Hydropower has become a central pillar of energy security and low-carbon development across the global South, yet its expansion is increasingly shaped by colonial legacies, geopolitical tensions, and financing constraints. This paper examines these dynamics through a qualitative case study of the 5150-megawatt Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) employing a multi-scalar analytical framework and drawing on colonial-era treaties, policy documents, secondary literature, and negotiation records. It traces the evolution of Africa's largest hydropower across interconnected local, regional, and financial domains. At the local scale, the paper documents the socioeconomic impacts of reservoir-related displacement on Gumuz communities, including livelihood disruptions, uneven compensation, and deficiencies in essential services. These outcomes illustrate how large-scale dam projects can reproduce existing patterns of marginalization when social safeguards are weak. At the regional scale, the analysis shows how the GERD challenges Egypt's longstanding downstream hydro-hegemony and unsettles the colonial-era legal framework governing the Nile Basin water relations. While this has strengthened Ethiopia's assertions of water sovereignty, it has also intensified diplomatic tensions involving Egypt and Sudan, prompting mediation efforts by the African Union and deliberations before the United Nations Security Council. At the financial level, the analysis shows how constraints in international development finance contributed to Ethiopia's reliance on domestically mobilized and diaspora-supported financing mechanisms. While focused on Ethiopia, the GERD offers insights into how large hydropower projects in Africa can reshape development trajectories, regional power relations, and infrastructure financing. The paper concludes with recommendations for future research on hydropower, financing, and transboundary water governance.

Oceans are increasingly shaped by climate change, biodiversity loss, geopoliticaltensions and maritime crime and insecurity. Climate-smart marine spatialplanning (CSMSP) has emerged as a governance framework to integrateclimate action, conservation, and equity into ocean planning. However,defense institutions–key actors in maritime security and major greenhousegas emitters–remain absent from CSMSP discourse. This paper arguesthat integrating defense into CSMSP offers strategic and climate benefits:minimizing defense-driven offshore wind cancellation and thus acceleratingapproval, safeguarding environmental protection and undersea critical energyinfrastructure, accelerating decarbonization through the military’s greentransition, and addressing the defense emissions gap. Yet, integration carriessignificant risks: power asymmetries, spatial exclusion, ecological harm,and militarization of green energy. To reconcile security imperatives withsustainability, transparency and equity, the paper proposes governancepathways: transparent data sharing, conflict-resolution and co-existenceprotocols, and defense marine zoning. “However, the paper warns that whilegreen defense initiatives have climate benefits, there are reasons to curbour enthusiasm”. Specifically, rising global military spending and the resultantmineral-intensive extractivism to support war-readiness threaten to overshadowthese benefits by locking in carbon-heavy supply chains and amplifying upstreamemissions, environmental degradation, and social disposability. Aligning nationalsecurity with climate security thus requires more than technological greening: itrequires transparent cradle-to-grave emissions, and strategic restraint in defensespending, war-readiness, and material efficiency. Ultimately, integrating defenseinto CSMSP is not merely a technical exercise but a normative challenge that willdetermine whether ocean governance advances sustainability and transparencyor succumbs to securitized emissions and green extractivism.

Economic growth strategies grounded in blue economy narratives are intensifying and proliferating marine conflicts. In light of this, the study explores how local actors employ bricolage—improvised, resourceful strategies—to challenge institutional norms and reconfigure power relations in the context of marine resource conflicts. We introduce a bricolage power framework to analyze marine conflict in Norway, Brazil, and South Africa. The study shows that fishers, working with NGOs and other partners, are actively engaged in amplifying their voices, promoting accountability, and seeking more just and sustainable ways to manage conflict. These insights emphasize the importance of collective action and collaborative partnerships to change conflict relations and outcomes by challenging various institutional practices and dominant power structures. In particular, the Brazilian and South African cases demonstrate how marginalized actors, through creative bricolage practices, can adapt and reinvent regulatory processes to challenge unjust practices and foster more inclusive and adaptive governance structures. While the grassroots initiatives examined show promise, they remain fragmented and have yet to catalyze systematic institutional transformation in the cases analyzed, so we are cautious against overestimating the transformative potential of these efforts.

This article contributes to the increasing traction of social justice in marine spatial planning (MSP) by exploring perceptions and experiences of social justice from the viewpoint of planners and different social groups who were included and (self)excluded in MSP processes. The study builds on empirical material from Poland, Latvia, and Germany consisting of interviews, MSP legislation, and documents that were analysed through the lens of a multidimensional social justice framework centring on recognition, representation, distribution, and capabilities. Results indicate that MSP institutional arrangements constrain possibilities for marginalised and less consolidated actor groups (residents, coastal tourism, and small-scale fisheries) to enjoy the same degree of recognition that is given to groups representing strategic national interests (renewable energy and shipping). We also highlight the role of planners’ self-reflectivity in enhancing/depriving capabilities of vulnerable social groups whose wellbeing and multidimensional relationships with the sea call for institutional responses adaptive to specific planning contexts. 

