Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T16:45:35.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Rethinking extinction “crises”: The case of Asian songbird trade

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 November 2024

Sicily Fiennes*
Affiliation:
School of Biology, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Novi Hardianto
Affiliation:
Yayasan Kausa Resiliensi Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
Silvi Dwi Ansari
Affiliation:
Yayasan Kausa Resiliensi Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
Asri A. Dwiyahreni
Affiliation:
Research Centre for Climate Change, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia
Tom Jackson
Affiliation:
Numiko, Leeds, UK
George Holmes
Affiliation:
School of Earth and Environment, Faculty of Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Christoper Birchall
Affiliation:
School of Media and Communication, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Christopher Hassall
Affiliation:
School of Biology, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
*
Corresponding author: Sicily Fiennes; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Different stakeholders and actors frequently describe environmental challenges as ‘crises’. These crises are often wicked problems that are difficult to resolve due to the complex and contradictory nature of the evidence and knowledge systems surrounding them. Here, we examine a crisis narrative surrounding the IUCN-declared Asian Songbird Crisis (ASC), with its epicentre in Indonesia, where an extensive birdkeeping culture persists. We investigate how bird extinction is perceived by different actors, particularly conservation law enforcement and practitioners working in this space. We unravel local perspectives on the complex relationship between bird trade and extinction through one-to-one interviews and focus groups. Our examination reveals a diversity of attitudes to the ASC, with many law enforcement actors not recognising the crisis label. Market mechanisms result in complex shifts in harvesting pressure onto one or more closely related similar species. The findings challenge the prevailing notion that species extinction significantly affects wildlife trades, emphasising the plastic nature of trade and the coming and going of species fashions. By revealing the divergent views of actors on extinction and the ASC, we highlight the need for shared language, particularly the implications of the ‘crisis’ label, around species extinction.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Impact statement

This study explores the complex nature of the Asian Songbird Crisis (ASC) in Indonesia, focusing on different actors’ perceptions, especially conservation law enforcement and conservationists. Through interviews and focus groups, the results uncover diverse attitudes toward the ASC, challenging the idea that species extinction significantly impacts wildlife trade. The findings highlight the dynamic nature of the trade and the shifting popularity of species. The study also reflects on the implications of labelling such environmental issues as ’crises’ and underscores the complexity of addressing wicked problems in conservation.

Introduction

Understanding crises

In environmental sciences, crisis theory refers to a framework that examines how ecosystems or species respond to external pressures. If many species face a high risk of extinction within a relatively short period, this response is known as an extinction crisis (Pimm et al., Reference Pimm2014). Biological extinction, in the simplest sense, is defined as the point at which the population of a species is zero. More complex concepts describe species that are unlikely to avoid extinction as ‘functionally extinct’ or, where a species persists only in captivity, as ‘extinct in the wild’ (Roberts et al., Reference Roberts2023). Anthropogenic extinction crises are often the subject of scholars and practitioners within the discipline of conservation, which Mitchell (Reference Mitchell2016) describes as the ‘systematic management of life forms to ensure their survival’. Conservation’s intimate relationship with extinction is worth considering given that conservation itself has often been described as a crisis-oriented discipline (Soulé, Reference Soulé1985), faced with problems that demand ‘immediate action’ (Mitchell, Reference Mitchell2016).

Crises themselves are difficult to define and often fraught with contrasting definitions. One school of thought sees crises as discrete events, such as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami or Hurricane Katrina in 2005 (Paglia, Reference Paglia2015). These time-limited events could also be short periods of political upheaval or economic shocks, such as the 2008 financial crisis. Balestrini et al. (Reference Balestrini2020) understand crises as the critical moment of any process that has arrived at a ‘decisive juncture’. Ecology does not refer explicitly to crises, but these ‘decisive junctures’ manifest during regime shifts as an ecosystem moves from one relatively stable state through a tipping point to another stable state from which it is difficult to return (Clements and Ozgul, Reference Clements and Ozgul2018). These switches or oscillations are characterised by early warning signals as systems approach ‘critical transitions’ (Clements and Ozgul, Reference Clements and Ozgul2018). These ecological early warning signals mirror the early warning phase defined in crisis management studies, which includes six phases that make up a crisis episode (Paglia, Reference Paglia2015).

Paglia (Reference Paglia2015) and Kelz (Reference Kelz2022) assert that crises at the forefront of conservation discourse, such as species extinction and climate change, cannot be ‘proper’ crises since they cannot be managed as discrete events where the status quo can be restored. Hence, dramatic ecological changes only become crises when we incorporate the broader sociopolitical implications of biodiversity loss rather than simply species decline and environmental change. For instance, marine fisheries experience population crashes or collapses but are only labelled as part of a “food crisis” when considering the anthropogenic causes and anthropocentric consequences. However, it is easy to see how such ecological transitions could become permanent, for instance, the transition from the past, where a species was alive, to a future in which it does not exist (Jørgensen, Reference Jørgensen2022).

In addition to the reversibility of critical transitions, their timescale is also debated. Although he calls it a crisis, in his work on defining and introducing the term ‘Capitalocene’, Moore (Reference Moore2017) argues that the origins of the ecological crisis are found in the British-led Industrial Revolution, which marks a longer period of socioenvironmental change rather than a more discrete juncture. Ferdinand (Reference Ferdinand2022) goes further and argues for a much earlier colonial fracture, foundational to modernity and globalisation since the 1500s. Such a long-term, chronic view of crises is also suggested by Roitman (Reference Roitman2013) when analysing the 2008 financial crisis. Thus, crises are not merely logical, ontological assessments of periods of change but can also be political denunciations of situations spanning long periods (Koselleck and Richter, Reference Koselleck and Richter2006). Here, we consider what happens when this crisis label is applied to conservation challenges and how that label shapes knowledge and politics.

The framework of a conservation crisis can depoliticise inherently political situations by overly focusing on wildlife and their ecology. Conservation practitioners must act ‘before knowing all the facts’ (Soulé, Reference Soulé1985), often without valuable sociopolitical facts which provide the broader context of a putative crisis. Classical definitions of extinction do not account for nonbiological (for instance cultural) corollaries accompanying species loss. Conservation has long faced calls for greater recognition, participation and inclusion from the Global South, including indigenous perspectives (Masse et al., Reference Masse2020). Conservation biology and the more humanities-focussed field of extinction studies prejudice the biological and assumed empirical permanence of extinction, a sterile understanding that extinction is something that ‘happens’ to nature (O’Key, Reference O’Key2023). Societies with more connections to nature, often that hold indigenous worldviews, understand a more mutualistic relationship between humans and nature, where extinction is a cultural or even sociopolitical problem. For example, indigenous groups like the Anishinaabeg people observe that animals actively withdraw from the world when societies break human-animal treaties (O’Key, Reference O’Key2023). This cultural appreciation for human-nature interactions is in opposition to forms of ‘new conservation’ (Büscher and Fletcher, Reference Büscher and Fletcher2020) that rely on neoliberal frameworks to understand nature and species’ roles in ecosystems as ecosystem services that monetise both extinction and conservation (O’Key, Reference O’Key2023). Elsewhere, there are narratives of intrinsic trade-offs between conservation and the prevention of extinction and the economic development agendas pursued by national governments (Otero et al., Reference Otero2020).

The Asian songbird crisis as a nested crisis

One example of a crisis narrative in conservation is the Asian Songbird Crisis (ASC). This crisis was labelled and declared by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in 2017 in response to high rates of (il)legal bird trade across Southeast Asia (Shepherd and Cassey, Reference Shepherd and Cassey2017). According to the IUCN, this crisis declaration aims to prevent the ‘imminent extinction of songbirds threatened by unsustainable trapping and the trade in wild-caught passerines’ (Asian Songbird Trade Specialist Group, 2018). The declaration of this crisis was not triggered by the crossing of a particular tipping point but rather as the result of an ongoing process where ‘the degree of pressure on songbirds in Asia is devastating and has long been grossly underestimated’ (European Association of Zoos and Aquaria, 2023). A range of actors, largely in the Global North, such as zoos, universities and conservation organisations, have united for ‘the common purpose of Asian songbird conservation’.

