Nobody was saying that zoos shouldn't keep meerkats. The post you quoted was merely acknowledging that there are zoos without meerkats, in response to @lintworm jokingly saying that in order to be a zoo, one needs to have meerkats. There have been whole debates on here before about meerkats in zoos, and that's not a debate we need to re-hash, but I will say that most members would be completely in agreement with you that meerkats should be kept in zoos, but many members don't want to see meerkats being kept by as many zoos in order to have a greater diversity of species kept.
Zoos and conservation: from greenwashing to impact
- Thread starter lintworm
- Start date
What zoos can do for conservation; Part III Burgers’ Zoo
Contribution to in situ conservation 2021: 1.025.000 euros (1,09 million US dollars)
% of income spent on conservation: ~3% (based on pre-covid numbers)
Burgers’ Zoo is a bit of an outlier when it comes to in situ conservation activities. Contrary to other zoos it long wasn't talkative about it at all. It started when together with Papiliorama in Switzerland Burgers' Zoo started a charity, the ITCF, to conserve a piece of rainforest in Belize back in 1989. At the time both zoos had just opened their own tropical hall and the directors agreed to also do something for a real rainforest. Up to this day it thus helps protect over 400 square kilometres of tropical rainforest and mangroves and saved it from destruction. For many years this was more or less a pet project of then director Antoon van Hooff. Until a few years ago, the zoo did a very good job in underselling what they were doing with regards to in situ conservation, as communication was almost non-existent. In 2017 it opened Burgers’ Mangrove, which is based on the conservation area which they help protect and only then did the PR and education work pick up. But even when the Mangrove served as a catalysator to spread the conservation word in the zoo, it is still not very visible to the average visitor. Based on the zoos themselves and their online presence one would never guess that Burgers’ Zoo gives more money to in situ conservation than all other Dutch zoos combined.
Burgers' Mangrove which is a replica of some of the habitats the zoo is protecting in Belize and it's main tool of conservation communication. (Picture by @lintworm )
Currently the zoo sponsors two big projects, which are funded long term, alongside a number of smaller projects. The two main projects: conservation in Belize through the ITCF and the future for nature foundation, are each funded with several 100.000 euros per year and have been supported since 1989 and 2008 respectively. Both projects also have a contract with the zoo that will annually see 800.000 euros flow to both projects combined for the coming 10 years. Future for Nature is an organisation that hands out a yearly award to 3 young conservationists, with 50.000 euros prize money for their own projects, as well as helping them to increase their visibility/impact. It also serves as a networking organisation for these people.
That conservation was long a pet project of the director is still visible in how Burgers’ Zoo is organised. Alex van Hooff, the current director of Burgers’ Zoo (and son of Antoon) is a member of the board of directors for both the ITCF and Future for Nature. Only in recent years, involvement in conservation projects was widened to another senior staff member. But the zoo does not employ anyone who works full time on conservation. It is also interesting to see how the work in Belize is organised. While ITCF is a foundation based in the Netherlands, Switzerland and the US, its main role is providing funding and advice. The protected areas in Belize are all owned by a Belizean NGO, whose main funder (by far) is the ITCF, though Alex van Hooff is also on the board of directors there. This is an interesting mechanism, as it ensures funding is well spent, while the day-to-day work is still all done by Belizeans.
As a private zoo, Burgers’ Zoo does not get any subsidies and it has an interesting, but not unique, way of getting a substantial amount of money for conservation. Income from lotteries appears to be a main way to fund conservation projects, in 2022 that was nearly 300.000 euros. By playing with certain lotteries people can choose a charity they want to support and at least 40% of their ticket goes to a charity of choice. Many other Dutch zoos also receive some money from this lottery system, but choose to invest this in the zoo itself. As a family owned private business, Burgers’ Zoo is not a charity as such, but as with all other Dutch zoos its conservation work is done through a charity that is very closely linked to the zoo itself (though in cases where the zoo is a charity itself, this is often not separated). How much of the rest of the conservation funding comes directly from Burgers' zoo is unclear, but donations from third parties will also play a role.
Yucatan spider monkey, one of the species for which re-introduction efforts in Belize are supported. (Picture by @Therabu )
Apart from the two main projects another 100.000 euros goes to wildlife rehabilitation projects in Belize. And in addition multiple smaller projects are supported on a one off basis, such as pangolin conservation. In fact conservation projects can apply for a one time fund from the Burgers’ Zoo Conservation Foundation. But as is more often the case, finding out that this is a possibility is not as easily done compared to similar initiatives from other foundations. What is also interesting to note is that a substantial number of conservation projects that are sponsored are rehabilitation centres or breeding centres in the native range. It is debatable whether this is a high impact strategy, but it does get very close to a zoo’s core business and is an area where knowledge transfer is easily done.
Sunda pangolin, one of the species supported by a one off donation of 25.000 euros in 2021. (Picture by @Casuarius_casuarius )
What can other zoos learn from this
Burgers’ Zoo is an interesting one in that it does actually more than what one would expect based on their image. It has found a way to support projects long term, in a way that ensures that there is involvement in how the money is spent. When talking about a lean structure, this is most certainly one.
Contribution to in situ conservation 2021: 1.025.000 euros (1,09 million US dollars)
% of income spent on conservation: ~3% (based on pre-covid numbers)
Burgers’ Zoo is a bit of an outlier when it comes to in situ conservation activities. Contrary to other zoos it long wasn't talkative about it at all. It started when together with Papiliorama in Switzerland Burgers' Zoo started a charity, the ITCF, to conserve a piece of rainforest in Belize back in 1989. At the time both zoos had just opened their own tropical hall and the directors agreed to also do something for a real rainforest. Up to this day it thus helps protect over 400 square kilometres of tropical rainforest and mangroves and saved it from destruction. For many years this was more or less a pet project of then director Antoon van Hooff. Until a few years ago, the zoo did a very good job in underselling what they were doing with regards to in situ conservation, as communication was almost non-existent. In 2017 it opened Burgers’ Mangrove, which is based on the conservation area which they help protect and only then did the PR and education work pick up. But even when the Mangrove served as a catalysator to spread the conservation word in the zoo, it is still not very visible to the average visitor. Based on the zoos themselves and their online presence one would never guess that Burgers’ Zoo gives more money to in situ conservation than all other Dutch zoos combined.
