Zoos and conservation: from greenwashing to impact

[15399]

While I don't necessarily agree or disagree with this - I do think you make a compelling argument - I also wonder if this can be argued the opposite way: that keeping a species alive after its habitat has disappeared forever might detract from the lesson of our mistakes. I can see there being a tendency to look at a Guam Kingfisher in a zoo and think "oh they're still alive, that's great" and feel assured - compared to looking at a taxidermy Thylacine or Great Auk, thinking "these will never walk the Earth again", and feeling regret... and hopefully determination to not let it happen again. I think ideologies on whether to resurrect extinct animals can tie into the same vein of debate.

I'm inclined to agree with you that this may be a detraction. I've seen taxidermy passenger pigeons in Natural History Museums/Science Museums, and I've seen live scimitar-horned oryx in Zoos. In terms of my perception of both experiences, the taxidermy passenger pigeons are much more profound than seeing an extinct-in-the-wild animal that is still alive. That being said, I am not saying that there is no intrinsic value of nature, or that a species doesn't have inherent value, and I do think we should try to save as many species as possible, but I do think that it's a valid question, at what point should be stop trying to save a species when there are so many others in need of our help too.

 

[Dassie rat]

I used to believe that one of the reasons the passenger pigeon became extinct was that it had to live in large colonies to breed. A few years ago, I read that it bred successfully in captivity and theoretically could have been saved.

 

[junglejim]

The passenger pigeon numbers were so great it was know they darkened the sky. Long before bird counting started, hunters basically shot them into extinction till it was to late. Last passenger pigeon Martha died at Cincinnati Zoo. If one studies history of the Thylacine you will find human colonization poisoned ,and shot the animal unknowingly it's welfare but rather was killed with no regard to its value. Classis total sad state of human condition dominion over other live forms.

 

[remar]

I read somewhere that after WWF zoos are the second largest money source for conservation projects worldwide. That would in large part be because of the Wildlife Conservation Society (Bronx Zoo and the other New York institutions) counts as a zoo, which alone spent over 128 million USD on in situ conservation in 2022. That is far more than all European zoos combined spend....

AFAIK the WAZA Zoos are the third largest money source for conservation after WWF and Conservation International (according to the WAZA annual reports). But the real USP isn't money alone. Knowledge how to handle an animal is probably even more valuably.

I agree. There is too much emphasis on conserving large popular animals and too little on endangered invertebrates and other small animals. It seems that many of these could become extinct with very few people caring, even if they had heard about some of the species.

On the other hand, sometimes only one committed person can do a lot for a small species and in many cases it is much easier than for a big one.

While I don't necessarily agree or disagree with this - I do think you make a compelling argument - I also wonder if this can be argued the opposite way: that keeping a species alive after its habitat has disappeared forever might detract from the lesson of our mistakes.

If you have an charismatic animal, that is extinct in the wild with no habitat left it could be the perfect memorial for something that should never ever happen again. Maybe this would be the perfect animal for education.

All in all the whole topic is insanely complex. Even with hundreds of pages in this thread we wouldn't cover all facets of the topic. Furthermore there are many important for and important against arguments about severals aspects that are touched by the topic.

 

[Dassie rat]

The passenger pigeon numbers were so great it was know they darkened the sky. Long before bird counting started, hunters basically shot them into extinction till it was to late. Last passenger pigeon Martha died at Cincinnati Zoo. If one studies history of the Thylacine you will find human colonization poisoned ,and shot the animal unknowingly it's welfare but rather was killed with no regard to its value. Classis total sad state of human condition dominion over other live forms.

I know the story about the mass destruction of the species. I think this was the most horrific extinction due to humans. The fact is that zoos could have bred the passenger pigeon and saved it from extinction. They could have done the same with the thylacine but, as with many other species, they didn't.

 

[Dassie rat]

If you have an charismatic animal, that is extinct in the wild with no habitat left it could be the perfect memorial for something that should never ever happen again. Maybe this would be the perfect animal for education..

This could be achieved by relatively few zoos holding representatives of charismatic species. If zoos use a lot of space for charismatic animals with no habitat left, this creates problems for less charismatic species from being saved.in zoos.

