Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
mmmll
Supporting better
implementation
of the Zoos Directive
Meeting Report
First Member State and Stakeholder Meeting (18 February 2020)
Better Implementation of the Zoos Directive – 1st Meeting Report
2
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 3 2 Licensing .................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Presentations and discussion .................................................................. 4 2.2 Good practices .....................................................................................10
3 Inspections ................................................................................................13 3.1 Presentations and discussion .................................................................13 3.2 Good practices .....................................................................................19
4 Follow-up actions ........................................................................................22 4.1 Next meetings .....................................................................................22 4.2 Trainings .............................................................................................22 4.3 Technical assistance and information exchange (TAIEX) ............................23
4.3.1 Expert missions, study visits and workshops ......................................23
4.3.2 Application procedure .....................................................................24
4.3.3 Costs covered ................................................................................24
4.4 Sharing platform ..................................................................................24 Annex I – List of attending participants ...............................................................26 Annex II – Agenda ............................................................................................27 Annex III – Existing resources ............................................................................28
Better Implementation of the Zoos Directive – 1st Meeting Report
3
1 INTRODUCTION
The first Member States and stakeholders meeting on better implementation of the Zoos
Directive took place on 18 February 2020.
In order to tailor the meeting to the needs of Member States and key stakeholders, a survey
was carried out between September and November 2019 to identify the priority topics for
discussion at the meeting. The results of the survey pointed out that the most important topic
for all surveyed stakeholders is the organisation of an effective and efficient licencing and
inspection system (45 out of 54 consulted stakeholders rated it as ‘very important’), followed
by inspections processes (39 out of 54 consulted stakeholders rated it as ‘very important’).
For this reason, the first meeting focused on these topics.
This meeting report summarises the points of discussion, the good practices identified and
existing resources relevant to licensing and inspection.
The meeting was chaired by Micheal O’Briain from the European Commission. He
highlighted that the prime objective of Zoos Directive is to ensure that zoos contribute to
wider nature conservation. The Zoos Directive doesn’t provide for a formal committee,
expert group or reporting obligations, which reflects the strong subsidiary nature of this
legislation.
Ute Goerres from the European Commission gave a presentation of the Zoos Directive
evaluation’s results, conclusions and follow-up actions. Ms Goerres underlined that only 10-
20% of European zoos belong to zoo associations and therefore need to comply with certain
conservation standards set and monitored by the associations. However, the Zoos Directive’s
minimum standards also apply to the remaining 80% of zoos and therefore help to close the
gap between zoos being member of an association and those that are not. Progress is most
needed in zoos not belonging to an association.
In order to address still remaining shortcomings in the Zoos Directive’s implementation, the
Commission embarked on several evaluation follow-up actions. It has already translated the
EU Zoos Directive Good Practices Document into seven languages last year (Bulgarian,
French, German, Italian, Polish, Romanian and Spanish) and will translate it into further
seven languages in 2020 and 2021 each. The first seven translations can be accessed through
the Zoos Directive’s website and the Commission encouraged Member States and
stakeholders to make good use of them.
Furthermore, the Commission will offer pilot trainings on all important Zoos Directive’s
provisions, will support better use of the so-called TAIEX-Peer-To-Peer mechanism and
organise three annual Member State and stakeholder meetings in 2020-2022. These actions
are supported by a contract the Commission has concluded with the consultancies VetEffect
and Milieu.
Better Implementation of the Zoos Directive – 1st Meeting Report
4
2 LICENSING
2.1 PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSION
Opening
The Commission stressed that citizen’s expectations towards a stronger role of zoos in
biodiversity conservation have increased over time. Member State’s licencing and
inspection systems are the cornerstones to ensure that zoos live up to these expectations
and effectively contribute to biodiversity objectives. Whereas the Directive leaves
flexibility to Member States, it does require a national governance system that guarantees
a stronger contribution of zoos to biodiversity protection. The EU is keen to support
improving licencing and inspection systems and will also use enforcement as the last resort
to ensure compliance.
Supported by presentations from Milieu, Member State competent authorities from France
and the Netherlands as well as the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) and
Animal Advocacy and Protection (AAP), this session examined different practices identified
in implementing the licencing systems. The group also discussed existing shortcomings,
ways to improve and good practice examples.
Milieu gave an overview of the Directive’s licencing provisions, the diversity of existing
licencing systems in the EU, elements of effective licencing systems, progress achieved so
far and possible future improvements.
Expertise
The ensuing discussion covered aspects regarding human resources for licencing and the
possibility to increase of Member States authorities’ capacities through the use of external
experts. It would be beneficial to have greater expertise in the inspectorate to enable better
enforcement action on the ground.
While it is useful to have external expertise complementing potentially missing knowledge
in authorities, this raises the problem of external experts’ legal status. External experts often
lack decisional power and it is not clear, how and to what extent experts’ conclusions are in
the end enforced by authorities. Gaps between experts’ conclusions and authorities’
enforcement action might lead to delayed action or even inaction. A clear legal relationship
between authority and experts is important.
In this respect, Germany emphasized the need to ensure the independence of external
experts such as zoo associations or animal welfare NGOs. Legal decision power needs to
stay with the authorities. In Germany, authorities can benefit from the knowledge of a
working group on ‘Zoos and circuses’ that is established as part of the German Veterinary
Association for Animal Welfare. This participation provided the authorities with increased
knowledge, awareness of issues and facilitated respect between the different actors involved.
Ireland also mentioned that it is difficult to coordinate the biodiversity side being
responsible for licencing and the veterinary service side carrying out the inspections and
often focused on animal welfare.
Better Implementation of the Zoos Directive – 1st Meeting Report
5
The Commission agreed that the availability of human resources might always be an issue
in public administration. While authorities dealing with nature and biodiversity are
responsible for the Zoos Directive, they indeed often lack the necessary specialisation on
zoo issues.
However, the EU has enormous potential for capacity building, for example through this
meeting but also through further exchanges between Member States and stakeholders or the
peer-to-peer-learning.
French two-fold licensing system
France presented its licencing system, which places strong emphasis on a two-fold obligation
process addressing the zoo owner’s competency and the authorisation of the zoo itself as
regards premises and programmes.
A certificate of competence is required from persons in charge of institutions dedicated to
the breeding of wild animals as well as those in charge of public institutions dedicated to the
public exhibition of indigenous or exotic fauna. The certificate is attributed to a person with
the appropriate competences for specific species. The zoo can only hold species for which a
member of staff has an appropriate certificate of competence.
