CGIAR@COP30: Research & Systematic Observation Negotiation Updates

Robust climate action rests on a foundation of sound science and data. The UNFCCC’s agenda item on Research and Systematic Observation (RSO) exists to strengthen that foundation – ensuring that policymakers are informed by the latest research and that critical climate data is being collected and shared. At COP30, the RSO track may not grab headlines, but its outcomes underlie everything else. This year, a major focus is expected to be on enhancing climate observation systems (like weather stations, satellite networks, ocean buoys) and improving how scientific findings (think IPCC reports, indigenous knowledge, and big data analytics) feed into policy. There’s also an emphasis on emerging initiatives such as the Early Warnings for All (EW4All) campaign which CGIAR participated in via webinars, which aims for universal climate hazard early warning coverage by 2027 – a goal heavily reliant on systematic observations. Progress was made at COP29 in recognizing these links: the RSO conclusions from Baku reinforced the need for open data-sharing and fit-for-purpose Earth observation technologies, validating efforts to advance “Earth Intelligence for All” In simpler terms, negotiators agreed that better climate data and accessible tools are fundamental to both mitigation and adaptation, from tracking emissions to forecasting extreme weather. As Belém hosts COP30, Brazil’s presidency – with its science and innovation focus – is likely to carry this forward, pushing for stronger global cooperation in climate research and knowledge exchange.

CGIAR has recently started following this track, aiming to support with agrifood-system evidence and Earth/land–water observations into RSO dialogues and products, contributing to identifying research gaps and provide policy-relevant syntheses, so SBSTA decisions reflect actionable science on food, land and water. 

COP30 Day 3 | November 12 2025

Co-Facilitators released an informal note summarizing prior discussions shortly before the RSO negotiations began, raising concerns among Parties about the limited time for review. Some Parties urged delaying a second draft to allow detailed feedback, while several Parties, echoing President Lula’s reference to the “COP of Truth,” called for recognizing RSO’s role in promoting information integrity and countering climate misinformation. Disagreements remained over referencing the IPCC’s “Indicators of Global Climate Change” initiative. Some Parties, including India and the Arab Group, opposed its exclusive mention, whereas others defended it as fundamental to the RSO’s work. India also cautioned that mixing short- and long-term climate trends, such as ocean heat records and temporary sea-level variations, could present a misleading picture.

COP30 Day 4 | November 13 2025

The second iteration of the draft text exposed continued disagreements over whether SBSTA should explicitly recognize the IPCC and WMO as providers of the scientific foundations of the Convention and the Paris Agreement, with some Parties arguing that the list of scientific contributors is broader and that the IPCC has not completed its mandate, while others emphasized that these bodies—especially the IPCC—deliver the policy-relevant science underpinning UNFCCC work. Several Parties also opposed referencing the IPCC’s planned inclusivity efforts for its seventh cycle, noting these are intentions without tangible results. Kenya called for stronger language to bolster attribution science in Africa, where data gaps have long impeded progress. Many delegations highlighted declining investments in GCOS and underscored the need for enhanced means of implementation, financing, and capacity support, particularly from developed countries, to sustain and strengthen global systematic observations.

COP30 Week 1 Summary

This ostensibly technical agenda item which deals with how climate science and data inform policy became a battleground over references to the best available science and misinformation, reflecting a broader tension between the summit’s pro-science rhetoric and some parties’ wariness of outside expertise. 

Early in the week, draft text on RSO included language on using “best available science” and even enhancing efforts to counter climate misinformation fitting for a COP emphasizing “truth”. However, certain countries objected strongly. Saudi Arabia, for instance, demanded deletion of any reference to countering misinformation, rejecting even a softened phrase about improving “communication” of science. This stance is notable at a conference where Brazil’s President Lula opened by urging defeat of climate denialism. Likewise, a reference to the IPCC (the global scientific authority) sparked debate: India questioned mentioning the IPCC’s new push for inclusivity (bringing more diverse scientists into its reports), arguing that without a clear definition of “inclusivity” they couldn’t endorse the text. In short, even nods to scientific bodies became contentious. 

Several developing countries, on the other hand, emphasized that science capacity and data in the Global South need support. They highlighted gaps in observation networks and urged commitments to boost funding for science and initiatives like the Systematic Observations Financing Facility (SOFF). These requests aimed to ensure all countries can produce and use climate data not just rely on external reports. 

But to truly understand these tensions, we must go beyond labels like “anti-science” or “denial.” As some observers noted, resistance to scientific references often stems from legitimate concerns about fairness, representation, and historical imbalance in how science especially the IPCC is shaped. For instance, current mitigation pathways often fall short in representing Developing Nations realities. They overlook key equity principles like Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR-RC), and fail to adequately address land-use burdens, energy access, and development rights, which disproportionately affect low-income countries. 

This is precisely why CGIAR’s role and the voices of science communities in the Developing Countries are essential. CGIAR supports building locally owned data systems, enabling agriculture and climate modeling tailored to regional contexts, and ensuring that science informs action in an equitable, inclusive way. 

Though conclusions were adopted, they avoided key points. Some delegates voiced frustration that even at the “COP of Truth,” the role of science couldn’t be clearly affirmed. For CGIAR, this reinforces our commitment to science that is not only rigorous but also just, representative, and actionable. In a world of polarizing narratives and rising climate risk, we must ensure that science works for everyone, especially those who need it most to adapt, produce food, and protect livelihoods.