Myrto Karydi questions theethics behind this 'traditional'Greek tourist attraction

S P E C I A L E D I T I O N : A N I M A L S I N T O U R I S M

Colum Tremayne explores thecontroversial topic of trophyhunting

Louis Keysworth assesses thesuccess of European zooslegislation

Harriet McRae scrutinisesmeasures to protect SouthernResident Orcas in Washington

Welcome Animal of the Issue: Orcas by Lauren Peach Donkey Taxis: The Welfare of Greece's Working Equids byMyrto Karydi Born Free's Raise the Red Flag by Tiffany Mitchell AJUK Investigates: Trophy Hunting by Colum Tremayne The Commodification of Animals for Souvenirs by Brydie Hand The Use of Animals in Tourism by Hannah Wade Southern Resident Killer Whales: Protective MeasuresAffecting the Whale Watching Industry by Harriet McRae An Interview with Daniel Turner by Hannah Wade How Successful has European Legislation been at ProtectingAnimals in Zoos? by Louis Keysworth

Address: A-law, c/o Clair Matthews, Monckton Chambers, 1&2 RaymondBuildings, Grays Inn, London, WC1R 5NR Email: studentgroup@alaw.org.uk Website: www.alaw.org.uk Trustees:  Paula Sparks, Alan Bates, Jeremy Chipperfield, Edie Bowles,Simon Cox, Christina Warner, Jill Williams, Mike Radford, Abigail Scott Editor: Natalie Harney Editorial Assistant: Hannah Wade Editorial Panel: Debbie Rook, Daniel Turner, Paula Sparks Contributors: Lauren Peach, Myrto Karydi, Tiffany Mitchell, Brydie Hand,Harriet McRae, Hannah Wade, Colum Tremayne, Louis Keysworth Registered Office: UK Centre for Animal Law, Emstrey House (North),Shrewsbury Business Park, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, SY2 6LG. A company limited by guarantee (No 307802 - England). Registered Charity: 113462 The views expressed in this eMagazine are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of A-law.

ANIMAL JUSTICE UKA N I M A L S I N T O U R I S M S P E C I A L

CONTENTS

I am delighted to introduce you to the veryfirst Animal Justice UK Special Edition. Wehave decided to launch the Specials series togive students and other readers a more in-depth understanding about pertinent animalprotection issues. We hope to publish onespecial edition per year. To launch the Specials series, we havechosen the topic of the use of animals intourism. It is at this time of year that many ofus relax and go away to enjoy a hard earnedbreak. Sadly, however, some of you maywitness, or have witnessed, animals beingexploited in the name of tourism. This couldbe to provide entertainment, to provideservices, or to provide holiday-makers withsouvenirs. As with our bi-annual editions of AJUK, thisSpecial features a range of informativearticles, features and an excellent extendedinterview with tourism and animal welfareexpert, Daniel Turner. I would like to personally thank HannahWade, an Animals and Society graduate fromthe University of Winchester, who providedmuch valued editorial assistance and whocontributed several excellent pieces to thisedition. I hope you enjoy reading this Special. If youwould like to contribute to a forthcomingedition of Animal Justice UK, please do nothesitate to get in touch. Natalie HarneyEditor Email: studentgroup@alaw.org.uk

WELCOME

1-2 3-4 5 6-10 11-14 15-22 23-25 26-30 31-33

BY LAUREN PEACH

Orcas, although commonly known as killerwhales, are actually the largest members ofthe dolphin family. Orcas are a highly intelligent species. Theirdeveloped brains mean they have a complexemotional range, and are capable ofexperiencing feelings such as grief, joy andempathy. Orcas are also extremely social.Each belongs to a pod, which can consist ofup to 40 individuals. Within their pods, orcasbond, hunt and travel hundreds of miles everyday. Recent research has even found thatorcas are capable of vocal imitation andmimicry, a skill limited to a small number ofprimates, birds and some other mammals.

Since the 1960s orcas have been used intourism as a form of entertainment,performing tricks and routines for crowds atmarine parks. However, the 2013documentary Blackfish opened the world’seyes to the devastating impact of captivityupon these complex animals. Thedocumentary follows the story of SeaWorld’sfamous orca, Tilikum, and tells us how astressful life in captivity led to aggressivebehaviour toward humans, resulting in thedeath of three people. Captivity denies orcas of activities which formpart of their everyday life in the wild. Forexample, wild orcas traverse large areas and 

Animal Justice UK: Tourism Special 1

can travel up to 160km per day. This alonemake orcas particularly unsuited to life incaptivity. Nevertheless, marine parks continueto confine them to glass tanks. There arecurrently at least 70 captive orcas in countriesincluding America, Spain, France, Canada,China and Russia. In the USA, despite the Marine MammalProtection Act 1972 providing importantlimitations on the hunting of orcas, theircaptivity remains legal. Similarly, the US'sAnimal Welfare Act 1966 merely providesminimum requirements for exhibitors. Statelaw has, however, been significantly moreeffective. In California, the Orca Welfare andSafety Act 2016 makes both the use of orcasfor “entertainment purposes” and thebreeding of captive orcas illegal.

Lauren is a final year law student and A-lawStudent Ambassador at the University ofBirmingham.

Nevertheless, international laws with thepotential to protect orcas from captivity havehad limited success. Uncertainty as to theapplication of the International Conventionfor the Regulation of Whaling 1946 tocetaceans has provided a loophole, and theUnited Nations Convention on the Law of theSea contains no provisions for the regulationand management of cetaceans. Despite current international laws lackingefficacy, there is hope. Last year tourismoperator, Thomas Cook, stopped sellingtickets to marine parks keeping captive orcas.Furthermore, Canada recently enacted theEnding the Captivity of Whales and DolphinsAct. Let’s hope we are witnessing the lastgeneration of captive orcas.

2 Animal Justice UK: Tourism Special

BY MYRTO KARYDI

Not quite a pet. Not strictly a working animaleither. The donkey (equus asinus), member ofthe horse family (equidae), has stood byhumanity’s side as a working animal for fivethousand years. Its intelligence and friendlycharacter make it a great companion, whilst itsstrong build make it suited to carrying heavyloads for long distances. Over 40 milliondonkeys exist worldwide. The equinepopulation in Greece is thought to be up to88,000 individuals. In Greek society specifically, donkeys haveplayed a central role since ancient times,when they were closely linked to Dionysus(god of wine). Donkeys  are as iconic to the

Greek countryside as are the olive trees and,in modern times, donkey rides or “donkeytaxis” have come to be a very popularattraction amongst the millions of touristsflooding to Greece each year. In most islandslike Santorini, Corfu, Hydra, Spetses, Kea, aswell as in numerous mainland destinations,tourists can either catch a horse or mulecarriage-ride around the town or rent adonkey to carry them and/or their suitcasesto their final destinations. However, there is a darker side to thisseemingly fun and ‘authentic’ experience.Donkeys can be kept for long periods withoutfood or water, and - crucially - without shelter

Animal Justice UK: Tourism Special 3

from the hot Mediterranean sun. They areprone to spinal injuries, saddle sores, dentalinfections, and dehydration. Such instancesare most evident in Santorini, where theisland’s steep terrain and slippery stairs posea danger for “donkey taxis” climbing them ona daily basis. Anecdotally, I have been toldthat conditions in other islands, such as Hydra,are better.