The zoo must also hold an authorisation to open. This permit is linked to the zoo as a
designated institution whether public or private. It aims at ensuring adequate housing
conditions for animals and is conditional on the permanent presence of a holder of a
certificate of competence.
Regular monitoring is carried out by different administrative services. The system is based
on a ministerial order from 2004, covering housing, conservation actions, security, education
and the prevention of ecological risks.
Authorities are supported by expert commissions who provide opinions. In each French
department (101 in total), there is a zoo commission composed of experts in zoology and
captive wild fauna. This departmental commission reviews the application for a zoo
authorisation. At national level, a national commission also exists, which contributes to
gathering and sharing information as well as expertise on specific topics. In addition, the
country uses external experts for particular species who nevertheless don’t act in legal
capacity. French authorities also cooperate with the two French zoo associations to solve
problems on the ground.
Dutch zoo committee
The Dutch licencing system relies on different actors involved, namely the Agriculture
Ministry, the Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO), the Netherlands Food and Consumer
Product Safety Authority, the Zoo and Aquarium Inspection Committee and the Dutch zoo
association.
The Zoo Committee consists of experts from the zoo community and veterinarians and
is chaired and funded by the authority. Experts are selected by the chair, need to be
independent and cannot give advice on zoos they worked for. The Zoo Committee as well
as the Dutch zoo association send reports to the ministry, on which the licencing decisions
are based.
Better Implementation of the Zoos Directive – 1st Meeting Report
6
Inspections need to be carried out before new licences are issued or if there are major
changes to existing licences. Licencing conditions cover different elements such as the
competences of animal caretakers, security aspects, keeping of an adequate animal register,
species-specific behaviour, social grouping, enclosure elements resembling natural habitats,
environment temperature or lightning.
EAZA’s accreditation system
The European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) explained its accreditation system
and how the organisation could support authorities in their licencing and inspection work.
Accreditation screening is based on the Zoos Directive and takes into account local law.
The evaluation of a member zoo’s conservation performance implies in situ conservation
plans, activities implemented on the ground, as well as their impact. The screening report
with recommendations has to be approved by the Membership Committee. Concerns have
to be addressed within six months, otherwise a temporary membership of two years will be
granted to provide a longer time for improvements. EAZA accreditations might be used by
Member State authorities as an indicator of good zoo quality. Some zoos already share
EAZA reports with local authorities and EAZA offered to provide all their report
templates to authorities upon request.
EAZA is open to collaborate with authorities and is already part of expert bodies used in
licencing and inspection systems. Moreover, EAZA could support authorities in finding
experts. The association shares its best practice guidelines on its website and will make more
of these available in the future. EAZA provides the capacity to improve sub-standard zoos
and offers trainings on a variety of zoo-related topics. EAZA is also involved in organising
the pilot trainings as a follow-up action to the Zoos Directive evaluation.
In case of zoo closure, EAZA is ready to help with the decision to keep animals in the zoo
or rehoming them.
The association stressed the need for a holistic approach on zoos role in conservation. It
would also be important for authorities to move from a so far animal welfare to a
conservation focus.
Zoos closures and AAP’s rescue centres
Animal Advocacy and Protection (AAP) informed about their work on rescuing animals
during zoo closures and problems related to rescue centres needing a licence in some
countries.
AAP raised that, as some rescue centres are open to the public in order to raise funds, in
some national governance systems, they need a licence under the Zoos Directive. Whereas
rescue centres can offer some education, they have a non-breeding policy and no collection
plans. Therefore, the licencing requirement could be revisited by national authorities or a
specific legislation could apply to rescue centres.
The organisation was involved in 32 zoo closures so far. In seven cases, the zoo was closed
by authorities, whereas the others were self-initiated. In the major part of closures, AAP was
contacted by NGOs or zoos themselves and not by the authorities. There were also cases,
Better Implementation of the Zoos Directive – 1st Meeting Report
7
where the zoo closed down without active intervention happening to rehome the animals.
AAP advocated for a multi-stakeholder solution, based on mutual trust. There’s a European
Alliance of Rescue Centres and Sanctuaries (EARS, 18 centres) that could be contacted. Zoo
closures don’t happen quite often as authorities first give the establishment time to
improve. However, a clear plan is needed to bring zoos into compliance. If the final
closure decision is taken, standardised closure protocols might be useful. It is also
important to prevent non-compliant zoos from opening, based on the licencing and
inspection obligations. According to AAP’s experience, penalties are often counter-
productive, as they render zoos unable to invest and implement the required changes.
Germany pointed to the fact that local authorities might not be experienced with zoo closure
and it is often not clear who will have to pay for rehoming the animals.
Eurogroup for Animals suggested making the financial liability of the zoo owner part of
the licence. They also reminded that a closure protocol is embedded in the licencing system
of some Member States.
In Italy, a zoo has to sign an agreement with another zoo to take care of animals in case
of closure.
General discussion
The discussion following the morning presentations addressed zoo animal accommodation
standards as well as the question of the evaluation of zoo conservation performance in
licencing and inspection.
The Commission stated that 21 years after the adoption of the Directive, some unlicenced
zoos are still operating. The meeting provides an opportunity to address the so far lack of
discussion among Member States as well as the lack of opportunities to share expertise and
good practices. The Commission asked if there were issues that could be flagged and
addressed within this forum or if participants felt that recognising diversity across the
Member States would be enough and wouldn’t need any specific actions.
Eurogroup for Animals thought that while there is heterogeneity in the national situations,
there are some lessons learnt that can be observed:
The financial viability of zoo owner should be checked and the business plan of
the zoo should be checked;
Minimum standards are in place in some MS and it would be useful to see how
this helps the licensing process;
The issue of possible harmonisation of licencing processes could be discussed;
A protocol for closure should be in place and checked during licensing (and
following inspection) phase.
Germany pointed to a possible lack of expertise in decentralised authorities that might not
even have the budget to pay for external experts. The Zoos Directive might not be so high
on the political agenda, so funding for public authorities implementing and enforcing it
might be difficult.
Better Implementation of the Zoos Directive – 1st Meeting Report
8
The Commission stressed that the EU cannot push for harmonisation of standards or
licencing processes, which would be decisions for Member States to take, in line with the
subsidiarity principle.
The EU Zoos Directive Good Practices Document contains information on zoo closure
protocols but does not address the question of financial responsibility of zoo closure.
