Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ

According to some press reports, the animals at London Zoo are living
under a death sentence. A decision to close the zoo – the oldest in the
world – could be taken later this month (see This Week). The most apocalyptic
view has closure coming so quickly that the zoo would not have time to find
places at other zoos for all its animals. As a result, some animals would
have to be killed.

The government has already refused to help the zoo out of its financial
mess. However, this is not just another example of this government’s penny-pinching
treatment of science and conservation. For the zoo’s mire is largely of
its own making.

The government underwrote – to the tune of £10 million – the
zoo’s 1988 business plan. In hindsight, the plan was absurdly ambitious.
The key was a marketing strategy devised by an American whizz kid who promised
a rapidly rising income that would soar off the top right-hand corner of
the graph paper. The zoo’s problems would simply disappear into a crock
of gold.

This strategy is now in tatters. Income didn’t grow and expenditure
remained high. The gap between the two stayed at around £1.5 million
a year. And the zoo still has half the government’s cash in its coffers.

Now is the time for a complete rethink of the zoo’s role. The largest
city in Western Europe ought to be able to support its own zoo. But the
zoo needs a new strategy if it is to remain on its site in Regent’s Park.

The question of whether the zoo should have a public subsidy at all
should be deferred. Spokesmen for the zoo point out that other zoos in capital
cities do enjoy subsidies. But the government says no. And in the realm
of practical politics, that view will not change this side of a general
election.

However, the government may yet be persuaded to support other, more
realistic, plans. It’s hard to believe that the eighth most popular tourist
attraction in London can not be made to pay its way. But the zoo must change
if it is to survive.

The idea of a conservation centre, with a smaller number of animals
displayed in their natural habitats, could be the best way forward. It would
certainly increase the zoo’s educational value; the time has long past when
its chief function was to display trophies from the outposts of Empire.

From a scientific point of view, the zoo’s value lies in its attempts
to conserve endangered species. It has a good track record of breeding endangered
species, such as the black rhino. Any rescue plan should ensure that this
expertise is preserved.

The troubles at the zoo also hold a timely warning for other scientific
institutions, such as London’s Natural History Museum, which are partly
financed through the turnstile and other forms of fundraising. Perhaps the
average punter still prefers more substance and less gloss.