Response to interpellation 2024/25:19 on the cows' right to natural behavior
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD wants to modernize the grazing legislation to increase competitiveness and food production 1 2. KD argues that the current regulatory framework is too heavy and has led to many dairy farms disappearing 3 2. KD wants to see more grazing animals and argues that strengthened competitiveness is crucial to safeguarding animal welfare globally 2. KD demands that farmers who provide added value through animal welfare receive financial compensation 1. KD believes that farmers do not act in the way implied when rules are missing in the legal text 2. MP argues that cows have a right to their natural behavior outdoors and that competitiveness must not occur at the expense of animal protection 4. MP wants to redirect EU agricultural funds so that higher animal welfare is favored 5.
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)
Madam Speaker! Rebecka Le Moine has asked me what I will do to guarantee high animal welfare and ensure the cows' right to their natural behavior.
Swedish dairy farmers have been required since 1988 to ensure that cows are allowed out to pasture during the summer. Since then, both agriculture and livestock farming have changed and been modernized based on today's conditions, and a large majority of dairy cows are now kept in loose housing.
From my side and the government's side, it is a high priority to create conditions for increased Swedish food production and strengthened food preparedness in the country while simultaneously maintaining Sweden's strong animal welfare.
In line with what was announced in the Tidö Agreement, the government therefore commissioned an investigation. The investigator was to, among other things, compare Swedish animal welfare requirements for different animal species with the EU's animal welfare requirements and national animal welfare requirements in other relevant member states within the EU. The investigator was to analyze whether, and if so to what extent, the Swedish animal welfare requirements affect the competitiveness of Swedish food producers in relation to food producers in other member states. The investigator was also to propose measures to raise the level of animal welfare within the EU and globally and analyze how this affects the competitiveness for Swedish food producers.
The government has therefore not, through the investigation's directive, taken a position on a change of the grazing requirements.
The Government received the report Animal production with high competitiveness and good animal welfare (SOU 2024:56) at the end of August. The investigation's report contains several different proposals and will be processed according to standard procedures within the Government Offices. I cannot provide any answer right now as to which proposals the Government will proceed with and how these proposals will be designed.
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Rural Affairs, for the answer!
The investigation was tasked with looking at strengthening the competitiveness for food producers and maintaining strong animal welfare. It was therefore to strengthen competitiveness without compromising on animal welfare. But it is clear that was not the case.
The investigator has received a great deal of both internal and external criticism for not having listened to the animal welfare perspective. The head of unit at the Swedish Board of Agriculture, Helena Elofsson, was part of the investigation's expert group and submitted reservations with strong criticism. She describes the proposals, for example, as a compilation of the industries' demands and says that they need to be further investigated to include scientific animal welfare expertise. It is quite remarkable for it to come from an agency official in this context, Madam Speaker.
I shall remind a little about what legislation we have in Sweden and what this is about. In the Animal Welfare Act, it clearly states that animals shall have the right to their natural behavior. Therefore, it is quite bizarre and strange that we even have this discussion, that there even exists an investigation pointing to these proposals, and that we even stand here in the chamber of the Swedish Riksdag to debate the issue.
Just as fish need water to be able to exhibit their natural behavior, which they have a right to, cows need the opportunity to graze outdoors. Much has been said about modern loose housing. But even if loose housing is modern and more spacious, it cannot be compared to being outdoors. The natural - the sun's rays, the wind, the soft ground, and the space - is unbeatable.
Madam Speaker! I want to go back to how this legislation came about. It was a victory for animal rights activists like Astrid Lindgren, who actually received this law as a gift from the government at that time. To back away from this and cite competitiveness as a reason is completely the wrong way to go.
If one actually wanted to invest in strengthening the Swedish dairy farmers, there are a number of other proposals that would be better to put forward. We should, at the very least, see the pride in being able to buy and choose Swedish products. The consumer perhaps makes an active choice because we in Sweden have high animal welfare and strong animal and environmental legislation. What other arguments or reasons are there for a consumer who stands and hesitates between two different milk cartons to choose the Swedish one? That added value is what the government is now prepared to take away.
