Proposal for a Council Directive laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens kept in various systems of rearing
Date: 1998-03-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: animal welfare, intensive livestock farming, poultry, protection of animals, veterinary legislation

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 11.03.1998 
COM(1998) 135  final 

98/0092 (CNS) 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 

on the protection of laying hens kept in various systems of rearing 

PROPOSAL FOR A COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 
laying down minimum standards for the protection of 
laying hens kept in various systems of rearing 

(presented by the Commission) 

Explanatory  Memorandum 

On 7 March  1988 the Council adopted Directive 88/166/EEC complying with the judgement  of 
the Court of Justice  in Case  131/86 (annulment  of Council  Directive  86/113/EEC of 25 March 
1986 laying down minimum  standards for the protection of laying hens kept in battery cages)1. 
Directive  88/166/EEC  adopted  Directive  86/113/EEC  in the  form  in which  it had  been  agreed 
by the Council. 

Article 9 of Directive 88/166/EEC requires the Commission to submit, before  1  January  1993, a 
report on scientific  developments regarding the welfare of hens under various systems of rearing 
and on the provisions in the Annex to the Directive, accompanied by any adjustment  proposals. 

In  1992  the  Scientific  Veterinary  Committee  (SVC)  (Animal  Welfare  Section)  presented  a 
report to the Commission  on  "the welfare  of laying hens kept  in different  production  systems", 
but  during  that  period  the  Commission  was  engaged  in  a  comprehensive  review  of  all 
Community  legislation  on farm  animal  welfare  and took no further  action on the matter at that 
time. 

The  Scientific  Veterinary  Committee,  which  was  requested  by  the  Commission  services  to 
review and update the report  of  1992, drew up an opinion on the welfare  of laying hens  which 
was  adopted  at their  meeting  of  30  October  1996. The  attached  Communication  and  proposal 
are based on their opinion. 

It  is proposed  to  replace  Directive  88/166/EEC by  a new  Directive  covering  the  welfare  of  all 
laying  hens,  not  only  those  kept  in  cages.  General  requirements  applicable  to  all  systems  of 
rearing  are  introduced,  including  requirements  for  nests,  perches  and  litter.  However, 
derogations  from  the latter requirements  are provided  for  in respect  of cages, which must  meet 
improved  specifications.  A  phasing-in  period  for  the  new  requirements  is  proposed,  to  allow 
existing systems to be written off over a ten year period. 

The provisions of the Annex have been brought up to date and set out in the form adopted in the 
Council Directives on the protection of calves and pigs. 

Provision  is made  for  inspection  and reporting  by the  competent  authority,  and  for  inspections 
by the  Commission. 

1. 

O.J. No. L  74,19.03.1988, p. 83 

1*. 

The  protection  of  laying  hens  is  an  exclusive  Community  competence.  The  proposed 
replacement  of  the  existing  Directive,  which  sets  out  minimum  standards  for  laying  hens  in 
battery cages, is the simplest means of achieving the desired objective. 

The degree of detail in the proposed measures is similar to that in the existing Directive. 

The Member States are not expected to have any difficulty  in transposing it into national law. 

"f6 

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION ' 

on the protection of laying hens kept in various systems of rearing 

± 

PREFACE 

Article 9 of Directive 88/166/EEC, laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying 
hens kept in battery cages1, states that: 

"Before  1  January  1993,  the  Commission  shall  submit  a  report  on  scientific 
developments regarding the welfare of hens under various systems of rearing and on the 
provisions in the Annex, accompanied by any appropriate adjustment proposals". 

In May  1992 the  Scientific  Veterinary  Committee  (Animal  Welfare  Section)  adopted  a report 
(prepared by  a working  group under the chairmanship of Professor  Dr.  W de Wit)  setting  out 
the latest available scientific  information on the welfare  of laying hens. The Commission took 
no further action on the matter at that time. 
In  1995 the Commission  services asked the  Scientific  Veterinary  Committee  (Animal  Welfare 
Section) to review and update the report of  1992. The Committee established an expert working 
group  under  chairmanship  of  Dr.  H.  J.  Blokhuis,  Institute  for  Animal  Science  and  Health, 
Lelystad,  The Netherlands.  The  members  of  the working  group,  elected  on  the  basis  of  their 
scientific expertise in the matter and not as representatives of their countries, were: 

Dr. H.J. Blokhuis, 

Institute for Animal Science and Health, Lelystad, The Netherlands. 

Prof. W. Bessei, 

Institute for Animal Breeding and Husbandry, 

University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany. 

Dr. A. Elson, 

ADAS, Lincoln, United Kingdom. 

Dr. P.W.G. Groot Koerkamp,  Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, 

Wageningen, The Netherlands. 

Dr. J. Faure, 

Poultry Research Institute, Nouilly, France. 

Dr. L.Keeling, 

Department of Animal Hygiene, 
Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Skara, Sweden. 

Prof. H. Simonsen,  Department of Animal Science and Animal Health, Royal Veterinary 

and Agricultural University, Frederiksberg C, Denmark. 

Dr. P. Van Houwelingen, European Commission (Secretary). 

1. 

O.J. No. L 74,19.03.1988, p. 83 

A. 

The working group has presented its report to the Scientific Veterinary Committee. On the basis 
of the report of the working group, the Committee has adopted its opinion and presented  it to 
the Commission. This opinion will also be sent separately to the European Parliament and the 
Council. This Communication draws upon the opinion of the Scientific Veterinary Committee. 

WELFARE: DEFINITIONS AND  MEASUREMENT 

As Article 9 of the Directive requires a report to be made on the welfare  of hens, it is of primary 
importance  to understand  what  is meant  by  the  concept  of welfare,  and  to  be  able  to  make  an 
objective  assessment  of  it.  The  working  group  considered  these  questions  at  length  and 
reviewed  several definitions  and  statements about animal welfare  which have been put  forward 
over the last thirty years. 

They  found  that  in recent  years  a common  approach  has been  adopted  by  leading  scientists  in 
the field, based on the degree of success which an individual has in controlling  its  environment. 
In the course of evolution every animal species is adapted to an environment in which it is able 
to regulate its internal state and to survive and reproduce. Regulatory  systems in animals  consist 
of active responses  (physiological,  behavioural  or both) to changes  in that  environment,  which 
allow the animal to keep internal and external conditions at an optimal level. In other words, the 
animal tries to control its environment by using various coping mechanisms. 

When  an animal  succeeds in coping  and therefore  has control  over  its environment,  its  welfare 
is good.  When  its attempts to cope are unsuccessful  it will  experience  negative  effects  ranging 
from  minor discomfort to death. The more effort  the animal is putting into coping, or the greater 
the biological cost of responding, the worse the animal feels and the poorer its welfare. 

There are four types of welfare indicators: health; productivity; physiological and ethological. 

Health, which is equivalent to freedom  from  disease and injury,  is a very important criterion  in 
the assessment of the quality of life of egg-laying hens. It is, however, important to be aware of 
the  fact  that the border between  health and disease  is very  often  indistinct.  For  example,  a hen 
infested  with a small number  of intestinal  worms  may  show no  symptoms  and be  classified  as 
healthy.  A  month  later  the  number  of  worms  may  have  increased  10-fold  and  the  hen  would 
then  be  classified  as  unhealthy.  It  is  also  important  to  realise  that  an  unhealthy  hen  does  not 
necessarily  experience  pain  or distress. For example, a hen  with  extremely  weak  wingbones  is 
an unhealthy  animal but there is no reason to believe that the abnormal  bone  structure  involves 
.pain. However,  pain will  be experienced  if the wingbone  is fractured, as often  happens  during 
handling  and  transport.  The  health-related  welfare  in  a  population  can  be  described  using 
standard  analytical  methodology  in properly  designed  epidemiological  studies  of the  incidence 
of disease, its duration and the intensity of pain or discomfort  involved. 
Stressors in general have an influence  on the immunological  capacity  of the animals  and  so  on 
the health status of the animals. 