 

[Nikola Chavkoski]

I got it. Zoos can go further with in situ conservation taken in their hands, when governments, most often than not, are not doing enough. But let take an example, let say with the Malayan tiger. What can zoos best do, to safeguard and to enlarge the population of wild Malayan tigers in 10 years? Participating in a research or education of the local people its not enough. More pragmatic measures are needed, I would say.

 

[lintworm]

This is a rather interesting topic, and one that I have a lot of thoughts about. In my mind, a captive population of a species inhabiting a completely lost ecosystem is not fully worthless. And that is assuming we are indeed knowledgeable enough to know this for certain, which I personally do not think we are. We could (and should perhaps!) argue about the inherent value of a species, but I want to take a slightly easier approach.

A painting by Rembrandt, a WWII airplane, or a set of tools from the stone age are all things we deem valuable, otherwise we would not take so much care to preserve them. They represent small relics from times gone by, to appreciate, to learn about, perhaps even to take lessons form in the future. If Montserrat sinks in the ocean tomorrow, or we blow it up with a bomb, cannot the Montserrat Oriole serve a similar function? To remind us about what once was, or to teach us lessons lest history repeats itself. And even then we are not talking about scientific, aesthetic or cultural values a species might bring. The Turtle Dove is embedded in our culture as a concept and a symbol. Would its loss from the world not also be a human loss, instead of only an ecological one? That is in part a value that can be retained even if the dove lives on in aviaries instead of free-flying.

There is, naturally, discussion to be had how much effort should be put into preserving such species - just as we have discussions about which parts of our collective history are most important to preserve, and how much it may cost. But my main point is simple: there is value in a species even if detached from a natural ecosystem.

A very interesting and sensible take, this is the kind of input I hoped for and I am not being disappointed . Maybe I am too much of an ecologist

On the other hand, sometimes only one committed person can do a lot for a small species and in many cases it is much easier than for a big one.

It should be, but for now zoos still focus a lot on the big guns, at least in media presence and in situ funding. Whereas zoos themselves are showing how much success is possible with herps and fish with only limited funds and number of zoos necessary.

I got it. Zoos can go further with in situ conservation taken in their hands, when governments, most often than not, are not doing enough. But let take an example, let say with the Malayan tiger. What can zoos best do, to safeguard and to enlarge the population of wild Malayan tigers in 10 years? Participating in a research or education of the local people its not enough. More pragmatic measures are needed, I would say.

Zoos are also funding habitat protection and anti-poaching measures, such as paying rangers. So plenty of stuff going on. Though most European zoos tend to focus on Siberian and Sumatran tigers rather Malayan ones .

 

[lintworm]

The good the bad and the ugly: positive and negative talking points

Depending on how you frame the numbers, you could create completely different stories on how European zoos are doing with regards to in situ conservation. You just have to use the numbers to your advantage. That these numbers can be manipulated so easily is a weakness in itself and something zoos have created themselves by not being open and honest in their communication.

So let’s start with something that is brought as positive: based on their own conservation database EAZA zoos contributed 16,2 million euros towards in situ conservation in 2021, which is something they haul as a big achievement and is based on 122 members (out of 300+). But you could turn this around easily: as while this is a lot of money for us mere mortals, it is peanuts on the scale zoos are operating on. This amount probably constitutes less than 0.5% of the total operating budget of EAZA zoos. That should be an easy line of attack. Interestingly based on my own database, which is solely based on what zoos have published online, I get to a value of close to 35 million euros of in situ conservation support. This is based solely on European members + Singapore + Auckland, so excluding Russia and the Middle East, so is far from complete. It is also based on less than 75 zoos leaving the vast majority of EAZA members with a question mark. The 35 million does include some amount of double-counting as there are zoos that support conservation projects from other zoos, but that amount is unknown. It is still strange that some keyboard warrior can produce a higher figure than the official organisation…

Graphic produced by EAZA to show their in situ conservation impact

35 million euros is more money than the 16.2 million, but not all zoos contribute equally. Over 10 million was contributed by a single EAZA member and the top-10 zoos in terms of in situ funding contributed over 25 million euros of this total. And while 35 million euros is a lot, when compared to the total annual operating budgets of EAZA zoos, it is in the realm of 1%. That is still a far cry from the 3% the WAZA conservation strategy is asking for.

What is genuinely positive is that at least on continental Europe the contribution to in situ conservation is increasing yearly and new initiatives are started on an annual basis to increase monetary funds. Zoos in general are far from there yet, but at least they are going the right direction.