EAZA was not in favour of binding minimum standards for the accommodation of animals.
While they are easy to measure, they don’t push zoos to aim higher than the minimum.
EAZA felt that best practices would be a better solution. It established many best practice
guidelines that are publicly available.
VdZ (German zoo association) reported on their German experience with minimum
standards on mammals. It was a long and painful process and VdZ has the impression that
the final document is rather based on societal agreement than on scientific evidence.
Matt Hartley cautioned that best practices could be considered as the only way of ensuring
appropriate keeping conditions of zoo animals. This would however not appropriately take
account of the variety of existing zoos. In reality, looking after an animal in the north of
Europe is very different to the south, so one needs to take and apply the husbandry
documents in the right way.
Bulgaria and Poland also have minimum standards. Bulgaria prefers them as the easiest way
to measure compliance. The country finds the EAZA standards difficult to access. It rather
makes use of American and Australian husbandry standards that are more easily accessible.
Minimum standards protect and ensure legal certainty for zoo operators. Bulgaria
stressed that many zoos cannot go at a higher level than the minimum standards, and
EAZA membership is too costly for them.
Spain favoured standards focussing on certain species groups and didn’t find enclosure
size the most important criterion for proper animal accommodation, as there are so many
additional aspects to be considered. The country has minimum standards on habitats and
species’ needs, which have been developed in close cooperation with the University of
Barcelona.
Italy held that the existence of binding standards proves beneficial in court cases. As judges
often lack expertise on zoo animal specific issues, they need to rely on concrete legal
requirements to impose sanctions. In Italy’s view, the existence of binding standards
facilitates enforcement.
On this aspect, the Commission agreed that legal certainty is indeed critical. Yet, a one-fits-
all method, given the current lack of scientific knowledge on all species, is impossible.
From the European Court of Justice’s perspective, courts can look at guidance documents
and they are taken seriously.
In France, a lot of work on standards is undertaken by the competent authorities in
collaboration with veterinarians. France reminded that veterinarians specialised in zoo
animal welfare could act as experts before a judge. The French authorities have the
possibility to pay experts to prepare reports in the context of a trial.
Better Implementation of the Zoos Directive – 1st Meeting Report
9
Eurogroup for Animals suggested that a minimum level of standards harmonisation
would be useful and not necessarily a full alignment. If the minimum standards are too
general, they risk to be watered down, but if the standards are sufficiently general, it limits
subjectivity and gives some level of certainty. The UK is now revising its standards, which
indicates that it is possible to update standards to adapt to scientific knowledge. Eurogroup
finds minimum standards necessary for the many non-EAZA zoos.
The Commission reminded that the Zoos Directive’s main objective is not to establish
minimum accommodation standards but to strengthen zoos’ contribution to the
conservation of biodiversity. The Commission wondered how zoos’ conservation
performance is checked during licencing and inspection. Faced with a massive species
extinction crisis, how are Member States looking appropriately at the role of zoos in that
context? How do they make sure that their licencing systems push zoos in the right direction?
Germany agreed that indeed a lot more work is needed on this, as zoos’ conservation
activities are often not properly evaluated during inspections.
In Italy proofs of a zoo’s conservation research and education activities need to be
provided before a licence is granted.
Eurogroup for Animals found conservation measures to be vaguely defined in the Directive
and wondered what extent of conservation activities would be regarded as sufficient.
Zoos might do well in one area such as in situ research but might not comply in another area
such as education as it promotes entertainment activities only.
Sweden pointed to the fact that the size of a zoo is critical in determining how much effort
is put into the conservation. Big zoos can have scientific teams and long-term projects,
which might not be possible for small zoos. They might only be able to do the minimum on
conservation which is often awareness raising.
Ireland agreed that the situation is different in large and in small zoos. In smaller zoos, the
question will rather be how to tie in conservation measures according to what they do (e.g.
pollination areas). An overall strategy, which can cover all zoos and reach a balance,
would be useful.
In Spain, zoos play an important role in the conservation of locally threatened species
such as the Iberian lynx. The conservation role of zoos must be clearly justified.
VdZ suggested to include ex situ conservation work in the next EU Biodiversity Strategy in
order to boost better integration of in situ and ex situ activities.
EAAM suggested authorities to liaise with zoo associations in order to gain better
knowledge on possible conservation activities in zoos. Authorities could then support
small zoos by advising them how they could participate in existing nationwide campaigns,
such as on pollinators or other environmental issues.
Better Implementation of the Zoos Directive – 1st Meeting Report
10
2.2 GOOD PRACTICES
This section provides an overview of good practices extracted from the presentations and
discussions.
Decision-tree on zoo licencing
The Netherlands have set up a decision-tree to determine whether a zoo license is needed
(see slides of the representative of the Dutch authority).
Licencing conditions and obligations on zoos
The authority needs to ensure that the zoo complies with all Article 3 conservation
obligations before a licence can be granted.
Authorities could liaise with zoo associations to gain a better overview of
conservation activities that are possible in zoos of different sizes.
Authorities could advise small zoos on how to tie in conservation measures according
to their capacity. EAZA has examples of small zoos with a very good conservation
performance.
In addition, more detailed conditions might prove beneficial:
o Obligations regarding the competence of zoo personnel (for example zoo owner,
management, caretakers).
o Obligations concerning zoo premises, enclosures and equipment (for example
adequate housing conditions, enrichment, environmental conditions, veterinary
facilities).
o Licences could be issued only for certain species for which the zoo is competent
and provides appropriate accommodation.
o Economic viability aspects in order to ensure the zoo has sufficient budget to
properly care for the animals and take part in conservation activities.
Consultation of a zoo commission or other existing expert groups
Zoo commissions or other external advisory bodies are used in many Member States
to support licencing authorities in their work.
The legal status of such a body needs to be clear. In the majority of cases, external
expert groups provide reports or opinions, which are taken into account by
authorities, but they don’t have legal enforcement powers.
As external advisory bodies often include former or current zoo professionals or
representatives of animal welfare NGOs, their impartiality needs to be ensured and
conflicts of interested excluded. The legal decision power needs to stay with the
authorities.
In Germany, authorities can benefit from the knowledge of a working group on ‘Zoos
and circuses’ that is established as part of the German Veterinary Association for
Animal Welfare. This participation provided the authorities with increased
knowledge.
EAZA offered to support authorities in finding experts and is already part of expert
panels in different countries.
