METHODS: This observational qualitative case study employed semi-structured key informant interviews to describe partnerships between the Malaysian Malaria Control Programme (MCP), and private palm oil, rubber and acacia plantations in the state of Sabah. Semi-structured interview guides were used to examine resource commitments, incentives, challenges, and successes of the collaborations.
RESULTS: Interviews with workers from private plantations and the state of Sabah MCP indicated that partnerships with the commercial sector had contributed to decreases in incidence at plantation sites since 1991. Several plantations contribute financial and human resources toward malaria control efforts and all plantations frequently communicate with the MCP to help monitor the malaria situation on-site. Management of partnerships between private corporations and government entities can be challenging, as prioritization of malaria control may change with annual profits or arrival of new management.
CONCLUSIONS: Partnering with the commercial sector has been an essential operational strategy to support malaria elimination in Sabah. The successes of these partnerships rely on a common understanding that elimination will be a mutually beneficial outcome for employers and the general public. Best practices included consistent communication, developing government-staffed subsector offices for malaria control on-site, engaging commercial plantations to provide financial and human resources for malaria control activities, and the development of new worker screening programmes. The successes and challenges associated with partnerships between the public and commercial sector can serve as an example for other malaria-eliminating countries with large plantation sectors, and may also be applied to other sectors that employ migrant workers or have commercial enterprises in hard to reach areas.
OBJECTIVES: First, this study aims to document, using data from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (ITC), levels and trends in cigarette users' tax avoidance and tax evasion behaviour in a sample of 16 low-, middle- and high-income countries. Second, this study explores factors associated with cigarette tax avoidance and evasion.
METHODS: We used data from ITC surveys conducted in 16 countries to estimate the extent and type of cigarette tax avoidance/evasion between countries and across time. We used self-reported information about the source of a smoker's last purchase of cigarettes or self-reported packaging information, or similar information gathered by the interviewers during face-to-face interviews to measure tax avoidance/evasion behaviours. We used generalised estimating equations to explore individual-level factors that may affect the likelihood of cigarette tax avoidance or evasion in Canada, the USA, the UK and France.
FINDINGS: We found prevalence estimates of cigarette tax avoidance/evasion vary substantially between countries and across time. In Canada, France and the UK, more than 10% of smokers reported last purchasing cigarettes from low or untaxed sources, while in Malaysia some prevalence estimates suggested substantial cigarette tax avoidance/evasion. We also found important associations between household income and education and the likelihood to engage in tax avoidance/evasion. These associations, however, varied both in direction and magnitude across countries.
METHODS: Score sheet based on WHO FCTC Article 5.3 Guidelines sent to correspondents in seven Southeast Asian countries, using a scoring system designed with the help of tobacco control experts and validated through focused group discussions.
RESULTS: The seven countries ranked from the lowest level of interference to the highest are Brunei, Thailand, Lao PDR, Cambodia, Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia. Countries that face high levels of unnecessary interaction with the tobacco industry also face high levels of tobacco industry influence in policy development. Most governments do not allow any tobacco industry representatives on their delegation to sessions of the Conference of the Parties or its subsidiary bodies nor accept their sponsorship for delegates, but most governments still accept or endorse offers of assistance from the tobacco industry in implementing tobacco control policies. Most governments also receive tobacco industry contributions (monetary or in kind) or endorse industry corporate social responsibility activities. Governments do not have a procedure for disclosing interactions with the tobacco industry, but Lao PDR, Philippines and Thailand have instituted measures to prevent or reduce industry interference.
CONCLUSIONS: This Tobacco Industry Interference Index, based on the WHO FCTC Article 5.3 Guidelines, is a useful advocacy tool for identifying both progress and gaps in national efforts at implementing WHO FCTC Article 5.3.