Zoos and conservation: from greenwashing to impact

[PossumRoach]

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.

I could deffinitely attest to this with the three Turkish EAZA members (Bursa Zoo, Izmir Wildlife Park, and Faruk Yalçın Zoo) as an example. Based on EAZA's map for conservation projects , of the three zoos in question, only one of them (Faruk Yalçın) seems to have reported the in situ projects they have supported and that is only four projects. For context, Faruk Yalçın Zoo is privately owned so unlike the other two it is not treated like a side asset by their respective local governments. With Turkey's current economic state, it is fair to understand (I am not excusing it) why municipalities do not prioritize the well being of their zoos and neglect their duty as EAZA members.

 

[Dassie rat]

In-situ conservation is better for species that can't be kept in captivity and/or where captives can't be introduced into the wild
E-situ is better for species that can be kept in captivity and can be introduced into the wild

 

[lintworm]

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.

For the purposes of this thread I have kept support of rehabilitation centres in foreign countries as in situ conservation, because otherwise it would be impossible to get good numbers per zoo. It is however doubtful whether it always contributes to conservation, so in terms of impact return for investment is probably lower than for example habitat protection...

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.

I don't think your assessment is really valid. While Artis has a lot going on, it does quite a good job at explaining human-nature relationships and showing diversity of life. The outdated geology museum has been gone for years and in its place the new Groote Museum on human-nature relationships is anything but outdated and neither is Micropia. There have been some strange design choices in the animal department with the jaguars and elephants, but those overshadow the genuine (and imo tasteful) improvements of for example the gibbon and spider monkey enclosures. The problem with Artis is imo too much of a focus on humans in the higher management. But with a director who worked at McKinsey before that is not strange... There are plenty of zoos that are developing quite positively in terms of enclosures, but fail to invest in conservation. A larger trend that is visible, is that zoos that take animal welfare very seriously and are among the most innovative zoos, are also ones that do more for in situ conservation. These are presumably less motivated by money and more for the love of animals...

 

[Therabu]

In-situ conservation is better for species that can't be kept in captivity and/or where captives can't be introduced into the wild
E-situ is better for species that can be kept in captivity and can be introduced into the wild

I would like to show my disagreement here. Conservationists have made it clear : In-situ is better for ALL species when that is doable.
Ex-situ is only the last thing in the toolbox when other measures have proved unsuccessful.
It does not mean ex-situ is useless, neither that zoos are irrelevant for conservation BUT we should not say that one specie is better protected outside of its habitat than in it. That would basically mean not to consider all the logistics, economic, behaviour/well-being and moral issues that bring ex-situ breeding compared to actual conservation of the animal into its ecosystem.

What maybe you wanted to say is that some species accommodate better than others to ex-situ breeding and I think we all agree on this. We could however say that collection plans do not reflect mainly conservation goals as zoos would be full of little freshwater fishes and obscure amphibians rather than elephants and polar bears.
In a world where zoos would not exist, we would not create them, at least as they are, as conservation tools. We only try to shift the purpose of institutions which were not structurally made to have a direct conservation impact.

 

[Dassie rat]

I would like to show my disagreement here. Conservationists have made it clear : In-situ is better for ALL species when that is doable.
Ex-situ is only the last thing in the toolbox when other measures have proved unsuccessful.
It does not mean ex-situ is useless, neither that zoos are irrelevant for conservation BUT we should not say that one specie is better protected outside of its habitat than in it. That would basically mean not to consider all the logistics, economic, behaviour/well-being and moral issues that bring ex-situ breeding compared to actual conservation of the animal into its ecosystem.

What maybe you wanted to say is that some species accommodate better than others to ex-situ breeding and I think we all agree on this. We could however say that collection plans do not reflect mainly conservation goals as zoos would be full of little freshwater fishes and obscure amphibians rather than elephants and polar bears.
In a world where zoos would not exist, we would not create them, at least as they are, as conservation tools. We only try to shift the purpose of institutions which were not structurally made to have a direct conservation impact.

