Wildlife Welfare: A Moral, Legal, and Political Imperative
Co-authored by Mwenda Mbaka, Katherine Baxter, Janice Cox, Tozie Zokufa, and Jim Karani - May 2025
Synopsis
The protection of wildlife welfare is no longer a peripheral conservation concern; it is a central moral, legal, and political imperative rooted in the sentience of animals and the inextricable interconnection between animal well-being, environmental objectives, and human survival. This article examines the far-reaching March 2025 ruling by the South African High Court in favor of safeguarding the endangered African penguin. More than a legal victory, the case signals an ethical awakening: a call for humanity to reframe its relationship with the more-than-human world. Drawing on arguments advanced by Animal Law Reform South Africa and recent statutory shifts, such as the integration of animal welfare into the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act and the 2023 White Paper on Biodiversity - the ruling affirms that animals possess protectable interests and intrinsic value beyond their utility to humans.
Framed within the broader ethos of Ubuntu and the African Union’s Animal Welfare Strategy for Africa, this case urges African nations and the global community to recognize that environmental stewardship requires more than conservation metrics. It demands reverence for the wisdom of nature’s interconnected design. Animals are not passive occupants of ecosystems; they are sentient beings whose welfare is essential to ecological balance, biodiversity resilience, and planetary health. To neglect their welfare is to sabotage the integrity of coexistence. With wildlife populations having declined by 73% over the past 50 years, and ecosystem services collapsing under anthropogenic pressure, the stakes could not be higher.
The article exposes critical governance gaps—particularly the failure of the World Organization for Animal Health to establish wildlife-specific welfare standards, despite overwhelming evidence of widespread suffering in captivity, trade, and tourism. It calls for urgent reforms to embed animal welfare into global trade frameworks, ensuring that market systems no longer reward cruelty or ecological harm. It also critiques the inertia of the UNEP, which has yet to deliver its mandated report on the animal welfare-environment-sustainable development nexus under UNEA Resolution 5/1.
Finally, the article advocates for the recognition of animal sentience and intrinsic value across all environmental treaties; including the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on Migratory Species, as foundational to the One Health approach. It outlines the international, regional, and national actions required to align environmental governance with ethical responsibility, legal clarity, and ecological necessity. Without this paradigm shift, the aspiration to live in harmony with nature will remain a hollow ideal - eclipsed by the consequences of humanity’s own ecological hubris.
Introduction
The fate of the African penguin, an iconic but endangered species, has become a symbol of a broader struggle for ethical environmental decision-making in Africa. South Africa’s courts have recently taken a far-reaching ruling on their protection indicating that animal well-being should be a central concern in environmental decision-making, representing a significant move of legal and moral clarity that we argue should reverberate far beyond the Cape.
On 18 March 2025, the South African High Court handed down an order in the litigation between BirdLife South Africa and the South African Foundation for the Conservation of Coastal Birds against the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and other respondents. The order, which gives effect to a settlement agreement, will promote the protection of African penguins. The applicants challenged the (former) Minister’s decision to impose “interim closures” around African penguin breeding colonies alleging (among other issues) that the decision was irrational and unlawful and that the Minister had failed to comply with certain legal duties. The Court ordered the creation of no-fishing zones around six key breeding areas to help save the endangered penguins, restricting sardine and anchovy fishing - their primary food sources - for the next 10 years.
Animal Law Reform South Africa (ALRSA) participated in the litigation as a friend of the court (amicus curiae). The formal arguments put forward before the judiciary by ALRSA were powerful and convincing, and could provide a helpful template for the future consideration of the importance of including animal well-being in decision-making in environmental law and policy. They included principles such as:
Ø The need to explicitly include well-being, as required by South Africa’s National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA) as amended by National Environmental Management Laws Amendment Act 2022 (NEMLAA), as well as the White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biodiversity 2023 (White Paper). Specifically, they argued that animals have protectable interests insofar as their “well-being” is impacted and that decision-makers have corresponding duties to consider such interests.
