Wow, he actually did it.
Zoos and conservation: from greenwashing to impact
- Thread starter lintworm
- Start date
Why is it not realistic? Is one room with tanks for spadefoot toads or garden dormice a burden too big to bear for major zoos? If that is the case we might as well just stop here and go home now.
It would be entirely possible and cheap, but without a measure forcing zoos to do so, plenty of zoos won't be on board unfortunately.... The majority of main zoos doesn't have an European section at all or is planning one, despite all the interesting stories and animals that are part of Europe...
There is still the question, how much releasing least concern species has to do with saving species from extinction. Should zoos really favor griffon vultures over lapped face (EN) or white-rumped vultures (CR) just because first ones are easier at releasing into the wild? I doubt that this is the solution. There are many different approaches how to do something for conservation. There isn't just one side at the same coin. The same thing if you look at the different ibex species. If the EAZA zoos stop keeping least concern alpine ibex there would be more than enough space for endangered kuban turs.
Just because a species is rated as Least Concern, does not mean releasing that species into the wild is a waste of time. Many species that are not globally considered threatened are extirpated from their original range and zoo population's can be used to help release new individuals into parts of the species' former range to recreate those older populations.
Aardwolf
Well-Known Member
Indeed. Trumpeter swans are IUCN Least Concern, but have been extirpated through large swaths of their range. The trumpeter swan reintro program, participated in by many AZA facilities (as well as some non-AZA facilities) is compelling conservation story with a lot of grassroots community involvement and collaborations.
Alpine Ibex were endangered not so long ago. It came back from 100 individuals left.
Releasing animals in the wild far away is very expensive, lots of paperwork and a real challenge. Of course White-backed vultures are endangered, but Griffons also are and for them, European zoos can make a difference easily.
I think there are two components to your post.
First it would indeed be good if zoos look towards housing endangered species, but just not exclusively. In the Alpine ibex case it is clear that there is a very large captive population of them. It makes sense for wild parks to continuously focus on Alpine ibex, but for larger zoos to focus on turs or Nubian ibex instead... In a similar manner endangered ring-tailed lemurs and small-clawed otters are so ubiquitous that they take up space that would better be used for other endangered (similar) species. Zoos often measure themselves by how many EEP species they have, not with how big they contribute to an EEP. The contribution of the 400th ring-tailed lemur group is negligible compared to the 18th mongoose lemur holder....
It is still valuable to focus on locally endangered species too. Conservation is not only about saving as many species as possible from extinction. It is also about conserving as complete as possible ecosystems. In such cases re-introducing species that were lost in part of their range does make sense. But zoos should balance the two and in situ conservation of globally endangered species should get more attention imo, but not 100% of attention.
Biodiversity conservation on zoo grounds
While support for in situ conservation is the most important direct conservation measure that zoos can take, zoo grounds can also be home to a surprising number of wild species. Not all of that wildlife is as iconic as the colugos in Singapore, but most zoos are either green patches in a city or built in the forest on the city edge. This means that many zoos have the potential to harbour a good amount of biodiversity. Zoo grounds don’t have much impact on conservation at the national level and never will, but they can be a great place for education. It also makes sense for an organisation concerned about wildlife to be as wildlife friendly as possible. Unfortunately a lack of knowledge among zoo people about native ecology means that that potential is often not realised. Many zoos in recent years try to do something positive, but good intentions do not always lead to good results. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and this is certainly the case for native biodiversity in zoos.
Promoting local biodiversity starts with the plant life and this is often where it already becomes obvious that zoos tend to employ horticulturists instead of biologists when choosing planting. That is not strange, given that zoos are in fact gardens, not wildlife reserves (with exceptions). To promote local biodiversity the start is always to get the right plants. To make a real impact one would have to work with native plants, which are not only native to the country, but also native to the area where the zoo is located. A good example is the hart’s tongue fern (Asplenium scolopendrium), which while native to the Netherlands, only occurs in the chalk-rich south and preferably in forest with rocks. This is however a plant one can easily buy in garden centres and is used in a large number of zoos. But while it is native to the country, it does nothing to promote local biodiversity, as most other species associated with the same habitat just don’t occur there. Even if you have found a plant species that fits the area (and thus also the soil type!), it is also crucial to use local stock. Many plant species have quite a wide distribution, but differ in chemical composition across their range, so if you use the wrong locality, the plant might not be edible for the insects associated with it. These are often two steps too many for most zoos. What you generally see is a standard seed mixture that is colourful and looks good for humans, but is in reality only nice for the most common generalist species. That means that you can attract bees and butterflies with it, but only the common ones and not the ones in need of any extra habitat.
