Biztonságpolitika

How does international assistance impact public attitudes towards donors in the recipient country when tied to strategic interests? European leaders increasingly highlight the strategic and transactional nature of international assistance. Yet, we still do not know much about how such shifts in the framing of international assistance are perceived by the recipient public, especially in contexts with prevalent anti-Western attitudes and propaganda that dismisses aid as hypocritical and disingenuous. I conducted an online survey experiment in Turkey to assess the attitudinal and quasi-behavioural effects of different types of international assistance post-disaster – conditional, unconditional, and strategic – and whether they help sway public attitudes in the face of authoritarian propaganda. Strategically distributed humanitarian aid decreased trust in the government as a defender of national interest among conservative, nationalist and Eurosceptic regime supporters, and also increased trust in European organisations. It did so partly by mitigating conspiracism and evoking positive emotions among pro-government voters whose views are hard to change. However, this comes at a cost: increased trade scepticism and decreased engagement with foreign media outlets among regime opponents. The findings have significant implications for international assistance strategies for increasing European soft power.  

Governance theories offer a useful approach to policy by highlighting the need for multi-actor, multi-sectoral, and multi-level cooperation to deal with complex problems. Digitalisation, on the other hand, can be a means for managing networks, for helping to maintain the dynamics of meta-governance, and for generating problem-solving strategies based on knowledge exchange. Both seem to imply each other: governance requires tools to foster collaboration through the development of common understandings of problems, for which digitalisation can be instrumental. Effective digitalisation should foster governmental, social, and private steering towards public service, transparency, and the improvement of accountability. Digitalisation appears to require some basic conditions of governance related to fair access to services; beliefs and narratives that promote cooperation; processes of co-creation; and the interchange of information, as well as operative regulatory institutions. Governance and digitalisation together are fundamental for the management of complex policy problems. 
The aim of this Discussion Paper is theory advancement and refinement, linking assumptions about governance theories – particularly those resulting from the three waves of governance – to those of mainstream digitalisation literature. It formulates a research agenda to explore the possible mutual repercussions of those literature developments. The Discussion Paper is neither mainly descriptive nor prescriptive, but develops certain implications that stem from some fundamental problems of governance – defined as a process of multi-actor, multi-sector, multi-level cooperation – and digitalisation. The research agenda is presented in the form of conjectures relevant to the Mexican case, related to the roles, functions, and expected results of different actors dealing with governance problems within the context of increased digitalisation. The conjectures advance possible research areas related to the role of digitalisation in meta-governance carried out by governmental actors; in those of network cooperation maintained by academic institutions; in the improvement of problem-solving by non-governmental organisations; and in the possible co-creation of new knowledge through information-based interactions by the media.

Francisco Porras is a professor and full-time research fellow at the Mora Research Institute (Instituto Mora), Mexico City.

Development is a complex phenomenon that involves economic, social, and environmental transformations. In recent decades, sustainable development (SD) has gained prominence as a policy objective, emphasizing balanced progress in economic growth, social inclusion, and environmental protection. However, measuring SD progress remains challenging, given the need to consider such multiple dimensions, which often show trade-offs; this is especially true in developing countries such as Peru, where rapid socioeconomic changes coexist with environmental degradation. Traditional metrics, such as GDP or composite indicators such as the Human Development Index, often fail to capture the multidimensional and dynamic nature of SD, especially in terms of the environmental side. This paper employs a multivariate latent Markov model (LMM) to assess Peru's progress toward SD from 2004 to 2017, incorporating economic, social, and environmental indicators. LMMs are advantageous, as they account for unobserved heterogeneity and state transitions between sustainability levels over time, offering a nuanced understanding of SD dynamics. Our findings reveal that while Peru experienced economic and social improvements during the study period, the inclusion of environmental factors in the SD measure curbs overall progress, highlighting potential trade-offs between poverty reduction and environmental quality. The results underscore the importance of integrating environmental considerations into SD strategies, particularly in the context of rapid economic growth. This study contributes methodologically by applying a dynamic and data-driven approach to measuring SD and provides valuable information on the interaction among its dimensions.

