Taiwan's "Animal-Friendly Cities Ranking" enters the analysis phase; WDA focuses on dog and cat management indicators.

WDA and Taiwanese animal protection groups launched the "Animal-Friendly Cities Selection" program. The questionnaire collection has been completed and the analysis phase has begun. The results will be announced on World Animal Day.

This year, the World Dog Alliance (WDA) has partnered with several animal welfare groups in Taiwan to promote the "2026 Animal-Friendly Cities Assessment Project." This project uses an indicator system aligned with international standards to examine the actual actions of local governments in animal protection. In addition to addressing long-standing public concerns about policy implementation, this assessment is also expected to serve as an important reference for observing local governance capabilities before the year-end mayoral and county elections.

The evaluation has sent questionnaires to all 22 counties and cities in Taiwan. Most local governments have already responded, and the evaluation process has officially entered the analysis phase. The results are expected to be released on October 4, World Animal Day.

Judging from the response status, differences are beginning to emerge. Hsinchu County, Chiayi County, and Chiayi City have not yet responded; while Lienchiang County, Penghu County, and Changhua County have responded, they have not provided specific answers regarding the indicators. This discrepancy reflects not only differences in administrative procedures but also inconsistencies in the level of importance and response to animal protection issues across different regions.

The overall assessment framework references the World Animal Protection Index (API) of the World Animal Protection Organization (WAP), covering animal welfare and animal rights, and is designed with 9 major issues and 37 indicators. Among them, the WDA pays special attention to "Companion Animal Governance" related to dogs and cats, because these indicators most directly reflect the details and warmth of daily urban governance.

In terms of content, the indicators go beyond simply whether regulations exist; they examine how the system operates. For example, regarding shelter and adoption, the focus is not only on the basic mechanisms of public shelters, but also on whether diverse adoption channels have been established, whether there is the capacity to house elderly or injured dogs, and whether volunteers and the community can participate consistently. These details determine whether a city has moved beyond simple "shelter management" to a more comprehensive system for the placement and resocialization of animals.

Population management is another crucial aspect. Whether dog and cat registration and sterilization rates can reach certain standards, and whether community-based foster care and stray dog management mechanisms have been established, directly affect whether the stray animal problem will accumulate repeatedly. These practices are quite mature internationally, but their implementation varies from place to place.

Many cities in Europe and America have time restrictions on leashing dogs, but Taiwan does not. As a result, "cage-chained dogs" that are kept in cages and on chains all year round have become a focus of attention.

Equally important are source management and public space design. On the one hand, are counties and cities actively cracking down on illegal breeding and sales, and improving the long-term care of caged dogs? On the other hand, are they willing to plan pet activity areas in urban spaces, allowing for a more reasonable coexistence between people and animals? These seemingly disparate indicators actually point to one thing: whether animals are included in urban governance, rather than being excluded.

Preliminary analysis shows that most counties and cities have established basic systems, including animal protection self-governance ordinances and information disclosure platforms. However, in actual implementation, there are still significant differences in the sophistication of adoption mechanisms, the professionalism of behavior management, and the planning capacity for long-term placement. This also means that animal protection in Taiwan is moving from a stage of "whether it is being done" to a stage of "how well it is being done."

For the World Dog Alliance, the significance of this selection lies not in simple ranking, but in using a set of comparable indicators to make the governance status in various places visible, discussed, and thus required to improve. As animal protection gradually enters the stage of system evaluation and public scrutiny, the way local governments respond becomes part of the governance itself.

After the selection results are announced, the differences between counties and cities will become clearer, and will also provide a basis for future policy adjustments. How to transform companion animals such as dogs and cats from objects of management into public members who are taken into consideration will be an important issue in the next stage of urban governance.

Ultimately, how a city treats silent lives often reveals more about the kind of society it chooses to become than any slogan.