Commentary. At COP31 in Antalya, a dispute over the timing of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s next major assessment may look like procedural housekeeping. It is not. The decision will help determine whether governments confront the world’s climate record before judging their progress—or postpone the evidence until after that judgment has already been made.
The European Union and dozens of other countries want the IPCC’s seventh assessment report available before the 2028 global stocktake, the Paris Agreement’s scheduled review of collective action. Saudi Arabia, China and India are among those backing publication in 2029 instead. The disagreement has entered the negotiations and threatens to complicate efforts to reach a final agreement.
Our view is straightforward: the report should be completed in time to inform the 2028 stocktake, provided the scientific process remains rigorous. A deadline must never dictate a conclusion. But a commitment to accuracy cannot become an excuse to ensure that the most consequential review of climate policy proceeds with outdated evidence.
Why timing matters
The stocktake is supposed to tell governments where the Paris process stands and what must change. The EU argues that the latest available science should inform that assessment, rather than arrive afterward as a postscript. That is a reasonable demand. Policymakers deciding whether emissions cuts, adaptation spending and climate finance are adequate should not knowingly rely on an incomplete scientific picture.
The IPCC is not a campaigning organization. Its assessments synthesize and evaluate published research through an extensive review process involving governments and scientists. The credibility of its conclusions depends on that independence and care. Any timetable should therefore preserve the ability to correct errors, assess new literature and reflect genuine uncertainty.
That is the strongest argument on the other side. A rushed report could weaken confidence in the institution it is meant to guide. The countries pressing for a 2029 publication date can argue that the IPCC should protect quality rather than satisfy a diplomatic calendar. They may also object to a process in which wealthier countries, with greater scientific and administrative capacity, exert disproportionate influence over the schedule.
The politics behind the procedure
Those concerns deserve an answer, but delay is not politically neutral. Climate negotiations already struggle with postponement: governments defer stronger targets, finance pledges and implementation decisions while impacts intensify. Moving the scientific assessment beyond the 2028 review could make it easier for states to describe insufficient progress as a matter still awaiting clarification.
Nor should “science” be treated as a decorative label attached to decisions made elsewhere. The relevant question is not whether an IPCC report can eliminate political disagreement. It cannot. The question is whether negotiators want their disagreements tested against the best available evidence before they set the next course.
The EU’s position also needs discipline. Calling for a timely report is credible only if European governments accept what it may say about their own policies, consumption and financing. Scientific urgency cannot be used selectively—to criticize other countries while shielding domestic exemptions or slow implementation.
A defensible compromise
The answer should be an independently managed timetable with transparent milestones, regular public progress reports and a firm commitment that no chapter will be approved before it meets the IPCC’s standards. If the full assessment cannot be completed by the 2028 stocktake, negotiators should use the strongest completed chapters and clearly identify what remains outstanding, rather than pretending that a delayed report does not matter.
Governments should also agree that the stocktake will be updated when the assessment is published. That would protect scientific integrity without allowing an administrative delay to deprive the Paris process of relevant evidence indefinitely.
Climate diplomacy is often described as a contest between ambition and realism. Here, realism means accepting that the atmosphere will not wait for a more convenient meeting date. The world needs careful science, not hurried science—but it also needs institutions willing to use careful science when decisions are due.
At COP31, negotiators should defend both halves of that principle. Protect the IPCC from political pressure, and protect the 2028 stocktake from political convenience.