Burgers' Mangrove which is a replica of some of the habitats the zoo is protecting in Belize and it's main tool of conservation communication. (Picture by @lintworm )
Currently the zoo sponsors two big projects, which are funded long term, alongside a number of smaller projects. The two main projects: conservation in Belize through the ITCF and the future for nature foundation, are each funded with several 100.000 euros per year and have been supported since 1989 and 2008 respectively. Both projects also have a contract with the zoo that will annually see 800.000 euros flow to both projects combined for the coming 10 years. Future for Nature is an organisation that hands out a yearly award to 3 young conservationists, with 50.000 euros prize money for their own projects, as well as helping them to increase their visibility/impact. It also serves as a networking organisation for these people.
That conservation was long a pet project of the director is still visible in how Burgers’ Zoo is organised. Alex van Hooff, the current director of Burgers’ Zoo (and son of Antoon) is a member of the board of directors for both the ITCF and Future for Nature. Only in recent years, involvement in conservation projects was widened to another senior staff member. But the zoo does not employ anyone who works full time on conservation. It is also interesting to see how the work in Belize is organised. While ITCF is a foundation based in the Netherlands, Switzerland and the US, its main role is providing funding and advice. The protected areas in Belize are all owned by a Belizean NGO, whose main funder (by far) is the ITCF, though Alex van Hooff is also on the board of directors there. This is an interesting mechanism, as it ensures funding is well spent, while the day-to-day work is still all done by Belizeans.
As a private zoo, Burgers’ Zoo does not get any subsidies and it has an interesting, but not unique, way of getting a substantial amount of money for conservation. Income from lotteries appears to be a main way to fund conservation projects, in 2022 that was nearly 300.000 euros. By playing with certain lotteries people can choose a charity they want to support and at least 40% of their ticket goes to a charity of choice. Many other Dutch zoos also receive some money from this lottery system, but choose to invest this in the zoo itself. As a family owned private business, Burgers’ Zoo is not a charity as such, but as with all other Dutch zoos its conservation work is done through a charity that is very closely linked to the zoo itself (though in cases where the zoo is a charity itself, this is often not separated). How much of the rest of the conservation funding comes directly from Burgers' zoo is unclear, but donations from third parties will also play a role.
Yucatan spider monkey, one of the species for which re-introduction efforts in Belize are supported. (Picture by @Therabu )
Apart from the two main projects another 100.000 euros goes to wildlife rehabilitation projects in Belize. And in addition multiple smaller projects are supported on a one off basis, such as pangolin conservation. In fact conservation projects can apply for a one time fund from the Burgers’ Zoo Conservation Foundation. But as is more often the case, finding out that this is a possibility is not as easily done compared to similar initiatives from other foundations. What is also interesting to note is that a substantial number of conservation projects that are sponsored are rehabilitation centres or breeding centres in the native range. It is debatable whether this is a high impact strategy, but it does get very close to a zoo’s core business and is an area where knowledge transfer is easily done.
Sunda pangolin, one of the species supported by a one off donation of 25.000 euros in 2021. (Picture by @Casuarius_casuarius )
What can other zoos learn from this
- Supporting conservation is so much more than fine PR
- It would however help to build a PR machine so you can effectively communicate results through education and other messaging
- Lotteries can be a good source of income, though results can differ from year to year
- Long term commitment is important, as is involvement in how projects are ran even if you don’t have a conservation organisation on the ground
Burgers’ Zoo is an interesting one in that it does actually more than what one would expect based on their image. It has found a way to support projects long term, in a way that ensures that there is involvement in how the money is spent. When talking about a lean structure, this is most certainly one.
What zoos can do for conservation; Part IV Zoo Dresden
Contribution to in situ conservation 2021: 240.000 euros (252.944 US dollars)
% of income spent on conservation: ~3%
In 2016 Zoo Basel started a new trend that enabled zoos to increase their income for in situ conservation purposes, while it doesn’t cost the zoo itself anything. It introduced a Naturschutzfranke (nature protection CHF), which meant that ticket prices were voluntarily topped up with 1 CHF (or 1,50 CHF for annual passes) and this money was then set aside for in situ conservation. This principle was quickly copied by many other central European zoos and has significantly increased in situ conservation participation. This is particularly noteworthy as Germany (as well as Wroclaw and Prague), where many zoos have copied this approach, did fall far behind the UK when it comes to donating money for conservation purposes. As most zoos in Germany aren’t charities or private companies, but owned by the city, sending money abroad was not a top priority.
Where it all started: Zoo Basel. (Picture by @Baldur )
Zoo Dresden is a key example of a zoo that has used this approach to great advantage. It introduced an Artenschutzeuro (species conservation euro) in December 2018 and in the following three years it raised close to 900.000 euros, which is a significant amount for a mid-sized city-owned zoo not known for its economical prowess. As such the Artenschutzeuro is an easy way for any zoo to increase their conservation contribution. As (at least in theory) it is done on a voluntary basis, people when paying are made aware they can make a direct conservation contribution. In Dresden apparently 90% of people say yes. This means you have automatically reached a large public in making them aware that visiting a zoo means you also support conservation. Most important is probably that the money raised via such a scheme would otherwise never be used for conservation purposes.
Snow leopard, one of the main projects that was sponsored in Dresden. (Picture by @JAMESTHEGREAT )
Raising money is however just the first step when it comes to supporting in situ conservation. It also has to be spent in a meaningful way. This is where there is enough to gain still, as apart from raising money and selecting a few projects this is where the involvement stops. Most zoos with an Artenschutzeuro spend the money they get on a large number of projects. Dresden supported 14 different projects, three of those were worth 35.000 euros, but some only 2.000. In comparison the smallest contribution of Burgers’ Zoo to a single project was 25.000 . It is also unclear whether zoos make long term choices with their money or that they just spend money or that they live more in the moment. It is too early to tell, but based on several zoos that have introduced this measure, they tend to support a similar set of projects over the years. What is however clear is that zoos with an Artenschutzeuro tend to play safe and only support conservation projects that have long seen support from zoos. This includes Sphenisco, for Humboldt penguins in Peru, but also the Snow Leopard Trust and the Red Panda Network. Zoos really aren’t that original, but as conservation is still an extra, it is no surprise they opt for “easy”. Whether any of these zoos has a real capacity to check if the money is well spent is unclear, but it is likely limited. This is where future gains are still necessary as conservation doesn’t stop when the money is raised. Effective mechanisms to check spending and make good choices as to which projects to support could increase the impact. If it is just raising money and donating it, you could still argue that it is conservation in name only.
