Geoforum 51 (2014) 47–57

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geoforum
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

Conservation without nature: the trouble with in situ versus ex situ

conservation
Irus Braverman
SUNY Buffalo Law School, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, 625 O’Brian Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Although understudied in academia and mostly unheard of by the general public, the in situ/ex situ
Received 25 March 2013 dichotomy has shaped—and still very much shapes—the development of the nature conservation move-
Received in revised form 16 September 2013 ment and its institutional alliances in the last few decades. Latin for ‘‘in’’ and ‘‘out’’ of place, the in/ex situ
dichotomy often stands for the seemingly less scientific dichotomy between wild nature and captivity.
Drawing on ethnographic engagements with zoo professionals and wildlife managers, this article
Keywords: explores the evolution of the in situ/ex situ dyad in nature conservation, which traverses the worlds of
In situ/ex situ
dead and live matter, artificilia and naturalia, and the seemingly disconnected institutions of museums
Conservation
Nature
and zoos, game parks, and nature reserves. Drawing on animal and relational geography, the article sug-
Captivity gests that the assumptions underlying the in situ versus ex situ divide in conservation are anachronistic,
Ethnography romantic, and unsustainable and that they are incompatible with ideas of naturecultures and multina-
Zoos tures and with non-traditional perceptions of space. Eventually, this grounded study of conservation dis-
Animal geography courses and practices highlights the possibility of conservation management without nature.
Museums Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Game and nature reserves
Artificilia/naturalia
Naturecultures
Multinatures
Wildlife management
Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD)
One Plan approach
Reconciliation ecology
CBSG and IUCN

movement to date, the 2002 Convention on Biological Diversity

(CBD), defines ‘‘In-situ conservation’’ as ‘‘the conservation of eco-
What is it that we want? Much of what conservation biology
systems and natural habitats and the maintenance and recovery of
must do is confused by notions of animal ‘‘wildness’’ and ‘‘free-
viable populations of species in their natural surroundings’’ (my
dom,’’ and even by the belief of a few that when a species’ histor-
emphasis). The term ‘‘Ex-situ conservation’’ is defined in the same
ical home is altered, that species is no longer worthy of interest.
text as ‘‘the conservation of components of biological diversity
William Conway, in Ballou et al. Population Management for
outside their natural habitats’’ (my emphasis). The International
Survival or Recovery, xix
Union for the Conservation of Nature—one of the leading conser-
Strange as it may sound, the idea of nature is getting in the way vation organizations operating in the world today—adds that, ‘‘Ex
of properly ecological forms of culture, philosophy, politics, and situ collections include whole plant or animal collections, zoolog-
art. ical parks and botanic gardens, wildlife research facilities, and
Timothy Morton, Ecology without Nature, 1 germplasm collections of wild and domesticated taxa’’ (IUCN,
2002).
Although understudied by historians of science and mostly un-
Latin for ‘‘in’’ and ‘‘out’’ of place (‘‘situ’’), the in situ/ex situ
heard of by the general public, the in/ex situ terminology has
dichotomy in discourses of nature conservation often stands for
shaped—and still very much shapes—the development of the nat-
the nature/captivity dichotomy. On one end, in situ is defined as
ure conservation movement and its various alliances and goals.
on-site conservation in a wild nature, while on the other end, ex
One of the most important legal texts of the conservation
situ is off-site, unnatural, or captive conservation. This definition
embodies and naturalizes a few central assumptions: (a) that such
wild nature actually exists; (b) that conservation in and of wild
E-mail address: [email protected] nature is always ‘‘in’’ place, while any other form of conservation

0016-7185/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.09.018
48 I. Braverman / Geoforum 51 (2014) 47–57

is ‘‘out’’ of place; and (c) that ‘‘in’’ is normatively preferable to as fluid, complex, and emergent from situated interactions and
‘‘out.’’ Put differently, to use in situ and ex situ in the context of nat- interconnections, rather than as fixed as immutable essences’’
ure conservation is to assume that such exclusive and neat catego- (2008: 2046). My view of nature focuses, similarly, on preserving
ries and spaces of ‘‘in’’ and ‘‘out’’ are, and should be, the driving processes rather than idealized nature and wild bodies. In other
forces of conservation. Indeed, traditional conservation narratives words, it promotes an understanding of conservation that moves
rest upon this schism between in and ex situ space. Without it, it away from purity and toward hybridity, in the rich and variant
seems difficult, if not impossible, for many to imagine what conser- ways already explored by hybrid geography (Whatmore, 2002).
vation could mean. Such hybridity not only relates to animal bodies, but also to regions
This article draws on more than fifty in-depth, semi-structured and places. ‘‘No longer is conservation to be directed only at puri-
interviews with prominent conservationists from the zoo world fied regions far removed from centres of civilisation’’ (Lorimer,
and from wildlife organizations, identified through a snowball 2008: 2056). Many of the spaces and bodies discussed in this arti-
sampling method (Biernacki and Waldorf, 1981). I began this pro- cle are, similarly, hybrid by nature. This hybridity paves the way
ject by re-interviewing a few contacts that I had already estab- for a shift in focus toward dynamic human-nonhuman assem-
lished in my previous study of zoos (Braverman, 2012b) and blages. Such assemblages are similarly championed in the animal
gradually expanded the circle of interviewees through contacting geography literature by Christopher Bear and Sally Eden in their
conservationists whom these initial people knew and suggested work on marine fishery certification and the movements of ‘‘tran-
would be relevant to my project. This sampling is not random; sient populations’’ across management borders (Bear and Eden,
quite the contrary, most of my interviewees have one foot in the 2008), and in David Lulka’s work on the attempts to curb the
in situ world and the other foot in the ex situ world–and have per- movement of bison bodies by Yellowstone National Park (Lulka,
sonally experienced some of the tensions and integrative processes 2004). Like Lorimer, Whatmore, Lulka, and Bear and Eden, my work
that they describe (for a more detailed depiction of this project’s recognizes that there is a certain open-ended and anthropogenic
methodology see Braverman, 2014). nature to human–nonhuman assemblages, which stands in con-
Quoting just a fraction of my interviews, this article will expose, trast with the rigid categories of habitat/site/range with which
explore, and critique the underlying assumptions of in situ versus ex conservationists often conceive their world. Bruce Braun remarks
situ conservation. I shall argue that the in situ/ex situ dichotomy in similarly that landscapes should be understood as open-ended,
nature conservation should be challenged on similar grounds as rather than as closed and natural, and that conservation must be
the broader nature/culture, or nature/society, schism (Cronon, directed at ‘‘the possibilities and consequences of a ‘new earth’
1996; Hinchcliffe, 2007; Latour, 1993). In particular, I will suggest and ‘new humanity’ that is still to come’’ (Braun, 2006: 219).
that this terminology conveys a perception of wild nature that is By problematizing the bifurcation of nature and human, wild and
anachronistic and romantic and that such views are incompatible captive animals, and in situ and ex situ conservation, this article sup-
with emerging critical understandings of naturecultures (Haraway, ports ‘‘an anthropology that is not just confined to the human but is
2008) and multinatures (Latour, 2004, 2011; Lorimer, 2012), which concerned with the effects of our entanglements with other kinds of
question the simplistic division between wilderness and civilized living selves’’ (Kohn, 2007: 4). Recent scholarship in ‘‘multispecies
culture by illuminating their interdependency and irrevocable fu- ethnography’’ (Kirksey and Helmreich, 2010) argues, similarly, for
sion. In the current paradigm, in situ and ex situ—wild nature and a fresh understanding of the material entanglements of humans
captivity—are conjoined in a system of meanings and symbols. with organisms that are not simply windows (or mirrors) into the
Without a wild, free, and pristine nature (in situ), captivity (and ex symbolic concerns of humans but are rather themselves vital sub-
situ conservation) is meaningless; without the notion of captivity, jects who must be lived with, similar to ‘‘companion species’’ (Har-
nature as the very opposite of captivity cannot exist. I will claim that away, 2003) or ‘‘unloved others’’ (Rose and van Dooren, 2011).
such a bifurcated and essentialist view of nature and captivity does This article will begin by exploring the meaning of the in situ/ex
not account for the many situs, or sites, of human-affected natures. situ terminology in different disciplinary contexts. Next, it will ex-
The idea that pristine nature will have to wither away in an eco- plore the evolution of the in situ/ex situ dyad in nature conservation.
logical state of human society is not new (Morton, 2007: 1; Latour, This genealogical account will travel in between the worlds of dead
2004), nor is it a novel claim that our definition of nature will have and live matter, artificilia and naturalia, and between the seemingly
to alter considerably to move away from notions of the pristine to in- unconnected museum and zoo institutions. It will then move to fo-
clude human natures (Castree, 2005; Cronon, 1996; Marris, 2011). cus on the uses of the terminology in the ex situ context of zoos, illus-
Nonetheless, this idea has received renewed attention in the form trating the various models that have evolved from the realization of
of the debate over renaming the current geological epoch as the the important interconnections, indeed the impossibility of a cate-
Anthropocene (Szerszynski, 2012; Latour, 2010; Lorimer, 2012). I gorical divide, between in situ and ex situ conservation.
would like to expand this idea into the realm of conservation biol-
ogy—namely, to replace the discourse of nativity and indigineity
with explorations of viability, vitality and relationality that are 1. In Situ/Ex Situ: an intra-disciplinary genealogy
self-reflective about the ethical and political issues at stake. In es-
sence, I am proposing conservation without nature, in the traditional The terms in situ and ex situ are used in an overwhelming
sense of this word at least (Braun, 2006; Lorimer, 2012). variety of disciplinary contexts. In art, in situ refers to a work made
Such explorations will not be new to the readers of this journal. specifically for a host site, or one that takes into account the site in
Indeed, the site (or location) of conservation practices and philos- which it is installed or exhibited, also referred to as ‘‘site-specific’’
ophies is a topic that is geographic at its core. In particular, animal art. In computer science, an in situ operation is one that occurs
geographers have been very active in the area of human–wildlife without interrupting the normal state of a system. For example,
studies. One of the main strands in this area has been to challenge an in situ upgrade would allow an operating system or application
consisting frameworks for approaching wildlife management. In to be upgraded while the system was still running. Under public
‘‘Living Roods and Brownfield Wildlife,’’ for example, Jamie Lorimer international law, in situ refers to a government with effective con-
employs a range of conceptual resources from relational geogra- trol over a certain territory, in contrast to an exiled government.
phy, a tradition that is quite relevant for this project. ‘‘Broadly And in architecture in situ refers to construction that is carried
speaking,’’ Lorimer writes, ‘‘relational geography understands out at a building site using raw materials, and is contrasted with
identities such as ‘nature’ and ‘society’, or ‘the urban’ and ‘the rural’ prefabricated construction, whereby building components are
 I. Braverman / Geoforum 51 (2014) 47–57 49

