1 of 2
ITGA former c.e.o., Mr António Abrunhosa, at COP4 in Uruguay. Photo credit: ITGA
2 of 2
Tobacco growers’ demonstration against measures of WHO FCTC at the entrance of the COP4 venue in Uruguay in 2010.
The number of attacks coming from the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) have increased in a way that farmers have lost track of the good old Article 17 (focusing on the provision of support for economically viable alternatives to tobacco growing) and its well-intentioned preamble.
WHO FCTC has been very effective in drawing a blank in matters where they lack consistency and Article 17 is without any doubt one of these issues. As a result, the International Tobacco Growers’ Association (ITGA) suggests it is time to revisit Article 17 and bring it back to the top of the agenda.
A working group on Articles 17 and 18 (focusing on the protection of the environment and the health of persons) was created 15 years ago in Durban, South Africa. It recognized the need to promote economically viable alternatives to tobacco production as a way to prevent possible adverse social and economic impacts on the populations whose livelihoods depend on tobacco production.
The working group recommended cooperation with each other and with regional, international, and intergovernmental organizations to promote economically viable alternatives for tobacco growers, workers, and individual sellers. It was observed that a holistic approach to address the problem is needed where farmers organizations should play an important role in the development and implementation of policies. The importance of involving farmers was reinforced and highly recommended by the working group. It was also stated that FCTC did not aim to penalize tobacco farmers.
Article 17 was originally created to assist tobacco farmers impacted by the reduction in tobacco consumption. Promotion of alternative livelihoods in this sense would reduce the economic dependence of growers in tobacco. In addition, the contribution of all main actors in the supply chain was considered extremely valuable in the policy making. It was noticed that the Article was not meant to impose on farmers any choice other than their own and policies would work to ensure it. Moreover, the important role tobacco growing had in local communities was also a crucial point to be acknowledged in this policy development.
The document drafted by the working group on Articles 17 and 18 to drive a holistic approach towards economically viable alternatives to tobacco growing was well received and tobacco growers had good expectations about it, but the FCTC Secretariat found an effective tool to create all kinds of obstacles, especially when it came to involving growers in policy making. Article 5.3 became an extraordinary powerful weapon acting against transparency and granting total control of the FCTC Secretariat over the Conferences.
It was back in 2010 during the Fourth Conference of the Parties (COP4) in Uruguay that, for the first time, the public was excluded from public sessions, with the majority of delegates in opposition to this decision. Under Rule 32 of the FCTC Rules of Procedure (sessions must be held in public) adopted in consensus by state parties, observers have the right to participate in and speak at public meetings of the COP, but without a vote. Article 5.3 has been a subject of legal analysis and according to some of the conclusions, reasons presented by COP Bureau at COP4 to exclude the public from public sessions bears very little relationship to the legal content of Article 5.3.
Since COP4 there has been a number of serious irregularities in the way the FCTC Secretariat has conducted its Conferences of the Parties by perpetuating the idea of Article 5.3 as a rightful tool to keep the tobacco industry’s vested interest out of the meetings. The truth is that the FCTC Secretariat is operating against its own rules of procedure and by doing so, it is also disrespecting the state parties’ decisions.
The good governance principle is applied to international organizations such as WHO FCTC and under it there should be ‘transparency in both the decision-making process and the implementation of institutional and operational decisions.’ Moreover, it considered that ‘full access to information is a fundamental element in the accountable functioning.’
Article 17 is doomed to failure and will not bring any solution to growers. In a state of increasing market instability, an appropriate approach and implementation of this Article could have been very beneficial to tobacco growers. Instead, WHO FCTC has not stopped advancing its attacks on tobacco production, leaving behind the only counterbalance measure to mitigate the negative impact of policies in growers’ livelihood.
Next generation products are another uncertainty in the future of tobacco and tobacco growers, but it is a reality that has come to stay and the sooner we learn to live with it the better. It is important to understand that cigarettes still represent the biggest chunk of sales in companies’ portfolios and tobacco growers are acting according to this demand in a legal market, even though nobody is preparing growers for the foreseeable future where new products such as ‘heated tobacco’ could take over the place on the pie chart where cigarettes are now.
A ‘win-win’ situation would be a scenario where the millions of tobacco growers around the world can face a future with no dependence on tobacco growing thanks to the support of appropriate policies, accurate market trends information, and government support. If only FCTC objectives went back to its original objective, reducing tobacco consumption by applying adequate policies, we could all be working together toward a common purpose. Unfortunately, this is very unlikely to happen, especially if you observe the shift in arguments from FCTC. Tobacco growers in this case are left to the support of their governments. A good way to start will be inclusion in this global debate taking place in November in Panama - the 10th Conference of the Parties of WHO FCTC.
ITGA Members will make this plea requesting their governments’ support.