade into a simple law enforcement problem’. Such perspectives allude to transformations in political PAUL JEPSON School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, systems, in particular the gradual change from centralized, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK E-mail [email protected] hierarchically organized systems that govern by means of Received  September . Revision requested  November . law, rule and order, to more horizontally organized, frag- Accepted  November . First published online  May . mented and complex systems of governance that govern

Oryx, 2016, 50(3), 480–488 © 2015 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605314001148 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.40.219, on 25 Sep 2021 at 18:37:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605314001148 Saving the Bali starling 481

through a combination of self-regulation, market and other This case study presents a history of conservation of the incentives interacting with law (Sørensen & Torfing, ). Bali starling and its iconic status, as the context for the fol- Network perspectives from within political science, policy lowing accounts of the participants and logics involved in studies and geography respond to this move towards net- the formation and performance of four conservation network governance. The first two disciplines tend to adopt in- works. I then consider insights from these accounts within stitutional perspectives and focus on the structure, spatial the framework of debates about governance of wildlife trade organization and impact of governance networks (e.g. and broader discussions about how best to save Critically Betsill & Bulkeley, ), the role of networks in transna- Endangered species. tional rule-making (e.g Duffy, ; Djelic & Sahlin- Andersson, ), their efficacy in natural resource man-  agement (e.g. Gibbs, ), and the implications of network Methods governance for democratic theory (e.g. Sørensen & Torfing, ). This study is informed by four information sources: () re- Post-humanist perspectives in geography offer useful collections of my direct involvement in conservation activi- conceptual insights for the study of conservation networks ties for the Bali starling (whilst Head of the BirdLife (Jepson et al., a). Of particular relevance to this study are International–Indonesia Programme –) that were () understandings of agency (i.e. the capacity to produce a prompted and checked through review of project reports phenomenon or modify a state of affairs) as an emergent and the draft of an article I prepared in ,() a review property of relations rather than the property of particular of literature on the Bali starling, () an applied study human actors (individuals or organizations), () the logic (–) on the culture of bird-keeping in Java and that if agency is relational any entity in a network is conceiv- Bali (Jepson & Ladle, ;Jepsonetal.,b), and ()  key- ably an actor because the relations in which an entity is em- informant interviews conducted during June–November  bedded can imbue it with the capacity to influence with people directly involved in the three conservation initia- unfolding events (act) and, () that actors (including spe- tives for the Bali starling. Respondents were identified from a cies) achieve their identity as a consequence of the relations combination of personal knowledge and so-called snowballing in which they reside (Latour, ; Blok, ). These in- (i.e. persons identified by respondents). Interviews were con- sights identify a potential weakness in the design of inter- ducted in person (Indonesia and UK) or by telephone (USA ventions for threatened species, namely the tendency of and Netherlands) in English or a mix of English and Bahasa lead conservation practitioners to prescribe an identity for Indonesia. Topics explored included the basis for the popu- a species that reflects and reinforces their world-views, agen- larity of the species in Indonesia, interviewees’ involvement das and/or technologies of conservation, and the risk that in the project(s), and their opinions on the world-views and this identity might be in tension with the identities of the techniques of various stakeholders. Interviews were recorded species in the cultural context of its conservation and with the permission of the interviewees, and transcribed. Data amongst local conservation networks (cf. Callon, ). analysis and writing commenced simultaneously and this in- From a perspective of developing theory about the con- formed the content of some interviews. Interviews were sup- servation of threatened species Ladle & Jepson ()sug- plemented with site visits and informal conversations at gested that contemporary practice is informed by the small breeding and release facilities in Bali Barat National Park population and declining population paradigms. These and Nusa Penida island during August . To ensure anon- posit that declining populations are increasingly subjected ymity, quotes are attributed to one of three categories of inter- to biotic and abiotic feedback loops that lead to an extinc- viewee, namely Government (G), Zoo (Z) and NGO (N), and tion vortex (Gilpin & Soulé, ), and that population de- identified by category and interview number. clines have identifiable causes that can be diffused by considered interventions (Caughley, ). We argued that this theorization lacks consideration of other import- Results ant causal agents, namely the behaviour of conservation organizations and other stakeholders, and the identities of A short history of Bali starling conservation the threatened species in their cultural context. Network perspectives offer a means to investigate these and other in- The Bali starling is endemic to the island of Bali, Indonesia, teractions, and are particularly suited to the analysis of spe- and was discovered by western science relatively recently, in cies conservation. This is because conservation has . It has a white body and crest and black tips to the wings probably always been enacted ‘with and through networks’ and tail. It was afforded legal protection in Indonesia in  (sensu Rhodes, ), given its social movement heritage and included in the  Red Data Book (King, –). and focus on governing both human and non-human Mass export of Bali starlings to Europe and the USA during populations. the s and s prompted inclusion of the species on

