COP11 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) was supposed to be a routine gathering — another closed-door meeting where small expert groups draft decisions, which are later rubber-stamped by member states. Instead, it became something far more significant: a moment of awakening, resistance, and reassertion of sovereignty, especially from African nations that have long been expected to sit quietly at the margins of global health policy.
This year, African countries spoke with more clarity, confidence, and unity than ever before. They delivered more statements, participated meaningfully in debates, and challenged long-standing practices within the FCTC that have failed to respect regional diversity or scientific nuance. What emerged was a resounding message: Africa will no longer be a passive recipient of imported policies. It wants representation, evidence, and respect.
The Problem With ‘Expert’ Groups No One Can See
One of the most contested issues at COP11 was the opaque way in which the FCTC’s small, exclusive expert groups are selected. Their composition, criteria, and internal processes remain unclear to many Parties. Yet these groups are tasked with formulating sweeping recommendations — often highly prescriptive — for more than 180 countries with vastly different cultures, economies and health realities.
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
African delegates repeatedly asked a simple question: How can a handful of experts from a handful of countries meaningfully decide what works for the entire world?
The frustration was palpable. Countries called for working groups that are representative of all regions, shaped by independent experts, and grounded in practical, evidence-based solutions. They wanted mechanisms that reflect the reality of diverse markets, not generic bans or punitive measures drafted in Geneva and imposed globally.
Accusations, Hostility, and the Weaponisation of ‘Industry Interference’
A troubling pattern at COP11 was the way harm reduction discussions were shut down. Delegates who spoke about safer nicotine alternatives — not on behalf of the tobacco industry, but on behalf of their citizens — were routinely interrupted, challenged or accused of promoting tobacco industry interests.
The most striking example came when the delegate from St Kitts and Nevis, a medical doctor with deep expertise in harm reduction, attempted to explain the health benefits of risk-reduced products. Instead of engaging with his evidence, he was accused of reading a script “written by the tobacco industry.” Offended, he read out his credentials — a sharp reminder that harm reduction is a scientific discipline, not a corporate slogan. His message was simple and powerful: Harm reduction does not belong to the tobacco industry — it belongs to the people whose lives it can save.
These accusations reveal a deeper problem: the FCTC has become so fixated on fighting the industry that it has forgotten the other half of its mandate — saving lives.
When Ideology Overshadows Evidence
There is clear evidence that safer nicotine products — such as e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products and oral smokeless alternatives — are significantly less harmful than combustible cigarettes. Public Health England estimates vaping to be at least 95% less harmful than smoking. Sweden has achieved a smoking rate of 5%, the lowest in Europe, largely due to its culturally embedded use of snus. Most importantly Sweden has a significantly lowered cancer incidence as a result. Japan has seen cigarette sales drop by 40% since the introduction of heated tobacco.
This is not tobacco-industry propaganda. These are public-health outcomes measured and published by independent authorities.
Yet at COP11, repeated calls for risk-proportionate regulation, scientific evaluation, and independent testing facilities were met with resistance. Instead of embracing evidence-based pathways, the FCTC pushed forward dozens of extreme proposals — many drafted by the same closed expert groups — that Parties are already struggling to implement. Several countries pleaded for realism:
“We support ending smoking. But we cannot abandon the people who are still smoking today.”
The Battle for Ownership: Who Controls Harm Reduction?
One of the most important interventions at COP11 was the insistence that harm reduction is first and foremost a public health strategy not a tobacco-industry concept, despite the WHO’s insistence that any mention of it signals industry interference.
Harm reduction is universal. It is used in HIV/AIDS through condom distribution, in drug policy through methadone therapy and needle exchange, in nutrition through sugar substitutes, in cosmetics through regulating skin-lightening products, and in alcohol control through light beers and alcohol-free alternatives.
No one claims the sugar industry “owns” sweeteners, or that condom use is a corporate scheme. Yet when the same logic is applied to smoking — the single largest preventable cause of death — harm reduction becomes taboo.
This contradiction undermines public health and gives the tobacco industry control of a narrative that should belong to governments, scientists and citizens. African countries made this point sharply: By refusing to discuss harm reduction, you give the industry ownership over a concept that is at the center of the public health mandate; to save smokers’ lives.
A Push for Evidence — Not Dogma
Many Parties — especially from Africa, the Caribbean, and parts of Asia — called for clarity on Articles 9 and 10, which deal with regulating new nicotine products. They wanted robust, independent scientific assessments, not ideologically driven bans. They emphasised that:
- Every country should have its own testing facility.
- Working groups should include independent experts.
- Risk classification should be based on science.
- Guidance should be adaptable, not mandatory.
Crucially, they also demanded that future decisions be implementable. The FCTC cannot decide to issue 16 new forward-looking measures when many countries lack the resources to implement the existing ones.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The adjustment to Article 19, shifting proposals from “mandatory” to “optional,” was one of the few moments of genuine consensus — a sign that flexibility creates unity, while rigidity breeds resistance.
The Dirty Ashtray Award: An Embarrassing Relic
The FCTC’s inclusion of the infamous ‘Dirty Ashtray Award,’ intended to shame countries deemed obstructive, was widely condemned at COP11. Delegates argued that public humiliation is neither diplomatic nor effective. Many noted that the award has increasingly been used against countries that simply demand evidence-based approaches and that have made real progress in saving lives through tobacco harm reduction.
It does not enhance the WHO’s credibility. It undermines it.
A New Era for the Global South
COP11 revealed a shift in global health diplomacy. African countries — long patronised in global forums — asserted their right to shape policies that directly impact their citizens. They demanded autonomy without interference, evidence without ideology and collaboration without condescension.
They made something very clear: We want to end smoking. But current smokers’ lives matter, and we refuse to leave them behind.
Harm reduction is not an industry agenda.
It is not a Western conspiracy.
It is not a compromise.
It is a lifeline — and African nations are ready to claim it.