Better Implementation of the Zoos Directive – 1st Meeting Report
11
For court cases, it is possible to use external experts experienced with the particular
issue of non-compliance, for example animal welfare of a certain zoo animal species.
Involvement of zoo associations and use of their accreditation system
Some Member States use association accreditation systems in their licencing process
as they usually ensure high quality and good compliance with the Zoos Directive’s
provisions.
While authorities may use knowledge from the accreditation reports, this should form
only part of the decision criteria and should not result in zoos inspecting themselves.
The final licencing decision has to be based on an impartial, independent process.
EAZA has its own accreditation system, which takes into account the Zoos
Directive’s legal obligations as well regional or local law. Some zoos share their
EAZA accreditation (screening) reports with local authorities. EAZA is willing to
provide all accreditation report templates to authorities.
In France, the two national zoo associations help to solve problems identified by the
authorities on the ground. EAZA also provides the capacity to improve sub-standard
zoos.
In the Netherlands, reports of the Dutch zoo association are, among other sources
(Zoo Committee report, scientific journals, husbandry guidelines, documents
provided by the zoo), taken into account for the licencing decision.
Regular training
In Germany, authorities attend training courses provided by the national Veterinary
Association for Animal Welfare every other year.
The European Association of Zoo and Wildlife Veterinarian (‘EAZWV’) organises
an annual conference as well as summer schools, which would be relevant for
competent authorities and inspectors. If they receive a request for training from
authorities or zoos operators, EAZWV will do their best to address it.
EAZA offers trainings on a variety of zoo-related topics.
Use of standards and guidance documents
Some Member States have developed minimum accommodations standards or
guidelines that they use in inspections.
Many standards, husbandry manuals or best practice guidelines exist that are
accessible on the internet, developed by different organisations, please see links
throughout the report and Annex III.
Born Free suggested a traffic lights system, which includes minimum standards
(orange), improved standards (yellow) and best practices examples (green).
Non-compliance and zoo closure
Decision-trees for non-compliance show ways for zoos to improve before the
decision to close needs to be taken.
Better Implementation of the Zoos Directive – 1st Meeting Report
12
A multi-stakeholder approach involving authoirities, the concerned zoo, zoo
associations and other zoos, rescue centres and sanctuaries and NGOs is beneficial
in order to bring sub-standard zoos into compliance or to close them.
A protocol for closure should be in place and checked during the licensing (and
following inspection) phase.
The EU Zoos Directive Good Practices Document contains additional information
on zoos closure protocols (contacting other zoos, zoos association, other MS, NGOs).
In Italy, the zoo must prove that it has a written agreement with another zoo that will
take care of the animals in case of closure as part of the licensing process.
Organisations such as AAP, EARS or EAZA are ready to help rehoming animals
Insufficient resources and poor management can lead an institution to bankruptcy
and closure. The financial viability of the zoo owner as well as the business plan of
the zoo could be checked during the licensing process.
Uncontrolled breeding, notably of monkeys, is a recurring issue leading to zoo
closure, and should be identified early as a potential risk.
Better Implementation of the Zoos Directive – 1st Meeting Report
13
3 INSPECTIONS
3.1 PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSION
Opening
The session started with a presentation by Milieu, highlighting the intertwined nature of
the process of licensing and inspection and the importance of designing both in a consistent
manner geared towards the nature conservation objectives of the Directive. Presentations
on inspections were given during the afternoon by the Bavarian State Office for Health and
Food Safety (Germany), by a representative of the Irish competent authority, and by a
representative of the European Association of Zoo and Wildlife Veterinarians (EAZWV).
Bavarian inspection system
The Bavarian State Office for Health and Food Safety gave a summary of its inspection
process. The authority is responsible for four big zoos and 100 smaller zoos and animal
parks. Regional and local authorities jointly perform inspections. Inspector teams
consist of veterinarians, personnel from authorities and rarely biologists. Authorities can
involve external experts in special cases and might also be supported by federal state level
experts. Besides the Zoos Directive, inspectors have many other duties, restricting the time
that can be spent on zoo inspections.
Inspections are carried out without prior notice to the zoo. The licencing data is used to
prepare inspections. During the onsite inspections, Bavaria finds the dialogue with animal
caretakers and other zoo employees very important. Inspectors use a standardised
inspection protocol and the German minimum standards for mammals, reptiles, parrots,
ostriches, birds of prey, owls, small granivore birds and ornamental fish. Further to this, the
authority relies on Swiss, Austrian and EAZA standards, guidelines and best practices.
The Bavarian authorities take consistency of inspections and the use of standardised
inspection protocols as very important in order to ensure that the same inspection criteria
apply to different zoos. They prefer to give zoos time to improve and don’t apply penalties
that anyway cannot be paid by the zoos.
Bavaria finds the EU Zoos Directive Good Practices Document very helpful but reiterated
the need for translations, especially for local authorities to use it.
The authority would appreciate increased expertise at national and federal state level, an EU-
wide expert database, more standardised inspection protocols on conservation, education and
animal welfare, the envisaged EU training course as well as more accessible EAZA
guidelines.
In the following discussion, EAZA offered to make more best practice guidelines available.
Eurogroup for Animals referred to a CITES expert database that is being established and
mentioned the European Alliance of Rescue Centres and Sanctuaries (EARS) for
rehoming animals in case of zoo closure.
Better Implementation of the Zoos Directive – 1st Meeting Report
14
The Commission stated that inspectors’ advice to zoos on conservation, captive
programmes or animal welfare is of outmost importance. Hence, it is very useful to engage
with zoos’ personnel during inspections. Most zoos take part in the inspection system now
and can therefore be reached. They benefit a lot from information sharing by the
authorities.
Trainings could make inspection processes more consistent but are difficult to fund. A good
practice example from the nature directives are trainings given by Europarc to protected site
managers.
The best strategy might be to first bring zoos into compliance before enforcement actions
are taken, particularly as the process of zoo closure is quite complex.
Ireland’s outsourced inspection process
Ireland tendered out its inspections process and presented the different steps of such a system
as well as its advantages and shortcomings.
As the National Parks & Wildlife Service’s biodiversity unit responsible for the Zoos
Directive doesn’t have the necessary veterinary expertise to deal with zoo inspections and
all knowledgeable people work for Irish zoos, it was decided to contract the inspectorate.
