They came, and they saw, and they ‘conquered.’ The message was loud and clear: ignore Tobacco Harm Reduction (THR) science, and millions of smokers will face preventable premature death.
Good COP 2.0 was organised from 17 to 21 November, 2025 in Geneva concurrently with COP11 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).
Independent scientists, smoke-free product advocates, smoking consumers, and industry representatives held a meeting on the subject concurrently with COP11 of the WHO FCTC. Whereas COP11 was focused on tightening control and limits on nicotine, Good COP 2.0 was a parallel narrative based on harm reduction, evidence-informed policy and consumer rights. Core message:
Good COP 2.0 was not industry propaganda but a corrective, pushing for data-driven, transparent, and sensible global nicotine policy.
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
Day 1: Setting the Tone
Day one began with challenging prohibitionists and moralistic tobacco control that is not supported by science. Featured at opening sessions were key THR voices: David Williams, Kurt Yeo, Tikki Pangestu and Rodger Bate. They criticised the WHO’s defeatism regarding Smoke-Free Products. Rodger Bate shared stories and evidence that e-cigarettes can help twice as many people quit smoking compared to traditional nicotine therapies, and users often feel more satisfied with their gains. Clive Bates, Martin Cullip and Kurt Yeo later analysed how the WHO’s refusal, especially in resource-poor countries, to accept harm reduction affects its image as a model for effective change. Delegates from countries like New Zealand and Serbia also discussed real results: after implementing policies more supportive of harm reduction, smoking rates decreased.
Day 2: Transparency, Science and Consumer Rights
The second day addressed transparency and scientific integrity, as well as the global challenges posed by harm reduction. Panels and regional voices underlined the tension between evidence-based public health and continuing prohibitionist policies. This includes medical training on smoking risks, but not necessarily on switching to safer products, Marina Murphy stressed. David Williams also stressed the need for open debate and contrasted transparency with COP11’s rigidity. Martin Cullip observed that some COP11 delegates, such as Serbia, wanted science-based discussions, but the evidence was side-lined in favour of pro-prohibition voices. The conversation revealed that disregarding THR science threatens not only credibility but also public health outcomes.
Day 3: Regional Realities: Asia-Pacific Day
Day 3 focused on the Asia-Pacific region, home to more than 600 million smokers. Speakers such as Dr Mark Tyndall, Gabriel Oke, and Nancy Loucas pointed out that the consequences of ignoring nicotine alternatives include weak health-care systems, regulations that make no way out for many people and an illegal market that is rapidly expanding. For the ASEAN region, Tikki Pangestu emphasised cooperation, standardisation and inclusive policymaking, which is sensitive to local economic, cultural and health situations.
Many delegates at ASEAN shared their own, face-to-face stories of restrictive policies that prevent consumers from accessing safer alternatives, even though consumer demand is increasing. Key takeaway: The harm reduction debate concerns science, sovereignty and equity, and seeks pragmatic solutions for communities underserved by global regulatory frameworks.
Day 4: Power, Influence and Policy.
Day 4 focused on structural analyses of how global power relations and wealthy philanthropists influence tobacco policy. Panels pointed to how anti-THR lobbyists distort national discussion, often subordinating consumer choice and pragmatic harm reduction. Delegates from Africa, Latin America, Asia and Europe said such heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all regulation, with little consideration of local economies, public health and consumer needs, is inappropriate. A recurrent theme was an argument that some anti-smoking organisations took an overly moralistic stance and advocated for harm reduction-based policies with a pragmatic understanding of harms and real-world consequences.
Day 5: Consumers, Black Markets and Future Policy.
The last day highlighted the unintended consequences of severe prohibition: rising illegal markets, criminalisation of sellers and increased police efforts, with consumers and small businesses taking the brunt. Panellists stressed the need to centre the voices of consumers, they emphasised that nicotine use endures despite bans. Structural distortions were observed, including the FDA’s deferral of approval for THR products, a move consistent with a conservative regulatory stance rather than empirical evidence. And experts have urged conceptualising nicotine regulation in terms of a spectrum, the best of what’s possible, and to balance a safer alternative with consumer liberty and judicious oversight.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Takeaways and Importance
Good COP 2.0 was a corrective to COP11 and to WHO FCTC orthodoxy, and it revealed contradictions between global policy and lived practices, particularly in LMICs. By promoting independent science, regional nuance and harm reduction pragmatism, the event undermined the common assumption that prohibition is the only moral and practical solution. It also illuminated structural problems: world power imbalances, regulatory capture, funder influence, and persistent marginalisation of consumer voices.
Implications for Africa
Such debates are urgent for African countries. Weak health systems and resources make prohibitive tobacco policies likely to do more harm than good if harm reduction alternatives are overlooked. Public health policy needs to be sensitive to context, participatory and transparent. Good COP 2.0 showed that regulation must be underpinned by evidence, pragmatism, and regional considerations, or risk shifting nicotine use underground, perpetuating the illegal trade and affecting the public’s health.