NoC40/8 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 17.2.92
OpinionontheproposalforaCouncilDirectivelayingdownminimumstandardsforthe
keepingofanimalsinzoosi1)
(92/C40/03)
On17September1991theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCommittee,
underArticle130SoftheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanEconomicCommunity ,onthe
abovementioned proposal.
TheSectionforProtectionoftheEnvironment ,PublicHealthandConsumerAffairs,which
wasresponsibleforpreparingtheCommittee'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon
5November1991.TheRapporteurwasMrVidalandtheCo-Rapporteurs MrDouvisand
MrMasucci .
Atits291stplenarysession(meetingof27November1991),theEconomicandSocial
CommitteeadoptedthefollowingOpinionbyamajoritywithoneabstention.
1.GistoftheCommissiondocument managementofcertaincollectionsoflivewildanimals,
whichdonotdeservetobecalledzoos,stillleavesmuch
tobedesired,inparticularwithregardtotheunsuitable
conditionsinwhichanimalsarekept.
2.2.TheCommittee isnonethelessawareofthe
debatewhichhasbeenconductedonvariouslevels,and
whichwillnodoubtcontinue,astowhetherthissubject
isreallyapriorityforCommunityaction,andabove
allastowhetherthishighlycomplexmatterfallswithin
thelegislativescopeoftheCommunity .Thecurrent
proposalappearstobeacompromisebetweenthose
whowouldliketoseeveryfullanddetailedCommunity
rules(thereferencesto'annexes'andtoa'Committee'
intheproposal'spenultimaterecitaltestifytothis
approachwhichhashoweverbeenpartiallyabandoned
bytheCommissionindrawingupthetext)andthose
whofeelthat,inlinewiththeprincipleofsubsidiarity,
itistheMemberStateswhichshouldadoptlegislative,
regulatoryandadministrative provisions.1.1.TheobjectiveoftheCommission'sproposalis
toensurethatminimumharmonizedstandardsforthe
keepingofwildanimalsareobservedbyallzoosinthe
Community .Suchharmonization isdeemednecessary
tofacilitatetheapplicationofCommunitynaturecon­
servancylawsandtoprotectthepublic.
1.2.Theproposalrecognizesthatzooscanplaya
threefoldroleinsociety:contributingtoeffortstocon­
servethreatenedorendangeredspecies,carryingout
scientificresearchonspecieswhicharedifficultto
observeandstudyintheirnaturalhabitat,andeducat­
ingthepublicontheenvironmentandecology.
1.3.Articles2and3oftheproposallaydowncertain
minimumstandardstobeobservedbyallestablishment
deemedtobezoos.Inordertoensurecompliancewith
thesestandards,Article4requiresallzoostoholdan
operatinglicence,grantedonlyafteraninspectionof
thezoohasestablishedthatallrelevantstandardsare
beingmetorcanbemetwithinashorttime(12months).
2.Generalcomments2.3.TheCommitteeconsidersthe'compromise'sol­
utionadoptedbytheCommissionjudicious.Annexes
withtoomanyveryspecificprovisionsorlonglistsof
scientificnamesofspeciescouldhaveseriouslycompro­
misedthechancesofrapidadoptionbytheCouncil
andareinanycaseinappropriate forCommunity
frameworklegislation.
2.3.1.ThisdoesnothoweverpreventtheCom­
missionfromtakingallnecessaryprecautionstoensure
thattheprovisions,conditionsandgeneralmeasures
laiddowninArticles2and3oftheproposalare
observedbytheMemberStates.TheCommitteethere­
foresuggeststhattheCommissionmakethenecessary
technicalinformation availabletotheMemberState
(e.g.intheformofamanualorguide)toenablethe
Directivetobeappliedeffectivelyanduniformly.2.1.TheCommitteewelcomestheproposalfora
Directivewhichundoubtedlyrespondstoaneedand
toconcernsexpressedbythegeneralpublic,byexperts,
andnotleastbyzoorepresentatives themselves.The
CommitteecanonlyregretthattheCommissiondid
notsubmitaproposalofthistypemuchearlier,asthe
2.4.Withregardtothelegalbasischosenbythe
Commission ,Article130SoftheTreaty,theCommittee HOlNoC249,24.9.1991,p.14.

