Rechtbank Amsterdam, 18-05-2022, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2022:2714, C/13/702409 / HA ZA 21-497

“(...) Zoos and aquariums are important contributors to biodiversity conservation, conservation research, environmental education, and as cultural or social institutions in their local communities. In order to fulfil their environmental and social responsibilities EAZA members must uphold ethical values congruent with the above mission areas, and best practice in all areas must be predicated on these accepted ethical values. As such, acceptance of the World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Strategy is implicit in membership of the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA).

The following Code of Ethics is the cornerstone of EAZA and underpins all member institutions’ involvement in EAZA. The Code of Ethics is a holistic document which covers animal management and transactions, education, environmental sustainability, biodiversity conservation, research and social responsibility to staff, visitors, colleagues in other zoos and aquariums and the larger community.

(...)

All members of EAZA must:

(...)

 Disseminate professional information and advice to other members and to not undertake actions to impede the development and reputation of other members,

 (...)

 Ensure an ethical approach when undertaking any marketing and PR work to ensure that animals are not put at risk of physical or mental injury, and are used in an appropriate manner so that a positive and respectful image of the animal(s) is projected, acknowledging that the way animals and zoos are portrayed by the media can impact on public perceptions,

 (...)

 Behave in such a manner as to not bring the reputation of EAZA into disrepute in any way. (...)”

EAZA hanteert een eigen intern klachten- en sanctiesysteem, dat is neergelegd in de ‘EAZA Membership and Accreditation Manual’ (hierna: het Sanctieprotocol).

Hierin staat beschreven hoe wordt gehandeld in het geval van een overtreding door EAZA-leden van de Gedragscode of de EEP-procedures.

“(...) In the case of a violation of the EAZA Code of Ethics or the EEP procedures as laid down in the EAZA Population Management Manual, three levels of sanction can be imposed by the responsible bodies of EAZA:

I. Warning

II. Exclusion

III. Termination

I. Warning

A warning can be given to an EAZA Member Institution by the EEP Committee of the Membership and Ethics Committee for one or more of the following reasons:

1. Not following recommendations from EEP coordinators for animal transfer between officially approved EEP participants, also including non-EAZA EEP participants;

(...)

3. Transferring, importing or releasing an animal from the EEP population without the knowledge and approval of the EEP Coordinator;

(...)

8. Smaller violations of the Code of Ethics (e.g. issues which harm the community’s common interests regarding EEPs, image, or animal exchanges, or harm other Members or their image).

Warnings are registrated by the EEO (...) and Council is notified about each warning. Furthermore, warnings are communicated to the whole EAZA membership. (...)

II. Exclusion

The ‘Excluded’ status can be imposed on an EAZA Member Institution by the Executive Committee for the following reasons:

1. Following three warnings from the EEP and/or the Membership and Ethics Committee;

(...)

The ‘Excluded’ status lasts for two years and is registered by the EEO and communicated to EAZA membership as well as to Coordinators. Relevant partner organisations are also notified. Members with ‘Excluded’ status cannot be Council members and cannot have any other functional roles in EAZA. (...) Members with ‘Excluded’ status are still required to follow all EEP/ESB rules for the EEP/ESB animals they have already but, cannot acquire new EEP species. Exclusion status will be lifted after two years if the Member cooperates fully with the EEP(s) and does not receive any new warnings. If the Member continues to violate EEP rules or receives further warnings of the Executive Committee will recommend the Member to Council for termination of membership. (...)”

Op 14 augustus 2019 is in de Britse krant The Independent een lang, opiniërend artikel geplaatst van de hand van [naam 1] met als titel ‘Zoos are outdated and cruel – it’s time to make them a thing of the past’ (hierna: het Independent artikel), zie online op https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/zoos-cruel-wildlife-conservation-species-a9056701.html.

In dit artikel presenteert [naam 1] , kort gezegd, zijn (onderbouwde) kritische visie op bepaalde beperkingen van dierentuinen ten aanzien van hun bijdrage aan conservatie, educatie en onderzoek, zijn voorstel voor een plan van aanpak om dierentuinen geleidelijk over een periode van 25 tot 30 jaar, kleinere dierentuinen in de komende 10 jaar, te sluiten, en om diverse (veelal bedreigde) diersoorten (terug) te zenden naar beschermde gebieden in het wild.

