The Standards of Modern Zoo Practice 2027 quietly change what an ethics panel is for. It stops being a discussion forum and becomes the gate that eight other standards have to pass through. If your panel does not exist, or exists only on paper, there are decisions your zoo cannot lawfully make.
Section 13 of the Standards sets out the ethical review process itself. What is easy to miss is that eight separate standards elsewhere in the document cannot be met unless that process has already signed the decision off. This note maps those eight, quotes each one, and sets out what you need in place before 24 May 2027.
A note on the number. Section 13 itself contains seven standards, 13.1 to 13.7, and the list of topics at 13.5 runs to fifteen bullets. The eight discussed here are something different: they are the eight standards elsewhere in the Standards that are gated by ethical review. If you hear people in the sector refer to “the eight avenues”, it is worth checking which of those three counts they mean.
Use the Larger button at the top of the page to grow the text. It keeps working alongside your browser zoom, so you can combine both for very large text. The page reflows into a single column as the text grows, so you should never need to scroll sideways.
You can also press plus to enlarge, minus to reduce, and zero to reset. Your browser's own zoom, usually Ctrl and plus on Windows or Command and plus on a Mac, works as normal.
The Colours buttons switch between standard, high contrast, dark, and yellow on black. Your choice is remembered on this computer for next time.
This page works fully with a keyboard and with screen readers, and it works offline. If you are sharing it with a colleague who has restricted sight, they can set their own size and colours and the page will remember it on their machine.
SMZP 2027 — SECTION 13
Standards 13.1 to 13.4 build the panel. The eight avenues below depend on it.
Without the panel you cannot lawfully isolate any social animal.
This is a rolling clock. Diarise it, or it lapses silently.
One document can satisfy this standard and your accreditation body's collection-planning requirement at the same time.
The harm-benefit analysis is a separate document from the review. You need both.
This is commercial income. No review means the activity must stop.
For public handling the rest period must be no less than 48 hours for each animal.
Research with human participants also engages the Data Protection Act 2018.
Named in the SMZP evidence appendix. Inspectors will ask for this file.
The eight avenues are outputs. This section is the machine that produces them. For most collections it carries the longest lead time of anything in the 2027 programme, because it requires recruiting somebody who does not work for you.
The one sentence for your board or trustees: the panel is mandatory, but the Licence Holder is not bound by its decision. You must show you considered its view, and where you departed from it, you must justify why. That justification is what an inspector reads during any non-compliance investigation.
| Standard | What must exist | Lead time |
|---|---|---|
| 13.1 | A written ethical review policy that is credible, transparent and effective, plus a system allowing activities to be reviewed independently and impartially. May be a committee, video meetings, or a documented email process. | Draft in weeks |
| 13.2 | The process runs a minimum of twice a year, plus whenever issues arise. Documented as minutes or notes showing the consideration of each issue, not just the outcomes. | Diarise 2027 now |
| 13.3 | At least one independent member not employed or remunerated by the zoo, and varied membership across different interests. Specialists may be co-opted issue by issue. | Longest — start now |
| 13.4 | The Lead Veterinary Service or a relevant veterinary advisor is always included when animal health and welfare are discussed. | Confirm in writing |
| 13.7 | Demonstrate that review outcomes were consulted and considered when decisions were subsequently made and actioned. | Ongoing habit |
| Seat | Why it is there |
|---|---|
| Independent member Mandatory — 13.3 | Not employed or paid by the zoo. A local vet from another practice, a university lecturer, a retired inspector, or a parish councillor. This seat is what makes the process impartial. |
| Lead Veterinary Service Mandatory for welfare — 13.4 | Must attend whenever health or welfare is on the agenda, which is most of the eight avenues. |
| Zoo Director / Licence Holder | Holds final legal responsibility. Attends, but does not chair if you want the record to look impartial. |
| Senior keeper / curator | Brings the operational reality and the animal records. |
| Animal behaviourist | Named in 13.3 as an example interest. Useful for isolation and abnormal behaviour items. |
| Community member | Named in 13.3. Cheap to recruit and strong evidence of varied membership. |
| Co-opted specialists | Invited issue by issue, not as full members. Use for research or a specific taxon. |
The Standards require the process to run a minimum of twice a year. A standing agenda that walks all eight avenues is the simplest way to show an inspector that nothing was overlooked. If an avenue has nothing to report, minute it as “considered, nothing to report”. That sentence is itself the evidence that the process looked at it.
Each avenue below gives the clause verbatim, and a question you can put to the room.
Before it happens
“The isolation of social animals must not occur except for the minimum time necessary, and the decision must be subject to an ethical review before it occurs. In an emergency situation, or under the direction of a veterinary surgeon, ethical review can occur retrospectively within 48 hours of the event.”
Ask the room: Which animals have we separated since we last met, who authorised it, and was that before or after the fact?
Every four weeks
“Where extended isolation occurs this must be ethically reviewed every four weeks to justify the ongoing isolation and assess any related welfare implications. This ethical review must be documented, updated and detail the plans to resolve any such protracted isolation.”
Ask the room: Is anything still isolated, what is the date it started, and what is our plan and timeline to end it?
At least annually
“The Licence Holder must document and implement an animal collection plan that includes the prevention of overpopulation. This must be reviewed at least annually. The strategy must be subject to ethical review.”
Ask the room: Where are we heading for a surplus, and what does the plan say we will do about it?
Before, then annually
“The decision to acquire animals from the wild must be subject to and preceded by a harm-benefit analysis and ethical review… Any ongoing wild sourcing imports must undergo annual ethical review and reassessment.”
Ask the room: Is anything in our collection or our live food chain wild-sourced, and can we evidence legality and justification?
Before, then annually
“All types of proposed animal experience must be subject to ethical review and welfare assessment before taking place. Any such activity and ongoing animal experiences must be regularly reviewed through the zoo’s ethical review process…”
Ask the room: List every experience we sell. Which has a dated review, and have there been incidents that reset the clock?
Set by the panel
“‘Appropriate rest periods’ between potential handling experiences must be determined by ethical review, taking into account the number of visitors to the zoo and the number of potential animal handling experiences carried out each day… where animal handling is directly carried out by members of the public the appropriate rest period must be no less than 48 hours for each animal.”
Ask the room: How many animals are on the rota, and does the maths still work on our busiest day?
Before data collection
“All zoos must make sure that all research, where animals or people are affected or involved, is subject to ethical review, either by the host zoo or by the academic institute involved, before data collection commences.”
Ask the room: Is any student or partner collecting data on our site right now, and who reviewed it?
Before the procedure
“The Licence Holder must make sure that any invasive husbandry practices, for example, pinioning or ear-notching, are subject to ethical review prior to taking place and the justification documented.”
Ask the room: What routine procedures do we do that a member of the public would call invasive, and have we justified each one?
| Standard | Document |
|---|---|
| 13.1 | Ethical review policy |
| 13.2 | Documented ethical reviews, including meeting minutes |
| 13.6 | Ethical review of invasive husbandry practices, where applicable |
The trap in 13.2: minutes must highlight the consideration of each issue and not just the outcomes. A minute that reads “approved” fails the standard. A minute that records the concern raised, the alternative discussed and why it was rejected, passes.