COP11: Global Fight Against Tobacco Control Policies

Core Insights:

The 11th Conference of the Parties (COP11) of the World Health Organization (WHO) is evolving into a fundamental watershed for global tobacco control strategies. This is not only a policy divergence between different countries but also a crucial confrontation between the deeply rooted “prohibitive” ideology and the “harm reduction” (THR) strategy based on scientific evidence. The outcome of this meeting will determine the direction of global public health in the next decade and directly test the credibility and adaptability of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).

Driving factors:

• Sharp opposition at the national level strategy: The “harm reduction” camp represented by the UK and the “strict prohibition” camp represented by Belgium are bringing their respective successful or stagnant domestic experiences to the global stage. The UK, with its significant achievements in reducing smoking rates, has provided strong practical evidence for harm reduction strategies, directly challenging the long dominant prohibitive narrative of the WHO.
• The effectiveness crisis of traditional tobacco control models: Despite decades of strict regulation, 7.5 million people worldwide still die from smoking every year. The high smoking rates (about 20%) in countries such as Belgium indicate that bans alone cannot solve the problem. In contrast, countries such as the UK and Sweden that have adopted innovative nicotine products have seen smoking rates drop to historic lows, and this stark contrast in effectiveness has forced all parties to reassess existing strategies.
• The closed and opaque decision-making mechanism: The COP conference has been criticized as a “closed door” decision-making process, with only 29 observer organizations certified—far fewer than other United Nations conferences (such as the Climate Conference, which has over 4000), severely excluding the voices of independent scientists, consumer representatives, and advocates for harm reduction. This kind of “groupthink” and scientific isolation have intensified external doubts about the fairness of its decision-making and given rise to pressure for reform.
• The Influence Game of Key Participants: As one of the main funding countries of WHO (contributing approximately £170 million annually), the UK’s position has significant influence. At the same time, senior officials such as the Deputy Prime Minister of Belgium are actively organizing activities to consolidate their anti-e-cigarette stance at the global level. Behind this game lies the struggle for funding, discourse power, and policy leadership.

Key evidence:

• Direct conflict of policy paths:
  • The UK Department of Health has confirmed that its delegation will once again emphasize that ‘the harm of electronic cigarettes is much lower than that of smoking, and they are an effective tool to help adult smokers quit smoking.’
  • Belgium plans to hold a global seminar during COP11, but it is unlikely to invite consumer advocates or independent scientists to participate.
• Comparison of Policy Effectiveness Data:
  • In Belgium, which has implemented restrictive measures, the smoking rate remains stagnant at around 20%, one of the highest in Western Europe.
  • In countries such as Sweden and the UK that embrace harm reduction strategies, record low smoking rates have been achieved.
• The official position of the WHO Secretariat:
  • According to reports, under agenda item 4.5, the WHO Secretariat’s own briefing document “completely negates harm reduction,” and the meeting agenda is filled with traditional measures such as “new bans” and “stricter product restrictions.”
• Serious lack of transparency:
  • COP11 only certified “29 observer organizations—while the United Nations Climate Conference has over 4000.” This exclusivity has led to accusations of ‘groupthink’ and scientific isolation.
• Expert’s core statement:
  • Policy analyst Clive Bates explicitly stated in his “Representative Survival Guide” that “prohibition does not save lives—innovation can.” He warned that if the FCTC does not embrace science again, COP11 “may be remembered as another missed opportunity.”

Strategic insights:

COP11 is not only a conference but also a severe test of the global public health system’s ability to adapt to scientific innovation. The core contradiction has shifted from whether reducing harm is effective to whether a large global institution can overcome ideological inertia to embrace evidence. If WHO and its FCTC continue to reject the proven effective strategy of reducing harm, not only will millions of avoidable deaths continue to occur, but they may also gradually lose their leadership position and moral authority in the global tobacco control field due to detachment from reality. The ultimate choice is to make a decision between adhering to an increasingly ineffective prohibitive past or shifting towards a pragmatic and life-saving future.