TobaccoReporter logo

Tag: World Health Organization

  • FCTC Deserves Criticism, Not Celebration, Says TPA

    FCTC Deserves Criticism, Not Celebration, Says TPA

    As the World Health Organization (WHO) marks the 20th anniversary of its Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), a panel hosted by the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) used the occasion to reflect on what they called decades of stagnation, missed opportunities, and dangerous resistance to innovation in the field of tobacco harm reduction.

    “The FCTC should have marked a turning point in global tobacco control,” said Clive Bates, former director of Action on Smoking and Health (UK). “Instead, the WHO remains entrenched in outdated, prohibition-style thinking. They actively oppose safer alternatives like vaping, heated tobacco products, and nicotine pouches—tools that are demonstrably helping people quit smoking.”

    Panelists argued that the WHO’s refusal to embrace harm-reduction approaches is not just short-sighted but scientifically indefensible. Many urged countries participating in the treaty to reconsider their blind alignment with WHO policy and instead focus on pragmatic, evidence-based strategies that prioritize public health outcomes.

    “Whether it’s COVID-19 or tobacco policy, the WHO has failed repeatedly,” Roger Bate, a global health policy expert at the International Center for Law and Economics said. “We need fundamental reform. If the organization cannot evolve to incorporate modern science and real-world solutions, then it risks becoming obsolete.”

    David Williams, president of TPA, echoed this sentiment, calling the WHO’s current approach “dangerous and irresponsible.” He cited the organization’s refusal to recognize smoke-free alternatives, even as mounting research shows their effectiveness in reducing harm. “E-cigarettes and nicotine pouches are saving lives,” Williams said. “These are tools funded by taxpayers, yet the WHO continues to reject them without sound justification. That’s not just bad policy—it’s negligence.”

    Williams also promoted TPA’s global campaign, Good COP/Bad COP, which launched during the 2024 FCTC COP10 meeting in Panama. A follow-up event is planned for 2025 in Geneva, aimed at holding the WHO accountable. “We’re building a coalition of doctors, consumers, and advocates who want the WHO to work for the people, not against them,” he said.

    Martin Cullip, international fellow at TPA’s Consumer Center, summed up the panel’s frustration. “The FCTC was a good idea that has gone terribly wrong. We’ve lost 20 years of potential progress because of rigid ideology.”

    The panel urged WHO leaders to abandon a dogmatic stance and embrace harm reduction as a key component of tobacco control moving forward. As Clive Bates concluded, “The WHO has become unethical, unaccountable, and ineffective. If they truly care about saving lives, they must stop ignoring the science. Harm reduction has to be part of the solution.”

  • Consumer Groups Demand Seat at COP11

    Consumer Groups Demand Seat at COP11

    Photo: v-a-butenkov

    The Coalition of Asia Pacific Harm Reduction Advocates (CAPHRA) is calling on the World Health Organization to open the upcoming Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) Conference of the Parties (COP11) to consumer advocacy groups, in line with human rights principles and evidence-based policymaking.

    “The WHO FCTC process must adopt a human rights approach that considers the implications across the entire life cycle of tobacco products, from growing to consumption,” said Nancy Loucas, executive coordinator of the CAPHRA. “This requires meaningful engagement of all stakeholders, including consumers, to strengthen policy formulation and implementation.”

    The CAPHRA points to a WHO Western Pacific Regional Office’s report highlighting that “a key element to creating a successful tobacco control social movement is the meaningful engagement and involvement of civil society.” The report notes civil society’s crucial role in “initiating, leading and sustaining tobacco control efforts to improve public health.”

    “Consumer groups are not constrained by bureaucracy and can hold both industry and government accountable,” Loucas added. “Our exclusion from COP11 flies in the face of the WHO’s stated principles on civil society engagement.”

    The CAPHRA is urging the FCTC Secretariat to formally invite consumer advocacy groups as observers to COP11, to create dedicated sessions for civil society input during COP11 proceedings and to establish an ongoing mechanism for consumer group consultation between COPs.

    The organization emphasizes that evidence clearly shows tobacco harm reduction strategies like vaping have helped millions quit smoking. Consumer voices are critical to ensure policies reflect real-world impacts.

    “The WHO cannot claim to take a human rights approach while silencing the very people their policies affect,” said Loucas. “It’s time to practice what they preach on civil society engagement and let consumers into COP11.”

  • Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade Turns Six

    Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade Turns Six

    The Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products celebrates its sixth anniversary today.

    The international treaty, which currently has 69 parties, aims to eliminate all forms of illicit trade in tobacco products through a comprehensive package of measures to be implemented by countries in cooperation with each other. The protocol builds upon and complements Article 15 of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which requires parties to implement measures to counter illicit trade in tobacco products, such as supply chain control measures and cooperation in law enforcement and prosecution.  

    The protocol also addresses issues such as transnational organized crime, corruption, money laundering, national security, losses in government revenues, poverty and tobacco-related diseases. 

    According to the World Health Organization, illicit trade accounts for about 11 percent of total global tobacco trade, and its elimination could increase global tax revenues by an estimated $47.4 billion annually.

  • COP11 and MOP4 Meetings Announced

    COP11 and MOP4 Meetings Announced

    Photo: Olrat

    The World Health Organization has announced the approximate dates of the 11th session of the conference of the parties to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (COP11) and the fourth session of the meeting of the parties to the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products (MOP4).

    COP11 will take place in the week of Nov. 17, 2025, at the Geneva International Conference Centre.

    MOP4 will take place in the week of Nov. 24, 2025, at the WHO headquarters.

    The specific dates will be communicated later.

  • Industry Still Targeting Children: WHO

    Industry Still Targeting Children: WHO

    Photo: v-a-butenkov

    Despite its talk about harm reduction, the tobacco industry is still targeting youth via social media, sports and music festivals and flavored products, according to the World Health Organization, reports Reuters.

    In a joint report issued with STOP, an industry watchdog, the global health body alleged that tobacco companies’ alternative smoking products such as vapes are often marketed with designs and flavors that are appealing to young people.

    “It’s dishonest to talk about harm reduction when they are marketing to children,” said Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the WHO’s director-general.

    The WHO pointed to flavors like bubblegum as a driver of youth vape use increases. The industry, however, argues that flavors are a key tool in helping adult smokers switch to less harmful alternatives. Most large companies have moved away from youth-appealing flavors.

    The WHO says that companies use social media and sponsorship of music festivals and sports festivals to target youth, allowing the companies to promote their brands to younger audiences and to hand out free samples.

    In addition, the WHO argues that there is insufficient evidence that vapes help smokers quit. Rather, the entity said that there is evidence vaping increases traditional cigarette use, especially among youth.

    Sarah Jackson, principal research fellow at University College London’s Tobacco and Alcohol Research Group, contradicted that view, however, saying that the WHO statements, “do not accurately reflect current evidence on e-cigarettes.”

  • Illicit Market Smaller Than Suggested: WHO

    Illicit Market Smaller Than Suggested: WHO

    Photo: Taco Tuinstra

    Pakistan’s illicit cigarette market is smaller than the tobacco industry claims, according to the World Health Organization.

    Nonetheless, the illegal sales still account for 23.1 percent of the country’s total cigarette trade, a survey by the global health body found.

    Of the illicit cigarettes, 47 percent is smuggled, 45 percent is nontax paid and 8 percent is counterfeit.

    According to the study, which is based on Pakistan Bureau of Statistics data, tax evasion on domestically produced cigarettes in 2015-2016 amounted to PKR53.8 billion ($193.16 million). Seventy percent of that share was evaded by the legitimate sector, the WHO study said.

    Anti-tobacco activists have been pressing the government to raise tobacco taxes to 70 percent of the retail price, in line with WHO guidelines

    “With over 60 percent of the population comprising youth, it’s crucial for the government to protect them from the ills of tobacco use,” said Malik Imran Ahmed, country head of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (CTFK), told Business Recorder.

    He said the move would generate PKR200 billion in additional revenue by year-end, and help recoup healthcare costs associated with smoking-related illnesses.

  • Vaping Surpasses Smoking Among European Youth: WHO

    Vaping Surpasses Smoking Among European Youth: WHO

    Photo: Maksym Yemelyanov

    Vaping has surpassed smoking among adolescents in Europe, according to a new report by the World Health Organization.

    The global health body found that among 15-year-olds, 32 percent had used an e-cigarette and 20 percent consumed vaping products in the past 30 days.

