Scope:

Council Directive 1999/22/EC of 29 March 1999 relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos (Zoos Directive)

Evaluation findings:

Compared to the baseline situation, when only a few zoos broadly met international standards in the areas of animal husbandry, species conservation and public education, considerable progress has been made in ensuring that licenced zoos in the EU carry out conservation measures. However, as there are few studies on the overall conservation impact of zoos it is not possible to fully quantify the contribution of the Directive.

Not all conservation measures have been equally well implemented. Captive breeding and reintroduction, information exchange and public education and awareness raising activities all appear to have been well addressed. However, progress in relation to keeping animals under appropriate conditions, preventing the escape of animals, keeping up-to-date records, research and training has been less complete. Some zoos have gone beyond the Directive's expectations by financially supporting in situ conservation projects or by providing expertise, techniques, personnel and other resources to such initiatives.

Different stakeholder groups have highlighted a range of obstacles to more effective and efficient implementation. These include limited capacity of the licencing and inspection process (particularly in relation to specialist knowledge on zoo animals and conservation issues). There are also resource constraints in Member States' competent authorities. The involvement of different authorities in licencing and inspection can lead to delays. Actions by Member States to remedy these shortcomings serve as good practice examples. The absence of an EU forum for Member States and stakeholders to exchange experience and share good practice has been identified as an obstacle to improved implementation. The Commission’s "EU Zoos Directive Good Practices Document" of 2015 is regarded as extremely useful by all stakeholders. However, it is only available in English and many stakeholders underlined the need for its translation to improve its visibility and use.

The Zoos Directive is generally coherent with other EU legislation and policy on biodiversity. In addition to helping fulfil ex situ commitments under Article 9 Convention on Biological Diversity it has also contributed to achieving the convention's targets on public education and awareness and on the protection of threatened species. Zoos breed EU endangered species and educate and create awareness about them. Some zoos have even participated in reintroduction programmes. Therefore they have contributed to Target 1 of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy. However the evaluation has also found that more could have been done for species protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives. Zoos also support global conservation projects to protect species and habitats in other parts of the world and hence have supported attainment of target 6 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy.

The Directive has not given rise to disproportionate administrative burden or costs for Member States' authorities or zoos. Its benefits for biodiversity conservation, even if difficult to monetise, are regarded by all stakeholders as outweighing the costs. The conservation measures are mainly funded through the zoos own income. Participation of zoos in EU funded programmes, including use of the LIFE Regulation, appears to have been limited.

The Zoos Directive's has provided a common legal framework for all zoos across all Member States and guaranteed a level of harmonization through requiring minimum standards. As this applies to zoos both inside and outside zoo associations it has played an important role in helping close the gap between them. The Directive is considered to have contributed to more efficient and faster delivery of conservation measures by zoos compared to what otherwise would have been achieved through national law and non-legal initiatives. Stakeholders strongly argued for continued EU action in order to fully reach the Directive's specific objectives and improve the contribution of zoos to biodiversity conservation.

Estimated savings and benefits

Authorities reported increased costs especially with reference to the treatment of license applications, and to the need for preparing, carrying out and following-up on the inspection. However, no authority was able to quantify the costs.

New resources needed to be dedicated to the inspection of zoos, by mobilising internal staff and/or engaging with external contractors and experts. However, zoo inspectors are usually responsible for a range of different duties, including the enforcement of other types of legislation concerning biodiversity protection and animal welfare and health. As a result, most Member States could not calculate the staff allocation to zoos licensing and inspections (expressed in Full Time Equivalent - FTE – units). Where estimates have been provided, the resources fully dedicated to the implementation and enforcement of the Zoos Directive appear relatively limited.

For zoos, it was difficult to disentangle business-as-usual costs (BAU costs) from costs caused by the Directive and many zoos were not in a position to provide information on costs at all. Zoos bear direct, substantive compliance costs and administrative costs only to a limited extend. Only a small share of one-off or recurrent costs were attributed to the Zoos Directive. 15 out of 37 zoos (40.5%) reported one-off investments, ranging from hundreds to millions of Euros that they considered directly attributable to the Directive. Ten out of 34 (29.4%) reported recurrent expenditures ranging from tens to hundreds of thousands of Euros arising from the requirements of the Directive.

There is no evidence of unnecessary regulatory burden or disproportionate costs. Administrative burden strictly relates to the necessary procedures for obtaining or issuing the license. As the Directive doesn't contain a reporting obligation to the Commission, there's no additional administrative burden placed on competent authorities besides their own inspection reports.

Good practice examples have been identified to improve efficiency implementation:

• Use of advisory bodies or committees, and/or experts in different fields and/or zoo associations builds capacity and makes inspections more efficient;

• Outsourcing the inspectorate resulted in good value for money;

• Joint inspections for several pieces of legislations that cover zoos can save time and money for authorities and zoos;

• Multi-stakeholder approach for closure of non-compliant zoos;

• Collaboration between zoos to build critical mass in order to play a more substantial role in conservation.

The main benefits of the Zoos Directive are the enhanced role of zoos in biodiversity conservation, knowledge and public awareness in relation to the conservation of biodiversity, and the protection of wild fauna and biodiversity. These benefits could not be expressed in monetary terms.

Major or moderate benefits have been identified for the following areas:

▪ Contribution to public education and knowledge on biodiversity

▪ Improved accommodation of animals and standards for animal husbandry

▪ Contribution to ex situ conservation

▪ Higher engagement of the public and stakeholders in biodiversity protection

▪ Contribution to protecting species and overall biodiversity conservation

▪ Ensure a coherent legal framework for zoos to operate across the EU

▪ Ensure improved licensing and inspection schemes of zoos

Both authorities and zoos considered the costs to be proportionate to the benefits.