The resulting inspection process is characterised by the following elements:
Target is to inspect all identified zoos at least once every 12 months;
Two qualified inspectors at each inspection, one of these with expertise in the zoo’s
specialty;
Usually a specialist zoo vet also attends each inspection as well as wildlife rangers
and conservation officers
The qualifications of the zoos inspectors must meet the following criteria:
High level veterinary qualifications (i.e. usually veterinarians);
Zoo management and enforcement qualifications / experience;
Knowledge of CITES and wildlife legislation, as well as BALAI and welfare
legislation;
Experience with invasive animal species (e.g. identification, management, handling);
Captive breeding management programs (EEPs);
Zoo inspectorate personnel are not permitted to work in any zoo in Ireland;
Conflict of interest list is submitted annually by all inspectors.
The inspectorate receives training to ensure consistent application.
The contractor also provides workshops, sets up the authority’s website on inspections
(providing information on the Irish legislation), and offers a wide network of contacts.
Better Implementation of the Zoos Directive – 1st Meeting Report
15
Inspection protocols contain clear, measurable criteria to evaluate the Zoos Directive’s
Article 3 measures. Conservation contribution is evaluated, but husbandry and welfare
aspects are prioritised. The inspectors apply the animal welfare five domains model.
The Irish system emphasises continued progression towards higher standards and a
consistent inspection process. Zoos benefit from information sharing and interaction
with the zoo inspectorate, which implies a strong advice component how zoos could
improve. The biodiversity unit brings in the conservation element and smaller zoos could
link with the Wildlife Service’s local research and conservation projects.
In case of non-compliance, the authority uses an enforcement decision-tree to determine
what are the best ways forward. The main difficulty is to implement closures, where
rehoming is the first priority.
In 2015, Ireland published the Irish Standards of Modern Zoo Practice.
Expertise and support from the EAZWV
The European Association of Zoo and Wildlife Veterinarians (EAZWV) presented their
work and how this could support authorities and stakeholders in better implementing the
Zoos Directive.
The organisation supports veterinarians in any capacity and offers training and summer
schools. It represents 1100 zoo and wildlife veterinarians and has 10 regional sections.
According to EAZWV, effective inspections comprise several criteria, such as adequate
competency of inspectors, a well-designed inspection protocol, ensuring that claims made
by zoos are put into practice or the use of best practices and guidelines. The organisation
recommended the Australian approach of not asking “if” a certain criterion is fulfilled,
but “how”, e.g. how individual or group needs are met.
EAZWV stressed the importance of managing zoos for biodiversity. More conservation
needs to happen through zoos. This might lead to a consolidation of the zoo landscape, with
less zoos that are nevertheless capable of contributing to biodiversity conservation.
Veterinary services need to be competent in assessing conservation issues, as well
animal health and welfare and should therefore receive regular professional training.
Whereas EAZW’s trainings are mainly given by volunteers, if they would receive a request
for a training on Zoos Directive related issues, they would do their best to accommodate it.
EAZWV’s veterinary advisors for EAZA’s EEPs (European Endangered Species
Programmes) could be contacted by authorities in need of particular expertise.
FVE (Federation of Veterinarians Europe) and EAZWV also offer trainings on animal health
law.
Peer-to-peer and training opportunities
VetEffect gave a presentation on peer-to-peer learning opportunities as well as pilot trainings
organised by the Commission.
The TAIEX-Peer-To-Peer instrument funds different activities:
1. Workshops
Most frequently used of the TAIEX instruments; Single or multi-country workshops.
Better Implementation of the Zoos Directive – 1st Meeting Report
16
Normally last two days; 20-30 participants.
Private experts or representatives from zoo associations can only participate and be
reimbursed when they are involved in official tasks (role in licensing and/or
inspection).
2. Study Visits
Employees (maximum three) from a requesting environmental authority go on a working
visit to other EU Member State institutions; two to five days;
3. Expert Missions
Experts from an EU Member State environmental authority visit an environmental authority
in other Member States; two to five days.
TAIEX pays for:
Costs for travel and accommodation for participants in study visits or multi-country
workshops; for participants from the hosting country travel and accommodation is
only financed when the distance between their residence and the venue of the
workshop exceeds a certain minimum.
Working language is English. Interpretation can be financed if duly justified.
TAIEX does not cover costs for the venue, catering or the printing of background
material.
Application
Notify the responsible official at DG ENV about the P2P request. Once DG ENV has
agreed with the application, the applicant should send his request for evaluation to:
Currently there is a vacancy for the coordinator.
VetEffect supports the applications: [email protected].
Ireland asked if it would be possible that employees from several requesting authorities go
on a study visit to another Member State. According to the rules, this would rather be a
workshop but TAIEX-Peer-To-Peer could be contacted on this issue under the above-
mentioned address [email protected]..
The peer-to-peer instrument is also open to local and regional authorities, which might be
particularly important for federal states.
The Commission will organise four pilot trainings in different EU regions, addressed to
competent authorities, zoos and their associations. The courses will be for 20-30 participants
and last 3.5 days. They are given by independent tutors and follow the train-the-trainers
principle, so that participants will be able to train colleagues in their organisation. The
trainings will be held in zoos and will contain small group exercises and mock inspections.
Training content will cover all Zoos Directive’s provisions and in particular Article 3
conservation measures and effective licencing and inspection systems.
Better Implementation of the Zoos Directive – 1st Meeting Report
17
Details regarding invitations and registrations for the first trainings scheduled in Wroclaw
Zoo on 1 November 2020 will be circulated to meeting participants and published on the
training website.
The group discussed the possible training locations. Instead of having three trainings in the
southern European region, one training could take place further north. Ireland suggested
Dublin Zoo as it is easy to reach by reasonably priced flights and located close to the airport.
The Commission will consider this proposal.
The Commission invited participants to send further suggestions for the training
content, implementation successes and challenges as well as training material such as
inspection protocols to [email protected] and [email protected].
General discussion
The Commission opened the discussion of the afternoon session by summarising the most
prevalent issues that became apparent from stakeholders’ interventions. Important topics
in licencing and inspection identified through the presentations and discussions are the
following:
Zoos’ conservation performance
Capacity of small zoos to contribute to conservation
Keeping animals in appropriate conditions
Better integration of the work of different authorities (notably nature authorities and
veterinary services)
Ways to source and bring in expertise
Effective responses to zoo failures, including zoo closures
Born Free advocated applying minimum accommodation standards while at the same time
offering zoos avenues to improve. It is also possible to have both minimum standards and
best practice examples. The organisation suggested a traffic lights system with minimum
standards (orange), improved standards (yellow) and best practices examples (green).
