Report on the Issues related to Zoo Legislation and Enforcement in Malta Prepared for the Animal Welfare Council September 2020
Avv. Ariane Aquilina Ariane Aquilina obtained the degree of LL.D. from the University of Malta in 2017 after successfully defending a thesis entitled “Regulating the Keeping of Animals in Zoos: De Facto and De Jure� and was called to the bar in 2018. She is currently reading for a M.Sc. in International Animal Welfare, Ethics and Law with the University of Edinburgh. Ariane Aquilina is involved in the local animal welfare scene through collaboration with various NGOs and acts as Secretary General for Time for Change Malta.
Time for Change Malta Time for Change Malta is a Maltese NGO with registration number VO/1714. It was set up in 2019 to advocate on behalf of animal welfare issues in Malta.
Avv. Ariane Aquilina Time for Change Malta
Contents Contents ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Referenced Documents ................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.
Zoos in Malta ......................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.
Institutional Problems........................................................................................................................................... 6
3.
2.1.
Issues with the Transposition of the Zoos Directive into Maltese law ..................................................... 6
2.2.
Lack of Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................. 7
2.3.
Lack of Cooperation among Authorities ..................................................................................................... 7
2.4.
Issues with Complementary Legislation ..................................................................................................... 8
2.5.
Lack of Public Accountability and Records ................................................................................................. 8
2.6.
Issues with Enforcement and the current State of Zoos Operations ........................................................ 9
Proposals ............................................................................................................................................................. 10 3.1.
Stricter Regulations on Licence Requirements, Licence Issuance, and Licence Maintenance .............. 10
3.2.
Stricter Regulations on Inspections and Record-keeping ........................................................................ 12
3.3.
Stricter Regulations on the Training of Zoo Employees, Zoo Owners, and Inspectors .......................... 13
3.4.
Stricter Regulations on Protecting the Environment ............................................................................... 13
3.5.
Stricter Regulations on the Requirements for Conservation of Biodiversity and Public Education ...... 14
3.6.
Stricter Regulations on Requirements for Animal Welfare ..................................................................... 14
3.7.
Stricter Regulations on Requirements for Public Health and Safety ...................................................... 15
3.8.
Stricter Regulations with Regard to Penalties and Closure of Zoos ........................................................ 16
3.9.
Improved Enforcement Efforts ................................................................................................................. 17
3.10.
Amendments to Complementary Legislation .......................................................................................... 17
Page 2 of 17
Avv. Ariane Aquilina Time for Change Malta
Referenced Documents
Legislation Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
https://www.cites.org/eng/disc/ text.php
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
https://www.cbd.int/convention /text/
Treaty on the Function of the European Union (TFEU)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX :12012E/TXT
Directive 1999/22/EC of 29 March 1999 relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:3199 9L0022
Chapter 439 of the Laws of Malta Animal Welfare Act
https://legislation.mt/eli/cap/43 9/eng/pdf
Subsidiary Legislation 439.08 Keeping of Wild Animals in Zoos Regulations
https://legislation.mt/eli/sl/439. 8/eng/pdf
Subsidiary Legislation 439.10 Animals Transport (Protection) Regulations
https://legislation.mt/eli/sl/439. 10/eng/pdf
Subsidiary Legislation 439.19 Owning and Keeping of Dangerous Animals Regulations
https://legislation.mt/eli/sl/439. 19/eng/pdf
Chapter 549 of the Laws of Malta Environment Protection Act
https://legislation.mt/eli/cap/54 9/eng/pdf
Subsidiary Legislation 549.35 Marine Mammals Protection Regulations
https://legislation.mt/eli/sl/549. 35/eng/pdf
Subsidiary Legislation 549.38 Trade in Species of Fauna and Flora Regulations
https://legislation.mt/eli/sl/549. 38/eng/pdf
Page 3 of 17
Avv. Ariane Aquilina Time for Change Malta
Reports and Documents The Born Free Foundation: The EU Zoo Inquiry 2011. An evaluation of the implementation and enforcement of the EC Directive 1999/22, relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos (Malta)
https://issuu.com/bornfreeuk/d ocs/malta
EU Zoos Directive Good Practices Document
https://ec.europa.eu/environme nt/nature/pdf/EU_Zoos_Directiv e_Good_Practices.pdf
Commission Staff Working Document: Executive Summary of the Evaluation of Council Directive 1999/22/EC (REFIT Evaluation report)
https://ec.europa.eu/environme nt/nature/legislation/refitzoosdi rective/pdf/SWD%20Executive% 20Summary%20of%20Zoos%20 Directive%20Evaluation_EN.pdf
EAZA Standards for the Accommodation and Care of Animals and Aquaria
https://www.eaza.net/assets/Uploa ds/Standards-and-policies/2019-04EAZA-Standards-forAccommodation-and-Care.pdf.