Productivity must be used with caution as an indicator of welfare  because welfare  is a property 
of an individual, but productivity  in hens is usually measured on a flock  basis. Another problem 
is  that  productivity  may  mean  different  things  such  as  the  output  of  an  individual  hen,  the 
average  production  of  a  flock,  production  per  unit  of  food  intake,  economic  return  per  unit  of 
capital  or per  unit  of  labour,  or  some  other  calculation.  This means  that  conflicting  results  can 
be obtained  depending  on the measurement  chosen. For example  a change  in an  environmental 
variable  may  reduce  the  number  of  eggs produced  but  increase  egg  weight,  leaving  egg  mass 
output  the  same.  Depending  on  the  measurement  of  productivity  selected,  the  same  change 
could  therefore  be  said  to  have  improved  welfare,  decreased  it  or  left  it  unaffected.  This 
demonstrates  that  a simple measure  of productivity  cannot be used to  measure  welfare.  On  the 
other hand  a sudden drop in a productivity  indicator  may be useful  in providing  a warning  of a 
welfare  problem. 
Care must be taken in using productivity as an indicator of welfare  since a substantial  reduction 
of  the  production  of  eggs  would  indicate  poor  welfare,  the  reverse,  good  production  does  not 
necessarily indicate good  welfare. 

Physiological  changes  occur  in  response  to  environmental  and  bodily  demands.  The  most 
frequently  measured  physiological  indicators  are those  associated  with  the  stress  response  and 
the activity  of the hypothalami-pituitary-adrenocortical  axis. However,  as with  other  measures, 
there are difficulties  in interpreting the results. 
Some of the reactions shown also occur during normal activities such as courtship, mating, egg-
laying  and foraging.  This means that traditional  indicators of stress (adrenaline,  noradrenaline, 
corticosterone  levels)  must  be  interpreted  with  great  care  and  used  in  combination  with  other 
measurements. 
Physiological  indicators  can  provide  a  sensitive  measure  of  animal  welfare  in  terms  of 
measuring the effort  put into coping with a situation. 

Ethological  studies  concerning  the  welfare  of  birds  aim  to  determine  if  a  bird  can  cope 
behaviourally  with  a  specific  environment  or to  identify  relevant  environmental  factors  which 
enable the bird to cope. These studies are of three types: 

1. 

Birds are placed in the environment under investigation and their behaviour is compared 
with that of birds either under feral  conditions  or placed  in an environment  assumed  to 
be ideal. The problem with this approach is that it is not immediately  obvious whether a 
particular behaviour, or a change in behaviour, is an indication of regulatory  disturbance 
of failure, or whether it is an appropriate adaptation to a change in environment. To use 
such parameters to demonstrate poor welfare,  it must first be  shown that these  changes 
indicate  frustration. 

2. 

3. 

Preference  tests,  in  which  birds  are  either  given  a  choice  between  two  or  more 
environments, or are made to pay (in terms of work or of unpleasant  stimuli)  in order to 
obtain  access  to  a  reward,  can  be  used  to  indicate  not  only  which  environments  birds 
prefer but can to some extent measure the relative strengths of different  preferences. 

The  third  method  is  to  observe  behaviour  in  experimental  situations  in  which  a  bird 
cannot cope and compare this with behaviour in the environment under study. 

Combination of different  indicators 

No  single indicator of animal welfare  is by itself the best. Several  different  measurements  must 
be  taken  into  account.  The  four  indicators  described  above  do  not  always,  point  in  the  same 
direction; there are often  conflicting results. 
A  problem  in  the  evaluation  of  animal  welfare  is  the  lack  of  knowledge  of  how  animals 
experience, for  example, the  states of disease, conflict  behaviour  and  abnormal  behaviour.  Are 
some  states  more  important  from  a  welfare  point  of  view  than  the  others?  It  is  proposed  that 
criteria for assessing welfare can be divided into design criteria and performance  criteria. 

Summary 

The most commonly used welfare  indicators are measures of health, production, physiology  and 
ethology.  Any  one  of these  indicators  may  be  used  on  its  own  to  indicate  poor  welfare,  but  a 
combination of them gives a better indication of the effort  the animal is putting into coping  and 
hence the biological cost to the animal of responding. 

THE NEEDS OF LAYING HENS 

A need is a deficiency  in an animal which can be remedied by obtaining a particular resource or 
responding to a particular environmental  or bodily  stimulus. If an animal is not able to satisfy  a 
need the consequence, either in the short term or eventually, will be poor welfare. 

Most  needs  arise  from  the  motivational  state  of  an  individual,  which  may  be  physiological  or 
psychological  in  origin.  For  example,  a  hen  may  drink  water  because  its  body  fluids  have 
become  too  highly  concentrated  (physiological)  or  in  anticipation  of  future  dehydration 
(psychological).  As a consequence  of the  link between needs and motivation,  many  needs  can 
be ascertained by observing the preferences  of laying hens. 

Hens need: 

to obtain adequate nutrients and water, 
to grow and maintain themselves in such a way that their bodies can function  properly, 
to avoid damaging environmental conditions, injury or disease, 
to be able to minimise the occurrence of pain, fear and  frustration. 

In order  to  achieve these  ends, hens  carry  out  a variety  of activities, respond  to  certain  stimuli 
and maintain certain physiological  states. Hence they have other needs such as: 

to show certain foraging  and investigatory movements, 
to have sufficient  exercise, 
to show preening and dust-bathing  behaviour, 
to explore and respond to signs of potential danger, 
to interact socially with other hens, 
to search for, or to build, a suitable nest site. 

In  order  to  carry  out  their  activities  hens  need  space,  but  the  amount  of  space  needed  for 
particular activities is a matter of debate. When more space is given to birds a greater extent and 
variety  of  behaviours  can  be  expressed.  Enrichment  of  the  environment  allows  and  stimulates 
behavioural  expression. 

Individual  birds  need  more  area  for  normal  movements  and  adequate  exercise  than  450  cm2 
currently  required  in  battery  cages. A  housing  system  for  laying  hens  should  provide  the  bird 
with enough space to be able to perform  a number of basic behaviours, such as wing-stretching, 
wing-flapping,  preening, turning around, exercise to prevent problems  like bone weakness, and 
other  activities  including  adequate  access  to  food  and  water  and  perching.  The  environment 
should be such that the bird is able to perch, to lay eggs in a nest, to peck, to scratch and to dust-
bath. 
These behaviours can not be expressed and enrichment of environment can never be provided in 
a cage with 450 cm  per bird. 
Any increase in space per bird will lead to increase of behavioural activities and those behaviour 
patterns  will  be  shown  which  need  the  most  space.  Even  for  a  normal  standing  position,  the 
position  which  requires the  minimum  space, a  space of 428-592  cm  , depending  on weight,  is 
needed for an individual bird. 
When kept  in larger groups they can  share their space  for  activities which occupy  only  a  small 
proportion  of  their  time.  However,  even  when  they  can  share  their  space, when  800  cm  per 
bird is provided  in a group of 5 birds not all kind of behaviour patterns can be performed,  such 
as  head  scratching,  body  shaking  and  feather  raising.  Common  experience  in  larger  colony 

systems  show that  1000 cm  surface  area per bird  allows the bird to  express  a large  variety  of 
behaviours. 
Besides that, studies have shown that hens are prepared to work to increase their  space up to at 
least 775 cm2 per bird. 

Bone weakness  and bone  fractures  of laying hens may  be  seen in all  systems. Bone  weakness, 
which  is an important  factor  as a cause of fractures,  is predominantly  seen in birds  deprived  of 
reasonable  opportunities  to  locomote,  i.e.  those  kept  in  battery  cages.  Fractures  of  weakened 
bones may  be  caused  by rough  handling  of the birds as well  as by accidents  in  systems  where 
facilities  for flying  and landing are suboptimal. 
Because of the barren environment of battery cages the welfare  of birds in them is not  improved 
merely  by  increasing  the  space  per  bird,  since  scientific  research  has  shown  that  aggressive 
behaviour can increase with increased space in such an environment. 

Hens  have  a  strong  preference  for  laying  their  eggs  in  a  nest.  The  number  and  distribution  of 
nests  should  be determined  according  to the management  system and the  strain  of birds. It has 
been  found  that, to  avoid  excessive  competition  and to minimise  floor-laid  eggs, an  individual 
nest  should be provided  for  5 to  8 birds or, if communal  nests are used, at least  1 m2 for  100 to 
120 birds should be provided. 

Hens have a preference  to rest by perching. If perches are provided they are generally well used 
and  contribute  to  bone  strength.  The  provision  of  a  perch  in  a  cage  results  in  greater  leg 
strength. Hens from some perchery systems are found  at slaughter to have a high level of healed 
fractures, due to the failure of birds to land properly on perches. The distribution of  perches, the 
amount  of perch  space available  and the availability  of perches during  rearing  are  important  in 
determining  the  number  of  clumsy  landings,  as  is  the  length  of  time  during  which  lighting  is 
gradually reduced at the end of each light period. 