The global hotspot of bird trade is in Indonesia, where many practices involve birds for use as pets, food, prayer release or as omens (Gilbert et al., Reference Gilbert2012; Su et al., Reference Su2014; Marshall et al., Reference Marshall, Collar, Lees, Moss, Yuda and Marsden2019). The wild bird trade in Southeast Asia, including Indonesia, is a somewhat atypical case study because illegal trade happens in the ’open’, where protected species are displayed openly in marketplaces or sold in violation of the national quota system (Shepherd et al., Reference Shepherd2016; Shepherd and Leupen, Reference Shepherd and Leupen2021).

If we accept the ASC as a (singular) crisis, it is also nested within a larger global ecological crisis, forming a hierarchy of ‘nested crises’ (Kaukko et al., Reference Kaukko2021). Some claim the legal and illegal trade in wildlife has created an ‘extinction market’, where species are traded until they become extinct (Felbab-Brown, Reference Felbab-Brown2017). The extent to which wildlife trade might drive a potential songbird extinction crisis is unclear, especially since many species threatened by trade face the synergistic threats of habitat fragmentation and climate change (Sagar et al., Reference Sagar2021). Hinsley et al.’s (Reference Hinsley2023) global review on wildlife trade-driven species extinction found 294 reports of ‘successful’ extinctions. Thirty-four reports related to wild birds, though not yet from the songbird trade (Hinsley et al., Reference Hinsley2023).

Nonetheless, since its declaration in 2017, the ASC has arguably intensified as a ‘thing’ (pressure on birds) and a ’crisis’ (a discourse). Several species have been uplisted in conservation assessments by the IUCN, and 63 (sub)species are listed as conservation priorities by the IUCN Asian Songbird Trade Specialist Group (ASTSG, 2022). Conservationists, largely from Global North NGOs and universities, have dominated ASC discussions, framing this issue as a cultural and legal problem that stems from demands for birds and inefficient law enforcement. In contrast, in 2018 Indonesian birdkeepers lobbied to downlist popular species, such as the White-rumped Shama, Copsychus malabaricus (locally extinct in most of its Indonesian range) (Gokkon, Reference Gokkon2018b). The birdkeepers’ rationale was that these species were bred on a large scale and thus far from endangered, and their uplisting and effective banning would have uneven socioeconomic impacts across the songbird economy (Gokkon, Reference Gokkon2018b). These conflicting views typify the tensions between groups of actors in the landscape of (conservation) crises.

To grasp the local implications of global or regional ’crises’, we explore the ASC in Indonesia as a case study of how extinction crises manifest. Our goal is not to deny the severe impact of the bird trade on wild populations but rather to examine the implications and repercussions of declaring it a crisis. The ASC and its designated task force, the ASTSG, of which SF (the primary author) is a member, operate under the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC). Here, we explore how various local and international actors more embedded in power structures, such as conservationists, law enforcement and practitioners, perceive bird extinction within the ASC narrative.

Methods

We conducted field observations, semi-structured interviews and focus groups with law enforcement officers, conservation community members, environmental NGOs and academics primarily based in Indonesia. The questions asked during interviews and focus groups are part of wider discussions on the ASC (see the Supplementary Materials). Data collection took place in cities within Java (Jakarta, Bandung, Yogyakarta and Surabaya) and West Kalimantan (Pontianak), renowned for their role in the bird trade (Chng et al., Reference Chng2015; Chng et al., Reference Chng2016; Chng and Eaton, Reference Chng and Eaton2016; Rentschlar et al., Reference Rentschlar2018). Although Pontianak is not the largest urban market outside Java, recent research indicates it is an emerging bird source, with trade levels comparable to neighbouring islands (Rentschlar et al., Reference Rentschlar2018).

Field observations

We visited nine bird marketplaces (one in Bandung, Yogyakarta and Surabaya; three in Jakarta; and collections of shops in Pontianak) between January and June 2023. During each marketplace visit, we observed variations in the physical architecture of marketplaces, microscale dynamics between traders and buyers and aspects of the birds’ health and welfare. Marketplace visits were approximately two hours long, with more time spent at larger marketplaces. All marketplaces were visited at least twice, apart from Jatinegara market in Jakarta, which was seen only once.

Interviews

We purposively selected participants engaged in bird trade issues from conservation organisations and universities in Indonesia and abroad. We conducted 16 semi-structured interviews in May and June 2023 (half in person and half conducted online via Zoom). Participants were asked about the consequences of species extinction on bird trade and birdkeeping practices.

Focus groups

We chose focus groups as they offer flexibility and openness, crucial for discussing sensitive topics (Newing et al., Reference Newing2011, p. 54). Focus group discussions (57 participants in total, ranging between 8 – 13 per discussion) were conducted in the five cities, with focus group participants (FGPs) including representatives from agencies such as the Indonesian National Police (POLRI), the nature conservation agency (BKSDA), environmental law enforcement (GAKKUM) and agricultural quarantine. We obtained verbal permissions from agency heads through Yayasan Kausa Resiliensi, the local NGO with which we collaborated. These discussions explored whether law enforcement sees its job as preventing extinction (a more ultimate goal) than enforcing a law (a more proximate goal).

Ethical considerations

Participants provided their free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC), and data from interviews and focus groups were anonymised (Ibbett and Brittain, Reference Ibbett and Brittain2020). Participants were identified by codes based on their international (I) or national status (L(ocal)), and sector (AC(ademic)), L(aw E(nforcement)), NG(O)). For instance, “AC_I_01” represents the initial participant in the international academic category, while all LE were local, so they are denoted as LE_01 and so on. Our methodologies received ethics committee approval from the University of Leeds (AREA FREC 2023-0419-521) and were conducted under a research permit (311/SIP/IV/FR/11/2022) from Indonesia’s National Research and Innovation Agency.

Data analysis

The data analysis followed a two-stage process. Initially, we conducted a discourse analysis to examine framings, narratives and language around songbird extinction. Subsequently, we performed thematic analysis, employing inductive coding following the method by Newing et al. (Reference Newing2011, p. 6), exploring themes around bird extinction, sustainable trade and their combined consequences, using grounded theory principles. Interviews were primarily conducted in English and later transcribed. Focus groups, conducted in Indonesian, were recorded and transcribed by student assistants and later translated using online tools and support from the research team.

Results and discussion

Below, we combine multiple lines of evidence drawn from interviews with NGOs and academics, focus groups with law enforcement professionals and visits to a wide range of bird marketplaces to extract four key themes concerning the ASC at a local scale in Indonesia. Firstly, we find that the ‘crisis’ framing of the ASC does not translate from the scale of global conservation to the day-to-day realities of conservation authorities on the ground. There are tensions between the absolutism of crisis and the complex and conflicting realities presented by local actors. Secondly, local actors see difficult links between species decline, extinction and the trade chain’s responses. Thirdly, species extinction has limited economic consequences for the trade chain but may affect the ecosystems of harvested areas. Finally, we examine the perceptions of our informants towards birdkeepers and captive breeding as solutions to anticipated extinction.

Perceptions of crisis

Our data shows that Indonesian government agencies responsible for regulating the songbird trade often did not perceive there to be a crisis. In workshops, many participants asked us, ‘What crisis?’ This difference in perception of songbird conservation amongst law enforcement officials may be attributed to their focus on day-to-day operations and short-term, local trends. This viewpoint might also result from different education and training for law enforcement around the bird trade compared to conservation NGOs. For example, their work involves extensive protected species lists, ‘in our area, there are around 500 protected animals [birds], and we do not remember all of them’ (LE_17).

Consumers and law enforcement alike may overlook the threat of extinction due to the widespread availability of at-risk species in marketplaces. For example, one interviewee remarked, ’If they do not have…any conservation background, nobody will suspect the White-rumped Shama will be protected because they are just so numerous in the market’ (NG_L_4). In Indonesia, the bird trade is a ’grey market,’ where illegal items are passed off as legal (Dickinson, Reference Dickinson2022). Species such as the White-rumped Shama, Copsychus malabaricus (Figure 1) can be passed off as ‘grey’ if wild individuals are mislabelled as captive-bred and vice versa using the standard numbered rings used to track captive-bred birds. The fact that consumers encounter both wild and captive-bred birds in marketplaces contributes to distorted perceptions of extinction. Courchamp et al. (Reference Courchamp2018) showed that marketing charismatic species led people to believe these species are less endangered.

