1 of 2
Is the new funding initiative agreed on during COP9 yet another form of manipulating WHO?
2 of 2
Philippines foreign affairs secretary, Teodoro Locsin, Jr.
The Ninth Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) stayed true to form, keeping out the very industry that should be most involved. For the first time, accredited media – with no ties to the tobacco industry, of course – were allowed to attend the open sessions at COP9, joining delegates from 161 out of 182 FCTC party countries. Aside from the usual tobacco industry bashing expected from a COP meeting, the following are a few interesting happenings worth noting from the six-day virtual event.
New funding initiative – philanthropic manipulation?
A key decision coming out of COP9 was moving forward with the development and launch of an investment fund to provide financial stability for FCTC, complementing existing revenue received from the parties through assessed contributions and extra budgetary support. FCTC says this new initiative will source financial contributions beyond the traditional health sector, establishing a capital investment fund, the earned revenue of which will be used to support FCTC activities. The governing body of FCTC will be seeking the guidance of the World Bank and will create an oversight committee comprised of experts in financial and investment management representing the six WHO regions and observers from civil society to help guide the fund.
While at first glance this new funding initiative seems reasonable and understandable, it does make one wonder if this is not yet another method of philanthropic manipulation that can be traced back to the same anti-tobacco organizations that have been funding WHO and exerting their influence on policy-making, such as Bloomberg Philanthropies, which has close ties and provides funding to anti-tobacco bodies including Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, the CDC Foundation, Vital Strategies, Stopping Tobacco Organizations and Products (STOP), the Anti-Tobacco Trade Litigation Fund, the University of Bath (UK) Tobacco Control Research Group, the Global Centre for Good Governance in Tobacco Control (GGTC), the South-East Asia Tobacco Control Alliance (SEATCA), as well as FCTC, in addition to WHO itself.
The Bloomberg Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Use is one of the many public health initiatives the foundation carries out. Started in 2007, the initiative seeks to implement a set of anti-tobacco policies it calls MPOWER, which stands for monitoring tobacco use; protecting the public with smoke-free laws; offering help to quit smoking; warning about the dangers of tobacco through pack labels and public awareness; enforcing advertising bans; and raising taxes on tobacco. The foundation says the initiative currently spans more than 110 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), including China and India, and that more than 100 countries have at least one MPOWER policy in place. Coincidentally, WHO proudly lists MPOWER on its “tobacco factsheet” which can also be found on its website (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco) as a “practical, cost-effective way to scale up implementation of the main demand reduction provisions of the WHO FCTC on the ground.” The initiative now also extends its target to include vaping, heat-not-burn, and the use of non-pharmaceutical nicotine. Considering WHO stated in 2017 that 80% of the world’s smokers live in LMICs, Bloomberg Philanthropies carrying out its work largely in LMICs directly through governments and through other channels such as WHO and FCTC, it does seem that WHO, and FCTC accordingly, is snugly tucked in Bloomberg’s pockets.
Another point to ponder over: could the oversight committee’s financial and investment management “experts” and “civil society observers” meant to guide this new fund for FCTC also be just a PR tactic to (poorly) disguise the fact that it is the same group (or groups) pulling the purse strings in addition to controlling global policy-making and implementation? Whose interests are these global institutions really serving – the health of millions globally or a cabal?
Three cheers for the Philippines!
Efforts by the delegation from the Philippines to present a more balanced, less biased approach during the COP9 proceedings should be applauded. In his address at the COP9 opening, Teodoro Locsin, Jr., Philippines foreign affairs secretary, said tobacco is a source of bad health but acknowledged that it “is also a source of good through taxation.” He went on to say, ““We underscore the importance of tobacco and funding of the state’s most important activities. Tobacco tax laws fund our poverty reduction, universal health care, and Covid-19 recovery programs.
According to Locsin, the Philippines’ position on tobacco is for regulation and taxation, no total bans, saying, “No extinction by extreme taxation. Bans would only drive operators underground and substitute smuggling. That would further enrich countries that have made tobacco a state monopoly. Why would we allow that?”
He also called for WHO to “regain the momentum” of tobacco control and consider “evolving and latest scientific information” in reducing global smoking prevalence. On new tobacco products developed by the industry, he described them as “salutary” and “source of good” and expressed all-out support, saying “The industry has not sat on its hands, nor allowed this popular vice to go unchecked. It has created products that delivered a similar satisfaction, but with far less harm.”
To cap it all off, Locsin emphasized the importance of inclusivity in the discussions that will take place at COP10, saying, “These complex and challenging issues demand the active participation of all parties and inclusive consultations with all stake-holders, and we mean all,” and that reports at COP10 “must be done with transparency and in full consultation with all stakeholders so that our national experiences are all taken into account and due importance accorded each.”
Despite the Philippines department of health issuing a statement saying “there is no good in tobacco” and “giving misleading information that dilutes the risks of tobacco products and undue recognition to tobacco industries, including those of vapor products and heated tobacco products, is harmful,” distancing itself from Locsin’s comments at COP9, he was praised by vapers, supporting organizations, as well as the Philippines cabinet and congress for presenting the country’s balanced and science-based position on tobacco control. “We support the Philippine delegation to the WHO FCTC ninth Conference of the Parties headed by Sec. Locsin for pushing for an inclusive and participative decision making in crafting global policy recommendations. Tobacco control approach cannot be one-dimensional. Health and economic aspects should both be considered as we have more than 2.2 million individual workers and dependents who get their income from tobacco production, trading, manufacturing and distribution,” said labor secretary, Silvestre Bello III.
Of course, anti-tobacco organizations were outraged and condemned Locsin’s comments, proving once again that if you don’t follow the dogma, you’re in the dog-house. Delegations from other countries, namely those from the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Zimbabwe, also commented on the importance of the tobacco industry or indicated that the industry was a stakeholder in the conversations.
COP10 is scheduled to be held in Panama in 2023. Dare one hope that by then the industry might finally be deemed worthy enough to gain an ever-so-elusive seat at the table?