I agree that in-situ conservation benefits many species. I joined the RSPB because I'd read that it had bought rainforest in Sumatra to protect tigers, rhinoceroses and other species. I'm sorry if I've confused some Zoochatters. When I visited Wildwood, I saw several containers of water voles, which were due to be released into the wild. Zoos can help increase the number of young animals surviving, rather than if the same animals faced a high mortality rate in the wild. Many years ago, Gerald Durrell said that he would like to see the day when zoos weren't needed. Keeping animals like polar bears and elephants in zoos with no aim of introduction to the wild is not true conservation. I accept that it can encourage people to help in-situ conservation, but many conservation charities concentrate on big charismatic animals, rather than 'little freshwater amphibians and obscure amphibians', which could interest zoo visitors if the information on their enclosures was written by people with some knowledge of their natural history, rather than just listing a common and scientific name, a map and little else. The money spent on massive enclosures for big animals would be better spent on conserving these animals in the wild. The land in the zoo could be used to savemany species of smaller animals that are in danger of extinction, due to a lack of in-situ and ex-situ conservation.

 

[Rayane]

I agree that in-situ conservation benefits many species. I joined the RSPB because I'd read that it had bought rainforest in Sumatra to protect tigers, rhinoceroses and other species. I'm sorry if I've confused some Zoochatters. When I visited Wildwood, I saw several containers of water voles, which were due to be released into the wild. Zoos can help increase the number of young animals surviving, rather than if the same animals faced a high mortality rate in the wild. Many years ago, Gerald Durrell said that he would like to see the day when zoos weren't needed. Keeping animals like polar bears and elephants in zoos with no aim of introduction to the wild is not true conservation. I accept that it can encourage people to help in-situ conservation, but many conservation charities concentrate on big charismatic animals, rather than 'little freshwater amphibians and obscure amphibians', which could interest zoo visitors if the information on their enclosures was written by people with some knowledge of their natural history, rather than just listing a common and scientific name, a map and little else. The money spent on massive enclosures for big animals would be better spent on conserving these animals in the wild. The land in the zoo could be used to savemany species of smaller animals that are in danger of extinction, due to a lack of in-situ and ex-situ conservation.

High mortality species, when it’s natural and not due to human disturbance or else, is really important for the species that evolved and survived with high offspring mortality. Natural selection is important - mandatory - for species to thrive in the wild and this is a huge problem with captive breeding. Species have not access to mate selection, and even the « bad » survives to adulthood with help from humans, and then the « bad » can be bref, and on and on.

 

[lintworm]

Contribution to in situ conservation by EAZA zoos

Part 1: the million euro club

Late 2021 I created an overview of the contribution of all European EAZA zoos (excluding Ukraine, Russia and the Middle Eastern members, but including the Canary Islands) and one non-EAZA member, the World Wetland Trust. For comparison I also added the numbers for oversea EAZA members Auckland Zoo and the Wildlife Reserves Singapore. This led to a list of 277 zoos or zoo societies, e.g. the Zoological Society of London operates both London Zoo and Whipsnade Zoo but is counted only as ZSL. For only 71 zoos I was able to find a figure that was a good indication for in situ conservation spending. For another 77 zoos the overall contribution was not clear, but likely to be minimal based on information found online. The majority of zoos just has a question mark and a few zoos where I could deduct a guesstimate based on the annual report of conservation organisations these zoos have donated to, but for which I am not certain enough to list it.

There are of course some drawbacks to this approach, as not every zoo will report their numbers in the same way. The biggest problem was to separate funding for in situ conservation and research and in many cases separating them was not possible, so they remain lumped, but when this is the case this is noted. There is also no definition of when something counts as monetary contribution to in situ conservation. The most problematic, because it involves the most money, is the “donation” that zoos have to give to China for getting a pair of panda. For me this is no genuine donation to in situ conservation as the goal of the money is not conservation, but getting to display pandas. As such I have removed this amount of money from zoos that try to list it as conservation. Ouwehands Dierenpark is such a case. Zoos like Berlin, Madrid and Beauval don’t even claim that panda money is conservation, which makes it easy.

Another issue is that there are plenty of examples where zoos donate money to another zoo’s project which then spends it. We saw this for Bioparc Doue-la-Fontaine, whose foundation is a vehicle for two dozen other zoos. But at least here it is clear how much the Bioparc itself contributed and how much other zoos contributed. Beauval is also a zoo where this is clearly communicated, but for example the Aspinall Foundation and Marwell Wildlife are “middle-men” where this distinction is unclear. If I am aware of it happening, it is noted in the list.

