Tobacco Documents Online

DF'tIDN 1- rtobiline aldbQa Agro-LObby 1.1 PROGRAMKC GOALS 1.1.1. 1,1.2. 1.1.3. 1.1.4. 1.1.5. 1.1.6. 1.1.7. CreRte global piganiltatipn QrganiAe r.gional lobhies F'und central .xecutive Set Cotamunications agenda Create propbgands mdterial Manage politicarl education Develop Third worid economic cases 1.1.8. Link sgriculture lobby with other programratr 1.2 I'06SI8LE STRUCTURSS 1.2.1. Infoteb tub•-group 1,2.2. I.T.G.A. 1.2.3. UNITAA + reqionu 1.2.4. Treder/prccessor grouping 1.2.5. Individuel coynpanies 1.2.6. Externel conQultants 1.3 AsNLFiTS? 1.3.1. Purity of sgro-lobby 1.3.2. Power of agro- : nsr.ituGr.c; 1.3.4. uselul Thi rd-Vox-1d biar rrRedom rr messa9e delivery 1.3,5, weak fls:ik oi N.s.O. 1.3.6. r.A.0• support 1.4 NTGA'd'IVBS? 1.4.1. Hisuae of gruwerr power 1.4.2, rriction at induatry interface 1.4.3. Regi.vne7, divtrsitp

7?• - I 1-l p:'; 1_ -4i t'F:11-4E; OPxI014 2 - MnnAe F'.A.U. Lobby 0: >t~ _0=`~, -.3L. 2.1 PAOGRAMME: GUALS 2.1.1. Split F.A.O./Di.H.O. 2.1.3. Unite divfsional thinking tromote 'best practice, 2.1.4. eack new publicMtions 2.1.5. Dwstrny crop substitutson mytho 2.1.6. Focus on Third World 2.1,7. Link with other programmee 2.2 PPSSiBLE s1RUCTURES 2.2_1. Infoteb SUb-qroup 2.2,2.. I.T.Ci.h. 2.2.3. UNITA6 + regiono 2.2.4. Extiernal conrultarits 2.3 aSKMt"ITS? 2.3.1. CouriteC W.H.O. crop propaganda 2.3.2. Gain credit toz ~best prractice' 2.3,3. Support eoonomic .rgu.cQntc 2.3.4. Sponsor fAvouratb]e resolutions 2.3.5. Scparate supply f rox dsmond 2.3.6, Xdd credibil€ty to regionel 2.4 i3iCGAT1V6Ss? 2.4.1. cases RaAcie,tence to muztinarionela 2.4.2. Complexity of organisetion

_, t=i1 l= ;~4 1` = i iT 1E; G:I: =6-i -tj=~. OPTION 3 Attack W.H.O. 3.1 ItROGRAMMF GAAi.S ).1.1. 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4. 3.1.5. 3.1.6. Cr iticS ae budget nanagetaent l~ Addresg healtb piioritiru ~. Expoge rfaource ble,ckmail HighLight regional frilures Attack 'behaviourism' Counter on public issues 3.1.7. 3.a.8. 3.1.9. Diticredit aotivists' credentiala Engage in statistical warfare inveat in prtss relations 3,1.14. Show impact of ' Cuckoo' organisations 3.2 p4S61sLE STxUCTURCS 3.2.1. 7nfotab with nsw resaurcea 3.2.2. New industry orgenisation 3.2,3. Externel consultants 3.2.4. Individual companies 3.2.5. fipc+nsored publications 3.2.6. xrmslength medical institutions 3.2.7. I.m.G.A./Ryco-lobby 3.3 BENKFz•r67 3.3.1. Relitve presKura on govarnments 3.3.2. Reduce 'hntis' resources 3..3.3. Correct medie imbalanee 3.3.4. trotect product integrity 3.3.5. Cut down social pretsurea 1.3.6- Uift induatry/smaktr raorela 3.3.7. Promote genuine health pri.oritirs 3.4 KEGATIVES7 3.4.1. Itisk of bounoe--back 3.;.2. Credentials 3_4.3. runding complexity 3.5.4. Prejudice to other options

( ~' T~B 0: =tD t]=~ _. 36 ppT7oN A- Ne oq tidte with W.H.O. 4.1 PROGRhnME GOALS 4.1.1. Reduce dialectic tilt 4.1.2. Defuae pcriphezsl srtiviste' - 4.1.3. Create climate of 'progreas' 4.1.4. Reinforce health priority dir.ctions 4.1.5. ¢asa regionsl/national prassuCe 4.1.6. CoMfart al1ies 4.1.7. Major on rs4tl i$sues (e,g. children) 4.2 P08SIBLS STRUCTURES 4,2.1. Infotab 4,2.2. Third-phrty institutian 4,Z.). Externel canaultents 4.2.4. Tndependenl eGanomists 4.3 sENEPITS? 4,3.1. Countez 'bekpttviourism' 4.3.2. Correet long-tc•rm soc:iel trend 4,3.3. Reduae r.gionsl/nstionRl control 4.3.4. rmprov• industry ime,gR 4.4 N!*.GaTIVER7 4.4.1, Rard to find common qround 4.4.2. Risk of aCtivist distortion 4,4.3. Uneertainty over Lo1e of i4.H.b. 4,4.4. Slow

