The World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) is an international treaty that aims to reduce the supply and demand of tobacco. The WHO FCTC includes a specific obligation, Article 5.3, requiring Parties to protect public health policies from commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry.¹

• More information on Article 5.3, and tobacco industry attempts to undermine the WHO FCTC, can be found on the TobaccoTactics FCTC page.
• A summary and timeline of the relevant WHO FCTC regulations can be found on FCTC Regulations on the Need to Protect Public Health Policies from Tobacco Industry Interference.

The Parties to the WHO FCTC usually meet every two years at the Conference of the Parties (COP). In 2023, the 10^th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 10) was due to take place from 20 to 25 November in Panama, immediately followed by the third Meeting of the Parties (MOP 3) from 27 to 30 November, to oversee the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products. This treaty was adopted at COP 5 and addresses means of countering the illicit tobacco trade. However, both events were postponed to February 2024. COP 10 took place from 5 to 10 February in Panama, immediately followed by the MOP 3 from 12 to 15 February.

COP 10 and MOP 3 provisional agendas are available on the website of the Convention Secretariat of the WHO FCTC.

In August 2023, the WHO released a statement indicating its concern that the tobacco industry and others working in its interest have approached some Parties. Accordingly, the statement calls for Parties to “remain vigilant” in preparation for COP 10 and MOP 3.²

This page summarises activities and interference by the tobacco industry and its allies in relation to COP 10 and MOP 3, as well as highlighting criticism aimed at the WHO and COP.

• See History of Interference by the Tobacco Industry and its Allies During COP and MOP for incidents of documented interference at previous COPs.

Tobacco Industry Activities

Discussion of COP 10 by the tobacco industry, industry associates, and industry media, began several months before the conference was due to take place. It focused largely on the topic of tobacco harm reduction, in addition to some lobbying activities documented in tobacco growing countries. Some examples are detailed below.

British American Tobacco

In April 2023 (during the Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum GTNF’s ‘In Focus’ online series), James Murphy, director of research and science at British American Tobacco (BAT), highlighted COP as an opportunity to discuss tobacco harm reduction.³

In May 2023 (at industry event TabExpo), Flora Okereke, head of global regulatory insights and foresights at BAT,  reportedly said that the nicotine industry should work together to fight for harm reduction and send a single message to governments ahead of COP 10: that newer nicotine and tobacco products have a role to play in smoking cessation.⁴ She added:

“I think it is time for you to use your access to your government …Remember, the parties are the ones mandated to make decisions at this meeting. Countries have the mandate to raise their voice and their opinion.”⁴

Philip Morris International

In October 2023, The Guardian newspaper published an article based on a leaked internal email, sent the previous month by Philip Morris International (PMI) senior vice-president of external affairs Grégoire Verdeaux.⁵ The article points to a widespread PMI lobbying campaign against stronger regulation of “smoke-free”  products ahead of the COP. Verdeaux said that for the previous 18 months his company had worked to “leverage the right support” at the meeting but added: “At this stage we are not where we would like to be – in terms of intelligence, positions and delegations”.⁵

Verdeaux described the COP 10 agenda as “nothing short of a systematic, methodical, prohibitionist attack on smoke-free products”. He said that PMI would be at the event in Panama and intended to protest its exclusion, adding that it could be “the most helpful private partner the WHO could have in the fight against smoking”.⁵

During the week of COP 10, Verdeaux attended the launch event of a campaign by Crime Stoppers International that highlighted illicit tobacco trade in Panama.⁶⁷ Verdeaux stated “We can learn from examples in Europe where sensible regulations have been introduced to control, regulate, and tax alternatives to cigarettes. So, you don’t corner smokers into the black market”.⁶

Tobacco industry associations meet with government in Brazil

In June, a public hearing was held at the Chamber of Deputies, Brazil’s lower house of Congress, to clarify the country’s position at COP 10.⁸ It was attended by representatives from various government departments, as well as representatives of the Tobacco Growers’ Association of Brazil (AFUBRA), the Brazilian Tobacco Industry Association (ABIFUMO) and the Interstate Tobacco Industry Union (SindiTabaco).⁹ The Ministry of Health reportedly declined to attend.¹⁰

During the meeting, the president of SindiTabaco described the WHO FCTC as “the worst dictatorship” for not allowing the “the parties with the greatest interest to take part in the debates”. “We should monitor Brazil’s position in the next COP and warn of the consequences of a misguided approach”, he added.¹⁰

In July, representatives from several industry associations including SindiTabaco met with the Minister of Agriculture to ask for his support ahead of COP 10.¹¹ A similar meeting was held with the Minister of Agrarian Development a few days later, in which the minister reportedly criticised initiatives to replace tobacco as a cash crop.¹²

In October there was a further meeting between industry associations and representatives of various government departments.¹³ In the meeting, industry representatives called for transparency on the Brazilian position at the COP and the inclusion of tobacco growers at every stage of the discussions.¹⁴

In February 2024, the Brazilian parliamentary committee, consisting of state and federal representatives from tobacco-growing regions in Southern Brazil, was denied entrance to COP 10.¹⁵ The committee held daily debriefing sessions that were moderated by the head of the Brazilian delegation, Carlos Henrique Abreu e Silva.^{16 17} Abreu e Silva also met with the Tobacco Growers’ Association of Brazil (Afubra) and the International Tobacco Growers Association (ITGA) during one of the meetings.¹⁸

Tobacco Industry Media and Events

Filter magazine

In July and August 2023, Filter magazine published articles on COP 10. Filter is owned by The Influence Foundation, which receives direct and indirect tobacco industry funding, from tobacco companies and the PMI-funded Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW).

Written by the pro-tobacco blogger Martin Cullip, one article, titled “Time Short to Stop the WHO’s Assault on Tobacco Harm Reduction”, he described “threats” which could be posed by the COP 10 meeting, including prohibition of non-tobacco e-liquid flavours, and the extension of regulations on tobacco products to newer nicotine and tobacco products. He called upon “the public, the safer nicotine trade and tobacco harm reduction advocates” to petition key policymakers and national delegates.¹⁹

In another article, he stated that the WHO was “dishonestly railroading delegates toward a preordained outcome of heavy restrictions and prohibition” and that parties “make their decisions based on robust evidence, rather than a steady stream of propaganda”.²⁰

Around COP, Filter magazine published several articles by Lindsey Stroud of the Taxpayers’ Protection Alliance (TPA), which criticised the WHO.²¹²²²³ The Influence Foundation declared that it had received funds from the TPA “to support travel to Good COP”, a parallel meeting run by the TPA during COP 10.²⁴

See below for more on the TPA.

Tobacco Reporter

Industry publication Tobacco Reporter, which is owned by the Tobacco Merchants Association (TMA), has a dedicated section on its website called ‘Special Report: COP 10’, where it published articles before, during and after COP. The stated aim was to examine COP 10 closely, arguing that the decisions to be made at the COP could have far reaching implications for the tobacco industry, suppliers, tobacco farmers, smokers and users of e-cigarettes.²⁵

Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum 2023

The Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum (GTNF) is an annual tobacco industry-funded event, sponsored by major transnational tobacco companies including PMI, BAT and Imperial Brands.²⁶²⁷

On the final day of the 2023 conference, a session titled ‘Talking about COP 10’ was led by Derek Yach, former FSFW president and board director, and Flora Okereke of BAT.²⁸ The discussion focused on the topic of tobacco harm reduction.²⁹

• For more information on the GTNF, please see the page on the Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum.