Page 4 of 17
Avv. Ariane Aquilina Time for Change Malta
1.
Zoos in Malta
The main legislation in relation to zoos in Malta is Directive 1999/22/EC (hereinafter the “Zoos Directive”). This directive was transposed into local law Subsidiary Legislation 439.08 Keeping of Wild Animals in Zoos regulations via legal notice 265 of 2003, and amended by legal notice 426 of 2007. Other treaties and laws that are ancillary to zoo operations in Malta include: • The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), to which Malta became a party in 1989; • The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), to which Malta became a party in 2001; • Chapter 439 of the laws of Malta Animal Welfare Act, in relation to general animal welfare obligations incumbent on those who own and/or keep animals; • Subsidiary Legislation 439.10 Animals Transport (Protection) Regulations; • Subsidiary Legislation 439.19 Owning and Keeping of Dangerous Animals Regulations which do not apply to licensed zoos but regulate the importation of exotic species to be kept by private individuals; • Chapter 549 of the laws of Malta Environment Protection Act, in relation to general environment protection obligations of zoo operators; • Subsidiary Legislation 549.35 Marine Mammals Protection Regulations, which consider several welfare issues regarding the keeping of marine mammals; • Subsidiary Legislation 549.38 Trade in Species of Fauna and Flora Regulations which regulates CITES provisions in Malta; • Various other legislation regarding veterinary health issues such as the transport and importation of animals for commercial use and the transmission of zoonoses. Regulation 2 of SL 439.08 identifies zoos as “all permanent establishments where animals of wild species are kept for exhibition to the public for seven or more days a year, with the exception of circuses, pet shops and establishments which the Veterinary Services exempts from the requirements of these regulations on the grounds that they do not exhibit a significant number of animals or species to the public and that the exemption will not jeopardise the objectives of these regulations.” As of April 2020, there are six licensed zoos in Malta.1 However, there have been unverified reports of other establishments that fall within the definition of zoos according to SL 439.08 and are operating and open to the public without a licence.
1
https://agrifish.gov.mt/en/vrd/Documents/animalWelfareUnit/listOfZoosInMalta.pdf. Page 5 of 17
Avv. Ariane Aquilina Time for Change Malta
2.
Institutional Problems
2.1.
Issues with the Transposition of the Zoos Directive into Maltese law
One of the major concerns in relation to zoo legislation in Malta is the transposition of the Zoos Directive into Maltese law. SL 439.08 transposes the Zoos Directive in an almost verbatim manner with no substantial implementing provisions. This has resulted in a vague set of regulations, the broadness of which causes issues in interpretation, application, and enforcement. Furthermore, this method of transposition goes against the spirit of EU legal instruments. Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union clearly states that “a Directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods”.2 In 2016 the EU Commission initiated a REFIT evaluation of the Zoos Directive to analyse whether it is fit for purpose. Its conclusions were that the directive is sufficient in its current iteration and that it is the responsibility of the individual Member States to further transpose it into national legislation in a more substantive. This is based on the EU principle of subsidiarity.3 To assist Member States in the implementation of the Zoos Directive, the European Commission contracted the publication of the EU Zoos Directive Good Practices Document. Thus, the transposition of the Zoos Directive into Maltese law has not been carried out effectively. The lack of implementing provisions translates into a situation where there are no substantive minimum requirements for zoos to follow. This includes a lack of detailed regulations on licensing, inspections, enforcement, and zoo operators’ obligations on issues of animal welfare, environment protection, conservation and public education, and public health and safety. This ineffective transposition has also created several lacunae in the legislation in relation to zoo operations. One area is public health and safety, on which there are no provisions in SL 439.08. Animal welfare concerns are only considered in a brief and generalised manner under regulation 3(c) and no reference is made to animal abuse or the provisions of article 8 of the Animal Welfare Act on care of animals.
