Category: Explainers

Copwatch’s preliminary journal #FCTCCOP11

loremipsum

The official FCTC journals are published daily on the COP11 website, during COP week. Those are accessible via the COP11 homepage – look for ‘Journals’ in the Documentation section.  The official preliminary Journal was published on 3 November, with the target readership of delegates to FCTC COP.  

Our readership, however, is mostly people who are denied entry to the official proceedings.  So, here is Copwatch’s preliminary journal, with useful information for unofficial COP observers like us.

The conversation you can join  
The TPA is running the Conference of the People (Good COP) event in Geneva, during the week of COP11.  Unlike FCTC COP, Good COP is open to all and the event will be livestreamed on YouTube.  There is an excellent speaker lineup – expect to be exposed to some serious expertise and fascinating discussions  – the full schedule is here: https://www.protectingtaxpayers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Media-Fin-2.0-Updated-agenda-2.pdf

Social media
There is confusion over one of the the official hashtags.  @FCTCofficial and the observer NGO’s have been using #FCTCCOP11 for some time – but the preliminary journal reverses it, to #COP11FCTC.  This is probably a typo, as @FCTCofficial is still using #FCTCCOP11. 

However, whatever the official hashtag, it’s likely that tobacco harm reduction advocates will dominate the COP11 social media discourse – as happens at every FCTC COP. 

COPWATCH live
Next week we will be reporting daily on COP.  We will be publishing a post at the end of each day, to share with you whatever scraps we have managed to learn about what is going on inside the International Conference Centre in Geneva.  You can also follow us on X for updates. 

The COP11 agenda
The Provisional agenda is published on the COP11 website. However, you could just go straight to Clive Bates’ Commentary on the Annotated Agenda, for the agenda plus analysis.  
If you don’t have time to read that, here’s a neat list with the main issues, taken from Clive Bates’ At a Glance: WHO FCTC COP-11 document:

And, several of our own Copwatch articles in recent months have discussed some of the specific agenda items, all our COP11 articles are listed here.  

Live streaming
Some of the COP proceedings will be live streamed, see the asterisked items on the agenda for those.  The livestream will be hosted on the COP11 home page. 

We hope that again the country statements will be live streamed – it’s the only chance we’ll get to hear what the delegates sent by our elected governments will be saying in our name, at FCTC COP.   
In the afternoon on the first day there are two livestreamed events which are not part of the official proceedings (but which are absolutely designed to influence the outcome of those proceedings) – the ministerial round table, which we wrote about here, and this strategic dialogue.

NGO briefings (brainwashings) 
Speaking of propaganda, the favoured NGO’s have been busy putting out briefs designed to deter Parties from agreeing to anything which goes against the official Bloomberg/FCTC Secretariat line.  The Global Alliance for Tobacco Control (GATC) briefs are here, those from the Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control (GGTC) are here. Expect to see those being weaponised further, next week.   Look out too for the Dirty Ashtray awards, where Parties not toeing the anti tobacco harm reduction line will be publicly shamed – those will be announced in GGTC’s daily bulletins.

Further reading
Clive Bates’ FCTC COP-11 – a survival guide for delegates has an excellent collection of resources on FCTC COP11.  These include links to articles and critiques and the  Expert Wall, where statements from independent experts are being collected.  

Jeff Willet, ‘When Dogma Overrides Science: Reflections on the WHO’s Stance on Tobacco Harm Reduction’ – a critique of the recently released ‘WHO position on Tobacco Control and Harm Reduction’.

Jean Francois Etter has authored three must read substack posts on COP11:
1 Time to replace the tobacco control leadership at WHO and FCTC
2 Warning: the FCTC Secretariat is pushing for a new, abusive interpretation of the Framework  Convention for Tobacco Control
3 WHO position on harm reduction : enough is enough 

An article in Frontiers, where scientists call for a toxicity reduction approach to be adopted at FCTC COP:
A science-based product regulation: the time has come to reduce toxic emissions to reduce harm

Two recent briefing papers, from the Global State of Tobacco Harm Reduction,  each translated into 13 languages: 
1 The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) and the Conference of the Parties (COP): an explainer (updated September 2025)
2 Tobacco harm reduction and the FCTC: issues and challenges at COP11

Copwatch’s posts – here’s the page which lists all our COP11 articles: COPWATCH #COP11 articles

That’s all for now – see you again on Monday 

The saga of Articles 9 and 10

loremipsumdolor

Articles 9 and 10 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control cover the regulation of contents and disclosure of tobacco products. This will be discussed at the upcoming COP11 under agenda item 4.4. 

