1. Background and scope of the legal opinion

The Fédération d'Apiculture du Valais Romand (FAVR) commissioned Prof. Thierry Largey of the University of Lausanne to clarify two fundamental legal questions: whether Swiss law provides for a distinct legal status for beekeepers, and what building regime applies to hives and apiaries, in particular within the agricultural zone and the forest area.

The opinion also examines the cantons' competence to regulate beekeeping activity, in particular in the field of training.

2. Beekeeping from a legal perspective

Beekeeping is not defined in Swiss law. Reference must therefore be made to its ordinary meaning: the art of keeping and tending bees in order to obtain honey, wax and other apiary products. It is not comprehensively regulated at the federal level but is addressed in specific legislative areas.

Three main legislative fields apply: the prevention of animal diseases (Animal Diseases Act, AnDA; Animal Diseases Ordinance, AnDO), the production of safe foodstuffs (Foodstuffs Act, FSA; Ordinance of the FDHA on Foodstuffs of Animal Origin, FAOO, for honey, royal jelly and pollen), and agricultural legislation (Agriculture Act, AgrA), which recognises beekeeping as an agricultural activity insofar as it is based on the keeping of farm animals and the production of foodstuffs.

3. The legal status of the beekeeper

Strictly speaking, Swiss law does not provide for a specific legal status for beekeepers. The term has a limited reach: a beekeeper is identified as the keeper of an apiary — that is, a set of bee colonies — and as the addressee of concrete obligations. Federal law does not impose any particular requirement, such as training or certification, in order to qualify as such.

The applicable legal framework consists essentially of obligations under animal-disease law: colony inspections, notification of suspected cases, hive record sheet and registration of apiaries. It also includes obligations under foodstuffs law: hygiene, traceability, labelling, self-monitoring and consumer protection. Wilful breaches of these obligations may entail criminal sanctions.

4. The beekeeper as agricultural operator

Under art. 2 para. 1 of the Agricultural Terminology Ordinance (ATO), an "operator" (Bewirtschafter / exploitant) is a person who runs an agricultural undertaking on their own account and at their own risk, with an economic objective. The undertaking must, in particular, represent a minimum workload of 0.20 standard labour units (SLU) and pursue a profitability goal. Beekeeping practised purely as a leisure activity therefore does not suffice to establish this status.

A beekeeper may obtain operator status in two ways. First, through another principal or accessory agricultural activity, such as livestock farming, viticulture or arable farming. Second, through a beekeeping activity that itself meets the requirements of arts. 6–12 ATO: an autonomous agricultural undertaking, beekeeping units, legal, economic and organisational autonomy, separate operating result, and an economic objective.

5. Direct payments and required training

The granting of direct payments is subject to the cumulative conditions of the AgrA and the Direct Payments Ordinance (DPO). The operator must, in particular, be domiciled in Switzerland, not have reached the age of 65 before 1 January of the contributions year, run an undertaking of at least 0.20 SLU of which at least half is performed by the undertaking's own labour force, and have an adequate agricultural training within the meaning of art. 4 DPO.

In the author's analysis, the federal certificate of professional competence in beekeeping (eidgenössischer Fachausweis Imker:in) does not satisfy the training requirement of art. 4 DPO. It is neither a basic vocational training within the meaning of arts. 37 and 38 of the Vocational and Professional Education and Training Act (VPETA) nor a farmer training recognised by the applicable SERI ordinance.

6. The "self-cultivator" (Selbstbewirtschafter) under the Rural Land Law Act

The acquisition of agricultural land and undertakings subject to the Federal Act on Rural Land Law (RLLA; BGBB / LDFR) requires authorisation. As a rule, authorisation is granted only to a self-cultivator within the meaning of art. 9 RLLA. The acquirer must cultivate the land themselves, take the important decisions, participate personally and substantially in the operation, and possess the necessary skills as well as the required physical and financial capacities.

