Beauval Renunciation: Fifteen Years of Activism Leave Dolphins Without Solutions

The European Association for Aquatic Mammals (EAAM) expresses deep concern over the decision of ZooParc de Beauval to abandon its project to welcome dolphins affected by the closure of French facilities. Beyond the immediate consequences for the animals concerned, this decision highlights the failure of a campaign that has run for more than fifteen years against keeping cetaceans in modern zoological institutions.

For years, some activist organizations built their campaigns on a narrative portraying dolphins in zoological facilities as victims of systematic abuse. They claimed that the animals were captured from the wild, forced to perform unnatural behaviours, and kept in conditions so poor that successful reproduction would be impossible.

These claims were repeatedly used to advocate for the closure of cetacean facilities throughout Europe. In parallel, for decades, activists promoted so-called "sea pen sanctuaries" as an obvious and humane alternative, presenting them to the public as a ready-made solution for every dolphin under human care.

The rapid expansion of social media and online campaigning enabled these messages to spread widely, often without regard for scientific evidence, veterinary expertise, or the practical realities of caring for cetaceans. As a result, simplified narratives shaped public perception and often ignored decades of advances in animal welfare, veterinary medicine, conservation, and research.

France Chose Regulation, Not Prohibition

In 2017, France adopted a decree that effectively prohibited the keeping and breeding of cetaceans in zoological institutions. However, the measure was later cancelled after concerns emerged regarding its legal shortcomings and its potentially harmful consequences for the animals themselves.

What followed demonstrated a more balanced and science-based approach. The 2021 Law Against Animal Mistreatment and the subsequent Decree of 28 June 2024 established a framework focused on animal welfare, veterinary care, scientific research, education, and conservation. The legislation explicitly recognized the role that professionally managed zoological institutions can play in research programs supporting the protection of endangered cetacean populations in the wild.

The Beauval project was developed precisely within this legal framework. Following extensive scientific, veterinary, environmental, and technical studies, it offered a realistic and responsible solution for animals affected by the closure of existing facilities.

The Promised Alternatives Have Failed to Materialize

Despite the evolution of French legislation toward a welfare-focused and pragmatic approach, the same organizations that promoted closures intensified their campaigns against facilities willing to provide solutions.

Marineland Antibes became one of the most visible examples of this situation. Following years of pressure and public campaigns, the facility announced its closure. Yet the practical questions raised by activists remained unanswered: Where would the animals go? Who would care for them? Which facilities possessed the expertise, infrastructure, and veterinary resources required for their long-term welfare?

The answer increasingly appears to be that the "sanctuaries" presented to the public were neither sufficiently developed nor adequately prepared to assume these responsibilities.

Sea pen sanctuaries, repeatedly promoted as the future for captive cetaceans, have yet to demonstrate that they can provide a sustainable solution for dolphins requiring long-term professional care. Proposals have encountered significant regulatory, logistical, veterinary, and welfare challenges. Central governments in countries such as Italy and Greece have refused permits for proposed projects, while independent scientific and intergovernmental organizations have publicly raised concerns regarding welfare, management, conservation, and governance implications.

Yet even as these difficulties became increasingly apparent, opposition campaigns against established zoological solutions continued.

When Ideology Replaces Expertise, Animals Pay the Price

The current situation exposes a troubling contradiction. Activists have spent years demanding the closure of zoological facilities while simultaneously opposing many of the realistic alternatives capable of housing and caring for the animals affected by those closures.

Today, several dolphins remain without a clearly identified long-term destination. The Beauval project, which represented one of the few viable and legally compliant options available, has now been abandoned.

This situation should serve as an important lesson for policymakers and the public alike. Decisions concerning the future of living animals cannot be based on disinformation campaigns, emotional narratives, online mobilization, or ideological positions. They must be grounded in science, welfare assessments, veterinary expertise, and practical realities.

The Real Solutions Continue to Come from Zoological Institutions

Recent events provide a striking illustration of this reality.

As difficulties continue to surround the relocation of French dolphins, one of EAAM's institutional members, Oceanogràfic València, has once again demonstrated the expertise and commitment of the zoological community by participating in the rescue and care of two beluga whales and four dolphins from a closed Canadian facility.

This is not an isolated case. Around the world, when facilities close, it is zoological institutions, marine mammal experts, veterinarians, and animal-care professionals who ultimately provide solutions for the animals. The promised alternatives remain theoretical, while professional zoological institutions continue to assume responsibility for the welfare, care, and conservation of the animals concerned.

The lesson is increasingly difficult to ignore: when activism succeeds in eliminating existing capacities without providing workable alternatives, the consequences are borne not by campaigners, but by the animals themselves.

The EAAM therefore calls on authorities to place science, expertise, welfare, and pragmatism back at the centre of decisions regarding cetaceans, and to give greater weight to recognized scientific, veterinary, and animal-care expertise than to campaigns driven primarily by social media pressure. The future of these animals depends not on promises, not on symbolic bans, but on accredited institutions with demonstrated expertise and measurable results in animal welfare, research, rescue, and conservation.