A pig from a local farm endured 12 hours of transportation and extreme overcrowding before slaughter, a process far from international welfare standards. According to Hong Kong’s Animal Welfare Concern Group’s 2024 field survey, local slaughterhouses commonly resort to excessive use of electric prods, overcrowding, insufficient water, and rough handling—conditions that the World Organisation for Animal Health identifies as welfare deficiencies to be avoided. Simultaneously, the rising demand for “animal end-of-life services,” fueled by increasing pet ownership, often operates in violation of regulations within industrial buildings, posing multiple hygiene, safety, and environmental risks. These phenomena collectively reveal a harsh reality: Hong Kong lacks a comprehensive welfare protection system encompassing the entire life cycle of animals. In Hong Kong, the welfare of economic animals (primarily those raised for food and agriculture) has long existed in a legal and regulatory gray area. Current legislation lacks specific standards for the living environments, transportation conditions, and methods of slaughter for farm animals, resulting in inconsistent welfare levels in practice. A 2024 survey indicated that over 60% of local farms fail to provide animal living spaces that meet international standards. During transport, animals often face overcrowding, prolonged dehydration, and extreme temperatures, leading to injuries, illness, and even death. The issues surrounding the slaughter process are particularly severe. Hong Kong’s slaughterhouses still commonly employ stressful herding methods and disputed stunning techniques. Fulfillment of welfare standards recommended by the World Organisation for Animal Health—such as ensuring animals are calm, using effective stunning techniques, and preventing animals from witnessing the slaughter of their kind—remains low locally. While the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) conducts inspections of slaughterhouses, the frequency is inadequate, and the standards are lax. The absence of independent third-party oversight and transparent auditing mechanisms hampers systematic improvement. The regulatory oversight over the full process of economic animal welfare has become one of the most significant weaknesses in Hong Kong’s animal welfare policy. As social recognition of companion animals’ emotional value rises, the demand for pet end-of-life services has increased significantly. However, the development of this industry faces a dual dilemma of legal vacuums and lack of regulatory oversight.Currently, Hong Kong lacks specific legislation governing animal carcass disposal; related services are primarily constrained by the Public Cleansing and Prevention of Nuisance Regulation and the Waste Disposal Ordinance. However, these laws are not tailored to animal end-of-life services, often creating gray areas in enforcement. A 2025 survey found that over 70% of animal end-of-life service providers operate within industrial buildings, potentially violating terms in their land deeds prohibiting “funeral or cremation activities.” Furthermore, these locations lack standardized emission treatment, hygiene standards, and training for staff.Worryingly, some service providers are found mishandling remains, mixing cremated ashes under false pretenses, or discarding ashes carelessly. Consumers, often vulnerable during emotional moments, find it difficult to verify service quality afterward. Government responses to this emerging industry have lagged behind. The Environment and Ecology Bureau has stated that there are currently no plans to develop specific legislation governing private animal end-of-life services or to offer related public services. This regulatory vacuum leads to chaos in the industry, compromising the dignity of animals in their final moments. Managing stray animals is a critical indicator of social animal welfare. The internationally recognized most humane community dog management method, “Trap-Neuter-Return” (TNR), has yet to be implemented in Hong Kong at an official level. Current practices remain focused on capturing and sheltering, resulting in long-term overcrowding in animal shelters and high euthanasia rates. In 2024, over 40% of stray dogs captured by the AFCD were humanely euthanized for various reasons. Research shows that effective TNR programs can stabilize and gradually reduce stray animal populations while improving animal health and community relations. However, Hong Kong faces multiple barriers to the implementation of TNR, including legal issues, resource limitations, and community acceptance. The Rabies Ordinance requires all dogs over five months old to be licensed and vaccinated, which stray dogs cannot easily comply with. Community tolerance for stray animals, responsibilities regarding their management post-return, and long-term funding sources also hinder large-scale TNR implementation. While some regions have community organizations conducting small-scale TNR programs, the lack of government coordination and support limits their lasting impact. Hong Kong needs a scientific, humane, and feasible stray animal management strategy that balances animal welfare, public health, and community needs. The animal welfare standards set by the World Organisation for Animal Health are widely recognized internationally, covering multiple areas such as transportation, slaughter, production systems, and stray animal control. In comparison, Hong Kong exhibits significant gaps in several aspects. In terms of economic animal welfare, the European Union has implemented comprehensive welfare requirements from farm to fork. The UK’s Animal Welfare Act even incorporates the emotional needs of animals