[Intl-tobacco] FCTC Negotiations updates

[Robert Weissman]

Three items following the close of the recent round of Framework
Convention on Tobacco Control negotiations.

1. Final FCTC negotiation update from ACS, AHA, ALA and CTFK
2. Final NATT Marlboro Man Award to US
3. Statement from TFK


An update on negotiations at the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control by
the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung
Association and Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

The world's nations met March 18-23, 2002, in Geneva, Switzerland, for the
fourth round of negotiations on the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
(FCTC), the international tobacco control treaty proposed by the World
Health Organization (WHO).  The goal is to complete the treaty by May 2003.
The Framework Convention Update provides periodic reports on
developments at
the negotiations, focused on the actions of the U.S. delegation.

Week of Negotiations Make Little Progress

The fourth round of negotiations on the Framework Convention ended Saturday
with little progress to show for a week of work.  While a large majority of
countries, especially from the developing world, supported strong positions,
a small, but powerful number of countries that are home to cigarette
manufacturers, including the United States, German and Japan, continued to
seek to weaken the treaty.  The result was a sharp division on almost every
issue, from smuggling to advertising to putting health before trade. While
the goal of this round of negotiations was to narrow differences,
nations in
many instances made new proposals instead.  On clean indoor air, for
example, the final outcome of these negotiations was a text full of brackets
that included just about every proposal made since the negotiations
began in
October 2000.

To force real negotiations during the next round, scheduled for October
14-25, the chair of the negotiations, Ambassador Seixas Correa of Brazil,
said he will issue a "Chair's Text" in July that seeks to find common ground
where possible and narrow the options for debate on key issues.  The Chair
expressed optimism that nations can still reach agreement on most provisions
at the October negotiations so a treaty can be signed in May 2003.  However,
he put nations on notice that due to the lack of progress over the past
week, another round of negotiations may have to be scheduled.

U.S. Changes Tone, But Not Harmful Positions

While the U.S. took a less confrontational tone at the negotiations, it did
not change its harmful positions on key issues such as putting health before
trade, a total ban on advertising when allowed by national constitutions,
and a prohibition on misleading terms such as "light" and "low-tar."  In
some instances, other nations would advocate positions previously
articulated by the U.S. and the U.S. delegation would express agreement,
rather than taking the lead itself.  On the issue of health before trade,
for example, Canada, Australia and New Zealand advocated a provision that
called for Framework Convention provisions to be consistent with, rather
than take precedent over, trade agreements.  The U.S. had taken the lead in
pushing this position at previous negotiations.   Here is a summary of U.S.
positions on key issues:

Trade vs. Health: This has emerged as perhaps the central issue of the
negotiations.  The tobacco history has a long history of using trade law as
a tool to thwart tobacco control policies.  For example, Philip Morris has
threatened to challenge Canada's proposed ban on terms such as "light" and
"mild" as a violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement and an
agreement on patents and trademarks.  If the Framework Convention does not
explicitly state that its public health provisions are to take priority when
they conflict with trade rules, it would allow the industry to challenge
other provisions of the Convention as trade violations.  A special working
group was established at this round of negotiations to work out a compromise
on this issue, but it failed to do so.  Tobacco advocates worked furiously
to head off proposals by Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and
supported by
the United States, that called for tobacco control measures to be
"non-discriminatory" and "consistent with other international obligations."
At the end of the negotiations, Thailand, which has had its tobacco control
measures challenged by the industry as trade violations, insisted that its
proposal putting health first remain under consideration.  The Thai proposal
states, "In the event of a conflict between the Convention or any of its
Protocols and any other international agreement, this Convention and its
Protocols shall prevail."  While it appeared the Thai proposal was still
alive, it remains to be seen whether it will be in the Chair's Text when it
is released in July.