    “The widespread use of harmful substances among children in many countries across the European region—and beyond—is a serious public health threat,” said Hans Henri P. Kluge, WHO regional director for Europe. “Considering that the brain continues to develop well into a person’s mid-20s, adolescents need to be protected from the effects of toxic and dangerous products. Unfortunately, children today are constantly exposed to targeted online marketing of harmful products.”

    Historically, there has been a difference between boys and girls, with more boys smoking than girls. With e-cigarettes, girls reach the same level of use by 15 as boys and even outpace them after 15.

    While acknowledging that some health authorities view e-cigarettes as a positive alternative to smoking for adults, the WHO expressed concern about aggressive targeting by manufacturers of a younger market, which has contributed to a particularly sharp rise in consumption between the ages of 13 and 15, according to the organization.

    The WHO report calls for e-cigarettes to be incorporated into smoke-free policies, with similar measures to restrict marketing, reduce toxicity, remove flavors and increase taxation.

    The health body has already called for e-cigarettes to be made available only to those who are trying to quit smoking, where other proven cessation strategies have been exhausted. It has also called for e-cigarettes to be regulated like medicines rather than being sold as consumer products.

  • WHO Urged to Embrace Nicotine Alternatives

    WHO Urged to Embrace Nicotine Alternatives

    Derek Yach

    The World Health Organization should embrace safer alternatives to cigarettes in order to save 100 million lives that will otherwise be lost to smoking, according to Derek Yach, a global health consultant who led the WHO’s Tobacco Free Initiative during development of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control was previously president and founder of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World.

    “The WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) has not kept pace with scientific and technological advancements,” Yach writes in The Lancet. “Over 120 million people worldwide, in seeking a path away from combustible cigarettes, have turned to safer alternatives, such as e-cigarettes, oral nicotine pouches and heated tobacco products. Evidence suggests that these alternatives improve quit attempts compared to traditional nicotine-replacement therapy.

    “Yet, the FCTC’s current emphasis on bans, prohibitions and regulations undermines access to these safer alternatives for millions of tobacco users. It is time to recognize their potential and prioritize harm reduction.”

    Writing in response to The 20th anniversary of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: hard won progress amid evolving challenges, Yach sets out a three-point plan that he says could result in potentially 100 million fewer premature deaths between 2025 and 2060:

    • Incorporate tobacco harm reduction: The FCTC should actively promote safer alternatives, recognizing their role in reducing harm.
    • Balanced Regulation: While regulation is necessary, it should not stifle innovation or limit access to safer products.
    • Science-based policies: Governments must base decisions on evidence, fostering independence and informed choices.

    “We cannot afford to wait for a miracle,” he says. “The WHO must adapt swiftly to the changing landscape of tobacco use and embrace innovative strategies to protect public health.”

    Yach disputes Kelly Lee and colleagues’ contention that tobacco companies’ development of safer alternative is purely profit-driven.

    “Negotiations leading to the FCTC’s adoption were intricate and delicate, resulting in nearly all major tobacco producers (except the USA and Indonesia) becoming signatories,” Yach says. “Rather than demonizing these legacy companies, we should acknowledge their evolving stance. Many are actively shifting away from combustible cigarettes, embracing safer alternatives as technology evolves.

    “Saving lives requires bold action. Let us unite in our commitment to a smoke-free future—one where harm reduction leads the way.”

  • Mediocre Meeting

    Mediocre Meeting

    Image: Aleksandr Baiduk

    COP10 is unlikely to significantly accelerate progress toward the FCTC objectives.

    By Stefanie Rossel

    The scene could have been from a Monty Python movie. During the 10th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP10) to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), authorities raided four hotels hosting tobacco harm reduction (THR) advocates, investigating reports of “T-shirts and pamphlets advertising harmful products,” according to Martin Cullip, International Fellow at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance’s (TPA) Consumer Center.

    “These turned out to be clothes worn by consumer advocates bearing their organization’s name and flyers politely addressing COP10 delegates and asking them to consider harm reduction,” he says. “It is shameful that Panama considers materials expressing the right to free speech and democratic engagement to be a criminal matter.”

    Concurrent with COP10, Cullip co-organized the TPA’s “Good COP” (“Conference of the People”) counter-conference at the Central Hotel Panama. The event was livestreamed and featured almost two dozen tobacco harm reduction experts representing 14 different countries. With their presentations, they said that they were holding the WHO accountable for denying “lifesaving access to tobacco harm reduction products” and denying the public and media access to the COP meetings.

