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
Date: 2007-03-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agricultural building, derogation from EU law, livestock farming, organic farming, report

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

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 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
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  report1  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 States2 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. 

1 

2 

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

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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 

absolute No / % of all 
cattle holdings 

93 / 
29.4% 

62 / 
10% 

21 / 
4% 

2318 / 
21%* 

267 / 
58% 

287 / 8% (60% in 
mountain areas)

Average size of organic 
cattle holdings/LU 

37.5 

80 

50 

31 
(weighted 
average) 

10.4 

65 dairy / 
56 beef 

IT 

239 /  
4.3% 

LV 

LU 

1766 / 
NA 

10 / 
25% 

18.62 

7.3 

55 

% of holdings expected 
to comply by 2010 

NA4 

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 

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%**** 

CH 

ND5 

Average size of 
organic cattle holdings 
/ LU 

% of holdings 
expected to comply by 
end of 2010 

No of years of 
prolongation requested 
after 2010 

NA 

31 

22.7 
bovines

5 dairy 
cows 

5 

34.5 

50.5 for 
dairy / 
25 for beef

50 
bovines 

13 

16 dairy 
cows 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

all 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

5 

5 = ten-
dency 

NA 

un-
limited

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. 

3 

4 
5 

The following Member States have not provided information regarding Annex I, part B, point 6.1.5; ES, 
MT, UK and RO.  
NA: No Answer. 
ND: No Data. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
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, AT7, PL, IT. 

6 

7 

The following countries have not provided information regarding Annex I, part B, point 8.5.1; ES, MT, 
UK, CH and RO. 
AT  answers  do  not  provide  explicit  statements  on  present  use  and  need  for  prolongation,  so 
interpretation of their point of view has been attempted. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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 

No of years of prolongation requested 

0 

5 

NA*  15** 

2 

5 

ND  ND 

half 

all 

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 

No of years of prolongation requested 

ND 

NA 

ND 

unspecified length 

ND 

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. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
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 

housing requirements: 
absolute No / % of holdings 

flock size: absolute No / % of holdings 

0 

NA

State  DK

FR 

IT  NL  AT 

SI 

FI 

SE 

0 

140 / 
21.5% 

1 / 
0.6%

5 / 
3% 

660 / 
~7.5%

281 / 
62.8%

17 / 
33% 

163 / 
25% 

0 

0 

ND 

2 /  
4% 

21 /  
18.9%* 

0 

1 

0 

unit size: absolute No / % of holdings 

0 

0 

% of these holdings expected to comply 
by end 2010 

NA

all 

all 

all 

all 

ND  NA 

100% in 
theory 

No of years of prolongation requested  NA

0 

0 

0 

ND  ND  NA 

(0) see remark

BG

2 / 
18%

2**

ND

*  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 

No of years of prolongation requested 

ND 

NA 

0 

NA 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

absolute No / % of 
goat holdings 

absolute No / % of 
pig holdings 

absolute No / % of 
horse holdings 

% of holdings 
expected to 
comply by end of 
2010 

No of years of 
prolongation 
requested 

101 / 
4.5% 

70 /  
14% 

3 /  
1% 

5 /  
1.2% 

s.b.

0 

4 / 
5%

s.b.

2 /  
3% 

17 / 
0.6%

104 /  
5% 

8 /  
7% 

12 / 
17% 

1 / 
14% 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

s.b.

18 / 
20%

185 / 
3.5%

114 /  
24.7% 

2 / 
12% 

ND 

2 /  
25% 

ND 

s.b.

4 / 
ND 

19 /  
12.1% 

  ND 

ND 

cattle:59%
other:70%

50%

≤ 
50%

nearly
all 

ND 

cattle:50% 
pigs: 5% 
other: most 

all  all 

cattle:
1 
pigs: 
0 

3 (out-
door)/  
1.3% 

cattle: 
ND 
pigs: 
all 

all  all 50% 

0 

0 

5 

un-
limited 

unlimited 
for 
mountain 
holdings 

3 

≥ 5 

0 

NA 

5 

0 

0  ND 

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; 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

absolute No / % of chicken holdings 

41 / 10% 1 / 8% 4 / 50%

absolute No / % of laying hen holdings 

149 / 
22.9% 

3 / 
16% 

185 

FI 

NA 

16 /  
30% 

SE 

BG 

NO 

ND  2 / 18% ND 

ND  NA 

ND 

% of holdings expected to comply by end 
of 2010 

No of years of prolongation requested 

all 

0 

all 

all 

ND 

indoor: all 
outdoor: ND 

all 

NA 

all 

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. 

EN 

8 

   EN