Bonn, 1. September 2025. Deutschland und die Europäische Union verfolgen ehrgeizige Strategien zur Dekarbonisierung ihrer Gesellschaften, mit Wasserstoff als Energieträger und Rohstoff für industrielle Prozesse. Im Einklang mit den Klimazielen muss der verwendete Wasserstoff in kohlenstoffarmen Verfahren hergestellt werden. Idealerweise ist dies grüner Wasserstoff, der durch Elektrolyse unter ausschließlicher Verwendung erneuerbarer Energien gewonnen wird. In dem lange vorherrschenden optimistischen Diskurs wäre die globale Versorgung mit Energieträgern künftig nicht mehr an die vorhandenen Öl-, Gas- oder Kohlevorkommen gebunden. Vielmehr könnte Wasserstoff überall dort hergestellt werden, wo ein gutes Potenzial für Wind-, Solar- oder Geothermie besteht. Dies würde neue Möglichkeiten für Länder mit niedrigem und mittlerem Einkommen eröffnen. Die in den Strategien festgelegten Ziele sind sehr ehrgeizig. In der Wasserstoffstrategie von 2023 rechnet Deutschland für 2030 mit einer Elektrolyseurkapazität von 10 GW. Da dies nicht ausreichen würde, um die erforderlichen Mengen an H2 zu produzieren, könnten Importe 50 % bis 70 % des gesamten Wasserstoffbedarfs decken.

Fünf Jahre nach Veröffentlichung der Wasserstoffstrategien ist die Euphorie der Enttäuschung gewichen. In Deutschland waren bis zum ersten Quartal 2025 nur 170 MW Elektrolysekapazität installiert worden, und das Ziel von 10 GW bis 2030 gilt als nicht mehr erreichbar. Aus internationaler Sicht ist die Lage nicht besser. Laut der Internationalen Energieagentur haben derzeit nur etwa 7 % aller weltweiten Wasserstoffprojekte eine endgültige Investitionsentscheidung durchlaufen und werden daher wahrscheinlich umgesetzt.

In den letzten Monaten gab es zahlreiche Berichte über gestrichene H2-Projekte. Dies betrifft alle Elemente der Lieferkette: Im Juli 2025 stoppte das spanische Energieunternehmen REPSOL ein 200-MW-Projekt in einer Raffinerie in Puertollano, eines der größten geplanten H2-Projekte in Europa. Monate zuvor hatten Equinor (Norwegen) und RWE (Deutschland) ihre gemeinsamen Pläne für eine Wasserstoffpipeline durch die Nordsee annulliert. Diese Pipeline hätte eine zuverlässige Versorgung von Industriekunden in Deutschland und Europa mit Wasserstoff ermöglicht. Kürzlich lehnte der zweitgrößte Stahlproduzent der Welt, ArcelorMittal, ein Angebot der deutschen Regierung ab, mehr als eine Milliarde Euro an Subventionen für die Dekarbonisierung von zwei Stahlwerken zu beziehen. Das Unternehmen sieht die langfristige Versorgung mit Wasserstoff als unsicher an und befürchtet, dass grüne Technologien ihm einen Wettbewerbsnachteil gegenüber internationalen Konkurrenten verschaffen könnten.

Es gibt viele Gründe für die strukturelle Krise beim Ausbau der Wasserstoffwirtschaft. Besorgniserregend ist, dass die beteiligten Unternehmen nicht nur weiche Faktoren (wie unklare Vorschriften) anführen, die bei entsprechenden politischen Willen schnell überwunden werden könnten. Vielmehr argumentieren sie mit den wirtschaftlichen Grundlagen der H2-Wertschöpfungsketten: Wasserstoff ist nach wie vor deutlich teurer als fossile Brennstoffe wie Erdgas. Potenzielle Kunden sind nicht bereit oder in der Lage, für Wasserstoff deutlich höhere Preise zu zahlen als für weniger klimafreundliche Alternativen. Darüber hinaus sind mehrere Elemente der Wasserstoffversorgungsketten technologisch noch nicht ausgereift, wie beispielsweise das Cracken von Ammoniak, um den Transport von H2 in Form eines besser geeigneten Derivats zu ermöglichen.

Trotz all dieser Schwierigkeiten gehen wir davon aus, dass H2 eine Zukunft hat und sich ein Wasserstoffmarkt entwickeln wird, sobald die Umsetzungslücke überwunden werden kann. Die meisten Länder fühlen sich an ihre Klimaschutzverpflichtungen gebunden, und einige Sektoren können ohne Wasserstoff als Energieträger oder Rohstoff kaum dekarbonisiert werden. Darüber hinaus wird die angewandte technische Forschung fortgesetzt, mit dem Potenzial, den Wasserstoffausbau wieder auf die Tagesordnung zu setzen.