    “We know that the WHO were aware of our event as it was mentioned in webinars by Corporate Accountability, the University of Bath and the Network for Accountability of Tobacco Transnationals,” says Cullip. “It is also included in a page on COP10 interference at Tobacco Tactics [a knowledge exchange platform monitoring the tobacco industry’s activities]. One purpose of the event was to get the WHO’s attention, so we are thrilled to have achieved that. There were no attempts to stop our event, but we were visited by an inquisitive group from Vital Strategies, and a couple of delegates ventured away from the conference to have a snoop around our hotel.”

    While the “Good COP” organizers did not interact with any COP10 delegates, consumer representatives who attempted to go to the Convention Center in the hope of having a discussion were stopped. “Journalists approached WHO front groups ‘protesting’ outside the building but were told that only FCTC-accredited media would be spoken to,” says Cullip.

    Another Private Function

    Stakeholders such as consumers and tobacco growers struggled to be heard in Panama. (Pamphlet courtesy of Martin Cullip)

    COP10 was business as usual in many ways. As in past events, the conference managed to maintain its secrecy. Media representatives were cherry-picked in an accreditation process that denied access to anyone who doesn’t share the WHO’s idea of tobacco control. But even the Chosen Ones were thrown out after the delegates voted on Day 1 to exclude the press. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) wishing to take part had to pass a similar test of faith while consumers who have successfully quit smoking with the help of reduced-risk products were banned from sharing their experiences.

    The absence of dissenting voices allowed delegates to spread misinformation uncontested, as in the estimate of the area of land cleared for tobacco cultivation every year. It also allowed them to shame states for THR-friendly policies. The Philippines, for example, received an “Ashtray Award” for its “brazen use of tobacco industry tactics of obstinate dispute and delay throughout the COP.” Without outside scrutiny, the delegates could also conveniently ignore scientific evidence from studies not commissioned by the WHO or its financial supporters led by Bloomberg Philanthropies.

    In such a climate, only a few delegations had the courage to use the short progress statements during the opening plenary to discuss their countries’ positive experience with novel nicotine products. New Zealand was the only party to point out how the implementation of a differentiated, evidence-based regulatory framework that includes reduced-risk products (RRPs) had contributed to significantly reduced daily smoking rates.

    Most other country statements were disappointing, according to Cullip. “Canada made no mention whatsoever of harm reduction, and the U.K. were too timid to even mention the ‘Swap to Stop’ campaign, which is a central plank of the U.K.’s efforts toward the country’s Smoke-Free 2030 goal and is always mentioned in parliamentary question answers on the subject,” he says. “One can only assume they were scared of upsetting the FCTC Secretariat, so they chose not to rock the boat. There is also a suspicion that the U.K. announced its ban on disposable vapes, plain packaging and restrictions on flavors just a week before deliberately so they would be looked on favorably by the WHO.”

    Armenia, El Salvador, Guatemala and the Philippines were among the few parties to mention THR at the conference. They called for a serious and evidence-based discourse on novel tobacco products, stressing the need to consider alternative methods of reducing the health impacts of smoking. The Philippines, whose regulatory framework has recognized the role of RRPs since 2022, cited FCTC Article 1(d), which stipulates that harm reduction is one of the pillars of tobacco control.

    “There were signs at COP10 that some countries are softening on harm reduction, and quite a few made country statements referring to THR or voicing the opinion that the WHO should recognize the potential,” says Cullip. “During the proceedings, some parties also questioned the quality of reports presented by the FCTC for COP10. I had the impression that some delegations realize that the genie is out of the bottle on reduced-risk nicotine products and [that] it’s best to recognize that and accommodate them in tobacco control policies instead of banning them, which is unrealistic and futile.”

    There were signs at COP10 that some countries are softening on harm reduction, and quite a few made country statements referring to THR or voicing the opinion that the WHO should recognize the potential.

    Martin Cullip, International Fellow at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance’s Consumer Center

    Debate Postponed

    In line with the agenda, COP10 delegates debated novel nicotine products but without making decisions. Discussion on FCTC Articles 9 and 10, which deal with the testing and measuring of tobacco products’ contents and emissions, and the disclosure of such information, went on for the full length of the conference without achieving consensus. Cullip views this as a positive development. “It is good for consumers and public health that the wild proposals contained in COP10 reports on Article 9 and [Article] 10 did not gain any traction at COP10,” he says.