Hens  have  a  strong  preference  for  a  littered  floor.  When  litter  is  provided  it  should  be  of  a 
suitable type, maintained  in a friable  condition and must be suitable for pecking, scratching and 
for  dust-bathing.  The  provision  of  litter  during  the  rearing  period  plays  an  important  part  in 
reducing the amount of feather pecking in adults. 

Laying hens must have at least daily access to food  and water at all times. When  linear  feeders 
are used at least  10 cm of feeding  space should be accessible to each bird; when circular  feeders 
are used there should be at least 4 cm feeding  space per bird. When continuous drinking troughs 
are used,  at least  10 cm  of trough  should  be accessible to each bird. Alternatively,  at least  one 
cup  or nipple  drinker  should  be  provided  for  every  10 birds. If the  group  size  is  less  than  ten 

animals  at  least  two  nipple  drinkers  or  two  drinking  cups  shall  be  within  reach  of  that  group. 
Drinkers and feeders must be equally distributed over the housing system. 

Although  hens  are  attracted  to  daylight,  there  is  no  scientific  evidence  that  it  is  necessary  for 
their welfare.  Light  intensity to keep a normal  laying rate is 5 to 7 lux and light intensities well 
over  10 lux are usually avoided to decrease feather pecking. 
There does not appear to be any conclusive scientific  work concerning the influence  on  welfare 
of  the  different  artificial  lighting  programmes  in  commercial  use.  However,  because  dark 
periods will limit strongly the expression of behavioural patterns, an adequate continuous period 
of  light  should  be  provided  each  day.  It  is  important  that,  at  least  in floor pens, light  intensity 
must  be  kept  as constant  as possible  because  spots of high  light  intensity  are  so attractive  that 
hens might concentrate there and may pile up, causing  suffocation. 

Although beak trimming can reduce pecking damage it is preferable  that hens should be housed 
and  managed  in  such  a  way  that  beak  trimming  is  not  necessary.  Because  the  risk  of 
cannibalism  is low, there is, no necessity  for  trimming  the beaks of hens kept  in battery  cages. 
Since it is known that beak trimming causes pain, both during and after the operation due to the 
presence  of  neuromas,  when  the  birds  are  beak  trimmed  at  an  age  used  in  common  practice, 
beak trimming  should  be banned  as soon as practicable. However,  in alternative  systems, using 
the present  strains of birds banning beak trimming  will  increase the risk of damage to the  birds 
caused  by  pecking  activity.  There  is  no  solution  for  this  problem  at  this  moment  and  in 
alternative  system  beak  trimming  must  be  permitted,  but  should  be  carried  out  on  chicks  less 
than  10 days old, because it seems that up to that age the specialised  sensory receptors located at 
the tip of the mandible do not regenerate. 
For  alternative  systems,  rearing  methods  and  strains  of  birds  should  be  sought  in  which 
significant  feather pecking and cannibalism does not occur. 

HOUSING  SYSTEMS FOR LAYING  HENS 

At  present,  most  hens  in  the  European  Community  are  kept  in  battery  cage  systems  which 
provide  a  barren  environment  for  the  birds.  Important  benefits  and  deficiencies  of  the  battery 
cage with respect to the welfare  of hens include the  following. 

Benefits  in comparison with good examples of other systems are: 

the birds are separated from their manure, so that endoparasitic infestations  are rare, 
birds are in small groups with a stable social order, 
the risk of cannibalism is low and there is no necessity for beak trimming. 

Deficiencies  in comparison with good examples of other systems are: 

nesting  behaviour,  perching,  scratching,  dust-bathing  and  most  movements  are 
prevented or  modified, 
stereotyped behaviour occurs, 
increased  fear, 
bone weakness caused by lack of locomotion. 

It is clear that because of its small size and its barrenness, the battery cage as used at present has 
inherent severe disadvantages for the welfare of hens. 

Hens  in  cages  may  have  a  uncontrolled  and  excessive  growth  of  the  claws,  often  leading  to 
breakage of the claw with or without  damage of underlying tissues. By fitting  an abrasive  strip 
on the baffle  behind the food trough the front claws are effectively  shortened. 

For  4  tiers  of  cages  or  more  a  fixed  catwalk  or  other  approved  device  should  be  provided  to 
allow  inspection  of the  upper  cages  and to  facilitate  removal  of birds  from  those  cages.  There 
should be a minimum aisle width of at least  1  metre between tiers of cages to facilitate  adequate 
bird inspection in all tiers, installation and for minimisation of damage on depopulation of birds. 

Cage  design  has  been  improved  in  recent  years,  and  research  and  development  on  cage 
enrichment  continues.  Where  more  space  is  provided  in  cages,  the  opportunity  to  provide 
certain  additional  facilities,  e.g. perches, becomes  more  conceivable.  If a moderate  increase  in 
space  is provided  it might  be possible  to  further  enrich  cages  by  the provision  of  facilities  for 
nesting, dust-bathing, scratching and pecking. 

Other  housing  systems  such  as aviaries, percheries,  deep  litter  or free range  provide  a  varying 
degree of enrichment,  generally  improving the possibility  for the birds to express a wider range 
of  behaviour.  These  alternative  systems  may  present  a  higher  risk  of  parasitic  infection,  and 
outbreaks  of  feather  pecking  and  cannibalism  may  be  more  difficult  to  control.  As  a 
consequence  of this, using the present  strains of poultry, beak  trimming  seems to be  necessary 
for the time being. 

At  the  current  stage  of  development,  production  costs,  labour  requirements,  the  degree  of 
management  skill and veterinary  supervision required  are all higher  in alternative  systems  than 
in laying cages. With many different  systems in use, there is inevitably much more variation  in 
performance  in alternatives than in laying cages. However, it should be remembered that it took 
20 or  30 years to develop  laying  cages to their present  form,  and  improvements  are  still  being 
made;  some  alternatives  have  only  been  available  for  about  10-15  years,  and  so  further 

modifications  and  improvements  can  be  expected,  as well  as knowledge  on how  to  reduce  the 
risks of parasitic infestation,  outbreaks of feather pecking and cannibalism. 

There  will  be more bacterial  contamination  on  dirty/floor  eggs than  on clean  eggs produced  in 
nests.  There  is  no  difference  in  contamination  between  eggs  produced  in  nests  and  in  battery 
cages. The disease  status in modern  aviary and perchery  systems can be maintained  at the  same 
high level  as in the current battery  cages, with skilled personal and good veterinary  supervision, 
when  a  number  of  factors  are  taken  into  account  such  as  to  preventing  the  litter  from  getting 
wet,  using  an  all-in  all-out  replacement  system,  regular  collecting  of  eggs,  good  cleaning  and 
disinfection  of the system between two batches, prevention of the food  and drinking facilities  to 
be contaminated by faeces, removal of dead animals and effective  insect and rodent control. 

Applied  research  into  the  welfare  of  laying  hens  has  been  undertaken  for  a  relatively  short 
period.  Present  disadvantages  of  some  alternative  systems,  such  as  cannibalism  and 
environmental  problems  which  are  not  yet  fully  under  control,  should  be  overcome  during 
practical  trials  of  existing  systems  in commercial  conditions  and  by  further  research.  Enriched 
cages  and  well  designed  non-cage  systems  have  already  been  shown  to  have  a  number  of 
welfare  advantages over battery cages in their present  form. 

There  are  no  or  only  slight  differences  in  the  (biological)  production  capacity  of  hens  in 
alternative  systems  and  the  current  battery  cage  system,  although  the  recorded  output  in 
alternative systems may be lower because of eating and breakage. 

Birds  in  all  housing  systems  should  be  managed  only  by  staff  who  have  been  trained  and  are 
experienced  in the husbandry  system used. In order to safeguard  their welfare, the birds and any 
equipment  upon which their welfare  depends, should be thoroughly  inspected  at least twice  per 
day. 

PRODUCTION  IN DIFFERENT  SYSTEMS OF REARING IN  EUROPE 

In  1996 there were about 270 million laying hens in the EU, almost 93% of them kept in cages. 
Table  1 shows an overview of the situation in the EU. In some countries there  is an increase  of 
production  in alternative systems of rearing. 

