Monitoring and tracing of tobacco products: tobacco industry interference remains major

In a recent paper, Luk Joossens, a consultant for the European organization Smoke Free Partnership, assesses the implementation of the tracking and tracing system in the countries that are signatories to the WHO FCTC protocol to eliminate illicit trade in tobacco products. The report shows that various forms of tobacco industry interference remain high among the Parties.

THE Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products was negotiated by the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention and was adopted by consensus on 12 November 2012 at the fifth session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the treaty. The protocol entered into force on 25 September 2018 and by the end of May 2023 had 67 parties. Among the provisions of this legally binding text are a set of measures to control the supply and supply chain of products. These measures include the establishment of a system for tracking and tracing products from their manufacture to their delivery to the retailer.

The third session of the MOP, Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol, is to be held in Panama next November and this report aims to take stock of the situation with recommendations.

Tobacco industry interference remains strong

The WHO treaty and the protocol attached to it recall the existence of an "irreconcilable conflict" between the interests of the tobacco industry and those of public health, including in particular the issue of combating parallel markets. The protocol thus specifies that the Parties must not delegate any of their obligations in terms of tracking and tracing to the tobacco industry. In addition, the authorities of the Parties involved in tracking and tracing regimes must only be in contact with the tobacco industry and its representatives "to the extent strictly necessary" to implement the requirements of Article 8 of the Protocol devoted to this measure.

The author of the report recalls that there is a long history of the tobacco industry's involvement in the illicit trade of these products and that this industry always tries to control the debate on illicit trade in order to influence policies around the world. Also indicates Luk Joossens, manufacturers have every interest in keeping control of supply chains. In this perspective, the tobacco industry is trying to influence legislation. As for the implementation of the protocol, which very clearly excludes it, it uses front groups to promote its own technological tracking and tracing system. The latter was initially known as Codentify and then changed its name to become Inexto Suite today. This tool is considered ineffective, opaque and inefficient by tobacco control stakeholders.

This interference by manufacturers remains a major obstacle to the establishment of an effective tracking and tracing system in many countries. It prevents the adoption of a system that is independent directly and indirectly from manufacturers. Low- and middle-income countries are particularly affected, where industry manages to impose its own systems. However, the European tracking and tracing system adopted before the ratification of the WHO Protocol by the European Union is also not independent from manufacturers and, according to the author, would need to be revised.

The study therefore recommends that the Parties do not collaborate, directly or indirectly, with the tobacco industry and its allies in the implementation of the system at all levels of the supply chain: from the software for generating unique identifiers, to auditing, including management and access to databases, control mechanisms at the place of manufacture, etc.

A Protocol that is struggling to be effectively implemented

To date, the author notes that 67 countries have ratified the text of the protocol. In order for its provisions to be fully effective at the international level, more countries should become Parties to it.

Furthermore, for countries already committed, implementation of the text is proving challenging for many. According to the report, information on the characteristics of existing tracking and tracing systems in many countries remains limited. In addition to tobacco industry interference, many countries have indicated that they need more resources and technical assistance to effectively implement the Protocol's technical measures. In this regard, the financial costs could eventually be covered, as countries recognize "that once tracking and tracing systems are in place, these could help to cover some of the costs of implementing and maintaining the implementation of the Protocol." Indeed, the fight against illicit trade makes it possible to increase tax revenues while strengthening the effectiveness of health policies.

The author also points out that reliable information on the characteristics of existing tracking and tracing systems in many Parties remains limited. Better knowledge and assessment of current systems could help identify best practices and facilitate the establishment of tracking and tracing systems in future Parties to the Protocol.

Read the report in French (PDF)

Read the report in English (original)

Keywords: Protocol to Combat Illicit Tobacco Trade, Tracking and Tracing System, Interference, FCTC, WHO

AE