2
Emphasis added. As set out in article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. The principle of subsidiarity states that in certain areas, it is more practical and effective for substantive decisions to be taken at a Member State level rather than at an EU level. 3
Page 6 of 17
Avv. Ariane Aquilina Time for Change Malta
Moreover, the definition of zoos in SL 439.08 states that for an establishment to be considered a zoo it must be open to the public for a minimum of seven days a year. This has created problems as, in prosecuting any zoological establishment for non-compliance under SL 439.08, the prosecution has the burden of proving that the establishment is open for at least seven days in a year. This is not as straightforward as it may seem. In fact, in the recent judgement of Police vs Carmel Polidano et al,4 the Court upheld that it could not apply the regulations of SL 439.08 to the case. This decision hinged on the fact that the prosecution did not provide enough evidence to show that the establishment was open to the public for a minimum of 7 days a year, and therefore did not qualify as a zoo.
2.2.
Lack of Infrastructure
The problems related to the lack of infrastructure and its effects on the competent authority and the enforcement officers tasked with applying and monitoring SL 439.08 are worrying. These issues need to be tackled immediately. A major concern is the fact that the competent authority cannot freely exercise its powers to shut down a zoo and/or confiscate animals as it does not have the proper infrastructure where it can house such confiscated animals in appropriate conditions. This weakens the powers of the authority and limits the ways in which it can penalise non-compliant zoos. In 2016, when discussing the problem of relocating big cats from an illegal zoo, a Government source was quoted as saying “it’s not like we can move them to government facilities; we’re talking about tigers not cattle”.5 Earlier in 2015, the then incumbent MEPA CEO Mr. Johann Buttigieg made a pertinent comment on the same situation and stated “Where should we put the animals if we were to close down the zoo? We do not intend to close down an illegal zoo and open another”.6
2.3.
Lack of Cooperation among Authorities
Since zoos present several multidisciplinary issues, regulating them involves various laws that fall under different authorities. It is crucial that these authorities cooperate in monitoring zoological establishments, however there is evidence to indicate that such cooperation is not taking place.
4
348/2018 Il-Pulizija vs Carmel Polidano, Michael Mercieca, u Muhammad Saleem [Court of Appeal, Criminal Inferior] 2020. 5 https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/tigers-and-lions-stuck-in-montekristo-limbo.632789. 6 https://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2015-01-08/local-news/Proposed-law-may-stop-construction-ofillegal-zoos-6736128370. Page 7 of 17
Avv. Ariane Aquilina Time for Change Malta
Two of the major players in this area are the Planning Authority, as the authority that oversees developing permits, and the Environment and Resources Authority, that oversees environmental protection and is considered to be the management authority in relation to CITES law, as according to regulation 3 of the Trade in Species of Fauna and Flora Regulations. In fact, one area that is noted to be of significant issue is non-compliance with development planning laws, wherein certain zoological establishments keep operating even when they do not have the necessary planning permits in place, only to request sanctioning later.7
2.4.