made elsewhere and then transported to the building site for ical gardens is far preferable to in situ conservation methods, which
assembly (Wikipedia, ‘‘in situ’’). often restrict human access to genetic resources. Along these lines,
Archeology offers what is arguably the closest interpretation to scholars have distinguished between ‘‘accumulation,’’ which is
that of nature conservation. In archeology, in situ refers to an arti- thought of as characteristic of ex situ conservation and is based
fact that has not been newly moved from its original place of depo- on the collection of genetic resources for human use, and ‘‘mainte-
sition, indicating that it is stationary or static. Such an artifact that nance,’’ characteristic of an in situ conservation that focuses on the
is not discovered in situ is considered out of context and thus even survival of a habitat as it currently exists. While ex situ conserva-
meaningless (Abungu, interview). For example, in situ often refers tion has been a way to store germplasm, in situ conservation has
to ancient sculptures that were carved in place, such as the Sphinx usually not allowed for storage or removal of plants from their na-
or Petra—which are distinguished from statues that were carved tive habitats (for more on ex situ management in plant conserva-
and moved, such as the Colossi of Memnon (Hamma, interview). tion see Guerrant et al., 2004).
In situ is thus defined in archeology as the place where an item Because of the predominance of ex situ conservation in the his-
was first excavated: tory of agriculture, conservation was initially characterized as a
utilitarian practice (Scarascia-Mugnozza and Perrino, 2002: 18).
If talking from an archeological perspective, the country of origin
On the other end of conservation trends driven by ‘‘use’’ and con-
is where the thing has been dug from [defines its status], not
figured within the ex situ conservation framework, in situ conserva-
where it came from. Things move. Where you dug it from the
tion was generally configured within the paradigm of wilderness
ground is what is important, irrespective of where it was
management. The in situ practice was driven by what many critics
made. . . That discovery moment—that is the place of origin.
suggest is an ‘‘Edenic narrative’’—a desire to recreate or maintain
So it could have come five kilometers away, could have come
an environment that recalls the biblical Eden (Slater, 1996: 115).
100 km away. But where you go and find it buried that is
This understanding of nature as Eden required a complete removal
in situ and that is where it is. So if it is in Kenya and you discover
of human presence, the source of all pollution and destruction
it there and you dig it there, it belongs to that particular place. . .
(Cronon, 1996; Smith, 1984).
that is where it belongs (Abungu, interview; my emphasis).
Whereas initially adopted from other disciplines to indicate the
importance of place for the utility of conservation management of
The various definitions of in situ—although quite different from plants, in the 1980s the in situ/ex situ terminology has gained trac-
one another—all assert importance to the ‘‘place of origin’’ and to tion as a convenient replacement for the emotionally loaded terms
the ‘‘country of origin’’ in particular. In what follows, I will trace ‘‘nature’’ and ‘‘captivity.’’ This is true especially in zoos, where the
the use of the in/ex situ terminology in the nature conservation dis- justification for holding animals in captivity has increasingly been
course, pointing to its evolvement in plant conservation in the contested by animal rights and welfare discourses (Donahue and
1960s and its more current adoption by conservationists in the Trump, 2006). In place of the negative associations of the term
1980s and 1990s to replace the controversial and emotional lan- ‘‘captivity,’’ the term ex situ highlights the scientific dimension of
guage of captivity with the seemingly more remote scientific term such conservation initiatives. In the words of wildlife conservation-
equivalent in Latin: ‘‘ex situ’’ (Blumer, interview). ist Evan Blumer, ‘‘the terminology began with this binary of captive
versus wild, and then got broadened and softened by bringing the
2. In Situ and Ex Situ in nature conservation Latin into it with in situ and ex situ’’ (interview).
Legal texts similarly rely on and reinforce the understanding of
The terms in situ and ex situ are foundational to the discourse of in situ and ex situ conservation as the foundational spatial division
the nature conservation movement. Conservation biologists David for nature conservation policies. I have already mentioned the Con-
and Lida Burney suggest, accordingly, that ‘‘Anyone who has taken vention on Biological Diversity’s explicit bifurcation of conserva-
a course in conservation biology, or even read a book on the sub- tion into two separate textual spaces: Section 8 for in situ and
ject, knows that there are fundamentally two kinds of conserva- Section 9 for ex situ conservation. Whereas in situ nature conserva-
tion: in situ and ex situ’’ (2010). The ability to identify in situ is tion is the ultimate goal of conservation, ex situ is limited in that it
also intrinsically tied to the preferential treatment of plants and must be executed ‘‘predominantly for the purpose of complementing
animals that have originated from the native environment, leading in situ measures’’ (CBD, Article 9). Although the U.S. Endangered
to a native-versus-alien species dichotomy in conservation, which Species Act of 1973—often referred to as the strongest species-re-
many conservationists still consider to be a core guiding principle lated conservation law in existence today—is not as explicit in its
(Fleishman et al., 2011), although it is increasingly contested (Da- in situ/ex situ duality as the CBD, its stated preference toward ‘‘his-
vis et al., 2011; Warren, 2009). torical range’’ and the reluctance of its enforcers to count animals
Initially, in/ex situ nature conservation was associated with the in captive settings as measures of conservation recovery both rely
agricultural history of domestication and migration, and with the on and reinforce the in situ/ex situ divide (Braverman, 2014).
development of seedbanks in particular. The term in situ appears The hierarchical understanding of the relationship between
in many naturalist histories as a reference to a plant’s original hab- in situ and ex situ conservation is not only the law ‘‘on the books,’’
itat, but its earliest use in the context of conservation appears to but also how many conservation biologists define and experience
have been made during a 1967 Technical Conference on the Explo- their work, as I have discovered in many of the interviews con-
ration, Utilization and Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources ducted for this project. Such a preferential treatment of situs is
(Scarascia-Mugnozza and Perrino, 2002: 5). Seedbanks were origi- far from semantic; instead, it manifests in the everyday relation-
nally developed to maintain the viability of seeds during travel, ships between various conservation professionals and organiza-
and thus the productivity of certain breeds. Collecting seeds and tions around the world. One of the manifestations of the schism
storing them for future use became the predominant method of embedded in this terminology is the often tense professional rela-
ex situ conservation of plants. In the United States, seedbanks that tionship between field conservationists, on the one hand, and con-
existed before 1967 were mostly part of breeding programs (an- servationists who work in captive settings, mostly zoo
other method of ex situ conservation) managed by the Office of For- professionals, on the other hand. One of my interviewees, a conser-
eign Seed and Plant Introduction initiated in 1898. vationist who works in both worlds, points out that: ‘‘Traditionally,
Until quite recently, most programs focusing on plant genetic zoos have been disliked by many of the field people because they
diversity assumed that ex situ conservation of genebanks or botan- don’t like to see those animals in a captive setting and they don’t
50 I. Braverman / Geoforum 51 (2014) 47–57