Appendix  of CITES () when Indonesia ratified the in Indonesian wildlife rescue centres. In  they began re- Convention in . leasing Bali starlings on the island (Dijkman, ), and a Counts of the wild population revealed steady declines free-flying population with third-generation offspring was from – birds in – to – birds in  established in . and to only  or  individuals in . After a brief recovery to  individuals in  the population declined to  by  (van Balen & Gepak, ) and the findings of this The basis of the Bali starling’s iconic status study suggest that the species became extinct in the wild Indonesian respondents suggest that the Bali starling’s ico- in . In contrast, zoo populations of the species in nic status was constructed through the interplay of several Europe () and the USA () reached saturation point factors: the rarity of white birds, and their association with in the late s (BirdLife International, ). the concepts of peace, purity, spirituality and royalty; the In  the International Council for Bird Preservation fact that the species is endemic to Bali, which is popularly (since  BirdLife International) and the Indonesian known as the island of the Gods; and the interest taken in Government’s Directorate General for Forest Protection the species by Sukarno, Indonesia’s former president and in- and Nature Conservation (PHKA) commenced a collabora- dependence leader (who probably requested protected sta- tive programme to protect and restore the last remaining tus for the species in ). Furthermore, the species’ wild population of the species, located in Bali Barat beauty reinforced western constructs of Bali as an exotic National Park. The first phase (–) involved a tropical paradise, which date back to the s, when Bali study of the status and ecology of the population, and pro- became a popular destination for western artists, writers duction of a -year recovery programme. Concurrently, the and media moguls (Shavit, ). American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria (since  the Association of Zoos and Aquariums) devel-  oped and adopted (in ) a species survival plan for the Formative networks of Bali starling conservation Bali starling (Earnhardt et al., ). In  these parties and the Jersey Wildlife and Preservation Trust embarked The late Haji Mohamed Kamil Oseman, a senior Indonesian on a -year project (phase III) with objectives relating to oil-executive, bird lover and founder of the Indonesian sec- protection and monitoring, restocking the wild population, tion of the International Council for Bird Preservation, was establishing captive breeding in Indonesia, and raising pub- the key node in the first Bali starling conservation network. lic awareness. The breeding component involved three In  he received a letter from the International Council Indonesian zoos: Surabaya Zoo in East Java, and Taman for Bird Preservation secretariat in Washington (initiated Safari and Taman Burung in West Java (Collins et al., by the Dutch section of the organization) informing him ). The Bali Barat National Park authority was unable of concerns regarding the survival prospects of the starling, to control trapping of Bali starlings, and BirdLife donors and requesting his intervention. Oseman enlisted a leading lost confidence in the project. In  BirdLife withdrew U.S. zoo curator in the cause during the translocation of from direct involvement in the project and the international confiscated palm cockatoos Probosciger aterrimus from effort dwindled c.  (BirdLife International, ). the USA to Indonesia in . This event, which occurred Subsequently, in  Taman Safari and Pelestari Burung soon after Indonesia ratified CITES, generated significant Indonesia (a national bird-keeper association) formed the media interest in Jakarta, and Oseman and the zoo curator Association for Conservation of the Bali Starling (Asociasi exploited this to gain access to senior officials in the Pelestari Curik Bali) to saturate the market with locally Directorate General for Forest Protection and Nature bred Bali starlings and provide a surplus of birds for release. Conservation, and bring the plight of the Bali starling to In  the Directorate General for Forest Protection and their attention. Nature Conservation delegated management authority of By  the starling was a popular exhibit in zoos in the the Indonesian ex situ population (i.e. those held in captivity USA and Europe because of its exotic associations, beautiful in Indonesia) to this association, which by  increased the plumage, lively behaviour and simple husbandry require- population of Bali starlings to . , individuals kept by ments. Many U.S. zoos had acquired specimens in the  citizen breeders. early s ‘but no one thought or realized what their status In  the Bali-based Begawan Giri Foundation com- was in the wild’ (Interview Z,  September ). menced a breeding programme for the Bali starling, at its Meanwhile, the American Association of Zoological Parks resort near Ubud, on the recommendation of the Balinese and Aquaria sought to strengthen the public legitimacy NGO Friends of the National Park Foundation (FNPF, in- and scientific credibility of zoos by presenting them as insti- dependent of Bali Barat National Park). Since , FNPF tutes developing science-based technologies for conser- had been working with customary leaders on the island of vation breeding and reintroduction (Conway, ; Nusa Penida to create a sanctuary for the release of birds Lovejoy, ). The plight of the Bali starling aligned with

