DAY 2 UPDATE #2 19.40 CET
It’s the end of day two. We have no more news on what happened at COP9 this afternoon. Our supposition is that the issues which have most concerned THR consumers – whether discussion and decisions on “novel products” will be postponed to COP10 and whether the Bureau’s recommendations on Observer status are accepted – have now been covered.
We will await the official Journal tomorrow to see if any decisions are recorded in there. (See this page for all the COP9 main documents)
We haven’t heard that the consumer groups who applied for observer status have had it granted – so we assume those applications have been denied. It is a shocking failure of transparency and basic decency that at the end of Day 2, after so much discussion, applicants for Observer status are still left hanging waiting to see if they will be permitted to observe. Especially as these groups are mostly run by volunteers. If this was COP26 we would all have passes and be free to wander around. See Clive Bates’ recent post for more on the awful lack of transparency at FCTC’s COP: https://clivebates.com/prohibitionists-at-work-how-the-who-damages-public-health-through-hostility-to-tobacco-harm-reduction
However, the FCTC secretariat tweeted earlier to say that accredited press are permitted to observe.
INNCO has today released a timely dossier on Bloomberg, World Health Organisation and the Vaping Misinfodemic. Our update this morning noted that amongst the now published provisional list of participants to COP9, there were no consumers but many individuals working for Bloomberg funded organisations.
That’s it for today – we will be back tomorrow with whatever information we can glean from the uber secretive and paranoid COP9.
DAY 2 UPDATE #2 13.10 CET
Agenda item 1.1 has finally been adopted. This means – we think – that discussion and decisions on some issues – including some involving “novel” products – are deferred until COP10. For more on what will be deferred see the provisional agenda (annotated).
The decision on whether to accept the Bureau’s recommendations for which groups should get Observer status has probably now been made, but – as far as we can tell – no decision has yet been communicated to the applicants.
COP should now be breaking for lunch. See today’s Journal for the schedule.
There is far more exciting content being streamed on sCOPe – head over to their YouTube channel to catch that.
DAY 2 UPDATE #1 10.50 CET
Good morning, and welcome to day 2 of the unofficial virtual public gallery for FCTC COP9.
Our last update on day 1 left you with the news that an impasse had been reached on approving the agenda. We understand there have been technical problems with the virtual conference and a whole day was spent on just the one agenda item.
Discussions on item 1.1 are continuing this morning to enable Parties to come to some sort of consensus.
Overnight, the Framework Convention Alliance released their day 2 COP9 Bulletin which you can read here. In a shameless example of bullying, the FCA gives a theoretical award to those Parties who supported actions they approve of, and attempts to shame other Parties by giving them the “Dirty Ashtray” award (see below), in this case for raising amendments which they are entitled to do as Parties to the Conference. https://fctc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/COP9-Bulletin_Day-2_9NOV21.pdf
Here is a reminder of items for the Plenary today from the published journal.
Once item 1.1 is resolved, the next decision will be on whether to accept the Bureau’s recommendations for which groups should be granted Observer status.
The provisional list of participants is now published, 2 days into the conference. It is astonishing that this information was not made public sooner. Looking through the list, we see no consumers, but lots of representatives from Bloomberg funded organisations.
Only one consumer group – to our knowledge – had been officially given the names for their delegation before COP started.
A robust statement came out in a video from the Philippines last night, with a call for active participation from all Parties and inclusive consultation with all stakeholders. It stated that the Philippines will not be banning e-cigarettes and recognises the fundamental differences between various tobacco and nicotine products.