17.2.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC40/9
offinancialaidiftheyarenottoclose,withallthe
negativeconsequencesofthisforemployment ,butalso
forthepublicwhichwouldnolongerbeabletosee
animalswithouttravellinglongdistances.Inthiscon­
texttheCommitteethinksthatsubsidies[European
RegionalDevelopment Fund(ERDF)]orloanson
favourableterms(EuropeanInvestmentBank)couldbe
lookedat.isawarethatcertainexpertsthinkthatitshouldbe
changedto,oratleastsupplemented by,Article100A
ontheapproximation oftheprovisionslaiddownby
law,regulationoradministrative actioninMember
Stateswhichhaveastheirobjecttheestablishmentand
functioningoftheinternalmarket.Amajorreasonfor
thecurrentproposalisafteralltheharmonization of
minimumstandardsforkeepinganimalssoastoensure
theirwell-being (anaspectwhichisnotcoveredby
Article130RoftheTreaty!)andeducationofthe
public.2.7.AlthoughArticle11oftheproposalallowsthe
MemberStatestoadoptmorestringentprovisions,
inacommonmarketminimumstandardsshouldbe
interpretedandapplieduniformly.Itwouldberegret­
tableifzoosinagivenMemberStateweresubjectto
morestringentrulesthanothers,asthiscouldcausea
majordistortionofcompetition .TheCommitteereiter­
atesitssuggestion (seepoint2.3)thattechnicaldatabe
madeavailabletotheMemberStatespermittinguni­
forminterpretationoftheDirective'sprovisions .2.4.1.ButtheproposalisalsopartofCommunity
environmental policy,inparticularasregardstherole
whichzooscanplayintheconservationofspecies,
indirectlyviaeducationofthepublicanddirectlyvia
captivebreedingprogrammesforendangeredspecies
andthereturnofoffspringtothewild.Suchpro­
grammesare,however,highlyspecializedactivities
carriedoutbyonlyasmallnumberofzoosworking
togethercloselyunderthesupervisionoftheInter­
nationalUnionfortheConservation ofNatureand
NaturalResources (IUCN)[CaptiveBreedingSpecial­
istGroup(CBSG)].Conservingnature,andspecies
ofwildanimals,requiresabovealltheprotectionand
managementofhabitats,aswellascontrolof(legal
andillegal)trapping,thepreventionofpollution,etc.
TheCommissionproposalalsorelatestothehealth
andsafetyofzoostaffandvisitors,anobjective
specificallymentionedinArticle130RoftheTreaty.
TheCommitteethereforeconsidersthattheCom­
missionhaschosentherightlegalbasis.3.Specificcomments
3.1.Replacethefourthrecitalwith:
'Whereaszoosshouldplayanimportantrolein
educatingandinformingthepublic,andcancon­
tributetoconservationprogrammesforendangered
speciesandscientificresearch.'
3.2.Deletetheeighthrecital.
3.3.Article1.2(a)
2.5.FortheCommitteeitisclearthattheprimary
functionofanyestablishment keepingwildanimals
incaptivityistoeducateandinformthepublic
(particularlyyoungpeople).Theproposalshouldpay
greaterattentiontothisaspectandforexample
specify,possiblyinaseparateannex,theminimum
educationalactivitieswhichmustbeundertaken .3.3.1.TheCommitteewonderswhetherthedefi­
nitionof'zoos'isnottoobroad.Thus,parkscontaining
oneormore'wild'indigenousspecies(deer,swans,
etc.)whichareopentothepublicwouldbesubjectto
theprovisionsoftheproposal,aswouldfencedhunting
groundstowhichthepublichasaccess.
3.3.2.Thedefinitionshouldhoweverbesufficiently
specifictopreventabuses,e.g.byestablishments keep­
inganimalsbutclaimingnottobeaffectedbythe
Directive.
