Study to support the evaluation of the

Zoos Directive

Approach and methodology

Workshop 16 May 2017

Nathy Rass-Masson

I. Purpose and scope of the Study

II. Methodology 1. Evaluation criteria and questions 2. Data collection and analysis 3. Challenges and mitigation measures

III. Timeframe of the Study

10 May 2017 2

Content

Part I – Purpose and scope of the study

10 May 2017 3

Support to the evaluation of the Zoos Directive as part of the Commission's Regulatory Fitness Check and Performance (REFIT) programme.

Study aims to ‘assist the European Commission in the evaluation of the Zoos Directive. This entails compiling, assessing and synthesising evidence for the evaluation’. • Evidence-based critical analysis regarding how well the

Directive has performed,

• Mapping of differences in implementation across MS,

• Identification of good practices and issues in MS,

• Magnitude of costs and assessment of benefits.

10 May 2017 4

Purpose of the study

Focus on recognized and registered zoos

In-depth analysis of 14 representative Member States: • Mix of both smaller and larger Member States,

• Geographical coverage of the EU and of different administrative models ,

• Combination of old and new EU Member States,

• General availability of information, and different progress towards the implementation

BE, BG, CY, CZ, DK, FR, IE, IT, DE, LT, NL, PL, PT and ES

10 May 2017 5

Scope of the study

Part II – Methodology

10 May 2017 6

10 May 2017 7

Evaluation criteria

10 May 2017 8

Evaluation questions Effectiveness EQ 1 What progress has been made over time towards achieving the objectives set out in the Directive? To what extent is this progress in line

with initial expectations? In particular, what progress has been made to achieve the conservation measures set out in Article 3? To what extent have adequate licensing and inspection systems been put in place?

EQ 2 What is the contribution of the Directive towards ensuring the protection of wild fauna and the conservation of biodiversity in the EU and globally (including its contribution to implementing the EU Biodiversity Strategy and EU commitments under international conventions such as the Convention on Biological Diversity)?

EQ 3 Which main factors (e.g. implementation by Member States, action by stakeholders) have contributed to or stood in the way of achieving these objectives?

EQ 4 Beyond these objectives, what, if any, other significant changes both positive and negative can be linked to the Directive? Efficiency EQ 5 What are the costs and benefits (monetary and non-monetary) associated with the implementation of the Directive for the different

stakeholders, at local, national and EU level? Where possible, an estimate of costs broken down by size of enterprises (micro/small/medium-sized enterprises) should be provided.

EQ 6 To what extent are the costs associated with the Directive proportionate to the benefits that it has brought? EQ 7 What factors influenced the efficiency with which the achievements observed were obtained? In particular, what, if any, good or bad

practices can be identified? If there are significant cost/benefit differences between Member States, what is causing them? EQ 8 Taking account of the objectives and benefits of the Directive, what evidence is there that it has caused unnecessary regulatory burden or

complexity? What factors identify this burden or complexity as unnecessary or excessive? Relevance EQ 9 How well do the (original) objectives (still) correspond to the needs within the EU and globally? EQ 10 How relevant is the Directive to achieving legal and policy biodiversity objectives at EU and global levels? EQ 11 How well adapted is the Directive to (subsequent) technical and scientific progress? Coherence EQ 12 To what extent does the Zoos Directive complement or interact with other EU sectoral policies affecting biodiversity conservation and

relevant animal welfare issues at Member States and EU levels, in particular as regards wild animals kept in captivity for commercial reasons (notably circuses) and how do these policies affect positively or negatively the implementation of the Zoos Directive?

EQ 13 To what extent does the Directive support the EU internal market and the creation of a level playing field for economic operators, especially SMEs?

EU added value EQ 14 What has been the EU added value of the Zoos Directive compared to what could be achieved by Member States at national and/or

regional levels? EQ 15 To what extent do the issues addressed by the Directive continue to require action at EU level? EQ 16 What would be the consequences of not having the Directive

Literature review at EU, national and international levels : • scientific literature,

• legally binding documents,

• media sources,

• studies and reports from stakeholders and authorities active.