Tobacco Industry Allies’ Activities

Knowledge-Action-Change

In April 2023, Knowledge-Action-Change (KAC), a FSFW grantee, published a COP briefing paper on the website of its Global State of Tobacco Harm Reduction (GSTHR) project. The brief stated that the COP lacked transparency and accountability, and included instructions for how to engage with the COP and lobby officials.³⁰

In October 2023, KAC published a further briefing on the COP 10 agenda, which described “The principal threats to THR [tobacco harm reduction] and consumer access to SNP [safer nicotine products]”.³¹

The following month, KAC published another briefing paper focused on tobacco harm reduction consumer advocacy groups, criticising their exclusion from COP 10.³²³³ This briefing has been referred to in industry media.³⁴³⁵³⁶

Institute of Economic Affairs

The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), a “free market” UK think tank, has a history of collaboration with the tobacco industry, including receiving financial support from tobacco companies.

The Director of the IEA’s “Lifestyle Economics” unit, Christopher Snowdon, authored an article published by The Sun criticising the WHO’s stance on e-cigarettes as “unscientific and fanatical”, described it as a threat to global health, and said the UK had an opportunity to oppose proposals relating to e-cigarettes during COP 10. He also described the WHO as a “fundamentally corrupt and incompetent organisation”.³⁷

Snowdon attended the Taxpayers Protection Alliance’s ‘Good COP’ event (see below for more information).³⁸

• For more information see Institute of Economic Affairs: COP 10.

International Tobacco Growers Association

The International Tobacco Growers’ Association (ITGA) is a front group set up and run by the major cigarette manufacturers.

ITGA held several meetings in the year leading up to COP 10 in which the COP featured as a discussion point, and ITGA criticised the WHO FCTC for “excluding” farmers from discussions.³⁹⁴⁰⁴¹ After its ‘Africa Regional Meeting’ in June, ITGA’s report of the event stated “ITGA President is in a crusade to raise awareness of the false claims raised by WHO about tobacco farming and about the economic viability of alternatives crops”.⁴⁰

According to Mercedes Vázquez, ITGA CEO, the organisation applied for observer status at COP 10, though as of November 2023, it had received no reply.⁴²⁴³ ITGA’s applications to observe previous COPs were refused.⁴² It later released a statement ahead of COP 10 in February arguing for publicly attended sessions at COP, and for tobacco growers to be able to participate in the discussions.⁴⁴

During of the week of COP 10, ITGA continued to criticise the WHO and FCTC.⁴⁵ ITGA also met with the Brazilian ambassador to Panama, head of the Brazilian delegation.⁴⁶¹⁸

• For more information see International Tobacco Growers Association: COP 10.

Tobacco Institute of India

The Tobacco Institute of India (TII) was founded in 1992 by ITC Limited, Godfrey Phillips India and VST Industries Ltd. All three companies have affiliations with either BAT or PMI.⁴⁷

At an awards ceremony for tobacco farmers, Sharad Tandan, TII director, said that he hoped that COP 10 would not take “ill-conceived policy measures on issues like tobacco crop diversification etc, which will have a devastating impact on India’s export performance and on the livelihood of millions of farmers, farm workers, and their families”.⁴⁸

World Vapers Alliance

The World Vapers Alliance (WVA) is a US-based organisation funded by the Consumer Choice Center, which in turn receives funding from tobacco industry, and by BAT directly.⁴⁹⁵⁰

In September 2023, WVA published an article, arguing that “the WHO has neglected evidence” for the use of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid because “it has already taken a side in the vaping debate”. It also argued that prohibition would lead to “irreversible illicit trade”.⁵¹

During the week of COP 10, WVA then criticised the “exclusion of consumers from the decision-making process”.⁵²

• For more information see World Vapers’ Alliance: COP 10.

Center of Excellence for the Acceleration of Harm Reduction

In October 2023, the Center of Excellence for the Acceleration of Harm Reduction (CoEHAR), a FSFW grantee, sent a letter to the European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, Stella Kyriakides. It stated:

“Our hope is that, in light of scientific evidence, the FCTC and the European Union conduct a careful, balanced, and transparent review of the available scientific evidence regarding non-combustible products, compared to conventional cigarettes, to provide indispensable information for making decisions in the interest of millions of smokers.”⁵³

We Vape

We Vape was founded in 2020 by Mark Oates, a fellow at Adam Smith Institute, a UK think tank that has a history of collaboration with the tobacco industry, including accepting funding.

In an article published in August 2023, Mark Oates highlighted what he called “big issues” with the WHO’s recommendations approaching COP 10, and stated that We Vape was running its “Back Vaping Save Lives campaign, to educate and embolden the millions of vapers in the UK whose freedom to use a life-saving tool is under attack”.⁵⁴ He called upon “the vaping community and beyond” to write to their local MPand provided a template letter.⁵⁵

In October 2023, Oates called for readers to oppose tax increases on e-cigarettes during COP 10.⁵⁶

New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is a lobby group which has previously received funding from BAT.⁵⁷ It ran a campaign entitled “Clear The Air” to promote newer nicotine and tobacco products, and has repeatedly opposed tobacco control measures, including plain packaging.⁵⁷⁵⁸⁵⁹

In January 2024, it called upon New Zealand’s delegates to COP 10 to reject the WHO’s call to action on e-cigarettes which called for strong regulation and enforcement.⁶⁰.⁶¹

Other Criticism of the WHO and COP

Taxpayers Protection Alliance

The Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) is a US-based not-for-profit which lobbies on tobacco related topics, including outside the US. (The US is not a party to the FCTC)

TPA announced that they would be running a parallel meeting called “Good COP” to counter the WHO’s “Bad COP”.³⁸ It described the meeting as “a rapid response and fact checking conference in Panama City” that would “bring in experts and consumers, often ignored by WHO, to be heard during the discussion of tobacco and tobacco harm reduction”.⁶² The National Taxpayer’s Union and the Tholos Foundation, an affiliate of Americans for Tax Reform, were listed as partners of the event. See Lobby Groups for information on these ‘taxpayer’ organisations.⁶³

Event speakers listed on the agenda included representatives from the TPA, JCIC International Consultancy, the Institute of Economic Affairs, We Vape and the Centre of Excellence for the Acceleration of Harm Reduction (CoEHAR).⁶⁴⁶³

In the run up to COP 10, International Fellow of the TPA, Martin Cullip, and Director of the TPA’s Consumer Center, Lindsey Stroud, authored several articles criticising the WHO. One  stated that “permitting commercial tobacco harm reduction products costs governments nothing” and urged them to “roundly reject the WHO’s advice”.⁶⁵⁶⁶⁶⁷

• For more information see Taxpayers’ Protection Alliance: COP 10.