    St. Kitts and Nevis urged the FCTC Secretariat to form a working group to discuss harm reduction and to define it under the terms of Article 1(d). “This is the first time that any meaningful discussion has taken place on that part of the treaty, so it is quite significant,” says Cullip. “A working group is open to all parties to the treaty to take part in whereas an expert group is populated by cherry-picked NGOs and ‘experts’ appointed by the FCTC Secretariat and Bureau.

    “The WHO wanted an expert group set up to discuss Articles 9 and 10 to replace the previous working group, which was suspended in 2018 at COP8. Parties had been surveyed in 2020 and 2021 about the fate of the working group, and a majority, both times, were in favor of reactivating it. However, their wish was ignored, and the WHO proposed setting up an expert group regardless. It tends to explain why parties could not come to a consensus, and the St. Kitts proposal just added to the disagreement.”

    THR proponents had asked for a working group in the run-up to COP10, but so far to no avail. “There is still no formal confirmation of the decision, let alone its scope of work, objectives, criteria or membership,” says Delon Human, president and CEO of Health Diplomats and co-author of a COP10 scorecard report that measures the progress in achieving the FCTC objectives. “However, WHO’s silence on this issue should not overshadow the importance of member states finally beginning to ask the right questions,” Human notes.

    Derek Yach, who as a WHO cabinet director and executive director was heavily involved in the creation of the FCTC two decades ago, hopes that the FCTC Secretariat will look back at the way it held broad consultations with industry scientists in the years leading to the adoption of the treaty. While a draft decision requires parties to review and update the evidence and science related to tobacco harm reduction by COP11, the text, according to Yach, suggests that the proposer has prejudged the outcome.

    “It highlights ‘the need to be informed about activities of the tobacco industry that have a negative impact on tobacco control,’” says Yach, who is also the lead author of the COP10 scorecard. “Never once does the decision hint at possible positive effects of THR on tobacco use and its ultimate effect on health. Further, the decision reverts to outdated science when discussing tobacco cessation. Use of the terms ‘concern,’ ‘caution’ and ‘challenges’ all portray THR in a negative light. If this decision is adopted, it may hamper a needed open scientific debate about benefits at a time when these become clearer and stronger with new major publications.”

    The world of tobacco control and THR has changed dramatically since [2003], which is unfortunately not reflected in the interpretation, development and implementation of FCTC guidelines.

    Delon Human, president and CEO, Health Diplomats

    No Significant Effect Anticipated

    The COP10 scorecard was shared with all COP10 delegates and a host of non-state THR stakeholders, according to Human. The responses received by non-state actors such as NGOs or public health advocates were mainly positive, he notes, while state actors only acknowledged receipt. The report assessed progress made by the parties to the FCTC in six sections. Trends in tobacco use and impact was rated an E-, commitments, resolutions and pledges received a B+ and implementation of resolutions a D-. In the three other sections, the FCTC got poor marks too.

    Measured against the findings of the scorecard, COP10 didn’t fare well, according to Human. “The most disappointing aspect of COP10 was the ongoing nonrecognition of THR as an integral part of tobacco control as stated in Article 1(d) of the FCTC,” he says. “Therefore, the ‘fail’ grade for not embracing THR was perpetuated. This is […] a failure to prevent unnecessary tobacco-related disease, disability and premature deaths.”

    Furthermore, the “fail” marks for neglecting THR research priorities and capacity-building in low-income and middle-income countries were validated not only by nonaction but accentuated by the ongoing exclusion of key stakeholders, Human points out. “We scored the lack of stakeholder engagement as a ‘fail’ beforehand, and unfortunately, the COP10 exclusionary behavior confirmed the ‘fail,’” he says. “FCTC’s Article 5.3 requires parties to protect the implementation of their public health policies against the commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry. Yet this is impossible when many of the same countries are also striving to generate revenue from state-owned tobacco entities.”

    Globally, 18 governments own 10 percent or more of at least one tobacco company. This is likely to interfere with at least one of the decisions referenced in COP10’s Panama Declaration: the creation of a working group to deal with Article 19, which nations can use to hold the tobacco industry liable for people’s health and the environment. The article was repeatedly discussed in previous COP meetings, says Human.

