By Hafsa Zaib – Public Health / Tobacco Control Advocate
Pakistan’s tobacco debate has largely been about what comes after a cigarette is lit. We calculate the diseases, the deaths, the strain on hospitals and the economic losses. We rarely consider what comes before and what remains after it has been tossed and discarded.
This is an important oversight. Tobacco is not just a public-health issue, but an environmental one, with its footprint running from agricultural fields to forests, water and manufacturing facilities, and finally to the streets, drains and waterways where tobacco waste is often left behind. In a country already struggling with water stress, forest degradation, waste management and environmental pollution, this dimension can no longer remain peripheral to tobacco policy.
The environmental cost begins with cultivation. Tobacco requires land, water, fertilisers, pesticides and other agricultural inputs. The World Health Organization (WHO) has linked tobacco cultivation with soil degradation, pesticide and fertiliser pollution, biodiversity loss and deforestation. These pressures are not unique to tobacco, but they are worth paying attention to when considering a crop that is large-scale for a product that ultimately contributes to a significant burden of preventable disease.
The issue is particularly relevant to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, one of Pakistan’s major tobacco-producing regions. Tobacco provides income to many farming households, and that should be borne in mind when discussing its environmental impact. Farmers should not be the convenient face of a problem that extends across an entire supply chain. They work within a system that has its own markets, production practices, technology and commercial demand.
That is precisely why the environmental conversation should go beyond blame. If tobacco cultivation places pressure on soil, water or forests, farmers need better agricultural practices, efficient technologies and, where appropriate, economically viable alternatives. Environmental protection that ignores rural livelihoods will not have sustainable results.
Water is another largely unseen aspect of the tobacco story. A global assessment of the cigarette supply chain estimated that the tobacco and cigarettes consumed worldwide in 2014 required more than 22 billion cubic metres of water. It estimated the water footprint of an individual cigarette to be about 3.7 litres when considering the entire production chain.
The significance of such figures is not that every cigarette can be assigned a specific amount of water taken from a certain community. It is, however, illustrative of the resources embedded in a product whose final use lasts barely a few minutes. Pakistan which already faces questions about water availability and agricultural sustainability ; cannot afford to ignore resource consumption as irrelevant.
The same applies to energy. Tobacco leaves have to be cured after harvesting, and in areas where firewood is used for curing, this can put pressure on forests. The WHO has identified tobacco cultivation and curing as activities associated with deforestation and greenhouse-gas emissions.
For Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, this should be scrutinised more closely. Forests are already under pressure from household energy needs, agriculture, construction and other demands. Where tobacco curing adds to demand for fuelwood, the environmental consequences can extend beyond the tobacco-growing area.
Once again, the response should be practical. More efficient curing systems and cleaner sources of energy can reduce fuelwood consumption without shifting the burden to the farmers. If environmental protection is the objective, alternatives must come with regulation.
The footprint becomes larger once tobacco leaves enter the industrial supply chain. Manufacturing requires energy, water, paper, filters, packaging and other materials. Transportation adds further emissions. What reaches the consumer is a small product, but the chain behind it is anything but small.
Then there is the waste.
An estimated 4.5 trillion cigarette butts are discarded into the environment globally every year. Conventional filters are generally made from cellulose acetate, a form of plastic that does not biodegrade easily. Cigarette butts are consequently not an insignificant piece of litter that vanishes. They can accumulate in public spaces and waterways and release tobacco-related substances into the surrounding environment.
The scale of the problem is reflected in clean-up operations. The WHO reports that cigarette butts consistently account for roughly 30–40 per cent of items collected during international coastal and urban clean-ups.
Pakistan does not need another waste problem. Municipal authorities across the country already struggle with the collection and disposal of solid waste, while plastics continue to affect urban areas, drainage systems and waterways. Tobacco litter adds another category of waste to this already challenging picture.
The rise of electronic nicotine products has further complicated matters. Disposable vaping products can contain plastics, metals, electronic components and batteries. Their quick transition from consumer product to electronic waste raises environmental questions that should have been considered alongside their regulation. New nicotine products should not be allowed to create a new waste stream first and prompt policymakers to respond later.
There is also a financial dimension that deserves greater attention. Environmental costs rarely appear on the price printed on a tobacco product. When cigarette butts have to be collected from public spaces, when waste enters drainage systems or when environmental clean-ups are required, much of the burden falls on public authorities and communities.
In Pakistan, the WHO has estimated marine pollution and waste-management costs associated with tobacco-product waste at around Rs27 billion annually. Such estimates should be taken with appropriate caution, however, as they are dependent on the methodology and costs included. Even a conservative assessment highlights a broader problem: part of the environmental cost of tobacco is being absorbed by society, not being reflected in the wider economic cost of the product.
This is where producer responsibility should be discussed.
Tobacco manufacturers and the supply chain cannot reasonably be considered responsible only for producing and selling tobacco products while the environmental consequences are left for municipalities and citizens to manage. The principle of producer responsibility is not about blaming one group for every environmental problem. It is about acknowledging that those who put products into the market also have a role in managing the waste those products generate.
This conversation is particularly important for tobacco control, as environmental protection and public health are not competing agendas. They are intersecting at several points. Tobacco consumption incurs health costs; its production consumes natural resources; manufacturing emits emissions and waste; and discarded tobacco products become an environmental burden.
Article 18 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (to which Pakistan is a party) already asks countries to give due regard to protecting the environment and the health of people in relation to the environment in respect of tobacco cultivation and manufacture. The principle, therefore, is within the international tobacco-control framework. What remains is to give it greater attention in Pakistan.
There is a case for better environmental monitoring in tobacco-growing areas, greater attention to curing-related fuelwood consumption, stronger checks on tobacco-product litter, appropriate management of electronic nicotine waste and greater consideration of producer responsibility. None of these requires ignoring the livelihoods of farmers. On the contrary, a serious policy response would involve the farmers in the transition and provide them with the support they need to adopt more sustainable practices or pursue viable alternatives.
For far too long, the environmental consequences of tobacco have been treated as a footnote to the health debate. They should not be.
Pakistan is already grappling with shrinking environmental resources, mounting waste and growing pressure on public systems. The country cannot afford to look at tobacco through the narrow lens of the cigarette that reaches the consumer. The product has a much longer story ; beginning in the field and ending not with the last puff, but with what is left behind.
Tobacco control must, therefore, look beyond the smoker. It must also consider the farmer, the forest, the water used in production, the energy consumed in curing and manufacturing, and the waste eventually left in the environment.
The health consequences of tobacco have rightly demanded public attention for decades. Its environmental consequences now deserve a place in that conversation.
The smoke may be temporary. The footprint is not.
