Response to interpellation 2022/23:173 on an animal welfare authority
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD considers the Swedish Board of Agriculture to be the best suited authority for animal welfare issues as it has broad experience and knowledge to integrate animal welfare with other areas of interest 1 2 3. KD argues that the current organization works well 1 3 and emphasizes that Swedish farmers want the animals to be well because it is their livelihood. MP considers that animal welfare is unfortunately placed at the Swedish Board of Agriculture as there is a risk that the animals' interests are sidelined when they clash with the interests of the industry. MP advocates for a new animal welfare authority to achieve uniform supervision and better knowledge development 4.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I have been asked what my position is on the question of establishing a special agency with a holistic approach for the welfare of animals.
The government safeguards that Swedish animal welfare maintains a high level. I can assure the interpellator that animals are not regarded solely as economic entities. In Sweden, we have very extensive animal welfare legislation. I think it is clearly evident that the legislation accords animals an intrinsic value and views animals as individuals worthy of protection. As stated in the first paragraph of the Animal Welfare Act, the purpose of the legislation is to ensure good animal welfare and to promote good animal welfare and respect for animals.
I believe that the best way for the government to ensure that the high requirements in the area of animal welfare are implemented and complied with is an efficient authority organization. The Swedish Board of Agriculture, Jordbruksverket, is the authority responsible for animal welfare issues. The fact that Jordbruksverket also is responsible for other issues concerning primary production, I see as an advantage. It provides good conditions for integrating animal welfare issues with other areas of interest.
The Government wants to continue to safeguard the high level of Swedish animal welfare and also wants to work to raise the level of animal welfare within the EU and globally. According to the Government's assessment, the Swedish Board of Agriculture has the knowledge and experience required to work with these issues. The Government therefore does not consider that there is any reason to change the current organization of the operations.
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Mr. Speaker! It is hardly surprising that we also have different starting points in this. That is why we are standing here today.
I mean that the placement of animal welfare at the Swedish Board of Agriculture is unfortunate for several reasons. Animal welfare is more than an agricultural issue. Animals are more than production. There is an obvious risk that the interests of the animals are set aside when they conflict with the industries that the agency has a task to promote.
This fundamental view, where animals have been reduced to production units, leaves its mark in the factory farms with enormous suffering as a result. It is about cramped cages, small spaces, and inefficient stunning methods. It is about as skewed as environmental issues being handled by an industrial authority. But I will not go into too much detail on that comparison, because I do not want to give the government any ideas. Given that the first measure the new government took was to scrap the Ministry of the Environment, one never knows.
I consider that in any case, animal welfare should be treated as an issue in its own right. Therefore, animal welfare issues, for both wild animals as well as for animals kept by humans, should be gathered under a new animal welfare authority with a designated minister responsible for precisely animal welfare issues.
An animal welfare authority should have a clear mandate to coordinate and improve knowledge on animal welfare, among other things through rule development and by increasing knowledge of animal welfare and animal husbandry.
The authority would also have an important supervisory guidance task to achieve a uniform and legally secure supervision of animal welfare among the regional supervisory authorities. This also includes prescribing minimum intervals for the animal welfare supervision.
A central authority with overall responsibility could be an invaluable support for the county administrative boards and the inspectors who work with the issue across the country.
One can also express it as that animal welfare is a fresh subject. New research means that we must re-evaluate and update rules and laws. A new animal welfare authority should therefore be tasked, with the support of the Scientific Council for Animal Welfare at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, to systematically review the animal welfare regulations so that they are updated based on modern knowledge of animals' needs and behaviors and reflect the new Animal Welfare Act, not least regarding the provisions on natural behavior.
We can certainly agree with each other that Sweden's animal welfare law is good, but I mean that the implementation and supervision are lacking.
Mr. Speaker! One example of this is the mink farms. It states in the Animal Welfare Act that animals shall have the right to their natural behaviors. But minks are predators, and swimming is included in their natural behaviors. They cannot do that when they are kept locked in cages for life. Today's mink farms therefore do not meet reasonable requirements to promote the animals' natural behavior. Still, they continue, and it is because the money wins. There is profit to be made. The minks' lives fall under the Swedish Board of Agriculture, which is governed by regulations with the fine words. But these words must permeate reality.
I wonder what measures Peter Kullgren intends to take to strengthen animal welfare, not on paper but in reality.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I will begin with a bit about why I believe the Swedish Board of Agriculture is the right authority to handle animal welfare issues.
Animal welfare issues and animal health issues are closely linked to each other, and in many cases, animal welfare and animal health are mutually dependent. Therefore, it is advantageous that the responsibility for both issues rests with the same authority.
To achieve a good result in the work on animal welfare and animal health issues, it is also important to include these issues at an early stage so that they are considered and, when it is possible and appropriate, integrated with other societal objectives.
The Swedish Board of Agriculture has a collective responsibility to follow and contribute to Sweden's development within agriculture, animal husbandry, fisheries, reindeer husbandry, gardening, and rural areas. It performs, among other things, analyses and compiles statistics within these areas. The agency also has a close cooperation with the EU within its areas of responsibility.
Furthermore, the agency is tasked with preventing, managing, and counteracting societal disruptions within agriculture, for example, in cases of serious infectious animal diseases and contaminated animal feed. If a societal disruption does occur, work is carried out at the agency to mitigate its consequences.
The Agency has the broadest experience - and long experience - of issues such as animal welfare and animal health and of other issues concerning or bordering on animal husbandry and livestock production. This provides the best conditions for integrating animal welfare issues with other, related issues.
The committee reveals an interesting picture of Swedish livestock farmers and a view of them where once again it is only economy and money that governs absolutely everything.
