The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has suspended its 65th session without deciding when its Seventh Assessment Report will be delivered or agreeing its budget. A coalition of about 30 countries wants the reports by 2028, in time for the next global review of the Paris Agreement. India, China, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Kenya are among those seeking more time. The deadlock has now lasted nearly three years.
The world’s leading climate-science body ended a week of talks in Ethiopia on Friday 16 October without agreeing on the question it most needed to settle. The 65th session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), meeting in Addis Ababa, ran past its scheduled close. Delegations from Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States had to leave before decisions were reached. IPCC Chair Jim Skea then suspended the plenary, saying, according to the IPCC statement as reproduced by the Pacific Islands News Association, that this upheld the inclusivity of a process in which decisions are taken by consensus.
Two items “remain open”, the IPCC said: the timelines for the three Working Group contributions to the Seventh Assessment Report (AR7), and the Panel’s budget. Deliberations will resume “at the earliest opportunity”. No date was given.
What is at stake
The IPCC does not carry out research itself. It assesses the published science on climate change through three Working Groups:
- Working Group I: the physical science
- Working Group II: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability
- Working Group III: mitigation
Hundreds of volunteer scientists write the reports, and all 195 member governments approve their summaries line by line. That process gives the reports their unusual authority. Governments use them for climate planning, negotiators rely on them, and courts have cited them.
The dispute is about timing. Under the Paris Agreement, countries take stock of collective progress every five years. The second Global Stocktake concludes at the UN climate summit in November 2028. Its technical phase is expected to run from mid-2027 to mid-2028, which means the scientific inputs it draws on need to be ready by then. The co-chairs’ proposal would have all three Working Group reports approved by about September 2028. Rival proposals would push Working Groups II and III into 2029.
AR6 was completed in March 2023 and fed into the first Global Stocktake, which concluded at COP28 in Dubai. Supporters of a 2028 timetable argue that the second stocktake should have the latest assessment in the same way.
Who wants what
Reuters reports that a group of about 30 countries, including European, Latin American and small-island states, wants the reports ready for 2028. India, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Russia and China want more time, arguing that scientists from less-resourced countries need longer to contribute and that a compressed schedule weakens review.
The two sides describe the dispute very differently. “We were here to work, but found every proposal dismissed,” said Tina Stege, the Marshall Islands’ climate envoy, calling the outcome “a shameful play for time when there is no time to waste”. Shreeshan Venkatesh of Climate Action Network International said the network was “deeply disappointed”. Countries seeking a longer timetable reject the charge of stalling. Kenyan scientist Joyce Kimutai told Reuters earlier this month that “if you have a process that goes very quickly … it wouldn’t be inclusive”.
Both positions raise real concerns. Developing-country scientists remain under-represented among IPCC authors, often juggle IPCC work with heavy teaching and administrative loads, and have less access to journals and data. A rushed cycle can deepen those imbalances. The opposing concern is that the next global stocktake might rely on science that is up to five years old, at a time when warming, extreme weather and emissions pathways are changing quickly.
A process under strain
The deadlock is unusual. The timeline has been argued over since the AR7 cycle began in July 2023, through sessions in Istanbul, Hangzhou, Lima and Bangkok. Reuters reports that the IPCC’s finances add pressure: the United States, previously its biggest funder, withdrew from the organisation in January 2026. Skea has said a decision is needed because the 2027 budget depends on it.
Not everything is stalled. A Special Report on Climate Change and Cities is scheduled for approval in March 2027, and a methodology report on inventories of short-lived climate forcers, which include methane and black carbon, is due in the second half of 2027. A Synthesis Report for AR7 is planned for late 2029.
India’s position
India has been consistent. At earlier sessions it argued that the assessment should not be tied to the stocktake calendar and that inclusivity should take priority. Reuters and AFP again name India among the countries seeking more time. NSH did not find a report of India’s specific interventions at this session, and no Indian government statement had been published at the time of writing.
India’s stance reflects a long-held principle in climate diplomacy: that science informing global obligations should fully reflect developing-country realities. India also has strong scientific reasons to want the next assessment to be timely. It is among the countries most exposed to heat extremes, monsoon variability and sea-level rise. This year’s El Niño-driven rainfall failure in Telangana and elsewhere shows how directly climate variability shapes water, power and food security. Indian scientists, including at IITM Pune, IISc and IITs, contribute to IPCC assessments, and their regional findings matter for national adaptation planning.
What happens next
The IPCC must reconvene before the end of the year if it is to set a 2027 budget. If the Working Group reports slip to 2029, the second Global Stocktake may draw on special reports, the published literature and other assessments rather than a full AR7. That would weaken, but not remove, its scientific basis. COP31 in Antalya in November will begin the stocktake’s information-gathering phase regardless.
