The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is facing a major disagreement over the schedule for its next global climate assessment, with India, China, Russia and several other countries seeking additional time to complete the reports. The dispute has raised concerns that governments could enter crucial United Nations climate negotiations in November 2028 without access to the latest comprehensive scientific assessment of global warming. Representatives of the IPCC’s 195 member countries are scheduled to meet in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, on October 12, in what is viewed as a key opportunity to resolve the timeline dispute. The debate has continued for nearly three years, reflecting differences over scientific review, participation and the urgency of climate action.

Established in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organisation, the IPCC evaluates existing climate research to help governments understand climate change and develop policy responses. Its assessments, generally published every five to seven years, have informed major international climate agreements, including the 2015 Paris Agreement and its objective of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The next assessment cycle will comprise three reports examining the causes and extent of climate change, its effects and adaptation measures, and options for limiting further warming. Scientists leading the process want all three reports approved by September 2028, ahead of the next major round of UN climate talks.

India, China, Kenya, Russia and Saudi Arabia are among the countries calling for more time, with proposals to delay the second and third reports until 2029. They argue that reviewing thousands of scientific studies requires sufficient time and that researchers from countries with fewer resources must have a fair opportunity to contribute. Kenyan climate scientist Joyce Kimutai told Reuters that an excessively rapid process could undermine inclusiveness. India’s representative, Thiagarajan Jayaraman, described judging the IPCC’s value solely by whether its reports are ready for the 2028 negotiations as “short-sighted”. He has emphasised the importance of equity and inclusivity in the assessment process.

Also Read: NIA Registers Flydubai Incident Case Under Anti-Hijacking Act And UAPA

Countries seeking an earlier publication schedule warn that postponement could leave climate negotiators relying on assessments published in 2021 and 2022. The High Ambition Coalition, which represents more than 30 countries, said access to the latest scientific findings supports a just, equitable and evidence-based approach to climate policy. Climate scientist Jozef Pecho also warned that delaying updated assessments could create greater scope for selective interpretation or distortion of scientific evidence. Supporters of an earlier deadline argue that the reports are important for governments preparing their next climate commitments and evaluating whether existing measures are sufficient to address global warming.

The dispute has also exposed political divisions surrounding international climate action. Swedish IPCC editor Lisa Schipper described some countries’ approach as a possible stalling tactic, arguing that politics was central to the disagreement. Russia rejected accusations that the debate was being driven by oil-producing countries, calling such claims a deliberate misrepresentation and warning against a predetermined climate policy agenda. China, meanwhile, said it would take a constructive approach to the discussions. Belgian IPCC author Joeri Rogelj stressed the importance of the organisation’s authoritative scientific assessments and their role in informing government decisions.

The outcome of the Addis Ababa meeting could determine whether the next IPCC reports are available before the November 2028 UN climate negotiations or whether some assessments will be postponed until 2029. The decision involves balancing the need for timely scientific guidance against concerns that a compressed schedule could limit meaningful participation by researchers worldwide. An earlier deadline would give governments more recent evidence to inform climate commitments, while an extended timetable could provide additional time for scientific review and contributions from less-resourced countries. The member nations’ discussions will therefore shape not only the publication schedule but also the information available to policymakers during the next critical phase of international climate negotiations.

Also Read: ‘Muzzled Democracy’ Kharge Raises Concerns Over Restrictions On Public Protests