Malgré la guerre, l’Ukraine a préservé une capacité de production agricole remarquable, réinventé ses routes logistiques et maintenu son rôle clé dans la sécurité alimentaire internationale. À la croisée des dynamiques géopolitiques, agricoles et énergétiques, le pays incarne bien plus qu’un simple fournisseur de matières premières. À l’heure où l’UE repense son autonomie, où les États-Unis réévaluent leurs priorités et où la Russie mobilise son influence via le blé et les engrais, l’Ukraine s’affirme comme un espace décisif pour les équilibres agricoles, diplomatiques et économiques du XXIᵉ siècle.
À l’occasion de la sortie du Déméter 2026, Arthur Portier, consultant senior chez Agritel – Argus Media France, agriculteur, répond à nos différentes questions :
L’article Ukraine, front agricole disputé est apparu en premier sur IRIS.
According to the Hungarian approach, defence procurement and domestic defence industry development are closely linked. Defence acquisition serves not only the goal of modernising the country’s army and military capabilities, long overdue, but also of launching domestic weapons manufacturing and development, which contributes to industrial growth and economic progress. Defence equipment is mostly procured from European partners, nevertheless, the country pays attention to obtaining material from other countries in order to diversify its sources. As defence procurement and comprehensive capability development had been ongoing for years, the outbreak of the war in Ukraine in 2022 has not caused any major change in procurement practices, it has rather reinforced some of Hungary’s already declared commitments.
À téléchargerL’article What Are the Main Drivers of Member States’ Defence Procurement Practices? The Hungarian Case est apparu en premier sur IRIS.
Der Iran-Krieg treibt den Ölpreis und damit auch die Spritpreise nach oben. Tomaso Duso, Leiter der Abteilung Unternehmen und Märkte im DIW Berlin und Vorsitzender der Monopolkommission, äußert sich dazu wie folgt:
Wenn geopolitische Krisen die Rohstoffpreise in die Höhe treiben, sind höhere Spritpreise zunächst nachvollziehbar. Wettbewerbspolitisch problematisch wird es aber, wenn die Spritpreise stärker steigen als die Rohstoffpreise. Letzte Woche fiel der Anstieg der Benzin- und Dieselpreise in Deutschland mehr als doppelt so hoch aus wie im EU-weiten Durchschnitt. Darauf deuten Daten der EU-Kommission hin. Das liegt nicht an Steuern und Abgaben, denn diese sind fix. Das Problem liegt vielmehr in der Struktur des Großhandels. Wenige integrierte Konzerne kontrollieren Raffinerien, Großhandel und Tankstellen zugleich. Das dämpft den Wettbewerbsdruck.
Deshalb ist es richtig, dass das Bundeskartellamt die Preisentwicklung und die Margen im Mineralölmarkt über seine Markttransparenzstelle beobachtet und auf Grundlage seiner Sektoruntersuchung ein Verfahren nach § 32f GWB eingeleitet hat. Klar ist aber auch: Das Kartellrecht ist kein Instrument für schnelle Preiskorrekturen über Nacht.
Wer jetzt einfache Lösungen wie einen neuen Tankrabatt, eine Übergewinnsteuer oder starre Preisdeckel verspricht, macht es sich zu leicht. Solche Maßnahmen kosten Milliarden, kommen je nach Schätzung nicht vollständig bei den Verbraucherinnen und Verbrauchern an oder greifen tief in den Marktmechanismus ein und können so neue Probleme schaffen.
Sinnvoller ist das österreichische Modell. Preiserhöhungen werden auf einmal täglich begrenzt, Senkungen bleiben jederzeit möglich. So werden Verbraucherinnen und Verbraucher vor abrupten Preissprüngen geschützt, ohne den Wettbewerb auszuhebeln. Ein weiterer sinnvoller Vorschlag könnte sein, dass Apps nicht alle Tankstellen im Umkreis anzeigen, sondern nur die günstigsten Tankstellen. Mittelfristig sind jedoch vor allem strukturelle Reformen nötig: mehr Transparenz im Großhandel und ein stärkerer Wettbewerb durch unabhängige Anbieter.
Das Kapitel analysiert die wechselseitige, jedoch nicht deterministische Beziehung von Frieden und Entwicklung. Defizite in der Entwicklung erhöhen Konfliktpotenziale, während Gewalt Fortschritte rückgängig macht. Frieden führt jedoch nicht automatisch zu hohem Entwicklungsniveau, ebenso wenig garantiert Entwicklung dauerhafte Stabilität. Zentrale Faktoren sind inklusive Institutionen sowie Gleichheit. Die viele Jahrzehnte währende Programmatik, Frieden und Entwicklung gemeinsam zu denken, verliert an Bedeutung. An ihre Stelle treten sicherheits- und verteidigungspolitische Prioritäten.
