Biological parameters used in setting captive‐breeding quotas for Indonesia's breeding facilities

The commercial captive breeding of wildlife is often seen as a potential conservation tool to relieve pressure on wild populations, but laundering of wild‐sourced specimens as captive bred can seriously undermine conservation efforts and provide a false sense of sustainability. Indonesia is at the center of such controversy; therefore, we examined Indonesia's captive‐breeding production plan (CBPP) for 2016. We compared the biological parameters used in the CBPP with parameters in the literature and with parameters suggested by experts on each species and identified shortcomings of the CBPP. Production quotas for 99 out of 129 species were based on inaccurate or unrealistic biological parameters and production quotas deviated more than 10% from what parameters in the literature allow for. For 38 species, the quota exceeded the number of animals that can be bred based on the biological parameters (range 100–540%) calculated with equations in the CBPP. We calculated a lower reproductive output for 88 species based on published biological parameters compared with the parameters used in the CBPP. The equations used in the production plan did not appear to account for other factors (e.g., different survival rate for juveniles compared to adult animals) involved in breeding the proposed large numbers of specimens. We recommend the CBPP be adjusted so that realistic published biological parameters are applied and captive‐breeding quotas are not allocated to species if their captive breeding is unlikely to be successful or no breeding stock is available. The shortcomings in the current CBPP create loopholes that mean mammals, reptiles, and amphibians from Indonesia declared captive bred may have been sourced from the wild.