Species-specific standards might be problematic, as for many species the expertise does
not exist. Even close species within a same group might act very differently and require very
different care.
Eurogroup for Animals suggested to increase inspection frequencies and to adopt more
persuasive penalties. Collection planning should also take into account species that are not
of conservation value, for example rescued animals that could be of high educational
value.
Eurogroup again raised the problem that rescue centres sometimes need zoos licences under
national legislation, yet they are not zoos. Inspections should therefore focus on different
aspects. The organisation would also find thematic working groups helpful.
On the issue of working groups, the Commission replied that it doesn’t have the capacity
and resources to organise additional meetings. The Commission however invited Member
States and stakeholders to have discussions and gather information on certain topics. The
TAIEX-Peer-To-Peer could be a useful tool to do so and stakeholders are encouraged to use
it. VetEffect is ready to support stakeholders on this.
Better Implementation of the Zoos Directive – 1st Meeting Report
18
Matt Hartley mentioned that zoos struggling with animal welfare problems usually do not
contribute to conservation. If they don’t keep animals in good conditions, conservation is
not possible. Consequently, improving animal welfare will facilitate a zoo’s conservation
role.
On the topic of zoo closures, AAP offered to look more closely at the financial
responsibilities from the cases they handled. Money should not be a barrier when it comes
to zoos closures and contingency plans should be in place. AAP will see if they can provide
an overview of costs related to zoo closure.
With a view to the next meeting, Ireland would find it useful to gather information on the
type of failures and breaches, which is linked to the topic of closures and decision-tree
for sanctions.
EAZA saw still shortcomings in defining zoos’ direct contributions to conservation. It
has a document available on ‘how to define contribution to conservation’. It has to be
considered that zoos also fund in situ conservation. EAZA also has members that are very
small institutions and medium size institutions that nonetheless have a conservation strategy.
EAZA will look into existing practices and draft recommendations that could be used in
other zoos. A strategic approach to zoos’ conservation role seems warranted. The zoos
community should participate in the next policy cycle discussion on biodiversity.
Especially in light of the current extinction crisis, zoos should be involved in tackling it.
The Commission found that at EU level, the nature and conservation community is not
aware of the contribution of zoos to their efforts. The zoos community could reach out
more to their environmental colleagues to push for bridges between environmental
policies and zoos management. On the other side, many EU citizens have no idea what the
Natura 2000 network is. Zoos could be a window to nature strategies that could be exploited
to better inform citizens on environmental actions. Zoos could become sustainability
centres, which opens possibility of funding. The Commission inquired if there was any
Member State with a conservation strategy for their zoos.
On this topic, VdZ mentioned that in Germany, zoos are rarely mentioned in biodiversity
policies and they are often not considered by the environmental authorities. Zoos and
national zoos associations could help authorities in highlighting how they can
contribute to nature policy.
The Netherlands referred to existing EAZA collection plans. The Dutch zoo association is
pushing its members to establish national collection plans. Maybe also regional collection
plans could be drafted across Member States. That would benefit the debate on the
conservation strategy and roles of zoos.
Born Free reminded that 80% of zoos are not members of associations and saw the need
to focus on those. Member States might want to exchange experiences with this kind of non-
member zoos. Big zoos being an association member usually contribute much more to the
Directive’s objectives.
Better Implementation of the Zoos Directive – 1st Meeting Report
19
EAZA proposed to make better use of zoo association accreditation standards, as already
discussed in the morning, in order to focus on non-member zoos.
Conclusion
Based on the overall exchanges, the Commission summarised the most important topics
that could be further discussed at the next meeting.
One main theme concerned zoos’ overall conservation role. This covers issues in relation
to better integration of zoos conservation work into national biodiversity policies, zoos’
collection planning, regional collection planning, conservation of locally or regionally
threatened species or educational topics such as pollination or circular economy.
Another strand of interest was the treatment of non-compliant zoos, including types of
non-compliance, key challenges for zoos to comply and criteria and decision trees for
improvements or closure.
The Commission closed the meeting by thanking participants for their attendance as well as
their valuable contributions to the exchanges of knowledge and good practices.
3.2 GOOD PRACTICES
This section provides an overview of good practices extracted from the presentations and
discussions at the meeting. Some good practices overlap with the “Licencing” session and
the reader it therefore referred to that section.
Zoo inspection team/use of external experts
Please see the good practices under “Licencing”.
Ideally, zoo inspectorates involve members with different expertise, particularly
experts in zoo animals, zoo management, biodiversity and conservation issues.
In several Member States, the government bears the cost of hiring external experts
on particular issues regarding licencing, inspections or court cases.
EAZWV offered that authorities could contact their veterinary advisors to EAZA
EEP programmes in particular cases.
Use of existing zoo association accreditation schemes
The fact that a zoo is an accredited member of a recognised zoo association (national
or EAZA) can alleviate the time- and resource-pressure on the inspectorate. In the
Netherlands, the existence of an active accreditation excludes zoos from physical
inspection (unless specific circumstances arise such as complaints from citizens or
an NGO).
As zoo association membership usually ensures compliance with the Zoos Directive
provisions, this could be taken into account during inspections.
Use of existing documents and standards
The same documents as mentioned under “Licencing” may be used.
Better Implementation of the Zoos Directive – 1st Meeting Report
20
The German authorities referred to existing data from the licencing process, expert
opinions on animal health and welfare, the Swiss, Austrian and EAZA husbandry
guidelines and the Zoos Directive Good Practices Document. The country developed
minimum standards for certain species groups, which, although not legally binding,
are used in inspections (mammals, reptiles, parrots, ostriches, birds of prey, owls,
small granivore birds and ornamental fish). The German representative offered to
share these standards.
Ireland issued the “Irish Standards of Modern Zoo Practice”.
Use of well-designed and consistent inspection protocols
Standardised inspection protocols, including clear and measurable criteria to evaluate
Article 3 measures.
Questions asked in inspection protocols to be rather open, than just “yes-no” tick
boxes. This enables the authority to better evaluate how and to what extent a certain
conservation obligation is fulfilled.
Inspections need to prove that measures indicated by the zoo are really put into
practice and show measurable effects and impacts.
Trainings
Although they are regarded as extremely useful and necessary, funding at national or
regional level might be difficult. The Commission will offer four pilot trainings addressed
to competent authorities, zoos and their associations between 2020 and 2022.