Ø The evolving legal recognition of animals (including penguins) as sentient beings with intrinsic value, and how these concepts are intertwined with the environmental right, reinforcing that their protection goes beyond conservation and raises broader issues of legal and environmental ethics.
Ø The fact that existing policy (including the White Paper) recognizes that Ubuntu not only applies to humans but extends to our relationships with the more-than-human world, including animals. Ubuntu includes elements such as dignity, compassion, cooperation, communalism, sharing and caring, among others.
Ø The interconnection between Environmental Rights and Animal Protection: The constitutional right to environmental protection (section 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996), has been interpreted by the Constitutional Court and other courts, to include the protection of the interests of animals.
The key point is that animals are not mere “resources” but sentient beings with an intrinsic value, whose well-being must be a core consideration in all relevant legal and policy processes.
Background
South Africa has been taking strides forward in ensuring that human-induced activities do not compromise wildlife welfare.
Firstly, through litigation cases taken by the National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA) to protect wildlife welfare in certain instances, followed by the ground-breaking inclusion of wildlife welfare in the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act (NEMBA) in 2022. This was a huge “win” for animal welfare, especially in linking this to South Africa’s Constitutional right to a healthy environment (Section 24).
The White Paper on Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biodiversity (2023) which followed underlined the intrinsic value of all living organisms and the necessity of considering their wellbeing in anthropogenic interventions. It also explicitly acknowledged that the conservation of wild animals and their well-being are intertwined values, and where relevant, decisions need to take this into account. In this regard, the well-being of individual and populations of wild animals needs to be integrated into biodiversity policy and legislation, as well as conservation and sustainable practices.
The notion of animal well-being in the NEMBA was grounded in Court findings that animals are, indeed, sentient and their well-being worthy of protection. According to changes to the National Environmental Management Laws Amendment Act (NEMLAA) signed into law in 2022, well-being is defined as: “the holistic circumstances and conditions of an animal, which are conducive to its physical, physiological and mental health and quality of life, including the ability to cope with its environment”.
This has been a long-fought-for definition with roots in a NSPCA private prosecution judgment handed down by the Constitutional Court in 2016, followed in 2018 by a Parliamentary Colloquium challenging the canned hunting of lions.
Wider Application and Relevance
These legislative changes and court judgements have been moves of legal and moral clarity that should reverberate and hold practical resonance far beyond South Africa. They are completely in accord with the Animal Welfare Strategy for Africa (AWSA) agreed by the African Union – the vision of which begins with: “An Africa where animals are treated as sentient beings, as a leading continent in implementation of good animal welfare practices..” It could – and should – be a blueprint for how Africa can respond to the worsening crises facing wild animals across the continent.
Further, this is in direct accordance with the internationally-agreed upon One Health policy which is promoted and coordinated by the “Quadripartite” consisting of the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN (FAO), the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) and UN Environmental Programme (UNEP). The agreed definition of One Health recognizes that “the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment (including ecosystems) are closely linked and inter-dependent”; and that it is “an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems”, also bearing in mind that the WHO’s definition of health includes physical and mental well-being. Importantly, poor wildlife welfare—through stress from capture, transport, and inadequate captive environments—creates conditions that heighten the risk of zoonotic disease spillover. Integrating welfare considerations into environmental policy is thus essential not only for animal wellbeing but also for public health and pandemic prevention.
The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) is an international organization which has 183 member countries, including 54 African countries. These members have agreed a Global Animal Welfare Strategy with a very pertinent vision:
“A world where the welfare of animals is respected, promoted and advanced, in ways that complement the pursuit of animal health, human well-being, socioeconomic development and environmental sustainability”.
WOAH members have also agreed upon “Guiding Principles for Animal Welfare” which include, inter-alia: that the use of animals carries with it an ethical responsibility to ensure the welfare of such animals to the greatest extent practicable. They also include the internationally recognized five freedoms (freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition; freedom from fear and distress; freedom from physical and thermal discomfort; freedom from pain, injury and disease; and freedom to express normal patterns of behavior) as valuable guidance to the welfare of animals. WOAH members have agreed on a number of international animal welfare standards, but, significantly, WOAH has not yet drafted a standard specifically covering wildlife welfare.