When looking at the average zoo website, the most important piece of conservation seems to be ex situ conservation. That makes sense, given that it is easy to market with and is more easily visualised in the zoo. Zoos are however also increasingly promoting how they help nature conservation in situ. The most common way to show this is with a list of projects that are supported. It looks impressive when a zoo can list 5-10 projects which are supported. But the majority of zoos fail to list, by how much they support any given project and in which year the project was supported. This makes the list look more impressive than they are in most circumstances. There are however zoos that have a good administration, so a typical example is Gaiazoo in the Netherlands. Gaiazoo has financially sponsored 14 projects in 2020, but contributed a total of just under 90.000 euros, which is an average of just ~6500 euros per project. Last year spending by Gaiazoo was increased by ~45% to 127.760 euros, though. Even small projects can make a difference, as I can personally attest as I was sponsored by the St. Louis Zoo once with a similar amount. One could however discuss whether it would be worth it for single zoos to spend more money on fewer projects. But that would of course look less great in your promotional materials, if like most zoos, you wouldn’t list how much money was actually spent on conservation. Gaiazoo is spending roughly 1% of its annual budget on conservation, which is above the median for European zoos. The reason they can be used as an example is because they keep a clear administration.

Hartmann mountain zebra protection in Namibia was one of many projects supported by Gaiazoo in 2020, the contribution was 5.000 euros. (Picture by @Tim May )

For many other zoos it is absolutely unclear how much money flows into all the projects that are listed. But sometimes the projects that were donated to can give an indication. For example the NGO Save the Rhino was supported by 31 different European zoos in 2020-2021. But the total amount of money donated was only 148.810 British pounds, which is about 4800 pounds per zoo, so roughly 5000 euros/US Dollars. An even more extreme example is the Lemur Conservation Association (AEECL), which in 2019 received 2.000 euros each from its 31 member zoos and an additional 49.000 of additional donations from 11 zoos, over half of which came from the Wilhelma. This means that a large amount of zoos can claim to support conservation on the ground in Madagascar, while paying far less than the monthly costs of a single employee. This comes quite close to greenwashing as zoos claim they support conservation, but when looking at real contribution, it is minimal. To put things in perspective for 50.000 euros per year one can pay for a team of 4 rangers in Belize, while back home it would barely be enough to employ 1 cashier. That puts stuff a bit more into perspective. There are still too many zoos that probably do almost nothing, but for which it is not possible to check as they don’t publish their actual contributions and just list a bunch of projects (if they list something at all). From the zoos for which I could find a number on how much was spent on conservation, the worst performing zoo, when looking at % of annual budget spent on conservation, was ZOOM Gelsenkirchen, which spends approximately 10.000 euros, a paltry 0.08% of its total budget, on in situ conservation. While still saying you contribute to conservation and say it is important, this is more or less the definition of greenwashing.

AEECL could do with more funding to better protect blue-eyed black lemurs (picture by @Therabu )

Fortunately not all zoos are like this and things are changing. In the next 6 posts I will write about multiple zoos that all have their own approach to conservation. Each of them holds valuable lessons for other zoos that look to increase spending and effectiveness of their conservation. Not every lesson will be applicable to any single zoo, but that is more than fine. Diversity is a strength, not least in conservation approaches, as there is no one size fits all approach. It is not just the big and famous that have lessons, small zoos can also contribute. But we will start with what is probably the number one conservation zoo in Europe.

Pygmy hogs thank their increased chance of survival in a large part to one zoo and captive breeding (picture @Chlidonias )

 

[birdsandbats]

Last year spending by Gaiazoo was increased by ~45% to 127.760 euros, though. Even small projects can make a difference, as I can personally attest as I was sponsored by the St. Louis Zoo once with a similar amount.

I'm really curious about this story.