Global Britain

Campaigns ‘Say No To WHO’ and ‘Save My Vape’ have similar objectives. Their websites invite visitors to sign a petition, though the websites and associated Facebook pages contain no details about the organisations or their funders.⁶⁸⁶⁹ Both campaigns have been linked to Global Britain Ltd, run by PR consultant Brian Monteith. Monteith has a long history of opposition to tobacco control.⁷⁰

Smoke Free Sweden 2023

Health Diplomats, a health consulting company set up by Delon Human, a South African doctor with a history of collaboration with BAT, set up the Smoke Free Sweden 2023 campaign. Human is described as the “leader of the Smoke Free Sweden movement”.⁷¹

In November 2023, following the postponement of COP 10, Smoke Free Sweden published a press release, urging the FCTC to use the delay “to consider smoke-free success stories like that of Sweden.”⁷¹

UK All-Party Parliamentary Group for Vaping

UK Member of Parliament Adam Afriyie, vice chair of the UK’s All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Vaping, spoke at the industry-sponsored Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum (GTNF) in South Korea in September 2023, where he warned against handing over control of UK policy to the WHO.⁷² Afriyie was a member of a panel moderated by David Bertram from EUK Consulting, which has worked for BAT since 2000.⁷³⁷⁴

Afriyie’s expenses were paid, as in 2022, by the GTNF trust.⁷⁵⁷⁶ Afriyie has been accused of having a conflict of interest because of his connections to Elite Growth, a firm that sells disposable vapes, of which his wife is a shareholder.⁷⁶ He has been closely associated with the UK Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA) while the Big Four transnational tobacco companies were members (UKVIA stated in September 2023 that it no longer has tobacco company members).⁷⁷⁷⁸⁷⁹ For more information see the UKVIA page.

Afriyie has argued in Parliament that the UK should work more closely with the tobacco industry,⁸⁰ and has lobbied for the legalisation of snus in the UK, on behalf of Swedish Match.

Other APPG members have also been critical of COP.⁸¹⁸² Mary Glindon MP, another vice chair of the APPG, called COP 10 “the biggest threat to the U.K.’s world-beating harm reduction strategy” with its “singular mission focused on actively encouraging countries to ban vaping as part of its tobacco control approach, purposefully flouting the evidence of vaping’s success.”³ Glindon was speaking at the GTNF’s In Focus webinar in April 2023. Other keynote speakers included Delon Human, James Murphy of BAT, and Derek Yach, former FSFW president.³⁸³

The APPG for Vaping closed down in November 2023, reportedly because no-one was able to take over Mark Pawsey’s position as chair.⁸⁴

Relevant Links

• World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC)
• FCTC COP website
• The Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products
• FCTC MOP website

Tobacco Tactics Resources

• COP & MOP
• Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
• Protocol to Eliminate Illicit trade in Tobacco Products
• Illicit Tobacco Trade

References

The post Interference around COP 10 & MOP 3 appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

There have been multiple instances of lobbying by ambassadors and other diplomats from the UK, as well as Japan and Switzerland. Much of this lobbying activity has taken place in low and middle-income countries (LMICs).⁸⁸ These countries are important sources of new customers for tobacco companies as markets in higher income countries where consumption is generally falling.⁸⁹⁹⁰⁹¹

Diplomats are also involved in activities which help promote the tobacco industry via local media, such as visiting tobacco farms or factories. Other engagement supports tobacco companies’ product promotions, or corporate social responsibility strategy. These activities help to raise the profile of tobacco companies, enhance their reputations, and support the ‘normalisation’ of the industry.⁸⁷⁹²⁹³

Background

Parties to the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) have an obligation to protect public health policies from the “commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry” and any contact with tobacco industry representatives, or others seeking to further their interests, must be “limited” and “transparent”.⁹⁴ The implementation guidelines to Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC recommend that Parties limit interactions with the tobacco industry to those that are absolutely necessary to regulating the industry, and ensure the transparency of those interactions that do occur.⁹⁴  The guidelines also recommend parties treat state-owned tobacco companies in the same way as any other tobacco company, including avoiding any “preferential treatment”.⁹⁴

In addition, the guidelines state that “… Whenever possible, interactions should be conducted in public, for example through public hearings, public notice of interactions, disclosure of records of such interactions to the public”.⁹⁴

However even in countries with a high level of compliance with the WHO FCTC requirements, diplomatic missions rarely achieve this level of transparency. Information on tobacco industry engagement has largely been found through media investigations and Freedom of Information requests (FOIs).

In October 2014, the 6^th Conference of the Parties (COP) decided to urge parties: “to raise awareness and adopt measures to implement Article 5.3 and its implementing Guidelines among all parts of government including diplomatic missions.”⁹⁵ Another decision required governments to “take into account their public health objectives in their negotiation of trade and investment agreements”.⁹⁶

Nevertheless, diplomats continue to lobby for tobacco companies around the world.⁸⁷

Countries whose diplomatic representatives have lobbied on behalf of tobacco companies overseas  include the UK, Germany and Japan, who are all Parties to the WHO FCTC,⁹⁷ as well as the United States and Switzerland. BAT, PMI and Japan Tobacco all have offices in Geneva, Switzerland, the location of the World Health Organization and other key international bodies.

UK

There are specific guidelines covering the engagement of British (UK) officials working overseas designed to limit contact with tobacco companies, and support compliance with Article 5.3. After the UK Ambassador to Panama lobbied on behalf of British American Tobacco (BAT),⁹⁸ the guidelines were revised in 2013.⁹⁹ These guidelines state that “Posts must not…Engage with local foreign governments on behalf of the tobacco industry, except in cases where local policies could be considered protectionist or discriminatory”.⁹⁹

Engagement and lobbying

Despite having guidelines in place to support compliance with the WHO FCTC, FOI requests and media investigations have revealed that British diplomats continue to interact with the tobacco industry more than is necessary. UK diplomats have lobbied for BAT in Bangladesh,¹⁰⁰¹⁰¹ Hungary,¹⁰² and Pakistan.^{98103104105106}

UK officials have also disclosed contact with tobacco companies in Panama and Venezuela,¹⁰⁷¹⁰⁸ Laos,¹⁰⁹ Cuba,¹¹⁰ and Burundi.¹¹¹

In 2018, UK advocacy organisation Action on Smoking & Health (ASH) called this a “global pattern of engagement” by British officials to defend BAT’s interests.¹¹²

• For more details see UK Diplomats Lobbying on Behalf of BAT.

Tobacco industry events

UK government guidelines state that staff must not:

“Attend or otherwise support receptions or high-profile events, especially those where a tobacco company is the sole or main sponsor and/or which are overtly to promote tobacco products or the tobacco industry (such as the official opening of a UK tobacco factory overseas)”.⁹⁹

However, UK staff have attended such events, generating considerable local media coverage.

For example, in 2019 the British ambassador to Yemen opened a cigarette factory in a free trade zone in Jordan, celebrating the expansion of the tobacco company Kamaran which is part-owned by BAT.^87113114115

In 2020, staff from the UK high commission in Pakistan attended a promotional event for a BAT product in Pakistan.¹¹⁶

• See UK Diplomats Lobbying for BAT for details.