The 2019 Global Sustainable Development Report (GSDR) highlights animal welfare as an issue to be addressed by the UN System and states that “Strong governance should safeguard the well-being of both wildlife and domesticated animals with rules on animal welfare embedded in transnational trade”.
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also taken action on the nexus between animal welfare, the environment and sustainable development. On 2 March 2022 the United Nations Environment Assembly adopted a resolution on the subject: 5/1. Animal welfare–environment–sustainable development nexus. The preamble to the resolution acknowledged that animal welfare can contribute to addressing environmental challenges, promoting the One Health approach and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals; and noted that the health and welfare of animals, sustainable development and the environment are connected to human health and well-being. Interestingly, African nations were at the forefront of championing this resolution.
The resolution called for UNEP to produce a report on the nexus. Although this has not yet been actioned to date, UNEP did contract an international consultant who prepared a Scoping Report on the nexus, to pave the way for the report. This included considerable available evidence on the nexus between animal welfare, environment, and sustainable development, indicating wide-ranging interlinkages. The Scoping Report does not appear to be readily available online. However, the report has been seen, and an overview by the author, Dr. Rebeca Garcia Pinillos, is available on the WOAH website.
There are also other environmental conventions that are of relevance to animal lives and welfare. These include the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS). The CBD was designed to govern the protection and sustainable use of biological diversity, and equitable benefit-sharing; however, in practice the focus has been primarily on use rather than conservation – despite the biodiversity crisis and the impact on wild animals. Animal protection organizations are already advocating for the CBD to take account of the intrinsic value of biodiversity and ecosystems, and to focus on prioritizing the protection of biodiversity and viable ecosystems as opposed to a simplistic promotion of utilization without adequate consideration of the associated complexity and risks. One example is this submission from the World Federation for Animals (WFA) and other animal protection organizations. The CMS is concerned with the vulnerability of migratory species to a wide range of threats, including habitat shrinkage, excessive hunting along migration routes, and degradation of their feeding grounds. This treaty recognizes that states must be the protectors of migratory species that live within or pass through their national jurisdictions and aims to conserve terrestrial, marine, and avian migratory species throughout their ranges. The CMS has also considered animal culture, and its role in human-wildlife conflict.
Wildlife in Crisis
WWFs 2024 Living Planet Index stated that the average size of monitored wildlife populations shrank by 73% over the past 50 years (1970–2020). Freshwater populations suffered the heaviest declines, falling by 85%, followed by terrestrial (69%) and marine populations (56%). WWF stressed that dangerous tipping points are approaching, and if current trends are left to continue, there will be potentially catastrophic consequences.
The Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, an important flagship report published by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) in 2019, stated that the “biomass” of wild mammals has fallen by 82% and natural ecosystems have lost about half their area. These losses are all largely a direct result of human actions.
Animals are sentient beings who share with us consciousness, feelings, emotions, perceptions -as well as the ability to experience pain, suffering, fear, distress and states of well-being. This makes their reaction to human actions even more important and impactful, at a physical, physiological and psychological level, than that of other elements of our ecosystems.
The recognition that animals are sentient should lead to humans giving them moral consideration, which would mean that their interests would be considered separately, not simply as part of nature, or species, or indeed in the context of any utilitarian value to humans. Therefore, their welfare should be respected and protected, and the animals should always be given the benefit of the doubt when we are uncertain (the well-accepted “precautionary principle”).
This should also be a core element of global development, including the effort to protect the environment and achieve the vision of humanity living in harmony with nature. A similar sentiment was expressed by the UN Secretary-General in his Report on Harmony with Nature (A/75/266, paragraph 42), in which he noted that:
“non-human animals are sentient beings, not mere property, and must be afforded respect and legal recognition”. Without the concrete inclusion of other animals’ sentience, needs and well-being in our global development efforts, the aspiration for humanity to live in harmony with nature will forever remain an illusive and abstract goal.