I tl _11--i1• 0: rt.:4 v_U Anpendix I ARA!'T 4 INF'OTA r January rrscvsslON PArER Pro-aotiive Options rt?ssIaLE MSNu (/l, Ilobilise G1obd1 R9ra-Lobb Y ~2. rtanag• F.h.O. Lobby ,'~3 AttAck W H O ~ Negotigt• .rith N.H.O. ''5. pi.rect Global E.T.S. Pro4raftna ~ 6. Publiah industry Magazine 7. Organise Defence - Cammercial freedoas ~ 6. Attack I.O.C,V. / Yoprovp National nssaciatian Quality ZO. Strengthen Rergional ve=.nce Mechenisma

t 11 - 1•,::,~! 1 r: t_r,_, 11 Ir L~ I HLt u1 ~-.L1i' OPTiON 5- Di rect Global ETS Prograsme 5.1 PROGRAMME GOALS 5.1.1. Coordinate industry science 5.1.2. Manaqe_external science 5.1.3. Package scientific uat.rial 5.1.4. Devise media plans 5.1.5. Orqanise special-interest briefings 5.1.6. Improve narketing of research findings 5.1.7. Drive N.M.x.s to counter-attack 5.1.8. Expose •Antia' misuse of data 5.2 PDS5iaLE STRUCTURES 5.2.1. Ynfotab sub-group 5.2.2. Externe.l consultants 5.2.3. Regional/national associations 5.2.4. PR specialists 5.3 BENEFITS? 5.3.1. Counter restrictive trend 5.3.2. Correct media imbslence 5.3.3. Good science gives credibility 5.3.4. ltase soci*1 frictions 5.4 NLGATIVES? 5.4.1, Programme hard to manage 5.4.2. Cost N 5 4 3 A. resi xtance LJA ls x . . , . . 0 0 a ~ Ln N M W

lI, • ~_! ' t I It i-, l HL. oPa,IoN 6- Publish xndustr„ y Megazine U1 >t.`! U_._ I-,Uo 6.1 PROGRAMME GOALS 6.1.1, hddresg political targets 6,1.2. Support smoker universe 6.1.3. Correct media isbalance 6.1.4. Inform specidl-iriter.st groups 6.1.5. LxpraQa industry vitwpoints 6.1.6. Explain scientific facts 6.1.7. Link with other prograsuaes 6.2 POSSIBLE STRUCTURES 6.2.1. Xnfotab editorial sub-group 6.2.2. New industry organisation 6.2.3. External consultants 6.2.4. National associations 6.2.5. Regional associations 6.2.6. I.T.G.A. 6.3 BENEFITS? 6.3.1. Influence target opinion-1SAders 6.3.2. Reassure smokers 6.3.3. R.inforce social velues 6.3.4. Support for national/regional associ,otions 6.3.5. aacking for other options• 6.4 NEGATIVES? 6.4.1. Cost 6.4.2. Creative risks 6.4.3. Difficulty of target definition 6.4.4. Multilinquai nin+ fiald 6.4.5. Hard to piease N.M.A.s

OPTION 7 - Organise Defence of Commercial Treedoms 7.1 RROaRAMMff GOALS 7.1.1. Define industry objectives 7.1.2. xdentify available resources 7.1.3. Clari!y information/ communicntion interests 7.1.4. Test 'Libertad' derivatives 7.1.5. Repar.atR sponsorship issues 7.1.6. Draft charter for sport 7.1.7. Anelyse worth of alliances 7.1.8. Explore thicd paLty la6dni4hiN 7.2 POSSIBLE STRUCTURES 7.2.1. Infotab sub-group 7.2.2. New industry organisation 7.2.3. Third-party 'Libertad' regions 7.2.4. National associations 7.3. sENEfITS7 7.3.1. Political influence 7.3.2. New alliancR structures 7.3,3. Ad agency thrust 7.3.4. Strong m.dia interest 7.3.5. Support for other options 7.4 NEGATIYES7 7.4.1. Cost 7.4.2. Resolution of 'allies' 7.4.3. Hard to control 7.4.4. Risk of woolly targeting

OPTION A ^ AtLeck 1.0.C.U. 8.1 PROGRAMME GOALS 8.1.1. Relieve Nuu pressure on w.n.o. 8.1.2. Expose activists' "credentials" 8.1.3. Counter 'behaviourist' regulation 8.1.4. Correct anti-butiness slant 8.1.5. Oppose 'de-mArketing' of tobacco 8.1.6, Lay foundation for Perth 1990 @8.2 POSSIBLE BTRVGTVW 8,2.1. infotab sub-group 8.2.2. Link with Heritaqe foundation 8.2.3. Other third party institution 8.2.4. Netional associations 8.3 BENEFITS? 8.3.1. Iaprove w.H.O. negotiating clixate 8.3.2. Discredit key individuals 8.3.3. Correct redia bies 8.3.4. Defend private sector 8.3.5. Kaaken xnstitute of lolicy 8tudies 8.3.6. Reduce pressure at nationbl level 8.4 NEC3ATivts? 8.4.1. Risk of bounce-back 4.4.2. Credentialsjleadership 9.4.3. Funding corp2exity

-U1- :.'c:•-- lr. : 1 1 11 o- i i i rik,; ui OPTION 9 - Improve NAtional Associati_on Quality i 9.1 PROGRA.MME GOALS 9.1.1. Data managtment training 9.1.2. Support on projects/issues 9.1.3. Motivation 9.1.4. Assist with thrsAt analysis 9.1.5. Assist with planning 9.1.6. Assess resource needs 9.1.7. perforuance audit 9.1.8. xndependent advice to companies 9.1.9. Study central,funding/control 9.2 POSSIBLE STRUCTURES 9.2.1. Infotab 9.2.2. New audit group 9.3 BENEFITS? 9.3.1. Better national tactics 9.3.2. bnhanced management performance 9.3.3. DiplomatiG approach - evaluation 9.3.4. Greater company confidence 9.3.5. Results-oriented actions 9.3.6. Value-based funding 9.4 NEGATIVES? 9.4.1. Risk of demotivation 9.4.2. Los: of confidence in Infotab 9.4.3. Lack of sensitivity 9.4.4. InterferQnce with local companies tv tn 0 © -tii