[Intl-tobacco] Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada: FCTC Scorecard (fwd)

[Robert Weissman]

FCTC Scorecard
Source: Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, Monday, 3/20/00
Framing the Framework Convention

The FCTC Scorecard

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Step One:=20

Analyse through questioning how proposals for the FCTC achieve public
health goals

Step Two:

Score the Proposed Measures.

Step Three:

Use a scorecard to evaluate results

Download:

The Scorecard in 'word' or 'pdf' format for your own use

Compare:

Your results with PSC's. (in 'word' or 'pdf' format)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first drafts of the proposed =A0 Framework Convention on Tobacco Contro=
l
(FCTC) and related protocols will provoke much discussion - and many
differing opinions -- among traditional allies in public health.

With the potential for so many comments and different opinions, it becomes
important not only to make comments on the documents, but to have a way of
considering comments, one=92s own and other peoples=92 comments as well, so
that all views can be taken into account in working towards a more
polished international instrument that is both representative of a global
consensus and an effective public health measure.

This proposal seeks to provide a way to help participants evaluate and
keep track of the various concerns and options are raised.

Suggested Goals for the Framework Convention

Two important goals for the FCTC likely to be shared among public health
advocates are:

* Implementing important, effective tobacco control measures through
international law

* Winning the support of most WHO Member States as convention and protocol
signatories

Potentially, the two objectives listed above could pull in opposite
directions. The very best public health measures might only find a handful
of countries ready to ratify and commit themselves to implementing the
convention.=A0 Most Member States may be willing to ratify something that
placed very few obligations on them. But such a treaty would probably not
contain the effective international public health measures that are
needed. Effective measures that are needed include strong support for
comprehensive national tobacco control, international measures that extend
national measures, and supranational measures that ensures that
international law is a positive force for tobacco control, not a negative
force against it.

The challenge, then, is one of optimization =96 to achieve the best possibl=
e
result for both objectives.

Step One:

Analyse through questioning how proposed measures help achieve these goals

Is the proposed measure national or international?

* Some international measures are "supranational" in their effect.=A0 They
have an impact on other international laws or practices. An example of a
supranational measure would be the inclusion in the framework convention
of a clause that says explicitly that trademark provisions in other
treaties (like TRIPS, NAFTA, etc) cannot be used to prohibit the sound
public health measures of advertising bans, warnings on packages and
generic packaging.

* Another kind of international measure belongs to the class of
international extensions of national measures, like a ban on export of
tobacco advertising.

* A third kind of International measures establishes ways to cooperate
internationally, and to encourage nations to work together to strengthen
tobacco control. One example would be a provision for assistance to
developing countries and newly independent states to implement this treaty
as well as recommended national tobacco control measures.=A0 Another could
be a well-resourced multilateral international task force to help
strengthen national tobacco control programmes would be in this category.

* National measures in an international convention might include some
that, by virtue of being included in international law, stand a better
chance of being implemented at the national level. By way of example, for
many countries, clear international recommendations for strong
uncompromising warnings on cigarette packages may be the spur needed to
prompt effective national action on this issue.

* Other national measures could properly belong in national law only.
Detailed descriptions of what such health warnings should look like are an
example of measures in this category. National law will be easier to
change and more responsive to local cultural conditions in many cases,
including this one.

Does the measure enhance international cooperation to strengthen tobacco
control?

* Does the measure foster cooperation among all countries? Specific
requirements to share information on the nature and effectiveness of
national tobacco control measures would be in this category.

* Does the measure help countries to strengthen their tobacco control
measures? Developing countries and newly independent states are in
particular need of financial and technical assistance to implement
national and international tobacco control measures. The framework
convention could and should set up international institutions that would
provide the needed assistance. Global tobacco control would be enhanced as
a result.

* Could the measure be accomplished as well or better by other means?

* Could it be implemented as well or better at the national level?

* Could it be implemented as well or better through another existing
treaty, or through existing international programmes or practices?

What consultation is advisable?

* If measures are proposed that impact other treaties or other programmes
and practices, consultation is strongly advised. Has it been done, or are
plans in place to do it? It may be that many control measures could be
implemented through means other than the framework convention as a result
of such consultation.

Is this measure best suited to being in the body of the convention, in a
related protocol -- or in neither?

It is important to recognize that there are many laudable public health
measures that have no place in an international legal instrument. Large
health warnings in two languages with colour pictures, printed on the
front and back of cigarette packages is a fine measure in Canada, and
perhaps in other countries too. However, these sorts of measures may best
be done at the national level and are most inappropriate at the
international level, where they would be very inflexible, once adopted,
and would be very unresponsive to varying cultural factors around the
world. The evaluation conducted under this title should be restricted to
the proposed measure=92s worth as an element of international law.

Positive measures.

* Positive measures can be evaluated as being of high, medium or low
importance as international public health measures. It is also important
to realize, however, that inappropriate measures that may actually do more
harm than good (such as national law misplaced as international treaty
obligations) can easily find their way into early drafts. The example
cited above is in this category.

Negative measures:

* Too much specificity in international law introduces inflexibility that
may be hard to undo by national law later on. These negative measures can
also be evaluated as mostly harmless, somewhat harmful or very harmful.

