ISE26/20-21

• Releasing animals into the wild is allegedly quite common in Hong Kong, mostly for mercy or religious reasons. Reportedly, hundreds of thousands of birds were once sold in Hong Kong for release each year in the mid-2000s, but some of them were replaced by turtles and fishes after the outbreak of avian flu.^{1Legend symbol denoting Chan (2006).} Contrary to the noble intentions, animal release may do more harm than good on multiple fronts. While some animals could lose their survival skills after captivity, others are put into wrong habitats. Both situations would make the animals vulnerable to injuries and fatalities. Worse still, some alien animals become invasive species after release, threatening other animals in the local ecosystem.^{2Legend symbol denoting Humane Society International (2009), Reuters (2021) and 明報(2021).} On the other hand, some stakeholders caution against excessive regulations of animal release activity to avoid infringement of religious freedom.
• Animal release activities are generally not prohibited in Hong Kong right now, but any suffering on the animals caused by release in an unsuitable environment may be deemed as a sort of "animal cruelty" in accordance with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169) ("the Ordinance"). In a public consultation on enhancing animal welfare launched in April 2019, most of the respondents supported the suggestion to state clearly in law that such suffering is an "act of cruelty to animals". While the Government recently pledged to amend the Ordinance "as soon as possible", there are concerns that the expanded definition of "animal cruelty" alone cannot prevent improper release activities. During 2017-2021, the subject of animal release has been discussed on at least six occasions in the Legislative Council ("LegCo").^{3Legend symbol denoting GovHK (2017a, 2017b, 2017c and 2021) and Food and Health Bureau (2019 and 2020).}
• In Asia, specific legislation is enacted in some places (e.g. Taiwan, Macau and Singapore) to prohibit unauthorized animal release in recent years.^{4Legend symbol denoting 香港01 (2018) and Parliament of Singapore (2020).} More specifically for Taiwan, its regulatory regime is amongst the earliest and acclaimed to be comprehensive. This issue of Essentials provides a quick overview of animal release policy in both Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Recent policy developments on animal release in Hong Kong

• Harmful impacts of animal release: There is a general consensus amongst global conservation experts that animal release, regardless of the purpose for the release, requires professional evaluations before and after the release activities. Otherwise, such release could have detrimental effects on both the animals concerned and the biodiversity in the local ecosystem.^{5Legend symbol denoting IUCN/SSC (2013).} First, the mortality rate of animals released could hit 90% within a day owing to stress and injuries during captivity on the one hand, and being placed in wrong habitats (e.g. dumping freshwater species at sea) on the other.^{6Legend symbol denoting The Guardian (2017) and 經濟日報(2017).} Secondly, released alien animals could become invasive species and threaten the survival of native animals. Taking the predatory Sabah groupers (a popular sea fish bought for mercy release) cross-bred in Malaysia as an example, their rapid growth in local waters after release have reduced populations of certain native marine species in Hong Kong. Thirdly, release of exotic animals could spread new diseases. Fourthly, animal release is arguably not as merciful as publicized and perceived by the participants, when the highly commercialized animal release trade is reportedly creating sufferings (not well-being) on "hundreds of millions of wild animals" around the world that are captured to be released every year.^{7Legend symbol denoting Humane Society International (2009) and SPCA (undated).}
• Local practice of animal release: In Oriental religions (e.g. Buddhism and Taoism), it is not an uncommon ritual to release live animals for demonstrating compassions and creating good karma. Based on limited and scattered information available, it was earlier estimated that some 680 000 to 1 million birds were sold in Hong Kong for mercy release annually in 2005. After the local outbreak of avian flu in the late 2000s, the major types of released animals have been shifting from birds to red-eared slider turtles, frogs and fishes.^{8Legend symbol denoting Chan (2006), Shiu and Stokes (2008) and SPCA (undated).} Reflecting in part the demand for such release activities (and also for food consumption of fishes), annual import of live turtles/tortoises and Sabah grouper in 2019 amounted to 350 000 units and 440 000 kg respectively.^{9Legend symbol denoting It then fell to 210 000 units and 180 000 kg respectively in 2020 amidst the pandemic. See Census and Statistics Department (2021).} For the latter, it represented an increase of more than 12 times when compared to the level in 2016.
• Existing policy: Currently, the Government mostly relies on public education to discourage improper animal release activities, in particular through collaboration with three non-profit animal welfare organizations. From a legal perspective, any release of animal in certain areas (such as reservoirs and public parks) is strictly prohibited for environmental hygiene reasons by the relevant legislations governing these areas.^{10Legend symbol denoting Under the Waterworks Ordinance (Cap. 102) and the Pleasure Grounds Regulation (Cap. 132BC), offenders of unauthorized animal release in reservoirs may be liable to a maximum fine of HK$50,000 and imprisoned for up to two years, and a maximum fine of HK$2,000 and imprisonment for up to 14 days to those in public parks. According to limited and scattered reports, most offenders were only liable to fines of HK$1,500 or below. See 東方日報(2017).} Meanwhile, animal release activities outside these areas "are not prohibited" in general at this juncture, except in case where the release activities have caused "unnecessary suffering" to animals. Under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169), offender of animal cruelty could be liable to a maximum fine of HK$200,000 and imprisonment for up to three years. Yet amongst the 16 complaints on suspected animal cruelty arising from improper release of animals received by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department during 2014-2021, no prosecution was made largely because of enforcement difficulties in collecting evidence and resource constraints in site inspections.^{11Legend symbol denoting GovHK (2017c and 2021).}
• Public consultation in 2019: While the Government reiterated in November 2017 that it had "no plan" to regulate the operation of animal release at that time, there are signs for change more recently.^{12Legend symbol denoting GovHK (2017c).2021).} After a policy pledge in the 2018 Policy Address, the Government launched a public consultation on enhanced animal welfare in April 2019, covering a number of animal welfare issues in a wider context. Good animal welfare is now seen not just "an absence of suffering", but also "the presence of positive experiences", requiring responsible persons to have "a positive duty of care" of their animals. More specifically on animal release, the Ordinance is proposed to be amended so that "improper release of animals into unsuitable environment" is clearly categorized as an act of cruelty to animals, with enhanced penalties. This suggestion was backed by 86% of surveyed respondents.^{13Legend symbol denoting Food and Health Bureau (2019 and 2020) and GovHK (2021).}
  