Christina Alexandrou from the HellenicSociety for Equine Welfare, when askedabout the situation, told me: “It all starts froma lack of proper education. Equids are nothard to care for; it’s just that people regardthem as expendable. Most owners currentlylack even the basic knowledge of how andwhen they should be fed or how their hoovesshould be treated.”.

coverage and, as a result, the Greek government has committed to enacting a weight limit of 100 kg for the loads carried by donkeys and mules. The hope is that this measure will be fully enforced by 2020. After meetings with the Donkey Sanctuary and the Greek Animal Welfare Fund in Summer 2018, the Mayor of Santorini has also committed to improving conditions for working equids on the island in time for the 2019 tourist season.

Myrto is from Athens, Greece and is currently completing an LLM at University College London, specialising in Human Rights. Myrto loves animals and the reason she decided to study law in the first place was in the hope that she could one day practice Animal Rights Law. Myrto is particularly interested in issues such as the illegal wildlife trade and smuggling, as well as slaughterhouse regulations.

There is no equine specific legislation in Greeklaw. However,  Law 4039/2012  lays downminimum expectations for the care of animals,including the provision of food, water andshelter, and prohibits the cruel treatment ofanimals. Though, as equids are often notidentified in accordance with EU EquinePassport Regulations, in cases of abuse andneglect, it is often near impossible to identifythe responsible owner.

There might be a glimmer of hope that thingsare starting to improve, however. In thesummer of 2018, demonstrations took place inSantorini resulting in clashes between donkeyowners, or muleteers (as they are sometimescalled), and animal welfare group membersand activists. These received international

4 Animal Justice UK: Tourism Special

BY TIFFANY MITCHELL

On August 7th 2019, the Born Free Foundation(a wildlife charity that campaigns for wildanimals to be treated with compassion andrespect, whether living in captivity or in thewild) launched Raise the Red Flag, whichenables members of the public to report anyconcerns about the welfare of captive wildanimals globally. There are millions of wild animals in captivityaround the world, such as in zoos, circuses,sanctuaries and elephant camps, and thereare many that live in conditions that do notmeet their welfare needs.

Born Free’s new reporting system, Raise theRed Flag, is an integral part of the charity’sefforts to reduce global captive animalsuffering, enabling them to share informationand advice with members of the public so thataction can be taken. Additionally, reports willbe recorded on Born Free’s database andmap, and used to raise awareness, conductfurther investigations and inform campaigns.

If you would like to find out more about thisuseful tool or report something that you havewitnessed, you can follow this link here.

Animal Justice UK: Tourism Special 5

BY COLUM TREMAYNE

AJUK INVESTIGATES

Over 2,500 animal trophies have beenimported into the UK in the last decade.Despite continued pressure on the UKGovernment to implement a ban on theimportation of animal trophies into thiscountry, the recent response has been muted.The issue of trophy hunting is not a purelyethical one. Unlike poaching, what manywould consider a morally abhorrent individualact is being justified for its allegedconservation benefits. Further, the legal andpolicy-driven complications involved haveprevented the government from making aconclusive decision. The infamous killing of Cecil the lion inZimbabwe in 2015 had a striking impact onthe movement against trophy hunting,instigating social, political and legal action.France, the Netherlands and Australia have allimplemented bans on imports from trophyhunting since Cecil was killed. The UK Government has explained that it isclosely monitoring the impacts of bans onhunting trophies introduced in other countries.However, it would prefer action to be takenmultilaterally. In July 2016, then DefraMinister, Rory Stewart MP, explained that theGovernment was working on a common EU-US position and that this could make a “hugedifference.” Despite President Trump’s Twitterdenouncement of trophy hunting in 2017,which had seemed to indicate that a commonpolicy could be formed by the US and itsEuropean counter-parts, the US Governmentreversed an Obama administration ban onelephant trophies imported from Zimbabweand Zambia in March 2018. Another issue arises when considering thedeparture of the UK from the European Union.Any significant EU position that becomesenshrined in its law will likely be dehors theUK’s jurisdiction and, as a result, indecision

may not be a sustainable option for the UKGovernment in its approach to animal trophyimportation. Its legislative hand may be forcedto make a move on its own; to finally clarify itsposition one way or another. Although the UK Government considers thatproperly managed hunting can helpconservation, it has also stated in the past thatit would ban lion trophy imports by the end of2017 if there are no improvements to huntingframeworks in countries where it is practised. However, although there was an initialresponse from the UK Government after Cecildied, attention on the issue has dwindled. Itseems to be that there is no answer to whythe UK has not implemented a ban, especiallyconsidering that the common rebuttal thattrophy hunting has conservation benefits hasbeen proven to be, at best, inconclusive. The Government has provided no explanationof its inaction since the 2017 promise, despitecontinued pressure from all angles. Calls for aban on importation have come from MPsspanning the political spectrum, famousconservationists such as Sir Ranulph Fiennes,countless NGOs, and celebrities includingRicky Gervais. There may now be as many as 9,000-12,000lions spread across up to 300 captivebreeding facilities in South Africa, generating awin-win sport for potential trophy hunters.Perhaps if trophy hunting was unquestionablypositive and contributed to the increase ofanimal populations and protection of animalhabitats, a question of the true value of theuse ‘wild’ animals canned for hunts could beposed. One might compare this method ofconservation to wildlife reserves as theycurrently exist for tourism; hunting reservesmay simply be one step further along theprocess of human interference with wildlife.

Animal Justice UK: Tourism Special 7

However, there is a dearth of evidence toconclusively uphold the argument that trophyhunting benefits conservation programmes inthis way. ‘Pragmatic’ conservationists point tothe success story in Namibia and difficultiesimplementing the ban in Botswana toillustrate the positive impact trophy huntingcan achieve. Permits that validate the organisationsthrough which hunts are carried out arerequired to be able to import animal trophiesinto the UK, and WWF supports trophyhunting where it “benefit[s] the wildlifepopulations of affected species, their habitatsand associated ecosystems.” Pro-huntinggroups are confident that trophy hunting doesmeet this requirement, so much so that suchgroups have encouraged hunters to avoidimportation bans in Europe by importinganimal trophies into neighbouring countriesand then smuggling them into the likes ofFrance and the Netherlands in order to defythe growing tide against trophy hunting. Another benefit that has been cited in favourof trophy hunting is that most of the animalsthat are hunted are old males who havealready contributed to the gene pool. Thereare scientific studies cited by the InternationalUnion for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)stating that in the case of the rhinoceros, theabsence of older males from the pool actuallyimproves the fertility of the group, whichleads to an increase in the population ofrhinos. However, this research does not blanket-cover all trophy targets. For example, despitethe elderly male leaders of lion prides orelephant herds costing the most for a hunterto kill, the effect killing the patriarchs has onthe remaining group members and futuregenerations is unseen by pro-hunting parties.Lions, for example, have a unique social

structure whereby if the most dominant maledies, it disrupts the whole group. A new malewho becomes dominant, for instance, maylead to cubs that are not his own being killed. The 2016 'Missing the Mark' report by the USHouse of Representatives Committee onNatural Resources concluded that theimplementation of trophy hunting structuresdid not meet the desired results forconservation benefits in any of the countries itassessed. Only Namibia had produced somepositive results according to the report, whichcited there had been “[an] increase [in] somewildlife populations through selective trophyhunting” in the country. It is often argued that areas in which trophyhunting is most intense have seen thesteepest decline in populations, as evidencedby Dr. Craig Packer’s study in Tanzinia. He

