The Warning Shot in Geneva: COP11 and Africa’s Tobacco Reckoning

The eleventh session of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and the Future of Tobacco Control in Africa

The eleventh session of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control took place in Geneva in late November 2025. Delegates from across the world arrived under grey skies and a sense of global unease. Smoking rates were rising in pockets of Africa, new nicotine devices were spreading faster than regulators could track, and the international public health community seemed more fractured than ever.

Amid the hum of delegates settling into their seats, an African public health representative leaned toward a colleague and spoke quietly but with conviction. This meeting is no longer about paperwork. It is about the direction of global health and who gets to set it.

His words captured the tension that hovered over the entire week.

When the discussion turned to Article 18, which addresses the environmental and health impacts of tobacco products throughout their lifecycles, the atmosphere grew increasingly charged. Filters and electronic devices were on the table. Some wanted a sweeping ban. Others warned that such a move could break the systems meant to enforce it.

After hours of wrangling, the final decision invited countries to explore regulatory options but stopped short of endorsing bans or classifying every component as hazardous waste.

It was a fragile compromise.

An African environmental specialist, watching the negotiations, murmured to nearby delegates that everyone agreed tobacco waste was a crisis. Still, a global filter ban would collapse on the African continent, and flexibility is the only realistic path forward.

The outcome gave African governments room to maneuver but also placed a heavy responsibility on domestic systems that already struggled with managing waste of any kind.

Under Article 19, the focus shifted to holding the tobacco industry legally accountable. The adopted decision encouraged Parties to explore civil, criminal, administrative, environmental, and human rights routes. Mandatory global levies did not survive the negotiations, leaving nations free to design their own approaches.

A legal advisor from West Africa reflected afterward that, for the first time, there is clear multilateral support for building the legal tools needed to hold major tobacco companies to account, yet warned that the framework will not litigate on behalf of any country. Africa must strengthen its own legal muscles.

For nations that have long struggled to confront transnational tobacco corporations over unethical marketing or environmental harm, the moment felt like a door slowly opening. But it would only remain open if legal systems were built up and adequately resourced.

Under Article 2.1, which concerns measures that go beyond the Convention and often imply endgame-style ambitions, delegates acknowledged the Expert Group’s report while maintaining the voluntary nature of such measures.

Some voices from the Global South urged restraint. A Southern African delegate said during a quiet conversation that it is impossible to legislate an endgame for countries that have not yet built even the basic cessation services. Ambition must grow in step with reality.

The voluntary framing preserved national agency but also risked inertia where resources remain scarce.

An African diplomat explained the shift to colleagues by observing that the continent cannot confront twenty-first-century tobacco epidemics with tools built for earlier decades. Harm reduction, the diplomat insisted, deserves a real seat at the table.

The debate came to a head during discussions on emerging nicotine products. A proposal spearheaded by Brazil to impose heavy global restrictions met strong resistance, and the talks ended without a consensus. The issue was pushed forward to the next conference.

Throughout the week, many participants could not help comparing this gathering with the more open model of climate change conferences. In Geneva, civil society, journalists, and independent researchers remained largely outside the doors once again. An African civil society leader voiced frustration, asking how decisions could be made for a billion Africans without their voices in the room.

Tobacco control, the leader argued, cannot remain frozen in the early years of the century while global governance has evolved.

For Africa, where farmers, consumers, and public health researchers are often underrepresented, the exclusion carried real consequences.

By the end of the session, African governments faced a demanding set of responsibilities. They would need to regulate disposable vapes and device waste without any guarantee of global financial support. They now had an enhanced pathway under Article 19 to pursue legal action against tobacco firms, but only if their legal systems were strong enough to take on the challenge. The conference reaffirmed national independence in implementation. This offered freedom, but also demanded ownership.

COP11 ended not with sweeping resolutions but with open battles postponed for the future.

As delegates packed their bags, an East African negotiator remarked during a final hallway exchange that if this session were the warning shot, the next would be the reckoning.

The session in Geneva shifted the terrain rather than settling it. Africa emerged not as a passive follower but as a force insisting on evidence-based and context-grounded solutions. As the world looks ahead to Armenia in 2027, one thing has become clear. Africa no longer sits at the margins. It helps shape the table itself.

---

Gabriel Oke is a global health professional and researcher. He has worked on health programs in the U.K., Ireland, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Sweden. His work lies at the intersection of innovation, data, and policy, with a focus on building more responsive and more just health systems.