Zoos and conservation: from greenwashing to impact

[MRJ]

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.

Which begs the question: Are there any zoos engaged in legitimate conservation breeding programs in Europe? (you can leave Jersey out)

To be clear in my view a legitimate breeding program is one that:

• Has been identified by a qualified third party as being required to either assist in saving a species in the wild by providing animals for release, or act as an insurance population, or maintain a population of a species that is extinct in the wild.
• Is properly managed by a species manager and/or studbook keeper.
• Is managed at or towards a genetically sustainable population.
• The zoos within it comply with all population management requests,

If there are the cost of this should be seen as a valid conservation expense.

Being involved with an EEP for a threatened species without any connection to the wild is not a conservation activity (but still commendable)

 

[Therabu]

Which begs the question: Are there any zoos engaged in legitimate conservation breeding programs in Europe? (you can leave Jersey out)

To be clear in my view a legitimate breeding program is one that:

• Has been identified by a qualified third party as being required to either assist in saving a species in the wild by providing animals for release, or act as an insurance population, or maintain a population of a species that is extinct in the wild.
• Is properly managed by a species manager and/or studbook keeper.
• Is managed at or towards a genetically sustainable population.
• The zoos within it comply with all population management requests,

If there are the cost of this should be seen as a valid conservation expense.

Being involved with an EEP for a threatened species without any connection to the wild is not a conservation activity (but still commendable)

There is indeed, sometimes behind the scenes such as European mink and little bustard breeding enclosures in a few French zoos or Scottish wildcat in the UK. I know there is several other examples (others than comes to my mind are European hamster, Bavarian vole, bald ibis, bearded vulture...).
I would stress that more often than not, it is not strictly about saving a specie but rather save local populations of more widespread species. This is related to the fact that from a zoogeographic point of view, Europe is not really a continent of its own but rather a peninsula of Asia/Eurasia so there is less endemism than in Australia or even America.

Thank you to Lintworm for this very interesting work !
Money dedicated to conservation is the easiest measure to compare institutions between themselves and to their own ressources. It is not without drawbacks as shown by the example of Doué where there is probably some double-accounting with donations from other zoos. What about the valuation of time from workers of the zoo ? I know that Beauval valuate this and include it in its financial contribution even if it is not cash stricto sensu. But that can also lead to overestimate of the real impact because as it was said previously, 1$ in Madagascar go far beyond than 1$ spent in Europe.

A great lesson, is that transparency is rather the exception than the rule and that should be improved. One could aslo imagine some "accounting rules" issued by EAZA or WAZA and that would propose a unified framework to value conservation input.

On my side, I wonder if zoos should not join more their efforts (at least at the national level). We already see this trend with the BIAZA and ZGAP. It would professionalize both raising and use of the money by enjoying benefits of scale. ZGAP for example is supporting a lot of conservation programs that benefit species not even bred in Europe and that seem to go below the radar of bigger organizations, so this is a very complementary asset in the conservation world. On the other side, I understand that the proximity is not the same when you give to an intermediary fund and that can play into the willingness of local companies or individuals and supported works may not be linked with local collection so you loose a part of the "ambassadors effect".

 

[Lafone]

Which begs the question: Are there any zoos engaged in legitimate conservation breeding programs in Europe? (you can leave Jersey out)

To be clear in my view a legitimate breeding program is one that:

• Has been identified by a qualified third party as being required to either assist in saving a species in the wild by providing animals for release, or act as an insurance population, or maintain a population of a species that is extinct in the wild.
• Is properly managed by a species manager and/or studbook keeper.
• Is managed at or towards a genetically sustainable population.
• The zoos within it comply with all population management requests,

If there are the cost of this should be seen as a valid conservation expense.

Being involved with an EEP for a threatened species without any connection to the wild is not a conservation activity (but still commendable)

CWP breeds white storks as part of a regulated release programme called the white stork project. They partner with the organisation managing the releases. You can see the birds building nests and the young hatching and growing up and then a number go off for release every year. It’s a highlight of a visit too when the breeding / hatching is in progress imho.

Example article.

White Storks bred at Cotswold Wildlife Park take flight in the UK’s first Stork rewilding project : Cotswold Wildlife Park and Gardens

Partnership — White Stork Project

 

[lintworm]

It is not without drawbacks as shown by the example of Doué where there is probably some double-accounting with donations from other zoos.

That is true, but at least Doue is transparent with how much money comes from the zoo itself and how much from third parties. Beauval is also transparent about this, but plenty of other zoos aren't and it is often impossible to get the details from balance sheets...

