Sweden

B
Sweden
Recognising animal protection

Recognising animal protection

This theme examines recognition of animal sentience and the importance of animal protection as a societal value within the country, including government support for the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare, prohibition of cruelty and protection for different categories of animals.

C

Formal recognition of animal sentience

There is legislation with partial application

There is no domestic legislation formally recognising animal sentience. However the Penal Code (section 13 of chapter 16) refers to animal suffering, and the Animal Welfare Act 1988 (section 2) with its supplementary Animal Welfare Ordinance 1988 (and subsidiary regulations) refers to both physical and mental suffering, thus recognising important elements of animal sentience.

At European Union level, Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union recognises animal sentience and requires that Member States pay regard to animals’ welfare requirements in formulating and implementing European Union policies.

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

The existing legislation recognises important aspects of animal sentience, for example, with respect to the requirement that animals must be given the opportunity to behave naturally, and makes detailed provision for the welfare of particular categories of animals. Welfare could be improved for animals in Sweden if the Act were to include all categories of animals in a full recognition of sentience. The government is encouraged to extend the existing protection to a formal recognition of animal sentience, including positive aspects as well as negative, and to apply this to all animals, including wild animals not in captivity.

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

The scope of the existing legislation and recognition that animals can suffer, both physically and mentally, is positive and suggests relatively low barriers to improvement in this area.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

There are enforcement mechanisms for breach of the relevant provisions in legislation that arise out of the recognition of sentience.

A

Support for the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare

There is full government support

The government pledged in principle support for the UDAW in 2008.

Note: The Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare is a proposed formal international acknowledgment of a set of principles giving animal welfare due recognition among governments and the international community. An expression of support for the UDAW demonstrates a government’s commitment to working with the international community to improve animal welfare.

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

The Swedish government has supported the adoption of an animal protection declaration at the United Nations for several years[1]. The government also organises events to promote the UDAW, such as hosting a meeting in 2009.

 

[1] http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument-Lagar/Utskottens-dokument/Betankanden/Djurskydd-mm_H001MJU19/

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

The government has been involved in promotional activities with regard to the UDAW and the UDAW has been debated in Parliament. This suggests that there are few barriers to improving animal welfare. 

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

Support for the UDAW has undertaken all necessary formalities within government.

A

Laws against causing animal suffering

There is legislation

Section 13 of chapter 16 of the Penal Code provides that it is an offence of cruelty to animals intentionally or through gross carelessness to unjustifiably expose an animal to suffering by maltreating, overworking, neglecting it, or in some other way. There is no further detail on specific prohibited conducts. The inclusion of reference to neglecting animals encompasses suffering caused by failure to act. “Animal” is not defined by the Penal Code so should be interpreted as animals which it can be shown are capable of suffering.

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

The protection under section 13 of chapter 16 of the Penal Code extends to all animals which are capable of suffering, and includes negligent behaviour as well as deliberate acts of cruelty. The inclusion of this provision in the Penal Code since 1972 demonstrates that this is taken seriously.

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

There are no significant resource or other barriers to improvement in this area.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

Breach of the anti-cruelty provisions in section 13 of chapter 16 of the Penal Code is punishable with a fine or imprisonment for up to two years.

A

Protecting animals used in farming

There is legislation

The general anti-cruelty provision in section 13 of chapter 16 of the Penal Code applies to this category of animals.

Section 2(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 1988 provides that animals shall be treated well and protected from unnecessary suffering and disease. There are further specific requirements that encompass issues such as giving sufficient food and water and adequate care (section 3(1)) and sufficient space (section 3(2)); accommodating animals in an environment that promotes their health and permits natural behaviour (section 4(1)); using means of transport that are suitable and provide shelter from heat and cold and protection from shocks and abrasions (section 8(1)); providing veterinary treatment and euthanasia when necessary (section 9); and not subjecting animals to surgical procedures or giving injections except where necessary for veterinary medical reasons (section 10(1)). Requirements on slaughter include that animals are spared unnecessary discomfort and suffering when taken to slaughter and when slaughtered, and that domestic animals (which appears to refer to livestock) are stunned before being bled prior to slaughter. This provides greater protection than European Union requirements (European Union Regulation 1099/2009, which has direct effect in the country), which allow for member states to give exemptions to the stunning requirement for religious slaughter. Therefore no kosher slaughter can take place in Sweden, although halal slaughter can take place provided there is pre-stunning[1]. Section 14(3) allows the government to make regulations excluding poultry and rabbits from the requirement to stun before slaughter; it is not clear whether this has been done. Regulations SJVFS 2012:27 provide further detail on slaughter procedures.

The Animal Welfare Ordinance 1988 contains further detailed provisions that relate specifically to livestock. This includes detail on space provision and on climate and air quality in buildings, and section 5(1) of the Ordinance requires that livestock buildings and other holding spaces and enclosures cannot be erected, extended or altered unless they have first been approved from an animal welfare and animal health perspective, with a five year limitation period on administrative enforcement action for unauthorised work. There are provisions relating to specific species of animals such as dairy and beef cattle, laying hens and pigs, and powers for the Board of Agriculture to make further regulations on specific species.

