COP11: The final battle between injunctions and harm reduction strategies

Core insight: The upcoming 11th Conference of the Parties (COP-11) has surpassed conventional policy debates and evolved into a decisive watershed for global tobacco control strategies. This marks a profound ideological showdown between deep-rooted traditional injunctions and new strategies based on scientific evidence for tobacco harm reduction (THR), which will reshape the health prospects of millions of smokers worldwide in the future.

Driving factors:

• Significant differences in national practices: Countries represented by the United Kingdom have achieved record low smoking rates by promoting harm reduction tools such as electronic cigarettes; Despite strict restrictions, the smoking rate of the ban faction represented by Belgium remains stagnant at around 20%. The huge contrast in this realistic effect constitutes the core tension of the debate.
• Scientific evidence and ideological inertia: An increasing number of scientific studies have confirmed the effectiveness and relative safety of new nicotine products as smoking cessation aids. However, the bureaucratic system of the World Health Organization (WHO) exhibits strong ideological inertia, with official documents reportedly completely rejecting the concept of harm reduction and adhering to the traditional path of comprehensive prohibition.
• The closed nature of the decision-making process: The COP conference has been criticized for its “closed door culture”, allowing only a very small number of observers to participate and excluding independent scientists and consumer representatives. This information cocoon exacerbates ‘groupthink’, hinders the objective evaluation of innovative strategies, and raises questions about their credibility.
• The Influence Game of Key Powers: As one of the main funding countries of WHO, the UK delegation has made it clear that they will defend the scientific harm reduction strategy at the meeting and use their influence to promote policy shifts. Meanwhile, important EU member states such as Belgium are attempting to dominate the global ban agenda. The direct confrontation between the two major forces has pushed the conference to a critical point of strategic decision-making.

Key evidence:

• Opposing positions: Belgium is preparing to lead the charge against new nicotine products, while the UK is preparing to reaffirm its position as one of the main defenders of the World Tobacco Harm Reduction (THR).
• Effect difference: “Belgium’s smoking rate still remains at around 20%, one of the highest in Western Europe,” while harm reduction strategies have helped “countries such as Sweden and the United Kingdom achieve record low smoking rates.”
• Institutional bias: According to reports, the World Health Organization Secretariat’s own briefing document “completely negates harm reduction strategies,” and the meeting agenda is filled with traditional measures such as “new bans, expanded litigation, and stricter product restrictions.”
• Lack of Transparency: The conference has only accredited 29 observer organizations, while the United Nations Climate Change Conference has over 4000. This exclusivity has led to accusations of ‘groupthink’ and scientific isolation.
• Expert core statement: Public health expert Clive Bates clearly stated in his “COP-11 Representative Survival Guide” that “bans cannot save lives – innovation can”, and if FCTC does not embrace science again, COP-11 may “miss another opportunity.”

Strategic insights:
COP-11 is at a crossroads of global public health. The final resolution is not only about regulatory choices for products such as vapes, but also a fundamental decision on the future direction of global tobacco control: whether to continue the ineffective old path of prohibition or to shift towards a pragmatic harm reduction paradigm driven by scientific evidence and innovation. If the pragmatic faction led by the UK can successfully guide the debate back to evidence, COP-11 may open a more efficient and humane new chapter in global health; On the contrary, if ideology overwhelms science, FCTC will not only lose its credibility and moral authority, but also mean that the global tobacco control cause will come to a standstill, missing the historical opportunity to save millions of lives.