# EUR-Lex - 52007DC0083 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007DC0083

**Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the derogations from housing requirements for organic livestock in buildings from before 24 August 1999 and before 24 August 2000 /* COM/2007/0083 final */ **

*

*

EN

Brussels, 6.3.2007

COM(2007) 83 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

AND THE COUNCIL

on the implementation of the derogations from housing requirements for organic livestock in buildings from before 24 August 1999 and before 24 August 2000

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

AND THE COUNCIL

on the implementation of the derogations from housing requirements for organic livestock in buildings from before 24 August 1999 and before 24 August 2000

Introduction

According to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuff, the Commission shall prepare a report [1] to Council before 31 December, 2006, on the implementation of several derogations for organic livestock, namely:

· tethering of cattle in buildings from before 24 August 2000,

· different livestock housing requirements in buildings from before 24 August 1999, namely on access of waterfowls to swimming water, on poultry housing conditions, flock sizes and access to outdoor area of poultry as well as on access to open-air runs and pasture for mammals and on the size of indoor and outdoor space of housing.

These derogations are foreseen to run out on 31 December 2010. There is no legal requirement for a revision before that date.

In order to obtain data for the preparation of this report, all Member States and several European non-Member States [2] were asked to complete two questionnaires. 20 Member States as well as Bulgaria, Norway and Switzerland responded to one or both of the questionnaires.

Summary

Quite a number of Member States find the phasing out of the derogation allowing the tethering of cattle by 31 December 2010, problematic and demand a prolongation of at least five years. Mainly climatic (regions with long winter housing), geographical, structural and economic arguments have been put forward.

Despite their currently widespread use, few Member States require prolongations of the derogations on access of waterfowls to swimming water, on poultry housing conditions, flock sizes and access to outdoor area of poultry. Various Member States demand a prolongation of the derogations on access to open-air runs and pasture for mammals as well as on the size of indoor and outdoor space.

Questionnaire on the implementation of the derogation on tethering of cattle in buildings already existing before 24 August 2000 (Annex I, part B, point 6.1.5) [3]

Countries not using the derogation: IE, EL, CY, LT, PT;

Countries presently using the derogation: BE, CZ, DK, DE, EE, FR, IT, LV, LU, HU, NL, AT, SI, FI, SE;

Countries requiring a prolongation: BE, DE, EE, FR, IT, LU, HU, NL, AT, PL, SI, SE, BG

Overview of present use of the derogation (Annex I, part B, point 6.1.5) in the countries

State | BE | CZ | DK | DE | EE | FR | IT | LV | LU |

absolute No / % of all cattle holdings | 93 / 29.4% | 62 / 10% | 21 / 4% | 2318 / 21%* | 267 / 58% | 287 / 8% (60% in mountain areas) | 239 / 4.3% | 1766 / NA | 10 / 25% |

Average size of organic cattle holdings/LU | 37.5 | 80 | 50 | 31 (weighted average) | 10.4 | 65 dairy / 56 beef | 18.62 | 7.3 | 55 |

% of holdings expected to comply by 2010 | NA [4] | all | all | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 95 |

No of years of prolongation requested after 2010 | 5 | 0 | 0 | ≥ 5 | 5 | unlimited also for new stables | unlimited in mountain areas | ND | 15** |

State | HU | NL | AT | PL | SI | FI | SE | BG | NO | CH |

absolute No / % of all cattle holdings | 8 / 12% | 104 / 22% | 9589 / 65% | 749 / 22% | 744 / 67.5% | 33 / 12.7% | 251 / 60.6%*** | 1 / 16.7% | 300 / 50%**** | ND [5] |

Average size of organic cattle holdings / LU | NA | 31 | 22.7 bovines | 5 dairy cows | 5 | 34.5 | 50.5 for dairy / 25 for beef | 50 bovines | 13 | 16 dairy cows |

% of holdings expected to comply by end of 2010 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | all | NA | NA | NA | NA |

No of years of prolongation requested after 2010 | 5 | 5 = tendency | NA | unlimited | 5 | 0 | unlimited for certain areas | 10 | NA | unlimited under certain conditions |

- big regional variation, up to 50% in some Länder,

** only for old stables placed inside villages,

*** 2004 data,

**** 2005 data.

Detrimental effects noticed in tethering systems

· claw and leg health problems (lack of exercise): DK, EE, SI,

· problems with calving: SI,

· cattle become too wild after release from tethering: SE.