What about the valuation of time from workers of the zoo ? I know that Beauval valuate this and include it in its financial contribution even if it is not cash stricto sensu.

That is a good point, EAZA put forth some measure of it, but most zoos don't and there isn't really a definition as to what time commitment actually counts as in situ conservation.

A great lesson, is that transparency is rather the exception than the rule and that should be improved. One could aslo imagine some "accounting rules" issued by EAZA or WAZA and that would propose a unified framework to value conservation input.

There is indeed a role for WAZA and EAZA (and national zoo organisations) to create clear transparency rules that zoos have to adhere. Currently many zoos are hiding that they are doing almost nothing with some nice talking on their website. Some sticks are really needed as currently the ones that do have a proper administration are the huge minority.

On my side, I wonder if zoos should not join more their efforts (at least at the national level). We already see this trend with the BIAZA and ZGAP. It would professionalize both raising and use of the money by enjoying benefits of scale. ZGAP for example is supporting a lot of conservation programs that benefit species not even bred in Europe and that seem to go below the radar of bigger organizations, so this is a very complementary asset in the conservation world. On the other side, I understand that the proximity is not the same when you give to an intermediary fund and that can play into the willingness of local companies or individuals and supported works may not be linked with local collection so you loose a part of the "ambassadors effect".

I think this is also something very valuable. Especially for smaller zoos it would be a good way to team up (regionally) to have an impact. Several zoo associations are already doing something like that, but currently it is peanuts. Organisations such as ZGAP and Stiftung Artenschutz are great examples on which to build.

 

[lintworm]

Which begs the question: Are there any zoos engaged in legitimate conservation breeding programs in Europe? (you can leave Jersey out)

To be clear in my view a legitimate breeding program is one that:

• Has been identified by a qualified third party as being required to either assist in saving a species in the wild by providing animals for release, or act as an insurance population, or maintain a population of a species that is extinct in the wild.
• Is properly managed by a species manager and/or studbook keeper.
• Is managed at or towards a genetically sustainable population.
• The zoos within it comply with all population management requests,

If there are the cost of this should be seen as a valid conservation expense.

Being involved with an EEP for a threatened species without any connection to the wild is not a conservation activity (but still commendable)

There are multiple EEPs which have a clear re-introduction/in situ component for European fauna. I would assume they would adhere to your standards of a legitimate breeding program. These are:

Montseny brook newt
European pond turtle (dedicated breeding centres in multiple zoos)

Waldrapp ibis
Bearded vulture
Cinereous vulture
European griffon vulture

European mink (dedicated breeding centres in Tallinn and Zoodyssee)
Eurasian lynx
Przewalski horse
Wisent
European forest reindeer
Alpine ibex

Not in an EEP framework, but still used for re-introductions is the marbled teal.

There is a whole range of species for which one or a few zoos are working for re-introductions locally. This is often in collaboration with local nature conservation organisations and local governments. This includes, but certainly not limited to:

European (white) crayfish
Stone crayfish (Besancon and others)
Pond mudsnail (Edinburgh Zoo)

Crau plain cricket (Besancon & la Barben)
Longhorn beetle (Nordens Ark)
Alpine longhorn beetle (Alpenzoo)
Great capricorn beetle (Nordens Ark)
Rattle grashopper (Nordens Ark)
Clouded apollo (Nordens Ark)
Chequered blue (Nordens Ark)
Pine hoverfly (Highland Wildlife Park)

Rhone streber (Besancon)
European mudminnow (Tiergarten Schoenbrunn)

Fire salamander (Besancon, Gaiazoo and others)
European spadefoot toad (Artis)
European green toad (Cologne, Nordens Ark)
Pool frog (Kristiansand Zoo)
European tree frog (Riga Zoo)
Mallorcan midwife toad (Zoo Barcelona, ZSL)

Meadow viper (Budapest Zoo)
Sand lizard (Marwell and other British zoos)

White stork (Nordens Ark, Cotswold)
Lesser white-fronted goose (Nordens Ark)
Little bustard (Zoodyssee, Obterre, Villars les Dombes)
Eurasian eagle owl (Nordens Ark and others)
Ural owl (Tiergarten Schoenbrunn, Tierfreigelaende Bayerischer Wald and many other Central European zoos)
White-backed woodpecker (Nordens Ark, Jarvzoo, Skansen)

Harvest mouse (Besancon)
European hamster (Gaiazoo, Diergaarde Blijdorp, Heidelberg and many others)
European garden dormouse (Gaiazoo and others)
Hazel dormouse (Wildwood Kent)
European souslik (Tiergarten Nurnberg and others)
European red squirrel (Loads of British zoos)
Scottish & European wildcat (RZSS and others)

As @Therabu mentioned, many of these species are common throughout most of their range, but have gone extinct/are very rare at the edge of their natural range. There are of-course exceptions such as the Rhone streber which is a critically endangered fish known only from a tiny area in France and adjacent Switzerland.