necessarily feel like [zoos] are contributing all that much to their that the process of composing a common world necessitates a
conservation’’ (Stoinski, interview). Another conservationist says, sense of natures as active outcomes rather than as pre-given start-
similarly, that, ‘‘there are still tensions between captive and wild ing points, as they are not ‘‘reducible to their conditions for they
communities, . . . zoos versus field conservation’’ (Byers, interview). will go on to do more work in their own right’’ (2008: 85). Ulti-
In situ and ex situ conservationists define the term ‘‘nature’’ sim- mately, for Bingham and Hinchliffe, it is because natures are
ilarly, with in situ usually prioritized by both. Such prioritization is ‘‘[n]either made-up nor pre-existing, both formed and forming,
based on their belief that the central object of conservation is a [. . .that they] mark the lures that mobilise an indeterminate world’’
‘‘first,’’ pristine nature that exists outside of society. As mentioned, (ibid.).
the very use of in situ and ex situ in the context of nature conserva- Despite these realizations, many conservationists, including
tion assumes that there can, in fact, be a place that is ‘‘inside’’ nat- Conway himself, are not prepared to give up wilderness. Here, in
ure, which can then be contrasted with a place that is ‘‘outside.’’ the words of Conway:
Yet more and more conservationists are questioning the essen-
Why, for heavens sake, should we preserve fifteenth century
tialization of nature and exploring fresh approaches to biodiversity
Dutch paintings? Who cares? They don’t make any difference
conservation that do not make recourse to the wilderness approach
to anybody. They are pretty to look at. Well, so are animals;
toward nature. Such conservationists are beginning to overcome
[but they] are very much more than that. There was a time
the traditional non-dynamic definition of nature, although they
when we used to say ‘‘you have to preserve wildlife because
nonetheless still "sell" nature to the public as a more or less fixed
of the importance it has in helping us to provide pure water
entity that needs to be preserved or restored. For example, Michael
and pure air’’ and so on and so forth, and of course some of that
Rosenzweig explores the possibilities for reconciliation ecology in
is true. But the biomass of human beings today is so big now
a ‘‘New Pangaea’’ (2003) that reconceptualizes the connections in
and the biomass of wildlife is so small in comparison that that
which life has and will evolve. Along similar lines, nineteen ecolo-
ecological argument is pretty hard to make. You are going to
gists have recently declared that, ‘‘it is time for conservationists to
preserve them because you want to. . . . because Dr. Braverman
focus much more on the functions of species, and much less on
likes leopards, or whatever it is Dr. Braverman likes. You are
where they originated’’ (Davis et al., 2011: 154). These scholars ar-
going to preserve it because people have a sense of wanting
gue, further, that ‘‘[i]t is time for scientists, land managers and pol-
to preserve something outside themselves. And that, ultimately,
icy-makers to ditch this preoccupation with the native–alien
this is the most exciting, the most diverse, the most fascinating,
dichotomy and embrace more dynamic and pragmatic approaches
the most beautiful expression of life: wild animals.
to the conservation and management of species—approaches bet-
ter suited to our fast-changing planet’’ (ibid., 153; see also Davis Prominent conservation biologist Michael Soulé states even
et al., 2011; Hobbs et al., 2013). more boldly than Conway: ‘‘If you see human beings as the major
In the zoo world, William Conway criticizes the term ‘‘original instrument in destroying most of biodiversity in the world, which
habitat’’ (or ‘‘historic range’’ in the Endangered Species Act), which they are, then it’s easy to say that we’re not part of nature. It’s
he suggests is a recurring term in the in situ/ex situ discourse. In his something like asking, was Adolf Hitler a human being? And it de-
words, pends on your view of human beings.’’ Here, the traditional roman-
tic juxtaposition between nature and humans again raises its head.
[T]he whole business of in situ and ex situ are artificial concepts
as we look into the future. Habitats are moving and changing,
climate is changing. Animal populations in the past have been 3. Naturalia and artificilia: early zoos and museum collections
able to adapt to these changes, sometimes. [But] lots of time
they couldn’t and became extinct before humans came around. Despite the strong inclination of conservationists toward in situ
That’s why we don’t have giant sloths and mammoths. There conservation, ex situ conservation has gained a foothold in seed and
used to be mammoths 11,000 years ago in the Bronx; gene banks and, most prominently, in the work of modern zoos,
18,000 years ago there were polar bears in the South of France. which offer increasingly important ex situ conservation strategies.
That’s not so long [ago]. So [the term] ‘‘original habitat’’ Zoos are the quintessential institution of nonhuman captivity and
depends on how original you want to be. [W]e usually apply also, increasingly, the quintessential institution for ex situ conser-
the same sort of meaning we do to history: ‘‘history’’ is since vation (Braverman, 2012b). Yet the history of zoos has not always
we were here, and ‘‘original’’ is the way it was when we remem- been tied to that of conservation (Anderson, 1995). In fact, this is a
ber it. But it doesn’t necessarily mean it was here in the day of fairly new phenomenon that began post-WWII, around the incep-
the dinosaurs. So these terms have to be taken with great deal tion of the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) and
of flexibility (interview). the establishment of the International Union for the Conservation
of Nature (IUCN) (Penn et al., 2012). More pronounced links be-
Nature and its implied originality are thus understood by Con- tween zoos and conservation began in the 1970s and accelerated
way as relative and flexible concepts that depend on human defi- with the establishment of the European endangered species pro-
nitions: ‘‘Original is the way it was when we remember it,’’ he grams (EEPs) and the parallel Species Survival Plan (SSP) programs
asserts. Conway’s quote illuminates the failure of so many other in North America in the 1980s (Braverman, 2012b). I will return to
conservation discourses to think adequately about temporal the definitions of ex situ conservation within the zoo institution la-
benchmarks, about the nonlinear or immanent nature of ecological ter in this article.
complexes, and about the criteria by which to evaluate emergent Zoos have been around for centuries—long before the emer-
or novel ecologies. Such considerations are part and parcel of the gence of the modern nature conservation movement. While the
work of new ecologists, who argue the futility of appealing to a earliest recorded zoos date from the monastic kingdoms of Nebu-
pure realm of nature as the foundation of conservation practices. chadnezzar of Babylon and Wen Wang of China (Braverman,
Instead, they argue that nature in the twenty-first century will 2012b: 26; Baratay and Hardouin-Fugier, 2004), in the seventeenth
be a nature that we make (Botkin, 1990). ‘‘Future natures will be century what had once been menageries of exotica emerged along-
hybrid; their concern is the degree to which this moulding will side the museum as scientific institutions that focused on ordering
be intentional or unintentional, desirable or undesirable (Lorimer, nature. The history of zoos is thus deeply entangled with that of
2008: 2048). Similarly, Nick Bingham and Steve Hinchliffe argue museums and other early natural history collections (Braverman,
 I. Braverman / Geoforum 51 (2014) 47–57 51