Positive effects of tethering systems

· no dehorning: DE,

· less stress for lower ranking animals (no competition for feed, resting place etc.): DE, CH,

· more intensive observation, allowing for preventive action: DE, CH, FR,

· less claw problems: NO.

Arguments used for prolongation request

a) geographic constraints

· mountain areas: DE, AT, FR,

· lack of straw in mountains: FR;

b) structural constraints

· lack of additional land and/or placed inside villages: LU, SI, SE,

· landscape preservation: DE, SE,

· more time for new Member States to ensure development: HU, BG;

c) economic constraints

· redemption period for the investment in the stable: BE, LU,

· rural development programs 2007–2013 (5 year commitment needed, farmers might discontinue organic farming without derogations): EE, SI,

· poorly developed markets lead to reduced possibilities to valorise organic meat and thus invest in stables: SI,

· small farms not profitable to rebuild/invest: IT, NL, SE, FR, PL.

Other remarks

FR wants unlimited prolongation for tethering for a maximum of 6 months per year also in new buildings, under certain conditions regarding access to exercise area;

PT opposes any further derogations.

Questionnaire on the implementation of the derogation on tethering of cattle in buildings already existing before 24 August 1999

Mammals/restricted access to open-air runs and for herbivores to pasture (Annex I, part B, point 8.3.1) [6]

Countries not using the derogation: CZ, EL, IE, CY, LV, LT, SE, BE, FR, PL, PT, BG, NO;

Countries presently using the derogation: DK, LU, HU, NL, AT, SI, EE, IT;

Countries requiring a prolongation: LU, HU, SI, FI, AT [7], PL, IT.

Overview of present use of the derogation (Annex I, part B, point 8.3.1) in the countries

State | DK | EE | IT | LU | HU | NL | AT | PL | SI | FI |

absolute No / percentage of holdings | ND | 267 / 58% | 40 / 0.7% | 9 / 19% | 5 / 3% | 43 / 7% | 5893 / ~35% | 190 / 6% | 697 / 43.5% | 67 / 17% |

No of these holdings expected to comply by end of 2010 | all | 50% | 9 | 5-6 | 2 | | ND | ND | half | all |

No of years of prolongation requested | 0 | 5 | NA* | 15** | 5 | 0 | ND | ≥ 10 | 5 | 0 |

- mountain holdings will be unable to comply,

** for old stables placed inside villages only.

Detrimental effects mentioned: none.

Arguments used for prolongation request

a) geographic constraints

· mountain areas: IT, AT,

· lack of additional land: LU and PL (holdings placed inside villages);

b) structural constraints

· the type of holdings: SI (only small), EE,

· more time for new Member States as it is the farms with old stables converting: HU.

Other remarks

NL: farmers wait with investment decision until there is more certainty about market situation in 2010;

IT: cattle only.

Water fowl/access to swimming water (Annex I, part B, point 8.4.2)

Countries not using the derogation: BE, CZ, DK, EL, EE, IE, IT, CY, LT, LU, LV, HU, NL, PT, SE, SI, FI, BG, NO;

Countries presently using the derogation: AT, FR, PL;

Countries requiring a prolongation: AT7, PL.

Overview of present use of the derogation (Annex I, part B, point 8.4.2) in the countries

State | FR | PL | AT |

absolute No / percentage of holdings | 100 / ND | ND / 80% | 49 / ND |

% of holdings expected to comply by end 2010 | ND | ND | ND |

No of years of prolongation requested | NA | unspecified length | ND |

Detrimental effects mentioned: FR – health problems; according to national veterinary advice only access to running rather than still water assures that the birds do not catch diseases.