 

[Dassie rat]

Some over-represented Least concern ZTL zoo animals
Meerkat 644 ZTL collections
Common emu 641
Red-necked wallaby 536 (plus Tasmanian form 54)
Common green iguana 464 (plus subspecies 14)
Common ostrich 349 (plus subspecies 87)
Black-tailed prairie dog 187
Brown capuchin 179
Linnaeus's two-toed sloth 136

Plus African pygmy goat 1180
Budgerigar 702
Alpaca 630
Llama 582
Cockatiel 492
Red-eared slider 487
Bactrian camel 416
Goldfish 272

 

[birdsandbats]

Some over-represented Least concern ZTL zoo animals
Meerkat 644 ZTL collections
Common emu 641
Red-necked wallaby 536 (plus Tasmanian form 54)
Common green iguana 464 (plus subspecies 14)
Common ostrich 349 (plus subspecies 87)
Black-tailed prairie dog 187
Brown capuchin 179
Linnaeus's two-toed sloth 136

Plus African pygmy goat 1180
Budgerigar 702
Alpaca 630
Llama 582
Cockatiel 492
Red-eared slider 487
Bactrian camel 416
Goldfish 272

Even animals that are not endangered can still use conservation from zoos. Emu, Black-tailed Prairie Dog, and Common Ostrich are all extirpated from portions of their former range and may be reintroduced at some point. Black-tailed Prairie Dog, for example, is currently in the process of being reintroduced to Arizona.

 

[15399]

Even animals that are not endangered can still use conservation from zoos. Emu, Black-tailed Prairie Dog, and Common Ostrich are all extirpated from portions of their former range and may be reintroduced at some point. Black-tailed Prairie Dog, for example, is currently in he process of being reintroduced to Arizona.

Plus, one major point of this thread so far is that ex-situ conservation isn't the end all be all for zoos. Plenty of least concern species still make great exhibit animals and have large educational value, making them worthy species for a zoo to invest in. A lot of the species named also do great in mixed-species exhibit where their presence isn't costing a zoo any space, for instance sloths are a popular species amongst the general public and they do great in walk-through aviaries that can also feature bird species that may be more threatened. Regardless, zoos also can still do great work by keeping least concern species with educational value and investing funds and resources into in-situ conservation efforts for other species and/or ecosystems.

 

[Haliaeetus]

Plus, one major point of this thread so far is that ex-situ conservation isn't the end all be all for zoos. Plenty of least concern species still make great exhibit animals and have large educational value, making them worthy species for a zoo to invest in. A lot of the species named also do great in mixed-species exhibit where their presence isn't costing a zoo any space, for instance sloths are a popular species amongst the general public and they do great in walk-through aviaries that can also feature bird species that may be more threatened. Regardless, zoos also can still do great work by keeping least concern species with educational value and investing funds and resources into in-situ conservation efforts for other species and/or ecosystems.

We can say the same about some common Kangaroo or Wallaby species, that remain representative of the Australian ecosystems, and far more available than Numbats, Platypuses or other rarer species.

 

[MRJ]

The good the bad and the ugly: positive and negative talking points

Depending on how you frame the numbers, you could create completely different stories on how European zoos are doing with regards to in situ conservation. You just have to use the numbers to your advantage. That these numbers can be manipulated so easily is a weakness in itself and something zoos have created themselves by not being open and honest in their communication.

So let’s start with something that is brought as positive: based on their own conservation database EAZA zoos contributed 16,2 million euros towards in situ conservation in 2021, which is something they haul as a big achievement and is based on 122 members (out of 300+). But you could turn this around easily: as while this is a lot of money for us mere mortals, it is peanuts on the scale zoos are operating on. This amount probably constitutes less than 0.5% of the total operating budget of EAZA zoos. That should be an easy line of attack. Interestingly based on my own database, which is solely based on what zoos have published online, I get to a value of close to 35 million euros of in situ conservation support. This is based solely on European members + Singapore + Auckland, so excluding Russia and the Middle East, so is far from complete. It is also based on less than 75 zoos leaving the vast majority of EAZA members with a question mark. The 35 million does include some amount of double-counting as there are zoos that support conservation projects from other zoos, but that amount is unknown. It is still strange that some keyboard warrior can produce a higher figure than the official organisation…

Graphic produced by EAZA to show their in situ conservation impact

35 million euros is more money than the 16.2 million, but not all zoos contribute equally. Over 10 million was contributed by a single EAZA member and the top-10 zoos in terms of in situ funding contributed over 25 million euros of this total. And while 35 million euros is a lot, when compared to the total annual operating budgets of EAZA zoos, it is in the realm of 1%. That is still a far cry from the 3% the WAZA conservation strategy is asking for.

What is genuinely positive is that at least on continental Europe the contribution to in situ conservation is increasing yearly and new initiatives are started on an annual basis to increase monetary funds. Zoos in general are far from there yet, but at least they are going the right direction.

