FCA Policy Briefing for COP6: Tobacco Control in Future Trade and Investment Agreements
- The COP should encourage Parties to enact policies precluding government resources, including embassies, from being used to encourage the export of tobacco products or to challenge another Party’s tobacco control measures, including launching state-to-state challenges under trade treaties.
- When negotiating or renegotiating new or expanded trade and investment agreements, Parties should ensure that they protect their ability to implement the FCTC without interference from the tobacco industry, and that they do not give privileges, benefits or incentives to the tobacco industry. Any such agreements, including any provision related to the settlement of disputes between governments and investors, should be designed to ensure that the tobacco industry cannot use them to delay or prevent implementation of tobacco control measures. The tobacco industry should not be able to use the provisions of such agreements to impose substantial costs on governments, for example by requiring them to spend scarce time and resources defending against investor and foreign state actions directed at tobacco control measures.
- The COP should request the Secretariat and WHO to provide guidance and tools that will assist parties in exercising their sovereign right to exclude the tobacco industry from the benefits and privileges provided by trade and investment agreements while in the course of negotiating or renegotiating them.
- Given the impending threat created by future trend-setting trade and investment treaties (such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, or TPPA) and the vast difference in approaches to be employed between existing (comply) and future (negotiate) trade agreements, COP should ensure that this matter is discussed in an agenda item that is separate from Item 5.4, which primarily focuses on existing trade and investment agreements and disputes, and preferably in Item 4.8, to be discussed in Committee A, as it involves more substantive matters than institutional concerns.