Humboldt penguins are one of the favourite conservation projects of German zoos via the organisation Sphenisco. (Picture by @RonBurrgundy )
What can other zoos learn from this
The Artenschutzeuro is a success for a reason and I personally expect we will see an increasing number of zoos adopting this measure. It is cheap for the zoo itself, but has the potential to raise significant funds for in situ conservation. Conservation is however not “done” if you just donate money, in the future zoos will need to develop a framework to effectively check whether the money is used well.
Contribution to in situ conservation 2021: 240.000 euros (252.944 US dollars)
% of income spent on conservation: ~3%
In 2016 Zoo Basel started a new trend that enabled zoos to increase their income for in situ conservation purposes, while it doesn’t cost the zoo itself anything. It introduced a Naturschutzfranke (nature protection CHF), which meant that ticket prices were voluntarily topped up with 1 CHF (or 1,50 CHF for annual passes) and this money was then set aside for in situ conservation. This principle was quickly copied by many other central European zoos and has significantly increased in situ conservation participation. This is particularly noteworthy as Germany (as well as Wroclaw and Prague), where many zoos have copied this approach, did fall far behind the UK when it comes to donating money for conservation purposes. As most zoos in Germany aren’t charities or private companies, but owned by the city, sending money abroad was not a top priority.
Where it all started: Zoo Basel. (Picture by @Baldur )
Zoo Dresden is a key example of a zoo that has used this approach to great advantage. It introduced an Artenschutzeuro (species conservation euro) in December 2018 and in the following three years it raised close to 900.000 euros, which is a significant amount for a mid-sized city-owned zoo not known for its economical prowess. As such the Artenschutzeuro is an easy way for any zoo to increase their conservation contribution. As (at least in theory) it is done on a voluntary basis, people when paying are made aware they can make a direct conservation contribution. In Dresden apparently 90% of people say yes. This means you have automatically reached a large public in making them aware that visiting a zoo means you also support conservation. Most important is probably that the money raised via such a scheme would otherwise never be used for conservation purposes.
Snow leopard, one of the main projects that was sponsored in Dresden. (Picture by @JAMESTHEGREAT )
Raising money is however just the first step when it comes to supporting in situ conservation. It also has to be spent in a meaningful way. This is where there is enough to gain still, as apart from raising money and selecting a few projects this is where the involvement stops. Most zoos with an Artenschutzeuro spend the money they get on a large number of projects. Dresden supported 14 different projects, three of those were worth 35.000 euros, but some only 2.000. In comparison the smallest contribution of Burgers’ Zoo to a single project was 25.000 . It is also unclear whether zoos make long term choices with their money or that they just spend money or that they live more in the moment. It is too early to tell, but based on several zoos that have introduced this measure, they tend to support a similar set of projects over the years. What is however clear is that zoos with an Artenschutzeuro tend to play safe and only support conservation projects that have long seen support from zoos. This includes Sphenisco, for Humboldt penguins in Peru, but also the Snow Leopard Trust and the Red Panda Network. Zoos really aren’t that original, but as conservation is still an extra, it is no surprise they opt for “easy”. Whether any of these zoos has a real capacity to check if the money is well spent is unclear, but it is likely limited. This is where future gains are still necessary as conservation doesn’t stop when the money is raised. Effective mechanisms to check spending and make good choices as to which projects to support could increase the impact. If it is just raising money and donating it, you could still argue that it is conservation in name only.
Humboldt penguins are one of the favourite conservation projects of German zoos via the organisation Sphenisco. (Picture by @RonBurrgundy )
What can other zoos learn from this
- Artenschutzeuro as an easy way to increase funding for conservation
- It is also an easy measure to inform guests on conservation
- Conservation does however not stop with getting the funds
The Artenschutzeuro is a success for a reason and I personally expect we will see an increasing number of zoos adopting this measure. It is cheap for the zoo itself, but has the potential to raise significant funds for in situ conservation. Conservation is however not “done” if you just donate money, in the future zoos will need to develop a framework to effectively check whether the money is used well.
An interesting alternative to the Artenschutzeuro was developed in the small zoo of Calviac : for each entrance, it is explicitly explained that 1€ goes for conservation. There is a small piece of the ticket that can be unattached and is used to "vote" for one of the conservation program supported by the zoo.
One downside could be that everyone support the large and popular specie but zoos tend do that anyhow and the fact that the voting boxes are transparent allow visitors to see previous choices of other visitors. It has the interesting consequence to push people to decide if they should support the already well funded program for the flagship specie or rather equilibrate contribution by donating to the more obscure specie.
One downside could be that everyone support the large and popular specie but zoos tend do that anyhow and the fact that the voting boxes are transparent allow visitors to see previous choices of other visitors. It has the interesting consequence to push people to decide if they should support the already well funded program for the flagship specie or rather equilibrate contribution by donating to the more obscure specie.
This is already done at several zoos in the U.S. albeit for a smaller price (25 cents) which goes by the name Quarters for Conservation. When I worked at Florida I have seen the downside you brought up firsthand, with out of three species at the time (gibbons, hickatee, rattlesnakes) people always went with gibbons. In addition I (and probably some of my coworkers) have heard people say a “dead rattlesnake is a good rattlesnake” . What I mean to say by this is in addition to choosing charismatic species over anything else, people will avoid donating to stigmatized species.
Quarters for Conservation is one great, similar program some US Zoos are doing. I've also been to a few zoos that will do "round up" for conservation with ticket prices, gift shop purchases, etc., where you are asked if you'd like to round up your purchase to the nearest dollar to support conservation programs. Sure, you're collecting mere change from people, but even the tiny bits add up and I'd expect there's a high percentage of people that say "yes" to it due to the small cost.
The Boise Zoo in Idaho has something akin to the Naturschutzfranke as well, which began in 2007 - so almost a decade prior to Basel apparently. It introduced a "conservation fee" of US $0.75 with every admission ticket. I remember reading about it and wondering why more zoos aren't doing this, as it doesn't require a huge increase to ticket costs and it's a very easy way to raise more in a direct and transparent way.
