Delegations implicated in blocking WHO international negotiations

In an in-depth investigation by investigative media outlet The Examination[1], several elements highlight the tobacco industry's influence strategies within international diplomatic processes. The investigation, based on interviews with negotiators, NGO representatives and public health experts, reveals that a delegation of Philippine representatives played a decisive role in paralyzing negotiations at the tenth Conference of the Parties (COP10) to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which took place in Panama in February 2024.

This paralysis would have prevented the adoption of several important decisions aimed at strengthening the regulation of new tobacco and nicotine products.

Conflicts of interest in contradiction with the commitments of the FCTC

The World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). This requirement is based on a fundamental principle: the commercial interests of tobacco manufacturers are irreconcilable with public health objectives. Yet, the attitude of the Philippine delegation at COP10 illustrates a clear violation of this commitment.

Official documents obtained through a Philippine Senate investigation and made public by The Examination show that several senior government officials knowingly steered the country's position in the interests of the tobacco industry. Among them, Mark Llandro “Dong” Mendoza, head of the Presidential Legislative Liaison Office, expressed in a preparatory document for COP10 that the Philippine delegation should not support " any measure likely to have an adverse socio-economic impact on growers, manufacturers and the entire tobacco sector." This formulation reflects an assumed defense of economic interests linked to tobacco, including those of multinationals established locally.

The Department of Agriculture, in an official statement, opposed the proposed guidelines on advertising restrictions, arguing that such measures would reduce demand for tobacco, thereby threatening the economic viability of the industry. These arguments were incorporated into the position taken by the Philippine delegation, which included a large number of members from the commercial and agricultural sectors, even though delegates usually come from health authorities for these meetings.

This delegation, the largest at the conference—larger than those of China or India—played an active role in challenging the FCTC's scientific processes. In particular, it proposed an alternative described as a "compromise" by its representatives, but perceived as a circumvention mechanism by many observers. This compromise aimed to replace the creation of a group of independent public health experts with a working group composed of national representatives appointed by each country, with no requirement for scientific expertise or guarantees of independence. Such a configuration would have opened the door to the appointment of individuals sympathetic to industry, or even directly linked to it, thus undermining the credibility of the treaty's future technical recommendations.

The administrative body of the FCTC has described this proposal as "highly unusual and unprecedented", noting that historically, scientific expert groups reported their findings directly to all Parties via the Secretariat. According to legal experts present at the conference, the amendment introduced by the Philippines risked allowing a minority of countries to filter or influence the scientific data communicated to all signatory States, compromising the transparency of the process.

This obstructionist attempt received support from other states whose delegations are regularly associated with pro-tobacco industry positions, particularly Jordan, Malawi, Zimbabwe, and Guatemala. This common front was enough to block the search for consensus, despite initial overwhelming support for the Secretariat's proposal for an independent expert panel. After four days of debate, no decision could be adopted, illustrating the effectiveness of delaying tactics inspired or supported by the tobacco industry.

Finally, it is important to note that this strategy of capturing the decision-making process, although carried out through official government channels, is in total contradiction with the operational recommendations of Article 5.3, which advocate limiting interactions with industry to what is strictly necessary, and ensuring their transparency. However, the revealed documents indicate that the positions were developed in close collusion with industrial interests, outside of any public transparency.

Institutional Capture Orchestrated by the Tobacco Industry: The Philippine and Jordanian Cases

In the Philippines, this influence is part of a historical and structural relationship[2]President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., who comes from a tobacco-growing region, supported legislation easing access to heated tobacco products upon taking office, including lowering the legal age to purchase these products from 21 to 18. Shortly before COP10, Philip Morris International (PMI) inaugurated a heated tobacco production plant in Batangas province, attended by First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, the Secretary of Agriculture, and other senior officials. The Philippine delegation to COP10, dominated by representatives from trade and agriculture, actively supported positions aligned with PMI's interests, challenging any measures that might affect the tobacco sector, on the grounds of employment or taxation.[3].