For larger agricultural undertakings, scholarly writing refers to personal participation amounting to about two thirds of the work, while the Federal Supreme Court tends to apply the threshold of half the year. The key point is that the self-cultivator must be involved personally as a genuine professional, and not merely bear the economic risks of the operation.

The author considers that the federal certificate of professional competence in beekeeping satisfies the aptitude requirement of art. 9 para. 2 RLLA — contrary to the position under the DPO. A Geneva court ruling has recognised the status of self-cultivator in the case of a beekeeper trained by a professional, who had attended beekeeping courses and obtained a gold label for her honey.

Where the status of self-cultivator is lacking, acquisition remains possible only if a justifying ground exists under art. 64 RLLA. The opinion mentions in particular: a public offer at a non-excessive price that has not attracted any request from a self-cultivator; a final authorisation under art. 24 of the Spatial Planning Act (SPA); and the subsidiary general clause.

7. Are hives and apiaries "buildings" or "installations"?

Under art. 22 para. 1 SPA, any building or installation requires a building permit. Case law defines these notions as all durable, human-made structures that have a fixed relationship with the ground and have an effect on its use, in particular because they noticeably alter the outdoor space, affect site servicing or are likely to impact the environment.

The decisive criterion is the existence of a public or private interest in prior review. Each case must therefore be examined on its merits, with regard to the installation itself, its use, its duration, its location and its effects on the soil, the landscape, the environment, site servicing and the neighbourhood.

A fixed and durable anchoring to the ground — for example in the form of a bee house, a small cabin, or a wooden or concrete infrastructure secured to the ground — generally leads to qualifying the hive or apiary as a building. Conversely, a small number of mobile hives, or hives placed on removable supports such as pallets or metal beams, does not generally constitute a building where the impact on the soil and the environment remains limited.

Case law illustrates this case-by-case approach. In the canton of Vaud, three hives in a residential zone were considered to be a purely movable installation not requiring a building permit. Similarly, four mobile hives placed on removable metal beams resting on concrete blocks without foundations were not classified as buildings. By contrast, the Cantonal Court of Valais held that two hives in a building zone required a building permit — a position that the author considers debatable, as the Federal Supreme Court has not ruled on this point.

Cantonal exceptions, for example for movable or temporary agricultural installations, may not depart from the federal definition of "building". Where an installation materially meets the notion of "building" within the meaning of art. 22 para. 1 SPA, cantonal law cannot dispense with the permit requirement.

8. Regime applicable outside the notion of "building"

Where a hive or apiary is not classified as a building or installation, its placement is not subject to a building permit. The absence of such a permit requirement does not, however, mean that any installation is unrestricted. Public-law restrictions may apply, in particular regarding nature conservation, public peace, the risk of bee stings or the protection of sensitive areas.

Within the forest area, in the sense of art. 2 of the Forest Act (FoA), a special regime applies. Hives and apiaries are not forest constructions. If their placement causes a permanent or temporary change in the use of the forest soil, a clearance permit (Rodungsbewilligung) is required. If they can be classified as small non-forest constructions within the meaning of art. 4 lit. a of the Forest Ordinance (FoO), they may be admitted on condition that they do not impair the functions or the management of the forest.

If the placement disrupts forest functions or management, it is in principle prohibited. An exceptional permit for use detrimental to the forest may be considered only where the legal conditions are met. Such qualification is to be assessed strictly, in light of the extent and intensity of the use of the forest soil.

9. Regime applicable to hives qualified as buildings

Where a hive or apiary constitutes a building, the decisive criterion is its conformity with the use designated for the zone. This conformity determines the type of permit required: an ordinary permit where the building is zone-conforming, or an exceptional permit where it is not.

In the agricultural zone, conformity within the meaning of art. 16a SPA and art. 34 of the Spatial Planning Ordinance (SPO) requires four cumulative conditions. The building must serve the agricultural operation, be soil-dependent (bodenabhängig), be necessary for the operation at the location envisaged, and not run counter to overriding interests. The principle of concentrating buildings (Konzentrationsgrundsatz) must also be observed.