Although “animal” does not appear to be defined by the Animal Welfare Act 1988, it appears that all vertebrates are included in the scope of protection as sections 40(1) and 41(1) of the Ordinance make reference to permits being required for experiments involving “the following animal classes: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and cyclostomes”.

Regulations made under the powers given by the Ordinance include Regulation DFS 2004:17, which contains more detailed rules and general advice on animal husbandry, DFS 2006:8 on fish farming, and SJVFS 2010:2 which contains rules on transport. European Union Regulations also have direct effect in the country, including Regulation 1/2005 relating to welfare during transport.

 

[1]http://www.jordbruksverket.se/amnesomraden/djur/djurskydd/slaktochannanavlivning/religiosslakt.4.37cbf7b711fa9dda7a18000220.html

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

The Animal Welfare Act 1988 together with the Animal Welfare Ordinance 1988 give responsibility to the Board of Agriculture for implementation and enforcement of the animal welfare legislation.[1] The Board carries out a range of activities in exercise of its duties. Within the Board of Agriculture there is a specific council for animal welfare, the Animal Welfare Council.

The legislation generally provides a good level of animal welfare protection for farm animals, in many cases (for example, in relation to slaughter and maximum stocking density) beyond that which is required by European Union requirements.

 

[1] http://www.government.se/sb/d/2160/a/66243

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

The government has incorporated European Union legislative requirements on farm animal welfare and in some cases has increased the level of protection beyond that baseline. There is a dedicated council for animal welfare within the Board of Agriculture.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

Breach of the anti-cruelty provision in section 13 of chapter 16 of the Penal Code is punishable with a fine or imprisonment for up to two years.

Section 36 of the Animal Welfare Act 1988 outlines penalties for offences committed deliberately, or through negligence: a fine or imprisonment of up to two years. No penalties shall be given for “minor offences” (section 36(3)). What constitutes a minor offence is not defined in the Act.

There is no direct enforcement mechanism for breach of the general provision under section 2 and the requirement to accommodate animals in an environment that promotes their health and permits natural behaviour under section 4(1) of the Act; enforcement of these requirements takes place via detailed species-specific provisions in secondary regulations, which are enforceable under section 36(1)(2) of the Act. Section 36(1) applies to other relevant provisions in the Act, such as the requirement to give sufficient food and water and adequate care (section 3(1)) and sufficient space (section 3(2)); and the requirement to provide veterinary treatment and euthanasia when necessary (section 9).

Under section 29 of the Animal Welfare Act 1988 the county administrative board is required to prohibit persons to have animals, or a particular species of animal, in their care if they seriously neglect the care of an animal or maltreat it, unless the offence will manifestly not be repeated.  The county administrative board also has powers of confiscation under section 31.

Under section 5 of the Animal Welfare Ordinance 1988, fines may be issued if prior approval of livestock buildings or other holding spaces or enclosures for animals is not obtained, with a limitation period of five years for action to be taken on this.

B

Protecting animals in captivity

There is legislation

The general anti-cruelty provision in section 13 of chapter 16 of the Penal Code applies to this category of animals.

The protection of the Animal Welfare Act 1988 and Animal Welfare Ordinance 1988 includes captive wild animals. Although “animal” does not appear to be defined by the Act, it appears that all vertebrates are included in the scope of protection as sections 40(1) and 41(1) of the associated Animal Welfare Ordinance 1988 make reference to permits being required for experiments involving “the following animal classes: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and cyclostomes”.

Section 2(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 1988 provides that animals shall be treated well and protected from unnecessary suffering and disease. There are further specific requirements that encompass issues such as giving sufficient food and water and adequate care (section 3(1)) and sufficient space (section 3(2)); accommodating animals in an environment that promotes their health and permits natural behaviour (section 4(1)); and providing veterinary treatment and euthanasia when necessary (section 9).

The Animal Welfare Ordinance 1988 contains further detailed provisions. Section 35 prohibits travelling menageries, and section 36 prohibits any kind of travelling exhibitions as well as public performances using monkeys, predators other than domesticated dogs and cats, pinnipeds other than sea-lions, rhinoceroses, hippopotamuses, deer other than reindeer, giraffes, kangaroos, birds of prey, ratite birds and crocodilians. Other species of animal may only be exhibited in circuses or similar entertainments (and, if they or their parents have been used for performance, also in stalls or other animal housing facilities). The same applies to individual animals that accompany a circus in order to be trained for exhibition (section 36).

Section 37 of the Ordinance provides that zoos must obtain approval from the county administrative board. Animals in zoos are further protected by the Board of Agriculture’s regulations on animal husbandry in zoos, regulations SJVFS 2009:92,[1] which contain detailed stipulations for different species. 