2.6.ItisalsoclearthatmanyCommunityzooswill
havetotakestepstobringthemselvesintoconformity
withthestandardslaiddownbytheDirective,andthat
suchmeasureswillentailconsiderableexpense.Itis
likelythatmanyestablishments ,mostofwhichhavea
non-commercial legalstatus(foundation,nonprofit­
makingbody,etc.),willbeunabletoaffordsuchexpen­
diture.ProvisionwillneedtobemadeforthepossibilityNewdefinition
'allestablishments ,exceptcircusesandpetshops,
opentothepublic,wherelivewildanimalsarekept
inordertobeexhibited.'

NoC40/10 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 17.2.92
3.7.Article3
3.7.1.Replace'inspectorsdesignated'by'inspection
committeesdesignated'.
3.8.Article5.4
3.8.1.Incertaincasesitwouldbeappropriateto
allowagraceperiodofmorethantwelvemonths.
Somechangesmadenecessarybytheprovisionsofthe
Directivewilltakemorethanayear,particularlyasthe
workwillhavetotakeaccountofcertainbiological
imperatives (hibernation,reproductioncycle,etc.).The
Committeethereforeproposesthefollowingamend­
ment:
'Shouldtheconditionslaiddownintheconditional
licencenotbecompliedwithwithin12months,the
competentauthoritymaywithdrawthelicenceand
closethezootothepublic.
Ifhowevertheinspectioncommitteeconsidersthat
therebuildingworkorotheradaptationmeasures
havebeenstartedandcanbecompletedwithin
anacceptableperiod,thecompetentauthoritymay
grantanewconditionallicenceforaperiodnot
exceedingtwelvemonths.'
3.9.ReplaceArticle6,firstsentencewith:
'Theinspectionshallbeundertakenbyacommittee
consistingofatleastonememberofthecompetent
authorityandtwoexpertswho,thoughhavingpro­
fessionalexperienceofwildanimalsinzoos,arenot
directlyinvolvedinthezooinquestion.'
3.10.ReplaceArticle9with:
'TheMemberStatesshallencouragezoostopro­
motetheeducationandprovisionofinformationto
thepublicwithregardtotheconservationofspecies
ofwildanimal.'3.4.Article1.2(c)
3.4.1.Alsowithaviewtopreventingabuses(andin
particulartoensurethatestablishments suchasdol­
phinariumsarecoveredbythedefinitionof'zoo')the
Committeeproposesastricterdefinitionof'circus':
'anitinerantestablishment whereanimalsarekept
orintroducedforthesolepurposeofperforming
tricksormanoeuvresatthatplace.'
3.5.Article1.2(d)
3.5.1.TheExplanatoryMemorandum makesitclear
thattheproposalisaimedpurelyatspeciesofwild
animalandnotdomesticanimals(dogs,poultry,goats,
etc.)whichmightbefoundonmodelfarmsorin
schools.Thedefinitionof'animals'shouldtakeaccount
ofthisdistinction .
Newdefinition
'specimensofspeciesnormallylivinginthewild.'
3.6.Article1.2(f)
3.6.1.Theinspectionofzoosprovidedforin
Article3shouldbecarriedoutbyan'inspectioncom­
mittee',madeup,asstipulatedinArticle6,ofatleast
threepersons,includingtwo'experts'.IncertainMem­
berStatestheappointmentbythecompetentauthority
ofexperts'whoarenotinvolvedinthezooinquestion'
couldposeproblemsinthelightofthedefinitionofan
expertinArticle1.2(f)asapersonwithatleastfive
yearsprofessionalexperienceinzoos.TheCommittee
thereforesuggeststhatthedefinitionbeamendedas
follows:
'apersonappointedbythecompetentauthorityof
theMemberStateinquestionwithknowledgeand
recognizedexperienceofthemanagementandkeep­
ingincaptivityofwildanimals'.
DoneatBrussels,27November1991.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
FrancoisSTAEDELIN