In total only 11 zoos spent more than 1 million euros on in situ conservation, that is only 3% of the total EAZA member base and one country is conspicuously absent from this list.... These are the following zoos/ zoo organisations:

11. Burgers' Zoo, the Netherlands
Contribution: 1.025.000 euros
% of revenue spent on conservation: ±4.5% (note that this is a different number than I mentioned before, but I didn't update my calculations on time, this one should be correct based on pre-covid numbers)

The only Dutch zoo in the top 12 and one for which all spending is accounted for and this excludes research. Together with zoos nr. 9 and 2 on the list this is the one with the best administration of how funds were used and even that took some digging.

10. Pairi Daiza, Belgium
Contribution: 1.100.000 euros
% of revenue spent on conservation: 1.35%

This figure is very much a minimum estimate based on multiple years, the total could be higher, but there is a small chance it is lower. There is no clear account available and the only information available is in the typical woolly self-praising Pairi Daiza style, whose communication department is the one I dislike most... The real number is unclear, but through the Pairi Daiza Foundation it has made a one-off 3 million euro contribution to Spix' macaw conservation. So money is not a problem here. With the second highest revenue of any European zoo (81 million euros in 2021) the number is already less impressive.

9. Zooparc de Beauval, France
Contribution: 1.100.000 euros
% of revenue spent on conservation: 0.96%

In 2021 Beauval spent 1.1 million euros on in situ conservation projects, this includes about 50.000 euros from other zoos. But in the same year it also raised 1.8 million euros, of which the majority was donated by the zoo itself. So presumably in 2022 the conservation contribution has gone up considerably. Beauval also produces a nice brochure with details on where money was raised and how it was spent. This is the zoo with the highest revenue of them all in Europe and the only one to top the 100 million euro mark. A lot of that is thanks to the hotels it also runs of-course. But that a zoo with the combined revenue of Burgers' Zoo, Diergaarde Blijdorp, Artis, Apenheul and Gaiazoo still hasn't managed to hire a proper landscape architect is amazing, but a story for another time.

8. Wildlife Reserves Singapore, Singapore
Contribution: 1.275.632 euros
% of revenue spent on conservation: 1.13%

The only non-European EAZA member in the top-12 of the zoos I collected data on. This is the figure for 2020.

7. Loro Parque, Spain
Contribution: 1.300.000 euros
% of revenue spent on conservation: ??

Another wealthy privately owned zoo with a high contribution. The Loro Parque Foundation also functions as a middle-man for other zoos, so how much is raised by Loro Parque itself is unclear.

6. Chester Zoo, UK
Contribution: 1.808.000 euros
% of revenue spent on conservation: 3.5%

This involves only the conservation outreach programmes. Chester also spent 400.000 pounds on conservation advocacy, 2.400.000 pounds on conservation education, engagement & capacity building and 900.000 pounds on science and research. So the real amount effectively spent on what would constitute in situ conservation could well be higher, but Chester prefers to use woolly terms that aren't really explained. It sounds impressive and that was probably the goal.

5. Royal Zoological Society of Scotland, UK
Contribution: 2.007.793 euros
% of revenue spent on conservation and research: 9.56%

This number includes research, but excludes the genetics lab. So the real number is lower. Additionally the RZSS also received funding from other zoos, which probably account for 50.000 euros. It is also not clear whether this contribution includes the 1 million dollar donation to China for their panda, but based on earlier annual reports that seems somewhat unlikely, but cannot be excluded.

4. Zoo Zurich, Switzerland
Contribution: 2.200.000 euros (2022)
% of revenue spent on conservation: ±7.5%

The only central European zoo on the list...

3. Durrell, Jersey
Contribution: 3.601.310 euros
% of revenue spent on conservation: 30%

This number does include research, so overall direct contribution to conservation is lower, though especially in the case of Durrell the boundary between research with a conservation goal and conservation is somewhat hazy.

2. World Wetlands Trust, UK
Contribution: 6.210.480 euros
% of revenue spent on conservation: 18%

This is the only non-EAZA member on the list and while one could argue this is more a conservation body than a zoo, it is a BIAZA member and it runs several zoos (with adjacent nature reserves).