Our recent article ‘FCTC bureaucrats have decided national delegations just get in the way’  describes how the Secretariat is manipulating the process to deny the sovereign Parties the working group they have asked for.  

This article looks at some of the documents associated with this thorny agenda item, seeking enlightenment on why there has been so little progress.

Key documents for COP11 agenda item 4.4

The documents which delegates are invited to consider are a report authored by the Bureau (FCTC/COP/11/8)  and a report authored by WHO (FCTC/COP/11/9). More on those later. 

The Partial Guidelines
Information which is not contained in documents on the COP11 site, but crucial to any informed discussion about Articles 9 and 10 are the partial guidelines.  Those are here:  https://fctc.who.int/resources/publications/m/item/regulation-of-the-contents-of-tobacco-products-and-regulation-of-tobacco-product-disclosures

Keen readers will notice that the guidelines for addictiveness and toxicity have not yet been developed:

From page four ‘Partial guidelines for implementation of Articles 9 and 10’

If developed – and, if developed without reliance on junk science – those guidelines would highlight the significant differences in risk between combusted and toxic oral products and the non combusted and far less harmful oral products. 

Here’s a graph  which illustrates those stark differences in risk:

Murkett R, Rugh M and Ding B. Nicotine products relative risk assessment: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2022, 9:1225 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.26762.2)

According to the regulatory principle of risk proportionality, the less harmful products (snus, nicotine pouches, vapes, heated tobacco products) should be regulated less stringently than the far more harmful combusted and toxic oral products.  However, that would not fit the WHO and the FCTC secretariat’s prohibitionist mindset, which favours harsh regulation for all consumer nicotine products, regardless of the harms. 

Also relevant is this recent paper, where scientists call for toxicity reduction to be adopted at COP11:

A science-based product regulation: the time has come to reduce toxic emissions to reduce harm
Here are some extracts from that (but please do read the full paper, especially if you are a delegate to COP11!):

“Tobacco control has focused on reducing use, with little emphasis on regulating product toxicity. Articles 9 and 10 of the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) offer a mechanism to reduce harm by limiting toxic emissions, but implementation has stalled. A science-based regulatory framework is needed to set emission thresholds for toxicants”

“Articles 9 and 10 of the FCTC regulate content, emissions, and tobacco product disclosures, thereby providing a tool through which harm from tobacco use can be reduced. As the partial guidelines for the implementation of Articles 9 and 10 state, “tobacco product regulation has the potential to contribute to reducing tobacco-attributable disease and premature death by reducing the attractiveness of tobacco products, reducing their addictiveness (or dependence liability) or reducing their overall toxicity” (7). However, the partial guidelines have not provided any guidance with respect to the regulation of harmful constituents and emissions even though this was identified by countries as a priority as far back as the first meeting of the FCTC Conference of the Parties (CoP) in 2006 (8)” 

It would certainly seem common sense for a treaty focussed on the harms from tobacco use to regulate product toxicity.  But this is a huge sticking point for FCTC COP.  And, as we reported in last week’s article, the Secretariat is keen to press on and implement the partial guidelines, even if that means defying the Convention by taking control away from the Parties.  

The roadblock

The current state of stasis is nicely illustrated by this figure contained on page 3 of the WHO’s report to COP11 (FCTC/COP/11/9)

You’ll notice that progress stalled at COP9 and COP10, where no agreement could be reached.  You’ll notice too that those are the COP meetings which saw substantive discussions about the ‘novel and emerging’ products – coincidence, much? 