Nikola Chavkoski
Well-Known Member
Would be great, if a zoo or a zoo organisation, for example, buy large area of forest where the critically endangered tenkile is present in Papua New Guinea (in a very restricted area), if possible at all, to protect the remaining forest from logging as well as to employ some people as rangers there and a man there who will supervise the situation on place and will report back to the zoo. Like the large comercial companies that buy land in tropics for palm oil plantation, zoos can also buy virgin forests in the tropics. That is a double win; Money is spent for conservation, but the forest remains in their ownership. Doing this, they conserve all species living in the purchased land. If let say, if 1m2 of forest land in Papua New Guinea can be purchased for 0.5 €/1m2, then 1 milion euro will be enough for 200 hectares (2,000,000m2) of forest. And with so much money in zoos hands, I don't know why they are waiting and not buying tropical forests like logging companies do.
They can also lobby to rich man like Bill Gates, to convince him to buy tropical land only to preserve it against logging. So, please Mr. Gates, if you are reading this, can you please buy tropical forests in restricted areas like in New Guinea, to conserve it?
Or, in a collaboration with Malaysian government, to start a project for intensive captive breeding of local wild deer and hog species, that will be continuosly released in Malayan tiger habitat, as food to support growing of the population of Malayan tigers and other carnivores. Because carnivore populations thrive when there is an abundance of pray animals, and population numbers of tigers in dense jungles tend to be lower than in mixed forest-and-open 'savanah'-areas in India where more pray animals are present.
They can also lobby to rich man like Bill Gates, to convince him to buy tropical land only to preserve it against logging. So, please Mr. Gates, if you are reading this, can you please buy tropical forests in restricted areas like in New Guinea, to conserve it?
Or, in a collaboration with Malaysian government, to start a project for intensive captive breeding of local wild deer and hog species, that will be continuosly released in Malayan tiger habitat, as food to support growing of the population of Malayan tigers and other carnivores. Because carnivore populations thrive when there is an abundance of pray animals, and population numbers of tigers in dense jungles tend to be lower than in mixed forest-and-open 'savanah'-areas in India where more pray animals are present.
Last edited:
Perhaps try someone easier to convince? Jimmy Donaldson, maybe?Would be great, if a zoo or a zoo organisation, for example, buy large area of forest where the critically endangered tenkile is present in Papua New Guinea (in a very restricted area), if possible at all, to protect the remaining forest from logging as well as to employ some people as rangers there and a man there who will supervise the situation on place and will report back to the zoo. Like the large comercial companies that buy land in tropics for palm oil plantation, zoos can also buy virgin forests in the tropics. That is a double win; Money is spent for conservation, but the forest remains in their ownership. Doing this, they conserve all species living in the purchased land. If let say, if 1m2 of forest land in Papua New Guinea can be purchased for 0.5 €/1m2, then 1 milion euro will be enough for 200 hectares (2,000,000m2) of forest. And with so much money in zoos hands, I don't know why they are waiting and not buying tropical forests like logging companies do.
They can also lobby to rich man like Bill Gates, to convince him to buy tropical land only to preserve it against logging. So, please Mr. Gates, if you are reading this, can you please buy tropical forests in restricted areas like in New Guinea, to conserve it?
Or, in a collaboration with Malaysian government, to start a project for intensive captive breeding of local wild deer and hog species, that will be continuosly released in Malayan tiger habitat, as food to support growing of the population of Malayan tigers and other carnivores. Because carnivore populations thrive when there is an abundance of pray animals, and population numbers of tigers in dense jungles tend to be lower than in mixed forest-and-open 'savanah'-areas in India where more pray animals are present.
So much for believing a zoo website that claims they are the first with something
. I tell others not to believe them at first sight, but I still fall into the same trap apparently Interesting read! I hope you are aware that "how to raise more money" is only one part of the chain leading to conservation (or not). Other parts can have the same or more effect on whether animals survive and recover or not.
How to select projects is one example. Cologne zoo, for example, seems to support projects which are more research than conservation. More knowledge of black-footed cat is valuable, but arguably not the direct impact on survival of any critically rare species. On the other hand, zoos are often constrained by what people they have, and what are their personal contacts and interests.
How the money is spent on the ground is another question, another is how the effect is measured or measurable. Some conservancies in Poland have very measurable plans e.g. that numbers of European bison should grow by 70% and its range by 500% for example.
How to select projects is one example. Cologne zoo, for example, seems to support projects which are more research than conservation. More knowledge of black-footed cat is valuable, but arguably not the direct impact on survival of any critically rare species. On the other hand, zoos are often constrained by what people they have, and what are their personal contacts and interests.
How the money is spent on the ground is another question, another is how the effect is measured or measurable. Some conservancies in Poland have very measurable plans e.g. that numbers of European bison should grow by 70% and its range by 500% for example.
I think I have stated that in most accounts, such as here:
And it will be further covered in a following post.
What zoos can do for conservation; Part V Bioparc Doue-la-Fontaine
Contribution to in situ conservation 2021: 321.352 euros (346.498 US dollars / 283.387 pounds)
% of income spent on conservation: ?
The Bioparc de Doue-la-Fontaine is a strange beast in the European zoo world. Among zoo enthusiasts it is very famous due to its large aviaries and unique use of the quarries it is located in and regarded as one of Europe’s best. But for regular visitors it is easily overshadowed by Beauval, just 100 km east, which is a more complete zoo. 2022 was an absolute record year for both zoos, but where Beauval welcomed over 2 million visitors, Doue received 275.000 visitors. How such a good zoo can manage to remain so innovative, with such a limited budget and low visitor numbers is surprising. That it has simultaneously been able to set up a conservation fund that manages to raise 500.000 euros in 2022, an increase of 55% compared to 2021 is also remarkable. It shows you don’t have to be a big zoo or part of a large organisation to be able to raise significant funds for conservation purposes.
A flagship species for Bioparc Conservation Fund is the spectacled bear which is protected in the Chapparri Private Conservation Area in Peru, sponsored with 120.000 euros in 2022. (Picture by @Therabu )
While the Bioparc is a relative overachiever, far from all the money that goes to nature conservation comes from the zoo itself. In 2022 147.993 euros came from the zoo itself, the other 70% came from other sources, though including the zoo shop and the zoo founder Pierre Gay. A significant part of that comes from other zoos, in 2022 ±25 zoos donated money to the Bioparc Conservation Fund. This is one strategy for zoos that themselves lack the ability to successfully implement conservation projects. This is a common strategy and the conservation funds of zoos like Beauval, Loro Parque, Edinburgh and the Aspinall parks also are aided by funds from other zoos.
