Brussels – Too many comments in favour of the tobacco industry. So much so that the European Commission suspects that there has been a coordinated attempt to distort the final result of the public consultation on revision of the tobacco taxation directive launched by the European Commission. This was reported by Politico at the end of January, according to which, during a seminar conducted by an NGO on the problems of nicotine, David Boublil, from the Commission’s tax department, stated that the EU executive had “examined the contributions submitted in the public consultation” and had “found some elements that indicated, in fact, that some contributions had probably been submitted in a coordinated manner and were not necessarily representative of individual opinions.” However, some associations and MEPs are calling on Brussels to clarify a similar concern which, more generally, affects the integrity of the public consultation tools used by the Union to refine its legislative instruments.
Among those commenting on the news with Eunews was Marco Falcone, deputy head of the Forza Italia delegation and EPP rapporteur for the dossier on the proposed revision of tobacco taxation in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON). “I don’t feel I can say much, other than that the Commission itself will make its assessments and decide. However, I would like to make one comment. Namely, if confirmed, the move has not played much in favour of the industry, given the majority of critical opinions regarding the sector,” Falcone pointed out. With regard to the EU taxation project, according to the Forza Italia MEP, “Commissioner Hoekstra’s reform on tobacco taxation, as highlighted by many, is very restrictive.” In this context, “other colleagues and I in Parliament are working towards a more pragmatic approach. This does not mean, of course, that we prefer smoking to health protection, far from it. On the contrary, we want to avoid indiscriminate increases, favouring the black market and uncontrolled products,” he explained. “Instead, we prefer a reform that responds to the reality of the risk factors of each product and is not influenced by an ideological approach” because, “reform is necessary, it is true – because levies need to be updated – but this work can and must be done, in my opinion, in a spirit of realism, without using a punitive logic that helps no one,” he specified.
According to Spanish MEP Cesar Luena of the S&D group, shadow rapporteur for the Socialists on the EU tobacco taxation project in the Committee on the Environment, Climate Change and Food Safety (ENVI), any questions on the public consultation should be addressed to the Commission itself. In this context, however, “I respect Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which requires parties to protect public health policies from the commercial and personal interests of the tobacco industry”. This measure “requires governments to limit interactions with the industry, ensure transparency and avoid conflicts of interest, as the tobacco lobby actively works to influence policy”. Luena’s position on the proposed tax review, therefore, opposes that of Falcone: “I support the European Commission’s proposal because of its ambition” and because the legislation “needs to be updated”. For the Spanish socialist, “the aim is to ensure that the review is relevant, effective, responsive to current needs and future-proof.”
Associations
The associations and organisations that took part in the public consultation have raised the alarm about the risk of delegitimising the EU’s public consultation tools. “Widely discrediting contributions to a public consultation creates the impression that, when citizen mobilisation is significant and does not align with certain institutional expectations, its legitimacy is called into question,” commented Fernando Fernández Bueno, spokesperson for the Platform for Tobacco Harm Reduction and cancer surgeon at the Gómez Ulla Hospital in Madrid. “If there are fraudulent contributions or technical irregularities, these should be examined with the utmost transparency and clearly explained,” because, otherwise, “questioning all contributions without a detailed presentation of the evidence can undermine confidence in the consultation process itself,” he added. More generally, the Platform views the EU’s tobacco taxation project and the public consultation process with concern: on the one hand, “we are aware that any tax reform concerning tobacco products must give priority to public health”, but on the other hand, “it must also be based on a balanced analysis of scientific evidence and respect for the plurality of opinions.”
UNITAB Europe, the European Union of Tobacco Manufacturers, active since 1952, has also expressed concern about the European Commission’s proposed revision of the Tobacco Tax Directive. “This is not just a tax issue: it is a political choice that directly affects a European agricultural supply chain,” said President Gennarino Masiello. “In recent years, we have seen an increasingly restrictive approach which, while declaring legitimate and commendable objectives such as the protection of public health, risks completely neglecting the socio-economic impact on rural areas and agricultural employment. In fact, in several European countries, raw tobacco is a strategic crop for the survival of entire rural communities, often located in disadvantaged areas where alternative forms of production are not easily feasible,” he pointed out. UNITAB therefore calls for “a more balanced approach, which recognises the role of European agriculture and values real dialogue with those who work in the field on a daily basis.” With regard to the consultation and the EU executive’s warnings, “we believe that this type of comment risks creating a dangerous misunderstanding about the very functioning of European democratic processes,” he said. “Many contributions have been developed through associative networks, cooperatives or professional organisations, and it is normal for these structures to provide technical support and coordination: the democratic value of a public consultation lies precisely in the possibility of expressing organised and collective positions,” but “if this principle is called into question, there is a risk of delegitimising civic participation when it does not produce results in line with institutional expectations. We believe, instead, that the Commission should interpret the plurality of contributions as a sign of attention and involvement, not as a problem,” he stressed. He recalled that UNITAB had “a very constructive discussion” with Falcone and considered it “essential to maintain an ongoing dialogue with the European Parliament,” whose role “is essential at this stage to ensure that legislative proposals are also assessed in light of their concrete consequences on territories and production chains,” he concluded.
Finally, the leading association for supply chain security and resilience in the Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) region, TAPA EMEA (Transported Asset Protection Association), said, “It is not our place to comment on the revision of the Tobacco Products Tax Directive. What we consider extremely important is to ensure a platform where society has a real opportunity to express its concerns,” he said. And the association sounds the alarm: “It is worth noting that whenever we have seen indiscriminate tax increases, unrelated to actual social conditions, we have also seen a significant increase in illicit activity, counterfeiting, and smuggling.” With regard to the consultation, however, “we are unable to determine whether the Commission’s allegations are well-founded or not,” but “faced with such serious allegations, the Commission should have a duty to present clear and convincing evidence: otherwise, there is a risk of widely delegitimising a democratic exercise in which many citizens, associations, and companies have participated legitimately and in good faith.” TAPA claimed to have participated in the consultation and to have contributed “with the aim of ensuring the integrity and resilience of global supply chains and promoting collaboration with all stakeholders to safeguard the security of the movement of goods for businesses and consumers”. For this reason, “we expect the Commission to consider our concerns and proposals on an equal footing with all other contributions submitted to the open public consultation.”
We also requested a contribution from the Smoke Free Partnership platform, which, however, explained that it was still analysing the issue and would be available for comments in the near future.
English version by the Translation Service of Withub
