Zoos and conservation: from greenwashing to impact

[Lafone]

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!

It's worth taking into account that as well as European local species work (see the new plans for Banham for example or the number of scottish wildcat initiatives) other organisations as well as zoos are active in local species conservation in much of Europe. If you look at where zoos should take the lead, outside making local / native conservation a theme you could argue their funds are better spent where there is the most appropriate bang for buck.

There is more money about in non zoo organisations in many European countries than in comparative ones in, for example, some countries in Africa. I've lived and worked in a couple of African countries. I don't claim universal knowledge however they had, in my experience, comparatively few in country funded projects that would be the equivalent of bird, small mammal and countryside conservation in, say, the UK; for starters there is simply less disposable income to draw on from the population as a whole.

Of course there are exceptions but I wonder if zoos are best positioned to take the lead on common wildlife initiatives in many European countries. In the case of rarer animals, breeding programmes etc, it fits with the general mission. But should zoos be contributing to wetlands conservation in the UK and potentially detracting from the work / fund raising of the wetlands trust for example?

Most zoos will have some sort of native species / fauna or flora areas and most zoo websites certainly in the UK speak about the importance of connecting generally with the environment. Education has a purpose too.

 

[lintworm]

I'm really curious about this story.

Nearly 10 years ago I did an internship in Madagascar on snails and invasive plants, which was mostly funded by a small grant from the St. Louis Zoo. The grant allowed me to work there for 4 months and paid for the accomodation, food and the local student & guide who helped me with the research.

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!

Some reasons have been given, but there are two more which I think are important:
- If you look at biodiversity hotspots most of them aren't in Europe, with the exception of the Mediterranean basin, which isn't nearly one of the richest one either when it comes to animals. So if you are looking to invest in saving a piece of land, you can save more species when working in the tropics where species diversity is so much higher and levels of endemism are generally higher too.
- 1 euro gets you much further in Africa than it does in Europe. So with a limited budget you can achieve a much higher impact in a country where labour is so much cheaper.

The way most zoos contribute to conservation in Europe is through captive breeding and reintroduction programs. The most widespread are for vultures, but there are plenty of others from pond turtles to mink, hamsters, crayfish and the Rhone streber. In recent years even a few insects have gotten attention such as the critically endangered Crau Plain Grasshopper.

 

[lintworm]

What zoos can do for conservation; Part I Jersey Zoo

Contribution to in situ conservation 2021: 3.187.000 pounds (3,58 million euros / 3,84 million US dollars)
% of income spent on in situ conservation 2021: 30% (8.5% in 2019)

Jersey Zoo is more or less the prototype of a zoo devoted to both in situ and ex situ conservation. This has been the case since its founding in 1959 by Gerald Durrell and while the zoo has recently been renamed it is still fully part of the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust. Contrary to most other zoos, conservation is the main business here and when looking at money flows, the zoo is of only secondary importance. That doesn’t mean that the zoo itself is of no importance. It is their main showcase on highlighting the work Durrell does in terms of in situ conservation. In situ conservation is directly linked to ex situ breeding programs too. A number of the in situ conservation projects involve captive breeding and, if possible, reintroductions as is the case for the pygmy hogs and ploughshare tortoises. But the zoo also functions as an ex situ breeding centre for endangered wildlife Durrell is working on in the field. The reptile department houses a large number of species for which Jersey Zoo is an important reserve population of extremely limited island species. Notable was the recent rescue of Bojer’s skinks and two other lizard species from an island off the coast of Mauritius that was threatened by an oil spill. The Jersey animals are currently the only ones outside their native habitat. A large number of rare species currently kept in Europe, were initially imported by Jersey and were first bred in a zoo here. This includes species such as pink pigeons, Livingstone’s flying fox, Montserrat oriole and mountain chicken. Some of these are now fairly widely spread to other collections. This selection criteria doesn't necessarily mean that you have to breed them in Durrell, but includes some species that were only kept as ambassadors for the work done in situ such as echo lorikeet. Conservation is a more important selection criteria for species kept in Jersey than in most zoos. This not only involves species from regions in which Durrell is heavily involved like Madagascar, Mauritius or the lesser Antilles, but also species from other parts of the world like Javan green magpies. Not all species kept in Jersey are endangered, a zoo without meerkats wouldn’t be a zoo.