Figure 1. The plate depicts a Javan Pied Starling, Gracupica jalla (top left), Bali Myna, Leucospar rothschildi (top right), White-rumped Shama, Copsychus malabaricus (bottom left), Lemon-bellied White-eye, Zosterops chloris (bottom right). All photos by Sicily Fiennes.

Materiality matters beyond a bird’s source, as evidenced by uneven research attention and funding to high-profile, charismatic species such as tigers, elephants and rhinoceroses (Challender et al., Reference Challender2014). Dickinson (Reference Dickinson2022) calls this ‘fleshy geopolitics’, where a wildlife product’s fleshy material properties shape markets, regulatory systems and corruption. Bird trade is facilitated because birds are small and relatively easily transported, with one species fungible for another. As one participant phrased, ‘more attention will be given to saving a single tiger than 1,500 songbirds that people do not even know their names and think there’s already a lot in the market’ (AC_L_1), revealing a gap between conservationists’ messages and local experiences.

Confirming extinctions

Our findings also reveal the challenges of declaring bird extinction that are shared by local actors and the international conservation movement. An example of the uncertainty over formal declarations of extinction is the case of the Javan Pied Starling (Figure 1) (Baveja et al., Reference Baveja2021), which has not been formally declared extinct by the conservation community but is recognised to be ‘no longer really in the wild’ (AC_I_1).

There needed to be more consensus on the extent to which bird trade can lead directly to extinctions. One interviewee emphasised the role of trade as ‘the extinction driver in Asia right now’, commenting that ‘I have seen a bunch of species get depleted in numbers: various bulbuls…hill mynas…most of them are going extinct because of the bird trade’ (AC_I_1). On the other hand, another interviewee commented that ‘it is very difficult for things [birds] to become extinct’ (NG_I_2). In contrast, law enforcement hypothesised that ‘for extinct species, the demand in the market will be higher…and the value of the birds will also increase’ (LE_14).

Others from NGOs did not support this interpretation of low substitutability. Several participants described how when one species declines, trappers ‘[switch] to another species’ (AC_I_1), seek another bird’ (AC_L_2), or ‘[trappers] just substitute’ (NG_I_2). While the participants did not mention it explicitly, these comments resemble the process of ’substitution elasticity’ (Fraser et al., Reference Fraser2023). Understanding how substitutions occur is critical when considering why so few extinctions have resulted from the songbird trade (Hinsley et al., Reference Hinsley2023). Interviewees suggested that, at a certain point, the efforts of finding rarer species do not outweigh the benefits of substituting for another species. This shift may be of no consequence; ‘I do not think anyone is that bothered if a species goes extinct. There will be another one that takes its place (NG_I_2).

Substitutions can occur within a species complex, between species in the same genus, or based on shared traits within the same family. For example, some species have enough variation that they are split into several subspecies, like ‘the White-rumped Shama, which is already very rare in Indonesia [at the subspecies level], but they import it from outside: Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines’ (NG_L_6). Species in genera with cryptic diversity, where multiple species look very similar, are vulnerable to ‘true’ substitutions within the same genus. The Zosterops White-eye genus is a common example; ‘take the Sangkar White-eye, absolutely millions of them in trade, and then they become exceedingly difficult to find, and then all of a sudden, the market’s flooded with Lemon-bellied White-eyes’ (NG_L_2). In some cases, trade pressure may be displaced to species within the same family with similar traits, such as colour, song and size. In the bulbul (Pycnonotidae) family, ’sound-alike species’ are also at risk; with the ‘straw-headed bulbuls [Figure 1]…suddenly, they start using grey-cheeked bulbuls instead, which is the second-best choice if you are into bulbul songs, so [grey-cheeked bulbuls] become rarer in the field’ (AC_I_1).

Others assert that generally, demand is never species-specific, that it is ‘for the traits, or the use of the species…[there] is always going to be something else filling it in’ (AC_L_1). This ‘filling in’ of species has been described as a continuous process of ‘rolling local extinctions’ (Jepson and Ladle, Reference Jepson and Ladle2005; see also Jepson, Reference Jepson2010) or ‘near extinctions’ (Eaton et al., Reference Eaton2015), which drive species substitutions and an increase in trapping effort, even though ‘there are still birds everywhere. People go further afield’ (NG_I_2). This process also has permanency; ‘if we talk about Indonesia, the trade will never stop because the tendency of traders will not let trade disappear’ (NG_L_6).

Socioecological impacts of trade

A common theme when discussing the consequences of trade on the wider environment was the ecological and socioeconomic consequences of species loss. Broadly, indiscriminate and opportunistic trade can reduce the diversity of a species community, leading to a reduction in community function; ‘it will be that the environment or ecosystem equilibrium is disturbed’ (AC_L_2). This idea was echoed in a focus group: ‘the loss of one component of the ecosystem will disrupt the balance’ (LE_25).

Trade could disrupt ecosystem stability, for instance, ‘food chains, pollination of seeds, and the fertilisation of the soil by droppings’ (LE_5). Particularly, ‘[a bird’s] specific function might be lost, for example, an insectivore, or nectarivore’ (AC_L_2). One FGP gave a specific example; ‘[a decrease in] owls…would mean an increase in the population of rats and snakes’ (LE_29). Interviewees also linked ecosystem instability to the loss of habitat specialists and other indirect threats of deforestation; ‘I think there will be many species that disappear… that are dependent on forests areas…the number of birds that you can harvest has decreased because there’s no more habitat…they do not live in oil palm plantations and other agricultural areas’ (AC_I_1).

The literature would suggest that birds have important roles in community ecosystems. However, the recognition or understanding of these roles amongst trade actors is unknown, with one interviewee commenting that these roles are ‘completely unknown and misunderstood by the [birdkeeping] community’ (NG_L_7). The ecological impacts that result from the loss of rare species, at present the concern of the ASC, are also unclear. Kleijn et al. (Reference Kleijn2015) argue that common species (particularly bees) handle most pollination tasks, making the loss of rare species less economically significant. Still, some rare species may have unique roles or indirect contributions within their ecosystems, and geographically restricted but locally abundant rare species can still provide valuable services (Dee et al., Reference Dee2019).

Common species are also at risk, often sold in larger numbers and worse conditions due to their perceived low value and unprotected status. In a Jakarta bird marketplace, for instance, SF (first author) observed live suffocating several Scaly-breasted Munias, Lonchura punctulata, and a dead individual in a water pot. An interviewee was ‘watching a cage full of munias being spray painted… in the first five minutes, 20% just dropped dead…I assumed from the digestion of the chemicals’ (NG_I_2). A few interviewees also emphasised that ‘harvesting unprotected species is still harmful’ (NG_L_7).

In Indonesia’s songbird economy, the socioeconomic consequences of population crashes may ‘affect people who rely on it for their livelihoods and jobs’ (LE_41). Conversely, an NGO staff member suggested that population crashes will ‘only really bother high-end traders…and those in the field trapping the birds…there are fewer things for them to trap and less money’ (NG_I_2). This may also privilege wealthier consumers: ‘those who can own and sell birds [will be] people who can afford to pay a high price’ (LE_27).

In the long term, as rarer species decline, both the songbird economy and the composition of ecosystems in Indonesia may become dominated by resilient, common species. According to Hughes et al. (Reference Hughes2022), there has already been a loss of morphological diversity among birds in East Asia. As stated by one interviewee, ‘You might come to a point where we are going to have to live with the resilient birds’ (AC_L_1). While specific data on longer-term evolutionary consequences of harvesting on songbirds is lacking, research on bighorn sheep suggests that intense harvesting of certain traits has long-term consequences, for instance, decreased horn size in offspring (Rice et al., Reference Rice2022).

