Over the past five years, global gas markets have experienced two major energy crises that fundamentally challenged long-held assumptions about gas supply security and resilience. The 2022-2023 energy crisis following Russian Federation's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz during the 2026 Middle East conflict demonstrated that events previously considered extreme can materialise with significant consequences for import-dependent economies in both Europe and Asia.

The crises highlighted that well-functioning gas markets remain the first and most important line of defence against supply disruptions. Price signals, commercial incentives, and the international reallocation of liquefied natural gas (LNG) allowed supplies to move towards regions with the greatest need (and willingness to pay), helping to mitigate what could have been more severe and widespread physical shortages. Market flexibility therefore remains an essential component of gas security.

At the same time, recent experience also showed that market-based reallocation alone may not always be sufficient during periods of acute stress. When global gas supply is exceptionally tight, competition for available cargoes can trigger extreme price volatility, amplify economic impacts and, in some cases, fail to prevent physical shortages. These risks highlight the importance of maintaining physical reserves, emergency response arrangements, and coordinated policy measures that can help bridge the most acute phase of a crisis until markets rebalance.

Long-term supply security ultimately depends on adequate investment across the gas value chain, diversified supply sources, robust infrastructure, and appropriate contracting arrangements. These structural elements create the supply base upon which secure gas systems ultimately depend, but they are not the focus of this report. Instead, we focus on a complementary set of measures that importing countries – and, where appropriate, groups of importers and exporters – can implement in the medium term to strengthen resilience against short-term market shocks. Many of these measures build on existing infrastructure, commercial arrangements, and market structures, allowing resilience to be enhanced without requiring major new physical investments.

Making gas markets more resilient does, however, come at a cost. Maintaining strategic reserves, securing commercial flexibility, and preserving unused capacity all involve premiums that are ultimately borne by consumers, taxpayers, or market participants. Yet recent crises have demonstrated that the economic and social costs of being underprepared may be substantially higher than failing to invest in resilience measures. As with other forms of insurance, such investments involve upfront costs that can provide significant value when highly disruptive events occur. Understanding the costs, benefits, trade-offs, and potential unintended consequences of these measures is therefore essential to designing efficient and appropriate supply security frameworks.

There is no one-size-fits-all model for strengthening gas security; countries differ considerably in their resource endowment, infrastructure, geography, import dependence, market design, and regulatory frameworks. As such, the most appropriate mix of physical reserve mechanisms, commercial flexibility, and policy tools will vary according to national market conditions, risk profile, and security objectives. Many of the concepts presented in the report warrant further technical analysis, economic assessment, and international dialogue to better understand their costs, benefits, trade-offs, and implementation challenges. By identifying practical options to strengthen short- to medium-term resilience, this report aims to catalyse continued discussion and cooperation among governments, industry, and international organisations. Its main findings are summarised below.

The global gas market has become structurally and geopolitically more complex.

The global gas market has become structurally more complex since the 2022-2023 energy crisis. This growing complexity reflects increased geopolitical risks, trade fragmentation, and greater weather sensitivity of gas flows and demand. In addition, supply flexibility has been reduced because of decreased pipeline import optionality in Europe. As a result, future supply disruptions and price volatility remain significant risks, despite expectations of stronger LNG supply in the coming years. This increasingly complex environment calls for stronger gas supply security frameworks built on closer international cooperation, new reserve mechanisms, and greater market flexibility. The expected easing of market conditions later this decade may provide a valuable opportunity for governments to strengthen resilience, build strategic buffers, and deepen international cooperation before the next major disruption occurs.

Physical reserves are essential but are not sufficient.

Physical gas reserves remain a cornerstone of gas security, but existing storage assets alone cannot fully address future supply risks. While underground gas storage (UGS), LNG tanks, and floating storage assets offer opportunities to strengthen resilience, their effectiveness is constrained by geography, infrastructure, commercial incentives, and technical limitations. Developing new storage infrastructure requires significant investment and long lead times. Therefore, physical reserves need to be complemented by commercial flexibility enhancements and policy-based mechanisms to strengthen overall system resilience.

Commercial flexibility can be further strengthened.

Commercial flexibility is a critical complement to physical reserves because it enables available LNG to move more efficiently during market disruptions. Increasing contractual flexibility, encouraging commercial innovation, and facilitating greater use of LNG swaps could strengthen market flexibility, improve the allocation of available supply, enhance system resilience, and help moderate price volatility without requiring new physical infrastructure.

Policy-based reserve mechanisms should be tailored to national circumstances while offering significant scope for cross-border schemes and knowledge sharing.

Policy-based reserve mechanisms should be tailored to national circumstances rather than follow a single model. Options such as mandatory storage obligations, strategic reserves, and buffer LNG schemes each offer distinct advantages but also involve different costs, governance arrangements, and operational trade-offs. Beyond domestic policies, there is considerable scope to strengthen gas security through cross-border reserve arrangements, shared infrastructure, coordinated emergency planning, and greater knowledge sharing. Combining national measures with regional and international cooperation can improve resilience while making more efficient use of existing assets.

Closer international cooperation is essential for strengthening gas security.

International cooperation, as a complement to national measures, is essential to strengthening gas security in an increasingly interconnected but geopolitically complex market environment. While not directly applicable to gas, the International Energy Agency's (IEA) oil emergency response framework provides valuable lessons for developing voluntary gas reserve mechanisms. Governments can most effectively advance international cooperation in these areas by strengthening coordination and dialogue, increasing transparency, working together to enhance market flexibility, and jointly exploring new types of voluntary reserve mechanisms. The IEA stands ready to support further analysis, knowledge sharing, and international collaboration to strengthen gas security, including through its Working Party on Natural Gas and Sustainable Gases Security (GWP).