A measurement of Swedish animal welfare supervision
Two identically worded freedom-of-information requests to all 21 county administrative boards and a third to the Swedish Board of Agriculture, handled under a pre-written protocol: the differences in the answers are the measurement. The baseline is the EU's audits of member state controls. Every figure on the site can be followed to its source, and in the European layer all the way to the exact sentence in the audit report.
Sweden, collection closed
- 64.1%
- of the inspection reports carry at least one redaction, 170 documents from 17 counties
- 22.9%
- of the enforcement decisions carry at least one redaction, 140 documents from 18 counties
- 0 kr
- fees paid in the whole collection
The EU comparison, 1998–2026
- 4,690
- audits
- 11,999
- recommendations
- 95.7%
- of citations resolved to their paragraph
The chain, in one example
The same path sits behind every figure on this site: from the aggregate, through the rows, to the verbatim paragraph and the document's checksum. The Swedish half ends at the checksum. Those documents carry personal data and are never published, so what stands open is the manifest with a sha256 per file and the authorities' own replies verbatim.
1. The figure
369 recommendations to Sweden in the EU's audits
2. The rows behind it
2021-7246 · 2021 · evaluate the protection of the welfare of laying hens at all stages of production
Recommendation 1. To ensure that derogations for deviations in compliance with structural requirements are not applied to minimum requirements established in Directive 1999/74/EC. Recommendation bas…3. The paragraph, verbatim
The long-standing ban on beak trimming and consumer's demand, supported by the egg labelling rules, has driven the continuous reduction of cage systems and thus led to better conditions for hens to express their normal behaviours.
4. The source document
pdf/dgsante/reports/2021-7246_15827_en.pdf · sha256
d37ce141eb967ddb0748ba5de342a5594cb859cb82a7346d03242281663a0d41