One of the signature projects of the Bioparc is protection of the West African giraffe* in Niger, which has been supported since 2001. (Picture by @robreintjes )
But that is only part of the picture, the list of donors to the Bioparc Conservation Fund shows how zoos can tap into money that would otherwise not be used for conservation. The list includes a number of local companies from distilleries, to castles and carpenters. These are companies that you normally wouldn’t see donating to conservation, but they do it through the local zoo. Zoos are still unique cultural institutions that often have a strong position in their home city or region and are often the most visited touristic site (theme parks and major tourist cities excluded). Local pride plays a role and while donating money to the zoo itself is less common, though it happens regularly with crowdfunding for new exhibits. Donating to charity is something else, where charitable donations being tax-friendly probably also helps. If there is anything that zoos can do to exploit their advantages for in situ conservation funding, it is to mobilise their hinterland. Running a zoo is not a business with large margins, and those margins need to be re-invested quickly to stay attractive and to maintain animal welfare. So finding funds outside the zoo will in many cases be the most realistic option to significantly increase conservation funding if you don’t charge visitors extra for conservation. Which is something Bioparc Doue also does, but it is already hidden in the ticket price and not an optional extra. In 2022 the Bioparc Conservation fund received ±55.000 euros from private individuals and a total of 224.344 euros from 26 zoos and 53 local (36) and national (17) enterprises. Rounding numbers up in the gift shop only yielded 2.517 euros, so you need a big gift shop to use it as a real source of conservation income.
Red-fronted macaw are just one example of the many species which are kept in Doue and supported in situ. (Picture by @Therabu )
Where the Bioparc also does a good job is communicating in detail how much money was raised, how it was spent and what impact was realised in the field. A lengthy, but very interesting brochure is prepared yearly and could be used as an example on how other zoos could (or maybe should) also document what they do with in situ conservation.
While Bioparc Doue is an overachiever, it is far from the only one, but it is one for which it was easy to find the right numbers. Papiliorama in Kerzers, Switzerland, is also heavily involved in conservation in Belize in partnership with Burgers’ Zoo, but its monetary contribution is unclear. Another overachiever that deserves attention is Nordens Ark in Sweden. It is a relatively small zoo when it comes to visitor numbers, but its conservation focus is pronounced. It is also looking for alternative modes of funding and a 3-year project paid by a Swedish lottery through Nordens ark towards the Red Panda Network is worth ±350.000 euros. That alone is more than most European zoos contribute to conservation, but it isn’t even the only project supported.
What can other zoos learn from this
.
*note for nitpickers, yes, these are Kordofan giraffe on the picture, I know, thank you for pointing it out
Contribution to in situ conservation 2021: 321.352 euros (346.498 US dollars / 283.387 pounds)
% of income spent on conservation: ?
The Bioparc de Doue-la-Fontaine is a strange beast in the European zoo world. Among zoo enthusiasts it is very famous due to its large aviaries and unique use of the quarries it is located in and regarded as one of Europe’s best. But for regular visitors it is easily overshadowed by Beauval, just 100 km east, which is a more complete zoo. 2022 was an absolute record year for both zoos, but where Beauval welcomed over 2 million visitors, Doue received 275.000 visitors. How such a good zoo can manage to remain so innovative, with such a limited budget and low visitor numbers is surprising. That it has simultaneously been able to set up a conservation fund that manages to raise 500.000 euros in 2022, an increase of 55% compared to 2021 is also remarkable. It shows you don’t have to be a big zoo or part of a large organisation to be able to raise significant funds for conservation purposes.
A flagship species for Bioparc Conservation Fund is the spectacled bear which is protected in the Chapparri Private Conservation Area in Peru, sponsored with 120.000 euros in 2022. (Picture by @Therabu )
While the Bioparc is a relative overachiever, far from all the money that goes to nature conservation comes from the zoo itself. In 2022 147.993 euros came from the zoo itself, the other 70% came from other sources, though including the zoo shop and the zoo founder Pierre Gay. A significant part of that comes from other zoos, in 2022 ±25 zoos donated money to the Bioparc Conservation Fund. This is one strategy for zoos that themselves lack the ability to successfully implement conservation projects. This is a common strategy and the conservation funds of zoos like Beauval, Loro Parque, Edinburgh and the Aspinall parks also are aided by funds from other zoos.
One of the signature projects of the Bioparc is protection of the West African giraffe* in Niger, which has been supported since 2001. (Picture by @robreintjes )
But that is only part of the picture, the list of donors to the Bioparc Conservation Fund shows how zoos can tap into money that would otherwise not be used for conservation. The list includes a number of local companies from distilleries, to castles and carpenters. These are companies that you normally wouldn’t see donating to conservation, but they do it through the local zoo. Zoos are still unique cultural institutions that often have a strong position in their home city or region and are often the most visited touristic site (theme parks and major tourist cities excluded). Local pride plays a role and while donating money to the zoo itself is less common, though it happens regularly with crowdfunding for new exhibits. Donating to charity is something else, where charitable donations being tax-friendly probably also helps. If there is anything that zoos can do to exploit their advantages for in situ conservation funding, it is to mobilise their hinterland. Running a zoo is not a business with large margins, and those margins need to be re-invested quickly to stay attractive and to maintain animal welfare. So finding funds outside the zoo will in many cases be the most realistic option to significantly increase conservation funding if you don’t charge visitors extra for conservation. Which is something Bioparc Doue also does, but it is already hidden in the ticket price and not an optional extra. In 2022 the Bioparc Conservation fund received ±55.000 euros from private individuals and a total of 224.344 euros from 26 zoos and 53 local (36) and national (17) enterprises. Rounding numbers up in the gift shop only yielded 2.517 euros, so you need a big gift shop to use it as a real source of conservation income.
Red-fronted macaw are just one example of the many species which are kept in Doue and supported in situ. (Picture by @Therabu )
Where the Bioparc also does a good job is communicating in detail how much money was raised, how it was spent and what impact was realised in the field. A lengthy, but very interesting brochure is prepared yearly and could be used as an example on how other zoos could (or maybe should) also document what they do with in situ conservation.