  Yet 3% of respondents disagreed with the extended statutory definition of animal cruelty, claiming that release of animals is an essential element for certain religions and the rights to conduct such rituals should be protected under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance ("HKBORO"). The Government responded that the proposed amendments would be in line with HKBORO and the Basic Law. Most recently in June 2021, it indicated the amendment bill will be submitted to LegCo in the seventh legislative term commencing in 2022.
• Major issues of concerns: There is feedback that the extended statutory definition of animal cruelty alone cannot prevent improper animal release activities. First, there is still no mandatory pre-assessment of the suitability of species and venues before animal release, therefore cannot address the concerns over imports of exotic animals or invasive species for release and the potential ramifications on the local ecosystem.^{14Legend symbol denoting 香港01 (2020).} Secondly, there is continued doubt on enforcement capability especially whether adequate manpower resources would be made available to regulate animal release activities. As such, some concern groups call for enacting a dedicated law and/or setting up a specific licence system regarding animal release activities as well as allocating sufficient resources to ensure effective enforcement of the relevant regulatory regime.^{15Legend symbol denoting HKALPO (2021), 經濟日報(2021) and 明報(2021).}

Recent policy developments on animal release in Taiwan

• Given that Taiwan is deeply embedded in certain traditional religions, its scale of animal release is quite large. Based on an estimation conducted in 2009, Taiwanese spent over TW$200 million (HK$55 million) to release 200 million wild animals in at least 750 religious events annually. Apart from concerns over inappropriate animal treatment and human safety arising from the release of dangerous species (e.g. cobra),^{16Legend symbol denoting 林務局(2011) and 聯合報(2021).} observers also noted the risk of animal release becoming a "major source" of incoming invasive species and threats to the biodiversity in Taiwan.^{17Legend symbol denoting At present, the ecosystem in Taiwan hosts over 5% of global species. Meanwhile, some 240 invasive species are threatening 1 350 native species in Taiwan. See 台灣動物社會研究會(2009) and Magellan (2019).}
• Regulatory measures: In response to rising public awareness on ecological conservation and animal welfare, a series of legislations (mainly the Animal Protection Act ("APA") and the Wildlife Conservation Act ("WCA")) were enacted or revamped in Taiwan ever since the late 1990s, prohibiting unauthorized release of animals.^{18Legend symbol denoting 台灣監察院(2011).} Apart from statutory measures, administrative measures were also tightened in the early 2010s after a policy review in May 2011. Key measures are summarized below:^{19Legend symbol denoting 林務局(2011) and 台灣立法院(2015).}
  
  

