Between March and December 2009, a total of 200 zoological collections in 20 European Union Member States were assessed as part of an EU-wide evaluation of implementation and enforcement of the European Council Directive 1999/22/EC (the “Directive”). The study included an evaluation of the national zoo law of each EU Member State against the requirements of the Directive, an assessment of the implementation and enforcement of the law and an investigation into the status and performance of a sample of zoos in each Member State.
The following methodology was used to assess the status and performance of zoos in the following EU Member States (“study group”):
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and United Kingdom (England only).
A Zoo Assessment Protocol was established to evaluate the compliance of zoos with the requirements of the Directive, the national zoo law and the EAZA Minimum Standards for the Accommodation and Care of Animals in Zoos and Aquaria. Additional assessment criteria were devised based on the UK Standards of Modern Zoo Practice, DEFRA, 2004 (SMZP) and the Zoo Forum Handbook. The Zoo Assessment Protocol was adapted for each Member State to incorporate the specific requirements of the national law. It examined the following aspects:
A. General Zoo Information: licensing status, ownership and public safety measures;
B. Conservation Commitment: ex situ coordinated captive breeding programmes and conservation of biodiversity;
C. Public Education: signage, public integration and educational value;
D. Evaluation of Animal Enclosure Quality: suitability for the species contained;
E. Animal Welfare Assessment: the condition and behaviour of the animals
Data gathered from each zoo were incorporated within a spreadsheet to allow accurate analysis.
Number of zoos
Clearly, even a survey of this nature visiting, as it did, 200 zoos in 20 countries over a period of 10 months can only give a broad, representative overview of the issues relating to the implementation and enforcement of the Zoos Directive in each Member State.
Although every effort was made to avoid misinterpreting information provided in the numerous languages of the study group (through the professional translation of questionnaires and the use, where possible, of native-speakers), this was not possible in all Member States.
Some aspects of the evaluation and analysis of zoo performance relied upon the completion and return of the Standard Zoo Questionnaire. If the Questionnaire was not completed or returned, analysis relied more significantly on information collected from other sources (as described in the Methodology).