8 Animal Justice UK: Tourism Special

found that trophy hunting directly contributedto the decline in lions in most of Tanzania’shunting areas and, in the majority of thecountry, the proportional decline in leopardharvest was significantly higher in areas withthe highest initial harvests. Dr. Packer also found that the benefits fromtrophy hunting were not as effective for localcommunities as pro-hunting groups maysuggest. The Maasai people in Tanzania’sSerengeti region have repeatedly reportedeviction from their lands by a luxury huntingand safari company.

Furthermore, the impacts of trophy hunting inTanzania have been almost impossible tomeasure as a result of scientists frequentlybeing prevented from conducting research.Dr. Packer was banned from Tanzania afterexpressing his belief that corruption was rifein the hunting industry, with the moneygenerated being recycled in the industry andremaining in the hands of corrupt officials.After all, overhunting and corruption were keycontributing factors to the ban implementedin Kenya in 1977, which suggests an inherentlack of professionalism in an industry wheremoney often does not go into localcommunities. Researcher Muchazondida Mkono sharesthese concerns. She states that groundresearch is difficult to carry out because ofrestrictions imposed by authorities, as well asanecdotally highlighting the lack ofcommunal change in hunting areas. Clearly,

prohibiting thorough methods of empiricalresearch being carried out in trophy huntingareas is detrimental to the completion ofcomprehensive analyses of the impact of theindustry on conservation. Despite social media’s achievements inraising awareness and instigating governmentreaction, the solution to the legislativeproblem has been proven not to be drivensimply by online outrage. Albeit passionate,the problem with this type of ethically-charged reaction is that it portrays the trophyhunting issue as black and white when, inreality, there is a nuanced grey area toaddress. The online movement against trophy huntingthat was provoked by Cecil the Lion’s deathdid manage to instigate global outrage, butcommentators have recognised the decline inpublic protest in the years since. It is thereforeclear that in order to change legislation andpolicy on this issue, more substance isrequired behind the solutions proposed. Inplace of trophy hunting as a conservationeffort, Mkono proposes the necessity for“viable alternatives that will ensure Africaneconomies have equal or better revenuestreams for conversation.”

The African lion population has declined byover forty percent in the last 20 years. Othercontributory factors causing this statistic areclearly at play, including habitat loss, loss ofprey base and retaliatory killing of lions byhumans. However, the frustration for activistgroups such as BornFree and the Campaignto Ban Trophy Hunting is that trophy huntingis an issue that can be addressedimmediately, simply by outlawing theimportation of animal trophies around theworld. Western attitudes help to dictate theindustry’s success and, if the UK – a nationsynonymous with the neo-colonial imagetrophy hunting presents – implements a banon the importation of animal trophies into thecountry, it will go a long way towards slowingthe industry’s economy and eliminating theincentive for hunters to bring their animaltrophies home. Colum is a History andFrench graduate from theUniversity of Exeter and ahas a Graduate Diploma inLaw from BPP Cambridge.

10 Animal Justice UK: Tourism Special

BY BRYDIE HAND

Wildlife tourism centres around interactionsbetween tourists and animals, includingpopular tourist activities such as whale anddolphin watching tours, elephant riding andvisiting animals in parks. Although it is a multi-billion-dollar-industry, discussions regardingthe ethical issues associated with this industryhave gained traction in recent years due toincreased environmental consciousness anddiscourse surrounding animal rights andwelfare. Despite this, there is limiteddiscussion about one particular aspect ofwildlife tourism, namely the trade in animalparts to tourists.

Tourism is an enormous industry and a major

driver of economic growth; in 2017, itaccounted for over 10% of global grossdomestic product (GDP).  While there are norecent reliable estimates about the annualrevenue generated by the trade of animalparts to tourists, wildlife trade generally isestimated to be worth billions of dollars eachyear.  With trinkets and jewellery made ofcoral, rhino horns, ivory, shark and crocodileteeth, sea turtle shells and even driedseahorses available for purchase for over abillion tourists at markets and curios shopsaround the globe annually, it is clearly a highlylucrative industry. However, while thesouvenirs that we purchase in the course ofour travels often become reminders of

Animal Justice UK: Tourism Special 11

cherished memories, the unsustainable tradein wildlife, including the sale of animal parts totourists, has been identified as one of themain challenges to effective wildlifeconservation, as it can lead to the introductionof invasive species and disease, and the lossof biodiversity.

Further, this custom also sees animals suffercruel treatment and deaths, and the ethicalissues associated with the commodification ofanimals – regardless of environmental orsocietal impacts – are substantial. As such,although these souvenirs may seem likeinconsequential purchases, it is important toincrease awareness about the nature of thisindustry and the ethical, environmental andwelfare issues it raises.

Despite this, the complex and sophisticatednature of the illegal wildlife trade presentsenforcement challenges for CITES. Forexample, although all seahorses are listed inAppendix II of CITES, Save Our Seahorses haspredicted that they could be extinct in as littleas 20 years due to overharvesting for sale asjewellery and trinkets, and for their believedmedicinal properties. Likewise, althoughIndia’s Wildlife Protection Act 1972 aims tosafeguard several mollusc species, such asthe Trapezium Horse Conch, mountains ofseashells are nonetheless illegally harvestedand sold to artisans who craft jewellery andtrinkets to then sell to tourists.  This lack ofregulation has resulted in the rise of the ‘blackmarket’, in which animals are illegally sold asexotic pets, props in tourist attractions, orkilled to supply demand for sale of their bodyparts.

There are two avenues through which animalparts are sold as souvenirs: legally andillegally. At a global level, international policyand legislation – most notably the Conventionon International Trade in EndangeredSpecies of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES),which has 183 signatories – exists to protectanimal species from the impact of trade byplacing varying degrees of restriction onimports and exports of over 5,000 animalspecies listed under the Convention’sAppendices. At a national level, it is up toindividual countries to enact and enforceanimal protection legislation to regulate thecommodification and sale of animal parts. Forexample, in Australia, the EnvironmentProtection and Biodiversity Conservation Act1999 regulates the movement of animals,plants and products to and from Australia andaims to help Australia meet its obligationsunder CITES.

