Today, COP11 has opened with the same old story. Countries patting each other on the back for ever-stricter restrictions on less harmful nicotine products, while barely glancing at what the evidence actually shows about outcomes.

The World Health Organisation COP11 has become an echo chamber. Decisions are made in the shadows, consumers are locked out, and the focus centres almost entirely on bans rather than real results. Countries compete to announce the harshest measures against vaping, pouches and heated tobacco, as if more restrictions automatically equal better health. They ignore a simple fact: several countries that embraced harm reduction have cut smoking rates far more dramatically than those clinging to prohibition alone.

The playbook never changes. Most delegations spend their time touting flavour bans, disposable vape bans, and warnings on products that are less harmful than cigarettes. Few ask whether these policies actually reduce smoking. The scientific data suggests they don’t. What does work is giving smokers practical alternatives, honest information, and a reason to switch away from cigarettes. Sweden halved its smoking rate in a decade. The UK cut it by more than half since 2012. New Zealand did the same in just five years. These countries didn’t ban their way to success.

At COP11, two delegations stood out as exceptions. New Zealand reinforced its commitment to harm reduction, presenting evidence of how practical support and risk-based regulation of nicotine products accelerate the decline of smoking rates. They reminded the room that harm reduction works.

Serbia also pushed back. The delegation reminded the WHO secretariat of national realities, sovereignty, and constitutional limits. In diplomatic terms, they said no to nanny state prohibition. They called for caution on drastic measures and demanded that any new policies be based on science and harm reduction. It was a rare moment of someone speaking truth to an institution that has lost its way. (Here you find an overview of more country statements.) 

These two voices matter. They offered something the echo chamber needed: a reminder that policy should follow evidence, not ideology. Consumer voices exist. Real-world data exists. Countries are already solving this problem.

But in a process built on secrecy and controlled by donors aligned with prohibition, exceptions like New Zealand and Serbia remain just that: exceptions.