Das Kapitel analysiert die wechselseitige, jedoch nicht deterministische Beziehung von Frieden und Entwicklung. Defizite in der Entwicklung erhöhen Konfliktpotenziale, während Gewalt Fortschritte rückgängig macht. Frieden führt jedoch nicht automatisch zu hohem Entwicklungsniveau, ebenso wenig garantiert Entwicklung dauerhafte Stabilität. Zentrale Faktoren sind inklusive Institutionen sowie Gleichheit. Die viele Jahrzehnte währende Programmatik, Frieden und Entwicklung gemeinsam zu denken, verliert an Bedeutung. An ihre Stelle treten sicherheits- und verteidigungspolitische Prioritäten.
Das Kapitel analysiert die wechselseitige, jedoch nicht deterministische Beziehung von Frieden und Entwicklung. Defizite in der Entwicklung erhöhen Konfliktpotenziale, während Gewalt Fortschritte rückgängig macht. Frieden führt jedoch nicht automatisch zu hohem Entwicklungsniveau, ebenso wenig garantiert Entwicklung dauerhafte Stabilität. Zentrale Faktoren sind inklusive Institutionen sowie Gleichheit. Die viele Jahrzehnte währende Programmatik, Frieden und Entwicklung gemeinsam zu denken, verliert an Bedeutung. An ihre Stelle treten sicherheits- und verteidigungspolitische Prioritäten.
Renewable energy has seen rapid uptake, particularly in the Global South. Solar energy projects have boomed in recent years, but uptake by countries is uneven. Beyond geophysical conditions, technological innovation, market dynamics and donor-driven “lighthouse projects”, political institutionalisation has played a critical role in decarbonisation. In this policy brief, which is based on extensive research from Global South case studies, we argue that political institutionalisation is key to determining whether and how innovative solar initiatives become stabilised, scaled up, and mainstreamed.
Drawing on the research project Institutionalizing Low Carbon Development in the Global South (INLOCADE) and expert contributions from a follow-up IDOS workshop, this policy brief synthesises comparative policy-relevant findings on how institutionalisation unfolds in various emerging economies of the Global South, including Brazil, Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia and South Africa.
Key messages:
• Political institutionalisation – understood here as an enduring change of formal and informal rules and practices towards low-carbon development – is essential for making renewable energy projects sustainable by embedding them in conducive, stable governance frameworks. Isolated, donor-driven initiatives are at risk of provoking resistance and backlash, and of fading away once external support ends.
• Multiple pathways for institutionalisation exist. State leadership, subnational action, alliances between development partners and communities,
and crisis-driven coalitions can enable institutionalisation under different conditions. Policies should be tailored to the institutional realities of each context rather than using one-size-fits-all models. Similarly, development partners should assess local realities and adapt their strategies accordingly.
• Distributive justice and participation must be actively supported. Political institutionalisation can lead to inequitable outcomes and reinforce exclusionary practices. Development partners should take a proactive role by aligning their interventions with inclusive and equitable approaches to ensure support for marginalised groups leads to socially just transitions, not just box-ticking.
• Crises can be opportunities. Energy shortages and climate shocks can disrupt fossil-fuel lock-ins and open the door to innovation. Development partners need flexible instruments and strategies to help translate crisis-driven experiments into durable institutional change.
• Development partners are catalytic, not deci-sive. They can accelerate change by providing finance, technical expertise, and legitimacy, especially when working with domestic actors beyond national governments. German and EU development cooperation should place greater emphasis on strengthening domestic institutional enviro-ments, including regulatory stability, administrative capacity, and actor coalitions that embed projects in lasting policy and organisational change. This helps ensure donor interventions contribute to sustained low-carbon transitions beyond initial project cycles.
Dr Joshua Philipp Elsässer is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Centre for Environment, Economy and Energy (C3E) of the Brussels School of Governance.
Prof em. Dr Harald Fuhr is a Professor Emeritus of International Politics at the Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences at the University of Potsdam.
Anna Fünfgeld is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Hamburg; Mercator Professorship for Sociology.
Prof Dr Markus Lederer is a Professor of International Relations at the Technical University of Darmstadt.
Dr Jens Marquardt is a Research Associate in the Research Group “International Relations” at the Technical University of Darmstadt.
Dr HyunAh Yi is a Senior Researcher at the Institute of Comparative Governance, Korea University, and an Associate Researcher at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
Renewable energy has seen rapid uptake, particularly in the Global South. Solar energy projects have boomed in recent years, but uptake by countries is uneven. Beyond geophysical conditions, technological innovation, market dynamics and donor-driven “lighthouse projects”, political institutionalisation has played a critical role in decarbonisation. In this policy brief, which is based on extensive research from Global South case studies, we argue that political institutionalisation is key to determining whether and how innovative solar initiatives become stabilised, scaled up, and mainstreamed.
Drawing on the research project Institutionalizing Low Carbon Development in the Global South (INLOCADE) and expert contributions from a follow-up IDOS workshop, this policy brief synthesises comparative policy-relevant findings on how institutionalisation unfolds in various emerging economies of the Global South, including Brazil, Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia and South Africa.
Key messages:
• Political institutionalisation – understood here as an enduring change of formal and informal rules and practices towards low-carbon development – is essential for making renewable energy projects sustainable by embedding them in conducive, stable governance frameworks. Isolated, donor-driven initiatives are at risk of provoking resistance and backlash, and of fading away once external support ends.
