Tobacco Control from Geneva to Heidelberg

In November 2025, the States Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) met at the Conference of the Parties COP11 in Geneva to continue discussing the measures of the global health agreement. Two weeks later, health and addiction experts met to exchange ideas at the 23rd German Conference on Tobacco Control in Heidelberg. Both conferences addressed important issues for the future: youth participation, environment and climate impact, financing tobacco control, the interference of the tobacco industry, and international cooperation. We take a look at these topics.

Adolsecents and young adults

At the COP11 in Geneva, youth organizations representing over 1.5 million young people took part in the negotiations once again. As part of civil society, they organised their own events, shared their experiences and insights, spoke on stage at a public plenary session, made strong, informed contributions, and delivered an impressive closing speech.

„We speak today as representatives of youth, the generation most aggressively targeted by the industry, yet one of the most powerful forces pushing back. Young people worldwide face tactics designed to create lifelong addiction. But youth are not just targets, we are experts, advocates, and innovators driving tobacco control.“

WHO FCTC COP11, Closing Session, Item 9

In order to successfully implement tobacco control measures, the meaningful participation of children, adolescents and young adults is more important than ever. The youth delegation therefore called for their participation in this process to be firmly established and funded, and for this participation to extend beyond COP negotiations. The future of the convention depends on it.

Environment and climate

The debates about the environment and climate impact of tobacco and nicotine products also point to the future. Under Article 18 of the WHO FCTC, the Parties have committed themselves to reducing these impacts and protecting the environment. Essentially, this includes not only improving production conditions, but also reducing the range of products on offer.

In the run-up to the COP11 conference, reports in Germany initially focused selectively on the measure that had the greatest potential to cause outrage: calls for a ban of filters and filter cigarettes. In a radio interview, we reiterated the negative environmental impact of cigarette butts and explained that these call were expert proposals for measures to be discussed at the COP11 conference.

The States Parties finally agreed that they should intensify their efforts to protect the environment with regard to tobacco products. For example, states could provide more information about the environmental damage caused by tobacco products. They could assess tobacco waste more thoroughly on the basis of its toxic properties and conduct more research on this topic. And they could expose greenwashing by the tobacco industry more clearly.

Financing tobacco control

However, the conference’s decisions are worth barely more than a piece of paper if the financial resources to take action are insufficient – that’s a commonplace. Nevertheless, in the current report on the implementation of the global health treaty, more than two-thirds of the reporting countries indicate a lack of financial resources as major constraint.

At the end of the conference, the negotiators adopted an urgent call to the States Parties to use regular increases in tobacco taxes (WHO FCTC Art. 6) for sustainable financing of tobacco control and to provide more funds at the international level (WHO FCTC Art. 26.3) to support other countries implementing tobacco control measures.

In Germany, the share of tobacco tax in the price of cigarettes has fallen over the last 20 years.¹. So, now it’s time to act, because regular, significant increases in tobacco taxes could not only encourage people to reduce their tobacco use, but also generate financial resources for a comprehensive tobacco control policy.

However, attempts to raise tobacco taxes to a level that would have an impact on public health have failed in recent years. This was not least due to the tobacco industry and its lobby groups still having close ties to politics.

Tobacco industry interference

Globally, tobacco industry interference is considered a major obstacle to achieving comprehensive tobacco control. In the run-up to the COP11 negotiations, half of all reporting States Parties called this an important barrier. In autumn, the WHO warned against media campaigns by the tobacco lobby and urged States Parties to exercise particular caution. Because the interests of the tobacco industry are in irreconcilable conflict with the goals of the global health treaty. Therefore, the States Parties have committed themselves in Article 5.3 to protecting their public health policy from interference by the tobacco industry.

In the current Global Tobacco Industry Interference Index, Germany ranks a rather ingloriuos 68th out of 100 countries. This finding was also clearly evident at the 23rd German Conference on Tobacco Control (DKT) in Heidelberg in December. At the conference, the Tobacco Lobby Index for Germany was presented and numerous speakers discussed the various strategies employed by the tobacco industry to secure and increase its profits, including the tobacco lobby’s involvement in a commission councelling the German Single-Use Plastics Fund.²

Tobacco control in tobacco-growing countries

At the German conference, we hosted a symposium with experts from the Global South. We explored the question of how and whether tobacco control can be successfully implemented in tobacco-growing countries where agriculture, the economy and public health might be competing interests. Bangladesh and Zambia both have ratified the WHO FCTC and supply Germany with raw tobacco. They have substantial foreign debts to repay and need foreign currency to do so, which is generated in part by the export of tobacco leaf.

Iqbal Masud (Dhaka Ahsania Mission) reported from Bangladesh that the interim government has limited ability to counter the influence of the tobacco industry. In fact, the tax on tobacco exports, which was a source of government revenue, has been abolished. The goal of a Tobacco-free Bangladesh 2040 is still officially being pursued, but necessary political decisions, such as increasing tobacco taxes or regulating electronic nicotine products, are being delayed.

Brenda Chitindi (Tobacco-Free Association of Zambia) used various examples to show how tobacco control legislation in Zambia has been stalled for about 15 years while being pushed back and forth between the ministries involved. The tobacco industry has identified this country as an essential pillar for its business in southern Africa. Several plants for tobacco processing and cigarette manufacturing have been opened with the government’s blessing. And tobacco production is currently rising significantly. In addition, a plant in Zambia is to supply fertilisers for tobacco cultivation in the so-called T5. T5 – this is the name given by the tobacco industry to five tobacco-growing countries in southern Africa: Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Vigilance and solidarity for tobacco control

So what can be done when the tobacco and nicotine industry comes up with old strategies in new guises and influences political decision-makers through its lobbying activities?

We want to keep a close eye on the practices of the tobacco and nicotine industry and raise greater public awareness.

We want to empower children and young people to discover for themselves the methods used to pressure them into using tobacco and nicotine products and how they can protect themselves against these tactics.

We want to work in solidarity with our partners in the Global South in their activities for a tobacco-free world and support them with publicity.

1. German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ) 2025: Tabakatlas Deutschland. P. 117
2. In Germany, tobacco companies have to pay a levy on cigarette filters. The commission to the Single-Use Plastics Fund is councelling on the levy’s amount.