Sweden's animal health is at the top. If we look at dairy cows, for example, we see that they are at the absolute world top. We use almost the least antibiotics in the entire world, because healthy animals do not need medicines. And yes, it is positive for the economic outcome for those who live by providing us others with food. It is positive if one has healthy animals. It is in the same direction, not the opposite direction, that animal keepers and farmers want to ensure that their animals have it well because it is also their livelihood. It is connected.
I want to object to the image that just because one has economic interests in keeping animals, one by definition does not want to take care of the animals. I am completely convinced that Swedish farmers agree with me when I say that it is exactly the opposite.
We also received a jab that we have scrapped the Ministry of the Environment. We have not; we have formed a new department that, with greater breadth and competence, can handle our major societal challenges. Otherwise, I do not intend to go into that discussion any further.
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Mr. Speaker! We have every reason to be proud of how we manage antibiotics in Sweden. We have every reason to be proud of the animal welfare act in many ways. That is not to say that everything is peaceful and perfect. We must dare to see the cases where the animals actually suffer and are caught in a bind.
The Minister speaks about the situation of the cattle and argues that milk producers want what is best. Absolutely, I do not disagree that many want to conduct their business in the best way with regard to the animals. But the mink farms, then? And the caged chickens? The hens that do not have more than the area of an A4 sheet to live on during their entire lives?
This is systemic. It is not about a single scandal here and there, but it is systemic. Still, it is argued that we fulfill the beautiful words about the animals being allowed to have their natural behaviors. It is much easier for animals that can run out and be free than for animals that sit locked in cages for life to have their natural behaviors.
This is not about us attacking individual people, but it is about the fact that we must correct systemic errors that exist because there is an economic profit in this. The industries where animals – mink and caged hens – are kept in cages do not exist because people love their animals and want to ensure they are well, but it is about cold economic interests. We must dare to see this and also take action. A task for us as politicians, and not least for the Minister for Rural Affairs, is actually to take in the reality – even the aberrations or bad examples that exist out there – and translate our insights into practical action.
It appears from a survey by Djurens Rätt before the last parliamentary election that all parliamentary parties included in the government base, except for Kristdemokraterna, were in favor of banning the keeping of chickens in cages. That makes me curious. Does the Minister for Rural Affairs really mean that this is compatible with what is stated in the Animal Welfare Act regarding that animals should be able to have good health and their natural behaviors? Will he pursue this issue further in some way?
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I recommend that the member return with interpellations so that we can discuss each species of animal individually. Now, however, you have asked the question of whether this government intends to introduce a specific animal welfare authority, and it is that one I intend to dwell upon. The answer to that question is, as stated, no, because we believe that Jordbruksverket is the authority best suited to do this.
I can also state that the government safeguards the high level of Swedish animal welfare we have, that there is extensive and far-reaching legislation in place in Sweden to protect animals, and that governments in recent years have taken many measures aimed at further strengthening animal welfare. I am, of course, attentive to whether a need arises to also address new issues.
I state once again that it is the Swedish Board of Agriculture (Jordbruksverket) that has the longest and broadest experience of working with animal welfare issues. There is a broad competence there that is of benefit to the animal welfare work.
I am also pleased with the work that is currently taking place within the European Union. We must hope that it also lands well. From the Swedish side, we have for a long time been actively pushing for the level of animal welfare to be raised in several European countries and for new rules on animal welfare to be adopted at the European level. This is good, above all, for the animals and animal husbandry, and it is also good for the quality of food. It is good for reducing antibiotic resistance.
At the latest Council of Ministers, we discussed primarily the long-distance transport of animals. Sweden and several other countries have pointed out that this is something we need to work on more. But there are different opinions among different member states. In response to the communication that, among others, Sweden has signed, discussions have been held about not moving too fast.
I will follow this development closely and continue to drive the Swedish line for animal welfare and animal protection in a larger area and in Europe.
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Mr. Speaker! It is clear that we have different views regarding which approach would be most beneficial for the animals. I mean that an animal welfare authority would be of great help when we try to influence within the EU. There, one could have gathered different expert authorities and in a simpler way synchronize with the EU. Even from that perspective, I therefore believe it would be beneficial.
It is not only me and Miljöpartiet who are driving this issue. A petition has been delivered to the government, where more than 35,000 people have signed in order for the government to establish an animal welfare authority.
There are currently 344 agencies under the government. An agency that focuses on animals is, in this context, not actually much requested. There are good examples of and experience of a similar setup in Belgium. There, I hope we can find inspiration for the future.
I think it is good that the Minister is engaged in the issue of animal transport. We will return to that issue, not least in the EU Committee and in other contexts.
I do not think we will get any further in this debate because we do not even seem to share the view that there is a risk, as I see it, that the welfare of animals is being pitted against production. That is why I believe that animal welfare would need to be broken out as a separate issue.
I thank the Minister for the idea of returning with interpellations on every species. We will see each other here many times ahead. I can conclude by asking how you view the fact that there are 344 agencies but not a single one that has an explicit overarching responsibility for the animals.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Yes, there are 344 authorities, I believe – I trust you. And that is well another brilliant argument for why we should not have another one. There are authorities that have a designated responsibility for animal protection and animal welfare in Sweden, and so it shall continue to be. That one also has a broader competence, I do not see as a disadvantage.
I would like to conclude by saying once again that the government safeguards and prioritizes a high level of animal welfare. Sweden has high animal welfare requirements aimed at protecting the animals, and these high requirements, together with Sweden's generally good animal health status and responsible use of antibiotics, also constitute valuable added values for Swedish food production.
Our high level of animal welfare is, as said, something we want to guard. We also want to work to raise the level of animal welfare within the EU and globally. Having an authority with solid experience and knowledge of animal welfare issues behind it in that work feels secure and good. I see no reason to change a well-functioning operation.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.