Engaging with industry allies

The links between diplomatic missions and tobacco companies can be more indirect, via funding third party allies of the industry. The UK guidelines state that diplomats should not “endorse projects which are funded directly or indirectly by the tobacco industry”.  However, a 2019 investigation by The Guardian found that the British high commission in Malaysia had given funding to a Kuala Lumpur based think tank (IDEAS) for several years. At the same time the think tank was also receiving money from tobacco companies and was lobbying against plain packaging regulation and tobacco taxes.¹¹⁷  While the UK had already implemented plain packaging regulations, tobacco control was being undermined overseas.

Attending meetings with the tobacco industry

Tobacco companies attend meetings and events organised directly by UK government departments, such as the FCO (now FCDO) or the DIT (now Department for Business and Trade).¹⁰⁷  They also attend those held by regional, national or local business organisations such as chambers of commerce.

Responses to FOI requests show that when the attendance of UK government officials at such events is disclosed, there is little detail about the specific purpose or content of these meetings,¹⁰⁰¹⁰² It may simply be described as relating to ‘doing business’ in the country.¹⁰⁸

Business vs public health interests?

The UK guidelines for overseas staff (last updated in 2013) allow for the communication of “basic trade, investment and political information”, although this is not defined.⁹⁹ One of the activities used to justify interaction by UK diplomats is “resolving business problems that are potentially discriminatory”.^{98100102118119} This has been criticised as running counter to the WHO FCTC guidelines.⁸⁷¹²⁰

While transparency is required for tobacco industry interactions in 2018, the UK government told Parliament that it “does not catalogue the representations it makes on behalf of companies”.^121122123  Research by the Tobacco Control Research Group (TCRG) concluded that the stated WHO FCTC goal of “maximum transparency” is not being achieved in the UK.⁸⁷¹¹⁵

Japan

In 2021, the Ambassador of Japan to Bangladesh lobbied the government of Bangladesh on behalf of Japan Tobacco International (JTI).  In a letter to the Bangladesh Finance Minister the Ambassador criticised 2019 taxation changes for their impact on JTI. It also complained about the activities of competitors, and licensing demands.¹²⁴

• For details, including the lobbying letter, see Japanese Diplomats Lobbying for JTI

The Japanese Ambassador to Ethiopia was present at the signing of a deal between the Ethiopian government and JTI in 2016,  when the Ministry of Public Enterprise sold 40% of its National Tobacco Enterprise to the Japanese company.¹²⁵ Japanese diplomats have also toured tobacco farms and JTI factories in Tanzania and Zambia.¹²⁶¹²⁷

Japan Tobacco International is the overseas subsidiary of Japan Tobacco (JT), which is one third-owned by the Japanese government.¹²⁸

Germany

In May 2022, the German ambassador to Beirut visited the offices of Regie, the Lebanese Tobacco and Tobacco Inventory Administration.⁸⁷¹²⁹

Denmark

The Imani Centre for Policy and Education, a Ghana-based think tank,  received money from the Danish embassy while lobbying against tobacco control.¹¹⁷¹³⁰

Switzerland

Switzerland is not Party to the WHO FCTC.

In 2019, Swiss diplomats approached the government of the Republic of Moldova on behalf of Philip Morris International (PMI) seeking an opportunity to discuss new tobacco legislation.^131132133  The proposed legislation included significant tax increases on heated tobacco products, in which PMI has invested.¹³¹¹³⁴

The same year, PMI helped fund an inaugural event for the new Swiss Embassy in Moscow.¹³⁵¹³⁶

• For more details see Swiss Diplomats Lobbying for PMI

USA

Although the US is not Party to the WHO FCTC, it has specific laws and guidance that prohibit its diplomats from promoting the sale or export of tobacco, or influencing non-discriminatory restrictions on tobacco marketing.^137138139140 However, US diplomats have enabled meetings between tobacco companies and government representatives.

The US ASEAN Business Council organises delegations of US businesses, including Philip Morris International (PMI), which meet high level officials in the ASEAN region.¹³⁷  PMI was at the time a vice chair of its Customs & Trade Facilitation Committee and used this opportunity to meet with government officials from the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Vietnam.¹³⁷¹⁴¹

Why it matters

The examples above illustrate contraventions of the WHO FCTC, an international treaty, and in many cases breaches of national guidelines. As TCRG research points out, all of these activities also undermine the spirit of these laws, by apparently serving the commercial interests of transnational tobacco companies and helping to ‘normalise’ the industry in the eyes of policy makers and the public.⁸⁷

The implementation guidelines of Article 5.3 urge Parties to exclude the tobacco industry completely from the public health policy arena.  The guidelines also urge them not to participate in corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities which are used by the tobacco industry and as an alternative means to access policy makers, as well as for public relations and product promotion.⁸⁷

In August 2019, in direct response to the exposure of lobbying by Swiss diplomats, the WHO released a statement urging governments to comply with Article 5.3 and to “proactively aspire to reduce the number of people starting and continuing smoking, to promote health and preserve future generations”.¹⁴²

TobaccoTactics Resources

• UK Diplomats Lobbying for BAT
• UK Diplomats Lobbying for BAT: Bangladesh
• UK Diplomats Lobbying for Tobacco: Burundi
• Swiss Diplomats Lobbying for PMI
• Japanese Diplomats Lobbying for JTI
• Third Party Techniques

TCRG Research

A “willingness to be orchestrated”: Why are UK diplomats working with tobacco companies?, R. Alebshehy, K. Silver, P. Chamberlain, Frontiers in Public Health, 17 March 2023, Sec. Public Health Policy, Volume 11 – 2023, doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.977713

For a comprehensive list of all TCRG publications, including TCRG research that evaluates the impact of public health policy, go to the Bath TCRG’s list of publications.

References

The post Diplomats Lobbying for Tobacco Companies appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

British health charity Action on Smoking & Health (ASH) described this as a “global pattern of engagement” by British officials to defend BAT’s interests.¹⁴⁹ Much of this lobbying activity has taken place in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) which are important target markets for tobacco companies as those in higher income countries become increasingly regulated and less lucrative.¹⁵⁰¹⁵¹

Background

Parties to the FCTC have an obligation to protect public health policies from the “commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry” and any contact with tobacco industry representatives, or others seeking to further their interests, must be “limited” and “transparent”.¹⁵²¹⁵³

The UK government, a signatory to the FCTC, has had rules in place on the engagement of civil servants with the tobacco industry since 1999.¹⁵⁴ After the exposure of direct lobbying for BAT by a British diplomat in Panama in 2012, pressure from ASH helped lead to further strengthening of these guidelines to support compliance with the FCTC, to be “more prescriptive in relation to provision of support to the tobacco industry”, and to restate and clarify the term “maximum transparency” in the engagement between tobacco companies and government staff overseas.¹⁵⁵

UK Diplomats Lobbying for British American Tobacco

Despite guidelines being revised, in 2017 a senior UK diplomat lobbied the government of Bangladesh on behalf of BAT.¹⁰¹ There has also been repeated contact between officials of the UK Department of International Trade (DIT) and the tobacco industry in Panama and Venezuela since 2014;¹⁰⁷¹⁰⁸ direct lobbying by the UK Ambassador on behalf of BAT in Hungary in relation to taxation in 2014 and 2015;¹⁰² and the public association of a senior British diplomat with overt BAT lobbying of the Pakistani government over health warnings on cigarette packaging in 2015.^156157158

It was also reported that a UK government trade advisor had been seconded to work in BAT’s offices in Hungary in 2015.¹⁰⁷

Bangladesh

In September 2017, it was revealed that the British High Commissioner in Bangladesh had lobbied on behalf of BAT Bangladesh (BATB) in a tax dispute with the Bangladesh Board of Revenue over £170 million in unpaid VAT for incorrectly categorised cigarettes.^101159160]¹⁰⁰

DIT officials, including the Director and Deputy Director, were also involved in multiple meetings, e-mails and phone calls with BAT relating to this issue between 2015 and 2017.¹⁰⁰

• For more details, go to UK Diplomats Lobbying for BAT: Bangladesh.