As always there are a few zoos taking the lead with a larger number of species. Then there are species kept by quite a number of zoos, but again most zoos contribute little except from a few vultures.

There really is scope to do a lot more in terms of captive breeding of rare European species. Nordens Ark shows how much success is possible with invertebrates. Additionally there are plenty of freshwater fish in need of captive breeding. And with small mammals there is plenty of potential too. The starting of a breeding program for Bavarian pine vole is a start, but that a species like Pyrenean desman isn't kept in captivity is somewhat surprising to me....

 

[AthleticBinturong]

Natterjack toads and corncrakes are bred for release in Fota Wildlife Park, Ireland.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

but that a species like Pyrenean desman isn't kept in captivity is somewhat surprising to me....

I don't know if this is still the case or not, but some years ago I saw a news report posted on FB about one of the off-site breeding centres operated by Barcelona Zoo for Montseny Newt having enclosures for Pyrenean Desman with the precise intention of getting to grips with their husbandry!

I shall see if I can root it out again.

 

[PossumRoach]

I don't know if this is still the case or not, but some years ago I saw a news report posted on FB about one of the off-site breeding centres operated by Barcelona Zoo for Montseny Newt having enclosures for Pyrenean Desman with the precise intention of getting to grips with their husbandry!

I shall see if I can root it out again.

Not the news article but the Barcelone zoo does say their intentions on their website themselves.

"

• Increasing knowledge of the biology and ex situ maintenance of Galemys pyrenaicus.
• Attempting to breed the species ex situ.
  
  
• Increasing knowledge among the population in general and school children in particular on the Pyrenean desman and the factors that contribute to its declining populations.
  
  
• Applying the knowledge acquired from the species’ ex situ maintenance to studies on its in situ populations and the conservation of its habitats."

Conservation of the desman | Zoo Barcelona

Edit: also on their website they have a 2 links to studies in Spanish about the care of the desmans.

 

[Swampy]

Let's not forget the 4 Critically Endangered Desertas Islands land snail species that Chester and Bristol are involved with.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Not the news article but the Barcelone zoo does say their intentions on their website themselves.

Well, the video in question includes footage of the enclosures, and the desmans within, so it got a bit further than intentions!

 

[PossumRoach]

Well, the video in question includes footage of the enclosures, and the desmans within, so it got a bit further than intentions!

Did the enclosures look like this by any chance? I get that seeing the fottage in action would be preferable but maybe this picture (Source) might suffice before you find the video.

 

[remar]

I would have been surprised, if you would have found something for Austrian Zoos, as i was searching for this information some time ago. According to the EAZA Conservation Map only 3 out of the 6 Austrian EAZA Members contribute to in-situ (Schönbrunn, Schmiding and Alpenzoo Innsbruck). Aqua Terra Zoo Haus des Meeres is an interesting case as it is leading in rewilding Goodeidae at Mexico, but doing nothing other for in situ (and even the Goodeidae have an unclear future there, as the current curator for freshwater is leaving soon)

I understand the zoos, which don't distinguish between conservation and research as both of them are sometimes really close. To protect the saola, first you have to know more about their behavior. Is the research conservation? I think, one can argue yes

Also supporting conservation projects with money is an expensive business if you remain in Europe.

This is a cheap excuse. Even small amounts are better than doing nothing. And there is enough to do in Europe too (Think about fish ladders or bogland rewilding.

Being involved with an EEP for a threatened species without any connection to the wild is not a conservation activity (but still commendable)

I strongly disagree. Although it doesn't have an impact right now, nobody knows how the population of some species in third world countries will develop the next decades. It is way better to start early enough and not only when it's nearby to late.

Alpine longhorn beetle (Alpenzoo)

To be fair, this beetle also belong to Nordens Ark. Alpenzoo only provides the sourcing animals for them.

Regrading the Europe "problem" in generell. Sometimes only one person is missing, who is making the first move. E.g. the whole thing with the bavarian pine vole startet due to one new person at Alpenzoo.