Regulations DFS 2004:11, subsidiary to the Ordinance, provide welfare-related rules for the keeping (and farming) of ratites.

Section 16 of the Animal Welfare Act 1988 provides that an operating permit is required by any person who, on a professional basis or substantial scale, breeds fur animals. However, whilst the government introduced legislation some years ago that effectively brought an end to the farming of foxes for their fur,[2] the government continues to permit the rearing of animals such as mink for fur, which causes serious animal welfare concerns nationally and internationally.[3] Some attempt has been made to address welfare issues in regulations SJVFS 2012:14, including requirements for environmental enrichment.

 

[1] http://www.jordbruksverket.se/download/18.72e5f95412548d58c2c80005752/1261489702635/2009-092.pdf

[2] http://www.djurensratt.se/sites/default/files/best-animal-welfare-in-the...

[3] http://www.adn.com/article/20130731/mink-farming-growing-industry-sweden

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

The Board of Agriculture has power under the Animal Welfare Ordinance 1988 to issue further regulations on the keeping of animals in captivity. There are detailed species-specific requirements for keeping animals in zoos.

The existing legal provisions allow certain animals to be used in circuses. Animal welfare concerns have led to a number of countries acting to prohibit the use of wild animals in circuses. Sweden also has a dolphinarium; the keeping of marine mammals in captivity arouses significant animal welfare concern and has been prohibited in many countries.[1]

 

[1] http://uk.whales.org/node/8203

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

The current legislation permits the use of some wild animals in circuses and also the keeping of marine mammals in captivity. There are also barriers to improvement with respect to the welfare of mink farmed for fur in the country.

These practices are at odds with the country’s reputation as a world leader in animal welfare.[1]

 

[1] http://www.djurensratt.se/sites/default/files/best-animal-welfare-in-the...

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

Breach of the anti-cruelty provision in section 13 of chapter 16 of the Penal Code is punishable with a fine or imprisonment for up to two years.

Section 36 of the Animal Welfare Act 1988 outlines penalties for offences committed deliberately, or through negligence: a fine or imprisonment of up to two years. However, this penalty does not apply to all sections of the Act and no penalties shall be given for “minor offences” (section 36(3)). What constitutes a minor offence is not defined in the Act.

There is no direct enforcement mechanism for breach of the general provision under section 2 and the requirement to accommodate animals in an environment that promotes their health and permits natural behaviour under section 4(1) of the Act; enforcement of these requirements takes place via detailed species-specific provisions in secondary regulations, which are enforceable under section 36(1)(2) of the Act. Section 36(1) applies to other relevant provisions in the Act, such as the requirement to give sufficient food and water and adequate care (section 3(1)) and sufficient space (section 3(2)); and the requirement to provide veterinary treatment and euthanasia when necessary (section 9).

Under section 29 of the Animal Welfare Act 1988 the country administrative board is required to prohibit persons to have animals, or a particular species of animal, in their care if they seriously neglect the care of an animal or maltreat it, unless the offence will manifestly not be repeated.  The county administrative board also has powers of confiscation under section 31.

A

Protecting companion animals

There is legislation

The general anti-cruelty provision in section 13 of chapter 16 of the Penal Code applies to this category of animals.

The protection of the Animal Welfare Act 1988 and Animal Welfare Ordinance 1988 includes companion animals. Although “animal” does not appear to be defined by the Act, it appears that all vertebrates are included in the scope of protection as sections 40(1) and 41(1) of the associated Animal Welfare Ordinance 1988 make reference to permits being required for experiments involving “the following animal classes: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and cyclostomes”.

Section 2(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 1988 provides that animals shall be treated well and protected from unnecessary suffering and disease. There are further specific requirements that encompass issues such as giving sufficient food and water and adequate care (section 3(1)) and sufficient space (section 3(2)); accommodating animals in an environment that promotes their health and permits natural behaviour (section 4(1)); providing veterinary treatment and euthanasia when necessary (section 9); and not subjecting animals to surgical procedures except where necessary for veterinary medical reasons (section 10(1)), other than gelding domestic animals (section 25(1) of the Animal Welfare Ordinance 1988).

The Animal Welfare Act 1988 requires that an operating permit is held by anyone who, on a professional basis or substantial scale, keeps, breeds, supplies or sells pet animals, or receives them for boarding or feeding (section 16). Those who trade in pet animals commercially or on a large scale are also required to have such training as the Board of Agriculture may prescribe. Breeding in such a way that it may entail suffering for the animals is prohibited by section 29(2) of the Animal Welfare Ordinance 1988, and section 19 of the Animal Welfare Act 1988 prohibits owning or breeding dangerously aggressive dogs.