12 Animal Justice UK: Tourism Special

The transportation of animals prior to theirsale on the ‘black market’ often causes stressand discomfort. For example, parrots mighthave their beaks and feet taped shut and bestuffed into plastic tubes that are then hiddenluggage, and turtles may be taped to trapthem inside their shells.  Further, there hasbeen instances of infant pythons beingshipped in CD cases, and a man hiding Asianleopard cats in a backpack.  Considering theextreme measures taken to trade species,even developed countries with stricterenforcement, such as Canada, have recentlyseen a boom in illegal trade. Animals that are killed prior to transportationare often treated and killed in inhumane wayswithout regard for their welfare or suffering.Once animals are viewed as commodities tobe sold for human benefits, their welfare isoften no longer priority.  For instance,seahorses may be dried alive, and elephantstusks and rhino horns can be hacked off. Thisindustry also sees an unimaginable amount ofanimal lives wasted as by-catch or casualtiesto poaching activities. For example, in 2017 itwas reported that a herd of rhinos were shotand killed by poachers, despite the majorityhaving already had their horns removed aspart of an anti-poaching drive.  Both animalwelfare and the intrinsic value of animals isdisregarded in exchange for profit, leading usto ponder ethical questions regarding thecommodification of animals broadly. Can wereally put a price-tag on part of an animal? Is asouvenir really worth the death of an animal,even in the absence of pain and suffering? Despite the cruelty upon which the industry isbuilt, the illegal wildlife trade is reportedly thefourth most lucrative international crime,following drugs, humans and arms.  Over64,000 animals were confiscated by officialsbetween 2010 and 2014.  The illegal globalwildlife trade is estimated to be worth up to

$10 billion per year.  Accordingly, although it isdifficult to find concrete numbers, reportsabout the number of animals killed forcommercial purposes each year arestaggering, and instances of large-scalepoaching activities occur regularly. Asrecently as September 2018, almost 100elephant carcasses were discovered inSouthern Africa with their tusks hacked off. Although there is no data available thatindicates the proportion of illegally tradedanimals that are made into souvenirs, thisindustry and the ‘black market’ areinextricably linked; it is in developing countriesthat lack regulation to restrict the blackmarket in which the greatest range of animal-derived souvenirs can be found.  This is asignificant issue, as developing countries areexpected to take over 57% of the marketshare in international tourism by 2030,meaning demand for animal-derivedsouvenirs could increase further unlesschange occurs.

Of course, the issues associated with thetrade in animal parts to tourists are notconfined to the ‘black market’, as animalproducts sold legitimately are also often aresult of inhumane suffering and deaths andthe commodification of animals is plaguedwith ethical issues in general. However,tourists are often oblivious of the backstorybehind their souvenir, and may even beunaware that an animal has died to produce it.This is because only a small part of the animalis usually used to make the product. Manytourists are also unaware that they may bebreaking domestic laws by transporting theseproducts from one country to another; just

Animal Justice UK: Tourism Special 13

because a product can be sold in onecountry, does not make it legal to bring ithome. Accordingly, the actions that must be taken toaddress this issue are twofold. Firstly, theinternational framework must bestrengthened to restrict the number ofanimals killed and sold on the ‘black market’.This may be achieved through the betterenforcement of CITES or the introduction ofnew legislation and policy at domestic andinternational levels. Secondly, consumerdemand often dictates the market and,although consumers are not responsible forthe mistreatment of animals up the chain,

consumers have an ethical duty to avoidfunding an industry built on animal sufferingand exploitation. For this to occur, moreeducation and a greater discussion of theissues associated with the purchase of animalparts as souvenirs is needed. Thecommodification of animals must stop if weare to make real progress towards increasedanimal welfare, biodiversity conservation andecosystem health and to make that happen,we must use our voice to instigate change. Brydie is an Australian law graduate with astrong interest in animal and environmentlaw. Brydie works in the litigation team ofthe NSW Environment Protection Authority

14 Animal Justice UK: Tourism Special

Whether it’s a trip to London Zoo, swimming with

dolphins in Florida, taking selfies with tigers in

Thailand or watching elephants on safari in Africa,

many animals are involved in tourism. According to

Tourism Concern, animal tourist attractions account

for around 20-40% of global tourism and, whilst

awareness of the welfare and conservation issues

surrounding these attractions is growing, a study by

World Animal Protection found that around 80% of

tourists still cannot see how they are detrimental to

the welfare of the animals involved.

BY HANNAH WADE

THE USE OF

One highly controversial way in which animalsare used for tourism is in trophy hunting. Theposition of many governments - including inthe UK and the US - is that sustainable,properly managed trophy hunting is beneficialto species conservation due to the funds itgenerates. The UN Convention onInternational Trade in Endangered Species ofFauna and Flora (CITES) requires a permit forthe import of trophies from species threatedwith extinction, allowing the trade to exist in‘exceptional circumstances’. The most prolificimporter of lion and elephant trophies is theUS, where the body parts of around 500African lions and 500 African elephants areimported into the country each year. The US’sEndangered Species Act of 1973 permitstrophy imports if there is proof that the

hunting is beneficial to the species’conservation. However, trophy hunting remains acontroversial form of tourism amongst NGOsand the public. A high-profile example is thatof Cecil the lion who was killed by anAmerican trophy hunter in 2015 in Zimbabwe.Cecil was famous amongst local safari tourguides and wildlife photographers, and hisdeath garnered international media coverage.Countries such as France and Australia havesince banned the import of lion trophies. As alucrative business, trophy hunting has alsocontributed to the rise of ‘canned hunting’,whereby animals are bred and kept infacilities before being released specifically forhunting. It is estimated that there are currently

6,000 lions across 200 captive predatorbreeding facilities in Africa. Cubs are oftenfirst used for petting or ‘walking with lions’experiences and, once of age, are kept inprivate ranges for hunting. These cannedhunting facilities claim to reduce huntingactivity among wild populations. However,there are many animal welfare concernswithin these facilities. Trophy hunting is a sport for the wealthy, with

with hunters paying up to $100,000 to shoot alion or an elephant. It is the US government’sposition that sustainable trophy hunting playsa vital role in funding conservation efforts,such as through supporting wildlife ranges,tackling poaching and improving communitydevelopment. However, the African WildlifeFoundation have said that if the USgovernment is serious about conservation,they could provide this essential fundingthemselves.