Tendering out the inspectorate
Please see the Irish presentation and discussion. The system enables high quality inspections
with clear criteria and delivered by experts in the field.
Coordination between different authorities
Coordination between nature authorities and veterinary services make the licencing and
inspection systems more effective and enable inspectors to judge zoos’ conservation
performance.
Zoos’ conservation performance and inspectors’ advisory role
Inspections need to be more focused on evaluating zoos’ contribution to
conservation.
Different authorities should integrate zoos conservation contribution into national
biodiversity policies, strategies and action plans.
Integration of ex situ and in situ and an overall strategy for zoos’ conservation role.
Zoos community to reach out more to nature protection authorities and organisations.
Better use of zoos’ collection as well as national and regional collection planning.
An inspectorate that is informed about a country’s biodiversity policies is much
better equipped to steer zoos in their conservation activities.
Better Implementation of the Zoos Directive – 1st Meeting Report
21
Inspectors’ advice to zoos on conservation, captive breeding programmes or animal
welfare is of outmost importance for zoos to improve and become more engaged in
conservation.
Inspectors could also liaise with zoo associations in order to receive information on
zoos conservation actions, conservation strategies or collection planning.
EAZA could provide a document on how to define contribution to conservation.
Also small zoos can effectively contribute to conservation at local or regional scale.
Better Implementation of the Zoos Directive – 1st Meeting Report
22
4 FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS
The meeting has shown that a wealth of information and good practices exist in Member
States and stakeholder organisations, which could be used to facilitate better
implementation of the Zoos Directive. This knowledge will feed into follow-up actions in
the form of subsequent meetings, training, peer-to-peer sharing and documents exchange.
4.1 NEXT MEETINGS
Following this first meeting of Member States and stakeholders on the implementation of
the Zoos Directive, the European Commission will organise two additional meetings, in
2021 and 2022, as forums of exchange of knowledge, experiences and best practice. The
topics for discussion at those meetings have not yet been fixed.
However, as concluded by the Commission, two major themes evolved during the
discussions of the first meeting that would need further attention:
One topic concerned zoos’ overall conservation role and performance. This covers issues
in relation to better integration of zoos conservation work into national biodiversity policies,
better assessment of zoos’ conservation performance throughout the licencing and inspection
process, better coordination between nature authorities and veterinary services, zoos’
collection planning, national and regional collection planning, conservation of locally or
regionally threatened species and the conservation contribution of small zoos.
Another strand of interest was the treatment of non-compliant zoos, including types of
non-compliance, key challenges for zoos to comply and criteria and decision trees for
improvements or closure. Stakeholders are interested in gathering information and sharing
experience on attributed costs of zoo closures, on failures and breaches that they have been
dealing with, and how they addressed them in different Member States.
4.2 TRAININGS
Under the current contract held by VetEffect and Milieu, trainings of competent authorities,
zoos and their associations are scheduled to take place in four different geographical
regions, each covering several Member States. The trainings will involve 20-30 participants
and courses will take 3-4 days. Trainings will be in English and led by independent tutors.
They will combine theory and practice with the practical sessions organised in zoos,
including mock inspections, case studies and practical examples. The dates and places of the
trainings are currently scheduled as follows:
Date Country Zoos
November
2020 Poland Wroclaw Zoo
April
2021 Spain Valencia Biopark
September
2021 Romania Brasov Zoo
Better Implementation of the Zoos Directive – 1st Meeting Report
23
November
2022 Italy Aquaria di Genova/Verona parco Naturame Viva
Each training will cover the following topics (for more details, please see slides on
‘Training’):
Introduction to the Zoos Directive and legislative framework;
Implementation of the Zoos Directive;
Definitions and interpretation (Article 2);
Article 3 conservation measures:
Ex situ and in situ conservation including captive breeding and reintroduction;
Research and education;
Accommodation of animals and veterinary care;
Preventing the escape of animals including invasive alien species;
Record keeping.
Inspections (expertise, process, coordination, forms, standards);
Enforcement (recommendations and conditions, penalties, closures).
Participants raised the issue of proximity of the training venues to airports. Dublin was
suggested as a possible training location in the more northern region.
The dates, places and topics of the trainings have not yet been fixed. If stakeholders have
suggestions, please address them to: [email protected];
4.3 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE (TAIEX)
4.3.1 Expert missions, study visits and workshops
A new tool that will be explored to support Member States competent authorities in better
implementation of the Zoos Directive is the TAIEX-EIR P2P programme1. TAIEX
(Technical Assistance and is an Instrument of the Commission's Directorate-General for
Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations that was established more than twenty years
ago. TAIEX supports public administrations in the enlargement and neighbourhood
countries in the approximation, application and enforcement of the EU acquis through peer-
to-peer exchanges of public officials. The TAIEX-EIR P2P builds on the success of the
TAIEX-REGIO P2P Tool and applies it to environmental laws and policies in the context of
the EIR, which includes conservation and biodiversity, key elements of the Zoos Directive.
Three possibilities of information exchange are financially supported under TAIEX:
Expert Missions - Experts from an EU Member State environmental authority visit
an environmental authority in other Member States that have requested peer advice
and exchange of experience on a specific topic. Expert missions can last between two
1 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/p2p/index_en.htm
Better Implementation of the Zoos Directive – 1st Meeting Report
24
to five days;
Study Visits - Employees (maximum three) from a requesting environmental
authority go on a working visit to other EU Member State institutions to learn from
peers and exchange good practices. Study visits can last between two to five days;
Workshops - Workshops with environmental authorities from one or several EU
Member States (single or multi-country workshops) can be organised in a requesting
institution. Workshops would normally last two days.
4.3.2 Application procedure
If a stakeholder is interested by either of these options, the application procedure is as
follows.
1. Application - Notify the responsible official at DG ENV about the P2P request. Once
DG ENV has agreed with the application, the applicant should send his request for
evaluation to: [email protected].
2. Evaluation - After submission, the request is being evaluated and adjusted in an
exchange between the applicant and the responsible EU official. Upon award, the
activity can start. After completion of the activity, the applicant must send to TAIEX
the reimbursement claim with receipts/evidence etc.
Would you need help with the applications, VetEffect can support you - please contact
4.3.3 Costs covered
While TAIEX does not cover costs for the venue, catering or the printing of background
material, it covers the costs of:
Travel and accommodation for participants in study visits or multi-country
workshops; for participants from the hosting country travel and accommodation is
only financed when the distance between their residence and the venue of the
workshop exceeds a certain minimum.