“(...) I am writing you on behalf of the EAZA Membership and Ethics Committee to inform you that we have received a complaint from an EAZA Member regarding an article published under your by-line in the Independent newspaper in the UK on Wednesday 14 August of this year. The complaint references two clauses of the EAZA Code of Ethics, namely:

“to not undertake actions to impede the development and reputation of other members”

And

“Behave in such a manner as to not bring the reputation of EAZA into disrepute in any way”

The complaint alleges that the article contravened both of these clauses, and will be heard at the meeting of the Membership and Ethics Committee of EAZA (...) in order to ensure an objective approach, we would like to ask you to provide any documentation and references that you feel would be helpful in clarifying your position. We would ask you to answer specifically the complaint’s references to these two clauses of the Code of Ethics rather than providing a wider argument in support of your article. (...)”

“(...) Thank you for your e-mail. I am not surprised by this reaction, however I do disagree with the complaint. You have given no indication of specific issues in the article which have prompted this complaint so it is difficult to respond specifically, but as general reply I can quote directly from the article:

(...)

It should be noted that virtually all information in my article about EAZA specifically, or generally about the limitations of zoo globally in contributing to conservation, education and research is based on work previously published by others, and can largely be fact-checked using a previous referenced version of the article attached for your convenience.

(...)

To conclude, this article was not intended as criticism of any particular organization or zoo, it is trying to promote an honest debate concerning these issues. Where would we be without open and honest discussion? (...)”

“(...) In the article Mr [naam 1] clearly indicates being ‘responsible for two wildlife parks’. Consequently, these two EAZA Members and those associated with them are required to follow the ethical standards as agreed by our Association.

(...)

In Mr. [naam 1] ’s response of 5 September, he indicated that the “article was not intended as a criticism of any particular organization or zoo, it is trying to promote an honest debate concerning these issues.” While honest debate is always welcome, the public forum of a website is a questionable place to engage with the zoo community he wishes to improve. There are many opportunities for input into decision making bodies as well as and face to face discussion within EAZA structures. (...)”

Per brief van 10 oktober 2019 gericht aan [naam instelling] , Howletts en Port Lympne heeft (het EEP-Committee van) EAZA laten weten dat de EEP ten aanzien van Howletts een klacht had ontvangen van de ‘Southern Cheetah EEP’ en de ‘Felid TAG’ (een speciaal opgezet team dat toezicht houdt en leiding geeft aan het beheer van wilde katten van de American Zoo Association) over het voornemen van het niet volgen door Howletts van een EEP-aanbeveling tot overdracht van twee cheeta’s naar een andere EAZA-dierentuin. Ook stond in de brief dat als Howletts daadwerkelijk over zou gaan tot de overdracht van de cheeta’s naar het reservaat in Zuid-Afrika (hierna: de overdracht van de cheeta’s), in plaats van de EAZA-dierentuin, zij dan een waarschuwing opgelegd zou krijgen, wegens schending van artikel 3.8.1.f, 4.3 en 3.15.5 van de Population Management Manual.

In deze brief staat verder, voor zover relevant:

“(...) EAZA Members must follow EEP transfer and (non)-breeding recommendations as outlined in the EAZA Population Management Manual. This applies to all EEP species and to all individual animals without exceptions or tradeoffs.

The EEP Committee would like to additionally bring to your attention the revised sections of the Population Management Manual as approved by the EAZA Annual General Meeting (AGM) in April 2019: the paragraph about ‘out placing’ programme animals (3.15.5) and the new procedures for conservation locations including releasing animals to the wild (4.3). These paragraphs provide clear guidance on what is expected from an EAZA Member, EEPs and TAGs and violations against these procedures will be acted upon accordingly by the EEP Committee. Please be aware that that this applicable for all programme animals (EEPs/ESBs), not only southern cheetah.

With these procedures in mind the EEP Committee discusses the complaint from the Southern cheeta EEP and the EAZA Felid TAG during their meeting on 18 September 2019. The EEP Committee concluded that as the animals have not yet moved from the Howlett’s Wild Animal Park none of the rules and procedures have, as yet, been broken. However, there does seem to be a lack of willingness to cooperate with the EEP in this situation. If Howletts Wild Animal Park decides to not follow EEP recommendations and subsequently send these animals out of the programme without EEP approval the they will be breaking the following EAZA rules as laid down in the EAZA Population Management Manual (2019) and the EAZA Sanctions in the case of a violation of the EAZA Code of Ethics or EEP procedures (2019) document, specifically: (...)