Echo lorikeet, formerly kept as ambassador for the work done on Mauritius (picture by @Tomek )

While Durrell has the third largest contribution to in situ conservation of any European zoo, it doesn’t support more projects than some zoos that only contribute 10% of what Durrell does. Durrell’s mission is clearly focused on saving species from extinction and the places where one can have the most impact are islands. Most extinction events in the past centuries took place on (tropical) islands and many island faunas are also endangered today. No other zoo has as strong a claim to saving multiple species from extinction as Durrell has, it was instrumental in the work of Carl Jones to save multiple Mauritian bird species. Currently it is most heavily involved directly in Madagascar and Mauritius with 65 and 5 persons respectively working for Durrell there. Durrell also has staff on the ground in St. Lucia, Montserrat, India and the Galapagos. That conservation doesn’t always need to take place far away is highlighted with a captive breeding and reintroduction program for red-billed choughs on Jersey itself. Durrell is a clear example of how zoos can make a difference in saving species, but in doing so you have to commit yourself to a limited set of projects where a real difference can be made.

Red-billed chough in Jersey Zoo (picture by @toto98 )

While the Durrell approach also involves ecosystem restoration, the main approach to saving species is still focused on single species. Via saving these species it wants to “rewild” ecosystems, but it is the umbrella species that take centre stage. This species-centred approach is certainly not unique, but quite a different approach from the next two zoos that will be covered. This species-centred approach is also very visible in the numerous breeding centres in situ and the use of the Jersey Zoo as an ex situ reservoir. While this species approach may sometimes seem old-fashioned it has been proven to be effective and zoos and in situ can strengthen each other by exchanging husbandry knowledge.

Memorial for Gerald Durrell on the zoo grounds (picture by @Dylan )

When looking at how Durrell pays for its conservation actions, the zoo plays a negligible role, as it costs more money than it brings in. Being located in Jersey is also not optimal if you would like to establish a huge zoo. But that is also not the goal of Durrell, which uses the zoo as a breeding centre, showcase and centre for training of conservationists from all over the world. Most income comes from grants, donations, legacies and fundraising events. In this way Durrell is more an average conservation body than a zoo. That means it is something of a unique situation, but for large (and rich) zoos it could serve as an important example on how to increase the conservation message of zoos.

What can other zoos learn from this

• Bring conservation to the zoo by breeding highly endangered and otherwise overlooked species and link this to in situ projects
• Invest your money wisely, select a limited number of sites where you can make an impact
• Exchange knowledge with experts in the field & train them
• Focusing on single species can prove highly effective
• Skills on how to set up your own in situ organisation and fundraising

Overall Durrell might not be the most realistic goal to follow for other zoos when it comes to conservation, it does hold some valuable lessons and if a larger zoo were serious about upscaling their conservation activities towards a full-fledged conservation organisation with its own field staff, this would be a prime European example. This is not realistic for most zoos, but for the less well-off more applicable examples will follow soon enough.

 

[remar]

Regarding in-situ conservation at Europe there is at least one point missing. Most people aren't aware of the nature around us at all. Most Europeans know what an American buffelos look like but nearly no one knows that europeans buffalos even exist. Therefore it is much more difficult to show the public your efforts in Europe than in Africa, as the crowd connects Africa immediately whit nature.

What zoos can do for conservation; Part I Jersey Zoo
[*]Invest your money wisely, select a limited number of sites where you can make an impact

How do i have to see this line? Do you wanna say that Zoos should focus on projects like this?