Even the rainforest zoo of Singapore is covered with non-native tree species. (Picture by @marmolady )
Another issue is the use of trees in zoos. In many zoos the majority consists of non-native species that are of little importance to native species. This is even true for Singapore, which is considered a rainforest zoo. While there is some impressive wildlife around, it is mostly the generalist species that only care about structure. In European zoos northern red oak (Quercus rubra), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) and sycamores (Platanus spec.) are commonly found, despite being non-native or even invasive. Cavity nesting birds generally don’t care what tree they build their nest in, so one can find middle-spotted woodpeckers and other old forest birds in zoos with exotic trees, as it is all about structure. Invertebrates do however care, and bar a few generalists, such trees are worthless for biodiversity. So also here it would make sense to focus on native trees (also native to the specific area, not just the country) whenever possible.
Of course zoos also use trees and other plants to theme areas to look like Africa or some other exotic location, I am not arguing that that shouldn’t be done, as local biodiversity conservation shouldn’t be the main focus of a zoo. But care should be taken that you don’t plant invasive species. A good example here is pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), which is a common garden plant and often used in S-American exhibits. Planting it is fine in NW-Europe, but in Southern Europe, as well as in part of the United States this is an invasive species. Zoos should be conscious about what they are planting, not only about what is now invasive, but also about what is likely to become invasive with climate change. Black locust (R. pseudoacacia) is a good example of that, it isn’t invasive yet in the Netherlands, but already so in Eastern Germany. There is a good chance that with warmer weather it will become invasive in the Netherlands too. Having invasive species spreading from a zoo ground would not look good and be bad for native biodiversity. Zoos already don’t have the best name as a source of potential invasive animals, like sacred ibis, but the potential negative impact of invasive plants can be huge too and be even more consequential than animal invasions.
While pampas grass can be great in a S-American exhibit, it is best not done in some parts of the world. (Picture by @Zooplantman ).
When moving from plants to animals, an important group for biodiversity conservation on zoo grounds are insects. Of all insects the pollinators: bees, butterflies and hoverflies are some of the most well-known and well-liked insects and a group that many zoos try to make an effort to have on their zoo grounds. Unfortunately most zoos fail to cater to more than a few common generalist species. The most important problem that most butterflies have very specific host plants for their caterpillars and are not very mobile. Many bees have very specific feeding requirements too, often feeding on only one species or genus of flowers. When as most zoos you don’t take that into account, you are left with a few mobile generalist species not in need of any help. Many zoos now have so-called insect hotels, that if constructed correctly (also a common mistake) can provide nesting opportunities for a number of native bees and other insects. But this omits all ground nesting bees, which are more common and more importantly if you don’t provide the right food source, insect hotels are useless except to generalists. So as long as zoos use the wrong flower mixes and fail to create suitable habitats for all but the most common pollinators, their impact will remain smaller than possible.
Even if for pollinators you provide the right conditions for breeding and feeding, there is another problem: the honey bee. The honey bee is one of the most abundant insects worldwide and although it has an image as a wild species, in many world regions it is a domesticated one and an abundant one at that. Honeybees have a competitive advantage over native species as honeybees can communicate good resources to each other and as such they can take over most of the available flowers, especially given they often occur in unnaturally high densities. There is now abundant evidence worldwide that honeybees do in many cases outcompete native species and are a major reason for decline of wild bee species and other pollinators. Wild bees are however a tremendous biodiverse group, the USA has over 4.000 species and Germany has roughly 600. Even the tiny Netherlands has close to 400 wild bee species, of which over 100 can co-exist in the same area. Zoos do however still mostly focus on honeybees and a very select group of generalists and many zoos even have a hive on their grounds. A single hive can easily have 50.000 individual bees, which are a force to be reckoned with, as many wild bee species occur in relatively low densities and are generally much smaller. Bee hives can be a great tool for education, but are misleading as a tool to save the pollinator. The general public sees the honeybee as the one and only bee and pollinator and this is clearly not the case. So zoos should think again about whether the educational worth of honeybees is worth the potential ecological damage. There are still zoos that promote honey bee keeping as conservation while it is anything but…
Maybe nice for education, not so nice for conservation. (Picture by @vogelcommando ).
