Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ' Proposal for a Council Recommendation relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos'
Date: 1996-04-24
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: animal health, animal show, animal welfare, health legislation, protection of animals













EUR-Lex - 51996AC0541 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51996AC0541

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ' Proposal for a Council Recommendation relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos'  


Official Journal C 204 , 15/07/1996 P. 0063 





Opinion of the  Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Recommendation relating to the keeping  of wild animals in zoos`(96/C 204/17)On 2  February 1996, the Council decided to consult  the Economic and Social Committee, under Article  130s of the Treaty establishing the European  Community, on the above-mentioned proposal. The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which was  responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 2  April  1996. The Rapporteur was Mrs Cassina. At its 335th Plenary Session (meeting of 24  April 1996), the Economic and Social Committee adopted  the following Opinion by 108  votes to seven and six abstentions. 1. Background1.1. On 31  July 1991, the Commission adopted a draft Directive laying down  minimum standards for the keeping of animals in zoos. On 27  November 1991, the Economic and Social Committee issued an Opinion endorsing the draft  Directive (Rapporteur: Mr Vidal; Co-Rapporteurs: Mr  Douvis and Mr  Masucci) (). 1.2. On 12  December 1995, the Commission decided to withdraw the draft Directive and replace it  with a draft Recommendation. 2. The content of the Recommendation2.1. In the very brief communication to the Council which  accompanies the draft Recommendation, the Commission gives the principle of subsidiarity as its  reason for withdrawing the 1991 Directive. In the next sentence, however, the communication states that the European Parliament, the zoo  profession, animal welfare organizations and the general public attach great importance to the  establishment of European standards concerning the condition of animals in zoos. 2.2. The communication states that the Recommendation and the guidelines contained in the Annex are  largely based on the standards agreed within the sectoral association EAZA (European Association of  Zoos and Aquaria). These standards are a condition for membership of the EAZA. 2.3. The communication adds that the only way to achieve a drastic improvement in the overall  situation in zoos is for Member States to adopt legislation providing for the licensing of zoos on  the basis of their meeting a set of minimum requirements. 2.4. The legal basis of the Recommendation is Article  130s(1) of the EC Treaty; Regulations  3626/82 and 2727/95 and Directives 79/409, 94/24 and 92/43 () form the framework of precedents on  which the Commission proposal is based. 2.5. The Recommendation urges the Member States to adopt provisions on: - the licensing and inspection of zoos; - licensing based on the submission of detailed applications to a competent authority; - review of every licence every five years, and measures to be taken if minimum standards are not  met; - ensuring proper inspections by requiring them to be undertaken by at least one member of the  competent authority and two experts not involved in the establishment to be inspected; - the possibility of closing the zoo to the public if the legislative requirements are not met,  with the option of issuing a provisional 12-month licence to allow the zoo to take the necessary  measures or create the conditions for full compliance with the standards; should conditions remain  unsatisfactory after 12  months, national laws should provide for withdrawal of the licence and  closure of the zoo; - measures regulating the transfer or humane destruction of the animals in cases of zoo closure; - the list of the minimum provisions (on which the reader is referred to a detailed Annex) to  guarantee: suitable living conditions for the animals, a high standard of animal husbandry and  veterinary care, health and safety of animals and visitors, the keeping of records including the  qualitative and quantitative data on the animals kept, information to be displayed to the public,  training of staff, access for inspectors at any time, and promoting conservation of species through  research, captive breeding and education of the public. 3. General comments3.1. It should always be borne in mind that wild animals in a zoo are living  away from their natural environment. This applies even to perfectly equipped zoos where animals are  professionally cared for, receive every necessary attention and are not forced to modify their  behaviour substantially. 3.2. This observation, however, is not the whole story. Zoos often perform an important educational  function, by enabling town dwellers and above all children and young people to gain direct  knowledge of species which, but for zoos, they would never come across throughout their lives. In  addition, zoos often provide the chance to conduct research and scientific experiments, and even to  help save species threatened with extinction. 3.3. Sensitivity to conditions of captivity should therefore be directed towards defining minimum  but definite standards which provide proper protection for the animals' life-cycle, ensure  professional care and allow use of their presence by the public and researchers subject to adequate  safety measures. 3.4. In the light of the above, the Committee believes that a Directive laying down the basic  objectives, to be transposed into national standards and regulations taking account of the  cultural, climatic, health and sociological conditions of the individual Member States, would have  been the only effective course to take. 3.4.1. The Committee deplores the fact that the Commission instead followed the Council's majority  view by withdrawing the draft Directive and proposing a Recommendation. This ran counter to the  Committee's 1991 Opinion and the explicit position taken by the European Parliament which, at the  beginning of 1995, called for adoption of the Directive. 