Madam Speaker! There are many other things that are blamed on the animal welfare legislation, such as that farms have been shut down, that we are getting poorer food security, and so on. It is actually not the environmental legislation's fault. It is rather due to a policy that has led us into and cheered on large-scale production and competed out small-scale production.
My question to the Minister is: If one truly safeguards both competitiveness and the fact that all of Sweden should be able to live, and that we should be able to be proud of our animal welfare, how does the Minister for Rural Affairs view the investigator's legislative proposal? Is it positive? Is it welcomed? Or is it negative?
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! As I said in my introduction, we have received the committee's report. It is to be sent out for consultation. After that, the usual preparatory process will be initiated in the Government Offices.
Which proposals we will subsequently proceed with or not is far too early to say. I will not speculate on where the government will land. It would be completely wrong of me as the Minister for Rural Affairs. There will guaranteed be discussions during the referral process. I look forward to also taking part in the referral responses that come in.
The investigation itself, of course, argues for its proposal and states that researchers have been commissioned who have reviewed existing material. The Government will, of course, review it, just as we review other consultation responses that come in, before we finally take a position on whether the ordinance should be changed regarding exactly this.
I therefore cannot say where the government will land on that issue. I believe the member understands that, because the member is experienced and knows how a government works and in which situation a government can be clear about which position it holds versus when it cannot.
With all that said, with all those reservations and warnings, I can tell you that since 1988, 90 percent, nine out of ten, of the dairy farms in Sweden have disappeared. I do not believe that it is a development that particularly many want to see. It affects the fact that we, in total, have fewer grazing animals, fewer animals that keep the landscapes open. It is fewer animals whose lives are governed by some of Europe's and perhaps the world's strictest animal welfare rules with high animal welfare, low antibiotic use, and very good animal care. It is fewer animals that have such a life.
Just from that aspect, we should therefore ensure that we increase the competitiveness of Swedish agriculture as much as we can. That was this investigation's mandate. One was to compare with other countries. One rule that was identified was precisely the grazing requirement, where it was noted that we have legislation that no other European country has. From that aspect, it is not strange that one at least reasons about it.
Again: With that said, it is not clear where the government will land.
I would like to ask a counter-question. What does Miljöpartiet want to do to strengthen the competitiveness of Swedish agriculture? And if we are to stick to the investigation: How does Miljöpartiet want to strengthen animal production in Sweden?
The general perception – which can, of course, be wrong sometimes – is that Miljöpartiet has rather been pushing to lower the competitiveness of Swedish agriculture.
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister, who wishes to highlight my political experience. That was very kind.
Something that I honestly do not understand is that one stands completely without an opinion within a certain window. It is clear that the Minister for Rural Affairs has an opinion on the matter, and I believe that very many are interested in it.
A petition has been submitted with signatures from more than 110,000 people who are making demands and truly want us not to back down on animal welfare in this way. Therefore, it would be interesting to know if the Minister for Rural Affairs thinks it is good that animals are allowed to be outside and that the cows are allowed to graze. It is a very relevant question.
If I may refer to myself, there has not been a single time when I have had a vacuum in my views during a certain period of time. It would be important and meaningful if the Minister for Rural Affairs, during the debate, could share his opinion on whether he sees it as something positive that Swedish cows are allowed to be out grazing during the summer.
I really want to emphasize this. It is also a reason why I chose to write my interpellation.
An argument that has been put forward is that nine out of ten dairy farms have been closed since the 80s. I believe that the entire chamber of the Riksdag can stand behind an attempt to reverse this, but it is about the approach.
We in Miljöpartiet absolutely think that one should be paid for the added values. Therefore, we want to redirect CAP, that is, the EU's agricultural funds, so that the one who works more with animal welfare, with increasing biodiversity or with protecting the climate shall benefit rather than if he or she has a large area, because it is very outdated and not particularly steering to have it that way.
One of the main arguments that the Christian Democrats have put forward is that if we have a law in Sweden that ensures that the animals are well-off and are allowed to be out and graze, one cannot receive a share of these funds. And if one removes that legislation, one can receive the funds.
We agree as far as I think that one should receive higher compensation the better animal welfare one has. I wish that the government, with the Minister for Rural Affairs at the helm, can push to raise the requirements and improve animal welfare legislation throughout the EU.