There are also more detailed regulations on the control of dogs and cats (SFS 2007:1150 and SFS 2007:1240), as well as general guidelines relating to the keeping of dogs and cats (SJVFS 2008:5). Regulations SJVFS 2014:17 set requirements relating to keeping different species of companion animals, and require that animals not covered by those regulations should be kept in accordance with the regulations relating to zoos. Regulations DFS 2006:6 regulate the keeping of animals for educational (non-experimental) purposes. Licences are required to breed or sell animals on a commercial basis (defined by reference to numbers of animals), under regulations DFS 2004:5.

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

There is reasonably extensive protection for this category of animals, including guidance on keeping dogs and cats. The legislation is effective to make the welfare of companion animals a mainstream concern of society. However, it is reported that there is a considerable population of feral cats in Sweden.[1] Animal protection organisations call for more action by the government and local authorities with respect to caring for these animals, including introduction of humane population management such as Trap-Neuter-Release.[2]

 

[1] http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/world/swedish-police-stuck-chasing-cats-...

[2] http://www.djurensratt.se/sites/default/files/best-animal-welfare-in-the...

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

There do not appear to be significant resource, cultural or other barriers to improvement in this area.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

Breach of the anti-cruelty provision in section 13 of chapter 16 of the Penal Code is punishable with a fine or imprisonment for up to two years.

Section 36 of the Animal Welfare Act 1988 outlines penalties for offences committed deliberately, or through negligence: a fine or imprisonment of up to two years. However, this penalty does not apply to all sections of the Act and no penalties shall be given for “minor offences” (section 36(3)). What constitutes a minor offence is not defined in the Act.

There is no direct enforcement mechanism for breach of the general provision under section 2 and the requirement to accommodate animals in an environment that promotes their health and permits natural behaviour under section 4(1) of the Act; enforcement of these requirements takes place via detailed species-specific provisions in secondary regulations, which are enforceable under section 36(1)(2) of the Act. Section 36(1) applies to other relevant provisions in the Act, such as the requirement to give sufficient food and water and adequate care (section 3(1)) and sufficient space (section 3(2)); and the requirement to provide veterinary treatment and euthanasia when necessary (section 9).

Under section 29 of the Animal Welfare Act 1988 the country administrative board is required to prohibit persons to have animals, or a particular species of animal, in their care if they seriously neglect the care of an animal or maltreat it, unless the offence will manifestly not be repeated.  The county administrative board also has powers of confiscation under section 31.

B

Protecting animals used for draught and recreation

There is legislation

The general anti-cruelty provision in section 13 of chapter 16 of the Penal Code applies to this category of animals.

The protection of the Animal Welfare Act 1988 and Animal Welfare Ordinance 1988 includes animals used for draught or recreational purposes.

Section 2(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 1988 provides that animals shall be treated well and protected from unnecessary suffering and disease. There are further specific requirements that encompass issues such as giving sufficient food and water and adequate care (section 3(1)); accommodating animals in an environment that promotes their health and permits natural behaviour (section 4(1)); not overworking animals or beating or driving them with implements which may hurt or injure them (section 5); not tethering animals in a way that causes pain or does not allow freedom of movement or rest or shelter from the elements (section 6); and providing veterinary treatment and euthanasia when necessary (section 9). Under section 25 of the Animal Welfare Ordinance 1988, the gelding of domestic animals is permitted even if not necessary for medical reasons.

The Animal Welfare Act 1988 requires that an operating permit is held by anyone who, on a professional basis or substantial scale, keeps, breeds, supplies or sells horses, or receives them for boarding or feeding, or uses horses in a riding school business (section 16). General guidance on horse management (DFS 2007:6) contains recommendations on weaning, tethering, feeding, housing and grazing horses.

Section 17 of the Animal Welfare Act 1988 specifically applies to animals used in sporting events and exhibitions, and provides that they must not be trained for or used in sporting events, film, video or television productions and shows or other types of exhibition arranged for the public, in such a way as to subject them to suffering. Animals used in sport must also not be doped (section 18).

Section 33 of the Animal Welfare Ordinance 1988 provides that a vet must be present at sporting events with animals and inspect the animals and venue before the event.

Section 35 of the Animal Welfare Ordinance prohibits travelling menageries, and section 36 prohibits any kind of travelling exhibitions as well as public performances using monkeys, predators other than domesticated dogs and cats, pinnipeds other than sea-lions, rhinoceroses, hippopotamuses, deer other than reindeer, giraffes, kangaroos, birds of prey, ratite birds and crocodilians. Other species of animal may only be exhibited in circuses or similar entertainments (and, if they or their parents have been used for performance, also in stalls or other animal housing facilities). The same applies to individual animals that accompany a circus in order to be trained for exhibition (section 36).

Relevant subsidiary regulations made under the Ordinance include SJVFS 2010:45 which regulates training and competing with animals, particularly horse racing, DFS 2007:3 on the regulation of circus animals, and DFS 2004:21 on the use of animals in film and performance (other than zoo or circus).

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

There are detailed legal provisions on many aspects of the welfare of animals used for draught and recreational purposes. However the existing law allows certain animals to be used in circuses, which presents welfare problems for this category of animals. The country also permits the keeping of dolphins in captivity, which presents animal welfare concerns.