 

[Jurek7]

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

You may be interested in West Pomeranian Nature Society in Poland, which runs Dzika Zagroda Jabłonowo or Wildpark Jablonowo with wisents and lynxes on public display. This would make it a zoo according to your rules, together with WWT. Although they would be surprised to be seen as such.

They have several projects in situ about nature reserves and rare birds, and I could not find their full budget. However two projects alone, one about wild wisents and another on reintroduction of lynxes were 4728028 PLN and 3590485 PLN in 2017-2021. This means at least 400.000 EUR per year and comfortably within top 20 in your list.

Interesting is that their project on Wisents living in forest-farmland landscape in West Poland given tools for wisent reintroduction in many other areas. A good project gives benefits much beyond the money spent.

Zachodniopomorskie Towarzystwo Przyrodnicze - Dzika Zagroda
https://dzika-zagroda.pl/?page_id=14&lang=en
Zachodnioporskie towarzystwo przyrodnicze – Organizacja pożytku publicznego

 

[Jurek7]

Thank you to Lintworm for this very interesting work!

I would welcome a twin thread: what species and places in situ were supported, where most money was spent, what they achieved? It would be interesting run across the globe.

 

[MRJ]

I strongly disagree. Although it doesn't have an impact right now, nobody knows how the population of some species in third world countries will develop the next decades. It is way better to start early enough and not only when it's nearby to late.

The problem with that is that there are thousands of species of which that could be said that will never see the inside of a zoo. Conservation implies having a benefit to the population in the wild. Just holding threatened species and claiming a conservation benefit is simply greenwashing.

Regrading the Europe "problem" in generell. Sometimes only one person is missing, who is making the first move. E.g. the whole thing with the bavarian pine vole startet due to one new person at Alpenzoo.

That has always been true. "If it is to be, it is up to me."

 

[MRJ]

There are multiple EEPs which have a clear re-introduction/in situ component for European fauna. I would assume they would adhere to your standards of a legitimate breeding program. These are:

Montseny brook newt
European pond turtle (dedicated breeding centres in multiple zoos)

Waldrapp ibis
Bearded vulture
Cinereous vulture
European griffon vulture

European mink (dedicated breeding centres in Tallinn and Zoodyssee)
Eurasian lynx
Przewalski horse
Wisent
European forest reindeer
Alpine ibex

Not in an EEP framework, but still used for re-introductions is the marbled teal.

There is a whole range of species for which one or a few zoos are working for re-introductions locally. This is often in collaboration with local nature conservation organisations and local governments. This includes, but certainly not limited to:

European (white) crayfish
Stone crayfish (Besancon and others)
Pond mudsnail (Edinburgh Zoo)

Crau plain cricket (Besancon & la Barben)
Longhorn beetle (Nordens Ark)
Alpine longhorn beetle (Alpenzoo)
Great capricorn beetle (Nordens Ark)
Rattle grashopper (Nordens Ark)
Clouded apollo (Nordens Ark)
Chequered blue (Nordens Ark)
Pine hoverfly (Highland Wildlife Park)

Rhone streber (Besancon)
European mudminnow (Tiergarten Schoenbrunn)

Fire salamander (Besancon, Gaiazoo and others)
European spadefoot toad (Artis)
European green toad (Cologne, Nordens Ark)
Pool frog (Kristiansand Zoo)
European tree frog (Riga Zoo)
Mallorcan midwife toad (Zoo Barcelona, ZSL)

Meadow viper (Budapest Zoo)
Sand lizard (Marwell and other British zoos)

White stork (Nordens Ark, Cotswold)
Lesser white-fronted goose (Nordens Ark)
Little bustard (Zoodyssee, Obterre, Villars les Dombes)
Eurasian eagle owl (Nordens Ark and others)
Ural owl (Tiergarten Schoenbrunn, Tierfreigelaende Bayerischer Wald and many other Central European zoos)
White-backed woodpecker (Nordens Ark, Jarvzoo, Skansen)

Harvest mouse (Besancon)
European hamster (Gaiazoo, Diergaarde Blijdorp, Heidelberg and many others)
European garden dormouse (Gaiazoo and others)
Hazel dormouse (Wildwood Kent)
European souslik (Tiergarten Nurnberg and others)
European red squirrel (Loads of British zoos)
Scottish & European wildcat (RZSS and others)

As @Therabu mentioned, many of these species are common throughout most of their range, but have gone extinct/are very rare at the edge of their natural range. There are of-course exceptions such as the Rhone streber which is a critically endangered fish known only from a tiny area in France and adjacent Switzerland.

As always there are a few zoos taking the lead with a larger number of species. Then there are species kept by quite a number of zoos, but again most zoos contribute little except from a few vultures.