• Multiple pathways for institutionalisation exist. State leadership, subnational action, alliances between development partners and communities,
and crisis-driven coalitions can enable institutionalisation under different conditions. Policies should be tailored to the institutional realities of each context rather than using one-size-fits-all models. Similarly, development partners should assess local realities and adapt their strategies accordingly.
• Distributive justice and participation must be actively supported. Political institutionalisation can lead to inequitable outcomes and reinforce exclusionary practices. Development partners should take a proactive role by aligning their interventions with inclusive and equitable approaches to ensure support for marginalised groups leads to socially just transitions, not just box-ticking.
• Crises can be opportunities. Energy shortages and climate shocks can disrupt fossil-fuel lock-ins and open the door to innovation. Development partners need flexible instruments and strategies to help translate crisis-driven experiments into durable institutional change.
• Development partners are catalytic, not deci-sive. They can accelerate change by providing finance, technical expertise, and legitimacy, especially when working with domestic actors beyond national governments. German and EU development cooperation should place greater emphasis on strengthening domestic institutional enviro-ments, including regulatory stability, administrative capacity, and actor coalitions that embed projects in lasting policy and organisational change. This helps ensure donor interventions contribute to sustained low-carbon transitions beyond initial project cycles.
Dr Joshua Philipp Elsässer is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Centre for Environment, Economy and Energy (C3E) of the Brussels School of Governance.
Prof em. Dr Harald Fuhr is a Professor Emeritus of International Politics at the Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences at the University of Potsdam.
Anna Fünfgeld is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Hamburg; Mercator Professorship for Sociology.
Prof Dr Markus Lederer is a Professor of International Relations at the Technical University of Darmstadt.
Dr Jens Marquardt is a Research Associate in the Research Group “International Relations” at the Technical University of Darmstadt.
Dr HyunAh Yi is a Senior Researcher at the Institute of Comparative Governance, Korea University, and an Associate Researcher at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
Renewable energy has seen rapid uptake, particularly in the Global South. Solar energy projects have boomed in recent years, but uptake by countries is uneven. Beyond geophysical conditions, technological innovation, market dynamics and donor-driven “lighthouse projects”, political institutionalisation has played a critical role in decarbonisation. In this policy brief, which is based on extensive research from Global South case studies, we argue that political institutionalisation is key to determining whether and how innovative solar initiatives become stabilised, scaled up, and mainstreamed.
Drawing on the research project Institutionalizing Low Carbon Development in the Global South (INLOCADE) and expert contributions from a follow-up IDOS workshop, this policy brief synthesises comparative policy-relevant findings on how institutionalisation unfolds in various emerging economies of the Global South, including Brazil, Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia and South Africa.
Key messages:
• Political institutionalisation – understood here as an enduring change of formal and informal rules and practices towards low-carbon development – is essential for making renewable energy projects sustainable by embedding them in conducive, stable governance frameworks. Isolated, donor-driven initiatives are at risk of provoking resistance and backlash, and of fading away once external support ends.
• Multiple pathways for institutionalisation exist. State leadership, subnational action, alliances between development partners and communities,
and crisis-driven coalitions can enable institutionalisation under different conditions. Policies should be tailored to the institutional realities of each context rather than using one-size-fits-all models. Similarly, development partners should assess local realities and adapt their strategies accordingly.
• Distributive justice and participation must be actively supported. Political institutionalisation can lead to inequitable outcomes and reinforce exclusionary practices. Development partners should take a proactive role by aligning their interventions with inclusive and equitable approaches to ensure support for marginalised groups leads to socially just transitions, not just box-ticking.
• Crises can be opportunities. Energy shortages and climate shocks can disrupt fossil-fuel lock-ins and open the door to innovation. Development partners need flexible instruments and strategies to help translate crisis-driven experiments into durable institutional change.
• Development partners are catalytic, not deci-sive. They can accelerate change by providing finance, technical expertise, and legitimacy, especially when working with domestic actors beyond national governments. German and EU development cooperation should place greater emphasis on strengthening domestic institutional enviro-ments, including regulatory stability, administrative capacity, and actor coalitions that embed projects in lasting policy and organisational change. This helps ensure donor interventions contribute to sustained low-carbon transitions beyond initial project cycles.
Dr Joshua Philipp Elsässer is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Centre for Environment, Economy and Energy (C3E) of the Brussels School of Governance.
Prof em. Dr Harald Fuhr is a Professor Emeritus of International Politics at the Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences at the University of Potsdam.
Anna Fünfgeld is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Hamburg; Mercator Professorship for Sociology.
Prof Dr Markus Lederer is a Professor of International Relations at the Technical University of Darmstadt.
Dr Jens Marquardt is a Research Associate in the Research Group “International Relations” at the Technical University of Darmstadt.
Dr HyunAh Yi is a Senior Researcher at the Institute of Comparative Governance, Korea University, and an Associate Researcher at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).