When looking at the average zoo website, the most important piece of conservation seems to be ex situ conservation. That makes sense, given that it is easy to market with and is more easily visualised in the zoo. Zoos are however also increasingly promoting how they help nature conservation in situ. The most common way to show this is with a list of projects that are supported. It looks impressive when a zoo can list 5-10 projects which are supported. But the majority of zoos fail to list, by how much they support any given project and in which year the project was supported. This makes the list look more impressive than they are in most circumstances. There are however zoos that have a good administration, so a typical example is Gaiazoo in the Netherlands. Gaiazoo has financially sponsored 14 projects in 2020, but contributed a total of just under 90.000 euros, which is an average of just ~6500 euros per project. Last year spending by Gaiazoo was increased by ~45% to 127.760 euros, though. Even small projects can make a difference, as I can personally attest as I was sponsored by the St. Louis Zoo once with a similar amount. One could however discuss whether it would be worth it for single zoos to spend more money on fewer projects. But that would of course look less great in your promotional materials, if like most zoos, you wouldn’t list how much money was actually spent on conservation. Gaiazoo is spending roughly 1% of its annual budget on conservation, which is above the median for European zoos. The reason they can be used as an example is because they keep a clear administration.

Hartmann mountain zebra protection in Namibia was one of many projects supported by Gaiazoo in 2020, the contribution was 5.000 euros. (Picture by @Tim May )

For many other zoos it is absolutely unclear how much money flows into all the projects that are listed. But sometimes the projects that were donated to can give an indication. For example the NGO Save the Rhino was supported by 31 different European zoos in 2020-2021. But the total amount of money donated was only 148.810 British pounds, which is about 4800 pounds per zoo, so roughly 5000 euros/US Dollars. An even more extreme example is the Lemur Conservation Association (AEECL), which in 2019 received 2.000 euros each from its 31 member zoos and an additional 49.000 of additional donations from 11 zoos, over half of which came from the Wilhelma. This means that a large amount of zoos can claim to support conservation on the ground in Madagascar, while paying far less than the monthly costs of a single employee. This comes quite close to greenwashing as zoos claim they support conservation, but when looking at real contribution, it is minimal. To put things in perspective for 50.000 euros per year one can pay for a team of 4 rangers in Belize, while back home it would barely be enough to employ 1 cashier. That puts stuff a bit more into perspective. There are still too many zoos that probably do almost nothing, but for which it is not possible to check as they don’t publish their actual contributions and just list a bunch of projects (if they list something at all). From the zoos for which I could find a number on how much was spent on conservation, the worst performing zoo, when looking at % of annual budget spent on conservation, was ZOOM Gelsenkirchen, which spends approximately 10.000 euros, a paltry 0.08% of its total budget, on in situ conservation. While still saying you contribute to conservation and say it is important, this is more or less the definition of greenwashing.

AEECL could do with more funding to better protect blue-eyed black lemurs (picture by @Therabu )

Fortunately not all zoos are like this and things are changing. In the next 6 posts I will write about multiple zoos that all have their own approach to conservation. Each of them holds valuable lessons for other zoos that look to increase spending and effectiveness of their conservation. Not every lesson will be applicable to any single zoo, but that is more than fine. Diversity is a strength, not least in conservation approaches, as there is no one size fits all approach. It is not just the big and famous that have lessons, small zoos can also contribute. But we will start with what is probably the number one conservation zoo in Europe.

Pygmy hogs thank their increased chance of survival in a large part to one zoo and captive breeding (picture @Chlidonias )

Thanks for this thread. Just a few comments about money - so often the crux. I'd prefix these comments by saying that of course I agree, much greater effort is required from zoos. Indeed there are a few that carry the load for many, and that needs to change.

Reporting: ZAA here in Australia have started a similar reporting exercise, indeed even the graphics on their "score card" are similar. I know a number of zoos have simply failed to report, at the same time others have failed to verify their figures. Personally we only reported one activity (which in itself constituted 7% of turnover) as the benefit to us of verifying our other activities did not justify the cost of doing so.

0f course the money has to come from somewhere. WAZA may propose 3% of turnover (which is not unreasonable) but in fact the money has to come from profit/surpluses. If the zoo is running at a loss it is unlikely to want to contribute to conservation. Of course nobody can run at a loss forever, that must be turned around or the zoo will close.