Interpretation can be financed if duly justified. The working language is English.
4.4 SHARING PLATFORM
The Zoos Directive evaluation underlined that developing cooperation and coordination
between Member States and stakeholders is paramount to fully reach the Directive’s
objectives. The discussions at the meeting highlighted that an important number of
documents have been drafted and used by Member States and stakeholders but are not
necessarily known by all authorities (see a non-exhaustive list in Annex III). Besides the
meetings, trainings and P2P mechanisms explained above, the Commission’s CIRCABC
platform will be used to share and disseminate existing documents such as legislation,
Better Implementation of the Zoos Directive – 1st Meeting Report
25
guidelines, checklists, decision-trees, protocols, publications on licensing, inspection, or
conservation measures. For this purpose, a Zoos Directive space with restricted access
through the ECAS system will be established.
Would you be interested in contributing information to be shared on CIRCABC, please
send the documents or links to [email protected]; [email protected].
Better Implementation of the Zoos Directive – 1st Meeting Report
26
ANNEX I – LIST OF ATTENDING PARTICIPANTS
Country/ organisa
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czechia
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Netherlands
Poland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
European Commission
AAP
Born Free
EAAM
EAZA
EAZWV
Eurogroup for Animals
Four Paws
FVE
Milieu
Odisee College
VdZ
VetEffect
Zoo and Wildlife Solutions
Better Implementation of the Zoos Directive – 1st Meeting Report
27
ANNEX II – AGENDA
First Member State and stakeholder meeting on better implementation of the Zoos Directive
18 February 2020, Meeting Centre Albert Borschette, Room 3B, Rue Froissart 36, 1040 Brussels
9:00 – 9:30 Welcome coffee - Registration
9:30 Adoption of the Agenda and introduction to the meeting
09:45 Introduction to morning topic: Licensing
Milieu
10:15 Presentation by Deborah Infante, Direction départementale de la
protection des populations de la Seine et Marne, France
10:30 Presentation by Astrid Rox, Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food
Quality, and Jorden Jansen, Chair of the Zoo Commission, The
Netherlands
10:45 Presentation by Myfanwy Griffith, European Association of Zoos and
Aquaria (EAZA)
11:00 Presentation by Olga Martin Carrera, Animal Advocacy and Protection
(AAP)
11:15 Short break
11:30 Discussion of remaining issues and identification of potential follow-up
actions and possible mechanisms
12:45 – 13:45 Lunch break
13:45 Introduction to afternoon topic: Inspection
Milieu
14:15 Presentation by Johanna Moritz, Bavarian State Office for Health and
Food Safety, Germany
14:30 Presentation by Alan Moore, Biodiversity Policy Unit, Department of
Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Ireland
14:45 Presentation by Stephanie Sanderson, European Association of Zoo and
Wildlife Veterinarians (EAZWV)
15:00 Trainings and peer-to-peer learning: training priority topics and regions
VetEffect
15:30 Coffee break
15:45 Discussion of remaining issues and identification of potential follow-up
actions and possible mechanisms
17:00 Meeting ends
Better Implementation of the Zoos Directive – 1st Meeting Report
28
ANNEX III – EXISTING RESOURCES
Description Author Where to find it
Decision tree for zoos licensing Dutch authorities Slides in Annex III
Rescue centres database European Alliance on
Rescue centre and
Sanctuaries
https://search.ears.org/
EU Zoos Directive Good Practices
Document
European Commission,
VetEffect
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/pdf/EU_Zo
os_Directive_Good_Practices.pdf
Zoos Directive Evaluation Report https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/
refitzoosdirective/pdf/SWD%20Zoos%20Directive
%20Evaluation.pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/
refitzoosdirective/pdf/Final%20Report%20Zoos%2
0Directive_Full_Milieu_20170816.pdf Standards for the Accommodation and
Care of Animals in Zoos and Aquaria
(2014 updated 2019)
EAZA https://www.eaza.net/assets/Uploads/Standards-
and-policies/2019-04-EAZA-Standards-for-
Accomodation-and-Care.pdf
Research Standards (2003) EAZA https://www.eaza.net/assets/Uploads/Standards-
and-policies/EAZA-Research-Standards-2003.pdf
Conservation Standards (2016) EAZA https://www.eaza.net/assets/Uploads/Standards-
and-policies/EAZA-Conservation-Standards-
2016.pdf
Conservation Education Standards
(2016)
EAZA https://www.eaza.net/assets/Uploads/Standards-
and-policies/EAZA-Conservation-Education-
Standards-2016-09.pdf
Guidelines on the definition of a direct
contribution to conservation (2015)
EAZA https://www.eaza.net/assets/Uploads/Guidelines/Co
ntribution-to-conservation-definition-2015-04-
Revisions.pdf
Accreditation manual (2018) EAZA https://www.eaza.net/assets/Uploads/Accreditation/
EAZA-Accreditation-Manual-2018.pdf
Zootier-Lexikon Peter Dollinger, Bern Zoo https://www.zootier-
lexikon.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item
&layout=item&id=5891&Itemid=684
Swiss law on animal protection Switzerland https://www.blv.admin.ch/blv/fr/home/tiere/tiersch
utz/heim-und-wildtierhaltung.html
https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-
compilation/20080796/index.html#app2ahref0
Austrian animal Welfare Act https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Ab
frage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=2000386
0
Facility assessment Australia https://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/wildli
fe-trade/non-commercial/zoos/facility-assessment
National Zoo Biosecurity Manual Self-
Audit checklist (2011)
Australia https://www.farmbiosecurity.com.au/wp-
content/uploads/2019/03/Australias-National-Zoo-
Biosecurity-Manual-Self-audit-Checklist.pdf
Irish Standards of Modern Zoo Practice
(2015)
Ireland https://www.npws.ie/sites/default/files/publications/
pdf/ISMZP%202016.pdf
Secretary of State’s Standards of
Modern Zoo Practice (2012)
United Kingdom https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government
/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6959
6/standards-of-zoo-practice.pdf
Zoos experts committee handbook
(2012)
United Kingdom https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government
/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6961
1/pb13815-zoos-expert-committee-handbook1.pdf
Zoo Biology Scientific journal https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10982361
Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research Scientific journal https://www.jzar.org/jzar
International ZOO Yearbook
Scientific journal https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/jour
nal/17481090