The Jordanian case reveals a similar opaque influence strategy. Officially, the Jordanian Ministry of Health had expressed its support for the creation of a group of independent experts. However, during the negotiations, the head of delegation—an employee of the Ministry of Commerce—publicly defended the alternative, pro-industry approach, triggering a sharp internal disagreement with the other members of the delegation. This shift in direction reflects external pressure: the former Minister of Commerce, Yarub Qudah, was still a consultant for PMI during the formulation phase of the Jordanian position. Moreover, a PMI lobbyist based in Jordan was spotted in Panama during the conference. These converging elements attest to an industry strategy aimed at exploiting institutional contacts within delegations, favoring ministries perceived as more receptive to economic or commercial arguments, to the detriment of health authorities. This capture of state speech in multilateral forums seriously harms the credibility and effectiveness of international public health policies.

A worrying weakening of health multilateralism

The events of COP10 in Panama highlighted a fragility in the application of the multilateral framework governing global tobacco control governance. While the FCTC has been a fundamental public health instrument for two decades, its implementation and evolution rely entirely on strict compliance with established rules regarding the absence of tobacco industry interference. This is an essential condition for Parties to reach consensus. The principle of consensus, which generally applies in international bodies, is designed to promote inclusiveness and collective buy-in. However, it becomes a point of vulnerability when protective rules are not applied and consensus is exploited for strategic obstruction.

The case of the expert group on tobacco product content and emissions, which led to debates lasting several days at COP10, is a clear illustration of this. Despite overwhelming support for the creation of a committee of independent experts, countries such as the Philippines, Jordan, Zimbabwe, Malawi, and Guatemala vehemently opposed this initiative. They supported an alternative proposal to establish a national working group, whose members would neither be required to meet a high level of scientific expertise nor be independent from industry. This proposal, described as "highly unusual and unprecedented" by the convention administration, would have allowed a minority of countries to influence the production of scientific knowledge submitted to all Parties.

This deliberate blockage had the direct consequence of postponing any decision, and of preventing clear decisions that could regulate new-generation tobacco products. This was therefore not simply a procedural delay, but rather an obstacle to the collective ability to adapt international regulations in the face of rapid industrial innovations, particularly heated tobacco devices.

Even more worrying, the strategies implemented by certain states show that opposition to public health measures is not due to technical differences, but rather to political positions structured by economic interests, or even dictated by close interactions with the tobacco industry. The investigation by The Examination shows that representatives of Philip Morris International, including lobbyist Grégoire Verdeaux, were present on site, staying in hotels close to the venue of the negotiations, as were other consultants associated with British American Tobacco. Although formally excluded from the debates, these actors have relays within certain delegations, reducing the space for developing policies based on scientific evidence.

This phenomenon of entryism undermines the very legitimacy of the multilateral process. As Rüdiger Krech, Director of Health Promotion at the WHO, summarized during a press briefing during the conference: "The industry's goal is simple: slow down negotiations. Not decisions. And that's exactly what we're seeing."

Ultimately, the proliferation of these blockages risks causing a loss of confidence among the most committed Parties, discouraging experts and civil society, and compromising collective capacity to respond to the global tobacco epidemic. Without a binding implementation mechanism or effective recourse in the event of obstruction, the FCTC could be rendered meaningless if it fails to protect itself against the capture of its institutional functioning by the very private interests it was designed to control.

New products: a strategic lever of influence for the tobacco industry

COP10 took place in a context where major tobacco companies are increasing their efforts to impose a new generation of nicotine products – heated tobacco, e-cigarettes, nicotine pouches – as supposedly "reduced-risk" alternatives. These products have become the preferred instrument of their influence strategy, particularly within multilateral spaces such as the FCTC from which they have been excluded.[4]Philip Morris International (PMI), through its lobbying platform "Unsmoke Your Mind," has attempted to impose a depoliticized and technical interpretation of the debate on these products, calling for a "pragmatic approach" to regulation, often adopted by countries aligned with its interests. This narrative, centered on risk reduction, in reality masks a desire to reorient international public health standards in favor of products that are still poorly scientifically evaluated, but have strong commercial potential.