2012b); the control of nature was the goal of early collecting prac- In the menageries, the wild and exotic animals—and until the
tices and the driving force behind the ordering and cataloguing of early twentieth century, certain native humans as well (ibid.:
artifacts and living things. Collectors of the sixteenth and seven- 73–75)—were the sole focus of the exhibit. The design of the exhi-
teenth centuries devised strategies for the systematic categoriza- bit containing the animal included overtly human artifacts and,
tion of the objects in their possession. In most cases, these most prominently, bars and cages. The animal’s domination by hu-
objects were recorded and displayed in an organized manner, even mans was visible; in fact, it was an important part of the menagerie
if the criteria for organization were at times subjective. Regardless exhibit. Over the last five decades, however, zoos have redefined
of their potential variations, the strategies adopted by these collec- themselves as places that exhibit natural ecosystems, highlighting
tors enabled them to impose order on the natural world. that they exist to save animal species and their habitats. The living
One of such collectors, John Tradescant, employed what David animal thus becomes an important element in a larger and more
Berry calls ‘‘an organizational principle based on a classificatory sophisticated exhibit of nature. Immersion design has emerged
system which differentiated between the wonders of nature, or around the world as the desired exhibit style: designed to immerse
naturalia, on the one hand, and the works of man, or artificialia, the zoogoer in what is envisioned as the original habitat of the dis-
on the other’’ (Berry, 2011). This type of division was common in played animal, immersion includes an array of sounds and sights
the period of the seventeenth century, with its collections of ‘‘curi- from the perceived wild and an obscuration of human elements
osities.’’ However, Tradescant’s collection was unique in that ‘‘ob- that might taint the view of the natural (ibid.: 33–38). It is already
jects placed into the first category, that of naturalia, were further an important forging of situs in the ex situ, the out of site.
classified into subcategories consisting of the three primary orders More than ever before, then, the existence of the modern zoo
of nature (animal, plant, and mineral), as then defined’’ (Berry, now depends on an ideal nature (Braverman, 2012a). In this age
2011). Objects placed into the category of artificialia were also of conservation, the zoo’s institutional existence depends on the
placed into subcategories. As Berry notes, ’’within the encyclopedic animal’s status as wild, exotic, and other (Braverman, 2012b: 30–
context, all forms of data held equal weight when considered as 49). This status is exemplified by the narratives relating to the
parts of the whole of knowledge’’ (2011). Little priority was at- reappearance of Mercantour wolves in the French National Park
tached to one form of evidence over another, whether natural or of the Mercantour in 1992. According to Henry Buller, this event
artificial, real or imaginary. ‘‘was widely hailed as a reaffirmation, but also as a recasting, of
In her monograph Possessing Nature, history of science scholar the region’s inherent biodiversity’’ (2008: 1589). The reappearance
Paula Findlen argues that collecting was a way of ‘‘maintaining of these Mercantour wolves, Buller argues, marked for many ‘‘the
some degree of control over the natural world and taking its mea- achievement of some supreme preconstituted natural value—a cel-
sure’’ (1994: 4). These two activities, collecting and investigating ebration of the fact that here, at least, is an environment that can
nature, met in the museum. ‘‘Possessing nature was part of a more be ‘won back’’’ (ibid.). However, Buller problematizes such an ap-
widespread delight in collecting objects of scientific worth. . . . A- peal to a revitalized, ideal nature. Hinchliffe similarly points out
long with art, antiquities, and exotica, nature was deemed a desir- that ‘‘[t]here is no timeless Nature, rendered as an eternal present
able object to own’’ (Findlen, 1994: 2–3). Tactile as well as social, or absent, to sit mutely outside an evolving society’’ (2007: 145).
the philosophy of the museum ‘‘enhanced the Aristotelian defini- Without such a wild, free, and timeless nature, the very notion
tion of knowledge as a product of sensory engagement with nat- of captivity is shattered. If every ‘‘situ’’ is but another form of cap-
ure’’ (Findlen, 1994: 5). tivity, for example, why would zoos exhibit the majesty of an exo-
The parallels between the evolution of zoos and that of natural ticized nature? The perception of nature advanced by the zoo is
history museums have already been studied, albeit briefly (Braver- one of an Edenic, untouched (by humans) and, most importantly,
man, 2012b: 26–28). I argue here more generally that these insti- wild nature—the ultimate other of the zoo’s captivity. Similarly,
tutions share not only major goals and missions but also an without the notion of captivity, pristine nature or wilderness as
administrative culture, which focuses on collections and exhibits the very opposite of captivity cannot exist. The new institution of
and manages these collections through keepers, curators, and reg- captivity has thus evolved hand-in-hand with the modern institu-
istrars (see also Anderson, 2004). In menageries—the historical tion of wilderness and alongside ethics of conservation that effec-
predecessors of modern zoological gardens—live animals replaced tively manage this fruitful schism. The wild animal at the zoo is no
the dead naturalia of early museum displays. To keep their exhib- longer an object of naturalia by itself; rather, it requires the con-
ited organisms alive, zoos had to come up with unique ways for struction of an entire production of a nature ‘‘out there,’’ and an
managing live animals, including feeding and medical treatment. existence of a body double in that nature—the zoo animal’s dupli-
This extra attention by zoos to managing the life of their animal cate in the wild for which it serves as ambassador—to be consid-
exhibits eventually necessitated the development of breeding ered worth conserving by keeping in captivity. But the project of
plans and care manuals, which do not exist in most museum con- captivating animals engenders the transformation of animal
texts. Nonetheless, the organizing themes remain strikingly similar bodies, as these translate into numerical calculations and genetic
in both zoos and museums: to manage what they both refer to as matter (Bear and Eden, 2008; Lulka, 2004).
‘‘collections’’ and ‘‘exhibits’’ through forms of classification. In the Put differently, the current definition of nature conservation de-
words of Judith Block, Registrar emeritus of the Smithsonian’s Na- pends on the bifurcation of in and ex situ. Here, from the IUCN:
tional Zoo:
IUCN affirms that a goal of conservation is the maintenance of
You can compare [living collections] to a museum collection in existing genetic diversity and viable populations of all taxa in
that a painting needs the right humidity, security, and protec- the wild in order to maintain biological interactions, ecological
tion from light, stuff like that. The same with a live animal; processes and function. . . . The threats to biodiversity in situ
you have to make sure that it’s . . . safe and has the right temper- continue to expand, and taxa have to survive in increasingly
ature and humidity. . . . A wildebeest [is not] so unique that it’s human-modified environments. . . . The reality of the current sit-
irreplaceable in the same way that a Rembrandt [painting] uation is that it will not be possible to ensure the survival of an
would be. This wildebeest is one of a species and has character- increasing number of threatened taxa without effectively using
istics that will be useful for the population, but it’s one of many a diverse range of complementary conservation approaches and
[and thus] not so special (Block interview, ibid.: 125). techniques including, for some taxa, increasing the role and
52 I. Braverman / Geoforum 51 (2014) 47–57

practical use of ex situ techniques (IUCN, 2002; emphasis natural habitat and wildlife (Balmford et al., 1998). That, specifi-
added). cally, ‘‘25 percent of all mammals, 12 percent of birds and more
than a third of amphibians are threatened with extinction’’ (Dickie
The prioritization of wild nature, or in situ, over ex situ conser- and Holst, 2007: 23). As a result, western zoos have produced a
vation is also apparent in texts produced by the World Association complex conservation agenda that includes conservation educa-
of Zoos and Aquariums, which defines conservation as ‘‘the secur- tion, captive breeding for the translocation of zoo animals in ex-
ing of long-term populations of species in natural ecosystems and change with wildlife populations, participation and management
habitats wherever possible’’ (WAZA, 2005). of independent in situ projects, and sources of revenue for in situ
The in/ex situ paradigm also manifests in various definitions of projects. The next paragraphs will examine some of these conser-
conservation promoted by prominent global conservation organi- vation strategies, often referred to by zoo professionals and a grow-
zations. For example, according to IUCN’s Red List definitions, an ing group of conservationists as ex situ conservation.
animal that is extinct in situ (in the wild) is defined as ‘‘non-con-
served,’’ even if it still lives in captivity (IUCN, 2012a). In the words
5. Ex Situ conservation strategies in contemporary zoos
of Onnie Byers, CBSG Chair at the IUCN: ‘‘Real conservation is [de-
fined as] self-sustaining populations in nature. If a species in total
The WAZA Code of Ethics and Animal Welfare, adopted at the
is only in captivity they call that ‘not conserved.’ The zoo commu-
58th Annual Conference of the World Association of Zoos and
nity would prefer a more positive phrasing—[which] is something
Aquariums (WAZA) in November 2003, includes the following
that I want to fight for at the World Conservation Congress’’ (inter-
principles:
view). Similarly, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) does
not count captive animals when evaluating the endangered status
Assisting in achieving the conservation and survival of species
of the species as part of their recovery plans. USFWS Director tells
must be the aim of all members of the profession.
me in an interview that ‘‘the Endangered Species Act is actually
...
twofold. It is to conserve species that are endangered or threatened
Promote the interests of wildlife conservation, biodiversity and
with extinction and the ecosystems on which they depend. So the
animal welfare to colleagues and to society at large.
context of the law is entirely oriented toward conserving species in
Co-operate with the wider conservation community including
the wild. We don’t count species that are in captivity for recovery
wildlife agencies, conservation organisations and research insti-
purposes’’ (Ashe, interview; see also Barrow, 2009). Clearly, exist-
tutions to assist in maintaining global biodiversity (WAZA,
ing practices in conservation construct a preferential treatment
2003).
of animals based on their placement ‘‘in’’ or ‘‘out’’ of nature, on a
dyadic understanding of their biological situ.
In North America, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums cur-
rent Five-Year Strategic Plan includes the following statements
4. The birth of zoos as ex situ conservation institutions regarding conservation:

