Intergovernmental organisations, formal arrangements between governments of states, nations or countries, have a key role in global affairs, including animal disease control and animal welfare standard setting. They have advantages over countries that act by themselves, for instance their standards can be recognised under international treaties and apply across or outside of normal country boundaries and they can consider impacts at a broader or global scale rather than having to focus only on those occurring in one country.

The gulf between ethical propositions of animal welfare and the scientific basis of wildlife conservation has, at times, impeded a practical working relationship between the two (Harrop 2003). Indeed, quite often the two disciplines are capable of looking in different directions. The conservationist fixes on the species and its population status whilst the welfarist focuses on any animal, regardless of its conservation status, that is phylogenetically sophisticated enough to be capable of suffering. In consequence, welfare components are rare in international wildlife management law and are restricted to being subordinate to conservation objects (Harrop 1997, 2010). Nevertheless, the two disciplines are moving closer in many ways with the development of scientific indicators of welfare and also the need to refine the principal drivers of conservation strategies which must ultimately derive from an ethical objective. In this connection, the recent review of the CBD's strategy at Nagoya founded its new targets on a vision of ‘Living in Harmony With Nature’ (Harrop 2011c). Such an achievement would probably be a first for humanity and an utterly impractical aspiration. However, I would like to construe this vision, with the freedom of poetic licence, as conceiving both a materially and ethically harmonious future for humans and animals.

In recent decades there have been great shifts in attitudes to animals and regarding the extent of our responsibilities for wildlife welfare. The world is changing rapidly and we are feeling our way with some of these issues (for a recent review, see Fraser 2010).

Studies and projects undertaken under the auspices of conservation of wildlife are often treated as being synonymous with working to promote individual animal welfare. However, human interventions, with respect to wild animals, carry with them multiple risks for the animal subjects. Unfortunately, these risks and problems are sometimes given little consideration by practitioners, often because they are judged relative to natural processes or are incurred for the good of the species or population. Obviously, animals are subjected to a variety of natural factors likely to cause stress and poor welfare in the wild, and conservation and management of differing species to differing extents will probably always be necessary. However, in all these interventions, the welfare of the individual animal always needs to be upheld. One way of addressing this issue is by the provision of robust training. The Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera) have recently developed a training course (winner of the UFAW Wild Animal Welfare Award 2010) which centres around promoting and educating best practice in wildlife, particularly with respect to improved methods of capture, handling, marking and release. As well as standard training techniques, the course includes the use of practical scenarios and discussion platforms, tackling varying issues pertinent to working with wild species with the overall aim of ensuring high standards of welfare.