By Joke Kujenya
CORPORATE INFLUENCE is poised to challenge the 11th Conference of the Parties (COP11) to the World Health Organisation (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) in Geneva, as Big Tobacco sets its sights on inter-governmental negotiations coinciding with the treaty’s 20th anniversary.
Experts warn that without rigorous enforcement of accountability measures, decades of public health progress, from graphic health warnings to national tobacco legislation, could be undermined before policies are fully implemented.
The treaty’s backbone, Article 5.3, is actually designed precisely to prevent the industry from shaping policy, the experts reveal.
Professor Judith Mackay, WHO Senior Policy Advisor and Special Advisor to the Global Centre for Good Governance in Tobacco Control (GGTC), stressed that governments must issue directives to the tobacco industry without letting the sector influence policy formation.
“If a government introduces new tobacco pack warnings, they must tell the industry what to do. But in terms of formulating the policy, the industry is completely out of it,” she said.
Legal accountability under Article 19 also offers an additional line of defence.
Daniel Dorado Torres, Tobacco Campaign Director at Corporate Accountability, highlighted that civil, criminal, and administrative liability measures enable countries to challenge the tobacco industry and hold it responsible for harm.
“Over the past 20 years, governments have developed tools to revisit legislation and ensure the industry cannot evade responsibility.
The treaty provides both guidance and legal frameworks to defend public health before profits,” he said.
Alongside Article 5.3, Article 19 empowers countries to pursue legal liability against tobacco companies through civil, criminal, administrative, or other mechanisms.
Daniel Dorado Torres, Tobacco Campaign Director at Corporate Accountability, highlighted that the treaty equips governments with powerful legal tools.
“Over the past 20 years, countries have developed several mechanisms to hold the industry accountable,” he said.
“One key instrument is the Article 19 Civil Liability Toolkit. The WHO FCTC Secretariat also maintains an expert database so that Parties can receive guidance on liability issues. These tools enable governments to challenge industry abuses and defend public health before profits.”
Historical litigation also demonstrates the potency of these provisions.
Uruguay, for instance, successfully resisted a legal challenge from Philip Morris International over its stringent packaging regulations.
Dr Mackay described the victory as proof that the industry is “what in China we would call ‘paper tigers.’ Public health can win when governments enforce the treaty’s safeguards.”
Also, Australia provides another example of resilience in the face of aggressive industry tactics. When the country introduced plain packaging in 2011, it faced three separate legal challenges: constitutional, bilateral trade-related, and World Trade Organization disputes.
Despite this, the government upheld public health protections, illustrating the high stakes and complexity of defending evidence-based policies.
Nepal’s experience reflects similar determination. The country’s comprehensive tobacco control law, enacted in 2010 with 75% graphic health warnings and a full advertising ban, faced nearly three years of litigation before it could be implemented in 2013.
By 2015, the government sought to expand pictorial warnings to 90%, but it took seven years of legal battles before the new regulations were fully enforced in 2022.
In 2025, Nepal increased warnings to 100% on both sides of tobacco packs — the largest in the world, yet implementation is still pending due to ongoing lawsuits.
Dr Tara Singh Bam of Vital Strategies described these challenges as “an intense fight to protect public health against an industry that employs every possible tactic to delay or block regulations.”
The challenges faced by governments in tobacco control are mirrored in other sectors. Akinbode Matthew Oluwafemi, Executive Director of Corporate Accountability and Public Participation Africa (CAPPA), noted that the same tactics used by Big Tobacco are employed by industries like Big Oil.
“They manipulate political and legislative processes, avoid liability, and use the same playbook to block intergovernmental action,” he said.
“Delegates also attend global negotiations only to find industry representatives, either directly or by proxy, at the table. Strong policies are needed to prevent abusive corporations from capturing public policy.”
Rachel Rose Jackson, Director of Climate Research & Policy at Corporate Accountability in the United States, further highlighted the strategic connection between health and climate action. She observed that industries blocking climate action are the same actors undermining public health treaties.
“Those obstructing progress on the UNFCCC and the FCTC are using identical deceptive tactics to delay, distract, or defeat necessary action,” Jackson said.
“Millions of lives and livelihoods are at stake, and solutions in accountability and liability overlap across these global frameworks.”
The COP11 agenda will reportedly focus on strengthening the treaty’s legal and procedural architecture. Parties are expected to review recommendations with more than 30 strategies to expand civil, criminal, administrative, and human rights-based liability against the tobacco industry.
Furthermore, the experts said they believe these strategies are critical not only for defending past achievements but also for advancing policy innovation in the next decade.
Beyond legal accountability, COP11 will also explore the environmental consequences of tobacco cultivation and product waste, highlighting the intersection of health and sustainability.
Delegates noted they will examine how production processes, cigarette filters, and microplastics from tobacco products contribute to environmental degradation.
Integrating these discussions into the treaty framework reflects the growing recognition that public health and environmental stewardship are inseparable.
Civil society participation at COP11 is expected to play a decisive role in enforcing transparency.
Inspired by FCTC Article 5.3, non-governmental participants are now required to disclose funding sources and confirm alignment with treaty objectives, a milestone that mirrors broader demands for accountability in intergovernmental negotiations.
Emerging Data In Two Decades
Data emerging from the treaty’s implementation illustrate both progress and gaps.
Over the last 20 years, 183 countries, including the European Union (EU), have ratified the FCTC, establishing a global network of shared commitments, as revealed at the sessions.
Governments have implemented measures ranging from graphic health warnings to advertising bans, protecting millions of people worldwide.
Yet, persistent interference by the tobacco industry demonstrates that ratification alone is insufficient; rigorous enforcement, legal follow-through, and civil society oversight remain indispensable.
What The COP11 Stands For
Experts noted that the COP11 thus represents both a symbolic and practical test.
According to them, the 20-year milestone offers a moment to reflect on achievements which features victories in courtrooms, expanded pictorial warnings, and the establishment of global safeguards.
But the COP11 also affirms the enduring challenge of defending public health from powerful industry actors determined to subvert policy.
Experts thus emphasise that the ability of governments to apply Article 5.3 safeguards, leverage Article 19 liability measures, and coordinate with civil society will determine the trajectory of global tobacco control for decades.
They also disclosed that success at COP11 could solidify legal precedents, protect populations, and provide a model for defending public interest in other sectors where corporate influence threatens health, environmental, or social outcomes.
