Gathered in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) failed to agree. On October 16, 2026, the IPCC’s 65th plenary session was suspended, with no decision on the timeline for its Seventh Assessment Cycle or on the budget needed to carry it out. A diplomatic deadlock with potentially very tangible consequences for scientific output.
IPCC’s Next Report: Why the Timeline Is Blocked
The IPCC, created in 1988 and comprising 195 member states, gathers knowledge drawn from published scientific work. Its assessments are meant to help decision-makers understand risks and solutions, without prescribing policies. The seventh cycle includes three major reports. The first examines the physical mechanisms of warming; the second, its impacts, vulnerability of regions, and possibilities for adaptation; the third, the means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The final synthesis is planned for 2029. The current dispute concerns mainly the publication dates of these three contributions, which could be staggered over time.
The Addis Ababa meeting on October 16, 2026, marks the sixth consecutive failure by governments to set these milestones since 2024. From October 12 to 16, about 334 people participated in the debates, including 225 representatives from 115 countries. Despite several days of talks, the plenary could not translate proposals into a common decision. Positions, however, moved closer on paper. Seven scenarios were considered, then reduced to four. Some would allow the three assessments to be published in 2028. Others would place the adaptation report in April 2029 and the emissions-reductions report in July 2029. Between these two extremes lies, notably, a formula that keeps the first two reports in 2028 but shifts the mitigation report to February 2029. None of these compromises has secured universal backing.
This disagreement runs across the usual diplomatic groupings. Some European states, several Latin American countries, and small island developing states want a rapid publication, while Saudi Arabia, India, Russia, China, and Kenya are among those asking for more time for the work or its review. The split cannot be reduced to a simple rich-versus-poor country divide. It pits differing interests and priorities within the Global South against each other as well.
Southern Scientists Want to Shape the Knowledge Base
Advocates of a longer timeline point to a real challenge. Climate research is not produced under equal conditions worldwide. Institutions in wealthier countries publish more, access data more readily, and participate more regularly in international networks. By contrast, teams in the Global South often have fewer resources to conduct studies, publish them, and engage in lengthy peer-review processes.
This imbalance influences the questions asked and the scenarios studied. Developments in energy systems, infrastructure needs, historical responsibility for emissions, and financing possibilities do not present themselves the same way everywhere. The aim, therefore, is to make room for more local research, non-English publications, and knowledge from the most exposed regions. In this view, a few extra months could facilitate some work without automatically guaranteeing a more equitable representation.
The ordinary timeline for these exercises also factors in. The assessment cycles typically span five to seven years. Yet, authors for the new cycle were selected in August 2025. Completing several reports by 2028 would impose a tighter drafting, expert-review, commentary-response, and government-approval sequence. Concerns about the quality of the process cannot be brushed aside.
But the argument for equity does not win universal support among developing countries. For island nations and some of the least developed countries, the urgency is to obtain usable knowledge as quickly as possible to protect populations, anticipate damages, and advocate for their needs in negotiations. A coalition of about 30 countries is calling for publication early enough to inform 2028 decisions. Delaying work in the name of the Global South could thus deprive parts of it of the tools it deems indispensable.
A Decisive Knowledge Report Expected for COP33
That is the other dimension, less visible, of the crisis. In Addis Ababa, states did not merely fail to choose dates: they also did not approve the budget needed for the regular progression of the cycle. One proposal would have approved at least the 2027 budget to allow the working groups to move forward while negotiations continued – but it did not pass. Several delegations argued that authorizing certain expenditures before finalizing the work program would amount to formally endorsing a contested schedule. Conversely, others argued that provisional funding was essential to prevent the political deadlock from turning into operational paralysis. Indeed, author meetings planned for early 2027 could be jeopardized by the lack of budget authorization.
The second global stocktake under the Paris Agreement is due in 2028, at COP33. This exercise aims to measure collective progress in reducing emissions, adapting, and implementing actions. It should then inform the revision of national commitments. If the IPCC reports on impacts and mitigation are not published until 2029, negotiators will not have the full assessment available at the time of this stocktake.
A next step is looming: a letter from the IPCC secretariat dated October 26 invites delegations to reserve December 1–3, 2026, for a virtual resumption of the suspended session. The work program and budget will need to be reconsidered. In the meantime, the scientific groups continue drafting their assessments while awaiting decisions that will determine the path forward for their work.