Zoos which receive substantial support from governments are in an interesting position. On one hand they are in a position where their income is secure and they can budget for conservation. On the other they are reliant on legislators supporting this contribution.

For organizations such as Save the Rhino, having 30 odd small contributors is a much safer situation than only having one large contributor. Losing a contributor is unlikely to be fatal to that organization, and much more easily replaced.

For zoos, spreading their support over a number of organizations can have distinct conservation benefits. The programs can be directly related to their exhibits, increasing public engagement and education. This can lead to other fundraising opportunities to increase support to these programs.

The zoo I think you are about to talk about is in an interesting example. For several decades the zoo supported the (considerable) conservation operations of the organisation that owns it. However more recently (for reasons beyond it's control) the zoo had been running at a loss. Justifiably the organisation had to consider whether they should even be operating a zoo anymore.

 

[lintworm]

0f course the money has to come from somewhere. WAZA may propose 3% of turnover (which is not unreasonable) but in fact the money has to come from profit/surpluses. If the zoo is running at a loss it is unlikely to want to contribute to conservation. Of course nobody can run at a loss forever, that must be turned around or the zoo will close.

You are correct. I simply used the 3% here as it is a simple benchmark. Finanfcing is key and the zoo business is typically not one with big margins, but one with a lot of continuous investment in new enclosures and infrastructure. There are some options that zoos are only starting to apply that could be used more broadly to make a stable financial contribution, which I will explore later and I don't want to give away too much

For organizations such as Save the Rhino, having 30 odd small contributors is a much safer situation than only having one large contributor. Losing a contributor is unlikely to be fatal to that organization, and much more easily replaced.

I hadn't thought of it this way yet and it makes a lot of sense.

The zoo I think you are about to talk about is in an interesting example. For several decades the zoo supported the (considerable) conservation operations of the organisation that owns it. However more recently (for reasons beyond it's control) the zoo had been running at a loss. Justifiably the organisation had to consider whether they should even be operating a zoo anymore.

In the case of this organisation, and the Wildlife Conservation Society in New York, the zoo doesn't pay for the conservation work, as running the zoo costs equal to more than it actually brings in. But having a zoo can still contribute to in situ goals by captive breeding (and as a knowledge resource) and more importantly it can be a fantastic communication tool with which to reach the masses.

 

[MRJ]

You are correct. I simply used the 3% here as it is a simple benchmark.

I think a benchmark it a good thing. It is an aspiration that might take several years to achieve. In the case of zoos owned by government or large corporations it gives something for the zoo managers to go to their managers and say this is the industry standard, and we should meet it. Otherwise I'll try and not pre-empt your future posts!

 

[Jurek7]

Excellent essay! I will add comment on some topics, and hope I will not write anything which Lintworm wants to write himself.

- Are alternatives to zoos better or worse in raising money for in situ conservation?

It is universally agreed, that donations to zoo come from money which otherwise would not be spent for conservation. Without zoos, visitors would spend this money on other entertainment / leisure activities which donate nothing whatsoever to in situ conservation: theme parks, cinemas, sports facilities etc.

It is also universally agreed, that zoos are not a competition to nature reserves. European city dwellers will not go to a rainforest reserve in Belize on Sunday morning. Even if an entry ticket to a forest reserve in Belize is (often) cheaper than a ticket to an European city zoo.

There are foundations, which have small running costs and a sole goal of fundraising for in situ conservation. They generate more than 0.5% of total operating budget. However, they are not alternatives to zoos, because people would not give entertainment money to charities. However, there is a strong synergistic effect: zoos generate interest in wild animals, and also more money in wildlife charities. I am not aware of any study which would show the opposite: less money spend on zoos never equalled more money spent on charities raising money in situ.

Well-known point is that anti-zoo organizations like PETA, themselves give practically no money to is situ conservation, although they have no running costs or owning land, maintaining zoos etc.

- Is donating 0,5% of an operating budget outside little or much?

I cannot comment a priori for a given zoo. However, for a business, 0.5% spare profit can be much. Zoos, seen as a type of business, have enormous running costs: land tax, welfare of animals in the zoo, research, education activities and many more. Many zoos face shortage of funds on current operations. Many are owned by cities and legally city taxes cannot fund jungle in Africa. Most zoos need support from local city councils and sponsors to fund own project, like major reconstruction / constructions of exhibits. On this background, an average of 0,5% extra given away for in situ conservation can be much.