A more inconspicuous way in which animalsare involved in tourism is through souvenirsmade from animal parts, which can introduceelements of the illegal wildlife trade.Souvenirs can include items made frommaterials such as elephant ivory, tortoise shellfrom the endangered hawksbill sea turtle ortrinkets and jewellery made from protectedcoral. The illegal wildlife trade is regulated byCITES and tourists bringing souvenirs homethat are made from the body parts ofprotected species could risk fines and evenimprisonment. Thailand is heavily involved inthe illegal trade in elephant ivory and, in 2013,CITES threatened to impose trade sanctionson the country if they failed to produce anational action plan on ivory. This resulted inthe creation of the Elephant Ivory Act 2015and amendments to the Wild AnimalsReservation and Protection Act (1992). Despite CITES, however, the internationaltrade in ivory continues. Since implementingan effective ban on the internationalcommercial trade in elephant ivory in 1989,CITES has approved two large ‘one-off’ sales

of stockpiled ivory, which has seen asubsequent increase in elephant poachingeach time. According to Responsible Travel,each year 33,000 elephants are killed for theirivory. From 2010-2017, there was a 30%decline in the African elephant population andit is estimated there are now less than500,000 elephants in Africa, compared to 5million a century ago. Unfortunately, sanctions for wildlife crimeoften amount to relatively small fines orseveral months imprisonment. As thedeterrents are comparatively minor, thismakes engaging in the illegal wildlife trade amore desirable and relatively low-risk criminalactivity than other areas of organised crime.Not only does the illegal wildlife tradethreaten species conservation, it alsojeopardises environmental tourismbusinesses. Areas where poaching is mostprevalent often rely heavily upon safaris andsustainable voluntourism experiences.Therefore, working to end the ivory tradehelps support local wildlife tourism. TheInternational Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW)

Animal Justice UK: Tourism Special 17

suggest alternative ways that tourists cansupport the local economy without buyingsouvenirs made from animal parts, such as bybuying handmade crafts from localcommunities or by supporting genuineanimal sanctuaries or conservation projects.

Working equids, camelids and elephants arefundamental to the tourism industry of manycountries; whether it’s mules in Santorini orelephants in Thailand, animals are oftentasked with carrying people and heavy loads.Many in the tourism industry are reliant ontheir animals to make an income fromtourists. However, there can be a limitedavailability of funding and knowledge aboutbest practice or the right equipment to use tocare for working animals, which can impairanimal welfare. Around 50% of the endangered Asianelephant population is held in captivity.Elephant riding is commonplace in Thailandand is supported by the Thai government.However, there are serious concerns aboutelephant welfare. There is concernsurrounding ‘Phajaan’, for example. This is anhorrific training method used to ‘break thespirit’ of elephants to help prepare them for alife of carrying tourists. However, there isanimal protection legislation in place inThailand, with sections 381 and 382 of theCriminal Code making the ill-treatment orunreasonable overworking of an animal acriminal offence. In addition, the Animal Anti-Cruelty and Welfare Act in Thailand requires 

basic welfare provisions for animals used inrecreation and work. Unfortunately, however,enforcement of legislation is an issue andharsh training methods are still used. The use of working animals in tourism iscomplex. Many rely on their animals togenerate a small income from tourism andso, for example, a ban on elephant ridingwould leave numerous mahoutsunemployed. In addition, elephant safarissometimes generate income used in theconservation of other species. For instance,income generated from elephant rides hasbeen used to fund efforts to saveendangered tigers in Thailand. Attempts tomake improvements to the welfare ofworking animals used in tourism musttherefore also take into consideration thepotential impact upon those who rely on thisform of employment.

Another way in which animals are involved intourism is through visiting captive animals inzoos or encountering wild animals on safaris,both on land and at sea. Many argue that, ifmanaged well, zoos have the potential topromote sympathy for the plight ofendangered species, educating visitors onthe importance of their conservation in thewild. However, around 90% of zoo animalsare not endangered species and there isconcern that zoos compromise on animalwelfare for visitors’ entertainment. In the EU,where animal welfare legislation  is

Animal Justice UK: Tourism Special 19

comparatively strict, there are many welfareproblems in zoos. The EU Zoo Inquirydiscovered widespread non-compliance withCouncil Directive 1999/22/EC (the ZoosDirective), with many zoos not meeting thephysical or behavioural needs of theiranimals. Whilst the issues with captive animalattractions may be more obvious, wildlifetourist attractions that involve viewinganimals in their natural habitat can also havea negative impact on animal welfare andconservation. From safaris in the AfricanSavannah to the Arctic states, there has beena rise in so-called ‘last chance tourism’ wheretourists travel long distances to catch aglimpse of an endangered species, such asrhino or polar bears. Arctic polar bear safaris can be detrimental

to bear welfare in several ways. Tourismincreases the likelihood of human/bearinteractions, increasing possible bearfatalities through ‘self-defence’ killings. Inaddition, disturbance to the bears, such asthrough feeding them or intruding on theirhabitats, can be detrimental to their welfare.Although the feeding of bears is prohibitedand there are regulations about the distancefrom which tourists can view these creatures,tourist companies have been known to breakregulations to ensure that their customersget a close-encounter with a polar bear. It is a sad irony that the polar bear tourismindustry is responsible for producing 20,892t/CO2 each season, mainly from the longdistances tourists travel to see the bears. Itwould seem that ‘last chance tourism’ maybe threatening polar bear survival more thanit is contributing to their conservation.

20 Animal Justice UK: Tourism Special

Animals are often used around the world toprovide entertainment to tourists, from marinepark shows in Florida to tiger experiences inThailand. Due to cruel training methods andunsuitable captive conditions, the welfare ofthese animals is often compromised. Zoos, aquariums and marine parks around theworld are responsible for the care ofapproximately 3,000 whales and dolphins thatare used for entertainment. Due to theircomplex needs and high levels ofintelligence, there is much controversysurrounding the use of cetaceans forentertainment. Possibly the most high-profilemarine park, SeaWorld, has been criticised inrecent years over the welfare of its captiveorcas. A restrictive captive environment, suchas that provided by tanks at marine parks, canbe very stressful for orcas who use

echolocation to navigate and typicallytraverse large distances each day in the wild.Stress from living in these unnaturalenvironments has caused captive orcas toshow aggression towards their trainers, otherwhales and even themselves. Another way that tourists interact withcetaceans is through popular ‘swimming withdolphin’ experiences. Capturing dolphins fromthe wild for dolphinaria is not illegal in the US;anyone wishing to capture a wild dolphin for apublic zoo or aquarium must obtain a permitin accordance with the Marine MammalsProtection Act 1972. Thankfully, though, nosuch permit has been granted since 1989. Thecare of dolphins in marine parks andaquariums is regulated by the Animal WelfareAct (1979), which stipulates, amongst otherthings, minimum space requirements.

However, regulation is poor and facilities are usuallyonly inspected once a year. In other countries,dolphins are captured from the wild, often fromalready threatened populations. Recent research hashighlighted the ‘substantial’ welfare impact caused tosmall cetaceans by drive hunting in Japan, themethod typically used to capture dolphins destinedfor amusement parks. After the stressful journey,dolphins face the trauma of a life of captivity afteronce knowing the freedom of life in the sea. Animal entertainment is also provided in the form oftiger experiences, where tourists are allowed tointeract with tigers and take selfies with them. Theseare commonplace in Thailand, where there arearound 830 tigers held in tiger petting attractions. Thetigers are often weaned as early as two to threeweeks old and can be drugged to ensure they arehandleable. Tourists wanting up-close encounterswith big cats are fuelling the demand for thesecentres, where tiger welfare is often severelycompromised. Tourists that do wish to observeanimals whilst on holiday are urged to seek outanimal attractions that are beneficial to bothconservation and animal welfare. This includesgenuine animal sanctuaries that do not breed theiranimals but instead offer rescue and rehabilitation tothe individuals in their care.