While there is clearly potential for some biodiversity conservation on zoo grounds and there are enough steps that zoos could take. It is not the only consideration that goes into landscape design. The main goal of planting in zoos is to enhance the visitor experience, by e.g. providing a nice park landscape or by trying to replicate certain ecosystems. If zoos can achieve that while still providing habitats for native wildlife by using the correct native species when possible and avoid (potentially) invasive species altogether, that would be a nice synergy. The good news is that with some expert advice this shouldn’t be too hard to achieve.
That means we are almost at the end, in the final post I will share some of my thoughts on how future steps in terms of in situ conservation could look like.
While support for in situ conservation is the most important direct conservation measure that zoos can take, zoo grounds can also be home to a surprising number of wild species. Not all of that wildlife is as iconic as the colugos in Singapore, but most zoos are either green patches in a city or built in the forest on the city edge. This means that many zoos have the potential to harbour a good amount of biodiversity. Zoo grounds don’t have much impact on conservation at the national level and never will, but they can be a great place for education. It also makes sense for an organisation concerned about wildlife to be as wildlife friendly as possible. Unfortunately a lack of knowledge among zoo people about native ecology means that that potential is often not realised. Many zoos in recent years try to do something positive, but good intentions do not always lead to good results. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and this is certainly the case for native biodiversity in zoos.
Promoting local biodiversity starts with the plant life and this is often where it already becomes obvious that zoos tend to employ horticulturists instead of biologists when choosing planting. That is not strange, given that zoos are in fact gardens, not wildlife reserves (with exceptions). To promote local biodiversity the start is always to get the right plants. To make a real impact one would have to work with native plants, which are not only native to the country, but also native to the area where the zoo is located. A good example is the hart’s tongue fern (Asplenium scolopendrium), which while native to the Netherlands, only occurs in the chalk-rich south and preferably in forest with rocks. This is however a plant one can easily buy in garden centres and is used in a large number of zoos. But while it is native to the country, it does nothing to promote local biodiversity, as most other species associated with the same habitat just don’t occur there. Even if you have found a plant species that fits the area (and thus also the soil type!), it is also crucial to use local stock. Many plant species have quite a wide distribution, but differ in chemical composition across their range, so if you use the wrong locality, the plant might not be edible for the insects associated with it. These are often two steps too many for most zoos. What you generally see is a standard seed mixture that is colourful and looks good for humans, but is in reality only nice for the most common generalist species. That means that you can attract bees and butterflies with it, but only the common ones and not the ones in need of any extra habitat.
Even the rainforest zoo of Singapore is covered with non-native tree species. (Picture by @marmolady )
Another issue is the use of trees in zoos. In many zoos the majority consists of non-native species that are of little importance to native species. This is even true for Singapore, which is considered a rainforest zoo. While there is some impressive wildlife around, it is mostly the generalist species that only care about structure. In European zoos northern red oak (Quercus rubra), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) and sycamores (Platanus spec.) are commonly found, despite being non-native or even invasive. Cavity nesting birds generally don’t care what tree they build their nest in, so one can find middle-spotted woodpeckers and other old forest birds in zoos with exotic trees, as it is all about structure. Invertebrates do however care, and bar a few generalists, such trees are worthless for biodiversity. So also here it would make sense to focus on native trees (also native to the specific area, not just the country) whenever possible.
Of course zoos also use trees and other plants to theme areas to look like Africa or some other exotic location, I am not arguing that that shouldn’t be done, as local biodiversity conservation shouldn’t be the main focus of a zoo. But care should be taken that you don’t plant invasive species. A good example here is pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), which is a common garden plant and often used in S-American exhibits. Planting it is fine in NW-Europe, but in Southern Europe, as well as in part of the United States this is an invasive species. Zoos should be conscious about what they are planting, not only about what is now invasive, but also about what is likely to become invasive with climate change. Black locust (R. pseudoacacia) is a good example of that, it isn’t invasive yet in the Netherlands, but already so in Eastern Germany. There is a good chance that with warmer weather it will become invasive in the Netherlands too. Having invasive species spreading from a zoo ground would not look good and be bad for native biodiversity. Zoos already don’t have the best name as a source of potential invasive animals, like sacred ibis, but the potential negative impact of invasive plants can be huge too and be even more consequential than animal invasions.
