In Hong Kong, a fast-paced international metropolis, discussions about animal welfare are becoming increasingly fervent. From the protection of companion animals to the management of human-wildlife conflicts and the humane treatment of economic animals, each topic points to a core need: comprehensive, accurate, and publicly verifiable data. However, as of 2013, there is a significant gap in the systematic collection, integration, and public availability of animal welfare-related data in Hong Kong. This not only renders policy-making akin to “blindly groping an elephant,” but also makes public oversight and social consensus difficult to establish. If a modern Animal Welfare Law is our pursuit, then a scientific and transparent public data system is an indispensable cornerstone for achieving this goal.

• The Importance of Data to Policy: A Key Leap from “Intuitive Judgments” to “Scientific Decision-Making”
  
  Without data, there can be no effective policy. The optimization of animal welfare policies cannot rely solely on social emotions triggered by individual tragic events or the subjective judgments of decision-makers. It must be based on an objective grasp of the scale, distribution, trends, and causal relationships of the issues. For example:
  
  • To formulate effective stray animal management strategies, it is essential to estimate the total number of stray cats and dogs in Hong Kong, their regional distribution, spaying/neutering rates, and annual changes.
  • To evaluate the enforcement effectiveness of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, there needs to be systematic disclosure of statistics on various abuse cases, prosecution rates, conviction rates, and penalty trends.
  • Planning for coexistence between wildlife and urban areas necessitates long-term monitoring of specific species (such as wild boar and monkeys) regarding their populations, activity ranges, hotspots of human-animal conflict, and underlying causes.

Lacking this critical data, any policy recommendations may become mere rhetoric, resource allocation cannot focus on the most severe problems, and there is no way to assess the actual effects of implemented measures. This “data vacuum” is one of the deeper reasons for the slow progress and reactive nature of animal welfare policies in Hong Kong over the years.

• Status Quo Review in 2013: Dispersed, Fragmented, and a “Data Deficit”
  
  As of 2013, Hong Kong has not established a government-led, unified public database for animal welfare. Relevant data are scattered across different departments and organizations, presenting “three lacks”:
  
  • No Unified Standards: The AFCD, the FEHD, the Police, and numerous animal welfare organizations may each record data relevant to their functions (such as adoption numbers, cases of injured animals, reports of abuse, etc.), but the statistical criteria, classification methods, and update frequencies differ, making it difficult to connect and compare data.
  • No Systematic Integration: Data related to animal welfare spans multiple domains, including pets, wildlife, and economic animals. However, at the government level, there is a lack of a cross-departmental coordination mechanism to link these dispersed data points and form a macro picture of the overall situation.
  • No Regular Public Disclosure: A large amount of foundational data that should be used for public policy discussions is not released regularly in easily accessible and analyzable formats (such as open data sets) to the public, academia, and legislative bodies. Consequently, the public’s right to know and oversight are restricted, and policy discussions often dissolve into case disputes or emotional appeals.

This situation has led to a contradictory phenomenon: on one hand, societal attention to animal welfare continues to rise; on the other hand, the data foundation supporting rational discussions and precise policymaking is extremely weak. This “data deficit” is in stark contrast to the governance needs of Hong Kong as a modern city.

• The Path to Construction: Specific Recommendations for Establishing Hong Kong’s “Public Animal Welfare Database”
  
  We believe that the SAR government should immediately initiate the planning and construction of a “Public Animal Welfare Database.” This is not merely a technical project, but a transformation of governance philosophy. Specific recommendations include:
  
  Establish Leadership and Legal Responsibilities:
• We suggest that the AFCD lead the establishment of a cross-departmental working group, collaborating with the FEHD, Police, Town Planning Department, and other relevant departments. The primary task is to review the existing data inventory from each department and clarify, through amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance or special administrative directives, the legal responsibilities of the AFCD to coordinate, collect, integrate, and publish core statistical data on animal welfare throughout Hong Kong.
  
  • Establish Leadership and Legal Responsibilities:
    We suggest that the AFCD lead the establishment of a cross-departmental working group, collaborating with the FEHD, Police, Town Planning Department, and other relevant departments. The primary task is to review the existing data inventory from each department and clarify, through amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance or special administrative directives, the legal responsibilities of the AFCD to coordinate, collect, integrate, and publish core statistical data on animal welfare throughout Hong Kong.
    
  • Define Core Data Range and Standards:
    The database should gradually cover the following key areas, establishing uniform definitions and collection standards for each:
    
    • Abuse and Neglect Cases: Reporting numbers, number of investigations initiated, prosecution and conviction numbers, penalty outcomes, and types of cases alongside regional distributions.
    • Stray Animals: Estimated populations of stray cats and dogs in various regions, capture numbers, spaying/neutering numbers, adoption figures, and humane treatment data.
    • Companion Animals: Number of dog licenses issued, microchips implanted, annual statistics of veterinary clinic visits (aggregated anonymously), and data on animal intakes and adoptions from major welfare organizations.
    • Wildlife: Reports of human-wildlife conflicts for key species (such as wild boar and monkeys), numbers of rescue cases, and changes in distribution hotspots.
    • Economic Animals: Number of animals raised on local farms, complaints and inspection records related to animal welfare at slaughterhouses.
      
  • Establish a “Data Public Portal” and Interactive Platform:
    The government should create a dedicated online data portal to release structured datasets in open data format periodically, accessible for download and analysis by citizens, researchers, legislators, and the media. The site can also feature interactive maps visualizing hot spots for abuse cases and distributions of stray animals, enhancing public awareness. Additionally, secure channels for data submission should be established, allowing accredited animal welfare organizations to upload their standard statistical data, creating a complementary dynamic between official and grassroots data.
    
  • Data-Driven Policy Evaluation and Public Education:
    This database should become a standard tool for policy-making. Before introducing any new animal welfare measures, baseline data and targets should be established based on data analysis; after implementation, measures must be tracked according to data for scientific evaluation. Meanwhile, a regularly published “Hong Kong Animal Welfare Data Yearbook” could serve as important material for public education, grounding societal discussions in a shared factual basis.

Conclusion

The transparency and systematization of data are manifestations of a responsible modern government and symbols of a mature and rational civil society. Establishing a public database for animal welfare is, in the short term, an investment in infrastructure, and in the long term, it will inject scientific rigor into Hong Kong’s animal protection efforts. It enables our compassion to be converted into effective action, maximizing the utility of limited social resources, ultimately promoting a robust animal welfare policy framework based on evidence that can stand up to scrutiny.

We call on the SAR government to recognize this foundational and critical construction task. Taking this step will mark a true departure from ambiguity and passivity in animal welfare, ushering in a new starting point for scientific and precise governance.