Deadlock Over Climate Science Schedule Raises Fresh Questions Ahead of Next Global Stocktake Process

Disagreements over a key international climate process remain unresolved, leaving uncertainty over when crucial scientific assessments will be completed and used in future negotiations.

The timeline for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Seventh Assessment Report (AR7) remains unsettled after delegates failed once again to reach agreement on the publication schedule for its three Working Group reports during the organisation’s latest plenary session.

The meeting, held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, from October 12 to 16, 2026, ended without a decision on when the reports should be released. It marked the sixth consecutive attempt since 2024 in which governments were unable to agree on a common timeline.

The impasse has prompted concerns among climate-vulnerable nations that delays could weaken the role of scientific evidence in future international climate negotiations.

On October 21, the Least Developed Countries (LDC) group under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change expressed disappointment after the session was suspended without an outcome. The group warned that uncertainty surrounding the AR7 schedule could undermine the ability of the latest climate science to inform the second Global Stocktake under the Paris Agreement.

The three Working Group reports form the scientific foundation of the assessment cycle. Working Group I examines the physical science of climate change, Working Group II focuses on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, while Working Group III assesses mitigation strategies.

According to the IPCC, these assessments provide governments with scientific information that supports policy development and international climate discussions.

The debate largely centred on timing. Some countries argued that the proposed schedule would leave insufficient time for scientific review and government scrutiny, potentially affecting the rigor and inclusiveness of the assessment process.

The second Global Stocktake is scheduled for COP33 in 2028. The mechanism allows countries to evaluate collective progress toward the goals of the Paris Agreement and identify remaining gaps in climate action and support.

Different views emerge over balancing speed and scientific rigor

The LDC group argued that repeated delays risk reducing the value of the reports for the upcoming stocktake process. It also expressed concern about proposals seeking longer timelines, particularly for Working Groups II and III, which cover adaptation, climate impacts, mitigation, finance, loss and damage.

According to the Earth Negotiations Bulletin published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development, Saudi Arabia, India, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Algeria, Syria and Belarus supported the publication of the Working Group II and III reports in 2029.

These countries maintained that the IPCC’s scientific independence should be protected and that overly compressed timelines could place excessive demands on reviewers, governments and scientific experts.

The negotiations also produced calls for compromise. Countries including Yemen and Tunisia emphasised the importance of consensus while ensuring scientific quality was not weakened. Zambia suggested that it would be possible to deliver the reports in time for the second Global Stocktake while maintaining meaningful participation from developing countries through safeguards such as avoiding overlapping reviews and strengthening support mechanisms. Similar positions were raised by Guinea, Tanzania and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The plenary eventually ran beyond its scheduled end date, creating difficulties for smaller delegations and representatives from vulnerable countries who needed to return home.

IPCC Chair Jim Skea suspended the session on October 16 without concluding discussions on the Working Group timelines or the organisation’s budget. He later said that inclusive participation was essential to maintaining assessments that are globally representative and responsive to all countries.

The LDC group supported the decision to suspend the meeting rather than continue without broad participation. Its representatives stressed that timely scientific assessments are critical for countries already facing severe climate impacts and cannot be treated as a procedural issue alone.

Skea said he intends to reconvene the unfinished plenary at the earliest opportunity to complete the remaining work. Until then, disagreement over the AR7 timetable remains unresolved, leaving one of the world's most important climate science processes without a final publication schedule.