1. Zoological Society of London, UK
Contribution: 11.526.000 euros
% of revenue spent on conservation: 30%

The ZSL is one of the few zoos that had to lower their conservation contribution due to COVID it used to spend 15 million euros on conservation in 2020. In addition it funded over 6 million euros of research, which probably also has a strong conservation focus. This makes the ZSL the undisputed number 1 of the continent. Though it is still dwarved by it's New York City cousin, that is not because the ZSL is doing a pitiful job.


If we look at the whole of EAZA there are 11 zoo (organisations) that have donated at least 1 million euros to in situ conservation in a recent year. What is interesting is that almost half of those come from the UK or Jersey. For a country that in zoo design is often seen as well behind the mainland, this is an extraordinary figure. It can likely be traced back to how these zoos are more often organised as societies or are privately owned. This organisational structure makes it easier than being city owned to venture into conservation practices. Often these zoos are only part of the society's work. For the non UK zoos there are 4 zoos that are (private) enterprises which are very wealthy. The two other zoos being Zoo Zurich, which is city-owned, and Burgers’ Zoo which is also privately owned but not very wealthy. Both are exemplary in animal welfare and lead the way in that regard. A focus on conservation makes sense then. What is perhaps surprising is that there are 0 zoos from Germany or Scandinavia, Europe’s main zoo country and the wealthiest region respectively. Zoo Leipzig is the first German zoo on the list at number 12, all thanks to the Artenschutzeuro.

In the next post we will explore the rest of the zoos for which a figure on their in situ conservation contribution was available. Some notable omissions and some notable highs and lows, so stay tuned

 

[Jurek7]

Germany has its strengths. Frankfurt Zoological Society claims "24.83 Million Euros invested in our conservation projects in 2021"* It is twice more than Zoological Society of London. FZS is located on the grounds of Frankfurt zoo and the zoo director chaired the meetings, at least in the past.

The numbers change when a zoo is listed together with a conservation foundation, and what is counted as in-situ conservation. I feel this explains the position of zoos in Britain.

World Wetlands Trust is a foundation mostly about nature reserves in Britain. Surely it could not raise 6 m euro in a year from tickets of visitors who feed ducks in its tiny zoos, even if all were counted together?

However, all money for conservation in the wild is valuable, and all ideas how to raise more are valuable.

*https://missionwilderness21.fzs.org/ZGF_JAHRESBERICHT_2021_en.pdf , page 7.

 

[lintworm]

Germany has its strengths. Frankfurt Zoological Society claims "24.83 Million Euros invested in our conservation projects in 2021"* It is twice more than Zoological Society of London. FZS is located on the grounds of Frankfurt zoo and the zoo director chaired the meetings, at least in the past.

The numbers change when a zoo is listed together with a conservation foundation, and what is counted as in-situ conservation. I feel this explains the position of zoos in Britain.

World Wetlands Trust is a foundation mostly about nature reserves in Britain. Surely it could not raise 6 m euro in a year from tickets of visitors who feed ducks in its tiny zoos, even if all were counted together?

However, all money for conservation in the wild is valuable, and all ideas how to raise more are valuable.

*https://missionwilderness21.fzs.org/ZGF_JAHRESBERICHT_2021_en.pdf , page 7.

I am aware of the Frankfurt Zoological Society, but as you point out yourself already: the ZSL and WWT are the same organisation running both the zoo and the conservation projects. The Frankfurt Zoological Society and the Frankfurt Zoo are two separate entities. They are neighbours and they work together, but the Frankfurt Zoo only donated 120.000 euros to conservation through 6 projects, of which four are from the Frankfurt Zoological Society. (And the Frankfurt Zoological Society paid a similar amount to the Zoo as a conservation ambassador).

On the other hands the World Wetlands Trust had a revenue of 27 million pounds, of which nearly 4 million comes from admission to their centres (and another 7 million from WWT memberships who are also annual pass holders...) and over 4 million pounds from the restaurants and shops in their zoos. Neither are they so national as you make them out to be, as abour 40% of spending is international, which alone would put them in 4th place.

So those two examples aren't comparable at all, just being neighbours isn't enough, the Frankfurt Zoological Society does some amazing work, but it cannot be counted as zoo conservation. The WWT and ZSL might stretch a bit what is thought of as zoo conservation by being a conservation organisation themselves, but then the WCS in New York also wouldn't be zoo conservation and neither would Durrell.