How many signatories will this measure attract?

This question can be considered along two dimensions. One is the
straightforward issue of the relative popularity of the item, and the
other is the more subtle issue of its strategic worth as a measure that
has value not only in and of itself, but further value as a measure that
can provide incentive for Member States to overcome misgivings they may
have and prompt them to sign the convention and protocols.

Popularity

* Relative popularity has to be evaluated not in terms of whether it will
receive support from Health Ministers and Ministries, but rather will the
measure receive multisectoral support in this or that country? Will it
receive support from the entire government? Will it be supported or
opposed by other citizens' groups? Will the level of support outweigh the
opposition that will inevitably come from the tobacco industry and its
sympathizers?

Strategic importance

* Another subtler dimension of the question of popularity of a measure is
the strategic nature of its construction. It is possible to construct
measures that are particularly attractive. To reap the benefits of these
attractive measures, some Member States will agree to measures that may be
less attractive to them (but perhaps no less important to global public
health). The inclusion of guaranteed technical and financial assistance to
developing countries and newly independent states for implementing the
convention, related protocols and related comprehensive tobacco control
measures would be an example of a good strategic provision. All strategic
provisions will not necessarily be good. Critical evaluation of strategic
provisions may reveal them to be, even if well intentioned, so poorly
constructed that they may in fact work against the achievement of
objectives instead of in their favour. Negotiators will need to be alert
to this possibility and work to ensure that everything in the convention
and protocols contributes towards the achievement of objectives.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Step Two: =A0

Score the Proposed Measures.

We offer an analytic tool for judging various measures or sets of
measures.

While the tool itself is objective, the evaluations carried out using the
scorecards could be very subjective, reflecting the very different
concerns of different negotiators and the different Member States they
represent. Two different negotiators may score the same measure very
differently. These negotiators would then have something to negotiate.
They could compare their scorecards, discuss the similarities and
differences in the scores assigned to the same measure, and then work
towards agreement on how best to modify the measure to optimize objectives
for global tobacco control.

The system of categorization and scoring proposed here is but one of the
many different tools and tricks that will be needed by negotiators.
Nevertheless, it could prove to be a very useful complement to the wider
collection of people and analytical skills that negotiators will bring to
discussions around the framework convention for tobacco control and
related protocols.

Scorecard Part 1: Characterizing the measure

Negotiators may first wish to determine the nature of the measure under
consideration. This could be done by seeking answers to the five questions
posed in Step One . Their answers should reflect how the measure would be
viewed by the government or organization they represent would see the
measure contributing to improved global and national tobacco control. Such
an evaluation will not necessarily coincide with how the measure is
presented in draft documents or how other delegations or individuals
characterize it. The characterization could be done in the form of summary
table that could look something like this:

Scorecard Part 1: The nature of the measure

Example measure number Description of the measure Is the measure
supranational or could it be entirely accomplished by national means? Does
the measure enhance international cooperation to strengthen tobacco
control? Could the measure be accomplished as well or better by other
means? What consultation with other international bodies is advisable?
Framework, protocol, or neither?

1 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0

2 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0

3 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0

Etc. =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0

Scorecard Part 2: Numerical scoring of importance and popularity

Once the measure has been characterized it can be given a numerical score.
These scores will help illuminate the public health importance of the
measure as a component of international law and provide a judgement of the
measure=92s effectiveness at attracting signatories through its popularity
and strategic worth.

The potential effectiveness of the measure as a contribution towards
achievement of objectives, its appropriateness as an international measure
as opposed to a national measure, the possibility of its achievement
through means other than a new treaty or protocol are all factors that
could be considered in scoring the importance, popularity and strategic
worth of an item.

It should also be recognized that some measures could be counterproductive
and could thereby earn negative scores in this scoring scheme.

Measurement scales:

* The public health importance (or harmfulness) of the measure as a
component of international law

* How important is the measure to attracting (or repelling) member states
to become signatories

* How strategic is the measure in attracting (or repelling) signatories

-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6

Very

harmful Somewhat

harmful mostly harmless

Unimportant

or not applicable Somewhat

important Very

important.=A0

Scorecard #2 for decision-making: Importance and popularity

=09Measure The public health importance of the measure as a component
of international law How many signatories will this measure attract? The
strategic worth of the measure TOTAL

Sum of columns 1-3

1 Measure #1 -6 to +6 -6 to +6 -6 to +6 -18 to +18

2 Measure #2 -6 to +6 -6 to +6 -6 to +6 -18 to +18

3 Measure #3 -6 to +6 -6 to +6 -6 to +6 -18 to +18

=09Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc=A0

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Step Three:

Use a scorecard to evaluate results

Download the attached scorecard to evaluate of the measures under debate.=
=A0

* Scorecard in word format

* Scorecard in pdf format

Once the measure has been characterized it can be given a total score.
These scores will help illuminate the public health importance of the
measure as a component of international law and provide a judgement of the
measure=92s effectiveness at attracting signatories through its popularity
and strategic worth.

Compare with PSC's results using the scorecard to evaluate seven potential
measures under the FCTC

* PSC Scorecard in word format

* PSC Scorecard in pdf format