Epsilon Archive for Student Projects

Abstract

Jordbruksverket, the Swedish Board of Agriculture, are the ones that establish the
legislation for animals beyond the Swedish Animal Welfare Act and Ordinance.
The County Administrative Board (Länsstyrelsen) is the authority that ensures that
animal keepers comply with the legislation. They receive reports from the public
that alert them about animal keepers who are not complying with the legislation and
treat the animal poorly. Together the Swedish Board of Agriculture and the County
Administrative Boards have set a goal where a maximum of 25% of all reported
cases where controls have been carried out shall be unjustified. Under the year 2019
it was only two out of 21 County Administrative Boards that achieved that goal.
This study aims to investigate the reason why so many County Administrative
Boards did not achieve this goal. The method that was used was to ask three
different County Administrative Boards (Kalmar, Stockholm and Västmanland)
questions about how they are working with reported cases, what information is
important and how they prioritize the cases. Fifteen reported cases from each
County Administrative Board were examined. The results from this study shows
that the County Administrative Board in Stockholm had 15% reported cases that
were unjustified, Kalmar had 41% and Västmanland had 47%. Both Kalmar and
Västmanland had insufficient information from the public in their reports that could
have been important for how the cases were concluded. The County Administrative
Board in Stockholm have produced their own form that they use and write down all
the information from the informer. More than half of the reported cases about
animalsthat have not been treated according to the legislation was from anonymous
people. One reason to why there was so many reported cases from anonymous
informers that were unjustified can be because of conflicts between the informer
and the animal keeper. The clearest reason why Kalmar and Västmanland had more
unjustified reported cases than Stockholm is that they are not as accurate and do not
have as detailed information from the public in their reports as Stockholm. One
other thing that was discussed in this study was if it could be some risk with having
a goal like this. The answer to that question is that if the County Administrative
Boards work hard with getting all important information in their reports, no
reported cases where animals are suffering will be unprioritized. The conclusion of
this study is that all the County Administrative Boards in Sweden should use a form
like the one Stockholm uses to make sure that all the important information is
included in the report. And that they must work harder with getting all the important
information and all the details that are necessary and be more accurate in the
prioritizing.