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

The current legislation permits the use of some wild animals in circuses, as well as the keeping of dolphins. It appears that there may be barriers with respect to taking measures to protect animals used for recreational purposes.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

Breach of the anti-cruelty provision in section 13 of chapter 16 of the Penal Code is punishable with a fine or imprisonment for up to two years.

Section 36 of the Animal Welfare Act 1988 outlines penalties for offences committed deliberately, or through negligence: a fine or imprisonment of up to two years. However, this penalty does not apply to all sections of the Act and no penalties shall be given for “minor offences” (section 36(3)). What constitutes a minor offence is not defined in the Act.

There is no direct enforcement mechanism for breach of the general provision under section 2 and the requirement to accommodate animals in an environment that promotes their health and permits natural behaviour under section 4(1) of the Act; enforcement of these requirements takes place via detailed species-specific provisions in secondary regulations, which are enforceable under section 36(1)(2) of the Act. Section 36(1) applies to other relevant provisions in the Act, such as the requirement to give sufficient food and water and adequate care (section 3(1)) and the requirement to provide veterinary treatment and euthanasia when necessary (section 9).

Under section 29 of the Animal Welfare Act 1988 the country administrative board is required to prohibit persons to have animals, or a particular species of animal, in their care if they seriously neglect the care of an animal or maltreat it, unless the offence will manifestly not be repeated.  The county administrative board also has powers of confiscation under section 31.

A

Protecting animals used in scientific research

There is legislation

The Animal Welfare Act 1988 defines laboratory animals as animals that are used in animal experiments or are bred, kept or supplied for animal experiments, and the term animal experiments covers the use of animals for scientific research; diagnosis of disease; development and manufacture of pharmaceutical or chemical products; teaching purposes where the animal is killed, subjected to a surgical operation, injection or blood-letting or if the animal is caused or risks being caused suffering; and other similar purposes. This also includes production of genetically modified animals.

It is positive that animals used in experiments are not exempt from the general provision in section 2(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 1988 that they shall be treated well and protected from unnecessary suffering and disease. Section 2(2) provides that they shall not be deemed to have been subjected to unnecessary suffering or disease where such use has been approved by an ethical committee on animal experiments. It is also positive that they are not exempt from the anti-cruelty provisions of the Penal Code, but conduct carried out in accordance with an approved experiment would presumably fall within the term “justifiably” for the purposes of that law.

The prohibition on unnecessary surgical procedures and injections in section 10(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 1988 does not apply to those administered in connection with activities that have been approved by an ethical committee on animal experiments (section 10(2)).

Section 19 of the Animal Welfare Act 1988 specifically deals with animals used in experiments. These provisions are based on the Three Rs, requiring that experiments may only take place provided that: the purpose of the activity cannot be achieved by another satisfactory method that does not use animals; as few animals as possible are used; the activity is organised in such a way as not to subject the animals to greater suffering than is absolutely necessary; and only animals that have been bred for the purpose are used. Section 19a provides that permission must be obtained from the government or designated authority before laboratory animals can be used, bred, kept or supplied, and that such permission may be subsequently withdrawn. Applications for permission will be considered with attention paid to whether the premises are suitable with regard to animal welfare (section 19(2)). The use of animals must be approved by an animal ethics committee on animal experiments before the activity commences, and the committee will weigh the importance of the experiment against the suffering of the animal (section 21). Sections 40(1) and 41(1) of the Animal Welfare Ordinance 1988 clarify that permits and ethics committee approval are required for experiments involving mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and cyclostomes.

Members of the ethics committees are appointed by the Board of Agriculture (section 44 of the Ordinance).

Section 53 of the Ordinance provides that mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and cyclostomes must be stunned before being used in experiments, if the use may involve physical or mental suffering, unless where necessary for the purpose of the experiment or where the anaesthetic would cause more suffering than the use in itself. When it is possible to do so, an analgesic or tranquiliser shall be used to ensure that the animal is not subjected to severe pain, severe anxiety or any other severe suffering.

Regulations and general advice on laboratory animals, SJVFS 2012:26, and regulations DFS 2004:15, give detailed provisions on the use of animals in experiments, many of which are focused on animal welfare and avoiding suffering.

European Union Regulation 1223/2009 specifically prohibits testing cosmetic products on animals and has direct effect in the country.

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

The Animal Welfare Ordinance 1988 details the composition of ethics committees, which include laypersons, research workers and representatives of personnel who handle laboratory animals, as well as members representing animal welfare organisations. This representation of relevant stakeholders is a positive sign that the legislation is working to make the welfare of this category of animals a mainstream concern of society. The detailed welfare considerations in Regulations SJVFS 2012:26 and inclusion of the principles of the Three Rs are also positive.

