The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) meeting in Hangzhou, China, ended in deadlock for the third time, as governments failed to agree on a timeline for the organisation’s seventh assessment cycle (AR7). This impasse has significant implications for global climate action, particularly for developing countries, which risk being sidelined in the AR7 process. The proposed timeline, which is more compressed than in previous cycles, threatens to exacerbate existing disparities in climate knowledge representation.
The dispute centers on whether to align the IPCC’s AR7 reports with the UN’s Global Stocktake (GST), a mechanism under the Paris Agreement designed to assess progress on climate action. Some countries argue that the compressed timeline proposed by the IPCC Bureau limits the ability of scientists, particularly from the Global South, to participate meaningfully.
The Stalemate
Simon Stiell, Executive Director of UNFCCC addressing the opening of the 62nd Session of the IPCC in Hangzhou, China. Photo credit: Flickr
The Hangzhou meeting follows previous failed attempts at consensus in IPCC sessions in February and July 2024. The primary disagreement is whether the IPCC should expedite its reports to align with the next GST in 2028. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has urged the IPCC to provide relevant data for global stocktaking, but several countries, including Kenya, South Africa, China, India, Saudi Arabia, and Russia, oppose the proposed timeline.
These countries argue that a rushed process will exclude developing nations from critical scientific contributions. “The IPCC process must allow for inclusive participation,” said Patricia Nying’uro, Kenya’s IPCC focal point. “The current timeline does not provide adequate time for developing countries to conduct research, publish their findings, and have meaningful input.”
European nations, Japan, Turkiye, small island states and most Latin American and least developed countries supported the plan by the U.N.’s climate science panel, after the US withdrew from the process. However, the opponents of the delay, including many developed countries, argue that failing to align AR7 with the GST will undermine the global effort to assess progress on climate action. The last GST report drew heavily from IPCC reports, especially in areas like Loss and Damage. Without timely input from the IPCC, Nying’uro fears that the next GST may be based on outdated or incomplete science.
The Stakes for Developing Countries
Developing countries, particularly those in Africa, face significant challenges in contributing to the IPCC process. The AR7 timeline proposed by the IPCC Bureau is considerably more compressed than in previous cycles, restricting the essential groundwork needed for inclusive participation and comprehensive knowledge representation. Without sufficient time, these regions risk being excluded from meaningful contribution, further reinforcing existing disparities and entrenching the current discourse in climate.
Dr. Joyce Kimutai, Kenya’s IPCC focal point, explained concerns from an African standpoint. “The proposed timeline presents significant overlaps between expert and government review periods across Working Groups, making it difficult for experts to provide substantive input and for authors to effectively incorporate feedback,” she noted. This compressed schedule leaves insufficient time for authors to adequately respond to government feedback, risking the quality of the reports and subsequently the Summary for Policymakers (SPMs).
AÂ Compressed Timeline: Who Loses?
Fifteenth Session of the IPCC Working Group I (WG I-15), Hangzhou, China. Photo credit: IPCC Secretariat 2025, Flickr
According to an analysis by Kenyan scientists Dr. Joyce Kimutai and Patricia Nying’uro, the proposed AR7 timeline is significantly shorter than previous cycles. Compared to AR5 and AR6, the timeline has been reduced by several months, limiting time for research, drafting, and review.
For example, the time between the first Lead Author Meeting and final approval has been cut by 3–8 months across the three working groups. The time between the scoping meeting and final approval is 15 months shorter than AR5. Overlapping review periods between government and expert reviewers makes it difficult for authors to incorporate feedback.
Developing nations already face significant barriers to participation. Limited research funding, lack of institutional support, and publishing costs make it harder for scientists from the Global South to contribute. “Publishing scientific work takes time, often a year or more,” said Dr. Kimutai. “A compressed timeline means we risk excluding the latest research from these regions.”
Additionally, many experts from developing nations juggle multiple roles. Unlike their counterparts in well-funded institutions in developed countries, they do not have dedicated staff to focus solely on IPCC work. The shorter timeline places additional pressure on these researchers, making their participation even more difficult.
Inclusivity and Regional Representation
The lack of inclusivity and regional representation is a pressing issue. IPCC reports are an assessment of literature, and with significant gaps remaining and too few experts available to address them, developing countries need sufficient time not only to review draft IPCC reports but also to enable their scientific communities to produce research to fill critical knowledge gaps essential for effective climate action in this critical decade.
Expressing the perspectives and priorities of developing countries requires time for research, publication, and review. For instance, the standalone product on Technical Guidelines for Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation, Including Indicators, Metrics, and Methodologies will involve revising and updating the 1994 guidelines, as well as developing indicators and methodologies, to enable assessment of adaptation progress and adequacy. This process demands significant effort, both from experts producing literature and authors synthesizing the findings.
The publication process can be lengthy, often taking up to one year for even high-impact journals. In many cases, the process takes significantly longer for researchers from developing countries, when submitting to Global North-based journals. Many find that their chances of getting published improve significantly when collaborating with Global North co-authors, indicating entrenched systemic disparities in academic publishing.
Financial Barriers to Participation
Thirteenth Session of the IPCC Working Group II (WG II-13) in Hangzhou, China. Photo credit: IPCC Secretariat 2025, FlickirÂ
Publishing costs remain a major barrier for institutions in the Global South. Unlike many institutions in the Global North, which benefit from fee waiver agreements with publishers, researchers in developing countries often have to bear the full financial burden of publishing, making it even more difficult for their work to reach international audiences. The IPCC Bureau’s inclusivity framework for AR7 explains the need to integrate diverse knowledge systems, including indigenous and local knowledge. However, assessing and incorporating such knowledge into the reports requires time and effort, which the current tight schedule does not adequately accommodate.
What’s Next?
With no agreement reached in Hangzhou, the issue will be revisited at the next IPCC plenary in October 2025 in Lima, Peru. If the deadlock continues, the risk grows that the AR7 reports will not be completed in time to inform the 2028 GST.Â
Dr. Kimutai warned that continued inaction will have serious consequences. Without a clear timeline, countries may struggle to plan national policies. The quality of the GST may suffer, and climate finance negotiations could be weakened.
To break the impasse, she said IPCC member states must find a compromise that ensures both timely delivery of reports and equitable participation. Some have proposed extending the timeline slightly while prioritizing key reports for early release. Others suggest providing additional funding to support researchers from developing countries.