Many profit-oriented stock companies generate less profit. There are whole branches of industry where running costs are huge and companies generate even less profit on average.

- So, where do the money for in situ conservation really come from? Can a zoo raise donations which it gives to in situ project indefinitely?

Funds for in situ conservation ultimately come from outside zoos. People must have money to spare, which they spend on zoo tickets or donations, and only then a zoo can pass this money for an in situ project.

I understand that an important point in this topic is trying to shame the zoos to give more money to in situ conservation. However, zoos in poorer cities, may have nothing to give away outside. It is visible that most successful zoo charities are in rich financial cities: London, Frankfurt and Zurich, and few big entertainment zoos like Leipzig, Beauval and Loro Parque which naturally are rare, just one or two in a whole region or a country.

Note also that the financial crisis started. Spare money in the West shrinks, and, despite skills of zoos, donations to many projects will run dry. In 2023 we already see that no zoo starts building a new huge mega-exhibit costing 10s of m of euro.

- How zoos can become better fundraisers for in situ conservation?

Zoos can learn from each other, and from other charities, how to get more donations. But fundraising is a complex activity of its own, and has different requirements than skills of a zoo professional. Only few zoo people have natural charisma and business skill perhaps coming from the family upbringing, but it is not just automatic. Many zoos probably need to hire/ ask volunteers as specialized fundraisers and build rather complex group of zoo professionals, volunteers and external donors and sympathizers.

- It is inherently wrong that zoos donate to many projects but only small amounts?

Depends. In itself, not. Zoos raise donations as a side to their animals. So it is natural that a zoo generates some money from lemurs for a national park in Madagascar, some money from elephants for an anti-poaching unit in East Africa and so on. This can even benefit national parks by spreading the risk: not all the money comes from a single donor.

 

[birdsandbats]

The good the bad and the ugly: positive and negative talking points

Depending on how you frame the numbers, you could create completely different stories on how European zoos are doing with regards to in situ conservation. You just have to use the numbers to your advantage. That these numbers can be manipulated so easily is a weakness in itself and something zoos have created themselves by not being open and honest in their communication.

So let’s start with something that is brought as positive: based on their own conservation database EAZA zoos contributed 16,2 million euros towards in situ conservation in 2021, which is something they haul as a big achievement and is based on 122 members (out of 300+). But you could turn this around easily: as while this is a lot of money for us mere mortals, it is peanuts on the scale zoos are operating on. This amount probably constitutes less than 0.5% of the total operating budget of EAZA zoos. That should be an easy line of attack. Interestingly based on my own database, which is solely based on what zoos have published online, I get to a value of close to 35 million euros of in situ conservation support. This is based solely on European members + Singapore + Auckland, so excluding Russia and the Middle East, so is far from complete. It is also based on less than 75 zoos leaving the vast majority of EAZA members with a question mark. The 35 million does include some amount of double-counting as there are zoos that support conservation projects from other zoos, but that amount is unknown. It is still strange that some keyboard warrior can produce a higher figure than the official organisation…

Graphic produced by EAZA to show their in situ conservation impact

35 million euros is more money than the 16.2 million, but not all zoos contribute equally. Over 10 million was contributed by a single EAZA member and the top-10 zoos in terms of in situ funding contributed over 25 million euros of this total. And while 35 million euros is a lot, when compared to the total annual operating budgets of EAZA zoos, it is in the realm of 1%. That is still a far cry from the 3% the WAZA conservation strategy is asking for.

What is genuinely positive is that at least on continental Europe the contribution to in situ conservation is increasing yearly and new initiatives are started on an annual basis to increase monetary funds. Zoos in general are far from there yet, but at least they are going the right direction.