Advertising Ban: A strong majority of countries have supported a total ban
on tobacco advertising, promotions and sponsorship when allowed by national
constitutions.  The U.S. has opposed this proposal.  Germany has also
been a
leading opponent of the ad ban, leading to the adoption of the German
position by the European Union, which usually operates by consensus.  In one
of the few positive developments at these negotiations, the EU indicated it
might abandon its consensus approach and take a majority vote to support the
ad ban.

Prohibition on terms like "light", "mild" and "low-tar":  While many nations
have advocated a total ban on these and other terms that imply one tobacco
product is safer than another, the U.S. has taken a position that would
place the burden of proof on governments to show these terms are "false or
misleading."  Although the issue has not been settled, the U.S. position
appeared to gain ground at these negotiations as a working group on the
issue proposed similar language.

Smuggling: The U.S. is planning a conference on cigarette smuggling at the
United Nations in New York from July 30 to August 1, 2002.  The U.S. has
invited nations negotiating the FCTC to attend, with the goal of reaching
agreement on smuggling provisions to include in the Convention and a more
detailed side agreement, or protocol.  Advocates believe the New York
conference and a smuggling protocol obligating nations to take specific and
effective steps to combat smuggling can be productive.  But the conference
and the protocol should not be substitutes for strong provisions in the
Convention itself.  So far the U.S. has failed to make specific proposals.


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



etwork for Accountability of Tobacco Transnationals

 Press Release

For Immediate Release:                                                  
                  Contact:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

23 March 2002                                                           
                        Patti Lynn  079.221.7848

 

 

US Takes Home Marlboro Man award as Round four of 

tobacco treaty talks concludes

                                                                   

Tries to Block Drafting of Treaty Text on Compensation and Liability

Geneva—The Marlboro Man award heads to Marlboro Country on the final day
of the current round of tobacco treaty talks, after the US opposed any
language on
compensation and liability being included in the next draft of the
Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The award, bestowed by the
Network for Accountability of
Tobacco Transnationals (NATT), exposes and challenges countries for
espousing treaty positions that benefit the tobacco industry at the
expense of public health. As
home to Philip Morris, the world’s largest and most profitable tobacco
corporation, the US stood in the way of progress on an issue that many
countries believe is central to
holding tobacco giants accountable for their products and practices.

 “Tobacco corporations impose enormous health, environmental and
economic costs on governments and consumers, and drain resources from
economically poor
countries to a few shareholders and executives in wealthy countries.
Having privatized the profits from tobacco while socializing its costs,
tobacco transnationals fear
strong language on compensation and liability in the FCTC. In this round
of negotiations, the US did the dirty work of Philip Morris on this
critical issue,” says Muyunda
Ililonga of Zambia Consumers Association, a NATT member. 

NATT members believe that the FCTC presents a critical opportunity to
hold tobacco transnationals accountable for harms caused by their
products to people around the
world, particularly in light of successful litigation in the US. Many
countries, especially Iran and Norway, spoke powerfully to the need to
include measures on compensation
and liability in the FCTC. Well over 80 countries were represented in
statements made in favor of provisions that could prevent transnationals
from evading responsibility,
and facilitate cooperation among nations to recover the costs of the
tobacco epidemic. 

The US also once again demonstrated that it prioritizes the protection
of tobacco corporations’ trade secrets over public health. In the debate
over surveillance, research,
and exchange of information, the US argued for the FCTC to encourage
only the exchange of information that is already publicly available—a
position that fails to
acknowledge the tobacco industry’s long history of lies and ignores the
value of prying loose once-secret internal documents.

“The US was less vocal in this round of treaty talks, but still made its
priorities clear. Throughout the week the US consistently favored Philip
Morris’s interests over public
health, whether it was protecting industry trade secrets or blocking
progress on compensation and liability. As a US-based NGO, we are
ashamed that our government is
fronting for the Marlboro Man—and will be making the US public’s concern
known at the next round of negotiations,” says Kathryn Mulvey of Infact
(US), a NATT member.

The winner of the Marlboro Man award has been announced each day by the
Network for Accountability of Tobacco Transnationals, based on the
previous day’s
negotiations. The Republic of Korea, Pakistan, and the Dominican
Republic have also received the Marlboro Man award this week.

