Disagreements over the role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have intensified at the UN climate talks in Bonn, Germany, where civil society groups and some national negotiators clashed over whether and how IPCC science should be used to guide global climate policy.
What is being disputed
The debate focuses on two linked issues: the weight given to IPCC assessments in the UN's decision-making and the timetable for the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report (AR7). The IPCC is the UN body that synthesises climate science and produces periodic assessment reports intended to inform policymakers. Some civil society groups and an informal coalition of countries argue that UN decisions should follow the "best available scientific data", which includes IPCC reports. Others, including India, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia and Kenya, have opposed a timetable that would ensure AR7 is ready in time to inform the second global stocktake of collective progress in 2028.
Positions and concerns
- Friends of Science coalition diplomats said climate science is under attack in the negotiation process — a claim that spotlights tensions about the authority of the IPCC.
- Several states opposing the accelerated AR7 timetable argued an expedited process would place extra burdens on countries with limited resources and would reduce their ability to provide scientific input.
- CAN International and its allies maintain that timely IPCC findings are essential for an evidence-based global stocktake.
At the talks, representatives of a coalition that includes Fiji, Nepal, the European Union, Switzerland, Sierra Leone and Panama argued that UN decisions should be rooted in the most robust scientific evidence available, explicitly citing IPCC assessments.
Frictions within civil society
The disagreements are not confined to state delegations. Climate Action Network International (CAN) — a global network of environmental non-governmental organisations — has faced internal criticism over how it has presented claims about pressure on science. Fiji's chief negotiator, Sivenedra Michael, criticised CAN International's ECO newsletter for not addressing claims of undue pressure on scientific work and said the organisation did not represent Fiji's position. The dispute highlights that civil society actors do not form a unified front and that positions can diverge between advocacy groups and negotiating parties.
"[CAN's newsletter] failed to address claims of pressure on science," Fiji's chief negotiator Sivenedra Michael said, according to reporting.
Debate over modelling fairness
The fairness of IPCC scenarios and models was also debated. CAN International Executive Director Tasneem Essop took part in an online event where Indian scientist and negotiator Tejal Kanitkar said IPCC emissions-reduction scenarios are largely based on assumptions made by researchers from the Global North and could be unfair to the poorest countries. That argument frames part of the resistance to an accelerated AR7 timetable: concern that hastened processes may entrench assumptions and modelling choices that some countries view as biased.
| Issue | Positions reported |
|---|---|
| Use of IPCC science in UN decisions | Some coalitions insist on centrality of IPCC; some states downplay its central role |
| AR7 timetable | Coalition for accelerated timetable vs India, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, Kenya opposing it |
| Fairness of models | Concerns that scenarios reflect Global North assumptions |
These debates matter because the timing and content of IPCC outputs can influence the global stocktake process, which assesses collective progress towards the goals of the Paris Agreement, including the aim to limit warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Calls at the talks for scientific work on scenarios to limit overshoot of 1.5°C were downplayed by Saudi Arabia and India, according to reporting.
What to watch next
The contours of this disagreement — between calls to anchor UN negotiations in IPCC findings and objections grounded in resource limits and concerns about modelling fairness — will shape how the global stocktake is informed by science. Observers should watch whether the parties opposing an accelerated AR7 timetable maintain their position and how CAN and other civil society groups revise their messaging following criticism from negotiators such as Fiji's chief negotiator.
This story is developing at the UN climate talks in Bonn on 9 September 2026 and reflects reporting on positions raised at those negotiations.
