COP11: The Clash of Science and Ideology

Core Insights

The 11th Conference of the Parties (COP11) is not just a regular meeting, but a crucial turning point in the global tobacco control strategy. It reveals the fundamental conflict between traditional prohibitionism ideology and the emerging science-driven “Tobacco Harm Reduction” (THR) path. The World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) is facing a decisive choice: to adhere to rigid ideologies with limited effectiveness, or to embrace innovation and evidence to effectively reduce smoking mortality rates. The result will directly determine its future credibility and global influence.

Driving factors

• Fundamental ideological conflict: The core divergence of global tobacco control policies lies in the opposition between the “prohibitionism” faction represented by Belgium and the “harm reduction” faction represented by the United Kingdom. The former strives to eliminate all forms of nicotine products, while the latter advocates guiding smokers away from the most harmful traditional cigarettes through low-risk alternatives such as electronic cigarettes.
• The stark contrast in national practices: Countries such as the UK and Sweden have successfully reduced smoking rates to historic lows by adopting harm reduction strategies. In sharp contrast, Belgium, which has implemented strict ban measures, still has a smoking rate stagnant at around 20%, which is strong evidence of its poor practical effectiveness. This difference in evidence from the real world is fundamentally challenging the legitimacy of injunctions.
• Closed institutional inertia and lack of transparency: FCTC has long been criticized for its “closed door meeting” culture, which severely excludes the voices of independent scientists, consumer representatives, and advocates for harm reduction. This systemic ‘groupthink’ hinders policy adjustments based on new evidence and prioritizes the opinions of expert groups led by activists over evidence-based working groups of member states, resulting in bureaucratic deadlock.
• The game of great power influence: As the main sponsor of the World Health Organization (with an annual contribution of approximately £170 million), the UK’s stance in supporting harm reduction strategies has significant influence. This directly confronts the firm opposition of Belgium, an important member state of the European Union, making COP11 a strategic battleground for two different tobacco control futures.

Key evidence

• The current situation of failure: Despite decades of strict regulation, smoking still causes 7.5 million deaths worldwide every year, and over one billion people still use nicotine.
• Institutional bias: The briefing document prepared by the World Health Organization Secretariat for this conference reportedly completely negates harm reduction methods, demonstrating its deep-rooted ideological stance.
• Transparency deficit: The COP conference only certified 29 observer organizations, while the United Nations Climate Change Conference has over 4000. This extreme exclusivity exacerbates doubts about its scientific independence and decision-making impartiality.
• Evidence at the national level: 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’. This is in stark contrast to the high smoking rate in Belgium.
• Expert’s core statement: As Clive Bates summarized in his “COP11 Representative Survival Guide,” “Prohibition cannot save lives, but innovation can.”

Strategic insights

COP11 is the ‘credibility crossroads’ that FCTC faces. This is not only a debate about electronic cigarettes, but also a fundamental test of whether global public health institutions can adapt to scientific evidence and technological innovation.

• If FCTC chooses to adhere to injunctions, it will not only continue to miss opportunities to save millions of lives, but also gradually lose its “credibility and moral authority” due to its detachment from reality and evidence, ultimately proven ineffective by history.
• If rational voices represented by the UK can successfully guide the agenda and bring the debate back to the track of evidence-based decision-making, then COP11 may mark a new chapter in the global health cause – an era that ultimately shifts the focus from ideology to practical influence. The future of global tobacco control depends on whether decision-makers choose to adopt stagnant old models or embrace innovations that can save lives.