Issues with Complementary Legislation
While SL 439.19 Owning and Keeping of Dangerous Animals Regulations do not apply to licensed zoos, this legislation allows certain exotic animals to be kept as pets by private individuals on the basis that they are not dangerous. Unfortunately, the nature of these regulations is piecemeal and hard to interpret, in particular in relation to dangerous animals kept by private individuals that were present in Malta prior to 2016. It is possible that animals being brought in under this legislation, both dangerous and nondangerous, may end up in zoos and therefore have consequences on their operation. The same can be said of pet shops that sell exotic animals and the need for more effective legislation to regulate their importation and sales practices.
2.5.
Lack of Public Accountability and Records
In regulation 3(c), SL 439.08 obligates zoos to keep “up-to-date records of the zoo’s collection appropriate to the species recorded”, however there are no further provisions on whether these records need to be submitted or made public. Since zoos are involved in multiple areas that are of concern to the public, including environmental protection and health and safety, the lack of a legal obligation to make such records public is a clear oversight in ensuring that zoos, and the competent authority, operate in a transparent manner.
7
E.g. Arka ta’ Noe Therapeutic Zoo (https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/illegal-siggiewi-zoosanctioned.659614), Serengeti Zoo (https://www.maltatoday.com.mt/environment/environment/95066/pa_set_to_regularise_illegal_zoo_against_ 10000_fine#.X24ZF2gza70); Wildlife Park (https://www.maltatoday.com.mt/environment/townscapes/102244/rabat_wildlife_parks_illegal_restaurant_w ants_permit#.X24jV2gza70) and Gaffarena zoo (https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/pa-turns-downgaffarena-zoo-permit-in-zebbug.808281). Page 8 of 17
Avv. Ariane Aquilina Time for Change Malta
2.6.
Issues with Enforcement and the current State of Zoos Operations
In 2011, the Born Free Foundation carried out an investigation on the implementation and enforcement of the Zoos Directive in several EU countries, including Malta. In one of its concluding remarks the Born Free Foundation held that “findings from this investigation indicate that LN 265/2003 is not being consistently applied […] and none of the licensed zoos included in the investigation [appear] to comply with all their legal obligations”. 8 In 2012 a follow up visit was conducted on two of the three zoos that were originally analysed – “no significant changes were observed”.9 While there is a lack of verified public information, there is evidence to point towards the fact that zoos in Malta are not carrying out their functions. In November 2015 and April 2016, two separate incidents happened where a child was injured by animals kept in the same unlicensed zoo that was open to the public.10 In 2019 it was revealed that a staggering 21 individual tigers were present at another zoo, with the owner of the zoo stating that he let the tigers breed uncontrollably as he assumed that due to the trauma suffered by the animals after experiencing a fire in the establishment, this breeding would not result in pregnancies.11 Zoo operators also regularly post pictures on their social media of animals being used in ways that do not respect welfare requirements, including direct interaction with humans,12 and performing unnatural behaviours,13 and being housed in barren environments that lack enrichment and do not protect the animal from natural elements. 14 Altogether, this presents a very unsavoury picture of what is actually going on in Maltese zoos and indicates that enforcement is not being carried out in an effective manner.
