The Global Environmental Think Tank Development Report 2025 maps 886 environmental think tanks across 97 countries, examining their research capacity and contributions to environmental governance.
The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), New Delhi, ranks among the world's top 100 environmental think tanks and among the top 50 in three key categories.
The report highlights disparities in funding, institutional strength and research capabilities between think tanks in developed and developing countries.
Stronger international cooperation, shared research and institutional independence are essential to addressing environmental challenges that cross national borders.
During my recent visit to Hangzhou, China, for the International Symposium of Environmental Think Tanks, a question kept returning: as environmental and climate challenges become increasingly interconnected, are the institutions researching these issues learning enough from one another?
The symposium saw the release of the Global Environmental Think Tank Development Report 2025, an assessment of institutions producing research and informing environmental policy worldwide. The report maps 886 environmental think tanks across 97 countries, examining their institutional capabilities, policy engagement and contributions to environmental governance. It also compares the experiences of think tanks in developed and developing countries and explores opportunities for cooperation.
The report provides a useful lens through which to understand not only the growing role of environmental think tanks, but also the differences in resources and capacities that shape their work.
Bin Peng, executive director of the Institute for Green Innovation and Development (IGID) and one of the report’s lead authors, said: “Currently, there is little research on environmental think tanks – a situation that is disproportionate to the rapid development of such think tanks and also inadequate given the urgent needs of tackling complex environmental challenges.”
To address these gaps, he said, IGID developed the report to advance the development of and cooperation among environmental think tanks worldwide.
One of the report's important contributions is its comparison of environmental think tanks across developed and developing countries.
Of the 886 institutions mapped, 499 are located in 26 developed countries, while 387 are spread across 71 developing countries. This distribution highlights the different contexts in which these institutions operate. Think tanks in developing countries are spread across a much larger number of countries, often with fewer resources and more limited institutional and research capacity.
The report identifies funding constraints and gaps in institutional strength and research capabilities among the challenges faced by think tanks in developing countries. It points to capacity-building cooperation as one way to address these challenges and strengthen countries’ ability to formulate and implement environmental policies.
But capacity is only part of the question. Discussions in Hangzhou also emphasised the importance of institutional independence. Think tanks need to be able to examine policies critically and follow evidence, even when their findings challenge prevailing positions.
Sustained funding and stronger research capabilities matter, but so does the freedom to pursue questions independently.
The report places New Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) among the world's top 100 environmental think tanks. It also ranks CSE among the top 50 in the categories of environmental pollution, biodiversity and ecosystems, and sustainable development. A few other South Asian think tanks were also included.
Over the years, CSE's work has grown through sustained engagement with environmental issues, field-based research and close attention to how policies translate into practice.
Its experience has often involved looking beyond broad policy commitments to understand the realities of implementation, the challenges faced by different stakeholders and the changes needed to make policies work better.
Staying engaged with these issues over time, while bringing evidence into public and policy discussions, has been an important part of CSE's approach. This reflects the value of research that remains connected to the realities it seeks to address.
The report's mapping of environmental think tanks across regions, alongside its examination of networks and cooperation, raises a wider question about how these institutions can make better use of one another's experience.
Pollution, biodiversity loss and climate change do not stop at national borders, but research, environmental data and policy responses are often developed within national or institutional boundaries.
For India and South Asia, opportunities for collaboration are particularly relevant. Air pollution, river systems, ecosystem degradation and climate risks have regional dimensions, while neighbouring countries and other developing economies often face similar challenges under different economic and governance conditions.
Comparing research and policy experiences can help institutions understand why an intervention works in one setting and what might need to change for it to work elsewhere.
Cooperation, however, cannot mean simply transferring policies from one country to another. Local data, institutional capacity and ground realities remain essential. The greatest value of international exchange lies in combining lessons from elsewhere with evidence gathered locally.
The report and discussions in Hangzhou point towards the need for stronger connections between environmental research institutions. These should not be limited to conferences or exchanges of ideas.
Joint research, shared data, comparative policy assessments and continuing engagement between researchers can help build partnerships that deliver lasting value.
Think tank cooperation can also help address challenges in green technology transfer by sharing evidence on emerging technologies, comparing policy and financing models, and identifying barriers that prevent proven solutions from reaching developing countries.
Such partnerships should also create opportunities for institutions with fewer resources to strengthen their capabilities and contribute their own experiences.
For think tanks, the ultimate test is whether research informs decisions and improves implementation.
International cooperation cannot replace independent research or sustained engagement on the ground. It can, however, broaden the evidence available to researchers and policymakers, helping them respond to environmental challenges that are increasingly shared across borders.