Views on the role of breeders and breeding

In response to the problem of trade-induced declines, many interviewees added to the discourse on the role of birdkeepers in songbird conservation, birdkeepers’ savourism towards wild bird populations, and the role of captive breeding in mitigating the effects of wild songbird harvest. Similarly, we consider perspectives on how the state (intervenors) perceive the people being intervened on (birdkeepers) through deploying the crisis narrative.

Participants described how birdkeepers perpetuate notions of saviourism, relating to heroism and resistance, where they prevent extinctions and alleviate marketplace conditions. This savourism directly opposes racialised stereotypes in earlier conservation commentaries, which describe aviculturists who demand rare birds as malevolent (or ignorant) (van Balen et al., Reference van Balen2000). In contradiction to these stereotypes, the heroic saviour says that ‘by buying the birds, they are also saving them from extinction’ (NG_L_5). Breeders of rare birds may also believe that ‘they are helping the government to conserve the birds’ (NG_L_5). Birdkeepers may also go ‘to the market and see a certain animal in a condition they believe deserves to be helped…so a sense of compassion arises’ (NG_L_6).

Sections of the Indonesian government also conceptualise breeding as conservation. For instance, official governmental guidance states that registered breeding facilities can catch protected species in the wild and sell the offspring, then release 10 % of their captive-born stock back into the wild (Gokkon, Reference Gokkon2018a). One FGP referenced this policy, stating that ‘the government should prioritise captive breeding (for protected animals) or animal husbandry (for unprotected animals). Bird breeding in Indonesia is widespread, and 10% must be returned to nature (LE_5). This pro-breeding approach aligns with the current Indonesian President, Joko Widodo, who supports captive breeding (Cabinet Secretariat of the Republic of Indonesia, 2018; Nuruliawati, 2018). In 2018, at a singing competition held at his residence in the Bogor Botanical Garden, he stated that he saw captive breeding as a ’space for bird enthusiasts that can also prevent birds from extinction’ (Cabinet Secretariat of the Republic of Indonesia, 2018).

In contrast, the resistant saviours see themselves in place of state-sponsored conservation. This attitude appears to be linked to a mistrust in the government, where ‘keepers think that if they keep the birds, they are also conserving the birds from extinction because they think that our forests are getting lost (NG_L_5), and the perception that birds are safer in their care: ‘birdkeepers think it is better to keep the bird in my cage, so I still enjoy the song and can see the birds’ (NG_L_5). This attitude shares similarities with civil society resistance observed in urban areas of the Global North, such as Northern Europe and eastern parts of the US, where citizens engage in acts like ’guerilla gardening’ or ’citizen greening’ in response to a perceived lack of environmental stewardship (Baudry, Reference Baudry2014). It is possible that some birdkeepers still want to avoid state and institutional involvement, and their individual breeding efforts can be conceptualised as guerilla conservation

The extent to which captive breeding can be a conservation solution was debated; one interviewee suggested it ‘is the only realistic solution at the minute’ (NG_I_1), whereas others were less positive. One participant expressed concern that ‘there are not the breeding facilities to develop or elevate the number of the individuals of the species’ (AC_L_2) and ‘there’s not enough availability in the market. [Captive bred birds are] too expensive…beginners…they will start with a wild one because it is easy and cheap (AC_L_1). Further, some participants felt that the financial rewards of captive breeding of near-extinct species are prioritised over conservation gains: ‘[many] people [try] to breed a species they like, such as the green leafbird…[they] might think, if a species is heading towards extinction when I succeed in breeding it, the price will also be high’ (NG_L_5).

Alternative framings to the ASC

Specific framings of trade-induced bird declines can drive responses and financial support. To illustrate, labelling the illegal hunting of elephants as a ‘poaching crisis’ led to strict, culturally specific responses, including shoot-to-kill policies against poachers in South African national parks (Lunstrum, Reference Lunstrum2014). Fletcher (Reference Fletcher2015) highlights the ‘ecotourist gaze’, representing a desire to connect with nature as an escape from industrial civilisation. Framing the Southeast Asian bird trade from outside of Indonesia, based on conservation ideologies, resembles Fletcher’s ecotourist gaze. The crisis narrative itself relies on conservation mechanisms rather than the integration of birdkeepers and broader civil society.

Thus, the ASC takes the ‘conservationist gaze’ by privileging wildlife conservation over the needs of humans who benefit from songbird trade or even trade actors worried about bird declines, exemplified by the Silent Forest Campaign (European Association of Zoos and Aquaria, 2023).

Reminiscent of Rachel Carson’s ’Silent Spring’ (Carson, Reference Carson1962), a silent forest erases human inhabitants of forests and reifies colonial notions of ’untouched’ nature (Ferdinand, Reference Ferdinand2022). The conservationist gaze focuses on rare species, making nonthreatened species the ’unloved subjects of extinction’ (Mitchell, Reference Mitchell2016). Similarly, the protected-unprotected binary reinforced by law enforcement prejudices commoner species. Framing a problem as a crisis attracts more funding, as powerful images inspire political mobilisation, and media visibility plays a crucial role in establishing crises (Väliverronen and Hellsten, Reference Väliverronen and Hellsten2002; Kelz, Reference Kelz2022). This is the case with the ASC, which post-declaration has received greater attention in academic research (Mirin and Klinck, Reference Mirin and Klinck2021) and increased international funding for songbird conservation.

Roitman and others reveal that crisis narratives tend to advocate a return to a restricted status quo, hindering fundamental change. The use of crisis language narrows our focus, obscuring capitalist systems of oppression and exploitation (Khasnabish, Reference Khasnabish2014). It is important to acknowledge that the unsustainable harvest of songbirds is partly driven by rising unemployment and economic necessity (Lucas, Reference Lucas2011). Notably, law enforcement was concerned that ‘Indonesia’s economic needs are still very high. Birds have a significant market value’ (LE_5). (Il)legal bird trade may continue due to unaddressed global structures of inequality that drive illegal wildlife trade (Duffy, Reference Duffy2022, p. 30).

As a conservation intervention, the ASC lacks support from Indonesian agencies and songbird trade participants, neglecting long-term strategies (Masse et al., Reference Masse2020). Conservation interventions without complete stakeholder buy-in often fail (Cooney et al., Reference Cooney, Challender, Broad, Roe and Natusch2021), and the declaration of the ASC may falter as the impact on wild bird populations worsens without necessary local adaptations that incorporate the lived experiences of actors such as trappers and hunters. In work on attitudes towards IWT, Arroyave et al. (Reference Arroyave, Jenkins and Hurtado2023) found that rural communities justified wildlife utilisation since they are deprived of other production means and wildlife is used to meet basic needs. Similarly, one participant mirrored this necessity ‘whenever I go into really rural areas, like the West Sumatra islands, I find the local police to be completely unreceptive to any arguments of having to jail…or…apprehend someone who is involved in the bird trade…they will just let them do whatever they want to do, because these are just people following their livelihood, trying to make a living, trying to feed their families’ (AC_I_1).

In addition to our suggestion to broaden the range of actors engaged in songbird conservation, here we present an alternative, framing bird trade within an unsustainable trade narrative; ‘The Asian Songbird Challenge’. Following Roitman, we do not suggest that there is a singular alternative to crisis-framed narratives (Khasnabish, Reference Khasnabish2014). However, this framing is based on the similarities between the bird trade and the fishing industry. Though overfishing and trapping wild birds in Southeast Asia do not perfectly equate, the rapid population declines leading to ‘fishing down the food web’ (Pauly and Palomares, Reference Pauly and Palomares2005), quotas, and shifts in focus to cheaper species when stocks collapse are commonalities. Although ecosystem service narratives have been criticised as neoliberal (Silvertown, Reference Silvertown2015), the emphasis by law enforcement on the functional roles of birds and the ecosystem-level impacts of bird trade may be a more useful message for communicating the challenges of songbird trade governance rather than through a conservation crisis. Our findings suggest, therefore, that a more effective and inclusive framing would weave together biodiversity and ecology with a greater focus on socioeconomic factors that are most relevant to local actors.

