FCTC Article 5.3: A mandate for transparency or silence?

In the evolving landscape of tobacco control act amendment, Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) has emerged as both a cornerstone and a point of contention. While its intent is clear-to protect public health policies from undue influence by the tobacco industry-its interpretation has become increasingly one-sided. Alarmingly, some civil society actors have begun to portray Article 5.3 as a mandate for complete disengagement from industry stakeholders. This misrepresentation is not only inaccurate, it is economically and democratically risky.

The official WHO guidelines for Article 5.3 emphasise transparency, not exclusion. Governments are encouraged to ensure that any interaction with the tobacco industry is conducted openly, with appropriate safeguards. The guidelines do not prohibit consultation; rather, they call for accountability in how such consultations are managed.

Yet, in practice, this distinction is often lost. Certain NGOs and advocacy groups have adopted an absolutist stance, discouraging any form of dialogue with industry actors. This approach, while well-intentioned, is very narrow sighted and risks undermining the very aim of inclusive governance -- better policy. Reducing the stakeholders to two camps -- tobacco control activists and cigarette manufacturers -- leaves millions of interested individuals outside of the debate. Tobacco control policies affect a wide array of stakeholders-from manufacturers and retailers to farmers and trade unions. Excluding these voices from the policy process can lead to regulations that are disconnected from economic realities and difficult to implement.

From an economic perspective, the stakes are high. The tobacco sector contributes to national economies through employment, taxation, and trade. While tobacco regulation is essential for public health, its economic implications must be carefully considered. Policies that miss the input from affected individuals and organisations can inadvertently harm sectors such as agriculture, manufacturing, and retail, leading to job losses and reduced budget revenues.

Moreover, stakeholder mobilisation is a proven strategy for effective law enforcement and compliance. According to Vital Strategies' Tobacco Control Implementation Hub, engaging a broad spectrum of stakeholders-including civil society, business associations, and enforcement agencies-enhances the legitimacy and sustainability of tobacco control laws.

The path forward must be one of balanced engagement. Government should not be pressured into crafting high-impact policies in isolation. Instead, they must uphold the principles of transparency, accountability, and inclusivity. This means consulting with all relevant stakeholders-industry players included-while maintaining safeguards against undue influence.

Civil society and NGOs have vital role in ensuring that these consultations are fair and transparent. But it must also be committed to intellectual honesty. Misrepresenting Article 5.3 for advocacy gain undermines the credibility of the tobacco control movement and risks alienating policymakers who seek pragmatic, evidence-based solutions.

In conclusion, Article 5.3 is a call for vigilance-not silence. It empowers government to engage responsibly, not to disengage entirely. As Bangladesh continues its efforts to strengthen its tobacco control framework, let us advocate for policies that are not only health-driven but also economically sound and democratically legitimate.

The writer is Advocate (Policy & Public Affairs), Supreme Court of Bangladesh. mituladv@gmail.com