Now for a bit more on those WHO and Bureau reports…

(FCTC/COP/11/9)Regulation of contents and disclosure of tobacco products
(Articles 9 and 10 of the WHO FCTC) Report by the World Health Organization 

In theory, Articles 9 and 10 only cover tobacco products – and, it’s bad enough that they do, as those include snus and heated tobacco products. WHO is keen to remind COP of this:
“It should be emphasized that the guidance provided in earlier COP decisions, including the recommended regulatory measures, should be applied equally to all forms of tobacco products” (page four). 

To make matters even worse, this report from WHO includes references to WHO publications where they have recommended stringent regulation for all consumer nicotine products, which would include vapes and nicotine pouches.  By implication WHO is suggesting measures for non tobacco containing products – which is not currently mandated by COP. The non exhaustive list of recommended measures includes banning flavours across all products and plain packaging. These would be disastrous for any safer nicotine product.  

As Clive Bates writes, in his excellent ‘Commentary on the Annotated Agenda’ (COP11): 
“the main effect of applying an indiscriminate ban to all products will be to reduce the transition from high-risk to low-risk tobacco products” 

(FCTC/COP/11/8) Regulation of contents and disclosure of tobacco products
(Articles 9 and 10 of the WHO FCTC) Report by the Bureau

The report from the Bureau recommends deferring the establishment or re-establishment of an expert group or working group dedicated to guidelines for implementation of Articles 9 and 10. See our article, ‘FCTC bureaucrats have decided national delegations just get in the way’ for our views on this outrageous denial of the sovereign Parties’ wishes. 

The Bureau also recommends redirecting financial resources to capacity building and technical assistance for Parties for the implementation of Articles 9 and 10 and its unfinished partial guidelines.  Again, this is astonishing – how can the incomplete guidelines be implemented, if they don’t include guidance agreed by the Parties, especially on areas so fundamental to the treaty? 

If agreed, this will give the FCTC Secretariat and the WHO a mandate to support capacity building as they wish – which could include indiscriminate bans or full equalisation of regulation across the risk spectrum. 

In short, it is the WHO and FCTC Secretariat’s distaste for harm reduction which has put the brakes on progress with Articles 9 and 10. We hope that Parties will push back and we will not be surprised if COP11 sees another deadlock on this issue.

The Convention is not a ceiling! #FCTCCOP11

loremipsumdolor

COP11 documents – forward looking measures

Earlier this week a bunch of new documents were added to the COP11 website, related to ‘Forward looking tobacco control measures’. What are ‘forward looking tobacco control measures’? What’s in these documents, and who authored them? And, most importantly, what are the implications for tobacco harm reduction? Read on… 

The Convention is the floor, not a ceiling! 

In the context of the Framework on Tobacco Control, ‘forward looking’ measures are those which go further than what is stipulated in the Convention.  Here is a description from a FCTC ‘technical document’:   

“The Convention is often characterized as the floor for tobacco control efforts, and not a ceiling. This is highlighted in Article 2.1, which provides that “In order to better protect human health, Parties are encouraged to implement measures beyond those required by this Convention and its protocols, and nothing in these instruments shall prevent a Party from imposing stricter requirements…”. This supports the implementation, at the discretion of Parties, of policies and measures that may not be specified in the Convention, but which are geared towards the objective of continually and substantially reducing tobacco use and exposure to tobacco smoke.”

https://fctc.who.int/resources/publications/m/item/forward-looking-tobacco-control-measures

Expert Group on forward-looking tobacco control measures

At COP10 it was decided to establish an expert group on ‘forward-looking’ tobacco control measures, to prepare a report to be submitted to COP11.  The report will be discussed at the COP11 meeting in Geneva in November, at item 4.1 on the Provisional agenda.

The Expert Group members were selected by the Convention Secretariat – so, regular Copwatch readers will not be shocked to learn that they represent NGO’s who are very anti tobacco harm reduction: 

See FCTC/COP/11/5 Report of Expert Group

Documents relating to ‘forward looking’ measures, currently published on the COP11 website

1 Forward-looking tobacco control measures, Report by the Expert Group
(FCTC/COP/11/5 – published on the main documents page)

If you only read one, make it this one.  Here is where you will find the list of ‘forward-looking’ measures, listed in Annex 2 (page11).    It includes the mandate for the Expert Group (page 6)  and a draft decision for COP to adopt, in Annex 3 (page 31). And, there are some sneaky suggestions on how the net could be widened – more on those, later.