Against a backdrop of increasing pressures from biodiversity loss, climate change and competing stakeholder interests, this paper examines factors influencing the implementation of marine and coastal governance approaches and their implications for achieving multifunctional marine and coastal landscapes. Based on a comparative case study of the temporally and spatially overlapping implementation of a state-driven National Park (NP) and a community-led Biosphere Reserve (BR) in the Nämdö Archipelago, Sweden, we conducted semi-structured interviews with differently positioned stakeholders to explore the dynamics shaping these initiatives. Deploying the Institutional Analysis and Development framework as an analytical framework in conjunction with a complex systems approach, the study identifies the interplay of key institutional and socio-ecological factors driving implementation processes and influencing outcomes. Results concerning the NP implementation reveal persistent disagreements between local residents and authorities, due to rigid institutional structures, limited integration of local knowledge, poor communication and competing priorities. In contrast, the BR approach is generally viewed more positively, attributed to its flexible governance and proactive integration of local socioeconomic and cultural values. This study highlights the importance of adaptive, inclusive governance that can address the trade-offs and synergies inherent in multifunctional sustainability efforts in coastal regions. By combining the stability and enforcement capabilities of the NP model with the flexibility and inclusivity of the BR approach, the paper suggests that a hybrid governance model could better balance ecological, social and economic objectives. It advocates for marine governance structures that prioritise inclusive decision-making and the integration of diverse values to better align ecological and community goals.

The involvement of youth in climate actions is increasingly recognized as critical to amore just and sustainable future. Despite progress in youth climate justice (CJ) activism, research and decision-making, gaps and challenges persist. Drawing on existing literature, first, we identify three key reasons for authorities to take youth involvement in climate actions seriously, namely (a) human rights and justice, (b) efficiency, and (c) legitimacy of policy actions. Second, we propose six critical areas for policy, research, and the youth movement to deliver transformative youth CJ: (1) closing the climate finance (i.e., adaptation and loss and damage) gap in a way that prioritizes youth-responsive activities, especially in climate impact-prone regions of the world; (2) adopting an intersectional approach to CJ that challenges homogenization of the youth CJ movement, accounts for the diverse experiences, needs and perspectives of different youth, and addresses intersecting structural forms of discrimination that particularly hamper the agency of racialized youth in the global South and North; (3) youth must recast their justice frameworks and channel their activism mode (e.g., buycott) toward challenging and resisting green extractivism, the necropolitical and ecocidal effects of which are concentrated in post-colonies and other racialized contexts; (4) knowledge co-production with youth must confront the risk of knowledge coloniality, extraction and power; (5) youth should engage in more-than-human CJ activism, recognizing the intertwined fate of youth and more-than-human nature; (6)as legitimate representatives of future generations, youth should consider claiming their space in legislative arenas to ensure the protection of future generations. The involvement of youth in climate actions is increasingly recognized as critical to amore just and sustainable future. Despite progress in youth climate justice (CJ) activism, research and decision-making, gaps and challenges persist. Drawing on existing literature, first, we identify three key reasons for authorities to take youth involvement in climate actions seriously, namely (a) human rights and justice, (b) efficiency, and (c) legitimacy of policy actions. Second, we propose six critical areas for policy, research, and the youth movement to deliver transformative youth CJ: (1) closing the climate finance (i.e., adaptation and loss and damage) gap in a way that prioritizes youth-responsive activities, especially in climate impact-prone regions of the world; (2) adopting an intersectional approach to CJ that challenges homogenization of the youth CJ movement, accounts for the diverse experiences, needs and perspectives of different youth, and addresses intersecting structural forms of discrimination that particularly hamper the agency of racialized youth in the global South and North; (3) youth must recast their justice frameworks and channel their activism mode (e.g., buycott) toward challenging and resisting green extractivism, the necropolitical and ecocidal effects of which are concentrated in post-colonies and other racialized contexts; (4) knowledge co-production with youth must confront the risk of knowledge coloniality, extraction and power; (5) youth should engage in more-than-human CJ activism, recognizing the intertwined fate of youth and more-than-human nature; (6)as legitimate representatives of future generations, youth should consider claiming their space in legislative arenas to ensure the protection of future generations.

