Benalmádena, Wednesday, 24 September 2025.
Last Wednesday Parques Reunidos transferred nine bottlenose dolphins from Selwo Marina (Benalmádena) to aquatic facilities in Hainan, China — the same destination used for prior transfers — sparking sharp criticism from conservation groups and renewed scrutiny of cross‑border cetacean moves. For retail and leisure operators, the most striking fact is the repeat pattern of exporting European dolphins to overseas facilities with different legal protections, illuminating a reputational and regulatory blind spot. The move highlights immediate operational risks (export permits, transport and acclimation protocols), compliance exposures under Spanish and EU animal‑welfare frameworks, and long‑term commercial questions about maintaining marine mammal exhibits amid shifting public sentiment. Practical mitigation includes third‑party welfare audits, proactive engagement with regulators and NGOs, transparent stakeholder communication, and scenario planning to repurpose or decommission displays. For investors and park managers, this incident is a prompt to reassess due diligence, licensing vulnerability, and the financial implications of transitioning attractions toward observation, education or sanctuary models.
What happened — the transfer itself
Last Wednesday Parques Reunidos transferred nine bottlenose dolphins from Selwo Marina in Benalmádena to aquatic facilities on the island of Hainan, China, a move confirmed by Spanish reporting that the animals left on 3 September 2025 and that the Ministry for Ecological Transition issued the CITES export authorisation for the shipment [1].
Pattern and precedent: repeat destination and earlier transfers
The Hainan facilities are the same island destination used earlier this year and in previous years: the report cites earlier Parques Reunidos transfers of eight dolphins from the Madrid Aquarium in early 2025 and nine from Aquopolis Costa Dorada when that park closed in 2022, underscoring a repeat pattern of exporting European-held cetaceans to modern aquatic complexes in Hainan [1].
Conservationist reaction and the welfare debate
Conservation groups sharply criticised the transfer, arguing that consigning dolphins to dolphinaria in countries without robust legal protections for captive cetaceans risks animal welfare; FAADA’s coordinator for wild animals described transfer to such facilities as unacceptable and warned against lack of transparency around the decisions to relocate animals [1].
Operational challenges for operators
For park operators, the incident highlights concrete operational risks: securing and documenting export permits such as CITES approvals, designing and executing specialised transport and acclimation protocols for marine mammals, and vetting overseas receiving facilities for husbandry standards compatible with European expectations — all issues explicitly implicated by the transfer and the Ministry’s role in authorising exports [1].
Regulatory exposure under Spanish and EU frameworks
The transfer has reignited scrutiny of how national authorities and park operators navigate Spain’s and the EU’s overlapping animal‑welfare and trade controls: the Ministry for Ecological Transition confirmed the export permit in this case, prompting debate about whether permitting and oversight sufficiently protect cetacean welfare when animals are moved to jurisdictions with different legal protections [1][7].
Reputational and commercial risks for leisure and retail operators
Retail and leisure operators that include marine shows within broader visitor propositions face reputational risk when high‑profile transfers attract negative media and NGO attention; local hospitality and leisure listings for Benalmádena show a dense ecosystem of hotels, attractions and seasonal programming that can be affected by adverse publicity tied to a major local draw like Selwo Marina [4][6][3].
Wider industry context: changing public sentiment and policy precedents
The transfer comes amid a broader European trend of tightening limits on cetacean captivity: reporting referenced other regulatory moves in Europe (for example, national bans and restrictions elsewhere) that have already reduced the visibility of performing cetaceans and increased pressure on operators to repurpose marine exhibits [1][7].
Practical mitigation measures operators should consider
Operators and investors should strengthen due diligence and risk controls: commission independent third‑party welfare audits of receiving facilities, engage regulators and NGOs early and transparently, document transport and acclimation protocols in full, and prepare scenario plans to repurpose pools and infrastructure for observation, education or sanctuary partnerships rather than performance‑based shows — measures that respond directly to the operational and reputational gaps illustrated by this case [GPT].
Financial and licensing implications
The episode highlights long‑term commercial questions: the cost of maintaining specialised marine‑mammal infrastructure, potential licence vulnerability if public policy or local sentiment tightens, and the capital required to reconfigure waterfront assets for alternative uses — risks that investors and park managers must model when assessing the viability of marine mammal attractions in their portfolios [GPT][1].
Local tourism and community effects
Selwo Marina’s change of programme is likely to ripple through Benalmádena’s leisure mix: local accommodation and attraction listings position the marine park within a compact tourism offer, and sudden programmatic changes at a single attraction can shift visitation patterns, partnerships and promotional strategies across local businesses [4][6][3].
Transparency, documentation and next steps for stakeholders
Stakeholders emphasise transparency and documentation: conservationists called out opaque decision‑making in transfers, regulators must balance international trade rules with welfare oversight, and operators would lower risk by publishing the welfare assessments and transport plans that accompany any cross‑border moves — demands that map directly to the criticisms raised after this transfer [1].
Bronnen