Looking at environmental humanities scholarship, scholars such as Jørgensen (Reference Jørgensen2022) argue that ’extinction [as a process] is not a linear phenomenon’, offering a less final and more optimistic perspective, in contrast to the catastrophism that extinction crisis discourses offer. This challenge to the linearity of extinction is inspired by a diverse range of observations, including indigenous knowledge systems that consider extinction as a change in interspecific relationships rather than a final death biological extinction, the survival of biologically extinct species in cultural artefacts, the evolutionary regeneration of lost life forms, and the “rediscovery” of those species that were never really lost (for instance, species rediscovery rates are at an all-time high (Scheffers et al., Reference Scheffers2011)). Likewise, the ASTSG acknowledges that ’the growing threat to an ever-increasing number of songbird species can be reversed’. One interviewee also highlighted the potential for this reversal and species recovery: ’I think many species are thriving better than we thought they were’ (AC_L_1). There are parallels with discussions on fisheries and population decline, where shifts are seen as crashes or collapses but not as complex, multidisciplinary crises or discussions on global extinction. This potential for reversal of trends for declining populations of songbirds is similar to ’recovering stocks’ when fishing pressure is reduced for commercially important species. Thus, reinterpreting extinction as Jørgensen does, by ‘anticipating extinction’ or allowing populations to recover, allows us to shift to more interdisciplinary and multifaceted understandings of species decline that are separate from traditional Western scholarship definitions.

Conclusions and recommendations

The crisis narrative obscures aspects of the Asian songbird trade, including state actors not recognising a crisis. Bird trade is a ‘daily wildlife trade’, particularly in Indonesia (Duffy, Reference Duffy2022, p. 35). Despite few official extinctions resulting from the ASC, the Southeast Asian bird trade challenges simplistic extinction narratives due to substitution elasticity and changing traded species. We recommend using the ‘Asian Songbird Challenge’ for a nuanced perspective, avoiding oft-hyperbolic language such as ‘crisis’ or ‘silent forest’. Drawing inspiration from overfishing narratives, we acknowledge the severity of wild bird extraction with a framing distinct from the conservationist’s gaze. While an analogy to the fishing industry is needed, wildlife trade research must improve upon the industry’s failures (Crona et al., Reference Crona2019). We do not argue that a simple change of terminology will resolve the issue of a lack of agreement on the situation. However, framing songbird trade as a challenge with many components - singing contests, breeding programmes, sustainable harvesting - could weave together the cultural and ecological priorities of the different actors, as presented here.

Building on earlier, unheeded calls from researchers such as Jepson (Reference Jepson2010), we propose tangible cooperation among governments, conservation practitioners and birdkeepers, bridging gaps for sustainable futures. Beyond the Bali Myna’s success, more incentives must be given for breeder integration into conservation efforts. Dialogues are needed for sustainable Southeast Asian bird trade, utilising knowledge and infrastructure from birdkeepers and conservation breeding centres (Marshall et al., Reference Marshall, Collar, Lees, Moss, Yuda and Marsden2019). Our findings aim to stimulate ongoing dialogues and promote captive breeding as a valid tool in songbird conservation.

Open peer review

To view the open peer review materials for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/ext.2024.20.

Data availability statement

All data in this study have been anonymised and are unavailable for public access.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Jonathan Roberts, Valentina Fiasco, Timothy Brown, Karlina Indraswari and James Eaton for their comments on the manuscript. We would also like to acknowledge the valuable work of student research assistants during data collection: Luthfiyyah Damayani, Raden Nicosius Liontino Alieser, Hammas Zia, Albert Feliciano, Salsabila Laraswari, Muhammad Luthfi, Banita Eka Putri, Agnes Megawati Gultom and Jero Haryono. Thank you to Dwi Adhiasto and Agung Nur Haq for facilitation assistance and Ganjar Cahyadi for assistance during marketplace surveys and bird identification. Thank you to the School of Media and Communication and Biology at the University of Leeds for loaning camera and audio recording equipment during fieldwork.

Author contribution

Conceptualisation: S.F., C.H., G.H., T.J., N.H., S.D.; Data collection: S.F., N.H., S.D.; Investigation: S.F., N.H., S.D., C.H., G.H.; Writing – original draft: S.F., C.H., G.H.; Writing – reviewing, critiquing, and editing: C.H., G.H., A.D.

Financial support

The Leverhulme Trust funded this research through the Extinction Studies Doctoral Training Program at the School of Biology and Earth and Environment at the University of Leeds. The Society of Conservation Biology Graduate Award fund also provided additional fieldwork funds.

Competing interest

The authors declare none.

Ethics statement

All work was done with ethical permission from the University of Leeds (AREA FREC 2023-0419-521).

References

Arroyave, FJ, Jenkins, J, and Hurtado, R (2023) Mapping attitudes on illegal wildlife trade: Implications for management and governance. Conservation and Society 21(3), 165. Available at https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_149_21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asian Songbird Trade Specialist Group (2018) About Us. Available at https://www.asiansongbirdtradesg.com/about (accessed 01 March 2024).Google Scholar
Asian Songbird Trade Specialist Group (2022) Priority Taxa List. Available at https://www.asiansongbirdtradesg.com/taxa-list.Google Scholar
Balestrini, NW, et al. (2020) Theater of crisis: Contemporary aesthetic responses to a cross-sectional condition – An introduction. Journal of Contemporary Drama in English 8(1), 215. https://doi.org/10.1515/jcde-2020-0002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baudry, S (2014) Plants as a tool for DIY urbanism: Between Guerilla and institutionalisation. Romanian Journal of American Studies 2, 4151.Google Scholar
Baveja, P, et al. (2021) Using historical genome-wide DNA to unravel the confused taxonomy in a songbird lineage that is extinct in the wild. Evolutionary Applications 14(3), 698709. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.13149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Büscher, B and Fletcher, R (2020 ) The Conservation Revolution: Radical Ideas for Saving Nature beyond the Anthropocene. Verso Books: London, England. Available at https://www.versobooks.com/en-gb/products/856-the-conservation-revolution (accessed 10 May 2024).Google Scholar
Cabinet Secretariat of the Republic of Indonesia (2018) President Jokowi Applauds Big Number of Bird Breeding in Indonesia. Available at https://setkab.go.id/en/president-jokowi-applauds-big-number-of-bird-breeding-in-indonesia/.Google Scholar
Carson, R (1962) Silent Spring. New York, NY: Fawcett Crest.Google Scholar
Challender, DW, et al. (2014) Changing behavior to tackle the wildlife trade. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12(4), 203203. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295-12.4.203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chng, S.C.L. and Eaton, J.A. 2016. In the market for extinction: Eastern and Central Java.Google Scholar
Chng, SCL, et al. (2015) In the Market for Extinction: An Inventory of Jakarta’s Bird Markets. TRAFFICdix.Google Scholar
Chng, SCL, et al. (2016) In the market for extinction: Sukahaji, Bandung, Java, Indonesia. BirdingASIA 26, 2228.Google Scholar
Clements, CF and Ozgul, A (2018) Indicators of transitions in biological systems. Ecology Letters 21(6), 905919. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12948.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooney, R, Challender, DWS, Broad, S, Roe, D and Natusch, DJD (2021)Think before you act: Improving the conservation outcomes of CITES listing decisions. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 9, 631556. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.631556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Courchamp, F, et al. (2018) The paradoxical extinction of the most charismatic animals. PLoS Biology 16(4), e2003997. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2003997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crona, B, et al. (2019) Fishery improvement projects as a governance tool for fisheries sustainability: A global comparative analysis. PLoS One 14(10), e0223054. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223054.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dee, LE, et al. (2019) When do ecosystem services depend on rare species? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 34(8), 746758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.03.010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dickinson, H (2022) Caviar matter(s): The material politics of the European caviar grey market. Political Geography 99, 102737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2022.102737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, R (2022) Security and Conservation: The Politics of the Illegal Wildlife Trade. London, England: Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2g591km.Google Scholar
Eaton, JA, et al. (2015) Trade-driven extinctions and near-extinctions of avian taxa in Sundaic Indonesia. Forktail 31, 112.Google Scholar
European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (2023) Our campaign. Available at https://www.silentforest.eu/.Google Scholar
Felbab-Brown, V (2017) The Extinction Market: Wildlife Trafficking and How to Counter it. London, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ferdinand, M (2022) Behind the colonial silence of wilderness: “In Marronage lies the search of a world”. Environmental Humanities 14(1), 182201. https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-9481506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, R (2015) Nature is a nice place to save but I would not want to live there: Environmental education and the ecotourist gaze. Environmental Education Research 21(3), 338350. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2014.993930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, IM, et al. (2023) The economics of species extinction: An economist’s viewpoint. Cambridge Prisms: Extinction 1, e20. https://doi.org/10.1017/ext.2023.18.Google Scholar
Gilbert, M, et al. (2012) Characterizing the trade of wild birds for merit release in Phnom Penh, Cambodia and associated risks to health and ecology. Biological Conservation 153, 1016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.04.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gokkon, B (2018a) 5 Bird Species Lose Protections, More at Risk In New Indonesia Decree. Mongabay Mongabay Series: Wild Bird Trade, 17 October.Google Scholar
Gokkon, B (2018b) Indonesia Gives in to Bird Traders, Rescinds Protection for 3 Species. Mongabay. Available at https://news.mongabay.com/2018/09/indonesia-gives-in-to-bird-traders-rescinds-protection-for-3-species/.Google Scholar
Hinsley, A, et al. (2023) Trading species to extinction: Evidence of extinction linked to the wildlife trade. Cambridge Prisms: Extinction 1, e10. https://doi.org/10.1017/ext.2023.7.Google Scholar
Hughes, EC, et al. (2022) The homogenization of avian morphological and phylogenetic diversity under the global extinction crisis. Current Biology 32(17), 38303837.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2022.06.018.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ibbett, H and Brittain, S (2020) Conservation publications and their provisions to protect research participants. Conservation Biology 34(1), 8092. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jepson, P (2010) Towards an Indonesian bird conservation ethos: Reflections from a study of bird-keeping in the cities of Java and Bali. In: Ethno-Ornithology. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jepson, P and Ladle, RJ (2005) Bird-keeping in Indonesia: Conservation impacts and the potential for substitution-based conservation responses. Oryx 39(4), 442. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605305001110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, D (2022) Extinction and the end of futures*. History and Theory 61(2), 209218. https://doi.org/10.1111/hith.12258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaukko, M, et al. (2021) Learning to survive amidst nested crises: Can the coronavirus pandemic help us change educational practices to prepare for the impending eco-crisis? Environmental Education Research 27(11), 15591573. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2021.1962809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelz, R (2022 ) Politics, science and technology in times of crisis“. Annual DVPW group meeting, 2022 (online). Journal for Technology Assessment in Theory and Practice 31(2), 7677.Google Scholar
Khasnabish, A (2014) Review of anti-crisis. Anthropological Quarterly 87(2), 569577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleijn, D, et al. (2015) Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation. Nature Communications 6(1), 7414. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koselleck, R and Richter, MW (2006) Crisis. Journal of the History of Ideas 67(2), 357400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, A (2011) Catching songbirds in a national park. Inside Indonesia 29. Available at https://www.insideindonesia.org/editions/edition-106/catching-songbirds-in-a-national-park.Google Scholar
Lunstrum, E (2014) Green militarization: Anti-poaching efforts and the spatial contours of Kruger National Park. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 104(4), 816832. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2014.912545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, H, Collar, N.J., Lees, A.C., Moss, A., Yuda, P., & Marsden, S.J. (2019) Spatio-temporal dynamics of consumer demand driving the Asian Songbird Crisis. Biological Conservation, 241 108237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masse, F, et al. (2020 ) Conservation and crime convergence? Situating the 2018 London illegal wildlife trade conference. Journal of Political Ecology 27(1), 2342. http://journals.librarypublishing.arizona.edu/jpe/article/id/2142/ (accessed 4 October 2023).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirin, BH and Klinck, H (2021) Bird singing contests: Looking back on thirty years of research on a global conservation concern. Global Ecology and Conservation 30, e01812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, A (2016) Beyond biodiversity and species: Problematizing extinction. Theory, Culture & Society 33(5), 2342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276415619219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, JW (2017) The Capitalocene, part I: On the nature and origins of our ecological crisis. The Journal of Peasant Studies 44(3), 594630. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1235036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newing, H, et al. (2011) Conducting Research in Conservation: A Social Science Perspective. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nuruliawati (2018) The Songbird Market and Growing Bird Competitions in Indonesia. The Oxford Martin Programme on Wildlife Trade 3 April.Google Scholar
O’Key, D (2023) Extinction in public. Environmental Humanities 15(1), 168186. https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-10216228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otero, I, et al. (2020) Biodiversity policy beyond economic growth. Conservation Letters 13(4), e12713. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paglia, E (2015) Not a proper crisis. The Anthropocene Review 2(3), 247261. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019615604867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pauly, D and Palomares, M-L (2005) Fishing down marine food web: It is far more pervasive than we thought. Bulletin of Marine Science 76(2), 197211.Google Scholar
Pimm, SL, et al. (2014) The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344(6187), 1246752. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1246752.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rentschlar, KA, et al. (2018) A silent morning: The songbird trade in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Tropical Conservation Science 11, 1940082917753909. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082917753909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, C, et al. (2022) Regulations and hunter preference affect mountain goat harvest and horn length. Wildlife Biology 2022(6), e01056. https://doi.org/10.1002/wlb3.01056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, DL, et al. (2023) Understanding the drivers of expert opinion when classifying species as extinct. Conservation Biology 37(1), e13968. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roitman, J. (2013) Anti-Crisis. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Sagar, HSSC, et al. (2021) Avifauna Recovers Faster in Areas Less Accessible to Trapping in Regenerating Tropical Forests. Biological Conservation 279, 109901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.109901 (accessed 1 March 2023).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheffers, BR, et al. (2011) The World’s rediscovered species: Back from the brink? PLoS One 6(7), 8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shepherd, C and Cassey, P (2017) Songbird Trade Crisis in Southeast Asia Leads to the Formation of IUCN SSC Asian Songbird Trade Specialist Group (Guest Editorial). 5Google Scholar
Shepherd, CR and Leupen, BTC (2021) Incidence of Protected and Illegally Sourced Birds at Bird Markets in Makassar, Sulawesi, p. 5.Google Scholar
Shepherd, CR, et al. (2016) Nothing to laugh about – The ongoing illegal trade in laughingthrushes (Garrulax species) in the bird markets of Java, Indonesia. Bird Conservation International 26(4), 524530. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270916000320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silvertown, J (2015) Have ecosystem services been oversold? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 30(11), 641648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.08.007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soulé, ME (1985) What is conservation biology? Bioscience 35(11), 727734. https://doi.org/10.2307/1310054.Google Scholar
Su, S, et al. (2014) Patterns of non-randomness in the composition and characteristics of the Taiwanese bird trade. Biological Invasions 16(12), 25632575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-014-0686-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Väliverronen, E and Hellsten, I (2002) From “burning library” to “green medicine”: The role of metaphors in communicating biodiversity. Science Communication 24(2), 229245. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554702237848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Balen, S (Bas), et al. (2000) The Javan hawk-eagle: Misconceptions about rareness and threat. Biological Conservation 96(3), pp. 297304. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00092-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. The plate depicts a Javan Pied Starling, Gracupica jalla (top left), Bali Myna, Leucospar rothschildi (top right), White-rumped Shama, Copsychus malabaricus (bottom left), Lemon-bellied White-eye, Zosterops chloris (bottom right). All photos by Sicily Fiennes.

Author comment: Rethinking extinction “crises”: The case of Asian songbird trade — R0/PR1

Comments

30th October 2023

Dear Professor Alroy and Professor Brook:

Please find attached the manuscript entitled: ‘Rethinking extinction “crises” – the case of Asian Songbird Trade’ to be considered for publication as a Research Article in the journal Prisms: Extinction.