into legal protections, acknowledging that animals can feel pain, suffering, and fear. The regulation of end-of-life services in Singapore provides beneficial insights. The country mandates that relevant facilities operate in appropriate areas, comply with strict emission standards, and undergo regular inspections. Service providers are required to maintain detailed records of handling processes to ensure traceability. Taiwan’s experience in stray animal management is also worth referencing. By implementing extensive TNR programs, reforming public shelters, and conducting public education, Taiwan successfully reduced shelter euthanasia rates from 70% in 2015 to below 10% in 2024.These international experiences demonstrate that comprehensive legal frameworks, clear standards, effective regulatory mechanisms, and public engagement are key elements in enhancing animal welfare. Hong Kong is fully capable of drawing on these experiences to establish a welfare system suited to local conditions. To establish a welfare system covering the entire life cycle of animals, Hong Kong requires systematic reform. The first step is to refer to the World Organisation for Animal Health standards to develop localized animal welfare operational guidelines addressing the core needs of different species and life stages. Regarding economic animals, relevant regulations must be revised to specify welfare requirements at farms, during transportation, and at the slaughter stage. Introducing independent third-party audits and public rating systems can encourage the

In an unprotected freshwater wetland on Lantau Island, the world’s population of around 100 Luven’s tree frogs is losing its last habitat due to ongoing construction nearby. The 2025 Hong Kong Biodiversity Status Report reveals a shocking statistic: over 25% of the assessed species in Hong Kong are at risk of local extinction. Among the 886 assessed species, 232 face imminent threats. Additionally, the report indicates that only 27 terrestrial biodiversity hotspots, which cover 6% of Hong Kong’s land area, host 95% of threatened species. However, nearly 80% of these hotspots have suffered ecological degradation, with about half overlapping with existing or planned development projects. The Truth About Endangerment: Ecological Value and Fragility of Biodiversity Hotspots The latest scientific assessment, the Hong Kong Biodiversity Status 2025, systematically identifies 27 terrestrial biodiversity hotspots. Although limited in area, these regions are vital reservoirs of local biodiversity.Species reliant on lowland habitats are under the highest threat. Approximately 70% of Hong Kong’s amphibians, 65% of mammals, and 45% of bird species are currently under pressure. Alarmingly, most of these hotspots lie outside the existing protected area system. The government’s designated 24 special areas and 4 coastal protected areas fail to encompass these ecologically sensitive zones, resulting in the absurd situation of “protected areas not protecting hotspots.” The threats these hotspots face are diverse and complex, including habitat fragmentation, environmental degradation, illegal poaching, invasive species, and the impacts of climate change. Among these, habitat loss due to urban development is the most direct and severe threat. The 2025 Chief Executive’s Policy Address proposes to expedite the development of the Northern Metropolis while streamlining related planning and development processes. This ambitious plan is adjacent to the Mai Po and Inner Deep Bay Ramsar wetlands, raising deep concerns within the ecological community. The planning area for the Northern Metropolis includes multiple identified biodiversity hotspots. Although the government has pledged to conduct ecological assessments, the simplification of procedures may compromise the depth and breadth of assessments, making it difficult to fully identify and mitigate ecological impacts. Historically, even large-scale development projects in Hong Kong that underwent ecological impact assessments often led to irreversible ecological losses. For instance, some roads and residential projects, while passing through statutory processes, often underestimate their long-term impacts on local species. A discussion paper from the 2025 Environmental Advisory Committee highlights significant deficiencies in the existing environmental assessment mechanisms in dealing with cumulative ecological impacts, landscape fragmentation effects, and long-term ecological function losses. These flaws will be further magnified under large development plans. Hong Kong’s existing legal framework for nature conservation focuses on the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Chapter 170) and the Country Parks Ordinance. However, these laws mainly protect species and habitats within designated areas and lack effective protection tools for biodiversity hotspots outside these regions. While the zoning plans under the Town Planning Ordinance provide some degree of protection, the process is slow and often influenced by development pressures. Some ecologically valuable lands are still designated as “undetermined use” or “village-type development,” facing the risk of being developed at any time. The Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance is considered the last line of defense for protecting non-designated area ecologies, but its effectiveness is limited. Assessments primarily focus on the impacts of individual projects, making it difficult to address cumulative ecological stresses caused by multiple projects and lacking special protection provisions for biodiversity hotspots. The AFCD, as the main conservation agency, has limited resources, making it challenging to effectively