these strategic goals: it was the ideal species for which to de- demand for Bali starlings thus emerged, and was fulfilled velop, test and establish new technologies of studbook man- by a powerful East Javan wildlife trade mafia, who trapped agement; it was easy to breed and most zoos already kept the birds from the Bali Barat National Park. This study was un- species, and thus ‘for a relatively small expenditure... they able to establish whether elite owners actively sourced the could become part of this international programme’ species or whether the starlings were given to them as gifts. (Interview Z,  September ). Tensions between the Ministry of Environment and the In the early s the International Council for Bird Ministry of Forestry were exacerbated prior to the  Preservation appointed its first two paid staff members. Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The former recognized The Council’s aim was to become the world authority on the international kudos Indonesia could gain from its status the status and conservation of birds through systematic as- as a mega-diverse country (McNeely et al., ) and ac- sessment of the threat status of every bird species. According cused the Ministry of Forestry of ‘only ever cutting forests’ to its first programme manager, the Bali starling conser- (Interview G,  July ). In an effort to resolve differ- vation project offered a project the Dutch section of the ences, Oseman and others facilitated a joint meeting that International Council for Bird Preservation could adopt, led to a decree establishing a national flora and fauna day and the opportunity to establish a base in Indonesia, from and requiring all provinces to adopt a species mascot. Bali which to build knowledge of the diverse and little-known chose the Bali starling as its mascot, thus raising the profile avifauna of the archipelago. of the species in Balinese culture and art and in the market- In  Oseman facilitated a collaborative project for ing of tourist facilities, including the Bali Hyatt Hotel and conservation of the Bali starling, involving the Directorate the Bali Bird Park (van Balen & Dirgayusa, ). General for Forest Protection and Nature Conservation and the International Council for Bird Preservation. This ’ – was in line with the Suharto regime s( ) use of con- The international project servation policy as a means to generate a positive international profile for Indonesia. In  Indonesia hosted The three main participants in the international project for the IUCN World Parks Congress in Bali, where Minister conservation of the Bali starling (the Association of Zoos of Forestry, Soejaro, declared Indonesia’s first  national and Aquariums, the International Council for Bird parks, including the Bali Barat National Park. Thus an inter- Preservation/BirdLife & the Directorate General for Forest national species survival project in Bali made both political Protection and Nature Conservation) problematized the and conservation sense and the Bali starling became the plight of the Bali starling in accordance with their respective ‘talked about’ bird among the Indonesian elite with an inter- conservation perspectives and techniques. The zoo curators est in wildlife. Ownership of rare wildlife has long been a emphasized the small population size and concomitant mark of status amongst the Indonesian army, police and bu- risks of stochastic extinction and/or reduced fecundity as a reaucracy, and until the s it was common practice to result of in-breeding depression (e.g. Shaffer, ). From give wildlife as gifts to superiors as a demonstration of grati- their perspective, to save the species it was essential to tude and loyalty. By the mid s ownership of a Bali star- know and manage the gene lines of the ex situ and wild po- ling had come to signify that a person had taste and an pulations, increase the latter through reintroduction, and es- international outlook, and was above the law because of tablish protocol to guard against disease. Ornithologists of the his status within, or links to, the governing elite, his wealth, International Council for Bird Preservation approached the or both. problem from a perspective that framed human-induced im- Indonesian respondents struggled to explain why pres- pacts on natural habitats as the primary threat to wild bird tige accrued from the illegal practice of owning a Bali star- populations: the terms human occupation, habitat destruc- ling. Responses suggested a dynamic of prestige whereby tion, conversion, and encroachment featured prominently sharing knowledge of ownership signifies a bond of trust in their assessments (Vincent, –; Collar et al., ; with the recipient of that knowledge, who accords the BirdLife International, ). Their response logic empha- owner respect and admiration for their social status, as sig- sized ecological research and monitoring to understand the nified by their owning a Bali starling. A senior official of the effects of direct and indirect anthropogenic factors on the Directorate General for Forest Protection and Nature wild population as a basis for developing management solu- Conservation argued that the desire among the elite to tions. The Directorate General for Forest Protection and keep Bali starlings was also a consequence of a misunder- Nature Conservation approached the issue from the resource standing of the awareness messages communicated by the management ethos of foresters. They regarded the starling as international project. These inadvertently generated a desire a natural resource to be secured in its environment, with the to own the species before it went extinct, and an attitude that prospect of some utility function at a future date. it was better to keep the species in captivity rather than let it Among these diverse problematizations of the status of go extinct in the wild (Interview G,  August ). A the Bali starling were points of contact and convergence