Panama

Latin America is a key market for BAT, which held 46% of the cigarette market in 2015.¹⁶¹ As early as 2002, a report by the Pan American Health Organisation (PAHO) warned of the tobacco industry goal to “forestall any meaningful regulation of the industry’s practices or products” in the region.¹⁶²

The FCTC came into force in Panama in 2008, but in 2012, the Financial Times revealed that UK Ambassador Michael Holloway had lobbied the government of Panama on behalf of BAT over tax increases on tobacco, and the impact of the “alarming growth” in smuggled cigarettes on “one of the most important British Companies”.¹⁶³

At the time a Foreign Office spokesperson said that “our Ambassador was following our strict guidelines on lobbying, which allow us to offer assistance to firms operating overseas, including in resolving business problems that are potentially discriminatory”,¹⁵⁶ a defence which has been criticised as running counter to FCTC guidelines.¹⁶⁴ The same argument has been used to justify lobbying in Hungary in 2014/15 and Bangladesh in 2017.¹⁰²¹⁰⁰

Since the UK government guidelines were revised in 2013, stating “Posts must not …Attend or otherwise support receptions or high profile events, especially those where a tobacco company is the sole or main sponsor…”,¹⁵⁵ further contact between UK diplomats in Panama and BAT has been disclosed: “six meetings between BAT and embassy staff. Including two BAT ‘receptions’”.¹⁰⁷

Venezuela

Venezuela became a party to the FCTC in 2006, but appears to have had limited success with compliance with WHO guidelines on article 5.3, including the requirement for transparency.¹⁶⁵¹⁶⁶

Following Freedom of Information (FOI) requests made by ASH, the DIT disclosed interaction with BAT (Bigott) Venezuela at 25 meetings between 2013 and 2017, mostly meetings of the Venezuelan and British Chambers of Commerce and “CEO Breakfast meetings”.¹⁰⁸

Little detail of the specific purpose or content of these meetings is given, and it is unclear which officials were present. In one instance, BAT and several other British companies met in 2016 with the Venezuelan Trade & Foreign Investment Minister at the British Embassy to “share the challenges and complexities they face when doing business in Venezuela aiming to obtain the Minister’s support with those issues and to arrange further bilateral meetings”.¹⁰⁸

Providing an opportunity to lobby the Venezuelan government appears beyond the “basic trade, investment and political information” allowed under the 2013 guidelines.¹⁵⁵

Issues of Concern

This global pattern of activity, of BAT enlisting UK diplomats to lobby on their behalf and promoting their economic interests above those of public health, is problematic for multiple reasons.

Breach of FCTC Article 5.3

The lobbying activity clearly breaches the spirit, and at times the letter, of Article 5.3 FCTC, which highlight the well documented tactics of the tobacco industry “to interfere with the setting and implementing of tobacco control measures”.¹⁵²¹⁵³

The FCTC is very specific on limiting contact with the industry: “Parties should interact with the tobacco industry only when and to the extent strictly necessary to enable them to effectively regulate the tobacco industry and tobacco products”.¹⁵²¹⁵³ The extended interaction in Panama and Bangladesh clearly falls outside this definition of necessary contact.

There are also specific recommendations regarding transparency: “… Whenever possible, interactions should be conducted in public, for example through public hearings, public notice of interactions, disclosure of records of such interactions to the public”.¹⁵²¹⁵³None of the transparency recommendations appear to have been followed by UK diplomats in Bangladesh prior to a Freedom of Information Request.

Breach of UK Guidelines for Diplomats

Jointly issued by the UK Department of Health (DH) and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) the 2013 guidelines state that “Posts must not…Engage with local foreign governments on behalf of the tobacco industry, except in cases where local policies could be considered protectionist or discriminatory”.¹⁵⁴ Senior officials and politicians have argued that the retrospective tax demand from the Bangladesh government is discriminatory.¹⁵⁵ Under the guidelines some assistance can be given in “resolving business problems, e.g. customs of port clearance, smuggling, trademark violations etc”¹⁵⁵ but national taxation policy would seem to fall better under the direction “to assist tobacco companies to comply with foreign government laws or regulations”.¹⁵⁵

The need for transparency is emphasised in the UK guidelines: “in the event that interactions with the tobacco industry are necessary, these should be conducted with the maximum of transparency to demonstrate our compliance with the FCTC”. Given the lack of detail and the use of blanket exemptions, the UK government’s FOI releases are far from ‘transparent’, notably the 2018 letter from the UK Ambassador in Bangladesh was omitted. British politicians have also publicly stated that the UK government “does not catalogue the representations it makes on behalf of companies”.^167168169

“Business as Usual?”

FOI requests have revealed frequent contact with the tobacco industry at business meetings and events organised by the FCO/DIT, and local Chambers of Commerce.¹⁰⁷ Since 2016 BATB has been involved in the “Tax working group of the EU Bangladesh Business Climate Dialogue” and taken part in discussions of government budgets, taxation and “market conditions” where the Director of DIT has been present.¹⁰⁰ In addition to BATB, contact has been disclosed with the Imperial Tobacco controlled Lao Tobacco Company in Laos;¹⁰⁹ with Habanos/Brascuba,a joint venture with Imperial Tobacco in Cuba;¹⁷⁰ and with a tobacco company “owned by a British national” in Burundi.¹⁷¹

• For more information on the lobbying activity in Burundi, see UK Diplomats Lobbying for Tobacco: Burundi

Services and assistance provided are described by the UK government as being the same as for any other UK businesses.^100108109 The responses offered in defence of these lobbying activities suggests that, despite clear UK government guidelines for the conduct of overseas officials, elements of the UK Government still consider the tobacco industry to be an industry like any other, and are therefore conducting “business as usual” in conflict with the UK’s own tobacco control policies.¹⁷² In the official dealings with the industry, it does not appear to be taken into account that the tobacco industry does not operate like other businesses.^152153173

From August 2017 to January 2021, BAT was under investigation by the UK Serious Fraud Office after allegations of corruption and bribery in Africa.^174175176 The investigation was concluded as the SFO said it did not “meet the evidential test for prosecution”.¹⁷⁶

