Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ

London Zoo has been reprieved; at least, closure in the immediate future
would now appear an act of carelessness. At a special general meeting called
earlier this month by the fellows of the Zoological Society of London, which
runs the zoo, the leaders of the society’s council promised to undertake
two essential reforms that should ensure the zoo’s future.

First, the society’s treasurer, Peter Holwell promised to present a
detailed plan to the government which would combine the proposals made by
the zoo’s own management with those contained in a document entitled Down
to Earth, presented by an ad hoc group of fellows known as the ‘Reform Group’.

The in-house plan, now somewhat modified, had proposed turning the zoo
into a series of ‘themed areas’, with animals serving as actors to illustrate
the themes. In contrast, the Reform Group has argued that the principal
function of zoos in the late twentieth century is to breed endangered animals.

The government must shortly decide whether to renew the society’s lease
at Regent’s Park. It is likely to welcome a plan amalgamating the two approaches
which is conservationally sound and widely supported – and does not depend
on vast injections of public funds.

The second of the two promises made by council leaders will be more
difficult to fulfil. This is to carry out a radical reappraisal of the zoo’s
and the society’s management structure ‘from top to bottom’. Issues to be
addressed include the restructuring of the board of directors, and the future
role of the society’s general director, David Jones, whose jobs include
directing London Zoo.

Jones has been general director for only a few months. But he was director
of zoos (London and Whipsnade) throughout the the mid-1980s, when London
Zoo’s present trials began. He has also come under increasing criticism
from the zoo’s staff; just after Christmas, for example, he was the principal
target of a vote of no confidence in the management by the keepers of the
zoo.

Members of the Reform Group – and, apparently, many other fellows –
would like Jones to go, arguing that this is needed to restore the credibility
of the zoo in the eyes of both the government and financial backers in the
City. So far, however, Jones has given no indication that he is prepared
to take such a step. He and his supporters remain adamant that he is well
equipped to stay at his post.

The council, which meets again next week, could be tempted by compromise.
In particular, it could leave him his job title, but accept that he spends
most of his time organising projects abroad – the aspect of his job that
he enjoys most.

Such a compromise would avoid what could be a bitter and expensive fight.
But members of the Reform Group feel it would fall short of the practice
in other great zoos, where the director is a full-time, hands-on figure.
And, whatever the merits of the group’s arguments, Jones has long been one
of the key members of successive management teams (several others have since
departed) which led the zoo into its current crisis. He should consider
whether he is the best person to lead it out again.