 

[Rayane]

@lintworm Where does Zoo Köln stand in all this? I was under the impression they were quite heavily invested in conservation, but as @Jurek7 mentionned earlier, they might actually be doing more research than direct conservation work.
I was at a conference in Aquatis earlier this year where Thomas Ziegler talked us though the work they do with different herp taxa in Vietnam. This alone is of course not much, but it made me think Zoo Köln was quite deep in the conservation world ; as I was walso under the impression that I had seen the Kölner logo on various projects over the years.
Apparently not as much as many other zoos, but where did it land based on your research ?

 

[Jurek7]

There may be some paragraphs of British and German financial laws, which favours zoo and foundation being formally one entity in Britain and separate in Germany. Possibly some young Zoochatter has a dad who works in finance and can comment here.

There is one similarity which I don't like. Both London zoo and Frankfurt zoo as zoos are shadows of former selves. It looks like exhibits and visitors are a bit forgotten and energy goes into work outside the zoo. This puts their work in danger because the zoo is not good enough to interest new generation of people in wildlife.

London and Frankfurt are both big financial cities. I checked wealthies cities in Europe. It makes big zoo fundraisers not obviously attached to a big city like Burgers or Chester especially interesting. And throws a kind of challenge for zoos which are not famous in conservation in objectively rich cities, like Paris, Madrid, Rome or Amsterdam.

GDP of European cities | Statista

 

[lintworm]

There may be some paragraphs of British and German financial laws, which favours zoo and foundation being formally one entity in Britain and separate in Germany. Possibly some young Zoochatter has a dad who works in finance and can comment here.

There is one similarity which I don't like. Both London zoo and Frankfurt zoo as zoos are shadows of former selves. It looks like exhibits and visitors are a bit forgotten and energy goes into work outside the zoo. This puts their work in danger because the zoo is not good enough to interest new generation of people in wildlife.

London and Frankfurt are both big financial cities. I checked wealthies cities in Europe. It makes big zoo fundraisers not obviously attached to a big city like Burgers or Chester especially interesting. And throws a kind of challenge for zoos which are not famous in conservation in objectively rich cities, like Paris, Madrid, Rome or Amsterdam.

GDP of European cities | Statista

While for London you could indeed make the case they focus too much on conservation, in the case of Frankfurt you can blame it fully on being city-owned. It is not a lack of plans, but they seem to lack proper long term financing for projects and always tend to end up with the most expensive option.... Their penguin exhibit costed 7.2 million euros, which is 25% more expensive than Burgers' Mangrove.....

There is something different in the culture and politics between the UK and most of the mainland which makes societies (in general, not only with zoos) and privately owned zoos a lot more common in the UK. Whereas in Germany and many other countries on the continent the majority of zoos is still city-owned. Being city owned makes you more often than not cash-strapped and fully dependent on subsidies, which is not something that makes in situ conservation a likely pastime.

In the case of Frankfurt, the zoo was founded by the zoological society, but taken over by the city over 100 years ago, when the society couldn't pay for the zoo anymore. The ZGF then developed into what is now a leader in conservation independently of the zoo. Though for example Grzimek and his love for the Serengeti did bind them, though they are independent institutions.

 

[lintworm]

@lintworm Where does Zoo Köln stand in all this? I was under the impression they were quite heavily invested in conservation, but as @Jurek7 mentionned earlier, they might actually be doing more research than direct conservation work.
I was at a conference in Aquatis earlier this year where Thomas Ziegler talked us though the work they do with different herp taxa in Vietnam. This alone is of course not much, but it made me think Zoo Köln was quite deep in the conservation world ; as I was walso under the impression that I had seen the Kölner logo on various projects over the years.
Apparently not as much as many other zoos, but where did it land based on your research ?

Cologne is interesting as 2 of their curators spend a lot of time in the field, Prof. Ziegler with herpetofauna and Dr. Sliwa with black-footed cats. But in terms of monetary contribution to in situ they aren't standing out and only recently increased their effort with an artenschutzeuro, which put it past Berlin, but still not to the German top.

 

[Lafone]

There may be some paragraphs of British and German financial laws, which favours zoo and foundation being formally one entity in Britain and separate in Germany. Possibly some young Zoochatter has a dad who works in finance and can comment here.