10 

Table 1:  Number  (xlOOO) of laying hens in different  systems  of rearing  in the EU  Member 
States  in  1996  (Source:  Calculated  from  Statistiques  avicoles,  doc.  VI/417-FR 
rév. 135, 5-12-1997 and Communications by Member States) 

battery 

% 

aviary 

% 

xlOOO 

xlOOO 

% 

deep 
litter 
xlOOO 

semi-
intens 
xlOOO 

% 

% 

free-
range 
xlOOO 

A 

B 

DK 

D 

E* 

3.886 

12.304 

2.591 

39.472 

34.227 

EL* 

5.644 

FIN* 

3.250 

F  ('95) 

52.985 

IRL 

I* 

NL 

P* 
s 
UK 

EU 

865 

35.478 

23.240 

4.923 

4.272 

27.355 

250.762 

84 

98 

70 

91 

99 

95 

80 

99 

83 

82 

84 

93 

28 

0.6 

10 

0.1 

42 

22 

1.1 

0.1 

439 

209 

9.5 

1.7 

667 

18.1 

285 

6.1  1 

21 

0.2 

18 

0.1 

382 

10.4 

2.354 

5.4 

31 

0.1 

1524 

3.5 

I 

25 

0.8 

18 

103 

0.2 

2.028 

3.6 

622 

1.0  J 

166 

0.5 

191 

0.7 

3.578 

12.7 

91 

0.3 

971 

3.5 

219 

20.0 

135 

2.6 

800 

15.4 

1.066 

3.3 

4.193 

12.9 

1.512 

0.6 

8.341 

3.7 

2.171 

0.8 

8.214 

3.0 

* = no other figures available, exclusive backyard flocks. 

Due  to  demand  in  several  Member  States,  particularly  in  Northern  Europe,  non-cage  egg 
production  has  gained  in popularity  over the last  10 years. For example, in the Netherlands, 
aviaries and deep litter are popular and 40% of the table eggs sold through retail there are non-
cage. 

11 

In  1984, common  marketing  standards were  adapted  to provide  for  harmonised  labelling  rules 
for eggs from four different  alternative egg production systems(free  range - semi intensive -deep 
litter-percheries)  and  few  criteria  as  well  as  control  measures  were  laid  down  to  ensure  loyal 
competition between producers. 

THE  IMPLEMENTATION  OF THE EU  DIRECTIVE  AND  FINANCIAL  SUPPORTS 
IN MEMBER  STATES 

All  EU-Member  States  have  notified  the  implementation  of  Directive  88/166/EEC,  except 
Finland  and  few  "Lander  "  in  Austria  on  some  parts  of  the  Directive.  There  are  a  number  of 
considerable  differences  between  the  Member  States  in  relation  to  economic  support  of  their 
farmers. The situation in the Member States is indicated below. 

Austria: 

Belgium: 

Denmark: 

Finland: 

At  19 April  1996 the  "Nationalrat"  has  in  a resolution  requested  the  Minister  of 
Agriculture  to  go  for  a  ban  on  battery  cages  in  Europe.  The  use  of  cages  for 
rearing  laying  hens  will  be  forbidden  from  a  certain  date  in  a  number  of 
"Lander".  Austria  supports  financially  the  transition  from  battery  cages  to 
alternative systems of rearing. 

Belgium has other figures  for cages with few birds in a cage:  1000 cm  for  1 bird 
in a cage, 750 cm2 per bird for 2 birds in a cage and 550 cm  per bird with 3 birds 
in  a cage. For  cages  with  4 or  more  birds  in  it the  legislation  is  in  line  with  the 
Directive's  minimum  standards. There is no financial  support  by the  government 
for changing over from battery cages to alternative systems of rearing. 

Denmark  requires  600 cm2  per  bird.  When  a  farmer  destroys  his  battery  cages 
system,  to  be  replaced  by  an  alternative  system  or  just  to  stop  production,  he 
receives  a financial  support  from  the  government  of  20 dkr  per hen place  at  this 
moment. 

Finland  requires  480  cm2 per  bird  in a battery  cage. The  government  in  Finland 
has  accepted  in principle  a ban  on battery  cages, but  the date  of entry  into  force 
has  not  yet  been  laid  down.  The  Finnish  Parliament  however  accepted  that  by 
2005 no battery cages should be used. 
Farmers who  change  over to  alternative  systems  of  rearing  get  financial  support 
from  the government. For 25% of the loan the farmer takes in a bank the Minister 
pays all the interest costs up to an interest level of 5%. 

12 

France: 

Implemented  in  line  with  the  Directive's  minimum  standards.  There  is  no 
financial support  by  the  government  for  changing  over  from  battery  cages  to 
alternative systems of rearing. 

Germany:  Germany requires a space of 550 cm2 per bird if the birds are more than 2 kg and 
450  cm  per  bird  if  the  birds  are  less  than  2  kg.  The  "Bundesrat"  has  in  a 
resolution requested a ban on battery cages in Europe, but up till now the central 
government  has  not  adopt  that  position.  There  is  no financial support  by  the 
government  for  changing  over  from  battery  cages  to  alternative  systems  of 
rearing. 

Greece: 

Implemented  in  line  with  the  Directive's  minimum  standards.  There  is  no 
financial support  by  the  government  for  changing  over  from  battery  cages  to 
alternative systems of rearing. 

Luxembourg:  Implemented  in  line  with  the  Directive's  minimum  standards.  There  is  no 
financial support  by  the  government  for  changing  over  from  battery  cages  to 
alternative systems of rearing. 

Netherlands:  Implemented  in  line  with  the  Directive's  minimum  standards.  There  is  no 
financial  support  by  the  government  to  change  over  from  battery  cages  to 
alternative systems of rearing. 

Ireland: 

Italy: 

Implemented  in  line  with  the  Directive's  minimum  standards.  There  is  no 
financial support  by  the  government  to  change  over  from  battery  cages  to 
alternative systems. 

Implemented  in  line  with  the  Directive's  minimum  standards.  There  is  no 
financial  support  by  the  government  to  change  over  from  battery  cages  to 
alternative systems of rearing. 

Portugal: 

Implemented  in  line  with  the  Directive's  minimum  standards.  There  is  no 
financial support  by  the  government  to  change  over  from  battery  cages  to 
alternative systems of rearing. 

Spain: 

Implemented  in  line  with  the  Directive's  minimum  standards.  There  is  no 
financial  support  by  the  government  to  change  over  from  battery  cages  to 
alternative systems of rearing. 

13 

Sweden: 

In  Sweden  laying hens must have 600 cm  per bird. The  Swedish Parliament  has 
accepted  a ban  on the  present  battery  cage  from  1 January  1999. From  that  day 
on each housing  system  should  have  laying nests, perches  and  a dustbath,  unless 
farmers  have  a  derogation,  which  may  be  granted  for  a  maximum  of  3  laying 
cycles.  There  is  no  financial  support  by  the  government  to  change  over  from 
battery cages to alternative systems of rearing. 

2 

United  Kingdom:  The  United  Kingdom  has  other  figures  for  cages  with  few  birds  in  a  cage: 
o 
1000 cm  for  1 bird in a cage, 750 cm  per bird for  2 birds in a cage and 550 cm 
per bird with 3 birds in a cage. For cages with 4 or more birds in it the  legislation 
is  no 
is 
financial  support  by  the  government  to  change  over  from  battery  cages  to 
alternative systems of rearing. 

the  Directive's  minimum 

standards.  There 

line  with 

in 

2 

1. General 

ECONOMICS 

Although  the vast  majority  of  EU eggs are  still produced  by  birds  in  cages, several  alternative 
systems  such  as  aviary,  perchery,  deep  litter  and  free  range  systems  are  in  commercial  use. 
Some  of  these  are  recent  innovations,  e.g.  percheries  and  aviaries,  others,  deep  litter  and  free 
range, are used for quite some time, mainly in the Northern Member States. 

The  costs  of  production  are  influenced  by  the  housing  system,  stocking  density,  food  intake, 
labour, hygiene, mortality rate and performance. At current stocking densities they are lowest in 
the battery cage and highest in free  range systems. Modified  enriched cages under  development 
and  costs  of  production  in  them  are  likely  to  be  between  current  cages  and  alternatives, 
depending on stocking density. 

Although technical improvement of the alternative systems is still possible, the production  costs 
of  eggs  in  aviary  and  perchery  systems  are higher  than  those  produced  in current  battery  cage 
systems. The main reasons for this higher cost are extra building, labour and feed costs. 
Compared  to the present battery  cage, providing  450 cm  per bird, production  costs per  egg  in 
high density aviary and perchery systems (20 birds/m  ) are about  10% higher, about  15% higher 
in systems with  12 birds/m2. There is an increase of production costs per egg by about 
5%-7.5% when  600 cm2 cage area per bird  is provided,  and  by  about  10-15% at  800 cm2  cage 
area  per  bird  (where  investments  are  needed  for  new  houses  and  equipment).  Taking  into 
account  that  not  more  than  80%  of  all  eggs  produced  are  sold  as  table  eggs  and  assuming 

14 

unchanged  prices for processing eggs, this latter requires an increase of table egg prices at  farm 
level by  12 to 18%. 

