Guest Contribution

Amélie ESCHENBRENNER (Communications Manager, Comité National Contre le Tabagisme) and Raquel VENÂNCIO (Senior Policy Officer, Smoke Free Partnership) attended the EU stakeholder meeting and reports:

During the Hungarian Presidency of the Council of the EU and the European Commission stakeholders meeting for NGOs and Civil Society on Tuesday, 16th November 2024 (Day 2 of INC-5), the Smokefree Partnership and the Comité national contre le tabagisme, both members of the Stop Tobacco Pollution Alliance took the opportunity to remind the European members present of the toxicity of cigarette filters. They emphasized the need to classify cigarette filters as hazardous plastic waste and to keep cigarette filters on the list of products subject to Elimination under [Annex X – Option 1 products].

Also, we stated the importance of including the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in the treaty and ensuring that its Article 5.3 is respected in the development of environmental policies related to tobacco. The tobacco industry must not be treated as a ‘stakeholder’ or a ‘responsible producer’.

Hugo Schally, Adviser for International Environmental Negotiations for the EU Commission, agreed that the tobacco industry, unlike other industries, should not be a stakeholder to this treaty and should be excluded from the negotiations, while Sara Nelen, Acting Director for the Commission, mentioned the EU rules on single-use plastics (SUPs) and the extended producer responsibility mechanism (EPR) as a possible solution regarding the pollution of cigarettes ends.

The STPA reminds that while EPR schemes are viable and effective solutions for many sectors, it is unsuitable for tobacco industry products in view of the toxicity of these products and the uniqueness of the tobacco industry.

The STPA demands that the tobacco industry pay for past, present, and future damage to the environment and health caused by its products. This demand refers directly to the ‘polluter pays’ principle. However, STPA warns against the mechanism associated with its implementation. The polluter pays principle must not be abused by tobacco manufacturers, as is currently the case in some European countries with the extended producer responsibility (EPR) mechanism. STPA therefore calls for vigilance to ensure that manufacturers do not use the concept of EPR positively as a communication tool through the management of responsibilities that could be entrusted to them. The only suitable option for financing the environmental damage caused by tobacco products is to tax manufacturers.

In France, for example, tobacco manufacturers have managed to become stakeholders in the EPR scheme via the ALCOME eco-organization, which is responsible for managing cigarette butts, and are involved in decision-making. In fact, ALCOME’s discourse places the responsibility for cigarette-butt pollution on the incivility of its consumers, who need to be educated, omitting to specify that this pollution is primarily produced by tobacco manufacturers. The scheme also provides them with an opportunity to communicate by offering an image of respectability and of being a legitimate stakeholder in the decision-making process. The manufacturers are also in a strong position to advocate useless or even counterproductive measures such as the distribution of pocket ashtrays, thereby blocking other, much more effective measures (development of smoke-free spaces, filter ban, etc.). Furthermore, the tobacco industry’s involvement in a waste management body approved by the public authorities contradicts France’s and EU’s international commitments: the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).  More specifically, the directives implementing Article 5.3 explicitly reject any agreement or collaboration with the tobacco industry.

Tobacco manufacturers are in reality, fundamentally hostile to the polluter-pays principle and go to great lengths to avoid meeting their obligations. In France, three years after the eco-organization ALCOME  was set up, it has already been condemned twice by the French administrative courts and fined more than a million euros for failing to meet its commitments.

Filters and tobacco products cannot be part of a circular economy

Filters and tobacco products cannot be part of a circular economy because removing toxins from used filters is a resource- and energy-intensive process whose safety and effectiveness have not been studied. In addition, recycling efforts are not adaptable to tobacco products due to the significant resources required to collect, separate, transport and detoxify filters for use in other consumer products. In addition, changes to the design of cigarette filters (for example, to facilitate their recycling) would conflict with product regulations that prevent the tobacco industry from introducing attractive aesthetic features to recruit new consumers.

We urge all Parties to the Plastics Treaty to recognize the unique nature of the tobacco sector and align it with the WHO FCTC.

Updates from the Floor

Tuesday, November 26, 2024 –  Work continued throughout the day with progress made on the objectives, scope, preamble and principles. Unfortunately, most Parties currently prefer to work from the non-paper text which makes the reference of the WHO FCTC unlikely in the preamble.

There have been interesting discussions around monitoring and evaluation, and there was a suggestion that information from other multilateral organizations such as the World Health Organization could be accepted.

Given that the INC-5 work has been limited to general interventions, a revised version of text will be made available later in the week for further negotiation in Contact Group 4.

Contact Group 1, where much of the substance of the text (i.e. plastic products and chemicals) will be negotiated, finally began at 7:30pm and continued late into the evening.

There are yet again major limitations due to space and room occupancy restrictions, drastically limiting access to contact groups for civil society. This is a significant challenge. We stand with and support the statement issued by our environmental colleagues on the matter here>