Keeping the UK’s climate promise: restoring leadership through delivery
The UK holds a strong position on climate policy globally. However, it currently faces a significant implementation gap between its ambition and the domestic policies in place to achieve it. This gap puts its credibility as an international climate leader at risk. To resolve this, the UK should: - Take further action to bring down the cost of electricity. - Ensure the effective roll-out of existing schemes outlined to meet the 2030, 2035, and 2050 targets. - Strengthen the commitment to ending all new fossil fuel development. - Expand its international climate fi nance commitments. - Consider going beyond minimum targets for 1.5 degrees
From laggard to leader? Australia’s path to climate credibility
Climate policy has a somewhat chequered history in Australia. Progress has been inconsistent and ambition has historically fallen far short of the country’s fair share. Ambition has grown substantially in recent years, although recent targets remain insufficient to align with a 1.5 °C pathway. To build on its current trajectory and ensure the extent of its obligations are met, Australia should: - Reduce reliance on LULUCF sequestration in developing climate targets - Rapidly reduce reliance on and subsidisation of fossil fuels - Tighten and review the Safeguard Mechanism for industrial emissions reductions - Substantially scale up international climate finance
Topographies of global-local connections in the Amazon: An analysis of networks of stakeholder participation in international environmental projects
Global governance has long been pushed to localize, incorporating local voices and knowledge to become both more equitable and effective. This has been particularly the case for global environmental governance, where polycentric modes of governance are found to help local actors acquire responsible stewardship and use resources sustainably. However, the selection of which local actors and knowledges will be incorporated in global governance is still dependent on major international development organizations and funding agencies. This article poses the following questions: Which types of actors are incorporated in the global governance of the Amazon and how do they participate therein? To that end, we analyze the network of stakeholders involved in development, execution, or governance of internationally funded projects in the Amazon. Analyzed projects which were part of a major multilateral initiative—the Global Environmental Facility—focusing on those whose main activities are in the Amazon Rainforest biome. The analysis sheds light on the hierarchies and patterns of exclusion in these networks, identifying which types of actors occupy central and peripheral position, and which others are underrepresented. This will expand our understanding of the politics of global local entanglements in the governance of the Amazon.
Water and conflict in Central Asia
Temperatures in Central Asia are rising faster than the world average, reducing water availability, increasing food security, and causing more frequent natural disasters. The Aral Sea Basin’s arid climate makes it particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Among the Central Asian countries, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are the most vulnerable to water stress. Inter-state disputes over water became more frequent during 2014-2024, including some violent conflicts. Water-related protests in Central Asia are becoming more frequent relative to other types of protest. Joint action is required to increase the region’s water storage capacity, since accelerated glacier melt may destabilize the seasonal runoff.
Does ASEAN climate policy pay sufficient attention to public transportation?
Expansion of public transportation is a climate mitigation measure with many potential co-benefits and positive externalities: reduced congestion, lower air and noise pollution, improved road safety, and poverty alleviation. Most of the member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) face serious challenges in all these areas. This paper therefore investigates how much emphasis the ten ASEAN member states are putting on public transportation compared to other areas in their climate policies. As the empirical basis for the analysis, a dataset was compiled of all targets and measures in the nationally determined contributions (NDCs) of the ASEAN countries. The analysis shows that only 2.2% of the sectoral mitigation targets and measures in the ASEAN NDCs relate to public transportation, and six of the ten NDCs have no public transportation targets or measures. These numbers are surprisingly low considering the challenges related to transportation in the ASEAN megacities and the numerous co-benefits of resolving them. Using the Avoid-Shift-Improve framework for sustainable transportation, the study finds that almost three fourths of the transportation targets and measures in the NDCs belong to the “Improve” category. This indicates that there is potential to further develop policies to “Shift” travel to public transportation and integrate them into the next round of NDC updates.
The state of peace in Africa
Join us for a timely discussion on the African Union's evolving role in peace and security — as Africa stands at a crossroads between conflict and opportunity, how can AU-UN cooperation help unlock the continent’s full potential in a changing global order?
Hybrid Frontlines: Russian Threats and the Future of Maritime Infrastructure in the Black Sea and the North Sea
This study analyzes the risks facing critical maritime infrastructure in two regions essential to European energy security: the Black Sea and the North Sea. The study highlights how the Russian Federation employs hybrid tactics — ranging from sabotage and cyberattacks to influence operations — to advance its geopolitical interests, undermining the stability and security of undersea energy and communication infrastructure. This comparative research examines the responses of Romania and Norway — two NATO member states on the frontlines of this strategic competition — and offers concrete policy recommendations for strengthening the resilience of critical maritime infrastructure. The study is part of the Strategic Initiative for Defending Critical Maritime Infrastructure (SIDMI) project conducted jointly by the New Strategy Center and Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.
Securing the Frontlines: Experimentalist Governance for Critical Maritime Infrastructure in the Black Sea and North Sea
The proliferation of hybrid threats challenges both national security and the institutional foundations of governance. Nowhere is this tension more acute than in the maritime domain, where critical infrastructure such as undersea cables, offshore energy platforms, and subsea pipelines have become both economic lifelines and geopolitical fault lines. These infrastructures are increasingly exposed to hybrid operations designed to exploit legal ambiguity, attribution challenges, and the seams between civil, military, and private actors. Traditional security governance models premised on clear jurisdictional boundaries, centralized command structures, and rigid doctrinal templates, struggle to account for weaponized ambiguity and threats operating below thresholds of open conflicts. As sub-threshold threats continue to evolve and be refined, they reveal deep structural limitations in existing institutional responses, including sectoral silos, information-sharing deficits, and accountability systems illsuited for dynamic crisis environments. This paper explores the need for more adaptive governance frameworks capable of managing the uncertainty, complexity, and cross-sectoral interdependence that define today’s hybrid threat landscape. Specifically, it examines how experimentalist governance (EG) offers a promising architecture for coordinating the defense of critical maritime infrastructure (CMI) in the face of hybrid aggression. The paper analyzes two distinct cases: Norway, with its mature institutional capacity, dense subsea infrastructure, and strong integration with NATO and EU partners; and Romania, situated at the Black Sea frontier, where emerging offshore energy projects intersect with a fluid and contested security environment.