In the 1970s, a system of legal codes came into effect that im-
5.1. Preamble
mensely limited the ability of zoos to take wild animals from the
wild. In order to survive, zoos needed to find another way of pro-
Accredited zoos and aquariums are gateways through which
ducing animals. Fortunately, animals multiply and reproduce
millions of people learn about and value the rich diversity of life
themselves. However, the task of orchestrating such reproductions
that is humankind’s wildlife heritage.
from a genetic standpoint and the ethical dilemmas at stake has
proven to be considerably more challenging than zoo professionals
may have anticipated (Braverman, 2012b: 159–185). 5.2. Long term vision
Lisa Campbell and Matthew Godfrey study the ways in which
genetic data supported the scaling-up of sea turtle conservation, The Association of Zoos and Aquariums envisions a world
thereby creating new ‘‘conservation territories.’’ They show that where, as a result of the work of accredited zoos and aquariums,
‘‘genetic data [was] used to argue that all hawksbills in the Carib- all people respect, value and conserve wildlife and wild places.
bean were genetically related, and thus should be managed as a
single, regional conservation territory’’ (2010: 900). Campbell and 5.3. Mission
Godfrey conclude that ‘‘the science of genetics is implicated not
only in delineating the physical space of conservation territories, The Association of Zoos & Aquariums (AZA) provides its mem-
but their governance structures.’’ This discussion raises important bers the services, high standards and best practices needed to be
ontological questions about what is a species—the basic unit of leaders and innovators in animal care, wildlife conservation and
conservation biology—and which differences—genes, behavior, science, conservation education, the guest experience, and com-
ecologies, etc.—make a difference. David Lulka’s work (2004) on bi- munity engagement (AZA, 2010).
son management in Yellowstone National Park provides another Contemporary accredited zoos thus see themselves as a gate-
critical perspective on what he sees as the excessive usage of ge- way through which wide audiences may be educated about the va-
netic management, which disconnects conservationists from the lue of nature. For this education to take place, visitors must be able
actual bodies of nonhuman animals, which are studied instead as to intimately encounter the wonders of nature, which, it is be-
population and species (Lulka, 2004: 446). lieved, will convince them of the importance of its conservation.
I have mentioned the legal changes that precipitated major Such an intimate experience occurs through the visual display of
changes to the contemporary zoo. Yet the zoo’s institutional shift wild animals, which are perceived as ambassadors for their con-
to conservation was not only due to an imposition of outside legal specifics in the wild. ‘‘Unlike other international conservation
norms. Increasingly, zoo personnel included many scientists who NGOs, zoos have a physical site that can be visited. . . . People don’t
had just completed their PhDs in various in situ settings and who tend to weep for the process of desertification but they are often
were passionate about conservation. These people looked for a inspired to act by the plight of charismatic species. . . . This common
way to relate their work to what they understood to be the most emotional response can be used to good effect for conservation
urgent challenges for conservation: the rapid disappearance of purposes by zoo’’ (Dickie et al., 2007: 223, 229). According to the
 I. Braverman / Geoforum 51 (2014) 47–57 53

European Association of Zoos and Aquariums (EAZA), ‘‘EAZA that, ‘‘Maintenance of assurance populations in captivity may be
empowers European citizens to learn about and contribute to glo- the only route to survival for hundreds of species of amphibian, un-
bal biodiversity conservation goals. til a future point where chytrid is, if ever, eradicated from, or con-
It is estimated that ‘‘more than 140 million people visit EAZA trolled in, the environment’’ (Dickie et al., 2007: 224). The value of
members each year, equivalent to approximately one in five Euro- captivity here again depends on the existence of a wild ‘‘out there.’’
pean citizens’’ (EAZA, 2011: emphasis in original). On a global Reinforcing this prioritization of the wild, certain conservationists
scale, an estimated one in ten of the world population visits a question whether humans should even bother saving animals that
zoo each year, amounting to 600 million people worldwide (West can only exist in captivity (ibid., 229; but see Currie, interview).
and Dickie, 2007: 5). Western zoos see education as a central com- Reintroductions of zoo animals into their wild habitats are a
ponent of conservation; they believe that once the masses learn to source of pride for zoos and the pinnacle of their conservation ef-
care about the wild animals they encounter in zoos, they will also forts. Yet such reintroductions are quite rare for a variety of rea-
promote conservation of these animals in the wild. As much as the sons, including the threat of ‘‘pollution’’ by disease transmission
zoo presents itself as a representation—a simulacrum even—of nat- of natural populations and the risk of poaching (Braverman,
ure, wild nature is a simulacrum of the institution of captivity (Bar- 2012b: 182). Consequently, the IUCN issues guidelines for reintro-
tram and Shobrook, 2000). ductions and other conservation translocations. The most recent
guidelines, dated August 2012, map out a complex set of defini-
tions and classifications. ‘‘Conservation translocation,’’ is the over-
6. Ex Situ breeding arching concept and is defined by the IUCN Guidelines as ‘‘the
intentional movement and release of the focal species locally or
Alongside their mission of conserving through education, zoos globally, and/or restoring natural ecosystem functions or pro-
also see themselves as partaking in in situ conservation through cesses.’’ Lastly, translocation is divided in the IUCN Guidelines into
ex situ, or captive, breeding. Again, because there can be no more two categories: ‘‘population restoration’’ (translocation within
taking from the wild, naturalia must be produced outside of nature. indigenous range) and ‘‘conservation introduction’’ (translocation
Detailed human calculations attempt to replace natural selection outside indigenous range). Each of these categories is finally di-
with complex genetic diversity configurations. Small animal popu- vided into a variety of subcategories: reinforcement, reintroduc-
lation management in zoos has grown into a science that relies on tion, assisted colonization, and ecological replacement (IUCN,
sophisticated mathematical algorithms to map out and predict the 2012b). Important questions that should further be explored in this
future genetic diversity of captive populations (Ballou et al., 1995). context are whether these guidelines in fact establish viable work-
Increasingly, this form of science—which attempts to imitate nat- ing definitions for the relationship between ex situ and in situ con-
ure’s diversity and to replace its various forms of selection—is servation and, if so, how they should be enforced.
being exported into in situ conservation projects for small animal
populations (Lacy, interview). The IUCN’s Conservation Breeding 7. Captivity outside zoos
Specialist Group (CBSG) has come up with a One Plan approach
to work around the problems of the in situ/ex situ divides. Accord- The captivity of wild animals not only happens in zoos. More and
ing to this organization’s director, ‘‘The ‘One Plan Approach’ pro- more, ex situ breeding occurs on commercial farms, which are per-
poses integrated species conservation planning which considers ceived by many conservationists as non- or even anti-conservation.
all populations of the species both inside and outside their natural South Africa provides fascinating examples for the increasing blur-
range under all conditions of management involving all responsi- ring of lines between conservation and commercial breeding of wild
ble parties and engaging all available resources’’ (Byers, interview). animals. Peter Dollinger—previously the director of WAZA and cur-
Similarly, population biologists increasingly realize that, ‘‘No long- rently director of the Alpine Zoo Secretariat (a conglomerate of Ger-
er can the zoo world operate differently from a national park. The man and Swiss Zoos)—explains that there is ‘‘a huge trade in
captive population are most likely not viable on their own. . . . and antelopes and giraffes and rhinos in South Africa. Farmers are breed-
the wild population certainly is not viable on its own, either. We ing them, they are selling to other farmers and most of these animals
have to be working in partnership because we need each other’’ are in fenced areas so you have to manage them.’’ He further explains
(Lacy, interview). Rather than seeing them as distinct populations, that, ‘‘A number of them have shifted to game farming and they do
in situ and ex situ populations are now viewed as interconnected this partly . . . for hunting tourism. So they make a living off of wild-
entities and commonly referred to as a ‘‘meta-population.’’ life.’’ Hamish Currie, Director of the South African nongovernmental
In situ and ex situ conservation projects, certain conservationists organization ‘‘Back to Africa,’’ expands on the relationship between
have realized, affect each other in reciprocal ways. Under this real- game reserves and conservation:
ization, the Darwinian model of natural selection becomes the
model for population management, which is in turn imposed on In a nutshell, I now have difficulty defining the word ‘‘conserva-
the process of reconstituting nature in the image of nature. An tion,’’ because if I look at some game farms in South Africa. . . . I’ve
ongoing simulation process relies on the initial distinction be- got to say, ‘‘now, is that game farmer practicing conservation?’’
tween nature and science and on the scientific attempt to replicate And what is conservation? Of course, the definition can get a
nature, in turn blurring the distinction between the two by weav- bit blurred. . . . If it is activities that enhance the persistence of
ing multiple connections between various conservation sites. natural habitats and populations, then those guys are certainly
Captive breeding is considered a strategy of ex situ conservation doing that. [But] people in zoos, particularly, are very critical of
because of its potential to create a captive reserve population for this. They say it’s bad, you know, that it’s very bad to have a com-
endangered species or even for those species who are extinct (or mercial value associated with animals. In Europe, you don’t sell
extirpated) in the wild. These back-up supplies of animal bodies animals. You don’t buy animals. You swap animals.
are referred to by conservationists as insurance (Soulé et al., Such disparities between the various norms and practices relat-
1986), or assurance (Dickie et al., 2007: 224), populations. Accord- ing to wild animals has manifested in the following policy state-
ing to many ex situ conservation narratives, once nature is eventu- ment by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF):
ally back on its feet, or once the population has strengthened itself,
the vulnerable species can be reintroduced ‘‘back’’ into the wild. In trying to determine strategies by which registered commer-
For example, conservationists argue in the context of amphibians cial ex situ breeding operations for Appendix I species could
54 I. Braverman / Geoforum 51 (2014) 47–57

