sou · GRB386 · 2004-01-01 00:00:00 — En avveckling av etiska skäl avseende djurhållningens syfte skulle framstå som än mer komplicerad. Det är tveksamt om ett förbud på denna grund skulle vara förenlig med grundlagen. Det som är särskilt tveksamt är om inte en sådan lag skulle strida mot skyddet för näringsfriheten i 2 kap. 20 § regeringsformen. Om en sådan lag ändå skulle genomföras skulle de drabbade enligt 2 kap. 18 § regeringsformen ha en principiell rätt till full ersättning för den inskränkning i markanvändningen som lagen skulle innebära. Detta belopp torde omfatta ersättning för investeringar och nedlagda kostnader. Däremot skulle ersättning för utebliven vinst eventuellt inte behöva ingå. Utifrån de siffror som redovisats skulle beloppet för minknäringen grovt kunna uppskattas till några . För chinchillanäringen skulle motsvarande belopp kunna vara högst . Därutöver är det utredningens slutsats att ett genomförande av ett förbud även skulle kräva att de drabbade ersattes med ett skäligt belopp för inskränkningen av näringsfriheten. Denna ersättning skulle inte behöva innebära en full ersättning för förlusten. I stället skulle man kunna göra en mera allmän bedömning och bestämma ersättningen utifrån vad som skulle kunna vara lämpligt och skäligt. Utredningen har angett den uteblivna årsvinsten för minknäringen till 800 miljoner och till tre miljoner för Vad som utifrån dessa belopp skulle kunna ut- göra ett skäligt belopp för inskränkning i näringsfriheten är mycket svårt att uppskatta. Vi kan endast anta att det utöver ersättning för inskränkning i markanvändningen om några skulle kunna tillkomma ytterligare ett betydande belopp för inskränk- ningen i näringsfriheten. Sammantaget är det vår mycket hypotetiska slutsats utifrån tillgängligt material att ett förbud av etiska skäl på grund av syftet skulle kunna medföra en kostnad för staten om i vart fall . Vidare skulle ett sådant förbud med- föra samhällspolitiska och regionalpolitiska konsekvenser. Utredningen har utifrån dagens kunskapsläge dragit den slutsatsen att chinchillanäringen framöver kommer att uppfylla djurskyddslagen. Vi anser också att etiska skäl avseende djurhållningens syfte inte ensamma bör ligga till grund för ett förbud. Den enda återstående frågan skulle därmed vara på vilket sätt minknäringen kan anpassas till djurskyddslagen vad gäller kravet om naturligt beteende. Vi föreslår att djurhållningen för minkar utvecklas på sätt som även skett för andra djur, exempelvis hönsen. Djurhållningen måste bättre anpassas till djurens behov och ge dem utökad möjlighet på sätt som anges i 4 § djurskyddslagen att bete sig naturligt. En skillnad mellan minkar och övriga husdjur inom lantbruket är att ett sådant utvecklingsarbete för minkar knappt påbörjats medan det för andra djur pågått . Det betyder att utvecklings- arbetet för minkar måste bedrivas skyndsamt. Det är viktigt att notera att ansvaret för att förbättra förhållan- dena för minkarna i dess helhet vilar på minknäringen. Vi utgår också från att det ligger i näringens intresse att se till att indikationerna om att djurskyddslagen inte är uppfylld upphör. Som framgått anser vi att näringen skall läggas ner om inte förbättringar sker. En ned- läggning skulle medföra mycket stora ekonomiska konsekvenser för minknäringen. Ett vidare problem är dock att det krävs ytterligare forskning om minkarnas beteende för att anvisa på vilket sätt förhållandena för minkarna skall förbättras. Utredningens slutsats är att en förut- sättning för att minknäringen kan anpassas till djurskyddslagen är att sådana forskningsprojekt kommer till stånd. Finansieringen för sådana projekt måste därför tryggas. SLU har utarbetat ett forskningsprojekt och angett att kostnaden skulle uppgå till . En fråga är hur näringen skall få på sig att förbättra för- hållandena för minkarna. Vi anser med hänsyn till att förändringen skall ske skyndsamt att en tidsperiod bör vara tillräcklig för att ge näringen tid att anpassa sig. Denna tid måste dock utsträckas något, eftersom forskning skall pågå . SLU har bedömt att forskning skulle behöva pågå . Vi anser sammantaget att indikationerna om att 4 § djurskyddslagen inte är uppfylld bör ha upphört till slutet av . Om så inte har skett bör minknäringen helt eller delvis läggas ner. Den målsättning som vi anser att minknäringen skall ha uppfyllt är att det stereotypa beteendet skall ligga på en accep- tabel nivå. I princip uppvisar alla djurslag i fångenskap någon form av stereotypt beteende för att bemästra stress. Det är därför inte möjligt att kräva att det stereotypa beteendet helt skall upphöra utan en rimlig målsättning är att det stereotypa beteendet begränsas till en acceptabel nivå. En framtida fråga kommer förstås att vara vad som utgör en acceptabel nivå. Från utredningens sida är det inte möjligt att ytterligare beskriva vår målsättning för . Vi föreslår i stället att det skall ankomma på ett forum av experter att noga och kontinuerligt följa utvecklingen av minknäringen för tiden fram till och med . Det är särskilt viktigt att det förs en kontinuerlig dialog med företrädare för näringen och företrädare för forskningen. Forumets uppgift skulle vara att säkerställa att nödvändiga förändringar kommer till stånd. Regeringen har redan bedömt att den nya djurskyddsmyndigheten bör knyta till sig ett djurskyddsråd med bred kompetens för grund- liga bedömningar och diskussioner om djurskydd. Ledamöterna skulle ha bl.a. etisk och etologisk kompetens( prop. 2001/02:189, bet.2002/03:MJU5, rskr.2002/03:98). Utredningen föreslår att det ankommer på detta djurskyddsråd att framöver följa utvecklingen av minknäringen. In the debate on the fur farming industry two separate arguments have been put forward as constituting reasons for a ban. One is that the fur farming industry does not comply with the current Animal Protection Act. The controversy concerns whether the industry complies with section 4 of the Animal Protection Act, under which the animals shall be