This offensive is not limited to the negotiating rooms: during COP8[5], PMI had already attempted to influence the debates in real time via a sponsored Twitter campaign targeting the conference's official hashtags. These digital campaigns, funded by the industry, demonstrate a strategy of interference at several levels: institutional, media, and diplomatic. The use of new products as vectors of influence constitutes a major challenge for global tobacco control governance. By positioning them as consensual solutions, manufacturers seek to loosen the regulatory stranglehold, circumvent existing restrictions, and establish a new nicotine addiction, particularly among young people. Faced with this global repositioning maneuver, the objectives of the FCTC and its rules: to protect public health policies from commercial interests, whatever form these interests take, must be reaffirmed and preserved, public health experts emphasize.

Growing calls for transparency and accountability

Faced with the scale of the obstructionist tactics brought to light during COP10, voices are being raised at both national and international levels to demand a breakthrough in the governance of global health negotiations. Several institutional, political, and civil society actors are denouncing the worrying exploitation of official delegations by the tobacco industry and are calling for greater transparency in decision-making processes, particularly by making public the declarations of delegation members' ties to the tobacco industry.

In the Philippines, these calls took the form of an unprecedented parliamentary procedure. Upon the delegation's return, Senator Pia Cayetano, president of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, delivered a highly critical speech against the position taken by the Philippine representatives in Panama. In it, she expressed her "deep shame" that the delegates, acting on behalf of the Philippine state, had publicly supported the interests of the tobacco industry before a global assembly of public health advocates. This intervention led to the opening of a Senate investigation into the circumstances and responsibilities related to the country's diplomatic position. The committee collected numerous internal documents, some of which were obtained by The Examination in the context of access to information requests. An investigation report is underway, although its publication remains uncertain.

At the same time, the Philippine delegation was publicly criticized by non-governmental organizations, which awarded it the Dirty Ashtray Award, a symbolic prize awarded to the state that most actively obstructed the negotiations. This type of distinction, although symbolic, is not without effectiveness due to the moral and media pressure exerted on a country and aimed at alerting public opinion and making governments accountable for their commitments in terms of health.

On the international scene, key tobacco control stakeholders—such as the Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance and representatives of the FCTC Secretariat—have called for stronger enforcement of Article 5.3 of the treaty. This recommends limiting interactions with the industry to what is strictly necessary, and requires that they be made public, documented, and conducted in a transparent manner. However, the investigation shows that several diplomatic positions were developed in a secretive manner, without consulting health ministries, or even in direct contradiction with their direction.

The revelation that a former Jordanian trade minister, Yarub Qudah, was involved as a consultant for Philip Morris International during the preparations for COP10 also fueled calls for clarification and a clear separation between public and private interests. The fact that Qudah was reinstated in the government shortly thereafter, without specifying the end date of his consultancy assignment, raises the question of the revolving door between senior civil service and industry.

More generally, these episodes highlight the urgent need to strengthen transparency requirements, declarations of interests, and monitoring of commitments by Parties to the FCTC. Some experts are calling for the establishment of an ethics alert mechanism or independent monitoring of delegations, or even the possibility of symbolic sanctions or limitations on coordination roles for States in clear violation of the spirit of the treaty.

These calls for transparency and accountability are not only intended to denounce, but also to preserve the integrity of international health cooperation mechanisms, which are now threatened by increasingly sophisticated and transnational influence strategies, driven by industrial players whose profitability depends on the regulatory status quo.

©Generation Without Tobacco

AE

[1] Maria Perez and Matthew Chapman, How industry capture of Filipino officials helped deadlock global tobacco control negotiations, The Examination, published May 6, 2025, accessed May 12, 2025

[2] Tobacco-free generation, Controversy surrounding the nomination of the Philippines as President of the World Health Assembly, published April 15, 2025, accessed May 12, 2025

[3] Tobacco-free generation, Philippines: Government accepts Philip Morris mobile clinic donation, published September 6, 2024, accessed May 12, 2025

[4] Tobacco-free generation, Philip Morris attacks WHO and FCTC at Conference of the Parties, published October 18, 2023, accessed May 12, 2025

[5] Tobacco-free generation, Tobacco industry's attempts to interfere in COP8 via Twitter, published November 17, 2020, accessed May 12, 2025