As such the EEP Committee decided that if Howletts Wild Animal Park goes ahead with exporting one or both Southern cheetah out of the programme without EEP approval it will result in a warning being issued. We hope this letter will encourage Howletts Wild Animal Park to work together with the EEP to solve this matter under the existing EEP rules and procedures. (...)”

“(...) As you know we are keen to try and reintroduce as many species as possible from our collections. We have found a private reserve in South Africa that does not have lion or hyena on it that would like to try releasing these two boys. We have been in contact with Derek and Vincent van der Merwe, who manage the studbook for the cheetah on the small private reserves, and they are happy to have some new genetics entering their programme – if they breed. I know that you are preparing to make recommendations for 2019 soon so we woulk like to ask you not to include these two males in your plans. The female we are happy to send to anywhere suitable that you suggest (...)”

De EEP-coördinator heeft hierop in zijn e-mail van 7 februari 2019 deze plannen van Howletts afgewezen en aangegeven dat de cheeta’s op grond van de EEP aanbeveling naar een andere EAZA-dierentuin (Burgers’ Zoo in Arnhem) zouden worden overgebracht:

“(...) I have prepared the new recommendations. (...) and unfortunately I have incorporated the parent reared male into a recommendation to send to Arnhem as mate for their young female. (...)

I’m not sure we need to re-introduce zoo captive born cheetah, let alone a hand reared individual...... In Africa there are several organisations already breeding and re-introducing cheetah which are semi captive born and have been trained to hunt. (...) I will stick to the original plan to use your young male(s) as breeding recommendation to transfer to Arnhem (...)”

Howletts heeft hier vervolgens in een e-mail van 11 februari 2019 op gereageerd en aangegeven dat zij teleurgesteld was en daarbij, onder meer, geschreven:

“(...) I think you could look at this option as an opportunity to demonstrate that the captive population has value as an insurance population rather than as these two boys being “written-off”. (...)”

Vervolgens heeft de EEP-coördinator aangegeven in zijn e-mail van 12 februari 2019 dat hij niet in gaat op individuele bezwaren en heeft hij verwezen naar de richtlijnen van de Felid TAG.

De TAG die toezicht houdt op de EEP-Committee ten aanzien van de Southern Cheetah heeft ook via de voorzitter van de betreffende TAG contact gezocht via haar e-mail van 17 juni 2019 aan Howletts om een nadere uitleg te krijgen, dit onderwerp verder te bespreken en verdere stappen te kunnen nemen.

In reactie hierop heeft Howletts per e-mail gereageerd op 10 juli 2019. Howletts heeft uitgelegd waarom zij meent dat het een mooie kans is om de cheeta’s naar Zuid-Afrika over te plaatsen, en daarnaast, voor zover relevant:

“(...) [naam 3] [de EEP-coördinator] took the view that the EEP would be best served by transferring Nairo to Antwerp and that a reintroduction project should have been discussed by the EEP, TAG and EAZA before being attempted. Both very valid points of view. We took the view that this was not a planned reintroduction “project” but instead a great opportunity to see if the captive EAZA cheetah population has any value as an insurance population.

[naam 3] has indeed explained that Howletts ( [naam instelling] is not an EAZA member) have acted against EAZA regulations on this occasion, although we have agreed to send the littermate sister to the recommended institution as we have with all previous cheetahs. The Southern cheetah EEP does not support, with animals, any reintroduction project, which is not a very One Plan Approach, but there is no reason, if we succeed, that this could not be the start of one. This has worked for the black rhino and gorilla EEPs. (...)”

“(...) With respect to the publishing of Mr. [naam 1] ’s article in a national newspaper in the UK, the Executive Committee has been approached by a number of Members who have felt highly offended to have been accused of obfuscation and dishonesty. We recognize that there are always areas in which zoos and aquariums can improve their conservation, education and research performance and the process of improvement is key to our mission. At the same time we have established as core values of the Association Transparency and scientific rigour in the fulfilment of this mission. We have nothing to hide regarding our efforts to maximise the outputs of zoos in these areas and would welcome your input as to how to achieve better results; however, we are concerned that not only do you appear to believe that zoos and aquariums can never fulfil this mission without unacceptable compromises but also that EAZA Members are being dishonest and attempting to hide elements of their work from public scrutiny. If these are really your views, 1 would like to better understand why you maintain membership of EAZA for both of your parks.