Art. 34 para. 5 SPO expressly excludes buildings serving agriculture practised as a leisure activity. Only beekeeping practised on a professional basis, reaching a certain size and pursuing a lasting profit objective, can be recognised as conforming to the agricultural zone. The burden of proof lies with the applicant.

A hive that does not conform to the use designated for the zone is governed by different regimes depending on its location. In the building zone, an exception is in principle a matter of cantonal law within the meaning of art. 23 SPA. Outside the building zone — in particular within the agricultural zone, a protected zone or the forest area — an exceptional permit may be considered under art. 24 SPA, and possibly arts. 24c or 24e SPA.

10. Location dictated by purpose

Art. 24 SPA permits, under certain conditions, the authorisation outside the building zone of a building whose location is dictated by its purpose. There must be objective reasons — for example technical, economic, or soil-related reasons — that make the chosen location appear clearly more favourable than a location within the building zone.

For beekeeping, proximity to nectar and pollen sources may be invoked, but this argument should be qualified, since bees can fly up to about 3 km when foraging. More compelling reasons may exist in some cases — for example where the location is necessary in order to satisfy the conditions of organic beekeeping or to ensure the production of a specific honey. Such factors must always be demonstrated in the concrete case.

"Negative" location-dependence requires that no building zone in the region is objectively suited to the activity. This may be the case if cantonal or municipal regulation excludes hives from the building zone, or if the nuisances — such as the risk of stings or the impact on public peace — significantly exceed what is tolerable in that zone.

11. Cantonal competences regarding regulation and training

In the field of animal diseases, competence is concurrent. The cantons may legislate on the training of beekeepers and may make beekeeping subject to a training or certification requirement, provided that the measure is genuinely capable of preventing the occurrence and spread of animal diseases, that it is limited to that public-health objective and that it rests on a legal basis.

In the field of foodstuffs, the situation is different. The cantons are mainly responsible for enforcing the FSA. It is therefore doubtful whether they may, on this basis alone, impose training as a general condition for practising beekeeping. They remain free, however, to address foodstuffs-related matters within the extension and training programmes they support or offer.

In agricultural law and rural land law, training may be a condition for receiving direct payments or for acquiring agricultural land as a self-cultivator. Beyond these situations, federal legislation does not impose a training requirement on operators within the meaning of art. 2 para. 1 ATO. The cantons may therefore not impose vocational agricultural training as a general condition for practising beekeeping. They may, however, on the basis of art. 136 para. 3 AgrA, propose and support training and continuing education in the field of beekeeping. The canton of Valais expressly provides for this in art. 95 of its cantonal Agriculture Act.

12. General reservation of federal and cantonal law

Art. 22 para. 3 SPA reserves the application of other relevant federal and cantonal provisions. A building permit may therefore not be examined solely from a spatial-planning perspective. It must also comply, where applicable, with rules on environmental protection, nature and landscape conservation, water protection, monuments and heritage sites, energy, foodstuffs and animal diseases.

This reservation makes it possible, where appropriate, to integrate a cantonal beekeeping training requirement into the building-permit procedure under animal-disease law, provided that the cantonal legal basis expressly so provides.

13. Practical points to consider before establishing an apiary

The legal analysis depends largely on the specific case. Before any durable installation, the nature of the installation should first be characterised: mobile or durable, temporary or permanent, anchored to the ground or not, limited or substantial in scale, and likely or not to produce noticeable effects on the soil, the landscape, the environment, site servicing or the neighbourhood.

The relevant land-use zone must then be identified: building zone, agricultural zone, protected zone, forest area or other special municipal zone. Cantonal and municipal regulations may contain specific restrictions or conditions.