There really is scope to do a lot more in terms of captive breeding of rare European species. Nordens Ark shows how much success is possible with invertebrates. Additionally there are plenty of freshwater fish in need of captive breeding. And with small mammals there is plenty of potential too. The starting of a breeding program for Bavarian pine vole is a start, but that a species like Pyrenean desman isn't kept in captivity is somewhat surprising to me....

Thank you for that, and it is an impressive list, although as you point out more can be done. I do think that programs working for locally threated or extinct species are valid.

In my mind, these programs qualify as in-situ conservation, as they are working with species within or adjacent to their natural range. I'd be interested to know if there are any ex-situ programs for typical zoo animals, ie those coming from the tropics or other non-European biomes.

 

[TheMightyOrca]

As much as I enjoy zoos, I definitely have some reservations about their impact and how much education and conservation messaging really gets through. A big concern I have is people overestimating the conservation value of captive populations, especially ex-situ efforts. Especially worrying is hearing people say things like "the wild populations are screwed so zoos are the only way to keep these species alive". Like, giving up on preserving wild populations just defeats the whole purpose. Ex-situ can be a good additional tool but it should never be the primary one unless there's literally no other choice. (as in, the species is extinct in the wild)

I agree that the main benefit of zoos is less about the captive breeding populations and more about educating visitors and getting them to care. Sure, people can read books and watch documentaries, but you'll draw more people in with something they can see in person.

I would like to see zoos cast their nets wider in that regard. Sure, have the giraffes and tigers to draw people in, but have some emphasis on more obscure species too. They're the most vulnerable.

 

[lintworm]

You may be interested in West Pomeranian Nature Society in Poland, which runs Dzika Zagroda Jabłonowo or Wildpark Jablonowo with wisents and lynxes on public display. This would make it a zoo according to your rules, together with WWT. Although they would be surprised to be seen as such.

They have several projects in situ about nature reserves and rare birds, and I could not find their full budget. However two projects alone, one about wild wisents and another on reintroduction of lynxes were 4728028 PLN and 3590485 PLN in 2017-2021. This means at least 400.000 EUR per year and comfortably within top 20 in your list.

Interesting is that their project on Wisents living in forest-farmland landscape in West Poland given tools for wisent reintroduction in many other areas. A good project gives benefits much beyond the money spent.

Zachodniopomorskie Towarzystwo Przyrodnicze - Dzika Zagroda
https://dzika-zagroda.pl/?page_id=14&lang=en
Zachodnioporskie towarzystwo przyrodnicze – Organizacja pożytku publicznego

I am not getting into any further bad faith arguments with you, but no they are not the same.

Thank you for that, and it is an impressive list, although as you point out more can be done. I do think that programs working for locally threated or extinct species are valid.

I also think local programs are very valid, I am not sure whether they meet all criteria you listed when it comes to preserving genetic diversity.

I have been talking a lot about that it is worthwhile to think where scarce money has the most impact. But if you follow that reasoning spending money on conservation in NW Europe makes almost no sense, which I think is also not true. I think it would be very valuable if every major zoo would participate in a re-introduction program for an native species (I also know it is not realistic....). People generally don't seem to understand that nature outside their doorstep is also under tremendous pressure and often don't care. But even in a country like the Netherlands there are habitats of international importance, which could be lost if it isn't properly protected (and it is not currently...). Zoos should imo not only try to educate about the plight for conservation somewhere far away, but also make it clear there is enough work on their doorstep.

 

[MRJ]

I also think local programs are very valid, I am not sure whether they meet all criteria you listed when it comes to preserving genetic diversity.

It really depends how long the program is going to run for. If only one or two generations, genetic management is not important. Longer - most certainly. Working with local species also allows meta-population management, moving animals backwards and forwards between captive and wild populations.

Zoos should imo not only try to educate about the plight for conservation somewhere far away, but also make it clear there is enough work on their doorstep.

Could not agree more.

 

[Dassie rat]

The problem with that is that there are thousands of species of which that could be said that will never see the inside of a zoo. Conservation implies having a benefit to the population in the wild. Just holding threatened species and claiming a conservation benefit is simply greenwashing.

I basically agree. There are species where the number of captives exceeds the number of wild individuals. If there is no intention to release some of the captives into the wild, is it really worthwhile to keep breeding the species and sending some individuals to other zoos? Many zoos have reduced the number of species being kept while increasing the size of the enclosures of big 'popular' animals while removing 'unpopular' species, some of which are endangered and could be bred and released into the wild.