When looking at the average zoo website, the most important piece of conservation seems to be ex situ conservation. That makes sense, given that it is easy to market with and is more easily visualised in the zoo. Zoos are however also increasingly promoting how they help nature conservation in situ. The most common way to show this is with a list of projects that are supported. It looks impressive when a zoo can list 5-10 projects which are supported. But the majority of zoos fail to list, by how much they support any given project and in which year the project was supported. This makes the list look more impressive than they are in most circumstances. There are however zoos that have a good administration, so a typical example is Gaiazoo in the Netherlands. Gaiazoo has financially sponsored 14 projects in 2020, but contributed a total of just under 90.000 euros, which is an average of just ~6500 euros per project. Last year spending by Gaiazoo was increased by ~45% to 127.760 euros, though. Even small projects can make a difference, as I can personally attest as I was sponsored by the St. Louis Zoo once with a similar amount. One could however discuss whether it would be worth it for single zoos to spend more money on fewer projects. But that would of course look less great in your promotional materials, if like most zoos, you wouldn’t list how much money was actually spent on conservation. Gaiazoo is spending roughly 1% of its annual budget on conservation, which is above the median for European zoos. The reason they can be used as an example is because they keep a clear administration.

Hartmann mountain zebra protection in Namibia was one of many projects supported by Gaiazoo in 2020, the contribution was 5.000 euros. (Picture by @Tim May )

For many other zoos it is absolutely unclear how much money flows into all the projects that are listed. But sometimes the projects that were donated to can give an indication. For example the NGO Save the Rhino was supported by 31 different European zoos in 2020-2021. But the total amount of money donated was only 148.810 British pounds, which is about 4800 pounds per zoo, so roughly 5000 euros/US Dollars. An even more extreme example is the Lemur Conservation Association (AEECL), which in 2019 received 2.000 euros each from its 31 member zoos and an additional 49.000 of additional donations from 11 zoos, over half of which came from the Wilhelma. This means that a large amount of zoos can claim to support conservation on the ground in Madagascar, while paying far less than the monthly costs of a single employee. This comes quite close to greenwashing as zoos claim they support conservation, but when looking at real contribution, it is minimal. To put things in perspective for 50.000 euros per year one can pay for a team of 4 rangers in Belize, while back home it would barely be enough to employ 1 cashier. That puts stuff a bit more into perspective. There are still too many zoos that probably do almost nothing, but for which it is not possible to check as they don’t publish their actual contributions and just list a bunch of projects (if they list something at all). From the zoos for which I could find a number on how much was spent on conservation, the worst performing zoo, when looking at % of annual budget spent on conservation, was ZOOM Gelsenkirchen, which spends approximately 10.000 euros, a paltry 0.08% of its total budget, on in situ conservation. While still saying you contribute to conservation and say it is important, this is more or less the definition of greenwashing.

AEECL could do with more funding to better protect blue-eyed black lemurs (picture by @Therabu )

Fortunately not all zoos are like this and things are changing. In the next 6 posts I will write about multiple zoos that all have their own approach to conservation. Each of them holds valuable lessons for other zoos that look to increase spending and effectiveness of their conservation. Not every lesson will be applicable to any single zoo, but that is more than fine. Diversity is a strength, not least in conservation approaches, as there is no one size fits all approach. It is not just the big and famous that have lessons, small zoos can also contribute. But we will start with what is probably the number one conservation zoo in Europe.

Pygmy hogs thank their increased chance of survival in a large part to one zoo and captive breeding (picture @Chlidonias )

I'm a little concerned to see so little money from European zoos being spent on conservation projects in Europe. Sure, Africa and Asia are in need of conservation projects - but shouldn't impact closer to home be prioritized? Nature isn't exactly pristine in most of Europe, and I think to the average visitor in-situ conservation (literally) closer to home may mean more. Especially if those visitors can see the tangible impact themselves!

 

[MRJ]

I'm a little concerned to see so little money from European zoos being spent on conservation projects in Europe. Sure, Africa and Asia are in need of conservation projects - but shouldn't impact closer to home be prioritized? Nature isn't exactly pristine in most of Europe, and I think to the average visitor in-situ conservation (literally) closer to home may mean more. Especially if those visitors can see the tangible impact themselves!

There are a couple of points here.

Firstly in developed countries government takes a much larger role in conservation and the environment. Sure to us it is never enough however more resources are available than exist in bio-diverse developing countries. If not zoos then who?

Secondly the stock-in-trade of the vast majority of zoos are the exotic animals from these bio-diverse developing countries. My view is that they have a moral responsibility to support conservation in those countries and not just treat them as a resource.

Of course, even with my limited contact with European (and American) zoos I have seen that they do work for the conservation of local species, whether that be butterfly gardens, reintroducing locally extinct species, or promoting behavioral change amongst the public. And of course if a European species needs a breeding program, the logical place for that to take place is in European zoos.