There is one similarity which I don't like. Both London zoo and Frankfurt zoo as zoos are shadows of former selves. It looks like exhibits and visitors are a bit forgotten and energy goes into work outside the zoo. This puts their work in danger because the zoo is not good enough to interest new generation of people in wildlife.

London and Frankfurt are both big financial cities. I checked wealthies cities in Europe. It makes big zoo fundraisers not obviously attached to a big city like Burgers or Chester especially interesting. And throws a kind of challenge for zoos which are not famous in conservation in objectively rich cities, like Paris, Madrid, Rome or Amsterdam.

GDP of European cities | Statista

There’s nothing in British law mandating the combination of organisations between zoos and conservation organisations. Where it exists it will be by convention.

Zoos in the U.K. are not owned or supported by the state. While some zoos are in cities they derive no income directly from the city.

They may be eligible for some government grants under different schemes but those are controlled and zoos are not government bodies and they get no local or national government funding.

Many zoos or organisations who run them are charities in the U.K. - ZSL is for example - and they rely on fund raising. They also make no profit / derive no shareholder value as it is not permitted.

Further, in order to maintain its charitable status a zoo funded like that has to show they fund what they say they will do - if ZSL doesn’t fund conservation projects they could lose their status.

Worth also noting that Whipsnade is part of ZSL and it is not in London.

It’s not really valid to draw an equivalence between the money in a city and the state of a zoo in the U.K.

While I also agree that London isn’t always the best collection and Whipsnade has struggled a bit, I can’t see any evidence in the accounts (which you can go and see online as charities have to publish them) that the money has all gone on conservation schemes. Someone else will have a better view on the trends in that breakdown though.

 

[Jana]

Being local government or municipality owned zoo hinders in situ donations. Because of rules that prohibits them to freely dispose of their funds/income and specificaly forbids them to donate its own money to third parties (at least here in Czechia).

When Prague zoo wanted to donate a koruna from each sold ticket, they did run in this problem. In year 2007, they finaly got green light from Prague municipality (not everybody there was happy). But every cent donated in-situ has to be voted on by full Prague city council - usually it´s done concurently when city budget is being approved.

 

[Jurek7]

Zoos in the U.K. are not owned or supported by the state. While some zoos are in cities they derive no income directly from the city.

Being local government or municipality owned zoo hinders in situ donations. Because of rules that prohibits them to freely dispose of their funds/income and specificaly forbids them to donate its own money to third parties (at least here in Czechia).

You nailed it.

For a private zoo, there is little advantage of separating a zoo and conservation - only double book keeping.

For a city-owned zoo, there is an advantage of separating a zoo and conservation. A city council can be accused: hey, people need a renovation of our city hall / bus stops / school / whatever, but you just given lots of money to monkeys in Africa!

In practical terms, a legally separate foundation chaired by the zoo director, meeting in a zoo is run by the zoo - if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck...

About the work of Czech zoos. Work of Dvur Kralove or Prague with northern white rhinos or western giant elands is even more remarkable because the whole country of Czechia has about 3 times less money that the city of London. East European zoos show how important is being effective - sometimes a zoo can get big effects with less money.

 

[lintworm]

practical terms, a legally separate foundation chaired by the zoo director, meeting in a zoo is run by the zoo - if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck...

If you are still talking about Frankfurt you haven't been listening... The ZGF statute literally say it is an independent and self reliant (selbständig und unabhänglich) organisation that exists next to the Frankfurt Zoo which is city owned. The current director is also not the chair, she is a member of the advisory board not chair or president. of course there are links but the zoo has very little to do with the actual conservation work.... As former zoo director Bernhard Grzimek did kickstart the conservation funding by ZGF, but that is the past and nowadays it really is independent!

 

[lintworm]

Being local government or municipality owned zoo hinders in situ donations. Because of rules that prohibits them to freely dispose of their funds/income and specificaly forbids them to donate its own money to third parties (at least here in Czechia).

Difficult indeed, but fortunately an increasing number of zoos (and thus cities) show that it is possible. Not all of these zoos do the conservation themselves, for example Karlsruhe and Wroclaw have set up a separate foundation for this purpose.

About the work of Czech zoos. Work of Dvur Kralove or Prague with northern white rhinos or western giant elands is even more remarkable because the whole country of Czechia has about 3 times less money that the city of London. East European zoos show how important is being effective - sometimes a zoo can get big effects with less money.