Transdisciplinary research has been put forward as a means to foster a radical shift in traditional scientific paradigms by promoting knowledge democracy while tackling wicked problems. This paper analyses how local social-ecological dynamics and institutional realities affect the way in which transdisciplinary research generates knowledge and develops sustainability pathways in diverse marine and coastal conflict contexts. Drawing on a cross-case analysis from a multicountry Belmont Forum project, namely OceansPact, this research analyzes key lessons on transdisciplinary practice. This analysis is informed by online surveys, semi-structured interviews with scholars and focus group discussions with non-academic stakeholders involved in the OceansPact. The paper demonstrates that transdisciplinary approaches can foster conflict transformation. Nonetheless, the results highlight that context-specific factors, including trust-building strategies and institutional cultures, significantly shape the processes of knowledge co-production and linking knowledge to transformative action. This study hence emphasize the need of flexible approaches, instead of standardized frameworks, that accommodate these diverse contexts and power dynamics, warning against reductionist approaches that oversimplify complexity. Emphasizing the political nature of transdisciplinarity, this paper calls for mechanisms that mitigate power asymmetries in transdisciplinary spaces. This paper moreover underscores the urgent need of systemic changes in academic institutions to support long-term, equitable collaboration between scholars and non-academic stakeholders, as well as of a shared understanding of transdisciplinary research so that this model can drive positive transformation.

While blue justice has gained traction, recognition and capability, which are necessary conditions for procedural and distributive justice, remain under-developed. We develop a four-dimensional blue justice framework that builds on recognition and capabilities to critically examine and advance justice in Poland’s marine spatial planning (MSP). We find that misrecognition of differential identities and capacities scripted powerless stakeholders out of participation and reduced possibilities for fair distribution. Conversely, MSP regulation augmented the rights of powerful actors through granting de jure “objecting” rights to some, inviting only strategic sectors to agenda-setting fora and, limiting MSP communication to meeting legal requirements. Several stakeholders also see defence and wind energy as key winners of MSP. While society will benefit from national security and energy sufficiency, especially given Russia’s increased weaponization of energy, many believe that financial profits from wind energy will accrue to developers. We offer governmental and planning measures to enhance capabilities. 

Worldwide, marine conflicts are growing in frequency and intensity due to increasing global demands for resources (Blue Growth) and climate change. This article introduces a collection in Maritime Studies on marine conflicts and pathways to sustainability in an era of Blue Growth and climate change. We posit that while conflict can be problematic, it can also play a positive role in bringing about societal change, by highlighting unsustainable and unjust practices and be a trigger for sustainability transformation. However, left unattended, festering marine conflict can hinder just and equitable sustainability transformation. We present two distinct, yet arguably complementary, lenses through which researchers working with sustainability engage with marine conflicts. First, a social-ecological systems approach engages in conflicts by examining the interdependencies between human and ecological systems and related governance arrangements, promoting collaborative learning and action, and exploring adaptive governance strategies that seek sustainability conflict resolution. Second, a political ecology approach addresses conflicts by examining power dynamics and resource (mal)distributions, arguing for fair governance, and emphasizing the need to address historical and current injustices that are at the root of conflicts. Next, we present insights on diverse sustainability transformational pathways, including the importance of searching for common ground and the need for the reconfiguration of power relations as key steps to understand and inform sustainability conflict research. We conclude by indicating that more sustainability research in marine conflict settings is needed and by forwarding intersectionality as a promising approach to productively reframe and disrupt the debilitating effects of deep-rooted marine sustainability conflicts. 

Community participation and influence are vitally important for meeting the multidimensional sustainability aims of marine spatial planning (MSP) and more specifically for procedural and distributive justice. While participation has received substantial research interest, we identify a need to: 1) develop equity-based principles for coastal community participation that can be used to assess and reform MSP practices; 2) generate rich empirical accounts of coastal community participation and representation linked to real-world MSP practices. Here we present the results of a study that synthesizes critical MSP and blue justice scholarship to develop principles and indicators of coastally equitable and just planning. Drawing on interviews with planners and stakeholders and analysis of planning and legal documents, these principles are used to assess participatory processes linked to Latvian MSP practices in the period 2015 to 2019. Our analysis shows that equitable and just MSP needs to be based on participation that is timely, inclusive, supportive & localized, collaborative, methodical and impactful. When applied to the Latvian case these six principles provide a comprehensive and versatile heuristic approach to assess participation in MSP. In the context of Latvian MSP practices, we revealed a fundamental challenge of maintaining inclusive and localized participation throughout the full planning cycle. To counteract the successive narrowing/hardening of participatory space our results indicate a need for continuously promoting diversity of voices and perspectives, opportunities for collaborative sense making, visioning and critique. This will help to bridge diverse MSP divides (e.g., between land and sea, between local, national, and global values and priorities, between science and local knowledge, and between blue growth, conservation, and justice goals). If applied more generally in research and as part of MSP evaluation an equity-based approach can promote the mainstreaming of coastally just and equitable MSP practices. Finally, considering contextual factors (e.g., history, culture, power, legislation) that shape participation and representation is crucial when applying the equity principles to a particular MSP setting to acknowledge and accommodate its particular characteristics and challenges.