While Bioparc Doue is an overachiever, it is far from the only one, but it is one for which it was easy to find the right numbers. Papiliorama in Kerzers, Switzerland, is also heavily involved in conservation in Belize in partnership with Burgers’ Zoo, but its monetary contribution is unclear. Another overachiever that deserves attention is Nordens Ark in Sweden. It is a relatively small zoo when it comes to visitor numbers, but its conservation focus is pronounced. It is also looking for alternative modes of funding and a 3-year project paid by a Swedish lottery through Nordens ark towards the Red Panda Network is worth ±350.000 euros. That alone is more than most European zoos contribute to conservation, but it isn’t even the only project supported.
What can other zoos learn from this
- You don’t need to be a big zoo to have a big impact
- Zoos should use their local roots to their advantage
- Cooperation between zoos is a good option to increase impact in the field
.*note for nitpickers, yes, these are Kordofan giraffe on the picture, I know, thank you for pointing it out
A small thing you are undoubtedly aware of is that some partly zoo-based conservation programs require a membership contribution for zoos to join the program. Paying such a membership fee is indeed a very easy (too easy?) strategy for zoos do contribute to conservation. On the other hand however, it is also reliable and 'safe', and therefore it becomes relatively easy to convince board members, financial directors, and others support a project. We tend to look at zoos as if it was a single being, but within every zoo there are forces that push for increased contribution to conservation, research, and education, and forces that push against it.
This is probably also one reason why the Artenschutzeuro and the Quarters for Conservation work well: the money, from the second it comes in, is already set apart for conservation, no struggles with other departments necessary.
I am indeed aware of that and some EEPs even require zoos to donate/become a member of an in situ conservation project, such as with the okapi EEP. But you raise a good point in that setting money aside for conservation within the zoo is can also be a struggle.
What zoos can do for conservation; Part VI Artis
Contribution to in situ conservation 2021: 47.118 euros max. (51.074 US dollars / 42.233 pounds)
% of income spent on conservation: 0.20% max. (pre-covid 2019: 0,14%)
While having seen some examples of how zoos can have a meaningful impact, they are still in the minority. It is not just smaller zoos or ones in poorer countries that do not invest in in-situ conservation, it does include some of the most famous zoos too. A clear example is Artis in Amsterdam, which in 2021 spent 47.118 euros on “nature conservation and sustainability”. This means that the real sum of money that went to in situ conservation is likely smaller. If for now we assume that all of this money did go to conservation, it is still an awful small amount, which accounts for 0.2% of the total revenue of Artis in 2021. As a comparison, the salary + pension + housing of the director alone cost Artis 4.4x the amount spent on conservation. Artis spent 1.5x as much on postage as on in situ conservation and more than 11x as much on ICT. It spent less on in situ conservation than on 1 average employee (based on 1 fte = 60.728 euros according to their annual report). Apart from supporting in situ conservation, the conservation message in Artis now solely revolves around breeding programmes and re-introductions of spadefoot toads, griffon vultures and Partula snails.
For an organisation that claims that “nature conservation goes without saying for a modern zoo” it apparently is not a modern zoo itself. It supported 8 projects throughout the world, but with a maximum average financial contribution of just over 4.000 euros per project, it is doubtful whether Artis has much of an impact. This type of nice talking, but no real action comes awfully close to the definition of greenwashing which means that you pretend to be greener than you actually are. While Artis is not Shell, it does not look good for an organisation that has a potentially important role in supporting conservation and awareness raising. Knives are always being sharpened against zoos by animal rights activists, often with minimal effect. But zoos should take such critics seriously and make sure you are always one step ahead, so zoos cannot be seriously attacked. It also helps in ensuring that you do your best to fulfil your mission. Zoos like Artis make other zoos an easy target in claiming that zoos contribute little to conservation. Too long have zoos rested on the laurels of saving a few dozen species ex situ and while still a great communication tool that is not enough. In situ conservation is of course not only meaningful because society demands it. Zoos are usually staffed with people with a passion for animals and nature, so it is also the right thing to do. Supporting in situ conservation might not bring direct benefits to a zoo, but if you care about it, it is the best way to ensure there will still be wildlife in the future. If zoos can strongly make this claim, it will increase the chance they will still be there in the future to make the next generation of conservationists fall in love with nature.
Scimitar-horned oryx were saved by captive breeding, but you can't keep on celebrating success from the past. (Picture by @Julio C Castro )
It is however genuinely hard for a zoo to start investing meaningfully in in situ conservation. A zoo operation is traditionally fully organised around giving people (with children) a fun and meaningful day out while maintaining optimal animal welfare. In situ conservation is traditionally placed outside it, but Jersey and Zurich are good examples as to how conservation can be brought to the zoo. I would argue that a lack of money is not the real problem for most zoos to invest, even while they might claim so. It is a lack of vision, knowledge and framework to operate in. Everything starts with a proper vision and if a zoo deems in situ conservation really important. It needs to describe in a strategy how this will be realised. But to do so successfully zoos will need to learn from each other how to set up additional income streams and a structure through which money is allocated to the right projects. Checking on the ground that money is well spent is equally important. These are all things an average zoo seems to lack, which starts with prioritisation and lack of right people.
As a green park in the middle of a city, Artis is a great place to connect with nature, but not yet to connect with conservation. (Picture by @JamesB )
For a zoo like Artis this should be relatively easy to fix, but it would need to adapt the current mission and vision statements which focus almost completely on bringing people closer to nature in the zoo. This means that some sort of change is necessary in the higher management. Once that is done, a place like Artis should be able to afford an employee tasked solely with conservation, given the surpluses it already has in a normal year (They can hire me for example). Then the real work begins with allocating money, finding additional income streams and selecting which projects to support and how. As Zurich shows it can be beneficial to attach yourself to a project run by another conservation organisation like the WCS so you don’t need to build everything from scratch. Choosing conservation projects is also related to how the zoo is developed. For a zoo like Artis a species approach would make more sense, as the zoo isn’t divided into geographically ordered zones. Artis already focuses on in situ conservation for species important to the zoo such as black-footed penguin and Argentine wildlife. Lessons from Zurich, Durrell and Burgers’ Zoo can then be applied to ensure that money is spent correctly.
African penguins in South Africa are an obvious choice for Artis to invest more money in. (Picture by @Jogy )
Artis is singled out here, but at least it does support in situ conservation at all and did not scrap that funding in COVID times. There are plenty of zoos that fail to mention conservation at all on their websites and if they do focus solely on captive breeding programs. The next post will be an overview of the zoos for which I DID find a number for in situ conservation contribution. For only 71 zoos (or zoo organisations such as Zoological Society of London) was I able to find a somewhat reliable figure. This includes the majority of top zoos, but there are some notable omissions.