Eggs produced  in aviary, perchery, deep litter, semi-intensive  and free  range systems  command 
a premium  price  in certain  areas. In general  the producers  of eggs  other than  battery-cage  eggs 
receive a higher price for their eggs. 

Although currently the farmers receive considerably higher premiums for their eggs produced  in 
alternative  systems,  it  might  be  that  this  premium  price  will  not  be  maintained  at  the  present 
level if the whole or a large percentage of the production  is transferred  to more welfare  friendly 
alternative systems. 

2. Effects  on EU  market. 

2.a. WTO-Agreement - import duties. 

Within the Community there are no market support mechanisms  for  eggs. Historically,  the 
Community market was shielded from third country imports by a system of variable  levies 
and  sluicegate  prices, but  these  no  longer  apply  as  a  result  of  the  tariffication  process  of 
the WTO Agreement  on Agriculture. Under the tariffication  process the  system  of  various 
levies  and  sluicegate  prices  were  replaced  by  a  system  of  duties  and  a  special  saveguard 
clause based  on reference  prices. So far,  Community  welfare  rules never had  a  discernible 
effect  on the  level of imports or exports, even after  the  introduction  of  low duty  tariff  rate 
quotas from 1  July  1995. 

The  normal  import  duty  for  eggs  in  shell  was  44.7  ecu/  100  kg  in  1995/96.  It  is  39 
ECU/100  kg  in  1997/98  and  will  be  further  reduced  in  equal  annual  steps  to  30.4  ECU/ 
100 kg in 2000/01. 

Based  on  the  WTO  Agreement  there  is  a  minimum  tariff  rate  quota  for  eggs  and  egg 
products  with  a reduced  duty  (15.2  ECU/100  kg).  The  tariff  rate  quota  for  eggs  in  shell, 
whole  egg products  and yolk  and  albumins, at reduced  duties was  in total  84  000  tons  in 
"95/'96 and will  increase up to  157 500 tons  in 2000/'01. In  1997 the  quota  for  whole  egg 
products and yolk was fully  used (6373 tons shell eggs equivalent), the quota for  albumins 
(10058 tons  shell  egg  equivalent)  was used  for  37% and  only  0.1%> of the  quota  for  eggs 
in shell (70 300 ton) was used. 
The total tariff rate quota at reduced duties amounts to 2% of the Community  consumption 
of table eggs in  1996 and to about 3% in 2000/01. 

15 

It  is  expected  that  during  the  next  WTO  round  a  further  reduction  of  duties  for  all 
agricultural products will be discussed. 

2b. 

Economic  consequences  of increased  space per bird in cages 

An  important  element  would  be the effect  of the  increase  in minimum  space per  hen  on 
the  competitivity  of  eggs  produced  in  the  European  Union  compared  to  eggs  imported 
from  the world  market. 
The present  rules  assure  a certain  so-called  community  preference  because  the prices  for 
eggs  imported  from  third  countries, after  paying  the normal  import  duty,  are higher  than 
market prices for eggs produced  in the EU in cages with 450 cm2 space per bird. 

In a first example  (scenario  2001) it is assumed that the production  costs will  increase by 
10%  if: 
- 
- 

the minimum  space per bird is 800 cm2; 
the grain prices in the EU will be reduced by 20% (in the year 2001), as proposed  in 
the Agenda 2000; 
the EU import duties will remain  unchanged. 

- 

Under  those  circumstances  eggs produced  in the  EU  at a cage  space  of  800 cm2 per  bird 
will  have  no  more  competitive  advantage  to  eggs  imported  from  the  USA.  The  market 
prices will be the same. 
If,  however, the EU  import duty will be further  reduced  in the framework  of a new  WTO 
round,  say,  for  example,  by  33  per  cent  during  the  period  from  2001  to  2010,  EU's 
competitive  advantage  will  in the  year  2010  have disappeared  already  at a cage  space  of 
600 cm2 per bird. At cage spaces above that level eggs produced  in the EU will no  longer 
be competitive with imported eggs. 

Forecasting  production  costs  is  always  done  with  a  degree  of  uncertainty  and  it  might 
therefore  be wise to consider the development  in competitivity  supposing  that  production 
costs in the EU would  increase by  15%) when  increasing the space per bird  from  450  cm2 
to 800 cm2 and by 7.5%) when increasing the space to 600 cm2 per bird. 
Applying  this  hypothesis  combined  with  a reduction  in the  EU  grain  prices by  20%  and 
unchanged  EU  border  protection  (scenario  2001)  the  EU  competitive  advantage  on  the 
EU  internal  market  will  disappear,  when  the  minimum  space  required  per  bird  attains 
700 cm2 per bird, and under the 2010 scenario (import duties further  reduced by 33%>) the 
EU  competitive  advantage  will  have  disappeared  at  a  minimum  cage  space  of  550  cm2 
per bird. 

16 

The above mentioned estimates of cage space per hen at which EU compatative  advantage 
will be lost are summarised in the following table. 

— • — *— 

'  ~ — —- 

^ " ^ ' ^ "j 

'  ' 

— — —I 

•  I

I —— 

I 

— —— 

2001 

2010 

productioncosts 
increase 

estimated cage space 
(cm2) 

estimated  cage  space 
(cm2) 

10%) 

15%) 

800 

700 

600 

550 

Although  these  estimates  are  based  on  the  best  data  available  at  this  moment,  it 
should be borne in mind that these figures  are subject to large margins  of error,  because 
there  are  a  number  of  assumptions  and  differing  situations  of  single  Member 
States have not been taken into account. 
To  be  more  precise  what  the  consequences  could  be  according  to  country  or  to 
possible  requirements  for  the  various  housing  system,  further  calculations  must  be 
made. 
The  additional  expenditure  for  EC  consumers  is  very  small  and  is  estimated  to 
amount about to  1.12-1.56 ECU per head per annum with a space of 800 cm2 per bird. 

2.c. WTO Agreements- Sanitary  and PhytoSanitary  (SPS) and Technical Barriers  to 

Trade  (TBT) 

Under the  WTO  Technical  Barriers to Trade  Agreement  (TBT), Members  may  apply 
technical  regulations  such as labelling  rules to imports, provided  such regulations  are 
non-discriminatory  and  are  not  more  trade  restrictive  than  necessary  to  fulfill  a 
legitimate  objective. 
Specific  rules  exist  that  allow  a  WTO  Member  to  require  imported  products  to  respect 
certain sanitary requirements (SPS Agreement), with the objective of protecting human and 
animal  health  in  its  own  territory.  The  present  WTO  rules  do  not  specifically  address 
animal welfare, but allows its members to set their domestic rules on animal welfare  at the 
level they deem appropriate. 

In the  case  at hand  it  appears, therefore,  difficult  to  apply  requirements  on  the  welfare  of 
laying hens to imported eggs and egg products. 

At  the  time  of  adoption  of  the  present  welfare  rules,  there  were  calls  for  measures  to  be 
included  in those rules to  require  imported  eggs to  come  from  hens  kept  under  conditions 

17 

laid down in the Directive. At that time, the Commission engaged  itself to take  appropriate 
measures  inside the  framework  of Community  rules which regulate the  import  and  export 
regime  in  order  to  take  into  account,  if  necessary,  the  financial  consequences  of  this 
directive having  an adverse  effect  on the balance of trade. No  such action was found  to be 
necessary in the past. 

OTHER  INSTRUMENTS 

1. Labelling 

The  present  Community  rules  on  labelling  (Council  Regulation  (EEC) No  1907/90  on  certain 
marketing  standards  for  eggs  and  Commission  Regulation  (EEC)  No  1274/91  introducing 
detailed  rules  for  implementation  Regulation  (EEC)  No  1907/90)3  are  applicable  to  all  shell 
eggs sold in the EC, including those from third countries. Labelling rules can be applied  also to 
imports  in a non-discriminatory  fashion.  Such measures  should  be notified  to the  WTO  under 
the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and must comply with the rules laid down 
in that  agreement. 