Arguments used for prolongation request: AT – lack of practical solutions.

Poultry/housing requirement, flock and unit size (Annex I, part B, point 8.4.3)

Countries not using the derogation: BE, CZ, EE, EL, IE, CY, LT, LU, LV, HU, PL, PT, NO;

Countries presently using the derogation:

· for housing requirements: NL, AT, SI, FI, FR, IT, BG,

· for flock+unit size: AT, SE, FI, FR, DK, BG;

Countries requiring a prolongation: AT7.

Overview of present use of the derogation (Annex I, part B, point 8.4.3) in the countries

State | DK | FR | IT | NL | AT | SI | FI | SE | BG |

housing requirements: absolute No / % of holdings | 0 | 140 / 21.5% | 1 / 0.6% | 5 / 3% | 660 / ~7.5% | 281 / 62.8% | 17 / 33% | 0 | 2 / 18% |

flock size: absolute No / % of holdings | NA | 163 / 25% | 0 | | ND | | 2 / 4% | 21 / 18.9%* | 2** |

unit size: absolute No / % of holdings | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | | | |

% of these holdings expected to comply by end 2010 | NA | all | all | all | all | ND | NA | 100% in theory | ND |

No of years of prolongation requested | NA | 0 | 0 | 0 | ND | ND | NA | (0) see remark | |

- 21 holdings with more than 3 000 laying hens in one building, amounts to 55% of organic laying hens in SE.** chickens and laying hens only. Refers to 2 farms still in conversion, no information yet on their situation. |

Detrimental effects mentioned: none

Arguments used for prolongation request: none

Other remarks

NL, FI: used for number of pop-holes only;

SE: used for laying hens only. Do not ask for prolongation, but for removal of limit for number of birds in a building;

DK: used for laying hens only.

Poultry / access to open-air runs (Annex I, part B, point 8.4.5)

Countries not using the derogation: FR, IT, EE, NL, IE, LU, SE, SI, LV, HU, FI, BE, EL, CY, CZ, DK, LT, PL, PT, NO;

Countries presently using the derogation: AT, BG;

Countries requiring a prolongation: AT7.

Overview of present use of the derogation (Annex I, part B, point 8.4.5) in the countries

State | AT | BG |

absolute No / percentage of holdings using the derogation | 125 / 1.4% | 2 / 18% |

% of holdings expected to comply by end of 2010 | ND | 0 |

No of years of prolongation requested | NA | NA |

Detrimental effects mentioned: none

Arguments used for prolongation request: none

Other remarks

NO: feed and water not allowed outside (following Avian Influenza restrictions);

BG: refers to 2 farms still in conversion, no information yet on their situation.

Mammals/reduced indoor and outdoor space (Annex VIII, point 1)

Countries not using the derogation: IE, LU, EL, LT, BE, CY, PL, PT;

Countries presently using the derogation: FR, IT, EE, NL, AT, SE, SI, LV, HU, FI, CZ, DK, BG, NO;

Countries requiring a prolongation: EE, LV, HU, AT7, FR, IT, NO.

Overview of present use of the derogation (Annex VIII, point 1) in the countries

State | CZ | DK | EE | FR | IT | LV | HU | NL | AT | SI | FI | SE | BG | NO |

absolute No / % of cattle holdings | 62 / 10% | ND | 24 / 5% | 176 / 4.9% | 187 / 3.4% | 185 / 11% | see be low | 6 / 1% | 129 / 0.9% | 337 / 29.8% | 77 / 25% | ND | 1 / 16.7% | ND |

absolute No / % of sheep holdings | | | | | 101 / 4.5% | | s.b. | 0 | 17 / 0.6% | 104 / 5% | 12 / 17% | ND | | ND |

absolute No / % of goat holdings | | | | | 70 / 14% | 4 / 5% | s.b. | 2 / 3% | | 8 / 7% | 1 / 14% | ND | | ND |

absolute No / % of pig holdings | | | | 3 (outdoor)/ 1.3% | 3 / 1% | | s.b. | 18 / 20% | 185 / 3.5% | 114 / 24.7% | 2 / 12% | ND | 2 / 25% | ND |

absolute No / % of horse holdings | | | | | 5 / 1.2% | | s.b. | | 4 / ND | 19 / 12.1% | | ND | | ND |

