Funding gap threatens next round of IPCC climate science reports, chair warns

IPCC funding crisis: $5 million shortfall stalls next climate science reports

Muhammad Asghar | GlobalBeat

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change faces a $5 million funding gap that threatens production of its next assessment cycle, the body’s chair warned governments Monday.

Jim Skea told officials the shortfall could delay scientific reports that underpin global climate negotiations and policy decisions worldwide, with the panel already operating on a shoestring budget.

The IPCC’s work forms the backbone of international climate action. Its assessment reports, produced every 6 to 7 years, guide trillions of dollars in government spending and corporate investment. The current funding crisis comes as extreme weather events intensify and countries prepare to update their national climate targets next year.

Skea delivered the warning during the IPCC’s annual plenary session in Istanbul, where representatives from 195 member countries gathered to approve the organization’s budget and work program. He said operating reserves had fallen to dangerous levels, with some core activities already curtailed.

“We are essentially living hand to mouth,” Skea told reporters after the closed-door session. He said the panel needs immediate contributions to maintain its current staffing and begin preparations for the seventh assessment cycle, due to start in 2027.

The crisis stems from shrinking government contributions. Traditional donors including several European Union members have reduced their IPCC funding in recent years, redirecting climate spending toward domestic priorities and other international bodies. The United States, historically the largest donor under both Democratic and Republican administrations, has maintained its contribution but not increased it despite rising operational costs.

The budget crunch hits as the IPCC struggles to process an explosion of climate science. Researchers publish more than 20,000 peer-reviewed climate studies annually, up from 8,000 a decade ago. Each paper must be reviewed by IPCC scientists before inclusion in assessment reports.

“This is a body that essentially gives us the best available science on the climate crisis,” said Alden Meyer, a senior associate at E3G who has observed IPCC meetings since the 1990s. “If they can’t function properly, that undermines the entire global response to climate change.”

The timing proves particularly problematic. Countries must submit new national climate commitments, known as nationally determined contributions, to the UN by early 2026. Many governments rely heavily on IPCC findings to justify their targets and craft policy measures.

Developing nations face the greatest risk from delays. “Our national plans are built on IPCC assessments,” said Ahmad Alhendawi, Jordan’s environment minister. “Without their guidance, we’re flying blind on issues like water scarcity and agricultural adaptation.”

The funding crisis reflects broader challenges facing multilateral climate institutions. The Green Climate Fund struggles to meet its $100 billion target, while the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change itself faces budget constraints. Climate bodies compete for limited aid budgets amid competing priorities from food security to pandemic recovery.

“Donors are picking winners and losers,” said Rachel Kyte, former World Bank special envoy for climate change. “But you can’t have a functioning climate regime without good science. That’s what the IPCC provides.”

Some wealthy countries defend their reduced contributions. A European diplomat, speaking anonymously to discuss budget negotiations, said: “Every euro counts right now. We’re trying to balance multiple urgent needs at home and abroad. The IPCC needs to show it’s operating efficiently.”

The panel has already cut corners. It reduced the number of lead authors for its latest synthesis report from 150 to 100, forcing remaining scientists to work longer hours without compensation. Administrative staff positions remain unfilled. The organization cancelled its in-person scoping meeting for the next cycle, saving travel costs but limiting scientific collaboration.

Scientists volunteer their time for IPCC work, receiving only travel reimbursement and a modest daily stipend during assessment meetings. The arrangement has worked for three decades but grows unsustainable as climate science becomes more complex and contested.

“The workload is crushing,” said Carolina Vera, an Argentine climate scientist who co-chaired the IPCC’s sixth assessment working group. “We’re asking people to give up research time, family time, to provide this public service. It’s becoming impossible.”

Background

The IPCC formed in 1988 under UN auspices to provide policymakers with regular scientific assessments on climate change. Its reports synthesize thousands of studies into comprehensive summaries approved line-by-line by governments. The process, while painstaking, produces documents that carry unique authority in climate negotiations.

IPCC assessments shape major climate agreements. The 1.5 degrees Celsius target in the Paris Agreement derives directly from IPCC findings showing catastrophic impacts beyond that threshold. Corporate net-zero commitments use IPCC carbon budget calculations. Insurance companies price climate risk using its projections.

The body operates on an unusual model. Scientists work for free while governments cover operational costs including staff salaries, translation services, and meeting expenses. Total annual spending runs about $7 million, tiny compared to national science agencies or even large universities. The entire IPCC budget equals roughly what the United States spends on military bands each year.

What’s Next

Member governments have until March to pledge additional funding for the next fiscal year. Skea said he needs written commitments, not vague promises, before authorizing spending on assessment preparation. The IPCC bureau meets again in May to formally launch the seventh assessment cycle, if resources allow. Failure to secure funding could force postponement to 2028, creating a gap in scientific guidance as countries implement Paris Agreement requirements.