8
The Born Free Foundation (Malta Report), pg 30. The Born Free Foundation (Malta Report), pg 36. 10 Vide http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20151130/local/montekristo-ceo-clarifies-comments-visitsinfant-injured-by-tiger.594097 and http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160404/local/boy-5-injuredby-lioness-at-montekristo.607765. 11 https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/21-tigers-now-roam-mtahleb-animal-park.745059. 12 Wildlife Park: https://www.facebook.com/wildlifeparkmalta/photos/a.648749858512628/3364059820314938; Arka ta’ Noe: https://www.facebook.com/larkatanoe/photos/pcb.3211252108910052/3211250052243591; https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=639240336636475&extid=h2sk8npGrcV8YiFl; https://www.facebook.com/larkatanoe/photos/a.762048007163820/2806831992685401/; https://www.facebook.com/larkatanoe/posts/2794345213934079; Mediterraneo Marine Park: https://www.facebook.com/MediterraneoMarinePark/posts/1552266864954948; 13 Mediterraneo Marine Park: https://www.facebook.com/MediterraneoMarinePark/photos/a.211284082386573/1531023960412572; https://www.facebook.com/MediterraneoMarinePark/photos/a.211284082386573/1540677762780525/. 14 Wildlife Park: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=606530346696670&extid=khmFTfIMVjK0clk6; https://www.facebook.com/wildlifeparkmalta/photos/pcb.3258663600854561/3258604220860499/; https://www.facebook.com/wildlifeparkmalta/photos/pcb.3258663600854561/3258604457527142; https://www.facebook.com/wildlifeparkmalta/photos/pcb.3258663600854561/3258604307527157; https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=873048543225725&extid=7C4VSLCzhVcDLEOc. Arka ta’ Noe: https://www.facebook.com/anton.reacutajar/videos/10207469254087421. Mediterraneo Marine Park: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=225290025129156&extid=Cn67r3GlUmyOLX3e. 9
Page 9 of 17
Avv. Ariane Aquilina Time for Change Malta
Furthermore, while promotion and contribution to conservation of biodiversity is listed as a main obligation of zoo operators, there is practically no evidence to suggest that zoos in Malta are fulfilling this responsibility. In fact, the Born Free Foundation succinctly concluded that “Malta’s zoos are not contributing to the conservation of biodiversity and the protection of fauna”. Maltese zoos do not promote local flora and fauna and many exhibit animals of low conservation importance.
3.
Proposals
3.1.
Stricter Regulations on Licence Requirements, Licence Issuance, and Licence Maintenance
Licensing systems need to include detailed reporting and monitoring requirements that are transparent and effective. The current licensing and permit processes should be reviewed and delineated in a more detailed manner in legislation. It is recommended that the following provisions are included: 3.1.1. Each zoo licence should be given for a term of no longer than 12 months; 3.1.2. Each licence should be bound to a specific amount and species of animals; 3.1.3. To introduce a new animal, the zoo must apply to the competent authority. Upon application the zoo must be inspected to ensure that it is capable of housing the new animal/s. If the competent authority agrees to the introduction of new animals, the licence should be amended. 3.1.4. Each zoo should provide the competent authority with the following documents before being granted a licence/renewing a licence: •
•
•
Appropriate planning permits issued by the Planning Authority / confirmation from the Planning Authority that the zoo is in line with development permits; An EIA carried out by the Environment and Resources Authority / confirmation from the Environment and Resources Authority that the zoo is operating in line with environmental standards; Relevant documents to prove that each animal was brought into the country in a legal manner;
Page 10 of 17
Avv. Ariane Aquilina Time for Change Malta
•
• •
•
•
•
The criminal conduct of all zoo employees including the zoo owner, to ensure that no person with previous animal abuse convictions is being employed in the running of the zoo; Certificates of relevant training undergone by zoo employees, including the zoo owner; Certificates of inspections carried out by animal welfare officers / veterinary officers ascertaining that the enclosures comply with applicable requirements for the animals housed within; Insurance policies held by the zoo to come into effect in the case of injury, illness, or any other damage caused by animals, both to humans and to the environment; Action plans on how the zoo aims to comply with its obligations related to the protection of the environment, the conservation of biodiversity, the provision of public education, the protection of animal welfare, and the protection of public health and safety for the coming year; Annual reports on how the zoo complied with its obligations related to the protection of the environment, the conservation of biodiversity, the provision of public education, the protection of animal welfare, and the protection of public health and safety in the previous year.
It is further proposed that the definition of zoos is changed to remove the seven days qualifying definition, and to explicitly include unlicensed zoos to ensure that the competent authority has the full powers available to it at law in terms of enforcement and monitoring over such establishments. Each unlicensed zoo should be made to pay a dissuasive fine until it meets the requirements of licensing. Furthermore, no person who has been convicted of animal abuse should be allowed to operate or own a zoo. If a zoo owner or operator is convicted of such a crime, the licence should be withdrawn. There are several international bodies that operate an accreditation system for zoos based on their standards, including contribution to conservation of biodiversity and public education and animal welfare standards, e.g. the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria and the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums. It is being proposed that accreditation to such an organisation should be a condition for licensing of zoos in Malta. Such membership can also aid the competent authority in supplementing its role as a monitoring body.