monitor and protect the dispersed biodiversity hotspots. Law enforcement actions related to ecological destruction often face difficulties in evidence gathering, and penalties lack deterrent power. Facing conservation challenges, innovative tools already in use internationally can offer Hong Kong valuable insights. The concept of “Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures” (OECMs) is gaining attention, recognizing and supporting conservation actions outside protected areas, applicable to private lands or community-managed regions. The “Ecological Protection Red Line” system implemented in mainland China is also worth studying. This system designates areas with significant ecological functions as red lines for strict protection, prohibiting or restricting developmental activities and providing clear protective boundaries for ecologically sensitive areas. Locally, introducing an “Ecosystem Services Payment” mechanism could be considered. The government could offer economic incentives to landowners conserving biodiversity hotspots, encouraging them to maintain the ecological functions of their land rather than converting it for development. Developing a “Biodiversity Offsetting” mechanism represents another viable path. When development inevitably impacts ecology, requiring developers to create or restore habitats with equivalent ecological value nearby can achieve a “no net loss” conservation goal. In light of the current dilemmas, Hong Kong needs to establish a preventive, science-based conservation framework. The first priority is to formally recognize and designate the 27 biodiversity hotspots as sensitive areas within government development planning. Immediate revisions to the Town Planning Ordinance are needed, requiring more stringent ecological assessments for development projects that may affect biodiversity hotspots, prioritizing alternatives that avoid impact rather than relying on post-hoc mitigation measures. Updating the list of protected species in the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Chapter 170) is crucial. Many endangered species within these hotspots are not legally protected, leaving them and their habitats without legal safeguards. For large development plans like the Northern Metropolis, comprehensive strategic ecological assessments should be integrated at the early planning stages to identify and avoid ecologically sensitive areas while reserving adequate ecological corridors and compensation zones. The government could consider establishing a “Biodiversity Conservation Fund,” specifically for the protection, restoration, and management of hotspot areas. Additionally, introducing a “Gross Ecosystem Product” (GEP) accounting framework to quantify the economic value of natural ecology can integrate ecological values into policy decision-making. A 2025 survey by the Hong Kong Bird Watching Society shows that over 80% of the public believes the government should prioritize local natural ecology protection, even if it may slow some development projects. This public backing provides social support for policy reforms. Researchers at City University of Hong Kong have noted that biodiversity hotspots are not only the last refuges for

Inside a hidden metal shack in Yuen Long, over thirty purebred dogs are crammed into filthy, cramped cages. Their sole “crime” is being treated as profit-making tools for illegal breeding. In 2024, data from the Hong Kong Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) revealed a disturbing reality: there are only two licensed dog breeding establishments in the entire city, while the number of pets circulating in the market starkly contrasts with this minimal figure. Over the past five years, the government has received numerous complaints about illegal breeding facilities, but investigations often end with “no illegal activities discovered.” Meanwhile, a large number of unknown-origin, health-compromised puppies and kittens enter Hong Kong households through various channels, revealing a hidden and cruel industry chain. Hong Kong’s current regulatory framework for animal breeding and trade is severely outdated, fraught with gaps and challenges in enforcement. According to the Public Health (Animals and Birds) Regulation, pet shops only require a license issued by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD), with alarmingly lenient conditions. The existing system does not mandate that pet shops display staff animal care competence certifications, enter into care agreements with veterinarians, or impose strict traceability requirements on animal sources. Crucially, the AFCD lacks the authority to revoke animal trade licenses due to animal cruelty convictions, severely undermining enforcement efficacy. Even when serious violations are discovered, regulatory bodies lack effective measures to impose compliance. A 2024 study by City University of Hong Kong indicated that the licensing conditions for pet shops are disconnected from international standards, failing to safeguard the basic welfare of animals sold, thereby creating a “legal cover for illegal” regulatory gray area. Illegal breeding facilities in Hong Kong often hide in industrial buildings, village houses, and remote metal shacks, operating in secrecy and deplorable conditions. These locations are typically overcrowded, lacking adequate ventilation, cleanliness, and medical care. Illegal operators utilize various channels, including social media, online forums, and mobile street sales, to market animals and evade regulatory scrutiny. They often disguise their commercial nature under the guise of “family breeding” or “loving care,” misleading consumers. Animal sources are complex, including illegal imports, local