Something the investigator mentions is practice; it is not just about legislation. If we in Sweden have a practice that cows are out grazing during the summer, we cannot obtain the extra compensation with the current system. And that is de facto practice, so even if we were to back out in the legislation, it would not help Swedish milk producers to get extra compensation. The only way to address the problem is to change the EU legislation so that those who do more for animal welfare benefit.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! I was extremely disappointed with the - soon - previous commission when it only became a thumb-sized revision of the animal welfare regulations at the EU level. I had had many bilateral meetings with the responsible commissioner, where we put forward, among other things, that which the member is presenting here. How we should work more effectively to influence the animal welfare regulations at the primary EU level but also globally was also part of the investigation.
I understand that the member thinks it becomes a boring debate. But she has asked questions to the Minister for Rural Affairs, and as such, I represent the entire government. Then the answers become a bit boring, because we are in the position we are in in the process after the investigation. The government has, therefore, not taken a position yet.
I am, however, sure that the member has listened to me in interviews when I have been asked what the Christian Democrats' position is. Yes, my party's position is that we want to modernize the grazing legislation. But that is entirely dependent on whether we can provide compensation to the farmers who provide such an added value. That is a prerequisite in my party's position. If we cannot do that, then the prerequisite is gone.
We can look at other countries. In Finland, for example, the large dairy cooperative gives better pay to the farmers who guarantee a certain amount of pasture. There, they have succeeded so well that around 80 percent of the dairy cows—it probably varies from year to year and depending on the weather—have pasture without such legislation.
As has been said, it is important to keep the concepts separate. Here in the chamber, I see myself as a representative for the entire government, and in that case, the tedious answer is that preparations are ongoing. When the government is finished with the preparations, everyone will be informed of where the government stands.
Rebecka Le Moine (MP)
Madam Speaker! For those witnessing the debate, I can say that the Christian Democrats are the only one of Sweden's parliamentary parties that has submitted a motion in this direction. The reason I have asked the question is that during the process, it has almost seemed as if the Minister for Rural Affairs and the government have joked a little bit about the proposal. One can only hope that this never becomes legislation in Sweden. It would be devastating.
It would be devastating for animal welfare if we were to have to raise it throughout the EU and also raise it so that our grazing requirement includes more animals. It would be a step in the wrong direction.
It would also be devastating for our competitiveness. The rug would be pulled out from under all the added values that exist. We have seen advertisements showing how happy the cows become when they are let out at cow release and how important it is that the cows keep the landscape open. In this, biodiversity can also be protected. All these added values would fall and completely lose their credibility.
If the grazing requirement were to be introduced, the risk increases that even more farms will be closed down. Those who would primarily benefit from an abolition are the resource-rich dairy producers who have difficulty finding sufficient grazing land within a reasonable distance from the farm. They could expand their production with even more cows on the same area. Small and medium-sized farms would then risk being competed out by increasingly large-scale dairy factories.
Madam Speaker! I do not think we will get much further here and now, but I would like to ask the government and the Minister for Rural Affairs not to move forward with proposals that deteriorate animal welfare before they have guaranteed that animal welfare is raised throughout the EU.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! I want to increase Swedish food production. I want to see more grazing animals in Sweden. The development we have seen for far too long due to an excessively heavy regulatory framework, poor profitability, poor competitiveness, and a view of farmers that has not given hope for the future of the industry has led to exactly the opposite. We are losing market shares, and the production of Swedish food is decreasing. Put clumsily, one could say that every other bite comes from somewhere else, and there, they have completely different animal welfare rules. To strengthen Swedish agriculture and Swedish food production is probably among the most important things one can do to protect animal welfare on a global scale, and it is something we are eager to do.
It sometimes sounds in the debate - which irritates me - as if farmers, who in many cases live off and for their operations, the land they cultivate and the animals they keep, would make it as terrible as possible for both land and animals just because not everything is in legal text or regulation. I am completely convinced that is not the case.
I want to conclude with something I also said in my introduction: The investigation's proposal will, at any time, be sent out for consultation. After that, it will continue to be prepared at the Government Offices. How the government in the preparation will proceed with specifically the proposal on abolished or reformed grazing requirements, I cannot go into today.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.