The talks reflect broader global tensions in climate and environmental negotiations, where fossil-fuel–linked countries are suspected of delaying or weakening scientific assessments from the IPCC and IPBES.

Climate science remains a point of contention at the talks, with calls to delay IPCC reports and a deadlock over the next set of benchmark climate assessments amid wider negotiations.

There is a pattern of politicisation of science in these negotiations, with past attempts to weaken scientific summaries and current delays to IPBES assessments illustrating the broader dynamic.

Delegates warn that without a solid scientific basis, policy talks risk becoming opinion-based, raising concerns about the language and ambition of the draft text.

The summit’s outcome remains unresolved as it is due to end on Friday, with several issues still outstanding.

The dispute centers on how to reference IPBES assessments in a draft biodiversity agreement, with arguments over whether to “welcome” or “take note” of the findings.

The debate specifically concerns two IPBES assessments on the overlap of nature, climate crises, and economic drivers, and whether their findings should be welcomed or merely taken note of.

The core choice is whether the draft agreement should merely “welcome” or “take note” of IPBES findings, with “take note” seen as a weaker formulation.

Experts and civil society warn that politicising scientific findings could undermine the credibility of policy decisions at COP17.

Academics and civil society have issued a joint statement voicing concern over how science is handled in the COP17 negotiations.

The article highlights a broader pattern of politicisation of science in negotiations, noting the biodiversity context and the risk of undercutting scientific input.

Nearly 200 nations are negotiating how IPBES findings should guide nature protection, with some countries resisting strongest terms.