Stuart R. Harrop

There is an epistemological gulf between animal welfare and nature conservation that has, for the most part, frustrated a practical working relationship. Welfare components are scarce in international wildlife management law and are typically subordinate to conservation objectives. However, predictions concerning the combined effect of climate change and biodiversity decline describe a shrinking of the ‘wild’ and a reduction of natural habitats. The necessary conservation responses to this may force more species into controlled conditions and increase the need for conservation interventions that have an impact on the welfare of animals. In these circumstances the need to inject compassion into conservation law and policy becomes much greater. This article explores the trajectory of conservation and welfare legislation in the context of predicted climate changes and in so doing foresees the need for a more comprehensive and sophisticated international regulatory regime setting out animal welfare standards to support future conservation strategies.

Biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation both have moral agendas. World religions have historically advocated ethical and moral codes of conduct, which can be supportive of these objectives. But can religions play a direct role in conservation and development? We examine the potential of religions in facilitating biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation. A quantitative analysis of countries represented within Conservation International's list of Biodiversity Hotspots suggests a high level of plurality of religious following, but also a significant need for economic development and environmental conservation. Although attitudes of religions toward conservation and development vary widely, and some fundamentalist elements within religions can contradict moral agendas of conservation and development, we suggest that partnerships between conservation and development organizations and mainstream, as well as minor, faith groups might provide a positive force. Such partnerships can render greater public legitimacy and provide capability to mobilize mass support for biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation.

The decline of biological diversity continues at speed and the consequent degradation of habitats and ecosystem structures, coupled with climate change, may constitute one of the greatest challenges that human civilisation has ever faced. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was created to facilitate the reversing of biodiversity loss. Although a hard convention, its strategy has been to rely primarily on non-obligatory instruments in the form of targets to achieve its objectives. The CBD’s 2010 targets were not achieved. In November 2010 in Nagoya the 10th conference of its parties was held and, among other outputs, new targets were agreed and one new hard law protocol was finalised. This article examines these principal outputs and evaluates their capacity to fulfil the new CBD vision: ‘Living in Harmony with Nature’.

(2003). From Cartel to Conservation and on to Compassion: Animal Welfare and the International Whaling Commission. Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy: Vol. 6, No. 1-2, pp. 79-104.