that produced the semblance of a partnership of comp- (which was also extended to other species) had limited up- lementary expertise. The combined resource-inventory take and was criticized by other conservationists as legaliz- practices of foresters and ornithologists yielded a standar- ing private ownership of threatened wildlife. dized biannual census technique involving park rangers and maps of habitat in need of protection. The Association of Zoos and Aquariums transferred stud-book The Javanese association management technologies to the Indonesian zoo com- munity and produced a release protocol with the ornitholo- Following the demise of the international project, some of gists. The Directorate General for Forest Protection and the Indonesian participants established the Association for Nature Conservation organized ranger patrols in the park, Conservation of the Bali Starling in . This emerged and the three parties collaborated on public awareness ac- from a network of journalists founded by Taman Safari in tivities and releases of captive-bred birds. However, the resi-  to improve the amount and quality of wildlife news re- dent ornithologists of the International Council for the porting. At a meeting in  Taman Safari and Pelestari Protection of Birds, and the Directorate General for Forest Burung Indonesia highlighted a citizen association that Protection and Nature Conservation considered captive had formed to breed straw-headed bulbuls Pycnonotus zey- breeding a second-choice option that was useful only if lanicus. Like the Bali starling, this species had been driven to they were ‘unable to support the species in its environment’ extinction in Indonesia by trapping to supply local cage-bird (Interview N,  August ). They considered the per- markets. The journalists were inspired by the breeding suc- iodic visits by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, cess generated by the association’s social learning model. which involved workshops on captive breeding and pro- They convened an informal meeting to explore the possi- motion of the Vortex software (Lacy, ), to require a dis- bility of a similar initiative for the Bali starling, and invited proportionate investment of project resources and distract the Directorate General for Forest Protection and Nature from the core issues of park security and habitat manage- Conservation on the understanding that ‘we don’t talk ment. From the perspective of the Association the resident about legal and illegal things’ (Interview Z,  July ). ornithologists did not exert sufficient pressure on the auth- Based on their local knowledge, journalists in the net- orities to improve security at Bali Barat National Park. The work generated the crucial statistic that  starlings were ornithologists considered this was beyond the power of the kept privately in  households in Java. Subsequently, Directorate General for Forest Protection and Nature Taman Safari and Pelestari Burung Indonesia personnel Conservation but did not fully understand why. met several times with the Director General for Forest This failure of park enforcement led to the demise of the Protection and Nature Conservation and developed an partnership after  years. A high-ranking respondent from agreement whereby the government would delegate to the the Directorate General explained the enforcement problem Association for Conservation of the Bali Starling sole man- in terms of ministerial territories: ‘outside a forest we are agement authority for the Indonesian ex situ population of weak...we are foresters...going out of this domain is very Bali starling for a trial period of  years. difficult...because there are many high-ranking officials en- The Association was formally established, with a board joying wildlife as private property’. He noted that ‘most of comprising representatives from Indonesian zoos, Pelestari the big stealing of Bali starling happened when the Park Burung Indonesia, the network of journalists, and the Director was away...and the Bali starling price was a hun- Indonesian partners of WWF and BirdLife International. dred times their [a ranger’s] monthly salary’ (Interview G, According to the head of Pelestari Burung Indonesia, the  August ); thus trappers could pay rangers to over- Association encouraged citizens to ‘breed the birds because look their presence. In short, the transnational conservation that will put birds into the market and the price will go partnership lacked influence within the networks of power down and by doing that the birds in Bali Barat National and accommodation that emerged around the Bali starling’s Park will be more secure’. He added ‘You will never get any- elite status. where if you keep forbidding people to participate ...but of In  the Directorate General for Forest Protection and course you have to select carefully who can be trusted to par- Nature Conservation acted independently to address the ticipate’ (Interview Z,  July ). issue of elite ownership by introducing a policy dubbed The committee began with  invited starling owners the white-wash campaign, whereby owners were encour- who were known to be interested in breeding and conser- aged to exchange wild-caught Bali starlings for captive-bred vation, including one who was already a successful breeder American birds (legally a loan). The idea was to acquire ge- of Bali starlings. They organized training, and the loan and netically superior birds for the Indonesian captive-breeding exchange of birds to create breeding pairs. The network ex- programme and for the Directorate General and Ministry of panded as other owners applied to join, motivated by the Forestry to assert ownership of protected wildlife in cap- prospect of commercial gains and being part of a network tivity without antagonizing high-status owners. The policy involving high-status individuals that would buffer owners

