County Report 2008

2009-10-07

The supervision of the county administrative boards and municipalities under the Alcohol Act and Tobacco Act, and the municipalities’ other alcohol and drug-prevention work

Summary of a publication in Swedish

The county administrative boards conduct regional supervision and are the authority that has the best possibility of monitoring how the municipalities apply the Alcohol Act and the Tobacco Act. Through advice and support, the county administrative boards can also influence how the municipalities work with permit and inspection efforts. However, the advisory role of the county administrative boards should be able to be used more. Unfortunately, a majority of the county administrative boards have very little supervisory activity, which has been the case in recent years. However, 19 county administrative boards have prepared a supervisory plan, which is as many as in 2007.

In the area of tobacco, just over half of the county administrative boards have prepared a supervisory plan. This is a minor improvement, but a great deal remains to be done to develop supervision under the Tobacco Act.

In 2008, two national alcohol and tobacco commissions were appointed. Their proposals will provide better possibilities to conduct supervisory efforts nationally, regionally and municipally. In the letter of instructions to the county administrative boards in 2009, there is an annual feedback reporting requirement regarding how the county administrative boards have conducted supervision. This should be reported to the Swedish National Institute of Public Health in the month of December. As of 1 January 2010, social supervision and the handling of driving licenses will be transferred from the county administrative boards to the National Board of Health and Welfare and the Swedish Transport Agency. Among other changes, this will entail a greater need for support to the county administrative boards in their work to conduct supervision for alcohol and tobacco.

The number of serving locations (restaurants) continues to grow somewhat. Consequently, it is important that the authorities concerned actively work with the serving locations – the “tavern arena”. On a positive note, approximately 90 per cent of the municipalities have conducted annual inspections of serving locations in recent years and the number of inspections has increased for a few years, but in 2008 the number of visits fell by approximately 10 per cent to the same level as in 2006. The municipalities that have not conducted any supervision must naturally begin – and here, each county administrative board has a natural role to play.

Slightly more than one fourth of the municipalities that granted temporary permits to the public did not subsequently follow them up with inspections. This is unfortunate; supervision work must be prioritised even more and it is important that both the county administrative boards and the municipalities apply a sound structure to their supervisory work. One way to obtain such a structure is to map the needs and establish a plan for the supervision. Greater cooperation between the municipalities and the county administrative board could possibly make supervision more uniform so that the permit holders in the county are treated equally, strengthening the rule of law. For the municipalities, close cooperation with the police is also necessary. Cooperation between various authorities and greater supervision are success factors in the work with the Responsible Serving of Alcohol method (STAD).

In 2008, approximately 70 per cent of the municipalities visited about half of the retail locations that sold beer or tobacco. This activity needs to increase, particularly in light of the fact that year after year test-buying studies show that beer and tobacco is too accessible to adolescents. A reasonable ambition level should be that every retailer be inspected at least once per year. This generally low level of activity in the municipalities can also be seen in the fact that few decisions are made regarding administrative intervention measures under the Alcohol Act and the Tobacco Act.

Tobacco supervision has been established as a part of the regular activities of the county administrative boards. This year’s report once again shows that the efforts within tobacco supervision are increasing in the regions and municipalities, but are at a low level. On a positive note, supervision of the trade in tobacco is increasing somewhat, although on a negative note, 24 per cent of the municipalities conducted no inspections of sales points in 2008. The direct supervision of non-smoking serving locations is decreasing, but here, it can be assumed that the successful implementation of this reform has led to a natural downward prioritisation of the municipalities’ inspection activities in this area. Efforts within tobacco supervision are carried out despite scarce resources, and it is important that the responsible supervisory authorities that have not yet begun such work now get started.

As in previous years, the police and the municipalities take very little action against illicit tobacco sales relative to the probable occurrence of such cases based on studies of the purchasing habits of young people. Consequently, it is a problem that the Tobacco Act does not grant the municipalities the same opportunities as the Alcohol Act to undertake concrete and effective measures against illicit sales. The Government has appointed an investigator charged to review the effectiveness and compliance of the regulation regarding an age limit for the purchase of tobacco products and regulations associated therewith, Committee Directive 2008:29. In the Tobacco Act Handbook the Swedish National Institute of Public Health describes  in detail how to apply the intervention possibilities of the law. Hopefully, this can provide guidance and facilitate the work at the municipal and regional levels.

In summary, drug prevention efforts are developing in a positive direction in the municipalities with the spread of several methods that research has shown to be effective in reducing the harm caused by consumption. The few questions specifically asked about tobacco prevention work in schools indicate a modest extent, however, which was also the case in previous years. One cause may be greater national focus on alcohol and narcotics prevention efforts in recent years through e.g. the School Prevention endeavour. However, county administrative boards received an expanded role in the area of tobacco in 2008 when the county coordinators were also charged to address the tobacco issue with as per instructions in the county administrative boards’ steering documents. They previously worked mainly with alcohol and narcotics.

Several of the effective secondary prevention measures in healthcare are missing in a majority of the municipalities in spite of intensive efforts to distribute them in the so-called Risky Use project, among others.