Wie sollten Länder mit niedrigem und mittlerem Einkommen und die internationale Zusammenarbeit auf den aktuellen „Wasserstoff-Limbo“ reagieren? Eine abwartende Haltung würde unnötig Zeit kosten. Sinnvoll ist, die Umsetzung von H2-Projekten fortzusetzen und sich dabei auf H2-basierte Lösungen für Herausforderungen der nachhaltigen Entwicklung zu konzentrieren. Zwei Beispiele: 1) Wasserstoff kann zur Dekarbonisierung der Düngemittelindustrie beitragen. Eine dezentrale Düngemittelproduktion auf Basis von emissionsarmem Wasserstoff kann die Ernährungssicherheit in Afrika unterstützen, Treibhausgasemissionen reduzieren und zur Weiterentwicklung der Wasserstofftechnologien beitragen. 2) Als Alternative zur Elektrolyse kann Wasserstoff aus Abwasser gewonnen werden, z. B. durch Fermentation. Dadurch können Umweltbelastungen (z. B. die Eutrophierung von Gewässern) und Gesundheitsrisiken im Zusammenhang mit städtischen Abwässern verringert werden.

Werden verschiedene Entwicklungsziele gleichzeitig verfolgt, verlieren die Kostenunterschiede zwischen Wasserstoff und konventionellen Technologien an Bedeutung. Die skizzierten alternativen Technologien sollten in Forschungspartnerschaften mit dem Globalen Süden entwickelt werden; als wichtiger Bestandteil einer multilateralen Wasserstoffstrategie zur Bewältigung globaler Herausforderungen.

Die Unterstützung des Wiederaufbaus in der Ukraine hat sich seit dem Frühjahr 2022 als wichtiges Element der deutschen Ukraine-Politik herausgebildet. Aufseiten der Bundesregierung hat die Unterstützung des Wiederaufbaus – auch als wesentlicher Teil der zivilen Kriegsunterstützung für das Land – eine hohe Priorität, insbesondere für das in vielen Aspekten federführend tätige BMZ. Gleichzeitig geht das deutsche Engagement für den Wiederaufbau in der Ukraine weit über die Unterstützung durch die Bundesregierung hinaus. Von zivilgesellschaftlichen Organisationen hin zu Städten und Gemeinden gibt es eine große Solidarität mit der ukrainischen Gesellschaft und ihrem unbändigen Willen, das Land gegen die russische Aggression zu verteidigen und schnellstmöglich wieder aufzubauen. Vom weiteren Verlauf des Krieges wird abhängen, wie sich der Wiederaufbau und damit auch seine Unterstützung von Partnern wie Deutschland zukünftig gestalten wird. Unabhängig von den nächsten Kriegsmonaten ist jedoch bereits jetzt klar, dass der Wiederaufbau der Ukraine langfristige internationale Unterstützung über mehrere Jahre erfordern wird. Der Beitrag zeichnet die bisherigen Debatten und Weichenstellungen zum Wiederaufbau der Ukraine systematisch nach und untersucht, wie Deutschland und die Europäische Union den Wiederaufbau bisher unterstützt haben. In einer Bewertung dieses Engagements wird auch ein Blick auf die Herausforderungen und möglichen Grenzen des deutschen und internationalen Engagements geworfen.

Die Unterstützung des Wiederaufbaus in der Ukraine hat sich seit dem Frühjahr 2022 als wichtiges Element der deutschen Ukraine-Politik herausgebildet. Aufseiten der Bundesregierung hat die Unterstützung des Wiederaufbaus – auch als wesentlicher Teil der zivilen Kriegsunterstützung für das Land – eine hohe Priorität, insbesondere für das in vielen Aspekten federführend tätige BMZ. Gleichzeitig geht das deutsche Engagement für den Wiederaufbau in der Ukraine weit über die Unterstützung durch die Bundesregierung hinaus. Von zivilgesellschaftlichen Organisationen hin zu Städten und Gemeinden gibt es eine große Solidarität mit der ukrainischen Gesellschaft und ihrem unbändigen Willen, das Land gegen die russische Aggression zu verteidigen und schnellstmöglich wieder aufzubauen. Vom weiteren Verlauf des Krieges wird abhängen, wie sich der Wiederaufbau und damit auch seine Unterstützung von Partnern wie Deutschland zukünftig gestalten wird. Unabhängig von den nächsten Kriegsmonaten ist jedoch bereits jetzt klar, dass der Wiederaufbau der Ukraine langfristige internationale Unterstützung über mehrere Jahre erfordern wird. Der Beitrag zeichnet die bisherigen Debatten und Weichenstellungen zum Wiederaufbau der Ukraine systematisch nach und untersucht, wie Deutschland und die Europäische Union den Wiederaufbau bisher unterstützt haben. In einer Bewertung dieses Engagements wird auch ein Blick auf die Herausforderungen und möglichen Grenzen des deutschen und internationalen Engagements geworfen.