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

The existing legislation is in line with current good international practice and in many areas gives protection beyond that which is required by European Union requirements. There appear to be no significant barriers to improvement in this area.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

Breach of the anti-cruelty provision in section 13 of chapter 16 of the Penal Code, where the conduct goes beyond that permitted by the approval for the experiment, is punishable with a fine or imprisonment for up to two years.

Section 36 of the Animal Welfare Act 1988 provides that breach of the requirements of sections 19, 19a and 21 of the Act, whether deliberately or through negligence, is punishable with a fine or imprisonment of up to two years. No penalties shall be given for “minor offences” (section 36(3)).

Regulations made under the Animal Welfare Ordinance 1988 are enforceable under section 36(1) of the Act, with fines or imprisonment of up to two years.

B

Protecting the welfare of wild animals

There is legislation

The detailed protection under the Animal Welfare Act 1988 and the Animal Welfare Ordinance 1988 does not apply to wild animals unless they are in captivity.

Wild animals are not excluded from the anti-cruelty provision in section 13 of chapter 16 of the Penal Code; this is confirmed by section 45 of the Hunting Act 1987 which makes reference to an enforcement mechanism that will operate “unless the act is punishable under the Penal Code”.

Hunting is regulated in the Hunting Act 1987 and the Hunting Ordinance 1987, and the Environmental Protection Agency has produced secondary regulations, including NFS 2002:18 which regulates hunting methods.

This legislation relates to wild mammals and birds. The legislation is primarily concerned with conservation and there are limits on numbers of animals in some cases such as moose and elk, and the welfare of individual animals is not the focus. However, section 27 of the Hunting Act 1987 does provide that animals hunted should not be exposed to unnecessary suffering. The Hunting Regulations 1987 determine which animals can be hunted and when this can be done. All wild game, around twenty species of mammals and forty species of birds can be hunted.[1] An unlimited number of individual animals can be taken during the general hunting season, but at times, as is the case with moose, the county administrative board determines how many animals may be taken. If a game species causes damage, the county administrative board or the Environmental Protection Agency can also authorise hunting at other times to prevent or limit damage by game animals to farmers and others.[2]

 

[1] http://www.notisum.se/Pub/Doc.aspx?url=/rnp/sls/lag/19870905.htm

[2] http://www.government.se/sb/d/2160/a/66254

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

The Ministry for Rural Affairs is responsible for hunting legislation and the Environmental Protection Agency is the central government agency for hunting and game management issues, while county administrative boards are responsible for these issues at regional level. The two hunting organisations, the Swedish Association for Hunting and Wildlife Management and Jägarnas Riksförbund (a national hunting association), disseminate news and information on hunting and game management issues.[1]

The legislation protects the welfare of some hunted animals because bow hunting and hunting with dogs is not permitted.[2] Trapping of animals is permitted and animal welfare is protected to some extent by requirements that including monitoring and emptying of traps.[3] 

There are several restrictions on when certain species can be hunted and quotas that exist for the number of animals that can be taken in some cases.

 

[1] http://www.government.se/sb/d/2160/a/66254

[2] http://www.face.eu/sites/default/files/sweden_en.pdf

[3] http://www.face.eu/sites/default/files/sweden_en.pdf

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

The references in the existing legislation to avoiding unnecessary suffering and pain are positive signs that some improvements for the welfare of hunted wild animals should be possible, although cultural acceptance of hunting is widespread and may present a significant barrier. Trapping for example has a long tradition in the country.[1]

 

[1] http://www.face.eu/sites/default/files/sweden_en.pdf

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

Breach of the anti-cruelty provision in section 13 of chapter 16 of the Penal Code is punishable with a fine or imprisonment for up to two years.

A hunter who intentionally or with gross negligence exposes hunted animals to unnecessary suffering is punishable with a fine, unless the act is punishable under the Penal Code (section 45 Hunting Act 1987).

Under sections 44 and 46 of the Hunting Act 1987, if hunting is carried out illegally in specified circumstances this amounts to a gross offence punishable with imprisonment of six months to four years, and this includes hunting with particularly painful methods.

Governance structures and systems

Governance structures and systems

This theme examines government commitment to improving animal protection. This includes whether there is allocation of responsibility, accountability and resources within government.

B

Government accountability for animal welfare

There is legislation

Sweden has a multi-level government system.[1] The Ministry for Rural Affairs is responsible for animal welfare, and agencies that are responsible for particular animal issues include the Board of Agriculture, the county administrative boards, the National Veterinary Institute and the National Food Administration. Regulations are also produced by the central agencies responsible for animal welfare issues, primarily the Board of Agriculture. Within the Board there is an Animal Welfare Council, composed of relevant stakeholders including from NGOs, which meets four times a year.

The Board of Agriculture is governed by Regulation 2009:1464, section 3 of which provides that the Board shall ensure good animal health and ensure good animal welfare. Each financial year the government makes a decision on budget and activities for the Board. In the most recent, from May 2014[2], the Board is required to assist the counties in developing key performance indicators for animal welfare activities, and to report to the government with statistics on this in September 2014.