% of holdings expected to comply by end of 2010 | all | all | 50% | cattle: ND pigs: all | cattle:59% other:70% | 50% | ≤ 50% | nearly all | ND | cattle:50% pigs: 5% other: most | all | all | cattle: 1 pigs: 0 | ND |

No of years of prolongation requested | 0 | 0 | 5 | unlimited | unlimited for mountain holdings | 3 | ≥ 5 | 0 | NA | 5 | 0 | 0 | ND | 7 for cattle 5 for sheep |

Detrimental effects mentioned: none

Arguments used for prolongation request

a) geographic constraints

· mountain areas: IT;

b) structural constraints

· more time for new Member States as it is the farms with old stables converting: HU;

c) economic constraints

· rural development programs 2007–2013 (5 year commitment needed, farmers might discontinue organic farming without derogations): EE, LV, SI,

· small farms not profitable to rebuild/invest: IT.

Other remarks

FR requests unlimited tethering of cattle without prior authorisation and with a surface area of 10.5 m2 = sum of external and internal area;

HU: old questionnaire (non-paper) used, does not differentiate between types of animals: 150/12 (8%);

NO: the general derogation for buildings constructed before 24 August 1999 only applies for indoor area. Significant problems expected for sheep and some goat holdings. Want to harmonise derogation for cattle with their national ban from 2024 and the farm support prior to this;

BG refers to 2 farms still in conversion, no information yet on their situation.

Poultry/reduced indoor and outdoor space (Annex VIII, point 2)

Countries not using the derogation: IT, EE, IE, LU, SI, EL, CY, LT, CZ, DK, BE, PL, PT;

Countries presently using the derogation: FR, NL, AT, SE, HU, FI, NO, BG;

Countries requiring a prolongation: AT7, FI.

Overview of present use of the derogation (Annex VIII, point 2) in the countries

State | FR | HU | NL | AT | FI | SE | BG | NO |

absolute No / % of chicken holdings | 41 / 10% | 1 / 8% | 4 / 50% | 185 | NA | ND | 2 / 18% | ND |

absolute No / % of laying hen holdings | 149 / 22.9% | 3 / 16% | | | 16 / 30% | ND | NA | ND |

% of holdings expected to comply by end of 2010 | all | all | all | ND | indoor: all outdoor: ND | all | NA | all |

No of years of prolongation requested | 0 | 0 | 0 | ND | NA | 0 | ND | 0 |

Detrimental effects mentioned: FR – some cases of picking and cannibalism in laying hens.

Arguments used for prolongation request: none.

Other remarks

NL finds that outdoor area above 1 m2 does not increase animal welfare, rather quality of area matters (plants for shelter); area defined should be linked to that of pullets;

FI finds 4 m2 outdoor area far too much;

BG refers to 2 farms still in conversion, no information yet on their situation.

[1] Annex I, part B, point 6.1.7 and Annex I, part B, point 8.5.3, of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999.

[2] Non-Member States who apply Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 as part of treaties with the Community.

[3] The following Member States have not provided information regarding Annex I, part B, point 6.1.5; ES, MT, UK and RO.

[4] NA: No Answer.

[5] ND: No Data.

[6] The following countries have not provided information regarding Annex I, part B, point 8.5.1; ES, MT, UK, CH and RO.

[7] AT answers do not provide explicit statements on present use and need for prolongation, so interpretation of their point of view has been attempted.

--------------------------------------------------