While pampas grass can be great in a S-American exhibit, it is best not done in some parts of the world. (Picture by @Zooplantman ).
When moving from plants to animals, an important group for biodiversity conservation on zoo grounds are insects. Of all insects the pollinators: bees, butterflies and hoverflies are some of the most well-known and well-liked insects and a group that many zoos try to make an effort to have on their zoo grounds. Unfortunately most zoos fail to cater to more than a few common generalist species. The most important problem that most butterflies have very specific host plants for their caterpillars and are not very mobile. Many bees have very specific feeding requirements too, often feeding on only one species or genus of flowers. When as most zoos you don’t take that into account, you are left with a few mobile generalist species not in need of any help. Many zoos now have so-called insect hotels, that if constructed correctly (also a common mistake) can provide nesting opportunities for a number of native bees and other insects. But this omits all ground nesting bees, which are more common and more importantly if you don’t provide the right food source, insect hotels are useless except to generalists. So as long as zoos use the wrong flower mixes and fail to create suitable habitats for all but the most common pollinators, their impact will remain smaller than possible.
Even if for pollinators you provide the right conditions for breeding and feeding, there is another problem: the honey bee. The honey bee is one of the most abundant insects worldwide and although it has an image as a wild species, in many world regions it is a domesticated one and an abundant one at that. Honeybees have a competitive advantage over native species as honeybees can communicate good resources to each other and as such they can take over most of the available flowers, especially given they often occur in unnaturally high densities. There is now abundant evidence worldwide that honeybees do in many cases outcompete native species and are a major reason for decline of wild bee species and other pollinators. Wild bees are however a tremendous biodiverse group, the USA has over 4.000 species and Germany has roughly 600. Even the tiny Netherlands has close to 400 wild bee species, of which over 100 can co-exist in the same area. Zoos do however still mostly focus on honeybees and a very select group of generalists and many zoos even have a hive on their grounds. A single hive can easily have 50.000 individual bees, which are a force to be reckoned with, as many wild bee species occur in relatively low densities and are generally much smaller. Bee hives can be a great tool for education, but are misleading as a tool to save the pollinator. The general public sees the honeybee as the one and only bee and pollinator and this is clearly not the case. So zoos should think again about whether the educational worth of honeybees is worth the potential ecological damage. There are still zoos that promote honey bee keeping as conservation while it is anything but…
Maybe nice for education, not so nice for conservation. (Picture by @vogelcommando ).
While there is clearly potential for some biodiversity conservation on zoo grounds and there are enough steps that zoos could take. It is not the only consideration that goes into landscape design. The main goal of planting in zoos is to enhance the visitor experience, by e.g. providing a nice park landscape or by trying to replicate certain ecosystems. If zoos can achieve that while still providing habitats for native wildlife by using the correct native species when possible and avoid (potentially) invasive species altogether, that would be a nice synergy. The good news is that with some expert advice this shouldn’t be too hard to achieve.
That means we are almost at the end, in the final post I will share some of my thoughts on how future steps in terms of in situ conservation could look like.
Rare doesn't mean the same as endangered.
I couldn't put it better to words! What i wanted to say is, be careful with your wishes, they might come true....
The cheapest way for zoos not contributing at releasing animals yet, is to switch from another Caprini to Alpine Ibex. Is it better to keep species which is nowadays least concern and even huntable in Austria or Switzerland than an endangered Caprini? I doubt that conservation should work like this.
If we think further, zoos claiming to protect species from extinction. Mayb the only contribution of the zoo is to release Alpine Ibexes, a least concern species that is legal hunted, and it claims itself for saving species from extinction. This would be greenwashing for me, wouldn't it?
That's exactly what i meant, while speaking of in-situ, don't forget about ex-situ either. Both of theme are important for zoos. I never wanted to say, that zoos should do nothing for local in-situ projects. It is important that they release Ibexes or Vultures. I just wanted to point out, that this isn't the only thing zoos have to bother about.