 

[1] http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/38287547.pdf

[2] http://www.esv.se/Verktyg--stod/Statsliggaren/Regleringsbrev/?RBID=15947

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

Animal welfare is an independent issue, recognised by legislation as such for government management and regulation. This recognition allows animal welfare issues to be discussed at ministerial level.  The assignment of responsibility at ministerial level to produce measures to promote animal welfare shows a clear intention to introduce animal welfare into main policy discussions. Responsibility for animal welfare is also devolved to regional authorities with oversight by the Board of Agriculture.

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

The annual instruction from government to the Board of Agriculture includes budgetary allowance for activities. There do not appear to be any barriers to improvement here.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

The duties of relevant government bodies are clearly set out in legislation and more detailed instruction is issued to the Board of Agriculture on an annual basis.

Animal welfare standards

Animal welfare standards

This theme examines whether the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)’s animal welfare standards have been incorporated into law or policy, the extent of engagement with the OIE on animal welfare issues, and whether the government publishes reports on progress in improving animal welfare.

C

Engagement with the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)

There is policy

The government actively engages with the OIE in a number of areas. The Board of Agriculture notifies the OIE of any simulation exercises which are taking place on animal diseases[1], the country also reports to the OIE on foot and mouth disease outbreaks[2]and other diseases. The government also organises conferences with OIE representation with the aim of improving animal welfare. In 2009 the Swedish Presidency of the European Union organised an animal welfare conference on "Delivering Animal Welfare and Quality: Transparency in the Food Production Chain". In its 2012/13 report, the Environment and Agriculture Committee states that Sweden participates actively in the work of coordinating the European Union's position in the context of the work of the OIE recommendations on animal welfare.[3]

 

[1] http://www.oie.int/en/animal-health-in-the-world/the-world-animal-health-information-system/simulation-exercises/detail/article/simulation-exercise-foot-and-mouth-disease-in-sweden/

[2] http://www.oie.int/en/animal-health-in-the-world/web-portal-on-avian-influenza/about-ai/h5n1-notified-2003-2009/

[3] http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument-Lagar/Utskottens-dokument/Betankanden/Djurskydd-mm_H001MJU19/

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

The government is actively engaged with the OIE and has incorporated many of the OIE’s standards into legislation and policy. Sweden is part of the working group to develop an ISO standard based on the recommendations of the OIE on animal welfare.

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

The existing level of interaction between the Swedish government and the OIE is positive for improving animal welfare. It is not considered that there any barriers to the government developing new legislation that incorporates all of the OIE’s standards.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

There are no enforcement mechanisms relevant to this indicator.

A

OIE animal welfare standards

There is legislation

The legislation in Sweden contains the basic mandates of the OIE’s standards, including legislation and policy on farmed animals, transport and slaughter, the use of animals in scientific research, fish farming and stray population control.

The OIE’s guiding principles for animal welfare have been incorporated into legislation and are promoted by the government.[1]

 

[1] http://www.government.se/sb/d/2160/a/66243

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

The majority of the OIE’s standards have been incorporated into primary and secondary legislation, with regulations made by the Board of Agriculture under the Animal Welfare Act 1988 and Animal Welfare Ordinance 1988 and animal cruelty offences included in the Penal Code.

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

There has clearly been effort made to transpose the OIE’s standards and principles into legislation. There do not appear to be significant barriers to improvement.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

There are enforcement mechanisms, including fines and potential imprisonment, for breach of legal provisions that cover the areas of the OIE’s standards.

D

Reporting on progress

There is policy

The government publishes annual statistics on animal welfare controls on the website of the Board of Agriculture[1]. The Board of Agriculture is also required to make annual reports to the European Union on welfare controls.

Each financial year the government makes a decision on budget and activities for the Board. In the most recent, from May 2014[2], the Board is required to assist the counties in developing key performance indicators for animal welfare activities, and to report to the government with statistics on this in September 2014.

The government also reports to the OIE on animal health issues in Sweden such as infectious disease outbreaks and spread and simulation exercises.

 

[1]http://www.jordbruksverket.se/amnesomraden/djur/djurskydd/rapporterochstatistik/statistikoverdjurskyddskontroller.4.2e937121386c0f243f8000127.html

[2] http://www.esv.se/Verktyg--stod/Statsliggaren/Regleringsbrev/?RBID=15947

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

Although there are no reporting requirements explicitly set out in legislation, policy has been implemented on this and reports are publicly available. There is an existing structure for reporting which could be used for monitoring progress towards specific set goals.  

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

Clearly the government has a commitment to improving standards of animal welfare, demonstrated by its efforts to identify problem areas in the legislation in a 2009-2011 inquiry. However, there are still several areas of legislation where improvements could be made[1] and a lack of co-ordinated reporting on all aspects of animal welfare in the country makes it difficult to ascertain whether the government is acting on the findings of its inquiry. The existing structure suggests that improvement should be possible.

