THE GLOBAL ZOO COMMUNITY MUST ACT
A Cuban zoo, and its animals, in epic battle for survival
As Cuba’s National Zoo struggles to sustain nearly 1,000 animals, an urgent question reaches far beyond Havana: If societies continue to accept zoos in the name of conservation, who guarantees a safe and adequately supported home for every animal—for life?
ㅤ
Every day, veterinarians and zookeepers make their way to Cuba’s National Zoo by bicycle, scooter or whatever transportation they can find. They arrive determined not to abandon the nearly 1,000 animals who depend upon them for food, water, medical care and survival.
ㅤ
Their commitment deserves recognition. But their struggle also exposes a responsibility much larger than any individual keeper, veterinarian or zoo.
ㅤ
An AFP report published September 22 describes an institution confronting severe shortages of food, fuel and medicine; prolonged electrical outages; interruptions to running water; the loss of veterinary personnel; and increasing dependence upon private donations. These conditions are unfolding during a national crisis in which many Cuban people are also struggling to meet their own basic needs.
ㅤ
This is not a story in which frontline animal-care professionals appear indifferent. It is a story of people reportedly making extraordinary efforts within circumstances they did not create. Yet dedication alone cannot refrigerate meat during a lengthy blackout, replace scarce medications, restore running water or guarantee that adequate food will arrive tomorrow.
ㅤ
Their determination may be what is preventing an already serious situation from becoming a catastrophe. It should not, however, become a substitute for a sustainable system of care.
ㅤ
CAPTIVITY CREATES TOTAL DEPENDENCE
Wild animals confined by people cannot leave when food becomes scarce. They cannot migrate in search of water, select another habitat, locate medical treatment or escape a failing institution. Every essential decision has been removed from them and assumed by humans.
ㅤ
That transfer of control creates a profound moral obligation.
ㅤ
If our societies continue to promote, condone and accept zoos—particularly under the banner of conservation—the first commitment must be to provide every sentient animal entrusted to human care with safety, appropriate welfare and lifelong protection. That responsibility cannot apply only when attendance is strong, funding is stable and supply chains are functioning.
ㅤ
A “forever home” need not always mean that an animal remains at one facility regardless of changing circumstances. It means that the duty of care follows the animal for life. If the original institution can no longer meet that obligation, a safe and qualified placement—and the resources necessary to accomplish it—must already be part of the plan.
ㅤ
Captivity is not a temporary promise made only during favorable conditions. It is a lifetime commitment made the moment an animal is acquired or born.
ㅤ
WHEN SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON RATIONING
According to AFP, adult big cats at Cuba’s National Zoo require approximately seven kilograms—or 15 pounds—of meat per day. The veterinarian responsible for the cats said their food must be rationed so that it does not disappear within several days. Recurring blackouts lasting as long as 30 hours have made available meat difficult to preserve.
ㅤ
During another recent period, the zoo reportedly went 23 days without electricity and therefore lacked running water. Staff brought in water trucks and searched for food almost daily. More than one-third of the zoo’s veterinarians have reportedly left for better-paying work elsewhere, while private donors have helped supply meat and other necessities. One regular donor acknowledged that on some days there is not enough for every animal.
ㅤ
AFP reported that it did not observe animals who appeared malnourished or ill during its visit. That distinction matters and should not be overlooked. But the absence of visibly emaciated animals on one visit does not establish that the current system is secure, nor does it diminish the warning contained in food rationing, unreliable water, failing refrigeration and depleted veterinary staffing.
ㅤ
Animal welfare is not measured only by whether an animal has reached an obvious state of physical collapse. It also depends upon whether appropriate nutrition, preventive medicine, environmental conditions and consistent professional care can be reliably sustained.
ㅤ
BREEDING CREATES NEW LIFETIME OBLIGATIONS
The zoo has reportedly slowed its breeding programs because every birth requires additional food, medicine, space and staff. Its animal-welfare manager expressed a preference for ensuring that the existing population is cared for as well as possible rather than continuing to increase its size.
ㅤ
That is a responsible recognition of limited capacity. It also raises a question that should apply to every zoo—not only one operating during a national emergency:
ㅤ
Before another animal is deliberately brought into captivity, is there a realistic, adequately funded plan to protect that individual throughout his or her entire life—even if the institution’s circumstances change?
ㅤ
The article highlights the recent birth of tiger cubs, including a white cub described as “extremely rare.” White tigers, however, are not a separate endangered species. Their appearance results from a recessive genetic trait, and breeding to reproduce that coloration has historically involved inbreeding and serious welfare concerns. The cub’s presence should therefore not automatically be presented as a conservation achievement.
ㅤ
The available reporting does not establish whether this birth was planned, accidental or intended to reproduce the white coloration. Those facts should be clarified. Was the breeding part of a scientifically managed program connected to measurable conservation outcomes for wild tigers? What genetic review preceded it? And why was another dependent animal being created while the institution was already struggling to obtain fuel, food, medicine and stable electricity?