2 Forward-looking tobacco control measures (in relation to Article 2.1 of the WHO FCTC)

Information document
(FCTC/COP/11/INF.DOC./1 – published on the Additional documents – Information page)

This document just lists the references for the sources in the Report.

3 The Expert Group has met three times since COP10.  The notes for these meetings are published on the Supplementary Documents section on the COP11 website, here are the links:  

First meeting of the Expert Group on Forward-looking Tobacco Control Measures (in relation to Article 2.1 of the WHO FCTC)

Second meeting of the Expert Group on Forward-looking Tobacco Control Measures (in relation to Article 2.1 of the WHO FCTC)

Third meeting of the Expert Group on Forward-looking Tobacco Control Measures (in relation to Article 2.1 of the WHO FCTC) 

4. Report by the WHO FCTC Knowledge Hub on Legal Challenges to inform the work of the Expert Group on Forward-looking Tobacco Control Measures – posted on the Supplementary Documents page

A background paper, from the McCabe Centre for Law and Cancer, written in its capacity as the WHO FCTC Knowledge Hub on Legal Challenges.  As consumers, we are not particularly interested in this one – but please get in touch if you have read it and you think there’s anything in there which we need to know about.

5. Missing – ‘compilation of information briefs on forward-looking tobacco control measures’

This document is referred to in the report but has yet to appear.  However, the measures are all listed in Annex 2, in the Expert Group’s report (see above).

UPDATE, 8 October: The document with the compilation of information briefs (175 pages long) has now been added to the COP11 website, to the Supplementary information page: Compilation of information briefs on forward-looking tobacco control measures developed by the experts

What are the implications for tobacco harm reduction? 

The forward looking measures cover tobacco products.  However, there is no distinction between the products which cause harm (smoked products) and those which are used to reduce harm – notably snus and heated tobacco products.  In addition, there are several suggestions in the Expert Group’s report for extending the measures to cover non tobacco containing nicotine products – we have posted those below. 

This week we will be publishing another article on the ‘forward lookers’, with more analysis of the implications for tobacco harm reduction – do keep an eye out for that.

Annex! Not *just* tobacco products – the Expert Group’s  suggestions for widening the net

All taken from Forward-looking tobacco control measures, Report by the Expert Group

“The present report focuses on tobacco products as defined by the WHO FCTC, in line with the mandate of the Expert Group. Parties may wish to adopt and apply the FLMs to both tobacco and nicotine products, depending on their domestic definitions, and approach to regulation, of those products.” (page 6)

“Effective, systematic monitoring and enforcement are required, particularly as affected cohorts grow older. The risk of product shifting, particularly among young people, could be mitigated by ensuring that sales of all tobacco and nicotine products are subject to the policy.” (page 16)

“With the right political will, and with expert and careful development and implementation of the model, any barriers to implementation could probably be overcome. A key consideration is that the implementation of this model, if applied to tobacco products only, could lead to tobacco users switching to nicotine products such as electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and nicotine pouches. This would mean that their nicotine addiction would be maintained, and the tobacco industry would continue to profit from this addiction, while users face the health, social and economic consequences of their continued addiction.” (page 22)

“As nicotine is a powerfully addictive substance, a regulatory policy that would reduce the nicotine levels in tobacco products could lead to substantial public health benefits from decreases in initiation that would reduce the demand for tobacco and increases in cessation. If implemented across all tobacco products (as well as being considered for nicotine products), this FLM would increase the public health benefits.” (page 24)

“Parties may also consider guiding principles for regulation of flavouring agents and other additives: 1) legislation needs to be comprehensive, to minimize the potential for loopholes; 2) legislation needs to be flexible enough to adapt to developments and for changes to be made easily; and 3) to the extent possible, legislation should apply across all tobacco products (and nicotine and related products), to avoid consumer switching and thus undermining of the impact of the policy.” (page 26)

#COP11 documents

loremipsumdolor

COP11 creeps closer

The eleventh session of the Conference of the Parties (COP11) to the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) will be held in Geneva from 17 to 22 November 2025. Once again Copwatch will be monitoring the official channels, in our self appointed mission to demystify the workings of the FCTC Conference of the Parties (COP). Will this be the COP where FCTC drags itself into the 21st century, and stops denying harm reduction for people who smoke? Copwatch is sorry to report that the signs aren’t good.    