contribute to in situ conservation, additional difficulties are animals that they tried to liberate . . . one wild cat got out and it just
encountered in that many species have no identified in situ con- stayed 15–20 m next to its enclosure’’ (interview). Zoo designer
servation programmes to which these operations could contrib- Monika Fiby also attempts a definition of human responsibility
ute. This fact in itself illustrates the concerns raised by the that does not depend on the naturalness of the habitat but on
issue; i.e. commercial trade continues in Appendix I species the degree of freedom afforded to nonhuman animals wherever
with little or no attention focused on the in situ conservation humans are responsible for them. In her words, ‘‘Sometimes in
of those species. . . . For example – There are currently highly the wild, animals have less and less choices. . . . [The difference be-
successful captive breeding programmes for Crocodylus siamen- tween zoos and the wild] is the degree of our responsibility. How
sis (Siamese crocodile) in Thailand (16 registered with CITES), much are we responsible for their welfare? If we need to manage
Vietnam (5 registered with CITES), and Cambodia (526 regis- them then we are, to a certain degree, responsible’’ (interview).
tered with the government, 6 registered with CITES). These Evidently, the relationship between captive and wild popula-
operations breed and export tens of thousands of live crocodiles tions is increasingly complicated, illuminating the problems of
and products annually. . . . At the same time, the species contin- bifurcated definitions such as wild/captive and in/ex situ. Specifi-
ues in drastic decline in all these range states, and is now virtu- cally, the intense management of animal populations in nature re-
ally extinct in Thailand, where the last survey located only three serves and other sites (see, e.g., Sellars, 1997; Redford et al., 1998)
animals remaining in the wild (WWF, 2004). calls into serious question the ability to depict something as in situ
or ex situ conservation in the first place. Certain conservationists
The statement that the animal is extinct in Thailand despite have proposed, for example, the establishment of ‘‘extraction re-
remaining alive in captive programs testifies to the alienation be- serves’’ (Conway, 2003; Redford et al., 1998), which entail desig-
tween in situ and ex situ accounts. If the animal is still alive, but nating a natural habitat and managing it for enhancing zoo
not in its perceived natural or original location, should it be consid- animal populations, including surveys of the habitat, the species
ered ‘‘conserved’’? And what if the animal’s habitat is highly present, ecological interactions, and the movement of animals in
dependent on human management, what would its conservation both directions—from the reserve to zoo populations and vice ver-
in that habitat mean then? These questions highlight that the ideas sa—to improve the genetic diversity of individual populations
of ‘‘in’’ and ‘‘out’’ of nature are no longer useful and are in fact det- (Dickie et al., 2007: 228). Should such reserves be considered a site
rimental when devising a pragmatic and workable scheme for nat- of nature or of captivity, of in situ or ex situ? If anything, this exam-
ure conservation in the Anthropocene era. ple demonstrates the growing array of gray sites, rather than the
schematic black-and-white understanding so paradigmatic of tra-
8. Captivity in nature ditional conservation ideologies.
Hamish Currie of Back to Africa explains some of the problems
Alongside the captivity of wild animals in zoos and commercial that have resulted from the rigid application of what he calls the
breeding farms, captivity also occurs in the ‘‘wild,’’ or in situ. For ‘‘old school’’ definitions of in situ and ex situ. In his words,
example, Andrew Norton points out the many parallels between
zoos and African safaris. In his words, There are very few places left that are actually really ‘‘wild.’’ So
whether you like it or not, you have to manage wildlife in an
the nature on display is implicated in a hidden nexus of capital area the size of the Kruger National Park, which is hundreds
and power relations, including colonialism and capitalism; hab- of kilometers long. You have issues of disease that have to be
itats and species populations are managed and animals become managed, you have species in the Kruger Park that are dimin-
domesticated, through exposure to tourists rather than caging; ishing very rapidly. So essentially, we talk ‘‘in situ,’’ ‘‘ex situ’’
and the experience is a constructed one which offers access to a [but] that is, in fact, a very kind of old concept. . . . Because . . . in
‘‘wild,’’ primeval nature and attempts to hide its material and most scenarios you are managing animals. So it then boils down
symbolic construction (1996: 369). to the terminology . . . it becomes a semantic issue. How are you
defining what in situ is and what ex situ is? (interview).
Similarly, Peter Dollinger of the Alpine Zoo Secretariat explains
that: Currie also points to the disparity between the world of zoo sci-
entists and academics and the realities of animal management in
In South Africa. . . . there is no single wild lion. [Kruger] is 600-
Africa. In his words,
square-km large. It is completely fenced. . . . But the problem is
this 600-square-km introduced a lot of animals into the area, Too many people—too many academics, too many people work-
thousands of antelopes and zebras and giraffes and rhinos and ing in zoos—sort of think of these animals that they’re keeping
elephants and lions. The problem now is how to keep the lions and they think well these are captive animals and then there’s
under the pill, because otherwise the population would become the wild. But they think of this vast continent of Africa where
too big. They have to implement birth control on the lions in animals are running around, moving vast distances, all the
this park. And that is the same in other parks too. Everywhere genetic exchange is taking place, and that’s the wild. What they
they have to cull. They used to cull in national parks some don’t realize is that it’s now being sort of boiled down to smaller
300–400 elephants every year, for many, many years, to keep and smaller pockets and within those pockets animals might
populations between 6 and 7000 animals (interview). have to be managed (interview).

Because of the existence of fences and culling practices, Dollin- Currie’s frustration with the imposition of strict conservation
ger implies, there are no free lions in South Africa. ‘‘The idea of rules by zoos on issues of reintroduction and captive breeding in
freedom,’’ according to Dolinger, ‘‘is a human idea.’’ ‘‘Animals have African countries of origin reveal the disparity between conserva-
their needs and they must satisfy their needs and this can be done tion in theory and conservation as practice. According to Steve
both in situ and in the zoo. So if a zoo enclosure provides all ele- Hinchliffe, ‘‘it should not be assumed that the facts of conservation,
ments they need, that is okay for them’’ (see, more generally, Hedi- the real issues, pre-exist action and are thereby invariably polluted
ger, 1964). To illustrate his point, Dollinger recalls cases where by human values, politics, cultures, ways of seeing and so on’’
animal liberation groups had cut down the zoo’s enclosure fences. (2008: 89). Accordingly, he argues, due to the very plenitude of
‘‘They expected the deer to go out—but they all stayed in. Of all the nature conservation’s objects, facts should be understood as ‘‘in
 I. Braverman / Geoforum 51 (2014) 47–57 55

