With COP11 looming, once again secrecy and ideology threaten to overshadow science, silencing harm reduction voices and risking millions of preventable smoking-related deaths.
With just 100 days remaining before the World Health Organization’s (WHO) next global tobacco control summit, concerns are mounting that COP11 will once again sideline science, shut out key voices, and push an abstinence-only agenda that ignores the realities of smoking cessation. For those committed to harm reduction, the draft agenda reads less like a roadmap for public health progress and more like a carefully scripted effort to close ranks, control the narrative, and keep the most relevant stakeholders out of the room.
Discrediting and dismissing harm reduction
In fact, the preliminary agenda for COP11 reveals a deliberate rejection of harm reduction as a legitimate public health strategy. Instead of acknowledging the growing body of evidence showing that safer nicotine products save lives, the WHO and its Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) Secretariat have chosen to portray harm reduction as nothing more than a talking point of the tobacco industry. The choice to wrap the term “harm reduction” in quotation marks speaks volumes—it is a linguistic sleight of hand that casts doubt on the concept before any discussion even begins.
Even more telling is the legal framework the agenda invokes. It cites Article 5.2(b) of the FCTC as the basis for its approach, despite the fact that this article contains no reference to harm reduction at all. By contrast, Article 1(d) explicitly lists harm reduction as one of the three pillars of tobacco control, alongside reducing supply and demand. Its omission cannot be dismissed as an oversight—it appears to be a calculated move to narrow the scope of discussion and sidestep acknowledging harm reduction as a core element of tobacco control.
Silenced voices, lost lives
This restrictive stance has tangible consequences. Proposals from member states that sought to put harm reduction firmly on the table—such as a request from Saint Kitts and Nevis to establish a working group—have been completely excluded from the agenda. This follows a familiar pattern. At COP10, multiple countries including New Zealand, the Philippines, Guyana, and Armenia made strong, evidence-based interventions in support of alternatives to smoking. Yet, instead of honoring those calls, the COP11 agenda frames harm reduction as a threat rather than an opportunity, ensuring that those voices are not only ignored but effectively erased from the conversation.
The omission is particularly striking when one considers the wealth of real-world evidence available in favour of harm reduction. Sweden has driven its smoking rate down to below 6%—the lowest in the EU—largely through the availability of reduced-risk products such as snus and nicotine pouches. The UK has reached record-low smoking rates by integrating vaping into its cessation strategy. New Zealand, notably one of COP10’s unheard voices, is well on its was of meeting its Smokefree 2025 goal, by endorsing vapes and other alternatives for smoking cessation. Japan has halved cigarette sales in just eight years, by allowing heated tobacco products to compete with cigarettes. These successes all point in the sam
Silenced voices, lost lives
This restrictive stance has tangible consequences. Proposals from member states that sought to put harm reduction firmly on the table—such as a request from Saint Kitts and Nevis to establish a working group—have been completely excluded from the agenda. This follows a familiar pattern. At COP10, multiple countries including New Zealand, the Philippines, Guyana, and Armenia made strong, evidence-based interventions in support of alternatives to smoking. Yet, instead of honoring those calls, the COP11 agenda frames harm reduction as a threat rather than an opportunity, ensuring that those voices are not only ignored but effectively erased from the conversation.
The omission is particularly striking when one considers the wealth of real-world evidence available in favour of harm reduction. Sweden has driven its smoking rate down to below 6%—the lowest in the EU—largely through the availability of reduced-risk products such as snus and nicotine pouches. The UK has reached record-low smoking rates by integrating vaping into its cessation strategy. New Zealand, notably one of COP10’s unheard voices, is well on its was of meeting its Smokefree 2025 goal, by endorsing vapes and other alternatives for smoking cessation. Japan has halved cigarette sales in just eight years, by allowing heated tobacco products to compete with cigarettes. These successes all point in the same direction: when safer nicotine options are accessible, smoking declines rapidly.
And yet, the WHO shows little inclination to follow this evidence. Instead of learning from these success stories, it appears committed to an ideological, prohibitionist path, often shaped behind closed doors with the influence of billionaire-funded lobbying from figures such as Michael Bloomberg. In light of this, no one was surpirsed when recently the WHO commended Thailand’s vape ban – a measure which ignores evidence that prohibition fails to curb vaping or smoking and instead fuels black markets, while ignoring data indictating that rapid smoking declines in the afore mentioned countries, contrast sharply with Thailand’s slow progress.
Shutting out important stakeholders and solutions
The closed nature of COP meetings has been widely criticized in past coverage. Journalists, independent researchers, public health experts who support harm reduction, and—perhaps most importantly—consumers themselves are routinely denied access. Those who have lived experience of quitting smoking through vaping, nicotine pouches, or heated tobacco products are excluded from discussions that directly affect their lives.
Such secrecy not only undermines transparency but also prevents developing nations from crafting policies suited to their specific circumstances. Without inclusive debate, decisions risk being imposed from the top down, shaped by political agendas rather than public health needs. The process becomes less about saving lives and more about preserving the status quo.
The World Vapers’ Alliance (WVA) is highlighting that COP11 will just be known as another public health disaster if its course is not corrected. In a newly released paper, the group points to the striking success of countries that have embraced harm reduction. They argue that smokers worldwide deserve the same access to effective alternatives—not an all-or-nothing choice dictated by ideology. The alliance is urging national delegations to speak out at COP11, to challenge the WHO’s framing, and to demand transparency, inclusion, and evidence-led policymaking.
The dangerous direction of global tobacco control
The stakes could not be any higher. Smoking remains one of the leading preventable causes of death worldwide, and the clock is ticking. Harm reduction is not a theoretical concept—it is a proven strategy that has already helped millions quit smoking. By refusing to give it a fair hearing, COP11 is locking in outdated policies and delaying the decline in smoking-related disease and death for years to come.
For harm reduction advocates, the path forward is clear. COP11 must open its doors—literally and figuratively—to those who have the evidence, the expertise, and the lived experience to shape effective policy. The lack of this is resulting in a victory for ideology over science, and the cost can be measured in lives lost. The world cannot afford another closed-door summit that pretends progress is being made while ignoring the solutions that are already working. Yet, looks like that is exactly what is set to happen this year – as in every year prior!