Dirty Ashtrays and Dark Money: Why the Philippines Must Defend Tobacco Harm Reduction at COP11

---

Key Points:

• At a Crossroads: Ahead of COP11, the Philippines faces pressure from WHO-aligned groups for defending tobacco harm reduction.

• Dirty Ashtray Awards: The country has received five since 2010 – criticisms aimed at resisting prohibitionist policies, not at poor health outcomes.

• Foreign Influence: Bloomberg Philanthropies has funded Philippine NGOs and even the FDA, sparking a congressional inquiry over undisclosed grants.

• Policy Shift: After Duterte’s 2019 vape ban, the 2022 Vaporized Nicotine Products Regulation Act legalized and regulated e-cigarettes and heated tobacco.

• Ongoing Backlash: Bloomberg-backed groups continue to attack the law despite its strict youth protections and potential to help 20 percent of adults who smoke.

• COP11 Stance: Advocates urge the Philippines to resist top-down bans and insist harm reduction be part of global tobacco control discussions.

---

With just months to go before the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) holds its 11th Conference of the Parties (COP11), the Philippines finds itself at a crossroads. Two decades after ratifying the FCTC, the country has made modest progress in reducing smoking rates, but has also been repeatedly targeted and publicly shamed by WHO-aligned entities, including being awarded five “Dirty Ashtray Awards.” These awards are not badges of dishonor for poor public health outcomes – they are penalties for refusing to conform to a rigid, prohibitionist narrative that excludes safer nicotine alternatives.

The Philippines ratified the FCTC in June 2005. At the time, the treaty was hailed as a groundbreaking public health tool to reduce tobacco-related harm. But in the 20 years since, it has increasingly served as a blunt instrument – one that enforces restrictions, demonizes innovation, and silences sovereign nations that dare to consider alternatives to abstinence-only policies. Countries that ratify the FCTC commit to a range of strategies, from taxation to marketing restrictions, to cessation support and public education. Yet the treaty has failed to evolve alongside science, particularly in recognizing the role of harm reduction.

Despite criticism from WHO-aligned NGOs that Philippine domestic laws “fall short,” the country has taken significant steps to address smoking. In 2012, the Sin Tax Reform Act simplified the excise tax system and steadily increased taxes on tobacco, with a portion of the revenue earmarked for universal healthcare. And yet, while the country complied with FCTC recommendations, the decline in smoking was neither rapid nor revolutionary. In fact, smoking rates rose in the years immediately following ratification – from an estimated 20 percent in 2005 to 28.2 percent by 2009. By 2015, rates dropped to 22.7 percent, and as of 2022, the rate stood at 20.4 percent. In other words, two decades of WHO-aligned policy have yielded only a modest decrease in adult smoking.

As the Philippines introduced novel tobacco products – including the arrival of e-cigarettes in 2010 – the WHO and Bloomberg-funded NGOs shifted their focus to targeting these alternatives.

Since 2007, various Philippine NGOs and government agencies have received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, a foundation with a singular mission: eradicate tobacco in all forms, regardless of the potential of harm reduction. HealthJustice Philippines, a major recipient of Bloomberg tobacco control grants, has been a vocal opponent of tobacco harm reduction. In 2020, the organization falsely claimed that heated tobacco and vapor products are “harmful,” “neither safe nor beneficial,” and do not help smokers quit. Despite these inaccurate claims, the organization was honored in 2012 with a Bloomberg Award for Global Tobacco Control.

Even more concerning is that Bloomberg money didn’t stop at NGOs – it found its way into policymaking institutions. Between 2017 and 2019, the Philippines Food and Drug Administration received Bloomberg grant funding to support its National Tobacco Control Program. This sparked a formal congressional inquiry in 2020, after it was revealed during hearings that the FDA failed to disclose the funding when developing policies on e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products. Lawmakers condemned the foreign influence, with a House Committee in 2021 accusing foreign NGOs of undermining Philippine sovereignty.

That influence had real consequences. In November 2019, then-President Rodrigo Duterte declared a public-use and importation ban on e-cigarettes, calling them “toxic” and authorizing law enforcement to arrest vapers in public. In early 2020, Duterte signed Executive Order No. 106, which formalized the ban.

But with a change in administration came a change in policy. In July 2022, the Philippines enacted Republic Act No. 11900, also known as the Vaporized Nicotine and Non-Nicotine Products Regulation Act. The law transferred regulatory authority from the FDA to the Department of Trade and Industry and created a balanced framework for the manufacturing, importation, and sale of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products. It legalized flavors, restricted youth access, and implemented strict packaging and advertising guidelines. Between 2023 and 2025, DTI has been actively enforcing these regulations.

Predictably, Bloomberg-backed groups like HealthJustice Philippines denounced the law, calling it anti-health and anti-youth. But for the estimated 20 percent of Filipino adults who smoke, it offered a pathway to something the FCTC has failed to deliver: a realistic option to quit smoking through safer alternatives.

Still, the country continues to face international backlash. Since 2010, the Philippines has received five “Dirty Ashtray Awards,” including one at COP10 in 2024. According to tobacco control groups, the award is meant to “call out” countries that are allegedly influenced by the tobacco industry. In reality, the criteria are vague, the deliberations are secret, and the public is not even allowed to attend COP proceedings. At COP10, the Philippines was accused of using “tobacco industry tactics of obstinate dispute and delay” – a label that may well have been applied for nothing more than defending harm reduction.

As COP11 approaches, Philippine delegates must stand firm. They must push back against Western billionaires imposing top-down policies that ignore local context and public health outcomes. The modest reductions in smoking since FCTC ratification should be a signal that more of the same won’t work. Harm reduction must be part of the conversation.

Tobacco control shouldn’t be about conformity – it should be about saving lives. And the Philippines has every right to pursue that goal in a way that works for its people. Nothing in this analysis is intended to influence the passage of legislation, and it does not necessarily represent the views of Tobacco Harm Reduction 101.