process rather than clear cut issues’’ (ibid.). Hinchliffe, and with the social in which space is exclusive. Neat divisions, no overlap’’
him much of the flourishing animal geography literature, highlight (Mol and Law, 1994). Indeed, the terms in situ and ex situ are inti-
that conservation and natures are always made and constantly mately linked to historical conceptions of space and place. Given
constructed. the investment in this spatial ordering for the past century, putting
Currie’s frustration may also be interpreted as a critique of Eur- an end to the in situ/ex situ divide will also necessarily impact our
ope’s colonial approach toward conservation and nature. Currie conceptions of the place of wildlife, the place of conservation, and
complains along these lines that the Europeans took the African the spatial relationships between the two. The end of the in situ/ex
animals from their natural habitat and are now refusing to return situ divide must therefore be accompanied by a careful outline of
these animals for various reasons. This story sounds familiar: it alternative, nonlinear, and relational conceptions of space and
has resurfaced recently in the context of museums, which face sim- place—effectively, a new conservation paradigm. Such a paradigm
ilar demands for returning ‘‘native cultural heritage’’ artifacts to must recognize the fluidity and hybridity of bodies and spaces
their countries of origin (Cuno, 2008; Nafziger and Nicgorski, and their constant becomings. As Lorimer suggests, ‘‘Future nat-
2009). In the words of a New York Times reporter: ‘‘The news has ures will be hybrid; their concern is the degree to which this
become astonishingly routine: a major American museum an- moulding will be intentional or unintentional, desirable or undesir-
nounces it is relinquishing extraordinary antiquities because a for- able’’ (Lorimer, 2008: 2048).
eign government claims they were looted and has threatened legal Conservation practices are in fact increasingly going down this
action or other sanctions if it doesn’t get them back’’ (Eakin, 2013). very path. More and more conservationists are recognizing the var-
This interchange connects back to the underlying commonalities ious movements and exchanges of animal bodies between regional
between live and dead matter, between naturalia and artificilia, spaces, the dynamic creation and dissolution of ‘‘in between’’
highlighting the parallels between museums and zoos and certain spaces and hybrid bodies, and the messy overlap of natures that
shared aspects of their conservation models. consist of complex human-nonhuman networks and assemblages
in various stages of becoming. These various depictions and prac-
tices illuminate a possible alternative to nature: an abandonment
9. Conclusion of ‘‘in’’ and ‘‘out’’ that has so characterized traditional conservation
narratives in favor of an understanding of conservation that fo-
This article has drawn on multiple interviews with conserva- cuses on the situ—the site itself: matter, flesh, body; life, death
tionists to sketch the genealogy of the terms in situ and ex situ, in and other forms of being, perhaps—without the emotional and
general and in the context of nature conservation, demonstrating ideological messiness that occurs whenever nature (again, with a
the immense power that they carry, in the discourse of prominent capital ‘‘N’’) enters the picture.
conservationists. Prompted by the ecological challenges that face My proposal, I should clarify, is not merely to replace the bifur-
today’s world (referred to by some as the Anthropocene), certain cation between nature and captivity with a continuum between
conservationists are, however, starting to question the validity of the two (although this is probably a first step in the right direc-
such ‘‘old school’’ schisms of nature versus human, wild (or free) tion), but is far more radical: it is to acknowledge that for nature
versus captive (or non-free) animals, and in situ and ex situ conser- to exist, humans and nonhumans will have to reinvent it and,
vation. This article has explored and advocated the erosion of such moreover, that the level of ‘‘naturalness’’ of a site—its historical
schisms, mainly in the context of conservation practices by zoos originality, if you will—becomes irrelevant, misleading even, when
but also in the context of game reserves and parks. considering possible strategies for conservation. The extant habi-
Finally, the article has depicted current efforts by conservation- tats of a growing number of species are becoming less viable for
ists to bridge the in/ex situ divide, for example through the ‘‘One their survival for a variety of reasons, including global warming,
Plan’’ approach promoted by IUCN’s CBSG. Parallel efforts to bridge disease, drought, fragmentation, ,and deforestation. To maintain
between in and ex situ conservation are now mushrooming many species, an alternative habitat (or the existing one) must
throughout the conservation world, for example in re-wilding pro- be (re)constructed and managed.
jects (Lorimer, 2013), Brownfield wildlife (Lorimer, 2008), reconcil- Indeed, captive settings increasingly provide more viable habi-
iation ecologies (Rosenzweig, 2003), and the ‘‘land sharing’’ versus tats than a species’ historic setting, and are often used interchange-
‘‘land sparing’’ debates in Europe (e.g. Green, 2005). Such attempts ably with the former habitat, such as in the case of the Rio Grande
are intrinsically linked to this article in that they all question tradi- silvery minnow, whose eggs are scooped up in spoons (64,000 eggs
tional conservation ideologies and dualistic understandings of nat- were saved this way in summer 2013), hatched in captive facilities
ure-culture. Implicitly or explicitly, they also all raise the same (because the river dries up in the increasingly arid summers), and
question: what counts (and what should count) as nature conserva- then, in the irrigation period, translocated in SUVs to upstream
tion? Jamie Lorimer’s work on urban living roof projects (2008) ponds to avoid extinction (Braverman, 2014). For endangered spe-
provides such an example. Although they are neither wild nor pret- cies, such stories are becoming more the rule than the exception.
ty in the traditional ‘‘English countryside’’ sense, Lorimer argues The handful of animals remaining from a species on the brink of
that living roofs are an innovative urban conservation strategy extinction must often be translocated into intensely managed sites
where wildlife habitat is created on top of new and old buildings to survive (see, e.g., in the case of the Tasmanian devil, certain bats,
in the city. At the same time, Lorimer depicts the tensions that ur- many amphibians). A new, livable and real nature must thus be
ban conservationists must overcome before their work is recog- negotiated to conserve life (for example, Maria Island in the case
nized as conservation, which I would argue are the result of the of the Tasmanian devil, an aquarium in the case of the Pahrump
historical bifurcation that I have delineated here between ‘‘in’’ pool fish, and so forth; Braverman, 2014).
and ‘‘out’’ of nature. If we erase the term ‘‘Nature’’ from our conservation discus-
Drawing on the work of relational geographers and others, I sions, the rationale for distinguishing in situ from ex situ conserva-
have similarly set out to challenge the binary forms of identity ap- tion, in their current definition at least, would likely cease to exist.
plied to nature, this time in their translation into the fundamental With no nature ‘‘out there’’ versus a human world ‘‘in here,’’ the
understanding of conservation as performed either in or ex situ, and meaning of and the criteria for conservation will need to find more
the interrelated perception that such spaces cannot overlap. Such a nuanced and dynamic grounds that depend on interspecies net-
bifurcated understanding of nature relies on what actor network works and relations and that necessitate a democratic discussion
theorists have called ‘‘regional topologies’’—namely, ‘‘a version of of what is important to conserve.
56 I. Braverman / Geoforum 51 (2014) 47–57