  (a)	Banning unauthorized animal release: In short, all animals (including wild ones and those reared/owned by a person like poultry and pets) are strictly prohibited from release in Taiwan without permission, including release under religious activities.20Legend symbol denoting Apart from WCA and APA, animal release in designated places (e.g. reservoirs, public parks and sea) are prohibited under the Fisheries Act, the Wetland Conservation Act, the National Park Law, the Regulations on Reservoir Area Management, etc. Depending on the nature and severity of offence, offenders are subject to a maximum fine of TW$2.5 million (HK$685,000) under WCA or TW$150,000 (HK$41,100) under APA.21Legend symbol denoting Under WCA, severe offence of unauthorized animal release refers to those "resulted in damage to the ecosystem". For normal offence, the maximum fine amounts to TW$250,000 (HK$68,500). See 臺北市動物保護處(2021). These two Acts also stipulate the liability of animal keepers/releasers in storing and transporting animals properly. In case there are injuries or fatalities inflicted on the animals in the processes, the offenders will be subject to heavier penalties;22Legend symbol denoting Referring to a maximum fine of TW$500,000 (HK$137,000) and imprisonment for two years under WCA. See 台灣法規資料庫(2021).
  (b)	Mandatory permit for authorized animal release: To regulate the release of animals, both individuals and organizations must apply for a permit at least 15 days before the date of release. Local authorities and experts will then evaluate the suitability of species and venues stated in the applications. In June 2021, the Taiwanese authorities further indicated their intention to make it statutory for applicants of releasing marine animals to have completed at least six hours of recognized training within one year beforehand.23Legend symbol denoting 台灣行政院(2021). For places with richer endowments in biodiversity (e.g. Nantou and Taichung), many of them have introduced their own additional requirements like dedicated period and area for release;24Legend symbol denoting For example, applications of animal release only open for three months between September and November each year in Sun Moon Lake of Nantou to protect the ecosystem and fisheries industry there. See 自由時報(2021).
  (c)	Incentivizing tip-offing in enforcement: To strengthen enforcement, statutory monetary awards were provided since 2012 to incentivize public reporting of unauthorized animal release activities. The award is either a fixed amount or calculated by a prescribed proportion of the fine imposed on the offender, depending on the law used for conviction. In June 2016, the maximum monetary award was adjusted upward by 150% to TW$75,000 (HK$20,550);25Legend symbol denoting 台灣法規資料庫(2016). and
  (d)	Fostering sustainable form of release activities through collaboration and education: In addition to regulation and enforcement, the Taiwanese authorities actively collaborate with animal rescue centres and religious groups to promote release of recovered wild animals to suitable habitats. Moreover, the authorities encourage citizens to apply for release of specific native marine species (mostly those threatened by invasive species) in selected places for conservation purposes.26Legend symbol denoting Under the Regulations for Releasing the Cultivated Aquatic Animals enacted in 2011, about 27 native marine species are approved for authorized release. See 漁業署(2020) and 台灣農業委員會特有生物研究保育中心(2019). Furthermore, four centres of life protection and education were set up with religious groups located in large natural habitats across Taiwan since 2013, accommodating abandoned animals unfit for release.27Legend symbol denoting 林務局(2020).

• Policy effectiveness: It appears that the multi-pronged approach is conducive to developing more sustainable animal release activities in Taiwan. During 2011-2019, there were more than 1 700 approved applications for releasing over 100 million native sea fishes. Reportedly, over half of the released fishes can survive in longer term. Major religious groups also increased their participation in releasing recovered or rescued animals, along with a rise in donations received by animal rescue centres from these activities. A total of 3 600 rescued animals have thus been released back to the wild in hundreds of religious events since 2011.^{28Legend symbol denoting 關鍵評論(2016), 中國時報(2018) and 農傳媒(2020).}
  
  That said, there is still an enforcement issue regarding small-scale animal release conducted by individuals. For instance, there were only two convictions of unauthorized animal release in Taipei during 2019-2021, which is considered low.^{29Legend symbol denoting 顏聖紘(2017) and 中央通訊社(2021).} The Taiwanese authorities are reportedly now conducting work to prepare for amending WCA with enhanced penalties, with a view to rationalizing provisions of unauthorized animal release stipulated in different legislations. This is after an aborted legislative attempt in 2016 due partly to the opposition from religious bodies.^{30Legend symbol denoting For example, one of the major objectives of such legislative proposal is to unify the fine levels of both normal and severe offences for unauthorized animal release at TW$500,000-2,500,000 (HK$137,000-685,000) under WCA. See 環境資訊中心(2021).}

Prepared by LEUNG Chi-kit
Research Office
Information Services Division
Legislative Council Secretariat
14 September 2021