Despite this, wildlife is used and exploited by humans in many different ways, with varying effects on the welfare of the animals involved. Some animals are caught in the wild, while others are captive-bred. They may be traded alive or dead (whole, in parts, or in processed products). Many types of exploitation involve a high degree of animal suffering. As well as the impact upon individual animals’ quality of life, there can be serious conservation implications.
Today more and more wildlife face extinction as a result of habitat loss, climate change, pollution, human intervention, commercial exploitation and other factors. Humans have not always utilized natural resources, including wildlife, in a responsible manner; with the result being that ecological processes cannot continue to function properly and still sustain a diverse and healthy environment for wildlife.
The exploitation of wildlife spans several high-impact sectors—ranging from the exotic pet and entertainment industries to traditional medicine, luxury goods, and agriculture/food production. These activities inflict serious suffering on individual animals, often in opaque supply chains. Poorly regulated tourism and extractive industries further threaten both welfare and survival of species. Addressing these requires sector-specific reforms, informed by the welfare impacts at each stage of human-wildlife interaction.
What More is Needed?
South Africa’s inclusion of wildlife welfare in environmental legislation and the link to its Constitutional right to a healthy environment should be a wake-up call to the rest of Africa, and the international community. It is no longer morally, legally or politically acceptable to ignore the welfare of wildlife.
Beyond the moral and ecological implications, the neglect of wildlife welfare has measurable economic costs. Disruptions to ecosystem services—such as pollination, seed dispersal, and disease regulation—have been estimated to cost the global economy over US$10 trillion annually. More than 75% of global food crops rely on pollinators, contributing US$ 235–577 billion annually to global agricultural output [WHO. 2025]. Nature-based tourism, which contributes significantly to GDPs in many African countries, is also under threat from wildlife depletion. Additionally, zoonotic disease outbreaks, driven by habitat encroachment and stress-inducing wildlife handling, present staggering financial burdens—as witnessed in recent pandemics. Thus, safeguarding wildlife welfare is also a fiscal responsibility with long-term returns. We are calling upon all African countries to follow South Africa’s ethical approach to animal sentience, and to include wildlife welfare in their environmental legislation, and link to the Constitutional right to a healthy environment.
The African Union should promote and champion this action, in order to implement its Animal Welfare Strategy for Africa.
To enact this, it is vital that impact assessments include animal sentience and welfare. At present, impact assessments only cover Environmental and Social Standards (ESS), and without including impacts on animals it will never be possible to achieve a One Health approach i.e., one which can effectively “sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems”.
Despite its pioneering role in developing animal welfare standards, WOAH has yet to establish any guidelines on wildlife welfare. Scholars and civil society organizations increasingly attribute this to political inertia and the conflicting interests of member states (Harrop, 2011; ICFAW, 2023). While WOAH has made progress with comprehensive animal welfare standards in other areas—including terrestrial farm animals, aquatic animals, working equids, and animals used in scientific research and stray dog control—wildlife remains conspicuously absent from its welfare standards. This institutional gap exists despite the fact that wildlife are among the most exploited and impacted animals globally, often enduring severe physical and psychological distress in capture, killing, trade, captivity, and tourism (Broom 2014; Gaynor et al. 2020).
In the context of an accelerating biodiversity and welfare crisis, this hesitation is no longer tenable (Gaynor et al. 2020). Given that WOAH’s 183 member countries—including all African states—have endorsed its guiding principles on animal welfare, it is both timely and imperative for WOAH to resume and prioritize this work in line with its own stated vision of promoting animal welfare to support environmental sustainability and socioeconomic development (Pinillos et al. 2016).
