As delegates gather in Geneva for the infamous 11th Conference of the Parties (COP-11) to the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) this November, behind the formal speeches and resolutions, a stark divide remains. While some governments view vaping and other alternative nicotine products as tools for saving lives, others are determined to eradicate them.
Belgium’s Crackdown vs. the UK’s Commitment
On one side, Belgium (the influential EU home base) appears ready to lead the charge against new nicotine products. Deputy Prime Minister and former Health Minister Franck Vandenbroucke, a vocal opponent of vaping, will be hosting a global seminar on the products during COP-11. The event will be livestreamed but is unlikely to include consumer advocates or independent scientists — a classic example of the often-discussed closed-door culture surrounding the WHO tobacco policy.
Meanwhile, as witnessed in other countries opting for nicotine prohibition, Belgium’s smoking rate remains stuck at around 20%, one of the highest in Western Europe despite the nation’s sweeping restrictions. Yet Vandenbroucke continues to frame vaping as a threat to public health rather than a potential solution.
In stark contrast, the United Kingdom is preparing to reaffirm its position as one of the world’s leading defenders of tobacco harm reduction (THR). The UK’s Department of Health has confirmed that its delegation will once again emphasize that vaping is far less harmful than smoking, and a proven aid for adult smokers who want to quit.
The UK’s stance at COP-11 carries weight far beyond its borders. Following the United States’ partial withdrawal from WHO funding, Britain now contributes around £170 million a year — giving it both influence and responsibility.
By defending science-led harm reduction, the UK delegation will test whether evidence and innovation can prevail in a global forum often dominated by prohibitionist narratives. For the UK and like-minded nations, the goal is clear: reaffirm that vaping and other smoke-free alternatives are vital public-health tools, not threats.
A COP Survival Guide for Delegates
This ideological battle is the focus of Clive Bates’ “FCTC COP-11 – a survival guide for delegates” which aims to guide policymakers and advocates entering what promises to be a bureaucratically dense and politically charged meeting. Bates warns that the FCTC’s current direction risks entrenching failure rather than advancing public health. Despite decades of strict regulation, smoking still kills 7.5 million people each year, while more than one billion continue to use nicotine globally.
The only viable way forward, Bates argues, is to embrace harm reduction — transitioning smokers away from high-risk combustible products to safer, smoke-free alternatives like vaping, nicotine pouches, and heated tobacco. This approach, grounded in science and informed consent, has already helped countries like Sweden and the UK achieve record-low smoking rates.
Prohibition reigning supreme?
Under agenda item 4.5, the WHO Secretariat’s own briefing paper reportedly dismisses harm reduction altogether — a move that has drawn sharp criticism from researchers and public-health advocates. Instead, the COP-11 agenda is filled with familiar proposals: new prohibitions, expanded litigation against the tobacco industry, and tighter product restrictions.
Bates cautions that such measures do little to address smoking itself, and may even drive consumers back to more dangerous products. Meanwhile, the debate over who should lead regulatory work — activist-driven expert groups or evidence-based working groups of member states — has created bureaucratic gridlock.
Transparency and trust at risk
However, perhaps most concerning is the often-discused lack of transparency surrounding COP. Only 29 observer organizations are accredited — compared to over 4,000 at the UN climate conferences. This exclusion of independent scientists, consumer advocates, and harm-reduction voices has led to accusations of “groupthink” and scientific insularity.
Financially, the FCTC’s 2030 strategy demands $9.6 billion annually, nearly eight times current levels. Analysts argue that embracing harm reduction could dramatically reduce costs, since smokers themselves fund the switch to safer alternatives, supported by accurate public education campaigns.
Tobacco control at crossroads
Whether COP-11 ever becomes a milestone for progress or remains a monument to stagnation, depends on whether delegates are willing to confront the uncomfortable truth: prohibition does not save lives — innovation does.
If the WHO continues to reject harm reduction, the FCTC risks losing its credibility and moral authority. But if leaders like the UK succeed in steering the debate back toward evidence-based policy, COP-11 could mark a new chapter in global health — one where the focus finally shifts from ideology to impact. As Clive Bates concludes in his Survival Guide: unless the FCTC re-embraces science, COP-11 may be remembered as yet another missed opportunity in the long struggle to end the world’s leading cause of preventable death.
More of the Same: COP11 Seems Headed to the Usual Closed Vault of Secrets and Silenced Voices