Undermining Tobacco Control Programmes

A priority for the WHO in Bangladesh (as part of the Bloomberg Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Use)¹⁷⁷ has been to help the National Board of Revenue to build capacity on tobacco taxation”.¹⁷⁸ The UK Department of Health is also “supporting the implementation of tobacco control measures” in low and middle income countries with £15 million of Overseas Development Assistance funds allocated to 2030.¹⁷²

The intervention of UK diplomats on behalf of BAT in Bangladesh and elsewhere appears to be in direct conflict with the aims of these programmes.¹⁰⁷

Relevant Link

• ASH briefing: How British diplomats have defended BAT’s overseas activities, Action on Smoking and Health, 26 April 2018

TobaccoTactics Resources

Influencing foreign tobacco legislation via diplomats is a known tobacco industry tactic. Also see:

• Diplomats Lobbying for Tobacco Companies
• UK Diplomats Lobbying for BAT: Bangladesh
• UK Diplomats Lobbying for Tobacco: Burundi
• Third Party Techniques

Other instances where BAT tried to hinder regulations:

• BAT Funded Lobbying Against Plain Packaging
• Kenya- BAT’s Tactics to Undermine the Tobacco Control Regulations
• Kenya- BAT’s Tactics to Influence Track and Trace Tender
• BAT Involvement in Tobacco Smuggling

TCRG Papers

A “willingness to be orchestrated”: Why are UK diplomats working with tobacco companies?, R. Alebshehy, K. Silver, P. Chamberlain, Frontiers in Public Health, 17 March 2023, Sec. Public Health Policy, Volume 11 – 2023, doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.977713

For a comprehensive list of all TCRG publications, including TCRG research that evaluates the impact of public health policy, go to the Bath TCRG’s list of publications.

References

The post UK Diplomats Lobbying for BAT appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

Background

TRACIT was established in April 2017 and formally launched in New York in September 2017. It received endorsements from representatives of the American Department of Homeland Security, the UN Office of Drugs and Crime and the OECD.¹⁸⁵

Its first public event appears to have been a two-day conference in London on combatting illicit trade sponsored by the Financial Times and the Philip Morris campaign on illegal trade Impact.¹⁸⁶ As well as Tracit Director General Jeffery Hardy, the were several members of the PMI Impact panel: Suzanne Hayden, Alain Juillet, Paul Makin, Luis Moreno Ocompo, Navi Pillay and Jurgen Storbeck. PMI CEO Andre Calantzopoulos was also a guest speaker.

Membership

TRACIT’s website has fluctuated between disclosing and not disclosing its membership. As of July 2021, TRACIT’s membership page listed Philip Morris International (PMI) while British American Tobacco (BAT) and Japan Tobacco International (JTI) have been listed as members on a previous version of the webpage. Also previously listed as a project partner is Crime Stoppers International, which has tobacco company support.¹⁸⁷¹⁸⁸

Partners

TRACIT is partnered with several other similar organisations including the Anti-Counterfeiting Group and is part of the UN Global Compact (UNGC).¹⁸⁹

Activities

Overview and tobacco funding

The organisation breaks its focus down into 12 sectors, of which one is tobacco. It says:

“Overall, for the tobacco industry the illicit trade in cigarettes results in lost revenue, reputational damage and loss of consumer trust, and increased costs in supply chain monitoring and the implementation of technologies that enable companies to track and trace their products.”¹⁹⁰

TRACIT accepts sponsorship from tobacco companies to help in the production of reports and quotes uncritically from industry documents as part of its analysis. In its lobbying it will often share platforms with industry officials and their allies. For instance, in its introductory analysis of the the tobacco sector, TRACIT quotes from a KPMG report called Project Sun which was produced in 2015 and looks at the illicit cigarette market in the European Union, Norway and Switzerland. The report was produced on behalf of BAT, Imperial, JTI and PMI.¹⁹¹ Nowhere does TRACIT reference the multiple reports, supported by evidence, of the involvement of tobacco companies in the illicit trade.

In March 2019 TRACIT was awarded funding from PMI IMPACT – a $100 million initiative from Philip Morris International to support projects against smuggling. The award, one of 31 in a second round of funding worth $21 million in total, was for the:

“Development of a Global Illicit Trade Business Report, drawing upon private sector experiences and identifying solutions to supply chain vulnerabilities common to all forms of illicit trade. It examines transportation modalities, customs, free trade zones, human trafficking, criminal activity, financial fraud, and regulatory gaps. Findings will be shared with all stakeholders in response to their calls to significantly upgrade the availability and exchange of information.”¹⁹²¹⁹³

Work programmes

Global Illicit Trade Environment Index

The Global Illicit Trade Environment Index, released in June 2018, was produced by the Economist Intelligence Unit and evaluates 84 countries on their “structural capability to guard against illicit trade, highlighting specific strengths and weaknesses”. The objective is “to improve the knowledge and understanding of the regulatory environment and economic circumstances that enable illicit trade.¹⁹⁴ It is a key report which, with its regional and country subsets and recommendations, is the foundation for TRACIT policy proposals and lobbying. The report’s sponsors include Philip Morris International (platinum sponsor), British American Tobacco, Japan Tobacco International and Crime Stoppers International (bronze sponsors).

Mapping impact of illicit trade and sustainable development goals

In an area which has seen increasing interest by tobacco companies, TRACIT maps the impact of illicit trade against the UN sustainable development goals. It released a report in July 2019.

The report has chapters for each of its sectors and how illicit trade has a negative impact on specific goals. For tobacco it lists the goals of good health and well-being; decent work and economic growth; peace, justice and strong institutions and partnerships for goals as being affected. Again, no mention is made in the chapter on any culpability that tobacco companies have for the illicit trade.¹⁹⁵

Involvement with UNCTAD

In July 2019, as part of its launch on the report, TRACIT co-hosted a meeting on illicit trade and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) in partnership with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).¹⁹⁶ TRACIT Director General Jeffrey Hardy addressed the meeting with contributions from UN officials.¹⁹⁷TRACIT’s engagement with the UN organisation reflects the attempts of tobacco companies to use third parties to ingratiate themselves with governments as partners in reducing illicit trade. Other UN organisations have been targeted by groups with close tobacco company affiliations such as Concordia and the International Chamber of Commerce.¹⁹⁸

Regional and Country Activities

TRACIT has been active in a number of countries representing industry interests at governmental level backed by its own reports. The principal report is the Illicit Trade Environment Index from which various regional versions have been produced.