 

[MRJ]

- 1 euro gets you much further in Africa than it does in Europe. So with a limited budget you can achieve a much higher impact in a country where labour is so much cheaper.

Indeed. We support a small organisation in Indonesia by funding a keeper come community outreach worker. The cost is well under 10% what the cost of funding such a position in Australia would be.

 

[MRJ]

What zoos can do for conservation; Part I Jersey Zoo

Well no surprises here !

But the zoo also functions as an ex situ breeding centre for endangered wildlife Durrell is working on in the field. The reptile department houses a large number of species for which Jersey Zoo is an important reserve population of extremely limited island species.

Reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates generally are reasonable candidates for ex-situ breeding programs as they often require an investment in technology and infrastructure, and there is often a very high animal to keeper ratio.

Not all species kept in Jersey are endangered, a zoo without meerkats wouldn’t be a zoo.

Meerkats are a recent arrival, as part of a move to make the zoo more attractive to Jersey residents, in particular their children. Durrell famously disposed of all non-threatened species when he decided to move the zoo towards being the world's first "conservation" zoo. Perhaps a lesson to be learnt.

When looking at how Durrell pays for its conservation actions, the zoo plays a negligible role, as it costs more money than it brings in. Being located in Jersey is also not optimal if you would like to establish a huge zoo.

That was not always the case, the zoo was very profitable when Jersey was a popular holiday destination. However that changed when the British started flocking to the south of Spain and more exotic locations. In recent years serious consideration was given to closing the zoo or moving it to mainland Britain. Thus the meerkats and other investments like a "destination" café and glamping facilities.

But that is also not the goal of Durrell, which uses the zoo as a breeding centre, showcase and centre for training of conservationists from all over the world. Most income comes from grants, donations, legacies and fundraising events. In this way Durrell is more an average conservation body than a zoo. That means it is something of a unique situation, but for large (and rich) zoos it could serve as an important example on how to increase the conservation message of zoos.

What can other zoos learn from this

• Bring conservation to the zoo by breeding highly endangered and otherwise overlooked species and link this to in situ projects
• Invest your money wisely, select a limited number of sites where you can make an impact
• Exchange knowledge with experts in the field & train them
• Focusing on single species can prove highly effective
• Skills on how to set up your own in situ organisation and fundraising

Overall Durrell might not be the most realistic goal to follow for other zoos when it comes to conservation, it does hold some valuable lessons and if a larger zoo were serious about upscaling their conservation activities towards a full-fledged conservation organisation with its own field staff, this would be a prime European example. This is not realistic for most zoos, but for the less well-off more applicable examples will follow soon enough.

A great summary and a great tribute to a zoo that has always been a shining light. It is hard to believe, but when Durrell started he was ridiculed by other senior zoo people, who told him conservation had no roll in zoos.

 

[lintworm]

How do i have to see this line? Do you wanna say that Zoos should focus on projects like this?

I would see it as a reminder for zoos that they should look carefully at which projects to support. Durrell has managed to save many island species on a limited budget. Other zoos should also look closely at where the money that is spent has the highest impact. That doesn't mean that zoos should focus only on species that are "cheap" to save (unlike elephants and tigers), but if you focus on expensive species, make sure you can make a positive impact at least locally.

Reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates generally are reasonable candidates for ex-situ breeding programs as they often require an investment in technology and infrastructure, and there is often a very high animal to keeper ratio.

This is so true and fortunately zoos are slowly realizing this. They are also relatively easy to re-introduce when the time allows.

Meerkats are a recent arrival, as part of a move to make the zoo more attractive to Jersey residents, in particular their children. Durrell famously disposed of all non-threatened species when he decided to move the zoo towards being the world's first "conservation" zoo. Perhaps a lesson to be learnt.

