Rethinking Cambodian zoos as hubs of conservation and education, not entertainment

---

By Sreymean Kouch

Junior Research Fellow

Future Forum's Junior research fellow, Sreymean Kouch,  has published a new commentary on rethinking Cambodian zoos as hubs of conservation and education, not entertainment. Check out the full article below!

---

When I was a child, my family often visited the Phnom Tamao Wildlife Rescue Center, just outside Phnom Penh. We would have a picnic and spend the day seeing all the animal enclosures, and this annual visit to the rescue center piqued my interest in wildlife and their care.

As I grew older, I got exposed more to how animals are treated in zoological parks or family-run businesses that display exotic animals, particularly how they are made to perform unnatural acts for human entertainment. Despite my fond childhood memories, I had to challenge my views on animals living in captivity and began researching Cambodian legislation and the practices used in zoos and animal sanctuaries. This shift in perspective made me question not only individual practices, but also the systems that allow them to continue.

A pileated gibbon is held captive in a public menagerie located in a PTT gas station in Pursat,  in January 2024. Listed as Endangered by the IUCN, pileated gibbons are fully protected in  Cambodia yet are often captured from the wild, with young individuals sold as pets. Two years earlier, three pileated gibbons were confiscated from this location by law enforcement. A 2024  investigation in Mongabay found that this gibbon was most likely bought illegally and that this location had previously supplied gibbons to a zoo in Kampong Speu owned by tycoon Mong  Reththy. The bare concrete enclosure featured two bamboo poles and a suspended tire for sole enrichment. A second juvenile gibbon was held in a small wire mesh cage at the back of the facility. Image: Yann Bigant.

In Cambodia, regulatory coverage is very limited. For the purpose of this commentary, we will focus on commercial zoos and family-run animal enclosures. Cambodia’s Forestry Law requires a zoo to obtain a permit for operating and explicitly prevents the transportation or use of animals for any other purposes. This is where legislative and regulatory control over these establishments ends. 

Additionally, there are rules for notified wildlife sanctuaries, but very little guidance on the management of private or business-oriented zoological parks, nor is there information on standards for the care of animals in captivity. This gap creates uncertainty for both operators and the public, while leaving animals without clear protections.

Unlike protected forests, wildlife sanctuaries or special economic zones, there is no publicly accessible database of permits given to for-profit zoological parks. There is no information about family-run zoos, and most Cambodians learn about these establishments through word of mouth, making it difficult to assess which facilities are compliant.

It is not unreasonable to expect regulations and laws governing the creation and management of zoos, as well as businesses that display animals or use them for entertainment. The European Union has very clear definitions of a zoo and best practices for the treatment of animals in captivity. The primary aim of these zoos is conservation and education, not entertainment. These practices demonstrate that stronger regulation is both feasible and already implemented elsewhere.  

This commentary argues that Cambodia needs clear definitions and regulations for zoological parks that are aligned with sustainable and ethical conservation principles. Three practical steps could help achieve this: establishing a national registry and transparent licensing system for zoos; introducing high standards of care for animals in captivity;  and banning all animal performances used for human entertainment.

Managing animals in captivity

The same private menagerie mentioned above also held a variety of other animals from both native and non-native species, such as this common marmoset. Marmosets are native from South America and under the Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES), permits are required to trade them. Two such marmosets were confined in a small metal cage. The lack of  CITES permits at this facility, along with the absence of import records for Common marmosets on the CITES database, means they were most likely smuggled illegally from Thailand. Image: Yann Bigant. 

One of the few existing regulations in the Code of Environment and Natural Resources is Article 561, which requires zoological institutions to obtain a permit to create, import, or export animals. However, the code fails to specify standards of care for animals held in captivity or rules for the administration of a zoological facility. As a result, a zoo can meet the requirements to obtain a license to operate, but there are no regulations on how to monitor the facility and if it is harming animals or transporting them.

The code also includes Article 564 on the issuance and temporary suspension of permits for institutions that fail to meet permit requirements. However, the code does not list the conditions under which a facility can be suspended nor are these rules available online. Again, there is no straightforward way to assess whether a zoo or facility is following the rules, or how to push for a suspension of their license if animals are being mistreated. This weakens enforcement and makes implementation inconsistent.

To address these gaps, Cambodia could introduce amendments to the existing Code of Environment and Natural Resources and issue targeted sub-decrees on zoological institutions, outlining more details on how these zoos are to be run and managed. Clear definitions and responsibilities would help reduce ambiguity and improve accountability.

The government should establish a national registry of zoological institutions managed by the Ministry of Environment or the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. All facilities that keep wild animals for public display, including family-run animal enclosures, should be required to register and obtain licenses. This registry should be publicly accessible so that tourists, researchers, and regulators know which institutions are operating legally. Authorities should run inspections to shut down facilities that fail to register, while ensuring compliance with regulations at licensed establishments. A transparent system would also encourage better practices among operators who wish to maintain credibility.

Most importantly, laws and regulations are needed to introduce a high standard of care for animals in captivity, and facilities that fail to meet these standards must lose their permit. This includes requirements for enclosure size, environmental enrichment, veterinary care, and the social needs of animals that naturally live in groups. International frameworks such as the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums Animal Welfare Strategy (2015) and the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria Animal Training Guidelines could serve as a foundation for building Cambodia’s guidelines on the treatment of animals in captivity. 