The workings of FCTC COP can seem mystifying, so we would like to take this opportunity to point you towards some of the explainers on this site. The articles are not recent but that’s ok, because one of the secrets of FCTC COP is that little ever happens. A quick read of these should get you up to speed: 

What is FCTC COP?

What’s wrong with FCTC COP?

Glossary 

The COP11  documents 

A few of the documents for November are already up on the COP11 website. Documents will be added up to 60 days before the meeting opens, although it is not unheard of for documents to appear after that deadline. This page is where the documents should appear. (COP documents sometimes get posted in odd places or get moved, but we do our best to keep track.)  

The Provisional Agenda
Of the documents already posted, the Provisional agenda is the most interesting. Agenda item 4.5 signals that the FCTC Secretariat is doubling down on their opposition to harm reduction for smoking:

Copwatch has some thoughts on this…

  • Why are there quote marks around the phrase harm reduction, in 4.5? Does harm reduction only exist in marketing campaigns – what about the harm reduction experience of the millions of us who used to smoke?
  • Why is there no reference to the FCTC’s Article 1(d), which explicitly states that harm reduction is a pillar of tobacco control?   
  • Instead, Article 5.2(b) and 5.3 are referred to – signalling that the Secretariat wishes Parties to discuss harm reduction as a threat – not an opportunity – for tobacco control. Here is the relevant part of Article 5: 

From Article 5, Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, 2003

From this we infer that the Secretariat is hell bent on not only ignoring the lived experiences of millions of consumers, but also ignoring the multiple calls from countries at COP10 for harm reduction to be recognized as a pillar of tobacco control. It seems that the Secretariat has responded to these calls by including harm reduction on the agenda, but to be considered as a threat. We wonder how some of the sovereign parties will view that, during the discussions at COP11. 

A shame that we have no chance of getting admitted to observe those proceedings – observer status to FCTC COP has never yet been granted to any group representing people who smoke or those who use safer nicotine products to stop.

#COP10 documents guide: FCTC/COP/10/7

loremipsum

The one where the WHO denies quitting smoking is quitting smoking, and other daydreaming

In the first Copwatch guide to documents being provided to ‘educate’ national delegations at the COP10 conference in November, let us look at FCTC/COP/10/7, published on 1st August.

This is the third report on articles 9 and 10 ((Regulation of contents and disclosure of tobacco products, including waterpipe, smokeless tobacco and heated tobacco products). You can read the document on the FCTC website to confirm our quotations below.

The first thing Copwatch noticed was how many (or, more accurately, how few) mentions there were of adults within the text of its 25 pages. For the good of our readers, we painstakingly counted them so you don’t have to. Fortunately, it did not take long as there were only two. Yes, two.

Once in terms of a target to reduce “adult smoking” by 2025 (page 2), which you would expect in a report preamble of this nature. The second was in a derogatory way by describing heated tobacco being used by “young adults” (page 10). By contrast, word searching “children” returns 23 results, “adolescents” 24, and “youth” 15.

There must be around 10 times as many adults on the planet as minors, but the WHO either does not notice them or considers them irrelevant. This could explain why the document is devoid of any references which suggest lower risk nicotine products are helping the 100 million+ adults who use them to quit smoking, which they undoubtedly are.

The WHO denies this, of course, because the authors of FCTC/COP/10/7 appear intent on redefining what quitting smoking is, as stated on page 8.

“Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, there is a critical need across the studies to uniformly define ‘cessation’, and whether a person who has switched from conventional cigarettes to ongoing use of ENDS [vapes] can be considered to have successfully “quit “.”

The document also denies that people who smoke are switching to vaping products at all, also on page 8.

“Overall, the certainty of the evidence across the studies and reviews is often rated as ”low” or “insufficient”.