Equally urgent is the need for animal welfare standards to be embedded into transnational trade frameworks, especially those governing wildlife and animal-based products. As argued by legal scholars and animal welfare advocates, animal welfare and trade are intrinsically linked, with trade rules often shaping the conditions under which animals are bred, captured, transported, and commodified (Frasch & DiCenso 2017). Yet many existing trade regimes, including bilateral agreements and WTO mechanisms, fail to adequately reflect even basic welfare standards, let alone incentivize the transition toward higher-welfare products. Embedding WOAH’s animal welfare standards as a minimum in international trade agreements would not only protect animals but also create a level playing field that rewards ethical production. Moreover, trade bans on products derived from practices that imperil wildlife welfare—such as the exotic pet trade, fur, or unsustainable traditional medicine markets—are increasingly justified both ethically and ecologically (Peters 2016). This is consistent with the 2019 Global Sustainable Development Report, which explicitly calls for “rules on animal welfare to be embedded in transnational trade” to safeguard both domestic and wild animals. Trade policy must evolve from being a blind conduit of commodification to a proactive tool for protecting the lives and welfare of animals across borders.
Equally pressing is the need for the UNEP to fulfill its mandate under the 2022 UNEA Resolution 5/1 by producing the long-overdue report on the nexus between animal welfare, the environment, and sustainable development. This resolution, championed by African nations, explicitly recognized that the health and welfare of animals are integral to addressing environmental crises, achieving the SDGs, and operationalizing the One Health approach (UNEP 2022). UNEP commissioned a scoping report on the resolution which was presented at the sixth UN Environment Assembly (February-March 2024) along with a progress report on the resolution from UNEP’s Executive Director. The scoping report (Garcia Pinillos 2022 – see footnote[1]) provided a clear and detailed outline of methodology, process, and budget needs to implement the resolution. It also provided key thematic areas with linkages to the animal welfare-environment-sustainable development nexus – which demonstrated that a full understanding of the nexus is vital for the effective achievement of UNEP’s environmental remit, that of the various relevant environmental conventions, the work of UNEP’s One Health partners, and sustainable development. The progress report invited Governments, the private sector, foundations, and other organizations to support the implementation of the recommendation in the report through voluntary financial contributions.
However, work has not yet begun on the full UNEP report requested in the resolution. The extent of UNEP’s subsequent efforts at securing funding, and their formal commitment to publishing a full report remains unclear.
Given the importance of this report to the work of UNEP, One Health partners, and each and every member state, it is inconceivable that the necessary support has not been afforded, particularly at this time of rapidly accelerating ecological collapse?
Moreover, UNEP and all environmental conventions—particularly the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on Migratory Species—must move beyond anthropocentric framings of biodiversity and explicitly acknowledge the sentience and intrinsic value of animals in their frameworks. Recognizing animals not only as ecological actors but also as beings with subjective experiences of suffering and well-being is essential to uphold ethical obligations and scientific accuracy (Broom 2014). Integrating these perspectives into treaty mechanisms, conservation strategies, and biodiversity finance schemes would ensure that the welfare of animals is not subordinated to utilitarian calculations (World Federation for Animals et al. 2022). Instead, it would affirm a more just and compassionate ecological paradigm—one that aligns with Ubuntu / Ukȧmȧ ethics and the African Union’s vision for harmonious human-animal-environment coexistence. Without this fundamental shift, international environmental law risks perpetuating the same structural omissions that have driven both biodiversity loss and animal suffering. To translate recognition into action, capacity-building will be required across institutions to integrate welfare into Environmental Impact Assessments, wildlife trade regulations, and protected area management. Follow-up policy guidance, piloting welfare-inclusive EIAs, and reform of harmful subsidies could support this transition. Emerging technologies such as remote sensing and AI-driven population monitoring could also assist in tracking and safeguarding wildlife welfare, offering data-driven insights to policy frameworks.
Addressing the lives and welfare of our remaining wildlife is an urgent moral imperative, and one we ignore to our collective peril.