This would be a strong step towards ensuring that regulations align with international standards of care and that zoos are held accountable for how they treat their animals. Without proper oversight, Cambodia’s tourism industry risks promoting attractions that harm animals and damage the country’s reputation internationally.

Banning the use of animals for entertainment

Two smooth-coated otters are displayed in a small enclosure during a 10-day pop-up exhibition of wildlife at the Aeon shopping mall in Phnom Penh in March 2026. The otters were exposed non-stop for twelve hours every day to the noise, light and hustle of the shopping mall, which gets especially busy on weekends. Images: Yann Bigant. 

Cambodia needs to ban the use of animals for entertainment. There is zero educational or conservation value to these performances, and they are unnatural behaviour for animals.  In many cases, such performances rely on training methods that prioritize compliance over the welfare of the animal.

Globally, attitudes toward this type of entertainment are also changing. According to the animal welfare organization Four Paws, more than 50 countries have introduced restrictions or bans on the use of wild animals in circuses or similar performances. In Southeast Asia, similar concerns have been raised about elephant-related tourist activities. Investigations by the regional broadcaster Channel NewsAsia have documented how elephants used in tourism in Thailand are often subjected to intensive training practices in order to perform tricks.

New regulations should be drafted to prevent zoological institutions from training animals to perform unnatural behaviors such as boxing, dancing, or riding bicycles. Demonstrations involving animals should instead focus on natural behaviours rather than on learned activities meant solely to entertain park visitors. This distinction is important because educational programs that highlight an animal's natural behavior can help visitors understand wildlife and get involved in conservation, whereas performances designed primarily for amusement risk normalizing animal mistreatment.

For example, feeding demonstrations led by trained staff can explain how animals forage in the wild and their diets, while conservation talks can highlight threats such as habitat loss or illegal wildlife trade, which allows visitors to engage with wildlife in a way that supports learning rather than exploitation.

In addition to performances, photo sessions with wild animals also pose serious welfare concerns. A recent investigation by World Animal Protection exposed the scale of Thailand’s tiger selfie tourism, revealing that animals used for photo opportunities were often stressed, over-handled, and subjected to abusive training methods to make them appear “docile” for tourists. Such practices can cause both physical and psychological harm to the animals and can normalize the handling of wildlife for entertainment. 

According to the WAZA Animal-Visitor Interaction Guidelines, interactions with wild animals should occur only when they prioritize animal welfare, provide genuine educational value, and minimize stress or risk to the animals. Photo sessions that force animals into unnatural behaviors or constant human contact do not meet these standards and should therefore be prohibited in Cambodian zoological institutions. Instead, visitor interactions should focus on observing natural behaviors in appropriately enriched habitats, coupled with educational interpretation that fosters empathy and understanding of wildlife conservation.

Ethical Zoos and Responsible Tourism

Customers repeatedly tap the glass to draw reactions from the otters, adding to the stress the animals experience, the fully transparent enclosure offering no sheltered location to rest. Despite blatant welfare concerns, this wildlife exhibition was held legally and staff from Phnom Penh Safari could be seen near the enclosures or feeding the animals. Image: Yann Bigant.

For zoological institutions to serve an educational purpose, they must prioritize animal welfare and conservation. Ethical treatment of animals generally means providing environments that support physical and psychological well-being, allowing animals to express natural behaviors, ensuring proper veterinary care, and preventing unnecessary stress or exploitation.

In Cambodia, elephant-related tourism operations in regions such as Mondulkiri exist in a regulatory grey area, where facilities are often described as “sanctuaries” but may not be formally classified under existing wildlife sanctuary or zoological institution frameworks. This ambiguity underscores the need for clearer national classification guidelines that distinguish between wildlife rescue centers, ethical sanctuaries, and commercial zoological facilities. Applying consistent welfare standards across these categories would help ensure that all captive or semi-captive elephant care settings are held accountable to transparent and enforceable ethical principles.

Mandai Wildlife Reserve in Singapore provides a strong example of international best practice, demonstrating how ethical zoo management can balance visitor engagement with the highest standards of animal care.

Cambodia does not currently belong to international zoo associations such as WAZA or EAZA, but their guidelines can still serve as useful references when developing national standards. Following these standards demonstrates a commitment to responsible and sustainable animal care, even for non-member countries.

Government authorities could collaborate with conservation organizations and NGOs to improve oversight and expertise in managing zoological institutions. For example, Wildlife Alliance works with Phnom Tamao Wildlife Rescue Center and could provide technical guidance, assist in staff training, and support monitoring. A multi-stakeholder advisory group involving government, NGOs, veterinarians, and local communities could oversee implementation, inspections, and welfare audits.

Strengthening collaboration between government agencies, experts, and conservation groups would help ensure that zoological institutions operate transparently and responsibly. In today’s tourism landscape, visitors increasingly want to support attractions that treat animals humanely. By raising standards, Cambodia can attract travellers who value ethical, responsible tourism.

Conclusion

When it comes to zoos and animals held in captivity, Cambodia must do better. Cambodia’s zoos must move beyond outdated models of entertainment and become meaningful spaces for education and conservation. With thoughtful reforms and clear standards, Cambodia can lead by example and prioritize the treatment of animals in captivity. Strengthening regulation today will shape how future generations understand and interact with wildlife.

---