from problems with the authorities. Within  years the population of  individuals. In  the resort was sold Association doubled the captive population of Bali starlings and the new owners had no interest in the Bali starlings, on Java, to c. , birds. They transformed the Bali starling and thus the birds were translocated to Nusa Penida in from a Critically Endangered species to a cage-bird whose  and prepared for release. This was supported by the market value and source of supply were commonly pre-eminent traditional leader on the island, whose family known. The price of a pair decreased from IDR  million had for generations managed the famous temple at Ped. (c. USD ,) to IDR – million (c. USD ) and as a He was seeking to develop tourism as a means to resist a ca- result the species lost its status in black market networks of sino development proposed by Jakarta-based investors, and wildlife supply. hoped the Bali starling would enhance the image of the is- As the number of breeders increased, the Association land. On  July   starlings were released into coconut created two types of breeders: government-licensed com- plantations around the temples of Ped and Batumadeg. mercial breeders (– only), who agreed to participate in Prior to release they were given as ceremonial offerings to the studbook and (in principle) donate % of their pro- the temples, thereby symbolically transferring ownership ductivity to the Directorate General for Forest Protection from the government to the spiritual and ceremonial insti- and Nature Conservation for release, and a larger number tutions of the island, thus reinforcing the customary bird of quasi-legal, unlicensed breeders operating outside the protection regulations. studbook and selling birds certified as captive-bred to any- Interviewed leaders of Friends of the National Parks one willing to buy. In response to the success of the Foundation identified a desire in Bali to assert a distinct Association for Conservation of the Bali Starling the govern- Balinese identity in conservation of the Bali starling. One ment decided to release a flock of Bali starlings into Bali commented that ‘if the Bali starling is Bali’s mascot the Barat National Park to mark Indonesia’s hosting of the Balinese should save it’ and the people of Bali should be United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ‘able to know it [their faunal symbol] and know it for free’ Change in Bali in  but commercial breeders were reluc- (Interview N,  August ). Bali Barat National Park was tant to give up their birds, because of the Park’s reputation perceived as a Javanese administrative territory, and the fail- for lax security. The Association for Conservation of the Bali ure of the international project had resulted in a lack of faith Starling, in partnership with three eco-resorts, thus devised in establishment conservation. The proposed release of Bali a soft release solution, which involved creating release flocks starlings outside their known natural range and into per- that would stay within the security of a resort, by means of ceived non-native habitat caused controversy in establish- aviary cohorts and regular feeding of free-flying cohorts. ment conservation circles. The Indonesian Institute of Sciences and two leading Indonesian universities supported the plan to release Bali starlings outside their known natural The Balinese initiative range but officials of international bird conservation NGOs argued that the plan was ‘irresponsible’, ‘against IUCN Concurrent with the Javanese initiative a distinct Balinese guidelines’ and ‘counter to the doctrine of conservation’ approach emerged, led by Bayu Wirayudha, a charismatic (Interview Z,  July ). They lobbied the Directorate Balinese veterinarian, conservationist and director of General for Forest Protection and Nature Conservation in Friends of the National Parks Foundation. This approach Jakarta, which informed their representative office in Bali brought together two existing conservation initiatives: a that without approval from the central government the re- grassroots network of Indonesian conservationists, led by lease would be illegal. In response Friends of the National the national animal welfare organization ProFauna, and Parks Foundation asked a prominent figure on Bali’s arts an initiative of the British owners of the Begawan Giri resort, scene, who was also a starling breeder, to facilitate a meeting who wanted to attract more birds to the hotel grounds. with the Governor of Bali. The Governor supported the re- Friends of the National Parks Foundation identified Nusa lease of starlings and encouraged the heads of army and po- Penida, an island close to Bali, as a suitable location for res- lice to attend the release ceremony. The objections of cued animals to establish free-living populations. Seven of external conservation authorities were further overruled the  villages on the island already had customary laws pro- when President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono visited the tecting wild birds, in accordance with teaching within Temple at Ped (which is believed to impart aura) and con- Hinduism concerning the sanctity of all life, and by  ducted a second ceremonial release of  starlings on  all village councils had passed customary laws protecting April . birds. Thus the island became a bird sanctuary, and trapping By  December   starlings had been released, at of birds was eliminated. four locations, and by  third-generation offspring of The owners of Begawan Giri began a breeding pro- these birds were flying free in agricultural habitats. In a gramme for the Bali starling, with two pairs sourced from July  census by the Biology faculty of Udayana the UK, and by  they had established a captive University at least  individuals were counted. In 