Other public-law restrictions must also be taken into account, even where no building permit is required: nature conservation, water protection, public peace, animal-disease prevention, foodstuffs rules, or specific public-health requirements.

In case of doubt — particularly for a durable installation, in an agricultural zone, in a forest or in a protected area — the prudent course is to seek information from the competent municipal or cantonal authority before any work begins.

Abbreviations used

FC — Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation of 18 April 1999 (CC 101).

EAER — Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education and Research.

FAVR — Fédération d'Apiculture du Valais Romand.

AgrA — Federal Act of 29 April 1998 on Agriculture (Agriculture Act; CC 910.1).

SPA — Federal Act of 22 June 1979 on Spatial Planning (Spatial Planning Act; CC 700).

cAgrA-VS — Valais Cantonal Act of 8 February 2007 on Agriculture (CCS 910.1).

FSA — Federal Act of 20 June 2014 on Foodstuffs and Utility Articles (Foodstuffs Act; CC 817.0).

RLLA — Federal Act of 4 October 1991 on Rural Land Law (CC 211.412.11).

AnDA — Federal Act of 1 July 1966 on the Control of Animal Diseases (Animal Diseases Act; CC 916.40).

FoA — Federal Act of 4 October 1991 on Forests (Forest Act; CC 921.0).

VPETA — Federal Act of 13 December 2002 on Vocational and Professional Education and Training (CC 412.10).

SPO — Federal Ordinance of 28 June 2000 on Spatial Planning (Spatial Planning Ordinance; CC 700.1).

cBO-VS — Valais Cantonal Building Ordinance of 22 March 2017 (CCS 705.100).

FAOO — Ordinance of the FDHA of 16 December 2016 on Foodstuffs of Animal Origin (CC 817.022.108).

FUO — Federal Ordinance of 16 December 2016 on Foodstuffs and Utility Articles (CC 817.02).

AnDO — Federal Animal Diseases Ordinance of 27 June 1995 (CC 916.401).

FoO — Federal Ordinance of 30 November 1992 on Forests (Forest Ordinance; CC 921.01).

DPO — Federal Ordinance of 23 October 2013 on Direct Payments to Agriculture (Direct Payments Ordinance; CC 910.13).

FSVO — Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office.

ABPO — Federal Ordinance of 25 May 2011 on Animal By-Products (CC 916.441.22).

ATO — Federal Ordinance of 7 December 1998 on Agricultural Terminology and the Recognition of Forms of Operation (Agricultural Terminology Ordinance; CC 910.91).

RLATC-VD — Vaud Regulation of 19 September 1986 implementing the Act on Spatial Planning and Construction (CCS-VD 700.11.1).

SERI — State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation.

FSC — Federal Supreme Court.

SLU — Standard Labour Unit.

 

Bibliography

Largey, T. (2023). Statut de l'apiculteur.trice et régime de construction relatif aux ruches: Avis de droit adressé à la Fédération d'Apiculture du Valais Romand (FAVR). University of Lausanne.

Largey, T. (2024, 23 March). Statut de l'apiculteur.trice et régime de construction relatif aux ruches [Presentation].

Abt, T., Norer, R., Wild, F., & Wisard, N. (2022). Commentary on the Forest Act. Zurich.

Aemisegger, H., Moor, P., Ruch, A., & Tschannen, P. (2017). Practical Commentary on the SPA: Building permits, legal protection and procedure. Geneva/Zurich/Basel.

Aemisegger, H., Moor, P., Ruch, A., & Tschannen, P. (2020). Practical Commentary on the SPA: Building outside the building zone. Geneva/Zurich/Basel.

Aemisegger, H., Moor, P., Ruch, A., & Tschannen, P. (2019). Practical Commentary on the SPA: Structure plans and sectoral plans, weighing of interests. Geneva/Zurich/Basel.

Aemisegger, H., Moor, P., Ruch, A., & Tschannen, P. (2016). Practical Commentary on the SPA: Land-use planning. Geneva/Zurich/Basel.