Last edited:
This is something I've thought about a lot. A zoo that has native, well-thought out landscaping and proudly educated to the public that this is the right thing to do is a zoo I'd love to see.Biodiversity conservation on zoo grounds
While support for in situ conservation is the most important direct conservation measure that zoos can take, zoo grounds can also be home to a surprising number of wild species. Not all of that wildlife is as iconic as the colugos in Singapore, but most zoos are either green patches in a city or built in the forest on the city edge. This means that many zoos have the potential to harbour a good amount of biodiversity. Zoo grounds don’t have much impact on conservation at the national level and never will, but they can be a great place for education. It also makes sense for an organisation concerned about wildlife to be as wildlife friendly as possible. Unfortunately a lack of knowledge among zoo people about native ecology means that that potential is often not realised. Many zoos in recent years try to do something positive, but good intentions do not always lead to good results. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and this is certainly the case for native biodiversity in zoos.
Promoting local biodiversity starts with the plant life and this is often where it already becomes obvious that zoos tend to employ horticulturists instead of biologists when choosing planting. That is not strange, given that zoos are in fact gardens, not wildlife reserves (with exceptions). To promote local biodiversity the start is always to get the right plants. To make a real impact one would have to work with native plants, which are not only native to the country, but also native to the area where the zoo is located. A good example is the hart’s tongue fern (Asplenium scolopendrium), which while native to the Netherlands, only occurs in the chalk-rich south and preferably in forest with rocks. This is however a plant one can easily buy in garden centres and is used in a large number of zoos. But while it is native to the country, it does nothing to promote local biodiversity, as most other species associated with the same habitat just don’t occur there. Even if you have found a plant species that fits the area (and thus also the soil type!), it is also crucial to use local stock. Many plant species have quite a wide distribution, but differ in chemical composition across their range, so if you use the wrong locality, the plant might not be edible for the insects associated with it. These are often two steps too many for most zoos. What you generally see is a standard seed mixture that is colourful and looks good for humans, but is in reality only nice for the most common generalist species. That means that you can attract bees and butterflies with it, but only the common ones and not the ones in need of any extra habitat.
Even the rainforest zoo of Singapore is covered with non-native tree species. (Picture by @marmolady )
Another issue is the use of trees in zoos. In many zoos the majority consists of non-native species that are of little importance to native species. This is even true for Singapore, which is considered a rainforest zoo. While there is some impressive wildlife around, it is mostly the generalist species that only care about structure. In European zoos northern red oak (Quercus rubra), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) and sycamores (Platanus spec.) are commonly found, despite being non-native or even invasive. Cavity nesting birds generally don’t care what tree they build their nest in, so one can find middle-spotted woodpeckers and other old forest birds in zoos with exotic trees, as it is all about structure. Invertebrates do however care, and bar a few generalists, such trees are worthless for biodiversity. So also here it would make sense to focus on native trees (also native to the specific area, not just the country) whenever possible.
Of course zoos also use trees and other plants to theme areas to look like Africa or some other exotic location, I am not arguing that that shouldn’t be done, as local biodiversity conservation shouldn’t be the main focus of a zoo. But care should be taken that you don’t plant invasive species. A good example here is pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), which is a common garden plant and often used in S-American exhibits. Planting it is fine in NW-Europe, but in Southern Europe, as well as in part of the United States this is an invasive species. Zoos should be conscious about what they are planting, not only about what is now invasive, but also about what is likely to become invasive with climate change. Black locust (R. pseudoacacia) is a good example of that, it isn’t invasive yet in the Netherlands, but already so in Eastern Germany. There is a good chance that with warmer weather it will become invasive in the Netherlands too. Having invasive species spreading from a zoo ground would not look good and be bad for native biodiversity. Zoos already don’t have the best name as a source of potential invasive animals, like sacred ibis, but the potential negative impact of invasive plants can be huge too and be even more consequential than animal invasions.
While pampas grass can be great in a S-American exhibit, it is best not done in some parts of the world. (Picture by @Zooplantman ).
When moving from plants to animals, an important group for biodiversity conservation on zoo grounds are insects. Of all insects the pollinators: bees, butterflies and hoverflies are some of the most well-known and well-liked insects and a group that many zoos try to make an effort to have on their zoo grounds. Unfortunately most zoos fail to cater to more than a few common generalist species. The most important problem that most butterflies have very specific host plants for their caterpillars and are not very mobile. Many bees have very specific feeding requirements too, often feeding on only one species or genus of flowers. When as most zoos you don’t take that into account, you are left with a few mobile generalist species not in need of any help. Many zoos now have so-called insect hotels, that if constructed correctly (also a common mistake) can provide nesting opportunities for a number of native bees and other insects. But this omits all ground nesting bees, which are more common and more importantly if you don’t provide the right food source, insect hotels are useless except to generalists. So as long as zoos use the wrong flower mixes and fail to create suitable habitats for all but the most common pollinators, their impact will remain smaller than possible.