overbreeding, and animals falsely presented as “rescues.” In 2024, several illegal import cases uncovered by customs revealed numerous puppies and kittens smuggled within luggage. These animals frequently lack necessary vaccinations and may suffer from genetic diseases or behavioral issues, resulting in high veterinary costs and emotional trauma for new owners. This process endangers consumer rights and animal welfare simultaneously. Combating illegal animal breeding and trade presents multiple enforcement challenges. The primary issue is the fragmented distribution of responsibilities among departments: the AFCD handles animal welfare, the FEHD manages sales licenses, customs controls illegal imports, police address criminal elements, and the Lands Department monitors land use violations. This dispersed authority structure leads to a lack of coordination and efficiency in enforcement actions. Illegal operators often evade responsibility by citing jurisdictional boundaries during investigations by one department. Evidence gathering is equally problematic for enforcement efforts. Illegal breeding sites often have surveillance systems in place, and animals are frequently moved before enforcement personnel arrive. Current legislation does not grant officers the authority to immediately enter suspected locations in emergencies. Despite an increase in complaints regarding illegal breeding facilities in 2024, successful prosecution cases remain scarce. High evidentiary thresholds, limited investigative resources, and inadequate legal tools have collectively hindered effective enforcement measures. Comparing other jurisdictions, Hong Kong’s regulation of animal breeding and trade is clearly lagging. The experience of Singapore is particularly instructive; the country has implemented a strict licensing system for pet breeding and sales. In Singapore, all pet breeders must obtain licenses, and commercially sold dogs must be microchipped, registered, and sterilized (with specific exceptions). Pet shops are required to display animal source information, and violators face hefty fines or even imprisonment. The UK’s “Lucy’s Law,” effective since 2020, prohibits third-party sales of puppies and kittens, requiring consumers to obtain animals directly from breeders or licensed rehoming organizations. This measure effectively combats inhumane breeding practices and pet shops. Several Australian states have adopted policies that permit pet shops to sell only rescue animals, severing the direct link between commercial breeding and retail. These international practices demonstrate that systematic reform can significantly enhance animal welfare and regulate the market. In light of the current crisis, Hong Kong needs a comprehensive reform strategy. First, the Public Health (Animals and Birds) Regulation should be amended to raise the standards for pet shop licensing, mandating the display of animal care competence certificates, veterinary cooperation agreements, and information on animal sources. Legislation must empower the AFCD with greater enforcement authority, including the power to revoke trade licenses due to animal cruelty convictions and the ability to conduct urgent inspections of suspected locations. Establishing a territory-wide pet breeding and sales traceability system is crucial. All commercially sold dogs and cats must be microchipped, with records of breeders, sellers, and new owners, creating a complete traceability chain. Leveraging the UK’s “Lucy’s Law,” research should be conducted on the feasibility of prohibiting third-party pet sales in Hong Kong, encouraging a “breeder-to-consumer” direct transaction model, thereby reducing the animal welfare risks associated with intermediaries. Given the clandestine nature of illegal breeding facilities, a cross-departmental joint action mechanism should be established, consolidating resources from the AFCD, police, FEHD, and Lands Department to conduct targeted enforcement actions. A 2024 survey by the Hong Kong Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals indicated that over 70% of the public supports enhanced regulation of pet breeding and sales. As public concern for animal welfare rises, pressure for reform continues to grow. When Hong Kong families welcome new pet members, they are often unaware that these adorable lives may originate from dark and cruel environments. The outdated laws not only enable illegal transactions but also betray the public’s love and responsibility for companion animals. As an international city, Hong Kong should not lag behind international standards in animal welfare regulation. Only by establishing a strict, transparent, and enforceable regulatory

A stray cat named “Banban” in Aberdeen has just died painfully after ingesting poisoned bait, while the maximum penalty for the individual responsible remains based on legislation established ninety years ago. In Hong Kong, an international metropolis, incidents of animal abuse occur at alarming frequencies. In 2024, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) received 494 reports of animal abuse, nearly doubling from 256 reports in 2021. Yet, despite these shocking crimes, the maximum penalty under the current Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance remains three years of imprisonment and a fine of HK$200,000—this legal framework has fundamentally changed little since its establishment in 1935. The core of Hong Kong’s existing animal protection laws, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, was first enacted in 1935. Although amended in 2006, its basic framework and principles are severely outdated compared to international standards.A significant flaw in the current ordinance is its “reactive” and “post-hoc penalty” nature. The law only intervenes after an animal has already suffered actual harm, lacking mechanisms to require caretakers to fulfill basic animal welfare standards before harm occurs. In contrast, the international community has made strides; the UK enacted the Animal Welfare Act in 2006, introducing the concept of “Duty of Care.” Singapore revised its Animal and Birds Act in 2014, significantly increasing penalties and welfare standards. Since initiating public consultations for amending the ordinance in 2019, the process in Hong Kong has stalled for six years, remaining at the stages of “study” and “consultation,” with no timeline for legislation in sight. In recent years, the number of animal abuse cases in Hong Kong has been on the rise, yet the success rate of prosecutions and the strength of penalties raise concerns. According to data from the Department of Justice, as of 2023, fewer than 30% of animal abuse reports ultimately progressed to judicial proceedings. Court rulings also reflect the impotence of the current laws. Notable animal abuse cases in 2024 that attracted public attention often resulted in suspended sentences, short prison terms, or community service orders, with fines typically remaining low. Enforcement poses additional challenges. The current ordinance does not clearly empower enforcement officers to intervene proactively when animal risk is suspected; they can only act post-injury, creating a passive enforcement model that prevents timely rescue for many animals. The central controversy surrounding the amendment lies in whether to introduce the concept of “Duty of Care” for animals. This concept requires animal keepers or caretakers to actively ensure animal welfare, including providing appropriate food, living conditions, and medical care. Proponents argue that this is the cornerstone of modern animal welfare legislation, expanding protection from merely “preventing cruelty” to “promoting welfare.” Opponents, however, express concerns regarding vague definitions, potential increases in compliance costs, and legal risks. This divide has directly led to a stalemate in the revision process. As of February 2025, a government spokesperson stated they were still “studying the amendments to the ordinance.” By October, the rhetoric shifted to “continuing consultations with relevant stakeholders.” Clearly, disagreements over key provisions have become the most significant obstacle to amendments. Globally, jurisdictions under common law exhibit a noticeable trend toward “proactive prevention” in animal welfare legislation. The UK’s Animal Welfare Act not only introduced “Duty of Care” but also raised the maximum prison sentence to seven years. Australia’s state legislation also provides useful references. New South Wales’ Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act details the “Five Freedoms” for animals: freedom from hunger and thirst, discomfort, pain, injury or disease, to express normal behavior, and freedom from fear and distress. Singapore’s experience is especially relevant for Hong Kong. The country established clear “Duty of Care” provisions and strict penalties (up to three years in prison and fines of SGD 40,000) coupled with effective enforcement mechanisms, significantly improving animal welfare conditions. These jurisdictions share a common understanding that explicit “Duty of Care” provisions, appropriate penalties, and effective enforcement mechanisms are the three pillars of contemporary animal welfare legislation. In the face of the legislative impasse, Hong Kong needs to seek practical breakthrough paths. First, a phased implementation strategy could be considered, advancing amendments on aspects where social consensus is higher (such as increasing penalties and expanding enforcement authority) while deferring more controversial provisions for later stages. Regarding the design of “Duty of Care,” Hong Kong could adopt a model similar to Singapore’s, formulating clear and specific welfare standards and exemption clauses to reduce legal uncertainty. Additionally, differentiated responsibilities could be established for various types of animal keepers, distinguishing between professional organizations and individual pet owners. Innovation in enforcement mechanisms is equally crucial. Establishing a dedicated animal abuse reporting hotline, creating a cross-departmental enforcement coordination mechanism, and providing specialized training for enforcement personnel could enhance protective effects within the existing legal framework. Taking a cue from the UK, which established an Animal Welfare Committee, Hong Kong might consider forming an advisory body composed of experts, industry representatives, and animal welfare organizations to provide continuous professional advice for policy formulation. Data from the Hong Kong Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals indicates that over 80% of Hong Kong residents support strengthening animal protection laws. Additionally, bipartisan legislators have repeatedly signed letters urging the acceleration of amendment processes.When slogans demanding “Animal Rights Now” appear outside the Legislative Council building, the AFCD’s responses remain “actively researching and consulting at the appropriate time.” This disparity between governmental responses and societal expectations epitomizes the issues within Hong Kong’s animal welfare policy. The legislative delays are not merely a technical problem but a measure of the civilization level of the city. While Hong Kong prides itself on being an international metropolis, it lags behind many other regions in animal welfare legislation, a discrepancy that warrants serious reflection.