Implementation of the Directive

In Belgium, zoos are regulated through the Royal Decree of 10/08/1998, Arrêté royal relatif a l’agrément des

parcs zoologiques (‘RD8/1998’), which specifies requirements in zoo licensing, operation and animal care. Zoo

regulation is undertaken by the Department for Animal Welfare and CITES (DAWC), in consultation with the Zoos Commission, and in conjunction with the Department for Inspection of Animal Welfare and CITES (DIAWC). The Federal Public Service for Public Health, Food Safety and Environment (‘FPS’) is responsible for both Departments and ultimately, the regulation of zoos in Belgium (Article 30, RD8/1998).

According to the DAWC, the RD8/1998 was established following a catalogue of evidence detailing poor conditions in many of the country’s zoos (Born Free Foundation, 1988; GAIA, 1991; GAIA, 1995, GAIA, 2003; GAIA, pers. comm., 1st August 2005). The DAWC admits that conditions were ‘pretty bad’ before the

implementation of RD8/1998, but states that following its implementation, all zoos in Belgium have drastically improved, or those that failed to meet the standards, have since closed (Standard Member State Questionnaire). All EU Member States (15) were required to transpose the Directive (1999/22/EC) into national legislation by April 2002. The implementation of the Directive by Member States is an issue for subsidiarity and although transposition is overseen by the European Commission, it is the responsibility of the Member State to accurately transpose all the requirements of the Directive into the respective national law and apply it. Unlike other EC Directives, Directive 1999/22/EC includes no guidance or explanatory notes which has led to inconsistencies in its application amongst EU Member States as a result of different interpretations of requirements, definitions and licensing and inspection procedures.

Notably, RD8/1998 has not been amended since its implementation in 1999 (FPS Santé publique, Sécurité de la Chaîne alimentaire et Environnement, pers comm., 10th _{August 2011), the same year the Directive was adopted by}

the EC. This then indicates that either Belgian zoo law already complied with the requirements of the Directive and did not require amendment prior to the April 2002 transposition deadline, or that officially, transposition had never taken place. Following a review of RD8/1998, the latter could well be possible: there is no reference to the Directive in the preamble to RD8/1998; and numerous key components of the Directive have not been accurately and completely transposed, yet the European Commission were reportedly satisfied that the Belgium zoo law did comply with the Directive’s objectives and requirements.

Unlike the Directive, RD8/1998 is not legislation dedicated to the conservation of biodiversity, but instead

applies more emphasis to the appropriate keeping of animals in zoos. Zoos in Belgium are required to take part in cooperative captive breeding programmes, but other ‘species conservation’ options cited in Article 3 of the Directive, including participation in scientific research, training in relevant conservation skills and, where appropriate, exchange of information relating to species conservation, the repopulation or reintroduction of species into the wild, are not included in RD8/1998. This calls into question priority-setting applied to the

conservation of biodiversity through the licensing, inspection and regulation of zoos in Belgium (a key requirement of Article 1 of the Directive). Similar concerns were previously highlighted in both reports

published in 2003 and 2008, which identified a minimal contribution to the conservation of biodiversity by Belgian zoos (GAIA 2003; Eurogroup for Animals 2008). Both these observations have seemingly been ignored. Similarities with the provisions of the Directive include the requirement for all zoos in Belgium to be licensed and to meet specific requirements in zoo operation, public education, collection management and animal care. The definition of a ‘zoo’ is largely the same as Article 2 of the Directive, although the term ‘animals of wild species’

has been substituted with ‘non-domesticated species’ and the types of ‘zoos’, to which the law would apply, have been listed. However, these alterations, whilst different from the Directive, do not necessarily provide a stricter law, as claimed (Standard Member State Questionnaire). In fact, the lack of definitions in Article 1(1) of RD8/1998 for ‘circuses’, ‘travelling expositions’ and ‘commercial establishments for animals’, facilities that

are exempt from the zoo law, weaken the application of RD8/1998 since facilities that may require a zoo licence may be incorrectly identified as not requiring one.

Of particular concern is the laissez-faire approach to zoo licensing, in Article 2(4) of RD8/1998, which appears to permit the automatic licensing of establishments as zoos, seemingly without the necessary and legally required zoo inspection. This may contravene the requirements of Article 4 of the Directive, concerning the licensing

and inspection of zoos. RD8/1998 makes little reference to the zoo inspections (e.g. frequency, make up of

inspectorate, terms of reference, reporting mechanism, etc.) as required by Article 4.3 of the Directive. Information which has however, been provided to the authors by the Standard Member State Questionnaire.

Although the European Commission were apparently satisfied with the transposition of the Directive, inconsistencies between the RD8/1998 and the Directive do require further investigation. It is clear that whilst RD8/1998 incorporates the majority of the requirements applicable to zoos (Article 3 of the Directive), details

about zoo inspections, species conservation activities and actions taken on the event of zoo closure, including provisions relating to the relocation of the animals and their care, have been omitted. The Federal Public

Service for Public Health, Food Safety and Environment should consider amending the RD8/1998 at the earliest opportunity to ensure all requirements of the Directive are effectively and accurately transposed.