As tourists, we have a responsibility to supportholidays and attractions that do not compromiseconservation efforts or animal welfare, and whichbenefit local and indigenous people. However, manyare unaware of the negative impacts that seeminglyharmless attractions can have on the animalsinvolved. This is why it is important that we areresponsible tourists and do our best to researchactivities involving animals before we embark uponthem, and why governments must ensure thatlegislation protects vulnerable animals and that policyis regularly updated to reflect best practice.

BY HARRIET MCRAE

Wildlife tourism that involves observinganimals in their natural habitat has largelybeen considered benign and, in some cases,beneficial from a conservation perspective.However, activities such as gorilla trekking,shark cage diving and whale watching areincreasingly coming under scrutiny for theirperceived negative impacts on the animalsbeing observed. This has been illustratedrecently where concerns about touristsobserving the southern resident killer whale(SRKW) population off the west coast of theUS have resulted in substantive protectivemeasures being proposed. SRKWs travel between central southeast 

Alaska and central California, spending mostof the year in the Salish Sea near the San JuanIslands in Washington State.  They attractlarge numbers of tourists, and the whalewatching industry in the Puget Sound regionis said to generate $60m annually for the localeconomy.  However, with the population ofSRKWs in 2018 reaching its lowest number inover 30 years (now 75 individuals after thebirth of a calf in January this year),Washington's Governor Jay Inslee hasproposed restrictive measures on theindustry, including:

A temporary three-year suspension onSRKW watching activities;An increase from 200 to 400 yards in the 

Animal Justice UK: Tourism Special 23

distance all vessels must maintain from theSRKWs;

A permanent go-slow zone for all vesselswithin half a nautical mile of SRKWs; and,A whale watching permit system.

These measures are the result ofa  report  published in November 2018 by aspecially established Southern Resident OrcaTask Force, which identified noise disturbanceto the whales from vessel traffic (includingwhale-watching vessels) as one of the factorscontributing to the decline in SRKW numbers. SRKWs have, at times, been observed beingsurrounded by 16 - 22 whale watching vesselsover the course of a day, disrupting anddisplacing them from their preferred locationswith underwater noise disturbance fromvessels affecting their ability to locate prey,communicate, rest and rear their young.  Nocalf born between 2015 and 2018 hassurvived, and in one instance, a female carriedher dead new-born for 17 days over morethan 1,000 miles in what has been consideredto be an act of deep mourning. However, whilst it is widely agreed thaturgent action is needed to protect andconserve the SRKW population, theintroduction of a three-year ban on SRKWwatching has come under criticism for beinginappropriate, ineffective and not giving dueconsideration to the conservation benefits ofwhale watching. Other, arguably more significant factorsunrelated to whale watching, were alsoidentified in the Task Force’s report ascontributing to the decrease in the SRKWpopulation, the main one being the lack offood for the whales due to a decline in thechinook salmon population. A representativefrom the Center for Whale Research has alsoargued that the greatest noise interference in

the area comes from large ferries, fishingboats and military vessels rather than whalewatching vessels, which often sit idle or moveslowly around the whales.  With variouscontributing factors, it is difficult to determinethe exact distribution of responsibility for thedecline in the SRKW population and the realbenefit that implementing a total ban onSRKW watching could bring. Representatives from the whale watchingindustry claim that the protective andconservation benefits of whale watching werenot given full consideration. They suggest thattour boats serve a protective purpose bypatrolling around the SRKW, alerting largervessels to slow down and to keep theirdistance, thereby encouraging compliancewith the speed restrictions.  They also claimtheir industry makes positive contributions toconservation by educating tour-goers aboutthe whales and their conservation needs, andby gathering crucial information on thesightings of whales, which conservationistsand researchers rely on.

Is it possible for whale watching to exist andhave a positive impact with appropriateregulation?  The other measures proposed inWashington include introducing an increasedbuffer zone, a go-slow zone and a permitsystem. These could help to ensureappropriate practices whilst maintaining theconservation benefits of whale watching. Further, the World Cetacean Alliance group,the world's largest partnership for cetacean

24 Animal Justice UK: Tourism Special

protection, has recently launched acertification scheme requiring members touphold certain standards of animal welfareand sustainability and to donate $1 from everyticket sold to conservation and educationprogrammes. With conservation andenvironmental concerns receiving increasedattention, tour operators may well invest insuch schemes, if for no other reason than toavoid negative backlash.

Washington bill (HB 1580) setting out theproposed new protective measures iscurrently making its way through thelegislature. An amendment to the bill wasmade on 28 February 2019 (SB 5577) toremove the temporary suspension on SRKWwatching.  It remains to be seen what the finaloutcome will be. Harriet is a finance associate at DLA Piper inLondon.  When time permits she works onpro bono projects, many of which reflect herstrong interest in animal welfare and humanrights.

Want to learn moreabout the use ofanimals in tourism?Read 'Tourism andAnimal Welfare'(CABI, 2018) by NeilCarr and ProfessorDonald Broom.

Daniel is a leading expert on the subject of animals in tourism. He is the co-founder and director of Animondial and previously worked for the Born Free Foundation for 17 years. Daniel co-drafted ABTA’s Global Welfare Guidelines for Animals in Tourism and project managed the 2011 EU Zoo Inquiry.

When did you develop a passion for animal welfare?

During my environmental biology degree,  when  I undertook  a variety of  modules  in species conservation and animal behaviour, I became interested in animal welfare  and how animals cope in

challenging environments. I suppose my passion  was for  species conservation and  I wanted to work with wildlife in far flung destinations! However, I soon became aware that those experiences are few and far between and  thought  animal welfare  would offer more career opportunities.   Following two overseas placements, after graduating,  I was given the opportunity to work with the Born Free Foundation in 2000. I started at assistant level  in the Zoo Check department  and worked my way up to become their Associate Director on Tourism and EU Policy.

What influenced you to focus on animals in tourism throughout your career?