the original breeding stock was reclaimed by the Begawan asset for local leaders seeking to protect their cultural tradi- Foundation, ending this phase of the Nusa Penida release tions in the face of external commercial pressures. programme. These two Indonesian conservation initiatives raise ques- tions about underlying assumptions within the international conservation regime. For instance, the market Discussion saturation approach of the Association for Conservation of the Bali Starling was proposed in  by a progressive By adopting a network perspective this -year case study of PHKA official and included in the PHKA/BirdLife Bali starling conservation adds depth and insight to standar- Indonesia Programme Bali Starling Recovery Plan (Jepson dized accounts of species endangerment (e.g. BirdLife et al., ) but it failed to gain international support. This International, ). The insights gained inform long- was partly because of concerns that it contravened protected standing debates on different strategies to govern wildlife species legislation and might increase demand for wild birds trade. In addition they suggest testable hypotheses for the- (for breeding stock), but also because of assumptions that ory development in the conservation of threatened species. the keeping, protection and management of threatened spe- Illegal trapping for the wildlife trade is the primary threat cies should be non-commercial, the prerogative of expert to the survival of the Bali starling in the wild, and govern- authorities, and performed in designated conservation terri- ment officials and conservation and animal welfare NGOs tories. Although the Indonesian projects contravened a have long favoured a law-enforcement approach to address strict interpretation of species law, they delivered on the va- this threat. This study revealed that a traditional law en- lues enshrined in such law, namely, avoiding the extinction forcement approach was ineffective and contributed to the of species. failure of an international conservation partnership because Contrasting the three conservation initiatives for the Bali of the prestige of starling ownership among ruling and busi- starling helps clarify the distinction between a conservation ness elites who were above the enforcement competencies of partnership and a conservation network. The former is the the responsible government agency. Although efforts to ele- more common arrangement and is exemplified by the col- vate wildlife trade to a serious crime may address such laboration of BirdLife, the Association of Zoos and prestige dynamics through increasing the risk of ownership Aquariums, and the Directorate General for Forest by involving higher-level policing authorities, this prop- Protection and Nature Conservation to achieve a shared osition is untested, as is the assumption that governments goal (saving the Bali starling) in accordance with inter- possess the resources and political capital to extend strong national conservation norms. The international partnership enforcement beyond a small set of iconic species. prescribed a fixed identity for the Bali starling, namely that The Javanese and Balinese initiatives for conservation of of a Critically Endangered bird of monsoon forest habitat, the Bali starling have shown that effective, low-cost ap- native to Bali, and sought to save their version of the star- proaches can emerge in situations of regulatory flexibility ling. In contrast, the Association for Conservation of the where conservationists can use a combination of conser- Bali Starling and the Friends of the National Parks vation techniques and local cultural resources. The agree- Foundation initiatives embraced the affordances of the ment to suspend provisions under Indonesia’s species Bali starling’s phenotype (its beauty and simple ecology) protection law on a trial basis allowed the Association for to construct (or adopt) identities suited to local cultural con- Conservation of the Bali Starling to mobilize Java’s bird texts. In so doing they allowed the species a role in assemb- breeders to supply Bali starlings commercially. This reduced ling a looser array of participants in conservation networks. the market price and prestige of ownership, making the sup- These included participants that the international partner- ply of wild-caught birds financially unattractive for the ship eschewed or considered irrelevant, notably private crime syndicate involved. The Bali starling became an owners of Bali starlings, prominent artists, politicians, and asset in other ways: new enterprise and livelihood options customary leaders. The network relationships produced were generated for urban citizens, a release ceremony took forms of agency that resulted in reduced wild-capture, en- place to mark Indonesia’s hosting of a major environmental hanced breeding, and increased numbers of Bali starlings conference, and the starling was perceived as enhancing the released. visitor experience at eco-lodges. Conventional accounts of failures to save iconic species In contrast, Friends of the National Park Foundation had advocate the need for better site-based protection, better eco- to actively push back against protected species legislation logical knowledge, and increased political will and focus on and ‘soft law’ international guidelines relating to reintroduc- donors (e.g. Sanderson et al., ; Brook et al., ). Such tions (IUCN/SSC, ) to produce a sacred Bali starling accounts assume that improved performance by established that would be afforded protection by customary institutions conservation organizations will deliver better outcomes. on Nusa Penida that embody Hindu beliefs on the sanctity This study adds another dimension, suggesting that the in- of all life. This process also transformed the starling into an volvement and leadership of local and non-establishment

