COP11 Ends — and Switzerland Can No Longer Look Away

Main issues and decisions

A proposed decision to phase out polluting cigarette filters—now recognised as one of the most pervasive forms of plastic waste contaminating waterways, beaches and urban ecosystems—failed to secure sufficient support among delegations. A parallel initiative aimed at strengthening disclosure requirements for the contents of tobacco products also did not advance, despite what observers described as a clear sense of urgency. Instead of establishing a formal working group, Parties agreed only to an informal consultation process under WHO guidance, postponing substantive progress to the next COP.

Nevertheless, COP11 adopted a series of decisions recognizing the substantial harm caused throughout the tobacco supply chain, from cultivation and manufacturing to consumption and post-use waste, including pollution generated by electronic nicotine devices. Member states were encouraged to consider stronger regulatory frameworks addressing environmental pollution and to explore legal avenues to hold the industry liable for health, social and ecological damages. As noted by COP President Reina Roa, the scientific evidence on tobacco’s environmental destruction is “absolutely undeniable.”

Despite friction on key issues, delegates also endorsed measures aimed at increasing state funding for domestic tobacco-control programmes, emphasizing domestic resource mobilization—particularly through taxation—as a cornerstone of sustainable implementation. Parties further agreed to consider forward-looking “endgame” measures, such as generational bans, and adopted a decision urging stronger legislative action on criminal and civil liability in relation to tobacco control.

For civil-society organisations, COP11 demonstrated once again the critical role of independent advocacy in countering industry influence and supporting evidence-based policymaking. AT Switzerland actively participated as part of a coordinated network led by groups such as the Global Alliance for Tobacco Control (GATC) and ASH US. These NGOs helped foreground emerging issues, supported Parties committed to stronger regulation, and drew international attention to delegation capture and misinformation strategies.

The debate around the manipulated idea of “harm reduction”

One of the most contentious debates concerned how the FCTC should address new nicotine products—including e-cigarettes and heated tobacco—marking the first time this issue was formally raised at a COP. Public-health experts stressed that these products must be regulated within the framework of preventing nicotine addiction and protecting young people, who are increasingly targeted through flavours, colours, digital marketing and lifestyle branding. The industry, however, promoted a “harm reduction” narrative, claiming these products support adult cessation—despite mounting evidence of youth initiation, dual use and renormalisation of nicotine dependence. Recent research published in the BMJ shows how e-cigarettes undermine children’s human rights, reinforcing the urgency of strong protections.

Debates on new products resulted in two competing draft decisions—one led by Brazil that encouraged Parties to take additional measures to prevent nicotine addiction, and a second proposal aligned with industry talking points, tabled by Saint Kitts and Nevis, which received civil-society’s symbolic “Dirty Ashtray Award.” With no consensus possible, the issue was deferred to COP12 in 2027.

Across the negotiations, industry interference remained the most significant barrier to progress—both in formal sessions and through parallel events such as the industry-aligned “Good COP 2.0” conference held in Geneva. Experts noted unprecedented levels of interference, including attempts to influence national delegations, distort scientific evidence, and reframe debates around “consumer rights” and “innovation.” The Acting Head of the Secretariat, Andrew Black, acknowledged these pressures while affirming that the decisions adopted at COP11 will contribute to saving millions of lives and protecting the planet from tobacco-related harms.

As preparations begin for COP12, key unresolved issues—including nicotine-product regulation, flavour restrictions, environmental measures such as filter bans, and legal liability frameworks—are expected to return to the agenda. Ensuring that industry influence is excluded from policymaking will be essential if Parties are to translate the commitments made in Geneva into meaningful reductions in the health, social and ecological burden caused by tobacco.

Find more information under: https://gatc-int.org/news-and-events/

Industry interference: a growing obstacle to progress

One of the most concerning dimensions of COP11 was the clear evidence that the tobacco and nicotine industry has intensified and diversified its strategies to influence international tobacco-control policymaking. Reports released ahead of the conference showed that industry interference remains the single greatest barrier to full implementation of the FCTC, and the dynamics observed in Geneva confirmed this trend. Unlike earlier COP cycles, where lobbying largely occurred on the margins, COP11 was preceded by coordinated efforts to shape national positions before delegations even arrived. In several countries, tobacco companies and affiliated organisations were directly involved in preparatory meetings, offering “technical inputs” and attempting to soften government mandates. This marks a shift from reactive lobbying to proactive political capture, particularly through ministries of finance, trade, agriculture and foreign affairs, which are more vulnerable to economic framing and less aligned with public-health priorities.

