# CE2004084EN.01001801.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/18

---

(2004/C 84 E/0021)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2373/03

by Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject:   Assessment of the COM in tobacco

Subject:

Knowing that:

| — | Regulation (EC) No 1636/98 (1) amended Article 26 of Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 (2) on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco to read ‘Before 1 April 2002, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the functioning of the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Regulation (EC) No 1636/98 (1) amended Article 26 of Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 (2) on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco to read ‘Before 1 April 2002, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the functioning of the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco’;

1

2

| — | In February 2002 the Commission, by means of a tendering procedure, entrusted the company Cogea with the task of assessing the COM in tobacco and the contract, which should have come to an end by October 2002, is still in force; |
| --- | --- |

—

In February 2002 the Commission, by means of a tendering procedure, entrusted the company Cogea with the task of assessing the COM in tobacco and the contract, which should have come to an end by October 2002, is still in force;

| — | Cogea submitted a complete draft of the commissioned document, although not until December 2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Cogea submitted a complete draft of the commissioned document, although not until December 2002.

Can the Commission say:

| 1. | what the reasons are for the serious delay in forwarding the documents to Parliament compared with the deadline laid down and when it expects to submit the final document; |
| --- | --- |

1.

what the reasons are for the serious delay in forwarding the documents to Parliament compared with the deadline laid down and when it expects to submit the final document;

| 2. | whether the Commission considers it has fulfilled the provisions of the regulation by sending its own document dated 8 November 2002 and, if so, why it requested a further study from an outside consultant, to which it attaches great importance; |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the Commission considers it has fulfilled the provisions of the regulation by sending its own document dated 8 November 2002 and, if so, why it requested a further study from an outside consultant, to which it attaches great importance;

| 3. | what competence and experience Cogea has in the tobacco sector which led to its being awarded the contract, and what the contract itself was worth; |
| --- | --- |

3.

what competence and experience Cogea has in the tobacco sector which led to its being awarded the contract, and what the contract itself was worth;

| 4. | who is on the steering committee monitoring Cogea's work and whether it is true that the members include officials in DG-AGRI's Tobacco Unit since, according to the call to tender, their work too is being assessed; whether it is true that the committee, as well as checking that Cogea's work was proceeding in accordance with the deadline and specifications laid down, also requested significant amendments to the text, thereby reducing the external assessor's degree of autonomy; |
| --- | --- |

4.

who is on the steering committee monitoring Cogea's work and whether it is true that the members include officials in DG-AGRI's Tobacco Unit since, according to the call to tender, their work too is being assessed; whether it is true that the committee, as well as checking that Cogea's work was proceeding in accordance with the deadline and specifications laid down, also requested significant amendments to the text, thereby reducing the external assessor's degree of autonomy;

| 5. | furthermore, pending delivery of a copy of the final document and in view of the limited time available, whether it can forward to Parliament the internal documents of the steering committee and the Cogea draft, delivered in December 2002, and subsequent amendments? |
| --- | --- |

5.

furthermore, pending delivery of a copy of the final document and in view of the limited time available, whether it can forward to Parliament the internal documents of the steering committee and the Cogea draft, delivered in December 2002, and subsequent amendments?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2003)

(17 September 2003)

As the Honourable Member indicates, a Commission report to Parliament and the Council was published on 6 November 2002 under the number SEC(2002) 1183. This was a factual report drawn up by Commission officials. It met the requirement of the Regulation in question for a report on functioning of the common market organisation (CMO) for raw tobacco. In parallel the Commission in February 2002 commissioned an assessment of the raw tobacco CMO from the firm COGEA, which submitted a draft report in December.

Here are the answers to the Honourable Member's questions, following his numbering.

COGEA's December 2002 report was not accepted by the steering group for this assessment exercise. Two revised versions were presented, the first on 1 April 2003 and the second on 1 July.

One of the main improvements between these versions was inclusion of the 2001 crop data. This raised from two to three years the period under review since reform of the CMO in 1998. The data in question was sent to COGEA as soon as it was available at the end of 2002. Its inclusion was not in the original specification but was decided on by agreement between the contractor and the steering group so that the analysis could be substantively improved.

