WRITTEN QUESTION P-2373/03 by Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Assessment of the COM in tobacco.
Date: 2003-07-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common organisation of markets, decision-making, invitation to tender, market research, provision of documents, report, tobacco

C 84 E/18

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

(cid:1) Does the Council consider it appropriate to take steps within the framework of the Partnership
Agreement with the countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, to which Equatorial Guinea is a
signatory alongside the European Union, so that those governing that country with such complete
disregard for human rights and the rule of law finally receive the sanctions laid down in the above
Treaty?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

The Council takes note of the information concerning the murder of the Spanish citizen Ana Isabel
Sánchez Torralba in Equatorial Guinea. The Council regrets all acts of violence and crimes; these should be
addressed not only in relation to events affecting EU citizens, but also in general terms.

The EU is deeply concerned at the deterioration in the internal political situation in Equatorial Guinea as
regards human rights and the democratisation process. Following last year’s elections (December 2002) the
EU expressed its concern at the political development of the country and in particular at the increase in
violations of human rights. The EU urged the government and the political opposition to hold an
all-inclusive political dialogue on the process of democratisation and on the establishment of guarantees
for respect of human rights. It will continue to do so and will pursue any relevant action within the
framework of its contacts with the competent authorities to prevent and clear up situations such as the
one described by the Honourable Member in his question.

(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

Knowing that:

(cid:1) 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’;

(cid:1) 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;

(cid:1) 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;

2. whether the Commission considers it has fulfilled the provisions of the regulation by sending its own
if so, why it requested a further study from an outside

document dated 8 November 2002 and,
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;

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

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/19

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?

(1) OJ L 210, 28.7.1998, p. 23.
(2) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992, p. 70.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(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 (cid:1) for exclusion, shortlisting and assignment (cid:1)
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

C 84 E/20

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

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 (1).

The Tobacco Assessment Steering Group consists of representatives from various Commission Direc-
torates-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.

further

information on steering methods

For
Honourable Member is referred to the guide published at:
guide/cmo_en.pdf).

for DG AGRI market

the
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/eval/

assessment

studies

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

(2004/C 84 E/0022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2419/03

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(21 July 2003)

Subject: Al Sahri deported by Italy and executed in Syria

On 23 November 2002 Mohamad Al Sahri, sentenced to death by the Syrian judiciary and in exile since
1983, arrived at the Milan airport of Malpensa and five days later the new Bossi-Fini law was carried out
and he was deported to Syria against his will. On 9 July 2003 Christopher Hein, chairman of the Italian
council for refugees, announced that Mr Al Shari had been executed in Syria on 28 February 2003.
Defying credibility, Italian immigration authorities have stated that Mr Al Sahri, asked to choose between
Jordan and Syria for his deportation, indicated his preference for the latter where he had been sentenced to
death.

Does the Council believe that the Italian government violated in this case not only its own national
Constitution, but Article 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the spirit and the letter of all the
directives followed by the EU on political asylum and against deporting foreign citizens to countries where
they might be put to death?

What measures does the Council intend to take against the Italian authorities for such a blatant violation
of human rights and of the most basic legal and humanitarian principles of the European Union?