At the same time, the industry has invested heavily in a network of front groups, including so-called consumer organisations, think-tanks, grower associations and advocacy platforms promoting vaping and heated tobacco products. These actors amplify the industry’s messaging while obscuring financial ties, creating an echo chamber that portrays tobacco control as unreasonable, ideological, or hostile to “harm reduction”. During COP11, these groups deployed social-media campaigns, staged demonstrations, and generated opinion pieces designed to pressure delegations and shape public perception. Parallel to the official negotiations, industry-aligned organisations hosted alternative events in Geneva, such as “Good COP 2.0”, explicitly attacking the WHO and attempting to undermine confidence in the treaty process. This strategy reflects a deliberate attempt not only to weaken specific regulatory proposals, but to erode the legitimacy of multilateral health governance itself.

The “harm reduction” narrative was central to these efforts. By presenting e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products and nicotine pouches as tools to reduce smoking, the industry sought to resist stronger regulation of these products, oppose flavour and marketing restrictions, and prevent their integration into the core obligations of the FCTC. Yet evidence continues to show rising youth uptake, dual use with cigarettes, and increased nicotine dependence, challenging the credibility of these claims. Researchers and human-rights experts have warned that such narratives obscure the risks posed to children and adolescents and re-normalise nicotine consumption. The intensity of this messaging at COP11 illustrates how the industry has repositioned itself as a supposed partner in public health, while actively obstructing policies that would meaningfully reduce addiction.

Environmental discourse was also targeted. In the face of mounting scientific evidence about the ecological impacts of cigarette filters, electronic-waste pollution and the broader tobacco supply chain, companies have increasingly embraced greenwashing tactics—sponsoring cleanup campaigns, sustainability pledges and recycling schemes. These gestures were used to argue against regulatory action such as filter bans or liability mechanisms, portraying the industry as part of the solution rather than the source of the problem. The failure of COP11 to reach consensus on banning plastic filters or advancing binding disclosure requirements reflects the effectiveness of these tactics, combined with geopolitical pressure and economic arguments advanced by industry-aligned delegations.

For civil society and public-health experts, COP11 underscored the urgent need to reinforce Article 5.3 protections, strengthen transparency rules, and prevent industry actors and their proxies from influencing policy deliberations. The discussions in Geneva made clear that, while Parties increasingly recognise the environmental, social and economic harms of tobacco, effective progress will depend on insulating decision-making from commercial interference. As the agenda now moves toward COP12—where unresolved issues such as regulation of novel nicotine products, liability frameworks, flavour restrictions and environmental measures will return—ensuring that the industry is excluded from health policy formulation will be essential. Without this safeguard, the gains achieved at COP11 risk being diluted, delayed, or reversed, and the vision of a tobacco-free future will remain out of reach.

Links on tobacco industry interference during the COP11:

https://www.globalissues.org/amp/news/2025/11/13/41610

https://www.euractiv.com/news/inside-big-tobaccos-push-to-sway-the-world-health-organization/

https://www.tobaccotactics.org/article/cop-11-mop-4-interference/

Conclusion – Switzerland at a crossroads

In light of the outcomes of COP11 and the growing influence exerted by the tobacco and nicotine industry on global policy processes, Switzerland finds itself in a particularly delicate position. As the only country in Europe that has still not ratified the WHO FCTC, Switzerland remains outside the collective decision-making framework and is therefore unable to participate as a Party in shaping international standards on youth protection, emerging nicotine products, environmental regulation and industry liability. This situation weakens Switzerland’s credibility in public health, even as the country hosts the WHO, the FCTC Secretariat and the global diplomatic community that met in Geneva for COP11. At a moment when Parties are moving toward stronger environmental measures, greater accountability, and protections against industry interference, Switzerland risks being perceived as a safe harbour for the tobacco industry and its affiliates. The debates and challenges seen at COP11 therefore underline the urgency for Switzerland to align with international norms, ratify the FCTC, and reinforce national legislation—both to protect its population and to demonstrate consistency with its global health commitments.

Luciano Ruggia, Geneva, 22 november 2025