The version of 1 July is the final one, accepted as such by an official note of 25 July. Payment for the report and circulation of it are in hand. Parliament will of course be receiving a copy. The steering group intends to publish it on the Internet, probably this month.

The Commission report to Parliament and the Council to which the Honourable Member refers is that published on 6 November 2002 under the number SEC(2002) 1183. As stated above it meets the regulatory requirement for a report on functioning of the raw tobacco CMO. It is essentially factual in nature.

The assessment entrusted to COGEA has other purposes beyond functioning of the market. The specification required an assessment covering growers' incomes, impact on the local economy and the repercussions of the CMO on health and the environment. It has been carried out under the Commission's and DG AGRI's assessment policy and the CMOs are being studied in this way one after the other. The Honourable Member is asked, if he wishes more information, to refer to the assessment specification, a copy of which is being sent direct to him and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Under the terms of the specification three sets of criteria — for exclusion, shortlisting and assignment — had to be applied in order to choose a contractor. To be shortlisted tenderers had to demonstrate previous experience in public policy assessment and economic and agricultural analysis. Experience in the tobacco sector was a plus but not a prerequisite. The assignment criteria were: quality of the tender (understanding of the nature of the task and its context, structuring of the team's work, allocation of working time and responsibilities between team members, composition of team), technical value of the tender (strategy proposed for completion of the task, methodological and technical proposals for dealing with the five fields of assessment stipulated) and price.

A selection committee of seven persons examined the tenders and chose that of COGEA as most financially advantageous given the specification criteria. The Committee members came from the Directorates-General for the Budget and for Health and Consumer Protection and from DG-AGRI (Units for tobacco, Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) and Evaluation). The assignment procedure was given a favourable opinion by the Advisory Committee on Procurements and Contracts and by DG Budget before the contract was signed.

The contract was assigned to COGEA, which proposed a total of 455 working days and a total cost of EUR 310 250. For more detailed information the Honourable Member is asked to refer to the contract award notice published in Official Journal of the European Union S 89 of 8 May 2002 under the number 69716-2002 (3).

3

The Tobacco Assessment Steering Group consists of representatives from various Commission Directorates-General: Budget (CAP and Evaluation Units), Competition, Economic and Financial Affairs, Health and Consumer Protection and lastly Agriculture with representatives from the following Units: Specialised Crops (manager of tobacco CMO), Studies and Overall Approach, FADN, Budget, Audit and Control, Evaluation. The group is chaired and its secretariat provided by DG AGRI's Evaluation Unit, which forms part of a support service Directorate that is independent of the market management Units. Steering groups bring together the people who have to deal with the various aspects of a dossier, each contributing his or her own expertise and observations to its work. The Unit responsible for managing the tobacco CMO was given representation on the steering group because of its technical knowledge of the dossier and the market data that it could supply for analytical purposes. It was however in a minority in the steering group. Group diversity allows a multiplicity of opinions to be voiced and promotes independence on the contractor's part. The group does not necessarily share the opinions put forward by the consultant and the assessment report cannot be held to reflect any views other than those of its author.

For further information on steering methods for DG AGRI market assessment studies the Honourable Member is referred to the guide published at: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/eval/ guide/cmo_en.pdf).

As mentioned above the December report was not accepted by the steering group, which asked for a number of additional analyses. The final version received on 1 July was officially accepted on 25 July. As soon as the internal registration and circulation procedures are completed Parliament will receive a copy. The steering group will also be asking for the report to be published on the Internet. It should be available this month.

Accordingly there no longer appears to be any point in transmitting the steering group's internal documents and an incomplete version of the report, which would make no contribution to the clarity of discussion.

---

(1)  OJ L 210, 28.7.1998, p. 23.

1

(2)  OJ L 215, 30.7.1992, p. 70.

2

(3)  Website http://ted.publications.eu.int

3

---