| 1. |
- Lundmark Hedman, Frida, et al.
(författare)
-
Thirty Years of Changes and the Current State of Swedish Animal Welfare Legislation
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Animals. - : MDPI AG. - 2076-2615. ; 11
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Simple Summary: Sweden is often cited as a leading country in animal welfare and related legislation, but some recent changes in the national legislation are seen as lowering the animal welfare requirements in order to improve the competitiveness of Swedish farmers. In this study, we analysed suggested changes to the Swedish welfare legislation between 1988 and 2019 relating to horses, cattle and pigs, including the written motivations, the written stakeholder responses and the actual changes to the final regulations. We used a sample of 77 legal requirements to assess in depth whether the animal welfare level was affected by these changes in the legislation. The results showed that the animal welfare requirements in Sweden for cattle, pigs and horses increased overall during the 30-year study period, but that a number of specific requirements had been relaxed to satisfy interests other than animal welfare. Thus, the new requirements should be evaluated more fully in order to determine whether they serve their purpose in practice.Sweden is often seen as a leading country in animal welfare and legislation, but some recent amendments to the legislation are perceived as relaxing animal welfare requirements in order to improve the competitiveness of the relevant industry and of farmers. In this study, we analysed the suggested and actual changes in the Swedish national animal welfare regulations relating to horses, cattle and pigs between 1988 and 2019 and the consequences for the intended animal welfare level. The regulations and amendments, including the proposals, the written motivations, the stakeholders' written responses to the proposed amendments and the final amendments, were scrutinised in detail. A sample of 77 requirements was then selected to assess whether and how the animal welfare level was affected by these legislative changes. The results indicated that the animal welfare protection level for cattle, pigs and horses increased overall during the 30-year period, but that a number of specific requirements had been relaxed to meet objectives other than animal welfare. It was more difficult to determine whether animal welfare improved in practice during the same period, due to the lack of systematic evaluations of the consequences of amending the regulations. Future evaluations are needed to evaluate the outcome of new legislative requirements and to monitor whether they serve their purpose in practice.
|
|
| 2. |
- Lundmark Hedman, Frida, et al.
(författare)
-
Managing Animal Welfare in Food Governance in Norway and Sweden: Challenges in Implementation and Coordination
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Animals. - : MDPI AG. - 2076-2615. ; 11
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Simple Summary Animal welfare is an important issue in society, and having a strong animal welfare legislation is per se important. However, in addition to a strong legislation, it is necessary to create a system that can enforce the legislation and to have a public administration in place in order to achieve a coordinated implementation. Both Norway and Sweden have received some criticism for their coordination of animal welfare control efforts. However, they have reacted to this criticism in different ways. Norway has centralised the coordination, making the Norwegian Food Safety Authority (NFSA) solely responsible for animal welfare control. Sweden, on the other hand, has instead focused on developing better guidelines to be used by the 21 regional County Administration Boards in order to improve uniformity. In this study, we have compared the Norwegian and Swedish ways of coordinating animal welfare control and identified challenges and relevant organisational preconditions for achieving uniform and consistent compliance. The results show that Sweden's organisation may need more coordination between multiple organisational units, while Norway has better preconditions for achieving uniformity in animal welfare administration. However, in Norway, the safeguards for the rule of law might be an issue, due to NFSA acting as de facto "inspector", "prosecutor" and "judge". A key issue in food governance and public administration is achieving coordinated implementation of policies. This study addressed this issue by systematically comparing the governance of animal welfare in Norway and Sweden, using published papers, reports, and legal and other public information, combined with survey and interview data generated in a larger research project (ANIWEL). Governing animal welfare includes a number of issues that are relevant across different sectors and policy areas, such as ethical aspects, choice of legal tools, compliance mechanisms and achieving uniform control. Based on the challenges identified in coordinating animal welfare in Norway and Sweden, relevant organisational preconditions for achieving uniform and consistent compliance were assessed. The results showed that Sweden's organisation may need more horizontal coordination, since its animal welfare management is divided between multiple organisational units (Swedish Board of Agriculture, National Food Agency and 21 regional County Administration Boards). Coordination in Norway is managed solely by the governmental agency Norwegian Food Safety Authority (NFSA), which has the full responsibility for inspection and control of food safety, animal health, plant health, as well as animal welfare. Thus, Norway has better preconditions than Sweden for achieving uniformity in animal welfare administration. However, in Norway, the safeguards for the rule of law might be an issue, due to NFSA acting as de facto "inspector", "prosecutor" and "judge".