Asia

• Produced regional policy recommendations in 2018 for the region which in summary were: ¹⁹⁹
• Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) play leadership roles on combatting illicit trade
• Establishing an antic-illicit trade coordinator and inter-agency task force
• partnerships with the private sector
• Protect Free Trade Zones from illicit traders
• Launch public awareness campaigns
• “rationalize tax policies and subsidies to ensure that they do not incentivize illicit trade, smuggling, adulteration and theft, by adopting simple, single tier specific tax structures, and accounting for various demand-related factors including overall consumption, price, income levels and the ensuing affordability of products.”¹⁹⁹ The tobacco industry often uses these types of arguments regarding taxes, to prevent raises and further regulations. See Tobacco Tactics Price and Tax for more details on this aspect.
• Establish joint investigations on illicit trade/trafficking and criminal organisations
• Study the patterns of illicit trade flows
• Produced a regional version of its Global Illicit Trade Index.¹⁹⁹ Among those who were interviewed for the Asia report were:
• Ali Salman, director of research, at Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEA). The Malaysia-based think tank has lobbied against tobacco control measures and has received funding from tobacco companies
• Etienne Sanz de Acedo, CEO, International Trademark Association, which has Barry Gerber from Philip Morris International on its board.²⁰⁰
• Seth Hays, chief representative—Asia-Pacific, International Trademark Association

Myanmar

• Produced regional policy recommendations in 2018:²⁰¹ The recommendations were similar to the report for Asia but also included:
• Tackle pervasive corrupt practices
• “Increase effectiveness of customs procedures to block the flow of illicit and parallel (grey) market products”
• Partnerships with international organisations such as World Customs Organization, Interpol and the European Anti-Fraud Office.
• Produced a regional version of its Global Illicit Trade Index.²⁰²

Latin America

• Produced regional policy recommendations in 2018:²⁰³. The recommendations were similar to the report for Asia but also included:
• Pursue law enforcement and customs cooperation through expanding the Pacific Alliance (Alianza del Pacifico) or “through projects sponsored by Ameripol, the InterAmerican Development Bank (IDB) or the World Customs Organization (WCO).”
• Intensify public-private coordination and uses examples from Argentina and Costa Rica (see below)
• Strengthen copyright protection enforcement
• fully adopt anti-money laundering regulations
• raise public awareness about the threat of illicit trade “to help shift public perception … that contraband is not a minor issue but a national security problem, with links to organized crime.”²⁰³
• In September 2019 TRACIT participated in the 7th INTERPOL Global Conference on Human Trafficking and Migrant Smuggling, in Buenos Aires.²⁰⁴ This had 750 people attending from 97 countries.
• In June 2019 TRACIT was in Buenos Aires at the Regional Summit on Security and Illicit Trade hosted by the business newspaper’ “El Cronista”. The panels included discussions on public-private cooperation and the vulnerabilities of Free Trade Zones.²⁰⁵ Director-General Jeffrey Hardy particularly highlighted the need to curb illicit trade in Free Trade Zones. Philip Morris International had a strong presence at the event with representatives from its PMI Impact anti-illicit project as well as providing media support.²⁰⁶

Argentina

• In June 2019 TRACIT highlighted how fighting illicit trade is essential for attracting investment and creating growth opportunities during a National Roundtable for Fair Trade hosted by the Argentina Medium Business Confederation (CAME). A press release from TRACIT said that Director-General Jeffrey Hardy “called on Latin American governments to rationalize tax policies that can incentivize illicit trade”.²⁰⁷

Colombia

• Produced policy recommendations which repeated many of those from the Latin American policy report (see above).²⁰⁸ In particular it says “Colombia should simplify its current structure following OECD standards + VAT and reduce the tax burden to decrease the current high incentives for the illicit market.”²⁰⁸

The Ministry of Health of Brazil and the National Commission overseeing the implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control have provided solid arguments on this issue of taxation and these have become useful for the rest of the countries in the region, as well as Colombia.

“There is solid evidence that reducing tobacco tax is an inappropriate initiative to reduce illicit trade. Studies, including a recent World Bank review, point out that the main determinant of the illegal tobacco product market is not the difference in taxation of tobacco products between countries but the dominance of this market by organized crime factions, attracted by profitability and impunity, resulting from the soft penalties applied to this offense. In addition, countries that have reduced tobacco taxes to try to reduce illicit trade have experienced reduced tax collection, smoking growth, especially among young people, and no positive effect on smuggling. This was the case of Canada and Sweden in the 1990s. In Brazil, also in the 1990s, the Federal Revenue Service lowered taxes on cigarettes to limit smuggling. However, tax revenues fell, and illicit trade continued to grow”²⁰⁹

• In October 2018 at a meeting in Bogota, TRACIT urged Colombia to work with the private sector to develop a comprehensive and effective anti-illicit trade program to curb illicit goods that harm legitimate businesses, workers, consumers and governments. Colombia ranks 43 out of 84 on TRACIT’s Global Illicit Trade Environment Index, primarily because of issues around transparency and governance of its Free Trade Zones (FTZs).²¹⁰

Costa Rica

• Produced policy recommendations which repeated many of those from the Latin American policy report (see above).²¹¹ In addition it recommends strengthening the Comision Mixta de Lucha Contra el Comercio Ilicito, composed by representatives from the Ministries of Health, of Finance, of Home Affairs, from the Customs Office and the Police force. This Commission was created in 2014 and later on, representatives from the chambers of commerce and industry were added as members as well. ²¹² Costa Rican Civil Society have exposed the conflict of interest of this Commission and made a formal claim to the government in 2016, given that the representatives of the industry come from the Costa Rican-American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham), whose members include British American Tobacco and Philip Morris International.²¹³
• In August 2018 TRACIT addressed government officials and industry stakeholders during a conference on Illicit trade, hosted by AmCham, which has tobacco industry members.²¹⁴ The conference featured a presentation on TRACIT’s Global Illicit Trade Environment Index, which ranks Costa Rica 46th of 84 countries evaluated on the extent they enable or prevent illicit trade. Gerardo Lizano, AmCham’s representative to the Comision Mixta de Lucha Contra el Comercio Ilicito, and Nogui Acosta, vice minister of income in the Ministry of Finance, spoke at the event.²¹⁵

Dominican Republic

• Produced a country briefing based on its Global Illicit Trade Environment Index (see above).²¹⁶ The report quoted Manuel Cabral as an expert on local markets for alcohol and tobacco products as saying “frequent and piecemeal changes in tax policy create distortions that ultimately the use of illegal products”. Cabral worked for Philip Morris International from the country from 2011 to 2017, ending up as director of corporate affairs for the Dominican Republic and Caribbean²¹⁷ Among those listed as sponsors and contributors to the country report were British American Tobacco, Crime Stoppers International, Japan Tobacco International, and Philip Morris International
• Produced policy recommendations which repeated many of those from the Latin American policy report (see above).²¹⁸
• In May 2019 TRACIT addressed government officials and industry stakeholders during a conference on Illicit trade. It was hosted by the Association of Industries of the Dominican Republic, the British Embassy and the British Chamber of Commerce of the Dominican Republic. The Chamber of Commerce has BAT subsidiary BAT Republica Dominicana and Imperial Tobacco subsidiary Tabacalera De Garcias.²¹⁹
• TRACIT’s Director-General, Jeffrey Hardy, called for more public-private partnerships saying they are “essential to the design and implementation of effective programs to prevent illicit, contraband and counterfeit products.”²²⁰ Such partnerships could provide a means for tobacco companies to engage with governments and circumvent the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control article 5.3.

