Zoo accreditation schemes provide a framework for welfare standards, but the rigour of welfare auditing varies significantly between schemes and requires continuous strengthening to achieve meaningful welfare assurance.
Accreditation schemes create a welfare floor that non-accredited facilities do not face, and membership requirements provide ongoing leverage for improvement. However, accreditation processes vary considerably in how rigorously welfare is assessed versus facility and record-keeping compliance. Schemes that use validated animal-based welfare indicators - behavioural observation, health records, and stress biomarker assessment - alongside resource-based inspection provide stronger welfare assurance than those focused primarily on inputs. Independent, unannounced welfare audits would significantly strengthen assurance.