Beeler, B. (1998). Bäuerliches Erbrecht [Doctoral thesis]. Zurich.

Charrière, J.-D., Dietmann, V., & Dainat, B. (2018). Guide to Bee Health. Agroscope Transfer 245. Bern.

Charrière, J.-D., Frese, S., & Herren, P. (2018). Beekeeping in Switzerland. Agroscope Transfer 250. Bern.

Donzallaz, Y. (1999). Pratique et jurisprudence de droit foncier rural (1994-1998). Sion.

Donzallaz, Y. (1993). Quelques problèmes relatifs à la LDFR. RVJ.

Donzallaz, Y. (2006). Traité de droit agraire suisse: droit public et droit privé (Vol. 2). Bern.

Henny, J.-M. (1993). Les restrictions de droit public dans les rapports juridiques concernant les entreprises et les immeubles agricoles. In Le nouveau droit foncier rural, Journées juridiques à l'intention des notaires. Fribourg.

Henny, J.-M. (2006). Questions choisies en matière de droit foncier rural. Swiss Review of Notarial Practice and Land Registry Law.

Keel, A., & Zimmermann, W. (2009). Federal Supreme Court case law on forest legislation 2000–2008. DEP, 289 ff.

Kehrli, J. (2017). Agrarraumplanungsrecht. In R. Norer (Ed.), Handbuch zum Agrarrecht (pp. 191–268). Bern.

Koller, P. (2017). Der Kauf landwirtschaftlicher Gewerbe und Grundstücke / 6. Kapitel – 7. Kapitel. In P. Koller (Ed.), Der Grundstückkauf (pp. 322–343). Bern.

Largey, T. (2022). The acquisition of agricultural land by non-self-cultivators. Communications de droit agraire, 3/2022, 213 ff.

Martenet, V., & Dubey, J. (2021). Constitution fédérale: Art. 81 – dispositions finales, Commentaire romand. Basel.

Müller, M. (2003). In Bäuerliche Betrieb in der Agrarpolitik: Kann der Nebenerwerbsbetrieb den Verfassungsauftrag am besten erfüllen. CDA, 119 ff.

Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG). (2023). Commentary and instructions 2023, Ordinance on Direct Payments to Agriculture. Bern.

Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG). (2022). Commentary and instructions 2022 on the Ordinance on Agricultural Terminology and the Recognition of Forms of Operation. Bern.

Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (FSVO). (2023). Technical guidelines on official controls in primary production in animal-keeping units. Bern.

Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (FSVO). (2022). Control manuals on official controls in primary production in animal-keeping units. Bern.

Rausch, H., Marti, A., & Griffel, A. (2004). Umweltrecht – Ein Lehrbuch. Zurich.

Savoy, L. (1993). L'imposition du revenu agricole [Doctoral thesis]. Lausanne.

Schweizerischer Bauernverband (SBV) Treuhand und Schätzungen. (2011). Das bäuerliche Bodenrecht, Kommentar zum BGBB (2nd ed.). Brügg.

Stalder, B. (1993). Bewilligungsverfahren sowie Realteilungs- und Zerstückelungsverbot im neuen bäuerlichen Bodenrecht in das landwirtschaftliche Bodenrecht. FSA publication vol. 12. Bern.

Stalder, B. (2013). Die öffentlich-rechtlichen Verfügungsbeschränkungen im bäuerlichen Bodenrecht. In S. Wolf (Ed.), Landwirtschaftliches Bodenrecht – eine Standortbestimmung aus der Sicht des Praktikers nach 20 Jahren BGBB. Bern.

Tétart, G. (2001). L'abeille et l'apiculture. Domestication d'un animal cultivé. Techniques & Culture, 37/2001.

Trandafir, E. (2020). LDFR, LFAIE et LPE: acquisitions indirectes d'immeubles. Not@lex, 85.