Why do business allies (not) defect from authoritarian regimes? An emerging scholarship shows that connected businesses face high political risk, and the autocrat can financially pressure business allies during economic crises. And yet, despite their disruptive power, the business elite rarely switch to opposition. I argue that this unexpected loyalty does not always stem from credible power-sharing. The more material quid pro quo the business elite engage in with the dictator, the less they can credibly threaten the dictator with defection. I present a bargaining game between the dictatorship and its business allies and test it using a country-year-level dataset of 76 countries for 1992–2019. The results indicate that higher degrees of patrimonial co-optation lower the risk of business opposition. This effect is partly mediated through the government’s control over the media landscape. These findings suggest that even informal, non-institutional tools of co-optation can effectively deter defection.

Why do business allies (not) defect from authoritarian regimes? An emerging scholarship shows that connected businesses face high political risk, and the autocrat can financially pressure business allies during economic crises. And yet, despite their disruptive power, the business elite rarely switch to opposition. I argue that this unexpected loyalty does not always stem from credible power-sharing. The more material quid pro quo the business elite engage in with the dictator, the less they can credibly threaten the dictator with defection. I present a bargaining game between the dictatorship and its business allies and test it using a country-year-level dataset of 76 countries for 1992–2019. The results indicate that higher degrees of patrimonial co-optation lower the risk of business opposition. This effect is partly mediated through the government’s control over the media landscape. These findings suggest that even informal, non-institutional tools of co-optation can effectively deter defection.

Török VIP-helikopter, a TCCB-1 lajstromú S-92 az erkélyről, útban Prágából. 

Zord

Russia considers multilateralism to be an instrument for promoting and managing multipolarity. It regards the UN as an important component of the international system and would like to see it reflect a multipolar world order, which in Russia’s rhetoric is marked by the dominance of principles of sovereignty and non-interference. This shapes Russia’s approach to the UN development pillar, where it seeks to advance its geopolitical interests, including countering Western influence.
Financially, Russia remains a marginal player in the UN development pillar. Between 2018 and 2022, it was the smallest contributor to UN development activities among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (P5) and ranked 23rd among all UN member states. In terms of international professional staff, the share of Russian nationals in the UN system has remained below 1 per cent over the past five years, with the majority concentrated in the UN Secretariat. However, its diplomatic missions – particularly in New York and Geneva – are relatively well-staffed and are recognised for their diplomatic skills and expertise.
Lacking prominent material weight, Russia leverages diplomatic and rhetorical tools to project its power. It portrays itself as an “anti-colonial leader” and champion of the Global South. Russia positions itself as an advocate of an alternative approach to development cooperation, affirming in its rhetoric that developing countries have the right to independently choose their model of socio-economic development without external influence or pressure. In line with this, it rejects the imposition of what it argues are Western liberal values on developing states – which it equates with conditionality in development assistance and infringement on sovereignty – and presents itself as a defender of what in Russian discourse are referred to as “traditional values”, which are usually in opposition to individualism and progressivism.
Although Russia’s arguments resonate among Global South states – because they tap into legitimate grievances – there are cases in which its rhetoric appears instrumental and does not match its practices.
While Russia’s material capacity to project its power and position itself as an alternative development partner is limited, its diplomatic efforts, rhetoric and ability to capitalise on the grievances of the Global South as well as Western double standards amid global power shifts position it as a noticeable actor in UN development work, suggesting it should not be prematurely disregarded based on its modest role as a donor.
Main takeaways:
• Strategic use of UN development pillar: Russia engages in UN development work as a platform to advance its broader geopolitical objectives and its view of the international system, including positioning itself rhetorically as a counterweight to Western influence. While already politicised to some extent, this further reinforces the role of UN development work as a stage for power politics.
• Diplomatic leverage: Although Russia’s material weight in UN development pillar is modest, it uses diplomatic channels and discursive engagement in decision-making processes across UN entities and fora to pursue its interests.
• Anti-colonial narratives and normative contestation: Russia rhetorically appeals to the grievances of the Global South and challenges Western-driven norms and approaches to development. It promotes the vision of a multipolar world order with Moscow as one of the poles of power.