It will not surprise you that this bang up-to-date WHO report does not cite the latest evidence from Cochrane, the global gold standard of evidence reviews, from November, which found “high certainty evidence that nicotine e-cigarettes are more effective than traditional nicotine-replacement therapy (NRT) in helping people quit smoking.”

FCTC/COP/10/7 also contains a section on nicotine pouches (page 16), which do not produce smoke and are not made from tobacco. The FCTC objective states clearly in Article 3 that its purpose is to reduce consequences and prevalence of “tobacco use and exposure to tobacco smoke” so this focus on pouches is mission creep unwarranted by the terms of the WHO’s own treaty.

The WHO worries that pouches “have attractive properties, such as appealing flavours, and can be used discretely (sic) without the stigma of smoking”. It reports that its TobReg study group has “made a number of recommendations to policy makers and all other interested parties” which can be found “in Chapter 4 and Chapter 7 (Overall Recommendations) of TobReg’s Ninth report.”

Do not Google for that, though, as it has been published for all “interested parties” except the public who pay for the WHO through our taxes. A secret document, about a product which is not covered by the FCTC treaty, being shared with people who, if they were doing their job correctly, should be telling the WHO that nicotine pouches are none of their business at COP10. (UPDATE: Since publishing our article the TobReg Ninth report was published, on 23.08.23, download from here.)

This is not the only secret report referenced in FCTC/COP/10/7. There is another described as “supplementary information to this report” which discusses flavours in nicotine pouches and how they are advertised. It is available on the WHO FCTC website. By available, they mean available to them, not the likes of us.

It apparently notes that pouches come in “a wide variety of sweet and fruity flavours”, “amplify the visibility of pouch promotion”, “sponsor a wide variety of events” and offer “free or heavily discounted samples.” Otherwise known as companies producing safer nicotine products consumers might like and making them aware they exist.

The WHO is also not happy about pouch manufacturers claiming that their products offer “freedom to use anywhere”, are “innovative/modern/high tech, stealthy/discrete (sic) to use”, and benefit users for “no smell/teeth stains, and as a means of smoking cessation.” All of which is true, but perhaps the WHO has forgotten the meaning of truth at the same time as it forgot the definition of smoke and quitting smoking.

The report next turns its guns on single use vapes (page 17), for which it has engineered a new acronym, D-ENDS. It says that they “were introduced around 2018–2019 and began circulating on global markets” which will come as a revelation for those who were using disposable products from 2007 before refillable tanks were invented up to 2013 when the first heavily commercial disposable was marketed while open systems made by independent producers were still in their infancy

Still, FCTC/COP/10/7 helpfully reports that “a background paper on the characteristics, marketing, challenges of D-ENDS, as well as the regulatory considerations” has been produced “to provide authoritative guidance to its Member States.” That has not been published either.

Lastly, the document takes aim at flavours (page 18). “Flavours are often cited as the primary reason for youth to try a tobacco or nicotine product”, it boldly claims. Sadly, this is not true, either. Action on Smoking and Health in the UK released a report on August 3rd to correct myths about vaping. It was unequivocal that the evidence does not support flavours as a “primary reason” for children to take up vaping.

            The main reason children vape is because they like the flavours: NO

The main reason children give for vaping is ‘to give it a try’, cited by a quarter (26%) of those who have smoked tobacco and more than a half (54%) of those who have never smoked. The next most common reason is because ‘other people use them, so I join in’, in other words peer pressure, cited by 21% of ever smokers and 18% of never smokers. Liking the flavours comes third on the list, cited by 16%of ever smokers and 12% of never smokers as their reason for trying vaping.

It is not true in the USA either. The latest national survey data shows flavours are way down the list, just below the ability to do tricks.

Copwatch has failed to find any evidence that flavours are “the primary reason” for youth to try a nicotine product anywhere in the world.

The organization the WHO cites for its wildly inaccurate claim is STOP, a heavily Bloomberg-funded production. The three articles it refers to are all about flavours in combustible tobacco and present no evidence whatsoever that flavours are a “primary reason” for youth to try non-combustible nicotine products.