allowed the possibility of natural behaviour. Our interpretation of the term is that the animals shall be given the opportunity to exercise their biological behavioural needs. A particularly well-discussed issue has been whether mink have a biological need to swim. This is a decisive matter, since it would be impossible to run a competitive industry if the animals must be allowed access to swimming water. The second argument for closing down the fur farming industry is that the purpose of the breeding, production of pelts, is unacceptable for ethical reasons. According to the terms of reference the Committee shall look into two different courses of action for the fur farming industry. One alternative is to report on the consequences of changing fur- bearing animal husbandry in accordance with report to comply with the provisions of the Animal Protection Act. The second alternative is to illustrate the con- sequences of a closedown for reasons other than pure animal protection. The terms of reference also include a survey of the extent and localisation of animal breeding for the production of pelts and an analysis of how a closedown could be implemented. The fur farming industry in refers to breeding of mink and chinchilla for their pelts. The mink farming industry is by far the largest. It produces 1.3 million pelts per year. There are about 180 mink farms in with a total turnover of million per year. Mink breeding is widespread geographically, but a third of the industry is concentrated to the municipality of in . The chinchilla farming industry produces about 2 000 pelts per year. There are about 15 chinchilla farms. The total turnover is million per year. The wild mink is a predator and a solitary animal. The adult animals live alone in a territory of 1–6 kilometres. The mink spends most of its time in lairs. To a certain extent the mink is adapted to water. It has been kept in captivity for about 80 years. In mink are kept in net cages in shed houses. The cubs are born in . The stays with the female until the cubs are eight weeks old. After this the mink are often put in pairs, a female and a male, in individual cages. The size of the cage is at least x x . There is a nest box in each cage. In –the animals not intended for breeding are put down. The remaining animals are put in individual cages until they are mated in . The breeding males are usually put down after this, while the breeding females are pregnant and will then breed cubs. A breeding animal is used for a period of 1–3 years. Mink farming has been carried on in a similar way for a long period. In the last 30–40 years the conditions in which the animals are kept have only changed marginally. There are no Swedish research results concerning the behaviour of mink and the effects of environmental enrichment. However, from 1990 there are a number of reports on fur-bearing animals. In 1990 the Medicine (SVS) set up an inquiry, which was followed up in 1996. Commission commissioned a report from (the EU report) on the welfare of animals kept for fur production. The report was mainly based on how eight researchers summarised published research results and their own assessments. Among these eight researchers were , and , . The report was presented in . In the government instructed to evaluate available research results regarding mink, review existing regulations and if possible propose improvements in mink farming. The report of was submitted to the government in . The reports are in agreement that mink exhibit stereotype be- haviour to far too high a degree. Stereotype behaviour is repeated monotonous movements, such as repeated head shaking. The behaviour is aimed at mastering stress. The stereotype behaviour was said to occur mainly in the wintertime when the animal is sitting alone in its cage and is sometimes fed restrictively. The reports state that the present cage environment and feeding routines con- stitute the main reason for the stereotype behaviour. The cause of the stereotype behaviour is not considered to be the restricted area of the cage in itself but that the cage environment does not offer sufficient stimulation. There are measures that reduce stereotype behaviour, such as changed feeding routines, selection at the breeding stage and environmental enrichment of cages. Whether these measures are sufficient to limit the stereotype behaviour to an acceptable level is still not clear. Research is in progress inter- nationally. The reports also include a question as to whether swim- ming is a biological behavioural need. SVS maintains that it has not been proved that mink need large quantities of water in which to swim or occupy themselves. has it been proved that mink do not need water. The EU report draws the conclusion that minks in experimental conditions expressed a strong wish to swim. The experimental conditions referred to are research results. The EU reports conclusion was that the normal mink cage does not meet important needs. The research group that assisted , however, opposed this conclusion. They maintained that the report had been negatively slanted against fur farming for political reasons. The conclusion of the research group was that a lack of swimming water may possibly be an animal welfare problem; research has not yet arrived at a uniform conclusion. stated in its report that a system that meets the needs of mink for swimming and bathing water should be developed. Further research results have emerged since then. has expressed to the Committee that if these new research results had been available when the research group drew its conclusions then the conclusion would have been that swimming is not a biological need in mink. has stated that further research is necessary, but that at present it is not proved that swimming is a biological need. She emphasises, however, that access to bathing water is a very powerful environmental enrichment. Mink farming has been the subject of supervision and measures