Russia considers multilateralism to be an instrument for promoting and managing multipolarity. It regards the UN as an important component of the international system and would like to see it reflect a multipolar world order, which in Russia’s rhetoric is marked by the dominance of principles of sovereignty and non-interference. This shapes Russia’s approach to the UN development pillar, where it seeks to advance its geopolitical interests, including countering Western influence.
Financially, Russia remains a marginal player in the UN development pillar. Between 2018 and 2022, it was the smallest contributor to UN development activities among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (P5) and ranked 23rd among all UN member states. In terms of international professional staff, the share of Russian nationals in the UN system has remained below 1 per cent over the past five years, with the majority concentrated in the UN Secretariat. However, its diplomatic missions – particularly in New York and Geneva – are relatively well-staffed and are recognised for their diplomatic skills and expertise.
Lacking prominent material weight, Russia leverages diplomatic and rhetorical tools to project its power. It portrays itself as an “anti-colonial leader” and champion of the Global South. Russia positions itself as an advocate of an alternative approach to development cooperation, affirming in its rhetoric that developing countries have the right to independently choose their model of socio-economic development without external influence or pressure. In line with this, it rejects the imposition of what it argues are Western liberal values on developing states – which it equates with conditionality in development assistance and infringement on sovereignty – and presents itself as a defender of what in Russian discourse are referred to as “traditional values”, which are usually in opposition to individualism and progressivism.
Although Russia’s arguments resonate among Global South states – because they tap into legitimate grievances – there are cases in which its rhetoric appears instrumental and does not match its practices.
While Russia’s material capacity to project its power and position itself as an alternative development partner is limited, its diplomatic efforts, rhetoric and ability to capitalise on the grievances of the Global South as well as Western double standards amid global power shifts position it as a noticeable actor in UN development work, suggesting it should not be prematurely disregarded based on its modest role as a donor.
Main takeaways:
• Strategic use of UN development pillar: Russia engages in UN development work as a platform to advance its broader geopolitical objectives and its view of the international system, including positioning itself rhetorically as a counterweight to Western influence. While already politicised to some extent, this further reinforces the role of UN development work as a stage for power politics.
• Diplomatic leverage: Although Russia’s material weight in UN development pillar is modest, it uses diplomatic channels and discursive engagement in decision-making processes across UN entities and fora to pursue its interests.
• Anti-colonial narratives and normative contestation: Russia rhetorically appeals to the grievances of the Global South and challenges Western-driven norms and approaches to development. It promotes the vision of a multipolar world order with Moscow as one of the poles of power.

1. Nature-based Solutions (NbS) have been gaining prominence across the Rio Conventions primarily as a means of addressing climate change with co-benefits for nature and humans. However, they have also faced significant criticism for enabling greenwashing, encouraging market-driven approaches and not addressing the root causes of environmental degradation. Some critics argue that NbS divert attention from urgent transformative actions such as decarbonisation and systemic economic reforms.

2. We present the case for a broader framework, centred around the concept of Integrated Nature-Climate Action (INCA), which extends beyond NbS to drive the structural changes essential for tackling climate change, biodiversity loss and desertification, while delivering positive outcomes such as supporting livelihoods, addressing inequities and upholding the rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. We provide examples of INCAs with significant, tractable benefits for people and nature, including the removal of environmentally harmful subsidies, land rights recognition and circular economic transitions.

3. We argue that the wide range of actors mobilised by INCAs would increase the finance available to fill the deficit for climate and biodiversity action. While tracking the impact of these actions could be challenging, existing United Nations (UN) initiatives could provide models for ensuring the integrity of INCA. A clear definition and set of standards must also be agreed upon to avoid the pitfalls that plague NbS. Careful oversight from stakeholders and rightsholders is vital to ensure legitimacy and that the uptake of INCA does not favour one outcome over others.

4. Policy implications: Moving beyond NbS to pursue an inclusive INCA concept can help address the systemic drivers of the global polycrisis. With synergies between the Rio Conventions expected to be a key focus of the upcoming Conference of the Parties for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP30), there is a clear policy window to broaden the scope of interventions relevant to all three conventions and engage a more diverse array of actors to support enhanced coordination. This is essential for transitioning towards a regenerative economic system that works for people and the planet.

