WRITTEN QUESTION E-3875/03 by Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Reform of the COM in tobacco.
Date: 2003-12-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common organisation of markets, dissemination of EU information, impact study, tobacco

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/869

Annex I and II of the Directive. Motorways and high-speed railways are found in Annex I point 7(a) and
(b) for which a mandatory EIA has to be carried out. Member States have to adopt the necessary measures
in order to ensure that,
impact assessment
includes an assessment of the impacts on the environment, including, ‘inter alia’, an outline of the main
alternatives studies by the developer and an indication of the main reasons for this choice as well as a
description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the project such as
fauna, flora, landscape. The description of the effects should also cover the direct and indirect effects and
any secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term effects.

inasmuch as relevant and reasonable, the environmental

In addition, the Directive requires that consultations with other competent authorities responsible for the
environment and with the public concerned have to be carried out. While the detailed arrangements for
such information and consultation shall be determined by the Member States, they have to ensure that the
request for development consent and the information on the environmental assessment are made available
to the public within a reasonable time in order to give the public concerned the opportunity to express an
opinion before the development consent is granted. This would imply specifying in particular the places
where the information on the project and on the environmental assessment can be consulted, as well as
the way in which the public concerned is to be consulted.

Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the
environment obliges public authorities to make available information relating to the environment to any
natural or legal person at his request and without his having to prove an interest, unless refusal would be
justified on the grounds provided by the Directive. An obligation to actively disseminate information is
only defined in the Directive as regards general information on the state of the environment by such
means as the periodic publication of descriptive reports. On the basis of the information provided by the
Honourable Member, it cannot be concluded that Directive 90/313/EEC is not being correctly applied.

According to the information provided by the Honourable Member, the projects in question could have a
significant impact on five sites proposed for inclusion in the Natura 2000 list of sites of Community
importance under
the Habitats Directive, Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. They are therefore subject to the provisions
of Articles 6(3) and (4) of that Directive, which define the conditions under which a project likely to have a
significant impact on a site of Community importance or a special protection area can be authorised by
the competent authorities. These conditions include the obligation to do an adequate assessment of the
effects of the project on the site from the point of view of nature conservation.

On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, it seems that development consent
has not been granted for the project. The Commission has, therefore, at this stage no reason to assume
that the EIA and Habitats Directives are not being correctly applied.

(2004/C 78 E/0922)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3875/03

by Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject: Reform of the COM in tobacco

The contents of Commission communication (1) were (cid:1) despite the extreme sensitivity of the problems
examined (cid:1) substantially controversial, as well as being incomplete, with respect to the analysis offered of
the consequences for the EU’s tobacco-producing areas.

Besides, the Commission has published the relevant data and documents (cid:1) whether produced by its own
services or commissioned from outside (cid:1) inexplicably late in the day (see, for example, the assessment of
the COM in tobacco by COGEA). The speed-up of the timetable for the ‘reform’ of the COM in tobacco
has made it impossible for the producers to examine and debate the COGEA report in sufficient detail,
while the report’s numerous annexes have still not been made availabnle.

When does the Commission intend to publish this information?

C 78 E/870

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

It is known that, for the report, the Commission asked the University of Parma to prepare analyses of the
potential impact on the EU regions mainly concerned of the different options set out in the proposal for
the reform of the COM in raw tobacco. Our Greek colleagues have refered to a similar approach made to
the University of Thessaloniki; we are not aware of cases in other producer Member States.

Can the Commission state whether the documents relating to the above-mentioned analyses were ever
actually produced? If so, can it state whether it will itself publish them in good time, in accordance with
the legislative timetable for the proposal for reform of the COM in tobacco now under discussion?

(1) COM(2003) 554, 23 September 2003.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

The Commission has published the different analyses on the Common Market Organisation (CMO) for
tobacco as soon as they were ready for publication and the COGEA report (evaluation report on tobacco
production in the Union) which is specifically mentioned was made public on the Commission’s website as
soon as it was approved by the Commission on the 8 October 2003.

The Annexes to the COGEA report have not been made public on the website, because Annexes to reports
on the internet are normally not published, but they are always available on request.

The Commission has recently requested the University of Parma and the University of Thessalonica to
carry out an assessment of the effects of the proposal from the Commission. The two universities
mentioned have been chosen because it seems that these universities are the only ones in the Union who
have the capacity to make such assessments.

The Commission has, in the drafting process discussed the different aspects of the reform of the CMO for
tobacco with both Member States authorities, and the different parties involved in the tobacco sector,
including representatives from the administrations of the regions concerned.

A copy of the COGEA report including the Annexes is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to
Parliament’s secretariat.

(2004/C 78 E/0923)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3879/03

by Olle Schmidt (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject: Rules governing eel fishing

The migration of eels in Europe has fallen by between 90 and 95 % since the 1950s. Accordingly the
Commission’s proposal (1) on measures to save the eel is of great importance.

Naturally the long-term management of the eel population must come first. However, the burden of saving
the eels must be shared equally among all the areas over which the species is distributed in Europe. It is
not reasonable to have new rules imposing a total ban on eel fishing in Northern Europe while at the same
Southern Europe continues to fish for elvers on a large scale for consumption or breeding.

Fishing should be reduced, but this reduction should be spread over the whole of Europe. However, the
Commission is side-stepping the most important measure to save the eel, namely the transplantation of the
eel
fry which the French, Spaniards and Portuguese are currently catching in large numbers for
consumption or eel farming.