According to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products, the

Commission must prepare a report to Council 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 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 were asked to complete two questionnaires. 20 Member States as well as Bulgaria, Norway and Switzerland responded to one or both of the questionnaires.

Tethering of cattle: 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. The d etrimental effects noticed in tethering systems include: claw and leg health problems (lack of exercise); problems with calving; cattle become too wild after release from tethering. The p ositive effects of tethering systems include: no dehorning; less stress for lower ranking animals (no competition for feed, resting place etc.); more intensive observation, allowing for preventive action; and less claw problems.

Arguments used for prolongation requests include:

a) geographic constraints:

- mountain areas;

- lack of straw in mountains;

b) structural constraints:

- lack of additional land and/or placed inside villages;

- landscape preservation;

- more time for new Member States to ensure development.

c) economic constraints:

- redemption period for the investment in the stable;

- rural development programs 2007–2013 (5 year commitment needed, farmers might discontinue organic farming without derogations);

- poorly developed markets lead to reduced possibilities to valorise organic meat and thus invest in stables;

- small farms not profitable to rebuild/invest.

France 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. Portugal opposes any further derogation.

Other derogations: 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. It was argued that more time was needed for new Member States as it is the farms with old stables converting. In addition, for rural development programs 2007–2013, a 5 year commitment was needed, and farmers might discontinue organic farming without derogations.

COM(2007)0083
EUR-Lex

Regulation 1999/1804
OJ L 222 24.08.1999, p. 0001

2151

EUR-Lex
OJ C 061 26.02.1998, p. 0006
COM(1997)0747

EUR-Lex
COM(1997)0747

OJ C 167 02.06.1997, p. 0045-0055
T4-0230/1997

T4-0230/1997

Recalling that organic agriculture accounted for 1% of all farming production and that, in ten years, the areas farmed in this way had increased tenfold, the rapporteur wanted organic agriculture to be firmly encouraged. She considered that the amendments made resulted in a regulation which was more thorough on controls and more flexible in facilitating conversion from traditional farming to organic agriculture. The amendments should also prevent any competition distortion between Member States. Finally, the rapporteur stressed the importance of the amendment ensuring an improved definition of controls and a ban on genetic manipulation. Commissioner Fischler firstly stated his support for the ban on using genetically modified organisms in production. He felt that the GMO concept should be more clearly defined. He therefore accepted Amendments No 8, 24, 26 and 28. On the other hand, he regarded Amendments Nos 13, 14, 35, 36, 41, 52, 63, 73 and 112 as superfluous given that the ban on GMOs was already mentioned in the recitals and in certain articles. He accepted Amendments Nos 64, 97 and 99. As for the legal basis, the Commissioner defended Article 43 of the Treaty because the regulation was concerned with promoting organic production and not health measures. Furthermore, the provisions on organic crops had been adopted based on Article 43. Mr Fischler was also able to accept other amendments, particularly those on labelling and control (but not until a later stage). As regards the use of an EU logo, the Commission agreed with the idea but considered the deadline of 1 January 1998 to be unrealistic. However, the Commission was firmly against Amendment No 32 which proposed using an administrative logo for products from third countries as the Member States would not be able to permanently control the production standards in third countries. Finally, the Commissioner accepted the following amendments: Nos 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 16, 19 , 22, 27, 34, 47, 48, 49, 55, 56, 60, 62, 66, 67, 69 to 72, 74, 75, 82, 88, 93, 94, 111, 116, 119, 124 and 125 which made technical or wording improvements. He rejected Amendments Nos 1, 4, 12, 15, 17, 18, 25, 33, 38, 40, 41, 46, 51, 54, 57, 61, 65, 77 to 80, 85, 90, 95, 96, 98, 100, 102, 105 to 109, 114, 115, 118 and 120 to 122.

Debate in Parliament

A4-0156/1997
OJ C 167 02.06.1997, p. 0003

A4-0156/1997

CES0234/1997
OJ C 133 28.04.1997, p. 0029

EUR-Lex
OJ C 293 05.10.1996, p. 0023
COM(1996)0366

EUR-Lex
COM(1996)0366