Even if for pollinators you provide the right conditions for breeding and feeding, there is another problem: the honey bee. The honey bee is one of the most abundant insects worldwide and although it has an image as a wild species, in many world regions it is a domesticated one and an abundant one at that. Honeybees have a competitive advantage over native species as honeybees can communicate good resources to each other and as such they can take over most of the available flowers, especially given they often occur in unnaturally high densities. There is now abundant evidence worldwide that honeybees do in many cases outcompete native species and are a major reason for decline of wild bee species and other pollinators. Wild bees are however a tremendous biodiverse group, the USA has over 4.000 species and Germany has roughly 600. Even the tiny Netherlands has close to 400 wild bee species, of which over 100 can co-exist in the same area. Zoos do however still mostly focus on honeybees and a very select group of generalists and many zoos even have a hive on their grounds. A single hive can easily have 50.000 individual bees, which are a force to be reckoned with, as many wild bee species occur in relatively low densities and are generally much smaller. Bee hives can be a great tool for education, but are misleading as a tool to save the pollinator. The general public sees the honeybee as the one and only bee and pollinator and this is clearly not the case. So zoos should think again about whether the educational worth of honeybees is worth the potential ecological damage. There are still zoos that promote honey bee keeping as conservation while it is anything but…
Maybe nice for education, not so nice for conservation. (Picture by @vogelcommando ).
While there is clearly potential for some biodiversity conservation on zoo grounds and there are enough steps that zoos could take. It is not the only consideration that goes into landscape design. The main goal of planting in zoos is to enhance the visitor experience, by e.g. providing a nice park landscape or by trying to replicate certain ecosystems. If zoos can achieve that while still providing habitats for native wildlife by using the correct native species when possible and avoid (potentially) invasive species altogether, that would be a nice synergy. The good news is that with some expert advice this shouldn’t be too hard to achieve.
That means we are almost at the end, in the final post I will share some of my thoughts on how future steps in terms of in situ conservation could look like.
I'm very surprised to learn that the Western Honey Bee is not native to Europe. Really!?!
RodBradley
Member
An interesting read.
Some concluding thoughts
In the past dozen or so posts we have glimpsed upon the current state of in situ conservation of (European) zoos. This included the reasoning on why in situ conservation is important, multiple strategies zoos are currently pursuing and an as complete list as possible of the monetary contribution of EAZA zoos. In the concluding post I want to focus on two things which I feel would take the in situ conservation by zoos two steps further: honest communication & cooperation.
Honest communication
Even if you make an impact as a zoo in in situ conservation, the work is worth less if you don’t communicate this message to your visitors. How to do this is not a question with a single answer, but depending on the story you want to tell with your exhibit (complex) there are options in both theming and education. Visitors, even the casual ones, should be aware that visiting a zoo means supporting conservation, as they are also advocates for zoo support. It should also be possible to hold zoos accountable for their conservation impact. At the very least zoos should provide an annual list with projects that were supported and by how much they were funded (and if necessary also man hours or other means of support). Preferably it is also stated what was done with the donated money. This can be done in the zoo, but should also be available on their website or in an annual report. In the Netherlands this is already (partly) done as zoos register their conservation fund as a charity, for which such rules already exist. Probably EAZA or WAZA will have to push members to do so, as most zoos prefer to hide behind a lot of nice text that says nothing in the end. But without clarity neither zoos nor the general public is served.
Cooperation
Whereas some large zoos have the means to set up their own in situ conservation organisation, most European zoos aren't Beauval, Durrell or Zurich. Most EAZA members have far smaller budgets and no time or means to set up such a thing. This is where there is currently a large opportunity for smaller zoos to band together to have an impact. These things already happen a bit, as smaller zoos donate to conservation projects of larger zoos, such as W-African Giraffe conservation by Doue. But there is room for further growth. In an ideal world European zoos would have their own in situ conservation organisation (or every country/region could have one), that not only manages funds, but also aims to fundraise, make sure that money goes there where it has an impact and be a sustainable long-term funder. In the German speaking zoo world there are already two organisations that follow this principle, as they are both sponsored mainly by German zoos and a large number of them. But both Stiftung Artenschutz (in situ conservation contribution 240.000 euros in 2021) and the ZGAP (428.000 euros in 2020) are still small beer compared to the might of a zoo like Zurich. This is probably again something where EAZA and the national zoo associations have a role to stick out their neck.