Ecuador

• Produced policy recommendations which repeated many of those from the Latin American policy report (see above).²²¹ It highlighted the need for “strong and proactive measures” in strengthening the protection of Free Trade Zones
• In November 2018, TRACIT addressed government officials and industry stakeholders during a conference on Illicit trade, hosted by Cámara de Industrias y Producción (CIP). The current vice- president of CIP worked previously as Corporate Affairs Director for Ecuador and Peru at Philip Morris International for 2 and a half years, before taking on her current position at CIP. ²²² The conference featured a presentation on TRACIT’s Global Illicit Trade Environment Index, which ranks Ecuador 60th of 84 countries evaluated on the extent they enable or prevent illicit trade. “The country serves as a major transit point for illicit goods in the region, including … illicit trade in tobacco…”²²³

Panama

• In 2017, Ulrike Bonnier from TRACIT participated in a session exploring actions to combat human trafficking and other forms of illicit trades at the 38th Annual Crime Stoppers International Conference.²²⁴ Crime Stoppers International regularly engages with the tobacco industry. Among the speakers at the Panama conference were Nicholas Otte and Arturo Fernandez from Philip Morris’s Illicit Trade Strategies and Prevention for Latin America and Canada region. The silver sponsor for the event was British American Tobacco.²²⁵

Europe

• Produced a regional briefing based on its Global Illicit Trade Environment Index (see above).²²⁶ Among those listed as sponsors and contributors to the country report were British American Tobacco, Crime Stoppers International, Japan Tobacco International, and Philip Morris International
• Produced policy recommendations for the region including rationalising tax policies, subsidies and tax exemptions, encouraging partnerships with companies and have stronger criminal penalties. It highlighted the 2016 Administrative Cooperation Arrangement between the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the State Customs Committee of Belarus aimed at helping investigative cooperation between them, specifically on the illicit trade in tobacco products.²²⁷

Serbia, Bosnia and Montenegro

• Produced a regional briefing based on its Global Illicit Trade Environment Index (see above).²²⁸ Among those listed as sponsors and contributors to the country report were British American Tobacco, Crime Stoppers International, Japan Tobacco International, and Philip Morris International
• Produced policy recommendations for the region which echoed much of those in the Europe report (see above).²²⁹

Middle East

• Produced a country briefing based on its Global Illicit Trade Environment Index (see above).²³⁰ The report says:
  

  “illicit tobacco trade has steeply increased due to high excise taxes (accounting for about 27% of the market) and new regulations that standardize tobacco packaging can further increase the demand for counterfeit and illicit products.”

  This echoes industry arguments against plain packaging and tax increases. The evidence used to support this is a news story which is itself based on a PMI-funded study.²³¹

• Produced policy recommendations for the region which echoed much of those in the Europe report (see above).²³²

United Arab Emirates

• Produced a country briefing based on its Global Illicit Trade Environment Index (see above).²³³The report recommends the UAE sign and ratify the five illicit trade treaties including the WHO Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products. Among those listed as sponsors and contributors to the country report were British American Tobacco, Crime Stoppers International, Japan Tobacco International, and Philip Morris International
• Produced policy recommendations for the region including strengthening co-operation in the region, having tougher oversight of free trade zones, rationalising tax policies and subsidies and improving public awareness. ²³³

Africa

Tunisia

• Produced a country briefing based on its Global Illicit Trade Environment Index (see above).²³⁴The report says
  

  “Stopping tobacco smuggling, in particular, must be a top priority for policy makers given the significant fiscal leakages and the large profits that organized crime and armed militias in the region amass from the illicit tobacco trade.”

• Produced policy recommendations for the region including strengthening co-operation in the region, having tougher oversight of free trade zones, rationalising tax policies and subsidies and improving public awareness. On the issue of taxation the report says:
  

  “excessive tax levels can reduce affordability of legitimate products and drive demand for illicit substitutes. Organized crime groups also may practice “tax arbitrage” to gain profits by smuggling products from relatively lower to higher taxed markets.”²³⁴

  As in other TRACIT reports there is no mention of the involvement of tobacco companies in illicit activity.

South Africa

• In October 2019, TRACIT’s Director General Jeffrey Hardy addressed the 12th International Law Enforcement Intellectual Property Crime Conference in Cape Town. The conference was organised by INTERPOL, the International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition and South African Police Service.
• TRACIT used the conference to launch its policy recommendations for South Africa, including tackling illict tobacco which, according to a paper in Tobacco Control, is estimated to compromise a third of the market.²³⁵.²³⁶ TRACIT’s recommendations echoed those for its other country reports including tying activiy to achieve Sustainable Development Goals, tackling corruption, “rationalize tax policies”, promoting track & trace and similar technology and promoting private-public partnerships.²³⁷ As examples of “valuable partners” it offers the American Chamber of Commerce in South Africa and the Consumer Goods Council of South Africa. The former has Philip Morris SA as a member,²³⁸ while the latter has Soraya Zoueihid, the Area Director for British American Tobacco in Southern Africa, as a board member.²³⁹

Staff

Senior Management

The senior management team is made up of the following people:²⁴⁰

• Jeffrey P Hardy – Director-General. Hardy previously served as the Director of the International Chamber of Commerce’s Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy. The group has consistently produced reports sympathetic to its tobacco industry members and lobbied against Plain Packaging measures. Hardy is founder and managing director of IDA Consulting, a management consultancy.²⁴¹ Hardy is listed in the EU lobbying register.²⁴²
• Stefano Betti – Deputy Director General
• Louis Bonnier – Director of Programs. Co-author of the report on illicit trade and SDGs
• Ulrika Bonnier – Director of Programs. Co-author of the report on illicit trade and SDGs
• Suriya Padmanaabhan – Director of Programs
• Cynthia H Braddon – Head of Communications and Public Policy
• Esteban Giudici – Senior Policy Advisor

Directors

TRACIT gives its mailing address as One Penn Plaza in New York City, but it is registered in Fort Myers, Florida, as not-for-profit organisation under US tax code 501(c)(6). Its corporate filing on 19 April 2019 listed three directors: ²⁴³

• Jeffrey Hardy
• David Benjamin
• Shelley Duggan. UK-based trademark lawyer who is a director at Proctor & Gamble. Duggan is chair of the Anti-Counterfeiting Group (ACG), a not-for-profit global trade association which tackles counterfeiting and is partner of TRACIT.²⁴⁴ One of the founders of the ACG was British American Tobacco. It is no longer listed as a member but Philip Morris, Japan Tobacco International, Imperial Tobacco and the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association all are.²⁴⁵

Advisory Council

The organisation’s Advisory Council is made up of independent experts providing advice in a personal capacity.²⁴⁶ Among its members are:

• Karl Lallerstedt, from the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise, contributed a chapter to a book on organised crime which grew out of a BAT-funded project.²⁴⁷.
• Leonard McCarthy, founder of integrity and risk management firm LFMcCarthy Associates, prior to that an investigator at the World Bank.²⁴⁸ McCarthy came to prominence as the head of South Africa’s Directorate of Special Operations, or so-called Scorpions, which investigated organised crime, including tobacco smuggling. The unit was disbanded in 2009.²⁴⁹

Relevant Links

TRACIT homepage: https://www.tracit.org/

TobaccoTactics Resources

• Tobacco Smuggling
• Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products
• Tobacco-funded group TRACIT tries to influence tobacco control policy, 28 July 2020

References

The post TRACIT appeared first on TobaccoTactics.