The award is named after Philip Morris’s notorious advertising icon
because of the Marlboro Man’s central role in spreading tobacco
addiction globally. The image was
described by its creator as “the right image to capture the youth
market’s fancy…a perfect symbol of independence and individualistic
rebellion.” Philip Morris has ridden to
the top of the industry on the strength of the Marlboro Man advertising
and promotional campaign, which has made Marlboro the world’s leading
cigarette brand. 

 

                                                               —30—

 

The Network for Accountability of Tobacco Transnationals (NATT) includes
75 NGOs from more than 50 countries working for a strong, enforceable
Framework Convention
on Tobacco Control. NATT members in Geneva for INB4 deciding the
Marlboro Man awards are: Environmental Rights Action (Nigeria), Infact
(US), National Council
Against Smoking (South Africa), Sindicato Médico del Uruguay, Consumer
VOICE (India), and Zambian Consumers Association.



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


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE			CONTACT: 	Nicole Dueffert
March 25, 2002							202-296-5469

Statement of Judith P. Wilkenfeld, Director, International Programs,
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids

Tobacco Treaty Negotiations Stall As U.S. Continues Efforts to Weaken Key
Provisions

WASHINGTON (March 25, 2002) – We are disappointed that the United States
continued to lead efforts to weaken the proposed international tobacco
treaty, the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, during weeklong
negotiations that concluded on Saturday.  While a large majority of nations,
especially those from the developing world, supported strong tobacco control
measures, a small, but powerful number of countries that are home to
cigarette manufacturers, including the United States, Germany and Japan,
continued to seek to weaken the treaty.  With the possible exception of
cigarette smuggling, the continued attempt by the United States to water
down the treaty was one reason why so little progress was made during these
negotiations and why the goal of completing a treaty by May 2003 may be at
risk.  We need a strong and enforceable treaty that obligates nations to
take specific actions to reduce the death and disease caused by tobacco use
around the world.  U.S. leadership is vital to achieving this goal and
ensuring that the treaty protects public health, not the interests of the
tobacco industry.

While the United States took a less confrontational tone that it has at
previous negotiations, it did not change its harmful opposition to key
provisions that would put health before trade, ban tobacco advertising when
allowed by national constitutions, and prohibit misleading terms such as
“light” and “low-tar” that imply one cigarette product is safer than
another.

The issue of trade vs. health has emerged as perhaps the central issue of
the negotiations.  The tobacco industry has a long history of using trade
law as a tool to thwart tobacco control policies.  For example, Philip
Morris has threatened to challenge Canada’s proposed ban on terms such as
“light” and “mild” as a violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement
and an international agreement on patents and trademarks.  If the Framework
Convention does not explicitly state that its public health provisions are
to take priority when they conflict with trade rules, it will allow the
tobacco industry to seek to overturn other provisions of the Convention, as
well as tobacco control measures enacted by nations, as trade violations.
The United States recently joined other nations in recognizing the primary
of health over trade by agreeing to a health exception to international
patent rules so that developing nations could have access to affordable AIDS
drugs.  Surely the same approach should be taken in the case of tobacco,
which already kills more than four million people worldwide, with that
number projected to increase to 10 million by 2030.

The one constructive position taken by the United States during these
negotiations was its plan to host a conference on cigarette smuggling at UN
headquarters in New York City from July 30 to August 31, 2002.
International cigarette smuggling is a serious problem that undermines
domestic tobacco control policies such as price increases and advertising
restrictions, contributes to organized crime and deprives governments of
much-needed revenue.  The goal of this U.S.-led conference should be to
reach agreement on strong, detailed and enforceable measures that nations
would be obligated to take to combat smuggling.  These provisions could then
be included in the Framework Convention and in a protocol, or more detailed
side agreement.  We are concerned, however, that the United States has yet
to spell out the specific measures it supports and that the conference not
become a substitute for effective action.