I started focusing on  tourism  in 2004.  The Born Free Foundation had been approached by some travel companies to help with the development of  some guidance for the travel industry about animal welfare and how to safeguard the welfare of  animals involved in tourism.  At the time,  we  had  decided  that we would try  to work with the travel companies that were recognised as  largely proliferating the problem, rather than criticise them.  This change in approach proved to be more fruitful,  and together we developed a

handbook that provided guidance andeducation  into animal welfare intourism.  Some years later, this wasstreamlined into amore accessible document, known as ABTA’sAnimal Welfare Guidelines, that introducedanimal welfare science   and methods to

BY HANNAH WADE

Daniel Turner

26 Animal Justice UK: Tourism Special

evaluate it. These ABTA, guidelines  are stillvery much in operation today and are largelyrecognised as an influencer in improvinganimal welfare in tourism. Although we hadour reservations at the time, as an animalprotection NGO, I am pleased to have beena  contributor to this important document,  itwas clear that we had to do the work to try toimprove the welfare of animals involved intourism. From your time working in the field ofanimal welfare, what achievements are youmost proud of? In my earlier years at Born Free, we managedto influence the decision to move theelephants from London zoo,  in the middle ofthe city of London,  to Whipsnade Zoo  in thecountryside.  This was my campaign  as ZooCheck’s lead and our efforts ultimatelypersuaded and encouraged London Zoo tomake that move. As a result, there’s no longerelephants living on concrete in the middle ofthe city. That was a nice outcome. Our work to secure the protection of wildanimals in captivity in Europeanlegislation required a lot more effort. This wasmy first experience working on Europeanpolicy in Brussels and we were workingagainst the odds as,  at the time, Europeanlegislation only recognised animals in foodproduction and cosmetic testing. The work,which involved the combined efforts ofENDCAP (a coalition of animal welfare NGOsthat I established)  took about 10 years  tocomplete. However,  we  finally  managedto  ensure wild animals in captivity  receivedthe protections  in European law    and  theEU  Action  Plan  for  the Welfare andProtection of Animals. Another EU focus was the EU Zoo Inquiry,

which I established and managed from 2009 –2016. This was  another challenge and  againa  lot of work, but of course that is required  ifyou’re trying to change law. The  objective ofthe EU Zoo Inquiry was to  influence andencourage improvements to  the way animalswere kept  and managed  in zoosacross  the  European Union.  Over the years,Born Free and members of the publicsupporting the charity,  had gatheredevidence  that animals were being keptin  some  appalling conditions in zoos, manyanimals were used in unnatural performancesand few zoos contributed to speciesconservation.  The European Commission, theEU civil service,  at the time said that weneeded more  evidence to support  yourclaims. The EU Zoo Inquiryinvolved  21  countries and produced 23reports, including two summary reports: asummary of the whole project and  areport  focused on cetaceans in captivity,which was published  with World DolphinConservation. The last  action I have already mentioned,  ismy contribution to ABTA’s  Animal WelfareGuidelines. They are still the only suchguidance to the travel industry. Could you tell us more about Animondial? I left Born Free in summer 2017 as I felt therewas much  more that I could achieve. Sixmonths later, I created  ANIMONDIAL  with anex-colleague. Animondial is a specialistconsultancy that works with travel businesses,NGOs and academics to provide impartialadvice and practical guidance  to bettermanage  tourism’s negative impacton  animals  and  the naturalenvironment.  Importantly we maintain animpartial but progressive approach in order toinfluence change and improve standards in

Animal Justice UK: Tourism Special 27

animal care and protection. What is your average week at work like? It depends. The week before last I wasin  Thailand. I visited a number of elephantcamps with the aim of getting a betterunderstanding of their activities. The visit waseye-opening,  highlighting the many differenttypes of elephant camps, and the many risksto both people and the animals at  thosefacilities. I hope to be tasked withthe  development of  standards  that willimprove the welfare of elephants and theirmahouts throughout Thailand (and hopefullythe whole of South East Asia). Whilst last week I was at ITB Berlin, which isthe largest travel  trade  fair in the world. Mygoal there was to raise awareness about theAnimondial and our objectives, to identify newpartnerships.  The topic of elephant campsfeatured in the discussions there too! Thisweek I have been tying up some loose ends,which usually involves lots of emails, Skypecalls and preparing for next week when I’mback in Thailand  to support the auditing  ofsome captive animal facilities. How important, do you feel, is the role ofeducation in improving animal welfare foranimals used in tourism? Unsurprisingly, it’s integral! You’re not goingto achieve anything if you forcefully push withcampaigning and lobbying. Whatever yourapproach is, if you want to influence anddeliver meaningful change you have to A)know your topic area, and B) be able toconvey your knowledge base in an accessibleway to your target audience. You can’t expectpeople to make decisions based on one sideof the argument.  Travel business need tounderstand the topic,  receive an insight into

how  their  activities  could be impacting  onanimals and their welfare, and understandhow practices can change. Education isintegral throughout that process. It is alsoimportant not to assume that people know allthe facts  and to positively convey theinformation and, if necessary,  in a  culturallysensitive way. Do you think the increase in ‘voluntourism’poses more of an opportunity or threat toimproving animal welfare in tourism? Both. From a threat perspective, I think we areseeing - and are likely to see more - bogusoperations whereby experiences are createdor modified under the guise that they are asanctuary, rescue centre or orphanage. Often,young people who love animals and want tolook after them and improve their welfare, arelured to engage with such operations. Anexample includes the  lion petting farms inSouth Africa,  where people  are told they arelooking after orphaned lion cubs. The reality isthat the lion cubs are not orphaned but hand-reared  and later used in ‘walking with lion’experiences and  then eventually killedin  canned hunting facilities. Theseconnections are highlighted in thedocumentary, Blood Lions. Thankfully there isa lot of guidance available to help people askthe right questions of operators ofvoluntourism to ensure their operations arelegitimate and meet recognised standards. What are your main welfare concerns foranimals used in tourism in 2019? I would say that my main concern is aroundover-tourism and its growing negative impact

28 Animal Justice UK: Tourism Special

on both terrestrial and marine animals in thewild. Tourists love to view wildlife in the wild,but too many tourists  will  have a massiveimpact on the animals’ environment  and itslimited resources.  Tourist expectations, andtheir conduct, needs to be better managed toensure both sustainable and responsiblewildlife viewing.    From a captive animalperspective, there is still loads to do inrelation to improving the welfare of individualanimals. This year  Animondial is focused onelephants in South East Asia, cetaceans incaptivity and  the plight of  working animals.My aim is to develop partnerships that willhelp us deliver meaningful change in touristdestinations. In light of your experience co-authoringABTA’s guidelines and leading Born Free’sinquiry into the EU Zoos Directive, do youfeel that voluntary industry-led initiativescan have a greater impact, or would youprefer to see the introduction of morerobust legislation and improvedenforcement of / compliance with existinglegislation? Both. I think you always need to have robustlegislation because ultimately this helps to setthe boundaries, which all stakeholders arethen required to follow. However, this is verymuch reliant on good enforcement andapplied penalties for non-compliance. The EUZoo Inquiry evidenced that good legislation isworthless without the knowledge, ability andthe resources for enforcement agenciesto  effectively implement the legalrequirements. Poor enforcement is achallenge for many government and non-government bodies. This is why self-governance or voluntary industry-ledinitiatives is usually preferred, as these tend toencourage the respective industry to createand follow their own guidance. ABTA’s

guidelines are voluntarily applied. There is nomandatory requirement on their members, orother tour operators, to apply any, or all oftheir requirements. Such guidelines workwhen stakeholders want to do the right thing,but do not necessarily know how to. So  voluntary industry-led initiatives, canhelp  to  influence  change, but I thinkmandatory  application is far more effective ifthere is a sufficiently robust and efficientenforcement procedure. In the inquiry into the Zoos Directive,enforcement was identified as a particularissue amongst all of the countries reviewed,including England. Has there been anyimprovement since 2011? The EU Zoo Inquiry influenced changes tonational and regional legislation,  as well asaction to improve the enforcement of thelaw. The study also resulted in some fundingfrom the European Commission to undertaketraining of local authorities and, in particular,veterinarians. We  also initiated  an extensivereview by the European Commission and theEuropean Parliament which ultimately ledto  the creation of EU  guidance for  memberstates on how to improve  standards.Ultimately, though, the reason for a lack ofenforcement was largely down to poorresources, particularly in light of theintroduction of austerity measures acrossEurope. What do you hope this years’ CITES meetingin Colombo will achieve? I’m not particularly engaged with that, but Iwould think the focus is going to be oncritically endangered species and trying toaddress the prolific illegal trade in theirparts and products. I’m sure ivory will be on

Animal Justice UK: Tourism Special 29

the agenda as well as pangolins and tigers.