Page 11 of 17
Avv. Ariane Aquilina Time for Change Malta
3.2.
Stricter Regulations on Inspections and Record-keeping
Similar to the necessity for more detailed provisions on licensing is the need for more detailed provisions on inspections and record-keeping. Inspections are crucial to ensuring that zoo operators fulfil their legal obligations as well as deterring non-compliance. More information needs to be made available to the public who have a right to know what type of exotic animals and how many of them are kept on Maltese territory. It is recommended that the following provisions are included in a review of the regulations on inspections and record-keeping: 3.2.1. The legislation should delineate the appropriate officers that have powers of inspection to ensure no ambiguity at law. This includes potentially involving enforcement officers from other authorities, depending on their powers; 3.2.2. Enforcement officers should be granted the power to carry out random spotchecks and should have the power to request assistance from the Malta Police Force during inspections, both random and scheduled; 3.2.3. The health and safety of these enforcement officers must be prioritised; 3.2.4. Enforcement officers that carry out spot-checks should write a report on their inspection, including the issues flagged in an inspected zoo. This report should be followed up on after a period of time; 3.2.5. The legislation should obligate the competent authority to inspect zoos on a more frequent basis, other than the inspection to be carried out before a licence is renewed; 3.2.6. Zoo operators should be obligated to keep accurate records of animals kept in their establishment. This record should be reported to the competent authority and should be verified by random and scheduled spot-checks on the part of the competent authority; 3.2.7. The annual reports detailing how the zoo complied with its obligations related to the protection of the environment, the conservation of biodiversity, the provision of public education, the protection of animal welfare, and the protection of public health and safety in the previous year should be made public.
Page 12 of 17
Avv. Ariane Aquilina Time for Change Malta
3.3.
Stricter Regulations on the Training of Zoo Employees, Zoo Owners, and Inspectors
The personnel that are involved in the running of a zoo should be required by law to have the necessary education and training required to carry out their obligations in an appropriate manner. Furthermore, keeping in mind that zoos are extraordinarily complex institutions that create various multidisciplinary issues, it must be ascertained that enforcement officers are also appropriately trained and prepared for the issues they may face. It is proposed that legislation should detail provisions on the training that is expected of zoo staff and owners. Furthermore, the staff that is expected to carry out inspections and enforcement must be trained in the appropriate manner to be able to effectively tackle the complex issues related to zoos and the welfare of exotic species.
3.4.
Stricter Regulations on Protecting the Environment
In terms of protecting the natural environment, SL 439.08 does state that zoos have an obligation to prevent “the escape of animals in order to avoid possible ecological threats to indigenous species and preventing intrusion of outside pest and vermin”. However, this provision is not enough to cover the various potential damage to the environment that can be caused by zoos. Due to this possible environmental impact, it is proposed that the legislation must be clear in setting out environmental obligations on zoological establishments. Zoos should be obligated to carry an insurance policy in case of environmental damage. Since zoos are meant to be educational establishments that promote the conservation of species and the protection of biodiversity, they should lead by example in promoting better environmental habits such as using renewable energy sources for energy supply and educating the public on how these habits can help to protect wild species and their habitats. Zoos must also put safety measures in place to prevent the escape of alien species of both fauna and flora into the natural environment, which escape could have disastrous ecological effects. It is noted that in 2018 ERA published a document titled “National Code of Good Practice: Zoos, Aquaria & Invasive Alien Species” which delineates several recommendations that zoological establishments can take on to lessen their impact on local biodiversity by preventing the introduction of alien species to the surrounding environment.15 The recommendations made herein should be transposed into legislation to ensure that they become legally-binding on zoo operators.