ㅤ
These questions are not an attack upon the cub or the people working to keep the animals alive. They are questions about the decisions that created additional lifelong dependency.
ㅤ
WHERE IS THE INTERNATIONAL SAFETY NET?
Humanitarian crises routinely prompt coordinated responses across national borders. Governments, relief organizations and professional networks mobilize money, personnel, technical expertise, transportation and essential supplies—not because they caused the emergency, but because lives are at risk and the affected community cannot meet the crisis alone.
ㅤ
Why does the international zoo profession not appear to maintain a comparably visible, coordinated safety net for animals made permanently dependent upon human care?
ㅤ
The World Association of Zoos and Aquariums and regional or national organizations—including the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the Zoological Association of America, Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums, the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria, the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the Latin American Zoo and Aquarium Association, the Zoo and Aquarium Association Australasia and their counterparts throughout the world—collectively possess extensive veterinary knowledge, logistical experience, professional networks and financial capacity.
ㅤ
Not every zoo belongs to every association, and an accrediting organization may have no direct legal authority over a nonmember facility. But the absence of jurisdiction does not erase the profession’s broader ethical responsibility. If zoological organizations describe themselves as a global conservation community, that community should be prepared to respond when captive animals face a preventable welfare disaster.
ㅤ
WAZA is uniquely positioned to coordinate a standing international framework in partnership with regional associations, animal-welfare specialists, veterinary organizations, governments and qualified rescue facilities. Such a framework should not wait until animals are starving or dying before assistance begins.
ㅤ
WHAT A MEANINGFUL RESPONSE PLAN SHOULD INCLUDE
A credible international zoological disaster-response system could include a permanently funded emergency reserve; advance risk assessments; rapid welfare evaluations; emergency access to food, medicine, fuel, generators, refrigeration and water-treatment equipment; and deployable veterinary, nutrition and animal-care teams.
ㅤ
It should also establish thresholds for suspending reproduction, prearranged transportation and quarantine protocols, qualified emergency-placement agreements, independent monitoring and transparent public reporting. When relocation is necessary, the plan must ensure that an animal is not simply transferred from one inadequately resourced institution to another.
ㅤ
Political realities, international sanctions, national sovereignty, animal-transport restrictions and veterinary biosecurity can make intervention difficult. But complexity is an argument for developing agreements and contingency plans before a crisis—not an excuse for having no effective response once animals are already at risk.
ㅤ
The zoo community routinely coordinates breeding recommendations, genetic records and international animal transfers. If institutions can collaborate to move animals for population management and exhibition, they should also be capable of coordinating resources to protect those same animals when their survival and welfare are threatened.
ㅤ
CONSERVATION MUST INCLUDE THE INDIVIDUAL
Cuba’s National Zoo describes its animals as populations of significant conservation and genetic value. But conservation language cannot make the immediate needs of living individuals secondary. A species-level objective does not feed a hungry tiger, restore water to a rhinoceros enclosure or provide medicine to a sick animal.
ㅤ
The World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Strategy has itself stated that species survival cannot justify suffering by animals in human care and that zoos must meet the immediate needs of the living creatures for whom they are responsible. That principle should remain intact when fulfilling it becomes most difficult—not only when doing so is convenient.
ㅤ
The crisis in Havana therefore presents a test for more than one zoo. It tests whether “global zoo community” describes an operational commitment or merely a professional affiliation.
ㅤ
The keepers and veterinarians continuing to report for work appear to be doing everything within their power. The unresolved question is whether the larger zoological community is doing everything within its power.
ㅤ
If captivity is the choice, lifetime care must be the commitment. And if conservation is truly a collective international undertaking, then protecting animals when an institution can no longer do so alone must become a collective responsibility.
ㅤ
A global zoo community cannot credibly claim collective ownership of conservation successes while treating institutional crises as someone else’s responsibility.
ㅤ
Sources and further reading:
● The Australian, “A Cuban zoo, and its animals, in epic battle for survival,”
September 22, 2026
● AFP, “A Cuban zoo, and its animals, in epic battle for survival,” September 22, 2026
● World Association of Zoos and Aquariums, Building a Future for Wildlife-
The World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Strategy
● World Wildlife Fund, “The Truth About White Tigers”
Related Reading:
“Can a Zoo Be Ethical?”
Explore the responsibilities created when wild animals are kept permanently in human care—and whether ethical captivity requires institutions to guarantee appropriate welfare and lifelong protection regardless of changing circumstances.
Evidence • Education • Accountability
How You Can Help:
Awareness is the first step toward meaningful change. Help advance evidence-based education, transparency and accountability by sharing this article with others.
Together, we can encourage a more informed conversation about the treatment and protection of wildlife.
