Deborah Sy and Lilia Olefir
In its 10th session, the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) Conference of the Parties (COP) has for the first time, an opportunity to support the development of options for using liability to protect the environment, as suggested by the Draft Decision on WHO FCTC Article 19 initially proposed by Oman, Iran, and Pakistan under agenda item 6.5. Additionally, a supplementary provisional agenda on Article 18 implementation (Environment) proposes holding the tobacco industry accountable for environmental harms. Both proposals aim to achieve policy coherence by aligning environmental issues with WHO FCTC objectives. This couldn’t be timelier, especially considering the ongoing negotiations for a United Nations treaty to end plastic pollution.
Based on the draft negotiating text, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is deemed a recognised approach to the plastic pollution problem. However, the fundamental features of the typical EPR approach could potentially undermine WHO FCTC implementation. EPR requires producers, including importers, to extend their responsibility for the environmental impact of their products throughout their lifecycle – from design to post-consumer use. EPR schemes go beyond making producers pay and the implementation varies across jurisdictions. This typically involves treating the industry as a stakeholder capable of assisting governments with solutions, such as through educational campaigns, advocacy, and potentially improving product design. This poses a challenge because unlike other plastic products, there is currently no feasible or scalable means to safely recycle cigarette butts due to their hazardous nature; and efforts by the tobacco industry to replace cigarette filters with eco-friendly or biodegradable alternatives or other so-called innovations also present a risk of making cigarettes more appealing to adolescences and youth that tend embrace environmentally-friendly innovations. Furthermore, part of the tobacco industry’s public relations involves promoting anti-littering awareness programs, such as the industry-funded Keep Beautiful campaigns found in many localities, despite being not-effective for sufficiently reducing environmental burden caused by the whole lifecycle of tobacco growing, manufacturing and post-consumption.
In the implementation of the European Union Single-Use Plastics (EU SUP) Directive, tobacco EPR implementation has allowed the tobacco industry to undertake awareness-raising measures, participate in waste management, policy development and implementation, and present itself as a responsible corporate actor. Notably, in France, where a private sector third-party operator collects cigarette butts and conducts awareness-raising programs with the tobacco industry covering the costs, this involvement in public activities enables self-promotion of the industry and have led to entanglement with public officials. Advocates called this out as a violation of the WHO FCTC Article 5.3 on preventing tobacco industry interference and Article 13 on banning advertising, promotion and sponsorship).
Tobacco EPR serves as a cautionary tale of failing to align environmental policy with WHO FCTC, resulting from a low awareness of the unique nature of an industry that produces a product which offers no benefit to humanity, remains the main cause of preventable death, costs the global economy 1.4 trillion USD per year and has mislead the public about health benefits of filters for half a century.
As the governing body of the tobacco control treaty, the COP10 can rectify this inconsistency by making decisions that enhance global understanding and prompt specific actions. For example, the Draft Decision on WHO FCTC Article 19 appropriately calls for “international and regional organizations, in which Parties are represented, to ensure that the work undertaken in these international fora, including in relation to the environment and regulation of business conduct, supports tobacco control and does not undermine it.”
More efforts are needed to articulate solutions to the 4.5 trillion cigarette butt problem. COP10 would be taking a step in the right direction by adopting decisions that, among others, seek to strengthen liability measures to facilitate compensation; enforce effective, proportionate, and dissuasive sanctions; and prevent tobacco industry interference in global and national initiatives to ban cigarette filters and get rid of all the negative consequences of the tobacco lifecycle.
Deborah Sy is the Head of Global Public Policy & Strategy at the Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control in Thailand. Lilia Olefir is the Director of the Smoke Free Partnership in the European Union.