The FCTC/COP/10/7 report concludes by asking delegates to “note this report and to provide further guidance.” May we suggest that Parties to the treaty note the report and invite the WHO to come back with something which could be categorised in libraries as non-fiction?

Key milestones for COP10

loremipsumdolor

The Tenth session of the Conference of the Parties (COP10) to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) will be held in Panama from 20 – 25 November.

Below we provide a graphic of the key milestones leading up to COP10, and opportunities for engagement.

A note on the deferred agenda items: Due to COP9 being held virtually, it was decided that substantive discussions of and decisions on several items on the agenda would be deferred until COP10. Two of the items which were deferred were item 4.1; “Implementation of Articles 9 and 10 of the WHO FCTC (Regulation of contents and disclosure of tobacco products: reports by the expert group, and by WHO and the Convention Secretariat),and item 4.2; “Novel and emerging tobacco products”.

Access the pdf version here.

What do we know about #COP9?

loremipsum

#COP9  #COP9FCTC  #COP9news #THRworks

Where and when?
FCTC’s Ninth Conference of Parties (COP 9) will be held from 8-13 November 2021, following a postponement from 2020 due to COVID-19.  

This COP will be virtual, with the FCTC website noting that “Special Procedures need to be adopted so that the Ninth Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP9) to the WHO FCTC can pursue its work in a virtual format”.  COP involves a lot of participants from all over the world, so this is likely to be difficult to manage.  

Where can we watch it? 
We can’t. In stark contrast to the United Nations COP on climate change, held in the UK this week, FCTC’s COP is shrouded in secrecy. Most of the public will be unaware that COP9 will be taking place or even what it is, COP9 discussions will not be broadcast online and the public are barred from even observing. It will be interesting to see if this secrecy can be maintained this time, given the virtual format.  See our
https://copwatch.info/whats-wrong-with-fctc-cop/ article for a transparency comparison between the United Nations COP on climate change and FCTC’s COP.

Exclusion of key stakeholders
In the last decade no consumer group representing smokers or users of safer nicotine products has been admitted as an observer to FCTC’s COP.   Regrettably, it looks as though consumers will stay unrepresented at COP9 too, as the Bureau has recommended that THR consumer groups INNCO and NNA UK applications for observer status are rejected.  The recently published preliminary journal suggests that these recommendations will be voted on by the Parties at item 2 in the first plenary meeting on 8 November, so there is still hope that the Parties will do the right thing. 

From COP4 onwards, the public gallery has been closed in the opening session, excluding the media and the public.  For COP9, there has been no option for the public to register for the event but there is a registration form for accredited media, see: https://fctc.who.int/who-fctc/governance/conference-of-the-parties/ninth-session-of-the-conference-of-the-parties

What will be discussed? 
“Due to the virtual nature of the meetings” the Secretariat has recommended that several issues are deferred for discussion until COP10, in two years time.  However, this is only a recommendation and only one party would need to ask for discussion at COP9, for that discussion to take place.   

All the published COP9 papers, including the provisional agenda, can be found on this page:
https://fctc.who.int/who-fctc/governance/conference-of-the-parties/ninth-session-of-the-conference-of-the-parties/main-documents

Some of the reports relating to tobacco harm reduction betray a heavy bias against safer alternatives to smoking.  When we find comprehensive critiques of those we will share them on this site.   
UPDATE 7.11.21 Clive Bates’ excellent Prohibitionists at work: how the WHO damages public health through hostility to tobacco harm reduction includes some discussion about papers for COP9, under: 4.2 Papers to support COP meetings.

How can we follow COP9?
COPWATCH will be issuing COPLIVE articles while COP is on, so please read and share those. Remember to use the official hashtags:  #COP9 and #COP9FCTC when sharing.

sCOPe is another COP9 related consumer initiative, they will be streaming while COP is on so please watch and share their activities too.  Subscribe here to watch the sCOPe live stream. 

The Preliminary Journal – 27 October 2021 includes the information that “The programme and timetable of meetings will appear in the Journal of the Conference, which will be issued on a daily basis”. The Journal also includes a “tentatively envisaged” working schedule for day one – which will be “subject to the decision of the Conference”.