in other countries as well. In 12 million mink pelts are produced per year, which corresponds to of world produc- tion. , which in issues statements on animal protection matters at the request of the Minister for , prepared a report in January 2003 on fur production, which is to form the basis for future legislative proposals. The report states that the existence of stereotype behaviour is a sign of welfare problems among mink. believes that there are many possibilities of improving conditions for the animals without making production appreciably more expensive. According to the Council researchers now seem to be in agreement that mink do not have an essential need for bathing water per se, but that access to water is an environmental enrichment among others. According to the Council the industry should finance research projects and take initiatives for relevant plans of action aimed at improving the animals welfare. The Danish state must share the responsibility for financing welfare projects if there is a political wish to retain the fur farming industry in . The conditions should be evaluated after five years. In the has made a survey of all animal husbandry. On the subject of the fur farming industry the Ministry states that on the basis of a general assessment it does not wish to advocate a closedown. It is, however, emphasised that the welfare of the animals must be substantially improved. Unless considerable improvement in the mental health of the animals is achieved within a ten-year period the fur farming industry should be closed down. Swimming water is not imposed as a requirement. In the it is forbidden to keep animals for the main purpose of killing them for their pelts. The ban is based on an ethical principle that the purpose of breeding production animals must be justified. In a decision has been made that from 2008 mink shall have access to swimming water. The reference material for chinchilla is less extensive than that for mink. This means that the conclusions that can be drawn are less certain than as regards mink. In the government instructed to draw up detailed regulations for the farming of chinchilla for fur production. has already made a decision on such regulations. The majority of the regulations are based on recommendations. These are regulations that to a great extent change the conditions for chinchilla farming. For example, the cage height must be increased from 35–to one metre. In addition the regulations imply a transition from a polygamous system to pair or group housing. As indicated in the introduction, we are to examine two different courses of action. We have first looked into whether the fur farming industry can be adapted to the Animal Protection Act. As regards mink, the Committee considers that the underlying material provides a consensus that the problem is that they exhibit stereotype behaviour to far too great an extent. What causes the stereotype behaviour is not the restricted area of the cage per se, but the fact that the cage environment does not offer sufficient stimulus and that the animals are fed restrictively during certain parts of the year. The behaviour indicates lack of compliance with section 4 of the Animal Protection Act. It is, however, also made clear that there are measures that restrict the stereotype behaviour. One problem is that the measures and their effects first need to be studied in the field and evaluated. Furthermore, we consider that tures conclusion about a system to meet the need of mink for swimming and bathing water was too far-reaching. The present state of knowledge does not support a conclusion that swimming is a biological behavioural need of mink. Accordingly, all in all the conclusion is that there are indications that the mink farming industry does not comply with the Animal Protection Act at present, but that after changes it could possibly comply with the Act in the future. It can be noted that the problem definition of the situation of mink in and is identical with that of the Committee. Based on this, the core question for the Com- mittee will be whom the uncertainty about the future is to affect. Should the mink farming industry bear the consequences of its present possible failure to comply with the Animal Protection Act? We consider that it is a matter of a reasonability assessment. As early as in 1990 the Medicine (SVS) found that to a far too high an extent mink exhibited stereotype behaviour. Despite this the cage environment has been largely un- changed for a very long time. This means that the mink farming industry itself has not worked towards reducing the stereotype behaviour. This alone would in fact indicate that there is no reason to give the mink farming industry further time to improve its animal husbandry. It may, however, be so that the mink farming industry does not bear sole responsibility for the inadequate development. One unfortunate circumstance may be that no research has been carried on in concerning the behavioural needs of mink. Another circumstance may also have been that responsible autho- rities did not push for a development of the mink farming industry either. One possibility may be to give the mink farming industry a short period to change its cage environment. Apart from reasons of reasonability, the factor that would favour such a solution is that it would be common to all Nordic countries. The Committees conclusion on chinchilla is that the chinchilla industry would comply with the Animal Protection Act on the basis of regulations. No further measures are considered necessary. In our opinion it cannot be within the discretion of the Committee to review adopted regulations. We cannot therefore give any opinion on whether all the proposed measures were really necessary or not. Considering that it has not yet been decided when the regulations are to come into force we propose, however, a relatively long transition period if this is deemed possible. As mentioned