The World Health Organization (WHO) is facing calls to reconsider its costly 11th Conference of the Parties (COP11) to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) due to funding constraints and concerns over its priorities, according to harm reduction advocates.
Harm reduction advocates such as the Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (CAPHRA) said the WHO should redirect resources from the expensive November 2025 meeting in Geneva to address more pressing global health crises instead of attacking tobacco harm reduction.
They cite the organization's reliance on private funding, particularly from Bloomberg Philanthropies, and the withdrawal of major donors like the United States as reasons for a shift in focus.
They said the WHO’s focus on tobacco control has diverted funds from its mandate to promote health and safety and aid the vulnerable.
COP11, scheduled for Nov. 17 to 22, 2025 at the Geneva International Conference Centre in Switzerland, is expected to cost the WHO millions of dollars. The United States withdrew its WHO membership, citing the organization’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, which originated in Wuhan, China, and other global health crises, its failure to adopt reforms and its inability to demonstrate independence from political influence.
The WHO faces financial strain following the US withdrawal, and other donors are scaling back contributions. This may allow private donors to increase their influence on the WHO and countries that accept its health policies.
Critics argue that the FCTC’s stance on tobacco harm reduction is overly dismissive, ignoring scientific evidence supporting less harmful nicotine alternatives. The FCTC has been accused of lacking transparency, further eroding trust among member states.
As these concerns gain traction, the FCTC’s ability to lead global tobacco and nicotine control is being questioned. Harm reduction advocates said parties to the FCTC should guard against anti-scientific approaches that the WHO FCTC may promote.
In 2021, the Philippine House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability held a hearing on the regulation of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products and found that the Food and Drug Administration received grants from Bloomberg Philanthropies to support policy development.
The scrutiny has extended to the WHO FCTC, which faces similar criticism regarding political influence by special interest groups with evidence of interference in the domestic policies of the Philippines, India, Pakistan and Vietnam.
The US withdrawal also prompted countries including Italy, Argentina and Hungary to reconsider their affiliations with the global health body.
The departures stem from concerns about the WHO’s impartiality and political influence. Critics argue these issues undermine the WHO’s ability to manage global health crises, leading to a loss of confidence among member states.
Following the US withdrawal, the WHO has become increasingly dependent on private funding, particularly from Bloomberg Philanthropies, which has drawn criticism from countries including the Philippines for alleged meddling in local policies.
Former Rep. Jericho Nograles said foreign private organizations have tried to influence Philippine national policies through grants to government agencies, which he called “an attack” on the country’s sovereignty.
“The bigger issue here is do we allow government agencies to be influenced by monies coming from foreign private organizations?” Nograles said in a 2021 public hearing. “What we are looking at here is a constitutional violation, an attack on the sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines, our independence itself. That is the big problem.”
Consumer groups and harm reduction advocates said developing nations such as the Philippines face more urgent public health issues, yet the WHO is directing funds toward costly policy summits that ignore local needs and scientific evidence.
They also criticized the WHO and the WHO FCTC for excluding key stakeholders from meetings and ignoring scientific evidence in favor of pleasing funders.