|
|
| 3. |
- Lundmark Hedman, Frida
(författare)
-
Mind the gaps! : from intentions to practice in animal welfare legislation and private standards
- 2016
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- There is a movement away from government governance of farm animal welfare towards more private governance. As a result, many farmers need to comply with both legislation and private standards simultaneously. The overall aim with this project was to study the intentions of different animal welfare regulations, and how effective these systems can be in improving animal welfare. The first study examined the intentions and values of various animal welfare regulations. The second study analysed the content and structure of different sets of Swedish regulations, and the last study focused on controls at the farm level, to identify common remarks and risk factors of non-compliance at dairy farms in official (CAB) and private (Arla) control. We found that the aim of a regulation could be quite vague, and more ambitious than what is included in the detailed requirements. Policymakers had different views on what constitutes ‘necessary suffering’ and ‘natural behaviour’. These differences were seen both between countries, between regulations in a country, and between species in a regulation. The second study illustrated that private standards for dairy cows in Sweden partly covered the same requirements as the legislation, with the exception of the organic standard. However, due to vague wordings and different ways of measuring it was not always clear if the requirements were truly identical between the regulations. In the third study we identified that inspections focused on different areas; dirty dairy cattle being the most common non-compliance in official controls, and dirty cowsheds being most common during Arla audits. The highest risk for non-compliance was, however, similar for CAB and Arla; tie-stalls during winter. Organic farms had a lower risk for non-compliance compared to conventional farms. This project identified the need to clearly define concepts and desired animal welfare outcomes in order to reduce the gaps between intentions, requirements and assessments within a regulation. Also gaps between different animal welfare regulations need to be illuminated with the purpose of either clarifying the differences or reducing the gaps provided that the aims are similar. The presence of both similarities and differences between different regulations and control systems puts extra high demands on transparency, predictability and clarity during inspections.
|
|
| 4. |
- Lundmark Hedman, Frida, et al.
(författare)
-
Whose interest matters when regulating animal welfare? A Swedish case study
- 2021
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Sweden is often mentioned as a leading country when it comes to animal welfare (AW). However, substantial changes have been made in the national AW legislation lately, resulting in criticism. This study analysed how the Swedish Central Competent Authority (CCA) has handled AW research findings, and changes in governmental and stakeholder interests when revising the national legislation between 1988 and 2019. AW legislation amendments for cattle, pigs and horses were scrutinized as well as other governmental documents. The AW regulations have been modified several times since 1988. The main motive presented by the CCA’s for an alteration of the legislation was to improve AW. However, the CCA’s use of scientific results were surprisingly scarce and inconsistent. The second most common motive was that changes were made in the interest of the owners/industry. The stakeholders’ major opportunity to influence new AW regulations turned out to be through an early CCA consultation. After referral management, the CCA did generally not make substantial changes in relation to the original proposal, even if a majority of referral bodies were critical. The industry had the biggest impact, while the opinions from AW, animal rights, and consumer NGOs never per se induced changes. The Government and the Ministry are involved not only in the AW Act and Ordinance but indirectly also at the CCA level. The CCA regulations did mirror the Government’s views and wordings, focusing on improving the AW level and making detailed regulations before 2007, and after 2007 recommending that the CCA regulations’ AW level shall be maintained but less detailed, more flexible and goal oriented. The governmental directions to the CCA are, and have been, anything but unambiguous. The regulations can hence be perceived as inconsistent. We hence, argue that the politicians need to provide clearer directions and instructions to the CCA.
|
|