At present the common marketing  standards for eggs provide for optional  labelling of eggs and 
packs  with  the  five  types  of  farming  used  to  produce  eggs,  according  to  Article  10  (3)  of 
Regulation  (EEC) No  1907/90 and Article  18 of Commission  Regulation  (EEC)  1274/91  (free 
range, semi-intensive, deep-litter, perchery, cage production). 
The  basic  conditions  which  must  be  fulfilled  of  each  of  the  five  farming  systems  as  well  as 
control arrangements are laid down in Commission Regulation  1274/91. 

In  order  to  fully  inform  consumers,  mandatory  labelling  of  table  eggs  and  packs  by  type  of 
production  should  envisaged  in  future.  This  labelling  should  be  mandatory  for  all  table  eggs 
produced  in  the  Member  States  of  the  EU.  When  the  Council  will  have  adopted  mandatory 
labelling,  the  detailed  requirements  must  be  adopted  via  the  Management  Committee 
procedure. 
It is then up to the consumer to choose the type of table egg(s) they  prefer. 

In  order  to  avoid  any  misleading  information  on eggs  or packs  it must  be  considered  whether 
the  general  statement  as  mentioned  in  Article  10,  paragraph  2(e)  of  the  Council  Regulation 
1907/90, should be supplemented  by more detailed appropriate rules according to  Commission 
Regulation  1274/91.  Article  10,  paragraph  2(e)  reads  as  follows:"Statements  or  symbols 

2 O.J. No. L  173, 06.07.1990, p. 5 
3  O.J. No. L  121,16.05.1991, p. 11 

18 

designed to promote sales of eggs or other items, provided that such statements or symbols and 
the manner in which they are made are not likely to mislead the purchaser". 

However,  regarding  the  labelling  of  egg-products  by  type  of  production  it  is  difficult  to 
implement and to control in practice similar requirements as proposed for table eggs. 

2. Subsidies 

There  is  one  regulation  which  allows  for  financial  aid  for  investments  in  buildings  and 
technical  installations  for  the  improvement  of  the  welfare  of  laying  hens.  This  is  Council 
Regulation (EC) No 950/97 on improving the efficiency  of agricultural structures4, one of the 
basic regulations for the horizontal objective 5a of Structural Funds. 

In  principle, this  regulation  does  not  permit  investment  aids  in the  egg  and  poultry  sector. 
However,  aids  for  safeguarding  the  environment,  improvement  of  hygiene  conditions  on 
livestock  enterprises  and  animal  welfare  are  allowed,  provided  that  there  is  no  increase  in 
capacity. 

Furthermore, to be eligible beneficiaries have to fulfill  a série of conditions set up in Article 5 
of the Regulation (practise farming as a main occupation, possess adequate occupational skill 
and competence, submit a material improvement plan, keep simplified accounts). 

If these  conditions  are  fulfilled,  Member  States may put  in place a co-financed  aid  scheme 
related to investments  in compliance with Community  standards  on the protection  of laying 
hens, including investments for the conversion to such recognised husbandry systems. These 
investments should in any case represent a real effort  of adaptation to the new legal standards. 

In addition, Member States are allowed to fund  restricted national aid to farmers who do not 
fulfill  the  conditions  of  Article  5  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  950/97.  Both  schemes, 
national and co-financed, have to be approved by the Commission. 

The  possibilities  for  support  for  investments  will  continue  beyond  the  year  2000, whereby 
Community  conditions  concerning  eligibility  for  investment  aids  are  supposed  to  become 
even simpler and more flexible for implementation by Member States. 

O.J. No. L 142, 09.06.1997, p. 21 

19 

3. New  WTO-Agreement 

The possibility of amending WTO rules to address welfare concerns will be addressed in the 
context  of the  determination  of the  Union's  negotiating  objectives  for  the  next  stage  of  the 
WTO negotiations. 

CONCLUSION 

The objective  of the Commission  is to improve the welfare  of laying hens. The adoption of the 
Protocol  on  Animal  Welfare  to the Treaty  of the  European  Community,  as provided  for  in the 
Treaty  of  Amsterdam,  obliges  the  Commission  to  provide  proposals  on  animal  welfare  issues 
which have a real positive effect  on the welfare of animals. 
The  Commission  is of the  opinion that there  is clear  evidence  for  poor  welfare  in hens  kept  in 
battery cages, but alternative housing systems also still have some disadvantages which have not 
been solved yet entirely, and therefore  it is to early to ban battery cages. However, the minimum 
space per laying hen in battery cages should be enlarged together with enrichment of their cages 
to improve their  welfare. 
Progress  has  been made recently  in the development  of alternatives to the current battery  cage. 
This  progress  would  be  faster  if  the  poultry  industry  had  more  incentive  to  develop  such 
systems.  A  way  of  achieving  this  progress  and  hence  improving  the  welfare  of  laying  hens 
would  be to agree a timetable for phasing out the use of battery cage  in its present  form,  over a 
period long enough to allow farmers to adapt without major  economic problems and without the 
risk of adverse effects  on egg quality. 

The Commission recognises that a significant  improvement of the housing conditions for  laying 
hens might  have  a negative  influence  for  the position  of the European  egg-sector  on the  world 
market  for  shell  eggs  and  in  particular  egg-products.  There  are, however,  several  instruments 
which  could  be  applied  to  reduce  totaly  or  at  least  for  the  largest  part  the  negative  economic 
impact. 

20 

The Commission will therefore,  in addition to the proposal  for minimum  standards for the 
protection of laying hens in various systems of rearing, propose the following actions: 

1. The obligation to label each table egg which is produced in the Community, indicating the 

way of rearing of laying hens; 

2. Use of the economic support possibilities, according to the existing Community  legislation, 

to support the European farmers, without making infringements to the WTO-rules ; 

3.  After  the  adoption  of  this  Communication  by  the  Council  the  Commission  will  seek  the 
the 

introduction  of  minimum  standards  for 

support  of  other  countries  for 
protection of laying hens in various systems of rearing. 

the 

4.  The possibility of amending WTO rules to address welfare  concerns more generally will be 
addressed  in the context  of the determination  of the Union's  negotiating  objectives  for  the 
next stage of the WTO negotiations. 

21 

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

PROPOSAL FOR A COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 
of 
laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying 
hens kept in various systems of rearing 

dl 

PROPOSAL FOR A COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 

laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying 
hens kept in various systems of rearing 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular 
Article 43 thereof; 

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission; 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament  ; 

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee ; 

Whereas  on  7  March  1988  the  Council  adopted  Directive  88/166/EEC  complying  with  the 
judgement of the Court of Justice in Case  131/86 (annulment of Council Directive  86/113/EEC 
of  25  March  1986  laying  down  minimum  standards  for the protection  of  laying  hens  kept  in 
battery cages) ; 

Whereas  Article  9  of  Directive  86/113/EEC  requires  the  Commission  to  submit,  before  1 
January  1993, a report on scientific  developments  regarding the welfare  of hens under various 
systems  of  rearing  and on the  provisions  in the  Annex  to the  Directive,  accompanied  by  any 
appropriate adjustment proposals; 

Whereas the Community, as a contracting party to the European Convention for the Protection 
of Animals kept for Farming Purposes (hereinafter called "the Convention"), must give effect to 
the principles of animal welfare laid down in the Convention; whereas those principles  include 
the provision of housing,  food, water and care appropriate to the physiological  and ethological 
needs of the animals; 

5 
6 
7 

O.J. No. C 
O.J. No. C 
O.J. No. L74,19.03.1988, p. 83 

W 

Whereas  the  Standing  Committee  of  the  European  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  Animals 
kept for Farming Purposes has adopted in  1995 a detailed recommendation concerning  domestic 
fowl, which includes laying hens; 

Whereas the protection of laying hens is a matter of exclusive Community  competence; 

Whereas  the  report  from  the  Commission,  based  on an  opinion  from  the  Scientific  Veterinary 
Committee,  concludes  that  there  is  clear  evidence  for  poor  welfare  in  hens  kept  in  current 
battery  cages  and that  certain needs of hens cannot be met  in such cages; whereas there  is also 
evidence that the welfare  of hens may be poor in other systems of rearing  if a high  standard  of 
management is not maintained; 

Whereas  minimum  standards  for  the  protection  of  laying  hens  kept  in  all  systems  of  rearing 
should  be established  in order to meet the obligations  of the  Community  as a contracting  party 
to the  Convention,  and to remove  differences  in national  laws which  may  distort  conditions  of 
conditions  of  competition  and  in  consequence  interfere  with  the  operation  of  the  internal 
market; 

Whereas, in derogation  from  the general  requirements  for  the rearing of laying hens, the use of 
cages  may  be  allowed  to  continue  under  certain  conditions,  including  improved  structural  and 
space requirements; 

Whereas  studies  on  the  welfare  of  laying  hens  in  different  systems  of  rearing  should  be 
continued  to assess whether keeping a derogation for the use of cages is appropriate; 

Whereas  a  further  report  should  be  made  by  the  Commission  accompanied,  if  necessary,  by 
appropriate proposals; 

Whereas Council Regulation (EC) No 950/97 on improving the efficiency  of agricultural 
structures provides for  investment aids aiming at adoption of agricultural  holdings; 

Whereas Council Regulation (EEC)  1907/90 on certain marketing  standards for eggs  lays 
down general rules for the labelling of eggs and egg-packs, whereas the Commission  will 
make appropriate proposals to amend this Regulation to introduce mandatory  labelling  of 
table eggs produced  in the Community replacing the actual optional approach  concerning 
rearing  systems; 

Whereas  it  is  advisable  for  the  sake  of  clarity  and  rationality  to  repeal  and  replace  Directive 
88/166/EEC; 

Pi 

HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: 

Article 1 

1. 