(...)

EAZA is a membership association and, as such, zoos and aquariums that choose to join us also agree to abide by our Codes and Standards. We have a range of structures and processes in place for Members to shape the way the Association develops, and while your staff are active in some of those dealing with programmes and animals, we see little engagement from senior management in the Director-level forums which are, in our opinion, the appropriate forums for influencing the strategic future of EAZA and progressive European zoos in general. This leads us to question whether the apparent differences between our philosophies and approaches can in fact be overcome to allow us to establish a sustainable and mutually beneficial relationship into the future.

We value your Membership and would find it unfortunate if Port Lympne and Howletts wished to move away from EAZA. As a result, I would like to invite you to meet with me and representatives from our Executive Committee to discuss a way forward that works for both of us and which allows us to address areas of ethical and scientific concern in a collegiate and mutually beneficial manner while avoiding public disagreements that do nothing to advance the goal of species conservation. If you are willing to meet with us on this basis, I would ask you in a spirit of reconciliation and friendship to let me know when we would be a convenient time, and where you would prefer to meet. (...)”

“(...) The complaint alleges that the media articles contravened both of these clauses, and in the case of the 26 December article they feel that the ‘whole premise of the article serves to impede the development and reputation of EAZA members.’ (...)”

“(...) As I made clear in the (...) podcast it was never my intention to fall out with EAZA nor did I intentionally go out of my way to contravene EAZA’s code of ethics. I still don’t believe I have done as everything that I said in these interviews was in good faith and meant as constructive criticism. (...) Everything that I said is factual and if there is something that can be contradicted or proven wrong I will happily retract and offer a public apology. I would be very happy to meet with the ethics committee to discuss further prior to your meeting to explain my thoughts further. (...)”

“(...) As for the two sanctions given by the ethics committee, you have not cited anything in either of the two Times’ articles that could be construed as a contravention of the code of ethics.

(...)

There was no process to verify what I actually said in either interview after these complaints were submitted, what exactly did I say that brought the reputation of EAZA into disrepute or impeded the development and reputation of other members? (...) I say again, show me the exact line in these articles that contravenes your code of ethics? (...)”

Op 3 juli 2020 heeft EAZA in reactie op het beroepschrift [naam 1] en Howletts geïnformeerd dat het beroepschrift niet in behandeling zou worden genomen voor zover dit zag op de waarschuwing opgelegd aan Howletts voor het niet volgen van een EEP-aanbeveling tot overdracht van de twee cheeta’s. Het beroepschrift was namelijk buiten de beroepstermijn van 31 kalenderdagen ingediend.

Ten aanzien van het beroepschrift gericht op de waarschuwingen ten aanzien van het Independent artikel en de Times artikelen heeft EAZA op 22 juli 2020 bericht dat dit beroep werd afgewezen. Kort samengevat omdat volgens EAZA het nieuwe bewijs beperkt en ontoereikend was, de interne EAZA-procedures juist waren gevolgd, er geen sprake was van een materiële vergissing of omissie – omdat, zoals EAZA al eerder had bericht, duidelijk was dat de gehele inhoud van de krantenartikelen indruist tegen de doelen die EAZA nastreeft – en de opgelegde waarschuwingen redelijk en consequent waren.

“(...) Considering the points above, we continue to believe that our proposal to reinstate your institutions as coordinators and to also remain the existing coordinators in a co-coordinator position (at least until the appeal had been heard) would fulfil the court requirement, accommodate your request and at the same time would offer a fair and reasonable consensus solution to all stakeholders involved. (...)”

Daarna heeft EAZA bij brief van 23 november 2021 het een en ander verduidelijkt:

“(...) Our response clearly outlined that the coordinator position of the four EEPs would lie with either Howletts or Port Lympne, with the present coordinators at Singapore, Moscow, Dvur Kralove and Halle transitioning into a permanent vice coordinator role. This would reflect EAZA’s decision and not, as you suggest, a proposal that is then to be decided upon by the individual coordinators from these four institutions. We believe our letter is clear in this intent, and consistent with what was discussed during our online meetings. Although we are more optimistic now that the four present coordinators and their institutions will accept to transition into a vice coordinator role, EAZA cannot force this new role on them. If they would decide not to accept, the EEP would have a coordinator based at Howletts or Port Lympne without a vice coordinator role for the programme. (...)”