There is a realm of possibilities, as many willing zoos have shown. It isn't a road without bumps, but with the right persons on the right place zoos could move mountains when it comes to in situ conservation. Many of the larger zoos are moving in the right directions and others such as Diergaarde Blijdorp have a ton of ambition. Realistically looking 100 million euros per year going from EAZA zoos to in situ conservation around the world is far from impossible, which probably is quite close to the 3% benchmark WAZA set. I personally think that it could be a lot more, even when most zoos don't become in situ conservation organisations like ZSL themselves. So while I have been somewhat critical throughout this thread, I see a positive future for zoo conservation and I thank everyone who participated in the thread. There are still enough topics worthy of discussion left and I am curious about your thoughts too.
In the past dozen or so posts we have glimpsed upon the current state of in situ conservation of (European) zoos. This included the reasoning on why in situ conservation is important, multiple strategies zoos are currently pursuing and an as complete list as possible of the monetary contribution of EAZA zoos. In the concluding post I want to focus on two things which I feel would take the in situ conservation by zoos two steps further: honest communication & cooperation.
Honest communication
Even if you make an impact as a zoo in in situ conservation, the work is worth less if you don’t communicate this message to your visitors. How to do this is not a question with a single answer, but depending on the story you want to tell with your exhibit (complex) there are options in both theming and education. Visitors, even the casual ones, should be aware that visiting a zoo means supporting conservation, as they are also advocates for zoo support. It should also be possible to hold zoos accountable for their conservation impact. At the very least zoos should provide an annual list with projects that were supported and by how much they were funded (and if necessary also man hours or other means of support). Preferably it is also stated what was done with the donated money. This can be done in the zoo, but should also be available on their website or in an annual report. In the Netherlands this is already (partly) done as zoos register their conservation fund as a charity, for which such rules already exist. Probably EAZA or WAZA will have to push members to do so, as most zoos prefer to hide behind a lot of nice text that says nothing in the end. But without clarity neither zoos nor the general public is served.
Cooperation
Whereas some large zoos have the means to set up their own in situ conservation organisation, most European zoos aren't Beauval, Durrell or Zurich. Most EAZA members have far smaller budgets and no time or means to set up such a thing. This is where there is currently a large opportunity for smaller zoos to band together to have an impact. These things already happen a bit, as smaller zoos donate to conservation projects of larger zoos, such as W-African Giraffe conservation by Doue. But there is room for further growth. In an ideal world European zoos would have their own in situ conservation organisation (or every country/region could have one), that not only manages funds, but also aims to fundraise, make sure that money goes there where it has an impact and be a sustainable long-term funder. In the German speaking zoo world there are already two organisations that follow this principle, as they are both sponsored mainly by German zoos and a large number of them. But both Stiftung Artenschutz (in situ conservation contribution 240.000 euros in 2021) and the ZGAP (428.000 euros in 2020) are still small beer compared to the might of a zoo like Zurich. This is probably again something where EAZA and the national zoo associations have a role to stick out their neck.
There is a realm of possibilities, as many willing zoos have shown. It isn't a road without bumps, but with the right persons on the right place zoos could move mountains when it comes to in situ conservation. Many of the larger zoos are moving in the right directions and others such as Diergaarde Blijdorp have a ton of ambition. Realistically looking 100 million euros per year going from EAZA zoos to in situ conservation around the world is far from impossible, which probably is quite close to the 3% benchmark WAZA set. I personally think that it could be a lot more, even when most zoos don't become in situ conservation organisations like ZSL themselves. So while I have been somewhat critical throughout this thread, I see a positive future for zoo conservation and I thank everyone who participated in the thread. There are still enough topics worthy of discussion left and I am curious about your thoughts too.
Forgive me for the late reply, but this is exactly what I wanted to call out. Reintroduction with a local species plays to the very strengths of the zoo community, like animal husbandry and small population management, yet so many otherwise excellent zoos don't do anything with that. It is frankly ridiculous. And even if it is not direct reintroduction, I am very much of the opinion that zoos should also take action for local wildlife. Not just a European species, actual local populations of native species.