2. 

This Directive lays down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens kept in 
various systems of rearing. 

Member States may, in compliance with the general rules of the Treaty, maintain or 
apply within their territories stricter provisions for the protection of laying hens than 
those laid down in this Directive. They shall inform the Commission of any such 
measures. 

For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply: 

Article 2 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

1. 

» 

"Laying  hens":  adult  hens  of  the  species  Gallus  gallus  which  are  kept  for  egg 
production; 

"Nest": a separate area for egg laying for an individual bird or for a group of birds; 

"Litter":  material  such  as  wood  shavings,  straw,  sand,  turf,  etc.  which  can  be 
manipulated by the birds; 

"Battery cage": any enclosed space intended for laying hens; 

"Enriched cage": a battery cage equipped with litter, perches and a nestbox. 

Article 3 

Member States shall ensure that from 1  January  1999, all newly built or rebuilt systems 
of rearing and all such systems of rearing brought into use for the first time, comply at 
least with the following requirements: 

a. 

at least one individual nest, suitable for egg laying, shall be provided for 8 laying 
hens or, if communal nests are used, at least 1  m2 of nest space for  100 birds. If 
the group size per unit is less than 8 laying hens, then each unit  shall have an 
individual nest; 

3t( 

b. 

c. 

d. 

e. 

adequate perching facilities, mounted at least  10 cm above ground or floor  level, 
without  sharp edges and providing at least  15 cm per bird, must be available  for 
all hens. The horizontal distance between perches must be no more than  1 meter; 

litter must be provided so as to enable the birds to dustbath; 

when  linear  feeders  are  used,  each  bird  must  have  access  to  at  least  10 cm  of 
feeding  space. When circular feeders are used there shall be at least 4 cm  feeding 
space per bird; 
when  continuous  drinking  troughs  are  used,  each  bird  must  have  access  to  at 
least  10 cm  of trough.  When  cups or nipple  drinkers  are used,  at  least  1 cup  or 
nipple drinker must be provided for  every  10 birds. If the group size is less than 
10 birds at least  two nipple drinkers or two drinking cups shall be within  reach 
of that group; 

f. 

the  floor  must  be  constructed  so  as  to  support  adequately  each  of  the  forward 
facing claws of each foot. 

2. 

If systems of rearing are used where the birds can move freely  between different  levels, 
or  in  single  floor  systems  of  rearing  the  following  additional  conditions  to  the 
requirements of paragraph  1  are met: 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

in systems of rearing with different  levels, the height between the levels must be 
at least 50 cm; 

the drinking and feeding  facilities must be distributed equally; 

the competent authority may allow beak trimming, with the restriction that beak 
trimming may only be practised on chickens less than the age of  10 days; 

at least half of the ground surface must be supplied with litter. The litter must be, 
maintained in a friable condition and must be suitable for pecking, scratching 
and dust bathing. 

3. 

If  enriched  cages  are  used,  the  following  additional  conditions  to  the  requirements  of 
paragraph  1 are met: 

a. 

cages shall be at least 50 cm high at any point; 

3fi 

b. 

the birds shall not have their beak trimmed. 

4. 

Without prejudice  to Article  9 Member  States may  authorise  derogations from points 
(a), and (c) of paragraph  1 in order to permit the use of battery cages if the  following 
conditions are met: 

a. 

b. 
c. 

d. 

e. 

f. 

g. 

at least 800 cm2 of cage area, measured in a horizontal plane which may be used 
without restriction, shall be provided for each hen; 

cages shall be at least 50 cm high at any point; 
cages shall be fitted with  claw shortening  devices approved  by the  competent 
authorities and suitable perches; 

cages shall be provided with a fully-opening  cage front or an equivalent opening 
in another part of the cage to prevent injuries to the birds; 

there shall be a minimum aisle width of 1  m between tiers of cages to  facilitate 
inspection, installation and depopulation of birds; 

the floor slope shall not exceed 14% or 8°. In the case of floors using other than 
rectangular wire mesh, Member States may permit steeper slopes; 
the birds shall not have their beak trimmed. 

In each case where a derogation has been granted in accordance with paragraph 4, the 
Member  State  concerned  shall  verify  that the conditions  laid  down  in that  paragraph 
have been met. 

Moreover,  Member  States  shall  ensure  that  from  1  January  2009  the  minimum 
requirements laid down in paragraphs 1 to 4 apply to all systems of rearing. 

Article 4 

Member States may allow until 31 December 2008 the use of battery cages which are 
in use at 1 January 1999 and which are not yet older than 10 years, provided that they 
comply at least with the following requirements: 

a) 

at least 450 cm2 of cage area, measured in a horizontal plane which may be used 
without restriction, in particular, not including non-waste deflection plates liable 
to restrict the area available, shall be provided for each laying hen; 

5. 

6. 

1. 

1} 

b) 

c) 

d) 

e) 

a feed trough which may be used without restriction  shall be provided. Its length 
shall be at least  10 cm multiplied by the number of animals in the cage; 

unless  nipple  drinkers  or  drinking  cups  are  provided,  each  battery  cage  shall 
have  a  continuous  drinking  channel  of  the  same  length  as  the  feed  trough 
mentioned  in  point  (b).  Where  drinking  points  are  plumbed  in,  at  least  two 
nipple drinkers or two drinking cups shall be within reach of each cage; 

battery cages shall be at least 40 cm high over 65% of the cage area and not less 
than 35 cm at any point; 

floors  of battery  cages  must  be  constructed  so as to  support  adequately  each  of 
the forward-facing  claws of each foot. Floor slope shall not exceed  14% or 8°. In 
the  case  of  floors  using  other  than  rectangular  wire  mesh,  Member  States  may 
permit steeper slopes; 

f) 

the birds shall not have their beak trimmed. 

Battery cages which are at  1  January  1999 more than  10 years old may be authorised 
by the competent authority on a case by case basis for a period which shall under no 
circumstances extend beyond 31 December 2003, and provided that they comply at 
least with the requirements as laid down in paragraph  1. 

However,  from  1 January  2004 the required  space per hen  as laid down  in paragraph  1 
(a) of this Article shall be increased to at least 550 cm2 per hen. 

Article 5 

Member  States  shall  ensure that  conditions  for  laying  hens  are  in  accordance  with  the 
requirements laid down in the Annex. 

The provisions in the Annex may be amended in accordance with the procedure laid 
down in Article 8 in order to take account of scientific progress. 

Article 6 

2. 

3. 

1. 

2. 

P 

1. 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  inspections  are  carried  out  under  the  responsibility  of 
the  competent  authority  in  order  to  check  that  the  provisions  of  this  Directive  and  its 
Annex are complied with. 

These inspections, which may be carried out on the occasion  of  checks made  for  other 
purposes,  shall  each  year  cover  a  statistically  representative  sample  of  the  different 
farming  systems used in each Member State. 

2. 

3. 

The  Commission  shall, in accordance  with the procedure  laid  down  in Article  8,  draw 
up a code of rules to be applied in carrying out the inspections provided for in paragraph 
1. 
Every  two  years,  by  the  last  working  day  in  April  and  for  the  first  time  by  30  April 
2001,  Member  States  shall  inform  the  Commission  of  the  results  of  the  inspections 
carried  out during the previous two years in accordance with this Article, including  the 
number of inspections carried out in relation to the number of holdings in their territory. 

