Everything About Us, Without Us: How COP11 Silences Consumers – Part 2

Closed doors at a public‑health conference

At COP11, national delegations will negotiate measures that could reshape the nicotine landscape for billions of people. Yet the public, the people who smoke or use safer nicotine products, is essentially locked out. The FCTC secretariat operates under rules that allow limited observer status for nongovernmental organisations, but as of 2025, only 26 NGOs have been accredited, and none represent consumers who smoke or have switched to safer products. Comparable United Nations conferences (such as climate‑change COPs) host thousands of NGOs, but the FCTC has never granted observer status to consumer advocacy groups.

The registration process for COP11 exemplifies the barriers that exist. According to advocates, members of the public who wished to attend were required to provide their passport details, photos, a formal letter of intent, and a comprehensive curriculum vitae. The complicated system opened quietly and closed again on 18 September 2025, long before most people realised it existed. The Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (CAPHRA) criticised this as an “insane system” designed to exclude dissenting voices. Nancy Loucas, CAPHRA’s executive coordinator, pointed out that the FCTC uses Article 5.3, intended to protect policymaking from tobacco‑industry interference, to justify excluding independent consumer groups and scientists who have no industry ties.

A contradiction within the FCTC

The exclusion of consumer voices is not only undemocratic; it also contradicts the FCTC’s own text. The preamble acknowledges “the special contribution of nongovernmental organisations and other members of civil society, including youth, environmental and consumer groups” to tobacco‑control efforts. Article 1(d) defines tobacco control as including harm reduction strategies. Yet the secretariat’s agenda cites Articles 5.2(b) and 5.3, which address the establishment of focal points and protection from industry interference, while sidelining harm reduction.

This framing matters because it influences which voices are heard. By labelling harm reduction as a tobacco‑industry narrative, the FCTC implicitly delegitimises the experiences of former smokers who have used vaping, snus or nicotine pouches to quit. CAPHRA notes that when global climate negotiations take place, thousands of NGOs, including activists and community groups, are welcomed as observers. The FCTC’s restrictive approach is therefore a policy choice, not a necessity.

Why consumer voices are essential

Excluding the people most affected by tobacco policies leads to one‑sided decisions. Consumer advocates provide insights that policymakers cannot obtain from data alone:

• Lived experience – Current and former smokers can explain which policies help them quit and which drive them back to smoking. For example, restrictive vape flavour bans often push users back to cigarettes, while access to appealing, safer products makes cessation more likely.
• Pragmatism over ideology – Most smokers are already aware of the health risks. They need practical tools, not moral lectures. Evidence shows that people are more likely to quit when they can switch to satisfying alternatives.
• Human rights – Tobacco control should enhance public health without infringing on individual rights. The right to access safer products and accurate information is part of the right to the highest attainable standard of health, recognised in international law.
  

As consumer advocates often say, nothing for us, without us. Policies made behind closed doors risk harming the very people they are supposed to protect. In our final article, we will present evidence that harm-reduction products save lives and why policies that exclude them are not only paternalistic but also potentially dangerous.