The Framework Convention Alliance will be distributing a daily bulletin, more on those here.

Engaging with @FCTCofficial and #COP9 on social media
Use official FCTC hashtags – such as #COP9 and #COP9FCTC –  when discussing COP on social media, find those in the COP9 MOP2 communications toolkit and the Preliminary journal.

Consumers are also likely to be using #THRworks, #sCOPe21, #Voice4Choice, #Commit2Switch

Further reading on this site: 

Glossary 

What is FCTC COP? 

What’s wrong with FCTC COP?

Other links:

FCTC’s COP9 page

Guide for Participants COP9 & MOP2

COP Preliminary Journal – 27 October 2021

FCA COP/MOP Bulletin

THR consumer groups who applied for Observer status at COP9
International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations (INNCO)

New Nicotine Alliance UK 

Consumer live streaming event during COP9:
sCOPe YouTube 

Some of the recent articles on COP9: 
WHO busted for manipulating key tobacco conference

Good COP Distracts From Bad COP – Concerns Grow

To the World Health Organization (WHO) and delegates of the Ninth Conference of Parties (COP9) regarding the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC)

100 experts speak up in favour of harm reduction

COP 9 Tabac : l’OMS interdit tout débat sur ses positions anti-vape

A Tale of Two COPs

Three possible reasons for WHO decision to keep alternatives out of tobacco talks

What’s wrong with FCTC COP?

loremipsumdolor

COP9 #THRworks

Here is a brief list of what we think needs to change. What do you think? Let us know in the comments. Visit the links at the end to explore these issues in more detail. See our Glossary for short explanations of the acronyms.

The WHO approach to tobacco control is not working

  • There are still 1.1 billion smokers worldwide, the same number as in 2000.
  • FCTC methods are failing and, so long as harm reduction is denied to smokers, FCTC’s methods will continue to fail.
Read More »

What is FCTC COP?

loremipsum

#COP9 #THRworks

For an explanation of acronyms and terms please see our glossary here.

The Treaty

The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) is the first international treaty negotiated under the auspices of WHO. It was adopted by the World Health Assembly on 21 May 2003 and entered into force on 27 February 2005. It has since become one of the most rapidly and widely embraced treaties in United Nations history.

The objective of the FCTC is “to protect present and future generations from the devastating health, social, environmental and economic consequences of tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke”.

The treaty describes “tobacco control” as “a range of supply, demand and harm reduction strategies that aim to improve the health of a population by eliminating or reducing their consumption of tobacco products and exposure to tobacco smoke”.

The FCTC framework includes a range of tobacco control measures to reduce tobacco demand (Articles 6-14) and tobacco supply (Articles 15-17), concerning the production, sale, distribution, advertisement and taxation of tobacco products. Although harm reduction is recognised in the treaty as a tobacco control approach, thus far the COP has not provided any clarity or guidance on specific harm reduction strategies.

Link to download the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Treaty: https://fctc.who.int/who-fctc/overview

Full list of signatories and date of ratification or accession to the FCTC: https://www.who.int/fctc/cop/en/

Out of the 193 Member States of the WHO that participated in the FCTC negotiation, 182 countries have either ratified or acceded to the convention, becoming “parties” to the WHO FCTC. The parties make up the Conference of the Parties (COP), which is the governing body of the WHO FCTC.

Note that some countries have signed the convention but not ratified (e.g. USA and Switzerland). This indicates that they participated in the negotiation of the FCTC and agree to its contents but have not taken the national legal step of constitutional ratification that is unique to every country. 

Currently, there are 15 “non-party” states (countries that are Members of the UN and may have participated in its negotiation but did not sign the FCTC during its year-long open period, or who have only signed but not ratified the FCTC).

  • Six have signed but not ratified (Argentina, Cuba, Haiti, Morocco, Switzerland, the United States). These countries have the option to ratify the FCTC.
  • Nine have not signed (Andorra, Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Indonesia, Liechtenstein, Malawi, Monaco, Somalia). These countries cannot ratify the FCTC, but instead only have the option to accede to the FCTC.

Both signing and ratifying, or acceding, have the same legal effect and both routes result in the country becoming a Party.

Read More »