I'm not familiar with South African legislation, but would imagine that welfare would be considered under hunting permits (minimising suffering of hunted animals), human:wildlife conflict (how 'problem' animals are dealt with) and the illegal trade in wildlife products.

In the case of Chilean Law, we have a specific act regarding the protection of the animals. Among other issues, it stablishes judicial sanctions for mistreat animals, specially demoestic pets. Nevertheless, the regulation does not apply to certain sport that imply a suffering of animals, like "rodeo" or "bullfighting", exclusion that is constantly criticized by most of the people.

In comparative law it is possible to find certain regulations oriented to avoid the suffering of animals used in, por example, chemical induestries. In some countries the possibility to test products on animals is ban, but it depends on the internal regulations.

Greetings.

See critical animal studies and an emerging fields of animal law (Anne Peters 2016) and earth justice (Polly Higgins 2010).

That's a great question. Philosophically, animal law and environmental law respond to different imperatives, and legally they have different objects. Environment is an intrinsically anthropic concept, after all the environment is what surrounds men. The protection of biodiversity, in international law and in most national legal systems, typically is considered part of environmental law, and as such it not concerned by the wellbeing of wildlife, but by its conservation for anthropic reasons (moral, economical, etc). Even though animal law has many links with environmental law, is a different branch of law.