Wild Animals as Assets in Conservation Institutions: A Phenomenological Study at Secret Zoo

Winda Ayu Anggraini,Eka Ananta Sidharta,Puji Handayati

doi:10.32535/ijabim.v0i0.879

Winda Ayu Anggraini, Eka Ananta Sidharta + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.32535/ijabim.v0i0.879

Copy DOI

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine the meaning of wild animals as assets in conservation organizations. This research was qualitative research using a phenomenological approach. The interviewees of this study were from the legality department, animal reporting, and field supervisors at Secret Zoo. The results showed that wild animals were endangered animals that could not be traded freely, so that valuation, disclosure, and reporting activities could not be achieved through the applicable biological asset standards. In addition, wild animals have no selling value as a measure of their assets, thus the Secret Zoo used both exchange value and conservation value to support the management of assets. Therefore, wild animal assets could not be commercially recognized and business activities in conservation institutions required other components excluded from animals.

Highlights

Indonesia, a country with a extraordinary biodiversity of flora and fauna, has strong potential in developing the tourism business sector
In Indonesia, the animals included in the category of appendix I are endemic species protected by the government and their numbers are limited
The legality of the animal breeding loan is the right of the government until the period for the conservation institution to submit the animal for collection

Summary

Introduction

A country with a extraordinary biodiversity of flora and fauna, has strong potential in developing the tourism business sector. Conservation institutions are business entities that present the beauty and diversity of flora and fauna, the main function of which is to regulate the reproduction of animals and plants for the purposes of rescue efforts. Their secondary functions are as places for education, genetic reserves, recreation, and facilities for research and scientific development. At the beginning of the implementation of IAS 41 in Australia in 2008, there were some groups of companies that chose to use standards and some that did not, due to some complications in finding an active market to disclose fair value (Wilmshurst, & Williams, 2008) This leads to inconsistencies in the management of biological assets

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion