Leaders from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Russia concluded their first in-person summit in eight years on Thursday with a commitment to strengthen energy ties, expand trade and investment, and pursue long-term commercial partnerships aimed at diversifying supply sources and reducing exposure to market shocks.

The agreement comes as many Southeast Asian economies grapple with the impact of supply disruptions stemming from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a key global energy transit route. The region remains heavily dependent on Middle Eastern crude, with around 60% of Southeast Asia’s crude oil imports originating from the Gulf.

In a joint statement issued after the summit, ASEAN and Russia voiced concern over rising global energy insecurity driven by geopolitical tensions, supply-chain disruptions and market volatility. The two sides also agreed to enhance crisis preparedness, cooperate on energy-transition initiatives and expand engagement in civilian nuclear energy.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, who hosted ASEAN leaders in Kazan, said Moscow was prepared to increase exports of value-added products to Southeast Asian markets, including fertilizers, pharmaceuticals and energy resources.

“Of course, we remain committed to supplying our Asian friends with food products and energy resources, which have been enjoying so much demand,” Putin said at a joint press conference with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

The energy partnership has gained urgency as regional economies face higher fuel costs and supply constraints. The Philippines, for example, imports more than 90% of its crude oil requirements from Gulf producers, leaving it particularly exposed to disruptions in Middle Eastern supply routes.

Indonesian Foreign Minister Sugiono said ASEAN viewed Russia as an important partner in strengthening regional energy resilience and broadening access to alternative sources of supply.

“We seek cooperation that diversifies our sources, strengthens our supply chains, and shields our region from external shocks,” Sugiono told the summit’s plenary session.

Analysts said Russia’s role as a major energy exporter could become increasingly attractive for Southeast Asian governments seeking to mitigate risks associated with geopolitical instability in traditional supply regions.

Chester Calabaza, founding president of the Manila-based International Development and Security Cooperation think tank, said the recent disruption to Middle Eastern energy flows had increased interest in Russian supplies among ASEAN economies pursuing broader energy-security strategies.

Russia’s outreach to ASEAN comes as Moscow seeks to deepen economic engagement with Asia and expand markets for its energy exports, while Southeast Asian governments look to diversify procurement channels amid heightened uncertainty in global energy markets.

The limited movement highlighted continued caution among shipping companies, which welcomed the agreement but are awaiting further details, including safety measures and possible mine clearance operations in the strait.

Global oil prices fell about 4 percent on Monday as markets reacted to expectations that the United States and Iran would formally sign a memorandum of understanding in Switzerland outlining steps to resume shipping.The Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for global energy supplies, has seen sharply reduced traffic since the conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran began on February 28.

The LNG tanker Disha, carrying a cargo from Qatar’s Ras Laffan, had remained west of the strait before crossing, according to data from Kpler and LSEG. The shipment is expected to be delivered to India’s Dahej terminal, a source familiar with the matter said.

Shiptracking data showed about 155 oil and chemical tankers were in the Middle East Gulf area on June 15, down from 201 at the end of May.Shipping analysts said confidence would likely return gradually as vessels resume regular movements through the waterway.

Anoop Singh, global head of shipping research at Oil Brokerage, said wider shipping activity would need time to recover and freight rates could remain elevated while operators assess risks.The Japanese Shipowners’ Association said it welcomed the agreement but wanted more concrete information before recommending that vessels return to normal operations.

Japanese shipping companies also said they would only resume navigation after safety conditions were fully confirmed.The Strait of Hormuz handles a significant share of global oil and LNG shipments, making its reopening a key factor for energy markets and international trade.

The dispute centers on a 26,000-square-kilometer area in the Gulf of Thailand believed to contain significant oil and natural gas reserves estimated to be worth about $300 billion. Both countries have claimed the area for more than 25 years.

Cambodia this week launched a compulsory conciliation process under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) after Thailand ended a 2001 framework agreement governing negotiations over the contested maritime zone.

Thai Foreign Minister Sihasak Phuangketkeow said Bangkok would appoint two representatives to participate in the UN-backed process but criticized Cambodia’s decision to move ahead with arbitration rather than continue bilateral negotiations.

Cambodian Foreign Minister Prak Sokhonn defended the move, saying direct talks had been exhausted and expressing hope that Thailand would engage constructively in the process.

Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul said Thailand would halt all other negotiations with Cambodia, including talks related to land-border issues, and maintain the closure of border checkpoints.

Relations between the neighbors have remained strained since deadly border clashes last year that killed nearly 150 people and displaced more than 300,000, although a ceasefire agreed in December remains in place.

The UNCLOS conciliation process involves a five-member panel that issues non-binding recommendations. It has been used successfully only once before, when Timor-Leste and Australia resolved a decades-long maritime dispute.

Australia’s One Nation party has proposed a resource policy modeled in part on Norway’s approach to oil and gas wealth, arguing that greater public participation in energy projects could deliver stronger returns for taxpayers and create a sovereign wealth fund for future generations.

The proposal has attracted attention for its ambition but also prompted questions from energy analysts about investment risks, expected timelines for returns, and its compatibility with Australia’s climate objectives.One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has pointed to Norway’s success in capturing value from its petroleum resources through close cooperation between government and industry.

Under the party’s proposal, the Australian government would be able to acquire ownership stakes in new offshore oil and gas developments through a dedicated investment vehicle.Unlike Norway’s system, however, participation would not be mandatory. Companies would retain the option of whether to accept government investment and public ownership in their projects.

Supporters argue that the approach would allow Australians to benefit more directly from the development of national resources. Critics counter that the voluntary structure could significantly limit the policy’s effectiveness.

According to David Hanson, who has advocated for a Norway-style model, the Scandinavian country’s experience demonstrates the benefits of partnership between governments and energy companies supported by strong fiscal incentives.However, the opt-in nature of One Nation’s proposal creates important differences from Norway’s framework.

Because companies would be free to decline government participation, analysts suggest that projects most likely to seek public investment could be those facing the highest levels of commercial uncertainty.Josh Runciman, lead gas analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, said the proposal raises questions about whether taxpayers should be exposed to exploration and appraisal risks in an industry where governments typically do not possess the same technical expertise as private-sector operators.

The concern reflects a broader challenge in resource investment. Early-stage exploration projects carry significant uncertainty, with many failing to reach commercial production despite substantial investment.Under One Nation’s proposal, the government would reportedly act as a passive commercial partner, operating at arm’s length from day-to-day project decisions.

At the same time, Hanson has suggested that the government would have greater influence over how its share of production is used once projects begin generating oil or gas.According to the policy outline, the government’s share of production could be directed toward domestic priorities, including fertilizer manufacturing, energy generation and fuel refining.

Surplus production could then be exported, with proceeds used to reduce public debt and build sovereign wealth.The proposal is designed to increase domestic benefits from Australia’s natural resources without imposing higher taxes on energy companies. However, analysts note that this feature may also limit the scale and speed of any financial returns.

Because the plan applies only to future offshore exploration projects and relies on voluntary participation, the timeline for generating revenue is expected to be lengthy.Runciman estimates that many of the projects likely to fall under the policy remain at very early stages of development.

As a result, substantial production and associated government returns may not materialize for at least a decade.That means even if the policy were enacted in the near future, significant additional public revenue would probably not begin flowing until the late 2030s.The delayed timetable also raises questions about how quickly a sovereign wealth fund could accumulate assets sufficient to influence Australia’s long-term fiscal position.

The debate has inevitably drawn comparisons with alternative proposals that seek to increase public returns from resource extraction through taxation rather than direct ownership.One frequently cited model comes from the Superpower Institute, chaired by former competition regulator Allan Fels and supported by businessman and climate advocate Ross Garnaut.

The institute has proposed a 40% two-way cashflow tax, described as a “fair share levy,” that would apply to oil and gas projects.Under that framework, the effective marginal tax rate on oil and gas production would rise to 58%, while companies would also receive a 40% refund on losses.

Advocates argue that the structure mirrors key features of Norway’s resource taxation system by sharing both risks and rewards between government and industry.Unlike One Nation’s proposal, the tax would apply to existing projects as well as future developments.

The institute estimates that it could generate approximately A$9.5 billion annually during an initial transition period, with revenues potentially exceeding A$18 billion in 2031 before gradually declining as global demand for fossil fuels falls over time.Supporters of the levy argue that it would deliver more immediate and substantial public returns than ownership-based approaches limited to future projects.

The debate extends beyond fiscal policy into broader questions surrounding Australia’s energy future.One Nation’s proposal is part of a wider policy agenda that supports continued oil and gas exploration and opposes Australia’s existing net-zero emissions commitment.