In relation to my expertise, the travel industry is a vital component in trying to tackle the illegal trade. Not only are airlines and cargo transporting animal trophies or live animals around the world but also there is a wildlife souvenir component where tourists can buy products made from different animals. Usually, tourists are not aware what they’re buying and that they’re unsustainable.

What advice do you have for students looking to work or volunteer in the international animal welfare charity sector?In particular, how can law students use their skills to help?

I think it’s important to consider your interests. It’s also important when you’ve identified your interests to undertake the research and investigation into what jobs exist and what opportunities there are. Also, think outside the box,  don’t and just go into the first thing you find. Talk to different people within your preferred industry and find out what opportunities  exist. You also need to identify whether you want to be a person who undertakes the research and investigation in order to support the work to influence change (such as undertaking a PhD),  or whether you want work at the coal-face to directly influence change.  The latter is more my focus and interest.  Everyone’s different but you have to identify your strengths and interests and take all opportunities that present themselves and follow your dreams. It sounds corny but that’s really what it’s all about.

You can read more interviews with animalprotection experts on our website and inpast editions of 'Animal Justice UK'.

BY LOUIS KEYSWORTH

In 1999, the Zoos Directive (Council Directive1999/22/EC) was introduced by EuropeanUnion legislators with the primary aim ofstrengthening the role of zoos in conservingbiodiversity. It requires Member States of theEuropean Union to establish licensing andinspection systems to regulate the zoos intheir countries, using key criteria to measureand to guide the performance of individualzoos towards improving conservation efforts.These criteria included captive breedingprogrammes and the reintroduction of suchanimals into the wild, as well as educating andraising awareness about conservation and theanimals involved. Although not directly linkedto conservation efforts, but equally as

important, the Zoos Directive also outlinesthat animals in zoos should be kept underappropriate conditions that aim to satisfy thespecific biological and conservationrequirements of individual species. This articlewill briefly explore the success of the ZoosDirective in light of the Evaluation documentproduced by the EU Commission inNovember 2018. The Zoos Directive has undoubtedly had a netpositive impact on the conservation effortsmade by zoos across the European Union. Aswell as the Directive proving more efficient inthe delivery of conservation measures thanpreceding national legislation and other

Animal Justice UK: Tourism Special 31

initiatives, it has also helped lay the legalfoundations for individual Member States tobuild upon their own national legislation. TheZoos Directive incorporates minimumrequirements or criteria as mentioned aboveand, although not universally met, theseminimum requirements have played asignificant role in ensuring that zooscontribute to conservation efforts and theproper housing of animals. Additionally, theseminimum requirements have helped close thegap between zoos that are members of a zooassociation and those that are not.  

which makes it difficult to quantify the actualimpact that the Directive has had. The lack ofspecific targets and a ruling body orcommittee to enforce them gives zoos less ofan incentive to strive to meet therecommendations of the Directive, and this islikely to have hampered conservation efforts.The inclusive nature of the Directive has alsomeant that it allows for significant discretionacross member states in the stringency oftheir licensing and inspection systems. Oneimportant negative consequence of this hasbeen that progress in zoos with fewerresources (usually in the poorer states of theEU) has often been slow and inspectionsystems less frequent and rigid. This, in turn,has meant many zoos are still not meeting allof the criteria outlined in the Directive. Whilst captive breeding and reintroductionand awareness raising about conservationmay have seen important improvementsacross the majority of zoos, the same cannotbe said for accurate and up-to-date recordkeeping, research and training, and animalaccommodation. For example, a targetedsurvey carried out as part of the evaluationfound that only 57% of zoos who respondedhad their complete collection of animalscovered by their record system. Though thismay appear a fairly trivial problem, it severelylimits the collaboration possible between zooson the issue of conservation. Progress intraining and research have both been limited,which has resulted in a limited capacity inexpert and specialist knowledge on zoos,animals and conservation across Europe. Thisis a worry for both current and futureconservation efforts. Arguably one of the most important aspectsof the Zoos Directive is its requirement thatzoos provide suitable accommodation foranimals held in zoos. It is crucial that we do

One area where the Zoos Directive has beenlargely successful is in the educationprovided and awareness raised aboutconservation issues and the role of zoos inthese conservation efforts. This has come inthe form of education strategies chosen byindividual zoos and these efforts arevindicated by the large majority of peoplewho visit zoos and come out better informedabout wild animals and protected species (ascorroborated by 66% of those surveyed). Zooshave also been relatively successful in theircaptive breeding, reintroduction andrepopulation attempts, according to the EUCommission’s Evaluation of the Directive. Despite the positive effects of the Directive,there are unfortunately a number of failuresand limitations. One of the major criticismsaimed at the Zoo Directive by the EUCommission is that record-keepingrequirements are not being met by all zoos

32 Animal Justice UK: Tourism Special

not overlook the welfare of individual animalsin our efforts to conserve species. In light ofthis, despite raising standards in animalaccommodation across most zoos, there arestill too many zoos with poor quality animalaccommodation. This failure to satisfactorilyaddress animal welfare issues is indicated byhow less than 50% of the public believe thatzoos make adequate provision for animalwelfare. One of the major criticisms of theDirective, therefore, is that animal welfare isnot at its heart. Even though conservationmay be the ultimate goal of the Directive, thisshould not come at the expense of animalwelfare.

The Zoos Directive has been effective inmany areas of conservation including thecaptive breeding and reintroduction ofendangered species, and in the educationand raising of awareness about conservation.It has played a key role in providing thelegislative groundwork for national legislationand has been pivotal in improving thestandards of zoos and their conservationefforts. In spite of this, fresh and more up-to-date EU legislation will be necessary to tackleissues such as animal accommodation andconservation research. What is mostimportant to remember, and something thatthe Zoos Directive does not do, is thenecessity to keep the welfare of the animalsheld in zoos at the forefront of policy-making. 'Louis is a Philosophy, Politics andEconomics student at the University of York.He has volunteered in the animal welfaresector and is interested in advancing theanimal welfare cause through politics'.

A-law, c/o Clair Matthews, Monckton Chambers, 1&2Raymond Buildings, Grays Inn, London WC1R 5NREmail: studentgroup@alaw.org.ukVisit: www.alaw.org.ukFollow us on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram & LinkedIn