Ongoing challenges

20 country investigations

www.euzooinquiry.eu

EU ZOO INQUIRY 2011

Total of 22 reports

Dialogue with 27 Member States

The Directive (1999/22/EC)

The “Zoo” is a:“permanent establishments where animals

of wild species are kept for exhibition to the public for 7 or more days a year, with the exception of circuses, pet shops…”

This includes the:

Traditional zoo, animal (safari) park, aquarium, dolphinaria, park with aviary, falconry centre, butterfly farm, specialist

zoo, farm park with wild animals, sanctuary with wild animals (open to the

public – 7 days of more)..

Data collection

• National animal protection legislation• National zoo legislation• Member State legislators• Member State enforcement authorities• Management of randomly-selected zoos• Assessment of 200 zoos• Conditions of thousands of animals

TranspositionEight EU countries had failed to transpose the requirements of the Directive 1999/22/EC into national law.

ImplementationHundreds of zoos were believed to be unlicensed but fully operational. Three countries did not have an inspectorate.

EnforcementLacking in all EU countries. Limited expertise and knowledge.

Compliance with national lawFew zoos are meeting all their legal requirements. • 16 / 20 EU countries did not significantly contribute to conservation• The majority of species kept in zoos were of low conservation

significance• The majority of the zoos did not have an education programme• The majority of assessed animals were kept in substandard

conditions • In many cases, animals were used in degrading performances• Animals were seen escaping from zoos into the natural environment• Public health and safety was being put at risk• Unlicensed, but operational zoos appear to exist in all MS.

Animal welfare

Animal welfare/ Public safety

CONCLUSIONS

• MS Competent Authorities lack knowledge and expertise to effectively interpret and apply the requirements, and penalise non-compliance.

• Zoo inspectors lack knowledge and experience. Inspections lack structure and therefore, consistency = poor enforcement + substandard

• State veterinarians lack the knowledge and expertise to effectively assess the well-being of wild animal species, identify poor welfare and address it.

• Zoo operators in many MS do not know how to provide appropriate care for their animals. Many zoos are often left to their own devices.

• Overall, zoos are not meeting their responsibilities to the conservation of biodiversity as required by Directive 1999/22 and Article 9 of CBD.

OUTCOMES

• Ensured a common understanding of ‘animal welfare’.

• ‘Animals in zoos’ and ‘wild animals in captivity’ are acknowledged within the EU Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012 - 2015

• Capacity-building - training of veterinarians in understanding the welfare of ‘wild animals in captivity’ (in Budapest, Barcelona, Riga, Sinaia + Italy).

• Development of the EU Zoos Directive Guidance and Best Practice Document - to assist Member State Competent Authorities.

• Some Member States have changed their national laws to ensure compliance with the EC Directive 1999/22.

• First conference dedicated to the welfare of “Wild animals in captivity”.

REMAINING OBSTACLES

• MS national and regional legislation lack detail and explanation.

• Multiple government departments involved in zoo regulation in MS, which often causes confusion and ineffective enforcement.

• The majority of MS Competent Authorities lack knowledge and expertise to effectively apply the requirements. Many open, but unlicensed zoos.

• If inspections are taking place, many fail to ensure legal compliance.

• State veterinarians lack the expertise in wild animal welfare.

• No evidence-based husbandry standards + environmental enrichment.

• Animal performances consisting of circus-style stunts and tricks.

• Generally zoos are non-compliant with the obligations of the Directive.

• Whilst associated zoos generally perform better, this is not guaranteed.

EUROPEAN ZOOS – A BRAND OF EXCELLENCE?

Use of negative reinforcement

Performing unnatural behaviour

Sub-standard conditions

Breeding hybrids

Pinioning

• All non-compliant zoos are humanely closed.

• Number of zoos in each MS are consolidated into only those capable of meeting the Directive’s requirements.

• All EU zoos belong to a national and/or European zoo association that continues to encourage high standards in animal care and legal compliance.

• All zoos implement an evolving public education programme that does not negatively impact on the welfare of the animals.

• Zoos are actively involved in conservation initiatives (ex situ + in situ) for at least 50% of all species within their collection.

• Zoos do not keep those species where captivity is known to severely compromise their welfare and survival.

Is there a future for ZOOS in the EU?

Born Free’s opinion that species’ conservation cannot be achieved through keeping animals in zoos remains unchanged