In the midst of the ongoing global biodiversity challenges, we embarked on a comprehensive exploration of the Asian Songbird Crisis (ASC) in Indonesia. This study focused on the complex perceptions of various stakeholders, particularly conservation law enforcement and conservationists. Our research reveals a multifaceted picture of the ASC, challenging conventional wisdom by demonstrating that species extinction does not necessarily have a significant impact on the wildlife trade.

Our findings underscore the dynamic nature of the trade, where species popularity constantly shifts, influenced by substitution elasticity, and the complexity of addressing wicked problems in conservation. We question the labelling of environmental issues as ‘crises’ and emphasize the need for a shared language and understanding of these challenges among different actors and stakeholders.

Our research contributes unique insights into the ASC and its implications for the broader field of conservation. By shedding light on the diverse attitudes and perceptions surrounding the extinction crisis, we highlight the necessity of a unified approach to tackle these pressing issues. The dynamic nature of the wildlife trade and the shifting trends in species popularity, as revealed in our study, challenge existing paradigms and warrant further exploration.

We believe that our study offers a fresh perspective on the ASC, one that calls for a re-evaluation of the ‘crisis’ label and encourages a more nuanced approach to conservation issues. By submitting this research to Prisms: Extinction, we aim to contribute to a broader understanding of the complexities of environmental challenges.

We confirm that this submission has not been published or accepted for publication elsewhere and is not under consideration for publication in other journals or in book form.

Best regards,

SICILY FIENNES (on behalf of the authors)

School of Biology, University of Leeds, Woodhouse, Leeds, England LS2 9JT. E-mail [email protected].

Recommendation: Rethinking extinction “crises”: The case of Asian songbird trade — R0/PR2

Comments

Dear authors,

We are happy to confirm that we would like to include your article in this special issue of Prisms: Extinctions, although both reviewers have requested major revisions, entailing some additional research, but especially adjustments to your argumentation at particular points. Pasted below are the full comments and recommendations. We hope that you will be able to revise your very interesting submission accordingly.

Reviewer 1:

I was very much looking forward to reading this paper and I believe it is correct in identifying a particular “crisis discourse” about Asian songbirds and it is arguably a discourse with a much longer and wider purview than just Asian birds (as the authors also mention towards the end of the paper), the Asian songbirds are a particularly apt example.

I agree with the overall ambition and argument and feel the paper is successful in pointing to a discrepancy between the global conservation discourse and local government and bird-breeder perspectives. At the same time, I feel the paper needs some revision. It is well-written but also at times hard to follow, especially in the analytical sections where it is often not obvious what conclusions the papers draws from the informants' statements. I also think the novelty of the conclusions and recommendations need to be enhanced. I have four overall areas of concern/wonder.

1) the literature on crisis could be expanded and drawn into the discussion also towards the end of the paper

2) The analysis of the informant quotes is not clear and it is not obvious to me that the lumping of informants into “locals” and “internationals” is the most useful. Clearer conclusions are needed from the analysis of the informant/focus group statements.

3) The tendency in the paper to “judge” the truth value of informant quotes by reference to scientific claims feels awkward and reflects perhaps a co-authorship between scholars from ecology/biology and media studies. It speaks to a double audience of ecologists and media studies/human science. The latter in particular might have hard time with the very cursory discussion of concepts used: crisis, discourse, god-like gaze, unequal global structures, etc. The paper sometimes assumes, at times, the same kind of god-like gaze on “discourse” that it accuses the ASC discourse of about “crisis”.

4) The paper ends in a set of conclusions and recommendations that sometimes do not follow from the analysis, that sometimes seems overly optimistic (exchange crisis for challenge and "discourse will disappear?); that raise new issues that are not analysed (such as unequal structures) or that seem very similar to what other have already suggested (cooperation a la Jepson?). I felt instead I needed more insights into what we learnt from the interviews and focus groups interviews.

So I have marked it in need of major revisions, but even smaller adjustment to the language to avoid a clash of epistemologies between the biologists and the media studies people in the author collective, a summary of analytical insights from the interviews (with perhaps more focus on what government agencies or NGOs informants come from); and a revision of the conclusions might be enough.

1) The paper usefully highlights the problems of discourses centred on “crisis”, although the literature on “crisis”n as a specifically discursive phenomenon that the paper challenges is broader than the set of references in the paper. A foundational figure in the critique of the discursive emergence of the term “crisis” is

Koselleck, R. (1998). Critique and Crises: Enlightenment and the Pathogenesis of Modern Society. Massachusetts, The MIT Press.

This gave rise to a broader “anti-crisis” analytical debate about how to align discourses about crisis with “real-world” crisis.

Roitman, J. (2013). Anti-Crisis Durham, Duke University Press.

It is not entirely clear where this paper stands on this issue (even after this issue is addressed at the end of the paper). It is, rightly, critical of the discourse about the Asian Songbird Crisis citing the “contradictory nature of the evidence and the knowledge systems surrounding” it. And it is clearly true that other factors critically contribute to songbird extinctions and the relative impact of trapping and trading may be hard to gauge. But it is not entirely unclear to me where the paper stands on this issue and it sometimes sets up a mismatch between informants and global environmental views that may not be there. For instance:

“An example of how formal declarations of extinction do not necessarily match the situation on the ground is the case of the Javan Pied Starling (Figure 1) (Baveja et al. 2021; Nijman et al. 2021); whilst not formally declared as extinct, it

196 is ‘no longer really in the wild’ (AC_I_1).”

Extinction is here taken as an absolute phenomenon. But does “rolling” or “local” extinction not explain this informant view? Also the term “really” inserted here implies a qualification that is not addressed. Is the lack of “match” here not exaggerated?

2) Informants are marked as either “local”(L) or “international” (I) but it is unclear whether the paper sees any systematic difference between these two groups. Especially in the section “Confirming extinction” the two groups views are represented as equally mixed...

Informants are sometimes cited as having “skewed” discursive views. Indonesian government agencies, for instance, “lacked awareness of this crisis” perhaps due to “insufficient education” (5) while one gets the sense that international informants are in the grips of the “crisis” discourse. The authors of the paper, meanwhile, however above such discursive positions, and they speak from a position of fact, stating apparent truths such as “Substitutions can occur within a species complex, between species in the same genus....” (7), or “A singular crisis, such as the ASC, is often nested within a large one, such as the broader global ecological crisis” (3). This last fact seems to contradict the paper’s abstract and general argument against the use of the term “crisis” because “crises” are not really crises at all but “wicked problems”.

At other times, the authors use their authority to disqualify the truth of informants’s pronouncements: “Although birds evidently play vital roles in tropical forests in Asia, there is a perception from NGOs that these roles are ‘completely unknown and misunderstood by the [birdkeeping] community’ (NG_L_7).” (8)

3) This shift in positions and maintenance of the authors‘ insights into “the reality” of songbird ecology clashes somewhat with the “discourse analysis” approach through which it analyses the statements of its informants. I want to laud the paper again for questioning the “crisis discourse” but an analysis of this discourse also entails reflection upon when the paper itself partakes in this discourse. At the top of page 9 the paper states: “In the context of bird trade, in the long-term, selecting the best singers could lead to forests appearing ’silent' as the loudest species are removed.” But this sentence is itself a reference to the recurrent theme of “silence of bird in the wild” that pervades the ASC discourse and which draws its appeal on that foundational “bird crisis text” by Rachel Carson (1962) called “Silent Spring”. There is in other words a lack of a broader genealogy of the crisis discourse on which ASC draws.

Another feature of the style of the article is that informant pronouncements tend to be directly compared to the environmental-biological literature that has established the ASC in the first place as if they were in direct conversation:

Sometimes this alignment takes the form of validation: “species…[there] is always going to be something else filling it in’ (AC_L_1). This ‘filling in’ of species has been described as a continuous process of ‘rolling local extinctions’ (Jepson and Ladle 2005, see also Jepson 2010).” (7). Here Jepson seems to validate informant AC_L_1.