Reference database

Desk research in the 14 selected Member States • Overview of national literature,

• Identification of relevant stakeholders,

• Understanding of the transposition and implementation level in the Member States

Country fiches annexed to report

10 May 2017 9

Data collection (desk research)

10 May 2017 10

Data collection (consultation of stakeholders)

2016 2017

Exploratory interviews with several key EU stakeholders to prepare the questionnaires

Surveys targeting: • International and EU stakeholders, and national stakeholders

in the 14 selected Member States

• Three types of stakeholders: MSCAs, NGOs/Federations/Experts, zoos operators

Three sets of questions tailored to each type of stakeholders

Results: • EU/International stakeholders: 19 contacted, 6 replies

• MSCAs: replies from all 14 Member States

• National NGOs/Federations/Experts: 52 contacted, 21 replies

• Zoos: 514 contacted, 70 replies

10 May 2017 11

Data collection (targeted surveys)

10/05/2017

Types of responding zoos

29 7 6 19

82

26 20

100

17

67

8 30

21 22 7 2 1 6 17 0 7 10 4 4 1 2 1 8 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

BE BG CY CZ DE DK ES FR IE IT LT NL PL PT

Responding zoos per MS

Nb of contacted zoos Nb of responding zoos

10/05/2017

Types of responding zoos

37

16 11

6

0

10

20

30

40

EAZA OtherFederation

No answer NOFederation

Membership of zoos

30

21

10

0

10

20

30

40

10-49 50-249 Less than 10

Number of employees

6 1 9 24

8 19

3 0

10

20

30

Charity /foundation

Mix Private /Charity

Other Private – operating a single zoo

Private – operating

several zoos

Public – run by local

authority

Public – run by national authority

Type of Entity

10/05/2017

Other respondents

4 2 3 3 5 0 3 1 1 0 3 0

15 10

35

10 2 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Contacted Responding Contacted Responding Contacted Responding

Federations NGOs Authorities and experts[1]

Respondents from federations, NGOs & others

EU International National

Objective: obtain an in-depth view of the issues covered by the study in each of the selected countries, and an overview of the situation at the EU and international level

Interviews organized with: • National stakeholders in each of the 14 MS

• EU/International stakeholders

44 stakeholders interviewed: 13 MSCAs, 8 zoo federations, 6 NGOs, 9 zoo operators and 8 EU and international stakeholders

Interviews report

10 May 2017 15

Data collection (in-depth interviews)

Extended to all EU Member States (available in all EU languages)

Ten closed questions targeted at the broader public

Questions on each of the evaluation criteria

Overall and breakdown analysis by groups of respondents

Public consultation report

10 May 2017 16

Data collection (Public consultation)

Public consultation (results)

Number of responses: 2297

10/05/2017

84,63%

6,44%

4,57% 1,65%

0,91% 0,78% 0,70% 0,30%

Individual (e.g. zoo visitor)

Zoo operator

Other

Non-governmentalorganisation

Public consultation (results)

Member State Nb of respondents Member State Nb of respondents

Germany 796 Czech Republic 15

United Kingdom 612 Greece 14

Non-EU country 214 Poland 13

Spain 157 Finland 8

Netherlands 118 Hungary 6

France 68 Malta 3

Italy 51 Lithuania 3

Belgium 43 Slovenia 3

Denmark 39 Bulgaria 3

Portugal 38 Slovak Republic 2

Sweden 31 Luxembourg 1

Austria 25 Estonia 1

Ireland 16 Croatia 1

Romania 16

10/05/2017

Answers from non-EU countries mainly come from the United States (99 answers), Australia (19

answers), Canada (14 answer) and Switzerland (11 answers). Respondents are also based in South

Africa (5), the Channel Islands (5), New Zealand (3), Norway (3), Argentina (2), the United Arab

Emirates (2), China (2), Singapore (1), Malaysia (1), Chile (1), Vietnam (1), Israel (1), Colombia (1),

India (1), Saudi Arabia (1), Mexico (1).

Purpose: Share findings with representatives of governments and stakeholders, including representatives from relevant economic sectors and non-governmental organisations at both EU and national level directly concerned with implementation of the Zoos Directive

Ensure that: • important findings are not overlooked in the conclusions;

• there is no misrepresentation of evidence in findings;

• adequate regard is given to the different inputs and the evidence that supports different views.

10 May 2017 19

Workshop

Challenges: • Lack of reporting obligations and consolidated data on the

implementation of the Zoos Directive: limited historical data • Lack of evidence/available information supporting the

analysis of the evaluation questions: limited data on costs • Duplicate responses and campaigns affecting the targeted

and public consultation

Mitigation measures • Extensive collection of primary data • Combination of available quantitative data with data on

perceptions expressed by stakeholders • Identification of campaigns and their influence on the overall

results. Separate analysis of campaign replies where necessary.

10 May 2017 20

Main challenges and mitigation measures

Part III – Timeframe of the study

10 May 2017 21

2016 2017

Month April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June July

Task 1: Methodology/work plan R R

Task 2: Desk research

Task 3: Targeted consultation

Task 4: Public consultation

Task 5: Evaluation of evidence R

Task 6: Draft Final report R

Task 7: Workshop W

Task 8: Final evaluation report R

Timeframe