According to ZTL the meerkats have been there since 1999, so not a really recent arrival, though in recent years with gelada, aardvark en red titi more of such species have appeared. I wasn't aware that the zoo was so much more crowded in past decades then it is now

A great summary and a great tribute to a zoo that has always been a shining light. It is hard to believe, but when Durrell started he was ridiculed by other senior zoo people, who told him conservation had no roll in zoos.

Interesting that so many pioneers in the zoo world that do stuff differently, are ridiculed at the start... Despite claiming otherwise, the zoo business (and parties like EAZA) appear quite conservative.

 

[dillotest0]

Interesting that so many pioneers in the zoo world that do stuff differently, are ridiculed at the start...

So has been the case of every pioneer whom dared tried something different in front of all of their peers!

 

[MRJ]

According to ZTL the meerkats have been there since 1999, so not a really recent arrival, though in recent years with gelada, aardvark en red titi more of such species have appeared. I wasn't aware that the zoo was so much more crowded in past decades then it is now

I guess recent is a relative term. I did a course at the training centre in 1996 and they were not there then. They were there when I visited a bit over a decade later and when I enquired that was the reason I was given, and the impression I got was they were a new arrival. Still 1999 is post Durrell and post Jersey's glory days as a holiday destination.

Interestingly one of the other participants in my course was a woman from Lakelands Wildlife Oasis. They were still quite new at that time and she told me they had been "saved" by their meerkat exhibit which opened about the same time The Lion King was released into cinemas. Apparently it really drove visitation.

Durrell initially stocked the zoo with the results of his collecting expeditions, which also gave him material for his books. My impression is it was quite an eclectic collection. Durrell was also not particularly worried about the size of the enclosures. In the early days the zoo had both a small mammal house and a nocturnal house.

 

[Dassie rat]

What zoos can do for conservation; Part I Jersey Zoo
Not all species kept in Jersey are endangered, a zoo without meerkats wouldn’t be a zoo.

There are zoos without meerkats

 

[dillotest0]

There are zoos without meerkats

Ja, there's Linton .....


Any more?

 

[remar]

That doesn't mean that zoos should focus only on species that are "cheap" to save (unlike elephants and tigers), but if you focus on expensive species, make sure you can make a positive impact at least locally.

Maybe this point is interesting. One could also say, that a a bunch of zoos can help bigger projects as they don't have to act alone.

 

[birdsandbats]

Ja, there's Linton .....


Any more?

Most American zoos.

 

[lintworm]

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.

 

[Rayane]

I am sorry I didn't comment earlier on this enjoyable thread. Thank you for the work you put in @lintworm.

I believe the impact a zoo has on specis focused conservation truly relies on heavily invested and pasisonate individuals. It seems to me that many succesful emergency projects are often the work of the same people over and over. Of course, their teams are part of the effort.

And then about Zürich, with the new director came a new mindset. The zoo wants to move towards keeping only threatened species. I am a bit sceptical about how the collection will turn out, especially on the bird side of things but I think it is the only viable mindset for the future of zoos. Not necessarily keeping only endangered taxa, but slowly transitionning as best as they can towards it.

 

[Jurek7]

I'm a little concerned to see so little money from European zoos being spent on conservation projects in Europe.

European Union and individual governments give relatively high money donations for local conservation, ones that zoos are unlikely to match. So zoos provide European animals for reintroduction plus education (e.g. large carnivores).

Also, much work in Europe is done by local native animal parks which are not very often mentioned on this forum.

What zoos can do for conservation; Part I Jersey Zoo

Gerald Durrell may be actually 'the' father of modern ex-situ conservation in zoos. Ex-situ breeding plans started before he was born, but Gerald Durrell was perhaps the most influential to popularize the idea in the general society, and make it one of the main functions of a zoo.

Also, early ex-situ breeding was about charismatic megafauna and had a strong element of obtaining rarities as a kind of prize achievement, often at the expense of coordinated breeding. Durrell was interested in small animals and put saving the species before interests of the zoo.