References
Animal Law Reform South Africa. Animal Law Reform South Africa Advances Animal Well-Being in African Penguin Case. 19 March 2025. https://www.animallawreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/ALRSA-Penguin-Case-Statement.pdf
Penguin Court Order
https://www.animallawreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Penguin-Court-Order.pdf
Conservation Action Trust. Vexed debates — the battle for animal welfare in South Africa
Don Pinnock - Daily Maverick. 23 January 2025. https://www.conservationaction.co.za/vexed-debates-the-battle-for-animal-welfare-in-south-africa/#:~:text=In%20a%20case%20brought%20by,right%20to%20have%20the%20environment
NSPCA. National Biodiversity Legislation Will Finally Make Provision for Wildlife Welfare. 3 August 2022. https://nspca.co.za/national-biodiversity-legislation-will-finally-make-provision-for-wildlife-welfare/
NSPCA. SA Hunters and Game Conservation Association Not Interested in Animal Well-Being. 18 December 2024. https://nspca.co.za/sa-hunters-not-interested-in-animal-well-being/
WHO. One Health. https://www.who.int/health-topics/one-health#tab=tab_1
WOAH. Global Animal Welfare Strategy. https://www.woah.org/app/uploads/2021/03/en-oie-aw-strategy.pdf
United Nations Digital Library. Animal welfare–environment–sustainable development nexus resolution / adopted by the United Nations Environment Assembly. 2021. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3999162?ln=en&v=pdf
WWF. Living Planet Index. 2024. https://wwflpr.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/2024-lpr-executive-summary.pdf
IPBES. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. https://www.ipbes.net/global-assessment
The Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/convention
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. https://www.cms.int/
United Nations General Assembly. Harmony with Nature Report of the Secretary-General.
https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n20/199/25/pdf/n2019925.pdf
WHO.2025. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/biodiversity
Broom, D.M. 2014. Sentience and Animal Welfare. CABI Publishing.
Frasch, P.D., and DiCenso, D. 2017. “Toward a Legal Definition of Animal Welfare: How the Law Treats Animals and What That Means for Their Welfare.” San Diego Law Review, 54(3): 425–480.
Garcia Pinillos, R. 2022. “Scoping Report Overview: Animal Welfare and the Environment.” WOAH Website. https://www.woah.org/en/document/animal-welfare-and-the-environment/
Gaynor, K.M., Brashares, J.S., Gregory, G.H., and Withey, J.C. 2020. “The Welfare of Wildlife: An Interdisciplinary Review.” Biological Conservation, 248: 108696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108696
Peters, A. 2016. “Global Animal Law: What It Is and Why We Need It.” Transnational Environmental Law, 5(1): 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102515000286
Pinillos, R.G., Appleby, M.C., Manteca, X., Scott-Park, F., Smith, C., and Velarde, A. 2016. “One Welfare – A Platform for Improving Human and Animal Welfare.” Veterinary Record, 179(16): 412–413. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.i5470
UNEP. 2022. UNEA Resolution 5/1: Animal Welfare–Environment–Sustainable Development Nexus. United Nations Environment Assembly. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3999162
World Federation for Animals, et al. 2022. Submission to the Convention on Biological Diversity on Animal Welfare and the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. https://wfa.org/resource/submission-to-cbd-on-animal-welfare/
Authors:
• Dr Mwenda Mbaka – Veterinarian, Veterinary Public Health Practitioner, Animal Welfare Expert & Conservationist
• Dr Katherine Baxter – Social Scientist, Human-Animal Coexistence Expert & Policy Researcher
• Janice Cox – Animal Welfare Expert; Researcher and writer on the Intersectionality of Animal Welfare, Environment, and Development
• Tozie Zokufa – Chair, International Coalition for Animal Welfare (ICFAW) African Working Group & Executive Director, Coalition of African Animal Welfare Organisations (CAAWO)
• Jim Karani – Legal Counsel, Legal Consultant & Animal Law Specialist
[1] While an overview of the scoping report by Garcia Pinillos (2022) is published on the WOAH website, it references a broader scoping initiative that was undertaken for UNEP. However, no formal UNEP-branded or publicly released this scoping report has been located as of May 2025.