15
https://era.org.mt/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Code-of-Best-Practice-Zoos-Aquaria-andIAS_Public_Consultation.pdf. Page 13 of 17
Avv. Ariane Aquilina Time for Change Malta
The legislation should further delineate provisions regarding the disposal of waste from zoos, including animal manure and carcasses.
3.5.
Stricter Regulations on the Requirements for Conservation of Biodiversity and Public Education
The majority of modern-day zoos cite the promotion of conservation of biodiversity and public education as their main justification for existence. The requirements regarding these issues as set out by SL 439.08 should be extended upon in a more structured format. Zoos in Malta should be required to increase their efforts to contribute to the conservation of biodiversity and to accurately educate the public about these issues, including the extinction of certain species due to loss of natural habitat and human activity. Zoos in Malta should dedicate a part of their operation to promoting indigenous and endemic species. In-breeding between species should not be allowed as the offspring of such cannot be used to promote biodiversity and the species’ survival. Legislation should further create provisions to ensure that the public education being offered by zoological establishments is (1) accurate, and (2) done so in a manner that is not detrimental to the animal. Personnel employed by the zoo to provide such education must be vetted and inspectors must ensure that plaques and signs hung around the zoo, as well as any live presentations and public talks, provide accurate and up-to-date information. No animal should be used in any performance that is unnatural to them as this has no significance for the promotion of the conservation of biodiversity or public education on the species, as they are little more than circus tricks. This is especially relevant when considering that Malta has banned circuses.16
3.6.
Stricter Regulations on Requirements for Animal Welfare
SL 439.08 sets out the requirement for Maltese zoos to house their animals in conditions that satisfy their biological and conservation requirements, including by the provision of enrichment and the maintenance of high levels of animal husbandry, including veterinary care and nutrition. However, these provisions do not provide enough minimum standards to create tangible legal obligations and aid effective enforcement.
16
Article 31A of the Animal Welfare Act: “It shall not be lawful for any person to use animals for performances, exhibitions, shows or for the training thereof in circuses�. Page 14 of 17
Avv. Ariane Aquilina Time for Change Malta
While it is recognised that the legislation cannot be expected to delineate standards for each and every species potentially kept in a zoological establishment, there are several proposals that can ameliorate the current wording. Zoo regulations should make specific reference to article 8 of the Animal Welfare Act in stating that this provision on the care of animals also applies to zoo owners and the animals held in their establishments. Legislation should make reference to guidelines published by credible organisations, such as the EAZA and WAZA, regarding species-specific husbandry requirements, in particular the EAZA Standards for the Accommodation and Care of Animals and Aquaria and the EU Zoos Directive Good Practices Document. These husbandry requirements must be based on peer-reviewed science and should fall in line with the Five Domains of Animal Welfare, developed by Professors Mellor and Reid17 as a model that fosters both the avoidance of negative welfare situations and the promotion of positive welfare. Such requirements should involve designing the enclosures in a way that allows animals to hide from the public when stressed, preventing the public from touching or feeding the animals, and preventing the use of animals in shows that exhibit unnatural behaviour. It is proposed that certain species of animals, such as those acclimatised to cold and/or wet climates, and species that are meant to roam vast areas of land, should not be allowed into the Maltese territory since their welfare cannot be guaranteed. Crucially, all animals kept in Maltese zoos should be neutered and breeding should be made illegal, to control and limit the number of exotic animals and to limit inbreeding, which has various effects on the welfare of the animal. Zoos should be legally obligated to submit a programme of veterinary care for animals in their establishment to the competent authority. Zoos should be obligated to designate at least one veterinarian with the appropriate qualifications and experience to be on call for emergencies and providing the zoo with regular veterinary services. Reports of such emergencies calls as well as regular veterinary visits should be forwarded to the competent authority.
3.7.
Stricter Regulations on Requirements for Public Health and Safety
When one considers the potential public health risks that come with zoos, including injury of the public by animals and the transmission of zoonoses, it is clear that the maintenance of proper public health and safety measures is essential.