    “The expert group which has been established will be made up of lawyers from various countries, with experience of holding tobacco companies accountable. At COP6, the expert group on Article 19 presented a comprehensive report on civil liability for the tobacco industry, and at COP7, it presented an online Civil Liability Toolkit. Whether this leads to a flurry of lawsuits after COP10 remains to be seen. The technical guidance needs to be backed up by political will in countries. Tobacco companies remain one of the most effective tax collectors for countries, so the most likely outcome will be prolonged discussions followed by minimal action,” says Human.

    Human feels encouraged by the COP10’s decision to set up another expert group to work on “forward-looking control measures” under Article 2.1, which encourages governments to implement measures beyond those required by the FCTC. “The world of tobacco control and THR has changed dramatically since [2003], which is unfortunately not reflected in the interpretation, development and implementation of FCTC guidelines,” he says.

    “Article 2.1 might offer hope in that it could guide the COP to better translate new information, science, products and consumer experience into actions. As a starting point, our hope is that the workgroup would review current peer-reviewed literature on the effectiveness of noncombustible nicotine alternatives such as ENDS [electronic nicotine-delivery systems] to facilitate and accelerate cessation. Then it could play a role in balancing the COP focus to consider supply side measures in equal weight to the current focus on reducing demand for tobacco products.”

    For Human, the recent COP’s decision to strengthen language around Article 18, which urges parties to take account of the environmental impacts arising from the cultivation, manufacture and consumption of tobacco products as well as the waste they create, is positive, as it will help integrate tobacco control policy with those protecting the environment. “For example, it will improve policy coherence between the FCTC and national and international treaties, like the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution, aimed at addressing hazard waste from tobacco products, including cigarette butts,” he says.

    “Another positive outcome could be an acceleration of identifying and promoting economically viable and sustainable agricultural alternatives to tobacco growing. All in all, it should strengthen implementation of the FCTC.”

    Human is less optimistic that the decisions taken at the event will contribute to accelerating the decline of global tobacco consumption. “Based on the mediocre decline in tobacco consumption facilitated by COP1 to COP10 and the inability of parties to fully embrace harm reduction strategies, science, products and methods, no significant declines are expected.”

    Stefanie Rossel is Tobacco Reporter’s editorial contributor. An experienced trade journalist, she combines sharp reporting skills with in-depth knowledge of the tobacco and vapor industries. Prior to joining Tobacco Reporter, Stefanie was editor-in-chief at Tobacco Journal International, where she worked for a decade. Fluent in English, German and French, Stefanie covers tobacco news around the world. She is based in Germany.
  • New COP and MOP Bureaus Elected

    New COP and MOP Bureaus Elected

    Photo: butenkow

    The 10th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP10) to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, held Feb. 5–10, 2024, in Panama City, elected new members for its Bureau. The Bureau shall serve until the closure of the following regular session of the Conference of the Parties (COP11), including for any intervening extraordinary session.

    Reina Roa of Panama was elected president of the Bureau. The vice presidents will be Csaba Kontor of Hungary, Noraryana Binti Hassan of Malaysia, Jawad Al-Lawati of Oman, Nuntavarn Vichit-Vadakan of Thailand and Judith Segnon-Agueh of Benin.

    Vichit-Vadakan will also act as rapporteur.

    The following parties were designated to act as regional coordinators for the COP:

    • Cote d’Ivoire for the African Region;
    • Canada for the Region of the Americas;
    • Tunisia for the Eastern Mediterranean Region;
    • Spain for the European Region;
    • Timor-Leste for the South-East Asia Region; and
    • New Zealand for the Western Pacific Region.

    The Third Session of the Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products (MOP3), held Feb. 12–14, 2024, in Panama City, also elected its new Bureau. The new Bureau shall serve until the closure of the following regular session of the Meeting of the Parties (MOP4), including for any intervening extraordinary session.

    Mansour Zafer Alqahtani from Saudi Arabia was elected president of the Bureau. The vice presidents are Hekali Zhimomi of India, Zliza Fantidou of Cyprus, Vimal Deo of Fiji, Omar Badjie of the Gambia and Marcos Dotta of Uruguay.

    Deo will also act as rapporteur.

    The following parties were designated to act as regional coordinators for the MOP:

    • Gabon for the African Region;
    • Paraguay for the Region of the Americas;
    • Islamic Republic of Iran for the Eastern Mediterranean Region;
    • Greece for the European Region;
    • India for the South-East Asia Region; and
    • Samoa for the Western Pacific Region.