3.4.2. It is unlikely that a Recommendation will achieve practical results, and there is therefore  a risk of allowing the situation in some European zoos to deteriorate further, resulting in  suffering for animals and risks for the public which would only strengthen that strand of public  opinion which already wants to see all zoos closed. 3.5. Moreover, the reason given for withdrawing the Directive, namely respect for the subsidiarity  principle, is not convincing: - if the aim is compliance with Treaty Article  130r (applied through the legal basis, Article   130s), and- if the Community authorities' intention is to contribute to 'preserving, protecting  and improving the quality of the environment` and to the 'prudent and rational utilization of  natural resources`, then animals in captivity are part of the environmental heritage and natural resources in the  European Union and as such should be safeguarded by the direct use of Community rules. 3.5.1. Declaration No  24 annexed to the Treaty on European Union calls upon the Community  authorities to pay full regard to the 'welfare requirements of animals` in their legislative work  in various sectors (CAP, transport, the internal market, research); one comes up against another  contradiction - while the welfare of animals must be taken into account by some common policies,  the Community authorities by virtue of a restrictive interpretation of the subsidiarity principle  regard animal welfare as such as a matter to be dealt with on a voluntary, national basis. 3.6. A Recommendation, precisely because of its non-binding nature, must set out a clear,  convincing strategy which can be used by national social and political players to mobilize public  opinion and thereby encourage the Member States' authorities to regulate the matter in the most  appropriate way. 3.6.1. Apart from the weakness of the Recommendation as a regulatory instrument, it ends up going  into details which do not help to clarify the objectives to be achieved. In particular, the Annex  and Appendix are muddled, and if applied in their entirety would lead not so much to animal welfare  but above all to a bureaucratization of zoo management. 3.6.2. It seems that circuses are not covered by the Recommendation. It would be desirable to draw  up a flexible, but binding instrument which also covers circuses as these frequently operate on a  cross-frontier basis, travelling from one Member State to another. 4. Specific comments4.1. Text of the Recommendation4.2. The educational and scientific  objectives of zoos should be clearly stated and explained in Point 1, together with the objectives  listed in Points 8.1 to 8.8, so as to constitute the explicit aim of the part of the Recommendation  covering the issue of licences. 4.3. Point 7A clause should be added to cover the placement of staff in the event of closure. 4.4. Annex4.4.1. Point 2.1.2(Does not apply to the English-language version.)Delete the word  'anormalmente` from the Italian version: an animal found to be stressed must be immediately  examined and treated. 4.4.2. Point 2.2.6The expression '(including eggs)` referring to 'animals with young` may be  poetic, but should be replaced with the simple wording 'pregnant animals and those which are  brooding or have young`. 4.4.3. Point 2.7.4Measures should also be laid down, where necessary, for isolating the infected  animal. 4.4.4. Point 2.7.10Ambiguity with regard to handicapped persons must be avoided: suitable staff  are selected in accordance with national labour standards. The risk inherent in the proposed  provision is that any handicapped person may be regarded as 'unsuitable`. In fact, handicapped -  especially mentally handicapped - people are often very well-fitted to look after animals and  therefore only need to be helped with training. Consequently, it should be made clear that the  reference is solely to those types of handicap which could pose a threat to the work and/or the  member of staff and/or the animals in question. 4.4.5. Point 4.3A typical example of an irrational detailed provision: does it apply to all  animals, even large ones such as elephants?4.4.6. Point 5.3.2The following amendment is proposed  since this provision is difficult to understand: 'The perimeter should not be surrounded by an electric fence which can be reached by the  public.`4.4.7. Point 5.5.3Delete the second sentence: it is difficult to interpret and even more  difficult to put into practice. 4.4.8. Point 5.6.1The second sentence, describing the purpose of the provision, should be amended  to leave closer assessment to the national authorities. 4.4.9. Point 7.1It would be enough to state that surplus animals must be transferred or sold only  to those who can guarantee appropriate treatment, subject to checks by the relevant authorities. 4.4.10. Point 9.1In addition to information and education programmes, the zoo should have at its  disposal (even if only periodically) specialized staff who can present such programmes. 4.5. AppendixIt is proposed that the Appendix be deleted. The description of dangerous animals  gives the impression that animals not included on the list are not dangerous. Most animals can be  dangerous if they are not handled properly. Done at Brussels, 24  April 1996. The Presidentof the Economic and Social CommitteeCarlos FERRER() OJ No C 40,  17. 2. 1992.  () See OJ No L 384, 31.  12.  1982 (ESC Opinion in OJ No  C  138, 9.  6.  1981); OJ No  L  284, 28.   11.  1995; OJ No  L  103, 25.  4.  1979 (OJ No  C  152, 29.  6.  1977); OJ No  L  164, 30.  6.   1994 (OJ No  C  191, 22.  7.  1991); OJ No  L  206, 22.  4.  1992 (OJ No  C  31, 6.  2.  1991).