The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) aims to protect health by reducing the harms of smoking. The Conference of Parties (COP) should set global tobacco policies based on evidence and harm reduction. COP11, however, reveals problems that threaten its goals and ignores what works to reduce smoking harms.

Here are eleven key issues that undermine tobacco harm reduction and public health at COP11:

1. Harm Reduction Is Systematically Dismissed  

Harm reduction is clearly defined in Article 1(d) of the FCTC, yet at COP11 it is treated as a tobacco-industry tactic. Instead of supporting evidence-based alternatives like e-vaping and nicotine pouches, the Secretariat and many NGOs deny harm reduction’s legitimacy and block discussion.

2. The Legal Basis for Harm Reduction Is Intentionally Overlooked
At COP11 

Discussions about harm reduction are funnelled under Agenda item 4.5, which deals with the implementation of Article 5.2(b) of the FCTC. That article focuses on how governments should organise their national tobacco-control infrastructure, and it is mainly administrative, not mentioning harm reduction at all.
By doing this, the Secretariat avoided referencing Article 1(d), where harm reduction is explicitly recognised as one of the treaty’s three pillars. This legal framing allows COP11 to sideline harm reduction from evidence-based debate.

3. Real-World Evidence Ignored  

Countries such as Sweden, the UK, Japan, and New Zealand have substantially cut smoking by enabling regulated, less harmful alternatives. Public health authorities and independent reviews corroborate these results, yet COP11 fails to engage with these lessons.

4. Prohibition as the Default Policy  

Many COP proposals push bans and restrictions. History shows that prohibition will backfire by driving smokers to cigarettes or illicit markets. COP11 overlooks these unintended consequences and misses pragmatic approaches.

5. Nicotine Itself Is Targeted  

COP11 focuses on reducing nicotine consumption rather than smoking-related harm. It overlooks that nicotine without combustion is far less harmful, and that tobacco control should prioritise reducing deadly smoke exposure.

6. Exclusion of Independent Experts
COP11 

The exclusion of public health experts with differing opinions limits access to independent scientists and researchers, which reduces the critical evaluation of evidence and slows the recognition of emerging harm-reduction strategies. By narrowing expert input, the policy process risks groupthink and misses nuanced scientific debate about less harmful products and real-world effectiveness.

7. Transparency and Openness Are Lacking  

COP11 operates largely behind closed doors with complex registration and limited media or public access. This lack of openness undermines trust, accountability, and open debate, which are essential for sound policy.

8. Article 5.3 Is Misused to Silence Debate  

Designed to shield policy-making from tobacco industry interference, Article 5.3 is weaponised to block independent voices supporting harm reduction, by accusing every dissenting opinion of being an industry opinion.

9. Evidence-Lacking Measures Proposed  

Some COP measures on environment, liability, and regulation lack solid evidence of effectiveness or analysis of harm-reduction impacts. The working groups and side events also show a clear bias against alternative nicotine products.

10. Contradiction Between Actions and Public Health Goals  

COP11 claims to protect health, but its policies contrast with real-world declines in smoking where harm-reduction products are available. The EU’s ban on snus is cited as an example of a policy without evidence of public health outcomes.

11. Missing Consumer Voices  

Consumers have lived experience with tobacco products and harm-reduction approaches. Their perspectives are not represented in COP11 discussions, resulting in policies that do not reflect real-world use, preferences, or the practicalities of transitioning to less harmful products.

COP11 can continue ignoring evidence and enforcing prohibitionist, dogmatic policies that risk harming people who smoke, or it can embrace tobacco harm reduction as a proven, ethical, and cost-effective path toward reducing smoking-related illness and death.

The future of global tobacco control depends on transparency, inclusion, and science-based policies grounded in real-world effectiveness. It is now up to the member states to push back.