It is great that Burgers' spends so much in Belize, but would not be even better if they had at least a tiny project for, say, Heath Fritillary, Moorland Hawker, Smooth Snake, Wryneck or any other vulnerable or endangered species characteristic of the Veluwe region the zoo is located in? It could range from a full on captive breeding effort to financing genetics research to providing materials and tools to maintain key habitat. The potential is not to be underestimated. Small nature conservation groups do vast amounts of work - mostly out of sheer love for wildlife or nature - with only a teeny tiny fraction of what some zoos spend on a single exhibit.
Showing care and effort for native species not only has great conservation potential, but also provides an actual visible effort that people in the area can actually see for themselves. Having local nature conservation groups see the zoo as an ally, even if they do not always see things the same way, can open doors we do not even know are closed now. The path forward has been paved by the likes of GaiaZoo, Slimbrigde and even tiny Nordhorn. Now it is time for zoos to step up their game and show what coordinated effort can accomplish.
So much for believing a zoo website that claims they are the first with something. I tell others not to believe them at first sight, but I still fall into the same trap apparently
Does the Gift Aid in almost every UK zoo need to be treated differently? I believe it also started earlier than Basel.
Gift Aid - Twycross Zoo
Tax relief when you donate to a charity
That isn't really the case. Donations are tax-friendly but not free. As the donation is reduced from your taxable income you end up paying only part of the donation yourself, but you still pay part of the donation. So it is very much money that would not have been paid either way, it is only lost revenue for the government.
Thank you. It initially was a pet project started just out of curiosity and never intended to be used. But as I collected more and more data, I figured it would be a waste not to go for the whole of Europe and then why not publish it. It took quite some time to gather the data, but as it was done over a period of 2 months, it could easily be done in between.
I could not agree more!
In the case of Burgers' they contributed to reintroductions of raven and barn owl locally, which both isn't done anymore, but especially for smaller species there is a lot of work to do currently.
It is not exactly the same, but probably similar enough.
kermodei
Well-Known Member
Firstly, thank you so much @lintworm for this thought-provoking and thoroughly researched thread. It highlights one of the most pressing issues amongst zoological facilities, and the discussions that have been happening here have been a great read!
I think it goes without saying that, when and where possible (taking into account environmental and political restraints), in-situ conversation is the better method. And that you can't conserve a species without also conserving the habitat they depend on/the greater ecosystem they are a part of (Just take a look at my province's approach to conserving northern spotted owls ).
My main reason to reply, though, is to share a topical article I came across recently, "The animals and plants that only exist in captivity – and why time is running out to restore them to the wild" by Donal Smith and Sarah Elizabeth Dalrymple, that I thought would spark further conversations. An excerpt:
[ Socorro dove (Zenaida graysoni) ]
I think it goes without saying that, when and where possible (taking into account environmental and political restraints), in-situ conversation is the better method. And that you can't conserve a species without also conserving the habitat they depend on/the greater ecosystem they are a part of (Just take a look at my province's approach to conserving northern spotted owls ).
My main reason to reply, though, is to share a topical article I came across recently, "The animals and plants that only exist in captivity – and why time is running out to restore them to the wild" by Donal Smith and Sarah Elizabeth Dalrymple, that I thought would spark further conversations. An excerpt:
"Conservationists, and society more widely, must do better. We know that outright extinction is a real threat. Of the 95 species that have found themselves extinct in the wild or restricted to human care since 1950, 11 have since been lost forever, like the Christmas Island whiptail-skink and the Saint Helena olive, a tree endemic to the island of the same name in the southern Atlantic Ocean.
Is there hope? Perhaps surprisingly, yes. The flip side to the 11 species we’ve lost is the 12 that have been restored to the wild. These include the European bison, which, having disappeared from the wild in 1927, is now thriving in its native range in Eastern Europe and Russia, thanks to reintroduction efforts starting in the 1950s using stock from European zoos."
Is there hope? Perhaps surprisingly, yes. The flip side to the 11 species we’ve lost is the 12 that have been restored to the wild. These include the European bison, which, having disappeared from the wild in 1927, is now thriving in its native range in Eastern Europe and Russia, thanks to reintroduction efforts starting in the 1950s using stock from European zoos."
[ Socorro dove (Zenaida graysoni) ]
Don't many zoos have areas with a crapton of tanks for endangered herps?
Iirc, many are off-exhibit because they wanna keep the environment sterile