As far as I am aware Dvur Kralove is a very good example of how a zoo can oversell its in situ contribution in their communication. Together with Prague it is the only main Czech zoo that doesn't publish how much money was invested in in situ conservation. And when digging into their contribution for northern white rhino it seems to be mostly about facilitating work by others such as the Leibniz institute. In the giant eland case the monetary contribution seems negligible based on the Derbianus conservation annual report (Ostrava is leading there) and the main link is that the educator of Dvur is attached to Derbianus Conservation. Maybe at @Jana can tell a bit more, as I am limited to English sources and translated annual reports.

For a private zoo, there is little advantage of separating a zoo and conservation - only double book keeping.

There is a very big advantage for having a separate conservation organisation as a private zoo and many private zoos that are serious about conservation have set up their own charity. We have already seen this for Burgers' Zoo, Beauval, Doue and Pairi Daiza, but it is the standard in the rest of the Netherlands too. As these zoos are themselves private companies, having your conservation work in a separate charity is very beneficial when it comes to raising money as it makes donations so much easier (and they are tax-friendly then for the donator too). Because such charities have to be transparent about their finances, they are able to raise more money than a closed private company could.

 

[lintworm]

Contribution to in situ conservation by EAZA zoos

Part 2: the others

So this is the list you have been waiting for. These is the in situ contribution (in euros) for zoos for which I was able to find something I considered decently reliable. These are 2021 figures, except when noted otherwise. It isn't the prettiest bunch, but there are some real positives from small parks and bigger zoos that take conservation seriously. Note the very steep drop-off from our top-11 and top-15 downwards. See it as loads of room for improvement


12. Zoo Leipzig........................862.811
13. Bristol + Wild Place............630.540 (down from ±750.000 in 2018)
14. Parques Reunidos.............585.000 (0.1% of total revenue)
15. Bioparc Doué.....................500.000 (2022)
16. Wilhelma............................418.500 (minimum estimate)
17. Zoo Karlsruhe....................387.000
18. Colchester.......................... 361.600
19. Zoo Augsburg.....................350.000
20. Zoo Basel.......................... 300.000

21. Paignton + Newquay..... ....273.239
22. Marwell.............................. 262.326 (Includes donations from other zoos)
23. Zoo Dresden...................... 240.000
24. Zoo Berlin.......................... 229.515
25. Barcelona Zoo................... 203.000
26. Auckland zoo..................... 160.000
27. Koelner Zoo........................155.689 (>300.000 in 2022)
28. Dublin Zoo.........................150.000
29. Oceanario..........................150.000 (could also be dubbed conservation research)
30. Ouwehands Dierenpark.....144.764

31. Diergaarde Blijdorp....................142.147
32. Libema.......................................140.000 (safaripark Beekse Bergen + Dierenrijk + Overloon + Aquazoo)
33. Cotswold Wildlife Park...............136.212
34. Gaiazoo......................................127.760
35. Zoo Frankfurt..............................119.983
36. Korkeasaari Zoo.........................110.500
37. Parc Animalier d'Auvergne.........103.000
38. Chessington...............................101.700
39. Parc Animalier de Sainte Croix..100.000
40. Kristiansand Dyrepark.............. 100.000 (underestimate)

41. Walter Zoo Gossau.................. 100.000
42. Zoo Rostock..............................91.785
43. Bioparc Valencia.......................80.000
44. Shepreth Wildlife Park..............69.418 (most money goes to a hedgehog hospital)
45. Dierenpark Amersfoort.............66.208
46. Tierpark Hellabrunn..................63.000
47. Yorkshire Wildlife Park.............62.150
48. Apenheul.................................59.268
49. Zoo Wuppertal........................54.376
50. Zoo Zlin...................................52.000 (possibly 80.000)

51. Artis..........................................47.118
52. Zoo Wroclaw............................37.000
53. Zoo Ostrava.............................36.000
54. Zoo de Mulhouse.....................35.000
55. Punta Verde.............................32.337
56. Zoo Tallinn............................... 32.125
57. Boissiere du Dore + Mervent...30.000
58. Zoo de la Fleche......................30.000
59. Avifauna...................................30.000
60. Curraghs Wildlife Park.............29.418