conservation participants creates the conditions for impact. References This is because they are better able to develop culturally at- tuned, incentive-based approaches that will enlist and mobi- BENNETT,E.L.,BLENCOWE,E.,BRANDON,K.,BROWN,D.,BURN,R.W., COWLISHAW,G.etal.() Hunting for consensus: reconciling lize a more heterogeneous network of actors in efforts to bushmeat harvest, conservation, and development policy in West and conserve a species. Central Africa. Conservation Biology, , –. I am aware that the debate on enforcement versus sustain- BETSILL,M.&BULKELEY,H.() Looking back and thinking ahead: able use is predominantly focused on strategies to conserve a decade of cities and climate change research. Local Environment, megafauna threatened by trade in international markets and , –.  concerns about the danger such markets create, particularly BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL ( ) Threatened Bird of Asia: The BirdLife International Red Data Book. BirdLife International, for rangers. However, the core message of this case study, Cambridge, UK. that a pragmatic, contextual approach may be the best strategy BLOK,A.() Actor-networking ceta-sociality, or, what is for governing domestic wildlife trade, concurs with a con- sociological about contemporary whales? Distinktion, , –. siderable body of research on strategies to govern the bush- BROOK, S.M., DUDLEY, N., MAHOOD, S.P., POLET, G., WILLIAMS,A.  meat trade (Bennett et al., ; Minteer, ). Further, it C., DUCKWORTH, J.W. et al. ( ) Lessons learned from the loss of  a flagship: the extinction of the Javan rhinoceros Rhinoceros extends the argument of Roe et al. ( ) that restricting sus- sondaicus annamiticus from Vietnam. Biological Conservation, , tainable use of wildlife products can limit rural livelihood op- –. tions to include urban communities. It is not clear whether BUTCHART, S.H.M., STATTERSFIELD, A.J. & COLLAR, N.J. () How international wildlife trade has different rules to domestic many bird extinctions have we prevented? Oryx, , –.  trade. It seems clear, however, that it would make sense to CALLON,M.( ) Some elements in a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In bring these two bodies of evidence into closer dialogue. Power, Action and Belief. A New Sociology of Knowledge (ed. J. Law), It is not my intent to denounce the international project pp. –. Routledge, London, UK. of which I was part. It was of its time, and the Bali starling CAUGHLEY,G.() Directions in conservation biology. Journal of was effectively deployed as an asset in the establishment of Animal Ecology, , –.  international conservation institutions during the s and CHALLENDER, D.W. & MACMILLAN, D.C. ( ) Poaching is more than an enforcement problem. Conservation Letters, , –. s. Rather, this case study brings to the fore the need for CITES () Convention on International Trade in Endangered multi-level conservation governance institutions with Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Appendices I, II and III. Http:// built-in flexibility. Advocacy and decision making at the in- cites.org/eng/app/appendices.php [accessed  December ]. ternational level require a degree of simplification and ab- COLLAR, N.J., CROSBY, M.J. & STATTERSFIELD, A.J. () Birds to straction. However, it is important that conservationists Watch : The World List of Threatened Birds. BirdLife International, operating in this space are cognizant and reflexive concern- Cambridge, UK. COLLINS, M.S., SMITH, T.B., SEIBELS, R.E. & PUTRA,A.() ing their limited understandings of the complex realities of Approaches to the reintroduction of the Bali mynah. Zoo Biology, , in situ action. Generic approaches such as trade bans, stric- –. ter enforcement and consumer campaigns may appeal to CONWAY, W.G. () Where we go from here. International Zoo politicians, funders and the urban public but they risk con- Yearbook, , –.  structing a top-down prescriptive framework that compro- COONEY,R.&JEPSON,P.( ) The international wild bird trade: what’s wrong with blanket bans? Oryx, , –. mises the ability of situated conservationists to develop DIJKMAN,G.() Bali myna takes flight to Nusa Penida. interventions appropriate to their political and cultural rea- BirdingAsia, , –. lities. Perhaps it is time for internationally orientated con- DJELIC, M-L. & SAHLIN-ANDERSSON, K. (eds) () Transnational servation professionals to adopt principles aimed at Governance: Institutional Dynamics of Regulation. Cambridge nurturing culturally diverse approaches to governing wild- University Press, Cambridge, UK. DUFFY,R.() Non-governmental organisations and governance life trade and the conservation of threatened species. states: the impact of transnational environmental management networks in Madagascar. Environmental Politics, , –. EARNHARDT, J.M., THOMPSON, S.D. & FAUST, L.J. () Extinction Acknowledgements risk assessment for the species survival plan (SSP) population of the Bali mynah (Leucopsar rothschildi). Zoo Biology, , –. GIBBS, M.T. () Network governance in fisheries. Marine Policy, , I thank colleagues involved in Bali starling conservation for –. agreeing to be interviewed for this research, and staff of GILPIN, M.E. & SOULÉ, M.E. () Minimum viable populations: Friends of the National Parks Foundation for making me process of extinction. In Conservation Biology: The Science of and my family so welcome in Ubud and Nusa Penida. Scarcity and Diversity (ed. M.E. Soulé), pp. –. Sinauer Maan Barua, Rosaleen Duffy, Anna Hushlak, Meredith Associates, Sunderland, USA.    Root-Bernstein and four anonymous reviewers provided IUCN ( ) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species v. . . Http:// www.iucnredlist.org [accessed  December ]. valuable comments for which I am very grateful. The research IUCN/SSC () Guidelines for Re-introductions. Http://intranet. was part financed by a travel research grant from the School iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/SSCwebsite/Policy_statements/ of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford. Reintroduction_guidelines.pdf. [accessed  January ].