Article 7 

Veterinary  experts  from  the  Commission  may, where necessary  for  the uniform  application  of 
this Directive, carry out on-the-spot  checks in co-operation with the competent authorities. The 
persons  carrying  out  these  checks  shall  implement  any  special  personal  hygiene  measures 
necessary to exclude any risk of transmission of disease. 

The Member  State in the territory of which a check is being carried out shall give all necessary 
assistance  to  the  experts  in  carrying  out  their  duties.  The  Commission  shall  inform  the 
competent authority of the Member State concerned of the results of the checks. 

The  competent  authority  of  the  Member  State  concerned  shall  take  any  measures  which  may 
prove necessary to take account of the results of the checks. 
General  rules  for  the  application  of  this  Article  shall  be  adopted  in  accordance  with  the 
procedure laid down* in Article 8. 

Article 8 

Where the procedure laid down in this Article is to be followed, the following rules shall apply: 

a. 

The representative of the Commission shall submit to the Standing Veterinary 
Committee (hereinafter  called "Committee") a draft of the measures to be taken. The 

<tf 

Committee shall deliver its opinion on the draft  within a time limit which the chairman 
may lay down according to the urgency of the matter, if necessary by taking a vote; 

The opinion shall be recorded in the minutes; in addition, each Member State shall have 
the right to ask to have its position recorded in the minutes; 

The Commission shall take the utmost account of the opinion delivered by the 
Committee. It shall inform the Committee of the manner in which its opinion has been 
taken into account. 

b. 

c. 

Article 9 

Not  later  than  1  January  2006,  the  Commission  shall  submit  to  the  Council  and  to  the 
Parliament  a  report,  drawn  up  on  the  basis  of  an  opinion  from  the  Scientific  Veterinary 
Committee,  on  the  systems  of  rearing  for  keeping  laying  hens  which  comply  with  the 
requirements  of  the  welfare  of  laying  hens  from  the  pathological,  zootechnical,  physiological, 
behavioural  and socio-economic point of view, together with appropriate proposals to phase out 
those systems of rearing which do not meet these requirements. 

The Council shall act by a qualified  majority  on these proposals no later than three months  after 
their submission. 

Council Directive 88/166/EEC is repealed with effect  from  1  January  1999. 

Article 10 

Article  11 

1. 

Member  States  shall  bring  into  force  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative 
provisions, necessary to comply with this Directive before  1  January  1999.  They  shall 
forthwith  inform the Commission thereof. 

When  Member  States  adopt  these  provisions,  these  shall  contain  a  reference  to  this 
Directive  or  shall  be  accompanied  by  such  reference  at  the  time  of  their  official 
publication.  The  methods  of  making  such  reference  shall  be  laid  down  by  Member 
States. 

& 

2. 

Member  States shall communicate to the Commission the texts of the main provisions 
of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive. 

Article 12 
This  Directive  shall  enter  into  force  on the 20th day  following  its publication  in the  Official 
Journal of the European Committees. 

This Directive is addressed to the Member States. 

Article 13 

3/ 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Annex 

Materials  used  for  the  construction  of  accommodation  for  the  birds,  and  in 
particular  equipment  with  which  the birds  may  come  into  contact,  must  not  be 
harmful  to  the  birds  and  must  be  capable  of  being  thoroughly  cleaned  and 
disinfected.  The  construction  of the accommodation  must be  such as to  prevent 
any injury to the birds. 

Until  Community  rules  are  laid  down  on  the  matter,  electrical  circuits  and 
equipment  must  be  installed  in  accordance  with  national  rules  so  as  to  avoid 
electric shocks. 

The  insulation,  heating  and  ventilation  of  the  building  must  ensure  that  the  air 
circulation,  dust  level, temperature, relative  air humidity  and gas  concentrations 
are kept within limits which are not harmful  to the birds. 

All  automated  or  mechanical  equipment  essential  for  the  birds'  health  and 
welfare  must  be  inspected  at  least  twice  daily.  Where  defects  are  discovered, 
these  must  be  rectified  immediately  or,  if  this  is  impossible,  appropriate  steps 
must be taken to safeguard the health and welfare of the birds until the defect  has 
been rectified,  notably  by using alternative  methods  of feeding  and  maintaining 
a satisfactory  environment. 

Where  an  artificial  ventilation  system  is  used,  provision  must  be  made  for  an 
appropriate  back-up  system  to  guarantee  sufficient  air  renewal  to  preserve  the 
health and welfare of the birds in the event of failure of the system, and an alarm 
system must be provided to warn the stock-keeper of the breakdown.  The  alarm 
system must be tested regularly. 

Written  records  of  each  defect,  including  any  action  taken  as  a result,  shall  be 
available  on  the  holding  and  to  the  competent  authority,  upon  request,  for  a 
minimum  period  to  be  determined  by  the  competent  authority  but  which  may 
not be less than three years. 

5. 

The birds must not be kept permanently  in darkness. To  meet their  behavioural 
and  physiological  needs,  provision  must  be  made,  allowing  for  the  different 
climatic  conditions  in  the  Member  States,  for  appropriate  natural  or  artificial 
lighting;  if  the  latter,  it  must  function  for  a  period  at  least  equivalent  to  the 
period  of  natural  light  normally  available  between  9am  and  5pm.  In  addition, 

10 

?L 

suitable  lighting  (fixed  or  portable)  strong  enough  to  allow  the  birds  to  be 
inspected  at  any  time  must  be  available.  However,  in  the  case  of  artificical 
lightning,  the  poultry  must  have  an  appropriate  resting  period  each  day  during 
which the light intensity must be reduced in such a way that the poultry  can rest 
properly. 

In floor pens light intensity has to be kept constant. 

6. 

All birds must be inspected by the owner or the person responsible  for  the  birds 
at least twice daily. 

Daily written records of these inspections, including any action taken as a result, 
shall  be  available  on the  holding  and  to  the  competent  authority,  upon  request, 
for a inimum period to be determined by the competent authority but which may 
not be less than three years. 

implemented,  e.g. 

For  birds  appearing  not  to  be  in  good  health,  including  behavioural  changes, 
steps  shall  be  taken  to  establish  the  cause  and  appropriate  remedial  measures 
shall  be 
to 
environmental  factors.  If  the  cause  is  traced  to  an  environmental  factor  in  the 
production  unit  which  it  is not  essential  to  remedy  immediately,  this  should  be 
corrected  when  the  accommodation  is  emptied  and  before  the  next  batch  of 
birds is put in. 

isolation,  culling  or  attention 

treatment, 

Veterinary  advice must  be  obtained  as soon  as possible  for  birds which  are  not 
responding to the stock-keeper's care. 

7. 

Buildings, equipment  and  utensils  used  for  birds  must  be  properly  cleaned  and 
disinfected  to  prevent  cross-infection  and  the  build-up  of  disease-carrying 
organisms.  Droppings  and  uneaten  or  split  food  must  be  removed  as  often  as 
necessary to minimise smell and to avoid attracting flies or rodents. 

Those parts of the buildings or cages which are in contact with the birds shall be 
thoroughly  cleansed and disinfected  every time the house is emptied  and  before 
a new batch of birds is brought in. 

8. 

Accommodation comprising four or more tiers of cages shall be permitted  only 
if  a fixed catwalk or other approved device is provided to allow inspection of 
the upper cages and to facilitate removal of birds from those cages. 

11 

^ 

9. 

10. 

11. 

All birds  shall have access to adequate, nutritious  and hygienic feed  each day 
and  to  adequate fresh water  at  all  times, except  in  the  case  of  therapeutic  or 
prophylactic treatment. 

Feeding  and  watering  equipment  must  be  designed,  constructed,  placed  and 
maintained so that contamination of the birds' feed and water is minimised. 

Birds  shall  be  cared  for  by  a  sufficient  number  of  personnel  who  have  been 
trained and are experienced in the husbandry system used. 

12.  De-winging,  pinioning,  notching  or  tendon  severing  shall  not  be  carried  out. 
When it is necessary to reduce the ability to fly, the flight  feathers of one wing 
may be clipped by a skilled operator. 

13. 

14. 

The  birds  must  have  appropriate  protection  against  predators  and  extreme 
climate conditions. 

Buildings, cages and enclosures must be suitably equipped to prevent the birds 
escaping. 

12 

^ 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(98) 135  final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

03  15 

Catalogue  number  :  CB-C0-98-166-EN-C 

ISBN  92-78-32088-9 

Office  for Official  Publications of the European Communities 

L-2985 Luxembourg 

3b