Hanson has repeatedly called for the country’s climate targets to be abandoned.That position places the proposal at the center of an increasingly contentious national discussion about balancing energy security, economic growth and emissions reduction.Runciman said aspects of Norway’s resource taxation system have merit because they are designed to preserve investment incentives while ensuring governments receive a larger share of resource profits.

However, he questioned whether expanding support for new gas developments is politically sustainable at a time when many voters expect stronger action on climate change.The policy therefore faces two distinct tests. The first is whether voluntary public participation in future resource projects can generate meaningful financial returns for taxpayers.

The second is whether expanding support for new fossil fuel developments aligns with Australia’s evolving climate and energy priorities.

As debate continues, the proposal highlights a broader challenge confronting resource-rich economies: how to maximize public benefit from natural resources while managing financial risk and navigating the transition toward lower-emissions energy systems.

Ministers are set to gather in Santa Marta against the backdrop of fuel shortages and rising prices following what the International Energy Agency has described as the largest oil supply shock on record, driven in part by constraints around the Strait of Hormuz, a critical transit route for global energy supplies.

The conference, co-hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands, was initiated amid frustration with the pace of negotiations under United Nations climate frameworks, where consensus-based processes have struggled to produce a clear pathway for reducing fossil fuel dependence.

Organisers say the current energy crisis has reinforced the strategic need for a managed transition, even as some governments increase coal use in the short term to stabilise domestic supply.Energy security considerations are expected to weigh as heavily as climate commitments during the discussions, reflecting the policy dilemma facing both advanced and developing economies.

Countries including Australia, Canada and Norway are expected to attend alongside emerging producers such as Angola, Mexico and Brazil, as well as coal-reliant economies like Turkiye and Vietnam. European nations including Germany, France and the United Kingdom are also set to participate.

However, several of the world’s largest fossil fuel producers and consumers, including the United States, China, Saudi Arabia and Russia, will not be represented, limiting the scope of any immediate global alignment.Colombia’s environment minister Irene Vélez Torres said the meeting has gained increased relevance in light of recent geopolitical developments, describing it as an opportunity to foster more direct engagement between producers and consumers on an issue often constrained in multilateral forums.

Analysts say the smaller, focused format may allow for more candid discussions but could also dilute outcomes given the diversity of national interests. Climate scientist Bill Hare of Climate Analytics noted that broader participation can make it harder to reach specific commitments, while supporters argue the inclusion of fossil fuel-producing nations marks a necessary step in advancing negotiations.

Participants from climate-vulnerable states, including Tuvalu and Vanuatu, are expected to push for accelerated timelines, citing the disproportionate impact of climate change and their reliance on imported energy. Officials from these countries have framed the current crisis as further evidence of the need to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

Global investment in clean energy now outpaces spending on fossil fuels by roughly a factor of two, yet emissions from coal, oil and gas reached a record high in 2025, underscoring the gap between policy commitments and implementation.

The Santa Marta meeting is not expected to yield binding agreements but will contribute to a voluntary roadmap on fossil fuel transition being developed under Brazil’s leadership, as countries continue to grapple with balancing climate goals and energy security.

Farmers in India’s northern grain belt are increasingly worried that a distant conflict in the Gulf could disrupt fertiliser supplies and threaten crop yields, as tensions linked to the closure of a key maritime route reverberate through global commodity markets.

In Punjab, a state central to India’s wheat and rice production, growers say uncertainty over input availability has begun to overshadow routine agricultural planning. Gurvinder Singh, a 52-year-old farmer, said concerns over fertiliser access have intensified in recent weeks as global supply chains face strain.

“We are already struggling with profits,” Singh said. “If we don’t get fertilisers, there will be less yield. That will affect my entire family and the entire region, because we are completely dependent on agriculture.

”Singh’s remarks reflect broader anxieties among farmers who rely heavily on imported fertiliser components, many of which are linked to energy markets and international shipping routes. India is one of the world’s largest consumers of fertilisers, and any disruption in supply can have immediate implications for crop productivity.

The concerns follow Iran’s move to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, a critical passage for global oil and gas shipments, in response to strikes by the United States and Israel. The disruption has triggered volatility in energy markets, with ripple effects across industries dependent on fuel and petrochemical inputs.

Fertilisers, particularly nitrogen-based variants, are closely tied to natural gas prices, making them vulnerable to energy supply shocks. Analysts say any sustained increase in fuel costs or shipping disruptions could raise input prices or delay deliveries, affecting farmers during key planting cycles.

In Punjab, often referred to as India’s breadbasket, agriculture remains the primary source of income for millions. Farmers typically follow a rotation of wheat and rice crops, with fertiliser use playing a crucial role in maintaining yields. Any reduction in application due to shortages or high costs could directly impact output.

“We are praying this war stops because it will not spare us either,” Singh said, underscoring the sense of vulnerability among rural communities despite their geographic distance from the conflict.

The potential for supply disruptions comes at a time when many farmers are already facing margin pressures from fluctuating crop prices and rising input costs. Industry observers note that even short-term shortages can have lasting consequences, particularly if they coincide with critical stages of crop development.

India imports a significant portion of its fertiliser requirements, including key raw materials such as potash and phosphates. Supply chains for these inputs are globally integrated, often passing through major shipping routes in the Middle East. Any bottleneck in transit can lead to delays and price spikes in domestic markets.

Government officials have in the past taken steps to secure fertiliser supplies through strategic reserves and international agreements. However, traders say prolonged disruption in maritime logistics could test these buffers, especially if global competition for limited supplies intensifies.

The broader geopolitical situation has also raised concerns about inflationary pressures. Higher energy prices could increase transportation and production costs across sectors, feeding into food prices and complicating economic management.

For farmers like Singh, the uncertainty is immediate and personal. With planting decisions already underway, the availability and affordability of fertilisers will be a key determinant of the upcoming harvest.

As global markets react to developments in the Gulf, the impact is being felt far beyond the region, highlighting the interconnected nature of modern supply chains.

For India’s agricultural heartland, the stakes are tied not only to international diplomacy but also to the livelihoods of millions who depend on stable inputs to sustain production.

Currently the country is grappling with power shortages when a heatwave has driven up demand for cooling.

Gas production between January and May declined by 9% year-on-year and 12% when compared to the same period in 2021.

Egypt, which faces growing demand for gas from its population of 105 million, has been seeking a regional supply role, selling its own gas and re-exporting Israeli gas as liquefied natural gas (LNG) to the Middle East, Africa and Europe.

It received a boost from Italian company Eni’s discovery of the giant Zohr gas field in 2015, and started importing from Israel in 2020.

But there have been few large discoveries since, and a significant increase in supplies from Israel would only be possible after major infrastructure investment.

Production at Zohr stands at 2.3 billion cubic feet per day (bcfd), the government said last month, down from 2.7 bcfd in 2019.Reuters Graphics

Analysts and an industry source said water infiltration issues at Zohr, which had an estimated 30 tcf of gas reserves and a design capacity of 3.2 bcfd, have held back production.

“The decline in production from the field is having a notable impact on gas output as the field accounts for approximately 40% of the country’s total gas production,” said Olumide Ajayi, senior LNG analyst at LSEG.

Both Eni and the Egyptian government last week denied production problems at Zohr. The government says work is under way on Zohr’s 20th well.

The government in July announced the start of a $1.8 billion programme to drill natural gas exploration wells in the Mediterranean Sea and Nile Delta, and the discovery of an offshore field, Nargis, estimated to hold around 2.5 tcf of reserves.

However, in July ratings agency Fitch revised down its forecast for Egypt’s gas production in 2023, to a 4% decline from its previous prediction of 1% y-o-y growth. It cited a thin project pipeline and high depletion rates at existing fields.

These include declining output from the Western Desert, West Delta Deep Marine and onshore fields in the Nile Delta, said Siamak Adibi of consultancy FGE.

Rolling blackouts this summer have also raised questions about gas supply, which accounted for 77% of Egypt’s power generation in 2022, according to BMI Research.

In 2022, the government announced a decision to ration electricity so it could export more gas. However, it said last month it would halt exports until the autumn to meet domestic demand.

“This gas rationing for export coupled with the increase in electricity demand and the shortage of gas has contributed to the power shortages in Egypt,” said Lerato Monaisa, BMI Research’s senior power and renewables analyst.

Electricity Minister Mohamed Shaker told local media in July that the power cuts resulted from his ministry receiving lower quantities of natural gas and fuel oil.

Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly later denied that natural gas shortages or exports were a factor in the power cuts, and said extra mazut, a carbon intensive fuel oil the government has resorted to for power generation, would be imported.

Egypt’s petroleum and electricity ministries did not respond to a request for comment.