17
D J Mellor and C S W Reid, Concepts of Animal Well-Being and Predicting the Impact of Procedures on Experimental Animals. in Baker and others (eds), Improving the Well-Being of Animals in the Research Environment (1994). Page 15 of 17
Avv. Ariane Aquilina Time for Change Malta
It is proposed that provisions on the protection of public health and safety should be delineated in zoo regulations. Zoos should be obligated to be in possession of an insurance policy to come into effect in case of injury, illness, or other damage caused to their employees, visitors, or public and private property. Zoos should be obligated to submit to the competent authority a contingency plan in cases of emergency such as the escape of an animal. Such contingency plans must take into account the welfare of the animals. Furthermore, zoos should be required to place clearly visible and informative warning signs regarding the risks involved, and to ensure that enclosures are designed in a manner that minimises direct contact between the public and animals. Direct contact between the visiting public and the animals, other than in monitored situations such as with farm animals on petting farms, should not be allowed. Zoos should be obligated to ensure that animals are never taken out of their enclosure while open to the public, except in cases of emergency. Zoos should ensure that enclosures and perimeter walls are designed in a manner to discourage unauthorised entry and limit the possibility of animal escape, such as through the use of moats and double perimeter walls. Provisions on hygiene in zoos, including minimising the risk of transmission of zoonoses, and disposal of waste should be consolidated within zoo regulations. Zoo animals should not be used in animal-assisted therapy unless they have been appropriately trained in this endeavour and competent personnel are on site to monitor.
3.8.
Stricter Regulations with Regard to Penalties and Closure of Zoos
While SL 439.08 does set out penalties for infringement of the legislation, the vague nature of the wording does not lend itself well to effective enforcement. Therefore, new provisions setting out infringements in further details must be delineated. These provisions should be detailed and specific to ensure that the wording of the law makes it easier for competent authorities to enforce such penalties. These penalties must be dissuasive and proportional to the profit turned over by the overall annual income of the zoo owner, including income received from activities other than zoo operations. It is understood that the competent authorities currently do not have the appropriate infrastructure to confiscate certain species. In such cases, where the animal needs to remain on the premises, the zoo in question should be obliged to pay a fine for every day that the noncompliance persists. Furthermore, in the event that all or part of a zoo needs to be shut down, the zoo owners shall remain responsible for the animals, and shall be responsible to find alternative appropriate accommodation for them, which is satisfactory to the competent authority.
Page 16 of 17
Avv. Ariane Aquilina Time for Change Malta
It is proposed that zoo owners should deposit a bank guarantee with a local bank to be forfeited in cases of serious non-compliance.
3.9.
Improved Enforcement Efforts
To ensure that the legislation is effective in regulating zoos, enforcement efforts need to be improved. This involves more regular inspections, more accountability to the public in publishing reports and information about animals held in zoos, and better application of penalties. It is proposed that no further exotic animals should be allowed into Malta until and unless appropriate infrastructure is set up to ensure that enforcement officials and competent authorities may utilise their powers at law to confiscate animals and/or shut down parts of a non-compliant zoo. One cannot really on the possibility that foreign zoos will take the animals, since the transport itself may cause further welfare issues, there is no guarantee that such zoos will take care of the animals, and foreign zoos may refuse to accept the animals for several reasons, including inbreeding. Enforcement officials should be given more training in issues that are specific to zoos and in cooperating with other enforcement authorities. Licensing should be given priority and the competent authorities must take an active role in demonstrating that the penalties imposed on zoos for operating without a licence are far greater than the advantages gained through non-compliance.
3.10. Amendments to Complementary Legislation Legislation that does not directly regulate zoos but complements their operation such as SL 439.19 must be reviewed to ensure that no loopholes or lacunae are allowed. In particular, the importation of certain species should not be limited only based on the danger they pose to humans, but also based on the possible welfare concerns arising from such animals being kept as pets. This is relevant when considering that such animals may end up in zoos if the owner cannot properly care for them or decides to turn a private collection into a zoological establishment.
Page 17 of 17