1. Nature-based Solutions (NbS) have been gaining prominence across the Rio Conventions primarily as a means of addressing climate change with co-benefits for nature and humans. However, they have also faced significant criticism for enabling greenwashing, encouraging market-driven approaches and not addressing the root causes of environmental degradation. Some critics argue that NbS divert attention from urgent transformative actions such as decarbonisation and systemic economic reforms.

2. We present the case for a broader framework, centred around the concept of Integrated Nature-Climate Action (INCA), which extends beyond NbS to drive the structural changes essential for tackling climate change, biodiversity loss and desertification, while delivering positive outcomes such as supporting livelihoods, addressing inequities and upholding the rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. We provide examples of INCAs with significant, tractable benefits for people and nature, including the removal of environmentally harmful subsidies, land rights recognition and circular economic transitions.

3. We argue that the wide range of actors mobilised by INCAs would increase the finance available to fill the deficit for climate and biodiversity action. While tracking the impact of these actions could be challenging, existing United Nations (UN) initiatives could provide models for ensuring the integrity of INCA. A clear definition and set of standards must also be agreed upon to avoid the pitfalls that plague NbS. Careful oversight from stakeholders and rightsholders is vital to ensure legitimacy and that the uptake of INCA does not favour one outcome over others.

4. Policy implications: Moving beyond NbS to pursue an inclusive INCA concept can help address the systemic drivers of the global polycrisis. With synergies between the Rio Conventions expected to be a key focus of the upcoming Conference of the Parties for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP30), there is a clear policy window to broaden the scope of interventions relevant to all three conventions and engage a more diverse array of actors to support enhanced coordination. This is essential for transitioning towards a regenerative economic system that works for people and the planet.

Egy együléses vadászgép esetében nem kérdés, hogy aki a fülkében ül, az csakis a gép pilótája lehet, de más a helyzet, ha többen is vannak a fedélzeten. Az amerikai haditengerészet (US Navy) és tengerészgyalogság (Marines) esetében elég egy pillantást vetni az egyenruha vagy az overall bal felső részére és a jelvény azonnal megmondja, hogy viselője milyen beosztásban dolgozik egy repülőgép vagy helikopter fedélzetén.

A pilótajelvények története szinte egyidős a repülőgép katonai célú felhasználásával. Hiába gondolták a Wright fivérek, hogy valami olyat alkottak, amely megakadályozza az újabb háborúkat, a valóság nem is állhatott volna távolabb a derék úttörők alapgondolatától. Nem sok idő kellett ahhoz sem, hogy a levegő harcosai először alegységeiket, majd magukat is jelvényekkel különböztessék meg mindenki mástól. A századjelvények esetében a legkülönbözőbb megoldások születtek, a pilótajelvényeknél pedig a szárny lett a közös pont.

Az amerikai haditengerészeti repülés elmúlt több mint száz évében megannyi jelvényt hoztak létre a különböző beosztásokhoz. Szárnyas kitűzőt viselhettek a ballonpilóták, repülőorvosok, ápolónők, logisztikusok, megfigyelők, meteorológusok, ejtőernyősök és a haditengerészeti háttérrel rendelkező űrhajósok is. Néhány még ma is rendszerben van, de elsősorban három aranyszárny a meghatározó. Ezeket viselik a tiszti rendfokozatú haditengerészeti pilóták (Naval Aviator) és haditengerészeti repülőtisztek (Naval Flight Officer) valamint a legénységi állományú hajózók (Aircrew), akik a repülőgépek és helikopterek fedélzetén szolgálnak. Legyen bármilyen a szárny, közös vonásuk, hogy egyiket sem adják könnyen és megszerzésük, ha vérrel nem is, de verítékkel és esetenként könnyekkel jár. Írásomban e három, sokak által áhított és kevesek által megszerzett jelvény rövid történetéről lesz szó.

[...] Bővebben!

An Asian mother is taking care of her baby while cooking with traditional stove. Approximately one billion people in Asia and the Pacific still rely on traditional polluting cooking fuels that lead to poor indoor air quality. Credit: Unsplash/Quang Nguyen Vinh

By Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana
BANGKOK, Thailand, Aug 28 2025 (IPS)

The future of the global energy landscape will be shaped by Asia and the Pacific. Over the past two decades, our region has been the principal driver of global energy demand and emissions. Energy has powered prosperity, lifted millions out of poverty and transformed societies.

