Status of the Protocol to eliminate illicit trade in tobacco products: possible intergovernmental mechanism to prepare for the first Meeting of Parties: note by the Convention Secretariat

Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Seventh session Delhi, India, 712 November 2016 Agenda item 5.1 FCTC/COP/7/INF.DOC./3 10 November 2016 66 Status of the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products Possible intergovernmental mechanism to prepare for the first Meeting of Parties 66 Note by the Convention Secretariat 1. During its first meeting on 8 November 2016, Committee A of the COP discussed options for intergovernmental work following the entry into force of the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products, in particular the possible establishment of an intergovernmental mechanism to prepare for the first Meeting of Parties (MOP1). This document addresses a number of questions that were raised in this context and set out some options as discussed. Options 2. Three possible options are set out below, including the expected cost implications. 3. Option 1: Mandate to the Convention Secretariat to carry out preparatory work set out below. Projected cost: US$ 205 820 (staff time) 4. Option 2: Establishment of an Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG), open to all Parties to the WHO FCTC, to be held in Geneva, with the following sub-options regarding financial support: a) No financial support for attendance by representatives of Permanent Missions (PMs); travel support/per diem only for participants/delegates from low- and middle-income countries that do not have a PM in Geneva; Projected cost: US$ 1 001 656. b) Financial support for attendance of representatives of PMs and travel support/per diem for one participants/delegates from the capital for low-income countries; Projected cost: US$ 1 256 810. c) Travel support/per diem for two delegates (one Minstry of Health, one other) from all low-income countries whether or not they have PMs in Geneva; Projected cost: US$ 1 551 062. 5. A similar approach was chosen during the negotiations of the Protocol when the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) for the protocol requested the Convention Secretariat at its third session to prepare a document on options for institutional and financial arrangements addressed in the negotiating text, and the financial implications of implementing those options, in consultation FCTC/COP/7/INF.DOC./3 2 with Permanent Missions of Parties in Geneva 1 . It should be noted, however, that Parties at INB3 took this decision in light of the fact that the discussions on the negotiating text would be limited to financial and institutional aspects, aspects with which many representatives of the Permanent Missions are very familiar. 6. Option 3: Establishment of a pre-MOP Group, open only to Parties that have already adhered to the the Protocol, with maximum two representatives per country; travel support/per diem for low- income countries only; Projected cost for one meeting in Geneva: US$ 885 031. Tasks to be undertaken in preparation for MOP1 7. The mechanism could be tasked with preparing proposals on those issues identified in the Protocol for consideration by MOP1, including the following: (a) a draft budget for the first financial period (Article 33.7 of the Protocol); (b) a review of existing and potential sources and mechanisms of assistance to Parties in meeting their obligations under the Protocol (Article 36.6); (c) the format and content of implementation reports (Article 32.2 of the Protocol) ; and (d) time-bound provisions, including on Article 6.5 (key inputs, five years after entry into force), Article 8.1 (global tracking and tracing regime, five years after entry into force), Article 8.3 (unique identification markings for cigarette packets and packages, five years after entry into force; and for other tobacco products, 10 years after entry into force), Article 13.2 (duty free sales, no later than five years after entry into force). Possible value added of an intergovernmental mechanism 8. Depending on the time when entry into force of the Protocol will occur, there might be a significant time gap before MOP1 is convened. An intergovernmental mechanism would provide a forum for technical and political discussions on Protocol matters, including the tracking and tracing regime to be established in accordance with Article 8 of the Protocol. This could facilitate and accelerate the work of the MOP. If entry into force occurs early, it could also avoid a long time span during which no work is undertaken, and help maintain the political momentum. Financing 9. For all options outlined above, the COP may wish to consider deciding in a similar manner as at its sixth session 2 to use the unspent funds allocated for MOP1 in the current biennium 3 to fund Protocol-related activities, including an intergovernmental mechanism. For an IGWG, additional funds would however be required. Criteria for establishing an intergovernmental mechanism 10. Given that one of the main reasons for establishing the mechanism would be that it would facilitate discussion and action on the Protocol at the international level in case the entry into force date is relatively far from COP8 and MOP1. Accordingly the Secretariat could be mandated to convene the IGWG only in the event that the Protocol enters into force before (date to be determined). 1 Decision FCTC/INB-IT/3(1), http://apps.who.int/gb/fctc/E/E_it3.htm. 2 See decision FCTC/COP6(20) Amendment to the workplan and budget for the financial period 2014-2015 3 Funds allocated for MOP1 in the Workplan and Budget for 2016-2017: USD 300’000 covered by VAC and USD 242’000 covered by extrabudgetary funds, see decision FCTC/COP6(27), http://apps.who.int/gb/fctc/PDF/cop6/FCTC_COP6(27)- en.pdf.