10. List of interviews Biernacki, P., Waldorf, D., 1981. Snowball sampling: problems and techniques of
chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods and Research 10 (2), 141–163.
Bingham, N., Hinchliffe, S., 2008. Reconstituting natures: articulating other modes
George Abungu, Former Director General, National Museums of of living together. Geoforum 39 (1), 83–87.
Kenya & cultural heritage professional – Interview Date: 2/13/ Botkin, D., 1990. Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-first Century.
OUP, Oxford.
13
Braun, B., 2006. Towards a new earth and a new humanity: nature, ontology,
Dan Ashe, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Interview politics. In: Castree, N., Gregory, D. (Eds.), David Harvey: A Critical Reader.
Date 7/17/13 Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 191–222.
Braverman, I., 2012a. Zootopia: utopia and dystopia in zoological garden. In:
Judith Block, Registrar Emeritus, Smithsonian Institution,
Giesecke, A., Jacobs, N. (Eds.), Earth Perfect? Nature, Utopia, and the Garden.
National Zoological Park, Washington, DC – Interview Date: 9/ Black Dog Publishing, London.
4/09 Braverman, I., 2012b. Zooland: The Institution of Captivity. SUP, Stanford.
Evan Blumer, Former Director, The Wilds, CBSG board member Braverman I. Wild Life: The Nature of In Situ and Ex Situ Conservation, 2014, under
review.
– Interview Date: 2/18/13 Buller, H., 2008. Safe from the wolf: biosecurity, biodiversity, and competing
Onnie Byers, Chair, Conservation Breeding Specialist Group philosophies of nature. Environment and Planning A 40, 1583–1597.
(CBSG) – Interview Date: 8/1/12 Burney, D.A., Burney, L.P., 2010. Inter situ conservation: opening a ‘third front’ in the
battle to save rare Hawaiian plants. BG Journal 6 (1), 16–19.
William Conway, Former Director, Bronx Zoo – Interview Date: Campbell, L.M., Godfrey, M.H., 2010. Geo-political genetics: claiming the commons
28/1/13 through species mapping. Geoforum 41 (6), 897–907.
Hamish Currie, Director, Back to Africa – Interview Date: 1/10/ Castree N., Nature, 2005, Routledge, NY.
Conway, W., 2003. The role of zoos in the 21st century. International Zoo Yearbook
13 38 (1), 7–13.
Peter Dollinger, Director of Alpine Zoo Secretariat, Zoo Office Cronon, W., 1996. Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. W. W.
Bern – Interview Date: 1/9/13 Norton & Co, New York.
Cuno, J., 2008. Who Owns Antiquity: Museums and the Battle Over Our Ancient
Monika Fiby, Zoo designer & Director, Zoolex – Interview Dates:
Heritage. PUP, Princeton and Oxford.
9/24/12 and 11/20/12 Davis, M. et al., 2011. Don’t judge species on their origins. Nature 474, 153–154.
Kenneth Hamma, Executive Director for Technology Strategy, Dickie, L.A., Holst, B., 2007. How do national and international regulations and
policies influence the role of zoos and aquariums in conservation? In:
Getty Museum & Cultural heritage consultant – Interview Date:
Zimmermann, A., Hatchwell, M., Dickie, L.A., et al. (Eds.), Zoos in the 21st
2/5/13 Century: Catalysts for Conservation? CUP, Cambridge, pp. 22–35.
Robert Lacy, Population biologist, Chicago Zoological Society Dickie, L.A., Bonner, J.P., West, C., 2007. In situ and ex situ conservation: blurring the
(Brookfield Zoo) – Interview Date: 7/31/12 boundaries between zoos and the wild. In: Zimmermann, A., Hatchwell, M.,
Dickie, L.A., et al. (Eds.), Zoos in the 21st Century: Catalysts for Conservation?
Michael Soulé, Conservation biologist – Interview Date: 2/6/13 CUP, Cambridge, pp. 220–235.
Tara Stoinski, Manager of Conservation Partnerships/McGrath Donahue, J., Trump, D., 2006. The Politics of Zoos: Exotic Animals and their Protectors.
Chair of Conservation and Science, Zoo Atlanta – Interview date: Northern Illinois University Press.
Eakin H., ‘‘The Great Giveback’’. NY Times, January 26, 2013.
1/7/13 European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (2011) About EAZA. Available at <http://
www.eaza.net/about/Pages/Introduction.aspx> (accessed 28.01.13).
Findlen, P., Possessing Nature: Museums, Collecting, and Scientific Culture in Early
Modern Italy, 1994, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Acknowledgment Fleishman, E. et al., 2011. Top 40 priorities for science to inform US. Conservation
and management policy. BioScience 61, 290–300.
I would like to thank Jamie Lorimer, John Schlegel, this journal’s Green, R.E., 2005. Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 307, 550–555.
Guerrant, E.O., Havens, K., Maunder, M., et al., 2004. (2004) Ex Situ Plant
anonymous reviewers, and editor Harvey Neo for insisting with me Conservation: Supporting Species in the Wild. Island Press, Washington, DC.
on a few important questions raised in this article. I am also grate- Haraway, D., 2003. A Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant
ful to my research assistants Eleanor Gold, Ajitpaul Mangat, and Otherness. Prickly Paradigm, Chicago.
Haraway, D., 2008. When Species Meet. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Adam Dunstan for their invaluable research. The research for this Hediger, H., 1964. Wild Animals in Captivity. Dover Publications, New York.
article was assisted by the American Council of Learned Societies’ Hinchliffe, S., 2007. Geographies of Nature. Sage, London.
Charles A. Ryskamp Research Fellowship and by the Baldy Center Hinchliffe, S., 2008. Reconstituting nature conservation: towards a careful political
ecology. Geoforum 39 (1), 88–97.
for Law & Social Policy.
Hobbs, R.J. et al., 2013. Novel Ecosystems: Intervening in the New Ecological World
Order. Wiley-Blackwell.
References IUCN (2002) IUCN Technical Guidelines on the Management of Ex Situ Populations
for Conservation. Approved at the 14th Meeting of the Programme Committee
of Council, Gland Switzerland, 10 December 2002.
Anderson, K., 1995. Culture and nature at the Adelaide Zoo: at the frontiers of
IUCN (2012a) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. Available at
human geography. Transactions, Institute of British Geographers NS 20, 275–
<www.iucnredlist.org> (accessed 21.01.13).
294.
IUCN (2012b) IUCN Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation
Anderson, G., 2004. Reinventing the Museum: Historical and Contemporary
Translocations. Adopted by SSC Steering Committee at Meeting SC46, 5
Perspectives on the Paradigm Shift. AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD.
September 2012. Available at <http://www.issg.org/pdf/publications/
Association of Zoos and Aquariums (2010) Association of Zoos and Aquariums 5-
Translocation-Guidelines-2012.pdf> (accessed 28.01.13).
Year Strategic Plan, adopted at the 2010 AZA Annual Conference, Houston TX,
Kirksey, S.E., Helmreich, S., 2010. The emergence of multispecies ethnography.
12-16 September 2010. Available at <http://www.aza.org/StrategicPlan/>
Cultural Anthropology 25 (4), 545–576.
(accessed 28.01.13).
Kohn, E., 2007. How dogs dream: amazonian natures and the politics of transspecies
Ballou, J.D., Gilpin, M., Foose, T.J., 1995. Population Management for Survival &
engagement. American Ethnologist 34 (1), 3–24.
Recovery: Analytical Methods and Strategies in Small Population Conservation. New
Latour, B., 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. HUP, Cambridge, MA.
York: Columbia UP.
Latour, B., 2004. Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. HUP,
Balmford, A., Mace, G.M., Ginsberg, J.R., 1998. Conservation in a Changing World.
Cambridge MA.
CUP, Cambridge.
Latour, B., 2010. An attempt at a ‘compositionist manifesto’. New Literary History
Baratay, E., Hardouin-Fugier, E., 2004. Zoo: A History of Zoological Gardens in the
41, 471–490.
West. Reaktion Books, London.
Latour, B., 2011. From multiculturalism to multinaturalism: what roles of method
Barrow, M.V., 2009. Nature’s Ghosts: Confronting Extinction from the Age of
for the new socio-scientific experiments? Nature and Culture 6, 1–17.
Jefferson to the Age of Ecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lorimer, J., 2008. Living roofs and Brownfield wildlife. Environment and Planning A
Bartram, R., Shobrook, S., 2000. Endless/end-less natures: environmental futures at
40, 2042–2060.
the fin de millennium. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90,
Lorimer, J., 2012. Multinatural geographies for the anthropocene. Progress in
370–380.
Human Geography 36 (5), 593–612.
Bear, C., Eden, S., 2008. Making space for fish. Social and Cultural Geography 9 (5),
Lorimer, J., 2013. Wild experiments at the Oostvaardersplassen: rethinking
487–504.
environmentalism in the Anthropocene (draft) (cited with permission).
Berry, D., 2011. Tradescant Collection. In: Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology,
Lulka, D., 2004. Stabilizing the herd: fixing the identity of nonhumans. Environment
University of Oxford. Available at: <www.ashmolean.org/ash/amulets/
and Planning D 22, 439–463.
tradescant/tradescant04.html> (accessed 28.01.13).
 I. Braverman / Geoforum 51 (2014) 47–57 57

Marris, M., 2011. Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World. Soulé, M., Conway, W., Foose, T., Gilpin, M., 1986. The millenium ark: how long a
Bloomsury, New York. voyage, how many staterooms, how many passengers? Zoo Biology 5, 101–113.
Mol, A., Law, J., 1994. Regions, networks and fluids: anaemia and social topology. Szerszynski, B., 2012. The end of the end of nature: the anthropocene and the fate of
Social Studies of Science 24, 641–671. the human. Oxford Literary Review 34, 165–184.
Morton, T., 2007. Ecology Without Nature. HUP, Cambridge MA. Warren, C.R., 2009. Using the native/alien classification for description not
Nafziger, J.A.R., Nicgorski, A.M., 2009. Cultural Heritage Issues: The Legacy of Conquest, prescription: a response to Christopher Preston. Progress in Human
Colonization, and Commerce. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Danvers MA. Geography 33 (5), 711–713.
Norton, A., 1996. Experiencing nature: the reproduction of environmental discourse West, C., Dickie, L.A., 2007. Introduction: is there a conservation role for zoos in a
through safari tourism in East Africa. Geoforum 27 (3), 355–373. natural world under fire? In: Zimmermann, A., Hatchwell, M., Dickie, L.A., et al.
Penn, L., Gusset, M., Dick, G., 2012. 77 Years: The History and Evolution of the World (Eds.), Zoos in the 21st Century: Catalysts for Conservation? CUP, Cambridge,
Association of Zoos and Aquariums 1935–2012. WAZA. pp. 3–11.
Redford, K.H., Brandon, K., Sanderson, S.E., 1998. Parks in Peril: People, Politics, and Whatmore, S., 2002. Hybrid Geographies: Natures, Cultures, Spaces. Sage, London.
Protected Areas. Island Press, Washington, DC. Wikipedia. ‘‘In Situ.’’ Available at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_situ> (last
Rose, D.B., van Dooren, T. (Eds.), 2011. Unloved Others: Death of the Disregarded in viewed 19.02.13).
the Time of Extinctions. Australian Humanities Review (special issue) 50. World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) (2003) WAZA Code of Ethics and
Rosenzweig, M.L., 2003. Win-Win Ecology: How the Earth’s Species Can Survive in the Animal Welfare, adopted at the 58th Annual Conference of the World
Midst of Human Enterprise. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Association of Zoos and Aquariums, San José Costa Rica, 19 November 2003.
Scarascia-Mugnozza, G.T., Perrino, P., 2002. The history of ex situ conservation and Available at <http://www.waza.org/en/site/conservation/code-of-ethics-and-
use of plant genetic resources. In: Brown, A.H.D., Engels, J.M.M., Ramantha Rao, animal-welfare> (accessed 28.01.13).
V., et al. (Eds.), Managing Plant Genetic Diversity. CABI Publishing, Oxford, pp. World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA), 2005. Building a Future for
1–22. Wildlife: The World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Strategy. WAZA Executive
Sellars, R.W., 1997. Preserving Nature in the National Parks: A History. YUP, New Office, Berne, Switzerland.
Haven. World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) (2004) WWF Position Statement, 13th Meeting
Slater, C., 1996. Amazonia as edenic narrative. In: Cronon, W. (Ed.), Uncommon of the Conference of the Parties to CITES, Bangkok Thailand, 2-14 October 2004.
Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. W.W. Norton & Co., New York, Available at <assets.panda.org/downloads/ecop13insituexsitupositionpaper.
pp. 114–131. pdf> (accessed 28.01.13).
Smith, N., 1984. Uneven Development: Nature, Capital, and the Production of Space.
Blackwell, New York.