 

[1] http://www.djurensratt.se/sites/default/files/best-animal-welfare-in-the-world.pdf

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

There are no enforcement mechanisms relevant to this indicator.

Providing humane education

Providing humane education

This theme examines whether issues of animal care and protection are included in the national education system at primary and secondary level, and comments on whether animal welfare issues such as humane handling form part of veterinary medicine education.

D

Education on animal care and protection

Policy is being discussed or developed

There is no legislation making humane education a mandatory part of the curriculum in Sweden. Some courses at high school level incorporate an element of animal care or welfare, in the context of a specific career path such as agriculture, animal keepers and horticulture, as well as a course on caring for pets.[1]

The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences has since 2005 run an Ethology and Animal Welfare Bachelor programme designed for people who want to work with increasing the understanding of animal behaviour and animal needs.[2] The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences has a Swedish Centre for Animal Welfare, which supports continuing and further education in the area, and provides modules as part of the veterinarian[3], agronomist[4] and the Ethology and Animal Welfare[5] degrees.

 

[1] http://www.skolverket.se/2.5248/laroplaner?q=djurv%C3%A5rdare

[2] http://www.slu.se/en/faculties/vh/departments/department-of-animal-environment-and-health/education/the-ethology-and-animal-welfare-programme/

[3] http://www.slu.se/sv/utbildning/grundniva/veterinar/

[4] http://www.slu.se/sv/utbildning/grundniva/agronom-husdjur/

[5] http://www.slu.se/sv/utbildning/grundniva/etologi-djurskydd/

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

Although there is no legislation to require animal welfare education in Sweden, there are signs that some schools incorporate elements of animal care into their programmes. The government supports the Swedish Centre for Animal Welfare at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, with the aim of helping it to become a European centre for animal welfare.[1] The Centre has also received European Union funding for this project.[2]

 

[1] http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/swedish-centre-f...

[2] http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/swedish-centre-f...

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

It could help to improve animal welfare if humane education were mandatory and integrated into the national school curriculum, and if there were more animal welfare modules incorporated into veterinary science programmes at degree level. The existing initiatives in this area, together with the relatively high level of protection for most categories of animals, suggest that improvement is possible.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

There are no enforcement mechanisms related to this indicator.

Promoting communication and awareness

Promoting communication and awareness

This theme examines whether there is government consultation and engagement with relevant stakeholders on animal protection issues, such as the development of new legislation and policy and the licensing of scientific research using animals.

C

Consultation with stakeholders

There is legislation with partial application

Under sections 40(1) and 41(1) of the Animal Welfare Ordinance 1988, ethics committee approval is required for experiments involving mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and cyclostomes. Members of the ethics committees are appointed by the Board of Agriculture (section 44 of the Ordinance); half of the members of the committee shall be lay members and less than half of the lay members should be from animal welfare organisations. In 2011 the government made the Swedish Centre for Animal Welfare at the Swedish University of Agriculture Sciences[1], in cooperation with the Science Council, the contact point for validation of European Union Directive 2010/63 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes.

The Animal Welfare Council within the Board of Agriculture is composed of relevant stakeholders including those from animal protection NGOs; however there does not appear to a legislative requirement for this composition.

 

[1] http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/swedish-centre-for-animal-welfare-scaw/about-scaw/

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

The work of the committees for animal experiments is discussed in the Animal Welfare Act 1988 and Animal Welfare Ordinance 1988 quite extensively and it seems that both of these pieces of legislation have been written primarily to legislate in this area of animal use.  Representation of animal welfare groups on the committees is vital for animal welfare to be adequately protected and it is positive that their input is mentioned in the legislation.

The existence and composition of the Animal Welfare Council is also positive. It is recommended that the composition and role of this Council is established in legislation.

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

There appear to be no current legislative requirements for NGO engagement, but this clearly takes place and there should be no significant barriers to improvement in this area.  

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

The involvement of relevant stakeholders in ethics committees is mandated by legislation.  

Countries Selected
Select up to four countries and then select 'Compare' to start contrasting animal welfare standards

Sweden’s economic prospects look very strong going forward. BMI forecasts real GDP to grow by 2.4% in 2014. Unemployment, currently 8% of the working age population, is forecast to decrease due to job creation in the public sector. Sweden has a very open economy, with exports representing 50% of GDP and exports to Europe representing 70% of total exports. Therefore, recovery in European demand will have a positive impact on growth in Sweden. Domestically, public debt is relatively modest at 42% of GDP and although a small increase in inflation is predicted, 1.6%, in 2014, this will be coupled with higher domestic demand. Overall, all indications are positive for Sweden, with the BMI stating “Sweden is among the best positioned developed economies in the world”. The EIU forecasts real GDP to grow by 2.3% on average for the period 2013-30.

 

Date of information: 11/02/2014
Population 
9,516,617
GDP 
$525,742,140,221
GDP (PPP) 
$43,180
Education expenditure (% of GDP) 
7 (2010)