Sometimes it is framed almost as collegial agreement: "Previously, Harris et al. (2015) hypothesised that persistent demand for certain species in Indonesia’s bird trade indicated low substitutability, meaning that consumers would continue to demand species even as their prices rise, rather than switching to more common (and less expensive) ones. There was also support for this amongst law enforcement; ‘for extinct species the demand in the market will be higher…and the value of

207 the birds will also increase’ (LE_14)". Here it sounds as if LE-14 had read Harris et al.

Then follows an apparent disagreement: "Others from NGOs did not support this interpretation of low substitutability. Several described the process of 'substitution elasticity’ (Fraser et al. 2023), when one species declines, trappers ‘[switch] to

211 another species’ (AC_I_1), seek another bird’ (AC_L_2)". Did AC_I_1 and AC_L_2 in fact quote Harris and Fraser? It almost sounds like it here.

The data is based on sixteen interviews and five focus group interviews with participants from the Indonesian National Police (POLRI), the nature conservation agency (BKSDA), environmental law enforcement (GAKKUM), and agricultural quarantine". The specific institutional position from which the quotes are taken is however unclear, and I wonder whether these position mightn’t explain some of the differences in perception. I suspect members of Polri have much less interest in species, extinctions, and environmental issues generally than members of BKSDA or GAKKUM. With a small number of informants, institutional disaggregation might lead to as interesting differences as a lumping into the super-group “local”.

4) The sense amongst breeders that they 'are helping the government to conserve the birds’ (NG_L_5)“ is an important point highlighted in the paper (9). The paper goes on to suggest that this ”mirrors finding from Jepson et al. (2011) from interviews with Indonesian birdkeepers, who learned that only 13% of participants did ‘not care if species of wild birds go extinct in Indonesia’."

But it this the most relevant follow-on here? Instead of (again) comparing informant statements to scientific articles (see comment on this above), a more relevant analytical follow-up on this would be to trace the discoruse about breeding by the Jokowi government who exactly claims that breeding is conservation. So it is less relevant that breeders of rare birds “believe” that they help the government than to highlight that sections of the Indonesian government itself believes this.

My difficulty in following the arguments of the paper may be related to its interdisciplinary nature. While the authors frequently assume the “god-like” position of knowing whether informants speak the ecological truth, follow the crisis discourse, or lack education and awareness, the text towards the end swings from a ecological truth perspective back into human science constructionism critiquing the “god-like gaze” of the crisis discourse:

"Framing the Southeast Asian bird trade from outside of Indonesia, based on conservation ideologies, resembles Fletcher’s eco-tourist gaze or Haraway’s (1991) ‘god-like gaze’ which grants the ‘viewer’ paternalistic control over events (Lykke 2009). The ASC takes the conservationist gaze, by privileging wildlife conservation over the needs of humans who benefit from songbird trade or even trade actors that are worried about bird declines, exemplified by the Silent Forest Campaign (European Association of Zoos and Aquaria 2023)." (10).

The text then mentions the book Silent Spring and lead on to an alternative framing of ASC around discourses and global inequalities. This is again very laudable but if the claim is that “underlying global structures of inequality ... drive many illegal trades” why are these structures not analysed? If the claim is that “ASC is technically a conservation intervention by the (global) conservation community on Indonesian birdkeepers..(that) has low buy-in from Indonesian government agencies” why is this not analysed in terms of the quotes in the text above and disaggregated so we better understanding what agencies buy in and which do not?

If the argument of the paper is "supporting Jørgensen’s view that ‘extinction [as a process] is not a linear phenomenon’ (Jørgensen 2022), offering a less final and more optimistic perspective. One notable example is the Bali Myna (Figure 1), which ‘[was arguably] saved by captive breeding’ (NG_I_1).“ (11), why is the claim by breeders that they help the government conserve rare birds presented as merely something they ”believe" on page 9?

The paper ends in an excellent conclusion with some important and worthwhile points and recommendations. I agree personally with the ambition but also have some questions:

- Could the paper explain how exchanging the word “crisis” with “challenge” will dismantle the discourse it has identified? What about the underlying structures of equality? Will they be affected by language sanitation of this sort?

- Could the paper explain how its recommendation to enhance “cooperation among governments, conservation practitioners, and birdkeepers” is similar to or different from the same recommendation made by Jepson in 2010?

Jepson, P. (2010). Towards an Indonesian Bird Conservation Ethos: Reflections from a Study of Bird-keeping in the Cities of Java and Bali. Ethno-Ornithology: Birds, Indigenous Peoples, Culture and Society. S. C. Tidemann and A. Gosler. Washington, Earthscan: 313-330.

Reviewer 2:

The central theoretical proposal of this article – the problematisation of term “crisis” as applied to extinction – is an interesting and intriguing one, and I read it with interest. I find the analysis of the complexities of extinction discourses in the section “Confirming extinctions” particularly interesting, and worth expanding on. There are, however, issues with the paper that call for major revisions in order to really flesh out and solidify the argument.

I cannot comment much on the methods used for this research, as I am not trained in ethnographic methods. My main criticism, however, has to do with the choice of respondents, and pertains to the section “Response of breeders to trade-induced declines”. The title is somewhat misleading, as the respondents are entirely comprised of actors from the academic sector, law enforcement, and NGOs. The breeders and birdkeepers are entirely absent from this section and only presented through the lens of the respondents’ opinions about them. This one-sided choice represents a troubling bias in the research and needs to be either addressed frontally and explained or supplemented more robustly.

This weakness means that it is not quite clear why “the emphasis by law enforcement on ecosystem-level impacts may offer a more useful route for valuing songbirds for their ecological roles than through a conservation crisis”. While this is certainly a compelling hypothesis, especially if grounded in a decolonial analysis of the socio-economic factors that underpin bird trade in Indonesia, the paper does ultimately not provide a solid argument for why the phrase ‘Asian Songbird Challenge’ would work better in bringing a variety of actors together.

Overall, I find that the article speeds through many of its points in a way that undermines the strength of the concluding proposal, and I recommend fleshing it out significantly. One symptomatic tendency in the text is, in my opinion, the use of humanities scholarship sprinkled throughout. The references often feel anecdotal and like afterthoughts, I particular in the sections quoting Haraway (her “god-trick” is more about the construction of objectivity in experimental science than it is about colonialism) and Jørgensen. The use of humanities scholarship when it comes to decolonial issues is more successful, and I would like to see the others woven into the argument more solidly as well.

Decision: Rethinking extinction “crises”: The case of Asian songbird trade — R0/PR3

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Rethinking extinction “crises”: The case of Asian songbird trade — R1/PR4

Comments

We appreciate the helpful feedback from both reviewers. Our revised manuscript, included here, addresses their valuable suggestions. We believe the changes made align well with their concerns, and the paper now meets the journal’s standards.

Recommendation: Rethinking extinction “crises”: The case of Asian songbird trade — R1/PR5

Comments

Whilst both reviewers praise the revised version of this article, with one recommending publication with no further revisions, the other has called for some further minor revisions. Could you please give consideration as to how you might be able to respond to the following recommendations in particular:

1. The paragraph “Crises can be temporary conditions…” (39) would benefit from being much more fleshed out, as it speeds through a very condensed presentation of several conflicting definitions of the term in a way that I find insufficiently rigorous for a journal article.

2. The sentence “For example, indigenous groups like the Anishinaabeg people (Great Lakes, North America) observe that animals actively withdraw from the world when societies break human-animal treaties (O’Key 2023).” (54-55) should be expanded on to enrich the preceding paragraph, as it feels like a slightly random and decorative example added to the argument.

3. Paragraph “Looking at environmental humanities scholarship…”: I would like to see both the question of extinction as non-linear and reversible and the comparison to recovering stocks in commercial fishing fleshed out. This is a very interesting point, but the paragraph does not do very much with the participant it quotes here. As a result, the paragraph floats oddly at the end of this section, when it could be tethered to the rest of the argument more strongly.

Decision: Rethinking extinction “crises”: The case of Asian songbird trade — R1/PR6

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Rethinking extinction “crises”: The case of Asian songbird trade — R2/PR7

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Recommendation: Rethinking extinction “crises”: The case of Asian songbird trade — R2/PR8

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Rethinking extinction “crises”: The case of Asian songbird trade — R2/PR9

Comments

No accompanying comment.