Contribution to in situ conservation 2021: 47.118 euros max. (51.074 US dollars / 42.233 pounds)
% of income spent on conservation: 0.20% max. (pre-covid 2019: 0,14%)
While having seen some examples of how zoos can have a meaningful impact, they are still in the minority. It is not just smaller zoos or ones in poorer countries that do not invest in in-situ conservation, it does include some of the most famous zoos too. A clear example is Artis in Amsterdam, which in 2021 spent 47.118 euros on “nature conservation and sustainability”. This means that the real sum of money that went to in situ conservation is likely smaller. If for now we assume that all of this money did go to conservation, it is still an awful small amount, which accounts for 0.2% of the total revenue of Artis in 2021. As a comparison, the salary + pension + housing of the director alone cost Artis 4.4x the amount spent on conservation. Artis spent 1.5x as much on postage as on in situ conservation and more than 11x as much on ICT. It spent less on in situ conservation than on 1 average employee (based on 1 fte = 60.728 euros according to their annual report). Apart from supporting in situ conservation, the conservation message in Artis now solely revolves around breeding programmes and re-introductions of spadefoot toads, griffon vultures and Partula snails.
For an organisation that claims that “nature conservation goes without saying for a modern zoo” it apparently is not a modern zoo itself. It supported 8 projects throughout the world, but with a maximum average financial contribution of just over 4.000 euros per project, it is doubtful whether Artis has much of an impact. This type of nice talking, but no real action comes awfully close to the definition of greenwashing which means that you pretend to be greener than you actually are. While Artis is not Shell, it does not look good for an organisation that has a potentially important role in supporting conservation and awareness raising. Knives are always being sharpened against zoos by animal rights activists, often with minimal effect. But zoos should take such critics seriously and make sure you are always one step ahead, so zoos cannot be seriously attacked. It also helps in ensuring that you do your best to fulfil your mission. Zoos like Artis make other zoos an easy target in claiming that zoos contribute little to conservation. Too long have zoos rested on the laurels of saving a few dozen species ex situ and while still a great communication tool that is not enough. In situ conservation is of course not only meaningful because society demands it. Zoos are usually staffed with people with a passion for animals and nature, so it is also the right thing to do. Supporting in situ conservation might not bring direct benefits to a zoo, but if you care about it, it is the best way to ensure there will still be wildlife in the future. If zoos can strongly make this claim, it will increase the chance they will still be there in the future to make the next generation of conservationists fall in love with nature.
Scimitar-horned oryx were saved by captive breeding, but you can't keep on celebrating success from the past. (Picture by @Julio C Castro )
It is however genuinely hard for a zoo to start investing meaningfully in in situ conservation. A zoo operation is traditionally fully organised around giving people (with children) a fun and meaningful day out while maintaining optimal animal welfare. In situ conservation is traditionally placed outside it, but Jersey and Zurich are good examples as to how conservation can be brought to the zoo. I would argue that a lack of money is not the real problem for most zoos to invest, even while they might claim so. It is a lack of vision, knowledge and framework to operate in. Everything starts with a proper vision and if a zoo deems in situ conservation really important. It needs to describe in a strategy how this will be realised. But to do so successfully zoos will need to learn from each other how to set up additional income streams and a structure through which money is allocated to the right projects. Checking on the ground that money is well spent is equally important. These are all things an average zoo seems to lack, which starts with prioritisation and lack of right people.
As a green park in the middle of a city, Artis is a great place to connect with nature, but not yet to connect with conservation. (Picture by @JamesB )
For a zoo like Artis this should be relatively easy to fix, but it would need to adapt the current mission and vision statements which focus almost completely on bringing people closer to nature in the zoo. This means that some sort of change is necessary in the higher management. Once that is done, a place like Artis should be able to afford an employee tasked solely with conservation, given the surpluses it already has in a normal year (They can hire me for example). Then the real work begins with allocating money, finding additional income streams and selecting which projects to support and how. As Zurich shows it can be beneficial to attach yourself to a project run by another conservation organisation like the WCS so you don’t need to build everything from scratch. Choosing conservation projects is also related to how the zoo is developed. For a zoo like Artis a species approach would make more sense, as the zoo isn’t divided into geographically ordered zones. Artis already focuses on in situ conservation for species important to the zoo such as black-footed penguin and Argentine wildlife. Lessons from Zurich, Durrell and Burgers’ Zoo can then be applied to ensure that money is spent correctly.
African penguins in South Africa are an obvious choice for Artis to invest more money in. (Picture by @Jogy )
Artis is singled out here, but at least it does support in situ conservation at all and did not scrap that funding in COVID times. There are plenty of zoos that fail to mention conservation at all on their websites and if they do focus solely on captive breeding programs. The next post will be an overview of the zoos for which I DID find a number for in situ conservation contribution. For only 71 zoos (or zoo organisations such as Zoological Society of London) was I able to find a somewhat reliable figure. This includes the majority of top zoos, but there are some notable omissions.
Let me say this has been an extremely enlightening thread so far that I've been enjoying greatly. I hadn't realized that such a large number of zoos are mostly talk when it comes to conservation, so it's nice to see some highlights of who has really been putting in the work.
Houston provides a really nice overview of their work on their website, supporting 33 projects in total: Conservation Map, The Houston Zoo
I hope you won't mind me briefly highlighting another zoo which has taken a very similar approach to Zurich in it's conservation messaging; Houston. Overt the last several years, the zoo has been implementing their master plan which has led to the creation of exhibit complexes representing regions where they do most of their in-situ conservation work. So far that has included Texas Wetlands, the Pantanal, and in less than two weeks, Galapagos Islands. If they follow their long term master plan, the entire zoo will be composed exclusively of regions where the zoo focuses their conservation efforts. What's being done here and in Zurich is probably the my favorite way of displaying conservation initiatives, as what better way to showcase your conservation work than taking the visitor to the environment where most of the work is being done.What zoos can do for conservation; Part II Zoo Zurich
Contribution to in situ conservation 2021: 2.100.000 CHF (2,11 million euros / 2,27 million US dollars; total spent in 2022: 2,5 million CHF)
% of income spent on conservation 2021: 6.5%
Since the inception of its last masterplan Zoo Zurich has transformed itself into one of the most modern zoos of the continent. Not only development of the zoo grounds was part of this masterplan, but the zoo has also invested significantly in conservation since then. Of all zoos that support in situ conservation, not a single zoo gives more, while not having in situ staff on the ground. While there are some similarities with the Durrell approach, there are also clear differences apart from the lack of in situ staff.