 

[Jurek7]

What zoos can do for conservation; Part II Zoo Zurich

Making a whole exhibit about one particular reserve is risky, because the zoo cannot easily stop an old project and start a new one. At one point, conservation in situ in Masoala, Madagascar was breaking apart. But Zurich zoo was a sort of trapped into giving money to Masoala anyway.

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)

Just to point, that this suggests that conservation needs simply more money or more expertise.

However, there are morer problems. Lack of good governance - corruption, poor planning, nonsense local bureaucracy, dislike of outsiders meddling into a local bureaucrat's private backyard, poorly functioning institutions and staff - are common. Civil unrest: badly functioning institutions, civil war, armed gangs are also common. Zoos or foreign organizations can do little about it.

This means that there are many species and places in need of conservation, where zoos either keep away or tried and burned their fingers.

 

[15399]

Making a whole exhibit about one particular reserve is risky, because the zoo cannot easily stop an old project and start a new one. At one point, conservation in situ in Masoala, Madagascar was breaking apart. But Zurich zoo was a sort of trapped into giving money to Masoala anyway.

I'm not sure I'd agree that the zoo was "trapped" into giving money to Masoala. Just because that's the theme of the exhibit, it could still serve as a valuable conservation education experience without a direct link to in-situ conservation, provided that the zoo has better priorities instead. Furthermore, conservation priorities should be re-evaluated every so often anyways, and while there is value to the expertise and dedication that come with long-standing conservation projects, that isn't to say that efforts may not be more impactful by changing what projects they support, even if it may be a change away from a given area in the zoo. Even if the zoo chose a differing theme for an exhibit that is more expansive, for instance focusing on an entire country or a wider region, that still doesn't preclude that it will always be feasible to do conservation work in that area. Civil wars and other violence can decimate the conservation work in an entire country (i.e. WCS had to stop their field work in Afghanistan due to the country's current political climate), and with how climate change is progressing, it's certainly conceivable to imagine a future in which the areas most in need of protection are very different from the areas most in need of protection today. So while I do understand the point you are trying to make, the bigger issue at hand would be zoos forcing their conservation efforts to align with their exhibitry and education goals, when in reality these two things, while intertwined, can be distinct from each other.

 

[lintworm]

Making a whole exhibit about one particular reserve is risky, because the zoo cannot easily stop an old project and start a new one. At one point, conservation in situ in Masoala, Madagascar was breaking apart. But Zurich zoo was a sort of trapped into giving money to Masoala anyway.



Just to point, that this suggests that conservation needs simply more money or more expertise.

However, there are morer problems. Lack of good governance - corruption, poor planning, nonsense local bureaucracy, dislike of outsiders meddling into a local bureaucrat's private backyard, poorly functioning institutions and staff - are common. Civil unrest: badly functioning institutions, civil war, armed gangs are also common. Zoos or foreign organizations can do little about it.

This means that there are many species and places in need of conservation, where zoos either keep away or tried and burned their fingers.

Money isn't all in conservation, but it is the only one that is easily quantified and makes an easy comparison between zoos. While it doesn't measure final impact, it does give a very good indication of willingness to act and intentions of the respective zoos. For this thread that is what matters in the first place.

I don't agree that it is very risky to ty an exhibit to a conservation project including the renaming. If things don't work out in situ for whatever reason, it is often possible to find an alternative project that can still be easily linked to the zoo and doesn't change the educational message.

 

[AthleticBinturong]

There are zoos without meerkats

The importance of active, engaging species even if they are not threatened should not be overlooked. Visitors are far more likely to be invested in an animal or exhibit if they see active animals engaging in natural behaviours which meerkats provide. Getting visitors engaged is the first step before education/zookeeping staff or good signage can follow through with information about the species and its habitat. Meerkats in my opinion are excellent ambassadors for other African and/or small carnivore species and therefore should continue to be kept in captivity.