above, the new regulations imply extensive changes. It would there- fore seem reasonable that the industry and the supervisory autho- rities be given time to develop new systems. In our opinion it is also important that these new systems are evaluated. Thereafter we have also analysed a possible closedown of the fur farming industry. As mentioned in the introduction two different reasons have been put forward for a closedown. One is for animal protection reasons, i.e. it is doubtful whether the fur farming industry complies with the Animal Protection Act. At present there are no such reasons applicable to the chinchilla industry. As regards the mink farming industry our viewpoint is that the industry should be given a short period in which to develop its animal husbandry. This means that at present no animal protection reasons exist for closing down the fur farming industry. A further argument for a closedown has been, however, that the purpose of the fur farming industry, to produce pelts, is ethically unaccep- table. A decisive factor in this is that fur is a luxury item. The question of the purpose of the animal husbandry, unlike that of animal protection, emanates from humans and not the animals. How the animal is treated during its lifetime is not the decisive question, but rather that it is used for a product not essential for humans. We have further analysed the question of the purpose of animal husbandry in relation to the Animal Protection Act in force. At present this Act does not have any main rule concerning the purposes for which it is allowed to keep animals. at present the main rule is that animals may be kept for any purpose at all, on condition that they are kept in accordance with the animal protection legislation in force. Under Swedish animal protection legislation the animals shall be protected, for example, against unnecessary suffering and illness. The conclusion of the Committee is that a ban on the fur farming industry based on ethical reasons with reference to the purpose of the animals would imply an innovation in Swedish law. An ethical or moral value has the limitation that it is often to a great degree subjective. The opinion that fur is more of a luxury item than meat is, in our opinion, a subjective value. It is doubtful if it is appropriate to legislate on the basis of such subjective values. Addi- tionally, any enactment of such values would not automatically mean that socially positive values, such as animal protection, would be safeguarded to any greater extent. This means that a ban has no practical significance if the animal protection in the industry is already considered sufficient. Today of course each and every person is free to refrain from wearing fur. Many clothing chains have also adopted the rules for fur-free shops of the Animal Rights organisation; for example H&M, Intersport, KappAhl, JC, MQ, , Stadium and Team Sportia. What has been adduced implies that ethical values concerning the purpose for which animals are kept are more suited to voluntary measures than to legislation. In any case we consider that such legislation should be preceded by a survey of the purposes of all animal husbandry. This purpose should be analysed from a comparative perspective and an attempt made to provide an answer to the overall issue concerning for what purposes it is acceptable to keep animals. In addition the survey would need to evaluate the various purposes. For example, from an ethical per- spective is it more defensible to keep animals for meat production than for pelt production? What purposes could be called into question? What applies to competition animals, for example, where the purpose is for sport and gambling ? What has been stated above means that we believe there is no reason at present to close down the fur farming industry. Despite this we have outlined how a closedown could be implemented, since this is part of our terms of reference. We have made an initial analysis of whether a forced closedown would be compatible with the constitution. Crucial to this assessment is whether the close- down would be on the basis of animal protection or due to the fact that the purpose, production of pelts, is unacceptable. A forced closedown for animal protection reasons is in our assessment com- patible with the constitution, on condition that important animal protection reasons exist. If it were a question of the industry not meeting the requirements of the existing Animal Protection Act, those affected by a ban would probably not be entitled to compen- sation. On the other hand, it is doubtful whether the constitution allows a ban against the fur farming industry for reasons based on the purposes of the animal husbandry. Such a ban would in any case require that those affected be awarded compensation. A closedown for animal protection reasons would thus appear from the point of view of the government to be considerably less complicated than a closedown with reference to the purpose of the animal husbandry. If in future it becomes clear that the mink farming industry or parts of it are not able to comply with the existing Animal Protection Act, the breeding of mink could be banned. In such a case a ban would not be in contravention of the constitution. Since the issue would be that the industry did not comply with the Animal Protection Act already in existence pro- bably no compensation from the state would need to be made to the businesses affected. This would mean that a closedown on the grounds that the industry does not comply with the existing Animal Protection Act would not imply any direct compulsory costs for the state. A closedown for animal protection reasons would, however, have far-reaching economic consequences for the mink farming industry and its ancillary industry. The mink farming industry has estimated the total cost of investments made as million. The industry has not been able to estimate how much of this amount is already written off.