Whereas Durrell has a more species-centric focus, the projects Zurich supports most are focused on conserving whole ecosystems. Not to say that Zurich doesn’t support species-centred conservation projects, which it also does with for example Sumatran orangutans. The ecosystem-centric approach does however clearly fit the lay-out of the Zurcher Zoo and thus makes perfect sense. Most of the zoo is divided into different exhibit complexes, which each represent a real ecosystem somewhere on earth. Unsurprisingly the three signature in situ conservation projects that Zurich support, are replicated in the zoo too under the same name: Masoala in Madagascar, Lewa in Kenya and Kaeng Krachan in Thailand. Every new exhibit complex is partnered with an in situ conservation project.
A red ruffed lemur in the Masoala exhibit in the zoo, which is also a flagship species for the Masoala NP in Madagascar. (Picture by @Glutton )
It is this clear link between exhibit complexes and in situ conservation where the main strength of Zurich lies. Zurich is an expert in designing high-quality exhibits for animals that go together with high quality cultural theming and educational displays. While it is not always extremely obvious, the new animal complexes do integrate conservation issues into their theming, be it wildlife trafficking in the pantanal, human wildlife conflicts in Kaeng Krachan or invasive species in Australia. While cultural theming in many zoos comes in the form of stereotypical temples or mud huts, theming here is not only authentic but has the goal of educating visitors. This is not something every average zoo visitor will note, but for the ones interested it cannot be overlooked. Conserving ecosystems that are also replicated in the zoo, does also make it easier to communicate what the zoo is doing for conservation. A new modern exhibition on conservation in place of the old Madagascar exhibition will further bring in situ conservation to the visitors.
Educational theming on human - elephant conflicts near the Asian elephant exhibit (Picture by @Gil )
That conservation is not only something that is just supported financially abroad, but can also be done in the zoo, is also something that is featured in the newest developments. A behind the scenes bird breeding centre and the planned refurbishment of part of the Exotarium into a research lab underscore this. Additionally it is clear the collection planning is increasingly taking conservation status into account and plenty of endangered species are brought in, including ones that aren’t (yet) part of an official breeding program. It is also clear here that ex situ breeding is most easily achieved with smaller species, such as small birds, reptiles and amphibians.
But for now in situ conservation is still mainly something that is supported financially. Unlike Durrell, Zurich does not have any staff outside of Switzerland and there is currently only one person whose main occupation is conservation. That Zurich does have a curator of conservation is already something most other European zoos cannot say. His role for in situ conservation that the zoo supports, is mainly to check that funds are well used. This also means that Zoo Zurich doesn’t carry its own in situ projects, but works closely together with especially, but certainly not exclusively, the Wildlife Conservation Society and local authorities or national park managements. As setting up your own field team is expensive, this lean approach is something that makes sense for most zoos to do. But it means you do have to oversee whether money is well spent, something other zoos could learn from. The accounts of Zoo Zurich are relatively similar to other central European zoos in that apart from own earnings (roughly 70%) the rest of the money comes from sponsorships and subsidies from the city and Kanton. Zurich is a rich city and a financially healthy zoo, but this should mean that other subsidized zoos could do more for conservation too, without radically changing its income sources. That is, as long as good agreements are made with the financial backers.
Entrance to the Lewa savanna in Zurich. (Picture by @antonmuster )
A final strong point of Zoo Zurich is that it has a clear long-term commitment to the projects it supports. By linking conservation projects to exhibit complexes in the zoo that aren’t going anywhere, this is something that makes sense. Such long-term funding is extremely valuable for local partners which now have financial stability which ensures they can pursue long term goals and have a lasting impact. The Masoala project has for example been supported since 1995 and Kaeng Krachan since 2009.
What can other zoos learn from this?
- Ecosystem-based approach are great links to exhibit complexes
- Zoo education and theming can be used for conservation messaging
- Long term support is valuable
- You cannot just donate money, checks are needed to oversee overseas spending
Zurich is probably the traditional zoo that has gone furthest in transforming into a conservation bulwark without setting up its own in situ conservation team in the field. As such it has some valuable lessons for other zoos that seek to improve their impact. Whether this current model is sustainable or whether zoos will need to become more like Durrell in the future, is another question. But for now most zoos could do with a bit more of the Zurich approach to conservation.
Houston provides a really nice overview of their work on their website, supporting 33 projects in total: Conservation Map, The Houston Zoo
One more thing. I think it's quite difficult to draw a line where ex-situ starts and in-situ stops. Is a rehabilitation center in-situ? What if the center start an ex-situ breeding with non releasable animals?
Another interesting point of the topic is, that some zoos do way to less media presence with their conservation projects while others overstate. (e.g artificial insemination of a southern withe rhino in a zoo is a mile stone for saving rhinos from extinction). Finding the right balance is walk on a tightrope.
Another interesting point of the topic is, that some zoos do way to less media presence with their conservation projects while others overstate. (e.g artificial insemination of a southern withe rhino in a zoo is a mile stone for saving rhinos from extinction). Finding the right balance is walk on a tightrope.
Reading this thread I feel that general condition of the zoo reflects in its role in conservation - some zoos are well run and build great exhibits and have great conservation programs, other can do neither.
Artis is located in a large and rich city with lots of tourists. It should be able to raise far more money on conservation.
For me, Artis seems to have general problems. Some new exhibits are quite strange - poorly designed, substandard or not fit their surroundings. Artis has too many animal exhibits and also a public park, plants, microbes, astronomy and geology - most of these substandard. It seems to pull in far too many directions at once.
Artis is located in a large and rich city with lots of tourists. It should be able to raise far more money on conservation.
For me, Artis seems to have general problems. Some new exhibits are quite strange - poorly designed, substandard or not fit their surroundings. Artis has too many animal exhibits and also a public park, plants, microbes, astronomy and geology - most of these substandard. It seems to pull in far too many directions at once.
ZoologicallyDepraved
Well-Known Member
Woohoo! That's my local zoo!