JEPSON, P., BARUA,M.&BUCKINGHAM,K.(a) What is a ROE, D., MILLEDGE, S., COONEY, R., ‘T SAS-ROLFES, M., BIGGS, D., conservation actor? Conservation & Society, , –. MURPHREE,M.&KASTERINE,A.() The Elephant in the Room: JEPSON,P.&LADLE, R.J. () Governing bird-keeping in Sustainable Use in the Illegal Wildlife Trade Debate. IIED Briefing Java and Bali: evidence from a household survey. Oryx, , Papers, London, UK. –. SANDERSON, E.W., REDFORD, K.H., CHETKIEWICZ, C.L.B., JEPSON, P., LADLE, R.J. & SUJATNIKA (b) Assessing market-based MEDELLIN, R.A., RABINOWITZ, A.R., ROBINSON, J.G., & TABER,A. conservation governance approaches: a socio-economic profile of B. () Planning to save a species: the jaguar as a model. Indonesian markets for wild birds. Oryx, , –. Conservation Biology, , –. JEPSON,P.,VAN BALEN, S.V., SOEHARTONO, T.R. & MARDIASTUTI,A. SHAFFER, M.L. () Minimum population sizes for species () Rencana Pemulihan Spesies Jalak Bali/Bali Starling Recovery conservation. BioScience, , –. Plan. PHPA/BirdLife International—Indonesia Programme, Bogor, SHAVIT,D.() Bali and the Tourist Industry: A History, –. Indonesia. McFarland & Co., Jefferson, USA. KING, W.B. (–) Red Data Book. Volume : Aves. IUCN, SØRENSEN,E.&TORFING, J. (eds) () Theories of Democratic Morges, Switzerland. Network Governance. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK. LACY, R.C. () VORTEX: a computer simulation model for UNITED FOR WILDLIFE () Http://www.unitedforwildlife.org population viability analysis. Wildlife Research, , –. [accessed  December ]. LADLE, R.J. & JEPSON,P.() Toward a biocultural theory of VAN BALEN,B.&DIRGAYUSA, I.W.A. () Bali Starling Project: avoided extinction. Conservation Letters, , –. Activity Report, September –February . PHPA/ICBP LATOUR,B.() Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Indonesia Programme, Bogor, Indonesia. Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. VAN BALEN,V.&GEPAK, V.H. () The captive breeding and LONDON CONFERENCE ON THE ILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRADE () conservation programme of the Bali starling (Leucopsar rothschildi). Declaration. Https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ In Creative Conservation: Interactive Management of Wild and uploads/attachment_data/file//london-wildlife-conference- Captive Animals (eds P.J.S. Olney, G.M. Mace & A.T.C. Feistner), declaration-.pdf [accessed  January ]. pp. –. Chapman & Hall, London, UK. LOVEJOY, T.E. () Tomorrow’s ark: by invitation only. VINCENT,J.(–) Red Data Book. Volume : Aves. IUCN, International Zoo Yearbook, , –. Morges, Switzerland. MCNEELY, J.A., MILLER, K.R., REID, W.V., MITTERMEIER, R.A. & WERNER, T.B. () Conserving the World’s Biological Diversity. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. MINTEER, B.A. () Conservation, animal rights, and human Biographical sketch welfare. A pragmatic view of the ‘bushmeat crisis’.InIgnoring Nature No More. The Case for Compassionate Conservation (ed. PAUL JEPSON directs an MSc in Biodiversity, Conservation and M. Bekoff), pp. –. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA. Management at the University of Oxford. He transferred to academia OLDFIELD, S. (ed.) () The Trade in Wildlife: Regulation for from a career in conservation policy, working in the UK, Indonesia Conservation. Earthscan, London, UK. and Indochina, and now leads an inter-disciplinary conservation govern- RHODES, R.A.W. () Understanding governance: ten years on. ance laboratory working to generate novel and creative insight to help Organization Studies, , –. ensure the relevance and impact of conservation in the st century.