The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change opened a five-day plenary on 12 October. Its main task is one that used to take minutes: agreeing a timetable for the Seventh Assessment Report. After nearly three years of deadlock, the dispute pits countries that want the science ready for the 2028 global stocktake against a group, including India, that wants two key reports moved to 2029.
Every five to seven years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produces the world’s most authoritative summary of climate science. Thousands of scientists, working voluntarily, assess tens of thousands of studies. Governments then approve summaries line by line. Those assessments have underpinned every major climate agreement, including the Paris Agreement’s warming limits.
The Seventh Assessment Report (AR7) is meant to continue that work. Its three Working Group reports will cover the physical science of climate change, impacts and adaptation, and options for cutting emissions. But nearly three years into the cycle, the IPCC’s 195 member governments still have not agreed when the reports should be delivered. Reuters has described the impasse as unprecedented in the body’s history.
On Monday, 12 October, the panel’s 65th session (IPCC-65) opened in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and runs until 16 October. Many participants see it as the last realistic chance to settle the question.
What the dispute is about
The scientists who chair the Working Groups have proposed approving all three reports by September 2028. Robert Vautard, a French co-chair, has said the proposal reflects anticipated workload, not the political calendar, and that such timelines are normally approved in “a matter of minutes”.
The calendar matters, however. In 2028, parties to the UN climate convention will hold their second global stocktake, a formal assessment of collective progress under the Paris Agreement. Reports delivered by September 2028 could feed directly into it. Reports delivered in 2029 could not.
A group of countries, including India, China, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Kenya, wants the second and third Working Group reports pushed to 2029. They argue that the shorter timeline leaves too little time to assess thousands of studies, agree wording and complete expert and government reviews. They also say it leaves less room for scientists from less-resourced countries to contribute. Kenya’s representative, Joyce Kimutai, told Reuters: “If you have a process that goes very quickly … it wouldn’t be inclusive.”
India’s IPCC representative, Thiagarajan Jayaraman, called it “short-sighted” to suggest that the panel’s value rests solely on contributing to the 2028 talks. He said that issues of “equity and inclusivity” are in some instances “simply ducked”. India has also objected that some models used to project future emissions pathways do not adequately reflect wealthy countries’ historical emissions or poorer countries’ development needs.
The other side has been blunt. On 9 October, ministers from 35 mainly European and small-island states signed a letter criticising “those whose entrenched interests are at odds with reducing greenhouse gases”. They warned that “divorcing the policy cycle under the United Nations from the scientific evidence provided by the IPCC” would undermine global climate efforts. Lisa Schipper, a Swedish IPCC editor, told Reuters that “the elephant in the room is the politics”. She said some countries were using the debate as a “stalling tactic”. Russia’s economy ministry called the framing of the dispute as a confrontation with oil producers a “deliberate misrepresentation”, and China’s foreign ministry said its delegates would take a “constructive attitude”.
The opening
Opening the session, IPCC Chair Jim Skea acknowledged a “critical gap” on timing and said the panel was “at a critical juncture”, AFP reported. “I encourage member governments to spare no effort to find consensus and reach a decision,” he said.
The agenda goes beyond the timetable. According to the Earth Negotiations Bulletin, it includes: – a review of the IPCC’s principles and procedures; – approval of the reports of the last four sessions, over whose wording members have disagreed; – the role of artificial intelligence in IPCC processes; – a budget for 2026–2029, which depends on settling the timeline.
A weakened institution
The deadlock comes at a difficult time for the IPCC. The United States, historically its largest funder, left the organisation in January. The IPCC’s Trust Fund supports developing-country experts’ participation, meetings, and the publication and translation of reports, so a longer cycle without an agreed budget creates practical risks as well as political ones.
There is also a scientific cost to delay. Without AR7, negotiators rely on assessments completed in 2021–23. Those predate 2024, the first calendar year in which global average temperature exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Skea said in June that the new reports will, for the first time, include chapters on climate finance and on irreversible harm. Just over half of the lead authors and editors selected for AR7 come from developing or transition economies.
India’s stake
India’s position reflects a long-standing argument about climate equity: that countries which grew rich on fossil fuels bear the greatest responsibility for cuts. It also reflects concern that tight timelines favour well-funded research systems in the global North. Both concerns have substance. But India also has as much to gain as any country from timely, authoritative climate science. Its farmers, cities and power system are exposed to the monsoon variability, heat and drought now playing out in Telangana, Maharashtra and elsewhere. Notably, the ministers’ letter itself cited “the perilous prospect of a Super El Niño”. AFP reported that India has withdrawn its offer to host COP33 in 2028, without giving a reason.
The question for India’s negotiators is whether more time for inclusiveness can be secured without the science arriving too late to shape the stocktake.
What happens next
Decisions are expected by 16 October. If the panel agrees a timeline, the Working Groups can plan their author meetings and review cycles, and the budget can be approved. If it does not, the IPCC risks producing its next major assessment after the policy moment it was designed to inform.
– Kalyan S Maramganti
Key facts
– Meeting: IPCC-65, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 12–16 Oct 2026; 195 member governments.
– Chairs’ proposal: approve all three AR7 Working Group reports by September 2028, ahead of the second global stocktake.
– Seeking delay to 2029 (WG II and WG III): India, China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Kenya and others.
– Ministers’ letter (9 Oct): 35 mainly European and small-island states oppose separating the science from the 2028 policy cycle.
– India: IPCC representative T. Jayaraman calls the 2028-only framing “short-sighted”; India withdrew its COP33 (2028) hosting offer (AFP).
– Context: US left the IPCC in January 2026; 2024 was the first calendar year above 1.5°C; AR7 to include first chapters on climate finance and irreversible harm.