This progress, however, has come at a cost: widening inequalities, entrenched fossil fuel dependencies and increasing climate vulnerability – which make achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and climate objectives challenging.

The gaps we must close

What will it truly take for the region to realize the energy transition and achieve SDG 7 – clean, affordable, reliable and modern energy for all – by 2030? The new Regional Trends Report on Energy for Sustainable Development shows that universal access to electricity is within reach. Yet other dimensions of sustainable energy require urgent acceleration.

Clean cooking remains the most pressing challenge. Nearly one billion people in Asia and the Pacific still rely on traditional fuels, exposing households – especially women and children – to dangerous levels of indoor air pollution. Renewable energy is growing, although the pace still falls short of what is needed to meet rising demand and lower emissions at the scale required.

Per capita, Asia and the Pacific’s installed renewable energy capacity remains lower than in other parts of the world. At the same time, energy efficiency continues to be underutilized, leaving untapped potential to reduce consumption, lower energy costs and reduce carbon emissions.

These challenges are compounded by emerging pressures. Securing access to and sustainably developing critical raw materials is essential for advancing energy transitions, while expanded regional power grid connectivity is crucial to improving energy security and keeping electricity affordable.

Rapidly growing sectors, such as data centres, also need to shift toward low-carbon pathways. Meeting these priorities will demand strategic planning, coordinated action and a strong commitment to fairness and equity.

Emerging momentum

The Asia-Pacific region is showing encouraging signs in recent years with many emerging initiatives to draw inspiration from. Subregional initiatives, including the ASEAN Power Grid and the Nepal-India-Bangladesh trilateral power trade, are fostering cross-border electricity exchanges, improving reliability and enabling greater renewable integration.

China and India are at the forefront of renewables, while Pacific countries such as Fiji, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu have set targets for 100 per cent renewable electricity by 2030. Indonesia and the Philippines are expanding geothermal capacity. Grid-scale battery storage in Australia is helping manage renewable fluctuations and strengthen system resilience.

Industries, urban centres and the transport sector are also driving change. Countries are rapidly expanding the adoption of electric vehicles through investment and infrastructure. Japan and Singapore are improving building energy efficiency with strict standards and incentive programmes, and the Republic of Korea is deploying smart grid technologies to optimize usage.

These examples illustrate that innovation, investment and cooperation are creating the conditions for scalable energy progress across the region.

A just transition for all

The energy transition is not only a technological shift, but also a social transformation. For many such as workers in fossil fuel industries, those in energy-poor households and youths entering the job market, the transition will be a lived reality. Reskilling, education and social protection must accompany this shift, while creating decent jobs in the renewable and energy efficiency sectors.

Women are disproportionately affected by energy poverty and remain underrepresented in the energy workforce and decision-making roles. Unlocking women’s full participation in the sector is needed to accelerate innovation and inclusive growth. A just energy transition must be gender-responsive, with policies and investments designed to close gaps in access, employment and leadership.

Turning ambition into action

Three ingredients stand out:

1. Ambition in policy and planning. Countries need bold, integrated policies that align national energy plans with climate commitments, including net-zero targets. This means setting higher renewable energy ambitions, phasing down coal dependency, embedding energy efficiency into every sector, and ensuring policies are just and inclusive.
2. Scaled-up investment. Delivering SDG 7 requires mobilizing trillions in sustainable energy investment. Governments alone cannot bear this burden. De-risking mechanisms, innovative financing and public-private partnerships will be critical to unlock capital flows.
3. Regional cooperation. Regional grid integration and cross-border power trade, and shared approaches to the development of critical energy transition minerals and technology standards can create efficiencies and resilience.

The region has shown that transformative change is possible. Just twenty years ago, hundreds of millions lacked access to electricity. Today, universal access is within reach, proving that the seemingly insurmountable gaps in clean cooking, renewable deployment and efficiency can be overcome with decisive political will and bold action.

As Asia-Pacific countries gather in September at the ESCAP Committee on Energy, the message is clear: we must act with urgency, ambition and solidarity, or risk being locked in high-carbon pathways. The decisions made in the coming years will define the region’s energy future well beyond 2030.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Excerpt:

Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana is United Nations Under-Secretary-General and Executive Secretary of ESCAP