61. Bioparc Fuengirola..................28.000
62. Parc Animalier des Pyrenees..27.500
63. Zoo Liberec.............................24.000
64. Paradise Wildlife Park............18.645
65. Zoo Plzen...............................16.000
66. Welsh Mountain Zoo..............11.300
67. Zoo Brno................................11.000
68. Zoo Osnabruck......................10.000
69. ZOOM Gelsenkirchen............10.000
70. Zoo Hodonin...........................8.000
71. Biotropica...............................2500
72. Africa Alive + Banham............0 (pre-covid more likely ±50.000)

The following zoos probably only give very 0 to small amounts to in situ conservation. The majority of Hungarian, Polish, Spanish and some Italian zoos don't even mention in situ conservation on their website. In many Hungarian and Polish cases conservation isn't mentioned at all online:

Zoo de Bourbansais, Zoo Decin, Safari de Peaugres, Touroparc, Zoo de Lille, Zoo Lyon, Zooparc de Tregomeur, Aachener Tierpark, Aquazoo Dusseldorf, Arche Warder, Opel Zoo Kronberg, Safaripark Hodenhagen, Tiergarten Bernburg, Tiergarten Straubing, Tierpark Bochum, Tierpark Chemnitz, Vivarium Darmstadt, Waldzoo Wingst, Zoo Eberswalde, Zoo Halle, Zoo Magdeburg, Zoo Stralsund, Tierpark Cottbus, Zoo am Meer, Zoopark Erfurt, Knies Kinderzoo, Tierpark Bern, Tierpark Goldau, Birdland, Dartmoor Zoo, Exmoor Zoo, Alpenzoo Innsbruck, Zoo Salzburg, Linton Zoo, Zoo Gyor, Zoo Vezprem, Zoo Pecs, Zoo Szeged, Zoo Jazbereny, Zoo Debrecen, Sosto Zoo, ZOOM Torino, la Torbiera, Zoo Krakow, Zoo Katowice, Zoo Opole, Zoo Poznan, Zoo Zamosc, Zoo Lodz, Zoo Warsaw, Zoo Plock, Zoo Gdansk, Zoo Torun, Aquario Vasco da Gama, Zoo Lourousa, Cabarceno, Santillana del mar, Oasys Tabernas,, Marineland, Zoo Jerez, Skansen Akvariet, Skansen Zoo, Olands Djurpark, Slottskogens Djurpark, Universeum, Skanes Djurpark, Jarvzoo, Lycksele Djurpark, Camperdown Wildlife Park, Folly Farm, Manor Wildlife Park, le Cornelle, Falconara, Birmingham WCP

Zoos for which no data are available include some of the big names, most notably Tiergarten Schoenbrunn and Zoo Prague. For Schoenbrunn a very rough estimate would be in the ballpark of 170.000 euros based on the donations to their orangutan and polar bear projects, but that number could be far off in either direction. For Zoo Prague they raised 190.000 euros via an Artenschutzeuro program in 2021, so that is likely to be the minimum. In their annual report conservation falls under “services”, which is a post of 1.9 million euros, but the in situ conservation contribution is likely much closer to 190.000 than 1.9 million. Other notable zoos which have a question mark are Tierpark Hagenbeck, the KMDA (Zoo Antwerp + Planckendael), Erlebniszoo Hannover, Paris Zoological parks, Tiergarten Nuernberg, Zoo Copenhagen, and Tierpark Berlin. I originally had some figures for the Aspinall Parks, but their annual reports are kind of hazy and it is hard to figure out what exactly is conservation and what isn't.

A type of zoos that doesn’t seem to contribute much to in situ conservation in monetary terms are ones that focus on native/European fauna. That makes sense given their contribution to conservation is mainly focused on breeding native mammals/birds that can be sometimes released. Also supporting conservation projects with money is an expensive business if you remain in Europe.

If you do happen to know the contribution of a European zoo that isn't listed, feel free to add.

 

[Jana]

For Zoo Prague they raised 190.000 euros via an Artenschutzeuro program in 2021, so that is likely to be the minimum.

Your amount is correct for year 2021. It contains both money raised by Artenschutzeuro as well as by donations and merchandise sales, and spent during that year on in-situ projects.

That amount fluctuates strongly year on year. In 2022 it was 350.000 euros. Best year was in 2020, when 780.000 euros were sent - but those were propped by special charity campaign to support Australian wildlife after big fires.